ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS 47-48/1 2010-2011 (2012) ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS 47-48/1 MINISTRY OE CULTURE AND NATIONAL IIERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORY MLSELM OETRANSYLVANIA ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS 47-48/1 CLUJ-NAPOCA 2010-2011(2012) EDITORIAL Editor-in-chief: Carmen Ciongradi Editorial Advisory Board: Viorica Crișan, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeț, Eugenia Beu-Dachin, Alexandru Diaconescu, Sorin Cociș Assistant editor: Viorica Rusu-Bolindet Image processing: Dana Bulzan Cover: Torok Kâroly Technical editing and printing: MEGA Prinț SRL, Cluj-Napoca HONORARY STIENTIFIC BOARD: Mihai Bărbulescu (Rome, Italy); Werner Eck (Koln, Germany); Jan Hayes (London, United Kingdom); William Hanson (Glasgow, United Kingdom); Marietta Horster (Mainz, Germany); Rudolf Haensch (Munich, Germany) This volume was printed with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. Founder: Constantin Daicoviciu ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS Publicația Muzeului National de Istorie a Transilvaniei Orice corespondentă se va adresa: ACTA MVSEI NAPOCENSIS Publication of the National History Museum of Transylvania All correspondence will be sent to the address: Muzeului National de Istorie a Transilvaniei National History Museum of Transylvania 400020 Cluj-Napoca Str. Constantin Daicoviciu nr. 2 Tel: 0040 264 595677 Fax: 0040 264 591718 email: secretariatQjmnit.ro 400020 Cluj-Napoca Constantin Daicoviciu St. no. 2 Tel: 0040 264 595677 Fax: 0040 264 591718 email: secretariat@)mnit.ro Cover: Statua loricata from Apulum (so-called Pertinax). National Museum of the Union Alba lulia (photo Alexandru Diaconescu). ISSN 1454-1521 Copyright: © by Muzeul Național de Istorie a Transilvaniei CONTENTS - INHALT - SOMMAIRE STUDIES Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod.....9 ■{•Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery from Vădastra and Crușovu (Romania)...........................................................27 Tibor-Tamăs Daroczi From “diachronic judgement” to the Theory of Possible Types of Symmetry: an investigation into Cycladic and Transylvanian Bronze Age relations...........47 Dinu Ioan Bereteu The Dacian fortification from Someșu Rece-“Dealul Custurii” (Gilău, Cluj County)....................................................................63 Aurora Pețan Coin finds at Grădiștea Muncelului during the excavation campaigns of 1803-1804.81 Adriana Antal The cult of Venus within the forts from Dacia...................................91 Andrea Cumurciuc Neptune and the significance of its cult in the Northern limes area............115 Alexandru Diaconescu Male and female funerary statues from Roman Dacia..............................125 Doina Benea In regard to a possible abandonment of the province of Dacia under Gallienus.205 Bogdan Muscalu Views concerning barrel-shaped vessels in the Sarmatian lazyges environment..219 Dan Ruscu Bishop Theophilus and the Church of Gothia.....................................229 Philippe Henri Blasen Images de l’Empereur en France au XIXe siecle..........................241 REVIEWS Ioana Oltean, Dacia: Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation, Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies, London-New York, Routledge 2007, 264 p. (Carmen Ciongradi) .......................................................................267 Alexander Heising, Die romische Stadtmauer von Mogontiacum-Mainz. Archăologische, historische und numismatische Aspekte zum 3. und 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 2008, VIII + 353 S., 50 Abb., 32 Taf., 23 Tab. (Dan Matei)....................................................275 Abbreviations - Abkiirzungen - Abreviations............................283 STUDIES Acta Musei Napocensis, 47-48/I, 2010-2011 (2012), p. 9-25 GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING VS. EXCAVATION AT THE NEOLITHIC SITES TAGA AND ICLOD 9 CARSTEN MISCHKA, ZOIA MAXIM, MAGDA LAZAROVIC1 Abstract: In 2007-2010 geomagnetic surveys (by the University Kiel, Institute for Pre- and Protohistory) were made on 11 Neolithic sites in Romania, with three of them (Taga, Iclod and Fundătura, all Zau-Culture) located in the Cluj area. Spacious enclosures with multiple ditches and numerous house plots, arranged in rows and circles were revealed. The reliability of the geophysical measurements meanwhile was proved by sondage excavations. Keywords: geophysics; geomagnetic survey; excavation; Neolithic period; Transylvania. Rezumat: în perioada 2007-2010 au fost făcute prospecțiuni geomagnetice de către Universitatea din Kiel, Institutul de Pre- și Protoistorie, la 11 situri din România, dintre care trei (Taga, Iclod și Fundătura, toate aparținând culturii Zau) situate în zona Clujului. Au fost identificate zone mari delimitate cu șanțuri multiple și șiruri de case, aranjate în rânduri sau circular. Fiabilitatea măsurătorilor geofizice a fost dovedită apoi prin sondaje arheologice. Cuvinte cheie: geofizică; măsurători magnetometrice; cercetări arheologice; neolitic; Transilvania. 1. Introduction The surveys in Iclod, Taga and Fundătura were part of two projects of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistory of the University Kiel and of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), together with various partner organizations in Romania. The first project consisted of survey campaigns in 2007 and 2008, visiting sites in Transylvania and Moldavia in cooperation with the National History Museum of Transylvanian in Cluj-Napoca, the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu, the Institute of Archaeology in Iași and the Museum Complex in Piatra Neamț. The second project in 2010 saw surveys and a test excavation in Iclod and Fundătura, together with the National History Museum of Transylvania (Fig. 1). 1.1. The survey campaigns The late Neolithic and the transition to the following Copper Age is one of the most important phases in the prehistory of central and southeast Europe. It contains an excepțional amount of changes not only in the material culture, but also regard- ing the social systems, which can be derived from settlement-types and - hierarchies or burial rites. The inițial point for the survey campaigns was the fact that the most interesting sites from this period are multi-layer settlements. Excavations on such sites normally are necessarily small in area, due to the thickness of the stratigra- phies. This result in detailed knowledge regarding typochronology and single dwelling 10 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici structures, but Information about the wider context of the excavated structures, e.g. the size of the settlement, the number of houses or the fortifications (all factors pro- viding Information on the social processes) are rare. The main objective of the inițial survey campaigns was to conduct geomagnetic surveys of complete multilayer and multitemporal sites and if possible, of contempo- rary adjacent sites from the late Neolithic to the early Copper Age in different parts of Romania. These surveys should help to gather information about the settlements’ size and inner structure as well as to improve the possibility of estimations of population densities and settlement dynamic issues. During the survey campaigns, ten sites were examined: three in Southern, and two in central Transylvania, three in the Subcaparthian Mountains and two on the Moldavian plain. The campaigns proved the outstanding suitability of the geomag- netic method for fast, large-area surveys, as nearly all sites revealed numerous house plots, complex ditch-systems and the interaction of all these structures, which indi- cate complex settlement dynamics1. Fig-1- Neolithic sites surveyed between 2007 and 2010. 1 For more details: Mischka 2008; Mischka 2009; Mischka 2010. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 11 1.2. The Iclod campaign The results from the campaigns in 2007-2008 were impressive, but closer exami- nations of one exemplary settlement and its surrounding were necessary to understand the settlement processes and the hierarchies in the settlement group. The next logi- cal step was the closer examination of an assumed central site by test trenches and the expansion of the geomagnetic prospection to adjacent contemporary sites. This combined approach should validate the interpretation of the geomagnetic anoma- lies, deliver chronological Information about the detected structures and improve knowledge about the Neolithic settlement network. In cooperation with the National History Museum of Transylvania from Cluj-Napoca and based on the results of the survey in 2008, the settlement of Iclod was chosen as best point to launch such an approach. Excavations were made here since 1974, so a solid chronological backbone was given. It should be easy to integrate the results of the small test trenches from 2010 into this framework. The comparatively big settlement Iclod is also the assumed center of a little settlement group. From the related settlements, the site of Fundătura was cho- sen for further geomagnetic survey. Additional information on the comparison of geomagnetic anomalies and the archaeological structures came from the Cluj Museum’s excavations at Țaga, which was geomagnetically surveyed during the 2007 campaign. 2. Geomagnetic survey During the 2007-2008 campaigns a hand-held Bartinton GRAD-601 one-probe gradiometer with an accuracy of o.inT was used. This instrument allowed to survey up to approximately 1.3 hectare per day in a 0.125 x 0.5 m raster, with an optimal flex- ibility even on small fields, which are very common at the visited sites. In 2010, a wheel-based Sensys four-probe gradiometer array with odometer was used. This device provides the same accuracy as the GRAD-601, but a higher resolu- tion with a 0.05 x 0.5 m raster and greater speed, up to 3 hectares per day. In difficult terrain, for example mud or high grass, the wheels have to be removed, but the daily performance is still higher that the Bartington’s. The only disadvantage is the need for comparatively big, flat and open survey areas, which a lot of interesting archaeo- logical sites simply do not provide. 2.1. Iclod The late Neolithic site of Iclod is located on the low terrace of the Someșul Mic, some hundred meters north-east of the modern Village Iclod (Cluj County). It is intersected by a major road and a railroad line. The site contains a large graveyard, stretching from the slope of the Someșul Mic to the north and the settlement itself, which lies further north2. 2 Lazarovici 1991; Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006, 626-639. 12 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici Fig. 2. The late Neolithic settlement group in the Someșul Mic valley (SRTM-Dataset). Excavations were made since 1974, but they were mainly concentrated on the central part of the settlement and the graveyard. Iclod is dated to the late stage (Iclod-phase) of the Zau-Culture and its importance for the transition from the older Neolithic stages to the new emerging Petrești-culture was undisputed3. It is part of and most probably the center of a late Neolithic settlement group, with at least two neighboring sites of Livada and Fundătura nearby (Fig. 2). Despite Iclod’s impor- tance, until 2008 the size of the settlement could only be estimated roughly on the basis of the excavations and a narrow trench, dug for a pipe, running along the Street. The first survey in 2008 proved the excepțional potențial of the site, but not har- vested fields prohibited the complete examination of the settlement4. The survey was eventually finished in 2010 and the results exceeded the expectations by far. The geomagnetically surveyed area covers more than 11 hectares, divided by the road and the railroad tracks. Between linear disturbances caused by water conduits (Fig. 3-1) and a lot of modern waste resulting in lots of small dipoles, the magne- togram shows very clearly the components of the Neolithic settlement. The largest structures belong to a threefold ditch System which surrounds the inner part of the settlement. The diameter of the three (Fig. 3/2-4) ditch-circles is 140 to 240 m, with an enclosed area of 1.7-4.7 hectares. The two outer ditches are linked with each other in the south. This indicates a gate construction (Fig. 3-5), which proves that these two ditches existed contemporarily. 3 Maxim 1999, 237. 4 Mischka 2009, 5-7. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Taga and Iclod 13 Fig. 3. Iclod. Magnetogram (numbers showing structures mentioned in the text). The settlement itself is marked at first by a lot of round anomalies (Fig. 3-6), empirically caused by settlement-pits, filled with ceramic fragments, burned clay and humus material, magnetically contrasting the clayish material of the soils B- and C-horizon. The pits provide information about the settlements extent and intensity of the settlement process, but there are some other, more interesting structures: rectangular shaped, comparatively strong anomalies which can be interpreted as house structures, basing on excavation results from other sites. At least 35 of these houses are visible. In the northwest of the settlement they are arranged in at least three concentric rings, where they partly overlay the ditches, pointing to the settlement’s expansion- or shrinking-processes (Fig. 3-7). In contrast to this, the houses in the northeast seem to be arranged in two straight, parallel rows (Fig- 3"8). His whole arrangement is surrounded by a triple ring of smaller, linear anomalies (Fig. 3-9; 10-11). They can be most probably interpreted as smaller ditches, perhaps for palisades. Unfortunately these structures do not appear clearly in the magnetogram 14 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici and so the palisade-rings must remain a hypothesis; however, but the results of the excavations in Țaga support this interpretation (see Chapter 3.2). Assuming the pali- sades are real, their system would have a diameter of 385 m, resulting in an enclosed area of 10.6 hectares, nearly completely filled with settlement structures. 2.2. Fundătura The results from Iclod lead to the question, of whether this site is a single phe- nomenon, a center in a network of smaller satellites, or just the normal case in this time and area. To further investigate this question, one of the neighboring, contem- porary settlements was also surveyed. Because the nearest one, the site of Livada 3 km to the north, was recently destroyed to a large part by a development area, the site of Fundătura was chosen. In contrast to Iclod and Livada, Fundătura is located on a promontory above the valley of the Someșul Mic and not on the river terrace (Fig. 2). From this promontory Iclod is clearly visible in the north, at a distance of 5 km. Small rescue excavations and surface finds at the edge of the plateau indicates here a Zau-Culture/Iclod group settlement here, but nothing more was known until the 2010 campaign5. The geomagnetic survey covers six hectares. Some plowed areas, as well as some parcels with thin, soft, but very high grass made the use of wheels and odometer impossible. The effects of the different vegetation are clearly visible in the magneto- gram as stripes, indicating the direction of plowing. Fig. 4. Fundătura - “Poderei”. Magnetogram (Numbers showing structures mentioned in the text). 5 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006, 639. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 15 The result of the survey shows a settlement of at least 4 hectares, clustered with pit-anomalies even more densely than Iclod (Fig. 4-1). The Southern boundary of the site has not yet been reached due to high corn fields, but it is very likely that the settle- ment spans over nearly 5 hectares. Fig. 5. Fundătura - “Poderei”. Detail of two houses in the Magnetogram. The special features on this site are the houses (Fig. 4-2). In contrast to Iclod, there can be no question about the archaeological interpretation of the geomagnetic anomalies. These are not roughly rectangular areal anomalies, pointing to burned clay-layers. Instead of this, the magnetogram shows the postholes and foundation ditches for the walls visible as bounded anomalies (Fig. 5). These anomalies form rectangular arrangements; with houses as the only possible interpretation. Nearly all of these at least 19 houses have the same size of approximately 15 by 7 meters and a division into one big central room, with one smaller room at both ends. Only one house in the north, at the entrance of the settlement is much bigger than the other buildings (Fig. 4-3). This structure is connected with a weak, blurry limited, linear anomaly, which seems to surround the settlement in the north and west and could be interpreted as a ditch (Fig. 4-4). With the steep cliff in the east, this ditch would delimit the settlement from the rest of the plateau. If this interpretation is true, the big house could also be a fortified entrance to the settlement. All in all, we can record Iclod’s neighbor as a comparatively large settlement with the much weaker fortification probably caused by the different topographical set- ting. This leads to the conclusion, that the differentiation in the settlement hierarchy seems not to be as big as expected. 2.3. Țaga Another contemporary settlement is Țaga, located 20 kilometers east of Iclod in the next small river valley. Today, the site lies near the lake Țaga Mare, and new houses, an electrical power plant and a gas pumping station made numerous rescue 16 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici excavations necessary6. Because of the location on a slope down to the lake, erosion is another problem for the archaeology. Because most of the area was inaccessible or completely disturbed by gas conduits and electrical power lines, only a little more than 2 hectares were left undisturbed for the geomagnetic survey, which took place during the 2007 campaign. Even the small surveyed area reveals the potențial of the site, but the interpretation of the results was more difficult than in Iclod or Fundătura which highlights the importance of large survey-areas. The clearest structures are the ditches. At least five of them, marked by linear anomalies, are running through the surveyed area (Fig. 6). AII of them are mostly paral- lel to the slope, with a change of direction indicated in the northernmost part of the picture. Ditches 2 and 3 seem to be a linked System. It is difficult to connect the ditches from the geomagnetic with the structures found in the former rescue excavations, but the minimal reconstruction leads to an at least 9.5 hectare large installation (Fig. 7). Fig. 6. Țaga. Magnetogram with ditches and, possible, house plots (white circles). In contrast to the clear ditches, the magnetogram from Țaga shows only four possible house structures. They consist of small posthole-anomalies, forming much smaller house plots than in Iclod or Fundătura. Two of them are intersecting with 6 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006, 640-662. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Taga and Iclod 17 the ditch system, and it is not proven that they belong to the same archaeological context as the ditches. Fig. 7. Țaga. Ditches from the geomagnetism and excavation (solid black lines) and interpolated course of the enclosures (dashed lines). 3. Excavations The possibility to check the interpretation of the geomagnetic surveys by archaeo- logical excavation was given at two sites. In Iclod it was a planned part of the project, and at Țaga a new rescue excavation allowed another review. 3.1. Iclod Until the test excavation, the interpretation of the house-anomalies at Iclod only rested on finds at other settlements7. In addition, the question arose of whether the postulated houses are really as big as the very strong halos of the anomalies suggest. To answer this question, two small test trenches were opened in the spring of 2010 in the area of the south-eastern row of houses, at the expected northeastern corner of what was called “House 1”, a structure which was probably greater than 20 by 8 meters. The soil was formed of several thick layers of clayish colluviums. Approximately 15 centimeters under the surface, a massive layer with big fragments of burned clay appeared; the fragments still bearing the imprints of the tree branches, which once formed the skeleton of the house wall (Fig. 8-9). This layer, revealed to be more than 40 centimeters thick and also containing a lot of ceramic sherds, which could be dated in the Iclod II period. In contrast to this, stone artifacts were very rare. 7 Hoffmann et alii 2007, 74-94. 18 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici Fig. 9. Iclod. House 1, south profile. Red: burned clay. Position of the profile is shown in Fig. 12. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 19 On the base of the layer of burned clay, a fired hearth plate, covered by a deposit of crushed ceramic pots was found (Fig. 8, io). This feature strengthened the sus- picion, that the excavated structures were the remains of a collapsed, burned down house. Under the burned layer the remains of the houses foundation, postholes and wall ditches were visible; about ninety centimeters under the modern surface. These structures formed a rectangular system, so even though the bottom of the postholes was not reached during the excavation, it is possible to postulate the geomagnetic anomaly only representing one single building. Fig. 10. Iclod. House 1, ceramic deposit. The still persistent necessity of at least small excavations confirmed a feature, which was located 20 centimeters under the burned clay layer: a burial, containing the skull and some disarticulated bones from the torso of ca. 6 year-old child, combined with two nearly complete pottery vessels, standing upright in the sediment (Fig. 11). Nearly one meter under the surface, very small and without a clear pit structure, such an archaeological feature is invisible to all kinds of geophysical survey-methods, espe- cially when additionally hidden below half a meter of burned clay. The ornamentation of one of the vessels could be classified as Precucuteni-style import to the Iclod l-period. With the ceramic from the house dating to the Iclod II-period, a gap of some hundred years between the grave and the house emerges8. This seems to exclude the interpretation of a planned burial under the house. Perhaps the grave points to a bigger extension of the Neolithic graveyard than esti- mated until now. 8 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006, 624. 20 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici Fig. 11. Iclod. House 1, burial with skull, bone and two ceramic vessels. Fig. 12. Iclod. House 1, magnetogram with excavated features. The overlay of the excavated house-structures and the magnetogram shows that the positive part of the magnetic anomaly matches the burned clay-layer. The parts Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 21 of the burned clay layer found in the negative halo of the anomaly were only a few centimeters thick, so they seem to be overlaid by the halo of the much stronger cen- tral anomaly. The overlay also proves that the size of the house, as estimated from the geomagnetic survey, matches very accurately the real size of the building, marked by the foundation trenches and postholes (Fig. 12). To summarize, the 2010 Iclod campaign showedthat geomagnetic survey allowed recognition that the settlement is much bigger and more complex than presumed. The absence of big houses in the inner part of the fortification is remarkable, as is the fact that the settlement was possibly undefended in its biggest phase. The regular arrangement of houses shows the strength of social control and planned settlement development. For the metrological part, the test excavation secures the interpretation that the strong rectangular anomalies are really houses. In contrast to this, the graveyard remains invisible in the geomagnetic images, because it is covered by more than a meter of clayish colluviums and, at the settlements margins, by strong house-anomalies. Here excavations remain the only suitable method for research. 3.2. Țaga At Taga the excavations of the National History Museum of Transylvania from Cluj-Napoca, showed some differences between geomagnetic survey and excavation. This also proved that excavations are still an indispensable method for testing the models derived from geophysical surveys. Because of the rescue character of the excavation, only narrow, long trenches were opened, but this was enough to allow a satisfying comparison. In the overlay, the excavated structures follow satisfactorily the geomagnetic anomalies, but only at first sight (Fig. 13). Zoomed in, it becomes clear that the narrow palisade ditches found in the excavation are not entirely visible in the magnetogram (Fig. 14). The problem of the geomagnetic method’s missing resolution concerning the depth of structures with unknown susceptibility is affecting the interpretation of the anomalies very strongly. Fig. 13. Țaga. Magnetogram and excavated features (white). 22 Carsten Misclika, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici The second excavated fortification also definitely looked contrary to expectations. One broad anomaly, formerly interpreted as ditch 5 was revealed as two smaller struc- tures. To increase the confusion, a completely new palisade ditch arose only one meter away from the now doubled ditch 3 (Fig. 14-15). Ditch 4 Fig. 14. Țaga. Ditch 4, 5, detail of the magnetogram with excavated features (white). There are two reasons for this lack of correlation. The first one is the soil erosion. Fig. 15. Țaga. Ditch 5, North profile with the narrowing ditch. The “invisible” ditch in particular was only a few centimeters deep. Only filled with humus, rather than with pottery sherds or burned clay, the contrast in susceptibility is too small for the flux- gate devices. But this explanation does not apply to the doubled ditch 3. Here, a problem with data sampling is the most probable cause. The survey was done with a 0.5 x 0.125 centimeter-raster. On countless archaeological sites this has proved to be more than sufficient, a per- fect compromise between invested time and gathered information. The problem at Țaga was the slope of the terrain. To achieve the steady pace while sam- pling the data, which is necessary with handheld Instruments, the direction of the traverses was parallel to the slope. This direction is nearly the same as the direction that the ditch follows. With the ditches a little more than one meter Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 23 wide each, spaced nearly half a meter apart, an unlucky coincidence can occur. It is possible to measure the two ditches in four traverses, 50 centimeters apart, each one covering the left and right margin of one ditch. The space between the two struc- tures remains unmeasured and the magnetogram will show a 2 meter wide structure instead of two smaller ones. In this case, the character of the site is clarified, but only excavations, even of a very small size minimize the possibility of false interpretations. Fig. 16. Țaga. Ditch 3, detail of the magnetogram with excavated features (white). Arrow indicates the south profile from Fig. 17. Fig. 17. Țaga. Ditch 3, south profile with the doubled ditch 3 and the additionally discovered ditch. 4. Conclusion The work at Iclod, Fundătura and Țaga emphasizes the possibilities and the limits of geomagnetic survey on big Neolithic settlements. With a minimum of expense, large areas and many sites can be surveyed, leading to a much more detailed pic- ture of the internai settlements order and also of the regional settlement networks and hierarchies. Ditches, house plots, settlement pits and even single postholes can be recognized, and lot of interpretation work can be done without a single excava- tion. On the negative side two main problems remain: Small structures can only be examined with a much higher input of workforce (smaller raster), if at all, and no 24 Carsten Mischka, Zoia Maxim, Magda Lazarovici geophysical method provides an archaeological date. In future, an optimal compro- mise has to be found for the ratio between excavation and geophysics, allowing a safe extrapolation of the results of small excavations to the rest of the surveyed area. With the work presented here still in an inițial phase, it is at least possible to have a view of the superregional context of the surveyed sites. The comparison of the late Neolithic settlements of Transylvania with sites from the adjacent parts of Europe, show Iclod, Fundătura and, also, Turdaș at the river Mureș, as typical representatives of the very large sites, dominating parts of middle and southeastern Europe and espe- cially Transylvania in the horizon of ca. 4800-4300 BC (Fig. 18). At this point, the size of the settlements and the comparative large houses seem to be the connection. On the regular tell-sites outside of Transylvania especially, the buildings tend to be smaller, with far less space between each other. Although the inner structure of the big settlements tends towards great diversity, more research is clearly necessary here. Banat Southern Transylvania Central Transsilvania Moldavia Danube plain Fig. 18. Size of Romanian Neolithic settlements compared. AII sites plotted in the same scale. (Data for Uivar: Schier, Drașovean 2004; for Pietrele: Hansen et alii 2006). Bibliography Hansen et alii 2006 Hofmann et alii 2006 Lazarovici 1991 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2006 S. Hansen, A. Dragoman, A. Reingruber, N. Benecke, I. Gatsov, T. Hoppe, F. Klimscha, P. Nedelcheva, B. Song, J. Wahl, Pietrele - Eine kupferzeitliche Siedlung an der Unteren Eonau. Bericht liber die Ausgrabung im Sommer 2005, EurAnt, 12, 2006,1-62. R. Hofmann, Z. Kujundzic-Vejzagic, J. Muller, N. Miiller-ScheeBel, K. Rassmann, Prospektion und Ausgrabungen in Okoliste (Bosnien-Herzegowina)^ Siedlungsarchăologische Studien zum zentralbosnischen Spătneolithikum (5200-4500 v. Chr.), BRGK, 87, 2006, 41-212. Gh. Lazarovici, Iclod, Cluj-Napoca 1991. C. M. Lazarovici, G. Lazarovici, Arhitectura neoliticului și epocii cuprului din Romania I. Neolithicul, Iași 2006. Geophysical prospecting vs. excavation at the Neolithic sites Țaga and Iclod 25 Lichter 1993 C. Lichter, Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des siidosteuropâischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums, Internationale Archăologie, Buch am Erlbach 1993. Maxim 1999 Mischka 2008 Z. Maxim, Neo-Eneolithicul din Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca 1999. C. Mischka, Geomagnetische Prospektion neolithischer und kupfer- zeitlicher Siedlungen in Rumănien, EurAnt, 14, 2008,101-115. Mischka 2009 C. Mischka, Neue Ergebnisse der geomagnetischen Prospektionen neolithischer und kupferzeitlicher Siedlungen in Rumănien, EurAnt, 15, 2009,1-14. Mischka 2010 C. Mischka, Beispiele fur Ahnlichkeit und Diversităt neolithi- scher und kupferzeitlicher regionaler Siedlungsmuster in Rumănien anhand von geomagnetischen Prospektionen. In: S. Hansen (Hrsg.), Leben auf dem Teii als soziale Praxis. Beitrăge des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 26.-27. Februar 2007, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Friihgeschichte 14, Bonn 2010, 71-84. Miiller 2010 J. Miiller, Dorfaniagen und Siedlungssysteme. Die europăische Perspektive: Sudosteuropa und Mitteleuropa. In: C. Lichter (Hrsg.), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch die „Michelsberger Kultur” und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum Schloss Karlsruhe 20.11.2010 - 15.5.2011, Darmstadt 2010, 250-257. Schier, Drașovean 2004 W. Schier, FI. Drașovean, Vorbericht liber die rumănisch-deutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timiș, Rumănien (1998-2002), PZ, 79, 2004,145-230. Carsten Mischka Institute of Pre- and Protohistory, Christian-Albrecht University, Kiel carsten_mischka@gmx.de Zoia Maxim National History Museum of Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca zoiamaxim@yahoo.fr Magda Lazarovici Institute of Archaeology, Iași magdamantu @yahoo.com Acta Musei Napocensis, 47-48/I, 2010-2011 (2012), p. 27-45 A COMPARATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE NEOLITHIC BURNISHED POTTERY FROM VĂDASTRA AND CRUȘOVU (ROMANIA) tGHEORGHE GÂȚĂ, RADU-ALEXANDRU DRAGOMAN Abstract: This text consists in a comparative analysis of two categories of burnished Neolithic pots originating in two sites that belong to Vădastra tradition (ca. 5200-4900 CAL. BC), namely the eponymous settlement and that at Crușovu (Oltenia, Romania). The analysis results showed that the same pottery technology was used in both sites. Keywords: pottery technology; Neolithic; Vădastra tradition; Vădastra - “Măgura Fetelor”/“Dealul Cișmelei”; Crușovu. Rezumat: Textul de față constă într-o analiză tehnologică comparativă a două categorii de vase lustruite neolitice provenite din două situri aparținând tradiției Vădastra (cca. 5200-4900 CAL. BC), și anume așezarea eponimă și cea de la Crușovu (Oltenia, România). Rezultatele analizei au indicat faptul că pe ambele situri a fost utilizată aceeași tehnologie ceramică. Cuvinte-cheie: tehnologie ceramică; neolitic; tradiția Vădastra; Vădastra - „Măgura Fetelor”/„Dealul Cișmelei”; Crușovu. Introduction The Vădastra tradition from south of Romania and north-west Bulgaria was attributed to the Middle Neolithic period and dated ca. 5200-4900 CAL. BC1. Research of the Neolithic pottery technology in the eponymous settlement (Olt County, Oltenia) showed that the clay was taken from the outcrops nearby the settlement and that vegetal material was used as temper2. The pots were modelled into certain proporțional shapes, sizes and thickness. The burnished black pottery, fired in reducing atmosphere and ornamented with incised and excised motifs was decorated with white paste and ochre, both substances coming from local sources and in the case of some of the ochre, from sources located at a distance3. One of the themes, not discussed insofar, is whether the Vădastra Neolithic pottery technology was developed within the settlement or was brought by the potters working in this tradition. The lack of pottery waste exhibiting deformation or deep cracking suggests that the pottery technology was brought to the settlement and adapted to local clay sources, demand of certain vessel shapes, and to possible changes due to its transmission over time, from one generation of potters to another. By comparing two sites of the Vădastra tradition (Fig. 1), we aimed at iden- tifying possible adaption of the pottery technology to the local conditions or, on the contrary, the less likely establishment of a new technology. 1 Regarding the dating, see for instance Mantu 1999-2000; KrauB 2008. 2 Gâță, Mateescu 1992a; Gâță, Dragoman 2004-2005. 3 Gâtă, Mateescu 1987; Gâtă, Mateescu 1992b; Gâtă, Mateescu 1999-2001. 1 7 7 1 7 7 J 7 28 -|-Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman Fig. 1. Location map with Vădastra and Crușovu sites. Materials and methods Two categories of burnished pottery from the Neolithic settlements at Vădastra and Crușovu (Olt County, Oltenia) were chosen for analysis. Weight, thickness, diameter and porosity were determined in all pottery fragments and the porosity index was computed as a porosity-section ratio. Colour was specified with the aid of Munsell charts by the B.B. = (io-c) H/V formula, where “B.B” is the darkening degree, “H” is colour; “c” is chroma and “V”, the hue value. The comparison of clay sources and pottery masses was made based on quartz (4.26 Â) and mica (4.97 Â) X-ray diffraction beam levels. An additional test used, for the same purpose, the total content of nickel and cobalt, obtained by acid disaggrega- tion and determined by atomic absorption4. The presence of Kaolinite in the samples was assessed by the 3690 cm1 infrared absorption bând and micaceous minerals by the 10 Â to 4.97 Â X-ray diffraction beams. Pottery The settlement at Vădastra - “Măgura Fetelor”/“Dealul Cișmelei” is located at 14 km north-west the city of Corabia, in the Oltenia Plain, on the Băilești mid terrace of 4 Total nickel and cobalt were determined by atomic absorption subsequent the disaggregation of the samples via a hydro fluoric and sulphuric acid mixture. Being comprised of crystalline silicate networks, these two microelements were chosen due to their stability in case of alteration. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic bumished pottery 29 Danube. The site stratigraphy was established following the excavations performed by Corneliu N. Mateescu, with occasional breaks, starting with 1946 until 1974: a Palaeolithic layer (Aurignacian); an intermediary layer with no archaeological materials; two Neolithic layers which the author named Vădastra I and Vădastra II; a layer dating to the Copper Age (Sălcuța); and the lower part of a i4th and I7th-i8th centuries layer5. According to C. N. Mateescu, Vădastra I layer is defined by a burnished dark/grey pottery, undecorated or decorated with channelled motifs6, while layer Vădastra II is characterised by a burnished dark/grey or brownish pottery, decorated with incised and excised motifs inlayed with white paste and painted with red ochre7 (Fig. 2/1-2). Occasionally, the chan- nelled and excised decoration are associated on the same vessel; in C. N. Mateescu’s view, these fragments always come from the upper part of Vădastra I layer8. 2 0 20 cm Fig. 2. Burnished vessels at: 1-2. Vădastra; 3-4. Crușovu; 1, 3. Vessels decorated with channelled motifs ; 2, 4. decorated with incised/excised motifs. 5 For instance Mateescu 1971. 6 E.g. Mateescu 1961. 7 E.g. Mateescu 1965. 8 E.g. Mateescu 1961, 533. 30 •(■Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman The settlement at Crușovu is located at ig km north-west of Corabia, between the Oltenia Plain and the upper terrace of Olt river. The same C. N. Mateescu carried out a sondage there in iggg9. Excavations at Crușovu were performed by C. N. Mateescu according to the same research methods as in Vădastra. The archaeologist even employed some of the workers from the Vădastra team10, already accustomed with his work method. C. N. Mateescu identified two Neolithic layers, named them Vădastra I and Vădastra II as well, some Roman pits and two huts dated to the end of the i8lh century and early iglh century11. As resulting from the published report, similarly to the settlement at Vădastra, layer I is characterised by a burnished pottery decorated with channelled motifs and layer II by a burnished pottery decorated with incised and excised motifs, and painted with ochre (Fig. 2/3-4). C. N. Mateescu’s view, the fragments onto which channelled motifs associate with those excised “make, stylisti- cally, the transition - stratigraphically confirmed - between Vădastra I and Vădastra II”12. In the case of the channelled burnished pottery, only the upper part of the recipients is usually decorated. On vessel necks, the channellings are placed either horizontally or in zigzag, occasionally associated with triangles formed by impressions; on the pots’ maximum diameter, decorative motifs consist of vertical, oblique, braquet or spiralled-shaped channellings, associated sometimes with impressions. Red ochre appears on some of the sherds; the substance analysis highlighted that 32% of the samples labeled Vădastra I were painted after firing13. A human face was applied on one of the pots. Some vessels exhibit two or four knobs on the maximum diameter; sometimes, they are perforated vertically, for instance in the case of some of the cups. The inner surface of the vessels was also frequently burnished. To this pottery category belong open shapes such as cups, beakers, bowls, footed vessels and, to use a term adopted from L. Thissen14, “drinking bowls”, but also closed shapes, such as jars15. In the case of the incised and excised burnished pottery, the recipients are deco- rated almost entirely with meanders, spirals, rhombs or rectangles. The incisions and excisions were filled with white paste. Undecorated vessel surfaces (the rim, the base, the body portions located in-between the decorated segments) were covered with red ochre; most frequently, ochre was applied before firing - only in 6% of the samples labeled Vădastra II ochre was applied after firing16. Several fragments belongs to pots with human faces or heads. On some of the sherds, the incised/excised decora- tion associates with incised stripes filled with dots and inlaid with white paste - the so-called “Vinca” decoration. In one case, the incised/excised decoration associates with an alveolate bând specific rather to the surface-roughened pottery. The inner 9 Mateescu 1957. 10 Gheorghița Grădinaru and M. Ion Grădinaru, former workers for C. N. Mateescu, personal commu- nication, Vădastra, August 2008. 11 Mateescu 1957. 12 Mateescu 1957,106. 13 Gâță, Mateescu 1999-2001,188. 14 Thissen 2008,106,108. 15 For the site at Vădastra, see Dragoman 2010. 16 Gâță, Mateescu 1999-2001,188. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 31 surface of the vessels is either burnished or smoothed. This pottery category includes open shapes like bowls, dishes, plates, four-legged vessels, footed cups or pedestalled vessels, and closed shapes like storage vessels; lids are also present17. In his publications, C. N. Mateescu named the burnished dark-grey undecorated or channelled-decorated pottery as “Vădastra I” and the burnished dark-grey or brownish pottery with incised and excised decoration as “Vădastra II”. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that despite the evoluționist view adopted by C. N. Mateescu, within con- texts discovered precisely in layer I in the settlement at Vădastra, like for instance Pit I/1946 or the Pit in squares 4-15/1971, both identified on “Măgura Fetelor”, the two categories coexist. Herein, in order to avoid a too often recurrence of the term “Vădastra” (associated with both pottery categories from the two discussed settlements, as well as with the eponymous site) and for an easy reading, we used “pottery D” and “pottery F” respectively instead of the “Vădastra I” and “Vădastra II” terms. Clay sources Pottery clay sources could differ texturally and mineralogically from one settlement to another, requiring changes in fabric technology, even though the ves- sels’ modelling, shape, drying and firing resemble. Quartz (4.26 Â) and micaceous minerals (4.97 Â) diffraction beam levels were used to compare clay sources with pottery materials. The chart of these quartz-micaceous minerals beam levels (Fig. 3) Fig. 3. Distribution of Vădastra and Crușovu clay sources and sherds. shows that the areas of the pottery materials from the two settlements partially over- lap, each also comprising points corresponding to the presumptive clay sources, since the quartz content increase is proporțional to the clay fraction content decrease. Given 17 For the site at Vădastra, see Dragoman 2010. 32 ■(•Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman that chart areas partially overlap, one may conclude that the fabric sources texture is similar, and, from Vădastra to Crușovu, varies from clayish sand to sandy clay. Hence, there were tested several microelements and observed that a chart using the total cobalt and nickel content in the presumptive sources and pottery materials can better divides both the samples and sources from the two settlements (Fig. 4). This could be used in the research of certain vessels’ distribution in-between these settle- ments, provided this occurred in the Middle Neolithic from south Oltenia. The two presented charts indicate that clay sources are in the close vicinity of the two settle- ments and that their texture and mineral composition is similar to the clay used by modern potters. Fig. 4. Distribution of clay sources and sherds according to total nickel and cobalt contents. Tempering The clay for pottery was kneaded twice. Initially, water was added to the clay little by little and it was kneaded so to form a fabric whose consistency allowed modelling. A part from this paste was removed and added some amount of crushed vegetal mass as temper, in order to prevent cracking when drying and firing. The amount of crushed plants (vegetal material) added to the paste, the consequent tempering and flattening in order to model vessels, was made according to each potter’s own experience and the tradition inherited from the successive generations of potters in the settlement. The first part of the fabric was used for modelling vessel bases, subsequent flat- tened coils being glued one after the other to the already modelled vessel parts, while continuously smoothening vessel walls so that pieces would adhere to each other well and remove any possible holes; still, such holes appear in microscopic sections. Owing to this pottery modelling fashion (i.e. the coiling technique), great differences in the A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 33 crushed plants-fabric ratio could result from one potter to another or from one potter generation to another. Crushed plants increase, upon firing, the holes’ volume and hence, porosity. Moreover, it is possible that Neolithic potters added different amounts of crushed plants to each of the vessel parts or depending on the walls’ thickness or vessels’ size. In order to confirm such suppositions, we represented the porosity-thickness ratios in some of the rims, bodies and bases of type D vessels from Crușovu (Fig. 5). Fig. 5. Porosity and thickness ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu D type sherds. The representative points for the three vessel parts are mixed up and string on a bând quasi-parallel to the abscissa. Porosity differences at same thickness vary between 5% and 8%, being indicative of high technological tolerance compared to thickness and suggest that Neolithic potters tempered the paste of all vessel parts in the same manner. Such high tolerance shows that Neolithic potters were not concerned with adding to paste amounts proporțional to the vessel walls thickness. The practice is confirmed by the lack of porosity and thickness correlation in the case of the entire group of sherds (n = 82, Rpoly = 0.052, Rlin = 0.008, F = 0.005), vessel bodies (n = 40, Rpoly = 0.095, Rlin = 0.040, F = 0.061), and poor correlation in vessel rims (n = 55, Rpoly = 0.541*, Rlin = 0.260, F = 2.39) and vessel bases (n = 7, Rpoly = 0.729, Rlin = 0.683, F = 4-3?)- In order to compare the sherds selected from the settlements at Vădastra and Crușovu, in table 1 are presented statistical data regarding some of their properties. In the settlement at Crușovu, all mean values of type D pottery are smaller than those for the type F pottery, except for the porosity index. This would suggest that crushed plants addition to paste ratio was better controlled by potters for the type F pottery, whose sizes, walls thickness and porosity are higher. At Vădastra, the sizes and walls thickness, except for the porosity index of F type pottery compared to type D pottery, are higher. Thus, it results that the properties of the type D and F pottery from both settlements resemble, 34 •fGheorghe Gâtă, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman with the note that the porosity index of the pottery in Vădastra is in general smaller than that at Crușovu. This wouid account for a certain improvement of the fabric technology with F type pottery compared to type D pottery in both settlements and wouid raise the question whether the F type pottery is partially later than type D pottery or that the incised/excised pottery required a more careful control of crushed plants tempering. Properties Number of samples Mean value Variation coefficient Minimum Maximum Median Crușovu type D weight 82 30.1 85.94 5.42 180.34 22.61 diameter 155.44 37.04 47.86 357.66 150 thickness 7.51 25.84 3.99 13.66 7.18 porosity 10.02 19.68 5 15.83 9.72 porosity index 1.43 31.73 0.77 2.94 1.29 Crușovu type F weight 96 44.24 118.79 4.95 371.52 27.06 diameter 247.38 40.4 52.58 565.29 239.77 thickness 9.85 25 4.78 16.63 9.86 porosity 10.98 17.95 6.93 16.25 10.85 porosity index 1.17 30.58 0.6 2.54 1.1 Vădastra type D weight 215 45.6 73.63 7.21 258.76 diameter 186 33.42 61.35 381.56 173.57 thickness 7.8 24.34 3.13 13.54 7.6 porosity 9.89 21.22 3.75 17.33 9.63 porosity index 1.34 31.09 0.34 3.05 1.28 Vădastra type F weight 290 57.71 102.79 5.57 547.11 36.32 diameter 226.64 51.82 20.33 640.33 223.36 thickness 10.08 27.4 4.44 19.1 9.53 porosity 10.32 16.84 5.94 15.87 10.1 porosity index 1.1 32.67 0.44 2.3 1.06 Table 1. Statistic data on the analysed pottery. Variation coefficients of sherd weights are over 70%, which might suggest that pots were unevenly fired, thus leading to variable resistance to mechanical shock. Instead, variation coefficients of porosity and porosity index are comprised between 20% and 33%, which show that, upon paste making, plants addition was taken into consideration by Neolithic potters. All pottery properties vary within broad limits (with thick-walled large vessels in type F pottery from both settlements). Thus, one may appreciate that selected sherd groups are statistically representative upon first estimation. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 35 Medians are always smaller than mean values and occasionally, almost equal; histograms are almost symmetrical with a slightly right asymmetry. For instance, the porosity distribution of type D sherds from Vădastra and Crușovu appears unimodal slightly left asymmetric (Fig. 6), with maximums close to 9.89% and 10.2%. Fig. 6. Porosity distribution of Vădastra and Crușovu D type sherds. Porosity does not correlate with F type sherds thickness from Crușovu (n = 96, Rpoly = 0.173, Rlin = 0.056, F = 0.3) and poorly correlates with those at Vădastra (n = 290, Rpoly = 0.134*, Rlin = 0.121*, F = 8.04). Representative points for the pot- tery in both settlements are mixed up and distributed all over the chart (Fig. 7). 12 16 20 o Crușovu F □ Vădastra F Fig. 7. Porosity and thickness ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu F type sheds. 36 ■(■Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman Their areas are overlapping, that at Vădastra including almost entirely the area of Crușovu points. The porosity-thickness charts of the sherds show that the Neolithic potters did not add amounts of crushed plants proporțional to the walls thickness of the vessels which they intended to model, but, rather, proporțional to the volume of the clay piece they kneaded. Therefore, the crushed plants amount might be assessed by the sherds porosity and thickness ratio, i.e. the porosity index. The distribution of the porosity index for the two pottery types (D and F) from Vădastra and Crușovu (Fig. 8) appears unimodal slightly right asymmetric. In type D pottery from the two settlements, the maximum frequency is identical (1.25%/mm), the two distribution curves almost overlap and are indicative of the same tempering technology. In F type pottery, the frequency maximums are 1.31%/mm and 1.1%/mm and the distribution curves are similar. Their position suggests that the paste-crushed plants ratio is smaller in F pottery at Vădastra and points to the fact that, in general, the clay source was richer in smectite than that from Crușovu. Fig. 8. Porosity index distribution of Vădastra and Crușovu D and F type sherds. The plasticity index closely correlates with the sherds thickness (Fig. 9) in type D pottery at Crușovu (n = 82, Ppow = 0.728***, Rlin = o.6go***, F = 60.82) and Vădastra (n = 215, Rpoly = 0.728***, Rlin = 0.674***, F = 177.57). Representative points are mixed up and distribute over a descending curve, with few of the points correspond- ing to type D pottery at Vădastra spread outside the compact points’ area. For the F type pottery from the two settlements, the distribution of representa- tive points is even closer (Fig. 10), as shown by the porosity index-thickness ratio of the sherds from Crușovu (n = 96, Pexp = 0.751***, Rlin = 0.729***, F = 106.91) and Vădastra (n = 290, Rpow = 0.659***, Rlin = 0.800***, F = 512.66). Still, the thickness of the areas with compact points is relatively reduced and proves the successful adapt- ing of the potters in Vădastra tradition to the use of local clay sources to the paste A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 57 for vessels modelling. These very close correlations show that the potters in the two settlements practiced the same technology for paste making and used a paste-crushed plants ratio which they tried to maintain within as close as possible boundaries, given the plastic properties of the clay sources. Fig. 9. Plasticity index and thickness ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu D and F type sherds. Thickness 10 20 30 o Crușovu F «m... Crușovu F □ Vădastra F Vădastra F Fig. 10. Porosity index and thickness ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu D and F type sherds. Modelling In Vădastra tradition, vessels were modelled according to the coiling technique. Some recipients, like the pedestalled vessels, were modelled from two parts, while others, like the large elaborately ornamented storage vessels, seem to have been made 38 •{•Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman from three segments; smaller vessels, like for instance miniature pots, were made from a single clay piece18. In the two settlements, vessels that belong to the analysed pottery categories were modelled into different shapes and sizes. From experience and tradition, the Neolithic potters maintained the same vessel types of different sizes and same propor- tions between size and walls thickness. Variation between walls thickness and their diameter was determined by the vessels shape (conical shaped, truncated shaped etc.), their plastic elements (vertical rims, everted, differences between the upper and lower parts of truncated shaped vessels etc.), the incisions and excisions, and the set up of surfaces for applying decorative white or ochre. In D type vessels from the two settle- ments, the thickness-diameter ratio (Fig. 11) is closer in the pottery from Vădastra (n = 215, Rexp = 0.544***, Rlin = 0.539***, F = ^7-3) than in that from Crușovu (n = 82, Rpoly = 0.291**, Rlin = 0.020, F = 0.03). Representative points of the pottery in the two settlements are mixed up, their areas are almost overlapping and statistical curves follow the same trajectory in diameters over 150 mm. The pots’ walls thickness of this type from the two settlements is below 15 mm, while diameters are below 400 mm. Fig. 11. Thickness and diameter ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu D type sherds. In the F type pottery at Crușovu (n = 96, Rexp = 0.346***, Rlin = 0.314**, F = 10.29) and Vădastra (n = 290, Rpoly = 0.346***, Rlin = 0.220***, F = 14.68) thick- ness-diameter ratios are close (Fig. 12) and close statistical curves overlap at values over 280 mm. The representative points are mixed up and the Vădastra pottery area appears slightly bigger than the F type pottery area at Crușovu. Vessels of this type are larger than those in type D, their diameters being over 600 mm and their thick- ness being up to 20 mm. 18 Dragoman 2010, 49-50. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 39 The distribution of the chart points (Fig. 11-12) and their statistically significant correlations show that analysed pottery from the two settlements was mostly com- parable in sizes and thickness for both D and F type vessels, with probably a bigger number of large-size vessels in the settlement at Vădastra. 0 0 200 400 600 800 o Crușovu F □ Vădastra F Crușovu F ■ Vădastra F Fig. 12. Thickness and diameter ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu F type sherds. Surface treatment Drying the vessels subsequent to modelling was made at outdoor temperatures and in shadow. Dried vessels were covered with a barbotine obtained from the same clay as the paste. To the clay was gradually added a large water amount, being thor- oughly shaken and the coarse part left to settle. Alternately, some archaeologists suggest that barbotine was made by potters’ hands washing after modelling. This barbotine was used to cover vessel walls later bunished with pebbles, usually fine granulation quartz. Sherds were also used in vessels burnishing19. As traces on the sherds show, burnishing was most likely repeated several times. When lastly wetted, F type vessel walls were incised or excised, limy concretions were added and certain portions were covered with ochre. White paste and ochre were applied by some sort of brushes, some of the sherds preserving traces of such tools20. A pottery fragment with incised decoration from Vădastra21 and a quartz stone from Crușovu22 were also used for applying ochre. Among other, bone tools23 were used for the incised/excised decoration. 19 Dragoman 2010, 53 and Fig. 3.12/3. 20 Gâță, Mateescu 1992b, 241-242; Gâță, Mateescu 1999-2001,193. 21 Dragoman 2010, 54, Fig. 3.12/4. 22 Mateescu 1957, 106-107, Fig. 5. 23 Mateescu 1957,106-107, Fig. 6. 40 ■fGheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman Subsequent the complete drying, vessels were fired in covered pits in a reduc- ing atmosphere that would deposit onto their walls dark carbon compounds. In the settlement at Vădastra were discovered several round or oval “pot firing pits”, with maximum diameters between 0.56 m and 1.00 m24. No such Neolithic pots firing installation was found at Crușovu. The variation of dark hues and the occasional presence of grey and dark brown staining are evidence that air tight insulation was rather poor. Additionally, dark hues vary pronounced on inner and outer surfaces of the fired vessels. Quantifying the darkening degree and its representation on inner sides according to the value on outer surfaces (Fig. 13) in D type pottery at Crușovu and Vădastra show that repre- sentative points are mixed up and well spread on the chart, but their areas overlap. Statistic curves for D type pottery at Crușovu (n = 72, Rpow = 0.652***, Rlin = 0.647***, F = 46.94) and Vădastra (n = 102, Rpow = 0.723****, Rlin = 0.708***, F = 147.7) almost overlap and are evidence of the same firing system, with uneven temperature firing spaces, like those in firing pits. Usually, outer and inner sides exhibit different darken- ing degrees depending on the vessel position in the uneven temperature firing space. Fig. 13. Darkening degree of outer and inner surfaces of Vădastra and Crușovu D type sherds. The F type vessels in the two settlements were fired in similar firing pits, in reducing atmosphere and have similar darkening degrees with the D type pottery. For the larger vessels, maintaining a reducing firing space was difficult, probably due to the uneven firing conditions and the necessity to avoid deposition of thick, difficult to remove carbon layers on the decorated portions. 24 See Dragoman 2010, 55-57. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic bumished pottery 41 Firing temperatures were in most cases between 4000 C and 5500 C, since micaceous mineral was preserved undecomposed on the sherd surfaces from both settlements, while kaolinite is present in over 70% of the samples. This firing interval is also confirmed by rehydration of the clay minerals in the ceramic mass over the several millennia burial of the Vădastra sherds. Since pots were incompletely fired, and probably, over a limited time, the wall core temperature did not exceed 2oo°C- 25O°C in many cases. After firing and gradual cooling in the firing space, the D type vessels were burnished again. In F type pots only the non-decorated parts were burnished and, with the aid of small polishing pebbles, the burnish on the ochre covered parts was emphasized. Very rarely, the surfaces were remedied with raw ochre, possibly because its poor adherence to fired ochre. Mechanical resistance of the pots The pottery in Vădastra tradition has a relatively poor resistance to shock and the sherds buried in the archaeological layer are in general of relatively small sizes. At a first estimate, their weight might be considered as measure to their mechanical resistance. The distribution of D and F type pottery fragments from the two settle- ments is always marked unimodal and right asymmetric (Fig. 14). Types D and F at Crușovu have 24.9 g and respectively 45.7 g maximums, while those at Vădastra - 34 g and 37.4 g, respectively. These close values confirm that the entire burnished Neolithic pottery in the two settlements has approximately identical mechanical resistance properties and comes from the same pottery technology, differences resulting from the experience and skillfulness of each potter and the tradition in each settlement. Fig. 14. Weight distribution of Vădastra and Crușovu D and F type sherds. 42 ■{■Gheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman If the sherds weight and size would be proporțional to the mechanic resistance, then weight should be related to the thickness of pot walls. In D type pottery from both settlements (Fig. 15), representative points are mixed up, yet those at Vădastra spread over an area that encompasses Crușovu points. The density of representative points is high in sherds below 70 g and much lower in the rest of the chart, where sherds from Vădastra settlement predominate. Statistic curves from Crușovu (n = 82, Rpow = 0.402***, Rlin = 0.245*, F = 5.1) and Vădastra (n = 215, Rlog = 0.480***, Rlin = 0.420***, F = 45.62) are overlapping and confirm the same mechanical resis- tance of the sherds from the two settlements and the same pottery technology. 16 -1 0 0 100 200 300 o Crușovu D □ Vădastra D «■■■■■•Crușovu D Vădastra D Fig. 15. Thickness and weight ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu D type sherds. In type F pottery, the chart (Fig. 16) is in general similar to that preceding. Representative points at Crușovu (n = 96, Rpow = 0.579***, Rlin = 0.341***, F = 12.34) are mixed with those at Vădastra (n = 290, Rpow = 0.521***, Rlin = 0.422***, F = 62.51) and the F type pottery area at Crușovu is included in the F type pottery area at Vădastra. This chart also comprises of two areas with different densities of points, the compact area comprising almost entirely points corresponding to F type pottery from Crușovu. Representative curves of the pottery in the two settlements follow the same trajecto- ries and slightly distance one from another for large sherd weights. The resemblance of the last two charts is indicative of the same properties of D and F pottery from the two settlements, which accounts for identical fabric and firing technologies. Conclusions The comparison between type D and F black burnished pottery in the Neolithic settlements at Vădastra and Crușovu showed that the same pottery technology was used at both sites, from local clay sources of clayish sand-sandy clay textures and A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 43 two-fold successive tempering, namely, that of the paste and paste temperated with crushed plants, respectively. The modelling of the vessels was carried out by the coiling technique, in compli- ance with tradițional shapes and decorations. 25 0 0 200 400 600 o Crușovu F □ Vădastra F -■■■“Crușovu F Vădastra F Fig. 16. Thickness and weight ratio of Vădastra and Crușovu F type sherds. After having been dried at outdoor temperature, vessels were covered with a diluted barbotine made from the same paste and were burnished using (also) polish- ing pebbles. Such burnishing was likely carried out several times. The D type vessels were ornamented with channellings, and those of F type, with incisions and excisions. In the F type pottery, incised/excised decoration was ornamented with white paste, while undecorated portions and pot rims were painted with ochre. Firing in covered pits, in an intentionally reducing atmosphere and uneven firing space was in general carried out at temperatures between 4OO°C and 55O°C, as shown by the kaolinite and micaceous minerals present on the sherds surface. Owing to the uneven firing space, the outer, core and inner sides of the vessels evidence frequently different firing temperatures. Analytic data proved there is no technological difference between Vădastra and Crușovu potteries, yet the F type pottery in the two settlements seems to be of better quality than the D type pottery, this accounts either for a technological improvement (which could be assigned to a time succession of the two pottery types use), or a special attention (i.e. a more careful tempering of the paste due to deeper excisions, which could result in firing problems and/or special importance). 44 ■fGheorghe Gâță, Radu-Alexandru Dragoman Acknowledgements Radu-Alexandru Dragoman would like to express his gratitude to Alexandra Ion and Gheorghe Alexandru Niculescu for the English revision. Information on illustrated pots Fig. 2/1. Vădastra; pot published for the first time as drawing in Mateescu 1965, Tav. XLIII/2; storage location: National Museum of Romanian History, Bucharest (MNIR); inv. no. 15857. Fig. 2/2. Vădastra 1946; pot published for the first time as drawing in Mateescu 1961, 532, Fig. 2; storage location: MNIR; inv. no. 15859. Fig. 2/3. Crușovu 1955; pot published for the first time as drawing in Mateescu 1957, 105, Fig. 2/2; storage location: “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology of the Romania Academy, Bucharest; inv. no. III 7133 . Fig. 2/4. Crușovu 1955; lid published for the first time as drawing in Mateescu 1957, 109, Fig. 8 and photo in Dumitrescu 1968, Fig. 11; storage location: MNIR, inv. no. 15856. Dragoman 2010 Dumitrescu 1968 KrauB 2008 Gâță, Dragoman 2004-2005 Gâță, Mateescu 1987 Gâță, Mateescu 1992a Gâță, Mateescu 1992b Gâtă, Mateescu 1999-2001 Mantu 1999-2000 Mateescu 1957 Bibliography R.-Al. Dragoman, Ceramica neolitică din așezarea de la Vădastra, PhD, Universitatea București, Facultatea de Istorie, București 2010. VI. Dumitrescu, Arta neolitică în România, București 1968. R. KrauB, Karanovo und das sudosteuropăische Chronologiesystem aus heutiger Sicht, EurAnt, 14, 2008, 117-149. Gh. Gâță, Al. Dragoman, The Neolithic pottery from Vădastra: a technological study, ActaMN, 41-42/I, 2004-2005, 5-31. Gh. Gâță, C. N. Mateescu, Conceming the white paint employedfor decorating the pottery of Vădastra II phase at Vădastra, Quartăr, 37-38,1987,201-224 ' Gh. Gâță, C. N. Mateescu, Etude technologique des vases d’argile d’usage commun du site de Măgura Fetelor et Dealul Cișmelei de Vădastra (Neolithique Moyen), Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, 14,1992, 1,135-H2- Gh. Gâță, C. N. Mateescu, On the sources of the white colour used in the decoration of the pottery of Vădastra II (Middle Neolithic) at Vădastra and Crușovu, Romania. In: P. Bellwood (ed.), Man and his culture - a resurgence, Papers presented by students, colleagues and associates of Professor Asok K. Ghosh, New Delhi 1992, 231-243. Gh. Gâță, C. N. Mateescu, The use of ochre for pottery decoration in the Middle Neolithic at Vădastra, Dacia N.S., XLIII-XLV, 1999- 2001,183-195. C. M. Mantu, Relative and absolute chronology of the Romanian Neolithic, Analele Banatului, 7-8,1999-2000, 75-105. C. N. Mateescu, Săpături arheologice la Crușovu, MCA, III, 1957, 103-114. A comparative technological study of the Neolithic burnished pottery 45 Mateescu 1961 C. N. Mateescu, Le plus ancienne phase de la civilisation de Vădastra, Vădastra I, ă la lumiere des nouvellesfouilles de Vădastra. In: G. Bersu (Hrsg.), Bericht iiber den V. Internationalen Kongress fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte, Hamburg, vom 24. Bis 30. August 1958, Berlin 1961, 529-534- Mateescu 1965 C. N. Mateescu, Contribution ă l’etude de la civilisation de Vădastra. Phase Vădastra II (d’apres Ies nouvelles fouilles de Vădastra). In: Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche, Roma 29 agosto-3 settembre 1962, voi. 2, Roma 1965, 258-263. Mateescu 1971 C. N. Mateescu, Centenarul săpăturilor arheologice de la Vădastra, SCIV, 22,1971, 4, 643-650. Thissen 2008 L. Thissen, The ceramics of Teleor 003/Măgura Buduiasca, a Neolithic site in S Romania, internai Southern Romania Archaeological Project report, Thissen Archaeological Ceramics Bureau, Amsterdam 2008. j*Gheorghe Gâță Radu-Alexandru Dragoman “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest al_dragoman@)yahoo.com Acta Musei Napocensis, 47-48/I, 2010-2011 (2012), p. 47-61 FROM “DIACHRONIC JUDGEMENT” TO THE THEORY OF POSSIBLE TYPES OF SYMMETRY: AN INVESTIGATION INTO CYCLADIC AND TRANSYLVANIAN BRONZE AGE RELATIONS TIBOR-TAMÂS DAROCZI Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the possibilities of application of a research method called “diachronic judgement”, put forward and repeatedly advocated in the literature. The cornerstone of this theory is the “diachronic” relation between materials that come from the Aegean Early Bronze Age (“frying pans”) and the eastern Carpathian Basin (dishes). Both assemblages will be subjected to a thorough spațial and chronoiogical analysis, presenting the reader with information on all the possible aspects of the discussed materials, in order for the validity of the conclusions to be clear. Finally, the validity of the claims and theory is tested and other possible explanations are suggested. Keywords: Cyclades; Transylvania; Bronze Age; “frying pan”; Wietenberg culture. Rezumat: Scopul acestei lucrări este de a prezenta și analiza posibilitățile de aplicare a unei metode de cercetare numite “judecata diacronică”, prezentată și susținută în mod repetat în literatura de specialitate. Piatra de temelie a acestei teorii este relația “diacronică” între materialele care provin din Bronzul Timpuriu egeean (“tigăi”, i.e. “frying pans”) și din estul Bazinului Carpatic (“străchini”). Ambele ansambluri ceramice vor fi supuse unei analize aprofundate, prezentând cititorului informații despre materialele discutate, pentru a susține concluziile acestui studiu. In cele din urmă, valabilitatea afirmațiilor și a teoriei enunțate sunt supuse unei analize critice și sunt sugerate explicații alternative. Cuvinte cheie: Ciclade; Transilvania; epoca bronzului; „frying pan”; Wietenberg. Introduction1 In recent years, new research concerning connections between the Aegean Early Bronze Age and the eastern Carpathian Basin (PL I) has been published. The research methodology in most of the case relies on comparing and charting the archaeological finds. The aim, of the mentioned new research, is to analyse these connections from other perspectives, while also considering chronoiogical synchronisms2. This paper addresses a similar new approach but of somewhat peculiar relation. The strânge part about this newly proposed relation is that the synchronism usually adopted in such an analysis is replaced with a diachronic perspective. This “diachronic judgement” theory and material are thoroughly analysed in what follows. A standpoint is taken 1 I would like to thank Florin Gogâltan for drawing my attention to the discrepancies of the “dia- chronic judegement”, also I am thankful for the useful conversations on the margins of earlier drafts. Furthermore, I am grateful to Laerke Recht for the valuable comments and corrections made on this paper. 2 Bader 1990; Dietrich 2010. 48 Tibor-Tamâs Daroczi based on this analysis. Furthermore at the end of the paper an alternate explanation is offered to the presented similarities. The “diachronic judgement” - a brief overview In recently published and re-edited papers, a diachronic relation between the Carpathian Basin and the Aegean is suggested. To support this relation, evidence is forwarded in the form of Cycladic “frying pans” (PI. IVA/1-3) and Bronze Age vessels of the Wietenberg culture (PI. IVA/4-6) from Transylvania3. A comparison is made between the decorations on these vessels and similarities between the two sets of objects are stated. Furthermore, it is argued for in the “Istoria Românilor” (History of Romanians) that this “phenomena might be judged from a diachronic perspective”4. At first reading the meaning of the “diachronic judgement” seems elusive, but thank- fully its principles were outlined by the same author. In the introduction of the same book, the “diachronic judgement” is explained as follows: “a group of people in simi- lar environments will create a similar culture, regardless of the temporal notion... and any group of people that moves into another environment will create another culture”5. The applied “diachronic judgement” basically materialises itself in the shape of a comparison made between the decorative patterns on the six vessels (PI. IVA), three from the Aegean islands and the other three from the eastern Carpathian Basin (PI. I). The similarity is further strengthened, in the opinion of the same author, through the cultic nature of the “frying pans” and the “religious-symbolic” character of the decoration6. After the authors own account the theory is forwarded for the first time during a workshop on Bronze Age relations between south-east Europe and Greece held at Tutzing in 1980. The paper is not published and the reaction at the conference is dismissive towards the proposed diachronic relation7. Some authors are even going to the extent of analysing this “lack of factual argumentation” and are showing how such opinions and statements are becoming archaeological facts in the literature8. In the lines that follow the two sets of materials are presented in detail. The analy- sis will be focused on the aspects used as arguments for the “diachronic judgement”, which are: the individual decorative elements, decoration composition, function of vessels, chronology and occurrence. The Cycladic “frying pans” The Cycladic “frying pans” are circular, open vessels of medium size with a sin- gle “handle” of different shapes. The vessels actual wall part is very short and usually 3 Vulpe 2001a, 13, 20, Fig. 2. 4 Vulpe 2001c, 257. 5 Vulpe 2001b, 214. 6 Vulpe 2001c, 257. 7 Vulpe 2001a, 13. 8 Vasiliev 2005. From “diachronic judgement” to the Theory of Possible Types of Symmetry 49 straight or slightly outwards projecting. It is always decorated on the “bottom” part, possibly its base, with incised or stamped motifs9. The first objects of the type were published by the “father of Greek archaeology”, Ch. Tsountas, at the end of the igth century, coming from the cemetery of Chalandriani on Syros10. Through their unique shape and decoration they quickly became of major research interests in the Aegean and not only, and as such in 1903 P. Wolters pro- posed the name of “pfannenartigen Thongefăsee” (“frying pan” - like clay vessels)11. During the following decades their numbers steadily increases thus allowing for wider ranging conclusions to be made in regards of types, chronology and usage12. The last major synthesis that analysed the Cycladic “frying pans” was that of J. Rambach13. Till present more or less 200 fully or partially preserved pieces are documented from the Aegean (PI. II)14. In most of the cases thy are made out of terracotta but in rare instances stone15 or metal counterparts (copper or bronze from Alața Hiiyiik - PI. I)16 are also documented. The terracotta ones always have a thick and heavy black slip, with the decoration on the “bottom” of the vessel, which in some cases also extends onto the lower and, in even fewer cases, on both sides of the “handle”. The outer side of the vessels wall is only in rare instances decorated. The decoration techniques are almost exclusively incision and stamping, which are incrusted with white, probably lime-based, paste. Very few of them are undecorated17. The “frying pans” have been organised into two different typologies. One of them is grouping the objects based on the shape of their “handles” intoforked, barred, rectan- gular, “brachet", rectangular/"bracket”, rectangular/forked and triangular ones18. The other is considering the shape of the “bottom”, walls, handles and also their relation to each other: Kampos group, Mainland group, Louros group, Chalandriani I group, Chalandriani II group, Chalandriani III group, Chalandriani IV group, Chalandriani V group, Aplomata I group, Aplomata II group, Aplomata III group, Aplomata IV group, Aghioi Anargyroi group and Siphnos group19. Based on the briefly presented typologies the mentioned “frying pans” (PI. IVA/1-3) are classified in one of these groups. The Louros group is only represented by a single “frying pan” (PI. IVA/3) from the cemetery with the same name on Naxos20. The decoration is structured in concentric motifs. The centre consists of an incised circle with radiating lines, surrounded by four linked double-line spirals that alternate with four schematic fishes. The border motif is usually made up by a “Kerbschnitt” bând, 9 Ekschmitt 1986, 86-87. 10 Taouvxaț 1898; Taouvrac 1899. 11 Wolters 1903, 271. 12 Zschietzschmann 1935; Bossert 1961; Coleman 1985. 13 Rambach 2000a; Rambach 2000b. 14 Coleman 1985,193. 15 KovToAxovroț 1972,152, PI. 140 a-P; AajntivouSâiCT] 1976, 296-298, PI. 196 y-8; 'Ihimme 1977, no. 364. 16 Koșay 1944, PI. 83/60, 89/27. 17 Coleman 1985, 193. 18 Coleman 1985,193,194, PI. III/2. 19 Rambach 2000a, PI. XXV-XXVIII. 20 Coleman 1985, 197. 50 Tibor-Tamâs Daroczi which in this case is obviously missing. The singularity of its decoration does not allow a grouping of it with other, more common, ones. It has a broken off “handle” but it has been suggested that it might have had a rectangular “handle” due to the narrow stem, which is still visible21. The “frying pans” with a barred handle are all belonging to the Kampos group (Pl. IVA/1-2). Its hallmarks are the typical barred handle and the aired decoration of its “bottom”. In most of the cases the decoration has a concentric structure. The central motif is a group of concentric circles, a spiral or a star followed by alternating bands of “Kerbschnitt” and running spirals (usually double-lined). Most commonly the border bând is made up by “Kerbschnitt”22. It is emphasized that the three “frying pans” are not of the Keros-Syros culture as they were presented by Al. Vulpe23. The functionality of these objects has spurred many opinions. The first diverging statements on their usage appeared shortly after the publications of the first examples as one belief States that they were filled with water and used as mirrors2+, whereas another is proposing the use of them for mixing paint with oii, which later could be used as a sort of body paint25. The former one found echoes all through the first half of the past century26, whereas the latter usage is suggested by the finding of colour mate- rial in a stone “frying pan”27. The indication of a possible cultic use of these objects is also put forward, as in some cases in the area of the stem of the “handle” a pubic region, shaped as a triangle, is clearly recognisable. In this case they can be regarded as figurine-like and it is suggested that these objects are used in a libation28. Some other functions were suggested next to the above mentioned ones, either drums with hides stretched over them29 or instruments for navigation30 or just plainly vessels for liquids31. The “frying pans”, with the exception of the ones from Alașa Hiiyiik (Pl. I), are exclusive to the Aegean (Pl. II). Within this area the northernmost point of their occurrence is at Pefkakia-Magula (Pl. II/i), the westernmost Asea (Pl. II/20) whereas the eastern and southernmost coincide this being Aghia Photia on Crete (Pl. II/34). The Kampos and Louros groups of the Cycladic “frying pans” are the earliest of the entire ensemble32. For the present paper the chronological positioning of the Kampos group is vital. This group is considered as evidence for an Anatolian cul- tural manifestation in the Aegean, and it is usually placed at the turn of the Early Cycladic I to Early Cycladic II, technically being a transitional horizon, and as such a very short period, between the earlier Pelos-Lakkoudes and the later Keros-Syros 21 Coleman 1985, 210, no. 37. 22 Bossert 1961, 3-6; Coleman 1985,196-197. 23 Vulpe 2001a, 13; Vulpe 2001c, 257. 24 Tcovvraț 1899, 92. 25 Wolters 1903, 271. 26 Zschietzschmann 1935, 656, 659; Mellink 1956, 53; Mylonas 1959,125-126. 27 Bapou/a 1926, 111. 28 Zschietzschmann 1935, col. 656, 663, 669. 29 Mylonas 1959, 125, note 21. 30 Faucounau 1978,108,110-111. 31 Christmann 1996, 167. 32 Bossert 1965, 90-92; Coleman 1985,197-198, 204; Rambach 2000b, 229-247. From “diachronic judgement” to the Theory of Possible lypes of Symmetry 51 cultures33. It is noted that the dating of the three Cycladic vessels (Pl. IVA/1-3) into the later Early Cycladic II period, and as such in the second part of the 3rd millennium BC by Al. Vulpe, is erroneous34. Although, it should be mentioned that the youngest context, in which a fragment of a “frying pan” is found, is at Asine dated to a mixed Early Helladic II and III (unlikely) level. After this period, the “frying pans” disap- pear from the material culture of the Aegean35. The absolute dates of the two “frying pan” groups may be inferred to from the latest C dating. These are only rough esti- mates as some periods are lacking good and sufficient data (as is the Early Bronze Age I of the Aegean) for conclusive results (Pl. IVB). The vessels of the Wietenberg culture The pots (Pl. IVA/4-6) are all from the name giving site of the culture on the Wietenberg hill next to Sighișoara36. They are decorated, as seen from below, with concentric patterns and in all the cases with “S”-spirals (double or triple-lined) in a circular shape around a central motif called the “Wietenberg Cross” (Pl. IVA/4), or a radiant circle (Pl. IVA/5) or a simple incised double lined circle (Pl. IVA/6). The lat- ter has four geometric (diamond) shapes alternating the four spiral heads and all the filling decorations of this vessel are made in the technique of the “Zahnstempellung”. These patterns usually appear on the lower parts of vessels in most instances arranged in concentric shapes: VC 6, VD 28, VD 29, VD 61, VD 62 and VD 6g37. Through a simple comparison of the presented objects (Pl. IVA) it is noted that a number of motifs are very similar, possibly even identical, between the two sets of vessels: VD 2, VD 4, VD 6, VD 7, VD 8, VD 18, VD 2338. In regards of their usage these deep dishes (Pl. IVA/4-6) are very difficult to define. Some experts are seeing the decoration as cultic symbols, which are represent- ing the sun, moon or even the stars and so on39, but even after a brief analysis, such statements lose their validity as no conclusive evidence can be put forth. Given the fact that most complete vessels are from graves and only in very few instances full pots are found within settlements, and have their context documented, their functionality is impossible to be referred to. In an attempt to put these vessels of the Wietenberg culture in context, the motifs will be analysed at the level of the entire culture and not only in the case of the three presented ones as former research has done40. In this sense the limits of occur- rence of these vessels will be plotted on a map (Pl. III) and a chronological analysis of their dating will be conducted. 33 Warren, Hankey 1989, 25, 30; Manning 1995, 45-48, Fig. 1; Maran 1998, 138-139, Taf. 81. 34 Vulpe 2001a, 13; Vulpe 2001c, 257. 35 Coleman 1985, 204. 36 Schroller 1933, Pl. 10/4,11/4, 5; Horedt 1960,122, Fig. 9/2-1, 3, 4; Horedt, Seraphin 1971, Pl. 31/6, 32/2, 4, 33/2, 4. 37 Boroffka 1994,184,190-191. 38 Boroffka 1994,188-189. 39 Andrițoiu, Rustoiu 1997, 25. 40 Vulpe 2001a, 12-13, Fig. 2. 52 Tibor-Tamâs Daroczi It is clearly visible (PI. III) that the above recognised motifs are located within Transylvania and only in a few cases are found outside of it, in the north-eastern parts of the Tisza lowland. As north-eastern borders we may mention the Someșul Mare river, in the northwest the lower Someș river, the south-western border is the Hațeg depression and in the southeast, the region of Intorsura Buzăului. The Wietenberg culture has two established chronologies. An earlier one, through the excavation of Derșida, where three different habitation levels allowed the division of the culture into three phases: I, II and III41. The later one is based on the collection and grouping of the shapes and decoration of the entire culture thus creating a system that more or less overlaps with the previous one, but also being able to recognise a later phase, one that was not present at Derșida: Ai, A2, B, C and D42. The latter is preferred for the dating of motifs in the present article. The running “S”-spirals only appear from the B phase onward either single or double-lined43, although the double-lined hook spirals are documented early as the Al phase44. Hatched triangles placed upright on a baseline appear for the first time in the oldest phase45 where as the “Wietenberg Cross” appears in the later part of the first phase of the culture46. The radiant or “solar” motifs and the pseudo-spirals make their appearance only from the C phase onward47. The remaining motifs cannot be precisely dated to a certain phase of the Wietenberg culture since they are either extremely rare or very common throughout the Middle Bronze Age of Transylvania. The dating of these motifs in the internai chronology of the culture is in the II and III48 or in the A2, B and C phases49. There are only two published C1+ dates for the Wietenberg culture. The first one (Bln 4622) comes from a Wietenberg pit also containing some Noua elements at Sighișoara - Cartierul Viilor; as such probably it is safe to assume that it is a date for the later parts of the C phase and it is 1685-1524 BC50. The second one (Ly-9190) is from Oarța de Sus, from a Wietenberg B context, and it is dated between 1610- 1445 BC51. An obvious issue arises from this picture either the later dating (Ly-9190) is quite low or the former one is quite high (Bln 4622). Whatever the case the two dates must be regarded just as rough data, as further sample will surely help eluci- date the issue. Furthermore it can be concluded that the turn from Wietenberg B to Wietenberg C occurred sometimes during the period between 1685-1445 BC, probably in the earlier part of this interval. 41 Chidioșan 1980. 42 Boroffka 1994. 43 Boroffka 1994,190-VD29, 250. 44 Boroffka 1994,198-VD28, 250. 45 Boroffka 1994,189-VD18, 250. 46 Boroffka 1994,191-VD65, 250. 47 Boroffka 1994,184,189-VC6 and VD23, 250. 48 Andrițoiu, Rustoiu 1997, 34-36. 49 Boroffka 1994, 249-250. 50 Popa, Boroffka 1996, 56, note 40. 51 Kacso 2004, 60, note 143. From “diachronic judgement” to the Theory of Possible Types of Symmetry 53 Of similarities and differences The origin of some of the presented “frying pans” has been erroneously stated as the one from Pl. IVA/2 is said to be from Syros52 a small correction is needed. The finding spot of the object is actually unknown but based on the shape of its “handle” and the decoration on its “bottom” it can be culturally and chronologically safely assigned to the Kampos group55. If a comparison is made between the spirals from the Cyclades and Transylvania some similarities may be recognised between the objects of the Kampos group and the deep dishes of the Wietenberg culture. One of these is double-lined running spi- ral with several or just a single volute. In both instances they are used as an exterior element, which encircles a central motif and it is separated from this only in the case of the “frying pans” by a “Kerbschnitt” bând. The central patterns, in the case of the Cycladic objects, are incised concentric circles or a radiant shape whereas in the other case it is either the “Wietenberg Cross” or also a radiant shape created through “Zahnstempellung”. In every instance they are organised in concentric bands, although this similarity might be due to the shape of the space at hand (circular “bottom” of a vessel). The last recognisable similarity is between the “frying pan” from Louros (Naxos) (Pl. IVA/5) and the Wietenberg vessel with “Zahnstempellung” filled dia- mond shaped motifs (Pl. IVA/6) in the structuring of its decorative space through the alternation of volutes and fishes and volutes and “diamonds”, although it should be noted that at a level of individual elements they totally differ from each other. Some similarities are recognised at the level of individual decorative elements of these two cultures. Both groups have incised, circular lines. The few pubic triangles of the discussed “frying pans” are made up by elements that are common to both cultural areas, namely diagonally or vertically hatched, incised bands or bands with point impressions; successive triangular impressions (“Kerbschnitt” and “Wolfzahn”, respectively); concentric circles with or without point in their middle; pseudo-spirals; more rarely fishbone pattern decoration; upright standing, hatched triangles on an incised base line, or large surfaces filled with zig - zag lines. Regardless of the several common traits of these two cultures the “frying pans” of the Kampos group are lacking the pubic triangles, which could serve for further similarities between them and the decorations of the Wietenberg culture. In this sense the presented two groups of materials (Pl. IV) have very little in common at the level of individual decorative elements and it seems that the only a few similarities are recognised in the structuring of the decoration. From a relative chronoiogical perspective it is sure that the Kampos group is located at the turn from Early Cycladic I to Early Cycladic II, which is more or less synchronised with the established chronologies of Egypt and the Near East. From the perspective of the absolute chronology the most C^samples are from the period of the Aegean Early Bronze Age II and as such date ante quem the Kampos group54. Most 52 Vulpe 2001a, 13, Fig. 2/2. 53 Coleman 1985, 211. 54 Warren, Hankey 1989,13, 25, 30; Manning 1995,144-151, Fig. 1. 54 Tibor-Tamâs Daroczi of the researchers allow for a period of ~ioo years for this Cycladic group, that ends around an estimated date of 2750-2650 BC (+/-50)55. Through the association of the individual decorative elements on the Wietenberg vessels it can be said that they date into the C phase of the culture, due to the pres- ence of the radiant motifs (VC 6) and pseudo-spirals (VD 2g)56. Although, some of the other decorative elements rnight appear sooner in the cultures repertoire the above stated dating remains valid since the principie of “the youngest element dates the context” must be applied in this case. The end of the C phase was dated between 1685-1524 BC (see above) and the beginning of it, by a post quem date, between 1610- 1445 BC (see above). As a general conclusion in regards of absolute chronology of the Wietenberg culture the beginning of the C phase must be placed after the beginning of the i7th century BC and most probably sometimes in the i6th century BC. As a conclusion to the analysis of the proposed objects and to the comparative study it rnight be safely stated, that the large geographic distance (""1000 km in air- line), with no further evidence for common elements of shape and decoration in this area, and the large temporal difference (at least 1000 years) between the two proposed groups of materials does not allow for any relationship between the mentioned “fry- ing pans” of the Cyclades and the vessels of the Wietenberg culture. Theory of the Possible Symmetry Types - Final considerations The question still remains why does the structure of the decorative patterns seem so similar? A possible explanation rnight be sought in the Theory of the Possible Symmetry Types. This theory was developed at the end of the iglh century and it States that there are seven possible types of symmetries for the shape of a bând and seventeen for a surface. The types are differentiated based on how they are placed in a space in relation to the symmetry elements (e. g. mirroring line, rotation points) in the symmetry structure57. Based on this theory there are only seven types of sym- metries in which the bands on the vessels of the Aegean Bronze Age and Transylvania rnight be organised and also considering the common shape of the surface that was intended for decoration (a roughly circular area) a possible explanation arises. From the perspective of the mentioned theory in all of the instances, regardless if from the Aegean or Transylvania, the surface is circular and the decoration is adapted to it, as the only way of creating symmetry on such a surface is through a point-symmetrical System58. Such a mirror-symmetry is very structured and rigid and a method to visu- ally loosen such a surface is the introduction of elements of spin-symmetry, in these cases, the different shapes of running spirals in the outer areas. As a direct result of such a combination the central motifs mirror-symmetry effect on the entire system of symmetry is annulled59. Above is noted that the similarities between the two groups of 55 Manning 1995, 217, note 1. 56 Boroffka 1994, 250. 57 Otto 1985, 5-28; Otto 1992, 244. 58 Otto 1985, 26-27. 59 Otto 1992, 246, 247, Fig. 4/a. From “diachronic judgement” to the Theory of Possible Types of Symmetry 55 objects are just < Symmetry Type especially since it the composition level of their decoration. The Theory of the Possible s seems to provide a satisfying explanation for the noticed similarities, no other connections between the two groups could be ascertained. Bibliography Andritoiu, Rustoi 1 7 u 1997 I. Andrițoiu, A. Rustoiu, Sighișoara - Wietenberg (Descoperirile preistorice și așezarea dacică), Bibliotheca Thracologica XXIII, București 1997. Bader1990 T. Bader, Bemerkungen uber die ăgăischen Einfliisse auf die alt- und mittelbronzezeitliche Entwicklung im Donau-Karpatenraum. In: T. Bader (Hrsg.), Orientalisch-ăgăische Einfliisse in der europăischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums, Romisch Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Forschungsinstitut fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte: Monographien 15, Bonn 1990,181-208. Boroffka 1994 N. G. O. Boroffka, Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitragzur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Siidosteuropa, Universitătsforschungen zur prăhis- torischen Archaologie 19, Bonn 1994. Bossert 1961 E.-M. Bossert, Die gestempelte Verzierungen auf fruhbronzezeitlichen Gefassen derĂgăis, JDAI, 75,1961,1-16. Bossert 1965 E.-M. Bossert, Ein Beitrag zu den Fruhkykladischen Fundgruppe, Anadolu Araștirmalari. Jahrbuch fur kleinasiatische Forschung, 2, Istanbul 1965, 85-100. Chidioșan 1980 N. Chidioșan, Contribuții la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul României. Așezarea Wietenberg de la Derșida, Oradea 1980. Christmann 1996 E. Christmann, Die friihe Bronzezeit. Deutsche Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula, in Thessalien (1967-1977), Beitrăge zur ur- und friihgeschichtlichen Archaologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 29, Bonn 1996. Coleman 1985 J. E. Coleman, “Frying pans” of the Early Bronze Age Aegean, AJA, 89,1985,191-219. Dietrich 2010 L. Dietrich, Eliten derfruhen und mittleren Bronzezeit im sudostlichen Karpatenbecken, PZ, 85, 2010,191-206. Ekschmitt 1986 W. Ekschmitt, Kunst und Kultur der Kykladen, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 28, Mainz am Rhein 1986. Faucounau 1978 J. Faucounau, Ea civilisation de Syros et l’origine du disque de Phaistos, Kprpokoyia, Crete, 7,1978,101-113. Horedt 1960 Horedt, Seraphin K. Horedt, Die Wietenbergkultur, Dacia N. S., IV, 1960,107-137. 1971 K. Horedt, C. Seraphin, Die Prăhistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Wietenberg bei Sighișoara-Schăssburg, Antiquitas, Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Friihgeschichte, zur klassischen und pro- vinzial-rdmischen Archaologie 10, Bonn 1971. Kacso 2004 KovToXeovroț 1972 Koșay1944 C. Kacso, Mărturii arheologice, Colecții Muzeale I, Baia Mare 2004. N. M. KovroXcovroț, ‘Avamcarpai Nâ^ov, PAA, 1972, 143-155. H. Z. Koșay, Ausgrabungen von Alața Hoyiik: ein Vorbericht liber die im Auftrage der tiirkischen Geschichtskommission im Sommer 1936 durchgefiihrten Forschungen und Entdeckungen, Veroffentlichungen der Tiirkischen Geschichtskommission V/2 a, Ankara 1944. 56 Tibor-Tamâs Daroczi Aan7tivov8âKT| 1976 Manning 1995 Maran 1998 Mellink 1956 Mylonas 1959 Otto 1985 Otto 1992 Popa, Boroffka 1996 Rambach 2000a Rambach 2000b Schroller 1933 Thimme 1977 Tcouvraț 1898 Toouvtaț 1899 Bapou/a 1926 Vasiliev 2005 Vulpe 2001a Vulpe 2001b B. K. AajiTuvovSâicr], ‘AvaaKa