ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011 http://muzeulbanatului.ro/mbt/istorie/publicatii/ab.htm

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT “ŞANŢUL MARE” 2006,2009

John O’Shea*, Alex Barker **, Laura Motta ***, Alexandru Szentmiklosi ****

Keywords: Pecica “Șanţul Mare”, , tell. Cuvinte cheie: Pecica „Șanţul Mare”, epoca bronzului, tell.

Archaeological Investigations at Pecica “Șanţul Mare” 2006–2009 (Abstract) ] is paper summarizes the results of area excavations conducted at the Bronze Age settlement of Pecica “Şanţul Mare” during the years 2006 through 2009. ] e work of the international collaborative team represents both the largest contiguous area ever opened on a settlement of the Periam-Pecica culture, and the most rigorously controlled and documented. ] is et ort has yielded a new and striking view of life during the Middle Bronze Age along the Mures, documenting the settlement’s phenomenal rise in regional prominence as a major distribution point for Bronze metalwork and the domestic horse, and its precipitous decline a mere two hundred years later. Here we provide a summary not only of the settlement’s later chronology, but also details of the domestic economy, site architecture, and ritual activity at the site.

Introduction high level of technical competence that was in evi- ecica “Şanţul Mare” is among the most dence in the region at the beginning of the 20 th Pimportant Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Century. Pecica was tested on a number of occa- Basin, and as be> ts this importance, it has received sions subsequent to Roska’s work, most notably considerable archaeological attention. Early work by the major area excavations undertaken at the at Pecica (Pécska) and at the nearby site of Periam site by Crişan in the early 1960s. 4 While Crişan (Pérjamos) by Marton Roska 1 established the base opened a substantial portion of the site’s surface, line chronology for the regional Bronze Age, which the focus of his work was on the Dacian occupa- was adopted by Childe and given international tion of the site. ] e very top of the Bronze Age prominence as the Pérjamos Culture. 2 Roska’s deposits were exposed in a number of his exca- stratigraphic levels were also employed by István vation blocks, and the span of the Bronze Age Bóna as the basis for his highly inY uential ceramic occupation was demonstrated in several deeper chronology of the Szöreg (Pecica-Periam) Group. 3 soundings. Unfortunately, the documentation of ] is typological system served as the main chro- the earlier Bronze Age layers is limited, and was nology for all of the settlements and cemeteries of not anchored by radiocarbon dates. the lower Maros until the advent of radiocarbon In 2005, a consortium of Romanian and dating, and still provides the basic chronological American investigators with funding from the outline for the region today. National Science Foundation (USA), returned Roska’s work is itself a landmark in archaeo- to the site of Pecica for a more focused study logical technique and recording, and bespeaks the of the Bronze Age occupation of the settle- ment. ] e research consortium included Florin * Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Draşovean and Alexandru Szentmikolsi of the Arbor, Michigan, USA, e-mail: [email protected]. ** Museum of Art & Archaeology, University of Missouri, Muzeul Banatului Timişoara; Peter Huegel and email: [email protected]. Pascu Hurezan of the Muzeul Judeţean Arad, *** University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, John O’Shea of the Museum of Anthropology, e-mail:[email protected]. University of Michigan; and Alex Barker of the **** Museum Timișoara, Huniade square 1, 300002, Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of e-mail:[email protected]. 1 Missouri. ] e initial goal of this research was to Roska 1912; Roska 1914. 2 Child 1929, 216 3 Bóna 1975. 4 Crișan 1978.

67 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011 record and date the Bronze Age pro> le of the site. provide important information on the creation To do this while minimizing damage to surviving and composition of the site’s micro-stratigraphy. Dacian deposits, the investigation focused > rst on relocating Crişan’s back> lled excavation units, and Overview of Results: then excavated two stratigraphic trenches within While it is premature to ot er > nal conclu- these previously excavated areas where the back- sions for the work completed so far at the site, it > ll could be quickly removed exposing the intact is possible to ot er some preliminary results of the Bronze Age layers. 5 excavations which yield important new insights on ] e investigations in 2005 mapped archaeo- the dating and the character of the later half of the logical pro> les in both trenches of near three Bronze Age occupation at Pecica. It is also worth meters in depth. Geo-archaeological investigations noting that the results of the recent work broadly showed that an additional two to three meters support and amplify the > ndings reported from of deposit remained below these levels. ] e pro- earlier excavations. Research conducted since 2005 > les revealed detailed sequences of burned and has con> rmed the basic stratigraphic organization unburned house Y oors, ovens, and deep storage of the settlement and the description of excavations pits in both portions of the site. ] ese investiga- conducted at the site by Crişan. Using the pub- tions also demonstrated that well preserved faunal lished reports as a starting point, we were able to and Y oral remains were present throughout the relocate and trace the earlier excavation units, and deposits. Based on these > ndings, the consortium to identify the areas beyond the tell proper where sought and obtained additional funding from the additional Bronze Age deposits are located (and National Science Foundation to conduct a multi- where they are not). As will be apparent below, we year excavation over a continuous site block. ] is can also support issues relating to the distribution work, conducted over the years 2006 through and forms of Bronze Age architecture and to the 2009, is the subject of this report. overall sequence of deposition at the site.

Methods: Chronology and Site Phases: Beginning in 2006, a ten by ten meter block, To date, 49 radiocarbon dates have been run located immediately adjacent to stratigraphic for the site. ] ese dates bracket the later Bronze trench 1, was excavated (> gure 1). ] e block was Age occupation of the site (> gure 2), as well as pro- divided into a series of 2 × 2 meter squares for the viding several determinations relating to the later purpose of data recording and Y otation. Excavation Dacian occupation (not shown on the > gure). ] e was conducted on a layer by layer basis, working Bronze Age dates are consistent with those pre- systematically across the site surface. Excavation viously reported for Maros sites in and was conducted with small hand tools, with the Serbia 6 and reY ect the later half of the Bronze Age total volume of deposit excavated being recorded. occupation at Pecica. ] e tight clustering of these Within each 2 × 2 meter square, 10% of the soil dates also indicates that the site deposits at Pecica removed was dry sieved through screens with a accumulated rapidly, with the two plus meters of mesh size of 0.65 cm. Additionally, two 10 liter Bronze Age deposit excavated so far being accumu- samples from each square level were collected for lated in a time span no longer than 400 years. Y otation. All sediments recovered from site fea- ] e carbon dates are complemented by a series tures were either Y oated or dry screen. Flotation of archaeomagnetic age determinations. ] e samples were processed using a Flote-tech auto- Pecica samples were collected using standard > eld matic Y otation system. All signi> cant > nds were procedures established by the Archaeomagnetic mapped in three dimensions with a Sokkia total Laboratory at Colorado State University and ana- station, as were the starting and ending elevations lyzed at the Illinois State Museum by Dr. Stacey of each unit, and the tops, bases, and perimeters of Lengyel. 7 In order to ensure comparability all all features. ] roughout the period of excavation, samples were collected by the same individual; this daily three dimensional maps of the excavation individual also collected previous Archaeomagnetic were constructed, as were layer photo mosaics. A series at Maros sites in southeastern Hungary, and series of ‘micro-morphological’ samples were also Lengyel agreed to re-analyze these samples from collected over the course of the block excavation. Klárafalva-Hajdova at the same time and using the ] ese samples, when completely analyzed, will same procedures.

5 ] is work is summarized in O’Shea et alii 2005; O’Shea et 6 cf. Gogâltan 1999; O’Shea 1996. alii 2006. 7 Lengyel 2010.

68 While there is presently no reference curve for layer dates later than 1600 BC. ] e Bronze Age , the relative sequence of archaeomag- occupation represented at the base of this layer is netic samples can be established and compared relatively scattered and of light intensity. No iden- to the radiocarbon results, as well as assessing any ti> able structures were observed in this period, evidence of contemporaneity between either the although fragments of architectural debris and pits Pecica samples or equivalent samples collected at were recorded. Klárafalva-Hajdova in Hungary. ] e three Pecica ] e second phase is associated with distinct samples dated two cultural features (F29; ISM–219 built structures, including houses and ovens. and F82; ISM–22) and a burned zone found in ] is phase, which occurs in the upper levels of an extramural soil pit (Pit 3; ISM–220) excavated Layer C, includes two structures, Structure 0 and to recover geoarchaeological samples. No radio- Structure 1 (Structure 0 was belatedly recognized carbon samples were associated with this ot site as a structure and was located in an area that was burned horizon, although immediately above this heavily impacted by prior excavation). Both struc- burned horizon was a gray Aeolian deposit similar tures were visible only as fragments, and Structure in appearance to the strata overlying the end of 1 had been severely burned. Despite their incom- the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) sequence both at plete representation, there is the suggestion that Pecica and Klárafalva-Hajdova. ] e archaeomag- they were oriented along the east-west site axis. netic series collected from the burned horizon in In addition to the structures, a number of deep Soil Pit 3 appears to be contemporary with the storage pits also originate in this occupation phase. archaeomagnetic series recovered from F12 at ] is phase of construction dates in the range of Klárafalva-Hajdova (Sample 23105 1670 BC +/- 1600 to 1650 BC. 80). ] e archaeomagnetic readings from the two ] e third phase of occupation is associated with Pecica cultural features are not contemporaneous midden deposits in the lower levels of Layer C and and that the Soil Pit 3 date is temporally interme- architecture in the upper levels of the D Layer. ] e diate to these readings (Lengyel 2010:6). phase dates in the range of 1650–1750 BC and ] ese results con> rm that the MBA occupa- presents the most complex use of the site within tion at Pecica Şanţul Mare extended outside its the area of the excavation block. ] is phase of eponymous ditch, and that these occupations occupation included two structures (Structures 2 were contemporary with the MBA occupations and 4 (upper)), along with the construction of a at Klárafalva-Hajdova, which also overlap based large central platform. ] is platform is a remark- on radiometric dates. ] ey also suggest that the able feature that is unknown from any previously radiometric dates maybe somewhat compressed, investigated Maros settlement. ] e two reported with the associated dates for Features 29 and 82 structures appear to be oriented on a north-south actually lying toward the opposite ends of their axis of the site, and parallel to the western edge of respective calibration ranges. As additional series the central platform. are collected from Bronze Age contexts within the ] e fourth architectural phase, dating in the region it should be possible to develop a reference range of 1750–1850 BC, again consisted of two curve allowing direct calendrical dating of archaeo- structures. Both were found beneath respective magnetic samples. phase three constructions; Structure 3 was partially When the dates are placed into the context of covered by Structure 2, and lower Structure 4 was the site stratigraphy and episodes of architectural immediately beneath the upper Structure 4. ] e construction, > ve distinct phases of activity can phase four houses had architectural details that be identi> ed. ] ese are summarized with their contrasted with their superimposed structures, approximate age ranges in table 1. A representa- which con> rmed them as distinct constructions. tion of the architecture in each phase is shown in ] ese houses appear to immediately pre-date the > gure 3. construction of the Phase 3 platform. ] e latest Bronze Age occupation represented In addition to the structures, a line of features at the site occurs at the base of the Layer B strata, was observed, comprised of the long bone of large which was termed Dacian B in Crişan’s report animals, primarily horse, fragments of heavy bra- (1978). ] e Layer B deposit is a thick, homoge- ziers (portable ), and large chunks of con- neous deposit of windblown sediments, which has cretion. All were placed in narrow cylindrical pits, been hypothesized to represent a period of drought with the animal bones oriented vertically. ] e line and environmental degradation in the Maros of features ran parallel and to the east of the struc- region (Sherwood et al in prep). ] e base of this tures and occupied an area between the structures

69 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011

Table 1. Architectural Phases and Site Dating at Pecica

Construction Site Date Architecture Ceramics Comments Phase Layer (cal BC) 1 B1:3 Post 1600 BC Fragments only Baroque styles, Final BA occupation, Classic Maros vessels possibly deteriorating environment 2 C (upper) 1600–1650 BC Structures 0, 1 Baroque styles, Classic Maros vessels

3 C3–5/D0–2 1650–1750 BC Platform, Structures Baroque styles, Intensive metallurgy 2, 4 (upper Classic Maros vessels and horse rearing. 4 D2–3, top 1750–1850 BC Structures, 3, 4 Baroque styles, Intensive metallurgy of E (lower) Horse bone Classic Maros vessels and horse rearing. features. 5 E 1850–2000 BC Structures 5–8 Classic Maros vessels, Latest ‘rusticated’ wares and the western face of the Phase 3 platform. It walls, interior divider walls, and a relatively light appears that these features are associated with roof made of reeds or wood. ] e Y oors and walls Phase 4, and immediately predate the central plat- of the structures were repeatedly renewed with form of Phase 3. Given the speci> c arrangement of fresh layers of plaster which were readily discerned these features, the vertical placement of high value during excavation. ] e structures typically also animal bones, and the association with braziers, it have a substantial /oven placed internally at seems most likely that the features had a social, as one end of the structure. An idealized example of opposed to architectural, signi> cance. the house is presented in > gure 4, based on the ] e > nal architectural phase represented in plan of Structure 4 (upper). the excavated portion of the site occurs within Like Maros houses elsewhere, the Pecica struc- the Layer E levels. ] is phase dates in the range tures rarely sut ered catastrophic destruction from of 1850–2000 BC and consists of fragmentary > re (at Pecica only two of the structures were seri- house Y oors designated Structures 5, 6, 7, and 8. ously burned), and when they were destroyed by Structure 5 is located in the southwest corner of > re the destruction does not result in the kind of the site block, and partially covered by Structure 3. hard baked > ring of walls and Y oors observed in Structures 6, 7, and 8 are found beneath the debris Late structures. ] is probably reY ects the of the Structure 4 complex. ] ese house Y oors are relatively light roof and walls of the houses which extremely fragmentary which makes their descrip- would have tended to burn rapidly with much of tion di} cult, but there is the suggestion that they the heat being dissipated upward. had an east-west trending orientation, similar to While all of the Pecica structures were built that seen in the second architectural phase. on the same basic plan, dit erences in construc- tion technique were observed that suggest ongoing Site Architecture and Construction: experimentation in house design. ] e clearest While no complete houses have been docu- example of experimentation is observed in wall mented in the Pecica excavations, the sequence of construction. Most structures employed walls structures do provide considerable information on based on a single row of posts (Structures 0, 1, 2, the basic form and construction of houses, along 3, 5, and 6), although the posts varied in average with providing interesting technological details diameter between structures, with the posts associ- and evidence of experimentation. ated with Structure 2 being the heaviest. Structure ] e houses observed in the Pecica levels were 2 also exhibited an unusual density of large wall similar in basic form and construction to the posts, but this seems to be the result of a major houses reported from the lower Maros region, 8 and house rebuilding episode rather than a single archi- consisted of rectangular structures in the range tectural feature. of 3–4 m wide and roughly 8m in length, with Structure 4 (upper), as represented in > gure 4, plastered Y oors, relatively light wattle and daub was built immediately on top of a prior struc- ture (Structure 4 lower). ] is follows a pattern 8 cf. Horvath 1985; Girić 1987, O’Shea 1996. seen at Klárafalva Hajdova in which the ruins of

70 a structure were used to provide a stable founda- ovens are highly visible archaeological features at tion for a newer house. ] e building employed a the site so it is unlikely that they would be missed doubled wall post construction, supplemented by during excavation, but it is possible that they are larger diameter single posts at each corner. Large, present in the unexposed portion of the southern horizontally oriented, animal bones were placed in structures. Alternatively, the presence of internal the base of each corner post hole to provide added storage facilities and ovens may have been mutu- support for the post. ally exclusive and reY ect real functional dit erences Structures 4 (lower) and 8 present alternative between the northern and southern structures. methods for wall support. In Structure 8, wall Only further excavation will enable us to choose trenches were constructed and logs were placed in among these dit erent possibilities. the trenches. ] e logs were stabilized within the In addition to house structures, during Phase trench via packing with dense un> red clay wedges. 3 a large platform covered the entire eastern half ] e upright wall posts were set into the top of the of the Pecica excavation block, and limited coring log in an apparent et ort to spread the weight of the beyond the block suggest it had surface dimen- wall supports and minimize subsidence. Structure sions in the range of 22 × 14 meters. ] e platform 4 (lower) also exhibited wall trenches, although was constructed from pre-existing midden depos- these appeared to have been shallower, and to have its that were burned at extremely high tempera- accommodated relatively thin horizontal planks tures, and then > red again in situ. All soil contacts rather than whole logs. beneath the platform exhibited black scorch- Structure 3 employed the normal single post ing. ] e platform was situated on an extremely type wall construction. It did, however, provide irregular surface at the top of the E Layer with evidence for a distinctive type of interior divider. no evidence of leveling prior to construction, and ] e divider had a curved form, stood roughly because of this the platform varied considerably in 10 cm high, and had a Y at upper surface which did thickness, from as much as a 65cm to as little as not have post holes cut into it. Presumably some 4 cm, and with an average thickness of 50cm. ] e manner of wooden sill was laid cross the upper upper portion of the platform was level, although surface and with uprights bedded on this sill (in a it tended to slope downward from the northeast. manner similar to the placing of posts in the wall ] e surface was compact and exhibited a number trenches previously described). Within the area of post molds. While some of these were shallow de> ned by the curved divider, the Y oor was lower and represented the downward continuation of and created a smooth sided shallow basin. ] e posts from later layers, a signi> cant number of basin area was > lled with burned earth rubble. A posts appear to have originated at the surface of similar feature was recorded in Structure 5. the platform and suggest that one or more wood Since the base and sides of the feature exhib- constructions topped the platform. ited no evidence of burning, and as the rubble ] e exposed western edge of the platform extended only to the level of the sill and was not sloped downward at about a 40 degree angle to the observed above it, or outside of the basin, the most Layer E surface, and scorching was not observed likely explanation for the rubble is that it repre- along this edge, suggesting that at the time of con- sents a post use > lling of the basin. ] is probably struction it was not covered. Although the contact served to bring the basin to level with the remain- area is badly disturbed by Dacian era storage pits, der of the house Y oor. ] is would most likely have a high central tongue of Layer E material extended occurred when the house underwent major recon- to the edge of the platform in the central portion struction, or when the Y oor was used as a founda- of the excavation block. It is not clear whether this tion for the construction of an entirely new struc- represents the remnant of an earlier site feature ture. During the actual use life of the structure, that the platform covered, or whether it served as the basin and divider most probably represented an entry ramp to the platform. an internal storage enclosure within the house. ] e one other feature which varies among the Subsistence and Economy: Pecica structures encountered so far is the presence ] e analysis of recovered plant and animal or absence of an internal hearth/oven. Where these remains from the excavations is currently under- are clearly visible in the more northerly structures way, but a few preliminary comments can be made (Structures 0, 1, 4 (upper and lower), and 8) no regarding the subsistence economy at Pecica, and such construction was reported for any of the how it changed over the course of the Middle south complex houses (Structures 2, 3, and 5). ] e Bronze Age. Dr. Laura Motta, in the ethnobotanical

71 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011 laboratory of the University of Michigan, Museum by domestic livestock. Despite its location adja- of Anthropology, is directing the analysis of car- cent to the Mureş River, there is only very limited bonized plant remains from the site. To date, the evidence for > sh utilization, a situation that is in analysis of plant materials has focused on the core striking contrast to the contemporary settlement at Bronze Age portion of the sample, and represents Klárafalva Hajdova, and which also contrasts with primarily remains from construction phases 2, 3 the Dacian patterns of consumption at Pecica. and 4. ] e other major > nding is the startling quan- Most of the cereal grains identi> ed to date tities of horse present on the site. As Nicodemus are einkorn wheat ( Triticum monococcum ). Barley notes, during the Y orescent period of the Pecica (Hordeum vulgare) is also observed and appears settlement, there is a greater density of horse to represent six row and hulled forms. Traces of remains found than at any other know Bronze emmer wheat ( Triticum dicoccum ), free thresh- Age site in the eastern Carpathian Basin. ] is sug- ing wheat, and millet have also been identi> ed. gests a major role of the Pecica settlement in the Among the samples examined most contain a regional spread and trade of horses into Central very low density of crop remains. Cereal caryopses Europe which must have rivaled the site’s impor- (seeds) are sparse and there is a striking scarcity of tance as a major trade and manufacture node in chat . ] ere is also a surprising absence of pulses, bronze metallurgy. with only one pea specimen being identi> ed so far. ] ere are a few exceptions, however, including two Ceramics and Metallurgy: samples that are relatively rich in cereal caryopses, While a number of craft activities are in evi- and another that is rich in Triticum sp. glume bases dence in the materials recovered from Pecica, of and spikelet forks. overwhelming importance are ceramics and met- ] e most abundant taxon identi> ed so far allurgy. ] e ceramics from Pecica have long been is Chenopodium album , a common crop weed. important as a chronological indicator, but they Polygonum sp. and other polygonaceae are also can also provide important information on craft represented. Grass family shows variety, including production, food consumption, regional connec- Bromus sp. and Lolium sp. but occur only rarely. tions, and trade. To date, more than 4,000 diag- Elderberry ( Sambucus ebulus ) is common but nostic rims, bases, handles and decorated sherds occurs in small numbers within each sample. have been photographed and measured. Many of When these results are compared with other these diagnostic ceramics were also piece plotted Maros sites, a similar set of species are observed during excavation and provide an unrivaled record but with signi> cant dit erences. At the contempo- of their use and deposition within the site (> gure rary Bronze Age settlement of Klárafalva Hajdova 9 5). A central goal of the initial analysis is to iden- there is a higher density of and ubiquity of cary- tify the functional categories of vessels represented opses and chat , and free threshing grains are more (such as food storage, preparation, serving) as a common. Several taxa of pulses are also repre- means of understanding the distribution of these sented. At the nearby Maros culture settlement at activities within the structures and the settlement. Şanţul Mic (aka Semlac Livada Iui Onea) An important avenue for investigation is (Oas 2010), Triticum monococcum predominates whether the Pecica ceramic assemblage, both > ne in primary contexts, while other depositional con- wares and coarse wares, are being produced locally texts are characterized by a mix of barley, einkorn, and if there is any evidence for the specialization cereal chat , and some millet. As analysis proceeds, of production. Michelaki, in her analysis of the it will be interesting to determine whether the lower Maros villages of Klárafalva Hajdova and rather narrow spectrum of grain varieties continues Kiszombor Új Élet, demonstrated that despite the for all of the Pecica site deposits, and particularly standardized forms and proportions of the Maros to determine whether the absence of threshing res- > ne wares, they were manufactured locally in each idues characterizes the entire site. community. 10 It will be interesting to see whether A preliminary assessment of the animal economy this is similarly the case at Pecica and neighboring at Pecica during the later portion of the Bronze Age Bronze Age settlements. occupation is presented by A. Nicodemus in the It is also clear from a preliminary examina- accompanying contribution (Nicodemus 2011). tion of the ceramic assemblage that a number of It is su} cient to note here, that the Bronze Age regional > ne ware styles are represented at Pecica. economy at Pecica is overwhelmingly dominated Foremost among these are designs associated with 9 G. Jones personal communication, 2010. 10 Michelaki 2008.

72 the Vattina Group to the south and lime encrusted important among these is when was the settle- wares from Trans-Danubia. Numerous other ment established? And what was the relationship regional styles are also present in lesser quantities. between the core of the Pecica settlement and In addition to > ne wares, the ceramic assemblage outlying areas, both in the immediate vicinity of includes a wide range of domestic ceramics used the settlement outside its great ditch, and to con- in food preparation and storage, and specialized temporary settlements such as the nearby site of ceramic utensils, most notably the heavy portable Semlac. ] e answer to these questions will enable hearths, and spindle whorls and loom weighs asso- research to gain a fuller appreciation of the factors ciated with cloth production. ] e site has also pro- that led to the spectacular rise of the Pecica site duced a number of specimens representing wheels; during the Middle Bronze Age. presumably used with models of carts and chariots. Metallurgy at Pecica is represented by a modest Acknowledgements: number of bronze tools and ornaments (princi- ] e authors would like to acknowledge the pally tubes and spherical beads), stone molds, clay vital contribution of the Romanian and American crucibles, and enormous quantities of casting slag. students that participated in the excavations of the ] e quantities of slag, in particular, speak to the site, and the very supportive contribution of the industrial level of metal production that occurred people and o} cials of the village of Semlac. ] e at the site. A pilot sample of the slag is currently research described in this paper was supported being analyzed by Dr. Christopher Papalas to in part by National Science Foundation grant determine both the sources of the metal and the numbers BCS–0512162 and 0620147. pyro-technologies being used by the Pecica smiths, and to provide a basis for comparison with metal- BIBLIOGRAPHY lurgical practices observed among the lower Maros 11 villages. As with the horse remains, mentioned Biró et alii 1986 previously, metallurgical production reached a def- Biró, K., Pozsgai, I. & Vladár, A., Electron Beam inite crescendo during the 3–4 construction phases Microanalysis of Obsidian Samples from Geological at the site. and Archaeological Sites. Acta Archaeologica Academiae In addition to the sourcing of metallurgical Scientarum Hungaricae, 38, (1986) , 257–278. debris, > ve obsidian artifacts from the 2008 season were analyzed using non-destructive energy-dis- Biró et alii 1988 Biró, K., Pozsgai, I. & Vladár, A., Central European persive x-ray Y uorescence (EDXRF) spectroscopy obsidian studies. Archaeometrical Studies in Hungary using the University of Missouri Research Reactor (Budapest), 1 , (1988), 119–130. Archaeometry Laboratory's Elva–X spectrom- eter. All > ve obsidian artifacts were sourced to Bóna 1975 the primary Carpathian 1 (C1) source. 12 Rosania Bóna, I., Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und Ihre et al. 13 have isolated chemically distinct subareas Südöstlichen Beziehungen , Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, within the C1 source; based on concentrations of (1975). rubidium (Rb), strontium (Sr), iron (Fe), zirco- Childe 1929 nium (Zr), zinc (Zn) and manganese (Mn). All > ve Childe, V., D e Danube in Prehistory , Oxford, artifacts appear to derive from the C1a subsource Clarendon, (1929). near Vinicky, Slovakia. 14 Crişan 1978 Future Directions Crişan, I. H., . Săpăturile de la “Şanţul Mare” ] e recent excavations at Pecica Santual Mare din anii 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964 . Arad, (1978). have produced a number of startling new results, Girić 1987 ranging from the site’s importance as a central Girić, M., Naselja Moriške culture. Rada Vojvo 2anskog distribution point for the domestic horse, to the Muzeja 30, (1987), 71–83. presence of a large central platform. Yet, many fundamental questions remain unanswered. Most Gogâltan 1999 Gogâltan, F., Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul 11 cf. Paplas 2008. Românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului: Cronologia şi 12 Williams ] orpe et alii 1984; Biro et alii 1986, Biro et alii descoperirile de metal. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica 1988. Banatica XXIII, (1999). 13 Rosania et alii 2008. 14 Rosania and Barker 2010.

73 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011

Horváth 1985 Papalas 2008 Horváth, F., Contributions to the Early and Middle Papalas, C., Bronze Age Metallurgy of the Eastern Bronze Age of Southern Alföld. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Carpathian Basin: A Holistic Exploration . PhD dissertation, Évkönyve, 1982–83, (1985), 55–72. Arizona State University, Tempe, (2008).

Lengyel 2010 Rosania et alii 2010 Lengyel, S. “ Archaeomagnetic Laboratory Results for Rosania, C., and A. Barker, Obsidian procurement at D ree Samples from Pecica Şanţul Mare ”, Illinois State Pecica Santul Mare, Romania. Muse 43, (2010), 19–30. Museum Landscape History Program Technical Report 2010–000–6. Rosania et alii 2008 Rosania, C., Boulanger, M., Biró, K., Ryzhov, S., Michelaki 2008 Trnka, G., and M. Glascock, Revisiting Carpathian Michelaki, K., Making pots and potters in the Bronze Obsidian. Antiquity 82, (2008), 318 (http://antiquity. Age Maros villages of Kiszombor Új-Élet and Klárafalva ac.uk/ProjGall/rosania/index.html ) Hajdova’, Cambridge Archaeology Journal 18 (2008), 3, 355–380. Roska 1912 Roska, M., Ásatás a pécska-szemláki határban levö Oas 2010 Nagy Sánczon. DolgCluj 3 (1912), 1–73. Oas, S. 2010 “ Maros Macrobotanicals: An Archaeobot- anical Analysis of Bronze Age Agriculture in the Maros Site Roska 1914 of Semlac “Şanţul Mic ”. Honors ] esis, Department of Roska, M., Ásatás a perjámosi sánczhalmon. Múzeumi Anthropology, University of Michigan, (2010). és Könyvtári Értesitő VIII, (1914), 74–104.

O’Shea 1996 Sherwood et alii in prep. O’Shea, J., Villagers of the Maros: A Portrait of an Early Sherwood, S., Windingstad, J., Barker, A., and Bronze Age Society . New York, Plenum, (1996). J. O’Shea, “ D e potential for regional aridi^ cation at the close of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Carpathian Basin: Prelimi- O’Shea et alii 2005 nary results from the Mureş River Valley, Romania , (in prep). O’Shea, J., Barker, A., Sherwood, S. and A. Szentmiklosi, New archaeological investigations at Pecica “Şanţul Mare”, Williams ] orpe et alii 1984 AnB , S. N., Arheologie–Istorie, XII–XIII, (2005), 81–109. Williams ] orpe, O., Warren, S., and J. Nandris, ] e Distribution and Provenance of Archaeological O’Shea et alii 2006 Obsidian in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of O’Shea, J., Barker, A., Nicodemus, A., Sherwood, S. and Archaeological Science, 11, (1984) , 183–212. ( doi: A. Szentmiklosi, “Archaeological Investigations at Pecica 10.1016/0305–4403(84)90001–3 ) “Şanţul Mare”: ] e 2006 Campaign”, AnB , S. N., Arheologie–Istorie XIV, (2006), 1, 211–228.

Nicodemus 2011 Nicodemus, A., 2011 ] e Bronze Age and Dacian Fauna from New Excavations at Pecica “Şanţul Mare”, AnB, S.N., Arheologie–Istorie IX (2011).

74 Figure 1 Relationship between 2005 Stratigraphic Trench and 2006–2009 block excavations. Coordinate values used to designate grid locations are also shown.

75 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011

Figure 2 Spread of Calibrated 14C dates from Pecica. Bars represent the high and low values for the 2 standard deviation range of the date, while the box represents the intercept with the calibration curve. If a Sample value had multiple intercepts, these values were averaged while leaving the range unchanged.

76 Figure 3 Location of Major Architectural Features by Building Phase. No clear structures were associated with Phase 1. Excavation block in this illustration is oriented to magnetic North. ] e excavation block, following Crișan, employs a grid north that is aligned with the tell’s shape, which is 30 degrees East of magnetic North.

77 ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE # ISTORIE, XIX, 2011

Figure 4 Idealized Pecica House Plan. Figure is based on Structure 4, although it contains some elements, such as the interior basin, that have been added for illustrative purposes. Solid dark lines represent wall trenches. Tick marks are located at a distance of one meter. Drawing by Steve Sabo.

Figure 5 Overview of Piece Plotted Bronze Age Ceramics from the Pecica Excavations. ] e presence of post-Bronze Age pits is visible as circular areas lacking mapped ceramics.

78