New Geophysical Data on the Internal Structure of the Gáva Sites of Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu in North-Western Romania

Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403

Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta

Abstract: Over the past years there has been an intensification of archaeological research on fortified settlements of the Late Bronze Age Gáva culture in the lowlands or marshes of the Tisza river and its tributaries. Unlike fortified sites on the hilltops along the moun- tain ranges of the Carpathians, that traditionally attracted archaeological research, much less is known on their lowland counterparts. It is in the context of this group of fortified lowland sites that Căuaş-Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat have to be seen, which are located on islands in the swamps of the Romanian Ier valley. Fortified sites of the Gáva culture and its neighbouring groups, that may reach substantial size, are interpreted everything from the proto-urban centres of hierarchical societies, via the focal points of tribal groups, to refuges in times of crisis or enclosures for livestock. In fact, little still is known on the occupation of such sites. Our work at Căuaş- Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat is one step towards a better understanding of such sites in terms of their internal organisation and their function in a wider settlement network. Drawing on data from a joint project of the Muzeul Judeţean Satu Mare and the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Universität zu Köln, in this paper we will focus on the spatial organisation of the settlement remains. New magnetometer data is available that allows for the first time a comparison of both sites and their internal organisation. It is shown, that even in the same micro-region and during broadly the same period, there may be considerable variability. Our data indicate that both sites were occupied by closely comparable household units. Between them, however, they show indications of rather different notions how social space should be organised. It is an important task for future work to understand why such differences occurred, and how such sites relate to smaller neighbouring sites in chronological and functional terms. Access

Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Carpathian Basin, Gáva culture, fortified settlements, geomagnetic survey, internal settlement structure, spatial organisation, social space

With its dense occupation and the good preservation of its markedly from the previous Early to Middle Bronze Age sites the Ier valley in north-western Romania offers ideal tellOpen or tell-like settlements of the region (e.g. Németi/ conditions for the study of long-term trends in Bronze Molnár 2002; 2007; 2012). They provoke questions as Age land-use and settlement organisation. By means of to the internal organisation of such a large, potentially aerial photography, geophysical survey and intensive fortified and settled area. Indeed, one may ask if a densely archaeological survey important data on the spatial settled area of this size is likely at all; or to what other organisation of prehistoric settlement activity both on the purpose two islands in the marshland prone to flooding intra-site and on the off-site level can be obtained. Based may have been surrounded by apparently rather massive on such intensive survey techniques a joint project of the systems of fortification. Muzeul Judeţean Satu Mare and the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Universität zu Köln, seeks to develop a In a wider perspective Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu better understanding of the dynamics and the development enrich our knowledge of the settlement patterns and of Bronze Age settlement patterns in the valley of the river preferences in Gáva times.1 Throughout the developed and Ier and on the neighbouring Carei plain (Figure 1). In the late Urnfield period fortified settlements of the Gáva or long-run an increasingly closer coverage of the Early to Kyjatice cultures etc. are known in greater numbers on the Middle and Late Bronze Age sites of the Ier valley micro- heights of Transylvania and along the entire Carpathian region is aimed at. During several campaigns so far the range.2 Much less well known is the presence of fortified fortified settlements of the Late Bronze Age Gáva culture settlements in the lowlands. There is a disproportion in at Căuaş-SighetiuArchaeopress (Sziget in Hungarian) and at Andrid- that the mountains and hilly areas in the northern and Corlat (Korlát in Hungarian) as well as a number of tell eastern of parts of this culture’s area are rich in fortified sites of the local Early to Middle Bronze Age have been settlements, while the plains and lowlands in its western examined (Marta et al. 2010; Kienlin et al. 2012; see also Kienlin/Fischl/Marta in prep.). 1 For the archaeological context and the history of research on the Gáva culture see, for example, Mozsolics 1957: 120–121; Foltiny 1968; Bader 1978: 77–80; Kemenczei 1982a; Kemenczei 1984: 58– In this paper we want to focus on the Late Bronze Age 86; Forenbaher 1988; Vulpe 1995; Szabó 1996; Pare 1998: 406–422; situation, more specifically on the fortified sites of Căuaş- Furmánek/Veliačik/Vladár 1999: 103–104; Pankau 2004: 27–42; Marta 2009: 94–104; Przybyła 2009: 102–109; Ciugudean 2010: 170–173; Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat that seem to have dominated 2012; Bader 2012. the Urnfield period landscape in the upper part of the Ier 2 E.g. Horedt 1974: 207 fig. 1; Kemenczei 1982b; Soroceanu 1982; valley (Figure 2). Both sites were only superficially known Demeterová 1983; Vasiliev 1989; 1995; Ardeu 1995/96; Furmánek/ Veliačik/Vladár 1999: 120–124; Ursulescu/Popovici 1997; Ursuţiu/ from previous archaeological observations. By their sheer Gogâltan 2002; Matuz/Nováki 2002; Pankau 2004: 31–32; Szabó 2011; size of c. 58ha and 18.6ha respectively, these sites differ Ciugudean 2012: 234–239; Molnár/Nagy/Imecs 2013.

381 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Figure 1: Map indicating the study area in the valley of the riverOpen Ier and on the adjacent Carei plain in north- western Romania.

which are located on islands in the swamps of the Ier valley (see already Marta et al. 2010).

Fortified sites of the Gáva culture and its neighbouring groups, that may reach substantial size, have in the past been interpreted everything from the ([proto-] urban) centres of hierarchical (chiefdom-type) societies, via the focal points of tribal groups, refuges in times of crisis, enclosures for livestock to social and/or ritual centres of larger surrounding polities.4 Since most previous Figure 2: Settlements of the Gáva culture in the Ier excavations were small-scale and often focused on their valley micro-region. fortifications, little still is known on the intensity of the occupation of such sites. Furthermore, the importance of agriculture and livestock breeding relative each other, as area hithertoArchaeopress seemed unfavourable to the emergence of well as opposite craft production (in particular, of course, this type of settlement. With the recent discovery and metallurgy) and trade or exchange is subject to debate.5 intensification of archaeological work on such fortified 4 E.g. Horedt 1974: 210, 218; Kemenczei 1982b: 277; Vasiliev 1995: sites in the lowlands or marshes of the Tisza river and its 147–150; Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1999: 147, 162; Szabó 2004: 169– 3 tributaries this situation is slowly changing. It is in the 170; Heeb/Szentmiklósi/Wiecken 2008: 188; Gogâltan/Sava 2010: 75, context of this group of fortified lowland Gáva settlements 77, 80; (balanced discussion in:) Szentmiklósi et al. 2011: 834–837; Sava/Hurezan/Mărginean 2011: 102–109; Molnár/Nagy/Imecs 2013: that Căuaş-Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat have to be seen, 238–242; Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013: 54; Priskin et al. 2013: 2, 4 fig. 10, 5. 5 Cf. Horedt 1974: 210; Kemenczei 1982b: 276; Szabó 1996: 56; 3 E.g. Horedt 1974: 206–207 fig. 1; Rada/Cochină/Manea 1989; Ursuţiu/Gogâltan 2002: 21; Hellebrandt 2002: 28, 36–37; Heeb/ Medeleţ 1993; Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1999; Hellebrandt 2001; Szentmiklósi/Wiecken 2008: 188; Gogâltan/Sava 2010: 75, 79; Szabó 2002; 2003; Ursuţiu/Gogâltan 2002; Szabó 2004; 2011; Lichtenstein/ 2011: 342–344; Sava/Hurezan/Mărginean 2011: 106–109; Ciugudean Rózsa 2007; Heeb/Szentmiklósi/Wiecken 2008; Gogâltan/Sava 2010; 2012: 239; Molnár/Nagy/Imecs 2013: 218–224, 228–234; Gogâltan/ Szentmiklósi et al. 2011; Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013: 51–53. Sava/Mercea 2013: 23, 53–54.

382 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Given this state of affairs, none of the above mentioned exceeds that from the wider surroundings to the south and interpretations can be considered proven. Most likely, north, i.e. on the Tăşnadului hills and on the Carei plain (cf. upon intensification of research, that is currently under Németi 1990; 1999). Comparable numbers of settlements way,6 we will encounter considerable variability within can be found at the border of the Ecedea marsh or along this group of sites in terms of the spatial organisation of some other river valleys (e.g. Someş and Barcău). habitation, the subsistence strategies of the inhabitants and their social and political organisation. No doubt, the intense habitation along the Ier valley was influenced by the variety of resources, that people could Our work at Căuaş-Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat is one step draw upon from the interface area between the marsh in this direction. In this paper, we will focus on aspects ecosystem and the neighbouring plateau and hilly areas (cf. of the spatial organisation of the settlement remains, since Németi/Molnár 2012: 15–19). The favourable conditions new magnetometer data is available that allows for the first to agriculture, that parts of the open lowlands provided time a comparison of the intensity of habitation at both for plough agriculture on the softer soil along the border these sites and of the internal organisation of their Late of the marshes, were accompanied by those favourable to Bronze Age occupation. It will become clear, that even in animal husbandry. Water plants from the marsh provided the same micro-region and during broadly the same period, good conditions for grazing during hot summers – when there may be considerable variability. Our data clearly grass went dry on higher lands –, and in winter when the indicate that both sites were more or less densely occupied animals had the possibility to graze the tall grass that was by closely comparable household units, thus discouraging preserved under the snow. The hilly area and the high plain (for the Ier valley) interpretations that focus on strongly with forested or steppe zones also offered good conditions hierarchical structures or functions other than settlement for the practice of cattle and pig husbandry. The contact and daily life, including agriculture and household-based area between the different topographic formations supplied production. Between them, however, Căuaş and Andrid materials such as reed, twigsAccess and soft timber (poplar, osier) show indications of rather different notions how social for building and construction as well as for various crafts space should be organised. It is an important task for such as the production of wattle, containers, fish and animal future work to understand why such differences should traps or fences. It also provided the possibility of hunting occur, and how such sites – in their peculiar shape, and various animal species and fishing.10 The possibility to take apparently rather short-lived themselves – relate to smaller advantage of different ecosystems seems to be the reason neighbouring sites in chronological and functional terms. for intense habitation in the border area of the Ier Valley overOpen time. Using a wide range of resources provided not Establishing the intensity and spatial structure of habitation only a diversified diet and prosperity to the communities at sites like Andrid and Căuaş will provide clues for the in the area, but also promised stability opposite natural further discussion on the character of such Urnfield period disasters that could affect either one of the ecosystems and sites in general and their role in a wider settlement system. its food resources.

The study area We hope that upon closer archaeological examination the sites of Căuaş-Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat will The Ier valley is c. 80km long and is situated between the help to illustrate the ways in which communities in the Someş river and the Criş rivers, that are eastern tributaries area were trying to take advantage of the favourable of the Tisza (Figure 1). The Ier discharges towards the conditions provided by this natural setting. By locating Berettyó river. It flows through a wide valley (c. 8–15km) their fortifications on islands surrounded by water and that used to be very swampy until extensive modern marshes, topography also provided protection in situations drainage works. In prehistory human settlement existed of conflict, or it may have emphasized a sense of identity but on a few islands in the river plain, such as the Late vis-à-vis communities on the neighbouring terraces. Bronze Age sites of Căuaş-Sighetiu and Andrid-Corlat under discussion here,7 while the borders of the valley The Late Bronze Age settlement of Căuaş-Sighetiu were densely inhabited throughout prehistory and history. Settlement concentrated along the fringes of the terraces, c. The Gáva site of Căuaş-Sighetiu is located in the upper 20–30m high,Archaeopress that communicate to the southern Tăşnadului part of the Ier valley at a distance of some 15km from the hills8 and to the plateau of Carei in the north respectively river Craşna further east (Figure 2). The site is situated on (Figure 2).9 The number of settlements located in this zone a roundish island in the marshland south of the river Ier that rises above the surrounding floodplain to a maximum 6 See, of course, the current work at Corneşti-Iarcuri (Heeb/ height of c. 2m. Căuaş-Sighetiu can be identified on Szentmiklósi/Wiecken 2008; Szentmiklósi et al. 2011) and Sântana (Gogâltan/Sava 2010; Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013); see also Milo et al. aerial photographs and satellite images that also show the 2009; Szalontai 2012; Czukor et al. 2013; Priskin et al. 2013. existence of old river beds in its surroundings (Figures 3 7 See also the Early to Middle Bronze Age sites of Andrid-Dealul taurilor and Săcueni-Cetatea boului (Marta et al. 2010: 123–130; Bader 1978: 128 no. 79). 10 See, for example, the evidence for the use of wild animals/game and 8 See, for example, the eponymous Early to Middle Bronze Age site of fish/clams in archaeozoological studies from a number of the Early Otomani-Cetăţuie or Sălacea-Dealul Vida (Bader 1978: 126 no. 67, 128 and Middle Bronze Age tell sites in the area (Bader 1978: 109–112; El no. 80; 1982: 55–60). Susi 2002; Németi/Molnár 2012: 61–68). Hunting and fishing clearly 9 See, for example, Dindeşti-Cetate (Bader 1978: 124 no. 34). supplemented the nutrition.

383 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Open Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the Late Bronze Age fortified settlement of Căuaş-Sighetiu.

and 4). The site covers an area of c. 58ha and its perimeter is Geophysical survey was carried out on different parts about 3030m (Figure 5). At least along parts of its perimeter of the site in 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Figure 6), the settlement was fortified by a wall and ditch that are initially by use of a fluxgate gradiometer (Bartington still visible on the surface. The settlement at Căuaş was Grad 601) and subsequently by a multiple sensor Foerster- identified in the 1970s by surface finds (Németi 1981/82: type Sensys magnetometer (line spacing: 0.5m; sample 48–49; 1990: 51 fig. 21 nos. 1– 9; 1999: 18–19). In the close interval: 0.05m). The results of the magnetometer vicinity of the site a gold hoard dating to the Late Bronze survey are given here throughout in the well-established Age was recovered (Popescu 1975: 43–59). Some small- +/-10nT greyscale plots, whereby positive anomalies scale surveys and test trenches were carried out inside the appear dark grey to black, and negative ones light grey settlement by T. Bader in 1977, by N. Iercoşan in 1996 and to white. During the first campaign in May 2008 a small- by J. Németi in 2001 (see Iercoşan 1997: 9–10; Németi scale preliminary magnetometer survey took place on the 2002). During the latter campaign, that focused on an area western periphery of Căuaş-Sighetiu in order to test the crossed by a water drainage canal, Németi observed the potential of geophysical survey on the site. Subsequent existence ofArchaeopress a ditch and a defence wall on the western side work in October 2010 focused on the eastern part of of the site. According to the pottery finds from the surface the settlement where both the perimeter of the original large parts of the original island were inhabited, although, island (fortification?) and stretches of the inside area of course, from the surface finds alone it is difficult to tell (settlement?) were examined. In the course of this work if all settlement activity actually was contemporaneous. both the existence of a fortification and settlement remains So far archaeological traces are missing only from some could be confirmed. Finally, in April 2011 and 2012 of the lower parts of the site, which in spring are wet and respectively a larger area in the centre of Căuaş-Sighetiu prone to be flooded. The archaeological material collected was surveyed in order to gain information on the size of from the surface by the authors of the present study dates the settled area and its internal organisation. to the evolved Gáva II phase and matches the materials that had been previously reported (Németi 1990: 47–48 The geophysical results obtained so far may be taken fig. 18, 51 fig. 21; cf. Pankau 2004: 88–89). to suggest that most if not all of the original island was

384 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Figure 4: Satellite image of the fortified settlement Openof Căuaş-Sighetiu (source: Google Earth). indeed fortified at some stage in prehistory. However, it is Starting in the western part of the site, where only a difficult to tell if all elements of that ‘fortification’ actually stretch 360m long and 20–40m broad has been examined, coexisted at the same time and if the same elements – it is quite obvious that there is no evidence of intense for example a palisade or wall and ditch – were in fact habitation in the magnetogram (Figure 7). This was a trial present along the entire perimeter of the site, that is all survey in the first year 2008 of our cooperation that started around the (present-day) elevation of the (former) island on the western boundary of the site (on the suspected (see discussion in Kienlin et al. 2012). For this reason, it fortification in this area; see above) and extended well into is an aim of our future work at Căuaş to establish if there the central western part of Căuaş, albeit in a narrow stretch was in fact a continuous fortification of the entire site, how only. The survey area is located in the lowest part of the it was constructed, organised and maintained. Since there site (cf. Figures 5 and 6). It is hardly elevated above the are limitations to geophysical survey in these matters, a surrounding plain and turned out an unfortunate choice drilling programme as well as small-scale excavations in terms of settlement remains. Towards the west there is will be carried out to shed more light on the details of the evidence in the magnetometer data of frequent flooding fortification at Căuaş. of this area, but even in the somewhat higher inside area further east there are only few distinct positive (dark) Căuaş-Sighetiu:Archaeopress Settlement remains in the interior anomalies in the c. 2nT to 5nT range that may point to archaeologically relevant features such as settlement More interesting, however, than the question of pits (Figure 7). Unsurprisingly, from the small survey fortification is the high quality of data regarding the area there is no clear patterning, but the overall lack of internal organisation of such Gáva sites that is available anomalies differs markedly from the neighbouring central from Căuaş-Sighetiu. In total, an area of c. 22ha inside the part of the site where there is evidence of intense settlement settlement has so far been covered by geophysical survey activities (see below). Among the rather few anomalies (Figure 6). Our results are preliminary with regard to the there are also some clear magnetic dipoles not orientated extend of the settled area. Nevertheless, some important along the north-south axis that stem from metal/iron observations can be made concerning the overall structure objects on the surface rather than from archaeologically and organisation of the settlement that are worth reporting relevant features like hearths etc. No systematic surface on. survey has been carried out so far, but preliminary work

385 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Figure 5: Topographical plan of the elevation andOpen former island of Căuaş-Sighetiu. points to a general lack of pottery finds and underlines and size (Figure 9). In some cases there are right angles the absence of settlement remains in this area.11 Why this and lines of more or less strong continuous dark (positive) area should have remained uninhabited is apparent from anomalies indicative of house corners and straight walls. its low altitude: If the (Late) Bronze Age situation was Another kind of structure is made up by discrete roundish comparable to the modern one or if the climate was more anomalies aligned in rows, and it is tempting to interpret humid than today, this area would have been wet, prone these as post holes. The values obtained from these to flooding and most likely unfit for habitation. On the structures differ widely from about 5nT to 10nT whereever other hand, if the Bronze Age climate was different and they appear in lighter grey shades to values in the 20nT to drier than today, the lack of archaeological remains may 30nT range for dark grey or black parts up to occasional also be a result of subsequent flooding and erosion that values about 50nT. A faintish white (negative) shadow (c. destroyed the evidence of previous habitation in this area. -2nT to -5nT) may run along the walls and/or ‘cover’ the This is thought less likely, but the reconstruction of past interior of the houses. In general terms, these anomalies climate, geomorphology and site formation processes will stem from the specific magnetic properties of the building be subject of future work. materials used (e.g. clay and wood such as in a wattle and daub construction) and from their contrast in susceptibility Turning toArchaeopress the central part of Căuaş-Sighetiu – as defined from the surrounding soil. The differences in strength and by two small roads that cross the elavation of Căuaş at corresponding magnetic visibility may be the combined a distance of c. 250m –, the impression gained from result of various factors. Both (partial?) destruction by fire the magnetometer data is entirely different and points and construction details such as more massive walls and/ to intense habitation (Figure 8). There are numerous or the decay of a greater amount of wood (used e.g. for anomalies of different types that show clear patterning and different parts of houses or different house types) would a predominant orientation of settlement activities along have enhanced visibility by resulting in stronger positive the south-west to north-east axis. Most obvious, of course, anomalies. In case of burning an accompanying fainter there are rectangular structures made up by different whitish (negative) shadow would be due to the reorientation features that can be identified as houses by their shape of iron oxide particles at higher temperatures; otherwise 11 This zone, that is devoid of archaeological remains, continues further the faint negative anomalies inside and around houses east into the centre of the site (see below for discussion). may relate to the specific magnetic properties of either the

386 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Open

Figure 6: Greyscale plot of the magnetometer survey at Căuaş-Sighetiu overlying the topographical plan.

Archaeopress

Figure 7: Detail of the magnetometer survey of the western part of Căuaş-Sighetiu.

387 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

variable size (c. 0.5–1m, or occasionaly more) and – like the house remains proper – of widely different strength (c. 10nT to 30nT or more) that one would tend to interpret in general terms as various kinds of storage and/or refuse pits (e.g. Kienlin et al. 2010). Whenever such anomalies are situated inside or around a clearly identifiable house unit it is possible that they are actually related in functional and chronological terms to the life cycle of this house and the activities of its inhabitants (Figures 8 and 9; but see below on questions of chronology). Given the present conditions one would expect storage pits to be problematic in an environment like Căuaş, where the groundwater table stands high, and from the magnetometer data no estimate can be given on their volume, depth and true function – all of these require an excavation. When filled with burned settlement debris such pits may give a rather strong signal, not easily distinguished from hearths that should ideally be situated inside or around a clear house structure and may develop a more clearly bi-polar anomaly. Some such hearths – located right in the middle of houses – may be present at Căuaş, but they are hard to tell apart from general ‘pit’ anomalies. There certainly is no clear evidence so far of furnaces or other ‘industrial’Access installations. In systematic terms of geophysics such ‘pits’ often do not differ in size and strength from anomalies thought to belong to the walls of houses by their spatial arrangement (i.e. larger ‘postholes’, see above). Since the chronological relation of such anomalies is beyond magnetometry, either of the following options must be considered: When found inside or near a Figure 8: Detail of the magnetometer survey of the houseOpen a number of such anomalies could actually belong central part of Căuaş-Sighetiu. to different building phases of a house rather than being storage or refuse pits related to it in functional terms. On the other hand, whenever such ‘pits’ are found away from material used to cover the floors and/or of sediment trapped clearly identifiable house units, which is the case in some in the ruins after the abandonment of the site. Partial or parts of the survey area at Căuaş, they may themselves total destruction of house remains, on the other hand, with indicate the location of a house – either by providing less building material present would have reduced the evidence of storage etc. or by actually being architectural strength of the positive (dark) signal given by the walls remains. In this way the occupation at Căuaş-Sighetiu can etc. Processes involved here may include anything from be shown to have been even denser than suggested by the deliberate clearing the site of a house after its destruction remains of clearly identifiable house units alone. or abandonment to more or less complete erosion of house remains already in prehistory or in consequence of deep In Figure 10 a tentative plan of the distribution of ploughing and modern agriculture. houses in the survey area is given, based on the above outlined principles of identifying building remains in It is tempting to interpret the different types of anomalies the magnetometer data. In the central area of the site in terms of different building techniques (and phases? see there are at least 170 house units, whose general location below), but the potentially complex formation processes and orientation is thought secure although details in the involved must always be considered. Thus, more or less ‘reconstruction’ of some houses remain unclear. Thus, continuousArchaeopress lines of anomalies may refer to more massive some house units are depicted with internal walls, while walls, while lines of discrete roundish ‘pits’ could point to in fact these may be separate phases of houses that were postholes and wattle and daub construction. However, such enlarged or reduced in size by rebuilding or adding new differences may also relate to the preservation of individual walls and tearing down old ones. Clearly, all the houses houses and their magnetic visibility. Excavations, therefore, were rectangular in shape and most range in size from are necessary to be more precise on the construction c. 4–6m on 8–12m. It is not suggested that there was a details of houses at Căuaş-Sighetiu. Caution is also standard house size. However, it should be noted that required with regard to another type of anomaly, namely some houses that are markedly smaller or considerably the large number of more or less clearly visible positive larger (typically: longer) indicate difficulties in ‘reading’ (dark) anomalies not obviously related in spatial terms to the magnetometer data rather than provide unambiguous the walls of houses or to the (postulated) location of house evidence of widely different house sizes. Some of the units in general. Typically, these are roundish features of small ones may actually have been larger, but their precise

388 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Open

Figure 9: An example of the identification and interpretation of houses and settlement pits in the magnetogram of Căuaş-Sighetiu.

length could not be determined from the magnetometer houses orientated along the south-west to north-east axis data, so just the minimum size was marked. And some of (Figures 8 and 9). Here, more clearly than elsewhere on the the large onesArchaeopress may actually be the remains of two separate site one gets the impression of some small paths running house units, that stood close by either at the same time along between the rows of houses. This is particularly clear or during subsequent settlement phases but cannot be where a linear darkish (positive) anomaly in the c. 2nT told apart from the magnetogram. Furthermore, both the to 10nT range accompanies what is thought such a path presence of anomalies thought to relate to settlement pits or ‘road’ – possibly an effect of some kind of depression (see above) and faintish white (negative) shadows that (from trampling?) or a small ditch where sediment of follow the general orientation of the building remains different magnetic properties was trapped. It is difficult to suggest that there was a denser pattern of houses than tell for sure, but one gets the impression that by these paths indicated in Figure 10. and small open spaces certain groups or clusters of houses are set apart and defined as being related more closely Starting in the northern part of the central area of Căuaş- than others. However, this interpretation certainly requires Sighetiu there is the dense pattern already mentioned of an excavation to establish that houses that are thought

389 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Open

Figure 10: Interpretation and tentative plan of the distribution of houses in the survey area at Căuaş-Sighetiu. spatially related in fact are contemporaneous. Towards the house structures connects to a small pond that could not be north-east it is quite clear that our magnetometer survey surveyed because even in summer it was still wet. If today’s of the central part of Căuaş-Sighetiu has not yet reached climate and geomorphology reflects the Bronze Age the limits of the inhabited area. It is supposed that the situation, it is suggested that a small stream or frequently occupation continuously extended towards the north- flooded and swampy area may have divided the central eastern limitation of the island. The same possibly holds part of the Căuaş-Sighetiu settlement into two. However, true for the north-western part of the island of Căuaş- houses on both sides share the same general layout, and Sighetiu. From the magnetogram it is obvious that the their orientation along the south-west to north-east axis is limits of the settled area in this direction have not been broadly the same. They seem to stand in the same broad reached so far. From the elevation as well of this part of the tradition or point to the same ‘village’ community. island – comparableArchaeopress to the north-eastern side – the presence of an occupation is likely. Future magnetometer work will A notable exception is found right south of the central establish the limits of the settlement in this direction. ‘pond’, where a number of house units has a somewhat different orientation with their main axis slightly turned Occupation more or less continuously extends further in east-west direction (Figures 10 and 11). As far as south in the central area of Căuaş-Sighetiu. There are, the evidence from our geophysical survey goes, these however, two patches of ground in the middle of this buildings otherwise do not differ from the rest. The central part of the site that are devoid of any clear traces interpretation of this finding remains unclear. It is possible of settlement remains (Figures 8 and 10). They are located that we see different chronological horizons and a shift in continuation of the depression noted above in our in house orientation, or different ‘identities’ and building discussion of the western part of Căuaş. The southernly traditions. Equally likely, however, we see a pragmatic of these areas where it is not possible to identify any clear solution, and these houses in their orientation simply

390 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Open Figure 11: Detail of the magnetometer survey of the southern part and periphery of Căuaş-Sighetiu.

take stronger reference to the adjacent boundary of the The reasons of these differences are unclear. Without elevation on which their ‘village’ was founded and were excavations and more precise information on the actual arranged parallel to the edge of the original island. lifespan of the settlement it is impossible to tell just how many houses were coexisting at the same time. In our Finally, the most difficult to understand is the situation reconstruction of the central part of Căuaş-Sighetiu, that encountered in the eastern survey area (Figure 12). This has been discussed above, there are no obvious cross- part of the site was surveyed in 2010 with a different and cuttings of houses, but clearly some house units stand more coarse line spacing of 1m than the central part, so very close and may imply different building phases. the data quality is not directly comparable. In addition, we The occupation may even have been much denser if only coveredArchaeopress two narrow stretches 20m and 40m broad, one considers the evidence of pits and unclear house but even so there seems to be a difference in the density of structures. So here as well there may be an indication of anomalies observed. The general orientation of settlement different phases. The overall pattern is suggestive of more remains along the south-west to north-east axis is the same. or less densely packed houses that shared the same basic But there is a very dense pattern of strong positive (dark) orientation. Yet, depending on chronology these may either anomalies in the c. 10nT to 30nT range with occasional have been arranged into distinct rows of contemporaneous values up to or above 50nT related to either building houses, or they may have formed a looser arrangement in remains or general ‘pits’ inside and around possible house consequence of individual household units that occupied units. In fact, it is difficult to distinguish houses in this area ‘their’ stretch of land during different phases. The former, at all, so decidedly the reconstruction offered in Figure 10 of course, is the pattern assumed for Late Bronze Age sites is just an attempt to give a feel for the different pattern of throughout central Europe, but it is only in some wetland the anomalies encountered. sites that there is evidence by dendrochronology of true

391 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Figure 12: Detail of the magnetometer survey of the eastern part of Căuaş-Sighetiu. Open contemporaneity of houses.12 Hence, even if one narrows in the use of these houses and different activities carried down Gáva II to a hundred-and-fifty years or so, with out here. Excavations are required to bring light to these our present state of knowledge the latter option needs to issues. be considered as well. Therefore, in the central part of Căuaş-Sighetiu there may have been a looser pattern of The Late Bronze Age settlement of Andrid-Corlat actually contemporaneous houses than is implied by our reconstruction in Figure 10, that may after all collapse The Gáva site of Andrid-Corlat as well is located in the different building phases into one static image. upper part of the Ier valley and at a distance of some 15km west of Căuaş-Sighetiu (Figure 2). Like Căuaş the In the eastern part, on the other hand, even a Biskupin- settlement of Andrid-Corlat is situated on a former island, like pattern of detached houses sharing the same side in this case north of the present bed of the river Ier and walls would seem possible. Again, there are limitations to some 1.3km from the northern terrace accomanying the geophysical survey in these matters. For the time being valley. Close by there is the Early Bronze Age tell-like either of the following options should be considered: The settlement of Andrid-Dealul Taurilor, that is also located eastern part of Căuaş may have been the one with the on an island (see Marta et al. 2010). Old maps from the longest history of occupation, and for this reason we see in mid-19th century AD still show the whole area dominated the magnetogramArchaeopress the combined features from repeated re- by marshes and water. This situation only changed after building and overlying settlement phases. Alternatively, it the embankment of the river Ier in the 1960s. Like Căuaş- may just have been more thoroughly burned than the rest, Sighetiu the site of Andrid-Corlat is well visible on both resulting in a stronger magnetic signal and more complete aerial photographs and satellite images (Figures 13 and visibility of the ‘normal’ pattern of houses that is less well 14). Here, too, there are old river beds and small streams discernible in adjacent parts of the site. There may also in the vicinity of the island. The island that rises above have been true differences in building technique compared the surrounding floodplain to a maximum height of some to the rest of the site; or the greater density of pit features 2m is orientated in north-south direction. A part of the inside possible houses points to functional differences fortification at Andrid-Corlat is still visible on the surface and runs across the island (Figure 15). Thus, unlike Căuaş 12 See, for example, the Late Bronze Age site of Unteruhldingen- in this case the (postulated) fortification did not enclose Stollenwiesen in Germany (Schöbel 1996: 29–58; Dieckmann 1998: 384–387 with figs. 13 and 14) or Early Iron Age Biskupin in Poland the whole island, but just a part of it – an area of about (Ostoja-Zagórski 1983; Harding/Rączkowski 2009; 2010). 18.6ha with a perimeter of c. 1660m.

392 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Figure 13: Aerial photograph of the Late Bronze AgeOpen fortified settlement of Andrid-Corlat.

The settlement at Andrid-Corlat was identified by pottery The geophysical survey, that eventually covered most of the collected from the surface in 1980 by the local agronomist settlement area and large parts of the potential fortification G. Szabó. J. Németi used these materials and others, that (Figure 16), was carried out in several campaigns 2008– were collected lateron, to assign the settlement to the Gáva 2010 by use of a fluxgate gradiometer (Bartington Grad culture (Németi 1981/82: 47, pl. XIII 4–7; 1999: 27–29). 601). This work supports the existence of a fortification The archaeological material collected from the surface system along the entire perimeter examined although by the authors of the present study matches the material details of the construction remain unclear (see Marta et al. 2010). One or rather two trenches may be assumed, that had been previously reported. It dates to the Gáva II although the corresponding features in the shade plot of the period, but in that horizon may be somewhat earlier than magnetometer data in some places are rather narrow and the finds recovered from Căuaş (see above; cf. Németi not easily distinguished from the remains of some other 1990: 47–48 fig. 18; Pankau 2004: 88–89). In 2008 aerial kind of construction (palisade?). Future magnetometer photography established the existence of a ditch and a wall survey will show if this fortification in fact continued that crosses the island on which the settlement is located around the entire perimeter of the site which would make (Figure 13). The ditch that runs across the island is wide up for a fairly massive defence system of more than 1.5km and easily Archaeopresstraced on the surface. The wall, on the other length. From the results obtained so far this seems likely. hand, is only slightly visible since is has been affected by It is suggested, therefore, that the trench(es) and/or most ploughing and agriculture (Figure 15). Apparently, it was likely some kind of palisade protected and marked out impressive, because a description from 1866 still depicts the entire inhabited area of the site from the surrounding it as a wall, and the Corlat area was still fit for use as a marsh to the west, north and east. refuge for the inhabitants of neighbouring villages.13 The Andrid-Corlat: Settlement remains in the interior existence of a fortification system on the eastern side of the island has been marked on a map issued at that time.14 Again, for the purpose of the present paper the evidence 13 Cf. Szatmár vámegye, Pesti Frigyes 1864–1866. évi helynévtárában. that is available for the intensity and the spatial organisation Nyíregyháza 2001: 213. of occupation is of greater importance than questions 14 Cf. A második katonai felmérés. A Magyar Királyság és a Temesi Bánság. 1819–1869. Die zweite militärische Vermessung. Aufnahmekarte relating to the fortification of the site. For, at Andrid- des Königreiches Ungarn. 1819–1869 (DVD 2005 dec.). Corlat in several campaigns almost the entire inside area

393 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Figure 14: Satellite image of the fortified settlement of Andrid-Corlat and its surroundings showing old river beds in the valley and the present-day village situated on the neighbouring terrace (source: Google Earth). Open

Archaeopress

Figure 15: Remains of the southern ditch and wall of the fortified settlement of Andrid-Corlat.

394 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 16: Greyscale plot of the magnetometer survey at Andrid-Corlat; towards the north there is the adjacent Early Bronze Age site of Andrid-Dealul Taurilor.

395 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Access

Figure 17: Detail of the magnetometer survey ofOpen the northern part of Andrid-Corlat. was covered by geomagnetic survey, and there are some holes etc., that may also point to structural remains of distinct differences from Căuaş-Sighetiu. First, there are buildings or houses. And with few exceptions we miss the but few rectangular structures that can be unambiguously characteristic faintish white (negative) shadows running identified as houses. And second, one gets the impression along the walls and/or ‘covering’ the interior of the houses of a discontinuous distribution of settlement remains with at Căuaş-Sighetiu (see above). anomalies or features that may point towards settlement activities possibly arranged into distinct clusters (Figure The various factors that have an effect on the visibility 16). of house remains in the magnetometer data have been discussed above. Among them there are the specific For the principles of identifying house remains in the magnetic properties of the building material used, the magnetometer data the reader is refered to the above exposure to heat, i.e. potential destruction by fire, and discussion. It is immediately obvious then from the construction details such as more massive walls or the magnetogram of Andrid-Corlat, that unlike Căuaş- decay of a greater amount of wood used, for example, Sighetiu there are few rectangular structures that can be for different parts of houses or different house types. The identified as the remains of houses by their shape and latter of these factors can enhance magnetic visibility size. In the north-east of the site, in particular, there is a by resulting in stronger positive anomalies. The partial substantialArchaeopress number of positive (dark) anomalies, both in destruction of house remains, on the other hand, and less the c. 2nT to 5nT range and some much stronger in the building material surviving would reduce the strength of 20nT to 30nT range up to occasional values about 50nT the positive (dark) signal given by the walls etc. Again, the (Figure 17). Combined to Gáva period pottery finds from processes involved may include anything from deliberate the surface, these anomalies point to the presence of clearing of house remains after abandonment to more archaeologically relevant features. However, few of them or less complete erosion either already in prehistory or show clear patterning and a predominant orientation like by modern agriculture. In consequence, we need to be the houses at Căuaş-Sighetiu, and rarely are there right careful in our interpretation of the differences encountered angles and straight lines of more or less strong continuous in the magnetograms of both sites. It is possible that the dark (positive) anomalies indicative of house corners and apparent lack of an equally dense pattern of houses in the walls (Figure 18). Rarely, too, can there be seen discrete magnetometer data from Andrid-Corlat is just down to roundish anomalies aligned in rows, i.e. potential post different building techniques, maybe in consequence of a

396 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

seems we encounter two different traditions of settlement layout and organisation. At Căuaş-Sighetiu we have seen that houses were predominantly orientated along the south-west to north-east axis. House units were more or less densely packed, and in some locations there was the impression that they were aligned along small paths between distinct rows of houses (see above). It was further discussed whether underlying (or overlying) this pattern there were distinct groups or clusters of houses set apart by such paths or open spaces and defined as being related more closely than others.

Now, none of this is directly matched at Andrid-Corlat. The few houses that we can identify for sure are orientated south-east to north-west (Figure 18). These differences in orientation may have been paralleled by different traditions followed with regard to building techniques and materials used. At least, such different traditions in the Figure 18: Interpretation of the magnetometer data architectural rountines followed may be implied by the from the north-eastern part of Andrid-Corlat. possible influence building techniques had on the weak magnetic visibility of houses at Andrid as discussed above. However, despite such problems with identifying house slightly earlier date of the site (see above), or to formation remains our tentative interpretationAccess of the magnetometer processes that affected magnetic visibility differentially, data from Andrid clearly points to a different scheme from a lack of houses destroyed by fire to greater damage of settlement organisation and spatial layout at this site caused by agriculture. (Figure 19). There are some six houses which can be identified beyond reasonable doubt. Two of these seem to However, we are able to identify at least some houses in overlap and may belong to different phases of the same the magnetogram of Andrid-Corlat. It is thought unlikely, household. In another nine locations indicated in broken that the overall impression gained of the intensity and the linesOpen Figure 19 it is possible that we see the remains of structure of settlement activity at this site is entirely distorted partially destroyed houses, but doubts remain. Beyond that by formation processes and/or the magnetic ‘invisibility’ general ‘settlement pits’ (and indeed surface finds) indicate of houses. Both in the surroundings of the few houses that that wider stretches of Andrid-Corlat were settled at some can be indentified and beyond in other parts of the site stage. But even so no clear patterning akin to Căuaş- there are more or less strong (dark) anomalies that point Sighetiu emerges, and we see patches of land without any to settlement activity. Such anomalies have already been anomalies and traces of occupation or architecture at all discussed above, for they do also occur at Căuaş-Sighetiu: (Figures 16 and 19). Unlike the situation at Căuaş, where Typically, these are roundish features of variable size (c. it would seem that the lowest part of the site remained 0.5–1m, or occasionaly more) and – like the house remains unsettled (see above), at Andrid-Corlat there is no such proper – of widely different strength (c. 10nT to 30nT or difference in altitude or other obvious explanation for the more) that one may interpret in general terms as settlement lack of settlement remains in certain quarters. Rather one remains. In the absence of any clear spatial patterning it is gets the impression that the whole site was differentially unclear which of the following interpretations applies (see organised and its occupation followed different structuring above for discussion): Such anomalies may themselves principles. The overall impression gained from the stem from the architectural remains of houses that were magnetometer data points to a segmentary pattern with heavily affected, for example, by ploughing. Or they may individual household units or farmsteads divided by open reflect the presence of various kinds of storage and/or spaces. refuse pits related in functional and chronological terms to actual housesArchaeopress somewhere close by, that were destroyed One such cluster can clearly be located in the south- or remain invisible in our magnetometer data for the above western part of the site, close to the point where the given reasons. Either way, such anomalies or ‘pits’ clearly western fortification turns east to cross the island (Figure point to former occupation. 20). As one moves north along this western half of the site the adjacent stretch of land for some 150m to 200m Alike Căuaş-Sighetiu, in this way the occupation of is largely devoid of magnetic anomalies, and there is little Andrid-Corlat can be shown to have been denser than or no evidence of settlement remains. A higher frequency suggested by the few remains of clearly identifiable house of archaeologically relevant features can only be observed units alone. Unlike Căuaş, however, there is no indication again in the northern part of Andrid-Corlat. In this that the intensity of occupation at Andrid ever reached a section there may have been located two spatially distinct comparable level of density, and there is no comparable household units, one towards the north-west, the other spatial patterning in the arrangement of houses. Rather, it towards the north-east, that seem to be divided by a less

397 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

precisely the same time. The same applies, of course, to subsequent houses of the same household (see above), which would further reduce the density of contemporaneous occupation at any given time. In this eastern part, too, there are stretches with fewer anomalies that may be indicative of more or less clearly defined ‘boundaries’ between household units and their activity areas. Such ‘boundaries’ or rather intermediate ranges may also have shifted somewhat through time as individual households declined while others were more ‘successful’ and expanded; alternatively such shift may also be the result of changing economic preferences and demographic factors.

Conclusions

If our reading of the magnetometer data discussed above is correct, there are significant differences in the organisation of social space on both sites discussed.

For both sites it is impossible, without an excavation, to tell precisely how many houses there were coexisting at any given time. Yet, even if it was ‘disturbed’ by some houses missing, i.e. someAccess parcels of land remaining unoccupied during specific building phases, the general pattern at Căuaş-Sighetiu is strongly suggestive of more or less densely packed houses. These would have shared the same basic orientation along the south-west to north-east axis, and they may in part have been aligned along small pathsOpen between distinct rows of houses. By contrast, it is quite clear, that Andrid-Corlat never featured a comparable intensity of occupation, and very likely there was no corresponding patterning in the spatial arrangement of houses. Rather, it seems that the occupation at Andrid-Corlat followed different structuring principles, and we may see here a segmentary pattern with individual Figure 19: Interpretation and tentative plan of the household units or farmsteads divided by open spaces. distribution of settlement remains in the survey area at Andrid-Corlat. Such differences in the intensity of habitation and the organisation of social space have also been noted elsewhere during the Late Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. G. V. densely ‘occupied’ stretch of land in between them with Szabó (2011: 341–342; see also Szabó 2004), for example, few anomalies (Figure 19). In the north-eastern cluster compares the neighbouring sites of Baks-Temetőpart and there are some of the clearest house structures encountered Szentes-Nagyhegy in eastern Hungary. He concludes that at Andrid-Corlat and numerous general ‘pit’ anomalies there co-existed at broadly the same time settlements that that – together with surface finds of pottery – point to Late were densely occupied alongside such that offered plenty Bronze Age activity and occupation of this area (Figures 17 of open space for a range of alternative activities including and 18). Beyond what has been said, however, excavations ritual deposition. Areas with low habitation intensity are requiredArchaeopress at some stage to be more precise on details of have also been found in several contemporaneous sites the architecture and the sequence of potentially overlying situated in the Transylvanian highlands. In some cases, it houses in this cluster already mentioned above. Further is unclear if the impression of unsettled areas is down to household units may have been located further south along poor preservation and erosion. However, there are strong the eastern side of the Andrid island (Figure 19). In this indications that there were in fact two distinct types of sites: area, too, there are some potential houses alongside general large-sized fortifications, that were permanently inhabited settlement ‘pit’ anomalies, but only targeted excavation (e.g. Teleac or Mediaş), and such, that were less densely can shed more light on the precise structure and dynamics occupied and/or served as a refuge in case of conflict only of each of these possible household units. (e.g. Dej, Subcetate or Sărăţel; see Vasiliev 1995: 150).

It is important to bear in mind that not all of these In all these cases, establishing the intensity and the ‘households’ or ‘farmsteads’ necessarily co-existed at spatial structure of habitation is just a first step in our

398 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Access

Open

Figure 20: Detail of the magnetometer survey of the south-western part of Andrid- ArchaeopressCorlat. understanding why such differences should have occured. From this perspective, the differences observed at Andrid In a quite different archaeological context, in the Polish and Căuaş may in fact point to different traditions and lowlands north of the Carpathian mountains, it has been social strategies employed by the inhabitants of both suggested that densely occupied sites like Biskupin may settlements. However, much more work is required to have been more prone to disaster and unstable both in improve our understanding of both sites. In particular, the economic terms (food production etc.) and in social precise lifespan of their occupation is still unclear. Both or political ones (stress and conflict etc.) than their less settlements seem to overlap in chronological terms during densely occupied neighbours (e.g. Harding/Rączkowski the late Gáva (II) period, although it is possible that the 2009: 53–59; 2010: 398–403) occupation at Andrid-Corlat started somewhat earlier

399 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians and in part predates Căuaş-Sighetiu. It is open, then, if Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra: Archeologický the differences observed above truly refer to different Ustav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 1982, 47–70. function or social organisation of both sites – understood Bader 2012 T. Bader, Bemerkungen über die Gáva Kultur. in a wide sense to include substistence strategies as well Geschichte und Stand der Forschung. Ein Überblick. In: as the relative importance of craft production, trade and L. Marta (ed.), The Gáva Culture in the Tisa Plain and exchange and kinship patterns that structure social space –, Transylvania. Symposium Satu Mare 17–18 June 2011. and/or if they are down to chronological factors. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean 2012, 7–22. Ciugudean 1994 H. Ciugudean, The Hallstatt A Period in Being situated at a distance of just some 15km, it is an Central Transylvania. In: H. Ciugudean/N. Boroffka important task, therefore, of our future work to establish (eds.), The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in the precise chronology and relationship of both sites. Did South-Eastern Europe. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 1. they in fact co-exist for any extended period of time? Or do Alba Iulia: Muzeul Naţional al Unirii Alba Iulia 1994, they stand in temporal succession and Andrid was replaced 25–40. at a later stage by Căuaş in whatever role such sites played Ciugudean 2010 H. Ciugudean, The Late Bronze Age in in their wider surroundings? This question is all the more Transylvania (With Primary Focus on the Central and important, because both sites are located at unusual Southern Areas). In: L. Marta (ed.), Amurgul mileniului proximity, given that distances between comparable Gáva II a. Chr. în câmpia Tisei şi Transilvania. Simpozion fortifications hitherto known typically were much greater Satu Mare 18–19 iulie 2008. Satu Mare: Muzeul (see, for example, Gogâltan/Sava 2010: 78 fig. 71). Judeţean 2010, 157–202. Ciugudean 2012 H. Ciugudean, The Chronology of the Against a local background, it will further be asked, Gáva Culture in Transylvania. In: W. Blajer (ed.), what role the two fortifications at Andrid and Căuaş Peregrinationes ArchaeologicaeAccess in Asia et Europa had to play in relation to the numerous open settlements Joanni Chochorowski Dedicatae. Kraków: Instytut from the Gáva period that are situated along the terraces Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 2012, 229– accompanying the valley of the river Ier. By extending the 243. intensive survey programme to such neighbouring sites Czukor et al. 2013 P. Czukor/A. Priskin/C. Szalontai/V. including their wider ‘off-site’ surroundings, the project Szeverenyi, Zárt terek, nyitott határok. Késő bronzkori will seek to clarify how these sites relate in chronological földvárrendszer a Dél-Alföldön. Várak, kastélyok, and functional terms in what was a settlement system of templomok 9, 2013, 12–15. potential dynamics and complexity. DemeterováOpen 1983 S. Demeterová, Hradiská kultúry Suciu de Sus a Gáva. Archeologické rozhledy 35, 1983, Addresses 33–38. Tobias L. Kienlin Dieckmann 1998 B. Dieckmann, Siedlungen und Umwelt Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Bronzezeit am Federsee und im westlichen Universität zu Köln Bodenseegebiet. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Weyertal 125 Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Kiel: Oetker-Voges 50923 Köln 1998, 373–394. Germany El Susi 2002 G. El Susi, Cercetări arheozoologice în [email protected] aşezarea de epoca bronzului de la Carei-„Bobald“ (Judeţul Satu-Mare). Thraco-Dacica 23, 2002, 243–265. Liviu Marta Foltiny 1968 S. Foltiny, Zum Problem der sogenannten Muzeul Judeţean Satu Mare „Pseudo-Protovillanovaurnen“. Origini 2, 1968, 333– Bd. Vasile Lucaciu, Nr. 21 356. 440031 Satu Mare Forenbaher 1988 S. Forenbaher, On „Pseudoprotovilla- Romania nova“ Urns in Yugoslav Danube Area. Opuscula [email protected] Archaeologica 13, 1988, 23–41. Furmánek/Veliačik/Vladár 1999 V. Furmánek/L. Archaeopress Veliačik/J. Vladár, Die Bronzezeit im slowakischen References Raum. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 15. Rahden/Westf.: VML 1999. Ardeu 1995/96 A. G. Ardeu, Contribuţii privind stadiul Gogâltan/Sava 2010 F. Gogâltan/V. Sava, Sântana cetatea cercetării Hallstattului timpuriu în spaţiul intracarpatic. veche. A Bronze Age earthwork on the lower Mureş. Sargetia 26, 1995/96, 189–226. Arad: Complexul Muzeal Arad 2010. Bader 1978 T. Bader, Epoca bronzului în nord-vestul Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013 F. Gogâltan/V. Sava/L. Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică. Bucureşti: Mercea, Sântana “Cetatea Veche”. Metal and Power. Editura ştiinţifica şi enciclopedică 1978. Ziridava 27, 2013, 21–72. Bader 1982 T. Bader, Die befestigten bronzezeitlichen Harding/Rączkowski 2009 A. Harding/W. Rączkowski, Siedlungen in Nordwestrumänien. In: B. Chropovský/J. The Date and Internal Organisation of Early Iron Age Herrmann (eds.), Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Fortified Sites in North-western Poland: New Results

400 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

from Geophysical Survey and Dendrochronological Untersuchungen im Vorfeld der polnischen Dating. Przegląd Archeologiczny 57, 2009, 39–71. Westkarpaten (Wiśnicz-Hügelland und mittleres Harding/Rączkowski 2010 A. Harding/W. Rączkowski, Dunajectal, Kleinpolen). In: B. Horejs/T. L. Kienlin Living on the Lake in the Iron Age: New Results (eds.), Siedlung und Handwerk – Studien zu sozialen from Aerial Photographs, Geophysical Survey and Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Universitätsforschungen Dendrochronology on the Sites of Biskupin Type. zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194. Bonn: Habelt Antiquity 84, 2010, 386–404. 2010, 191–267. Heeb/Szentmiklósi/Wiecken 2008 B. S. Heeb/A. Kienlin et al. 2012 T. L. Kienlin/L. Marta/P. Schramm/E. Szentmiklósi/J. M. Wiecken, Zu den Wallringen Rung, Results of the Geophysical Survey in the Swamp von Corneşti-Iarcuri, Jud. Timiş, Rumänien – Fortification of the Gáva Culture at Căuaş-Sighetiu Forschungsgeschichte und neueste Untersuchungen. in the Ier Valley, North-Western Romania. In: L. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 83, 2008, 179–188. Marta (ed.), The Gáva Culture in the Tisa Plain and Hellebrandt 2001 M. B. Hellebrandt, Putnok – Pogonyi- Transylvania. Symposium Satu Mare 17–18 June 2011. Puszta vízivára. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 40, Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean 2012, 83–99. 2001, 127–142. Lichtenstein/Rózsa 2007 L. Lichtenstein/Z. Rózsa, Hellebrandt 2002 M. B. Hellebrandt, Edelény, Szendrő és Bronzkori csalafintaságok a középkori Kaszaper Izsófalva vízivára. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve területén. Múzeumi Kutatások Csongrád Megyében 41, 2002, 15–37. Hellebrandt 2003 M. B. Hellebrandt, Urzeitliche 2007, 43–65. Erdwalle und Wasserburgen. In: C. Kacsó (ed.), Marta 2009 L. Marta, The Late Bronze Age Settlements Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen of Petea-Csengersima. Satu Mare: Editura Muzeului Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Sătmărean 2009. Access Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum Marta et al. 2010 L. Marta/T. L. Kienlin/E. Rung/P. 70. Geburtstag. Baia Mare 10.–13. Oktober 2001. Schramm, Recent Archaeological Research on the Bibliotheca Marmatia 2. Baia Mare: Muzeul Judeţean Bronze Age Fortified Settlements of the Ier Valley, Maramureş 2003, 217–237. North-Western Romania. In: B. Horejs/T. L. Kienlin Horedt 1974 K. Horedt, Befestigte Siedlungen der (eds.), Siedlung und Handwerk – Studien zu sozialen Spätbronze- und der Hallstattzeit im innerkarpatischen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Universitätsforschungen Rumänien. In: B. Chropovský (ed.), Symposium zu zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194. Bonn: Habelt Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa. 2010,Open 121–138. Bratislava: Veda 1974, 205–228. Matuz/Nováki 2002 D. Matuz/G. Nováki, Iercoşan 1997 N. Iercoşan, Sondajul arheologic Căuaş- Spätbronzezeitliche, früheisenzeitliche Erdwälle in ‘Sighet’, jud. Satu Mare. Comunicare la a XXXI-a Nordungarn. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sesiune anuală de rapoarte preliminare de săpături 2002. arheologice, mai 1997. Bucureşti 1997. Medeleţ 1993 F. Medeleţ, În legătură cu fortificaţia de Kemenczei 1982a T. Kemenczei, Die Gáva-Kultur. In: pămînt de la Corneşti (comuna Orţişoara, judeţul M. Gedl (ed.), Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej Timiş). Analele Banatului 2, 1993, 119–150. i powiązania tej kultury z południem. Südzone der Milo et al. 2009 P. Milo/L. Lichtenstein/Z. Rózsa/T. Lausitzer Kultur und die Verbindungen dieser Kultur mit Tencer/Z. Fekete/M. Vlach, Geophysical Survey at dem Süden. Kraków: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Archaeological Site Kaszaper, Békés County, Hungary. Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie 1982, 275–285. ArchéoSciences 33, 2009, 115–116. Kemenczei 1982b T. Kemenczei, Der spätbronzezeitliche Molnár/Nagy/Imecs 2013 Zs. Molnár/J. G. Nagy/Z. Imecs, Burgenbau in Nordungarn. In: B. Chropovský/J. Das Habitat der Spätbronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit Herrmann (eds.), Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen im Becken des Kleinen Somesch (rum. Someşul Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra: Archeologický Mic). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Ustav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 1982, 273–278. Hungaricae 64, 2013, 209–292. Kemenczei 1984 T. Kemenczei, Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns.Archaeopress Archaeologia Hungarica 51. Budapest: Mozsolics 1957 A. Mozsolics, Archäologische Beiträge Akadémiai Kiadó 1984. zur Geschichte der Grossen Wanderung. Acta Kienlin/Fischl/Marta in prep. T. L. Kienlin/K. P. Fischl/L. Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8, Marta, Exploring Divergent Trajectories in Bronze Age 1957, 119–156. Landscapes: Tell Settlement in the Hungarian Borsod Németi 1981/82 I. Németi, Descoperiri de la începutul Plain and the Romanian Ier Valley. In: G. Kulcsár/V. Hallstatt-ului în zona Careiului. Satu Mare Studii şi Kiss/V. Szeverényi/T. Earle (eds.), Landscapes of Comunicări 5/6, 1981/82, 45–58. Complexity in Bronze Age Central Europe. EAA Pilsen Németi 1990 I. Németi, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea 2013. sfîrşitului epocii bronzului din nord-vestul României. Kienlin et al. 2010 T. L. Kienlin/K. Cappenberg/M. M. Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätbronzezeit in Korczyńska/M. S. Przybyła/P. Valde-Nowak, Peripherie Nordwestrumänien. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche oder Kommunikationsraum? Siedlungsarchäologische şi Arheologie 41, 1990, 19–54.

401 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

Németi 1999 J. Németi, Repertoriul arheologic al zonei Bodensee. Taucharchäologische Untersuchungen in Careiului. Bibliotheca Thracologica 28. Bucureşti: Hagnau und Unteruhldingen 1982–1989. Forschungen Vavila 1999. und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden- Németi 2002 J. Németi, Căuaş, com. Căuaş, jud. Satu Württemberg 47. Stuttgart: Theiss 1996. Mare. Punct: Sighetiu. Cod sit: 137309.01. online: Soroceanu 1982 T. Soroceanu, Hortfunde und befestigte http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2002/ Anlagen in Transsilvanien. In: B. Chropovský/J. rapoarte/default.htm (26.2.2014). Herrmann (eds.), Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Németi/Molnár 2002 J. Németi/Zs. Molnár, A Tell telepek Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra: Archeologický elterjedése a Nagykárolyi-síkságon és az Ér völgyében. Ustav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied 1982, 363–376. Cluj-Napoca: Scientia Kiadó 2002. Szabó 1996 G. V. Szabó, A Csorva-csoport és a Gáva- Németi/Molnár 2007 J. Németi/Zs. Molnár, A tell-telepek kultúra kutatásának problémái néhány Csongrád fejlődése és vége a Nagykároly-síkságon és az Ér megyei leletegyüttes alapján. Forschungsprobleme der völgyében. Cluj-Napoca: Scientia Kiadó 2007. Csorva-Gruppe und der Gáva-Kultur aufgrund einiger Németi/Molnár 2012 J. Németi/Zs. Molnár, Bronzkori Fundverbände aus dem Komitat Csongrád. A Móra hatalmi központok Északnyugat-Erdélyben: A Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve Studia Archaeologica 2, Nagykároly-Bobáld-tell. Szeged: University of Szeged 1996, 9–109. 2012. Szabó 2004 G. V. Szabó, Ház, település és településszerkezet Ostoja-Zagórski 1983 J. Ostoja-Zagórski, Aspekte késő bronzkori (BD, HA, HB periódus) Tisza-vidéken. der Siedlungskunde, Demographie und Wirtschaft Houses, Settlements, and Settlement Structures in hallstattzeitlicher Burgen vom Biskupin-Typ. the Tisza Region of the Late Bronze Age (Periods Prähistorische Zeitschrift 58, 1983, 173–210. BD, HA, HB). In: MΩMOΣ II. Őskoros Kutatók II. Pankau 2004 C. Pankau, Die älterhallstattzeitliche Keramik Összjövetelének konferenciakötete.Access Debrecen, 2000. aus Mediaş/Siebenbürgen. Universitätsforschungen zur november 6-8. Debrecen: Déri Múzeum 2004, 137–170. prähistorischen Archäologie 109. Bonn: Habelt 2004. Szabó 2011 G. V. Szabó, Spätbronzezeitliche Pare 1998 Ch. F. E. Pare, Beiträge zum Übergang von Bronzehortfunde im Siedlungskontext – Neue der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Teil 1: Forschungsergebnisse aus Ostungarn. In: S. Berecki/R. Grundzüge der Chronologie im östlichen Mitteleuropa E. Németh/B. Rezi (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals (11.–8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Jahrbuch des Römisch- in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 45, 1998, Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 8–10 October 2010. 293–433. Open Târgu Mureş: Editura MEGA 2011, 335–356. Popescu 1975 D. Popescu, Tezaurele de aur de la Sacoşu Szalontai 2012 C. Szalontai, Egy eddig ismeretlen Mare şi Căuaş. Tibiscus 1975, 41–74. földvárról Csanádpalota határában. In: A. Liska/I. Priskin et al. 2013 A. Priskin/P. Czukor/C. Szalontai/V. Szatmári, Sötét idők rejtélyei. 6–11. századi régészeti Szeverényi, Research Into the Structure of Late Bronze emlékek a Kárpát-medencében és környékén. Tempora Age Settlements in the Southern Great Hungarian Plain: “Enclosed Space – Open Borders” Project. www. Obscura 3. Békéscsaba: Békés Megyei Múzeumok hungarianarchaeology.hu. Autumn 2013, 1–6. Igazgatósága 2012, 275–296. Przybyła 2009 M. S. Przybyła, Intercultural Contacts in Szentmiklósi et al. 2011 A. Szentmiklósi/B. S. Heeb/J. the Western Carpathian Area at the Turn of the 2nd and Heeb/A. Harding/R. Krause/H. Becker, Corneşti- 1st Millennia BC. Warsaw: National Centre for Culture Iarcuri – a Bronze Age Town in the Romanian Banat? 2009. Antiquity 85, 2011, 819–838. Rada/Cochină/Manea 1989 M. Rada/N. Cochină/D. Ursulescu/Popovici 1997 N. Ursulescu/D. Popovici, Manea, Studiu aerofotogrammetric al fortificaţiilor de Considérations historiques concernant les fortifications la Corneşti (jud. Timiş). Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie hallstattiennes anciennes à l’est des Carpates. In: Veche şi Arheologie 40, 1989, 377–380. Premier âge du fer aux bouches du Danube et dans Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1999 M. Rusu/E. Dörner/I. les regions autour de la Mer Noire. Actes du Colloque Ordentlich, Die Erdburg von Sântana-Arad in International Septembre 1993 Tulcea. Tulcea: Institutul dem zeitgleichenArchaeopress archäologischen Kontext. In: de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale Tulcea 1997, 51–65. N. Boroffka/T. Soroceanu (eds.), Transsilvanica. Ursuţiu/Gogâltan 2002 A. Ursuţiu/F. Gogâltan, Die Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Siedlungen der Ersten Eisenzeit. In: A. Rustoiu/H. des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Pop/A. Ursuţiu/F. Gogâltan/A. Gudea (eds.), Habitat Horedt. Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 7. und Gesellschaft im Westen und Nordwesten Rumäniens Rahden/Westf.: VML 1999, 143–165. vom Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr. zum Anfang des 1. Sava/Hurezan/Mărginean 2011 V. Sava/G. P. Hurezan/F. Jahrtausends n.Chr. (11. Jh. v.Chr.–2. Jh. n.Chr.). Cluj- Mărginean, Şagu sit A1_1. A Late Bronze Age Napoca: Napoca Star 2002, 17–47. Settlement on the Lower Mureş. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Vasiliev 1989 V. Vasiliev, Consideraţii asupra aşezărilor Mega 2011. fortificate hallstattiene din aria intracarpatică a Schöbel 1996 G. Schöbel, Siedlungsarchäologie im României. In: Symposia Thracologica 7. Tulcea 1989, Alpenvorland IV. Die Spätbronzezeit am nordwestlichen 55–62.

402 Copyright Archaeopress and the Authors 2014 Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta: New Geophysical Data

Vasiliev 1995 V. Vasiliev, Fortifications de refuge et zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. établissements fortifiés du premier âge du fer en Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums. Monographien des Transylvanie. Bibliotheca Thracologica 12. Bucarest: Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35. Bonn: Caro 1995. Habelt 1995, 389–397. Vulpe 1995 A. Vulpe, Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung im Karpatenraum. In: Beiträge

Access

Open

Archaeopress