SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CUCUTENI-TRIPOLYE STONE FIGURINES Nicolae Ursulescu The rarity of certain artefacts encountered in the archaeological material often entice researchers to study them in depth, in the attempt to deci- pher their real signifi cance, through an approach as complex as possible. Thus, for the rich and varied anthropomorphic representations of the Cucuteni-Ariuşd-Tripolye cultural complex, even though the vast majority of the statuettes/fi gu- rines were fashioned from fi red clay, in some cas- es other materials were used, for example stone. A recent study tackled the issue of these rare stone fi gurines from the Cucuteni-Tripolye area (Ţerna 2013). The author catalogued (Ţerna 2013, 108- 109) 14 such pieces (from 11 sites) mentioned in the archaeological literature, accompanied by a series of observations on the raw material, the iconographical characteristic, and the spatial and chronological distribution (Ţerna 2013, 109-113). The study concludes with several personal opin- ions (Ţerna 2013, 113-114), and with the presen- tation of the bibliography (Ţerna 2013, 115-117) and illustration (Ţerna 2013, 119-123). Fig. 1. Localities with Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements in which stone statuettes are claimed to have been found: The aim of this present study is not to discuss the 1 - Bernaševka; 2 - Costeşti; 3 - Cucuteni (?); considerations advanced by the young and appre- 4 - Bârlăleşti – two settlements; 5 - Fedeşti; ciated colleague from Chişinău, but instead to ad- 6 - Igeşti; 7 - Măluşteni – two settlements; 8 - Mur- dress the very material under discussion, on which geni; 9 - Obârşeni; 10 - Rudi; 11 - Sfântu Gheorghe (?); 12 - Sărăţeni. the respective refl ections were based. I justify this by the fact that from a methodological point of view them come from random fi ndings. Only a piece it is mandatory to fi rst critically assess the sourc- (fi g. 2/1), the fragmentary stone head (of which es a work is based on and on the basis of which it is stated that it was made from a “hard cal- various judgements are made. As such, for this careous stone”) from the Tripolye A-Precucuteni endeavour it would be extremely useful to go di- II site of Bernaševka (Mogilev-Podol’skij rayon, rectly to the primary sources in which the material Vinnitsa region, Ukraine) is presented as having was fi rst published, and only in exceptional situa- been collected from an archaeological digging, tions to make use of the more convenient method though the discovery context was not specifi ed of gathering information from subsequent works, (Ţerna 2013, 108, 109); the information was tak- which can nonetheless be brought into discussion en from the synthesis work on the early Tripolye if they add to our knowledge of the topic at hand or settlements published in German by the discov- if they advance novel interpretations. erer, only the illustration being cited (Zbenovič A simple look at the 14 pieces presented in the 1996, Taf. 35/3). In fact, V.G. Zbenovič (1996, 5) catalogue reveals, from the very start, that 13 of states in his work that the piece was carved from Tyragetia, s.n., vol. VIII [XXIII], nr. 1, 2014, 145-153. 145 II. Materiale și cercetări A settlement (albeit following a surface investiga- tion), can be attributed to this category of arte- facts, is the piece from Rudi IX (Ţerna 2013, 109, fi g. 1/5), from the place called “Roşcana” (Sava et al. 1995, 286, item 32/21, fi g. 1, 3; Власенко, 1 Сорокин 1982, 186) on the banks of the Dniester 2 River (Soroca rayon, Rep. of Moldova; previous name: Rughi, Soroca County). For that matter, St. Ţerna included it in the class of conventional- realistic stone statuettes, just like the piece from Bernaševka (Ţerna 2013, 110). Two other pieces come from older fi nds, kept in 3 the collections of the museums from Sf. Gheor- ghe (Covasna County, Romania) (Ţerna 2013, 109) and Fălticeni (Suceava County, Romania) Fig. 2. Stone statuettes with sure provenance from (Ţerna 2013, 108). The discovery location of both Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements: 1 - Bernaševka (apud the artefacts is unknown, with only suppositions Збенович 1980, рис. 79/15); 2 - Murgeni (apud having been advanced in this respect. Thus, for Coman 1980, fi g. 98/3 = Monah 2012, 17/6); 3 - Rudi (apud Ţerna 2013, fi g. 1/5). the fi rst piece Z. Székely (1971, 132, fi g. 2/4) only states that it was found in an Ariuşd settlement located on the outskirts of the town of Sf. Gheo- a soft limestone (“weichem Kalkstein”), a local rghe; the information was also taken as such by rock often used for erecting the walls of dwell- B. Bartók (1985-1986, 140). D. Monah (1997, 56, ings (Zbenovič 1996, 5). In the monograph work fi g. 17/3; 2012, 76, fi g. 17/3) conjectured that the dedicated to this settlement, the director of the piece comes from the Ariuşd site of “Cetatea Co- excavations from Bernaševka mentions, in addi- corilor/Gémvára”, without any evidence for such tion to the later information, that the respective a supposition. Similarly, neither the place of dis- statuette (made from a soft oolitic limestone — covery and the description was not provided for “из мягкого известяка-ракушечника”) was the second piece; it was presented only through a discovered in dwelling 2; a detailed description profi le-less schematic drawing (Popovici, Simici- of the face is also provided (Збенович 1980, 134, uc 1979-1980, 648, pl. IV/10). D. Monah (1997, рис. 79/15; Збенович 1989, 118, рис. 76/3). The 56, fi g. 17/4; 2012, 76, fi g. 17/4) speculated that smooth rounded nose of the fi gurine (a clear im- the piece might originated from V. Ciurea’s ex- itation of a nose made by pinching clay) is em- cavations, ascribing it to the Cucuteni A phase. phasised by two lateral diagonal incisions, while Considering the uncertainties around these two the mouth is rendered by a deep horizontal per- items, instead of speaking about the statuettes foration; the eyes are deeply cut in the stone. from Fălticeni and Sf. Gheorghe (Ţerna 2013, The facial features are clearly reminiscent of the 108-110, fi g. 1/4, 7), we fi nd it more appropriate clay statuettes from the same time period, thus to speak about the statuettes from the muse- removing any doubt about the Tripolye A-Precu- ums of Fălticeni and Sf. Gheorghe. cuteni provenance of the piece. On the basis of the metrical scale it can be inferred that the re- Stanislav Ţerna (like D. Monah) believes that the spective statuette head had a height of ca. 7 cm. piece from the museum of Sf. Gheorghe, fashioned There one has it – the consultation of the primary from marble, could date from the Cucuteni A sources for this piece brought supplemental in- phase, since items from this material (but belong- ing to completely different categories of artefacts) formation, including a correction with respect to are also encountered in the deposit from Cărbuna the raw material. (Дергачев 1998, 47-48 , рис. 33/846-847), where Another piece, a fragment from the body of a they are, instead, considered “southern imports” statuette made of a sandstone with quartzite in- (Ţerna 2013, 109-110, fi g. 1/4; Monah 1997, 56; trusions (fi g. 2/3), which, on account of its char- Monah 2012, 76). Furthermore, Ţerna includes acteristics and it having been found in a Cucuteni the piece into the category of realist artefacts, but 146 N. Ursulescu, Some observations on the Cucuteni-Tripolye stone fi gurines 2 a bc 1 dabcde Fig. 3. Stone statuettes from the V. Ciurea collection (Fălticeni Museum): 1 - Cucuteni (?); 2 - Costeşti. Drawings and photos: E. Ursu; 1d (apud Monah 2012, fi g. 17/4). he admits that it is completely different from the of the statuette, which, alongside other charac- Cucuteni-Tripolye clay statuette heads modelled teristics, can be taken into consideration for ac- in a realistic manner (Бурдо 2010; Бурдо 2013). cepting the cultural placement proposed by St. In our opinion, there is no basis for attributing Ţerna. Therefore, for this piece we are dealing, the piece from the museum of Sf. Gheorghe to the despite the absence of data regarding the discov- Ariuşd-Cucuteni cultural milieu. Judging by the ery context, with a hypothetical (but plausible) elongated neck and the outstretched shape of the chronological-cultural placement in the period head, there is also the possibility that the respec- immediately following the end of the actual Cu- tive piece is even a sceptre, though this is obvi- cuteni culture. With respect to the place of dis- ously only a supposition. covery, we have reasons to believe, on the basis of V. Ciurea’s statements, that this piece can be Describing the piece from the Fălticeni museum, the very “stone idol” found in the well-known St. Ţerna (2013, 108, 110-111) considers that its site Cucuteni-Cetăţuie by a high-school student features would rather suggest a dating to the (called Mironescu) from the “Nicu Gane” Second- Horodiştea-Gordineşti period, advancing in this ary School of Fălticeni, who donated it to the mu- sense a series of typological arguments. During seum, alongside other objects from the site (ce- the documentation for this paper, we received ramic ware, fl int artefacts), in the autumn of 1930 several new information and images of this arte- (Ciurea 1931, 22). If this is true, then the statuette fact1, which presents us with the opportunity to could arguably be connected to the remains from rekindle the discussion. The piece (fi g. 3/1) is 6.4 the transition period to the Bronze Age found in cm in height2 and is fashioned from a brecciate this site (Alaiba 2004, 287-297).