22 Cultura Si Civilizatie La Dunarea de Jos XXII 2005

8/10/2019 22 Cultura Si Civilizatie La Dunarea de Jos XXII 2005

1/464

www.cimec.ro


2/464

1

CULTURI CIVILIZAIE LA DUNREA DE JOSXXII

IN HONOREM SILVIA MARINESCU-BLCU

www.cimec.ro


3/464

2

COLEGIUL DE REDACIE:

Redactor Responsabil:Marian Neagu

Redactori:Ctlin Lazr, Valentin Parnic

Traduceri:Anne Morgan, Ctlina Rdu, Alexandru Dragoman

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

OMAGIU. MARINESCU BLCU, SILVIAIn Honorem Silvia Marinescu Blcu - 70 ani. -

Bucureti : Daim, 2005ISBN 973-87003-9-6

902(498) Marinescu-Blcu, S.929 Marinescu-Blcu, S.

Colegiul de redacie nu rspunde de opiniile exprimate de autori.

Normele de redactare i sistemul de note folosite n aceastpublicaie sunt celefolosite de publicaia European Journal of Archaeologyeditat de EuropeanAssociation of Archaeologist i Sage Publications Ltd.(http://www.e-a-a.org/journal.htm)

Manuscrisele, crile i revistele pentru schimb, precum i orice corespondense vor trimite Colegiului de redacie, pe adresa:Muzeul Dunrii de Jos, str. Progresului, nr.4, Clrai, 910079, jud. Clraitel/fax 40242.313.161e-mail: [email protected]

Coperta IV: vas cucutenian descoperit la Drgani

Editura DAIM P.H. Bucureti www.daimph.roISBN:973-87003-9-6

www.cimec.ro


4/464

3

MUZEUL DUNRII DE JOS

In HonoremSilvia Marinescu-Blcu

70 de ani

Clrai, 2005

www.cimec.ro


5/464

4

www.cimec.ro


6/464

5

Sorin Cristian Ailinci (Tulcea)Petre Alexandrescu (Bucureti)Emilian Alexandrescu (Bucureti)

Marius Alexianu (Iai)Radian Romus Andreescu (Bucureti)Alexandru Avram (Frana)Mircea Babe(Bucureti)Douglass W. Bailey (Marea Britaniei)Krum Bacvarov (Bulgaria)Alexandru Barnea (Bucureti)Victor Bauman (Tulcea)Adrian Blescu (Bucureti)Maria Brbulescu (Constana)

Vitalie Brc(Cluj-Napoca)Diana Bindea (Cluj-Napoca)Carmen Bem (Bucureti)Ctlin DragoBem (Bucureti)Doinea Benea (Timioara)Adina Boronean(Bucureti)Maria Bitiri Ciortescu (Bucureti)Ioana Bogdan-Ctniciu (Cluj-Napoca)Octavian Bounegru (Iai)Elena Busuioc (Bucureti)Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino (Bucureti)

Joseph Canataci (Malta)Marin Crciumaru (Trgovite)John Chapman (Marea Britaniei)Marius Mihai Ciut(Alba Iulia)Ionel Cndea (Brila)Florin Constantiniu (Bucureti)Jean-Marie Cordy (Belgia)Zaharia Covacef (Constana)Vasile Cotiug(Iai)Oana Damian (Bucureti)

Paul Damian (Bucureti)Lidia Dasclu (Botoani)Valentin Dergacev (Chiinu)Petre Diaconu (Bucureti)Marin Dinu (Iai)Adrian Dobo(Bucureti)Roxana Dobrescu (Bucureti)Ctlin Dobrinescu

(Constana)Suzana Dolinescu-Ferche (Bucureti)Catrinel Domneanu (Bucureti)

Alexandru Dragoman (Bucureti)Florin Draoveanu (Timioara)Chritos Dumas (Grecia)Gheorghe Dumitroaia (Piatra Neam)Georgeta El Susi (Reia)Alin Frnculeasa (Ploieti)Constantin Hait(Bucureti)Sven Hansen (Germania)

Puiu Haotti (Constana)Mihai Irimia (Constana)Gabriel Jugnaru (Tulcea)Atilla Laszlo (Iai)Gheorghe Lazarovici (Cluj-Napoca)Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici (Cluj-Napoca)Ctlin Alexandru Lazr (Clrai)Clemens Lichter (Germania)Sabin Adrian Luca (Sibiu)Radu Lungu (Frana)

Virgil Lungu (Constana)Dan Lupoi (Clrai)Janos Makkay (Ungaria)Lucia Marinescu-eposu (Bucureti)Mihaela Mnucu-Admeteanu (Bucureti)Gheorghe Matei (Slobozia)Michel Maille (Frana)Zoia Maxim (Cluj Napoca)DragoMndescu (Piteti)Cristian Leonard Micu (Tulcea)Florian Mihail (Tulcea)

Virgil Mihilescu-Brliba (Iai)Pavel Mirea (Alexandria)Nicolae Mirioiu (Bucureti)DragoMoise (Australia)Dan Monah (Iai)Crian Mueeanu (Bucureti)Evghenia Naidenova (Bulgaria)John Nandris (Marea Britaniei)Dan Basarab Nanu (Galai)Marian Neagu (Clrai)

Marin Nica (Craiova)Eugen Nicolae (Bucureti)Irina Oberlnder-Trnoveanu (Bucureti)Vasile Oprea (Clrai)Ioan Opri(Bucureti)

Adriana Oprinescu-Rusu (Reia)Marcel Otte (Belgia)Nona Palinca(Bucureti)Iuliu Paul (Alba Iulia)StnicPandrea (Brila)

TABULA GRATULATORIA

www.cimec.ro


7/464

6

Tudor Papasima (Germania)Gheorghe Papuc (Constana)Valentin Aurel Parnic (Clrai)Eugen Pavele(Ploieti)Jan Pavk (Slovacia)Anca Punescu (Bucureti)Mircea Petrescu-Dmbovia (Iai)Traian Popa (Giurgiu)

Gabi Popescu (Bucureti)Dragomir Popovici (Bucureti)Eugenia Popuoi (Brlad)Valentin Radu (Bucureti)Florin Rdulescu (Clrai)Elena Rena (Slobozia)Cristian Schuster (Bucureti)Michel Louis Sfriads (Frana)GavrilSimion (Tulcea)Vladimir Slavchev (Bulgaria)

Andrei Dorian Soficaru (Bucureti)Valeriu Srbu (Brila)Alexandru Suceveanu (Bucureti)Done erbnescu (Oltenia)Clin uteu (Alba Iulia)

Nikola Tasi(Serbia)Dan Gh. Teodor (Iai)Silvia Teodor (Iai)Silviu Teodor (Bucureti)Stoilka Terzijska-Ignatova (Bulgaria)Laurens Thissen (Olanda)Henrieta Todorova (Bulgaria)Mihai Tomescu (S.U.A.)

Florin Topoleanu (Tulcea)George Trohani (Bucureti)Ersilia Tudor (Bucureti)Ecaterina nreanu (Alexandria)Mircea Udrescu (Belgia)Nicolae Ursulescu (Iai)Valentin Vasiliev (Alba Iulia)Mirela Vernescu (Brila)Florin Vlad (Slobozia)Valentina Mihaela Voinea (Constana)

Alexandru Vulpe (Bucureti)Pompilia Zaharia (Alexandria)Vladimir Zbenovi(Israel)

www.cimec.ro


8/464

7

CUPRINS

Silvia Marinescu Blcu i cercetarea arheologic........................................ 9

STUDII I ARTICOLEAdina BoroneanEarly Neolithic Lithic Industries (The Banat and Transylvania) .......................... 19Pavel Mirea,Consideraii asupra locuirii Starevo-Cridin sud-vestul Munteniei..................... 37Z. MaximSnake Symbolistic in the Prehistory of the South - East Europe.......................... 53Diana BindeaZooarcheological Aspects Regarding the Economic Life of Pre-and Proto-historical Sites from Transylvania..................................................... 63Douglass Bailey,

Studying the Neolithic: An Argument Against Generalization.............................. 85M. SeferiadesNote shamanique: A propos du bucrane nolithique de Dikili Tash (Macdoineorientale grecque)......................................................................................... 97Sabin Adrian LucaNew Discoveries of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Fine Arts at Miercurea Sibiului-Petri, Trtria and Lumea Nou....................................................................115Evghenia Naidenova,Characteristics and Analogies in Vdastra Pottery Found South of the Danube...127Radian Romus Andreescu,

Valea Teleormanului. Mediul i comunitile umane n mileniul V a.Chr. .............141Constantin Hait,Preliminary Considerations on the Sedimentological Sondages Performedin the Neo-eneolithic Tell Borduani Popin.....................................................151 Vladimir SlavchevAbout the Beginning of Gumelnia Culture in North-East of Balkan Peninsula.....161A. Blescu, D. Moise, V. Radu,The Palaeoeconomy of Gumelnia Communities on the Territory of Romania.....167Mihai Tomescu,Probing the Seasonality Signal in Pollen Spectra of Eneolithic Coprolites

(Hrova-tell, Constana County, Southeast Romania).....................................207

Cristian Micu, Michel Maille, Florian Mihail,Outils et pices en pierre portant des traces de faonnage et/ou dutilisationdcouverts Luncavia (dep. de Tulcea) ........................................................223StnicPandrea, Mirela Vernescu,Cteva observaii referitoare la raporturile dintre cultura Gumelniai cultura Precucuteni....................................................................................263John Chapman,Contextual Archaeology and Burnt House Assemblages: Categorical

Analysis of Pottery from Late Neolithic Cscioarele, Romania............................279

www.cimec.ro


9/464

8

Ctlin Lazr, Andrei Soficaru,Consideraii preliminare asupra unor oase umane descoperite n aezareagumelnieande la Cscioarele-Ostrovel.........................................................297 C. Bem, A. Blescu,

A few Considerations Regardinfg an Exceptional Archaeological Situation.Foundation Pit of the Settlement or Occasional Offering?.................................317 Svend Hansen,Eine tnerne Rassel in Schildkrtengestalt aus Mgura Gorgana bei

Pietrele, jud. Giugiu......................................................................................337 Valentin Parnic, Ctlin Lazr,Plastica antropomorfgumelnieande la Mriua La Movil.........................351Marian NeaguNoi descoperiri n aezarea de la Cscioarele-Ostrovel .....................................371Stoilka Terzijska-IgnatovaNewly Found Bone Figurines at Tell Yunatsite, Pazardzhik Region, Bulgaria .......377Valentina Voinea,Gesturi i semnificaii n arta gumelniean.....................................................383 Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia Magda Lazarovici,

Contribuii privind arhitectura eneoliticului din Banat, Criana i Transilvania......399Ctlin Dobrinescu, Constantin Hait,Aezri de tip cenuar din bronzul trziu n sud-estul Romniei.........................421 DragoMndescu,Considrations sur la chronologie relative et absolute de la ncropoleGte de professeur Ichirkovo, rgion Silistra (Bulgarie du nord-est)..................429Valeriu Srbu, Vitalie BrcFigurative Representations on Sarmatian and Geto-Dacian Phaleraeof 2nd-1stCenturies ......................................................................................441E. nreanu,Date despre locuirea medievalromneascdin castrul roman de la Poiana

Flmnda, judeul Teleorman........................................................................455

www.cimec.ro


10/464

9

SILVIA MARINESCU-BLCUI CERCETAREA ARHEOLOGIC

Demn motenitoare i continuatoare a activitii prestigioase a lui VladimirDumitrescu, doamna Silvia Marinescu-Blcu i-a dedicat ntreaga via cercetriiarheologice, din care a fcut o profesiune de credin. Pasiunea, abnegaia idevotamentul pentru arheologie au fost exemplar i strlucit dublate deprofesionalism, disciplin, rigurozitate, exigen i de o aleas responsabilitate ntot ceea ce a fptuit. Toate aceste caliti ntruchipate ntr-o personalitate foarteputernic ce nu i-a nclcat principiile au proiectat-o ntr-o ipostazde adevratmentor al arheologiei preistorice contemporane.

Silvia Marinescu-Blcu nu a fost doar o conductoare de doctorate, ci i-aasumat rolul formator a cel puin dou generaii de arheologi sau cercettoripreistoricieni. Doctoranzii domniei sale au fost i sunt sprijinii i ndrumai pas cupas, precum sunt nvai puii s zboare de ctre pasrea-mam. Paradoxal, n

ciuda exigenei sale proverbiale, este nzestratcu o sensibilitate rari a neles iparticipat trit la cea mai nalt temperatur la emoiile prin care au trecutcolaboratorii i doctoranzii domniei sale.

Asemenea lui Vladimir Dumitrescu, Silvia Marinescu-Blcu a pus accentul perolul moralei n arheologie. Silvia Marinescu-Blcu nu a fcut compromisuritiinifice, conduita-i exemplar aducndu-i n nu puine situaii multe necazuri iprobleme n anii comunismului, dar i dup1990! Astfel, majoritatea doctoranzilori-au devenit i discipoli ! Pregtirea doctoratelor Doctoratele sau simplele ntlniri

ntlnirile cu Silvia Marinescu-Blcu au devenit o adevratcoalde preistorie lacare s-au format arheologi sau cercettori nsemnai precum Radian RomusRomulus Andreescu, Puiu Haotti, Dragomir Popovici, Sabin Adrian Luca, Valentina

Voinea, Roxana Dobrescu, Stnic Pandrea, Cristian Micu, Ctlin Bem, MihaiTomescu, Adrian Blescu, Drago Moise, Valentin Radu, Cornel Beldiman,Emilian Alexandrescu, Florin Vlad, Costel Hait, Pavel Mirea, Valentin Parnic sauCtlin Lazr. Eforturile de a lega ntr-o strategie unitar cercetarea arheologicpreistoric de pe cele dou maluri ale Dunrii s-au concretizat n doctoratularheologului bulgar din Oreahovo, Evghenia Naidenova.

Doamna preistoriei romneti are o viziune aparte asupra fenomenuluitiinific i al integrrii sale culturale. n perioada de incertitudini i chiardegringolad, ce nu a ocolit nici arheologia romneasc dup evenimentele dindecembrie 1989!, Silvia Marinescu-Blcu a fost una din minile luminate ale

cercetrii tiinifice romneti. Dei adversar a sistemului unei centralizriexcesive, a pledat pentru metode unitare de cercetare n cadrul unei strategii cares fac cunoscute n toat lumea cele mai importante descoperiri i cercetriarheologice romneti. Astfel, Trpeti i Drgueni sunt monografii arheologice ceconstituie modele, nu doar n cercetarea romneasc, ci recunoscute pe planinternaional. Deloc ntmpltor, prima monografie dedicat sitului de la Trpeti(Marinescu-Blcu 1981) a fost publicatla Oxford, n prestigioasa serie BAR, iar ceade-a doua, Drgueni (Marinescu-Blcu, Bolomey 2000) editat chiar de celebrulInstitut Arheologic German i Institutul de Arheologie Vasile Prvan! Pentrumonografia arheologicTrpeti a obinut Premiul Academiei Romne n anul 1981.

www.cimec.ro


11/464

10

Nume de rezonanale arheologiei europene i-au devenit prieteni sau colaboratoriprecum M. Garaanin, N. Tasi, Bogdan Brukner, din Serbia, Nandor Kalicz, JanosMakkay din Ungaria, Jan Pavk din Slovacia, Vladimir Dergacev din RepublicaMoldova, Henrieta Todorova din Bulgaria, Arend von Mayer din Germania, JohnChapman i Douglass Bailey din Marea Britanie. Practic, majoritatea colaborrilorinternaionale din domeniul preistoriei s-au bucurat de consilierea important adoamnei Silvia Marinescu-Blcu.

ntotdeauna a tratat cu maximum de profesionalism i responsabilitate toate

descoperirile arheologice la care a luat parte, nu doar pe cele preistorice. Astfel,Silvia Marinescu-Blcu a elaborat articole i studii despre materialele arheologicehallstattiene sau geto-dacice, ori a valorificat exemplar descoperirile numismatice.

Una din caracteristicile activitii sale tiinifice o constituie abordarea frontala marilor probleme ale arheologiei preistorice romneti i sud-est europene,precum cultura Cri, Precucuteni i Cucuteni, cultura ceramicii liniare sauGumelnia, relaiile cu lumea neo-eneoliticului sud-est european, egeic imicroasiatic, problemele vieii spirituale, expert unic n studierea statuetelorantropomorfe i zoomorfe.

Silvia Marinescu-Blcu a nfruntat cu senintate i demnitate ostilitatea unor

colegi i arheologi, fra renuna la principiile sale de-o via. mplinirea celor 70de ani cu aceiai distincie, elegani senintate ne pune n postura de a-i ura srmn tnr la suflet, iar binecunoscuta-i energie s-i lumineze activitateatiinificncmuli ani de acum ncolo!

Marian Neagu

www.cimec.ro


12/464

11

SILVIA MARINESCU-BLCU 70 DE ANI

Nscut la Braov - 1 ianuarie 1935, a absolvit Facultatea de Istorie aUniversitii din Bucureti, Secia de Istorie Veche i Arheologie n vara anului1958, trecnd atunci i examenul de stat cu o lucrare privind epoca roman,

intitulatMonografia oraului Dierna.i-a susinut teza de doctorat cu lucrarea Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Moldovei,n aprilie 1971, n cadrul Facultii de Istorie a Universitii Al. I. Cuza din Iai, titlul fiindu-i confirmat de comisia superioara de diplome n noiembrie 1971.

Lucreazla Institutul de Arheologie "Vasile Prvan" din toamna anului 1957;angajat iniial pentru scurt timp ndrumtor, iar din vara anului 1958 pn ladata pensionrii (1 dec. 1999) a lucrat frnici-o ntrerupere. Dupaceastdata devenit cercettor principal I asociat al aceluiai Institut.

Activitatea de teren a nceput-o ncdin anii studeniei: 1955 Histria; 1956-1957 Traian; 1957 Bicaz, continund-o n toi anii urmtori. A lucrat pe teren camembr n colectivele de la Traian (1958-1961); Cscioarele (1962-1968);Trpeti (1961-1963); Histria (1965); Topile (1969); Drgueni (1970-1972),rspunznd de diverse sectoare. A condus spturile arheologice de la Trpeti(1959-1960, 1964-1965, 1968); Grumzeti (1960, 1971-1972); Ghigoeti-Trudeti (1969-1970); Hneti (1971); Drgueni (1973-1985); Piatra oimului -Calu (1973-1974); Gumelnia-necropoli Brlaleti, ultimele doureducndu-senumai la mici sondagii; Izvoare (1987-1990); Borduani (1986-1999); Ciulnia(1992-1996); Luncavia i Isaccea (1997-1998); Bucani (1998).

n cadrul Institutului a activat ntre anii 1958-1965 la secia Muzeu. n urmaconcursului susinut n anul 1965, a fost numit cercettor tiinific la SeciaSclavagist, n cadrul creia s-a preocupat de probleme legate de "Meteugurile

n Dacia Roman". Totodat a executat o sptur ntr-un tumul al mariinecropole de la Histria, sptur pe care a valorificat-o ntr-o comunicaresusinut la Institut i mai apoi ntr-un articol publicat n Studii i Cercetri deIstorie Veche.

Din 1969, a obinut mutarea la Secia Preistoric, unde n primvara anului1972 a trecut i examenul de cercettor tiinific principal gradul III, n octombrie1991 pe acela de cercettor tiinific principal gradul II, iar de la 1 ianuarie 1994este cercettor tiinific principal gradul I.

ncepnd cu anul 1992 conduce n cadrul Institutului doctorate laspecialitateaArheologie Preistoric. n aceastcalitate apte dintre cei nscrii au

devenit doctor, n istorie, zece fiind ncdoctoranzi. Este membrn comitetul deredacie al revistei Dacia, redactor responsabil al revistei Studii de Preistorie imembr n comitetul de redacie al revistei Cultur i Civilizaie la Dunrea deJos. Cu ncepere din 1995 pn la data pensionrii a fcut parte din Consiliultiinific al Institutului.

ncepnd cu anul 1959, s-a ocupat de culturile epocii neo-eneolitice, n modspecial de probleme legate de culturile Precucuteni, Cucuteni i Gumelnia, maiapoi de acelea ale culturilor liniar-ceramici Cri, precum i de marile problemeale neo-eneoliticului sud-est european, microasiatic i egeic. n cadrul acestorpreocupri a valorificat materiale provenite att din spturi recente (Trpeti,

www.cimec.ro


13/464

12

Cscioarele, Ghioeti-Trudeti, Larga-Jijiei, Mandrica, Andrieeni etc.), ct i dinvechile colecii ale Muzeului Naional de Antichiti i ale altor muzee din ar(Oltenia, Tg. Mure, Piatra Neam, Iai, etc.).

Lucrarea de sintezpublicat "Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romniei"afost rezultatul unei munci susinute de teren, n muzee i biblioteci i a unuistudiu amnunit asupra tuturor materialelor aparinnd acestei culturi de pe

ntreaga ei arie de rspndire.A studiat materiale neo-eneolitice dintr-o serie de muzee din ara - Iai,

Piatra Neam, Tg. Neam, Bacu, Alba Iulia, Sibiu, Cluj-Napoca, Braov, Sf.Gheorghe, Miercurea Ciuc, Constana etc. S-a preocupat nsi de alte perioadevalorificnd n diverse studii, materiale arheologice halltattiene, geto-dacice ichiar descoperiri numismatice.

n anul 1981 a redactat i publicat monografia Trpeti, aprutla Oxford, nprestigioasa serie B.A.R. Aceast lucrare a obinut premiul "Vasile Prvan" al

Academiei Romne.ncepnd din 1960 a redactat i rapoartele preliminare asupra tuturor

spturilor conduse de domnia sa, care au fost predate direciunii Institutului,dar i prezentate la sesiunile anuale de rapoarte: Bucureti, Tulcea (1980),

Braov (1981), Vaslui (1982), Ploieti (1983), Alba-lulia (1984), Deva (1987),Timioara (1988), Sibiu (1989), Arad (1990), Piatra Neam (1991), lai (1992),Constana (1993), Satu Mare (1994), Cluj-Napoca (1995), Brila (1996),Bucureti (1997), Clrai (1998).

A prezentat comunicri tiinifice att n cadrul Institutului ct i la diversesesiuni ale unor muzee din ar(Constana, Cluj-Napoca, Botoani, Piatra Neam,

Alba Iulia, Clrai, Vaslui, Slobozia, Timioara etc.), la simpozioane i Congreseinternaionale (Praga, Szkesfehrvr, Plovdiv, Nice etc).

De asemenea, a publicat n revistele din ar i din strintate peste 70(aptezeci) de articole i a redactat i predat direciunii Institutului 18(optsprezece) rapoarte preliminare de spturi.

n anii 1970 i 1980 n cadrul schimbului de experien a fcut cltorii destudii n URSS, n 1977 n Polonia, n 1991 n Republica Moldova, iar n 1996 nIran. Cu burse de studii oferite de Asociaia Internaional de Studii sud-estEuropene a ntreprins cltorii de studii n Iugoslavia (1969), Turcia (1971), Italia(1972). Pe cont propriu a fcut cltorii de studii n Bulgaria i Ungaria, unde avizitat muzeele i institutele de specialitate, studiind cu precdere materialeleneo-eneolitice.

n anul 1994 a beneficiat de o burs de dou luni n Grecia, oferit delnstitutul Arheologic German.

A colaborat la ntocmirea bibliografiei preistorice romneti (1965-1970), care

urmeazsfie publicatn seria Council for Old World Archaeology(SUA).De asemenea, a redactat o serie de voci att pentru Dicionarul Enciclopedicde Istorie Veche i Arheologie (vol I-II i III), ct i pentru Enciclopedia IstoricRomn.

n anul 2000 a publicat (n colaborare cu Alexandra Bolomey) rezultatelespturilor de la Drgueni (jud. Botoani).

n acelai timp a publicat o serie de articole avnd ca subiect cele maispectaculoase descoperiri neo-eneolitice de pe teritoriul rii noastre, precum i oserie de recenzii asupra unor lucrri de specialitate.

www.cimec.ro


14/464

13

LISTA DE LUCRRI

Volume:

1.

Catalogul sculpturilor gumelniene din Muzeul Oltenia, Sibiu, 1967, 43pag., 21 plane (n colaborare cu B. Ionescu).2.

Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romniei, Bucureti, 1974, 212 pag., 95figuri (Ed. Academiei).

3.

Trpeti. From Prehistory to History in Eastern Romania, BAR,International Series, 107, Oxford, 1981, 173 pag., 245 figuri.

4.

Drgueni. A Cucutenian Community, Bucureti, 2000, 198 pag., 190 fig.,4 plane color (n colaborare cu Al. Bolomey).

Articole:

1. Sondajul de la Trpeti. Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice VIII, 1962:235-243.2.

Douvase zoomorfe din cultura Gumelnia. Studii i Cercetri de IstorieVeche2, 1961: 345-358.

3.

Un torques geto-dacic, de argint, descoperit n Moldova. Studii iCercetri de Istorie Veche1, 1962: 111-114.

4.

Un nou topor de silex lefuit descoperit n Moldova de nord-vest. Studiii Cercetri de Istorie Veche1, 1962: 91-93.

5.

O statuet neolitic de marmor descoperit la Gumelnia. Studii iCercetri de Istorie Veche2, 1963: 139-144.

6.

Noi urme bastarne n Moldova de nord-est. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie

Veche2, 1963: 413-418.7.

Klad Bronzovih izdelii v Oinake. DaciaN.S. VII, 1963: 517-526.8.

Reflets des rapports entre les civilisation de Hamangia et de Precucutenidans la plastique precucutenienne de Trpeti. Dacia N.S VIII, 1964:307-312.

9.

Unele probleme ale perioadei de tranziie de la neolitic la epoca bronzuluin Moldova, n lumina a trei morminte plane de inhumaie descoperite laTrpeti. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche2, 1964: 241-250.

10.

Un atelier nolithique pour la taille des haches en silex. ArchaelogickeRozhledyXVII (1), 1965: 48-53.

11.

Not asupra descoperirilor carpo-dacice de la Trpeti. FastiArchaeologici XVII (1962), 1965: 435.12.

Asupra unui depozit de bronzuri de la Oinac. Revista Muzeelor III (4),1966: 349-352.

13.

Cteva descoperiri geto-dacice de la Cscioarele. Studii i Cercetri deIstorie Veche3, 1966: 113-123.

14.

Lhabitat cramique rubane de la station nolithique de Trpeti etquelques problmes de la cramique rubane en Roumanie. Actes duVII Congres International des Sciences Prhistorique et Protohistorique,Praga, 1966: 423-426.

www.cimec.ro


15/464


16/464

15

36.

Unele aspecte ale legturilor dintre neo-eneoliticul romnesc iculturile egeice i microasiatice. PonticaXIII, 1980: 57-65.

37.

n ce zon i cum s-a putut face trecerea de la ultima faza culturiiPrecucuteni la prima faza culturii Cucuteni. Studii i Comunicri Sibiu21, 1981: 27-34.

38.

Drgueni (jud Botoani). Raport de spturi. Materiale i CercetriArheologiceXIV, 1980: 100-102.

39.

Unele probleme ale nceputurilor neoliticului la est de Carpaii Orientali.Anuarul Muzeului Judeean SuceavaVIII, 1981: 163-167.

40.

Contributions to the Ecology of Pre-and Proto-Historic Habitations atTrpei. DaciaN.S. XXV, 1981: 7-31 (n colaborare).

41.

Cteva elemente de cultura Noua i hallstattiene descoperite n Moldovacentral. Thraco-DacicaII, 1981: 147-159.

42.

n legtur cu cteva opinii ale unor cercettori strini asupra neo-eneoliticului romnesc. PonticaXIV, 1981: 39-46.

43.

Au sujet de quelques opinions d'auteurs etrangeres sur le no-nolithique de Roumanie. DaciaN.S. XXVI, 1982: 153-156.

44.

Le dbut et les tapes de la culture Prcucuteni ainsi que ses relations

avec la culture Tripolje. Thracia Praehistorica. SupplementumPulpudeva3, 1982: 23-44.

45.

n legtur cu cteva opinii privind originea i evoluia neoliticului ieneoliticului pe teritoriul Moldovei. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche iArheologie34 (2), 1983: 116-128.

46.

Cercetrile de la Drgueni, jud. Botoani. Materiale i CercetriArheologice XV, 1983: 82-85.

47.

Ecological, economic and behavioural aspects of the Cucuteni A4Community at Drgueni. Dacia N.S. XXVIII (1-2), 1984: 41-46 (ncolaborare).

48.

propos de statuette du type "Le penseur " de l'Atique et le problmede ses ventuelles relations avec celle de Cernavoda. Dacia N.S. XXIX(1-2), 1985: 119-123.

49.

nceputurile i etapele culturii Precucuteni i relaiile sale cu culturaTripolie. Memoria AntiquitatisIX-XI (1977-1979), 1985: 419-428.

50.

Contribuii la ecologia locuirilor pre- i protoistorice de la Trpeti.Memoria AntiquitatisIX-XI (1977-1979), 1985: 643-684 (n colaborare).

51.

O statuet cicladic de "gnditor" i eventualele sale legturi cu piesesimilare din Romnia. Culturi Civilizaie la Dunrea de Jos I, 1985:83-89.

52.

Unele probleme ale culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie. Cultur i Civilizaie laDunrea de JosIII-IV, 1987: 39-48.53.

Industria osului n aezarea cucuteniana de la Drgueni-Ostrov. Studiii Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 39 (4), 1988: 331-353 (ncolaborare).

54.

Ceramica cucutenian de la Drgueni: tradiii, creaii proprii, aspecteregionale. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie40 (3), 1989:215-239.

55.

Tezaurul de monede romane descoperit la Trpeti. Studii i Cercetride NumismaticIX, 1989: 43-51 (n colaborare).

www.cimec.ro


17/464

16

56.

Asko et rhytons nolithiques des rgions balkano-danubiennes et leurrelations avec la Sud, la lumiere de quelques pieces de Cscioarele.DaciaN.S. XXXIV, 1990: 5-21.

57.

Stratigrafie i tipologie n cercetarea neoliticului i eneoliticului. Studii iCercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie42 (3-4), 1991: 113-119.

58.

Sur quelques problmes du nolihique et du nolithique Vest desCarpathes Orientales. Dacia N.S. XXXV, 1991: 5-59.

59.

Coliersde "Lithospermum purpureo coeruleum" et "prles" de cerf dans

l'nolithique de Roumanie dans la contexte Central et Sud-EstEuropen. Prehistoire Europaenne, vol. 2, Lige, 1992: 70-88 (ncolaborare).

60.

Coliere de "Lithospermum purpureo coeruleum" i "perle" de cerb nneoliticul din Romnia n contextul centrului i sud-estului Europei. Studiii Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 43 (4), 1992: 355-370 (ncolaborare).

61.

Spturile arheologice de la Izvoare - Piatra Neam din anul 1987.Memoria AntiquitatisXVIII, 1992: 173-181 (n colaborare).

62.

Les Carpathes Orientales et la Moldavie. Atlas du Nolithique europen.

L'Europe orientale. E.R.A.U.L., Lige, 1993: 191-241.63.

Un vas cultic cucutenian de la Izvoare - Piatra Neam. MemoriaAntiquitatisXIX, 1994: 97-114 (n colaborare).

64.

Elemente trzii n ceramica Cucuteni A de la Drgueni i relaiileacestora cu descoperirile de la Traian-Dealul Fntnilor. MemoriaAntiquitatisXIX, 1994: 115-126.

65.

Les contributions de Vladimir Dumitrescu pour dfinir le concept decomplexe culturel Ariud-Cucuteni-Tripolje et pour la connaisance de sesorigines et de son volution interne.In Dumitroaia, Gh., Monah, D. (eds.)Cucuteni aujourd'hui, Piatra Neam, 1996: 27-38.

66.

Consideraii pe marginea organizrii interne a unora dintre aezrileculturilor din complexul Precucuteni-Cucuteni. Cultur i Civilizaie laDunrea de JosXV, 1997: 165-201.

67.

Industria materialelor dure animale n cadrul culturii Starevo-Cride peteritoriul Romniei. Aezarea de la Grumzeti, judeul Neam. MemoriaAntiquitatisXXI, 1996: 273-296 (n colaborare).

68.

Archaeological Researches at Borduani-Popina (Ialomita County).Preliminary Report 1993-1994. Cercetri ArheologiceX, 1997: 35-143 (ncolaborare).

69.

antierul arheologic Bucani (jud. Giurgiu). Raport preliminar. Campania1998. Buletinul Muzeului Teohari Antonescu II-IV, 1996-1998: 93-102

(n colaborare).70.

Les recherches archologiques de sauvetage de Ciulnitza, dep. deIalomia (1994-1997).Pratiques funraires dans l'Europe des XIIIe -IV's. av. J. C. Actes du III Colloque International d'Archologie Funraire,Tulcea, 2000: 149-165 (n colaborare).

71.

Rhyta sau vase zoomorfe?Buletinul Muzeului Teohari Antonescu V-VI,1999-2000: 251-261.

72.

Sur lorganisation interne de certaines station des cultures des complexeBoian-Gumelnitza et Prcucuteni-Cucuteni. Cercetri ArheologiceXI (1),1998-2000: 321-336.

www.cimec.ro


18/464

17

73.

Noi descoperiri de la Gumelnia. Culturi civilizaie la Dunrea de JosXVI-XVII, 2001: 114-144 (n colaborare).

74.

Noi dovezi ale tradiiilor precucuteniene n mediul cultural cucutenian.Studii de Preistorie1, 2001: 95-104.

75.

A Few Observations on the internal organization of Gumelniacommunities on Lake Ctlui Islet. In Memoriam Vladimir Dumitrescu.Culturi Civilizaie la Dunrea de JosXIX, 2001: 147-153.

76.

Aezarea eneoliticde pe insula "La Ostrov" lacul Taaul (Nvodari, jud.

Constana). Raport preliminar- campaniile 1999-2000. Pontica XXXIII-XXXIV, 2001: 123-170 (n colaborare).

77.

. Stratum PlusII, 2001-2002: 164-169.

78.

Cu privire la unele piese tiate din corn de cerb. Buletinul MuzeuluiTeohari AntonescuVII-VIII, 2001-2002: 103-112.

79.

Ace de pr descoperite n tell-ul de la Atmgeua-Ttrasc. In Cndea,I., Srbu, V., Neagu, M. (eds.)Prinos lui Petre Diaconu la 80 de ani,Clrai-Brila, 2004: 35-40 (n colaborare).

80.

Piscul Corniorului. Studii de Preistorie2 (2003-2004), 2005: 143-180 (n

colaborare).81.

Noi date privind depuneri rituale n peteri din Mehedini. Studii dePreistorie2 (2003-2004), 2005: 207-213 (n colaborare).

La acestea se adaugun numr de peste 50 comunicri tiinifice inute nar i strintate, articole aprute n pres, informaii la radio i emisiunitelevizate, toate referitoare la cele mai spectaculoase descoperiri neo-eneoliticefcute pe teritoriul Romniei.

www.cimec.ro


19/464

18

www.cimec.ro


20/464

19

ADINA BORONEAN*

EARLY NEOLITHIC LITHIC INDUSTRIES (THEBANAT AND TRANSYLVANIA1)

Abstract:Industria litica neoliticului timpuriu in Romania pare sfie sraca i puin variat. Articoluli propune sdemonstreze cn parte, aceasta se datoreaz nepublicrii materialului litic cioplit saulefuit. In acelai timp, se propune o metodologie nou- chaine operatoire'- n abordarea industrieilitice cioplite, se discutavantajele i aplicaiile analizei litice in contextul mai larg al arheologiei sitului.O trecere n revista materialului arheologic publicat pnn prezent aratcpreocuprile, au cuprinsmai degrabdeterminarea surselor de materii prime, analiza tipologici mai puin tehnicile de cioplirei modul de utilizare al uneltelor, ceea ce ar aduce o abordare dinamic industriei litice. Se discutsursele de materii prime din zon, tipologia, microlitismul, i prin aceasta, eventualele contacte cumezoliticul din zon. Industria liticlefuitpare la fel de slab reprezentat. Tipologia este neclari

existtipuri de unelte care nu par a se ncadra n defini ia tradiional de piatrlefuit dar nici n ceacioplit. Pentru aceasta am propus adoptarea unei definiii din literatura de specialitate strin carelrgete acest concept. Numrul mare de aezri ale neoliticului timpuriu din Transilvania nendreptete scredem - i descoperirile recente din Ungaria si Slovacia ne confirmacest lucru- cindustria liticeste mai bogati mai variatdecat se credea dar crelaiile sale cu mezoliticul rmnncneclare.

Keywords:early neolithic, Starevo-Criculture, lithic industries, tools, sourcing of the raw materials.

There is no doubt that pottery is regarded as the most important

archaeological artifact type in studying the Neolithic. But although ceramics may beconsidered as some kind of a fossile directeure2(Maxim 1999: 31) there are otherartifact types that should not be neglected when looking into the life-style aspectsof the Neolithic communities, such as the lithic or bone industries. They mightexhibit neither fast changes in types nor great variation in styles but this does notmean that they are not taking place. Perhaps, the major change may have beena shift away from a reactive and adventitious production and refinement of toolson the spot as necessary, towards a productive but foresightful system of acquiringappropriate high-quality raw materials, shaping blade cores and perhaps even

producing the majority of blades at a distance from the place and time of eventualuse(Bailey 2000: 131).

Archaeology does not limit itself to describing past objects and cultures. It alsotries to give answers to questions of a dynamic nature. Questionsas: how do theearly Starevo-Crilithic tools connect to the previous Mesolithic tradition and thefollowing Middle Neolithic? Can we prove that the microlithic industry is the resultof a Mesolithic-Neolithic contact? Does the availability of raw materials influencethe chipping techniques and/or the typology of the tools? Is there a variability tobe noted among the assemblages of contemporary Starevo-Cri sites? Has the

*Vasile Prvan Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest. e-mail: [email protected].

www.cimec.ro


21/464

20

raw material changed during the Neolithic development in the same regions? Andif so, why and how? What led to the adoption/invention of the ground stone tools

the introduction of farming as a major activity or the transition to a sedentary lifewith a strong hunting-gathering economy in its base?

This are just a few questions that could find an answer if more attention weregranted to the lithic industry. The present paper suggests that it is time for achange in the methodology when studying lithic artifacts, to a methodologyenabling us to see the tools in their dynamic lives, not only as a one time frozen

type. It also argues for the introduction and use of consistent typologies in whatthe ground stone industry is concerned, for the complete publication of the lithicmaterial (chipped or ground) no matter how poor it might seem, and whilereviewing the Early Neolithic assemblages in Transylvania it briefly presents thewider applications the lithic analysis might provide.

1. Theoretical bases of the lithic analysis: concepts, techniques, methods

The chaine operatoire is one of the main tools in the lithic analysis It hasbeen rarely employed in Romanian archaeology at its whole extent, although the

benefits of choosing it as an analytical tool are many3

and the concept itself is farfrom being new (Inizan et al. 1999; Sellet 1993; Collins 1973).F.Sellet (1993: 106) described the chaine operatoire as a technological

approach that seeks to reconstruct the organization of a technological system at agiven archaeological site with a particular stress on revealing the dynamics of thelithic system and its role within the broader technology of a prehistoric grou

Part of the novelty of the concept is the fact that it integrates three separatelevels of analysis: the objects themselves tools and byproducts, a series ofgestures or technical sequences (the methods to produce tools) and the abstractlevel the specific technical knowledge shared by all group members.

The chaine operatoire is made up of five subsystems: the raw materialprocurement, tool manufacture, tool use, maintenance and discard. The rawmaterial analysis includes the determination of the type of raw materials, theirquantitative and qualitative importance, the morphology under which they wereintroduced, the process under which they were introduced (indirect vs. directprocurement). The tool manufacture is seen as a series of steps (reductionsequences/stages). One or a series of end products, waste flakes or debris,bearing technical criteria, characterizes each of them. Based on its owncharacteristics each flake can be assigned to a reduction stage. There are threemethods of looking at the tool manufacture: refitting4, diacritical studies (studies offlaking sequences)5, and experimentation. Therefittingprovides a dynamic view

of the tools life, helps to infer strategies of use and to validate existing typologies.It reveals the morphology of raw materials when introduced into the site blanks,cores already, cores in exploitation and it shows the particular methods ofreduction. The advantage of the flaking sequencesis that it studies both flakesand cores, including waste flakes and resharpening flakes, as opposed to refittingwhere cores and bifaces are the primary sources of data. Experimentationprovides better definition of relevant technological criteria for use in makinginferences (Sellet 1993). The use, maintenance and discard deal with thesuccessive transformations of a tool, the study of the type of blanks, theresharpening chips. The goal is not to reconstruct the function of each tool (done

www.cimec.ro


22/464

21

by the use-wear studies) but rather to refine the data provided by traditionaltypological analysis. Tools are seen in dynamic transformation not merely asimmutable types.

Analysis implementation implies determining the frequency of flake types,number of scars on platforms and dorsal surfaces, manufacturing tools, rejectedbroken tool portions. All this has their importance and place in the different stepsof the reduction processes. The integration of these frequencies with theirdistributions across lithic types reveal how different materials were workeddifferent, give an insight on the acquisition of the material types, show the effectsof distance on particular material, on trade and exchange (Kooyman 2000: 147).

What is the difference between the chaine operatoire approach and thetraditional one? Unlike the typological studies that have failed to consider stonetools as responsive to specific needs, it lets us see technological trajectoriesthrough the relationships of lithic subsystems, and thus outlines the choice of theprehistoric people. Though a chaine operatoire study requires taxonomy, thistaxonomy does not have universally explanatory value. The type of classificationneeded in a chaine operatoire analysis is peculiar to each situation and answersspecific analytical needs (Sellet 1993: 111).

Apart from the chaine operatoire there are of course other ways lithicindustries could provide information on human communities. Styles andtechnologies are used to trace migrations and contacts (Kooyman 2000: 149).Usewear and residue analysisbecome more and more an archeologists tool whenit comes to determining function and having and revealing information on theeconomic and social life of a certain community. Out of the three varieties of usewear analysis, microchipping examines the small scars left from flakes that havebeen knocked off the edge of a tool during use,the micropolish studies thepolish that the contact work material produces on a stone tool whilestriations/scratches result on the tool surface following the contact with worked

material and small fragments of debris.The analysis of ground tools should start by defining the concept6:

J.L.Adams considers a ground tool as any stone item that is primarilymanufactured through a mechanism of abrasion, polish or impaction or is itselfused to grind, abrade, polish, or impact many artifact are in the fuzzy setbetween the flaked and ground stone, including cores that were ground to prepareareas for efficient flake removal, and axes that were either ground or flaked toshape or resharpen (Adams 2002: 1).

Adams argues that several sources should be taken into account whenstudying ground stone industry: use-wear analysis that builds on experimentation

and science of typology, classification techniques, descriptions based onexcavations and ethnography, including ethnoarchaeology and experiments(Adams 2002: 9).

A complete ground stone analysis should include descriptions of the grindingtechnology, the technological analysis, artifact descriptions and the reductionstages. Reduction stages for the ground industryare analogous to the flakedindustry,with five stages for certain types of ground stone e.g. adze manufacture:production of regularly shaped preforms from a blank, reduction to a point wherefinal grinding and polishing could be undertaken, grinding, polishing, resharpeningand repair stage.

www.cimec.ro


23/464

22

One of the most interesting issues regarding the ground tools is determiningthe function. The most important lesson to be learnt from a technologicalapproach is that form does not always define function, that many forms can servethe same function (Adams 2002: 9). This is a question for the use-wear analysisbecause design and form are not synonymous.

Classification is another interesting matter. Creating categories/types is onething, analyzing the real items and deciding to which category it belongs isanother. An item can be analyzed using more than one typology. Also, we

permanently deal with a mixture of technological and form/function basedtypologies (Adams 2002: 12).

2. Wider applications of lithic analysis and questions that can beaddressed based on the study of the lithic debitage

2.1Determination of the site type and settlement patterns includingactivities that occurred at a site, the types of materials worked with tools, thestages of tool manufacturing, the repairing and refitting of tools. Habitation sitestend to have a wider range of tools because of the large variety of activities taking

place there. On the other hand, the specialized sites tend to provide toolsreflecting specific activities (points for hunting, axes for clearing away surroundingareas, debitage, cortex flakes and broken pieces in the case of a workshop).

Inferences on the mobility can also be made based on the lithic assemblages.As raw material is not always available and mobile people can carry a limitedamount of things with them, they need tools that can be resharpened many timesor even re-worked (curation)7.Expedient tools on the other hand, might give ameasure of sedentism. Sedentary groups tend to use certain types of raw materialsof well established sources, and as obtaining it is not a pressure, 'wasting' it on aone-time use tool is not a concern. For the mobile people, curation reduces theneed of raw material. Such assemblages tend to display a wider range of rawmaterials, a reflection of the many sources visited (Kooyman 2000: 129).

2.2.Intra-site patterning.A careful recording of the location and scatter ofthe lithic pieces can give an idea of the activity areas on the site. Clustering ofdifferent lithic types may reflect the way activities are segregated, although acorrespondence between morphological types and functions cannot be assumed(Cahen, Keeley, Van Noten 1979: 672). If lithic reduction takes place at the siteone might expect to find a lot of debitage and microdebitage, but for the latterflotation is needed. Associated to use-wear studies, we can determine the type ofactivities taking place: bone working, wood working, hide scraping, etc (Koymann2000: 133). Refitting (the vertical distribution of the refitted pieces) can also be

employed to define activity areas and the location where the reduction took placeas well as give indications on the degree of disturbance a site has undergone8(Dibble et al. 1997; Kooyman 2000: 135-136).

2.3. Sourcing of the raw materials.Apart from finding the actual source,sourcing also means determining the existing (or not) contacts between differentgroups/communities, the types of exchange and the ways of transporting the rawmaterial (cores, blanks, etc).

One of the most used models is the distance fall-off, when the amount of rawmaterial decreases with the distance to the source. Most important factors aredistance and weight of raw material found (quantifying the labor/effort needed to

www.cimec.ro


24/464

23

carry it back to the site, whereas counts are relevant only for the finished tools). Ifthere is a direct access to the source one might expect to find on the site completecores. As distance increases the expected pieces would be preforms, blades,finished tools but the type of the site should be taken into consideration as well.

The frequency of lithic types (percent of weight and types) for differentcategories of raw material in different sites would give an idea over theexploitation of the lithic types. Different frequencies for different reduction stagesmight suggest differences in the functions of the tools or in the duration of

occupation of sites.One of the main problems with the sources of raw materials is determining if

the source was controlled or not. For more complex societies at times we seeterritorial markers. Source controlling is done for obtaining economic or socialbenefits. But such benefits could equally be obtained through more sophisticatedlabor saving technologies, standardization of form, specialization in the use of rawmaterial resources, tools, techniques, space, labor (Kooyman 2000: 147). Craftspecialization should be defined by specific structures/areas, localization ofdifferent stages of the production processes, minimizing the waste of raw material,the presence of dumps of debitage of essentially lithic type, etc. The presence of

the same certain types in different sites, but with different frequencies could be asign of social or economic differentiation.

3. The lithic industry of the Starevo-Criculture

Various theories were formulated about the origins and development of theStarevo-Criculture and the matter is far from being clear. The beginnings (forRomania) are linked to the research of D. Berciu (1940, 1954, 1975, 1958, 1959)at Verbia and its stratigraphy. During the same period, I.Nestor and its team(Nestor 1950: 204-214; 1951: 17-26) were conducting researches on Valea Jijiei inMoldavia and at Le in Transylvania (Nestor 1957: 59-63) trying to establishconnections between the chronology of Starevo-Cri, the linear pottery and Boiancultures. Also in the 1950-ies, M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, following his ownexcavations at Perieni attempted to connect the chronology of the Moldavian sites(Perieni, Valea Lupului, Traian, Glvneti) to those in Transylvania, Hungary and

Yugoslavia (Petrescu-Dmbovia 1958: 60, 65). But it is N. Vlassa who wrote thefirst synthetic study on the Starevo-Cri culture in Transylvania (1958-1966),completed later on with the results from Gura Baciului (1968, 1971, 1972b, 1980).

Interested in the lithic industry and raw materials was also E.Coma (1970, 1971a,1976), but his works were rather general with no particular information on any site.

The first study that touched on the lithic Neolithic industry was Al.Punescus

PhD dissertation, published in 1970, where the author followed a presumedevolution of the chipping techniques from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age.Unfortunately, Neolithic lithic artifacts were available only from 10 sites9(two fromTransylvania and three from Banat) and equally sad, it still remains the onlyvolume on the subject.

Since the 70-ies and 80-ies the number of actually excavated Starevo-Crisites in Transylvania has increased, but a lot more are merely identified. There areapprox. 161 site locations, out of which only in 66 archaeological excavations (sizeof the excavated area vary largely) took place. In approx. 15 cases someinformation on the lithic materials was published.

www.cimec.ro


25/464

24

For Banat, the beginning of the research during the historical period isconnected to the names of B. Milleker (1897, 1898, 1938, 1939), N. Gyula (1904,1907, 1909, 1911). Later on, an impulse to the study of the Neolithic (and allprehistoric ages, in general) was given by the construction of the Iron Gates I andII power stations, reflected in the articles published by C. S. Nicolescu-Ploporand his collaborators: V. Boronean (1968, 1970), M. Davidescu (1966), Coma(1965, 1979), Gh. Lazarovici (1969, 1971, 1978, 1981), Al. Punescu (1970, 1978),Roman (1974). Unfortunately, at least for the southern part of the Banat (although

new data on Neolithic settlements was made public) the lithic information is stilllargely unavailable.

The raw materials. One of the frequent raw materials was flint, local orbrought form distance. It was present in most sites, with colors varying from darkbrown (sometimes translucide) to lighter shades (honey-colored, at times spotted

the dehydrated flint (Lazarovici, Maxim 1995: 158), to a gray color, of poorerquality (Ciut 2000: 58-59). Some of artifacts retained parts of the cortex(percentages were never given so we cannot tell whether there were primary orsecondary flakes and the place they hold in the chaine operatoire, and so ifmanufacture took place in situ or if they had been carried in).

A quiz raw material is the white-grayish, white-yellowish or white-reddishquartzite Schela Cladovei (Davidescu 1966: 548; Punescu 1978: 32) and eua,jud. Alba (Ciut2000: 58), because of its poor qualities in tool manufacturing. Thequartzite does not brake conchoidally but in an irregular fashion because of itscrystalline structure. In most cases the implements obtained need furtherretouching. It appears to be quite common at Schela Cladovei, eua and OcnaSibiului.

Then why use quartzite? Perhaps this raw material was so abundant thatimporting other types was not an option (Ciut2000: 58) noted the existence ofquartzite boulders inside a house. This points out to the large availability and easy

access to the source. Also expedient tools might have served the purpose, havingbeen used a few times and then discarded. When needed, new ones were madeon the spot. This also points to a lack of tool specialization. Also, possible existing

workshops, were temporary and not specialized.Other raw materials were the opal - Gura Baciului (Vlassa 1980: 693;

Lazarovici, Maxim 1995; Maxim 1999), jasper - Cuina Turcului (Boronean 1970:408; Vlassa 1966), obsidian10- Banat -Cuina Turcului (Coma 1969: 30), OstrovulGolu (Roman and Boronean1974: 126), Criana Fughiu (Ignat 1979: 721), Slaj- Zuan (Lako 1978: 12), Transylvania - Gura Baciului (Vlassa 1959: 450;Lazarovici, Maxim 1995), aga (Kalmar 1983), Le(Nestor 1957: 62), eua, (Ciut2000: 59).

The sources for the raw material seemed to be with a few exceptions largely local: Rastolu, Buciumi, and ardu for grey chalcedonies, Zuan, Seini forobsidian, Coldu for cornean (Maxim 1999: 29).

The obsidian received by far the most attention. A study was undertook on theobsidian from Gura Baciului, Zalu, Seini, Rastolu Mare, Buciumi (Maxim 1999:52).The study indicated the presence of three types of obsidian, from threedifferent sources: Melos (black with grey micro-bands), Clineti-Oa(black with aconcentric texture) and one unknown source - grey semi-transparent (Maxim1999: 53).

www.cimec.ro


26/464

25

Several sources of obsidian, out of which at least one is of southern origin,would suggest the influence of external factors especially if each site hasvarying amounts of material from different sources through time, so it is not only amatter of distance but other factors too, perhaps social ones.

Z. Maxim also talks about the changed qualities of obsidian when heat-treatedbut it is unclear if such a treatment took place in the studied sites.

The typology.Coma was the first one that tried to put order in the Neolithicassemblages. As tool types he identified trapezes, encoche blades and bladelets,side-scrapers on blades, rounded endscrapers, burins, drills. But there was noinformation regarding the inter-site type variability and there was no attempt tocorrelate the occurrence or frequency of occurrence to certain Starevo-Cri

phases (Coma 1971a: 103, Fig.1).At the other end of the pole stood Al. Punescu, who obviously regarded the

Neolithic lithics from the standpoint of a Paleolithic archaeologist . He identifiedwithin the chipped lithic industry of the Starevo-Cri culture three main artifactclasses: 1. the traditional implements, well known from the previous cultures andages (denticulated, encoche, truncated or retouched tools, drills, scrapers andeven burins. 2- the typically Tardenoasian implements11(the trapeze microliths);

3. the implements specific to the Neolithic..., linked to the beginning of plantcultivation (Punescu 1988: 49). Unfortunately there was no example of such atool. At Cuina Turcului three stratigraphical horizons were determined, assigned tophases IIa, IIb and IIIa-b (Vl.Milojcics periodization). The artifacts (1405 innumber) were generally small in size (but not necessary microlithic). Al. Punescuconsidered that the number of finished tools typically Neolithic (group III) wasincredibly small, only 5,01% (Punescu 1988: 17). He also noted a large presenceof the microlithic tool types. The large number of flaked pieces and the presence ofcores were suggestive of a local manufacturing of implements.

Gh. Lazarovici determined the same tool-types as Al. Punescu for the

Starevo-Cri sites in Banat - Cuina Turcului, Ostrovul Golu (Lazarovici 1978: 30)and Transylvania: trapezes (used as teeth for knives and sickles group III inAl.Punescu classification12) with analogies at Valea Rii (Oltenia) and TrgorulVechi (Wallachia); a large number of blades with trapeze or triangular cross-section13with analogies at Perieni (Moldavia), a small number of crescents (only atCuina Turcului), points - Schela Cladovei (Davidescu 1966: 548), endscrapers onblades, simple or retouched sidescrapers14.

At eua, M. Ciut noted a rather varied assemblage, from the viewpoint ofthe raw material and of the chipping techniques (Ciut2000: 58). Unfortunately,we dont know the total number of pieces. As main types were listed blades

(complete or fragmented and not very numerous) with a triangular or trapezesection, flakes of various shapes or sizes. A chaine operatoire type of analysisshould be able to tell us what types of flakes we are dealing with. Some of thempreserved the cortex so they might have been produced on the spot. Refittingswould be interesting to attempt, especially for the 150 quartzite pieces.

For the north-west of Transylvania, D.Ignat notes a scarcity of the lithicassemblages. The most frequent tool types are thin blades triangular in section,endscrapers, flakes and obsidian cores. (Ignat 2002: 73)

A typological analysis apparently exists for the sites at Ciumeti, Gura Baciului,Livada, Iclod-La Doroaie, Moreti, Le, Zuan, Rastolu Mare, Seini, Taga, Coldu,

www.cimec.ro


27/464

26

Liubcova (Lazarovici, Maxim 1995; Maxim 1999: 52-54; Luca 1995, 1998) but nonewas completely published.

For the materials in Transylvania Z. Maxim determined that the maintechniques were soft hammer and pressure flaking (Maxim 1999: 52) but theseapply only for the obsidian. We still dont know if there was any cortex left on theflakes, if any cores were present. And as there is indication of pressure flaking was any micro-debitage recovered?

Interesting in what the obsidian is concerned, is its clustering during the GBIIIb and Ib-IC (Maxim 1999: 52, Fig.58) seen as migration and diffusion phases asopposed to the GB IV and IIa-b seen as transition phases. The only objection isthat counts were used for drafting the table. A combination of counts and weightswould have been more accurate. If the weight increases during the migrationphases, than it should also be studied in terms of sourcing. It would be interestingto know if the major component is of Melos origin (thus indicating maybe a socialfunction of the obsidian, used to maintain connections with the original place(Sheppard 1993: 124-127).The amount should decrease in time as the coloniesbecame more established. which seems to be the case. Also, a study of thefinished tools and by-products is required, to see if they arrived as raw material or

finished pieces.Another remark concerns the phasing of the pottery that confirmed apparentlyby the seriation of the complexes based on the rock types (Maxim 1999: 52-53). Acount of the implements and refitting would be good before drawing the finalconclusions, as the situation may change if pieces refit. What if they are all part ofthe same core?

The microlithism and the Mesolithic Neolithic contacts. Al. Punescusupported the hypothesis (extremely likely) of a contact between the Mesolithicpopulations (still surviving in the isolated or peripheral areas) and the Neolithicones. The latter adopted the Tardenoasian lithic manufacturing techniques- andthus the microlithism, from the hunter-gatherers.

Gh. Lazarovicis explanation of microlithism looks for a more natural andstraight forward: The microlithism of the lithic assemblages results from thenecessity of using such tools and not because of the contact with retarded groups(Lazarovici 1969: 74; 1978: 28-30). But he seems to be alone in supporting thispoint as view. M. Ciut(2002: 59) is also of the opinion of having Epi-Paleolithicand Tardenoasian traditions in the flakes, trapezes, triangular points and also inthe techniques15. The presence of the quartzite might indicate some links to theTardigravettian in the Iron Gates. To this might also point some of the lithicimplements published by Z.Maxim from Transylvanian sites (Maxim 1999: 29)given their gravettian types: La Gravette points, backed bladelets, encoches.

Unfortunately, the main drawback is that we know close to nothing about theMesolithic groups in Transylvania and not as much as we would want about theones in the Iron Gates. If for the latter there are more 14C dates, for Transylvaniawe only have the date from Ciumeti (7320C 60 BP (623090BC), OXCal V3.10and from Gura Baciului (M6)- stage IV 640090BP (Maxim 1999: 130). Mesolithicsite are just starting to be discovered in the SE Hungary, and the same as inTransylvania,the Mesolithic is recognized based only on the lithic industry. Weknow nothing about the size of the communities, the types of their settlements,the subsistence patterns, mobility etc. With this little information it is too early todevelop on the subject of Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts, especially as for the

www.cimec.ro


28/464

27

moment C14 dates for the Neolithic are also rare and point to a chronological gapbetween the two periods. This is not discarding the hypothesis altogether, justputting it aside until the moment comes when more data will be available.

Throughout the Neolithic assemblages was noted a large number of flakescompared to the total number of tools recovered. Should we find more tools?Not finding them might mean they were not discarded yet and that tools had along use-life.What we find is only the last step in the chaine operatoire, thevery last function that the tool had to perform (Dibble, 199516; Sellet 1993). H.

Dibble (1995: 332) also remarked that if very few tools are made overall(meaning that there is a high potential blanks available), then the degree ofreduction exhibited in the assemblage as a whole will be very slight. Butthere may be tools exhibiting a high degree of utilization and we should belooking for them. The measure of tool reduction enables us to monitor theeffects of intensity of occupation and raw material utilization. Measuring thelength and widths of tools and of the blanks/flakes and comparing them mightgive an indicative of the extent of tool reduction on a site: average tool size(with a minimum size related to the need to grasp the tool) should alwaysexceed the average size of the un-retouched pieces (whose minimum size is

only a question of recovery techniques)(Dibble 1988: 193).Another problem concerns the place the artifacts were found. More were notedinside the houses and less in the cultural layer (Ignat 1979b: 54-56). This wouldpoint to a lack of specialization and a rather domestic manufacturing of tools. Butdebitage and microdebitage studies are needed in order to look for a verdict in thisand no microdebitage is available from the discussed sites.

Claims for at least two workshops were made for Coldu and Costanda(Maxim 1999) but the information was not published. The assumption waspresumably made on the large number of flakes recorded. It would be interestingto see the results of refitting.

Use-wear issues. According to M. Ciut, at eua at least two implementspresented sickle gloss. It is unclear though whether the observation was madeunder the microscope or juts with the naked eye.

Some other blades or bladelets were reported to have had striations andbreaks following use, most frequently from cutting (Ciut2000: 58-59). But again,are this reports following use-wear analysis and if so, what was the methodologyused? The two observations are too specific and too important to be taken lightlyespecially as it is hard to discern them from natural breaks occurring while thetools are buried in the ground, caused by trampling or even bagging or storing inboxes, using only the naked eye, a magnifying glass or even a microscope. SEMtechniques could provide a more reliable answer to that.

The ground stone industry.Hard and soft rocks (Ciut2000: 60) seem tohave been both used in manufacturing the ground stone artifacts. Granite,granodiorate, serpentinite, basalt, nephrite and andesite were noted. Sources weredetermined around Baciu and Popeti for limestone, Popeti for andesite, quartzitealong the Someul Mic valley, amphibolites at Someul Rece (Maxim 1999: 55).

The axes rank as the most frequent tool type: flat and trapeze shaped(Lazarovici 1978: 30) with analogies in Moldavia at Perieni, Pogrti andGlvneti, Cuina Turcului and Ostrovul Golu, Beenova (Roman and Boronean1974: 120; Lazarovici 1969: 9) with analogies at Boneti, Pogrti, Budureasabut also in Yugoslavia. Their lack or scarce occurrence in certain horizons was

www.cimec.ro


29/464

28

interpreted as indicative of early Starevo phases (Ciut 2000: 60; Vlassa 1972:11; Lazarovici, Maxim 1995: 159, 162).

Also an indicative of the early Starevo-Cri horizons was considered theWalzenbeil, recovered at Gura Baciului (Lazarovici 1984: 75), Cuina Turcului II(Boronean1970: Fig.2/1), Moreti (Vlassa 1966), Cipu and Inucu in Transilvania(Lazarovici 1984: 75) with analogies in Moldavia at Grumzeti (Marinescu-Blcu1975: 502)

Less frequent were the chisels- Banat and Criana (Lazarovici 1979: 30-31;1984: 75; Ignat 1979: 721-722), perforated axes - Cuina Turcului (Punescu1978: 32), Beenova (Lazarovici 1984: 75 - after Milleker 1934), Ostrovul Golu(Roman, Boronean 1974: 120) with analogies in Oltenia at Valea Rii andMoldavia at Bal, Suceava (Ursulescu 1972: 72), perforated mattocksoften in afragmentary state Ostrovul Golu (Roman, Boronean 1974: 120), Beenova(Lazarovici 1978: 31), Cuina Turcului (Punescu 1978: 32).

Various rocks bearing traces of use or partly worked were also identified onsites. Some were considered as polishers (Ciut 2000: 61; Vlassa 1972: 11,Fig.12/11), crushersand hand grinders- eua (Ciut2000: 61), Gura Baciului(Vlassa 1966: 49), Cuina Turcului (Punescu 1978: 32) , probably used to crush

seeds, break bones, crush pot sherds for the temper (Lazarovici 1984: 75). Theiruse was mostly inferred and the typology is very flexible. At times archeologistsrecord them as other lithic implements17(Maxim 1999: 55) or have a hard timefitting them somewhere between the flaked and ground industry (Ciut2000). Butas showed above, they all can be classified as ground tools once we all agreeupon a definition.

As a whole, publications tend to agree upon a poverty of the ground stonetypes. Some of them appear to have been used until exhaustion. This sends usagain to the concept of curation and its implications for the Neolithic communities.If the first Starevo phases do not provide ground tools (Lazarovici 1993: 245;

Maxim 1999: 55) and the next ones are of local origin, we can only assume thatground tools were not known during the first stages, otherwise people would havebrought them with them as they did with other items. If they really did not exist,was it because they were not needed? We re-state one of the questions we startedwith: what led to the adoption/invention of the ground stone tools theintroduction of farming as a major activity or the transition to a sedentary life witha strong hunting-gathering economy in its base?

4. The lithic industry of the Linear pottery (East-Slovakian, Alfld)culture

Sites with linear pottery (east-Slovakian) are a lot less frequent and occurredonly to the north-west of Transylvania. The most important one appears to be atCiumeti Berea IX (Coma 1963; Punescu 1963), and a few more sites werementioned at Turda, Petreti, Cipu (Vlassa 1959: 239-247), Braov - Lutrie(Costea 1995: 26; Ciut1997: 14),Cluj Napoca- La Stvilar(Roska 1942: 133;Lazarovici 1983a: 4; RepCj 1992: 118-154), Feldioara - Pe Dealul Cetii(Roska 1942: 94; Ciut1997: 13),Trgu Mure- La Cetate(Roska 1942: 166-167; Lazr 1995: 253-260). The sites were assigned to an early phase of theculture with analogies in Alfld18and oriental Slovakia at Barca III.

www.cimec.ro


30/464

29

The raw material for the linear pottery sites is mostly the obsidian. Implementsmade of siliceous rocks or quartzite is rare.

Coma considered that obsidian might exist in Transylvania in the volcanicmassifs in the south-east (Perani, Harghita), in Western Carpathians (aroundCerbel, Valea Bradului, Scrmb, Techeru) or Maramure(Seini, Raca) (Coma1976: 246). Al. Punescu thought the Ciumeti obsidian came from the region ofTokay-Preov (Punescu 1988: 16) opinion supported also by Gh. Lazarovici and Z.Maxim (1995). It is interesting to see a shift from the use of obsidian to that of

flint in the late sites of the linear pottery with musical note heads in Moldavia.Obsidian still occurred but in a much lower percentages - Glvnetii Vechi, Traian(Punescu 1970: 39) while flint prevailed.

The main tool types are almost conspicuously similar to the Starevo-Criones.The largest part of the implements is microlithic19. Among the most frequent typesComa determined trapezes, blades, bladelets, rounded micro-endscrapers, micro-endscrapers on blade ends, spherical, pyramidal or an irregular shape cores(Coma 1971: 103; Punescu 1988: 16). The number of endscrapers appeared tobe low (the same as in the case of the Starevo-Cri) and burins were accidental.Retouched flakes were few (Punescu 1988: 16).

Strangely enough, there is no indication of ground stone tools. What we shouldexpect to find are small trapeze axes (for the proto-linear) and larger ones with thecutting edge arched or straight, during the middle linear hammer-axes and chisels,and over all, sand stone grinders. This is what pendant Slovakian sites hadprovided (ika 1993: 347). In Hungary Kalicz noted rather large polished axes,oval or semi-circular in sections (Kalicz 1991: 286) as well as perforated axes.

The lithic industry was reported poor and mainly on obsidian (Kalicz 1991:286) in Hungary and predominantly on blades in Slovakia (ika 1993: 347). Theuse of obsidian seemed to vary with the region 68-99% for the sites in the orientalSlovakian plain and decreasing to 26-78% in the western Tisza region. Otherreported raw materials were limestone, limnoquartzite, radiolarite.

But recent research has shown that the lithic industry of the Early Neolithicperiod in Hungary seems to be more rich and significant than hypothesized before(Biro 2002: 119). Excavations at Gllehza-Vrosrt (1990-1996), of late stageStarevo (spiraloid B) reported over 1200 stone implements. Also with horizonsassigned to Starcevo-Cris, but a smaller number of pieces is the site at Vrs-Mriaaszony sziget. New linear pottery sites, rich in lithic material, were reportedat Fzesabony-Gubakt and Szentgyryvlgy-Pityerdomb, the latter with 379implements. The study of this new material suggested that regional and styledifference could be observed in the horizon of the early Neolithic, thatworkmanship and raw materials were outstanding and optimized but the Mesolithic

roots are still to be found (Biro 2002: 129).

5. Conclusions

1.Although the Starevo-Cri culture covered a relatively large area (almostthe entire territory of Romania, with the exception of Dobrodja and south-easternWallachia) and although the pottery abounds in most sites, the lithics seem to berather poor and unevenly distributed in various parts of the country. The Banatand Moldavia appear to hold sites with richer and more varied lithic assemblages(Cuina Turcului, Ostrovul Golu, Schela Cladovei, Trestiana, Glvneti, Grumzeti,

www.cimec.ro


31/464

30

etc.) while many in Transylvania are largely depleted of it20. Part of theexplanation is, as we have seen, the lack publication. One can not compare whatone has never seen. Saying all the time it is not varied, it is poor will not improvethe situation. Poor as it is (if that is the case), we should be able to see and judgefor ourselves.

2. The cause of the non-publications also lies on the approach to the lithicstudies for the Neolithic period: was not considered relevant or defining for thecultural evolution and at times was neglected from the very moment of the

excavation21. N. Ursulescu noted that ideally the evolution (of a culture- n.a.should be followed based on its general progress, but in fact only certain limitedcategories where the change is faster are taken into account...For the societieswhose existence developed after the production of pottery, the latter become the afirst rank typological and stylistical index, based on which the evolutionarymoments of the respective are seen (Ursulescu 1972: 69). The problem ofignoring the rest of the artifact types goes way back in Neolithic archaeology....

3.In what the flaked industry is concerned, little work focused on how toolswere made. More attention was given to the sourcing of the lithic materials andthis is a very useful first step to take (Lazarovici, Maxim 1995: 156-159; Maxim

1999: 52-55). As already noted by Bailey (2000: 124), even less attention wasgivento the ways in which lithic tools were used and the distribution of events ofmanufacture, use or discard within a site or activity area. Occurrence of earliertypes was regarded as tradition but a type-disappearance was never questionednor explained. New types were inevitably seen as brought in by migrations.

At this point in time is obvious that the mere typological characterization ofwhole lithic assemblages, while supremely important as a method of summarizingdata and a means of communication among prehistorians provides a poor andconfusing unit of analysis(Cahen, Keely, Van Noten 1979: 672).

4.Based on the typological and functional analysis of the chipped and groundstone industry we can try and determine more about the subsistence patterns ofthe respective communities. For the ground stone industry, manufacturing toolsmight presume chipping and retouching, or pecking, grinding in order to acquirethe final shape, possibly adorning by incision (Antonovic 1998: 139). Thesetechniques should be studied and discussed. Are there specialized workshops, isthere any evidence of lithic craft specialization at the Starevo sites? These areissues that have been rarely if ever addressed.

The first thing that the analysis of ground industry might need is establishingan explicit typology for the Neolithic stone tools, using it consistently for all culturalaspects and adding new variants or new types when and if needed. Also we needdistributions of tool types by cultural horizons on a site and comparisons between

sites, distributions of raw materials by cultural phases (Maxim 1999), frequenciesof tool types within a site and inter-site comparison (Antonovic 1998), frequenciesof raw materials.

As for the functional analysis we should continue to raise the question of use-wear even if at a macroscopic level. What were the tools used for? D.Antonovic(in her analysis of the Serbian ground tools) expressed the opinion that theground edge tools, which ubiquitously bear signs of wear originated during woodworking and sees it possible thatthe stone tools were also used for bone cuttingor splitting, milling of cereals and other grains, scraping hides and farming (morerarely) (Antonovic 1998: 140).

www.cimec.ro


32/464

31

5. Once more lithic assemblages are known, a correlation of the potteryphases, lithics, bone industry and radiocarbon dates should be attempted. It isastonishing how few dates we have for the early Neolithic. Such attempts existedbefore (Al. Punescu, Gh. Lazarovici) but the data was very poor and it happenedmany years ago.

Notes

1.

The choice for this area was partly triggered by the fact that it holds some of the earliestStarevo-Crihorizons, partly by the subject of my future PhD dissertation.

2.

The genesis of the Neolithic is the result of the migration and diffusion of pottery from theOrient, through Anatolia, Cyclades and Thessaly during a pre-pottery or aceramic horizon(Maxim 1999: 27).

3.

R. Dobrescu, PhD dissertation on the subject of Upper Paleolithic in the north-westernRomania (reserved title), BAR, in press.

4.

There are two kinds of refitting fracture refitting (refitting of broken pieces) and debitagerefitting (sequential refitting) ( Tixier 1979).

5.

Diacritical study imply count, orientation and classification of all flake removals visible on anartifact. Classification with help of all visible marks left, allows the reconstruction of removalsand their chronology, recognition of a shift in manufacture operations (Sellet 1993: 109). Seealso Inizan et all 1999. The main goal is the recognition of patterns in core reduction.

6.

There seems to be a separation in the Romanian archaeological literature between polishedtools and tools used for grinding, crushing or even polishing. The latter seem to be treatedseparately, because they are not really polished. The point made is that polished stone, inthe general sense is just a term that incorporates more than just polished artifact.

7.

Curation is the ability of a tool to have an extended uselife because it can be resharpened,maintained, reworked, recycled or transported from one site to another. Tools lacking thesefeatures are called expedient tools (Kooyman 2000: 131).

8.

The stratigraphy of a site might look undisturbed, but defining refitting zones associated tozones that lack refitting (representing distinct occupations of the site) gives us one morecontrol over the relative chronology.

9.

The rock shelter from Cuina Turcului Dubova and the sites from Schela Cladovei-TurnuSeverin, Ostrovul Banului-Gura Vii, Valea Rii-Rmnicu Vlcea, Trestiana, Bal, GlvnetiiVechi, Le-Varhegy, Ohaba-Ponor Bordu Mare, Trgoru Vechi (Punescu 1970: 151-153).

10.

Apparently the obsidian also was seen as an indicative of the chronology of the horizons,being very abundant in early ones (Ciut2000: 59, 60).

11.

A.Boronean, The Tardenoisian,- a false problem, Studii de preistorie II, 2005: 17-46.12.

Gh.Lazarovici, supporting the hypothesis of a two wave neolithization (first proto-Sesklo andthe second Starcevo-Cris) sees the lithic assemblages from Gura Baciului as the traditionaltools brought in (by the bearers of the respective cultures. This would seemingly be thetypical Neolithic tools (Lazarovici, Maxim 1995; Maxim 1999).

13.

Blades of various sizes were recorded in Banat (Davidescu 1966: 548; Coma 1969: 30;Lazarovici 1979: 29), Criana (Ignat 1978: 10), Slaj (Lako 1978: 12), Transylvania (Vlassa1966: 18).

14.

Such finds occurred in Banat (Lazarovici 1979: 26), Criana at Suplacul de Barcu (Ignat1978: 10).

15.

Although he does not specify what these techniques are.

16.

artifacts found in the archaeological record reflect only the last point in what could havebeen a long and continuous history of reworking. Their morphology therefore representstheir state at the time they were discarded and not necessarily their original design (Dibble1988: 299-300).

17.

In the same category go the stone figures from Gura Baciului (humans or horses) and thestone heads from the same site with claimed analogies at Lepenski Vir and Donja Branjevina(Maxim 1999: 55).

18.

Tiszadada, Herman Otto Cave , Polgar, Tikos, Demeterkut (Vlassa 1959: 242)19.

The same as in the case of the Starevo-Cri lithics, microlithism and typologicalresemblances made Al.Punescu suggest an assimilation of the Mesolithic groups by thelinear pottery ones (Punescu 1970: 39). Unfortunaley, again there are no radiocarbon datesand no ofurther information.

www.cimec.ro


33/464

32

20.

Even for Moldova, there are very rich sites in lithic assemblages but also sites were onlypottery was seemingly reported. Out of the 151 locations mentioned by N. Ursulescu, only in29 cases was noted the presence of lithic implements, in some cases mixed withTardenoasian finds (Ursulescu 1984).

21.

Al.Punescu noted that the smaller pieces (the microlithis?) could have been overlookedduring the excavationa. This is not difficult as flotation or wet sieveing is not widely spread onRomanian archaeological sites. (Punescu 1970: 37, note 4).

References

Alexandrescu, A.D., Pop, I., Narcu, M. 1973. Raport asupra spturilor de laHrman, jud. Braov (1961-1970). Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice X:231-243.

Adams, L.J. 2002.Ground stone analysis.A technological approach, The Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Aldea, I. 1972.antierul arheologic Ghirbom (Alba).ApulumX: 3-16.Antonovic, D. 2003.Neolithic ground stone industry in Serbia, Beograd.Bailey, D. W. 2000. Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity.

London.Berciu, D. 1961.Contribuii la problemele neoliticului din Romnia n lumina noilor

cercetri, Bucureti.Biro, K. 2002.Advances in the study of earlu Neolithic lithic materials in Hungary.

Antaeus25: 119-168.Boronean, V. 1968. Neoliticul timpuriu n zona Porile de Fier. Comunicri VII,

seria arheologic.Boronean, A. 2005. The Tardenoisian in Romania - a false problem?. Studii de

preistorie2 (2003-2004): 17-46.Cahen, D., Keely, L.H., Van Noten, F.L. 1979. Stone tools, toolkits and human

behavior in prehistory. Current Anthropology20 (4): 661-683.Ciut, M. 1997. Contribuii la repertoriul arheologic al neoliticului timpuriu din

Depresiunea Braovului.ApulumXXXIV: 5-35.Ciut, M. 1998.O locuinde suprafaaparinnd neoliticului timpuriu descoperit

la eua La Crarea Morii.ApulumXXXV: 1-15.Ciut, M. 2000. Contribuii la cunoaterea celui mai vechi orizont al neoliticului

timpuriu din Romnia. Cultura Precri- descoperirile arheologice de la eua La crarea morii.ApulumXXXVI (1): 51-101.

Collins, M. 1976.A functional analysis of lithic technologies among prehistorichunter gatherers of south-western France and western Texas, PhDdissertation, University of Arizona.

Coma, E. 1959. La civilisation Cri sur le territoire de la Roumanie. Acta

Archaeologica Charpathica1: 173-190.Coma, E. 1965.Consideraii cu privire la complexele neolitice din preajma Dunriin sud-vestul Romniei. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche16 (3): 545-553.

Coma, E. 1966. Materiale de tip Starevo descoperite la Liubcova. Studii iCercetri de Istorie Veche17 (2): 355-361.

Coma, E. 1969. Lusage de lobsidienne a lepoque neolithique dans le territoire dela Roumanie. Acta Archaeologica Charpathica XI (1): 5-16.

Coma, E. 1971a. Letat actuel des recherches sur les outils neolithiques de silex enterritoire roumain. In Etudes sur les industries de la pierre taille du neo-eneolithique , Cracow, 10-11 may 1971.

www.cimec.ro


34/464

33

Coma, E. 1971b. Quelques nouvelles donnees sur la culture a ceramique rubaneeen territoire roumain.Alba RegiaXII: 173-179.

Coma, E. 1973. Quelques problemes concernant la civilisation de Ciumeti. ActaArcaheologica CarpaticaXIII (1972-1973): 39-50.

Coma, E. 1976. Matieres premieres lithiques de lage de la pierre. ActaArchaeologica Charpathica XVI: 239-249.

Coma, E. 1978. Aezarea neoliticde la Liubcova. BanaticaV: 537-539.Costea, F. 1971.Sondajul arheologic de la Feldioara-Braov (1970). CumidavaV:

25-44.Costea, F. 1995. Repertoriul arheologic al judeului Braov (I). CumidavaXV-XIX:

10-35.Davidescu, M. 1966. O aezare de tip Cri la Turnu Severin. Revista Muzeelor III

(6): 547-549.Dibble, H.L. 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction:background, clarification

and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory2 (4): 299-368.

Dibble, H.L. 1997. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization oflithic resources in the French Mousterian. In Dibble, L.H. and Montet-White, A.

(eds) Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia: 181-197.Dibble H.L., Chase, P.J., McPherron, S.P., Tuffreau, A. 1997.Testing the reality of aLiving floor with archaeological data.American Antiquity62 (4): 629-651.

Draovean, F. 2002.Early Neolithic Settlement at Timioara-Fratelia. Festschrift furGheorghe Lazarovici: 33-36.

Dumitrescu, Vl. 1958. Observations sur certaines problemes du neolithique delEurope sud-orientale. DaciaN.S. II: 35-58.

Dumitrescu, Vl. 1960. O descoperire cu ceramica Cri i ceramica liniar nTransilvania de sud-est. In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu, Bucureti:161-166.

Dumitrescu, Vl., Bolomey, Al., Mogoanu, Fl. 1983.Esquisse dune prehistoire de laRoumanie, Bucureti.

Horedt, K. 1956.Aezarea de la Sf. Gheorghe-Bedehaza. Materiale i CercetriArheologiceII: 6-18.

Horedt, K. 1959. Spturile de la Moreti. Materiale i Cercetri ArheologiceV:84-86.

Ignat, D. 1973.Repertoriul descoperirilor neolitice din Bihor. CrisiaI: 7-20.Ignat, D. 1977. Probleme ale neoliticului din nord-vestul Romniei. Acta Musei

Napocensis14: 13-21.Ignat, D. 1978. Aezarea neoliticaparinnd culturii Cride la Suplacu de Barcu.

CrisiaVIII: 9-25.

Ignat, D. 1979a. Aezarea neoliticaparinnd culturii Starcevo-Cride la Fughiu.CrisiaIX: 721-723.Ignat, D. 1979b. Aezarea neoliticde la Suplacu de Barcu. Materiale i Cercetri

Arheologice XIII:54.Ignat, D. 1984. Descoperiri arheologice aparinnd epocii neolitice pe teritoriul

oraului Oradea. CrisiaXI: 41-58.Ignat, D. 1989. Metode i tehnici de prelucrare a uneltelor de piatr lefuit n

epoca neolitic. Crisia19: 9-16.Ignat, D. 1990. Unelte neolitice din piatrlefuitn colecia veche a Muzeului rii

Criurilor. Crisia20: 9-13.

www.cimec.ro


35/464

34

Ignat, D. 2002. The Early Neolithic in North-West Romania. In Festschrift furGheorghe Lazarovici: 69-89.

Inizan, M.L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1999. Technology andterminology of knapped stone. Prehistorire de la Pierre taille 5, Nanterre,CREP.

Kalicz, N. 1993. Le basin du Danube moyen, la plaine pannonienne. Atlas duNeolithique europeen. LEurope centrale,ERAUL, Lige: 285-342.

Kalmar, Z. 1987. Neoliticul timpuriu din bazinul somean i legturile sale. ActaMusei PorolissensisXI: 57-71.

Kooyman, B. 2000. Understanding stone tools and archaeological sites, Univ. ofCalgary Press, Calgary.

Lazarovici, Gh. 1969.Cultura Starevo-Crin Banat.Acta Musei NapocensisVI: 3-26.Lazarovici, Gh. 1971. Faza a IV-a a culturii Starevo-Cri n Banat. Acta Musei

NapocensisVIII: 409-413.Lazarovici, Gh. 1978. Neoliticul Banatului, Reia.Lazarovici, Gh. 1981. Neoliticul timpuriu din zona Porilor de Fier (Clisur). Banatica

7: 9-34.Lazarovici, Gh. 1982. Neoliticul timpuriu n Romnia. Acta Musei Porolissensis 8:

40-104.Lazarovici, Gh. 1993. Les Carpates Meridonales et la Transylvanie. Atlas duNeolithique europeen. LEurope centrale,ERAUL, Lige: 243-284.

Lazarovici, Gh., Maxim, Z. 1995. Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologic, ClujNapoca.

Lazr, V. 1975.Spturile de la Bato-Reghin.ApulumXIII: 605-613.Luca, S.A. 1995.Aezarea aparinnd culturii Starevo-Cride la Pojejena-Nucet(CaraSeverin). Banatica13 (1): 5-22.Luca, S.A. 1998.Liubcova-Ornia, Monografie Arheologic.Luca, S.A., Georgescu, A. 1999. Miercurea Sibiului-Petri. Cronica Cercetrilor

Arheologice din Romnia. Campania 1998: 60.Luca, S.A. et al. 2000. Miercurea Sibiului-Petri. Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice

din Romnia. Campania 1999: 86.Luca, S.A. et al. 2001. Miercurea Sibiului-Petri. Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice

din Romnia. Campania 2000: 143.Macrea, M., D. Berciu 1955.antierul arheologic de la Caol, Arpau de Sus. Studii

i Cercetri de Istorie Veche6 (3-4): 610.Marinescu-Blcu, S. 1975. Asupra unor probleme ale culturii Cri. Studii i Cercetri

de Istorie Veche26 (4): 487-506.Marinescu-Blcu, S. 1981. n legtur cu cteva opinii ale unor cercettori strini

asupra neo-eneoliticului romnesc. PonticaXIV: 39-46.

Maxim, Z. 1999.Neo-eneoliticul din Transilvania. Date arheologice i matematico-statistice, Cluj-Napoca.Nestor, I. 1956. Raport despre sondajele de la Le-Varehegy. Materiale i Cercetri

Arheologice III: 59-63.Punescu, Al. 1970.Evoluia uneltelor i armelor de piatrdescoperite pe teritoriul

Romniei, Bucureti.Punescu, Al. 1978. Cercetrile arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova

(jud.Mehedini). TibiscusV: 41-46Paul, I. 1961. antierul arheologic de la Ocna Sibiului. Materiale i Cercetri

ArheologiceVIII: 6-27.

www.cimec.ro


36/464

35

Paul, I. 1989. Unele probleme ale neoliticului timpuriu din zona carpato-dunrean.Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie40 (1): 3-27.

Paul, I. 1995. Aspekte des KarpatischBalkanisch-Donaulandischen in

Documents

22 Cultura Si Civilizatie La Dunarea de Jos XXII 2005