New Geophysical Data on the Internal Structure of the Gáva Sites of Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu in North-Western Romania
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians edited by T. L. Kienlin et al. pages 381-403 New Geophysical Data on the Internal Structure of the Gáva Sites of Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu in North-Western Romania 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.