T

Alexandru Madgearu

The location of the tenitory settled by the Bulga$ few years before 680 was long time disputed, because

the sources are not very clear. We do not intend to give here a frrll report on this problem. The history of the

researches could be found elsewherel. Our purpose is to conment some recent viewpoints expressed in the last

)ears. Since 1982 when the Bulgarian archaeologist RaSo Rasev published a very cornprehensive study atrtut

Onglos, other several works brought interesting ideas about the location of the Onglos and about the

significance of the events occuffed in 680'The so-called Onglos Mordedby Theophanes Confessor and Nikephor was a v€ry good defended place,

surounded by rivers and marshes, The group led by Asparuch arrived in the Onglos short tim€ before the war

of 680. Some hoards hidden in Ir,IotOavia "." Jhot"ing the mornents of their migration2. According to

Theo,phanes and Nikephor, the Bulgars appealed suddenly near the Danube. From tle Onglos, tley sta ed the

aacks against the Byzantine territories. The campaign of summer 680 against the Bulgars was a riposte to tleir

inroad that reached Thrace in spring 6803. Both souces are suggesting that the Onglos was a small area, not a

large geographical region. (Theo,phanes said that the onglos was prop€r for the small number of people that

remained after the wars). The "ste€p rocks" mentioned by Nikephor seem to be an invention, because

Theophanes, who was better informed, did not reco(d therno. It might be an allusion to the legendary Riphaei

Mountains. Some unidentified 'Tortifications" ('oripopc) were included in the Onglos. Betwe€n OngJo.t and

the Danube was a marshy zone. The rivers placed both sides of the Onglos are not named but we know they

were located north of the Danube. The translation of the passage ftom Thmphanes made by P. Diaconu shows

clearly this. (Ihe word popeiot6goug is accorded with :rotaporSq, not with AcvouBiou)5. These rivers are not

Dnieper and Dniester, because tlle Bulgars crossed them before they settled Onglas. We therefore should

exclude the locatiOl of OnSloJ between Danube and Dnieper, which was susnined by sorne historians'.

Sorne researchers thought that the narne Onglos comes ftom the TUrkic word agul / arl, which means,.court', ..enclosure"?, while others pointed out the likeness with the Slavic onglu ("cfiner"), which has the

same meaning tike the Turkish name E geac (the southeastern corner of Moldaviaf. However, Nikephor said

thar rhe word was a Bulgarian oree. this makes more suitable the etyrnology from the Tlirkic word agnl.

From the relation of the fight bemeer Constantine IV and Asparuch we know that the triumphant

Bulgars left the OrgJos and next crcsed rhe Danube. Therefore, the Onglos was placed north of the Danube.

However, some historians (especially Bulgarians) tried to locate it south of the river. It is true that the

Armenian "Geography'' ascribed to Moses Chorenatzi says that Asparuch drove away the Avars ftom the island

of peucelo. This source is late and confused- If we take word fa wmd this informatiqr, we should locate the

Onglos in the Danubian Delta. Because this is not pmsible, some researchers believed that the Armenian sourc€

concems an island placed between the Smntu Ghemghe branch and a disappeared branch of the Danube that

started at Isaccearl. Unfortunately, the geological and hyrlrological studies do not confirrn this interesting

RECENT DISCUSSIONS ABOI/T'ONGLOS'

t Diaconu 1970,326 - 327iDiac.f.i.tu 1971, 191 - 193; Raiev 1982, 69 - 7l; Halcescu 1989,339-341'

J Popovic 1986, 129.'

Quzelev l98y'' 36 - 37.4 Halcescu 1989,341.5 Diaconu 1971, 191. See atso Bozil5v 1975, 30 - 31.6 Bunescu 1958,433 - 434; Hdlc€scu 1989,341.7 Zatarski 1938, 1321 Feh€r 1931,24;Decei 1978, 42; Bodilov 1975, 3l8 Btrnescu 1958, 433; Vulpe, Bamea 1968, ul4l; Fiedler 1992, 2le Diacoru 1970,32?; Diaconu 1971, 194.to wi t9'18, zl, 4t - 42.rr aatarski 1938. 132 - 133.

ISTRO-PONTICA - Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a universare,2000, p.343-348

344 Alexandru Madgearu

idear2. Another location, north of the Carasu valley, would be more suitable, because this valley was navigableduring the ancient and early medieval timesr3. In this case, Ozglos could be searched in the northern part ofDobrudja. However, we should remember that Theophanes speaks about some rivers placed north of theDanube; this excludes the identification of his Danube with the Carasu valley. The sources are indeed speakingabout a North-Danubian territory.

Although a location south of the Danube does not accord with the sources, the Onglos was sometimesidentified with the earthen wall system of Niculilel'". The shape of this fortification system indicates indeed itsTtirkic origin. The very scarce archaeological evidence shows only that the walls could be dated between the 5'hand the ?'h cenruriesls. However, the building of the wall by this group ofAsparuch before 680 is not ptoved.One could suppose that another Tiirkic group made this ring-shaped fortification. The information recorded byMichael Synrs about the migration of the legendary hero Bulgarios who built a fortress for the Romans mayconcern the erection of this wall system. The events were anachronically placed in the time of Maurikios; weare thinking lhat the most probable date is during lhe Heraklios' reignr6. The discovery of some gold and silverByzantine coins issued by Heraklios, Conslans II and Constantine lV ii the surroundings of Niculitel suggeststhe existence of some local rulers payed by the Blzantins (see below).

Another idea expressed by the Bulgarian archaeologist R. Ra5ev is merely a fanciful ome. In his opinion,the ring-shaped fortification of Niculilel was the centre of a great region settled and defended by the group ofAsparuch before 680. He considers that this region - the Onglos - was boundered by the earthen wall fromthe southern Bessarabia and by the socalled "small earthen wall" ftom Dobrudja. The fortification system ftomCalali-Barbosi was also included in this Bulgarian territoryr?. This opinion could be considered an expressionof the nationalist tendency of some Bulgarian historians who are trlng to transform Dobrudja in the genuinehomeland of the present Bulgarian people. This extreme idea was accepted and resumed by D. L Dimifov andUwe Fiedlerr8. P. Diaconu has already shown how wrong is this theoryre.

A sfange opinion was recently sustained by V. Gjuzelev. He believes that the Bulgars preserved thefortification of Niculilel (the Ongtos) as a residence of nomad type for cca. 50 years, even after their settingdomnearVama.ThecampofNicul i te lwasreplaced*saysGjuzelev-wi ththatofPl iska,bdaf terT3T,when the latter became the main residence of the qagans2o. This is not possible, because the absence of thearchaeological remains shows tlBt the ring-shaped fortification from Niculitel was used for a very short time. Itis not excluded that the Bulgars used the fortifrcation of Niculilel after they occupied Dobrudja, but the OnSlasattested by Theophanes and Nikephor was not there.

Skorpil believed that Theophanes recorded one Onglos atBarbo$i (north ofthe Danube), while Nikephorrecorded another, at Niculilel?r. This opinion was recently resumed by D. I. Dimitrof'�. One could observe thatNikephor gives fewer details than Theophanes. We consider that both sources are speaking ak)ut the samefordfication, but with small variations.

The arguments proposed for the location of the onglos south of the Danube are not suilable. we canconclude that the OrgloJ must be searched only in the region north of the Danube. But where ?

According to the traditional opinion, the Onglos was the southern part of Moldavia, boundered by therivers Siret or Prut and Dniester. The hkan*s BugeaclOnglos p|ayel a significative role in this idea. Thenorthern limit of the Onglos was sometimes identified with the Rornan earthen wall built between Vadul luiIsac and Tatarbunar23. From this point of view, the marshes recorded by the sources are the lakes placed beyondthe northern bank of the Danube. A variant of this opinion considers that Onglos was only the small area

t2

t3

14

L5

16

t1

l8

L9

20

2 l

22

23

Skorpil 1918, 113, t43 - 144; Fied]'er 1992,22.Diaconu 1993,298; Diaconu 1994, 360.Zlatarski 1938, 132; Skorpil 1918, 109 152.Madgearu 1997, 183 - 185 with previous bibliography.Madgearu 1997, 184.RaSev 1982, 76 - 79.Dimitrov 1985, I 19; Dimiftov 1987, 185 - 192; Fiedler 1992,22 - 24 and fatnote 246 for other references.Diavonu 1993,297 - 298.Gjuz€lev 1991, 84. In his previous study (1984), V. Gjuzelev acc€pted the location of Onglos between Dniester andPrut.Skorpil 1918, 145 152.Dimitrov 1987, 187.Feh€r 1931,9 12; Ferenczi 1936,268 - 27O; Decei 197a, 41 42; Binescu 1958,433 - 440, Vuh)e, B:rmea 1968,44ltcjuzelev 1984,35 - 36; l ldlcescu 1989,339 - 351.

Recent Discussions about "Onglos" 345

between the mouths of the rivers Siret and Prutza. In this case, the Onglos was confined by the Roman earthen

wallbuiltbetween$erbe$tiandTuluce'tiwiththepurposetodefendthecampofBalbo$i'Pere Diaconu denied this traditional point of view into a study published in 1970 and in other furthel

workstt. He supposes that the Bulgars crossed the Danube most probable by Durostorum According to P.

Diaconu, the o'nglos was located in the southem wallachia, somewhere near Dulostorum His main algument

is the hiding of tlwo reasures in Oltenia, cluring the Bulgar invasion. The reasures are: the hoard of Priseaca,

olt county-(ended with silver coins issued in 6?4 - 681) and the tleasure from coqoveni (composed flom a

curved hbula and three eafiings). P. Diaconu remarked that no such hoards were found in Dobrudja and that

nothing proves a foublcd situation in Dobrudja around 680'-costel chiriac, who pointcd out the signihcance of the hoartls found in oltenia for this theory' defended

the lo0ation in wallachia proposed by P. Diaconu. He ccmsiders that the hiding of the hoards of hexagrams

issued by Constans II and Conitantine IV (Priseaca, Drdgdsani and Vaftopu) was caused by an offensive led by

the Bulgars toward Oltenia and perhaps toward Transylvania^'

ihe hypothcsis sustained by petre Diaconu since lg70 was recently resumed by Florin curta with new

and interesfing arguments. In his remarkable study about the significance of the coin hoards hidden during the

6,n Z'n ..o,uii"rin the South-Eastem Eulope, F. Curta emphasized the idea that the Priseaca and Cogor'eni

hoards were in fact gifts for the Bulgars, seni by Constantine IV whcn they were still settled in the On8los His

aim was the securing of the northeri Blzantin; frontier during the wars against the Arabs. The locatioi of the

Onglos it Wallachia would be supportcd by the discovery of a seal of Constantine IV at Durostorum F Curta

considers that Durostorum was ttre maln point implied in the militaly opelations against Asparuch2? The seal

found at Durostorum ploves the existencc of some Byzantine militaly or civilian ofhcials' and not the physical

presence of the empeior in this city. The letter was sent by Constantine Mrom another place lt is vcry likely

ihat the impcriat letter was sent during the anti-Bulgarian campaign, but this does not prove that the maln war

thcatre was lrcated in the neighbourh<nd, as believes our colleaguc F Curta'

The suppofrers of thJ..wallachian.' theory did not ry to locate the fortihed place fecorded by k)th

sources. They gave no alternative for a place like Barbosi or Nicutilel. Any attempt to locate the onglos must

identify the fortifications used by the Bulgars.one coultl observc that the principal idea of F. culta is that the Bulgals were allies of the emperor

Constantinc IV betore they stafied thi inroads against the south-Danubian regions. He believes that

Constantine IV trieri to cstablish friendly relations with Asparuch and Kuber in view that both Bulgar branches

will become a shield against the AvarsAnal l iancebetweentheBulgalsandtheB}zant ineEmpirewaspreviouslysupposedbyA'Petre(who

believed that thc ring-shaped tbrtrfiiarion of Nicuiilel rias buili in these circumstances;?E. In fact, there is no

proof for this assertion in lhe litcrary sourcesThe location of the ongtos in wallachia is based on the supposed lelation between the invasion of the

Bulgars and lhe reasures hidden in oltenia and at Stejanovci. This argument must be carefully examined

Thc cuncd fibula fro||t co5oreni rs J ptcce frol|t in ll le firsl lrrlf of the 7'n century. whilc lhe ealrings

from this treasure could bc dated around thc mici the 7'h centurf" We think that the Cofoveni treasure has no

signilrcation for the cvents occurred around 680, bccause it leplesents most probable the inventory of a glave'

Hirve'er. it is not possiblc to cstablish a firm datc around 680 for the findings of Co$oveni The Pris€aca hoard

.""fi U" a silversmith reasureto, like that oI Stejanovci. Although we coutd admit that the coins arrived in

Bqrbaricunt as gifts for a chieftain, we could suppose that their master gave the coins to a silvelsmith wilh the

purpose to use iire silver as marerial for jewels. iherefore, the date of the hiding could,be a bit larer than 681'

ine friOlng in OtO is possible, but not certain. As like as the loard of Stejanovci invoked by V. Popovic" and F'

Curta, rh;riseaca hbard is too far ftom the rcgion involved in the conflict, even if we admit that Constantine

IV crossed the Danube by Durostorum

2 1

t5

26

2 l

28

29

lo

] L

Schafarik 1844, tr, 163; Bozilov 1975, 33 - 36; ])imitrov 1985, l l9; Madgcaru 1997, l8l - 185'

D i a c o n u l 9 7 0 , 3 3 0 3 3 3 ; D i a c o n u l g l l , l g ' 1 - 1 9 9 ; D i a c o n u 1 9 9 3 , 2 9 7 2 9 8 ; D i a c o n u 1 9 9 4 ' 3 5 9 3 6 1 'Chiriac 1991,375 376. See alsoMitrea 1975, 124.Curta 1996, I t4 - 116.Petrc t981,563 564.Curta 1994, 250; Madgean 1991,46, 62.Butoi 1968, 102; Chiriac 1991,375.Popovii 1986, 129. The place is near Sremska Mitrovlca

346 Alexandru Madgearu

In fact, the treasures from Priseaca, Ddgd$ani, Vartopu and Cogoveni belong to a group of findingswhich represents the testimony ofa power centre located in Oltenia and dated in the first half of the ?'h century.The late Roman fortified settlement from Rdcari (located in the centre ofthis area) was used until the first halfof the 7'h century. This centre is defined by the concentration of several valuable objects: coins (stray-finds andhoards), curved fibulae, B)zantine buckles and star-shaped earrings. These objects were found in Oltenia andon rhe right bank of rhe Danube. in the zone of the lron Gatesr2.

It seems more likely that the hexagrams from Oltenia were sent as tribute for a peripheral group of theAvar confederation. We could suppose that Byzantium tded to stimulate the centrifugal trends aroused after626 inside the Avar qaganate. The hexagrams are present especiatly in tlie marginal areas like Oltenia. Wealready sustained in our Ph. D. dissertation that the gold and silver coins found in the northern Dobrudja and inthe nearby areas are testi$ing B)zantine some payments for unknown local rulers, made during the periodbetween Heraklios and Constantine Ivrr. The hoard from Galati belongs to this group and it shows a longaccumulation, which includes hexagrams ftom Heraklios (3), Constans II (4), and Constantine IV (5). Thiscontradicts the idea of F. Curta, that this hoard (as like as those from Oltenia) was a gift sent by ConstantineIV to Asparuch. The stipends were payed since Heraklios, most probable after 626, when began the decline ofthe Avar qaganate. It is known that Heraklios established an alliance with Kubrat in the same circumstances ofthe anti-Avar policy. The fortification of Niculilel was built perhaps by this group, as we can infer from therelation of Michael SFus. We could even admit that these allies were of Bulgar origin, but they were not themen ofAsparuch.

The same Blzantine policy is suggested by some 7'h century Byzantine silver and gold coins and silvervessels discovered in far places like Zemiansky Vrbovok3a, Cuciurul Mare35, Krylos36 and Zotk6w37. It seemsthat Heraklios started a policy of surrounding the Avar qaganate with several Slavic tribes allied with theByzantine Empire. This explains the origin of the hoards found in Oltenia and in the regions east and north ofthe Avar qaganate.

The location in southern Bessarabia was denied because no coin hoards were hidden there around 680.In fact, the reason seems to be the wasting of this area seyeral decades before. The last coins found in thesoulhern Bessarabia are from Herakliosj8.

The single Bulgarian archaeological evidence at the lrwer Danube before 680 seems to be the gravefound at Bdlteni, Buzdu County. This grave was first ascribed to the 5'h century, but a recent study showed thatthe gold tiara found there is dated in the 7'h century. Its analogies in the North-Pontic steppes and at Varna areshowing rhat the grave hlonged to a Bulgar woman from the group of Asparuch3e. This is a very signihcativediscovery, because it gives lfue data about the area where the Bulgar families are to be found. As a nomadpeople, the Bulgars needed pasture lands and salt for their cattle. It is known ftom other cases (Hungarians,Tartars) that the nomad tribes wandered up and down along the rivers' valleys with the puryose to acquire foodfor the cattle4. We could suppose that the Bulgars that arrived near the bend of the Danube wandered along theBuztru valley and along other rivers. The Onglos was only the power centre of a larger territory dominated by

Madgearu 1997, 164 - 165. Curved fibulae: Cogoveni, Drinic, Kladovo, Korbovo, Orlea, Prahovo, Vela, Velesnica.Buckles: Balta Verde. Earings: Maglavit, Priseaca. Coins: Almij, Argetoaia, Cioroiul Nou, Cmiova, Racad. Coulhoards: Priseaca, Drlgdgani, VArtopu.Madgearu 1997, 106 107, 145, 185. The hoards are the following: calali (3 AR,615 - 638,4 AR,647 - 659, I AR,668-613,4AR,674-681); PiuaPetri i (1 AR 641 - 668, 2 AR, 668 - 685), Valea Teilor (l AR, 641 - 646, I AR,668 - 673, from a lost hoad). Stray - finds:Istria (l AV,674 - 681), Niculilel (l AR,674 * 681), Tulcea (l AV, 641 -646), Dobrudja, passim (t AV, 661 - 663). A recent discovery from Agighiol is published by Custurea 1998,291 (IAR, 668 - 669).Avenarius 1985, 1024 1025 supposed that this tleasure represents a tribute payed by Blzantium for the Avars around680. However, the date of the last hexaglam (668 669) suggests a gift sent to an enemy of the Avars. (Peacefulrclations between Blzantium and the Avars were established only in 678, after the great victory of Constantine IVagainst the Arabs).Noll 19'14,267 - 273.Kropotkin 1971,65 - 71.Skowronek 1969, 128 129.C\iiac l99l , 317 .Comga 1989, 77 - 86. T\e grave found at Tdrgugor (Prahova County) was in its tum ascribed to the Bulga6, but itsdating and ethnic origin are not clear. See Madgearu 1997, 152 - 153.Soinei 1990. 135 - 138.

35

l6

31

38

39

Recent Discussions about "Onglos" 347

the Bulgars. The highlands of the Buzdu basin are rich in salt. In this way could be explained the discovery of

Bdlteni, located on the valley ofthe Buzdu river, not too far from the bend of the DanubeWc continue to sustain the location of the Onglos in the corner betwe€n the mouths of the Siret and Prut

riversal. Theophanes mentioned these rivers without name as the limits of the Onglos. We can also take into

account the Bfulad river. According to a study of historical geography, this river flowed until the Middle Ages

directly into the Danube, between Siret and Pruta2. The fortihcations ('odeopo) could be identified with the

relics of the Roman camp of Barbo$i, which was in its turn defended by an earthen wall placed between

$erbegti and Tulucegtia3. The stone fort has a surface of 5,25 ha and includes an earlier fortlet in the centralpart. A small castellum of 30 x 30 m was discovered east of the big camp. The geographical environment

accords with the description given by the sources.We have shown into a previous study that the zone around Barboli was offered by Justinianus to the

Antae as a defended place against the Kutrigurs. (We tried to identify Turis with this fortress)4. As we have

already observed with that occasion, the area between the rivers Siret and Prut had always a very important

stategic value. In this zone the distance between the Carpathians and the Danube is the smallest one and the

defence against the attacks from northeast is more easy. The fortress of Barbogi was abandoned in the early 4'h

century, but we know that Justinianus thought that Tufiis could be restored. This means that the precinct and

the earthen wall were still well preserved. One century later, Asparuch found there perhaps a good defended

area. The Bulgars did not built a camp. They used the existing Roman fortifications and they applied to them

the Bulgarian name for "camp"as.

The solution given by I. BoZilov seems to be the best: the OnSlas was the small area boundered by Siret,

Prut and Danube.

Bibliography

Anlono\ici, N. I. 1938, L'i(lenttlication d'un afiluent inconnu scylhique du Danube, le Tiarantos (k BArbd)'

offprint from Comptes Rendus du Congris International de Gdographie - Varsovie,.l9J4, IV, Vargovia,44 - 52.

Avenarius, A. 1985, Die Konsolidierung des Awarenkhaganates und Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert, Btzantina 13,

z, r02t , 1032.Bdnescu, N. 1958, Onglos - Ogtu - le prcmier habitat de la Horde d'Asparuch dans le region de Danube,

Byzantion 28,433 - 440.BoZilov, L lg'75, Kdm istoriieskata geografta na severozapadnoto aernomorije, Izvestijavarna 11 (26),

27 -36.Butoi, M. 1968, Lln tezaur de monede ;i obiecte de podoabd din secolul al WI lea descoperit tn comuna

Priseaca, Slotina, StcomPitegti 1,97 - 104.Chiriac, C. 1991, Despre tezaurele monetare bizantine din secolele VII - X de la est qi sud de Carpqli, Pontica

24.373 - 378.Comga, M. 1989, Betrachtungen iiber das Diadem von Bdlteni im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignisseft der

Jahre 670/680, in Problemi na prabdlgarskatq istoriia i kultura, Sof\a,77 - 86.Curta, F. 1994, On the Dqting of lhe "Ve1el-CoEoveni" Group ofCuned Fibulae, EphanNap 4' 233 - 265.

Curta, F. 1996, Invasion or Inflation ? Sixth - to Seventh - Century Byzantine Coin Hoards in Eastem and

Southeastem Europe, AnnIIN 43, 65 - 224.Custurea, G. 1998, Monede bizantjne dintr-o coleclie constdnleand, Pontica 31, 291 - 294.Decei, A. 1978, Romdnii din veacul al lX-lea pdnd in al XIII-leq tn lumina izvoarelor armene+ti, rn Relalii

romhno-orientale, Bucureqti, 15 - 117.

" As we did in Madgearu 1997, 181 - 185.*' Antonovici 1938,44 - 52,n3 T'he idea was first expressed by Schafarik 1844, [, 163 and it was.developed by BoZilov 1975,33.* Madeearu 1992.203 - 2O8.nt Stotiil lgls, 146 - 147 remarked that Onglos was not a proper name, but a common noun (a camp surrounded by

earthen walls).

3A Alexandru Madgearu

Diaconu, P. L970, lz probllme de la localisation de l'Onglos, Dacia, N.S. 14,325 - 334.Diaconu, P. 1971, Despre localimrea Onglos-ului, Pevcn 2, l9L - 2.43,Diaconu, P. 1993, Sur les ntcropoles danubiemes (Vf - X silcles),Dacia, N.S. 37, 291 - 300.Diaconu, P. 1994, Unde trebuie cdutat Onglos ?,Istros 7, 359 - 361.Dimitrov, D. L 1985, I4 culture nat4ielle sur la ive septentriotnle gauche du Bas-Danube aux W - )(

siectes, Etudes Balkaniques 21, 1, ll4 - 132.Dimitroy, D. l. 1987, Prabdlgarite po severnoto i zapadnoto Cernomorije,Yama.Feh€r, G. 1931, Izs tnonuments de la culture protobulgare et leurs relations hongroises, ArchHung 7,

Budapesta.Ferenczi, A. 1936, Sind die bessarabischen und moldawischen Tmjansu)dlle bulgarisch+iirkischen Ursprungs?,

Siebenbiirgische Vierteljahrsschrift 59 , 4,257 - 296.Fiedler, U. 1992, Studien zu Grtiberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der unteren Donaa, Bonn.Gjuzelev, V. l9&4, Chan Asparuch und die Griindwg des bulgaischen Reicftes, Mitteilungen des

Bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Osterreich 6, 2,25 - 46.Gjuzelev, V. 1991, Hauptsttidte, Residenzen und HoJkultur itn nittelalterlichen Bulgarien, 7. - 14. Jh (vom

Nomadencmnpus bis zum 7arenhofl, Etudes Balkaniques 27 ,2, 82 - lO5.Hilcescu, C. 1989, Din nnu despre Onglos, SCIVA 40, 4, 339 - 350.Km,potkin, V. V. 1971, Klad serebrjanich vechei VII vekn iz s. Krylos u Podnestrouje, ActaArchCarp 12, | - 2,

6 5 - 7 1 .Madgearu, A. 1992, The Placement of the Fortress Turris (Procopius, "Bell. Goth.", III. 14. 32 - 33), Balkan

Studies 33, 2, zO3 -208.Madgearu, A, 1997, Continuitate ,i discontinuitate culturald lq Dundrea de Jos in secolele WMII,

Bucure$ti.Mitrea, B. 1975, Date noi cu privire la secolul al VII-lea. Tezaurul de hexagramc bizantine de la Piseaca,

jud. Olt, SCN 6, 113 - 125.Nol| R. 1974, Zm Silberschatz von Kuczurnure, it In Menoriam Constantini Daicoviciu, Cltj,267 - 273.Petre, A. 1981, Byzance et Scythie Mineure au ylf siacfe, RESEE 19, 3,555 - 568.Popovi6, V. 1.986, Koubrat, Kouber et Asparouch, Starinar, N.S. 37, 103 - 133.RaJev, R. 1982, t'Ongbs - ttmoignages 4crits et faits archAologiques, Bulgarian Hstrical Review 10, l, 68

- 79.Schafarik, P. J. 1844, Slawische Alterthiiner,Iirpz\9.Skowonek, S. 1969, Solid byzantyski z Tttkfwa nad wistowa, AcraArchCarp 11, 1, 128 - 129.Spinei, V. 1990, Migralia ungurilor tn spa;iul carpato-dundrean gi contactele lor ct romdnii in secolele

IX - X, ArhMold 13, 103 - 148.Skorpil, K. 1918, Anciens tw)nwnents bulgares dans la Dobroudja, in lz Dobroudja' G6ographie, hktoire,

ethnographie, importance Cconomique et politique, Sofia, 1@ - 152.Vulpe, R., Bamea, I. 1968, Din istoria Dobrogei,II, Romanii Ia Dundrea de Jos, Bucue$ti.Zatarski, V. N. 1938, /s/o,'ta na bdlgarskata ddrtava prez srednite vekove, Ul, Sofia'