09 nagy j g

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/09-nagy-j-g 1/34

BRONZE AGE COMMUNITIESIN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMFROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

24–26 October 2008

Edited by

BERECKI Sándor

NÉMETH E. Rita

REZI Botond

Editura MEGA Cluj-Napoca

2009

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G


CONTENT

Tiberius BaderDeutsche Beiträge zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Ein Überblick ..................... 7

Carol KacsóFrühbronzezeitliche Gräberfelder von Ciumeşti. Zusammenfassung............................................... 33

Zsolt Székely

The Beginning of Early Bronze Age in south-eastern Transylvania. Problems of Chronology .......... 39

Sándor József SztáncsujContribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului timpuriu din sud-estul Transilvaniei.

Aşezarea culturii Schneckenberg de la Ariuşd ................................................................................ 45

Judit KoósBronzezeitliche Siedlung in Nordostungarn und die Koszider-Problematik .................................... 79

Sándor BereckiMiddle Bronze Age Pottery from Adămuş, Mureş County............................................................. 89

Florin Gogâltan A Late Bronze Age Dwelling at Iernut-Sfântu Gheorghe– Monument , Mureş County .....................103

Imola KelemenThe Faunal Remains from Iernut-Sfântu Gheorghe– Monument , Mureş County............................143

József-Gábor Nagy The Wietenberg Site from Floreşti–Poligon (Cluj County). A Study of Settlement Archaeology .....151

Ioan Bejinariu

The Settlement from Recea–Sulduba Valley, Sălaj County. Contributions to the Knowledgeof Late Bronze Age Habitat in North-Western Romania ..............................................................183

János NémetiThe Hajdúbagos / Pişcolt–Cehăluţ Group...................................................................................203

Márta L. Nagy–Róbert Scholtz A késő bronzkori Felsőszőcs-kultúra települése Őr–Őri-tag lelőhelyen ...........................................223

Botond ReziThe Bronze Hoard from Aluniş (Mureş County) .........................................................................259

ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................273

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G


Bronze Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin, 2009, p. 151–182

THE WIETENBERG SITE FROM FLOREŞTI–POLIGON (CLUJCOUNTY). A STUDY OF SETTLEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY 1

József-Gábor NAGY Universitatea Al. I. Cuza

Iaşi, România [email protected]

Keywords : Bronze Age, Wietenberg Culture, settlement, pottery, stone axe

In Cluj-Napoca and its surrounding area, there are many Bronze Age findings related tothe Wietenberg Culture2. To verify the information from the archaeological literature, in theyears 2001, 2003 and 2009 surface researches were made at Floreşti–Poligon site (Rep. No. 23).Our aim was to analyse the archaeological materials and find the closest “neighbours” in thismicro-region, dominated by the Someşul Mic Valley. As a result we managed to identify new

sites belonging to this period.The research area is located approximately 18 km west of Cluj-Napoca, and it stretchesup to the confluence of Someşul Cald and Someşul Rece rivers. The landscapes geomorphologicfeatures are dominated by the of Someşul Mic Valleys main axis. With an average width of 1–2 km,is characterized by an accumulator relief, formed by two levels. The first one is the flood plain(2–3 m high), exposed to flooding and the second the higher ground of the terraces. The secondterrace (10–16 m high) stretches across Floreşti territory, the third one (Calvaria terrace, 22–24 m)is on the left bank of Someşul Mic and has abrupt slopes. The gradual degradation of thesubsequent slopes which form the left bank of the Someşul Mic River gives a step like image. Theinferior level of the hills sides (450–550 m) is affected by water torrents and land slides which

cause an accentuate soil degradation. The alluvial accumulator relief forms the broad flood plainsof the Someşul Mic, the narrow valleys of the right tributaries, the high terraces3 and the waterdejection cons formed by the contact of the floodplain with the slopes. The altitudinaldifferences are about 250 m (P.U.G. ŞI R.L.U. 2004, 22).

The research area belongs to the Someşul Mic hydrographical basin, formed by the theconfluence of Someşul Rece with Someşul Cald and its tributaries Nadăş, Feneş, Vulpii, Sănislău,

1 This article is a summary of the master’s paper sustained at “1 Decembrie” University, from Alba Iulia,hereby I would like to express my gratitude to my coordinator dr. Valentin Vasiliev and to Dr. FlorinGogâltan who helped me in the research.

2 The notion was introduced in the archaeological literature by C. Seraphin, following the researches atSighişoara–Wietenberg/Dealul Turcului , dating from 1899–1904, later researches were carried on by K. Horedt in 1938 and I. Andriţoiu between 1991 and 1994 (R OTEA 2009, 21).

3 The forth (Clinicilor terrace, 30–40 m), fifth (Cetăţuia terrace, 60–75 m), sixth (Observator terrace, 100–110 m) and seventh (128–140 m) terraces.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G


│ JÓZSEF-G ÁBOR N AGY 152

Tăuţ and Gârbău Valleys. There are considerable groundwater reserves found in the alluviallayers of the Someş River and its tributaries. The upper soil cover is varied for this relatively limited area dominated by the Someş River. On the high grounds of the flood plain evolved thefertile cernozemic soil. The most commune local soils are the alluvial clay soil, which cover most

of the hillsides and the hortic luvisoil, which appear isolated on interfluves (P.U.G. ŞI R.L.U2004, 37). We have some information about the Late Bronze Age fauna, from Vlaha–Pad site

where we can see a large number of domestic species. About 96.26% of the total number belongsto domestic animals, opposed to the wild ones, represented by only 3.73 %, which proves thathunting had a secondary role in this community. Other occupation, like fishing, collectingmollusc and hunting wild birds couldn’t be distinguished because the fragmentation of findings;so we can’t prove their contribution as an alimentation supplement (K ELEMEN 2006, 43). Thearchaeological discoveries from Ernei–Quarry hold 743 animal bones, out of which the majority 245 belong to cattle, the rest of them to other domestic animals; we can notice the low numberof wild animals (BERECKI E T AL. 2005, 121).

Research History

Before the First World War the majority of the findings from this area were fortuitousand concerned mainly metal objects. At this time we have the first information regarding theprehistoric settlements, from surface collections and archaeological diggings made by E. Orosz(OROSZ 1901a, 16–33, OROSZ 1901b, OROSZ 1905, 303–312). The first attempt to organise anarchaeological repertory belongs to I. Marţian (M ARŢIAN 1909, 321–358). In 1911 Şt. Kovácspublished the prehistoric settlement and the Late Iron Age cemetery from Apahida (K OVÁCS

1911, 1–69). In the next year the same researcher made archaeological diggings at Cluj–Mănăştur (Rep. No. 8), but the material remained unpublished until our days.

After the First World War, I. Marţian published the Repertory of Transylvania, where hecollected the sites known at the time. He mentioned five sites from our research area, withoutany details regarding the place and way in which they were discovered4. At Cluj-Napoca–Banatului Street (today C. Coposu, Rep no. 13) in April–May 1934 begun the first diggingunder the leading of O. Floca, finalized with the discovery of seven Noua graves(W IETENBERGER 2005, 145). The research was continued by Márton Roska, Ştefan Kovács and

Alexandru Ferenczi until 1937, but the publishing of the materials had to wait until the present.In the Repertory of Transylvania, M. Roska, mentioned five sites from the research area5. This is

followed in 1944 by the article regarding the Corpadea II type discoveries

6

which mentioned foursites7. K. Horedt in his monograph of the Wietenberg Culture mentioned six sites belonging tothis culture8. In his study from 1962 Şt. Ferenczi collected the archaeological findings around

4 Apahida (M ARŢIAN 1920, 6/20), Cluj-Napoca–Cimitirul Central , Cluj-Napoca–Hoia (M ARŢIAN 1920,15/186), Sânnicoară (M ARŢIAN 1920, 34/594), Viştea (M ARŢIAN 1920, 42/745).

5 Apahida–Réti Östelep, Râtul Viţeilor (R OSKA 1942, 24–26/92s, fig. 16–19), Cluj-Mănăştur (R OSKA 1942,133/229), Gilău–Borzaş (R OSKA 1942, 100/4), Sânnicoară–Lab (R OSKA 1942, 253/24, fig. 312–313) andViştea (R OSKA 1942, 144/65).

6 Based on the archaeological excavation from Corpadea–Ciungui made by I. Kovács in 1901, M. Roskaused the name of Corpadea I for Coţofeni Culture and Corpadea II for Sighişoara-Wietenberg Culture(CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 168/1).

7 Apahida–Réti (R OSKA 1944, 22/4, 25, fig. 3–4), Gilău–Borzaş (R OSKA 1944, 24–25/20), Sânnicoară–Lab

(R OSKA 1944, 29/59, 34, fig. 18–19), Viştea–Kiskutverme , Kisrét , Pad/Palota (R OSKA 1944, 27/37).8 HOREDT 1960, 110/5 (Apahida), 111/39 (Cluj-Napoca–Strada Victor Babeş ), 111–112/58 (Gilău–

Borzaş), 115/143 (Sânnicoară), 114/150 (Suceagu–Şarga), 115/179 (Viştea).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G


The Wietenberg site from Floreşti–Poligon (Cluj County) │ 153

Cluj-Napoca mentioning seven Wietenberg culture settlements9. Among the discoveries fromCluj-Napoca region, H. Daicoviciu and N. Vlassa published in 1974 the material dug by Şt. Ferenczi between 1911 and 1912 at Cluj-Mănăştur, but they dated it wrongly to the SecondIron Age period (D AICOVICIU–V LASSA 1974, 5–9). Later M. Rotea returns on the subject and

attributes it to the Bronze Age (R OTEA 1994, 40, footnote 11).In 1989 Sorin Cociş and Adela Paki made rescue excavations at Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I

(GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 7–17) and the archaeological materials were published with FlorinGogâltan. In 1994, on the bank of the Becaş River, at Becaş II , M. Rotea made a sounding andfound a single cultural layer under the ploughing layer and above the sterile, yellow clay 10. In1991 V. Crişan made rescue excavations at Viştea–Păluta (CRIŞAN 1994, 357–365). Thearchaeological materials discovered here, belong to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Theresearch was continued in 1998 by C. Opreanu, S. Cociş and Monica Bodea (OPREANU–COCIŞ

2004, 275–279). In the Archaeological Repertory of Cluj County 15 Wietenberg Culture sitesare mentioned from our research area11. N. Boroffka in his doctorate thesis of the Wietenberg

Culture made a repertory of the sites belonging to this culture, presenting 15 sites in the region12. During 1998 and 2000 the archaeological diggings from Cluj-Napoca–Str. Banatului continued,finalized with the discovery of habitation layers and features belonging to the WietenbergCulture (R OTEA –W ITTENBERGER 1999, 7–27; W ITTENBERGER 2005, 145–151, pl. 1–3).

New researches were made with the construction of the Borş–Braşov Motorway, the “BeltHighway East” of Cluj and also with the construction of supermarkets around Cluj. In the years2004–2007 at Vlaha–Pad a Late Bronze Age habitation layer was identified. The researched areahad 5764 m2, 73% of the entire settlement and 1296 features were discovered, out of which 289gepidae inhumation graves (Reihengräberfelder ) from the VI century A.D., the rest were related tothe prehistoric habitation. Beside the Late Bronze Age settlement a few features from the First

Iron Age (dwellings, pits, surface houses) were identified. In August–October 2006 at Floreşti–Polus Center , in sector B, several archaeological features (dwellings, pits) belonging to the MiddleBronze Age (Wietenberg Culture) were investigated. Most of them contained pottery fragmentsspecific to the classical, third phase of this culture, decorated with entwined spirals and meanders,incisions shaped as bands (R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 77, pl. XIII). The findings have good analogies atthe Wietenberg site from Cluj-Napoca–Strada Banatului (R OTEA –W ITTENBERGER 1999, 3–25).

9 Cluj-Napoca–Becaş (FERENCZI 1962, 44/17i), Dealul Gol (FERENCZI 1962, 42/17a), Marele Stăvilar (FERENCZI 1962, 42/17b), Floreşti–Dealu din jos / Groapa lui Parip (FERENCZI 1962, 39/14b), Floreşti–Lab (FERENCZI 1962, 39–40/14c), Sânnicoară–Lab (FERENCZI 1962, 47–48), Suceagu–Sárga (FERENCZI

1962, 37–38, 55–56).10 Information M. Rotea.11 Apahida–Réti Östelep, Râtul viţeilor (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 31, 35/22), Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I (CRIŞAN E T

AL. 1992, 138, 152/60), Becaş II (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 138, 152/63), Dealul Gol (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992,120, 149/2B), Cluj-Napoca–Grădina Botanică– Sere (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 133, 151/35), Marele Stăvilar (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 121, 149/2D), Str. Banatului (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 139, 143, 152/70), Str. Horea (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 131, 150/22), Ferma Palocsay (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 138, 152/59), Floreşti–Lab (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 201–203/3), Poligon (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 204–205/12), Gilău–Borzaş (CRIŞANE T AL. 1992, 222, 225/6), Blocuri (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 222, 225/13), Groapa lui Puri (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 222/11).

12 Apahida–Réti Östelep and Râtul viţeilor (BOROFFKA 1994, 15/24), Baciu (BOROFFKA 1994, 17/33), GuraBaciului (BOROFFKA 1994, 31/123, fig. 60/1–3), Cluj-Napoca–Grădina Botanică Sere (BOROFFKA 1994,

31/122), Stăvilar (B

OROFFKA 1994, 94/547), Str. Banatului (B

OROFFKA 1994, 31–32/125, pl. 61–62),Str. Babeş (BOROFFKA 1994, 31/124), Str. Cireşelor (BOROFFKA 1994, 32/126, pl. 60/5–9), (BOROFFKA

1994, 32/127), Valea Caldă (BOROFFKA 1994, 94/548), Floreşti–Lab (BOROFFKA 1994, 43/192), Poligon (BOROFFKA 1994, 95/551), Gilău–Borzaş (BOROFFKA 1994, 45–46/206, pl. 81/9, pl. 82/13–14), Groapalui Puri (BOROFFKA 1994, 95/553).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



In the C sector a Late Bronze Age necropolis with over 20 Late Wietenberg cremation graves with urns and a Noua Culture inhumation necropolis (over 140 graves), was discovered (R OTEA

E T AL. 2008, 163–165; R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 52–55; R OTEA 2009, 47–50). During August–October 2007 and June–September 2008 at Gheorgheni–Valea Mare , a preventive archaeological

excavation was carried out by the National History Museum of Transylvania. The area of 8000square meters, divided in five sectors (A–E), offered a Wietenberg cremation necropolis andNoua inhumation graves from the Bronze Age, and Scythian period features from the First Iron

Age (CRIŞAN E T AL., 303–305).The present research looks at the geographical display of the sites and the characteristics

of habitation, the chronological evolution of the main settlement types, the major features,funerary practices, and analysis of pottery and stone axe found at Floreşti–Poligon. Throughoutthe entire Transylvania there are Wietenberg Culture monuments that evolved in four differentphases. The repertory and mapping of this findings made it possible, to make some generalobservations13. The mostly small or medium size open settlements14 were located in different

geographical areas, especially on gentle slopes, slightly leaning towards the water courses, on riverbanks, in our case the Someşul Mic River and its tributary, on the lower terraces sometimes onthe high terrace or higher ground of the Someş riverside protected from flooding (Fig. 1).Regarding the settlement development dynamics the majority can be dated to the third phase, aperiod of maximum demographic growth and territorial extension (R OTEA 1993, 34, footnotenr. 46). This extent is not long lived because at the end of this period withdrawing from theLăpuş and Sălaj Basin under the pressure of Suciu de Sus Culture (R OTEA 1993, 31) can beobserved. The fourth and also final phase of the Wietenberg Culture, continues to live on inthe Late Bronze Age I (LBA I)15, living together with the contemporary population (GOGÂLTAN

1989, 12).

Although extremely numerous, only a few sites provide relevant archaeologicalinformation. The cultural layer of the settlements is usually at a small depth, affected by theploughing, showed by the high number of the pottery fragments found on the surface. Derşida–Dealul lui Balota is one of the settlements that offered a unique stratigraphycal scale, over 1 m,investigated by N. Chidiosan in 1963–1965, 1969 and M. Rotea in 1999–2000 (R OTEA 1993,34; BEJINARIU 2008; 93, R OTEA 2009, 21). Related to the thin cultural layer of the openedsettlement, we can observe the presence of a high number of sites that contained pottery specificto the classical phase of this culture on a small area (Cluj-Napoca 17, Viştea 4, Floreşti 4 andGilău 4). In this case is hard to estimate the real number of the settlements at a certain time.

The majority of the Late Bronze Age discoveries around Cluj came from surface

collections or modern constructions16. In Becaş Valley, the test excavation from Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I had a small extent, giving modest information regarding the prehistoric habitation. It was

13 M. Rotea states that in Transylvania there are over 580 sites, located in 414 localities which have Wietenbergdiscoveries with pottery, bronze hoards and funerary findings, saying the real number could be 2 or 3 timesmore than the one indicated by the archaeological researches (R OTEA 1993, 28, nota nr. 12).

14 Some of the settlements located in our area of study were well organised and probably fortified withmound and ditch. At Gilău–Groapa lui Puri there is a fortified settlement which had probably twoinhabiting levels (BOROFFKA 1995, 275).

15 The triple division of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA I–III, GOGÂLTAN 1999, 73–78) and Late Bronze Age(LBA I–III) and the quadruple division of the First Iron Age (Iron I–IV) after Florin Gogâltan’schronological system, which I will use hereafter (GOGÂLTAN 1999–2000, 44–47).

16 Some belong to the classical phase of the Wietenberg culture (Cimitirul Central , Str. Doja and Str. Cireşelor ),others to the late perioud (Becaş , Cluj-Mănăştur , Dealul Gol , Ferma Palocsay nr. 5 , Cheile Baciului , Hoia and Str. Banatului ).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



probably a short lived, seasonal settlement, with surface dwellings, storing and garbage pits. AtCluj-Napoca–Becaş II , we can find pottery fragments that belong probably to the previoussettlement. M. Rotea made here a sounding and found a single cultural layer. All the above provethe continuity of occupation in this area suitable for breeding (GOGÂLTAN 1989, 9).

At Floreşti, Luna de Sus and Gilău we have many pottery founding that show a heavily inhabited area on both terraces of the Someşul Mic Valley. At north from Floreşti, on a naturaldefended promontory on the left of the Someş River based on the pottery fragments we canprove a long lived settlement with dwellings placed near the edge of the steep slope of thepromontory at Dealu din jos–Groapa lui Parip, Lab and Poligon. Following the surface researchesat Poligon, on an area of approximately 250 m parallel with the Someş River course, near the edgeof the terrace, we found Wietenberg Culture pottery, stone tools and daub. Based on the researchmade we can state that the spread of the pottery proves a large opened settlement with surfacehouses. In Gilău we know several Wietenberg discoveries, at Blocuri , Str. Suceagului and Borzaş (R OSKA 1942, 100/4; SOROCEANU 1974, 369; R OTEA 2003, 9–11). At Luna de Sus–La deal , on

the higher ground of the right bank of the Feneş Valley, (at 375 m altitude) we have a settlementfrom the fourth phase of Wietenberg Culture. In the Viştea area there are many findings, especially pottery fragments, from field–walks and archaeological diggings, at Farkasberek , Kiskutverme/Korpáskút , Kisrét and Păluta.

At Vlaha on the terrace located west from the Racoş River, we have information aboutaccidental Wietenberg findings, researched with test trenches by Gh. Lazarovici. At Pad site, theremoving of the top soil gave information about the inner organisation of the settlements datingfrom the end of Bronze Age and the beginning of Early Iron Age. As showed in 2004, with thesounding of the area, the prehistoric level, partially destroyed by the fieldworks, has a depth of approximately 0.10 m–0.25 m, being thicker near the features. Because some of the features

couldn’t be showed at the base of the cultural layer they removed the antic soil manually, whichhas a variable thickness of 0.15–0.25 m and brownish-black colour, reaching into the yellow clay.The majority of the researched prehistoric features belonged to the Late Bronze Age, which offersa partial image of the use of settlement space.

Studying the dwellings of this period we can say that the majority were surfaceconstructions, with clay floor and a wooden upper structure with wattle and daub (R OTEA 2009,54–55). The surface of the structures is about 3.72 m2, but the majority of the constructions have8–25 m2. The dwellings from Vlaha–Pad were built in shallow pits (0.40–0.60 m) and had more“rooms”. The superstructure was made from wattle and daub and the roof of vegetal materialscovered with clay, at least in one case with “turf”. The Late Bronze Age houses and other structures

had an irregular shape, being dug into the ground at over 1 m. Fire places and stoves werediscovered only outside the houses. Between the houses, located at a distance from each other there

were other features like an oven dug into the yellow clay, several foundation trenches belonging tosurface houses and many pits that show the internal structure, mostly construction for keepingkettles (STANCIU E T AL. 2006, 398). Besides the surface houses the Wietenberg communities hadalso pit houses. Considered to belong to the early stages of the culture, they can rather be anadaptation to the local weather conditions (R OTEA 2009, 55). Pit houses slightly dug in the ground

were found at Ghirbom (A LDEA 1975, 25–26), Sebeş and Pălatca–Sub Pădure (R OTEA 1994, 351).They also had the upper structure made of wattle and daub (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 17–18).

The majority of the features found in the settlements are garbage or storage pits and pots

holes. At Becaş they discovered five pits that belonged to the forth phase of the WietenbergCulture. The storage pits, had a circular, oval or irregular shape, with the dimensions between1.40 and 1.60 m, contained pottery fragments (especially pit no. 1 had a large number of pottery

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



fragments), daub, animal bones, portable fireplace fragments, and stones (GOGÂLTAN 1989, 7–8). The storage pits from Vlaha–Pad were found inside and around slightly deepened structuresused for daily activities or as dwellings. The pits had different shapes and sizes, some of them hadaccess steps that show daily activities other larger and deeper were used for storing food for a

longer period (STANCIU E T AL. 2006, 398). They contained fragments of large storage vessels,daub, burned clay weights, portable fireplaces, animal bones and charcoal. There are many postholes that belonged to surface houses; others are located near the storage pits that probably had a roof. Numerous postholes were identified on both sides of foundation trenches for fences,being a part of the construction system. Other pits of various sizes were dug near or inside of theconstructions for posts that held the roof.

Some of the pits were considered ritual by the researchers; we can mention 10 pits fromCluj-Napoca–Strada Banatului (W ITTENBERGER 2005, 145). A special attention was made tothe pits number 1 and 4. The pit number 1, with a bell shape, had a uniform fill and containedrestorable pottery vessels, decorated with incisions and filled with white paste, which were placed

on the bottom of the pit, some upside down, others on the side, but most of them in normalposition (R OTEA –W ITTENBERGER 1999, 10). The shape and decoration of the vessels provesthat they were made especially for deposition. All the vessels had a large quantity of burnt seeds,like sesame (Sesamum indicum), buckwheat (Fagopyrum sagitattum) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). All the elements of the pit, the pottery and the way of deposition prove that it is aritual pit17. The inventory of pit number 4 is different from the previous one, which belonged tothe third phase of Wietenberg Culture. The Wietenberg phase four pit had a conical shape andcontained pottery fragments decorated with Breite Absatzstich, a fire place made of daub andcobble, which had on it carbonised wheat and animal bones. Further more they discovered adaub fragment with wide engraving decoration that proves the presence of a settlement in the

area (W ITTENBERGER 2005, 146–150). At Vlaha–Pad some features are different in shape and inventory and can’t be attributed

to any of the above categories, so they were considered as “special”. A shallow pit had sixteenslightly carved limestones, a grindstone broken in three pieces, fragments of other grindstones,seven pounders, and a polisher, pottery fragments and portable fireplace fragments. The entireinventory was burned before being placed in the pit. Another larger pit had a big quantity of carbonized wheat grain, two miniature chairs made of burned clay, to broken bowls, andfragments of portable fire place etc. Near the bottom of the pit a conserved barrel made of

wooden planks was found, with the dimensions of 60 × 60 cm and a height of about 10 cm. Inthis barrel and underneath burned grains were also discovered. A large bowl and a vessel with a

leg placed upside down were lying near it. In the bowl also upside down they discovered a cup, amug, and a fragment of another bowl came to light. Near it was a small vessel, a flint blade and aclay spindle. This deposition was a part of thanking to the divinity which protected the crops andthe aliments placed in the pit over the year. The cups and the carbonized wood made it a specialfeature in comparison with the simple storage pits (STANCIU E T AL. 2006, 399).

N. Boroffka organized the Wietenberg funerary discoveries in four categories: necropolis with over 8 graves, groups of graves (2–3 graves), single graves (Cluj-Napoca–Gura Baciului ) andgraves within the settlements (BOROFFKA 1994, 106). The Wietenberg cemeteries have a small–scale (Aiton–Ciolt 9 graves, Deva–Dâmbul Popii 17 and Dumbrăviţa–Stricata 24 graves) and

17 The special pits with non-funerary character were discussed in the speciality literature; the offerings to goods,the dead, spirits and animals consisting of water, milk, blood or honey could have been pored on theground and be covered with a pottery vessel. At Valea lui Mihai 28 entire vessels were discovered placed ontop of each other surrounded by animal bones and ash (R OTEA –W ITTENBERGER 1999, 11–12).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



probably represent family groups, not the entire community (BOROFFKA 1995, 275). Some, likethe ones from Floreşti–Polus with over 20 cremation graves (R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 163–165;R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 52–55; R OTEA 2009, 47–50), Gheorghieni–Valea Mare (CRIŞAN E T AL. 2009, 303–305), Bistriţa–Cetate 38 cremation graves in urn (BOROFFKA 1994, 22/57), Sibişeni

43, prove the presence of large communities in the area. They are located in the vicinity of thesettlements, about 200–400 m, but the graves from Apahida (OROSZ 1908, 179) and Noşlac–Sumughi were discovered inside the settlements (CRIŞAN 1970, 141). Half of the graves foundinside the settlements, like Bernadea, Derşida, Obreja, Sânnicoară–Lab (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992,355–357/4), express another funerary rite, the dead being places in contracted position (R OTEA

2009, 55). In the necropolis from Mereşti–Peştera Almaş , Sibişeni, Gheorgheni (CRIŞAN E T AL. 2009, 303–305), beside the cremation graves, inhumation graves were discovered. At Floreşti–Polus 94% are cremation graves and about 6% are inhumation (R OTEA 2009, 55). This rite ispracticed at the beginning and at the end of the culture. The passing to the new rite of inhumation can be placed at the end of the third phase of Wietenberg Culture, related to the

ethno-cultural changes occurred with the penetration of the Noua Culture in Transylvania(CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 77–78). Despite the fact that few necropolis were systematically researched, Aiton–Ciolt , Bistriţa–Cetate , Deva–Dâmbul Popii , Dumbrăviţa–Stricata, Sibişeni (BOROFFKA

1994, 106), Floreşti-Polus and Gheorghieni–Valea Mare , together with the smaller grave groupsand isolated graves discovered at Apahida–Râtul Viţeilor , Iernut–Hulpişti and Şimleu Silvaniei(BOROFFKA 1994, 106), they offer an uniform image of the funerary practices. The practice of cremating the dead near the cemetery and placing the cinerary remains in urns, usually covered

with a bowl as a lid is widely used in Transylvania throughout the Bronze Age, in the Wietenbergenvironment (R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 52; R OTEA 2009, 21, 55). The urns were usually withoutdecoration or had only simple decorations (grooves, knobs, incisions), but the lids were mostly

decorated. Beside the urns and the bowls rarely there are other offerings, consist of 1–4 pottery vessels (BOROFFKA 1995, 275). At Sânnicoară–Lab in a cremation grave there are three largepottery vessels, a cup decorated with incised spirals and a cup with handle (CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992,355–357/4). At Baciu–Gura Baciului there are pottery fragments from four secondarily burnedpots, being the inventory of a cremation grave (BOROFFKA 1994, 31/123, fig. 60/1–3). In thegraves we can find spindles, beads, wagon wheels, shells, decorated bone plates used for belts,beads, stone knives and animal bones, the remains of meat offerings (R OTEA 2009, 57). Otherfindings specific for the Wietenberg Culture are the “Stockknäufe ” (R USTOIU 1995, 61–72)18, likethe piece from Luna de Sus which has analogies at Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 59 pl. 23/20),miniature wagon models and clay spoon often decorated in the same manner as the pottery vessels. The clay statuettes are rare and inexpressive (BOROFFKA 1995, 275).

Pottery description

The huge quantity of pottery fragments makes the most representative archaeologicalevidence of the Wietenberg Culture, therefore I considered important to present thecharacteristic shapes and ornaments. For the pottery description we looked at the part of thevessel (mouth, neck, shoulder, body and base), the shape (bowl, pot, cup etc.), the pottery category (fine, semi fine, coarse), surface smoothing (good, medium, poor), temper used (finesand, coarse sand, gravel), outside/inside colour, firing (oxidant / reduction) and decoration

(knobs, incisions, engravings, pointullé decoration, impressions, channelling etc.).

18 Regarding the use of these clay objects with different shapes (conical, oval, vessel shapes), they couldn’t beused as spindle, because of theire rounded shape and lack of total perforation (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 50).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



1. Pot, body fragment (Fig. 2/1), coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand temper, brick-red coloured,oxidant firing, brushed decoration.2. Outcurved rim fragment (Fig. 2/3), coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand temper, brick-redcoloured, oxidant firing, decorated on the rim with oval impression.

3. Pot fragment (Fig. 2/4), coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand and gravel temper, brown/brick-red coloured, oxidant firing, secondary burning, impressed groove decoration.4. Body fragment (Fig. 2/5), coarse, medium smoothed, coarse sand and gravel temper,brown/brick-red coloured outside and coffee inside, oxidant firing, impressed groove decoration.5. Large vessel, rim fragment (Fig. 2/6), coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand temper, brick-redcoloured, oxidant firing, impressed groove decoration.6. Pot fragment, coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,undecorated.7. Rim fragment (Fig. 2/8), coarse, medium smoothed, mica and coarse sand temper, grey-coffeecoloured outside and grey inside, reduction firing, secondary burning, undecorated.8. Pot, body fragment with looped handle (Fig. 2/9), coarse, well smoothed, coarse sand and gravel

temper, coffee outside and brick-red inside, oxidant firing, secondary burning, undecorated.9. Pot, outcurved rim fragment (Fig. 8/6), semi fine, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing, decorated with an incised line, pointillé decoration (circular puncture) and

with a row of simultaneous stitching placed diagonally on the mouth of the vessel and pointillédecoration on the shoulder (VD5-Boroffka).10. Pot, outcurved rim fragment (Fig. 8/8), semi fine, medium smoothed coarse sand temper, grey coloured outside and brown/brick-red inside, poorly reduction firing, decorated inside the rim withtriangular impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern (VD6-Boroffka).11. Pot, inverted rim fragment (TA2b-Boroffka), coarse, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper,brick-red coloured, oxidant firing, undecorated.12. Pot, body fragment, coarse, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper, brick-red coloured, oxidant

firing, undecorated.13. Bowl, lobed rim fragment (Fig. 5/1), semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey-coffeecoloured, good reduction firing, decorated on the rim with wide engraving Breite Absatzstich (VB1-Boroffka) and with triangular impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern inside the rim (VD47-Boroffka).14. Bowl, lobed rim fragment (Fig. 5/2), semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, black-grey coloured, good reduction firing, decorated on the rim with Breite Absatzstich (2a-Chidioşan, VB1-Boroffka), circular puncture outside (VD5-Boroffka) and Breite Absatzstich (VB5-Boroffka) insidethe rim.15. Bowl, lobed rim fragment (Fig. 5/3), fine, well smoothed, burnished, fine sand temper, black-grey coloured, good reduction firing, decorated on the rim and neck with circular puncture (VD5-

Boroffka) and Breite Absatzstich (VB5-Boroffka), and pointillé decoration inside the rim (VD5-Boroffka).16. Bowl, bottom fragment (Boroffka TT8/27), fine, well smoothed, coarse sand temper, brick-redcoloured, oxidant firing, incised lines and pointillé decoration.17. Bowl, outcurved rim fragment (Fig. 4/3), semi fine, well smoothed, coarse sand temper,grey/brick-red coloured, oxidant firing, undecorated.18. Bowl, straight rim fragment (Fig. 4/4), semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey colouredoutside and grey-coffee inside, reduction firing, undecorated.19. Cup fragment (TC3e-Boroffka, Fig. 6/1), fine, well smoothed, the inner surface burnished, finesand temper, grey coloured, good reduction firing, and asymmetrical pointillé decoration on the shoulder.20. Cup fragment (TC2a-Boroffka, Fig. 6/2), semi fine, well smoothed, coarse sand temper,greyish/brick-red coloured, reduction firing, and asymmetrical pointillé decoration on the shoulder.21. Cup fragment? (TC3e-Boroffka, Fig. 6/3), semi fine, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper,grey coloured, good reduction firing, undecorated.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



22. Cup fragment, rim (Fig. 7/3), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, brown-grey colouredoutside and brown/brick-red inside, oxidant firing, decorated with an incised line on the rim and with aband filled with stamped Zahnstempelung on the neck.23. Cup, body fragment (Fig. 8/1), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey-coffee coloured

outside and grey inside, good reduction firing, decorated on the shoulder with a horizontal incision(VD2-Boroffka) and pointillé decoration (VD5-Boroffka).24. Cup, body fragment (Fig. 8/2), semi fine, medium smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured,reduction firing, decorated on the shoulder with triangular impressions.25. Cup, body fragment (Fig. 8/3), semi fine, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured,reduction firing, decorated on the shoulder and knob with incised lines.26. Cup fragment (Fig. 8/5), semi fine, well smoothed, coarse sand, grey coloured, reduction firing,and pointillé decoration on the shoulder.27. Cup, body fragment, semi fine, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reductionfiring, pointillé decoration.28. Body fragment (Fig. 2/1), coarse, poorly smoothed, coarse sand temper, gravel, brown/brick-red

coloured outside and grey/brick-red inside, oxidant firing, decorated with an incised line.29. Body fragment, fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing, decoratedon the shoulder with horizontal channelling.30. Body fragment (Fig. 2/2), semi fine, medium smoothed coarse sand temper, brown-grey colouredoutside and grey inside, reduction firing, decorated with incised lines.31. Body fragment (Fig. 3/4), semi fine, medium smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured,reduction firing, decorated with oblique channelling (VA-Boroffka).32. Body fragment (Fig. 4/1), semi fine, well smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reductionfiring, decorated with incisions, stitch decoration and triangular impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth”pattern with white inlay.33. Body fragment (Fig. 4/2), fine, well smoothed, burnished outside, fine sand temper, grey

coloured outside and brown/brick-red inside, reduction firing outside, oxidant firing inside, decorated with incisions, stitch decoration and triangular impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern with whiteinlay.34. Body fragment (Fig. 7/1), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,decorated with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .35. Body fragment (Fig. 7/2), fine, well smoothed, burnished, fine sand temper, brown/brick-redcoloured outside and black/grey inside, oxidant firing, decorated with incisions and a band filled withstamped Zahnstempelung .36. Body fragment (Fig. 7/4), fine, well smoothed, burnished inside, fine sand temper, brown/brick-red coloured outside and black-grey inside, oxidant firing, stitch decoration.37. Body fragment (Fig. 7/5), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,

decorated with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .38. Body fragment (Fig. 7/6), semi fine, medium smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured outsideand grey/brick-red inside, reduction firing, decorated with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .39. Outcurved rim fragment (Fig. 7/7), semi fine, medium smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing, decorated with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .40. Body fragment (Fig. 7/8), semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reductionfiring, decorated with a band of meanders filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .41. Body fragment (Fig. 7/9), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, coffee/brick-red coloured,oxidant firing, decorated with incisions and a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .42. Outcurved rim fragment, semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured outside,grey/brick-red inside, reduction firing, decorated on the rim with a band filled with stamped

Zahnstempelung , incised lines and triangular impressions, the inside with incised lines and triangles filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



43. Body fragment (Fig. 8/4), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,pointillé decoration on the neck.44. Body fragment (Fig. 8/7), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,decorated with triangular impressions and a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung .

45. Body fragment (Fig. 8/9), semi fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, grey/brick-red colouredoutside and grey inside, reduction firing, decorated with triangular impressions and a band filled withstamped Zahnstempelung .46. Body fragment (Fig. 8/10), semi fine, well smoothed, course sand temper, grey coloured,reduction firing, decorated with triangular impressions and incised lines.47. Rim fragment, fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, brown-grey coloured, oxidant firing,decorated with stitch decoration, incised line (Boroffka VD2) and circular puncture under the rim(Boroffka VD5).48. Rim fragment, fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, black coloured, reduction firing, decorated

with a row of simultaneous stitching placed diagonally on the mouth of the vessel (Boroffka VD5).49. Outcurved rim fragment (Boroffka TA4), fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, mica, black-grey

coloured, reduction firing, decorated with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung on the rim andtriangular impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern (Boroffka VD6).50. Body fragment, semi fine, well smoothed, coarse sand temper, grey coloured, reduction firing,decorated with oblique channelling on the shoulder.51. Body fragment, fine, well smoothed, fine sand temper, brick-red coloured, oxidant firing,decorated with horizontal channelling on a knob.

Pottery analysis

Based on the utility of the vessels there is a variety of shapes, we have cooking vessels,

storing vessels, for serving food or drinking. Most of the fragments from Floreşti–Poligon camefrom the body of the vessels (19 pottery fragments), and we couldn’t fit them in one of thepottery types. The large vessels are represented by pots and “bag-shaped” vessels with straight

walls (no. 1–12). They are brown/brick-red or greyish coloured. The utilitarian, coarse pottery has poor surface smoothing, related to the coarse sand and gravel temper used. The firing can beoxidant or reduction, but most of them have secondary burning which shows that they wereplaced on fire. The most common decorations are stitched and impressed groove ornamentsplaced on the body; in one case we have finger-tip impressed decoration on the rim. From thesemi fine pottery fragments we have only a bowl fragment (no. 18). The decorated fine pottery appears in less quantity. The most characteristic pottery fragments are the lobated bowls with two

types, Boroffka TE1b (no. 11) and Boroffka TE1a (no. 12–13). They are black-grey/brown-brick-red coloured, with well smoothed surface, good burning and fine sand temper, highly decorated on both sides with wide engraving Breite Absatzstich and triangular impressionsarranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern with white inlay. We have a fragment of a bowl base (BoroffkaTT8/27), decorated with incised lines and impressions. The cups (no. 20–25) are usually grey,coffee-grey and brown-grey or brick red-grey coloured, with well smoothed occasionally burnished surface, fine or coarse sand temper and good reduction firing. They were decorated onthe shoulder with horizontal incisions, pointillé decoration, oval or triangular impressions and

with a band filled with stamped Zahnstempelung on the neck.The vessels from this period are highly decorated with incisions, impressions (both with

white inlay), channelling (beginning with the oldest phase) or graphic decorations (R OTEA 2009,61). The spiral and meander motifs are present in a variety of forms (BOROFFKA 1995, 275). Inthe third phase of Wietenberg Culture we can see a development of previous decorations and

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



increase of decorated vessels. Characteristic is the use of rich and complex combinations of ornaments made with various techniques. The technique of Zahnstempelung is applied with aninstrument similar to a comb. With this method they filled meander, spiral and horizontal bands,and the space between them (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 78–79). The most important decoration motive

of the pottery from Aiton is the meander band filled with Zahnstempelung (SOROCEANU 1976,62). The Zahnstempelung motive, defining for the third phase of Wietenberg Culture appears atCluj–Becaş on a single pottery fragment (GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 9–10). The stampingtechnique was made with an instrument that had a triangular or circular end. The tip wasdeepened into the soft clay paste, giving the appearance of excisions. The imprint with triangularstamp evolved from the impressions arranged in a “wolf-teeth” pattern organized in simple ordouble interwoven successions or associated with meander motives (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 79). AtDerşida in the third phase appeared the stamping with “wolf-teeth” pattern and the meandermotives and as for the pottery shapes the bowl with lobated rim (CRIŞAN 1970, 158). Somemeanders made of narrow bands, filled with impressions could be organised as hooks and

meander ends. In the third phase the number of vessels decorated with spiral with volute orarcade ends is increasing. From the geometric motifs we can mention the tangent rhombuses andnet lined triangles. The incrustation with white inlay is a method used to cover the incised linesthat form geometrical and spiral forms. Besides the fluting technique in the third phase they startto use the channelling displayed vertically on the shoulder of the vessels (CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 79).

At the end of the third phase of Wietenberg Culture the old motif of stamped Zahnstempelung ,although it won’t disappear will be rarely used. New decoration techniques appear at this time,like wide engraving (Breite Absatzstich) or narrow engraving in band which will be more commonin the next phase. Gradually in the fourth phase the distinguishing decorations will be the wideengraving, burnished incisions, channelling and net lined triangles. At Cluj–Becaş more frequent

are the Breite Absatzstich decorations, which suggest linear or cross-shaped ornaments.D. Boroffka dates the bottom of a vessel from Viştea in XIII century B.C. stating it belongs tothe late phase of Wietenberg Culture (GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 9–13). To the same periodbelong the discoveries from Cluj-Mănăştur, Cluj Napoca–Strada Banatului and Vlaha–Pad . Therecurrence of the striated ornament can be related to the influences coming from the Suciu deSus background (K ACSÓ 1987, 72–73). Characteristic to this culture are the bowls with conicalbody and lobated rim, cups with high handle decorated with excision and incisions, decorationmotives displayed radial in the shape of floral rosette (R OTEA 2009, 23).

The lithic material from Floreşti is represented by a polished stone axe (Fig. 7/1). Itbelongs to the upper part of a grey marble axe19, preserving a part of the shaft hole, the bit

fragment is missing. Dimensions: length 55,5 mm, head width 44,3 mm, base width 47,6 mm,shaft hole 22 mm × 19,7 mm. By shape it can be catalogued as a “battle” axe (COMŞA 1972,260–261). Typologically can be considered a cylindrical head axe, with a skull cap projection.They are documented in Romania starting from the eneolithic20, being characteristic for theBronze Age21, coming from different cultural areas. There are analogy from Scandinavia to the

Aegean area, from Germany to Anatolia, certifying a wide spread of this stone axes. We know similar pieces made from metal. The closest analogies came from the Wietenberg Culture, found

19 Such marble is wide-spread in Romania; we can find a source at Valea Ierii (jud. Cluj). The marble has ahardness of 3, so it couldn’t be used as a tool or a weapon, so more likely was a prestige object. The deter-mination was made by Dr. Dana Pop, from the Mineralogy Museum, Babeş–Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca.

20 Breţcu (R OSKA 194 2 , 37/78, fig. 31/1); Pădureni (R OSKA 1942, 74 nr. 17, 75, fig. 89); Okorág (P ATAY

1968, 18, fig. 6/2); Ozd–Telek (MJM, Nr. Inv. 7031, Pl. 6/2, L AZĂR 1995, 78/XIV 4. c); Sângeorgiu deMureş (MJM Nr. Inv. 2683, Pl. 7/3, L AZĂR 1995, 211/LXXI 1 A).

21 Poieneşti (V ULPE 1953, 276, fig. 57/1); Palota (LUCA –ILEŞ 2000 , 324/pl. 2.1a).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



mostly in field surveys with pottery fragments22. In the research area we found an axe withcylindrical head at Luna de Sus–Chişter (Fig. 7/4), which have analogies at Burcedea Grânosă(T ATAI 1973, 699, fig. 3/6), Gura Arieşului (MJM, Inv. No. 4135, Fig. 7/5) and Miceştii deCâmpie (M ARINESCU 1995, 106, pl. XXXVIII/4). From the point of view of the material used

the axe were made of volcanic rock, probably diorite, which can be found at the surface mostly inthe Eastern Carpathians. Usually the battle axes have the long axis broken in two next to theshaft hole but there are few with straight axis. The shaft hole is always closer to the edge and thethickening of this area gives a grater resistivity at hitting. Information about the perforation of stone axes gave the piece from Lisnău, an unfinished condition which shows the phases of stonetool technology. After carving the stone to the wanted shape they started to perforate the shafthole from the opposite side of the handle. The perforation was made with a tubular tool; on thecore they could distinguish five perforation trace made with at least three tools of different sizes.Based on the analogies we can state that the perforation process was followed by the polishingand sharpening of the edge of the axe (MÉDER 2007, 208–210). The edge of the battle axes is

widened in both directions, a specific element that represents the transpose in stone of the shapeof metal axes. The section apart from the edge has a cylindrical or knob shape, with differentedge surface regarding its shape being more bulging or conical. Some of the axes have on the sideof the edge a crest, having a polygonal shape in section. The axes that came via exchange withother neighbouring cultural areas have a streak in relief or little knobs (COMŞA 1972, 260). Thediversity of copper axe shapes influenced the stone ones, leading to new shapes in the eneolithicperiod. To support this statement we can show two examples (P ATAY 1968, 14). In the first caseon a stone axe we have the representation of the casting seam from the moulding process of thecopper axes (P ATAY 1968, 18, fig. 5/4). In the second one the head of the axe has a mould, whichis characteristic for the copper axes caused by wear alteration (P ATAY 1968, 18, fig. 6/2). The

stone axes also influenced the shape of copper axes (P ATAY 1968, 18, fig. 6/3 a–b).

Typological and chronological conclusions:

The archaeological findings collected by field surveys are mostly fragmentary which madethe typological analysis more difficult. The settlements with pottery fragments decorated withBreite Absatzstich are later than the ones were the Zahnstempelung is the dominant ornament.Therefore considering the typology of the forms and ornament techniques of sites with knownstratigraphy, like Cluj-Napoca–Becaş , Vlaha–Pad , we can state that the pottery fragments found

at Floreşti-Poligon indicate a settlement belonging to the end of the third phase and the beginningof the fourth phase of the Wietenberg culture after Chidioşan Nicolae23 and Wietenberg C–Dafter Nikolaus Boroffka24, with the chronological framing in the Reinecke Br. C–D.

Because the majority of the stone axes are incidental findings or found in field surveystheir cultural appropriation has to be made with care. The closest analogies are linked to the Bronze

Age so the axe from Floreşti could belong to the Wietenberg settlement found at Poligon site.

*

22 Lopadea Nouă (BOROFFKA 1994, fig. 84/2); Ormeniş (BOROFFKA 1994, fig. 108/4); Derşida (CHIDIOŞAN

1980, pl. 38/17); Cetea (A NDRIŢOIU 1992, 207, pl. 39/32 şi 33); Doh–La Izvoare (BEJINARIU 2006, 34);Lisnău (MÉDER 2007, 207–211).

23 CHIDIOŞAN 1980, 77–84.24 BOROFFKA 1994, 288.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



Catalogue25

1. Apahida–Réti Östelep, Rét , Râtul Viţeilor [Bornyúk rétje], Paduritiahegy ; settlement, cremation inurn cemetery; near Râtul satului , at north-east from the village, on a terrace that rises above the Someşul

Mic bank; behind the checking point; chance discovery with the construction of the railroad in 1880;field surveys E. Orosz in 1896; chance discovery ballast exploitation in 1900; archaeological excavationKovács I. in 1901; chance discovery with the construction of the railroad in 1905; rescue excavationMonica Bodea and Felix Marcu in 1999; a 0.25–0.70 m cultural layer in the profile of the railroad; 34pottery fragments decorated with incisions, meanders, spirals, wavy lines, oblique channelling belongingto the Wietenberg Culture; a socketed axe, sickle fragment, needle (Warzenhalsnadeln) and three chiselsthat could belong to Wietenberg or Noua Culture; former E. Orosz col.; MNIT inv. no. 3149, 3154,3173, 3179, 3181, 3221, 3228, 3239, 3241, 3270, 3312, 3339, 3345, 3360, 3385, 3390–91, 3394,3400, 3466, 3507, 3567–68, 3663, 3665 3670–71, 3674–75, 3679–81, 3724, 3729, 3770; Wietenberg,Noua Culture; Bronze Age; OROSZ 1908, 172–179, 177 fig.; K OVÁCS 1911, 1–69; M ARŢIAN 1920, 6/20;P ÂRVAN 1926, 372; SCHROLLER 1933, 74/8; R OSKA 1934, 151/5d–e; HOREDT 1939; R OSKA 1941,

48/12; R OSKA 1942, 24–26/92, fig. 16–19; R OSKA 1944, 22/4, 25, fig. 3–4; POPESCU 1944, 104;HOREDT 1953, 806/3; HOREDT 1960, 110/5; CRIŞAN–D ĂNILĂ 1960, 147/4; CRIŞAN 1961/1; R USU

1964, 246–247; FLORESCU 1964, hartă nr. 65; CRIŞAN 1970, 141; D ĂNILĂ 1971, 152; SOROCEANU

1973, 498/3; SOROCEANU E T AL. 1976, 67; A NDRIŢOIU 1978, 254/2; SCHUMACHER -M ATTHÄUS 1985,243, harta 11; BULBUC 1985–1986, 416, nota nr. 6; A NDRIŢOIU 1989, 61, fig. 44; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992,31, 35/22; BOROFFKA 1994, 15/24.2. Baciu, undefined; a pottery fragment; MNIT Inv. No. II 9865; Wietenberg Culture; BOROFFKA

1994, 17/33; they also found a Coţofeni pottery fragment.3. Baciu–Gura Baciului ; cremation grave; at the mouth of Baciu stream; archaeological excavationby N. Vlassa; pottery fragments from four vessels with secondary burning that probably belonged to acremation grave; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture; BULBUC 1985–1986, 416; A NDRIŢOIU–V ASILIEV 1993,

135/12; BOROFFKA 1994, 31/123, fig. 60/1–3.4. Cluj-Napoca; settlement; undefined; pottery fragments; Wietenberg Culture (III); R USU 1964,247; CHIDIOŞAN 1974, 154/3; BOROFFKA 1994, 31/121; the findings can’t be linked to other discoveriesfrom Cluj-Napoca.5. Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I ; settlement; at approximately 150 m from the bridge over Becaş stream, atsouth-east from Cluj-Napoca, at the south end of Gheorghieni Street, near the high voltage pillars;chance discovery with land improvement works in 1987–1988 by IEELIF Cluj; archaeological excavationby Sorin Cociş and Adela Paki in 1989; 5 garbage pits with pottery fragments, daub, animal bones andstones; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture IV; LBA I; FERENCZI 1962, 44, 17i; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 138,152/60; GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 7–17; it probably belongs to the Cluj-Napoca-Becaş II settlement.6. Cluj-Napoca–Becaş II ; settlement; on a terrace, on both side of the road, at the convergence of the streams in Becaş Valley, near Moldovan families house; chance discovery with terrace levelling anddeep ploughing (0,60 m) made in 1987–1988 by IEELIF Cluj; test excavation by M. Rotea in 1994;pottery fragments; information Sorin Cociş, Gh. Lazarovici, M. Rotea; Late Wietenberg Culture;FERENCZI 1962, 44, 17i; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 138, 152/63; belongs to Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I settlement;archaeological findings belonging to other periods: pottery fragments and flint (Iclod group), amphora

25 In the making of the catalogue from the Someşul Mic Basin, I used the information existing in theliterature, mainly the monograph of Nikolaus Boroffka and the Archaeological Repertory of Cluj County.The system of organising the catalogue was proposed by dr. Florin Gogâltan, in 11 “fields”: 1. Name of thelocality; 2. Discovery type; 3. Geographical location; 4. The research methods; 5. Description of discoveries; 6. Research history; 7. The place where the materials are kept (MNIT – National History Museum of Transylvania, IAIAC – History of Art and Archaeology Institute from Cluj; Pál Gyulai col. –Pál Gyulai collection; former E. Orosz col. – former Endre Orosz collection; Greek–Catholic Theology Col.– Greek-Catholic Theology Colection); 8. Culture; 9. Date; 10. Literature; 11. Observations(GOGÂLTAN 1999, 86–88).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



fragment (Coţofeni Culture), First Iron Age, Second Iron Age, dacian-roman, early medieval (sec. VII–IX) and Medieval.7. Cluj-Napoca–Cimitirul Central [Házsongárd]; stray find; a pottery fragment; Wietenberg Culture(III?); MBA III?; W OSINSKY 1904, 26/4, fig. III/2; M ARŢIAN 1920, 15/186.

8. Cluj-Napoca–Cluj-Mănăştur , behind School no. 7 ; settlement; in the north-east area of the city, onthe lower terrace of the Someşul Mic River, on the Calvaria Hill; archaeological excavation by Şt. Kovácsin 1911 and 1912; archaeological excavation on Mănăştur Street no. 204; pottery fragments decorated

with Breite Absatstich; MNIT (Inv. No. VI 6944–7611); Wietenberg Culture IV; LBA I; R OSKA 1942,133/229; CRIŞAN 1969, 65; L AZAROVICI 1971, 79–80; D AICOVICIU–V LASSA 1974, 5–9; HICA 1974, 165;GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 13/9; R OTEA 1994, 40/11; archaeological findings belonging to other periods:First Iron Age, Late Roman and Early Medieval.9. Cluj-Napoca–Dealul Gol [Kopaszdomb]; undefined settlement; on a small hill, named Dealul Gol , the highest point of the terrace, surrounded by Calvaria, Plecica Streams and Someşul Mic, at westfrom the apartment buildings in Mănăştur district; field surveys by Şt. Ferenczi; pottery fragments madeof well burned fine paste; FERENCZI 1962, 42/17a; Wietenberg Culture; FERENCZI 1962, 42/17a;

L AZAROVICI–K ALMAR 1985–1986, 723–724; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 120, 149/2B; Mănăştur Nord is thename of a part of Mănăştur district, situated on the second terrace of the Someşul Mic River, at north of Calea Floreşti up to the Someş River. In the archaeological literature we can locate here Dealul Gol ,Stăvilar = Staţia Trafo = Staţia 110 KW = Zăgazul Someşului . The outline of the settlement is not visiblebecause of the fieldworks or in the wall of the limestone quarry; archaeological findings belonging toother periods: Upper Palaeolithic, Neolithic and First Iron Age.10. Cluj-Napoca Grădina Botanică-Sere ; settlement; on the plateau near the Botanical Gardenglasshouses, on the left bank of Ţiganilor Stream; field surveys by M. Blăjan and T. Cerghi in 1971;pottery fragments (cups, vessels with straight walls, bitronconic pots) decorated with incised and relief motifs; Early Wietenberg Culture; BLĂJAN–CERGHI 1977, 145/IIa, 144 fig. 13; BLĂJAN–T ATAI/B ALTĂ

1978, 33/21a; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 133, 151/35; BOROFFKA 1994, 31/122; the prehistoric settlement

was destroyed on the north-east side of the terrace by construction works; archaeological findingsbelonging to other periods: a stone blade and a few Coţofeni pottery fragments.11. Cluj-Napoca–Hoia [Hoja tető]; settlement; pottery fragments decorated with parallel incisedlines; MNIT; Wietenberg, Noua Culture; LBA I; W OSINSKY 1904, 26/4, fig. III/6; M ARŢIAN 1920,15/186; R OSKA 1941, 62/143; BULBUC 1985–1986, 416, nota nr. 6; A NDRIŢOIU–V ASILIEV 1993,138/49d.12. Cluj-Napoca– Marele Stăvilar [Nagygát]; settlement; on the north end of the Someş, above

Marelui Stăvilar ; chance discovery construction works, field surveys by Z. Kalmar in 1984, Z. Kalmar andGh. Lazarovici in 1985; FERENCZI, 1962, 42; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture; FERENCZI 1962, 42/17b;L AZAROVICI–K ALMAR 1985–1986, 723–724, 402–403; K ALMAR 1989, 242; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 121,149/2D; BOROFFKA 1994, 94/547; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 149/2D is mentioned two times; besides the

Coţofeni Culture findings they discovered large, black coloured, pottery fragments; in 1984 a single sherd with brick-red outside and black inside colour belonging to the First Iron Age was discovered.13. Cluj-Napoca–Piaţa Libertăţii ; settlement, archaeological excavation by C. Opreanu in 1992;information C. Opreanu; pottery fragment, Wietenberg Culture.14. Cluj-Napoca–Strada Banatului (Nagy Lajos, M. Gorki, today C. Coposu); multilayer settlement;necropolis; located on the first terrace of Nadăş Stream, tributary of Someşul Mic River, at the foot of theDâmbul Rotund hill, near the houses no. 82–84; chance discovery with the channelling of the NadăşStream, in 1934; archaeological excavation by Octavian Floca in April–May 1934; archaeologicalexcavation by M. Roska, Şt. Kovács and Al. Ferenczi in 1935; rescue excavation in 1998–2000 by IoanaHica, Mihai Meşter and M. Wittenberger; 10 ritual Wietenberg features with pottery fragments andcarbonized grains; MNIT Inv. No. 118849–119190, 130853–132200; Wietenberg III–IV and NouaCulture; MBA III-LBA I; HOREDT 1953, 98; R USSU E T AL. 1958, 51–58; FLORESCU 1964, harta nr. 63;BERCIU–POPA 1965, 45; HOREDT 1967, 139; SOROCEANU 1975, 25; CHIDIOŞAN 1979, 18, 20–22;

A NDRIŢOIU 1981, 559–560; BULBUC 1985–1986, 416, nota nr. 6; A NDRIŢOIU 1986, 31–45; FLORESCU

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



1991; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 139, 143, 152/70; A NDRIŢOIU–V ASILIEV 1993, 124, 139/49b; R OTEA 1993,36–37, pl. IV/4; BOROFFKA 1994, 31–32/125, pl. 61–62; W IETENBERGER 1994, 151–172; R OTEA –

W ITTENBERGER 1999, 7–27; W ITTENBERGER 2005, 145–151, pl. 1–3; archaeological findings belongingto other periods: Neolithic pottery fragments, an inhumation cemetery (53 contracted burials) belonging

to Noua Culture and a gepidae inhumation necropolis (23 graves) from the fifth century A.D.15. Cluj-Napoca–Strada Cireşelor nr. 55 ; settlement; field surveys by Gh. Lazarovici; 75 pottery fragments; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture; BOROFFKA 1994, 32/126, pl. 60/5–9; an Early Medieval sherd

was also found.16. Cluj-Napoca–Strada Horea; settlement; chance discovery with constructions; pottery fragments;information V. Zirra; former E. Orosz col.; Wietenberg Culture; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 131, 150/22; they also found Coţofeni pottery.17. Cluj-Napoca–Str. Matei Corvin, nr. 4 (Casa Bocskay); multilayer settlement; on the first terraceof Someş River, in the centre of Cluj on Matei Corvin Street, no. 4; archaeological excavation by DanielaMarcu-Istrate between 20.06.2001–12.07.2001; pottery fragments; information A. A. Rusu; MNIT;

Wietenberg Culture; URSUŢIU 2002, 87, nr 22; ISTRATE E T AL. 2002, 70; archaeological findings

belonging to other periods: Neolithic, First Iron Age (Basarabi Culture, Fier III, HaC), Roman andMedieval.18. Cluj-Napoca–Strada Victor Babeş ; stray find; indefinable; a pottery fragment decorated on bothsides with Zahngestempelten Mäandern; MNIT, Inv. No. II 9733 (K. Horedt); Wietenberg Culture;HOREDT 1939 A , ms; HOREDT 1960, 111/39; SOROCEANU 1973, 499/16; BOROFFKA 1994, 31/124.19. Cluj-Napoca–Subcoastă–Ferma Palocsay nr. 5 ; settlement; test excavation by T. Soroceanu andE. Todea; school collection; Wietenberg and Noua Culture; LBA I; SOROCEANU 1973, 499/17; BULBUC

1985–1986, 16, nota6; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 138, 152/59; A NDRIŢOIU–V ASILIEV 1993, 138/49c;BOROFFKA 1994, 32/127.20. Cluj-Napoca–Valea Caldă; settlement; indefinable; Wietenberg Culture; K ALMAR 1989, 242;BOROFFKA 1994, 94/548.

21. Floreşti–Dealu din Jos / Groapa lui Parip, [Alsóhegy–Páripgödre]; settlement; at north of thelocality, about 1 km from the Roman-Catholic Church, on a promontory located left of the Someşul MicRiver, on a surface of 70–80 m; field surveys by Şt. Ferenczi; Wietenberg Culture; FERENCZI 1962, 39/14b; P.U.G. 2004, 45/6; same materials were found at Cluj-Napoca–Dealul Gol .22. Floreşti–Lab [Láb]; multilayer settlement; at north of the locality, on the south slope of Tarişneadâmbului (Traistei Hill), on the terrace located left of the Someşul Mic River, at the confluence withBongar Stream; field surveys by I. Ferenczi and N. Vlassa; the dwellings were located on the edge of thepromontory, on an area of 3 ha; former E. Orosz col., MNIT, Inv. No. VI 7788–91; WietenbergCulture, OROSZ 1905, 257; R OSKA 1942, 258/66; HOREDT 1956, 142/7; HOREDT 1958, 74/5, 90/17;FERENCZI 1962, 57/67; FERENCZI 1962, 39–40/14c; R USU 1962, 286; D AICOVICIU 1974, 52, n. 11;V LASSA 1974, 18; R USU 1977, 202/19; DUMITRAŞCU 1980, 47; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 201–203/3;

BOROFFKA 1994, 43/192; PROTASE 2000, 144/101; P.U.G. 2004, 44–45/3; archaeological findingsbelonging to other periods: two flint fragments, pottery fragments (Coţofeni Culture), channelled andburnished pottery fragments from First Iron Age, roman and post-roman period (III–IV century), V–VIcentury.23. Floreşti–Poligon/La cazărmi ; settlement; on the terrace north of the locality, near the barracks, atthe high voltage pillars which ascend north-east from Someş River, on a surface of 600–700 m; fieldsurveys by D. Protase and Al. Diaconescu in 1989; field surveys by Z. Kalmar; field surveys by FlorinGogâltan in 1991; test excavation by Florin Gogâltan in 1992; test excavation by M. Rotea in 1993; fieldsurveys by Németh Rita, Rezi Botond, Gál Szilád Sándor, Tatár Árpád, Nagy Szabolcs and Nagy József in02.03.2001; field surveys by Florin Gogâltan and Babeş-Bolyai University students, in 10.10.2003;pottery fragments decorated with Breite Absatstich; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture III; MBA III; CRIŞAN E T

AL. 1992, 204–205/12; GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992, 13/14; BOROFFKA 1994, 95/551; P.U.G 2004, 46/12;archaeological findings belonging to other periods: Coţofeni Culture, First Iron Age, Roman Period andV–VI Century.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



24. Floreşti–Polus Center ; necropolis; in Floresti village, on the left side of the Cluj-Napoca–Oradeanational road, in the area known as Şapca Verde. It is bordered to the west by the Gârboului Valley andto the south by the Răzoarele Hill, which goes on to the south along the Boşorului Valley, and changes itsname into the Gârboului hill. Field survey, Mihai Wittenberger in 1998; chance discovery in 16–

24.03.2006, by Ioan Stanciu (IAIAC); preventive excavation 2006–2007; stone constructions andinhumation graves from Early Bronze Age (Copăceni group), a fragmentary menhir statue near the stonering R1. From the Middle Bronze Age more features (houses and pits) belonging to Wietenberg Culture

were discovered. From the Late Bronze Age (Late Wietenberg) in the C sector a cremation in urn (overthan 20 graves) and a inhumation necropolis was discovered belonging to Noua Culture (over 150 graves

with pots with two handles and buttons, jars, bag shaped pots, bone, bronze and gold objects);information M. Rotea, T. Tecar, M. Tecar, Fl. Gogâltan; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture; LBA II; A LICU

2008, 6–7; R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 163–165; R OTEA E T AL. 2008, 52–55; R OTEA 2009, 47–50.25. Floreşti–Dealul de Sus [Felsőhegy]; settlement; a promontory located 1500 m south from theCigadâmbul peak and 1300 m north-west of the Roman-Catholic Church; on the Someşul Mic terrace,above the Lacul de Acumulare Floreşti II , west of the barracks; field surveys by Apai Emese, Pora Katalin,

Nagy Szabolcs and Nagy József in 24. 04. 2005; pottery fragments; Wietenberg Culture; FERENCZI 1962,38–41, 53–57; M ACREA –CRIŞAN 1964, 354; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 201, 205/2; First Iron Age pottery fragments with channelling were also found.26. Gilău–Borzaş [Borzás]; settlement; located on the promontory called Borzás, at north from Gilău,near the road to Suceag; archaeological excavation in 1941 by Amália Mozsolics and Márton Roska; fieldsurveys by Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar in 2005; pottery fragments decorated with triangularimpressions, circular incisions; Greek-Catholic Theology Col., MNIT (Inv. No. VI 1061–1259, P 73018–29); Wietenberg Culture; R OSKA 1942, 100/4; R OSKA 1944, 24–25/20; HOREDT 1960, 111/58;SOROCEANU 1974, 369; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 222, 225/6; BOROFFKA 1994, 45–46/206, pl. 81/9, pl.82/13–14; R OTEA 2003, 9–11; other than Dealul Borzaş mentioned in CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 219, 225/1;two Coţofeni II–III pottery fragments and a pottery fragment decorated with Besenstrich were also

discovered (Rotea 2003, 97, pl. XVI/5).27. Gilău–Blocuri ; settlement; at east–south-east from the castrum; chance discovery with theconstruction of apartment buildings in 1980; pottery fragments; MNIT; Wietenberg and Noua Culture;LBA I; R OSKA 1942, 100/4; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 222, 225/13; BOROFFKA 1994, 46/207, pl. 81, 6–8;the prehistoric settlement is overlapped by the roman settlement.28. Gilău–Str. Suceagului ; settlement; right of the Căpuş Valley, located on the left bank of SomeşulMic, on a higher ground; survey by Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar with the sewerage systemconstruction in 2005; pottery fragments in secondary position; information Monica Tecar and TiberiuTecar; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture; the prehistoric settlement is overlapped by the roman settlement,they also found First Iron Age pottery.29. Gilău–Groapa lui Puri ; fortified settlement; indefinable; pottery fragments; Wietenberg Culture;

HOREDT 1960, 111/58; POPESCU 1966, 569; FERENCZI 1972, 409/208; V LASSA 1974, 18; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 222/11; BOROFFKA 1994, 95/553; fortified settlement with two habitation layer.30. Luna de Sus; settlement; on the right bank of Feneş Valley, north of Rotund Hill, near the 375 m;field surveys by Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar in 2004; field surveys Tiberiu Tecar and Nagy József in14.05.2005; pottery fragments, “Stockknäufe”; information Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar; MNIT;LBA II, First Iron Age.31. Luna de Sus–Chişter [Kistér]; settlement; on the Chişter Plateau, on the left bank of the FeneşValley, near the high voltage pillars; field surveys by Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar in 2004; atypicalprehistoric pottery fragments and a stone axe; information Monica Tecar and Tiberiu Tecar; MNIT;Bronze Age; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 219/3 mentioned Gilău–Chister with Neolithic stone tool findings.32. Luna de Sus–La deal ; on the terrace of Someşul Mic, north of Şuşcube , between the east foot of the Gardina Hill and the Martonoş Stream; field surveys in 2000–2003 by Monica Tecar and TiberiuTecar; field surveys by Apai Emese, Pora Katalin, Nagy Szabolcs and Nagy József in 24. 04. 2005; pottery fragments, stone tools; information Monica Tecar; MNIT; Wietenberg Culture IV; LBA I, First Iron Age.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



33. Sânnicoară–Lab; grave; on a high ground on the right bank of the Someşul Mic River, west of thevillage, on the place called Lab between the school, church and the nearby fields; undefined; field surveysin April 2004 with Tatár Árpád; archaeological excavation by M. Wittenberger in 2007; cremation gravein urn, burned bones and three large vessels, a cup decorated with incised spirals and a cup with a handle;former E. Orosz col.; Wietenberg and Noua Culture; LBA I; M ARŢIAN 1920, 34/594; R OSKA 1942,253/24, fig. 312–313; R OSKA 1944, 29/59, 34, fig. 18–19; CRIŞAN–D ĂNILĂ 1960, 147, nota nr. 3;FERENCZI 1962, 47–48; SOROCEANU E T AL. 1976, 61; A NDRIŢOIU 1978, 255; BULBUC 1985–1986,416; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 355, 357/4; similar pottery fragments were discovered at Cluj-Mănăştur–Dealul Gol , besides First Iron Age pottery fragments.34. Stolna; grave; on the village area; indefinable; funerary urn and pottery fragments; MNIT;

Wietenberg Culture; CHIDIOŞAN 1979, 21; K ALMAR 1990, 111; CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 371/1; BOROFFKA

1994, 97/581; R OTEA 1994, 40.35. Suceagu–Şarga [Sárga]; settlement; at 1–2 km North-West from the centre of the village, at thefoot of Cepegheu Hill (Csepegő, 571 m), near the Pârâul Sărjii . On the south slope at west from thevillage on a terrace called Şarga (Sárga), from a surface with the diameter of approximately 160 m;undefined; field surveys by Florin Gogâltan, Apai Emese and Nagy József in 07.05.2005; pottery fragments; Wietenberg Culture; HOREDT 1960, 114/150; FERENCZI 1962, 37–38, 55–56; CRIŞAN E T AL.1992, 375–378/5; BOROFFKA 1994, 81/437; archaeological findings belonging to other periods: CoţofeniCulture, First Iron Age, Second Iron Age (Dacian period).36. Viştea–Farkasberek ; settlement; archaeological excavation; pottery fragments; MNIT Inv. No. 219,495, 1133, 1262, 1375, 1433, 1435, 1437–1510, 3161, 3177, 3407; Wietenberg Culture; M ARŢIAN 1920,42/745; R OSKA 1942, 144/65; BOROFFKA 1994, 91/514, fig. 143, 144/1–4; archaeological findingsbelonging to other periods: Criş, Coţofeni, Otomani? Culture, First Iron Age Medieval period.37. Viştea–Kiskutverme/Korpáskút ; settlement; archaeological excavation in 1930; pottery fragmentsdecorated with Zahnstempelung . On a Wietenberg pottery fragment they found the remains of an ironobject from the XIII century B. C. (analysis D. Boros); Greek-Catholic Theology Col.; MNIT Inv. No.150, 185, 279–310, 335–341, 592–687; Wietenberg Culture (IV), Noua; LBA I; M ARŢIAN 1920,42/745; R OSKA 1942, 155/65; R OSKA 1944, 27/37; HOREDT 1960, 115/179, BOROFFKA 1987, 72–73/33, fig. 8, 8; GOGÂLTAN 1989, 14/29; BOROFFKA 1994, 91/514, fig. 144, 8–12, 145; archaeologicalfindings belonging to other periods: Coţofeni, Otomani? Culture, First Iron Age, Second Iron Age.38. Viştea–Kisrét ; settlement; archaeological excavation; pottery fragments; MNIT Inv. No. 1071,2068, 2073, 2134, 2147–55, 2162, 2737, 2763, 2797; Wietenberg Culture, Noua; LBA I; M ARŢIAN

1920, 42/745; R OSKA 1942, 155/65; R OSKA 1944, 27/37; HOREDT 1960, 115/179; SOROCEANU 1973,500/55; BOROFFKA 1994, 91/515, fig. 142, 5–10; archaeological findings belonging to other periods:Coţofeni Culture, First Iron Age, Second Iron Age.39. Viştea–Păluta [Palota/Pad]; settlement; north–north-east from the village, on the lower terrace of the Nadăş Stream, on the place named Pălută; rescue excavation by V. Crişan in 1991 with theconstruction of the 1F road and the bridge across the railway; rescue excavation made by C. Opreanu,S. Cociş and Monica Bodea in 1998; pottery fragments; MNIT Inv. No. 1165, 1434, 1443a, 1457,1480, 1494, 1528,1544, 1849; Wietenberg Culture (III), Noua; MBA III; M ARŢIAN 1920, 42/745;R OSKA 1942, 155/65; R OSKA 1944, 27/37; HOREDT 1960, 115/179; SOROCEANU 1973, 500/55; CRIŞAN

1994, 357–365; BOROFFKA 1994, 91/516, fig. 144, 5–7; OPREANU–COCIŞ 2004, 275–279; in 1991 they dug 3 sections with the dimensions of 8 × 1,60 m in the north-east of the terrace, located near the road;the archaeological diggings in 1998 were made at the 16 km, on the left side of the road (Cluj-Napoca)between profiles no. 1472–1476; archaeological findings belonging to other periods: Coţofeni Culture,First Iron Age, Second Iron Age, roman period and XVI century.40. Vlaha, com. Săvădisla; multilayer settlement; on a terrace located west of Racoş Stream, from thevillage area, and the property of prof. Gyulai Pál and Jakab Anna from Dâmbului Street, no. 92; chancediscovery (fieldworks) Gyulai Pál; test excavation by Gh. Lazarovici and Gyulai Pál in 1977; field surveys

Nagy József in April 2004; habitation layers, pottery fragments; information Gh. Lazarovici; Pál Gyulaicol., MNIT; Wietenberg Culture IV, Noua; LBA I; K ALMAR 1984, 395/45, CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992, 433;archaeological findings belonging to other periods: Neolithic, Iclod II group, Petreşti Culture, First Iron

Age (Fier I–II, HaB).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



41. Vlaha–Pad ; settlement, cemetery; located in the south-west of Vlaha, on the terrace of the FinişelStream (known by the locals as Racoş), tributary of Someşul Mic River, from a surface of approximately 1,5ha; field surveys made in 5 August 2004 by Ioan Stanciu, Florin Gogâltan and Apai Emese; archaeologicalexcavation Ioan Stanciu (responsible), Florin Gogâltan (IAIAC) and Molnár Zsolt (BBU Cluj) between

02.08–05.12.2004 and 14.02–31.10.2005, which lead to the digging of an area of 5236 m2

, approximately 46% of the sites surface; archaeological excavation Ioan Stanciu (responsible), Florin Gogâltan (IAIAC) and Apai Emese between 12.06–30.10.2006, they researched an area of 5764 m2 (1,10 ha) 73% of the entiresettlement; they discovered 1296 features, out of which 289 gepidae inhumation graves (Reihengräberfelder)from the VI century A.D., the rest were related to the prehistoric habitation. Beside the Late Bronze Agesettlement they identified a few features from the First Iron Age (dwellings, pits, surface houses); IAIAC;

Wietenberg and Noua Culture; LBA II and III (Br.D–HaA Central European), First Iron Age (HaB2, Fier II),Second Iron Age (Latène B2) and VI century A.D.; STANCIU E T AL. 2005, 404–406/243; STANCIU E T AL.2006, 398–399/218; the archaeological findings mainly the kidney shaped cups have close analogies in thesecond level of habitation at Teleac and Mediaş which allow the dating in Fier II (HaB2 Central European).

Literature

A LDEA 1975 Aldea, I. Alexandru, Şantierul arheologic Ghirbom (com. Berghin, jud. Alba).II. Aşezarea Wietenberg de “Sub vii” [ Archäologische AusgrabungsstätteGhirbom (Gemeinde Berghin, Kreis Alba, II. Die Siedlung Wietenberg bei“Sub vii”], Apulum, 13, 25–33.

A NDRIŢOIU 1978 Andriţoiu, Ioan, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii Otomani din sud-vestulTransilvaniei, ActaMN, XV, 63–85.

A NDRIŢOIU 1981 Andriţoiu, Ioan, Necropola din epoca bronzului de la Târnava (jud. Sibiu),SCIVA, 32, 553–561.

A NDRIŢOIU 1986 Andriţoiu, Ioan, Contribuţii la cunoşterea culturii Noua în sud-vestulTransilvaniei, Thraco-Dacica, VII, 1–2, 31–45. A NDRIŢOIU 1992 Andriţoiu, Ioan, Civilizaţia tracilor din sud-vestul Transilvaniei în epoca

bronzului , BiblThrac, II, Bucureşti. A NDRIŢOIU–V ASILIEV

1993 Andriţoiu, Ioan–Vasiliev, Valentin, Câteva consideraţii privind cultura Nouaîn Transilvania, Apulum, XXVII–XXX, 121–146.

BEJINARIU 2006 Bejinariu, Ioan, Două topoare de piatră din judeţul Sălaj, [Two Stone Axesfrom Sălaj], Marisia, XXVIII, 33–42.

BEJINARIU 2008 Bejinariu, Ioan, Stadiul cercetării epocii bronzului şi primei epoci a fierului peteritoriul Sălajului, [The researches stage of Bronze Age and First Iron Age inSălaj county], StComSatu Mare, XXII/I, 93–98.

BERCIU

–POPA

1965 Berciu, Ion–Popa, Alexandru, Un nou cimitir de tip Noua de la Teiuş, Apulum, V, 1965, 39–50.BERECKI E T AL. 2005 Berecki, Sándor–Daróczi-Szabó, László–Daróczi-Szabó, Márta, Archaeo-

zoological finds from Ernei–“Quarry”, Sargetia, 33, 113–125.BLĂJAN–CERGHI 1977 Blăjan, Marius–Cerghi, Tiberiu, Cercetări arheologice la Aiton, Cluj-Napoca

şi Răchiţele (jud. Cluj), (partea I-a), [Recherches archéologique à Aiton, Cluj-Napoca et Răchiţele (de. Cluj)], Sargetia, XIII, 131–147.

BLĂJAN–T ATAI-B ALTĂ

1978Blăjan, Marius–Tatai-Baltă, Cornel, Descoperiri din epoca neolitică şiperioada de tranziţie spre epoca bronzului în jud. Sibiu, Alba şi Cluj (I),[Neolithische, Äneolthische und Endäneolithische Funde in den KreisenSibiu, Alba und Cluj (I)], Apulum, XVI, 9–36.

BOROFFKA 1987 Boroffka, Nikolaus G. O., Folosirea fierului în România de la începuturi pânăîn secolul al VIII-lea î.e.n., Apulum, XXIV, 55–77.

BOROFFKA 1994 Boroffka, Nikolaus G. O., Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, Teil 1 und 2 UPA, 19, Bonn.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



CHIDIOŞAN 1974 Chidioşan, Nicolae, Sincronismele apusene ale culturii Wietenberg stabilite pebaza importurilor ceramice [Die westlicher Syncronismen der WietenbergKultur, die haben auf der keramischen Importen festgesetzt], Crisia, 4, 153–170.

CHIDIOŞAN 1979 Chidioşan, Nicolae, Raport asupra săpăturilor arheologice întreprinse în anul1978 în satul Tăşad, comuna Drăgeşti [judeţul Bihor], Materiale XIII,Oradea, 85–89.

CHIDIOŞAN 1980 Chidioşan, Nicolae, Contribuţii la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul României. Aşezarea Wietenberg de la Derşida [Contributions à l’histoire des thraces dunord-ouest de la Roumanie. L’établissment de la culture Wietenberg deDerşida], Oradea.

COMŞA 1972 Comşa, Eugen, Date despre uneltele de piatră şlefuită din epoca neolitică şidin epoca bronzului de pe teritoriul României, SCIV, 23/2, 245–262.

CRIŞAN 1969 Crişan, Ion Horaţiu, Ceramica daco-getică. Cu specială privire la Transilvania,Bucureşti.

CRIŞAN 1970 Crişan, Ion Horaţiu, Necropola de incineraţie aparţinând culturii Wietenberg-Sighişoara de la Bistriţa, [La necropole d’incineration apartenant á

la civilisation de Wietenberg-Sighişoara de Bistriţa], Materiale, IX, 137–160.CRIŞAN–D ĂNILĂ 1960 Crişan, Ion Horaţiu,–Dănilă, Ştefan, Cimitirul de incineraţie din epoca

bronzului de la Bistriţa, [La nécropole à incineration de l’âge du bronze deBistriţa], Materiale, VII, 145–150.

CRIŞAN E T AL. 1992 Crişan, Ion Horaţiu–Bărbulescu, Mihai–Chirilă, Eugen–Vasiliev, Valentin– Winkler, Iudita, Repertoriul Arheologic al Judeţului Cluj , Bibliotheca MuseiNapocensis V, Cluj.

CRIŞAN 1994 Crişan, Viorica, Săpăturile de salvare de la Viştea–„Păluta”, [The savingdiggings from Viştea–„Păluta”], ActaMN, 31, 357–365.

CRIŞAN E T AL. 2009 Crişan, Viorica–Pupeză, Paul–Nagy, Szabolcs–Gergely, Balazs–Tecar,Tiberiu, 150. Gheorgheni, com. Feleacu, jud. Cluj, Punct: Valea Mare, Cod

sit: 57617.04, Walachica, 21–22/2008–2009 – număr aniversar cu ocaziaîmplinirii a 40 de ani de la apariţie (1969–2009), Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România/ Campania 2008: [prezentată la] a XLIII–a Sesiune Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice , Târgovişte, 27–30 mai, 2009, MirceaVictor Angelescu, Irina Oberländer–Târnoveanu, Florela Vasilescu, OvidiuCîrstina, Gheorghe Olteanu (eds.), Bucureşti, Târgovişte, 303–305.

D AICOVICIU–V LASSA

1974Daicoviciu, Hadrian–Vlassa, Nicolae, Consideraţii privind unele descopeririarheologice din zona Cluj-Napoca, AMN, XI, 5–18.

D ĂNILĂ 1971 Dănilă, Ştefan, Săpăturile arheologice din 1962 de la Bistriţa, Sesiunea decomunicări ştiinţifice a muzeelor de istorie, Bibl.Muzeelor , 6, 151–162.

FERENCZI 1962 Ferenczi, István, Régészeti-helyrajzi kutatások Kolozsvárott és könyékén (I),

[Recunoaşteri arheologice în oraşul Cluj şi în împrejurimile sale] StudiaUBB,series Historia, fasciculus 2, 31–58.FLORESCU 1964 Florescu, Adrian C., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Culturii Noua, [Contribution

á la connaissance de la civilisation de Noua], ArhMold, II–III, 143–216.FLORESCU 1991 Florescu, Adrian C., Repertoriul Culturii Noua–Coslogeni din România,

Cultură şi civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos, IX, Călăraşi.GOGÂLTAN 1999 Gogâltan, Florin, Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul

inferior al Mureşului. I. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal [Die Frühe und Mittlere Bronzezeit im rumänischen Banat und am Unterlauf der Marosch. Die Chronologie und die Metallfunde] , BiblHistArchBanatica, XXIII, Timişoara.

GOGÂLTAN 1999–2000 Gogâltan, Florin, Aspecte privind metalurgia bronzului în Bazinul Carpatic.

Ciocanele şi nicovalele cu toc de înmănuşare din România [Aspekte derBronzeverarbeitung im Karpatenbecken. Die Tüllenhämmer undTüllenambosse aus Rumänien], EphemNap, IX–X, 5–59.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



GOGÂLTAN E T AL. 1992 Gogâltan, Florin–Cociş, Sorin–Paki, Adela, Săpături de salvare la Cluj–Becaş–1989 [Rescue Excavations at Cluj–Becaş–1989], EphemNap II, 7–17.

GOGÂLTAN–T AMBA

1992Gogâltan, Florin–Tamba, Dan, Materiale arheologice aparţinând culturii

Wietenberg descoperite la Şimleul Silvaniei [Archaeological materialsbelonging to Wietenberg Culture discovered at Şimleul Silvaniei], ActaMP,

XVI, 61–78.HICA 1974 Hica, Ioana, Urme de locuire din secolul al IV-lea e.n. la Cluj-Mănăştur,

[Wohnspuren aus dem IV. Jh. n.z. in Cluj-Mănăştur], In memoriamConstantin Daicoviciu, Cluj, 165–175.

HOREDT 1939 Horedt, Kurt, Vorgeschichtliches und Archäologisches, SV , 62, 120–125.HOREDT 1953 Horedt, Kurt, Cercetările arheologice din regiunea Hoghiz, Ugra şi Teiuş , MCA,

1, 1953, 785–815.HOREDT 1958 Horedt, Kurt, Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens , Bucureşti.HOREDT 1960 Horedt, Kurt, Die Wietenbergkultur, Dacia N.S., IV, 107–137.HOREDT 1967 Horedt, Kurt, Problemele ceramicii din perioada bronzului evoluat în

Transilvania, [Probleme der Jüngerbronzezeitlichen Keramik inTransilvanien], StComSatu Mare, 13, 137–157.

ISTRATE E T AL. 2002 Marcu Istrate–Daniela, Istrate–Angel Simina–Marcel, Stamati, Iurie, 70.Cluj-Napoca, jud. Cluj Punct Str. Matei Corvin nr. 4–Casa Bocskay, IN: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 2001, A XXXVI-a sesiune naţionalăde rapoarte arheologice.

K ACSÓ 1987 Kacsó Carol, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Verbreitungsgebietes und derChronologie der Suciu de Sus-Kultur, Dacia N.S., XXXI, 51–75.

K ELEMEN 2006 Kelemen Imola, Gospodărirea animalelor în aşezarea aparţinând bronzului târziu de la Vlaha, jud. Cluj , Masters Paper.

K OVÁCS 1911 Kovács István, Az apahidai őskori telep és La-Tene-temető, [La stationpréhistorique et le cimitiére de l’époque La-Téne de Apahida], Dolgozatok

(Cluj), I, 1–69.K OVÁCS 1913 Kovács István, A korpádi őstelep [La station préhistorique de Korpád],

Dolgozatok (Cluj), IV, 1–17.L AZAROVICI 1971 Lazarovici, Gheorghe, Sondajul arheologic de la Deuş [Die Suchgrabung von

Deuş], Apulum, IX, 71–82.L AZAROVICI–K ALMAR 1985–1986

Lazarovici, Gheorghe–Kalmar, Zoia, Prospecţiuni şi cercetări arheologice desalvare pe teritoriul municipiului şi judeţului Cluj [ArchäologischeSondierung und Rettungsgrabungen auf dem Gebiete de Munizipiums unddes Kreises Cluj], ActaMN, 22–23, 723–740.

L AZĂR 1995 Lazăr, Valeriu, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Mureş , Casa de Editură„Mureş”, Târgu Mureş.

LUCA –ILEŞ 2000 Luca, Sabin A.–Ileş, Constantin, Kupferne, bronzene und steinerne Werkzengeund Waffen aus Sammlungen des “Emanoil Gojdu”–Lyzeums aus Grosswardein /Oradea /Nagyvárad [Unelte şi arme de cupru, bronz şi piatră aflate încolecţiile liceului „Emanoil Gojdu” din Oradea], Tibiscum, X, 323–332.

M ARŢIAN 1909 Marţian, Iulian, Archäologisch-prähistorisches Repertorium für Siebenbürgen, MittAnthrGeselsh, 39, Wien, 321–358.

M ARŢIAN 1920 Marţian, Iulian, Repertoriu arheologic pentru Ardeal , Bistriţa, “Tipografianaţională” G. Matheiu.

MÉDER 2007 Méder, Lóránt-László, Bronzkori balta Lisznyó határából, Adatok a bronzkorikőbalták készítéstechnikájához, [Ein Steinaxt aus de nähe von Lisznyó Datenzu Anfertigungtechnik der Steinäxte aus der Bronzezeit] Acta Siculica, 207–216.

OROSZ 1901a Orosz Endre, A “petrisi” őstelep Szamos–Újvárt. Első közlemény 17–28;Második közlemény, 146–163; Harmadik közlemény, ArchÉrt, 21, 220–234.OROSZ 1901b Orosz Endre, Húsz ismeretlen ősemberi telepről Erdélyben” (Despre douăzeci de

aşezări preistorice necunoscute din Transilvania).

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



OROSZ 1905 Orosz Endre, Ősrégészeti adatok a Kis-Szamos folyó völgyéből, Erdélyi Múzeum, 22, 303–312.

OROSZ 1908 Orosz, Endre, Az apahidai “Réti őstelep” (Kolozs megye), ArchÉrt, 28, 172–179.OPREANU–COCIŞ 2004 Opreanu, Coriolan–Cociş, Sorin, Villa romană de a Viştea (jud. Cluj), [The

roman villa at Viştea (Cluj county)], ActaMP, XXVI, 275–282.P ATAY 1968 Patay Pál, A tiszavalki rézfokos, [Copper Battle-Axe from Tiszavalk], FolArch,

XIX, 9–22.P ÂRVAN 1926 Pârvan, Vasile, Getica: o preistorie a Daciei , Bucureşti, Cultura Naţională.POPESCU 1944 Popescu, Dorin, Die frühe und mittlere Bronzezeit in Sibenburgen, Bucureşti,

Muzeul Naţional de Antichităţi.PROUX 1941 Proux, Alfred, Die Schneckenbergkultur , Kronstadt.P.U.G. ŞI R.L.U 2004 P.U.G. şi R.L.U Comuna Floreşti , Memoriu general, vol. I.R OSKA 1941 Roska, Márton, Az aeneolithikum Kolozskorpádi I. jellegű emlékei Erdélyben,

[Die aeneolithishen funde der gattung Kolozskorpád in Siebenbürgen],Közlemények, 1, 44–99.

R OSKA 1942 Roska Márton, Erdély régészeti repertóriuma I. Őskor [ ArchäologischesRepertorium von Siebenbürgen I. Urzeit], Thesaurus antiquitatumtranssilvanicarum, Tom I. Praehistorica, Kolozsvár.

R OSKA 1944 Roska Márton, A kolozskorpádi II. kulturfacies kerámiai emlékei Erdélyben [Die keramischen Reste der Kultur-Fazies Kolozskorpád II.], Közlemények, IV,1–2, 22–44.

R OTEA 1993 Rotea, Mihai, Aşezările culturii Wietenberg [Les étabilissements de la culture Wietenberg], EphemNap, III, 25–41.

R OTEA 1994 Rotea, Mihai, Penetraţia culturii Otomani în Transilvania. Între realitate şihimeră [Le pénétration de la civilisation d’Otomani en Transylvanie. EntreRéalité et Hymére], Apulum, XXXI, 39–57.

R OTEA

1994 Rotea, Mihai, Sondaj arheologic la Pălatca–“Poderei” [Sondage archéologique áPălatca–“Poderei”], ActaMN, 31, 1, 351–356.R OTEA 2003 Rotea, Mihai, Grupul Copăceni I , BiblMuzBistr, Seria Historica.R OTEA 2009 Rotea, Mihai, Pagini din preistoria Transilvaniei. Epoca Bronzului , Cluj-Napoca.R OTEA –

W ITTENBERGER 1999Rotea, Mihai–Wittenberger, Mihai, The ritual complex of the WietenbergCulture, Cluj-Napoca (Transylvania), ActaMN, 36, 1, 7–27.

R OTEA E T AL. 2008 Rotea, Mihai–Tecar, Monica–Nagy Szabolcs–Pupeză, Paul, Sasaran,Luminiţa–Tecar, Tiberiu, Floreşti–Polus. Arheologie şi termoluminiscenţă,Călin Cosma, S. Varvara, Mihai Gligor (ed.), Vârste absolute prin metode nucleare de datare , Cluj-Napoca, 160–180.

R OTEA E T AL. 2008 Rotea, Mihai–Tecar, Monica–Nagy Szabolcs–Pupeză, Paul Tecar, Tiberiu–

Săsăran, Luminiţa, Floreşti–Polus Center. Preliminary Observations, ActaMN, 43–44/I, Cluj-Napoca, 47–88.R USTOIU 1995 Rustoiu, Gabriel, Tipologia “capetelor de băţ” aparţinând culturilor bronzului

mijlociu din România, BCSS 1, 61–72.R USU 1964 Rusu, Mircea, Depozitele de bronzuri de la Rebrişoara (raionul Năsăud reg.

Cluj), [Les dépôts d’objects en bronze de Rebrişoara (distr. de Năsăud, rég. deCluj)], ArhMold , II–III, 237–250.

SCHROLLER 1933 Schroller, H., Die Stein und Kupferzeit Siebenbürgens , VorgeschichtlicheForschungen, Heft 8, Berlin.

SCHUMACHER -M ATTHÄUS 1985

Schumacher-Matthäus, G., Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten imKarpatenbecken. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der Hortfunde im Karpatenbecken,

Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte , 6, Mainz.SOROCEANU 1973 Soroceanu, Tudor, Descoperirile din epoca bronzului de la Obreja (jud.

Alba), [Die Bronzezetlichen Funde von Obreja (Bez. Alba)], ActaMN, X,493–515.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



SOROCEANU 1975 Soroceanu, Tudor, Însemnătatea cimitirului de la Mokrin pentru cronologiaepocii timpurii a bronzului în Banat [Die Bedeutung des Gräberfeldes vonMokrin f ür die Chronologie der frühen Bronzezeit aus dem Banat], Banatica, III, 33–48.

SOROCEANU E T AL. 1976

Soroceanu, Tudor–Blăjan, Marius–Cerhgi, Tiberiu, Cimitirul de incineraţiede la Aiton, File de Istorie, IV, 57–81.

STANCIU E T AL. 2005 Stanciu, Ioan–Gogăltan, Florin–Ursuţiu, Adrian–Bârcă, Vitalie–Rusu, Adrian A.–Apai Emese, 243. Vlaha, com. Săvădisla, jud. Cluj, punct: Pad (AutostradaBraşov–Borş, tronson 2B, Km 42+200–45+000), IN: Mircea Angelescu,Victor–Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Irina–Vasilescu, Florela, (ed.), Cronicacercetărilor arheologice din România: campania 2004: [prezentată la] a XXXIX ediţie a Sesiunii Anuale de Rapoarte Arheologice, Mangalia mai 2005, Bucureşti,CIMEC, 404–406.

STANCIU E T AL. 2006 Stanciu, Ioan–Gogâltan, Florin–Molnár Zsolt–Apai Emese–Ardeleanu,Marius–Ferencz Szabolcs–Nagy József Gábor, Asztalos István–Rezi Botond–Tatár Arpád–Rádu Zoltán–Rusu, Virgil–Sâvu, Alin–Tanasiciuc, Daniel–

Todea, Mircea, 243. Vlaha, com. Săvădisla, jud. Cluj, punct: Pad (AutostradaBraşov–Borş, tronson 2B, Km 43+000–44+000), IN: Angelescu, MirceaVictor–Vasilescu, Florela (ed.), Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România:campania 2005: [prezentată la] a XL ediţie a Sesiunii Anuale de Rapoarte

Arheologice , Constanţa 31 mai—3 iunie 2006, Bucureşti, CIMEC, 398–400.STANCIU E T AL. 2007 Stanciu, Ioan–Gogâltan, Florin–Apai Emese–Ardeleanu, Marius–Ferencz

Szabolcs–Sava, Victor–Daroczi Tibor–Dobos Alpár–Komáromi Zsolt–Fodor,Gelu–Ardelean, Florin–Marchiş, Ioana–Tanasiciuc, Daniel–Lăzărescu, Vlad–Irimuş, Luciana–Culic, Daniela–Cociş, Alexandra–Kiss Tünde–Marchiş,Elena–Moraru, Alexandru–Sucală, Andreea–Antal, Adriana–Gui, Monica–Emöke, Zalomi–Milăşan, Flavius–Diacu, Maria Magdalena, 206. Vlaha, com.

Săvădisla, jud. Cluj, punct: Pad (Autostrada Braşov–Borş, tronson 2B, Km43+000–44+000), IN: Angelescu, Mircea Victor–Vasilescu, Florela (ed.),Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România: campania 2006: [prezentată la] a

XLI-a Sesiune Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice , Tulcea, 29 mai–1 iunie 2007,Bucureşti, CIMEC.

STOICOVICI–BLĂJAN

1979Stoicovici, Eugen–Blăjan, Marius, Unelte şi arme de piatră descoperite înîmprejurimile Mediaşului (jud. Sibiu) [Steinwerkzeuge und-Waffen aus derumgebung von Mediaş (Kr. Sibiu)], Apulum, XVII, 31–64.

T ATAI 1973 Tatai, Cornel, Unelte litice preistorice în colecţiile muzeului din Blaj, Apulum, XI, 693–702.

V ULPE 1953 Vulpe, Radu, Săpăturile de la Poieneşti din 1949, Materiale arheologice privind

istoria veche a R.P.R , vol. I, 213–506. W ITTENBERGER 2005 Wittenberger, Mihai, Groapa rituală nr. 4 din Str. Banatului, Cluj-Napoca,Fontes Hitoriae, Studia in Honorem Demetrii Protase , 145–151 şi planşele nr.1–3.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



Wietenberg discoveries from Cluj-Napoca and its sorroundings:

Rep. No. Place of discovery:1 Apahida Réti Östelep, Rét , Râtul Viţeilor [Bornyúk rétje], Paduritiahegy

2 Baciu3 Baciu–Gura Baciului 4 Cluj-Napoca5 Cluj-Napoca–Becaş I 6 Cluj-Napoca–Becaş II 7 Cluj-Napoca–Cimitirul Central [Házsongárd]8 Cluj-Napoca–Cluj-Mănăştur 9 Cluj-Napoca–Dealul Gol [Kopaszdomb]10 Cluj-Napoca–Grădina Botanică–Sere 11 Cluj-Napoca–Hoia [Hoja tető]12 Cluj-Napoca– Marele Stăvilar [Nagygát]

13 Cluj-Napoca–Piaţa Libertăţii 14 Cluj-Napoca–Str. Banatului (Nagy Lajos, M. Gorki, today C. Coposu)15 Cluj-Napoca–Str. Cireşelor nr. 55 16 Cluj-Napoca–Str. Horea 17 Cluj-Napoca–Str. Matei Corvin, nr. 4 (Casa Bocskay)18 Cluj-Napoca–Str. V. Babeş 19 Cluj-Napoca–Subcoastă–Ferma Palocsay 20 Cluj-Napoca–Valea Caldă 21 Floreşti–Dealu din Jos / Groapa lui Parip, [Alsóhegy–Páripgödre]22 Floreşti–Labu [Láb]23 Floreşti–Poligon/La cazărmi

24 Floreşti–Polus Center 25 Floreşti–Dealul de Sus [Felsőhegy]26 Gilău–Borzaş [Borzás]27 Gilău–Blocuri 28 Gilău–Str. Suceagului 29 Gilău–Groapa lui Puri 30 Luna de Sus31 Luna de Sus–Chişter 32 Luna de Sus–La deal 33 Sânnicoară–Lab 34 Stolna35 Suceagu–Şarga 36 Viştea–Farkasberek 37 Viştea–Kiskutverme/Korpáskút 38 Viştea–Kisrét 39 Viştea–Păluta [Palota/Pad]40 Vlaha41 Vlaha–Pad

List of figures

Fig. 1. Map of Wietenberg sitesFig. 2–8. Floreşti–Poligon. Wietenberg pottery Fig. 9. Bronze Age Stone Axes. 1. Floreşti–Poligon, 2. Ozd–Telek , 3. Sângeorgiu de Mureş, 4. Luna de

Sus–Chişter , 5. Gura Arieşului

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G


8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



Fig. 2. Floreşti–Poligon. Wietenberg pottery.

8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G




8/3/2019 09 Nagy J G



Fig. 9. Bronze Age Stone Axes.1. Floreşti–Poligon, 2. Ozd–Telek, 3. Sângeorgiu de Mureş, 4. Luna de Sus–Chişter, 5. Gura Arieşului.

09 nagy j g

Documents