REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN ISTORIE VECHE ŞI

Transcription

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN
ISTORIE VECHE ŞI ARHEOLOGIE
ReDIVA
THE POSTGRADUATE JOURNAL
OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
III/2015
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor-in-chief: Aurora Peţan, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Assistant editor: Raluca-Eliza Bătrînoiu, University of Bucharest
Szabó Csaba, University of Pécs
Mariana Vasilache, Moldova State University, Chişinău
Laura Draşovean, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Berlin
Xenia Păuşan, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Cover and image processing: Marian Coman
Technical editing and printing: Dacica Publishing House
SCIENTIFIC BOARD
Alexandru Barnea, University of Bucharest
Berecki Sándor, Mureş County Museum
Florin Draşovean, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Florin Gogâltan, Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca
Nagy Levente, University of Pécs (Hungary)
Ioan Piso, “Babeş-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca
Horea Pop, Zalău County Museum of History and Art
Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj-Napoca
Szabó Ádám, University of Pécs (Hungary)
Livio Zerbini, University of Ferrara (Italy)
Nelu Zugravu, “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iaşi
www.rediva.ro
All correspondence will be sent to the email: contact@rediva.ro
ISSN 2344-5548; ISSN-L 2344-5548
The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed in this volume. Each
author assumes responsability for the scientific content of the text.
This volume was printed with the financial support of Dacica Foundation.
Copyright © Dacica Group 2015
www.dacica.ro
CONTENTS
STUDIES
Petru Ciocani, Andrea Jozsa
Discontinuity in the archaeological research: Neolithic
and Eneolithic sites in the surroundings of Dudeştii Vechi
9
Laura-Simona Draşovean
Small lithic assemblages from the Bronze Age tell
Pecica-Şanţul Mare (2008-2011 campaigns)
53
Raluca-Eliza Bătrînoiu
The dynamics of habitation in Wallachia during
the 4th – 1st centuries BC
71
Aurora Peţan
Another unknown stone structure in Sarmizegetusa
Regia’s sacred zone recorded in writings of the 19th century
110
Csaba Szabó
Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and sacralized spaces
in the settlements of Apulum
123
REVIEWS
Nicholas Márquez-Grant, Linda Fibiger (Editors),
The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains
and Legislation, 2011 (Kathryn Grow Allen)
163
Julietta Steinhauer, Religious Associations in the
Post-Classical Polis, 2014 (Csaba Szabó)
168
Radu Harhoiu, Daniel Spânu, Erwin Gáll, Barbari la Dunăre
[Barbarians at the Danube], 2011 (Sergiu-Gabriel Enache)
172
Discontinuity in the archaeological
research: Neolithic and Eneolithic
sites in the surroundings
of Dudeştii Vechi
Petru Ciocani
PhD Candidate, “Eberhard Karls” University, Tübingen, DE
E-mail: petru.ciocani@uni-tuebingen.de
Andrea Jozsa
PhD, “Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, RO
E-mail: andrea_jozsa@yahoo.com
Abstract. The territory which surrounds the village of Dudeştii Vechi
(Timiş county, Romania) represents one of the earliest archaeologically
researched areas in Banat. However, today, it remains one of the less
known locations and the necessary attention to its findings is not given in
the scientific literature, the main reason for this being a lack of continuity
in the archaeological research undertaken. The investigations there can
be generally divided into two main parts. The first part is marked by the
earliest archaeological excavations carried out by the Hungarian researcher
Gyula Kisléghi at the very beginning of the 20th century. He excavated a
large number of sites but his study was interrupted by the First World
War and, for a long time afterwards, no further research took place in the
area. The second period of investigations started after the long interruption,
during which the location of most of the sites was forgotten and the
materials from different sites were partially mixed together or, in some
cases, even lost. The beginning of this new period consisted only in the
reprocessing of Kisléghi’s materials and their re-publication. As the location
of the sites was already unknown, it was mentioned very briefly or even
mistakenly, leading to confusions and ambiguities in the literature, which
persist until today. Shortly after this, new field research was undertaken
by the local school teacher, Constantin Kalcsov, consisting of random
surveys, in which a large number of sites were discovered. Besides the
already unknown locations of most of the sites excavated by Gy. Kisléghi,
the newly identified (or reidentified) sites were published with only brief
descriptions of their location, making these publications being largely
ignored by the archaeologists. The authors of this study aim to reintroduce
ReDIVA III/2015, p. 9-52
into archaeological circulation the existing research, to eliminate the present
ambiguities, and to correlate the sites excavated by Gy. Kisléghi with those
discovered by C. Kalcsov, by presenting both studies, giving the exact
location of the sites, and identifying their correlations.
Keywords: micro-regional project; survey; prehistoric sites; Dudeştii
Vechi area; research discontinuity; Gy. Kisléghi; C. Kalcsov.
The territory that surrounds the village1 of Dudeştii Vechi
(Stár Bišnov) is located in the northwestern part of the historical
province of Banat (Fig. 1). From a geographical perspective, the
western part of this province falls within the Pannonian Plain
which is characterized by flat landscape, fertile alluvial soils,
and large rivers. The studied micro-region is situated not far
from the confluence of two large rivers, the Mureş and Tisa,
and is crossed by the stream of Aranca. Until the damming of
the rivers, which began in the 18th century, the flat terrain with
a low angle of decline allowed the rivers to flood parts of this
territory in the months with high flow and also to change their
bed, creating new branches. Additionally, very often the flood
was followed by swamping. As the plain was yearly exposed
to flooding, the most convenient places for settlement were the
small natural elevations (rises or natural mounds) in the plain,
which rise slightly above the flat surrounding terrain. They
also offered a good visibility over the landscape.
The first archaeological investigations carried out in this
micro-region started at the very beginning of the 20th century,
being conducted by the Hungarian researcher Gyula Kisléghi
together with Demeter Racsov. At that time, the territory
in question was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
and the name of the modern village Dudeştii Vechi was
1
The territory under study extends beyond the administrative area
belonging to Dudeştii Vechi, as, for instance, the sites from the Bucova plain
belong to the administrative district of the town of Sânnicolau Mare.
10
Discontinuity in the archaeological research:
Neolithic and Eneolithic sites in the surroundings of Dudeştii Vechi
Óbessenyő2. As a member of the Historical and Archaeological
Society of Southern Hungary3, Gy. Kisléghi conducted field
investigations and extensive archaeological excavations until
the advent of the First World War. Although not a qualified
archaeologist, he possessed all of the necessary competences
and skills for this profession. In the territory under research,
he excavated about two dozen sites, amongst which 7 are
prehistoric. The discoveries were described in an excavation
diary, accompanied by an inventory book, in which he named
the sites, using local toponyms and numbers. However, the
localization of most of the sites was made briefly, and often
roads, buildings, water courses, and topographical markers were
used as reference points, some of which, later on, underwent
changes. In addition to the hand written diary, in the early
20th century, he reported part of his results in several articles4;
however, the diary remained unpublished until very recently5.
With the onset of the First World War, the archaeological
research in the micro-region was strongly affected. On the
one hand, the war interrupted the investigations and, on the
other hand, the subsequent amendments after the war lead to
a long absence of any kind of archaeological activity in this
area. Soon after this activity was interrupted, the location of
most of the sites excavated by Gy. Kisléghi was forgotten, the
materials from different sites were partially mixed together,
some even being lost. During the period of no field research in
the micro-region, Kisléghi’s results played an important role
for the further scientific research. The Early Neolithic finds he
published were among those used by Ferenc von Tompa in
2
After the First World Word the village Óbessenyő was renamed to
Beşenova Veche and later on to Dudeştii Vechi. Thus, in the older archaeological
literature part of the sites discussed in this study are mentioned as Beşenova
Veche or Óbessenyő. For the etymology of the name see Kalcsov 2006, p. 46-47.
3
Gáll 2010, p. 13.
4
Kisléghi 1904, 1907, 1909, 1911; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912.
5
Gáll et al. 2010.
11
defining the Körös culture6 and later on they were included in
Ida Kutzián’s monographic study on this culture7. Two decades
later, Kisléghi’s Neolithic finds together with materials from
other excavations deposited in the Museum of Timişoara were
studied by Gheorghe Lazarovici8. The research consisted of
typological analysis which aimed extending and improving
the already existing chronology9. Thus, the finds were included
in a supra-regional typological system, in which their relative
chronological position was established. However, at that time,
the identification of Kisléghi’s sites, whose location was already
long forgotten, was not possible if one was not familiarized
with the local toponyms, administrative divisions, and
infrastructure. Additionally, after the First and Second World
Wars the administrative structure (cadastral map) in the region
has undergone certain changes increasing the difficulties in
finding the position of the sites. Therefore, this difficulties
were reflected in the publications, in which the location of
most of the sites was mentioned vaguely or in some cases even
wrongly10. Two decades later a new study was dedicated to
the artificial (man-made) mounds in Banat, in which the issue
regarding the localization of most of Kisléghi’s sites remained
unsolved. However, in this study, the localization given by Gy.
Kisléghi in his handwritten diary was properly reproduced
in Romanian11. Ten years later, in a study dealing with the
medieval finds discovered by Gy. Kisléghi 12, additional
information was introduced into the Romanian literature by
reproducing Kisléghi’s localization from his articles; however,
the sites still remained unidentified and, additionally, a new
von Tompa 1934-1935, p. 46.
Kutzián 1944.
8
Lazarovici 1969; Lazarovici 1975b; Lazarovici 1979, p. 187-188.
9
Milojčić 1949.
10
In Lazarovici’s studies the site Óbessenyői Őstelep (Movila lui Deciov)
is confused with the site Hunca Mare and the finds from the first site are
published as having been discovered at the second one.
11
Medeleț, Bugilan 1987, p. 112-113, 127-128.
12
Bejan, Mare 1997.
6
7
12
mistake arose, as the site “Bukova Pusta VI” was confused
with the site “Hunca Mare”. After this study, there were no
other attempts in identifying the location of these sites. In the
recent publications, the existing information in the Romanian
literature is summarized, although not all of the available sites
are included13 and the given GPS coordinates for the Early
Neolithic sites are all incorrect14.
After Kisléghi’s research was interrupted, it took more
than six decades until field investigations were resumed.
They consisted in random surveys conducted by Constantin
Kalcsov (a history teacher) accompanied by Francisc Mirciov,
as well as some students from the local school15. As a result of
these surveys, numerous sites belonging to different periods
were identified, amongst which 21 belong to the Neolithic
and Eneolithic periods. All these different-period sites were
published in two articles16. However, the location of the sites
was given to a low degree of accuracy and the correlation with
most of Kisléghi’s sites was not specified, potentially leading
to further confusions. Therefore, the two studies remained
unused by the archaeologists and the sites were not included in
the national database17. Excluding this, the results of Kalcsov’s
surveys had a strong input for the further archaeological
research in the micro-region and led to the beginning of new
excavations18, almost one century after the beginning of the
Kisléghi’s work in this territory.
Therefore, in the present state of research, on the one hand,
the localization of most of the sites excavated by Gy. Kisléghi
is unknown, and, on the other hand, those sites (re)discovered
by C. Kalcsov are also difficult to be localized which hampers
Luca 2010, p. 99-100.
Luca et al. 2010, p. 94-95.
15
P.Ciocani has participated in some of these surveys as a school student.
16
Kalcsov 1999; Kalcsov 2006. However, three prehistoric sites remained
unpublished, as they were discovered after the publication of these reports.
17
Luca 2010, p. 99-100; Luca et al. 2010, p. 94-95.
18
Bejan, Grec 1998; Lazarovici, Ciobotaru 2001; Tănase 2002-2003.
13
14
13
the correlation between both. The aim of the present study is
to show the exact location of the prehistoric sites identified
by C. Kalcsov and to offer a possible correlation with the
ones discovered by Gy. Kisléghi. For this reason, the paper
consists of two main parts – one part in which Kisléghi’s sites
are presented19, and a second part, wherein Kalcsov’s sites are
presented20.
I. Kisléghi’s sites:
This part of the study presents the prehistoric sites
researched by Gy. Kisléghi (Fig. 2), summarizing the existent
information in the articles he published21 and his handwritten
diary22.
a) Ó-bessenyő V. “The mound is located at a distance
of ca. 100 m from the road between Sânnicolau Mare and
Dudeştii Vechi, on the right side”. It was excavated at the
end of 1904 by the Hungarian researcher Gy. Kisléghi. The
stratigraphy of the mound consists of two separate cultural
layers. In the upper level, four graves were discovered,
with a rich inventory, amongst which two also contained
horse burials, dating from the Migration Period/Early
Medieval Period. The lower cultural layer has a thickness
of approximately 1 m – between 0.50 and 1.50 m beneath
the surface – and is characterized by burnt soil. Amongst
the more important discoveries, several large hearths (with
a diameter of up to 1 m) and a limited number of stone
and bone artefact should be mentioned, along with a small
amount of ceramic fragments dated to the Early Neolithic,
based on the parallels from the site of Bukova Pusta IV23.
Written by Andrea Jozsa.
Written by Petru Ciocani.
21
Kisléghi 1904, 1907, 1909, 1911; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912.
22
Gáll et al. 2010.
23
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 105-110; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912, p. 314.
19
20
14
This settlement belongs to the Early Neolithic Starčevo-Criş
culture, and was reused for burial purposes during the Early
Medieval Period.
b) Ó-bessenyő – Izlaz. The site is located “on the side of
Dudeştii Vechi of the channel that links the rivers «Szelszka
Aranka» and «Gornja Aranka», east of the village”.
The archaeological investigations conducted in 1909 did not
bring many results. The cultural layer was only 0,60 m thick,
containing archaeological materials such as stone and bone
tools, and a few ceramic fragments, all with analogies to the
material at the Ó-bessenyői Őstelep site24. During Lazarovici’s
research in Banat, the materials from were reanalyzed and
thus, the settlement was dated to the 4th phase of the Early
Neolithic Starčevo-Criş culture25.
c) Bukova Pusta IV26. The mound is 1,50 m high and has a
diameter of 30 m, located between Dudeştii Vechi, Sânnicolau
Mare and Cenad, “at the eastern border of the Bukova Pusta
farm”. The archaeological investigations were conducted in
1903 and 1904, consisting of a trench with the dimensions of
22x22 m placed in the central part of the mound. This surface
was excavated from north-west to south-east, to a depth of 1 to
3 meters. Stratigraphically, two different periods of occupation
could be established. A total of 18 graves containing grave
goods were discovered, some of which also contained horse
burials, all dated to the Early Medieval Period. The cultural
layer at the base of the mound belongs to the Neolithic. In
this layer, a large amount of archaeological artefacts was
discovered, consisting of stone tools, ceramic fragments, and
vessels, clay weights, etc., all of which were processed and
classified by Gy. Kisléghi. Although no architectural features
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 138; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912, p. 315.
Lazarovici 1979, p. 187.
26
In this study the sites are presented using Kisléghi’s spelling, although the
spelling for some toponyms was changed. This is the case with the plain and
the farm Bucova, which currently are spelled with “c”.
24
25
15
were unearthed, based on the large amount of recovered
objects, the author of the excavation speculated that the
settlement was occupied during a long period of time27. The
finds form this site were reprocessed by Gh. Lazarovici and
assigned to the phases II-IV of the Early Neolithic StarčevoCriş culture28.
d) Bukova Pusta VI. The mound is located “ca. 600 m south
of the site Bukova Pusta IV, next to the large mound recorded
on the military map as Hunca Mare”. The archaeological
investigations were conducted in 1905. The mound has a
diameter of 6-8 m and a height of 0.25 m. The discovered
ceramic artefacts have direct analogies with those from Bukova
Pusta IV. As one of the most important objects, a ceramic
fragment with zoomorphic decoration should be mentioned.
The site was dated by its researcher to the Neolithic29, and later
on, after the analysis of the finds, it was assigned to the Early
Neolithic Starčevo-Criş culture, phases II-IV30.
e) Bukova Pusta VII. This site represents a smaller mound
“located ca. 40 steps south of the Bukova Pusta VI site”. The
archaeological excavations took place in 1905. The discovery
of a single human skeleton in a crouched position, westward
oriented and without grave goods, at 2 m beneath the surface,
represents the only finding of the investigations. Although no
ceramic fragments were recovered, Gy. Kisléghi speculated that
this grave could be chronologically contemporaneous with the
Neolithic settlements at Bukova Pusta IV and Pusta Bucova VI31.
f) Hunca Mare. The mound “is located at ca. 1100 m
south-east from the Bukova Pusta farm, between Sânnicolau
27
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 86-93; Kisléghi 1907, p. 267-270; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912,
p. 312.
28
29
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 112, 115-117; Kisléghi 1907, p. 278-279; Kisléghi, Nagy
1912, p. 312.
30
31
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 112.
16
Mare and Dudeştii Vechi”, and it is ca. 4.50 m high. The
archaeological investigations were carried out in 1907,
being excavated a 12 x 5.50 m long trench, with an east-west
orientation, at the highest point of the mound. A total of 484
m2 was excavated. Amongst the most important discoveries, an
Early Medieval grave should be mentioned, along with ceramic
fragments dated to the Iron Age “La Tene” culture, analogies
of which can be found with the ceramic materials collected
on the surface of another archaeological site located in the
vicinity of the Bukova Pusta farm. At the base of the mound,
in the sterile soil, another grave was discovered, containing a
human skeleton in crouched position, with red ochre, oriented
westward. Due to the characteristics of the skeleton, as well
as the lithic artefacts and the ceramic fragments discovered
above the grave, Gy. Kisléghi suggested that it belongs to the
Neolithic. These ceramic fragments have parallels in the sites
Bukova Pusta IV and Ó-bessenyői Őstelep32.
g) Ó-bessenyői Őstelep. The site is located ca. 500 meters
north-west of the village of Dudeştii Vechi, “in the place
where the former river Gornya Aranka turns south and where
appears a new branch, which flows into the «Sztare Bastye»
swamp”. The mound has a diameter of 200 m and a height of
3 meters. The archaeological investigations were conducted
in 1906 and 1907, consisting of systematic excavations, during
which a surface of 1336 m2 was excavated. The results of
these investigations revealed a complex stratigraphy of the
settlement, with a 2.5 to 3 m thick cultural layer, in which
three building horizons marked by hearths were investigated.
The third of these was the best preserved. Some architectural
structures such as hearths, surface houses, and ditches were
observed. An abundance of archaeological artefacts was
discovered, consisting of a huge amount of animal bones, stone
and bone tools, and ceramics. The archaeological materials
were processed and described in detail by the author of the
32
Gáll et al. 2010, p. 128-131; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912, p. 312-313.
17
excavation. He noted the discovery of clay statuettes, stamp
seals, spindle whorls, as well as a total 84 ceramic vessels
and ca. 300 clay weights. Another significant result of the
excavations was the discovery of 6 partial skeletons, two of
which suggested a crouched position, and another two burials
containing red ochre. Based on the characteristics of these
burials, Gy. Kisléghi speculated these were chronologically
contemporaneous with the recovered archaeological artefacts,
thus belonging to the Neolithic. The mound also yielded an
Early Medieval grave, with a north-eastern orientation and
various grave goods33. The analysis on the finds from this
site34 show that most of them belong to the Early Neolithic
Starčevo-Criş culture, phases II-IV. However, there are also
some ceramic fragments which belong to the Vinča, Tisa and
Tiszapolgár cultures35.
II. Kalcsov’s sites
In this part of the paper are presented the Neolithic and
Eneolithic sites discovered by C. Kalcsov, being summarized
the existent data in the literature, and where possible provided
additional information. The sites are presented in the way
they were published in Kalcsov’s studies 36 – in relation to
the directions of the the main roads traversing the village of
Dudeştii Vechi. In order to provide a precise localization of
the sites, their position is given in a polar coordinate system37,
33
Kisléghi 1909, p. 149; Kisléghi 1911; Kisléghi, Nagy 1912, p. 313-315; Gáll
et al. 2010, p. 161-165.
34
The materials from this site were incorrectly attributed to the site “Hunca
Mare”.
35
36
Kalcsov 1999; Kalcsov 2006.
37
The Catholic Church “St. Maria” (Blažénata Divica Marija), located in the
center of the Dudeştii Vechi village, is chosen as the reference point, from
which the direction is indicated by the angular measurement in sexagesimal
degrees (from the north in a clockwise direction), and the distance is measured
in kilometers.
18
and in brackets are given their coordinates in WGS 8438. Here
has to be mentioned that the population of Dudeştii Vechi
mainly consists of Banat Bulgarians39, meaning the majority
of the toponyms in the village’s surroundings are in the local
dialect. Because of their specific alphabet and pronunciation
(different than Romanian) these toponyms are written in italics.
The assignation of the sites to the different prehistoric cultures
was determined by C. Kalcsov, on the basis of the surface finds.
The sites presented below are mapped (Fig. 3) and the numbers
given in the text correspond to the ones on the map.
• Direction East
1. At 67° and 2,80 km from the reference point (GPS:
46° 3’15.59”N; 20°30’32.95”E), south of a large mound called “Na
Peseka”, a Neolithic site is located (Fig. 4). The site represents
a small elevation, with a height of 0.5 m and a diameter of
20 m, situated on a terrace on the shore of a former river. The
pottery discovered there belongs to the Starčevo-Criş culture40.
In 2005, one year after the excavation campaigns on the site of
“Movila lui Deciov” ended (see below site 19) J. M. Maillol,
D. Ciobotaru and I. Moravetz conducted geomagnetic surveys
on four sites in the micro-region, among which the site in
question was also investigated. On the resulted map appeared
several anomalies (Fig. 5), which indicate the existence of a
concentration of archaeological structures. In 2015 a test
excavation in the southeastern part of the site was conducted
by R. Krauß and D. Ciobotaru41. The excavation revealed an
Early Iron Age structure, whose infilling contains besides the
Early Iron Age finds also numerous Early Neolithic finds in
The reference coordinate system used by the GPS.
For additional information see Vasilcin 2006.
40
Kalcsov 1999, p. 154, no. 2; Kalcsov 2006, p. 42, no. 2.
41
R. Krauß. Grabungen am Fundplatz Kalcsov I bei Dudestii Vechi,
http://www.ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/juengere-urgeschichte/forschungsprojekte/
aktuelle-forschungsprojekte/bucova-pusta/untersuchungen-in-2015.html
(08 January 2016). The author has participated on this investigations.
38
39
19
secondary position. As the area, where the site is located has no
toponym, the site was named after its discoverer – “Kalcsov 1”.
46° 3’44.72”N; 20°30’36.67”E), in the vicinity of an old river
bed, in the area called “Orezărie”, a small site is located. The
site represents a small elevation, with a height of 0.5 m and a
diameter of 15 m. According to the surface finds discovered,
this site was assigned to the Starčevo-Criş culture42.
3. At 61° and 5.70 km from the reference point (GPS:
46° 4’3.10”N; 20°32’20.17”E), ca. 0.30 km northeast of the
nowadays Bucova farm43, in the pastureland, a Neolithic site
is located. The site represents a small elevation, with a height
of 0.5 m and diameter of ca. 20 m. The finds there discovered
belong to the Starčevo-Criş culture 44. The location of this
site corresponds to Gy. Kisléghi’s two “mounds” – “Bukova
Pusta VI” and “Bukova Pusta VII”. In 2005 geomagnetic
investigations were carried out by J. M. Maillol, D. Ciobotaru
and I. Moravetz. On the resulted map (Fig. 6) are visible
concentrations of anomalies indicating the location of possible
archaeological features. Additional field research is required
for their interpretation.
4. At 55° and 5.90 km from the reference point (GPS: 46°
4’24.28”N; 20°32’15.07”E), ca. 0.90 km north of the mound
“Hunca Mare”, a multi-period site is located 45 (Fig. 8).
After Kalcsov’s rediscovery of the site in 2005 J. M. Maillol,
D. Ciobotaru and I. Moravetz conducted a geomagnetic
survey and electrical resistivity imagining on the site. On the
resulted geomagnetic map (Fig. 7) the mound and Kisléghi’s
trench in its center are visible. Northern of the mound are
also present concentrations of anomalies, which can be
Not to be confused with the former Bukova farm, mentioned by Gy.
Kisléghi.
44
45
42
43
20
interpreted as archaeological features. Later on, in 2009, a joint
German-Romanian research project began coordinated by R.
Krauß and D. Ciobotaru46. These investigations, included,
besides the archaeological excavations, a large spectrum
of interdisciplinary analysis. The research started with a
geomagnetic survey (2009) and continued with systematic
excavations, which have lasted until 2015 with an interruption
in 2011. The investigations were concentrated in two parts
of the site – on the mound and in an area southwest of it.
The first results show, that the site represents a large Early
Neolithic settlement overlapped on its eastern side by a Late
Eneolithic (Baden culture) burial mound which was reused
as a cemetery during the Middle Ages. The area eastern and
northeastern of the mound was inhabited during the Early
Iron Age. By reaching Kisléghi’s large trench in several parts
of the researched area was confirmed the previously assumed
coincidence of the site with that designated by Gy. Kisléghi as
“Bukova Pusta IV”.
46° 4’18.31”N; 20°33’57.33”E), in the area called “La stuf”, a
large Neolithic site is located. The site represents a tell with
a height of 1,5 m and a diameter of ca. 100 m (Fig. 9). The
dwelling outlines and finds discovered on the surface belong
to the Vinča culture47.
46° 1’59.59”N; 20°33’28.00”E), on the left bank of the Aranca
stream, a Neolithic settlement is located. The prehistoric
pottery discovered there belongs to the Starčevo-Criş and
Vinča cultures. Additionally, finds belonging to late Classical
Antiquity and the Middle Ages were also discovered48.
46
Raiko Krauß, Untersuchungen zur Frühneolitischen Besiedlung auf der
Bucova Pusta IV, http://www.ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/juengere-urgeschichte/
forschungsprojekte/aktuelle-forschungsprojekte/bucova-pusta.html (27 June
2015). The authors of this study are members of the research team.
47
48
Kalcsov 1999, p. 155, no. 21.
21
• Direction South
46° 1’20.28”N; 20°28’20.12”E), on a high terrace surrounded
on three sides by a paleo-river, the site “Movila lui Dragomir”
(Dragumirskata mugjila) is located. It represents a multi-period
site with horizontal stratigraphy. The finds discovered there
belong to the Late Eneolithic (Baden culture), the Bronze Age,
Classical Antiquity, as well as the Middle Ages49.
46° 0’58.66”N; 20°28’27.18”E), on the shore of a former
large swamp called “Sulénotu bárče”, south of the country
road “Gánčvata Linija”, a site is located. It represents a small
elevation, with a height of 0.5 m and a diameter of ca. 15 m.
The finds discovered there belong to the Starčevo-Criş and
Vinča cultures50.
46° 1’6.44”N; 20°28’10.93”E), ca. 0.25 km southeast from
the mound “Minvata mugjila”, in a small valley, a Neolithic
settlement is located. The pottery discovered there belongs to
the Vinča culture51.
10. At 175° and 4 km from the reference point (GPS:
46° 0’25.88”N; 20°28’54.58”E), east of the area called “Zabrána”,
a Neolithic site belonging to the Vinča culture is located. Not
far south from it, a large area was inhabited during the Bronze
Age and Middle Ages. However, in the last years, it was largely
destroyed by bulldozing, during ground leveling works made
with the purpose of applying of intensive agriculture in the
region52.
46° 0’51.54”N; 20°28’19.40”E), on the banks of a former swamp
Kalcsov 1999, p. 155, no. 23; Kalcsov 2006, p. 36, no. 2; Tănase 2002-2003.
51
Kalcsov 1999, p. 156, no. 29.
52
49
50
22
called “Sulénotu bárče”, a small Neolithic site is located. The
pottery discovered there belongs to the Starčevo-Criş and
Vinča cultures53.
46° 0’51.92”N; 20°28’40.30”E), on the banks of the
aforementioned dried swamp (Sulénotu bárče), a Neolithic site
is located, which belongs to the Starčevo-Criş culture. This
site was also inhabited during the Bronze Age, late Classical
Antiquity and the Middle Ages54.
• Direction West
46° 2’56.33”N; 20°26’10.45”E), south of the country road
“Sebastijánskata linja”, in the area “Tončvotu”, a Neolithic site is
located. The site represents a small elevation with a height of 0.5 m
and a diameter of ca. 15 m. The finds discovered there belong to the
Starčevo-Criş culture55.
46° 3’17.54”N; 20°24’31.80”E), in the vicinity of the mound called
“Funderovata mugjila”, a Neolithic site is located, which belongs to
the Starčevo-Criş culture56.
46° 02’59.66”N; 20°23’47.03”E), south of the “Cociohatul
Mare” farm, a multi-period site is located. It consists of a large
mound and the area surrounding it (Fig. 10). The prehistoric
finds discovered there belong to the Starčevo-Criş and Baden
cultures. In addition, there are also finds from the Bronze Age,
late Classical Antiquity, and Middle Ages present57.
Kalcsov 1999, p. 156, no. 39.
This site was not published in the mentioned papers, since it was
discovered by C. Kalcsov in the recent years, whom I thank for the provided
information.
55
56
57
53
54
23
16. At 287° and 5.25 km from the reference point (GPS;
46° 3’33.16”N; 20°24’59.24”E), near the former oxbow lake
“Pečitata Ránga”, on a terrace, a Neolithic site is located. The
pottery there identified belongs to the Vinča culture58.
46° 3’16.92”N; 20°21’11.51”E), in the area called “Cociohatul
Mic”, on both sides of the country road “Vălcani - Beba Veche”,
a large site is located, which was inhabited during the Neolithic
(Starčevo-Criş culture), the Bronze Age, and the Middle Ages59.
The site was largely destroyed by bulldozing during surface
leveling works, made for agricultural purposes (Fig. 11-13).
• Direction North-West
18. At 311° and 6.25 km from the reference point (GPS: 46°
5’11.23”N; 20°25’31.58”E), on the bank of a former oxbow
lake, southeastern of the Colonia Bulgară village, a Neolithic
settlement is located, which belongs to the Vinča culture60.
46° 3’48.89”N; 20°28’37.49”E), is located the site “Movila lui
Deciov” (Dečvata mugjila). The site represents a prehistoric
tell (Fig. 14) with a height of 1,5 m and a diameter of ca. 200
m61. The large dimensions of this site made its identification
with the site named by Gy. Kisléghi as “Óbessenyői Őstelep”
easy. In the year 2000, as a consequence of Kalcsov’s discovery
of the site, a Romanian-Canadian research expedition
began, conducted by D. Ciobotaru and I. Moravetz 62. The
new research continued until 2004, during which, a total of
6 different sized trenches were excavated. The results
of this excavations are published in several preliminary
Kalcsov 1999, p. 158, no. 67.
This site was not published in the aforementioned papers, since it was
discovered by C. Kalcsov in the recent years, whom I thank for the provided
information.
60
Kalcsov 1999, p. 158, no. 70.
61
62
The author has participated in this expedition as a school student.
58
59
24
reports 63, which are summarized here. The strategy of
investigation consisted of disposing several long trenches,
which aimed to section the site and reveal its stratigraphy.
In these excavations Kisléghi’s trench was partly reached;
however, the investigations were mainly focused on the
unexcavated parts of the site. The stratigraphy of the site
appears to be generally in conformity with Kisléghi’s
descriptions. The total thickness of the cultural strata in the
central part of the mound is ca. 2,50 – 3.00 m (some dug-in
structures go until 3.50 m), consisting of 3 construction
horizons. The main difference in the observations represents the
third (upper) horizon which in Kisléghi’s excavations appears
to be the best preserved one. However, in the new excavations,
this horizon seems to have already been destroyed by modern
agricultural work (deep plowing). It contains a mixture of Early
and Late Neolithic, as well as Eneolithic (Tiszapolgár), finds.
The lower two living horizons belong to the Starčevo-Criş
culture and consist of large concentrations of pottery, daub
fragments, and scattered animal bones. Additionally, in
the lowest level, two large fragments of human skulls were
discovered. According to the researchers, the investigated
architectural remains and structures suggest the existence of
surface dwellings64. Besides regular archaeological excavations,
the research also included nondestructive investigations 65
(magnetometry, electromagnetic terrain conductivity, and
electrical resistivity) carried out in 2002. The geomagnetic
survey was very successful revealing the extension of the site,
as well as the existence of a structure which surrounds the
settlement (Fig. 15). The archaeological investigations of this
structure show that it was a ditch excavated into the virgin soil,
1,40 m wide and 0,65 m deep.
Lazarovici, Ciobotaru 2001; Ciobotaru 2003; Maillol et al. 2004; Lazarovici
et al. 2004.
64
Maillol et al. 2004, p. 23.
65
Maillol et al. 2004.
63
25
The four available radiometric dates66 (three obtained from
bone and one from charcoal) range between ca. 5900 and
5700 cal BC (Fig. 16). Chronologically significant is also the
small percentage of dark-on-red painted pottery discovered
there. During the excavations, two graves were identified.
The skeletons were in crouched positions, one on the left side
and the other on the right side. For the last one, a radiometric
date was provided, revealing its appurtenance to the Iron
Age67. Further conclusions could be drawn after the finds are
processed.
• Direction North-East
46° 3’34.67”N; 20°28’50.35”E), near the formal stream
“Ciganskata Ránga” (currently fishpond) a small Neolithic site
is located on a terrace. The discovered there pottery belongs to
the Starčevo-Criş culture68.
46° 3’48.43”N; 20°30’13.79”E), south of the river “Ciganskata
Ránga” (Gornya Aranka) a Neolithic settlement belonging to
the Starčevo-Criş culture is located69.
Besides the sites identified by C. Kalcsov as prehistoric
ones, there are three other sites discovered by him which
were not reported as prehistoric, but which were excavated by
Gy. Kisléghi and within which prehistoric finds were
discovered. All of these sites represent artificial mounds
(tumuli) which were constructed during the Late Eneolithic
or the Early Bronze Age.
Biagi et al. 2005, p. 42, Fig. 1.
Dan Ciobotaru, personal communication, 11.04.2015.
68
Kalcsov 1999, p. 158, no. 78.
69
This site was not published in the mentioned studies, since it was
discovered by C. Kalcsov in the recent years, whom I again thank for the
provided information.
66
67
26
46° 3’21.31”N; 20°30’52.32”E), in the vicinity of a paleo-channel,
the site called “Mindvata Mugjila” is located, representing a large
mound, with a height of 2 m and a diameter of 30 m (Fig. 17). The
potsherds discovered on the surface by C. Kalcsov are inconclusive70.
This site corresponds with the one named by Gy. Kisléghi as
“Óbessenyő – Izlaz”.
46° 3’57.39”N; 20°31’32.35”E), south of a paleo-channel, a site
is located, which represents a small mound with a height of
1 m and a diameter of 10 m. The surface finds discovered by
C. Kalcsov are vague and cannot be attributed to a certain
period 71. The site corresponds with the one named by
Gy. Kisléghi as “Bukova Pusta III”. Although in Kisléghi’s
report of the excavation, no prehistoric finds were mentioned72,
during the reprocessing of the materials, Gh. Lazarovici found
Early and Late Neolithic finds73 as well as Eneolithic finds74.
The Late Neolithic ones were later included in Fl. Draşovean’s
study on Vinča C period75. There might be two possibilities
concerning these finds. The first, and more plausible one, is that
Gy. Kisléghi presented in his publication only the discoveries
most relevant (to him) – the adornments and weapons from
the medieval grave – and omitted to mention the rest of the
finds. The second possibility is that later on the finds were
mixed together with finds from other sites. This question can
be solved with future archaeological investigations on the site.
24. At 66° and 5,5 km from the reference point (GPS: 46°
3’55.83”N; 20°32’24.03”E), in the Bucova plain, is located
the site “Hunca Mare”, which represents a large artificial
mound, with a height of 3 m and a diameter of 25 m, having
Kalcsov 1999, p. 154, no. 7;
72
Kisléghi 1904, p. 419-421.
73
Lazarovici 1979, p. 187-188.
70
71
74
75
Lazarovici 1975a: 21, Fig. 3.
Draşovean 1996, Pl. CIV; Pl. CV.8.
27
a topographical landmark on it (Fig. 18). The surface finds
discovered belong to the Bronze Age and Classical Antiquity76.
The toponym for this mound is maintained over a century, as it
appears on the Third Habsburg Military Map (1869-1887) and
in Kisléghi’s report.
The only prehistoric site excavated by Gy. Kisléghi which
does not seem to have been discovered by C. Kalcsov is the one
named as “Ó-bessenyő V”.
Considerations
The archaeological research in the the territory surrounding
the village of Dudeştii Vechi started relatively early. However,
the long interruption in the investigations after the First World
War had a negative impact upon further research, which was
reflected in the results. The created ambiguity persisted for
many decades and it led to the loss of valuable archaeological
information and artefacts. Therefore, this case study is an
example which should not be repeated.
The intensive work of Gy. Kisléghi and C. Kalcsov had as
a result the discovery of relatively large number of Neolithic
and Eneolithic sites, which shows that the territory under
study was relatively densely settled during the late prehistory,
and indicates for the existence of favorable living conditions,
although the area might have been flooded often. Additionally,
it should be mentioned that the currently known prehistoric
sites (included in this study) might not represent all the existing
sites in the micro-region. An argument for this statement is
that both surveys (Kalcsov’s and Kisléghi’s) were conducted
randomly, and thus not exhaustively. Therefore, a new
systematical survey could reveal a series of new sites which
would change the present picture of the settlement network.
76
28
Keeping in mind that the territory under study was
not uniformly surveyed, certain conclusions related to
the distribution of the sites cannot be made. The large
concentration of sites east of the village of Dudeştii Vechi
shows mostly Kisléghi’s interest in investigating the artificial
mounds (tumuli), which are concentrated there (Fig. 2).
As the preferences for choosing the location of these mounds
and the location of the prehistoric sites were the same (higher
un-floodable places in the landscape), the artificial mounds
often overlapped the sites, and therefore both were excavated
by Gy. Kisléghi. On the other hand, the concentrations of
prehistoric sites south and west of the village (Fig. 3), reflect to
a certain degree Kalcsov’s interest there and his surveillance on
the destructions produced by the large agricultural companies.
Generally, it can be stated that the sites were situated in the
proximity of water courses, which in most cases currently are
dried river valleys and only in few cases they are still active.
The numerous flat settlements and the only two tell settlements
(site 5 and site 19), much smaller compared to tells from
other regions, indicate that most of the sites were occupied
for a relatively short period of time during late prehistory.
Consequently, this fact suggests the existence of some kind of
mobility during the prehistory of the region.
When analyzing the size of the sites, the information
offered by C. Kalcsov gives the appearance that most of the
sites occupy only very limited territory. However, this is not
the case and one should consider that C. Kalcsov provided
information only on the size of the elevated places and not of
the territory on which the finds are distributed. Therefore, this
often leads to a subestimation of site extent, as the elevated
places might not comprise the whole site, but could represent
only a small part of its size, as is the case at Bukova Pusta IV.
In order to be answered this question systematic surveys and
geophysical investigations are required.
29
Finally, it must be mentioned that the presented sites
should be included in the National Archaeological Repertoire
(RAN) in order to be protected by the law. Especially, the
sites located southern and western of the village of Dudeştii
Vechi should be considered, as, in the last fifteen years, these
have become endangered and some have even been affected
by the large-scale destructions produced by the landscape
modification projects 77 of the expanding international
companies newly introduced into the region, which practice
intensive agriculture. Besides the recently constructed system
of irrigational channels, which in several cases cut through
the sites, the destructions also include massive changes of the
landscape by bulldozing, consisting of removal of the topsoil
from places of higher elevation and its distribution in the lower
areas, in order to obtain a perfectly level surface. This method
is extremely destructive an on the one hand, it modifies the
natural topography of the region, hindering any possibility
of paleo-environment reconstruction, and on the other hand,
it also affects largely the sites (Fig. 11-13). Furthermore,
the removal of cultural deposits (together with the finds)
from several places, mixing them irreversibly together and
distributing them in other areas (sometimes far from their
primary place) leads to further confusions.
Acknowledgements:
We would like to thank Constantin Kalcsov, Dan Ciobotaru
and Luca Valcov for the information provided and Alexander
Johannes Edmonds for the useful edits to this article.
These projects are carried out without being issued a permit from the
Ministry of Culture and National Patrimony, which makes them illegal.
77
30
Bibliography
Bejan,
Grec 1998
Adrian Bejan, Marius Grec, Dudeştii Vechi, judeţ Timiş,
punct Beşenova Veche - Pusta Bucova, Cronica cercetărilor
arheologice din România – campania 1998, http://
cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=1604&d=DudestiiVechi-Timis-Esehova-Veche--Pusta-Bucova-1998
(accessed 13.04.2015).
Bejan,
Mare 1997
Adrian Bejan, Mircea Mare, Dudeştii Vechi – Pusta
Bucova. Necropola şi morminte de înhumaţie din secolele
VI-XII (I), Analele Banatului, V, 1997, p. 139-158.
Biagi et al.
2005
P. Biagi, S. Shennan, M. Spataro, Rapid Rivers and Slow
Seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan
Peninsula. In: Lolita Nikolova et al. (eds.), Prehistoric
Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education,
RPRP, 6-7, 2005, p. 41-50.
Ciobotaru
2003
Dan Ciobotaru, Dudeştii Vechi, judeţ Timiş, punct Movila
lui Deciov, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România
– campania 2003, http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.
asp?k=2223&d=Dudestii-Vechi-Timis-Movila-luiDeciov-2003 (acessed 13.04.2015).
Draşovean
1996
Florin Draşovean, Cultura Vinča târzie (Faza C) în
Banat. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica,
1. Timişoara, 1996.
Gáll,
Ciobotaru
2010
Erwin Gáll, Dan Ciobotaru, Gyula Kisléghi Nagy’s
Prehistoric Research in Banat. In: Erwin Gáll et al. (eds.),
Kisléghi Nagy Gyula. Archaeológiai napló, Szeged Temesvár, 2010, p. 185-186.
Gáll et al. 2010 Erwin Gáll, Daniela Tănase, Dan Ciobotaru (eds.),
Kisléghi Nagy Gyula. Archaeológiai napló, SzegedTemesvár, 2010.
Kalcsov 1999
Constantin Kalcsov, Repertoriul arheologic al comunei
Dudeştii Vechi – fost Beşenova Veche (jud. Timiş), Studii de
istorie a Banatului, XIX-XX, 1995-1996, p. 153-161.
Kalcsov 2006
Constantin Kalcsov, Din trecutul acestor meleaguri. In:
A. Ronkov, I. Sârbu (eds.). Monografia Localităţii
Dudeştii Vechi, jud. Timiş, Timişoara, 2006, p. 27-50.
Kisléghi 1904
Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, Lovas Halomsírokról Torontálmegyében,
Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXIV, 1904, p. 417-421.
31
Kisléghi 1907
Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, Arankavidéki Halmok (Torontál m.),
Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXVII, 1907, p. 266-279.
Kisléghi 1909
Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, Az Óbessenyői őstelep (Torontál
m.), Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXIX, 1909, p. 146-154.
Kisléghi 1911
Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, Az Óbessenyői őstelep (Torontál
m.), Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXXI, 1911, p. 147-164.
Kisléghi,
Nagy 1912
Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, Géza Nagy, Torontál vármegye
őstörténete. In: Samu Borovszky (ed.), Magyarország
vármegyéi és városai. Torontál vármegye, Budapesta,
1912, 304-330.
Krauß 2015
Raiko Krauß, Untersuchungen zur Frühneolitischen
Besiedlung auf der Bucova Pusta IV, http://www.
ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/juengere-urgeschichte/
forschungsprojekte/aktuelle-forschungsprojekte/
bucova-pusta.html (27 June 2015).
Krauß 2016
Raiko Krauß. Grabungen am Fundplatz Klacsov I bei
Dudestii Vechi, http://www.ufg.uni-tuebingen.de/
juengere-urgeschichte/forschungsprojekte/aktuelleforschungsprojekte/bucova-pusta/untersuchungenin-2015.html (08 January 2016).
Kutzián 1944
Ida Kutzián, A Körös-Kultura. Dissertationes Pannonicae,
23. Budapest, 1944.
Lazarovici
1969
Gheorghe Lazarovici. Cultura Starčevo-Criş în Banat,
Acta Mvsei Napocensis, VI, 1969, p. 3-26.
Lazarovici
1975a
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Despre eneoliticul timpuriu din Banat,
Tibiscus, 4, 1975, 9-31.
Lazarovici
1975b
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Unele probleme ale ceramicii
neoliticului din Banat, Banatica, 3, 1975, p. 7-24.
Lazarovici
1979
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Neoliticul Banatului (Bibliotheca
Mvsei Napocensis IV), Cluj-Napoca, 1979.
Lazarovici,
Ciobotaru
2001
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Dan Ciobotaru, Dudeştii Vechi,
jud. Timiş, punct Movila lui Deciov (Őstelep), Cronica
cercetărilor arheologice din România – campania 2001,
p. 129-130.
Lazarovici et
al. 2004
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Florin Draşovean, Dan Ciobotaru,
Iosif Moravetz, Dudeştii Vechi, jud. Timiş, punct Movila
lui Deciov (Őstelep), Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din
România – campania 2004, p. 143-144.
32
Luca 2010
Sabin Adrian Luca, Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul
Românesc – Repertoriu (Bibliotheca Brukenthal XLVI),
Sibiu, 2010.
Luca et al.
2010
Sabin Adrian Luca, Cosmin Ioan Suciu, Florian
Dumitrescu-Chioar, Catalogue of the Early Neolithic
(Culture) Settlements in Western part of Romania –
Transylvania, Banat, Crişana, Oltenia and Western Muntenia.
In: Sabin Aadrian Luca, Cosmin Suciu (Eds.), The First
Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect,
II. Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş) Sites on the Territory of
Romania (BAR International Series 2188), Kraków, 2010,
p. 79-137.
Maillol et al.
2004:
Jean Michel Maillol, Dan Leopold Ciobotaru, Iosif
Moravetz, Analize geofizice în situl arheologic Movila lui
Deciov, comuna Dudeştii Vechi, Patrimonium Banaticum,
III, 2004, p. 21-36.
Medeleţ,
Bugilan 1987
Florin Medeleţ, Ioan Bugilan, Contribuţii la problema
şi la repertoriul movilelor de pământ din Banat, Banatica,
9, 1987, p. 87-198.
Milojčić 1949:
Vladimir Milojčić, Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit
Mittel- und Südosteuropas, Berlin, 1949.
Tănase 20022003
Daniela Tănase, Două morminte din secolele IV-V p. Chr.,
descoperite la Dudeştii-Vechi (jud. Timiş), Analele Banatului,
X-XI/1, 2002-2003, p. 233-244.
Vasilcin 2006
Ioan Vasilcin, Despre locuitorii comunei Dudeştii Vechi şi
originea lor. In: A. Ronkov, I. Sârbu (eds.). Monografia
Localităţii Dudeştii Vechi, jud. Timiş, Timişoara, 2006,
p. 79-99.
von Tompa
1934-1935
Ferenc von Tompa, 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in
Ungarn 1912-1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanische
Kommision, 24-25, 1934-1935, p. 27-114.
33
Kisléghi’s sites
Kalcsov’s sites
Ó-bessenyő V
–
Óbessenyő – Izlaz
site 22 (Mindvata Mugjela)
Bukova Pusta IV
site 4
Bukova Pusta VI
site 3
Bukova Pusta VII
site 3
Hunca Mare
site 24 (Hunca Mare)
Óbessenyői Őstelep
site 19 (Movila lui Deciov)
Bukova Pusta III
site 23
Table. 1. The correlation between Kisléghi’s and Kalcsov’s sites
34
Fig. 1. The location of the study area (© Petru Ciocani).
35
Fig. 1. Kisléghi’s prehistoric sites mapped on the Second Habsburg military map (© Petru Ciocani).
36
Fig. 2. The location of Kalcsov’s prehistoric sites (© Petru Ciocani). The numbers on the map correspond with those in the text.
37
Fig. 4. The “Kalcsov 1” site, 11 August 2015 (© P. Ciocani).
38
Fig. 5. Magnetometric map of the “Kalcsov 1” site
(© J. M. Maillol, D. Ciobotaru, I. Moravetz)
39
Fig. 6. Magnetometric map of the “Bukova Pusta VI - VII” site (© J. M.
Maillol, D. Ciobotaru, I. Moravetz)
40
Fig. 7. The mound of “Bukova Pusta IV”, 17 May 2015 (© P. Ciocani).
41
Fig. 8 Magnetometric map of the “Bukova Pusta IV” site (© J. M. Maillol, D. Ciobotaru, I. Moravetz),
on which is visible the location of Kisléghi’s trench.
42
Fig. 9. The tell site of “La stuf”, 02 August 2015 (© P. Ciocani)
43
Fig. 10. The site of “Cociohatul Mare”, 16 August 2015 (© P. Ciocani)
44
Fig. 11. The site of “Cociohatul Mic” damaged by illegal bulldozing, 16 August 2015 (© P. Ciocani)
45
Fig. 12. Large difference between the natural and the newly created ground level at the site of “Cociohatul Mic”,
16 August 2015 (© P. Ciocani)
46
Fig. 13. Archaeological features exposed after illegal bulldozing on the site of “Cociohatul Mic”, 08 September 2015 (© P. Ciocani)
47
Fig. 14. Geophysical investigations on the site of “Movila lui Deciov”, 22 April 2002 (© D. Ciobotaru)
48
Fig. 15. Magnetometric map of the “Movila lui Deciov” site (adopted after Maillol et al. 2004: Fig. 3)
49
Fig. 16. Plot of the radiocarbon dates from the site of “Movila lui Deciov”.
50
Fig. 17. The mound of “Mindvata Mugjila”, 29 July 2015 (© P. Ciocani).
51
Fig. 18. The mound of “Hunca Mare”, 30 July 2015 (© P. Ciocani).
52

REVISTA DOCTORANZILOR ÎN ISTORIE VECHE ŞI

Transcription

Similar documents

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

Archaeological Reconstructions

Invitation to seminar and workshop

The Neolithic Agricultural Revolution

Digital Dwelling at Skara Brae - RADAR

Ponce de Leon`s Fountain of Youth Archaeological Park is featured

prospecci n arqueol gica a trav s de lidar y ortofotogrametria en el

Origins of R-M269 Diversity in Europe . The R

The Urban Revolution - The Heritage Podcast

DUDEŞTII VECHI