Introduction. Eugen Comşa

Eugen Comşa during the International Congress of Anthropology and Ethnology, in Tokyo-Kyoto, 1968.

My Father

As I am the daughter of Eugen Comşa, some people might assume that the following lines will reflect a subjective view of my father. Even so, I take the risk and state that my father was not only a very good specialist in his field, but he was also a wonderful person. How could someone describe a lifetime within a few words without including a summary of the most important events that happened? As my father had never had My Father XV

such intention, or opportunity, I will do it myself, considering that his scientific and personal life were intertwined in a most interesting way. He was born on October 20, 1923, the only son in his family. According to the stories told by people who met them, his parents were nice, decent and honorable people. He was raised surrounded by the great love of his parents, spending the wonderful years of his childhood with his friend, Colea (whom is his friend even today, after 80 years), wandering the environs of Chişinău, his native town, which was at that time, a part of Romania. But, those years have passed rather quickly and as a young man, he studied at the high school “Alexandru Donici” from Chişinău. During World War II, through various circumstances, he lost his father and later his mother and was cared for by his grandmother. He eventually joined the war and this is why today he is a war veteran. At the end of the ordeal, he graduated high school in Bucharest, where his family initially took refuge, at the today National College “Cantemir Vodă”. Afterwards, he was admitted at the University of Bucharest- Faculty of History, where he became one of the faculty’s most promising students. He was also fortunate enough to have prominent personalities as teachers. We could mention here Ion Nestor and Gheorghe Ştefan. During his student life, he had eagerly learned and worked on the excavation sites, trying to achieve the best possible knowledge of the field of archaeology. This is probably the reason why he was chosen by Prof. Ion Nestor to be his assistant at the Chair of History after he graduated. He worked there for few years, but was replaced, along with his master and many others in 1952, due a debatable decision. I have no detailed information about that but I know that my father is even now gifted as a professor. He is a man who is able to spend a lot of time explaining the evolution of phenomena or other important things; he is comprehensive not only to the specialists but also to novices. He is able to do all of this without losing his temper. For those eager to listen, he was involved and passionate when he spoke about archaeological matters. For those who did not talk to him on this topic, he was almost silent. He told me that his models as specialists were Ion Nestor and Mircea Petrescu-Dâmboviţa and that these were also the archaeologists who taught him a lot of the archaeology secrets. During the 1950s, probably before one of the archaeological campaigns from Garvan, he met my mother, also an archaeologist and, in 1955, they were married. In 1959 my sister Delia was born, and I, Alexandra, followed in 1963. We were a very happy family and we tried to spend as much time together as we could. This is why our parents took us, as children, with them to most of their excavation sites. We were fascinated by the objects found in the earth and whenever we were allowed we were glad to give a helping hand for washing or wrapping them. Our holidays always partially consisted in such experiences. Yet, later on after beginning high school, my sister and I were unable to join them anymore and, truthfully speaking, we were not as interested as we had been when we were younger. Yet, we missed both of them, especially when they would leave Bucharest for a few months. At that time, in most of the villages the telephone was a luxury so XVI Introduction. Eugen Comşa

we were glad even when we could talk to them once a week. In time other troubles appeared, as well. There was no proper transportation, or the living conditions were quite poor so we had a lot of things to worry about. In some villages where my parents worked, there was not even a doctor. After high school, my sister attended the Academy of Economic Sciences- Bucharest, whence she graduated. For some time following her studies, she worked in the Institute of National Economy-Bucharest and later at the private Ecological University-Bucharest, at the Management Chair. In the meantime she was married to Bogdan and had a daughter, Ana. I graduated from the University of Bucharest-Faculty of Biology and later specialized in Iaşi as an anthropologist. Both, my sister and I prepared and graduated as PhD candidates, my sister in economical sciences and myself in physical anthropology. Some have said that it is rare to have four doctors in one single family, but ours had. And here the story takes a turn for the worse. In 1991, my parents were notified that they had to retire. Everything happened very fast, without any prior notice. After working for about 55 years in the same professional position, one thatwas more appropriate for a young and newly trained specialist, they retired and went to pension. Still, considering the results and prestige of their research, they were allowed to continue their work at the Institute and they did so, being happy to return as volunteers to their usual activities. But as it happened, this was just only the first and simplest of their troubles. The pleasant atmosphere of our family fell under a shadow when my mother unexpectedly died after a heart attack in 2002 and it completely disappeared in 2003 when my sister passed away from breast cancer, living behind not only her daughter and husband, but also my father and me. Since that time, both my father and I became increasingly detached from the surrounding world and we could hardly concentrate upon our daily activities. We were fortunate enough to have beside us not only our remaining family, but also people who were supportive and helped us to recover. Now that my father also passed away, I cannot say that my wounds will heal soon, although memories of my family and the friendship of my colleagues encourages me and gives meaning to my life as an archaeologist-physical anthropologist. Alexandra Comşa

Memories about Eugen Comşa

Childhood Memories about Eugen Comşa

I spent my childhood and youth in former Bessarabia (more precisely in Chişinău) where I lived with my parents until 1941 when we took refuge in Craiova. Remembering about Eugen Comşa XVII

My both parents, but mostly my mother, had a very close relationship with George Comşa`s family, whom she visited very often. On those occasions, my brother Alexei (Leoncic) and I used to spend most of our time with Jenea (Eugen), who was one year older than I. I remember that Jenea was attracted to archaeology because, during our trips while we explored the hills around Chişinău, he used to gather all kinds of burnt ceramic fragments. He “studied” them and arranged them according to “his science”. When we returned from our trips to the hills of Rîşcani (Rîşcanova), Jenea would have his pockets full of burnt ceramic fragments and his grandmother would chastise him for bringing home “stones” again which, rather often, she used to throw away - without his knowledge, of course. A certain detail I should mention here is that as we prepared for our trips, my brother Leoncic, always wanted to join us. He followed us crying because we did not want to take him with us. He was 5 or 6 years old and he was much too young for our “missions”. I seldom saw Jenea’s parents, because they were very busy at the office, working most of the day. I remember that Jenea’s mother was a distinguished and beautiful lady who was elegantly dressed and had good taste. His father was also a very handsome and distinguished man, temperate and a good family man. Jenea’s grandmother often convinced me to serve lunch to him because she said that when we ate together it was a way to make him eat better. All this happened before we went to school. After we began school we rarely saw each other because he studied in one school, while I studied in another. I made some friends at school and he had his own friends among his schoolmates, but we never forgot our friendship. And after that, during our first years of high school, when Jenea studied at the “Alexandru Donici” High School, we rarely saw one another because both of us were very busy with our homework. Everything continued pleasantly in this way until 1940 when, after the Ribbentrop- Molotov pact, my family and I remained in Chişinău, under the Russian occupation, while Eugen and his family took refuge in Bucharest. We met again after those hard times and we have remained friends until today. N. A.

Remembering about Eugen Comşa

We met 63 years ago, in 1945, when we were colleagues at the University of Bucharest- Faculty of History. Even then, at the beginning of our studies, the two of us were a part of a team that undertook the excavations carried out in the site from Sărata Monteoru, on the spot “Cetăţuia” (E. Comşa, Didi Alexandrescu and one more student whose name I cannot remember and who later retired and I). XVIII Introduction. Eugen Comşa

In the beginning, at Monteoru, Didi and I would often reserve a few ceramic fragments but after we observed that E. Comşa gathered everything he discovered, this inspired us to return ours also back to the collection. In 1949, E. Comşa studied the stratigraphy on the necropolis Monteoru III, surface M, on the hill called “Dealul Leagănului” (Swing Hill). He worked in Romanian Moldova on different archaeological sites; the one from Corlăteni where he initially worked with Didi Alexandrescu and I came later. He was one of the most organized and orderly of the Romanian archaeologists. He always made a correct and complete analysis and interpretation of his studies. It was impossible to argue with his conclusions because he preserved everything which could be relevant. It is my opinion that the correct registration is a crucial component of this science. It was impossible not to notice his commitment because he was informed on every aspect of the location and dates of his excavations. He knew everything relevant concerning these projects. On the other hand, it was fortunate for him that the time that he began his work in this field was a time of intense archaeological studies, when substantial financing existed and made extensive archaeological excavations possible. At that time, stratigraphic control excavations could be done, and were thus being checked. One of these projects, for instance, were the penetrations of Cucuteni bearers in the area of Gumelniţa Neolithic of Muntenia (southern Carpathians area). Concerning the Neolithic, he based his work upon studies from Băeşti-Aldeni, Radovanu and Cernica. Another feature of his scholarship which is worth mentioning, was his devotion to field work. No other archaeologist had ever excavated as much as he did. This fact is very important because, in order to study a certain material culture, it is necessary to trace the locations where it is present. Therefore, at least hypothetically, he was able to establish the limits of that culture. After Cezar Bolliac and Gh. Ştefan, D. V. Rosetti and R. Vulpe, he is the archaeologist from the generation which followed the World War II who completed the most surface investigations. None of our colleagues ever “wondered” as much as he did. He not only found a large number of archaeological sites-including Căţelu, Greaca, Feldioara, Luncaviţa-but he also discovered and characterized the Dudeşti culture. Compared to his other colleagues who were not willing to collaborate, he was always available to his fellow archaeologist colleagues or pupils and found the time to offer explanations and have pertinent discussions. This is an element of cultural propaganda which is extremely important for the impact of our work. In fact, this is a way of gaining the respect of the community and a way to education for lay persons on this field of study. In every way, my description is intended to describe his activities as those of a scientist, preoccupied by his work. Remembering about Eugen Comşa XIX

Even if, for some we, the scientists, are out of fashion, we consider that stratigraphy, chronology and typology themselves will never be out of fashion. E. Z.

Eugen Comşa with Maria at Garvan (before their marriage in 1955).

Eugen Comşa at the archaeological site from Vărăşti (1956). XX Introduction. Eugen Comşa

Short Biography of Eugen Comşa

Eugen Comşa was born on October 20th, 1923 in Chişinău, the capital of Republic of Moldova. He was a citizen of Romania where he lived for his entire life. After elementary school, he attended the High School “Alexandru Dionici” in Chişinău. In 1940 he moved with his family to Bucharest as a refugee and graduated from the High School “Cantemir Vodă”. In 1944-1945 Eugen Comşa was a war veteran. He participated in the Second World War as a student at the Military School for Reserve Officers (Slănic Prahova). In 1945 he applied at the Faculty of History at the University of Bucharest, where he had the opportunity to study under prominent professors I. Nestor, C. Giurescu, C. Marinescu and Gh. Ştefan. In 1946 Comşa became a librarian at the Prehistory Seminar of the Faculty. He graduated in 1948 with specialization in Prehistory. The following year he was appointed an Assistant at the Chair of History coordinated by Professor I. Nestor, where he worked until 1952. Meanwhile, in 1950, Comşa also began working at the National Museum of Antiquities, which later became the current Institute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan” of the Romanian Academy. Since 1960 he continued to work as a researcher in the Institute. He obtained the title Doctor of Historical Sciences, with the thesis entitled “The Boian Culture,” under the supervision of Professor I. Nestor. In 1974 he received the ”Vasile Pârvan” prize at the Romanian Academy of Sciences for the monograph “History of the Communities of the Boian Culture“. Eugen Comşa worked in the Prehistory Division of the Institute until his retirement in 1991. He continued to publish actively until his death. The editors

Selected Publications by Eugen Comşa

Eugen Comşa’s works include a total of 11 monographic and about 400 specialized research papers, out of which 96 were published abroad.

Monographs

(1993). Bibliografia referitoare la a două epocă a fierului de pe teritoriul României. Bucureşti. (Bibliotheca Thracologica, 3). (1996). Figurinele antropomorfe din epoca neolitică pe teritoriul României, Bucureşti. (1996). Bibliografia epocii bronzului pe teritoriul României, Bucureşti. (1996). Viaţa oamenilor din spaţiul carpato-danubiano-pontic în mileniile 7-4 î.H., Bucureşti. Articles XXI

Articles

1993

(1993). Creşterea animalelor domestice în cursul epocii neolitice pe teritoriul Banatului, Tibiscus, 13-18. (1993). Rolul Dunării Inferioare în cursul epocii neolitice, Pontica, 24, 23-28.

1994

(1994). Les relations entre les communautés néo-énéolithiques de l’est de la Peninsule Balcanique. In P. Roman & M. Alexianu (Eds.), Relations thraco-illyro-hellénique. Actes de XIVe Symposium National de Thracologie, Băile Herculane (14-19 septembre 1992) (pp. 53-61), Bucarest. (1994). Mormintele cu ocru din movila IV-1949 de la Glăvăneştii Vechi, Hierasus, 9, 57-63. (1994). Contactele dintre comunităţile Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolie cu acelea vecine din ţinuturile de la nord şi nord-vest de Marea Neagră, Hierasus, 9 (Botoşani), 295-301. (1994). Uneltele de piatră şlefuită din arealul culturii cu ceramică liniară de pe teritoriul României, Memoria Antiquitatis, 19 (Piatra Neamţ), 83-96. (1994). Figurine neolitice din aşezarea de la Fulga (judeţul Buzău), SCIVA, 45(2), 105-122. (1994). Aşezarea Starčevo-Criş de la Dulceanca, Analele Banatului, 3, s.n., 13-40. (1994). Consideraţii cu privire la credinţele şi riturile din epoca neolitică din ţinuturile dintre Carpaţi şi DunÎre, Pontica, 27, 7-18.

1995

(1995). Raporturile dintre comunităţile culturii Gumelniţa şi cele ale aspectului cultural Aldeni II, reprezentate prin figurinele antropomorfe,CCDJ , 13-14, 19-28. (1995). Une agglomération de type Starčevo-Criş, AMN, 32(1), 47-52. (1995). Morminte ale purtătorilor culturii Starčevo-Criş, AMN, 32(1), 245-256. (1995). Ritul şi ritualul funerar al purtătorilor culturilor Boian şi Gumelniţa, AMN, 32(1), 257-268. (1995). Quelques données concernant les chausssures de l’âge du bronze sur le territorire de la Roumanie, Thraco-Dacica, 16(1-2), 87-91. (1995). Mormintele preistorice descoperite în intervalele dintre movilele funerare de la Glăvăneştii Vechi, Memoria Antiquitatis, 20 (Piatra Neamţ), 71-77. (1995). Necropola gumelniţeană de la Vărăşti, Analele Banatului, seria arheologie-istorie, 4(1) (Timişoara), 55-193.

1996

(1995-1996). Les figurines anthropomorphes des culture Vinča (esemblances et differences). Sargetia, 26(1), 91-104. (1996). Les rapports entre les cultures Vinča-Dudeşti-Boian. In F. Draşovean (Ed.), The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Timişoara, Romania, October 1995 (pp. 213-217). Timişoara. (1996). Ocupaţiile principale ale comunităţilor culturii Cucuteni din Moldova. In Gh. Dumitroaia & D. Monah (Eds.), Cucuteni aujourd’hui, 110 ans depuis la découverte en 1884 du syte eponime (pp. 263-276). Piatra Neamţ. XXII Introduction. Eugen Comşa

(1996). Les tombes à ocre sur le territoire de la Roumanie. In P. Roman (Ed.), The Thracian World at the Crossroad of Civilizations. The 7th International Congress of Thracology, May 20-28 1996, Constanţa-Mangalia-Tulcea (pp. 256-258). Bucharest.

1997

(1997). Le tatouage chez les communautés de la culture Gumelniţa. Dacia, 38-39, 1994-1995, 441- 444.

1998

(1998). Tipurile de aşezări din epoca neolitică din Muntenia. CCDJ, 2, 144-164. (1998). Importanţa cultivării plantelor în epoca neolitică pe teritoriul Munteniei. Cercetări istorice, 17(1), Iaşi, 1998, 101-112. (1998). Acele pentru păr lucrate din os şi corn din epoca neolitică descoperite în sudul României. Pontica, 30, 7-15. (1998). Mormintele neolitice de la Radovanu, SCIVA, 49(3-4), 265-276.

1999

(1999). Figurine reprezentând păsări, din epoca neolitică, descoperite în Muntenia, Bucureşti. Materiale de istorie şi muzeografie, 13, 13-18. 2000

(2000). Types d’habitation dans l’aire de la culture Dudeşti en Valachie (Munténie). Studia antique et archaeological, 7 (Honorem prof. M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et Dinu Marin), Iaşi, 51-58. (2000). Aşezările din epoca neolitică şi mediul lor natural din sudul Munteniei, Istro-Pontica (Muzeul Tulcean la a 50-a aniversare 1950-2000), 67-72. (1998-2000). Raporturile dintre cultura Boian şi cultura Vădastra. Cercetări arheologice, 11, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, partea I.a, Bucureşti, 1998-2000, 299-303.

2002

(2002). Podoabe neolitice de os descoperite pe teritoriul Munteniei. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, 7-8, 7-8 (Giurgiu), 83-86. (2001-2002). Brăzdare neolitice din corn de cerb, descoperite în Muntenia. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, 7-8 (Giurgiu), 87-91. (2001-2002). Măşti reprezentate pe figurinele antropomorfe din epoca neolitică din Muntenia, Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, 7-8 (Giurgiu), 93-101.

2006

(2006). La signification des figurines masculines néolithique de la Muntenie,Istorie şi tradiţie în spaţiul românesc, 6 (Sibiu), 7-16.