Prehistoric settlements: social, economic and cultural aspects Seven studies in the Carpathian area
PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENTS: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ASPECTS SEVEN STUDIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
Editors
FLORIN GOGÂLTAN CRISTINA CORDOȘ
EDITURA MEGA ■ Cluj-Napoca ■ 2016
This book was edited with the financial suport of a grant offered by the National Autority for Scientific Research, CNCS-UEFSCDI, project PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-020
Project hosted by the Institute of Archaeology and History of Art of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca
ISBN 978-606-543-777-7 Descrierea CIP este disponibilă la Biblioteca Națională a României.
DTP: Francisc BAJA Cover: Graphic reconstructions of a house and huts found at Babadag (drawings by D. Luchian and C. Geanbai)
© Florin Gogâltan, Cristina Cordoș, 2016
Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e‑mail:
[email protected]
CONTENT
9
Introductory remarks (Florin Gogâltan, Cristina Cordoș)
19
Looking for collectors and finding foragers: Notes on settlement variability during the European Upper Paleolithic (Mircea Anghelinu)
33
Territory, subsistence strategies and mobility patterns in the Coțofeni communities. Case study: the hilly area of the Sebeș Valley (Cristian Ioan Popa)
73
Settlement system during Middle Bronze Age in the south-western area of the Cracău-Bistrița basin, eastern Romania (Neculai Bolohan)
87
Building power without power? Bronze Age fortified settlements on the Lower Mureș Basin (Florin Gogâltan)
115
Developements in mid-second milenniun BC in northern Muntenia (Archaeological investigations in the Prahova River basin) (Alin Frînculeasa)
181
The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Lower Mureş Basin. An Overview (Victor Sava, Ana Ignat)
201
Before the Greeks. The Early Iron Age in Dobrudja (Sorin-Cristian Ailincăi)
237
List of Abbreviations
To the memory of Alexandru Vulpe (1931–2016) (Costișa 2003, photo by Anca Popescu)
SETTLEMENT SYSTEM DURING MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTH-WESTERN AREA OF THE CRACĂU-BISTRIȚA BASIN, EASTERN ROMANIA1 Neculai Bolohan „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași
[email protected]
Abstract: The investigation of the housing structures in earlier periods of the human history requires constant analysis and synthesis of the field data. This intention should be accompanied by the permanent integration and the use of some research methods to enrich and diversify the questions and the answers on prehistoric habitation systems. This attempt proposes the analysis of some contemporary dwelling structures (Borleşti, Costișa, Siliştea etc.) situated in the southern and south-western part of the Cracău-Bistrița catchment area. The geographical unit has a transition role between the Subcarpathian area itself and the Moldavian Plateau. In recent years, we witnessed an increase in the usage of non-invasive archaeological methods in prehistoric research in Romania. These methods helped to reassess some old data regarding the site at Siliștea and to identify new data, which could allow a “new lecture” of this particular site. The stronghold uncovered at Siliștea -Pe Cetățuie sheds, through its situation and inventory, new lights, which help to refine the characteristics of an archaeological culture, which was first discovered and named by Professor Alexandru Vulpe, the Costișa culture. The investigations done at Siliștea indicate the existence of a settlement bounded on the south by a defense ditch, supplemented by other ditches visible through non-invasive research methods. For the fulfillment of the goal, a more careful analysis of the geographical factors is necessary, as well as an appropriate connection between them and the archaeological data. In this regard, I have included a series of items (structure, surface, type of connectivity, visibility, exposure etc.) that were applied to understand the less visible history of contemporary sites and the adjacent spaces that provides the connection of these. Keywords: Middle Bronze Age, strongholds, western Moldavia, settlements pattern
Introduction
A
lthough it was uncovered and defined at the beginning of the 1960s2, we know rather little about the Costișa culture. I would say that, with regard to this particular culture, we have rather working hypotheses and assumptions than solid scientific knowledge. We do not have yet a clear picture on its system of settlement, funerary customs, communication system, landscape, and an overall chronology. On the account of the artifacts uncovered and their dominant features, we can assert the presence of this particular cultural aspect in the area between the Siret River and the Oriental 1
2
This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007–2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU 89/1.5/S/61104. We owe Professor Alexandru Vulpe and his collaborator Mihai Zămoșteanu the discovery and the first cultural classification of the Costișa pottery group (Vulpe 1961; Vulpe, Zămoșteanu, 1962). The discussions I had with both Professors when I was pupil in the high school and student were able to draw my attention to the issue of the Costișa culture that they have discovered and defined. At this point, memory and my thanks go to both alike.
73
Carpathian Mountains, stretching to the center of Moldavia. The mapping of the discoveries points towards a preference for the hills and the Subcarpathian basins (Pl. 1)3. Although some of the Costișa pottery features are present in artifacts uncovered on the Eastern bank of the Siret River, the extension of the group to that area is not generally accepted, given the fact that we do not have yet a site in that area which could present all the features of this specific group. The Costișa ceramic features observed in some discoveries made in the area between the Siret River and the Prut River could indicate the acculturation of the peripheral areas4. These exchanges, imports or assimilations could have been extended to the communities in Eastern Moldavia, as well. Moreover, there are indications of a communication exchange system towards eastern Transylvania, Podolia, Volhynia, and even Slovakia. In the last decades, some of Professor Alexandru Vulpe’s former students and collaborators initiated and continued the research on representative sites of this pottery group5. These researchers brought new contributions regarding the characteristic features, its cultural connections and its chronologic and spatial relation with the Monteoru group and the contemporary cultures in Eastern Transylvania. Additionally, the first radiocarbon data regarding Siliștea and Costișa were published, bringing more light in regards to the chronological borders previously ascribed to these communities6. Furthermore, new methods and approaches started to be applied in the research of the Costișa pottery group, such as the non-invasive methods, which allowed the collection of data unavailable through the traditional investigation of the field. The non-invasive research allows a multivariate lecture of the data collected on the field and an increasing degree of accuracy of the standard information.
The location The research done at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie (Neamț County) completed and multiplied the previous data regarding the Costișa pottery group. A fortified settlement was investigated at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie, situated on a hill, at the height of 448 m above the sea level (Pl. 2). It dominates from the south-east the entire Cracău-Bistrița basin, and it was connected to the communication routes crossing the area. Likewise, it has a good visibility of a large section of the middle basin of the Siret River7, which may be seen as the main communication route for the eastern Carpathian regions in the Bronze Age. For understanding the connections and the ranking of the habitation structures from the area some comments on two other contemporary sites were included: CostișaCetățuie and Borlești-Dealul Runcu8. The research that defined the Costișa culture, carried out for the first site, emphasized the relative and absolute chronology and analyzed, on the account of the stratigraphical record, the relations between Monterou and Costișa cultures9. The stronghold from Costișa-Cetățuie is located in an area with a clear view to the west, towards the middle basin of the River Bistrița. The settlement at Borleşti-Dealul Runcu is located on a hill that dominates from the west the middle basin of Bistrița, as well as a possible route of communication flowing into the Tazlău basin, where there are other contemporary sites10. There is a very good visibility from this 3
See the Pl. 1 showing the archaeological sites mentioned in the text: 1. Borlești-Dealul Cucului; 2. Borlești-Dealul Runcu; 3. Borlești-Dealul Runcu 1; 4. Borlești-Dealul Runcu 2; 5. Buhuși-Budești; 6. Costișa-Cetățuie; 7. CostișaDealul Bisericiii; 8. Costișa-Dealul Stanciului; 9. Luminiș-Deleni; 10. Piatra Șoimului-Horodiște; 11. PodoleniDealul Teiului; 12. Români-Vatra Satului; 13. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie; 14. Traian-Dealul Fântânilor. 4 Cavruc, Dumitroaia 2001. See the map attached to this volume. 5 Among these are the research done at Poduri (Dumitroaia 2000, 136 and map 5), Lunca (Dumitroaia 2000, 135, 141–146), Costișa (Popescu, Băjenaru 2008, 277–294), Siliștea (Bolohan 2004, 2010). 6 Bolohan 2010, 237–240, Tab. I, Popescu 2013, Fig. 4–5. 7 Wheatley, Gillings 2002, 179–180. 8 Florescu 1970, 51–81. 9 Popescu 2006, 313–322; Popescu, Băjenaru 2004, 277–294; Popescu, Băjenaru 2008, 23–57 and the detailed bibliography concerning the topic; Vulpe 1961, 105–122; Vulpe, Zămoşteanu 1962, 309–316. 10 Munteanu 2010, 34, 47 and the bibliography.
74
location towards the contemporary settlements from the Costișa -Cetățuie (13.5 km) and Siliştea -Cetățuie (19.4 km). All three settlements occupy areas with soils that do not allow the practicing of agriculture in the proximity. Close fresh-water sources are lacking at Siliştea, while at Borleşti and at Costișa they are sufficient (Pl. 3). Considering these facts, the reasons that determined these communities to settle in the area of the Cracău-Bistrița basin are still unclear.
Preliminary data concerning Siliștea, Costișa and Borlești The data collected during the excavations conducted from 2000 to 2004 at Siliștea (Pl. 4) confirmed the preliminary hypotheses and brought to light new information regarding the system of settlements in the Middle Bronze Age11. Thus, the settlement was placed on a triangular plateau, with its basis towards the south and the tip oriented to the north. The first measurements indicated that the maximum length of this triangle, on the longitudinal axis, was of approximately 110 m, and the length of the basis had approximately 70 m. This points to the existence, on this surface, of a classical structure, characteristic of other prehistoric fortified settlements. This hypothesis is confirmed by the existence of a defense ditch, visible even today to the naked eye, which has an actual depth of 3.00 m. This ditch closed the access to the settlement from the south. Without elaborating on the excavation method applied at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie, it should be mentioned that, initially, a section of 30x2 m was excavated, in order to check the defense ditch details, its connection with the inhabited plateau and the horizontal and vertical stratigraphy of the site. The excavation confirmed the anthropic character of the defense ditch, revealing a maximum depth of –3.20 m from ground level, and a width of 15.00 m (Pl. 5). Towards the east, the pattern of the defense ditch could not be determined, as the soil was affected by the forestry work nearby. Towards the west, the defense ditch is more open and it loses in the steep slope (up to 30°) of the hill. The ditch slopes were plated with the sandstone extracted from the inhabited plateau, which was a novelty in the construction of this type of structures12. Deprived of providing a full inventory of the discoveries made at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie, it might be said that they correspond to the standard inventory of the Costișa pottery group. Nevertheless, the inventory presents a few exceptional features, consisting in the shape and the decoration of pottery (for instance the pottery decorated with Bessenstrich), and the large number of metal artifacts, namely the large number of Noppenringe of the Central European type. The general assessment of the discoveries made at Siliștea indicate that this site presents almost all the features of the Costișa pottery group, spread in the northern regions of Moldavia and the eastern parts of Transylvania. The large number of ceramic fragments belonging to the Monteoru IC3-IC2, which, however, do not overwhelm the number of the Costișa ceramic findings, represents another distinctive feature of the archaeological inventory of the Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie site. The presence of Monteoru IC3-IC2 pottery, together with the local pottery and the horizontal stratigraphy data, point out that Siliștea was an example of peaceful coexistence and not a violent exclusion of the other. At Costișa-Cetățuie, Neamț County13, there is a fortified settlement which is structured in two distinct sectors, Plateau A and B Plateau, naturally delineated from the rest of the terrace. The site is located on the high terrace of the Bistrița River, where conditions are created for a good visibility and inter-visibility westwards, for a large part of the Cracău-Bistrița basin. Approximately at the same altitude and in the same geographic context, there are the Costișa-Dealul Bisericii toward the south and Costișa-Dealul Stanciului to the north. It can be said that here we face a central structure, flanked by at least two other contemporary territorial structures. The authors of the research have envisioned, on the basis of the classical archaeological analysis, a succession between the 11
The partial results of the research done at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie have already been published with several occasions (Bolohan 2003; Bolohan 2004; Bolohan 2010). 12 See supra. 13 Munteanu 2010, 44–45 and the references.
75
Costișa and Monteoru cultures. In fact, the last coming community have “buried” the debris materials belonging to the Costișa culture14. Research conducted in the Borleşti area, Neamț County, has identified an area of approximately 50 ha of another type of habitation. Thus, in the area of Dealul Runcu, on a plateau15, an open main settlement is located and, on the foothills, there are two other settlements, located to the north-west and the south-east16. The absence of a real fortification and the location of some satellite settlements constituted a premiere for the Costișa culture. Finally, in the west-south-west, a deposit of copper and some bronze axes were discovered17. Marilena Florescu, who coordinated the 1969 archeological survey, had glimpsed and argued on the account of the stratigraphy and the functional and typological analysis the existence of two stages in the development of the Costișa culture. The assignment to the first stage of the Costișa culture crystallization, by means of the transitional aspect of the pottery, was proposed for the investigated site. The image of habitations on the southern part of the Cracău-Bistrița basin in the Middle Bronze Age is supplemented by other settlement structures (Buhuși-Budești, Luminiș-Deleni, Piatra Șoimului/Calu-Horodiştea, PodoleniDealul Teiului, Români-Vatra Satului, Traian-Dealul Fântânilor) with a low attendance rate, which should be understood in the context of the Middle Bronze Age regional network habitation18.
The importance of the non-invasive investigations19 The non-invasive investigations, considered for a long time a “ghost” by the local archaeological scholarship, became a real tool of research, and are lately viewed as a necessary method in “reading” the archaeological context. Within the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, the Interdisciplinary Research Platform in the Field of Archaeology managed to prepare specialists in the field of non-invasive survey. In the European archaeological research, these methods have already a long history and played a major role in the interdisciplinary research. In the particular case of Siliștea, such inter-disciplinary methods were not applied in the beginning. Thus, during the five campaigns conducted between 2000 and 2004, there were applied only “classical” research techniques and it was attempted, through the observations done on the field and the archaeological context, to adapt my research to the given conditions. Nonetheless, in the latest campaigns, having the chance to work with a magnetometer and a GPR – Ground Penetrating Radar, the geomagnetic research was applied at Siliștea, in a deforested area, representing a third of the Bronze Age settlement20. The results confirmed some of the data obtained through “classical” methods and some new directions of research became possible. In the southeastern part of the area under investigation, the accuracy of the measurements appears to have been affected by the recent archaeological camps placed there and the large surfaces previously unearthed.
The geomagnetic prospection The non-destructive investigations and the “classical” archaeological excavations have common research goals. Although they use different methods, both approaches aim to identify, 14 15 16 17 18 19
Popescu, Băjenaru 2008. Florescu 1970, 56. Florescu 1970, 52. Zămoșteanu 1964. For references see Munteanu 2010, 42–49. For this study I have used as the core of the presentation various researches made at Siliştea-Pe Cetățuie site. These could be applied to other sites in the area of study. On this occasion I wish to draw again the attention to the need for jointing all possible investigation methods in order to better the results of observations. 20 Research carried out between 2010–2013 by Andrei Asăndulesei and Adrian Felix Tencariu from the Interdisciplinary Research Platform in the Field of Archaeology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași.
76
analyze and interpret ancient archaeological remains. It is essential for archaeology, as a science, to benefit from various methods of investigation, which could significantly improve the final interpretation of a site. Apart from the “classical” research methods, modern archaeological research benefits from the non-destructive investigation methods, such as archaeological topography, aerial photography, as well as applying geophysical methods and 3D laser scanning to an archaeological site. The usage of non-invasive methods in archaeology is, in many aspects, superior to traditional methods, because is cost effective and does not have a destructive effect on the researched area. Perceived in the past just as auxiliary research methods, meant to signal the concentration of archaeological material in certain areas, the non-invasive methods are considered today essential to the general process of interpretation. The research has to be done in a unitary manner, with the collaboration of the archaeologists in charge of prospecting and those who work on the excavation as such. In order to reach the proposed goal, a common methodology has to be followed, allowing the exchange of data between the two branches of research. Both data, gathered from prospection or through excavation, are spatial and can be translated in a digital form, such as geographical maps or drawings, which are easy accessible. The standardization of research in archaeology was imposed by the usage of an obligatory international geographic system (GIS- Geographic Information System), which represents a collection of people, equipments, programs, methods and norms, having as common goal to register, store, verify, integrate, analyze, observe and disseminate the geographical data concerning the archaeological space21. My study is based on an interdisciplinary approach, gathering data coming from archaeological topography and obtained through non-invasive methods, such as the micro-topography of the archaeological space and the magnetometric mapping, using the GPR technology. The data gathered through modern technologies completes what was already known through the traditional archaeological excavation. Magnetometry is one of the most productive research methods applied in archaeology because it is extremely time effective: there can be applied up to ten measurements per second. Moreover, the accuracy of the spatial resolution is the highest among ground geophysical investigation methods. Applied to the areas surrounding the settlement, the usage of the mobile multi-sensor dispositive increases the accuracy of interpreting the geographical features of the landscape22. The GPR (Ground-Penetrating Radar) technology is used to validate the data obtained through the magnetometric method. Lately, this method has become very popular among archaeologists, given the increased level of precision in offering hints of unearthed archaeological material. It is considered the most complex geophysical method applied in archaeology because it generates an increased number of information in a shorter period. Although it has the ability to produce images with very good resolution at different depths, their interpretation sometimes proves delicate. Also, the difficulty to correlate profiles in a plaid is one of the few things which can make this a tedious method for the uninitiated23. It is the most efficient of the prospecting methods applied in archaeology, because it offers a clear image of the different depths and contents of the archaeological field. The principal benefit of the GPR method resides in offering a 3D image of the archaeological site.
The Magnetometric method The results obtained at Siliștea through non-invasive investigations were restricted by the particular features of the landscape and by the thick vegetation, which covers the site. The approach employed by the prospecting team was determined by the defensive character of the 21 22 23
Wheatley, Gillings 2002, 8. Becker 2009, 129; Kvamme 2006, 205. Conyers, Goodman 1997, 11; Conyers 2004, 11.
77
settlement, namely by the steep slopes which surround it. The measurements were done with a cesium vapor magnetometer, namely the G858 model, manufactured by the American company Geometrics. During measurements, the magnetometer was installed on a mobile device, provided by Geometrics, and was used as a horizontal gradiometer, with two sensors with a distance of 1 m between them and at 0.3 m above ground level. It covered a surface of 36 m width and 140 m length. It used the function (which operates faster) mapped survey, which allowed the bidirectional collection of data, among profiles situated at a distance of 1 m, and a speed of 11 readings per meter. This manner of reading the data is superior because it allows observing, editing and verifying the obtained information during the measurement process. Before the process is initiated, the field has to be cleared of all the objects which could disturb the accuracy of the magnetometer. For instance, all metal pieces have to be cleared from the field because it can influence the efficiency of measurements. For processing, the data obtained with the magnetometer were used the following programs: MagMap and MagPick (incorporated in the magnetometer) and a type of GIS program (ArcGis).Images of high quality and excellent mappings of the site were acquired. The next step was to register the data in accordance to the standard language.
The GPR technology The system used in our research is the one designed by the Malå Geoscience Company, namely the Ramac X 3M. This equipment is used for prospecting in archaeology, enginery and geology. It is easy to use, very flexible, and it functions with any type of antenna, with a frequency of 100 MHz and 2.3 GHz. This piece of equipment has three main components: the control unit, the viewing device (a small portable computer, which records, process and displays the collected data), and the various antennae, which are protected by a shell. We used an antenna with a frequency of 250 MHz covering, initially, a surface of 35x130 m, later on extended towards the north, on a surface of 35x20m. The distance between lines was set at 1 m, resulting in 35 GPR profiles and the arrangements to acquire being unidirectional for the bigger square and bidirectional for the second, smaller one. The length of the profile measures between 66 m and 120 m, determined by the landscape, with a part of the site covered by forest. In this case, the GPR method was used as an accessory to the magnetometric method, helping to refine the previous results.
The Results At the beginning of this research at Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie, the goals were to use the magnetometric and the GPR non-invasive methods on the archaeological site, and to process the obtained data in GIS (Pl. 7/a,b,c). The data obtained through these methods were interpreted in the framework of the results obtained primarily through excavation. Thus, Pl. 7 displays what I considered as one of the most important findings, concerning the fortification elements of the settlement, namely its anthropic delimitation. The 3D model of the Siliștea site and the analysis of its topography (Pl. 7/a-b) revealed, through an increased magnetic signal at certain points, two positive magnetic anomalies of large dimensions, situated in the northern extremity of the site (Pl. 6/a, features 2 and 3). They are beyond the main defense ditch, visible to the naked eye and previously uncovered during excavations (Pl. 6/a, feature 1). The shape of these anomalies appears to correspond to the stronghold, which is still visible today. The large concentrations of archaeological record, with an increased magnetic signal, generating positive anomalies (probably determined by the burning effect), could indicate the presence of archaeological complexes on the spot. They are mostly present in the central area of the scanned surface, presenting structures of large dimensions (of 10x10 m or larger, as in Pl. 6/a, features 4 and 5). The magnetometer picked up some other anomalies, as well. For instance, it detected the presence of metal fragments underground of the spot where the middle of the settlement would have been. The fragments collected from these 78
areas are of reduced dimensions (for a better understanding to compare with Pl. 6/a, feature 6). The device also detected the anomalies produced by contemporary events (the excavations and the camp). Unfortunately, we registered some malfunctions during the scanning process. Because we postponed for a day the scanning of a 20mx36m surface, we registered some magnetic anomalies on that spot, generated by the diurnal variations of the Earth’s magnetic field (see Pl. 6/c feature 1). In this case, filtration and removal were not an option.
Attempt for some conclusions The use of some satellite images, available to anyone, might allow a more clear location of the sites investigated in the area of study, their spatial distribution and the development of predictive models, to boost a new kind of reading the past. For the actual attempt, I have started to include the river system as an integral part of the landscape, as the main factor that has shaped and reshaped the landscape or the behavior of communities. The components of the hydrographic network have gained the status of an artifact, which transformed or caused, through energy and resources, the configuration of the subsistence patterns24. In this scenario, Bistrița River and some of its tributaries played the most important role. Virtually, all the settlements were located on the central axis of the river, which was probably the main way of communication. The high terrace offered the ideal place, given that it provided natural visibility. The location on the left bank (Budeşti, Costișa, Podoleni, Traian) was favored for the good solar exposure. Less frequently used was the right terrace of the river (Piatra Șoimului-Horodişte, the settlements from the Borleşti area), which is understandable, given that Bistrița River had meandered character after leaving the mountains, downstream of Piatra Neamț, as well as a different cultural profile of the respective communities. They seem to have been in an obvious connection with the contemporary settlements along the Nechit Stream or Tazlău River, maybe even acted as a gateway to the latter. A very interesting matter consists of the survival of specific toponyms for naming the fortified structures (Cetăţuie for the Costișa and Siliştea sites25 and Horodişte to the site from Piatra Șoimului). These facts prove the perpetuation of the collective memory and group identity. The mapping of the MBA contemporary discoveries shows a linear arrangement of the fortified structures (the Costișa-Cetățuie, Siliştea-Pe Cetățuie, Piatra Șoimului-Horodişte). The same arrangement can be traced also for the open settlements. All of them were located along the left high terraces of the Bistrița River, which have the appearance of bridges (Costișa-Cetățuie, CostișaDealul Stanciului, Podoleni), and tried to capitalize the terrain conditions. In the absence of extensive research throughout these natural formations used by the Bronze Age communities, is still difficult to identify possible hierarchies among them. Until now, the site of the Costișa-Cetățuie, through the toponimy, its location within the broader context of the basin, the visibility, the content and duration of attendance, as well as through the character of discoveries, seems to have held a privileged place in the linear imagined network. The natural slopes were used to amplify the defensive character of the settlements in the area. On the right side of Bistrița River, the central settlement of Borleşti, which had also been archaeologically investigated, has a kind of a fortification system, even if the steep slopes would have been rather effective in preventing easy access. The northern slope has an inclination of 28.8%, while the western one is up to 24.5%. Likewise, the eastern slope inclination is up to 17.7% and the northern slope inclination up to 15.6%, providing the connection to Dealul Runcu. The same model can be envisioned for the other two settlements in Dealul Runcu area, as well as for the one in the 24 Edgeworth 2011, 18–32 25 In a document dated 13 December 1585 is referred to the Bârjovenii village under Gorodişte (DIR, XVI, vol. III, 297, doc. no. 363), which in 1774 will be incorporated within the Siliştea village of the Bistrița administrative unit, Tezaur I, Partea 1, 87 and Tezaur II, Partea 2a, 1063. G(h)orodiște is the ancient Slavic name for a fortified settlement.
79
center of the Borlești village. This settlement pattern could be linked to the existence of an access road from Tazlău valley to the Bistrița valley, through the Nechit stream. The exploitation of the natural condition is visible at Siliştea-Pe Cetățuie, where the northern slopes of the hill26 have an inclination up to 52.00%, without decreasing on the western or eastern slopes below 32.00%. The southern area of the settlement has been amended by anthropogenic ditches, one visible today, which blocked the access from the south. The location in a dominant position of the Cracău-Bistrita basin (448 m, maximum altitude), which provides increased visibility over much of the basin27 and towards the middle basin of the Siret River28, gives to the fortified settlement a special rank within the highly hierarchy system at the border between the two cultures. The analysis of some environmental factors, coupled with the results of the archaeological research, could provide a model in which the sites from Siliştea and Borleşti-Dealul Runcu seem to be in connection with settlements outside the area of study (Răcăciuni, Poduri, etc). The mainly north orientation of the two settlements could be an additional argument. The other component of habitation model with linear structure consists of settlements on the left terrace of the Bistrița River. One may say that there are two contemporary worlds, apparently separate as habitation models, which have realized the mundane space on the geographical pattern represented by the southern or western rim of the Cracău-Bistrița basin. In this scenario, the hydrographic network provided access and control, acting as an artifact which was simply modeled, but in its turn also modeled behaviors. Although we analyzed in the first instance the possible existence of two contemporary worlds living in the same space, these worlds were not seen as independent entities, but treated as complementary. To further enhance and diversify the observations, the application of a standard methodology is recommended, given the diverse nature of archaeological repertories and the limited effectiveness of each method. It is considered more efficient (as proved by the research at Siliștea)29 to combine the geographical and the geophysical research and process their data by different means (Pl. 6/b). This enhances the accuracy of the data interpretation, with better results than the separate application of these methods. The topographic research confirmed the correspondence between the anomalies recorded by the magnetometer and those picked up by the GPR (Pl. 6/c), which made clear their principal features: position, shape, amplitude etc. The research of settlements in the studied area will be completed when I will have the opportunity to implement some other non-invasive methods, such as the so-called “remote sensing methods”. The intention is to combine the data obtained from other archaeological sites, situated in the Cracău-Bistrița basin. Thus, we will have a better image of the inhabited areas in this region; the type of settlements and the routes it was crossed by. This piece of research is only the beginning of a larger study.
Sources: DIR. Documente privind istoria României, XVI A. (Moldova), III (1571–1590), ed. Ionașcu, I., LăzărescuIonescu, L., Câmpina, B., Stănescu, E., Prodan, D., București, 1951. Tezaur 1. Tezaurul toponimic al României. Moldova. Volumul I. Repertoriul istoric al unităţilor administrativ-teritoriale. 1772–1988, Volumul I, Partea 1, Bucureşti, 1991. 26 The steep inclination of the northern slopes seems to be due to unpredictable results of combining human factors and the environmental factors that led to land sliding, which affected the northern part of the hill and the settlement. 27 West of the site, there is direct visibility to the Borlești-Dealul Runcu to be found at 19.3 km. There is no visibility between Costişa-Cetățuie and Siliştea-Pe Cetățuie sites. 28 See Pl. 3. From the highest point of the settlement Roman city, located 20.5 km N-E, and Piatra Neamț city, to the N-W about 28.00 km, are visible. 29 At this stage, the core research is represented by the multiple investigation on Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie.
80
Tezaur 2. Tezaurul toponimic al României. Moldova. Volumul I, Repertoriul istoric al unităţilor administrativ-teritoriale. 1772–1988, Volumul I, partea a 2-a, Bucureşti, 1992.
References: Becker 2009
Bolohan 2003 Bolohan 2004
Bolohan 2010
Cavruc, Dumitroaia 2001 Conyers 2004 Conyers, Goodman 1997 Dumitroaia 2000 Edgeworth 2011 Florescu 1970 Kvamme 2006
Munteanu 2010 Popescu 2006
Popescu 2013
Popescu, Băjenaru 2004 Popescu, Băjenaru 2008 Vulpe 1961 Vulpe, Zămoşteanu 1962 Wheatley, Gillings 2002 Zămoșteanu 1964
H. Becker, Caesium-magnetometry for landscape-archaeology. In: S. Campana, S. Piro (eds.), Seeing the unseen: geophysics and landscape archaeology. London 2009, 129–165. N. Bolohan, Recent Dscoveries belonging to Early/Midde Bronze Age in Central Moldavia. ArhMold, 26, 2003, 195–206. N. Bolohan, The Early-Middle Bronze Age settlement of Siliştea in Central Moldavia. In: I. Niculiță, A. Zanoci, M. Băț (eds.), Thracians and Circumpontic World, IXth. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, Chişinău-Vadul lui Vodă. 6–11 September 2004, vol. I. Chișinău 2004, 55–77. N. Bolohan, “All in one”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and radiocarbon Datings Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area. In: N. Bolohan, F. Mățău, A.F. Tencariu (eds.), Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno. Iași 2010, 229–245. V. Cavruc, G. Dumitroaia, Cultura Costişa în contextul epocii bronzului din România. Piatra-Neamţ 2001. L.B. Conyers, Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Walnut Creek– Lanham-New York-Toronto-Oxford 2004. L.B. Conyers, D. Goodman, Ground-Penetrating Radar. An Introduction for Archaeologists. Walnut Creek 1997. Gh. Dumitroaia, Comunități preistorice din nord-estul României. De la cultura Cucuteni până în bronzul mijlociu. Piatra-Neamț 2000. M. Edhgeworth, Fluid pasts. Archaeology of flow. Bristol 2011. M. Florescu, Problèmes de la civilisation de Costișa á la lumière du sondaje de Borlești. Dacia (N.S.) 14, 1970, 51–81. K. Kvamme, Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In: J.K. Johnson (ed.), Remote sensing in archaeology: an explicitly North American perspective. Alabama 2006, 205–233. E. Munteanu, Începutul epocii bronzului în depresiunile marginale ale Carpaților orientali. Piatra Neamț 2010. A. Popescu, Așezarea de epoca bronzului de la Costișa (jud. Neamț). Monografie arheologică (rezumatul tezei de doctorat). SCIVA 54–56, (2003–2005) 2006, 313–322. A. Popescu, Contextul, cronologia şi analogiile unor piese de os decorate din Moldova. In: P. Ciobotaru, O.-C. Nedu (eds.), Studii şi cercetări privind arheologia spaţiului nord-vest pontic. In honorem Nicu Mircea Septuagenarii. Danubius 31, Suplementum, 2013, 179–202. A. Popescu, R. Băjenaru, Rivalries and conflicts in the Bronzse Age: Two contemporary Communities in the Same Space. Dacia (N.S.) 52, 2008, 23–57. A. Popescu, R. Băjenaru, Cercetările arheologice de la Costișa, jud. Neamț, din anii 2001–2002. MemAntiq 23, 2004, 277–294. Al. Vulpe, K voprosu o periodizacii bronzovogo veka v Moldave. Dacia (N.S.) 5, 1961, 105–122. Al. Vulpe, M. Zămoşteanu, Săpăturile de la Costişa (r. Buhuşi, reg. Bacău). MCA 8, 1962, 309–316. D. Wheatley, M. Gillings, Spatial Technology and Archaeology. The archaeological applications of GIS. New York 2002. M. Zămoşteanu, Depozitul de topoare de bronz de la Borleşti (raionul Buhuşi, reg. Bacău). ArhMold 2–3, 1964, 453–460.
81
Pl. 1. Costișa culture. The MBA archaeological sites mentioned in the text.
Pl. 2. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie. Western view.
82
Pl. 3. Viewshed analyse for Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie.
Pl. 4. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie. Overview and the excavated area.
83
Pl. 5. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie. The defense ditch No. 1 (magnetic feature 1).
Pl. 6. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie. Overview of the non-invasive prospections: a-b. Magnetic prospections showing the magnetic anomalies (1–6); c. GPR investigations
84
Pl. 7. Siliștea-Pe Cetățuie. Overview: a. The topography overlapped by the plan of the archaeological units; b. North-South longitudinal topographic profile; c. Magnetometric map (- 6 + 6 nT).
85
