signa praehistorica f. tencariu

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 ROMÂNĂ INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE IAŞI

MUZEUL NAŢIONAL SECUIESC

SFÂNTU GHEORGHE

SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA Studia in honorem magistri

Attila László septuagesimo anno

Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău et Felix Adrian Tencariu

EDITURA UNIVERSITĂŢII „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 RomânieiOMAGIU. 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, Galaţi 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 Luminiţa 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 Laurenţiu 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, Galaţi Cristina Creţu, Iaşi Roxana Curcă, Iaşi Zoltán Czajlik, Budapest Lidia Dascălu, Iaşi Wolfgang David, Manching Mireille David-Elbiali, Gèneve Valentin Dergacev, Chişinău Vasile Diaconu, Tg. Neamţ Marin Dinu, Iaşi Florin Draşovean, Timişoara Sever Dumitraşcu, Oradea Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Piatra Neamţ 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 Ioniţă, Iaşi Mihai Irimia, Constanţa 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 Leviţki, 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, Bistriţa-Năsăud Sivia Marinescu-Bîlcu, Bucureşti Erzsébet Marton, Budapest Florica Măţău, Iaşi Lóránt László Méder, Sfântu Gheorghe Aurel Melniciuc, Botoşani Vicu Merlan, Huşi Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, München Lucreţiu 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 Neamţ Marian Neagu, Călăraşi Louis Nebelsick, Warsaw Gabriella T. Németh, Százhalombatta Rita Németh, Târgu Mureş Andrei Nicic, Chişinău Bogdan Niculică, Suceava Ion Niculiţă, Chişinău George Nuţu, 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-Dîmboviţa, 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 Laurenţiu 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 Ţurcanu, Iaşi Corina Ursache, Vaslui Vasile Ursachi, Roman Nicolae Ursulescu, Iaşi Constantin Emil Ursu, Suceava Lucian Uţă, Piatra Neamţ Mihail Vasilescu, Iaşi Valentin Vasiliev, Cluj-Napoca Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu, Iaşi Magdolna Vicze, Százhalombatta Adrian Viţalaru, Iaşi Valentina Voinea, Constanţa 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

SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE POTTERY PYROTECHNOLOGY IN NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC

FELIX-ADRIAN TENCARIU (IAŞI)∗

Amongst the materials gathered as a result of different

archaeological excavations made in different sites dating from diverse chronological periods (starting obviously, from Neolithic), the ceramic fragments along with statuettes and other objects made of baked clay, tend to have a lion’s share. In some cases, the ceramic quantity in reference to the inhabited area and the maximum possible amount of people that used it greatly exceeds the average mean of vessels necessary to the daily use (the case of Cucuteni culture represents the best example). Considering the abundance of ceramic materials, the problem of the production technology holds a special interest; unfortunately, the Romanian archaeological literature (and not only the Romanian one), provides descriptions (often scrupulous) of paste types, shapes and decoration, but it pays little attention to aspects concerning the technology of pottery production.

Technological aspects imply the sources and methodology of obtaining raw material (clay, temper, pigments, and fuel), the paste composition, the methods of manufacturing the vessels, the techniques and technology of firing. Firing the pottery is the most important stage in the producing pottery process – this is the stage when the clay changes its chemical and physical properties, becoming pottery; this implies a conscious human action, a great

∗ This paper was prepared with the financial support of OIPOSDRU,

through the project Dezvoltarea capacităţii de inovare şi creşterea impactului cercetării prin programe post-doctorale POSDRU/89/1.5/S/49944.

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

120

experience in handling the fire as well as arranging and manipulating some sort of firing installations. Through firing installation we define any kind of space, deliberately used for this activity (open spaces, enclosed and/or arranged or not, hearths, holes in the ground, one–chambered kilns, buried or on the surface, kilns with two or more chambers horizontally or vertically disposed).

Firing pottery installations in prehistory presents, in our opinion, a special position, being, besides the abundant quantity of pottery unearthed from archaeological excavations, one of the few traces on the pottery craftsmanship of the era. The installations types used, their dimension and their number offers the possibility of evaluating the technological level of a certain community or culture; also it can provide precious data about the ceramic production in reference to a certain community occupations, and not in the least, about the number and socio-economical status of the pottery producers.

The following analysis aims to present, as a synthetic typology, all the information regarding the pottery firing installations in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages on the Romanian territory; this kind of research was attempted before in the Romanian archaeological literature, at a certain stage of the research (COMŞA 1976; COMŞA 1980; ELLIS 1984).

By starting from the archaeological discoveries, corroborated with some ethnographical data and analogies along with experimental reconstructions, we will propose a typological sketch of pottery-firing installations used in bygone periods in the Romanian space. The essential criterion on which we have built our classification is the complexity of construction principle, which is, in fact, a combination of two technical criteria: (1) the relation between fuel, draught and vessels and (2) the position of chamber (chambers) in reference to the soil’s surface. The morphological criterion (the shape in level and/or in section of the installation) is less relevant, in our view, being, maybe useful in distinguishing some subtypes of the patterns established based on the above mentioned criterion; hence, we identified five essential types of firing pottery installations:

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

121

Type A. Open firing. Unattested (yet) by archaeological evidences, but frequently met in different ethnographical areas (CULWICK 1935, 166; ROTH 1935, 217-218, 225-226; DORMAN 1938, 99; HANDLER 1964, 150; HODDER 1982, 37; GOSSELAIN 1992, 570; TRAORE 1994, 535-549; GODEA 1995, 45; LONGACRE, XIA, YANG 2000, 277; CARLTON 2008; SILVA 2008, 229 etc.) (fig. 1), open firing was, most likely, practiced in prehistory; evidences are provided by some ceramic categories – these are unequally and irregularly burned, with spots from the direct contact with fire but also by the lack of other discoveries of installations, in the majority of settlements. Important arguments are supplied by discoveries from Neo-Chalcolithic of Thessaly, from Achilleion (an exterior hearth with 4 meters diameter) (PERLÈS 2004, 196) and Dimini (a stone structure, on which supposedly, the vessels were stored along with the combustible matter) (http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/01/en/nl/nnii/dimini.html).

Firing in open spaces could have been practiced in spaces with no prior arrangement, on flat ground or in slightly hollow portions in the ground, or on special disposed exterior structures, like hearths, or, less likely, from within the houses. The protection of the load from the surrounding atmosphere was far more important than the arrangement or the delimitation of the basis on which the vessels were placed. Depending on this feature, we distinguish two subtypes of open firings:

A1. Open firing without protection (fig. 1/6-8) – vessels are stacked along with the combustible matter and the firing is made in direct contact with the air currents, without any kind of isolation.

A2. Open firing with isolation (fig. 1/1-5) – vessels are stacked along with the combustible matter, and around and above the charge different materials are placed: large shards, stone plates, etc., in order to partially protect the vessels from the atmospheric conditions. Sometimes, the firing can be almost completely protected, through “clothing” the pile of vessels and the fuel with a manure or clay layer – under these circumstances, the installations acts more like a kiln, the firing being “contained”.


122

Type B. Firing pits. A series of pits, of different shapes and dimensions, which, due to the strong burning of the walls, having been considered as favorable for firing pottery. In terms of the functioning system, the pit differs from the open firings through the complete isolation of the charge from the exterior atmospheric conditions. Generally speaking, the efficiency of this type of installation is the result of the small dimensions of the opening towards the hearth – the heat loss is lesser than in the case of the open firing or of a pit with straight walls. In almost all the cases, the pits for firing pottery are round or ellipsoidal in shape, with flat bottom (fig. 2/5): the discovery from Ceptura, Starčevo-Criş culture (early Neolithic) (fig. 2/1) (LICHIARDOPOL 1984, 83); in shape of a truncated cone or in a shape of a bell (fig. 2/6): Căpleni, Ciumeşti-Pişcolţ group (early Neolithic) (fig. 2/2) (IERCOŞAN 1987, 73-76), Cârcea – Dudeşti – Vinča culture (middle Neolithic) (fig. 2/3) NICA 1978, 25), pits in sack shape, with straight walls (fig. 2/7): Drăgăneşti-Olt, Gumelniţa culture (middle Chalcolithic) (fig. 2/4) (NICA et alii 1997, 9-10).

The pits were arranged through spreading a layer of clay on the bottom and/or on the walls, or just burned in advance, for strengthening them.

Type C. Surface one-chambered kiln. Due to the construction system (clay that was applied on a wattle network) and shape, most of the times with a semispherical calotte, this type of kiln is easily confounded with the wasting kilns, present inside the houses. Discovery of such groups of bigger or smaller kilns, their position in relation to the working places, or some construction particularities triggered their inclusion in the firing pottery installations category. Depending on the number of openings and the position of the combustible matter towards the vessels we distinguish a few subtypes:

C1. The simple kiln, without lateral opening for fueling the fire. This type is attested, for the moment, only at Ariuşd, in the aspect bearing the same name of Cucuteni culture. It consisted of a construction with an approximately semispherical shape, with a buried hearth and presented a single opening, at the superior part,


123

through which the vessels and the combustible matter were being introduced (LÁSZLÓ 1914, 313) (fig. 3/4, 7). This shape is, in fact, a “positive” imprint of a firing pottery pit.

C2. One-chambered kiln, with lateral opening for fueling the fire. Its shape is similar to the C1 subtype, the sole exception being the lateral opening for fueling, which appears as a simple hole at the wall’s base (fig. 3/8). This type is attested in the settlement from Zorlenţu Mare (fig. 3/1) (LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003, 382-383), Vinča B1 culture, middle Neolithic, and Ariuşd (fig. 3/5) (SZÈKELY, BARTÓK 1979, 56; ZAHARIA, GALBENU, SZÈKELY 1981), Cucuteni culture.

C3. One-chambered kiln, with lateral extended opening in shape of a tunnel (fig. 3/9). It is the kiln in shape of a pear, and offers the option of partially separate the vessels from the fuel, by igniting and maintaining the fire in the prolonged mouth of the kiln. The superior opening enables the draught and it could be partially or totally covered, depending on the type of firing preferred by the potter. Kilns in shape of pear have been discovered for middle Neolithic at Tărtăria (fig. 3/2) (HOREDT 1949, 50-51), and for middle Chalcolithic, at Dumeşti (fig. 3/6) ALAIBA 2007, 67-68), Cucuteni culture.

Type D. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access hole. It is, probably, derived from the simple firing pottery pit, to which an opening is made at the base, through another access hole (“stoker’s pit”) (fig. 4/3). The initial hole becomes a chamber for firing the vessels and the communicating tunnel between the two holes becomes a fueling chamber. Depending on the number of chambers for firing the vessels, we distinguish two subtypes:

D1. Buried one-chambered kiln, attested in early and middle Neolithic, at Cârcea – Starčevo – Criş culture and Dudeşti – Vinča culture (fig. 4/1) (NICA 1978, 18 et sqq).

D2. Buried kiln with two communicating chambers for the vessels, which were facilitated by a single fire tunnel, like those discovered at Cârcea and Leu, Starčevo – Criş culture and Dudeşti-Vinča culture (NICA 1978, 25; NICA, NIŢĂ 1979, 31-37).


124

Type E. Kiln with two chambers placed vertically, separated by a perforated grid made from clay. It is the most complex firing pottery installation, because of the construction technique and functioning system. It consists of: a combustion chamber, generally in a hollow shape; in the middle of the hole a pillar is saved when digging the earth; a perforated grid made from clay, usually built from identical, joined elements (clay cones); a chamber for burning the vessels, built in shape of a vault over the combustion room, with an opening in the superior part, through which the vessels were deposited and for allowing the draught (fig. 4/4). The access to the combustion chamber can be direct, through the burning room, or it can be made through the burning tunnel. This type of kiln is attested in the middle Chalcolithic, in the Cucuteni-Tripolie complex, at Valea Lupului (DINU 1957, 164-165), Glăvăneştii Vechi (fig. 4/2) (COMŞA 1976, 24-25), Jvaneţ (VIDEIKO 2004, 276-279), Veselii Kut (TSVEK 2002, 17) and was also used althrough the final Chalcolithic, at Trinca (ALAIBA 1997, 22; 2007, 132-134) (Horodiştea-Erbiceni culture).

∗∗∗ Based on these types we propose an evolution sketch of

firing pottery installations (fig. 5); the idea of an evolution is general, based on the same criterion of construction complexity, without imposing any diachronic or spatial criteria. We would like to stress on this specification as we couldn’t document a chronologically or spatial development of a certain type of installation or the abandonment of another type instead of the other.

The simplest installation for pottery firing was being made in open air, unprotected; a technological advance was represented by the version with a kind of isolation. Pit firing evolved from the open firing, probably because of the same reason – to provide an adequate isolation of the firing. The simple kiln (C1) appeared as a built replica of a pit, presenting similarities with the firing in open space isolated with a layer of clay or other material; the kilns with simple lateral opening (C2) and those with elongated lateral opening (C3) evolved from C1, due to a need to obtain a supplementary fueling in order to acquire and maintain higher temperatures and partially avoid the


125

contact between the vessels and fuel (C3). The buried kiln with lateral combustion tunnel (type D), evolved, for the same reasons, from the simple pit type (B). The kiln with two vertically chambers represents a better solution to separate the fuel from the vases, being a hybrid form – the burning of the fuel takes place at the soil’s level, exactly like in the case of type D, and the vessels are “baked” on the surface, in a structure similar to type C.

As we mentioned above, this sketch is only a theoretical construct; it is also very likely that there is no connection between the types we have catalogued, and maybe, some of them (or all), were independently tested, as a result of an effort of innovative imagination and technical skills of potters from different regions and periods of time.

Analyzing the placement and repartition of discoveries of firing installations we can draw just a few conclusions about the origins or preference of a certain community for a type or another. In the context marked by insufficient and unequal data, it is difficult to state if these installations from Romanian Neolithic and Chalcolithic are local inventions or just local adaptations of a technology transmitted through the multitude of southern population waves from Middle East.

Despite these setbacks, we can observe a relative preference, in Neolithic, for the buried installation – holes and buried kilns with a chamber and a fueling tunnel, and a prevalence of built installation – one chamber or two chambers kilns built on the surface, at least in Chalcolithic (fig. 6).

We can easily observe that the simplest installation for firing pottery, the pit, is also the most widely spread, in space and territory, on Romanian Neo-Chalcolithic space. The pits from the early Neolithic (Cârcea, Ceptura – Starčevo – Criş culture), althrough the middle Chalcolithic (Poieneşti – Cucuteni culture), were also discovered for the middle Neolithic and early Chalcolithic – there is a simple explanation for it – the pit was an installation easy to made and use, and additionally it provided a certain kind of protection of the load from the atmospheric conditions and a relative control on the firing atmosphere (especially for the reduction firing).


126

Also, as the discoveries made at Cârcea show, and considering the early Neolithic complexes from Croatia and Hungary (MINICHREITER 2001; MINICHREITER 2008; MAKKAY 2007, 156, 177, 188), a prevalence expressed by the potters from Starčevo-Criş culture for the one-chamber kilns, either buried or on the surface, with an opening at the base for fueling can be observed; in all these discoveries in the mentioned above culture, the opening is elongated like a tunnel, where the fire was being made, the heat reached in the vessels chamber due to the draught enabled by the superior opening. These types of installations offered the possibility to obtain higher temperatures and, more importantly, a better control of the firing atmosphere. This type might have been the best technological solution for firing the fine, gracefully painted Starčevo pottery; that is why is documented at Ariuşd and Dumeşti (the surface version), and also in Cucuteni culture, famous for the quality of its painted pottery. Due to the scarceness of discoveries, it is hard to trace the evolution and the diffusion, in time and space of this installation.

A special interest is posed also by the type of kilns with two vertically chambers, with a pillar or separation wall placed in the burning room for sustaining the clay perforated grid. Besides an early, hypothetical discovery at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă (GLIGOR 2009, 252), this type was almost exclusively used (in the Neo-Chalcolithic cultures in the Romanian and proximity spaces) by the potters belonging to the Cucuteni-Tripolie complex. This fact led to the hypothesis that this type of kiln might as well represent a local invention of the Cucuteni-Tripolie communities, based on the “gradual completion” of the earlier types (COMŞA 1976, 29-30). We are not excluding this theory, but in the same time, it must be noted that this type of kiln was also used on a larger scale from the second half of the seventh millennium BC in the Middle East (HANSEN STREILY 2000, 69-81); this area, where Neolithic culture originated and many technological inventions were developed, was a constant influence for the South-Eastern part of Europe. This type of kiln is also found in the early Neolithic from Greece (MYLONAS 1929, 12-18) and probably, in other Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures from Europe. As mentioned earlier, the discoveries of firing pottery


127

installations are quite rare in the archaeological researches, therefore, the missing links cannot be considered as final arguments for exclusion of any oriental influences, through a Balkan network.

Even more so, when we speak about the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures on Romanian territory, we have to take into account that there is no linear evolution of those installations; different types, some simpler, some more complex, were being used concurrently by the communities belonging to the same culture (Cucuteni culture is the most convincing – they used pits for firing the pottery, simple kilns, with one or with two vertical chambers) or even in the same settlement (at Cârcea it was discovered a pit for firing pottery, but also buried kilns with two chambers). The impossible task of establishing an evolution chain or a certain succession of technological information is the direct result of the scarcity and inequality in discovering these installations.

Two complexes were discovered at Dumeşti, one with three, the other one with four kilns. Their successive positions, one with the mouth placed in the back of the other, at very small distances, shows that they weren’t used simultaneously, but rather they were gradually built when the earlier one was abandoned (ALAIBA 2007, 67-70). However, this is not an argument to contradict the idea of a special space, destined for pottery craft.

The firing installations archaeologically researched presents a clear demarcation based on their position towards the settlement and houses. Some are placed in the middle of the settlement, and even within houses. These are generally, special spaces reserved for the ceramic craftsmanship (the complex of kilns from Cârcea, “the potter’s neighbourhood” from Ariuşd, the kiln complex from Dumeşti, the kiln complex from Jvaneţ), or for potter’s “studios” (like those from Zorlenţu Mare, Drăgăneşti-Olt, Veselii Kut). The presence of groups of kilns and the potter’s work places only strengthens the idea of specialization of prehistoric artisans; they were members with a special status in their community, earning their existence through practicing pottery and having, probably, a kind of authority (social and/or spiritual) over the community’s structures.

The fact that these installations were placed at a distance


128

from the settlement (the inhabited areas) also poses some interesting problems. Firing pottery involved a certain amount of risk, involving handling an unpredictable and unstable element – fire. The prevalence, in the pre and proto-historical architecture of wood and other easily inflammable materials (reed or straw) only increased the potential risk of fire (obvious from the numerous houses and settlement destroyed by fire, either accidental or intentional). In this context, the relative “ostracism” of the potters when practicing their craft seems perfectly logical. Another, more symbolical trait of conduct of the potter can be seen as an additional aspect of this “preventive” regulation. This symbolical trait, which is very common in different ethnographical situations, implies the isolation of the firing process in order to avoid potential negative influences that the other members of the community could, intentionally or not, exert on the delicate process. There can be intentional negative influences, such as spells, curses, invocation of evil spirits; unintentional actions could be represented by the negative energies from people that experience a temporary situation of “dirtiness”, either bodily or spiritually (pregnancy, menstrual cycle, recently debuted sexual intercourse, etc.) We cannot reconstruct in detail those types of behaviour, but nonetheless they must have been practiced, being only one facet of the spiritual and symbolical implications that pottery craft had.

The absence of discoveries of installations in most of the researched pre and proto-historical sites, besides being an inconvenient for such a study, represents, in itself a reason for meditation and proposal of new hypothesis. The traditional archaeological approach links the existence of abundant quantities of pottery, with fine, uniform burning, to the existence of sophisticated installations. Maybe we have to search for these installations in other forms (especially when we consider the open firing) or in other places – the periphery and the adjacent areas of the settlements.

The future of the studies concerning the technology of firing pottery largely depends on using inter- and multi-disciplinary methods in archaeological research. The non-intrusive research, geo-physical and geo-magnetic studies, applied to narrow strips of at


129

least 100 meters around the settlements should help in locating an important number of installations for firing the pottery. As useful would be the physical and chemical detailed analysis on different categories of ceramic fragments. Thermo analysis, diphractrometry of X rays, ablution microscopy, Raman diphractrometry, etc. are modern analysis available to any archaeologist nowadays and offers the opportunity to build a data base on ceramic paste, characteristics and ways of reacting to the firing. These data, complemented by experiments made in the laboratory or on the field and with installations attested both archaeologically and ethnographically would substantially enrich the knowledge on the art and craft of prehistoric pottery.

Translated by Alexandru Bounegru


130

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAIBA R.

1997 Cercetări arheologice la Trinca-Izvorul lui Luca, R. Moldova (1994-1995), cultura Horodiştea-Gordineşti, CAANT, II, p. 20-34.

2007 Complexul cultural Cucuteni-Tripolie. Meşteşugul olăritului, Iaşi.

CARLTON R. 2008 The Role and Status of Women in the Pottery-Making Traditions of the

Western Balkans, Interpreting Ceramics, 10, http://www.uwic.ac.uk/icrc/issue010/articles/04.htm (accessed 15.03.2009).

COLUSSY T. 2004 The Process of Hopi-Tewa Pottery Making,

http://www.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/colu.htm (accessed 20.08.2004).

COMŞA E. 1976 Caracteristicile şi însemnătatea cuptoarelor de ars oale din aria

culturii Cucuteni-Ariuşd, SCIVA, 21, 1, 23-34. 1981 Consideraţii asupra cuptoarelor de olar din epoca neolitica, de

pe teritoriul Romäniei, Studii şi comunicäri de istorie a civilizaţiei populare din România, 1, Sibiu, 227-231.

CULWICK G. M. 1935 Pottery Among the Wabena of Ulanga, Tanganyika

Territory, Man, Vol. 35, 165-169. DINU M.

1957 Şantierul arheologic Valea Lupului, MCA, 3, 161-176. DORMAN M. H.

1938 Pottery among the Wangoni and Wandendehule, Southern Tanganyika, Man, 38, 97-102.

ELLIS L. 1984 The Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, BAR International Series,

217.


131

GLIGOR M., LIPOT Ş. 2009 Alba Iulia, jud. Alba Punct: Lumea Nouă, str. Bayonne f.n.,

proprietatea Emil Rusu), CCA 2008, 251-253. GODEA I.

1995 La ceramique, Timişoara. GOSSELAIN O. P.

1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of Cameroon, Man N.S., 27, 3, 559-586.

HANDLER J. S. 1964 Notes on Pottery-Making in Antigua, Man, 64, 150-151.

HANSEN-STREILY A. 2000 Early pottery kilns in the Middle East, Paleorient, 26, 2, 69-

81. HODDER I.

1982 Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, Cambridge.

HOREDT K. 1949 Săpături privitoare la epoca neo- şi eneolitică, Apulum, III,

44-66. IERCOŞAN N.

1987 Un cuptor de ars ceramicä din epoca neolitică descoperit la Căpleni (Jud. Satu Mare), AMP, XI, 73-76.

LÁSZLÓ F. 1914 Fouilles à la station primitive de Erösd (1907-1912),

Dolgozatok-Cluj, V, 2, 279-386. LAZAROVICI Gh., LAZAROVICI M.

2003 The Neo-Chalcolithic Architecture in Banat, Transylvania and Moldavia, in Recent research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, in: The Prehistoric Research, V. Grammenos (ed.), Thessaloniki, 553-556.

LICHIARDOPOL D. 1984 Un cuptor aparţinând culturii Criş descoperit la Ceptura,

SCIVA, 35, 1, 80-84. LONGACRE W. A., XIA J., YANG T.

2000 I Want to Buy a Black Pot, JAMT, 7, 4, p. 273-293.


132

MAKKAY J. 2007 The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture

in the Körös valley, Hungary. The final report, I, The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves, Trieste.

MINICHREITER K. 2001 The architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements of

the Starcevo culture in Northern Croatia, DP, XXVIII, 199-214.

2008 The White-painted Linear A Phase of the Starcevo Culture in Croatia, Pril.Inst.arheol.Zagrebu, 24, 1, 21-34.

MYLONAS G. E. 1929 Excavations at Olynthus. Part 1. The Neolithic settlement,

London. NICA M.

1978 Cuptoare de olärie din epoca neoliticä descoperite In Oltenia, Drobeta, 2, 18-29.

NICA M., NIŢĂ T. 1979 Les etablissements neolithiques de Leu et Padea de la zone

d'interference des cultures Dudeşti et Vinča, Dacia N.S., XXIII, 31-64.

NICA M., ZORZOLIU T., FÂNTÂNEANU C., TĂNĂSESCU B. 1997 Cercetările arheologice în tell-ul gumelniţeano-sălcuţean de

la Drăgăneşti-Olt, punctul “Corboaica”. Campania anului 1995, CAANT, II, 9-18.

PERLES C. 2004 The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities

in Europe, Cambridge. PETERSON S.

1997 Pottery by American Indian Women, http://www.sla.purdue.edu/WAAW/Peterson/Petersonessay2.html (accessed 22.08.2004)

ROTH K. 1935 Pottery Making in Fiji, The Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 65, 217-233.


133

ROY C. D. 2003 African Pottery Techniques,

http://www.uiowa.edu/~intl/rft/pottery.html (accessed 21.08.2004)

SILVA F. A. 2008 Ceramic Technology of the Asurini do Xingu, Brazil: An

Ethnoarchaeological Study of Artifact Variability, JAMT, 15, 217-265.

SZEKELY Z. 1970 Săpăturile executate de Muzeul Regional din Sf. Gheorghe (Reg.

Autonomă Maghiară), MCA, VII, 179-188. SZEKELY Z., BARTOK B.

1979 Cuptoare de ars oale din aşezarea neolitică de la Ariuşd, Materiale, III, 55-57.

TRAORE F. 1994 Cercetări etnoarheologice asupra ceramicii şi olăritului

tradiţional din satul Manta (Republica Mali), AMN, 26-30, 535-549.

TSVEK E.T. 2002 Vesely Kut, a new centre of the east tripolian culture,

ArhMold, XXII, 17-29. VIDEJKO M.

2004 Etapi tekhnologicnogo keramicnogo virobnictva, in: Enciklopedija Trypil's'koj civilizacii, I, M. Ju. Videjko (coord.), Kiev, 276-279.

Web sources: http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/01/en/nl/nnii/dimini.html (accessed 12.03.2009) http://www.traditionsgambia.com/pottery.htm (accessed 20.08.2004)


134

LIST OF PLATES Fig. 1. 1-7. Open firings from different ethnographical areas (Gambia – 1-2; Burkina Faso – 3; Pueblo community, New Mexico, USA – 4, Hopi community, Arizona, USA – 5; Potravlje, Croatia – 6-7). 8-9. Schematic representations of open firings without (type A1) and with isolation (type A2). (after http://www.traditionsgambia.com/ pottery.htm – 1-2; (ROY 2003 – 3; PETERSON 1997 - 4; COLUSSY 2004 – 5; CARLTON 2008–6-7). Fig. 2. 1-4. Firing pits (type B), discovered at Ceptura, Prahova County – 1; Căpleni, Satu Mare County – 2, Cârcea, Olt County – 3; Drăgăneşti, Olt County – 4. 5-7. Schematic representations of firings pits with different shapes (LICHIARDOPOL 1984; IERCOŞAN 1987; NICA 1978; NICA et alii 1997). Fig. 3. 1-6. Surface one-chambered kilns, discovered at Zorlenţu Mare, Caraş-Severin County – 1 (type C2), Tărtăria, Alba County – 2, (type C) Galibovţi, Bulgaria – 3 (type C2), Ariuşd, Covasna County – 4 (type C1) and 5 (type C2), Dumeşti, Vaslui County – 6 (type C3). 7-9. Schematic representations of surface one-chambered kilns – type C 1-3 (LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003; HOREDT 1949; LÁSZLÓ 1914; ALAIBA 2007). Fig. 4. 1. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access hole, discovered at Cârcea, Olt County (type D2); 2. Kiln with two chambers placed vertically, separated by a perforated grid made from clay, discovered at Glăvăneştii Vechi, Iaşi County (type E). 3-4. Schematic representations of firing installations, D and E type (NICA 1978; COMŞA 1976). Fig. 5. Evolutional sketch of pottery firing installations. Fig. 6. Map of pottery firing installations.


135

Fig. 1. 1-7. Open firings from different ethnographical areas (Gambia – 1-2; Burkina Faso – 3; Pueblo community, New Mexico, USA – 4, Hopi

community, Arizona, USA – 5; Potravlje, Croatia – 6-7). 8-9. Schematic representations of open firings without (type A1) and with isolation (type

A2). (after http://www.traditionsgambia.com/ pottery.htm – 1-2; ROY 2003 –

3; PETERSON 1997 - 4; COLUSSY 2004 – 5; CARLTON 2008 – 6-7).


136

Fig. 2. 1-4. Firing pits (type B), discovered at Ceptura, Prahova County – 1;

Căpleni, Satu Mare County – 2, Cârcea, Olt County – 3; Drăgăneşti, Olt County – 4. 5-7. Schematic representations of firings pits with different

shapes (after LICHIARDOPOL 1984; IERCOŞAN 1987; NICA 1978; NICA et alii 1997).


137

Fig. 3. 1-6. Surface one-chambered kilns, discovered at Zorlenţu Mare, Caraş-Severin County – 1 (type C2), Tărtăria, Alba County – 2, (type C)

Galibovţi, Bulgaria – 3 (type C2), Ariuşd, Covasna County – 4 (type C1) and 5 (type C2), Dumeşti, Vaslui County – 6 (type C3). 7-9. Schematic representations of surface one-chambered kilns – type C 1-3 (after

LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003; HOREDT 1949; LÁSZLÓ 1914; ALAIBA 2007).


138

Fig. 4. 1. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access hole, discovered at Cârcea, Olt County (type D2); 2. Kiln with two chambers placed

vertically, separated by a perforated grid made from clay, discovered at Glăvăneştii Vechi, Iaşi County (type E). 3-4. Schematic representations of

firing installations, D and E type (after NICA 1978; COMŞA 1976).


139

Fig.

5. E

volu

tiona

l sk

etch

of p

otte

ry fi

ring

inst

alla

tions

Fi

g. 5

. Evo

lutio

nal

sket

ch o

f pot

tery

firi

ng in

stal

latio

ns


140

Fig.

6. M

ap o

f pot

tery

firi

ng in

stal

latio

ns.

signa praehistorica f. tencariu

Documents