Browse results
The volume also examines the arrival of the Lot and its reception in Denmark.
The volume also examines the arrival of the Lot and its reception in Denmark.
The book surveys the archaeological evidence for decoration in the region, with the maritime sites of Ostia and Ephesus selected as case studies. Drawing upon archaeological, written, and visual sources, it attempts to reconstruct how such buildings appeared to late antique viewers and investigates why they were decorated as they were.
The book surveys the archaeological evidence for decoration in the region, with the maritime sites of Ostia and Ephesus selected as case studies. Drawing upon archaeological, written, and visual sources, it attempts to reconstruct how such buildings appeared to late antique viewers and investigates why they were decorated as they were.
Contributors: Antonio Almagro, Shaker Al Shbib, Stefano Anastasio, Ignacio Arce, Jean-Claude Bessac, Pascale Clauss-Balty, Piero Gilento, Mattia Guidetti, Pedro Gurriarán Daza, Roberto Parenti, Pauline Piraud-Fournet, María de los Ángeles Utrero Agudo, Jean-Pierre van Staëvel, Apolline Vernet, François Villeneuve.
Contributors: Antonio Almagro, Shaker Al Shbib, Stefano Anastasio, Ignacio Arce, Jean-Claude Bessac, Pascale Clauss-Balty, Piero Gilento, Mattia Guidetti, Pedro Gurriarán Daza, Roberto Parenti, Pauline Piraud-Fournet, María de los Ángeles Utrero Agudo, Jean-Pierre van Staëvel, Apolline Vernet, François Villeneuve.
Who built the older, Byzantine-style church, and what was the political, religious and cultural context of the church? How does this new discovery affect our perception of the ecclesiastical history of Transylvania? A new reading of the archaeological and historical record prompted by these questions is presented here, thereby opening up new challenges for further research.
Contributors are: Daniela Marcu Istrate, Florin Curta, Horia I. Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă, Monica-Elena Popescu, Călin Cosma, Tudor Sălăgean, Jan Nicolae, Dan Ioan Mureșan, Alexandru Madgearu, Gábor Thoroczkay, Éva Tóth-Révész, Boris Stojkovski, Șerban Turcuș, Adinel C. Dincă, Mihai Kovács, Nicolae Călin Chifăr, Marius Mihail Păsculescu, and Ana Dumitran.
Who built the older, Byzantine-style church, and what was the political, religious and cultural context of the church? How does this new discovery affect our perception of the ecclesiastical history of Transylvania? A new reading of the archaeological and historical record prompted by these questions is presented here, thereby opening up new challenges for further research.
Contributors are: Daniela Marcu Istrate, Florin Curta, Horia I. Ciugudean, Aurel Dragotă, Monica-Elena Popescu, Călin Cosma, Tudor Sălăgean, Jan Nicolae, Dan Ioan Mureșan, Alexandru Madgearu, Gábor Thoroczkay, Éva Tóth-Révész, Boris Stojkovski, Șerban Turcuș, Adinel C. Dincă, Mihai Kovács, Nicolae Călin Chifăr, Marius Mihail Păsculescu, and Ana Dumitran.
Contributors are Arvi Haak, Tõnno Jonuks, Kristjan Kaljusaar, Ivar Leimus, Christian Lübke, Madis Maasing, Mihkel Mäesalu, Anti Selart, Vija Stikāne, and Andres Tvauri.
Contributors are Arvi Haak, Tõnno Jonuks, Kristjan Kaljusaar, Ivar Leimus, Christian Lübke, Madis Maasing, Mihkel Mäesalu, Anti Selart, Vija Stikāne, and Andres Tvauri.
Abstract
The ruins of a 10th-century Byzantine-style church have been discovered following the archaeological research of 2011, about 24 meters west from the actual Romano-Catholic Cathedral in Alba Iulia. The edification of the church under a Byzantine-style plan may be justified in the context of the Christianization of a Hungarian leader of the southern Transylvanian population. The plan of the ruins, marked by four pillars, leads to the idea of a cross-in-square church, even if the proportions between the structural parts are not respected. Due to some church reconstruction of the early Arpadian period, we argue that according to the information recorded only by the plan, the results could be inaccurate. Therefore, all the presented reconstructions cannot be conclusive because of the reduced amount of information, but can be regarded as a starting point for further researches.
Abstract
Much has been written on the territory to which the prisoners of war taken from Adrianople in 813 were transferred at the order of Krum, a territory that Scriptor incertus calls “Bulgaria beyond the Danube.” Romanian archaeologists have largely followed the suggestion of Maria Comșa, according to whom, much like the stronghold that she had excavated in Slon, finds of water pipe segments on various sites in Wallachia must be associated with “Bulgaria beyond the Danube,”. Curiously, none of the cemeteries excavated in southern Romania has so far been associated with that territory, but there are clear similarities between them and several cemeteries in southern Transylvania. The number of water pipe segments has meanwhile increased and there is clear indication of a 10th-, not 9th-century, as well as of local production (kilns). No evidence exists, however, of any urban or urban-like site in the lands north of the river Danube, where such water pipe segments may have been needed. The closest sites with extensive water supply systems are Pliska and Preslav. Local communities in Wallachia must have produced water pipe segments to meet the demand in the capital(s) of Bulgaria. Communities in southern Transylvania were linked by different ties to Preslav, as indicated by the large number of weapons deposited in 10th-century graves and especially by the church built within that century at Alba Iulia.
Abstract
Archaeological excavations or fortuitous discoveries on Romania’s territory have revealed several types of reliquary crosses, few in fact, which carry no ornament. The latter could in fact constitute a third group of Byzantine-type enkolpion crosses.
The repertory of reliquary crosses with embossed figures found in Romania, gather by the author without claiming to be exhaustive, amounts to 53 enkolpia. The cataloguing of the pieces and the two-component analyses of the representations on the crosses permits a finer typology of these artifacts. The typology starts from the manner of representation of the details of the effigies or other decorative elements, as well as the existence or their absence on the respective pieces. The creation of the typology is based on the description of the pieces, as presented in the academic papers in which they were published. When the opportunities allowed, graphic representations accompany the description of the pieces. This brings roughly to the same graphic scale some better-preserved examples, making use of the drawings provided by the authors of the discoveries.