BMJT2_web

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

1/229

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

2/229

MUZEUL JUDEEAN TELEORMAN

BULETINUL MUZEULUI JUDEEAN TELEORMAN

SERIA ARHEOLOGIE

2 - 2010

Editura Renaissance

Bucureti

2010

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

3/229

MUZEUL JUDEEAN TELEORMAN

BULETINUL MUZEULUI JUDE

EAN TELEORMAN. SERIA ARHEOLOGIE 2

COLEGIUL DE REDACIE

Redactoref:Dr. Ecaterina nreanu, Muzeul Judeean Teleorman

Membrii:

Dr. Radian R. Andreescu, Muzeul Naional de Istorie a Romniei

Dr. Abraham van As, Leiden University

Dr. Douglass W. Bailey, San Francisco State University

Dr. Ioana Bogdan-Ctniciu, Institutul de Arheologie Vasile Prvan

Dr. Sabin Adrian Luca, Universitatea Lucian Blaga din Sibiu, Muzeul NaionalBrukenthalDr. Steve Mills, Cardiff University

Dr. Cristian Schuster, Universitatea din Bucureti, Institutul de Arheologie Vasile Prvan

Dr. Laurens Thissen, Thissen Archaeological Ceramics Bureau, Amsterdam

Secretar de redacie:

Drd. Pavel Mirea, Muzeul Judeean Teleorman

Coperta:farfurie smluit, sec. XIV, descoperit la Zimnicea, colecia Muzeului Judeean Teleorman

(desen de Ctlina Dnil)

Traduceri din limba englez:Pavel MireaTehnoredactare:Pavel Mirea i Pompilia Zaharia

Colegiul de redacie nu rspunde de opiniile exprimate de ctre autori.

Corespondena, manuscrisele, crile i revistele pentru schimb se vor trimite Colegiului de redacie, peurmtoarea adres: MUZEUL JUDEEAN TELEORMAN, str. 1848, nr. 1, cod potal 140033, ALEXANDRIA,

jud. Teleorman, ROMANIA sau prin email: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected].

Volum editat cu sprijinul Consiliului Judeean Teleorman

Editura Renaissance 2010

www.editurarenaissance.ro(Editur recunoscut C.N.C.S.I.S.)Editor: Sorin Alexandru ONTEA

Telefon/fax: 031.808.91.97/0744.652118E-mail: [email protected]

Toate drepturile asupra acestei ediii sunt rezervate editurii

ISSN 2065-5290Tipar: ABSTRACT MEDIA SRL

Tel/fax: 031.808.91.97

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

4/229

SUMAR

CONTENTS

Adina BORONEANOstrovul Corbului - o discuie asupra mormintelor mezolitice i neolitice timpuriiOstrovul Corbului. Mesolithic and Neolithic burials - a discussion. 5

Abraham VAN ASHow and why? The Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran,Teleorman River Valley, southern RomaniaCumi de ce? Ceramica neoliticde la Teleor 003, Teleor 008i Mgura-Bran,valea rului Teleorman, sudul Romniei........................................................................................... 29

Alin FRNCULEASA, Octav NEGREAUn sit din epoca neo-eneolitic n zona colinar a Munteniei - Seciu, jud. Prahova

A Neolithic site in the hills area of Walachia - Seciu, Prahova County. 45

Pavel MIREA, Ion TORCICLocuirile neolitice i eneolitice din zona Vistireasa, com. Nanov, jud. Teleorman. Note preliminare

Neolithic and Eneolithic habitations from Vistireasa, Nanov, Teleorman County. Preliminary Notes.. 69

Ana ILIE, Iulia NeagaCteva date despre o posibil producie metalurgic n tell-ul de la GeangoetiSome data about possible metallurgical production to the Geangoiesti tell-settlement... 79

Ion TORCICObservaii asupra unor vase gumelniene cu perforaii din tell-ul de la Vitneti Mgurice,

jud. TeleormanRemarks on some Gumelnia perforated vessels from Mgurice tell settlement, Vitneti,Teleorman County 99

Drago MNDESCUSur la chronologie des habitations du type Alexandria

Asupra cronologiei aezrilor de tip Alexandria................................................................................. 107

Bogdan CIUPERC, Pavel MIREASud - Vestul Munteniei n secolele VIII - XThe south-west of Walachia in VIII - X centuries 115

Ecaterina NREANUObservaii asupra ceramicii smluite - artistice de la Zimnicea, jud. TeleormanObservations on glazed pottery from Zimnicea, Teleorman County. 163

Steve MILLS

The Contribution of Sound to ArchaeologyContribuia sunetului n arheologie. 179

Ctlin LAZRConsideraii teoretico-metodologice privind studiul practicilor funerare (II):Contribuiile arheologieiThe theoretical and methodological considerations concerning the study of funerary practice (II):the contribution of archaeology 197

Piotr JACOBSSONOptically Stimulated Luminescence as a tool in environmental archaeologyLuminiscena StimulatOptic ca instrument n arheologia de mediu................................................... 227

ColaboratoriContributors. 237

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

5/229

OSTROVUL CORBULUI - O DISCUIE ASUPRA MORMINTELORMEZOLITICE I NEOLITICE TIMPURII

Adina BORONEAN

Abstract:The understanding of the Mesolithic-Early Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates

of the Danube is hindered by the fact that many of the sites excavated during the 1960s and 1970sare poorly published, especially in relation to the Early Neolithic. The present paper introduces newdata concerning the Early Neolithic occupation from Ostrovul Corbului, one of the three Romaniansites in the Iron Gates where Mesolithic burials were uncovered. Although only one burial wasreported as being definitely Mesolithic, the author draws on old field documentation and analogies tothe Serbian bank burials to suggest that at least six of them could have been Mesolithic or ofMesolithic tradition. Consequently, the correlation between these burials and the Mesolithic complexesshould be re-assessed.

Rezumat:nelegerea procesului detranziie de la mezolitic la neoliticul timpuriu din zonaPorile de Fier este ngreunatde faptul co mare parte a rezultatelor cercetrii nu au fost publicate,mai ales n ceea ce privete neoliticul timpuriu din zon. Articolul de fa aduce informaii noi asupralocuirii neolitice timpurii de a Ostrovul Corbului. Acest sit este i unul dintre cele trei care au furnizat

morminte mezolitice. Dei numai unul fusese atribuit cu certitudine mezoliticului, vechea documentaiedeantier i analogii de pe malul drept al Dunrii sugereaz c pn laase dintre ele ar putea fimezolitice sau de tradiie mezolitic. Astfel este necesar i re-evaluarea legturilor ntre acestemomentei complexele arheologice atribuite mezoliticului din acest sit.

Keywords:Ostrovul Corbului; Mesolithic; Early Neolithic; burials.Cuvinte cheie:Ostrovul Corbului; mezolitic; neolitic timpuriu; morminte.

Insula Ostrovul Corbului (comuna Hinova, judeul Mehedini) era localizat ntre kilometriifluviali 916 i 911 (Pl. I). Cele dou puncte de interes pentru lucrarea de fa, Botul Piscului (km916, neolitic timpuriu) i Botul Cliuciului (km 911, mezolitic, neolitic timpuriu) au fost redescoperite

n urma unei periegheze din anul 1970 (Roman 1996: 14). Cercetri arheologice au avut loc ntre1970-1979 (pe treptele inferioar, mijlocie i superioar ale insulei) i 1980-1984 (spre est, pe terenulplat) (Roman 1996: 16). Ca i n cazul cercetrii de la Ostrovul Banului (condus tot de domnul P.Roman) planul de cercetare a urmrit sondarea tuturor aezrilor i complexelor observate saudepistate (Roman 1987: 341).

n punctul Botul Cliuciului s-au desfurat spturi n dou sectoare: A i B (aflat la 280m spre est), din care numai n sectorul A au fost cercetate complexe arheologice subiect al lucr rii defa (Pl. II). n acest sector au fost trasate 20 de seciuni numerotate SI/1970, I-XVII, XXV-XXVI(Punescu 2000: 409).

Stratigrafia Sectorului A dup P. Roman (1996: 17) era urmtoarea (pornind din nivelulcel mai de jos):

mezolitic Schela Cladovei neolitic Starevo-Cri1 eneolitic final (cimitir) Coofeni III Glina final Grla Mare timpuriu Complexe Hallstatt, daco-romane, epoca migraiilorPunctul Botul Piscului nu a fost cercetat arheologic2 dar P. Roman (1996: 17)

menioneaz pe plaja Dunrii prezena unor materiale arheologice aparinnd: neoliticului timpuriu Starevo-Cri neoliticului Vina-Rast Slcua clasic Slcua IV Crna morminte dacice

Buletinul Muzeului Judeean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 2, 2010: 5-27

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

6/229

Adina BORONEAN6

Pentru nelegerea situaiei arheologice se impune a scurt trecere n revist a rezultatelorcercetrii:

I. Mezoliticul tip Schela Cladovei-Lepenski VirCercetrile au fost fcute de Fl. Mogoanu (nsoit de M. Nica) ntre 1972-1976 iar n

perioada 1977-1980 de Al. Punescu. Locuirea mezolitic a fost identificat n dou zone (Pl. II): zona

de NNV la confluena celor dou brae ale Dunrii (18 mp, SXIII-SXIV) i zona ENE (50x34 m, SXI-XII,SVI-SVII, SXII, SXV, SI) (Punescu 2000: 409).

Orizonturile de locuire ale mezoliticului fuseser deja stabilite pentru zona cea mai denspe baza profilului de sud al seciunii SXI (Mogoanu 1978: 337, Fig. 1; Punescu 1990: Fig. 2),pornind de la succesiunea vetrelor i locuinelor din aceast seciune. Fl. Mogoanu observa o locuinde tip bordei, cu multiple etape de locuire identificate prin nivelele succesive de refacere a vetrelor. nafara locuinei au fost identificate vetre rectangulare sau rotunde cu gardin de piatr.

Etapizarea propus de Al. Punescu (1990), pornind de la cea a lui Fl. Mogoanu, fceareferiri i la aspectul tipologic i materia prim a industriei litice, la care se adugau, ca elementefundamentale, caracteristicile industriei osului i cornului.

Un aspect interesant pentru situl de la Ostrovul Corbului, l reprezint morminteledescoperite, atribuite controversat, mezoliticului sau neoliticului.

II. Neoliticul timpuriu Starevo-CriDin nefericire, informaiile referitoare la neoliticul timpuriu pentru acest sit sunt aproape

inexistente, cu excepia referirii la mormintele atribuite acestui culturi, prezentate recent de P. Roman(Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008) i la profilele publicate de-a lungul timpului care indicau i existenaunui astfel de nivel (Pl. III) dar fr a discuta complexele de locuire identificate n aezare.

Datele publicate referitoare la locuirea Starevo-Cri de la Ostrovul Corbului, punct Cliuci(rezumnd din descrierea seciunilor cercetate (Roman, 1987, 1996, 2009) sunt urmtoarele:

Suprafaa ocupat de aezare a fost estimat la cca. 4500 mp din care 2000 mp aufost distrui de Dunre (Roman 1996: 29). Dup P. Roman (1996, 2008) n cele dou etape ale locuiriisale neolitice, situl pare s se fi dezvoltat spre est i nord.

n SXIII-SIV, n aluviuni, desupra stratului mezolitic au aprut fragmente sporadiceStarevo-Crii Slcua (Roman 1996).

La limita dintre seciunile SXI i XII sedimentele Starevo-Cri aveau grosimea denumai 20-25 cm.

n SXII.I i prile estice ale lui SXIIk, SI, SVI, SVII stratul Starevo-Cri avea 40 cm,i era format din dou niveluri separate prin aglomerri de ceramic, inclusiv vase ntregi i

ntregibile, ce zac pe niveluri de clcare. n SXII.I, ptrat 8, ntr-o adncitur natural a existat unsemibordei cu un cuptor scobit n perete aparinnd acestei culturi (Roman 1996: 21).

n SI (localizat n zona cea mai nalt din sectorul A, cu o locuire mezolitic bogat) -stratul Starevo-Cri este gros de cca. 15-50 cm (l suprapunea uneori direct pe cel mezolitic), cu bazala 3,70-3,80 m, fiind puse n eviden gropi care coborau pna la steril. Stratul neolitic, de culoareneagr-cenuie, bogat n humus, coninea cantiti importante de ceramic, oase i cuarite.

n SXV stratul Starevo-Cri avea grosimea de cca. 30-35 cm, fiind divizat n dou niveluri,cel superior fiind mai bogat.

n SXVI-SXVIa-c nu s-a spat mai jos de nivelul Coofeni (Pl. II).

***

Cele dou surse inedite de documentare privitoare la situaia aezrii Starevo-Cri suntnotele de sptur ale lui Fl. Mogoanu (1976, 1977) i Al. Punescu (1977-1980). Pn n momentulde fa nu au fost identificate n arhiva Institutului de Arheologie Vasile Prvan Bucureti filme,fotografii sau cliee referitoare la nivelurile mezolitic sau neolitic timpuriu de la Ostrovul Corbului deio parte dintre ele au fost publicate.

Notele de sptur (mai ales cele ale lui Al. Punescu care sunt mai detaliate) prezintstratigrafia seciunilor pe adncimile de spare dar fr a oferi alte date asupra materialului rezultat nafar de numrul de piese din fiecare categorie arheologic rezultat. Astfel, pentru eventualelecomplexe arheologice, n lipsa materialului propriu-zis3i a unor planuri, este imposibil o nelegere a

caracterului complexelor respective. De asemenea, n lipsa unor informaii detaliate asupracoordonatelor i formei diverselor complexe, cartarea acestor s-a fcut la nivel de carou, harta

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

7/229

Ostrovul Corbului - o discuie asupra mormintelor mezolitice i neolitice timpurii 7

rezultat oferind informaii doar asupra gruprii acestor complexe i a densitii de locuire n anumitezone. (Pl. VII)

Am considerat necesar i prezentarea unor complexelor mezolitice care nu au fostpublicate.

Pentru c ele reprezint un aspect particular i controversat al sitului de la OstrovulCorbului, discuia mormintelor se va face separat.

Seciunea SI (1975-1976) (Carnete de antier Fl. Mogoanu 1975, 19764).Nu s-au pstrat planuri sau fotografii.Nivelul Starevo-Cri era localizat ntre 3,70-4,15 m, fiind caracterizat de fragmente

ceramice i multe oase sparte, pietre (puine cuarite).Se menioneaz urmtoarele complexe5:Groap neolitic Starevo-Cri (localizat n ntreg c.2 i din c.3), observabil la 3,75 m.

Coninea multe oase sparte i pietre, fragmente ceramice, o splig tip mezolitic (presupus caprovenind din deranjarea nivelului mezolitic). Pe fundul gropii (4,60-4,80 m) se aflau fragmenteceramice i un vas ntregibil Starevo-Cri. n apropierea acestui complex dar n c.4 era localizatmormntul M9. Caracterizat de Fl. Mogoanu ca epipaleolitic, apartenena sa cultural a fostcontestat de P. Roman (1996, 2008) i Al. Punescu (1990, 2000) care l-au ncadrat neoliticuluitimpuriu.

O alt groap era localizat n marginea de vest a caroului 2 i coninea multe oase ifragmente ceramice neolitice.Seciunile SI, SIa-e (1977, 1978) (Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1977-1979).SI/1 3,58-3,70m - nivel CriSI/3 La 4,30-4,37 m groap Starevo-Cri. Nu este menionat pe plan. Nu exist alte

detalii.SIa/2 La 4,43m este menionat o groap Starevo-Cri. Nu este menionat pe plan. Nu

exist alte detalii.SIa/3 La 3,95-4,13 m - este menionat existena unei gropi Starevo-Cri la aceste

adncimi dar nu se precizeaz de unde pornea i la ce adncime se afla fundul ei.n SIa/4 nivelul neolitic era de la 3,64-3,66-3,71 m pn la 3,79 m, fiind foarte abundent

n material ceramice (100 fragmente), piese de cuarit (137 piese) i fragmente de os i vertebre depete (199). Sunt meionate 16 piese de silex, melci, scoici i pietre de dimensiuni variabile.

SIb/1 Nivel Cri de la 3,37-3,70 m, tiat de o groap Slcua (fundul la 3,65 m) ce secontinua i n SIb/2. n jumtatea de est a caroului s-a gsit un complex de pietre i oase umane(membrele inferioare n conexiune anatomic). De remarcat c este vorba de o groap Cri care a fosttiat mai sus de o groap Slcua. n groap s-au gsit n afar de resturile de oase umane, i unelepietre (n partea de est i nord-est a ptratului). S-au gsit i cteva cioburi Cri n peretele de est alptratului sau chiar pe oase (dou mici cioburi). Scheletul uman se desfoat pe o grosime de 0,33m, de la 3,65-3,98 m. Partea inferioar a gropii, spat n argila galben, are o form oval cudiametrul de 0,47 m i adncimea de 0,12 m (deci fundul ei se afl la 4,10m). n planul publicat(Punescu 1996: Fig.14), adncimea mormntului (M25) apare ca 3,65-3,78 m.

SIb/3 Nivelul Cri a fost sesizat ntre 3,50-3,60 m. Groap Cri care apare figurat pe plan(Pl. VI), ea secionnd partea de est a unui complex de tip Schela Cladovei, aflat n partea nordic acaroului. Avea fundul la 4,02 m.

SIb/4 3,47-3,55 m era localizat nivelul Cri. n acest carou a fost localizat mormntulM32, publicat de Al. Punescu (1990, 1996), atribuit mezoliticului.

SIc/4 Nivelul Cri ncepea de la 3,55 m. n jumtatea de est a caroului s-a profilat ogroap Starevo-Cri care mergea pn la stratul de argil glbuie la cca. 3,90-3,95 m, trecnd prinstratul mezolitic Schela Cladovei. Nu apare n planuri.

SIe/4 La3,64-3,96 m - groap Starevo-Cri. Nu apare n planuri. Umplutura gropii, peadncimi era detaliat dup cum urmeaz:

0,64-0,66-0,71 m: 19 fragmente ceramice, 18 piese cuarit, 7 fragmente os, 2 valvescoici, 11 pietre sparte;

3,71-3,73 m: 12 fragmente ceramice, 6 piese cuarit, 1 pies silex, 4 fragmente os, 4valve scoici;

3,71-3,79 m: 34 fragmente ceramice, 5 piese cuarit, 7 valve scoici, 8 pietre (gresiiru);

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

8/229

Adina BORONEAN8

3,79-3,81 m: 77 fragmente ceramice, 15 piese cuarit, 16 fragmente oase i vertebrepete, 10 valve scoici, 1 melc;

3,81-3,96 m: 102 fragmente ceramice, 30 piese cuarit, 2 piese silex, 8 melci, 6 valvescoici, 28 fragmente oase.

SId/Ib 3,48-3,69 m - nivelul Cri.SId/I 3,55-3,70 m - nivel Cri.Seciunea XI (Carnete de antier Fl. Mogoanu 1975, 19766).Seciunea fusese nceput de M. Nica n 1974, acesta descoperind 3 nivele (cu vetre)

mezolitice de tip Schela Cladovei. Seciunea a fost reacoperit la sfritul campaniei 1974. Dupdegajare n anul urmtor, ea a fost lrgit de la 8x4 m la 8,50x5 m. Caroiajul a fost codificat de la 1 la8 (respectiv 9) pe lungime i probabil de la A la D (respectiv E) pe lime. Pe ntreaga lungime aseciunii, n partea de SSE (8x1,2 m) fusese lsat o treapt, adncit n anul precedent pn la 6,30m sub stratul Slcua.

Stratigrafie (nivelul 0, conform notaiei din carnetul lui Fl. Mogoanu7, este considerat celde nceput al stratului Slcua).

1. Nivel Slcua, grosime 45-50 cm;2. Strat brun glbui, steril arheologic pe o grosime de 30-35 cm (adncime 0,75-0,85

m);

3. Nivel Starevo-Cri, la baza stratului brun-glbui i n partea superioar a stratuluinegru de dedesubt (adncime 0,80-0,85-0,92 m). Nivelul era caracterizat de ceramic, cuarite i oasesparte;

4. Nivelul mezolitic Schela Cladovei (0,92-? m), caracterizat de multe cuarite, oasesparte i diferite pietre i plci de gresie.

Complexe arheologice:Locuina L1 era adncit ntr-un nisip fin argilos aluvionar de culoare galben cu nuane

verzui. n cadrul ei au fost observate (att de M. Nica ct i de Fl. Mogoanu) trei nivele mezolitice detip Schela Cladovei, din care cele dou inferioare cu amenajri de vetre (numerotarea nivelurilorvetrelor este cea a lui Fl. Mogoanu din carnetul de antier).

Sunt de asemenea descrise cele 7 niveluri de vetre publicate drept mezolitice.Merit menionat cel de la 1,08 m adncime (descris n carnet ca pietre fr o ordine

anume. Sunt ns concentrate i au n jur cioburi i cenue. n ciuda acestui fapt, n publicaia din1978 (Pl. IV) vetrele de la 1,08 m sunt atribuite mezoliticului, fiind considerat drept ultimul nivel derefacere.

Seciunea SXII (1978) (Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1977-1979).Nu s-au pstrat planuri care s permit identificarea complexelor menionate mai jos.SXII/7b 3,74-4,00 m - nivel Cri.SXII/1c - nivelul Cri ncepe la 3,76 m. A fost localizat o groap Starevo-Cri care se

ntindea i n SXII 1d, i ntreg 2d, pierzndu-se n peretele de nord. Groapa a fost sesizat de lanivelul de 4,20 m. Avea adncimea de cca 0,60 m. Umplutura ei coninea foart mult ceramicioase. Cum un carou avea dimensiunile de 1x1 m, dimensiunile acestui complex depeau (dupaprecierile mele), cel puin pe o latur, 2 m lungime. Este posibil s fi fost vorba de o locuin semi-

ngropat.SXII/2c 3,72-4,12 m - nivel Cri.SXII/3c 3,72-3,90 m -nivel Cri.SXII/4c 3,72-3,90 m - nivel Cri.SXII/5c 3,76-4,11 m - nivel Cri.SXII/6c 3,76-3,90 m - nivel Cri.SXII/7c -nivelul neolitic ncepea la 3,76 m. La 3,83-3,90 m n partea de est a profilului a

fost observat o vatr (3,86 m) ce se continua n peretele de est al lui SXII/7c-d. De form oval, erafcut din pietre de ru, avnd dimensiunile de 0,60x0,38 m. La demontarea ei au fost recuperatefragmente de crbune i cteva fragmente ceramice. Nivelul neolitic se oprea la 3,90 m.

SXII/1d 3,72-4,21 m. A fost identificat o groap (vezi i mai jos) ce se ntindea ncarourile SXII/2d, SXII b/2e atingnd i marginile de nord ale lui SXII/1c-2c i SXII/1d). Dimensiunilesale erau 2,10x1,15 m. Groapa coninea foarte multe fragmente ceramice, cuarit, silex i oase.Fundul su atingea sterilul argilos.

SXII/2d 3,72-4,20 m - nivel Cri; de la 4,20 la 4,80 m a fost observat o groap Cricu adncimea de cca. 60 cm ce cuprindea aproape ntreg caroul, continundu-se att n peretele denord ct i n carourile SXII/1d i SXIIb/1e. Groapa coninea foarte multe fragmente ceramice i oase.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

9/229


SXII/3d 3,75-4,18 m - nivel Cri.SXII/4d 3,72-3,90 m - nivel Cri.SXII/5d 3,76-4,02 m - nivel Cri.SXII/6d 3,76-4,03 m - nivel Cri.SXII/7d 3,76-3,86 m - nivel Cri.Seciunile SXIIa, SXIIc, SXIIk (1979) (Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1977-1979)

(pentru planurile pstrate vezi Pl. III).Seciunea SXIIa (Pl. V)Nivelul neolitic ncepea la 3,80 m. n peretele de sud al seciunii, n carourile 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a,

2b, 3b, pe o lime de maximul 40 cm (de la perete) se observa o groap Starevo-Cri, din notele deantier avnd fundul la 4 m (probabil o locuin semi-adncit cu o lungime de cca. 4 m). Notele deantier menioneaz i un complex mare de pietre de ru care se continu n peretele de sud.Complexul de pietre ajungea pn la 4,02 m avnd o grosime de 0,20 m. De la 4,08 m ncepea nivelulSchela Cladovei.

Este greu de stabilit care dintre aceste complexe este cel surprins n Pl. V, n carourile 3a-3b/4a-4b, la adncimea de 4 m.

Seciunea SXIIbSXIIb/1d 3,79-4,18 - nivel Cri; sub el era steril.

SXIIb/2d 3,72-4,29m - nivel Cri; suprapunea un nivel Schela Cladovei.SXIIb/1e 3,91-4,32m - nivel Cri. O mare parte din acest carou este acoperit de ogroap Cri (vezi i SXIIb/1d si SXII 1d-1c, 2d) care cobora pn la sterilul arheologic.

SXIIb/2e 3,91-4,02m - nivel Cri. Suprapunea un nivel Schela Cladovei.Seciunea SXIIcSXIIc/2a De la 3,80-4,00 m s-a observat n carourile 2a-3a o groap Starevo-Cri care

continua n peretele de sud al seciunii (SXIId).SXIIc/2b De la 3,80-4,05 m: o mic groap Starevo-Cri de form oval cu dimensiunile

0,42 x 0,47 m i adnc de 0,22 m. Coninea fragmente de os i fragmente ceramice. Nu esteprecizat relaia cu complexul de mai mare ntindere din vecintate. n planul din Pl. V n XIIc/2b estefigurat fundul unei gropi aflat la 4,27 m.

SXIIc/3a De la 3,46-4,18 m s-a sesizat o groap Starevo-Cri (vezi i SXIIc/2a-b) care secontinua n peretele de sud al seciunii. n centrul caroului exista o adncitur a gropii de form ovalcu diametrul de cca. 0,80x0,90 m avnd fundul la 4,18 m de la suprafaa solului (acest complex nuapare n Pl. V). Groapa (?) coninea fragmente ceramice Starevo-Cri, piese de cuarit i oase deanimale, un bulgre de ocru rou i cteva fragmente de oase umane printre care i un fragment decalot cranian (M30). La baza alveolrii existau cteva pietre (gresii).

Seciunea SXIIeSXIIe/c 4,04-4,18 m - nivel Cri.SXIIe/d 3,90-4,12 m - nivel Cri.Seciunea SXIIgSXIIg/2a-2b 3,55-3,80 m - nivel Cri.Seciunea SXIIkSXIIk/1c 3,56-3,90 m - nivel Cri.SXIIk/1d 3,56-3,93 m - nivel Cri; au fost observate foarte mult ceramic ntre care i

fragmente de vase mari, un vas oal ntreg, o lam mijlocie de silex i oase.SXIIk/2c 3,56-3,88 m - nivel Cri.n dou cazuri, Al. Punescu vorbete n notele de sptur despre materialul ceramic

descoperit:n SXIIk/2d unde nivelul Cri ncepea la 3,35 m, la 3,56-3,65 m au fost observate

fragmente ceramice dintre care unele de la vase mari cu decor. ntre 3,65 m-3,77 m solul con ineafoarte multe fragmente ceramice, ntre care se remarca un fragment de tvi (probabil

recipientul/partea superioar a unui altar) cu decor cu alveole, i fragmente de msue de cult(altare?) similare (dup Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1978-1979) celor de la Cuina Turcului.

Acestea erau nsoite de cuarite (4), oase i achii de silex. ntre 3,77-3,88 m unde se oprea nivelul,ceramica era foarte puin.

Seciunea SXIV(Carnete de antier Fl. Mogoanu 1976).

Nu s-au pstrat planuri.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

10/229

Adina BORONEAN10

Seciunea SXIV era o taluzare n colul de vest al aezrii, (probabil cca. 10 m lungime,mprit n carourile 1-5). Spre deosebire de P. Roman, Fl. Mogoanu observa aici existena unui nivelStarcevo-Cri, nu doar a unor fragmente ceramice n sediment aluvionar.

Stratigrafie1. Nivel Starevo-Cri n sol negricios, 1,20-1,40 m adncime.2. Nivel mezolitic Schela Cladovei, la baza solului negricios uor glbui rocat, 1,40-1,50 m

Fl. Mogoeanu nota: diferena stratigrafic ntre aceste dou straturi de cultur esteinsesizabil. Stratigrafierea se face dificil din cauza celor dou gropi Cri (vezi mai jos) care sedeosebesc foarte greu din cauza uniformitii pmntului.

Complexe arheologice:Prima groap era localizat n c.1 iar a douan c.2 (la 61 cm de M18). Nu exist alte

informaii.L2 era o locuin mezolitic asemntoare celei din SXI, publicat de Fl. Mogoanu (1978).

n interior au fost identificate urmele unor vetre rectangulare, incomplete ns. Au fost observatepietre mari dislocate (posibil din vetre) i un schelet de animal mare, probabil un cerb8.

Mormntul M18, localizat n caroul 2 era acoperit i nconjurat de pietre de diferite mrimi.La 61 cm de el se afla o groap (fr a se specifica altceva, ar fi putut fi vorba de cea de a doua

groap menionat mai sus).

Prelungirea seciunii SXIV(Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1977-1979)s-a fcutctreENE cu nc 8,50 m(carourile 6-9), probabil pe treapta plajei.StratigrafieCaroul c.6 coninea o ravin care a distrus nivelurile culturale.Carouri 7-9:1. Nivel cu rare urme de epoca bronzului, 0-0,60 m;2. Nivel Slcua, 0,60-1 m (la 0,80 m urmele unei platforme);3. Nivel steril arheologic, 1-1,20 m;4. Nivel Starevo-Cri, 1,20-? M.Mormintele de la Ostrovul Corbului9nainte de a trece la discuia propriu-zis, prezentm n continuare informaia referitoare la

mormintele neolitice/mezolitice aa cum reiese ea din publicaii i din fiele antropologului AlexandraComa10.

M2, 1973, SVII (localizare: Institutul de Antropologie Iai), Pl. VIII:1.Descriere: Schelet de adult, bine conservat, ngropat n poziie eznd mult ghemuit. La

ceaf suferise o lovitur puternic. Fr inventar. (Mogoanu 1978: 348). Groapa (trapezoidal,0,50x0,63x0,80 m), adnc de cca. 50 cm, fusese spat ntr-o depunere cenuie humoas, cuconcreiuni calcaroase, ntr-o zon n care Dunrea splase sedimentul pn sub nivelul Coofeni(Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 10). Adncime relativ: -0,75-1 m de la nivelul de eroziune.

Determinare antropologic: brbat, adult.Comentarii: Descoperit de M. Nica, publicat iniial de Fl. Mogoanu ca mezolitic (1978: 348,

Pl. V), atribuit ulterior pe criterii stratigrafice de Al. Punescu i P. Roman culturii Starevo-Cri(Roman 1996; Punescu 1996; Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 11): groapa seciona se paredepuneri care conineau slabe urme Cri, deci ngroparea s-a fcut ntr-o vreme cnd aezarea Cri nu

se ntinsese n aceast zon. n umplutura gropii i n apropierea scheletului (deasupra) s-au gsitcteva fragmente ceramice Cri iar la nivelul lui un bulgre de ocru. Acelai autor pstreaz ns orezerv fa de atribuirea mormntului neoliticului timpuriu pe baza observaiilor stratigrafice, limitelegropii nefiind prinse n profilul seciunii

Din singura fotografie existent, poziie scheletului pare s fie cea eznd cu picioarelencruciate turcete i braele aduse pe abdomen. Att poziia sa ct i lovitura puternic de la ceafsugereaz apartenena sa la mezoliticul tip Schela Cladovei.

M9, 1975, SI/4,40-4,10 m (localizare: Institutul de Arheologie Iai) ( Pl. VIII:2, Pl. IX).Descriere (Fl. Mogoanu, Carnete de antier 1975): schelet descoperit n poziia eznd-

ghemuit, similar cu M2. Majoritatea oaselor mici fuseser distruse. Craniu se pstrase ntreg.Mandibula era czut peste clavicula dreapta. Ambele tibii erau n poziie vertical. Prezenta,(Mogoanu 1978: 348) o puternic lovitur n zona toracelui. Dimensiunile gropii (pe profilul de nord

al lui SI) erau 0,84x0,44 cm (Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 11). Forma gropii este necunoscut, cai orientarea scheletului.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

11/229


Inventar: pe stern dou cuarite, alte trei n jurul capului. Foarte multe fragmente de ocrurosu. Nu au aprut fragmente ceramice. n dreapta scheletului, la cca. 25 cm s-a observat un corn decerb neprelucrat. Groapa mormntului era adncit cu cca. 15 cm n nisipul galben deschis fin.

Determinare antropologic: Infans I, 6-7 ani.Comentarii: Dei Fl. Mogoanu aprecia c sigur nu poate aparine altei culturi, fiind

indubitabil mezolitic (Fl. Mogoanu, Carnete antier 1975) el a fost atribuit de Al. Punescu i P.

Roman neoliticului Starevo-Cri (i considerat fr inventar). Schimbarea atribuirii culturale a fostfcut pe baza analizei stratigrafice ulterioare a gropii care seciona de la baza nivelului Cri,depunerea nivelului II epipaleolitic i incomplet nivelul I al aceleiai culturi [] La curirea locului nvederea desenrii profilului, noi am gsit fragmente ceramice Cri (Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008:11).

Pe baza acelorai considerente ca i mai sus (poziie, traumatismul toracic, prezena ocruluirou) M9 poate fi considerat mezolitic.

M18, 1976, SXIV, c2 (Locaie necunoscut, fr fotografii sau plan).Descriere: Mormnt ce coninea resturile antropologice ale unui adult i ale unui copil. Au

existat i cteva oase dezarticulate de al treilea individ, brbat, aa cum se menioneaz n fiaantropologic.

Schelet nr. 1 (Fl. Mogoanu, Carnete de antier 1976).

Descriere: Schelet uman, acoperit i nconjurat de pietre de diferite mrimi, orientat N-S.Lipseau oasele de la genunchi n jos. Craniul era aezat pe o piatr. Maxilarul nferior se afla la cca. 15cm deprtare de craniu. Mai muli dini apreau n zona picioarelor. Scheletul era rsucit, coastele icraniul ntoarse spre est (sugernd astfel c scheletul fusese depus ntins pe spate). Membrelesuperioare erau aezate de-a lungul toracelui i abdomenului, strnse ntre picioare (probabil aduse pebazin).

Se observa mult ocru peste schelet i n jur. n jurul scheletului, pe o distana de cca. 50cm nu a fost descoperit nici un fragment ceramic. Pietrele din jurul scheletelor nu aveau unaranjament anume. Ele alctuiau o bordura, unele pietre fiind puse pe schelet.

Inventar: S-a recoltat mult ocru, multe scoici i melci, multe cuarite, unele tipice iprelucrate cu grij. n spate, lng coaste au fost descoperite doua vrfuri musteroide din cuarit.

Determinare antropologic: adult, femeie.Schelet nr. 2 (Fl. Mogoanu, Carnete de antier 1976).Descriere: Lng craniul primului schelet11, n partea de sud a gropii, se afla un schelet de

copil de cca. 2-3 ani, ghemuit. Oasele aveau aceeai orientare N-S. Stare de conservare precar, oasefoarte friabile. Ca i la scheletul nr. 1, multe pietre era dispuse n jur i cteva pe schelet, multecuarite, o unealt de os (dalt). Multe scoici, melci i cteva oase de animale.

Determinare antropologic: Infans I, 2-3 aniComentarii: Mormntul a fost atribuit de Fl. Mogoanu mezoliticului tip Schela Cladovei

informaia fiind preluat de P. Roman (1987: 342). Ulterior, Al. Punescu (1996, 2000) i P. Roman(1996, 2009) l re-atribuie neoliticului de tip Starevo-Cri.

Morminte mezolitice acoperite cu pietre au fost semnalate la Lepenski Vir (Bonsall et al.2009) i Schela Cladovei (Boroneani Boronean in press). Poziia scheletului de Infans este, aa cumam artat mai sus, frecvent n mezoliticul de la Porile de Fier. Mormintele duble (adult/infans) sunt iele relativ frecvente, cu analogii pe malul romnesc la Schela Cladovei (Boronean i Boronean in

press).M24, 1978, peretele nordic al lui SIa/4-5 (Pl. IX; Pl. X:1).Descriere (Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 12-13): Schelet ntins pe spate, capul spre est.

S-a pstrat jumtatea superioar: capul, gtul, umerii, humerusurile, o parte din coloan, coaste. nfia antropologic se menioneaz: s-au potrivit i tibia i peroneul de la piciorul drept, n poziievertical.

Determinare antropologic: matur, probabil brbat.Comentarii: La suprafaa i n umplutura gropii erau pietre, cuarite i fragmente de oase

mari. Partea vestici cea estic a gropii par s fi avut umpluturi diferite: partea estic fusese spatntr-o fost albiere natural de scurgere a apelor umplut n perioada Schela Cladovei n timp ce ceavestic fusese spat ntr-un sol galben argilos cu concreiuni calcaroase, cele dou pri ale gropiifiind contemporane i avnd fundul la acelai nivel. S-a sugerat c numai partea superioar a

scheletului ar fi fost ngropat dei iniial ipoteza unei secionri a gropii mormntului fusese deasemenea luat n consideraie (Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 13). A fost ns respins de aceeaiautori din patru motive:

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

12/229

Adina BORONEAN12

lipsa restului oaselor n umplutura unei posibile gropi. Fia antropologic nsmenioneaz existena unei tibii i a unui peroneu drept descoperite n poziie vertical, ceea cepledeaz pentru un deranjament.

neobservarea unui contur al unei noi gropi. Este posibil ns existena unei gropi cudimensiunile mai mici dect ale celei iniiale i cu limite greu de observat, spat la un scurt intervalde timp de la depunerea scheletului - practica scoaterii unor categorii de oase fiind atestat n

practicile funerare din mezoliticul Porilor de Fier (Bonsall, 2007, 2008; Bonsall et al. 2009). Lipsa unui deranjament al oaselor i desprinderea curat, de la ligamente, a oaselor

lips. Aceasta ar fi fost posibil nsi n cazul scoaterii oaselor dup o perioad suficient de lung dela nmormntare - aa cum artat mai sus.

Existena unor fragmente ceramice - poziia lor este ns discutabil (aa cum reiesedin descriere - Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2009: 12): cele din partea vestic apar chiar spre corpulscheletului, n zona bazinului (deci n zona lips) iar din cele patru din zona estic, trei apar deasuprascheletului i al patrulea n dreptul vertebrei din apropierea bazinului, deci n posibila zon decontaminare.

Considerm astfel c este posibil existena unui deranjament al mormntului.M24 a fost atribuit neoliticului Starevo-Cri (Roman 1996, 2009) pe baze stratigrafice

groapa sa pornind de la baza stratului Crii perforeaz depunerile Schela Cladovei (Roman i Dodd-

Opriescu 2008: 12) i a prezenei fragmentelor ceramice amintite mai sus.Mormintele ntins pe spate sunt ns rare n neoliticul timpuriu Starcevo-Crii inexistente n zona Porile de Fier pentru acest perioad. Lungimea gropii sugereaz depunerea pe spate ascheletului, cel mai des tip de nmormntare n mezoliticul din zon. Pentru acesta pledeazi lipsaoaselor prii inferioare a corpului, n lipsa unui deranjament evident. Este greu ns de ignoratevidena stratigrafic

M25, 1978, SIb/1 (Pl. VI:2; Pl. VIII:3, 4; Pl. XI) (Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1978;1990, 1996).

Descriere: Schelet n poziie ntins pe spate cu picioarele aezate turcete, cu minile ntrepicioare. Al. Punescu (Carnete de antier 1978) menioneaz: S-au gsit i cteva cioburi Cri nperetele de est al ptratului sau chiar pe oase (dou mici cioburi). Scheletul uman se desfoar pe ogrosime de 0,33m, de la 3,65-3,98m. Partea inferioar a gropii, spat n argila galben, are o formoval cu diametrul de 0,47m i adncimea de 0,12m (deci fundul ei se afl la 4,10m).Groapa sa eratiat de o groap Slcua.

Descrierea din fia antropologic este urmtoarea: schelet cranian absent. Scheletulpostcranial era reprezentat de o parte din oasele lungi: radius drept, diafiza cubitusului drept, ambelefemure (cel stng fr cap femural), tibia dreapt, epifizele inferioare ale humerusului, dou vertebrelombare, oase coxale incomplete, un astragal, dou calcanee, metatarsiene, falange.

n groap au fost identificate i oase de animale: Epifiza inferioar a unui humerus de mistre; Epifiza inferioara a unei tibii de cervideu; Epifiza superioar a unei tibii de cervideu; Osul canan (metacarp) de bizon sau bour; Fragment corn de cerb; Un premolar bovideu.Determinare antropologic: brbat, 30-35 ani. Statura medie 173 cm. Robust, talie de tip

nalt.Comentarii: Mormntul a fost atribuit de Al. Punescu neoliticului Starevo-Cri, n principal,

ca i n cazul mormintelor M2, M9, M24, pe baza poziiei considerate chircite (?) a scheletului, ceea cear fi contrastat puternic cu cea perfect ntins a celor de tip Schela Cladovei (Punescu 1996: 146).Poziia scheletului pare s fi fost cea de nstins pe spate cu picioarele ncruciate turcete, din nou cuanalogii pe malul drept al Dunrii la Padina, Lepenski Vir i Vlasac. Existena deranjamentului n parteade est a gropii poate explica i prezena celor dou mici fragmente ceramice.

M30, 1979, SXIIc/3a.Descriere: (dup Al. Punescu, Carnete de antier 1979): ntr-o groap Cri au fost

identificate fragmente de oase umane i o bucat de calot mpreun cu fragmente ceramice, piese decuarit, fragmente de oase animale, buci de ocru rou. O descriere asemntoare este citat de P.

Roman (2008: 14) ca provenind din carnetul de sptur al studentei Rodica Iancu.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

13/229


Determinare antropologic: foarte probabil brbat matur (35-40 ani). Meniune pe fiaantropologic: oasele nu au fost colectate.

Comentarii: n publicaii ns, Al. Punescu citeaz acest mormnt mpreun cu M2, M9,M24, M25 ca aparinnd nivelului neolitic, pornind de la poziia chircit (?) a scheletului n mormnt(Punescu 1990: 139; 1996: 146-7). Numai prezena ceramicii n groap nu este suficient nspentru a ncadra aceste resturi osteologice neoliticului timpuriu. De altfel, complexul descris la M30

reprezint mai degrab o groap a crei umplutur ar fi putut-o constitui resturile unui mormntderanjat dect o depunere funerar. n lipsa materialului osteologic (care nu a fost colectat)apartenena cultural a resturilor osteologice va ramne necunoscut.

M3212, 1979 SXIIc: a/4a, a/3a, a/-4b, 4,23m (Pl. X:2).Descriere: Schelet complet ntins, orientare ENE-VSV. Braele ntinse pe lng bazin. Fundul

gropii era spat n solul argilos de culoare glbuie (Punescu 1990: 198).Inventar: Al. Punescu l public ca neavnd inventar. Noteaz totui c sub craniu i

vertebrele cervicale existau cteva valve de scoici i dou cuarite iar din jurul scheletului sau de peoase au fost colectate un burin diedru pe achie cortical de silex, i o bucat mic de ocru crmiziu.

Determinare antropologic: Brbat, 50 ani (Necrasov et al. 1990: 176; Necrasov i Botezatu1981: 11-14), statur 168/172/175 cm - n funcie de metoda folosit. Scheletul analizat era foarteprost pstrat, analiza antropologic rezumndu-se n mare parte la craniu. Dinii prezentau un grad

mare de uzur cu excepia molarilor 3. Din studiul celor cteva oase pstrate ale scheletuluipostcranian individul avea caracteristici gracile, nefiind robust ca populatia din situl de la SchelaCladovei.

Comentarii: Este singurul mormnt care a fost atribuit de ctre de Al. Punescu (1990,1996, 2000) mezoliticului de tip Schela Cladovei, pe baza poziiei scheletului.

***

Problema unei atribuiri culturale certe a mormintelor de la Ostrovul Corbului n lipsa unordatri cu radiocarbon i a unor analize de diet este una delicat. Patru dintre morminte conineauindivizi aezai ntini pe spate sau eznd, cu picioarele flexate de o parte i de alta a corpului -poziia turcete, acesta fiind motivul principal pentru care ei nu au fost atribuii iniial mezoliticului. nliteratura de specialitate din afara Romniei ei chiar apar citai ca mezolitici: I. Radovanovi (1993: 98)

citeaz patru morminte mezolitice la Ostrovul Corbului din care unul n poziia ntins i trei n poziiaeznd.

Morminte n poziia eznd apar la Vlasac, Lepenski Vir I, Lepenski II, Padina i Kula(Radovanovi 1993, 1996). Mormntul 69 de la Lepenski Vir (Pl. XII:1) coninea un individ ntins pespate cu picioarele aduse turcete. Groapa mormntului avea o form trapezoidal (ca i cea a lui M2)iar scheletul fusese acoperit cu pietre (Pl. XII:1, 2). Capul adus pe piept a fost v zut ca o indicaie afaptului c iniial se sprijinise de peretele vertical al gropii, cum este posibil s fi fost cazul i la M9.

Morminte de copii n aceast poziie apar la Vlasac (scheletul de copil din casa 31) i laVelesnica (mormntul 2G). Interesant este c n ambele cazuri mormintele sunt legate de caracteristiciale neoliticului timpuriu: la Vlasac M97 apare sub podeaua locuine 31 iar la Velesnica, scheletul 2Gapare n mormntul colectiv 2 ce coninea, deasupra acestuia, numai indivizi depui n poziie ghemuitpe o parte. Tot la Vlasac, sub podeaua locuinelor apar i morminte de copii depui ghemuit pe o

parte (Borii Stefanovi 2004) asociai neoliticului timpuriu.M69 se dateaz 878472 BP, fiind mult mai timpuriu dect locuinele trapezoidale de laLepenski Vir i aparinnd probabil mezoliticului timpuriu (Bonsall et al. 2008: 184). Paralele pentruacest tip de nmormntare au fost identificate i la Padina (mormintele 15, 16, 21), Vlasac (mormntul17), Kula (mormntul 5), Velesnica (mormntul 2G) (Borii Miracle 2004; Vasi 2008), dei poziiascheletului are uoare variaii: cei de la Padina, Kula, Vlasac (Pl. XII: 3) sunt ntini pe spate cupicioarele ncruciate n timp ce Lepenski Vir i Velesnica scheletul este ntins pe spate cu picioareleflexate pe ambele pri i tlpile lipite (12.1, 12.4). Datele de radiocarbon sunt 913871 BP(mormntul 15 de la Padina), 972973 BP (mormntul 21) (Bori i Miracle 2004: tabel 3),

ncadrndu-se tot mezoliticului timpuriu.Poziia eznd sau ntins pe spate cu picioarele ncruciate turcete pare s se menin de la

nceputul mezoliticului timpuriu i pn n perioada de tranziie la neolitic. Este un element funerar caresugereaz un contact direct al celor dou tipuri de populaii.

De altfel, din Pl. XI se observ c cinci dintre ele se grupeaz n seciunile I i XII. Este nsnecesar ns o reluare a studiului complexelor mezolitice, pentru a se urmri dac exist o eventual

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

14/229

Adina BORONEAN14

corelaie a mormintelor cu vetrele i locuinele, aa cum a fost ea postulat pentru cultura SchelaCladovei. i desigur, datarea cu C14 a scheletelor rmase.

Note

1. n carnetele de antier ale lui Florea Mogoanu i Alexandru Punescu se folosesctermenii de Cri i respectiv epipaleolitic; n articolul de fa ei au fost n locuii cu Starevo-Cri,respectiv mezolitic.

2. P. Roman (1997: 339) menioneaz c n 1970 a gsit aezarea de la Botul Pisculuicomplet distrus.

3. O parte a materialului se afl n depozitele Centrului de Tracologie din cadrul Institutuluide Arheologie Vasile Prvan Bucureti. O alt parte este posbil s se afle n depozitele MuzeuluiOlteniei Craiova, fiind cercetate la vremea respectiv de M. Nica.

4. Nu s-au pstrat planuri de antier care s permit localizarea acestor complexe.

5. Numerotarea complexelor aparine autoarei articolului de fa.

6. Nu s-au pstrat planuri de antier care s permit localizarea acestor complexe.

7. Pentru stratigrafia nivelurilor superioare vezi Roman 1987, 1996; Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2009.

8. Analogii pentru locuin cu schelet de animal mare exist la Lepenski Vir, Dimitrijevic,2000, 2009.

9. Este vorba doar de cele ce pot fi atribuite nivelului mezolitic sau celui neolitic timpuriu.

10. Mulumesc doamnei dr. Alexandra Coma pentru bunvoina artati accesul la acestedeterminri antropologice (probabil efectuate de Olga Necrasov).

11. Fl. Mogoanu public acest mormnt ca fiind al unei femei cu un copil n brae (1978:348). Localizarea scheletului 2 lng craniul scheletului 1 (din notele de antier) face ns acest lucruimposibil.

12. Este de menionat c M32 nu apare dect ca o meniune n carnetele de spturexistente ale lui Al. Punescu. Dat fiind descrierea din publicaii, este posibil existena unui altcarnet, nelocalizat nc.

Bibliografie

Bonsall, C. (2008) The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates, in Geoff Bailey, Penny Spikins (eds.), MesolithicEurope, pp. 238-79, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bonsall, C., Radovanovi, I., Roksandi, M., Cook, G., Higham T. and C. Pickard (2008) Dating burialsand architecture at Lepenski Vir, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant and I. Radovanovi (eds.) TheIron Gates in Prehistory. New Perspectives. British Archaeological Reports. InternationalSeries 1893, pp. 175-204, Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bori, D., Miracle, P. (2004) Mesolithic and Neolithic (Dis)continuities n the Danube Gorges: New AMSDates from Padina and Hajducka Vodenica (Serbia), Oxford Journal of Archaeology23 (4):341-71.

Bori, D., Stefanovi, S. (2004) Birth and death: infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir, Antiquity

78: 526-46.Boronean, A., Boronean, V. (in press) Schela Cladovei 1965-1968. Dup40 de ani.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

15/229


Mogosanu, F. (1978) Mezoliticul de la Ostrovul Corbului, o noua aezare de tip Schela Cladovei, Studiii Cercetri de Istorie Vechei Arheologie29 (3): 335-51.

Necrasov, O., Botezatu, D. (1981) Les caracteristiques anthropologiques d'un squelette decouvert aOstrovu Corbului, appartenant a l'aspect culturel Schela Cladovei, Annuaire Roumain

Anthropologique18: 11-14.Punescu, Al. (1990) Locuirea mezolitic de tip Schela Cladovei de la Ostrovul Corbului (jud.

Mehedini), Studiii Cercetri de Istorie Vechei Arheologie41: 123-47. (2000) Paleoliticuli mezoliticul din spaiul cuprins ntre Carpaii Dunre, Bucureti, Bucuresti:

Ed. Agir.Radovanovi, I. (1993) A Review of Formal Disposal Areas in the Mesolithic of Europe, Starinar

XLIII-XLIV (1992-1993): 93-102. (1996) The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series

11: Ann Arbor.Roman, P. (1987) Despre istoricul cercetarilor i stratigrafia unor aezri din Ostrovul Corbului, Studii

i Cercetri de Istorie Vechei Arheologie38 (4): 335-65.Roman, P., Punescu, Al. (1996) Ostrovul Corbului, Bucureti: Ed. Caro.Roman, P., Dodd-Opriescu, A. (2008) Ostrovul Corbului ntre km fluviali 911-912. Morminte i unele

aezri preistorice, Bucureti: Ed. Academiei Romne.

Vasi, R. (2008) Velesnica and the Lepenski Vir culture, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant and I.Radovanovi (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory. New Perspectives. British ArchaeologicalReports. International Series 1893, pp. 227-41, Oxford: Archaeopress.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

16/229

Adina BORONEAN16

Plana I Ostrovul Corbului i localizarea celor dou sectoare A i B, km. 911 (dup Roman iPunescu 1996).

Ostrovul Corbului. Location of A and B sectors (after Roman i Punescu 1996).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

17/229


Plana II Ostrovul Corbului - Cliuci. Planul general al seciunilor i localizarea descoperirilormezolitice i neolitice timpurii (adaptat dup Roman i Punescu 1996).

Ostrovul Corbului-Cliuci. General plan of the trenches and the areas with Mesolithic and Early Neolithicdiscoveries (adapted after Roman 1996 i Punescu 1996).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

18/229

Adina BORONEAN18

Plana III Ostrovul Corbului - Cliuci. Planuri existente (mezolitic, neolitic timpuriu) (dup Roman1987; Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008; Roman i Punescu 1996; Punescu 1990, 2000).

Ostrovul Corbului - Cliuci. Mapping of the existing plans (Mesolithic and Early Neolithic) (adapted after

Roman 1987; Roman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008; Roman i Punescu 1996; Punescu 1990, 2000).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

19/229


Plana IV Ostrovul Corbului. Vetrele din SXI (dup Mogoanu 1978).Ostrovul Corbului. Hearths from trench SXI (adapted after Mogoanu 1978).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

20/229

Adina BORONEAN20

Plana V Ostrovul Corbului. Complexele neolitice din SXIIa i SXIIc (dup Roman i Punescu1996: 199).

Ostrovul Corbului. The Early Neolithic complexes from SXIIa and SXIIc (adapted after Roman iPunescu 1996: 199).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

21/229


Plana VI Ostrovul Corbului. Fundul gropii neolitice din SIb/3 (dup Roman i Punescu 1996).

Ostrovul Corbului. Bottom of the Neolithic pit from SIb/3 (adapted after Roman i Punescu 1996).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

22/229

Adina BORONEAN22

Plana VII Ostrovul Corbului. ncercare de localizare pe carouri a complexelor neolitice.

Ostrovul Corbului. Attempt to locate the Early Neolithic complexes on a square/trench basis.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

23/229

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

24/229

Adina BORONEAN24

Plana IX Ostrovul Corbului. Profilul de nord al lui SI i localizarea lui M9 i M24 (dup Roman iPunescu 1996).

Ostrovul Corbului. Northern profile of SI and location of M9 and M24 (after Roman i Punescu 1996)

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

25/229


Plana X Ostrovul Corbului. 1-M24, SIa, carouri 4-5; 2-M32, SXIIa, carouri 3 a-b/4 a-b (1 dupRoman i Dodd-Opriescu 2008: 13; 2 dup Roman i Punescu 1996: 199).

Ostrovul Corbului. 1-M24, SIa, squares 4-5; 2-M32, SXIIa, squares 3a-3b/4a-4b (1 after Roman andDodd-Opriescu 2008: 13; 2 after Roman i Punescu 1996: 199).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

26/229

Adina BORONEAN26

Plana XI Ostrovul Corbului. Amplasarea mormintelor.Ostrovul Corbului. Location of burials.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

27/229


Plana XII 1. Lepenski Vir, M69 acoperit cu pietre; 2. M69 demontat; 3. Vlasac, mormntul decopil din casa 31; 4. Valesnica, schelet 2G (1-3 dup Bonsal et al. 2008; dup Vasi 2008).

1. Lepenski Vir, M69 covered with stones; 2. Lepenski Vir. M69 after removal of stones: 3. Vlasac childburial from House 31; 4. Velesnica, skeleton 2G (1-3 after Bonsall et al. 2008; 4 after Vasi 2008).

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

28/229

HOW AND WHY?THE NEOLITHIC POTTERY FROM TELEOR 003, TELEOR 008 AND MGURA-BRAN,

TELEORMAN RIVER VALLEY, SOUTHERN ROMANIA

Abraham VAN AS

Abstract:From 1960 onwards, archaeological pottery studies were no longer focused onanswering the questions when and where?, that is to say chronology and distribution. The attentionof the archaeologists shifted to finding an answer to the questions how and why? How were potsmade and how was the pottery production organized? For what purpose were the vessels used andwhat was their use-life? These and other questions play an important role in current archaeologicalceramic analysis. In this article the contribution of technological pottery research to archaeology willbe elucidated in view of a study of the Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Branin the Southern Romanian Teleorman River Valley executed in the Muzeul Judeean Teleorman in thecontext of the Southern Romania Archaeological Project (SRAP) directed by Douglass W. Bailey andRadian R. Andreescu.

Rezumat:Din 1960 ncoace, studiile de ceramic arheologic nu s-au mai concentrat perspunsul la ntrebrile cndi unde?, adicpe cronologiei pe distribuie. Atenia arheologilor a fost

transferat la gsirea unui rspuns la ntrebrile cumi de ce? Cum au fost fcute vaselei cum afost organizat producia ceramic? n ce scop au fost utilizate vasele i care a fost perioada lor deutilizare? Acesteai alte ntrebri joacun rol important n actualele analize arheologice ceramice. nacest articol va fi lmurit contribuia cercetrii tehnologiei ceramicii pentru arheologie, prinintermediul unui studiu al ceramicii neolitice de la Teleor 003, Teleor 008i Mgura-Bran, din sudulRomniei, respectiv valea Rului Teleorman, realizat la Muzeul Judeean Teleorman, n cadrul

proiectului Southern Romania Archaeological Project (SRAP), condus de Douglass W. Bailey si RadianR. Andreescu.

Keywords:archaeological ceramic research; methodology; Neolithic pottery from Teleor003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran; pottery technology; stone cooking.

Cuvinte cheie: cercetrile arheologice ceramice; metodologie; ceramic neolitic dinTeleor 003, Teleor 008i Mgura-Bran; tehnologie ceramic; pietre pentru gtit.

IntroductionIn 1956 Anna O. Shepard published Ceramics for the Archaeologist (Shepard 1956). This

book is still a classic for every student of archaeology, providing an understanding of the nature ofceramic materials and techniques. The publication had an important impact on archaeological ceramicresearch in later years. All topics described in her book are still current issues in modernarchaeological pottery research (Bishop and Lange 1991). In the early 1960s, Shepards work effecteda change in the history of archaeological pottery studies (Orton et al. 1993: 13). Here, it is not theplace to provide a full overview of the history of these studies. For this, the reader is referred to Ortonet al. (1993: 322). Only a short characterization will be presented of the period before 1960, the so-called typological phase, and the period after 1960, the so-called contextual or explanatory phase ofthe history of pottery studies. Next, attention will be paid to the approach to ceramic studies initiatedby Henk J. Franken and Jan Kalsbeek at Leiden University in the 1960s and focused on the

explanation of the pottery production sequence (chane opratoire). This approach forms the basis ofthe technological analysis of the Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003,Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran in theTeleorman River Valley, Southern Romania, of which the results will finally be summarized. Theresearch that for the greater part was executed in the Muzeul Jedeean Teleorman took place in thecontext of the multidisciplinary British/Romanian Southern Romania Archaeological Project (SRAP).

Archaeological ceramic studies before 1960Because of the ever-increasing amounts of pottery and potsherds that were excavated at

the end of the 19th century the necessity of classifications and typologies became obvious. Before thistime pottery was mainly collected due to its art-historical value (Orton et al. 1993: 58). Between1880 and 1960, in the typological phase of the history of pottery studies, the significance of potterywas understood for dating purposes (Orton et al. 1993: 813). In addition, the first distribution map

of pottery was made. Pots and potsherds were considered to be chronological and spatial type-fossils(when and where?). The pottery studies in this period were above all descriptive. Form and

Buletinul Muzeului Judeean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 2, 2010: 29-43

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

29/229

Abraham VAN AS30

decoration play an all-important role. Generally, no attemps were made to explanation. This changesin the next period of the history of pottery studies, after 1960.

Archaeological ceramic studies after 1960Inspired by the work of Anna O. Shepard, the period of archaeological ceramic studies

after 1960 to this day, the contextual phase (Orton et al. 1993: 1318), is focused on the

understanding of the cultural context in which the pottery was made and used (Matson 1965: 202).Matson (1965: 203) considers pottery to be an ecological and socio-cultural product par excellenceenabling us to use pottery for solving problems related to social organization and human behavior. Inorder make behavioral inferences from ancient vessels, a clear understanding of their manufacturingtechnique and their function and use is essential. As to that, we see the increasing importance of thecontributions of new ways of research to technological ceramic studies (e.g. Lindahl and Stilborg1995; Rice 1987: 371405; Tite 1999) and functional pottery studies (e.g. Evershed et al. 1992;Oudemans 2006; Skibo 1992). Pottery studies were no longer focused on answering the questions

when and where? as in the preceding typological phase, but were at once focused on an answer tothe questions how and why? (van der Leeuw and Pritchard 1984: 6). The contextual phase of potterystudies saw serious attempts to integrate ethnographic studies, scientific techniques and aspects oftechnology (Orton et al. 1993: 14). An exponent of such an approach is the methodology followed in

the Leiden pottery studies.

Leiden pottery studiesThe Leiden pottery studies (van As 2004) are focused on a theory of pottery typology, the

use of ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observation, and linkage of laboratory analysis withproduction studies (Loney 2000: 652). James M. Skibo, in a review of an article on a Leidenarchaeological-technological pottery study in Northwestern Anatolia, calls this approach a holisticapproach including archaeometry, experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology (Skibo 1997:150; see also Roodenberg 1995; Roodenberg and Thissen 2001; Roodenberg and AlpaslanRoodenberg 2008). The initiator of the Leiden pottery studies was the archaeologist Henk J. Franken,who together with the ceramist Jan Kalsbeek analysed the Early Iron Age pottery from Tell Deir Allain the Jordan Valley (Franken and Kalsbeek 1969). Their study was quite innovative in a period whenpottery studies in archaeology were still mainly focused on the description and classification of vesselshapes and some other features. They analysed the various features of the pottery in terms of theproduction sequence, i.e. the preparation of the clay and the forming and firing technique. Their studyof the non-plastic inclusions in the clay that was used by the potters was based on microscopic thinsection analysis. Franken and Kalsbeek (1969) demonstrated that understanding the work of theancient potter is a prerequisite for all typological work on ancient pottery (Lapp 1970). Also laterLeiden pottery studies were based on a systematic scientific approach with a theoretical base, whichincluded the proposition that the genesis of pottery is important in order to be able to make full useof this form of material culture. The Leiden technological pottery studies did not end with Palestinianarchaeology. In the course of years, Leiden was involved in a number of archaeological researchprojects. Some projects pertain to on-site or period-specific issues, while others look at the broaderissue of developments in ceramic technology over time. The current projects are mainly focused onthe ancient Near East, Anatolia, the Balkans and the Caribbean (van As 2004: 1418). Meanwhile,

ethnoarchaeology, i.e. the study by archaeologists of variability in material culture and its relation tohuman behavior and organization among extant societies, for use in archaeological interpretation(Longacre (1991: 1), had become a relevant part of the Leiden analytical ceramic studies. Animportant stimulans was given by Maria Beatrice Annis, who for a number of years contributed greatlyto our ceramic studies in the field of ceramic ethnoarchaeological research in Sardinia (e.g. Annis1996; Annis and Jacobs 1986).

MethodologyThe Leiden approach aims at studying the potters craft in its entire scope, including the

production and trading of the products. The research also deals with such questions as how torecognize and define production centers or workshops, pot-making traditions and the history oftraditions. The research program covers (1) the technological study of pottery and potsherds, (2) the

analysis of clay samples, (3) the use of ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations.The technological study of pottery and potsherds includes (a) the microscopic fabricanalysis and (b) the reconstruction of the manufacturing technique (forming and firing). The

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

30/229

How and why? The Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran,Teleorman River Valley, Southern Romania

31

microscopic fabric analyis comprises the investigation of the matrix of the clay and the inclusions andpores observed (x10 to x50 magnification) before and after fiiring in an electric kiln on a fresh breakand on a ground edge. With respect to the non-plastic inclusions, attention is paid to the type, shape,sorting, colour, size and amount of the grains present in the clay. The pores point to burnt outorganic matter in the clay. The microscopic fabric analyis is a low-tech method. It needs minimalequipment, is inexpensive and many sherds can be processed in the field. The low-tech fabric analysis

forms the basis for the selection of samples for mineralogical thin-section analysis and for the variousmore costly high-tech chemical analyses such as SEM, NAA and XRF that are particularly useful forarchaeological provenance studies.

The reconstruction of the forming technique is based on the observation and interpretationof the traces left by the potters such as throwing spirals, smoothed surfaces and other features. Thesurface colours and the colours of the core seen on a fresh break indicate the original firingatmosphere of a pot. The original firing temperature of a vessel can be estimated by re-firing afragment in a neutral to slightly oxidizing atmosphere at several temperatures, increasing 50C at atime, from 750C to 1000C. The hardness and porosity of the fragment is inspected after each 50Cincrement in the firing temperature. As soon as the hardness and porosity change, a temperaturehigher than the original one has been reached (see also Hulthn 1976). Subsequently, thereconstruction of the manufacturing technique is followed by simulation experiments. For these we

need clay with approximately the same workability properties as the clay used by the potters in thepast. In case we assume that the pottery was locally made, clay samples taken in the directsurroundings of the archaeological site where the pottery was excavated are preferred. If a simulationexperiment isolates the variations and problems involved, we may suppose that the results of thereconstruction of the manufacturing technique is correct.

Clay samples are taken for simulation experiments and the determination of the potteryproduction location. Hamer (1975: 319) defines workability as the character of clay that is acombination of strength, plasticity and thixotropy (the property of plastic clays to resist initialpressure). It is a human or subjective quality, defined by the potters judgement of how well suiteda particular clay or body is to the processes he envisages using (Rye 1981: 20, 21). There is arelationship between the workability properties and the various forming techniques that can beapplied. Relatively plastic clay, for instance, is suitable for throwing pottery on the fast wheel.Relatively short clay, on the contrary, is suitable for making pottery in the coiling technique. If thecomposition of the clay samples taken close to the site where the pottery was excavated matcheswith the fabric of the pottery, we may assume that the pottery was made locally.

Finally, ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations of extant traditional potters atwork play an important part in the archaeological-technological ceramic analysis for they help toclarify the human behavior that contributes to the form, finish and fucnction of excavated pottery (fora comprehensive study of ethnoarchaeology see Nicholas and Kramer 2001).

The Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-BranIntroductionIn the context of the Southern Romania Archaeological Project (SRAP), active since 1998

and investigating prehistoric land-use and settlement patterns in the Teleorman River Valley in theLower Danube Plain (Baily et al. 2004), the study of pottery manufacture and use plays an important

role. Various archaeological sites inhabited throughout the sixth and fifth millennium B.C. wereinvestigated: Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran (figure 1). The opportunity presented itself totrace shifts in the ceramic assemblages over this time-span (successively, the Starevo-Cri, Dudeti,

Vdastra, Boian and Gumelnia periods).The ceramic assemblage of Teleor 003, dating to of the Early Neolithic Starevo-Cri and

succeeding Dudeti period, existed of 1,295 diagnostic and non-diagnostic potsherds (figure 2).1 Inaddition, a total of 800 diagnostic and non-diagnostic sherds were recovered dating to the V dastraperiod (end sixth millennium B.C.) (figure 3).2 The small site of Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran are bothsituated close to Teleor 003. The ceramic assemblage of Teleor 008 existed of a total of 2,941diagnostic and non-diagnostic potsherds dating to the Boian period (first half of the fifth millenniumB.C.(figures 46).3 The pottery dating to the Gumelnia period (second half of the fifth millenniumB.C.) was excavated at Mgura-Bran (figure 7).4

Since 2003 the Department of Pottery Technology of the Leiden Faculty of Archaeology hasparticipated in the SRAP. Following up Laurens Thissens study of the complete Neolithic potteryassemblages of Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and Mgura-Bran (Thissen 2002, 2008), a more in-depth

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

31/229

Abraham VAN AS32

technological study of a representative sample of the pottery assemblages was undertaken by theauthor in close cooperation with the ceramist Loe Jacobs (see also van As et al. 2004, 2005a, 2006).5

This study included the reconstruction of the manufacturing technique and the microscopic fabricanalysis of the potsherds.6 At the same time clay samples taken in the direct vicinity of the sites werestudied. During our stay in Romania we also had the opportunity to carry out experiments in order totest the plausibility of the idea that Starevo-Cri cooking pots were used for stone cooking (van As et

al 2005b). Following is a summary of the results of the technological and experimental study focusingon trying to find anwers to the questions how and why?

The forming and decoration techniqueThe pottery was handmade, in particular by using the coiling technique. Some open forms

were probably made in a mould. This seems also be the case for the lower part of some bowls on topof which the shoulder was made by adding a coil of clay. Indications of the sequential slab buildingtechnique were not found.

Looking at the finishing of the surface of the pottery various categories could bedistinguished. In all periods we find surface roughened ware and plain burnished ware. In the

Vdastra period and subsequent Boian and Gumelnia periods the burnished ware was sometimes alsodecorated. This decorated burnished ware includes various decoration techniques: polishing patterns

(pliss), appliqu, tool or fingernail impressions and incisions (sometimes with chalk incrustation). Insome cases the roughened surface seems to be scraped by using a flint tool. In other cases thesurface was roughened by means of applying a rough clay coat on the outside (barbotine ware). Theroughened surface gives a better grip (traditional explanation) or is related to thermal performance(Pierce 1999). The Gulmenia ceramic assemblage of Mgura-Bran includes also a category consistingof surface roughened vessels with a burnished rim. This category has been classed in the category ofsurface rougened vessels. In general, the gloss of the plain burnished ware is not very shiny. Only inthe Starevo-Cri period red-slipped and red-slipped painted ware was found. For the red slip an ironcontaining engobe was used. In this period other decoration techniques could also be distinguishedsuch as incisions, fingernail and tool impressions and appliqu decoration.

The firing techniqueMany potsherds have a black core. The surface colours are not always uniform, but often

show a range of colouring. The colours vary between very dark grey (5YR3/1; 10YR3/1), grey(5YR5/1; 7.5YR5/1), light brownish grey (2.5Y6/2; 10YR6/2), pale brown (10YR6/3), brown(7.5YR5/4), light reddish brown (5YR6/4), light red (2.5YR6/6), and yellowish red (5YR5/6). Thisindicates that the pottery was fired in a pile where the pottery was in direct contact with the fuel andflames. The atmosphere varied from reducing to neutral. The red (10R5/6; 10R4/8; 10R5/8;2.5YR4/8) and reddish yellow (5YR6/6) surface colour of the red slipped ware points to a short periodof end oxidation. The firing temperature of the pottery was ca. 750/800C.

The fabricBecause of the dark core of most of the sherds the microscopical identification of the

mineral inclusions was rather difficult. Therefore, the sample was brought to Leiden. In the CeramicLaboratory of the Leiden Faculty of Archaeology the sherds have been re-fired in an electric kiln

(oxidizing atmosphere) in order to turn the dark core of the sherds into a light colour.For an detailed overview of the fabric properties of the various categories of pottery

throughout the Starevo-Cri, Dudeti, Vdastra, Boian and Gumelnia periods the reader is referredto van As et al. 4004: tables 1 and 2; van As et al. 2005: table 1 and van As et al. 2006: tables 1 and2. The dominant type of mineral inclusions in each category of pottery throughout sixth and 5 thmillennium B.C. is quartz in clear and milky varieties. In the surface rough ware the maximum size ofthese inclusions is between 3 and 8 mm. For the other wares the maximum size varies between 2 and4 mm. The roundness of the grains is angular, sub-angular or sub-rounded. Besides the dominantmineral inclusions, feldspar, iron oxide siltstone, calcareous siltstone, pyroxene and some othermineral inclusions are also found in varying minor quantities. The percentage of mineral inclusions inthe clay generally varies between 10% and 35%. Only in the Dudeti period this percentage wassometimes higher (45%). The sorting of the mineral inclusions was mainly moderate. The Starevo-

Cri pottery was tempered with fibrous material of organic origin with a maximum length of 5 mm,sometimes even 8 mm. The percentage of the fibres varies between 5% and 30%. The potters of theDudeti period added much less organic material to the clay. In the sample we studied no fibre-

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

32/229


33

tempered sherds were present. A relatively small part of the Vdastra, Boian and Gumelnia potteryassemblages was tempered with organic material. In some cases, the addition of organic fibres seemsto have been desirable. During the forming process, when the clay is still in a plastic condition, theorganic fibres tend to keep the clay mixture together. Furthermore, the organic fibres may have beenused to prevent the development of cracks due to uneven drying (see also van As et al. 2005b: 104106).

Clay samplesClose to Teleor 003, eleven clay samples were taken: three from the floodplain of the

Teleorman River and eight from the floodplain of the Clania River, a tributary of the Teleorman. Inthe field, the clay samples were tested for their workability properties (determination of the plasticityby means of the piglets tail test and by making small pots using the pinching technique). In order toexecute simulation experiments, another clay sample was taken from the floodplain of the Clania.

In general the natural clay is suited for the manufacturing techniques as applied by thepotters in this region during the Neolithic period. Seven out of twelve clay samples are suited formaking pottery using the coiling technique. The colours of the fired clay samples and re-fired sherds(both in an electric kiln at 750C in an oxidizing atmosphere) are identical, varying between lightbrown (7.5YR6/4, reddish yellow (7.5YR6/6) yellowish red (5YR5/6), pink (7.5YR7/4), very pale brown

(10YR7/4) and pink (7.5YR7/3). In other words, the clay samples and the clays used to make thepottery in the Neolithic period have the same firing colour. This makes it plausible that the pottery ofTeleor 003 was made of local clay. The fired clay samples present the same types of mineralinclusions as the sherds. This is another indication for a local pottery production. As to themeasurable characteristics (size, roundness, percentage and sorting) of the mineral inclusions abouthalf of the clay samples roughly matches with the sherds. The other clay samples contain a relativelyhigh percentage of mineral inclusions, some even over 50%. Such clays are not suitable for potteryproduction. We may assume that the potters must have been selective in the choice of their clays.They probably collected only those clays that were usable for making their pottery without a minimumof preparation.

ConclusionsBecause of the results of the fabric analysis of the pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 and

Mgura-Bran and the clay samples taken in the vicinity of these sites from the floodplain of theTeleorman and Clania River, we may conclude that the potters selected local clay for the productionof their pottery. The natural clay contained quartz and other mineral inclusions in varying quantities,amongst which calcareous siltstone. In the Dudeti period we find a fabric that more often seems tocontain calcareous silstone than in the previous period. Although various reasons for this change ofclay body can be thought of, for the moment it better supports the idea of a shift to other clay bedsused by the potters than an archaeological/chronological important fabric category. The potters of theStarevo-Cri period nearly always added organic material to their clay. Those of the subsequentDudeti period added organics much less so. Although not as common as it had been in the Starevo-Cri period, the potters in the Vdastra period the potters sometimes added fibrous material to theclay. In the subsequent Vdastra, Boian and Gumelnia periods, the pottery showed also organictempering material that could have been added for technical reasons (to keep the clay mixture

together and to prevent the development of cracks)Throughout the entire Neolithic period the pottery was handmade using the coiling

technique. The surface of the pottery was either roughened or burnished. The potters decorated theirware by using various techniques: appliqu, tool or fingernail impressions and incisions (sometimeswith chalk incrustation). Only in the Starevo-Cri period did they apply a (painted) red slipdecoration. During the entire sixth and fifth millennium B.C. the pottery was fired in an open fire, forthe greater part under reducing to neutral firing conditions. We may say that it roughly concerns acontinuous technological pottery tradition.

Simulation experimentsIntroduction

Assuming the Starevo-Cri society as partly mobile, or semi-sedentary, one of the major

aims of the pottery studies is to understand how mobility might relate to pottery use. In this contextthe aim is to find answers on difficult questions like were cooking methods a continuation from older,previous practices, or had ceramics and new foodstuffs a major impact on ways of preparing food?

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

33/229

Abraham VAN AS34

(cf. Thissen 2005, 2007; Thissen et al. 2007). A combination of factors such as the heaviness of thepots, the presence of attrition marks on the insides of the Starevo-Cri cooking pots from Teleor 003,the stones found in a broken vessel in situ dating to the early stage of Dudeti period at the same siteand the lightly baked clay objects, of different sizes and shapes, sometimes perforated or half-perforated, from the earliest Neolithic site of Mgura led up to the idea of the practice of stonecooking in this period of incipient pottery production. This hypothesis stimulated us to carry out a

number of stone cooking experiments (see also van As et al. 2005b; Thissen et al. 2007). Water wasbrought to boil by using fired clay balls and clay rings. In addition to stone heating of water, waterwas also normally boiled in a vessel on a fire. The stone cooking experiments were carried out using avessel made by Loe Jacobs with local clay from the borders of the Clania River.

Pottery technologyTwo vessels were made that bear more or less the hallmarks of the Starevo-Cri cooking

pots.7 This took us ten days: two days for preparing the clay body and shaping the vessels, sevendays for drying and one day for firing. The period between shaping and firing was barely long enoughto let them thoroughly dry.

The clay was selected in the floodplain of the Clania River and prepared by addingchopped straw and a small amount of sand. The chopped straw was coarser than the fibres observed

in the Starevo-Cri pottery. This made it less easy to scrape the vessels afterwards in a leatherhardstage. From a potters point of view the conditions for shaping the pots were not ideal. As aconsequence of working in full sunlight, the prepared clay body dried very rapidly and became stiffduring the forming process.

After rolling a number of clay coils the base was made by flattening out a piece of clay.Four coils of clay were used to make the lower part of the body. While this part was drying the claywas kneaded for the manufacture of a second vessel in the same way. As soon as the lower body ofthe second vessel was formed, the first vessel was dry enough to make the upper body of three morecoils of clay. Next, the rim was finished and the outside body was scraped and roughened by usingclay slip and a handful sand. The inside was polished. The second vessel, finished in the same way,was decorated with nail impressions. The remaining prepared clay was used to make a coiled smallvessel, clay balls and clay rings. Firing took place in an open pit fire fire to a temperature of about750C under neutral to reducing conditions. The pit measured 1.5 x 1 m with a depth of ca. 0.5 m.Wood was used as fuel. The firing lasted well over six hours.

Pottery use: stone cookingThe stone cooking experiment was carried out in one of the coiled vessels. In order to

make this vessel less permeable, its wall (7 mm thick) was polished on the inside as well as on theoutside. The vessel had a volume of ca. 1.5 liter and was about 20 cm high. The diameter of themouth was ca. 15 cm.

For stability and some extra isolation to avoid a quick cooling down, the vessel was placedin sand. Next, the vessel was filled up to the rim with clear water of about 20C. Five clay-baked ringswere used as heaters or cooking stones. Each doughnut-shaped ring had a diameter of about 6 cmand a weight of about 90 gram. The rings were put in a small charcoal fire. At 11 a.m., with use of astick, the first two rings were put into the cold water; there was a sizzling sound and the water

became warm (figure 8). Two or three rings were alternatively heated and put into the water. Aftereight cycles of this type were completed the water began to simmer at 12 oclock. A quarter of anhour later the water boiled violently, developing many bubbles and steam (figure 9). At the sametime, about half the water in the vessel was lost, mainly because it either adhered to the porouschaff-tempered clay rings or it evaporated. A disadvantage of the method described here is that witheach use the wet cooking rings need to be placed in the fire to absorb heat again. Because of this, aconsiderable amount of time and energy is lost. Each time a set of clay rings is changed, between fiveand ten minutes are needed to reheat them. During these periods the water in the vessel cools downagain. Altogether, this time-consuming way of stone cooking keeps a person continuously at work.However, the amount of energy that could be stored in the clay rings was surprising.

In an attempt to bring the water to the boil faster a second experiment was undertaken.This time the clay rings were not heated by turns. Thus, five cooking rings were kept together and

heated in the fire for twenty minutes. The rings were put into the cold water, which made a sizzlingsound and the water was brought to boil in no more than twenty minutes and continued it to cook.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

34/229


35

DiscussionStone cooking or indirect heating seems a rather inefficient method viewed through

modern spectacles. However, our and other experiments (see also Jones 1998) show that it ispossible to bring water to boil using heated stones or fired caly balls/rings. Stone cooking isassociated with thick walled fibre-tempered vessels and was even common practice in AmericanIndian contexts (cf. Braun 1983; Brown 1989; Crown and Willis 1995; Sassaman 1995) In the

American south-east, perforated soapstone cooking stones which were first interpreted as net sinkersare now understood as heating elements; perforations enabled the use of sticks or antlers for easymanipulation and for to transporting them from fire to pot (Sassaman 1995: 229 and figure 18.4,mentioning ethnographical examples). Pre-heated stones were used to boil the vessels contents, andbaked-clay objects might have been successfully used for the same purpose. Given this provencapability to boil water with preheated cooking stones and baked-clay objects, we should rethink the(often perforated) baked-clay objects found within Starevo-Cri contexts all over the Balkans andtraditionally labeled as net sinkers, loom weights or even figurines, taking into account the potentialuse of these objects for indirect moist heating.

ConclusionCurrent contextual, explanative pottery research, using technological and archaeometircal

analysis, experiments and ethnographic information, enables us to answer questions with respect tohow and why? of ancient pottery. The study of the Neolithic pottery from Teleor 003, Teleor 008 andMgura-Bran in the Teleorman River Valley, Southern Romania, provided knowledge about theproduction location and the production sequence (preparation of the clay, forming-, decoration- andfiring technique). In addition it gave an argument for the discusiion with regard to the possiblepractice of stone cooking in the early Neolithic Starevo-Cri period.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to thank the following SRAP team members for their contribution

without which this article could not have been written: Radian Andreescu (National Historical Museum,Bucharest), Douglass Bailey (San Francisco State University), Loe Jacobs (Leiden University), SteveMills (Cardiff University), Pavel Mirea (Teleorman County Museum,) and Laurens Thissen (Thissen

Archaeological Ceramics Bureau, Amsterdam).

Notes

1. These sherds derive from sondage S8 executed in 2001 by Pavel Mirea: 405 sherdsdating to the Starevo-Cri period from pit B5 and 890 sherds dating to the Dudeti period from pitB3.

2. These sherds derive from three discrete pit contexts.

3. These sherds derive from three sondages representing three consecutive stages ofoccupation.

4. No data about the total number of sherds were available.

5. The in-depth technological study was executed in August/September 2003, 2004 andSeptember/October 2006 in the Teleorman County Museum at Alexandria.

6. For the reconstruction of the manufacturing technique most diagnostic sherds have beenobserved. For the microscopic fabric analysis a sample of 356 were selected (Starevo-Cri period: 42sherds; Dudeti period: 48 sherds; Vdastra period: 100 sherds; Boian period: 83 sherds; Gumelniaperiod: 83 sherds).

7. The cooking pots show the following characteristics: restricted bag-shaped vessels;

roughened exterior surface; wall thickness 910 mm; mouth diameter 1230 cm (mainly 1220 cm);solid thick disk base with traces of use-wear underneath; exterior colours: buff or brown; interiorcolour: dark brown to blackish; inside covered with a diluted clay slip and carefully burnished; a few

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

35/229

Abraham VAN AS36

traces of smudging and smolke blackening; use-abrasion on the the interior of some bases and tracesof smudging; bleached interior of some base fragments (may be the result of frequent water heatingand cooking).

References

Annis, M.B. (1996) Organization of pottery production in Sardinia. Variability and change, in Ldtke,H. and Vossen, R. (eds.), Tpfereiforschung zwischen Mittelmeer und Skandinavien(Tpferei- und Keramikforschung Band 3), pp. 14370, Bonn.

Annis, M.B. and Jacobs, L.C. (1986) Ethnoarchaeological research: pottery production in Oristano(Sardinia). Relationships between raw materials, manufacturing techniques and artefacts,Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology (Leiden University)4: 5685.

van As, A. (2004) Leiden studies in pottery technology, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies20: 722.van As, A., Jacobs, L.C. and Thissen, L. (2004) Preliminary data on Starevo-Cri and Dudeti pottery

from Teleor 003, Teleorman River Valley, Southern Romania, Leiden Journal of PotteryStudies20: 1217.

(2005a) Preliminary data on Vdastra pottery from Teleor 003, Teleorman River Valley, Southern

Romania, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies21: 618. (2005b) Arguments for and against stone cooking in early sixth millennium B.C. Southernromania, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies21: 10310.

(2006) Preliminary data on Boian and Gumelnia pottery from Teleor 008 and Mgura-Branrespectively, Teleorman River Valley, Southern Romania, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies22: 13748.

Bailey, D.W., Andreescu, R.R., Thissen, L.C., Howard, A.J., Macklin, M.G., Haita, C. and Mills, S.F.(2004) Landscape archaeology of Neolithic southcentral Romania: aims, methods andpreliminary results of the Southern Romania Archaeological Project, Studi i Cercetri deIstorie Vechei Arheologie52: 340.

Bishop, R.L. and Lange, F.W. (eds.) (1991) The ceramic legacy of Anna O. Shepard, Niwot, Colorado.Braun, D. (1983) Pots as tools, in Moore, J. and Keene, A. (eds.), Archaeological hammers and

theories, pp. 10734, New York.Brown, J.A. (1989) The beginnings of pottery as an economic process, in van der Leeuw, S.E. and

Torrence, R. (eds.), Whats new? A closer look at the process of innovation, pp. 20324,London.

Crown, P. and Wills, W. (1995) Economic intensification and the origin of ceramic containers in the American southwest, in Barnett, W. and Hoopes, J. (eds.). The emergence of pottery.Technology and innovation in ancient societies, pp. 24154, Washington D.C.

Evershed, R.P., Heron, C., Charters, S. and Goad, L.J. (1992) The survival of food residues: newmethods of analysis, interpretation and application, Proceedings of the British Academy77: 187208.

Franken, H.J. and Kalsbeek, J. (1969) Excavations at Tell Deir Alla I. A stratigraphical and analyticalstudy of the Early Iron Age pottery, Leiden: Brill.

Hamer, F. (1975) The potters dictionary of materials and techniques, New York: Pitman.

Hulthn, B. (1976) On thermal colour test, Norwegian Archaeological Review9: 16.Jones, S. (1998) More news from the archaic kitchen: the roots of ceramic technology in North

America, World Atlatl Magazine1 (http://www.atlatl.net/).Lapp, P.W. (1970) The tell Deir Alla challenge to Palestinian archaeology, Vetus Testamentum20:

24356.van der Leeuw, S.E. and Pritchard, A.C. (eds.) (1984) The many dimensions of pottery. Ceramics in

archaeology and anthropology, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Lindahl, A. and Stilborg, O. (eds.) (1995) The aim of laboratory analyses of ceramics in archaeology,

Stockhom: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Loney, H.L. (2000) Society and technological control: a critical review of models of technological

change in ceramic studies,American Antiquity65(4): 64668.Longacre, W.A. (1991) Ceramic ethnoarchaeology, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Matson, F.R. (1965) Ceramics and man, Washington D.C.: Aldine.Nicholas, D. and Kramer, C. (2001) Ethnoarchaeology in action, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

8/6/2019 BMJT2_web

36/229


37

Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A. (1993) Pottery in archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Oudemans, T.F.M. (2006) Molecular studies of organic residues preserved in ancient vessels, Leiden.Pierce, C. (1999) Explaining corrugated pottery in the American Southwest: an evolutionary approach,

Unpublished PhD Dissertation Department of Anthropology, University of Washington,Seattle.

Rice, P.M. (1987) Pottery analysis. A sourcebook, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Roodenberg, J.J. (ed.) (1995) The Ilpnar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia

198791, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.Roodenberg, J.J. and Thissen, L.C. (eds.) (2001) The Ilpnar excavations II, Leid

BMJT2_web

Documents

Transcript of BMJT2_web