A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 44. (Nyíregyháza, 2002)

Régészet - Zsolt Székely: Ethnocultural interferences and interpenetrations in South-Eastern Transylvania in the Bronze Age

Ethnocultural interferences and interpenetrations in South-Eastern Transylvania... 1999. 13^1), Rotbav (FLORESCU 1991. 187, Fig. 15: 4-5) and an isolated find from Tara Bärsei (Brasov, "Ziegelei Schmidt"), assigned by Al. Prox to the Tei Culture (PROX 1940. 86-101). The place of discovery of this culture, named "Dämbul Cetatii'-Vardomb, was known in the special literature already from the beginning of the last century. Al. Ferenczi pointed to it in the series of Dacián castles, in the inter-war period. M. Roska, on the basis of the ceramic material, published by Al. Ferenczi dated them to the Bronze Age (FERENCZI 1932-38. 290-296, ROSKA 1942. 59). As a consequence of the systematical excavations made in 1956, 1960 and 1967 by Zoltán Székely, it was established that this settlement was inhabited in the Eneolithic Age (Ariu§d-Cucuteni Culture), in the transition period (Cotofeni Culture), and in the Bronze Age (Ciomortan and Wietenberg Cultures). As a result of these excavations a new cultural aspect was introduced in the special literature, unknown before in Transylvania, which represents the first development phase of the Middle Bronze Age in the south-east of Transylvania. Systematic research was resumed at Ciomortan in the summer of 1999, by a research group which still continues. As a result of this recent research, we have more and more information about this fortified settlement. The first occupation phase of the settlement can belong to the Cucuteni-Ariu§d Culture, with some pottery fragments of Bodrogkeresztúr Culture, and the next level above belongs to the Cotofeni Culture. The fortification contractions, the vallum and the ditch belong to the Ciomortan Culture. The stratigraphical conditions clearly show that the habitation level of the Ciomortan Culture went before the Wietenberg culture. The stratigraphical observations and the potsherds clearly confirmed the chronological suggestion of Zoltán Székely made 40 years ago. The Wietenberg settlement can be dated to the period after the Ciomortan occupation. The Ciomortan type potsherds have similarities with the material of Costi§a Culture (VULPE-ZAMOSTEANU 1962. 309-316) and also with Middle Glina, Schneckenberg and Monteora IC

3 (SZÉKELY 1971. 387-400). Owing to the fact that Costisa Culture developed in the territory of Moldavia during the whole Middle Bronze Age, the potsherds of this culture present a greater variety than the Ciomortan type's (CAVRUC-DUMITROAIA 2000. 133) ones. As a result of some minor penetrations of Costi§a type from the east and ones of the GlinaSchneckenberg and Tei types from the south, mingled with some elements of the Zoltán group of Iernut-Gornea-Vodneac type, this cultural phenomenon had become independent around the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in South-East Transylvania. We can probably consider it as an independent culture among the Costi§a-Ciomortan-Komarow-Bialy Potok cultural complex. This one was contemporary with the Monteoru IC

3 phase and as such has a pre-Wietenberg chronological position, similarly to the group of urn graves discovered in Bratei (ROMAN 1986. 45). The natural evolution of these communities was interrupted by the representatives of the Wietenberg Culture, a fact confirmed by the stratigraphical observations made at the Ciomortan settlement (CAVRUC-ROTEA 2000. 158). Wietenberg Culture was dominant in Transylvania during the Middle Bronze Age. As a result of the ample research made in the last century in different regions of Transylvania, our knowledge on the development of these culture became larger, even though several problems concerning the genesis and its development still need to be clarified. We did not propose to analyse the attempts of internal division of periods of this culture. Those who were dealing with this problem, D. Berciu, K. Horedt, N. Chidio§an, T. Soroceanu, N. Boroffka (ANDRITOIU-RUSTOIU 1997. 58), M. Rotea relied on some archaeological-historical evidence found in