This summary has already set out the conclusions of the study. In presenting the conclusions, only some elements will be selected. The increasing number of settlements at the beginning of the sixth century, and the decline in settlement numbers by the end of the same century, together with the relative lack of settlements for the seventh century, are all archaeological data that reflect only in part the real demography. We should understand these changes as responses to altered political and military contexts. The well-known theses of the sedentary and agricultural character of the Romanized population is a dead-end, not only false, but obstructing the formation of the image of the real facts. The absence for long periods of time of sedentary settlements (or, more accurately, of their archaeological remains), as well as the appearance ex nihilo of new cultures (Ipotești-Cândești is only one example), at the end of half a century of research, lead to conclusions that cannot be ignored any more. The local population (which it would be difficult to always name “Romanized”) lived in stable settlements as long it was possible, but changed the living way as many times as the rules for survival demanded. The surface-built cottages seem to be a testimony of the transition from and to nomad life (p. 255-256).

            As for the contribution of pottery studies for writing a new history, the study of typology could produce some results about the cultural background of the potter, but drawing chronological judgments on that basis is more dangerous. There is little help from the numismatic evidence for dating contexts, and the chronological utility of objects serving as “chronological indicators” (like fibulae) is a pathetic illusion. The study of pottery can point out some trends, which are not rules, but statistic facts. The ratio between the main forming techniques exhibits great changes throughout the sixth century; the maximum quality of pottery production seems related to the period of maximum Roman influence (the decades 520s and 530s), this does not primarily concern imports, but considerable progress of local producers. The second chronological indicator is the declining average capacity of the vessels and the changing distribution of pots in capacity classes (the preferences evolution is for little pots), both contributing to an image of a collapsing society (p. 257). Secondary chronological indicators are the crowding of decoration and the pan presence (weaker and weaker; p. 258).

            The cultural landscape of the Romanian Plain, in the period studied, is heterogeneous. The right evaluation of each micro-region is obstructed by discrepancies in the degree of our knowledge. None of the important sites from northern Muntenia (Sărata Monteoru, Cândești, Budureasca, Târgșor, Șirna, Băleni) has been published in a complete form. The most confusing diversity that we have observed occurs in the area of Bucharest, with such distant facies (Străulești, Ciurel, or even Soldat Ghivan) that is difficult to understand them as part of the same culture. The Romanian Plain can be described as a region where in the sixth century, the process of Romanization was: all done in Oltenia, almost done in western Muntenia, initiated but immature for most of the sites in central Muntenia, almost absent in the Străulești cultural horizon (where the Moldavian old characters are most typical). The typical Străulești cultural horizon forms are not to be found only in the Lunca, Măicănești or Cățelu Nou settlements, but also in sites where the Roman character is well present, as Soldat Ghivan or Budureasca, which seems to show that the Străulești cultural horizon, not Romanized in the genuine aspect, it was going to adopt Roman features. It can’t be demonstrated, at least with actual data, that some regional facieses, as Străulești and Târgșor, have a territorial and chronological consistency, evolving separately of typical Ipotești-Cândești sites. Therefore, the content of the notion Ipotești-Cândești culture has to be revised, but there aren’t any solid reasons to propose abandoning the term as a whole. The description “Romanized culture” (or post-Roman culture) will now have to be understood as a process and not like an accomplished fact (p. 259-261). The name of an archaeological culture is a pure convention; the content is that thing that has to be changed, any time necessarily.

            The necropolis at Sărata Monteoru is not considered as a product of the Ipotești-Cândești culture, which is ending where its settlements are ending (see Map 2). In other words, the Bărăgan Plain (= eastern part of the Romanian Plain) is also out of the area (p. 262).


back to the Summary index

the Romanian version general index

the Romanian version for Conclusions

back to the National Museum Publications

back to the National Museum index