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 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, Galaţi Ovidiu Boldur, Bacău

Ion Agrigoroaiei, Iaşi Neculai Bolohan, Iaşi
Serghei Agulnikov, Chişinău Nikolaus Boroffka, Berlin
Sorin Cristian Ailincăi, Tulcea Rodica Boroffka, Berlin
Ruxandra Alaiba, Iaşi Ilie Borziac, Chişinău
Marius Alexianu, Iaşi Bartók Botond, Sfântu Gheorghe
Alexandra Anders, Budapest Rezi Botond, Târgu Mureş
Stelios Andreou, Thessaloniki Octavian Bounegru, Iaşi
Mugurel Andronic, Suceava Jean Bourgeois, Gent
Dan Aparaschivei, Iaşi Jan Bouzek, Praha
Tudor Arnăutu, Chişinău Ovidiu Buruiană, Iaşi
Andrei Asăndulesei, Iaşi Dan Buzea, Sfântu Gheorghe
Costică Asăvoaiei, Iaşi Ion Caproşu, Iaşi
Mircea Babeş, Bucureşti Valeriu Cavruc, Sfântu Gheorghe
Tiberius Bader, Hemmingen Alberto Cazella, Roma
Valeriu Banaru, Chişinău Viorel Căpitanu, Bacău
Eszter Bánnfy, Budapest John Chapman, Durham
László Bartosiewicz, Budapest Ion Chicideanu, Bucureşti
Paraschiva-Victoria Batariuc, Suceava Costel Chiriac, Iaşi
Gabriel Bădărău, Iaşi Laurenţiu Chiriac, Vaslui
Radu Băjenaru, Bucureşti Vasile Chirica, Iaşi
Luminiţa Bejenaru, Iaşi Jan Chokorowski, Krakow
Ioan Bejinariu, Zalău Miron Cihó, Bucureşti
Cătălin Bem, Bucureşti Horia Ciugudean, Alba Iulia
George Bilavschi, Iaşi Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi
Katalin Biró, Budapest Marius Ciută, Alba Iulia
Wojciech Blajer, Krakow Gheorghe Cliveti, Iaşi
George Bodi, Iaşi Mihai Cojocariu, Iaşi
Dumitru Boghian, Suceava Jean Marie Cordy, Liège
 Tabula Gratulatoria
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
10
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
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
11
 Tabula Gratulatoria
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
12
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

“ALL IN ONE”. ISSUES OF METHODOLOGY, PARADIGMS

AND RADIOCARBON DATINGS CONCERNING
THE OUTER EASTERN CARPATHIAN 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

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 (BURTĂNESCU 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.) (BURTĂNESCU 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

230
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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.

231
 Neculai Bolohan

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.

232
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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
233
 Neculai Bolohan

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,
ZĂMOŞTEANU 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.

234
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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
235
 Neculai Bolohan

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).

236
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

(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

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

11

BOLOHAN 2003, 195-206.

237
 Neculai Bolohan

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. conv. 14C

Sample name d13C cal. age 1σ cal. age 2σ
Code age BP
Hd- Silistea
3546±26 cal BC 1937- 1785 cal BC 1955- 1773
29247 54 sect.B/’03 21.6
Hd- Silistea
3455±30 cal BC 1873- 1695 cal BC 1879- 1691
29027 57 sect.a/’04 21.9
Hd- Silistea
3371±22 cal BC 1689- 1631 cal BC 1739- 1614
29377 56 sect.B/’04 21.6
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.

238
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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.

239
 Neculai Bolohan

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
240
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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.

241
 Neculai Bolohan

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.
BURTĂNESCU 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.

242
 “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings

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., ZĂMOŞTEANU M.
1962 Săpăturile de la Costişa (r. Buhuşi, reg. Bacău), MCA, VIII,
309-316.
243
 Neculai Bolohan

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.

244