A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Studia Archaeologica 5. (Szeged, 1999)

Florin GOGÂLTAN: The Southern Border of the Otomani Culture

XXI-XLV, Lllb; GOGÂLTAN 1998a, 197).

3 The analysis of the finds from previous investigations at Corneçti (RADU 1972; RADU 1972a; SOROCEANU-RADU 1975) and Satu Mare (MILLEKER 1906. 100-104; CHILDE 1929. 287; POPESCU 1944, 135; DUMITRESCU 1961, 202 n. 9. 210 n. 3; BONA 1975. 181-182, 184-187; SOROCEANU 1991. 140 no. 140. PI. 47. 3-4, PI. 85. 1, 8. 10. 12; KACSÓ 1998), as well as the new excavations at Foeni-Gomila Lupului,

4 enabled me to study the pottery of the Cornesti-Crvenka group. Mapping the distribution territory of this group revealed that many finds of this group are known from the area north of the Mures river.

5 One of these is the settlement at Cicir (PÄDUREANU 1973, 399^100, Fig. 3). As a result of their obvious connections with the Socodor tell, Eugen Pädureanu assigned the majority of these sites to the Otomani culture (PÄDUREANU 1973; PÄDUREANU 1985; PÄDUREANU 1988). In order to verify this statement, any discussion has to consider the Socodor settlement. The first archaeological excavations at Socodor-Caväjdia were conducted by Márton Roska and Nicolae Covaciu in 1930. The finds from this excavation are practically unpublished, with the exception of a general description of the site (ROSKA 1941, 57; ROSKA 1942, 271. no. 194; COVACIU 1944). The finds themselves are in part housed in the museum of Cluj and in part in the museum of Arad. The stratigraphical context of these finds remains unknown. The excavations at Socodor were resumed in 1948 by Dorin Popescu; the finds from his investigations are now housed in the collection of the Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest (POPESCU 1949, 88-91). D. Popescu published the results of his investigations in a detailed report in 1956 (POPESCU 1956a). T. Soroceanu conducted another excavation in the 1970s, but unfortunately this excavation was never completed.

6 As a result of these investigations, we now know the following about the Socodor-Caväjdia tell: its diameter is approximately 90 meters. In contrast to earlier suggestions, the tell was not fortified; the earthwork bank encirling the tell reveals a similarly intensive occupation as the settlement core (POPESCU 1956, 103; POPESCU 1956a. 44-45). Settlements of this type - resembling atolls - are common in western Romania: good examples include Värsand (POPESCU 1956, 103-106), Girisu de Cris (ORDENTLICH 1971. 24: BADER 1978, 35; DUMITRASCU 1989, 1I9)

7 and Cäpleni (BADER 1978,35).

8 The archaeological deposits accumulated to a height of about 1.6 meters, and a total of five occupation layers could be distinguished, proving the accuracy of observations made by M. Roska and D. Popescu. As far as the archaeological material — and especially the pottery — is concerned, one should bear in mind D. Popescu's observation that "the material from the five layers is basically the same. Only pottery fragments decorated with incisions occur more frequently from a depth of 60 cm" (POPESCU 1956a, 44). This is proven by the systematic presentation of the pottery finds (presented according to every 20 cm), as well as by the illustrations accompanying D. Popescu's article. I observed a similar phenomenon at Foeni-Gomila Lupului where the development of the ornamental repertoire was insignificant, in spite of the roughly 1.50 m thick cultural deposits. It must here be mentioned that T. Soroceanu has kindly granted me access to the finds from M. Roska's excavation at Socodor (the finds are housed in the History Museum of Cluj).

9 I selected the most distinctive pieces in terms of form and decoration from these finds. However, my plates do not reflect the actual proportion of decoration and potteiy forms. As I emphasized in the above, nothing is known about the stratigraphie context of these finds and thus a statistical analysis is nearimpossible. D. Popescu published the finds from his excavation according to the depth where they had been found. The pottery finds in the Museum of Arad have much in common with the assem3 Nicola Tasic assigned these assemblages to the Verbicioara culture (TASIC 1984, 85; TASIC 1998, 35). Several years ago, Romanian archaeologists considered these finds to be characteristic of the Vatina cidture (RADU 1972; RADU 1972a; SOROCEANU-RADU 1975; LAZAROVICI

1977, 90-93; MORINTZ 1978, 17-22; LAZAROVICI-SÄCÄRIN 1979, 77-81; etc.). 4 Stratigraphical survey carried out by Fl. Gogâltan in 1994. 5 Cp. also GUMÄ 1997, Fig. 4-5. 6 T. Soroceanu, personal communication. 7 In the course of a 1996 survey, I realized that the earthen bank surrounding the tell was not a fortification but an inhabited area. 8 BADER 1978, 33-36, PL XI; BADER 1982, offers a good overview ofthe occupation patterns of the Otomani culture in Romania. 9 I would here again like to express my gratitude to Professor Tudor Soroceanu for his kind support of my work.