On Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliștea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County PDF

Preview

Summary

BRONZE AGE CRAFTS AND CRAFTSMEN IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 5–7 October 2012 BIBLIOTHECA MVSEI MARISIENSIS SERIA ARCHAEOLOGIC A VI PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMS FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ Editor SÁNDOR BERECKI Bronze Age Crafts and Crafts...

Description

BRONZE AGE CRAFTS AND CRAFTSMEN IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 5–7 October 2012

BIBLIOTHECA

MVSEI

MARISIENSIS

SERIA ARCHAEOLOGIC A

VI

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMS FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ Editor SÁNDOR BERECKI

Bronze Age Crafts and Craftsmen in the Carpathian Basin PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

5–7 October 2012

Edited by BOTOND REZI RITA E. NÉMETH SÁNDOR BERECKI

Editura MEGA Târgu Mureș 2013

© Mureş County Museum, 2013 Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Director Muzeul Judeţean Mureş CP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328 Târgu Mureş, România

ISBN 978-606-543-407-3

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

Contents

Preface

7

Klára P. FISCHL–Viktória KISS– Gabriella KULCSÁR Specialised Households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age

9

Aleksandar KAPURAN–Aleksandar BULATOVIĆ Bird Images on Serbian Bronze Age Ceramics

23

Neculai BOLOHAN On Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County 33 T. Gabriella NÉMETH Angaben zum spätbronzezeitlichen Salzverkehr

57

Daria Ložnjak DIZDAR A Middle Bronze Age Metallurgical Workshop in Vinkovici

65

Gábor SÁNTA Metal Analysis of Koszider and Tumulus Culture Bronzes: Contents, Similarities and the Question of Source Area

77

Wolfgang DAVID Eine mit Spiralhakenranken verzierte altbronzezeitliche Nackenkammaxt siebenbürgischen Typs aus Südwestböhmen. Wo wurden die Schatlochäxte vom Typ Apa–Nehoiu hergestellt? 91 Bianka NESSEL he ‘Absence’ of Smiths and Founders – Why Tools are Rare in Bronze Age Burials

139

Mario GAVRANOVIĆ Urnenfelderzeitliche Gussformen aus dem Westlichen Balkan

149

Zoltán CZAJLIK Lokaler, regionaler oder Fernhandel? Probleme der spätbronzezeitlichen Metallversorgung am Velem–St. Veit Berg (Westungarn)

167

Gábor ILON Das II. Buckelpaar des Goldschatzes von St. Veit bei Velem

181

Oliver DIETRICH–Laura DIETRICH Tüllenhämmer als funktionale Bestandteile von Depotfunden des Karpatenbeckens. Das Beispiel Şpălnaca II 191 Liviu MARTA New Data on the Practice of Metallurgy in the Upper Tisza Basin in the Late Bronze Age

207

Carol KACSÓ Beiträge zur Kenntnis des bronzezeitlichen Metallhandwerks in der Maramuresch

225

Botond REZI Reconstructing a Bronze Smith’s Toolkit. Special Remarks Regarding the Decoration of the Bronze Belts from Band

239

Attila LÁSZLÓ Über die Verbreitung der Bronzenen Streitäxte mit Nackenscheibe in den aussenkarpatischen Gebieten Eine neue in der Moldau entdeckte Nackenscheibenaxt

251

Tobias MÖRTZ Hauptsache. Argumente für eine eigenständige Entwicklung der Kammhelme in Mitteleuropa

265

Marianne MÖDLINGER Bronze Age Metal Defensive Armour in Eastern Europe: Status Symbol and Symbolic Weapons only? Indications for the Usage as Weapons

279

Géza SZABÓ What Archaeometallurgy Tells Us about the Changes of Bronze Cratwork in the Carpathian Basin at the Transition of the Bronze Age into Iron Age

291

Frank TROMMER–Tiberius BADER Lanzenspitzenherstellung

313

Abbreviations

341

On Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliștea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County Neculai BOLOHAN Babeş–Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi Romania [email protected]

Keywords: pottery study, archaeological context, MBA, Siliştea, Eastern Romania

Following our research plans one oten forgets that there are several ways to see/approach the pottery, to understand its role and functionality from extracting clay up to the inest analysis. In these circumstances, one have to bear in mind that there are at least three ways to perceive and interpret pottery: pottery for the potters, pottery for archaeologists and in recent years pottery for scientists (chemists, physicists, geologists etc). Each professional group has its own language and an independent type of approach that produces diferent discourses. However, diversity of answers does not provide the best answer to multiple questions concerning technological segment of the community life past. So far, the dominant interpretation was that ethnographic analogy might provide the best answers. However, the diversity of archaeological data implies the necessity of collaboration with other sciences such as chemistry, physics, materials engineering etc. In this context, ater a long experience in the ield of ‘classical archaeology’, the attention was turned to a newer, more multidisciplinary approach. he area of study his research is focused on an area which by its geographical and cultural characteristics could represent a speciic behavioral standard of the MBA communities in the geographical depressions located on the outskirts of the Eastern Carpathians, or better said Subcarpathian Moldavia (Fig. 1). In this context, the Cracău–Bistrița depression, a well-marked geographical unit, with its open aspect, favors the circulation of communities and goods both to and from other open depressions areas (Neamț, Tazlău–Caşin) and internal depressions (Giurgeu, Ciuc, Comăneşti). his was facilitated by the existence of depressions contact, gorges, mountain-passes or peak roads. Traces of habitation from prehistory are well represented in the Cracău– Bistrița depression. For this period were documented over 20 sites with artefacts that present features characteristic to the Monteoru or Costişa ceramic groups. Among these, the archaeological sites of the Costişa– Cetățuia, Borleşti–Dealul Runcu, Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie, Neguleşti–Deleni, Bodeşti–Frumușica (Fig. 1) stand out by quantity, content and diversity. Maybe not by chance, these sites are located either close to access roads or sources of liquid salt. hus, the archaeological site of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie is located near the salt spring in Negriteşti where several ceramic shards belonging to the Costişa pottery group have been found. With reference to Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie site, noteworthy is the location in an area with good visibility over the southern extremity of the depression toward some possible ways of communication located in the lower basin of the river Bistrița or between the lower Bistriţa and the middle basin of the Siret river, toward central Moldavia. his could be interpreted as arguments to understand the location of the site in unfavorable area for developing current domestic activities (see in this respect soil structure or location of the drinking water sources). Bronze Age Crats and Cratsmen in the Carpathian Basin, 2013, p. 33–56

N. BOLOHAN 34 | N. Bolohan

For this study the evaluation of a bulk of artefacts within the archaeological context of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie it was chosen as a reference sample. his choice was motivated by the possibility of studying this site in a bufer context, the opportunity to access the research published on the excavated artefacts or the material from the shelves. To complete the picture on the workspace, the history of site and the history of the artefacts, data from geology, geography and pedology were added, data which were obtained from the multidisciplinary investigation of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie (investigations carried out in June 2012).

Fig. 1. Cracău–Bistrița depression and the mentioned sites in text.

Geological settings he perimeter of the archaeological site of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie hill is geologically located over formations belonging to the Pericarpathian Nappe. Within this nappe structure there were identiied three tectonic subunits (Măgireşti–Perchiu, Pietricica, Valea Mare) assimilated to some digitations. Geologically, the Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie hill is represented at the interluves level and on the slopes by Neogene sedimentary deposits, respectively of Badenian/Tortonian and consist of alternating sandstones and calcareous sands, completed with marls, rock salt (Grasu et al. 1999, 33–37, ig. 18). Along the Lipoveni and Români watersheds are typical recent Quaternary deposits consisting of stratiications of sands, argil and clays (1968, Harta geologică, Scara 1: 200000, Piatra Neamț Sheet). he landscape Morphography and morphometry he relief is represented by a NNW–SSE oriented plateau, in contrast to the orientation of the height located at S-W (Dealul Mare Siliştea oriented NE–SW). he hill Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie continues with a series of secondary peaks that maintains the look of the plateau but sometimes turns into intersection heights of the slopes which increases slightly to the south (to 470 m). he peaks to the south are either sharp (Bobeica Peak 494.4 m), either in the form of small plateaus (Poiana Bahnei 514 m), which have the appearance of denudation, situation conirmed by the altitudes exceeding 500 m. To the E, the landscape preserves

On Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliștea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County | 35

only two peaks with altitudes of 388 and 415 m in Ţuţcani Hill then descend in terraces (220 m) and the Siret valley (165 m). he altitude of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie hill is 448.66 m and in the meadow of Lipovenilor brook decreases from 306 m N-E, 300 m N and 290 m in the S-E (Donisă 1968; Lupașcu 1996). Anthropic landscape he plateau was broken by three ditches of which only one is clearly expressed in relief, the other two being covered (these two anthropogenic trenches located north of the visible one, were detected by geomagnetic prospection). he visible ditch has a length perpendicular to the general E–W direction of the plateau about 40 m and it would seem that later evolved by draining water from the point of maximum altitude. Its evolution will continue through deepening, mainly to the west side where the slope has high levels of relief. he eastern regressive erosion was stronger than on the west side and is attributed to the slopes with great length, grubbed and due to farming reasons. Relationship of the archaeological site with landscape he archaeological site is located on the plateau, the frequency artefacts indicating a layout at altitudes of 420–423  m and the slope values of 1–3º, with N–W orientation. From the point of maximum elevation (448.66 m) of the Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie hill, the archaeological site is situated at 180 m to the N–W, measured by the southern edge of the irst trench. Although the archaeological site is located in the area of Neogene sedimentary deposits, mostly with calcareous sandstones, have been identiied as scattered, as well as hearths small rock fragments (1–2 m) of waterway origin. On this basis one can say that people could get relatively easy on the source material from the terraces, following the main ridges line that is very accessible. Site information he site at Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie (Fig. 1) is situated in western Moldavia (eastern Romania), at the southern extremity of the Cracău–Bistriţa geographic depression and in the hillocks area between the Siret and Bistriţa rivers (at approximate 12 km E from the irst water way and approximate 10 km W from the second one). At 6.25 km to the W–S–W there is located the eponymous settlement at Costişa (Popescu 2006; Popescu–Băjenaru 2004; Vulpe 1961; Vulpe–Zamoşteanu 1962) and at 19.4 km E of the Borleşti site (Florescu 1970). his hilltop fortiied settlement is located on the ‘border’ between Monteoru and Costişa Bronze Age communities, in the proximity of some important ways of access from southern to northern Moldavia and to Transylvania. Although, so far only a small area from the entire site has been researched (Fig. 2) some observations can be made on the topography, internal structure and the content of the archaeological material. he inhabited area occupies the end of a triangular plateau. he connection with the rest of the plateau was blocked by a moat with a depth of up to 3.20 m. he other western and eastern sides are represented by steep slopes that no longer required fortiication. Landslides and anthropic interference afected the extremity. hus, the inhabited area and the fortiied settlement were greater than what is now visible. Recent archaeomagnetic research conirms the archaeological data obtained in the ield. Noninvasive methods were used to search the inhabited area for inner structures and other relics. Geomagnetic prospecting was used to identify traces of human activity below the surface. At the end of the plateau, there were identiied two signiicant magnetic anomalies crossing it from east to west. hey may be the indicators for two other trenches whose utility will be veriied through archaeological excavation. In the same investigated area magnetic anomalies and zones of rectangular shape elements have occurred, which prove the existence of dwelling traces. Some magnetic perturbations could also indicate even the presence of metallic objects in the soil. With some exceptions, the artefacts unearthed at Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie belong to the MBA in Moldavia. Cultural background Over the last decade a great interest was manifested for the investigation of archaeological sites belonging to MBA of Cracău-Bistrița depression located in the central-western part of Moldavia (Cavruc– Dumitroaia 2001). hus, through the resumption of some archaeological excavations, for instance, at Costişa (Neamț County), or initiating new research at Siliştea (Neamț county), as well as through reopening the discussion or including the results of previous research at Deleni, Costişa, Borleşti (Popescu 2000) new steps were made towards the understanding of the history of artefacts speciic for the period in question. Starting from the irst considerations regarding the cultural framing was recognized that these

36 | N. Bolohan

sites contain objects belonging to two archaeological alternatively or simultaneously cultures Costişa and Monteoru, which covers the area of study.

Fig. 2. Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie. General view and the disposal of the archaeological units.

If in the case of the Monteoru culture its features were deined with accuracy, in the case of Costişa culture there are rather variants of interpretation regarding its origin, phases and evolution (Vulpe 2001, 244–249, ig. 35, 36, 37/1–6). Without going into further detail, one can say that between the two archaeological cultures there are enough similarities (habitat, artefacts), elements that facilitated a period of coexistence between them. About a cohabitation was already spoken as shown by my own observations made at Siliştea (Bolohan 2010). So far, at least! Usually, according to typological analysis, the Costişa speciic pottery is represented by the following ceramic categories: large biconical vessels (amphorae), medium vessels (amphoriskoi, pots) and smaller vessels, well represented by two handles cups. he Monteroru pottery is much more diverse and is represented by several variants and sub-variants (Popescu 2006). Deinitely, for a while the two archaeological cultures were coeval, a statement which is reinforced by some stratigraphic sequences as well as by some ceramic crossbred forms encountered even in the area under study. he results of research from Siliştea are no longer a novelty and have been displayed on several occasions (Bolohan 2003). Here was investigated through multidisciplinary methods a fortiied structure located on a height that dominates the southern part of the Cracău-Bistrița basin. Besides the analysis of habitat conditions, has been proposed to extend the research on artefacts. In addition to whole or fragmentary vessels numerous fragments of pottery were found that could be assigned to local typology as well as numerous other artefacts made of metal, stone or bone speciic for two archaeological cultures. Chronology he MBA period is well represented and can be a model of intercultural coexistence between Costişa (local) and Monteoru (with origins in the curvature of the Carpathians) ceramic groups.

On Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliștea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County | 37

Ceramic samples subjected to analyzes belong to the Bronze in the Eastern parts of the Carpahtians and are coming from the archaeological site of Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie (Neamț County), that were framed according to radiocarbon data as belonging to the period between 1937–1785 and 1689–1631 cal.age1σ and 1955–1773 and 1739–1614 cal.age2σ. Samples consisted of animal bone fragments from archaeological context in which are present typical artefacts of the two archaeological cultures. he archaeological dating was conirmed by radiocarbon analysis (Bolohan 2010, 237–240, Table 1). With very small diferences, the same data were obtained for the archaeological site of Costişa (kindly information from A. Popescu). Pottery analysis. Some preliminary notes he involvement of multidisciplinary analysis in investigating the prehistoric archeofacts begins to have consistency and provide new ways of interpretation. Considered until recently as the privilege of a small body of specialists such analyzes are becoming a common thing and a ield of dialogue and interference. In these circumstances, reporting to the ‘archaeological monologue’ built on standardized production or reproduction of the artefactual typologies no longer seems to be enough. In the case study under consideration it was started from enhancing the possibilities of approaching the archaeological monuments by using and merging non-destructive methods of ield investigation. hese facts, in connection with the expertise and the personal observations on the ield, have suggested another ‘story’ of the investigated place. Reconstitution of the sites and artefacts history is, in recent years, a lifelong perspective challenge to which committed to answer various ields (Tite 2008, 216–217). hus, the efort is concentrated on the reconstruction of ‘histories’ and not just mere enumeration of physical characteristics. he situation was encouraged by recent developments in the physical and chemical invasive or non-invasive analysis or by the gradual remodeling of PC technology. he naked eye observations and structural analysis (macroscopic evaluation, electron microscopy, SEM-EDX) allowed to identify some ceramic groups, the compositional diferences, the ratio of elements, a situation which could be explained in the context of pottery technology and within the context of the Bronze Age contacts between the communities. hese irst considerations will be completed by petrographic analysis that will allow integrating data on the technology of pottery, identifying sources of raw materials and their circulation or the circulation of inished products. he artefactual records included in this research come from two diferent archaeological sequences belonging to MBA in western Moldavia (Monteoru and Costişa archaeological cultures). he results of an archaeological investigation require connection to current models of analysis involving the natural sciences, a necessity which aims to supplement, tone and diversify the historic and cultural discourses. Explicitly, the interdisciplinary nature of the present approach derives from the gatherings of information and analyses provided by diferent categories of artefacts, inding a common language, the identiication of connections between areas of investigation. All these variables will interact to achieve a possible behavioral pattern, thinking of the social component of investigations, too. Furthermore, it would lead to decrease contractions of the areas which, through speciic means, have the same goal: the foundation of interdisciplinary discourse as a natural component of the actual scientiic research. Why studying pottery? It’s a rhetorical question or something...