First Steps in the Dating of the Bronze Age Mega-Fort in Sântana-Cetatea Veche (Southwestern Romania)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
First Steps in the Dating of Sântana-Cetatea Veche 161 Victor Sava, Florin Gogâltan and Rüdiger Krause First Steps in the Dating of the Bronze Age Mega-Fort in Sântana-Cetatea Veche (Southwestern Romania) Despite the fact that the fortif cation in Sântana-Cetatea Veche has been known since the 18th century and various local scholars have taken a direct interest in the site, the f rst excavations only started much later. T e fortif cation was correctly attributed to the Bronze Age only in the second half of the 20th century. Until then, those interested in the issue of the great fortif cations in Banat believed that the ramparts had been constructed during the Avar Period. New research on the fortif cation in Sântana was initiated in 2008. T e northern side of the third fortif cation system was tested in 2009, and its construction system was documented on that occasion. T e fortif cation system in question consisted of an earthen rampart, a wall made of wood and clay built upon the crest of the rampart, and a defense ditch. At the same time we noted that the erection of the earthen rampart had disturbed a cemetery in use in that area. T e present article focuses on the dating of the third system of fortif cation excavated in 2009 and on the presentation of the contexts from which radiocarbon data have been collected. T e results indicate that the cemetery disturbed by the construction of the fortif cation was used at the end of the 15th century BC and that the fortif cation was certainly in use during the 14th century BC. Introduction Lower Mureș were initiated.4 T rough his friend- ship with Mircea Rusu and the latter’s interest in Ever since the 19th century there has been interest the Bronze Age, a series of f eld surveys and small in the Bronze Age fortif cations in the area of the test excavations were performed inside the site of Lower Mureș: intellectuals such as Gábor Fábián Sântana-Cetatea Veche. T e research of these two and Sándor Márki for example, passionate about archaeologists, later accompanied by Ivan Ordent- local history, included in their works brief de- lich, reached a peak in 1963 with an archaeologi- scriptions of certain “great and old earthen ram- cal campaign that focused both on the fortif cation parts”.1 Even though the f rst archaeological exca- systems of enclosures I and III as well as on the in- vations were performed much later, fortif cations ner surface of enclosure I. Starting with that year, such as those in Corneşti-Iarcuri and Sântana- the fortif cation under discussion, like the one in Cetatea Veche were interpreted as rings of the Cornești (Jadani), was attributed to a so-called Avar era.2 Although the discovery of 11 golden Hallstatt A1 period.5 It was presumably erected by items inside Cetatea Veche in Sântana in 1888 carriers of the Sântana-Lăpuș-Pecica or Sântana- generated an increased interest in this archaeo- Lăpuș-Gáva culture, who were also responsible logical objective,3 no scientif c initiative was actu- for the burial of Cincu-Suseni-type deposits in the ally taken in research on this fortif cation until the 12th century BC.6 second half of the 20th century. Once Egon Dörner was employed as an archae- 4 ologist at the Museum in Arad, numerous f eld re- Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 20-22; Bader 2015. 5 T is periodization is based on that suggested by H. search projects of the most important sites in the Müller-Karpe for the southern part of Central Europe (Müller-Karpe 1959). 1 Fábián 1835, 91; Parecz 1871, 8. 19; Miletz 1876, 166- 6 Rusu 1963, 188-189. – K. Horedt (1967b, 21) has right- 167; Márki 1882, 112-121; 1884, 185-194. fully criticized the term “Sântana-Lăpuș-Pecica cul- 2 Péch 1877; Márki 1882. ture”, since it is too comprehensive and encompasses 3 Márki 1892, 39-40; Dörner 1960. For the entire discus- diverse groups under the same heading” (“da sie zu sion about and bibliography for this hoard, cf. Gogâl- umfassend ist und verschiedene Gruppen unter dem tan et al. 2013, 24-25. 28-29. gleichen Begrif vereinigt”). 162 Victor Sava · Florin Gogâltan · Rüdiger Krause Fig. 1 Sântana-Cetatea Veche. Aerial photograph of the fortif cation with the location of the 2009 excavation and the location of the settlement of Sântana on the administrative map of Romania (photo by the authors) Kurt Horedt accepted this dating straight away, tion to a late phase of the Pecica-type civilization but he preferred to use the term ‘Late Bronze Age from the end of the Bronze Age and the second for- Period’.7 He also added that Sântana displayed two tif cation to the f rst Iron Age (Hallstatt A1).9 Other habitation levels that could be attributed, on the specialists have subsequently adopted this dating.10 basis of the gold hoard, to the stage Bronze Age D An archaeological report on the 1963 excavation and on the basis of a bronze belt discovered on the was published much later, providing the f rst pieces surface of the settlement to the stage Hallstatt A.8 of information regarding the structure of fortif ca- Mircea Rusu also spoke about two stages in the tion III and the habitation identif ed inside fortif - development of the fortif cation in Sântana in his cation I. T e excavations were illustrated with plans presentation of the site in the Enzyklopädisches and archaeological material discovered during this Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas by work.11 Although the fortif cation systems of en- Jan Filip (1969). Rusu attributed the f rst fortif ca- closures I and III were investigated, no def nitive 7 Horedt 1967b, 9. 9 Rusu 1969, 1298. 8 Horedt 1967a, 149; 1967b, 19. – On the metal discov- 10 Horedt 1974, 224 no. 19; Dörner 1976, 42-44. ered in Sântana see Gogâltan et al. 2013. 11 Rusu et al. 1996; 1999. First Steps in the Dating of Sântana-Cetatea Veche 163 Fig. 2 Sântana-Cetatea Veche. Topographic survey of the area where the 2009 excavation was per- formed and the location of section S1 (map by the authors) Fig. 3 Sântana-Cetatea Veche. Schematic ground of section S1/2009 and the main contexts (very light grey: ditch; grey: rampart; red: remains of the wall; brown: wood beams; light grey: stones; black: post holes; white: extraction pit and area of graves) from where AMS data were sampled (graphic by the authors) 164 Victor Sava · Florin Gogâltan · Rüdiger Krause Table 1 Sântana-Cetatea Veche. List of AMS dates answer could be provided for their chronological contexts of the fortif cation system of enclosure III identif cation. Still, the pottery fragments and metal in Sântana. In order to form a general perspective, items discovered in the perimeter of the fortif ca- we shall f rst present the contexts from which the tion can be dated to stage Hallstatt A1, while other samples were collected and then the relation be- f nds can be attributed to phase Bronze Age D tween the absolute dates and the archaeological or perhaps a slightly later period (Hallstatt B). material, mainly the pottery discovered during the When reviewing the most important opinions 2009 excavation. on the earthen fortif cation in Sântana, one can note that the chronological stages of its construc- tion, use and destruction are vaguely dated to the Archaeological contexts late period of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the f rst Iron Age. Even af er the rescue exca- Although the immediate results of the excavation vation performed in the autumn of 2009, when performed during 2009 were already presented the defense system of enclosure III was partially in 2010, nevertheless we believe it is useful to de- sectioned (Figs. 1-3), we were unable to ref ne scribe in detail both the archaeological contexts the chronology very much.12 Although a series of from which radiocarbon samples were collected samples were collected on that occasion from the and the contexts which through their very nature charcoal of the posts forming the wall on top of provide clues to the relative dating of the fortif ca- the rampart, due to the lack of f nancial resources tion system. we had to postpone the absolute dating of the for- T e f rst element of fortif cation consists of a tif cation elements until 2018. defense ditch, with a width of 10.2 m and a depth T e absolute dating of some of the elements of 2.86 m, located c. 8 m in front of the rampart. of this fortif cation was possible by the generous T e prof le shows that the ditch becomes narrower f nancing through the LOEWE project. In the towards the bottom and that the inner incline is beginning of 2018 several animal and human os- steeper (Fig. 4). T e f ll consists of 18 soil lenses, in teological fragments were sent for dating to the a typical to gradual undulation; lens “L5” ref ects Klaus-Tschira-Archäometrie-Zentrum in the Curt- the destruction level of the fortif cation. T is led Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie gGmbH in us to believe that the defense ditch was strongly Mann heim. T e bone remains had been discov- silted at the time when the fortif cations ceased ered in the defense ditch, as well as in a grave iden- to be used. Lens “L5” contained numerous pieces tif ed behind the ramparts, in secondary position of adobe from the wall placed on top of the ram- (Tab.