SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA Studia in honorem magistri

Attila László septuagesimo anno

Honoraria, 9 Redigit: Victor Spinei

Cover design: Manuela Oboroceanu The English translations were revised by:

Norbert Poruciuc ISBN: 978-973-703-581-3

UNIVERSITATEA „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA”

FACULTATEA DE ISTORIE CENTRUL INTERDISCIPLINAR DE STUDII

ARHEOISTORICE

ACADEMIA ROMÂN> INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE IAŞI

MUZEUL NA^IONAL SECUIESC

SFÂNTU GHEORGHE

SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA Studia in honorem magistri

Attila László septuagesimo anno

Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica M?_?u et Felix Adrian Tencariu

EDITURA UNIVERSIT>^II „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” IAŞI-2010

This publication was financially supported by the

Székely Nemzeti Múzeum, Sepsiszentgyörgy/ Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe

and DAAD Alumni Club

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

OMAGIU. Attila, László

Signa praehistorica : studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno /

ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău et

Felix Adrian Tencariu. - Iaşi : Editura Universităţii "Al. I. Cuza", 2010

ISBN 978-973-703-581-3

I. Bolohan, Neculai (ed.)

II. Măţău, Florica (ed.)

III. Tencariu, Felix Adrian (ed.)

903(498)

CONTENTS/INHALTSVERZEICHNIS/ TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Tabula Gratulatoria ........................................................................................................... 9 On the Occasion of Professor Attila László’s 70th Anniversary ................................. 13 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 19 Abbreviations/Abkürzungen/Abréviations ..................................................................... 41 

Nicolae URSULESCU, Alexander RUBEL 

Die Ausgrabungen in Cucuteni im Jahre 1910 nach einem

unveröffentlichten Grabungsbericht von Hubert Schmidt .......................................... 49 Săpăturile de la Cucuteni din 1910 reflectate într-un raport inedit al lui

Hubert Schmidt ................................................................................................................. 57 

Marin DINU 

On the Censer Type Pots from the Final Period (Horodiştea – Erbiceni –

Gordineşti) of the Cucuteni Culture in the Romanian Space West

of the Prut .......................................................................................................................... 85 

Felix-Adrian TENCARIU 

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology in Neolithic

and Chalcolithic .............................................................................................................. 119 

János MAKKAY 

Two Peculiar Types of the North Caucasian Maikop Culture.

Their Southern Parallels and Chronological Importance ........................................ 141 

Tiberius BADER 

Wiederherstellung des Inhaltes einer alten Entdeckung. - Der Hortfund

von Stâna/Felsőboldád bez. Satu Mare und sein Mentor/Fürsprecher

Antal Gyurits ................................................................................................................... 165 

Nikolaus BOROFFKA, Rodica BOROFFKA 

Ein alter bronzener Dolch aus Siebenbürgen ............................................................. 189 

Radu BĂJENARU 

About the Terminology and Periodization of the Early Bronze Age

in the Carpathian-Danube Area ................................................................................... 203 

Anca-Diana POPESCU 

Deliberate Destruction of Pottery During the Bronze Age – A Case Study ........... 213 

Neculai BOLOHAN 

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area ....................................................... 229 

Florica MĂŢĂU 

Patterns of Deposition. The Metal Artefacts at the End of the Bronze Age

and the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube Region ............................ 245 

Mihai WITTENBERGER 

A Special Site of the Noua Culture - Bolduţ, Cluj County ........................................ 265 

Dan POP 

The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar”, Maramureş County ................. 283 

Bogdan Petru NICULICĂ 

Karl Adolf Romstorfer, un pionnier de la recherche des dépôts de bronzes

de la Bucovine ................................................................................................................. 321

Sorin Cristian AILINCĂI 

New Observations on the First Iron Age Discoveries at Revărsarea–

Cotul Tichileşti, Isaccea, Tulcea County ...................................................................... 343 

Mária FEKETE 

Sankt Veit. Angaben zu den prähistorischen Feiern und Götter (namen)

sowien dem Schmuck der Zeremonienbekleidung aus Pannonien ........................... 373 

Aurel ZANOCI, Valeriu BANARU 

Die Frühhallstattzeitlichen Befestigungsanlagen im ostkarpatischen Raum ......... 403 

Constantin ICONOMU 

Some Dobrudja – Discovered Items from a Private Collection ............................... 443 

Adrian PORUCIUC 

The Greek Term Keramos (‘Potter’s Clay, Earthenware’) as Probably

Inherited from a Pre-Indo-European (Egyptoid) Substratum .................................. 451 

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău, Felix Adrian Tencariu

TABULA GRATULATORIA

Adrian Adamescu, GalaYi Ion Agrigoroaiei, Iaşi Serghei Agulnikov, Chişinău Sorin Cristian Ailincăi, Tulcea Ruxandra Alaiba, Iaşi Marius Alexianu, Iaşi Alexandra Anders, Budapest Stelios Andreou, Thessaloniki Mugurel Andronic, Suceava Dan Aparaschivei, Iaşi Tudor Arnăutu, Chişinău Andrei Asăndulesei, Iaşi Costică Asăvoaiei, Iaşi Mircea Babeş, Bucureşti Tiberius Bader, Hemmingen Valeriu Banaru, Chişinău Eszter Bánnfy, Budapest László Bartosiewicz, Budapest Paraschiva-Victoria Batariuc, Suceava Gabriel Bădărău, Iaşi Radu Băjenaru, Bucureşti LuminiYa Bejenaru, Iaşi Ioan Bejinariu, Zalău Cătălin Bem, Bucureşti George Bilavschi, Iaşi Katalin Biró, Budapest Wojciech Blajer, Krakow George Bodi, Iaşi Dumitru Boghian, Suceava

Ovidiu Boldur, Bacău Neculai Bolohan, Iaşi Nikolaus Boroffka, Berlin Rodica Boroffka, Berlin Ilie Borziac, Chişinău Bartók Botond, Sfântu Gheorghe Rezi Botond, Târgu Mureş Octavian Bounegru, Iaşi Jean Bourgeois, Gent Jan Bouzek, Praha Ovidiu Buruiană, Iaşi Dan Buzea, Sfântu Gheorghe Ion Caproşu, Iaşi Valeriu Cavruc, Sfântu Gheorghe Alberto Cazella, Roma Viorel Căpitanu, Bacău John Chapman, Durham Ion Chicideanu, Bucureşti Costel Chiriac, Iaşi LaurenYiu Chiriac, Vaslui Vasile Chirica, Iaşi Jan Chokorowski, Krakow Miron Cihó, Bucureşti Horia Ciugudean, Alba Iulia Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi Marius Ciută, Alba Iulia Gheorghe Cliveti, Iaşi Mihai Cojocariu, Iaşi Jean Marie Cordy, Liège

Tabula Gratulatoria

10

Vasile Cotiugă, Iaşi George Costea, Tulcea Ovidiu Cotoi, GalaYi Cristina CreYu, Iaşi Roxana Curcă, Iaşi Zoltán Czajlik, Budapest Lidia Dascălu, Iaşi Wolfgang David, Manching Mireille David-Elbiali, Gèneve Valentin Dergacev, Chişinău Vasile Diaconu, Tg. NeamY Marin Dinu, Iaşi Florin Draşovean, Timişoara Sever Dumitraşcu, Oradea Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Piatra NeamY István Ecsedy, Százhalombatta Linda Ellis, San Francisco Apai Emese, Cluj-Napoca Sergiu Enea, Târgu Frumos Burcin Erdogu, Edirne Mária Fekete, Pécs Marilena Florescu, Iaşi Kalla Gábor, Budapest Nagy Iózsef Gábor, Cluj-Napoca Szabó Gábor, Budapest Alexandra Găvan, Cluj-Napoca Marek Gedl, Krakow Florin Gogâltan, Cluj-Napoca Ştefan-Sorin Gorovei, Iaşi Jochen Görsdorf, Berlin Anthony Harding, Exeter Svend Hansen, Berlin Bernhard Hänsel, Berlin Florin Hău, Suceava

George Hânceanu, Roman Ferenc Horváth, Szeged László Horváth, Nagykanizsa Cătălin Hriban, Iaşi Gheorghe Iacob, Iaşi Mihaela Iacob, Tulcea Constantin Iconomu, Iaşi Ion Ignat, Iaşi Mircea Ignat, Suceava Sorin Ignătescu, Suceava Gábor Ilon, Kőszeg Ion IoniYă, Iaşi Mihai Irimia, ConstanYa Lăcrămioara Istina, Bacău Gheorghe Iutiş, Iaşi Katalin Jankovits, Budapest Erzsébet Jerem, Budapest Albrecht Jockenhövel, Münster Borislav Jovanović, Beograd Gabriel Jugănaru, Tulcea Carol Kacso, Baia Mare Elke Kaiser, Berlin Nándor Kalicz, Budapest Maia Kašuba, Chişinău Imola Kelemen, Cluj-Napoca Tibor Kemenczei, Budapest Róbert Kertész, Szolnok Iosip Kobal’, Užhorod Judit Koós, Miskolc Giorgios Korres, Athens Viaceslav Kotigorojko, Užhorod Kostas Kotsakis, Thessaloniki László Kovács, Budapest Tibor Kovács, Budapest

Tabula Gratulatoria

11

Larisa Krušelnicka, Lviv Olga Larina, Chişinău Ciprian Lazanu, Vaslui Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Iaşi Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cluj-Napoca Dan Lazăr, Iaşi Gabriel Leanca, Iaşi Eva Lenneis, Wien Oleg LeviYki, Chişinău Andreas Lippert, Wien Sabin Adrian Luca, Sibiu Bogdan-Petru Maleon, Iaşi János Makkay, Budapest Jurij N. Maleev, Kiev Igor Manzura, Chişinău Ioan Mareş, Suceava Tamilia Marin, Iaşi Gheorghe Marinescu, BistriYa-Năsăud Sivia Marinescu-Bîlcu, Bucureşti Erzsébet Marton, Budapest Florica MăYău, Iaşi Lóránt László Méder, Sfântu Gheorghe Aurel Melniciuc, Botoşani Vicu Merlan, Huşi Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, München LucreYiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Iaşi Virgil Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Iaşi Pietro Militello, Catania Bogdan Minea, Iaşi Ioan Mitrea, Bacău Iulian Moga, Iaşi Adriana Moglan, Iaşi Dan Monah, Iaşi Felicia Monah, Iaşi

Lucian Munteanu, Iaşi Roxana Munteanu, Piatra NeamY Marian Neagu, Călăraşi Louis Nebelsick, Warsaw Gabriella T. Németh, Százhalombatta Rita Németh, Târgu Mureş Andrei Nicic, Chişinău Bogdan Niculică, Suceava Ion NiculiYă, Chişinău George NuYu, Tulcea Ivan Ordentlich, Holon Krisztián Oross, Budapest Marcel Otte, Liège Mehmet Özdogan, Istanbul Aleksandar Palavestra, Beograd Nona Palincaş, Bucureşti Dorel Paraschiv, Tulcea Hermann Parzinger, Berlin Mircea Petrescu-DîmboviYa, Iaşi Liviu Pilat, Iaşi Alexandru-Florin Platon, Iaşi Cristian Ploscaru, Iaşi Dan Pop, Baia Mare Anca-Diana Popescu, Bucureşti Dragomir Popovici, Bucureşti Adrian Poruciuc, Iaşi Marcin S. Przybyla, Krakow Pál Raczky, Budapest LaurenYiu Rădvan, Iaşi Agathe Reingruber, Berlin Petre Roman, Bucureşti Peter Romsauer, Nitra Eva Rosenstock, Berlin Mihai Rotea, Cluj-Napoca

Tabula Gratulatoria

12

Alexander Rubel, Iaşi Elisabeth Ruttkay, Wien Tatjana L. Samojlova, Odessa Silviu Sanie, Iaşi Eugen Sava, Chişinău Berecki Sándor, Târgu Mureş Wolfram Schier, Berlin Gudrun Schneckenburger, Konstanz Gunter Schöbel, Uhldingen-Mühlhofen Katalin H. Simon, Budapest Galina I. Smirnova, Sankt Petersburg Loredana Solcan, Iaşi Ion Solcanu, Iaşi Tudor Soroceanu, Berlin Victor Spinei, Iaşi Mark Stefanovich, Blagoevgrad Lăcrămioara Stratulat, Iaşi Elena Studenikova, Bratislava Géza Szabó, Szekszárd Miklós Szabó, Budapest Ildikó Szathmári, Budapest Maria-Magdalena Székely, Iaşi Zolt Székely, Sfântu Gheorghe Alexandru Szentmiklosi, Timişoara Sándor Sztáncsuj, Sfântu Gheorghe Monica Şandor Chicideanu, Bucureşti Nikola Tasić, Beograd

Felix Adrian Tencariu, Iaşi Dan Gh. Teodor, Iaşi Silvia Teodor, Iaşi Ion Toderaşcu, Iaşi Henrieta Todorova, Sofia Claudiu Topor, Iaşi Katalin Tóth, Hódmezővásárhely Gerhard Trnka, Wien Senica Xurcanu, Iaşi Corina Ursache, Vaslui Vasile Ursachi, Roman Nicolae Ursulescu, Iaşi Constantin Emil Ursu, Suceava Lucian UYă, Piatra NeamY Mihail Vasilescu, Iaşi Valentin Vasiliev, Cluj-Napoca Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu, Iaşi Magdolna Vicze, Százhalombatta Adrian ViYalaru, Iaşi Valentina Voinea, ConstanYa Andreea Vornicu, Iaşi Măriuca Vornicu, Iaşi Alexandru Vulpe, Bucureşti Petronel Zahariuc, Iaşi Aurel Zanoci, Chişinău Olivier Weller, Besançon Mihai Wittenberger, Cluj-Napoca

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău, Felix Adrian Tencariu

“ALL IN ONE”. ISSUES OF METH ODOLOGY, PARADIGMS AND RADIOCARBON DATINGS CONCERNING

TH E OUTER EASTERN CARPATH IAN AREA

NECULAI BOLOHAN (IAŞI)

“Understanding identities might sometimes appear deceptively simple today, but they are not; they are still subject to complex manifestation which can be camouflaged via similarities in material culture, and which will hold new challenges for future generations of archaeologists”. Timothy Insoll 2007, 15.

The area of Eastern Carpathians1 during the Early Bronze

Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age has been research, so far, through the analysis of artifacts coming out from settlements and some funerary findings. Coherent ideas about day-to-day life or the relations to the Eastern Carpathian Basin are scarce in the published material. Although there are many published data concerning findings belonging to the MBA and LBA, the information is still scarce when publications concerning the EBA are taking into account. That is the reason why I am trying to reevaluate the theoretical background and to reassess some of the data concerning the area. This contribution is set it up on bibliography and my observations on field and in museums. I pay attention to the data issued by archaeologists in different periods and I attempt to appraise my researches concerning the transition from EBA to MBA. For this purpose, from 2008 there is the possibility to use some recent non-destructive and non-invasive techniques in archaeological sciences (topographical mapping, intensive grid survey, drilling, as

1 On this occasion I am setting up a theoretical frame based on the

relations towards Eastern Carpathian Basin area.

Neculai Bolohan

230

well as geomagnetic and geoelectric field measuring and radiocarbon dating)2.

Chronological context

Now there is a good effort for setting an up to date chronological system for Eastern Romania. The area of study is in a very tangled situation and far away from certainty. Thus, working with the metallic finds the Central European chronological system it is the landmark; nevertheless, when looking for defining material cultures to which the researched area is relate, more or less, the Aegean chronology is the pillar.

Furthermore, is still very hard to identify and to frame the beginning of the Bronze Age for the area on which my research is concentrated. The EBA is represented by a body of dissimilar discoveries as the Corded Ware, Ochre Graves, Jamnaja, Katakombnaja, Usatovo-Horodiştea-Folteşti I, Folteşti II, Răcăciuni, Dolheşti, Tîrpeşti, the beginnings of Monteoru and Costişa cultures and so on (BURTĒNESCU 2002, passim). Lately, there is a proposal to concentrate and to organize these discoveries according to the material culture features, to the relations between the discoveries and to some 14C data. In this respect, the EBA at the periphery of the Eastern Carpathian Basin is divided into two main stages: EBA 1 (2900/2800-2600/2500 B.C.) and EBA II (2600/2500-2100/2000±100 B.C.) (BURTĒNESCU 2002, 305-309). At least, the beginning of the EBA I is estimated for a far earlier period than that considered for the South-Western Carpathian Basin, where the middle of the IIIrd

millennium is a very convenient data (GOGÂLTAN 1999, 72-74, Fig. 1/fourth tabel). As for the final stage of the EBA and the dawn of the MBA in the area, thanks to some recently 14C data from Costişa and Siliştea3, Neamţ County in Western Moldavia, there is a time for new dialogues.

2 Investigations undertook according to an agreement with the

Arheoinvest Platform from the Al. I. Cuza University in Iaşi. 3 There is the time and the opportunity to warmly express my thanks and

gratitude to Dr. Vlad Vintilă Zirra, Dr. Radu Băjenaru and Dr. Anca Diana Popescu

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

231

Geographical boundaries The area of study is a region stretching from the Eastern

Carpathian Mountains in the West to the Western banks of the Siret River in the East. It occupies Central and Northern parts of Moldavia, in Romania. The area consists of mountainous regions, hills and highlands on the Western edges, two alluvial plains, and basins surrounding the Western bank of the Siret River. In Prehistory, the Cracău-Bistriţa basin was an important buffer territory between the Northern and Southern parts of Moldavia, towards the mouth of the Danube and between East and West; in other words, a buffer territory between Western Moldavia and the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Finding paradigms and methodology

This study aims to change the parochial and “canonical” view on the material culture syntagma and the way to construct the past material cultures into the need for permanently re-evaluate the potentials of the archaeology. On the account of this inferences the next step might unveil the inner-dynamic, the interactions and the conditions for understanding the way of mixing cultures and creating cultural buffer territories in the Central and Eastern European Prehistory.

Despite a long and very important bulk of discoveries, the archaeology in Eastern Europe has mainly worked with a traditional culture-historical approach or neo-evolutionist viewpoint as concern the equation between culture and history and material culture and identity. Archaeologists have concentrated mainly to identify archaeological cultures4 to throw bridges in a very complicate and bushy relative chronology and to map the geographical distribution through artifactual differences and similitude’s. Therefore, the diffusion and the migration may ever explain the analogies. In this

(Institute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”, Bucharest). They helped in collecting my samples and kindly supporting the radiocarbon analyses.

4 Needles to explain the reassessing of the keywords: artifacts, cultures, material cultures in the last decades. See SHANKS, TILLEY 1987, 117- 119, 130-134.

Neculai Bolohan

232

respect, the task is to set up a long distribution system from prehistory into historical times for building the history of the knowing ancient people5.

Thus, different types of classificatory rules produce archaeological cultures as the expression of the relationship between a body of common features and a social group charted within an area. The archaeological culture6 became rather a group or an artifactual style, resulting from a hierarchy of the artifacts types indicating morphological or functional similitude. In some extents the archaeological culture or the cultural groups7 may indicate an entity or an individual with its own life circle, from the birth until his death. The study of material culture has been done by concentrating on typologies and taxonomies and not onto the history masked by materiality or by the artifacts8, avoiding to deal with the “communicative qualities of material culture” (LUCY 2005, 99). Furthermore, this simplified inquire is skirting the topic of “the active role of material culture in constituting, rather than merely reflecting social realities” (LUCY 2005, 99).

These efforts did not have a theoretic frame and an up to date methodology, which would have facilitated a relinquishment of the older and confusing manners of interpreting the materiality, which paid tribute to a mechanical cultural evolutionism or neo-evolutionism. By means of this model, the older periods were divided into cultural units, defined themselves through a set of common features (so close to the identity sameness !!!) to be found

5 An up to date critique of the Kossina’s ideas in KRISTIANSEN 2000, 19-21.

6 Noteworthy is the review of the archaeological culture syntagma in all its components according to the Western school of archaeology. Unfortunately, there are no references concerning the Far East European archaeology. See SHENNAN 1994, 5-14, 17-22. For the history of the archaeological culture syntagma and the considerations of Childe and Hodder concerning the topic see HIDE 1996, 25-27.

7 Most of the scholars in Western Europe and North-America are against the allegation which portrayed “the cultural groups as monolithic, bounded, objective identities”. JONES, GRAVES BROWN, 1996, 5.

8 See, for example, the complexity and diversity in decrypting the grammar of the material culture. TILLEY 1991, 15-17.

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

233

within fixed or fluctuant boundaries. Thus, the main task and result consist of finding regional aspects through stylistic variations. From this standpoint and to the involvement and the decrypting of social facts, institutions, ideologies, codes of transmitting knowledge or models of mobility for tracking the past identities, there was and still is a long way to go.

At the moment, I propose to reinforce with the concept of cultural identity in local archaeology, with aspects of stylistic change and artifact variability, which is traditionally based on relationships between people and objects, people and places and objects and places. It is not my intention to avoid the artifactual taxonomies or to find analogies. I intend to push further on the way of searching and seeing the material culture in order to set up a methodological multivariate consensus (WELLS 1998). The analysis of the cultural identities in this area of study has not been a priority given the fact that the goal has been the need for defining archaeological units (cultures, groups, aspects), which in a broadly opinion lead to a fragmentation of the discourse. Or, even worst, this race in standing godfather for a cultural unit may express a powerful archaeological ego.

Lately, starting in 2000, the issue of understanding the EBA and the beginning of MBA East of the Carpathians in almost all of its components but in a regional context became a main task.

Setting and resetting the EBA-MBA in Western Moldavia

When the Central European societies slightly went into decline at the end of the Early Bronze Age, the Eastern Carpathians basin became a centre for mining, for high quality bronze working, salt exploitation and a redistribution or consuming goods area. Gradually, during the MBA, bronze producing societies emerged, which supplied large areas with their products through long distance exchange and buffer territories networks (KRISTIANSEN 2000; SHERRATT 1993; UHNÉR 2010). For different reasons in the Eastern periphery of the Carpathian Basin, these societies were disposed around hilltop settlements. Now I presume the existence of a hinterland peopled by smaller villages surrounding these

Neculai Bolohan

234

strongholds. They are very specific for the Monteoru and Costişa communities; even up to the moment, there is a small amount of knowledge about the way to integrate the landscape. The history of these communities starts at the end of the EBA and continues until the beginning of the LBA in Eastern Romania.

Consequently, in 1961 and 1962, Alexandru Vulpe pointed out on the features, the raising, the inner evolution and the cultural destiny within the frame of EBA/MBA in Eastern Romania when he firstly talked about the Costişa culture (VULPE 1961, VULPE, ZĒMOŞTEANU 1962). From now on wards, there have been some attempts of explaining the place of Costişa discoveries during the Eastern European Bronze Age. It was asserted from the beginning, according to the pottery analogies, that the new culture has been a part of a bigger cultural complex, named Bialy-Potik-Komariw, which occupies the North of Bessarabia, the Western Ukraine and the Southern Poland. The Romanian alternative of this cultural complex is known from that moment under the name of Costişa culture, which entered in contact with the earlier phases of the Monteoru culture9.

For a couple of decades, the horizontal stratigraphy at Costişa and the data unearthed in other sites from Northern and Central Moldavia represented the only reliable data for the internal sequences and the chronology of this type of discoveries; so far, in a generous sense the Costişa level was overlapped by a Monteoru Ic2-Ib level, according to the archaeologists. Thus, it was admitted the ancientness of the Costişa culture, on the Northern part of the Central Moldavia, in relation to the Monteoru culture, and the idea of some mutual cultural contacts between Costişa-Monteoru Ic3 or Costişa and Wietenberg. In other words Costişa discoveries filled the MBA (Classical Bronze Age Cultures) chart in Moldavia according to most of the scholars.

Going on with 2000, there is a special interest for the Costişa discoveries mapped on both sides of the Eastern Carpathians and a good team of researchers are still dealing with this topic.

Till recently, fewest information were added in the attempt

9 For a short bibliographical see MUNTEANU 2010, 195-202.

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

235

of understanding the multidimensional type of relations happened at the passage between EBA and MBA and to which elements of Central and Eastern Europe (Costişa, Bialy Potik-Komariw, Monteoru, Wietenberg), took part.

But lately, due to researches in the Eastern and South Eastern Transylvania and in the Northern part of Central Moldavia, for instance, at Păuleni, Lunca, Poduri, Costişa and Siliştea, new data have appeared referring to the cultural relations in the EBA and MBA in this part of Europe.

First steps for a case study and actual reading

From now on, I am going to refer, only and briefly to some results provided by an archaeological site (Siliştea, Pe Cetăţuie, Români commune, Neamţ County) charted within the area of Costişa discoveries, which, for instance, raises some problems referring to the chronological frame, the different type of relations with contemporary and neighbouring areas and, especially, with the cultural areas located at longer distances (BOLOHAN 2003 with bibliography).

The site is situated in Central Moldavia (Eastern Romania), at the Southern extremity of the Cracău-Bistriţa geographic depression and in the hillocks area between the Siret and Bistriţa rivers (at approximate 12 km from the first water way and approximate 10 km from the second one). At 6 km to the W-NW there is located the eponymus settlement. This stronghold is located at the buffer zone between Monteoru and Costişa comunities at the proximity of some important ways of access from Southern to Northern Moldavia towards the Outer Western Carpathians and toward Transylvania, too.

At the moment, as has been stated, there are two main artifactual items of Central European origin that proves for a relative chronological chart.

Among the metallic findings there is to be noticed 5 Noppenringe of Central European type. These adornments are similar to those unearthed in the Aunjetitz culture area in Central Europe and especially to those from graves or small metallic deposits

Neculai Bolohan

236

belonging to this culture. Lately, 3 other Noppenringe have been reported from Central Moldavia. Some other 4 Nopperinge made of gold wire come from Beba Veche, in Banat (South-Western Romania) where they are dated at the end of the EBA, around 2200 BC (GOGÂLTAN 1999, 187-188, pl. 40/6-10). The Noppenringe is a very typical gold, copper or bronze adornment spread in Central Europe starting in the early and classical phase of Early Únětice up to its final phase or in East-Central Europe in Maďarovce, Nitra, Mierzanowice groups. For a briefly analogy to see the hair rings with a single or double spiral wire from Lower Austria: Franzhausen I and II, (NEUGEBAUER 1994, Abb. 34/12-17; 40/6, 16), Neudorf bei Staatz, north of Wien, (NEUGEBAUER 1994, Abb. 53/7), the cemetery of Niederrussbach, dated to the Early Únětice (GIMBUTAS 1965, 253, pl.162B), the ones from Patzmandorf hoard (NEUGEBAUER 1994, Abb. 53/6-7), Roseldorf (NEUGEBAUER 1994, Abb. 51/4) and the funerary goods in the grave nr. 10 at Zwingerdorf (NEUGEBAUER 1994, Abb. 59/3-5); from one grave at Straubing-Alburger Hochweg in South-Eastern Germany (GIMBUTAS 1965, 253, pl. 163/32-46); the finds in Bohemia from the cemetery of Únětice (GIMBUTAS 1965, 268, pl.176/6-8) and the artifacts from Kolin, “Mickš” hoard, okr. Kolin, Kostelec hoard, okr. Jičin, Milošice hoard, okr. Louny, Slany hoard, Slánská horá, okr. Kladno, Praha-Liboc Špičatá skála okr. Šárka, Očihov hoard, okr. Louny, Vrany hoard, Čertovka, okr. Kladno10. There are other findings in Slovakia, too: those from the necropolis of Early Únětice at Abraham in Western Slovakia, the seven Noppenringe from the royal tomb at Trsteniče, Znojmo okr., the fragmentary pieces founded into a grave (268) at Jelsovče, Nitra okr. those from the grave number 61 at Mytna Nova Ves, Topol’čany okr., and in the grave number 82 at Branč, Nitra okr., 2 samples in the Matuškovo, and Southern Slovakia (GIMBUTAS 1965, 271, pl. 178/8-9) and one from Valaliky-Košťany in South-Eastern Slovakia

10 For references, see MOUCHA 2005, 49-50, 121, 119, 129, 135, 143, 150, 164 and Taf. 32/1-3, 68, 129/1, 150/1, 1a-b, 174/3-13, 175/1-7, 180/2, 5. With some exceptions the Noppenringe findings in Bohemia are dated in the Reinecke A1 (2000-1800 B.C.E.) in a Frübronzezeit or a Classical Únětice Culture (MOUCHA 2005, 7-10 and Abb. 1).

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

237

(FURMANEK, VELIAČIK, VLADÁR 1991, Map 4, Pl. 2/4)11. Despite the presence of the metallic artefacts in the area there

is no source of copper or traces of metallurgical activity. Instead, there are many liquid or crystallized salt sources, which are in use from the Prehistory. Numerous traces of salt exploitation (special pots, charcoal, ash, wood artefacts) indicate a seasonally and repeatedly work. According to archaeological and ethnographical data these liquid salt sources might indicate a long chain of interchanges along the Eastern Carpathians (ALEXIANU, WELLER, BRIGAND 2007, 127-134) toward North to a contact zone, in this case, Transcarpathia. The presence of these Noppenringe in Western Moldavia might indicate the existence of some relations/contacts between Middle Danube area and the Outer Eastern Carpathians area, at the passage between EBA/MBA. These data can be assigned to an earlier dating of the Costişa and the existence of an artefact negotiating system.

The second type of findings refers to the Bessenstrich pottery, which represents, in the area of study, approximately 15% of the whole material. This kind of pottery has no relation with the local pottery and testifies, looking across the Eastern Carpathians, for strong relations with the same kind of pottery in EBA and MBA in Transylvania and within the Middle Danube area. On this account, I might presume a bilateral type of exchanges between Western Moldavia and Eastern Transylvania through the mountain passes (see, for example, the early Wietenberg pottery type in Western Moldavia or the pottery of Costişa type in South-Eastern Transylvania). Personally, I do not exclude a second variant along the Outer Eastern Carpathians slopes toward a buffer territory in the area of the Outer and Inner Western Carpathians.

Recently, on the account of recent radiocarbon analyses, we may conclude for some remarks concerning the local absolute chronology, at least. For the first time 15 calibrated data (close finds

11 Moreover, the list is open. For supplementary references, see

BOLOHAN 2003, 195-206.

Neculai Bolohan

238

or samples) come out from two strongholds, Costişa (13)12 and Siliştea (3)13 situated in North-Western part of Central Moldavia. These data fit very well with some presumptions concerning the passage from EBA to MBA and the beginning of the MBA in the area. To the moment, there were no absolute data for the transition period EBA to MBA and the start of the MBA in Eastern Romania.

These measurements came from the habitation level and proved for a time span represented by the following central values 3546-3371 BP and 3546-3393 BP according to the standard deviation. Data Hd-29027 (3455 BP, central value and 3485 BP, standard deviation data)14 fits very well with the other ones (Table 1). This three data represent a unitary chronological cluster with accurate standard deviation and testify for the living sequence of the site. They very well fit with the unpublished radiocarbon data from Costişa.

Lab. Code

Sample nameconv. 14C age BP

d13C cal. age 1σ cal. age 2σ

Hd-29247

Silistea 54 sect.B/’03

3546±26 21.6

cal BC 1937- 1785 cal BC 1955- 1773

Hd-29027

Silistea 57 sect.a/’04

3455±30 21.9

cal BC 1873- 1695 cal BC 1879- 1691

Hd-29377

Silistea 56 sect.B/’04

3371±22 21.6

cal BC 1689- 1631 cal BC 1739- 1614

Table 1: Radiocarbon datings for Siliştea

As for the calibrated radiocarbon data (see the graphics below), we have to take into account all kinds of probabilities. These dating spin out between (cal BC 1937-1785 cal.age1σ and cal BC 1955- 1773 cal.age2σ) and (cal BC 1689- 1631 cal.age1σ and cal BC 1739- 1614 cal.age2σ). According to this the living sequence is situated

12 The archaeological team working at Costişa will publish these data soon. In this respect, the final closings as concern the radiocarbon data from Costişa and Siliştea will be complete after their entire publication.

13 The result of the fourth sample analyzed at the Heidelberg 14C Laboratory did not come yet.

14 The sample comes out from a deposition/foundation place consisting of a good amount of animal bones.

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

239

between the mid of the XXth century and the beginning or the mid of the XVIIIth century, which may represent the ending term for the settlement. Thus, all the data are proving that at Siliştea there is a chronological frame specific for the time after the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in the area.

Neculai Bolohan

240

Therefore, the archaeological chronology is confirmed by the

radiocarbon data. In this respect, at the Far Eastern boundary of the Eastern Carpathians, these data certificate for a chronological and cultural parallel with the phenomena in the Carpathian Basin (Hatvan, Otomani-Füzesabony or Koszider horizon). It remain to argue the dawn of the Costişa communities and the way these ones interrelate with the area along the Inner and Outer Eastern Carpathian and with the other parts of Central Moldavia.

These preliminary data allowed setting forth some assumptions or conclusions as concern the scenario of the Costişa community in the context of the passage from EBA to MBA and in the MBA within the Outer Eastern Carpathians area. It should be admit therefore, the existence of some interference between Monteoru Ic4 and the beginning of the Costişa communities, contacts intensified during the Monteoru Ic3-Ic2 phase. Certainly, on the area unearthed up to now, at least at Siliştea, there are no evidences of a stratigraphic superposition of Costişa and Monteoru communities. They lived together a while until they interblended.

Now there are enough evidences that prove for the beginning of the Costişa identity at the very end of the IIIrd millenium B.C.E. The idea of a Central European contribution in defining the Costişa features became a matter of established issue. Accepting the presumption, these communities in the Northern half of Moldavia might represent a contact area between Southern

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

241

extensions of the Komariw-Bialyi Potik findings and Northern extensions of Monteoru findings, blended in the area by some Carpathian basin features. Nevertheless, the newly created identity might represent in some extent a result of negotiating places, artifacts, strategies and multilateral relationships. Thus, the culture may be use by individuals or by groups to communicate inside a pattern-group or with the outsiders. The material culture represents the way they report to the internal cohesion and the way they interact with the neighboring areas or the newcomers.

Neculai Bolohan

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALEXIANU M., WELLER O., BRIGAND R. 2007 Izvoarele de apă sărată din Moldova subcarpatică. Cercetări

etnoarheologice, Iaşi. BOLOHAN N.

2003 Recent Dscoveries belonging to Early/Midde Bronze Age in Central Moldavia, ArhMold, XXVI, 2003, 195-206.

BURTĒNESCU F. 2002 Epoca timpurie a bronzului între Carpaţi şi Prut cu unele

contribuţii la problemele perioadei premergătoare epocii bronzului din Moldova, BiblThr, XXXVII, Bucureşti.

FURMANEK V., VELIAČIK, L., VLADÁR J. 1991 Slovensko v dobe bronzovej, Bratislava.

GIMBUTAS M. 1965 Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, The

Hague. GOGÂLTAN F.

1999 Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului. I. Cronologia şi obiectele din metal, Timişoara.

HIDES S. 1996 The Genealogy of Material Culture and Cultural Identity, in:

Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, C. Gamble (eds.), New York, 25-48.

INSOLL T. 2007 Introduction: Configuring identities in archaeology, in: The

Archaeology of Identities: A Reader, T. Insoll (ed.), New York, 1-19.

JONES S., GRAVES-BROWN P. 1996 Archaeology and cultural identity in Europe, in: Cultural

Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, C. Gamble (eds.), New York, 1-25.

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

243

KRISTIANSEN K. 1998 Europe before history, Cambridge.

LUCY S. 2005 Status Identity and Archaeology, in: Archaeology of

Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and religion, M. Diaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babič, D. N. Edwards (eds), New York, 2005, 84-107.

MOUCHA V. 2005 Hortfunde der Frühen Bronzezeit in Böhmen, Praha.

MUNTEANU R. 2010 Începutul bronzului mijlociu în depresiunile marginale ale

Carpaţilor Orientali, Piatra Neamţ. NEUGEBAUER J. W.

1994 Bronzezeit in Östereich, (Mit Beiträgen von Michaela Lochner, Christine Neugebauer-Maresch, Maria Teschler-Nicola) St. Polten-Wien.

SHANKS M., TILLEY C. 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice,

Cambridge. SHENNAN, S. J.

1994 Introduction: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, in: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, S. J. Shennan (ed.), New York, 1-33.

SHERRATT A. 1993 What would a Bronze Age world system look like? Relations

between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. JEA, I, 1-57.

TILLEY C. 1991 Material culture and text. The art of ambiguity, London

and New York. VULPE AL.

1961 K voprosu o periodizacii bronzovogo veka v Moldave, Dacia N.S., V, 105-122.

VULPE AL., ZĒMOŞTEANU M. 1962 Săpăturile de la Costişa (r. Buhuşi, reg. Bacău), MCA, VIII,

309-316.

Neculai Bolohan

244

WELLS P. S. 1998 Identity and Material Culture in the Later Prehistory of

Central Europe, JAR, 6, 3, 239-298. Web sources: UHNÉR C.

The Tell-Building tradition. A study of Middle Bronze age political entities and identity

http://www.eoec.org/documents/the_tell_building_tradition.PDF, Accessed 7 December 2010.