Church Archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450) 2022020506, 2022020507, 9789004314344, 9789004516144

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Maps and Figures
Introduction
Part 1
Resources and Historical Background
1
Resources
1.1 The Heritage
1.2 Historiographical Overview
1.3 The Archaeological Record: Excavations and Publications
1.4 Summary of the Chapter
2
Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background
2.1 General Historical Background
2.2 Administration
2.3 Religious Organization
2.4 Summary of the Chapter
Part 2
Shaping the Religious Landscape
3
Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture
3.1 General Background
3.2 Preliminaries to Early Religious Architecture
3.3 Cemeteries and Churches
3.4 Summary of the Chapter
4
The Formative Period: Byzantine and Romanesque Churches before 1200
4.1 Byzantine Style Churches
4.2 A Glimpse into the Beginnings of Catholic Architecture
4.3 Summary of the Chapter
5
The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia
5.1 General Historical Background
5.2 The Rotunda
5.3 The Pillared Church (10th–11th Centuries)
5.4 The First Roman-Catholic Cathedral (11th–12th Centuries)
5.5 The Second, St Michael’s Cathedral
5.6 Summary of the Chapter
Part 3
The Catholic Churches
6
The Shaping of the Religious Landscape: Mid-12th Century–Early 14th Century
6.1 General Background
6.2 Stylistic Considerations and Heritage
6.3 The Single-Nave Church in Eastern Transylvania
6.4 Romanesque Basilicas in the Saxon Colonization Area
6.5 Centrally-Planned Churches
6.6 Summary of the Chapter
7
The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture: Cistercian Gothic
7.1 The Cistercian Monastery in Cârța
7.2 The Spread of Early Gothic: General Considerations
7.3 Ground Plan Considerations
7.4 Summary of the Chapter
8
Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century
8.1 General Historical Background
8.2 Making the Gothic Churches
8.3 Summary of the Chapter
9
The Major Religious Site of Sibiu
9.1 General Historical Background and Religious Heritage
9.2 The Parish Site
9.3 Small Churches and Other Features within the Parish Site
9.4 Summary of the Chapter
10
The Fortified Churches
10.1 General Considerations
10.2 The Emergence and Development of Fortified Churches
10.3 General Planimetric Considerations
10.4 The Fortress
10.5 Building, Living, and Fighting within the Cemetery: The Impact of the Fortress on the Religious Site
10.6 Summary of the Chapter
Part 4
The Orthodox Churches
11
The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches
11.1 General Consideration and the State-of-the-Art
11.2 Early Development: Social and Cultural Context
11.3 Architectural Features
11.4 Church Construction Sites: Craftsmen, Materials, Technical Features
11.5 Lights and Shadows: Looking to the Interior
11.6 Summary of the Chapter
12
Conclusions
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Church Archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450)

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editors Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

volume 84

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

Church Archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450) By

Daniela Marcu-Istrate

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Archaeological excavation in the Evangelical Church of Sibiu, 2018–2021, led by Daniela Marcu-Istrate. The main nave with Romanesque, Gothic and early Modern items. Romanesque apse on the backcover. Photo: Daniela Marcu-Istrate & Maria Crîngaci Țiplic. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Marcu Istrate, Daniela, author. Title: Church archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450) / by  Daniela Marcu-Istrate. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: [East Central and  Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 1450–1450], 1872–8103 ; [volume 84] |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022020506 (print) | LCCN 2022020507 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004314344 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004516144 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Architecture, Medieval–Romania–Transylvania. |  Archaeology, Medieval–Romania–Transylvania. | Church  architecture–Romania–Transylvania. | Church  buildings–Romania–Transylvania. | Architecture and  archaeology–Romania–Transylvania. | Transylvania  (Romania)–Antiquities. Classification: LCC NA1423 .M37 2022 (print) | LCC NA1423 (ebook) | DDC  726.509498/4—dc23/eng/20220714 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022020506 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022020507

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1872-8103 isbn 978-90-04-31434-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-51614-4 (e-book) Copyright 2022 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To the memory of my grandparents, Lia and Ilie Tița

∵

Contents Acknowledgments xi List of Maps and Figures xiv Introduction 1

Part 1 Resources and Historical Background 1

Resources 15 1.1 The Heritage 15 1.2 Historiographical Overview 25 1.3 The Archaeological Record: Excavations and Publications 33 1.4 Summary of the Chapter 42

2

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background 43 2.1 General Historical Background 43 2.2 Administration 55 2.3 Religious Organization 58 2.4 Summary of the Chapter 63

Part 2 Shaping the Religious Landscape 3

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture 67 3.1 General Background 67 3.2 Preliminaries to Early Religious Architecture 81 3.3 Cemeteries and Churches 96 3.4 Summary of the Chapter 103

4

The Formative Period: Byzantine and Romanesque Churches before 1200 105 4.1 Byzantine Style Churches 106 4.2 A Glimpse into the Beginnings of Catholic Architecture 120 4.3 Summary of the Chapter 138

viii 5

Contents

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia 140 5.1 General Historical Background 140 5.2 The Rotunda 146 5.3 The Pillared Church (10th–11th Centuries) 152 5.4 The First Roman-Catholic Cathedral (11th–12th Centuries) 158 5.5 The Second, St Michael’s Cathedral 163 5.6 Summary of the Chapter 172

Part 3 The Catholic Churches 6

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape: Mid-12th Century – Early 14th Century 177 6.1 General Background 181 6.2 Stylistic Considerations and Heritage 185 6.3 The Single-Nave Church in Eastern Transylvania 193 6.4 Romanesque Basilicas in the Saxon Colonization Area 202 6.5 Centrally-Planned Churches 216 6.6 Summary of the Chapter 234

7 The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture: Cistercian Gothic 236 7.1 The Cistercian Monastery in Cârța 237 7.2 The Spread of Early Gothic: General Considerations 243 7.3 Ground Plan Considerations 245 7.4 Summary of the Chapter 262 8

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century 264 8.1 General Historical Background 264 8.2 Making the Gothic Churches 275 8.3 Summary of the Chapter 304

9

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu 307 9.1 General Historical Background and Religious Heritage 307 9.2 The Parish Site 313 9.3 Small Churches and Other Features within the Parish Site 324 9.4 Summary of the Chapter 329

Contents

10

The Fortified Churches 331 10.1 General Considerations 331 10.2 The Emergence and Development of Fortified Churches 338 10.3 General Planimetric Considerations 343 10.4 The Fortress 356 10.5 Building, Living, and Fighting within the Cemetery: The Impact of the Fortress on the Religious Site 364 10.6 Summary of the Chapter 367

Part 4 The Orthodox Churches 11

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches 373 11.1 General Consideration and the State-of-the-Art 373 11.2 Early Development: Social and Cultural Context 379 11.3 Architectural Features 385 11.4 Church Construction Sites: Craftsmen, Materials, Technical Features 406 11.5 Lights and Shadows: Looking to the Interior 410 11.6 Summary of the Chapter 414

12

Conclusions 416 Bibliography 425 Index 500

ix

Acknowledgments This is a book about the region commonly known as Transylvania, situated in central-western Romania. During the Middle Ages, this region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but was in fact located on a confessional and ethnic frontier, between Orthodox and Catholic Europe, and in an area of bewildering ethnic and linguistic variety. Both factors were responsible for giving the region its distinct character of a borderland. One of the most significant forms of expression of that character was religion and religious architecture: court chapels, baptisteries, cathedrals, as well as parish and abbey churches were erected during the Middle Ages for the Catholic and Orthodox populations. The ecclesiastical landscape was a complicated one. The first churches were built in the 10th century, under the influence of Byzantine architecture, but, after becoming the easternmost province of the Kingdom of Hungary, the religious landscape was dominated by Central European influences and most churches were built in Romanesque and Gothic styles. However, the interferences were numerous, the provincial interpretations obvious, and the result a very particular one for the geographical context in which it is located. Of the over ca. 1300 churches built during the Middle Ages, very few have survived to this day in their original fabric. The early buildings of the 12th– 13th centuries were often changed during the 13th–15th centuries, for various reasons, being rebuilt, modified, or fortified. Many of them have disappeared; many redundant churches still survive, but without hope, in bad condition. However, there is still a huge ecclesiastical heritage, which offers a complex and unique perspective on medieval life in between Latin Europe and the Byzantine cultural sphere. Every church stores a complex set of information, beyond what the building itself could be. The history of the construction, with all its sides, the fittings and facilities, the relation with the cemetery, the religious services, and the associated material culture – all of these are just parts of a complex and self-functioning mechanism. In understanding the medieval church, the role of archaeology is extremely important, especially for a region without much written history, as Transylvania has been. However, this book is only an introduction into the archaeology of Transylvanian churches, including the shaping of the medieval ecclesiastical landscape and the basic architectural development. Many aspects that I would like to insist on are still undetermined, requiring interdisciplinary studies and a collective approach. Nevertheless, I have tried to build an accurate archaeological image on the topic, based on updated state-of-the-art excavations and publications.

xii

Acknowledgments

Many of the examples I use to illustrate the story come from my own excavations, some of them mentioned here for the first time. Still, this book is based on the work of many scholars. In this regard, it is worth remembering the papers published during the first part of the 20th century, because, in many respects, their level has not been matched later on. Working for almost 30 years now as a main archaeologist, I have been lucky having many enthusiastic teammates and colleagues, mainly archaeologists, but art historians, architects, and engineers as well, and I would especially thank to Ioan Fedor Pascu, Angel Istrate, Gabriel Izdrăilă, Sebastian Dobrotă, Cosmin Roman, Péter Szőcs, Radu Lupescu, Zoltán Katocz, Delia Maria Roman, Daniela Tănase, Horea Pop, Anca Matiș, Cristian Florescu, Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, Paul Scrobotă, Horațiu Groza, Florin Mărginean, Zsolt Csók, Cosmin Rusu, Attila Weisz, Emese Nagy Sarkadi, Márton Sarkadi, Ionuț Codrea, Emanoil Pripon, Georgeta ElSusi, and many others. I thank András Kovács, for giving me the unbelievable chance to study St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia; Cristoph Machat, for his courage to choose an independent and very young archaeologist for the archaeology of the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara; and Marianne Dumitrache, my first model in the archaeology of churches, for her decades-long support, and for being still so close to my projects. I am also grateful to the colleagues who directly supported the completion of the illustration, namely Radu Lupescu, Angel Istrate, Péter Szőcs, Ioana Munteanu Zărnescu, Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, Cosmin Roman, Răzvan Pop, Cristian Anghelescu, and Sanda Salontai. Many thanks also to Cristina Bodó, Diana Jegar and Carmen Borbely for some translations, and to Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă, for major contributions to illustration, index, and not only. Last, but not least, I especially thank Professor Florin Curta from the University of Florida, who has always been a friend and a model for me, has constantly encouraged me, and waited patiently for the final step in the writing, very delayed compared to the starting expectations. It was, in fact, his idea, mentioned firstly in 2015, to prepare this book. After a too short a period of consideration, I enthusiastically accepted the challenge, and planned for a January 2017 deadline, which was not realistic at all. Along the way, there were circumstances that pulled me away from the manuscript, of which the most important was, in 2018–2021, the opportunity for archaeological excavations within the Evangelical church in Sibiu, the second most important church of Transylvania’s medieval heritage. However, it was a journey as fascinating as it was twisted, and many of the decisions I made to simplify and systematize the material were quite stressful, because almost every

Acknowledgments

xiii

church has something special, something interesting, and something to say in the matter. The first version of this book was submitted in April 2020, and the reviewed manuscript came back four months later. I must thank the first reviewer for his (or her) suggestions for balancing some interpretations and discussions. Many thanks to the second reviewer for his (or her) constructive comments, valuable suggestions, and effective help in improving the structure of the book, stressing some parts, and in general making the text more fluent. Hălmeag – Brașov 30 September 2021

Maps and Figures Maps 0.1 1.1

Medieval and present-day Transylvania 2 The medieval ecclesiastical heritage of Transylvania, based on official records 16 1.2 The medieval ecclesiastical heritage of the Transylvanian Saxons, according to Hermann Fabini 18 2.1 Southeastern Europe at the time of the Hungarian conquest and in the early second millennium 45 2.2 Map of Transylvania showing the main geographical and historical features (10th–13th centuries) 48 2.3 Administrative map of the eastern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, now partially or completely included in present-day Romania 56 2.4 Map of the Religious administration of Transylvania 59 3.1 Sites relevant for the early church architecture of medieval Transylvania. (Chapters 3–5) 69 6.1 Sites relevant for Romanesque and early Gothic church architecture 178 7.1 Sites relevant for the ‘Cistercian’ period of Transylvanian church architecture 238 8.1 Sites relevant for the Gothic period of Transylvanian church architecture (chapters 8 and 9) 265 10.1 Sites relevant for the fortification process of Transylvanian churches 332 11.1 Sites relevant for the Eastern-rite church architecture of Transylvania 374

Figures 0.1 The Evangelical church in Brașov-Bartolomeu 4 0.2 The Cistercian monastery in Cârța 8 0.3 Archaeological excavations on the site of the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara 10 1.1 The Roman-Catholic St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia, 13th century 19 1.2 The Evangelical church in Sibiu, 14th–15th centuries 20 1.3 The Black Church in Brașov, 14th–15th centuries 21 1.4 The fortified Evangelical church in Drăușeni, 13th–17th centuries 22 1.5 The Reformed church in Cluj, former church of the Franciscan monastery, 15th century 23 1.6 The Orthodox church in Gurasada, 10th(?)–16th centuries 24

Maps and Figures 1.7

xv

Archaeological excavation on the south-eastern part of the Black Church in Brașov 37 1.8 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Albiș 39 1.9 Archaeological excavation within the Evangelical church in Sibiu 40 1.10 The Reformed church in Aiud, 14th–17th centuries: drawing from the 19th century and archaeological excavations in 2018 41 3.1 Pectoral cross from the inventory of the cemetery at Izvorul Împăratului in Alba Iulia, 10th century 71 3.2 Christian relief from the site of the Orthodox church in Streisângeorgiu 72 3.3 The St Nicholas’ Orthodox church in Densuș, built of spolia 74 3.4 The ecclesiastical topography of Cenad in the 18th (?) century 83 3.5 The archaeological churches in Dăbâca 87 3.6 The ground plan of the churches in Vladimirescu 89 3.7 The ruins of the monastic church in Pâncota, unearthed in 2000–2006 92 3.8 Ruins from the 12th century unearthed on the north side of the Evangelical church in Sighișoara, in 1999–2000 97 3.9 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Nicolești 100 3.10 Graves from the 12th–17th centuries, the cemetery of the parish church in Brașov, unearthed in 2012–2013 101 3.11 The Reformed church in Cricău, development based on archaeological research  102 4.1 The ruin of the round church, preserved in St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia 105 4.2 The Orthodox church in Densuș 108 4.3 The churches in Densuș and Alba Iulia 110 4.4 The archaeology of the Orthodox church in Gurasada 112 4.5 The Orthodox church in Streisângeorgiu 115 4.6 Ground plan of the 1975–1977 excavations in Streisângeorgiu 116 4.7 The present-day Orthodox church in Peșteana 118 4.8 The archaeological church in Pâncota 119 4.9 The site of the former Benedictine monastery in Cluj-Mănăștur, archaeological excavations 124 4.10 The archaeological remains of the Benedictine monastery in Frumușeni-Bizere 126 4.11 The archaeological churches in Sânnicolau de Beiuș 129 4.12 The archaeological churches in Avrămești 130 4.13 Early buildings in Sighișoara, on the site of the Church on the Hill 132 4.14 Early buildings in Sighișoara, on the site of the Church on the Hill, first stage, 12th century 133 4.15 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Viscri 136

xvi 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21

Maps and Figures Map of Alba Iulia and its surroundings, including the main 9th–13th-century archaeological sites 141 The map of Alba Iulia’s Vauban fortification 143 Churches in Alba Iulia 145 The eastern part of the St Michael’s Cathedral 146 The western part of the rotunda preserved in the basement of the cathedral 149 General view of the St Michael’s Cathedral and the pillared church 151 The ruins of the pillared church and some other finds 153 The churches in Alba Iulia, Bodrum Camii, Pliska and Modrá 156 The archaeology of the St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia 159 St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia, architectural details 164 Building development of the St Michael’s Cathedral sanctuary 167 Building development of the St Michael’s Cathedral sanctuary, archaeological details 169 The eastern part of the St Michael’s Cathedral 171 Graves from different stages of the medieval cemetery of the parish church in Sibiu 180 The church of the former Benedictine monastery in Herina 186 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Tăuț 188 The Reformed churches in Șieu-Odorhei and Mănăstireni 190 The archaeological, 12th-century church, in Drăușeni 192 The Evangelical church in Homorod 193 The Evangelical church in Axente Sever 194 The archaeology of the Reformed churches in Sâncrăieni and Ghidfalău 195 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Albiș 198 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Daia 199 The archaeology of the church of the former Benedictine monastery in Acâș 201 Capitals from the lost Romanesque basilica in Saschiz, 12th century 203 Romanesque basilicas in Toarcla, Ungra and Cincu 206 The Evangelical churches in Gușterița and Hărman 209 The Romanesque portals in Gușterița and Drăușeni, and view to the Romanesque south aisle of the basilica in Drăușeni 210 The Evangelical church in Drăușeni, 13th century 212 The reconstruction of the Romanesque basilica in Sighișoara 213 The Evangelical church in Cisnădioara 215 The centrally-planned churches from Pelișor and Odorheiu Secuiesc 218 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Vaida 223 The round chapel uncovered on the south side of the Black Church in Brașov 226

Maps and Figures 6.22 6.23 6.24 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

xvii

The Reformed church in Geoagiu 228 The archaeological rotunda in Orăștie 231 The archaeological rotunda in Cluj-Mănăștur 234 Cârța – the ruins of the Cistercian monastery, 13th century 239 The archaeology of the monastic church in Cârța 242 Early Gothic churches from Southeast Transylvania 247 The Evangelical church in Hălmeag 249 The Evangelical church in Hărman 250 The archaeology of the parish site (Honterus Court) in Brașov 252 The archaeology of the fortress in Feldioara 255 The Reformed (former Catholic, former Orthodox) church in Sântămărie Orlea 257 7.9 The Evangelical church in Prejmer 259 7.10 The archaeology of the church in Prejmer 261 8.1 The Evangelical church in Sighișoara, 14th–15th centuries 267 8.2 The Evangelical church in Sebeș, the south side of the sanctuary, late 14th century 270 8.3 The archaeology of the parish site in Baia Mare 271 8.4 The Black Church in Brașov, view from the east, and the south-eastern porch 273 8.5 The archaeology of the Gotic churches in Meșendorf and Tărpiu  277 8.6 The archaeology of the churches in Armășeni and Rugănești, 13th–15th centuries 281 8.7 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Drăușeni 282 8.8 Results of the recent archaeological investigations (2008, 2018–2020) at the Reformed church in Aiud 284 8.9 The Franciscan monastery in Târgu Mureș 286 8.10 The archaeology of the church of the former Franciscan friary in Coșeiu 287 8.11 The archaeology of the Reformed churches in Turda (Augustinian monastery) and Săcuieni (parish church) 289 8.12 The Evangelical church in Șaroș pe Târnave, 14th–15th centuries 290 8.13 The Evangelical churches in Bistrița and Teaca, 14th century 292 8.14 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Sebeș 293 8.15 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Sighișoara in mid-14th century 294 8.16 The Roman-Catholic church in Cluj 297 8.17 The archaeology of the Evangelical Black Church in Brașov  300 8.18 The archaeology of the Evangelical parish church in Sighișoara (Church on the Hill) 303 8.19 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Mediaș 305

xviii 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

Maps and Figures

Medieval core of Sibiu, with its churches, monasteries, and chapels 308 Gothic monastic churches in Sibiu 310 The church of the Asylum in Sibiu 312 Archaeological plan of the parish site of Sibiu, ca. 1450 314 The Evangelical church in Sibiu, south view in 2021 315 Details from the interior of the Evangelical parish church in Sibiu in 2021 317 The early stage of the parish church in Sibiu, the second part of the 12th century (?) 319 9.8 Building history of the current parish church in Sibiu 321 9.9 St Ladislaus’ chapel during the 2005 archaeological excavations 327 10.1 The fortified church in Moșna 334 10.2 The Orthodox church in Colț 335 10.3 The fortified church in Sânpetru-Petersberg 337 10.4 The archaeology of the fortification in Câlnic, 14th century 340 10.5 The fortified area of medieval Feldioara 343 10.6 Turriform churches in Țapu and Turnișor 345 10.7 The archaeology of the fortified Evangelical church in Hărman 347 10.8 The archaeology of the fortified Evangelical church in Drăușeni 351 10.9 Strengthening the church in Dealu Frumos 353 10.10 The fortified Evangelical church in Hărman 355 10.11 The archaeology of the fortification in Prejmer 358 10.12 The archaeology of the fortified church in Codlea, 13th–17th centuries 359 10.13 The archaeology of the fortified Reformed churches in Mărtiniș and Vârghiș 363 10.14 The archaeology of the fortified Evangelical church in Viscri, 12th–17th centuries 365 11.1 The archaeological Orthodox church in Giulești 378 11.2 The present-day Orthodox St George’s church in Lupșa 383 11.3 The archaeology of the Orthodox, former Catholic, church in Zlatna 384 11.4 Orthodox churches with Byzantine-like ground plans, 13th–15th centuries 388 11.5 Orthodox churches with semicircular apses, 13th–15th centuries 390 11.6 Orthodox churches with semicircular apses, 13th–15th centuries 391 11.7 Orthodox churches with rectangular chancel in the Land of Hațeg, 13th–15th century 394 11.8 The archaeology of the Orthodox churches in Strei and Săliște 396 11.9 Orthodox churches with Gothic sanctuary, 14th–15th century 400 11.10 The historical development of the St George’s church in Lupșa  401 11.11 The Orthodox church in Râșnov 402 11.12 The archaeology of the churches in Brașov–Șchei 403 11.13 The Orthodox church in Feleacu, 15th century 405

Introduction Transylvania, bordered on the east and south by the Carpathian Mountains, stands today as the central-western region of Romania. In the Middle Ages, the name was used for the intra-Carpathian area delimited by the Eastern, Southern, and Western Romanian Carpathians, comprising a territory of about 50,000 sq. km, organized as a voivodeship, a distinct territorial administrative unit within the Kingdom of Hungary. The modern meaning – used in this book – also includes regions located within present-day Romania, west and north of the historical voivodeship, which depended on the central administration of the kingdom. However, the separation was not so clear from a religious point of view, and relations between these territories were often overly complicated1 (Map 0.1). Transylvania is a unitary area of high plateaus, crossed by several rivers, in which a series of smaller geographical units can be defined based on waterways and highlands. The most important waterways are Mureș, Olt, Someș, and the three Criș rivers. Foremost among them is the Mureș, which flows from east to west, separating Transylvania into two roughly equal halves. In the early Middle Ages, the Mureș river also delineated areas of influence, as it was the northernmost limit of Byzantine and Bulgarian influence. In the southern half, the most important geographical subunits are the Târnave, Hârtibaci, Amnaș, and Secaș plateaus. North of Mureș, stretches the Transylvanian Plain, continued with the Someș Plateau and the drainage basin of the three Someș rivers.2 Toward the mountainous area, there are several depressions, such as Bârsa at the bend of the Carpathians, and Ciuc, Gurghiu, and Trei Scaune along the Eastern Carpathians. Along the Southern Carpathians, in several regions, depressions define both geographical and historical units: the Land of Hațeg in the southwest corner, the Netherlands (Unterwald) around the city of Sebeș, the Old Country (Altland) around Sibiu, the Land of Făgăraș, alternatively known as the Land of Olt, and the Land of Bârsa in the south-eastern corner (Map 2.2). With a varied landscape that includes virtually all major terrain forms, a rich hydrographical network, and some of the most significant natural resources in East-Central Europe, Transylvania has offered excellent conditions of habitation since prehistoric times, and it was an attractive location for many waves of migratory people throughout the Middle Ages. 1 Hegyi 2010, 6–24. 2 Ghinea 2018, 1009–1111.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_002

2

Map 0.1

Introduction

Medieval and present-day Transylvania Above – Medieval Transylvania within the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary, shown with its Croatian possessions in its late-13th-century outlines; the detailed view also shows border regions (banats) under the control of the crown at the time. Below – Present-day Transylvania within the borders of Romania; north-eastern Banat / Bánság, eastern Crișana / Körösvidék and southern Maramureș / Máramaros / Marmaroshchyna, former parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, and often approached in Romanian historiography as parts of Transylvania, are hatched Author: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

Introduction

3

From the 10th century onward, Hungarian tribes conquered this land in several stages, so the frontier of the kingdom was already on the line where the Carpathian chain bends back westward by the early 13th century. The conquest period – whose details are still very much debated, and which will be often mentioned within the following pages – largely coincided with the period when the peoples of the area were Christianised, becoming religiously subordinated to the Constantinopolitan Patriarchy or to the Roman Papacy. Geopolitically, Transylvania found itself always at a crossroads, between different areas of interest, coming from the South (Byzantine Empire and Bulgarian state), the West (Carolingian Empire, Moravian, and later Hungarian polities) and the East (migrant people) (Map 2.1). This book surveys a period largely situated between ca. 950 and ca. 1450 AD, the age when (Christian) religious architecture emerged. The earliest churches may be dated to the mid-10th century. The local ecclesiastical landscape took shape at this time, a complicated process, which – broadly speaking – ripened in the mid-15th century. The lower limit is quite tractable, since the early churches are still unknown in detail, and only a few of them are likely to trace their origins before the year 1000. The 11th century is a safer ground; however, although there were some local architectonical experiments at the time, it may be said that masonry religious architecture commenced abruptly with the erection of a cathedral in the diocesan seat of Alba Iulia. At the upper limit, the mid-15th century, most urban centers had already built their churches, or were during the final stages with their construction works, and the rural landscape had been also structured in the form that we are familiar with. Of course, this point in time is arbitrary as well, since churches have been always subject to change, and one can only rarely establish rigid timeframes for the end of construction periods. The fact that scholars usually operate with very wide intervals, often crossing centuries, since data for shorter ones is lacking, has a great impact on this ambiguity. The construction of the Black Church in Brașov, one of the largest buildings ever erected in the region, started after the mid-14th century, and ended, according to some theories, around 1470, while the construction site of the parish church of Sibiu opened around 1350, and was closed only after 1520. On the other hand, the church fortification phenomenon, a particularity of Transylvania, greatly altered the medieval shapes, removing many elements that may have provided a narrower dating. Due to these circumstances, making use of examples and presenting processes from the second part of the 15th century, some of them continuing after 1500, and flourishing only then, is often unavoidable.

4

Introduction

Figure 0.1 The Evangelical church in Brașov-Bartolomeu, built in the 13th century, with modifications in the 15th century – the western portal, the vaults of the aisles and of the transept – and in the 19th century – the reconstruction of the southwest tower after its 1833 collapse Photo by Angel Istrate

Establishing limits is just as complicated from a stylistic viewpoint, since this is a border region, architectural styles commingled, and outdated reminiscences continued to be used sometimes even a century or more after the timeframes usually admitted for other parts of Europe. The Romanesque style survived into the mid-14th century, while the Gothic was introduced on a larger scale in mid-13th century and flourished only after 1350 (Fig. 0.1). It took time for the echoes of things happening in the westward areas to reach the eastern periphery of medieval Christianity, and, as a result, the stylistic chronology of the (whole) region is somewhat different from that of most of the continent. Throughout the text, I have employed “Transylvania” for a swath of the territories that, throughout the Middle Ages, found themselves under the administration of the Kingdom of Hungary, respectively both the historical voivodeship and areas located north and west of it, historically under the central administration of the kingdom, but now part of Romania. Historical Banat, now partially incorporated in south-western Romania, is, however, not included in this study, primarily because, in matters of religious architecture, it vastly

Introduction

5

diverges from the other territories. Nonetheless, there are sources of information for the latter, including at synthesis level.3 Usually, when using “Hungary”, it is intended to refer only to the central part of the kingdom, Transylvania not included (Map 0.1). Most of the original names of settlements in the area in question were Hungarian, German (including multiple Transylvanian Saxon dialects), or Romanian, depending on the context of their establishment. These primary names were usually translated in the other local languages, and there were often intermediary variations as well, so the historical nomenclature is extremely intricate. Throughout the volume, the present-day official Romanian name is uniformly employed, except for some cases where the homonymy required additions in order to distinguish distinct settlements.4 However the index, mostly based on Attila Szabó’s dictionary of localities in Transylvania, Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș, double checked with various other works,5 include all principal name variants. Most medieval churches are currently Evangelical, Reformed, or Unitarian, but there are still some Roman-Catholic and Orthodox ones. With a few exceptions, the buildings are referred to throughout the text only by the name of the settlement they stand in, to avoid the otherwise unavoidable repetitions and to favour a fluent discourse, without interruptions to explain confessional and/ or dedication changes. Such clarifications were included only when absolutely needed, such as in the segment regarding the religious urbanism of Sibiu, or in the chapter on Orthodox architecture, and in the explanation of figures. Most of the churches whose origins could be traced back to the subject timeframe are mentioned in the main text, maps, or notes. Some of them make noticeable repeat reoccurrences, as they are significant for coherently describing the development of local architecture or, more often, because they were simply lucky enough to benefit from appropriate archaeological investigations, including both field excavation and data dissemination. The first draft of the book included several case studies, which were written off, since they interrupted the flow of the text, as accurately noticed by one of the reviewers. 3 Țeicu 2007 and 2013. 4 There were paired homonymous occurrences of Cârța, Cristian, Daia, Satu Mare, and Sânpetru, differentiated by using the Hungarian or German variant, as appropriate. An exception from the rule was made for Cuhea, today Bogdan Vodă, since the old name is already established in the specialized literature, and another one for Cluj, renamed into Cluj-Napoca by the Romanian communist regime for nationalistic purposes (as was the case with Cuhea as well). Monasteries and fortresses are referred by their own name, when possible, and not by the name of the settlement they now relate to. 5 Szabó 2003; Suciu 1966; Wagner 1977.

6

Introduction

Anyway, it is basically impossible to find a church from this category whose relevance could be restricted to the confines of a single chapter. For example, the church in Drăușeni (Fig. 1.4) is significant for the emerging architecture, for the Romanesque period, and for the long-lasting fortification process, which, on this site, commenced in the 13th century and produced several intermediary variants before the present-day shape, acquired in the 17th century. Isolated, none of these aspects can offer a relevant image of the actual monument, so its entire building history must be referred to somewhat understand the situation. There are, however, two case studies converted into chapters, since they involved what were basically the two most complexly structured religious sites of the region: the diocesan center of Alba Iulia and the Saxon ‘capital’ of Sibiu. Considering the large number of churches, each one of them a distinctive building, and at least several hundred possessing features of spectacular or unparalleled character, selecting illustration was unsurprisingly difficult, especially since the work was not intended to be an almanac. Attempts were made to have a reasonable proportion of illustrative images accompany and substantiate the text, and, in this regard, the composition greatly benefited from the goodwill of the editors, who agreed to include a larger number of figures then initially discussed. Still, selecting relevant illustration for such a text is always a subjective matter, one sometimes further conditioned by the possibilities to identify (and process) images compliant to modern quality standards. As for the book itself, it is structured in four parts: (1) a short overview of the research resources and of the historical and administrative framework, (2) the formative period, (3) the Catholic architecture, and (4) the Orthodox one. The first part starts with Chapter 1, a succinct presentation of the extant heritage (the main primary research resource), followed by a brief introduction into the historiography of the subject matter and in the archaeological state-of-the-art in the field, to frame a picture of the available material. Chapter 2 outlines the historical framework of medieval Transylvania in the period when local Christianity rose and church-building commenced, processes that cannot be truly understood when disconnected from the socio-political and socio-cultural realities of the age. Some crucial events, such as the Hungarian conquest, the colonisation of ‘foreigners’, the establishment of dioceses, as well as the geo-political situation of the Hungarian kingdom, stuck in between empires and often pushed toward eastern and southern expansion, have influenced and eventually determined the main characteristics of the ecclesiastical landscape. A brief introduction into the secular and religious organization of the region is therefore included in this chapter. The second part of the book (2) analyzes the early shaping of the religious landscape, in the period before 1200, when the peoples of Transylvania

Introduction

7

oscillated between the Greek and the Latin communions. Chapter 3, with a general character, ponders upon the difficult dilemma of the beginnings, focusing on the context in which Christian society could emerge, on the circumstances and conditions for such a process, and on the moment from which the existence of cult building could be expected. Churches dated to the 10th or 11th centuries are few in numbers – the ones built before the official Hungarian conquest exhibit traits of Byzantine structural design, while the ones built afterward harmonize with Central European architecture. The image is, however, quite confusing, more prone to generate questions than to provide answers, as several examples discussed in Chapter 4 illustrate. Things start to clarify, gradually, only with the late 11th century, when the first Roman-Catholic cathedral rose in Alba Iulia, and especially after the mid-12th century, when colonists from Central and Western Europe settled in the south of Transylvania. Consequently, Chapter 5 introduces the religious center of Alba Iulia, which encompasses, on its own, almost every single feature needed to illustrate the formative period of the religious landscape. Before the conquest, it used to be the most influential center of power, then it became the seat of the Diocese of Transylvania, and, during each stage of its evolution, churches were built, first of Byzantine influence, then Romanesque and Gothic ones, each of them with a major impact on religious construction sites, noticeable on larger or smaller scales. Since its focus is the Catholic churches, the main component of the religious landscape, the third part of the book (3) is naturally the most consistent one, and therefore it is structured in five chapters (Chapters 6–10). Chapter 6 mainly concerns the period immediately after 1200, i.e. after the end of the conquest and of the main colonisation processes – that of the hospites in the south and that of the Szeklers in the east, superimposed on a local framework of pre-conquest Romance-Slavic populations and of Hungarian communities that had gradually settled since the 10th century, as the frontier was pushed forward. Overall, by 1200, Christian society may be mostly considered a given fact, and the administrative structure had been shaped, a context that opened opportunities for the construction of numerous churches, generally erected in the Romanesque style. Three sequences individualize the analysis of this period: single-nave churches in the Szekler territories, basilicas within the Saxon colonisation area, and centrally-planned churches all over Transylvania. Chapter 7 introduces the early Gothic period, broadly corresponding to the 13th century, which started with the erection of the Gothic choir of the present-day cathedral in Alba Iulia and the founding of the Cistercian monastery in Cârța (Fig. 0.2). The latter is traditionally accredited with a decisive role for this stage, consistently mentioned in the specialized literature as

8

Introduction

Figure 0.2 The Cistercian Monastery in Cârța, late 13th century: the Gothic sanctuary, now used as a parish church Photo by Radu Lupescu

‘Cistercian’. Nevertheless, recent archaeological breakthroughs cast doubts on some ‘established facts’ about its influence, although, on the other hand, argue for a much more consistent presence of the white monks than previously estimated. Chapter 8 moves to the period of 1350–1450, when the Gothic style flourished, when the main urban churches reached the figures that are still familiar today, and when most previously constructed churches were renewed, expanded, sometimes even completely replaced, not so much to match the Gothic fashions of the time, but primarily in order to obtain larger buildings, fitting the needs and expectations on that age of accelerated development. There are many important and significant sites for this stage, but the one in Sibiu has had the chance to be archaeologically investigated in a rather detailed manner, which resulted in a database unequalled in Transylvania. The city used to be the hearth of the settlers’ commonwealth, and the seat of their Provostry, dependent not on the Diocese of Transylvania, but directly on the Archdiocese of Esztergom. Furthermore, it possessed great economic power, which strengthened its social and religious standing, and, from the mid-12th century onward, allowed for the construction of several monumental churches. This complex religious hub, and especially its parish site, whose church is an

Introduction

9

ideal mirror for the local Gothic style and for its Renaissance-period interferences, is the subject of Chapter 9. In any case, the known structure of the pre-1450 churches, established based on preserved material and on archaeological data, is often the result of a last stage of evolution, stretching the late medieval and part of the modern period, namely that of their fortification. It was a very complex phase, during which religious and military architecture blended and completed each other, and one that is only very vaguely understood from an archaeological point of view, as Chapter 10 – which basically ends the main segment of the book – tries to illustrate. Initially, there was a belltower with complex functions, while later the fortification process aimed to change the church into a sort of giant fortified tower, which happened in hundreds of different ways. Most of the surviving examples were produced later than the 15th century, but we first get in touch with them when looking for medieval remains, at least in the south of Transylvania, where basically every church was fortified. In fact, it was often the defensive structural work that allowed the survival of the older features of religious buildings. This chapter aims only to introduce the topic of fortified churches, outlining some specific aspects, such as how the fortifications impacted churchyards and the material culture of the sites. The fourth part of the book (4), consisting solely of Chapter 11, returns to the subject of Orthodox churches, previously mentioned here-and-there throughout the text, as part of the post-conquest general development of religious architecture. Nevertheless, the issues that relate to them are different, and their role in the religious landscape is difficult to emphasize in the overwhelmingly Catholic landscape. Orthodox populations mostly inhabited marginal parts of the area, living in religious communion with the lands south of the Danube, probably chiefly with the Serbian ones. The 13th–15th-century churches discussed in this final chapter were obviously founded with more modest resources, while having a quite divergent perspective on what monumentality meant. To mention it from the start, this book is the first attempt ever to put together an archaeological overview of Transylvanian churches in any language – not only in English. The subject per se has a substantial bibliography, being often tackled by art historians, but (generally) with complete disregard for archaeological data. Several decades ago, this could have been tolerable, since, at the time, what was known about these churches was mostly based on what was still visible. However, archaeology has made great advances since then, and a significant number of small- and large-scale excavations have unearthed consistent data, enriching, and often revising, the established history of many buildings, as for example in the case of the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara (Fig. 0.3).

10

Introduction

Introduction

11

On the other hand, the archaeological data is usually found only in technical reports, or even only in manuscript form. Until now, no systematization attempt has been made for larger areas, let alone for the entire eastern part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, roughly corresponding to Transylvania, in its present-day definition. There is a great disjunction between the amount of excavation and the number of published papers, which has resulted in a huge amount of almost inaccessible, or now unidentifiable, grey literature. On the other hand, there are natural communication problems between the archaeologist, whose gaze is on the underground, and the art historian, who mostly looks skywards. However, for the sake of properly researching and maintaining the heritage of the religious landscape, archaeological data need to be taken seriously and accepted as part of the general discussion – only then a real image on the phenomena of Christian society-building and pre-Reformation religious architecture is likely to be obtained. The contribution archaeology brings to this discussion is fundamental, considering that for the first several centuries of church building there are almost no relevant written sources. The latter become more consistent only after 1400, but even then, they rarely mention factual data about the buildings themselves. The present-day shapes of the churches almost invariably conceal at least one earlier development stage. It falls onto archaeology to not only unearth the ruined structures, but also to investigate their context, identify chronological indicia provided by artefacts and burials goods, recognize successive phases in the overall development of the religious site, and many other related issues. The subject matter is a complex one, requiring interdisciplinary approaches, while the following pages are barely more than an introduction into an undertaking whose fulfilment belongs to the future. Transylvania has developed a rich religious architecture, individualized in many ways from that of the neighbouring territories, and even at European scale. However, in many respects, including the archaeology of churches, it has remained a terra incognita for many European archaeologists, particularly in the Anglo-American world. The second motivation for this book is therefore to introduce Transylvania to an international audience from the point of view of its medieval churches, as seen through the lens of archaeology. This approach targets a broad audience, but primarily historians and archaeologists interested in Eastern and East-Central Europe and its religious architecture. However, the book is likely to appeal to scholars interested in monastic Figure 0.3 Archaeological excavations on the site of the Church on the Hill, in Sighișoara (1998–2001): over 700 graves and dozens of ruins were unearthed, the oldest from ← before 1200 (on the north side of the sanctuary), the youngest from before 1450 Drawing by the author

12

Introduction

(Benedictine, Premonstratensian, Cistercian), and monastic-military orders (Teutonic Knights), the history of the relations between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, funerary practices and material culture, and other related topics. Given the role of Transylvania in the popular imagination of Western Europe and the United States, this book is also of interest for cultural tourism, since it offers a short historical and cultural introduction to the area. Finally, I see this volume as bridging the gaps between archaeologists and restorers, and between scholars and a wide audience. I hope that this type of research will not remain an isolated scientific contribution, but an effective tool for preserving, conserving, and restoring the fabulous religious heritage of Eastern Europe.

Part 1 Resources and Historical Background

∵

Chapter 1

Resources 1.1

The Heritage

The corpus of religious buildings in medieval Transylvania is extraordinarily rich. Given the lack of an ecclesiastical topography, the number of churches is not known, and scholarly approaches operate with adjectives such as ‘many’ and ‘numerous’ more often than with figures. The List of Historical Monuments of Romania, compiled in the 1990s based on surveys conducted in 1955, and on various, somewhat erratic field investigations, represents the official inventory of these medieval churches.1 The list, which has been revised several times in recent decades – last in 2015 – can be augmented with data from the National Archaeological Repertoire of Romania that arbitrarily includes archaeologically retrieved information, so long as it has been published in a coherent manner and it entered the database of the Ministry of Culture.2 The two official documents are not interrelated, so the records are often dissimilar, even at odds with one another. Furthermore, these inventories are not subject to regular revision, which would add new data provided by archaeological and historical research. Therefore, monuments whose chronological assignment has been amended decades ago based on archaeological data may be listed with redundant dating, and many archaeologically identified churches are not considered. The church in Lupșa, dated to mid-14th century during the 1990s archaeological research, still appears in official records, or even in specialized works, with its previous early-15th-century dating (Chapter 11). The official inventories are not correlated with historical and art historical research either. Therefore, scholarship frequently offers a richer repertoire than the sanctioned lists of monuments and sites – as for example around forty plausible churches from Hermann Fabini’s topography of Transylvanian Saxon monuments do not show up in official surveys.3 By 2016, the List of Historical Monuments and the National Archaeological Repertoire jointly counted 599 church and 39 chapels that had been built and in use prior to 1500, with the oldest from the 12th century. Most of the medieval churches date from the 14th and 15th centuries, a timeframe within which 1 “Anexă la Ordinul nr. 2314/2004”; “Anexa la Ordinul Ministrului Culturii.” 2 Repertoriul Arheologic Național (RAN ). 3 Fabini 1998.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_003

16

Chapter 1

Resources

17

shorter chronological segments are exceedingly difficult to define. An upper mid-15th century boundary cannot be established and attempts to assign monuments to the first or second half of this century should be very warily regarded, since precise timeframes can be established only in exceptional cases based on architectural or archaeological data (Map 1.1). Of the listed objectives, 98 have been identified by archaeological means, 64 are ruins that can still be seen above ground level, and the remaining 437 churches are in use, retaining their medieval shapes in varying proportions. In chronological terms, 26 churches are older than the year 1200, and 200 churches are assigned to the 13th century. It seems that 146 churches were built during the 14th century and 227 during the following hundred years. These numbers apply to church sites, without accounting for the fact that several buildings of worship may have succeeded one another on the same location. Given the situations frequently brought to light by archaeology, perhaps it would be better to assume on average two churches on the same site, which means that at least 1300 churches were erected during the period in question. This is, by and large, a rough estimate – one easy to improve if interdisciplinary research would be undertaken, if data would be centralized and systematized, and, last in order but not of importance, if further field research would be carried out. Church investigation always provides chronological corrections, and the recovery of lost older stages and components as well. Despite the shortcomings, these incomplete statistics reveal the extraordinary ecclesiastical architectural fund that Transylvania inherited from the Middle Ages. Present-day Evangelical and Reformed churches comprise most of this heritage. They were built as Catholic churches and functioned as such until the mid-16th-century religious Reformation. About a third of them – ca. 250 – were constructed by Saxon colonists (Map 1.2). Alongside them stand churches that preserved their faith or reverted to Catholicism, and ca. 10 per cent Orthodox churches (Map 1.1). From a stylistic point of view, religious architecture includes some features that are specific to the 12th- and 13th-century Late Romanesque, usually intermingled with late-13th-century Gothic elements (Chapter 6). Nevertheless, most churches are Gothic buildings built in the 14th and 15th centuries (Chapter 8–9). Orthodox architecture is usually defined as a Romanesque-Gothic fusion, with Byzantine influences – the latter noticeable mainly in inner area organization and in murals (Chapter 11). Map 1.1

←

The medieval ecclesiastical heritage of Transylvania, based on official records 1. Single-nave church; 2–Basilica; 3–Centrally-planned church; 4–Cross layout; 5–Triconc; 6–Greek-cross; 7–unknown. A–Before 1200; B–13th century; C–14th century; D–15th century Author: Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

18

Chapter 1

Resources

19

Figure 1.1 The Roman-Catholic St Michael Cathedral in Alba Iulia, 13th century Photo by the author

In terms of layout, single-nave churches are most common, although there are numerous basilicas and hall-churches, too. Only a few ground plans do not fit the major patterns – several circular or multi-apse central-plan structures, a cross-shaped church in Prejmer, and a few churches with distinctive Orthodox floor plans. Hungarians, Romanians, and Szeklers favored single-nave churches, while basilicas, with longer or shorter floor plans, with or without towers or other additions, represent most of the preserved churches throughout the lands settled by the Saxon colonists. The foremost extant monument, St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia, a 13th-century Late Romanesque and Gothic construction, still stands in the heart of Transylvania. The church itself is of utmost importance and the site, in its entirety, is of unparalleled value for understanding the history of the region. It preserves the remains of at least three earlier churches, illustrating the emergence of religious architecture and the shift of influence from the Eastern Church to the Latin Church. Furthermore, from the late 11th century onward, Alba Iulia has also been the seat of the Catholic Diocese of Transylvania (Fig. 1.1) (Chapter 5). Map 1.2

←

The medieval ecclesiastical heritage of the Transylvanian Saxons, according to Hermann Fabini 1. Single-nave church; 2–Basilica; 3–Centrally-planned church; 4–Cross layout; 5–Triconc; 6–Greek-cross; 7–unknown. A–Before 1200; B–13th century; C–14th century; D–15th century Map based on Fabini 1998, I; Author: Daniela Marcu Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

20

Chapter 1

Figure 1.2 The Evangelical church in Sibiu, 14th–15th centuries Photo by Cosmin Roman

The Evangelical church in Sibiu is the second most important church in Transylvania, in terms of both architectural and symbolic meanings. The former Catholic church dedicated to St Mary was originally erected as a Romanesque basilica around the year 1200, or earlier still, and completely rebuilt in a long-lasting construction site in the period between the 14th and early 16th centuries. From its beginnings to this day, this church decisively influenced the architecture of the southern regions, and, as the ecclesiastical center of the Germanic commonwealth, it functioned as the second religious power axis of Transylvania (Fig. 1.2). The Black Church of Brașov, deemed to be the largest Gothic church east of Vienna, lies in the south-eastern corner of the Carpathians. Works began on its construction site in the late 14th century, and it took about a hundred years to reach its full shape. Devastated by a catastrophic fire in 1689 and restored only in 1772, this church still displays, especially on the outside, characteristic features of Late Gothic. It is one of the most important religious landmarks in this part of Europe (Fig. 1.3).

Resources

21

Figure 1.3 The Black Church in Brașov, 14th–15th centuries Photo by Angel Istrate

Most urban churches are Gothic edifices finalized in the 14th or the 15th century, undergoing only minor changes after mid-15th century. St Michael’s RomanCatholic church in Cluj, the Evangelical churches in Sebeș, Sighișoara, Mediaș, Orăștie, and Bistrița, as well as many others, are counted among the most significant medieval structures preserved in Eastern Europe (Chapter 8). Great diversity, dependent on the historical development of each part, characterizes the rural landscape. Many monumental buildings that match urban structures, have survived in the southern areas, the oldest from the 12th century, but most of them from the 13th century. These are usually Romanesque-Gothic basilicas built by Saxons. Representative monuments, frequently mentioned in the literature, are those in Cisnădie, Cisnădioara, Ocna Sibiului, or Drăușeni (Chapter 6). Throughout the region, single-nave churches with a western tower and various shaped sanctuaries occur most often, many of them erected in the 13th century and surviving without alterations. The ones in Viscri, Câlnic (Fig. 10.4), and Sântămărie Orlea are among the most representative examples for this group. Most of the medieval churches preserved in the Szekler territories of eastern Transylvania date to the 13th and 14th centuries. There are indicia in some cases suggesting an even earlier date, in the late 12th century (Chapter 6).

22

Chapter 1

Figure 1.4 The fortified Evangelical church in Drăușeni, 13th–17th centuries Photo by the author

Fortified churches, widespread all over Transylvania, with the greatest density in the southern areas, have shaped the landscape (Chapter 10) (Fig. 1.4). They are mainly characteristic for Germanic communities, which created complex ensembles by fortifying their churches and/or by surrounding them with powerful walls. Their present-day figure can be usually traced back to a late15th- and 16th-century wave of transfigurations, although precise chronological assignments can only be established by thoroughly studying each one. The fortified churches in the region of the Târnave rivers display a great variety, while strong enclosures characterize the fortifications erected in the Land of Bârsa. Among the many Catholic monasteries established in the region, the most famous was the Cistercian monastery in Cârța, whose stately ruin is preserved in the south-eastern part of Transylvania, in the area between the Saxon Old Land, and Romanian inhabited territories that, for long periods, were possessed by Wallachian rulers. Established in the early 13th century, the monastery originally consisted of wooden buildings, destroyed during the Mongol invasion of 1241, and rebuilt in the second part of the 13th century. It is still regarded, sometimes excessively so, as the standard-bearing vanguard of the Early Gothic style and as its main advertiser, while its builders are traditionally credited with an intense activity throughout the province (Chapter 7). There are other very valuable monastic churches, as the ones of the former Augustinian monastery in Turda, the former Franciscan (Fig. 1.5) and Dominican monasteries in Cluj, Sibiu, Sighișoara, Târgu Mureș, Coșeiu, and Bistrița, or the former Pauline monastery in Păuca (Chapter 8). Orthodox churches are mainly concentrated in peripheral regions that retained throughout the Middle Ages a homogeneous Romanian population following the Byzantine Orthodox rule. The oldest surviving buildings are in the south-west, in the Land of Hațeg and the neighbouring territories, characterised by a great diversity of layouts of southern influence, and remarkable because both of their architectural and artistic features. The church in Densuș

Resources

23

Figure 1.5 The Reformed church in Cluj, former church of the Franciscan monastery, 15th century Photo by the author

could be the oldest of these, although its present-day shape is likely the result of 13th–15th-century interventions. Segments of the churches in Gurasada – a somewhat quadrilobe structure – and Streisângeorgiu – a single-nave with a rectangular chancel – also date back to an early period (Chapter 4 and 11) (Fig. 1.6). Several dozens of other Orthodox churches have been broadly dated within the 13th–15th centuries, based on analogies, archaeological excavations, or various connections, and often on the hope that the dating will be confirmed by other studies. Having preserved their medieval shape intact, the churches in Sânpetru, Colț, and Leșnic are among the most remarkable, in terms of both architecture and mural paintings. Most buildings have undergone changes over time, however occasionally medieval parts are still noticeable, as for example in the church in Ostrov, where only one wall has been preserved. In the western area of Transylvania, the churches in Lupșa, Ribița, Hălmagiu, and Crișcior, generally dated around the year 1400, are frequently mentioned as representatives. The church in Zlatna is a former basilica erected by Catholic Saxons, later on converted into an Orthodox church, accordingly modified in the 15th century and further altered in the 18th century. As for monasteries, Râmeț and Prislop are dated, at their earliest, in the 13th or 14th centuries. Beyond the

24

Chapter 1

Figure 1.6 The Orthodox church in Gurasada, 10th(?)–16th centuries Photo by Angel Istrate

bounds of these compact areas of inhabitation, Orthodox churches are preserved on former noble, royal, and even Catholic ecclesiastical estates. The estate of Gârbova, in Alba County, included a Hungarian hamlet inhabited by a Catholic community – Gârbova de Jos – and two Romanian villages – Gârbova de Sus and Gârbovița, each with their own church (Chapter 11).

Resources

25

Just like in other parts of Europe, many of the medieval churches are now almost gone, some without leaving a trace behind. The task of identifying them falls onto archaeology. Most of these were wooden churches that rarely left any trace below ground, and only by chance could be noticed by excavations. Even when erected out of stone or brick, many churches came to naught, due to various circumstances and at various times, being abandoned, allowed to fall into ruins, burned down or simply dismantled to be replaced. No less than five Catholic churches stood in the village of Saschiz in the 15th century, but none of them survived to the present day, and even their location remains unknown.4 The Orthodox church in Giulești was still in use in 1864 when Imre Henszlmann described it.5 It was abandoned in 1880 when a new church was built, then gradually fell into ruins and one hundred years later nobody even remembered it. The Saxon heritage experienced the greatest losses, since its direct line of succession has been broken; many communities are nowadays so diminished that they have long lost the ability to care for their parish churches.6 A few atypical cases have shown that there are alternative solutions: the church in Tărpiu has been restored and functions as an Orthodox one, without affecting its Gothic architecture. Even restoration attempts cannot have significant results when there is no one to take care and ensure the maintenance afterward: the church in Drăușeni, so amply restored over the last half-century but eventually abandoned, is perhaps the best example in this regard.7 In recent years, the ruin of the church in Jelna became famous when its mural paintings were brought to public awareness, and, for a while, the total collapse has been delayed, but a long-term project is still missing. 1.2

Historiographical Overview

Historical written records on the subject matter of this study are scarce and always mostly tangential.8 Information about how the buildings looked, useful 4 5 6 7 8

Postăvaru 2004, 142–144; Marcu-Istrate 2012a, 29–42. Henszlmann 1864, 147. Avram 1991, 37–68. Machat 2011, 25–31. There are several collections of medieval documents referring to Transylvania, among the most relevant: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen (1892–1991), with German abstracts. Documente privind istoria României [Documents regarding the history of Romania], (DIR), continued as Documenta Romaniae Historica (for Transilvania the series “C”), with Romanian translations (DRH). Codex diplomaticus Transsylvaniae. Erdély Okmánytár. Oklevelek, levelek és más írásos emlékek Erdély történetéhez [Transylvanian documents: charters, letters and other written records concerning the history of Transylvania]

26

Chapter 1

data about their construction period or about the religious life of the community are lacking. The dearth of written data led to rough estimations for most buildings, sometimes several centuries long, especially when discussing modest structures, with no relevant stylistic items. The historiography of Transylvania and of its monuments has been written in three languages – Romanian, German, and Hungarian. Most of the times the opinions of historians are different and even divergent on the same topic, and judgements based on nationalist interpretations are not at all rare. Each historiography focused on specific monuments: German historiography studied Saxon monuments, Hungarian historiography dealt mainly with Hungarian and Szekler ones, and Romanian historiography investigated mostly Orthodox structures, while producing several syntheses on the development of religious architecture throughout the region. This explains why local historians can have contradictory opinions even about crucial events or about the development of particularly valuable monuments, such as the churches in Alba Iulia, or of one-of-a-kind churches, such as the ones in Densuș or Gurasada. The linguistic differences separating Romanian and Hungarian historians has played an important role in this regard, although the point has always been the situation of Transylvania at the time of the conquest: was the region inhabited, or not? Were there locals, Romance and Slavic people, or a large, deserted area at the core of the Carpathian Mountains?9 Radu Popa initiated a project in the 1990s to open a Romanian-Hungarian partnership. Unfortunately, this was not achieved due to his premature death. No other historian or institution has had the inspiration to take up again this line of approach. Energies that should be focusing on actual historical and archaeological research are instead oftentimes wasted in empty polemics.10 A remarkable exception is represented by a series of international conferences, which reached the ninth iteration in 2019, organized by the Satu Mare County Museum and various Hungarian establishments under the heading “Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania”. The conferences have promoted dialogue between Romanian and Hungarian specialists, although the fact that papers are given and published in the researcher’s mother tongue has not exactly encouraged data dissemination or furthered actual

9 10

(CDTrans), vol. 1–4 (1997–2014), with Hungarian abstracts. Particularly for the Land of Szeklers: Székely Oklevéltár [Szekler diploma archive], vol. 1–8 (1970–2006). Many documents are available online at: Hungarian National Archives (https://archives.hungaricana.hu/en/charters/search), and at: Romanian National Archives (https://arhiva medievală.ro). Engel 2001, 117–121. See, for example: Popa 1997, 28–33, for an analysis of the historiography regarding Maramureș.

Resources

27

communication. The six volumes of interdisciplinary studies published since 1999 have nevertheless enriched knowledge and have taken important steps toward a mutual exchange of ideas.11 Similarly, the project “Pathway of Medieval Churches”, carried out within the framework of the “Hungary-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013”, offered unique opportunities for understanding the churches in the Upper Tisa region, in Zakarpattia, and in the northern areas of the former Partium region. This program thus made possible the investigation and even the restoration of several churches in the north-western areas of present-day Transylvania12 (Map 2.2). Preserved in relatively large numbers, churches are the primary tangible medieval heritage of Transylvania, and their study offers a complex, and, at the same time, unique perspective on medieval life (Map 1.1). As expected, the religious architecture has drawn the attention of humanists and travelers early on: in 1530, Giovan Andrea Gromo mentioned the church in Feldioara,13 in 1552, George Werner referred to the ruins in Cârța,14 while in 1550, Georgius Reycherstorffer talked about several churches in his work Chorographia Transylvaniae – to mention only a few examples.15 Mid-19th century, specialists from Budapest and Vienna that travelled through Transylvania exhorted the richness and the outstanding value of its churches, wrote the first records on the subject, and attempted to establish guidelines for tampering with these cultural buildings, as for example Flóris Rómer and István Möller.16 Friedrich Müller wrote about Romanesque churches in Transylvania in 1858,17 Károly Rácz published the history of the churches of Zarand area in 1880,18 and Balázs Orbán published in Budapest, between 1868 and 1873, his work in six volumes about the Land of Szeklers, providing a working tool to which we still refer today.19 In 1892, Sándor Márki published his monograph on the area of Arad County, including valuable information on churches.20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kiss – Szőcs 1999; Rusu – Szőcs 2002; Marcu-Istrate – Rusu – Szőcs 2004; Szőcs – Rusu 2007; Szőcs 2012a; Szőcs 2020a. Kollár 2011 and 2014. Gromo, “[Descriere mai amplă a Transilvaniei]: 1566–1567”, 354. Werner, “Raport din lunile martie-aprilie 1552.” Reicherstorffer, Corographia Transylvaniae. Sarkadi 2010b, 17–23. Friedrich Müller, Die kirchlichen Baukunst des romanischen Styles in Siebenbürgen (Müller 1858). Rácz Károly, A zarándi egyházmegye története (Rácz 1880). Orbán Balázs, A Székelyföld leírása; történelmi, régészeti, természetrajzi s népismei szempontból, 6 volumes (Orbán 1868–1873). Márki Sándor, Arad vármegye és Arad szabad király város története (Márki 1892).

28

Chapter 1

Saxon monuments were most intensely studied, and a rich corpus of scholarly works grew around them. Not counting numerous case studies, valuable monographs have been published ever since the early 19th century. Samuel Möckesch (1839)21 and Ludwig Reissenberger (1884)22 analyzed the church in Sibiu, Reissenberger wrote about the church in Cisnădioara in 185723 and about Cârța in 1889,24 while Heinrich Müller expounded upon the church in Cisnădioara in 1883.25 Ernst Kühlbrandt published his monograph about the church in Brașov in 1898 and again in 1927,26 which has remained to this day the only monograph of this church. Victor Roth published a monograph of the church in Sebeș in 1922,27 which is still the principal work about this church. The most outstanding monuments of the Saxons already had a scholarly bibliography in the early 20th century, a time when Victor Roth compiled valuable syntheses, in 1905 and 1910.28 Walter Horwath, with his bounty of case studies,29 Emil Sigerus, with the first photography album on the subject of Saxon churches, published in five editions,30 and Michael Thalgott, with his 1934 work about the church in Sibiu,31 were among the most active scholars in the first decades of the 20th century. In 1923, Michael Csaki published his inventory of Transylvanian Saxon historical and artistic monuments and artefacts, still a valuable tool today.32 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Samuel Möckesch, Die Pfarrkirche der Augsb. Conf. Verwandten zu Hermannstadt (Möckesch 1839). Ludwig Reissenberger, Die evangelische Pfarrkirche A.B. in Hermannstadt (Reissenberger 1884). Ludwig Reissenberger, “Die Kirche des heiligen Michael zu Michelsberg in Siebenbürgen.” (Reissenberger 1857). Ludwig Reissenberger, Die Kerzer Abtei (Reissenberger 1894). Heinrich Müller, “Archäologische Funde am Burgberg von Michelsberg.” (Müller 1883). Ernst Kühlbrandt, Die evangelische Stadtpfarrkirche A. B. in Kronstadt, vol. 1 (Kühlbrandt 1898) and vol. 2 (Kühlbrandt 1927). Victor Roth, Die evangelische Kirche A. B. in Mühlbach (Roth 1922). Victor Roth, Geschichte der deutschen Baukunst in Siebenbürgen (Roth 1905) and Victor Roth, “Zur Geschichte der siebenbürgischen Kirchen-Architektur.” (Roth 1910). Walter Horwath, “Der Emporenbau der romanischen und frühgotischen Kirchen in Siebenbürgen,” (Horwath 1935). Walter Horwath, “Die Landnahme des Altlandes im Lichte der Kirchenbauten,” (Horwath 1936). Emil Sigerus, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Burgen und Kirchenkastelle. 52 Lichtdrucke mit Vorwort und erläuterndem Text, 5th edition in 1930 (Sigerus 1930). Erich Michael Thalgott, Hermannstadt. Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung einer siebenbürgischen Stadt (Thalgott 1934). Michael Csaki, Inventarul monumentelor și obiectelor istorice și artistice săsești din Transilvania / Inventar von Monumenten u. geschichtlichen Gegenständen aus Transilvanien (Csaki 1923).

Resources

29

The interwar period fostered wider approaches to the subject as well, leading to synthesis on the development of local architecture within the European context. In 1938, Ion D. Ștefănescu published in French his study on the intertwining Byzantine and Lombard art of Transylvania,33 and Nicolae Iorga attempted a first synthetic approach of medieval and modern art in 1923.34 It was also at this time that ecclesiastical monuments from Transylvania were included in syntheses on the development of Romanesque architecture within the former Hungarian kingdom.35 Rarely mentioned, even though many of his theories are still valid, Victor Roth, editor of the quintessential work Die deutsche Kunst in Siebenbürgen, published in 1934, made further major contributions.36 Walter Horwath wrote a monumental opus on Saxon churches, published in four volumes from 1931 to 1940, which has remained, in many respects, the main source of information regarding this fabulous heritage.37 Many of his drawings are still used both in scientific papers and for restoration projects. The monograph of the Land of Bârsa, edited by Erich Jekelius in Brașov in 1928–1929, also included survey drawings of the major churches and archaeological sites of the region.38 In the post-war period, church bibliography was substantially incremented, mainly thanks to Romanian and Hungarian researchers, which produced numerous studies and the as-yet most important syntheses compiled by Virgil Vătășianu and Géza Entz. To this day, their books and papers remain works of great value, referred by everyone in matters of local architecture. Art historian Géza Entz studied the medieval architecture of Transylvania, publishing numerous studies, among them a synthesis that came out in German in 1968,39 a classical opus still regarded as fundamental. Other of his works, published posthumously in Hungarian – Erdélyi építészete a 11–13. Században [Transylvanian architecture in the 11th–13th centuries] and Erdélyi építészete a 14–16. Században [Transylvanian architecture in the 14th–16th centuries]40 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Ion D. Ștefănescu, L’art byzantin et l’art lombard en Transylvanie. Peintures murales de Moldavie et de Valachie (Ștefănescu 1938). Nicolae Iorga, Istoria artei medievale și moderne în legătură cu dezvoltarea societății (Iorga 1923). Tibor Gerevich, Magyarország románkori emlékei (Gerevich 1938); Anton Hekler, Ungarische Kunstgeschichte (Hekler 1937). Victor Roth, Die deutsche Kunst in Siebenbürgen (Roth 1934). Walter Horwath, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Kirchenburgen, baugeschichtlich untersucht und dargestellt (Horwath 1940a). Erich Jekelius (ed.), Das Burzenland 3.1. Kronstadt (Jekelius 1928); Erich Jekelius (ed.), Das Burzenland 4.1. Die Dörfer des Burzenlandes (Jekelius 1929). Géza Entz, “Die Baukunst Transsilvaniens im 11.–13. Jahrhundert.” (Entz 1968). Entz 1994 and 1996.

30

Chapter 1

build a general picture of the shaping of the religious landscape. Apart from several studied cases, it is worth mentioning his influential paper on the cathedral in Alba Iulia, published in Hungarian and French.41 Art historian Virgil Vătășianu is still regarded as the foremost scholar in this field of expertise. Following long years of research, he published in 1959 his seminal work – Istoria artei feudale în Țările Române [The history of feudal art in the Romanian Principalities].42 A monumental composition, it provides an overview of art development within the borders of Romania, including the religious architecture in Transylvania and its place within European art and architecture. Art history scholarship grew to such an extent in the late 20th century and after the turn of the century that it would be impossible to enumerate all the studies and monographs that saw the light of print at the time. Works published by George Oprescu,43 Gustav Treiber,44 Hermann Fabini,45 and Paul Niedermaier,46 are now essential for understanding Saxon architecture. Christoph Machat’s monograph about the Evangelical church in Sighișoara is an unparalleled, complex approach to this medieval monument.47 György Györffy, in his 1963–1998 work, reconstructed the ecclesiastical geography of medieval Hungary in the Árpádian Age.48 Available information about the emergence and development of architecture in the Land of Szeklers was recently systematised by Elek Benkő,49 who summed up virtually all known data, including archaeological records. Lászlo Dávid wrote in 1981 his monograph on the monuments in the medieval Odorhei Chair, a valuable source of

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49

Entz 1958a; Entz 1958b, 1–40. Vătășianu 1959. George Oprescu, “Bisericile cetăți ale sașilor din Ardeal.” (Oprescu 1955 and 1956). Gustav Treiber, Mittelalterliche Kirchen in Siebenburgen. Beiträge zur Baugeschichte aufgrund der Raumverhältnisse (Treiber 1971). Hermann Fabini, Atlas der siebenbürgisch-sächsischen Kirchenburgen und Dorfkirchen, two volumes (Fabini 1998). Paul Niedermaier, Siebenbürgische Städte (Niedermaier 1979a); Paul Niedermaier, Der mittelalterliche Städtebau in Siebenbürgen, im Banat und im Kreischgebiet: Teil 1 – Die Entwicklung vom Anbeginn bis 1241 (Niedermaier 1996a). Christoph Machat, Die Bergkirche zu Schäßburg und die mittelalterliche Baukunst in Siebenbürgen (Machat 1977). Christoph Machat, Denkmaltopographie Siebenbürgen. Stadt Schässburg. 4.1. / Topografia monumentelor din Transilvania. Municipiul Sighișoara. 4.1 (Machat 2002). György Györffy, Az árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, four volumes (Györffy 1963–1998). Elek Benkő, A középkori Székelyföld, two volumes (Benkő 2012).

Resources

31

information,50 and very useful is also the book of Ferenc Léstyán, who inventoried the churches under the authority of the Bishopric in Alba Iulia.51 Some syntheses regarding the development of architecture on the current territory of Romania are also relevant, even if most of them do not pay attention to the archaeological data as a source of information in the matter. Grigore Ionescu’s book on “the history of Romanian architecture from the earliest times until 1900”, published in 1937, with a foreword by the great historian Nicolae Iorga, and republished in an amended version in 1963, was the first scientific work written in Romanian on the topic.52 Architect Gheorghe Curinschi Vorona provided another synopsis of this subject in his 1981 work.53 However, the most recent study, published by Cristian Moisescu in 2001,54 examined only the so-called “old Romanian architecture”, envisioned as the Romanian segment of the architecture of Transylvania. The tendency to study the history of the region based on ethnic criteria is not absent in Hungarian historiography either, as pointed out by Béla Zsolt Szakács in 2011, referring to the tendency to jointly describe the Romanesque and Early Gothic architecture of the 10th–13th centuries as ‘Árpádian’.55 Another direction of research has focused on stylistic aspects, following the development of a particular style or the way in which various influences disseminated. The Byzantine-style architecture has been explored by Răzvan Theodorescu, especially in his books published in 1974 and 1976, which mention some of the churches in Transylvania.56 Architect Eugenia Greceanu has written about the dissemination of Byzantine architecture within the Carpathian Basin in a number of studies.57 The most recent major contributions were brought by Suzana Móré Heitel, whose PhD thesis focused on the beginnings of medieval

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

László Dávid, A középkori Udvarhelyszék művészeti emlékei (Dávid 1981). Ferenc Léstyán, Megszentelt kövek. A középkori erdélyi püspökség templomai, two volumes (Léstyán 2000). Grigore Ionescu, Istoria arhitecturii în România. I. De la orînduirea comunei primitive pînă la sfîrșitul veacului al XVI-lea (Ionescu 1963). Gheorghe Curinschi Vorona, Istoria arhitecturii în România (Curinschi Vorona 1981). Cristian Moisescu, Arhitectura românească veche (Moisescu 2001). Szakács 2011b, 209–234. Răzvan Theodorescu, Bizanț, Balcani, Occident la începuturile culturii medievale românești (secolele X–XIV ) (Theodorescu 1974); Răzvan Theodorescu, Un mileniu de artă la Dunărea de Jos (400–1400) (Theodorescu 1976). Eugenia Greceanu, “Pătrunderea influențelor de tradiție bizantină în arhitectura bisericilor de zid din Transilvania.” (Greceanu 1972).

32

Chapter 1

art in the basin of the lower course of Mureș river.58 Her work has been in fact the only attempt to examine the remains of Byzantine architecture in the western part of Transylvania based on comprehensive field research. Another art historian receptive to the possibilities offered by archaeology was Alexandru Avram. His work on Romanesque architecture in north-western Romania, published in 2006, is a rare attempt to make use of interconnected architectural and archaeological data.59 Vasile Drăguț has explored the development of Gothic architecture in his book published in 1979, based on detailed studies of major monuments, particularly the urban ones.60 Although the results of much archaeological research were already known at the time, they were rarely mentioned. Regarding Gothic architectural studies, there are also important papers authored by Eugenia Greceanu, Corina Popa, Sanda Salontai, Ciprian Firea, Ileana Burnichioiu, Dana Jenei, Attila Weisz, and others, whose works will be frequently quoted in the following pages.61 There is a rich literature on monastic orders, often including references to their churches. A bold attempt to provide a “dictionary of monasteries in Transylvania, Banat, Crișana and Maramureș” produced a useful instrument, albeit the final product included numerous inaccuracies.62 Much has been written over time about the activity of the Cistercian Order in Transylvania. Veronica and Șerban Turcuș have recently drafted a synthesis of the stateof-the-art in the field.63 Nicolae Busuioc von Hasselblach has focused on the monastery in Cârța, analyzing all the available information related to this house, including the few archaeological data.64 Sanda Salontai published an introduction to the architecture of the Dominican Order.65 In short, although the historiography of the subject is quite rich, it is also marred by outdated approaches and an inability to incorporate results 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Suzana Móré Heitel, Începuturile artei medievale în bazinul inferior al Mureșului (Móré Heitel 2010a). Alexandru Avram, Arhitectura romanică din nord-vestul României (Avram 2006a). Vasile Drăguț, Arta gotică în România (Drăguț 1979a). As for example: Greceanu 1971, 33–59; Popa 1970, 313–317; Popa 1981, 7–89; Popa 2002, 41–50; Salontai 2013a, 217–235; Salontai 2013b, 55–70; Burnichioiu 1999, 107–120; Jenei 2012; Weisz 2005 and 2013. Adrian Andrei Rusu (ed.), Dicționarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crișana și Maramureș (Rusu 2000). Veronica Turcuș – Șerban Turcuș, At the Edges of Christendom. The White Monks’ Arts and Institutions in Transylvania (the Twelfth–Fifteenth Centuries) (Turcuș – Turcuș 2012). Dan Nicolae Busuioc-von Hasselbach, Țara Făgărașului în secolul al XIII-lea. Mănăstirea cisterciană Cârța, two volumes (Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000). Mihaela Sanda Salontai, Mănăstiri dominicane din Transilvania (Salontai 2002b).

Resources

33

provided by archaeology. Despite the obvious contribution of excavations for a more thorough understanding of medieval churches, most scholars paid little, if any, heed to the results of those investigations, even when there is data of an exceptional nature. Archaeological reports and monographs seem to form a distinct, special body of literature, almost completely alien to scholars who are not themselves archaeologists. 1.3

The Archaeological Record: Excavations and Publications

The importance of archaeology for studying and reconstructing the medieval ecclesiastical landscape needs little emphasis in a region like Transylvania, where written information is extremely scarce. Churches have been, for centuries, the most prominent buildings within landscape, remaining to this day the sole surviving witnesses of the early history of the communities. In the field of religious architecture, archaeology therefore has multiple tasks, which concern both the technical study of the structures (foundations and standing walls alike), and setting analysis (graveyards, chapels, enclosures, wells, ovens, etc.), in order to reconstruct the historical background. The first archaeological excavations were conducted during the mid-19th century by both cultured Hungarian archaeologists and antiquarians. In some very rare cases, authorities interceded, and records were compiled, some of them fundamental for understanding several monuments that have since entirely vanished. Excavations carried out in Pâncota fortress in 1847 and afterward uncovered a unique church, but only some drawings were left behind and the site has been utterly destroyed in the meantime, being used as a stone quarry. The drawings and some notes were later recovered by Suzana Móré Heitel, as the only surviving evidence for this entirely exceptional site.66 Similarly, the ruins of the Franciscan monastery in Hațeg were ‘researched’ and documented by Gábor Szinte and Gábor Téglás in 1888, but much later published by Adrian A. Rusu.67 Church research took place mainly in the context of restoration works and only in a much lesser extent as part of pure scientific projects. There are surviving 19th-century records about the restoration of some monuments – however, these were mostly renovations, unaccompanied by actual scholarly assistance, so they often did not give adequate documentation. In the early 20th century, extensive excavations were conducted in Alba Iulia, occasioned by a huge 66 67

Móré Heitel 2000, 593–637; Móré Heitel 2006; Marcu-Istrate et al. 2003, 226–227. Rusu 1997a, 134–140.

34

Chapter 1

restoration project, nevertheless, only the overall picture of the findings is known (Chapter 5). This was also the period when the earliest archaeological records were being made at the Evangelical church in Sibiu: in 1909–1911, Moritz von Kimakowitz noticed several ruins east of the church and wrongly ascribed them to a basilica, deemed to be the first parish church of the community (Chapter 9).68 Nonetheless, the true beginnings of Transylvanian church archaeology cannot be dated before the 1960s, the time of the first measures taken by the communist government of Romania toward the restoration of several monuments. This happened under the supervision of the Directorate for Historical Monuments, an institution that functioned under different names between 1952 and 1977.69 The restoration efforts of the period led to numerous archaeological excavations, including large-scale projects. It also coincided with the activity of several prominent archaeologists, such as Marianne Dumitrache, Radu Popa, Petru Iambor, and Mircea Rusu, who took interest in the study of particular sub-regions of Transylvania. On the other hand, the methods of the era focused exclusively on excavation, without actually providing archaeologists the conditions needed to process artefacts and draw up appropriate reports. No rules were in place for archiving the documentation, so it was ultimately up to everyone to determine how to store their own records. For this reason, to which should be added the lack of facilities and the rudimentary technologies of the time, the archaeological investigation of churches led to few major or sensational discoveries, and – even much more importantly – it failed to produce useful technical records. At the time, Marianne Dumitrache had the most consistent manner of publishing her digs, while, although very active, archaeologist Radu Heitel published very little and left to posterity a disjointed archive, making it difficult for researchers to retrieve coherent information from it. Much of the Directorate’s archive was scattered after the institution was abolished in 1977, therefore incertitude is always connected with the achievements of the period. Nonetheless, archaeologists of the Directorate worked on most major church sites during that period. Extensive research was carried out at the churches in Alba Iulia, Sebeș, Câlnic, Cârța, Cisnădioara, Gârbova, Cricău, Rodbav, Săcădate, and Prejmer (Radu Heitel), in Densuș (Nicolae N. Pușcașu), Hărman, Aiud, Brașov-Șchei, Feliceni, Mediaș, Vad, Viscri, Drăușeni (Marianne BeldieDumitrache), Sânpetru, Războieni (Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino), Gurasada 68 69

Kimakowitz 1911, 241–244, fig. A. Cantacuzino 1973, 71–72; Curinschi Vorona 1995, 81–195; Greceanu 1990, 52–61; Drăguț 1974, 3–5; Pinter 2005, 188–207; Pinter 2009b, 36–54.

Resources

35

(Radu Popa, Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu), Streisângeorgiu, Voivozi, Sânnicolau de Beiuș (Radu Popa), etc. Although churches such as the one in Sebeș were fully excavated, there is little information about how well the archaeological investigation kept up with the restoration works, while only general information has been published (Chapter 8). In Alba Iulia, the whole interior of the cathedral was emptied out – probably at varying depths, but whatever was found remains largely unknown (Chapter 5). In 1977, the Directorate for Historical Monuments was abolished; it had grown into a protector of historical buildings and therefore a hindrance to the urban systematization projects promoted by the communist regime, especially those involving Bucharest. Many restoration sites were simply shut down at different stages of renovation and research. The one in Drăușeni was among them: abandoned in 1977, it was restarted in 1993, with the church in a much worse condition. In Gurasada, the restoration had been opened in 1976 and archaeological excavations begun in 1977, so they were interrupted in a very incipient stage.70 The archaeology of medieval churches increased in the 1990s, after the fall of Communism, spurred by a second wave of restoration projects. A new institution, the Directorate for Monuments, Ensembles and Historical Sites, was created for heritage protection, following the model of the French system, but, after functioning successfully as a free institution for several years (1990–1994), it was disestablished in 1994, practically for the same reasons: it had tried to protect the heritage and could not be politically controlled. Therefore, a complicated and confusing system was instituted, reorganized very often, dependent on the whims of the Ministry of Culture, so that political decision making could have the final say on the matter. As the centralized governmental system gradually lost ground, the private sector took over restorations works, now funded from various sources, including by the European Union. Conversely, archaeology has remained an entirely state-owned business, managed ever more deficiently due to a huge imbalance between the number of archaeologists and the market requirements. The few attempted private ventures were shut down post-haste, and currently only institutions that are part of the public system can organize archaeological excavations. This is in stark contrast to the actual needs – the huge ongoing infrastructure works, building refurbishment and public area modernization require ever more archaeological assistance, which becomes increasingly difficult to provide.71 70 71

Dumitrache 1983, 41–43; Drăguț 1974, 3–5. Cantacuzino 1998, 72–74; Pinter 2009b, 36–54.

36

Chapter 1

However, there are several successful archaeological cases, even if more often from the category of exploratory or rescue excavations, which indirectly contributed to a noteworthy development of the study of Transylvanian medieval churches. In the beginning of the 21st century, large-scale investigations were carried out, for more than a decade, on the site of St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba-Iulia. Although a thorough archaeological research was out of the question, several trenches were opened. However, most important was the opportunity of surveying various works for sewage, pavement renovations, ground level systematizations, and foundations strengthening. Eventually, the archaeology provided substantial new data for understanding how the cathedral developed, about its connection to the episcopal palace, and about the funerary aspects of the site. Furthermore, in 2011, a 10th–11th-century Byzantine-style church was uncovered in front of the present-day cathedral, at that moment portrayed as the ever most important discovery in the field72 (Chapter 5). Restoration works opened up many opportunities for studying urban churches, such as the ones in Sighișoara (Fig. 0.1), Sibiu, and Brașov (Fig. 1.7), where extensive archaeological excavations, with significant results, were carried out.73 The same occurred in Baia Mare, where the renovation of the central square led to the recovery of an ecclesiastical site otherwise almost entirely faded away.74 In other cases, excavations brought to light only fragmentary – although not less valuable because of this – data for reconstructing the medieval reality, as was the case in Oradea, Cluj, Turda, Aiud, Orăștie, Teiuș, etc (Chapter 8). When the Martinuzzi palace in Vințu de Jos was restored, excavations within the yard brought to light the ruins of a Dominican monastery, mentioned in primary sources as early as the 14th century, but meanwhile vanished altogether75 (Chapter 8). Paradoxically, in post-communist time, Orthodox churches increasingly eluded archaeology, taking it as an easy-to-circumvent requirement and therefore opting for budget cuts and fast ‘restoration’. As a result, many crucial churches were ‘restored’ without any professional intervention. Prislop, the only monastic church in Hațeg with a triconch floor plan, benefited from such a ‘preferential’ regime, at the expense of rigorous research (Chapter 11).

72 73 74 75

Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213. Pinter 2005, 91–111, 188–207; Szabó 2016, 30–40; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 137–152. Szőcs – Pop 2020, 227–254; Szőcs 2020b, 435–452. Rusu 1998a, 13–21.

Resources

37

Figure 1.7 Archaeological excavation on the south-eastern part of the Black Church in Brașov: remains from the 12th–13th centuries Photo by the author

In the 1960s, a medieval archaeology project, aiming to solve the issue of how the Romanian people came into being, was launched,76 including extensive archaeological works in major sites, foremost among them being Dăbâca, Cluj-Mănăștur, and Cenad. Consequently, over the following decades, several very important churches were uncovered.77 Unfortunately, none of these sites has delivered the expected results and there are still many doubts about the churches in these locations.78 Radu Popa laid the foundations for studying the ecclesiastical architecture of the regions of Maramureș and Hațeg, and, for several decades, he has investigated several important Orthodox churches. His agenda has been continued by Adrian A. Rusu in Hațeg and by Antal Lukács in south-eastern Transylvania.79 However, with a few exceptions, field investigation was undertaken on a small scale, rarely surpassing a few trial trenches.

76 77 78 79

Popa 1992, 11–31; Harhoiu 2001, 146–157. Iambor – Matei – Halasu 1981, 129–150; Iambor 2001, 98–111; Iambor 2003, 25–39. Gáll 2013b, 243–328; Gáll 2013c, 203–246. Popa 1988a and 1997; Rusu 1997a; Lukács 1999.

38

Chapter 1

Catholic architecture has recently been the subject of a genuine research programme in south-eastern Transylvania, in the Szekler territories, that employed archaeologists from the regional museums, often supported by colleagues from Hungary.80 Excavations led to the discovery of lost medieval churches, such as in Daia, Tomești, Sâncrăieni (Fig. 6.8.A), Șumuleu Ciuc and Albiș (Fig. 1.8., 6.9), and various other places. These projects have revealed Romanesque churches underneath Gothic ones, and, by and large, greatly clarified the multiphase constructive development of the structures81 (Chapter 6, 8). Systematic research of churches that are still in use can be carried out only on rare occasions. However, some examples are promising, as the ones in Sighișoara (Fig. 0.1), Orăștie, Acâș, Târgu Mureș, Turda, or Sibiu.82 Nonetheless, due to the inherent conditions, work progress is very slow and, because of that, the waiting time for dissemination is very long. One of the most remarkable examples is the Franciscan monastery in Târgu Mureș, methodically excavated during the last decades83 (Chapter 8). Restoration- and development-led excavations, trial trenches and systematic interventions have unearthed so much information over the last half century that they have radically changed the image of medieval religious architecture. Many long-gone or unheard-of churches have been recovered, while many of the still standing churches have been re-evaluated in terms of architectural and chronological development. The early period of ecclesiastical landscape has been considerably enriched with 10th–12th centuries Byzantine-style churches, and with the first Romanesque churches built by Saxons, some of them going back as far as the 12th century. Almost all urban churches have been studied, and extensive excavations have been carried out in the most important ecclesiastical centres. Of course, there is still plenty to do in the field of archaeology, bearing in mind that what can be said about a medieval church at any given time is no more than a stage of research. Archaeology represents a vital tool for understanding churches and for reconstructing the medieval ecclesiastical landscape of Transylvania, no matter if it is about development-led excavations, watching briefs and trial trenches, or thorough research. Excavating a church should imply a complete approach, taking into consideration not only structural changes and development phases, but also the whole context of each site, with graves, facilities, artefacts 80 81 82 83

Botár 2009a; Botár 2017, 155–182. Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 79–119; Nyárádi 2016, 495–510; Benkő 2009, 13–43; Benkő 2012, I, 97–170. Pinter 2013, 79–98; Szőcs 2011, 60–65; Marcu-Istrate – Dobrotă – Groza 2021, 201–233; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 137–152; Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–198. Soós 2002, 146–180; Soós 2016.

Resources

39

Figure 1.8 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Albiş: 1 – First phase (13th century) – demolished; 2 – First phase, additions (14th century) – demolished; 3 – Second phase (15th century) – functional; 4 – Second phase (15th century) – demolished; 5 – Third phase (17th century) – functional; 6 – Third phase (17th century) – demolished; 7 – Fourth phase (18th century) – functional Drawing based on Bartók – Bordi 1998, fig.2

and connecting layers. Unfortunately, most excavation records remain unpublished and what has been published rarely amounts to a full documentation that provides complete data for understanding an ecclesiastical site and its social impact. Overall, it is obvious that the available archaeological resources do not match at all the number of excavations, while often field reports were lost, or difficult to find and study. There is indeed a huge amount of grey literature, which may or may not comply with scientific standards, and almost nothing remains in the archives from older excavations undertaken in Alba Iulia, Sebeș, Dăbâca, Cenad, Prejmer, and Brașov – and the list continues. Special contributions in this field have been brought by Marianne Dumitrache, Radu Popa, Radu Heitel, Elek Benkő, István Botár, András Sófalvi, Adrian A. Rusu, Beșliu Petre, Zeno Pinter, Petre Iambor, Daniela Marcu-Istrate, Péter Szöcs, Florin Mărginean, Tamás Emődi, Ioan Marian Țiplic, Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, Zoltán Sóos, Antál Lukács, Ioan Crișan, Corneliu Gaiu, Doru Marta, Ünige Bencze, Andrea Demjén, Boglárka Tóth, Zsolt Nyárádi, András Grynaeus, and many others, whose studies will be mentioned further.

40

Figure 1.9 Archaeological excavation within the Evangelical church in Sibiu Photo by the author

Chapter 1

41

Resources

Figure 1.10

The Reformed church in Aiud, 14th–17th centuries: drawing from the 19th century and archaeological excavations in 2018, led by the author. 1. The massive western tower. 2. Walled-in portal in the western side of the north aisle. 3. The continuous plinth of the tower and aisle, made of ashlars engraved with the same carver’s mark. 4. Fragment of older masonry, likely an early stage of the church. 5. Cluster of seven graves, some of them cut by the foundation of the northern aisle Drawing after Szathmáry 1867, p. 492. Photo: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

42 1.4

Chapter 1

Summary of the Chapter

Transylvania has inherited an exceptional religious heritage focused on over 600 sites, many of them hiding remains of several churches successively erected in the same place or concentrated in a small area. It is likely that many of these have arisen in the 12th–13th centuries, but their present-day shapes are usually the results of a series of later interventions of various proportions, sometime going as far as complete demolishment and reconstruction. Behind an appearance that may be Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist, and many a time reshaped for defensive purposes, the original shape is often difficult to identify, requiring in depth field studies. Nevertheless, the medieval fabric is quite substantial, and still offers many opportunities for scholarship. The religious heritage of Transylvania drew the attention of travellers and antiquarians as early as the 16th century. An art history literature had already developed by 1900, one that was notably improved in the interwar period, especially due to the contributions of German and Hungarian researchers. The communist period that followed slowed down this pace and raised barriers that even today cannot be completely surpassed, many of them unrelated to the actual methods of research. Some of the works of a general nature, useful for quick information, have been mentioned here, while many others will be cited in the following chapters. Considering that written data on these churches is extremely scarce and sometimes inexistent for the early period, the knowledge of medieval religious architecture has to rely to a great extent on archaeological methods. Nevertheless, such research raises a series of difficulties, requiring a specific context for excavations, various and considerable material investments, and a schedule for processing large quantities of items and data gathered during field investigations, to finally produce just a few relevant lines of text about the building of a church. Archaeological research is usually interconnected with restoration programs, especially when it involves buildings that are still in use, a situation that may sometimes be beneficial, but usually only leads to frustrations. Nevertheless, many known churches have been archaeologically surveyed under different circumstances, on smaller or larger areas. However, this chapter has served as an introduction in the state-of-the-art, outlining some of the more significant contributions, while the archaeological outlook will be built, step by step, in the following pages. Before this, the next chapter is going to introduce briefly the socio-political context that led to the emergence of Christian society and the integration of this region in medieval Europe.

Chapter 2

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background 2.1

General Historical Background

Transylvania1 proper (Map 0.1) – without the western and northern areas – was part of the Roman Empire for about two centuries, after its conquest by Emperor Trajan in the wake of his famous wars against the Dacians led by Decebalus (101–102, 105–106).2 Roman Dacia was abandoned in the late 3rd century when the Roman troops withdrew south of the Danube, giving up territories that they were no longer able to control.3 A Romanized population, descendants of natives and of Roman colonists, continued to dwell in old castra, towns, and villae rusticae, keeping in touch with the Late Latin world by means that can be

1 For general information on the history of Transylvania, the book Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter, published in 1986 by Kurt Horedt, whose balanced view of the early medieval period has not yet been matched, is particularly useful (Horedt 1986). See also Harald Roth’s 2007 work, Kleine Geschichte Siebenbürgens, which offers a very accessible introduction to the history of the region from ancient times to the present (Roth 2007). Engel Pál’s book, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary is a useful tool for the history of the kingdom of Hungary, while also offering one of the most neutral integrations of Transylvania into the greater picture (Engel 2001). The history of Transylvania coordinated by Köpeczi Béla – Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens – is worthy of mention (Köpeczi 1990, 3–236), together with: Radu Harhoiu’s “Die Beziehungen zwischen Romanen und Barbaren” (Harhoiu 1987, 110–129). See also: Konrad Gündisch’s “Autonomie de stări și regionalitate” (Gündisch 2001, 33–53) and Ștefan Pascu’s Voievodatul Transilvaniei (Pascu 1972), although in terms of interpretations the latter is in many respects tributary to the communist era in which it was written. Petru Iambor’s book on fortified settlements, published in 2005, is a synthetic introduction to the history of the region, integrating updated archaeological data, many of them available only in this work (Iambor 2005). See also: Horedt 1982; Turcuș 2001; Sălăgean 2006; Achim 2008; Rusu 2005, 11–103; Kristó 2003, especially 237–244. 2 Protase 1987, 231–250. 3 Horedt 1978, 211–237; Protase 1994, 41–70.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_004

44

Chapter 2

only vaguely conjectured.4 The locals had inherited the Latin language, from which the present-day Romanian derives.5 This period has left a strong imprint on the historical and architectural landscape: cities and castra provided living conditions and became the starting point of some major settlements, the foremost of them visible to this day. The medieval towns of Alba Iulia (old Apulum), Cluj (old Napoca), and Turda (old Potaissa),6 were developed on Roman structures, many of them even now part of the urban fabric. Scores of semi-urban or rural settlements have the same history, growing above or near Roman sites. An interesting case is that of the former capital of Roman Dacia, Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa, today a village in Hunedoara County.7 The ruins of many castra are still visible, such as Porolissum, Potaissa, Cumidava, or Ampellum. In the southwest, the legacy of antiquity was further underscored through the reuse of building materials, a source for the erection of many churches, of which the most interesting is the one in Densuș (Chapter 4.1). Since the 4th century, Transylvania was a transit area for migratory people (Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, etc.) entering Europe.8 Some of the Slavs – who emerged in the 5th and 6th centuries and largely crossed the Danube after 6029 – settled down and co-habited with the Romanized population, playing an important role in shaping the Romanian ethnic group, a process nearing completion in the last centuries of the first millennium, during the late nomad waves.10 The political and territorial configuration of Southeastern Europe turned the local people into an isolated linguistic island, surrounded by Slavic and Finno-Ugric dialects. The contacts with other Romance-speaking populations were basically severed from the 7th century onward. 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

The Romanization process and the continuity of the Romanized population in the Carpathian Basin represent hard issues, which have led to a heated debate in Hungarian and Romanian historiographies, usually on opposite positions. Romanian scholars argue for a strong process of Romanization and un-interrupted living during the first millennium in Transylvania (Popa 1988a, 39–77; Protase 2004, 313–320), while Hungarian scholars argue for the opposite (Köpeczi 1990, 29–56; Kristó 2003, 17–41; Vásáry 2005, 28–29.) A short, balanced overview: Engel 2001, 117–121. For a brief introduction in the history of Southeastern Europe, see Curta 2005a and 2019; Pohl 2008; Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013; Browning 1975; Henning 2007; Prinzing – Salamon 1997; Wieczorek – Hinz 2000. On Alba Iulia: Rusu 1979, 58; Anghel 1986, 70–71; Moga 1998; Moga 1999, 175–180; Iambor 2005, 131–132. On Potaissa: Bărbulescu 1994, 40–48. Popa 1984, 7–25. Harhoiu 1987, 110–129; Harhoiu – Spânu – Gáll 2011, 39–58, 131–132. Curta 2019, I, 41–64. Curta 2019, I, 71–77 and 152–178; Iambor 1974, 211–223.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

Map 2.1

45

Southeastern Europe at the time of the Hungarian conquest and in the early second millennium. A. Duchy of Menumorut (10th c.); B. Duchy of Glad (10th c.) / Ahtum (11th c.); C. Voivodeship of Gelu / Tuhutum (10th c.); D. Voivodeship of Bălgrad (9th/10th c.); E. Voivodeship of Transylvania (11th/12th c.); F. The Kingdom of Hungary, within its classical medieval borders; G. Later southern expansion of the Hungarian Kingdom (Slavonia, Croatia and the Banates); - - x - - Conventional division line between the Orthodox world and the Catholic one Author: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

At the turn of the millennium, the region was under the influence or domination of various powers that, at one time or another, were able to gain dominion: the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarian state, assorted steppe polities,11 and last but foremost the Kingdom of Hungary. During the 9th and 10th centuries, the southern area was formally ruled by Bulgarians, up to a limit that can be roughly determined as corresponding with the valley of Mureș river.12 It remains under debate if an early polity, independent or under the authority of the Bulgarian state, was born there at the 11 12

Spinei 2003, 113–155, 243–257. Comșa 1960, 401–402; Madgearu 2003, 41–62; Madgearu 2005b, 109–110; Horedt 1954, 492–494; Browning 1975, 54–89; Iambor 2005, 224–230; Fiedler 1992, I, 170–173, considers the presence of Bulgarians in the Alba Iulia area, especially based on cemeteries; Fiedler 2008, 151–236.

46

Chapter 2

turn of the millennium. A document of 892, in which the Frankish King Arnulf demanded the Bulgarians to not allow the sale of salt to the Moravians, has been interpreted as an argument for the Bulgarians’ presence in Transylvania. What this presence essentially amounted to, whether it was limited to military and economic control, to a cultural influence or whether it attempted to acquire a stable, permanent character – these are alternatives on which there is a need to reflect further.13 At the current stage of knowledge, one can only see a great resemblance of material culture and funeral rituals to what was happening, at the same time, on the plain of the Lower Danube.14 Byzantine artefacts from this period are attributed by some scholars to the natives, while others are seeing them as commercial objects.15 The emergence of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin in the last years of the 9th century (traditionally 895, or between 895 and 902) was undoubtedly the most important event of the Early Middle Ages, forever changing the history of these lands.16 Until mid-10th century, Hungarian tribes staged raids throughout Europe, but the battle at Lechfeld, in 955 put an end to the westward dreams. Henceforth, the tribal confederacy focused on organizing political-religious structures on the Pannonian Plain and its vicinity. Standing on the border between the Byzantines and the Latins, the Hungarians were drawn from both sides, but eventually they were officially Christianised by the Pope around the year 100017 (Map 2.1). Transylvania entered the Hungarians’ sphere of interest from the beginning, but the actual situation of the region before the conquest is difficult to reconstruct due to the extremely poor written sources18 and a rather rudimentary

13 14 15 16 17 18

Kristó 2003, 53–55. Comșa 1963, 413–438; Madgearu 2005b, 107. Comșa 1971, 377–390; Heitel 1985, 215–231; Bărbulescu 1994, 182–183; Botár 2011, 299–312; Marinescu 2014, 197–212. Curta 2019, I, 250–266; Takács 2016, 501–518; Heitel 1983, 93–115; Heitel 1995, 389–439; Spinei 2003, 15–85. Curta 2019, I, 265–266; Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013, 131–137; Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 328–330; Érszegi 2001, 25–36. The main source of information, Gesta Hungarorum, was probably written by the notary of King Béla III (1172–1196) around the year 1200. Gesta Hungarorum, 12–52; Sălăgean 2006, 11–57 and 58–67 for the case of Transylvania; Madgearu 2001c, 19–25; Madgearu 2005a, 19–20; Pop 2003, 7–8, 69–70. However, the historical value of this work is rejected by a large part of Hungarian historiography, which considers it rather a literary paper, recounting events that did not happen in real-time. Spinei 2003, 53–67; Heitel 1995, 389–439; Madgearu 2001a, 38–51; Curta 2002, 267–288; Kristó 2003, 43–54; Nicolae 2010, 95–157; Vásáry 2005, 26.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

47

archaeological knowledge.19 Although there has been some progress over the past century, no one has yet outlined a credible picture of what Transylvania might have looked like around the year 1000, a picture that could be equally accepted by any historiographical approach.20 The archaeological remains show that Transylvania was inhabited by a heterogeneous population. This was in fact the situation in all European periphery regions.21 The locals were on a historical stage similar to that of the people in the other regions of the Carpathian Basin: local elites were emerging, and a few local polities, led by dukes, knezes or princes, were taking shape.22 The most important rulers were mentioned as in relations with the Byzantine Empire and having adopted Christianity in its Constantinopolitan form. Several power centres of the region can be pinned down based on events recounted in the chronicles of the time and on archaeological discoveries. In the northwest was the duchy of Menumorut, who had his seat of power in Biharia; in the southwest was the duchy of Glad, and, later on, the duchy of Ahtum, with the seat of power in Morisena – the city of Mureș, afterward renamed Cenad; in the middle part was Gelu’s voivodeship, whose central place has not yet been identified. Scholars mention as possibilities Cluj, Gilău, or Dăbâca – where a stronghold and several Byzantine-style churches have been uncovered. Gelu is seen in scholarship as the owner of several fortified places, from which he tried to oppose the Hungarians, as it results from written records. Many nuances are still imprecise, and archaeology is yet to have a say on this matter.23 A more complicated world is outlined south of the river Mureș, a region about which the Hungarians do not seem to have had information at the beginning of their ingress into Transylvania. An autonomous or Bulgarian-dependent 19

20 21

22 23

For the state-of-the-art see Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 15–17. A research program focused on the early period of the 10th and 11th centuries would be a welcomed addition, which may lead to dispassionate discussion and put an end to the decades-old diverging models in which Romanian and Hungarian historiographies revel in. Heitel 1995, 415; Popa 1992, 11–31; Curta 2002, 272–277. A short synthesis in: Rady 1992, 87–101; Gáll 2013d, 461–482. Hungarian historiography considers Transylvania a sparsely inhabited region that was easily conquered, becoming part of the kingdom, most of the Romanian population (Vlachs in medieval sources) being colonised later. Bóna 1990, 109–135; Engel 2001, 118–119. However, Romanian historiography sees things differently, based on Gesta Hungarorum and archaeological data, arguing for a quite dense population and a social-political order, a strong base for the separate status of the province, sometimes referred to as a regnum within the kingdom. Pascu 1972, 19–22, 186–202; Sălăgean 2003, 403–415; Engel 2001, 22–25; Sălăgean 2006, 130–175. Madgearu 2005a, 135–140; Rusu 1978, 159–171; Rusu 1982, 351–385. Madgearu 2001c, 137–140; Sălăgean 2006, 91–129; Heitel 1983, 93–115; Rusu 1984, 181–195.

48

Map 2.2

Chapter 2

Map of Transylvania showing the main geographical and historical features (10th–13th centuries) Author: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

polity probably existed there, with the main place in the former castrum of Alba Iulia, symbolically identified as the Voivodeship of Bălgrad.24 A rotunda operating within the castrum has been connected with this polity, as a potential court chapel25 (Chapter 5.2). The conquest and organization of Transylvania as a province of the Kingdom of Hungary was a complex process with several stages, during which the establishment of administrative, political, military, and not last in importance, religious structures accompanied the effective occupation of territories. For the Hungarians it was a rich possession, bringing substantial revenues to the crown, and a staging ground for expanding the kingdom and Latin Christianity

24

25

Several decades ago, Kurt Horedt set forth a theory about the existence of a local polity in the Mureș valley during the 9th century, with the fortified settlements of Bălgrad (Alba Iulia) and Ţeligrad (near Blandiana), separated by about 20 km, as central places. Horedt 1954, 493–507; Rusu 1982, 351–385; Rusu 1984, 188–189; Madgearu 2005b, 108–110. Rusu 1979, 47–70; Bóna 1990, 158.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

49

beyond the Carpathians, toward the Black Sea and the Danube River, which justified the constant efforts to organize and strengthen it.26 Started in around 900, the conquest came to an end in around 1200, when Hungarians reached the Eastern Carpathians.27 Far from being a linear progression, it must be seen as a conglomeration of events, preparatory actions and limited victories. Key seats of power were gained, geographical landmarks – more or less significant – were reached, and bridgeheads, some more successful than others, were created. Kurt Horedt, the first historian to systematize the events, managed to establish five important phases in the conquest process – a theory broadly accepted to this day, with some more or less significant revisions imposed by archaeological data. The archaeologist Radu Heitel delineated the archaeological point of view on the subject, although many punctual contributions have been made during the last decades.28 The Hungarian presence on the territory of Transylvania since the 10th century is highlighted by a series of funerary discoveries, namely burial grounds with horse remains and specific artefacts, foremost military items. These cemeteries mainly belong to armed retinues in charge with the surveillance and control of the main roads within the Carpathian Basin and of the communities operating the salt mines.29 Some believe that these items are signs of actual conquest, which would mean that some areas had been already conquered by the early 10th century.30 In fact, while a significant military presence is certain, at the present stage of research it is difficult to establish the area actually controlled at the time. A systematic conquest occurred only after the year 1000, advancing from west to east. At this time, the main objective was Alba Iulia, the most important settlement south of the Mureș river, the seat of the Voivodeship of Bălgrad, and a metropolis around which several different communities were established.31 Archaeological research has revealed, both on the territory of 26

27 28 29 30 31

The conquest of Transylvania and its integration into the kingdom is a subject with a huge bibliography, of which only some of the main moments are mentioned here, as a brief introduction for delineating the emergence of the religious society and its development. For a glimpse into the process of making Transylvania a part of the Hungarian kingdom see Achim 2008, 27–48; Engel 2001, 24–49; Bóna 1990, 107–174; Kristó 1993, 69; Kristó 2003, 43–75; Mittelstrass 1961, 40–41; Horedt 1986, 178–192. Horedt 1958, 109–131; Horedt 1986, 169; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, II, 33–41; Pascu 1972, 109–131; Ioniță et al. 2004, 56–59. Heitel 1995, 389–439. Madgearu 2005b, 103–120. Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 116–120. These burial grounds brought to light the greatest concentration of swords in the Carpathian Basin. Heitel 1975b, 343–344; Dragotă – Rustoiu – Matiș 2018, 325–351; Dragotă 2018b, 89–96; Engel 2001, 23–24; Kristó 2003, 61–68.

50

Chapter 2

the settlement – formerly a Roman castrum – and nearby, markers of intense habitation, with a complex character and a material culture typical for the mid-10th-century Balkan-Byzantine cultural area.32 Bulgarian control had probably diminished after the death of Tsar Simeon I in 927 and relations with Byzantium had been resumed, perhaps in the context of the empire’s post-971 attempts to strengthen its positions on the Danube.33 A church with Byzantine-inspired architecture was built at this time intra muros, and a graveyard was opened extra muros, at Izvorul Împăratului, where several people were buried wearing Byzantine pectoral crosses.34 Nearby, a burial ground established by Hungarians at about the same time displays signs of gradual spread of Christian practices.35 These atypical events (compared to the context of the time) are seen as arguments for locating there, even if temporarily, the Hungarian Prince Gyula, christened mid-century in Constantinople, and Bishop Hierotheos (Chapter 5.1). Studies focused on Byzantine architecture have shown that, in the 9th and 10th centuries, building activities were politically motivated, aiming to strengthen visibility and authority in peripheral regions where the empire’s influence had been diminished in different circumstances, or it was just very weak. A stone church with a Byzantine-type ground plan of impressive dimensions for its time suggests that the Byzantine Empire held this region of southern Transylvania in some regard, probably as a bridgehead of great potential for converting the Hungarians.36 Half a century later, in 1002–3, another Gyula (the Younger), who refused to become a Christian, was defeated by King Stephen I and Alba Iulia was conquered. Thus, the entire area controlled by that centre of power was incorporated into the administrative body of the Árpádian state, and this certainly opened an important gateway to secure the conquest of southern Transylvania. By the late 11th century, the Hungarians had reached the waters of Târnava Mare and the upper Mureș. In the next decades, they advanced on Olt valley, reaching, around the year 1200, the bend of the Carpathians, a key target, 32

33 34 35 36

Dragotă – Inel – Rustoiu 2003; Ciugudean – Pinter – Rustoiu 2006, with a mapping of archaeological finds and the related bibliography. Iambor 2005, 190–191, 273. In Romanian historiography, the material culture of the period is assimilated either to the Dridu culture (Nestor – Zaharia 1959, 594–603), or to the Balkan-Danubian culture (Comșa 1963, 413–438). For more details regarding Alba Iulia: Heitel 1975b, 349–350; Heitel 1986, 245– 246. The issue discussed in more detail in: Marcu-Istrate 2014a, 93–140. Madgearu 2005a, 194–195; Madgearu 2003, 41–62. Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213; Dragotă 2018c, 259–323; Dragotă 2018a, 122–125; Blăjan 2007, 245–246; Nicolae 2010, 116; Dragotă 2019, 197–227; Dragotă – Rustoiu – Matiș 2018, 325–351. Dragotă et al. 2009, 81–82; Blăjan – Popa 1983, 375–380; Ciugudean 2007, 243–257; Cosma 2011, 159–160. Bouras 2006, 68–70.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

51

although not the final one.37 These dates must be loosely interpreted, since they are of value only for the political organization of the territories, being mere termini ante quem for the actual military conquest and administrative structures. Besides, recent archaeological investigations have revealed a complex situation, with early frontier-zone settlements, such as the ones identified in the Land of Bârsa – Feldioara and Brașov – or located north of the Olt river – Hălmeag – that were dated in the late 12th century, although traditionally it was considered that the region was not conquered until the next century.38 In any case, it is certain that efforts were made during the early 13th century to organize that south-eastern area, probably with the help of the Teutonic Knights. They settled in 1211 in the Land of Bârsa, with a headquarter in Feldioara, in order to establish a solid foundation for expanding the Hungarian dominion toward the mouth of the Danube River and the Black Sea.39 Military acquisitions were maintained by a process of colonisation, which was a quite intense activity until the 14th century, reaching a peak during the 12th and 13th century when the Saxons and the Szeklers settled in the area. Early on, the conquest was accompanied by the establishment of several Hungarian settlements, which is reflected by the emergence of several cemeteries during the 11th century, as for example in Alba Iulia, Moldovenești, Hunedoara, Dăbâca, and Cluj.40 The latter seems to have been very large, although so far only small sections have been investigated, through random discoveries, or at the time of various civil works.41 These cemeteries, belonging to commoners, reflect a major cultural difference from the burial grounds of the 10th-century warriors. The Szekler ethnic group is somewhat of a mystery, since their origins and early culture remain poorly understood.42 Militarily skilled, they banded with the Magyars and were used as vanguard fighters and defenders of newly conquered borderlands. Always in motion, they surface in various places, dependent on frontier movements, until they finally settled, during the 12th and 13th centuries (with a massive arrival after 1200) in eastern Transylvania. They 37 38 39 40 41 42

Horedt 1958, 117–122; Baltag – Amlacher 1994, 171–193; Nägler 1979, 117–140. Ioniță 2013, 121–132; Istrate 2007b, 172–173. Zimmermann 2000; Wünsch 2013, 11–29; In general, on the historiography of the order: Zimmermann 2013, 196–209. Bakó 1969, 337–342; Dragotă – Inel – Rustoiu 2003; Dragotă 2019, 197–227; Cosma 2011, 121–134. Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 119. For an overview of the history of the Land of Szeklers, see Roth – Niedermaier – Olasz 2009, 1–148; Benkő 2012, I, 11–96, with bibliography; Engel 2001, 116–117; Kristó 2003, 126–137.

52

Chapter 2

live as a distinct enclave even to this day, giving the region the name of the Land of Szeklers.43 Early traces of their presence have been identified in the north-western parts of Transylvania, in Crișana, near the city of Oradea. From there, they moved south, advancing along the border, and reaching the Târnave rivers basin by ca. 1150, probably securing those territories later to be granted to Saxons. While a temporary lodging of the Szeklers in southern Transylvania has been acknowledged, the details of this process remain unknown, and archaeology has not yet identified multiethnic settlements for the early period. For example, it was assumed that, around 1200, a royal fortress with wooden and earthen ramparts functioned in Sighișoara, maintained by a garrison of Szeklers.44 The Saxon colonists, supposedly settled later under the protection of this fortress, built the first parish church and a stone fortification around it. In fact, archaeological investigations have identified two distinct settlements, located far enough apart to disallow mutual protection.45 The situation is far from clear, and it remains an open discussion if ethnic identifications can really be made based on the scarce material culture of the time.46 The most important group of colonists arrived from Central Europe, mainly from German territories, but also from France, the Netherlands, and most likely Italy. Mentioned in contemporary documents as theutonici, flandrenses, or saxones, they were generally called Saxons as early as the 13th century, and had the status of hospites, holding important economic and social privileges.47 The beginnings of the process are rather uncertain – however, it is believed that the first groups arrived during the late 11th century and in the early years of the next century.48 A systematic colonisation of southern Transylvania is attributed to the Hungarian King Géza II (1141–1162), resulting in a compact Saxon territory as a strip of land with numerous settlements, ca. 200 km long, stretching from Orăștie in the west to Baraolt in the east, enjoying a kind of self-governing autonomy, centred on Sibiu and placed under the direct control of the king. However, several communities have been located since early 12th 43 44 45 46 47

48

Pál-Antal 2009, 1–12; Benkő 2009, 13–43; Klein 1966, 45–64; Kristó 2002, 115–128; Sófalvi 2017, 31–117. Machat 2002, 50–51; Klein 1971d, 136–140; Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16. Harhoiu et al. 2020, 235–312. Bakó 1961, 113–119. For an overview of the German colonisation in the east, see Higounet 1989, 196–208; Roth 2007, 370–379, 456–467. For the Transylvanian hospites the main work is: Nägler 1979. See also: Mittelstrass 1961; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 9–36 with bibliography; Gündisch – Beer 1998; Loth 1971, 250–260; Klein 1971b, 117–136; Klein 1971c, 105–116. Nägler 1974, 51–60.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

53

century in other places, dependent on the interest of the crown, for example in Satu Mare, Turda, and Baia Mare49 (Map 2.2). People continued to settle after 1200 within the Târnave rivers area, and later toward the south-east in the Land of Bârsa,50 where colonisation had commenced mid-12th century, resulting in isolated frontier settlements, as the ones archaeologically uncovered in Feldioara and Brașov. The process is believed to have been completed under the supervision of the Teutonic Knights and of religious orders in the early 13th century. In the northern half of Transylvania, isolated groups probably arrived around the year 1200, while a compact area of habitation was shaped later around Rodna and Bistrița.51 New communities came on the scene after mid-13th century, to compensate for the losses caused by the Mongol invasion of 1241. In this context, it is supposed that incomers settled in Cluj, and it was probably under their influence that construction started on a first Romanesque church, whose ruins are supposed to lie within the present-day building.52 The process continued until the early 14th century, establishing German-speaking enclaves throughout the province, mainly in its southern and northern territories, which were strategic areas of interest for the kingdom.53 Archaeological investigations undertaken during the last decades have produced a large amount of new data, and basically demonstrated that the colonisation was a continuous process, spread over a long timeframe, in which several decisive stages can be distinguished. In terms of how arrivals and settings were organized and unfolded, many questions remain, which were never seriously revaluated during the last half-century.54 Ever since they settled in Transylvania, the Saxons benefited from their own organization, which was subordinated directly to the royal court. Their privileges were systematized in 1224 by a diploma issued by King Andrew II a document that actually shaped the overall development of this community.55 The privileges were initially restricted to the Saxons of Sibiu County, but later gradually extended to all the Saxon communities – in 1366 to those in Bistrița, 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Bărbulescu 1994, 13. Colonists are mentioned in Turda in 1177, probably as skilled workers for salt mines. Baltag 2004, 17–43. Popa 1981, 8–9. Lupescu 2005, 43–48; Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 13; Sălăgean 2003, 101–106. Horedt 1977, 447–459. For an overview, see Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 66–135. For some archaeological data, see Ioniță et al. 2004; Marcu-Istrate – Istrate 2005, 229–244; Marcu-Istrate – Contantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 31–44; Istrate 2007b, 172–173. Quellen 1981, 16–19, no. 5; Urkundenbuch, I, no. 43; DIR.C.I., no. 157; CDTrans, I, no. 132; Nägler 1979, 144–147.

54

Chapter 2

in 1422 to those in Brașov – and, in 1486, they were granted to all Saxon free settlements, which produced in fact the community of the Saxon University. It is believed that they are the ones who introduced stone religious architecture and strongly encouraged its development, in a Romanesque style, from mid-12th century onward56 (Map 1.2). The strategy of organizing and extending the eastern frontier of the kingdom included, in the early 13th century, the induction of the Teutonic Order in the Land of Bârsa, the south-eastern corner of Transylvania. According to a diploma issued in 1211, the Hungarian king donated them territories on both sides of the mountains, although their headquarters were in Transylvania, at Feldioara.57 The knights found themselves at the Carpathian bend in a familiar environment, due to the presence of Germanic-speaking colonists, which had been settled there two or three generations ago.58 An attempt to establish a state under the direct authority of the Pope gained them the king’s ill favour, followed by banishment in 1225.59 Their stay in the region had important consequences, since they constructed fortresses and stimulated colonisation, although very few details are known. An act issued by the papal chancellery in 1232, seven years after the order was forced to evict the Land of Bârsa, mentions that the Teutons had built five stone fortresses, without naming them.60 What the knights built and where their fortified positions were located are questions that have led to numerous disputes between researchers.61 Only recently it was established that they built a stone fortress in Feldioara,62 but nothing is certain about their worship places. Transylvania’s conquest was completed by the early 13th century. Later, it must be regarded as a distinct territorial-administrative unit within the kingdom, organized as a voivodeship with a somewhat variable autonomy. As a province of Hungary, Transylvania became part of Central Latin Europe, which 56 57 58 59

60 61 62

Avram 1981, 64–71; Avram 1991, 37–68; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 66–87. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 19; DIR.C.I., no. 77; CDTrans, I, no. 38. Late privileges in 1212 and 1222: Urkundenbuch, I, no. 22, 31; DIR.C.I., no. 82, 130; CDTrans, I, no. 43. The presence of colonists in the region, well before the coming of the knights, was archaeologically documented in Feldioara, where the cemetery of a late-12th-century community was uncovered. Ioniță et al. 2004, 29–69. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 45; DIR.C.I., no. 168; CDTrans, I, no. 135. The project went on by establishing the Diocese of Cumania in 1227, which incorporated various lands of south-eastern Transylvania and stretched beyond the Carpathians. It was a short-lived situation since the diocese was destroyed during the Mongol invasion of 1241–1242. Spinei 2007, 413–456. “cum multo labore. quinque castra fortia construendo”. Urkundenbuch, I, 65. Popa 1991b, 107–112; Țiplic 2006, 121–131, 147–150, with the bibliography; Rusu 2005, 434–443. Recently the ruins of an enclosure wall uncovered in Feldioara have been radiocarbon dated in the early 13th century, being the first structure that could be ascertained to this stage. Marcu-Istrate – Ioniță 2019, 125–142.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

55

led it on a different historical course than that of the neighbouring territories to the east and south, which used to gravitate in the Byzantine religious sphere and maintained the Orthodox faith. As a borderland, it produced a medieval civilization quite different from that of the surrounding regions, and this is rendered today in an exceptional way by the local religious landscape. 2.2

Administration

According to Anonymous, the conquerors encountered several polities, of which some temporarily survived, while others gradually disappeared, swallowed in the new administrative framework.63 The first leader, Mercurius princeps ultrasilvanus, was mentioned as a prince in 1111 and 1113, however, later Transylvania was led by a voivode. The voivodeship institution, at least formally reminiscent of the pre-Hungarian period, was naturally appropriated and maintained by the administration of a state that from the beginning accepted its multi-ethnic structure, consequently displaying tolerance.64 The voivode was named from the ranks of the king’s relatives or of the great noble houses. Seldom, there were short periods when this dignitary and the crown found themselves on opposing sides. Ladislaus Kan (1294–1315) was most significant in this regard, since during his reign documents mention Transylvania as a separate regnum within the Hungarian regnum. The voivode led with the aid of a Council (later called Diet), which brought together the privileged states: the (Hungarian) nobles, the Saxons and the Szeklers. Close collaboration between these privileged social groups became a reality only late in the period, after a rebellion in 1437. From an administrative point of view, the territory of the voivodeship was divided into counties, chairs, and districts.65 Most of the territory, corresponding to the noble estates, was organized in seven counties: Inner Solnoc (hung. Belsö-Szolnok), Dăbâca (hung. Doboka), Cluj (hung. Kolozs), Turda (hung. Torda), Alba (hung. Fehér, later divided into Lower A. and Upper A.), Târnava (hung. Küküllö), and Hunedoara (hung. Hunyad). The counties were headed by counts, among them the most important being the count of Alba, who usually also held a high rank in the regional administration – vice-voivode and even voivode (Map 2.3).

63 64 65

Madgearu 2005a, 113–140. The origins of this situation and of the voivodeship institution remain uncertain and are subject to controversy between Romanian and Hungarian historiographies. Rady 1992, 87–101. A short overview: Gündisch 2001, 33–35.

56

Map 2.3

Chapter 2

Administrative map of the eastern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, now partially or completely included in present-day Romania. Transylvania proper: A. Inner Szolnok [Belsö-Szolnok] County; B. Dăbâca [Doboka] County; C. Cluj [Kolozs] County; D. Turda [Torda] County; E. Alba [Fehér] County; F. Târnava [Küküllö] County; G. Hunedoara [Hunyad] County; H. Szekler Chairs: H1. Arieș [Aranyos]; H2. Mureș [Maros]; H3. Ciuc [Csik]; H4. Odorhei [Udvarhely]; H5. Kézdi; H6. Sepsi; H7. Orbai; I. Saxon Chairs – formerly Sibiu [Hermanstadt] County, including: I1. Orăștie [Broos]; I2. Sebeș [Mühlbach]; I3. Miercurea [Reußmarkt]; I4. Sibiu [Hermannstadt]; I5. Nochrich [Leschkirch]; I6; Cincu [Schenk]; I7. Sighișoara [Schäßburg]; I8. Rupea [Reps]; J. Saxon Chairs – formerly Mediaș [Mediasch] County: J1. Mediaș [Mediasch]; J2. Șeica [Schelk]; K. Bistrița [Bistritz / Beszterce] District; L. Brașov [Kronstadt / Brassó] District; M. Land of Făgăraș; N. Land of Hațeg, foundation for the later Hațeg District Other counties of medieval Hungary partially or completely included in present-day Romania: a. Maramureș [Máramaros] County; b. Ugocsa County; c. Satu Mare [Szatmár] County; d. Outer Szolnok [Közép-Szolnok] County; e. Crasna [Kraszna] County; f. Bihor [Bihar] County; g. Zarand [Zaránd] County; h. Bekes County; i. Arad County; j. Cenad [Csanád] County; k. Timiș [Temesch] County; l. Krassó County; m. Keve County Author: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

57

The western territories were also organized into counties, but within the inner part of the Kingdom of Hungary: Arad County was the largest of them, followed to the north by Bihor (hung. Bihar), Satu Mare (hung. Szatmár) and Maramureș (hung. Máramaros) and others (see map 2.3. for a fuller image).66 Most of these also included territories that lie now in Hungary or Ukraine, besides Transylvania in its extended, present-day meaning. Privileged groups benefited from special organization. The southern Saxon land was initially a county led from Sibiu,67 but following an uprising against King Charles Robert, it was reshaped (1325–1329) into chairs and districts. The so-called Crown Land (the former Sibiu County) was divided into eight chairs: Orăștie (germ. Broos), Sebeș (germ. Mühlbach), Miercurea (germ. Reußmarkt), Nochrich (germ. Leschkirch), Cincu (germ. Schenk), Sighișoara (germ. Schäßburg), Rupea (germ. Reps), and the leftovers of Sibiu (germ. Hermanstadt) itself. Mediaș County was split into two chairs – Mediaș (germ. Mediasch) and Șeica (germ. Schelk), which were led, until 1402, by the Szekler count. The Land of Bârsa was organized as a district – Brașov (germ. Kronstadt) District, as it also happened with the northern Crown Land (the Land of Năsăud) reorganized as Bistrița (germ. Bistritz) District. Until 1366, respectively 1422, both districts were led by the Szekler count, afterwards they were probably led by judges residing in their main cities – Brașov, respectively Bistrița. The Land of Szeklers was organized into seven chairs – Arieș (hung. Aranyos), Mureș (hung. Máros), Odorhei (hung. Udvarhely), Ciuc (hung. Csik) and the so-called Three Chairs, consisting of Sepsi, Kézdi and Orbai – subordinated to the Szekler count, one of the most important dignities of the kingdom. The natives scattered at the time of the conquest and retreated into peripheral areas as their territories were occupied.68 Only in the 13th century did historical sources mention Romanian political structures: forests, knezates, lands and voivodeships, located in marginal areas of Transylvania and sometimes extending beyond the mountains, into Walachia and Moldavia.69 Their most important micro-regions were the Land of Făgăraș in the south-east, the Land of Hațeg (later the District) in the southwest, at the crossroads between Transylvania, Banat and Wallachia, and the Land of Maramureș in the north. The Land of Făgăraș – the first one to be mentioned, in 1222 – will remain 66 67 68 69

Hegyi 2012a, 67–100. Schuster 1990, 107–117. For this phenomenon in the Land of Hațeg see Popa 1972c, 243–269; Popa 1978, 30–31. Drăgan 1991, 343–355. For an overview of the socio-political status of the local elite, see Popa 1975a, 291–314.

58

Chapter 2

throughout the period approached in this study a territory largely inhabited by Romanians, frequently tied with the Principality of Wallachia established beyond the Carpathians.70 The Land of Hațeg originally formed a unit with territories across the mountains, part of Litovoi’s voivodeship, as shown by the diploma issued in 1247 for the Knights Hospitaller.71 At that time, it occupied an area of about 5000 sq. km, with settlements scattered on the main valleys and a social-political structure consisting of knezes who ruled over a variable number of knezates or villages. The area was gradually, albeit cautiously, included in the structures of the Voivodeship of Transylvania, and developed from a land – term used here to signify a local – albeit complex – form of organization – into Hațeg County, governed by a dignitary residing in Hațeg; subsequently, it was separated into districts.72 In the north, the Land of Maramureș developed along similar lines.73 Nonetheless, Romanian orthodox communities were not confined to these regions of compact settlement, and they spread throughout the territory, on the royal and noble estates. 2.3

Religious Organization

The ecclesiastical administration of the Catholic Hungarian kingdom was based on ten dioceses, subordinated to that of Esztergom. It is believed that the system was created by King Stephen I, although his immediate successors were the ones who completed it, by the middle of the 11th century74 (Map 2.4). Three of the dioceses reached the territory of present-day Transylvania, having their seat at Alba Iulia (the Diocese of Transylvania), Cenad and Bihar, the latter to be transferred soon to Oradea by King Ladislaus I (1077–1095). As archaeological data has shown, confirmed by some scarce written records, in all three cases the dioceses were in centres of power from before the conquest. However, at the time of their establishment, the number of Latin-rite Christians must have been very small – if there were any at all. The Diocese of Cenad was created in south-western Transylvania, between Mureș, Danube, and Tisa, mostly covering the territory later known as Banat. The local leader was Ahtum, identified by some as a Magyar chieftain, or one related to the Magyars, and believed by others to have been a Romanian. 70 71 72 73 74

Lukács 1999, 41–104; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 171–338; Chițescu 1975, 1057–1067; Greceanu 1970b, 33–50. Urkundenbuch, I, 73–76; DIR.C.I., 327–328; CDTrans.I., 191–192, no. 205. Popa 1988a, 5–16; Drăgan 1982, 25–38; Rusu 1997a, 9–62. Popa 1997, 207–208. Szakács 2006b, 208; Szakács 2006a, 179–180; Engel 2001, 71; Koszta 2010, 67–76; Kristó 1998, 55–66.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

Map 2.4

59

Map of the religious administration of Transylvania Author: Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

Regardless his origins, it is generally agreed that Ahtum had been Christianised in Eastern rite and had in his capital, Morisena, a monastery dedicated to St John the Baptist. After his defeat around the year 1030, a Latin-rite diocese led by the Venetian monk Gerard, was established in the same place, later renamed Cenad.75 The Diocese of Bihar/Oradea resulted from dividing the older Diocese of Eger, which probably happened during the time of King Andrew I (1046– 1060), being mentioned for the first time mid-11th century.76 However, the archdeaconry of Pâncota, located in the south, between the Diocese of Bihar and that of Cenad, remained under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Eger.77 The Maramureș County (part of which belongs to present-day Transylvania), shifted over the years and it depended either on the Diocese of Transylvania, either on the Diocese of Eger, most often the latter option being the one in use. The most important religious institution was the Diocese of Transylvania, whose early history is subject to many a debate. Traditionally, it is considered to have been founded immediately after the Christianisation of King Stephen I, 75 76 77

Glück 1980, 101–150; Móré Heitel 2005, 9–21; Achim 1994, 17–29; Koszta 1999, 304. Szakács 2012a, 566. Koszta 1999, 303.

60

Chapter 2

in the winter of 1000/1001 or at the latest in 1009.78 In its first stage, it is seen as a missionary diocese, active in the northern part of the area, around Cluj,79 and reaching Alba Iulia only during the last decades of the 11th century.80 Others advocate for the idea of a later foundation of the diocese, in the late 11th century or at the start of the following century, especially since its first bishop, Simon, is mentioned only in 111181 (Chapter 5). However, several areas have gradually been removed from the authority of the diocese. The most important loss was that of the territory settled by the Saxons, ecclesiastically run by a free Provostship (firstly mentioned in 1191) directly dependent on the Papal See, and later on the Archdiocese of Esztergom.82 It is assumed that the institution was established in 1189 or 1190, with authority over Sibiu County, as attested in 1224, respectively the territory of the future chapters of Sibiu, Nochrich, Cincu and Rupea.83 This exemption led to many conflicts, caused basically by the problem of separating the territorial competences between the Bishopric and the Provostship. The bishop argued that the Provostship was originally organized over the Germans colonised in the mid-12th century by Géza II in southern Transylvania, while in other areas they should be directly subordinated to the diocese.84 A papal inquiry that took place between 1192 and 1196 ruled in favor of the bishop. However, the dispute continued, sometimes with violent outbursts, as it occurred in 1277 when the Saxons burned down the cathedral in Alba Iulia. The role of Provostship gradually decreased and eventually it was disestablished in 1424. All of its properties were transferred to the parish church of St Mary in Sibiu (Chapter 9). In the early 13th century, between 1221 and 1223, another region – the Land of Bârsa – was removed from the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Transylvania, temporarily passing under the direct jurisdiction of the pope.85 It is also likely that, in the south-eastern region, some territories were transferred after 1227–28 78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Thietmar of Merseburg, 198; Legenda Maior, 383; Koszta 2010, 70–71. However, the Millennium of this institution was celebrated in 2009 in Alba Iulia, through various activities, publications and an archaeological exhibition coordinated by Daniela Marcu-Istrate. Marcu-Istrate 2009b. Kristó 2003, 118–121, 124 (for Dăbâca); Sălăgean 2006, 188–190 (for Gilău); Dincă 2017, 47 (for Cluj). For an early location in Alba Iulia: Iambor 2005, 26; Bóna 1990, 159; Horedt 1986, 136–138; Rusu 1979, 60; Anghel 1985, 113–122. An analysis of this topic: Dincă 2017, 35–52. Koszta 2010, 73–74; Marcu-Istrate 2014a, 104. DIR.C.I., 2, no. 2. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 1; DIR.C.I., no. 18; CDTrans, I, no. 21; Gündisch G. 2001, 128–129; Grandjean 1971, 269–276; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 47–51. Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2016, 133–135. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 2, 43, 314; DIR.C.I., no. 19, 103, 157; CDTrans, I, no. 22, 132. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 40; DIR.C.I., no. 151; CDTrans, I, no. 128.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

61

to the authority of the Diocese of Cumania, which was directly dependent on the Archdiocese of Esztergom.86 The extent of the Diocese of Cumania is not known, but many argue that it controlled a part of the intra-Carpathian territory, at least around the later town of Brașov, where its see was also probably located.87 On the other hand, the authority of the diocese extended over the political limits of the voivodeship (the seven counties), respectively on the territories of Crasna and Middle Solnoc (the so-called Sălaj), Sătmar and the southern part of Ugocea,88 but also to the area east and south of the Carpathians. The territories of the current Arad County were split between the Bishoprics of Oradea, Cenad, Transylvania and Eger/Agria.89 Lay and ecclesiastical leaders worked together, which should have favored the spread of Christianity, and especially the organization of the parish network. This process is also credited to King Stephen I (1000–1038), since he decreed that each ten villages must build and maintain a church, which would thus become a parish. Beyond the letter of this law, there are mostly assumptions, since studying the development of the parish network is a subject in the early stages of development.90 On paper, it is considered that, by the late 13th century, the system was functional, a state of fact largely reflected in the papal tithe list from the beginning of the following century.91 The first parishes operated within the main settlement, usually in county centers, often mentioned as plebania, which means with a full parish statute, to distinguish them from later parishes, of lesser importance. Initially, the parish network was administered directly by the bishop, but when the number of parishes increased, archdeaconries were created, the first being mentioned in Cluj in 1199.92 The establishment of parishes was, of course, related to the development of Christian life: by the year 1191, the settlements of the Saxon colonists must have been organized in parishes, otherwise the establishment of a Provostship 86 87 88 89 90 91

92

DIR.C.I., 228; Binder 1969, 130. Spinei 2007, 413–456 with bibliography. Hegyi, 2012a, 67–100. Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 14–15. For an overview on the ecclesiastical organization: Hegyi 2010, 1–32. Botár 2017, 155–182; Hegyi 2020, 355–367; Crângaci Țiplic 2020, 79–93. The list of tithes from 1332–1337 is an extremely valuable historical source for the reconstruction of the ecclesiastical topography of medieval kingdom. The document contains the names of parishes and their priests, but in terms of church buildings it is not of great use. Wagner 1968, 37–52; Hegyi 2012b, 97–113. DIR.C.I., 15, no. 26; CDTrans, I, 130, no. 26; Crîngaci Țiplic 2020, 85.

62

Chapter 2

would have been without support.93 The Szeklers reached the same level a century or so later, as probably happened with most rural communities. The state-of-the-art on the Eastern Church structures has many more shortcomings, even though as early as the mid-10th century, Tourkia (the territory inhabited by the Hungarians) was organized as a Greek-rite metropolitan ecclesiastical province.94 This institution, initiated by Hierotheos, operated until the late 12th century and should have had some subunits, but further information is missing. Greek-rite Christianity should have been based largely on monastic settlements, although it is questionable whether they actually played a role in the Christianisation and ecclesiastical organization of the kingdom King Stephen I paid little importance to the situation, allowing the communities to operate and even supporting them, a position reflecting his wise vision to balance Hungary on the border between two great civilizations. Eastern-rite institutions provided connections with the Byzantine cultural spheres, while the dissemination of Byzantine material and spiritual values on the territory of the kingdom could have been only beneficial. However, this is a difficult topic – much has been written about, but the picture is unfinished, and much research is still needed. Neither the early period, nor what followed the establishment of the Catholic Church network is clear. Some believe that an Orthodox structure has survived until at least the 12th century; others consider that any such activity must have ceased when the Latin Diocese of Transylvania was born.95 A pre-conquest Orthodox network would have connected to the situation south of the Danube, of which very little is known.96 For the next centuries, some kind of organization has been supposed,97 but the first record of its activity appeared only in 1360 when the Archpriest Peter of Ostrov led a group of five priests to a hearing held in Hațeg.98 For the northern half of Transylvania, the monastery of Peri played an important role, although more in-depth studies are needed to understand the details.99 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2016, 134–135; Hegyi 2018, 1–29. Font 2005, 285–287; Oikonomidès 1971, 532; Moravcsik 1970, 108; Moravcsik 1947, 134–151; Baán 1999, 45–48; Révész 2015, 215–223; Révész 2012, 79–101. Koszta 1999, 309–310. Nicolescu 1962, 411–426; Popa 1988a, 12–16; Heitel 1975a, 3–10. Popa 1988a, 13–14; Păcurariu 1980b, 19–22; Popa – Căpățână – Lukács 1987, 61–107. “Petrus, archidiaconus de Oztro … ecclesiarum sacerdotes Olachales” (DRH.C.XI., 507). Dragomir 1911, 531–534. However, the donor inscription in the church in Streisângeorgiu mentioned a priest in 1313–14. Popa 1978, 22–23. In 1391, the abbot of Peri became patriarchal exarch, with authority over significant parts of Transylvania – the regions of Sălaj, Ugocea, Bereg, Ciceu, Unguraș, Bihor, Maramureș, Sătmar, and Chioar. Barbu 2001, 62–63; Popa 1975b, 309–317; Marcu-Istrate 2013b, 191–210 for the role of the diocesan see in Feleacu.

Introduction to the Historical and Administrative Background

2.4

63

Summary of the Chapter

The complex architectural landscape of medieval Transylvania is a reflection of certain historical circumstances and of a specific development, mainly influenced by the geographical position of this region, ruled and claimed by very different groups and powers. The main events of this history have been briefly outlined in this chapter, mostly focusing on the early period, when the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin were conquered by the Magyar tribes and then integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary and, implicitly, into Western Christendom. There are many dilemmas of political, ethnic, and religious nature regarding the pre-conquest status of this region, on which much has been written, but there is still a lack of resources for firmly answering the difficult questions. Besides, even the conquest period has its controversies, since it was a complicated, multi-staged process, which started in the 10th century and finished only in the early 13th century. At the end of this prolonged timeframe, a centralized administration can be observed, doubled by a religious organisation consisting of three dioceses based in Alba Iulia for the Voivodeship of Transylvania and in Cenad, respectively Biharia, for the more western parts. Very diverse populations inhabited the region. They arrived during the late migrations and settled in the conquered lands, primarily Hungarians and their allied Szeklers, but also Pechenegs and Cumans, on which a clear image is still lacking. There was also a reverse population movement, from the west toward the east, which brought to Transylvania natives of Central Europe, at a much more advanced stage of socio-economic development, who settled primarily in the southern parts of the region. Religiously, it could only have been a period of ambiguity – while the easterners were pagan and barely realizing the meaning of Christianity, and the religious implications of becoming Europeans, the westerners already had thorough Christian practices. In-between, a note must be made about the locals, whose status remains quite uncertain and questionable, a situation common for the formerly Roman territories located north of Lower Danube and for Pannonia. The complicated politico-demographic structure reflects itself in the way the architectural landscape was shaped and developed, justifying why some communities erected from the very beginning Romanesque churches of a Central European fashion, while others made use for a long time of modest, single-nave churches, initially made of less resilient, perishable materials. This chapter has only outlined the general background of the religious beginnings in Transylvania, a complex phenomenon that will be analyzed in the next three chapters of the book (Part 2).

Part 2 Shaping the Religious Landscape

∵

Chapter 3

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture 3.1

General Background

The beginning of religious architecture in Transylvania is an intensely debated and controversial topic, particularly since there are no preserved textual primary sources to support and substantiate this line of research. Investigation must therefore be based mainly on still standing and archaeological remains. The issue must be approached in the rather complicated context of Christianity spreading and Christian society emerging throughout Central and Eastern Europe, which was a long and complex process with roots in Late Antiquity. In the end, the outcome depended on the Byzantine and the Carolingian Empires and on their political interests in various communities, whether stable or nomad, native, just passing by, or looking for a place to settle. Although progress was slow and confined to certain regions during the first millennium, decisive events took place in the 9th and 10th centuries. Around the year 1000 the area could be formally considered Christian.1 It was at this time that leaders officially converted the populations living on the borders of the two empires to the Christian faith. The Slavs dwelling south of the Danube and in the central lands of the continent, the Hungarians, and the peoples of Scandinavia were Christianised, and therefore practically integrated into Europe.2 There had been two options for becoming Christian, and for quite a longtime rulers oscillated between Eastern and Western Christianity. Eventually, everyone chose what seemed best for maintaining its identity, as well as for survival and development. Even so, the mere baptism of a leader did not immediately lead to the Christianisation of his people and the emergence of Christian society, which were long-lasting processes, sometimes spanning hundreds of years.3 1 The subject has generated a huge bibliography. For an overview of the problem, see Bartlett 2007, 47–72; Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 319–368; Fried 2000, 42–49; Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013, 110–159; Curta 2019, I, 179–213, 470–485. In particular for the case of Hungary: Lovag 2000, 638–639; Érszegi 2000, 600–607; Érszegi 2001, 25–36; Vida 2016, 93–106. 2 Gilchrist 2014, 238–240. 3 Györffy 1990, 61–62.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_005

68

Chapter 3

In the case of Transylvania, research on the matter needs to take into account two facets: the situation of the local society at the time of the Hungarian conquest, and the conversion to Christianity of the conquerors and of the populations associated with them. Of the latter, the Cumans were the last to be Christianised, officially in the 13th century, although it was only much later that they started to act as true Christians and build churches. Setting up society on Christian bases was, as everywhere in Europe, a drawn-out process, with advancements and withdrawals, progress, and stagnation. 3.1.1 The Situation before the Hungarian Conquest As a province of the Roman Empire, a part of Transylvania had contacts with Christianity starting from the first centuries of the first millennium. Soldiers and merchants brought stories about Christianity and specific artefacts into the province, and Christian families might have lived mostly in urban environments, as was the case throughout the Roman world.4 Still, the province ceased to be a part of the empire before this faith became the official one, consequently before it could create its institutional structure. After the Roman administration and army withdrew in the late 3rd century, urban life gradually diminished, faltered, and eventually ended. However, this did not mean that all traces of Romanized population vanished. On the contrary, life went on in the countryside, and in some towns and castra, but this was nothing more than making use of old buildings until their final ruin and collapse.5 Although vestiges of habitation were registered in some places for the first part of the first millennium and even beyond, the disintegration of urban life also put an end to the context in which Christianity could properly develop and organize.6 In the aging Roman towns, what Christian symbols do appear date mainly to the 4th–6th centuries, with sporadic occurrences of later centuries.7 Direct contacts with the Late Roman world, travels of isolated missionaries, and the more or less organized efforts of the Empire to baptize various migratory people resulted in Christian converts and led to the dissemination of specific artefacts,8 but a proper image on this period is still lacking.9 In archaeological 4 Protase 1994, 41–70; Babeș 1994, 117–144; Gudea 1975, 75–112; Gudea 2010, 17–24, 40–68, 74–85, 423–427; Moga 2007. 5 Horedt 1982, 59–70; Protase 1987, 232–236. Archaeological finds show that life within former Roman buildings ended in Potaissa only around the year 400 AD. Bărbulescu 1994, 181–182; Diaconescu 2004, 87–142. For Porolissum see Gudea 2016. For Apulum: Moga 1998 and 1999. 6 Chavarria Arnau 2018, 141–182. For the case of Dacia see Gudea 2010, 40–42. 7 Protase 2004, 313–320. 8 Of the latter, perhaps the best known are the treasure hoards found in Apahida and Sânnicolau Mare. Opreanu 2014, 279–294; Bálint 2010, 11–138. 9 Further reading for the topic: Harhoiu 1987, 110–129; Harhoiu 2001, 97–158; Wolfram 1994, 209– 224. On the subject of the Gepidic kingdom and its material culture: Harhoiu – Spânu – Gáll

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

Map 3.1

69

Sites relevant for the early church architecture of medieval Transylvania. (Chapters 3–5). 1. Abram; 2. Acâș; 3. Alba Iulia (Apulum, Bălgrad); 4. Albești; 5. Almaș; 6. Apahida; 7. Arad; 8. Avrămești; 9. Bădeni; 10. Biertan; 11. Biharia; 12. Blandiana; 13. Brașov; 14. Bulci; 15. Căpleni; 16. Câlnic; 17. Cârța; 18. Cenad; 19. Cisnădie; 20. Cisnădioara; 21. Cluj-Napoca (including ClujMănăștur); 22. Cotormani; 23. Cricău; 24. Cristuru Secuiesc; 25. Daia; 26. Dăbâca; 27. Densuș; 28. Drăușeni; 29. Firtușu; 30. Frumușeni – Bizere Monastery; 31. Gârbova; 32. Geoagiu; 33. Gurasada; 34. Herina; 35. Igriș; 36. Ineu – Dienesmonostora; 37. Mănăstireni; 38. MoigradPorolissum; 39. Moldovenești; 40. Morești – Citfalău; 41. Nădlac; 42. Ocna Sibiului; 43. Oradea; 44. Orăștie; 45. Pâncota; 46. Pecica; 47. Peșteana; 48. Peteni; 49. Prejmer; 50. Rodbav; 51. Saschiz; 52. Sâniob; 53. Sânnicolau de Beiuș; 54. Sânnicolau Mare; 55. Sântimreu; 56. Sântion; 57. Sânvăsâi; 58. Sebeș; 59. Sibiu; 60. Sighișoara; 61. Streisângeorgiu; 62. Suseni – Colț Fortress; 63. Șinca Veche; 64. Tăuț; 65. Tileagd; 66. Turda (Potaissa); 67. Uileacu Șimleului; 68. Ulieș; 69. Viscri; 70. Vladimirescu; 71. Voivozi; 72. Zăbala.73. Nicolești Author: Daniela Marcu Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

terms, there is still a hard challenge to support an early Christianity of the locals, with factual arguments beyond nationalistic statements.10

10

2011, 39–58 and 131–132; Bărbulescu 1994, 111; Gáll 2014, 295–323; Bollók 2017a, 428–436; Györffy 1990, 57–66; Bollók 2017b, 215–216. An analysis on this topic: Opreanu 2003, 13–55. For an early Christianity of the locals there are a number of papers, however for a general image see Protase 2006, 155–164; Gudea 1975, 75–112; Gudea 2010. For a process of re-Christianisation, see Țiplic 2014, 14–18; Țiplic – Țiplic 2014, 171–177; Țiplic – Crîngaci Țiplic 2015, 264–278.

70

Chapter 3

The territories north of the Danube lingered at the borders of the Late Roman world until 602, when the Danube frontier collapsed altogether. Slavic people spread all around, and Latin-speaking populations found themselves isolated between tribes of Southern, Northern, and Eastern Slavs.11 From the 9th century onward, the Slavs gradually converted to Christianity, embracing either the Eastern Church, as did the Southern Slavs, either the Western one, as did the Western Slavs, and proceeded to organize Christian states. By force of circumstance, institutionalized forms of Christianity emerged north of the Danube through the Southern Slavs, in Old Church Slavonic, accepted as the liturgical language by Pope Adrian II in 869. The organization of the Bulgarian Church within the framework of Eastern Christendom as an independent archdiocese was followed by its full separation from Constantinople, as an autocephalous patriarchate, which received official recognition in 927.12 This provided a favorable environment for the Slavonic version of Eastern Christianity, which grew to encompass the Orthodox people north of the Danube, even though the latter belonged to the Romance branch of European languages. The general evolution of the region thus imposed a transition from primary Christianity, of Roman rite and Latin language, to a version of Byzantine Christianity, with Old Slavonic as the liturgical language. In the absence of accurate written information, it is supposed that the religion practiced by the Romanized population left outside the borders of the Empire since the 4th century, and by the latter locals and Slavic inhabitants, was a kind of popular Christianity.13 However, the archaeological evidence remains very scarce for the second part of the millennium as well, consisting of only scattered finds, usually from unknown contexts.14 Coming to the end of the first millennium, several engolpions from Saschiz,15 Dăbâca, Alba Iulia, Cotormani, and Herina, can be linked with Byzantine missionary work. The ones found in Alba Iulia, on the spot called Izvorul Împăratului, were laid as burial goods in 10th-century graves, and perhaps could have been owned by natives, or by people linked to the Byzantine mission 11 12 13 14

15

Curta 2001, 120–189; Rusu 1973, 189–201. Curta 2006, 221–222; Font 2005, 283–295; Curta 2019, I, 179–240. Popa 1991a, 1528–1529; Gudea 1996, 63–79. Several examples: Curta 2005b, 181–184; Gudea 2010, 218–226. However, the object most frequently invoked as a testimonial for the existence of Christian faith within local communities is the Biertan donarium, dated in the 6th century, which bears the votive inscription ego Zenovius votum posuit. Most attribute it to a Christian community, but, in fact, its context is not known. Horedt 1979, 341–345; Bóna 1990, 128; Rubel 2014, 243–252; Fiedler 1998, 389–397. Bakó 1961, 115.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

71

Figure 3.1 Pectoral cross from the inventory of the cemetery at Izvorul Împăratului in Alba Iulia, 10th century After Dragotă 2018b, fig. 6

coordinated by Bishop Hierotheos16 (Fig. 3.1). A somewhat similar situation was documented in Dăbâca, where several churches were in use as early as the 10th century.17 The find in Herina was interpreted along similar lines,18 while the one from Cotormani was believed a mere commercial object.19 The divergent interpretation of these items, depending on the vision of each author, is otherwise relevant to the current state of research on the topic of early Christianity. There is also an interesting, although unique, find, recovered during the restoration of the Orthodox church in Streisângeorgiu. This is a fragment from a figural stone, presumed of Christian significance. It was supposed that the fragment originated from a Roman funerary stele, repurposed in medieval times, through a coarse work, as a Christian tombstone. But this is far from certain and nothing similar is known in Transylvania20 (Fig. 3.2). Supposedly, religious places might have existed by the late first millennium, if not earlier still, although what shape they took amounts only to an

16 17 18 19 20

Dragotă 2018a, 122–125; Dragotă 2019, 197–227; Dragotă – Rustoiu – Matiș 2018, 325–351. Gudea – Cosma 1998, 283 on Dăbâca, and 295–299 for the inventory of these finds. Marinescu 2014, 197–212. Botár 2011, 299–312. The stone was found among the debris of a narthex added to the medieval church in late 19th century and demolished in the 1970s. The church itself dates to the early 12th century. See Popa 1978, 20–21, for the detailed description of the item, probably a one-of-a-kind monument at that time, as it is now. However, the stone has not aroused much interest. It is now preserved in the courtyard of the Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest.

72

Chapter 3

Figure 3.2 Christian relief from the site of the Orthodox church in Streisângeorgiu After Popa 1978, fig. 25

educated guess.21 For the most part, they may have been wooden churches and cave chapels, although there is no actual example to be provided at the present stage of research. Except for the very particular case of the church in Streisângeorgiu, archaeology has not identified wooden structures or improvisations of any kind, while cave chapels usually yield only scarce chronological and functional indicators, not counting the fact that research in the field is not very advanced.22 Reusing Roman ruins related to the emergence of religious architecture everywhere on the former Roman lands, but the local situation remains unclear and, unfortunately, excavations on ancient sites have long ignored the post21 22

Nicolescu 1962, 419; Heitel 1975a, 6; Popa 1978, 9–32; Popa 1975a, 303–305; Popa 1988a, 132. There are several such examples outside the Carpathian arch, the best-known in Murfatlar, Dobrudja. Barnea 1981, 46–50; Theodorescu 1974, 87–97. In Transylvania, such vestiges are reported in the area of Sălaj, and in the south-east, in Șinca Veche (near Brașov), but research on this phenomenon is still at the beginning. Chihaia 1976, 240–251; Rusu 1991, 81–112; Rusu 1974, 265–268. Recent research: Sófalvi 2017, 158–165.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

73

Roman deposits. However, there were a large number of ruins on the territory of the province, which offered various possibilities, from mending them to reusing their fabric, but examples are still missing regarding religious structures.23 If a ruined structure was rebuilt and repurposed, then it clearly cannot reveal a specific layout or orientation that would express a specific function, unless associated with particular artefacts. The reuse of some Roman buildings was assumed for the rotunda in Alba Iulia and for the Orthodox church in Densuș, but further studies are needed to confirm such hypotheses (Fig. 3.3 and 5.3) (Chapter 4.1 and 5). On the other hand, in the last decades of the first millennium, information about Christianity could reach Transylvania through the Bulgarian and Moravian communities established there, and even through direct relations with the Byzantine territories. By this time, Bulgaria and Moravia had been converted and started organizing Christian life,24 while both had a propensity to expand into Transylvania, including the benefits of salt exploitation.25 Finds linked either to Bulgarians or to Moravians were unearthed especially in the southern half of the province, on the Mureș river valley: artefacts and burial practices illustrate a rather stable and steady Bulgarian presence,26 while Moravians left less proof behind, and the scarce signs suggesting their presence leave space for controversies.27 Inspired by the much better studied wide regional context, scholars have assumed that the beginnings of stone architecture in Transylvania should be sought as early as the 9th–10th century. There are a few archaeological ruins that can be discussed in this context, in Alba Iulia, Cenad, Biharia, Dăbâca, and probably Pâncota.28 There are also parts of the standing churches in Densuș, Peșteana and Gurasada for which an early dating can be presumed, based on architectural analogies, and on some, generally very vague, clues provided by their archaeological context. The first church of Ahtum’s monastery in Pecica must have been part of this group too, although the ruins standing there now are the remnants of the 13th-century Romanesque basilica29 (Chapter 4). 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Popa 1984, 7–25; Popa 1972b, 439–461. For a general overview of this topic in neighbouring lands, see Curta 2007, 1–12; Shepard 2012, 23–32; Salamon et al. 2012, passim; Fiedler 2008, 151–236; Čáp et al. 2010, 187–204. Curta 2019, I, 179–198; Fiedler 2012, 107–137. For the discoveries in Alba Iulia and Blandiana, see Horedt 1966, 261–289; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, 179–196; Simina 2002, 47–58; Takács 2016, 501–518. Madgearu 2005b, 103–120. A discussion about the cemeteries in Orăștie: Luca – Pinter 2001, 111–132. Móré Heitel 2010a, 21–48, 63–98, 113–161; Marcu-Istrate et al. 2003, 226–227. Móré Heitel 2010a, 105–108.

74

Figure 3.3 The St Nicholas’ Orthodox church in Densuș, built of spolia Photo by the author

Chapter 3

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

75

Some of these monuments and evidence will be discussed further on. What is important to stress here is the fact that, at the time of the conquest, there were several key-centers where a number of churches were already in operation, following the Eastern rite. These people would have been mentioned in writing as ‘Greeks’, ‘schismatics’, or ‘false Christians’, but it seems that, in the beginning, their religious preferences did not count as a problem. Not much later, things changed, and in 1205, Pope Innocent III mentioned in a letter to the Bishop of Kalocsa: … We have been informed that on the land of the sons of Knez Bela there is a certain eparchy that, since it is not subjected to any metropolitan, we wish you to bring to obedience under the Apostolic See and place it under the jurisdiction of the Church of Kalocsa. (…) However, be very careful lest that eparchy be appurtenant to the Church of Constantinople, because, as that Church of Constantinople has recently returned to the unity of the Apostolic See, we do not wish to deprive it of its right.30 3.1.2 The Time of the Hungarian Conquest On the topic of the beginning of Christianity in a local context, the second line of research must deal with the conquerors. Many pages have been written on their conversion. However, at the time of the settling they were pagans, but gradually became accustomed to Christianity through contacts with locals and with their neighbours, the Byzantine and Carolingian Empire.31 In the Pannonian Basin, they encountered a heterogeneous population, no stranger to Christianity, if not an actual Christian society.32 It is supposed that 30 31 32

DIR.C.I., 275. In 1204, the union of the two churches was proclaimed under the authority of the pope and, in this context, the idea of creating an Orthodox diocese, dependent on Rome and ruled by Catholic clergy, was advanced. Sághy 1997, 53–65; Moravcsik 1947, 134–151; Györffy 1990, 62–63; Moravcsik 1967, 23; Bollók 2012, 131–132; Bollók 2017a, 424–425; Curta 2019, I, 262–266. The roots of some Christian communities could trace back to the Roman period, but there is an ongoing debate regarding their continuity and nature at the time of the conquest, in the absence of clear connecting links. Vida 2009, 233–260. For a synthesis on the subject, see Vida 2016, 93–106; Bollók 2017a, 428–430. Many believe that early Christianity had largely broken down during the Avar Khaganate, and that, by the 6th or 7th century, it had survived only in a few enclaves. No more than one church, the one in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, could be dated to that period, despite a great number of wide-ranging Christian artefacts. Curta 2005b, 181–219. On the other hand, when discussing this issue it is also important to bear in mind that Cyril and Methodius’s mission in Moravia and Pannonia (863–885) certainly contributed to the revival of local Christianity, fostering the construction of the first churches and the making of institutional structures,

76

Chapter 3

churches must have existed, at the very least in major centres, but their continued survival is a controversial subject. Some consider that this continuity is self-evident, while others argue that, even if there had been earlier churches, they could no longer be functional at the time of conquest, serving only as quarries for building material. In the 9th century, several churches were mentioned in the western parts of Pannonia, the most important in Mosaburg (later Zalavár), probably a work of the diocesan workshop in Salzburg.33 Recently, a church discovered in Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár) has been re-evaluated as a 9th century building of Carolingian type.34 Despite the current knowledge, the number of previous churches might have been important, if thinking that in around 900, the Archbishop of Salzburg, Theotmar, wrote to Rome that Pannonia had been devastated by the Hungarian and Moravian raids of the previous years to such an extent that no church remained untouched.35 The Byzantine Empire made the first major attempt at converting the Hungarians when, in 948 and 953, two Hungarian princes, Bulcsú [Boulosoudes] and Gyula [Gylas], were baptized in Constantinople and became Christians,36 an event of great interest to the history of Transylvania as well. Gyula’s baptism was perhaps part of a long-term strategy as he was the first prince mandated to undertake the Christianisation of the population. A delegation, led by the missionary Bishop Hierotheos, was put together to accompany Gyula to his homeland, Tourkia, and assist him in performing the task. At the time, the name Tourkia was customarily used to denominate the homelands of the Hungarians, but, in this particular situation, it remains unclear what territory the Byzantines had in mind, and where Gyula and his retinue eventually turned up. It could be the territories controlled by the House of Árpád, located west of

33 34

35 36

but the topic is still understudied in matter of ecclesiastical landscape. Györffy 1990, 63–66; Moravcsik 1967, 15–28. Tóth – Vida – Takács 2016, 228–238. Archaeological research from 1960–1966, resumed in 2013–2014, revealed the remains of a church of 12/13 by 7.5 m, with four massive pillars in its middle area. In 1061, a basilica was built over the ruin of the former one, considered at that moment as ‘very old’. Nagy 1973, 335–339; Móré Heitel 2006, 41–42, 69–70; Molnár 2014, 1–9, for preliminary results of the second campaign of excavations. The author notes that the pillars and the walls of the old church did not disturb graves, unlike the second church. However, after newer investigations, the pillars were interpreted as part of the second church, while the old church, dated through C14 analysis to around 900, was now seen as ‘Carolingian’ – perhaps a court chapel. Molnár 2020, 14–21. Curta 2019, I, 197–198. Iohannes Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, 11.5.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

77

Tisa, just as well as any of the lands settled or only targeted by the Hungarians. A controversy was born around this issue: some locate Tourkia west of Tisa, others in Southern Transylvania, with a seat in Alba Iulia. The latter variant is substantiated by the Hungarian name of the settlement: Gyulafehérvár (i.e. Gyula’s White Fortress), that resulted from the translation of its Slavic name, Bălgrad, being joined with that of Prince Gyula.37 The hypothesis was further reinforced by the Greek-cross church uncovered in Alba Iulia, dating to the 10th century, a one-of-a-kind discovery within the Carpathian Basin, which can be related to the Eastern Church and its attempt toward the Christianisation of the Hungarians38 (Chapter 5). The first hypothesis is mainly based on several Byzantine artefacts uncovered west of the Tisa River, dated to the second half of the 10th century. Some believe that these items circulated due to popular fashions or active circulation with the Byzantine lands,39 while others are seeing them as remnants of missionary activity.40 Many pages have been written on each side of the argument, but, in the end, it is only certain that the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin was, to some extent, at the attention of the Byzantines.41 Disagreements aside, the Byzantine mission is generally credited with a successful activity, laying the foundations for a religious network under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, eventually led by a metropolitan, which was still active in the 12th century.42 As István Baán stated, the metropolitanate could have been established at the latest in 1018, when its existence is certain, and later might have been transformed into the Archbishopric of Kalocsa, one of the two archbishoprics of the Hungarian kingdom.43 37 38

39 40 41 42

43

Horedt 1954, 502; Dănilă 2010, 186–209. Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 177–213; Dragotă 2018b, 89–96; Dragotă 2018c, 259–323; Rusu 1982, 372. However, before uncovering the Greek-cross-like building, a small round church on the same spot has been associated by some with Hierotheos and his mission. Theodorescu 1974, 75–76; Heitel 1975a, 5–9; Horedt 1986, 136–137; Blăjan 2007, 246–247. Bollók 2012, 140. Madgearu 2010, 79–81; Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533. Madgearu 2008, 119–138; Madgearu 2017, 1–16. For an inventory of these opinions, see Nicolae 2010, 109–112; Rusu 1978, 167–168. For the topic of the Byzantine influence in the area, see also: Koszta 2014, 127–143. Ioannu Turkias, mentioned in 1028, cf. Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533. For the activity of the metropolitanate and its consequences see Baán 1995, 1167–1170; Baán 1999, 45–48; Turcuș 2004, 115–119; Révész 2012, 85–88. For the location of the diocese in Bács in the mid-12th century: Révész 2012, 96; Barabás 2016, 118. Baán 1999, 48–50.

78

Chapter 3

The fact that Orthodox churches and monasteries operated in the following centuries can be traced back to this mission. Although the actual details remain unknown, it is noteworthy that, in the 11th century, in addition to the Western-rite monasteries, there were also several Orthodox ones on the territory of the kingdom, and their number only increased afterward.44 The significant presence of Greek Christians within the kingdom is also reflected in the survival of some oriental customs, which were subsequently taken over in the regulations issued by the kings Ladislaus I and Coloman in the late 11th century, at a time when these practices must have been widespread.45 Certain aspects of funerary practice, such as the laying of pectoral crosses, neck rings (torques), and coins, and the use of brick-built cist graves also relate to the influence of Orthodox Christianity.46 Returning to the baptism of the Hungarian princes in Constantinople, it was possibly a formal, politically motivated act, which was not actually accompanied by administrative work, so that in 955, when Bulcsú died after the Battle of Lechfeld, the Hungarians were for the most part still pagans.47 During the final decades of the 10th century, there was an increased activity of missionary movements originating in the Holy Roman Empire, which steadily implemented a policy of reliable Christianisation. In 972, the first official mission, led by Bishop Bruno (Prunward), baptized the Hungarian Prince Géza and his family.48 With the prince’s backing and with priests from the Diocese of Passau, as well as Benedictine monks providing the means, the general baptism of the population began. The establishment of an ecclesiastical system was a later development, a work of the disciples of St Adalbert, among which was St Anastasius, who brought to Hungary a crown from Pope Sylvester II, used at the coronation of Géza’s son, Vajk, who became King Stephen I on the first day of the second millennium or so.49 This event marked the official Christianisation of the tribes, although its main consequence was setting the Hungarian state on Western-type Roman-Catholic patterns. Even so, progress was gradual, political relations with the Byzantine Empire were in flux, and territorial expansion in the east and south brought St Stephen’s kingdom in direct contact with Orthodox and pagan populations, which resulted in a need for permanent efforts for spreading and preserving Latin Christianity. 44 45 46 47 48 49

Stojkovski 2019, 115–137; Sághy 2019, 11–38. Romhányi 1999, 161, mentions, in this regard, fasting regulations, the feast of certain saints, and the position of arms in some graves as well. Révész 2011, 115–161; Révész 2015, 215–223; Curta 2019, I, 263; Bollók 2012, 134. Bollók 2017a, 424; Györffy 1990, 68–69. Sághy 1997, 58; Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 328–331. Györffy 2000, 574–575.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

79

Furthermore, after the year 1000, the Catholic Church paid increasingly more notice to East-Central Europe, a phenomenon that reached new heights after 1054, when the official schism of the Churches occurred. The baptism of the leaders did not automatically lead to the immediate and enduring Christianisation of the kingdom’s inhabitants.50 Until late in the 14th century, Christian rulers had to struggle against pagan factions of their own tribes and against Cuman heathens. Shortly after King Stephen I’s death, a major pagan uprising broke out, and many priests and bishops were slaughtered, St Gerard of Cenad among them.51 Prone to cater to traditional beliefs, King Andrew I (1046–1060) rose to the throne amid the turmoil. However, despite his personal pagan sympathies, he understood that a pagan Hungary had no hope in Europe, so he fought to restore order, ministered the church, and confirmed Hungary as a Christian Catholic state. His contributions to forging a Christian society were so important that folk memory remembered him as ‘Andrew the Catholic’.52 Victory of Christianity, however, did not imply only baptizing the heathen, because the schismatics, those who followed the Eastern rite, or whose Christian practices were not exactly canonical, had to be (re)converted too. Even King Stephen I had to face a critical situation when, in 1002–1003, he had to defeat in Southern Transylvania a prince called Gyula (the Younger), who had previously rejected (Western?) Christianity, capture him and his family, and claim his lands.53 This Gyula, which scholarship generally connects to the settlement of Alba Iulia, seems to have been the heir of that Gyula baptized in Constantinople in the mid-10th century, and, very likely, an Eastern Christian and an important local leader as well. The fact that the seat of the Diocese of Transylvania was later established in Alba Iulia reflects the importance that the Hungarians granted to the region, regardless of whether this occurred as early as 1009, or later, during the reign of King Ladislaus I, or of King Coloman, in late 11th century (Chapter 5). The early Christianisation missions and isolated conversion initiatives must have led to some buildings designed for worship, but the scale of the phenomenon is far from known. After being baptized, Géza apparently built a church at Székesfehérvár,54 a four-lobed central-plan building supposed as his burial 50 51 52 53 54

Sanmark 2003, 551–558. Silagi 2000, 636–637. Szakács 2012a, 561–566. Gesta Hungarorum, 46, 97. However, he was located largely in Transylvania, so that some historians consider more appropriate to place his seat in Dăbâca. Madgearu 2001c, 163; Sălăgean 2006, 177. Kralovánszky 1984, 189–208.

80

Chapter 3

place. However, the chronology of this structure is still under debate, as are its architectural roots. Géza certainly called the first Benedictine monks to Hungary and, in 996, laid the foundations of Pannonhalma Abbey.55 King Stephen I began organizing an ecclesiastical network and tried to establish or consolidate Christian life, a strategy followed by his successors as well. By the mid-11th century, the ecclesiastical network included two archdioceses – Esztergom and Kalocsa – and ten dioceses, three of which reached the territory of today’s Transylvania. King Ladislaus I (1077–1095), who established the Diocese of Zagreb, and King Coloman (1095–1116), who founded the Diocese of Nitra, only perfected a system sketched mainly during the 41-years-long reign of Stephen I.56 The kings particularly paid attention to sites with an established history as centers of power, traditionally in control of a significant territory, and endowed them with representative institutions (dioceses, monasteries, county seats), which were basically replacements for those of the conquered, as, for example, Alba Iulia, Cenad, Nitra, or Mosaburg (Zalavar).57 In short order, there were also churches being built in these places.58 It is assumed that the cathedral in Veszprém59 was built before the year 1000. By the mid-11th century, churches had been erected in most diocesan sees, whether they were completely new buildings or structures appropriated from ‘Greeks’, as was the case in Cenad. Western monastic orders were an important part of these efforts to organize Christian society, taking on tasks such as filling economic niches, disseminating architectural ideas, organizing the landscape, as well as getting involved in colonisation on the borders and in missionary work.60 On the road opened ca. 996 by Benedictine monks, came the Premonstratensians (1130), the Cistercians (1142),61 and the Augustinians (12th century). Then, in the 13th century, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Hungarian order of Paulinians arrived.62 King Stephen I himself encouraged the establishment of monas55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Takács 2000, 617–620. Hóman 1940, 154–170; Györffy 1994, 38, 49–72, 95–98; Sághy 2001, 451–459; Veszprémy 2000, 875–879; Koszta 1999, 293–310; Barabás 2016, 120–125. A Benedictine monastery was founded in the old residence of Prince Pribina in 1019. Some authors believe, however, that the old buildings no longer existed at the time of the foundation of the abbey. Jékely 2018, 100. Romhányi 1999, 161–162. Tóth 2000, 633–635. On the archaeological findings related to the early churches: Kralovánszky 1984, 194; Buzás 2020, 8–10. Gilchrist 2014, 241–242. A first monastery in the kingdom was the one in Cikádor, founded in 1142, followed by four others during the reign of King Béla III (1172–1196), in Igriș, Pilisszentkereszt, Szentgotthárd, and Pásztó. Szakács 2005, 34, with the core literature. Bencze 2015a, 10–17; Romhányi 2012, 53–56.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

81

teries, whatever their rite, and personally backed the founding of ten abbeys, eight Benedictine and two Basilian. Christianisation gradually progressed and, by the end of the 11th century, a great number of villages probably had churches, many of them built using light materials. A law of 1092 prohibited the relocation of churches when villages changed their location, mirroring very likely a widespread phenomenon.63 This document also suggests that a century or more after the official baptism, the landscape was shaped by wooden churches, and, probably very often, improvisations, stone architecture being limited to important centres and residences. In mid-11th century Visegrád, a small single-nave church, dating to the age of St Stephen, was replaced with a single-nave church with a rectangular chancel and a gallery in the western end of the nave, which, by the turn of the 12th century, was abandoned as well.64 How Transylvania fit into this regional evolution is a hard and obviously understudied topic. General progresses over the central kingdom cannot be unconditionally extended to the eastern part, because, in the 11th century, this region was only partially conquered and still far from being integrated into the general picture. This happened in several stages until the early 13th century, and, obviously, the shaping of a religious landscape followed the pace of the conquest. Throughout the 11th century, although diocesan sees were being established and cathedrals were being built, private churches and monasteries remained exceptions. The latter tentatively emerged toward 1100, but their number grew considerably only after 1250, primarily thanks to the arrival of Germanic settlers. 3.2

Preliminaries to Early Religious Architecture

3.2.1 Key Centres Following the conquest, churches seem to have been built at first in the already existing centres of power, a strategy that allowed the conquerors to appropriate their symbolic value and make use of their social-economic framework, however rudimentary it might have been. The foremost standing settlements were undoubtedly those in which Catholic diocesan sees appeared during the 11th century, respectively Alba Iulia, Cenad, and Biharia, as shown by historical analysis and archaeological data. Nonetheless, the Diocese of Transylvania, created by King Stephen I in 1009 (?), likely started with an itinerant see and it was only toward the end of the century that it settled in Alba Iulia, where 63 64

DRMH, 57. Jékely 2018, 101.

82

Chapter 3

it remains to this day (Chapter 5). The Diocese of Cenad took shape around 1030, and the one of Biharia was established mid-century, only to be subsequently relocated to Oradea, the latter with a jurisdiction extended well into present-day Hungary. The strategy seems to have been to double or replace Greek places of worship with Latin ones, so that, in due time, the former vanished, at a faster or slower rate, or were re-organised and adapted for Catholic practices.65 Within the Voivodeship of Transylvania, the analysis of the beginnings mainly concerns the power centre of Alba Iulia, where two centrally-planned churches used to operate by the end of the 11th century (a rotunda and a Greek-cross church), to be replaced at that time with a Romanesque cathedral, as will be discussed in detail in chapter 5.66 Comparable events occurred in the south-west, on the left bank of the Mureș river, in Morisena/Cenad, where, by the early 13th century, primary sources make mention of no less than five monasteries and churches. Documents pointedly attest how the transition from Orthodox practices to the Catholic faith took place after ca. 1030, the old Greek-rite church having been repurposed as the temporary see of the Catholic diocese.67 Morisena was the main residence of one of the most powerful local leaders, Ahtum. There is more data than usual about his administrative and ecclesiastical centre. Paradoxically, the ecclesiastical geography of the site could not be determined, despite numerous archaeological excavations. His lands included medieval Banat, now divided between Romania, Hungary, and Serbia, and, in the north, it stretched all the way to the Criș rivers, including some eastern parts of the Great Hungarian Plain.68 According to the Legend of St Gerard, Ahtum had been baptized in Vidin and built a monastery for Greek monks, dedicated to St John the Baptist, in Morisena.69 This is the earliest mention of a church functioning in the area, and, since it was in use in around 1000, it was likely built before the turn of the century70 (Fig 3.4). Ahtum, who continued to live by pagan customs, at least to a certain extent, refused to accommodate King Stephen I, which led to open conflict and

65 66 67 68 69 70

Turcuș 2011, 82; Koszta 2014, 127–143; Sălăgean 2009, 22–23. For an opposite theory: Kovács 2017, 101–110. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 19–38, 87–116, for a summary of the situation in Alba Iulia, with the core literature. Móré Heitel 2010a, 21–30; Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 12–15. Suzana Móré Heitel mentioned twelve definitely Orthodox monasteries, identifiable by means of primary sources and toponymy. Móré Heitel 2010a, 12. SRH.II., 489–490; Dávid 1974, 12–14; Moravcsik 1947, 134–151; Madgearu 1993, 5–12. Theodorescu 1974, 74; Popa 1988b, 12–13; Popa 1991a, 1528–1529.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

83

Figure 3.4 The ecclesiastical topography of Cenad in the 18th (?) century After Móré Heitel 2005, fig. 3

eventually the Hungarian Chanadinus (Csanád) defeated him.71 In the wake of these events, Morisena was renamed Csanád (now Cenad), becoming a county seat, and the Orthodox monastery was disbanded, the monks being transferred south of the Danube, to Oroszlámos (in today’s Serbia), while St John 71

For variants regarding the exact chronology of events: Móré Heitel 2005, 9–11; Dávid 1974, 12–14; Iambor 2001, 98–111; Madgearu 2013, 53–54; Madgearu 2019, 172–182; Kristó 1993, 70–71. For Ahtum: Madgearu 2001b, 77–82; Stojkovski 2012, 68–70.

84

Chapter 3

the Baptist, the church of the monastery, was repurposed as the first cathedral of the Catholic diocese established in 1030.72 Its first bishop, St Gerard, passed away in 1046 and was sanctified in 1083.73 The diocese, whose territorial jurisdiction largely corresponded to the former duchy ruled by Ahtum, was subordinated to the Archdiocese of Kalocsa, whose role in strengthening the Catholic Church may have been particularly important, if its beginnings could be linked to the Eastern Church network, as supposed by some.74 Repurposing the Greek church was a provisional solution, thereupon St Gerard built two churches there by mid-11th century: St George’s Catholic Cathedral and the church of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary, intended as his burial place. All these buildings still stood in 1433, falling apart only in the 16th–17th centuries, during the Ottoman occupation. None have survived to modern times. Unfortunately, their topography is largely unknown, despite many attempts to understand how things unfolded.75 The field investigations have not yielded substantial results, and, as a consequence, many speculations have been written on the matter.76 For a long time, it was considered that Ahtum’s church somehow coincided with St Mary’s church,77 although there were also voices to the contrary.78 Suzana Móré Heitel made a step for72

73 74 75

76

77 78

On the diocese see Koszta 1999, 304; Țeicu 2007, 14–16, 29, 77; Barabás 2016, 126. For a detailed analysis of the state of research in the matter of churches: Móré Heitel 2010a, 10–16, and 21–48 for a large number of architectural stones. The church was mentioned for the last time in 1433, as “capella Sancti Ladislai regis supra capellam Sancti Johannis Baptiste.” Móré Heitel 2010a, 29. SRH.I., 125. Baán 1999, 48–52. The attempts to recover the medieval situation are based on some historical maps, the oldest from 1697, but the most interesting from 1868, made by the parish priest Killer Frigyes at the time of the Catholic church’s demolition and rebuilding. Henszlmann 1871, 1–34. During the demolition works, several ruins were seen, but in which relation they stood one to another never passed the stage of ‘may’ or ‘may not.’ There were three or four overlapping structures there. Imre Henszlmann considered that the demolished church was a later one, reusing the 13th-century Catholic church, which had been on its turn built over Ahtum’s abbey. Others have seen there the remains of a basilica with a baptistery, thought to be Late Roman (?) or early medieval – in this case founded by Ahtum around 1000, converted to a Benedictine monastery around 1030 and subject to important renovations during the second half of the 13th century. A detailed analysis in Dávid 1974, 11–14. See also: Theodorescu 1974, 114; Móré Heitel 2005, 11–17 and fig. 3–4. Archaeological surveys have been conducted in different areas of the current settlement since the end of the 18th century, but the results are known only to an exceedingly small extent. For a summary of the excavations made by the beginning of the 20th century, see Tănase 2015, 413–434. For the excavation performed more recently: Iambor – Matei – Bejan 1982, 89–114; Iambor – Matei – Bejan 1996, 19; Iambor 2005, 203–206. Henszlmann 1871, 13–19. Dávid 1974, 11–14.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

85

ward, suggesting that Ahtum’s church and the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary were built close together inside the medieval fortress, the latter to the north of the former, with the monastic buildings in-between, while St George’s Cathedral stood outside the old fortress, on the site of the present-day Serbian church, further north than the church of Ahtum.79 The third major place was in the north-west Biharia, the seat of Menumorut, who claimed to be a subject of the Emperor of Constantinople.80 In the wake of the conquest, Biharia became the seat of a Latin-rite diocese, supposedly during the reign of King Andrew I, sometimes in 1046–1049, the bishop Lieduinus being mentioned in 1061, although its activity at the site has been questioned.81 Shortly thereafter, the diocesan see was moved from Biharia to Oradea, where King Ladislaus I (1077–1095) had built a greater earthen stronghold. The Benedictine monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary, after being initially converted into a provostship with 24 canons (1083), was repurposed before 1095 as a diocesan see.82 Little, if anything, is known about the churches of this area at this time. If the situation is analyzed in a broader context, it seems obvious that a religious centre must have existed in Biharia, like in Cenad and Alba Iulia, associated with the residence of Menumorut. Incomplete and only partially published archaeological research has noticed that at least one church had been built within the earthen fortification, as suggested by Sever Dumitrașcu and Petru Iambor, but further details on the topic are currently unavailable.83 Although the stratigraphy of the site is a complex one, just as its topography, both have been only superficially evaluated. Archaeologists have announced the presence of an “apsidal construction” that has superposed an “archaic building of square shape,” which “define an autochthonous Romanian layer, dating from pre-feudalism and the first part of early feudalism, from the time span of the 7th or 8th to the 9th or 10th centuries.”84 The ruins so summarily presented were afterwards actually attributed to an 11th-century church. Considering the historical context, any variant is possible: an early dating, 79

80 81 82 83 84

The source was a drawing uncovered in the parish archives, most likely made sometime between 1701 and 1704, after the Ottomans had withdrawn and the fortress had been deliberately destroyed. It depicts several ruined buildings, although they remain unnamed, and no further detail can be ascertained about them. Ruins of a larger church were detected under the Serbian church at the beginning of the 20th century. Móré Heitel 2005, 17. Madgearu 2001a, 38–51. However, in 1111 Bishop Sixtus Bichariensis was mentioned, and in 1113 Bishop Syxtus Varadiensis. Avram 2006a, 51, note 84; Szakács 2012a, 566. Avram 2006a, 24, 28–30. Dumitrașcu 1994, 65–70; Iambor 2005, 199–201. Dumitrașcu 1994, 67.

86

Chapter 3

during the times of duke Menumorut and of his seat of power there, as well as a later one, after the Hungarian conquest. No conclusion can be drawn from this jumble of evidence, and even resuming the excavations would probably prove fruitless. From a second village on the same spot was announced a ‘building’ with a very small apse, of only 1.75–3 m, despite its remarkable 1.35 m thickness of walls, built of wood on a foundation of compacted yellow clay, but without a chronology.85 The graveyard used by the population of the fortress and of the settlement has been identified in the early 20th century in the area known as Cărămidărie (Brickyard). Several hundred burials have been investigated there, the oldest of which seem to have been organized around a small church ever since the late 10th or the early 11th century.86 In addition to the diocesan sees, there were also several key sites where administrative (county seats) and ecclesiastical (deaconries, archdeaconries) structures took residence, oftentimes more than one in one place. By far, the most interesting group of churches was uncovered in the former county seat of Dăbâca, in the 1960–70s, during extensive excavations, unfortunately published only in part.87 The place was undoubtedly one of the most important in the region, with a huge earthen fortification and several Christian communities, which had at least six churches and graveyards. This would support the hypothesis that Dăbâca was at one point the residence of Gelu, the ruler of Northern Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest, and then the residence of the Catholic bishopric, before its final relocation to Alba Iulia.88 Such a concentration of vestiges is quite remarkable. Unfortunately, the age and role of the earthen rampart, and the character of the communities that lived around it, remain poorly known in archaeological terms89 (Fig. 3.5). Three overlapping churches were uncovered on the spot called Boldâgă, surrounded by a graveyard used for almost a millennium.90 The oldest obvious 85 86 87

88 89

90

Dumitrașcu 1994, 81–82. The very generous dating ascribed to this building, from the 4th to the 10th century, can hardly be taken seriously in the current state of the knowledge. Iambor 2005, 201–202. Pascu et al. 1968, 153–199. For a synthesis, see Iambor 2005, 217–218. An important part of the field documentation was processed by Erwin Gáll: Gáll 2013c, 203–246; Gáll 2013b, 243–328. A reliquary cross discovered there was dated to the 10th to 11th centuries: Gudea – Cosma 1998, 273–303. Kristó 1998, 58–59. The Romanian archaeologists consider the site inhabited, prior to the conquest, by the Romanian-Slavic local population, being at one point the seat of the Voivode Gelu. Hungarian historiography prefers to see the site as a post-conquest one, including the earthen fortifications. However, currently, there is no archaeological base for discussion, and the complex housing on the spot needs a much deeper approach. Iambor 2005, 178–207, 190–191; Gáll 2013c, 217–218.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

87

Figure 3.5 The archaeological churches in Dăbâca. A. Dăbâca – Garden of Tămaș: 1 – The first church (10th–11th centuries); 2 – The second church (12th–14th centuries); 3 – Stone foundations of the medieval wooden church. B. Dăbâca – Boldâgă: 1 – The first church, 10th–12th centuries; 2 – The second church, 13th century; 3 – The third church, late 13th century. C. Dăbâca – the fourth enclosure (cemetery), 11th–12th centuries Drawings based on Iambor 2005, 391, pl. 62, and Moisescu 2001, 15, fig. 3.1

structure is a 13 m long single-nave church with a western tower and an apse pentagonal on the outside and semicircular on the inside. The apse looks like a niche with unusually 1.75 m wide foundation, while the walls stood on about 1 m thick foundations. The walls were built of carved limestone blocks incised with geometric decoration. The chronology is not clear, but it was supposed that the church operated by the late 12th century, when it was replaced by a larger, 18 m long one, consisting of a rectangular nave and a rectangular chancel. In the northern wall fabric, a cupped Byzantine coin, issued by Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), was lost during the construction works. By the late 13th century, this second church was also dismantled, and an even larger Gothic church was erected, which was probably used by the archdeacon of Dăbâca, mentioned during the 14th century91 (Fig. 3.5B). If the first church displays clear Byzantine influences, the third is firmly grounded in Latin traditions, and illustrates the successful implantation of the 91

Iambor 2005, 190.

88

Chapter 3

Roman-Catholic Church in the area. As for the 12th century church, perhaps it belonged to the same (Orthodox?) community as the first one, although this cannot be certain. The analysis of the three churches, the discovery of some stone elements that could not belong to any of them and, ultimately, the oldest graves, suggested the possibility that there was actually an even older church on the spot. The architectural fragments (columns, capitals), as well as some isolated masonry fragments, have suggested a basilica, but its reconstitution was not possible.92 The latter could have only been a 9th-century church, but more serious documentation is needed to verify its actual existence. A second important location in Dăbâca is Grădina lui Tămaș (Garden of Tămaș), where several possible churches were mentioned as well: “the foundations of two overlapping religious buildings, as well as what seemed to be the stone foundations of a wooden building paved with stones, that could belong to a church or to a civil construction.”93 The first church, about 7 m long, consisted of a nave, 4.3 by 4 m on the inside, and a square chancel, 2.6 m on the side. Its walls, built of roughly hewn limestone blocks bound with lime mortar, were set on foundations of raw stone bound with clay, about 1 m thick. Based on the archaeological context, the church was assigned to the late 10th or the early 11th century, but what is certain is that it was not used after the 11th century94 (Fig. 3.5A). The second church, however, had a typical Byzantine ground plan, consisting of a narthex, 4.75 by 4 m on the inside, with 0.7 m thick walls, a 7 by 5 m nave, with 0.9 m thick walls, and a sanctuary whose shape could no longer be established. A peculiarity of this plan is that the narthex is narrower than the nave, although, according to the archaeologist, there was only one stage of construction. Petru Iambor dated the church in the late 11th century or the early 12th century, based on coins issued by King Ladislaus I (1077–1095) found on its walk level, a theory that Erwin Gáll has recently questioned. The third worship place in Dăbâca was set up inside the fourth enclosure of the earth rampart, where a 10 m long nave, ending in a round apse, separated each other through a kind of iconostasis with two openings, was uncovered.95 This church had been built in a cemetery, so that its foundations disturbed multiple burials, and further ones continued to be dug around, bearing adornments and coins from the 11th and 12th centuries. Around 1200, the site was abandoned, as the topography of the fortifications was being reconfigured

92 93 94 95

Iambor 2005, 193–194. Iambor 2005, 187–190, pl. LXII/3. Gáll 2013b, 263–266, 294–295. Iambor 2005, 185–186; Gáll 2013c, 215–216.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

89

Figure 3.6 The ground plan of the churches in Vladimirescu, based on archaeological research Drawing based on Móré Heitel 2010b, fig. 8

and stone defensive walls were erected. Under the circumstances, church and graveyard were probably moved somewhere else (Fig. 3.5C). In the western area, a key site must have been in Vladimirescu, the seat of Arad County, and one of the earliest administrative units established after the defeat of Ahtum and the conquest of Morisena/Cenad. Archaeological excavations in the fortress revealed earthen fortification works and several levels of habitation, dating as far back as the late 10th century, and a cemetery from the early 11th century. This showed a pre-conquest centre of power, very likely part of the network established by Ahtum.96 The site seems to have been revived in the late 11th century, but the first mention came only in 1131. It was abandoned in the wake of the Mongol invasion.97 The see of the Provostship of Arad was located close by the fortification, and a small church was built there at the end of the 11th century, followed by a larger one at the start of the next century98 (Fig. 3.6). 96 97 98

Mărginean 2016, 94–96; Rusu 1980, 167–170 – archaeological investigations in 1969–1970; Móré Heitel 2010b, 743–755. Mărginean 2016, 107, reports similar situations in Bulci and Cluj-Mănăștur. Mărginean 2016, 95–97. The church was already in ruins in the early 16th century and all traces of it vanished during the Ottoman period. The provostship was one of the most

90

Chapter 3

3.2.2 Other Central Places and Monasteries Alongside the key-sites playing important roles during the process of conquest, there were also secondary ecclesiastical places, run by local elites, regardless of their religious denomination at one point in time or another. Among the natives, local knezes ruled over larger or smaller groups of villages and, in due time, started to erect churches. Such must have been the case in Streisângeorgiu, where a wooden church was in use in the 11th century, only to be replaced with a stone one during the century that followed. Local Orthodox elites were documented especially in the south-west of Transylvania, in the Land of Hațeg, where they maintained their privileged status throughout the Middle Ages. The churches they founded have survived to this day. Although the still standing buildings generally date only to the 13th–15th centuries, many of them had older roots, going back perhaps to the very early period of the dawn of ecclesiastical architecture in Eastern Europe. Construction on the churches in Densuș, Gurasada and the like might have begun in this period, their architecture bearing the marks of the Byzantine style (Chapter 4.1). A similar, slightly delayed but more successful process can be reconstructed for conquerors: local elites emerged and started to build churches, which could be chapels for their residences, churches for their proprietary monasteries, or public churches on their estates, to be used by communities, preparing the ground for future parishes. The number of these buildings grew steadily as feudal estates took shape, a process that extended well into the late 13th century. There are not many examples from the early period, although there are some churches erected in the 11th century. The excavations on the Borsa family estate in Sânnicolau de Beiuș have identified a first mid-11th century church, followed by a Benedictine monastery being founded nearby and the building of a new church.99 The Ákos family, who might initially have been Eastern Christian, built churches in the south-western area of Transylvania, at their residence in Geoagiu, possibly in the same 11th century100 (Chapter 4.2). Some of these churches could have been built on pre-existing structures too, following a pattern suggested by the situation in Dăbâca, where a Romanesque church was built on top of an older one, of Byzantine features. Of course, settings where communities of different religions lived alongside one another in a relatively small area, tolerantly using the same infrastructure, should not be ruled out, even if, at the moment, no early example is at hand. significant ecclesiastical institutions in the whole kingdom, playing a considerable role in spreading and organising the Catholic Church in Mureș valley. 99 Popa 1991a, 1527–1535; Popa – Chidioșan – Lukács 1984, 21–25. 100 Anghel 1965, 615–624.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

91

The beginning of religious architecture is poorly known even if looking to the lands of the hospites. However, there are a few examples of churches founded by earls (greaves), who generally led the movement, during the 12th century (Viscri, Orăștie, Sibiu), but the phenomenon gained momentum only in the 13th century, as excavations have shown in Albești, Câlnic (Fig. 10.4) and Gârbova, to number only some of the best-known cases. Recent research assumes that there was early nobility among the Szeklers as well, although this remains a subject in need of more thorough study (Chapter 4.2). Monasteries ensured one of the most important channels for religious architectural development, although a larger picture has yet to be defined. There had probably been several Orthodox monasteries at the time of the conquest,101 but most of them disappeared during the Mongol invasion or were converted into Catholic establishments. However, some scholars assume that many of the earliest churches originally had belonged to monasteries, which would justify the presence in their structure of unconventional rooms, as for example in Streisângeorgiu. The earliest known Eastern-rite monastery operated in Cenad, around the year 1000, but, in the lower Mureș valley, twenty Orthodox monasteries were attested before 1250, more than half to be turned Catholic by the end of the century. Among them, the most famous is probably the one in Pâncota, which was in use in the late 10th century and the early 11th century (Chapter 4.1). From other monastic sites has only remained the memory of toponyms, as for example Hudusmonostura, Kenezmonostor, or Ahtonmonustura.102 In other cases, Orthodox beginnings remain blurred, such as possibly in Frumușeni-Bizere103 and Bulci.104 The monastic church in Pâncota turned out to be endowed with exceptional decorative features. Nevertheless, modest wooden buildings of small size must have dominated the Basilian monastic landscape (Fig. 3.7). The Orthodox monastery in Voivozi,

101 Some assumed that, before the year 1241, there were about 600 Orthodox monasteries in Hungary, and less than 200 Catholic ones. Some of the former must have been in Transylvania, but a study on this topic is missing. Popa 1997, 117. On this subject, also see Koszta 2000, 71, where it is estimated that, in the 13th century, the Orthodox population was, in fact, present only in small numbers, or had even vanished, which explains why there was a hiatus following the 11th–12th-century achievements. 102 Regarding the site of Ahtonmonustura from Pecica, exploratory excavations led to a date around 1000. Móré Heitel 2010a, 15–16. 103 Móré Heitel 2010a, 15. However, this hypothesis was not confirmed by recent excavations. Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 13–14. 104 Țeicu 2007, 29–31; Mărginean 2016, 101; Móré Heitel 2010a, 54; Iambor 2005, 190–191, 273; Móré Heitel 2010a, 11–12 – inventories twelve monasteries linked with Ahtum’s ecclesiastical and administrative centre, among them the ones in Bizere, Pâncota, and Bulci.

92

Chapter 3

Figure 3.7 The ruins of the monastic church in Pâncota, unearthed in 2000–2006 Photo by the author

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

93

founded in the 12th century, supposedly had wooden buildings in the beginning, replaced in the next century by stone ones105 (Chapter 11). Even if the picture of the early Orthodox monasticism is rather hazy for now, in 1204 Pope Innocent III asked Bishop Simon of Oradea to find out, … whether the state of those monasteries can be improved by said Greek monks, or an eparchy that would be directly subject to us could be established there, headed by one of them, with the consent of the diocesan bishops.106 Much more coherent is the image of the Latin monastic orders, arrived early in the conquered territories and playing an important role in the Christianisation and colonisation process. Regardless of whether their houses were royal or feudal foundations, they significantly influenced the development of Christian society and the shaping of the religious landscape, thus greatly strengthening the Catholic Church.107 In the beginning, the Benedictines played the main role.108 Their communities first appeared in the west (in Cenad, where the Catholic diocese was established in 1030; the Arad chapter, in 1131–1141 (?); Ineu (Dienesmonostora), in 1177)109 and in the north-west (Sânnicolau de Beiuș, the monastery of the Blessed Virgin in Oradea, Sâniob)110 and gradually advanced toward the centre of the province, reaching Cluj-Mănăștur111 probably by the late 11th century (Chapter 4.2). In the first years of the following century, St Margaret’s monastery was built in Meseș (Moigrad-Porolissum), but, so far, all attempts to locate

105 106 107 108

Popa 1975b, 309–317. DIR.C.I., 28, no. 45; Chiriac 2002, 31. Szakács 2012a, 566–567; Entz 1968, 3–48, 127–175; Bencze 2020a, 27–46. For the role of Benedictines in the spread of Christianity in the Hungarian kingdom see Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 319–368; Romhányi 2008, for a catalog of Benedictine monasteries within the kingdom, including the ones in Transylvania. For a short overlook on the Transylvanian ones: Romhányi 2020, 1–14; Szőcs 2014, 22–24. 109 For recent field investigation: Mărginean – Csók – Lászlo 2020, 83–92. 110 The monastery in Sâniob was mentioned for the first time in 1169, in a donation charter. However, based on tradition, it was originally built of wood, in 1078. Avram 2006a, 25. 111 In the late 11th century and early 12th century, a Benedictine-style basilica was built in Cluj-Mănăștur, where monks established their community on the site of a former stronghold. Iambor – Matei 1979, 600–602. Archaeological data shows that the stronghold had been abandoned in the second half of the 11th century, and that, by the end of the century, the place had become a cemetery. See also: Gáll – Gergely 2009a, 215–226; Kovács 2007, 65–80; Ritoók 2012, 257–274.

94

Chapter 3

it on site have proven unsuccessful.112 In the western area, among the most important communities were those in Frumușeni-Bizere (1183) and Pâncota (1177),113 supposedly occupying the site of former Orthodox monasteries and making use of at least some of their buildings. Whether they were royal (Cluj-Mănăștur, Meseș, Bizere) or private foundations (Acâș, Herina, Căpleni, Almaș, Tileagd, Sântimreu, Mănăstireni, etc.),114 the Benedictine monasteries were part of the Christianisation strategy and were meant to promote Catholicism.115 Many communities disappeared in the wake of the great Mongol invasion of 1241–1242,116 never to be revived, their houses being taken over by others, in particular by Premonstratensians (as for example Almaș or Meseș) and the Cistercians. It seems that their number was considerable; however, it is difficult to establish a clear picture of the phenomenon, and the topic has not been approached from this perspective so far. The Premonstratensians also played an important role during this period.117 After building their first monastery in Oradea in 1130, they gradually spread toward inner Transylvania. By the turn of the 13th century, they had reached the south-eastern ridges of the Carpathians, erecting their easternmost nunnery in Corona (Brașov), mentioned for the first time in Catalogus Ninivensis, in 1235.118 Recent excavations have unearthed traces from this period, but it remains unknown if they built churches or not on the spot (Chapter 7). Several of their communities date back to the end of the 12th century: the one in Ineu was probably founded around 1170, while the ones in Abram and Almaș were mentioned in the 13th century. The monasteries in Mănăstireni and Uileacu Șimleului were, at a moment, likely Premonstratensian too.119

112 Entz 1968, 7. An overview in Bencze 2018, 68–71. Archaeological excavations in 2008 and 2009 unearthed parts of a medieval cemetery that “can most likely be linked to the abbey of Meszes” (Bencze 2020a, 36, note 92) but the finds (stonework, small finds, coins) are unpublished. The first excavations in 1914: Buday 1915, 51–95. 113 Avram 2006a, 26; DIR.C.I., 94. It shows up for the first time in 1219, in the Register of Oradea, which mentions the villagers, the abbot, and that it was dedicated to St Andrew. The Ottomans destroyed it in 1552. 114 Avram 2006a, 25–26; Entz 1968, 7–9. 115 Móré Heitel 2010a, 15–16. 116 Romhányi 1999, 162–164. It is interesting that most of them were located in regions where Eastern influence was quite powerful. See also Bencze 2020a, 31, note 68. 117 Bencze 2020a, 40–44. 118 Urkundenbuch, IX, no. 9003; CDTrans.I., 180, no. 176. 119 Avram 2006a, 26–27. Especially for the one in Uileacu Șimleului: Avram 1977b, 10. The one in Mănăstireni is supposed to have had Benedictine origins as well. Bencze 2020a, 21–22.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

95

The monastery of the Knights Hospitaller in Sântion, on the banks of the Crișul Repede river, taken over by the Cistercians in 1249, seems to have functioned as early as the year 1190,120 and later they are mentioned in Tăuț, Alba Iulia, and Turda as well.121 Around this time, the Cistercians made their appearance too, both in the south-west (1179, at Igriș)122 and in the east (ca. 1204, at Cârța), to gain important position in Southeastern Transylvania during the first part of the 13th century, when they spread all the way to Brașov123 (Chapter 7). 3.2.3 Public Churches In the attempt to identify patterns in the formation of local ecclesiastical architecture, the most difficult to capture is the agency of lay communities who erected and used churches. Usually built by local masons, they rarely survived and did they leave any traces in documents or exercised major influence on local ecclesiastical architecture. During the first centuries of Christian organisation, private churches, and monasteries, even those of the Latin orders, probably fulfilled parochial tasks as well. But when did churches built by lay communities, on public, open space in the settlement, start to appear? Documentary references about the construction of churches made of timber, timber-frame and adobe, logs, plastered wickerwork, and the like, might encourage an assumption that the earliest churches, built in the 11th century, were made of light materials. The same may be inferred from the law of 1092 that prohibited villages from taking their church away in case of a location change. However, virtually no wooden church has survived from the early period in Transylvania, and very few remains have been identified in Hungary.124 In Transylvania, timber churches have been hypothesized in many 120 Avram 2006a, 27. 121 Móré Heitel 2010a, 12. The one in Turda, mentioned in 1274, had a church in 1296 – probably on the same spot as the later founded Augustinian monastery. Weisz 2013, 18–19, 28–29. 122 Vătășianu 1959, 21. In 1179, the first Cistercian monastery, tributary to Benedictine architecture, was built in Igriș, close to the south-western border of Transylvania, where past investigations, recently resumed, have revealed a Romanesque brick basilica with three semicircular apses. King Andrew II and his wife are assumed to have been buried there. Tănase et al. 2017, 229–240. 123 Bencze 2020a, 37–39; Szakács 2005, 34. 124 Tari 2000, 235. Foundations attributed to a wooden church were discovered further in Hungary at Tápiógyörgye, in Pest County. Tari 1997, fig. 1. However, the early religious architecture based on light materials – timber, for instance – is an obscure field of research everywhere. Jékely 2018, 102.

96

Chapter 3

places (for example in Sebeș and Drăușeni, for Germanic colonists), but not one older than the 17th century is preserved. Masonry churches could not be built by communities before the late 11th century, and the process gained momentum especially in the second part of the 12th century. What stimulated this phenomenon was primarily the colonisation of the Saxons, that is, the transfer to Transylvania of people used to attend services for generations.125 In 1191, when the Provostship of Sibiu was mentioned for the first time, it must have consisted of several churches and parishes. However, there are not too many examples for this statement. For some 12th century churches (as for example Viscri, Drăușeni, and Sighișoara), scholars are not sure who their builders were126 (Fig. 3.8) (See also Chapter 4.2). Within the Land of Szeklers, an early horizon of churches has been identified as well, generally assigned to the 12th and 13th centuries, although most scholars favor the latter. It is yet to be determined who might have built churches before the year 1200, more precisely if an earlier Hungarian and Romanian-Slavic habitation, or an older Szekler colonisation attempt, can be demonstrated (Chapter 4.2). 3.3

Cemeteries and Churches

In 1092, the Synod of Szabolcs regulated for the first time the issue of Christian burials, deciding that funerals should be performed close to a church.127 However, archaeology has frequently shown a very different situation, uncovering a significant number of cemeteries without churches, in operation until the 13th century, and even later.128 It seems that the decision of 1092 was a hard task for locals, who kept their habits for centuries. But, to what extent could a Christian cemetery function without a church, or at a considerable distance from a church? Another challenging topic is the way such a churchless burial ground could be opened: did it require some form of consecration or not? In addressing these questions, the composition of the population must 125 See Heitel 1972, 139–160, and Heitel 1975a, 3–10, for analysis of archaeological materials and stratigraphical situations from key points in Southern Transylvania. 126 Heitel 1972, 147. 127 DRMH, 57; Berend – Lászlovszky – Szakács 2007, 319–368. Similar decisions were subsequently taken at Tarcal (about 1100) and Esztergom (1104–1112/1113), which shows that insistence was needed. DRMH, 30, 61; Mărginean 2016, 103. 128 There were indeed cemeteries connected to churches since the end of the 11th century – as for example in Alba Iulia – but these seem to have been rather exceptions. See also: Gáll 2013a, 144–151; Crîngaci Țiplic – Istrate Purece 2016, 63–96; Crîngaci Țiplic 2020, 80–84.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

Figure 3.8 Ruins from the 12th century unearthed on the north side of the Evangelical church in Sighișoara, in 1999–2000 Photo by the author

97

98

Chapter 3

be considered, because the situation was different if discussing Hungarian and Szekler communities, for whom Christianity was something new, on the one hand, and Germanic communities, on the other hand. How the early cemetery was set up remains unknown, but it is usually assumed that the ground was sanctified by a bishop or by his proxy. The area would have been marked in a certain way, and it is quite likely that in many situations a place for the church was also reserved.129 It makes sense, since newly established communities needed a graveyard from the beginning, whereas building a church was a drawn-out process, which started at some point, but could last for decades.130 The Legend of St Gerard sheds some light on the practice: during his travels through the diocese, the bishop consecrated the sites of the churches that were to be erected and the cemeteries of those communities that were willing to build churches.131 This suggests that there were communities that did not have a church and used a cemetery whose ground had not been consecrated. It is quite likely that some burial grounds remained un-consecrated at a time when church hierarchy was still in the making, and that even where cemeteries were hallowed, the communities did not always succeed in building a church. Some have supposed that every 11th or 12th century cemetery must be tied to a church, but excavations have shown that such a connection was not at all mandatory. Research undertaken at Moldovenești fortress, formerly the seat of Turda County, provided a significant example of how the transition took place. Although it lacked a church, the village of the fortress had a cemetery during the 11th century: the oldest coins found there were issued by Stephen I (1000– 1038), Andrew I (1046–1060), and Ladislaus I (1077–1095). It was only around 1100 that the cemetery moved to another location, around a church,132 according to what had been officially established for almost a century. A comparable situation has been documented recently in Bădeni, and there are other cases illustrating similar realities.133

129 In several places, cemeteries were delineated through trenches (Brașov) and walls (Brașov, Cristuru Secuiesc, Zăbala). Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 107–150; Benkő 1992, 156–157; Benkő 2012, I, 153, fig. 23. 130 Benkő 2012, I, 152; Crîngaci Țiplic 2020, 83–84. 131 SRH.II., 494–495. 132 In 1951, opening eight graves brought to light dinars issued during the reigns of kings Ladislaus I (1077–1095), Coloman (1095–1116) and Béla II (1131–1141). Horedt 1952, 318; Horedt 1955, 662–663; Bóna 1985, 224–225; Horedt 1958, 132–145. 133 Benkő 2012, I, 152–154.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

99

In fact, there are examples that show that even in the 13th century, cemeteries operated without a church, although the people were obviously Christians.134 For example, in Cladova, a cemetery was used without a church from the 11th century to mid-13th century, being abandoned probably because of the Mongol invasion, when habitation came to an end.135 Shortly thereafter, in the late 13th century, a church was built in the old cemetery, over pre-existing graves, and a graveyard opened around it.136 A great deal of debate rose on the matter of the Szekler cemeteries in Peteni and Zăbala, whose rich inventory dates to the second half of the 12th century, although there was no church there, and it is difficult to ascertain if they were Christians or not. More recently, it has been argued that the site of the church had been reserved but never used, probably because of an early abandonment of the cemeteries for unknown reasons.137 However, the fact that the graves were organised in rows suggests a kind of field or open-space burial ground, not a graveyard. It may be safer to assume that the people there were heathens or perhaps freshly baptized, therefore not fully prepared to adopt Christian burial practices, which resulted in a mixture of customs, largely based upon their pagan heritage – a situation that would not be in the least strange or unusual.138 The chronology of these burials is another issue, because their dating suggests a level of habitation that predated the official colonisation of Szeklers. Consequently, the cemeteries were attributed to Hungarian communities that secured the area before the Szeklers, which remains a questionable scenario.139 Recent excavations throughout eastern Transylvania, noted a number of cases when 13th- or early-14th-century churches had disturbed 12th-century graves.140 For now, it is difficult to establish if an older church had been there 134 Benkő 2012, I, 125, considers such situations (13th-century cemeteries without churches) as anachronistic. 135 Boroneanț – Pascu Hurezan 1987, 67–75. 136 Mărginean 2016, 102–106, fig. 5 and 6. Considering the very variable thickness of the foundations, it may be that the church went through several constructive stages. The apse had extremely thin foundations. 137 Excavations in Peteni – Hotarul de Jos, started in 1960 and resumed between 1978 and 1980, revealed 237 graves. In Zăbala – Dealul Tătarilor, archaeological research in 1969– 1970 led to the discovery of 192 similar graves. Benkő 2012, I, 112–115. 138 A good example is the situation of the Baltic region, where pagan habits survived long after the 12th–14th century Christianisation. Pluskowski – Boas – Gerrard 2011, 209; Blair 2011, 727–741. 139 For an opposite opinion, see Benkő 2012, I, 124, who considers that they can be attributed to an early Szekler cemetery. 140 Nyárádi 2016, 495–510.

100

Chapter 3

Figure 3.9 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Nicolești, 18th century (outlined). 12th century graves were uncovered closed to the church, but no traces of an early building. After Botár 2017, fig. 9

or not, as for example in Nicolești (Fig. 3.9). The excavations in Daia uncovered, beneath the 13th-century church, a wall fragment that suggested an older building on the spot, which could be related to the oldest graves.141 Most of the time, such interconnections cannot be determined, which leads to the image of a whole sequence of churchless cemeteries, up to ca. 1300. 141 Marcu 1998a, 159–160, fig. 2. Figure 3.10 →

Graves from the 12th–17th centuries, the cemetery of the parish church in Brașov, unearthed in 2012–2013 Drawing by the author

102

Figure 3.11

Chapter 3

The Reformed church in Cricău, development based on archaeological research. There is a 28 by 7 m single nave, with a western tower and a polygonal apse (4 + 5), originating in a Romanesque basilica (2 + 5). Archaeological research brought to light the remains of an older phase in the eastern area, including a square choir and a semicircular apse (1 – late 12th century or early 13th century). The Romanesque basilica was built in early 13th century (2), and a western tower was added (4, late 13th century) when the foundations of the aisles had been already embedded (2); as a result, their westernmost bays were not built anymore (3). The church was functional in the second part of the 13th century, but later the sides were demolished, and a sacristy was added (6) Drawing based on Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 487–488

However, even in the early 14th century, not all villages had a church. Analysis conducted by István Botár on the small territory of the Ciuc Chair showed an overly complex situation: many villages had their own church, while in other cases as many as six villages made use of the same church. On average, three villages, separated by distances of 4 to 5 km, jointly used a church. Nonetheless, interpretations must be fine-tuned if discussing larger territories.142 In the case of the Germanic hospites, the cemetery-church connection was mandatory: it would be difficult to imagine that a population that arrived from Western or Central Europe, one used to Christian life, would lay its cemetery at random on some hill or in an open space, and then wait decades before building a church.143 Where graves can be dated in the second half of the 12th century, a more or less contemporaneous church should also be expected, a connection frequently confirmed by excavations, as for example in Sibiu and 142 Botár 2017, 155–182. 143 Generally, from the 10th century onwards the Church systematically controlled burial grounds and had them consecrated by officials/bishops. Consequently, it is unlikely that they could remain churchless for centuries. Gilchrist 2014, 238–239.

Christianisation and the Emergence of Religious Architecture

103

very likely in Brașov (Fig. 3.10). There are, of course, exceptions. In Sebeș, all known churches built on the parish site have disturbed graves, which led to the assumption that a wooden church was there in the beginning, and then vanished without leaving traces.144 In Cricău, one of the first Saxon colonies in southern Transylvania, late-12thand early-13th-century graves belonged to a church of which only the sanctuary, with a square choir and a semicircular apse, remains.145 Since no other traces of the edifice have been found, it is possible that the nave (naves?) was made of light materials. This case draws attention to a fact, perhaps quite common: early churches were built in several stages and operated for long periods in transitional situations (Fig. 3.11). However, the connection church-cemetery is a hard topic that needs comparative analysis and a multi-faceted approach, considering the ritual and especially the customs related to grave-goods.146 3.4

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter outlined the premises for the emergence of religious architecture and the traits of the formative period, which should be considered in the local context of spreading Christianity, although the resources for such a study are not at all generous. Located at a crossroad between Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, and the pagan world, the populations of Transylvania experienced early Christianity during the first millennium,147 but concrete traces of this phenomenon are scarce and debatable. It is only toward the year 1000 that clues of Christian communities engaged in church building begin to appear, as well as larger numbers of artefacts of religious significance. For understanding this formative period, one must take into account the fact that Greek and Latin Christianity cohabited in the Hungarian realm for several centuries.148 As the historian György Györffy memorably stated, “Western and Eastern Christianity, as the two halves of Europe’s unique Christianity, contributed to the founding of the Hungarian Church.”149 144 Heitel 1964, 7–10. 145 The results of the archaeological investigations undertaken in 1961 and 1964–1966 are basically unpublished. Some conclusions, accompanied by a general plan of the ruins, were disclosed in Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 487–488. 146 Crîngaci Țiplic – Istrate Purece 2016, 63–96; Crîngaci Țiplic 2020, 82–83. 147 Theodorescu 1976, 108–110. 148 Curta 2015, 1–42. 149 Györffy 1990, 74. On the same topic, Moravcsik 1970, 108.

104

Chapter 3

Things happened similarly in Transylvania, where local Christianity and the beginnings of religious architecture stemmed from two main springs, one eastern and one western. The eastern root had the precedence of age, due to the locals, and to the accomplishments of the Hungarian princes baptized in Constantinople before the turn of the millennium.150 The western one developed as the province was conquered, the administrative-religious system was organised, settlers were brought in, and proper religious institutional networks were created. Championed by its official status, Latin Christianity became dominant, although the Eastern variant also survived throughout the Middle Ages. The stone-built religious architecture of Transylvania reflects this duality. The earliest churches were erected under Byzantine influence, in the seats of power of local leaders, and monasteries must have been constructed at that time as well. The oldest proof for such activity could be in the 9th century, but factual evidence comes from the 10th–12th centuries, through archaeological ruins (as in Alba Iulia, Dăbâca or Pâncota) or still standing churches (as in Streisângeorgiu, Gurasada or Peșteana). As the conquest took on material frames, churches began to be built in Western Romanesque and Gothic styles, firstly within the pre-conquest major centres of power, but soon also in residences, fortifications, and monastic sites. The next chapter introduces, on one side, the Byzantine-like churches of the formative period, and, on the other side, some of the experiments undertaken at the time by Catholics in their quest for architectural patterns. Trials and failures characterize the early period, or at least this is the view of the scholarship, based on buried remains and by older fragments included in the later structures of the still standing churches. 150 Theodorescu 1974, 114–123; Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 36–37.

Chapter 4

The Formative Period: Byzantine and Romanesque Churches before 1200 Some scholars believe that the first religious building in Transylvania was a round church in Alba Iulia, now kept as a ruin beneath St Michael’s Cathedral. This building is a monument without archaeological context, and theories about its origin range from a 9th- or 10th-century chapel, part of the residence of a local Orthodox ruler, to a baptistery attached to the first Roman-Catholic cathedral during the late 11th century (Fig. 4.1). Comparable questions were raised by the rotunda in Geoagiu (currently a Reformed chapel), but early dates for its construction remain unconfirmed by the years-long but still unpublished excavations.1 Why such a confusion? Long archaeological excavation has tried, but not managed, to find chronological clues, while the historical

Figure 4.1 The ruin of the round church, preserved in St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia Photo by the author

1 Anghel 1965, 615–624; Petrov, 1996b, 403–432; On the Romanesque interpretation, see Gervers-Molnár 1972, 32–37. See also Heitel 1972, 151–152; Heitel 1975a, 3; Popa – Chicideanu 1984, 59–60.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_006

106

Chapter 4

context was of no help at all. Around the year 1000, in the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, any of these options could have been plausible.2 However, there are some interesting examples illustrating the formative period, on both sides of the issue, as discussed below. 4.1

Byzantine Style Churches

Four decades have passed since Radu Popa raised the question, publishing his study on the archaeology of the Orthodox church of St George in Streisângeorgiu,3 whether the first wave of masonry churches in Transylvania should be connected to the Balkan-Byzantine architecture or to that of Great Moravia, being therefore pre-Romanesque. The question was generated by the early dating of the church in Streisângeorgiu, and by the complex analysis of the church in Gurasada and came as an addition to some hypotheses scholars have already mentioned.4 There is, indeed, a group of churches built before 1200, which display elements of Byzantine architecture, as a whole or through certain features that do not belong or are uncommon in the Romanesque architectural style. In contrast, they have similarities to Byzantine-inspired architecture – either directly from Constantinople or from the south of the Danube, on the territory of the Bulgarian and Serbian states. The churches to be mentioned here are the Orthodox ones still standing in Densuș, Streisângeorgiu, Peșteana and Gurasada, respectively the ruins uncovered in Alba Iulia, Biharia, Dăbâca and Pâncota, not to include the ones in Cenad.5 There are other sites to be further studied, such as Monasterium Kenez, near Nădlac, or the original church of Ahtum’s monastery in Pecica.6 Some also consider that Eastern-rite churches may have existed at the sites of the Benedictine monasteries in Frumușeni-Bizere and Bulci.7 Centrally-planned structures, round, lobed or inspired by the Greek-cross layout, apses that combine polygonal and semicircular shapes, spaces such as narthexes or pastophoria, draw their inspiration from Byzantine architecture. But how this happened is very difficult to establish.8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Theodorescu 1974, 107–109. Popa 1978, 30. Nicolescu 1962, 411–426; Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Popa 1988b, 12–16. For Biharia, Dăbâca and Cenad see chapter 3. Móré Heitel 2010a, 63–98. Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 13–14; Mărginean 2018, 195–220. Popa – Chicideanu 1984, 54–67; Popa 1988b, 12–16.

107

The Formative Period

The churches still in use in Densuș, Streisângeorgiu, Peșteana, and Gurasada, as well as the ruins in Pâncota, are introduced in this chapter, while the case of Alba Iulia is detailed in a separate chapter. Biharia and Dăbâca have been briefly mentioned in chapter 3.

…

An exceptional occurrence of the period is the single-nave with a four-pillared central bay, of which there are two cases: a 10th- to 11th-century ruin in Alba Iulia9 and St Nicholas’ church in Densuș, a village located ca. 100 km from Alba Iulia (Fig. 4.2). The church in Densuș has long been seen as one of the most fascinating religious monuments in Transylvania, unique in terms of plan, volume, and manner of construction.10 Its architecture has received various explanations over time, such as a pagan temple or a Roman building, and its dating ranged from the 6th to the 16th centuries. Despite several restorations and archaeological excavations,11 a combined analysis of the data was only recently carried out.12 The present-day church has a square nave (7.4 by 7.25 m externally) and a semicircular sanctuary (5, 5 by 4 m externally). A square tower stands above the middle of the nave, basically a standalone structure (3 by 3 m), smaller than the opening of the sanctuary. The tower appears as an extremely interesting construction, which develops on four levels, with a sophisticated inner organization, including a belfry and several rooms. A small trapezoidal chapel rises south of the sanctuary, probably used as a diaconicon. The southern side of the nave has a ruin described in scholarship as a corridor, an aisle, or a chapel. To the west, there is a ruined large narthex (?), as wide as the nave and aisle together, of unclear purpose, often seen as an addition from the 15th century. 9 10

11

12

Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 190–192; Marcu-Istrate 2018c, 97–114. Vătășianu 1930, 188; Vătășianu 1959, 89–94; Ionescu 1963, 62–66; Drăguț 1968b, 13–20; Greceanu 1979a, 201–203. An introduction in its historiography: Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 121– 124. The first mention of the village was in 1360, as a property of the Mușana family, on the territory of a large knezate. DRH.C.XI., 506–508. For an introduction in the medieval history of the settlement, which may be, up to a point, suggestive for the period studied here, see Popa 1988a, 93–95, 168–170, 228–229; Rusu 1997a, 192–203. Archaeological excavations in 1948 (Vătășianu 1959, 94, fig. 85), the 1960s (Chefneux 1963, 109–125), and 1999–2000 (Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 121–224), accompanying major restoration works, never published in detail. Somehow, this church shared the fate of the rotunda in Alba Iulia: it was excavated until the destruction of the context, but little is known about the results. Marcu-Istrate 2019b, 219–232 – for a detailed analysis of the archaeological data and a technical description of the building.

108

Chapter 4

Figure 4.2 The Orthodox church in Densuș: east-west cross-section, ground plan (in black the core church (10th–11th centuries), in dark-grey various extensions (before 1300), and in light grey a 15th-century addition), and general view from south-west Drawings based on Vătășianu 1959, fig. 82–83, and Ionescu 1963, fig. 43; photo by the author

The Formative Period

109

It is supposed that the current church resulted from three or four construction stages, the oldest of which included the nave and the apse, completed soon with the diaconicon, while the southern and western compartments would have been later additions. Unfortunately, the large-scale excavations did not manage to clarify the stages and to explain the relation between the main parts of the church. Things are hardly better in terms of chronology. The oldest coin reported as part of grave goods was minted in 1386–1437,13 but a tombstone with a Greek cross inscribed in a circle was dated before 1200.14 Scholars have proposed dates that cover a wide range, but, more often than not, the church has been assigned to the 13th century, based on some architectural elements for which analogies were found nearby, particularly on window frames and a brick row below the cornice. It is very interesting that the results of the architectural investigations published in 1964 by architect Eugene Chefneux have been long ignored in scholarship. The latter concluded that the original core was composed of a nave, apse, and pillars, built at the same time, while the upper part, including the windows and the cornice, has been the result of a reconstruction from the 13th century. Taking only the ground plan into consideration, it has been assessed as Byzantine-inspired, and similarities have been suggested with the Constantinopolitan Fenari Isa Camii.15 But an analogy was noticed only in 2011, when, in Alba Iulia, an almost identical church came to light after being buried for almost a millennium (Chapter 5). The archaeological context allows a mid10th-century dating for the latter, which was built most likely in connection with the Byzantine Christianisation mission of Hierotheos. The church operated up to mid-11th century, when, becoming redundant, was demolished, and replaced by a basilica. Its layout was interpreted as a provincial version of the Greek-cross pattern, curiously very similar to the church still in activity in Densuș (Fig. 4.3). Comparing these two churches, not only their floor plan is the same, but the manner of building as well, at least if referring to the underground parts 13 14

15

Chefneux 1963, 123. Nevertheless, its context remains vague and it does not seem to have been in direct relation with the walls. A full slab, set as a lintel above the doorway: Lupescu 1996, 180–185. For another fragment from a similar stone, uncovered during excavations: Rusu – Mizgan 2008, fig. 31b. Usually, when a tombstone is discovered close to a church, it is automatically attributed to its churchyard. Nevertheless, the situation is different in this instance, because, near the church and in its vicinity, there are deposited many stones, unrelated to the edifice, whose origins remain unknown. Mărgineanu Cârstoiu – Apostol – Bâlici 2005, 211–248. Rusu 1997a, 121.

110

Chapter 4

Figure 4.3 The original ground plan of the churches in Densuș (St Nicholas’ church) and Alba Iulia (the archaeological pillared church uncovered in 2011) Densuș: drawing based on Vătășianu 1959, fig. 82; Alba Iulia: drawing by the author

of their masonry. Their foundations were made of unevenly set river stones bound with small amounts of lime mortar, mixed with sand, fine gravel and crushed brick, often thrown over while still hot. In both cases, the pillars were built in a different technique from that of the walls, with stronger foundations of hewn quarry stone, and coarsely squared stone blocks set as a base for the superstructure.16 The walls survived only in Densuș, made of Roman spolia 16

Chefneux 1963, 113.

The Formative Period

111

in an extremely original manner, unequalled in the area. The few fragments preserved in Alba Iulia indicate that the superstructure was made of squared blocks, but bricks seem to have been used as well. The identity of the basic layout is a convincing argument to support the contemporaneity of the buildings, given that no other analogy is known so far. Even if the church in Densuș could not be archaeologically dated, as was the case in Alba Iulia, it seems unlikely that the same pattern was implemented in the same region within two or three centuries, without any intermediate link. In the current state-of-the-art, it can be presumed that the part composed of the nave, pillars, and apse of the church in Densuș was most probably built sometime during the 10th or 11th century, when the church in Alba Iulia was still known or remembered. Both buildings were part of the family of the ‘Greek-cross’ layout, but the interpretation seems to have been local.17 Another unique occurrence of the period is a part of the church in Gurasada, for which origins in the 9th or the 10th century have been advocated. The current church is a complex building, composed of a mixture of spaces combined in unusual angles.18 From the outside, its eastern part shows an asymmetrical three-lobed structure with a mid-tower, while to the west there is a rectangular narthex and a second tower. When looking from the inside, it becomes obvious that the main structure was in fact a kind of quadrilobe, the western lobe now hidden in the later-built narthex composed of several small rooms. The middle tower stands on the barrel-vaults of the lobes, in the curious absence of a clearly highlighted central bay. The current appearance is the result of several stages of construction and of many more or less inspired restorations,19 but, most often than not, the four-lobes structure was considered the original church, built under Byzantine inspiration.20 However, the current knowledge lacks relevant chronological elements, and a suitable analogy is absent, a situation that has produced a variety of dating theories, between the 9th and 13th centuries21 (Fig. 4.4). 17

18 19 20 21

“This ground plan is unique in Transylvania and, through its peculiarities, it remains unique even in relation with the architecture of the other Romanian provinces and with the foreign one, although it is obvious that it basically reproduces a Byzantine church of a Macedonian central type, or, as calls it G. Millet, ‘a basic Greek-cross plan’.” Vătășianu 1959, 89. Drăguț 1968b, 54–56; Entz 1968, 42 and 138; Greceanu 1979a, 202; Ionescu 1963, 126. Archaeology: Popa – Chicideanu 1984, 54–67. Greceanu 2000, 32–33. Vătășianu 1959, 95; Gervers-Molnár 1972, 59. For an earlier dating, to the 10th–11th centuries, see Greceanu 2000, 32–40; Popa 1991a, 1533–1534. For a 12th-century first stage, and a second stage in the 13th century, see Szakács 2012b, 7–34. For the 13th century, see Drăguț 1968b, 54–55; Entz 1968, 42; Ionescu 1963, 126; Kiss 1999, 80. For a late medieval dating, see Ștefănescu 1932, 261–263.

112

Chapter 4

Figure 4.4 The archaeology of the Orthodox church in Gurasada – general view from the east and historical development. Archaeological research identified three later development stages upon the original structure (stage 1, 9–13th centuries?). A narthex was added to the west (stage 2), to be replaced soon by a compartment with four pillars (stage 3), and later a belltower was added (stage 4). Stages 2–4: 13th–18th centuries Drawing based on Popa – Chicideanu 1984, fig. 3; photo by Angel Istrate

The Formative Period

113

The archaeological excavations of 1977 and 1984 recovered the construction stages, but, due to a very broken stratigraphical context, they failed to provide any precise chronological details.22 Without having an analogy at the time, Radu Popa argued that the origins of the monument lay in a Byzantine ambiance and advanced a tentative 9th- or 10th-century construction date, reasoning that the founder must have been part of the Orthodox cultural sphere, probably linked with the Eastern-rite centre in Alba Iulia. It was assessed that, after the integration of southern Transylvania into the Hungarian kingdom, the founders might have changed to the Latin rite; consequently, the church became redundant and was given to Orthodox servants, who extended it westward, perhaps in the late 13th century.23 Most scholars have identified this church as a lobed one, except Virgil Vătășianu, who, in 1930, suggested a mixture of a classic Romanesque fourlobed and a Byzantine triconch.24 Strangely, this hypothesis was never questioned in connection with the archaeological data, which confirmed the ground plan of the original church as being built in a single stage, with four arms. When looking at this plan, it is obvious that the arms do not compose a four-lobed structure because they are not symmetrically shaped, except for the northern and southern ones, more or less alike and rounded on the inside. The eastern arm of the sanctuary appears as the largest, with an oval, elongated interior, in contrast to the western arm, which is the smallest and almost trapezoidal internal. In fact, this layout fits better a classic trilobe (even though a rudimentary one), extended westward with a small narthex. In this case, close analogies would be the 28th church in Pliska, dating from the 10th–11th centuries, or the even older ones in Ohrid: St Panteleimon (end of the 9th century) and St Naum (11th century).25 Consequently, the original building can be argued as before-the-conquest, but its general context remains to be further explored. This type implies dissemination through the south-western parts of the province, originating in the Banat and the Serbian lands south of the Danube, which is, once again, a topic to be studied.26

22 23 24 25 26

Popa – Chicideanu 1984, 54–67; Popa 1988a, 236–237. Popa 1991a, 1533–1534; Popa – Chicideanu 1984, 64–65. For a different opinion on the original ground plan, see Greceanu 2000, 32–40. On the situation in Alba Iulia, see Marcu-Istrate 2018c, 97–114. Vătășianu 1930, 132; Vătășianu 1959, 95; Gervers-Molnár 1972, 45–46, 58–59. Mijatev 1974, 96–97, fig. 100–102. Țeicu 1998, 175–186. The oldest such layout seems to have been put into operation in Cenad before the year 1000, as the church of Ahtum’s Greek-rite monastery. Móré Heitel 2005, 9–11. In general, on the early medieval churches in Cenad, see Dávid 1974, 12–14;

114

Chapter 4

The chronological point was influenced by the fact that the village appears in documents only at the end of the 13th century. It was owned by the Hungarian family Ákos.27 Although the situation was probably common, the question remains why such a complicated church would have been built, at a time when rural architecture was generally limited to the single-nave? And if a church was built for Eastern-rite believers, why did the donors not choose a typical eastern plan? To understand the difficulty of finding an answer, we must also bear in mind that the church has no analogy in the architecture developed on the territory of medieval Hungary.

…

Of the single-nave series, two churches built before 1200 are to be mentioned in this context, namely the ones in Streisângeorgiu and Peșteana. St George’s church in Streisângeorgiu has long been regarded as a 13th or 14th century building,28 but interdisciplinary investigations during restorations works in 1975–1976 established its beginnings in the early 12th century.29 The archaeological chronology was confirmed by the study of walls and murals, and subsequently the church has been declared as the oldest in use in Transylvania. Furthermore, it was established that the masonry building was preceded by a wooden one, a situation that rarely gave identifiable remains in soil. The wooden church, having the same ground plan but slightly smaller, was in use during the late 11th century, as deduced from the inventory of its graves30 (Fig. 4.5). The present-day building preserves the original form, with the singular addition of a western tower in 1408.31 There is a nearly square nave, 4.6 by 4.2 m on the side, and an off-balance, 3.2 m long by 2.8 m wide chancel. To the west,

27 28 29 30 31

Iambor 2001, 98–111; Móré Heitel 2010a, 10, 21–48. As interpreted by Suzana Móré Heitel, the ground plan of the church clearly relates to the architecture in use south of the Danube, a particular analogy being provided by the 10th-century church in Vinitsa. Móré Heitel 2005, 13–17. See also Mijatev 1974, 110–111, fig. 131. While this reading of the floor plan, based on archival data, is undoubtedly correct, until the actual rediscovery of the ruins, any further in-depth analysis is hazardous. The village, sitting on the northern bank of Mureș, close to the border between medieval Transylvania and Banat, was mentioned for the first time in a document in 1292, as an Orthodox one on the estate of the Catholic Ákos family. DIR.C.II., 389. Vătășianu 1930, 195; Vătășianu 1959, 82; Ionescu 1963, 100–104; Drăguț 1968b, 43–44; Entz 1968, 31. Popescu-Dolj 1974, 56–58; Popescu-Dolj 1978, 43–46; Mihăilă 1978, 33–38; Drăguț 1978, 39–42; Baltag 1978, 53–56. No traces of actual wood were found, but the funerary topography has suggested an older building on the same spot. Popa 1988a, 226–227 and note 106 on page 227. Detailed archaeological report: Popa 1976, 37–61. Description based on: Popa 1978, 9–32; Popescu-Dolj 1978, 43–46.

The Formative Period

115

Figure 4.5 The Orthodox church in Streisângeorgiu – east-west cross-section, ground plan and general view Drawings based on Popescu Dolj 1978, fig. 2–3; photo by Angel Istrate

two pillars support the small tower, but their original purpose is unknown. To the east, two pilasters divide an 0.7 m wide bay in between the nave and the chancel. After excavations, it was concluded that the chancel, and the nave with its two western pillars and two eastern pilasters, were built all at once in the early 12th century (Fig. 4.6). Although seemingly basic in its composition, the plan of the church in Streisângeorgiu raises questions when trying to understand the interior design

116

Chapter 4

The Formative Period

117

of the nave, with its standalone pillars and engaged pilasters. The archaeologists have advanced two interpretations.32 The first one tried to see a connection between the western pillars and the eastern pilasters, which might have supported a mid-nave square tower, possibly one or two floors high. Analogies have been suggested in the vicinity, such as the church at the bottom of Colț Fortress in Suseni, maybe even the church in Densuș. Nevertheless, the model would have been difficult to apply in Streisângeorgiu, since the four supporting elements do not describe a regular bay. A second hypothesis has seen the western pillars as a gallery base, which would suggest the origin of the church as a proprietary one. In this case, the eastern pilasters, linked by an arch, should have had a structural purpose, for strengthening the attic area, where a living room might have been located. However, the interesting part of the plan is that the two pilasters actually divide the nave, forming a separate compartment, with its own vault, in front of the sanctuary. Making a room between the nave and the sanctuary must have been imposed by liturgical needs and should have had a role during services. Radu Popa was close to this idea when mentioning a primitive choir, except that in the Orthodox rite the choir-type structure does not exist.33 If looking from a different angle, the eastern part of the nave actually is composed of two units, one to the north and the other to the south, which in functional terms can only be related to the niches of pastophoria, mandatory in the Eastern rite. The latter are usually attached to the sides of the sanctuary, whether they are separate rooms, apses, or just wall niches. Other kind of arrangements do not miss, and variants close to the one in Streisângeorgiu are known south of the Danube,34 or even further away,35 but not in Transylvania. The second church of the same series is still standing in Peșteana, a very interesting building often mentioned in scholarship for early beginnings. Currently, there is a small tower, a rectangular nave, and an unusual two-room sanctuary, with a kind of large choir ending to the east with a small apse of only 1.80 by 1.40 m.36 It is supposed that originally it was a single-nave with a small 32 33 34 35 36

Popa 1978, 18–19; Popa 1988a, 225–228. Ionescu 1963, 104. As for example the churches in Delidushka, Byal-Bryag and Selishte, nearby Preslav. Moisescu 2001, 23–24, fig. 33. A similar design was described for the church Panaghia tou Arakos, in Cypriot Lagoudhera. Stylianou – Stylianou 1997, 156–185, fig. 83 and 99. Greceanu 1986, 69–78; Popa 1988a, 236; Moisescu 2001, fig. 40; Rusu 1986, 252.

Figure 4.6 Ground plan of the 1975–1977 excavations in Streisângeorgiu: 1 – walls; 2 – masonry segments added behind the pilasters; 3 – the first pavement, made ← of stone; 4 – pits; 5 – pits older than the stone church; 6 – burned layer; 7 – the foundation; 8 – pavement made of brick; 9 and “M” – graves; 10–11 – jewellery and coins After Popa 1978, fig. 6

118

Chapter 4

Figure 4.7 The present-day Orthodox church in Peșteana in black, the presumed first apse in grey Drawing based on Popa 1988a, 213, fig. 44, and Moisescu 2001, 46, fig. 39

apse, polygonal on the outside and semicircular on the inside, and perhaps two small east-facing niches set in the eastern wall. However, a Romanesque portal ending round was noticed at the beginning of the 20th century at the ground floor of the tower, unfortunately lost during the 1924–1926 restoration. The results of the archaeological investigations of 1986 have not been published yet, however an early-12th-century dating is often considered by scholars37 (Fig. 4.7). Unlike the four abovementioned churches, which are still standing in Orthodox villages, the site in Pâncota opens a different, and quite poorly understood perspective on the way Byzantine influence manifested on the territory of the Catholic kingdom. The current town of Pâncota is in the western part of Transylvania. A Benedictine Abbey was first mentioned in 1177 (“the village of the Abbot of Pâncota”),38 to become very famous later on, as a rich establishment and the seat of an archdeacon (mentioned in 1332), dependent on the Eger Bishopric. The site was repurposed during the 130-years-long Ottoman rule, and later abandoned and ruined. However, some remnants of this locale were still visible at the beginning of the 19th century. Used as a stone quarry by villagers, the ruins were excavated more or less archaeologically in the second part of the 19th century, resulting in several drawings, notes, and papers.39 This documentation remained hidden up to the 1990s, when found and studied by Suzana Móré Heitel, who brought to light one of the most valuable achievements of local ecclesiastical architecture (Fig. 4.8). 37 38 39

Moisescu 2001, 45–47. A different interpretation of the church, but also considering an early dating, in the 11–12th centuries: Greceanu 1986, 69–78. DIR.C.I., 23, 363. CDTrans.I., 126–127. Reg.Arp.I., 62, no. 202, Móré Heitel 2010a, 114, note 7. The complicated history of these excavations, carried out in 1847, 1862, 1882 and 1883, in: Móré Heitel 2000, 593–608; Móré Heitel 2010a, 113–137. New excavations started in the 2000s. Marcu-Istrate and al. 2003, 226–227.

The Formative Period

Figure 4.8 The archaeological church in Pâncota – general layout and the second altar After Móré Heitel 2000, fig. 12 and fig. 37

119

120

Chapter 4

Based on those notes, a church was reconstructed, about 20.3 by 11.45 m in size, with a semicircular apse, three aisles with a gallery at their west end and a western façade with two towers larger than the aisles. The inner partitioning of the church shows the peculiarity of extremely narrow aisles, only 1 m wide, separated by columns. Those who saw the remains during the 19th century excavations mentioned that “its outer decoration was probably unmatched.”40 There were engaged columns and various sculptures in walls, and the floor was of tiles depicting vegetal and zoomorphic motifs. The furnishings seem to have been quite exceptional, especially two altars in front of the apse, which “open a new chapter in the history of our medieval art and are at the same time important accomplishment of 11th-century Byzantine-style sculpture.”41 However, recent archaeological excavations have noticed only the robber trenches of the foundation, the construction materials being completely removed by villagers.42 The history of this church is not yet fully clear, but its architectural characteristics resemble some edifices in Pliska and Preslav, the first two capitals of the Bulgarian state, the church in Boeotian Scripou, dated 873, and some churches from 10th-century Constantinople. These analogies lead to a general dating of the site during the 10th–11th centuries, some details suggesting even a late-10th-century construction.43 The archaeological excavations carried out in 2000–2006 noticed that the first church was subsequently modified. It received a sacristy to the north and a huge tower to the west, but the chronology of the stages remained unclear. At the current state-of-the-art, one cannot specify whether the Byzantine-style church worked within an Eastern monastery, or if it was simply the church of the Benedictine house. 4.2

A Glimpse into the Beginnings of Catholic Architecture

Romanesque churches began to be built most likely in the late 11th century, following the conquest, trailing from the west and north-west to the centre of the province, to finally reach the bend of the Carpathians during the early 13th century. Most churches were probably small single-nave structures, while

40 41 42 43

Móré Heitel 2010a, 40. Móré Heitel 2010a, 44. Marcu-Istrate and al. 2003, 226–227. Mijatev 1974, 84–89, 109, fig. 76, 79, 81, 82. The analysis in: Móré Heitel 2010a, 145–148.

The Formative Period

121

complex shapes, i.e. basilicas and centrally-planned buildings, which required higher technical skills, appeared only in exceptional cases. The diocesan seats were endowed with basilicas, but their early stages have disappeared,44 and information is actually limited to what we know about the first cathedral in Alba Iulia, which was by far the most important building of the time in Transylvania, and not only.45 The cathedral was planned as a three aisled basilica ended to the east with a single round apse, built in the late 11th century according to architectural and archaeological studies.46 Many argue for a construction site still active in the 12th century,47 which in fact fits the general trend within the kingdom, with the great churches under construction for centuries48 (Chapter 5). Little is known about the cathedrals in Cenad and Oradea, which probably shared the same basilican shape. The one in Oradea, founded by King Ladislaus I (1077–1095) and later dedicated to him in the wake of the king’s canonization in 1192, is not known at all,49 despite several archaeological attempts to identify it.50 The latest excavations produced only a few small stone fragments that could be Romanesque. The situation is even more complicated in the case of Cenad, where the poorly known archaeological excavations have not clarified things, and it is in fact a long debate about what exactly St Gerard built there.51 It is supposed that important monasteries were endowed mainly with basilicas, as for example the royal foundation in Cluj-Mănăștur, around 1100, or the one recently uncovered in Frumușeni-Bizere, from the first part of the

44

45

46 47 48 49 50 51

None of the twelve cathedrals that must have been built throughout the kingdom during the 11th century was preserved, all of them disappearing due to reconstructions or various other reasons. Modified ever since the 12th century, they were always in need of repairs, they were always refurbished with new elements, and eventually entirely rebuilt. Not only have they not survived – most of the time not even their shape is known. Szakács 2006a, 182–186. The first cathedral is considered a key monument for the architectural development within the kingdom, and connections have been made with cathedrals in Székesfehérvár, Kalocsa and Zalavár, but there is no a clear image about its workshop. Szakács 2005, 34; Vătășianu 1966, 10; Heitel 1972, 140, 154, note 4. Heitel 1985, 227–228. Vătășianu 1959, 22–23, 43. Entz 1968, 6. Szakács 2006a, 182. Small-scale excavations took place in 1883 and, based on their results, a four-towered basilica was suggested, a hypothesis rejected by other investigations undertaken in 1911– 1912. See the bibliography in: Avram 2006a, 13; Vătășianu 1959, 21; Rusu 2002, 30–31, 70. Móré Heitel 2010a, 1–39. For general data about excavations: Tănase 2015, 413–434.

122

Chapter 4

12th century. The most well-known are the ones still standing in Acâș and Herina, from the late 12th century, or even early 13th century.52 The basilica type was also preferred by Saxons, although it remains completely unclear how early this happened.53 There are certainly basilicas that originated in the second part of the 12th century, such as the one in Cisnădioara (Chapter 6), maybe also the one in Rodbav, which is known as completed before 1241.54 Nonetheless, construction dates are usually assigned to the late 12th–early 13th centuries, or later (Chapter 6.4) (Fig. 6.18). Several rotundas, most of them considered to be residential chapels, have early beginnings, but only the one in Alba Iulia was undoubtedly built before the end of the 11th century, while its Romanesque background is still under debate. There is also a long discussion about the rotunda in Geoagiu, which might have been built also during the 11th century, but the archaeological data has not been published yet (Chapter 6.5). A series of rotundas, built close to the residences of those who effectively organized the colonisation, are known in southern Transylvania. Some of them are only archaeological ruins (Orăștie (Fig. 6.23), Sibiu (Fig. 9.4), Sighișoara (Fig. 0.1 and 3.8), while others survive in different conditions (Saschiz, Cisnădie). When the discovery in Orăștie was analyzed, a dating was proposed in the first part of the 12th century, and then it was automatically extended to the whole group.55 The theory is attractive and perhaps true for some of these buildings, but, in the current state-of-the-art, there is not enough knowledge for arguing such an early process of building. As elsewhere, this type of church may have served different functions in different periods of time, as will be discussed further down in more detail (Chapter 6.5). In most cases, early churches must have been modest single-nave structures, ending eastward with a rounded apse or a square chancel, but only few examples are known, and only the church in Viscri certainly still retains parts built before 1200. However, several archaeological cases were clarified or supposed in fortified or not residences of the Hungarian elite (Sânnicolau

52 53 54 55

Entz 1968, 6–7. Avram 1981, 64–71; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 78–80. Horwath 1940a, 42; Entz 1968, 27–28; Fabini 1998, I, 610–611; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 269– 270. Archaeological excavations led by Radu Heitel, unpublished, mentioned by Fabini 2009, 2. Pinter 2003, 263–286.

The Formative Period

123

de Beiuș, Firtușu,56 Brașov (Brassovia),57 and Moldovenești58), in villages and monasteries. On the other hand, single-nave churches do not necessarily have to be associated with modest situations, because such structures were also erected in some key sites, as temporary buildings preceding a greater church. In Vladimirescu, the first church was an almost square single-nave building with a rather flat semicircular apse, to be followed only later by a basilica.59 Things seem to have been the same, around 1200, in the case of the two Cistercian monasteries in Igriș60 and Cârța (Chapter 7). When referring to the beginnings of religious architecture in the area, the most important thing to bear in mind must be the experimental character of the period before 1200. The traditional scholarship has for long sought general features and standardized forms, and almost generally has argued chronologies based on isolated elements, such as doorways, windows, or architectural stones, which in fact could be or not relevant for the whole fabric. However, archaeology has brought to light much more complicated facts regarding not only the ground plans, but the overall process of building and endowing a church. Shapes have often been changeable, as shown by cases where, on the same site, different architectural outlines – basilicas, rotundas, or single-nave churches – succeeded each other, sometimes with different tasks in various contexts. The same is true if speaking about owners, functions, competences – because shifts were quite common on the agenda of the 11th and 12th centuries. A comparative and exhaustive analysis of these cases has not yet been undertaken; however, some examples are particularly suggestive of the difficulties that church archaeology must face when approaching in depth multistages sites. 56 57

58 59 60

It was a 16 by 16 m single-nave church, ending in a semicircular apse, with extremely thin walls, which suggested a possible wooden structure. The dating remains uncertain, oscillating up to the 18th century. Horedt – Székely – Molnar 1962, 636. A single-nave (11 by 7 m) ending in a semicircular apse and with a sacristy on the northern side was dated in the 11th century, presumed as belonging to a Benedictine foundation. Treiber 1934, 38–42; Ferenczi 1935, 75–99; Vătășianu 1959, 12–13. Most researchers, however, prefer to assign them to the 13th century or, more specifically, to the early 13th century. Pop 1968, 18. Horedt 1958, 132–145; Rusu 2005, 202–219. Barbu – Zdroba 1979, 291–296; Barbu 1980, 151–163. A new interpretation of the finds in: Mărginean 2016, 94–97, fig. 4. Tănase et al. 2017, 229–240. A single-nave church was recently uncovered: Tănase 2021.

124

Chapter 4

Figure 4.9 The site of the former Benedictine monastery in Cluj-Mănăștur, archaeological excavations: 1 – the present-day church, 14th century; 2 – the oldest structures of the Benedictine monastery, possibly from a basilica (12th century); 3 – round church (13th century); 4 – room added to the rotunda, possibly a baptistery (late 13th century); 5 – medieval fortifications Drawing based on Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, pl. 43A

Cluj-Mănăștur, a former fortified settlement,61 was repurposed post-conquest into a royal fortress and a county capital, and, within the fortified yard, a Benedictine monastery was founded. At the time, this was the eastern-most on the territory of the kingdom.62 First mentioned in 1222, the monastery had been established during the late 11th century by Béla I (1060–1063) or Ladislaus I (1077–1095),63 to be destroyed three times by the mid-13th century and reconstructed some decades later64 (Fig. 4.9). 61 62 63 64

The first stage of the fortification was dated to the 9th–11th centuries. Iambor – Matei 1979, 599–602. Erwin Gáll argued unconvincingly for a later dating, to the 11th or 12th century. Gáll – Gergely 2009b, 97–98; Gáll et al. 2017, 58–59; Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 115–123. CDTrans.I., 19–23; Entz 1968, 6–7 and 146–147; Iambor 2005, 206. There is an important bibliography focusing on the history of the abbey and its activity as a locus credibilis. Brief on the history: Lupescu 2005, 27–77; Kovács 2007, 65–79. Urkundenbuch, I, 521. It is known that several attacks against the monastery happened during the early 13th century, caused by misunderstandings between the bishop of Transylvania and the abbots,

The Formative Period

125

Quite extensive, although still unprocessed archaeological investigations carried out between 1970 and 1982, and again in the 1990s, explored the western part of the fortification, while the opposite part and the existing church are yet to be excavated. The archaeologists reported an incoherent network of walls from different stages, surrounded and overlapped by many burials with a relatively rich amount of burial goods, which makes it easier to establish a chronology.65 It seems that monks erected the first buildings bound with mortar during the late 11th century or the early 12th century, shortly or immediately after settling in the fortified enclosure. Mostly based on analogies with other Benedictine houses, it was assumed that the first church was a basilica with three aisles and a central apse, but, in fact, its history remains unclear and probably it was already ruined in the late 12th century. The archaeologists supposed a final destruction during the Mongol invasion, followed by the building of a rotunda nearby, probably after 1200.66 The rotunda was circular on the outside and had six apses on the inside, a shape that remains to this day unique in local architecture. Its walls were made of ashlars, and a rich decoration was suggested by a capital with crockets uncovered in the demolition rubble. That stone shows an experienced workshop employed for the task, but further details are missing, and, in fact, the topography of the site remains perplexing. The relation of the two churches is questionable as well, more precisely why the monks would have replaced a basilica with a much smaller rotunda. Just as unexplained is the connection of these buildings with a square room located north of the rotunda, with an unclear chronology and purpose: some are seeing it as an added aisle, but Kurt Horedt was wondering if it was not actually part of the 12th-century topography, purposed for a baptistery.67 One of the most extraordinary discoveries for this period occurred in Frumușeni, at a spot called Bizere, where the ruins of a Benedictine monastery were extensively excavated. Mentioned for the first time in 1183,68 most likely the monastery had operated since the mid-12th century. After having a very prosperous period until the 1220s or 1230s, it gradually declined and was in

65 66

67 68

the latter depending directly on the Diocese of Esztergom. In around 1200, the abbey was destroyed twice in such attacks, and finally again in 1241. Iambor – Matei 1975, 291–304; Iambor – Matei 1979, 599–620; Iambor – Matei 1983, 131– 147; Iambor – Matei – Halasu 1981, 129–150. The foundation of the rotunda disturbed a grave that had among its burial goods a coin issued by Béla III (1172–1196), and a Romanesque sculpture was noticed in the masonry, facts that argue for a construction date later than 1200. Iambor 2005, 206–208 with a summary of the archaeological data. Horedt 1986, 138. DIR.C.I., 9–10.

126

Chapter 4

Figure 4.10

The archaeological remains of the Benedictine monastery in Frumușeni-Bizere: in black – foundations of the palace (A), of the chapel (B) and main church (C), and of the cloister (D); in grey – reconstructions; crosses mark burial areas Drawing based on Rusu – Burnichioiu 2011, pl. 26

ruins by the 16th century. It was supposedly a royal foundation, which would explain both its particular privileges and unique endowments69 (Fig. 4.10). Its location close to an island, on the lower course of the Mureș river, appeared on maps in late 16th century,70 but later it was lost and found again only in the 2000s as a result of field surveys undertaken by Suzana Móré Heitel.71 After 69 70 71

Móré Heitel 2010a, 12–15 about the possibility that it was initially founded as a Greek-rite monastery, an opinion that the authors of the excavations did not share. Rusu – Burnichioiu 2011, 19–20. Rusu – Burnichioiu 2011, 37–44. Móré Heitel 2010a, 268–269; Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 159–168.

The Formative Period

127

a first attempt in 1981, systematic archaeological investigation began in 2001, under the coordination of archaeologist Adrian A. Rusu. Several structures (two churches, monastic buildings and annexes) and numerous artefacts were brought to light, as a result of one of the most successful and systematic explorations of a religious site in Transylvania. The results have been only fragmentarily published, as they are still being processed, so most currently available data regards the mosaics, and some fragments of buildings and facilities.72 The main church was a 26 by 10 m basilica with three aisles of equal width, with some important peculiarities, especially in the eastern part. The church seems to have had two large compartments, separated by a wall, each one with three aisles. In the western part, three pairs of square-based piers outlined the aisles, while in the eastern part, considered by the archaeologists as the sanctuary, the aisles seem separated by walls standing on continuous foundations. The aisles ended roundly toward the east, in a kind of un-recessed walled apses, which opened into the church only through narrow doorways. The main apse is almost round, with an opening only on the western side, toward the main nave. The way this ‘rotunda’ connects to the ground plan of the church would compel one to presume a multi-stage development, which probably will result from processing the field data. Anyway, the plan is completely one-of-a-kind, so far without any direct analogy in the repertoire of the period. A northern church, until now identified as a funerary chapel, was erected later than the basilica, in the late 12th century or the first third of the 13th century, as a modest construction, both in terms of size and technique. Raised on top of the grave of an important individual, the chapel had a nave, a much-flattened semicircular apse, and a western compartment interpreted as a porch or a small tower.73 For the basic shape of the single-nave church, which likely predominated, whether the context was residential, monastic, or public, a good example is that of Sânnicolau de Beiuș, where excavations on the spot of a fortified Romanesque tower74 have identified no less than three churches built during the 11th–13th centuries: the chapel of the residence of the Borsa noble family,

72 73 74

Rusu – Burnichioiu 2011, 122–123 and 37–48 for the research history; Burnichioiu – Rusu 2011, 3–13. Rusu – Burnichioiu 2011, 73. Vătășianu 1959, 35; Orbán 1957, 51. With a square base, originally opened through arcades on all sides, the tower retains four levels and several paired windows with simple or variously decorated cubic capitals.

128

Chapter 4

the church of a Benedictine monastery, and its 13th-century renewed structure, rebuilt from the foundations after an unclear destruction75 (Fig. 4.11). The first church was a single-nave building with a round apse, about 12.8 by 7.3 m on the exterior, and with 1–1.3 m thick walls. In the western part of the nave there was a square pillar standing on a continuous foundation, which was interpreted as a remnant from a western gallery. The archaeological context provided a dating in the mid or late 11th century, taking in consideration the possibility of two building-stages, if the western end with the gallery was an addition.76 The second church was dated before the year 1150, based on no less than six coins recovered from conclusive situations. At that time, a monastery was being built on the spot, with domestic buildings on the northern side of the new church. Unlike the previous one, the monastic church was made of bricks on stone foundations, preserving the same ground plan, but at a larger scale (20 by 10.8 m external). Destroyed for unknown reasons, the church was rebuilt sometimes after 1200 on the same layout, but smaller in size. Its foundations were made of stone and compacted clay, with the north wall having a very wide foundation, which reached 1.8 m across, including the previous ruins. Regarding the tower, it remains unclear if it worked with the first or the second church. Two early examples are to be added from eastern Transylvania, uncovered in the Szekler villages of Avrămești and Ulieș. In the first case, an 11.6 by 6.5 m single-nave church with a semicircular apse stood on foundations made of compacted clay and some river stones, during the first part of the 12th century77 (Fig. 4.12). In the second case, a semicircular apse set on foundations of compacted soil, was abandoned when a second apse was built out of stone about 1 m to the east. It is very interesting that the first apse operated without a nave, which suggests that while services were held there, the believers stood outside. When building the second church, the apse was made first, and the nave was added later.78

75 76 77

78

Popa – Chidioșan – Lukács 1984, 21–34; Avram 1995, 65–93; Avram 2006a, 103–109, with a detailed description of the archaeological situation and of the tower. Popa – Chidioșan – Lukács 1984, 21; Avram 2006a, 109. The church, already in use in 1333, but undergoing several stages of construction, was demolished in the early 19th century, and uncovered in 1985–1987. Dávid 1981, 328–329. Archaeology: Benkő 1992, 208–238; Benkő 2012, I, fig. 15/1; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 82–84. Dávid 1981, 187–194. Archaeological excavations in 2005–2006. Derzsi – Sófalvi 2008, 267–285; Sofálvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 89–92. See Nyárádi 2016, 495–510, for more examples.

The Formative Period

129

Figure 4.11 The archaeological churches in Sânnicolau de Beiuș: A – the first church (11th century); B – the second church and monastic buildings (12th century); C – the third church (13th century) Drawing based on Popa 1991a, fig. 4, and Chiriac 2002, 38, fig. 5

130

Chapter 4

Figure 4.12

The archaeological churches in Avrămești: 12th century in black, 14th century (?) in grey, and later additions in light grey Drawing based on Benkő 2012, I, 103, fig. 15.1

A unique situation was identified in the same area in Sânvăsii, where the interior of the 13th–17th-century church was excavated.79 Two older churches were uncovered: a single-nave building with a round apse (or a rotunda?) and a basilica. The former could have been the church of a 12th-century Hungarian community, since S-ended hair rings were recovered from the graveyard surrounding it, but also a coin minted by Béla III (1174–1196).80 A basilica with three aisles was constructed on top of this church – likely deserted at the time – although it seems that the project was abandoned after embedding the foundations, sometime during the 13th century. Regarding the Saxons, their early architecture also raises several questions of both chronological and architectural nature. Coming from a Christian society, they must have begun the organization of their religious life immediately after arriving in Transylvania, so that a horizon of churches and graveyards should exist as early as the 12th century.81 However, the image is confusing because, at the moment, there are many graveyards from that century known, but very few churches. This is a situation that is hard to explain. Some claim 79 80 81

Benkő 2012, I, 111–112, mentions investigations conducted by Soós Zoltán, whose results were still unpublished in 2012. A sketch of the general plan after excavations was published in: Rossel 2015, 254–257. Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 38. Horwath 1935, 69–75; Horwath 1936, 169–180.

The Formative Period

131

that the colonists needed several generations to build their churches,82 while others argue for the early beginnings for the ecclesiastical sites connected with the process of settlement.83 One can presume that, in most cases, two to three attempts were needed before the churches gained their final appearance. There are several quite eloquent archaeological examples of the process, one of the most representatives being that of the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara (Fig. 0.1 and 3.8). The archaeological excavations in 1999–2001 highlighted built structures, traces of walls, demolition trenches, mortar stains here and there under successive layers of hundreds of burials, overlaps and intersections of walls and graves, as scattered remains of a complex site.84 Despite older interpretation, the present shape of the church was reached at the end of a very long road, along which several buildings overlapped and joined in different ways. In 1999, when a trench on the north side of the current sanctuary was opened, the extrados of a brick vault appeared under layers of debris and dozens of skeletons, but still not at a very great depth. At a first glance, it was interpreted as a burial vault, but extending the excavation, a curious situation was brought to light. Close to the church and partially beneath the present-day choir, there was a rectangular cell (2.70 by 3.25 m), continued to the north by a corridor (3.5 / 4 by 2 m).85 The builders used stone for the foundations, stone and brick for the walls, and brick for the vault, bound by an extremely brittle mortar, made of sand and lime (Fig. 4.13–14). The first cell ends to the south (the shorter side) with a full wall featuring the aperture of a narrow window, while to the north a kind of entrance was delineated by two pilasters. The south-eastern section was later included in the structure of a round construction (subsequently in the structure of all sanctuaries to this day), but without being destroyed: thanks to this circumstance, a fragment of the vault has been preserved untouched. The northern compartment, only partially preserved, appears as a corridor with thick walls, a maximum thickness of 1.30 m being registered. To the east and west of these two cells, several fragments of walls were noticed, generally preserved at the base of the foundation and in such a poor condition that any reconstruction would be hazardous. The main structure was a rather elaborate achievement, carefully built, vaulted, and plastered internally. But how did it look from the outside? The analysis of the stratigraphy has shown that the building rose above ground, so 82 83 84 85

Vătășianu 1987, 12; Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 494. Fabini 2009, 43. Marcu – Pascu 2000, 27–29; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 140–142; Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16; Baltag 1979, 75–106, for previous excavations on the hill. Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 7–8.

132

Chapter 4

Figure 4.13

Early buildings in Sighișoara, on the site of the Church on the Hill: 1 – buildings made of brick, 12th century; 2–3 – round church, with one buttress to the east, reconstruction based on preserved walls (3) and archaeological ruins (2); 4 – presumptive reconstruction of the western segment of the rotunda (lacking clear indicia); 5 – the present-day Church on the Hill in Sighișoara, including an underground level of the sanctuary, with a crypt Reconstruction based on archaeological data, drawing by the author

it can be assumed that originally it had a roof, or perhaps another floor. The very large thickness of the foundations, unusual for an underground structure, like a simple crypt, support the second hypothesis. What has been preserved and described above represents obviously a fragment of ‘something,’ composed of a vaulted compartment with an intricate interior, lit (ventilated?) through a narrow window from the south, and largely opened to the north. The south-north axis raises the question, if the described structure actually was just a part, probably the southern wing of a more complicate building, likely of cruciform ground plan.86 There is also a second possibility of the cells being an extension of an unknown church, as a chapel or a funerary room (Fig. 4.14). 86

Perhaps an early building like the one in Prejmer is to be considered in this case. For Prejmer see further chapter 7.

Figure 4.14

→

Early buildings in Sighișoara, on the site of the Church on the Hill, first stage, 12th century: East-to-West section through north of the today sanctuary, and photos taken during the archaeological excavation of the brick vaulted compartment Drawing and photos by the author

The Formative Period

133

134

Chapter 4

When was that building erected and for how long did it operate? Two of the oldest coins, minted in the second part of the 12th century, were found in close proximity, and, from over the ruin, a large amount of 12th-century pottery was recovered. Furthermore, analyzing the stratigraphy and the relation with other built structures it resulted that this strange stone-and-brick construction was the first on the spot, likely dating to the early 12th century or earlier. The interpretation must stop here: the technique of building, the design and the age do not have any analogy in the local heritage. The second church on the same spot was a rotunda, reconstructed archaeologically beneath the current apse, with an external diameter of 11–12 m, and a north-east buttress.87 The northern side of the rotunda incorporated the south-eastern corner of the vaulted cell, without disturbing it and without walling up the small window. The relation between them remains, however, slightly ambiguous, suggesting that they might have coexisted for a while. The rotunda had an inner diameter of ca. 6–7 m and about 3 m thick walls at foundation level. Compared to other similar constructions, this building shows an important distinguishing feature: the partly sunken first floor was reachable by two staircases within the northern and southern walls. The doorways are still there, but the stairs were walled up, making difficult to establish if the starting point was a second floor of the same building or other side chambers. The situation of the northern side would suggest that the window of the vaulted room opened into the staircase of the rotunda, which allows the possibility of a communication way between them at least at the preserved level. The chronology of the rotunda is suggested by several analogies in the 12th–13th centuries, as part of a series of buildings from the colonisation period, which include residential and religious spaces (Fig. 4.13). The third church was a basilica erected over the older buildings in the second part of the 13th century, preserving a part of the rotunda in the structure of the new apse (Chapter 6). Although the excavation was large enough, the very fragmentary state of the vestiges did not allow a complete reconstruction of the older stages but outlined a rather fragmented image of a heterogeneous ensemble of buildings developed through various additions and changes. It seems that, at a certain point in time, several connected edifices with religious, funerary, residential, and defensive functions, operated on that hill. With its very thick walls and its

87

A segment is missing from the western part, destroyed very likely when the rotunda was transformed into an apse and, subsequently, into a crypt. Its eastern-most segment is still visible both from outside, but also from inside the crypt beneath the current Gothic sanctuary.

The Formative Period

135

flared outer profile, the rotunda seems compatible with the role of a donjon, with an underground lower floor for refuge and storage. Understanding the early period is complicated not only from the architectural side, but also when trying to find out the general context of the building process, and particularly who settled there before 1200: the Szeklers or the Saxons? Sighișoara belongs to a territory that is believed to have been colonised during the 13th century, first mentioned in 1298.88 Excavations unearthed hospites graves from before 1200, which suggests an early group of settlers who might have started some building activities.89 However, traditionally, the beginning of the settlement has been linked to an alleged royal camp, possibly made out of wood and earth, maintained by a Szekler garrison.90 Were the latter to initiate the stone and brick construction, over which the later churches overlapped?91 The issue remains open and must be analyzed in the broader context of Szekler-Saxon relations in the organization of religious life and the construction of churches in southern Transylvania. For the same topic, the finds in Viscri and Drăușeni have often been mentioned. In both cases, the original churches were small single-naves, erected during the early or mid-12th century, the former in stone, the latter possible in wood on stone foundations. The church in Viscri was extended in several stages but kept to this day a single-nave layout completed with a western tower, while, in Drăușeni, a 13th century basilica overlapped the south part of the older church. However, their context was probably dissimilar, because Viscri is usually seen as a residence of a leader, while, in Drăușeni, the first church was a public one, built by passing Szeklers or by settled Saxons (for Drăușeni see further Chapter 6 and 10). The church in Viscri, now displaying a 16th century shape, has a rectangular nave, an elongated recessed sanctuary with a trapezoidal choir ending in a rounded apse, and a fortified tower in the west92 (Fig. 4.15). For long it was seen as a Romanesque structure, but archaeological and architectural studies in the 88

89 90 91 92

Urkundenbuch, I, 210–211; Entz 1968, 19, 159, 170–171; Vătășianu 1959, 430; Nussbächer 1985, 98–105, 126–128, 145–147; Roth 2003, 186–190. Some place the foundation during the first part of the 13th century (Machat 2002, 18–19, 50–51), others consider the second part: Baltag 2004, 21–23, and, for a synthesis on different theories, 27–33. Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 7. See also Marcu-Istrate – Istrate 2015, 229–244 for the chronology of this type of graves. Niedermaier 1979b, 67–68; Niedermaier 2000, IV. Machat 1977, 9–14; Machat 2002, 91–101 for a detailed description of the building and recent surveys. Leonhardt – Eberle – Frank 2009, 26; Baltag 2004, 203–205. The church lies on a hill, northwest of the village, surrounded by a strong fortification composed of an outer defensive wall, largely in ruins, and the main enclosure strengthened with four towers. The present-day church looks like a fortified building, heightened

136

Chapter 4

Figure 4.15

The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Viscri: A – the first church (early 12th century); B – the tower and the first enclosure (12th century); C – the new apse (13th century); D – the present-day church (15th–16th centuries) Drawings based on Fabini 1998, I, fig. 87.2, and Dumitrache 1978a, fig. 5

1970s showed many stages of construction hidden under the current fabric.93 The original church was in fact composed from the eastern part of the current nave and a semicircular apse, a small building (13.50 by 8 m) from the early 12th century, which is still considered one of the oldest in Saxon territories. It is unclear when the dwelling tower was added, at about 4 m west of the church,

93

through defensive floors. General data about the village and the fortified church: Fabini 1998, I, 141–144; Horwath 1940a, 89–91; Vătășianu 1959, 596; Gheorghiu 1985, 86. The first excavations with a claim to be of archaeological nature were made in 1942, by Erhard Antoni, who dug around the choir, revealing its foundations down to the native layers, to verify if the church had previously had a larger sanctuary. Antoni also excavated on the north and south sides, discovering the ruins of a wall on the northern side. In the 1970s, investigations resumed under the coordination of Marianne Dumitrache. Dumitrache 1978a, 35–53; Dumitrache 1981, 253–285.

The Formative Period

137

but probably this happened also during the 12th century.94 Later on, the apse was replaced with a large, elongated one, and the tower was linked with the body of the church.95 The church in Viscri was seen by scholars as an atypical construction within Saxon lands, because of its single-nave ground plan. Consequently, at the time of its discovery, and according to the then state-of-the-art, the first church was considered a cemetery chapel built and used by Szeklers living in Viscri for several decades in the first part of the 12th century.96 In this scenario, the church would have been taken over by a Saxon greav in the second part of the 12th century, becoming part of his residence, which also contained a dwelling tower and an enclosure wall.97 At the end of the 13th century, it became a parish, in poorly known circumstances.98 Dating the original church so early was based on its archaeological context: first, the church was built on virgin land and did not disturb graves; secondly, a coin found nearby, issued by King Coloman, was interpreted as relevant for the building process, probably in-between 1110–1120.99 The coin was later reassessed as minted by King Géza II in-between 1141–1162. Many have considered mandatory to change the building time to the second half of the 12th century, without taking into consideration the fact that no concrete relation could be established between the grave with the coin and the foundations of the church.100 Actually, this find says nothing more than that a funeral took place there in the mid-12th-century, which does not rule out an earlier consecration. Another coin was an obol from the 11th–12th centuries,101 uncovered north of the church, but once again lacking a direct connection with any of the buildings.102 The only item in a more conclusive situation was a hoop earring 94

The technical characteristics of the masonry clearly indicate different stages of construction for tower and church, even the construction material being different – the tower was made from gray basalt, and the church from green quarry stone. 95 During that stage, the old apse became a trapezoidal choir, and a new apse was added to the east, of semicircular shape, but strengthened with buttresses. The church acquired its present appearance in around 1500, when the west wall was demolished, and the nave was extended to join the tower. Dumitrache 1981, 262–263, 275; Anghel 1986, 30–31. 96 Dumitrache 1978a, 49. 97 Dumitrache 1978a, 44, 49–51. 98 In 1297, Viscri is mentioned as a land deserted and lacking inhabitants, upon which “Magister Akus, son of Michael” was raising claims. Dumitrache 1981, 267. 99 The extremely crowded cemetery seems to have continued to be used even after the Reformation, as suggested by the cuts of the graves of the upper layers, often oriented on the north-south axis. Marianne Dumitrache has assumed that the 12th-century graveyard was quite large. Dumitrache 1981, note 45. 100 Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 233–234. 101 Dumitrache 1981, 267. 102 Dumitrache 1978a, fig. 5.

138

Chapter 4

with S-shaped ending, discovered in the backfill of the embedment trench of the tower, a type of find considered by many as a firm chronological indicator for the 12th-century Szeklers.103 However, the earring could have gotten there via many ways, perhaps by destroying a grave, or by being accidentally dropped. Based on archaeological data, it remains obvious that church and tower were already there by the mid-12th century, with the church being older. However, the ethnic issue left unanswered, and further in-depth investigations are needed to clarify if the Szeklers have built churches in southern Transylvania before the arrival of the Saxons. Despite many excavations in recent decades, no answer has been given to this question, and, actually, while there are some settlements and cemeteries, no churches can be linked with the Szeklers. The current knowledge would rather argue that the first small church in Viscri was from the beginning a Saxon undertaking, no matter if a private or a public one. Very likely, the same happened in Drăușeni, and other examples are to be expected, as suggested by a recent discovery within the church in Câlnic104 (Fig. 10.4). 4.3

Summary of the Chapter

Whether looking at Catholic or Orthodox settlements, one thing is certain: very few churches from before 1200 are known. According to the historical circumstances of Transylvania, the formative period of the religious landscape actually includes two distinct categories of churches: those of a Byzantine type, and the Romanesque ones. The small group that displays Byzantine connections includes the oldest churches known now in Transylvania, originated within the 10th century, if not earlier. The one in Streisângeorgiu is the oldest still in use, being assumed that it already functioned in the first part of the 12th century. The churches in Densuș, Gurasada, and Peșteana also survive, with different additions and alterations. The churches in Alba Iulia and Pâncota are in archaeological ruins, as well as the ones in Dăbâca and Biharia. What is very curious about this group is the variety of layouts: as many churches, as many plan variants – with the singular exception of those in Alba Iulia and Densuș, which are quite similar.105 103 Popa 1976, 58–60; Popa 1978, 30–31, with a discussion regarding the use of these items as a fashion statement. 104 Excavations recently performed within the Evangelical church in Câlnic uncovered an older single-nave, probably the first parish church, built in the 13th century. Information thanks to the main archaeologist Maria Crîngaci Țiplic. 105 Using atypical plans seems to have been one of the main characteristics of the shaping period of the European architecture. In the vicinity of Transylvania, at shorter or longer distances, a number of other one-of-a-kind structures are mentioned in the specialized

The Formative Period

139

This heritage raises several problems that relate both to their architecture and to the socio-political and religious contexts of their activity, suggesting complex, but still hidden associations to the late Byzantine world, needing further in-depth investigations.106 Looking at the architectural heritage, it seems that the ways by which Byzantine architectural models entered Transylvania were largely closed after 1200. Perhaps this was an effect of the fate of the Metropolitanate of Tourkia, if it is indeed accepted that the activity of this institution continued for a time through the Diocese of Kalocsa, in order to gradually become Catholic.107 Many Orthodox churches will have been built afterward, but their architecture adopted Romanesque and then Gothic features and it will take another two centuries until a plan of Byzantine origin or inspiration will reappear – as discussed in chapter 11.108 The second group of churches was built by conquerors in a Romanesque style, starting, as far as it is known, during the 11th century. The examples mentioned in this chapter reflect an uncertain period of experimentation and changes, abandonments, and restarts, within a very mobile society, looking for suitable shapes on different fields. In religious terms, things settled down more safely in the middle of the 12th century, when the colonisation of the hospites intensified, which led to enormous general progresses, including in the architectural field. Christian society, which is expected to have built churches, emerged with difficulty, because it did not evolve from its own resources, but was imposed from top to bottom. In addition, it is worth to bear in mind the fact that Transylvania was a peripheral province in the east of a kingdom in the making. Considering the beginnings of religious architecture in Transylvania, no matter from which side, scholars invariably end up mentioning the religious keycenter of Alba Iulia. Indeed, no other site preserves a comparable heritage, relevant to the formation of the local ecclesiastical landscape, and, after all, does not provide so much archaeological information about this phenomenon. A connection between the uncertain period of the beginnings and the much clearer stage following the year 1200 cannot be expressed more obviously than by exploring the religious architecture of Alba Iulia, which is addressed in the next chapter. literature, of which case examples such as the basilica in Fenékpuszta, on the Pannonian plains (Curta 2005b, 183), the round church in Preslav (Krautheimer 1986, 173) and the churches in Moravian Modra (Cibulka 1958, 87) or Hungarian Zselicszentjakab – Kaposvár (Nagy 1973, 335–339; Móré Heitel 2010a, 148–149, fig. 21) are worthy to be pointed out. 106 Păcurariu 1980a, I, 204; Păcurariu 1980b, 19–22; Popa 1975b, 309–317. 107 Baán 1997, 67–73; Baán 1995, 1167–1170; Oikonomidès 1971, 527; Moravcsik 1970, 107. See also Koszta 2000, 71. 108 Greceanu 1972, 195–221.

Chapter 5

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia 5.1

General Historical Background

Alba Iulia is arguably the most important site in Transylvania, continuously inhabited since Roman times and home to some of the most important institutions of local history. The underground heritage, together with the architectural one, composes a faithful mirror of the history of the region, from the beginning to this day. In our matter, Alba Iulia counts as the most important ecclesiastical place, its evolution from the 9th to the 13th centuries depicting the process of Christianisation and the emergence of religious architecture. The early churches (of which only St Michael’s Roman-Catholic Cathedral is preserved nowadays), several cemeteries, and lots of artefacts represent unique indicators regarding the beginnings of local Christianity. The situation in Alba Iulia also reveals the way in which the conquered territory was organized, by recognizing the pre-conquest key centres and turning them into ecclesiastical and political strongholds of the new power. The settlement is located in the central-southern part of the region, on the Mureș valley, in the proximity of the gold and silver deposits from the Metaliferi Mountains and of important salt deposits.1 Such a position, of high strategic and economic importance, has always provided a welcoming framework for settlement, as shown by a number of prehistoric findings all around. After the Roman conquest of Transylvania and its organization as a province of the empire, at the beginning of the 2nd century, the camp of the Legio XIII Gemina was built there, to become the most important fortification in Dacia and the nucleus of a flourishing rural and urban life, known as Apulum2 (Fig. 5.1). Following the Roman retreat in the late 3rd century, urban life would come to an end, its traces disappearing in a relatively short time. The castrum had a different fate: the strong walls of the enclosure and of the towers provided a welcoming and safe shelter for seasonal settlements and dwellings in the centuries to come, in various political circumstances.3 Toward the end of 1 Moga – Ciugudean 1995, 29–47; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 19–27. 2 Briefly about the fort: Moga 1998 and 1999, 175–180; Anghel 1986, 70–73; Rusu 1979, 58. 3 Remarkable finds from the first millennium come from the 4th–6th centuries (post-Roman and migration period), and from the 8th–10th centuries. Anghel 1994, 286–287. For an overview of the period, see Iambor 2005, 170–172; Trandafir 1975, 103–114. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_007

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

141

Figure 5.1 Map of Alba Iulia and its surroundings, including the main 9th–13th-century archaeological sites: 1 – Stația de Salvare; 2 – Izvorul Împăratului; 3 – Brândușei St.; 4 – Vânătorilor St.; 5 – Orange Transmission Station; 6 – Military Hospital; 7 – Pâclișa – La Izvoare; 8 – Roman Bath; 9 – Roman-Catholic Cathedral Drawing by Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

the 11th century, the buildings of the Catholic Diocese of Transylvania were erected in the south-western corner and subsequently the castrum was transformed into a medieval fortress, probably starting in the 13th century.4 It was to undergo major changes only at the beginning of the 18th century, when a Vauban-style fortification, largely preserved, was built. Surviving such a long period, the Roman ruins were reused and adapted to different strategies, but their general structure was retained to our days. Many fragments of buildings or enclosure-walls are still apparent on the south and north sides, and the south gate is very well preserved. Almost all the medieval and modern buildings are footed on Roman foundations: in the south-western corner, the palace 4 For reorganization of the fort into a medieval fortification: Rusu 1979, 47–70; Iambor 2005, 131–137.

142

Chapter 5

of the Roman-Catholic Diocese, which is the most noteworthy medieval residence still standing, reused the wall of the castrum as well (Fig. 5.2). Numerous archaeological finds demonstrate a consistent exploit of the castrum and of its surroundings throughout the first millennium, and especially around the year 1000.5 A settlement developed within the Roman walls, one whose material culture belonged to the Byzantine cultural area, and, extra muros, several cemeteries were in operation during the 9th–11th centuries, used by different communities with a complex ethnic and religious profile.6 This concentration of vestiges, unique on the territory of Transylvania, shows that in the 9th–10th centuries Alba Iulia was already a ‘hub’, very likely the seat of a social-political entity that was evolving toward a form of pre-state organization. Historian Kurt Horedt has defined this polity as the ‘Voivodeship of Bălgrad’, after the first known name of the settlement, which was probably linked to the Bulgarian power, without a more detailed picture on this fact being possible.7 Scholars also believe that the ‘white fortress’ found by chance by the Hungarian Prince Gyula sometime in the 10th century, and settled by him, was in fact the Roman fort of Alba Iulia.8 Although the identity of this figure is not very clear, he was supposedly the head of a Hungarian tribe, different from those living in Pannonia. The details of this historical moment are unknown, but a transfer of power from a local leader (of native or Bulgarian origin?) to Gyula is presumed. What can be 5 For the archaeology of the first millennium in Alba Iulia, see Heitel 1985, 224–226; Heitel 1995, 415. The first archaeological investigations within the castrum were carried out by Adalbert Cserni, a naturalist and archaeologist, in 1888–1913. Relevant information for historical reconstruction comes, however, from excavations during the restoration of the Roman-Catholic cathedral, and from a number of cemeteries uncovered outside the medieval core, on the current territory of the city, most of them published as excavation reports. Heitel 1983, 93–95; Heitel 1986, 240–248; Dragotă – Ciugudean 2002, 7–15, for the bibliography of the main archaeological finds on the territory of the fortress; Ciugudean – Pinter – Rustoiu 2006, for mapping the funerary finds and the related bibliography; Ciugudean 2007, 243–257. For a summary of urban excavations: Szabó 2016, 30–40. For the archaeology of the cathedral, see Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 29–37. 6 The settlement of Alba Iulia was firstly investigated by Radu Heitel. Heitel 1972, 141–145; Heitel 1975b, 343–344; Heitel 1985, 223–226. The author mentions no less than 13 dwellings that operated from the second half of the 9th century to the beginning of the 10th century. For more features and artefacts, see Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 77–84. The material culture associated with this stage has many analogies in the Lower Danube area, being often associated with the Bulgarian authority. Nestor – Zaharia 1959, 594–603; Comșa 1963, 413–438. 7 Horedt 1954, 487–512; Heitel 1975b, 343; Rusu 1979, 58. For the Bulgarian control of the northern region of the Danube: Browning 1975, 54–89; Comșa 1960, 395–422; Madgearu 2003, 41–62; Fiedler 2008, 151–236. 8 Györffy 1985, 264–265; Kristó 2003, 43–73; Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense, 21–22.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

143

Figure 5.2 The map of Alba Iulia’s Vauban fortification (in black the former Roman castrum and later medieval fortification) showing the location of St Michael’s Cathedral (1), the Episcopal palace (2) and the pillared church in front of the cathedral After Marcu-Istrate 2018c, fig. 7.1

144

Chapter 5

attributed to this period with greater certainty, however, is the appearance of the first stone churches in Alba Iulia, marking the emergence of local religious architecture.9 The presence of the first Hungarians was reported in Southern Transylvania in the 10th century, but Alba Iulia was conquered only at the beginning of the 11th century, probably in 1002 or 1003, by King Stephen I. After having this key centre, the Hungarian kingdom established control over its hinterland, respectively over an important part of the Mureș valley. Consequently, the settlement became an important foothold for strengthening Hungarian power in this part of the Carpathian Basin, and the most important administrative and ecclesiastical structures were established in Alba Iulia: the seat of the Diocese of Transylvania, a royal fortress, the centre of the largest county in Transylvania and, very likely, the official seat of the first voivodes. In addition to being the religious headquarter, Alba Iulia was, from the beginning, a citadel of utmost political and economic importance, remaining intermittently the seat of the province’s rulers well into the modern era.10 There are many unknowns about the 11th century, but the picture becomes less hazy as the seat of the Catholic Diocese of Transylvania moved to Alba Iulia and the settlement entered written history. As shown above, the beginnings of this diocese are not very clear. Since it is considered a creation of King Stephen I in 1009, it seems that originally it operated somewhere in the northern half of the province, perhaps with a travelling headquarter.11 The decision to relocate permanently the diocese to Alba Iulia shows, once again, that the settlement was by now acknowledged as an important political and ecclesiastical place. Archaeological research has confirmed this status, highlighting not only a unique concentration of habitation in the area, but also an exceptional series of churches in the south-western corner of the castrum, the later medieval fortress. The castrum had been built on the high terrace of the Mureș river, in a strategic location bounded by streams, which offered perfect visibility over a large territory, especially from its south-western corner, corresponding to the

9 10 11

Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213; Dragotă 2018b, 89–96; Iambor 2005, 21. Benkő 2000, 593–596; Nägler 2003, 5–10. For a summary of the theories regarding the establishment of the diocese, see Dincă 2017, 35–52, with older bibliography. Kovács 2017, 101–116. There is also a hypothesis that the diocese was set up later, at the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th, when the first bishop, Simon, was mentioned (1111). Iambor 2005, 26. For the final establishment of the see in Alba Iulia during the 13th century, or even 14th century: Dincă 2017, 48–49 and note 127.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

145

Figure 5.3 Churches in Alba Iulia: 1 – the pillared church and the rotunda (?), 10th–11th centuries; 2 – the first cathedral and the rotunda (?), late 11th century; 3 – the first extension of the cathedral; 4 – the second, current cathedral, before later additions After Marcu-Istrate 2018c, fig. 7.3

highest point.12 Taking advantage of this natural feature, medieval habitation concentrated on the same spot, both in the centuries before the year 1000 (settlements, and later the residence of a local ruler, and at least one church) and afterwards (the Roman-Catholic Diocese) (Fig. 5.1). St Michael’s Roman-Catholic Cathedral, a 13th-century building, and the only surviving medieval cathedral of the Kingdom of Hungary, is still standing in Alba Iulia. The ruins of two older churches are hidden beneath its pavement, of which only meagre knowledge is available, despite large-scale excavations during the 20th century: a Romanesque basilica (known as the first cathedral) and a rotunda, both in operation by ca. 1100.13 There was another church in front of St Michael’s Cathedral, which, unlike those mentioned above, was built following a Byzantine layout and operated from the middle of the 10th and the middle of the 11th century. This crowded architectural scene is addressed in the following pages (Fig. 5.3). 12 13

Moga 1998, 44; Anghel 1986, 70–71; Rusu 1979, 58; Iambor 2005, 131–132. Research on St Michael’s Roman-Catholic cathedral was undertaken in several stages, starting at the end of the 19th century. Pósta 1917, 1–155; Pósta 1918; Entz 1958b, 1–40. Systematic research was carried out from 1968 to 1977 (Heitel 1985, 215–231) and, more recently, from 1997 to 2011 (Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 29–34; Marcu-Istrate 2009b, 9–14; Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 25–55; Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213); Marcu-Istrate 2012a, 21–42.

146

Chapter 5

Figure 5.4 The eastern part of the present-day cathedral, with the main results of the early-20th-century excavations, including the ruin of the rotunda inside the southern wing After Entz 1958a, fig.57

5.2

The Rotunda

The first building to be discussed when analyzing the evolution of religious architecture in Alba Iulia is a round church of medium size (inner diameter of 8 m), with a small eastern apse. The earliest information about this church dates to the beginning of the 20th century, when its ruins were completely unearthed by Béla Pósta. At a time when archaeology was in its infancy, the filling was removed to below the base of the foundation, and the exterior was lowered to the same level, the archaeological context being completely destroyed. Consequently, the rotunda remained an isolated structure, preserved in the basement of the cathedral. There is no available data about the excavations carried out at that time, only a general interpretation compiled by the art historian Géza Entz.14 In the 1960s–1970s, the site was again excavated by the archaeologist Radu Heitel, who analyzed the ruins of the first cathedral and their relations to the rotunda, and proposed some chronological and functional hypothesis15 (Fig. 5.4).

14 15

Entz 1958b, 6; Vătășianu 1959, 22. Heitel 1975b, 348; Heitel 1972, 151; Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Heitel 1985, 215–231, fig. 1; Marcu-Istrate 2009b, 87–88.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

147

The remains of the rotunda are standing below the floor of a southern chapel of St Michael’s Cathedral, west of the southern wing of the transept, and next to the southern side of the first cathedral. Based on archaeological data, two ground plans are available, revealing two different situations: in the first one (published by Géza Entz), the rotunda shares a wall with the first cathedral and has the same axis, while in the second (published by Radu Heitel) the rotunda has a different orientation and is deemed to have been constructed before the first cathedral. The loss of the archaeological context and of the field documentation have contributed to a topographic dilemma and a dispute between scholars: was the rotunda older then the first cathedral or not? Géza Entz has seen the rotunda as a baptistery built at the same time as the first cathedral, in the late 11th century. Radu Heitel had similar ideas in the beginning, but, subsequently, he reconsidered the entire context of the site and concluded that the rotunda was older than the first cathedral. However, this hypothesis was not made-up by Radu Heitel. It was Adalbert Cserni who, as early as 1900, had claimed that the rotunda derived from a Roman tower transformed into a church through the addition of an apse. This hypothesis has been often mentioned by later scholars, but in chronological terms it remains a question: in what era could a presumed Roman tower have been extended through the addition of an apsidal east end and consecrated as a church? Given the lack of archaeological records, a number of possibilities could be taken into consideration, and subsequently various hypotheses were advanced. The rotunda was seen as an ancient temple, a paleo-Christian construction, or a church that may have been constructed at some time or another in the second half of the first millennium.16 In the 1950s, Kurt Horedt was the first historian to consider the rotunda as the church of the local polity preceding the Hungarian conquest, namely the Voivodeship of Bălgrad. This would suggest that the rotunda dated from the 9th century, in which case it functioned as a chapel at the court of a local ruler, most likely of Bulgarian origin, or of a representative of the Bulgarian power.17 Last but not least, the rotunda was also linked to that event from the mid-10th century, when the Greek monk Hierotheos was sent north of the Danube, as a bishop on a mission to evangelize the Hungarians.18 As far as can be noticed by descending into the basement of the cathedral, the rotunda was a construction made of large blocks of stone of very different sizes, most of them obviously reused, retaining layers of plaster and colour 16 17 18

Moga 1998, 28; Popa 1991a, 1527; Pinter 2003, 272, for general aspects of the planimetric evolution and the chronology of rotundas in Transylvania. See also chapter 6. Horedt 1954, 487–512; Vătășianu 1959, 22; Heitel 1983, 102–103. Vătășianu 1987, 9; Horedt 1986, 137; Bóna 1990, 158. Mircea Rusu has seen this church as too small to illustrate the Hierotheos moment. Rusu 1979, 47–70.

148

Chapter 5

(painting?) even at the very base of the masonry. It is very important to stress the fact that the blocks had not been cut for building round, therefore the inner face of the wall has a rather uneven shape, with many corners and outward protrusions (Fig. 5.5). This appearance makes almost impossible the hypothesis that this building was a tower from Roman times, taking into consideration the manner of building, even if only looking at what other Roman constructions in the castrum looked like. In contrast to the latter, the masonry of the rotunda looks rather like an improvisation made from spolia, hard to believe as proper Roman, even in the case of a round tower to be found near the middle of the camp. In fact, looking at the still standing ruins, one should remove the possibility that the rotunda was built as a Roman tower and converted into a church in the Middle Ages. Unlike the round nave, the semicircular apse, which can only be seen from the outside, has a regular wall from carefully cut ashlars. The difference between the two parts is obvious, but the message of this situation remains unclear: were the round nave and the apse built in the same period, or are they coming from different stages? A similar question emerges from the fact that the rotunda and the first cathedral share a wall segment, which raises three options: (1) an older rotunda had disappeared, and the cathedral was haphazardly positioned next to it; (2) the cathedral was placed deliberately next to an older rotunda; and (3) the two buildings were erect at the same time. While in Alba Iulia some Roman vestiges are still above ground, it would be very difficult to accept that such a huge building (as the rotunda used to be) could have completely vanished by the end of the 11th century, and the foundations of the first cathedral reached the ruin, without destroying it, only by chance. On the contrary, it would make sense to admit that an older rotunda, still on the spot (no matter in which situation), was included into the structure of the new church, in order to be re-used as a baptistery for some time. A baptistery was certainly necessary, and even mandatory, given that a significant part of the population, including most of the conquerors, must have needed baptism, probably for much longer than usually admitted. There is an interesting fact, suggested by a simple analysis of the current topography: St Michael’s Cathedral was built around the 11th-century cathedral, repeating its outline on a larger scale (Fig. 5.3). The original plan of the present-day three-nave basilica with transept included, from the very beginning, a chapel on the western side of the southern wing of the transept. There were some hypotheses about the role of this chapel, but no one has yet commented that it perfectly surrounded the ruin of the rotunda. Nor could this topography be by chance, because planning one of the most important churches in the kingdom was, after all, a very serious task. It can therefore be

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

149

Figure 5.5 The western part of the rotunda preserved in the basement of the cathedral Photo by the author, 2011

considered that this plan was intentionally made this way, to include both the older cathedral and the rotunda into its design. While the process of building progressed, the previous churches were completely removed, and one of the new pillars was built in the middle of the rotunda. Considering how the ruin of the rotunda was protected until at least the middle of the 13th century, it appears that this was a building of great importance, but its origins are still enigmatic. Was this the first church built in Alba Iulia, in the proximity of the residence of the ruler of the Voivodeship of Bălgrad in the 9th–10th centuries? In this case, it would have been indeed the oldest church in Transylvania, and an invaluable indicator of the beginnings of early Christianity. Almost the same conclusion stands if the rotunda was connected to the Latin cathedral at the time of its construction, that is, before the end of the 11th century, to be used as a baptistery. In fact, no matter when it was built, it is quite obvious that the building has operated with the first cathedral throughout the 12th century. This would not be the only case of a baptistery in

150

Chapter 5

the diocesan centres of the Hungarian kingdom, but it is the first known case of a baptistery linked to the church through a shared portion of the wall. The general shape is of little help when it comes to analyze it in a broader architectural environment because, at the time, rotundas were built across a vast area, south of the Danube, and in Central Europe as well. Summarizing this analysis, the rotunda in Alba Iulia appears as a not very well-accomplished medieval building, older than the end of the 11th century. From an architectural and historical perspective, almost any scenario could have been possible from the 9th to the 11th century. Whether the rotunda was connected to the local community in the mid-9th century,19 to Hierotheos and/ or Gyula,20 or whether it was a building attached to the Roman-Catholic first cathedral, at the end of the 11th century,21 can never be ascertained by examining the ruins, now without an archaeological context. However, a topographical survey would be of great help in pushing the examination a step forward. The religious structure of early Alba Iulia became even more complicated when Radu Heitel uncovered a third ruin, located to the west of the rotunda, in front of St Michael’s Cathedral. It was first seen in 1973 in an exploratory trench trying to link the cathedral to the western wall of the fort and medieval fortress, to establish a general stratigraphical matrix of the area. Following incomplete research, the new church was described as a single-nave with a round apse, and perhaps a small western tower, of 14 m in length.22 Radu Heitel considered the church as a temporary building, used for a short while during the construction of the first cathedral, in the early 11th century.23 In fact, while seeking for a coherent picture of what Alba Iulia used to be in that period, the archaeologist believed logical to see the new church as an intermediary between the rotunda and the first cathedral. It is no wonder that the excavation was not completed, the surveys were brief, and the result was a confusing historiography, checking different solutions for an appropriate understanding. Unexpectedly, a rescue excavation in the spring of 2011 created the opportunity to systematically explore the ruin, thus providing the surprise of a unique planimetry, set in an outstandingly rich context (Fig. 5.6). 19 20 21 22

23

Rusu 1979, 47–70; Madgearu 2005b, 107. Vătășianu 1987, 9; Horedt 1986, 13; Bóna 1990, 158. Heitel 1972, 151; Entz 1958b, 6. The archaeological investigations were carried out between 1973 and 1975. The first mention in the literature dates to 1975, and a general plan was published in 1985. All the references to this building have been in summary: Heitel 1975a, 9; Heitel 1975b, 346; Heitel 1985, pl. 1. Heitel 1995, 429.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

Figure 5.6 Alba Iulia: 1 – general view of the St Michael’s Cathedral and the spot of the pillared church during the archaeological excavations of 2011; 2 – the pillared church at the end of archaeological excavations Photos by the author, 2011

151

152 5.3

Chapter 5

The Pillared Church (10th–11th Centuries)

The church, with general external dimensions of 21 by 12 m at the walking level, has a rectangular nave and a round, large apse, opened toward the nave along a width of 6.50 m. Four independent foundations are located mid-nave, delineating a square bay, 4.5 by 4.5 m. The average thickness of the foundation is 1.30 m, but a maximum of 1.70 m was noticed at the north-western corner of the nave, while the side of the square pillars is 1.20 m. The foundations were built of river stone, limestone fragments and Roman bricks (reused from the nearby Roman ruins), an uneven material fitted in trenches with great care. Among the stones, there are very small amounts of clay and random traces of white mortar, consisting mostly of lime mixed with crushed brick. Lime was frequently hydrated on the spot, the resulting mortar becoming glued to the stones, so that the stones from the foundation can be easily identified if found in secondary position. On the upper side of the foundation, a thick screed of crumbly white mortar, featuring small fragments of brick and lime pellets, levelled the masonry, preparing a uniform base for the walls. The walls were built of coarsely carved limestone blocks, bound with thick layers of white, un-homogenized lime mortar, mixed with crushed brick. Several such blocks have been preserved, two in the axis of the apse, and several on the south-western corner of the nave, suggesting a first course at about 0.35 m. Roman bricks were used on a large scale in the fabric, as the reddish demolished layer, and some items trapped in mortar at the upper part of the south-western corner foundations, have suggested (Fig. 5.7). The ruin was uncovered in a complex stratigraphic context, which was the result of the area having been inhabited for nearly two thousand years, with a maximum intensity at the beginning of the second millennium. Prior to the construction of the church, prehistoric,24 Roman,25 postRoman,26 Gepid,27 and 8th- to 10th-century habitation traces were recorded all around. The foundation-trenches disturbed several dwellings dating to the 9th–10th centuries, which provide a general post-quem term for the beginning of the construction.28 Regarding the end of its existence, it should be noted 24 25 26 27 28

A prehistoric dwelling with ceramics and fireplaces was mentioned in 2009. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 40. Ruins of various buildings and deposits corresponding to the use and abandonment of the castrum. Previously reported in an apparently rich, though still un-systematised bibliography. For a brief synthesis: Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 45–68. Post-Roman dwellings set up between the Roman ruins, with floors of clay or of Roman bricks. at least two of them cut by the foundations of the church. The western wall was laid on a Roman brick floor. The level of this era was described in: Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 71–76. A detailed analysis of this period, in: Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213. For Alba Iulia during the 8th–10th centuries, see Heitel 1975b, 349–350; Heitel 1986, 245–246; Anghel 1968,

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

153

Figure 5.7 The ruins of the pillared church and some other finds, older (Roman ruins (hatched), Roman pavement (black) and a 9th–10th century kiln below the west wall of the church) or younger than the church (graves, a well in the apse) Drawing and photo by the author

154

Chapter 5

that the ruins were covered with a thick layer of debris, disturbed by the late11th–13th-century cemetery.29 The graves spread over the area of the demolished church, their pits destroying large segments of the walls, often till the bottom of the foundation. From this situation, it could be stated that the pillared church was built about mid-10th century, in the south-western corner of the Roman fortress, above the remains of an older settlement, and demolished toward mid-11th century, most likely during the third quarter, before the opening of the first Christian graveyard in Alba Iulia. 5.3.1 Architectural Considerations The church in front of the Roman-Catholic Cathedral features a central space delineated by four pillars that most likely supported a dome: a simple planimetry, pertaining to the Byzantine tradition.30 The pillars describe a central bay within the nave, narrower than the opening of the apse. At the foundation level, the apse appears semicircular both on the inside and on the outside, which is rare, albeit not prohibited in Byzantine architecture.31 The fragmentary state32 of the ruins leaves several possibilities for detailing the basic design. The north-eastern foundation is unusually thick, and, by symmetry, it may be assumed that the southern corner looked similar, suggesting small niches on the sides of the apse. Along the line of the triumphal arch, between the apse and the nave, there was a fragment of a superficial foundation, whose purpose remained questionable. Beyond these unknows details, what particularly distinguishes the church is the centrally-planned structure, a variant of the Greek-cross type, with four free supports that most likely carried a dome. From this perspective, the church of Alba Iulia is a unique discovery at this stage of research, but what are its roots? There is no information related to anything similar in the neighbouring regions

29 30 31 32

469–480; Heitel – Dan 1986, 188; Anghel – Ciugudean 1987, 190–191 and fig. 4/1, 6 and 7; Dragotă – Rustoiu 2002, 50–62; Iambor 2005, 171–174, 236; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 77–84; Madgearu 2005b, 106–107. Many graves are dated with coins issued by King Coloman, but, very likely, the cemetery was already functioning in the third quarter of the 11th century. Heitel 1972, 141; Heitel 1985, 222–230; Heitel 1986, 242–244; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 117–123; Heitel 1975b, 346. For an overview of medieval Byzantine architecture, the following works are useful: Krautheimer 1986, 301–411; Millingen 1974, 2–10; Ćurčić 2010, especially 263–344; Mango 1981, 108–185; Bouras 2006, 48–163; Ousterhout 2019, 245–300. Millingen 1974, 11, 203; Mijatev 1974, 85–86, fig. 82. Besides the damage caused by the very dense cemetery from the 11th–13th centuries, the ruin was continually destroyed by different activities on the spot, as for example a modern ditch, a 16th-century well, a lime workshop, including a deposit and an oven, several small buildings, recent water pipes and the archaeological trenches of the 1970s.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

155

north of the Carpathians during the period in question, even though there are some clues of Byzantine-style architecture in some important centres, such as Dăbâca, Cenad, Biharia or Pâncota, as shown in the previous chapter.33 The Greek cross layout is considered the most characteristic feature of Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture,34 spread especially since the 10th century all over the territories politically or culturally tied to the empire. The first centuries experienced different possibilities for stabilizing a dome on free standing pillars or columns, but only a few buildings from that period are better known.35 For example, of the 10th-century religious heritage of Constantinople, only two churches could be described in more detail: Fenari Isa Camii and Bodrum Camii (the part consecrated in 907), both of comparable size. Fenari Isa Camii has overall exterior dimensions of 21 by 16 m, the nave is 13 by 9.5 m and the central bay was a square with 5 m long sides. The nave of Bodrum Camii was 10.5 by 8.80 m and the pillared bay is a square with 4.5-m long sides.36 Examples of this type of church, albeit of a much smaller size, can be found on the territory of the Bulgarian state: one chapel in Pliska had a single square nave (6.3 by 6.5 m) with a round apse and a narrow narthex,37 while the churches from Avradaka 1 and Avradaka 2 had three semicircular apses in the east and narthexes in the west38 (Fig. 5.8). Considering the church in Alba Iulia in this architectural context, it appears of almost the same size as the churches in Constantinople from the early 10th century, but significantly larger than similar structures south of the Danube, on the Bulgarian territory. However, there are some peculiarities, as the single large apse and the narrow bay of the pillars, which reflect a less experienced construction site, producing a provincial variant of the basic pattern. Apart

33 34

35 36 37 38

Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213; Iambor 2005, 143–148, 185–194; Móré Heitel 2005, 9–21; Móré Heitel 2006, 30–40; Dumitrașcu 1994, 65–76, 195–206; Móré Heitel 2000, 593–637; Iambor – Matei – Bejan 1982, 89–114. Most authors associate the emergence of this layout with the building of oratories within the imperial palace of Constantinople, to accommodate services for important people. However, the first important church is considered by some Nea Ekklesia, founded by Emperor Basil I, consecrated in 881 and destroyed in the late 15th century. The pattern would become very popular in all the territories of Byzantine influence until the fall of Constantinople, or long after if looking to Balkans or Russian territories. Ćurčić 2010, 263–344; Bouras 2006, 48–163; Krautheimer 1986, 334–370; Mango 1981, 194; Mijatev 1974, 102–104. For different opinions on the genesis of this layout, see Bouras 2006, 48–50; Ćurčić 2010, 328–339; Dimitrokallis 2003, 220–232. Krautheimer 1986, 356–361, fig. 308–314. Mijatev 1974, 102–103, fig. 109. Mijatev 1974, 103–104, fig. 110–111, with the bibliography included therein.

156

Chapter 5

Figure 5.8 The pillared church uncovered in 2011 in Alba Iulia, reconstruction (1) and similar examples; 2 – Constantinople, Bodrum Camii; 3 – Pliska, church within the palace; 4 – Modrá (2) DRAWING BASED ON KRAUTHEIMER 1986, FIG. 309; (3) DRAWING BASED ON MIJATEV 1974, FIG. 109; (4) DRAWING BASED ON CIBULKA 1958, FIG. 17

from the already introduced church in Densuș,39 no other example has been mentioned so far, which very likely has to be explained by the gap of knowledge concerning medieval Byzantine architecture. Such a building could not have appeared as a singular phenomenon in Alba Iulia, in an area with barely any tradition and experience regarding stone constructions.40 On the contrary, it must have been one of a series of more or less marginal experiences trying to replicate the Byzantine prototype, but resulting in buildings with local peculiarities. As far as it is known, the pillared church appears as a unique object within the area of the Carpathian Basin,41 while being a huge building, comparable

39 40 41

Vătășianu 1959, 89–95; Curinschi Vorona 1981, 86–87; Popa 1988a, 228–230; Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 121–224. In fact, the last such buildings had been erected in Roman times, perhaps with the sole exception of the aforesaid rotunda, whose chronology is not clear. A similar building is likely to have existed at Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár, Hungary), as mentioned in chapter 3. Nagy 1973, 335–339. Suzana Móré Heitel noticed firstly the connection of the pillars with the first church, a fact indirectly confirmed by excavations in 2013–2014. Móré Heitel 2006, 41–42, 69–70. The report of the excavations: Molnár 2014. Recent excavations, however, connected the pillars with the second church. Molnár 2020, 14–21.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

157

in size with imperial Byzantine churches, and larger than most of the Balkan exemplars. Still, at that time, Transylvania was not part of the Byzantine cultural sphere, or even a territory under the Bulgarian’s effective rule. Who built the church then? The construction of the church could only have been undertaken by a powerful political and ecclesiastical centre, consolidated in the middle of the 10th century, most likely thanks to the diminishing Bulgarian influence or presence after the death of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon in 927.42 Choosing such a specific pattern, and building in a specific way as well, indicate a local elite faithful to the Greek Church, but there is not enough data for deepening the topic. Whether it was a local founder that managed to maintain its leading position in the region, or a Hungarian chief settled during the 10th century, the appearance and function of this church can only be envisaged in relation to the Byzantine period of Hungary’s religious history, a period that also left many other vestiges in Transylvania, and not only there43 (Chapter 3). There is, of course, the temptation to refer to the episode of Gyula’s Christianisation and Hierotheos’ mission to Tourkia, and there are many arguments worthy of mention in support.44 This does not necessarily mean that Hierotheos must be seen as a permanent resident in Alba Iulia, although any other option for an alleged focal point of this mission would be just as speculative.45 In the analysis of various controversies, the historian Gyula Kristó concluded in 2003 that the location of the mission would not be determined until a suitable church is discovered – and for now the only corresponding monument happens to be the pillared church in front of St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia.46 On the other hand, if not counting the moment of Hierotheos and analyzing solely the building, it is rather obvious that such a church could not simply have been the work of a Christian community living in Alba Iulia, without being part of a religious network. No matter the angle of approach, the church has to be linked with an official attempt toward Christianisation, targeting 42 43 44 45

46

Madgearu 2003, 41–62. Font 2005, 283–295; Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533; Moravcsik 1947, 134–151. Heitel 1983, 102; Heitel 1995, 427; Font 2005, 285–287; Kristó 2003, 75; Marcu-Istrate 2014a, 114–117. For the location of the mission beyond the borders of Transylvania, see Madgearu 2017, 1–16 (with earlier bibliography). Miklos Takács has already made a very severe critique of the theory that Hierotheos could have passed through Transylvania, considering that this idea would be useful only to support “Daco-Roman continuity” (Takács 2018, 112, note 1509). However, the image of the pillared church from Alba Iulia, used by Miklos Takács in his book as plate XXXI/3 was likely redrawn after a photo, resulting strongly distorted. Kristó 2003, 64: “When we search for the material remains of the Byzantine relations of Gyula, we have to consider primarily churches of Byzantine style and coins.” At the time Gyula Kristó wrote his work, no such church was known.

158

Chapter 5

most likely locals and conquerors alike. It is impossible to state – and, in fact, it is of little importance – whether the one who consecrated the church was Bishop Hierotheos, a member of his mission about whom no information is preserved, or his direct successor to the Church of Tourkia.47 5.4

The First Roman-Catholic Cathedral (11th–12th Centuries)

King Stephen I conquered Alba Iulia in the first years of the second millennium, defeating a relative of his, Gyula the Younger, who must have been a local prince faithful to the Greek-rite Church, who inherited the political-religious situation created half a century earlier, through the efforts of Gyula the Elder, and of the Greek Bishop Hierotheos. Even though very little is known about those events, and in fact it is not clear at all if the king conquered the spot of the castrum or only the settlements around it, this victory is credited with a special significance for ruling the southern Transylvania and, by the way of consequence, for strengthening the Hungarian rule in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin.48 This circumstance led eventually to the moving of the seat of the Diocese of Transylvania to Alba Iulia. The timing of this transfer is unclear: the year 1009 is traditionally associated with it, but proofs emerged only in the second part of the 11th century, when a cathedral was built, and a graveyard was opened around it. The institution entered history at the beginning of the 12th century, when the first bishop, Simon, is mentioned (Chapter 3). These events needed a cathedral. If the church of the Greek monastery had been reused for the same purpose in Cenad, in Alba Iulia a new church was built, about 30 m east from the pillared one. The ruins of the first cathedral, standing inside the present-day St Michael’s Cathedral, were first seen at the beginning of the 20th century, and then more extensively excavated in 1968–77 by Radu Heitel, but, unfortunately, the results are not available beyond some general data.49 Based on the first excavations, Géza Entz published a plan on which 47

48 49

In the early 11th century, there was a Metropolitan See of Tourkia subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the first known bishop being John, mentioned in 1028. Moreover, a metropolitan was referred to in the charter of privileges that King Stephen (997–1038) granted to the Greek-rite monastery of Veszprémvölgy. Some scholars consider that this Eastern-rite structure survived within the kingdom well into the 12th century. Oikonomidès 1971, 527–533; Baán 1999, 45–48. Gesta Hungarorum, 46, 97. Möller 1929, 16–19; Entz 1958a, 55–56, 60, 76; Vătășianu 1959, 22–23, 151–152; Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Heitel 1985, 216, 227–228; Kovács 1996, 1–3; Vătășianu 1987, 10.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

159

Figure 5.9 The archaeology of the St. Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia: 1 – the first cathedral, with or without rotunda, 11th–12th centuries; 2 – the original Gothic fabric of the second sanctuary; 3 – the foundation of the sanctuary as seen from the outside, before 1277; 4 – Gothic sacristy, before 1277; 5 – the northern chapels, early 16th century; 6 – early 18th century Drawing based on Kovács 1996, fig. 1, and on archaeological research conducted by the author

the eastern part of the basilica is depicted with a central apse in a flattened semicircular shape.50 Radu Heitel in turn presented a three-aisled church with the sides extremely narrow, ending eastward in an almost horseshoe-shaped apse. Nave and aisles were apparently separated by a continuous foundation, on which pillars stood (?), but the configuration of the western part is by no means clear, which is also suggested by using different signs of representation when publishing the general plan of the ruins.51 There is no detail about the masonry, except that it was made of stone taken from the Roman ruins, as it was natural, after all (Fig. 5.9). Depending on the research stage he was in, Radu Heitel proposed a series of (sometimes divergent) chronological frames. In 1972, he described the building as “the oldest and, at the same time, the most important Romanesque monument in southern Transylvania,” headquarter of the Transylvanian Catholic 50 51

Entz 1958a, 72, fig. 57. Heitel 1985, fig. 1; Vătășianu 1987, 10–11. For a summary of the archaeological data: Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 79–80; Marcu-Istrate 2018c, 97–114.

160

Chapter 5

episcopate.52 Based on the graveyard around the church, he deemed that the building had been completed by the 12th century.53 Returning to the topic in 1975, he argued the building of the cathedral within the second half of the 11th century.54 Based on its remains, respectively on architectural stones recovered during restorations or reused in the structure of the present-day cathedral, art historians have generally agreed to a dating in the last decades of the 11th century. The construction would have been started by King Ladislaus I (1077–1095) and completed during the reign of King Coloman (1095–1116),55 while subsequent changes and additions were continually made by 1200.56 There is no factual argument for an earlier dating for this particular building, as long as on the spot there are no specific artefacts from before the last decades of the 11th century.57 The building process was accompanied by two highly consequential events for the history of the site in Alba Iulia: the opening of a graveyard and the demolition of the old church. First excavated in 1953,58 the cemetery has revealed until now over 1.000 graves, spread east, south, and west of the present-day cathedral, of which 400 graves were uncovered in 2011.59 The burials were made between the last decades of the 11th century and the first decades or mid-13th century,60 spreading all around the first cathedral, but with a maximum density in the west, over the ruins of the pillared church. The situation may have mainly a topographical

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60

Heitel 1972, 140. Heitel 1972, 150. Heitel 1975a, 7; Heitel 1985, 227–228. The arguments were related to several technical details, such as the structure of the mortar, the relation with the Roman ruins and the rotunda, and elements of stratigraphy that were left unexplained. Arion 1967, 155–159; Horedt 1986, 136–138; Bóna 1990, 159; Vătășianu 1959, 22–23, 151–152; Heitel 1975a, 6–10. Vătășianu 1959, 43. Entz 1958a, 75 argued for an early dating, considering its beginning soon after the establishment of the bishopric in Alba Iulia, in the first years of the 11th century. The same in Takács 2012b, 15–17. Protase 1956, 35 and note 22. Information on the cemetery: Heitel 1972, 141; Heitel 1985, 222–230; Heitel 1986, 242–244. Some other general considerations in Protase 1956, 24–26 (with a catalogue of graves). The 82 graves uncovered between 2000 and 2002 are published in Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 117–123. Radu Heitel believed that the total number of burials around the cathedral must have been around 1200, but, in fact, there are many more. For the anthropomorphic cists built of brick: Marcu-Istrate – Istrate 2005, 229–244.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

161

reason, because one could suppose that west of the cathedral was the largest plot to be used for such a purpose.61 The ecclesiastic topography of Alba Iulia shows for a short while, around 1100, two very different churches, the older built according to a Greek-cross pattern, the newer designed as a three-aisled basilica, standing on exactly the same east-west axis, but at a distance of ca. 30 m. At about the same time, the first Christian cemetery opened around the basilica, but soon expanded over the plot of the first church, which had disappeared in a short while. But why was the new church not set out in direct connection with the older, to appropriate the sanctity of the place and to ensure the link with the ancestors, since continuity was always so important?62 It seems that the new church did not appreciate the sacredness of the old building and did not wish to appropriate it. Built in the spirit of Western architecture, in the Romanesque style, the cathedral was designed for the Catholic Diocese of Transylvania, so it could by no means be confused with a place of worship of Eastern inspiration, regardless of whether the latter was related to a diocese or not. The old church might have been used for a while for services, but by the time the graveyard was opened, it had already been demolished. The excavations of 2011 estimated that around 1.000 individuals had been interred on the spot of the former church, with a medium density of eight overlaps, but frequently more.63 Many of the approximately 200 surveyed graves had been laid on top of the ruins, causing the total or almost total destruction of numerous masonry parts, sometimes down to the bottom of the foundations.64 This relation shows once again that the official religious orientation had undergone a major shift during the second part of the 11th century, so that the Byzantine-like church had no meaning for the people who used the new church and its graveyard. Even if the pillared church would not have such a special planimetry and contextual dating, the connection of the two churches, on the one hand, and their relation to the cemetery, on the other hand, would speak convincingly about them as being two distinct monuments. However, some scholars have 61

62 63 64

The south side was standing very close to the residence of the bishop, whose boundaries had been set at the same time as those of the first cathedral. The diocesan property also seems to have been limited along the east and north sides. Heitel 1985, 242; Anghel 1986, 268–271. Lauwers 2005, 55–61, 126. Marcu-Istrate 2007b, 222–223, for 10 graves per square meter within the Lázó chapel, all of them from the 12th century. Heitel 1972, 141; Heitel 1985, 222–230; Heitel 1986, 242–244; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 117–123; Marcu-Istrate 2015b, 177–213.

162

Chapter 5

recently tried to argue that the pillared church was “a decanal or a processional church, similar to several other buildings of the early Árpádian Period, such as the single-aisle church discovered at the south side of the cathedral of Győr”,65 or, more recently, Miklós Takács saw the church as “a chapel within the Latin ecclesiastical centre.”66 The hypothesis of both churches as buildings of the Latin diocese does not fit, and even disregards the local context, as shown by archaeological data.67 The construction of a church with a Greek-cross plan could not have been a worthwhile project after 1000 (when it is assumed that Alba Iulia was conquered by the Latin kingdom), and the construction of any church in front of the first cathedral at the end of the 11th century (when it is assumed that the latter was already standing) would have made no sense, and in fact would not have been possible, because there was already a cemetery on the spot. The current knowledge allows stating that building the first cathedral and demolishing the pillared church were two relatively successive events that took place roughly around the time when King Stephen I was declared Saint, in 1083, a time when his popularity was at its peak. If both buildings had been built by this king, then the pillared church would have been reused in some way, because a consecrated place always preserves its status, and the sanctity of this building would have been priceless. As a matter of fact, in this case the goal seems to have been exactly the opposite, namely, not only to demolish the older church, but to destroy its memory as well. The replacement of a smaller church with a larger one,68 which apparently happened, was probably seen by common people as a constructive improvement, but actually had a much deeper significance, not only in religious terms. Unlike the pillared church, whose central plan shows influences of Byzantine architecture, the new church was a Romanesque basilica, the product of a Western or Central European workshop. By the time, it is likely that several churches had already been built in Transylvania (such as the one in Sânnicolau de Beiuș),69 but the first important Romanesque building was undoubtedly the cathedral in Alba Iulia, a representative architectural home for the easternmost diocese of the kingdom. However, it had a short life, because in around 1200 a new construction site was opened around, aiming to extend the eastern 65 66 67 68 69

Takács 2012b, 17. Takács 2013, 120. For a discussion based on architectural arguments but using a distorted wrong layout of the old church: Takács 2018, 208–212, plate 31; Buzás 2020, fig. 17. 45 by 21 m, or 37 by 20 m, or somewhere in-between. Avram 1995, 65–93; Popa – Chidioșan 1986, 226–234.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

163

part through a monumental transept and sanctuary, but eventually a completely new church arose by 1270: the second cathedral. 5.5

The Second, St Michael’s Cathedral

In the south-western corner of the former Roman camp in Alba Iulia rises the most important religious building in Transylvania, St Michael’s Cathedral, a wonderful masterpiece, that preserves to this day its original Romanesque layout, with some additions in Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque styles (Fig. 1.1, 5.6.1, 5.9–10). The body of the church has three aisles, and there is a crossing whose wings are extended with round apses to the east and with square chapels to the west. The southern chapel has long been regarded as the ‘old sacristy’, but, in fact, it was erected on the spot of the former rotunda, as shown above. The northern chapel has an unclear history – its present-day shape, slightly wider than the transept, dates to the early modern age, when Bishop Francisc Várday founded it. Next to it, to the west, there is a second, Renaissance chapel, representing an early-16th-century addition to the medieval layout, more often known as the Lázó chapel, after the name of its founder.70 Some have argued for a previous porch on the spot, but archaeological surveys in 2004 showed only a ruin older than the current church, to be linked rather with the first cathedral.71 Further to the east, there is a large Gothic choir ending in a pentagonal apse, which is in fact the second sanctuary, built during the second part of the 13th century and rebuilt in its nowadays appearance mid-18th century. On the southern side of the choir, a Baroque-style sacristy stands over the ruin of a Gothic one. The western façade is a two-towered one, endowed with a large atrium containing the main doorway, framed by a monumental Gothic portal. Several books have been written to analyze its fabric and understand its evolution.72 Archaeology contributed fully to this process of knowledge, 70 71 72

Balogh 1943, 61–62, 86–93, 110–115; Entz 1958a, 17–18; Vătășianu 1959, 558–559; Halmos 2007, 171–214; Marcu-Istrate 2007b, 215–224. The excavations were drastically limited by a concrete tunnel built in the early 20th century around the foundations of the chapel, both internally and externally, in order to keep the fabric dry. Marcu-Istrate 2007b, 217, 223. There is a huge literature regarding this church, synthesized in Entz 1958a, 7–10, 223– 226, and Sarkadi 2010a, 11–15. A monograph was already written in 1899: Csányi 1899. For detailed descriptions of the cathedral: Entz 1958b, 1–40; Vătășianu 1959, 42–63; Kovács 2007, 11–40; Kovács 1996. In recent decades, several important additions have been made to the major monographs of the 1950s, based on surveys during a long restoration process: Tóth 1983, 391–428; Sarkadi 2010a; Takács 2012a, 3–29; Takács 2012b, 15–43; Papp 2012;

164

Figure 5.10

Chapter 5

St Michael’s Cathedral in Alba Iulia: the south-western doorway and carved figures on the northern wall of the choir Photos by the author

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

165

especially through the excavations of 1998–2011, when important missing parts were recovered, a number of chronological clues were established, and the history of the choir was explained.73 It has been established that the construction site opened around 1200, at first with the aim of extending the older cathedral toward east, which was done by adding a transept, a tower over the crossing and a larger sanctuary, with a two-bay choir and a round apse.74 From this, only the transept and a part of the choir are still standing, while two southern flying buttresses were uncovered in 2007 and 2011. The archaeological analysis has shown that, by mid-13th century, construction works had advanced substantially, so that the eastern part was completed, while the western façade was still in the making. The moment is very significant, because the monk Roger wrote, in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion, that Alba Iulia had been completely destroyed, no one was left alive, and no church or palace was standing in the city.75 Accordingly, scholars regard the year 1241 as a firm landmark in the history of the building, agreeing that it incurred major damage, especially in its eastern section.76 Like in other situations, archaeological excavations have not revealed such a catastrophe: although some traces of fire have been identified, mainly in the south-western part, they lacked the coherence to confirm a general disaster. It makes sense to

73

74 75 76

Halmos 2007, 171–214; Halmos – Marótzy 2020, 39–60; Halmos – Marótzy – Nagy 2013, 217–246. However, the reader will encounter many different ideas on the development of the church, depending on the authors’ scholarly background (archaeologist, architect, art historian, restorer, engineer). There are a number of questions as well, regarding not only the main stages, but also the chronology of the original building and its extensions. The structure underwent several major restorations, and during those occasions, it could be studied to a larger or smaller extent. As far as records go, archaeological excavations took place in three stages: in the early 20th century, in the 1960s and 1970s, and, lastly, in 1999–2011. The restoration carried out between 1907 and 1918 brought together the most important specialists in Hungary: architects István Möller and Kálmán Lux, archaeologist Béla Pósta and the constructor Sándor Friedli. Pósta 1918; Möller 1929, 16–26; Entz 1958a, 72; Heitel 1985, 218, note 10. The restoration of the diocesan buildings was resumed in 1960 under the guidance of the architect Lajos Bágyuj and the archaeologist Radu Heitel, and interrupted in 1977, at the dissolution of the Directorate of Historical Monuments. Heitel 1972, 139–160; Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Heitel 1985, 215–231; Heitel 1986, 233–248. The late excavations started in 1997 within the northern tower and continued until 2011. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 87–125; Marcu-Istrate 2010, 239–271; Marcu-Istrate 2012b, 77–82; Marcu-Istrate 2012c, 21–42. For the archaeology of the sanctuary: Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 25–55. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 123. In his various reports, Radu Heitel avoided a decision on the chronology of the cathedral, but indirectly suggested the opening of the site at the end of the 12th century. Heitel 1985, 222. Rogerius, Carmen miserabile XL, 94–95. Entz 1958b, 21.

166

Chapter 5

think that construction works stopped for a while, but the idea that no church was left standing in Alba Iulia needs to be seriously reconsidered. The second part of the 13th century saw the completion of the western part, with its two towers against the western façade of the older cathedral. Several graves discovered within the northern tower, dated by coins issued in 1131–1141 and 1231–1241, belonged to the cemetery of the previous basilica, which was pulled down as the new one was being built. In the construction debris, directly overlapping the burials, coins issued in 1235–1270 and in 1272–1290 were found, which allowed a dating for the western section in the late 13th century.77 The construction of the new church around the older one, the latter being in use in the meantime, produced several problems regarding the walking levels. By the time construction was finished, the exterior ground level had been raised quite a lot, so access into the new church involved, from the very beginning, going down a few stairs, to cover a difference of about 1.25 m. The development of the new building, the matching of the walking levels, and the obvious reuse of a number of carved and architectural stones, show that the old church was functional during the process of building, being gradually dismantled as new spaces became functional.78 At the time the western façade was being constructed, major changes also occurred in the eastern section, where the main apse was replaced by a new sanctuary with a buttressed polygonal end. During the excavations in 2011 (exploratory trenches, part of restoration process), the first sanctuary of the church was seen for the first time.79 Though badly damaged by subsequent activities, the ruin standing beneath the pavement showed a perfect work, made of carefully shaped ashlars bound with thin mortar screeds in a very regular masonry, with perfect joints. Three carved ashlars, set side by side, stretched the 1.74 m thickness of this wall, rising on 2 m thick foundations. The apse, narrower than the choir, had an 8 m opening, and appears as a strong and very carefully performed work. The ruin of the apse does not bear traces of burning, nor are there any other signs of a particular disaster, like for example damage caused by the Mongol attack of 1241, as scholars had been previously ascertained. After seeing the structure, one might ask, what kind of attack could have actually caused the destruction of an apse built of stone blocks with such thick walls? Perhaps it is the moment to consider other explanations as well, and maybe changing the sanctuary was only part of the wave of reconstructions that included all the cathedrals of the kingdom during the 13th century (Fig. 5.11). 77 78 79

Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 90–94. Entz 1958a, 111; Entz 1994, 40; Takács 2012a, 62–63; Takács 2012b, 42, note 38. Marcu-Istrate 2012c, 21–42; Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 25–55.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

Figure 5.11

167

Building development of the sanctuary: 1 – the late Romanesque stage, with the first sanctuary; 2 – the foundation of the second, Gothic sanctuary; 3 – the outline of the Gothic walls of the second sanctuary (now preserved only below the pavement); 4 – the first (Gothic) sacristy; 5 – the second (Baroque) sacristy (today in use); 6 – entrance compartment for the present-day sacristy (now demolished); 7 – the current sanctuary, rebuilt during the 18th century from its Gothic fabric; 8 – the ruin of the first apse, as seen in the 2011 excavations; 9 – the Gothic fabric of the second sanctuary, below the present-day pavement; 10 – the original fabric of the second sanctuary, and the current appearance of the walls, reconstructed during the 18th century Drawing and photos by the author, based on excavations in 2000–2011

The second sanctuary was built around the older one in this way: the northern and southern walls of the Romanesque choir were extended to the east, and a polygonal apse was added around the semicircular one. As established by excavations, the Gothic sanctuary had a raft foundation of almost 4 m wide and over 4 m deep, for both walls and buttresses.80 As far as can be reconstituted based on archaeological data, the process of building followed the same steps as in the case of the first sanctuary: the round 80

Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 38–45; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 97–99.

168

Chapter 5

apse was demolished while the new choir was being done, and its stone cornice was fitted and mounted on the new pentagonal apse, as Imre Takács has demonstrated.81 There was again a problem with the walking level. The new sanctuary was matched with the external ground level, which was much lower than the one inside the Romanesque apse. In order to arrange the internal movement according to the liturgical needs, which required the easternmost part of the sanctuary raised higher up, the newly built Gothic elevation was buried ca. 1 m, and a pavement from stone slabs was set in place.82 Interestingly, the buried part is the only fragment preserved from the original Gothic fabric! Built in the emplecton system, with exterior facings made of ashlars, the 1.40 m wide Gothic elevation was set on the internal limit of the massive foundation, in such a manner that almost a third of the wall was actually supported directly on earth. As for the general layout, the excavations showed a slightly different plan from the current one: the Gothic form was about 0.88 m narrower and the apse was somewhat rotated to the south; there was also a recess between the Romanesque choir and the spring of the polygonal apse, located 2 m more to the east compared to the current situation. The mismatch between the foundation and the elevation should perhaps suggest a change of plan or an interruption of the construction, which might in fact have been indirectly caused by the events of 1241. It is, of course, only a speculation; however, the subsequent history of the sanctuary was majorly influenced by structural problems that could not be solved except through a major reconstruction, in 1753.83 Returning to the Gothic fabric, when exactly the sanctuary was built is not clear at all, and the possibilities of archaeology to answer the question are quite limited. The whole eastern part of the church has undergone numerous subsequent modifications and alterations84 (Fig. 5.12). 81 82

83

84

Takács 2012b, 42, note 49. Another possible explanation would be that room for family crypts was intended under the floor. The interpretation is tempting, especially since the solution would not be singular, but, in this case, it still seems unlikely. Ariès 1996, I, 109–113, 398–399, and II, 35–40. However, excavations unearthed a large number of crypts beneath the current pavement, a habit that probably started in the 16th–17th centuries. There is an inscription on the inner face of the northern wall of the sanctuary, which refers to the reconstruction of this part of the church in 1753, but, until recently, no one has taken it seriously. Interdisciplinary research, coordinated by Szilárd Papp, has shown that, indeed, in the 18th century, the sanctuary was in such a poor condition that there was no other solution than its total dismantlement, followed by a strengthening of the structure and a reconstruction using the same pieces, like in a giant puzzle. Papp 2012, especially 131–197. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2012c, 21–42; Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 25–55. However, the possibility of the current apse being a reconstruction had been suggested before by Salontai 2008, 41–46. The interior was excavated in the 16th century for making built or basic graves, and in around 1800 for setting up an underground funeral chamber, and eventually the structure

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

Figure 5.12

169

Building development of the sanctuary, archaeological details: 1 – cross section on the internal southern side; 2 – the original Gothic fabric of the second sanctuary; 3 – the foundation of the sanctuary as seen from the outside Drawing and photos by the author, based on excavations in 2000–2011

170

Chapter 5

Nonetheless, there is a chronological clue, suggested by the development of the sacristies on the southern side of the sanctuary. A sacristy was mentioned for the first time in 1277, when the Saxons from nearby Sebeș and Ocna Sibiului, led by Gaan, son of Alard, attacked the cathedral as a consequence of the 100-year-old dispute they had with the Bishop of Transylvania.85 On that occasion, it was noticed that the Saxons could only be stopped near the sacristy, after inflicting significant damage to the building. Until the excavation in the 1990s, scholars had believed that the room on the southern part of the nave must be seen as the ‘old sacristy’ of 1277. In fact, at that moment, there was a real sacristy, a free-standing building set against the southern wall of the choir, whose ruins were surprisingly uncovered during the large-scale excavations that accompanied the restorations of the later Baroque sacristy.86 The original sacristy was a rectangular room whose eastern side extended the first buttress of the Gothic sanctuary southward. Although the position is less common, because usually sacristies are positioned to the north, it is hardly unique. The analysis of the archaeological data led to the conclusion that it was part of the Gothic project – however, because it was in the very area where the Romanesque and the Gothic choirs meet, it could only be built after the demolition of the semicircular Romanesque apse. The construction started from the same ground level as that of the choir and made use of the same building technique, so it is likely that they were both built all at once and finished in the first decades after the Mongol invasion,87 in any case, being in use before 1277.88 A team of French stonemasons, led by Johannes de Saint-Dié, was brought in to repair losses occurred in 1277, and their contract, concluded on 1 November 1287, is one of the most studied documents related to the church.89 This team is believed to have given the present-day shape to the western façade, with its main Gothic-style portal, restored the walls to the initial height, and repaired the tower over the crossing, which was later demolished.

85 86 87 88 89

itself was completely rebuilt. From the exterior, the site was destroyed during restoration works at the beginning of the 20th century, and by repeated levelling excavations and sewage works. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 97–117; Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 44–46. Urkundenbuch, I, no. 185; DIR.C.II., no. 214; CDTrans.I., no. 352; Sălăgean 2003, 177–182; Entz 1958b, 27, note 36; Drăguț 1979a, 65. Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 90–94, 117–125; Marcu-Istrate 2012c, 36–38. The same opinion, in Möller 1929, 22; Entz 1958a, 88–92. For later dates, going up to the 14th–15th centuries, see Roth 1905, 7–8; Vătășianu 1959, 119; Salontai 2007, 145–153. Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 42–43. Urkundenbuch, I, 15, no. 221, 15. DIR.C.II., no. 329, 288–289. CDTrans.I., no. 430, 270. Entz 1958b, 33; Vătășianu 1959, 56. The roof of the cathedral was repaired in 1291: Urkundenbuch, I, no. 247; DIR.C.II., no. 407, CDTrans.I., no. 480.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

Figure 5.13

171

The eastern part of the cathedral: the sanctuary and the Baroque sacristy Photo by the author

Looking at the plan of the two cathedrals, it can be said that the second one was in fact a reconstruction of the older one, on a slightly larger scale and with changes imposed by the new artistic, structural, and morphological vision of the 13th century. The central nave was preserved, but the aisles seem to have been enlarged by a maximum of 1 m: inside, the lower parts of the pillars separating the Romanesque aisles, reused in the new building, are still there. Important extensions were made to the east (the transversal nave and the new sanctuary) and to the west (towers and atrium), which resulted in a greatly expanded liturgical space. The church gained much in length, but not in width, except for the southern part, where a chapel was built around the old baptistery, as discussed above. Around 1300, the cathedral was completed, after a long century of efforts, disasters, interruptions, and restarts, which radically influenced its architectural style. Some scholars have seen the cathedral as an isolated monument,

172

Chapter 5

with no lasting impact on local architecture. In fact, things must have stood otherwise, regardless of what workshops were employed (whether of French or Central European extraction), and who produced one piece or another.90 The most important construction site of local ecclesiastical architecture must have had a serious impact on the beginnings of the religious architecture, and solutions employed there spread everywhere, at a variable pace. In its immediate proximity, it must have been a source of inspiration for the first Romanesque basilicas built by Saxon settlers, as well as for the dissemination of the Gothic style, although much is still needed to clarify this subject. 5.6

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter explored Alba Iulia, the main ecclesiastical site in Transylvania, housing from the late 11th century one of the twelve Latin dioceses of the Hungarian kingdom. The conquerors had to dismantle there an important centre of power linked to the Greek Church and the Byzantine world, having its core in the south-western corner of the former Roman castrum, while a large habitation area developed all around, as shown by several archaeological finds. One, if not two churches, operated on the spot by the mid-11th century: a rotunda, whose chronology remains disputable, and a Byzantine-style church, built according to a Greek-cross layout around the middle of the 10th century. At the time of its discovery, the latter has been the oldest church certainly dated from the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and from the area north of the lower Danube as well. This circumstance makes the so called ‘pillared church’, in fact a provincial variant of the Greek-cross pattern, a building of great importance for understanding the complex time of the year 1000, in architectural and socio-political terms. One has to bear in mind, when discussing this situation, that building a church was not only a technical challenge, but the greatest act of cultural and religious penetration for Byzantium (and for any great power in fact) in borderlands with an interesting potential.91 The church remains equally important as one of the very few remains of 10th-century ecclesiastical architecture in the Byzantine Commonwealth and 90 91

Szakács 2006a, 179–205. See, for example, the remarkably similar situation at Govan (City of Glasgow, Scotland). Driscoll 1998, 95–114. There are, however, quite a few cases in which the existence of pre-Hungarian centres of power and/or churches in the Kingdom of Hungary has been accepted, but, of these, the case of the church at Zselicszentjakab (Kaposvár) is extremely relevant, as mentioned in chapter 3. Molnár 2020, 14–21.

The Major Religious Site of Alba Iulia

173

even beyond, which makes it an important milestone not only for the history of Transylvania and Hungary, but also for Byzantine architecture studies. As the main effect of the conquest, the Byzantine-style church was substituted for a three-aisled basilica, built 30 m to the east, but on the same axis. Not much is known about the latter, but it must have been a richly decorated, monumental edifice, built in the Romanesque style by stonemasons from Central or Western Europe. Judging by the chronological clues retrieved from its cemetery, it was built in the last decades of the 11th century and survived for roughly one century, before being replaced with a larger, Romanesque-Gothic building, which has remained to this day one of the most important religious landmarks of the Medieval Ages in the Carpathian Basin. In religious terms, the archaeology of Alba Iulia reflects that period of balance of the Hungarian kingdom between Constantinople and Rome, and the difficulties of making the right choice. The formative age of the ecclesiastical landscape ended around 1200, when in Alba Iulia already the fourth church, that was the second Latin cathedral, was under construction. From now on, it will be mainly about Catholic churches, built in Romanesque and Gothic styles, strongly influenced by Central European fashion and workshops, but often developing particular local features. The first and the second cathedrals in Alba Iulia had a great influence over the shaping of the religious architecture in Transylvania, a complex undertaking, happening from mid-12th century until the early 14th century, which will be briefly introduced in the first two chapters of the third part of the book.

Part 3 The Catholic Churches

∵

Chapter 6

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape: Mid-12th Century–Early 14th Century The ecclesiastical landscape of Transylvania was shaped over a long period, which started around the mid-12th century and was barely ending in the early 14th century.1 The current knowledge allows for a coherent image mostly for the 13th century, when the number of churches grew enough to become representative for a Christian organized society, which generally corresponds to the regional, East-Central European context. As shown above, churches had been built since the late 11th century, in key sites, secular and religious residences, and occasionally in a few other places. The pace increased as new settlements were established, especially after 1150, when occurred the first major colonisation wave and people from Central and Western Europe settled in Transylvania. Stone and brick architecture flourished, however, only in the 13th century, when society offered appropriate conditions, on multiple layers, for the sustainable development of this phenomenon. Many, if not most of the churches whose building started earlier on, were completed after 1200, the cathedral in Alba Iulia was rebuilt, and communities began to have public churches (Map 6.1). Two major, interconnected problems arise in the analysis of the period. The first is of a chronological nature, as most of the monuments have a very large dating, in the 12th–13th or 13th–14th centuries, and there is still a lack of case studies allowing for narrower chronological frames. The earliest churches are known mainly from excavations, which usually provide detailed technical knowledge, but, in terms of chronology, rarely offer clues for less than half-centuries.2 In fortunate cases, the oldest shape can be dated based on burial goods, as for example in Alba Iulia, Sibiu, Viscri, and Drăușeni, where convincing Harris-matrix were used. However, early graveyards were extremely poor in inventory, especially in terms of coins, the only artefacts that can give a specific dating.3 In Saxon territories, anthropomorphic graves are often used as 1 Avram 1991, 37–68; Avram 2006a, 12–16; Mărginean 2018, 195–220; Szakács 2011a, 22; Szakács 2013, 171–180; Vătășianu 1959, 21–97; Entz 1994, 30; Greceanu 1970a, 263–296. 2 Mărginean – Csók – Tămășan 2016, 97–98. 3 On average, three percent of the graves have coins. Nevertheless, the graves from early stages often have no grave goods – including coins – whatsoever. Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 45–46, 96–120.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_008

178

Chapter 6

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

179

markers for the early stages of churches, since they are commonly assigned to the late 12th century, but, in fact, they would be still in use in the early 13th century, or even later4 (Fig. 6.1). It often happens that painstaking explorations do not offer chronological evidence and churches must be dated based on analogies and general theories with a wide and uncertain character. Using architectural elements for chronology emphasizes the second difficulty in addressing the early churches, which in fact blended Romanesque and Gothic features. The Romanesque style was for long considered as a feature of the first part of the 13th century, but, during the last decades, excavations and architectural studies have often noticed its 4 Marcu-Istrate 2013a, 371–391; Marcu-Istrate – Istrate 2005, 229–244. Map 6.1

←

Sites relevant for Romanesque and early Gothic church architecture. Sites relevant for Romanesque and early Gothic church architecture. The sites in the primary South-Transylvanian Saxon colonization area, focused on the hinterland of Sibiu, are shown in further detail – 1. Acâș; 2. Agnita; 3. Alba Iulia; 4. Albești; 5. Albiș; 6. Alțâna; 7. Amnaș; 8. Apold; 9. Armășeni; 10. Avrămești; 11. Avrig; 12. Axente Sever; 13. Baia Mare; 14. Bădeni; 15. Bărăbanț; 16. Berea; 17. Bistrița; 18. Brașov (including Brașov – Bartolomeu); 19. Bruiu; 20. Cacuciu Nou; 21. Calnic; 22. Cașolț; 23. Cața; 24. Căpleni; 25. Câlnic; 26. Cârța (Monastery); 27. Cârța-Csíkkarcfalva; 28. Cefa; 29. Cenad; 30. Chirpăr; 31. Cincu; 32. Cisnădie; 33. Cisnădioara; 34. Ciumbrud; 35. Ciumești; 36. Cluj-Napoca (including Cluj-Mănăștur); 37. Copșa Mică; 38. Crăciunel; 39. Cricău; 40. Cristian-Großau; 41. Cristian; 42. Cristuru Secuiesc; 43. Cuzdrioara; 44. DaiaThalheim; 45. Daia; 46. Dăbâca; 47. Dârja; 48. Dealu Frumos; 49. Densuș; 50. Ditrău; 51. Doboșeni; 52. Drăușeni; 53. Feldioara; 54. Feliceni; 55. Felnac; 56. Fizeșu Gherlii; 57. Frumușeni – Bizere M.; 58. Gârbova; 59. Gârbova de Jos; 60. Geoagiu; 61. Ghelința; 62. Gheorghieni; 63. Ghidfalău; 64. Ghimbav; 65. Gilău; 66. Gurasada; 67. Hamba; 68. Hălchiu; 69. Hălmeag; 70. Hărman; 71. Herina; 72. Homorod; 73. Hosman; 74. Iermata Neagră; 75. Igriș; 76. Ineu – Dienesmonustura; 77. Laslea; 78. Leliceni; 79. Luncani; 80. Maiad; 81. Mănăstireni; 82. Mediaș; 83. Mercheașa; 84. Merești; 85. Merghindeal; 86. Miercurea Ciuc – Șumuleu; 87. Miercurea Sibiului; 88. Mihăileni; 89. Misentea; 90. Moșna; 91. Nicolești; 92. Nima; 93. Nireș; 94. Nocrich; 95. Nou Săsesc; 96. Nucșoara; 97. Ocna (Ocna de Jos, Ocna de Sus); 98. Ocna Sibiului; 99. Odorheiu Secuiesc; 100. Oradea; 101. Orăștie; 102. Parhida; 103. Păuca; 104. Pâncota; 105. Pelișor; 106. Petriceni; 107. Petriș; 108. Pianu de Jos; 109. Pișcolt; 110. Polonița; 111. Prejmer; 112. Porumbenii Mari; 113. Racu; 114. Reciu; 115. Rodbav; 116. Rodna; 117. Romos; 118. Roșia; 119. Rugănești; 120. Rusciori; 121. Saschiz; 122. Satu Mare-Máréfalva; 123. Săcădate; 124. Săcuieni; 125. Săvârșin; 126. Sâncraiu; 127. Sâncraiu de Mureș; 128. Sâncrăieni; 129. Sândominic; 130. Sângeorgiu de Mureș; 131. Sânmartin; 132. Sânnicolau de Beiuș; 133. Sânpetru-Petersberg; 134. Sântana de Mureș; 135. Sântămăria-Orlea; 136. Sânvăsii; 137. Sânzieni; 138. Sebeș; 139. Sibiu (including Gușterița, Turnișor); 140. Sighișoara; 141. Strei; 142. Streisângeorgiu; 143. Șardu; 144. Șelimbăr; 145. Șieu-Odorhei; 146. Șișterea; 147. Șoala; 148. Șomartin; 149. Șura Mare; 150. Șura Mică; 151. Tămașda; 152. Tăuț; 153. Tărpiu; 154. Teaca; 155. Toarcla; 156. Tomești; 157. Turia; 158. Țeghea; 159. Ungra; 160. Vaida; 161. Valea Crișului; 162. Valea Viilor; 163. Veseud; 164. Vințu de Jos; 165. Viscri; 166. Vladimirescu; 167. Voivozi; 168. Vurpăr; 169. Zlatna; 170. Cașinu Mic; 171. Cenade; 172. Ruja; 173. Seliștat Author: Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

180

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Graves from different stages of the medieval cemetery of the parish church in Sibiu (1) and anthropomorphic grave, built of brick, early 13th century (2) Drawings and photos by the author

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

181

long-used, specific features being produced until the early 14th century, especially in the countryside. On the other hand, Gothic influences emerged in the second third of the 13th century and spread especially in the last decades of the century, but exceptions often occurred, resulting in an eclectic style. It is not uncommon to find Romanesque elements inserted in a Gothic building, without necessarily having existed on the site an older stage. This perspective is applicable for still standing buildings, but when referring simple archaeological ruins, it does not work as well. When introducing this period, it is important to mention that the mixture of Romanesque and Gothic elements, in a region on the periphery, makes it very difficult to date the buildings in a frame of less than a century, if we do not have other indicators. This situation requires a broader approach, but this chapter emphasizes the Romanesque beginnings, making a connection between the early period and the spread of the Gothic style, which will be discussed separately, in the next chapter. 6.1

General Background

From the mid-12th century, the overall conditions were favourable for the flowering of Catholic architecture and, furthermore, relative societal progresses generated the material and spiritual background for sustained building activities. Around the year 1200, the Hungarian kingdom reached the bend of the Carpathians, and the south-eastern part of Transylvania began to be organized on very strong military-religious basis, ensured by the Cistercian Order and the Teutonic Knights. The Cistercian monastery in Cârța was founded in the first years of the 13th century, the Knights arrived in 1211 and the central house of the Cistercian Order received extended rights in the Land of Bârsa in 1240. During the second part of the century – in any case, after the Mongol invasion – the order had already advanced to the south-east and had a house in Brașov.5 Early-13th-century diplomas show that both the Diocese of Transilvania and the secular power had already reached the ridges of the Southern Carpathians and were attempting to expand beyond the mountains. In 1205, it is mentioned that a land granted to the Cistercians had previously belonged to the Diocese of Transylvania6 – and in 1211 (1223), the Teutonic Knights were endowed with territories on both sides of the mountains. The knights disregarded the kingdom’s conditions and tried to establish a state under the pope’s direct authority, 5 Dincă – Schabel 2021, 1–2; Jenei 2004b, 403–404. 6 Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 107.

182

Chapter 6

but eventually failed and were banished.7 In 1228, the former Teutonic territory was reorganized into the Diocese of Cumania, assigned to the Archdiocese of Esztergom, and it is likely that, in that context, an important religious centre developed in Corona / Brașov.8 The missionary activity, previously carried out by Benedictines9 and Premonstratensians, was continued by Cistercians, Dominicans, and Franciscans, which established houses starting from around 1200, among the earliest being those erected by the Dominicans in Sebeș and by the Franciscans in Bistrița.10 At this time, the wanderings of the Szeklers ended with their definitive settlement in the south-eastern and eastern parts of the area. Previously, they had secured segments of the southern lands, and may have even built churches there, intending to establish long lasting settlements.11 Archaeological situations recorded in Viscri, Drăușeni, Mediaș and Câlnic were often referred to as relevant case studies to illustrate the scenario – however, the phenomenon is still too little explored.12 During the 13th century, and especially in its second half, the Szeklers settled in the eastern part of Transylvania, shaping an anthropogeography that survives to the present day.13 However, recent archaeological investigations and field studies argue for a pre-Szekler habitation on the spot, prior to the mid-13th century, and conjecture that the network of settlements and churches actually started to form in that context. Nonetheless, the oldest still-standing churches date only to the 13th century.14 As Szeklers pulled out from the south, Germanic settlers, who advanced to the southeast during the late 12th century and the early 13th century, establishing settlements in the Land of Bârsa and its surroundings, occupied their places.15 Some colonies took also shape in the northern half of Transylvania, which resulted in a core area focused on Bistrița and on several other isolated

7 8 9 10

11 12

13 14 15

Urkundenbuch, I, no. 36, 40; DIR.C., I, 151, no. 146; CDTrans I, 128, no. 126; Rusu 2005, 434– 443; Țiplic 2006, 121–131. The state-of-the-art: Zimmermann 2000; Gündisch 2013. DIR.C.I., 228; Binder 1969, 130; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 203; Spinei 2007, 413–456. Berend – Laszlovszky – Szakács 2007, 319–368. The Franciscans emerged in Transylvania in 1228, when they founded their earliest monasteries within the Saxon area of colonisation, although works were carried out in the early 14th century on most of their construction sites. Salontai 2002a, 51–58. For Bistrița, see Gaiu – Duda 2008, 34–36; Salontai 2011, 53–58. For Sebeș, see Salontai 1996b, 27–32. Horedt 1958, 117–123; Klein 1971b, 117–136. Heitel 1972, 147, mentions the situation in Câlnic, where, according to his statements, were uncovered local 11th- and 12th-century artefacts, followed by 12th-century Árpádian pottery, all of them predating the 13th-century Saxon colonisation. Dumitrache 1979a, 155–156; Dumitrache 1981, 272. A discussion in: Dumitrache 1978a 34–53. Benkő 2009, 13–43; Botár 2011, 306. Benkő 2012, I, 97–111. Klein 1966, 45–64; Nägler 1979, 144–147; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 25–34.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

183

spots. New colonists continued to arrive during the 13th century, occasionally even after 1300. With a level of civilization clearly superior to that of any local group, they had both knowledge and determination to build churches. In fact, they transformed the local landscape – at least in the south of the region – from a forested and superficially inhabited area, into one with complex ecclesiastical scenery, which, even now, after decades of neglect and abandonment, amazes both scholar and tourist. Each community had a parish church, while greater settlements developed an ecclesiastical topography with multiple chapels and other secondary buildings round the parish churches. Chapels with various destinations were especially frequent in graveyards, fortifications, and private residences. The hospites also played an important role in the establishment of many monasteries and in shaping the urban ecclesiastical landscape. Of the several hundred of churches erected during this period, most of them Romanesque basilicas, more than half have survived to this day, with more or less extensive modifications. After the Hungarian conquest, the most important event was the Mongol invasion of 1241–42, which devastated and ravaged a large number of settlements.16 Two of the armies that were attacking Hungary under Batu Khan’s leadership passed through Transylvania, one invading the north, razing Rodna and Bistrița and occupying (?) Cluj, while the other advanced through the southern region.17 According to the descriptions given by the monk Roger in his work, Carmen Miserabile, the troops devastated the surroundings to such an extent that, from the Mureș valley to the neighbourhood of Cluj – so all through the southern half of the region – no living man was left and only church towers served as landmarks in a desolate landscape.18 The disaster was so great that it is considered that the population of Hungary was reduced to a fifth of what it was before, and that only one quarter, if not less, of the existing settlements managed to survive.19 Even when they were not completely razed by the Mongols, many villages were so badly damaged that they lay abandoned until the end of the century, if not forever. However, the impact of these events must be assessed area by area, based on reliable case studies, since the effects could not have been the same everywhere. It is stated that all settlements of Transylvania had suffered, most of them being actually destroyed in full, but further studies are needed to check this hypothesis.20 Despite the unclear picture of the phenomenon, local 16 17 18 19 20

Sacerdoțeanu 1933. For the consequences in the Hungarian kingdom see Engel 2001, 6, 126–129. Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 122–123; Lupescu 2005, 43. Rogerius, Carmen miserabile, IX. Tari 2000, 237. Rusu 2005, 384.

184

Chapter 6

archaeologists have transformed the Mongol invasion into a standard chronological marker and almost every burned layer from the 13th century has been claimed as its result. This produced an artificial boundary, which led to the fragmentation of the sites and forced interpretations, pushing the dating of many constructions in the second part of the 13th century.21 However, the matter needs to be analyzed more deeply and on a case-to-case basis, because fires could have multiple causes in such a troubled time. The situation in Alba Iulia is most suggestive: the excavations recorded no burned layer that could be linked to the Mongol invasion, although the fact that the cathedral incurred damage seems well established22 (Chapter 5.5). The analysis of other situations, for example those in Prejmer or Cisnădioara (Fig. 6.18), also suggests that in-depth studies and a balanced view are needed. Whatever the case, the invasion had important consequences, on multiple levels, on the development of the local society. The central power sponsored the arrival of a new wave of colonists, to compensate the losses, repopulate settlements and establish new ones.23 In this context did colonists arrive in Cluj, where they practically formed a new settlement next to the old city, and around Alba Iulia, where they played an important role in erecting churches. A huge effort of fortification further boosted construction sites, with positive effects for the field of ecclesiastical architecture. The newly built fortifications, such as the ones in Câlnic24 (Fig. 10.4), and Gârbova,25 were provided with chapels, the existing belfries were strengthened, and many church towers were newly erected. Furthermore, while some of the churches only had to be repaired, it is likely that many others, made of light materials, had to be fully replaced. In fact, some scholars argue that masonry architecture developed in the whole Carpathian Basin only after these events, in the second part of the 13th century.26 The most important event in the matter had been the rebuilding of the cathedral in Alba Iulia, whose construction site was active during most of the 13th century, producing the paramount monument of Transylvania.27 As archaeology has shown, works started probably just before 1200, progressing very slowly from east to west, with long time spans between the various parts of the structure. The western part was built around 1270, at a time when the eastern part was being in fact rebuilt and the main apse replaced by a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Most archaeologists and historians use this event to date the ecclesiastical construction sites. For an opposite opinion: Avram 1991, 37. Vătășianu 1987, 18–19; Marcu-Istrate 2009a, 77–80. Sălăgean 2003, 49–50. Heitel 1968; Simina 2000, 95–115. Anghel 1986, 119–120; Rusu 2005, 519–520. Rusu 2005, 102; Tari 2000, 238. Szakács 2006a, 179–205; Vătășianu 1987, 6, 20–21.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

185

Gothic sanctuary. The style of the building progressively changed from late Romanesque to Gothic, encompassing the most important features of the local architecture throughout the century – as largely shown in the previous chapter. Another crucial event of this century was the building of the monastery in Cârța, which will be discussed in chapter 7. 6.2

Stylistic Considerations and Heritage

Throughout the Kingdom of Hungary, the Romanesque generally corresponded to the 11th–13th centuries, therefore juxtaposing the strengthening of the state of the House of Árpád as an Apostolic kingdom. Romanesque architecture emerged in the late 11th century and initially spread in the central areas of the kingdom, as a synthesis of influences introduced from very different sources through imported ideas, workshops, and masters.28 In the early period, the southern and western areas were under the influence of pre-Romanesque Ottonian architecture, while the eastern ones experienced Byzantine influences. The models offered by the early Christian churches of Pannonia must have played a role too, whether they were still in use or just abandoned, ruined structures. Some scholars distinguish influences of Italian workshops and archetypes, and often even argue that the identified Byzantine elements have been introduced by way of Italy.29 Benedictine construction sites played an extremely important role in the dissemination of Romanesque architecture, and exceptional buildings were still being erected in the early 13th century, such as the church of the abbey in Ják.30 Nevertheless, at this time, the first elements of the Gothic style had already started to spread, becoming increasingly preferred by patrons and builders. Overall, Transylvania followed the same development, but some particularities are obvious, imposed by its position on the eastern periphery of the kingdom, where new influences were slow to spread and the forms mixed, to survive for long periods.31 The Romanesque dominated until about the mid13th century,32 but its second part, after the Mongol invasion, was a transitional period, in which a monument could be predominantly Romanesque or predominantly Gothic, with very frequent mixtures of the two styles.33 On the one 28 29 30 31 32 33

There is a consistent bibliography on the topic. For an overview, see Gerevich 1938; Szakács 2005, 31–44; Szakács 2008a, 55–62; Szakács 2008b, 648–655. For Transylvania: Țiplic – Crîngaci Țiplic 2020, 107–120; Avram 2006a. Takács 2013, 75–135. Szakács 2005, 36; Szőcs 2014, 23–24. Szakács 2011b, 209–234. Heitel 1972, 140; Niedermaier 1996b, 24–25. Szakács 2011b, 210; Busuioc 1978, 8–13.

186

Chapter 6

Figure 6.2 The church of the former Benedictine monastery in Herina, in 1885 After Ionescu 1963, 78, fig. 34

hand, outstanding Romanesque buildings were still being erected, foremost among them the church in Herina and many Saxon churches. Some researchers have also argued that it was only during this period that the Romanesque reached its higher level34 (Fig. 6.2). On the other hand, it is not unusual to have basically Romanesque structures that included Gothic elements since their inception, or buildings with a mixed structure, such as the early-14th-century basilica in Teaca. Looking at the ground plan, this transition is reflected mainly by using polygonal apses. 34

Drăguț 1979a, 11–17.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

187

Changes depended on the environment: rural areas were more conservative and maintained Romanesque features until the early 14th century, whereas towns swiftly implemented Gothic features, abandoning Romanesque structures at different building stages.35 6.2.1 Single-Nave Churches The most common shape was undoubtedly the single-nave with a rectangular chancel or a round apse, extending westward with a tower – or not, and sometimes endowed with internal galleries. A large-scale study on the subject is missing, and chronological boundaries are not clear at all, because features as the shape of the sanctuary, western towers, or galleries, considered sharp references in older literature, were actually used concurrently and for much longer periods.36 In most situations, the buildings were small, with the inner area of the nave sometimes having only 15 to 20 sq. m, on average around ca. 40 sq. m, and only exceptionally exceeding 100 sq. m. The early layout consisted of a nave and a semicircular apse (Viscri, Maiad) or a rectangular chancel (Daia).37 At a glance, the more or less rounded apses seem to have been more widespread, sometimes in horseshoe-like forms, such as in Calnic.38 Traditionally, a round apse has been accepted as mandatory Romanesque, but recent studies have shown that it was also used in the pre-Romanesque period, and in much later times.39 In Transylvania, early 10th-century churches made use of rounded apses, as mentioned when discussing the archaeological churches of Byzantine influence from Alba Iulia and Dăbâca. The oldest 11th-century Catholic churches had rounded apses as well, as the abovementioned first cathedral in Alba Iulia and the churches in Sânnicolau de Beiuș demonstrate.40 It is interesting that the three churches overlapped on the same spot in Sânnicolau de Beiuș during a span of two centuries had similar proportions, making only minimal enlargements and adding a tower: in fact, the one reconstructed after 1241 was almost identical to the 11th-century edifice. The earliest and most interesting examples worthy to be mentioned, in the western parts, are the cases in Vladimirescu (the first church) and 35

36 37 38 39 40

Drăguț 1979a, 35, note 41, deems significant in this regard the Roman-Catholic church in Valea Crișului, the Unitarian one in Maiad, the Reformed ones in Nicolești and Sântana de Mureș, as well as the Orthodox one in Nucșoara, probably based on their semicircular apses and on the fact that they have no actual Gothic elements. Szakács 2011b, 209–234, for a review of the state-of-the-art in the field and an overview on the most frequent sanctuaries used for this kind of churches. Marcu 1998a, 172. Bordi – Méder 2009, 261–282. Szakács 2011b, 212; Avram 2006a, 168. Avram 2006a, 110.

188

Chapter 6

Figure 6.3 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Tăuț: 1 – the initial Romanesque church, 13th century; 2 – two-stepped Gothic expansion of the sanctuary and the nave; 3 and 4 – expansions of the Romanesque church, predating the Gothic expansion, 13th–14th centuries; 5 – later modifications Drawing based on Mărginean – Rusu, 2010, 895–897, fig. 4–5, 9; for the chronology, Mărginean 2007, 107, fig. 2

Frumușeni-Bizere (the chapel), and in the territory of the Saxon colonists, the ones in Viscri and Drăușeni. Although a higher density is noticeable in the southern and eastern parts, there are also many examples in the north: Șișterea – built in the early 13th century and surviving with subsequent alterations; the first church in Vaida – built mid-13th century, with a slightly trapezoidal nave, uncovered underneath the present-day village church;41 the ones with horseshoe-shaped apses erected during the early 13th century in Parhida, and, ca. 1250, in Șardu,42 and the church of the Eastern rite monastery in Voivozi, uncovered by excavations. In the west, the archaeologists have suggested that the first church in Iermata Neagră43 also had a round apse, as the one built of bricks in Tăuț44 (Fig. 6.3). A variant of this ground plan involves an elongated sanctuary, with the northern and southern walls of unexpected length, suggesting a primitive choir,45 as can still be seen in Sâncraiu de Mureș46 and 41 42 43 44 45 46

Emődi – Marta 2005, 45–75. Entz 1968, 143, fig. 10. Mărginean – Hurezan – Sava 2014, 137–150; Rusu – Hurezan 2000, 108–111. Mărginean 2007, 101–103, on the oldest church, built of bricks on the site of a former cemetery. Vătășianu 1959, 83. The church, now gone, is known based on some drawings. Consisting of a nave, an elongated apse and a western tower, unconnected to the nave, it had suitable decorations to

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

189

Sângeorgiu de Mureș.47 When a similar case was investigated in Viscri, it has been shown that this form may be determined by interventions made upon an older apse, retaining its lateral walls and extending them eastward. Rectangular chancels were for long linked to Cistercian influences, which led to dating many churches in the late 13th century, when the white monks’ presence had grown enough to have an impact in the region. Nevertheless, excavations have shown a similar situation as in the case of the round apse: the rectangular shape was in use since the 11th century,48 as the churches in Streisângeorgiu (the wooden church) and Dăbâca attest, to become largely widespread later, often enriched with a western tower. Accounts that are more precise are lacking – it was used most frequently in south-western and central Transylvania, but without missing in the eastern Szekler territories and even in Saxons settlements.49 Relevant examples are the still standing churches in Cuzdrioara, Dârja, Nireș, Nima, Fizeșu Gherlii and Șieu-Odorhei50 (Fig. 6.4), in the south those in Gârbova de Jos, Reciu, Rusciori and Ditrău, and in the northwest the one in Cacuciu Nou, but only exceptionally there are archaeological data about them. Excavations constantly expand this repertoire with lost churches, like those in Cefa – La pădure51 or Săcuieni, where a rectangular nave and a buttressed rectangular chancel were dated in the late 13th century52 (Fig. 8.11.2). The first church of the Franciscan monastery in Oradea was a single-nave with a cross-vaulted rectangular chancel – considered to be of Cistercian influence – and it was dated between 1250 and 1280.53 Among the most ancient churches of the Szekler communities are those in Daia (Fig. 6.10)

47

48

49

50 51 52 53

assign it to late Romanesque, based on its arched openings, a twined niche, a rose window and some narrow, paired pointed windows of the steeple. The latter ones are deemed of Cistercian influence, therefore the church has been dated in the 1270s or 1280s. Vătășianu 1959, fig. 75. It has a semicircular elongated apse, a rectangular nave and a western tower. It seems that only the apse dates from medieval times – c.1300, according to its decoration. However, archaeological investigations and radiocarbon dating have pushed forward the construction date of the apse into the 14th century. László – Gál 2015, 87–118. Szakács 2011b, 215–218, for a commentary and an analysis of Hungarian theories. However, recent research has shown that this shape was in use long before the foundation of the Cistercian Order, therefore origins in wooden architecture seem more likely. Avram 1973, 132; Avram 2006a, 169–170, 182. The churches in Bărăbanț, Reciu and Rusciori, all of them with square or rectangular chancels, may have been built during this period – however, none of them has been so far archaeologically investigated. Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 77–78; Fabini 1998, I, 86; Șerban 1972, 752. The church, dated at the end of the 13th century, has preserved its original fabric, and is endowed with some truly exceptional Romanesque features, such as the western portal. Vătășianu 1959, 73, fig. 62–63. Crișan 2006, 130. Emődi 1999, 196. Emődi 1997, 61–90.

190

Chapter 6

Figure 6.4 The Reformed churches in Șieu Odorhei and Mănăstireni: 1–2 – the church in Șieu Odorhei, general view and detail from the southern wall; 3–4 – the church in Mănăstireni, general view and detail from the southern wall of the tower Photos by Radu Lupescu

and Armășeni (Fig. 8.6), whose ruins have been identified underneath the present-day churches.54 It is generally accepted that the Saxons preferred basilicas. Nonetheless, several late 12th- and 13th-century single-nave churches are also known, their status being under debate. Some argued that the first generations of settlers started by building wooden churches, as a mostly provisional arrangement, 54

Botár 2009a, 67–75; Marcu 1998a, 157–180; Marcu-Istrate 2004, 165–182.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

191

replaced with stone churches when they had the means to support larger construction sites.55 This assumption has arisen basically from the difficulty of making a correspondence between the early phases of the stone churches and the corresponding phases of the graveyards. For example, in Sebeș, the first church following a basilican layout was built in a pre-existing graveyard, but no traces of an older church were noticed, so a light structure was assumed to have firstly provided services for the believers. The same had been proposed for the Asylum Church in Sibiu, and for many other places, but obviously no rule should be made without additional data. There are cases where obviously a single-nave preceded the construction of a basilica, and it is reasonable to suppose that the former had been built from the beginning as parish churches (Fig. 9.3). The example in Drăușeni is contradictory. A single-nave church with a semicircular apse and a small tower on the western façade,56 dated in the late 12th century based on burial goods, was discovered underneath the north side of the present-day church (Fig. 6.5). No mortar was identified in the ruins of the building, which suggested a dry masonry. Considered at that time the oldest building of its kind in Transylvania, the church was initially attributed to the Szekler community that supposedly occupied the site before the Saxon settlers arrived.57 Larger excavations in the 1990s identified burials typical for colonists from the same late 12th century, and this reopened the discussion on the first believers and owners: were they Saxons or were they Szeklers? This situation remained singular for a long time, but, very recently, similar cases have emerged in Câlnic and Cisnădie, still in the process of excavation.58 The church in Homorod59 belongs to a more advanced variant that included a tower, a nave, a rectangular choir, and a semicircular apse. The church was dated to the late 13th century based on its architectural style, and especially because of its murals,60 but relevant archaeological investigations are still expected (Fig. 6.6). It is also quite probable that small single-nave churches were built by hospites settled around Bistrița since the 13th century, although no relevant 55 56 57 58 59 60

Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 67; Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 494; Vătășianu 1987, 2; Morres 1928a, 153–162. Dumitrache 1979a, 159–170; Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 47–51. Dumitrache 1978a, 49–50. Friendly information fom Maria Crîngaci Țiplic. Dumitrache 1981, 273; Horwath 1940a, 42–45; Roth 1905, 24, 106; Vătășianu 1959, 83. Fragments of the original murals have survived until recently in the sanctuary. Considered the oldest Gothic murals in Transylvania, since they inherit Romanesque elements and fit the early narrative Gothic, they were dated to c.1300, while the village appeared in documents in c.1400. In the 15th century, a tower was erected over the choir, and later changes and additions were made until the 17th century. Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 226–227; Fabini 1998, I, 272–273; Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 38. For the paintings: Drăguț 1964, 102–104; Drăguț 1979a, 189–191.

192

Chapter 6

Figure 6.5 The archaeological, 12th century church, in Drăușeni, in black; the late layout of the church is outlined Drawing based on Dumitrache 1979a, fig. 2

example is preserved. However, when the church in Tărpiu was excavated, it was discovered that it had at least three older stages, the first church being a nave with a round apse, replaced in around 1400 by a larger nave with a square chancel and a vestry.61 It was also assumed that, in a number of cases, single-nave churches were temporary choices for parishes, as for example in Cricău and Mediaș (Chapter 3, Fig. 3.11; Chapter 8, Fig. 8.19), but, more often, this shape was related to residences, as the ones in Viscri, Albești, Câlnic (Fig. 10.4) and perhaps Axente Sever (Fig. 6.7) – all of them with semicircular apses, connected with a tower located nearby (Axente Sever), or further away. The one in Albești62 was abandoned, the one in Câlnic was handed over to the community, which had meanwhile built its own basilica on a nearby plot, and the other two eventually have become parish churches and were expanded in dissimilar ways – the church in Viscri westwards and eastwards, the one in Axente Sever as a turriform church. In addition, during the 13th century, a number of single-nave churches, many already with polygonal apses, were built as secondary churches within parish

61 62

Rădulescu 2010, 325–326. The present-day church dates back to the late 15th century. For its fabric, see Fabini 2009, 238; Mândrescu 1999, 53–55; Popa 1970, 315–320. A prehistoric fortification was reused there in the Middle Ages, after restoring its ovalshaped earthen rampart. Within it, alongside other buildings, an 8–9 by 6.5 m single-nave church arose, with a semicircular apse and a western gallery supported by a central pillar. Several coins, issued c.1270, date the existence of this structure, destroyed by fire in the early 14th century. The village is mentioned in 1231 as a possession of the Saxon knights Corrard and Daniel, sons of Johannes Latinus – likely the owner of the fortification and chapel. Urkundenbuch, I, 54–55, no. 63; DIR.C.I., 254–255, 394–395, no. 21; CD Trans, 174, no. 63; Baltag 2000, 216–223; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 140–141, pl. 6/5; Rusu 2005, 501.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

193

Figure 6.6 The Evangelical church in Homorod – single-nave church, built c.1300 (in black), modified in Gothic style during the 14th and 15th centuries (in grey). The tower above the choir dates from the 15th century, and the present-day southern side chapel was added in the 17th century Drawing based on Fabini 1998, I, fig. 171.2

sites, in both towns and villages, and also for small monastic settlements. This subject will be approached in further detail below, in its Gothic context.63 6.3

The Single-Nave Church in Eastern Transylvania

Archaeological investigations carried out in Eastern Transylvania have established that many parish churches in use have Romanesque origins, some of them even in the late 12th century, although, more frequently, they only go back to the 13th or the early 14th centuries, or even only to the later decades of the 14th century. Dating them with more accuracy is difficult. It has to be stressed, however, that, compared to older theories, the archaeological excavations have changed perspectives on many individual cases, arguing for an unexpected long use of the Romanesque, up to the late 14th century. Concurrently, it was often established that several churches previously considered Romanesque 63

Popa 2002, 44–45.

194

Chapter 6

Figure 6.7 The Evangelical church in Axente Sever. The original structure consisted of a massive square tower (10 m on the side), having to the south a 5.8 by 2.9 m tiny single-nave church with a semicircular apse (in black). A construction date in the late 13th century was proposed based on some paired windows, but archaeological investigations failed to clarify the rapport between the tower and the chapel. Extended towards east and west, it became a Gothic church in the early 14th century. Fortification of the church and outer fortress at the end of the 15th century After Fabini 1998, I, fig. 121.1

have been, in fact, the result of multiple stages of construction, stretching until very late, up to the beginning of the modern era. The preservation of the vestiges of this period is quite diverse, although they are usually in connection with the current church. More often than not, the apses are gone – such as in Șumuleu Ciuc, Sâncrăieni64 (Fig. 6.8.A), Cârța – Csíkkarcfalva,65 Mihăileni,66 Nicolești67 (Fig. 3.9), Sânmartin,68 and Leliceni69 – and excavations are required to find them. In Șumuleu Ciuc a first church was probably built in the 12th century, according to the C14 dating of a burial, being one of the earliest from the whole area, but its first two apses remain unknown.70 The church in Sândominic was demolished ca. 1800, when 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Botár 2009a, 23–37; Tóth – Rácz – Botár 2007, 133–142; Rossel 2015, 108–111. Archaeological surveys in 2002. Botár 2012, 9–25. Archaeological excxavations in 2011–2012. Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 105–108. Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 109–112. Botár 2016, 9–24, fig. 22 for the developement of the church, based on 2015 surveys during restauration. Botár 2017, 170. Botár 2008, 17–74; Botár 2009a, 38–53. Archaeological excavations in 2002–2005.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.8 A – the archaeology of the Reformed church in Sâncrăieni – the first church, 12th–13th centuries (?), in black; the second church, with a new sanctuary, 15th century, in dark grey; other additions, 18th–19th centuries, in light grey. B – the Reformed church in Ghidfalău, based on archaeological and wall studies – the first church, 13th century (?), in black; 15th century Gothic sanctuary, in dark grey; other additions, 17th century, in light grey; enclosure with a gate tower, 16th–17th century Drawings based on Benkő 2012, I, fig. 20.6 and fig. 17.5

195

196

Chapter 6

a new, still standing one replaced it. The archaeological report mentioned no less than five stages between the 12th and the 17th centuries, but what was considered a medieval building was in fact a product of the Romanesque-to-Gothic transition period. The report concluded that some Romanesque features (doorway frames, baptismal font) were originally inserted in the Gothic fabric of the 14th century, although by their appearance they would have been considered much more archaic.71 According to data centralized by Elek Benkő, the nave of a medium-sized church had an inner area of 40–50 sq. m, and larger churches, with the inner area of the nave of 96–106 sq. m started to be built only ca. 1300. The biggest nave, with an inner area of 159 sq. m, was that of the church in Ghelința. The naves were rectangular, with a 1 to 4 length to width ratio, but toward the end of the period started to appear wider shapes, with a 1 to 2 ratio.72 Most churches were (re)built or expanded as early as the 13th century, becoming much more spacious and often gaining a tower, as for example the ones in Turia,73 Luncani,74 Bădeni,75 Polonița,76 Satu Mare-Máréfalva,77 Rugănești78 and Ocna.79 Semicircular apses have been preferred, and among the earliest examples are the churches in Maiad,80 Merești – the chapel of the Mongols,81 Crăciunel,82 Tomești,83 and Cașinu Mic,84 probably from the 13th century. The church in Sâncraiu was a small building with a round apse and a small room on the northern side of the nave, built probably in around 1300.85 Archaeological 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Botár 2009a, 87–95. Archaeological surveys in 2006. Benkő 2012, I, 130. Entz 1968, 26–30. Entz 1994, 52–53, 96. Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 91–92, fig. 10. Nyárádi – Sófalvi 2012, 170. Dávid 1981, 203, pl. 199; Demjén – Sófalvi 2008, 84–88; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 94–95; Demjén – Sófalvi 2009, 3–36, general reconstruction at page 37. Dávid 1981, 242–253. Archaeological surveys in 1971–1972 (István Molnár, Zoltán Székely), 1981 (Elek Benkő) and 2007–2008. Benkő 1992, 132–136; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 81–82. Nyárádi – Sófalvi 2012, 170. Entz 1994, 62; Benkő 2012, I, 108 and fig. 15, 3–4; Elek Benkő mentioned this case as extremely relevant for early churches in the area. Benkő 2012, I, 109, fig. 15, 2. Archaeological surveys in 2008. Rossel 2015, 189; Benkő 2012, I, 98–100. Botár 2005, 37–54; Botár 2009a, 11–22; Botár – Tóth 2004, 271–303. The semicircular apse was replaced in the 15th century by a Gothic sanctuary; currently, the only surviving part of the church is a ruined tower, dated in the second part of the 15th century. Székely 1975, 66, fig. 4; Benkő 2012, I, 127–128. The church was demolished during the 15th century and a new one was built on the same place, reusing the line of the western Romanesque wall for its triumphal arch, and repurposing the older sacristy. Archaeological excavations in 2008–2009. Bordi 2011, 194–195, fig. 25; Rossel 2015, fig. 415.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

197

excavations in Albiș, in 1998–1999, uncovered a very similar apse, attached to a small nave extended to the north with a room, considered by the archaeologist to be a sacristy86 (Fig. 6.9). Very similar was the church in Sânmartin (now lost)87 and the one in Ghidfalău, probably from the 13th century as well88 (Fig. 6.8.B). Semicircular apses continued to be built in the 14th century, while in other places (Sângeorgiu de Mureș) they were just replaced.89 The first church built in Calnic during the 13th century ended eastward in an unusual, very narrow rectangular chancel, which was replaced soon (but probably in the 14th century) by an also less usual “U”-shaped apse.90 One of the first examples of an early building in this area was uncovered in 1993–1995, when the church in Daia91 was restored and large-scale excavations were carried out within the church and graveyard. Only scarce traces of a first building have survived: a few masonry fragments and several graves, destroyed when the present-day nave was erected, in the latter half of the 13th century. Ruins in various stages of demolition appeared below the southern wall of the nave, on a 9 m span. Based on the stratigraphic configuration, it was established that these fragments must have belonged to the northern side of the old church, which would have been thus located south of the present-day one, with a cemetery growing around, and including at least 10 graves. There were no clues for dating this stage, but it is likely that it happened in around 1200, the time when it is supposed that Szeklers arrived in the valley of the Daia stream (Fig. 6.10). The church from the next stage was entirely restructured, and its rectangular nave (7.90 by 9.70 m on the inside) is still extant, currently working with a large 86 87 88 89 90

91

Bartók – Bordi 1998, 254, fig 1, for the first phase of the church. Its current figure is Gothic. Rossel 2015, 216–217; Székely 2007, 101–110, fig. 51–52; Bordi 1999, 291–296. Botár 2016, 9–24, fig. 22 for the development of the church, based on 2015 surveys during restoration. Entz 1994, 63. Archaeological excavations in 1936: Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, fig. 140. Entz 1994, 62; Zrinyi 1976, 146; László – Gál 2015, 87–118. Tüdős 2002, 125. For the later history of the church, see Csáki 2009, 283–290. For its archaeology, see Bordi – Méder 2009, 261–282. However, nothing remains from medieval times in Calnic, the church being completely reconstructed during the 17th century. Benkő 2012, I, 108. In its present-day form, the church, surrounded by a low enclosure, consists of a rectangular nave and an elongated Gothic choir, ended in a polygonal apse, while an imposing Baroque tower marks its western front. The church is famous due to the paintings on the vault of the choir, a composition consisting of stalks and leaves, among which are interspersed human figures, allegories, and coats-of-arms, generally assigned to the early sixteenth century. Mainly because of this composition, but also due to other factors pertaining to its architecture and interior decoration, the monument has constantly drawn the attention of specialists, which resulted in an apparently rich literature. Dávid 1981, 259–266; Jánó 1993, 25–47. Archaeology: Marcu 1998a, 157–180.

198

Chapter 6

Figure 6.9 The archaeology of the Reformed church in Albiş – overview of the main construction phases and of the situation on site: A – 13th–14th centuries; B – 15th century; C – 17th century; D – 21th century Drawing based on Bartók – Bordi 1998, fig.2

Gothic choir. Originally, there was a rectangular chancel (5.50 by 5.25 m on the inside), recessed by 1.50 m to the south and, respectively, 1.20 m to the north, whose ruins are preserved inside the present-day choir. Roughly in the centre of the apse lay the almost square shaped (1.40 by 1.50 m) altar table, partly built of reused stones, among which there was a large architectural piece, bound in mortar at the footing of the foundation. Buttresses strengthened the outer corners of the church, and there were two entrances, from the west and south, only the latter being still noticeable, although walled-in. The analyses of the archaeological findings, correlated with the murals, have suggested a dating for the building process in the second part of the 13th century, but no specific clue was uncovered. The excavations in Daia have revealed for the first time a multi-stage development for Szekler churches. Meanwhile, a significant number of very similar situations have been brought to light. Fragments of walls from older buildings have been noticed in many places, presumably from very early churches (as for example in Gheorghieni92 or Feliceni93).

92 93

Demjén 2016, 61–97; Tóth – Botár – Grynaeus 2016, 107–131. Entz 1994, 63. Archaeology: Cantacuzino 1974, 94–96; Rossel 2015, 146–149; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 79–119. A first church had a small rectangular chancel (but its

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.10

199

The archaeology of the Reformed church in Daia: 1 – church I, 12th–13th centuries; 2 – church II/1, 13th–14th centuries; 3 – church II/2, 15th century; 4 – church II/3 (room added to the sacristy), 15th–16th centuries; 5–6 – various modifications; 7 – the tower Drawing based on Marcu 1998a, 160, fig. 2 and 7

6.3.1 Basilicas The important churches of the age were mainly three-aisled basilicas, with various layouts in the eastern and western parts, and some time transeptal. Several groups can be defined, depending on how the aisles ended (straight walls or secondary apses), on the presence of one or more towers or on that of a western gallery. Until mid-13th century, the main apses were rounded, but rectangular and polygonal shapes would soon appear, in the context of global Gothic dispersal and, in particular, under the influence of the Cistercian workshop(s). Building a polygonal apse gradually became fashionable, and very often replaced main apses still under construction, as in Sebeș, or barely completed, as in Alba Iulia. The foremost example was the basilica in Alba Iulia (Chapter 5, Fig. 5.9). However, mainly Saxons built basilicas, and it is thanks to them that monumental churches, comparable or often exceeding urban ones, could often be seen in the countryside94 (Chapter 6.4). Their choice for this type originated in their homeland landscape, especially that of southern Germany, where, until the 13th century, Romanesque constructions were still being erected.

94

nave remains unknown), and during the 13th century was replaced by a single-nave (10.50 by 6.50 m) with a square chancel of 3.60 by 3.95 m. Avram 1981, 64–71.

200

Chapter 6

The earliest basilicas were built in the hinterland of Alba Iulia and Sibiu, later spreading throughout the first colonisation area, from Sebeș to Drăușeni.95 The most important, and probably the oldest as well, was the one in Sibiu, whose remains have been recently identified beneath the present-day parish church.96 Remarkable parts of Romanesque and early Gothic buildings were also preserved in Cisnădioara, Cisnădie, Drăușeni, Cristian-Großau, Avrig, Săcădate, Șura Mare, Șura Mică, Toarcla, Hălmeag, Cincu and Feldioara – however, almost every one of them has Gothic features. The northern basilicas exhibit influences of Hungarian construction sites, which gave them a western façade with two towers, but their chronology is wide, and might reach beyond mid-13th century. The still standing basilica in Herina is a good example, since its foundation time was discussed between the late 12th century and the last third of the 13th century,97 although most often is considered a late Romanesque work erected in the 1250s98 as a royal or noble endowment99 (Fig. 6.2). One of the key Romanesque churches surviving in Transylvania, largely preserving its Romanesque substance despite several restorations, is the one in Acâș, a former Benedictine monastery, founded by the local noble family100 (Fig. 6.11). The basilica has survived in its original shape, with a two-towered western façade, three aisles and a single rounded apse, only a northern chapel being meanwhile demolished, as noticed by recent archaeological excavations. The aisles were divided by round arches on piers, of which the eastern pair has a distinctive shape and massiveness, suggesting that a second pair of towers might have stood there, an assumption unconfirmed by excavations. The nave extends eastwards with a small rectangular choir and a semicircular apse, while the aisles end in straight walls with round niches. The nave has a ceiling, while the sides have rib-less cross vaults, but the western bay of the nave has a cross vault and a gallery over it. Chronological attempts based on architecture and decorations range from the 11th century101 to mid-12th century102 and even the 13th century,103 but excavation results argue for the decades around 1200. 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Vătășianu 1959, 25–26. Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–198. Entz 1968, 9–10, for the late 12th century; Gaiu 2009, 16, dates it in the 1210s and provides a detailed description. Vătășianu 1959, 37–39, fig. 22–26, note 2, with older bibliography; Entz 1954, 20–33. Bencze 2020a, 35. Vătășianu 1959, 33; Entz 1968, 127; Avram 2006a, 85–89, 94. It was restored for the first time in 1642, then in 1732, 1777, 1813, 1815–67, 1882–91. For the archaeology of the site, see Szőcs 2003, 155–180; Szőcs 2011, 60–65; Szőcs 2012b, 7–24. Gerevich 1938, 29. Entz 1968, 7. Vătășianu 1966, 25, dates the western façade, with its two towers, around the year 1200, if not even later.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.11

The church of the former Benedictine monastery in Acâș: general view and archaeological excavations Photo and drawing by Péter Levente Szőcs

201

202

Chapter 6

A three-aisled basilica with two towers in the western façade, and possibly two others flanking the main apse, was built in Căpleni in the early 13th century, later to be demolished and completely rebuilt in 1779 and further on.104 Still in the northern areas, the ruins of a three-aisled basilica with a western tower and a single main apse were preserved in Tămașda, probably the result of different stages, as suggested by the fact that the eastern section was wider than the aisled body.105 A number of basilicas also rose in the lower basin of the Mureș river, although in most cases their original ground plan remains uncertain. Suzana Móré Heitel has identified a variant with transept and ambulatory in the ruins in Vladimirescu, and at Ineu (Dienesmonostora) where, according to 19th-century records, the building was demolished and reconstructed.106 At least one experiment with the basilican layout was made in the Szekler territories, in Cristuru Secuiesc, as shown by excavations performed by Elek Benkő.107 A rather large, 21.7 by 11.5 m single-nave church had been built sometime in the 13th century, and around 1300, there was an attempt to convert it into a basilica with a pair of western towers. Construction works were planned out all around the old church, which was intended to function as the main nave, but the project was only partially completed, and the church was finished in the Gothic style, in mid-15th century.108 6.4

Romanesque Basilicas in the Saxon Colonization Area

The most important group of still standing late-Romanesque basilicas survives in the southern Transylvanian colonisation area, with a major concentration around the town of Sibiu, the religious centre of the hospites. The legacy of the 12th and 13th centuries is quite rich, given that most churches built by settlers in this timeframe made use of this layout.

104 The church was built as part of a Benedictine (?) monastery, but the medieval ground plan is known only from some drawings. Avram 2006a, 89–90. A detailed analysis of the church: Szakács 2011b, 238–248. 105 Although it is outside the proper colonisation area, Tămașda is mentioned in monk Roger’s chronicle as a fortified ‘Teutonic’ borough razed during the Mongol invasion of 1241. Based on this, it was assumed that it had been established as a Benedictine monastery by a mission originating in Germanic lands. Vătășianu 1959, 35; Orbán 1957, 51; Avram 2006a, 69–79. 106 Vătășianu 1959, 41–42; Móré Heitel 2003, 39–52; Mărginean – Csók – Lászlo 2020, 83–92. 107 Archaeological excavations in 1968–1971 and 1979. Benkő 1992, 152–158. 108 Benkő 2012, I, 132. Nowadays, it stands in a shape determined by a late-15th-century Gothic reconstruction, further expanded in the 18th century. Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 80–81.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.12

203

Capitals from the lost Romanesque basilica in Saschiz, 12th century After Marcu-Istrate 2012a, fig. 129–130

Since the 13th century, most basilicas received Gothic adjustments, some of them even during the construction process. Then, they were seriously modified during the fortification trend of the 15th century, and later interventions are not missing either. As a result, many of these buildings display currently a ‘modernized’ Gothic, Renaissance, or Baroque figure, unable to provide relevant clues about their original form without archaeological and architectural studies. It is not unusual to notice a beautiful Romanesque portal alongside Gothic ribbed vaults or window frames. On the other hand, many basilicas have been completely dismantled or lie in ruins, decomposing at a fast rate. The one in Cașolț, whose ruins were still visible until recently, is now completely gone.109 In Saschiz, from what must have been once a Romanesque basilica, only a few capitals survive, and not even its location could be determined110 (Fig. 6.12). Many basilicas are no longer extant, especially in urban environments, as for example in Sighișoara,111 Sebeș,112 and Sibiu,113 where excavations have shed light on early, previously unknown stages. Others are fragmentarily preserved, as for example in Hosman (the western portal, the lower floors of the tower and parts of the aisles),114 and in Hamba.115 Nevertheless, despite loses over 109 Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 162; Țiplic et al. 2009, 91–92. 110 The basilica was believed to be on the same spot as the current late Gothic fortified church (Machat 2012, 9), but archaeological excavations disapproved this theory. Marcu-Istrate 2011a, 123–124; Marcu-Istrate 2012a, 8. For a possible location, see Postăvaru 2004, 143–145. 111 Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 142; Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16. 112 Entz 1968, 24, 28, 155; Heitel 1964. 113 Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 137–152; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 66–69; Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–198. 114 Vătășianu 1959, 58–60; Treiber 1971, 97–98; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 129; Fabini 1998, I, 301–304. 115 Vătășianu 1959, 178; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 9; Fabini 1998, I, 258–259.

204

Chapter 6

the centuries, a significant number have preserved their original Romanesque forms: in this regard, Cisnădioara is an outstanding example.116 General studies have been written on the topic since the 19th century,117 and several papers focused on individual monuments as well. The churches in Cisnădioara118 and Cisnădie119 have been the subject of such case studies ever since the 19th century, as were the ones in Sibiu, Sebeș, Mediaș, etc.120 Since the 1960s, many of these buildings were archaeologically surveyed, and, in almost all cases, their until-then-established history has been more or less changed. Spectacular data resulted from the excavations in Mediaș,121 Hărman,122 Drăușeni,123 and Sibiu. However, in most cases, such as Sebeș, Gârbova, Cricău, Cisnădioara, Moșna, Orăștie, and Valea Viilor, the results have remained largely unprocessed or published only in brief, which left room for diverse and often contradictory interpretations.124 One of the most emblematic archaeological studies focused on the basilica in Drăușeni, where the history of the building was reconstructed as a multifaceted process.125 Among the most recent excavations with an impact on the subject are the extensive ones carried out in Sighișoara – the Church on the Hill126 (Fig. 6.17) and Sibiu – the Evangelical church,127 although small scale investigations should not be neglected either, as a first step for a re-evaluation of this group.128 The Saxon basilicas display various combinations of late Romanesque and early Gothic elements, each one with its specific features. Establishing 116 Crîngaci Țiplic – White 2007, 153–171. 117 Bielz 1899; Oprescu 1956; Sigerus 1923. Among the syntheses are especially relevant: Roth 1905; Horwath 1940a; Treiber 1971; Niedermaier 1996b, 5–25; Vătășianu 1959, 28–87; Entz 1968, 3–48, 127–175; Avram 1991, 37–68. Brief description of each basilica with the corresponding bibliography in: Fabini 1998, I. For an updated image, complete with archaeological data: Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 136–353. 118 Reissenberger 1857, 63–68; Roth 1905, 12–14, 97; Gerevich 1938, 30, 69–70, 131, 143, 150, 185; Vătășianu 1959, 16; Treiber 1971, 40. 119 Entz 1968, 27; Roth 1934, 16; Treiber 1971, 38; Vătășianu 1959, 29, 31, 35, 69, 591, 597; Fabini 1998, I, 282–289. 120 Marcu-Istrate, 2018a, 137–152. 121 Fabini – Beldie-Dumitrache 1977, 85–102; Dumitrache 1983, 41–55. 122 Dumitrache 1979b, 409–419; Dumitrache 1983, 44–47; Entz 1968, 24, 29, 141. 123 Dumitrache 1983, 47–49; Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 47–51. 124 Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 483–496. For Orăștie: Pinter 2011, 19–21. For Moșna: Marcu et al. 2000, 64–65. For Valea Viilor: D.M.I.A. 1973, 75; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 239–240. 125 Dumitrache 1979a, 155–197; Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 41–78; Dumitrache 1983, 46–49. 126 Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16. 127 Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 191–190; Marcu-Istrate 2013a, 371–391. 128 For a general archaeological view, see Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 136–353. The church in Ruja: Crîngaci Țiplic – Pinter – Țiplic 2004, 183–202. Agnita: Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic – Șovrea 2018, 53–80. Seliștat: Țiplic – Crîngaci Țiplic – Șovrea 2018, 81–98. Cașolț: Țiplic et al. 2009, 91–92. Cenade: Pinter – Țiplic – Crîngaci 2002, 211– 229. Feldioara: Marcu-Istrate – Ioniță 2019, 125–142.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

205

a typology is not of much help; however, various attempts have been made in this regard, based on their general shape, size and ground plan structure, which evidently could be combined in multiple ways.129 The most common design seems to have been the three-aisled transept-less basilica, with a square choir, a semicircular main apse and, most often than not, a western tower. The largest reached lengths of over 50 m – such as in Brașov-Bartolomeu (Fig. 0.1), Cincu (Fig. 6.3), Cisnădie and the archaeological basilica in Sighișoara (Fig. 6.17) – but in most cases they were of medium size, between 25 and 35 m long, around 20 m wide and consisting of three to five bays.130 A minor group includes of so-called ‘short’ basilicas, with almost equal width and length, ranging between 17 to 20 m,131 and there is also a variant that emphasizes wideness over length, such as in Vurpăr and Roșia.132 Sanctuaries generally have a square or rectangular choir and a semicircular apse, but polygonal apses already become fashionable in the early 13th century, in many cases substituting the semicircular ones built only decades ago, or still under construction (Vurpăr, Daia-Thalheim, Alțâna). The excavations in Sebeș showed that the round apse of the basilica was replaced with a polygonal one during the building process. The phenomenon would have a great extent, almost a generalization, in the following centuries, producing many in-between variants, depending on the amplitude of changes in a particular stage. For example, in Hărman, the apse ran up rounded until the level of the windows, where it changed into a polygonal design,133 and the same is evident at the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara. Apses have often disappeared, and their original shape remains unknown. In Dealu Frumos, the apse was pulled down during fortification works, as a fragile breach in the defense of the church, while the choir was rebuilt as a huge defense tower. Excavations in 2009 uncovered the remains of a semicircular ruin with a relatively narrow opening toward the nave.134 The eastern part looks different depending on how the aisles end. Most of the time, there is only a straight wall, so that from the outside only the main apse is 129 Niedermaier 1996b, 5–25; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 78–88. For a relevant classification: Vătășianu 1959, 24–86; Avram 1991, 37–39. 130 As for example: Agnita, Avrig, Bruiu, Cristian-Großau, Drăușeni, Feldioara, Hosman, Mercheașa, Merghindeal, Miercurea Sibiului, Ocna Sibiului, Sebeș, Săcădate, Șelimbăr, Șura Mare, Șura Mică, Ungra, etc. Fabini 1998, passim. 131 As for example: Apold, Cața, Cisnădioara, Daia-Thalheim, Laslea, Nocrich, Romos, Roșia, Șomartin, Veseud, Vurpăr, Zlatna. Some slightly larger ones in: Chirpăr, Dealu Frumos, Toarcla, etc. Avram 1981, 66; Fabini 1998, passim. 132 The church in Vurpăr is 16.4 by 18.3 m, so it can be described as rather wide, than long. The church in Roșia measures 18 by 19.2 m. Avram 1981, 67–68. 133 Dumitrache 1983, 44–47. 134 In general, on this church: Fabini 1998, I, 677–681; Horwath 1940a, 3; Roth 1934, 132; Treiber 1971, 113; Sinigalia 1976, 67–72; Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate – Roman, 2011, pl. 10.

206

Figure 6.13

Chapter 6

Romanesque basilicas: 1 – the Evangelical church in Toarcla: short Romanesque basilica, 13th century; the sacristy and some fortification features were added in 15th century; 2 – the Evangelical church in Ungra: Romanesque basilica with western tower and semicircular apse; two small apses in the eastern part of the aisles; early 13th century; the aisles were demolished in around 1500, for fortification needs. 3 – the Evangelical church in Cincu: Romanesque basilica with a western tower and a semicircular apse: two smaller towers arise over the eastern part of the aisles. Early 13th century Drawings based on Fabini 1998a, I, fig. 454.1, fig. 157.2, and fig. 129.2

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

207

visible, such as in Agnita, Daia-Thalheim, Roșia, Nou Săsesc, Merghindeal, etc. Nevertheless, almost any other variant is possible: small, ended round apses (Cisnădie, Cisnădioara, Ocna Sibiului, Gușterița (Fig. 6.14.1), Romos, Șelimbăr, Șura Mare, Ungra (Fig. 6.13.2)), or niches in the thickness of the walls, to be seen only from the inside (Dealu Frumos, Chirpăr, Toarcla (Fig. 6.13.1), Turnișor (Fig. 10.6.2)). Symmetry was not always required: in Drăușeni, only the northern aisle was extended eastwards with a rather large room, and probably a small apse was arranged in its eastern wall, whose foundation was unusually thick, as excavations showed.135 Towers were an important component of these churches, which will be discussed in more detail in chapter 10.136 A wide range of possibilities could be employed, but, frequently, it was a single western tower, above the western bay of the nave,137 or simply attached against the façade.138 Hesitations in choosing the better option were noticed during excavations in Cricău (Fig. 3.11) and Sebeș, but they were most likely more common. In the first case, the tower was added during the building process, at the western end of the nave, which caused the aisles to be completed shorter than planned, in order to have the tower recessed from the western façade.139 In Sebeș, a two-towered western façade was planned, but, following an interruption of the construction works, this idea was scrapped, and a single middle tower was built, partially set upon the already embedded foundations.140 Quite often, the planned western towers were never finished, the works being interrupted at a certain intermediary level, as for example in Hălmeag (Chapter 7) and Cisnădioara. The basilica in Cincu has three towers, one in the west and the other two in the east, above the last bays of the side aisles; the one in Ocna Sibiului has a tower above the square of the choir, explained as an echo of the cathedral in Alba Iulia, or as a German influence.141 Towers were also built as separate buildings close to the main church (for example in Moșna), and there are also some unusual positions, which often indicates multiple stages of construction, or even different functions. For example, in Turnișor, the tower stands between the nave and the chancel, and the basilica looks like a transeptal

135 Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 47–48. 136 Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 499; Avram 1991, 38. 137 Avrig, Chirpăr, Cincu, Cisnădie, Cristian, Feldioara, Hosman, Drăușeni, Rodbav, Săcădate, Ungra. Fabini 1998, passim. 138 Nou Săsesc, Laslea, Nocrich, Pianu de Jos. Fabini 1998, passim. 139 Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 483–496. 140 Heitel 1964. 141 Vătășianu 1959, 27; Avram 1991, 38.

208

Chapter 6

single-nave because only the eastern bays of the aisles have been erected142 (Fig. 10.6.2). Finally, having a western tower – or any kind of tower – was not a rule, many basilicas lacking a tower at their construction time, such as the short ones in Daia-Thalheim, Roșia and Vurpăr, or the longer ones in Alțâna and Dealu Frumos.143 A monumental portal usually adorned the main western doorway,144 and, quite often, there were secondary entrances on the northern and southern sides, as is the case in Cisnădioara, and as it probably used to be in Gușterița (Fig. 6.14.1), and Ocna Sibiului, where only the northern portal was preserved.145 In Vurpăr, the openings were symmetrically placed on the northern and southern sides, while the basilica in Drăușeni had a single western entrance (Fig. 6.15). These churches look like a group, but, in fact, there are many differences between them, and each one has its own peculiarities, which suggests a particular development in specific times. There are several pages written on the topic, but, basically, the official image is still the one presented mid-20th century by Walter Horwath, who preferred the 12th century for churches without Gothic insertions, or the one provided by Virgil Vătășianu, who favored the 13th century. The most recent synthesis on this architecture, compiled by Hermann Fabini, has remained at the same level, despite the fact that, already before 1998, archaeology has pointed out a number of divergent cases. In fact, wherever more extensive research has been done, distinct, usually long-lasting, construction processes have been identified, with many interruptions and changes. Patterns, therefore, do not work, and each building should be analyzed separately, in close correlation with its particular context, without exaggerating the stylistic aspects, which are often very misleading. 142 Roth 1905, 16–17; Gerevich 1938, 43; Vătășianu 1959, 17; Fabini 1998, I, 511–514; Horwath 1940a, 53–54. Archaeological investigations concluded that the church was a Romanesque basilica whose construction began in the late 12th century and was completed in the early 13th century. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 229–231. 143 Avram 1981, 66; Treiber 1971, 42. 144 Some of the door frames are exceptional pieces, as the ones in Hosman, Săcădate, Avrig, Toarcla, Drăușeni, etc. One of the most valuable testimonies of Transylvanian Romanesque style is considered the Hosman portal, with a recessed opening and capitals decorated with facing pairs of marmosets that have the bodies of birds, the heads of humans or basilisks and end in dragon tails. Above the capitals, various figures are displayed in low relief, identified as saints, clerics, founders or allegorical figures. A one-of-a-kind occurrence in Transylvania, the portal was even associated with the one on the western façade of the cathedral in Vienna. Sanda Salontai considers that it could be the work of French craftsmen, perhaps from the team working at the cathedral in Alba Iulia during the late 13th century. Vătășianu 1959, 59; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 12; Salontai 2003, 68. 145 Crângaci Țiplic 2011, 82–84.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.14

209

1 – the Evangelical church in Gușterița, 13th century; 2 – the eastern part of the church in Hărman 13th century Photos by the author

210

Figure 6.15

Chapter 6

1 – the Romanesque portal in Gușterița; 2 – the Romanesque portal in Drăușeni; 3 – view to the Romanesque southern aisle of the basilica in Drăușeni Photos by the author (1–2) and Ioana Munteanu Zărnescu (3)

The archaeological excavations from the last decades have strongly tilted the balance toward dating several sites before 1200. In this regard, the basilica uncovered in Sibiu, the main religious site of the colonists, provides a very valuable landmark. It consisted of three aisles with very narrow sides, three rounded apses, a choir in front of the main apse, and possibly a western tower framed by aisles. Despite being a very large building, the older coins from its graveyard argue for a dating in the second part of the 12th century (Chapter 9). Most of these churches have a far more complicated development than their current state might suggest, and, just to get an idea in this regard, there are a significant number of examples, of which the ones in Drăușeni and Sighișoara are extremely relevant, both projects completed during the second part of the 13th century.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

211

The church in Drăușeni (currently a fortified single-nave with a pair of towers) suggests a unitary work, for which chronologies between the late 12th century146 and the late 13th century147 have been proposed, depending on the referenced analogies. Nevertheless, in the 1970s, excavations have identified at least two major construction stages at the foundation level, and the wall structure betrays even more interventions, of different scales (Fig. 6.16). The 24.5 m long basilica was of medium size, with a three aisled structure, the nave ending eastward in a rather square choir and a round apse. The aisles framed a western square tower, whose ground level opened through arcades (later walled-in but still noticeable) toward the interior of the church.148 The northern aisle extended eastward with a square room, which would suggest something like a small tower or a double chapel, probably with a small apse set in the eastern wall. In the first stage, the sanctuary and the eastern section of the aisles were erected on foundations made of stone boulders bound with yellow clay, probably in the early 13th century. After an interruption – which may be or may be not due to the Mongol invasion – construction works resumed and the western part was completed by 1280, adding to the basic layout distinct foundations for the western additions, including the body of the entrance and two staircases, the latter suggesting that the tower was planned in the same second stage as well. Concurrently, continuous foundations were built between the aisles, for supporting the piers, this time using a mortar-bound masonry. The second case is the Romanesque basilica uncovered in 1999 within the late Gothic church in Sighișoara, when large-scale excavations were performed there. Despite the general expectations of scholars,149 a basilican shape was retraced from demolition trenches and small fragments of masonry, respectively a three aisled one, provided with a western tower, a large choir ended in a rounded apse and a chapel on its southern side. Its length along the east-west axis was 53 meters and it measured roughly 18.50 m along the north-south axis: it was a huge building at its time (Fig. 6.17). 146 Horwath 1940a, 42–44; Horwath 1935, 72. Around the year 1200: Oprescu 1956, 212–214; Entz 1994, 102. 147 Vătășianu 1959, 63; Fabini 1998, I, 155; Drăguț 1976a, 133; Drăguț 1979a, 25–35; Drăguț 1968a, 43. 148 The basilica was recovered during long-lasting excavations, wisely conducted by Marianne Dumitrache in the 1970s, resumed in the 1990s by Daniela Marcu-Istrate. Dumitrache 1979a, 155–197. The archaeology of the eastern part: Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 51. Recent restoration works: Machat 2011, 25–31. 149 Drăguț 1968b, 38; Niedermaier 2000, VI, argued for an older donjon on the spot, working with a small chapel set to the east, subsequently transformed into a single-nave.

212

Figure 6.16

Chapter 6

The Evangelical church in Drăușeni, 13th century: 1 – Romanesque basilica, 13th century (in black, restitution based on archaeological research), overlapping the 12th century single-nave church (in dark grey); 2 – the southern side of the current church, showing traces of the arched openings between aisles, and the two rows of original windows Drawing by the author, based on Dumitrache 1979a, fig. 2 and MARCU-ISTRATE 2002, PL. 2; photo by Ioana Munteanu Zărnescu

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.17

213

The reconstruction of the Romanesque basilica in Sighișoara, based on archaeological excavations: 1 – ruins; 2 – reconstruction; 3 – the present-day church Drawing by the author

The basilica stood as an asymmetrical building, oriented on a southwestnortheast axis, with the tower in the north-east, the sanctuary in the east, and the naves running in-between. Although built at the same time with the sidewalls, the tower was placed closer to the southern wall (ca. 2.80 m at the western limit) than to the northern wall (ca. 4.60 m at the western limit).150 Moreover, the eastern side of the church was not parallel with the western side, but much deviated outwards. This unusual shape seems to have been imposed by the structure of the terrain, in terms of both natural and anthropogenic features: it was a very narrow terrace, with an ensemble of 12th century buildings, which included a rotunda on its eastern end (Chapter 3). The project of the basilica obviously aimed to retain the rotunda as a sanctuary, and extended from this point westward, which eventually resulted in a slightly rotated layout, as the very limited terrace allowed. The basilica was provided, from the very beginning, with a tower framed by aisles: its ruins emerged under the present-day tower, with a square base (11.50 m by side, over 2 m thick foundations), and two eastern pillasters. The foundations were laid at the upper limit of the natural soil, sloping down from south (−1.55 m) to north (−2.60 m), which soon produced deep cracks in the masonry. The breadth of the nave was 8.20–8.40 m, and that of the side aisles 150 The same opinion is advocated by Kurt Leonhardt, as quoted by Machat 2002, 13–14.

214

Chapter 6

3.40–3.80 m; it had walls about 1.20 m thick, and there were four pairs of quite small pillars between the aisles. The sanctuary consisted of a choir with two unequal rectangular bays and an un-recessed semicircular apse, both strengthened by buttresses. Constructing the new apse entailed the demolition of previous rooms, and probably of part of the rotunda. The close proximity of the slope required setting three buttresses in the east, which were added to the old masonry of the rotunda but interwoven with the new masonry of the apse. Unlike the older buildings, which had been built of brick and stone, the basilica was a stone building, but one can hardly say anything about its superstructure. The pacing of the buttresses suggests, however, that the sanctuary was vaulted, while the nave and aisles had a flat ceiling. The interior was at least partially painted, because very many fragments of fresco have been recovered from the rubble of the northern side of the structure. What was the timeline of this construction? It was noted that the foundations had disturbed head-niche graves from the second half of the 12th century or the first part of the 13th century, which show that the basilica was built at the latest in around 1250, and, according to the fresco fragments, it was painted a century later. However, it did not have a too long a life, as shown in chapter 8. These last two examples started from a similar situation, respectively from an older church, which would explain their long construction process, until the last quarter of the 13th century. However, most frequent must have been the case of basilicas built as the first parish churches, in a fairly short time. The church in Cisnădioara (Fig. 6.18) offers a rare example of a still standing Romanesque structure, but its development is still under debate. Built on a hill beyond the core of the settlement, which suggests a private foundation, the church gathered some interesting features, not very common in local architecture. A single pair of rectangular piers separate the three aisles, which end eastwards in semicircular apses. The choir is narrower than the nave, with two recesses and a quite different axis from that of the aisles, an asymmetry that probably resulted from dissimilar stages. To the west, a composition with two towers and stairways within the outer wall was added, but never finished.151 This structure remained hidden behind an unusually rich, and in fact unique western façade, probably the masterpiece of a traveling master inspired by German and West-Hungarian sites. The main portal, framed by two pairs of arcades separated by pilasters with columns, appears as one of the most valuable products of the local Romanesque, composed of four recesses articulated by cylindrical jambs with truncated capitals, and ending in a semicircular tympanum. The capitals are adorned in low relief with geometric and vegetal motifs, but also with fantastic figures and saints. 151 Heitel 1973, 288. On the contrary, Avram 1981, 69, considers the towers as part of the original project.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.18

215

The Evangelical church in Cisnădioara: on the left, the western portal and general view from the south-east; on the right, ground plan of the Romanesque basilica and its fortification, late 12th–early 13th centuries DRAWING AFTER FABINI 1998A, I, 487, FIG. 290.2; PHOTOS BY THE AUTHOR

Surviving in an exceptionally good shape, the church is often mentioned for its peculiarities. However, the building was never studied in detail, and its chronology is still unclear. It was the first church of the voivodeship mentioned in a document: its owner, ‘Magister Goccelinus’ donated in 1223 “Mount St Michael together with the church there” to the monastery in Cârța.152 Based on this document, some scholars considered it as being completed by 1223, while

152 DIR.C.I., 199–200, 379–380, no. 145; CDTrans I, 158–159, no. 125; Urkundenbuch, I, 26–28, no. 38. Before 1223, the church was a property of the Sibiu parish, donated to King Andrew II, who later gave it to Goccelinus.

216

Chapter 6

others argue that the construction works covered much of the 13th century, including the second part.153 Archaeological investigations carried out in 1965–66, during restoration works, only laconically published, have reconstructed two main construction stages, separated by the Mongol invasion.154 This would result in the fact that Cârța monastery was granted in 1223 a building under construction, consisting more of foundations than of anything else. However, the archaeological report mentioned a coin issued by King Stephen III (1162–1172) beneath the oldest construction level, which, at that moment, was considered quite an ‘accidental’ finding. In fact, if accepting the construction site as opened around 1172 and the coin lost on that occasion and considering not mandatory for this church to have been destroyed by the Mongols, then all conditions would be met to argue that the building was in operation long before 1223, later additions, as the western façade, being suitable. The archaeology of the churches presented above has shown long-lasting and quite complex constructions sites, experiencing frequent interruptions, caused by various situations, but also frequent changes of the original projects. The publication of the results of the excavations for a significant number of churches in southern Transylvania, which have been restored in recent years, will certainly bring other examples, providing new data for an overview of this group, which is a decisive link in understanding the local medieval architecture. However, it is worth bearing in mind that building a Romanesque basilica was most often a complex undertaking and the process actually extended far beyond 1300, in an interesting coexistence with the Gothic style. Some representative buildings of this late period will be reviewed in chapter 7. 6.5

Centrally-Planned Churches

Round churches were relatively common in Europe between the 10th and 13th centuries, and enjoyed great popularity in the Hungarian kingdom as well. In 1972, no less than eighty rotundas have been inventoried on its territory.155

153 For dating in the late 13th century, see Avram 1991, 54; Vătășianu 1959, 27–29. For the main portal: Avram 1981, 69–70. 154 Heitel 1973, 277–278; Heitel 1974, 55. For a virtual reconstruction of the church in around 1200, see also: Crîngaci Țiplic – White 2007, 153–171. 155 For an introduction to the subject, see Untermann 1989; Vătășianu 1966, 111–113; GerversMolnár 1972, 26–45 and fig. 1. More than one hundred such buildings are known to have existed within the Carpathian Basin.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

217

Of these, only three were in Transylvania: in Pelișor (Fig. 6.19.1),156 Geoagiu (Fig. 6.22),157 and Alba Iulia (Fig. 5.5).158 Meanwhile, this repertoire was substantially enlarged, mainly thanks to the contribution of archaeology, but also thanks to some architectural investigations of existing buildings and the re-interpretation of still standing ruins. In the 1990s, a round church was unearthed east of the Reformed church in Orăștie, at the time a great and surprising discovery159 (Fig. 6.23). Since then, similar buildings have appeared in Sibiu (Fig. 9.4),160 Sighișoara (Fig. 4.13),161 Brașov (Fig. 6.21),162 Feldioara (?),163 Vaida (Fig. 6.20),164 presumably in Sânvăsii.165 In 2020, three other ruins have seen the light of the day in Ciumbrud, Vințu de Jos, and Porumbenii Mari,166 sites where excavation is still in progress. Apart from these, studying the medieval structures often brought surprises, such as a tower from Cisnădie,167 supposedly developed from a rotunda, and a ruin reported in Saschiz.168 Building rotundas seems to have been a fairly widespread phenomenon, but no synthesis work has been written on the topic so far. Zeno Pinter has made a general framing of the subject in a European context, when he published the discoveries in Orăștie and Sibiu. Objectively, the following is the first attempt to put them together in a comparative approach.

156 Vătășianu 1959, 88–89, for the older bibliography and for a dating to the mid-13th century. Kiss 1999, 76–96, has studied the building in detail, integrating it into the architectural landscape and accepting that it probably dates from the 13th century. 157 Popa 1988a, 236; Petrov 1996b, 409; Anghel 1965, 615–624; Kiss 1999, 78–79. 158 Entz 1958b, 36; Heitel 1975a, 3–10; Heitel 1975b, 348; Heitel 1983, 102–103; Vătășianu 1987, 9; Horedt 1986, 137; Heitel 1972, 151; Blăjan 2007, 246–247; Rusu 1982, 372. 159 Pinter 2003, 263–286. 160 Pinter 2011, 32–53; Pinter, 2013, 79–98; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 44–50; Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 34–37, for general considerations. 161 Vătășianu 1959, 239, describes it as a crypt consisting of a narthex and a “cylindrically-vaulted, elongated apse, finished with a dome.” In fact, the crypt resulted from an older round construction without apse, to which was subsequently added a large western chamber. Niedermaier 1979b, 71–72; Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 7–8. See Niedermaier 2000, VI, for a dating to the first part of the 13th century. See also Machat 2002, 91–101. 162 Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 149–150. 163 Personal observations during sewage and pipe work in 2013, conducted without archaeological supervision. 164 Emődi – Marta 2005, 45–75. 165 Benkő 2012, I, 111–112. 166 Friendly information from András Sófalvi and Péter Levente Szőcs. 167 Fabini 1998, I, 289; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 30; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 83. 168 Postăvaru 2004, 142–144. In general, on the churches in Saschiz and their archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2011a, 115–151; Marcu-Istrate 2012a, 29–42.

218

Figure 6.19

Chapter 6

1 – the former rotunda in Pelișor; 2 – the Reformed church in Odorheiu Secuiesc, 16th century AFTER KISS 1999, 92, FIG. 5 (1) AND BELDIE 1974, FIG. 3 (2)

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

219

This sub-chapter discusses globally eleven round-shaped buildings of medieval origin,169 each of them representing a different case in terms of topography (layout and location on the site), context and even chronology. Most of them (seven) were built in the German-settled territories of Southern Transylvania, one is located in the ecclesiastical centre of Alba Iulia, and two others in the north (Vaida and Pelișor). As for their ground plans, they were round buildings, with or without an apse on the eastern side, with two exceptions: the church in Vaida had a circular interior and a square exterior, while that in Sibiu was extended westward with a small rectangular room. The church in Geoagiu is the only one that survived, currently used as a steeple for the parish church. The one in Pelișor used to operate until the end of the 19th century, when it was demolished and replaced by a new church. An inventory of the historical monuments in the area of Satu Mare, completed in 1864, registered it as a church ‘different’ from the others in the region. This was followed by many more descriptions and analyses of its architecture, including graphic records, a substantial documentation that allows an accurate reconstitution. Fragments of two other round buildings, presumably former churches, have been documented in Saschiz (a ruin in the courtyard of a household, on the site of the former parish church) and Cisnădie (a part of a fortified tower). In the first case, the ruin has been mentioned as a round tower with Gothic windows at the beginning of the 20th century, but it was only in 2004 that it was identified, during fieldwork, as part of a religious edifice. However, nothing was done for its protection, and it has disappeared in the meantime.170 In Cisnădie, the round base of a fortified tower, located west of the parish church, was mentioned for the first time in 1911, when it was being used as an ossuary: after the bones were evacuated, a processional cross from the 12th century was recovered. The structure was described as a round room, 5 m in diameter, covered by a semi-cylindrical vault sustained by a round central pillar, which suggested an older chapel from the late 12th century, later re-used as an ossuary, but archaeological works are needed to confirm the assumption.171 Most rotundas are archaeological ruins, discovered by chance, and partially studied on various occasions. The first one was unearthed in Alba Iulia (early 20th century, then again in the 1970s). In the 1990s, the rotunda of Orăștie was an unexpected find, while, one decade later, an almost identical structure was 169 The churches in Sânvăsii, Ciumbrud, Vințu de Jos and Porumbenii Mari will not be taken into consideration because their investigation is still in progress and, so far, there is not enough data about the buildings. Situations assumed based on toponymy, such as the ones in Felnac and Săvârșin, have also not been considered. Glück 1980, 126, 147, note 85. 170 Postăvaru 2004, 142–144. 171 Fabini 1998, I, 289.

220

Chapter 6

brought to light in Sibiu’s Huet Square. In the late 1990s, excavations on the site of the Church on the Hill in Sighișoara established that the crypt under the apse was originally part of a round building, most likely used at least partially for religious services (Fig. 0.1). A small circular ruin was unearthed south of the Black Church in Brașov in 2013, while another one was noticed by chance in Feldioara, north of the Evangelical church, during sewage work. An exceptional archaeological find was the church with a round interior of Vaida, a unique occurrence within the regional landscape. The archaeology of these churches was of variable scale and produced varied results, depending on the possibilities of each moment and on the state of the church. The lengthy research in Geoagiu172 (1993–2004) was focused more on the cemetery than on the building, and, even after several campaigns, it was not possible to establish a clear dating of the construction – or, at least, this has not been communicated yet. The rotunda in Orăștie was revealed during large-scale excavations undertaken as part of the renovation works of medieval parish church and its fortification; it was subsequently thoroughly investigated between 1992 and 1999, and a first report published in 2003.173 The one in Brașov was unearthed during excavations motivated by extensive public works, while the one in Vaida appeared while restoring the parish church. The rotunda in Sibiu is certainly the best known, having been surveyed by four different teams of archaeologists over a century or so, in random situations. When systematic excavation became possible, non-archaeological works had already damaged the site, so parts of the masonry and of the archaeological context were already destroyed. The situation was different in Sighișoara, where a part of the rotunda is still standing, serving as the base of the Gothic sanctuary. Over time, it has been exposed to so many transformations that the overall structure was irremediably damaged. Extensive archaeological works in 1999–2001 also revealed a curious and unique masonry structure, connected with the round room (Fig. 0.1). Comprehensive excavations were also undertaken in Alba Iulia, but the details of the archaeological digs are unknown, so scholars have advanced different chronological and planimetric versions, as discussed in chapter 5. There is only partial information about the other rotundas, based on surviving ruins (Saschiz, Cisnădie) or on assessments that were made in various circumstances (Feldioara, Pelișor). From whatever perspective of approach the subject, these churches emerge as very dissimilar buildings, difficult to date and understand in terms of origin, development, and function. 172 Anghel 1965, 615–618; Popa 1991a, 1533; Petrov 1996a, 36; Petrov 1996b, 403–413. 173 Pinter 2003, 263–266; Pinter 2011, 9–38.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

221

From a chronological point of view, they cover a rather broad range, from the mid-9th century until the 14th century, but most of them are dated in the 12th–13th centuries, being related to the evolution of this type of church across Europe. The earliest rotunda is certainly the one in Alba Iulia, which could not have been built later than the last decades of the 11th century,174 but its context is very particular. The rotunda in Geoagiu is also considered an early church, but its dating is uncertain. Preliminary archaeological data assumed that it was erected in 1077–1114, on the site of a cemetery, and this would mean that it is the oldest religious monument still standing in Transylvania.175 However, the final conclusions of the archaeological research are not yet known, and the variant of a later date, in the 13th century, must also be taken into consideration176 (Fig. 6.22). The rotundas in the colonisation area have most often been identified as chapels for the residences of the colonists’ elite, the so-called greavs, who basically organised and coordinated the movement from Western Europe to Transylvania. Such an interpretation implies accepting the fact that they were built during the 12th century, but, so far, almost none has a certain, context-based dating. The first half of the century was suggested for the church in Orăștie, and later this resulted in the same chronology being applied for the identical buildings found in Sibiu and Saschiz (the last one not even excavated). In fact, on closer examination of the situation in Orăștie, there were no clear indications for such an early dating, or for any other dating that could be prior to the 13th century.177 The 2005 excavations carried out in Sibiu showed that the rotunda was built on the remains of on older construction site, most likely during the 13th century. The circular building in Brașov was certainly a late structure, from the 14th century, as showed by its relation with the parish cemetery. For other members of this group (Sachiz, Cisnădie, Feldioara) there is simply not enough information. The rotunda in Pelișor was dated to the second half of the 13th century, but the round nave might have been even older, from before the Mongol invasion.178 The dating was influenced by the possibility of assigning the rotunda to a 174 In fact, its dating oscillates mainly between the 9th and the 11th centuries. On the issues raised by this church, which certainly belongs to the small group of monuments that stay at the beginnings of religious architecture in the region, see chapter 4.1. 175 Petrov 1996b, 409. The same opinion was expressed at the end of the 2004 excavation. Petrov – Scrobotă 2004, 127–128. The dating of this building before the middle of the 12th century is considered by others as well, for example Pinter 2003, 272, has seen it older than the rotunda in Orăștie. Its cemetery includes a series of graves from the 11th–12th centuries, while only later, in the 13th century, does it seem to have been opened for public use. 176 Vătășianu 1959, 89; Gervers-Molnár 1972, 36. 177 See the discussion for Sibiu, in chapter 9. 178 Kiss 1999, 80.

222

Chapter 6

Dominican monastery, mentioned as operating there in 1234, only to be subsequently destroyed in the invasion (Fig. 6.19.1). The same 13th century was identified as a chronological timeframe for the discovery in Vaida (Fig. 6.20). Two conclusions result from this short chronological review: (1) the round layout could be used at any time until the 14th century, if not even later; therefore (2) dating these buildings in the 12th century, as scholars have usually done, cannot be generalized, and each case must be analyzed separately, depending on its archaeological context. Even in the case of western settlers, it is not at all mandatory to have buildings from the first period of colonisation, i.e., from the 12th century. As for the ground plans, the simplest form consisted of a round room, as seems to have been the case in Sighișoara and Brașov, perhaps also in Saschiz, where no traces of apses were detected.179 However, the commonly reported situation consists of a round nave connected with an eastern apse. Except for the one in Pelișor, the apses were rounded, although of different size: a large one in Geoagiu, suitable for an altar table, much smaller ones in Alba Iulia and Orăștie, and even a shallow niche, merely suggested through a superficial thickening of the eastern wall, in Sibiu. The exception in Pelișor had a very large rectangular apse (4 m on the side), which resulted in a rare version of this type of church, at times interpreted as influenced by Cistercian architecture. However, in both Alba Iulia and Pelișor, it is not clear whether the apse was built at the same time with the nave or added later. A technological difference is apparent in Alba Iulia, where the round part was made of reused stone blocks, while the apse was fashioned out of carved ashlars carefully finished for an arched masonry. It seems that also at Pelișor, the chancel was added to an older round building (tower or chapel, or both) when this was repurposed as a parish church, but archaeological excavations are needed to confirm this assumption.180 As for the general shape of the nave, there were two particular cases, both identified in excavations, in Sibiu (Fig. 9.4) and Vaida (Fig. 6.20). In the first case, the rotunda had a square (4 by 4 m) western compartment, larger than a simple porch, which raised a question regarding the purpose of the round room: was it the nave of the church or (taking into consideration that a proper eastern apse was missing) was it used as a sanctuary? In the second case, the round room was actually added to an older, single-nave church, with a semicircular apse. To do this, the western wall of the nave was demolished so that the structure could be connected to the new part, built on a round-in-square 179 Postăvaru 2004, 143–144. 180 The fact that the apse is older than the nave has not been verified through actual research, but it is based on descriptions from the 19th century. Kiss 1999, 81.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.20

223

The archaeology of the Reformed church in Vaida: 1 – general development: stages 1–2 (12th–13th centuries (?)) – single-nave church, 11.5 m long; trapezoidal nave and semicircular apse built of brick, with a western tower at a certain distance from the church. Stage 3 (13th century) – the addition of the round-in-square church, with stone and brick foundations and brick walls, south entrance (portal ending round) and several windows. Four pillars in the middle of the round space were interpreted as supporting a gallery. Stage 4 (14th–15th centuries): the semicircular apse of the old church was replaced by a Gothic polygonal apse. Stage 5 (17th–18th centuries): various modifications. Stage 6 (19th century): the construction of the current church (outlined). 2 – graphic reconstruction of the church’s volumetric structure in the 13th century Drawings based on Emődi – Marta 2005, fig. 6.1 and fig. 9.1–4 for the general layout and fig. 10 for the reconstruction

224

Chapter 6

layout, with an inner 9.2 m diameter, the largest one in local context. The situation is entirely unique in Transylvania, and no perfect analogy has been identified in Central Europe or in the Carpathian Basin, considering that the rotunda from Vaida cannot be older than the 13th century. Not only the shape stands as one-of-a-kind, but also the fact that it was added to an already existing church.181 The excavations in Orăștie and Sibiu uncovered in the middle point of the ground level the foundation of a round pillar, with a diameter of 1.40 m, respectively 1.20 m, which resulted in the hypothesis of multi-levelled churches operating in both places. The first level might have been a semi-buried one, covered with a vault supported by the central pillar. In fact, in Orăștie, both the ruin of the pillar and the springing of the stone vault were preserved, while, in Sibiu, the lower floor was only partially underground. Transylvanian rotundas have an inner diameter measuring between 5.5 m (Geoagiu, Saschiz) and 7.77 m (Pelișor), the largest being the one in Vaida. The average thickness of the walls is 1.20 m, however, in Sibiu, this varies between 0.94 and 1.35 m, and, in Sighișoara, the walls had a thickness of almost 3 m at the base. In several situations it was noticed that the walls narrowed vertically, getting thinner as they ascended. The fabric was made of river and/or quarry stone, bound with mortar, sometimes using Roman spolia. In Alba Iulia, the rotunda itself was built from reused stone blocks of different shapes, but new arched ashlars were prepared for the apse. In Geoagiu, Roman bricks were largely used, and only the upper part of the walls was made of river stone. Some of them were constructed by excavating the entire area, so the first floor was almost on the same level as the footing of the foundations. This must have been the case in Alba Iulia, Sibiu, Sighișoara, and Orăștie, where traces of pavements have been identified close to the bottom of the walls, and which have a uniform masonry structure, missing a proper underground part (foundation) if observed from the interior. In Orăștie, the footing of the foundation was at the same level for the round part and the pillar, and 20 cm above the first pavement was prepared. The first floor was covered with domes or semi-domes. The one in Sighișoara is probably preserved entirely from medieval times beneath the current apse, and, in Orăștie, traces of the vault springing were noticed at the time of discovery. When the rotunda in Saschiz was registered, a full vertical segment at a height of 1.40 m was noticed, covered with a stone dome. By contrast, the nave in Geoagiu originally had a ceiling (or an apparent roofing framework?) and only the roof of the apse was shaped as a semi-dome. The situation was 181 Emődi – Marta 2005, 55–56.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

225

roughly the same in Pelișor: the nave, 7.7 m in diameter, was ceilinged, while the 4 m long rectangular apse, whose dating is not clear, was covered with a semi-cylindrical vault. There are not many clues regarding the entrances. Vintage images show that in Pelișor there was a single entrance from the west, with a semicircular two-recessed portal. In Orăștie, access ways to both floors were from the west, through a corridor (on the first floor) and a staircase (the second floor), but it is not very clear what they looked like at first. The most interesting situation seems to have been in Sighișoara, the lower floor was accessed by descending two opposite winding stairs set within the thickness of the walls, each with narrow doorways ending in round arches (Fig. 4.13). Like elsewhere in Europe, in Transylvania this type of church was characterised by a great diversity. Rotundas were placed in different spatial contexts, but rarely can one count on a dating that clearly results from the analysis of the archaeological data. The same is true for function: in none of the cases is there a clear comprehension of why someone chose to build a round building and what this meant in terms of function. In general, different variants have been proposed: baptisteries, court chapels, parish churches or cemetery chapels, and, of course, combinations and interferences were common. The one in Alba Iulia has always been approached separately, being obviously the oldest and the only one certainly built in a pagan context. Most frequently, it has been interpreted as a chapel at the residence of a local Orthodox prince, dating to the 9th–10th centuries, and also performing the function of a baptistery – or just a baptistery that accompanied the first Roman-Catholic cathedral, and in this case, it would have been built in the last quarter of the 11th century. Its source of inspiration has stirred a lot of controversy and an accurate interpretation is yet to be ascertained. (See in detail Chapter 5). Usually, when talking about the round churches of the Saxon territories, one mentions their role as chapels for residences, later taken over by the community and somehow becoming parishes. The theory is attractive and maybe even real, but, for now, a proper residence, including other facilities beside a round chapel, has nowhere been explored. In turn, the role of these rotundas as baptisteries has to be more thoroughly studied, even if this task can be considered as long overdue in the European context. Pagan outbursts took place in the territory of the kingdom until late in the 14th century, and Christianity made its way with great effort between the last migration waves of Pechenegs and Cumans. All the way up to about 1300, baptisteries would have been necessary in Transylvania, because there was certainly a fairly consistent pagan population in need to be Christianised or re-Christianised, probably even among the locals, and certainly among the newcomers or those

226

Chapter 6

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

227

who dwelt there temporarily.182 In 1210, comes Joachim of Sibiu led an army of Saxons, Romanians, Szeklers, and Pechenegs, and the latter two groups most certainly included plenty of pagans.183 Of course, a special building to perform this sacrament was not needed in all cases. The situation of local Christianity was quite confusing during these centuries, as shown above, but the possibility that some rotundas were built for this purpose, to provide a space for baptism should definitely be taken into account. One case worth reflecting on is that of the rotundas built next to an already functioning church: a rotunda like the one in Sibiu, which overlapped part of the construction workshop for the parish church, could have had at least partially such a function. The survival of the rotunda as a baptistery in the late 13th century was actually first suggested after the excavations at Vaida, where such a function seemed the most likely one, taking into account that the circular space was extending an already standing church and considering the relentless actions undertaken by the royalty and the Catholic Church for the Christianisation of the Pechenegs and Cumans in the second half of the 13th century184 (Fig. 6.20). Another obvious function is that of cemetery chapels, as they often display funerary features. In Geoagiu, almost 50 graves were unearthed within the nave, most of them belonging to children, which means that, at some point, the space was used as a kind of crypt. In the Saxon environment, burials attached to these churches are not documented, except perhaps in Sighișoara, but almost all of them contained larger or smaller deposits of bones at a specific time. The ruin in Saschiz was completely filled with human bones, from the base up to the dome, at the time it was abandoned, and it has been assumed that the room was filled in through a hole reserved in the dome.185 Usually, the bones were laid down on the floor, but sometimes pits were dug: a pit of this kind is mentioned in Orăștie. (Fig. 6.23), while in Sighișoara (Fig. 4.13) the whole interior was excavated well below the foundation level, creating an enormous hole to be filled with human bones. This gave rise to the question of whether the funerary role was intended from the very beginning as a main function, or it was a late repurposing of the building. 182 Even if the Orthodox Church tradition had relinquished baptisteries as separate buildings at an earlier time, the situation cannot be generalised in a region as complicated as Transylvania, which witnessed massive Christianisation, and maybe even re-Christianisation, at the beginning of the second millennium. Rusu 1997a, 12. 183 DIR.C.I., 338, no. 292; CDTrans.I., 212, no. 37; Nägler 1979, 103–123. 184 Emődi – Marta 2005, 56, 63. 185 Postăvaru 2004, 142–144. Figure 6.21 ←

The round chapel uncovered on the south side of the Black Church in Brașov, photo during excavations and general plan with the finds in the eastern part of the church Drawing and photo by the author

228

Chapter 6

Figure 6.22 The Reformed church in Geoagiu Photo by Cristian Anghelescu; drawing based on Kiss 1999, 90, fig. 2

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

229

What is clear at the moment is the fact that the common shape did not correspond to a common timeframe and a single function. In fact, considering the factors discussed above, it is certain that their functions were complex and changeable, often overlapping, especially during the first centuries of local Christianity, when churches were so rare. To analyze this issue requires an in-depth knowledge of the context of construction, of their proper functionality, but also of the demolition and disappearance of such sites. For example, a round building preserved over centuries as part of a church, as in Sighișoara, and perhaps Saschiz, could be presumed as having a deep religious importance for the community, maybe as its first worship place, while others were abandoned, or even reused for lime storages (Orăștie, Sibiu). More detailed publication of recent cases, and perhaps more accurate dating with methods such as C14 or dendrochronology will greatly aid these interpretations. Two cases, presented in greater detail, could be useful to illustrate better the issue of this category of churches: the round church in Geoagiu, still in use, and the archaeological rotunda in Orăștie. The church in Geoagiu186 offers a unique image about the architecture of these churches, although changes obviously occurred over the centuries, and a more accurate history of the building is still expected, in the aftermath of large, still unpublished, excavations. The church has a round nave (5.5 m on the inside) and a rounded apse (2 m deep), resulting in a total outer length of ca. 9 m, with 1 m thick walls, which narrow down to 0.70 m toward the top. Currently, it is entered from the south-west, through a rectangular opening endowed with a double recessed portal made of stone, surmounted by two successive brick arches, the lower one ogival while the upper one rounded, but all this was certainly a later addition, and nothing is known about the original entrance. The light enters through six windows, five of them arranged almost symmetrically at the top of the nave walls and another one located in the axis of the apse, at a lower height than those in the nave.187 The window above the entrance is an oculus, while the others are rectangular with round endings, and flared jambs on each side of the wall. The apse had initially a semi-dome, of which only the springers remain, but the rotunda seems to have been only ceilinged. Currently the church has a bulb-shaped, Baroque roof, and there is no information about the original cover. The construction was made of mixed masonry, consisting of Roman bricks and local stone, the latter dominant in the upper part of the walls. The second example shows a different situation: the rotunda in Orăștie was a chance discovery in a large-scale excavation occasioned by the restoration of 186 See Anghel 1965, 615–624, for a detailed description of the building. Petrov 1996a, 33–46. 187 Currently, there is also a row of wide, rectangular windows in the lower half of the walls.

230

Chapter 6

some components of the medieval parish church and fortification. The building seems to have still been visible, in ruins, in the 19th century: oral memory has preserved the image of a well built in that place, and a painting from 1859 recorded it as a round tower. However, no trace of it was visible on the spot in 1992, when archaeological work began at the site.188 It was a complicated construction that evolved in a problematical context, assuming almost all possible functions over time, from a seigniorial chapel to a parish church, an ossuary, probably doubled by a funerary chapel, a tower adapted to the system of fortifications, a lime pit and, finally, probably only a mound in the cemetery. Unlike in most other cases, all these functions are not mere assumptions, but are based on the interpretation of a carefully studied archaeological context (Fig. 6.23). Excavations revealed a round room with an inner diameter of 6.70 m at ground level, respectively 5.50/6 m at vault springing level, with a total outer length of 10.50 m on the east-west axis (including the apse) and 8.70 m on the north-south axis. The archaeologist has interpreted the structure as the lower floor of a multi-levelled rotunda, covered by a vault supported on a central pillar. The first floor seems to have been made of slabs, laid in a mortar bed only slightly above the base of the foundation. While the rotunda was in operation, however, several other pavements were set, among them a 14th-century one, made of obliquely laid bricks. After a fire, the floor was made of clay, probably in a last attempt to restore the building. Up to the 17th century, a thick layer of soil mixed with rubble accumulated, and the building was transformed into a lime storage. It is quite likely that the building process entailed the excavation of the whole area: the foundation of the rotunda and of the pillar were at the same level as the threshold of the western entrance, and the first pavement was set only ca. 0.20 m above their footing. The building itself was made out of river stones and stones extracted from a nearby quarry, bound with mortar of the highest quality. The fabric looks neat, but carved stone was only used for the partially preserved doorway frame.189 The rotunda was erected within an 11th-century wood-and-earth fortification (earthen rampart, moat and stockade), a site that was most likely deliberately chosen. It is interesting that the fortification had been built over an abandoned settlement from the 8th–9th centuries, as demonstrated by ceramic finds. The connection between the rotunda and the fortress could 188 Pinter 2003, 263–266, for a detailed description. Some aspects mentioned in this paper can only be understood in connection with the rest of the excavations, yet unpublished. For the general context of the site at the time of construction of the rotunda: Crîngaci Țiplic – Pinter – White 2007, 1–6. 189 Pinter 2003, 269.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

Figure 6.23

231

The archaeological rotunda in Orăștie: the original chapel (in dark grey), later additions (in light grey), and reconstruction proposal (1–12th century; 2–13th century; 3–14th–17th centuries) Drawings based on Pinter 2003, fig. xi for the reconstruction and fig. i for the general layout

not be ascertained, the archaeological context being seriously damaged, and missing the links between palisade, moat, and various stone walls.190 Still, 190 Although, for now, the precedents of the rotunda are not very detailed, it is worth to outline the fact that the site had been inhabited since at least the 8th century. The situation confirmed the fact that settlements newly established after the conquest focused on

232

Chapter 6

considering the situation, the archaeologists concluded that the rotunda had been built on the fortification mound “after the 11th century, most probably during the first half of the 12th century.”191 The archaeological context suggests for the building process a period between the end of the 11th century and the second half of the 13th century, while during the first part of the 14th century certain changes related to the introduction of a porch and to the thickening of the walls occurred. The foundation, however, had to be made during the 12th century, and might have been the work of Anselm of Braz, who is traditionally considered the founder of Orăștie, whose German name is Broos. Anselm was a knight from Western Europe who in 1103 pledged his estate to the Stablo Abbey in the Ardennes Mountains (Belgium now), as he left with his family to settle in Hungary. Although there are no known details about his location, it is plausible that he settled in Transylvania and became one of the organisers of the Germanic colonisation.192 6.5.1 Churches with a Lobed Shape A variant of the centrally-planned type is that of the polylobed churches, often mentioned as rotundas as well.193 A unique building is known from Cluj-Mănăștur, where the excavations revealed a church with a circular exterior and a six-lobed interior, with carved stone walls built on foundations of rough stone bound with mortar, including many spoliae, even with an architectural character.194 As it turns out, based on partial published research, this church underwent several restoration stages, and, at a time, the western half was demolished and replaced by a rectangular nave with a north-south oriented long axis. The eastern half, with three lobes, seems to have been used as a sanctuary, but this development has yet to be proved (Fig. 3.17). Some chronological indicators were given by the foundation, which had included fragments of Romanesque origin and disturbed a grave with a coin issued by Béla III (1172–1196). A capital with crockets, lost

191 192 193 194

already inhabited places. In Southern Transylvania, it is, in any case, an unusual situation, to have a fortification with a palisade that could be dated so early, above a habitation from the 8th–9th centuries. The fortification appears to have only been in use in the 11th century and, perhaps, at the beginning of the next one, until the rotunda was built. Pinter 2003, 266. Pinter 2003, 270–271. Klein 1971a, 160–167; Nägler 1979, 74–76; Entz 1968, 132. In general, on this topic: Tóth 2004, passim. See also the case of Gurasada, very likely inspired by Byzantine models and preserved under many changes, as discussed in detail in chapter 4.1. Iambor – Matei 1983, 131–146; Iambor 2005, 206–208, for a summary review of the data; Iambor – Matei 1979, 600–605. For an integration in the general context of this type of church: Tóth 2004, 16–19. On chronological issues: Iambor – Matei – Halasu 1981, 129–150.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

233

in demolition rubble, suggests a building period during the 13th century, most likely in its second part, following the destruction of a previous basilica by Mongols in 1241. It is known that the Benedictine monks living there restored their monastery only after 1280, building this polilobed church, later demolished and replaced by a Gothic church, of which only the sanctuary is still in place195 (Fig. 6.24). Quite similar buildings, but with a four-lobed ground plan, are known in the Szekler territories: one chapel is preserved on the outskirts of Odorheiu Secuiesc,196 others in Sânzieni – Perkő197 and Gheorghieni (?),198 and ruins are reported near Doboșeni.199 Up until recently, they were considered medieval buildings, erected by the 13th century, and an even earlier date, in the 11th century, was proposed for the one in Sânzieni – Perkő. The latter has been seen as a very good analogy for the four-lobed building discovered in front of the cathedral of Székesfehérvár, tentatively dated in the 10th–12th centuries.200 This assumption was called into question in the 1970s, when a 16th-century coin was discovered in the foundation trench of the chapel in Odorheiu Secuiesc.201 Based on planimetry (four lobes around a central square, 3.4 m on the side) and analogies, most authors had considered the church as a Romanesque building from the 13th century, and archaeological data were long ignored.202 However, excavations resumed by Sofálvi András in 2011 and 2019 confirmed the first dating, namely the construction of the chapel in the 16th century203 (Fig. 6.19.2). The church in Sânzieni – Perkő was excavated in the 1970s, but the findings did not shed clear light on its dating, even though ceramic fragments from the 11th–13th centuries were mentioned nearby.204 The current shape of the building seems to belong to the modern era, as does the architectural design (the interior vault, the roof with four turrets, the murals), but this appearance may 195 Kovács 2007, 65–80. 196 Orbán 1868–1873, I, 45; Dávid. 1981, 318–321; Vătășianu 1959, 88–89; Entz 1968, 45, 162; Gervers-Molnár 1972; Kiss 1999, 80. 197 Entz 1994, 64; Szakács 2012b, 17; Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 146; Tüdős 2002, 128; Léstyán 2000, I, 115–117; Orbán 1868–1873, III, 111. 198 Entz 1994, 63; Léstyán 2000, I, 264–265. 199 Dávid 1981, 294–295; Benkő 2012, I, 150–151; Léstyán 2000, I, 225; Székely 1975, 67. 200 Székely 1975, 61, fig. 6; Benkő 2012, I, 148–151. 201 Beldie 1974, 59–62. The architectural investigations also revealed that the first plastering of the interior dates from the 17th century. Sófalvi 2013, 75–93, for archaeological results mainly 80–83. 202 Close analogies are mentioned in Ják (Hungary), the chapel of St James, mid-13th century; Pápoc (Hungary), the chapel of St Michael, mid-13th century; Chrasťnad Hornádom (Slovakia, the 13th century). Benkő 2012, I, 148–150, fig. 36. 203 Sófalvi 2013, 85–90. 204 Székely 2009, 11–30; Benkő 2012, I, 108.

234

Chapter 6

Figure 6.24 The archaeological rotunda in Cluj-Mănăștur After Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, pl. 43.A

conceal an older, medieval structure. A similar situation was revealed when St Ana’s chapel in Gheorghieni was excavated in 2002 offering only modern finds, which in fact corresponded with its first recording in the 17th century.205 Some scholars are seeing these buildings as votive or private chapels from the 16th–17th centuries.206 However, as Elek Benkő has pointed out, they theoretically fit into medieval architecture, therefore a definitive conclusion should not be formulated prior to thorough research, including archaeological evidence.207 6.6

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter has surveyed the shaping period of the religious landscape, after its confusing and understudied beginnings before the mid-12th century. Political and social developments have favoured the church building process mainly during the 13th century, and that was in fact the time of emergence of 205 Benkő 2012, I, 150, mentions unpublished excavations lead by Emődi Tamás, illustrated in fig. 36/5–6. Also, for archaeology: Székely 1975, 61, 67, fig. 6. 206 Sófalvi 2013, 89–90. 207 Benkő 2012, I, 150–151. In turn, Szakács 2012b, 16–17, argued for a modern era dating.

The Shaping of the Religious Landscape

235

the Christian society, including places of worship and graveyards. In terms of church building, there were several important sites, such as the ones in Alba Iulia (the re-building of St Michael’s Cathedral), Sibiu (the building of the main church of the Saxons), and Cârța (the Cistercian monastery, to be discussed below). The large number of Romanesque basilicas is a defining feature of this era and buildings of impressive size were erected not only in major centres, but also in the countryside, far exceeding the real needs for worship. The first generations of Saxons left an exceptional legacy through these churches, whose potential is far from fully explored. In fact, their research has made only small strides over the past few decades, and only the wave of recent restorations has allowed the gathering of more coherent observations. However, there are still several questions regarding the chronology of the main buildings and their basic shapes, while the material culture is almost completely ignored. In the overall the period, single-nave churches were most common, universally used in the countryside by Hungarian and Szekler communities, and apparently on a smaller scale by Saxons. Most of these churches have survived under a Gothic coating, and only the last decades have shaken their image, unearthing much earlier forms, often in succession, of which the naves – or parts of the naves – have generally survived. There are a significant number of single-naves with round apses or rectangular chancels, sometimes endowed with western towers or eastern sacristies, but by far the best known group come from the Szekler communities of eastern Transylvania, where almost every church was archaeologically studied as of late. Centrally-planned churches always carry the fascination of their special form, and they are generally very rare occurrences, related to exceptional situations. The discovery of such a church in Orăștie in the 1990s opened a series of no less than 11 occurrences. We can expect new discoveries in the future. Perhaps round buildings were not as rare as it seems. As far as it is known, each has its own particular context, and there is much more to do in terms of chronology and deciphering the functional message. However, before unearthing the round-in-square church of Vaida, no one dared to argue for the use of these buildings as baptisteries until ca. 1300, or even later. On closer examination of the local context, this role seems exceptionally plausible, and can be put forward as one of the most peculiar features not only of the religious architecture of the realm, but of its local society. The religious architecture of these early centuries exhibited a mixture of styles, within which clear boundaries are difficult to define. Until the mid-13th century, buildings were erected in the Romanesque style, but Gothic influences started very early and often designs intermingled and produced eclectic fabrics. These beginnings of the Gothic and the role of the Cistercians in this matter will be explored in short in the following chapter.

Chapter 7

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture: Cistercian Gothic In the religious architecture of Transylvania, Gothic designs generally spread in the second part of the 13th century, through various channels. Particularly important was the role of the major construction sites of the Cistercian monastery in Cârța,1 now in ruins, and of the second sanctuary of the Roman-Catholic cathedral in Alba Iulia, preserved in an 18th-century reconstructed form.2 As a rule, scholarship emphasizes the role of the monastery as “an authentic centre of irradiation of Gothic architecture,” especially for the southern part of the area.3 However, churches built or completed in this period display a mixture of styles, with innovations implemented in various and usually balanced proportions4 (see Map 7.1).

1 The Cistercian Order has been established in 1098 by the French monk Robert de Molesmes, who reformed the rule of St Benedict, and experienced a rapid spread developement, reaching over 700 monasteries in its first century of existence. Its program included not only religious life reforms, but a new architectural style as well, simpler than the Benedictine one. Their establishment coincided with the emergence of the Gothic style, so its architecture implemented many Gothic elements, on a background provided by Romanesque. Their organizational structure implied the active involvement of monks in raising houses, therefore, while spreading throughout Europe, they brought their architecture, which generally had early Gothic characteristics. On the Cistercians in Hungary: Lekai 1977, 8–9, 495–496; Hervay 1984; Romhány 1995, 180–204. On their architecture see Untermann 2001, 93–113, 171–192; for their influence in Transylvania: Turcuș – Turcuș 2012, 9–55, 99, 108; Drăguț 1979a, 12–13. The first Cistercian monastery built in the Hungarian kingdom was in Cikádor, in 1142 (Valter 2015), but four other houses followed during the reign of King Béla III (1172–1196) – one in Igriș, the others in Pilisszentkereszt, Szentgotthárd and Pásztó. Gerevich 1985, 541–549; Valter 1982, 139–153; Buzás 2012, 1–14. The order was especially supported by Béla III and by his son, Andrew II (1205–1235). Szakács 2005, 34; Szakács 2013, 178–180. 2 Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 38–43. 3 Drăguț, 1979a, 10. 4 For more details on early Gothic, see Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, II, 138–160; Busuioc 1978, 10–11; Drăguț 1968a; Drăguț 1979a, 10–30.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_009

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

7.1

237

The Cistercian Monastery in Cârța

The easternmost known Cistercian monastery in Cârța is preserved mostly as a ruin, only part of its structures still stands above the ground level. Of the monastic church, the choir and apse have been reshaped as a stand-alone church and are being used by the Reformed community living there today. The body of the church vanished, except for a fragment of the western front, which displays a Gothic portal surmounted by a huge rosette and a 15th-century added tower (Fig. 7.1). Based on what is still there, and on very brief and often contradictory archaeological data, scholars have tried, from the 19th century onward, to reconstruct the history and the architectural development of both the church and the monastery. In the process, they produced an enormous literature on the general historical context of its founding,5 its complex activity on different fields,6 its building history,7 and its general architectural connections,8 and on many other sides9 of this very important site of medieval Transylvania. The church was a considerably large basilica, of 54 by 20 m, with a main nave and two side aisles, a transept, and a short sanctuary ended in a polygonal apse, framed by four square chapels that extended the wings of the transept eastward, toward the line of the apse. The side aisles, covered by ribbed cross vaults, were separated from the nave by seven pairs of square piers. The nave was covered by sexpartite vaults. The transept had three square bays, sized as those of the nave, and therefore it protruded from the body of the church by half a bay. The sanctuary had a rather narrow rectangular choir covered by ribbed cross vaults, and a five-sided apse, which originally, at least at the

5 The monument has one of the most impressive bibliographies and it would hardly be found a historian or archaeologist specializing in the Middle Ages never writing about it. Some of the most relevant papers on the topic, with general approaches, would be: Römer 1877, 1–11; Baumgartner 1915, 15–91; Rosemann 1934, 82–85; Vătășianu 1959, 98–105; Entz 1963, 3–38; Thalgott 1990; König 1998; Kroner 2001, 289–296; Busuioc 1976, 3–20; Busuioc-von Hasselbach, 1991, 91–95; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 32–170, including an extensive bibliography; Turcuș – Turcuș 2012, 129–140, 155–201; Tănase 1991, 79–90; Treiber 1971, 123. 6 Schuller 2004, 369–387; Bencze 2020a, 201–205. 7 For a detailed analysis of the building: Vătășianu 1959, 99–103; Thalgott 1990, 47–60. 8 Entz 1963, 3–38; Tătaru 1983, 23–33; Machat 1983, 34–40; Machat 2003, 53–62; Rill 1990, 148–152. 9 Recent in-depth analysis performed by Ünige Bencze regarding the reconstruction of the general landscape of the monastery (Bencze 2012, 121–133; Bencze 2013, 17–30; Bencze 2020b, 230–239). For the fabric see Mihăilă – Benea 2011, 352–361. For the water management system: Bencze 2015b, 29–44.

238

Chapter 7

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

239

Figure 7.1 Cârța – the ruins of the Cistercian Monastery, 13th century After Ionescu 1963, 91, fig. 45 Map 7.1

←

Sites relevant for the ‘Cistercian’ period of Transylvanian church architecture. The sites in the eastern South-Transylvanian Saxon colonization area – the Land of Bârsa – are shown in further detail – 1. Alba Iulia; 2. Bădești; 3. Bistrița; 4. Brașov (including Brașov-Bartolomeu); 5. Cârța Monastery; 6. Cincșor; 7. Cincu; 8. ClujNapoca (including Cluj-Mănăștur, Someșeni); 9. Cristian; 10. Dorolțu; 11. Drăușeni; 12. Feldioara; 13. Fizeșu Gherlii; 14. Ghimbav; 15. Hălchiu; 16. Hălmeag; 17. Hărman; 18. Hosman; 19. Iara; 20. Luncani; 21. Matei; 22. Nima; 23. Nireș; 24. Orman; 25. Prejmer; 26. Rodna; 27. Sânpetru-Petersberg; 28. Sântămărie Orlea; 29. Sebeș; 30. Sic; 31. Șieu-Odorhei; 32. Tetișu; 33. Tiocu de Jos; 34. Tiocu de Sus; 35. Unguraș; 36. Veseud; 37. Igriș Author: Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

240

Chapter 7

foundation level, seems to have been rounded.10 Short buttresses, perpendicularly placed on the walls of the body and transept, and oblique on the outer corners of the apse and chapels, reinforced the walls. All monastic buildings, including the church, were made of rough quarry stone, carved stone being used for the frames, which resulted in an austere facing, broken only by the not-too-large windows and some decorative elements. The entire work seems to have been the product of a French workshop, although Central European influences, at one stage or another, should also be considered. The fragmentary state of the ensemble and the lack of written sources on its early history leave many unknowns in terms of both general and architectural history, including the building process, the general topography of the site, and the role of the monastery for organizing Christian society. How and when its construction took place, what were its stages, and when can the church be considered completed, are just some of the questions that, in the end, do not benefit from a solid enough basis to be answered. Even the foundation year – be it 1198 or 1202 or 1204 or even later11 – has generated long debates and many written pages. Nonetheless, scholarship generally has agreed that monastery of Cârța was an endowment of King Emeric (1196–1204), although no strong proof has been found so far.12 When examining the state of research, it is frightening how little attention has been paid to the actual ruins and to the site in general, as well as the total lack of control over archaeological or accidental excavations made there. Archaeology might have been of great help, but no large-scale excavation has been permitted so far. However, the site garnered interest from early on, with the first explorations in 1889 (Heinrich Eder) and 1911 (Oskar Fritz-Lászay), to be later resumed by the historian Victor Roth in 1927.13 A trial trench is mentioned in 1961,14 but more extensive excavations happened only in the 1980s (1981–1985), on the eastern part of the church and the south-eastern part of the cloister. However, the results were never published in detail.15 Petre Beșliu

10 11

12 13 14 15

Nägler – Rill 1982–1985, 62–63. A discussion on this topic, with older bibliography: Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 32–117; Bencze 2020a, 140–160. See also: Thalgott 1990, 19; Tănase 1991, 10 (end of the 12th century); Papacostea 1993, 177. For the early 13th century: Baumgartner 1915, 22; Roth 1929, 225–227; Untermann 2001, 511–512; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 50–56. Entz 1963, 11; Györffy 1963–1998, II, 451–452; Marosi 1984, 126; Rill 1990, 148–152. Roth 1929, 224–227. Popescu 1962, 212. Nägler – Rill 1993, 489–493; Nägler – Rill 1982–1985, 1–63; Rill 1990, 148–152. For a critical overview of the excavations, see Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 119–217.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

241

opened new trial trenches close to the church in 2009 and 2011,16 and mentioned remnants of a construction north of it, possibly an older church. The 1927 and 1980s excavations uncovered stone ruins beneath the northeastern part of the church, in very poor condition, preserved in fact only at the bottom of the foundations. The ambiguous text of the field report allowed for many interpretations, and in fact it is uncertain if one or two apses have been found, and if the position of the ruins was accurately documented17 (Fig. 7.2). The recently published drawings did not solve the problem, but, in any case, it remains certain that before the present church there was a stone construction of significant size on the same spot, although one whose stratigraphic context is effectively unknown. There were various explanations given for these finds – some considered them a church that stood there prior to the founding of the monastery,18 others saw a chapel used by monks while they built the actual monastery,19 or even an earlier stage of the current church. The latter may be closer to truth, since archaeologists have consistently noted that the foundations belonged to a never-completed building. On the other hand, the fact that the ruins lay underneath the present church eliminates the possibility that they would have been in use during the building process. As for the possibility that they belonged to a church of the natives of the Land of Făgăraș, this is an idea worthy to be considered at a future date, but difficult to be taken seriously at this research stage.20 The rounded shape of the eastern part of these ruins suggests Romanesque features, possibly under the influence of the Benedictine sites of the early 13th century,21 and, theoretically, it may have been an older (basilican?) church, abandoned for unknown reasons soon after it was founded. Coming to the current church, the timeline of the process of building is confusing, but, basically, it was proposed at the foundation level when the Mongol invasion occurred in 1241.22 The field documentation noticed several burned layers, but, unfortunately, the possibilities for interpreting them remained 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Munteanu Beșliu 2012, 11–28. Nägler – Rill 1993, 489–491; Rill 1990, 150–151. Turcuș – Turcuș 2012, 179–180. Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 129–135; Nägler – Rill 1982–1985, 67; Bencze 2020a, 181–183. Turcuș – Turcuș 2012, 179. Drăguț 1979a, 10–11; Vătășianu 1959, 23. Turcuș – Turcuș 2012, 204–205, concluded that in 1241 there was only a construction site there, interrupted by the Mongol invasion. Vătășianu 1959, 98–104, considers that the process of building a stone church started only in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion, to be completed in the third quarter of the 13th century, while the western façade and the portal could have been finished in around 1300.

242

Chapter 7

Figure 7.2 The archaeology of the monastic church in Cârța: 1. the first church (?); 2. the present-day church; 3. foundations added for strengthening the structure of the church; 4. ruins from the phase of the Cistercian monastery; 5. archaeological excavations Drawing based on Nägler – Rill 1982–1985, 67

limited,23 and the structure of the masonry did not reflect an interruption of the works, apart from a situation identified within the sanctuary. It was mentioned in the report that the main apse was rounded in foundation but polygonal above the walking level, which indeed might have been the result of different stages of construction, implying some changes on the way. However, based on analogies, the walls and the entire superstructure of the church has been credited by art historians as being completed in the late 13th century, mostly around 1270.24

23 24

Nägler – Rill 1982–1985, 46: “The old Cistercian ground level is strongly burnt, forming a 2–3 cm thick reddish crust.” Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, II, 154–155.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

7.2

243

The Spread of Early Gothic: General Considerations

Except for the situation in Cârța, and perhaps Alba Iulia, the mid-13th century was under late Romanesque influence.25 However, during the following decades, Gothic designs gained more and more ground. The Cistercian style variant may have been quite behind the times in relation to the general development of the Gothic style, but, at a local level, it fitted the situation and took roots on the late Romanesque background, with which it coexisted for a long time. What is mainly attributed to Cârța is the ground plan of the sanctuary with side chapels, small buttresses without a major structural role, clerestory polylobed circular windows combined with pointed windows in a second, lower row, cornices supported on corbels decorated with crockets, and ribbed vaults. These elements have been combined with Romanesque reminiscences, resulting in a provincial architecture with many original buildings, at a time when Europe was dominated by an untainted Gothic reaching its maturity.26 Some authors also emphasize the Cistercian role in the dissemination of the rectangular chancel, which became popular especially in rural Catholic and Orthodox areas. There is a long debate on the role of the so-called workshop of Cârța in the development of the ecclesiastical architecture of 13th-century Transylvania. Entz Géza attributed Cârța and its associated buildings to a royal workshop, nourished directly by the main French sites of the order, and operating for almost the entire 13th century, from its first years until 1270, when the northern echoes of Rodna and Bistrița can be dated.27 Vasile Drăguț has argued against this theory as early as 1968, considering impossible that such an important number of buildings could have originated from Cârța, and be the work of the same singular workshop. In order for this to have happened, an incredibly productive team must have been active, on a constant work schedule, since so many important buildings have been erected in a not too long of an interval. In this regard, one should bear in mind that the monastic church was never actually duplicated, although various elements were reproduced in a range of combinations. In fact, the buildings of the late-13th-century were very 25

26 27

Palmer 1998, 1–39; Szakács 2011b, 209–234. It is the period when there are built the cathedrals in Eger and Kalocsa, and the churches of many Benedictine abbeys, among them the ones in Pannonhalma and in Transylvanian Cluj-Mănăștur. Szakács 2013, 171–180. A major role was played by the construction site of the royal court in Buda. Entz 1963, 3–38; Marosi 1984, 91–177. Drăguț 1979a, 16–20. Entz 1963, 27–29.

244

Chapter 7

dissimilar, and, despite some common features, they have been obviously the products of several workshops of uneven formation and capacity.28 Some churches related very close to the architecture of Cârța, most often mentioned being those in Brașov-Bartolomeu (Fig. 7.3.1), Hălmeag (Fig. 7.3.2), Hărman (Fig. 7.3.3), Prejmer (Fig. 7.9), Ghimbav, Feldioara, Sic, Bistrița, Unguraș, and Rodna, but also Sebeș, Drăușeni, Hălchiu, and Cristian.29 Even the few ruins found inside the Black Church in Brașov in 1937, otherwise not described in a coherent manner, have been interpreted as of Cistercian influence.30 Nonetheless, it seems highly unlikely that all of these should be attributed to the ‘workshop of Cârța’, since some of them were actually being under construction earlier (Hărman) or at just about the same time (Prejmer).31 While spreading all throughout the province, the strongest influences are noticeable in south-eastern Transylvania, in the Land of Bârsa, where Cistercian Gothic produced its most important achievements. There are two practical explanations for this: (1) though some outposts had been established in the 12th century, the large-scale colonisation occurred only under the rule of the Teutonic Knights and after the founding of the monastery of Cârța, therefore the emergence of religious architecture was delayed;32 and (2) the area experienced a strong, almost three-centuries long Cistercian activity, until the last quarter of the 15th century.33 28 29

30 31

32

33

Drăguț 1968a, 42–44; Drăguț 1979a, 16–17. Vătășianu 1959, 114–117. For Unguraș, see Entz 1963, 34. Very often, there are only isolated elements, usually windows, such as in Hosman – a quatrefoil window above the portal, Cincșor – a trefoil window in the northern wall, or Veseud – a portal with trefoil (?) tracery and flowering wild roses on the tympanum. Drăguț 1968a, 43. Drăguț 1968a, 42; Morres 1928b, 108; Vătășianu 1959, 105–113. Recent analysis of the data concerning the church in Prejmer demonstrated that, while it was indeed erected by the Cistercian Order during the late 13th century, it was directly dependant on the central house – maybe through the house of Pilisszentkereszt – and not on Cârța. Salontai 2006, 18–20. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 150–152. Research in Feldioara in the early 1990s showed that a first colony was established in the late 12th century, providing a base for the Teutonic Knights and their headquarters. Ioniță et al. 2004, 29–58. Some 12th-century coins were recently discovered in other parts of the region, such as Hălmeag and Brașov-Bartolomeu (Fig. 0.1), which shows that the phenomenon documented in Feldioara was not an accident and no temporary camp, but it was part of a program to create the frontier settlements required to support the organization of the Hungarian kingdom in its expansion beyond the Carpathians. Marcu-Istrate 2018b, 121–154. An early settlement was also documented in Brașov, part of the same scenario that, even before the year 1200, prepared the general conquest and, indirectly, the arrival of the Teutonic Knights. It seems that the monastery began to decline in the first part of the 15th century, its buildings being partially affected by the first stronger Ottoman invasions. It is believed that the structures were “destroyed” in 1421, and a long process of repairs started in 1427, to

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

245

Although the monastery in Cârța was the main house, there were also subsidiaries that depended on it, including a nunnery in Brașov, of which material remains were only recently uncovered. The central order was also active on several sites in south-eastern Transylvania, following the donation made on 21 March 1240 by the king of Hungary, when the income of four ‘churches’ within the former Teutonic lands, namely the ones in Hărman, Feldioara, Prejmer, and Sânpetru-Petersberg, were donated to the Order.34 At the time, the granted churches were at best under construction, and their layout and general architecture might have been strongly influenced by Cistercians. 7.3

Ground Plan Considerations

Churches of various shapes were built in the second part of the 13th century, especially basilicas in the south, with or without transept, continuing the tradition of the early part of the century, while in rural areas prevailed single-naves, and, quite exceptionally, a cross-plan church in Prejmer. There was great diversity, but buildings of obviously Romanesque design became quite rare, the trend being the new Gothic style. Some examples help illustrate the period. One of the most interesting churches was built in Brașov-Bartolomeu,35 with an eastern part quite like the one in Cârța: three aisles, a transept, and a large sanctuary framed by rectangular and square rooms, as wide as the

34

35

be still in process in 1430. (Urkundenbuch, IV, 323). Other “numerous” attacks are mentioned for the next decades (Urkundenbuch, V, 28, 30, 56), and “re-buildings” still needed after 1440 (Urkundenbuch, V, 56). The abbey was not in a good condition in the 1470s (Urkundenbuch, VI, 422), and perhaps this was one of the reasons King Matthias dissolved it in 1474, giving its property and incomes to the parish church of Sibiu (Urkundenbuch, VII, 5–6/3986). Some repairs were made later, but eventually the monastic ensemble fell into ruin, only the eastern part of the church being maintained and transformed into a parish church. Vătășianu 1959, 104–105. The expulsion of the Teutonic Knights in 1225 created a political-diplomatic conflict between the Hungarian king and the papacy, resolved with difficulty in the following decades, through the mediation of the Cistercian Order. Probably in this context, considering the role already assumed by the monks in the consolidation of Catholic beliefs in this border province, the Hungarian king donated them the revenues of the four ‘churches’ in the Land of Bârsa, among which was Feldioara (1240). Urkundenbuch, I, 76; Reissenberger 1894, 8. For an analysis of the 1240 document: Tănase 1993, 55–80; Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 132–153, for the situation of the church in Prejmer at that moment; Tănase 1991, 79–90. The churches in Prejmer and Hărman have preserved important fragments from that time; the one in Sânpetru-Petersberg was demolished and rebuilt in 1794. General data: Morres 1928b, 107–121; Treiber 1971, 143–147; Niedermaier 2007, 18–19; Drăguț 1979a, 19; Roth 1934, 13, 20, 24; Fabini 1998, I, 44–45.

246

Chapter 7

transept and almost as long as the sanctuary (Fig. 1.1 and 7.3.1). The western part was designed to be two-towered, although only the south-western tower was completed. Except for its present-day form, with the latest major changes around 1833, almost nothing is known about this church, which was first mentioned in 1417.36 Due to lack of proper research, its dating has oscillated throughout the 13th century, depending on the analogies available at one time or another. In any case, at the time of construction, with a length of 59 m, it was one of the largest churches in Transylvania, comparable to the one in Cincu and with Cârța itself. Quite similar appears the church in Hălmeag,37 a three-aisled basilica with an elongated sanctuary, a polygonal apse and an unfinished two-towered western façade (Fig. 7.3.2, 7.4). There are massive rectangular pillars unloading pointed arches, in between six almost equal bays, each one corresponding to a half-bay of the nave. The fact that the southern aisle was noticeable wider than the northern one suggested that some problems occurred during the building process. The western façade, which was planned with two towers, suggested this as well – only the first floors of the towers were built, up to the height of the aisles, so they are hardly noticeable under the uniform roof of the church, although their walls are much wider than those of the aisles, which is apparent when looking from outside. Why the plan changed, and the work stopped at that level, it is still a question. To the east, the sanctuary has two rectangular bays and a five-sided polygonal apse, covered by cross vaults, respectively by a six-sided ribbed vault. While the two very long side chapels, now used as a vestry (the northern) and a vestibule (the southern), were slightly narrower than the aisles, they were almost as long as the sanctuary. Despite being a rural church, with a modest exterior appearance, the building had an exceptional interior decoration, which has remained unique in Transylvania. Scholars have generally considered it emblematic for the Romanesque-to-Gothic period.

36 37

Several trenches were opened nearby, in 2008, when the parsonage was expanded, and a 12th-century coin was found, the oldest discovery of its kind on the territory of the city. Marcu-Istrate – Izdrăilă 2009, 264. The village lies on the right bank of the river Olt, and it was firstly mentioned in writing in the 1211 Diploma granted to the Teutonic Order, as castri Almage, although it is not known what exactly hides behind this name. Urkundenbuch, I, 19; DIR.C.I., 183; Binder 1996, 273. The settlement itself is poorly known – it may have been founded by Saxons, but only to be abandoned shortly thereafter, since not much later it appeared as part of the Hungarian habitation area. The colonists are most likely the ones who built the church. Rostás 2002, 79–110; Drăguț 1968a, 42–43.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

Figure 7.3 Early Gothic churches from Southeast Transylvania: 1 – the Evangelical church in Brașov-Bartolomeu (drawing based on Drăguț 1979a, fig. 2); 2 – the Evangelical church in Hălmeag; 3 – the Evangelical church in Hărman DRAWINGS BASED ON DRĂGUȚ 1979A, FIG.2 (1) AND FABINI 1998A, I, FIG. 167.2 AND 185.3 (2–3)

247

248

Chapter 7

Its ground plan suggested a homogenous project, but this was questioned recently by archaeology as it was noticed that at the foundation level each cell had been built in a different manner. Some foundations were laid down very carefully, while others in a very negligent manner; some were bound with mortar, while others only with soil or clay; some protruded more than 1 m from the line of the walls, while others were un-recessed. Furthermore, the aisles and towers were produced during a construction stage distinct from that of the eastern part. Mortar was used only for the foundations of the northern aisle, which was also narrower, and should be rather seen as an addition to an already standing building. The sanctuary and the chapels exhibited a very different construction technique, their foundations being drowned in very hard mortar. Furthermore, it was noticed, on the north side, that the foundation of the chapel disturbed that of the aisle, while the foundation of the choir disturbed a late-12th century grave. The archaeological report concluded at least two major construction stages, if not three: one for the aisles, towers, and some of the buttresses, perhaps one for the northern aisle, and a final one for the eastern part. This has shown that, despite being often mentioned as relevant for the Cistercian influence, the church in Hălmeag has complicated building phases.38 Another and quite similar example for the same situation is the church in Hărman,39 currently a Gothic basilica, with a polygonal sanctuary, elongated nave and aisles, and a western tower. (Fig. 7.3.3, 7.5) The latter was often deemed a representative work for the 13th century, and it is still mentioned as such in papers on general architectural development. Conversely, the rectangular room rising on the southern side of the choir was for long considered a late addition. Nevertheless, when archaeological trenches were opened, it was seen again as a multi-stage building, erected during almost two centuries.40 The excavations have shown that the eastern part was built originally in a single stage, as a long enough sanctuary (square choir and semicircular apse) and two rectangular narrow chapels, of which only the southern one has survived. This part continued to the west with a short basilican body, likely of only two bays. This stage was probably performed before 1240, and there might have been a connection with the activity of the Teutonic Knights in the area. When construction resumed, the ground plan was changed – the partially erected semicircular apse was transformed into a polygonal one, the body was extended to the west and the walls were completed to the roof. The numerous Early Gothic 38 39 40

Istrate 2007b, 172–173. Roth 1934, 21, 24, 34, 72; Treiber 1971, 99; Vătășianu 1959, 63, 105, 563; Entz 1968, 24, 29, 141. The excavations were undertaken in the 1970s, during restoration works. Dumitrache 1979b, 409–419; Dumitrache 1983, 44–47, with the critical analysis of older bibliography.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

249

Figure 7.4 The Evangelical church in Hălmeag: 1 – general view from south-west; 2 – general view from east; 3 and 4 – architectural details from the choir Photos by SEBASTIAN OVIDIU DOBROTĂ

250

Chapter 7

Figure 7.5 The Evangelical church in Hărman: drawing: 1 – construction stage of the years 1220–1225; 2 – construction stage of second half of the 13th century, when the body of church was completed and the apse was change into a polygonal shape; 3 – the present day tower, probably the second part of the 15th century, on older foundations? 4 – sacristy expansion (early 16th century). Photos: the western portal of the tower, and the apse DRAWING BASED ON DUMITRACHE 1983, 117; PHOTOS BY THE AUTHOR

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

251

elements of the aboveground structure ensure a post-1240 dating, in the times when the church was already a possession of the Cistercian Order.41 For the same topic there are several single-nave structures, mainly in central Transylvania. But beyond their general appearance, there are no details of archaeological nature regarding their building history.42 However, two churches from the south-eastern part deserve special attention, being very likely actual Cistercian foundations: the ones in Brașov and Feldioara, both of them archaeological objects unearthed quite recently. In 2003 and 2005, renovation works on the buildings near the Black Church in Brașov revealed the ruins of a church with a polygonal apse, for which the art historian Dana Jenei proposed a 13th-century foundation (Fig. 7.6). The chapel was attributed to a Cistercian house whose history is not quite clear, but which very likely was a nunnery, first mentioned in 1388 under the authority of the monastery in Cârța, and disbanded ca. 1541, after a period under the patronage of the Franciscans from Brașov and Sibiu (post 1474). The archaeological survey did not manage to offer chronological clues, and in fact was not published at all. However, based on written sources, it is believed that the church lasted until 1559 as an annex of the nearby school, and was demolished in that year to make room for a new building.43 Of all the ruins discovered around the parish church of Brașov, it is quite probable that the one described above was indeed connected with the Cistercians, being used as a chapel for the nunnery recorded in 1388. Its age, however, is difficult to ascertain based solely on the plan, which could have been used just as well in the 13th century as in the 15th century. Many researchers have accepted the idea of a Cistercian community on the site in the 13th century, at the latest after the Mongol invasion, when it seems that the order took over the buildings of a Premonstratensian monastery.44 The 41 42 43

44

The current apeearance, including the tower, is a product of the 15th century works. Dumitrache 1983, 44–45; Fabini 1998, I, 308–309. A relatively large group survives in the northern part of Transylvania, including the churches in Luncani, Someșeni, Bădești, Orman, Nima, Matei, Iara, Tiocu de Jos, Tiocu de Sus, Șieu-Odorhei, Fizeșu Gherlii, Nireș, Tetișu and Dorolțu. Popa 1981, 7–89. “capellano apud sanctam Katherina Brassoviae existenti solvit dominus magister civium ex parte abatiae Kercz” Urkundenbuch, II, 626–628, no. 1230; Hervay 1984, 80–82. In the second part of the 13th century, or even earlier, Cistercians took over a Premonstratensian establishment, building a new church and demolishing the older one. Other authors consider that the Cistercian monastery was founded even earlier on, between 1202 and 1228. Rusu 2000, 80. The archaeological data are mentioned in Nussbächer 1981, 118. Investigated in 2003 and 2005, the results remain unpublished. Jenei 2004b, 401–403; Marcu-Istrate 2016a, 5–6. Binder 1969, 127, note 18; Urkundenbuch, IX, no. 9003; CDTrans.I., 180, no. 176.

252

Chapter 7

Figure 7.6 The archaeology of the parish site (Honterus Court) in Brașov: 1 – map from 1887: 1 – the Black Church; 2 – the spot of St Catherine’s chapel; 3 – the presumed spot of the Cistercian nunnery; 4 – the spot of St Laurence’s chapel; 5 – the round chapel uncovered in 2013–2014; 2 – ruins of the monastic buildings demolished before 1330 (in black and dark grey), uncovered during excavations in 2012–2013 (light grey) MAP AFTER JENEI 2015, 19; DRAWING BASED ON MARCU-ISTRATE 2015A, 84

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

253

latter had been mentioned in 1235, and considered destroyed in 1241, but, until recently, no material argument was available for its existence. Nevertheless, excavations carried out next to the Black Church in 2012–2013 have uncovered a large network of stone buildings dating to the 13th century, which could only belong to a monastery, very likely the Premonstratensian – and later Cistercian – one. It is interesting that the ruins belonged to domestic rooms clustered around the present-day parish church, suggesting that a monastic church should have been on the same spot. There is, however, a scarcity of evidence about the archaeological situation beneath the current church, although some ruins, reported there in the early 20th century, can be considered to have originated in the 13th century.45 As for the single-nave edifice mentioned above, its marginal position compared to the monastic buildings suggests a basic auxiliary function, perhaps that of a cemetery chapel. The monastery was dismantled in two main stages, in 1330 and 1380, to make room for the building of the parish church, and, very likely in this context, the nunnery was restricted to a smaller plot, around the former chapel, which supposedly took over the tasks of the demolished main church. The second situation was unearthed in Feldioara, one of the four villages donated to the Cistercian Order in 1240. Excavations within the ruined medieval fortress have brought to light the ruins of the Teutonic fortification built in around 1211,46 but also a complex of buildings including a small church. The latter had been still visible in the late 17th century, and some fragments even at the beginning of the 20th century, mentioned in scholarship as Teutonic remains (Fig. 7.7). The ruins were firstly investigated in the 1990s, and again in the 2010s, on the second occasion during extensive restoration works, offering the opportunity for large-scale excavations. A single-nave church with a horse-shaped apse was unearthed, framed to the east and south by regular arranged compartments: a three-celled wing to the south, and two parallel buildings to the east, the outer one with three cells as well. Church and buildings are standing in the eastern area of the former fortress, entirely occupying the spot, up to the edges of a very steep slope. The stratigraphical relations showed that the buildings followed the great Teutonic wall surrounding the fortress (disturbing its northern side) but predated the medieval Saxon fortress 45 46

Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 83–106. Feldioara is known mostly as the headquarters of the Teutonic Knights between 1211 and 1225. Roth 2010, 20–25. The settlement had been established mid-12th century by a community of Germanic colonists, although it is mentioned in documents for the first time in 1240, as Castrum Sanctae Mariae. Marcu-Istrate – Ioniță 2019, 125–142.

254

Chapter 7

(being overlapped by its eastern tower), and consequently had to be regarded as a distinct, intermediary stage. Taking into consideration that the knights left Feldioara in 1225 and the new fortress has been built in around 1300 (the main towers), it followed that the period of operation of the church and buildings was in fact the second half of the 13th century. To be sure, this had nothing to do with a parish church: in the second part of the 12th century there was already a cemetery and, very likely, a church within the nearby settlement, substantially westward from the Teutonic fortress, while the construction of the current parish church started ca. 1300, if not earlier still.47 Who could then build a second church, framed by two wings of buildings, within the former Teutonic fortification, in the second part of the 13th century? In this general context, one could hardly imagine that the situation had nothing to do with the Cistercian patronage of the settlement. On the contrary, this seems to be the only sensible interpretation, taking into consideration that according to the 1240 diploma, from that moment onward, no church or chapel could be built within the territory possessed by the order, without specific approval.48 On the other hand, the regular disposition of the buildings suggests a monastic use, with small cells for the monks and a large hall to be used as a refectory. As far as it is known, the incomes of the four granted villages went to the central house of the order, but for their administration a local point was doubtless necessary, and in this regard Feldioara certainly offered the best option, as the former headquarter of the knights and a fortified place. There is no mention in documents and no proof regarding the activity of what could be seen as a small convent, composed of the church and the surrounding buildings. Around mid-16th century, a foreign traveler, Giovan Andrea Gromo, mentioned in Feldioara a church that depended on an abbey in Brașov.49 This could by no means have been the Saxon parish, but only this chapel, located outside the village, probably at the moment administered by the Franciscan friary in the nearby Brașov. The church, 17 by 7 m large, has a rectangular nave and an elongated rounded apse, in the middle of which stood the massive foot of the Holy Table. The sturdy foundations of the walls, of which only the very base of the walls is preserved, measures 1.3 m in width, being made of irregularly broken quarry and river stone. 47 48 49

Treiber 1971, 137; Horwath 1929, 116–123. For the cemetery, see Ioniță and al. 2004, 59–60; Ioniță 2005, 217–228. Urkundenbuch, I, 76. Gromo, Giovan-Andrea, “[Descriere mai amplă a Transilvaniei 1970]”, 359.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

255

Figure 7.7 The archaeology of the fortress in Feldioara: 1 – Teutonic fortification (ruins); 2 and 3 – church and monastic buildings (ruins in black, reconstructions in a lighter shade), c.1240; 4 – present-day fortress – various phases (standing structures and ruins), c.1300–1700; 5 – various buildings and structures from the time of the late medieval fortress (ruins) Drawing by Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

The chronological point resulted from its stratigraphical relation with the monastic buildings, since it is certain that it worked alongside them for long. One could accept, however, the variant of the church as being originally a Teutonic foundation (1211–1225), abandoned at some stage and then taken over by the Cistercians in 1240, when they were granted the ‘church’ in Feldioara and probably settled for a period in the fortress. Such a timeline would explain why the apse was divided by a north-south wall, thus obtaining a rectangular space, which better suited the Cistercian architecture. Unfortunately, the change cannot be dated based on archaeological data, and the building has undergone various other structural modifications later. From the same group of the single-nave structures, an interesting church is the one in Sântămăria-Orlea,50 built in the late 13th century by a Catholic community in the service of the royal fortress of Hațeg, and in 1447 donated

50

Drăguț 1979a, 30–3; Entz 1968, 22; Popa 1988a, 232–233; Vătășianu 1959, 73–76, fig. 64 and 65; Szabó 2007, 277–304, regarding earlier restoration works (1788, 1908) and historical sources (mostly 19th-century ones) on the monument; Lupescu 2010a, 10–16, on the restoration works carried out around 1908–1911.

256

Chapter 7

to the Orthodox family of Cândești from Râu de Mori.51 This history resulted in a late Romanesque and early Gothic architecture, with Byzantine-style murals, which made this ecclesiastical building emblematic for rural medieval Transylvania (Fig. 7.8). There is a rectangular nave (14.2 by 8.5 m on the inside), covered with a ceiling, a rectangular chancel, and a western five-level tower, made of roughly hewn stone, with ashlars at the corners; the moulded masonry is of late Romanesque tradition, with paired windows on the upper floors of the tower and a semicircular portal with several recesses in the western façade. The sanctuary has ribbed vaults and a circular window, considered of Cistercian influence, and there is also a zigzag brick frieze decorating the upper part of the walls, underneath the cornice.52 Based upon all these features, a construction date in the 1270s or 1280s has been advanced, but no archaeological excavations have been carried out so far at the site.53 The chronology of the murals is clearer. The church was painted in 1311, and again in the 15th century, in an eclectic style that mixed Western influences with Byzantine themes and Slavonic inscriptions.54 Particularly remarkable for this period is the church in Prejmer, because of its unique cross-shaped plan, with an octagonal tower rising above the central bay.55 Standing now in the middle of a huge fortification, the church has preserved its medieval figure almost untouched, with minor, but significant, changes in around 1500.56 Its original shape and development have been

51

52 53 54 55

56

For the church as a knezial foundation: Vătășianu 1959, 74; Drăguț 1968b, 29–33; Moisescu 2001, 41–42, fig. 35. The status of the church after the donation remains uncertain, while a century later the Orthodox community was using the church alongside the Reformed one. Rusu 1997a, 314–315. Drăguț 1979a, 31; Rusu 1997a, 150. Rusu 1997a, 310–311, mentions older stonework elements, identified during certain research (wall structure studies?), but without detailing the subject. Lionnet 2002, 65–82, for the paintings. Its foundation date was attributed to the 1280’s. Popa 1988a, 232. Drăguț 1971, 61–74 for an in-depth analysis of the paintings, older bibliography, and a dating to the 13th–14th centuries; Drăguț 1970, 11–17, 40; Vătășianu 1930, 6–11; Vătășianu 1959, 74–77; Porumb 1998, 362. There was an early colony in Prejmer, probably founded in the early 13th century under the protection of the Teutonic Knights. However, only the river bearing this name was mentioned in 1211, while a church was recorded firstly in 1240, in the donation to the Cistercian Order. Urkundenbuch, I, 76. Roth 1934, 70–72; Horwath 1929, 149–158; Morres 1929, 170–172; Fabini 1998, I, 727–734; Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 42; Drăguț 1979a, 17–25; Treiber 1971, 140. A synthesis about the state of research, the development of the church, and the applicable bibliography: Salontai 2006, 13–20.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

257

Figure 7.8 The Reformed (former Catholic, former Orthodox) church in Sântămărie Orlea Drawing based on Rusu 1997a, fig. 46 and Moisescu 2001, 170, fig. 205; photo by the author

258

Chapter 7

established during the 1960s restoration works, when architectural and archaeological investigations were carried out, the latter only recently processed and published.57 It resulted that the basic ground plan was a perfect cross with equal arms, each one consisting of a square bay and a three-sided apse, with small, square cells in-between arms (Fig. 7.9). The building was attributed to the close environment of the Cistercian workshop in Cârța and dated around 1250, particularly due to its early Gothic vaulting system, simple ribs, circular keystones, multi-foil windows, and the structure of the eastern wall, with paired rectangular windows surmounted by circular ones.58 However, looking for direct connections, the original crocket stone cornice led to the workshop of the Roman-Catholic cathedral in Alba Iulia and to a proposed dating in the 1260s or 1270s.59 A thorough study of the building, stressing the late Romanesque and early Gothic elements, and based on a more extensive range of analogies, has recently suggested the possibility of the church being in fact the work of a French workshop.60 A first addition to the original ground plan was a kind of ‘portico’ extending the western arm, whose foundation was unearthed by restorers in 1962, but only recently interpreted as a small staircase, providing access to the attic and the main tower.61 Some changes have been assigned to around 1460, when Gothic vaults covered the central bay and the western wing with its side rooms, and some windows were widened, but this was an intermediary stage from which only archaeological traces remained.62 In turn, in the early 16th century, more exactly between 1511 and 1515, substantial changes occurred: the western arm of the cross was extended, the vaults were partially reconstructed, some openings were adjusted, and some of the rooms standing between the wings were demolished. Further interventions, which can be followed through the 19th century, brought only minor changes, and they were removed during the last restoration. 57

58 59 60 61 62

A synthesis of the observations made during the restoration works, including archaeological conclusions set forth by Radu Heitel in his field reports, has been published by the main architect: Angelescu 1963, 40–49. The archaeological works undertaken by Radu Heitel have been processed and published in: Marcu-Istrate, 2013c, 132–153; Marcu-Istrate 2011b, 135–152. See also Heitel 2013, 125–131. Vătășianu1959, 105–107; Drăguț 1979a, 17–20; Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, II, 222–223. Angelescu 1963, 45–46. Salontai 2005, 10–12; Tănase 1993, 79. Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 136–141, fig. 2–3. Angelescu 1963, 47–48 for architectural details. The year 1461 mentioned in an inscription on the tower could be related to its construction, as Sanda Salontai has suggested: Salontai 2006, 17–18; Fabini 1998, I, 733.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

Figure 7.9 The Evangelical church in Prejmer: the first, 13th century stage (reconstructed based on archaeological excavations) and view to the eastern lobe Drawing after Marcu-Istrate 2013c, fig.3; photo by the author

259

260

Chapter 7

There is an abundant bibliography on this church and the archaeological investigations that accompanied the 1960s restoration works were quite extensive. Despite this, dating the early phase remained an open issue, given that the cross-shaped ground plan with equal wings, a unique occurrence in Transylvania, has been obviously caused by exceptional circumstances. Analysis of the surviving restoration papers, among them a summary archaeological field report, showed that a building with massive stone foundations, whose ground plan could not be established, stood firstly on the spot.63 A coin issued in the late 12th century, or the early 13th century dated this stage, most likely related to a colony established under the protection of the Teutonic Knights. A comparative analysis of the ruins suggested the possibility of them being a product of the knights, taking into consideration the large size of the foundations, almost 2 m wide, very similar to those of the enclosure wall in the Teutonic headquarter in Feldioara. Radu Heitel noticed that this first attempt to build something in Prejmer failed after making the foundations, and the construction site was interrupted for a while. Apparently, when the ‘church’ of Prejmer was donated to the Cistercians, there was no church in operation there, or at least not on that plot, and not a stone building, but only some abandoned foundations. The cross-shaped church was built in a single stage, without any interruption between laying the foundations and raising the walls, as some have previously stated.64 According to field reports, older structures were reused in the eastern area, which resulted in various foundation widths65 (Fig. 7.10). If the present church, with its architectural features, was built in a single effort, this could only have happened in the second half of the 13th century, when the settlement was a property of the Cistercians and building any church required their acceptance. Nevertheless, why a building with such a specific shape? Why not a single-nave church as in Brașov or Feldioara, or a basilica, as in Hălmeag or Cârța or in any other German settlement? Analyzing the situation, it is important to bear in mind not only the ground shape, but the whole complexity of the building, the making of which far exceeded both the needs and the possibilities of a common parish investment, even one sustained by hospites. Opting for such a specific design, both in terms of ground plan and of architectural features, would have been rather the choice of an individual with knowledge of similar buildings from the Rhenish area (where the most suitable similarities have been identified)66 and, no less important, with the means to carry out the project. 63 64 65 66

Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 148–149; Popescu 1987, 153. Fabini 1998, I, 733. Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 141–142. Salontai 2006, 18–20.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

Figure 7.10

261

The archaeology of the church in Prejmer: 1 – the first stage, probably from Teutonic times; 2 – the demolished segments of the first church; 3 – the first extension to the west; 4 – various extensions; 5 – the church in 1962–1963, during excavations (6) After Marcu-Istrate 2013c, fig. 1

In terms of general appearance, the church fits the second half of the 13th century, being thus partly contemporary with the reconstruction of the sanctuary of the cathedral in Alba Iulia and with the stone phase of the monastery in Cârța. Identifying a specific workshop has not been possible so far, but there are some very suggestive peculiarities of the site: a lack of a medieval cemetery on the site, and, in fact, activity on site was extremely scarce in comparison to any other known parish site from the same period and environment.67 This would suggest, once again, a private or proprietary character of the church during its first centuries of activity, but there are no clues – such as the presence of 67

See for example the characteristics of some parish sites, as the ones in Drăușeni (Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 48) and Sibiu (Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 45–46).

262

Chapter 7

a wealthy family residence or of a Cistercian house – for identifying the owner. A detailed topography of the area around the church would be of great use in this matter, but for this, more comprehensive studies and extensive archaeological research are needed. Going back to the building history, one should remember that the first major changes of the original pattern occurred between 1461 and 1515, aiming to extend the church by transforming the western wing into a large nave, widening the windows, heightening the central tower, adding a stair to it, and re-vaulting the central bay. These structural changes suggest an attempt to change finally the building for a public use, and it could hardly have been a simple coincidence that this corresponds to the ending of the Cistercian activity in Cârța and Brașov, and very likely of their patronage over the four villages too. The in-depth analysis of the site, the lack of a medieval cemetery and the quite simple stratigraphy compared with similar parish sites, all led to the same picture, that of a private church built in the second half of the 13th century and becoming a public one in late 15th century. The completion of the fortified enclosure, which will be analyzed in chapter 10, occurred in the same context, but, unfortunately, its early history is also poorly known.68 7.4

Summary of the Chapter

The second half of the 13th century was an in-between period, having the main construction sites in Alba Iulia (the eastern and western parts of the second cathedral) and in Cârța (the Cistercian monastery), both as major avenues for the spread of Gothic in the area. Scholarship has especially stressed the contribution brought by the monastery in Cârța in shaping local designs, in terms of both ground plan (the sanctuary flanked by chapels) and architectural character. Nevertheless, the churches exhibiting these influences were buildings so dissimilar that today it is impossible to argue for the existence of a single, unitary construction school, active all throughout Transylvania at this time. There are several monuments that preserve their medieval shape, such as the above-mentioned ones in Brașov-Bartolomeu, Hălmeag, and Prejmer. Nevertheless, at least for the last two, archaeological investigations showed very different buildings, with multi-stages development. There are, of course, other significant churches to be included in the discussion on the early Gothic

68

Marcu-Istrate 2013c, 150–151.

The Romanesque-Gothic Architecture

263

architecture, under Cistercian influence, such as the ones in Sic69 and Rodna,70 but, currently, the data on them are scarce and, at least in Rodna, the structural development is effectively unknown. Although the Cistercians had a multifaceted presence in Transylvania, scholarship is mostly one-sided. For instance, the famous 1240 document has been intensely debated from a historical standpoint, but never correlated with matters of architecture, albeit this is the only tangible remnant of the Cistercian activity in the region. This chapter proposes a first approach from this perspective, while there is a need for much in-depth work for understanding the period, including the four cases granted to Cistercians in 1240 (Sânpetru-Petersberg, Feldioara, Hărman, and Prejmer). For the current state-of-the-art, the case of Hărman is relevant: excavation found many unexpected stages, including the fact that the sanctuary-flanked-by-chapels design had been already made in the early 13th century. Such an occurrence deserves further analysis, being important even for better understanding the building of the monastic church in Cârța in its known shape. A final observation about this so often quoted monastery would be that, despite the colossal amount of literature written about it, there are facets of its history not yet explored in connection with its specific context. In particular, its role in the dissemination of the Gothic style is to be sought firstly in the nearby vicinity, and then in areas much further away, such as Northern Transylvania. Recent discoveries made in Feldioara and Brașov bring the scholarship closer to a broader perspective, attesting that the Cistercians’ presence meant more than just the monastery in Cârța. They contributed to the spread of Gothic architectural designs, while also supporting several construction sites and fostering colonies established by the Teutonic Knights earlier in the century. The 13th century prepared the way for masonry religious architecture on an incomparably larger scale, for the making of the urban religious landscape, and for a widespread dissemination of the Gothic style, as detailed in the following chapters. 69 70

Drăguț 1968a, 44–45; Drăguț 1979a, 27–28. The ensemble was documented for the first time in 1916. Csányi – Lux 1943, 91–93; Vătășianu 1959, 35–36, 116–117; Salontai 2010, 297–320; Entz 1968, 127–176; Treiber 1971, 25–26. An old church had been destroyed in Rodna at the time of the Mongol invasion, together with the entire settlement, but in the second part of the 13th century Rodna was mentioned as a ‘civitas’. Urkundenbuch, I, 204, no. 276; DIR.C.II, 383, no. 422; Binder 1992, 145–149. A second church, from which some ruins are still standing, was built shortly after the mid-13th century. Archaeological investigations were undertaken as early as 1923 (Wagner 1926, 19–22), to be resumed on a larger scale in the 1950s (Vătășianu – Protase – Rusu 1957, 211–218). Sanda Salontai has proposed a basilican body and a sanctuary with rectangular chapels on both sides, datable architecturally in the third quarter of the 13th century. Salontai 2010, 299–300. See also Hegyi 2006, 33–54.

Chapter 8

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century 8.1

General Historical Background

After the devastating Mongol invasions of the 13th century, the early 14th century brought stability and economic progress in Transylvania. Urban-type areas, including thriving economic and commercial centres, had emerged during the 13th century, often comprising rural settlements (as in the case of Brașov or Turda), and gradually acquired urban status. This was a general phenomenon in the Kingdom of Hungary, where around fifty settlements received official town status through royal charters issued in the 13th–14th centuries.1 Under the protection of the kings from the House of Anjou, deeply interested in urban growth, the political and economic context was favourable for such a 1 Petrovics 2016, 79–81. Map 8.1

→

Sites relevant for the Gothic period of Transylvanian church architecture (chapters 8 and 9). The sites in the South-Transylvanian Saxon colonization area, focused on the flow of Târnava Mare, and in the neighbouring Szekler areas, are shown in further detail – 1. Abram; 2. Agârbiciu; 3. Aiud; 4. Alba Iulia; 5. Albiș; 6. Aluniș; 7. Armășeni; 8. Ațel; 9. Axente Sever; 10. Baia Mare; 11. Bădeni; 12. Băgaciu; 13. Biertan; 14. Bistrița; 15. Bonțida; 16. Bozieș; 17. Brașov; 18. Brateiu; 19. Buzd; 20. Cața; 21. Cârța Monastery; 22. Cârța- Csíkkarcfalva; 23. Cincșor; 24. Cisnădie; 25. Ciumești; 26. Cloașterf; 27. Cluj-Napoca; 28. Cojocna; 29. Copșa Mare; 30. Copșa Mică – Târnăvioara; 31. Corvinești; 32. Coșeiu; 33. Cricău; 34. Cristian-Großau; 35. Cristuru Secuiesc; 36. Curciu; 37. Dacia; 38. Daia; 39. Dealu Frumos; 40. Dej; 41. Dipșa; 42. Dobeni; 43. Drăușeni; 44. Făgăraș; 45. Feldioara; 46. Feleacu; 47. Feliceni; 48. Ghelința; 49. Gheorghieni; 50. Gusu; 51. Hațeg; 52. Huedin; 53. Hunedoara; 54. Iacobeni; 55. Ighișu Nou; 56. Laslea; 57. Lechința; 58. Lemnia; 59. Livada Mică; 60. Lupșa; 61. Matei; 62. Mălâncrav; 63. Mănăstirea; 64. Mediaș; 65. Meseșenii de Jos; 66. Meșendorf; 67. Miercurea Ciuc – Șumuleu Ciuc; 68. Misentea; 69. Moldovenești; 70. Moșna; 71. Motiș; 72. Mugeni; 73. Nima; 74. Nireș; 75. Ocna Dejului ; 76. Ocna Sibiului; 77. Odorheiu Secuiesc; 78. Oradea; 79. Orăștie; 80. Orman; 81. Panticeu; 82. Păuca; 83. Porumbenii Mari; 84. Reghin; 85. Remeți; 86. Reteag; 87. Richiș; 88. Rugănești; 89. Rupea; 90. Săcuieni; 91. Sâncraiu; 92. Sâncraiu de Mureș; 93. Sâncrăieni; 94. Sândominic; 95. Sebeș; 96. Sibiu; 97. Sic; 98. Sighișoara; 99. Slimnic; 100. Strugureni; 101. Șaroș pe Târnave; 102. Șeica Mare; 103. Șeica Mică; 104. Șura Mare; 105. Șura Mică; 106. Tărpiu; 107. Târgu Mureș; 108. Târnava; 109. Teaca; 110. Teiuș; 111. Tiocu de Jos; 112. Tomești; 113. Turda (including Turda Veche, Turda Nouă, and Bisericani); 114. Țapu; 115. Țigău; 116. Valchid; 117. Valea Lungă; 118. Viișoara; 119. Vințu de Jos; 120. Viscri; 121. Saschiz Author: Daniela Marcu Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_010

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

265

266

Chapter 8

development. In 1301, the Árpád dynasty came to an end when its last descendent, Andrew III (1290–1301), passed away. Charles Robert (1308–1342), from the Neapolitan branch of the House of Anjou, won the competition for the throne. For several decades, he kept his country’s gates open for Italian art, and, despite the hostility of the kingdom’s old aristocracy, he strongly supported the nobility and the towns, especially of Transylvania and Slovakia. In fact, at the beginning of his reign, he set his residence in Timișoara, in the region of Banat. His successors, Louis I the Great (1342–1382) and Sigismund of Luxembourg (1387–1437), shared his pro-urban vision and granted the new towns privileges, tax exemptions, donations of land, and revenues.2 Unlike the towns in Hungary, where the so-called “guests” or colonists represented usually a diaspora,3 most of the important towns of Transylvania had grown from settlements established by hospites (Sibiu, Brașov, Sebeș, Sighișoara, Bistrița, and others).4 Saxon communities thrived in many other towns as well, helping them prosper and acquire or maintain a privileged status.5 They also played an important role in mining settlements (Turda, Dej, Ocna Dejului, Sic, Cojocna), even though not all of them were to develop into major towns.6 A notable example is Turda, a rural settlement, established near the fortress of Moldovenești, in connection with the salt mining activities in the region, where German colonists were mentioned as early as 1177 and, by and large, they are credited with an important contribution to local development.7 Since the time of their arrival, the hospites had been granted a wide array of privileges, including the right to elect their leaders and priests.8 In addition, they benefited from strong connections with Central Europe, a situation from which many cultural and other opportunities arose. Moreover, the geographical position of their main lands at the crossroads of Central Europe and the Near East through the Balkans, guaranteed advantages, related mainly to trade, the mediation of exchanges, and the management of custom transactions. 2 Petrovics 1997, 39–40; Niedermaier 2002, 243–257. 3 Petrovics 2011, 19–20. 4 An introduction into the subject in: Roth 2003, xix–xxi. Detailed studies on the emergence and development of the cities of Transylvania in: Niedermaier 1979a, 1996a, 2002 and 2004. See also: Nägler 1979, 194–196; Rüsz-Fogarasi 2003, 30–42; Pinter 2005, 91–111; Rusu 1994, 23–41; Greceanu 1979b, 133–154. 5 For instance, they formed a self-standing community in Cluj; similar situations in Baia Mare, Aiud, probably also in Alba Iulia. Lupescu 2005, 43–55. 6 Csallner 1927, 84–100. 7 The donation charter of 1291 (which confirmed a previous charter and was repeatedly reinforced) granted them equal rights with those of the royal guests in Ocna Dejului, Sic, and Cojocna. DIR.C.II., 376–377, 511–512; Weisz 2013, 20 8 The charter of 1224: Urkundenbuch, I, 32–35; DIR.C.I., 208–210; Zimmermann 1996, 39–40.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

267

Figure 8.1 The Evangelical church in Sighișoara, 14th–15th centuries After Leonhard – Eberle – Frank 2009, 44

The first charters granting urban status were issued right after 1300, fuelling the rise of a complex urban network in the following decades.9 Cluj, Dej, Baia Mare, and Oradea were among the most important towns in the kingdom. Sibiu, Brașov, Bistrița, Mediaș, Orăștie, Sebeș, and Sighișoara (Fig. 8.1) were free royal towns, while Alba Iulia had developed as an episcopal town.10 Several other small settlements, with borough status, or with a less visible proto-urban development, experienced growth in the 14th century. In the eastern, Szekler regions, the most developed were Târgu Mureș and Cristuru Secuiesc, while, in the north, the most prosperous towns were Dej, Turda, Aiud, and Reghin. In the south, there was notable development in Moșna, Biertan, Feldioara, 9 10

Gündisch 2006, 49–63; Rüsz-Fogarasi 2003, 128–141; Gross 2009, 86–106; Firea 2003, 123– 138; Weisz 2013, 25. General data in: Petrovics 2016, 82; Rüsz-Fogarasi 2003, 209; Gündisch 1974, 199–206; Gündisch 1993; Gündisch 2006, 49–63. See also: Goldenberg 1958, 16–26, for Cluj; Dahinten 1988, 56–59, for Bistrița; Philippi 1986, and Roth 2010, 33–59, for Brașov. For particular places: Roth 2003, 1–221.

268

Chapter 8

Făgăraș, and many others. Several settlements with favourable locations, near salt mines (Cojocna, Sic, Ocna Sibiului),11 on commercial roads, or in the proximity of noble, royal, or voivodal residences, were granted borough status. Among these were Teaca, Bonțida, Reteag, and Lechința, along the road connecting the centre and the north of Transylvania.12 Overall, the economy improved during the 14th century. Crafts and trade developed considerably, and material culture enriched and diversified. In 1376, upon the renewal of the statutes of the guilds in Sibiu, Sighișoara, Sebeș, and Orăștie, no less than twenty-five active guilds were recorded, suggesting a professional order sensibly older.13 Progress was also evident in the countryside: Panticeu, a village in the north, had seven stonemasons in the first half of the 15th century.14 Around 1500, a workshop manufacturing stove tiles was active in Feldioara, a borough near Brașov, where large amounts of tiles were produced with original moulds, to be sold at least on a regional market.15 The major centres developed into economic, craft, and trade hubs with a blooming cultural and artistic life, increasingly rooted into the European art, and quickly attaining significant progresses in various fields. Their prosperity fostered an intellectual elite, educated at prestigious universities in Europe, and the appearance of some great local schools. There was a favourable situation for construction sites, consequently many representative ecclesiastical and civil buildings, but fortifications as well, were erected. The pace of construction was extremely fast, surpassing in quantity and quality any other historical period. Regardless of their social-economic situation, communities focused on obtaining funds for completing imposing churches, larger, sturdier, and more beautiful than before, whose appearance would not only reflect their material possibilities, but also reinforce their status. Almost every community without a church found now an opportunity to build one, while the standing churches were enlarged, embellished, or replaced altogether. Besides public religious buildings, many private, secondary, and monastic churches were built as well. 11 12 13

14 15

Rüsz-Fogarasi 2003, especially 180–215. Kubinyi 2006, 50–60, for the status of smaller settlements and fairs, just as important, and often with privileged or free status. See Entz 1996, 355–356, for the town of Cluj. The dates were later for other towns, but this is probably due to the scarcity of surviving documents. For instance, the first reference to a craftsman in Turda dates from 1408, but, taking into account the development of the town at that time, it is clear that activities of craftsmanship were very intense. Weisz 2013, 26–27. Pascu 1954, 232; Popa 1981, 10. Marcu-Istrate 2003, 305–328. Uncovered in the 1990s, the workshop of Feldioara has remained to this day a unique find in medieval Transylvania.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

269

Although it is undeniable that this intense church-building activity was the outcome of social-economic growth, it was also a response to those troubled times, stamped by epidemics, famine, and the constant threat of pagan and Muslim invasions, which led to an exacerbation of religious feeling and spurred an impulse to improve continuously the material context of worship. Ecclesiastical architecture was an upshot of this heightened religious sensibility, here as everywhere else in Catholic Europe.16 In the late 14th century, the main threat came from the Ottoman Empire. In 1395, King Sigismund met the Prince of Wallachia, Mircea the Elder, in Brașov, to sign the first treaty of cooperation against the Ottomans.17 The prospect of invasions intensified throughout the 15th century, reaching a peak in the late 1400s.18 The fear and terror drove communities to build fortified churches, which are a highly distinctive feature of late medieval architecture in Transylvania. 8.1.1 Architectural Tendencies At the beginning of the 14th century, there was a general trend to replace the old Romanesque churches with larger, Gothic ones, or at least to improve them by adding new elements. The most important urban churches were (re)built during the 14th century: a cathedral was built in Oradea (1342–1372), the reconstruction of the old parish church began in Sibiu, and the sites of the churches in Cluj (after 1349) and Sighișoara (after 1345) (Fig. 8.1) were active by mid-century. In the second half of the 14th century, the choir in Sebeș (Fig. 8.2) was rebuilt (to be finished around 1382), and work was underway on the church in Brașov – completed, just like the one in Sighișoara, during the 15th century. The parish church in Turda was finished during the second half of the 15th century, and so were the churches in Mediaș and Huedin. All of these were very imposing buildings, and could reach considerable lengths: the longest one was in Brașov (89 m); the ones in Sibiu and Cluj were about 70 m long, those in Bistrița and Sebeș over 60 m, and those in Aiud, Sighișoara, and Mediaș roughly 45–50 m. Complex religious centres developed close to the new urban parish churches, including chapels and monasteries, most of them built or at least finished during the 14th or the 15th centuries. Documentary references and archaeological excavations allow for a relatively adequate reconstruction of this topography 16 17 18

Delumeau 1986, II, 131; Cernovodeanu – Binder 1993, 23–76; Jenei 2004a, 17–19. Binder 1970, 59–67. Having reached the Danube in 1394, the Ottomans systematically devastated Transylvania throughout the entire 15th century, in 1421, 1432, 1436, 1438, 1442, 1444, 1476, 1493, etc.

270

Chapter 8

Figure 8.2 The Evangelical church in Sebeș, the south side of the sanctuary, late 14th century Photo by Radu Lupescu

Figure 8.3 The archaeology of the parish site in Baia Mare, of which only St Stephen’s tower is standing: St Stephen’s church (dark and light grey); medieval churches, very likely St Catherine (in red) and St Martin (in green); cemetery wall, in yellow After Szőcs – Pop 2020, fig. 1

→

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

271

272

Chapter 8

in Brașov,19 Sibiu,20 Cluj,21 Bistrița,22 Sighișoara,23 and Baia Mare (Fig. 8.3),24 but most of the buildings have disappeared. The towns within the voivodeship usually had only one parish church, but, as they expanded, smaller churches appeared in neighbourhoods, usually referred to as chapels. They had certainly taken on some parish functions, most commonly providing funeral-related services.25 In larger settlements, inhabited by communities with different social backgrounds, a second parish was often established, as, for example, in Cluj, where the parish of St Peter served the Hungarian community, while, in Aiud, a parish was set up for Saxons.26 New parishes emerged when rural settlements came together to form a town, as was the case with the parish of St Bartholomew in Brașov,27 or with the parishes corresponding to the villages of Turda Nouă and Bisericani, which would became part of Turda.28 Around 1300, the town of Sibiu had several churches, private chapels, and monasteries, as well as one or two churches belonging to the hospital, and a complex parish site with a main church and at least three working chapels in its proximity. In 1379, Brașov became the religious centre of the Land of Bârsa, but too little is known about its religious topography. At that time, construction on the site of the parish church had just begun (Fig. 8.4), an older Cistercian monastery was still operating nearby, and several chapels were to be added by mid-15th century.29 In the 14th century, there were nine parish churches and six mendicant monasteries in the episcopal town of Oradea.30 The religious landscape included an important number of monasteries as well, thanks to which the number of churches increased greatly. Practically, by the end of the 15th century, all towns and boroughs had at least one house of 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 53–65; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 137–152; Marcu-Istrate 2016a, 2–12; Marcu-Istrate 2016b, 7–28. Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2017, 542–593; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 351–395; Fabini 1982, 152–156. Lupescu 2005, 25–77; Gáll – Gergely 2009b; Gáll – Gergely 2009a, 215–226; Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 114–123. Salontai 2011, 53–58; Dahinten 1988. Archaeology: Gaiu – Duda, 2008, 9–27. Niedermaier 1979b, 67–74; Baltag 2004, 205–214, Machat 2002. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16. Greceanu 2006, 143–164. Archaeology: Szőcs 2018, 103–107; Szőcs – Pop 2020, 227–254; Szőcs 2020b, 435–452. Popa 2002, 41–42. Benkő 2004, 8–18. Niedermaier 2007, 18–19; Treiber 1971, 143–147. Weisz 2013, 26–42. Marcu-Istrate 2015a,53–65. Emődi 2016, 13–21.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.4 The Black Church in Brașov, view from the east, and the south-eastern porch Photos by Angel Istrate

273

274

Chapter 8

the mendicant orders, with Dominicans and Franciscans often co-existing.31 Even though some monastic complexes had been founded in the previous century, their churches date to the 14th–15th centuries, among the most famous being the ones of the Dominican monasteries in Vințu de Jos, Sebeș, Cluj, Brașov, and Sighișoara,32 the Franciscan ones in Târgu Mureș, Mediaș, Teiuș, and Coșeiu33 or the Paulinian ones.34 Beside communities, more than in any other period, wealthy families of various ranks bestowed funds for building churches near their residences and fortifications. Usually known as chapels, private churches multiplied in patrician urban residences35 (as for example in Sibiu) and, above all, in country courtyards, including in the less privileged environment of the Orthodox nobility from the edges of the province. Most of the court chapels in northern Transylvania date to this period, either as as single-nave buildings with polygonal apses (Aluniș, Bozieș, Corvinești, Strugureni) or with square chancels (Nima, Nireș, Orman, Matei, Tiocu de Jos). Their layout was often limited to a two-room structure, but there are also more complex examples, for instance the chapel of the castle in Hunedoara,36 or the church founded by the Kornis family in Mănăstirea. Most of the foundations belonging to the noble Orthodox families in the Land of Hațeg date also to the 14th–15th centuries,

31 32 33 34

35 36

Klaniczay 2010, 245–260. Salontai 1996a, 187–193; Salontai 2002b, 295–310. Salontai 2002a, 51–58. For an overview of the situation throughout the voivodeship: Bencze 2020a, 206–243. See also Bencze 2015a, 10–17, for the Land of Szeklers. In general, on this Hungarian order: Romhány 2012, 53–56. Their number in Transylvanian is not exactly known, because they have largely disappeared, as for example the one in Sâncraiu de Mureș, demolished during the 16th century to reuse its fabric for the building of the citadel in Târgu Mureș. Benkő 2012, I, 261; Bencze 2015a, 12–13. Their monastery in Păuca is partially preserved in its 15th-century shape, but only recently has been the subject of archaeological explorations. Hopârtean 2016, 163–172; Țiplic – Tomegea 2016. Gündisch G. 2001, 127–145; Gündisch 1974, 199–206; Gündisch 1993, 90–94; Fabini 1982, 140–147, 157–173; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 379–385. The chapel seems to have been the first building erected in the second stage of the castle in Hunedoara, under the patronage of John Hunyadi, by the mid-15th century. Works were still underway in 1454 (Codrea 2005, 288), but most authors indicate 1446 as the final point. Anghel 1975, 371. Archaeological surveys were made several times, first in 1956– 1957, then in the 1990s and 2000s, but a clear picture of their results does not exist. The first excavations are mentioned in Bogdan 1970, 18–25, and note 3; Roman – Diaconescu – Țiplic 2004, 187–217. In general, on the castle and its restorations: Lupescu 2010a, 10–16; Lupescu 2011, 10–18; Velescu 1958, 57–72; Anghel 1975, 363–376. The history of investigations: Lupescu 2004, 43–57.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

275

but their beginnings could go even further back. This was also the time when almost all fortifications were endowed with chapels.37 This constructive élan had strong echoes in the countryside, and it was perhaps only at this time that ecclesiastical stone architecture became widespread in villages. Many of the Romanesque churches were rebuilt and/or expanded, but entirely new churches were also raised in recently established communities, or in settlements that could not previously afford the expenses for a construction site. Usually, the church was the main stone building, but often parish sites included chapels: the one in Moșna was a single-nave Gothic church with an outstanding architectural design, and, in Saschiz, there were five churches in operation in the mid-15th century, apart from the parish one. The rural ecclesiastical landscape also featured monasteries, as in Coșeiu (Fig. 8.10) or Vințu de Jos (Fig. 8.11.1). 8.2

Making the Gothic Churches

As seen in the previous chapter, Gothic features had appeared since the second part of the 13th century, to become widespread particularly after 1300 (Chapter 7). However, Romanesque features survived here and there until about 1350 (mainly in villages but also in important towns like Sibiu, Reghin, and Bistrița), while Gothic became common in the second half of the 14th century and beyond.38 The major parish churches, built on construction sites that lasted for centuries, are representative monuments of Central European Gothic art. The sanctuary in Sebeș was among the first hall structures ever built. The Black Church in Brașov (Fig. 8.4) is the largest Gothic church east of Vienna, while the churches in Sibiu, Cluj, Baia Mare, Bistrița, and Sighișoara were also remarkable achievements for those times. However, it is not uncommon to find Gothic churches with exceptional decorations in the countryside, and Richiș

37 38

Rusu 2005, 202–219. Vătășianu 1959, 513–623; Entz 1959, 217–232; Guy Marica 1970; Drăguț 1968a, 41–49; Drăguț 1979a; Busuioc 1978, 8–13. On the murals, see Jenei 2016. On sculpture, see Arion 1974. The following studies providing general information are useful: Folbert 1973; Marosi 1984; Nussbaum 2000, 15–48; Papp 2014, 26–49. Particular studies: Burnichioiu 1999, 107–120; Buzás 1999, 135–162; Popa 1970, 313–317; Popa 1981, 7–89; Popa 2002, 41–50; Firea 2008, 47–74; Guy Marica 1995, 9–20; Papp 2011, 118–141; Salontai 2013a, 217–235; Salontai 2013b, 55–70; Weisz 2008, 75–108. On the Late Gothic in the kingdom and in Transylvania, see Buzás 2001, 38–50. See Papp 2005, 142–149, for the second half of the 15th century.

276

Chapter 8

offers one such example.39 In addition to monumental buildings, Gothic art frequently appeared through small changes and individual elements, as, for example, insertion of specific profiles and decorations (portals in Ighișu Nou and Ațel),40 and the addition of murals (in Mălâncrav, for example).41 Towns and villages, monastic orders, and rich people, all aspired toward imposing and stylish constructions, and often turned to stonemasons and workshops from Europe.42 It was mostly at town churches that local Gothic benefited from European expertise, and it was claimed that all the large sites were influenced by the Parler family’s school of architecture. Stonemasons from the construction sites of the choir of St Sebaldus in Nuremberg and St Vitus in Prague are thought to have worked in Sebeș and Sibiu, while the impact of the sites from Vienna and Košice (St Elizabeth’s church) was more expressive in Cluj and Brașov. Building the major churches decisively influenced the development of architecture in surrounding areas, and gradually local workshops were set up. An influential centre was the one in Sibiu, during all of its stages, in terms of ground plan (Richiș, Șaroș pe Târnave (Fig. 8.12)), Ațel or the partially built hall-church in Mediaș (Fig. 8.19), or the dissemination of decorative models, which were probably completed in Sibiu and then exported to various locations (Slimnic, Meșendorf (Fig. 8.5.1), Cloașterf, etc.). The single-nave church in Dej had a great influence in the northern half of Transylvania, including the Bistrița area.43 8.2.1 Single-Nave Churches The most common design of the period was the single rectangular nave, ended eastward into a polygonal, five- or six-sided buttressed apse. The choir was usually narrower than the nave, but there are also examples of un-recessed cells, the sanctuary and the nave having the same width. There were also cases with an even number of sides, whereas intermediate, hybrid shapes, with different numbers of internal and external sides, were rare. In villages, such unusual shapes were more than likely the result of the builders’ less refined skills. Two additions were quite common: a tower, typically, but not mandatory, to the west, and a sacristy to the north.

39 40 41 42 43

Treiber 1971, 204; Vătășianu 1959, 235–237; Fabini 1998, I, 583–586; Popa 1999, 163–187. Ațel: Fabini 1998, I, 295–299; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 148; Sinigalia 2012, 237–255. Ighiș: Fabini 1998, I, 167–170; Treiber 1971, 192; Olasz 2012, 103–122. Drăguț 1976b, 11–22; Gogâltan – Sallay 2002, 181–210; Jenei 2016, 93–140. Entz 1959, 217–232; Drăguț 1979a, 191; Salontai 2013a, 217–235; Salontai 2013b, 55–70; Salontai 2001, 5–11. Entz 1942; Szőke 2012, 215–235; Drăguț 1979a, 70; Popa 1981, 81–83.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

277

Figure 8.5 The archaeology of the Gotic churches in Meșendorf and Tărpiu: 1 – the Evangelical church in Meșendorf, early 14th century, fortification of the tower in the 15th century; 2 – the Orthodox (former Evangelical) church in Tărpiu: 1 – the Romanesque apse, 13th century; 2 – the second stage, late 13th–early 14th centuries; 3 – the late medieval church, today operating as an Orthodox one, late 15th–early 16th centuries DRAWINGS BASED ON FABINI 1998, FIG. 288.2 (1) AND RĂDULESCU 2010, PL. 7 AND 10

If discussion is limited to the ground plan, then the main difference compared to the previous stage of construction was the polygonal east end, which largely replaced semicircular or rectangular apses. After 1350, almost every new single-nave church was built according to this pattern and replacing older Romanesque sanctuaries would become fashionable in the 14th–15th centuries, lasting well into the early 16th century. This pattern was common in the

278

Chapter 8

countryside, but also in urban and monastic environments, and its popularity was so great that it entered Orthodox architecture as well, wherever the communities (Feleacu) or the landowners (Lupșa) could financially support the (re)building of such a church. In stylistic terms, there was a mixture of Romanesque and Gothic features, in various combinations, but almost always the east end took the multi-sided shape. A good representative in this regard is the church in Ciumești village, with its two portals, the western semicircular and the southern in a pointed arch. The western portal, the semicircular triumphal arch, as well as other details of the brickwork would suggest an early date, while the layout would indicate the 14th century. Wall structure and archaeological research carried out before the latest restoration confirmed a single-step building during the second quarter of the 14th century.44 This proved that portals of different styles could be used all at once, and there was no rule for a stylistic composition.45 A Gothic church with a polygonal apse and cross-ribbed vaults was built in Sândominic, in the first half of the 14th century, but its portals were rounded as well.46 However, the most outstanding buildings were built by urban communities, whether we are referring to parishes, as in Turda, Dej (52 m), and Huedin (47 m), or monastic churches, as the Dominican ones, usually over 50 m long.47 The Roman-Catholic church in Turda Veche, with a total length of 59 m (including the tower), and a width of over 18 m, was an entirely new building, on the spot of an older church, from which archaeological excavation has extracted some fragments.48 The very large rectangular nave was intended to be divided into aisles, but the project eventually changed, and the space remained opened. In southern Transylvania, single-nave Gothic churches started to be built in the 13th century, but their number increased mainly during the 14th century.49

44 45

46 47 48

49

Emődi – Szőcs 2014, 283–294, fig. 12, with the general plan of the archaeological excavations, and fig. 15, with a reconstruction of the layout. The church, built entirely of brick, has been the subject of many subsequent changes. Emődi 2011, 264–266. Szakács 2011b, 226–230. The association of semicircular portals with polygonal apses is also seen as an architectural feature specific to the north of historical Hungary. Similar situations in northern Transylvania were documented at Berea, Țeghea, and Pișcolț. Emődi – Kiss 2011, 249–255. Botár 2009a, 87–95, and fig. 84, with the archaeological reconstruction. Rossel 2015, 102–105. For an analysis from this perspective, see Weisz 2013, 112–113. Weisz 2013, 66–67; Weisz 2005, 112–113; Vătășianu 1959, 522–523. Archaeology: Pascu – Petrov 2001, 258. The foundations cut several graves dated by coins, the oldest from the time of King Charles Robert of Anjou (1307–1342), largely corresponding with the first record of the church. Papp 2011, 124–125.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

279

Representative buildings for this stage are the ones in Buzd, Gusu, Motiș, Târnava, Meșendorf (Fig. 8.5.1), Valchid, and many other locations.50 Gothic churches were built in Northern Transylvania in the second half of the 15th century and the early 16th century: Tărpiu (1504), Dipșa (1482), Viișoara, Meseșenii de Jos, Țigău, etc.51 They have been considered by historians as unitary buildings, made in a single stage, but this statement has been questioned recently, when excavations began in some places. For example, the church in Tărpiu, one of the most beautiful of the group, was in fact completed in several stages, as extensive archaeological research, partially published, has shown. Initially, it had a semicircular apse (late 13th century), extended in 1372–1421, when a rectangular chancel with a northern sacristy was built. The present-day shape was attained in the third stage, when the eastern part of the church was completely rebuilt with a larger, pentagonal sanctuary, and a new sacristy52 (Fig. 8.5.2). However, it seems that the most common solution for having a Gothic building was the replacement of the sanctuaries. Almost all the churches in eastern Transylvania experienced such renovations, older Romanesque apses being demolished and restored in the Gothic style, especially during the 15th century. The Gothic sanctuary was built around the older one (a choir with a semicircular apse in Mugeni and Bădeni, a chancel in Feliceni) or over its foundations, after demolitions (Dobeni), the connection to the old nave being recessed or not.53 A curious and exceedingly rare, if not unique case is that in Sâncraiu, where the Romanesque church, with a semicircular apse, was actually extended keeping the western wall as a triumphal arch: the Gothic 50

51 52 53

For Buzd: Fabini 1998, I, 148. For Gusu: Fabini 1998, I, 209; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 108. For Motiș: Horwath 1940a, 120–121; Fabini 1998, I, 500–502; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 146. For Târnava: Treiber 1971, 189; Fabini 1998, I, 239–242. For Meșendorf: Treiber 1971, 163; Vătășianu 1959, 124, 593. For Valchid: Horwath 1940a, 54; Vătășianu 1959, 544–545, 575; Fabini 1998, I, 777–779. Popa 1981, 7–89; Gaiu 2020, 275–292; Cristache-Panait – Scheletti 1975, 63–73. Archaeology: Rădulescu 2010, 321–342. In general: Popa 1970, 313–317; Popa 1981, 53–54; Entz 1996, 75–76; Kovács 2003, 11–12; Fabini 1998, I, 759–762. For general data on Dobeni, Bădeni, Mugeni, see Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 79–119; Nyárádi 2005, 359–369; Nyárádi 2015, 66–112. The church in Mugeni was excavated in 1966 and again in 2012–2013. Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 80, for the Romanesque apse. Benczédi 2014, 62–80, with archaeological data on pages 63–67 and a reconstruction based on archaeology on fig. 3. The church retains the Romanesque nave (with valuable pictures from the 14th century), extended eastwards with a 15th-century Gothic sanctuary, inside which the ruins of the elongated semicircular apse were discovered in 1966. Dávid. 1981, 75–89, with older bibliography on page 89; Rossel 2015, 70–73. Feliceni: archaeological excavations in 1974 uncovered the ruins of two older churches, the oldest probably built by the end of the 13th century. Cantacuzino 1974, 94–96; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 82. In general: Dávid 1981, 119–121.

280

Chapter 8

sanctuary was erected on top of the Romanesque nave, while the older apse was demolished.54 The church in Daia, famous mainly because of its paintings on the vaults of the Gothic sanctuary, epitomizes these transformations: the 13th-century square chancel was demolished and replaced with a much larger Gothic sanctuary, ended in a polygonal apse, and covered with cross-ribbed vaults. Archaeological research undertaken in the 1990s – some of the first extensive excavations in the Szekler territory – dated this ‘modernisation’ to the mid-15th century and reconstructed in detail how this process unfolded. The new choir was laid on the ruins of the northern and southern sides of the Romanesque one, keeping the same width and adding a buttressed threesided apse to the east. This resulted in a sanctuary almost as long as the nave. Construction and demolition occurred at once in order to reuse the materials: stones with fragments of Romanesque fresco were noticed in the Gothic foundation.55 The church in Rugănești (Fig. 8.6.2) evolved similarly, but having also the nave extended eastward, and completed with a tower in the second part of the 15th century,56 while, in Misentea, the square chancel was only extended eastwards, by adding a polygonal apse.57 In Armășeni, the 13th-century chancel was replaced firstly in the 15th century, and then again, a century later58 (Fig. 8.6.1). The archaeological church in Tomești (torn down in the 18th century) had a Gothic sanctuary over 10 m long, which had replaced a rounded apse in the first part of the 15th century.59 The church in Sâncrăieni60 had a similar history, and there are many other examples until the late 15th century and the early 16th century61 (Fig. 6.8.A). Most of these churches combined Romanesque and 54 55 56

57 58 59 60 61

Léstyán 2000, I, 222–223; Tudős 2002, 160–161. Archaeology: Bordi 2011, 194–196, fig. 25. Dávid 1981, 259–266, fig. 261. With older bibliography: Vătășianu 1959, 251. Archaeology: Marcu 1998a, 157–180. Archaeological excavations in 1981 (Benkő 1992, 132–136) and 2007 (Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 80–82). In general: Dávid 1981, 242–253, with older bibliography. Orbán 1868–1973, I, 119–120; Rossel 2015, 276–279, fig. 374, with the plan of the church. It is also known due to its exceptional mural paintings: Vătășianu 1959, 123, 155; Drăguț 1979a, 225–227. Archaeological excavations in 1999–2000: Botár 2009a, 67–76; Botár 2007, 115–130. In general: Rossel 2015, 94–96; Vătășianu 1959, 540. Exploratory trenches in 1999 (Marcu-Istrate 2004, 165–182) and large-scale excavations in 2007 (Botár 2009b, 62–66; Botár 2009a, 67–85). Archaeological excavations in 2002–2003. Botár 2009a, 11–22; Rossel 2015, 127–129. Archaeological excavations in 2002. Tóth – Rácz – Botár 2007, 133–142; Botár 2009a, 23–37. Because of radical modifications in the modern era, only the nave is still standing. As for example Albiș: Bartók – Bordi 1998, 254–256, pl. 2, for its archaeology and a detailed dating of the construction phases of the church, from the 13th century (the semicircular

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.6 The archaeology of the churches in Armășeni and Rugănești, 13th–15th centuries: 1. The Reformed church in Armășeni: 1 – 13th century; 2 – 14th century; 3 – 16th century; 4 – later additions and expansions (17th–19th centuries); 2. The Reformed church in Rugănești – Romanesque nave, 13th century (in black) and Gothic extensions (grey), 15th century DRAWINGS BASED ON MARCU-ISTRATE 2004, PL. 1 AND PL. 2, AND ON BOTÁR 2009A, 75, FIG. 68 (1) AND BENKŐ 2012, I, 107, FIG. 18.2 (2)

281

282

Chapter 8

Figure 8.7 The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Drăușeni: Romanesque basilica (light grey), changed in a single nave church during the 15th–16th centuries (in black) Drawing by the author, based on archaeological excavations, Dumitrache 1979a, fig. 2 and Marcu-Istrate 2002b, pl. 2

Gothic features, which usually resulted in remarkable appearances, as was the case in Mugeni or Rugănești. However, there were also new Gothic projects, as in Gheorghieni, with a single-nave and a polygonal choir of the same width.62 An interesting phenomenon happened within the Saxon area, where the older Romanesque basilicas provided the main basis for single-nave constructions, a change very often imposed by fortification needs. In Drăușeni, the sides were demolished at the time of the fortification, except for the south-west bay, while the apse, originally semicircular, was changed to have a rectangular external shape. As in many other cases, the arcades between aisles were walled up, while the stones from the demolition, including the architectural fragments, were reused for building towers and fortified storeys (Fig. 8.7). However, changing basilicas to single-naves it was not always determined by the need for fortification, as the case in Cricău suggests: the present-day single-nave with a western tower and a polygonal apse, with a total length of

62

apse) to its current Gothic shape, with 18th-century interventions. Ghelința: Drăguț 1973, 45 and note 6, mentions archaeological investigations that brought to light a semicircular apse. Rossel 2015, 156–163. Porumbenii Mari: Rossel 2015, 250–253. Feliceni: Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 83; Rossel 2015, fig. 146. Cârța – Csíkkarcfalva: Botár 2012, 9–25. Lemnia: Bordi 2015, 131–169, with stages from the 13th century until the 18th one. Demjén 2016, 61–97; Tóth – Botár – Grynaeus 2016, 107–131; Demjén 2020, 93–114.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

283

28 m and a width of 7 m, resulted from demolishing the Romanesque sides63 (Fig. 3.11). Nevertheless, the Saxons used single-naves especially as secondary buildings, more or less tied to the parish site, providing spaces for alternative services, or related to the cult of certain saints, as for example in Sebeș, where two chapels were built on the sides of the parish church.64 Towerless single-naves appear sometimes as part of the fortified enclosures of rural churches, as in Moșna, Curciu, or Șeica Mică. In Moșna, the chapel, ruined now, stood north of the parish church. Contrary to the popular belief that it might be the old parish church, archaeological research has revealed that it was actually built simultaneously with the defensive works, in the early part of the 14th century, most probably for cemeterial needs65 (Fig. 10.1). Urban communities rarely chose this structure for parishes. However, there are some significant cases, most of them finished during the second part of the 15th century, as, for example, the parish church in Turda Veche (mentioned above) or the one in Huedin.66 A good example would also be the church in Dej, built in the second half of the 15th century, probably by a workshop from Cluj, with a sacristy on the northern side and a western tower, whose ground floor opened on three sides through semicircular arches, like a porch. This church is believed to have exerted a great influence on building styles in the north of the province, where this type was extremely popular. Archaeology added the example of the church in Aiud: the current Baroque structure hides the ruins of two older churches: a single-nave with a four-sides sanctuary, rebuilt in the mid-15th century as a Gothic basilica, as suggested by a coin minted in 1444–144667 (Fig. 8.8). Imposing churches were erected by Franciscans, usually with huge sanctuaries – often longer than the nave – and towers attached against the east 63 64 65 66 67

Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 195. Archaeology: Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 487–488; Popescu 1962, 201–215. The northern one is still there, while the southern was repurposed for secular use. Streitfeld 1976, 110–133; Streitfeld 1983, 199–203. Archaeological excavations in 1999–2000, unpublished. Marcu et al. 2000, 64–65; Marcu-Istrate – Izdrailă 2012, 238–239; Marcu – Rusu – Istrate 2001, 27–29. In general, on the church: Roth 1905, 89–93; Treiber 1971, 159; Drăguț 1979a, 58. Vătășianu, 1959, 539; Léstyán 2000, II, 186. Unpublished archaeological excavations in 1999 (D. Marcu-Istrate and Ioan F. Pascu) and in 2018–2019 (Csók Zsolt). Pascu 2000, 45–46. Vătășianu 1959, 125, 523–525; Mittelstrass 1961, 80; Fabini 1998, I, 223–226; Seivert 1866; Szathmáry 1867, 491–493. Archaeological excavations in 1974 (Cantacuzino 1974, 94–96), 1974–1977 (Dumitrache 1978b, 45–54), 2008 (Pascu et al. 2009, 241–242) and 2018–2021 (Dobrotă – Codrea – Scrobotă 2019, 24–25; Marcu-Istrate et al. 2019, 258–260).

284

Chapter 8

Figure 8.8 Results of the recent archaeological investigations (2008, 2018–2020) at the Reformed church in Aiud; the historical outline of the “small church” in Aiud (demolished in 1865–1866) is figured north of it, based on Károly Szathmáry’s mid-19th-century plan (Szathmáry 1868, 49): 1 – ruins predating the current church, ascribed to the older church; 2 – original Gothic structures of the current church; 3 – various others ruins; 4 – late additions to the Gothic church (18th–20th centuries); 5 – archaeological excavations Drawing by the author

end of the nave, on its northern or southern side, depending on the position of the monastic buildings. The first monumental church appeared in Bistrița,68 in the second half of the 13th century, but most construction sites were active in the 14th–15th centuries, especially in towns: Hațeg (built in the first half of the 14th century, but dismantled before 1500),69 Târgu Mureș (the end of the 14th century and the beginning of the 15th century), Turda (ca. 1400, preserved in part), and Baia Mare (1437). By the end of the 15th century, a wonderful church went up in Cluj, surviving to this day with minor modifications.70 68

69

70

The Franciscan convent of Bistrița was mentioned in 1268; of its buildings, only the church with its polygonal apse is preserved, now used as an Orthodox one. Its structure was dated between 1270–1280, but no relevant archaeological research has been done. Vătășianu 1959, 116; Salontai 2002a, 52–53; Salontai 2011, 53–58; Gaiu – Duda 2008, 34–36. The monastic church in Hațeg was identified in 1885 and studied by Szinte Gábor and Téglás Gábor in 1888, but the documentation remained in manuscript, being recovered only recently. Rusu 1993, 137–144. The church, with a total length of 30 m, had the peculiarity of a mid-eastern buttress. Salontai 2002a, 51–58.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

285

In Târgu Mureș, the Franciscans, firstly mentioned in 1316, originally built wooden domestic buildings and a small stone church, of which only the polygonal sanctuary is preserved. The nave was demolished as early as the 17th century. The monastery was considerably enlarged later on, in connection with political interests to expand the Catholic Church beyond the eastern border of the kingdom. Therefore, a new church was built of brick, with a sacristy and a tower on its northern side. The nave appears to have been fitted with a ceiling (although the southern wall was strengthened by buttresses), but the sanctuary preserves Gothic ribbed vaults on consoles. The dating has been the subject of intense controversy, but most scholars have agreed on the first half of the 15th century.71 However, new archaeological research supports an earlier dating, to the second part of the 14th century, arguing that the sanctuary and the body of the church were built at different stages.72 This remarkable site produced the most important medieval church of eastern Transylvania, and one of the largest of its type, over 50 m in length, of which the polygonal sanctuary measures 21 m. Currently it is used as a Reformed church, the interior of the nave having been massively transformed in Baroque style in the 18th century73 (Fig. 8.9). The Franciscans also built smaller buildings, as for example in Coșeiu. A private foundation established after 1442, the site displays a 22 m long church, endowed with a south belltower on the recess of the choir.74 The nave is still standing, while the eastern part was recently unearthed, and is expected to be published. The same is true for the convent in Teiuș, whose construction was finished in 144975 (Fig. 8.10).

71 72

73

74 75

Greceanu 1990, 61; Salontai 2002a, 52. Soós 2002, 177–178, considers that the sanctuary was built mid-14th century and the nave was finished only at the end of the century. Still, the original roof of the choir was installed in the 15th century, according to dendrochronology. Botár et al. 2015, 53–60; László 2008, 155, note 1. Archaeological excavations started in 1963, expanded during the 1970s (N.N., Principalele lucrări de restaurare … 1970, 76; D.M.I.A. 1973, 74; Bogdan 1974, 63–68), and resumed on a much larger scale after 1999, under the coordination of Zoltán Soós, who has reconstructed the medieval topography and brought extremely valuable data about the church and monastic life as well. The results are still being processed; however, brief reports have been already published. Soós 2002, 146–180; Soós 2009, 199–210; Soós 2016, with the general plan of excavations on page 10. For specific aspects, see also: Soós – Gál 2010, 187–204; Bencze 2010, 205–212; Győrfi 2008, 224–246; László 2008, 155–165. Salontai 2002a, 55; Vătășianu 1959, 248; Entz 1996, 360. Archaeological surveys: Pascu – Culic – Pop 2008, 116–123. Entz 1996, 494; Salontai 2001, 5–11. Archaeological surveys: Rusu 2003, 325.

286

Chapter 8

Figure 8.9 The Franciscan monastery in Târgu Mureș: 1 – the chapel – standing structure; 2 – the chapel – archaeologically identified ruins / reconstructed trajectories; 3 – the church – standing structure; 4 – the monastery buildings – archaeologically identified ruins / reconstructed trajectories; 5 – archaeological research units Drawing based on Soós 2009, 206, pl. i

As for the above-mentioned church in Cluj, the five-bay nave is 35 m long and 15 m wide, and the choir 24 m long and 9.5 m wide.76 Although it has been suggested that the construction started at the end of the century (activities mentioned in 1487/1490 and 1494), recent excavations have shown that the preparation of the grounds began in the middle of the 15th century, by 76

Papp 2005, 44–45, pl. lxix. For the architecture of the church and the evolution of the construction site, see Salontai 2004, 254; Kovács 2007, 49–64.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.10

287

The archaeology of the church of the former Franciscan friary in Coșeiu (in black), reconstruction of the original shape based on archaeological data: buttresses, sanctuary and the northern chapel built in the same stage as the nave (archaeological remains in black, reconstruction in grey) Drawing based on Pascu – Culic – Pop 2008, 116–123

demolishing some older dwellings. This suggests the hypothesis that a smaller church, whose remains have not yet been located, functioned there before the current one.77 The Dominicans had similar buildings, but without towers, the most important being mentioned in Cluj (the most famous, in fact, probably dating to the beginning of the 14th century, according to as yet unpublished archaeological

77

Archaeological excavations in 1970 and 2006, unpublished. Marcu et al. 2007, 131; Buzás 1999, 135–141, also mentions the possibility of many stages for the church building. Weisz 2013, 98.

288

Chapter 8

research), Sibiu, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sebeș, and Vințu de Jos.78 None of them has been preserved in its entirely, and the one in Vințu de Jos was in fact completely demolished. Its site has been identified by chance during exploratory excavations while the Martinuzzi Castle in the village was being restored. Extensive archaeological investigations, carried out for years in the 1990s, were able to reconstruct a complete image, not only on the church, but on the whole monastery. The church, with an exterior length of 47 m, had a rectangular four-bay nave and a large polygonal sanctuary, almost half the length of the nave. Based on numerous fragments of stonemasonry recovered from the excavations, it appears that the entire interior used to be covered with ribbed vaults. The layout, relevant traces of the vaulting, floor, and roofing systems, some of the keystones, remains of a rood screen, several fragments of architectural stones from doors, arches, and window frames, as well as fragments of glassware, all these amount to one of the most spectacular discoveries in the field. These elements allow a detailed reconstruction of the architecture of the church and of the monastery, revealing many facets of their activity.79 The construction site was opened before 1300, the church being finished by mid-14th century.80 Of the six Augustinian monasteries in Transylvania,81 vestiges are preserved only in Turda Veche, a royal foundation built in the late 14th century (ca. 1380), with a nave and a choir of the same width.82 The nave is still standing, while the sanctuary was ruined in the 17th century, and consequently demolished. Archaeological research carried out in 2010 and 2018–2020 located the polygonal apse, reconstructing a large structure of almost 19 m length, strengthened by many buttresses. Recent excavations also raised a number of questions regarding the history of the nave, previously considered a one-stage work. In fact, at foundation level, there are at least two stages, and it is quite obvious that an older, unknown church, was at a time transformed into the current structure. At the eastern end of the nave were surprisingly uncovered the remains of a rood screen, a one-of-a-kind structure in local context83 (Fig. 8.11.1). 78

79 80 81 82 83

For older literature and the state of the research, see Salontai 2002b. For the excavations of 2011, in Cluj, see Lupescu 2015, 41–45. For Sebeș: Salontai 1996b, 27–32. For Sibiu: Salontai 2002a, 53–54. Archaeological excavations: Munteanu Beșliu 2001, 31–41; Beșliu Munteanu 2014, 125–135; Fabini 1991, 74–77. Archaeological research in 1991–2001 led to the discovery of the full ruins. Rusu 1998b, 36–48; Rusu 1998a, 13–21. For the architectural reconstruction, see Salontai 1999, 107–124. Entz 1968, 120–130; DIR.C.II., 522. Koszta 2000, 68; Romhányi 2008, 99–100. Weisz 2011, 19–38; Weisz 2013, 390–400. Marcu et al. 2011, 242–243; Groza 2020, 161–180; Marcu-Istrate – Dobrotă – Groza 2021, 201–233.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.11

289

1 – The archaeology of the church of the former Augustinian monastery in Turda: 1 – surviving segments of the old (original? church); 2 – medieval and early modern segments of the present-day church (multiple phases); 3 – demolished segments of the present-day church (ruins of the sanctuary and of the rood screen); 4 – various other ruins of structures predating the 18th century; 5 – ruins of structures from the 18th–20th centuries; 6 – recent, 18th–20th-century additions to the present day church; 7 – archaeological research units. 2 – The archaeology of the Reformed church in Săcuieni. 1. 13th century. 2. 15th century. 3. 15th–16th century. 4. 18th century and later DRAWING BY THE AUTHOR BASED ON MARCU-ISTRATE – DOBROTĂ – GROZA 2021, FIG. 2, AND ON UN PUBLISHED REPORTS (1) AND DRAWING BASED ON EMŐDI 1999, FIG. 10 (2)

290

Chapter 8

Figure 8.12

The Evangelical church in Șaroș pe Târnave, 14th–15th centuries After Fabini 1998, I, 660, fig. 412.2

A special shape of this series is the layout with a mid-apse corner, which spread both in the Catholic and in the Orthodox environments, for example in Săcuieni84 or Târnăvioara.85 The wooden architecture is largely acknowledged as a possible source of inspiration in this case86 (Fig. 8.11.2). 8.2.2 Basilicas Gothic basilicas combined the Romanesque body of naves with a more or less developed sanctuary, ending in a polygonal apse. In addition, they could have buttresses, towers, or sacristies. In the beginnings, they retained the three-aisled Romanesque structure, with a wider and taller central nave, but later the aisles acquired similar proportions, especially in terms of height. The western tower was a constant feature, but the transept was now used only in a small group of churches around Sibiu, as probably in Ațel, and Richiș. The church in Șaroș pe Târnave was started as a Gothic basilica in the mid-14th century, but only

84 85 86

Archaeological excavations in 1998 have suggested the first church in the 12th century, rebuilt in the second part of the 13th century, and again at the beginning of the 15th century. Emődi 1999, 188–213. Fabini 2009, 138; Fabini 1998, I, 376–378; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 176. Burnichioiu 1999, 107–120.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

291

the eastern bays of the aisles were erected, resulting in a transept-like ground plan87 (Fig. 8.12). Although churches of this kind had been built since the second half of the 13th century, the layout was particularly preferred in the 14th century, to be used until the beginning of the 16th century. Just as the single-naves, the Gothic basilicas were shaped in two different ways: they could be new buildings, with a unitary design, or older buildings, modified and adapted to the new style. Within the Saxon settlements, the tradition of Romanesque basilicas was actually continued, adding a Gothic sanctuary and specific fittings. For the early stage, a representative building is the parish church of Sibiu, which combines the basilican ground plan with a polygonal sanctuary and a late Gothic wall structure – however, there are a number of representative buildings, mainly in southern Transylvania.88 The church in Reghin, built ca. 1330, is credited as having an important role in the dissemination of the Gothic basilica in the northern half of Transylvania, but later underwent many changes, and the original fabric is difficult to reconstruct without extensive studies.89 Within the same area, the urban church of Bistrița has preserved to this day a peculiar basilican layout, in which there are almost no equal bays, suggesting a complicated construction pathway. Archaeological research has been limited to surveys, and their results have been published only partially. Based on these, it is assumed that, toward the end of the 14th century, the church was a basilica with shorter aisles, which extended eastward through narrower lateral chapels on either side of the sanctuary90 (Fig. 8.13.1). The church in Teaca looks like a Romanesque one, with short, narrow aisles, but the apse was built polygonal, with a sacristy on the northern side. Various construction stages have been proposed, spanning the period between the end of the 13th century and the first half of the 14th century, but excavations in the 1990s showed that the church was built in a single step, during the 14th century, 87 88

89 90

Horwath 1940a, 3; Vătășianu 1959, 119; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 72; Sinigalia 2012, 241–242; Fabini 1998, I, 659–661. Fragments of other interesting buildings are preserved in Agârbiciu (Vătășianu 1959, 243, 598; Treiber 1971, 64), Brateiu (Horwath 1940a, 61–64), Copșa Mare (Horwath 1940a, 67–69; Vătășianu 1959, 119), Curciu (Horwath 1940a, 114; Arion 1974, 34–35), Șeica Mare (Vătășianu 1959, 589; Fabini 1998, I, 451–455), Șeica Mică (Horwath 1940a, 94–96; Fabini 1998, I, 379–383), Laslea (Horwath 1940a, 36–38; Treiber 1971, 76; Fabini 1998, I, 231–233), and Târnăvioara (Fabini 1998, I, 376–378). Mitelstrass 1961, 76; Roth 1934, 25; Treiber 1971, 81; Weisz 2010. Salontai 2011, 53–58; Gaiu – Duda 2008, 27–33; Kovács 2007, 81–96; Szilágyi-Bartha 2014, 10–16, for a history of its construction and restorations. Archaeology: Gaiu 2010, 11–20; Gaiu 2020, 275–292.

292

Figure 8.13

Chapter 8

The Evangelical churches in Bistrița and Teaca, 14th century. A – the Evangelical church in Bistrița; B – the Evangelical church in Teaca, based on archaeological excavations: Gothic basilica (14th century), tower (early 15th century), and fortified enclosure (probably the 15th century) DRAWINGS BASED ON DRĂGUȚ 1979A, 40, FIG. 35 (1) AND MARCU-ISTRATE 2002A, 175, FIG. 1 (2)

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.14

293

The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Sebeș: 1 – Romanesque basilica, 13th century; 2 – chapel, late 13th century; 3 – Gothic phase, late 14th century; 4 – Gothic chapel, late 14th century or early 15th century; 5 – late Gothic phase, late 15th century or early 16th century; 6 – later additions, late 17th century; 7 – remnants of the defensive walls, late 15th century or early 16th century; 8 – archaeological excavations Drawing by the author based on Radu Heitel’s excavations and on Heitel 1964, pl. 1

with the later addition of a western tower and a southern chapel (the latter now vanished)91 (Fig. 8.13.2). As in the case of the single-nave churches, an important number of Romanesque basilicas were modified by replacing the apses and adding specific vaults, openings, and frames. But the introduction of fixed (tabernacles) or liturgical furnishings also contributed to the Gothic renewal. This process was long and complicated, lasting from the end of the 13th century until the beginning of the 16th century and, in a few cases, even later, including in terms of architecture many in-between variants. One of the earliest cases was that of Sebeș, in the second part of the 13th century, when the foundations of the church had barely been laid: the planned semicircular apse was abandoned and a polygonal one was built instead, to be replaced once more soon after (Fig. 8.14). 91

Mittelstrass 1961, 76; Treiber 1971, 173; Vătășianu 1959, 115–117, 775; Drăguț 1979a, 38–39; Fabini 1998, I, 739–741. The year 1425 is inscribed on a window frame at the first level of the tower. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2002a, 159–191.

294

Figure 8.15

Chapter 8

The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Sighișoara: Romanesque nave (1) functioning with a Gothic eastern part (2) added in mid-14th century; the former, Romanesque sanctuary (3) and the current outline of the church (4) in lighter shades Drawing by the author based on unpublished data

The same phenomenon happened almost a century later in Sighișoara, where the process of changing St Nicholas’ parish church, a Romanesque basilica, into a Gothic structure started mid-14th century92 (Fig. 8.15). Archaeological excavations in 1999–2001 have shown that the Romanesque sanctuary was demolished and replaced with a polygonal structure, basically following the same layout.93 It resulted in a kind of Romanesque-Gothic basilica, composed of the Romanesque body and a Gothic choir ended eastward with a polygonal apse, standing in part on the semicircular foundation of the previous apse. Afterwards, a square room was added on the northern side of the choir, planned according to the older basilican structure, to be replaced with a much larger sacristy by mid-15th century. The new sanctuary was actually the most important change brought about in the Gothic period. The reason for such a change is difficult to understand, since the interior space did not undergo any

92

93

Known also as the Church on the Hill, the parish church of Sighișoara is one of the most important religious buildings in Transylvania, of interest to scholars since the 19th century. Müller 1856b, 167–172; Müller 1857, 381–430; Machat 2002, 91–95; Leonhardt – Eberle – Frank 2009, 26. Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 140–142; Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–198; Marcu – Pascu 2000, 96–97.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

295

expansion, perhaps it even shrunk a little. It is impossible to say whether the old choir was ruined, collapsed, or simply too modest for the time. A significant number of basilicas in Southern Transylvania experienced similar changes, as, for example, the ones in Cisnădie (ongoing archaeological research),94 in Feldioara (unpublished archaeological research),95 in Cața,96 and many other sites. The archaeology of the late Gothic church in Moșna showed three or four stages before reaching the present shape, including a three-aisled Gothic basilica, built at the end of the 14th century, whose general ground plan was retained to this day, despite a general reconstruction at the end of the 15th century.97 8.2.3 Hall-Churches Hall-churches brought the innovation of a homogeneous space, with aisles of equal widths, divided into equal bays, and built at the same height. The sanctuary preserved the simple, single-nave layout and the polygonal ending, but the most important churches also received aisled sanctuaries in the eastern part. This system was introduced in the second part of the 14th century, the first product being the sanctuary in Sebeș – an ambitious project that aimed to turn a Romanesque basilica into a modern, Gothic hall-style building. The pattern continued in Brașov and Cluj, and later became fashionable, being widely implemented, first by the wealthy urban and pre-urban communities, then also by rural parishes.98 Several scholars consider the first important building to be the RomanCatholic cathedral in Oradea,99 which apparently had three aisles of equal height, four towers, and a complex eastern part with a number of chapels around the sanctuary. This unique composition arose, in 1342–1372, as a complex monument in architectural and decorative terms, but, by 1440, it was already in poor condition, and disappeared soon thereafter. It was not only an important building, but also a royal mausoleum, accommodating the graves 94 95 96 97 98 99

Romanesque basilica, built probably around 1200 (Fabini 1998, I, 284–285). General data: Entz 1968, 27; Roth 1934, 16; Treiber 1971, 38; Vătășianu 1959, 29–31. Ongoing archaeological excavations, led by Ioan Marian Țiplic. Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic – Ignat 2015, 605–634. Archaeological excavations in the 1990s, led by Radu Popa and Adrian Ioniță. Ioniță 1999, 41; Ioniță – Marcu 2000, 36–37; Fabini 1998, I, 448–449; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 212–213. The church was firstly built as a Romanesque basilica, in the 13th century, the apse being replaced with a Gothic choir in the 15th century. Entz 1968, 27–28; Treiber 1971, 72; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 172–173. Archaeological surveys: Marcu et al. 2000, 64–65; Marcu – Rusu – Istrate 2001, 27–29; Marcu-Istrate – Izdrăilă 2012, 238–239. See Salontai 2013b, 55–70, for an overview of the hall-churches in Transylvania. Vătășianu 1959, 218–220; Takács 1989a, 21–38; Takács 1989b, 39–53; Bunyitay 1879, 7–32. On the medieval topography of the city: Emődi 2016, 13–21.

296

Chapter 8

of the Holy King Ladislaus I of Hungary (1077–1095), and later of Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg (1387–1437). It was also particularly important for pilgrims. Although its location is known to have been in the medieval fortress that is still standing in Oradea, in a rebuilt, modern appearance, the circumstances for its systematic archaeological recovery have never been available.100 The most important hall-churches are the ones in Sebeș (1361–1382), Brașov (ca. 1350–1477), Cluj (ca. 1349–1480), and Sighișoara (1420–1500), original works that featured distinct architectural solutions. Their construction sites spanned an awfully long time, from the mid-14th century (Sebeș) until the end of the 15th century (the aisles of the church in Sighișoara), being nearly contemporary, and developing a complex network of influences both on each other, and on other sites, near or far. St Michael’s church in Cluj is deemed the most successful example of this type.101 One of the largest churches in Transylvania (ca. 70 m long and 24 m wide), the edifice has aisles of equal widths and heights, which reflect a unitary, original idea. It probably mattered that the church was not erected inside the medieval enclosure of the city, but outside of it, in a new square, probably on open ground, so it did not have to adapt to a pre-existing, older church. Because of the lack of proper archaeological research, it is impossible to acquire a more detailed view of how it developed or to identify clear chronological indicia. The church was mentioned indirectly in 1349,102 but it is difficult to say at what stage it was in at that time. It has been suggested that construction work started at the end of the 13th century,103 but most scholars agree that the workshop operated in the second part of the 14th century, 100 About two-thirds of its foundations were identified in 1881–83 and 1911–12 (excavations focused on the court of the princely palace). Rómer 1883, xvi–xxiv; Henszlmann 1884, 147– 174; Gyalókay 1913, 43–60; Kerny 1989b, 195–241. Restoration-related excavations, which did not always comply with archaeological rules, identified fragments of the western part of the cathedral and, specifically, of the smaller St Mary’s church, attested in 1320. After 2015, attempts were made to organise systematic research for the reconstruction of this important monument, but the project failed to progress as envisioned. Rusu 2002, 7–19. See also Kerny 1989a, with several relevant studies on the topic. 101 The bibliography of this church is immense, starting with Esterhazi’s 1863 study: “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály egyház története és építészeti leirata” (Esterhazi 1863, 57–62). For an overview of the literature, the state of research, and a detailed analysis of the building, see Entz 1984, 65–108; Palmer 1998, 1–39. See also: Emődi 2006, 657–659; Gündisch 2003, 57–62. Archaeological excavation next to the church: Mitrofan 1965, 657–666; Lupescu 2005, 40, fig. 4; Gáll – Gergely – Gál 2010, 16–20. Exploratory trenches for investigating the structure of the church itself were opened in 2019–2020 but involving areas too small to be relevant so far. Friendly information from Radu Lupescu, 2020. See also: Mezős 2014, 46–50; Szilágyi 2015, 2–10. 102 Vătășianu 1959, 223–224. 103 Palmer 1998, 6, considers that the model was the cathedral in Alba Iulia.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.16

297

The Roman-Catholic church in Cluj: ground plan and general view Drawing after Salontai 2013b, 65, fig. 7; photo by Radu Lupescu

after 1349, and then throughout the 15th century, until around 1480, with many interruptions, probably caused by the lack of funds (Fig. 8.16). The single-nave choir has three bays and a polygonal apse, covered with cross-ribbed vaults (nowadays restored according to the original model) and illuminated through wide and tall pointed tripartite windows. The body of the church has three almost equal aisles (the central nave is still slightly wider),

298

Chapter 8

divided into four bays by three pairs of piers and covered with lierne-ribbed vaults, among the earliest in Transylvania. The western façade was provided with two towers, which were not elevated higher than the aisles, and are not visible from the outside. The choir has two side chapels with polygonal ends, connected to the aisles through oblique walls, a rather unusual and much debated solution, seen by scholars either as a makeshift during the process of building, or a failed attempt at an ambulatory. The church in Cluj enjoyed great popularity at its time, and various elements of its structure were taken over and copied, even after fairly long intervals, and in relatively remote areas.104 The building reflects a deep connection with (Central) European construction sites, scholars emphasizing the contribution of master stonemasons from different workshops in Vienna, Bratislava, Košice, the south of Germany, etc.105 Research is yet to provide an answer to the question whether these masters actually worked in Cluj, or only provided some models. “The most important monument of Gothic architecture in Transylvania”106 is, however, the choir of the church in Sebeș, probably built in 1361–1382, as shown by excavations and architectural studies.107 At that moment, the parish church was a Romanesque basilica, built most likely in the second half of the 13th century, ending eastward in a polygonal buttressed choir, and westward with a single central tower. The process of rebuilding started in the eastern part, with a new sanctuary planned as a hall-structure, with three aisles of equal heights (ca. 23 m), but of different widths, supposedly with a rough ambulatory to the east (Fig. 8.14). The construction site lasted for quite a long time, with at least one significant interruption, being completed only around 1383, as shown by a keystone featuring the coat of arms of King Louis I of Anjou, whose reign ended in 1382,

104 Lupescu 2012, 177–214; Papp 2014, 33–34, for the way the church in Cluj influenced the construction of the church in Berehove, now in Zakarpattia, and for the popularity of the main portal at the beginning of the 16th century. 105 Drăguț 1979a, 44–46; Salontai 2013b, 61. 106 Drăguț 1979a, 46–52. 107 The church first aroused the interest of historians in the mid-19th century, and extensive studies based on architectural research were published by the early 20th century. Amlacher 1904, 76–78; Müller 1856a, 38–41. For a synthesis of the bibliography, see Anghel 2008, 275–287. See also: Varga 1979, 187–235. Major restoration works, carried out in the 1960s, did not lead to published data. See Salontai 2012, 35–48, for a detailed analysis of the architecture of this church and its place within the evolution of European architecture, according to the state of knowledge. Archaeology: Heitel 1964, and fig. 1; Angelescu et al. 1967, 90–119; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 141–142, fig. 7.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

299

and confirm by archaeological finds.108 The church became longer (from 40 m to 57.25 m), but new aisles were built only at the end of the 15th century. Another example is the church in Brașov (the Black Church), considered by some the main symbol of the local Gothic,109 built entirely as a hall-church.110 However, looking at its ground plan, the lack of a unitary design is obvious: the body is narrower than the choir, the aisles have different widths, and the pillars are not aligned. These inconsistencies reflect a work many times interrupted, or maybe a reconstruction, but how this church developed is still under debate. Various options have been advanced, and the few archaeological data suggest an older church there, but its shape has remained unknown so far.111 It may have been a single-nave church, from which the expansion started, but, just as well, there may have been only problems during the construction process.112 Roughly contemporary with the construction site in Sebeș, the one in Brașov took over the idea of a hall structure for building a huge sanctuary (28 by 16.5 m), with three naves separated by six piers, each divided into five bays.

108 Heitel 1964, 17–23. A coin minted in 1383 was interpreted as a terminus ante quem for the building process. However, the chronology is also based on the analogies with the church of St Sebaldus in Nuremberg, whose choir was built in 1361–1372. For the European connections, see Roth 1905, 21–22, 55–62; Roth 1934, 26–27, 93; Vătășianu 1959, 220–223; Varga 1979, 213–214; Salontai 2013b, 58–59; Salontai 2013a, 217–218. 109 Drăguț 1979a, 49. 110 Kühlbrandt 1898; Kühlbrandt 1927; Kühlbrandt 1928, 122–135; Roth 1934, 105–106; Horwath 1940b, 50–33; Treiber 1971, 211–212; Bálint 2009, 5–18; Nussbächer 2008; Nussbächer 1981, 13–14; Entz 1996, 67–68, 84–85, 254–256; Vătășianu 1959, 225–230; Zeidner 1999, 150–160; Salontai 2013a, 217–235; Entz 1987, 553–556. For the general historical context see Roth 2010, 65–68; Niedermaier 1979a, 123–127; Niedermaier 1996a, 198–200; Killyen 1984, 35–90; Philippi 2006, 85. 111 There is not many archaeological data about this church. Some notes were taken in 1938 by Sebestyén József, Gustav Treiber, Walter Horwath, Albert Eichhorn, and Otto Graditsch, from the local museum, during excavations for making under-floor heating – published as (N.N.) Die Baugeschichtlichen Ergebnisse der Grabungen in der schwarzen Kirche, 1938, 93–102. Sewage works were carried out on the northern side in the 1970s, but no records were left. The first archaeological excavations in the historical area were made as late as 2012–2013 when a local initiative was born to renovate the square around the church, known as the Honterus Court, which offered the opportunity for archaeological surveys. One of the most interesting urban environments was revealed, but information about the church remains scarce, and the pre-existing structures can only be surmised. Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 45–52; Marcu-Istrate 2019a, fig. 4–7; Marcu-Istrate – Diana 2017, 364– 379; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, fig. 3; Marcu-Istrate 2016a, 2–12. 112 Salontai 2013b, 60.

300

Figure 8.17

Chapter 8

The archaeology of the Evangelical Black Church in Brașov: 1 – vestiges of an older church, 13th–14th centuries; 2 – sanctuary, late 14th century (?); 3 – naves and towers, 14th–15th centuries; 4 and 10 – consolidation for the eastern corners of the nave, different stages; 5 – southern porch, late 15th century; 6 – sacristy, late 14th century (?); 7 – the second sacristy (demolished), 17th century; 8 and 9 – chapels, late 14th century (demolished); 11 – various other stages After Marcu-Istrate 2019a, fig. 8 and fig. 11

To the east, there is an apse five-sided on the inside and nine-sided externally. The large opening, however, makes it look almost rounded113 (Fig. 8.17). The body of the church has three aisles of equal height, with five pairs of octagonal pillars, delineating six bays, rectangular in the central nave, and square in the narrower sides. However, the nave is narrower than the choir, so the rows of pillars are not aligned, which has suggested that the body and the choir were part of different projects. The western façade was provided with two towers that were left unfinished, the northern at the same level as the aisles, while the southern up to the fourth floor. The five entrances, two on each of the northern and southern sides, and one on the western side, were endowed in

113 However, the current shape is the result of several reconstructions, while the original basic structure is still unknown. The vaults of the choir were rebuilt by Andreas Lapicida in 1532–1538, and further changes took place in 1549 when a pillar collapsed. After a major fire, in 1689, the vaults were completely restored. Salontai 2013a, 223–225. Regarding the basic ground plan, Walter Horwath proposed a reconstruction with seven pairs of pillars and two more central columns (corresponding to the buttresses in the apse axis), producing an ambulatory structure. Horwath 1940b, 52; Salontai 2013b, 58–59.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

301

the second part of the 15th century with portals representing “a peak moment of the flamboyant Gothic”114 in Southeastern Europe. Resuming the description, the Black Church appears as composed of two adjoining halls, probably from distinct building stages. There is not an accurate dating of the sanctuary, but it is supposed to be a product of the late 14th century, when a rood screen was mentioned in the interior. However, archaeological excavations in 2012–2013 have shown an intense activity on the spot in around 1330, when older monastic structures were demolished in the area of the sanctuary, which might have prepared the ground for opening the building process.115 Two different stages were seen when the infrastructure of the apse was studied: first, a foundation without buttresses, and, after an interruption, the walls and buttresses, with a slight deviation from the original layout. Eventually, the walls were laid only partially on the foundations, but what these steps mean is uncertain. The completion of the aisles and towers is usually associated with a later stage, in 1420–1470, and, since then, the basic layout of the church has been left unchanged. There were several external additions, the most interesting at the eastern end of the nave, where two side chapels were uncovered, making the ground plan to look like a transeptal one. The chapels were opened toward the interior of the church, as the structure of the walls still shows, but their demolition time cannot be established. What is very interesting about this addition is the fact that the underground masonry was made of reused huge ashlars, in contrast to the foundation of the standing church, made of rough stones. The ashlars represent in fact the sole remains of an older church or churches on the spot. During the 15th century, hall-like structures with three aisles and a singlenave sanctuary were becoming quite common, most of them resulting from the “rectification” of older basilicas (Romanesque or Early Gothic), a practice that lasted until the beginning of the 16th century and deployed an enormous array of methods. It was almost a pattern to elevate the aisles to the same height as the nave, and provide similar roofing solutions over all compartments, but the ground plan remained that of a basilica, with aisles of unequal widths. However, numerous hybrid solutions are evident, and a relevant example would be that of the parish church in Sibiu, discussed in the next chapter. The churches in Brașov, Cluj, and Sibiu certainly played an important role in spreading the hall-church system and Late Gothic features in Transylvania, but the subject still needs to be investigated. The church in Mediaș was 114 Drăguț 1979a, 53. 115 Marcu-Istrate 2015a, 106–150; Marcu-Istrate 2019a, fig. 2.

302

Chapter 8

modified according to the example in Sibiu, a hall similar to the one in Cluj, inspired by its model, was built in Orăștie, later undergoing major transformations, but the extensive archaeological research conducted there has not been published yet.116 The Roman-Catholic church in Turda (ca. 1500) and the Reformed church in the fortress of Aiud, completed in the last decades of the 15th century, exhibit similar features, underneath considerable changes from the Baroque period.117 In the town of Sighișoara, both the parish and the monastic church (of the Dominican monastery)118 were modified in this period, but the ground plan remained, in both cases, the basilican one. The case of the parish church (the Church on the Hill) appears as one of the most interesting within the local landscape, or at least this is the current state of knowledge. Its body was rebuilt during the 15th century, being connected to the previously completed Gothic choir, by necessity, the older one being in a very bad situation119 (Fig. 8.18). The Gothic reconstruction started with a huge landscaping action, aiming to prepare a more stable ground for the new building. The narrow plateau on which the basilica stood was extended to the north, huge quantities of earth-and-rubble fillings being added there. The tower and the naves were then reconstructed, overlapping almost exactly the outline of the basilica, and using varying amounts of its fabric. Work began with the western tower, next came the exterior walls of the naves, with a porch on the southern side, and several buttresses. At the end of this long construction site, stands the hall-type Gothic church, a multi-stage reconstruction of a Romanesque basilica between 1345 and ca. 1500.120 Rebuilding the tower and naves was, first and foremost, a necessity imposed by the very poor condition of the old church, 116 Entz 1968, 132; Treiber 1971, 30; Vătășianu 1959, 525; Fabini 1998, I, 97–102. Archaeological excavations in 1999–2001, short information in: Petrov – Pinter 1995, 63; Pinter – Petrov – Pap 1996, 501–502; Pap – Pinter – Petrov 1997, 273–282; Sonoc – Pinter 1997, 223– 238; Pinter – Țiplic 1996; Pinter – Țiplic 1998; Pinter – Țiplic 2000, 70; Pinter 2009a, 65–75. 117 Vătășianu 1959, 125, 523–525. 118 For the monastic church: Niedermaier 1979b, 70, 72; Salontai 2002b, 228–256. Archaeological excavations in 2005 (Istrate 2007a, 131–144; Istrate 2006, 328–329) and again in 2020, the latter ones still in processing. See also Popa – Baltag 1980, 36. The excavations in 2005 showed that the first stage of the church disturbed late-12th-century graves, but the general layout could not be established. 119 The excavations in 1999–2001 have shown a critical situation of the northern wall of the church, which had been built on the very edge of a steep terrace. There were many fractures in the foundation of the western wall as well, and, very likely, the northern half of the Romanesque structure collapsed at some point. Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 1–16; Marcu – Pascu 2000, 96–97. 120 Vătășianu 1959, 239; Drăguț 1979a, 56–57.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.18

303

The archaeology of the Evangelical parish church in Sighișoara (Church on the Hill) – naves and tower rebuilt in around 1500, over the Romanesque basilica: 1 – different built structures older than the Romanesque basilica; 2 – the remains of the Romanesque basilica; 3 – sacristies(?) successively working with the Gothic sanctuary (14th century) and Romanesque naves (13th century); 4 – Gothic hall-church, 15th century, present day church; 5 – later, but still standing, additions; 6 – later additions, now demolished Drawing by the author based on unpublished data

while choosing hall-type structure reflects local trends, most likely inspired by the churches in Cluj and Brașov. However, the naves were built, decorated, and furnished in Gothic style, while the tower replicated the older Romanesque one, for unknown reasons.121 Apart from these outstanding monuments that are usually cited as representatives, hall-churches were fairly popular in Transylvania. Like in the previous stage, urban sites influenced the countryside, but the model also spread due to the fortifications works that required simple and unitary spaces. During the 15th century, changing older basilicas (some barely completed or even undergoing completion) into halls became relatively frequent (see for example the case of the fortified church in Dealu Frumos – chapter 10),122 among 121 Before excavations, the current tower was considered by art historians as the original Romanesque one, but in fact, each church had its own tower. Drăguț 1979a, 56, 79, note 36; Machat 2002, 50. 122 The apse was demolished, the aisles were heightened, a tower was erected on the western bay of the nave, and another one over the choir. Sinigalia 1976, 67–72.

304

Chapter 8

the latest achievements being the beautiful ones in Moșna and Biertan (early 16th century).123 Perhaps no other monument is as relevant for the period as St Margaret’s church in Mediaș. The present-day shape is that of a Gothic basilica to the north, with an “archaic and rather rustic”124 appearance, while the southern aisle and the nave show a hall structure.125 (Fig. 8.19) Archaeological excavations carried out on relatively large areas during the restoration of 1972–1974 gave an unexpected complex history of the building. It seems that first two separate compartments had been erected at the end of the 13th century: a polygonal-ended sanctuary with side chapels, and a rectangular tower. Not long after, during the first half or in mid-14th century, plans changed: the eastern cell was replaced by a single-nave core with a new sanctuary ending polygonally as well, but endowed with a sacristy. This was also an intermediary situation, because the works continued by adding aisles to the north (end of the 14th century, linking the sacristy with the much older tower), and south (until 1420), and eventually a new sanctuary. The southern aisle was made as large and high as the nave, and the church partially became a hall. Problematic developments have been highlighted in many other places, especially in settlements that experienced economic growth and had material resources for recurring restorations and modernisations of the parishes. Of course, not everywhere things happened in the same way; however, when examining a surviving church, much caution is necessary: one can describe the standing building, but what lies beneath it is a matter of archaeology. 8.3

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter outlined the development of ecclesiastical architecture during the 14th century and up to the middle of the 15th century, offering the main points of the historical background and of the architectural achievements of the local Gothic workshops. This was a contradictory period, in which social and economic conditions improved, but, if looked from a different angle, there were natural calamities, epidemics, and, above all, an almost permanent threat of pagan and Muslim invasions. Overall, the context of the time favoured building activities, and religious architecture benefited greatly from this 123 Fabini 1998, I, 67–69 (Biertan) and 475–479 (Moșna). 124 Vătășianu 1959, 217. 125 Avram 2006b, 21–25, with the core literature; Entz 1996, 69–70, 89, 128, 182; Niedermaier 1979a, 201–204; Fabini 1998, 467. Archaeology: Fabini – Beldie-Dumitrache 1977, 85–102.

Gothic Architecture up to Mid-15th Century

Figure 8.19

305

The archaeology of the Evangelical church in Mediaș: 1 – late 13th century; 2 – early 14th century; 3 – late 14th century; 4– early 15th century; 5 – late 15th century; 6 – early 16th century; 7 – 1611–1680; 8 – c.1815; 9 – 1831–1833; 10 – mid 19th century; 11 – 1927–1934 Drawing based on Fabini – Beldie Dumitrache 1977, 87

momentum: the number of churches increased, but it was mostly the completion and/or reconstruction of existing churches, to enlarge or modernise them, that becomes evident. Two significant features of this period, to which we owe in fact most of the surviving medieval churches, were the formation of urban ecclesiastical centres and the early stages of the process of fortification. In artistic terms, in the first part of the 14th century, previous trends went on, with constructions in late Romanesque and more or less developed Gothic styles, but soon only workshops skilled in Gothic remained active. In the Saxon territories of southern Transylvania, construction sites focused on the completion, restoration, and supplementation of some churches built or started in the 13th century, and to fortification works, no matter if they involved single-nave churches or basilicas. New churches were built in areas that had just been colonised, in the southern basin of the Târnave rivers and in the northern area, in the hinterland of Bistrița – and, generally, by the end of the 15th century, they will have been already modified or rebuilt.

306

Chapter 8

Most of the rural churches in operation around 1300 were modified, usually by extending the eastern part and replacing the old apses with polygonal-closed Gothic sanctuaries, strengthened with buttresses. For now, this phenomenon has been best highlighted in the eastern part of Transylvania, in the territories inhabited by Szeklers, due to a high number of recent excavations. However, this period also brought the completion of urban churches, representative buildings for the architecture of the Hungarian kingdom. Some of these had started around 1200 (Sighișoara, Sebeș, Sibiu, Mediaș), others were new constructions, developing much more unitary forms (Brașov, Cluj). Most of the urban churches were mentioned in this chapter, in a more or less detailed manner, depending on the available archaeological data. When analyzing the urban landscape, not only the main church is relevant, but also the whole system connected with it, including secondary churches, public or private chapels, and monasteries. However, this urban landscape disappeared almost entirely in the post-Reformation period, when many churches and monasteries ceased to function, but also later, during systematization works that stretch down to our times. Archaeology rarely helps the reconstruction of the urban religious topography, but there is an exemplar situation in the case of Sibiu, uncovered during the last decades through large-scale and trial excavations. The religious heritage of the town sums up the most important traits of the local landscape of the 14th–15th centuries, not only in terms of individual monuments, but also as a complex ecclesiastical centre, the second most important after the one in Alba Iulia. This case is briefly surveyed in the next chapter.

Chapter 9

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu 9.1

General Historical Background and Religious Heritage

The town of Sibiu1 is located in the southern part of Transylvania, on the banks of the Cibin river, close to the place where Olt river crosses the Carpathian Mountains from Transylvania into Wallachia (Map 8.1). The settlement had been founded by Catholic German colonists in the late-12th century, to become their religious centre as the seat of St Ladislau’s Provostship, firstly mentioned on 20 December 1191.2 In 1223, it was recorded as Hermannsdorf, and in 1326 as civitas. But it actually acquired this rank somewhat later, the first reference as Hermannstadt being in 1366. During the 14th–15th centuries, it was strongly fortified with two successive enclosures, reinforced with numerous towers and other external defensive works3 (Fig. 9.1). It appears that, initially, the settlement had two habitation centres: the Lower Town and the Upper Town, both founded in the middle of the 12th century (Fig. 9.1). Based on the study of urban tissue, some historians believe that the “Lower Town” was established first, but archaeological research has so 1 As the most important settlement of the Transylvanian Saxons, Sibiu was the subject of numerous studies based mainly on written sources, blueprints, medieval engravings, and architecture, and less on archaeological investigations and art history. The study of the city’s history started in the 19th century (Möckesch 1839; Seivert 1859; Reissenberger 1888, 461–514; Reissenberger 1890, 315–396) and expanded at the beginning of the 20th century, when field research revealed the lines of fortifications and details about the main church (Kimakowitz 1911, 241–271; Sigerus 1922; Bielz 1925; Sigerus 1930). For general historical data see Thalgott 1934, whith valuable sketches on urban evolution; Niedermaier 1979a, 104–116; Niedermaier 1996a, 129–130, 183–188; Niedermaier 2002, 17–19; Niedermaier 2004, 112–114, 150–156, 199–219. An important contribution also brought Herman Fabini (Fabini 1982; Fabini 1983). A short overview: Machat 1999, 60–69, 449–450, and Roth 2006. For the archaeology of the town, see Fabini 1997, 6–16; Beșliu Munteanu – Nägler 1989, 28–40; Nägler – Rill – Munteanu-Beșliu 1997, 50–54; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 14–16; Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 24–26; Munteanu Beșliu 1998, 91–102; Beșliu Munteanu 2001, 71–78; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2017, 542–593; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 351–395. 2 Urkundenbuch, I, 1–2, no. 1; DIR.C.I., 360–361; CDTrans.I., 129, no. 21; Machat 1999, 15, 35. 3 The fortifications of Sibiu have been permanently improved. The second enclosure was finished around 1300, and the third shortly after, in 1325. The later part of this system was the Soldisch Bastion, erected in 1627. Fabini 1982, 15–17; Machat 1999, 30–31. In 1438, the city was under Ottoman siege for eight days, and, for its valiant resistance, Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) dubbed it a “defence bastion of the entire Christianity”. Urkundenbuch, IV, 620–622, no. 2276.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_011

308

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1 Medieval core of Sibiu, with its churches, monasteries and chapels: 1 – parish church of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 2 – St Ladislaus’ chapel; 3 – Saint John’s chapel (?); 4 – Saint Jacob’s chapel (?); 5 – The hospital of the Order of the Holy Ghost; 6 – Holy Cross Dominican Friary, before 1474 outside the walls, now St Ursula’s church; 7 – Dominican nunnery, now Franciscan church; 8 – St Elisabeth’s Franciscan Friary; 9 – Mary Magdalene’s Franciscan Nunnery; 10 – Holy Cross chapel, near it, before 1474, the Dominican monastery (A–D – medieval gate towers; E–J – medieval towers) After Lupescu 2010b, fig. 1

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

309

far failed to provide concrete evidence of any 12th-century habitation in that area. It is possible, however, that a small group of settlers created an outpost, as a small hamlet with a wooden church, replaced during the 13th century by a stone building, on the spot of the current Church of the Asylum. On the contrary, the “Upper Town” was inhabited as early as the mid-12th century, as shown in five coins uncovered around the medieval parish church.4 The latter was in fact the core from which the settlement developed and expanded over the centuries, eventually turning into one of the most important towns in the region, comparable with large European cities such as Vienna. The first written record, actually referring to a parishioner, dates to 1309, but St Mary’s church was explicitly mentioned only in 1322. However, this was not the present-day church, but a Romanesque basilica whose ruins have only recently been identified. The parish site also included several chapels, built in the late 12th century or in the early 13th century, respectively a rotunda to the east and, on the northern and southern edges of the cemetery, two single-nave churches, with different functions and patron saints. Medieval Sibiu also had several secondary churches, private chapels, and monasteries. Two Gothic churches are attested in the proximity of the parish site: one in the Small Square, also known as the Church of the Arcades (demolished in 1851),5 and the other one in the Great Square, in the courtyard of the former Lutsch House, supposedly the seat of the Provostship before it was abolished at the turn of the 15th century.6 There were at least two private chapels in the city, one in the Great Square at no. 8, and the other on Avram Iancu Street.7 Monastic orders appeared in the area as early as the 13th century: the Premonstratensians in 12348 (unknown place), the Dominicans9 in 1241 (a first church, destroyed many times, disappeared after the Ottoman invasions of the 4 Munteanu Beșliu 1998, 87–102. For the upper town: Machat 1999, 35; Niedermaier 1996a, 204, dates the foundation around 1200. 5 Machat 1999, 39; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 385. 6 Munteanu Beșliu 2001, 63–72. 7 Machat 1999, 127; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 384–385. 8 CDTrans.I., 180, no. 176. The monastery disappeared in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion of 1241. 9 The monastery was first mentioned in 1241, as being destroyed during the Mongol invasion. CDTrans.I., 186, no. 192. Destroyed many times: Urkundenbuch, I, 144, no. 202; DIR.C.II., 242– 243, no. 274, and 478–479, no. 522–523; CDTrans.I., 257–258, no. 394. In 1474 the monastery was refounded intra muros. For the history of the monastery: Salontai 2002b, 209–227. There was also a nunnery founded sometime between the 14th and the 16th century, but its history is poorly known. Petre Beșliu has excavated some remains, next to the current Franciscan church on Șelarilor Street, supposedly from the house of the nuns. Beșliu Munteanu 2009b,

310

Chapter 9

Figure 9.2 Gothic monastic churches in Sibiu: a – church of the Ursuline monastery; b – church of the Franciscan nuns; c – church of the Dominican monastery Drawings based on Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 383, fig. 3

15th century, later rebuilt on another site), the Franciscans in 1300,10 and a convent of the Poor Clares was built between 1425 and 145011 (Fig. 9.2). From this medieval dowry, only the Church of the Asylum (in its 13th-century version) and the parish church (in its 14th–15th-century version) have survived,

10 11

65–82; Beșliu Munteanu 2009c, 343–344; Beșliu Munteanu – Georgescu – Munteanu 2010, 306. Urkundenbuch, I, 214–217, no. 286–287; DIR.C.II., 478–481, no. 522, 523; CDTrans.I., 343, no. 597–598. Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2017, 559.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

311

but there are also some vestigial remains of other churches. In the northern part of the parish site, a single-nave is hidden in a house, while from the second Dominican monastery built intra muros during the late 15th century, a Gothic chapel is still standing, as part of the 18th-century Ursuline monastery.12 The church of the convent of the Poor Clares is also preserved, but with massive Baroque changes, which left the few remaining Gothic features barely visible.13 Several churches have been reconstructed archeologically. The extensive excavations undertaken in 2005–2006 within the former cemetery yielded detailed information about the parish church and its chapels.14 The original site of the Dominican monastery was identified in 2006, and a general dating during the 13th century has been suggested.15 The late-13th-century sanctuary of the Franciscan monastery was also excavated, together with an exceptionally large nave (51 m long). The archaeologist concluded that while the church started out as a basilica, it was completed during the 14th century as a two-aisled one (a nave and a northern aisle), with a tower on the south-eastern side of the nave. It has also been recorded that, during the 15th century, the activity of the monastery ended; the naves were demolished, and the sanctuary turned to secular use. However, this information could not be correlated with medieval records, so it is unclear whether the church belonged to that monastery or not16 (Fig. 9.2). Extensive archaeological excavations were carried out on the site of the Church of the Asylum, which appears currently as a four-bay hall-church with a polygonally ended sanctuary surrounded by several chambers17 (Fig. 9.3). Analogies with other hospitals of the Middle Ages suggest that the nave was originally part of the hospital’s structure and only later redesigned as a church. 12 13

14 15 16

17

Machat 1999, 37, 82–85; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2017, 548–549; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, 378–379. Archaeology: Luca et al. 2007, 332–334. In the 18th century, the ruined church was taken over and modified by the Franciscans, which had meanwhile returned to Sibiu. Munteanu Beșliu 2001, 25; Fabini 1991, 74–77. However, there is a controversy on what was the original purpose of the vestiges located on Șelarilor Street, often confused with the ruins located on 9 Mai Street. Thalgott 1934, 76; Rusu 2000, 237–241. Archaeology: Beșliu Munteanu 2009c, 343–344. Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 41–77; Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 24–44. Luca et al. 2007, 332–334. There has been a long debate on those vestiges, located on 9 Mai Street, seen by some as the remains of St Elisabeth’s church, of the Franciscan monastery, and by others as the remains of the Poor Clares monastery. Thalgott 1934, 76; Niedermaier 1979a, 21. Archaeology: Beșliu 1991, 78–84; Beșliu Munteanu 2001, 71–78; Fabini 1991, 74–77; Munteanu Beșliu 2001, 31–41; Beșliu Munteanu 2014, 125–135. Beșliu Munteanu 2008a; Beșliu Munteanu 2009a, 171–201; Beșliu 2012, 121–136; Beșliu Munteanu 1993; Beșliu Munteanu 2008b, 276–278.

312

Chapter 9

Figure 9.3 The church of the Asylum in Sibiu: A – ground plan (top right, the church as it stands today), development stages before the year 1500, based on archaeological excavations: 1 – before 1292; 2 – 14th century; 3 – 15th century (?) and B – current view Drawing based on Beșliu Munteanu 2012, pl. xv; photo by Răzvan Pop

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

313

By contrast, the choir is an early Gothic construction, with side chapels, positioned two on the north side and one on the south side, initially opened to the church through arcades. This layout is reminiscent of the church in Prejmer, with a cross-shaped ground plan, and of other churches built under Cistercian influence. It is also very interesting that this part was made of brick, while every other church up to the 15th century was made of stone. Both the ground plan and the fabric clearly individualize this church within the landscape of Southern Transylvania, which suggested a foundation made by the brothers of the Holy Ghost Order, who owned the spot after 1292.18 The nave seems to have been finished later, perhaps around 1386 (Fig. 9.3). Large-scale excavations started in 1988 have identified traces of a previous stone construction underneath the present-day choir, built over wooden houses (?). Reconstructing a ground plan, however, was not possible, and it remains unclear if there was a church there or not. Although archaeological research has been very extensive and has yielded many insights into the history of the hospital, clear chronological elements for the beginnings of the site did not appear. Nevertheless, the cemetery seems to have been active during the 13th–14th centuries. 9.2

The Parish Site

The medieval parish comprised the main church of St Mary, at least three chapels, and a cemetery, surrounded by a stone wall with two gate towers (Fig. 9.4). The present-day Evangelical church stands as a combination between a Gothic basilica with a transept and a hall-church. An elongated sanctuary ends in a polygonal apse, and there is a huge narthex (ferula) and a multi-storey tower to the west. A large sacristy is standing on the northern side of the choir, a chapel on the southern side, both two-storey buildings, and the north and south entrances are housed into porches (Fig. 1.1., 9.4–5). The church preserves many Gothic components: the vault keys, the frames of the northern and southern portals, and the portal of the sacristy, decorated with crossed baguettes. Another important item is the bas-relief of the Prayer on the Mount of Olives, dating from the last quarter of the 15th century, now embedded into the southern wall of the choir. Famous is also The Crucifixion fresco painted by Johannes de Rozenaw (1445) on the northern wall of the choir (Fig. 9.6). The

18

Urkundenbuch, I, 191–192, no. 260; DIR.C.II., 391–392, no. 432; Thalgott 1934, 74–75; Rusu 2000, 235; Munteanu Beșliu 2000, 94–95.

314

Chapter 9

Figure 9.4 Archaeological plan of the parish site of Sibiu, c.1450 – the still standing parish (now Evangelical) church (light grey), surrounded by now disappeared chapels (except part of St Jacob’s) and enclosure wall (various darker shades); down right, the current apse of the parish church and ruins of the abandoned sanctuary expansion project Drawing and photo by the author

mobile inventory contains a bronze-cast baptismal font moulded by Master Leonhardus in 1437, a polyptych altar, and several tombstones, which are masterpieces of the 15th–18th-century Transylvanian sculpture.19 19

Möckesch 1839, 14–126.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

315

Figure 9.5 The Evangelical church in Sibiu, south view in 2021 Photo by Sebastian OVIDIU Dobrotă

The church in Sibiu, which is also the most important church of the Transylvanian Saxons, has consistently engaged the scholars’ attention, and dedicated monographs were written as early as the 19th century.20 The first 20

See the remarkable monographs compiled, in the 19th century, by Samuel Möckesch (Möckesch 1839) and Ludwig Reissenberger (Reissenberger 1884), which offered a

316

Chapter 9

archaeological observations date from 1909–1911, when Moritz von Kimakowitz recorded several ruins east of the church during sewage works; he also examined the building during its restoration in the early 20th century, compiling very thorough documentary records.21 Proper archaeological excavations first took place in 1987, on the southern side of the church, resumed at regular intervals since then.22 In 1988 and 1994, surveys were conducted on the southern and eastern sides, revealing fragments from the ruins of a late Gothic sanctuary,23 while a round church was identified in 1999, and extensively dug in 2000 and 2002.24 The rather numerous surveys carried out in the churchyard, occasioned by various systematization works in 1991, 1995, 1999, and 2004, are also relevant to the history of the church.25 The renovation of the historical centre in 2005–2006 provided the unique opportunity of systematically excavating a large part of the parish graveyard, and this concluded with an overview of the ecclesiastical site. The excavations focused on the parish cemetery active from mid-12th century until the Reformation, at the middle of the 16th century. However, fragments of the current church and ruins of some razed medieval structures (precinct wall, lime kilns, chapels) were also uncovered.26 The interior of the church was ransacked in 1853–1855, when the medieval and modern tombstones were moved to the western area (ferula), and the burial vaults were filled up. Surveys conducted in 1996 (within the sacristy),27 and 2001 (in the northern arm of the transept)28 brought data about the relation between the sanctuary and the oldest graves, dating to the 12th–13th centuries, while in 2013 the first traces of a Romanesque basilica were identified by

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complete history of this building, largely valid today. Descriptions, more or less detailed, are many: Roth 1905, 42–50, with the detailed presentation of the then supposed main construction stages; Thalgott 1934, 72–74, fig. 90; Dancu – Dancu 1968, 20–21, fig. i.9; Niedermaier 2007, 19–20; Vătășianu 1959, 213–216, 227–228, 527–530; Treiber 1971, 33–36; Machat 1999, 70–77, with recent plans; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 51–70. Kimakowitz 1913, 480–497. An inventory of archaeological research: Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 14–16; Beșliu Munteanu 2001, 71–78. Beșliu Munteanu 1995; Beșliu Munteanu 1997; Munteanu Beșliu 1998, 102, pl. VII; Machat 1999, 63. Pinter – Țiplic 2003, 284–285; Pinter 2013, 79–98. Munteanu Beșliu 1994, 55–61; Munteanu Beșliu 1998, 91–93; Beșliu Munteanu – Nițoi – Pop 2005, 335–341; Țiplic 2000, 117–125. The monograph of the excavations: Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I–II. The monograph of the cemetery: Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015. See also: Marcu-Istrate 2013a, 371–391. Munteanu Beșliu 1998, 91; Beșliu Munteanu 2001, 74. Țiplic – Crîngaci 2002, 75–84.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

Figure 9.6 Details from the interior of the Evangelical parish church in Sibiu in 2021, after a long restoration process: 1 – view to the west, the main nave; 2 – the northern aisle, view to the east; 3 – painting on the northern side of the choir; 4 – the vault of the southern porch; 5 – the southern arm of the crossing Photos by Sebastian OVIDIU Dobrotă

317

318

Chapter 9

Maria Crîngaci Țiplic and Marian Țiplic.29 The whole interior of the church was extensively surveyed in 2018–2021, during restoration works, when older masonry structures were uncovered, along with over 200 graves, cists, and burial vaults, and hundreds of artefacts as material evidence of the history of the church to our days.30 Archaeological research has revealed a series of ruins, based on which one can reconstruct the basic layout of an older church as being a three-aisled basilica ended eastward with three apses (Fig. 9.7). The main apse and the foundations between nave and aisles were best preserved – the latter being in fact still used as base for the current pillars. Fragments of the southern and northern sides of the choir, parts of the side apses, traces of the embedment trenches of the northern and southern outer walls, and fragments from the west side of the building were also unearthed. The state of preservation varies: the pillars foundations seem untouched, while the sidewalls have been completely dismantled, the stone being retrieved down to the base of the foundation. The northern robber trench, backfilled with a mixture of black earth, yellow mortar and stone, indicates that the wall of the old church ran relatively parallel to the current one, 1.45 m south of it, and that it had a width of ca. 1.4 m. It follows that the Romanesque basilica was ca. 2.85 m narrower than the current church on its sides. The rounded main apse, standing on a massive rectangular foundation, is well preserved, including the first course of the elevation made of ashlars. However, the side apses were demolished to the bottom of the foundations, aside from a part of the northern one, which displays an almost rounded shape at the demolition level (Fig. 9.7.3). As mentioned above, the church immediately before the current one was a three-aisled basilica with very narrow sides. The inner pillars stand as the current ones, suggesting a roofed central nave, but vaulted aisles. The main nave ended eastward with an elongated choir and a semicircular apse, while the aisles ended with small, rounded apses. The western part remains problematic, because the excavations could not approach the foundation of the tower, now covered in a concrete jacket. For this reason, the question whether the tower was originally part of the Romanesque basilica or was erected later over the western bay of the central nave, remains unanswered. Nevertheless, 29 30

Țiplic – Țiplic – Ignat 2015, 241–242. Archaeological investigations conducted by Daniela Marcu-Istrate, processing in progress. Short presentation: Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–197; Marcu-Istrate 2021, 451. For the first mention of the Romanesque apse of the first basilica, see Țiplic – Țiplic – Ignat 2015, 241–242; Crîngaci Țiplic – Țiplic 2019, fig. 1.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

319

Figure 9.7 The early stage of the parish church in Sibiu, the second part of the 12th century (?): 1 – reconstruction of the former Romanesque basilica (in black), based on archaeological excavations in the interior of the current parish church of Sibiu (in grey), 2018–2021; 2 – detail from the area of the former triumphal arch; 3 – detail with the main apse of the basilica Drawing by the author based on unpublished data, photos by Sebastian OVIDIU Dobrotă and Maria Crîngaci Țiplic

the western front of this church, uncovered on both sides during excavations, corresponded approximately to the western limit of the tower before being enveloped in concrete. In the late 13th century, or the early 14th century, the Romanesque church has probably outdated, and a new building process started, which reached an end only in early 16th century.31 Explaining the main steps of the process, has given historians a lot of trouble, but in the last two decades the study of 31

For a brief history of the construction site, see Machat 1999, 37–39.

320

Chapter 9

the building and its site has brought important details about how the current church was formed. Significant contributions came from architectural and dendrochronological investigations, but especially from archaeology, because of excavations carried out from 2005 until very recently32 (Fig. 9.8). The basilica was extended firstly eastward, through a transept, a new sanctuary, composed of a rectangular choir and a pentagonal apse, and a sacristy (Fig. 9.8.1). This part was built so that the western walls of the crossing were connected to the outer walls of the Romanesque aisles, in the areas where the secondary apses emerged. All the new compartments were founded all at once, on very strong foundations, made of stone boulders bound with mortar, and the construction site left on the surface a layer of white mortar that in some places is quite consistent. This part was very likely finished by 1351, when a meeting of the chapter was mentioned as being held in the choir,33 and for the next few decades the church functioned with the Romanesque nave and the Gothic sanctuary. A rood screen, whose remains were recently unearthed, had been added at one point, along the entire length of the transept. The outer walls of the church were built in a similar way, around the old Romanesque structures, at a distance of about 1.50 m. The alignment of the western façade was the same as that of the Romanesque basilica, but the standing wall was demolished down to foundation level and rebuilt, as the 2019–2020 excavations have noticed. At that point, a tower was constructed, or an older tower was just modified. The new church in Sibiu was in fact a Gothic basilica, basically finished in a relatively short period of time, in the second third of the 14th century. It was completed by 1371, as suggested by both recent studies and the town’s accounting records, which mention events related to the construction process (most often to fund raising campaigns)34 (Fig. 9.8.2). The construction site was reopened in the early 15th century, with the aim to extend the church both in length and in width, an ambition connected with the new trend in religious architecture to have bigger and fashionable

32

33 34

Dendrochronology has also contributed to establishing a timeline, by revealing that the first roof structure was that of choir and transept, made from trees felled in 1339–1353, and completed with 1393–1396 cut down trees. The beams for the roof of the naves were prepared in 1362–1364. Tóth – Botár – Walgraffe 2018, 2–33; Botár – Grynaeus – Tóth 2015, 233–242. For the architecture: Lupescu 2020, 203–207. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2020a, 181–198; Țiplic – Țiplic – Ignat 2015, 241–242. Dancu – Dancu 1968, 6. A document from 1371 mentioned some windows for the church, without specifying their destination. The analysis in: Dancu – Dancu 1968, 20–21; Machat 1999, 38; Entz 1996, 402.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

Figure 9.8 Building history of the today parish church in Sibiu (in light grey) based on archaeological excavations: 1 – mid-14th century, the Gothic church built around the Romanesque basilica (dark grey); 2 – mid-15th century, the Gothic church extended to the east and west; the building of the new sanctuary interrupted; 3 – mid-16th century, the new sanctuary demolished at the ground level; new extensions to south, north and west; in black, the today church DRAWINGS by the author

321

322

Chapter 9

churches. At the time, the city of Sibiu also experienced an accelerated urban development and its resources increased after receiving the estates of the former Provostship (dissolved in 1424) and of the Abbey of Cârța (dismantled in 1474). The project started tentatively, before 1427 (according to archaeological data), by expanding the sacristy to the north, and adding a new chapel to the south.35 A huge hall-like structure was planned mid-15th century and works began in the eastern part for a new sanctuary, founded 6 m larger than the current one, but never completed. Several ruins in the eastern part of the church were studied for the first time at the beginning of the 20th century, by Moritz von Kimakowitz,36 and then again, in 1994, by Petre Beșliu, who firstly identified them as a part of an extending project. However, the area was largely excavated only in 2005, and the ruin of the new sanctuary was entirely unearthed37 (Fig. 9.8.2). The ruins, preserved from the first row of the elevation downward, appeared immediately under the modern build-up, with 1.55 m wide foundations made of stone and brick, set in a rather careful manner (Fig. 9.4). The walls seem to have been built exclusively in brick, as suggested by the segments still preserved on the northern and southern sides. The foundation trenches disturbed several graves, one of them with a coin from 1387–1427, which established a terminus post quem for the process of building. Mid-15th century an indulgence was issued for continuing works at St Mary’s chapel,38 which supposedly was the new sanctuary, but it seems that, around 1500, the works were interrupted and never resumed. However, in 1530–1531, the local records registered the demolition of that chapel, resulting in large quantities of bricks, carved stones, and wood, which suggests that, at the time of abandonment, the walls had reached a certain height and there was a temporary roof. If things have happened as the archaeologist supposed, it means that the 14th-century Gothic apse functioned for several decades with another one only partially built around it. The construction of the 15th-century large sanctuary is an obvious fact, as it is the abandonment of the project at a rather early stage. What was the initial plan, how it evolved, and why the works were abandoned, are questions with several hypothetical answers, because no record of these works was made at 35 36 37 38

Beșliu Munteanu 1997; Beșliu Munteanu – Nițoi – Pop 2005, 335–341. Kimakowitz 1913, 490. Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 66–69. In 1448, an indulgence was granted for completion of the work “ut nuova capella ecclesiae parochialis beatae Mariae virginis in Cibinio a retro annexa et in honore eiusdem virginis …”. An altar was mentioned on the same location in 1485 (Entz 1996, 404).

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

323

that time, excepting the above mentioned ones referring to a St Mary’s chapel. There is a long debate on the correspondence between that chapel and the ruins of the choir, and it is rather difficult to imagine what the parish wanted to obtain.39 Sanda Salontai believes that the aim was to build a three aisled sanctuary, endowed with a large ambulatory, which would have been followed by a larger-scale reconstruction of the naves, a too large ambition to be carried out.40 Excavations in 2020 uncovered some traces of masonry west of the tower, based on which a small chapel was reconstructed (Fig. 9.8.2). Its foundations destroyed several medieval graves, which shows a process of building no earlier than the 14th century. However, its lifetime was very short: in the last quarter of the 15th century it was demolished and replaced with a larger, three-aisled room, corresponding to the width of the whole church, known in literature as narthex or ferula.41 New pillars were set on the ruins of the older chapel, the north and south walls extended the sides of the Gothic basilica, a western wall was built at the edge of the churchyard, and the main portal of the Gothic church was moved there. Unlike all previous constructions on the site, the new eastern and western additions were built of bricks on stone foundations (Fig. 9.8.3). It was supposed that a first tower had been built during the Romanesque stage on the westernmost bay of the nave, but, in fact, this is not clear at all, and it is equally possible for the tower to have been built during the Gothic period. Nevertheless, by the end of the 15th century it was completed. Two floors were added in 1494, and another one in 1499. Some other compartments are largely dated by inscriptions and archaeological data. A south porch was mentioned in 1457, the north arm of the transept was lengthened before 1501, and a north porch was built in 1509. There was also an attempt to change the basilican layout into a hall, by heightening the aisles to the same level as the nave, but it was accomplished only on the south side, which imposed remodeling the façade by adding seven gables. The wood for roofing this part was cut in 1517–1519. Two compartments on the south side of the nave, a small tower and a new porch, dating to before 1520, were the last achievement of this long-lasting construction site, “one of the most important 39 40 41

See a discussion in Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 40–41. Some scholars have choosen for that chapel a western location: Dancu – Dancu 1968, 11; Kimakowitz 1913, 490; Firea 2008, 66. Salontai 2013b, 60; Gerevich 1971, 90–91. This suggestion was inspired by the way the reconstruction of the church in Pest progressed at the beginning of the 15th century. Kimakowitz 1913, 494–497; Dancu – Dancu 1968, 11, for a detailed description.

324

Chapter 9

focus points and broadcast centres of the Gothic architecture in Southern Transylvania.”42 The final shape came, however, around 1530, when the mid-15th-century rebuilding project was abandoned, and the partially built new sanctuary was demolished.43 One last important change took place during the restoration of 1853–1855, when the part of the naves west of the tower was rearranged as a separate room, where the funerary slabs recovered from inside the church were deposited. Afterwards, the church in Sibiu underwent frequent restorations and structural works, the most important ones carried out at the beginning of the 20th century, then in the 1960s,44 and the latest began in 2005 and were completed in October 2021. However, important parts of the church still retain their original Gothic character, and from the medieval structure only the roodscreen was completely eliminated. 9.3

Small Churches and Other Features within the Parish Site

At least three chapels were identified on the parish site: a rotunda in the eastern part, and two single-naves in the south-east and north-east corners of the cemetery, all of them older than the current main church. The rotunda and the southern chapel are archaeological ruins, gradually excavated during the last two decades, while the third chapel is preserved as part of a dwelling (Fig. 9.4). On the axis of the current church, east from its sanctuary, lie the ruins of a round chapel, first mentioned in scholarship in around 190045 and investigated more thoroughly at the beginning of the twenty-first century. A survey led by Petre Beșliu in 1998 noticed a rounded foundation, supposed to have been part of a centrally-planned church.46 The spot was systematically excavated by Zeno Pinter in 2000 and 2002,47 when a rotunda was almost completely 42 43 44 45

46 47

Vătășianu 1959, 530. Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 66–69. Dancu – Dancu 1968, 20–21, fig. I.9. There is an interesting story about these finds. A rounded ruin was first seen by Moritz von Kimakowitz, but there were not enough data, at the moment, for identifying them as a particular church. Kimakowitz believed that the find was part of a basilica with a quite different location compared to the current church. In the current knowledge, it is obvious that, at the very beginning of the 20th century, two different buildings were surveyed: a part of a rotunda, older than the current church, respectively a part of an unfinished late Gothic sanctuary, younger than the church. Munteanu Beșliu – Rodean – Georgescu 2000, 471–484. Pinter – Țiplic 2003, 284–285; Pinter 2013, 79–98.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

325

unearthed, and, in 2005, the western part was revealed again in two trenches.48 Zeno Pinter concluded that the rotunda was a multi-storey building (inner diameter: 7.2 m; wall thickness: 0.9–1.2 m) with a central pillar and a small apse set in the thickness of the eastern wall. The explored part was deemed as a basement or a crypt of a building “probably erected by the first German colonists during the second half of the 12th century.”49 The most recent excavations have added two important details: (1) a western square compartment (4.2 m by 4.2 m) extended the round part, and (2) the embedment trenches of the round nave cut through a lime kiln50 into the natural subsoil, to a depth of 2.5 m. According to these new data, a 13th century process of building seems most likely for this small church, supposedly used as a cemetery chapel or perhaps as a baptistery and demolished in 1530–153151 (Chapter 6). Another medieval chapel is partially preserved in the north-eastern periphery of the graveyard, now hidden by the façades of the houses near the Bridge of Lies (Fig. 9.4). Over time, the building experienced important transformations, parts of the walls were rebuilt,52 and, in 1838, after being damaged by an earthquake and having its vault collapsed, it was abandoned. The remains were later included in a residential building and refurbished to look like any common house. The interior, however, still preserves fragments of a fresco uncovered in 1999, representing Saints Jacob, Christopher, and Laurence. Archaeological excavations, in 1999 and 2005, reconstructed a small single-nave (total length 10.20 m, width 5.50 m, wall thickness 0.80 m), closed to the east by a three-sided buttressed apse, built all at once.53 This chapel was mentioned in 1424, when the Provostship was dissolved, as the “capella beati Jacobi apostoli in cimiterio eiusdem parochialis ecclesiae” 48 49 50

51 52 53

Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 44–50. Pinter – Țiplic 2003, 284–285. See also: Pinter 2003, 263–286; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 196; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 44–50. Abandoned with its final charge still inside, the kiln has fallen into ruin gradually, while the area around it was used for burials. The western part of the rotunda was placed right above the kiln, without disturbing it, while the foundation trench of the round part cut the kiln down to the natural subsoil. The kiln appeared as the oldest medieval structure east of the parish church and should have been functional during the second half of the twelfth century, providing lime for the first medieval building site. For 13th-century baptisteries: Emödi – Marta 2005, 56, and the convincing arguments on note 63. The same suggestion in Nägler 1979, 113–114. For the demolition time: Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 47–49; Roman 2007, 176. It must be the rebuilding of the wall described by Samuel Möckesch as “collapsed” (Möckesch 1839, 2) and perhaps some reinforcements of the outer facade. See Țiplic 2000, 117–125, for the results of archaeological surveys on its eastern side. Țiplic 2000, 117–125; Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 41–43.

326

Chapter 9

[chapel of St Jacob within the parish cemetery] and, then again, in 1432 and 1457.54 Some authors consider this building a Romanesque structure,55 remodeled during the 15th century in the Gothic style, while others believe it was built from foundations during the 15th century.56 The patron saint could not be identified by written sources, and several possibilities have been discussed,57 but, most likely, it was dedicated to Saint Jacob58 (Fig. 9.9). The third chapel, in the southwest corner of the cemetery, is known from documentary evidence and, rather exceptionally, from drawings and photographs taken before its demolition in the 20th century.59 The chapel was first mentioned in 1424, upon the dismantling of the Provostship, again in 1432, and sometime before 1457 it came to be owned by the nearby school, to be used for services for a short period. In 1592, at the suggestion of Albert Huet, acting Constable of the Saxons, the chapel was transformed into a library. During the 19th century, it was divided into classrooms and a staircase was added on the northern side. These functional changes involved several architectural alterations, including the addition of several small rooms.60 On the way, the memory of the patron saint was lost, which led to contradictory identifications, divided between Saint James and Saint Ladislaus. One of the very few certain pieces of information refers to its demolition in 1898 in order to enlarge the street. The barely preserved ruins of the chapel were uncovered for the first time in 2005 (the nave, in the yard of the Brukenthal High School), and in 2006 (the sanctuary, below the street): a grid of walls, largely destroyed, of which only the lower course of the foundation was still in place. The enclosure wall of the cemetery had been used as the southern wall of the rectangular nave (7.30 m by 10 m), with a massive buttress against the north-western corner. Surprisingly, the uncovered sanctuary does not fit the one surveyed before the 54 55 56 57

58 59 60

Entz 1996, 87, 405; Seivert 1859, 352, 405. Samuel Möckesch mentions the year 1160, inscribe on plaster: Möckesch 1839, 1–2; Kimakowitz 1911, 250. Țiplic 2000, 119; Entz 1996, 402. Scholars discussed about Saint Ladislaus (Dumitrescu-Jippa – Nistor 1976, 107–108; Sigerus 1930, 25.), Saint Stephen (Lupu 1966, 87; Machat 1999, 38–39.), or Saint Nicholas (Seivert 1859, 362; Entz 1996, 124, 401.). However, there are frequent confusions between this chapel and the one next to the Priests’ Tower. Samuel Möckesch was the first one to assign the name of Saint Jacob to the chapel, a fact corroborated by recent research based on critical analysis of the sources: König 2000; Țiplic 2000, 118–119. A discussion in Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 41–44. Entz 1996, 87, 123, 405. Some photographs from the time of the demolition are preserved, as is a pre-demolition survey, in the files compiled by Emil Fischer, kept at Brukenthal Museum. Thalgott 1934, 76, fig. 83. Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 70–77.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

Figure 9.9 St Ladislaus’ chapel during the 2005 archaeological excavations (1) and ground plan with development stages (2) – 1. the original chapel, 13th century. 2. the wall of the cemetery, re-used for the chapel. 3–5. various additions Photo and drawing by the author

327

328

Chapter 9

demolition: the drawing registered a three-sided polygonal apse, but, in fact, it was having a rather indefinite, flattened round shape, segmented externally by three short buttresses. This peculiar design was very likely imposed by the topographical situation, the chapel being set between the enclosure wall and the gate tower, known as the Priests’ Tower. Several annexes (some archaeologically identified) were added, corresponding to various functions it had until the 19th century. In particular, three extensions, made mostly out of brick, have completely modified the exterior appearance of the original building: a square cell next to the western façade, a rectangular aisle, which probably linked the chapel (library) to the school building in the second half of the 16th century, and a staircase on the northern side, at the beginning of the 19th century. The documents are of little help in dating the two single-nave chapels, because they were mentioned only at the beginning of the 15th century. Consequently, researchers have considered different time frames, in the 12th– 15th centuries, admitting, at the same time, the possibility of intermediate reconstruction stages. However, the 2005 excavations argued for an early chronology for both of them, based on their archaeological context, and on the broad topography of the site. One of the most important observations was that the ground plan of both single-naves was influenced by the line of the enclosure wall. The southern chapel is oriented almost north to south because it used the enclosure wall as one of its long sides. The northern chapel also has a divergent axis from that of the parish church, standing parallel to the enclosure, probably near an access path. This makes it quite clear, once again, that these churches could not have been built later than the 13th century, when the enclosure wall had already more or less disappeared.61 An early dating is also supported by the fact that, although they were built within the cemetery, they did not disturb any graves, which would have been unrealistic later than ca. 1250 when the cemetery had become extremely crowded all around. In terms of their purpose, two possibilities have been considered, respectively serving the Provostship or funerary tasks. However, the countless debates on this issue have failed to produce a conclusive argument. The Provostship must have had some buildings for religious and administrative purposes as early as the end of the 12th century, but no clue is known in this regard. If the facilities were located on the northern side, then it is quite likely that the Provostship used the northern chapel, or, maybe, at one point, even the rotunda. Given 61

It is known that buildings began to appear there already in the 13th century, which caused the demolition of the wall and a narrowing of the cemetery area. An analysis in: Marcu-Istrate – Constantinescu – Soficaru 2015, 87–95.

The Major Religious Site of Sibiu

329

their eccentric position and the small number of graves nearby, it seems very unlikely that the churches located on the outskirts of the cemetery were built aiming to serve as funerary chapels. On the contrary, a huge concentration of graves in a small area on the southern side of the parish church suggest the location of a funerary chapel in that place, but further excavations are needed to check this hypothesis. In addition to the above-mentioned buildings, two isolated foundations were unearthed within the parish sites, at the western edge of the cemetery, dated to the very beginning of the building activities on the site (Fig. 9.4). The larger one has a peculiar shape: a rectangular foundation of 2.80 by 2.10 m, extended to the north by a perfectly semicircular segment of 0.50 m, resulting in a total length of 3.30 m. The smaller one has a square shape, with a side of just over 1 m. What was the function of these structures? According to analogies with similar examples, they could have served to support a Calvary, a cross, an altar, or even a pulpit.62 Their marginal position, close to the southern limit of the cemetery, raises the question whether these structures were related to the consecration of the funerary area itself.63 The document issued in 1240 (discussed in Chapter 5) describes what a place of worship could have been at the time in southern Transylvania: a church, a chapel, altars, a consecrated cemetery.64 This means that such altars were not so rare, and it is highly likely that, due to their small size, they could have easily disappeared. On the other hand, isolated foundations can be discovered only by chance, and it is almost always very difficult to interpret them. 9.4

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter has explored the medieval religious buildings of Sibiu, one of the most important cities in Transylvania, serving as the political and religious capital of the Saxon settlers and the second religious centre of the historical voivodeship. Much of the medieval heritage has been lost over time; however, the religious topography can be reconstructed in great detail, benefiting, in an almost unique manner, from the results of extensive archaeological research, conducted on significant areas of the historic city. The most important element of this heritage is undoubtedly the parish church, whose current form 62 63 64

Such small monuments, positioned in highly variable locations, were common in medieval cemeteries. Durand 1988, 127. Lauwers 2005, 155–157. Urkundenbuch, I, 76.

330

Chapter 9

goes back to the 14th–15th centuries, being the result of a construction site that has experienced near all tendencies of the local Gothic style. However, its underground structure has also preserved the ruins of the older church – or churches – whose beginnings date to the middle of the 12th century, at the time when the settlement was established and its religious nucleus defined. Shaping the urban religious landscape was one of the main phenomena of the 14th–15th centuries, but, unfortunately, the current knowledge is too limited to allow large-scale reconstructions, except for this fortunate case of Sibiu. Another example, and a very recent one, would be Baia Mare, but other medieval ensembles are only vaguely second-guessed, based on scarce documentary data, very rarely corroborated with archaeology. There is still much to be done in this direction, both in the field of recovering the results of older excavations, and toward a more careful monitoring of urban civic works. As often mentioned in the last two chapters, the urban churches were the main achievements of the Gothic period, each of them a distinctive building, with particular premises and purposes. On the other hand, these churches are credited with a great influence on the ecclesiastical landscape of their hinterland, or sometimes even on a larger, micro-regional scale. As the core of urban life, a great urban church was usually part of an area protected by large fortifications, composed of walls and towers, and often of wooden and earthen defensive lines. No matter if the defensive system surrounded a smaller (Aiud, Turda, Sighișoara) or a wider area (Sibiu, Sebeș, Brașov, Cluj) around the church, it did not require the fortification of the latter. Thus, in general, urban churches have kept their original fabric from the period of maximum flowering, without being affected by defensive works. However, this did not happen in smaller settlements and in rural areas, where churches were often transformed into defensive buildings, a phenomenon which dramatically changed the architectural landscape, as the next chapter explains.

Chapter 10

The Fortified Churches 10.1

General Considerations

Fortified churches are nowadays the most distinctive feature of the ecclesiastical landscape of Transylvania, bestowing upon it an indisputable distinctiveness in a continental context. Although similar structures were erected in various places and at various times throughout medieval Europe, nowhere did this phenomenon reach the same magnitude as in Transylvania.1 A fortress on the outside, a church on the inside and, most often than not, a Romanesque or a Gothic piece of art – the fortified church displays such a stark contrast that it takes by surprise not only the casual visitor, but also the scholar trying to retrace its history. The sharp combination of defensive and artistic elements, of the products of skilled workshops and of popular craftsmanship, resulted in composite works of brilliance and originality. Usually, a fortified church consists of a fortified enclosure and a church that could be or not strengthened for defensive purposes. In fact, this situation covers a wide array of particular instances, variously referred in scholarship as “fortified churches”, “fortress churches”, “peasant fortresses”, “priestly fortresses”, “popular fortifications”, or even as mere “churches” when the defensive elements are few in number.2 Fortified churches, seems a suitable umbrella term, since no matter the number, positioning or proportions of the curtain walls, towers, or galleries, what they all have in common, and what they are all focused on, is the church. Their shapes range from simple, small-sized stockades protecting a chapel, to complex defensive structures with multiple wards, plenty of towers, and a complex entrance system. Behind the ramparts, the sacral building developed on its own path, sometimes retaining its individuality, other times modified and strengthened with military features, a process occasionally culminating with its transfiguration into a self-standing, bulky, heavily hardened structure like an oversized defensive tower. As the various trends converged, matchless multifaceted ensembles came into being (Fig. 10.1). On the whole, if these ensembles are to be broken down into their parts, then this category would include, separately or cumulatively, the following 1 Sebastian 1932, 301–326; Horedt 1941, 596–606; Oprescu 1956, 3–13; Machat 1979, 40–47; Drăguț 1979b, 60–62; Machat 2012, 2–9. 2 Rusu 2005, 450–452. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_012

332

Chapter 10

The Fortified Churches

333

characteristics: (1) the church with a compact structure; (2) four- to sixstoreys-high towers, including almost always a main one at the western end, but, quite often, also intermediate ones, positioned on top of various compartments of churches; (3) one or more fortified upper storeys, with galleries over nave and chancel, often linked with towers; (4) outer fortifications, consisting of walls and towers, often further reinforced with moats and earthen ramparts. The combination of these elements resulted in a wide variety of solutions, which have best been described by George Oprescu: “Each and every one is a special case, resulting from the fortunate and exceptionally effective combination – most of the times only then and once only – of a great number of elements.”3 Although Transylvania retains a treasure-trove of fortified churches, scattered throughout its territory, they are particularly emblematic for the Saxons, reaching the highest density and complexity in the colonised areas from south and north, where almost every religious building was turned into a defensive structure.4 Nevertheless, Szeklers and Magyars also built fortified churches, 3 Oprescu 1955, 48. 4 A lot has been written on this category of churches, starting with the beginning of the 20th century. For an introduction to the topic see Roth 1905, 96–108; Sigerus 1923; Bielz 1899; Letz 1970. The first detailed inventory, still very useful: Horwath 1940a. For individual sites and the Map 10.1 ←

Sites relevant for the fortification process of Transylvanian churches. Two main regions of church fortification, the central South-Transylvanian Saxon colonization area (left), and the eastern one (right), are shown in further detail. 1. Agârbiciu; 2. Aita Mare; 3. Aiud; 4. Alba Iulia; 5. Albești; 6. Albiș; 7. Alțâna; 8. Amnaș; 9. Apold; 10. Archita; 11. Arcuș; 12. Ațel; 13. Avrig; 14. Axente Sever; 15. Bazna; 16. Bălcaciu; 17. Beia; 18. Belin; 19. Biertan; 20. Bistrița; 21. Boian; 22. Boz; 23. Brașov; 24. Brateiu; 25. Brădeni; 26. Bunești; 27. Buzd; 28. Calnic; 29. Câlnic; 30. Câmpia Turzii; 31. Cârța-Csíkkarcfalva; 32. Chirpăr; 33. Cincu; 34. Cisnădie; 35. Cisnădioara; 36. Ciucsângeorgiu; 37. Cloașterf; 38. Cluj-Napoca; 39. Codlea; 40. Copșa Mică (including Târnăvioara); 41. Cricău; 42. Cristian; 43. Cristian–Großau; 44. Curciu; 45. Daia-Thalheim; 46. Daia; 47. Dârjiu; 48. Dealu Frumos; 49. Dej; 50. Dobârca; 51. Drăușeni; 52. Dumitra; 53. Feldioara; 54. Feliceni; 55. Firtușu; 56. Fișer; 57. Gârbova; 58. Gârbova de Sus; 59. Ghidfalău; 60. Ghimbav; 61. Hălchiu; 62. Hărman; 63. Homorod; 64. Hosman; 65. Huedin; 66. Ilieni; 67. Jelna; 68. Lechința; 69. Mărtiniș; 70. Mediaș; 71. Mercheașa; 72. Merghindeal; 73. Meșendorf; 74. Miercurea Sibiului; 75. Mihăileni; 76. Moșna; 77. Movile; 78. Netuș; 79. Nicolești; 80. Ocna Sibiului; 81. Orăștie; 82. Petrești; 83. Prejmer; 84. Racu; 85. Reghin; 86. Roadeș; 87. Rodbav; 88. Rodna; 89. Rotbav; 90. Rupea; 91. Saschiz; 92. Sâncraiu; 93. Sâncrăieni; 94. Sânnicolau de Beiuș; 95. SânpetruPetersberg; 96. Sebeș; 97. Sfântu Gheorghe; 98. Sibiu (including Turnișor); 99. Sighișoara; 100. Streisângeorgiu; 101. Șaroș pe Târnave; 102. Șeica Mică; 103. Șoala; 104. Șoarș; 105. Șura Mică; 106. Tărpiu; 107. Târgu Mureș; 108. Teaca; 109. Tomești; 110. Turda; 111. Turia; 112. Țapu; 113. Valea Viilor; 114. Vărd; 115. Velț; 116. Vermeș; 117. Veseud; 118. Viscri; 119. Vulcan; 120. Vurpăr; 121. Suseni (Colț Fortress); 122. Vârghiș. Author: Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

334

Figure 10.1

Chapter 10

The fortified church in Moșna: 1 – church, 13th–16th centuries; 2 – tower, 14th century; 3 – additions to the church – porches and towers, 15th–16th centuries; 4 – additions linking the church with the tower – the ‘Old School’, 17th century; 5 – the chapel, 14th century; 6 – the defensive ward and other various buildings, late 14th–17th centuries Drawing based on unpublished archaeological data, led by the author; photo by the author

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.2

335

The Orthodox church in Colț, with a tower over the square chancel After Popa 2014, 286

especially in the eastern parts of the region, where they neighboured the Saxon territories and were influenced by them.5 Furthermore, some of the earliest occurrences of churches with fortified areas might have happened in the Orthodox milieu of south-western Transylvania. (see Chapter 11) (Fig. 10.2). related bibliography: Fabini 1998 and 2009. There is no archaeological overview, and reports are very rarely taken into consideration by historical and architectural papers. 5 For a general overview see Dávid 1981; Léstyán 2000; Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995; Kénosi Tőzsér – Uzoni Fosztó 2009; Sófalvi 2017, 165–178. For general information: Bagyinszki – Tatár 2010; Rossel 2015.

336

Chapter 10

In 1975, the number of religious sites with fortified churches was listed as 182,6 but nowadays there are only about 150 preserved complexes. Based on the data available, it is likely that their numbers came closer to 300 in the Middle Ages, more or less one-third of all the churches in operation until around 1500.7 This rough estimate is, however, far from accurate, since, despite the abundant amount of data provided by history, archaeology, and architecture, the phenomenon is yet to be systematically and interdisciplinary studied.8 Especially sophisticated and multifaceted products of this phenomenon survive in central-southern Transylvania, in the valley of the Târnave rivers, composed of rectangular or polygonal walls with a variable number of towers and, most specifically, of a strong fortified church.9 Some of the most valuable examples, originally unshielded basilicas or single-nave churches, are the ones in Aita Mare, Bunești, Archita, Meșendorf, Șoarș, Fișer, Rodbav, and Beia.10 There are also a great number of the so-called reduit-churches, as self-standing fortifications, as for example in Boz, Bazna, Boian, Valea Viilor, and Roadeș – a type that reached its peak around 1500, when the churches in Saschiz and Cloașterf were built.11 The churches with paired towers are also distinctive, particularly the ones in Dealu Frumos,12 Merghindeal,13 Movile,14 and Brădeni.15 In many cases, the end result depended on the basic design of the church at the time of fortification: a residence including a single-nave church in Viscri (Fig. 4.15), a single-nave in Homorod (Fig. 6.6), a Romanesque basilica in Drăușeni (Fig. 8.7, 10.8), a Gothic basilica in Moșna, to mention only a few of the possibilities (Fig. 10.1). The most elaborate is the one in Biertan, with a fortified church and a complicated network of walls and towers.16 Nevertheless, sophisticated enclosures were commonplace: two lines of curtain walls, strengthened by seven towers, in Archita,17 two lines of curtain walls and a complicated gateway system in Apold, etc.18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Drăguț 1979b, note 11. For the situation in the 2000s: Machat 2012, 6. These statistics did not include several dozens of chapels within fortresses and took into consideration only Saxon achievements. Oprescu 1955, 50, an estimate based on intuition at that time, to be confirmed by further architectural and archaeological research. Rusu 2005, 444–455. Horwath 1940a, 1–3, 12–32, 45–48; Treiber 1971, 102–103, 153–1154, 163–165; Drăguț 1979a, 118–121; Drăguț 1979b, 65–67. Fabini 2009, 128–173. Roth 1905, 98–99; Oprescu 1956, 192–193; Vătășianu 1959, 598–599; Fabini 1998, I, 396. Roth 1934, 132; Horwath 1940a, 3; Treiber 1971, 113; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 18. Fabini 1998, I, 472–474; Drăguț 1979b, 66–67. Fabini 1998, I, 311–312; Horwath 1940a, 88. Horwath 1940a, 7–10; Treiber 1971, 117; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 27. Fabini 1998, I, 67–69. 8–12. Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 34; Vătășianu 1959, 596; Fabini 1998, I, 25–29. Horwath 1940a, 108–110; Drăguț 1979a, 129; Fabini 1998, I, 754–758.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.3

337

The fortified church in Sânpetru-Petersberg: 1 – the first enclosure with towers, 14th–16th centuries; 2–3. Extensions and rooms built on the inner face of the main wall, 16th–17th centuries, some of them probably older. 4. The present day church, 18th–19th century Drawing based on Fabini 1998, I, fig. 342.2 and on unpublished archaeological excavations in 1994 and 2020–2021, led by the author

The largest and most impressive examples survive in the Land of Bârsa, some of them dating to the 13th century. As a zonal peculiarity, the churches were not heavily strengthened, apart from their massive western towers, the efforts focusing on the external walls. The fortifications in Prejmer, Hărman, and Sânpetru-Petersberg (Fig. 10.3) are remarkable examples of this variant, characterised by circular or oval courtyards enclosed by soaring wide ramparts, reinforced by towers, and accessible only through highly developed gateways.19 19

Horwath 1929, 113–158; Drăguț 1979b, 63; Vătășianu 1959, 572–573.

338

Chapter 10

In the north, around Bistrița, the fortified churches are simpler, consisting usually only of a 15th-century defensive wall and a tower. Interesting examples are in Tărpiu, Vermeș, Lechința, Jelna, and Dumitra, now in a poor condition.20 However, the early Gothic basilica in Teaca had a large enclosure with a stone wall and several towers, all of them now long gone.21 The tower in Rodna was among the earliest built in Transylvania, being in use after the middle of the 13th century.22 In the eastern part of Transylvania, on the upper valley of the Olt river and in the Ciuc Depression, fortified churches are substantially smaller in size than the southern examples, taking usually the shape of a basic bailey protected by a gate tower, as seen in Turia de Sus, Racu, or Cârța – Csíkkarcfalva.23 Stronger examples are evident in Mărtiniș, Ilieni, Arcuș, Dârjiu, or Sfântu Gheorghe, but their extended variants were realized during the 16th and 17th centuries, although superposing older walls should be taken into consideration.24 The church in Dârjiu was in fact the only religious building fortified through defensive features over nave and sanctuary.25 10.2

The Emergence and Development of Fortified Churches

Combinations of religious spaces and fortification features had already appeared in the 11th and 12th centuries, when the emerging local elite started to build residences that included chapels.26 The earliest case was uncovered in Sânnicolau de Beiuș, where a small church stood by the side of an 11th-century manor house,27 while the oldest church presumed to have been provided with

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Gaiu 2016, 8–12; Gaiu 2020, 275–292; Fabini 1998, I, 804–805 (Vermeș), 759–762 (Tărpiu), 423–426 (Lechința), 482–484 (Dumitra), 699–701 (Jelna). Tărpiu: Kovács 2011. Archaeology: Rădulescu, 2010, 321–342. Fabini 1998, I, 759–762. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2002a, 159–191. The ruins of the defensive wall have been uncovered during excavations. Entz 1968, 17, 170; Binder 1992, 145–149; Fabini 1998, I, 607–609; Salontai 2010, 297–320. Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 101–112; Rossel 2015, 56–57, 82–86 (Cârța), 98–100 (Racu), and 152–155 (Turia); Drăguț 1979a, 130–131; Vătășianu 1959, 576–577. Rossel 2015, 194–197, 204–205, 280–283, 306–313 and 288–293; Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 165–171 (Arcuș), 176–183 (Sfântu Gheorghe) and 184–195 (Dârjiu). Machat 2012, 9; Drăguț 1979b, 66; Dávid 1981, 267–279, fig. 271 and 272; Orbán 1868–1873, I, 178–181; Botár – Grynaeus – Tóth 2013, 2–26. Oprescu 1956, 50–60, for a simplified description of the context. Horedt 1941, 608; Popa 1972c, 257. Popa – Chidioșan – Lukács 1984, 21–34; Avram 2006a, 103–110.

The Fortified Churches

339

dwelling spaces is the Orthodox one in Streisângeorgiu, founded by a local kneaz in the early 12th century.28 Residences including chapels are believed as typical for the leaders of the Saxons, regardless of whether the place of worship was an individual building or a room within a tower.29 A rotunda surrounded by earthen ramparts was in use in the mid-12th-century Orăștie30 and a residence with a complex planimetry, located on top of a hill that did not need fortification works (however, a stone wall is supposed for around 1200),31 was unearthed in Sighișoara – the Church on the Hill32 (Chapter 4) (Fig. 0.1). Tower-houses that included chapels might have been quite common for the greavs in the century before the Mongol invasion, although, when uncovered, actually dating their remnants is challenging at the very best. In Gârbova, a strong tower stands in the middle of a roughly square enceinte with rounded corners and a northern entrance tower, while a ruin in the south-eastern corner is believed to have been a round chapel, but the situation is unclear.33 The residences in Viscri34 (Fig. 3.19) and Câlnic35 (Fig. 10.4) comprised a donjon and a single-nave small church, while, in Hărman, a rectangular tower with a chapel at the first floor had its own earthen enclosure, as evidenced by unpublished archaeological research.36 In Daia-Thalheim a curtain with a stone tower is assumed to go back to the 13th century, but its current shape dates from a later time, and no excavations have been made.37 Archaeological research has identified a similar situation in Albești, probably the residence of 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37

Popa 1978, 22; Popa 1972c, 251–254. An overview for the topic of chapels in fortifications: Rusu 2005, 202–218. Botár 2013, 161–1722. Entz 1968, 132; Treiber 1971, 30; Fabini 1998, I, 97–102. Archaeology: Pinter 2003, 263–266. For a reconstruction of the early stage of the fortification: Crîngaci Țiplic – Pinter – White 2007, 2–6 and fig. 1–2. Niedermaier 1979a, 91. For archaeology see Baltag 1979, 75–106; Popa – Baltag 1980, 48. General information: Entz 1968, 19, 170–171; Treiber 1971, 26; Nussbächer 1985, 98–105. Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 7–8; Baltag 2004, 17–43. Fabini 2009, 113–114; Anghel 1986, 119–120; Rusu 2005, 216 believes that it was a semicircular apse, but others chose the variant of a round church. Crângaci Țiplic 2011, 216–217; Fabini 1998, I, 774–775 mentions archaeological excavations performed by Radu Heitel, which concluded that in around 1100 there were Szeklers living there. Anghel 1986, 30–31. Archaeology: Dumitrache 1981, 262–263, 275; Dumitrache 1978a, 35–53. Machat 2012, 9; Rusu 2005, 215, for a 13th-century first stage; Simina 2000, 102–103 for archaeological results. Archaeological surveys in 1994 during restoration works, led by D. Marcu-Istrate. On the chapel: Fabini 1998, I, 227–228; Jenei 2003, 81–82. Fabini 1998, I, 743–745; Avram 1981, 65 argues for an early date, even before 1200. For dating the church that stands in the centre of the ward in the 13th century, see Avram 1977a, 75–77.

340

Chapter 10

Figure 10.4

The archaeology of the fortification in Câlnic, 14th century: A – the main tower, late 13th century; B–C – the defensive wall, late 13th century with its gate tower (B) and opposing defensive tower (C); D – the chapel, 14th century; E – well; F – chambers; G – outer ward barbican; H – outer ward bastion. Chronology: 1. foundations from the oldest construction phase, probably abandoned keep project (13th c., already dismantled by the 14th century); 2. the keep and the main ward (late 13th c.); 3. the chapel (14th c.); 4. chambers (17th c.); 5. the outer ward and various other buildings (16th–18th c.) Drawing based on Simina 2000, 108–110, fig. 3–5 and Heitel 1968, fig. 1

the Saxon Knights Corrard and Daniel, sons of Johannes Latinus, mentioned as owners of the village from 1231 on. A stone chapel and a wooden tower were probably built there in the 13th century, to be destroyed by a fire in the 14th century and abandoned.38 In eastern Transylvania, a chapel is mentioned 38

Rusu 2005, 501. For archaeology: large, unpublished excavations mentioned in Baltag 2000, 216–223; Rusu 2012, 112–114; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 140–141, pl. 6/5.

The Fortified Churches

341

in the fortification of Firtușu, considered, by some, as a 12th century building, but its dating remained unclear even after archaeological research.39 In late 12th century and early 13th century, many Romanesque basilicas were endowed with donjon-like towers, multi-storeyed, with massive structures, winding staircases, loop-holed walls, and upper defensive galleries. Their function may have been primarily religious in nature; nevertheless, they also had prestige value and strategic functions, operating as watching points, and probably sites of refuge for their owners in case of need.40 There is not a clear picture about the popularity of these towers, but recounting the aftermath of the Mongol invasion, monk Roger noticed the church towers as the only landmark still standing.41 This means that an important number of massive towers had been built before 1241. Nonetheless, whatever their context, the early towers were still holdings of the upper class – when in residences, but probably the same was true in the case of churches. What about the commoners? Although there were a number of hill-forts, these could not provide effective protection to everyone, so that people did not have where to take refuge in case of quick and unexpected attacks.42 This situation contributed to the disaster that unfolded in the wake of the Mongols, and things hardly got any better latter on, since, until far into the first half of the 14th century, the presence of the hordes continued to threaten Transylvania. This was probably the period when the first broader concerns for the strengthening of public churches emerged, and, by the end of the 13th century, the phenomenon seems to have been quite general. Moats and powerful walls and towers surrounded from the very start the churches erected in the Land of Bârsa, and it would not be surprising if many of the ones in the Târnave rivers area also go back to this century. Individual dating is not clear at all, but, in 1291, Andrew III was worried about too many towers and fortifications associated with churches, mirroring a situation that needs further investigations to be better understood.43 The fortification process gained a new and stronger momentum under the threat of the Ottoman danger, which started in the third decade of the 15th century.44 After the devastating raid of 1421, which pressured southern 39

40 41 42 43 44

Orbán 1868–1873, I, 113, 119, 126–129, 130, 145; Vătășianu 1959, 16, 78; Dávid 1981, 135–139. For archaeology: Macrea et al. 1951, 285–312; Horedt – Székely – Molnar 1962, 633, 639; Sófalvi 2007, 37–48 argues that it might have been a Romanesque chapel. Rusu 1999a, 60–75, and Rusu 2005, 213, for a hesitating dating, shifting between the 13th and the 18th century. Gheorghiu 1985, 49, argues that most Romanesque churches that had belltowers were planed from the very start with a defensive purpose in mind. Rogerius, Carmen miserabile, XL. Rusu 2005, 98–103. Urkundenbuch, I, 242; Drăguț 1979a, 114–115. Gündisch 1974, 199–206; Drăguț 1979b, 60–72.

342

Chapter 10

Transylvania, destroying numerous settlements and fortifications, including the important town of Brașov, the pace of the raids remained particularly intense throughout the 15th century, especially in its first half. When the Ottomans reached the chain of the Carpathians, Transylvania became part of the last barricade in front of Central Europe and faced a tremendous pressure. The general situation put the communities in great difficulty, while older hill forts, located rather far away from habitation areas, proved less and less reliable, and became gradually redundant. Owning effective defensive means became a necessity, and urban communities achieved strong fortifications for protecting not only the main buildings, but also the dwelling core-areas. In the 15th century, Sibiu already had at least two successive defensive lines, and walls strengthened with towers were rising around Brașov, Sebeș, Mediaș, Cluj, Târgu Mureș, Turda (three, of which only one was partially preserved), Câmpia Turzii, Dej, Huedin, Aiud, Reghin, and Bistrița.45 Even some boroughs, such as that of Feldioara, managed to surround the central part with stone and wooden structures, re-using a prehistoric fortification, at the end of the 14th century46 – as mentioned in 1380, when a right of asylum was granted for the walled area, including the parish church, the cemetery, and several houses47 (Fig. 10.5). As a general rule, medium and small communities focused, however, on creating or improving a fortress around the parish church, which had major practical advantages: the church was already there, as a stone building large enough to house the community in times of need, and, furthermore, it was easily accessible and near at hand.48 This was the beginning of the fortified church, a building that multiplied the force of divine protection with a real security behind its massive walls and towers. 45

46

47 48

Work on the fortification of Brașov started in the decades following the year 1400, but a century later there were still reported segments protected with wooden- and earthen-works. A draft on the development of this fortification system in Nussbächer 2001; Niedermaier 2016, 115, 192–193; Gheorghiu 1985, 88–89. The archaeology of the fortification: Marcu-Istrate 2003, 307–309; Marcu-Istrate 2018b, 132–136. On the settlement and other archaeological works see Popa 1995, 30–32; Ioniță et al. 2004, 27–39; Binder 1969, 126; Vătășianu 1959, 604. For the settlement: Niedermaier 2016, 204–206; Nussbächer 1981, 29; Urkundenbuch, II, 509–510, no. 1114; Urkundenbuch, III, 152–153, no. 1363. Urkundenbuch, IV, 121–122, no. 1878. For an analysis see Marcu-Istrate 2018b, 135–136. The fortification was abandoned around 1500, when the settlement expanded and chose to strengthen the former Teutonic fort. According to Hermann Fabini, 71% of these were located in the very midst of the settlement, while the remaining 29% had a rather marginal position, but, anyway, within the inhabited area. Most of them were on flat land (62%), 16% on higher ground, 6% on a promontory, and 16% downhill. Fabini 2009, 16–18.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.5

343

The fortified area of medieval Feldioara: the outer fortification (developed from the Teutonic one) to the right, and the inner fortification, around the core of the settlement, to the left. Romanesque 13th-century church, with a Gothic sanctuary (14th century?) and a fortified tower. Reconstitution by Radu Oltean After Marcu-Istrate – Ioniță 2019, fig. 31

Although traditionally scholars date most fortified churches in the decades around the year 1500, in 1436 Pope Eugene IV mentions information, from the Dean of Sibiu, about the Saxons having found a defensive solution by fortifying their churches.49 This means that, at the time the strategy must have already been widespread in the Germanic areas, accordingly it is reasonable to assume that the fortification works had started in the 13th or 14th century, and greatly expanded at the beginning of the 15th century attacks. Construction works of varying scales have been made throughout the 15th century, reaching a peak in around 1500, boosted by a very powerful new Ottoman assault in 1493. 10.3

General Planimetric Considerations

From the basic chapel within a fortified residence, to the self-standing fortified churches and the intricate wall systems of the early 16th century, the pathway was long and gave rise solely to individual projects.50 Until the late 15th century, no church was built as a fortress, but defensive features were added to 49 50

Urkundenbuch, IV, 620–622, no. 2276. Various classification proposals: Sebastian 1932, 303–310; Vătășianu 1959, 570–604; Fabini 2009, 55–85.

344

Chapter 10

churches already in use or under construction. Almost every medieval example had its own development, but generally speaking, three large categories can be distinguished: fortified churches, churches with a fortified enclosure, and fortified churches with fortified enclosures. Although it is assumed that every church had a stone wall around, this was not always true: the church in Feldioara had a belltower, fortified in the 15th century, but its surrounding wall was never more than a fence51 (Fig. 10.5). The strongest category was that of fortified churches with strong walls, perfected and reaching the greatest pattern in around 1500, and especially during the 16th century. In almost all cases, the main item was a strong tower, with sturdy walls (often over 3 m thick), four to seven floors, an entrance way above the ground level, accessed through wooden ladders and stairways in the thickness of the walls, loopholes, machicolations, and defensive floors with galleries above.52 The pattern seems to have been influenced by the 12th–13th century donjon, whether it was part of a residence or attached to a Romanesque basilica. In Viscri, the tower-house related to a single-nave church standing 4 meters eastward, both surrounded by an irregular, ellipse-shaped wall. The residence was taken over by the community, becoming a parish site, toward the end of the 13th century, and, by the early 16th century, the church was linked to the tower, which ganed a typical belfry53 (Chapter 4). This happened exactly in the same way in Mediaș,54 as shown in both cases by excavations, which suggests that it might have been a widespread phenomenon. In other cases, the churches were shaped by effectively sticking rooms for worship to a tower, resulting in a kind of turriform church. This situation is to be supposed when a tower lies in an atypical position (as in Axente Sever55) (Fig. 6.7) or between the nave and the sanctuary (Turnișor (Fig. 10.6.2)),56 Agârbiciu,57 Țapu58 (Fig. 10.6.1), but always the presumptions need to be verified archaeologically. 51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58

Marcu-Istrate 2018b, 134–135. For a short analysis of the defensive elements, see Fabini 2009, 68–73; Sebastian 1932, 301–307. Dumitrache 1981, fig. 7. Fabini – Beldie Dumitrache 1977, 92; Dumitrache 1981, 269. Vătășianu 1959, 242; Roth 1905, 106; Fabini 1998, I, 192–193. Archaeological excavations in 2005–2006 did not clarify the evolution of this site. Beșliu Munteanu 2006, 82–84; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 152. Usually, the tower and the southern chapel are dated to the 13th century. Roth 1905, 16–17, 97; Horwath 1940a, 53–54; Fabini 1998, I, 511–514; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 229. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 28–29 – at the turn of the 13th–14th centuries; Treiber 1971, 64; Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 74; Fabini 1998, I, 22–23. Fabini 1998, I, 20–21; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 234.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.6

Turriform churches. 1. The fortified church in Țapu, early 14th century; 2. the church in Turnișor: Romanesque basilica built c.1200, with a huge tower in-between the nave and the apse, and with strong, over 3m thick walls AFTER FABINI 1998, I, FIG. 2.2. AND 307.2

345

346

Chapter 10

Most often, strong towers stood close to Romanesque basilicas, on the last western bay of the nave, against the western façade, or at some distance next to the church, usually to the west. Some basilicas were endowed with multi-functional towers even before 1200; afterwards, it was a continuous habit throughout the Medieval Ages, whether it was generated by actual needs or just by fashion, which it probably became at some point. A remarkable number of towers are still standing, but both their dating and their relation to churches must be carefully questioned. At any rate, as archaeological investigations have frequently shown, a late tower could often imitate, for reasons difficult to be understood now, an earlier appearance – as was the case in Sighișoara and Hărman (Chapter 5). One of the earliest examples comes from Cisnădie, with a tower over the western part of the nave, erected before the Mongol invasion: roughly square in shape (12.20 by 12.80 m), with 3 m thick walls, it has a ground floor with cross-shaped vaults, a gallery at the first floor, and five more stories to the top, for a total height of 32.5 m.59 Frequently, towers were built against the western façade, on the same width as the nave: in Drăușeni this was part of the original 13th-century design, but often this situation reflects a change of the original layout (Cricău,60 Sebeș) or a later addition (Fig. 3.11). Strong western towers are to be seen in the Land of Bârsa, for example in Hărman, Feldioara, Ghimbav, Codlea, Hălchiu, or Cristian, usually dated to the 13th century.61 However, where excavations have been made, the results revealed that their present appearances could be younger, from the 14th, or even the 15th century. The western tower of the church in Hărman displays a quadrate base of 10.20 by 10.80 m, 3 m thick walls, and its original height was of

59

60 61

Vătășianu 1959, 29–30; Ionescu 1963, 76, 329–330; Treiber 1971, 38; Fabini 2009, 61; Fabini 1998, I, 284–285, for a dating around 1200. Similar towers are preserved in Cincu, Cristian-Großau, Avrig, etc. Fabini 1998, I, 217–219, 246–247; Horwath 1940a, 39, 82; Entz 1968, 27, 138. Archaeological surveys in 1961 and 1964–1966, basically unpublished. Several conclusions, accompanied by a generic map of the ruins in Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 487–488. Feldioara: Fabini 1998, I, 448–449; Morres 1929, 168. Ghimbav: Morres 1929, 179; FabritiusDancu 1980, 44; Horwath 1929, 127–139; Fabini 1998, I, 789. Codlea: Fabini 1998, I, 827–830; Nussbächer 1994, 166–170; Treiber 1971, 169; Vătășianu 1959, 545. Hălchiu: Fabini 1998, I, 278–282. Cristian: early Gothic church, with a massive tower, made of volcanic tuff in the second part of the 13th century, now with many changes from the beginning of the 20th century. From the old church, only the tower is still standing, the naves being demolished and rebuilt mid-20th century. Morres 1929, 189; Vătășianu 1959, 112–113; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 43; Fabini 1998, I, 524–529.

The Fortified Churches

347

Figure 10.7 The archaeology of the fortified Evangelical church in Hărman. 1. The fortified tower (13th–15th centuries) and rooms added on the southern side of the Romanesque basilica during the fortification process, 15th–16th century (photo by the author). 2. The fortress around the church: 1 – the church (13th–15th centuries); 3 – the chapel (12th–14th centuries); 4 – presumed original ramparts, 13th–14th centuries; 5 – various expansions of the fortification system and accessory buildings (15th–17th centuries.); 6 – archaeological excavations Drawing based on Dumitrache 1983, 117 and Fabini 1998, 307, fig. 185.3

348

Chapter 10

25 m, being the highest from south-eastern Transylvania62 (Fig. 10.7). Its architecture suggests a 13th- or 14th-century construction date, but archaeological and wall investigations showed at least three stages of building, the current shape being the result of a 15th-century construction site63 (Chapter 5). The same is true for Feldioara64 and Sighișoara – the Church on the Hill,65 and the excavations may bring other surprises of this kind in the future. One must be careful in evaluating these constructions, because even if the basic tower was Romanesque, it may have been heightened and fortified in the 15th century or later, and such situations are sometimes quite visible even without archaeological excavations (Hălchiu66). However, an important number of towers were added much later to Romanesque structures, as for example in Dealu Frumos67 or Rodbav.68 Based on the available data, it seems that a donjon-like/strong tower could be built or added to a church anytime between the end of the 12th century and the 16th century, or maybe even later on, so that, unless clear indicia point for a more conclusive date, narrowing down this timeframe is difficult. Nevertheless, Hermann Fabini noticed that towers closely resembling the old donjons tend to predate the late 14th century – afterwards they became gradually flimsier, with walls rarely more than 2 m thick. Furthermore, the older towers might have quite sophisticated artistry and stonework, particularly on their frames and vaults, such as in Drăușeni, while, from the 15th century on, these elements almost completely disappeared, and many were built almost exclusively from bricks.69 The ‘towering’ phenomenon also engaged churches that already had a tower, although one not strong enough. Building a new tower around the old one seems to have been a rather widespread practice, purposed 62 63 64 65 66 67

68 69

Fabini 2009, 61; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 41; Treiber 1971, 99; Fabini 1998, I, 308, for a 14th-century dating. Dumitrache 1983, 44. Unpublished excavations led by Adrian Ioniță and Daniela Marcu-Istrate. Marcu-Istrate 2018d, 7–10; Marcu-Istrate 2018a, 140–141. On the church: Entz 1968, 19, 159, 170–171; Vătășianu 1959, 430, 764–765; Machat 2002, 100–101. Fabini 1998, I, 280. The 13th-century basilica was rebuilt in 1807, but the 14th-century built and 15th-century fortified tower managed to survive. Horwath 1940a, 127; Mittelstrass 1961, 66; Treiber 1971, 196. Horwath 1940a, 3–5, was the first one to notice that the tower had been constructed later, inside the basilica, and has advanced a 14th-century dating. Nevertheless, the chronology of the tower remains uncertain, various scenarios ranging from the 13th century (Sinigalia 1976, 72 and fig. 1) to the early 16th century (Vătășianu 1959, 578–579). Archaeology: Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 154–158. The tower with a square-shaped ground plan (7.80 by 7.80 m, 2.40 m thick walls) was built in around 1260. Archaeological research conducted by Radu Heitel, mentioned in: Fabini 2009, 62. Fabini 2009, 60–66, with further examples of preserved towers.

The Fortified Churches

349

to produce thicker walls, and allow raising the structure to greater heights. The Romanesque tower in Dobârca was actually enclosed within a new one, with 2.5 m thick walls,70 while in Archita and Roadeș the walls were thickened and heightened.71 The tower in Archita (5 floors) was built during the 14th century as an addition to a 13th-century basilica, slightly wider than the nave, and, afterwards, the ground floor was encapsulated into a 1 m thick masonry, an entrance being preserved on its eastern side.72 On the other hand, simply heightening the tower was quite common, for example in Ațel the tower of the 14th-century Gothic basilica was built up into a massive one by adding two new storeys and a gallery on corbels, in 1420.73 Building fortified church-towers was not only specific to basilicas: many single-nave churches had strong towers. But to what extent we can talk about their defensive role remains an open topic. As for eastern Transylvania, one of the most imposing is the tower in Racu, with walls over 2 m thick, better known for the strange paintings that cover its walls on the outside. The high building has a sober facing with only a few loopholes, and its origins are generally traced back to the Middle Ages.74 The medieval church in Tomești had a wall since the 14th century, and, during the Gothic reconstruction from the second part of the 15th century, it received a high western tower, now in ruin.75 This case very likely mirrors a fairly widespread situation, because in other places the Gothic reconstructions (which generally replaced the late Romanesque apses with Gothic choirs) also considered the addition of a strong tower – attached to the church (Feliceni76) or to the enclosure walls. However, many defensive-looking belltowers in the Land of Szeklers were recently dated by dendrochronological analyses to the

70 71

72 73 74 75 76

Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 98–99. It is assumed that works were carried out during the late 15th century. Horwath 1940a, 107–109; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 2; Fabini 1998, I, 149–151; Treiber 1971, 82; Nussbächer 1985, 38–41. The Rotbav tower was wrapped with a 2.10 m-thick wall, its side becoming thus 10.50 m long. Fabini 2009, 64. The system was effective at that time, but the two towers were not tied one to another to work as a unified structure. Reaching a state of dilapidation, the tower collapsed in 2016. Fabini 1998, I, 25–29, the plan on page 27; Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 34; Vătășianu 1959, 69, 596. Fabini 2009, 150–151; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 45; Vătășianu 1959, 216–217, 535, 574. Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 96–100; Rossel 2015, 97–98. The medieval church has been demolished in the 18th century, and only the ruined tower stands currently on site. Rossel 2015, 127–129. Archaeological investigations in 2002–2003: Botár 2009a, 11–22; Botár – Tóth 2004, 271–303; Botár 2005, 37–54. Rossel 2015, 146–149; Dávid 1981, 119–121; Cantacuzino 1974, 94–96; Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 79–119.

350

Chapter 10

17th, or even the 18th century,77 although this would be worthwhile to be confirmed also archaeologically, because it almost certainly refers to late improvements on medieval structures. Having a massive tower was not enough for defending the religious site, and soon came into being the need to fortify the building of the church itself, in other words to turn it into a strong defensive body. This goal required compact structures of matching height, with tiny openings, easily defensible, while the local architectural landscape was dominated by Romanesque, often tower-less, basilicas. It was, then, a common practice to work on the buildings, simplifying their ground plan, and building over them defensive floors reinforced by buttresses, machicolated arches (on buttresses and/or corbels), and loop-holed wooden, stone or brick galleries. Some parts of the church – more often the choir – was built up to a massive tower, other parts were simply heightened with wooden galleries. The solutions were so a great many, that almost each example appears as unique in its own way. The excavations in Drăușeni noticed that the process of converting an old Romanesque or Gothic basilica into a fortified church could be more complex than ever assumed,78 while the current appearance rarely shows constructive details (Fig. 10.8). As time went on, the designs improved, and, eventually, came to produce almost compact structures, organically provided with their own elements of survival and defence, including a variable number of towers on top of the sacristies, porches, or on the church bodies. By the late 15th century appeared the so-called reduit-churches, massive, compact constructions, conceived from their inception as both churches and (last-stand) fortresses, a fashion best exemplified by the church in Saschiz, built at the end of the 15th century.79 Where basilicas already stood, the fortification works had to challenge low-built compartments, as apses and side-aisles, most vulnerable and difficult to defend, obviously in need to be strengthened by additional storeys and/or towers. A wide array of solutions were used to improve the situation, depending upon the opportunities at hand. Quite often, the aisles were simply demolished, sometimes only some bays (Drăușeni, Dealu Frumos,80 and Merghindeal81) but more often the whole 77 78 79

80 81

Botár – Grynaeus – Tóth 2006, 129–136; Botár – Tóth 2020, 46–51, for the tower of the church in Sântimbru, built at the end of the 15th century. Dumitrache 1983, 47–49; Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 51–56. Vătășianu 1959, 598–599; Postăvaru 2004, 127–164; Machat 2012, 9, considers that a Romanesque church was demolished in 1493 for building the fortified one in 1496. In fact, the excavations have shown that the new church was built on virgin land, the older one being subsequently abandoned. Marcu-Istrate 2012a, 29–42; Marcu-Istrate 2011a, 116–117. Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 18; Sinigalia 1976, 67–72. Excavations have found the ruins of the northern aisle: Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 155–156. The aisles have been demolished only on the sides of the western tower, to free its ground floor. Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 19; Horwath 1940a, 83; Fabini 1998, I, 472–473.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.8

351

The archaeology of the fortified church in Drăușeni: A – the first stages, 13th–15th centuries: 1 – Romanesque basilica; 2 – the moat; 3 – the first stone fortification; 4 – buttress added to the church; B – the third stage, 15th–17th centuries (still standing there): 1 – remnants of the Romanesque basilica; 2 – former structures, now demolished; 3 – additions and alterations to the former basilica, in order to change it into a single-nave; 4 – extended fortification; on the north side, the vestiges of a lime oven, a well and a wall were uncovered Drawings based on Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 68, pl. 2 and on Dumitrache 1979a, fig. 2

352

Chapter 10

structure (Cricău (Fig. 3.11), Mercheașa, Archita, Hosman,82 or Chirpăr).83 The arched openings between aisles were simply walled-in, as were some doorways and quite often some windows were replaced with smaller or loop-holed ones. In Drăușeni, the aisles were at first partitioned into chambers, and likely used for refuge purposes, while their demolition was carried out only much later, in the 16th and 17th centuries (Fig. 10.8). Sometimes, the aisles were preserved as they were, or were heightened to match the stature of the main aisle, such as in Dealu Frumos84 and Alțâna,85 or in Dobârca, where the Romanesque basilica was turned into a huge single-nave.86 The second major change targeted the sanctuaries, which were either heightened, or replaced with newly built towers. The first variant produced sanctuaries surmounted by defence storeys and galleries (Bălcaciu,87 Bazna,88 Valea Viilor,89 Amnaș90), the second generated multi-towered structures (Dealu Frumos – Fig. 10.9). The semicircular Romanesque apse in Drăușeni was clad from the outside with additional masonry, gaining a rectangular shape, the beautiful Gothic windows were replaced with higher-up loopholes, and a bricked-in gallery was built over. The fortification came to an end when the western tower was heightened, so that both ends of the church could act as defensive points in case of need. The church in Merghindeal retained its Romanesque appearance, losing only the western part of the aisles and the eastern end of the apse, replaced 82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 116–117; Treiber 1971, 97–98; Fabini 1998, I, 301–304. Vătășianu 1959, 594; Gheorghiu 1985, 179; Fabini 1998, I, 25–29 (Archita), 717–719 (Mercheașa), 356–357 (Chirpăr); Fabini 2009, 218 (Mercheașa). Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that this kind of changes are very difficult to fix precisely in time, even in case of archaeological studies. For example, in Cricău, it is not clear at all when the demolition of the aisles occurred. Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 195–196; Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 483–496. Sinigalia 1976, 67–72; Fabini 1998, I, 677–681. Treiber 1971, 51–52; Vătășianu 1959, 574; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 142–143. Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 2; Gheorghiu 1985, 162; Fabini 1998, I, 149–151; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 98–99. Fabini 2009, 138–139. The polygonal apse was overlapped by three defence storeys, and a small chamber on its northern side (a sacristy or a chapel) was also raised by two defensive storeys in around 1400. Three defence storeys were added on the body of the church, the topmost one having a wall-walk (demolished in the 19th century). Vătășianu 1959, 582; Fabini 2009, 142–143; Treiber 1971, 116. Roth 1905, 105; Treiber 1971, 165; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 52; Machat 2012, 9; D.M.I.A. 1973, 75; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 239–240. The Gothic church built in around 1300 was heightened by adding two storeys. Fabini 2009, 74; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 143–144; Fabini, 1998, I, 266–267.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.9

353

Strengthening the church in Dealu Frumos: 1 – Romanesque basilica; 2 – fortification works: demolition of the apse and of a part of the north aisle, building eastern and western towers; 3 – the ruin of the round apse; 4 – walled arcade on the north side of the church, drawing and photo during archaeological excavations 1–2 – drawings based on Sinigalia 1976, 3–4; 3–4 – after Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, pl. 4 and pl. 11

354

Chapter 10

by a massive choir-tower.91 Renovations in Gothic style accompanied the fortification works in Alțâna:92 on the inside, the church turned into a Gothic hall (the aisles being heightened) while a polygonal apse replaced the older, semicircular one. There were also radical solutions to be chosen: in Avrig, both the aisles and the main apse were pulled down.93 In Dobârca, the Romanesque basilica was transformed into a single-nave church with a polygonal choir; a defence storey was built over the nave and choir, at different heights, and the tower was enclosed in a new one, having almost the same width as the body of the church.94 Changing the interior of the churches into defensive or habitation compartments was probably not uncommon, as the excavations showed in Drăușeni and Dealu Frumos.95 Such possibilities were created in Hărman by adding external rooms to the northern side of the nave, but, based on archaeological data, it is difficult to understand their scale. On the opposite side, rooms were built above the aisle, between the buttresses: they are still in place, reachable by wooden stairs – but, at that time, there was probably a way in from inside the church. This was a kind of external solution, which left the original fabric of the interior untouched96 (Fig. 10.10). Where single-nave churches stood, the fortification works focused on their vertical development and on strengthening or building a tower. A tower on top of the sanctuary of the 13th-century church in Homorod is often mentioned as exemplary to the phenomenon.97 In Buzd, three defensive storeys rose on top of the 14th-century chancel, partially steadied by arched buttresses around 1500.98 There was also a long array of less- or non-invasive solutions to transform a church into a fortress, by simply heightening the choir or the nave, or 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98

Drăguț 1979b, 66–67; Fabini 1998, I, 473; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 137; Horwath 1940a, 81–83; Treiber 1971, 116. Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 142–143. The pillars between the naves are preserved and the Romanesque windows of the central nave can be seen in the attic (five on each side). Fabini 1998, I, 20; Treiber, 1971, 51–52. Vătășianu 1959, 242–243, 598; Fabini 1998, I, 195–197; Entz 1968, 27; Roth 1934, 21; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 150–151. Fabini 1998, I, 149–151; Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 98–99. Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 155–156. For the northern ruins see Dumitrache 1983, 44–45; Dumitrache 1979b, 411 (general plan of the excavations) and 418–419. The square tower (11 by 11 m) has eight storeys, each of them endowed with arrowslits shaped like tall rectangular embrasures. The thickness of the walls on the ground floor measures approximately 3 m, the overall structure beingstill impressive. Sebastian 1932, 316; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 226–227; Vătășianu 1959, 83; Fabritius-Dancu 1983, 38; Fabini 1998, I, 272–273; Dumitrache 1981, 273; Fabini 2009, 271–273. Vătășianu 1959, 241, 584; Treiber, 1971, 104; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 62.

The Fortified Churches

Figure 10.10 The fortified Evangelical church in Hărman. Rooms added to the inner face of the fortified enclosure (1) and to the southern side of the church (2) Photos by the author

355

356

Chapter 10

both of them, with a gallery (frequently made of wood) or a floor, endowed or not with military features: the 14th-century single-nave church in Dârjiu was modified by replacing the ceiling with late Gothic vaults and heightening it with two defensive storeys supported on buttresses and corbels, endowed with machicolations and loopholes.99 10.4

The Fortress

Whether or not the church itself had defensive features, some kind of outer fortifications protected it and the immediately surrounding area, as a rule overlapping the (former) plot of the cemetery. The development of this system usually laid in ditches, moats, wooden, and earthen fortifications or stone walls, which could have been built even in the late 12th and 13th century, to be improved later on. One of the earliest examples was unearthed in Orăștie: during the 12th century (but most probably toward its end) a wall was built enclosing a large yard, then two towers were added to the east and south: the former had a round ground plan, while the latter was built on a square layout100 (Chapter 6). Up until the early 14th century, the fortified walls of oval or circular shapes, often following the natural setting, were 4–7 m tall, with a single gate or interior tower. Afterwards, they developed rapidly and reached complex designs, reinforced with towers, moats, and barbicans, fitted with walk passages and specific defensive items, combined in a wide range of possibilities, over a long process of building, starting from different premises. Building a fortification for the sacral place was a complex task accomplished by the whole community, and the scale of the project depended not only on the resources but also on the ability to mobilize and work together. There were not standardized projects and architects, but only the locals with their skills and their will to find an effective solution for protecting their lives and goods. 99

Orbán 1868–1873, I, 178–181; Dávid 1981, 267–279; Fabini, 2009, 221; Drăguț 1979a, 123; Machat 2012, 9. Many have seen this fortified floor as being an imitation of Saxon structures, built in the 17th century, because of an invasion. The dendrochronological analysis has shown, however, that the defence floor and the roof (its structure) date from around the year 1500. It was therefore an achievement from the high period of fortification of the southern half of Transylvania. Botár – Grynaeus – Tóth 2013, 2–26. The fortified building was later supplemented by a rectangular enclosure with corner towers. Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 184–195. Viscri is another, although later, good example for this, a gallery supported on buttresses being added to the Gothic choir. Dumitrache 1981, 262–263. 100 Crîngaci Țiplic – Pinter – White 2007, 2–3, fig. 1. For the archaeology of the early fortification and church: Pinter 2003, 263–266.

The Fortified Churches

357

In some cases, the older 12th- or 13th-century walls have been preserved, towers being added to it, but often demolished and replaced with extended and more elaborate structures. Partial changes were also common on most threatened sides, which needed extra protection. By the turn of the 16th century, there were frequently successive walls enclosing large courtyards, prepared to provide a kind of small dwelling for each family. One of the most impressive of these overblown variants can be found in Prejmer, composed of two courtyards, a moat and two or three floors-high buildings with dwelling spaces on the inner face of the main wall (Fig. 10.11). It is believed that defensive moats have been a widespread element in the early period, and some traces may still be observed on many sites, while most disappeared altogether during the systematization works of the 20th century. Some of them may have even had prehistoric origins, such as the large structure partially preserved in Dealu Frumos,101 or the one around the medieval core of Feldioara.102 In Codlea, a small excavation outside the church fortress revealed the traces of an arrangement with a moat and a rammed-earth wall, older than the stone wall103 (Fig. 10.12). A very impressive moat, with a width of 17–18 m and a depth of 3–4 m, was excavated in Prejmer, interpreted by the archaeologist as part of the 13th century fortification, which is still uncertain. The moat was bordered toward the fortress by a stone wall, located at an (average?) distance of 2.50 m from the main enclosure, operating perhaps as a Zwinger104 (Fig. 10.11). In the 1990s, close to the choir of the church in Drăușeni, was uncovered a trench with an average width of approximately 6 m and a depth that probably never exceeded 2 m, outlined as a segment of an irregular circle south-east of the church. The topographical analysis has shown that it was meant to protect that part of the site lacking natural shelter. However, its technical features as well as the archaeological context suggest that the landscaping works were abandoned in a certain stage, without being completed.105 Beneath the bottom of the trench, several anthropomorphic graves have been found, suggesting a date for the defensive works in late 13th century. The 101 Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 154–155. For the general history of the church: Sinigalia 1976, 65–72; Fabini 1998, I, 678–682. 102 Marcu-Istrate 2018b, 122. 103 Istrate – Roman 2007, 131–132; Nussbächer 1994, 166–170; Treiber 1971, 169; Fabini 1998, I, 827–830. A wood-and-earth fortification of the Romanesque church had already been presumed: Rusu 2005, 548. 104 Marcu-Istrate 2011b, 151–152; Angelescu 1963, 42–48. 105 Its width is 3 m at the northern end, while at the southern extremity it exceeds 10 m. Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 51–52.

358

Figure 10.11

Chapter 10

The archaeology of the fortification in Prejmer: the church, 13th century to early 16th century (black) with fortification around the church (13th–16th centuries) and the extension of the gate-tower and of the secondary south enclosure (18th century) After Marcu-Istrate 2011b, fig. 13

The Fortified Churches

359

Figure 10.12 The archaeology of the fortified church in Codlea, 13th–17th centuries, with a huge moat on the northern side, excavated in 2010 Drawing by the author, based on unpublished excavations

trench was still open in the 15th century (when the first fortification was built, adding four towers and a small courtyard to the Romanesque basilica), being closed only in the 16th–17th centuries (when a much larger fortress replaced the older one)106 (Fig. 10.8.1). Stone walls seem to have appeared as early as the second part of the 12th century, and frequently during the 13th century, originally with the singular task of fencing the religious site, in fact the cemetery. The case of Sibiu is often mentioned, the wall around the parish church there being regarded until recently as the city’s first fortified enclosure. Nevertheless, excavations have shown that this wall, erected probably in late 12th century, was in fact the enclosure of the cemetery, and, before long, it was superseded by fortification needs or by urban development purposes: as early as the 13th century, various 106 Dumitrache 1979a, 173, mentioned the vestiges of a first stone enclosure, dating from the turn of the 13th century, on the north-western part of the church. The wall might have worked with the moat, but a certain reconstruction was not possible, because the stone wall was vanished almost completely due to numerous burials.

360

Chapter 10

segments had been torn down to make way for some buildings. This early wall in Sibiu, which may have been tall but was hardly thick, since its breadth was of only about 1 m, had two gates on its southern and northern sides, each of them endowed with a chapel.107 It is supposed that all important settlements experienced such works in the second half of the 13th century.108 In Orăștie, the first precinct around the parish church was built before 1300, to be reinforced until the middle of the 14th century;109 in Mediaș,110 the fortified enclosure around the church was built in the first part of the 13th century, while work continued throughout the 14th century for its extension and completion; in Sebeș,111 a precinct around the parish church could date from the very first part of the 13th century, and the first wall around the church in Aiud comes at the latest from the 14th century.112 Early walls have also been proposed in Târgu Mureș and other settlements in the Szekler area. A suggestion for an early pattern is found in the fortification of the church in Cisnădioara, whose 13th-century beginnings were established by excavations: the oval-shaped wall surrounded an area of 76 by 32 m in size, originally with two towers, with several others added later on113 (Fig. 6.18) (Chapter 6). Traces of some 13th-century walls have also been archaeologically identified in Cricău114 (Fig. 3.11) and Viscri (Fig. 4.15), while in Avrig the stunted ramparts and the ruins of a gate tower might have been medieval too.115 The fortification in Țapu, with curtain walls over 6 m tall, a western donjon-like tower close to

107 Marcu-Istrate 2007a, I, 31–32; Lupescu 2010b, 351–362. 108 Gheorghiu 1985, 88–89. 109 Archaeology: Petrov – Pinter 1995, 63, related to the wall and the first two towers. Crîngaci Țiplic – Pinter – White 2007, fig. 1–2, for a reconstruction proposal. General information: Entz 1968, 132; Treiber 1971, 30; Fabini 1998, I, 97–102. 110 Roth 1905, 64; Treiber 1971, 79; Niedermaier 1979a, 198–211. 111 Fabini 1998, I, 504; Anghel 1986, 205; Gheorghiu 1985, 135. 112 Anghel 1986, 66, 204; Gheorghiu 1985, 130; Vătășianu 1959, 525. Nevertheless, archaeological investigations have shown that the first enclosure was made from wood (maybe only partially), and only later on replaced by a stone one, although both of them were dated in the 14th century. However, all these were demolished in the 16th century when the current fortification was built. Dumitrache 1978a, 53. 113 The original stage (partially preserved) was most likely built before the Mongol invasion. Fabini 2009, 125–127. For a virtual reconstruction, see Crîngaci Țiplic – White 2007, 153– 171. The church had been built around 1200. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 85–86, for a dating at the beginning of the 13th century. 114 Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 491. The first enclosure wall, also provided with towers, was built in the 13th century. 115 Fabini 2009, 177.

The Fortified Churches

361

the church and two floors-galleries, dates from the 14th century (Fig. 10.6.1).116 It had also been stated that all the churches in the Land of Bârsa already had curtain walls in the 13th century, and some remnants probably survived in the current ensembles of Codlea, Hărman, or Sânpetru-Petersberg.117 Many churches in smaller settlements remained with this basic fortification, composed of a stone wall and a strong tower, performing modest defensive functions. Although it is not missing in southern Transylvania, this structure is mainly specific to the territories inhabited by Szeklers, where it left a very consistent heritage. The preserved variants seem to come mainly from the 16th century or even later on (Sâncrăieni (Fig. 6.8.A)).118 However, in recent decades, archaeology has shown earlier beginnings in many cases. In Tomești, the precinct wall with quite strong foundations was built around the Romanesque church during the 14th century, at the latest, and afterwards a late Gothic tower was added – the ruin of which is in fact the only testimony of this ensemble.119 Excavations in Calnic120 suggested that the wall had been built alongside the church during the 14th century, and the situation could be similar in other places.121 It is quite likely, however, that many of these single-towered walls were built during the 15th century, when Gothic changes and even reconstruction were widespread.122 From the complex fortification in Mărtiniș, one of the most important in the Land of Szeklers, only the tower is Gothic, probably dating to the 15th century, 116 Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 234, argue for an even earlier dating, at the turn between the 13th and the 14th century. Fabini 1998, I, 2–4; Fabritius-Dancu 1980, pl. 48. 117 Fabini 1998, I, 413; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 165. 118 Botár – Rácz – Tóth 2007, 133–142; Botár 2009a, 23–37, fig. 28; Rossel 2015, 110. 119 Archaeological research (2002–2003) has established the evolution of the church and researched 136 graves. Botár 2009a, 11–22; Botár – Tóth, 2004, 271–303; Botár 2005, 37–54. On the church: Rossel 2015, 127–129. 120 Orbán 1868–1873, II, 50–51; Léstyán 2000, I, 204–205; Csáki 2009, 284–285; Rossel 2015, 208–211. Archaeological research in 2007 and 2008, focused only on the church, did not give details about the wall, but it is likely that it was built at the same time as the church, in the 14th century. Bordi – Méder 2009, 261–282. 121 Enclosure walls are still standing in Ghidfalău (the church was rebuilt in Gothic stile during the 15th century, when a tower was inserted in the wall (Fig. 6.8.B) – Rossel 2015, 164–167), Feliceni (archaeological excavations showed the ruins of one or two churches from the 13th–14th centuries, later overlapped by the current church – Sófalvi – Demjén – Nyárádi 2008, 82; Cantacuzino 1974, 94–96; Rossel 2015, 164–167), Cârța – Csíkkarcfalva (enclosure wall having round on the inner face a wooden gallery from the end of the 15th century and a gate-tower protected by a barbicane. Multistage site from the 13th to the 17th century, as revealed by recent archaeological excavations – Botár 2012, 9–25). 122 For example, the cases in Turia de Jos, Turia de Sus or Ghidfalău. In general, on these churches: Rossel 2015, 56–57, 152–153, 164–167; Tüdősné Simon 1995, 306; Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 152–156. For an early dating of this phenomenon: Gheorghiu 1985, 86.

362

Chapter 10

while the wall, its towers with 2–3 floors and the inner buildings arose firstly in the 17th century. The excavations have noticed that the wall closely followed the route of the older fence of the cemetery, very likely from the 13th, or the 14th century123 (Fig. 10.13.1). However, not all churches were surrounded by walls in an early period. For example, in Albiș (Fig. 6.9), the current wall dates to the 16th–17th centuries, resulting that the medieval church did not have a precinct.124 A similar situation was recorded during the excavations in Daia.125 The process of fortification reached its peak during the 16th century, boosted by changes in warfare, more precisely by the widespread use of fire weapons, which resulted in the hurried erection of an abundance of polygonal and rectangular fortifications. Enclosure walls were often over 20 m high, and up to 5–6 m in breadth (but usually a 2 m width foundation was quite enough), with fighting platforms, machicolations, loopholes of varying shapes and multileveled wooden, stone or bricked-in galleries. The old enclosures were partially modified (Rodbav,126 Sânpetru-Petersberg,127 Vulcan128) by adding polygonal sections and secondary walls, which significantly widened the protected area (Sânpetru-Petersberg has two partial enclosures around the medieval one), or a Zwinger (Ghimbav, Cristian129). In Hălchiu the oval enclosure, from the 13th century, was first modified in the western section, later demolished altogether and replaced with a rectangular towered one, the latter also demolished at the end of the 19th century.130 The 123 The fortification was demolished during the 18th–19th centuries, except for the gatetower, whose ruin is still standing. The entire ensemble was unveiled through extensive excavations in 2011–2014: Sófalvi 2017, 166–185, 295–365, 304–320; Sófalvi 2020, 139–160. For dendrochronology: Tóth et al. 2015, 9–10. On the church and its fortification: Dávid 1981, 157–167, fig. 132; Orbán 1868–1873, I, 161–164; Kénosi Tőzsér – Uzoni Fosztó 2009, 439–440; Rossel 2015, 194–197. 124 Bartók – Bordi 1998, 253–262, on the archaeology of the church, and Bordi 1999, 291–296, for the archaeology of the enclosure. 125 Orbán 1868–1873, I, 177–178; Dávid 1981, 259–266, fig. 261; Vătășianu 1959, 251, 772–773, 775. Archaeology: Marcu 1998a, 175–176. The tower was also a late addition to the medieval church. Its construction involved the complete demolition of the western wall of the medieval nave. A quite similar case in Sâncraiu: the enclosure wall was considered as possibly medieval, but the archaeological excavations showed that it was actually built in the second part of the 18th century, which practically removed this church from the list of the fortified ones. Archaeology: Bordi 2011, 196; Rossel 2015, 294, with the ground plan of the fortification at fig. 415. 126 Entz 1968, 27–28, 158; Horwath 1940a, 34; Fabini 1998, I, 610–612. 127 Vătășianu 1959, 82, 419–420; Fabini 2009, 237. 128 Fabini 1998, I, 785–789 (Ghimbav), 816–818 (Cristian). 129 The old oval enclosure received a Zwinger and an outer moat, probably during the 15th century. Fabritius-Dancu 1980, 43; Gheorgiu 1985, 182. 130 Fabini 2009, 224–225.

The Fortified Churches

363

Figure 10.13 The archaeology of the fortified Reformed churches in Mărtiniș and Vârghiș. A – The fortified church in Mărtiniș, reconstruction based on archaeological research: 1 – traces of a 13th–14th-century cemeterial trench; 2 – the demolished Gothic church; 3 – Gothic gate tower (15th–16th centuries); 4 – remnants of a 15thcentury cemeterial fence; 5 – partially preserved 17th-century fortification (with later additions and repairs); 6 – the current 19th-century church. B – The fortified church in Vârghiș, now completely lost; reconstruction based on archaeological excavations: 1 – the Romanesque church (13th century?); 2 – extension to the west, perhaps a tower? 3 – late Gothic church, and fortification (wall and gate-tower), in around 1500 DRAWINGS BASED ON SÓFALVI 2020, FIG. 19 (1) AND BARTÓK 1996, 180, FIG. 1 AND BENKŐ 2012, I, 107, FIG. 18.1 (2)

364

Chapter 10

number of towers grew considerably over time, five being common on average, but the citadel in Cristian had nine, and the one in Hărman had six. The fortification in Hărman seems to have retained the line of its 13th-century oval-shaped wall, which was strengthened with five high towers, a secondary lesser wall and a moat. Adding to this the western tower of the church, an older eastern tower and the gateway defences, it stood as one of the strongest fortifications in Transylvania (Fig. 10.7). The 12th church in Viscri (Fig. 4.15) followed a similar path, being transformed in a well-protected place, with two successive enclosures separated by a very wide moat (supposedly a prehistoric one), several towers and rooms on the inner face of the main wall (Fig. 10.14). Developed enclosures with towers are to be seen also in the Land of Szeklers, as for example in Mărtiniș, Ilieni, Arcuș, Dârjiu, Vârghiș (Fig. 10.13.2), and Sfântu Gheorghe131 – but their extended variants were realized during the 16th and 17th centuries, although superposing older walls, as mentioned for Mărtiniș, must be taken into consideration. 10.5

Building, Living, and Fighting within the Cemetery: The Impact of the Fortress on the Religious Site

Fortifying churches and building fortresses around them have changed in many ways the structure of religious sites, regarding not only buildings but also cemeteries and in general the every-day living within churchyards. The area reserved for religious services shrunk, ossuaries were moved elsewhere, and people started to live within the sacred space. However, first of all, this was about changing the main church architecture, going on to the extreme solution of abandonment and demolition, or the change of the local religious topography, as happened in Saschiz at the end of the 15th century. Regarding the chapels,132 they were usually integrated into the fortified line, even equipped with defensive elements. Some examples are still standing in

131 In Ilieni, the present-day polygonal fortification, consisting of wall and towers, was completed in the 16th–17th centuries, while the medieval enclosure was a simple wall – probably around the cemetery, with a gate-tower on the south side, built in the 15th century. Rossel 2015, 204–205. Similar cases in Mărtiniș (Sófalvi 2020, 139–160), Arcuș (Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 165–171; Rossel 2015, 280–283), Dârjiu (Dávid 1981, 267–279, fig. 272; Machat 2012, 9; Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 184–195; Botár – Grynaeus – Tóth 2013, 2), and Sfântu Gheorghe (Gyöngyössy – Kerny – Sarudi 1995, 176–183). For Vârghiș: Bartók 1995, 145–146. Bartók 1996, 175–180. 132 The subject has not benefited from scholarly interest, although there have been some general approaches on the topic of chapels in fortifications. Rusu 2005, 202–218.

The Fortified Churches

365

Figure 10.14 The archaeology of the fortified Evangelical chuch in Viscri, 12th–17th centuries – ruins of older structures are shown in grey; for the sake of clarity, the rooms erected in the inner ward, all around the defensive wall, are not depicted Drawings based on Fabini 1998, I, fig. 87.2, and Dumitrache 1978a, fig. 5

Velț,133 Șoala,134 Șaroș pe Târnave,135 and Hărman136 (Fig. 10.7). Often mentioned is the one in Cisnădie, a round chapel embedded in a 15th-century tower 133 On the south-eastern side of the enclosure wall there was a chapel, transformed in the 19th century, first into a town hall and then, from 1874 on, into the house of the church keeper. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 242–243; Fabini 2009, 143. 134 A 13th-century Romanesque apse is still to be seen in the northern tower. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 217–218. 135 Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 207–208. 136 In Hărman, a rectangular chapel that has survived entangled within the fortress walls has been shown by excavations as an originally self-standing structure, protected by its own circular-shaped earthen ramparts, probably part of a residence. Raised, likely around the year 1300, the chapel was later decorated with Gothic paintings and, later on, it was

366

Chapter 10

south-west of the church, which is believed by some as a late-12th-century rotunda converted into a funeral chapel. Some of these secondary churches, which did not fit the planned fortification, ended torn down, only some fragments were reused, as in the case of Țapu, and in-depth studies would likely add many such examples (Fig. 10.6.1). Not every chapel of this kind was built before the enclosure. The Gothic one in Moșna was in fact set up as a part of the wall, in the 14th century, and a similar situation appears in Curciu, where on the eastern side of the fortified wall stands a late Gothic chapel with two floors, presumed with funeral and cemeterial purposes137 (Fig. 10.1). An interesting topic is the functional, every-day relation between fortification and cemetery. The early curtain walls surrounded the graveyard area, but the later ones could be different, usually larger. Regardless of ‘fences’, the funerary spot continued to be used until at least the 16th century, and often beyond. Based on the model in Sibiu, one can assume that the area of the cemetery drew closer to the church and became smaller, making room on its edges for the movement of the defenders and the inhabitants during sieges or attacks, and for the dwelling area where this was the case. Topo-chronological analysis of the data provided by the extensive excavations undertaken in the multi-staged cemeteries of Drăușeni and Orăștie will likely supply further details for understanding this process. Many fortified churches provided room not only for defenders but for the whole community and, if necessary, for their cattle, being fitted with living- and storage rooms or even small houses, usually built on the inner face of the main wall, and rarely against the church (Hărman).138 Building activities needed facilities such as lime ovens and lime pits, workshops, and storage places, and usually left traces as mortar levels, remnants of wood and stone, different kinds of pits for scaffolding, garbage or storage, within the courtyards and around the church. A unique example is the one in Drăușeni,139 where a well and a lime kiln were unearthed not far from the church, in the north-western area (Fig. 10.8). Making room for the new buildings needed large-scale excavations, disturbing hundreds of graves, which led to the emergence of many ossuaries, more or less prepared: a round large pit was dug in Drăușeni, but more often small cells were added to naves. In Dealu Frumos, a lime pit, after becoming obsolete, was filled with human bones, only its upper level containing some soil.140

137 138 139 140

integrated into the defensive system. Jenei 2016, 100–108. Unpublished archaeological excavations, conducted by Daniela Marcu-Istrate. Vătășianu 1959, 519–520. Dumitrache 1979b, 411, 418, for the second part of the 15th century. Marcu-Istrate 2002b, 41–78. Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 156.

The Fortified Churches

367

Working and living in the courtyards involved various facilities, such as wells, baking ovens, heaters, cesspools, and there are even some mills mentioned (Prejmer). Wells were present usually in the courtyard (Drăușeni), but they are also mentioned inside the church itself. For example, around 1500, a well was dug within the old Romanesque tower of Dobârca.141 Setting up all of these facilities usually implied important changes in the topography of the courtyards – cemeteries lost important spots to the benefit of the new constructions and activities, pathways changed and multiplied, services had to be relocated because of the demolition of chapels and charnel houses, and, very often, churches became smaller. On the other hand, repurposing the churchyard for everyday activities dramatically altered the stratigraphical situation, adding or removing layers of mixed earth and debris. The ground level rose by more than 1.5 m near the church in Hărman in the period spanning the fortification process and the following 16th and 17th centuries,142 and the same happened in Drăușeni, although only on some areas. On the contrary, in the courtyards of Dealu Frumos and Sânpetru-Petersberg, an important part of the medieval cemetery was removed for fortification reasons.143 On the other hand, living at the edges of the cemeteries left traces in the material culture of the sites, which explains the large amounts of artefacts, mostly of ceramic nature, including not only vessels but also stove tiles, usually uncovered during excavations.144 10.6

Summary of the Chapter

Fortified churches are the best-known part of the medieval religious heritage of Transylvania, seven of them (Biertan, Câlnic, Dârjiu, Prejmer, Saschiz, Valea Viilor, and Viscri) being inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as the site “Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania”.145 Specialists have been preoccupied with them since the 19th century, and they were the first of the churches in Transylvania to benefit from an extended international audience. A significant number of popularization papers have been published, especially in recent decades, and several inventories, topographies, and other scientific tools, grouped or not by region, are available for information. All this bibliography captures to various degrees their current form, but only in a few 141 142 143 144 145

Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 98–99. Dumitrache 1983, 44–47. Marcu-Istrate – Roman 2011, 156–158. Dumitrache 1979b, 418–419. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/596/ (accessed on 19.03.2021); Derer 1992, 9–15, on this process.

368

Chapter 10

cases archaeological data is available. In fact, whenever excavations have been made, complex developments, barely visible in their current fabric, have been revealed. The fortification of churches was very common all over Transylvania, producing the most complex examples in Saxon areas in the south. Smaller or larger specimens are also found in the central and western parts, while modest, but beautiful and representative examples are still standing in the Szekler territories – if a church with a high belltower whose cemetery is surrounded by a low stone wall can be considered fortified. Church fortifications, narrowing it to cases that include a noteworthy number of elements of military architecture, are usually considered a reaction to the Ottoman invasions of the 15th century, triggers for a fortification process that reached maturity during the 16th century. However, as presented above, the few large-scale excavations have shown that the phenomenon did not start suddenly in the 15th century but had much earlier beginnings. Towers and enclosure walls had been frequently associated with the construction of churches. In Sibiu, the association was made mid-12th century; the situation was probably the same in Cisnădioara (Chapter 6, Fig. 6.18); and excavations in eastern Transylvania increasingly indicate early origins for the walls around Szekler cemeteries. Indeed, the worsening of the attacks prompted a search for appropriate solutions, but this also coincided with adequate material possibilities and appropriate constructive skills, accumulated especially after the Mongol invasion, many proper fortifications being erected in its aftermath. The early forms of these fortifications have largely disappeared, and archaeological excavations are needed for their reconstruction, but the currently achieved progress is almost insignificant compared to the magnitude of the phenomenon. Strangely, incomparably many more sites, exponents of the wall-and-tower category, have been surveyed in eastern Transylvania, when compared with the sites explored in the southern regions, rich in complex structures. The archaeology of these ensembles poses unique challenges because it is not only about surveying the church building and its cemetery, but often has to deal with specific dwelling items, fortification works and protracted construction sites. This complexity requires large-scale excavations, while small surveys are almost irrelevant. Consequently, a coherent chronological and architectural image of the phenomenon is far from achieved. There is still no comparative study to integrate them into a wider outlook, not even in a Southeastern European one, and interdisciplinary research is completely lacking. It is also incredible how little attention has been paid to their functional aspects and to the impact of fortification works on the religious life of the community.

The Fortified Churches

369

Elements of fortification of religious buildings appear very early, but the most important works were accomplished between 1450 and 1600, or even later, affecting most of the previously built Romanesque and Gothic churches. The current form of the religious landscape is mainly due to this difficult period, in which non-specialized teams intervened on valuable buildings, on the one hand mutilating them, on the other hand adding new structures. Without knowing even broadly the problems created by the fortification period, one cannot claim to understand the medieval churches, much less their archeology. This was also the reason why the main part (3) of the book, dedicated to the archeology of the Catholic churches ends with this chapter. Furthermore, the last chapter offers a glimpse into the sphere of Orthodox churches.

Part 4 The Orthodox Churches

∵

Chapter 11

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches 11.1

General Consideration and the State-of-the-Art

The body of medieval ecclesiastical heritage includes a group of about one hundred Orthodox churches, built between the 10th and the 15th centuries, with several them still in use, others reconstructed on documentary and archaeological evidence. Some of them were selectively mentioned within the previous chapters, and the earliest occurrences containing peculiar buildings active or supposed to have been active before 1200, were discussed in detail in chapter 4. However, this chapter will seek for an overview of the phenomenon, analyzing in particular the churches from the 13th–15th centuries (Map 11.1). The overall picture is based on stone buildings, while it is believed that Orthodox architecture was largely a wooden one throughout the period. Roughly half of the churches in Hațeg area were made of wood in the 14th century,1 but using wood was in fact a permanent practice in medieval and modern times.2 It often happened that, at some point in their history, wooden churches were transformed into stone ones, but this translation did not necessarily occur, during the Middle Ages or beyond. However, none of the wooden churches built up to 1500 has survived to this day, and, even among the stone churches, few have preserved the medieval fabric without additions, modifications or demolitions. Of the approximately one hundred churches mentioned above, only about thirty have been excavated to a larger extent, to obtain a complete diagnosis of the building and its history – although in many cases archaeological excavations are mentioned. The state of research is in fact incredibly incipient, and far from the level of knowledge on Catholic architecture of the province. Unfortunately, archaeology is often seen as a ‘complication’ in restoration process, and quite often large-scale diggings have been performed without any archaeological surveying. This state-of-the-art is reflected in the chronological and architectural confusion underlying these churches. For example, the church in Colț has been studied repeatedly by art historians and archaeologists, who have independently assigned it to the 13th, 14th, or 15th century, 1 Rusu 1997a, 144–147. As an example, the church in Râu Bărbat mentioned in 1411 was probably a wooden one. 2 Rusu 1997b, 19–20; Entz 1996, 246, 252.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_013

374

Chapter 11

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

375

without any correlation of the data. But the most striking case is that of the church in Densuș, which over time was dated from the 6th to the 16th century, while archaeological research has failed to make basically any chronological contribution.3 The oldest group of the Eastern rite churches dates to the 10th–11th centuries, the first mentioned in documents being the one in Cenad. (Chapter 3.2) However, at the time, a church was already in use in Alba Iulia, which was probably the capital of the Voivodeship of Bălgrad, and there may have been one or two more churches in Dăbâca. The churches in Densuș and Gurasada could date from the same period, based on analogies, while the archaeological research have been inconclusive, and only summarily published. In the 11th century, a wooden church was already functioning in Streisângeorgiu, only to be replaced by a masonry one in the first half of the next century (Chapter 4.1). These oldest (known) occurrences of medieval religious architecture in Transylvania made their appearance in a rather confusing historical period, in which Christianity was just at its beginnings. The number of churches grew from the 13th century onward, within the general phenomenon of the development of religious architecture, and as specialized workshops appeared.4 In south-western Transylvania (mainly the Land of Hațeg) many churches had or may have had their origins in the 13th century or even earlier, as for 3 Drăguț 1968b, 122–131; Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 121–133. 4 Rusu 1997a, 144. In particular, the Catholic churches in Sântămăria-Orlea and Hațeg (the latter disappeared) were credited with a positive influence in this regard.

Map 11.1

←

Sites relevant for the Eastern-rite church architecture of Transylvania. 1. Alba Iulia; 2. Almașu Mare (Joseni); 3. Ampoița; 4. Băiești; 5. Bârsău; 6. Bogdan Vodă (Cuhea); 7. Brașov; 8. Cârnești; 9. Cenad; 10. Cib; 11. Cinciș; 12. Ciula Mare; 13. Clopotiva; 14. Crișcior; 15. Dăbâca; 16. Densuş; 17. Dezna; 18. Feleacu; 19. Galați; 20. Galda de Jos; 21. Gârbova de Sus; 22. Gârbovița; 23. Giulești; 24. Gurasada; 25. Hălmagiu; 26. Hunedoara; 27. Leșnic; 28. Lupșa; 29. Mălăiești; 30. Mănăstirea; 31. Nălațvad; 32. Nucșoara; 33. Ostrov; 34. Paroș; 35. Peşteana; 36. Răchitova; 37. Rășinari; 38. Râșnov; 39. Râu Alb; 40. Râu Bărbat; 41. Râu de Mori; 42. Ribița; 43. Roșcani; 44. Rușor; 45. Sarasău; 46. Sarmisegetusa (Britonia); 47. Sălașu de Sus; 48. Săliște; 49. Săndulești; 50. Sânpetru; 51. Sântămăria-Orlea; 52. Scoreiu (Scoreiu Monastery?); 53. Seghiște; 54. Silvașu de Sus (Prislop Monastery); 55. Strei; 56. Streisângeorgiu; 57. Suseni (Colț Fortress); 58. Tuștea; 59. Unciuc; 60. Valea Mănăstirii (Râmeț Monastery); 61. Viștea de Jos; 62. Voivodeni; 63. Voivozi; 64. Zăvoi; 65. Zlatna; 66. Hațeg; 67. Berivoi; 68. Hârseni; 69. Recea. Author: Daniela Marcu-Istrate and Sebastian Ovidiu Dobrotă

376

Chapter 11

example Strei,5 while the ones in Râu de Mori,6 Sarmizegetusa Britonia,7 Sânpetru,8 Suseni-Colț fortress,9 and Ostrov10 are still under debate. It is supposed that churches operated in Ostrov, Clopotiva, Peșteana, Densuș, and Tuștea before 1360, when five priests and an archpriest were mentioned there, but the situation of buildings is not known.11 Of these, Clopotiva disappeared in the 19th century, and hardly anything is known about Tuștea.12 A group of about thirty-five churches can be assigned to the 14th–15th centuries, but the number was very likely larger. It is supposed that, by 1400, most of the important knezial centres acquired places of worship, and several public churches had been built as well. For the 14th century, one hundred and fifty Orthodox settlements have been identified, and it is believed that every four or five villages should have shared a church. However, the 15th century is considered the “golden age of masonry architecture in Hațeg.”13 In Maramureș, there were no masonry buildings before 1300. In fact, even after that, wooden architecture continued to be characteristic of this region, developing truly monumental forms, although the oldest surviving exemplars 5

6

7

8 9 10 11 12

13

Vătășianu 1959, 77; Entz 1968, 22; Drăguț 1965, 299–317; Lupescu 2010a, 12; Paintings: Cincheza Buculei 1975, 56–62. Archaeological excavations in 1969–1970 (mentioned in Popa 1988a, 234–236, but unpublished properly), and 2003. Rișcuța – Ferencz 2004, 335–358. The residence of the Cândești family was located there, currently including a chapel from the 16th century. Popa 1972a, 64. The medieval church was very likely on the spot of the current parish church. Vătășianu 1959, 121–122, 578, fig. 108; Rusu 1989a, 22; Popa 1988a, 231–232. A residence of local knezes was mentioned there in 1377 as being older, while a church was recorded in around 1500 as ecclesia walachica, later completely vanished. DIR.C.XIV.I., 406–409; Popa 1988a, 87–89, 224, 229–230. The medieval church is supposed similar in terms of “age, importance and beauty” with those in Peșteana, Densuș, and Streisângeorgiu (Rusu 1997a, 286–287), but Radu Popa’s attempts to locate it failed. Popa 1984, 7–25; Popa et al. 1979, 315–317. Moisescu 2001, 170; Drăguț 1970, 84. Archaeology: Cantacuzino 1977, 285–292. Greceanu 1971, 43; Vătășianu 1959, 122; Popa 1975a, 311; Popa 1988a, 239; Rusu 1989a, 22–29. On the paintings: Drăguț 1970, 58. Archaeological excavations in 1980 and 1989 published in: Eskenasy 1988, 180–181. Vătășianu 1959, 80; Popa 1986, 88–94, with a detailed description of the monument. Archaeological excavations in 1996, are mentioned in Rusu 1997a, 237–245, but their results have not been published. Rusu 1986, 252. DRH.C.XI., 507. The church in Clopotiva was described as large (22 m by 6 m) at the end of the 19th century, but it is unclear whether the reference was precisely to the medieval structure, decorated with frescoes. It disappeared later on. Rusu 1997a, 187–191 and 319–320; Popa 1988a, 244, 247. For the churches in Ostrov, Peșteana, and Densuș see chapter 4. Rusu 1997a, 144.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

377

date from as late as the 16th century. Orthodox churches made of stone appeared at the same time as Catholic churches, when the process of integrating this northern region within the kingdom began, and the first settlements of colonists were established, in around 1300.14 Afterwards, stone churches arose in some villages, whether they were residences of lowland knezes (Giulești)15 or not (Bila Cerkva, Zolotarevo, Bedevlia).16 The oldest was the church in Giulești, built in around 1300, or even earlier on, followed, in the early decades of the 14th century, by the one in Cuhea (today Bogdan Vodă), which is the largest medieval church known so far17 (Fig. 11.1). In the south-eastern parts of Transylvania and in the Land of Făgăraș, the oldest still standing churches have origins in the 15th century. The situation is paradoxical, because the earliest documentary mentions of (Orthodox) Romanians in Transylvania relate precisely to that south-east area. Moreover, the fact that the region was referred to as a terra (land) in 1222 suggests that some sort of religious organisation and, of course, churches already existed at the time.18 Documents from the 15th century recorded several knezial families as witnesses in various court cases, suggesting a well-established society, supposedly possessing a religious network. Historians believe that many of the 65 villages registered for the 13th–16th centuries should have had churches, but, probably, most were light buildings, and disappeared without a trace.19 The monastery of Scoreiu,20 for instance, was mentioned in the late 14th century, but attempts to identify its location through archaeological excavations have not paid off. By contrast, in Voivodeni, an apse dating to the 14th century was found inside the still standing 15th-century church.21 The case is singular, but all the more relevant as regards the archaeological potential, proving that the village existed at least one century before its first written record.22

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Popa 1966, 522–523. Brătulescu 1941, 9–12; Vătășianu 1959, 83–85. Archaeological excavations in 1966–1969: Popa – Zdroba 1969, 267–285; Popa 1969, 28–34; Popa 1991a, 1532. Formerly Biserica Albă, Domnești and Bedeu. Popa 1997, 210–215. Popa 1997, 210–216. Archaeological excavations in 1964–1966: Popa – Zdroba 1966; Popa 1966, 511–528. Lukács 1999, 41–104: Busuioc-von Hasselbach 2000, I, 171–338. Lukács 1999, 94–95, 128–138. Cristache-Panait 1970, 30–32; Lukács 1999, 14. Cristache Panait 1970, 32; Greceanu 1970b, 34–35, fig. 3; Lukács 1999, 135–136. Archaeological excavations in 2000–2001: Lukács – Ciocâltan – Dragne 2001, 273–274. Lukács 1999, 100. The villages of Hârseni, Recea, and Berivoi, mentioned in 1486, but assumed to be at least one century older, must have been in the same situation, but no information survives regarding their churches.

Figure 11.1

The archaeological Orthodox church in Giulești After Popa – Zdroba 1969, fig. 3

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

379

In the western part of Transylvania, an archaeological church in Voivozi23 dates to the early 13th century, while the ones in Crișcior,24 Ribița,25 Hălmagiu,26 Lupșa,27 Dezna,28 and Roșcani29 rose in the following centuries. 11.2

Early Development: Social and Cultural Context

The beginnings of religious architecture were connected to the emergence of a higher social layer, whose members rose from among the communities and came to master dozens and even hundreds of settlements. Knezes, voivodes, župans, and boyars built proprietary churches close to their residences, to be shared for services with commoners. Exemplary in this regard are the sites in Streisângeorgiu (12th century) and Strei (13th century), where the unfortified residences were complemented by churches erected in proximity, about 80–100 m away.30 There were also fortified courts associated with nearby churches, as those in Răchitova and Mălăiești (Land of Hațeg), Cuhea (Land of Maramureș), or the recently added example of Roșcani, but probably many others. A number of residences can be assumed based on documentary evidence: Knez Dobre was mentioned in Leșnic, Knez Balea in Crișcior (in the early 15th century), while Župan Stănislav Hraboru and Lady Anca partially “built” the church in Zlatna in 1424, in fact turning a basilica into an aisleless church.31 The local knezial family built the church in Lupșa mid-14th century, 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

Moisescu 2001, 21; Avram 2006, 113–115. Archaeological excavations in 1972–1976 and 1987. Popa 1972d, 215–219; Popa 1980, 39–43; Popa – Nemoianu – Eskenasy 1979, 151–154; Popa – Căpățână – Lukács 1987, 61–107. Moisescu 2001, 171–172; Cincheza-Buculei 1978, 35–44; Dragomir 1930, 229, 238. Dragomir 1917, 18, 25; Greceanu 1971, 33–58; Moisescu 2001, 172–174, fig. 209 and fig. 208, with an image of the church in 1868. Moisescu 2001, 236; Porumb 1998, 156–158. Archaeological excavations in 1974: Căpățână 1976, 76–80. Moisescu 2001, 166–167; Porumb 1979, 621–625; Porumb 1981. 32. Archaeological excavations in 1994: Marcu 1998b, 157–180. Moisescu 2001, 174–176. Archaeological excavations in the 1970s uncovered a cemetery from the early 14th century (a coin minted in 1332 was used as a funerary good), supposedly organized around a wooden church. A stone church was built later, of which some foundations are standing within the eastern part of the current church, rebuilt at the end of the 15th century, and modified during the 18th century. Greceanu – Munteanu-Trucă 1980, 181–191. Vătășianu 1959, 566. Archaeological excavations in 2000: Pinter 2001, 14–17 with older bibliography. Popa 1988a, 223–224, 231–232. Brătulescu 1937, 27–30; Vătășianu 1938, 429–448; Vătășianu 1959, 255–256; Greceanu – Cristache-Panait 1967, 165–169; Crîngaci Țiplic 2011, 339. For the paintings: Porumb 1998, 461; Petrov 2002, 123–135. The original structure of the church was established by excavations in 1992, a summary being published in: Fleșer – Goronea 1993, 293–299.

380

Chapter 11

but their residence was mentioned only in the 15th century. The archaeological report has supposed that it lay north of the church, probably overlapped to a large extent by the present-day cemetery.32 Traces of some 15th-century buildings, uncovered beside the church in Densuș, were associated to the residence of the village owners and church founders.33 Many of the Orthodox knezes gradually became nobles of the kingdom and were thus included in the system of patrimonial relations, without necessarily having to convert to Catholicism. In such a situation, the Cândești family received the Catholic village of Sântămăria-Orlea in Hațeg area in 1447, and started to use the already existing parish church as a private chapel.34 Some minor changes have been made then, in the western part of the church, respectively a gallery lit by a Gothic window was added at the first floor of the tower. Moreover, the church was decorated with frescoes depicting an Orthodox iconography, including various portraits of the family, explained by inscriptions written in Old Church Slavonic. It is not known exactly what status the church had at that moment, but a common, alternative use by both the Orthodox and Catholics, in an arrangement difficult to be understood now, has been supposed. A century later, the Orthodox community shared the same church with their Reformed neighbours35 (Chapter 7.3). Orthodox churches were built by Catholic owners in villages as well, as probably happened in Gurasada before 1200 (see Chapter 3.1), and later in Gârbova de Sus,36 Gârbovița,37 and Galda de Jos.38 Collective founders of modest wooden or mixed-structure buildings may have been active since the dawn of the Middle Ages, but their existence is difficult to prove. The church of the serfs in Sălașu de Sus could be such an example, maybe the ones in Nucșoara and Dezna as well.39 This group of public churches should also include the ones erected by the agency of the feudal lords and voivodes from the Orthodox lands across the mountains (Wallachia and Moldavia), especially on their Transylvanian estates. Certain information dates back to the 14th century and examples include the archaeological church in Săliște, near Sibiu, and the church dedicated to St Paraskeva in Rășinari, built by the late 14th century,40 while 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

DRH.C.XIII., 33; Marcu 1998b, 204–206. Popa 1988a, 229; Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 165–168. Popa 1988a, 122–123, 232–233. Rusu 1997a, 314–315. Porumb 1978, 307–310, mentioned in note 2 archaeological excavations led by Radu Heitel. Greceanu 1971, 36–37, fig. 3/K; Burnichioiu 2012, 35–39. Burnichiou 2012, 51–54. Fleșer 2001, 70; Kiss 2013, 237–248. The church was supposed as founded by the Romanian village in the service of the royal fortress nearby. Moisescu 2001, 174–175. Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 177; Meteș 1935, 46.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

381

Prince Mircea the Elder of Wallachia (1386–1418) founded the church of the monastery of Scoreiu in 1392, probably made of wood.41 Moreover, the large Orthodox neighbourhoods in Brașov and Râșnov erected their 14th-century churches with funds from Wallachia.42 Although information about the churches of the Central Transylvanian estates of the Moldavian princes is hardly accurate, there were probably communities that benefited from such support. The most common example is that of Feleacu, a village dependent on the town of Cluj, which very likely had a church in the mid-14th century, later replaced by a wonderful Gothic one, often considered a foundation of Stephen III the Great of Moldavia (1457–1504). At the time, the settlement was being mentioned as the seat of an episcopate or metropolitanate.43 There is another very interesting phenomenon, that of proprietary churches devolved onto the communities, a change of status that had a material impact on the building and cemetery as well. This phenomenon seems specific for the 15th and 16th centuries, and often entailed the demolition or alteration of the building, or additions for making room to the parishioners. In Lupșa, the founders’ chapel on the southern side of St George’s church was torn down in the 16th century, and, later on, a large western narthex was built. Generally, the western area was the one expanded: a tower was added in the 15th century to the church in Giulești, and narthexes were added in Densuș, Gurasada, and Strei in different times, to mention only the best-known examples.44 As for the funerary aspect, it is very interesting that, in most of the archaeologically investigated cases, large gaps were recorded between the erection of the church and the growth of the cemetery. The churches in Sânpetru, Leșnic, and Lupșa were built in the 14th or 15th centuries, while the burials grew in numbers only in the 16th century. St George’s church in Lupșa had been built by mid-14th century, when two children were buried within the nave, in a central position, likely as members of the founder’s family. No other burial was performed until the 16th century, when a crowded cemetery was established all around the walls, including the interior of the nave.45 The archaeologist suggested that this situation has to be related to the history of the church: the masters of the mid-14th-century village declined and lost the property by the 16th century, when the church very likely came to public ownership, and the commoners received the right to be buried there. Finds in Lupșa, but in Cuhea, Giulești, and Mălăiești as well, have suggested that the funerary function of 41 42 43 44 45

Luca – Pinter – Georgescu 2003, 189; Vătășianu 1959, 253. Porumb 1998, 328; Moisescu 2001, 169. Entz 1996, 196; Diaconescu 1997, 53–54. Marcu-Istrate 2019b, 222–224 (Densuș); Drăguț 1968b, 54–56; Greceanu 1979a, 202; Popa – Chiciceanu 1984, 54–67 (Gurasada); Popa 1988a, 234 (Strei). Marcu 1998b, 197–198.

382

Chapter 11

these churches was originally limited to their founders, while the public cemetery used a different location.46 In the current stage of research, it seems that the cemeteries were moved ad sanctos only after the church came into communal hands. It is interesting that such situations have often been understood as screening the time of the building, but the archaeological data registered in Lupșa (and not only) showed that this might have been an unfounded association. Another good example is that of the church in Ribița, mentioned in an inscription as being built at the beginning of the 15th century, while the oldest finds come only from the 16th century47 (Fig. 11.2). This phenomenon, whereby private or proprietary churches devolved onto the communities, was not confined to fully Orthodox regions, but there were cases of Orthodox parishioners taking over and adapting Catholic churches, under various circumstances, usually following abandonments, a practice that seems to have been common at the time. In this regard, perhaps the most interesting case was Zlatna, a multi-ethnic settlement in the Apuseni Mountains, where stood a short three-aisled basilica, with a square choir, a semicircular main apse, and secondary side apses. The building originated as a Saxon parish church, supposedly used by the Orthodox and the Catholics together, eventually ending up in the possession of the Romanians, probably at the start of the 15th century.48 This change generated the demolishment of the aisles, a fact recorded in a mural inscription around 1424, when Župan Stănislav Hraboru and Lady Anca have (partially) ‘built’ the church. Another case is that of the Franciscan monastery in Caransebeș, taken over by the Orthodox community after being abandoned in an unknown context, and there were certainly other examples as well. Court Chapel, Parish Church, or Monastery? On the Status of the First Orthodox Churches It was supposed that most Orthodox churches operated as proprietary ones, used by commoners, and fulfilling parish tasks in a manner difficult to grasp. Radu Popa assessed the early Orthodox churches as “court chapels”, while others chose to call them “churches founded by feudal lords”.49 Some have advanced the theory that a number of these churches had been initially small private monastic complexes, owned by noble families, later turned into parishes.50 This idea was substantiated by the fact that the term “monastery” 11.2.1

46 47 48 49 50

Popa 1988a, 221. Rusu 1997a, 146. Fleșer 2001, 149; Greceanu – Cristache-Panait 1967, 165–169. Rusu 1997a, 144; Rusu 1997b, 12–13. Moisescu 2001, 23–24 – claims that it is hard to believe that the term did not refer to a church, because it was reiterated all too often.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

Figure 11.2

383

The present-day St George’s church in Lupșa, with the 1994 archaeological excavations depicted in light grey, and ruins and foundations in grey; burials schematically depicted by the outline of their grave cuts or by the axis of their skeletal finds Drawings based on Marcu 1998b, fig. 1–2

appears quite frequently in inscriptions, but also on the existence of small peculiar rooms within some churches, which could be used by monks. Adrian A. Rusu deemed that the current churches in Densuș, Colț, and Ribița undeniably functioned within monasteries, but, for now, the arguments are of a secondary nature, and there is no archaeological evidence for such a use. The term ‘monastery’ was often mentioned by inscriptions referring to a process of ‘founding’ the church, as for example in Strei (1408), Crișcior (1411), or Ribița (1414). The meaning of the word is confusing, because archaeological and architectural studies have showed not a ‘founding’, but a renovation of the standing church, even if it meant important architectural changes. However, the church in Streisângeorgiu was already two centuries old when the dedication recorded that it was built, at the beginning of the 14th century! Similar discrepancies have been established by archaeology in Crișcior and Zlatna51 (Fig. 11.3). Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that some of these churches operated as monastic ones at a particular point in time. Their status could have been very volatile, changing with the destiny of the founders, and depending 51

Rusu 1991a, 129–142.

384

Chapter 11

Figure 11.3 The archaeology of the Orthodox, former Catholic, church in Zlatna: A – Romanesque basilica, reconstruction based on ongoing archaeological and architectural studies; presumably 13th century; B – Orthodox church, early 15th century; C – extensions to the medieval body, 18th century Drawing based on: Fleșer – Goronea 1993, 296; Petrov 2002, 133, fig. 2, and on ongoing archaeological excavations led by the author

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

385

on local events that need to be studied in detail, on a case-by-case basis. As a rule, monastic life should have left traces below the ground, regardless of using wood or stone for structures. For example, recent excavations at the church in Strei reported a medieval wall east of the church, which might have enclosed such a monastic complex, if not merely a graveyard.52 On the other hand, scholarship has assumed the existence of small or ‘hermitic’ monasteries at least since the 13th–14th centuries, if not earlier. Radu Popa believed that many important families must have owned such places of worship, but few of them developed later into monastic complexes and survived long enough for their memory to be preserved. They should have been small and located in isolated areas, so there were not too many occasions for them to be recorded in written. For example, it was suggested an early monastic settlement close to Prislop monastery, based on suggestive toponyms, but also some caves, but no field survey has been made to check this hypothesis. Documents suggest that there was a monastery close to the village of Densuș, while, in Maramureș, three monasteries (none of them located so far) were mentioned in late-14th- and early-15th-century records.53 Besides these, there were actual monastic complexes, such as Prislop and Râmeț, which kept their function to this day. Peri Monastery in Maramureș was also often mentioned as belonging to voivodes Balc and Drag, who had inherited it from their ancestors. Unfortunately, it has disappeared, and none of the attempts to identify it archaeologically have been successful.54 11.3

Architectural Features

The architectural beginnings were undoubtedly under Byzantine influence (Chapter 4.1), but, as the province was integrated into the Kingdom of Hungary, relations with the Orthodox regions became more and more limited. Thus, the religious architecture trailed the development of local, Romanesque, Gothic, and Renaissance styles.55 The scale of achievements depended on the founders’ resources, on their social position and prestige. It was natural for the Dragoș family to build the largest 14th-century church in Maramureș, as the leaders of the most important

52 53 54 55

Rișcuța – Ferencz 2004, 335–358. Popa 1997, 94, 217–218; Popa 1988a, 245–247. Rusu 1999b, 169–173. Vătășianu 1987, 22; Rusu 1997a, 150.

386

Chapter 11

local polity. Building churches in the Land of Hațeg was just as dependent on elite funding, but, very often, the investments did not focus on monumentality, but on obtaining balanced measures and nice murals. Nevertheless, the craftsmen and the workshops that built churches across rural Transylvania were more or less the same, no matter who commissioned their work. Even churches that received substantial backing from abroad still made use of the Catholic architectural features typical for the province. At Săliște, near Sibiu, in a village that belonged to the princes of Wallachia, archaeological research has shed light on a single-nave church with a rectangular, asymmetrical apse, dating from the late 13th century or the early 14th century, twice rebuilt by the end of the 15th century.56 Except for the few abovementioned exceptions, the particularities of the Orthodox churches were not their architecture, but their internal partitioning and, most of all, their mural paintings, for which artists trained in an Orthodox milieu were invariably employed. The interior unavoidably acquired a specific structure, with the nave and chancel separated by an iconostasis, pastophoria on the northern and southern sides of the sanctuary (niches, most of the time), and, rarely, a western narthex. Despite the early period, characterised by diversity, the period of the 13th–15th centuries is marked by the single-nave with a rectangular chancel, although rounded apses and a number of atypical layouts were built as well. Regardless of the ground plan, the fabric reflected the influence of European architectural styles, particularly in the door and window framework, the vaulting systems, sometimes in other details too, while the murals belonged entirely to the Byzantine culture. In terms of chronology, the image of the churches is incredibly confusing, and the authors often suggest periods spanning two or three centuries for the time of construction – even in many of the archaeological cases.57 11.3.1 Byzantine-Style Churches Following the early churches discussed in chapter 4, the Byzantine influence resurged in local architecture in the latter half of the 14th century, probably in connection with the emergence of a religious network south of the mountains and the opening of several construction sites there. For a better grasp of these influences, specialised, comparative studies are needed, but, for now, the knowledge in the field is much more limited for the area of Wallachia than for Transylvania. 56 57

Moga 1973b, 56–88; Munteanu Beșliu 1989, 19. Marcu-Istrate 2020b, 94–106.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

387

The church of the monastery in Prislop shows a Byzantine layout, with a rectangular narthex and a triconch connected by a very narrow bay, and an octagonal dome above the central area, while the narthex had a cradle vault.58 The three apses of the triconch are rounded internal and external, and their walls were cut through by two Romanesque-Gothic windows. The currently accepted dating of the church, based solely on indirect documentary information and on local tradition, oscillates between the 14th–16th centuries, and some have argued that it was a foundation of St Nicodemus,59 while others have chosen for this task Princess Zamfira.60 Most likely, the church was a knezial foundation from the late 14th century, erected by an artisan skilled in Orthodox architecture, perhaps under the authority of St Nicodemus, but its construction history is still waiting to be unearthed. Its general shape is of no great help, being commonly encountered throughout the Orthodox world at that time.61 The church of St Nicholas in Hunedoara also belongs to this group, with a dome supported on four columns in the middle of a rectangular nave but ending eastward in a Gothic polygonal apse.62 Attempts to date it have oscillated throughout the second part of the 15th century, but excavations have pointed to around 1400, if not earlier (Fig. 11.4.4). A specific feature of the Byzantine-style architecture is considered the polygonal on the outside and circular on the inside east end, as, for example, in Viștea de Jos63 and Paroș64 (Fig. 11.4.1–2). The 15th-century church in Viștea de Jos, one of the earliest examples of Orthodox-style architecture in Transylvania, originally had a rectangular nave, a templon with two openings, and a semicircular internal and heptagonal external apse. A very similar ruin 58 59 60

61 62 63 64

Vătășianu 1959, 254–255; Păcurariu 1986, 20–21; Moisescu 2001, 184–185, for a bibliographical survey and critical analysis of opinions. Nicodemus was a monk from across the mountains that had travelled from Wallachia to Transylvania at the end of the 14th century. Rusu 1997a, 122–134. Zamfira, the daughter of Moise Vodă, the ruler of Wallachia (1529–153), was in exile in Transylvania and got remarried there in the mid-16th century. She was buried in the narthex of the monastic church, but her role in the building process in not clear at all. Kovács 1986, 351–374. Popa 1988a, 245, reported archaeological surveys on the northern side, which identified some ruins near the church. The findings were probably unsatisfactory and never published. Vătășianu 1930, 73; Vătășianu 1959, 258, 563–565, 570–571; Greceanu 1972, 195–211. Archaeology: Pinter – Țiplic 1999, 60–67. Cristache-Panait 1970, 32; Greceanu 1970b, 34–35, fig. 5. For a dating to the 15th century: Meteș 1930, 119; Moisescu 2001, 184; Lukács 1999, 135. For a dating to the 14th–15th centuries, see Popa 1988a, 243, fig. 51.

388

Figure 11.4

Chapter 11

Orthodox churches with Byzantine-like ground plans, 13th–15th centuries: 1 – Paroș; 2 – Prislop Monastery (Silvașu de Sus); 3 – Viștea de Jos; 4 – Hunedoara DRAWINGS BASED ON POPA 1988A, 243, FIG. 51 (1); MOISESCU 2001, 185, FIG. 226 (2); GRECEANU 1972,FIG. 8 (3) AND PINTER – ȚIPLIC 1999, 65, FIG. II (4)

survived in Seghiște, but the rather small-scale archaeological investigation conducted in 2000 failed to date it convincingly.65 It is possible that this group also included the church of Gârbovița, due to its sanctuary, ending in seven sides external and five sides internal. The unpublished archaeological report mentioned that, at foundation level, the internal shape was rather semicircular, although clumsily built, suggesting that the five-sided interior was probably attained in a later stage, and achieved by shaping the plaster.66 65 66

Moisescu 2001, 59; Porumb 1981, 29–30. Archaeology: Marta – Borcea 2001, 224–225. Heitel – Bogdan 1968, 483–496.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

389

11.3.2 Single-Nave Churches with a Semicircular Apse This layout was not widespread in the Orthodox environment, although isolated examples could be found here and there, the oldest of which are the archaeological ruins in Voivozi and Giulești.67 The monastery in Voivozi, indirectly mentioned in 1391 as being dependent on the stavropegial one in Perii Maramureșului (today Hruševo), was located by Radu Popa in the Bistra valley and archaeologically investigated in 1970– 1980. The domestic buildings, and probably even the original church, seem to have been built mostly out of wood, eventually on stone foundations. In the first part of the 13th century, a stone church with a slightly trapezoidal nave (4–4.5 by 5 m), a horseshoe-shaped apse, and a total length of 10.20 m was erected,68 but already abandoned by 1450. The church in Giulești, identified and excavated in 1966–1969, probably built around 1300,69 with a total length of about 15 m, is for now the largest of the group70 (Fig. 11.5.1). In the south-western part of Transylvania, the church of Râmeț monastery features a typical Orthodox structure, being divided into narthex, nave, and apse, but it is very interesting that the narthex is overlapped by a massive four-storey tower with fortification items, a unique case within the local landscape. Built at an unclear date, within the 13th and the 14th centuries, the church is seen as a source of inspiration for the churches in Almașu Mare – Joseni, Ampoița, and Cib, but its historical background remains poorly known71 (Fig. 11.5.3–4). The church in Almașu Mare – Joseni was firstly mentioned in 1418, which resulted in the conjecture that it had been built by the end of the previous century72 (Fig. 11.5.3). The church has a slightly trapezoidal nave, a recessed, roughly semicircular apse, and a square tower on its western end, all of which 67 68 69

70 71 72

Vătășianu 1959, 83–85. Popa 1991a, 1531–1532; Popa 1972d, 215–219; Avram 2006a, 113–115; Moisescu 2001, 21. Brătulescu 1941, 9–12. Archaeology: Popa – Zdroba 1969, 267–285. The church was initially dated to around 1300, or even to the end of the 13th century. Subsequently, the archaeologist Radu Popa argued for the sixth decade of the 14th century, without providing particular reasons for changing his opinion. Popa 1997, 215–216. This church was raised by one of the most prominent knezial families in the region, masters of the Knezate of Mara, first mentioned in 1317. Popa 1969, 28–34; Popa – Zdroba 1969, 267–285. For a general description see Moisescu 2001, 56–57, fig. 61. For a dating to the 13th century: Fleșer 2001, 119–123; Șerban 1986, 56–58. For the churches in Ampoița and Cib: Fleșer 2001, 46–48, 56–57; Greceanu – Cristache-Panait 1966, 324, 327. Greceanu – Cristache-Panait 1966, 320; Greceanu 1971, 34–39; Curinschi Vorona 1981, 132; Porumb 1981, 28; Porumb 1998, 18; Fleșer 2001, 40–42. Archaeological excavation in 1998: Marcu-Istrate 2002c, 112–125.

390

Chapter 11

Figure 11.5

Orthodox churches with semicircular apses, 13th–15th centuries: 1 – Giulești; 2 – Voivozi; 3 – Almașu Mare – Joseni; 4 – Râmeț Monastery DRAWINGS BASED ON POPA 1991A, FIG. 6 (1); POPA 1991A, FIG. 5 (2); MOISESCU 2001, 178, FIG. 218 AND MARCU-ISTRATE 2002C, 112-125 (3); GRECEANU 1972, 204, FIG. 11 (4)

from the same stage, as wall and archaeological investigations have shown. Two other churches with semicircular apses were preserved at the southern edges of Transylvania: Nucșoara in the west (Land of Hațeg) and Voivodeni in the east, in the centre of the Land of Făgăraș. While similar in size, they were conspicuous primarily on account of the unusual thickness of their walls, which stood 1.30–1.50 m wide above ground, a sturdiness that, basically, was not necessary for such small constructions. The earlier of the two may have been the church in Nucșoara, for which a dating in the 13th–14th centuries has been proposed73 (Fig. 11.6.1). The church in Voivodeni was built in the 14th century, but its apse was renewed in the second half of the 15th century, as excavations have shown74 (Fig. 11.5.2).

73 74

Vătășianu 1959, 80; Drăguț 1968b, 35; Greceanu 1979a, 197–238; Popa 1988a, 240; Rusu 1997a, 236–237, argued for a dating to the 16th century, considering that the village could not built and support a church in the 13th–14th centuries. Cristache-Panait 1970, 32; Greceanu 1970b, 34–35, fig. 3; Lukács 1999, 135–136. Archaeology: Lukács – Ciocâltan – Dragne 2001, 273–274.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

Figure 11.6

391

Orthodox churches with semicircular apses, 13th–15th centuries: 1 – Nucșoara; 2 – Voivodeni: archaeologically uncovered apse from the 13th century (in black), medieval church (14th–15th century) (in grey), and modern extension to the west DRAWINGS BASED ON POPA 1988, 240, FIG, 48 (1) AND LUKÁCS – CIOCÂLTAN – DRAGNE 2001, 273–274 (2)

The churches in this group entailed a small-sized (40 sq m in the case of the 14th-century church in Voivodeni), rectangular or square nave (Râmeț), which (due to various reasons) may sometimes be even slightly trapezoidal (Almașu Mare – Joseni), and an apse that was generally inscribed within a semicircle, but may also have elongated (Râmeț), irregular (Almașu Mare – Joseni) or horseshoe (Voivozi – Fig. 11.5.2) shapes. The sanctuary of the church in Giulești had a small choir in front of the apse,75 while the builders from Almașu Mare – Joseni may have attempted for a similar structure, but resulted an irregular-shaped choir, elongated eastward and ending in a very short apse.76 The most interesting tower was built over the narthex in Râmeț, with a very robust structure that exceeded by far the needs of a belltower. However, it remains unanswered if it was intended as a narthex or as a fortified tower.77 75 76 77

Popa – Zdroba 1969, 272–273. Marcu-Istrate 2002c, 112–125. Fleșer 2001, 40; Petrov 2004, 248.

392

Chapter 11

Steeples have been built in Almașu Mare – Joseni and in Giulești (added to the earlier church) in the 15th century – the latter with massive foundations that suggested an important superstructure and, perhaps, its ground floor functioned as a narthex,78 just like at Râmeț. 11.3.3 Single-Nave Churches with a Rectangular Chancel The most important group of single-nave churches with a rectangular chancel survived in the south-western part of Transylvania, the Land, and later the District of Hațeg. It is there that the oldest church that developed this ground plan was located, namely the one in Streisângeorgiu, at first made of wood, in the 11th century, and then of stone, in the next century. The robust and asymmetrical construction had a single-nave, a large chancel with a different axis than the nave, and a pastophoria as niches at the east end of the nave. Beyond the utterly unique peculiarities of this ground plan, it seems reasonable to assume that this church played an important role in spreading the taste for rectangular sanctuaries within the area. So far, however, there is no information about similar buildings that could be assigned to the 12th century or to the early 13th century, a situation in need to be appropriately explained. The churches in Strei and Sântămăria-Orlea, as well as (perhaps) those in Ostrov and Colț, date from the last decades of the 13th century. The one in Ostrov must have been in use by 1360, when a certain Peter of Ostrov was mentioned as Archpriest of the Romanians in Hațeg, but its present-day shape is probably quite different from the medieval one, as wall and archaeological surveys have suggested.79 For the 14th and 15th centuries, a fairly long list of churches could be provided, many of them investigated archaeologically, although their actual construction dates remain uncertain.80 The churches in Leșnic81 and Sânpetru 78 79

80 81

Popa – Zdroba 1969, 274–276. The monument was brought into the scholars’ attention for the first time by Virgil Vătășianu: Vătășianu 1930, 15–18; Vătășianu 1959, 80; Păcurariu 1989, 227. Radu Popa noticed some peculiarities of the groundplan (walls with different widths, the position of the tower) concluding that the north-western part of the current church must have been the original building. Popa 1986, 88–94, with a detailed description. Archaeological excavations in 1996. Popa 1988a, 214–243; Rusu 1997a, 237–245. Rusu 1991a, 138. Popa 1988a, 100–102; Moisescu 2001, 170–171. The church is famous especially because of its late-14th-century mural paintings. Drăguț 1963, 422–433; Cincheza-Buculei 1974, 45–58. Archaeological research during restoration in 1984 has surveyed almost the whole interior of the church and large parts of the outside area, uncovering a number of graves, some of them datable in the 15th–16th centuries, but none in direct relation with the church.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

393

must have been in use at least since the 14th century.82 The one in Râu Alb has been dated to the 15th century based upon a stone frame, but it could be even older, considering that the first mention of the knezial family there occurred in the 14th century.83 There is also a series of churches that have to be investigated: Unciuc (around 1400?) (Fig. 11.7.1), Rușor (Fig. 11.7.3) (in use in 1435, when a priest was mentioned), Zăvoi (ca. 1450?), and perhaps the church of the ‘serfs’ in Sălașu de Sus, which has come down with major changes brought to its shape in the modern era. A ruin has been preserved in Cârnești,84 while the churches in Băiești85 and Ciula Mare86 have disappeared in the 20th century but can be reconstructed based on older descriptions (Fig. 11.7.8). The church in Strei appears as a classic example of this group, at the same time being one of the earliest churches in operation in Transylvania. The church was built as a chapel, close to a residence, with a small nave, a square chancel, and a western elongated tower – with a general internal area of about 30 sq m. Exploratory trenches in 1969–1970 (partially published) have noticed a single construction stage and suggested the date of the building around 1300, based on a number of graves uncovered all-around.87 Murals from the mid-14th

82

83 84 85 86 87

Dating the church in the 14th century remains grounded on its paintings, although it also matches the first written mention of the settlement. Cantacuzino 1986, 127–132. Moisescu 2001, 170; Rusu 1997a, 303–309; Popa 1988a, 238. The church in Sânpetru has been dated based on its architecture in the 13th–14th centuries. Drăguț 1968b, 29; Drăguț 1970, 84, note 117. Archaeological researches in 1975 and 1979, during restoration works, concluded that a dating in the 14th–15th centuries would be more fitting. Some graves were connected with an older, probably wooden church, unidentified on site. The cemetery around the stone church was dated in the 16th century. Cantacuzino 1977, 285–292. Rusu 1997a, 267–270. The rectangular chancel was at one point clad with new masonry on the outside, acquiring thus a semicircular shape. Rusu 1997a, 184–186, 282–283, 292–296, 330–331. Popa 1988a, 238; Vătășianu 1930, 20–22, fig. 10–11; Rusu 1997a, 165–167; Drăguț 1968b, 20. The church probably preserved only fragments from the western side of the 15th-century building, but it still had a rectangular chancel at the beginning of the 20th century. Popa 1988a, 238; Vătășianu 1930, 20–21. The church was demolished and replaced with a new one in the 1990s. Rusu 1997a, 179. Popa 1988a, 234–235; Rișcuța – Ferencz 2004, 335–337. No matter its original function, by the 15th century, the church had become a public one, being extended westward with a not-too-large narthex (7.2 by 5.2 m), erected around the belltower, so that only narrow, almost unusable spaces, were left on the sides. Meantime the narthex has been demolished, so the church has now its medieval shape, and it is certainly one of the oldest still in use in Transylvania.

394

Figure 11.7

Chapter 11

Orthodox churches with rectangular chancel in the Land of Hațeg, 13th–15th century: 1 – Unciuc; 2 – Mălăiești; 3 – Rușor; 4 – Răchitova; 5 – Ostrov; 6 – Nălațvad; 7 – Râu de Mori; 8 – Ciula Mare Drawings based on Rusu 1997a: 1 – fig. 52, 3 – fig. 42, 4 – fig. 37, 5 – fig. 32, 6 – fig. 53, 7 – fig. 38, 8 – fig. 25, and, for 2, on Popa 1988a, fig. 459

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

395

century have survived on the inner face of the walls – however, a complete investigation is needed to check the accurate chronology88 (Fig. 11.8.1). Although it is very likely that the source of inspiration for this ground plan was Streisângeorgiu, the church in Strei is typically regarded as a miniature replica of the more important church in Sântămăria-Orlea. Many have argued that the latter was a model in the south-western areas of Transylvania.89 With a Late Romanesque architecture of the highest quality (especially visible in the framework), with early Gothic features (connected with the site in Cârța), and with murals of Byzantine inspiration, the church in Sântămăria-Orlea is a unique building, but its development need further studies (Chapter 7). In this group, the church close to the fortress of Colț stands out with an original element, its square chancel being superimposed by a fortified tower. The excavation carried out there in the 1980s has shown that this structure was planned from the beginning, having the foundations of the chancel much more robust than those of the nave, descending to a depth of 1.80 m. In terms of chronology, scholarship has mentioned the period between 1300 and 1400, based on architectural stones, while archaeologists have presumed the end of the 15th century for building-time.90 The church in Leșnic probably had originally a tower on top of the nave, as suggested by information drawn from votive paintings and from excavations,91 while simple churches, consisting of a nave and a sanctuary, were built in Sânpetru92 and Ostrov.93 Besides these churches, which are still in use in their medieval form, several archaeological examples are to be mentioned, in Mălăiești, Răchitova, Galați and Nălațvad.94 In Mălăiești a single-nave with a rectangular chancel, and a two-door stonework iconostasis, has been uncovered in 1978.95 Fragments of mural paintings have been found during excavations, as well as artefacts and burials, but the dating remains confusing, during the 13th–15th centuries (Fig. 11.7.2).

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

The most-interesting murals include several portraits, some of them interpreted as depicting the painters. Cincheza-Buculei 1975, 56–62; Popa 1988a, 234. Vasile Drăguț has dated the murals around 1370. Drăguț 1965, 317. Drăguț 1979a, 31. About the tower: Popa 1975a, 311; Eskenasy 1988, 187; Rusu 1989a, 24. Cantacuzino 1986, 127–133; Moisescu 2001, 170–171. Drăguț 1970, 84, note 117; Popa 1988a, 238. Popa 1986, 88–94; Rusu 1997a, 237–245. Popa 1972a, 56; Rusu 1997a, 209–211, 227–235. Eskenasy – Rusu 1982, 58–87; Rusu 1997a, 224–226. Nevertheless, the archaeological artefacts date from the 15th–16th centuries. Popa 1988a, 221.

396

Chapter 11

Figure 11.8

1 – The archaeology of the Orthodox church in Strei; 2 – the archaeological churches in Săliște, 14th century (A, in black) and 16th century (B, light grey and reconstruction) DRAWINGS BASED ON POPA 1988A, 235, FIG. 46 (1) AND MOISESCU 2001, 61, FIG. 70 (2)

In Răchitova, the 1987–1988 excavations retraced a church with the nave of ca. 23 sq m and that of the sanctuary of 6.25 sq m, with no trace of iconostasis.96 96

Archaeology: Rusu 1989b, 83–101. An exceptional thing was the unearthing of numerous fragments of fresco, allowing the restoration of figures and even scenes, many of them including writing in Cyrillic script. While usually only small pieces are found in

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

397

It was supposed a first building stage around 1400, in connection with a tower-house standing in its vicinity, and a painting process in the first half of the 15th century (Fig. 11.7.4). In 1990, extensive excavations in Galați uncovered a trapezoidal nave (8.6 by 5.55 by 8.4 by 5.7 m) and a similarly shaped, recessed sanctuary (4.6 × 4 × 4.5 × 4.2 m), of which the foundations and small fragments of superstructure had been preserved. The walls, 1 m thick on average, had been embedded ca. 0.7 m below their construction level, and a stone step was noticed between the chancel and the nave. Only traces of mortar had remained of the Holy Table, placed rather centrally within the chancel, a pavement was made of Roman tegulae and river stones, and the entrance was located on the south side. Based on the grave goods (the oldest coin from 1542) it could be established that the church was in use mid-16th century, but its construction at a much earlier time could not be excluded.97 The church in Nălațvad survived ruined in the graveyard, practically unknown until Radu Popa managed to make a first survey. Later excavations, conducted by Adrian A. Rusu, uncovered a stone church with a rectangular nave (3.60 by 4.40 m) and a rather square sanctuary (2.98 by 2.80 by 2.42 m), strengthened on the outside by two buttresses. Two construction phases have been identified, since the superstructure – or at least the fragments retained by the ruins – was much, and unjustifiable, deviated from the line of the foundations, but no chronological clues were found. The nearby graves were from the 16th century – the oldest coins being issued in 1554 – but they could not be considered relevant for dating the construction of the church98 (Fig. 11.7.6). The churches in this group had a small rectangular or square nave, with a 19 to 35 sq m functional inner area. Most frequently the nave measured around 30 sq m, the largest one (120 sq m) being that of the church in SântămăriaOrlea. The nave could be covered with barrel vaults or fitted with a ceiling (Sântămăria-Orlea, Sânpetru), and doorways were opened in the western or southern walls. The square or rectangular chancel, sometimes incredibly small, with an inner area of 7–9 sq m (barely more than 6 sq m in Răchitova (Fig. 11.7.4), 9 sq m in Râu Alb) was covered with cross-ribbed vaults (Strei, Sântămăria-Orlea), cross vaults (Sânpetru), semi-domes, or even barrel vaults (Colț, Sânpetru, Râu Alb). A dome supported on pendentives, described in the church of Ciula Mare, was considered an isolated attempt.99

97 98 99

excavations, in this case an area of about 4.71 m could be put back together, i.e., almost 10% of the inner face of walls. Porumb 1989, 103–115; Rusu 1988, 27. Rusu 1997a, 209–211. Popa 1988a, 233, fig. 45. Archaeology: Rusu 1997a, 227–235; Rusu 1991b, 127–145. Rusu 1997a, 179.

398

Chapter 11

Where towers were registered, a multilevel structure and a pyramidal roof covered with stone slabs have been proposed. The oldest are standing in Strei, Sântămăria-Orlea, and perhaps in Colț (13th century?), but the best preserved and most representative one survives in Ostrov, built in the 15th century100 (Fig. 11.7.5). 11.3.4 Other Churches with a Rectangular Chancel In the south-western part of Transylvania there are three exceptional churches, in Ribița,101 Crișcior,102 and Hălmagiu,103 all of them with western towers, and paintings from around 1400. The church in Crișcior is preserved with major 19th-century changes, but the western part keeps the medieval structure of the tower and a small nave (7.40 by 6.20 m), while a rectangular chancel (3.30 by 3.25 m) was uncovered in 1989 and dated around 1400. The church in Ribița has a western tower, a large nave (9.25 by 5.80 m), but a slightly trapezoidal chancel (3.60 by 4.70 by 3.75 by 4.70 m), probably from before 1400, as the archaeologist has supposed.104 In Hălmagiu, massive buttresses were uncovered on each of the corners, even though it is not very clear whether they belonged to the original phase or appeared (and disappeared) subsequently. A similar church was located in Dezna, demolished and rebuilt in the late 15th century on the same foundations. Archaeological investigations in 1970 uncovered in fact two older churches: a wooden one dated by a coin minted in 1332, and a stone one, built probably in the second part of the 14th century.105 Recently added to the group is the church in Roșcani, of which only the tower is preserved. Archaeological research in 2000 retraced a very small church (2.5 by 4 m), with a nave as wide as the tower, identified as a court chapel from the end of the 14th century, whose sanctuary remained unknown.106

100 Vătășianu 1930, 17, fig. 8. 101 Dragomir 1930, 225–264; Vătășianu 1930, 18–19; Greceanu 1971, 33–58. Archaeological excavation in 1990: Rusu 1991c, 3–9. 102 Moisescu 2001, 171–172; Drăguț 1970, 29–30; Dragomir 1930, 229, 238; Vătășianu 1959, 255. Archaeology: Lazăr – David – Pescaru 1991, 121–131; Rusu 1999c, 258. 103 Moisescu 2001, 174. Archaeological surveys in 1974 could not determine if the tower and the church were built all together, but uncovered some traces of an older church. Căpățână 1976, 76–80. For a dating to the 14th–15th centuries, see Binder 1974, 91; Fleșer 1999, 22. 104 A coin minted by Sigismund of Luxembourg (1387–1437) was uncovered, but eventually the church was dated based on its murals. Rusu 1991c, 7. 105 Moisescu 2001, 175–176. Archaeology: Greceanu – Munteanu Trucă 1980, 181–191. 106 Vătășianu 1959, 566. Archaeology: Pinter 2001, 30–35.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

399

An exceptional discovery was the church in Săliște, in the hinterland of Sibiu, a village owned by the rulers of Wallachia by mid-15th century.107 The first church was erected on foundations made of river stones bound with hydraulic lime mortar, as a somewhat trapezoidal nave, 4 m long and 3 m wide on the inside, and a 2 m long rectangular chancel, slightly deviated from the axis of the nave, being less recessed on the south than on the north. The church has been dated to the late 13th century or to the first part of the 14th century. On top of it, a second church was constructed of wood and plaster, but only some small segments of masonry were noticed of it. Finally, in the last decades of the 15th century, a third church was built, of a similar layout as the first one, but larger in scale (Fig. 11.8.2). 11.3.5 Gothic Churches with Polygonal Sanctuaries As mentioned above, starting from the 14th century, Orthodox architecture was influenced by the Gothic style, which had already spread through the region in the second part of the previous century. The polygonal apse was usually chosen, but often ribbed cross vaults, broken-arch portals, crossed rods, Gothic tracery and so on. However, making Gothic masonry demanded craftsmen with some experience. Churches of this kind arose on wealthy estates (Cuhea, Lupșa, Hălmagiu108 (Fig. 11.9.2), perhaps Sarasău109), in suburbs (Brașov – ca. 1350, Râșnov – 1384), and in the first known Eastern-rite episcopal residence, at Feleacu.110 The earliest example was brought to light by archaeological research in Cuhea: a stone church was built during the 1330s, close to the residence of the most important noble family in the area, replacing an unidentified wooden building. The 23 m long and 11.5 m wide church had a western tower, a rectangular nave, and a three-sided polygonal apse, while a room (3.30 by 2.50 m on the inside) stood on the northern side of the sanctuary.111 The construction was unusually robust, standing on foundations up to 1.65 m wide at the tower, with walls 0.80–0.90 m thick in the nave and the apse, respectively 1.30 m thick at the tower. With such a sturdy structure, it is likely that the tower had a 107 Moga 1973b, 56–88; Moga 1973a, 296–298. The village was firstly mentioned in the 14th century as one of the largest in the central-southern region of Transylvania, owned by the rulers of Wallachia. The church, described by Ioan Moga, was dismantled at the beginning of the 20th century, and uncovered in 1989. Archaeology: Munteanu Beșliu 1989, 14–21. 108 A church with a buttressed pentagonal sanctuary was uncovered in Hălmagiu at the site called: “la criptă” (at the crypt), very likely a cemeterial chapel (Fig. 11.9.1). Căpățână 1976, 76–78. 109 Popa 1971, 623–624; Moisescu 2001, 60, fig. 67. 110 Greceanu 1971, 33–59. Further reading on this topic: Năstăsoiu 2021, 77–101. 111 Popa 1966, 515–523; Popa 1997, 211–213.

400

Figure 11.9

Chapter 11

Orthodox churches with Gothic sanctuary, 14th–15th century: 1 – ruined church in Hălmagiu – La Criptă; 2 – archaeological church in Cuhea – Bogdan Vodă DRAWINGS BASED ON MOISESCU 2001, 174 (1) AND MOISESCU 2001, 58, FIG. 64 (2)

multi-levelled structure, exceeding the needs of a simple belfry. Preserved wall fragments show that, while on the outside the masonry was kept apparent, the interior was plastered and painted immediately or shortly after the construction was finished (Fig. 11.9.1). The room to the north of the sanctuary was probably inspired by Catholic sacristies, but in this case, it was used as a private crypt: two graves have been

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

Figure 11.10

401

The historical development of the St George’s church in Lupșa: A – the church in the 14th century, with its initial planimetry; B – the church in the Early Modern period, after the disappearance of the southern room and of the northern porch; C – the church in the 18th century, after the addition of the narthex; D – the church in the 19th century, after the addition of the southern porch Drawing based on Marcu 1998b, fig. 1–2

discovered there, both with silver dinars issued 1343, respectively 1346–1349. Based on these graves, and on general historical data known about the noble family of Cuhea, the building process was dated in 1330–1340, and the ruination during the 16th century. Another early example survives in Lupșa, a mining settlement first mentioned in documents as a feudal property in 1366.112 In 1994, archaeological investigations identified the early phase, originally consisting of the eastern part of the present-day building. There was an interesting south room, 2.90/3 by 3 m on the inside, with a vaulted basic floor, several wall-niches and a narrow doorway to the nave, from the first construction stage. Unlike the situation in Cuhea, in this case the chamber was not used for funerals, rather as a kind of private chapel for the village owners. It was demolished in the 16th century,

112 DRH.C.XIII, 33. Several Gothic frames, the metalwork of one of the doors and fragments of painting have been assigned to the early 15th century. Porumb 1979, 621–625. Archaeology: Marcu 1998b, 193–212.

402

Figure 11.11

Chapter 11

The Orthodox church in Râșnov, general development and detail from the sanctuary DRAWING BASED ON GRECEANU 1971, 51. Photo by Ioana Munteanu Zărnescu

when the community started to take care of the church, probably lacking any purpose now. Two children were buried in the central area of the nave shortly after its construction, one of them with a coin issued 1358–1361 by King Louis I among the grave goods, which provided the main chronological clue for dating the church.113 During the 14th century, churches were also built in the Romanian quarters of Brașov and Râșnov, in south-eastern Transylvania, with the sponsorship of the rulers of Orthodox Wallachia. The church in Râșnov-Șchei, still standing in 113 Marcu 1998b, 197–198. Prior to the excavations, the church was considered as built in 1421, based on mural inscriptions.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

Figure 11.12

403

The archaeology of the churches in Brașov – Șchei: 1 – the first church; 2 – the second church (mid 15th century); 3 – the narthex of the second church; 4 – the third church (early 16th century); 5 – the 18th-century expansion; 6 – unexcavated areas; 7 – graves Drawing based on Munteanu – Beldie Dumitrache 1976, fig. 1 and fig. 11

a modified and extended variant, was dated to around 1384, based on graffiti,114 (Fig. 11.11) while the one in Brașov-Șchei, now completely rebuilt, was dated archaeologically to around 1350.115 Both had rectangular naves and pentagonal apses, but, while the former was a Gothic stone church with an elaborate architecture that is still preserved, the one in Brașov-Șchei was built of wood (?), on mortarless foundations, and disappeared relatively quickly, being replaced by mid-15th century (Fig. 11.12). Gothic planimetry included a variant of polygonal sanctuary with an even number of sides, whose origin was ascribed to the wooden architecture, or 114 Archaeological excavations in in 1995 mentioned an early dating in the 13th century (Costea 1996b), but no details were published later. Costea 1996a, 181–183. 115 Archaeological excavations have brought to light the foundation of the apse and retraced the ground plan of the nave, which resulted from the distribution of the surrounding graves. The wooden church had a rectangular nave (5 by 4 m) and a five-sided apse, with and axial depth of 2 m. Several burials were made around it, among which two included coins issued by Mircea I the Elder of Wallachia (1386–1418). On this basis, it has been considered that, by the end of the 14th century, the church was already in use. For a detailed description: Greceanu 1991, 115–128; Moisescu 2001, 180–181, fig. 220–221, mentiones excavations within the western part of the church in 1969–1974, unpublished yet. For the 1975 excavations: Munteanu – Beldie Dumitrache 1976, 52–56.

404

Chapter 11

associated with the Catholic chapel of the castle in Hunedoara, built after 1466.116 The most intricate church of this type is also located in the town of Hunedoara, formed of narthex, nave, and a four-sided polygonal apse. The church had a very complicated system of interior coverings, which combined Gothic patterns with a Byzantine-inspired dome on four columns. Archaeological surveys have suggested a single stage of construction, in around 1400, but further studies are needed for explaining its history117 (Fig. 11.4.4). This group is characterised by a rectangular nave, a medium-sized sanctuary, and often western towers were included. Wonderful examples are the church in Lupșa, with its 14th-century frames of high Gothic quality from the first construction phase, or the one in Râșnov-Șchei. The latter is remembered as a foundation of the house of Basarab, the dynasty ruling the Orthodox country south of Transylvania, beyond the mountains. The parish has received many royal donations and was endowed with very valuable Church Slavonic religious books, some dating to the 13th and the 14th centuries. Still, a local workshop was hired for its construction, and a Gothic architecture was chosen, consistent not with the Orthodoxy, but with the nearby Catholic landscape.118 Most valuable among the Gothic Orthodox churches is Feleacu, a village dependent on the town of Cluj: it survives in its medieval form, with the singular modern addition of a large narthex. Recent excavations have shown that the church was built during the last decades of the 15th century, in a graveyard, probably close to an older church. There is a rectangular nave and an elongated buttressed sanctuary ending in a three-sided apse, of totaling 13.65 by 7.40 m. The context of building is not quite known, but, at the end of the 15th century, several bishops were mentioned in Feleacu, and, very likely, an Eastern-rite diocese was based there at the time119 (Fig. 11.13). 116 Vătășianu 1987, 39; Greceanu 1971, 38; Cristache-Panait – Daia 1974, 86–87, for a detailed discussion and analogies from Cluj County; Greceanu 1972, 202–204; Stoicescu 1985, 804–807. 117 Pinter – Țiplic 1999, 60–67. Quite similar ground plans were documented in Bârsău (Burnichioiu 2002, 101–102, supposes that the church was built during the 15th century, but important changes were made during the next one hundred years), Săndulești (Cristache-Panait – Daia 1974, 86–88; Moisescu 2001, 182, fig. 223), Cinciș (Moisescu 2001, 183; Greceanu 1971, 41; Cristache-Panait – Daia 1974, 86–88; Popa 1988a, 91, for dating the church in the 14th or 15th century, while Vătășianu 1959, 566, agreed for the 15th century; Greceanu 1979a, 202–204; Rusu 1997a, 175–176) and the archaeological find in Brașov-Șchei (the second church built of stone around the earlier one), all of them from the 15th century. 118 Ionescu 1976, 27–32; Jenei 2010, 611–625. 119 Entz 1996, 196. Excavations in 2012: Marcu-Istrate 2013b, 192–211.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

Figure 11.13

405

The Orthodox church in Feleacu, 15th century: 1 – view from the east; 2 – the southern wall; 3 – the sanctuary Photos by the author

406 11.4

Chapter 11

Church Construction Sites: Craftsmen, Materials, Technical Features

There is scarce understanding about what the founding of a church of Eastern rite entailed in terms of ritual. In a few cases, archaeology has revealed the founders’ concern for ensuring the holiness of the place through the storage of relics. In the 14th century, in Giulești some fragments of human bones were buried in pits under the Holy Table and the Table of Oblation. The latter were in connection with a large grey pot with a hole close to the bottom, probably used for liturgical purposes in an earlier situation. In the same church, in front of the sanctuary, beneath an isolated foundation, there was a pit with coal and fragments of burnt soil, a backfill entirely unrelated to the context. Could originated these remains from a previous worship place, intentionally stored during the foundation of the new church?120 In some churches, small niches were saved in the foundation of the templon during the construction process, perhaps for the same purpose of storing relics.121 Churches were often placed in higher position on the edges of terraces, as in Densuș, Lupșa, and Crișcior.122 As late as the 15th century, the church of Viștea de Jos was built on a mound at the edge of the village. Perhaps such locations reflect exactly the proprietary character of these churches, to be used equally by owners and their subjects. Foundations were built of boulders of the most diverse sizes, sometimes very large, tiny pebbles from the riverbeds, spolia, but fragments of Roman bricks were also used, especially in Hațeg area. Foundations of stone bound with earth and clay were not uncommon, nor do they have any connection with the construction time or wall’s structure, contrary to what has often been stated in literature. They were not a feature of smaller sized or wooden architecture, but most likely depended on the technical preferences of certain workshops operating in different situations. In fact, such dry foundations were used in all eras and in all milieus. The apse of the mid-14th century church in Brașov-Șchei had clay-bound stone foundations and, on this basis, scholars considered that the whole church was probably built of wood. This assumption is not necessarily accurate, since many churches with clay-bound foundations

120 Popa – Zdroba 1969, 276–277. 121 Lukács – Ciocâltan – Dragne 2001, 273 for the case in Voivodeni. See also some remarks made during the excavations within the church in Hunedoara: Pinter – Țiplic 1999, 61. 122 Lazăr – David – Pescaru 1991. 121–131; Rusu 1999c, 258 (Crișcior); Marcu 1998b, 198–199 (Lupșa); Rusu – Mizgan 2008, 121–122 (Densuș).

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

407

and mortar-bound superstructures are still standing, as in the case of the one in Almașu Mare – Joseni (ca. 1400).123 However, most of the times, the foundations were mortar-bound. Their thickness varied between 0.55 m and 1.60 m but, in general, the average was just less than 1 m. The foundations were not always regular, and differences could be noticed with relative frequency even along the same wall (Almașu Mare – Joseni) or for various compartments (in Giulești the foundation of the apse was thicker than that of the nave). Sometimes this hides different stages, as in the case of Ostrov, where older walls were abutted. Variable thicknesses could also be the result of using particular materials, difficult to be fitted accurately in the fabric, as for example in Streisângeorgiu. In Feleacu, the foundations of the Gothic church were uneven and not always interwoven, perhaps because of using large stone boulders bound mostly with sand, a method that greatly hampers the archaeologists’ efforts to distinguish different stages. Apparently, the ground plan of the church in Almașu Mare – Joseni is very regular, but all sorts of irregularities were noticed during exacavations at foundation level.124 The western side of the nave was rather arched on the inside, the walls of the nave were thicker in the east and became gradually thinner toward the west, and the wideness of the nave decreased from west to east. The apse appears as a combination between the semicircular and the polygonal ground plans, amalgamation that resembled quite strongly the Gothic church in Râșnov-Șchei. It is difficult to say whether such variations should be interpreted because of using older remains, or simply as showing a local workshop, too little acquainted with the proper technique for such buildings. In exceptional cases, the foundations can measure even 1.60 m (Voivodeni, Nucșoara, the tower in Cuhea), which is an oddity in ecclesiastical architecture even on the scope of the entire province.125 Where researchers encounter such foundations, they expect a proportionally large superstructure, just as a small thickness has very often led archaeologists to speculate on the possibility of light structures, with wooden walls and ceilings. Generalisations are equivocal: for instance, the nave of the church in Ciula Mare was covered with a semi-cylindrical stone vault, while the apse had a dome, both of stone, an impressive feat considering that the walls are described as slender, only 0.55 m thick.126

123 124 125 126

Marcu-Istrate 2002c, 114–115. Marcu-Istrate 2002c, 113. Popa 1966, 515–517. Vătășianu 1930, 20–24.

408

Chapter 11

There is little, if any, systematic information about the embedment depth. Even where data is available, it is not always clear what reference point it relates to. On average, the bedding trenches seem to have been 0.50–0.70 m deep. Exceptionally, the foundation in Colț was 1.80 m deep, but such deviations occurred only when the building was resting on uneven ground or on sloping terrain.127 The foundations of one and the same building may often have been of unequal depth, which could be the result of the foundation ground (as, in fact, was the case in Colț) or of various accidents, such as the need to avoid disturbing graves. In Giulești, the builders struck on grave M10, where, most likely, was buried an important figure, because the skeleton was found with a signet ring. To protect his skull, a sort of niche was arranged at the base of the foundation, through a gabion.128 That also happened in Feleacu, where the south-western corner of the nave was diverted so as to not destroy a skeleton. Mismatches could often occur between the foundations and the superstructure because of plans changing during the construction process or, more often, due to the use of different building materials. The church in Streisângeorgiu provides an early example, where the various differences recorded between the foundation and the superstructure could measure up to 0.30–0.35 m and could be attributed to the construction materials. Although the foundation had a regular uniform plan, the superstructure looked rather misshapen, because huge blocks of stone had to be integrated into fabric. Based on what has survived to this day, it can be said that the walls were about 1 m thick on average, built of river or roughly dressed stones, while carved stone was used for corners, frames and, possibly, for the vault support system. The early church in Săliște had 0.50 m thick walls of stone and brick, while, in Voivodeni, they were over 1 m thick. The mid-14th-century church in Lupșa was built of medium- and small-sized river stone, resulting in a uniform and expressive wall surface.129 Nucșoara was built using river stones, and the church in Cuhea as well, but the lower part had a plinth consisting of a row of blocks with an obliquely bevelled upper edge.130 The architecture of the Land of Hațeg stands out because of intense, and also very inspired, use of Roman spolia of the greatest diversity, from huge blocks to small fragments of stone and brick.131 Decorated pieces, altars, fragmentary 127 128 129 130 131

Rusu 1989a, 24. Popa – Zdroba 1969, 278–282. Marcu 1998b, 194–195. Popa 1966, 517–519 (Cuhea). Rusu 1986, 249–255.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

409

columns were also used, and their blending-in could be made in very different ways, producing outstanding buildings, of which the best example is the church in Densuș.132 Many spolia were embedded in the western part of the church in Sânpetru, of which an altar dedicated to the God Silvanus, fragments of portals and statues, and others.133 In many cases, the fabric was a mixture of river and Roman stones, but also plenty of brick, for instance, in Ostrov, Sânpetru, or Strei. The corners were often built of ashlars for having regular edges (Strei). Spolia had multiple uses also for flooring, frames, or the base and tabletop of the Holy Table. Exceptionally, in Densuș, the pillars supporting the tower were made of stacked Roman altars, while in Streisângeorgiu a choirstall was carved from a Roman stone.134 Not only churches have been built using spolia, but their enclosures as well. Over 200 Roman stones, many of them carved and inscribed, were mentioned in Ostrov,135 several dozen preserved until 1968, but unfortunately scattered since, only few of them being recovered by local museums. In fact, the circular enclosure has never been explored, so it is not known if it actually fenced the cemetery, or it simply acted as an assemblage of interesting stones.136 Another good example is the 14th century church in Râu de Mori (Fig. 11.7.7), mentioned in the 18th century as surrounded by Roman inscriptions and sculptures.137 Reuse was not limited to the fabric itself, but also included technological purposes, as obtaining quicklime from burning chalkstones, or preparing hydraulic mortar using Roman bricks. Throughout Transylvania, Roman ruins were almost part of the natural landscape, and represented a close-at-hand material. Although some authors have assumed that reusing the material had strictly utilitarian reasons, the opposite should also be considered, as the message of this habit might have aimed to strengthen or even build a local identity. This association was not a local one, but it was part of a European phenomenon to maintain alive the awareness of ancestors. Walls of stone and brick, combined into a balanced proportion, were very rare occurrences. The church in Streisângeorgiu was an altogether particular case, as many bricks were used in the first half of the 12th century: not reused Roman bricks, but locally produced ones. Roman spolia of all sorts were very 132 133 134 135 136 137

Vătășianu 1959, 87–95; Popa 1988b, 12–16; Marcu-Istrate 2019b, 221–224. Rusu 1997a, 306–307. Rusu 1997a, 194–198 (Densuș); Popa 1978, 19–22 (Streisângeorgiu). Abrudan – Stoia 1984, 242; Popa 1986, 88–94; Rusu 1997a, 237–245. Drăguț 1968b, 27; Mărgineanu Cârstoiu – Apostol – Bâlici 2009, 47–88. Rusu 1997a, 280.

410

Chapter 11

handy, so the effort to produce bricks does not seem justified, unless understood as a reflex of Byzantine architecture, with the purpose of obtaining alternating courses of stone and brick. Much later, such mixed structures were evident in Săliște and Galda de Jos. Not too much is known about medieval roofs, but it may be assumed that most of them were made of shingles. In the Land of Hațeg and, generally, in the south-western regions, roofs were often made of stone slabs, especially in the case of towers, many of them preserved to this day. Roofs with Roman stone slabs, bricks, and tiles have been registered in Colț, Densuș, Ostrov, Peșteana, and Nucșoara, but there is questionable to what extent they are the original ones.138 The church in Streisângeorgiu was roofed with tiles, probably produced by the same workshop as the bricks, but this is a one-time occurrence in Transylvania. The tiles were 0.015 m thick and 0.18 m wide, had a prominent “beak” of 0.025 m and, on the upper side, they featured a decoration similar to that of the Roman bricks, namely finger-etched grooves.139 11.5

Lights and Shadows: Looking to the Interior

Floors made of stone slabs are often mentioned in connection with early churches. Excavations conducted in Lupșa have revealed the fully preserved 14th-century stone slab floor, among which there was also a reused millstone.140 Floors made of Roman spolia have been mentioned in Densuș and Colț, while, in Sânpetru, mixed stones were used for the same purpose.141 Exceptionally, the church in Hunedoara and the first church in Săliște had brick pavements, but compacted clay floors must have been the most common solution.142 Nave and sanctuaries were lit through windows of variable sizes. In early churches, almost without exception, the windows were narrow, barely more than slits, more useful for ventilation than as sources of light. The chancel in Densuș had a few such pointed arch narrow rectangular windows, and very similar ones could be seen in Ostrov, too. The church in Almașu Mare – Joseni was lit by extremely narrow windows, fitted with simple stone frames: three on the northern side, two on the southern side, and two in the apse.143 138 139 140 141 142 143

Moisescu 2001, 176; Rusu 1989a, 26. Popa 1978, 19–19. Marcu 1998b, 195–196. Rusu 1989a, 22–23; Rusu 1997a, 303–309. Pinter – Țiplic 1999, 61; Munteanu Beșliu 1989, 19. Marcu-Istrate 2002c, 112–113.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

411

Windows often had stone frames, but this was not mandatory (Almașu Mare – Joseni). Beautiful Gothic frames have survived in Colț,144 but on the southern façade of the church in Crișcior frames were made of plaster. In Ribița, a circular window with cross-shaped tracery could be seen on the southern side of the chancel, while in the southern wall of the nave there was a tall, rectangular Gothic window with circular tracery in the upper section.145 Larger and more elaborate windows were typically used for towers. Romanesque-style windows were preserved on the upper storey of the towers in Strei and Sântămăria-Orlea, but Gothic shapes seem to have had a greater frequency. In Ostrov, the windows of the topmost floor of the tower had stone lancet frames, while, in Crișcior, there is a preserved three-lobed ended window. Archaeological investigations have occasionally noted the existence of shards of glass that could be related to window glazing. A large amount of circular-shaped glass eyelets held in lead was recovered in Lupșa from 14th-century layers. However, the literature does not mention such situations too frequently.146 In general, churches had one or two doorways into the nave: the main one on the western side and a narrower one on the northern (Lupșa) or southern sides (Ostrov, Sânpetru, Crișcior, etc.). Side entrances were probably related to a more limited usage, being reserved for the priest or the members of the knezial family. However, the main entrance of the church in Lupșa was from the south, where a stone Gothic frame is still preserved, while on the northern side there was a secondary doorway, protected by a small porch.147 The church also had a connecting door between the nave and the founders’ chamber in the southern section, but the western façade was apparently full (without any opening). There was a very narrow doorway, only 0.65 m wide, in the southern wall of the church in Ostrov, while the one in Almașu Mare – Joseni had a larger rectangular frame. Usually, the frames were made of stone, brick or plaster, some interesting ones being kept in Colț, Ostrov, Ribița, and Nucșoara.148 Very often, the doorway frames were executed rather sloppily, most likely by locals who attempted to imitate a model, for example in Râu Alb or Ostrov. In Sânpetru, the southern pointed portal was carved from Roman spolia, while the western one looked very Gothic. The latter was built of brick, then 144 145 146 147 148

Rusu 1989a, 23; Greceanu 1971, 43; Vătășianu 1959, 122. Moisescu 2001, 172–174. Marcu 1998b, 205. Marcu 1998b, 197. Moisescu 2001, 173, fig. 111–113 (Ribița); Rusu 1989a, 23.

412

Chapter 11

plastered and painted with geometrical motifs, which was a rather rare practice. Based on these two frames, whose style straddles the boundary between the Romanesque and the Gothic, the church has been dated to the 13th–14th centuries, while archaeology advocates the 14th century dating.149 Portals of excellent quality were employed here and there, as for example in Lupșa or Feleacu, very likely brought over from urban workshops. On the other hand, shaping the opening in a Gothic style did not necessarily require a stone frame: in Crișcior, both frames were made of plaster, while, in Strei, the western portal was made of brick, with a stone frame toward the interior. The line between the nave and the sanctuary was marked by a triumphal arch, ending, most of the times, in a semicircular shape, or in a pointed arch for the churches built under Gothic influence (Sânpetru). Along the line of this triumphal arch, the sanctuary was closed to the view of the believers through a “wall” with two or three doors, mentioned most often as templon or iconostasis. One or more pillars, usually made of masonry (Râmeț, Lupșa, etc.) defined the door openings.150 There were relatively few cases in which this separation was taken into account at the time of construction, resulting in a foundation between the nave and the sanctuary. The earliest such situation was documented in Streisângeorgiu in the 12th century. Most often, this section was solved in a simpler manner, by pillars framing a wooden iconostasis, often set on the pavement without any foundation. However, in Lupșa, there were two steps between the nave and the sanctuary, on a shallow stone foundation,151 and a similar find was noted in Giulești.152 The Holy Table was typically set in the middle of the sanctuary, but if the templon had only two entries, the table was often diverted to the south or the north, to be visible from the nave. Usually there was a masonry base, with a foundation of its own, and a rectangular tabletop of various sizes. In Giulești, there was a masonry cube 1 m on the side, embedded 0.30 m under the ground level of the sanctuary, and the same was suggested for Hălmagiu. There was no standard size for the table, but the tabletop was usually over one metre long on the side, larger in Ribița (1.5 by 1.5 m), while in Crișcior it occupied nearly half of the area of the sanctuary (1.69 by 1.50 m). A singular find is the rhomboidal foundation uncovered in Nălațvad.153

149 150 151 152 153

Drăguț 1970, 84, note 117; Greceanu 1971, 33–59; Rusu 1997a, 306–307. Marcu 1998b, 204–205. Marcu 1998b, 195. Popa – Zdroba 1969, 272. Rusu 1997a, 227–229 (Nălațvad); Moisescu 2001, 171 (Crișcior); Rusu 1991c, 7–8 (Ribița).

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

413

The Orthodox ritual needs two compartments for the holy sacraments (pastophoria): the prothesis (north) and the diaconicon (south), for which there are different solutions. A room on the southern side of the sanctuary in Densuș has sometimes been linked to such a function, but the matter has not been definitively settled. In Streisângeorgiu and Peșteana, niches were saved in the thickness of the walls, reachable not from the sanctuary, but from the nave, whether they were oriented to the east or to the north and south. During the 13th–15th centuries, there were used niches set in the thickness of the walls, but pieces of furniture could also be adapted for this function. The builders probably often resorted to improvisations, because in many cases there was a single niche, on the northern (Râmeț, Gârbova de Sus) or the southern side (Lupșa154), the latter looking more like a sedilia. In Giulești, there was only a piece of furniture on the northern side of the sanctuary, a table, placed on a mortarless foundation made of large stones. A similar find was recorded in Hălmagiu, dated in around 1400, having a massive foundation made of mortar-bound masonry. In front of the triumphal arch, foundations sometimes appeared, aiming to support icons or books. A large square foundation, almost identical to the foundation of the Holy Table, was in the nave in Giulești, close to the iconostasis.155 In Mălăiești, a Roman column was set in front of the triumphal arch while, in Nălațvad, only the robber trench of such a foundation has been found. In Brașov-Șchei, in the eastern part of the nave, at approximately 0.30 m west of the triumphal arch, two rectangular bases were noticed, used very likely for a similar purpose.156 The second important separation of the Orthodox liturgical space refers to the narthex, a chamber in the western area, opposite the church’s main sanctuary. The narthex was used in the architecture of the aisleless churches south of the Danube in the 9th–10th centuries most often as a separate western bay inside the single-nave, but, in Transylvania, such an arrangement has not been noticed yet. For the early churches, excavations reported westward expansions, but their function is not at all clear. However, in Gurasada and Densuș, such additions appeared sometime during the 13th–15th centuries. The first narthex built as a separate cell seems to have been the one in Dăbâca, in the 10th–11th centuries. The narthex re-emerged in Râmeț, in the 13th–14th centuries, built as a tower, with two pillars separating it from the nave. The archaeologist Radu Heitel mentioned in his unpublished report that 154 Marcu 1998b, 194–195. 155 Popa – Zdroba 1969, 276–277. 156 Munteanu – Beldie Dumitrache 1976, 52–56.

414

Chapter 11

the narthex in Gârbova de Sus dates from the early phase of the church, namely the 14th century,157 while, in Hunedoara, the narthex is assumed to date from around 1400.158 Archaeological excavations have identified a shallow separation within the nave of Sânpetru, probably through a light wooden structure, such as a railing.159 A similar arrangement was assumed to have existed in Mănăstirea, and flimsy, archaeologically undetectable structures may have been operational in many churches. In most cases, however, the narthex consists of a variable-sized compartment (but often larger than the nave), which was added to the western side of an older church for the purpose of expanding the space: in Strei in the 15th century (later demolished, however), in Lupșa in the 18th, to give only a couple of examples.160 11.6

Summary of the Chapter

Out of the estimated number of medieval churches in Transylvania, 10 to 15 per cent were of Eastern rite, but knowledge about them is, surprisingly, quite limited. Although Orthodoxy is currently the primary religion of Romania, the historical and archaeological research of this segment of the medieval ecclesiastical landscape is actually much behind the state of research on Catholic architecture. Many of these churches have been archaeologically surveyed, although usually only to a rather limited extent. Even so, these investigations would have been constructive, if published as useful archaeological data sets. However, most of the time, the published papers contained only broad descriptions and unfounded statements, and about a third of the records have not been published or are now regarded as lost. The remarkable example of the interdisciplinary research undertaken in Streisângeorgiu has remained singular, and proper archaeological research has only seldom accompanied the frequent restorations of the recent years. Although a few synthesis works have attempted to address the archaeological aspects of the subject during the last half-century, the overall state of research remains at a level defined to a larger extent by nationalistic tendencies than by scientific approaches. This last chapter has briefly presented the 13th–15th-century Orthodox churches, a rural architecture that developed simple, but richly detailed forms. The architecture itself can hardly be distinguished from the Catholic one and 157 158 159 160

Fabini 1998, I, 774–775. Pinter – Țiplic 1999, 61. Cantacuzino 1977, 285–292. Marcu 1998b, 193–194.

The Archaeology of Orthodox Churches

415

generally followed in its steps, mainly by aligning with the developments and characteristics of the Gothic style. The most frequently used plan was that of the single-nave with a rectangular chancel, but, during the second part of the period, the Gothic polygonal apse became widespread. The specificity of the Orthodox ritual is reflected in the interior partitioning of the spaces (a sanctuary closed through iconostasis, special arrangements for the sacraments, a separate western room as a narthex), but especially through murals, painted by masters accustomed to Byzantine principles. On the other hand, Byzantine-like ground plans are rare, a situation resulting from the isolation of the Orthodox communities in the Catholic state and from the progressive limitation of rights for those who practised a “schismatic” religion.

Conclusions The central-western part of Romania, commonly known as Transylvania, preserves one of the most valuable legacies of medieval religious architecture in Europe. The region is home to the easternmost Romanesque churches, Cistercian monasteries, and Gothic buildings built in connection with the most important continental construction sites. But here also stand some of the oldest Byzantine-like churches, built in the 10th century, and late-medieval Orthodox churches erected in a hybrid, Romanesque-Gothic style. Still, the main characteristic of the landscape seems to be the fortified churches. Medieval Transylvania was primarily Catholic, this being the official religion of its rulers and privileged social strata. However, Orthodoxy formed a consistent substratum, which sprung from two roots: one the native, Romance, and Slavic populations, and the second the Hungarian leaders baptized in Constantinople and oriented for a period toward this variant of Christianity. This situation, which evolved in specific conditions throughout the Middle Ages, resulted in a very consistent body of churches, which counts a series of masterpieces of medieval architecture, and whose uniqueness is indisputable. Diversity is the main attribute of this heritage, a diversity that reflects its multi-ethnic character, religious pluralism, the wisdom of certain leaders, and the resistance of those who were not among the favoured social groups. This feature highlights Transylvania on a continental level because no other region offers, to a comparable extent, a similar architectural fabric. Transylvania was a borderland where various influences overlapped, but the development of ecclesiastical architecture followed a general European pattern, with chronological and stylistic disparities deep-rooted in its geographical position, and its complicated historical itinerary. After early 10th-century beginnings, churches were built again on a large scale only after 1200, and the ecclesiastical landscape was largely completed by the mid-15th century, the heritage of this century remaining the most visible today. Countless changes followed, imposed by new architectural styles (Renaissance, Baroque), by new religious concepts (Reformation), and ultimately by socio-political factors that demanded fortifications, reconstructions, reconfigurations of the topography, processes eventually leading to the disappearance of many interconnecting links. The unfortunate period of communism seems to have largely spared the Transylvanian churches. In the 1960s–1970s, considerable efforts were put into the restoration and study of many important sites, while, at the same time, in the capital of Romania, Bucharest, Orthodox churches and monasteries were

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004516144_014

Conclusions

417

being demolished to make room for apartments blocks. However, the ecclesiastical heritage decayed quite a lot in those decades, because of deficient use, of constant lack of funds, and in general because of low interest in religion. Many medieval churches have vanished, and this is an ongoing process, old churches being often abandoned for new ones, or simply for missing someone to look after them. In particular, the sharp decline of the Saxon communities had disastrous consequences, their churches being, with few exceptions, in danger of disappearing in the coming decades. As in any other part of Europe, the medieval ecclesiastical landscape, consisting mostly of Catholic churches, has survived unevenly. In the western regions, almost nothing is left, and retrieving the medieval buildings is basically the task of archaeology. The situation differs in the intra-Carpathian area corresponding to the old Voivodeship of Transylvania, which had been better protected – both naturally and through fortification works – and had a divergent history during the Modern Age. In these territories, many medieval churches are still standing, although, over time, they have been almost all the subject of various alterations, to enlarge, modernize, redecorate, or fortify them. Still, the medieval component is quite noticeable, no matter if we look at the southern lands settled by the Saxons, at the eastern Lands of Szeklers, or at the former northern and western counties. As Florin Curta has memorably stated, Christianization – and, implicitly, church-building – in Eastern Europe has been a choice with implications far beyond religious matters, ultimately involving survival and identity-preservation for some, decline and extinction for others.1 Consequently, the religious building itself, its site, and its context, are major sources, and often unique ones, for understanding medieval society, its beliefs and rituals, its material and technological possibilities, or even its behaviour in various critical situations. If adding the major lack of written history, the importance of churches for historical reconstruction become even more obvious. However, an archaeological perspective is always needed to access this priceless source of knowledge. There are multiple manners of approaching church archaeology. To give only two examples, in his emblematical book, Warwick Rodwell2 has combined historical and technical discourse, presenting a methodology that has basically overhauled the role of archaeology in the field, for owners, the public, and the scientific community as well. Alexandra Chavarria Arnau went with

1 Curta 2019, I, 470. 2 Rodwell 2005.

418

Conclusions

a historical approach for a region rich in written sources and well-structured archaeological data plentifully available.3 This book chose the second line, but for a region with a completely different background, which entered written history only around 1200 – bar a few briefs and highly debatable older references – at the same time when churches started to be systematically constructed. The overall picture of Transylvania’s churches is mainly provided by papers written more than a half-century ago, almost exclusively based on the then preserved fabric. Therefore, most churches have been catalogued based on their portals, window frames, decorative friezes, or other architectural and mural elements. The sanctuary of the cathedral in Alba Iulia has been described as a Gothic product, only to be revealed afterward as an 18th-century reconstruction – indeed, one that attempted to match the original, but which, obviously, could only do it to a certain extent.4 In truth, whenever archaeological excavations have been undertaken, complemented or not by architectural research, it has been noticed that the present-day churches resulted from successive, complex development stages, consisting not only of buildings activities, but organizing cemeteries and providing various facilities as well. In general, church archaeology is almost completely dependent on restorations or other similar works, and usually, only minor spots are available for excavations. Most of the time, the archaeologist deals with details, and it often takes years or decades before a complete diagnosis, if it ever arrives. The urban church in Sibiu was excavated externally in 2005, while the interior became available only in 2018, and this was a lucky case. There is no surprise that the archaeological data are rarely familiar to researchers from other fields, and even less frequently included in general papers. This book has tried to compensate for this lack while introducing the medieval churches of Transylvania to the English-speaking reader. The previous 11 chapters have surveyed the shaping of the architectural religious landscape from its beginning until, largely, the mid-15th century, outlining the context and achievements of each period, the current state of research, issues, and potential solutions, through examples that, in one manner or another, stand as representative. Each chapter has its conclusions, but some matters need to be stressed at the end, especially for readers less acquainted with this part of Europe.

3 Chavarria Arnau 2018. 4 Marcu-Istrate 2014b, 25–55.

Conclusions

1.

2.

3.

4.

419

Located at the crossroads between Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, and the Pagan world, the inhabitants of Transylvania probably experimented with Christianity as early as the first half of the first millennium, but actual traces of this process are exceedingly rare and more or less lacking context, so they are far from providing even a remotely adequate research basis. The first church that can be dated with any certainty is the one in Alba Iulia, built toward the middle of the 10th century as a variant of the Greek-cross Byzantine ground plan. Moreover, this was not only the first church but also the first structure built of stone in a region where masonry had not been used since Roman time. Still, having a few skilled craftsmen was not enough to establish a church – such action needed a very particular political and religious context, which can only be linked with the Christianising Byzantine mission sent to the Hungarian tribes, led by bishop Hierotheos. On the other hand, founding a church in the 10th century shows that Alba Iulia was the foremost centre of the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, which explains its later re-birth as the see of the Catholic Diocese of Transylvania. There were several other Eastern-rite churches in use during the 10th and 11th centuries, among them the ones in Dăbâca and Pâncota, which, in time, will become centres of Catholic administration. There is a debate about some other churches, such as Densuș, Gurasada, and Peșteana, which may be worth further in-depth, more adequate archaeological and architectural studies. What is very curious about this group is the diversity of layouts: as many churches, as many variants – with the singular exception of those in Alba Iulia and Densuș, which are quite similar. They come into sight as the oldest religious buildings built in Transylvania, making use of atypical, one-of-a-kind ground plans, inspired by Byzantine architecture. Nevertheless, for now, it is very difficult to establish how this connection worked its way in, since, for most of them, there are no good analogies, and the knowledge is limited to archaeological data. On the other hand, there are not sufficient indicia to understand why such ground plans remained isolated occurrences and did not become a source of inspiration for local architecture. The conquest and organisation of Transylvania as part of the Catholic Kingdom of Hungary (10th–13th centuries) was a lengthy and hardly linear process, which involved the settlement of highly diverse populations, some of them already Christians (the Saxons, which arrived from Germanic territories), other Pagans or undergoing Christianisation (primarily Hungarians and Szeklers). This resulted in areas with very different

420

5.

6.

7.

Conclusions

development stages from a cultural and religious viewpoint (of course, from others as well), each with its own architectural landscape, although following the general lines of the Romanesque and Gothic styles. The murky period of the beginnings needs to be analyzed in the wider context of Christianisation, considering how things unfolded in this area, and which were its external connections. In any case, the idea that, around the year 1000, after the official Christianization of the Hungarians, we are already dealing with a Christian society must be seriously questioned. Based on archaeological data, this fact seems to become real only toward the 13th century, since, until then, there were still many churchless burial grounds and, in fact, there was a noticeable scarcity of churches. Indeed, it is customary in scholarship to assume that there always was a church whenever graves from the 11th–12th centuries are found, but this cannot be more than a hypothesis. The formative period of religious architecture, largely corresponding to the time frame between the 10th and 12th centuries, is actually quite confusing: some built churches of Byzantine influence, others brought workers from the Latin world. The first group reflects a phenomenon limited to this period, known only through a few specimens, still standing, or reconstructed by excavations. The second group began toward the end of the 11th century, but there are also some earlier examples. However, it was a rather strange time, mirroring not only technical problems, but also an ever-shifting context, a society in search of its own identity, and of appropriate organizational structures. The achievements before the mid-12th century, when began the large-scale colonization with hospites, appear therefore as an overture to the architecture of the Catholic Church, which will flourish in the coming centuries, to shape a complex religious landscape. Although some small churches were built during the 11th century (for example Sânnicolau de Beiuș), it can be stated that Catholic religious architecture started at the end of that century, straightforward building a cathedral, the first three-aisled Romanesque basilica in Alba Iulia. The establishment of the structures of the Catholic Church was based on taking over pre-existing power centres and refashioning them to match the new situation. There is written evidence about the appropriation of the Orthodox monastery in Cenad by St Gerard, but the transitional process is better documented in Alba Iulia, where the ruins of three churches that preceded the construction of the present-day cathedral were uncovered in a rather small area. There are also similar archaeological indicia

Conclusions

8.

9.

10.

11.

421

for the late Benedictine monastery in Pâncota, and probably other such instances as well, but the subject has no actual historiography. There is a long-standing dispute regarding the earliest church-builders of Southern Transylvania, a region first settled by Szeklers, and then by Saxons. Works published in the 1970s advanced the idea that the earliest churches must have been built by Szeklers and, even today, whenever a smaller church is uncovered, it is automatically classified as such. However, at a closer look at the archaeological data – involving not only the churches (particularly the ones in Viscri and Drăușeni) but also the overall habitat – such attributions appear unfounded. More or less recent excavations have disclosed the Szeklers as a mostly transitory population, with short-lived, unsophisticated settlements. Furthermore, looking at the facts of Eastern Transylvania, it seems quite unlikely that the Szeklers were Christians at their migration time, or, at least, that they practiced a dogmatic Christianity that would have required specific buildings. Another preconception is that the hospites started to build from the very start Romanesque basilicas and that this was almost exclusively their architectural choice. What can be stated is that they have indeed erected large churches, based on basilican layouts, but where reasonable-sized archaeological excavations were undertaken, traces of smaller, singlenave churches were also brought to light. In later times, the communities either chose to replace them with basilicas or retained the original design, such as in Viscri. Nevertheless, some communities, such as in Sibiu and Sighișoara, have indeed started erecting from the very start huge churches, as outsized as their present-day ones, which raises questions regarding the actual proportions of the early colonization process. Usually, when a rotunda is uncovered, there is a tendency to claim that it is a 12th-century structure. It seems that this rounded layout, with no definite function, was not as uncommon as it used to look. At least one such church was erected in 14th-century Brașov, and, if we are to include more sophisticated variants, the upper bound goes into the 16th–17th centuries. Yet another questionable theory is that religious architecture developed mostly after the Mongol invasion of 1241. The research of the last several decades, especially the investigations undertaken in the east of Transylvania, has shed ever further doubt on this claim. It seems that there were already quite a few churches at the time, although it is true that they were mostly rebuilt in the following period. Still, this was not as much a direct consequence of the invasion as a reflection of the overall social development, knowledge accumulation, and improved material

422

12.

13.

14.

Conclusions

possibilities, factors that allowed the erection of ever larger, more appealing buildings. Transylvania retains the ruins of the easternmost Cistercian monastery, established in Cârța in the early 13th century – much has been written about it, from various perspectives, but little about its role in shaping the nearby architectural landscape. The erection of the stone structures of the monastery, probably in the last decades of the 13th century (since almost nothing is known about the earlier period) was, without a doubt, a crucial moment in the dissemination of the Gothic style; nevertheless, its actual role in this process requires a serious revaluation, and a correlation with the archaeological data recovered at other churches, such as the ones in Hărman, Hălmeag, or Brașov. Gothic elements had already started appearing in the first part of the 13th century, although, in most cases, and especially in the countryside, they had to be the products of local craftsmen trying to imitate certain designs. The Cistercian presence in the south-eastern parts of Transylvania, where the order had several properties, has been analyzed in these pages for the first time from an architectural point of view, based on the archaeological finds from Brașov and Feldioara. The churches in Hărman and Prejmer have items traditionally linked with the workshop of Cârța, but these churches were possessions of the order, and not of the house in Cârța. Up until around 1400, and even later still in the countryside, there was an architectonically disorderly period, making use of a mixture of Romanesque and Gothic items, combined in many different manners. Recent architectonical and archaeological research has pointed out that, quite often, multiple styles are jumbled in the same building, so dating churches based on isolated features, without in-depth research, is problematic. This also means that what is currently known as ‘church archaeology’ should be a field of research involving both archaeologists and art historians. The urban landscape, dating to the 14th–15th centuries, includes monumental buildings, some of them even archaeologically investigated to a larger (Sighișoara, Sibiu, Mediaș, Baia Mare) or lesser (Brașov, Cluj, Aiud, Turda) extent. If nowadays one can see Late Gothic churches everywhere, their beginning is actually very dissimilar, as well as the way they developed. Except for the one in Brașov, about which there is too scant data, their current shape is the result of three to four major construction stages, some of them lasting centuries, such as was the case in Sibiu.

423

Conclusions

15.

16.

Church fortification is a phenomenon usually attributed to the 16th– 17th centuries, but, taking a closer look to the archaeological data, it seems that a defensive functionality has always been on the agenda of the church-builders, or, at least, it has been since the 13th century. The much-written-about present-day shapes are indeed younger, but often much earlier beginnings were shown by excavations, no matter if consisting of building a massive tower, choosing a specific place in the landscape, or establishing a true fortification. It is not only the chronology of this phenomenon that requires a novel approach, but also the typology. The research in Drăușeni revealed a unique layout, and also an attempt to change the church into a bastion much earlier than estimated. The situation must have been similar in Hărman, and probably not only there. However, the fortification process impacted not only the church, but fully changed the ecclesiastical landscape, giving it a new dimension and adding components (mostly temporary dwelling facilities) while leading to the disappearance of others. Its connexion with the graveyards, as well as the issue of the material culture generated by this situation, beyond the architecture that can still be seen in more or less articulate states, are still puzzling. Orthodox churches are a particular feature of this landscape, and the one in Streisângeorgiu is an early-12th-century structure still retaining its original shape and still in use. A question remains, namely why the early constructions had such varied layouts that there are no two buildings alike, while the second part of the timeframe is characterized by a rather homogenous architecture. There is also the challenge of finding ways to establish a finer chronology, since most of these structures, even after archaeological excavations, remain somewhere in the nebulous, unjustifiable long interval of the 13th to 15th centuries.

…

Archaeology has substantially improved the knowledge of medieval churches, while there are still many questions, hypotheses, and assumptions. There are difficulties in locating many churches, finding older field notes, processing the archaeological finds, and others that generally require additional work. The best-known part involves the basic layouts, but, even for this, a complete picture is missing. On the other hand, many issues that have not been addressed here are waiting for further research and a comparative approach in the larger European context.

424

Conclusions

Still, the overall picture is clear enough: a complex religious landscape, with peculiarities and issues derived from the local context, but evolving in connection with neighbouring regions and frequently benefiting from European innovations, whether we look to the West or South. However, the churches of Transylvania are hardly visible in international literature, and rather seem to have somehow remained between the worlds, in a buffer zone where nothing ever happened. Papers on Romanesque and Gothic architecture usually focus on Western and Central Europe, at best including examples from Hungary,5 and the same is true when looking from the other side: scholars dealing with Byzantine architecture usually do not cross the Danube, only by chance noting Wallachia, but never Transylvania.6 Where, then, should we place this impressive collection of medieval churches, including so many unique buildings, no matter if Catholic or Orthodox, fortified or not, still standing, or archaeological ruins? The last conclusion would be that, beyond specific studies of national interest, published in local languages, Transylvania’s religious heritage needs a broader perspective and comparative studies to take its rightful place in European scholarship. 5 Szakács 2016, 205–224; Laszlovszky – Romhányi 2003, 372–377. 6 Ćurčić 2010; Mango 1981.

Bibliography Primary Sources “Anexă la Ordinul nr. 2314/2004 al Ministrului Culturii și Cultelor privind aprobarea Listei monumentelor istorice, actualizată, și a Listei monumentelor istorice dispărute,” Monitorul Oficial al Românei, year 172 (XVI), no. 646 bis, Friday, 16 July 2004, vol. 1–3. “Anexa la Ordinul Ministrului Culturii nr. 2828/2015 pentru modificarea anexei nr. 1 la Ordinul ministrului culturii și cultelor nr. 2314/2004 privind aprobarea Listei monumentelor istorice, actualizată, și a Listei monumentelor istorice dispărute, cu modificările ulterioare,” Monitorul Oficial al României, year 184 (XXVIII), no. 113 bis, Monday, 15 February 2016: 3–1372. CDTrans – Codex diplomaticus Transsylvaniae. Diplomata, epistolae et alia instrumenta litteraria res Transsylvanas illustrantia. Erdélyi Okmánytár. Oklevelek, levelek és más írásos emlékek Erdély történetéhez. Vol. I. (1023–1300), ed. by Jakó Zsigmond (Budapest 1997); Vol. II. (1301–1339), ed. by Jakó Zsigmond (Budapest 2004); Vol. III. (1340–1359), eds. Hegyi Géza – W. Kovács András – Jakó Zsigmond (Budapest 2008) (A Magyar Országos Levéltár Kiadványai. II: Forráskiadványok 26, 40, 47). (also available online at https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/MolDigiLib_MOLkiadv2_26/?pg=129& layout=s. Accessed 2021 Oct 11). Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense / Cronica pictată de la Viena, ed. Gheorghe Popa-Lisseanu, in Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 11; trans. by Gheorghe Popa-Lisseanu, in Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 11. Bucharest: Tipografia “Bucovina”, I.E. Torouțiu, 1937. DIR.C.I. – Documente privind istoria României. Veacul XI, XII și XIII. C. Transilvania. Vol. I (1075–1250), ed. Mihail Roller. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1951. DIR.C.II. – Documente privind istoria României. Veacul XIII. C. Transilvania. Vol. II (1251–1300), ed. Mihail Roller. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1952. DIR.C.XIV. I. – Documente privind istoria României. Veacul XIV. C. Transilvania. Vol. I (1301–1320), ed. Mihail Roller. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, 1953. DRH.C.XI. – Documenta Romaniae Historica, C. Transilvania. Vol. XI (1356–1360), ed. Ștefan Pascu. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1981. DRH.C.XIII. – Documenta Romaniae Historica, C. Transilvania. Vol. XIII (1366–1370), eds. Ioan Dani – Konrad Gündisch – Viorica Pervain – Aurel Răduțiu – Adrian Rusu – Susana Andea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1991.

426

Bibliography

DRMH – Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae / The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. 1000–1301, ed. and trans. János M. Bak – György Bónis – James Ross Sweeney. Idyllwild: Charles Schlacks, JR., 1999 (The Laws of Hungary. Series I: Volume 1). Gesta Hungarorum – Gesta Hungarorum / Faptele ungurilor, ed. G. Popa Liseanu, in Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 1: 1–70; trans. G. Popa Liseanu, in Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 1: 71–124. Bucharest: Bucovina, 1935. Gromo, Giovan-Andrea, “[Descriere mai amplă a Transilvaniei] Privire generală asupra întregii țări de sub stăpînirea regelui Ioan al Transilvaniei și a tuturor lucrurilor însemnate din acea țară, adunate de Giovanandrea Gromo și închinate preailustrului și preaînălțatului domn Cosimo de Medici, duce de Florența și Siena. 1566–1567.” In Călători străini despre țările române, vol. 2, ed. Maria Holban, collective translation, 325–371. Bucharest: Editura Științifică, 1970. Iohannes Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum / A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057, trans. John Wortley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Legenda Maior – Legenda sancti Stephani regis maior et minor, atque legenda ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta, ed. Emma Bartoniek, in Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Imre Szentpétery, vol. 2. Budapest: Budapestini Acad. Litter. Hungarica atque Societate Histor. Hungarica, 1938. Quellen zur Geschichte der Siebenbürger Sachsen 1191–1975, ed. Ernst Wagner, 2nd revised edition. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau, 1981. Reg.Arp. – Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. Az Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Vol. I/1. 1001–1270, ed. by Imre Szentpétery (Budapest 1923); Vol. I/2. 1001–1270, ed. by Imre Szentpétery (Budapest 1927); Vol. I/3. 1001–1270, ed. by Imre Szentpétery (Budapest 1930); Vol. II/1. (1255) 1270–1301, ed. by Imre Szentpétery (Budapest 1943); Vol. II/2–3. 1272–1290, ed. by Imre Szentpétery (†) – Iván Borsa (Budapest 1961). Reicherstorffer, Georg 1550, Chorographia Transylvaniae, quae Dacia olim appellata, aliarumque provinciarum et regionum succincta descriptio et explicatio. Vienna: excudebat Egidius Aquila in Curia divae Annae. Repertoriul Arheologic Național (RAN). Online resource available at http://ran.cimec .ro/. Accessed 2020 Jan 20. Rogerius, Carmen miserabile, ed. Gheorghe Popa Liseanu, in Fontes Historiae DacoRomanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 5: 21–57; trans. by Gheorghe Popa Liseanu, in Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanorum / Izvoarele istoriei românilor, vol. 5: 59–91. Bucharest: Bucovina, 1935. SRH – Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Emericus Szentpétery, vol. 1–2. Budapest, 1937–1938.

Bibliography

427

Székely Oklevéltár, eds. Károly Szabó – Lajos Szádeczky – Samu Barabás, vol. 1–8. Cluj/ Kolozsvár – Budapest, 1872–1934. Thietmar of Merseburg – Die Chronik des Bischofes Thietmar von Merseburg, ed. R. Holtzmann. Munich: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1996 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova Series 9). Urkundenbuch – Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, eds. Franz Zimmermann – Carl Werner – Georg Müller – Gustav Gündisch – Herta Gündisch – Konrad G. Gündisch – Gernot Nussbächer, vol. 1–7. Sibiu – Bucharest, 1892–1991. (also available online at http://siebenbuergenurkundenbuch.uni-trier .de/ Accessed on 2021 Sept 13). Werner, Georg, “Raport din lunile martie-aprilie 1552 despre veniturile regești din Transilvania.” In Călători străini despre Țările Române, vol. 2, ed. Maria Holban, collective translation, 17–86. Bucharest: Editura Științifică, 1970.

Secondary Literature N.N. 1938, “Die Baugeschichtlichen Ergebnisse der Grabungen in der Schwarzen Kirche,” Mitteilungen des Burzenländer Sächsischen Museums 1938/3–4: 93–102. N.N. 1970, “Principalele lucrări de restaurare a monumentelor istorice din Republica Socialistă România (1959–1969),” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 39/1: 73–78. Abrudan, Paul – Stoia, Mircea 1984, “Documente inedite privind călătoria lui Teodor Mommsen în Transilvania pentru studierea inscripțiilor romane din Dacia,” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 16–17: 241–250. Achim, Viorel 1994, “La féodalité roumaine du royaume de Hongrie entre orthodoxie et catholicisme. Le cas de Banat,” Colloquia 1/2: 17–29. Achim, Viorel 2008, Politica sud-estică a regatului ungar sub ultimii Arpadieni. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Amlacher, Albert 1904, “Zur Baugeschichte der evangelischen Pfarrkirche in Mühlbach,” Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 27/6–7: 76–78. Angelescu, Mariana 1963, “Noi date rezultate din recentele cercetări asupra evoluției complexului fortificat de la Prejmer.” In Sesiunea științifică a Direcției Monumentelor Istorice – ianuarie 1963, ed. Oliver Velescu, 40–50. Bucharest: CDCAS – Centrul de documentare pentru construcții, arhitectură și sistematizare. Angelescu, Mariana – Gündisch, Gustav – Klein, Albert – Krasser, Harald – Streitfeld, Theobald 1967, “Restaurarea unui monument de arhitectură din epocile romanică și gotică în cadrul ansamblului de monumente feudale de la Sebeș-Alba,” Monumentele istorice. Studii și lucrări de conservare 2: 90–119.

428

Bibliography

Anghel, Călin 2008, “Istoriografia privind biserica evanghelică din Sebeș,” Patrimonium Apulense 7–8: 275–287. Anghel, Gheorghe 1965, “Biserica romanică de la Geoagiul de Jos,” Apulum 5: 615–624. Anghel, Gheorghe 1968, “Noi descoperiri în legătură cu așezarea feudal timpurie de la Alba Iulia,” Apulum 7: 469–483. Anghel, Gheorghe 1975, “Castelul de la Hunedoara (noi puncte de vedere asupra fazelor de construcție),” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 11–12: 363–376. Anghel, Gheorghe 1985, “Noi date în legătură cu vechea cetate medievală de la Alba Iulia,” Apulum 22: 113–122. Anghel, Gheorghe 1986, Fortificații medievale de piatră din secolele XIII–XVI. ClujNapoca: Dacia. Anghel, Gheorghe 1994, “Despre evoluția teritorială a orașului antic, medieval și modern Alba Iulia,” Apulum 31: 283–301. Anghel, Gheorghe – Ciugudean, Horea 1987, “Cimitirul feudal timpuriu de la Blandiana (jud. Alba),” Apulum 24: 179–196. Ariès, Philippe 1996, Omul în fața morții, vol. 1–2, trans. Andrei Niculescu. Bucharest: Meridiane. Arion, Gheorghe 1967, “Date noi referitoare la prima catedrală catolică de la Alba Iulia,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 14/2: 155–159. Arion, Gheorghe 1974, Sculptura gotică din Transilvania. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Avram, Alexandru 1973, “Biserici romanice cu cor rectangular în bazinul Crișului Repede.” In Lucrări științifice, collective work, 127–133. Oradea: Institutul Pedagogic Oradea. Avram, Alexandru 1977a, “Monumentul romanic din Daia (comuna Roșia, județul Sibiu),” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 46/1: 75–77. Avram, Alexandru 1977b, “Sur les débuts de l’architecture monastique de Crișana (XII– XIII siècles),” Revue roumaine d’histoire 14: 10–25. Avram, Alexandru 1981, “Cîteva considerații cu privire la bazilicile scurte din bazinul Hîrtibaciului și zona Sibiului,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 50/2: 64–71. Avram, Alexandru 1991, “Arhitectura ecleziastică. Plastica arhitectonică. Mobilierul bisericesc.” In 800 de ani Biserica a germanilor din Transilvania, ed. Thomas Nägler, 37–68. Thaur bei Innsbruck: Wort und Welt. Avram, Alexandru 1995, “‘In memoriam’ Radu Popa. Săpăturile arheologice de la Sînnicolau de Beiuș – locul ‘La Turn.’ Considerații asupra bisericilor-sală romanice cu absidă semicirculară din Bihor,” Crisia 25: 65–93. Avram, Alexandru 2006a, Arhitectura romanică din nord-vestul României. Sibiu: Editura Universității Lucian Blaga. Avram, Alexandru 2006b, Topografia monumentelor din Transilvania: Municipiul Mediaș. Sibiu: Altip (Bibliotheca Brukenthal 3).

Bibliography

429

Baán, István 1995, “Turkia metropolitája. Újabb adalék a bizánci egyház történetéhez a középkori Magyarországon,” Századok 129: 1167–1170. Baán, István 1997, “The foundation of the Archbishopric of Kalocsa: the Byzantine origin of the second archdiocese in Hungary.” In Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk, 67–73. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Baán, István 1999, “The Metropolitanate of Tourkia. The organization of the Byzantine Church in Hungary in the Middle Ages.” In Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453. Beiträge zu einer table-ronde des XIX. International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen 1996, eds. Günter Prinzing – Maciej Salamon, 45–55. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Babeș, Mircea 1994, “Siebenbürgen in der Römerzeit. Zur Frage der Kontinuität und der Romanisierung der Geto-Daker.” In Siebenbürgen zur Zeit der Römer und der Völkerwanderung, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, 117–144. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 29). Bagyinszki, Zoltán – Tatár, Sarolta (eds.) 2010, Erdélyi templomok / Transylvanian Churches / Kirchen in Siebenbürgen. Debrecen: Tóth Könyvkereskedés és Kiadó Kft. Bakó, Géza 1961, “Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei de sud-est din secolele XI–XIII,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 12/1: 113–119. Bakó, Géza 1969, “Despre structura socială a populației din epoca feudală timpurie de la Moldovenești,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 20/2: 337–342. Bálint, Ágnes 2009, “Biserica Neagră din Brașov – noi propuneri privind cronologia și contextul construcției,” Ars Transsilvaniae 19: 5–18. Bálint, Csanád 2010, Der Schatz von Nagyszentmiklós. Archäologische Studien zur frühmittelalterlichen Metallgefässkunst des Orients, Byzanz’ und der Steppe. Budapest: Pál Sümegi (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 16b). Balogh, Jolán 1943, Az Erdély Renaissance. I. Kötet. 1460–1541. Cluj: Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet. Baltag, Gheorghe 1978, “Podoabe din secolele XIV–XVIII din inventarul necropolelor de la Streisîngeorgiu și Strei – județul Hunedoara,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/1: 53–56. Baltag, Gheorghe 1979, “Date pentru un studiu arheologic al zonei municipiului Sighișoara,” Marisia 9: 75–106. Baltag, Gheorghe 2000, Sighișoara înainte de Sighișoara. Elemente de demografie și habitat în bazinul mijlociu al Târnavei Mari din preistorie până în sec. al XIII-lea d. Hr. cu privire specială asupra zonei municipiului Sighișoara. Bucharest: Oscar Print. Baltag, Gheorghe 2004, Sighișoara-Schässburg-Segesvár. Istoria Sighișoarei de la întemeierea orașului până la 1945. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae – Cristian Matos. Baltag, Gheorghe – Amlacher, Eberhard 1994, “Noi contribuții la repertoriul arheologic al zonei Târnava Mare,” Marisia 23–24: 171–193.

430

Bibliography

Barabás, Gábor 2016, “The Christianization of Hungary.” In Chrystianizacja “Młodszej Europy”, eds. Józef Dobosz – Jerzy Strzelczyk – Marzena Matla, 115–136. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM (Historia 228). Barbu, Daniel 2001, “Juridiction ecclésiastique et communauté politique. Le Maramureș en 1391.” In Historia manet. Volum omagial: Demény Lajos: 75 / Historia manet. Demény Lajos emlékkönyv: 75, eds. Violeta Barbu – Tüdős S. Kinga – Mária Pakucs, 62–63. Bucharest – Cluj-Napoca: Kriterion. Barbu, Mircea 1980, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Arad-Vladimirescu, campania 1979,” Ziridava 12: 151–163. Barbu, Mircea – Zdroba, Mircea 1979, “Cercetările arheologice de la Arad-Vladimirescu,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 13: 291–296. Bărbulescu, Mihai 1994, Potaissa. Studiu monografic. Turda: Muzeul de Istorie Turda. Barnea, Ion 1981, Arta creștină în România, vol. 2. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române. Bartlett, Robert John 2007, “From paganism to Christianity in medieval Europe.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 47–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartók, Botond 1995, “Leletmentő ásatások a 15–16. századi vargyasi gótikus templomnál (Kovászna megye),” Acta 1995 = Aluta 19 = Acta Hargitensia 2: 145–146. Bartók, Botond 1996, “Ruinele bisericilor romanice și gotice târzii de la Vârghiș (j. Covasna),” Acta 1996 = Aluta 20 = Acta Hargitensia 3: 175–180. Bartók, Botond – Bordi, Zsigmond Loránd 1998, “Régészeti kutatások a kézdialbisi református templomban,” Acta 1998/1 = Aluta 22 = Acta Hargitensia 5: 253–262. Baumgartner, Alán 1915, A kerci apátság a középkorban. Budapest: Stephaneum. Beldie, Mariana 1974, “‘Rotonda’ din Odorheiu-Secuiesc și problema datării monumentului,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 43/1: 59–62. Bencze, Ünige 2010, “Late medieval graphite ware in the Târgu Mureș Franciscan friary and the study of imported pottery in Transylvania,” Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie 30: 205–212. Bencze, Ünige 2012, “Das Zisterzienserkloster Kerz: Neue Betrachtungen zu Gründung, dynastichen Verbindungen und Zisterzienserideal,” Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 35/2: 121–133. Bencze, Ünige 2013, “The monastery of Cârța: between the Cistercian ideal and local realities,” Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Historia 58: 17–30. Bencze, Ünige 2015a, “A medieval Pauline monastic landscape in the Szekler Land / Középkori pálos tájhasználat a Székelyföldön,” Transsylvania Nostra 9/2: 10–17. Bencze, Ünige 2015b, “Reconstructing a monastic landscape: the example of the Cistercian Abbey Cârța (Kerz, Kerc).” In Monastic Life, Art and Technology in the 11th–16th Centuries, ed. Ileana Burnichioiu, 29–45. Alba Iulia: Mega.

Bibliography

431

Bencze, Ünige 2018, “The Abbey of Meszes: new insights on the site location.” In Genius loci. Laszlovszky 60, eds. Dóra Mérai – Ágnes Drosztmér – Kyra Lyublyanovics – Judith Rasson – Zsuzsanna Papp Reed – András Vadas – Csilla Zatykó, 68–71. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Bencze, Ünige 2020a, On the Border: Monastic Landscapes of Medieval Transylvania (Between the Eleventh and Sixteenth Centuries). Doctoral dissertation defended on 18 March 2020 at the Central European University, Budapest. Available online at https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2020/bencze_unige.pdf. Accesed on 2021 Oct 10. Bencze, Ünige 2020b, “Similarities and differences of a Benedictine and a Cistercian abbey as reflected in the landscape. Beginnings for a comparative approach.” In Ecclesiastical Landscapes in Medieval Europe. An Archaeological Perspective, eds. José C. Sánchez-Pardo – Emmet H. Marron – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 230–240. Oxford: Archaeopress. Benczédi, Sándor 2014, “Adalékok a bögözi református templom építészettörténetéhez a 2009–2013-ban végzett műemlék-helyreállítás tükrében / Contributions to the architectural history of the Calvinist church in Mugeni, in the light of the conservation works conducted between 2009 and 2013,” Transsylvania Nostra 8/2: 62–80. Benkő, Elek 1992, A középkori Keresztúr-szék régészeti topográfiája. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 5). Benkő, Elek 2000, “Karlsburg (Gyulafehérvár, Alba Iulia).” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – HansMartin Hinz, vol. 2, 593–596. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Benkő, Elek 2004, Kolozsvár magyar külvárosa a középkorban. A Kolozsvárba olvadt Szentpéter falu emlékei. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum-egyesület kiadása (Erdélyi tudományos füzetek 248). Benkő, Elek 2009, “Mittelalterliche archäologische Funde im Szeklerland.” In Die Szekler in Siebenbürgen. Von der privilegierten Sondergemeinschaft zur ethnischen Gruppe, eds. Harald Roth – Paul Niedermaier – Gabriela Olasz, 13–43. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 40). Benkő, Elek 2012, A középkori Székelyföld, vol. 1–2. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Berend, Nora – Laszlovszky, József – Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2007, “The Kingdom of Hungary.” In Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c.900–1200, ed. Nora Berend, 319–368. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press. Berend, Nora – Urbańczyk, Przemysław – Wiszewski, Przemysław 2013, Central Europe in the High Middle Ages. Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c.900 – c.1300. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.

432

Bibliography

Beșliu, Petre 1991, “Istoria unei biserici de mănăstire din Sibiu,” Revista monumentelor istorice 60/1: 78–84. Beșliu, Petre 2012, “Gesellschaftliche Gruppen im Hermannstädter Siechenhaus im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit,” Zeitschrift für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 34/2: 121–136. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 1993, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Orașul medieval,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România 1983–1992. Available online at http://cronica .cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=795&d=Sibiu-Orasul-medieval-1983-1992. Accessed on 2021 Oct 01. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 1995, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Centru istoric,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1994. Available online at http:// cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=152&d=Sibiu-Centru-istoric-1994. Accessed on 2021 Oct 01. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 1997, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica Azilului, Biserica Evanghelică, str. Avram Iancu și Blănarilor,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1996. Available online at http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu .asp?k=460&d=Sibiu-Biserica-Azilului-Biserica-Evanghelica-str-Avram-Iancu -si-Blanarilor-1996. Accessed on 2021 Oct 01. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2001, “Considerații asupra evoluției structurilor arhitectonice în zona centrală a orașului Sibiu,” Historia Urbana 9/1–2: 71–78. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2006, “Axente Sever (Frauendorf, Assonyfalva, Frâua), com. Axente Sever, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica evanghelică (31),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2005: 82–84. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2008a, Spitalul medieval din Sibiu. Sibiu: Honterus. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2008b, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: str. Azilului, nr. 4 (Spitalul de bătrâni) (157),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2007: 276–278. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2009a, “Azilul de bătrâni din Sibiu. Raport de cercetare arheologică 2004–2008,” Brukenthal. Acta Musei 4: 171–202. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2009b, “Săpătura arheologică de salvare de pe strada Mane­ jului din Sibiu (zidul incintei de apărare),” Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis. Series Historica 6: 65–82. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2009c, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: str. Manejului și Șelarilor (Bise­ rica Franciscanilor) (184),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2008: 343–344. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2012, Hermannstädter Spital und Spitalskirche: 13.–18.Jh. / Spitalul și Biserica Spitalului din Sibiu: secolele XIII–XVIII. Sibiu: Honterus. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre 2014, “Rescue archaeological excavations in Sibiu, Constituției street, 2000,” Brukenthal. Acta Musei 9/1: 125–136. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre – Georgescu, Adrian – Munteanu, Claudiu 2010, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Consiliul Județean Sibiu, str. Gen. Magheru nr. 14 (162),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2009: 306–307.

Bibliography

433

Beșliu Munteanu, Petre – Nägler, Thomas 1989, “Archäologische Grabungen im Alten Rathaus,” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 32/2: 28–40. Beșliu Munteanu, Petre – Nițoi, Anca – Pop, Răzvan 2005, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Piața Huet (201),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2004: 335–341. Bielz, Eduard Albert 1899, Die Burgen und Ruinen in Siebenbürgen. Sibiu: Drotleff. Bielz, Julius 1925, “Hermannstädter Ansichten und Pläne des. 16. bis 19. Jahrhunderts,” Siebenbürgisch- Deutsches Tageblatt 15660 (Sep 11, 1925): 3–5. Binder, Paul 1992, “Orașul Rodna în secolul al XIII-lea,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Cluj-Napoca 31: 145–149. Binder, Paul 1996, “Antecedente și consecințe sud-transilvănene ale formării voievodatului Munteniei (sec. XIII–XIV) (I),” Acta 1995/1 = Acta Hargitensia 2 = Aluta 19: 265–278. Binder, Pavel 1969, “Unele probleme referitoare la prima mențiune documentară a Brașovului,” Cumidava 3: 125–132. Binder, Pavel 1970, “Unde a încheiat Mircea cel Bătrîn tratatul Brașovean din 1395? Considerații privind localizarea curții feudale din Brașov,” Cumidava 4: 59–67. Binder, Pavel 1974, “Considerații asupra artei bisericilor voievodale din Țara Zarandului,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 43/1: 91. Blair, John 2011, “Overview: the archaeology of religion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, eds. David A. Hinton – Sally Crawford – Helena Hamerow, 727–741. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blăjan, Mihai 2007, “Descoperiri paleocreștine în bazinul mijlociu al Mureșului (secolele II–X).” In Creștinismul popular între teologie și etnologie, eds. Avram Cristea – Jan Nicolae, 243–249. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. Blăjan, Mihai – Popa, Alexandru 1983, “Cercetările arheologice de la Alba Iulia – ‘Stația de Salvare’,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 15: 375–380. Bogdan, Alexandru 1970, “Contribuții arheologice la cunoașterea evoluției Castelului Corvineștilor de la Hunedoara,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 39/2: 18–25. Bogdan, Alexandru 1974, “Cetatea din veacul al XVII-lea de la Tîrgu Mureș,” Revista monumentelor istorice – monumente istorice și de artă 43/1: 63–68. Bollók, Ádám 2012, “Byzantine missions among the Magyars during the later 10th century?” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Coverted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Alexander Musin – Perica Špehar, vol. 2, 131–144. Krakόw – Leipzig – Rzeszόw – Warszawa: Poligrafia Inspektoratu Towarzystwa Salezjańskiego. Bollók, Ádám 2017a, “Christians, Christianity and the ‘northern barbarians’ in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.” In Dalle steppe al Mediterraneo. Popoli, culture, integrazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Fondazioni e rituali funerari delle aristocrazie germaniche nel contesto mediterraneo: Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 18–19 giugno 2015. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Oriente e Occidente fra tarda antichità e Medioevo: popoli e culture dalle steppe al Mediterraneo:

434

Bibliography

Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 16–17 giugno 2016, eds. Carlo Ebanista – Marcello Rotili, 423–442. Napoli: Guida editori. Bollók, Ádám 2017b, “‘The Phylactery of the Cross’ and late antique/early medieval mortuary practices in the Eastern Mediterranean and on is fringes.” In GrenzÜbergänge: Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch-archäologischen Forschung an der mittleren Donau, eds. Ivan Bugarski – Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska – Vujadin Ivaniševic – Daniel Syrbe, 215–230. Remshalden: Greiner (Forschungen zu Spätantike und Mittelalter 4). Bóna, Istvan 1985, “Arpadenzeitliche Dörfer, Kirche und Friedhof am Marosfluss,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Hungaricae 37: 223–236. Bóna, Istvan 1990, “Siebenbürgen im mittelalterlichen Königreich Ungarn. Zeit des ungarish-slawischen Zussamenlebens (895–1172).” In Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens, ed. Bela Köpeczi, 107–172. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bordi, Zsigmond Lóránd 1999, “A kézdialbisi református templom 1999. évi régészeti kutatása,” Acta 1999/1 = Aluta 23 = Acta Hargitensia 6: 291–296. Bordi, Zsigmond Lóránd 2011, “A sepsiszentkirályi unitárius templom régészeti kutatása,” Acta Siculica 2011: 177–224. Bordi, Zsigmond Lóránd 2015, “A lemhényi Szent Mihály-hegyi erődített templom története a 2011. évi régészeti kutatások tükrében,” Acta Siculica 2014–2015: 131–169. Bordi, Zsigmond Lóránd – Méder, Lóránt László 2009, “A kálnoki református templom régészeti kutatásának rövid ismertetése,” Acta Siculica 2009: 261–282. Boroneanț, Vasile – Pascu Hurezan, George 1987, “Cimitirul din secolele XI–XII de la Cladova,” Ziridava 15–16: 67–75. Botár, István 2005, “A csíkszenttamási Csonkatorony 2003. évi régészeti kutatása,” A Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve 2005/1: 37–54. Botár, István 2007, “Cercetări arheologice la biserica romano-catolică din Misentea.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 115–130. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Botár, István 2008, “A csíksomlyói Szent Péter és Pál plébániatemplom régészeti kutatása (2002–2005),” A Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve 2007–2008: 17–74. Botár, István 2009a, Kövek, falak, templomok. Miercurea Ciuc: Pallas-Akadémia Könyvkiadó. Botár, István 2009b, “A csíkmenasági templom 2007. évi régészeti kutatása.” In Colligite fragmenta! Örökségvédelem Erdélyben. Örökségvédelmi Konferencia, Budapest, ELTE, 2008, ed. Tímea N. Kis, 62–67. Budapest: ELTE BTK Művészettörténet Intézeti Képviselet. Botár, István 2011, “Medieval finds from Cotorman,” Marisia 31: 299–312. Botár, István 2012, “A csíkkarcfalvi Nagyboldogasszony plébániatemplom régészeti kutatása (2011–2012),” A Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve 8: 9–25.

Bibliography

435

Botár, István 2013, “Középkori kápolnák Csíkban,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Éremés Régiségtárából. Új sorozat 6–7 (16–17): 161–172. Botár, István 2016, “Adatok Csíkszentmárton (r. Sânmartin) középkori történetéhez. A plébániatemplom 2015. évi régészeti kutatása,” A Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve 11–12: 9–27. Botár, István 2017, “Village and church. The relation between the ecclesiastical topography and the medieval settlement system in Csík-seat (East-Transylvania, Romania),” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 61: 155–182. Botár, István – Grynaeus, András – Tóth, Boglárka 2006, “‘Középkori’ templom tornyok a Csíki-medencében. A székelyföldi dendrokronológiai kutatások első eredményei,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából. Új sorozat 1 (11): 129–136. Botár, István – Grynaeus, András – Tóth, Boglárka 2013, “Dendrokronológiai vizsgálatok és építéstörténeti megfigyelések a székelyderzsi unitárius templom épületegyüttesében / Dendrochronological analyses and architectural history observations on the Unitarian church ensemble in Dârjiu,” Transsylvania Nostra 7/2: 2–26. Botár, István – Grynaeus, András – Tóth, Boglárka 2015, “Hidden dates. Dendrochronological research on medieval churches in Transylvania,” Caiete ARA 6: 233–242. Botár, István – Grynaeus, András – Tóth, Boglárka – Walgraffe, Denis 2015, “Cercetare dendrocronologică la șarpanta medievală a Bisericii Reformate (fostă franciscană) din Târgu Mureș / Dendrochronological research at the medieval roof structure of the Calvinist (former Franciscan) church in Târgu Mureș,” Transsylvania Nostra 9/3: 53–60. Botár, István – Tóth, Boglárka 2004, “A csíkszenttamási Csonkatorony 2002. évi régészeti kutatása,” A Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve 2004/1: 271–303. Botár, István – Tóth, Boglárka 2020, “A csíkszentimrei plébániatemplom harangtornyának ‘felfedezése’,” Patina 1: 46–51. Bouras, Charalambos 2006, Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Architecture in Greece. Athens: Melissa Publishing House. Brătulescu, Victor 1937, “Biserici din Transilvania,” Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice 30/91: 27–32. Brătulescu, Victor 1941, Biserici din Maramureș. Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial și Impri­ meriile Statului, Imprimeria Națională (Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice 34/107–110). Browning, Robert 1975, Byzantium and Bulgaria – A Comparative Study across the Early Medieval Frontier. Berkley – Los Angeles: University of California Press. Buday, Árpád 1915, “Porolissumból. Jelentés az 1914. évi munkálatokról,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem-és Régiségtárából 6: 51–95. Bunyitay, Vincze 1879, “A váradi ős székesegyház,” Archaeológiai Közlemények 13/2: 7–32.

436

Bibliography

Burnichioiu, Ileana 1999, “Despre tipologizare în arhitectură: bisericile gotice din Transilvania cu închideri de altar în ax.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 107–120. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Burnichioiu, Ileana 2002, “Revenirea la un subiect fără surse: biserica din Bârsău în secolele XV–XVI,” Mediaevalia Transilvanica 5–6/1–2: 97–112. Burnichioiu, Ileana 2012, “Așezări, domenii și biserici în Transilvania medievală (I). Gârbovele Aiudului.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 35–59. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Burnichioiu, Ileana – Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2011, “Medieval floor mosaics at Bizere Monastery: a brief survey,” Transylvanian Review 20/2: 3–13. Busuioc, Dan Nicolae 1976, “Considerații privind datarea mănăstirii cisterciene de la Cîrța,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 23: 3–20. Busuioc, Dan Nicolae 1978, “Arhitectura gotică timpurie din Țara Bîrsei în lumina unor noi cercetări,” Studii și cercetări de istorie artei. Seria artă plastică 25: 8–13. Busuioc-von Hasselbach, Dan Nicolae 1991, “Din nou despre mănăstirea cisterciană de la Cîrța, în legătură cu o contribuție recentă: Thalgott Michael, Die Zisterzienser von Kerz. Zusammenhänge,” Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice 2/4: 91–95. Busuioc-von Hasselbach, Dan Nicolae 2000, Țara Făgărașului în secolul al XIII-lea. Mănăstirea cisterciană Cârța, vol. 1–2. Cluj-Napoca: Fundația Culturală Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane. Buzás, Gergely 1999, “A kései Mátyás-kor királyi építkezései és a későgótikus építészet stílusáramlatai Magyarországon.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 135–162. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Buzás, Gergely 2001, “A kolozsvári Farkas utcai egykori ferences templom és Erdély késő gótikus építészete,” Erdélyi Múzeum 63/3–4: 38–50. Buzás, Gergely 2012, “Jelentés a zirci középkori ciszterci apátságban folytatott 2011. évi feltárásról,” Archaeologia – Altum castrum online 2012: 1–14. Published online. Available at https://archeologia.hu/content/archeologia/43/buzas-a-zirci-apatsag .pdf. Accesed 2021 May 04. Buzás, Gergely 2020, “Magyarország korai székesegyházairól.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 7–37. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 1973, “Unele aspecte ale cercetării arheologice la monumentele istorice,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 42/2: 71–72.

Bibliography

437

Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 1974, “Cronica săpăturilor arheologice – 1974,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 43/2: 94–96. Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 1977, “Cercetările arheologice de la biserica din Sînpetru (com. Sîntămăria Orlea, jud. Hunedoara),” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 13: 285–292. Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 1986, “Cercetările arheologice de la Leșnic,” Cercetări arheologice 8: 127–133. Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 1998, “Opinii privind relația între cercetarea arheologică și restaurarea unor monumente istorice.” In Concepte și tehnici de restaurare. Sesiunea de comunicări științifice Bistrița, 8–10 octombrie 1998, collective work, 72–74. Bistrița: Ministerul Culturii, Comisia Națională a Monumentelor Istorice, Direcția Monumentelor Istorice, Inspectoratul pentru Cultură al Județului Bistrița-Năsăud. Čáp, Pavel – Dresler, Petr – Macháček, Jiří – Přichystalová, Renáta 2010, “Großmährische Kirchen in Pohansko bei Břeclav.” In Frühmittelalterliche Kirchen als archäologische und historische Quelle, eds. Lumír Poláček – Jana Maříková-Kubková, 187–204. Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik (Internationale Tagungen in Mikulčice 8). Căpățână, Dan 1976, “Cercetări arheologice la Hălmagiu și Vîrfurile (jud. Arad),” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 45/2: 76–80. Cernovodeanu, Paul – Binder, Paul 1993, Cavalerii apocalipsului. Calamitățile naturale din trecutul României (până la 1800). Bucharest: Silex. Chavarria Arnau, Alexandra 2018, Archeologia delle chiese. Dalle origini all’anno Mille, 2nd edition. Rome: Carocci. Chefneux, Eugen 1963, “Cercetări și observații asupra bisericii de la Densuș.” In Sesiunea științifică a Direcției Monumentelor Istorice – ianuarie 1963, collective work, 109–125. Bucharest: CDCAS – Centrul de Documentare pentru Construcții, Arhitectură și Sistematizare. Chihaia, Pavel 1976, De la Negru Vodă la Neagoe Basarab. Bucharest: Editura Academiei. Chiriac, Aurel 2002, “Planimetria bisericilor de zid din Bihor între secolele XII–XV.” In Artă românească. Artă europeană. Centenar Virgil Vătășianu, eds. Porumb Marius – Aurel Chiriac, 31–40. Oradea: Editura Muzeului Țării Crișurilor. Chițescu, Lucian 1975, “O formațiune politică românească la nord și la sud de Munții Făgărașului în secolul al XIII-lea,” Revista de istorie 28/7: 1057–1067. Cibulka, Josef 1958, Velkomoravský kostel v Modré u Velehradu a začátkz křesťanství na Moravĕ. Prague: Nakl. Československí Akademie věd (Monumenta archaeologica 7). Cincheza-Buculei, Ecaterina 1974, “Ansamblul de pictură de la Leșnic – o pagină din istoria românilor transilvăneni din veacul al XIV-lea,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 21: 45–58. Cincheza-Buculei, Ecaterina 1975, “Portretele constructorilor și pictorilor bisericii din Strei,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 22: 53–71.

438

Bibliography

Cincheza-Buculei, Ecaterina 1978, “Date noi privind pictura bisericii din Crișcior (sfîrşitul secolului al XIV-lea),” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 25: 35–44. Ciugudean, Horia 2007, “Pottery offerings in the Early Middle Age cemetery of Alba Iulia ‘Stația de Salvare’.” In Funerary Offerings and Votive Depositions in Europe’s 1st Millennium AD. Cultural Artefacts and Local Identities, ed. Călin Cosma, 243–257. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Interferențe etnice și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr.–I p. Chr. / Ethnic and Cultural Interferences in the 1st Millennium B.C. to the 1rst Millennium A.D. / Etnische und kulturelle Interferenzen im 1.Jahrtausentd v. Chr.–1.Jahrtausend n. Chr. 10). Ciugudean, Horia – Pinter, Zeno K. – Rustoiu, Gabriel T. 2006, Habitat, religie, etnicitate. Descoperiri arheologice din sec. IX–XI în Transilvania. Catalog de expoziție / Habitat – Religion – Ethnicity: 9th–11th Century Archaeological Finds in Transylvania. Exhibition Catalogue. Alba Iulia: Altip. Codrea, Ionuț 2005, “Meșterii constructori din Transilvania – secolele XIII–XVI,” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 33: 281–297. Comșa, Maria 1960, “Die bulgarische Herrschaft nördlich der Donau während des IX. und X. Jhrs. im Lichte der archäologische Forschung,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 4: 395–422. Comșa, Maria 1963, “La civilisation balkano-danubienne (IX–XI siécles) sur le territoire de la R. P. Roumanie,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 7: 413–438. Comșa, Maria 1971, “Quelques données concernant les rapports des territoires nord-danubiens avec Byzance aux VI–VIII (Pendants d’oreille en forme d’étoile),” Revue des Études du Sud-Est Européen 9/3: 377–390. Cosma, Călin 2011, Funerary Pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th centuries. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Interferențe etnice și culturale în mileniile I a. Chr.–I p. Chr. / Ethnic and Cultural Interferences in the 1st Millennium BC to the 1st Millennium AD / Etnische und kulturelle Interferenzen im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.–1. Jahrtausend n. Chr. 18). Costea, Florea 1996a, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Brașov, vol. 2. Brașov: Bravox. Costea, Florea 1996b, “Râșnov, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica Sf. Nicolae,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1995. Available online at http:// cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=195&d=Rasnov-Brasov-Biserica-Sf-Nicolae-1995. Accessed on 2021 Oct 01. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia 2011, “Oaspeții germani” în sudul Transilvaniei. Istorie, arheologie și arhitectură (secolele XII–XIII). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria 2020, “The rise of the parish system in Transylvania as reflected by the archaeological discoveries.” In Ecclesiastical Landscapes in Medieval Europe. An Archaeological Perspective, eds. José C. Sánchez-Pardo – Emmet H. Marron – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 79–93. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bibliography

439

Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Ignat, Ioan Cosmin 2015, “Memorie și patrimoniu. Inventarul bisericii evanghelice din Cisnădie (județul Sibiu).” In Avere, prestigiu și cultură material în surse patrimoniale. Inventare de averi din secolele XVI–XIX, ed. Dan Dumitru Iacob, 605–634. Iași: Universitatea “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Istrate Purece, Silviu 2016, “Churches and cemeteries in Transylvania in the light of coin discoveries (second half of the 11th century– 13th century).” In ArhIn I. Medieval Changing Landscape. Settlements, Monasteries, Fortifications, eds. Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 63–96. Sibiu: Astra Museum. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2004, “Biserica evanghelică din Ruja. Studiu istoric și arheologic.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 183–202. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Pinter, Zeno Karl – White, Martin 2007, “Virtual reality reconstruction and interpretation of the Romanic rotunda and medieval timber and earthwork from Broos,” Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 30: 1–6. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Șovrea, Adrian 2018, “Biserica fortificată din Agnita. Cercetări arheologice, I,” Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis. Series Historica 15: 53–80. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2016, “The southern Transylvania in the 13th century, a border between Catholic space and non-Catholic space.” In ArhIn I. Medieval Changing Landscape. Settlements, Monasteries, Fortifications, eds. Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 131–154. Sibiu: Astra Museum. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2017, “Sibiul și arheologia urbană.” In Studii de istorie a orașelor. In honorem Paul Niedermaier, eds. Vasile Ciobanu – Dan Dumitru Iacob, 542–593. Bucharest – Brăila: Editura Academiei Române – Editura Istros a Muzeului Brăilei “Carol I”. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2019, “Hermannstadt und die Stadtarchäologie,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 70: 351–395. Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria Emilia – White, Martin 2007, “A virtual reconstruction of the two Romanic churches from south of Transylvania. Case studies at Cisnădioara and Șura Mică churches,” Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 6: 153–171. Crișan, Ioan 2006, Așezări rurale medievale din Crișana (secolele X–XIII). Oradea: Editura Muzeului Țării Crișurilor. Cristache-Panait, Ioana 1970, “Cu privire la unele monumente din Țara Făgărașului în lumina relațiilor cu Țara Românească,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 39/2: 30–32. Cristache-Panait, Ioana – Daia, Marin 1974, “Biserica românească din Săndulești (jud. Cluj),” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 43/2: 86–88.

440

Bibliography

Cristache-Panait, Ioana – Scheletti, Ion 1975, “Monumentele de lemn din județul Bistrița Năsăud în lumina istoriei,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 44/1: 63–73. Csáki, Árpád 2009, “Adatok a kálnoki református templom történetéhez,” Acta Siculica 2009: 283–290. Csaki, Michael 1923, Inventarul monumentelor și obiectelor istorice și artistice săsești din Transilvania / Inventar von Monumenten u. geschichtlichen Gegenständen aus Transilvanien. Cluj-Napoca: Cartea Românească (Publicațiile Comisiuni Monumentelor Istorice. Secțiunea pentru Transilvania 3). Csallner, Robert 1927, “Die ältesten deuschen Ansiedlungen im Norden Siebenbürgens,” Bistritz Kalender 1927: 84–100. Csányi, Károly 1899, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház. Építéstörténeti tanulmány. Budapest. Csányi, Károly – Lux, Géza 1943, “Árpádkori templom romjai Óradnán / Ruine einer Kirche aus der Arpadenzeit Oradna (Siebenbürgen),” Technika 2: 91–93. Ćurčić, Slobodan 2010, Architecture in the Balkans. From Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Curinschi Vorona, Gheorghe 1981, Istoria arhitecturii în România. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică. Curinschi Vorona, Gheorghe 1995, Arhitectură, urbanism, restaurare. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică. Curta, Florin 2001, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 52). Curta, Florin 2002, “Transilvania în jurul anului 1000,” Ephemeris Napocensis 12: 267–288. Curta, Florin (ed.) 2005a, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Curta, Florin 2005b, “Before Cyril und Methodius: Christianity and barbarians beyond the sixth- and seventh- century Danube frontier.” In East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, 181–219. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Curta, Florin 2006, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curta, Florin 2007, “Introduction.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, eds. Florin Curta – Roman Kovalev, 1–12. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007 (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2). Curta, Florin 2015, “East Central Europe: the gate to Byzantium,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 108/2: 1–42. Curta, Florin 2019, Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), vol. 1–2. Leiden – Boston: Brill (Brill’s Companions to European History 19).

Bibliography

441

D.M.I.A. 1973, “Săpăturile arheologice efectuate de D.M.I.A. în anul 1972,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 42/1: 74–75. Dahinten, Otto 1988, Geschichte der Stadt Bistritz in Siebenbürgen. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Studia Transylvanica 14). Dancu, Iuliana – Dancu, Dumitru 1968, Biserica evanghelică din Sibiu. Bucharest: Meridiane. Dănilă, Nicolae 2010, “Episcopul bizantin Hierotheus la Alba Iulia?” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 186–209. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. Dávid, Katalin 1974, Az Árpád-kori Csanád vármegye művészeti topográfiája. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (Művészettörténeti füzetek 7). Dávid, László 1981, A középkori Udvarhelyszék művészeti emlékei. Bucharest: Kriterion. Delumeau, Jean 1986, Frica în occident (secolele XIV–XVIII). O cetate asediată, trans. Modest Morariu, vol. 1–2. Bucharest: Meridiane (Biblioteca de artă. Arte și civilizații 429–430). Demjén, Andrea 2016, “A gyergyószentmiklósi plébániatemplom régészeti feltárása.” In Gyergyószentmiklós a régészeti kutatások tükrében / Gheorghieni în lumina cercetărilor arheologice / Gheorghieni in the Light of Archaeological Research, ed. Andrea Demjén, 61–97. Cluj-Napoca: Societatea Muzeului Ardelean. Demjén, Andrea 2020, “A Gyergyói-medence egyházi építészete a régészeti kutatások tükrében.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 93–114. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Demjén, Andrea – Sófalvi, Andras 2008, “Máréfalva középkori temploma a 2007. évi régészeti kutatások tükrében.” In “Orczád verítékével …” Máréfalva a történelem sodrában, ed. Piroska Kovács, 84–88. Odorheiul Secuiesc: Hargita Megyei Hagyományőrzési Forrásközpont – Udvarhelyszék Kulturális Egyesület. Demjén, Andrea – Sófalvi, András 2009, Máréfalva középkori temploma. Második, javított kiadás. Odorheiu Secuiesc: Kőlik Hagyományőrző Művelődési Egyesület. Derer, Peter 1992, “Unele aspecte privind conservarea bisericilor-cetăți ale sașilor din Transilvania. Cu referire la Biertan / Birthälm,” Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice 3/1: 9–15. Derzsi, Csongor – Sófalvi, András 2008, “Régészeti kutatások a kányádi középkori templomnál (2005–2006),” Acta Siculica 2008: 267–285. Diaconescu, Alexandru 2004, “The towns of Roman Dacia: an overview of the recent research.” In Roman Dacia. The Making of a Provincial Society, eds. William S. Hanson – Ian Haynes, 87–142. Portsmouth (Rhode Island): The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 56). Diaconescu, Marius 1997, “Les implications confessionnelles du Concile de Florence en Hongrie,” Mediævalia Transilvanica 1/1–2: 29–62.

442

Bibliography

Dimitrokallis, Georges 2003, “La genèse de l’église en croix grecque inscrite,” Byzantina (Thessalonic) 23: 219–232. Dincă, Ciprian Adinel 2017, Instituția episcopală latină în Transilvania medievală (sec. XI/XII–XIV ). Cluj-Napoca: Astronaut – Mega. Dincă, Ciprian Adinel – Schabel, Chris 2021, “The Cistercian mission in Transylvania,” Frankokratia 2, 1–32. Dobrotă, Sebastian Ovidiu – Codrea, Ionuț Cosmin – Scrobotă, Vasile Paul 2019, “Biserica reformată din Aiud. Cercetări arheologice din anul 2018 / A nagyenyedi református templom. A 2018. évi régészeti kutatások / The Calvinist church of Aiud. Archaeological investigations of 2018.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania. Conferință științifică internațională ediția a IX-a / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben. 9. Nemzetközi tudományos konferencia / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania. 9th International Scientific Conference, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, 24–25. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Drăgan, Ioan 1982, “Originile individualității istorice a Țării Hațegului în evul mediu,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie si Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 25: 25–38. Drăgan, Ioan 1991, “Nobilimea românească din Transilvania. Incursiune istoriografică,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie si Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 30: 343–355. Dragomir, Silviu 1911, “Cei mai vechi protopopi români,” Revista teologică, organ pentru știința și vieața bisericească 5/19–20: 531–534. Dragomir, Silviu 1917, “Studii din istoria mai veche a Românilor de pe teritoriul diecezei arădene,” Transilvania. Revista Asociațiunii pentru Literatura Română și Cultura Poporului Român 48/1–6: 12–33. Dragomir, Silviu 1930, “Vechile biserici din Zarand și ctitorii lor în sec. XIV–XV,” Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Secția pentru Transilvania 1929: 225–264. Dragotă, Aurel 2018a, “Cruce relicvar și inel bizantin de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului.” In Muzeul Național al Unirii. 130 de ani în 130 de piese, ed. Tudor Roșu, 122–125. Alba Iulia: Altip. Dragotă, Aurel 2018b, “Dovezi ale misiunii bizantine la Alba Iulia (secolul X),” Transilvania. Serie nouă 2018/4: 89–96. Dragotă, Aurel 2018c, “The military entourage of Gyula as shown by the burial place in Alba Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului (10th–11th century),” Apulum 55/1: 259–323. Dragotă, Aurel 2019, “Graves with military equipment from the necropolis in Alba Iulia – Stația de Salvare (1979–1981), horizon II.” In Inter tempora. The Chronology of the Early Medieval Period. Issues, Approaches, Results / Inter tempora. Cronologia perioadei medievale timpurii. Probleme, abordări, rezultate, eds. Florin Mărginean – Ioan Stanciu – Keve László, 197–227. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Orbis Medievalis 2). Dragotă, Aurel – Ciugudean, Horia 2002, “Istoricul cercetărilor.” In Civilizația medievală timpurie din Transilvania: rit și ritual funerar în secolele IX–XI, eds. Horia Ciugudean – Aurel Dragotă, 7–15. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii Alba Iulia.

Bibliography

443

Dragotă, Aurel – Inel, Constantin – Rustoiu, Gabriel 2003, Necropolele orașului Alba Iulia – din preistorie până în evul mediu. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii din Alba Iulia. Dragotă, Aurel – Rustoiu, Gabriel 2002, Civilizația medievală timpurie din Transilvania: rit și ritual funerar în secolele IX–XI. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii din Alba Iulia. Dragotă, Aurel – Rustoiu, Gabriel – Drâmbărean, Matei – Deleanu, Valentin – Oța, Silviu 2009, Necropola medieval timpurie de la Alba Iulia – str. Brândușei. Cercetările arheologice din anii 1997–2008. Alba Iulia: Altip (Bibliotheca Mvsei Apulensis 23). Dragotă, Aurel – Rustoiu, Tiberiu – Matiș, Anca 2018, “Tipologia inventarului din cimitirul de la Alba Iulia – Izvorul Împăratului (sec. X–XI),” Apulum 55/1: 325–351. Drăguț, Vasile 1963, “Biserica din Leșnic,” Studii și cercetări de istorie a artei 10/2: 422–433. Drăguț, Vasile 1964, “Despre picturile murale ale bisericii fortificate din Homorod,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei 11/1: 102–109. Drăguț, Vasile 1965, “Biserica din Strei,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 12/2: 299–317. Drăguț, Vasile 1968a, “Contribuții privind arhitectura goticului timpuriu în Transilvania,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 15/1: 41–49. Drăguț, Vasile 1968b, Vechi monumente hunedorene. Bucharest: Meridiane. Drăguț, Vasile 1970, Pictura murală din Transilvania (sec. XIV–XV ). Bucharest: Meridiane. Drăguț, Vasile 1971, “Picturile bisericii Sîntă Mărie Orlea – cel mai vechi ansamblu mural din țara noastră,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 40/3: 61–74. Drăguț, Vasile 1973, “Restaurarea picturilor murale de la Ghelința,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 42/4: 45–54. Drăguț, Vasile 1974, “Trei decenii în activitatea de restaurare a monumentelor istorice,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 43/1: 3–5. Drăguț, Vasile 1976a, Dicționar enciclopedic de artă medievală românească. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Drăguț, Vasile 1976b, “Picturile murale de la Mediaș. O importantă recuperare pentru istoria artei transilvănene,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 45/2: 11–22. Drăguț, Vasile 1978, “Streisîngeorgiu. Observații preliminare privind picturile murale,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/1: 39–42. Drăguț, Vasile 1979a, Arta gotică în România. Bucharest: Meridiane. Drăguț, Vasile 1979b, “Une forme représentative de l’architecture vernaculaire: les fortifications populaires du moyen âge,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 48/1: 60–72.

444

Bibliography

Driscoll, Stephen T. 1998, “Church archaeology in Glasgow and the Kingdom of Strathclyde,” The Innes Review 49/2: 95–114. Dumitrache, Mariana 1978a, “Archäologische und baugeschichtliche Forschungen in der Repser Gegend (Viscri-Deutschweisskirch),” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 21/2: 35–53. Dumitrache, Mariana 1978b, “Un sistem de fundare necunoscut descoperit la incinta cetății orașului Aiud,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/2: 45–54. Dumitrache, Mariana 1979a, “Cetatea țărănească din Drăușeni, jud. Brașov, ansamblu de arhitectură medievală. Cercetări arheologice 1973–1977,” Cercetări arheologice 3: 155–197. Dumitrache, Mariana 1979b, “Materiale ceramice din Cetatea Țărănească din comuna Hărman, jud. Brașov,” Cercetări arheologice 3: 409–419. Dumitrache, Mariana 1981, “Evoluția cetății țărănești de la Viscri, jud. Brașov, în lumina cercetărilor arheologice și de arhitectură,” Cercetări arheologice 4: 253–285. Dumitrache, Mariana 1983, “Bauforschung und Denkmalpflege. Siebenbürgische Grabungen der letzten Jahre an mittelalterlichen Baudenkmälern.” In Beiträge zur Siebenbürgischen Kunstgeschichte und Denkmalpflege, ed. Christoph Machat, 41–55, 117–118. Munich: Verlag des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks (Veröffentlichungen des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks. Reihe B, Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten 42). Dumitrașcu, Sever 1994, Biharea. I. Săpături arheologice (1973–1980). Oradea: Editura Universității din Oradea. Dumitrescu-Jipa, Aurel – Nistor, Nicolae 1976, Sibiul și ținutul în lumina istoriei, vol. 1. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Durand, Marc 1988, “Archéologie du cimetière médiéval,” Revue archéologique de Picardie. Numéro spécial 6: 27–206. Emődi, Tamás 1997, “Mănăstirea franciscanilor conventuali din Oradea,” Ars Transil­ vaniae 7: 61–90. Emődi, Tamás 1999, “Cercetări efectuate la Biserica reformată din Săcuieni (jud. Bihor).” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 188–213. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Emődi, Tamás 2006, “Kolozsvár, Szent Mihály plébániatemplom.” In Sigismundus rex et imperator. Művészet és kultúra Luxemburgi Zsigmond korában 1387–1437, Kiállítási katalógus, Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2006. március 18–június 18., Luxemburg, Musée national d’histoire et d’art, 2006. július 13–október 15., ed. Imre Takács, 657–659. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Emődi, Tamás 2011, “Ciumești, biserica reformată.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg

Bibliography

445

și Satu Mare, ed. Tibor Kollár, 264–266. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Emődi, Tamás 2016, “Topografia orașului medieval Oradea și perspectivele cercetărilor arheologice / The topography of mediaeval Oradea and the prospects of archaeological research,” Transsylvania Nostra 10/2: 13–21. Emődi, Tamás – Kiss, Lóránd 2011, “Berea.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg și Satu Mare, ed. Tibor Kollár, 249–255. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Emődi, Tamás – Marta, Doru 2005, “O planimetrie ecleziastică inedită: ‘rotonda’ din Vaida (jud. Bihor),” Arheologia medievală 5: 45–75. Emődi, Tamás – Szőcs, Péter Levente 2014, “Despre biserica medievală din Ciumești (Csomaköz).” In Artă și credință în regiunea Tisei Superioare, ed. Tibor Kollár, trans. Jankó Szép Ildikó, 283–294. Oradea – Nyíregyháza: Eparhia reformată Oradea (Drumul bisericilor medievale 3). Engel, Pál 2001, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526, trans. Tamás Pálosfalvi. London – New York: I.B. Tauris. Entz, Géza 1942, A dési református templom. Cluj-Napoca: Az Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület kiadása (Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek 141). Entz, Géza 1954, “Harina (Herina) románkori temploma,” Művészettörténeti Értesítő 3: 20–33. Entz, Géza 1958a, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Entz, Géza 1958b, “La cathédrale de Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 5/1–2: 1–40. Entz, Géza 1959, “Die Gotik in Ungarn,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 6/1–2: 217–232. Entz, Géza 1963, “Le chantier cistercien de Kerc (Cîrța),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 9/1–2: 3–38. Entz, Géza 1968, “Die Baukunst Transsilvaniens im 11.-13. Jahrhundert,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 14/1–2: 3–48, 127–175. Entz, Géza 1984, “Die Pfarrkirchen von Klausenburg und Mühlbach in der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Baugeschichte und Stilbeziehungen,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 30: 65–108. Entz, Géza 1987, “Erdély építészete (a brassói plébániatemplom).” In Magyar művészet 1300–1470 körül, ed. Ernő Marosi, 553–563. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Entz, Géza 1994, Erdély építészete a 11–13. században. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület. Entz, Géza 1996, Erdély építészete a 14–16. században. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület.

446

Bibliography

Érszegi, Géza 2000, “Die Christianisierung Ungarns anhand der Quellen.” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 600–607. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Érszegi, Géza 2001, “The emergence of the Hungarian state, the adoption and consolidation of Christianity (970–1095).” In A Thousand Years of Christianity in Hungary / Hungariae Christianae Millenium, eds. István Zombori – Pál Cséfalvay – Maria Antonietta de Angelis, 25–36, 259–284. Budapest: Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference. Eskenasy, Victor 1988, “New archaeological researches in Transylvania: a complex of Romanian monuments at Colți-Suseni (Hunedoara County),” ARA Journal, Davies (California) 11: 180–191. Eskenasy, Victor – Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1982, “Cetatea Mălăiești și cnezatul Sălașului (sec. XIV–XVII),” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie si Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 25: 53–93. Esterhazi, János 1863, “A kolozsvári Sz.-Mihály egyház története és építészeti leirata,” Archaeologiai Közlemények 3: 57–62. Fabini, Hermann 1982, Sibiul gotic. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică. Fabini, Hermann 1983, Sibiul vechi. Evoluția orașului oglindită în reprezentări grafice. Sibiu: Transilvania. Fabini, Hermann 1991, “Un monument medieval din Sibiu, astăzi dispărut,” Revista monumentelor istorice 60/1: 74–77. Fabini, Hermann 1997, “Vechea primărie sibiană,” Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice 8/1–4: 6–16. Fabini, Hermann 1998, Atlas der siebenbürgisch-sächsischen Kirchenburgen und Dorfkirchen, vol. 1–2. Sibiu – Heidelberg: Monumenta – Arbeitskreis für SiebenbürgischSächsische Landeskunde. Fabini, Hermann 2009, Universul cetăților bisericești din Transilvania. Sibiu: Monumenta. Fabini, Hermann – Beldie Dumitrache, Marianne 1977, “Die Restaurierung der evanghelischen Stadtpfarrkirche in Mediasch,” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 20/1: 85–102. Fabritius-Dancu, Juliana 1980, Sächsische Kirchenburgen aus Siebenbürgen. Sibiu: Transilvania. Fabritius-Dancu, Juliana 1983, Cetăți țărănești săsești din Transilvania, 2nd rev. edition. Sibiu: Transilvania. Ferenczi, Alexander 1935, “Die Bauperiode der Burgkirche der Brasovia-Burg auf der Zinne bei Kronstadt,” Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 58: 75–99. Fiedler, Uwe 1992, Studien zu Gräberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donau, vol. 1–2. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 11).

Bibliography

447

Fiedler, Uwe 1998, “Biertan. Ein Zeugnis heidnischer Opfersitten im nachrömischen Siebenbürgen?” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 40–42: 389–397. Fiedler, Uwe 2008, “Bulgars in the Lower Danube region.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, eds. Florin Curta – Roman Kovalev, 151–236. Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2). Fiedler, Uwe 2012, “Der archäologische Niederschlag der Christianisierung des donaubulgarischen Reiches (864/5),” Materiale și cercetări arheologice. Serie nouă 8: 107–137. Firea, Ciprian 2003, “Artă și patronaj artistic în Transilvania medievală – polipticul din Sibiu,” Ars Transsilvaniae 12–13: 123–138. Firea, Ciprian 2008, “Biserica Sfânta Maria din Sibiu: liturghie medievală și arhitectură gotică (cca 1350–1550),” Ars Transsilvaniae 18: 47–74. Fleșer, Gheorghe 1999, Valori ale arhitecturii religioase românești din județul Alba. Alba Iulia: Altip. Fleșer, Gheorghe 2001, Biserici românești de zid din județul Alba. Alba Iulia: Altip. Fleșer, Gheorghe – Goronea, Toma 1993, “Noi elemente în stabilirea etapelor de construcție a bisericii ‘Adormirea Maicii Domnului’ din Zlatna,” Apulum 27–30: 293–299. Folbert, Otto 1973, Gotik in Siebenbürgen. Der Meister des Mediascher Altars und seine Zeit. Vienna – Munich: Schroll. Font, Márta 2005, “Missions, conversions and power legitimization in East-Central Europe at the turn of the first millennium.” In East-Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, 283–295. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fried, Johannes 2000, “Antikes Erbe und christliche Tradition – die erste Jahrtausendwende in der Geschichte.” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 1, 42–49. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Gaiu, Corneliu 2009, Biserica evanghelică Herina. Cluj-Napoca: Accent. Gaiu, Corneliu 2010, “Cercetări arheologice la Biserica Evanghelică C. A. din Bistrița / Archaeological research at the Lutheran church A. C. in Bistrița,” Trans­ sylvania Nostra 4/1: 11–20. Gaiu, Corneliu 2016, Sate și monumente mutilate din ținutul Bistriței. Online posting date: Sep 25, 2016. Available at https://www.academia.edu/35574182/Sate. Accessed on 2021 Jul 08. Gaiu, Corneliu 2020, “Biserici gotice din Nösnerland în restaurare: observații și întregiri.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 275–292. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean.

448

Bibliography

Gaiu, Corneliu – Duda, Vasile 2008, Topografia monumentelor din municipiul Bistrița. Centrul istoric. Cluj-Napoca: Accent. Gáll, Erwin 2013a, “Churchyards in Transylvanian Basin from the 11th to the first half of the 13th centuries. On the beginning of institutionalized Christianity,” Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie 33: 135–250. Gáll, Erwin 2013b, “Dăbâca (Dobeschdorf, Doboka): the necropolis around the church in A. Tamaș’ garden. Some ideas on the development of Dăbâca habitat,” Banatica 23: 243–328. Gáll, Erwin 2013c, “From the fortress of Stephen I (997–1038) to the centre of ‘Lord Gelou’. Dăbâca (germ.: Dobeschdorf; hung.: Doboka) in the nationalist myths in the 20th century,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 27: 203–246. Gáll, Erwin 2013d, “The question of centres of power in the light of 10th century necropoles in the Transylvanian Basin – the case of the Cluj necropoles.” In Macht des Goldes, Gold der Macht: Herrschafts- und Jenseitsrepräsentation zwischen Antike und Frühmittelalter im mittleren Donauraum: Akten des 23. Internationalen Symposiums der Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im mittleren Donauraum, Tengelic, 16.–19.11.2011, eds. Matthias Hardt – Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska, 461–482. Weinstad: Bernhard Albert Greiner (Forschungen zu Spätantike und Mittelalter 2). Gáll, Erwin 2014, “The Avar conquest and what followed. Some ideas on the process of ‘Avarisation’ of Transylvanian basin (6th–7th centuries).” In Archäologische Beiträge. Gedenkschrift zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt, ed. Sorin Cociș, 295–323. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7). Gáll, Erwin – Dobos, Alpár – Petruț, Dávid – Kapcsos, Norbert – Wanek, Ferenc – Piroska, Eszter – Nagy, Szabolcs – Iván, András 2017, “Daciától Ultrasilvaniáig”. A Kis-Szamos medencéjének településtörténeti változásai (3/4–12/13. század). ClujNapoca: Erdély Múzeum-Egyesület. Gáll, Erwin – Gergely, Balázs 2009a, “Kolozsvár 10–13. századi temetőinek és szórványleleteinek kutatástörténete,” Acta Siculica 2009: 215–226. Gáll, Erwin – Gergely, Balázs 2009b, Kolozsvár születése. Régészeti adatok a város 10–13. századi történetéhez. Cluj-Napoca: Erdély Múzeum-Egyesület. Gáll, Erwin – Gergely, Balázs – Gál, Szilárd 2010, La răscruce de drumuri: date arheologice privind teritoriul orașului Cluj-Napoca în secolele X–XIII. Cluj-Napoca: Kriterion. Gerevich, László 1971, The Art of Buda and Pest in the Middle Ages. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Gerevich, László 1985, “Egy középkori kulturális központ a Pilisben,” Studia Comitatensia 17: 541–549. Gerevich, Tibor 1938, Magyarország románkori emlékei. Budapest: Műemlékek Országos Bizottsága. Gervers-Molnár, Vera 1972, A középkori Magyarország rotundái. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (Művészettörténeti füzetek / Cahiers d’histoire de l’art 4).

Bibliography

449

Gheorghiu, Teodor Octavian 1985, Arhitectura medievală de apărare din România. Bucharest: Editura Tehnică. Ghinea, Dan 2018, Enciclopedia geografică a României, 4th revised edition, Toronto. Online posting date: Jun 26, 2019. Available at http://www.bjdb.ro/docs/egr.pdf. Accessed on 2021 September 10. Gilchrist, Roberta 2014, “Monastic and church archaeology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 43: 235–250. Glück, Eugen 1980, “Cu privire la istoricul părților arădene în epoca voievodatului lui Ahtum.” In Studii privind istoria Aradului, ed. Eugen Glück, 101–150. Bucharest: Editura Politică. Gogâltan, Anca – Sallay, Dóra 2002, “The church of Mălâncrav and the Holy Blood Chapel of Nicholas Apa.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 181–210. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Goldenberg, Samuel 1958, Clujul în secolul al XVI-lea: producția și schimbul de mărfuri. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române. Grandjean, Wolfgang 1971, “Die Anfänge der Hermannstädter Probstei im Spiegel päpstlicher Urkunden.” In Zur Rechts- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Siebenbürger Sachsen, ed. Paul Philippi, 269–276. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 8). Greceanu, Eugenia 1970a, “Date noi asupra arhitecturii romanice din zona centrală a Transilvaniei.” In Pagini de veche artă românească, collective work, vol. 1, 263–296. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Greceanu, Eugenia 1970b, “Țara Făgărașului, zonă de radiație a arhitecturii de la sud de Carpați,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 39/2: 33–50. Greceanu, Eugenia 1971, “Influența gotică în arhitectura bisericilor românești de zid din Transilvania,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 18/1: 33–59. Greceanu, Eugenia 1972, “Pătrunderea influențelor de tradiție bizantină în arhitectura bisericilor de zid din Transilvania,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. Seria artă plastică 19/2: 195–221. Greceanu, Eugenia 1979a, “Spread of Byzantine traditions in medieval architecture of Romanian masonry churches in Transylvania,” Études byzantines et post-byzantines 1: 197–238. Greceanu, Eugenia 1979b, “Un problème actuel: L’urbanisation médiéval en Roumanie,” Revue roumaine d’histoire 18: 133–154. Greceanu, Eugenia 1986, “O prezență de tradiție bizantină în arhitectura românească de zid din Țara Hațegului în veacurile XII–XIII: monumentul de cult din Peșteana, jud. Hunedoara,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 17/1: 69–78.

450

Bibliography

Greceanu, Eugenia 1990, “Puncte de vedere asupra noțiunii de valorificare a monumentelor și ansamblurilor istorice,” Revista monumentelor istorice 59/1: 52–61. Greceanu, Eugenia 1991, “Arhitectura bisericii Sf. Nicolae din Șcheii Brașovului,” Ars Transsilvaniae 1: 115–128. Greceanu, Eugenia 2000, “Etapele de construcție ale bisericii din Gurasada,” Revista monumentelor istorice 69/1–2: 32–40. Greceanu, Eugenia 2006, “Structura urbană a ansamblului medieval Baia Mare în secolul al XV-lea,” Historia urbana 14/1: 143–164. Greceanu, Eugenia – Cristache-Panait, Ioana 1966, “Biserici românești din raionul Alba Iulia,” Mitropolia Ardealului 11/4–6: 322–327. Greceanu, Eugenia – Cristache-Panait, Ioana 1967, “Contribuții la datarea etapelor de construcție ale bisericii ortodoxe Adormirea Maicii Domnului din Zlatna,” Monumente istorice. Studii și lucrări de restaurare 2: 165–169. Greceanu, Eugenia – Munteanu Trucă, Luminița 1980, “O construcție medievală din familia ctitoriilor cneziale românești (Dezna, jud. Arad),” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 12: 181–191. Gross, Lidia 2009, Confreriile medievale în Transilvania (secolele XIV–XVI), 2nd edition. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut. Groza, Horațiu 2020, “Cercetări arheologice la Biserica Reformată Turda Veche.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 161–180. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Gudea, Nicolae 1975, “Cîteva aspecte și probleme privind procesul de romanizare al Daciei,” Apulum 13: 75–112. Gudea, Nicolae 1996, “Despre existența la români a conștiinței unui creștinism inițial de rit roman și limbă latină,” Studia Theologia Catholica 1: 63–79. Gudea, Nicolae 2010, Christiana minora. Studii, articole și note în legătură cu creștinismul primitiv din Dacia romană, Dacia postromană și unele provincii vecine. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Gudea, Nicolae 2016, Porolissum. Un focar al creștinismului timpuriu în provincia Porolissensis (secolele II–III p.Chr.) și în epoca post aureliană (secolele IV–VI p. Chr.). Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Gudea, Nicolae – Cosma, Călin 1998, “Crucea-relicvar descoperită la Dăbâca. Conside­ rații privind tipologia și cronologia crucilor-relicvar bizantine din bronz, cu figuri în relief, descoperite pe teritoriul României,” Ephemeris Napocensis 8: 273–303. Gündisch, Gustav 2001, “Patriciatul din Sibiu în evul mediu.” In Transilvania și sașii ardeleni în istoriografie. Din publicațiile Asociației de Studii Transilvane Heidelberg, collective work, 127–145. Sibiu – Heidelberg: Hora – Heidelberg Arbeitkreis für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde.

Bibliography

451

Gündisch, Konrad 1974, “Cu privire la începuturile patriciatului orășenesc medieval la Bistrița.” In Sub semnul lui Clio. Omagiu Acad. Prof Ștefan Pascu, collective work, 199–206. Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Multiplicare al Universității Babeș-Bolyai. Gündisch, Konrad 1993, Das Patriziat siebenbürgischer Städte im Mittelalter. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Studia Transylvanica 18). Gündisch, Konrad 2001, “Autonomie de stări și regionalitate în Ardealul medieval.” In Transilvania și sașii ardeleni în istoriografie. Din publicațiile Asociației de Studii Transilvane Heidelberg, collective work, 33–53. Sibiu – Heidelberg: Hora – Heidelberg Arbeitkreis für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde. Gündisch, Konrad 2003, “Cluj [-Napoca].” In Siebenbürgen. Handbuch der historischen Stätten, ed. Harald Roth, 57–63. Stuttgart: Kröner. Gündisch, Konrad 2006, “Sistemul urban medieval din Transilvania. Geneză și dezvoltare.” In Orașe și orășeni / Városok és városlakók, eds. Ionuț Costea – Carmen Florea – Judit Pál – Enikő Rüsz-Fogarasi, 49–63. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut. Gündisch, Konrad (ed.) 2013, Generalprobe Burzenland. Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Siebenbürgen und im Banat. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgischen Archiv 42). Gündisch, Konrad – Beer, Mathias (eds.) 1998, Siebenbürgen und die Siebenbürger Sachsen. Munich: Langen-Müller (Studienbuchreihe der Stiftung Ostdeutscher Kulturrat 8). Guy Marica, Viorica 1970, Arta gotică. Bucharest: Meridiane. Guy Marica, Viorica 1995, “Süddeutsche Interferenzen in der Siebenbürgischen Kunst des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts,” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 38: 9–20. Gyalókay, Jenő 1913, “A nagyváradi várban 1911–12-ik évben folyt ásatások eredménye,” Biharvárad 1: 43–60. Gyöngyössy, János – Kerny, Terézia – Sarudi, Sebestyén József 1995, Székelyföldi vártemplomok. Budapest: Tájak-Korok-Múzeumok Egyesület (Tájak-Korok-Múzeumok Könyvtára 5). Györffy, György 1963–1998, Az árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, vol. 1–4. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Györffy, György 1985, “Landnahme, Ansiedlung und Streifzüge der Ungarn,” Acta historica. Revue de l’Academie des sciences de Hongrie 31: 231–270. Györffy, György 1990, “La christianisation des Hongrois et les peuples de la Hongrie.” In L’eglise et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe–XVe siècles). Actes du colloque de Rome (27–29 janvier 1986), eds. École Française de Rome, 57–66. Rome: École Française de Rome (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 128). Györffy, György 1994, King Saint Stephen of Hungary. Boulder – New York: Columbia University Press (East European Monographs 403).

452

Bibliography

Györffy, György 2000, “Stephan I. und sein Werk.” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 1, 574–575. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Győrfi, Zalán 2008, “Contribuții privind vesela ceramică medievală de la Târgu-Mureș Cetate (sec. XIV–XV).” In Vasaria Medievalia, eds. Gabriela Rădulescu – Corneliu Gaiu, 224–246. Bistrița – Cluj-Napoca: Accent. Halmos, Balázs 2007, “A gyulafehérvári Lázói-kápolna boltozatának feltárása.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 171–214. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Halmos, Balázs – Marótzy, Katalin 2020, “Kompozíció és technológia a középkorban. Lehetséges kapcsolatok az esztergomi királyi palota és a gyulafehérvári székesegyház között a 12.–13. században.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 39–60. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Halmos, Balázs – Marótzy, Katalin – Nagy, Gergely Domonkos 2013, “A gyulafehérvári székesegyház déli tornya,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Erem- és Régiségtárából 6–7 (16–17): 217–246. Harhoiu, Radu 1987, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Romanen und Barbaren in Siebenbürgen aus der Sicht einer ungarischen Geschichte,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 31: 110–129. Harhoiu, Radu 2001, “Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.–7. Jahrhundert,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 43–45: 97–158. Harhoiu, Radu – Boroffka, Nikolaus – Boroffka, Rodica – Gáll, Erwin – Ioniță, Adrian – Spânu, Daniel 2020, Schässburg – Weinberg / Sighișoara – Dealul Viilor. II. Archäologische Grabungen bei der Fundstelle „Gräberfeld“ / „Necropolă“. Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun (Archaeologia Romanica 6). Harhoiu, Radu – Spânu, Daniel – Gáll, Erwin 2011, Barbari la Dunăre. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut. Hegyi, Géza 2006, “Radna és a Radna-völgy a középkorban (1241–1469/1475). Birtok- és településtörténet,” Erdélyi Múzeum 68/3–4: 33–54. Hegyi, Géza 2010, “Egyházigazgatási határok a középkori Erdélyben (I. közlemény),” Erdélyi Múzeum 72/3–4: 1–32. Hegyi, Géza 2012a, “The affiliation of medieval Sălaj (Szilágy) Region in the mirror of social relations.” In Institutional Structures and Elites in Sălaj Region and in Transylvania in the 14th–18th Centuries, ed. András W. Kowács, 67–100. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Academy, Center for Transylvanian Studies (Transylvanian Review 21, Supplement no. 2).

Bibliography

453

Hegyi, Géza 2012b, “A pápai tizedjegyzék tévesen azonosított székelyföldi helynevei.” In Tanulmányok a székelység középkori és fejedelemség kori történelméből, eds. András Sófalvi – Zsolt Visy, 97–113. Inlăceni – Odorheiu Secuiesc: Pro Énlaka Alapítvány – Haáz Rezső Múzeum (Énlaka Konferenciák 3). Hegyi, Géza 2018, “A plébánia fogalma a 14. századi Erdélyben,” Erdélyi Múzeum 80/1: 1–29. Hegyi, Géza 2020, “A középkori erdélyi egyházmegye esperességeiről.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 355–367. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Heitel, Radu 1964, Monumentele medievale din Sebeș-Alba. Bucharest: Meridiane. Heitel, Radu 1968, Cetatea din Cîlnic. Bucharest: Meridiane. Heitel, Radu 1972, “Archäologische Beiträge zu den romanischen Baudenkmälern aus Südsiebenbürgen,” Revue roumaine d’histoire de l’art. Série Beaux-arts 9/2: 139–160. Heitel, Radu 1973, “Arheologia monumentului de arhitectură romanică din Cisnădioara,” Apulum 11: 273–292. Heitel, Radu 1974, “Das romanische Baudenkmal von Cisnădioara (Michelsberg),” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 17/2: 49–59. Heitel, Radu 1975a, “Archäologische Beiträge zu den romanischen Baudenkmälern aus Südsiebenbürgen. II (in Zusammenhang mit der zeitlichen Bestimmung der ältesten ‘Rotunda Ecclesia’ Rumäniens und der Kathedrale I in Alba Iulia),” Revue roumaine d’histoire de l’art. Série Beaux-arts 12/1: 3–10. Heitel, Radu 1975b, “Contribuții la problema genezei raporturilor feudale în Transilvania în lumina cercetărilor arheologice de la Alba Iulia.” In Muzeul Național. 2. Sesiunea științifică de comunicări 17–18 decembrie 1973, eds. Florian Georgescu – Ștefan Oltean, 343–351. Bucharest: Muzeul de Istorie al Republicii Socialiste România. Heitel, Radu R. 1983, “Unele considerații privind civilizația din bazinul carpatic în cursul celei de-a doua jumătăți a secolului al IX-lea în lumina izvoarelor arheologice,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 34/2: 93–115. Heitel, Radu R. 1985, “Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice din zona sud-vestică a cetății de la Alba Iulia (1968–1977). I,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 36/3: 215–231. Heitel, Radu R. 1986, “Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice din zona sud-vestică a cetății de la Alba Iulia (1968–1977). II. Piesele de metal,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 37/3: 233–248. Heitel, Radu R. 1995, “Die Archäologie der ersten und zweiten Phase des Eindringens der Ungarn in das innerkarpatische Transsilvanien,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 38–39: 389–439. Heitel, Radu R. 2013, “Zur Datierung der evanghelischen Kirche in Tartlau.” In Gene­­ ralprobe Burzenland. Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in

454

Bibliography

Siebenbürgen und im Banat, ed. Konrad Gündisch, 125–131. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 42). Heitel, Radu R. – Bogdan, Alexandru 1968, “Contribuții la arheologia monumentelor transilvane. I. Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice efectuate în complexul medieval din Cricău (jud. Alba),” Apulum 7/1: 483–496. Heitel, Radu R. – Dan, Dorin Ovidiu 1986, “Cercetările arheologice efectuate la Alba Iulia (punctul ‘Monetăria’) și Sebeș-Alba,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 16: 187–189. Hekler, Anton 1937, Ungarische Kunstgeschichte. Berlin: Mann. Henning, Joachim (ed.) 2007, Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium, vol. 1–2. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter (Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. / Millennium Studies in the Culture and History of the First Millennium CE 5). Henszlmann, Imre 1871, “Archaeologiai kirándulás Csanádra,” Archaeologiai Közlemények 8/1: 1–49. Henszlmann, Imre 1864. “A szathmári püspöki megyének középkori epitészeti régiségei,” Archaeologiai Közlemények IV: 125–157. Henszlmann, Imre 1884, “A nagyváradi kettős székesegyház.” In A váradi püspökség története alapításától a jelenkorig, ed. Vincze Bunyitay, vol. 3, 147–174. Oradea. Hervay, Ferenc L. 1984, Repertorium historicum Ordinis Cisterciensis in Hungaria. Rome – Budapest: Editiones Cistercienses – Franklin Nyomda (Bibliotheca Cisterciensis 7). Higounet, Charles 1989, Les allemands en Europe centrale et orientale au Moyen Age. Paris: Aubier. Hóman, Bálint 1940, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters. Band I. Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Ende des XII. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Hopârtean, Corina 2016, “The Order of St. Paul the Hermit in the Hungarian Kingdom: the order’s remains in Păuca, Sibiu County.” In Arhin I. Medieval Changing Landscape. Settlements, Monasteries, Fortifications, eds. Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 163–172. Sibiu: Astra Museum. Horedt, Kurt 1941, “Zur siebenbürgischen Burgenforschung,” Südost-Forschungen 6: 576–614. Horedt, Kurt 1952, “Șantierul ‘Așezări slave în regiunile Mureș și Cluj’,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 3: 311–348. Horedt, Kurt 1954, “Voievodatul de la Bălgrad-Alba Iulia,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 5/3–4: 487–512. Horedt, Kurt 1955, “Șantierul arheologic Morești,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 6/3–4: 643–685. Horedt, Kurt 1958, Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei în secolele IV–XIII. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române (Biblioteca istorică 7).

Bibliography

455

Horedt, Kurt 1966, “Die Ansiedlung von Blandiana, Rayon Orăștie, am Ausgang des ersten Jahrtausends u.Z,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 10: 261–289. Horedt, Kurt 1977, “Archäologische Beiträge zur Herkunft der Siebenbürger Sachsen.” In Archäologie als Geschichtswissenschaft: Studien und Untersuchungen, ed. Joachim Herrmann, 447–459. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte 30). Horedt, Kurt 1978, “Die letzten Jahrzehnte der Provinz Dakien in Siebenbürgen,” Apulum 16: 211–237. Horedt, Kurt 1979, “Kleine Beiträge. Die Fundstelle des Donariums von Biertan, Kr. Sibiu,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 23: 341–345. Horedt, Kurt 1982, Siebenbürgen in spätrömischer Zeit. Bucharest: Kriterion. Horedt, Kurt 1986, Siebenbürgen im Frühmittelalter. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. Horedt, Kurt – Székely, Zoltan – Molnar, Ștefan 1962, “Săpăturile de la Porumbenii Mici,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 8: 633–642. Horwath, Walter 1929, “Die Baugeschichte der sächsischen Kirchenburgen und Kirchen.” In Die Dörfer des Burzenlandes, ed. Erich Jekelius, 113–158. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 4.1). Horwath, Walter 1935, “Der Emporenbau der romanischen und frühgotischen Kirchen in Siebenbürgen,” Siebenbürgische Vierteljahrschrift 58: 69–75. Horwath, Walter 1936, “Die Landnahme des Altlandes im Lichte der Kirchenbauten,” Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 59: 169–180. Horwath, Walter 1940a, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Kirchenburgen, baugeschichtlich untersucht und dargestellt. Sibiu: Honterus. Horwath, Walter 1940b, “Die Hallenchoranlage der Schwarzen Kirche,” Mitteilungen des Burzenländer Sächsischen Museums 4: 50–53. Iambor, Petru 1974, “Atacurile cumano-tătare asupra Transilvaniei în a doua jumătate a secolului al XII-lea,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 17: 211–223. Iambor, Petru 2001, “Archaeological contributions to the study of the early medieval town of Cenad (Timiș County),” Transylvanian Review 10/2: 98–111. Iambor, Petru 2003, “Contribuții arheologice la cunoașterea așezării medieval-timpurii de la Cenad (jud. Timiș).” In Studii de istorie medievală și premodernă. Omagiu profesorului Nicolae Edroiu, membru corespondent al Academiei Române, ed. Avram Andea, 25–39. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Iambor, Petru 2005, Așezări fortificate din Transilvania (sec. IX–XIII). Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut. Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan 1975, “Cetatea feudal timpurie de la Cluj Mănăștur,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 18: 291–304.

456

Bibliography

Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan 1979, “Incinta fortificată de la Cluj-Mănăștur (sec. IX– XIV),” Acta Musei Napocensis 16: 599–620. Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan 1983, “Noi cercetări arheologice la complexul medieval timpuriu de la Cluj-Mănăștur,” Acta Musei Napocensis 20: 131–147. Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan – Bejan, Adrian 1982, “Cercetări arheologice în așezarea feudal-timpurie de la Cenad (1974, 1975),” Ziridava 14: 89–114. Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan – Bejan, Adrian 1996, “Cenad, jud. Timiș. Punct: Cetatea medievală,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1995. Available online at http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=316&d=Cenad-Timis-Cetatea -medievala-1995. Accesed 2021, Oct 01. Iambor, Petru – Matei, Ștefan – Halasu, Adriana 1981, “Considerații privind raportul cronologic dintre așezarea și cimitirul de la Cluj Mănăștur,” Acta Musei Napocensis 18: 129–150. Ionescu, Grigore 1963, Istoria arhitecturii în România. I. De la orînduirea comunei primitive pînă la sfîrșitul veacului al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Ionescu, Maria-Elena 1976, “Cîteva date cu privire la biserica ortodoxă Sfîntul Nicolae din Rîșnov,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 45/2: 27–32. Ioniță, Adrian 1999, “Feldioara, com. Feldioara, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica evanghelică,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1998: 41. Ioniță, Adrian 2005, “Mormintele cu gropi antropomorfe din Transilvania și relația lor cu primul val de colonizare germană.” In Relații interetnice în Transilvania. Secolele VI–XIII, eds. Zeno Karl Pinter – Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Emilia Țiplic, 217–228. Bucharest: Editura Economică. Ioniță, Adrian 2013, “Începuturile colonizării Țării Bârsei reflectate arheologic,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 64/1–2: 121–132. Ioniță, Adrian – Căpățână, Dan – Boroffka, Nikolaus – Boroffka, Rodica – Popescu, Adrian 2004, Feldioara-Marienburg. Contribuții arheologice la istoria Țării Bârsei / Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Burzenlandes. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Ioniță, Adrian – Marcu, Daniela 2000, “Feldioara, com. Feldioara, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica evanghelică (53),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 36–37. Iorga, Nicolae 1923, Istoria artei medievale și moderne în legătură cu desvoltarea societății. Bucharest: Editura Librăriei Pavel Suru. Istrate, Angel 2006, “Sighișoara, mun. Sighișoara, jud. Mureș. Punct: Cetate, Biserica Mănăstirii (117),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2005: 328–329.

Bibliography

457

Istrate, Angel 2007a, “Biserica mănăstirii dominicane din Sighișoara. Observații arheologice.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 131–144. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Istrate, Angel 2007b, “Hălmeag, com. Șercaia, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica evanghelică Hălmeag (90),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2006: 172–173. Istrate, Angel – Roman, Cosmin 2007, “Codlea, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica fortificată (62),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2006: 131–132. Jánó, Mihály 1993, “A székelydályai református templom kutatása,” Műemlékvédelmi Szemle 1993/1: 25–47. Jekelius, Erich (ed.) 1928, Kronstadt. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 3.1). Jekelius, Erich (ed.) 1929, Die Dörfer des Burzenlandes. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 4.1.). Jékely, Zsombor 2018, “Expansion to the countryside: rural architecture in medieval Hungary.” In The Art of Medieval Hungary, eds. Xavier Barrali Altet – Pál Lővei – Vinni Lucherini – Imre Takács, 99–116. Rome: Viella (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae – Roma. Studia 7). Jenei, Dana 2003, “Pictura murală a capelei din Hărman,” Ars Transsilvaniae 12–13: 81–102. Jenei, Dana 2004a, “Art and mentality in Late Middle Age Transylvania.” In New Europe College GE-NEC Program 2000–2001, 2001–2002, ed. Irinina Vainovski-Mihai, 13–71. Bucharest: New Europe College. Jenei, Dana 2004b, “Construcții succesive pe locul liceului ‘Johannes Honterus’ din Brașov. Capela cisterciană Sf. Ecaterina.” In In honorem Gernot Nussbächer, eds. Daniel Nazare – Ruxandra Nazare – Bogdan Fl. Popovici, 401–409. Brașov: Foton. Jenei, Dana 2010, “Biserica ortodoxă ‘Sf. Nicolae’ Vechi din Râșnov,” Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis 2: 611–625. Jenei, Dana 2012, “Murals from around 1500 in Southern Transylvania: the Corpus Christi Chapel at Sânpetru (Brașov County).” Art and Architecture around 1400. Global and Regional Perspectives, eds. Marjeta Ciglenečki – Polona Vidmar, 161–169. Maribor: Faculty of Arts of the University of Maribor. Jenei, Dana 2015, “Cadrul istoric și architectural al Curții Bisericii Negre.” In Redescoperirea trecutului medieval al Brașovului: curtea Bisericii Negre / Unearthing the Medieval Past of Brașov: The Black Church Yard, ed. Daniela Marcu-Istrate, 15–44. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Jenei, Dana 2016, Goticul în Transilvania. Pictura. Bucharest: Oscar Print.

458

Bibliography

Kénosi Tőzsér, János – Uzoni Fosztó, István 2009, Az erdélyi unitárius egyház története, vol. 2, trans. Albert Márkos, ed. Mihály Balázs. Cluj-Napoca: Magyar Unitárius Egyház. Kerny, Terézia (ed.) 1989a, Váradi kőtöredékek. Budapest: MTA Művészettörténeti Kutató Csoport. Kerny, Terézia 1989b, “A váradi vár kutatása és feltárása Rómer Flóris hagyatékában és a Műemlékek Országos Bizottságának iratanyagában.” In Váradi kőtöredékek, ed. Terézia Kerny, 195–241. Budapest: MTA Művészettörténeti Kutató Csoport. Killyen, Franz 1984, “Die Anfänge der Stadtwerdung Kronstadts.” In Beiträge zur Geschichte von Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen, ed. Paul Philippi, 35–90. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 17). Kimakowitz, Moritz von 1911, “Alt-Hermannstadt. Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studie,” Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 37/2: 241–271. Kimakowitz, Moritz von 1913, “Studien zur Baugeschichte der ev. Stadtpfarrkirche in Hermannstadt,” Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 39/2: 477–508. Kiss, Imola 1999, “Construcții ecleziastice cu plan central. Rotonda din Pelișor.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 76–96. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Kiss, Imola – Szőcs, Péter Levente (eds.) 1999, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 1. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Kiss, Lóránd 2013, “Studiu de parament la biserica ortodoxă veche din Galda de Jos,” Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 17/2: 237–248. Klaniczay, Gábor 2010, “The mendicant orders in East-Central Europe and the integration of cultures.” In Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa. Vorträge und Workshops einer internationalen Frühlingsschule / Hybride Cultures in Medieval Europe. Papers and Workshops of an International Spring School, eds. Michael Borgolte – Bernd Schneidmüller, 245–260. Berlin: Akamie Verlag (Europa im Mittelalter. Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur historischen Komparatistik 16). Klein, Karl Kurt 1966, “Terra Syculorum terrae Sebus. Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation des “Goldenen Freibriefs” der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen,” Südostdeutsches Archiv 9: 45–64. Klein, Karl Kurt 1971a, “Anselm de Braz und Hetzelo von Merkstein: die ersten Siebenbürger Sachsen.” In Saxonica Septemcastrensia. Forschungen, Reden und Aufsätze aus vier Jahrzehnten zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. Karl Kurt Klein, 160–167. Marburg: N.G. Elwert. Klein, Karl Kurt 1971b, “Grenzwüstung und Siedlung: Gyepü und Gyepuvorland. Bemerkungen zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Sudostsiedlung im altungarischen Raum.” In Saxonica Septemcastrensia. Forschungen, Reden und Aufsätze aus vier

Bibliography

459

Jahrzehnten zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. Karl Kurt Klein, 117– 136. Marburg: N.G. Elwert. Klein, Karl Kurt 1971c, “Primi Hospites regni Saxones – Die ersten Saxones als Siedler im Lande Siebenbürgen.” In Saxonica Septemcastrensia. Forschungen, Reden und Aufsätze aus vier Jahrzehnten zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. Karl Kurt Klein, 105–116. Marburg: N.G. Elwert. Klein, Karl Kurt 1971d, “Szekler und Sachsen in der Siedlungspolitik der ersten ungarischen Könige.” In Saxonica Septemcastrensia. Forschungen, Reden und Aufsätze aus vier Jahrzehnten zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. Karl Kurt Klein, 136–140. Marburg: N.G. Elwert. Kollár, Tibor (ed.) 2011, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg și Satu Mare. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Kollár, Tibor (ed.) 2014, Artă și credință în regiunea Tisei Superioare, trans. Jankó Szép Ildikó. Satu Mare: Idea Studio (Drumul bisericilor medievale 3). König, Heidrun 1998, Die Zisterzienserabtei von Kerz / Abbatia beatae Mariae Virginis de Candelis. Sibiu: Honterus. König, Heidrun 2000, “Aufklärung eines alten Irrtums die Jakobskapelle am Huetplatz in Hermannstadt. Ein Pilgerweg (I + II),” Hermannstädter Zeitung 1659–1660 (Jan 14– 21, 2000). Available at https://www.siebenbuerger.de/forum/allgemein/2146-heidrun -koenig-aufklaerung-eines-alten/. Accessed on 2021 Aug 31. Köpeczi, Bela (ed.) 1990, Kurze Geschichte Siebenbürgens. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Koszta, László 1999, “L’organisation de l’église chrétienne en Hongrie.” In Les Hongrois et l’Europe: conquête et intégration, eds. Sándor Csernus – Klára Korompay, 293–311. Paris – Szeged: Université de Szeged – Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle – Institut Hongrois de Paris. Koszta, László 2000, “Dél-Magyarország egyházi topográfiája a középkorban.” In A középkori Dél-Alföld és Szer, ed. Tibor Kollár, 41–80. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Levéltár (Dél-Alföldi évszázadok 13). Koszta, László 2010, “State power and ecclesiastical system in eleventh-century Hungary (an outline to the dynamics of the development of Hungarian Christian Church).” In “In my spirit and thought I remained a European of Hungarian origin”: Medieval Historical Studies in Memory of Zoltan J. Kosztolnyik, eds. István Petrovics – Sándor László Tóth – Eleanor A. Congdon, 67–78. Szeged: JATEPress (Capitulum 6). Koszta, László 2014, “Byzantine archiepiscopal ecclesiastical system in Hungary?” In A Kárpát-medence, a magyarság és Bizánc / The Carpathian Basin, the Hungarians and Byzantium, ed. Teréz Olajos, 127–143. Szeged: Lectum (Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, Opuscula Byzantina 11). Kovács, András 1986, “Date privind viața Zamfirei, fiica lui Moise Vodă,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 27: 351–374.

460

Bibliography

Kovács, András 1996, Gyulafehérvár. Szent Mihály székesegyház. Cluj-Napoca: Utilitas (Erdélyi Műemlékek 26). Kovács, András 2003, Késő reneszánsz építészet Erdélyben 1541–1720. Budapest – Cluj-Napoca: Teleki László Alapítvány – Polis Könyvkiadó. Kovács, András 2007, Épületek emlékezete. Nevezetes épületek Erdélyben. Budapest: L’Harmattan. Kovács, Klára 2011, Fosta biserică evanghelică (azi ortodoxă) din Tărpiu. Online posting date: Feb 05, 2011. Available at http://www.enciclopediavirtuala.ro/monument .php?id=374. Accessed on 2021 Aug 02. Kovács, Mihai 2017, “Întemeierea episcopiei Transilvaniei: o perspectivă istoriografică,” Buletinul cercurilor științifice studențești. Arheologie – istorie – muzeologie 23: 101–116. Kralovánszky, Alán 1984, “Újabb adatok Veszprém és Székesfehérvár településtörténetéhez,” A Veszprém megyei múzeumok közleményei 17: 189–208. Krautheimer, Richard 1986, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th edition, revised by Richard Krautheimer and Slobodan Ćurčić. New Haven – London: Yale University Press. Kristó, Gyula 1993, Die Arpaden Dynastie. Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301, trans. István Hansel. Budapest: Corvina. Kristó, Gyula 1998, “The bishopric of Saint Stephen King of Hungary.” In In honorem Paul Cernovodeanu, ed. Violeta Barbu, 55–66. Bucharest: Kriterion. Kristó, Gyula 2002, “Quelle est l’origine des Sicules?” Cahiers d’études hongrois 10: 115–128. Kristó, Gyula 2003, Early Transylvania (895–1324). Budapest: Lucidus. Kroner, Michael 2001, “Die Kerzer Abtei in Siebenbürgen. 800 Jahre seit ihrer Gründung,” Südostdeutsche Vierteljahresblätter 50/3: 289–296. Kubinyi, András 2006, “‘Szabad királyi város’ – ‘királyi szabad város’?” Urbs – Magyar várostörténeti évkönyv 1: 51–61. Kühlbrandt, Ernst 1898, Die evangelische Stadtpfarrkirche A. B. in Kronstadt, vol. 1. Brașov: Gött. Kühlbrandt, Ernst 1927, Die evangelische Stadtpfarrkirche A. B. in Kronstadt, vol. 2. Brașov: Hiemesch. Kühlbrandt, Ernst 1928, “Die Schwarze Kirche.” In Kronstadt, ed. Erich Jekelius, vol. 1, 122–135. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 3.1). László, Keve 2008, “Date privind ceramica medievală timpurie din ‘Cetate’ de la Târgu-Mureș.” In Vasaria Medievalia, eds. Gabriela Rădulescu – Corneliu Gaiu, 155– 165. Bistrița – Cluj-Napoca: Accent. László, Keve – Gál, Szilárd Sándor 2015, “A marosszentgyörgyi római katolikus templom körül végzett régészeti kutatások eredményei.” In Öreg tölgyfák árnyékában. Tanulmányok Marosszentgyörgyről, ed. Gyula Nemes, 87–118. Târgu Mureș: Lector.

Bibliography

461

Laszlovszky, József – Romhányi, Beatrix 2003, “Cathedrals, monasteries and churches: the archaeology of ecclesiastical monuments.” In Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millenium, ed. Zsolt Visy, 372–377. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, Teleki László Foundation. Lauwers, Michel 2005, Naissance du cimetière. Lieux sacrés et terre des morts dans l’Occident médiéval. Paris: Aubier. Lazăr, Mircea Dan – David, Mihai – Pescaru, Eugen 1991, “Biserica românească de la Crișcior (jud. Hunedoara),” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 21–24: 121–131. Lekai, Louis J. 1977, The Cistercians: Ideal and Reality. Ohio: Kent State University. Leonhardt, Karl – Eberle, Waltraut – Frank, Gabriele 2009, Schässburg. Bauaufnahme einer mittelalterlichen Stadt. Sibiu: Honterus. Léstyán, Ferenc 2000, Megszentelt kövek. A középkori erdélyi püspökség templomai, vol. 1–2. Cluj-Napoca: Gloria. Letz, Franz 1970, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Kirchenburgen, 66 Zeichnungen mit baugeschichtlichen Erläuterungen. Munich: Hans Meschendörfer. Lionnet, Marie 2002, “Le culte de la croix au coeur de l’ensemble peint à Sântămărie Orlea,” Mediaevalia Transilvanica 5–6/1–2: 65–82. Loth, Wilfried 1971, “‘Teutonici’ in Siebenbürgen. Zum Problem des Namens der deutschen Einwanderer.” In Zur Rechts- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Siebenbürger Sachsen, ed. Paul Philippi, 250–260. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 8). Lovag, Zsuzsa 2000, “Christliche Bestattungen.” In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 638–639. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Luca, Sabin Adrian – Dragotă, Aurel – Popa, Dumitru – Istrate Purece, Silviu – Sonoc, Alexandru – Suciu, Ioan – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2007, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Piața Gării (1 Decembrie), C.F. 51.216, nr. topo 3236/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/3 (171),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2006: 332–334. Luca, Sabin Adrian – Pinter, Zeno Karl 2001, Der Böhmerberg bei Broos/Orăștie. Eine archäologische Monographie. Sibiu: Editura Universității “Lucian Blaga” (Bibliotheca Mvsei Apulensis 16). Luca, Sabin Adrian – Pinter, Zeno Karl – Georgescu, Adrian 2003, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Sibiu (situri, monumente arheologice și istorice). Sibiu: Editura Economică (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 3). Lukács, Antál 1999, Țara Făgărașului în Evul Mediu (secolele XIII–XVI). Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Lukács, Antál – Ciocâltan, Alexandru – Dragne, Aurel 2001, “Voivodeni, com. Voila, jud. Brașov. Punct: Biserica ‘Adormirea Maicii Domnului’ (228),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000: 273–274.

462

Bibliography

Lupescu, Radu 1996, “Un monument funerar inedit în biserica din Densuș (jud. Hunedoara),” Arheologia medievală 1: 180–185. Lupescu, Radu 2004, “Vajdahunyad, a vár kutatástörténete (19–20. század),” Korunk 15/7: 43–57. Lupescu, Radu 2005, “Kolozsvár korai történetének buktatói,” Erdélyi Múzeum 67/3–4: 25–77. Lupescu, Radu 2010a, “Activitatea lui István Möller în județul Hunedoara / The professional activity of István Möller in Hunedoara County,” Transsylvania Nostra 4/4: 10–16. Lupescu, Radu 2010b, “The medieval fortifications of Sibiu.” In « vmbringt mit starcken turnen, murn » Ortsbefestigungen im Mittelalter, ed. Olaf Wagener, 351–362. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (Beihefte zur Mediaevistik 15). Lupescu, Radu 2011, “A vajdahunyadi vár helyreállításának története / Rehabilitation history of Hunedoara Castle,” Transsylvania Nostra 5/3: 10–18. Lupescu, Radu 2012, “A kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom nyugati kapuja.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 177–214. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Lupescu, Radu 2015, “A kolozsvári ferences, egykori domonkos kolostor a középkorban,” Várak, kastélyok, templomok 2015: 41–45. Lupescu, Radu 2020, “Contribuții la istoria arhitecturii bisericii evanghelice din Sibiu pe baza noilor cercetări de parament. Sanctuarul și transeptul bisericii.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 201–226. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Lupu, Nicolae 1966, Cetatea Sibiului. Bucharest: Meridiane. Machat, Christoph 1977, Die Bergkirche zu Schäßburg und die mittelalterliche Baukunst in Siebenbürgen. Munich: Verlag des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks (Veröffentlichungen des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks 34). Machat, Christoph 1979, “Die Wehrkirchen Siebenbürgens im europäischer Vergleich,” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 19: 40–51. Machat, Christoph 1983, “Über den rheinischen Charakter der Kerzer Zisterzienserbauten.” In Beiträge zur siebenbürgischen Kunstgeschichte und Denkmalpflege, ed. Christoph Machat, 34–40. Munich: Verlag des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks (Veröffentlichungen des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks. Reihe B, Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten 42). Machat, Christoph (ed.) 1999, Denkmaltopographie Siebenbürgen. Stadt Hermannstadt. 5.1.1. / Topografia monumentelor din Transilvania. Municipiul Sibiu. 5.1.1. Kulturdenkmäler Siebenbürgens 4. Cologne: Rheinland.

Bibliography

463

Machat, Christoph (ed.) 2002, Denkmaltopographie Siebenbürgen. Stadt Schässburg. 4.1. / Topografia monumentelor din Transilvania. Municipiul Sighișoara. 4.1. Kulturdenkmäler Siebenbürgens 4. Cologne: Rheinland. Machat, Christoph 2003, “Zur Baugeschichte und Datierung der ehem. Zisterzienserabtei Kerz.” In Artă, istorie, cultură. Studii în onoarea lui Marius Porumb, eds. Ciprian Firea – Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu, 53–62. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae. Machat, Christoph 2011, “Zur Instandsetzung der Kirchenburg und Kirche von Draas (Drăușeni, Homoróddaróc) / The conservation of the fortified church in Drăușeni (Draas, Homoróddaróc),” Transsylvania Nostra 5/1: 25–31. Machat, Christoph 2012, “Die Dokumentation der Befestigungsanlagen und die Verteidigungsstrategie der Siebenbürger Sachsen im späten Mittelalter / The documentation of the fortifications and the defence strategy of the Transylvanian Saxons in the Late Middle Age,” Transsylvania Nostra 6/1: 2–9. Macrea, Mihail – Buzdugan, Ioan – Ferenczi, Geza – Horedt, Kurt – Popescu, Ioan – Russu, Ioan I. – Székley, Zoltán – Vasiu, Nicolae – Winkler, Iudit 1951, “Raport preliminar asupra săpăturilor arheologice de la Sf. Gheorghe-Brețcu, 1950,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 2/1: 285–312. Madgearu, Alexandru 1993, “Contribuții privind datarea conflictului dintre ducele bănățean Ahtum și regele Ștefan I al Ungariei,” Banatica 12/2: 5–12. Madgearu, Alexandru 2001a, “Voievodatul lui Menumorout în lumina cercetărilor recente,” Analele Universității din Oradea 11: 38–51. Madgearu, Alexandru 2001b, “The church organization at the Lower Danube, between 971 and 1020.” In Études byzantines et post-byzantines, eds. Emilian Popescu – Tudor Teoteoi, vol. 4, 71–85. Iași: Trinitas. Madgearu, Alexandru 2001c, Rolul creștinismului în formarea poporului român. Bucharest: ALL. Madgearu, Alexandru 2003, “Transylvania and the Bulgarian expansion in the 9th and 10th centuries,” Acta Musei Napocensis 39–40/2: 41–62. Madgearu, Alexandru 2005a, The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction. Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Institute (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae 34). Madgearu, Alexandru 2005b, “Salt trade and warfare: the rise of the Romanian-Slavic military organization in early medieval Transylvania.” In East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Florin Curta, 103–120. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Madgearu, Alexandru 2008, “The mission of Hierotheos: locations and significance,” Byzantinoslavica 66/1–2: 119–138. Madgearu, Alexandru 2010, “Misiunea episcopului Hierotheos în contextul diplomației bizantine.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 69–94. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea.

464

Bibliography

Madgearu, Alexandru 2013, Byzantine Military Organization on the Danube, 10th– 12th Centuries. Leiden – Boston: Brill. Madgearu, Alexandru 2017, “Further considerations on Hierotheos’ mission to the Magyars,” Acta Musei Napocensis 54/2: 1–16. Madgearu, Alexandru 2019, Expansiunea maghiară în Transilvania. Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun. Mândrescu, Gheorghe 1999, Arhitectura în stil Renaștere la Bistrița. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Mango, Cyril 1981, Architecture Byzantine. Paris: Berger-Levrault. Marcu, Daniela 1998a, “Biserica reformată de la Daia, jud. Harghita. Cercetări arheologice,” Studii și cercetari de istorie veche și arheologie 49/2: 157–180. Marcu, Daniela 1998b, “Biserica Sfântul Gheorghe de la Lupșa (jud. Alba),” Arheologia medievală 2: 193–212. Marcu, Daniela – Csók, Zsolt – Lupescu, Radu – Rusu, Cosmin 2007, “Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj. Punct: Biserica reformată centrală (61),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2006: 131. Marcu, Daniela – Izdrăilă, Gabriel – Florescu, Cristian – Groza, Horațiu 2011, “Turda, jud. Cluj. Punct: Turda Veche – Biserica reformată (138),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2010: 242–243. Marcu, Daniela – Pascu, Ioan Fedor 2000, “Sighișoara, jud. Mureș. Punct: Biserica din Deal (134),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 96–97. Marcu, Daniela – Rusu, Cosmin – Istrate, Anghel 2001, “Moșna, com. Moșna, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica evanghelică (128),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000: 27–29. Marcu, Daniela – Rusu, Cosmin – Szőcs, Peter Levente – Postăvaru, Iosefina – Câmpean, Adriana 2000, “Moșna, com. Moșna, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica evanghelică și cetatea țărănească (92),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 64–65. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2002a, “Biserica evanghelică din Teaca, jud. Bistrița Năsăud. Cercetări arheologice,” Revista Bistriței 16: 159–191. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2002b, “Biserica fortificată de la Drăușeni, jud. Brașov.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 41–78. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2002c, “Biserica ortodoxă ‘Buna Vestire’ din Almașu Mare – Joseni, jud. Alba,” Patrimonium Apulense 2: 112–125. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2003, “Feldioara / Marienburg, in the last Middle Ages. Archaeological contributions to the history of the settlement in the 15th–16th centuries.” In In memoriam Radu Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizației românești în context european,

Bibliography

465

eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Angel Istrate – Corneliu Gaiu, 305–328. Cluj-Napoca: Accent. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2004, “Biserica romano-catolică din Armășeni. Observații arheologice.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 165–182. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2007a, Sibiu, Piața Huet. Monografie arheologică, vol. 1–2. Alba Iulia: Altip. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2007b, “Capela Lázó din Alba Iulia. Repere arheologice.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 215–232. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2009a, Catedrala romano-catolică Sfântul Mihail și palatul episcopal din Alba Iulia. Cercetări arheologice 2000–2002. Alba Iulia: Altip. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela (ed.) 2009b, Catedrala romano-catolică și palatul episcopal din Alba Iulia. Arheologie și istorie / The Roman Catholic Cathedral and the Episcopal Palace in Alba Iulia. Archaeology and History / A Gyulafehérvári Római Katolikus Székesegyház és Püspöki Palota: régészet és történelem. Alba Iulia: Altip. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2010, “Cetatea Alba Iulia. Scurt istoric și stadiul cercetărilor.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 239–271. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2011a, “Biserica evanghelică din Saschiz, jud. Mureș. Cercetări arheologice (I),” Materiale și cercetări arheologice. Serie nouă 7, 115–151. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2011b, “Contribuții la istoria bisericii evanghelice și a cetății din Prejmer pe baza săpăturilor arheologice realizate de Radu Heitel,” Ars Transsilvaniae 21: 135–152. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2012a, Saschiz – Keisd. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2012b, “Régészeti adalékok a Szent Mihályról nevezett, gyulafehérvári római katolikus székesegyház történetéhez.” In Élő múltunk. A gyulafehérvári Szent Mihály-székesegyház és érseki palota, ed. Tamás Knecht, 77–82. Cluj-Napoca: Verbum. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2012c, “Régészeti adalékok a gyulafehérvári Szent Mihályszékesegyház főszentélyének és sekrestyéjének történetéhez.” In A Gyulafehérvári Székesegyház főszentélye, ed. Szilárd Papp, 21–42. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2013a, “Anthropomorphic tombs built of brick in the medieval cemetery of Sibiu,” Banatica 23: 371–391. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2013b, “Contribuții arheologice la istoria românilor din Transilvania: biserica Sfânta Paraschiva din Feleac,” Ars Transsilvaniae 23: 191–211.

466

Bibliography

Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2013c, “Neue Erkenntnisse zu den Anfängen der Tartlauer Kirche.” In Generalprobe Burzenland. Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Siebenbürgen und im Banat, ed. Konrad Gündisch, 132–153. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 42). Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2014a, “Biserica din secolele X–XI, de influență bizantină, de la Alba Iulia. Restituiri preliminare,” Apulum. Series Historia et Patrimonium 51: 93–140. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2014b, “Contribuții arheologice la istoria sanctuarului principal al catedralei romano-catolice Sfântul Mihail din Alba Iulia,” Banatica 24/1: 25–55. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela (ed.) 2015a, Redescoperirea trecutului medieval al Brașovului: curtea Bisericii Negre / Unearthing the Medieval Past of Brașov: The Black Church Yard. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2015b, “Byzantine influences in the Carpathian Basin around the turn of the millennium. The pillared church of Alba Iulia,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 59: 177–213. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2016a, “Arheologia urbană a Brașovului / The urban archaeology of Brașov,” Transsylvania Nostra 10/2: 2–12. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2016b, “Ergebnisse der archäologischen Untersuchungen auf dem Martinsberg in Kronstadt,” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 59: 7–28. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2018a, “Arheologia bisericilor urbane din sudul Transilvaniei: o abordare preliminară.” In Cluj-Kolozsvár-Klausenburg 700: várostörténeti tanulmányok / studii de istorie urbană, ed. Mária Lupescu Makó, 137–152. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2018b, “Feldioara înainte și după cavalerii teutoni,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 69/1–4: 121–154. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2018c, “Medieval churches in a borderland: the case of Transylvania.” In Buildings of Medieval Europe. Studies in Social and Landscape Contexts of Medieval Buildings, eds. Duncan Berryman – Sarah Kerr, 97–114. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2018d, “Voraussetzungen und Vorbedingungen für den Bau der Bergkirche in Schäßburg,” Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 41: 1–16. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2019a, “Betrachtungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Schwarzen Kirche in Kronstadt aufgrund neuer archäologischer Untersuchungen,” Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 42: 1–35. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2019b, “Între fantezie și inginerie: cronologia bisericii ortodoxe Sfântul Nicolae din Densuș.” In In Honorem Răzvan Theodorescu, ed. Dana Jenei, 219–232. Bucharest: Oscar Print. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2020a, “Noutăți arheologice privind biserica evanghelică din Sibiu (fostă Sfânta Maria).” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in

Bibliography

467

Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 181–198. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2020b, “Architectural interferences in medieval Transylvania (13th–15th centuries): the archaeology of Orthodox churches in a Catholic landscape.” In Ecclesiastical Landscapes in Medieval Europe. An Archaeological Perspective, eds. José C. Sánchez-Pardo – Emmet H. Marron – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 94–106. Oxford: Archaeopress. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela 2021, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der siebenbürgischen Stadtkirchen im 12.–15. Jahrhundert.” In Sachgeschichten – Sachgeschichte. Festschrift für Barbara Scholkmann zum 80. Geburtstag, eds. Dorothee Ade – Sören Frommer – Tilman Marstaller – Anke K. Scholz – Martina Terp-Schunter – Christina VosslerWolf – Markus Wolf, 447–465. Tübingen: Tübingen Library Publishing. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Codrea, Ionuț Cosmin – Dobrotă, Sebastian Ovidiu – Scrobotă, Vasile Paul 2019, “Aiud, jud. Alba. Punct: Biserica Reformată Aiud (96),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2018: 258–260. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Constantinescu, Mihai – Soficaru, Andrei 2015, The Medieval Cemetery from Sibiu (Hermannstadt). Archaeology, Anthropology, History. Tübingen: Dr. Faustus (Tübinger Forschungen zur historichen Archäologie 6). Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Diana, Annamaria 2017, “The Black Church cemetery. Interdisciplinary approaches to the study of a medieval urban skeletal assemblage (Brașov, Romania),” Studies in Digital Heritage 1/2: 364–379. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Dobrotă, Sebastian – Groza, Horațiu 2021, “Biserica reformată din Turda Veche: cercetările arheologice din anii 2018–2020,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice. Serie nouă 17: 201–233. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Ioniță, Adrian 2019, “Marienburg – eine ehemalige Grenzburg in Rumänien. Von der Deutschordensburg zur befestigten ländlichen Siedlung.” In Befestigung und Grenze in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, eds. Andreas Diener – Joachim Müller – Matthias Untermann, 125–142. Paderborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit e.V. (Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Archäologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 32). Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Istrate, Angel 2005, “Morminte cu nișă cefalică descoperite la Alba Iulia (sec. XII–XIII). Contribuții privind istoria oaspeților occidentali în Transilvania.” In Relații interetnice în Transilvania (sec. VI–XIII), eds. Zeno Karl Pinter – Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Emilia Țiplic, 229–244. Bucharest: Editura Economică (Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 12). Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Izdrăilă, Gabriel 2009, “Brașov, jud. Brașov. Punct: Ansamblul Bisericii ‘Sf. Bartolomeu’ (123),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2008 = Valahica 21–22: 264.

468

Bibliography

Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Izdrailă, Gabriel 2012, “Moșna, com. Moșna, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica evanghelică (131),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2011: 238–239. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Pascu, Ioan Fedor – Heitel, Zsuzsa – Hurezean, George Pascu 2003, “Pâncota, jud. Arad. Punct: Cetatea turcească (140),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2002: 226–227. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Roman, Delia Maria 2011, “Archaeological data concerning the history of the evangelical church in Dealu Frumos, Sibiu County,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice. Serie nouă 7: 153–172. Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Szőcs, Péter Levente (eds.) 2004, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 3. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Mărginean, Florin 2007, “Biserica romanică de la Tăuț.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 95–114. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Mărginean, Florin 2016, “The Lower Mureș Valley, a link between Central Europe and Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (archaeological evidence),” Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis. Series Historica 13: 81–120. Mărginean, Florin 2018, “Contributions to the medieval ecclesiastic geography of Arad County. State of research,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 32: 195–220. Mărginean, Florin – Csók, Zsolt – László, Keve 2020, “Dienesmonostora – Ineu (jud. Arad). Posibila localizare în lumina unor măsurători georadar recente.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 83–92. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Mărginean, Florin – Csók, Zsolt – Tămășan, Maria 2016, “The medieval church from Vărădia de Mureș – Tótvárad (Arad County).” In Arhin I. Medieval Changing Landscape. Settlements, Monasteries, Fortifications, eds. Ioan Marian Țiplic – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 97–112. Sibiu: Astra Museum. Mărginean, Florin – Hurezan, George Pascu – Sava, Victor 2014, “Investigații arheologice la biserica reformată din Iermata Neagră (jud. Arad),” Banatica 24/1: 137–150. Mărginean, Florin – Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2010, “Feltót középkori templomai.” In Építészet a középkori Dél-Magyarországon. Tanulmányok, ed. Tibor Kollár, 895–901. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány. Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, Monica – Apostol, Virgil – Bâlici, Ștefan 2005, “Membra Disiecta. Roman lithic fragments in Hațeg (part 1),” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 48–49: 211–248.

Bibliography

469

Mărgineanu Cârstoiu, Monica – Apostol, Virgil – Bâlici, Ștefan 2009, “Membra Disiecta. Roman lithic fragments in Hațeg (part II),” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 53: 47–88. Marinescu, George 2014, “Crucea-relicvar (engolpion) de la Herina,” Revista Bistriței 28: 197–212. Márki, Sándor 1892, Aradvármegye és Arad szabad királyi város története, vol. 1. Arad: Kiadja a Monographia-bizottság (Aradvármegye és Arad szabad királyi város monographiája 2). Marosi, Ernő 1984, Die Anfänge der Gotik in Ungarn: Esztergom in der Kunst des 12.–13. Jahrhunderts. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Marta, Doru – Borcea, Liviu 2001, “Seghiște, com. Lunca, jud. Bihor. Punct: În cimitir (183),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000: 224–225. Meteș, Ștefan 1930, Viața bisericească a românilor din Țara Oltului. Sibiu: Editura Asociațiunii. Meteș, Ștefan 1935, Istoria bisericii și a vieții religioase a românilor din Transilvania și Ungaria, Vol. I. (până la 1698), 2nd edition. Sibiu: Tiparul Tipografiei Diecezane. Mezős, Tamás 2014, “Előzetes jelentés a kolozsvári Szent Mihály-plébániatemplom kutatásáról / Preliminary research report on Saint Michael’s parish church in Cluj-Napoca,” Transsylvania Nostra 8/2: 46–50. Mihăilă, Anamaria – Benea, Marcel 2011, “Gresii utilizate ca materii prime la mănăstirea cisterciană Cârța (județul Sibiu, România) / Sandstones used as raw materials at Cârța Cistercian Monastery (Sibiu County, Romania),” Revista română de materiale = Romanian Journal of Materials 41 (4): 352–361. Mihăilă, George 1978, “Cele mai vechi inscripții cunoscute ale românilor din Transilvania (1313–1314 și 1408, Streisîngeorgiu – Orașul Călan, județul Hunedoara),” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/1: 33–38. Mijatev, Krăstju 1974, Die Mittelalterliche Baukunst in Bulgarien. Sofia: Verlag der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Millingen, Alexander van 1974, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople. Their History and Architecture. London: Variorum Reprints. Mitrofan, Ioan 1965, “Descoperiri arheologice în Cluj și împrejurimi.” Acta Musei Napocensis 2: 657–666. Mittelstrass, Otto 1961, Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte Siebenbürgens im Mittelalter. Munich: R. Oldenbourg (Buchreihe der Südostdeutschen Historischen Kommission 6). Möckesch, Samuel 1839, Die Pfarrkirche der Augsb. Conf. Verwandten zu Hermannstadt. Sibiu: Hochmeister u. Thierry. Moga, Ioan 1973a, “Cea mai veche biserică din Săliște (jud. Sibiu).” In Ioan Moga, Scrieri istorice. 1926–1946, eds. Mihail Dan – Aurel Răduțiu, 296–298. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia.

470

Bibliography

Moga, Ioan 1973b, “‘Marginea’. Ducatul Amlașului și Scaunul Săliștii.” In Ioan Moga, Scrieri istorice. 1926–1946, eds. Mihail Dan – Aurel Răduțiu, 56–88. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Moga, Vasile 1998, De la Apulum la Alba Iulia. Castrul Roman de la Apulum. Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cărții de Știință. Moga, Vasile 1999, “Fortificația romană și cele două centre urbane de la Apulum.” In Napoca 1880 de ani de la începutul vieții urbane, eds. Dumitru Protase – Dan Brudașcu, 175–180. Cluj-Napoca: Redacția Publicațiilor Primăriei Municipiului Cluj-Napoca. Moga, Vasile 2007, Creștinismul la Apulum și în teritoriul său (secolele III–X). Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. Moga, Vasile – Ciugudean, Horea 1995, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Alba. Alba Iulia: Muzeul Național al Unirii Alba Iulia (Bibliotheca Mvsei Apulensis 2). Moisescu, Cristian 2001, Arhitectura românească veche, vol. 1. Bucharest: Meridiane. Möller, István 1929, Erdély nevezetesebb műemlékei. Budapest: História. Molnár, István 2014, “Rövid beszámoló a kaposszentjakabi apátság területén végzett újabb régészeti kutatásról,” Archaeologia – Altum castrum online 2014: 1–9. Published online. Available at http://archeologia.hu/content/archeologia/259/ kaposszentjakab-molnar.pdf. Accessed on 2020 March 9. Molnár, István 2020, “Traces of a church and fortress built prior to the Hungarian conquest found in a Benedictine monastery. New discoveries in Kaposszentjakab,” Hungarian Archaeology 9/3: 13–26. Moravcsik, Gyula 1947, “The role of the Byzantine Church in medieval Hungary,” American Slavic and East European Review 6/3–4: 134–151. Moravcsik, Gyula 1967, “Byzantinische Mission im Kreise der Türkvölker an der Nordküste des Schwarzen Meeres.” In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 5–10 September 1966, eds. Joan Mervyn Hussey – Dimitri Obolensky – Steven Runciman, 15–28. London – New York – Toronto: Oxford University Press. Moravcsik, Gyula 1970, Byzantium and the Magyars, trans. Samuel R. Rosenbaum. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Móré Heitel, Suzana 2003, “Despre fosta mănăstire de la Dienesmonostora, jud. Arad.” In Artă, istorie, cultură. Studii în onoarea lui Marius Porumb, eds. Ciprian Firea – Coriolan Opreanu, 39–52. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae. Móré Heitel, Suzana 2005, “Despre biserica lui Ahtum de la Morisena (Cenad),” Studii și materiale de istorie medie 23: 9–21. Móré Heitel, Suzana 2006, Abația de la Pâncota și vestigiile ei. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Móré Heitel, Suzana 2010a, Începuturile artei medievale în bazinul inferior al Mureșului. Tmișoara: Excelsior Art. Móré Heitel, Zsuzsa 2010b, “Az aradi káptalan temploma.” In Építészet a középkori Dél-Magyarországon. Tanulmányok, ed. Tibor Kollár, 743–755. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.

Bibliography

471

Móré Heitel, Zsuzsa 2000, “Egyházi építészet a Maros-völgy alsó szakaszán a 11–13. században I.” In A középkori Dél-Alföld és Szer, ed. Tibor Kollár, 593–637. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Levéltár (Dél-Alföldi évszázadok 13). Móré Heitel, Zsuzsa 2001, “Monostorok a Maros mentén.” In Paradisum plantavit. Bencés monostorok a középkori Magyarországon: kiállítás a Pannonhalmi Bencés Főapátságban 2001.március 21-től november 11-ig / Benedictine Monasteries in Medieval Hungary: Exhibition at the Benedictine Archabbey of Pannonhalma 21 March–11 November 2001, ed. Imre Takács, 267–274. Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Bencés Főapátság. Morres, Eduard 1928a, “Die kleinen Kirchen.” In Kronstadt, ed. Erich Jekelius, vol. 1, 153–162. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 3.1). Morres, Eduard 1928b, “Die Pfarrkirche von St. Bartholomae.” In Kronstadt, ed. Erich Jekelius, vol. 1, 107–121. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 3.1). Morres, Eduard 1929, “Die Kirchenbauten.” In Die Dörfer des Burzenlandes, ed. Erich Jekelius, vol. 1, 163–190. Brașov: Verlag Burzenländer Sächs. Museum (Das Burzenland 4.1). Müller, Friedrich 1856a, “Über den älteren sächsischen Kirchenbau und insbesondere die evangelische Pfarrkirche von Mühlbach,” Mitteilungen der kaiserl. königl. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale 1: 38–41. Müller, Friedrich 1856b, “Die Schäßburger Bergkirche in Siebenbürgen,” Mitteilungen der kaiserl. königl. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale 1: 167–172. Müller, Friedrich 1857, “Archäologische Skizzen aus Schäßburg. Theilweise vorgetragen in der Generalversammlung des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde zu Schäßburg am 22. August 1856,” Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde. Neue Folge 2/2: 381–430. Müller, Friedrich 1858, Die kirchlichen Baukunst des romanischen Styles in Siebenbürgen. Vienna: aus der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Müller, Heinrich 1883, “Archäologische Funde am Burgberg von Michelsberg,” Korespondenzblatt des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 6: 10–11. Munteanu, Luminița – Beldie Dumitrache, Mariana 1976, “Rezultatele cercetărilor arheologice la biserica Sf. Nicolae din Șcheii Brașovului – etapa 1975,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 45/1: 52–56. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 1989, “Vechi monumente medievale românești din vatra satului Săliște (jud. Sibiu),” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 20/2: 14–21. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 1994, “Vase din lut și sticlă descoperite la săpătura arheologică Sibiu, Piața Huet nr. 3,” Anuarul Institutului de Cercetări Socio-umane Sibiu 1: 55–61. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 1998, “Cercetări de arheologie medievală în perimetrul orașului Sibiu efectuate în ultimul deceniu,” Arheologia medievală 2: 87–102.

472

Bibliography

Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 2000, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica Azilului (131),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 94–95. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 2001, Biserici dispărute, biserici regăsite. Sibiu: Editura Universității Lucian Blaga. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre 2012, “Mănăstirea cisterciană de la Cârța. Cercetări arheologice de salvare (2009 și 2011),” Acta Terrae Fogarasiensis 1:11–28. Munteanu Beșliu, Petre – Rodean, Nicolae – Georgescu, Adrian 2000, “Cercetări arheologice de salvare în Piața Huet din Sibiu,” Apulum 37/1: 472–483. Nägler, Thomas 1974, “Zum Gebrauch des Ausdrucks ‘terra deserta’ in einigen Urkunden des 12–13. Jahrhunderts,” Muzeul Brukenthal. Studii și comunicări. Arheologie-istorie 18: 51–60. Nägler, Thomas 1979, Die Ansiedlung der Siebenbürgen Sachsen. Bucharest: Kriterion. Nägler, Thomas 2003, “Alba Iulia.” In Historischen Stätten: Siebenbürgen, ed. Harald Roth, 5–10. Stuttgart: Kröner. Nägler, Thomas – Rill, Martin 1982–1985, “Bericht über die archäologischen Grabungen in Kerz. Transkription des Grabungsberichtes.” Field research diary available online at http://www.medievistica.ro/pagini/arheologie/cercetarea/carta/Nagler.pdf. Accessed on 2020 Jan 01. Nägler, Thomas – Rill, Martin 1993, “Monumentul cistercian de la Cârța, jud. Sibiu,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 17: 489–493. Nägler, Thomas – Rill, Martin – Munteanu-Beșliu, Petre 1997, “Primăria Veche – Turnul de locuit,” Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice 8/1–4: 50–54. Nagy, Emese 1973, “Előzetes jelentés a kaposszentjakabi apátság feltárásáról,” Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 1: 335–339. Năstăsoiu, Dragoș Gh. 2021, “Byzantine Forms and Catholic Patrons in Late Medieval Transylvania.” In Eclecticism in Late Medieval Visual Culture at the Crossroads of the Latin, Greek, and Slavic Traditions, eds. Maria Alessia Rossi – Alice Isabella Sullivan, 77–101. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter. Nestor, Ion – Zaharia, Eugenia 1959, “Săpăturile de la Dridu,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 6: 594–603. Nicolae, Jan 2010, “De dignitate memoriae. Sfântul episcop misionar Hierotheos și noimele istorice ale canonizării sale.” In Sfântul Ierotei, episcop la Alba Iulia (sec. X), eds. Ioan Aurel Pop – Jan Nicolae – Ovidiu Panaite, 95–157. Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea. Nicolescu, Corina 1962, “Considérations sur l’ancienneté des monuments roumains de Transylvanie,” Revue roumaine d’histoire 1: 411–426. Niedermaier, Paul 1979a, Siebenbürgische Städte. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 15). Niedermaier, Paul 1979b, “Geneza orașului Sighișoara,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 48/2: 67–74.

Bibliography

473

Niedermaier, Paul 1996a, Der mittelalterliche Städtebau in Siebenbürgen, im Banat und im Kreischgebiet: Teil 1 – Die Entwicklung vom Anbeginn bis 1241. Heidelberg: Arbeitskreis für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde. Niedermaier, Paul 1996b, “Concepția bisericilor romanice din Transilvania,” Ars Transilvaniae 6: 5–25. Niedermaier, Paul 2000, Atlasul istoric al orașelor din România. (Seria C. Transilvania. Fascicula 1.) Sighișoara / Städtegeschichteatlas Rumäniens. (Reihe C, Transsylvanien. 1. Lieferung) Schäßburg. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Niedermaier, Paul 2002, Städtebau im Mittelalter. Siebenbürgen, Banat und Kreischgebiet (1242–1347). Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau. Niedermaier, Paul 2004, Städtebau im Mittelalter. Siebenbürgen, Banat und Kreischgebiet (1348–1541). Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau. Niedermaier, Paul 2007, “Siebenbürgische Kirchen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Absichten und Möglichkeiten / Transylvanian churches in the stress field between intentions and possibilities,” Transsylvania Nostra 1/1: 17–20. Niedermaier, Paul 2016, Geneza orașelor medievale în Transilvania. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Nussbächer, Gernot 1981, Aus Urkunden und Chroniken. Beiträge zur siebenbürgischen Heitmatkunde, vol. 1. Bucharest: Kriterion. Nussbächer, Gernot 1985, Aus Urkunden und Chroniken. Beiträge zur siebenbürgischen Heitmatkunde, vol. 2. Bucharest: Kriterion. Nussbächer, Gernot 1994, Aus Urkunden und Chroniken. Beiträge zur siebenbürgischen Heitmatkunde, vol. 4. Bucharest: Kriterion. Nussbächer, Gernot 2001, Bástyák, árkok, várfalak. Séta a középkori Brassóban, trans. Gyenge Gabriella. Brașov: Aldus. Nussbächer, Gernot 2008, Ghid prin Biserica Neagră din Brașov. Brașov: Foton. Nussbaum, Norbert 2000, German Gothic Church Architecture, New Haven – London: Yale University Press. Nyárádi, Zsolt 2005, “Arpadian Age churches of Bögöz.” In Archaeologica Transylvanica. Studia in honorem Stephani Bajusz, eds. Alpár Dobos – Dávid Petruț – Sándor Berecki – Lóránt Vass – Péter Pánczél Szilamér – Zsolt Molnár-Kovács – Péter Forisek, 359–369. Cluj-Napoca – Târgu Mureș – Budapest: Transylvanian Museum Society – Mureș Country Museum – Martin Opitz Publishing House (Opitz Archaeologica 8). Nyárádi, Zsolt 2015, “Régészeti ásatások Bögöz középkori templománál (2012–2013).” In Civil Műemlékvédelmi Kézikönyv. Civil együttműködések a műemlékvédelem területén. Bögözi Református Műemléktemplom Komplex Restaurálási Program, eds. Béla Bartók and the collective, 66–112. Budapest: Nemzeti Együttműködési Alap. Nyárádi, Zsolt 2016, “Régészeti adatok az udvarhelyszéki Árpád-kori templomok keletkezéséhez.” In Beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam. Ünnepi kötet Tomka Péter 75. születésnapjára, eds. Teréz Csécs – Miklós Takács, 495–510. Győr: Lekri Group Kft.

474

Bibliography

Nyárádi, Zsolt – Sófalvi, András 2012, “A régészet szerepe a középkori és fejedelemségkori székely falvak történetének kutatásában. Esettanulmány négy Székelyudvarhely melletti település vonatkozásában.” In Tanulmányok a székelység középkori és fejedelemség kori történelméből, eds. András Sófalvi – Zsolt Visy, 169– 199. Inlăceni – Odorheiu Secuiesc: Pro Énlaka Alapítváy – Haáz Rezső Múseum (Énlaka Konferenciák 3). Oikonomidès, Nicolas 1971, “À propos des relations ecclésiastiques entre Byzance et la Hongrie au XIe siècle: le métropolite de Turquie,” Revue des études sud-est européennes 9: 527–533. Olasz, Gabriella 2012, “Ansamblul bisericii evanghelice fortificate din Ighișu Nou / Eibesdorf / Szászivánfalva.” In Anuarul Centrului de Studii de Arhitectură Vernaculară U.A.U.I.M. – Dealu Frumos, ed. Sergiu Nistor, 103–122. Bucharest: Editura Universitară “Ion Mincu”. Opreanu, Coriolan Horațiu 2003, Transilvania la sfârșitul antichității și în perioada migrațiilor. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae (Bibliotheca Ephemeris Napocensis 2). Opreanu, Coriolan Horațiu 2014, “Latin or Greek? The case of the inscriptions and the monograms on the golden rings from the royal grave Apahida I (Romania) and the hoard from Reggio Emilia (Italy).” In Archäologische Beiträge. Gedenkschrift zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt, ed. Sorin Cociș, 279–294. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7). Oprescu, George 1955, “Bisericile cetăți ale sașilor din Ardeal,” Studii și cercetări de istoria artei 11/1–2: 37–68. Oprescu, George 1956, Bisericile cetăți ale sașilor din Ardeal. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române. Orbán, Balázs 1868–1873, A Székelyföld leírása; történelmi, régészeti, természetrajzi s népismei szempontból, vol. 1–6. Pest: Rath Mór – Tettey Nándor. Orbán, Carol 1957, “Două turnuri pe malurile Crișului Negru,” Arhitectura R.P.R. 7: 46–53. Ousterhout, Robert G. 2019, Eastern Medieval Architecture: The Building Traditions of Byzantium and Neighboring Lands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Păcurariu, Mircea 1980a, Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române. Păcurariu, Mircea 1980b, Începuturile Mitropoliei Transilvaniei. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române. Păcurariu, Mircea 1986, Istoria mănăstirii Prislop. Arad: Editura Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române a Aradului. Păcurariu, Mircea (ed.) 1989, Episcopia Aradului. Istorie, viață culturală, monumente de artă. Arad: Editura Episcopiei Române a Aradului. Pál-Antal, Sándor 2009, “Die Szekler unter den Völkern Siebenbürgens.” In Die Szekler in Siebenbürgen. Von der privilegierten Sondergemeinschaft zur ethnischen Gruppe,

Bibliography

475

eds. Harald Roth – Paul Niedermaier – Gabriela Olasz, 1–12. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 40). Palmer, Matthew 1998, “A tendentious plan. Towards an understanding of St Michael’s Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 40/1–2: 1–39. Pap, Francisc – Pinter, Zeno – Petrov, Gheorghe 1997, “Tezaurul monetar din cetatea Orăștie (sec. XV–XVI),” Acta Musei Napocensis 33/2: 273–282. Papacostea, Șerban 1993, Românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Între cruciadă și Imperiul Mongol. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Papp, Szilárd 2005, A királyi udvar építkezései Magyarországon 1480–1515. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Papp, Szilárd 2011, “Introducere în arhitectura religioasă gotică a comitatului medieval al Sătmarului.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Beregși Satu Mare, ed. Tibor Kollár, 118–141. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Papp, Szilárd (ed.) 2012, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház főszentélye. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány. Papp, Szilárd 2014, “Între Ungaria Superioară și Transilvania. Arhitectura ecleziastică gotică în zona nord-estică a Regatului Maghiar.” In Artă și credință în regiunea Tisei Superioare, ed. Tibor Kollár, trans. Jankó Szép Ildikó, 26–49. Oradea – Nyíregyháza: Eparhia Reformată Oradea (Drumul bisericilor medievale 3). Pascu, Ioan Fedor 2000, “Huedin, jud. Cluj. Punct: Biserica reformată (68),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 45–46. Pascu, Ioan Fedor – Culic, Dan – Pop, Horea Dionisiu 2008, “Coșeiu, com. Coșeiu, jud. Sălaj. Punct: Biserica reformată (54),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2007: 116–123. Pascu, Ioan Fedor – Marcu-Istrate, Daniela – Pop, Horea – Pripon, Emanoil – Scrobotă, Paul 2009, “Aiud, jud. Aiud. Punct: Biserica reformată (109),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2008: 241–242. Pascu, Ioan Fedor – Petrov, Gheorghe 2001, “Turda, jud. Cluj. Punct: Biserica romanocatolică (212),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000: 258. Pascu, Ștefan 1954, Meșteșugurile din Transilvania pînă în sec. al XVI-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române. Pascu, Ștefan 1972, Voievodatul Transilvaniei, vol. 1, 2nd edition. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Pascu, Ștefan – Rusu, Mircea – Edroiu, Nicolae – Iambor, Petre – Gyulai, Paul – Wollmann, Volker – Matei, Ștefan 1968, “Cetatea Dăbîca,” Acta Musei Napocensis 5: 153–199. Petrov, Gheorghe 1996a, “Considerații asupra unor biserici medievale cu plan central din Transilvania,” Acta Musei Napocensis 33/2: 33–46.

476

Bibliography

Petrov, Gheorghe 1996b, “Raport preliminar asupra cercetărilor arheologice din complexul medieval de la Geoagiu de Jos, jud. Hunedoara (Campaniile din 1993, 1994, 1995),” Acta Musei Napocensis 33/1: 403–432. Petrov, Gheorghe 2002, “Biserica Adormirea Maicii Domnului din Zlatna, jud. Alba.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 123–135. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Petrov, Gheorghe 2004, “Biserica mănăstirii Râmeț.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 239–252. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Petrov, Gheorghe – Pinter, Zeno-Karl 1995, “Orăștie, mun. Orăștie, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetate (89C),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1994: 63. Petrov, Gheorghe – Scrobotă, Paul 2004, “Geoagiu, com. Geoagiu, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Biserica cu rotondă (78),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2003: 127–128. Petrovics, István 1997, “Royal residences and urban development during the reign of the Anjou kings in Hungary,” Historia Urbana 5/1: 39–65. Petrovics, István 2011, “The cities and towns of medieval Hungary as economic and cultural centres and places of coexistence. The case of Pécs,” Colloquia. Journal of Central European History 18: 5–26. Petrovics, István 2016, “Towns and central places in the Danube-Tisza / Tisa-Maros / Mureș region in the Middle Ages,” Banatica. Istorie 26/2: 77–104. Philippi, Maja 1986, Die Bürger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Sozialstruktur einer siebenbürgischen Stadt im Mittelalter. Bucharest: Kriterion. Philippi, Maja 2006, Kronstadt. Historische Betrachtungen über eine Stadt in Sieben­ bürgen, 2nd edition. Brașov: Aldus. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2001, Roșcani. Biserica monument istoric. Deva: Emia. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2003, “Rotonda de la Orăștie.” In In memoriam Radu Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizației românești în context european, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Angel Istrate – Corneliu Gaiu, 263–286. Cluj-Napoca: Accent. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2005, “Archäologische Belege für die mittelalterlichen Städte verschiedener Gebiete.” In Elenchus Fontium Historiae Urbanae. Volumen Tertius. Pars Tertia – Quellensammlung zur Frühgeschichte der Stadt in Rumänien (bis 1301), ed. Paul Niedermaier, 91–111, 188–207. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2009a, “Barbacana porții de nord a cetății Orăștiei.” In Sașii și concetățeniilor ardeleni / Die Sachsen und ihre Nachbarn in Siebenbürgen: Studia in

Bibliography

477

honorem Dr. Thomas Nägler, eds. Ioan Marian Țiplic – Konrad Gündisch, 65–75. Alba Iulia: Altip. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2009b, “Tradiții, probleme și perspective ale arheologiei medievistice românești,” In Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2008 = Valachica 21: 36–54. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2011, “Die Rotunde in Broos/Orăștie (Kreis Hunedoara),” Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde 54: 9–38. Pinter, Zeno Karl 2013, “The rotunda from Huet Square in Sibiu,” Brukenthal. Acta Musei 8/1: 79–98. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Petrov, Gheorghe – Pap, Francisc 1996, “Tezaurul monetar din cetatea Orăștie (sec. XV),” Acta Musei Napocensis 32/2: 501–502. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 1996, “Orăștie, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Dealul Pemilor, Cetate. B. Cetate,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1995. Available online at http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=255&d=Orastie -Hunedoara-Dealul-Pemilor-Cetate-1995. Accesed 2021, Oct 01. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 1998, “Orăștie, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetate, Dealul Pemilor. I. Cetate,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1997. Available online at http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=529&d=Orastie -Hunedoara-Cetate-Dealul-Pemilor-1997. Accesed 2021, Oct 01. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 1999, “Cercetările arheologice de la biserica Sf. Nicolae din Hunedoara,” Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice 10/1–4: 60–67. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2000, “Orăștie, jud. Hunedoara. Punct: Cetate,” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 1999: 70. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2003, “Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Piața Huet – rotondă (179),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2002: 284–285. Pinter, Zeno Karl – Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Crîngaci, Maria Emilia 2002, “Biserica fortificată din Cenade, jud. Alba. Studiu istoric și arheologic.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 211–229. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Pluskowski, Aleks – Boas, Adrian J. – Gerrard, Christopher 2011, “The ecology of crusading: investigating the environmental impact of Holy War and colonisation at the frontiers of medieval Europe,” Medieval Archaeology 55: 192–225. Pohl, Walter 2008, Eastern Central Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Conflicts, Migrations and Ethnic Processes. Bucharest – Brăila: Editura Academiei Române – Istros (Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiae que Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 3). Pop, Ioan 1968, “Date arheologice privitoare la istoria Brașovului în secolele IX–XII,” Cumidava 2: 9–26.

478

Bibliography

Pop, Ioan Aurel 2003, Românii și maghiarii în secolele IX–XIV. Geneza statului medieval în Transilvania, 2nd edition. Cluj-Napoca: Tribuna. Popa, Corina 1970, “Biserici gotice tîrzii din jurul Bistriței.” In Pagini de veche artă românească, collective work, vol. 1, 297–324. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Popa, Corina 1981, “Biserici sală gotice din nordul Transilvaniei.” In Pagini de veche artă românească, collective work, vol. 4, 7–89. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Popa, Corina 1999, “Considerații privind arhitectura și sculptura decorativă ale bisericii evanghelice din Richiș.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 163–187. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Popa, Corina 2002, “Capela în arhitectura gotică din Transilvania.” In Artă românească. Artă europeană. Centenar Virgil Vătășianu, eds. Marius Porumb – Aurel Chiriac, 41–50. Oradea: Editura Muzeului Țării Crișurilor. Popa, Radu 1966, “Biserica de piatră din Cuhea și unele probleme privind istoria Maramureșului în secolul al XIV-lea,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 17/3: 511–528. Popa, Radu 1969, Cnezatul Marei. Baia Mare: Muzeul Național Maramureș. Popa, Radu 1971, “Noi cercetări de arheologie medievală în Maramureș. Șantierul Sarasău,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 22/4: 601–626. Popa, Radu 1972a, “Cetățile Țării Hațegului,” Buletinul monumentelor istorice 41/3: 54–66. Popa, Radu 1972b, “Săpături într-o villa rustica de lîngă Hațeg,” Acta Musei Napocensis 9: 439–461. Popa, Radu 1972c, “Über die Burgen der Terra Hatzeg,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 16: 243–269. Popa, Radu 1972d, “Valea Bistrei în secolele XIII–XIV: cercetări documentare și arheologice în sudul Bihorului.” In Centenar muzeal orădean, eds. Comitetul de Cultură și Educație Socialistă al Județului Bihor – Muzeul Țării Crișurilor, 215–219. Oradea: Muzeul Țării Crișurilor. Popa, Radu 1975a, “Structures socio-politiques roumaines au sud de la Transylvanie aux commencement du Moyen Âge,” Revue roumaine d`histoire 14/2: 291–314. Popa, Radu 1975b, “Zur kirchlichen Organisation der Rumänen in Nordsiebenbürgen im Lichte des patriarchalischen Privilegiums von 1391,” Ostkirchliche Studien 24/4: 309–317. Popa, Radu 1976, “Streisîngeorgiu. Ein Zeugnis rumänischer Geschichte des 11.-14. Jahrhunderts im Süden Transilvaniens,” Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne. Nouvelle série 20: 37–61. Popa, Radu 1978, “Streisîngeorgiu. Mărturii de istorie românească din secolele XI–XIV în sudul Transilvaniei,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/1: 9–32.

Bibliography

479

Popa, Radu 1980, “Voivozi. Un centru spiritual al românilor din nordul Bihorului în secolele XII–XIV.” In Mărturii-evocări. Trepte vechi și noi în istoria Eparhiei Oradea, ed. Vasile Coman, 39–43. Oradea: Editura Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române a Oradiei. Popa, Radu 1984, “Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetusa Britonia,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 12: 7–25. Popa, Radu 1986, “Vechea biserică din Ostrovu Mare (Rîu de Mori),” Mitropolia Banatului 36/6: 88–94. Popa, Radu 1988a, La începuturile evului mediu românesc. Țara Hațegului. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică. Popa, Radu 1988b, “Viața bisericească a românilor din spațiul intracarpatic în secolele XII–XIII. Biserica de la Densuș,” Episcopia Ortodoxă Română de Alba Iulia. Îndru­ mător bisericesc, misionar și patriotic 12: 12–16. Popa, Radu 1991a, “Autour des sources de l’architecture ecclesiastique roumaine.” In Αρμός: τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Ν. Κ. Μουτσόπουλο γιατα 25 χρόνια πνευματικής του προσφοράς στο Πανεπιστήμιο, eds. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1527–1535. Thessaloniki: Aristotéleio Panepistémio Thessaloníkes. Popa, Radu 1991b, “Kreutzritterburgen im Südosten Transilvaniens,” International Castles Institute Bulletin 47: 107–112. Popa, Radu 1992, “Die Geschichte Rumäniens um das Jahr 1000. Bemerkungen und Berichtigungen,” Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 15/1: 11–31. Popa, Radu 1995, “Archäologische Forschungen in Marienburg (Feldioara) im Burzenland 1990 bis 1992.” In Europäische Kulturlandschaft Siebenbürgen. Reflexion einer wissenschaftlichen Dokumentation, ed. Annemie Schenk, 30–32. Innsbruk: Wort und Welt. Popa, Radu 1997, Țara Maramureșului în veacul al XIV-lea, 2nd edition. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Popa, Radu 2014, “Tour d’habitation au commencement du Moyen Age roumain.” In Radu Popa. Studii și articole (I), eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Ioniță, 279–288. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Popa, Radu – Baltag, Gheorghe 1980, “Documente de cultură materială orășenească în Transilvania în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIII-lea,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 31/1: 33–52. Popa, Radu – Căpățână, Dan – Lukács, Antal 1987, “Cercetările arheologice de la Voivozi. Contribuții la istoria Bihorului în secolele XII–XV,” Crisia 17: 61–107. Popa, Radu – Chicideanu, Ion 1984, “Informații noi și cîteva considerații istorice privind biserica românească din Gurasada, jud. Hunedoara,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 35/1: 54–67. Popa, Radu – Chicideanu, Ion – Matei, Ștefan – Juga, Georgeta Maria 1979, “Șantierul arheologic Sarmisegetusa, jud. Hunedoara (epoca postromană). Raport privind rezultatele cercetărilor campaniei 1978,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 13: 315–317.

480

Bibliography

Popa, Radu – Chidioșan, Nicolae 1986, “O reședință feudală din sec. XI–XIII de la Sînnicolau de Beiuș, pe Crișul Negru (jud. Bihor),” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 16: 226–234. Popa, Radu – Chidioșan, Nicolae – Lukács, Antal 1984, “O reședință feudală din secolele XI–XII la Sînnicolau de Beiuș,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 15/2: 21–34. Popa, Radu – Nemoianu, Alexandru – Eskenasy, Victor 1979, “Șantierul arheologic Voivozi, com. Popești, jud. Bihor. Raport pentru campania de cercetări din anul 1976,” Cercetări arheologice 3: 151–154. Popa, Radu – Zdroba, Mircea 1966, Șantierul arheologic Cuhea. Un centru voievodal din veacul al XIV-lea. Baia Mare: Muzeul Regional Maramureș. Popa, Radu – Zdroba, Mircea 1969, “Ctitoria cnezilor giuleșteni. Un nou monument din piatră în Maramureș,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 20/2: 267–285. Popescu, Dorin 1962, “Săpăturile arheologice din R. P. R. în anul 1961,” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche 13/1: 201–215. Popescu, Ovidiu 1987, “Politica voievozilor români de la sud de Carpați de apărare împotriva penetrației feudalității maghiare și a catolicismului,” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 20: 151–159. Popescu-Dolj, Șerban 1974, “Dosarul unei restaurări,” Arhitectura 25/4: 56–58. Popescu-Dolj, Șerban 1978, “Rezultatele cercetărilor de arhitectură la biserica din Streisîngeorgiu – județul Hunedoara,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 47/1: 43–46. Porumb, Marius 1978, “Biserica ortodoxă din Gîrbova de Sus (jud. Alba), un vechi monument de arhitectură medievală românească,” Acta Musei Napocensis 15: 307–310. Porumb, Marius 1979, “Două ctitorii românești din secolul al XV-lea: biserica Sfîntul Gheorghe și mănăstirea Lupșa,” Acta Musei Napocensis 16: 621–637. Porumb, Marius 1981, Pictura românească din Transilvania. Sec. XIV–XVII, vol. 1. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Porumb, Marius 1989, “Frescele de la Răchitova,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 29: 103–115. Porumb, Marius 1998, Dicționar de pictură veche românească din Transilvania, sec. XIII–XVIII. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Pósta, Béla 1917, “A gyulafehérvári székesegyház sírleletei,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 8/1–2: 1–155. Pósta, Béla 1918, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház sírleletei / Les trouvailles de la cathédrale de Gyulafehérvár. Cluj-Napoca: Stief Jenő és társa könyvnyomdai műintézete. Postăvaru, Iosefina 2004, “Biserica fortificată din Saschiz. Studiu istoric și arhitectural.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 127–164. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean.

Bibliography

481

Prinzing, Günter – Salamon, Maciej (eds.) 1997, Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453. Beiträge zu einer table-ronde des XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen 1996. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 3). Protase, Dumitru 1956, “Cercetările arheologice din 1953 în cetatea de la Alba-Iulia,” Studii și cercetări de istorie (Cluj) 7/1–4: 15–41. Protase, Dumitru 1987, “Die dakisch-römische Bevölkerung nördlich der Donau in der Periode von Aurelian bis zu den Slawen (7. Jh.) im Lichte der aktuellen Dokumente.” In Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, ed. Bernhard Hänsel, 231–250. Munich: Selbstverlag der Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft München und des Seminars für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Freien Universität Berlin (Südosteuropa-Jahrbuch 17). Protase, Dumitru 1994, “Siebenbürgen in der Römerzeit.” In Siebenbürgen zur Zeit der Römer und der Völkerwanderung, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, 41–70. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 29). Protase, Dumitru 2004, “Romanizarea și creștinismul – componente de bază ale continuității etno-culturale în spațiul daco-roman.” In Studia historica et archaeologica in honorem magistrae Doina Benea, ed. Mariana Crînguș, 313–320. Tmișoara: Eurostampa (Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Temesiensis 6). Protase, Dumitru 2006, “Le christianisme chez les Daco-Romains avant la venue des Slaves. Quelques remarques.” In Historiae Diversitas. Festschrift für Vladimir Iliescu zum 80. Geburtstag ed. Vasile Lica, 155–164. Galați: Academica (Historia Antiqua Galatiensis 1). Rácz, Károly 1880, A zarándi egyházmegye története. Arad: Réthy L. és fia. Rădulescu, Gabriela 2010, “Biserica evanghelică din Tărpiu, jud. Bistrița Năsăud. Cercetări arheologice,” Revista Bistriței 24: 321–342. Rady, Martyn 1992, “Voivode and Regnum: Transylvania’s place in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary.” In Historians and the History of Transylvania, ed. László Péter, 87–101. Boulder – New York: East European Monographs – Columbia University Press (East European Monographs 332). Reissenberger, Ludwig 1857, “Die Kirche des heiligen Michael zu Michelsberg in Siebenbürgen,” Mitteilungen der kaiserl. königl. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale 2: 63–68. Reissenberger, Ludwig 1884, Die evangelische Pfarrkirche A.B. in Hermannstadt. Sibiu: Reissenberger. Reissenberger, Ludwig 1888, “Überreste der Gotik und Renaissance an Profanbauten in Hermannstadt,” Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 21: 461–514. Reissenberger, Ludwig 1890, “Über die ehemaligen Befestigungen von Hermannstadt,” Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 29/2: 315–396. Reissenberger, Ludwig 1894, Die Kerzer Abtei. Sibiu: W. Krafft. Révész, Éva 2011, “Burials with brick and the Orthodoxy,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51: 115–161.

482

Bibliography

Révész, Éva 2012, “Die Siegel der Bischöfe von Turkia und die Rolle der Orthodoxie um das erste Millennium im Königreich Ungarn.” In Cogito, scribo, spero. Auxiliary Historical Sciences in Central Europe at the Outset of the 21st Century, eds. Martina Bolom-Kotari – Jakub Zouhar, 79–101. Hradec Králové: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Hradec Králové, Kabinet regionálních církevních dějin (Pontes series 2). Révész, Éva 2015, “Die Orthodoxie im frühen árpádenzeitlichen Ungarn. Der derzeitiger Stand der Forschung.” In Българският език и литература в европейското културно пространство: традиции и перспективи. Международна научна конференция. Сегед, Унгария, 26–27 май 2011 г. Ред., eds. L. Gábor Balázs – Mónika Farkas Baráthi – Henrietta Majoros, 215–223. Szeged: JATE Press. Rill, Martin 1990, “Die Zisterzienserabtei in Kerz am Alt im Lichte neuer Grabungen,” Südostdeutsche Vierteljahresblätter 39/2: 148–152. Rișcuța, Nicolae Cătălin – Ferenz, Iosif Vasile 2004, “Noi cercetări arheologice și câteva considerații privind complexul ecleziastic de la Strei (jud. Hunedoara),” Apulum 41: 335–358. Ritoók, Ágnes 2012, “Kolozsmonostor-Kálvária-tető: a temető tanúsága.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 257–274. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rodwell, Warwick 2005, The Archaeology of Churches. Stroud: Tempus. Roman, Cosmin Toma 2007, Sibiul între siguranță și incertitudine în zorii epocii moderne. Alba Iulia: Altip. Roman, Cristian – Diaconescu, Dragoș – Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2004, “Archaeological excavations at Hunedoara – The Corvin’s Castle – The sacristy of the chapel.” In Studii de istorie veche si arheologie. Omagiu profesorului Sabin Adrian Luca, ed. Cristian C. Roman, 187–217. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae (Bibliotheca Archaeologica et Historica Corvinensis 4). Römer, Floris 1877, “Kirándulás a kertzi apátsághoz Erdélyben,” Archeologiai Kőzlemények 11/1: 1–11. Rómer, Flóris Ferencz 1883, “Előzetes jelentés a nagyváradi várban 1883-ban folytatott ásatásról,” Archaeologiai Értesítő, uj folyam 3: xvi–xxiv. Romhányi, Beatrix 1995, “The role of the Cistercians in medieval Hungary: political activity or internal colonization?,” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 1993–1994: 180–204. Romhányi, Beatrix F. 1999, “L’implantation du christianisme en Hongrie aux Xe et XIe siècles.” In Actes du IIIe Colloque européen des professeurs d’archéologie médiévale – ESTMA III. European Symposium of Teachers of Medieval Archaeology, eds. Joseph Decaëns – Anne-Marie Flambard Héricher, 159–164. Caen: Publications du CRAM. Romhányi, Beatrix F. 2008, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon. Budapest: Arcanum.

Bibliography

483

Romhányi, Beatrix F. 2012, “Life in the Pauline monasteries of late medieval Hungary,” Periodica Polytechinica, Architecture 43/2: 53–56. Romhányi, Beatrix F. 2020, “Sajátos kérdések egy sajátos régióban: Erdély középkori kolostorhálózatának változásai,” Erdélyi Múzeum 82/1: 1–14. Rosemann, R. Heinz 1934, “Kerz. Ehemalige Zisterzienser Abtei.” In Die Deutsche Kunst in Siebenbürgen, ed. Victor Roth, 82–85. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag (Schriften der Deutschen Akademie 2). Rossel, Hubert 2015, Transylvanie – Les églises fortifiées du pays des Sicules. Cluj-Napoca: Risoprint. Rostás, Tibor 2002, “A halmágyi evangélikus templom.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 79–110. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Roth, Harald (ed.) 2003, Siebenbürgen. Handbuch der historischen Stätten. Stuttgart: Kröner. Roth, Harald 2006, Hermannstadt. Kleine Geschichte einer Stadt in Siebenbürgen. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau. Roth, Harald 2007, Kleine Geschichte Siebenbürgens, 3rd edition, reprint. Cologne: Böhlau. Roth, Harald 2010, Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen. Eine kleine Stadtgeschichte. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau. Roth, Harald – Niedermaier, Paul – Olasz, Gabriela (eds.) 2009, Die Szekler in Siebenbürgen. Von der privilegierten Sondergemeinschaft zur ethnischen Gruppe. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 40). Roth, Victor 1905, Geschichte der deutschen Baukunst in Siebenbürgen. Strassburg: Heitz (Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte 64). Roth, Victor 1910, “Zur Geschichte der siebenbürgischen Kirchen-Architektur,” Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 33: 64–70. Roth, Victor 1922, Die evangelische Kirche A. B. in Mühlbach. Sebeș: W. Krafft. Roth, Victor 1929, “Raport despre săpăturile făcute la mănăstirea din Cârța săsească,” Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Secția pentru Transilvania. 1926–1928: 224–227. Roth, Victor 1934, Die deutsche Kunst in Siebenbürgen. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag (Schriften der Deutschen Akademie 2). Rubel, Alexander 2014, “Das spätantike Donarium von Birthälm (Biertan) im Kontext der römischen Religion.” In Archäologische Beiträge Gedenkschrift zum hundertsten Geburtstag von Kurt Horedt, ed. Sorin Cociș, 243–252. Cluj-Napoca: Mega (Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum 7). Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1986, “Moștenirea materială a antichității în districtul Hațegului (epoca prerenascentistă și a Renașterii timpurii),” Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie 37/3: 249–255.

484

Bibliography

Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1988, “Tezaurul de frescă medievală românească de la Răchitova,” Arta. Revistă a Uniunii Artiștilor Plastici din Republica Socialistă România 35/7: 27. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1989a, “Biserica medievală românească de sub cetatea Colți. Observații privind funcția și evoluția monumentului,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 20/2: 22–29. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1989b, “Istoria și implicațiile unei ctitorii românești necunoscute: Răchitova Mușineștilor,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie si Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 29: 83–101. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1991a, “Bisericile românești din districtul Hațeg până la 1700,” Ars Transsilvaniae 1: 129–142. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1991b, “Vechea biserică din Nălați (jud. Hunedoara),” Ephemeris Napocensis 1: 127–145. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1991c, “Biserica românească de la Ribița (jud. Hunedoara),” Revista monumentelor istorice 60/1: 3–9. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1993, “Mănăstirea franciscană din Hațeg,” Ars Transsilvaniae 3: 137–144. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1997a, Ctitori și biserici din Țara Hațegului până la 1700. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1997b, “Bisericile românești din Transilvania și Ungaria în secolul al XV-lea,” Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1/1–2: 11–28. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1998a, “Glimpse into the inner life of a Transylvanian monastery. The Dominican monastery of Vințu de Jos (Alba County).” In Church and Society in Central and Eastern Europe, eds. Maria Crăciun – Ovidiu Ghitta, 13–21. Cluj-Napoca: European Studies Foundation Publishing House. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1998b, “Un ansamblu de monumente medievale dispărute la Vințu de Jos (jud. Alba). Mânăstirea dominicană și castelul Martinuzzi (Rezultate preliminare ale cercetărilor arheologice),” Revista monumentelor istorice 67/1–2: 36–48. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1999a, “Capela din cetatea Râșnovului (jud. Brașov). Reinterpretarea unui monument arheologic.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Imola Kiss – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 1, 60–75. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1999b, “Mănăstirea Peri (Hrușevo, Ucraina) (Elemente preliminare noi privitoare la istoria și arheologia ei).” In Relații româno-ucrainene: istorie și contemporaneitate / Румунсько-українські відносини: історія і сучасність, eds. Viorel Ciubotă – Vasile Marina, 169–173. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 1999c, Ioan de Hunedoara și românii din vremea sa. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Rusu, Adrian Andrei (ed.) 2000, Dicționarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania, Banat, Crișana și Maramureș. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.

Bibliography

485

Rusu, Adrian Andrei (ed.) 2002, Cetatea Oradea. Monografie arheologică. Vol. I. Zona palatului episcopal. Oradea: Muzeul Țării Crișurilor. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2003, “Teiuș, jud. Alba. Punct: Parohia romano-catolică (fosta mănăstire franciscană) (204),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2002: 325. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2005, Castelarea carpatică. Fortificații și cetăți din Transilvania și teritoriile învecinate (sec. XIII–XIV ). Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Rusu, Adrian Andrei 2012, “Două biserici arheologice din județul Mureș. Analize și reinterpretări.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 107–119. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Burnichioiu, Ileana 2011, Mănăstirea Bizere, vol. 1, 2nd edition. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Hurezan, George Pascu 2000, Biserici medievale din județul Arad. Arad: Complexul Muzeal Arad. Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Mizgan, Vasile 2008, “Biserica Sfântului Nicolae și curtea nobiliară a Arceștilor de la Densuș, jud. Hunedoara,” Arheologia medievală 7: 121–224. Rusu, Adrian Andrei – Szőcs, Péter Levente (eds.) 2002, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 2. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Mircea 1973, “Notes sur les relation culturelles entre les slave et la population roumain de Transylvanie (VI–X siécles).” In Славяните и средиземноморският свят, VI–XI век: международен симпозиум по славянска археология, София, 23–29 април 1970 / Les Slaves et le monde méditerranéen: VIe–XIe siècles. Symposium international d’archéologie slave, Sofia, 23–29 avril 1970, ed. Penka Gakeva – Stamen Michailov – Sonja Georgieva, 189–201. Sofia: Bŭlgarska akademiia na naukite, Arkheologicheski institut. Rusu, Mircea 1974, “Cetatea Moigrad și Porțile Meseșului.” In Sub semnul lui Clio. Omagiu acad. prof. Ștefan Pascu, collective work, 265–279. Cluj-Napoca: Centrul de Multiplicare al Universității Babeș-Bolyai. Rusu, Mircea 1978, “Cetățile transilvănene din sec. IX–XI și importanța lor istorică,” Ziridava 10: 159–171. Rusu, Mircea 1979, “Castrul roman Apulum și cetatea feudală de la Alba Iulia,” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Cluj-Napoca 22: 47–70. Rusu, Mircea 1980, “Cetățile Aradului,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 12: 165–177. Rusu, Mircea 1982, “Les formations politiques roumaines et leur lutte pour l’autonomie,” Revue roumaine d’histoire 21/3–4: 351–385. Rusu, Mircea 1984, “Considerații cu privire la situația social-economică și politică a primelor formațiuni statale românești,” Acta Musei Napocensis 21: 181–195.

486

Bibliography

Rusu, Mircea 1991, “Paleocreștinismul din Dacia romană,” Ephemeris Napocensis 1: 81–112. Rusu, Mircea 1994, “Aspecte ale genezei târgurilor și orașelor medievale din Transilvania,” Historia Urbana 2/1: 23–41. Rüsz-Fogarasi, Enikő 2003, Privilegiile și îndatoririle orașelor din Transilvania voievodală. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Sacerdoțeanu, Aurel 1933, Marea invazie tătară și sud-estul european. Bucharest: Institutul de Arte Grafice Bucovina. Sághy, Marianne 1997, “Aspects de la christianisation des Hongrois aux IXe–Xe siècles.” In Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, ed. Przemyslaw Urbanczyk, 53–65. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Sághy, Marianne 2001, “The making of the Christian Kingdom in Hungary.” In Europe around the year 1000, ed. Przemyslaw Urbanczyk, 451–464. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DIG. Sághy, Marianne 2019, “Greek monasteries in early Árpádian Hungary.” In Piroska and the Pantokrator: Dynastic Memory, Healing and Salvation in Komnenian Constantinople, eds. Marianne Sághy – Robert G. Ousterhout, 11–38. Budapest – New York: Central European University Press. Sălăgean, Tudor 2003, Transilvania în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIII-lea. Afirmarea regimului congregațional. Cluj-Napoca: Institutul Cultural Român (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae 31). Sălăgean, Tudor 2006, Țara lui Gelou. Contribuții la istoria Transilvaniei de nord în secolele IX–XI. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut. Sălăgean, Tudor 2009, “Notes on the early church organization in Northern Transylvania (10th–11th century),” Revue roumaine d’histoire 48/1–2: 17–23. Salamon, Maciej – Wołoszyn, Marcin – Musin, Alexander – Špehar, Perica (eds.) 2012, Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence, vol. 1–2. Krakow – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warsaw: Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas – Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN – Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego (U zródel Europy srodkowo-wschodniej 1, 1–2). Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 1996a, “Considerații privind identificarea amplasamentului unor mănăstiri dominicane din Transilvania,” Arheologia medievală 1: 187–193. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 1996b, “Mânăstirea dominicană din Sebeș (jud. Alba),” Ars Transsilvaniae 6: 27–32. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 1999, “Edificarea conventului dominican de la Vințu de Jos (jud. Alba) din perspectiva analizei stilistice,” Ars Transsilvaniae 8–9: 107–124. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2001, “Influențe sud-germane la biserica franciscană din Teiuș,” Ars Transsilvaniae 10–11: 5–11.

Bibliography

487

Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2002a, “Biserici medievale ale ordinelor cerșetoare din Transilvania.” In Artă românească. Artă europeană. Centenar Virgil Vătășianu, eds. Marius Porumb – Aurel Chiriac, 51–58. Oradea: Editura Muzeului Ţării Crişurilor. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2002b, Mănăstiri dominicane din Transilvania. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2003, “Portalul bisericii evanghelice din Hosman.” In Artă, istorie, cultură. Studii în onoarea lui Marius Porumb, eds. Ciprian Firea – Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu, 63–73. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2004, “Klausenburger Baustellen der zweiter Hälfte des 15. Jh.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 253–267. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2005, “Biserica evanghelică din Prejmer – analogii și influențe,” Ars Transsilvaniae 14–15: 5–12. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2006, Biserica fortificată din Prejmer. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2007, “Restaurarea catedralei romano-catolice de la Alba Iulia după incendiul din 1277.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 145–169. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2008, “Detalii de plastică arhitectonică la corul catedralei romano-catolice din Alba Iulia,” Ars Transsilvaniae 18: 41–46. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2010, “Ruina de la Rodna,” Revista Bistriței 24: 297–320. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2011, “Vestigii de arhitectură medievală religioasă la Bistrița,” Ars Transsilvaniae 21: 53–58. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2012, “Observații privind tipologia corului hală din Sebeș,” Ars Transsilvaniae 22: 35–48. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2013a, “Aspecte privind receptarea corului hală în arhitectura gotică din Transilvania,” Apulum. Series Historia et Patrimonium 50: 217–235. Salontai, Mihaela Sanda 2013b, “Tipologii și influențe central europene în arhitectura bisericilor hale gotice din Transilvania,” Ars Transsilvaniae 23: 55–70. Sanmark, Alexandra 2003, “The role of secular rulers in the conversion of Sweden.” In The Cross Goes North. Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300, ed. Martin Carver, 551–558. Woodbridge – Rochester: York Medieval Press – Boydell & Brewer. Sarkadi, Márton 2010a, “s folytatva magát a régi művet” Tanulmányok a gyulafehérvári székesegyház és püspöki palota történetéről. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.

488

Bibliography

Sarkadi, Márton 2010b, “Principiile și activitatea de restaurare ale lui István Möller / The conservation principles and practice of István Möller,” Transsylvania Nostra 4/4: 17–23. Schuller, Horst 2004, “Zisterzienserspuren in Siebenbürgen.” In In honorem Gernot Nussbächer, eds. Daniel Nazare – Ruxandra Nazare – Bogdan Florin Popovici, 369– 387. Brașov: Foton. Schuster, Hans-Werner 1990, “Anfänge der Autonomie in der Hermannstädter Provinz.” In Gruppenautonomie in Siebenbürgen. 500 Jahre siebenbürgisch-sächsische Nationsuniversität, ed. Wolfgang Kessler, 107–117. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 24). Sebastian, Emil G. 1932, “German fortified churches in Transylvania,” Antiquity 6/23: 301–326. Seivert, Gustav 1859, Die Stadt Hermannstadt. Eine historische Skizze. Sibiu: Theodor Steinhaußen. Seivert, Gustav 1866, Strassburg am Marosch. Belehrendes und Unterhaltendes aus der Vergangenheit dieses Städtchens. Sibiu: Drotleff. Șerban, Ioan 1972, “Date privind arhitectura bisericii romano catolice din Bărăbanț (Alba),” Apulum 10: 743–753. Șerban, Ioan 1986, “Mănăstirea Rîmeț (județul Alba) – un important monument de arhitectură românească din secolul al XIV-lea. Monumentul în evoluția artei românești din Transilvania,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 17/2: 56–58. Shepard, Jonathan 2012, “Rome, Constantinople and newly-converted Europe. Archaeological and historical evidence. Some introductory remarks.” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Coverted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon – Marcin Wołoszyn – Alexander Musin – Perica Špehar, vol. 1, 23–32. Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa: Poligrafia Inspektoratu Towarzystwa Salezjańskiego. Sigerus, Emil 1922, Vom alten Hermannstadt. Sibiu: Drotleff. Sigerus, Emil 1923, Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Burgen und Kirchenkastelle. 52 Lichtdrucke mit Vorwort und erläuterndem Text, 5th edition. Sibiu: Drotleff. Sigerus, Emil 1930, Chronik der Stadt Hermannstadt, 1100–1929. Sibiu: HonterusBuchdruckerei und Verlanganstalt der evangelischen Landeskirche A.B. in Rumänien. Silagi, Gabriel 2000, “Bischof Gerhard von Csanád.” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 636–637. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Simina, Nicolae Marcel 2000, “Cetatea din Câlnic (jud. Alba) (Considerații pe marginea cercetării arheologice),” Arheologia medievală 3: 95–115. Simina, Nicolae Marcel 2002, “Considerații asupra mormintelor medievale timpurii descoperite în anul 1865 la Sebeș (jud. Alba),” Arheologia medievală 4: 47–58. Sinigalia, Tereza 1976, “Biserica fortificată din Dealul Frumos,” Revista muzeelor și monumentelor – monumente istorice și de artă 45/1: 67–72.

Bibliography

489

Sinigalia, Tereza 2012, “Două biserici gotice din zona Mediașului.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 237–255. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Sófalvi, András 2007, “A Sóvidék románkori egyházi építészetéről.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 37–48. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Sófalvi, András 2013, “A székelyudvarhelyi Jézus-kápolna,” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából 8 (18): 75–93. Sófalvi, András 2017, Hadakozás és önvédelem a középkori és fejedelemség kori Udvarhelyszéken. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület. Sófalvi, András 2020, “A homoródszentmártoni templomvár a régészeti kutatások megvilágításában.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 139–160. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Sófalvi, András – Demjén, Andrea – Nyárádi, Zsolt 2008, “Cercetarea bisericilor medievale din scaunul Odorhei (jud. Harghita),” Arheologia medievală 7: 79–119. Sonoc Alexandru – Pinter, Zeno Karl 1997, “Un monument funerar de epocă romană zidit sub portalul colateralei nordice a bisericii gotice din Orăștie,” Apulum. Arheologie. Istorie. Etnografie 34: 223–238. Soós, Zoltán 2002, “A marosvásárhelyi ferences templom és kolostor. A ferences rend szerepe Marosvásárhely fejlődésében.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 2, 146–180. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Soós, Zoltán 2009, “Coat of arms representations on the stove tiles of the Târgu Mureș medieval Franciscan friary,” Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie 29: 199–210. Soós, Zoltán 2016, A marosvásárhelyi Vártemplom / Biserica din cetatea târguMureșeană. Târgu Mureș: Muzeul Județean Mureș. Soós, Zoltán – Gál, Szilárd Sándor 2010, “Burials in the Târgu Mureș Franciscan friary. A fourteenth-century burial with diadem,” Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie 30: 187–204. Spinei, Victor 2003, The Great Migrations in the East and South-East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century. Cluj-Napoca: Ardealul. Spinei, Victor 2007, “The Cuman Bishopric – genesis and evolution.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans, eds. Florin Curta – Roman Kovalev, 413–456. Leiden – Boston: Brill (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 2). Ștefănescu, Ion D. 1932, La peinture religieuse en Valachie et Transilvanie depuis des origines jusqu’au XIXe siècle, vol. 1–2. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

490

Bibliography

Ștefănescu, Ion D. 1938, L’art byzantin et l’art lombard en Transylvanie. Peintures murales de Moldavie et de Valachie. Paris: P. Geuthner. Stoicescu, Nicolae 1985, “Date privind vechea parohie Cinciș (Hunedoara),” Mitropolia Banatului 35/11–12: 804–807. Stojkovski, Boris 2012, “Samuilovo carstvo i Ugarska.” In Vizantijski svet na Balkanu, Knjiga I, eds. Bojana Krsmanović – Ljubomir Maksimović – Radivoj Radić, 65–76. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. Stojkovski, Boris 2019, “Vizantijski manastiri u srednjovekovnoj Ugarskoj.” In Pravoslavno monaštvo. Tematski zbornik posvećen arhimandritu Dionisiju (Panteliću), duhovniku manastira Svetog Stefana u Lipovcu, povodom sedam decenija njegove monaške službe, eds. Kristina Mitić – Dragiša Bojović, 115–137. Niš: Centar za crkvene studije. Streitfeld, Theobald 1976, “Mittelalterliche Kapellen in Mühlbach.” In Studien zur Siebenbürgischen Kunstgeschichte, eds. Gustav Gündisch – Albert Klein – Harald Krasser – Theobald Streitfeld, 110–133. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 13). Streitfeld, Theobald 1983, “Die Jakobuskapelle in Mühlbach (ein Nachwort),” Zeitschrift für siebenbürgische Landeskunde 6/2: 199–203. Stylianou, Andreas – Stylianou, Judith 1997, The Painted Churches of Cyprus, 2nd rev. edition. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation. Suciu, Coriolan 1966, Dicționar istoric al localităților din Transilvania, vol. 1–2. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Szabó, Attila (ed.) 2003, Erdély, Bánság és Partium történeti és közigazgatási helységnévtára, vol. 1–2. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print Könyvkiadó. Szabó, Csaba 2016, “Histories of urban achaeology in Alba Iulia (1916–2016) / A gyulafehérvári városi régészet történetei (1916–2016),” Transsylvania Nostra 10/2: 30–40. Szabó, Tekle 2007, “Az őraljaboldogfalvi református templom felújításai.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Péter Levente Szőcs – Adrian Andrei Rusu, vol. 4, 277–304. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2005, “The research on Romanesque architecture in Hungary: a critical overview of the last twenty years,” Arte Medievale. Nuova serie 4/2: 31–44. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2006a, “Cathedrals in the early 13th century in Hungary.” In Secolul al XIII-lea pe meleagurile locuite de către români, ed. Adrian Andrei Rusu, 179–205. Cluj-Napoca: Mega. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2006b, “Town and cathedral in medieval Hungary,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 12: 207–220. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2008a, “County to country: regional aspects in the research of Romanesque art in Hungary,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 49/1: 55–62.

Bibliography

491

Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2008b, “The Italian connection: theories on the origin of Hungarian Romanesque art.” In Medioevo: arte e storia. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Parma, 18–22 settembre 2007, ed. Arturo Carlo Quintavalle, 648–655. Milano: Electa (I convegni di Parma 10). Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2011a, “La hotarele arhitecturii de epocă arpadiană. Biserici din secolele XII–XIV în regiunea Sătmarului.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg și Satu Mare, ed. Tibor Kollár, 8–25. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2011b, “On the borderlines of Romanesque architecture: village churches of Szatmár County in the 13th–14th centuries,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 52: 209–234. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2012a, “Leo IX, Hungary, and the early Reform architecture.” In La Reliquia del Sangue di Cristo. Mantova, l’Italia e l’Europa al tempo di Leone IX, eds. Glauco Maria Cantarella – Arturo Calzona, 561–572. Verona: Scripta (Bonae Artes 2). Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2012b, “Négykaréjos templomok az Árpád-kori Magyarországon.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 7–34. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2013, “The reconstruction of Pannonhalma: archaism in 13th-century Hungary.” In Romanesque and the Past. Retrospection in the Art and Architecture of Romanesque Europe, eds. John McNeill – Richard Plant, 171–180. Leeds: Maney for the British Archaeological Association. Szakács, Béla Zsolt 2016, “The place of East Central Europe on the map of Romanesque architecture.” In Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective. From Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus, eds. Gerhard Jaritz – Katalin Szende, 205–224. London – New York: Routledge. Szathmáry, Károly 1867, “Nagy-Enyed, régészeti és történelmi tekintetben,” Vasárnapi Ujság 14/40: 491–493. Szathmáry, Károly 1868, “A nagyenyedi egyházkerités,” Archaeologiai Közlemenyek 7/1: 43–53. Székely, Zoltan 1975, “Sud-estul Transilvaniei în secolele VI–XIII,” Aluta 6–7: 57–71. Székely, Zsolt 2007, Csernáton község régészeti monográfiája. Miercurea Ciuc: Status. Székely, Zsolt 2009, “Kézdiszentlélek régészeti múltja.” In Kézdiszentléleki breviárium, ed. János Borcsa, 11–30. Târgu-Secuiesc: Ambrozia. Szilágyi, Kinga 2015, “A kolozsvári Fő tér és a Szent Mihály-templom kertje. Városképi megfontolások a Szent Mihály-templom megújítása kapcsán / The main square of Cluj-Napoca and the garden of Saint Michael’s church. Townscape-related considerations connected to the conservation of Saint Michael’s church,” Transsylvania Nostra 9/1: 2–10.

492

Bibliography

Szilágyi-Bartha, Zsuzsánna 2014, “A besztercei evangélikus templom / The Lutheran church in Bistrița,” Transsylvania Nostra 8/1:10–16. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2003, “The abbey church of Ákos. An architectural and functional analysis of a ‘Kindred Monastery’ church,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 9: 155–180. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2011, “Cercetarea arheologică a bisericii din Acâș.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Satu Mare. Circuitul bisericilor medievale din județele Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg și Satu Mare, ed. Tibor Kollár, 60–65. Nyíregyháza: Autoguvernarea Județului Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Szőcs, Péter Levente (ed.) 2012a, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 5. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2012b, “Az ákosi monostor és az Ákos nemzetség.” In A Szilágyság és a Wesselényi család (14–17. század), ed. Géza Hegyi and András W. Kovács, 7–24. Kolozsvár-Cluj: EME. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2014, Private Monasteries of Medieval Hungary (Eleventh to Fourteenth Centuries). A Case Study of the Ákos Kindred and Its Monasteries. Doctoral dissertation defended on Friday, December 19, 2014 at the Central European University, Budapest. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2018, “Adatok Nagybánya és vidéke középkori egyházi topográfiájához.” In Genius loci. Laszlovszky 60, eds. Dóra Mérai – Ágnes Drosztmér – Kyra Lyublyanovics – Judith Rasson – Zsuzsanna Papp Reed – András Vadas – Csilla Zatykó, 103–107. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Szőcs, Péter Levente (ed.) 2020a, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 6. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szőcs, Péter Levente 2020b, “A kegyelet és a kegyesség emlékei a nagybányai Szent István-templom körüli temető kora újkori sírjaiban.” In Peregrináció és erudíció. Tanulmányok Tonk Sándor tiszteletére, eds. Zsolt Bogdándi – Mária Lupescu Makó, 435–452. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület. Szőcs, Péter Levente – Pop, Dan 2020, “Cercetări arheologice privind biserica Sf. Ștefan, Baia Mare. Rezultate preliminare” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 6, 227–254. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szőcs, Péter Levente – Rusu, Adrian Andrei (eds.) 2007, Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 4. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Szőke, Balázs 2012, “A dési református templom. Kisérlet a gótikus boltozatok rekonstrukciójára.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori

Bibliography

493

egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, ed. Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 5, 215–235. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Takács, Imre 1989a, “Várad Árpád-kori székesegyháza. Történeti források és kőfaragványok a 12–13. századból.” In Váradi kőtöredékek, ed. Terézia Kerny, 21–38. Budapest: MTA Művészettörténeti Kutató Csoport. Takács, Imre 1989b, “Bátori András ‘második temploma’. A székesegyház 14–15. századi átépítésének emlékei.” In Váradi kőtöredékek, ed. Terézia Kerny, 39–53. Budapest: MTA Művészettörténeti Kutató Csoport. Takács, Imre 2000, “Das Kloster von Martinsberg (Pannonhalma).” In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 617–620. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Takács, Imre 2012a, “A gyulafehérvári második székesegyház első szentélye.” In A gyulafehérvári székesegyház főszentélye, ed. Szilárd Papp, 3–29. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány. Takács, Imre 2012b, “The first sanctuary of the second cathedral of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, RO),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 53: 15–43. Takács, Miklós 2013, “Considerații privind bisericile ce configurază crucea în planul și structura lor spațială. Cazul unor monumente din evul mediu timpuriu, recent descoperite în Bazinul Carpatic / Gondolatok a keresztet alaprajzukban, illetve térszerkezetükben megjelenítő templomokról, különös tekintettel néhány, a közelmúltban feltárt, Kárpát-medencei korai középkori emlékre,” Marisia. Studii și materiale. Arheologie 33: 75–135. Takács, Miklos 2016, “The ninth-century Carpathian Basin on the north-western edge of the first Bulgarian state. An overview of some hypotheses and remarks and their evaluation.” In Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag / Between Byzantium and the Steppe. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, eds. Ádám Bollók – Gergely Csiky – Tivadar Vida, 501–518. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Takács, Miklos 2018, Byzantinische oder byzantinisierende Raumgestaltungen kirchlicher Architektur im frühárpádenzeitlichen Ungarn. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (Monographien des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums 139). Tănase, Daniela 2015, “Archaeological researches performed at Cenad (Timiș County) during the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 29: 413–434. Tănase, Daniela 2021, “O biserică din secolul al XI-lea descoperită la Igriș (jud. Timiș).” Paper presented during the 21rst edition of ARA – Simpozionul arhitectură, restaurare, arheologie. Monument și societate, Bucharest, 22–24 april 2021.

494

Bibliography

Tănase, Daniela – Bertók, Gábor – Kocsis, Anita – Major, Balázs 2017, “The location of Egres Cistercian monastery – Igriș (Timiș County), in the light of recent geophysical research,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 31: 229–240. Tănase, Michel 1991, “L’expansion de Cîteaux dans le sud-est européen: essai de localisation des possessions cisterciennes de Transylvanie.” In Crises et réformes dans l’Eglise de la réforme grégorienne à la pré-réforme. Actes du 115e congrès national des sociétés savantes, Avignon, 1990, collective work, 79–90. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifique (Congrès national des sociétés savantes. Actes. Section d’histoire médiévale et philologie 115). Tănase, Michel 1993, “Avatarurile unui act de donație. Donația făcută Cistercienilor, în Țara Bârsei, de către Bela IV, la 17 martie 1240,” Revista istorică 4/1–2: 55–80. Tari, Edit 1997, “Medieval timber churches in Hungary.” In Religion and Belief in Medieval Europe: Papers of the “Medieval Europe Brugge 1997” Conference, eds. Guy de Boe – Frans Verhaeghe, 93–99. Zellik: Instituut voor het Archeologisch Patrimonium (Papers of the “Medieval Europe Brugge 1997” Conference 4). Tari, Edit 2000, Pest megye középkori templomai / Medieval Churches in Pest County. Szentendre: Tanulmányok Pest megye Múzeumaiból (Studia Comitatensia 27). Tătaru, Marius 1983, “Kerz und die mitteleuropäische Zisterzienserarchitektur.” In Beiträge zur siebenbürgischen Kunstgeschichte und Denkmalpflege, ed. Cristoph Machat, 23–33. Munich: Verlag des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks (Veröffentlichungen des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks. Reihe B, Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten 42). Țeicu, Dumitru 1998, Banatul montan in evul mediu. Tmișoara: Banatica (Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica 19). Țeicu, Dumitru 2007, Geografia ecleziastică a Banatului medieval. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană. Țeicu, Dumitru 2013, “Ecclesiastical architecture in the Banat during the 14th–15th centuries. The reflections of a border area identity,” Banatica 23: 429–460. Thalgott, Erich Michael 1934, Hermannstadt. Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung einer siebenbürgischen Stadt. Sibiu: Welher. Thalgott, Michael 1990, Die Zisterzienser von Kerz. Zusammenhänge. Munich: Verlag Südostdeutsches Kulturwerk (Veröffentlichungen des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks, Reihe B, Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten 50). Theodorescu, Răzvan 1974, Bizanț, Balcani, Occident la începuturile culturii medievale românești (secolele X–XIV ). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Theodorescu, Răzvan 1976, Un mileniu de artă la Dunărea de Jos (400–1400). Bucharest: Meridiane. Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2000, “Identificarea unei capele gotice din Sibiu (Piața Huet nr. 17),” Arheologia medievală 3: 117–125.

Bibliography

495

Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2006, Organizarea defensivă a Transilvaniei în Evul Mediu (secolele X–XIV ). Bucharest: Editura Militară. Țiplic, Ioan Marian 2014, “De la incinerație la inhumație: (re)creștinarea spațiului transilvan (sec. VII–X d.H.),” Transilvania. Serie nouă 2014/4: 14–18. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Crîngaci, Maria Emilia 2002, “Sondajul arheologic din interiorul bisericii parohiale evanghelice din Sibiu,” Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 23: 75–84. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria 2015, “The Christianization of the funeral rite in the Early Middle Ages,” Transylvanian Review 24/suppl.2: 264–278. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria 2020, “The archaeology of Romanesque churches in Transylvania (11th–13th centuries).” In Ecclesiastical Landscapes in Medieval Europe. An Archaeological Perspective, eds. José C. Sánchez-Pardo – Emmet H. Marron – Maria Crîngaci Țiplic, 107–120. Oxford: Archaeopress. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria – Șovrea, Adrian 2018, “Biserica fortificată din Seliștat / Jud. Brașov. Cercetări arheologice, I,” Studia Universitatis Cibiniensis. Series Historica 15: 81–98. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Țiplic, Maria Emilia 2014, “Between cremation and inhumation – the re-birth of Christianity in Transylvania (7th–10th century AD),” European Journal of Science and Theology 10/3: 171–177. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Ciută, Beatrice – Șchiopu, Ioan 2009, “Cașolț (Hermány, Kastenholz, Kastnhults), com. Roșia, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Dealul Bisericii (14),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2008 = Valachica 21–22: 91–92. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Țiplic, Maria Emilia – Ignat, Cosmin Ioan 2015, “Biserica Evanghelică, Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Punct: Biserica Evanghelică (143),” Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2014: 241–242, 591–592. Țiplic, Ioan Marian – Tomegea, George 2016, Păuca. Necropola de incinerație (secolele VIII–IX). Catalog de expoziție. Sibiu: Astra Museum. Tóth, Boglárka – Rácz, Miklós – Botár, István 2007, “A csíkszentkirályi plébániatemplom kutatása (2002),” Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából. Új sorozat 2 (12): 133–142. Tóth, Boglárka – Botár, István – Grynaeus, András 2016, “A gyergyószentmiklósi római katolikus plébániatemplom toronyának és tetőszerkezetének dendrokronológiai vizsgálata.” In Gyergyószentmiklós a régészeti kutatások tükrében / Gheorghieni în lumina cercetărilor arheologice / Gheorghieni in the Light of Archaeological Research, ed. Andrea Demjén, 107–131. Cluj-Napoca: Societatea Muzeului Ardelean. Tóth, Boglárka – Botár, István – Walgraffe, Denis 2018, “A nagyszebeni evangélikus plébániatemplom középkori tetőszerkezetei / The medieval roof structures of the Lutheran Parish Church in Sibiu,” Transsylvania Nostra 12/2: 2–33.

496

Bibliography

Tóth, Boglárka – Sófalvi, András – Botár, István – Grynaeus, András 2015, “Udvarhelyszéki templomtornyok és történeti faszerkezetek dendrokronológiai keltezése – az ‘udvarhelyi tölgykronológia’ (1.),” Lustra 2/1: 4–13. Tóth, Endre – Vida, Tivadar – Takács, Imre (eds.) 2016, Saint Martin and Pannonia. Christianity on the Frontiers of the Roman World. Pannonhalma – Szombathely: Abbey Museum – Iseum Savariense. Tóth, Sándor 1983, “A gyulafehérvári fejedelmi kapu jelentősége,” Építés- Építészettudomány 15: 391–428. Tóth, Sándor 2000, “Die Kathedrale von Veszprém.” In Europas Mitte um 1000. Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 633–635. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Tóth, Sándor 2004, “Hatkaréjos rotundáink.” In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania / Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben / Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, eds. Daniela Marcu-Istrate – Adrian Andrei Rusu – Péter Levente Szőcs, vol. 3, 7–60. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean. Trandafir, Marian (ed.) 1975, Alba Iulia 2000. Alba Iulia. Treiber, Gustav 1934, “Ausgrabung der Burgkirche der Brassoviaburg auf der Zinne bei Kronstadt,” Siebenbürgische Vierteljahresschrift 57/1: 38–42. Treiber, Gustav 1971, Mittelalterliche Kirchen in Siebenbürgen. Beiträge zur Baugeschichte aufgrund der Raumverhältnisse. Munich: Hilfskomitee der Siebenbürger Sachsen. Tüdős S., Kinga 2002, Háromszéki templomvárak. Erdélyi védőrendszerek a XV–XVIII. században. Târgu Mureș: Mentor. Tüdősné Simon, Kinga 1995, “Adatok az altorjai templomvár építéstörténetéhez,” Acta 1995/1 = Acta Harghitensia 2 = Aluta 19: 305–310. Turcuș, Șerban 2001, Sfântul Scaun și românii în secolul al XIII-lea. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică. Turcuș, Șerban 2004, Sfântul Gerard de Cenad sau despre destinul unui venețian în jurul Anului O Mie. Bucharest: Carom. Turcuș, Șerban 2011, “Monahismul ortodox în Transilvania la începutul celui de-al doilea mileniu,” Tabor. Revistă lunară de cultură și spiritualitate românească editată de Mitropolia Clujului, Albei, Crișanei și Maramureșului 5/2: 78–90. Turcuș, Veronica – Turcuș, Șerban 2012, At the Edges of Christendom. The White Monks’ Arts and Institutions in Transylvania (the Twelfth–Fifteenth Centuries). Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae 41). Untermann, Matthias 1989, Der Zentralbau im Mittelalter. Form, Funktion, Verbreitung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Untermann, Matthias 2001, Forma Ordinis: Die mittelalterliche Baukunst der Zisterzienser. Munich – Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag (Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien 89).

Bibliography

497

Valter, Ilona 1982, “Die archäologische Erschliessung des ungarischen Zisterzienser­ klosters Szentgotthárd,” Analecta Cisterciensia 38: 139–153. Valter, Ilona 2015, A cikádori, más néven Báta(széki) apátság története. Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközössége – Historia Ecclesiastica Hungarica Alapítvány (METEM Könyvek 43). Varga, Lívia 1979, “Die mittelalterliche Baugeschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Mühlbach,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 25/3–4: 187–235. Vásáry, István 2005, Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vătășianu, Virgil 1930, “Vechile biserici de piatră românești din jud. Hunedoara,” Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Secția pentru Transilvania. 1929: 1–222. Vătășianu, Virgil 1938, “Raport cu privire la arhitectura și pictura bisericii unite din Zlatna,” Anuarul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Secția pentru Transilvania. 1932– 1938: 429–448. Vătășianu, Virgil 1959, Istoria artei feudale în Țările Române. I. Arta în perioada de dezvoltare a feudalismului, vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române. Vătășianu, Virgil 1966, Arhitectura și sculptura romanică în Panonia medievală. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Vătășianu, Virgil 1987, Studii de artă veche românească și universală. Bucharest: Meridiane. Vătășianu, Virgil – Protase, Dumitru – Rusu Mircea 1957, “Șantierul arheologic Rodna. Raport 1955,” Materiale și cercetări arheologice 4: 211–218. Velescu, Oliver 1958, “Castelul de la Hunedoara. Scurtă privire istorică,” Monumente și muzee. Buletinul Comisiei Științifice a Muzeelor și Monumentelor Istorice și Artistice 1/1: 57–72. Veszprémy, László 2000, “König Stephan der Heilige.” In Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, eds. Alfried Wieczorek – Hans-Martin Hinz, vol. 2, 868–870. Stuttgart: Theiss (Europarat-Ausstellung 27). Vida, Tivadar 2009, “Local or foreign Romans: the problem of the late antique population of the 6th–7th centuries AD in Pannonia.” In Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe. Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility, ed. Dieter Quast, 233–260. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums (Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum 78). Vida, Tivadar 2016, “Christianity in the Carpathian Basin during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (5th to 8th century AD).” In Saint Martin and Pannonia. Christianity on the Frontiers of the Roman World, eds. Endre Tóth – Tivadar Vida – Imre Takács, 93–106. Pannonhalma – Szombathely: Abbey Museum – Iseum Savariense.

498

Bibliography

Wagner, Ernst 1968, “Die päpstlichen Steuerlisten 1332–1337,” Forschungen zur Volksund Landeskunde 11/1: 37–52. Wagner, Ernst 1977, Historisch-statistisches Ortsnamenbuch für Siebenbürgen. Mit einer Einführung in die historische Statistik des Landes. Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau (Studia Transylvanica 4). Wagner, Rudolf 1926, “Ruinele bisericii din Rodna-Veche.” In Comisiunea Monumentelor Istorice Secțiunea din Transilvania și ținuturile mărginașe. Raport cu privire la lucrările din anul 1924, ed. Constantin Daicoviciu, 19–22. Cluj-Napoca: Cartea Românească. Weisz, Attila 2005, Torda, római katolikus plébániatemplom. Cluj-Napoca: Kriterion (Erdélyi Műemlékek 40). Weisz, Attila 2008, “Biserica romano-catolică din Turda Veche. Etapa gotică I,” Ars Transsilvaniae 18: 75–108. Weisz, Attila 2010, Biserica evanghelică, Reghin. Online posting date: Feb 02, 2010. Available at http://www.enciclopediavirtuala.ro/monument.php?id=214. Accessed on 2021 Aug 30. Weisz, Attila 2011, “Az ótordai református templom (volt ágostonos kolostor) lehetséges művészeti kapcsolatai.” In Liber discipulorum. Tanulmányok Kovács András 65. Születésnapjára, eds. Zsolt Kovács – Emese Sarkadi Nagy – Attila Weisz, 19–38. Cluj-Napoca: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület – Entz Géza Művelődéstörténeti Alapítvány. Weisz, Attila 2013, Monumente ecleziastice medievale din orașul Turda. Doctoral dissertation defended in 2013 at the Romanian Academy, “George Barițiu” Institute for History, Cluj-Napoca. Wieczorek, Alfried – Hinz, Hans-Martin (eds.) 2000, Europas Mitte um 1000: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Kunst und Archäologie, vol. 1–2. Stuttgart: Theiss (EuroparatAusstellung 27). Wolfram, Herwig 1994, “Der Donau- und Karpatenraum von der Völkerwanderungszeit bis zum Ende der Karolingerzeit.” In Siebenbürgen zur Zeit der Römer und der Völkerwanderung, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, 209–224. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 3, 29). Wünsch, Thomas 2013, “Der Deutsche Orden als Wille und Vorstellung. Selbst- und Fremdkonstruktionen einer geistlich-weltlichen Korporation zwischen Ideologie und Politik.” In Generalprobe Burzenland. Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Siebenbürgen und im Banat, ed. Konrad Gündisch, 11–29. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgischen Archiv 42). Zeidner, H. 1999, “Die Schwarze Kirche.” In Kronstadt. Eine siebenbürgische Stadtgeschichte, ed. Harald Roth, 150–160. Munich: Universitas. Zimmermann, Harald 1996, Siebenbürgen und seine Hospites Theutonici: Vorträge und Forschungen zur südostdeutschen Geschichte, Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Schriften zur Landeskunde Siebenbürgens 20).

Bibliography

499

Zimmermann, Harald 2000, Der Deutsche Orden im Burzenland. Eine diplomatische Untersuchung. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau. Zimmermann, Harald 2013, “Der Deutsche Orden in der Geschichtsschreibung.” In Generalprobe Burzenland. Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Siebenbürgen und im Banat, ed. Konrad Gündisch, 196–209. Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: Böhlau (Siebenbürgischen Archiv 42). Zrinyi, Andrei 1976, “Repertoriul localităților din județul Mureș cu descoperiri arheologice din secolele IV–XIII e.n,” Marisia 6: 126–151.

Index Locations in present-day Romania use their official Romanian name, followed, in parentheses, by the Hungarian and German variants1 – when available. Only the official / most commonly used names are listed – each location has a plethora of other outdated, informal or less commonly used denominations. Locations outside the borders of present-day Romania are followed by their country. abbeys (see also monasteries) 80–81, 84n.75, 94n.112, 118, 124n.62, 125n.64, 185, 232, 243n.25, 245n.33, 254, 322 Abram (h. Érábrány) 69, 94, 264 Acâș (h. Ákos, g. Fürstendorf) 38, 69, 94, 122, 179, 200–201 ad sanctos 382 Adrian II, pope (867–872) 70 Agârbiciu (h. Szászegerbegy, g. Arbegen)  264, 291n.88, 333, 344 Agnita (h. Szentágota, g. Agnetheln) 179, 204n.128, 205n.130, 207 Ahtonmonustura 91 Ahtum, duke of Morisena 45, 47, 58–59, 73, 82, 83n.71, 84–85, 89, 91n.104, 106, 113n.26 aisles 4, 41, 102, 107, 120–121, 125, 127, 130, 159, 161–163, 171, 173, 199–200, 202–203, 205–208, 210–214, 237, 245–246, 248, 278, 282, 290–291, 295–301, 303n.122, 304, 311, 317–318, 320, 323, 328, 350, 352–354, 382, 420 Aita Mare (h. Nagyajta, g. Aitau) 333, 336 Aiud (h. Nagyenyed, g. Straßburg am Mieresch) 34, 36, 41, 264, 266n.5, 267,  269, 272, 283–284, 302, 330, 333, 342, 360, 422 Ákos, noble house 90, 114 Alba Iulia (Bălgrad, h. Gyulafehérvár, g. Karlsburg, Weißenburg) 3, 6–7, 19, 26, 30–31, 33–36, 39, 44, 45n.12, 48–51, 58, 60, 63, 69–71, 73, 77, 79–82, 85–86, 95, 96n.128, 104–107, 109–111, 113, 121–122, 138–139, 140–173, 177, 179, 184, 187, 199–200, 207, 208n.144, 217, 219–222,

224–225, 235–236, 239, 243, 258, 261–262, 264, 266n.5, 267, 296n.103, 306, 333, 375, 418–420 the pillared (Greek-cross) church 77, 82, 107, 109–111, 143, 145, 151–158, 160–162, 172 the rotunda 48, 73, 82, 107n.11, 122, 145, 146–150, 156n.40, 159, 160n.54, 163, 172, 217, 219–222, 224–225 the first cathedral 121, 145–150, 158–163, 187 the second cathedral 163–173, 262 Albert Huet, constable of the Saxons 326 Albești (h. Fehéregyháza, g. Weissenkirch)  69, 91, 179, 192, 333, 339 Albiș (h. Albis) 38–39, 179, 197–198, 264, 280n.61, 333, 362 Almaș (h. Háromalmás, g. Almasch) 69, 94 Almașu Mare – Joseni (h. Nagyalmás, g. Groß-Obstdorf) 375, 389–392, 407, 410–411 Alțâna (h. Alcina, g. Alzen) 179, 205, 208, 333, 352, 354 altars 119–120, 198, 222, 314, 322n.38, 329, 408–409 Aluniș (Chiced; h. Kecsed) 264, 274 ambulatories 202, 298, 300n.113, 323 Amnaș (h. Omlás, g. Hamlesch) 179, 333, 352 Ampellum (see also Zlatna) 44 Ampoița (h. Kisompoly, g. Ampoifluß) 375, 389 Anca, noble lady 379, 382 Andreas Lapicida, master mason 300n.113

1 Data mostly based on Szabó 2003, a fundamental source, available inclusively online, for the huge array of denominations used in various languages since their written appearance for the localities of historical Hungary now located in Romania.

Index Andrew I of Hungary (1046–1060) 59, 79, 85, 98 Andrew II of Hungary (1205–1235) 53, 95n.122, 215n.152, 236n.1 Andrew III of Hungary (1290–1301) 266, 341 Anjou, dynasty 264, 266 Anonymous, chronicler 55 Anselm of Braz, colonizer 232 Antoni, Erhard 136n.93 Apahida (h. Apahida, g. Bruckendorf)  68n.8, 69 Apold (h. Apold, g. Trappold) 179, 205n.131, 333, 336 apses (see also chancels, sanctuaries) 19, 86–88, 95n.122, 99n.136, 102–103, 106, 109, 111, 117–118, 120–123, 125, 127–128, 130, 134–137, 146–148, 150, 152–155, 159, 163, 165–168, 170, 184, 186–189, 191–192, 194, 196–200, 202, 205–207, 210–211, 214, 217n.161, 219–220, 222–225, 229–230, 235, 237, 240–242, 246, 248, 250–251, 253–255, 258, 274, 276–280, 282, 284n.68, 288, 290–291, 293–294, 295n.96, 297, 300–301, 303n.122, 306, 313–314, 318–320, 322, 325, 328, 339n.33, 345, 349–350, 352–354, 365n.134, 377, 382, 386–387, 389–391, 399, 403–404, 406–407, 410, 415 Apulum (see also Alba Iulia) 44, 68n.5, 69, 140 Arad (h. Arad, Óarad, g. Arad, Altarad) 69, 89, 93 archaeological churches 15, 87, 110, 119, 129–130, 187, 192, 205, 229, 231, 234, 280, 378–379, 380, 395–396, 400 archdeacon(rie)s 59, 61, 86–87, 118 Archita (h. Erked, g. Arkeden) 333, 336, 349, 352 archpriests 62, 376, 392 Arcuș (h. Árkos) 333, 338, 364 Armășeni (h. Csíkménaság) 179, 190, 264, 280–281 Arnulf of Carinthia, Frankish king (887–899) and emperor (896–899) 46 Árpád, dynasty 76, 185, 266 Árpádian 30–31, 50, 162, 182n.12 artefacts (pottery, jewellery, engolpions, etc) (see also coins, grave goods) 11, 28, 34,

501 38, 46, 49, 68, 70–71, 73, 75n.32, 77–78, 103, 117, 127, 130, 134, 137–138, 140, 142n.6, 160, 177, 182n.12, 318, 367, 395 ashlars (see also stone) 41, 125, 148, 166, 168, 222, 224, 256, 301, 318, 409 Ațel (h. Ecel, g. Hetzeldorf) 264, 276, 290, 333, 349 atrium 163, 171 Augustinian(s) 22, 80, 95n.121, 288–289 Avradaka, see Preslav Avram, Alexandru 32 Avrămești (h. Szentábrahám) 69, 128, 130, 179 Avrig (h. Felek, g. Freck) 179, 200, 205n.130, 207n.137, 208n.144, 333, 346n.59, 354, 360 Axente Sever (h. Asszonyfalva, g. Frauendorf)  179, 192, 194, 264, 333, 344 Baán, Istvan 77 Bács (Bač, Serbia) 77 Bădeni (h. Bágy) 69, 98, 179, 196, 264, 279 Bădești (h. Bádok) 239, 251n.42 Băgaciu (h. Kisbogács, g. Disteldorf) 264 Bágyuj, Lajos 165n.73 Baia Mare (h. Nagybánya, g. Frauenbach)  36, 53, 179, 264, 266n.5, 267, 270, 272, 275, 284, 330, 422 Băiești (h. Bajesd, g. Bayeschd) 375, 393 Balc of Moldavia (1359/1364), voivode of Maramureş 385 Bălcaciu (h. Bolkács, g. Bulkesch) 333, 352 Balea, knez 379 Bălgrad, see Alba Iulia (see also Voivodeship of B.) Balkan(s) 50, 106, 155n.34, 157, 266 Banat, region 2, 4–5, 32, 57–58, 82, 113, 114n.27, 266 baptism 67–68, 76, 78–79, 81–82, 99, 104, 148, 227, 416 baptismal font 196, 313 baptisteries 84n.75, 105, 124–125, 147–150, 171, 225, 227, 235, 325 Bărăbanț (h. Borbánd, g. Weindorf) 179, 189n.49 Baraolt (h. Barót) 52 Baroque, style 42, 163, 167, 170–171, 197n.91, 203, 229, 283, 285, 302, 311, 416

502 Bârsa, Land of 1, 22, 29, 51, 53–54, 57, 60, 181–182, 239, 244, 245n.34, 272, 337, 341, 346, 361 Bârsău (h. Berekszó) 375, 404n.117 Basarab, dynasty 404 Basil I, Byzantine emperor (867–886) 155n.34 Basilian(s) 81, 91 basilicas 7, 17, 19–21, 23, 34, 73, 76n.34, 84n.75, 88, 93n.111, 95n.122, 102, 109, 121–125, 127, 130, 134–135, 139n.105, 145, 148, 159, 161–162, 166, 172–173, 183, 186, 190–192, 199–200, 202–216, 232, 235, 237, 241, 245–246, 248, 260, 263n.70, 282–283, 290–295, 298, 301–305, 309, 311, 313, 316, 318–321, 323, 324n.45, 336, 338, 341, 344–347, 348n.66 and 67, 349–354, 359, 379, 382, 384, 420–421 Batu Khan, Mongol ruler (1227–1255) 183 bays 102, 107, 111, 115, 117, 152, 154–155, 165, 200, 205, 207–208, 214, 237, 246, 248, 256, 258, 262, 282, 286, 288, 291, 295, 297, 299–300, 303n.122, 311, 318, 323, 346, 350, 387, 413 Bazna (h. Bázna, g. Baassen) 333, 336, 352 Bedeu, see Bedevlia  Bedevlia (Ukraine) 377 Beia (h. Homoródbene, g. Meeburg) 333, 336 Béla I of Hungary (1060–1063) 124 Béla II of Hungary (1131–1141) 98n.132 Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196) 46n.18, 80n.61, 125n.66, 130, 232, 236n.1 Bela, knez 75 belfries 107, 184, 344, 400 Belgium 232 Belin (h. Bölön, g. Blumendorf) 333 Bencze, Ünige 39, 237n.9 Benedictine(s) 12, 78, 80–81, 84n.75, 85, 90, 93–94, 95n.122, 106, 118, 120, 123n.57, 124–126, 128, 182, 185–186, 200–201, 202n.104 and 105, 233, 236n.1, 241, 243n.25, 421 Benkő, Elek 30, 39, 196, 202, 234 Berea (h. Bere) 179, 278n.45 Berehove (Ukraine) 298n.104 Berivoi (h. Berivoj; g. Berwein) 375, 377n.22 Beşliu, Petre 39, 240, 309n.9, 322, 324

Index Biertan (h. Berethalom, g. Birthälm) 69, 70n.14, 264, 267, 304, 333, 336, 367 Biharia (h. Bihar) 47, 58–59, 63, 69, 73, 81–82, 85, 106–107, 138, 155 Bila Cerkva (Ukraine) 377 Biserica Albă, see Bila Cerkva Bisericani, see Turda  bishoprics, see dioceses  (arch)bishops 50, 60–61, 71, 75–76, 78–79, 84–85, 93, 98, 102n.143, 124n.64, 144n.11, 147, 158, 161n.61, 163, 170, 404, 419 Bistrița (h. Beszterce, g. Bistritz) 21–22, 53, 57, 179, 182–183, 191, 239, 243–244, 264, 266–267, 269, 272, 275–276, 284, 291–292, 305, 333, 338, 342 Bizere, see Frumușeni  Blandiana (h. Maroskarna, g. Stumpach)  48n.24, 69, 73n.26 Bogdan Vodă (Cuhea, h. Izakonyha) 5n.4, 375, 377, 379, 381, 399–401, 407–408 Boian (h. Alsóbajom, g. Bonnesdorf) 333, 336 Bonțida (h. Bonchida, g. Bruck) 264, 268 borderland 51, 55, 172, 416 Borsa, noble house 90, 127 Botár, István 39, 102 boyars 379 Boz (h. Buzd, g. Bußd) 333, 336 Bozieș (h. Magyarborzás; g. Hollerthal) 264, 274 Brădeni (h. Hégen, g. Henndorf) 333, 336 Brașov (Corona, h. Brassó, g. Kronstadt) 3, 20–21, 28–29, 36–37, 39, 51, 53–54, 57, 61, 69, 72n.22, 94–95, 98n.129, 101–103, 123, 179, 181–182, 217, 220–222, 226, 239, 244–245, 251–252, 254, 260, 262–264, 266–269, 272–276, 295–296, 299–301, 303, 306, 330, 333, 342, 375, 381, 399, 402, 421–422 Brașov-Bartolomeu (h. Brassóbertalan, g. Bartolomä) 4, 179, 205, 239, 244–245, 247, 262 Brașov-Șchei (Șcheii Brașovului, h. Bolgárszeg, g. Belgerei, Obere Vorstadt) 34, 403, 404n.117, 406, 413 Brateiu (h. Baráthely, g. Pretai) 264, 291n.88, 333 Bratislava (Slovakia) 298

Index brick, architecture 25, 95n.122, 109–111, 117, 128, 131–132, 134–135, 152, 177, 188, 214, 223–224, 229–230, 256, 278, 285, 313, 322–323, 328, 348, 350, 352, 362, 406, 408–412 Bruiu (h. Brulya, g. Braler) 179, 205n.130 Bruno (Prunward), bishop 78 Bucharest 35, 71n.20, 416 Buda, see Budapest  Budapest (Hungary) 27, 243n.25, 323n.40 building (construction) process 122–123, 135, 137, 149, 160, 166–167, 198, 203, 205, 207–208, 214, 230, 232, 234, 240–241, 246, 298–299, 301, 319–320, 322–323, 325, 356, 387n.60, 401, 406, 408 rebuilding 84n.75, 184, 298, 302, 324, 325n.52 Bulci (h. Bulcs) 69, 89n.97, 91, 106 Bulcsú (Boulosudes), Hungarian prince 76, 78 Bulgaria(ns) 1, 3, 45–47, 50, 70, 73, 106, 120, 142, 147, 155, 157 Bulgars 44 Bunești (h. Szászbuda, g. Bodendorf) 333, 336 burial grounds (see also cemeteries; cf. graveyards) 49–51, 96, 98–99, 102n.143, 420 burials (see also graves, grave goods) 73, 79, 84, 86, 88, 96, 99, 125–126, 131, 160, 166, 191, 194, 227, 325n.50, 359n.106, 381, 383, 395, 403n.115 vaults (i.e., tombs) 131, 316, 318 Burnichioiu, Ileana 32 Busuioc – von Hasselbach, Nicolae 32 buttresses 132, 134, 137n.95, 165–167, 170, 189, 198, 214, 240, 243, 248, 276, 280, 284n.69, 285, 287–288, 290, 298, 300n.113, 301–302, 306, 325–326, 328, 350–351, 354, 356, 397–398, 399n.108, 404 Buzd (h. Szászbuzd, g. Bußd ) 264, 279, 333, 354 Byal Bryag (Smyadovo, Bulgaria) 117 Byzantine(s) 1, 3, 22, 45–47, 50, 55, 62, 67, 70, 73, 75–78, 109, 118, 139, 157, 172, 419 architecture (layouts, murals, structural design etc.) 7, 17, 29, 31–32, 36, 38, 47,

503 50, 87–88, 90, 104–105, 106–120, 138– 139, 145, 154–157, 161–162, 172–173, 185, 187, 232n.193, 256, 385–386, 386–388, 395, 404, 410, 415–416, 419–420, 424 artefacts 46, 50, 70–71, 77, 87, 142, 157n.46 Cacuciu Nou (h. Nagykakucs) 179, 189 Calnic (h. Kálnok) 179, 187, 197, 333, 361 Câlnic (h. Kelnek, g. Kelling) 21, 34, 69, 91, 138, 179, 182, 184, 191–192, 333, 339–340, 367 Câmpia Turzii (Ghiriş, h. Aranyosgyéres, g. Gieresch, Jerichmarkt) 333, 342 Cândeşti (Kendeffi), noble house 256, 376n.6, 380 Cantacuzino, Gheorghe I. 34 capitals, architecture 88, 125, 127n.74, 203, 208n.144, 214, 232 Căpleni (h. Kaplony, g. Kaplan) 69, 94, 179, 202 Caransebeș (h. Karánsebes, g. Karanschebesch) 382 Carmen Miserabile 183 Cârnești (h. Kernyesd, g. Kernescht) 375, 393 Carolingian(s) 3, 67, 75–76 Carpathian(s) 1, 3, 20, 26, 49–50, 54, 58, 61, 72n.22, 94, 120, 155, 181, 244n.32, 307, 342, 417 Carpathian Basin 31, 44n.4, 46–47, 49, 63, 77, 106, 144, 156, 158, 172–173, 184, 216n.155, 224, 419 Cârța (h. Kerc, g. Kerz) 5n.4, 7–8, 22, 27–28, 32, 34, 69, 95, 123, 179, 181, 185, 215–216, 235–237, 239–240, 242–246, 251, 258, 260–264, 322, 395, 422 Cârța-Csíkkarcfalva (Cârța, h. Csíkkarcfalva)  5n.4, 179, 194, 264, 282n.61, 333, 338, 361n.121 Cașinu Mic (h. Kiskászon) 179, 196 Cașolț (h. Hermány, g. Kastenholz) 179, 203, 204n.128 Castrum Almage 246n.37 Castrum Sanctae Mariae 253n.46 Cața (h. Kaca, g. Katzendorf) 179, 205n.131, 264, 295 Catalogus Ninivensis 94

504 cathedrals 3, 7, 19, 30, 35–36, 60, 80–82, 84–85, 105, 121, 140–141, 142n.5, 143, 145–151, 154, 157–166, 170–171, 173, 177, 184, 187, 207, 208n.144, 225, 233, 235–236, 243n.25, 258, 261–262, 269, 295, 296n.100 and 103, 418, 420 Catholic(ism) (see also Latin(s), Western (Christianity)) 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 19, 45, 58, 62, 75n.30, 78–79, 81–82, 84, 86, 88, 90n.98, 91, 93–94, 114n.27, 118, 139, 141–142, 144–145, 380, 382, 415–416, 419–420, 424 architecture 6–7, 19–25, 38, 84n.75, 88, 104–105, 120–138, 140–141, 142n.5, 145, 150, 154, 158–173, 175–369, 373, 375n.4, 377, 380, 382, 384, 386, 400, 404, 414, 417, 420 Cefa (h. Cséffa) 179, 189 ceilings 200, 214, 224–225, 229, 256, 285, 356, 397, 407 cemeteries (see also burial grounds, graveyards) 45n.12, 49, 51, 54n.58, 71, 73n.27, 87–89, 93n.111, 94n.112, 96, 98–103, 140, 142, 154, 160–162, 166, 173, 180, 188n.44, 197, 220–221, 225, 227, 230, 253–254, 261–262, 270, 283, 309, 311, 313, 316, 324–329, 342, 356, 359, 362–364, 366–368, 379n.28, 380–382, 393n.82, 399n.108, 409, 418 Cenad (Morisena, h. Nagycsanád, g. Tschanad) 37, 39, 47, 58–59, 61, 63, 69, 73, 79–83, 85, 89, 91, 93, 106, 113n.26, 121, 155, 158, 179, 375, 420 Cenade (h, Szászcsanád, g. Scholten) 179, 204n.128 centrally-planned architecture 7, 17, 19, 79, 82, 106, 111n.17, 121, 154, 162, 216–234, 235, 324 cross-shaped layouts 17, 19, 132, 245, 256, 260, 313, 346 (poly)lobed layouts 23, 79, 106, 111, 113, 232–233, 243, 259, 411 rotundas 48, 73, 82, 105, 107n.11, 122–125, 127, 130, 132, 134–135, 145–150, 156n.40, 159, 160n.54, 163, 172, 213–214, 216–222, 224–225, 227, 229–232, 234, 309, 324–325, 328, 339, 366, 421 chairs (sedes), Saxon  55–57

Index chairs (sedes), Szekler 30, 55–57, 100 chancels (see also apses, sanctuaries) 23, 81, 87–88, 114–115, 122, 187, 189, 192, 197–198, 207, 222, 235, 243, 256, 274, 279–280, 333, 335, 354, 386, 392–395, 397–399, 410–411, 415 chapels 15, 33, 48, 72, 76n.34, 90, 105, 107, 122, 126–127, 132, 137, 147–148, 155, 159, 161n.63, 162–163, 171, 183–184, 188, 192n.62, 193–194, 196, 200, 211, 219, 221–222, 225–227, 230–231, 233–234, 237, 240–241, 243, 246, 248, 251–254, 262–263, 269, 272, 274–275, 283, 286–287, 291, 293, 295, 298, 300–301, 304, 306, 308–309, 311, 313–314, 316, 322–329, 331, 334, 336n.6, 338–339–340, 341n.39, 343, 344n.55, 347, 352n.87, 360, 364–367, 376n.6, 380–382, 393, 398, 399n.108, 401, 404 chapters (capitula) 60, 93, 320 Charles Robert of Hungary (1301/08–1342)  57, 266, 278n.48 Chavarria Arnau, Alexandra 417 Chefneux, Eugene 109 Chirpăr (h. Kürpöd, g. Kirchberg) 179, 205n.131, 207, 333, 352 choirs (see also sanctuaries) 7, 102–103, 117, 131, 135, 136n.93, 137n.95, 163–168, 170, 188, 191, 193, 197n.91, 198, 200, 205, 207, 210–211, 214, 237, 248–249, 269, 276, 279–280, 282, 285–286, 288, 294–295, 297–300, 302, 303n.122, 313, 317–318, 320, 323, 349–350, 354, 356n.99, 357, 382, 391, 409 Chrasťnad Hornádom (Slovakia) 233n.202 Christian(ity) 3–4, 11–12, 42, 86, 90, 95–96, 98–99, 102–104, 130, 139–140, 147, 149, 154, 157, 161, 177, 185, 227, 229, 235, 240, 307n.3, 375, 416, 418–421 Christianization (see also baptism, mission(arie)s) 3, 6–7, 46–48, 50,  58–59, 61–63, 67–81, 93–94, 99n.138, 109, 140, 157, 225, 227, 417, 419–420 Chorographia Transylvanniae 27 chronology 4, 11, 15, 17, 22, 38, 72, 80, 83n.71, 86–87, 99, 105, 109, 111, 113–114, 120, 123, 125, 130, 134, 135n.89, 138, 146–147, 156n.40, 159, 165, 170, 172–173, 177, 179,

Index 184, 187, 200, 211, 215, 219, 220–222, 229, 232, 235, 251, 255–256, 285n.72, 296, 299n.108, 313, 320, 328, 340, 348n.67, 349, 356n.99, 362, 366, 368, 373, 375, 386, 395, 397, 402, 416, 423 Cib (h. Cseb, g. Tropfbach) 375, 389 Cibin, river 307 Cikádor (Bátaszék, Hungary) 80n.61, 236n.1 Cinciș (h. Csolnakos) 375, 404n.117 Cincșor (h. Kissink, g. Klein-Schenk) 239, 244n.29, 264 Cincu (h. Nagysink, g. Großschenk) 60, 179, 200, 205–207, 239, 246, 333, 346n.59 Cisnădie (h. Nagydisznód, g. Heltau) 21, 69, 122, 179, 191, 200, 204–205, 207, 217, 219–221, 264, 295, 333, 346, 365 Cisnădioara (h. Kisdisznód, g. Michelsberg)  21, 28, 34, 69, 122, 179, 184, 200, 204, 205n.131, 207–208, 214–215, 333, 360, 368 Cistercian(s) 7–8, 12, 22, 32, 80, 94–95, 123, 181–182, 189, 199, 222, 235, 236–263, 272, 313, 416, 422 cists (see also graves) 78, 160n.60, 318 cities (see also towns, urban) 1, 8, 44, 47, 52, 57, 142n.5, 165, 172n.91, 184, 246n.36, 266n.4, 295n.99, 296, 307n.1 and 3, 309, 322, 329, 359 Ciucsângeorgiu (h. Csíkszentgyörgy) 333 Ciula Mare (h. Nagycsula, g. GrossSchullendorf) 375, 393–394, 397, 407 Ciumbrud (h. Csombord; g. Poley) 179, 217, 219n.169 Ciumești (h. Csomaköz, g. Schamagosch)  179, 264, 278 Cladova (h. Kladova) 99 Classicist, style 42 Cloașterf (h. Miklóstelke, g. Klosdorf) 264, 276, 333, 336 cloisters (see also monasteries) 126, 240 Clopotiva (h. Klopotiva, g. Glockendorf)  375–376 Cluj-Napoca 5, 69, 179, 239, 264, 333 Cluj (Cluj-Napoca, h. Kolozsvár, g. Klausenburg) 5, 21–23, 36, 44, 47, 51, 53, 60–61, 183–184, 266n.5, 267, 268n.13, 269, 272, 274–276, 283–284, 286–287, 288n.78, 295–298, 301–303, 306, 330, 342, 381, 404, 422

505 Cluj-Mănăștur (h. Kolozsmonostor, g. Appesdorf) 37, 69, 89n.97, 93–94, 121, 124, 179, 232, 234, 239, 243n.25 Someșeni (h. Szamosfalva) 239, 251n.42 Codlea (h. Feketehalom, g. Zeiden) 333, 346, 357, 359, 361 coins 78, 87–88, 94n.112, 98, 109, 117, 125n.66, 128, 130, 134, 137, 154n.29, 157n.46, 166, 177, 192n.62, 210, 216, 232–233, 244n.32, 246n.36, 260, 278n.48, 283, 299n.108, 309, 322, 379n.28, 397–398, 402, 403n.115 Cojocna (h. Kolozs, g. Salzburg) 264, 266, 268 collapse 4, 25, 68, 70, 295, 300n.113, 302n.119, 325, 349n.71 Coloman of Hungary (1095–1116) 78–80, 98n.132, 137, 154n.29, 160 colonisation (incl. settle(ment), colonists, settlers) 6–8, 17, 19, 43–44, 47n.21, 51–54, 58, 60–61, 63, 67, 77, 80–81, 93, 96, 99, 104, 122, 131, 134–135, 139–140, 142, 157, 172, 177, 182–184, 188, 190–191, 200, 202, 210, 219, 221–222, 231n.190, 232, 244, 246n.37, 253n.46, 266, 305, 307, 309, 325, 329, 333, 377, 417, 419, 421 Colț, see Suseni   Communism 5n.4, 34–36, 42, 43n.1, 416 Constantinople (Turkey) 3, 47, 50, 70, 75–79, 85, 104, 106, 109, 120, 155–156, 158n.47, 173, 416 Bodrum Camii 155–156 Fenari Isa Camii 109, 155 Nea Ekklesia  155n.34 construction sites 3, 7, 20, 121, 155, 162, 165, 172, 182n.10, 184–185, 191, 200, 216, 221, 236, 241n.22, 243n.25, 260, 262–263, 268, 275–276, 284, 286n.76, 288, 296, 298–299, 302, 305, 319n.31, 320, 323, 325, 330, 348, 368, 386, 406, 416 levels 216, 397 phases 11, 38–39, 102, 191, 197n.86, 198, 242, 248, 255, 260–261, 280n.61, 289, 293, 340, 397–398, 401, 404, 414 reconstructions 4, 42, 109, 121n.44, 124, 166–168, 171, 187, 197n.90, 202, 236, 258, 261, 269, 295, 299, 300n.113, 302, 305, 323, 328, 349, 361, 416, 418

506 construction sites (cont.) stages 3, 9, 11, 17, 35, 41, 88, 99n.136, 103, 109, 111–113, 120–121, 123, 124n.61, 125, 127–128, 132, 134–136, 137n.94 and 95, 148, 165n.72, 167, 179, 181, 187, 192, 194, 196–198, 202–203, 205, 207, 211, 214, 216, 223, 232, 240–242, 248, 250, 253–255, 258–263, 274n.36, 276–277, 279, 282n.61, 285, 287–288, 291, 295–296, 300–302, 312, 316n.20, 319, 322–323, 327–328, 339n.30 and 35, 348, 351, 357, 360n.113, 361n.121, 388, 390, 393, 397, 401, 404, 407, 418, 422 convent (see also monasteries) 254, 284n.68, 285, 310–311 Copșa Mare (h. Nagykapus, g. GrossKopisch) 264, 291n.88 Copșa Mică (h. Kiskapus, g. KleinKopisch) 179, 264, 333 Târnăvioara (h. Kisekemező, g. Kleinprobsdorf) 264, 290, 291n.88, 333 Corrard, Saxon knight 192n.62, 340 Corvinești (h. Kékesújfalu, g. Neudorf) 264, 274 Coșeiu (h. Kusaly) 22, 264, 274–275, 285, 287 Cotormani (h. Kotormány) 69–71 counties (comitatus) 24, 27, 53, 55–61, 80, 83, 86, 89, 98, 124, 144, 417 Crăciunel (h. Karácsonfalva; g. Krötschendorf) 179, 196 craftsmen 208n.144, 268n.13, 386, 399, 406, 419, 422 Cricău (h. Boroskrakkó, g. Krakau) 34, 69, 102–103, 179, 192, 204, 207, 264, 282, 333, 346, 352, 360 Crîngaci Țiplic, Maria 39, 138n.104, 191n.58, 318 Criș, river system 1, 82, 95 Crișan, Ioan 39 Crişana (see also Partium) 2, 5, 32, 52 Crișcior (h. Kristyor) 23, 375, 379, 383, 398, 406, 411–412 Cristian (h. Keresztényfalva, g. Neustadt)  5n.4, 179, 207n.137, 239, 244, 333, 346, 362, 364 Cristian-Großau (h. Kereszténysziget, g. Großau) 5n.4, 179, 200, 205n.130, 264, 333, 346n.59

Index Cristuru Secuiesc (h. Székelykeresztúr, g. Kreuz) 69, 98n.129, 179, 202, 264, 267 Croatia(n) 2, 45 crossing 163, 165, 170, 317, 320 crypts 132, 134n.87, 168n.82, 217n.161, 220, 227, 325, 399n.108, 400 Csaki, Michael 28 Csanád (Chanadinus), Hungarian leader  83 Cserni, Adalbert 142n.5, 147 Cuhea, see Bogdan Vodă   Cuman(s) (see also diocese of Cumania)  63, 68, 79, 225, 227 Cumidava (see also Râșnov) 44 Curciu (h. Küküllőkőrös, g. Kirtsch) 264, 283, 291n.88, 333, 366 Curinschi Vorona, Gheorghe 31 Curta, Florin 417 Cuzdrioara (h. Kozárvár) 179, 189 Dăbâca (h. Doboka, g. Dobeschdorf) 37, 39, 47, 51, 60n.79, 69–71, 73, 79n.53, 86–88, 90, 104, 106–107, 138, 155, 179, 187, 189, 375, 413, 419 Dacia (h. Garat, g. Stein) 264 Dacia(ns) 43–44, 68n.6, 140 Daia (Daia, h. Székelydálya) 5n.4, 38, 69, 100, 179, 187, 189, 197–199, 264, 280, 333, 362 Daia-Thalheim (Daia, h. Dolmány, g. Thalheim) 5n.4, 179, 205, 207–208, 333, 339 Daniel, Saxon knight 192n.62, 340 Danube, river 9, 43–44, 46, 49–51, 58, 62–63, 67, 70, 83, 106, 113, 114n.26, 117, 142n.6 and 7, 147, 150, 155, 172, 269n.18, 413, 424 Dârja (h. Magyarderzse) 179, 189 Dârjiu (h. Székelyderzs) 333, 338, 356, 364, 367 Dávid, Lászlo 30 Dealu Frumos (h. Lesses, g. Schönberg) 179, 205, 207–208, 264, 303, 333, 336, 348, 350, 352–354, 357, 366–367 Decebalus, Dacian king (87–106) 43 Dej (h. Dés, g. Burglos, Desch) 264, 266–267, 276, 278, 283, 333, 342 Delidushka, see Preslav  Demjén, Andrea 39

Index demolish(ment) / demolition 39, 42, 71n.20, 84n.75, 102, 109, 125, 128n.77, 131, 137n.95, 152, 154, 160–162, 167–168, 170, 194, 196n.85, 197, 200, 202, 206, 211, 214, 219, 222, 229, 232–233, 245n.34, 251–253, 258, 261, 274n.34, 279–280, 282–285, 287–289, 294, 300–301, 303, 309, 311, 318, 320–326, 328, 346n.61, 349n.75, 350–353, 357, 360n.112, 362–364, 367, 373, 381–382, 393n.86 and 87, 398, 401, 414, 417 dismantle(ment) 25, 87, 166, 168n.83, 203, 253, 284, 318, 322, 340, 399n.107 dendrochronology 229, 285n.72, 320, 349, 356n.99, 362n.123 Densuș (h. Demsus, g. Demsdorf) 22, 26, 34, 44, 69, 73–74, 90, 106–111, 117, 138, 156, 179, 375–376, 380–381, 383, 385, 406, 409–410, 413, 419 Dezna (h. Dézna) 375, 379–380, 398 diaconicon 107, 109, 413 (arch)dioceses (also as bishoprics, episcopates) 6, 58, 70, 75n.30, 76–77, 80–81, 86, 121, 150, 172 of Bihar(ia) 58–59, 81–82, 85 of Cenad 58–59, 61, 63, 81–82, 84, 93, 98 of Cumania 54n.59, 61, 182 of Eger 59, 61, 118 of Esztergom 8, 58, 60–61, 80, 125n.64, 182 of Feleacu 62n.99, 399, 404 of Kalocsa 75, 77, 80, 84, 139 of Nitra 80 of Oradea 58–59, 61, 63, 82, 85 of Passau 78 of Tourkia 62, 77, 139, 158 of Transylvania (Alba Iulia) 3, 6–8, 19, 31, 58–63, 79, 81, 86, 141–142, 144–145, 158, 160n.57, 161–162, 181, 419 of Zagreb 80 Dipșa (h. Dipse, g. Dürrbach) 264, 279 districts (districtus) 55–58, 392 Ditrău (h. Ditró, g. Dittersdorf) 179, 189 Dobârca (h. Doborka, g. Dobring) 333, 349, 352, 354, 367 Dobeni (h. Székelydobó, g. Dobendorf) 264, 279 Doboșeni (h. Székelyszáldobos) 179, 233 Dobre, knez 379

507 Dominican(s) 22, 32, 36, 80, 182, 222, 274, 278, 287, 302, 308–311 Domneşti, see Zolotarevo  Dorolțu (h. Nádasdaróc, g. Draas) 239, 251n.42 Drag, voivode of Maramureş 385 Dragoş (Drágfi), dynasty / noble house 385 Drăguț, Vasile 32, 243, 395n.88 Drăușeni (h. Homoróddaróc, g. Draas) 6, 21–22, 25, 34–35, 69, 96, 135, 138, 177, 179, 182, 188, 191–192, 200, 204, 205n.130, 207–208, 210–212, 239, 244, 261n.67, 264, 282, 333, 336, 346, 348, 350–352, 354, 357, 366–367, 421, 423 Dridu, archeological culture 50n.32 duchies/dukes 45, 47, 84, 86 Dumitra (h. Nagydemeter, g. Mettersdorf)  333, 338, 338n.20 Dumitrache, Marianne 34, 39, 136n.93, 137n.99, 211n.148 Dumitrașcu, Sever 85 earthen, architecture 52, 85–86, 88–89, 135, 192n.62, 230, 330, 333, 339, 342n.45, 356–357, 365n.136 Eastern (Christianity; see also Greek(s), Orthodox(y)) 19, 59, 62, 67, 70, 75, 77, 79, 84, 90–91, 94n.116, 103–104, 106, 113–114, 117, 120, 158n.47, 161, 188, 375, 399, 404, 406, 414, 419 ecclesiastical 3, 6, 15, 17, 19–20, 24, 26, 29–30, 33, 36–39, 58, 60–62, 76n.32, 78, 80, 82–83, 86, 90, 91n.104, 95, 118, 131, 139–140, 144, 155, 157, 161–162, 172–173, 177, 183–184, 219, 243, 256, 268–269, 275, 304–306, 316, 330–331, 373, 407, 414, 416–417, 423 Eder, Heinreich 240 Eger (Hungary) 59, 61, 118, 243n.25 Eichhorn, Albert 299n.111 Emeric of Hungary (1196–1204) 240 emplecton 168 Emődi, Tamás 39 enclosures 22, 33, 54n.62, 87–88, 125, 135n.92, 136–137, 140–141, 195, 197n.91, 260, 262, 283, 292, 296, 307, 314, 326, 328, 331, 336–339, 344, 349, 355, 356n.99, 357–360, 361n.121, 362, 364, 365n.133, 366, 368, 409

508 Engel, Pál  43n.1 ensembles 22, 35, 134, 213, 240, 245n.33, 263n.70, 330–331, 361, 362n.123, 368 entrances 131, 167, 198, 208, 211, 223, 225, 229–230, 300, 313, 331, 339, 344, 349, 397, 411 door(way)s 109n.14, 123, 127, 134, 163–164, 196, 208, 225, 230, 288, 352, 386, 395, 397, 401, 411–412 gate(way)s 141, 195, 308, 313, 328, 336–338, 340, 356, 358, 360, 361n.121, 362n.123, 363–364 Entz, Géza 29, 146–147, 158, 243 eparchy 75, 93 episcopates, see dioceses  estates 24, 55, 58, 90, 114n.27, 232, 322, 380–381, 399 Esztergom (Hungary) 8, 58, 60–61, 80, 96n.127, 125n.64, 182 Eugene IV, pope (1431–1447) 307n.3, 343 exarchs 62n.99 Fabini, Hermann 15, 19, 30, 208, 307n.1, 342n.48, 348 fabric 42, 44, 73, 87, 123, 136, 152, 159, 163, 167–169, 189n.50, 192n.61, 196, 224, 230, 235, 237n.9, 274n.34, 291, 302, 313, 330, 354, 368, 373, 386, 407–409, 416, 418 Făgăraș (h. Fogaras, g. Fogarasch) 264, 268 Făgăraș, Land of 1, 56–57, 241, 377, 390 Feldioara (h. Földvár, g. Marienburg) 27, 51, 53–54, 179, 200, 204n.128, 205n.130, 207n.137, 217, 220–221, 239, 244–245, 251, 253–255, 260, 263–264, 267–268, 295, 333, 342–344, 346, 348, 357, 422 Feleacu (h. Erdőfelek)  62n.99, 264, 278, 375, 381, 399, 404–405, 407–408, 412 Feliceni (h. Felsőboldogfalva, g. OberMariendorf) 34, 179, 198, 264, 279, 282n.61, 333, 349, 361n.121 Felnac (h. Fönlak, g. Fenlak) 179, 219n.169 Fenékpuszta, see Keszthely  find(ing)s, archeological 34, 50n.32, 68n.5, 70–71, 73, 80n.59, 94n.112, 123n.59, 135, 137–138, 140, 142, 153, 172, 198, 216, 219–220, 226, 230, 233–234, 241, 268n.15, 299, 324n.45, 381–383, 387n.61, 404n.117, 412–413, 422–423

Index Firea, Ciprian 32 Firtușu (h. Firtosváralja) 69, 123, 333, 341 Fischer, Emil 326n.59 Fișer (h. Sövénység, g. Schweischer) 333, 336 Fizeșu Gherlii (h. Ördöngösfüzes) 179, 189, 239, 251n.42 fortifications (see also enclosures, towers)  3, 6, 9, 22, 43n.1, 47, 48n.24, 52, 54, 85–86, 88–89, 104, 122, 124–125, 127, 135, 140–141, 143, 183–184, 192n.62, 194, 202n.105, 203, 205–206, 211, 215, 219– 220, 229–230, 231n.190, 232, 253–256, 262, 268, 274–275, 277, 282–283, 292, 303, 305, 307, 330, 331–369, 379, 389, 391, 395, 416–417, 423 barbicans 340, 356, 361n.121 castles 274, 288, 404 donjons (also as keeps) 135, 211n.149, 339–341, 344, 348, 360 fortified churches 9, 22, 136n.92, 203n.110, 269, 303, 331–369, 416 gate-towers 195, 308, 313, 328, 338, 340, 358, 360, 361n.121, 363, 364n.131 moats 230, 333, 341, 351, 356–357, 359, 362n.129, 364 palisades 230, 231n.190 ramparts 52, 86, 88, 192n.62, 230, 331, 333, 337, 339, 347, 360, 365n.136 reduit-churches 336, 350 stockades 230, 331 wards 331, 334, 339n.37, 340, 365 Zwinger 357, 362 found(ations) 7, 9, 37, 51, 56, 59–60, 77, 80–81, 84n.75, 90–91, 93–94, 95n.121, 103, 121, 123n.57, 124, 126, 135n.88, 155n.34, 163, 181, 182n.10, 189n.48, 200, 214, 237, 240–241, 244, 246n.37, 251, 255, 256n.51, 53 and 55, 274, 285, 288, 307, 309n.4 and 9, 313, 326, 339, 380n.39, 381–383, 387, 404, 406, 419 founders 113, 157, 163, 208n.144, 232, 380–383, 385, 406, 411 foundations, architecture 33, 36, 41, 86–88, 95n.124, 99n.136, 102, 110, 117, 120, 125n.66, 126–128, 130–132, 134–135, 136n.93, 137, 141, 146, 148, 152, 154, 159, 161, 163n.71, 166–169, 198, 207, 211, 213–214, 216, 223–224,

Index 227, 230, 232–233, 240–242, 248, 250, 254, 258, 260, 278n.48, 279–280, 288, 293–294, 296n.100, 301, 302n.119, 318, 320, 322–324, 325n.50, 326, 329, 340, 361–362, 379n.28, 383, 388–389, 392, 395, 397–399, 403, 406–408, 412–413 France 52 Francisc Várday, bishop 163 Franciscan(s) 22–23, 33, 38, 80, 182, 189, 251, 254, 274, 283, 284n.68, 285–287, 308, 309n.9, 310–311, 382 friary (see also monasteries) 254, 287, 308 Fritz-Lászay, Oskar 240 Frumușeni – Bizere Monastery (h. Szépfalu, g. Schöndorf) 69, 91, 94, 106, 121, 125–126, 179, 188 Gaan, son of Alard, Saxon leader 170 Gaiu, Corneliu 39 Galați (h. Galac, g. Galatz) 375, 395, 397 Galda de Jos (h. Alsógáld, g. UnterHahnenberg) 375, 380, 410 Gáll, Erwin 86n.87, 88, 124n.61 galleries 81, 117, 120, 128, 187, 192n.62, 199–200, 223, 331, 333, 341, 344, 346, 349–350, 352, 356, 361–362, 380 Gârbova, estate 24 Gârbova (h. Szászorbó, g. Urwegen) 34, 69, 91, 179, 184, 204, 333, 339 Gârbova de Jos (h. Alsóorbó, g. Unterurbau)  24, 179, 189 Gârbova de Sus (h. Felsőorbó, g. Orbau, g. Oberurbau) 24, 333, 375, 380, 413–414 Gârbovița (h. Középorbó, g. Kleinurbau) 24, 375, 380, 388 Gelu, voivode in Transylvania 45, 47, 86 Geoagiu (h. Algyógyalfalu, g. Gergersdorf)  69, 90, 105, 122, 179, 217, 219–222, 224, 227–229 German(ic)(s) (see also Saxon(s)) 5, 20, 22, 52–54, 60, 81, 96, 98, 102, 182, 199, 202n.105, 207, 214, 219, 232, 253n.46, 260, 266, 298, 307, 325, 343, 419 historiography 25n.8, 26, 29, 42, Gesta Hungarorum 46n.18, 47n.21 Géza II of Hungary (1141–1162) 52, 60, 137 Géza, Hungarian grand prince (972–997)  78–80

509 Ghelința (h. Gelence, g. Gälänts) 179, 196, 264, 282n.62 Gheorghieni (h. Gyergyószentmiklós, g. Niklasmarkt) 179, 198, 233–234, 264, 282 Ghidfalău (h. Gidófalva) 179, 195, 197, 333, 361n.121 and 122 Ghimbav (h. Vidombák, g. Weidenbach)  179, 239, 244, 333, 346, 362 Gilău (h. Gyalu, g. Julmarkt) 47, 60n.79, 179 Giulești (h. Máragyulafalva) 25, 375, 377–378, 381, 389–392, 406–408, 412–413 Glad, duke of Morisena 45, 47 Glasgow (Scotland) 172n.91 Gothic, style 4, 7–9, 17, 19–22, 25, 31–32, 38, 87, 104, 134n.87, 139, 159, 163, 167–170, 172–173, 179, 181, 185–188, 191n.60, 193–196, 197n.86 and 91, 198–200, 202–204, 208, 211, 216, 219–220, 223, 233, 235, 236–306, 309–311, 313, 316, 320–324, 326, 330–331, 336, 338, 343, 346n.61, 349–350, 352, 354, 356, 361, 363, 365n.136, 366, 369, 380–381, 385, 387, 395, 399–400, 401n.112, 403–404, 407, 411–412, 415–416, 418, 420, 422, 424 Graditsch, Otto 299n.111 grave (burial) goods 11, 70, 103, 109, 125, 177, 191, 379n.28, 397, 402 graves (see also burials, cists, grave goods)  11, 38, 41, 70, 76n.34, 78n.45, 88, 98n.132, 99–103, 114, 117, 125n.66, 127, 131, 135, 137–138, 153–154, 160–161, 166, 168n.84, 177n.3, 180, 197, 221n.175, 227, 232, 248, 278n.48, 295, 302n.118, 316, 318, 322–323, 328–329, 361n.119, 366, 383, 392n.81, 393, 397, 400–401, 403, 408, 420 anthropomorphic 160n.60, 177, 180, 214, 357 graveyards (see also cemeteries; cf. burial grounds) 33, 50, 86, 89, 98–99, 130,  137n.99, 154, 158, 160–161, 177, 183, 191, 197, 210, 235, 316, 325, 366, 385, 397, 404, 423 greaves 91, 137, 221, 339 Greceanu, Eugenia 31–32

510 Greek(s) (see also Eastern (Christianity), Orthodox(y)) 7, 62, 75, 78, 80, 82, 84, 93, 103, 113n.26, 126n.69, 147, 157–158, 172 cross 109 cross, layout 17, 19, 77, 82, 106, 109, 111, 154–155, 161–162, 172, 419 Gromo, Giovan Andrea 27, 254 ground 25, 98, 132, 148, 286, 296, 301–302, 342n.48, 385, 390, 408 floor 118, 283, 346, 349, 350n.81, 354n.97, 392 levels 17, 36, 166, 168, 170, 211, 224, 230, 237, 242n.23, 321, 344, 367, 412 plans (see also layouts) 19, 50, 88–89, 108–110, 111n.17, 113–115, 117, 123, 127–128, 132, 137, 147, 186, 188, 202, 205, 215, 219, 222, 233, 243, 245, 248, 258, 260, 262, 276–277, 291, 295, 297, 299, 300n.113, 301–302, 312–313, 327–328, 348n.68, 350, 356, 362n.125, 386, 388, 392, 395, 403n.115, 404n.117, 407, 415, 419 underground 11, 109, 132, 135, 140, 168n.84, 224, 301, 330 Grynaeus, András 39 Gündisch, Konrad 43n.1 Gurasada (h. Guraszáda) 23–24, 26, 34–35, 69, 73, 90, 104, 106–107, 111–112, 138, 179, 232n.193, 375, 380–381, 413, 419 Gușterița, see Sibiu  Gusu (h. Kisludas, g. Giesshübel) 264, 279 Győr (Hungary) 162 Györffy, György 30, 103 Gyula (the Elder), Hungarian prince 50, 76–77, 79, 142, 150, 157–158 Gyula (the Younger), Hungarian prince 50, 79, 158 Hălchiu (h. Höltövény, g. Heldsdorf) 179, 239, 244, 333, 346, 348, 362 hall-churches 19, 275–276, 295–304, 311, 313, 322–323, 354 Hălmagiu (h. Nagyhalmágy) 23, 375, 379, 398–400, 412–413 Hălmeag (h. Halmágy, g. Halmagen) 51, 179, 200, 207, 239, 244, 246–249, 260, 262, 422 Hamba (h. Kakasfalva, g. Hahnenbach) 179, 203 Harhoiu, Radu 43n.1

Index Hărman (h. Szászhermány, g. Honigberg)  34, 179, 204–205, 209, 239, 244–245, 247–248, 250, 263, 333, 337, 339, 346–347, 354–355, 361, 364–367, 422–423 Hârseni (h. Herszény) 375, 377n.22 Hațeg (h. Hátszeg, g. Wallenthal) 33, 58, 62, 255, 264, 284, 375 Hațeg, region 1, 22, 36–37, 56–58, 90, 274, 373, 375–376, 379–380, 386, 390, 392, 394, 406, 408, 410 Heitel, Radu 34, 39, 49, 122n.54, 142n.6, 146–147, 150, 158–159, 160n.60, 165n.73 and 74, 258n.57, 260, 339n.33, 348n.68, 380n.36, 413 Heitel, Suzana Móré 31, 33, 82n.68, 84, 114n.26, 118, 126, 156n.41, 202 Henszlmann, Imre 25, 84n.75 Herina (h. Harina, g. Mönchsdorf) 69–71, 94, 122, 179, 186, 200 Hierotheos, bishop of Tourkia 50, 62, 71, 76, 77n.38, 109, 147, 150, 157–158, 419 Holy Cross 308 Holy Roman Empire 78 Holy Table 254, 397, 406, 409, 412–413 Homorod (h. Homoród, g. Hamruden) 179, 191, 193, 333, 336, 354 Horedt, Kurt 43n.1, 48n.24, 49, 125, 142, 147 Horwath, Walter 28–29, 208, 299n.111, 300n.113 Hosman (h. Holcmány, g. Holzmengen) 179, 203, 205n.130, 207n.137, 208n.144, 239, 244n.29, 333, 352 hospitals 272, 308, 311, 313 hospites (see also German(s), Saxon(s)) 7, 52, 91, 102, 135, 139, 183, 191, 202, 260, 266, 420–421 Hruševo (Ukraine) – Peri monastery 62, 385, 389 Hudusmonostura 91 Huedin (h. Bánffyhunyad, g. Heynod) 264, 269, 278, 283, 333, 342 Hunedoara (h. Vajdahunyad, g. Eisenmarkt)  51, 264, 274, 375, 387–388, 404, 406n.121, 410, 414 Hungarian(s) (also as Magyar(s)) 3, 5–7, 19, 24, 45–52, 54–55, 58, 62–63, 67–68, 75–80, 82–83, 86, 96, 98–99, 103–104, 114, 122, 130, 139n.105, 142, 144, 147,

Index 157–158, 172n.91, 183, 200, 214, 235, 245n.34, 246n.37, 272, 274n.34, 333, 416, 419–420 historiography 26, 29–31, 33, 42, 44n.4, 46n.18, 47n.19 and 21, 55n.64, 86n.89, 189n.48 kingdom 6, 29, 45, 49n.26, 77, 93n.108, 113, 150, 172–173, 181, 183n.16, 216, 236n.1, 244n.32, 306 Hungary 5, 27, 38, 57, 67n.1, 82, 95, 173, 233n.202, 266, 424 in its historical definition  1–2, 4, 11, 30, 43n.1, 45, 48, 54, 56–57, 62–63, 78–80, 91n.101, 114, 145, 156n.41, 157, 165n.73, 172n.91, 183, 185, 232, 236n.1, 245, 264, 278n.45, 296, 385, 419 Iacobeni (h. Jakabfalva, g. Jakobsdorf) 264 Iambor, Petru 34, 39, 43n.1, 85, 88 Iara (h. Alsójára) 239, 251n.42 iconostasis (see also templon) 88, 386, 395–396, 412–413, 415 Iermata Neagră (h. Feketegyarmat) 179, 188 Ighișu Nou (h. Szászivánfalva, g. SächsischEibesdorf) 264, 276 Igriș (h. Egres, g. Egresch) 69, 80n.61, 95, 123, 179, 236n.1, 239 Ilieni (h. Illyefalva, g. Eliasdorf) 333, 338, 364 Ineu (h. Borosjenő) – Dienesmonostora 69, 93–94, 179, 202 Innocent III, pope (1198–1216) 75, 93 interdisciplinary studies 11, 17, 27, 114, 168n.83, 336, 368, 414 Ionescu, Grigore 31 Ioniță, Adrian 295n.95, 348n.64 Iorga, Nicolae 29, 31 Italian 185, 266 Italy 52, 185 Ják (Hungary) 185, 233n.202 Jekelius, Erich 29 Jelna (h. Kiszsolna, g. Senndorf) 25, 333, 338 Jenei, Dana 32, 251 Joachim, count of Sibiu 227 Johannes de Rozenaw, painter 313 Johannes de Saint-Dié, master mason 170 Johannes Latinus, Saxon potentate 192n.62, 340

511 John Hunyadi, regent of Hungary (1446–1453), voivode of Transylvania 274n.36 John, bishop of Tourkia 77n.42 (as Ioannu Tourkias) 158n.47 József, Sebestyén 299n.111 Kalocsa (Hungary) 75, 77, 80, 84, 121n.45, 139, 243n.25 Kaposvár (Hungary) – Zselicszentjakab 76, 139n.105, 156n.41, 172n.91 Kenezmonostor 91 Keszthely (Hungary) – Fenékpuszta 75, 139 Kimakowitz, Moritz von 34, 316, 322, 324n.45 knez(at)es 47, 57–58, 75, 90, 107n.10, 256n.51, 376–377, 379–380, 387, 389n.70, 393, 411 Knights Hospitaller 58, 95 Köpeczi, Béla 43n.1 Kornis, noble house 274 Košice (Slovakia) 276, 298 Kristó, Gyula 157 Kühlbrandt, Ernst 28 Ladislaus I of Hungary (1077–1095) (see also St Ladislaus of Hungary) 58, 78–80, 85, 88, 98, 121, 124, 160, 296 Ladislaus Kán, voivode of Transylvania 55 Lagoudera (Cyprus) 117n.35 Lands (Terrae) (see also Bârsa, Făgăraș, Hațeg, Maramureș, Szeklers) 1, 22, 26n.8, 27, 29–30, 51–54, 56–58, 60, 90, 96, 181–182, 239, 241, 244, 245n.34, 272, 274, 337, 341, 346, 349, 361, 364, 375, 377, 379, 386, 390, 392, 394, 408, 410, 417 landscape 1, 3, 6–7, 9, 11, 21–22, 30, 33, 38, 44, 55, 63, 65, 76n.32, 80–81, 91, 93, 138–139, 173, 177, 183, 199, 217n.156, 220, 234, 237n.9, 263, 272, 275, 302, 306, 313, 330–331, 350, 357, 369, 389, 404, 409, 414, 416–418, 420, 422–424 Laslea (h. Szászszentlászló, g. Gross-Lasseln)  179, 205n.131, 207n.138, 264, 291n.88 Latin(s) (see also Catholic(ism), Western (Christianity)) 7, 19, 43–44, 46, 48, 54, 58–59, 62, 70, 78, 82, 85, 87, 93, 95, 103–104, 113, 149, 162, 172–173, 420

512 layout, architecture (see also ground plans)  17, 19, 22, 73, 106, 109, 111, 113, 119, 128, 135, 138, 145, 155, 162n.67, 163, 168, 172, 187, 191–192, 199, 202, 211, 213, 219, 222, 224, 245, 274, 278, 288, 290–291, 294–295, 301, 302n.118, 313, 318, 323, 346, 356, 386–387, 389, 399, 419, 421, 423 Lechfeld (Germany) 46, 78 Lechința (h. Szászlekence, g. Lechnitz) 264, 268, 333, 338 Leliceni (h. Csíkszentlélek) 179, 194 Lemnia (h. Lemhény; g. Lennen) 264, 282n.61 Leonhardt, Kurt 213n.150 Leonhardus, bronze caster 314 Leșnic (h. Lesnyek, g. Wachtdorf) 23, 375, 379, 381, 392, 395 Léstyán, Ferenc 31 Lieduinus, bishop of Bihar 85 lime 88, 110, 131, 152, 229–230, 366, 399, 409 kilns / ovens 154n.32, 316, 325, 351, 366 limestone 87–88, 152 List of Historical Monuments of Romania, oficial document 15 Litovoi, voivode of Lytua 58 Livada Mică (h. Sárközújlak)  264 Lombard, style 29 Louis I of Hungary (1342–1382) 266, 298, 402 Luncani (h. Aranyosgerend, g. Neusatz) 179, 196, 239, 251n.42 Lukács, Antal 37, 39 Lupescu, Radu 296n.101 Lupșa (h. Nagylupsa, g. Wolfsdorf) 15, 23, 264, 278, 375, 379, 381–383, 399, 401, 404, 406, 408, 410–414 Macedonia(n) 111n.17 Machat, Christoph 30 Magister Akus 137n.98 Magister Goccelinus 215 Magyar(s), see Hungarian(s)  Maiad (h. Nyomát) 179, 187, 196 Mălăiești (h. Malajesd, g. Mühlenbach) 375, 379, 381, 394–395, 413 Mălâncrav (h. Almakerék, g. Malmkrog)  264, 276

Index Mănăstirea (h. Szentbenedek) 264, 274, 375, 414 Mănăstireni (h. Magyargyerőmonostor, g. Ungarisch-Klosterdorf) 69, 94, 179, 190 Manuel I, Byzantine emperor (1143–1180)  87 Mara, Knezate of 389n.70 Maramureș, region (see also Zakarpattia) 2, 5, 26n.10, 32, 37, 56–59, 62n.99, 376, 379, 385, 389 Marcu Istrate, Daniela 39, 60n.78, 211n.148, 318n.30, 348n.64, 365n.136 Mărginean, Florin 39 Márki, Sándor 27 Marta, Doru 39 Mărtiniș (h. Homoródszentmárton) 333, 338, 361, 363–364 masonry 3, 41, 88, 96, 106, 110, 114, 117, 125n.66, 137n.94, 148, 152, 159, 161, 166, 184, 191, 197, 211, 213–214, 220, 222, 224, 229, 242, 256, 263, 288, 301, 318, 323, 349, 352, 375–376, 393n.83, 399–400, 412–413, 419 (stone)masons 95, 170, 173, 268, 276, 298 Matei (h. Szentmáté, g. Mathesdorf) 239, 251n.42, 264, 274 Matthias Corvinus of Hungary (1458–1490)  245n.33 mausoleum 295 Mediaș (h. Medgyes, g. Mediasch) 21, 34, 179, 182, 192, 204, 264, 267, 269, 274, 276, 301, 304–306, 333, 342, 344, 360, 422 Menumorut, duke of Bihar 45, 47, 85–86 Mercheașa (h. Mirkvásár, g. Streitforth) 179, 205n.130, 333, 352 Mercurius, princeps ultrasilvanus 55 Merești (h. Homoródalmás, g. Almesch)  179, 196 Merghindeal (h. Morgonda, g. Mergeln) 179, 205n.130, 207, 333, 336, 350, 352 Meșendorf (h. Mese, g. Meschendorf) 264, 276–277, 279, 333, 336 Meseș, see Moigrad-Porolissum  Meseșenii de Jos (h. Magyarkecel) 264, 279 metropolitan(ate) 62, 75, 77, 139, 158n.47, 381 Miercurea Ciuc – Șumuleu Ciuc (h. Csíkszereda – Csíksomlyó, g. Szeklerburg) 38, 179, 194, 264

Index Miercurea Sibiului (h. Szerdahely, g. Reußmarkt) 179, 205n.130, 333 migrations 1, 44, 63, 68, 140n.3, 225, 421 Mihăileni (h. Csíkszentmihály) 179, 194, 333 Mircea I of Wallachia (1386–1418) 269, 381, 403n.115 Misentea (h. Csíkmindszent) 179, 264, 280 mission(arie)s 60, 68, 70, 75n.32, 76–80, 109, 147, 157–158, 182, 202n.105, 419 Möckesch, Samuel 28, 315n.20, 325n.52, 326n.55 and 58 Modra (Slovakia) 139n.105, 156 Moga, Ioan 399n.107 Moigrad-Porolissum (h. Mojgrád, g. Mayroth) – Meseş 69, 93–94 Moise of Wallachia (1529–1530) 387n.60 Moisescu, Cristian 31 Moldavia(n) 57, 380–381 Moldovenești (h. Várfalva, g. Burgdorf) 51, 69, 98, 123, 264, 266 Möller, István 27, 165n.73 monasteries (see also convent, friary, nunnery) 5n.4, 7–8, 22–23, 32–33, 36, 38, 59, 62, 69, 73, 78, 80–85, 90–91, 93–95, 104, 106, 113n.26, 120–121, 123–126, 128, 158, 179, 181, 182n.10, 183, 185–186, 188–189, 200–201, 202n.104 and 105, 215–216, 222, 233, 235–237, 239–242, 244–245, 251, 253, 261–264, 269, 272, 274–275, 285–286, 288–289, 302, 306, 308–311, 375, 377, 381–383, 385, 387–390, 416, 420, 422 Monasterium Kenez 106 Mongol(s) 22, 53, 54n.59, 89, 91, 94, 99, 125, 165–166, 170, 181, 183–185, 196, 202n.105, 211, 216, 221, 232, 241, 251, 263n.70, 264, 309n.8 and 9, 339, 341, 346, 360n.113, 368, 421 Moravia(ns) 3, 46, 73, 75n.32, 76, 106, 139n.105 Morești – Citfalău (h. Malomfalva, g. Mühlendorf) 69 Morisena, see Cenad   mortar 88, 110, 125, 131, 152, 160n.54, 166, 191, 198, 211, 224, 230, 232, 248, 318, 320, 366, 397, 399, 407, 409, 413 Mosaburg, see Zalavár 

513 Moșna (h. Muzsna, g. Meschen) 179, 204, 207, 264, 267, 275, 283, 295, 304, 333–334, 336, 366 Motiș (h. Martontelke, g. Märtesdorf) 264, 279 Motzoi-Chicideanu, Ion 35 Movile (h. Százhalom, g. Hundertbücheln)  333, 336 Mugeni (h. Bögöz, g. Begesen) 264, 279, 282 Müller, Friedrich 27 Müller, Heinrich 28 murals (also as frescoes, paintings) 17, 23, 25, 114, 147–148, 191, 197n.91, 198, 214, 233, 256, 275n.38, 276, 280, 286, 313, 317, 325, 349, 365n.136, 376n.5, 9 and 12, 379n.31, 380, 386, 392n.81, 393, 395, 396n.96, 397–398, 400, 401n.112, 412, 415, 418 inscriptions 382, 396n.96, 402n.113 Mureş, river 1, 32, 45, 47, 48n.24, 49–50, 58, 73, 82, 90n.98, 91, 114n.27, 126, 140, 144, 183, 202 Murfatlar 72n.22 Mușana, noble house 107n.10 Muslims 269, 304 Nădlac (h. Nagylak, g. Nadlak) 69, 106 Nălațvad (h. Nalácvád, g. Schiffenschütz)  375, 394–395, 397, 412–413 Napoca (see also Cluj-Napoca) 44 narthexes 71n.20, 88, 106–107, 111–113, 155, 217n.161, 313, 323, 381, 386–387, 389, 391–392, 393n.87, 401, 403–404, 413–415 National Archaeological Repertoire of Romania, official database 15 naves 81, 87–88, 102–103, 107, 109, 111, 114–115, 117, 127–128, 135–136, 137n.95, 148, 152, 154–155, 159, 170–171, 187–189, 191–192, 196–197, 199n.93, 200, 202, 205, 207, 211, 213–214, 221–225, 227, 229, 232, 235, 237, 246, 248, 254, 256, 262, 276, 278–281, 283–288, 290, 294, 297, 299–304, 311, 313, 317–318, 320, 323–326, 333, 338, 344–346, 349, 354, 362n.125, 366, 381, 386–387, 389, 391–393, 395–399, 401–404, 407–408, 410–414 Netherlands 52

514 Netuș (h. Netus, g. Neidhausen) 333 Nicolești (h. Káposztásszentmiklós) 69, 100, 179, 187n.35, 194, 333 Niedermaier, Paul 30 Nima (h. Néma)  179, 189, 239, 251n.42, 264, 274 Nireș (h. Nyíres, g. Nieresch) 179, 189, 239, 251n.42, 264, 274 Nitra (Slovakia) 80 Nocrich (h. Újegyház, g. Leschkirch) 60, 179, 205n.131, 207n.138 Nou Săsesc (h. Apaújfalu, g. SächsischNeudorf) 179, 207 Nucșoara (h. Nuksora, g. Nusswald) 179, 187n.35, 375, 380, 390–391, 407–408, 410–411 nunnery (see also monasteries) 94, 245, 251–253, 308, 309n.9 Nuremberg (Germany) 276, 299n.108 Nyárádi, Zsolt 39 Ocna (Ocna de Jos, Ocna de Sus, h. Felsősófalva, Alsósófalva) 179, 196 Ocna Dejului (h. Désakna, g. Salzdorf) 264, 266 Ocna Sibiului (h. Vizakna, g. Salzburg) 21, 69, 170, 179, 205, 207–208, 264, 268, 333 Odorheiu Secuiesc (h. Székelyudvarhely, g. Odorhallen, Hofmarkt) 179, 218, 233, 264, 288 Ohrid (North Macedonia) 113 Olt, river 1, 50–51, 246n.37, 307, 338 Oprescu, George 30, 333 Oradea (h. Nagyvárad, g. Grosswardein) 36, 52, 58–59, 61, 69, 82, 85, 93–94, 121, 179, 189, 264, 267, 269, 272, 295–296 Orăștie (h. Szászváros, g. Broos) 21, 36, 38, 52, 69, 73n.27, 91, 122, 179, 204, 217, 219–222, 224–225, 227, 229, 231–232, 235, 264, 267–268, 302, 333, 339, 356, 360, 366 Orbán, Balázs 27 Order of the Holy Ghost 308, 313 Orman (h. Ormány, g. Armeniendorf) 239, 251n.42, 264, 274 Oroszlámos (Banatsko Aranđelovo, Serbia)  83

Index Orthodox(y) (see also Eastern (Christianity), Greek(s)) 5, 9, 12, 17, 45, 55, 58, 62, 70–72, 75n.30, 78, 82–83, 88, 90–91, 93–94, 105, 113, 225, 256, 274, 416, 420 architecture 5–6, 9, 17, 19, 22–26, 36–37, 73–74, 106, 108, 112, 114n.27, 115, 117–118, 138–139, 187n.35, 227n.182, 243, 256n.51, 257, 274, 277–278, 284n.68, 290, 335, 339, 369, 371–415, 423–424 ossuary 219, 230, 364, 366–367 Ostrov (Ostrovu Mare, h. Nagyosztró, g. Gross-Rodendorf) 23, 62, 375–376, 392, 394–395, 398, 407, 409–411 Ottoman(s) 84, 85n.79, 89n.98, 94n.113, 118, 244n.33, 269, 307n.3, 309, 341–343, 368 Ottonian, style 185 Pagan(s) 63, 75, 78–79, 82, 99, 103, 107, 225, 227, 269, 304, 419 palaces 36, 126, 141, 143, 155n.34, 156, 165, 296n.100 Pâncota (h. Pankota, g. Pankota) 33, 59, 69, 73, 91–92, 94, 104, 106–107, 118–119, 138, 155, 179, 419, 421 Pannonhalma (Hungary) 80, 243n.25 Pannonia(n) 46, 63, 75–76, 139n.105, 142, 185 Panticeu (h. Páncélcseh) 264, 268 papacy  3, 54, 60–61, 245n.34 Pápoc (Hungary) 233n.202 Papp, Szilárd 168n.83 Parhida (h. Pelbárthida) 179, 188 parishes 3, 8, 25, 34, 52, 60–61, 84n.75, 85n.79, 90, 96, 101–102, 137, 138n.104, 180, 183, 191–193, 200, 214, 215n.152, 219–222, 225, 227, 229–230, 245n.33, 251–254, 260–262, 269–270, 272, 275, 278, 283, 291, 294–295, 298, 301–304, 308–311, 313–314, 316–317, 319, 321, 323–324, 325n.50, 326, 328–329, 342, 344, 359–360, 376n.6, 380–382, 404 Parler, school of architecture 276 Paroș (h. Páros) 375, 387–388 Partium (see also Crişana) 27 Pascu, Ștefan 43n.1 Passau (Germany) 78 pastophoria 106, 117, 386, 392, 413 Pásztó (Hungary) 80n.61, 236n.1 Patriarch(y/ate) 3, 62n.99, 70, 77, 158n.47

Index Păuca (h. Pókafalva, g. Törnen) 22, 179, 264, 274n.34 Paulinians 22, 80, 274 pavements 36, 117, 145, 153, 166–168, 224, 230, 397, 410, 412 Pecheneg(s) 63, 225, 227 Pecica (h. Ópécska, g. Alt-Petschka) 69, 73, 91m.102, 106 Pelișor (h. Magaré, g. Magarey) 179, 217–222, 224–225 Peri, see Hruševo  Pest, see Budapest  Peșteana (h. Nagypestény) 69, 73, 104, 106–107, 114, 117–118, 138, 375–376, 410, 413, 419 Peteni (h. Székelypetőfalva, g. Petersdorf)  69, 99 Petrești (h. Péterfalva, g. Petersdorf)  333 Petriceni (h. Kézdikővár) 179 Petriș (h. Petres, g. Petersdorf-Bistritz) 179 Peter of Ostrov, archpriest 62, 392 Pianu de Jos (h. Alsópián, g. Deutsch-Pien)  179, 207n.138 Pilisszentkereszt (Hungary) 80n.61, 236n.1, 244n.31 Pinter, Zeno 39, 217, 324–325 Pișcolt (h. Piskolt) 179, 278n.45 Pliska (Bulgaria) 113, 120, 155–156 Polonița (h. Székelylengyelfalva) 179, 196 Poor Clares 310–311, 311n.16 Popa, Corina 32 Popa, Radu 26, 34–35, 37, 39, 106, 113, 117, 295n.95, 376n.7, 382, 385, 389, 392n.79, 397 popes 46, 54, 60, 70, 75, 78, 93, 181, 307n.3, 343 porches 127, 163, 222, 232, 273, 283, 300, 302, 313, 317, 323, 334, 350, 401, 411 Porolissum (see also Moigrad-Porolissum)  44, 68n.5 portals 4, 41, 118, 163, 170, 189n.50, 203, 208, 210, 214–215, 216n.153, 223, 225, 229, 237, 241n.22, 244n.29, 250, 256, 276, 278, 298n.104, 301, 313, 323, 399, 409, 411–412, 418 Porumbenii Mari (h. Nagygalambfalva) 179, 217, 219n.169, 264, 282n.61 Pósta, Béla 146, 165n.73 Potaissa (see also Turda) 44, 68n.5, 69

515 Prague (Czech Republic) 276 Prejmer (h. Prázsmár, g. Tartlau) 19, 34, 39, 69, 132n.86, 179, 184, 239, 244–245, 256, 259–263, 313, 333, 337, 357–358, 367, 422 Premonstratensians 12, 80, 94, 182, 251, 253, 309 Preslav (now Veliki Preslav, Bulgaria)  117n.34, 120, 139n.105 Avradaka 155 Delidushka 117n.34 Pribina, prince of Nitra 80n.57 priests 61n.91, 62, 78–79, 84n.75, 266, 376, 393, 411 princes 47, 50, 55, 76–79, 80n.57, 104, 142, 158, 225, 269, 296n.100, 381, 386 Prislop, see Silvașu de Sus  prothesis 413 provostships 8, 60–61, 85, 89, 96, 307, 309, 322, 325–326, 328 Pușcașu, Nicolae N. 34 Răchitova (h. Reketyefalva, g. Weidendorf)  375, 379, 394–397 Racu (h. Csíkrákos) 179, 333, 338, 349 Rácz, Károly 27 radiocarbon dating (C14) 54n.62, 76n.34, 189n.47, 194, 229 Râmeț, see Valea Mănăstirii  Rășinari (h. Resinár, g. Städterdorf) 375, 380 Râșnov (h. Barcarozsnyó, g. Rosenau) 375, 381, 399, 402 Râșnov-Șchei (Dobrice, g. Belgerei) 402, 404, 407 Râu Alb (h. Fehérvíz, g. Weisswasser) 375, 393, 397, 411 Râu Bărbat (h. Borbátvíz, g. Schnellbach)  373n.1, 375 Râu de Mori (h. Malomvíz, g. Mühldorf)  256, 375–376, 394, 409 Războieni-Cetate (h. Székelyföldvár, g. Kaltherberg) 34 Recea (h. Vajdarécse; g. Waywodretschen)  375, 377n.22 Reciu (h. Szebenrécse, g. Rätsch) 179, 189 reconstructions, archaeological / historical  30, 33, 36, 38, 46, 61n.91, 90, 120, 126, 131–132, 134, 142n.5, 156, 196n.77, 204, 213, 216, 223, 231, 237, 255, 259, 269,

516 reconstructions, archaeological (cont.) 278n.44 and 46, 279n.53, 280, 285n.73, 286–288, 291, 296n.100, 300n.113, 306, 311, 313, 318–319, 323, 325, 329–330, 339n.30, 359n.106, 360n.109 and 113, 363, 368, 373, 384, 393, 396, 417, 420 Reformation 11, 17, 137n.99, 306, 316, 416 Reghin (h. Szászrégen, g. Sächsisch-Reen)  264, 267, 275, 291, 333, 342 regnum 47n.21, 55 Reissenberger, Ludwig 28, 315n.20 relics 406 reliquaries 86n.87 Remeți (h. Pálosremete) 264 Renaissance, style 9, 42, 163, 203, 385, 416 reports, archaeological 11, 33–34, 39, 72n.22, 89n.97, 114n.30, 125, 142n.5, 152n.25, 156n.41, 165n.74, 196, 216, 220, 233, 241– 242, 248, 253, 258n.57, 260, 285n.73, 335n.4, 380, 385, 387n.61, 388, 413 residences 80n.57, 81–82, 85–86, 90, 104–105, 122, 127, 135, 137, 142, 145, 149, 161n.61, 177, 183, 192, 221, 225, 262, 266, 268, 274, 336, 338–339, 341, 343–344, 365n.136, 376n.6 and 7, 377, 379–380, 393, 399 as courts 48, 53, 76n.34, 147, 225, 243n.25, 274, 379, 382, 398 restore/-ations 12, 20, 25, 27, 29, 33–36, 38, 42, 71, 107, 111, 114, 118, 142n.5, 160, 163n.72, 165n.73, 166, 170, 192n.62, 197, 200, 211n.148, 216, 220, 229–230, 232–233, 235, 248n.40, 253, 255n.50, 258, 260, 274n.36, 278–279, 288, 291n.90, 296n.100, 297, 298n.107, 300n.113, 304–305, 316–318, 324, 339n.36, 373, 392n.81, 393n.82, 396n.96, 414, 416, 418 Reteag (h. Retteg, g. Reckenbeck) 264, 268 Reycherstorffer, Georgius 27 Rhenish area 260 Ribița (h. Ribice, g. Kellerdorf) 23, 375, 379, 382–383, 398, 411–412 Richiș (h. Riomfalva, g. Reichesdorf) 264, 275–276, 290 Roadeș (h. Rádos, g. Radeln) 333, 336, 349 Robert de Molesmes, monk 236n.1 Rodbav (h. Nádpatak, g. Rohrbach) 34, 69, 122, 179, 207n.137, 333, 336, 348, 362

Index Rodna (h. Óradna, g. Alt-Rodna) 53, 179, 183, 239, 243–244, 263, 333, 338 Rodwell, Warwick 417 Roger, monk 165, 183, 202n.105, 341 Roman(s) 43–44, 63, 68, 70, 75n.32, 84n.75, 140–141, 152–153, 156n.40, 157n.45, 160n.54, 419 fortifications (incl. castra) 43–44, 48, 50, 68, 140–144, 148, 152n.25, 154, 158, 163, 172 spolia (incl. ruins, bricks, tegulae) 71–74, 107, 110, 141–142, 147–148, 152, 159, 224, 229, 397, 406, 408–411, 413 Roman-Catholic, see Catholic(ism)  Romance, languages 7, 26, 44, 70, 416 Romanesque, style 4, 6–7, 17, 19–21, 27, 29, 31–32, 38, 53–54, 63, 73, 82, 90, 95n.122, 102, 104–106, 113, 118, 120–122, 125n.66, 127, 135, 138–139, 145, 159, 161–163, 167–168, 170–173, 179, 181, 183, 185–188, 189n.46 and 50, 191n.60, 193, 196, 199– 200, 202–204, 206, 208n.142 and 144, 210–216, 232–233, 235–236, 241, 243, 245–246, 256, 258, 269, 275, 277–283, 290–291, 293–295, 298, 301–303, 305, 309, 316, 318–321, 323, 326, 331, 336, 341, 343–354, 357n.103, 359, 361, 363, 365n.134, 367, 369, 384–385, 387, 395, 411–412, 416, 420–422, 424 Romania(ns) 1–2, 4–5, 15, 19, 22, 24, 26–27, 34, 37, 44, 56–58, 82, 85, 96, 111n.17, 227, 377, 380n.39, 382, 392, 402, 414, 416 historiography 2, 25n.8, 26, 29–32, 44n.4, 47n.19 and 21, 50n.32, 55n.64, 86n.89 Romanize(d) 43–44, 68, 70 Rome (Italy) 75n.30, 76, 173 Rómer, Flóris 27 Romos (h. Romosz, g. Rumessdorf) 179, 205n.131, 207 rood screens 288–289, 301, 320, 324 roofs 132, 170n.89, 224, 229, 233, 246, 248, 285n.72, 288, 301, 318, 320n.32, 322–323, 356n.99, 398, 410 Roșcani (h. Roskány) 375, 379, 398 Roșia (h. Veresmart, g. Rothberg) 179, 205, 207–208 Rotbav (h. Szászveresmart, g. Rothbach)  333, 349n.71 Roth, Harald 43n.1

Index Roth, Victor 28–29, 240 Rugănești (h. Rugonfalva, g. Rugendorf)  179, 196, 264, 280–282 ruin(ed) 11, 17, 22, 25, 27, 33–34, 36, 44, 53, 54n.62, 68, 72–73, 76n.34, 84n.75, 85, 89n.98, 92, 97, 103n.145, 104–107, 114n.26, 118, 122, 125–126, 128, 132, 134, 135n.92, 136n.93, 138, 141, 145–146, 148–150, 152–154, 158–161, 163, 166–167, 170, 181, 185, 190–191, 196n.83, 197–198, 202–203, 205, 213, 217, 219–220, 224, 227, 229, 233, 236–237, 239–242, 244, 245n.33, 251–253, 255, 260, 263n.70, 279n.53, 280, 283–284, 286, 288–289, 295, 309, 311n.13, 314, 316, 318, 322–324, 325n.50, 326, 330, 338n.21, 339, 346n.60, 349, 350n.80, 353, 354n.96, 360–361, 362n.123, 365, 383, 387, 389, 393, 397, 400–401, 409, 420, 422, 424 Rupea (h. Kőhalom, g. Reps) 60, 264, 333 rural (see also villages) 3, 21, 44, 62, 114, 140, 187, 243, 245–246, 256, 264, 266, 272, 275, 283, 295, 306, 330, 386, 414 countryside 68, 181, 199, 235, 268, 275, 278, 303, 422 hinterland 144, 179, 200, 305, 330, 399 Rusciori (h. Oroszcsűr, g. Reussdörfchen)  179, 189 Rușor (h. Rusor) 375, 393–394 Russia(n) 155n.34 Rusu, Adrian A. 33, 37, 39, 127, 383, 397 Rusu, Mircea 34, 147n.18 Săcădate (h. Oltszakadát, g. Sakadat) 34, 179, 200, 205n.130, 207n.137, 208n.144 sacristies 102, 120, 123n.57, 159, 163, 167, 170–171, 196n.85, 197, 199, 206, 235, 250, 276, 279, 283, 285, 290–291, 294, 300, 303–304, 313, 316, 320, 322, 350, 352n.87, 400 Săcuieni (h. Székelyhíd, g. Zickelhid) 179, 189, 264, 289–290 Saints 78n.45, 208n.144, 214, 283, 309 St Adalbert 78 St Ana 234 St Anastasius 78 St Andrew 94n.113 St Bartholomew 272 St Benedict 236n.1

517 St Catherine 252, 270 St Christopher 325 St Cyril and Methodius 75n.32 St Elisabeth 308, 311n.16 St George 84–85, 106, 114, 381, 383, 401 St Gerard of Cenad 59, 79, 82, 84, 98, 121, 420 St Jacob 308, 314, 325–326 St James 233n.202, 326 St John 308 St John the Baptist 59, 82–84 St Ladislaus of Hungary 307–308, 326–327 St Laurence 252, 325 St Margaret 93, 304 St Martin 270 St Mary, also as the Blessed Virgin 20, 60, 84–85, 93, 296n.100, 308–309, 313, 322–323 St Mary Magdalene 308 St Michael 19, 21, 36, 105, 140, 143, 145, 147–148, 150–151, 157–159, 163–164, 215, 233n.202, 235, 296 St Naum 113 St Nicholas 74, 107, 110, 294, 326n.57, 387 St Nicodemus 387 St Panteleimon 113 St Paraskeva of the Balkans 380 St Peter 272 St Sebaldus 276, 299n.108 St Stephen of Hungary 78, 81, 162, 270, 326n.57 St Ursula 308 St Vitus 276 Sălașu de Sus (h. Felsőszálláspatak, g. OberDorfsbach) 375, 380, 393 Săliște (h. Szelistye, g. Großendorf) 375, 380, 386, 396, 399, 408, 410 Salontai, Sanda 32, 208n.144, 258n.62, 263n.70, 323 Salzburg (Austria) 76 Sâncrăieni (h. Csíkszentkirály) 38, 179, 194–195, 264, 280, 333, 361 Sâncraiu (h. Sepsiszentkirály) 179, 196, 264, 279, 333, 362n.125 Sâncraiu de Mureș (h. Marosszentkirály, g. Weichseldorf) 179, 188, 264, 274n.34 sanctuaries (see also apses, chancels, choirs)  8, 11, 21, 88, 103, 107, 113, 117, 127, 131–132,

518 sanctuaries (cont.) 134n.87, 135, 136n.93, 159, 163, 165–171, 185, 187–188, 191n.60, 195, 196n.83, 205, 211, 213–214, 220, 222, 232–233, 236–237, 242–243, 245–246, 248, 256, 261–263, 270, 275–277, 279–280, 283, 285, 287–291, 294–295, 298–301, 303–304, 306, 311, 313–314, 316, 320–324, 326, 338, 343–344, 352, 354, 386, 388, 391–392, 395–400, 402–406, 410, 412–413, 415 Sândominic (h. Csíkszentdomokos) 179, 194, 264, 278 Săndulești (h. Szind) 375, 404n.117 Sângeorgiu de Mureș (h. Marosszentgyörgy)  179, 189, 197 Sâniob (h. Szentjobb) 69, 93 Sânmartin (h. Váradszentmárton) 179, 194, 197 Sânnicolau de Beiuș (h. Belényesszentmiklós)  35, 69, 90, 93, 122–123, 127, 129, 162, 179, 187, 333, 338, 420 Sânnicolau Mare (h. Nagyszentmiklós, g. Gross-Sanktnikolaus) 68n.8, 69 Sânpetru (h. Szentpéterfalva) 5n.4, 23, 34, 375–376, 381, 392, 393n.82, 395, 397, 409–412, 414 Sânpetru-Petersberg (Sânpetru, h. Barcaszentpéter, g. Petersberg) 5n.4, 179, 239, 245, 263, 333, 337, 361–362, 367 Sântămăria-Orlea (h. Őraljaboldogfalva, g. Liebfrauen) 21, 179, 239, 255, 257, 375, 380, 392, 395, 397–398, 411 Sântana de Mureș (h. Marosszentanna) 179, 187n.35 Sântimbru (h. Csíkszentimre) 350n.77 Sântimreu (h. Hegyközszentimre) 69, 94 Sântion (h. Biharszentjános) 69, 95 Sânvăsii (h. Nyárádszentlászló) 69, 130, 179, 217, 219n.169 Sânzieni (h. Kézdiszentlélek) 179, 233 Sarasău (h. Szarvaszó) 375, 399 Șardu (h. Magyarsárd) 179, 188 Sarmizegetusa (Grădiște, Britonia, h. Várhely)  375–376 Șaroș pe Târnave (h. Szászsáros, g. Scharosch)  264, 276, 290, 333, 365 Saschiz (h. Szászkézd, g. Keisd) 25, 69–70, 122, 179, 203, 217, 219–222, 224, 227, 229, 264, 275, 333, 336, 350, 364, 367

Index Satu Mare (h. Szatmárnémeti, g. Sathmar)  5n.4, 26, 53, 219 Satu Mare-Máréfalva (h. Máréfalva) 5n.4, 179, 196 Săvârșin (h. Soborsin, g. Soborschin) 179, 219n.169 Saxon(s) (see also German(ic)(s), hospites)  5–7, 15, 17, 19, 21–23, 25–26, 28–30, 38, 51–57, 60–61, 96, 103, 122, 130, 135–138, 170, 172, 177, 179, 182n.10 and 12, 186, 188–189, 190–191, 192n.62, 199, 202, 204, 225, 227, 235, 239, 246n.37, 253–254, 264, 266, 272, 282–283, 291, 305, 307n.1, 315, 326, 329, 333, 335, 336n.6, 339–340, 343, 356n.99, 368, 382, 417, 419, 421 schism(atics) 75, 79, 415 Scoreiu (h. Skorei, g. Standorf) 375, 377, 381 Scripou (Orchomenus, Greece) 120 Sebeș (h. Szászsebes, g. Mühlbach) 1, 21, 28, 34–35, 39, 69, 96, 103, 170, 179, 182, 191, 199–200, 203–205, 207, 239, 244, 264, 266–270, 274–276, 283, 288, 293, 295–296, 298–299, 306, 330, 333, 342, 346, 360 secular 6, 177, 181, 283n.64, 311 sedilia 413 Seghiște (h. Szegyesd) 375, 388 Șeica Mare (h. Nagyselyk, g. Marktschelken)  264, 291n.88 Șeica Mică (h. Kisselyk, g. Kleinschelken)  264, 283, 291n.88, 333 Șelimbăr (h. Sellenberk, g. Schellenberg)  179, 205n.130, 207 Selishte (Bulgaria) 117n.34 Serbia(ns) 9, 82–83, 85, 106, 113 sewage works 36, 170n.84, 217n.163, 220, 299n.111, 316 Sfântu Gheorghe (h. Sepsiszentgyörgy, g. Sankt Georgen, Gergesmarkt) 333, 338, 364 Sibiu (h. Nagyszeben, g. Hermannstadt) 1, 3, 5–6, 8, 20, 22, 28, 34, 36, 38, 40, 52, 57, 60, 69, 91, 96, 102, 122, 177, 179–180, 200, 202–204, 210, 215n.152, 217, 219–222, 224, 227, 229, 235, 245n.33, 251, 261n.67, 264, 266–269, 272, 274–276, 288, 290–291, 301–302, 306, 307–330, 333, 342–343, 360, 366, 368, 380, 386, 399, 418, 421–422

Index Sibiu – Gușterița (h. Szenterzsébet, g. Hammersdorf) 179, 207–210 Sibiu – Turnișor (h. Kistorony, g. Neppendorf) 179, 207, 333, 344–345 Sic (h. Szék, g. Sechen) 239, 244, 263–264, 266, 268 Șieu-Odorhei (h. Sajóudvarhely, g. Dienesdorf) 179, 189–190, 239, 251n.42 Sigerus, Emil 28 Sighișoara (h. Segesvár, g. Schässburg) 9, 11, 21–22, 30, 36, 38, 52, 69, 96–97, 122, 131–132, 135, 179, 203–205, 210–211, 213, 217, 220, 222, 224–225, 227, 229, 264, 266–269, 272, 274–275, 294, 296, 302–303, 306, 330, 333, 339, 346, 348, 421–422 Sigismund of Luxembourg of Hungary (1387–1437) 266, 269, 296, 398n.104 Silvanus, God 409 Silvașu de Sus – Prislop Monastery (h. Felsőszilvás, g. Zwetschgart) 23, 36, 375, 385, 387–388 Simeon I of Bulgaria (893–927) 50, 157 Simon, bishop of Oradea 93 Simon, bishop of Transylvania 60, 144n.11, 158 Șinca Veche (h. Ósinka, g. Alt-Schinka) 69, 72n.22 single-nave churches 7, 17, 19, 21, 23, 63, 81, 87, 102, 107, 114, 117, 120, 122–123, 127–128, 130, 135, 137, 138n.104, 150, 187, 189–192, 193–202, 208, 211–212, 222–223, 235, 245, 251, 253, 255, 260, 274–278, 282–283, 291, 293, 295, 297, 299, 301, 304–305, 309, 311, 324–325, 328, 336, 339, 344, 349, 351–352, 354, 356, 386, 389, 392, 395, 413, 415, 421 Șișterea (h. Siter) 179, 188 Sixtus Bichariensis, bishop 85n.81 Sixtus Varadiensis, bishop 85n.81 Slav(ic)s 7, 26, 44, 67, 70, 77, 86n.89, 96, 416 (Church) Slavonic 70, 256, 380, 404 Slimnic (h. Szelindek, g. Stolzenburg) 264, 276 Slovakia 233n.202, 266 Șoala (h. Sálya, g. Schaal) 179, 333, 365 Șoarș (h. Sáros, g. Scharesch) 333, 336 Sófalvi, András 39, 217n.166, 233

519 Șomartin (h. Mártonhegy, g. Martinsberg)  179, 205n.131 Someș, river system 1 Someșeni, see Cluj-Napoca   Soós, Zoltán 39, 285n.73 Stablo (Belgia) 232 Stănislav Hraboru, župan 379, 382 steeples 189n.46, 219, 392 Ștefănescu, Ion D. 29 Stephen I of Hungary (997/1001–1038) (see also St Stephen of Hungary) 50, 58–59, 61–62, 78–82, 98, 144, 158, 162 Stephen III of Hungary (1162–1172) 216 Stephen III of Moldavia (1457–1504) 381 stone, architecture (see also ashlars) 25, 33, 50, 52, 54, 73, 81, 84n.72, 87–90, 93, 94n.112, 104, 109n.14, 110, 117–118, 121, 123, 125, 128, 131, 134–135, 137n.94, 144, 147, 152, 156, 159–160, 166, 168, 177, 191, 198, 211, 214, 222–224, 229–230, 232, 240–241, 253–254, 256, 258, 260–261, 275, 280, 282, 285, 288, 298, 301, 309, 313, 318, 320, 322–323, 338–340, 342, 344, 348, 350–351, 356–357, 359, 360n.112, 361–362, 366, 368, 373, 377, 379n.28, 385, 389, 392–393, 395, 397–399, 403, 404n.117, 406–413, 419, 422 stratigraphy 85, 96n.125, 113, 131, 134, 150, 152, 160n.54, 197, 241, 253, 255, 262, 367 Strei (h. Zeykfalva, g. Zeikdorf) 179, 375–376, 379, 381, 383, 385, 392–393, 395–398, 409, 411–412, 414 Streisângeorgiu (h. Sztrigyszentgyörgy) 23, 35, 62n.98, 69, 71–72, 90–91, 104, 106–107, 114–115, 117, 138, 179, 189, 333, 339, 375, 376n.7, 379, 383, 392, 395, 407–410, 412–414, 423 Strugureni (h. Mezőveresegyháza, g. Rothkirch) 264, 274 Șumuleu Ciuc, see Miercurea Ciuc  Șura Mare (h. Nagycsűr, g. Gross-Scheuern)  179, 200, 205n.130, 207, 264 Șura Mică (h. Kiscsűr, g. Klein-Scheuern)  179, 200, 205n.130, 264, 333 Suseni – Colț Fortress (h. Malomvízszuszény)  23, 69, 117, 333, 335, 373, 375–376, 383, 392, 395, 397–398, 408, 410–411

520 Sylvester II, pope (999–1003) 78 synods 96 Szabo, Attila 5 Szabolcs (Hungary) 96 Szakács, Béla Zsolt 31 Szathmáry, Károly 284 Székesfehérvár (Hungary) 79, 121n.45, 233 Szekler(s) 7, 19, 21, 26, 38, 51–52, 55–57, 62–63, 91, 96, 98–99, 128, 135, 137–138, 182, 189, 191, 197–198, 202, 227, 233, 235, 264, 267, 280, 306, 333, 339n.33, 360–361, 368, 419, 421 Land of 26n.8, 27, 30, 51n.42, 52, 57, 96, 274n.34, 349, 361, 364, 417 Szentgotthárd (Hungary) 80n.61, 236n.1 Szinte, Gábor 33 Szőcs, Péter Levente 39, 217n.166 Table of Oblation 406 Takács, Imre 168 Takács, Miklos 157n.45, 162 Tămașda (h. Tamáshida) 179, 202 Tápiógyörgye (Hungary) 95n.124 Țapu (h. Csicsóholdvilág, g. Abstdorf) 264, 333, 344–345, 360, 366 Tarcal (Hungary) 96n.127 Târgu Mureș (h. Marosvásárhely, g. Neumarkt am Mieresch) 22, 38, 264, 267, 274, 284–286, 333, 342, 360 Târnava (h. Nagyekemező, g. GrossProbstdorf) 264, 279 Târnave, river system 1, 22, 50, 52–53, 264, 305, 336, 341 Târnăvioara, see Copșa Mică  Tărpiu (h. Szásztörpény, g. Treppen) 25, 179, 192, 264, 277, 279, 333, 338 Tăuț (h. Feltót) 69, 95, 179, 188 Teaca (h. Teke, g. Teckendorf) 179, 186, 264, 268, 291–292, 333, 338 Țeghea (h. Krasznacégény) 179, 278n.45 Téglás, Gábor 33 Teiuș (h. Tövis, g. Dreikirchen) 36, 264, 274, 285 templon (see also iconostasis) 387, 406, 412 Tetișu (h. Ketesd) 239, 251n.42 Teutonic Knights 12, 51, 53–54, 181–182, 244–245, 246n.37, 248, 253–255, 256n.55, 260–261, 263, 342n.47, 343

Index Thalgott, Michael 28 Theodorescu, Răzvan 31 Theotmar, archbishop of Salzburg 76 Țigău (h. Cegőtelke, g. Zegendorf) 264, 279 Tileagd (h. Mezőtelegd) 69, 94 Timișoara (h. Temesvár, g. Temeschwar)  266 Tiocu de Jos (h. Alsótök, g. Kürbisdorf) 239, 251n.42, 264, 274 Tiocu de Sus (h. Felsőtök, g. Ober-Kürbisdorf)  239, 251n.42 Țiplic, Ioan Marian 39, 295n.94, 318 Tisa, river 27, 58, 77 Toarcla (h. Kisprázsmár, g. Tarteln) 179, 200, 205n.131, 206–207, 208n.144 tombstones 71, 109, 314, 316 Tomești (h. Csíkszenttamás) 38, 179, 196, 264, 280, 333, 349, 361 topography 15, 61n.91, 83–85, 88, 114n.30, 125, 147–148, 150, 160–161, 183, 219, 240, 262, 269, 272, 285n.73, 295n.99, 306, 328–329, 357, 364, 367, 416 Tóth, Boglárka 39 Tourkia, region 62, 76–77, 139, 157–158 towers 4, 9, 19, 21, 41, 87, 102, 107, 111, 114–115, 117–118, 120, 121n.50, 127–128, 135–138, 140, 147–148, 150, 163, 165–166, 170–171, 183–184, 187, 188n.46, 189–196, 197n.91, 199–200, 202–203, 205–208, 210–211, 213–214, 217, 219, 222–223, 230, 235, 237, 246, 248, 250, 251n.41, 254, 256, 258, 262, 270, 276–278, 280, 282–283, 285, 287, 290, 292–293, 295, 298, 300–304, 307–308, 311, 313, 318–320, 323–324, 326n.57, 328, 330–331, 333–350, 352–354, 356–365, 367–368, 380–381, 389, 391, 392n.79, 393, 395, 397–399, 404, 407, 409–411, 413, 423 belltowers 9, 112, 285, 341n.40, 344, 349, 368, 391, 393n.87 tower-houses (also as dwelling t.)  136–137, 339, 344, 397 towns (see also cities, urban) 43–44, 61, 68, 118, 187, 193, 202, 264, 266–267, 268n.13, 272, 275–276, 284, 302, 306–307, 309, 320, 342, 365n.133, 381, 404 Trajan, Roman emperor (98–117) 43

Index

521

Vajk, see Stephen I of Hungary  Valchid (h. Váldhíd, g. Waldhütten) 264, 279 Valea Crișului (h. Sepsikőröspatak, g. Eschendorf) 179, 187n.35 Valea Lungă (h. Hosszúaszó, g. Langenthal)  264 Valea Mănăstirii – Râmeț Monastery (h. Remetekolostor) 23, 375, 385, 389–392, 412–413 Valea Viilor (h. Nagybaromlak, g. Wurmloch)  179, 204, 333, 336, 352, 367 Vărd (h. Vérd, g. Werdt)  333 Vârghiș (h. Vargyas) 333, 363–364 Vătășianu, Virgil 29–30, 113, 208, 392n.79 vault(ing)s 4, 111, 117, 131–132, 134, 189, 197n.91, 200, 203, 214, 217n.161, 219, 224–225, 230, 233, 237, 243, 246, 256, 258, 262, 278, 280, 285, 288, 293, 297–298, 300n.113, 313, 317–318, 325, 346, 348, 356, 386–387, 397, 399, 401, 407–408 domes 154–155, 217n.161, 224, 227, 229, 387, 397, 404, 407 Velț (h. Velc, g. Wölz) 333, 365 Vermeș (h. Vermes, g. Wermesch) 333, 338 Veseud (h. Vessződ, g. Ziedt) 179, 205n.131, Uileacu Șimleului (h. Somlyóújlak) 69, 94 239, 244n.29, 333 Ukraine 57 vestiges 68, 72n.22, 86, 134, 142, 148, 157, 194, Ulieș (h. Kányád) 69, 128 288, 300, 311n.13 and 16, 351, 359n.106 Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa vestries 192, 246 (see also Sarmizegetusa) 44 Veszprém (Hungary) 80 Unciuc (h. Uncsukfalva, g. Unzendorf) 375, Veszprémvölgy 158n.47 393–394 Vidin (Bulgaria) 82 Ungra (h. Ugra, g. Galt) 179, 205n.130, Vienna (Austria) 20, 27, 208n.144, 275–276, 206–207 298, 309 Unguraș (h. Bálványosváralja, g. Schlosswall)  Viișoara (h. Besenyő, g. Heidendorf) 264, 239, 244 279 urban (see also cities, towns) 3, 5, 8, 21, village(r)s (see also rural) 24–25, 44, 58, 61, 81, 86, 90, 94n.113, 95, 98, 100, 102, 107, 32, 35–36, 38, 44, 68, 140, 142n.5, 183, 114, 118, 120, 123, 128, 135n.92, 183, 188, 199, 203, 263–264, 266–267, 269, 191n.60, 192n.62, 193, 246n.37, 253–254, 274, 278, 283, 291, 295, 299n.111, 303, 262, 268, 272, 275–276, 278, 288, 340, 305–307, 322, 330, 342, 359, 412, 418, 367, 376–377, 380–381, 385–386, 422 390n.73, 399, 401, 404, 406 Ursulines 310–311 Vinitsa (Bulgaria) 114n.26 Vințu de Jos (h. Alvinc, g. Unter-Wintz)  Vad (h. Révkolostor) 34 36, 179, 217, 219n.169, 264, 274–275, Vaida (h. Biharvajda) 179, 188, 217, 219–220, 288 222–224, 227, 235 transepts 4, 147–148, 163, 165, 199, 202, 205, 207, 237, 240, 245–246, 290–291, 301, 313, 316, 320, 323 Treiber, Gustav 30, 299n.111 trench, feature 98n.129, 120, 131, 138, 152, 211, 233, 318, 322, 325, 357, 359, 363, 408, 413 triconch, ground plan 36, 113, 387 triumphal arches 154, 196n.85, 278–279, 319, 412–413 Tuhutum (Tétény), Hungarian leader 45 Turcuș, Ștefan 32 Turcuș, Veronica 32 Turda (h. Torda, g. Thorenburg) 22, 36, 38, 44, 53, 69, 95, 264, 266–267, 268n.13, 269, 272, 278, 284, 289, 302, 330, 333, 342, 422 Bisericani (h. Egyházfalvá) 264, 272 Turda Nouă (h. Újtorda, g. Neu-Thorda)  264, 272 Turda Veche (h. Ótorda, g. Alt-Thorda)  264, 278, 283, 288 Turia (Turia de Sus, Turia de Jos, h. Torja, g. Torian) 179, 196, 333, 338, 361n.122 Turnișor, see Sibiu   Tuștea (h. Tustya) 375–376

522

Index

Viscri (h. Szászfehéregyháza, g. DeutschWeißkirch) 21, 34, 69, 91, 96, 122, 135–138, 177, 179, 182, 187–189, 192, 264, 333, 336, 339, 344, 356n.99, 360, 364–365, 367, 421 Visegrád (Hungary) 81 Viștea de Jos (h. Alsóvist, g. Unter-Wischt)  375, 387–388, 406 Vlachs (see also Romania(ns)) 47n.21 Vladimirescu (h. Öthalom, g. Glogowatz)  69, 89, 123, 179, 187, 202 Voivodeni (h. Nagyvajdafalva, g. GrossWaiwoden) 375, 377, 390–391, 406n.121, 407–408 voivodes 55, 86n.89, 144, 379–380, 385 voivodeships 45, 47, 57–58 of Bălgrad 45, 48–49, 142, 147, 149, 375 of Transylvania 1, 4, 45, 54–55, 58, 61, 63, 82, 215, 272, 274n.34, 329, 417 Voivozi (h. Almaszeg) 35, 69, 91, 179, 188, 375, 379, 389–391 Vulcan (h. Szászvolkány, g. Wolkendorf)  333, 362 Vurpăr (h. Vurpód, g. Burgberg) 179, 205, 208, 333

260, 270, 278–279, 282, 285, 291, 293, 298, 301–302, 308, 313–314, 316, 318, 320, 322–323, 325–328, 330–331, 333, 336–346, 348–349, 351–353, 354n.97, 356–357, 359–366, 368, 381, 385, 387, 390, 392, 395, 397, 399–401, 405–409, 411–413 wells 33, 153, 154n.32, 229, 340, 351, 366–367 Werner, George 27 Western (Christianity; see also Catholic(ism), Latin(s)) 63, 67, 70, 78–80, 103–104, 161, 256, 419 wooden, architecture 22, 25, 52, 72, 81, 86–88, 90–91, 93, 95, 103, 114, 123n.56, 135, 189–190, 230, 285, 290, 309, 313, 322–323, 330, 340, 342, 344, 350, 354, 356, 357n.103, 360n.112, 361n.121, 362, 366, 373, 375–376, 379n.28, 380–381, 385, 389, 392, 393n.82, 398–399, 403, 406–407, 412, 414 workshops 76, 121n.45, 125, 154n.32, 162, 172–173, 185, 199, 227, 240, 243–244, 258, 261, 268, 276, 283, 296, 298, 304–305, 331, 366, 375, 386, 404, 406–407, 410, 412, 422

walking level 152, 166, 168, 242 Wallachia(n) 22, 57–58, 269, 307, 380–381, 386, 387n.59 and 60, 399, 402, 403n.115, 424 Weisz, Attila 32 walls 22–23, 33, 41, 54n.62, 76n.34, 86–89, 98n.129, 100, 109n.13, 110, 114, 117–118, 120, 123n.56, 125, 127–128, 131–132, 134, 135n.92, 136n.93, 137, 140–142, 147–148, 150, 152–154, 164, 166–168, 170, 188–190, 195, 196n.85, 197–200, 205, 207, 211, 213–214, 222–225, 229–230, 232, 240, 242, 244n.29, 246, 248, 253–256, 258,

Zăbala (h. Zabola, g. Gebissdorf) 69, 98n.129, 99 Zagreb (Croatia) 80 Zakarpattia (see also Maramureş) 27, 298n.104 Zalavár (Hungary) 76, 80, 121n.45 Zamfira, daughter of Moise of Wallachia  387 Zăvoi (h. Macesd) 375, 393 Zlatna (h. Zalatna, g. Klein-Schlatten) 23, 179, 205n.131, 375, 379, 382–384 Zolotarevo (Ukraine) 377 župans 379, 382