The Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology on the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin: Revisited after 15 Years

Bronze AGe CHronoLoGY in THe CArPATHiAn BASin

Proceedings of the International Colloquiumfrom Târgu Mureş

2–4 October 2014

B i B L i o T H e C A M V S e i M A r i S i e n S i S

SeriA ArCHAeoLoGiCA

VIII

ProCeedinGS of THe inTernATionAL CoLLoquiuMSfroM TârGu Mureş

EditorSándor BErEcki

Bronze AGe CHronoLoGY in THe CArPATHiAn BASin

ProcEEdinGS oF THE inTErnATionAL coLLoQUiUMFroM TÂrGU MUrEŞ

2–4 October 2014

Edited byRITa E. NÉMETH

BOTONd REZI

Editura MEGATârgu Mureș

2015

© Mureş County Museum, 2015Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Director

Cover:Gyermely-Szomor spectacle fibula

(photo made by Kardos Judit, photographer, Hungarian National Museum, Central Data Warehouse and Informatics Department)

Muzeul Judeţean MureşCP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328

Târgu Mureş, România

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.roe-mail: [email protected]

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a RomânieiINTERNaTIONaL COLLOQUIUM BRONZE aGE CHRONOLOGY IN THE CaRPaTHIaN BaSIN. TÂRGU MUREŞ, 2014.

Bronze age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin : proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş : 2-4 October 2014 / edited by Rita E. Németh, Rezi Botond. – Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2015. – (Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis. Seria Archaeologica ; VIII).

Bibliogr.ISBN 978-606-543-684-8.

I. NÉMETH, Rita E. (ed.)II. REZI, Botond (ed.)

903(498.4)”637”(063)

Contents

Vorwort 7

Ondřej CHVOJkaChronologie und Kulturen der südböhmischen Bronzezeit und ihre Parallelisierung zu den Donaugebieten und Karpatenbecken 9

Viktória kISS–Szilvia FáBIáN–Tamás HaJdU–kitti köHLER–Gabriella kULCSáR– István MaJOR–Géza SZaBó

Contributions to the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Western Hungary Based on Radiocarbon Dating of Human Bones 23

Marija LJUšTINa–katarina dMITROVIćCore vs. Periphery: Some Stratigraphical and Chronological Remarks on the Vatin Culture in Banat and Western Serbia 37

katarina dMITROVIć–Marija LJUšTINaMetal Finds as Indicators of Relations Between the Middle Bronze Age Cultures on Western and Northern Serbia 47

Florin GOGÂLTaNThe Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology on the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 Years 53

József PUSkáS Contact Zone: Middle Bronze Age Cultural Connections in the Valley of the Black River (Covasna County, Romania) 97

Neculai BOLOHaN–alexandru GaFINCU–Iulian STOLERIUMiddle Bronze Age Chronology East of the Carpathian Area. A Bayesian Model 131

Horia CIUGUdEaN– Colin P. QUINNThe End of the Wietenberg Culture in the Light of new 14C Dates and its Chronological Relation Towards the Noua Culture 147

Rita E. NÉMETHThe Middle Bronze Age “Mass Grave” from Voivodeni–La Şcoală. A Chronological Approach 179

Tibor-Tamás daRóCZI–adrian URSUţIUContextualising Decorations. A Study of Placement and Context of Ornaments on Bronze Age Ceramics from the Lower Feneş Valley 201

Gábor ILONZeitstellung der Urnenfelderkultur (1350/1300–750/700 BC) in West-Transdanubien. Ein Versuch mittels Typochronologie und Radiokarbondaten 223

attila LáSZLóÜber die Chronologie des kulturellen Wechsels zwischen der Noua-Coslogeni Kultur und der Nachfolger-Kulturen mit kannelierter und mit ritz- und stempelverzierter Keramik in den innen- und aussenkarpatischen Gebieten. Einige Lehren der Radiokarbondatierungen 297

János Gábor TaRBaYThe Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary 311

Tiberius BadERZur Chronologie Der Lanzenspitzen im Karpaten-Donau-Raum 373

Abbreviations 393

Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin, 2015, p. 53–95

The early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian

Basin. revisited after 15 Years

Florin GOGÂLTaNInstitutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei Cluj-Napoca, Romania

[email protected]

to dr. Andrea Vaday

Fl. GOGÂLTaNKeywords: Carpathian Basin, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, relative chronology, absolute chronology

In 1997 A. Vaday encouraged me to publish some of the Bronze Age artefacts discovered during the rescue excavation at Kompolt–Kistér (Gogâltan 1999b, 171–177). It was at this point when I had the first insight into the Hungarian chronological system for the Early (EBA) and Middle Bronze Age (MBA). At the same time, for my PhD thesis, I attempted to date both relatively and absolutely the artefacts discov-ered in Banat, which were connected to what was happening during the Bronze Age in the south–eastern part of nowadays Hungary. In order to understand the various opinions regarding the EBA and MBA, I studied all chronological systems used starting with the late 19th century (Gogâltan 1998a, 191–212).

In my PhD thesis, published in Romanian in 1999, I managed to gather and recalibrate, using OxCal v3.0 software, 178 known 14C samples for the EBA and MBA in the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 1999a, 15–78).1 Similarly to the scholars in Austria or Slovakia (Ruttkay 1995, 178–209; Lichardus–Vladár 1998, 228–297), I wasn’t inclined to assign cultures like Makó–Kosihy–Čaka or Somogyvár–Vinkovci to the EBA. However, there are several arguments which point toward the necessity of catching up with the better known archaeological frame from Hungary. Among these some key events should be mentioned, such as the spreading of new metallurgical technologies through which finished products were obtained (shaft–hole axes), as well as changes of habitat (probably leading to a different lifestyle) by abandoning the high areas previously inhabited by the Coţofeni communities (Gogâltan 1999a, 199–200).

Starting from the so–called “Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungarian Chronology”, I envisioned a new evolutionary framework of the cultural expressions from Banat and the lower Mureş valley. According to this new scheme, the EBA would have had three stages (I, II and III), each containing two sub–stages (a and b). Due to the lack of published information regarding some important sites from the Danube area, stage EBA Ia in eastern and southern Banat could not be properly outlined. The survival of some Coţofeni IIIc–Vučedol type communities in the area, either avoided or pushed by the Glina migration, was taken into consideration. In any case, there were no unyielding arguments pointing towards an infiltration of Glina culture elements as far as south–western Romania. The downfall of Baden communities in the western Romanian Banat was also a vaguely known process. This process was followed by a horizon characterized by late Vučedol–early Makó discoveries and, most likely, some manifestations of pottery decorated with cord impressions. The next sub–stage, EB Ib, was characterized by further developments of the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture in western Romanian Banat and on the lower Mureş valley. Concerning metallurgy, the first types of shaft–hole axes (Fajsz, Kozarac, Pătulele and Veselinovo) were produced from the initial phase of 1 A new calibration of some of these results with the OxCal v. 4.1.1 application, as well as other samples which were not

available at that time, are found in Duffy 2014, 291–296.

54 | Fl. Gogâltan

EBA. Regarding the absolute chronology, the beginning of the Bronze Age as occurring around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, or slightly earlier, corresponds to Early Helladic II and available 14C dates for late Vučedol, Makó–Kosihy–Čaka and Somogyvár–Vincovci cultures. The second stage of the EBA is rather unknown. A series of discoveries called by M. Gumă “Sânpetru German–Pančevo” (Gumă 1997, 37) were assigned to this stage, bordered on the lower Mureş valley by the Şoimuş group. In the south–eastern part of the Romanian Banat things continued to be unclear, situation which could also be applied to discoveries assigned to the EBA IIb sub–stage. I considered that the emergence of Mureş communities in Banat must have happened at that time. The EBA IIb sub–stage would correspond to the Oggau and Jois necropolises in southern Central Europe placed in the first phase of EBA (the so–called Reinecke A0). Metalworking activities were represented in this stage by shaft–hole axes, developed as early as the first sequence of EBA (Kozarac, Pătulele, and possibly Veselinovo). It is possible that some metal artefacts discovered in the necropolis from Beba Veche are also datable to the EBA IIb sub–stage. Phase I of the Mureş culture and the emergence of the important tell settlements from Periam (first habitation level) and Semlac, located in the westernmost part of the Romanian Banat and on the Lower Mureş valley, are believed to have occurred in the the last stage of EBA (III). The remaining area in Banat was apparently occupied by communities belonging to the Gornea–Orleşti group. From a chronological point of view, based on metal artefacts and available 14C dating, stage EBA III was mainly contemporaneous with the Central–European BzA1, which should be placed between 2300 and 1950 BC.

Fig. 1. The EBA and MBA in Banat and Lower Mureş Basin (after Gogâltan 1999a).

The MBA was structured also in three phases, without being able to specify any sub–phases as in the previous case. Due to the current stage of research, the dawn of MBA remains only scarcely out-lined. MBA I stage is characterized by the survival of late Gornea–Orleşti communities, the beginning of second stage of the Mureş culture, and establishment of the northern group of Vatina culture, known as Corneşti–Crvenka (Gogâltan 2004, 79–153). Discoveries from the higher areas of the Romanian Banat were reunited under the name “Visag–Iaz”. Regarding the chronology, the beginning of the MBA was set to have occurred after 2100 BC, while its final manifestations took place around 1900 BC. Stage

The Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology on the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin | 55

MBA I corresponds therefore to the late BzA1 Central European stage and early Middle Helladic (MH) in the Aegean world. The second stage (MBA II) was characterized by the development of the Corneşti–Crvenka group in most parts of the Romanian part of the Banat region. The only exception was the Mureş–Aranka area, still occupied by Mureş communities. Based on metal artefacts produced within the Hajdúsámson–Apa horizon, on Ţufalău type gold artefacts, as well as on documented cultural exchanges with the Otomani–Füzesabony medium, stage MBA II was synchronized to the Central European BzA2 and should be placed, more or less, between 1900 and 1650 BC. The last stage of MBA (III) corresponds to the final expressions of the flourishing communities which produced tell settlements in the Banat Plain area: Mureş and Corneşti–Crvenka. In the more hilly and mountainous areas a new ceramic decoration technique appeared (Stichkanaltechnik), developed by the Balta Sărată group, while in southern Banat and along the Danube the Corneşti–Crvenka group was replaced by the Dubovac–Žuto Brdo–Gârla Mare culture. Representative for this stage are metal artefacts of Koszider type. Chronologically, MBA III was synchronized with stages BzA3 (partially) and BzB1 in the Central–European system, placed from around 1650 BC and until sometime before 1500 BC (Gogâltan 1999a, 71–78, 200–210; Gogâltan 2000, 229–230; Gogâltan 2001a, 290–293) (Fig. 1).

The downfall of tell settlements, along with the Mureş and Corneşti–Crvenka ceramic styles, marked the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LBA). The presence or influence of Hügelgräberkultur communi-ties in the Lower Mureş area resulted in significant economic and social transformations, coupled with the emergence of new ceramic styles developed as a mixture of local and recently introduced traditions (Păuliş group). The remaining area of the Romanian Banat was inhabited by communities which produced ceramic styles characterized by white inlay decorations: Cruceni–Belegiš, Balta Sărată II and Dubovac–Žuto Brdo–Gârla Mare (Gogâltan 1999a, 209–210).

*

This chronological system became very popular today in relation to the Early and MBA in Western and Central parts of Romania (Molnár–Ghemiş 2003, 41–92; Popa 2005, 51–183; Rişcuţa et al. 2009, 257–286; Berecki–Balázs 2011, 59–76; Găvan 2012, 57–90; Fântâneanu et al. 2013, 173–191; Fazecaş 2014, 111–116; Bălan 2014a, 47–48; Daróczi 2015, 35–43, fig. 11, pl. 1; etc.). This may be attributed on one hand to H. Ciugudean’s studies (Ciugudean 1996; 1998, 67–83; Ciugudean 2003, 89–122; etc.) and, on the other hand, to the fact that a great deal of younger researchers were, in a larger or smaller extent, influenced by my studies.

Only for M. Rotea the Coţofeni culture continues to be a characteristic of the EBA in Transylvania (Rotea 2009, 10), as it was previously proposed by Roman (1986, 29–55) and Vulpe (2001a, 228–232, fig. 30). Recently, under the influence of Al. Vulpe and Bulgarian scholars, who placed the beginning of the Bronze Age around 3500 BC (Heyd 2013, 11, with the old literature), before the Helladic and Minoan Bronze Age, there was an attempt to include Coţofeni and Baden cultures as well into the EBA. In I. Motzoi–Chicideanu’s opinion, the EBA covered the entire time frame comprised between 3700 BC and 3000 BC, the MBA took place in the sequence between 3000 BC and 1600 BC, while the LBA devel-oped between 1600 BC and 1200/1100 BC (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 48–56). The suggestions made by R. Băjenaru and A. Popescu are only slightly different (Băjenaru–Popescu 2012, 407, n. 2; see also Băjenaru 2014, 25–30). They use the term EBA in reference to the time sequence between 3500 BC and 2000 BC, including here also several cultural groups traditionally attributed to the “transition period to the Bronze Age”, such as Boleraz, Cernavodă III, Cernavodă II, Folteşti, Baden and Coţofeni.

As critical observations made in regards to these just mentioned chronological systems, I reached the conclusion that the emergence of bronze metallurgy in Transylvania only took place after 2500 BC. Also, when discussing the Coţofeni communities, one should also consider the absence of any proofs suggesting the existence of a complex society, with well defined hierarchical systems and intricate eco-nomical and social relations, well attested for the Bronze Age (Gogâltan 2011, 102; Gogâltan 2013, 32, n. 6; Gogâltan forthcoming). Similar opinions are found among other specialists,2 either in reference to Transylvania (Kienlin 2010, 118, 130), or other cultural manifestations within the Carpathian Basin (Bertemes–Heyd 2002, 185–228; Bertemes–Heyd 2015).

2 Heyd 2013, 13: So, if there is at all a period when one can speak about an Early Bronze Age which really deserves this term in the sense of a new level of social and economic complexity, of special artefacts and materials, of enhanced structures, consistency and continuity, then this can only be the period between around (2600–) 2500–2200 (–2000) BC.

56 | Fl. Gogâltan

Preliminary results obtained within the project “Living in the Bronze Age Tell Settlements. A Study of Settlement Archaeology at the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin” supported by a grant of the Ministry of National Education from Romania (Gogâltan et al. 2014), along with new 14C data and more recent opinions regarding the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin, which were not included in my latest articles (Gogâltan 2013, 31–76; Gogâltan 2014a, 13–24; Gogâltan forthcom-ing) are introduced here, in order to revise, after 15 years, the subject of relative and absolute chronology of the Early and MBA in Western and Central parts of Romania.

*

The last 15 years of archaeological research in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia are marked by a great number of excavations on sites attributed to the Early and MBA. Among these, a lead role is held by rescue excavation conducted in order to build new motorways or other economic facilities. In this case, the processing and publishing of artefacts is far from being finished. Very important are the sys-tematic research projects in the Bronze Age tell–settlements from Százhalombatta–Földvár (Poroszlai–Vicze 2000; 2005; Earle–Kristiansen 2010), Töröksezentmiklós–Terehalom (Tárnoki 2001, 89–122), Kakucs–Bala-domb (Jaeger–Kulcsár 2013, 289–320; Kulcsár et al. 2014, 1–7; Pető et al. 2015, 1–10), Orešac–Židovar (Ljuština 2012; 2013, 79–117), Carei–Bobald (Németi–Molnár 2012), Pecica–Şanţul Mare (O’Shea et al. 2005, 81–109; O’Shea et al. 2006, 211–227; O’Shea et al. 2011, 67–78), Tiszakeszi–Szódadomb (Fischl–Kienlin 2015, 109–120), Polgár–Kenderföld (Dani et al. 2003, 93–118; Sümegi 2013, 155–192), Emőd–Nagyhalom (Fischl–Kienlin 2013, 9–18), Tard–Tatárdomb (Fischl–Kienlin 2013, 18–27; Fischl et al. 2014, 57–90), Vráble–Fidvár (Bátora et al. 2008, 97–107; Bátora et al. 2011, 1–23; Bátora et al. 2012, 111–130; Bátora et al. 2015, 123–138), as well as the publish-ing of older investigations from Bölcske–Vörösgyűrű (Poroszlai 2000, 111–145), Ároktő–Dongóhalom (Fischl 2006).

Several PhD thesis, such as those of V. Heyd (Heyd 2000), J. Bátora (Bátora 2000), W. David (David 2002), D. Vollmann (Vollmann 2005), K. P. Fischl (Fischl 2006), Ch. Reich (Reich 2006), G. Kulcsar (Kulcsár 2009), C. Uhnér (Uhnér 2010), R. Munteanu (Munteanu 2010), I. Motzoi–Chicideanu (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011), M. Vicze (Vicze 2011), V. Kiss (Kiss 2012b), P. Duffy (Duffy 2014), L. Dietrich (Dietrich 2014), T. Daróczi (Daróczi 2015), and other synthesis concerning the Early and MBA in the Carpathian Basin (Németi–Molnár 2002; Krause 2003; Kristiansen–Larsson 2005; Németi–Molnár 2007; Pop 2009a; Kienlin 2010; Popa–Totoianu 2010; Soroceanu 2012; Vicze et al. 2013; Heyd et al. 2013; Gogâltan et al. 2014; Kienlin 2015; Daróczi–Ursuțiu 2015; etc.) are also very important markers in the research for these last 15 years.

The new information will be briefly presented in the following lines. The Hungarian chronological system developed in the 1980s of the last century in regards to the

Early and MBA (Gogâltan 1999a, 30–32, 47; Gogâltan 2001a, 285; Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 68) remained more or less unchanged for 30 years (Reményi 2009, 229–254; Kiss 2012a, 215–250; Gogâltan 2014a, fig. 6). Following more recent reviews concerning the so–called transition period from the Late Copper Age to the EBA (Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 75; Horváth et al. 2013, 163), the beginning of the Bronze Age in Hungary was dated in between 2800/2700–2600/2500 BC, to some extent earlier than previously stated (Kulcsár 2009, 15; Fischl et al. 2013, 355; Endrődi 2014, 260, 267; Duffy 2014, 96; Horváth–Svingor 2015, 47).3 This dating was supported by new radiocarbon dates from late Copper Age sites belonging to the late Baden, Kostolac and Vučedol cultural groups (Horváth 2011a, 1–105; Kulcsár 2013, 643–659; Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 69–70; Horváth–Svingor 2015, 19–74) and from Pit Grave kurgans of the Great Hungarian Plain (Dani–Nepper 2006, 29–48; Dani 2011, 29–33; Horváth 2011b, 71–131; Dani–Horváth 2012; Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 70–71; Horváth et al. 2013, 153–179; Horváth 2014, 99–134; Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 51–53). Even if for J. Dani “the definition of the beginnings of the EBA in eastern–Central Europe is a hard and – to my mind – a rather impossible task” (Dani 2013, 203), he considered that “some time in the first quarter of the third millennium, a new age, namely the Early Bronze Age” [appeared] (Dani 2013, 204).

3 This trend is also suggested by new AMS results for the begining of the Copper Age it the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin (Raczky–Siklósi 2013, 555–573; Schier 2013, 569–578; Diaconescu 2013, 35–60; Drașovean 2014, 129–171; Brummack–Diaconescu 2014, 242–260; etc).


G. Kulcsár and V. Szeverényi discussed, in this context, a number of fifteen 14C dates from sites with Makó–Kosihy–Čaka style assemblages.4 They seem to suggest the existence of three evolution stages: one stage marked by the discoveries from Sárrétudvari Kurgan (circa 2750–2600 BC), contemporaneous with the latest Final Copper Age assemblages; an earlier Makó phase dated between circa 2550–2300 BC, sug-gested by the settlement and cemetery from Berettyóújfalu–Nagy-Bócs-dűlő;5 a late stage placed between circa 2300–2150 BC, attested by a pit from Üllő Site 5.6 However, G. Kulcsár and V. Szeverényi admitted that these stages are not entirely supported by ceramic typologies. To this information were also added another nine radiocarbon dates from seven sites with Somogyvár–Vinkovci style material (Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 74). Based on this data, they concluded that “circa 200–year–long phase between 2800 and 2600 BC in the Carpathian Basin, when “Late Copper Age” material culture (late Baden, perhaps Kostolac?) was used contemporaneously with “Early Bronze Age” type material culture (earliest Makó and late Vučedol/earliest Somogyvár–Vinkovci)” (Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 75).

All we know today in regards to the EBA and MBA in the western part of present–day Romania (ca. 2700/2600–1600/1500 BC) was traditionally approached in relation to three major geographic regions: The Romanian Banat and Lower Mureş Basin (south–western Romania), the Criş rivers area, and the area between Ier River and the Lower Someş valley (north–western Romania) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The Eastern Carpathian Basin.

Concerning the late Copper Age stage,7 characterized by the evolution of Baden and Coțofeni cul-tures, there are several available studies which summarize the current state of research (Petrescu 2000;

4 To these, we can add the information according to which the Early Makó–Kosihy–Čaka phase from Vráble–Fidvár is datable around 2700 BC (Nowaczinski et al. 2012, 293).

5 Considering that 14C dating from Domony (2339–2136 BC) suggest a later period, the conclusion was that “die Siedlung und die Gräber von Nagy–Bócs–dűlő eindeutig in die frühe Phase der Kultur datiert warden” (Dani–Kisjuhasz 2013, 690).

6 There is also a younger date here (2470–2300 BC), which suggests that the site evolved over a longer period. Hoverer, it is rather difficult to establish a boundary between phases I and II Mako based solely on ceramic typology (Kővári–Patay 2005, 83–137; Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 74).

7 Even if W. Schier recently sugested the abandonment of the term Copper Age, well established within the German specialised literature, in favor of the term Eneolithic, I prefer not to follow his recommendation, arguing with Schier’s own conclusion: “We

58 | Fl. Gogâltan

Ciugudean 2000; Sava 2008, 45–80; Popa 2009; Sava 2015). Only a few significant new discoveries can be mentioned (Ghemiş–Sava 2004, 19–31; Bejinariu 2005, 51–93; Popa–Fazecaş 2013, 47–85; Fazecaş–Marta 2014, 8–17; Ghemiș et al. 2014, 31–37; Sava et al. 2014, 39–76). As one could easily notice, there is only a small number of 14C dates. Also, the kurgan type burials remains an insufficiently explored phenomenon, unlike the situation encountered in east Hungary and the Serbian Banat. Considering these facts, there is little to work with in order to understand the transformation process underwent by Baden and Coțofeni communities towards what is generally called the EBA (Bejinariu 2005, 51–93; Popa–Fazecaş 2013, 47–85).

The start of the EBA in the area located west of the Apuseni Mountains was recently presented in two monographs dedicated to the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka phenomenon (Vollmann 2005; Kulcsár 2009). Fresh data was provided by the Romanian–German investigations in the Late Neolithic tell from Uivar in the Romanian Banat (Schier–Draşovean 2004, 145–230) (Fig. 37). EBA discoveries from the site were published by M. Woidich (Woidich 2008, 117–135; Woidich 2009, 357–365; Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 233–244). These discoveries were assigned to the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture. However, the exist-ence of ceramic forms and decorative elements found within the neighbouring Șoimuş group in the Lower Mureş valley (Woidich 2008, 121, 123–124, Abb. 6–7; Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 235, n. 3) and in the Somogyvár–Vinkovci medium (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 234, 237) were also correctly reported. Extremely interesting and important are two ceramic fragments with a line of wrought knobs under the rim, specific to “Glina III–Schneckenberg B”, but “unfortunately they cannot be allocated to an archaeological feature” (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 236). In M. Woidich’s and Al. Szentmiklosi’s opinion, together with a crouched burial lacking any other offerings, these ceramic fragments mark the beginning of the EBA in Uivar, being considered older than the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka horizon.8 These argu-ments are supported by the stratigraphic sequence from Odaia Turcului and by a 14C result.9 The so–called “Sânpetru German–Pančevo” type discoveries, previously defined for Banat, were assigned to a later phase of Makó–Kosihy–Čaka and were placed in stage EBA IIa (Woidich 2008, 128–131; Woidich 2009, 359; Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 237–239).

Four 14C results are available for Uivar in regards to EBA discoveries (Fig. 7). One of the samples comes from the crouched burial (Hd–22711, 4164±24 BP) and was published in 2004 by W. Schier and Fl. Draşovean (Schier–Draşovean 2004, 202, Tab. 9).10 The 2σ calibrated age–range of the radiocarbon date spans between 2880–2610 cal BC (Woidich 2009, 359). M. Woidich published two radiocarbon samples from pits with characteristic Makó–Kosihy–Čaka assemblage (Hd–27842: 4105±55 BP, Hd–27787, 3938±32 BP). The calibrated date (2 σ) ranges between 2875–2495 cal BC, respectively 2565–2306 cal BC (Woidich 2009, 359).11 Concerning the fourth 14C result from Uivar (Hd–xxxxx: 4007±41 BP, 2533±41 [68%] cal BC), there is no information in relation to its original context (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 239, n. 16). Therefore, there are three EBA chronological sequences in Uivar: a pre–Makó–Kosihy–Čaka phase, which according to the relative chronology would be “Proto Early Bronze Age (?) or Transition Period” (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 238, n. 15); a classical Makó–Kosihy–Čaka phase; and a late phase attested by a small incineration necropolis with Somogyvár–Vinkovci influences (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 238).

The existence of Glina pottery in the Banat Plain is not a novelty (Lazarovici–Sfetcu 1990, 54, fig. 5/10; Gogâltan 1995, 56, Abb. 1/3). In correlation with discoveries from south Romania, their chronological placement sometime between 2800 BC and 2600 BC, as suggested by sample Hd–22711, 4164±24 BP (Fig. 3), is possible (Schuster et al. 2005, 49–52; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 288–292; Roman 2011, 13–70; Băjenaru 2014, 257–258; Frînculeasa–Garvăn 2015, 243–244; Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 140–143). However, it is hard to establish if this fact proves an infiltration from the east of Glina elements at the same time when the south–western Romania was inhabited by Coțofeni (in the hilly and mountainous areas) and Baden (in the lower plains) communities. It might, as well, be a later event,

suggest, therefore, that the notion of Copper Age as a historical epoch be abandoned and the terms Eneolithic/Chalcolithic be used just as terminological conventions without culture–historical or even holistic implications” (Schier 2014, 432).

8 “Albeit they possess chronological relevance and they might mark indirectly the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Uivar. A second direct evidence for a possible Pre–Makó–Kosihy–Čaka population is provided by an inhumation burial in Trench II” (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 236).

9 The presented analogies are not accurate (Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 143, n. 6). For the site from Odaia Turcului new infromation is found in Băjenaru 2014, 184–189, pl. 35–38.

10 “warscheinlich in die späte Kuperzeit zu datieren ist” (Schier–Draşovean 2004, 202, n. 154).11 Hd–27778: 3938±32 BP (2426±56 [68%]) cal BC (Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013, 239, n. 16). The correct number for this

date is unknown.


contemporaneous with the classical stage of Makó–Kosihy–Čaka. Around that time several kurgans are known in Muntenia,12 the Serbian Banat and eastern Hungary, assigned to the Yamnaya phenomenon, while for south–western Romania, except the tumulus in Bodo, such data is missing (Gogâltan 2013, 41–42; Gogâltan forthcoming, with the old literature).13 It is likely that some vessels with corded impres-sions from Banat should be dated to the temporal frame of LCA/EBA I,14 as we suspected 15 years ago (Gogâltan 1999a, 200).

Fig. 3. Uivar. Fig. 4. Uivar.

The three remaining 14C dates from Uivar (Fig. 4–6) correspond with samples from graves 4, 7/7a, 9 and 11 in the kurgan of Sárrétudvari (Dani–Nepper 2006, 44; Kulcsár 2009, 355–356; Dani 2011, 29–33, Tab. 2; Ciugudean 2011, 29; Heyd 2011, 540; Gerling et al. 2012, 1101–1102, fig. 5) and with samples from the early Makó–Kosihy–Čaka settlement and necropolis from Berettyóújfalu–Nagy Bocs-dűlő (Dani–Kisjuhasz 2013, Tab. 1). These samples are also crucial for the dating of ceramic forms and ornaments usually considered as Șoimuş and Somogyvár–Vinkovci. Post–Coțofeni discoveries on the Lower Mureş Basin, assigned to the so–called Șoimuş group, are still sparse (Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 21–49; Rişcuţa–Andriţoiu 2007, fig. 1). Some recent discoveries point towards a gradual transformation of Coțofeni ceramic style into Șoimuş group style (Rişcuţa et al. 2012, 59–89; Sava 2015, 168, 210, 217 etc.).

Fig. 5. Uivar. Fig. 6. Uivar.

12 A recently published 14C sample from a Yamnaya grave at Strejnicu (Prahova County) offered a temporal frame between 2880–2500 BC, with a probability of 95.4% (Frînculeasa et al. 2013, 27–28; Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, fig. 2b). For other absolute dates regarding the tumuli in Muntenia see Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 57–63.

13 A tumulus overlapping an Early Neolithic settlement was recently investigated at Sânicolau Mare–Bucova Pustă IV. In regards to the inhumation grave, which apparently comprises the remains of a female, it was stated that “The type of this burial and the piece of red ochre suggest that we are dealing with a classic ochre grave dating from around 3000 BC, the late Copper Age” (Diaconescu et al. 2015, 42).

14 They can also be related to discoveries belonging to the second and third horizon of pottery with corded impressions in central and south Balkans, as they were recently defined by Al. Bulatović (Bulatović 2014, 122–128). For pottery with corded impressions in eastern Hungary see Dani 2011, 28–29, 34–35, fig. 13/26. For the Romanian Banat, an older discovery from Buziaş–Silagiu should be mentioned (Lazarovici–Sfetcu 1990, 53–54, fig. 4/1; Gogâltan 1995, 57, Abb. 1/1). For discoveries in south Romania see Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 67, fig. 13.

60 | Fl. Gogâltan

The presence of such ceramic forms as far as the Banat Plain proves the synchronicity of Șoimuş group communities with the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka world, allowing therefore its placement in the first stages of EBA,15 sometime around 2800/2500–2400/2300 BC (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Uivar. The sum of the probable distribution of 14C dates.

The small test trench conducted in 2009 at Foeni–Gaz (3x5 m), in the Banat Plain (Fig. 37), brought important insights into the transitional chronological stage from LCA to EBA in south–western Romania, as well as information regarding subsequent stages. Initially, three AMS results from “feature 3” were assigned to the end of the so–called “Kostolac–Stufe der Badener Kultur”: MAMS–11203 (4214±27BP), MAMS–10893a (4133±25 BP) and MAMS–10893b (4126±26BP), the evolution of the settlement being placed between 2910 and 2580 cal BC (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, 50). Subsequently, a new sample was added, but from “feature 5”16 (Hd–29516: 4017±48BP: “The series consists of four AMS–dates from three cattle bones and one sheep bone, dating to the 28th to 26th centuries BC)” (Krauss 2014, 264; see also Weninger–Krauss 2013, 61). For the next habitation sequence, placed at the end of Late Baden/Kostolac, but parallel to the beginning of EBA in the southern Carpathian Basin, the following dates are available: MAMS–10894 (3936±25 BP), MAMS–10891 (3902±25 BP) and Poz–38231 (3915±35 BP) (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, 57). They suggest “eine Nutzungszeit vom Ende des 26. bis zum Ausgang des 23. Jahrhunderts und können als Störungen der Fläche während der Frühbronzezeit (Makó/Kosihý–Čaka) aufgefaßt werden” (Weninger–Krauss 2013, 61). The last chronological phase at Foeni–Gaz with absolute dates is represented by the filling of a well, which yielded ceramic fragments specific to “typolo-gisch der Nagyrév–Grupe”: 2280–1912 cal BC (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, 51), fact proven by samples MAMS–10897b (3751±26 BP), MAMS–10897a (3724±32 BP), MAMS–10898a (3727±31 BP), MAMS–10898b (3718±25 BP) and Poz–38232 (3640±35 BP).

A total number of 14 14C samples attest a habitation at Foeni–Gaz which spans over the transitional period from the LCA/beginning of the EBA and a substantial part of this last stage (Fig. 8). The settlement from Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox, located 2 km south–east, would represent the next chronological phase (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, 61). However, there are some ambiguities in regards to these above–men-tioned dates, as the contexts from which the samples were taken are not entirely clear. For instance, to “fea-ture 5”, represented by a hearth, were assigned pottery fragments and a 14C date (Hd–29516: 4017±48BP) believed to be Late Baden (Fig. 8), as well as a typical Makó/Kosihý–Čaka pottery fragment (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, Abb. 15, Taf. 2/4). Even more unclear is “feature 3” (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, Abb. 8), with several results (MAMS–10891, 3902±25, MAMS–10892, 3712±25, MAMS–11203, 4214±27, MAMS–10893a, 4133±25, MAMS–10893b, 4126±26, MAMS–10894, 3936±25, Poz–38231, 3915±35, Poz–38232, 3640±35) spanning over a period of several hundred years (Fig. 8). The filling of the well is also questionable (Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013, 69, Taf. 5–26). As we will see below, the ceramic fragments from its upper part are relatively contemporaneous or slightly older in comparison to the Gornea–Foeni

15 N. C. Rişcuța established, a while ago, the existence of typological connections between Șoimuş pottery in south–western Transylvania and other EBA I–EBA II ceramic styles (Rișcuța 1998, 117–118).

16 “A habitation feature with material from the Baden culture in its later variant, Kostolac” (Krauss 2014, 263).


habitation from Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox. Likewise, these discoveries can be placed on the same choro-logical tier as those from the tell settlement in Semlac, assigned to the early Mureş style.

Fig. 8. Foeni–Gaz. The sum of the probable distribution of 14C dates.

A few other 14C should be mentioned in regards to the EBA in south–western Romania. One of these comes from the defensive ditch of the multilayered and fortified Gornea–Foeni settlement from Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox (Gogâltan 2014b, 98–103, with the old literature). The result suggested and age around 3650±35 BP (probability 95.4%: 2137BC–1929 cal BC)17 (Fig. 9).

The date from Foeni is relatively contem-poraneous with four samples from the early Mureş tell–settlement at Semlac–Livada lui Onea (Gogâltan 2014c, 242–246, with the old lit-erature) (Fig. 37). These later four samples were analyzed with the help of J. O’Shea, but they are still to be published.18 The earliest dates from the tell settlement at Pecica–Şanţul Mare also lie within this range (O’Shea et al. 2005, 87, fig. 9; Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, 695, 697–698, Tab. 1, fig. 2; Nicodemus et al. 2015, Tab. 1). Some dates from the small necropolis in Kiskundorozsma, near Szeged, are also important in the EBA III chronological sequence. Assigned to an early Mureş phase, the necropolis was dated based on four 14C samples between circa 2200 and circa 1800 BC (Bende–Lörinczy 2002, 87; Fischl–Kulcsár 2011, 68, Táb. 3, Kép. 8), hence contemporaneous with phases 2 and 3 from Mokrin, as defined by J. Wagner (Wagner 2005, Abb. 11/15; Wagner 2009, Abb. 10–11/13).

17 Information regarding this date was offered by Fl. Draşovean, to whom I express my gratitude. Other samples taken from the ditch suggest a functioning phase at the beginning of the Copper Age (Drașovean 2014, 142–146).

18 The results are placed between circa 2200 and circa 2000 BC. Courteous information from J. O’Shea (O’Shea forthcoming).

Fig. 9. Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox.

62 | Fl. Gogâltan

After a comparative analysis of funerary inventories dated around 2200 BC in Central Europe, F. Bertemes and V. Heyd reached a new conclusion in regards to the emergence of the Mureş culture: “This leaves us with only one realistic assumption: that prehistoric peoples, probably of a Leitha and/or Unterwölbling group background, emigrated along the Danube River to the south and settled here in a foreign territory, probably at the time of the initial Danubian EBA” (Bertemes–Heyd 2015). The pot-tery in contemporaneous settlements, such as Semlac, proves the existence of a strong local background and the lack of similar elements which would allow comparisons with the lower Austrian medium. As Bertemes and Heyd stated, only bio–archaeological investigations would be able to attest or contradict a possible migration.

The four sites from Uivar, Foeni–Gaz, Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox and Semlac allow new insights into the evolution of EBA in the Banat Plain (Fig. 37). Based on the current state of research, the following can be said. Between circa 2800–2600 BC a Late Baden settlement, with many Kostolac influences, func-tioned at Foeni–Gaz. This settlement was contemporaneous with the simple crouched burial from Uivar. It is unclear if the two Glina ceramic fragments from Uivar were synchronized with the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka habitation. The evolution of the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka horizon happened between ca. 2600–2300 BC, which characterised stages EBA I–II in the chronological system from Hungary and western Romania (Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 74). Some questions are still raised in regards to the beginning of EBA I. For some researchers from Hungary, the beginning of EBA was dated between 2800/2700 and 2600/2500 BC.19 Based on recent data from Banat, this dating seems a little too early.

The boundary between EBA I and EBA II is also rather vague.20 The emergence of Bell Beaker elements in the Budapest area marked the dawn of stage EBA IIa (Tóth 2003, 77, with the old literature; Patay 2009, 224; Endrődi 2014, 260). Today, a few 14C dates from Szigetszentmiklós–Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő are avail-able, which “indicate that the cemetery was used between 2500–2200 cal BC” (Patay 2013, 300, fig. 19). A wider time frame (2550–1900 BC) was also attested for the cemetery in Budakalász (Endrődi 2014, 271). Considering these circumstances, the dawn of EBA II should be placed after 2500 BC, and more likely sometime around circa 2400 BC. If the late dating associated with the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka ceramic style is taken into account, the EBA II stage was stretched until 2300–2150 BC (Reményi 2009, 232–233, térkép 3). Stage EBA IIb (Nagrév, early Mureş etc.) was parallelized with the Oggau and Jois necropolises horizon from southern Central Europe (so–called “Reinecke A0”), and dated between 2350–2250 BC (Bertemes–Heyd 2002, 190–208).

Based on information from Semlac, Foeni–Gaz and Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox, as well as other sites from Hungary,21 the beginning of EBA III in absolute chronology should be placed after 2200 BC. As mentioned above, bronze artefacts suggest that EBA III was mainly contemporaneous with the Central–European BzA1. According to 14C dates from the cemetery in Singen, in addition to other discoveries from Central Europe, the start of EBA III was placed around 2300/2000 BC. Recently, 140 new 14C dates were published from cemeteries located around Augsburg, in Bavaria. Additionally, 10 graves from Singen were re–dated, leading to the conclusion that “at least for the Augsburg region, our data propose an absolute date for BzA from 2150/2100 BC until at least 1700 BC” (Stockhammer et al. 2015, 18) (Fig. 10).

Little is known in regards to EBA in the area between Crişul Alb and Ier River (Fig. 2). Considering the discoveries from eastern Hungary, it can be assumed that Makó–Kosihy–Čaka communities also existed here (Kulcsár 2009, 16–20, fig. 3). Subsequently, in stage EBA II, the Criş rivers area was inhabited by the so–called Gyula–Roşia group (Bóna 1992, 14; Reményi 2009, 232, térkép 2–3), or Roşia group (Roman–Németi 1986, 218–230;22 Kulcsár 2009, 30, 352; Dani–Tóth 2014, fig. 9). In fact, most discoveries are

19 There are other opinions: “The Hajdúnánás–Tiszavasvári microregion was densely inhabited in the Late Copper Age (3600–2800 BC) and during the transitional period between Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age (2800–2600 BC). In the Early Bronze Age 1–3 periods (2600–2000/1900 BC), a dense network of sites existed here” (Horváth et al. 2013, 163).

20 For some Hungarian researchers, the relative and absolute chronology of EBA in the Carpathian Basin presents itself so: EBA 1 (2600–2500 BC), EBA 2a (2500–2300 BC), EBA 2b (2300–2200 BC), EBA 3 (2200–2000 BC), Transition between EBA and MBA (2000–1900 BC) (Horváth et al. 2013, Table 6).

21 The Nagyrév graves from Szigetszentmiklós–Felső Ürge–hegyi dűlő are mentioned, assigned to EBA IIb and dated around 2200 BC or later, subsequent to the Bell Beaker cemetery (Patay 2009, 224; Endrődi 2014, 270–271). A date from an “early (Proto) phase of the Nagyrév culture” grave in Dunakeszi–Székesdűlő is also from a later time period (3610±50 BP or 3610±45 BP) (Endrődi–Pásztor 2006, 16, n. 33).

22 The following chronological situation was suggested along with the existence of Roşia group: early Roşia–Makó–late Vučedol–Coțofeni III–Schneckenberg B–Glina III (phase Govora Runcuri)–Jigodin group; Roşia–Nir Ia (Nyirség)–late Makó–early Vinkovci–Glina IV (phase Ostrovul Corbului) group (Roman–Németi 1986, 230). According to Zs. Molnár and C. Ghemiş,


concentrated in a series of caves in Piatra Craiului mountainous area (Emödi 1985, 123–144; Halasi–Emődi 1985, 232–234; Roman–Németi 1986, 218–229; Molnár–Ghemiş 2003, 41–92). Detailed exami-nations of ceramic artefacts questioned the existence of the above mentioned cultural groups, as previ-ously defined. The absence of settlements assigned to those groups determined Zs. Molnár and C. Ghemiş to use instead the notion “Roşia type discoveries” (Molnár–Ghemiş 2003, 81). The funerary contexts were recently attributed to either Makó23 (Călățea, Roşia) (Fig. 37), or Nagyrév cultures (Izbucul Topliței) (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 316). Considering the current state of research, it is very difficult to position with accuracy the so–called Roşia type discoveries within the relative and absolute chronological setting of EBA.

Fig. 10. The EBA and MBA in western Romania.

Pottery decorated with broom–strokes discovered in some sites, as Oradea–Salca–Pepinieră (Bulzan et al. 2000, 82, 90–91, pl. 1–2) or Oradea–Sere (Bulzan et al. 2001, 166) was also assigned to EBA (Sanislău group) (Fig. 37). However, there are only a few ceramic fragments of this type, usually not associated with other decoration elements. This fact compels some reservations in their assignment to EBA (Fazecaș et al 2015a, 225). As occasionally stated, it is possible that they belong instead to LBA (Bulzan et al. 2000, pl. III/13, 15, 18–19). New investigations in the tell settlement from Toboliu–Dâmbu Zănăcanului (Fig. 37), known in the specialised literature also as Girişu de Criş–Alceu (Fazecaş 2014, 111–116, with the old literature) revealed that there is no separate horizon with broom–strokes decorations (Fazecaş et al. 2015b, 251–252). These type of artefacts, assigned by Sever Dumitraşcu to a presumed cultural group called “Girişu de Criş–Alceu” (Dumitraşcu 1989, 121), are actually specific to the entire Otomani II habitation. Considering the above mentioned facts, the reconstruction of EBA in Crişana can only be made with great caution (Fig. 10).

even if the ritual offerings in the caves from Crişul Negru and Crişul Repede valleys are datable in EBA II, “the bearers of this group inhabited the Criş valleys as early as the previous stage (EBA I)” (Molnár–Ghemiş 2003, 81).

23 It is specified afterwards that “It is rather obvious that an actual presence of Mako burials in the area between the Occidental Carpathian and the present–day Romanian–Hungarian border it can hardly be discussed” (Motzoi–Chicideanu 2011, 317).

64 | Fl. Gogâltan

In north–western Romania (Fig. 2), the EBA is known mostly through the work sustained in the last 60 years by I. Ordentlich, N. Chidioşan, J. Németi, T. Bader and C. Kacsó. The old investigations from Otomani–Cetățuie and Sălacea yielded (Fig. 37), in the lower levels, ceramic fragments considered specific to the first Otomani phase (Ordentlich et al. 2014a, 139–147; Ordentlich et al. 2014b, 207–230, with the old literature). Along with the definition of EBA in north–western Romania, these lower habita-tion sequences from the two above mentioned tell settlements were connected with the Sanislău group (Roman–Németi 1986, 212). The available information from both the Romanian and the Hungarian side was synthesized in 2001 by J. Németi and J. Dani (Németi–Dani 2001, 95–126, with the old literature). Regarding the relative chronology, the EBA was classified as follows: Early Bronze Age I – Makó Culture; Early Bronze Age II – Nyírség Culture; Early Bronze Age IIIa – Sanislău Group; Early Bronze Age IIIb – phase Andrid/appearance of Ottomány Culture (Németi–Dani 2001, 126). No substantial discoveries were made since, consequently this chronological overview suffered no changes or additions. Unfortunately, there are no 14C results from Ier area and lower Someş valley, therefore, in terms of absolute chronology, we can only make associates with the few dates known from north–eastern Hungary (Dani 2011, 25–69; Horváth et al. 2013, 153–179; Dani–Kisjuhasz 2013, 671–692; Dani–Tóth 2014, 39–66) (Fig. 10).

Considering not only the strong geographic fragmentation, but also its multilayered cultural back-ground, I approached Transylvania as divided into four geographic subzones: the northern part, the west-ern part, the centre/southern part and the eastern part (Fig. 2).24

The latest stage of Copper Age in Transylvania is represented by phase III of what is generally called the Coțofeni culture.25 Apparently, in the eastern part, elements of the Globular Amphora culture (GAC) are more and more visible (Székely 2009, 40–41, fig. 1–2; Gogâltan 2013, 36–37, 44; Szmyt 2013, 97, 99; Szmyt 2014, 113, 117, fig. 1; Ciugudean 2015, 164–175), which seem to have influenced the decora-tion style of their close western neighbours (Popa 2012, 147–148; Ciugudean 2015, 165–167). The pro-cess that leads to the abandonment of these ceramic styles in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC is not entirely clear, as we will see below.

The relative chronological setting of EBA in Transylvania was outlined in the past 25 years by P. Roman, H. Ciugudean, M. Rotea, Zs. Székely, V. Cavruc, C. I. Popa, N. C. Rişcuța, Zs. Molnár, R. Băjenaru, S. Sztáncsuj, S. Berecki, I. Motzoi-Chicideanu and Fl. Gogâltan. Due to obvious constraints, not all opin-ions regarding this matter will be presented here. Instead, the more recent or influential view will be dis-cussed. If for western Romania I started by presentation with its southern part, which is better known, for Transylvania, based on the same argument, I will start with its western part.

Fig. 11. Livezile–Baia. Fig. 12. Livezile–Baia.

24 The absence until recently of Bronze Age discoveries in the Giurgeu Basin (Gogâltan et al. 2011b, 53–68), resulted in a discussion focused more on the south–eastern part of Transylvania, including only Braşov and Ciuc basins (Munteanu 2010; Dietrich 2014, with the old literature).

25 A thorough review over the misemployment of the notion Coțofeni in Transylvania is available in Popa 2012, 197, 225–227. As previously stated (Gogâltan–Molnár-Kovács 2009, 35), the notion is often used in an inadequate manner and turned into a convention, silently accepted by most specialists, even if the archaeological finds from beginning of the 3rd millennium BC show a separate evolution from to the area south of the Carpathians. More suitable would be the notion “Cîlnic Kultur”, advanced by Gh. Bichir in 1962 (Bichir 1962, 108–110, 114) in regards to the communities characterized by the so–called Furchenstickeramik. I am confident that this discussion will not be left to rest in recent monographs (Ciugudean 2000; Popa 2009; Gogâltan–Molnár-Kovács 2009, 27–202; Popa 2011, 113–173; Popa 2012), but will be further elaborated, based on current methodological trends.


It is generally considered that EBA in western Transylvania (Fig. 2) was characterized by the exis-tence of the so called Livezile group, developed from the local Coțofeni setting (Ciugudean 1996, 78–96; Ciugudean 1998, 67–69; Ciugudean 2003, 98–100; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 305–315; Ciugudean 2011, 26), which was influenced by some “southern” (!) Zăbala–Folteşti elements (Ciugudean 2013, 20). Regarding its absolute chronology, there are several available 14C dates from the site Livezile–Baia (Fig. 37): 4109±44 BP (Bln–4624), i.e. 2873–2502 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Fig. 11) and 4015±35 BP (Poz–42712), i.e. 2621–2468 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Gerling–Ciugudean 2013, 184, fig. 3–4) (Fig. 12).

Considering the chronological placement of the Coțofeni culture (Ciugudean 2000, 57–59, pl. 154; Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, fig. 14),26 the beginning of the Livezile group can be put in the first half of the 3rd

millennium BC, most likely after 2700 BC (Gerling–Ciugudean 2013, 184). However, this opinion was not shared by other specialists, as the tumulus phenomenon in Transylvania was assigned to other cultural manifestations: late Coțofeni, Copăceni and Șoimuş (Rotea 1993, 84; Lazarovici 1997, 11–12; Rişcuţa et al. 2009, 280–281; Rotea et al. 2010, 38; Popa 2012, 136, 152, 210; Rişcuţa et al. 2012, 70–71; Popa–Fazecaș 2013, 58–59; Hervella et al. 2015, 8; etc.). Interestingly enough, from 87Sr/86Sr and δ18O isotope analysis in the kur-gan from Sárrétudvari, connections between communities from the Apuseni Mountains and those from north–western Hungary were clearly distinguished (Gerling et al. 2012, 173). These connections were previously assumed based on artefact typologies (Dani–Nepper 2006, 41–44; Dani 2011, 29–33). New 87Sr/86Sr and δ18O isotope analysis, conducted on six humans and two animals from the sites of Ampoița–Peret, Ampoița–Dostior (Fig. 37), Livezile and Meteş (Fig. 37), suggests there was restricted or small range mobility in the highlands of western Transylvania during the Early Bronze Age (Gerling–Ciugudean 2013, 195).27 Based on these arguments, the theory of semi–nomadic or transhumant migrations between Sárrétudvari and Livezile or the Sárrét region and the Apuseni Mountains (Horváth 2014, 122) was abandoned, being considered instead that the single realistic scenario is the immigration of a Yamnaya population from the Apuseni Mountains and its settle-ment in the Alföld (Horváth 2014, 123). Thus, there are considerably more opinions and hypothesis than certainties on the subject of tumuli in Western Transylvania.28 Regarding the end of this phenomenon, a period after the half of the third millennium BC was advanced (Ciugudean 2013, 22), but there is still plenty of scepticism around the subject. A 14C date from grave 3 in tumulus 1 from Meteş–La Meteşel (3660±50 BP, i.e. 2196–1903 cal BC – 95.4% probability) (Fig. 13), proves that tumuli were still a funer-ary practice at the same time when the lower area of Transylvania was occupied by that Besenstrich– und Textilmuster–Keramik group, specific to stage EBA III (Gerling–Ciugudean 2013, 184–185, fig. 5). 26 A new 14C date was recently mentioned (Hd–29517), assigned to the third phase of the Coțofeni culture. Unfortunately, this

date was not published, but it was stated that it marks the beginning of habitation in Poiana Ampoiului, set sometime before 3100 BC (Ciugudean 2015, 168, Fig. 2). The following were said in regards to two AMS samples from Beclean–Băile Figa: “Two pieces of wood from Trench III have produced surprisingly early radiocarbon dates: an elder branch with no certain context falls in the range 3090–2914 cal BC (95% probability, while the twigs from Pit 2a, associated with Early Bronze Age pottery, falls between 3300 and 2900 cal BC (Fig. 4.62). Both these dates are much earlier than one would expect for this pottery style in the Carpathian Basin, where a date in the last two–three centuries of the 3rd millennium BC would be considered normal. The elder branch might be seen as fossil timber that was lying around in the stream, incorporated into the salt works at a later date” (Harding–Kavruk 2013, 122). The AMS dates from graves 3B (4455±37 BP = 3340–2960 BC) and 5B (4532±37 BP = 3370–3090 BC) in the Kurgan IV from Ariceşti in Muntenia (Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 60–61, 66), as well as the dating of layer 6 in the tumulus from Hajdúnánás–Lyukas-halom, in which a Coțofeni III ceramic fragment was found (Horváth 2011b, 74–75, fig. 2/5; 5/2, Tab. 2), should also be considered in the context of absolute dating of the Coțofeni culture.

27 In the light of this complemented data set it can be assumed that the isotopic outliers from Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom do not agree with the results from the selected Transylvanian sample sites (Gerling–Ciugudean 2013, 193).

28 The question raised by P. Roman 30 years ago should also be added to the discussion: “Would it be possible that the tumuli cemeteries from Trascău Mountains are owed to ethno–cultural groups originating from eastern Transylvania?” (Roman 1986, 41). For the repertoire of tumuli cemeteries from LCA/EBA period in Romania see Teodorescu 2011.

Fig. 13. Meteş.

66 | Fl. Gogâltan

Another ceramic style assigned to the EBA in Transylvania is the so–called Copăceni group (Rotea 1993, 75–84; Rotea 2003, 67–70; Rotea 2009, 12–17), recently connected as well to the Yamnaya cul-ture (Hervella et al. 2015, 12, 14). Unfortunately, the discoveries from the site in Copăceni (Fig. 37) are still awaiting publication after more than 20 years, fact which was often justly criticised (Lazarovici 1997, 13–14; Ciugudean 2006, 469–473; Dietrich 2009, 219–223; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 305, 321; Ciugudean 2011, 26; etc.) and lead to many debates over an insufficiently defined ceramic style. For instance, according to C. I. Popa, the Copăceni group was the foundation of cultural manifestations occur-ring in late EBA II stage (Popa 2005, 82–83), while to H. Ciugudean, the Copăceni group was no more than a second evolutionary phase of Livezile group (Ciugudean 1996, 100, fig. 96; Ciugudean 2003, 104; Ciugudean 2011, 26; Daróczi–Ursuțiu 2015, 3, pl. I). The presence of ceramic artefacts considered to be Copăceni as far as south–western Transylvania (Rișcuța 2000a, 42–43; Rotea et al. 2010, 38; Popa 2011, 189), was never fully and unquestionably argued (Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 35–36). Faced with all the ongoing debates and uncertainties surrounding this cultural group, coupled with personal reservations in regards to the notion Copăceni (Gogâltan et al. 2004, 72), it is very difficult to find a proper placement in a relative or absolute chronological setting (Fig. 10). A 14C date is mentioned in relation to mtDNA vari-ability analysis of two individuals from Floreşti–Polus (Fig. 37) assigned to the Copăceni group in stage EBA II (Hervella et al. 2015, 6, 12–14), but no further details are provided (R_Date P11). Calibrated with the OxCal. v4.2.3 application, the date yielded a result in between circa 2500 BC and circa 2200 BC (Hervella et al. 2015, 17, S8)29 (Fig. 14). The mtDNA variability analysis of the two individuals could not prove the presumed migration of an eastern Transylvanian population, and implicitly of Yamnaya influences over the “Copăceni culture” (Hervella et al. 2015, 12–13). As previously stated, there is no certainty that the graves are connected with the construction of the mound with an antropomorphic stela and surrounded by a stone ring from Floreşti–Polus, which could have been erected earlier than stage EBA II (Gogâltan 2013, 45–47; Gogâltan forthcoming).30

Fig. 14. R_Date P11. Floreşti–Polus (after Hervella et al. 2015).

In western and south–western Transylvania (Fig. 2), the so–called Șoimus group was also identi-fied (Andriţoiu 1992, 19–26; Ciugudean 1996, 101–110; Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 29–37; Rişcuţa–Andriţoiu 2007, 29–52, with the old literature). Its connection with the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture

29 This date was brought to my attention by A. Frânculeasa.30 A similar opinion can be found in Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 75, n. 260.


was mentioned above. Based on these facts, the Șoimuş group should be contemporaneous with the Livezile group and placed also in both stages EBA I and EBA II, not only in EBA II (Popa 2011, 189; Ciugudean 2013, 22). However, it is difficult to establish its connections to other cultural manifesta-tions in Transylvania.31 In my opinion, the following statement is still valid: “what we can certainly spec-ify is that the ceramic fragments presented here occupy a chronological position in between the latest Coțofeni evolutionary phase and the Gornea–Orleşti–Alba Iulia–Zoltan horizon (pottery decorated with textile impressions, shallow incisions made with broom strokes, or deeper ones, resembling tree bark)” (Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 36) (Fig. 10).

The presence of ceramic fragments with a line of wrought knobs under the rim, element consid-ered specific to the Schneckenberg ceramic style, at Dăbâca (Lazarovici 1997, 11, pl. IV; V/2–3), Cicău (Winkler–Takács 1980, 23, fig. 1/4–4a), Cetea (Ciugudean 1996, fig. 22/3) and Deva–Dealul Cetății (Rişcuţa 2000b, 209–210, 212, pl. VI/11; VIII/1) was not fully explained (Fig. 37). According to H. Ciugudean: “we believe that the notion ‘the western facies of Schneckenberg culture’, is no longer sus-tainable in the light of recent research, and it is but a working hypothesis employed at a certain stage in research in order to substitute the absence of documentation regarding Transylvanian Early Bronze Age” (Ciugudean 2003, 104). Basically, it is impossible to specify today if they mark an actual presence of Schneckenberg communities in western Transylvania, if they are imported goods or they just reflect ceramic trends adopted by local communities (Fig. 10).

Ten years ago, C. I. Popa made a detailed presentation of everything we knew about the last stages of the EBA in Transylvania (EBA IIb– EBA III) (Popa 2005, 51–183, with the old literature). Ever since, except the remarkable findings from Beclean–Băile Figa discussed below, few new discoveries are worth mentioning in addition to what was already presented (Popa 2011, 175–192; Ciugudean 2013, 22, “Iernut–Zoltan type discoveries”). Therefore, based on the old investigations from Gligoreşti (Gogâltan et al. 2004, 61–101) (Fig. 37) and those from Războieni (Fig. 37), Sebeş–Valea Janului (Fig. 37) etc., C. I. Popa defined a new horizon, which was mostly characterized by “broom stroke” decorations and new ceramic forms. This horizon was called “Gligoreşti–Valea Janului type” and was assigned to stage EBA IIb on the middle Mureş valley (Popa 2005, 82–103). Subsequently, the so–called “Gornea–Foeni” group covered the Transylvanian area, characterized by pottery decorated with textile impressions and broom strokes. Regarding chronology, it was assigned to stage EBA III and was placed between circa 2300/2200 and circa 2000/1900 BC (Popa 2005, 75–82, 103–125, fig. 2; Harding–Kavruk 2013, 82–83, 124) (Fig. 10).

The dawn of EBA in central/southern Transylvania (Fig. 2) was related to the spreading of Schneckenberg A communities in Coțofeni III cultural mediums (Roman 1976, 57; Ciugudean 1991, 105, Abb. 35; Rotea 1993, 84; Lazarovici 1997, 10; Berecki–Balázs 2011, 65–66; etc.). The synchronic-ity between Schneckenberg A and Furchenstichkeramik was proposed a while ago by A. Prox (Prox 1941, 55–56, 81; Nestor 1960, 96, 98, 130; Bichir 1962, 108). Later on, this opinion was no longer accepted by Ciugudean (2003, 101–102). To the old discoveries from Moreşti (Horedt 1979, 23, Abb. 7/13, 15–16), Mediaş (Blăjan 1989, 59–69), Copşa Mică (Blăjan 1996, 146–149, fig. 3, 4/1–9),32 Tiur (Blăjan 1996, 148–149, fig. 4/10) and Zau de Câmpie (Lazăr 1999, 236, fig. 2) we can only add the publishing of ceramic artefacts from the settlement and funerary contexts at Șincai (Berecki–Balázs 2011, 59–76)33 (Fig. 37). The absence of clear cultural analogies, of archaeological excavations inside settlements and of 14C dates makes it very difficult to attempt a more detailed approach to stages EBA I and EBA II in this region. We can only speak out with certainty about the existence of Schneckenberg ceramic style and specific funerary manifestations (stone cist graves) on the Târnava Mare valley and on the upper Mureş valley (Ciugudean 2003, 104; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 292–299; Teodorescu 2011, 228–229). The pres-ence of Șoimuş communities as far as central Transylvania was already postulated (Ciugudean 2003, 103, fig. 14; Rişcuţa–Andriţoiu 2007, 48). However, some archaeological materials recently attributed to this group, as those from Şura Mică (Sibiu County) (Teodorescu–Palaghie 2011, 61–67, fig. 1–2,

31 Basically, there is no longer a clear separation between notions like Livezile, Copăceni and Șoimuş (Gogâltan–Apai 2005, 37).

32 According to H. Ciugudean “the assignment of the Schneckenberg culture is debatable, as the presented archaeological material shows similarities with many cultural manifestations from Transylvania, and not only to the Schneckenberg medium” (Ciugudean 2003, 103).

33 To this data, new information recovered by Zs. Székely from a manuscript left by M. Roska should be added (Székely 2014, 81–88).

68 | Fl. Gogâltan

pl. 1–9), should be reconsidered (Popa 2012, 211). Also difficult to place in a chronological context is the pit investigated at the site from Fântânele–Dâmbul Popii (Soroceanu 1974, 367–373) (Fig. 37), subse-quently assigned by M. Rotea to the EBA (Rotea 1993, 75, pl. XII–XIII). Possible specific pottery frag-ments with the so–called cuffed rims (Manschettenränder) from the Someşul Mare valley are also found in Dej Museum collection. However, they were collected during surface investigations, lacking therefore a clear archaeological context (Fig. 10).

In the northern extremity of central Transylvania, for the last ten years, the well–known salt exploita-tion site from Băile Figa (close to Beclean) (Fig. 37) was investigated (Harding–Kavruk 2013, 47–101, with the old literature). Two or three pits (1, 2 and 2a) revealed around 3000 ceramic fragments assigned to the so–called Iernut–Zoltan or Gornea–Foeni group, characteristic to the final phase of the EBA (Harding–Kavruk 2013, 82–83; Kovács 2013, 103–106, pl. 2–6). Of the 66 radiocarbon dates just one corresponds to our expectations in regards to the late stage of EBA: 3837±35 BP (2458–2200 cal BC at 2σ) (Harding–Kavruk 2013, 117, 122) (Fig. 15). Unfortunately, it is impossible to specify if this date truly marks a period of salt exploitation by local communities. As we already saw above (see. n. 26), other samples took from around EBA dis-coveries yielded considerably older dates.

The relative EBA chronological setting for eastern Transylvania (Fig. 2) was established by P. Roman 30 years ago. His opinions are found in most PhD thesis on the subject, elaborated around the 1990s (Ciugudean 1996, 139–145; Székely 1997, 25–52, 69–71; Schuster 1997, 155–156; Burtănescu 2002, 306–309). According to P. Roman, the beginning should be related to the appearance of Zăbala type discoveries and of stone cist graves (Sânzieni, Turia) (Fig. 37) with Zimnicea askos type vessels connected to southern Romania, all pre-ceding the Schneckenberg culture. The next period would have been marked by the evolution of the Schneckenberg A, and possibly the early B phase (sub–stage Ib–Ic). Sub–stage IIa was characterized by Schneckenberg B and Jigodin group manifestations. Only from sub–stage IIb the beginning of EBA would have been visible in the middle Danube area and Serbia, while in south–eastern Transylvania a new phase of the Schneckenberg culture emerged. For the last stage of EBA, prior to “Ciomortan–Monteoru Ic3” type discoveries, no sites were known at that time (Roman 1986, 30–31, 35–36, 38–42, 45; Roman et al. 1992, 75–77). In the last 15 years, many of P. Roman’s opinions were intensely debated and criticized (Gogâltan 1999a, 51–52). Some of the more disputed aspects are the so–called “Zimnicea–Mlăjet–Sânzieni–Turia” horizon (Motzoi-Chicideanu–Olteanu 2000, 23–25; Frînculeasa et al. 2015b, 67), the Zăbala type discoveries (Cavruc 2004, 268–270; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 322–333), as well as the Schneckenberg phenomenon in Transylvania (Vulpe 2001a, 235–236; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 298–299; Băjenaru 2014, 28–29, 227, 232). I am in perfect agreement with Motzoi-Chicideanu’s assertion that, considering the up–to–date information, it is impossible to connect P. Roman’s relative chronology to the absolute chronology (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 52).

After the discovery of several Globular Amphora culture (GAC) sites across the Carpathians, it was speculated that such communities, along with other southern Zimnicea–Mlăjet–Sânzieni–Turia ele-ments, contributed to the emergence of the Schneckenberg culture in the area (Székely 2009, 42). We ought to mention T. Sulimirski’s old opinion regarding the impact which GAC elements had over the spreading of stone cist graves within the Schneckenberg B medium (Sulimirski 1968, 47–48). This line of thought was supported by other specialists (Burtănescu 2002, 384; Cavruc 2004, 268; Sztáncsuj 2009, 57; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 29934). Recently, new Schneckenberg finds were reported in south–east-ern Transylvania (Boroffka 2004, 19–24, fig. 15–24; Popa–Totoianu 2007; Costea 2008, 103, pl. 1–2; Sztáncsuj 2009, 45–78). The published artefacts from Feldioara (Boroffka 2004, 19–24, fig. 15–24) and Ariuşd (Sztáncsuj 2009, 45–78) (Fig. 37) allowed a better knowledge of ceramic forms and ornaments employed within this ceramic style. Nevertheless, its origin and internal chronology are still vague, as well

34 Also mentioned that, “the origin of the Schneckenberg group is unknown” (Motzoi–Chicideanu 2011, 293).

Fig. 15. Beclean–Băile Figa.


as its relation to other neighbouring ceramic styles, as it is difficult to discern between imports and com-mon occurring elements.

The absolute dating of the Schneckenberg phenomenon in eastern Transylvania was made, unfortu-nately, only in relation to Glina culture. If initially it was proposed the interval between 2650–2450 BC (Băjenaru 1998, 16), with a slightly later ending (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 293), its absolute dating was subsequently placed, along with Jigodin type discoveries, between 2700–2400 BC (Băjenaru 2014, 258). In either case, the Schneckenberg culture would have had developed in the first half of the third millennium BC (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 293). In the same context we should mention a funerary discovery from Târgşoru Vechi (Prahova County), located south of the Carpathians. A ceramic vessel with a so–called cuffed rim found inside a grave has close analogies in Transylvania, its ornament being a common element in Schneckenberg, Bedeleu–Livezile, Şoimuş, Jigodin, Roşia, Iernut cultural mediums (Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 136). The grave was dated 4052±43 BP (2860–2470 BC 95.4% probability) (Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 140, fig. 2a). Equally important for the identification of possible connec-tions between eastern Transylvania and northern Muntenia are the results of archaeological investiga-tions recently conducted in Şoimeşti–Dealul Merez (Prahova County). Here, along with Glina artefacts, including Runcuri type, there are Năeni–Schneckenberg and early Monteoru ceramic fragments, as well as a cord impression piece. Two radiocarbon samples suggest a date around the middle of the third millen-nium BC (Frînculeasa–Garvăn 2015, 241; Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 138–140, 143, pl. VIII).

The excavations from Jigodin and Leliceni (Fig. 37) proved the existence of a distinct group in east-ern Transylvania, characterized by pottery decorated with cord impressions. The predominance of this certain decorative element, as well as several specific ceramic forms, are valid arguments regarding its uniqueness among other surrounding ceramic styles (Roman et al. 1992, with the old literature). No substantial progress in the understanding of the Jigodin group was made since the monographic publica-tion of the site from Leliceni. Today, only 18 sites assigned to this group are known, and just three settle-ments were investigated through actual excavations (Băjenaru 2014, 125, 127, map 6). Connections with the neighbouring Schneckenberg culture (Roman et al. 1992, 178–181; Boroffka 2004, 23; Băjenaru 2014, 213; Frînculeasa et al. 2015a, 140), Glina (Băjenaru 2014, 215, 242, 257) or other sites across the Carpathians (Roman et al. 1992, 182; Burtănescu 2002, 198–203, Munteanu 2010, 124) were often suggested. Based on these connections, the Jigodin ceramic style can be relatively placed in stages EBA I and EBA II. However, a clear absolute chronology can only be obtained through radiocarbon dating.35 As in the central and western region, the final EBA in south–eastern Transylvania was marked by the emer-gence of communities using a ceramic style characterized by broom–stroke and textile impression decora-tions (Besenstrich– und Textilmuster–Keramik). The most representative site for this style was investigated by V. Cavruc in Zoltan (Cavruc 1997, 97–133; Cavruc 2003, 87–110; Cavruc 2004, 270–271; Popa 2005, 138–141) (Fig. 37). We have no information if these communities also reached the Ciuc Basin, or if this area was still inhabited by Jigodin type communities until the beginning of the MBA (Székely 1997, 52; Daróczi 2013, 37–40) (Fig. 10).

Regarding northern Transylvania (Fig. 2), nothing can be said at this point about ceramic evolutions in EBA, following the Coțofeni manifestations (Kacsó 2004; 2015) (Fig. 10).

New information about the massive shaft–hole copper axes should be mentioned in regards to the relative and absolute EBA chronological setting in western and central Romania. These artefacts were recently associated with the dawn of EBA in present–day Romania and the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 2013, 53; Dani 2013, 210; Szeverényi 2013, 661–669; Dani–Tóth 2014, 50–51, with the old literature). Pertaining to metallurgy, Fajsz, as well as Kömlőd–Kozarac (Dani 2013, 205, fig. 2/4) type axes were con-sidered specific to this period, as proven by the casting mould discovered at Üllő Site 5 settlement near Budapest, assigned to the Makó culture (Kővári–Patay 2005, 124). Based on the pieces found in grave 208 from Mokrin and the Hatvan settlement from Emőd–Nagyhalom, Kozarac type axes can also be dated at a later stage (EBA III–MBA I) (Gogâltan 2000, 233; Dani 2013, 207–208). Other metal artefacts specific to the EBA in western Romania were discussed with previous occasions. Some of them were reanalysed by Zs. Molnár (Molnár 2011, 269–330) and Al. Găvan (Găvan 2012, 57–90; Găvan 2013, 141–192).

Lately, the oldest metal artefacts from Transylvania (Baniabic/Bányabükk/Vâlcele) were chrono-logically placed before the EBA, implicitly previous to the 3rd millennium BC (Gogâltan 2013, 53–54;

35 The Jigodin group would have been contemporaneous with Glina culture and several groups (Livezile, Bogdăneşti, Roşia etc.) and should be dated circa 2700–2400 BC (Băjenaru 2014, 29, 258).

70 | Fl. Gogâltan

Szeverényi 2013, 666; Heyd 2013, 42; Dani 2013, 203–204, fig. 1, 10). To the EBA were assigned instead Corbeasca and Dumbrăvioara type axes (Dani 2013, fig. 3, appendix 3, fig. 5, appendix 5). If in the intra–Carpathian area only two Corbeasca type axes are known (Călan and Pianul de Sus), the Dumbrăvioara type is represented by eleven finished pieces (Căprioara, Cheile Vârghişului–Lublinit Cave – 2 axes, Corneşti, Dumbrăvioara, Jimbor, Mura Mare, Ojdula, Sântimbru, Sfântu Gheorghe, Șuncuiuş–Izbucul Topliței).36 Their local production was confirmed by the casting moulds from Leliceni (Roman et al. 1992, Taf. 78; 79/2, 5–8) and the fact that they are concentrated in the rich cupriferous area in eastern Transylvania. Chronologically, they seem contemporaneous with Fajsz and Kozarac types (Gogâltan 2000, 233; Dani 2013, 207–208).37 Some discovery contexts (Șuncuiuş–Izbucul Topliței, Sfântu Gheorge–Őrkő, Leliceni) suggest that the Dumbrăvioara type axes circulated in Transylvania along Roşia, Schnekenberg B and Jigodin pottery (Dani 2013, 208). The recently discovered axe at Szczytna, south–eastern Poland, in a grave of the Corded Ware culture (Czopek 2011, Fot. 96, 249, 64.15; Włodarczak 2014, 45, 47),38 for which the best analogies with the Dumbrăvioara type were made, could demonstrate a possible connec-tion between its associated ceramics and corded pottery from south–eastern Transylvania (Dani 2013, 209). This hypothesis is not surprising if we consider the previous presence of Globular Amphora culture graves in the area (Székely 2009, 40–41, fig. 1–2; Dani 2013, 209). Recent composition analysis made on these types of axes clearly show that: “The earliest samples are seemingly made of almost pure copper ore” (Shalev et al. 2012, 108).

*

Conventionally, the beginning of the MBA on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin was marked by the emergence of several cultures, such as Periam–Pecica, Vatina, Otomani and Wietenberg (Nestor 1960, 101–102). This convention was broadly respected to this day (Vulpe 2001b, 247–272; Popa 2005, 51–183), with exception regarding the Mureş culture (Periam–Pecica) (Soroceanu 1991), whose first phase was attributed, as we discussed above, to the last sequences of EBA (IIb–III). From a rela-tive point of view, the MBA was structured in three stages (I, II and III), without sub–stages. Regarding the absolute chronology, the ceramic styles were dated to the first half of the second millennia BC (between 2000/1900–1500/1450 BC) (Palincaș 2014, 301, fig. 1) (Fig. 1).

In the last 15 years, only a limited number of AMS dates were published in regards to MBA manifes-tations in the Carpathian Basin. For eastern Hungary, the information was synthesized by C. Uhnér, M. Jaeger, G. Kulcsár and P. Duffy (Uhnér 2010, 347–352; Jaeger 2010, 315, Ryc. 1; Jaeger–Kulcsár 2013, fig. 20–22; Duffy 2014, 291–296). Likewise, some contributions made by A.–D. Popescu, N. Bolohan and R. Băjenaru in regards to chronological connections made for the area east of the Carpathians should be noted (Bolohan 2010, 229–244; Popescu 2013, 179–203; Popescu–Băjenaru 2015, 35–43; Bolohan et al. 2015 forthcoming).

For the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, most absolute dates available are from the tell settle-ment of Pecica–Şanţul Mare (O’Shea et al. 2005, 86–87, fig. 9; Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, tab. 1, fig. 1; Nicodemus et al. 2015, tab. 1) (Fig. 37). If 14 dates were published initially (O’Shea et al. 2005, 86–87, fig. 9) (Fig. 16), after the latest campaigns their number reached 77.39

According to the excavation leaders, A. Nicodemus and J. M. O’Shea, the oldest habitation phase should be assigned to the EBA, as it is dated between 1950–1920 BC. The specificity of the archaeological material “is a very coarse roughening of the exterior surface, which is termed ‘rustication’” (Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, 695, fig. 3–4).40 The beginning of the MBA is marked by the 6th and especially subsequent 5th (b) level, when the ceramic style is characteristic to the classical phase of the Mureş culture: “Baroque styles are first observed in Phase 5b and become increasingly common in Phase 5a (beginning c. 1875/1850 cal BC) and later, representing Pecica’s Florescent Period” (Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, 695) (Fig. 17).

36 Blănoi and Găujani type axes (Dani 2013, fig. 5, nr. 1 and 9) should be placed south of the Carpathians in Oltenia, not in Transylvania (recent data in Băjenaru 2013, 30–31, nr. 28, 89, nr. 223).

37 The hoard found in Cheile Vârghişului–Lublinit Cave, which contained two Dumbrăvioara type axes and two multispiraled bracelets, was dated to EBA II (Dénes–Szabó 1998, 99).

38 Bibliography kindly offered by A. Frânculeasa.39 “The radiocarbon dates were calibrated with OxCal ver. 4.2 (IntCal 13 curve) and site phase date ranges estiblished via

Bayesean modelling” (Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, 692, n. 10).40 “Also called ‘broom–brushed’ (Besenstrich) or ‘tree–bark’ style” (Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, 695, n. 13)


Fig. 16. Pecica–Şanţul Mare (after O’Shea et al. 2005).

Pecica Period Phase Date (cal. BC)

Site Layers Structures Major Developments

Medieval Árpád AD 1000-1100* Str. 9

Iron Age Dacian 300-100(intrusive

pits)**

1 1600-1500 B1-3 Str. 0 final MBA occupation

2 1720-1600 C1-3 Str. 0, 1decline in occupation intensity, settlement contraction

3 1770-1720C4-5/

D0-2 Str. 2, 4, 10peak metalurgical production, platform construction, settlement expansion

4 1820-1770 D3, E1 Str 3, 4peak horse breeding, ritual bone deposits

5a 1850-1820 E2-3 Str. 5-8increase in occupation intensity; final combed ware, initial baroque ceramics

5b E4-5 Str. 11

6 E6+ (2005 trench)

Early Bronze Age 7 2000-1900 I Str. 12

(2014 trench) final rusticated ware ceramics

Middle Copper Age 3960-3760 J-L (2014 trench)

*date from off-tell Medieval Structure 9 (in test unit 3)**Mediveal and Dacian layers and features previously excavated in block area by Crişan (1978), only several deep Dacian pits cutting into Bronze Age deposits left in situ and dated

Late

Pe

riod

Flor

esce

nt

Perio

dEa

rly P

erio

d

1900-1850

Mid

dle

Bro

nze

Age

Fig. 17. Pecica–Şanţul Mare (after Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015).

72 | Fl. Gogâltan

Except for the Corneşti–Crvenka site from Corneşti–Iarcuri,41 there are no MBA absolute dates avail-able for other ceramic styles in the Banat area: Balta Sărată and Dubovac–Žuto Brdo–Gârla Mare. Also, with few exceptions (Gogâltan 2004, 79–153; Matiș 2008, 37–46; Ljuština 2013, 79–117; Ljuština 2015, 57–106), representative archaeological finds were not published so far.

The end of this period in Banat and Lower Mureş Basin was set to have had occurred sometime after 1500 BC (Fig. 1). Recent 14C dates brought new important insights. The last MBA level in Pecica–Şanţul Mare was placed between 1615–1545 BC (Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015, tab. 1). This result is close to the value obtained from a Vatya–Koszider or Tumulus Grave context in the tell settlement from Kakucs–Balla-domb: Poz–36175 – 3230±35 BP, 1608–1430 (95.4% probability) cal BC (Jaeger–Kulcsár 2013, 312–313, tab. 1, fig. 19).42 As we will see below, the Otomani tell settlement from Toboliu ended sometime between 1600–1500 BC. These dates are also confirmed by three new AMS samples from the cemetery in Pecica–Site 14 (Sava–Andreica 2013, 49–76; Sava–Ignat 2014, 7–35), where the following values were obtained: DeA–5017 (Cx. 92) 3279±38 – 1642 (91.1%) 1493 cal BC (Fig. 18), DeA–5018 (Cx. 98) 3185±38 – 1532 (94.1%) 1392 cal BC (Fig. 19) and DeA–5019 (Cx. 67) 3271±49 – 1659 (95.4%) 1439 cal BC (Fig. 20).

Fig. 18. Pecica–Site 14. Fig. 19. Pecica–Site 14.

Fig. 20. Pecica–Site 14.

Their context will be published by V. Sava and his collaborators in the near future, but it is already clear that they mark the beginning of the LBA (I) in the Lower Mureş Basin. The emergence of the Cruceni–Belegiš ceramic style in the Banat Plain could be assigned to the same temporal frame (LBA I) (Gogâltan 1998b, 181–205). There are five samples from the sites at Giroc–Mescal and Foeni–Gomila Lupului II. These samples have been incorporated in Al. Szentmiklosi’s PhD thesis (Szentmiklosi 2009). The abso-lute dates for the first phase of the Cruceni–Belegiš ceramic style range from 1600 to 1400 BC, while those for the second phase are generally later than 1400 BC (Fig. 21). 41 Heeb et al. 2012, 56, n. 21: Poz-45915: 1955–1751 cal BC (95.4%). A considerable amount of AMS dates from the Corneşti–

Crvenka site in Corneşti–Iarcuri were communicated by A. Harding at the conference Socio–Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: Fortifying Bronze Age Landscapes held in Kiel, Germania, 24–27 March 2015. These dates confirm our expectations for the chronology of this ceramic style: 20th–16th century BC (Gogâltan 1999a, Pl. 16–17).

42 The two recently published 14C dates from the Vatya III (Koszider time) site in Solt–Tételhegy are not very accurate: 4155±125 BP and 3070±140 BP (Somogyvári 2014, 64–65, Ábr. 3).


Fig. 21. Foeni–Gomila Lupului II and Giroc–Mescal (after Szentmiklosi 2009).

Considering the current stage of research, the absolute and relative MBA chronology in the Romanian Banat and Lower Mureş Basin can be based on the new results from Pecica–Şanţul Mare. The archaeo-logical materials discovered at the site have a great potential impact in the understanding of the three relative stages of MBA: MBA I (2000/1900–ca. 1900 BC), MBA II (ca. 1900–ca. 1700 BC) and MBA III (ca. 1700–ca. 1550 BC) (Fig. 10). However, the artefacts are still awaiting publication, even after 10 years of investigations.

If for the Mureş ceramic style we have a satisfactory number of samples, not the same can be said about the Otomani–Füzesabony communities from eastern Hungary and western Romania. The older results were discussed with previous occasions (Gogâltan 1999a, pl. 13–14; Uhnér 2010, 347–352; Jaeger 2010, 315, Ryc. 1; Jaeger–Kulcsár 2013, fig. 20–22; Duffy 2014, 291–296), suggesting the placement of this ceramic style in the first half of the second millennium BC. Three new dates from Tarhos 26 are men-tioned, assigned to an “Ottomány” habitation dated 2σ (95% probability) between 2035–1438 BC (Duffy 2014, 296). Two other samples from the well-known necropolis in Nižná Myšľa (Olexa–Nováček 2013) were taken from two graves belonging to metallurgists (grave 133 and 280): “Their age falls within the time span 1965–1754 BC (95.4 %)” (Jaeger–Olexa 2014, 170). For the beginning of the MBA and implic-itly the Otomani ceramic style, we need to turn once more to older dates from Gáborján–Csapszékpart (Bln–1643: 3690±40, Bln–1644: 3605±40). Their 2σ calibration (95% probability) offered a time frame comprised between 2199–1960 BC, respec-tively 2130–1829 (Duffy 2014, 293). This time frame corresponds to our expectations in regards to stage MBA I and early stage MBA II, as it was proposed for the tell settlement in Pecica. As previ-ously mentioned (Fazecaş et al. 2015b, 251–252), a date from the last habitation level in the Otomani tell from Toboliu–Dâmbu Zănăcanului is available (DeA–5092, 3323±26, 1667 (93.1%)–1528 cal BC), which suggests that the end of the Bronze Age hab-itation here occurred sometime around 1600/1500 BC (Fig. 22). The ceramic style specific to early LBA in the area previously dominated by the Otomani culture was recently called “Hajdúbagos/Pişcolt–Cehăluţ group” (Németi 2009, 203–221, with the old literature) or “Cehăluţ-Hajdúbagos group” (Bejinariu et al. 2014).

No absolute date is available for MBA in north–western Romania (Fig. 2) and, unfortunately, the situation in north–eastern Hungary is not very helpful either. The information provided by T. Bader in his older monographic study (Bader 1978) was enriched by more recent repertories dealing with MBA sites in the area (Németi–Molnár 2002; 2007; Gogâltan et al. 2014). We can also add a series of works by J. Németi and Zs. Molnár, which contributed to a better knowledge of the Otomani ceramic style (Németi–Molnár 2007; 2012, with the old literature). The Romanian–German project which is currently conducted on the lower courses of Ier and Someş rivers will undoubtedly bring crucial insights into MBA history (Marta et al. 2010, 121–138; Kienlin et al. 2013). However, several vital aspects regarding the Otomani medium, such as its origins, internal chronology and demise, are still surrounded

Fig. 22. Toboliu–Dâmbu Zănăcanului.

74 | Fl. Gogâltan

by ambiguity. Equally problematic is the emergence of the Suciu de Sus ceramic style in the Lower Someş Basin. Archaeological excavations in the settlement from Petea–Csergensima–Határátkelő (Fig. 37) con-firmed its relative dating to the late MBA (III) (Pop 2009a) (Fig. 10).

The ceramic style specific to the MBA in Transylvania is called Wietenberg. To the information pre-sented by N. Boroffka in his PhD thesis dealing with this culture (Boroffka 1994) we can add numerous discoveries made over the last 20 years, which were discussed on several occasions (Gogâltan 2008, 36–45; Kacsó 2013a, 125–139; Bălan 2014a, 25–86; Bălan 2014b, 21–36). The outline drafted by N. Chidioşan (Chidioşan 1980, 69–72) and N. Boroffka (Boroffka 1994, 246–249) for the first Wietenberg phase (Wietenberg I/Wietenberg A1) is still accepted today, since the number of representative sites for stage MBA I remained small (Popa 2005, 133–147, 158–163; Dietrich 2014, 157–167). Stage MBA II is characterized in Transylvania by the diffusion over the whole area of the Wietenberg II/Wietenberg A2–B ceramic style (Chidioşan 1980, 72–77; Boroffka 1994, 249–250, Karte 56). Only a few new important sites can be added to N. Boroffka’s monograph for this stage. We have to mention here the cemeteries from Turia (Székely 1995, 126–146) and Sebeş (Fântâneanu et al. 2013, 173–191) (Fig. 37),43 the ritual site at Oarța de Sus (Kacsó 2004, 58–62, pl. XVI–XXXVI; Kacsó 2013b, 111–139) (Fig. 37), as well as the settlements from Suatu (Rotea 1994, 131–150) (Fig. 37), Sebeş (Popa 2005, 155–158, pl. 43–44) (Fig. 37), Păuleni (Rotea 2000, 21–41; Cavruc–Rotea 2000, 155–171; Cavruc–Buzea 2002, 46–50) (Fig. 37), Rotbav (Dietrich 2014, 168–171) (Fig. 37) etc. For the following sequences we can refer to other representative sites, apart from several recently investigated objectives (Bălan et al. 2014, 215–240; Ciugudean–Quinn 2015 forthcoming; Németh 2015b forthcoming; Puskás 2015 forthcoming), such as those from Sibişeni (Paul 1995, 164–197) (Fig. 37), Cluj-Napoca–Str. C. Coposu (Rotea–Wittenberger 1999, 7–27) (Fig. 37), Dej (Gogâltan 2008, 26–48, pl. IV–XXVI) (Fig. 37), Rotbav (Dietrich 2014, 171–188), Miceşti (Bălan 2014a, 25–86; Bălan–Quinn 2014 forthcoming) (Fig. 37), Stolna (Daróczi–Ursuțiu 2015) (Fig. 37) etc.

Fig. 23. The MBA in Transylvania. G-VJ (Gligoreşti–Valea Janului), GAC (Globular Amphora culture), ZMST (Zimnicea–Mlăjet–Sânzieni–Turia).

43 If in Fântâneanu et al. 2013, 179: “The necropolis from Sebeş can be dated at the limit between the phases I and II”, in Bălan 2014b, 29: “The presence of spiraled decorations in M 48 from Sebeş represents yet another argument for dating the cemetery in early phase II”.


Fig. 24. Oarța de Sus. Fig. 25 Oarța de Sus.

Available 14C samples for the Wietenberg culture were recently examined by L. Bălan (Bălan 2014a, 48–49; Bălan 2014b, 27, n. 4; Bălan–Quinn 2014 forthcoming).44 There are six samples which can be discussed: two from Oarța de Sus (Kacsó 2004, 60; Görsdorf 2005, 468), a site located in the north–west-ern extremity of the Wietenberg realm; an older sample from Sighişoara–Dealul Viilor (Popa–Boroffka 1996, 56, n. 40) (Fig. 37) close to the eponym site; and other three samples published in 2014 from Rotbav, a settlement in south–eastern Transylvania (Dietrich 2014, Anhang 2). From “feature 22” in Oarța de Sus there are also two samples of charred seeds. It is important to mention that here was also discovered a bronze shaft–hole axe, along with Wietenberg II ceramic fragments (Kacsó 2004, 60, pl. XXXVIII). The first sample (Ly–9190) offered a value of 3265±30 BP, and was placed by C. Kacsó between 1610–1445 BC, with maximum probability 1589–1518–1469 BC (Kacsó 2004, 60; Kacsó 2015, 432). This value does not meet our expectations established on cultural analogies previously mentioned, and should be ignored by all future endeavors in dating stage Wietenberg II (Fig. 24). The second sample from Oarța de Sus yielded a date much similar to other 14C dates from stage MBA II (Bln–5626 – 3507±37 BP). The value was pub-lished in a brief report issued by the laboratory in Berlin (Görsdorf 2005, 468), while the details regard-ing its archaeological context were published at a much later date (Kacsó 2015, 432)45 (Fig. 25).

Concerning the archaeological context of the sample from Sighişoara–Dealul Viilor (Bln–4622, 3330±51 BP), we only know that it came from the pit with Wietenberg C (III) and possible Noua ele-ments (Popa–Boroffka 1996, 56, n. 40; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2004, 79, fig. 18/82; 19) (Fig. 26). New AMS dates are analyzed by H. Ciugudean and C. P. Quinn (Ciugudean–Quinn 2015 forthcoming) and E. R. Németh (Németh 2015b forthcoming) in the present volume, but they might not be sufficient to answer all questions regarding the internal chro-nology of the Wietenberg ceramic style.46 However, a general frame for the evolution of this culture is per-ceptible: ca. 1900–1600/1500 BC47.

A few other considerations regarding the MBA absolute chronology in Transylvania are necessary. 44 Molnár–Nagy 2013, 13, n. 28 only mentioned the samples from Oarța de Sus and Sighişoara, as it was previously done by

Kacsó (2004, 60, n. 144).45 “Calibrated 1890–1750 BC (probability 68.2 %), 1930–1730 BC (probability 93.8 %), 1710–1690 BC (probability 1.6 %)”

(Kacsó 2015, 432).46 Hence L. Bălan’s conclusion that: “These radiocarbon dates, limited in number, do not clarify the Wietenberg culture

chronology” (Bălan 2014a, 48).47 To AMS samples from the Wietenberg settlement in Miceşti are discussed in an article which is in press for a while. In the

abstract of this article it is mentioned that the samples were taken from the two human skeletons found in pits C.7/2009 and C.11/2012 (BĂLAN 2014a, 27, 29, pl. 9/1–2; 10/1–3; 11/3): “They were calibrated with the Oxcal program, version 4.2.3, resulting a timeframe between 1745–1627 BC (95.4%)/1736–1645 BC (68.1%) for C.11 and 1880–1693 BC (95.4%)/1872–1700 BC (68.1%) for C.7.” (Bălan–Quinn 2014 forthcoming). The obtained values, as far as we currently know, would rather date the Wietenberg III habitation here, instead of the Wietenberg IV one, even if the two features were correctly attributed to the later.

Fig. 26. Sighişoara–Dealul Viilor.

76 | Fl. Gogâltan

The round–headed bronze pin with au repoussé decorations from Sebeş, as well as the Wietenberg II funerary context or habitation here, are specific to stage MBA II. Its chronological setting was established by C. I. Popa, based on typological analogies from the Carpathian Basin (Popa 2005, 148, 153, pl. 42/3). Therefore, it is not contemporaneous with a recent discovery from Bukivna, on the upper Dniester. The Komarów culture tumulus, as well as the round–headed bronze pin discovered at Bukivna, were dated between 1750–1500 BC (Makarowicz et al. 2013, 176, fig. 12, tab. 2). Similarly, other 14C samples for the Komarów horizon in Moldova confirmed this dating (Munteanu 2010, 181).

Within the project “Living in the Bronze Age Tell Settlements. A Study of Settlement Archaeology at the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin” other three AMS samples were sent to a laboratory, taken from two settlements assigned to early LBA in Transylvania (LBA I): Vlaha (Gogâltan et al. 2011a, 164–167, with the old literature) and Gligoreşti (Gogâltan et al. 2004, 73–74). The Bronze Age site from Vlaha was the subject of a recent PhD thesis (Németh 2015a) and the archaeological context of the two AMS samples will soon be published. The temporal frame offered ranges between 1600–1400 BC (Fig. 27–28).

Fig. 27. Vlaha–Pad. Fig. 28. Vlaha–Pad.

Fig. 29. Gligoreşti–Holoame.

The Late Bronze Age habitation from Gligoreşti–Holoame was assigned to the so–called “Gligoreşti type discoveries”, which reflects a mixture of local Wietenberg IV elements and Noua communities, com-ing from areas over the Oriental Carpathians (Gogâltan 2009, 117–123). The dating of a scalloped shoul-der blade from Gligoreşti offered values very close to those from Vlaha (Fig. 29).

The MBA chronological situation in absolute terms for eastern Transylvania is, as well, disappoint-ing when discussing representative ceramic styles: Costişa/Ciomortan (Cavruc 2005, 81–123; Popa 2005, 125–131; Munteanu 2010, 41–52, 85–93 etc.; Bolohan et al. 2015 forthcoming; Puskás 2015 forthcom-ing), Wietenberg (Daróczi–Dobos 2009, 181–228; Munteanu 2010, 55–76, 94–100; Daróczi 2013, 35-93; Puskás 2015 forthcoming) and possibly Monteoru (Munteanu 2010, 24–41, 79–85 etc.; Puskás 2015 forth-coming) (Fig. 23). The earliest date, marking the end of EBA and the beginning of stage MBA I,48 belongs to the Costişa/Ciomortan horizon from Păuleni-Ciuc (Ciomortan). The AMS date (3620±16 BP) was placed 48 According to C. I. Popa the Ciomortan group” or “Ciomortan aspect” should be dated as soon as stage EBA IIb, evolving over

the entire next EBA III sequence (Popa 2005, 133). See a previous opinion in (Cavruc–Buzea 2002, 50). This hypothesis should not be ignored, since the earliest absolute dates for Costişa are around 2200 BC (Bolohan et al. forthcoming).


between 2031–1925 cal BC at 95% probability (Harding–Kavruk 2013, 124; Kavruk et al. 2014, 135) (Fig. 30). Several distinct phases are observed here in regards to the defensive structures (construction, maintenance and abandonment), all connected to a single community (Kavruk et al. 2014, 136), fact which suggests a long period of habitation. For this reason, a single date should only be regarded as generic. However, it corresponds to our chronological assumptions regarding the presence of Costişa/Ciomortan ele-ments in eastern Transylvania (Munteanu 2010, 183) and it was confirmed by other MBA radiocarbon dates in the northern half of Moldova (Bolohan 2010, 229–244; Popescu 2013, 179–203; Popescu–Băjenaru 2015, 35–43; Bolohan et al. 2015 forthcoming). It is still unclear when exactly did the Wietenberg II communities spread throughout the area.49 A 14C sample (on wood) offered a value between 1830–1680 BC (Whitlow et al. 2013, 38; Kavruk et al. 2014, 135). The PAC–25 R_Date (3440 ± 25 BP) calibration ranges between 1877–1683 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Fig. 31). It is probable that the northern Wietenberg II finds from the Giurgeu Basin were contemporaneous (Gogâltan et al. 2011b, 53–68).

Fig. 30. Păuleni-Ciuc. Costişa level. Fig. 31. Păuleni-Ciuc. Wietenberg level.

Laura Dietrich recently published some radiocarbon dates from the settlement at Rotbav (Dietrich 2014, Anhang 2) (Fig. 32). Very interesting is a sample which would date the second habitation level from Rotbav, parallel to stage Wietenberg II (after Chidioşan) or stages Wietenberg A2 and B (after Boroffka): Hd-28203 – 3547±24 BP (Dietrich 2014, 171). Its calibration offered a value between 1954–1774 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Fig. 33), much earlier than the result obtained in Păuleni for the same Wietenberg stage (Fig. 31), but relatively contemporaneous with results from Oarța de Sus (Fig. 25). This demonstrates that the Wietenberg II ceramic style, as well as the MBA II sequence in relative chronology, can be placed between ca. 1900–ca. 1700 BC.

Fig. 32. Rotbav (after Dietrich 2014).

49 It was initially considered that the settlement belongs to the first Wietenberg phase (Rotea 2000, 21–41; Cavruc–Rotea 2000 158). This opinion was later reconsidered, with strong arguments, and a phase II dating was advanced, parallel to phase Ic2 of the Monteoru culture (Cavruc–Buzea 2002, 50; Cavruc 2005, 90, 103).

78 | Fl. Gogâltan

Other two samples were taken from the third layer in Rotbav, assigned to stage Wietenberg III/C: Hd-27967 – 3195±19, Hd-27989 – 3174±16 (Dietrich 2014, 182). The calibrated values are 1501–1430 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Fig. 34), respectively 1497–1416 cal BC (95.4% probability) (Fig. 35). They point towards a later time frame when compared to other 14C available for stage Wietenberg III, such as that from Sighişoara (Fig. 26) or others mentioned in the present volume (Ciugudean–Quinn 2015 forth-coming; Németh 2015b forthcoming). They are actually later than early LBA I in western Transylvania, as established by radiocarbon dating from Vlaha and Gligoreşti (Fig. 27–29). More likely, they are con-temporaneous instead with the Noua habitation from Rotbav, not the Wietenberg one. This theory is also supported by another sample from Rotbav, assigned to the fourth habitation (Noua) of the Bronze Age settlement („Aschenhügel“): Hd-28276 – 3196±30 (Dietrich 2014, 192). Calibrated, the sample offered values very close to the Wietenberg III habitation samples: 1518–1415 cal BC (Fig. 36). The situation will only be clarified by new AMS data taken from Wietenberg III settlements in eastern Transylvania.

Fig. 33. Rotbav. Fig. 34. Rotbav.

Fig. 35. Rotbav. Fig. 36. Rotbav.

As previously stated, the beginning of LBA I in Transylvania was marked by the late development of the Wietenberg ceramic style, by the spreading of Noua communities (Sava 2002, with the old literature) and by the cultural fusion between the two mediums (Gogâltan 2009, 121–123). This later aspect was accepted from the start by some researchers (Popa–Totoianu 2010, 187, 189, 195, 221, 244; Popa 2011, 263) and was initially contested by Ciugudean (2010, 163). Later on H. Ciugudean also inclined towards a favorable approach regarding the above mentioned fusion (Ciugudean–Quinn 2015 forthcoming). In north-western and northern Transylvania things are in some way clearer, as the evolution of the Suciu de Sus II culture is better known (Gogâltan 2001b, 191–214; Pop 2009b, 101–145, with the old litera-ture). Recently, R. E. Németh proved the existence of a previously undetected ceramic style in western Transylvania, showing a great deal of Otomani influences (Németh 2015a). From a chronological point of view, all these cultural developments occurred between 1600 and 1500 BC.

In the end, I would like to make a few remarks related to bronze metallurgy, with important implica-tions regarding the MBA chronology in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. Unlike previous opinions, W. David assigned the Apa-Hajdusámson horizon to the final stage of MBA III (David 2002, 210–261).


The presence of Apa type swords in the hoard from Nebra suggests a time frame around 1639–1401 cal BC (with 95.4% probability) (Meller 2014, 696). However, earlier production of such artefacts cannot be ruled out. We can only hope that new discoveries will shed more light on what we consider a unitary horizon of metal artefacts deposits, specific to stages MBA II. Similar to EBA, more aspects regarding the MBA metallurgy in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin can be found in works by Molnár (2011, 269–330), Găvan (2012, 57–90; Găvan 2013, 141–192; Găvan–Gogâltan 2014, 28–40) and Gogâltan (Gogâltan–Găvan 2014, 7–38).

* * *

A few remarks and conclusions are due here. In order to prevent an excessively dense bibliography, most opinions and discussions sparkled around this subject were presented only in a brief manner, with a focus on chronological aspects. 118 new 14C dates were discussed, originating from contexts assigned to the period comprised between the late Copper Age and the early LBA, covering the area of western and central Romania. Compared to the 178 dates analyzed 15 years ago for the entire Carpathian Basin,

Fig. 37. The most important sites belonging to the EBA and MBA at the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin. 1. Uivar (Timiş County); 2. Foeni (Timiş County); 3. Semlac (Arad County); 4. Călățea (Bihor County); 5. Roşia (Bihor County); 6. Oradea (Bihor County); 7. Toboliu (Bihor County); 8. Otomani (Bihor County); 9. Sălacea (Bihor County); 10. Livezile (Alba County); 11. Ampoița (Alba County); 12. Meteş (Alba County); 13. Copăceni (Cluj County); 14. Floreşti (Cluj County); 15. Dăbâca (Cluj County); 16. Cicău (Alba County); 17. Cetea (Alba County); 18. Deva (Hunedoara County); 19. Războieni (Alba County); 20. Sebeş (Alba County); 21. Moreşti (Mureş County); 22. Mediaş (Sibiu County); 23. Copşa Mică (Sibiu County); 24. Tiur (Alba County); 25. Zau de Câmpie (Mureş County); 26. Șincai (Mureş County); 27. Fântânele (Bistrița County); 28. Băile Figa (Bistrița County); 29. Sânzieni (Covasna County); 30. Turia (Covasna County); 31. Feldioara (Braşov County); 32. Ariuşd (Covasna County); 33. Leliceni (Harghita County); 34. Zoltan (Covasna County); 35. Pecica (Arad County); 35. Petea (Satu Mare County); 36. Oarța de Sus (Maramureş County); 37. Suatu (Cluj County); 38. Păuleni (Harghita County); 39. Rotbav (Braşov County); 40. Sibişeni (Alba County); 41. Cluj-Napoca (Cluj County); 42. Dej (Cluj County); 43. Miceşti (Alba County); 44. Stolna (Cluj County); 45. Sighişoara (Mureş County).

80 | Fl. Gogâltan

we have to admit a remarkable progress. However, 91 of the new dates originate from only to sites, Pecica–Şanţul Mare (77) and Foeni–Gaz (14), with serious repercussions in regards to the chronological over-view. The numerous question marks raised by comparisons between the two available chronological charts (Fig. 10; 23) are due to the lack of radiocarbon dating, as well as poor knowledge of stratigraphic data, reflecting the current state of research. Relativ chronologies are extremely useful when there are only a few absolute dates, but they leave us with the false impression of a good grasp of archaeological situa-tions (Fig. 1). The connection between the relative chronology and the limited number of radiocarbon dates proved to be difficult. In some situations, a substantial number of 14C samples resulted in significant reservations regarding the accuracy of relative chronologies, developed exclusively on typological criteria (Stockhammer et al. 2015, 1–32).

The publishing of new data obtained from rescue excavations conducted over the last years in eastern Hungary lead to serious disturbances within previously established macroregional cultural connections. In the future, the evolution of ceramic styles must be firstly considered based on individual agents. The present review shows, once again, that we still have more questions than answers regarding some Bronze Age cultural aspects on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. However, the most significant short-comings are now obvious, and should be transformed in priorities of future endeavors. A national fund-ing program for absolute dating of various prehistoric ceramic styles is imperative. Even if international projects brought new vital insights, they are, however, limited by transitory interests.

AcknowledgementsFor their bibliographical support, insights and productive discussions I am grateful to my colleagues

R. Băjenaru, N. Bolohan, H. Ciugudean, A. Demjén, G. Fazecaş, A. Frînculeasa, Al. Găvan, A. Ioniță, J. Dani, Fl. Draşovean, V. Kavruk, T. Kienlin, R. Munteanu, R. E. Németh, J. O’Shea, D. Pop, C. I. Popa, A. Popescu. The English translation and the general maps were made by C. Cordoş. V. Sava, D. Diaconescu and A. Ignat assisted me in developing the chronological charts. Once again, I am thankful to all of them. This work was supported by a grant offered by the Ministry of National Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PNII-ID-PCE-2012-4-0020.

References

Andriţoiu 1992 Andriţoiu, I., Civilizaţia tracilor din sud–vestul Transilvaniei în epoca bronzului, BT, II, Bucureşti.

Bader 1978 Bader, T., Epoca bronzului în nord–vestul Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică, Bucureşti.

Bátora 2000 Bátora, J., Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce/Slowakei. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken, Kiel.

Bátora et al. 2008 Bátora, J.–Eitel, B.–Falkenstein, F.–Rassmann, K., Fidvár bei Vráble – Eine befestigte Zentralsiedlung der Frühenbronzezeit in der Slowakei, IN: Czebreszuk, J.–Kadrow, S.–Müller, J., (eds.), Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, Poznań, Bonn, 97–107.

Bátora et al. 2011 Bátora, J.–Eitel, B.–Hecht, S.–Koch, A.–Rassmann, K.–Schukraft, G.–Winkelmann, K., Fidvár bei Vráble (Kr. Nitra, Südwestslowakei). Untersuchungen auf einem äneolithisch–frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlungshügel, Germania, 87, 2009 (2011), 1–23.

Bátora et al. 2012 Bátora, J.–Behrens, A.–Gresky, J.–Ivanova, M.–Rassmann, K.–Tóth, P.–Winkelmann, K., The Rise and Decline of the Early Bronze Age Settlement, Fidvár near Vráble, Slovakia, IN: Kneisel, J. –Kirleis, W.–Dal Corso, M.–Tayler, N.–Tiedtke, V., (eds.), Collapse or Continuity? Environment and Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes, Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio–Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th–18th March 2011)” in Kiel. Volume 1, Bonn, 111–130.

Bátora et al. 2015 Bátora, J.–Tóth, P.–Rassmann, K., Centrálne sídlisko zo staršej doby bronzovej vo Vrábľoch, IN: Bátora, J.–Tóth, P. (eds.), Keď bronz vystriedal meď. Zborník príspevkov z XXIII. medzinárodného symposia „Staršia doba bronzová v Čechách, na Morave a na Slovensku“ Levice 8.–11. októbra 2013, Bratislava–Nitra, 123–138.


Băjenaru 1998 Băjenaru, R., Discuţii privind cronologia absolută a culturii Glina, SCIVA, 49, 1, 3–22.Băjenaru 2013 Băjenaru, R., Identități culturale, structuri de putere şi conflict militar în nordul

Peninsulei Balcanice în mileniile IV–II a. Chr., Bucureşti.Băjenaru 2014 Băjenaru, R., Sfârşitul bronzului timpuriu în regiunea dintre Carpaţi şi Dunăre,

Cluj-Napoca.Băjenaru–Popescu 2012 Băjenaru, R.–Popescu, A. D., Pumnalele de metal cu limbă la mâner din bronzul

timpuriu şi mijlociu din spaţiul carpato–dunărean, IN: Sîrbu, V. (Coord.), Sîrbu, V.–Matei, S. (eds.), Un monument cu reprezentări din Preistorie şi Evul Mediu – Nucu–”Fundu Peşterii”, judeţul Buzău.Un monument des Carpates Orientales avec des représentations de la Préhistoire et du Moyen Âge – Nucu–« Fundu Peşterii », département de Buzău, Brăila–Buzău, 363–433.

Bălan 2014a Bălan, L., Aşezarea Wietenberg de la Miceşti, Terra Sebus, 6, 25–86.Bălan 2014b Bălan, L., Necropolele culturii Wietenberg, IN: Bălan, L.–Fântâneanu, C.–Anghel, D. (eds.),

Necropola din epoca bronzului de la Sebeș. Catalog de expoziție, Cluj-Napoca, 21–36.Bălan–Quinn 2014forthcoming

Bălan, G.–Quinn, C. P., Radiocarbon Data of Funerary Discoveries from Middle Bronze Age Settlement at Miceşti–Cigaş (Alba County, Romania), IN: Gligor, M. (ed.), Archaeothanalogy: an Interdisciplinary Approach on Death from Prehistoriy to Middle Age, Annales Universitas Apulensis. Series Historie, 18/II, 2014 (forthcoming).

Bălan et al. 2014 Bălan, G.–Burlacu–Timofte, R.–Râza, M.–Muntean, T., Situri descoperite recent aparținând culturii Wietenberg, Apulum, LI, 215–240.

Bejinariu 2005 Bejinariu, I., Săpăturile arheologice de la Giurtelecu-Şimleului– “Coasta lui Damian” (III). Descoperirile culturii Coţofeni, Sargetia, XXXIII, 51–93.

Bejinariu et al. 2014 Bejinariu, I. –Băcueț-Crişan, D.–Culic, D., Cercetări arheologice preventive pe traseul Autostrăzii Transilvania. Descoperirile Bronzului Târziu din zona comunei Marca, județul Sălaj, Cluj-Napoca, Zalău.

Bende–Lörinczy 2002 Bende L.–Lörinczy G., Kora bronzkori temető és település a kiskundorozsmai Hosszúhát–halmon, MFMÉ, VIII, 77–107.

Berecki–Balázs 2011 Berecki, S.–Balázs, Á. C., Discoveries belonging to the Schneckenberg Culture from Şincai, Transylvania, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, R. E.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Ritual in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, Târgu Mureş, 59–76.

Bertemes–Heyd 2002 Bertemes, F.–Heyd, V., Der Übergang Kupferzeit/Frühbronzezeit am Nordwestrand des Karpatenbeckens – kulturgeschichtliche und paläometallurgische Betrachtungen, IN: Bartelheim, M.–Krause, R.–Pernicka, E. (Hrsg.), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt, Rahden/Westf., 185–228.

Bertemes–Heyd 2015 Bertemes, F.–Heyd, V., 2200 BC – Innovation or Evolution? The genesis of the Danubian Early Bronze Age, IN: Meller, H. –Arz, H. W.–Jung, R.–Risch R. (Hrsg.), 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 2200 BC – A climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the old world. 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom. 23. bis 26. Oktober 2014 in Halle (Saale) 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 23–26, 2014 in Halle (Saale), Halle, www.academia.edu.

Bichir 1962 Bichir, Gh., Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Frühen Bronzezeit im südöstlichen Transsilvanien und in der Moldau (im lichte der Grabungen von Cuciulata und Mîndrişca), Dacia N.S., VI, 87–114

Blăjan 1989 Blăjan, M., Morminte din cultura Schnechenberg descoperite la Mediaş, Apulum, XXV, 1988 (1989), 59–69.

Blăjan 1996 Blăjan, M., Aşezări din cultura Schneckenberg descoperite la Copşa Mică (jud. Sibiu), ActaMN, 33, 1, 145–154.

Bolohan 2010 Bolohan, N., “All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datiengs Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area, IN: Bolohan, N.–Măţău, Fl.–Tencariu, F. A. (eds.), Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attlia László septuagesimo anno, Iaşi, 229–244.

Bolohan et al. 2015 forthcoming

Bolohan, N.–Gafincu, Al.–Stoleriu, I., Middle Bronze Age chronology east of the Cartathian area. A Bayesian model (in this volume).

Bóna 1992 Bóna, I., Bronzezeitliche Tell–Kulturen in Ungarn, IN: Meier–Arendt, W. (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell–Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt am Main, 9–39.

82 | Fl. Gogâltan

Boroffka 1994 Boroffka, N., Die Wietenberg–Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, UPA, 19, Bonn. PDF

Boroffka 2004 Boroffka, R., Epoca bronzului, IN: Ioniţă, A.–Căpăţână, D.–Boroffka, N.–Boroffka, R.–Popescu, A., Feldioara–Marienburg. Contribuţii arheologice la istoria Ţării Bârsei. Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Burzenlandes, Bucureşti, 19–24.

Brummack–Diaconescu 2014

Brummack, S.–Diaconescu, D., A Bayesian approach to the AMS dates for the Copper Age in the Great Hungarian Plain, PZ, 89, 2, 242–260.

Bulatović 2014 Bulatović, Al., Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change, JIES, 41, 1–2, 101–143.

Bulzan et al. 2000 Bulzan, S.–Ghemis, C.–Fazecas, G., Săpăturile de salvare de la Oradea–punctul Salca “Pepinieră”, Crisia, 30, 81–140.

Bulzan et al. 2001 Bulzan, S.–Ghemis, C.–Fazecas, G., Oradea, jud. Bihor. Punct: Sere, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000. A XXXV– a Sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice. Suceava, 23–27 mai 2001, Bucureşti, 166–167.

Burtănescu 2002 Burtănescu, Fl., Epoca timpurie a bronzului între Carpaţi şi Prut cu unele contribuţii la problemele premergătoare epocii bronzului în Moldova, Bucureşti.

Cavruc 1997 Cavruc, V., The Final Stage of the Early Bronze Age in South–Eastern of Transylvania (in the light of new excavations at Zoltan), Thraco-Dacica, XVIII, 97–133.

Cavruc 2003 Cavruc, V., Satul Zoltan, com. Gidfalău, jud. Covasna, IN: Cavruc, V., (coord.), Noi descoperiri arheologice în sud–estul Transilvaniei, Sfântu Gheorghe, 87–110.

Cavruc 2004 Cavruc, V., Câteva precizări privind perioada timpurie a epocii bronzului din sud–estul Transilvaniei, MemAnt, XXIII, 265–275.

Cavruc 2005 Cavruc, V., The Ciomortan Group in the Light of New Researches, Marmatia, 8/1, 81–123.

Cavruc–Rotea 2000 Cavruc, V.–M. Rotea, Locuirea Wietenberg de la Păuleni (Ciomortan), Angustia, 5, 155–171.

Cavruc–Buzea 2002 Cavruc, V., Noi cercetări privind epoca bronzului în aşezarea Păuleni (Ciomortan). Campaniile din anii 2001–2002. Raport preliminar, Angustia, 7, 41–88.

Chidioşan 1980 Chidioşan, N., Contribuţii la istoria tracilor din nord–vestul României. Aşezarea Wietenberg de la Derşida, Oradea.

Ciugudean 1991 Ciugudean, H., Zur frühen Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen im Lichte der Ausgrabungen von Ampoiţa, jud. Alba, PZ, 66, 1, 79–118.

Ciugudean 1996 Ciugudean, H., Epoca timpurie a bronzului în centrul şi sud–vestul Transilvaniei, Bucureşti.

Ciugudean 1998 Ciugudean, H., The Early Bronze Age in Western Transylvania, IN: Ciugudean, H.–Gogâltan, Fl. (eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24–28 September 1997, 67–83.

Ciugudean 2003 Ciugudean, H., Noi contribuţii privind bronzul timpuriu din Transilvania, Apulum, L, 89–122.

Ciugudean 2000 Ciugudean, H., Eneoliticul final în Transilvania şi Banat: cultura Coţofeni, Timişoara.Ciugudean 2006 Ciugudean, H., Review of M. Rotea, Grupul Copăceni, I, Cluj-Napoca 2003, Apulum,

XLIII/1, 469–473.Ciugudean 2010 Ciugudean, H., The Late Bronze Age in Transylvania (With primary focus on the

central and Southern areas), StCom Satu Mare, XXVI/I, 157–202.Ciugudean 2011 Ciugudean, H., Mounds and Mountains: Burial Rituals in Early Bronze Age Transylvania,

IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Ritual in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, Târgu Mureş, 21–57.

Ciugudean 2013 Ciugudean, H., Preistoria şi protoistoria, IN: Moga, V.–Rustoiu, G. T. (eds.), Județul Alba. Istorie, cultură, civilizație, Alba Iulia, 13–31.

Ciugudean 2015 Ciugudean, H., Contacte între Cultura Amforelor Sferice şi comunităţile Coţofeni în spaţiul transilvan, SympThrac, X, 164–175.

Ciugudean–Quinn 2015 forthcoming

Ciugudean, H.–Quinn, C. P., The end of the Wietenberg culture in the light of new 14C dates and its chronological relation towards the Noua culture (in this volume).

Costea 2008 Costea, F., Un interesant mormânt descoperit în Râşnov–Cetate (jud. Braşov), Angustia, 12, 101–108.


Czopek 2011 Czopek, S. (Red.), Autostradą w Przeszłość. Katalog wystawy – Motorway to the Past. Exhibition catalogue, Rzeszów.

Dani 2011 Dani, J., Research of pit–grave cultures kurgans in Hungary in the last three decades, IN: Pető, Á.–Barczi, A. (eds.), Kurgan studies. An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone, BAR, 2238, Oxford, 25–69.

Dani 2013 Dani, J., The Significance of Metallurgy at the Beginning of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin, IN: Heyd, V–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 203–231.

Dani–Nepper 2006 Dani, J.–Nepper, I. M., Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom. Tumulus grave from beginning of the EAB in Eastern Hungary, ComArchHung, 29–48.

Dani–Horváth 2012 Dani, J.–Horváth, T., Őskori kurgánok a magyar Alföldön. A Gödörsíros (Jamnaja) entitás magyarországi kutatása az elmúlt 30 év során. Áttekintés és revízió, Budapest.

Dani–Kisjuhász 2013 Dani, J.–Kisjuhasz, V., Bestattungen der Mako–Kultur in Berettyoujfalu, Nagy Bocs–dűlő, IN: Anders, Al.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G., (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday, Budapest, 671–692.

Dani–Tóth 2014 Dani, J.–Tóth, K., Reflections on the Early Bronze Age contact systems on the Great Hungarian Plain in connection with the Panyola burial, StComSatu Mare, XXX/I, 39–66.

Dani et al. 2003 Dani, J.–Sz. Máthé, M.–V. Szabó, G., Ausgrabungen in der bronzezeitlichen Tell–Siedlung und im Gräberfeld von Polgár–Kenderföld (Vorbericht über die Freilegung des mittelbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Polgár–Kenderföld, Majoros–Tanya), IN: Kacsó, C. (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001, Baia Mare, 93–118.

Daróczi 2013 Daróczi, T. T., A Middle Bronze Age special gateway community in Eastern Transylvania, ActaMN, 50/I, 35–93.

Daróczi 2015 Daróczi, T. T., Death and Memory. A study of the funerary landscapes of the Eastern Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, Bonn.

Daróczi–Dobos 2009 Daróczi, T. T.–Dobos, Z., Bronze Age Bixad–“Vápavára” a functional typology of the pottery and a study of the archaeological landscape of south–east Transylvania, ActaTS, VIII, 181–228.

Daróczi–Ursuțiu 2015 Daróczi, T. T.–Ursuțiu, A., Worship, habitation, refuge. Bronze Age and Iron Age sites of the Lower Feneș Valley, Cluj-Napoca.

David 2002 David, W., Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson–Apa–Ighiel–Zajta, Alba Iulia.

Dénes–Szabó 1998 Dénes, I.–Szabó, G. V., Der frühbronzezeitliche Bronzedepotfund aus der Höhle 1200/9 in der Enge des Vargyas–Baches (Cheile Vârghişului) in Südost–Siebenbürgen, IN: Ciugudean, H.–Gogâltan, Fl. (eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24–28 September 1997, Alba Iulia, 89–110.

Diaconescu 2013 Diaconescu, D., Consideraţii privind cronologia Epocii timpurii a Cuprului în estul Bazinului Carpatic (cultura Tiszapolgár), Analele Banatului, XXI, 35–60.

Diaconescu et al. 2015 Diaconescu, D.–Krauß, R.–Ciobotaru, D.–Marinova, E.–Notebaert, B.–de Cupere, B.–Josza, A.–Iustin, Z.–Blum, S.– Valcov, L.–Craiovan, B.–Constantin, B.–Oprean, C –Floca, C.–Abele, J.–Ciocani, P.–Gretzinger, J.–Mandt, A. F. –Loy, A. K.,–Schmid, C.–Schwarz, D.–Flontaş, A.–Jeannot, R.–Gemkova, K.–Mircheva, S., Sânnicolau Mare, jud. Timiş, Punct: Bucova Pusta IV, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 2014. A XLIX-a sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice Pitești, 28–30 mai 2015, Bucureşti, 41–43.

Dietrich 2009 Dietrich, L., Recenzie la M. Rotea, Grupul Copăceni, I, Cluj-Napoca 2003, Dacia N.S., 59, 219–223.

Dietrich 2014 Dietrich, L., Die mittlere und späte Bronzezeit und die ältere Eisenzeit in Südostsiebenbürgen aufgrund der Siedlung von Rotbav, Bonn.

Drașovean 2014 Draşovean, Fl., On the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolitic Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Carpathian Basin. A Bayesian approach, IN: Schier, W.–Draşovean, Fl., (eds.), The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe. New Approaches to Dating and Cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millenium BC, Rahden/West, 129–171.

84 | Fl. Gogâltan

Duffy 2014 Duffy, P. R., Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe. Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary, Budapest.

Dumitraşcu 1989 Dumitraşcu, S., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea tehnologiei metalurgiei din epoca bronzului în judeţul Bihor, Crisia, XIX, 119–168.

Earle–Kristiansen 2010 Earle, T.–Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe and Scandinavia Compared, Cambridge.

Emödi 1985 Emödi, I., Asupra începutului epocii bronzului în Bihor, Thraco-Dacica, VI, 123–144.Endrődi 2014 Endrődi, A., Effects of cultural contacts on the burial rites of the Bell Beaker–Csepel

Group, IN: Besse, M. (ed.), Around the Petit–Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approaches to the Bell Beaker Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Sion (Switzerland) October 27th–30th, 2011, Oxford, 2014, 259–275.

Endrődi–Pásztor 2006 Endrődi, A.–Pásztor, E., Symbolism and Traditions in the Society of the Bell Beaker – Csepel Group, ArchÉrt, 131, 7–25.

Fazecaş 2014 Fazecaş, G., Girişu de Criş “Alceu”, Bihor County, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 111–116.

Fazecaş–Marta 2014 Fazecaş, G. T.–Marta, D. M., Locuirea eneolitică târzie de la Oradea – str. Cireşilor, Crisia, XLIV, 8–17.

Fazecaş et al. 2015a Fazecaş, G.–Lie, M.–Cordoş, C.–Găvan, Al.–Ignat, A.–Gogâltan, Fl.–Popa, C. I.–Rizea, M.–Mathison, R.–Trif, R.–Suciu, C.–Halbac, I.–Vadineanu, P.–Petreuş, I., Salca, Oradea, Jud. Bihor, Punctul Pepinieră, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 2014. A XLIX–a sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice Pitești, 28 – 30 mai 2015, Bucureşti, 225–226.

Fazecaş et al. 2015b Fazecaş, G.–Lie, M. A.–Cordoş, E. C.–Gogâltan, Fl.–Savu, M.–Burlacu, R.–Radu, C.–Mátyási, S.–Ştefan, D.–Voight, Ch.–Hernández Tórtoles, A.–Ruiz Vega, M.–Desaunay, Th.–Roman, V.–Suciu, C.–Halbac, I.–Popa, C., Toboliu, com. Toboliu, jud. Bihor. Punct: Dâmbu–Zănăcanului, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 2014. A XLIX–a sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice Pitești, 28 – 30 mai 2015, Bucureşti, 251–252.

Fântâneanu et al. 2013 Fântâneanu, C.–Bălan, G.–Popa, S.–Tențiş, D., The Bronze Age necropolis at Sebeş – Între Răstoace. Preliminary considerations, IN: Sîrbu, V.–Ștefănescu, R. (eds.), The Thracians and their neighbors in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Thracology. Târgoviște 10th – 14th September 2013. “Necropolises, Cult places, Religion, Mythology”. Volume II, Braşov, 173–191.

Fischl 2006 P. Fischl, K., Ároktő–Dongóhalom bronzkori tell telep. Bronzezeitliche Tell–Siedlung in Áraktő–Dongóhalom, Miskolc.

Fischl–Kulcsár 2011 P. Fischl, K.–Kulcsár, G., Tiszán innen, Dunán túl. A kora bronzkor kérdései a kiskundorozsmai temetõ kapcsán, MFMÉ, XII, 59–90.

Fischl–Kienlin 2013 P. Fischl, K.–Kienlin, T., Results of a systematic survey programme on the Hatvan sites of Emőd–Nagyhalom and Tard–Tatárdomb in northern Hungary, ActaArchHung, 64, 5–32.

Fischl– Kienlin 2015 P. Fischl, K.–Kienlin, T. L., Neuigkeiten von einem „unbekannten Bekannten“. Der bronzezeitliche Fundort Tiszakeszi–Szódadomb (Ungarn), IN: I. Szathmári (Hrsg.), An der Grenze der Bronze– und Eisenzeit. Festschrift für Tibor Kemenczei zum 75. Geburtstag, Budapest, 109–120.

Fischl et al. 2013 P. Fischl, K.–Kiss, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V., Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B.C, IN: Meller, H.–Bertemes, F.– Bork, H. R.–Risch, R. (Hrsg.), 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera–Ausbruchs? 1600 – Cultural change in the shadow of the Thera–Eruption? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). 4th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 14–16, 2011 in Halle (Saale), Halle, 355–371.

Fischl et al. 2014 P. Fischl, K.–Kienlin, T. L.–Pusztai, T.–Brückner, H.–Klumpp, S.–Tugya, B.–Lengyel, G., Tard–Tatárdomb: An Update on the Intensive Survey Work on the Multi–Layer Hatvan and Füzesabony Period Settlement, IN: Kienlin, T. L.–Valde–Nowak, P.–Korczyńska, M.–Cappenberg, K.–Ociepka, J., (eds.), Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians. International Workshop held at the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, October 27–28, 2012, Oxford, 341–379.


Frînculeasa–Garvăn 2015 Frînculeasa, A.–Garvăn, D., Şoimeşti, com. Ceptura, jud. Prahova, IN: Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2014. A XLIX–a Sesiune Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice, Piteşti, 28–30 mai 2015, Bucureşti, 243–244.

Frînculeasa et al. 2013 Frînculeasa, A.–Preda, B.–Negrea, O.–Soficaru, A. D., Bronze Age tumulary graves recently investigated in Northern Wallachia, Dacia N.S., LVII, 23–63.

Frînculeasa et al. 2015a Frînculeasa, A.–Soficaru, A.–Măgureanu, A.–Preda, B.–Ciupercă, B.–Garvăn, D.–Anton, A.–Constantin, C., Un complex funerar preistoric descoperit la Târgşoru Vechi (jud. Prahova), BuletinMJT, 7, 133–156.

Frînculeasa et al. 2015b Frînculeasa, A.– Preda, B.–Heyd, V., Pit–Graves, Yamnaya and Kurgans along the Lower Danube: Disentangling IVth and IIIrd Millennium BC Burial Customs, Equipment and Chronology, PZ, 90, 45–113.

Găvan 2012 Găvan, Al., Metallurgy and Bronze Age Tell–Settlements from Western Romania (I), EphemNap, XXII, 57–90.

Găvan 2013 Găvan, Al., Metalurgia tell–urilor epocii bronzului din vestul României (II), Terra Sebus, 5, 141–192.

Găvan–Gogâltan 2014 Găvan, Al.–Gogâltan, Fl., „Zentrum und Peripherie?” Der bronzezeitliche Tell von Pecica „Şanţul Mare“ (Kreis Arad, Rumänien), IN: Nessel, B.–Heske, I.–Brandherm, D. (Hrsg.), Ressourcen und Rohstoffe in der Bronzezeit. Nutzung – Distribution – Kontrolle. Beiträge zur Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung des Mittel- und Ostdeustschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Brandenburg an der Havel, 16. Bis 17. April 2012, Arbeitsberichte zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Brandenburg, 26, 28–40.

Gerling–Ciugudean 2013 Gerling, C.–Ciugudean, H., Insights into the Transylvanian Early Bronze Age Using Strontium and Oxygen Isotope Analyses: A Pilot Study, IN: Heyd, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 181–202.

Gerling et al. 2012 Gerling, C.–Bánffy, E.–Dani, J.–Köhler, K.–Kulcsár, G.–Pike, A. W. G.–Szeverényi, V.–Heyd, V., Immigration and transhumance in the Early Bronze Age Carpathian Basin: the occupants of a kurgan, Antiquity, 86, 1097–1111.

Ghemiş–Sava 2004 Ghemiş, C.–Sava, V., Descoperiri arheologice aparţinând culturii Coţofeni din peştera Moanei (com. Şuncuiuş, jud. Bihor), Crisia, XXXIV, 19–31.

Ghemiș et al. 2014 Ghemis, C.–Rus, T.–Kovács, R., Between sacred and profane – a discovery belonging to the Coţofeni Culture inside “Stanu Cerbului” cave (Bihor County), Ziridava, 28, 31–37.

Gogâltan 1995 Gogâltan, Fl., Die Frühe Bronzezeit in Südwesten Rumäniens. Stand der Forschung, Thraco-Dacica, XVI, 55–79.

Gogâltan 1998a Gogâltan, Fl., Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology in South–West Romania. General Aspects, IN: Ciugudean, H.–Gogâltan, Fl. (eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24–28 September 1997, Alba Iulia, 191–212.

Gogâltan 1998b Gogâltan, Fl., The Cruceni–Belegiš cemetery from Livezile (Tolvădia), commune Banloc, District Timiş, IN: Roman, P., (ed.), The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilisations. II. “Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology”. Constanţa–Mangalia–Tulcea 20–26 May 1996, Bucharest, 181–205.

Gogâltan 1999a Gogâltan, Fl., Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului. I. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal, Timişoara.

Gogâltan 1999b Gogâltan, Fl., A bronzkori lelőhely értékelése, IN: Petercsák, T.–Szabó, J. J. (szerk.), Kompolt–Kistér 14. Újkőkori, bronzkori, szarmata és avar lelőhely. Leletmentő ásatás az M3–as autópálya nyomvonalán. A Neolithic, Bronze Age, Sarmatian and Avar site. Rescue excavation at the M3 motorway, Eger, 171–177.

Gogâltan 2000 Gogâltan, Fl., Über die frühbronzezeitlichen Beile und Äxte im Banat, Analele Banatului, VII–VIII, 1999–2000, 229–251.

Gogâltan 2001a Gogâltan, Fl., Le bronze ancien et le bronze moyen du sud–ouest de la Roumanie: une perspective critique sur les systèmes chronologiques, IN: Draşovean, Fl., (Red.), Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici zum 60. Geburstag, Timişoara, 281–310.

86 | Fl. Gogâltan

Gogâltan 2001b Gogâltan, Fl., The Settlement of Căşeiu and Some Problems Concerning the Late Bronze Age in the Center and Northern Transylvania, IN: Kacsó, C. (Hrsg.), Der nordkarpatischen Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare, 7.–10 Oktober 1998, Baia Mare, 191–214.

Gogâltan 2004 Gogâltan, Fl., Bronzul mijlociu în Banat. Opinii privind grupul Corneşti–Crvenka, IN: Rogozea, P.–Cedică, V. (Red.), Festschrift für Florin Medeleţ. Zum 60. Geburtstag, Timişoara, 79–153.

Gogâltan 2008 Gogâltan, Fl., Locuirile din “Piaţa Alimentară”, din preistorie până în evul mediu, IN: Isac, D.–Gogâltan, Fl.–Calian, L.–Barb, R.–Niţă, F.–Socol, I., Contribuţii arheologice la istoria oraşului Dej, Cluj-Napoca, 26–68.

Gogâltan 2009 Gogâltan, Fl., A Late Bronze Age dwelling at Iernut–Cătunul Sfântu Gheorghe “Monument”, Mureş district, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mures, 24–26 October 2008, Cluj-Napoca, 103–141.

Gogâltan 2011 Gogâltan, Fl., Die Beziehungen zwischen Siebenbürgen und dem Schwarzmeerraum. Die ersten Kontakte (cca. 4500–3500 v. Chr.), IN: Sava, E.–Govedarica, B.–Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.), Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Äneolithikum bis in die Früheisenzeit (5000–500 v. Chr.). Band 2: Globale Entwicklung versus Lokalgeschehen. Internationale Fachtagung von Humboldtianern für Humboldtianer im Humboldt–Kolleg in Chişinău, Moldavien (4.–8.Oktober 2010), Berlin, 101–124.

Gogâltan 2013 Gogâltan, Fl., Transilvania şi spaţiul nord–pontic. Relaţii interculturale între sfârşitul epocii cuprului şi începutul epocii bronzului (cca. 3500–2500 a. Chr.), Terra Sebus, 5, 31–76.

Gogâltan 2014a Gogâltan, Fl., Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 13–24.

Gogâltan 2014b Gogâltan, Fl., Foeni “Cimitirul Ortodox”, Timiş County, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 98–103.

Gogâltan 2014c Gogâltan, Fl., Semlac “Livada lui Onea”, Arad County, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 242–246.

Gogâltan forthcoming Gogâltan, Fl., Die Beziehungen zwischen Siebenbürgen und dem Schwarzmeerraum in der Kupfer– und am Anfang der Bronzezeit (ca. 3500–ca. 2500 v. Chr.), PAS (forthcoming).

Gogâltan–Apai 2005 Gogâltan, Fl.–Apai, E., Contribuţii privind bronzul timpuriu în Transilvania. I. Noi materiale aparţinând grupului Şoimuş, IN: Popa, C. I.–Rustoiu, G. (eds.), Omagiu profesorului Ioan Andriţoiu cu prilejul împlinirii a 65 de ani. Studii şi Cercetări Arheologice, Alba Iulia, 21–49.

Gogâltan–Molnár-Kovács 2009

Gogâltan, Fl.–Molnár–Kovács, Zs., Locuirea Coţofeni. The Coţofeni settlement, IN: Mustaţă, S.–Gogâltan, Fl.–Cociş, S.–Ursuţiu, A. (eds.), Cercetări arheologice preventive la Floreşti–Polus Center, jud. Cluj (2007). Rescue excavation at Floreşti–Polus Center, Cluj County (2007), Cluj-Napoca, 27–202.

Gogâltan–Găvan 2014 Gogâltan, Fl.–Găvan, Al., Der bronzezeitliche Tell von Pecica „Şanţul Mare”. Ein metallurgisches Zentrum des Karpatenbeckens (I), EphemNap, XXIV, 7–38.

Gogâltan et al. 2004 Gogâltan, Fl.–Aldea, I. Al.–Ursuţiu, A., Raport preliminar asupra investigaţiilor arheologice de la Gligoreşti “Holoame”, com. Luna, jud. Cluj (1994–1996), Apulum, XLI, 61–101.

Gogâltan et al. 2011a Gogâltan, Fl.–Németh, E. R.–Apai, E., Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, Gemeinde Săvădisla (Kreis Cluj), IN: Berecki, S.–Németh E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Ritual in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, Târgu Mureş, 163–183.

Gogâltan et al. 2011b Gogâltan, Fl.–Darvas, L.–Demjén, A., Descoperiri aparţinând epocii bronzului de la Lăzarea (jud. Harghita), CsSzMÉ, VII, 53–68.

Gogâltan et al. 2014 Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca.


Görsdorf 2005 Görsdorf, J., Datierungsergebnisse des Berliner 14C–Labors 2004, EA, 11, 463–469.Gumă 1997 Gumă, M., Epoca bronzului în Banat. Orizonturi cronologice şi manifestări culturale.

The Bronze Age in Banat. Chronological levels and cultural entities, Timişoara.Halasi–Emödi 1985 Halasi, G.–Emödi, I., Descoperire archeologice în Peştera Izbucul Topliţei, SCIVA, 36,

232–234.Harding–Kavruk 2013 Harding, A.–Kavruk, V., Transylvania, IN: Harding, A.–Kavruk, V., Explorations in

Salt Archaeology in the Carpathian Zone, Budapest, 41–153.Heeb et al. 2012 Heeb, B. S.–Szentmiklosi, Al.–Harding, A.–Krause, R., Die spätbronzezeitliche

Befestigungsanlage Corneşti-Iarcuri im rumänischen Banat – ein kurzer Forschungsbericht der Jahre 2010 und 2011, ActaPraehistArch, 44, 47–58.

Hervella et al. 2015 Hervella, M.–Rotea, M.–Izagirre N.–Constantinescu M.–Alonso S.–Ioana M.–Lazăr, C.–Ridiche, Fl.–Soficaru, A. D.–Netea, M. G.–de–la–Rua, C., Ancient DNA from South–East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic Influencing the European Genetic Heritage, PLoS ONE, 10 (6), 1–20.

Heyd 2000 Heyd, V., Die Spätkupferzeit in Süddeutschland. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie von der ausgehenden Mittelkupferzeit bis zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit im süddeutschen Donaueinzugsgebiet und den benachbarten Regionen bei besonderer Berücksichtigung keramischer Funde, Bonn.

Heyd 2011 Heyd, V., Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black Sea, IN: Borgna, E.–Müller Celka, S. (eds.), Ancestral landscapes: burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages, Lyon, 535–555.

Heyd 2013 Heyd, V., Europe at the Dawn of the Bronze Age, IN: Heyd, V–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 9–66.

Horedt 1979 Horedt, K., Moreşti. Grabungen in einer vor– und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen, Bucureşti.

Horváth 2011a Horváth, T., A Boleráz, Baden és Kostolac kultúrák térbeli és időbeli helyzete, és interkulturális kapcsolatai, Specimina EA, 12, 1–105.

Horváth 2011b Horváth, T., Hajdúnánás–Tedej–Lyukas-halom – An interdisciplinary survey of a typical kurgan from the Great Hungarian Plain region: a case study (The revision of the kurgans from the territory of Hungary, IN: Pető, Á.–Barczi, A. (eds.), Kurgan studies. An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone, BAR, 2238, Oxford, 71–131.

Horváth 2014 Horváth, T., Transhumants or Immigrants, Apulum, LI, 99–134.Horváth–Svingor 2015 Horváth, T.–Svingor, É., The spatial and chronological distribution of the so–called

“Baden culture”, IN: Nowak, M.–Zastawny, A. (eds.), The Baden Culture around the Western Carpathians, Kraków, 19–74.

Horváth et al. 2013 Horváth, T.–Dani, J.–Pető, Á.–Pospieszny, Ł.–Svingor, É., Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Study of Pit Grave Culture Kurgans of the Great Hungarian Plain, IN: Heyd, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 153–179.

Jaeger 2010 Jaeger, M., Transkarpackie kontakty kultury Otomani–Füzesabony, IN: Gancarski, J. (ed.), Transkarpackie kontakty kulturowe w epoce kamienia, brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza, Krosno, 313–329.

Jaeger–Kulcsár 2013 Jaeger, M.–Kulcsár, G., Kakucs–Balla-domb a case study in the absolute and relative chronology of the Vatya culture, ActaArchHung, 64, 289–320.

Jaeger–Olexa 2014 Jaeger, M.–Olexa, L., The metallurgists from Nižná Myšľa (okr. Košiceokolie/SK). A contribution to the discussion on the metallurgy in defensive settlements of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, ArchKorr, 44, 2, 163–176.

Kacsó 2004 Kacsó, C., Mărturii arheologice, Baia Mare.Kacsó 2013a Kacsó, C., Câteva observaţii cu privire la o monografie a culturii Wietenberg, IN:

Niculică, B. P.–Boghian, D. (eds.), Semper fidelis in honorem magistri Mircea Ignat, Suceava, 125–139.

Kacsó 2013b Kacsó, C., Contribuții la cunoaşterea ceramicii epocii bronzului de la Oarța de Sus–Ghiile Botii (I), Terra Sebus, 5, 111–139.

88 | Fl. Gogâltan

Kacsó 2015 Kacsó, C., Repertoriul arheologic al județului Maramureș, Volumul I, Ediția a II–a revăzută şi adăugită, Baia Mare.

Kavruk et al. 2014 Kavruk, V.–Buzea, D. L.–Mateş, A.–Munteanu, R.–Garvăn, D.–Beldiman, C.–Briewig, B., Şoimeni–Ciomortan, com. Păuleni Ciuc, jud. Harghita. Punct: Dâmbul Cetăţii, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 2013. A XLVIII–a sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice, Oradea, 5–7 iunie 2013, Bucureşti, 135–137.

Kienlin 2010 Kienlin, T. L., Traditions and Transformations: Approaches to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age Metalworking and Society in Eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin, BAR, 2184, Oxford.

Kienlin 2015 Kienlin, T. L., Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context. An Exploration Into Culture, Society and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 1: Critique. Europe and the Mediterranean, Oxford.

Kienlin et al. 2013 Kienlin, T. L.–P. Fischl, K.–Marta, L., Exploring Divergent Trajectories in Bronze Age Landscapes: Tell Settlement in the Hungarian Borsod Plain and the Romanian Ier Valley, IN: Paper given at EAA session “Landscapes of Complexity in Bronze Age Central Europe”, Pilsen, 2013, www.academia.edu.

Kiss 2012a Kiss, V., Megjegyzések a Magyarországi kora és középső bronzkor relativ és abszolut keltezésének kérdéseihez, IN: ΜΩΜΟΣ IV. Őskoros kutatók IV. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete Debrecen, 2005. Március 22–24, Debrecen, 215–250.

Kiss 2012b Kiss, V., Middle Bronze Age Encrusted Pottery in western Hungary, Budapest.Kovács 2013 Kovács, A., Pottery, IN: Harding, A.–Kavruk, V., Explorations in Salt Archaeology in the

Carpathian Zone, Budapest, 102–108.Kővári–Patay 2005 Kővári, K.–Patay, R., A settlement of the Makó Culture at Üllő. New evidence for early

Bronze Age Metalworking, CommArchHung, 83–137.Krause 2003 Krause, R., Studien zur kupfer– und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen

Karpatenbecken und Ostsee, Rahden/Westf.Krauss 2014 Krauß, R., Troy, Baden Culture and Corded Ware – Correlations in the Balkan–

Carpathian Region at the Turn of the 4th Millennium BC, IN: Horejs, B.–Mehofer, M. (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy Proto–Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21‒24 November, 2012, Vienna, 261–274.

Krauss–Ciubotaru 2013 Krauß, R.–Ciubotaru, D. (mit Beitragen zur absoluten Datierung und zu den bronzezeitlichen Tierknochen von Bernhard Weningerund Georgeta El Susi), Daten zum Ende des Badener Keramikstilsund dem Beginn der Frühbronzezeit aus Foeni–Gaz im rumänischen Banat, PZ, 88, 38–113.

Kristiansen–Larsson 2005

Kristiansen, K.–Larsson, Th. B., The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation, Cambridge.

Kulcsár 2009 Kulcsár, G., The Beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. The Makó–Kosihy–Čaka and the Somogyvár–Vinkovci Cultures in Hungary, Budapest.

Kulcsár 2013 Kulcsár, G., Glimpses of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin, IN: Anders, Al.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G., (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday, Budapest, 643–659.

Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013 Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V., Transition to the Bronze Age: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in the First Half of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin, IN: Heyd, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 67–92.

Kulcsár et al. 2014 Kulcsár, G.–Jaeger, M.–Kiss, V.–Márkus, G.–Müller, J.–Pető, Á.–Serlegi, G.–Szeverenyi, V.–Taylor, N., The beginnings of a new research program – Kakucs archaeological expedition – KEX 1, HungArch, winter, 1–7.

Lazarovici 1997 Lazarovici, Gh., About the Early Bronze from Transylvania, Angustia, 2, 9–36.Lazarovici–Sfetcu 1990 Lazarovici, Gh.–Sfetcu, O., Descoperiri arheologice de la Silagiu–Buziaş, Banatica, 10,

45–57.Lazăr 1999 Lazăr, V., Un mormânt din faza timpurie a epocii bronzului descoperit în Câmpia

Transilvaniei, RevBis, XII–XIII, 235–238.


Lichardus–Vladár 1998 Lichardus, J.–Vladár, J., Frühe und mittlere Bronzezeit in der Südwestslowakei. Forschungsbeitrag von Anton Točík. (Rückblick und Ausblick), SlovArch, XLV, 2, 221–349.

Ljuština 2012 Ljuština, M. Đ., Stratigrafija naselja i periodizacija Vatinske culture u Vojvodini, doktorska disertacija, Beograd.

Ljuština 2013 Ljuština, M., Sudul Câmpiei Panonice în prima jumătate a mileniului II î.Hr. Studiu de caz: Židovar, Banatul de sud, Serbia. Southern border of the Panonian Plain in 1st half of 2nd millennium BC: Case study of Židovar, south Banat district, Serbia, Istros, XIX, 79–117.

Ljuština 2015 Ljuština, M., Dunărea conectează: aşezările din epoca de mijloc a bronzului de la Omoljica-Zlatica şi Pančevo-Ciglana vs. vecinii lor de la Vinča-Belo Brdo, nordul Serbiei. The Danube Connects: Middle Bronze Age Settlements at Omoljica-Zlatica and Pančevo-Ciglana vs. their Neighbours from Vinča-Belo Brdo, North Serbia, Istros, XXI, 2015, 57–106.

Makarowicz et al. 2013 Makarowicz, P.–Lysenko, S. D.–Kočkin, I. T., Kurhany z epoki brązu nad Górnym Dniestrem – Polsko–Ukraińskie projekty badawcze, FolPraehPos, XVIII, 151–176.

Marta et al. 2010 Marta, L.–Kienlin, T. L.–Rung, E.–Schramm, P., Recent Archaeological Research on the Bronze Age Fortified Settlements of the Ier Valley, North-Western Romania, IN: Horejs, B.–Kienlin, T. L. (Hrsg.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Schleswig 2007 und auf dem Deutschen Archäologenkongress in Mannheim 2008, UPA, 194, Bonn, 121–138.

Matiș 2008 Matiş, Fl., Locuirea de epoca bronzului de la Peciu Nou, Banatica, 18, 37–46.Meller 2014 Meller H., Die neolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Goldfunde Mitteldeutschlands–

Eine Übersicht, IN: Meller, H.–Risch, R.–Pernicka, E. (Hrsg.), Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. 6. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19. Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale). Metals of power – Early gold and silver. 6th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 17–19, 2013 in Halle (Saale), Halle, 611–716.

Molnár 2011 Molnár, Zs., Die Bronzemetallurgie in den Otomani–Gemeinschaften von der Carei–Ebene und dem Eriul–Tal, ActaArchHung, 62, 269–330.

Molnár–Ghemiş 2003 Molnár, Zs.–Ghemiş, C., Contribuţii la problematica grupului Roşia. O descoperire provenită din peştera Izbucu Topliţei, EphemNap, XIII, 41–92.

Molnár–Nagy 2013 Molnár, Zs.–Nagy, J. G., Habitat models and social systems in Middle Bronze Age central north–western Transylvania. State of research, ActaArch Carpathica, 48, 5–85.

Motzoi-Chicideanu 2004 Motzoi-Chicideanu, I., Observaţii asupra cimitirului din epoca bronzului de la Pietroasa Mică, Mousaios, 9, 57–100.

Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011 Motzoi-Chicideanu, I., Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie și Inferioară, Bucureşti.

Motzoi-Chicideanu–Olteanu 2000

Motzoi-Chicideanu, I.–Olteanu, Gh., Un mormânt în cistă descoperit la Văleni–Dâmboviţa, SCIVA, 51, 1–2, 3–70.

Munteanu 2010 Munteanu, R., Începutul bronzului mijlociu în depresiunile marginale ale Carpaţilor Orientali, Piatra Neamţ.

Németh 2015a Németh, E. R., Contribuții privind perioada târzie a epocii bronzului în podișul Transilvaniei. Așezarea de la Vlaha–Pad, Universitatea “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi (PhD thesis).

Németh 2015b forthcoming Németh, E. R., A Middle Bronze Age “Mass Grave” from Voivodeni–La Şcoală. A Chronological Approach (in this volume).

Németi 2009 Németi, J., The Hajdúbagos / Pişcolt–Cehăluţ group, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin, Proceedings of the international colloquium from Târgu Mureş, Cluj-Napoca, 203–221.

Németi–Dani 2001 Németi, J.–Dani, J., Néhány kora bronzkori sír az Érmellékről (Románia) és a Nyírségből (Magyarország). Adalékok ÉK–Magyarország és ÉNy–Románia kora bronzkorához, JAMÉ, XLIII, 2001, 95–126.

Németi–Molnár 2002 Németi, J.–Molnár, Zs., A Tell telepek elterjedése a Nagykárolyi–síkságon és az Ér völgyében, Cluj-Napoca.

90 | Fl. Gogâltan

Németi–Molnár 2007 Németi, J.–Molnár, Zs., A tell–telepek fejlődése és vége a Nagykárolyi–síkságon és az Ér völgyében, Cluj-Napoca.

Németi–Molnár 2012 Németi, J.–Molnár, Zs., Bronzkori hatalmi központok északnyugat–erdélyben: A Nagykároly–Bobáld–tell. Bronzezeitliche Machtzentren in Nordwest–Siebenbürgen: Der Tell von Carei–Bobáld, Szeged.

Nestor 1960 Nestor, I., Începuturile societăţii gentilice patriarhale şi ale destrămării orânduirii comunei primitive. Epoca bronzului, IN: Istoria României, I, Bucureşti, 90–113, 114–132.

Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015 Nicodemus, A.–O’Shea, J. M., From relative to absolute: the radiometric dating of Mureş Culture ceramics at Pecica–Şanţul Mare, IN: Forțiu, S.–Stavilă, A. (eds.), In Memoriam Florin Medeleț, Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie și Istorie, Timișoara, 28 noiembrie 2015, ArheoVest, Nr. III, Szeged, 691–702.

Nicodemus et al. 2015 Nicodemus, A.–Motta, L.–O’Shea, J. M., Archaeological Investigations at Pecica “Şanţul Mare” 2013–2014, Ziridava, 29, 2015 (forthcoming).

Nowaczinski et al. 2012 Nowaczinski, E.–Schukraft, G.–Hecht, S.–Rassmann, K.–Bubenzer, O.–/Eitel, B., A Multimethodological Approach for the Investigation of Archaeological Ditches – Exemplified by the Early Bronze Age Settlement of Fidvár near Vráble (Slovakia), Archaeological Prospection, 19, 2012, 281–295.

O’Shea forthcoming O’Shea, J. M., Reading Regional Identities in the Carpathian Basin Bronze Age: You Can’t Judge a Book by its Cover, IN: Earle, T.–Kiss, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szerverényi, V., (Eds.), Landscapes of Complexity in Bronze Age Central Europe, Oxford (forthcoming).

O’Shea et al. 2005 O’Shea, J.–Barker, A. W.–Sherwood, S.–Szentmiklosi, Al., New Archeaeological Investigations at Pecica–Şanţul Mare, Analele Banatului, XII–XIII, 2004–2005 (2005), 81–109.

O’Shea et al. 2006 O’Shea, J.–Barker, A. W.–Nicodemus, A.–Sherwood, S.–Szentmiklosi, Al., Archaeological Investigations at Pecica “Şanţul Mare”: The 2006 Campaign, Analele Banatului, XIV, 211–227.

O’Shea et al. 2011 O’Shea, J.–Barker, A.–Motta, L.–Szentmiklosi, Al., Archaeological Investigations at Pecica “Şanţul Mare” 2006–2009, Analele Banatului, XIX, 67–78.

Olexa–Nováček 2013 Olexa, L.–Nováček, T., Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I (hroby 1 – 310), Nitra.

Ordentlich et al. 2014a Ordentlich, I.–Lie, M.–Ghemiş, C., Otomani “Cetățuie = Várhegy”, Bihor County, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 139–147.

Ordentlich et al. 2014b Ordentlich, I.–Găvan, Al.–Ghemiş, C., Sălacea “Dealul Vida = Vida hegy”, Bihor County, IN: Gogâltan, Fl.–Cordoş, C.–Ignat, A. (eds.), Bronze Age tell, tell–like and mound–like settlements at the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research, Cluj-Napoca, 207–230.

Palincaş 2014 Palincaş, N., Body and Social order in Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (Central Romania, c. 1900–1450 BC), EJA, 17, 2, 301–328.

Patay 2009 Patay, R., A Nagyrév–kultúra korai időszakának sírjai Szigetszentmiklósról, Tisicum, XIX, 209–227.

Patay 2013 Patay, R., Bell Beaker Cemetery and Settlement at Szigetszentmiklós: First Results, IN: Heyd, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 287–317.

Paul 1995 Paul, I., Die Wietenberg–Nekropole und– Siedlung von Sibişeni (Kreis Alba), IN: Paul, I. (ed.), Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen, Alba Iulia, 164–197.

Pető–Barczi 2011 Pető, Á.–Barczi, A. (eds.), Kurgan studies. An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone, BAR, 2238, Oxford.

Pető et al. 2015 Pető, Á.–Serlegi, G.–Krausz, E.–Jaeger, M.–Kulcsár, G., Geoarchaeological survey of Bronze Age fortified settlements. Kakucs Achaeological Expedition – KEX 2, HungArch, summer, 1–10.

Petrescu 2000 Petrescu, S., Locuirea umană a peşterilor din Banat până în epocă romană, Timişoara.Petrescu-Dîmboviţa–Vulpe 2001

Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M.–Vulpe, Al. (Coord.), Istoria românilor. Vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti.


Pop 2009a Pop, D., The Middle Bronze Age Settlement of Petea Csengersima, Satu Mare.Pop 2009b Pop, D., Comments on the state of research of Suciu de Sus culture and Lăpuş group,

Marmatia, 9/1, 101–145.Popa 2005 Popa, C. I., Modificări culturale la finalul Bronzului timpuriu şi începutul Bronzului

mijlociu în Trasnilvania, IN: Popa, C. I.–Rustoiu, G. (eds.), Omagiu profesorului Ioan Andriţoiu cu prilejul împlinirii a 65 de ani. Studii şi Cercetări Arheologice, Alba Iulia, 51–183.

Popa 2009 Popa, C. I., Cultura Coţofeni. Cu specială privire asupra Transilvaniei, Universitatea „1 Decembrie 1918”, Alba Iulia (PhD thesis).

Popa 2011 Popa, C. I., Valea Cugirului din preistorie până în zorii epocii moderne. Monumenta arheologica et historica, Cluj-Napoca.

Popa 2012 Popa, C. I., Contribuţii la preistoria Văii Sebeşului (I). Locuiri Coţofeni din zona deluroasă, Sebeş.

Popa–Totoianu 2007 Popa, C. I.–Totoianu, R., Săcele, jud. Braşov, Punct: Bâtca, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2006. A XLI– a Sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice. Tulcea 29 mai–1 iunie 2007, Bucureşti, 2007, http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2007.

Popa–Totoianu 2010 Popa, C. I.–Totoianu, R., Aspecte ale epocii bronzului în Transilvania (între vechile şi noile cercetări), Sebeş.

Popa–Fazecaş 2013 Popa, C. I.–Fazecaş, G.T., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea etapei finale a culturii Coţofeni în Crişana. Aşezarea de la Tăşad, Apulum, L, 47–85.

Popa–Boroffka 1996 Popa, D.–Boroffka, N., Consideraţii privind cultura Noua. Aşezarea de la Ţichindeal, jud. Sibiu, SCIVA, 47, 1, 51–61.

Popescu 2013 Popescu, A.-D., Contextele, cronologia şi analogiile unor piese de os decorative din Moldova, IN: Ciubotaru, P.–Nedu, O.–C. (eds.), In Honorem Nicu Mircea Septuagenarii. Studii şi cercetări privind arheologia spaţiului nord–vest pontic, Danubius, XXXI, Supliment, 179–203.

Popescu–Băjenaru 2015 Popescu, A.-D.–Băjenaru, R., From the Middle Danube to Anatolia: Contacts During the Second Millennium BC. A Case Study, IN: Militello, P. M.–Öniz H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, held at the University of Catania, SOMA 2011, 3–5 March 2011,Vol. I, BAR, 2695, (I), 35–43.

Poroszlai 2000 Poroszlai, I., Die Grabungen in der Tell–Siedlung von Bölcske–Vörösgyűrű (Kom. Tolna) (1965–1967), ActaArchHung, LI, 1999/2000 (2000), 111–145.

Poroszlai–Vicze 2000 Poroszlai, I.–Vicze, M. (eds.), SAX. Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Annual Report 1 – Field Season 1998, Százhalombatta, 2000.

Poroszlai–Vicze 2005 Poroszlai, I.–Vicze, M. (eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. SAX. Report 2 – Field Season 2000–2003, Százhalombatta.

Prox 1941 Prox, A., Die Schneckenbergkultur, Kronstadt (Braşov).Puskás 2015 forthcoming Puskás, J., Contact zone: Middle Bronze Age cultural connections in the valley of the

Black River (Covasna County, Romania) (in this volume).Raczky–Siklósi 2013 Raczky, P.–Siklósi, Z., Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern

Carpathian Basin: a Bayesian approach. Antiquity, 87, 555–573.Reich 2006 Reich, Ch., Das Gräberfeld von Szeremle und die Gruppen mit inkrustierter Keramik

entlang mittlerer und unterer Donau, Berlin.Reményi 2009 Reményi, L., A nagyrévi kultúra kulturális és kronológiai kérdései, Tisicum, 19,

229–254.Rişcuţa 1998 Rişcuţa, C., Archaeological Discoveries Concerning the Early Bronze Age at Deva, IN:

Ciugudean, H.–Gogâltan, Fl. (eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24–28 September 1997, Alba Iulia, 111–139.

Rişcuţa 2000a Rişcuţa, N. C., O descoperire arheologică veche de la Deva, Sargetia, XXVIII–XXIX, 1, 1999–2000, 39–52.

Rişcuţa 2000b Rişcuţa, N. C., Materiale arheologice preistorice aflate în colecţia veche a Muzeului din Deva, Analele Banatului, VII–VIII, 1999–2000, 205–228.

Rişcuţa–Andriţoiu 2007 Rişcuţa, N. C.–Andriţoiu, I., Istoricul cercetărilor, repertoriul descoperirilor şi aria de răspândire a grupului cultural Şoimuş, Apulum, XLIV, 29–52.

92 | Fl. Gogâltan

Rişcuţa et al. 2009 Rişcuţa, N. C.– Popa, C. I.– Ferencz, I. V., Cercetări arheologice la Balşa şi Mada (jud. Hunedoara) şi câteva observaţii privind necropolele tumulare din Munţii Apuseni, Apulum, 46, 257–286.

Rişcuţa et al. 2012 Rişcuţa, N. C.–Cosac, M.–Pavel, R., Cercetările arheologice din Peştera Prihodişte (com. Vaţa de Jos, jud. Hunedoara) şi câteva consideraţii privind etapa finală a culturii Coţofeni, Sargetia, III (XXXIX), 59–89.

Roman 1976 Roman, P., Cultura Coţofeni, Bucureşti.Roman 1986 Roman, P. I., Perioada timpurie a epocii bronzului pe teritoriul României, SCIVA, 37,

1, 29–55.Roman 2011 Roman, P., Ostrovul Corbului între km. fluviali 911–912. Locuiri din epoca bronzului,

Bucureşti.Roman–Németi 1986 Roman, P.–Németi, I., Descoperiri din perioada timpurie (pre Otomani) a epocii

bronzului în nord–vestul României, SCIVA, 37, 3, 198–232.Roman et al. 1992 Roman, P.–Dodd-Opriţescu, A.–Pál, J., Beiträge zur Problematik der Schnurverzierten

Keramik Südosteuropas, Mainz am Rhein.Rotea 1993 Rotea, M., Contribuţii privind bronzul timpuriu în centrul Transilvaniei, Thraco-

Dacica, XIV, 65–86.Rotea 1994 Rotea, M., Contribuţia cercetărilor de la Suatu – “Fântâna de Jos” (1991–1993) la

cunoaşterea etapelor timpurii ale evoluţiei culturii Wietenberg, ActaMN, 31, 1, 131–150.

Rotea 2000 Rotea, M., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Phase I der Kultur Wietenberg. Die Bewohnung von Păuleni (Ciomortan), Kreis Harghita, ActaMN, 37/I, 21–41.

Rotea 2003 Rotea, M., Grupul Copăceni, I, Cluj-Napoca.Rotea 2009 Rotea, M., Pagini din preistoria Transilvaniei. Epoca bronzului, Cluj-Napoca.Rotea–Wittenberger 1999

Rotea, M.–Wittenberger, M., The ritual complex of the Wietenberg culture, Cluj-Napoca (Transylvania), ActaMN, 36/I, 7–27.

Rotea et al. 2010 Rotea, M.–Tecar, M.–Tecar, T., Piese arheologice provenind din situl Coțofeni de la Bretea Mureşană–Măgura Sârbilor (jud. Hunedoara), IN:. Glodariu, I.–Gheorghiu, G. (eds.), Studii de Istorie și Arheologie. Omagiu cercetătorului dr. Eugen Iaroslavschi, Cluj-Napoca, 36–44.

Ruttkay 1995 Ruttkay, E., Endneolithikum, IN: Neugebauer, J.-W. (Hrsg.), Jungsteinzeit in Osten Österreichs, St. Pölten – Wien, 178–209.

Sava 2002 Sava, E., Die Bestattungen der Noua-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung spätbronzezeitlicher Bestattungsriten zwischen Dnestr und Westkarpaten, Kiel.

Sava 2008 Sava, V., Situri ale finalului epocii cuprului din Câmpia de Vest, Analele Banatului, XVI, 45–80.

Sava 2015 Sava, V., Eneoliticul târziu în Bazinul Mureșului Inferior, Cluj-Napoca.Sava–Andreica 2013 Sava, V.–Andreica, L., Social Identity in the Lower Mureş Valley During the Late Bronze

Age: Two Seal–Headed Pins from Pecica “Site 14” Cemetery, IN: Ferencz, I. V.–Rişcuţa, N. C.–Tutilă Bărbat, O. (eds.), Archaeological Small Finds and Theier Significance. Proceedings of the Symposion: Costume as an Identity Expresion, Cluj-Napoca, 49–76.

Sava–Ignat 2014 Sava, V.–Ignat, A., Acquiring significance. Constructing warrior’s identity at the Lower Mureş Valley, AnnalesUVT, XVI, 1, 7–35.

Sava et al. 2014 Sava, V.,–Andreica, L.–Pop, X.– Gogâltan, Fl., Out of ordinary or common burial practice? A Funerary Discovery from the Baden Settlement at Sântana “Cetatea Veche”, Ziridava, 28, 39–76.

Schier 2013 Schier, W., An Antiquarian´s Grave? Early Tiszapolgár Burials in the Late Vin Tell site of Uivar (Romania), IN: Anders, Al.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G., (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday, Budapest, 569–578.

Schier 2014 Schier, W., The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo–chronological construct?, IN: Schier, W.–Draşovean, Fl., (eds.), The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe. New Approaches to Dating and Cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millenium BC, Rahden/West., 419–435.

Schier–Draşovean 2004 Schier, W.–Draşovean, Fl., Vorbericht über die rumänisch–deutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, Kreis Timiş, Rumänien (1998–2002), PZ, 79, 2, 145–230.


Schier–Draşovean 2014 Schier, W.–Draşovean, Fl., (eds.), The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe. New Approaches to Dating and Cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millenium BC, Rahden/West.

Schuster 1997 Schuster, Ch. F., Perioada timpurie a epocii bronzului în Bazinele Argeşului şi Ialomiţei Superioare, Bucureşti.

Schuster et al. 2005 Schuster, C.–Crăciunescu, G.–Fântâneanu, C., Zur Bronzezeit in Südrumänien. Drei Kulturen: Glina, Tei und Verbicioara, Bd. I, Târgovişte.

Shalev et al. 2012 Shalev, S.–Kovács, T.–Biró, K. T., Investigation of early copper–based alloys from the collection of the Hungarian National Museum, Archeometriai Műhely, 2, 105–115.

Somogyvári 2014 Somogyvári, Á., Bronzkori telepjelenségek és erődítésnyomok Solt–Tételen. Előzetes jelentés, IN: Somogyvári Á.–Szentpéteri J.–V. Székely, G. (Szerk.), Településtörténeti kutatások Solt–Tételhegy, Kiskunfélegyháza, Amler–bánya, Kecskemét, 63–84.

Soroceanu 1974 Soroceanu, T., O contribuţie la cunoaşterea ceramicii din epoca bronzului în Trasnilvania, IN: In memoriam Constantin Daicoviciu, Cluj, 367–373.

Soroceanu 1991 Soroceanu, T., Studien zur Mureş–Kultur, Buch am Erlbach.Soroceanu 2012 Soroceanu, T., Die Kupfer– und Bronzedepots der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit in

Rumänien, Cluj-Napoca–Bistriţa.Stockhammer et al. 2015 Stockhammer, Ph. W.–Massy, K.–Knipper, C.–Friedrich, R.–Kromer, B.–Lindauer,

S.–Radosavljević, J.–Wittenborn, F.–Krause, J., Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large–Scale Radiocarbon Dating, PLoS ONE, 10, 1–32.

Sulimirski 1968 Sulimirski, T., Corded ware and Globular Amphorae north–est of Carpathians, London.Sümegi 2013 Sümegi, P., A comparative geoarcheological report and environmental history of the

Bronze Age tell of Polgár–Kenderföld, IN: Vicze, M.–Poroszlai, I.–Sümegi, P. (eds.), Koszider: Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem, Százhalombatta, 155–192.

Székely 1995 Székely, Zs., Necropola de incineraţie în urne de la Turia judeţul Covasna, IN: Cercetări arheologice în aria nord–tracă, I, 126–146.

Székely 1997 Székely, Zs., Perioada timpurie şi începutul celei mijlocii a epocii bronzului în sud–estul Transilvaniei, Bucureşti.

Székely 2009 Székely, Zs., The Beginnings of Early Bronze Age in South–East Transylvania. Problems of Chronology, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin, Proceedings of the international colloquium from Târgu Mureş, Cluj-Napoca, 39–44.

Székely 2014 Székely, Zs., Mormântul în cistă de piatră de la Șincai (jud. Mureş), Apulum, LI, 81–88.Szentmiklosi 2009 Szentmiklosi, Al., Aşezările culturii Cruceni–Belegiš în Banat, Universitatea

„1 Decembrie 1918”, Alba Iulia (PhD thesis).Szeverényi 2013 Szeverényi, V., The Earliest Copper Shaft-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin:

Interaction, Chronology and Transformations of Meaning, IN: Anders, Al.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G., (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday, Budapest, 661–669.

Szmyt 2013 Szmyt, M., View from the North–West: Interaction Network in the Dnieper–Carpathian Area and the People of the Globular Amphora Culture in the Third Millennium BC, IN: Heyd, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 93–111.

Szmyt 2014 Szmyt, M., Fourth-Third Millennium BC Stone Cist Graves Between the Carpathians and Crimea. An Outline of Issues, IN: Reception Zones of ‘Early Bronze Age’ Pontic Culture Traditions: Baltic Basin – Baltic and Black Sea Dreinage Borderlands, 4/3 mil. to First Half 2 mil. BC, Poznań, 107–240.

Sztáncsuj 2009 Sztáncsuj, S. J., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului timpuriu din sud–estul Transilvaniei. Aşezarea culturii Schneckenberg de la Ariuşd, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, E. R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin, Proceedings of the international colloquium from Târgu Mureş, Cluj-Napoca, 45–78.

Tárnoki 2001 Tárnoki, J., Törökszentmiklós az őskorban, IN: Selmeczi, L.–Szabó, A. (Szerk.), Fejezetek Törökszentmiklós múltjából, Törökszentmiklós, 89–122.

94 | Fl. Gogâltan

Teodorescu 2011 Teodorescu, R., Necropolele tumulare de pe teritoriul României din eneoliticul final şi epoca bronzului, Sibiu.

Teodorescu–Palaghie 2011

Teodorescu, R. M.–Palaghie, V., An archaeological complex belonging to Early Bronze Age from Şura Mică (Sibiu County), ActaMB, VI/I, 61–81.

Tóth 2003 Tóth, K., A kora bronzkor kutatásának helyzete Magyarországon, JAMÉ, XLX, 65–111.Uhnér 2010 Uhnér, C., Makt och samhälle Politisk ekonomi under bronsåldern i Karpaterbäckenet,

Göteborg.Vicze 2011 Vicze, M., Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros–Duna-Dűlő, Budapest.Vollmann 2005 Vollmann, D., Studien zum Übergang von der Kupferzeit zur frühen Bronzezeit im

östlichen Mitteleuropa, Bonn.Vulpe 2001a Vulpe, Al., Bronzul timpuriu, IN: Petrescu–Dîmboviţa, M.–Vulpe, Al. (Coord.), Istoria

românilor. Vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, 225–237.Vulpe 2001b Vulpe, Al., Perioada mijlocie a epocii bronzului, IN: Petrescu–Dîmboviţa, M.–Vulpe,

Al. (Coord.), Istoria românilor. Vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, 247–272.

Wagner 2005 Wagner, J., Muster sozialer Differenzierung im frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld von Mokrin/Vojvodina, MittBGAEU, 26, 111–146.

Wagner 2009 Wagner, J., Die chronologische Entwicklung des Gräberfeldes von Mokrin, Analele Banatului, XVII, 337–356.

Weninger–Krauss 2013 Weninger, B.–Krauß, R., 14C-Datirungen aus Foeni–Gaz, IN: Krauß, R.–Ciubotaru, D. (mit Beitragen zur absoluten Datierung und zu den bronzezeitlichen Tierknochen von Bernhard Weninger und Georgeta El Susi), Daten zum Ende des Badener Keramikstils und dem Beginn der Frühbronzezeit aus Foeni–Gaz im rumänischen Banat, PZ, 88, 61–63.

Whitlow et al. 2013 Whitlow, R.–Kavruk, V.–Buzea, D. L.–Briewig, B., Radiocarbon data from the Cucuteni–Ariuşd levels at Păuleni–Ciuc (Ciomortan)–“Dâmbul Cetăţii”, Harghita County, ActaTS, 12, 37–64.

Winkler–Takács 1980 Winkler, I.–Takács, M., Săpăturile arheologice de la Cicău (jud. Alba). Descoperirile din epocile bronzului şi hallstattiană, Apulum, XVIII, 23–57.

Woidich 2008 Woidich, M., Die Siedlungsphase der Makó–Kosihy–Čaka–Kultur auf dem Tell von Uivar und ihrer Bedeutung für die Frühbronzezeit im rumänischen Banat, MittBGAEU, 29, 117–135.

Woidich 2009 Woidich, M., Uivar und der beginn der Bronzezeit im Rumänischen Banat, Analele Banatului, XVII, 357–365.

Woidich–Szentmiklosi 2013

Woidich, M.–Szentmiklosi, Al., Uivar and its Significance for the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the Romanian Banat, IN: Heyd, V–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V. (eds.), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions, Budapest, 233–244.

Włodarczak 2014 Włodarczak, P., The Traits of Early–Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Małopolska Groups) and Złota Culture Communities, IN: Reception Zones of ‘Early Bronze Age’ Pontic Culture Traditions: Baltic Basin – Baltic and Black Sea Dreinage Borderlands, 4/3 mil. to First Half 2 mil. BC, Poznań, 7–52.

List of figures

Fig. 1. The EBA and MBA in Banat and Lower Mureş Basin (after Gogâltan 1999a).Fig. 2. The Eastern Carpathian Basin.Fig. 3. Uivar.Fig. 4. Uivar.Fig. 5. Uivar.Fig. 6. Uivar.Fig. 7. Uivar. The sum of the probable distribution of 14C dates.Fig. 8. Foeni–Gaz. The sum of the probable distribution of 14C dates.Fig. 9. Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox.Fig. 10. The EBA and MBA in western Romania.


Fig. 11. Livezile–Baia.Fig. 12. Livezile–Baia.Fig. 13. Meteş.Fig. 14. R_Date P11. Floreşti–Polus (after Hervella et al. 2015).Fig. 15. Beclean–Băile Figa.Fig. 16. Pecica–Şanţul Mare (after O’Shea et al. 2005).Fig. 17. Pecica–Şanţul Mare (after Nicodemus–O’Shea 2015).Fig. 18. Pecica–Site 14.Fig. 19. Pecica–Site 14.Fig. 20. Pecica–Site 14.Fig. 21. Foeni–Gomila Lupului II and Giroc–Mescal (after Szentmiklosi 2009).Fig. 22. Toboliu–Dâmbu Zănăcanului.Fig. 23. The MBA in Transylvania. G-VJ (Gligoreşti–Valea Janului), GAC (Globular Amphora culture), ZMST

(Zimnicea–Mlăjet–Sânzieni–Turia).Fig. 24. Oarța de Sus.Fig. 25. Oarța de Sus.Fig. 26. Sighişoara–Dealul Viilor.Fig. 27. Vlaha–Pad.Fig. 28. Vlaha–Pad.Fig. 29. Gligoreşti–Holoame.Fig. 30. Păuleni-Ciuc. Costişa level.Fig. 31. Păuleni-Ciuc. Wietenberg level.Fig. 32. Rotbav (after Dietrich 2014).Fig. 33. Rotbav.Fig. 34. Rotbav.Fig. 35. Rotbav.Fig. 36. Rotbav.Fig. 37. The most important sites belonging to the EBA and MBA at the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin.

1. Uivar (Timiş County); 2. Foeni (Timiş County); 3. Semlac (Arad County); 4. Călățea (Bihor County); 5. Roşia (Bihor County); 6. Oradea (Bihor County); 7. Toboliu (Bihor County); 8. Otomani (Bihor County); 9. Sălacea (Bihor County); 10. Livezile (Alba County); 11. Ampoița (Alba County); 12. Meteş (Alba County); 13. Copăceni (Cluj County); 14. Floreşti (Cluj County); 15. Dăbâca (Cluj County); 16. Cicău (Alba County); 17. Cetea (Alba County); 18. Deva (Hunedoara County); 19. Războieni (Alba County); 20. Sebeş (Alba County); 21. Moreşti (Mureş County); 22. Mediaş (Sibiu County); 23. Copşa Mică (Sibiu County); 24. Tiur (Alba County); 25. Zau de Câmpie (Mureş County); 26. Șincai (Mureş County); 27. Fântânele (Bistrița County); 28. Băile Figa (Bistrița County); 29. Sânzieni (Covasna County); 30. Turia (Covasna County); 31. Feldioara (Braşov County); 32. Ariuşd (Covasna County); 33. Leliceni (Harghita County); 34. Zoltan (Covasna County); 35. Pecica (Arad County); 35. Petea (Satu Mare County); 36. Oarța de Sus (Maramureş County); 37. Suatu (Cluj County); 38. Păuleni (Harghita County); 39. Rotbav (Braşov County); 40. Sibişeni (Alba County); 41. Cluj-Napoca (Cluj County); 42. Dej (Cluj County); 43. Miceşti (Alba County); 44. Stolna (Cluj County); 45. Sighişoara (Mureş County).

Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin, 2015, p. 393–397

Abbreviations

ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens, Cambridge University pressActa ULFA Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica, ŁódźActaArch Carpathica Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Academia Scientiarum Polona Collegium Cracoviense,

KrakówActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, BudapestActaMB Acta Musei Brukenthal, SibiuActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-NapocaActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, ZalăuActaMPa Acta Musei Papensis, PápaActaPraehistArch Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, BerlinActaTS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, SibiuAEA Eurasia Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, Siberian Branch of the Russian

Academy of Sciences, NovosibirskAEAM Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Άνω Μακεδονία, The Archaeological Work in Upper

Macedonia, Archaeological Museum of AianiAegaeum Aegaeum, Le service d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de la Grèce antique, Université

de LiègeAFN Archäologische Forschungen in Niederösterreich, St.PöltenAFSB Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, DresdenAgria Agria, Annales Musei Agriensis. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), EgerAIH Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon. Archaeological Investigation in Hungary,

BudapestAJPhA American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Hoboken–OxfordAlba Regia Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, SzékesfehérvárAltertum Das Altertum, BerlinAluta Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu GheorgheAMND Archäologische Mitteilungen aus NordwestdeutschlandAnalele Banatului Analele Banatului (S.N.), TimişoaraAnali Anali Zavoda z znanstveni nad JAZU u OsijekuAngustia Angustia, Sfântu GheorgheAnnalesUA Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, Alba IuliaAnnalesUVT Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, TârgovişteANODOS Studies of the Ancient World, Trnavska univerzitaAntaeus Antaeus, BudapestAnthrAnz Anthropologischer Anzeiger, Journal of Biological and Clinical AnthropologyAnthropKözl Anthropológiai Közlemények, A Magyar Biológiai Társaság Embertani Szakosztályának

folyóirata, BudapestAntiquaries Journal The Antiquaries Journal, Society of Antiquaries of LondonAntiquitas Antiquitas, BonnAntiquity Antiquity, LondonAÖS Archäologie Österreichs Sonderausgabe, WienApulum Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba IuliaArchaeolingua SM Archaeolingua Seria Minor, BudapestArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca, WienArchBohemia Archaeology in BohemiaArchBulg Archaeologia Bulgarica, SofiaArchD Archäologie in Deutschland, Darmstadt

394 | Abbreviations

ArchE Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am RheinArcheologický Sborník Archeologický Sborník, K šedesátým narozeninám Vratislava Janáka, OpavaArcheometriai Műhely Archeometriai Műhely elektronikus folyóirat, BudapestArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő, BudapestArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica, BudapestArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in

MainzArchNeuchâteloise Archéologie neuchâteloise, NeuchâtelArchPol Archaeologia Polona, WarszawaArchRoz Archeologické Rozhledy, PragueArchS Archäologie in SalzburgArheo Slovensko Archeološko DruštvoArhMold Arheologia Moldovei, IaşiArhVest Arheološki vestnik (Acta Archaeologica), LubljanaASGE Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, LeningradASMCommunicationes Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes, NitraAUSBp Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae,

Sectio Historica, BudapestAVJC Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách, Historická budova Jihočeského muzea v

Českých BudějovicíchBAR British Archaeological Reports, International Series/British Series, OxfordBayerVorgeschbl Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, MünchenBB Bibliotheca Brukenthal, SibiuBBÁMÉ Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve, SzekszárdBeiträge MK Beiträge zu ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes,

BonnBeiträge UFM Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, WeissbachBerliner Jahrbuch Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, BerlinBerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, FrankfurtBHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, TimişoaraBIP Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, TulceaBLDAM Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches

Landesmuseum, WünsdorfBM Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia MareBMA Bibliotheca Mvsei Apvlensis, Alba IuliaBMM Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Târgu MureşBMS Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, SebeşBT Bibliotheca Thracologica, BucureştiBTMM Budapest Történeti Múzeum, MűhelyBuletinMJT Buletinul Muzeului Județean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie, AlexandriaCarpica Carpica, BacăuCastellum PP Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, BudapestCatalogi et Monographie Catalogi et Monographie, LjubljanaCCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din RomâniaCCDJ Centrul Cultural Dunărea de Jos, GalaţiČlanci i Građa Članci i Građa Tuzla, Muzej Istočne Bosne, TuzlaCMM Časopis Moravského Muzea. Vědy společenské, BrnoComArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, BudapestCSPS Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností, PragueCsSzMÉ Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve, Miercurea CiucDacia (N.S.) Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948),

Bucureşti; Nouvelle Série (N.S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene, Bucureşti

Danubius Revista Muzeului de Istorie GalaţiDer Schlern Der Schlern, Monatszeitschrift für Südtiroler Landeskunde, Konstanz

Abbreviations | 395

DissArch Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque, BrnoDissArchBudapest Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando

Eötvös nominatae, BudapestDissPann Dissertationes Pannonicae, ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis

de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, BudapestDobrudža Istoričeski Muzej v Dobrič i v Silistra, VarnaDocuments préhistoriques Annales littéraires de l’Université de BesançonDunántúli Szemle Dunántúli (Vasi) Szemle (1933–1944), SzombathelyEA Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens, BerlinEAE Experimentelle Archäeology in Europa, Uhldingen-MühlhofenEJA European Journal of ArchaeologyEphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-NapocaEPRO Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romainERAUL Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de LiègeErdélyi TudFüz Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek, Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület kiadása, KolozsvárFAP Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses, PragueFB Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg, StuttgartFBBW Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-WürttembergFDS Forschungen zur Denkmalpflege in Südtirol, TrentoFÖ Fundberichte aus Österreich, WienFolArch Folia Archeologica, BudapestFolPraehPos Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia, PoznańForschStillfried Forschungen in Stillfried, Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für

Ur- u. Frühgeschichte, WienGAS Gothenburg Archaeological Studies, GöteborgGermania Germania, Frankfurt am MainGyulai Katalógusok Gyulai Katalógusok, GyulaHistorica Carpatica Historica Carpatica, KosiceHOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, MiskolcHungArch Hungarian Archaeology e-journalIA Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.IANSA Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology. Archaeological

Centre OlomoucIHAD Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, ZagrebIJRAT International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, online journalInstrumentum Instrumentum, Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l’artisanat et les productions

manufacturées dans l’AntiquitéIntArchA-STK Internationale Archäologie Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress,

LeidorfISPRS International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing – International

Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information SciencesIstros Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, BrăilaIUPUAS Indiana University Publications Uralic and Altaic Series, BloomingtonJahrbuch DAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin Jahrbuch RGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, MainzJahrIVUF Jahresbericht des Institut für Vorgeschichte des Universität Frankfurt a. M.JAS Journal of Archaeological Science, LondonJEA Journal of European Archaeology, DurhamJPMÉ A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, PécsJWP Journal of World PrehistoryKorrespondenzblatt AEU Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und

Urgeschichte, MünchenLAF Linzer Archäologische Forschungen, LinzLDMK A Laczkó Dezső Múzeum Közleménye, VeszprémMAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien

396 | Abbreviations

Marisia Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu MureşMarmatia Marmatia, Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean Maramureş, Baia MareMAS Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca, NitraMBVF Münchener Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, MünchenMCA (S. N.) Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, BucureştiMemAnt Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, BucureştiMemorie Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo,

VeronaMemorii Memoriile Academiei Române, BucureştiMFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, SzegedMoravské Křižovatky Moravské Křižovatky, Střední Podunají mezi pravěkem a historií, Moravské zemské

muzeum, BrnoMousaios Mousaios, Buzău–BrăilaMPK Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommision der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, WienMSVF Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, MarburgMusaica Musaica, BratislavaMuzejski vjesnik Muzejski vjesnik, VarazdinMΩMOΣ MΩMOΣ, Őskoros Kutatók Összejövetelének konferenciaköteteMИA MИA, MoscovaNotizieS Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, RomaObavijesti HAD Obavijesti Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, ZagrebOffa Offa, Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und

Mittelalterarchäologie, NeumünsterOpArch Opuscula Archaeologica, Arheološki zavod, Filozofski fakultet u ZagrebOpera IAS Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, LjubljanaŐsrégészeti levelek Ősrégészeti levelek. Prehistoric newsletter, BudapestPamArch Památky Archeologické, PrahaPannonkör Füzetek Pannon Kulturális Örökség Füzetek, KőszegPAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, MünchenPAT Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum, Cluj-NapocaPBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, StuttgartPJZ Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja, SarajevoPLoS ONE PLoS ONE. Open Access journal, San Francisco, CambridgePraehistorica Praehistorica, PrahaPraehistorica Basel Praehistorica, BaselPravěk Nř Pravěk Nová řada, Ústav archeologické památkové péče, BrnoPrilozi IAZ Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, ZagrebPrzArch Przegląd Archeologiczny, WrocławPZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, BerlinRáckevei Múzeumi füzetek Ráckevei Múzeumi füzetek, RáckeveRadiocarbon Radiocarbon, International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research, TucsonRadMV Rad Muzeja VojvodineRadVM Rad Vojvođanskih muzeja, Novi SadRégFüz Régészeti Füzetek, BudapestRevArh Revista Arhivelor (S.N.), BucureştiRevBis Revista Bistriţei, BistrițaRevMuz Revista Muzeelor, BucureştiRGF Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Mainz–BerlinRGZM Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien, Bonn–MainzRJA Romanian Journal of Archaeology, onlineRKM Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon, BudapestRSP Rivista di scienze preistoriche, FlorenceSAA Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iaşi

Abbreviations | 397

Savaria Savaria Pars Archaeologica, SzombathelySAX Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, BudapestSBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, BonnSCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), BucureştiSibrium Sibrium, Center of Prehistoric and Archaeological Studies of VareseSlovArch Slovenská Archeológia, NitraSMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, GöteborgSMA Seria Monografii Arheologice, Sfântu GheorgheSMK Somogy Megyei Múzeumok, Kaposvár SNMP Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, řada A – Historie. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae,

Series A – Historia, PrahaSovArh Sovjetska ArheologijaSpecimina EA Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis, PécsSpecimina Nova Specimina Nova Dissertationum ex Institutom Historico Universitatis

Quinqueecclesiensis de Jano Pannonio nominatae, PécsSPM Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum zum frühen Mittelalter. La Suisse du Paléolithique à

l’aube du Moyen-Âge BaselSprArch Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, KrakówSSMA Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde, SaarbrückenStarinar N. S. Starinar, Arheološki institute, BeogradStC Maramureşene Studii şi Cercetări Maramureşene, Baia MareStCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu MareStCom Sibiu Studii şi Comunicări, SibiuStudArch Brunensia Studia archaeologica Brunensia, BrnoStudArch Slovaca Studia Archaeologica Slovaca Instituti Archaeologici Acadaemiae Scientiarum, NitraStudArchMed Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia, BratislavaStudia Troica Studia Troica, Universität TübingenStudie AUCAB Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie vĕd v Brnĕ, PrahaStudii de Preistorie Asociaţia Română de Arheologie, BucureştiStudii Semitici Studii Semitici, RomaŠtudijné zvesti Študijné zvesti, Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, NitraSympThrac Symposia Thracologica, BucureştiTerra Sebus Terra Sebus, Acta Musei Sabesiensis, SebeşThraco-Dacica Thraco-Dacica, BucureştiTisicum Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, SzolnokTransRev Transylvanian Review, Cluj-NapocaTVMK Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei, TapolcaTyragetia Tyragetia (S.N.), Anuarul Muzeului Naţional de Istorie al Moldovei, ChişinăuUPA Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, BonnVAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, BudapestVAMZ Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u ZagrebuVF Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, BerlinVIA KÖK VIA, Kulturális és Örökségvédelmi Kismonográfiák. Monographia Minor in Cultural

Heritage, BudapestVMK Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, WienVMMK A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, VeszprémVMUFP Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte PotsdamVrancea Vrancea Studii şi Comunicări, VranceaWMMÉ Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve, SzekszárdZalai Múzeum Zalai Múzeum, Közlemények Zala megye múzeumaiból, ZalaegerszegZbornik IA Zbornik Instituta za Arheologiju, ZagrebZborník SNM Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, BratislavaZiridava Ziridava, Studia Archaeologica, AradŽupanjski Zbornik Županjski Zbornik, Zavičajni muzeja Županja