Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 30/1. (2010)
Articles
8 Á. Cs. Balázs in the published results. In the D section,9 extended by two squares to the north (F of 7 x 7 m and F of 5 x 5 m), and another two squares to the south (G of 7 x 7 m and Gj of 7 x 5 m),10 11 two dwellings were revealed. The traces of the first dwelling (L ), partially disturbed, were revealed also in the squares F (south-western corner) and G( (east side). It was a large, surface house, probably with two rooms, divided by a large, 2.50 m rectangular shaped stone block (a possible threshold?). Unfortunately the F: and G! squares were not extended to uncover the entire dwelling. We believe that it would have been particularly useful to extend the Gj square to south-west. Judging by the limits of the adobe outlined in the section D, and square G]; a considerable part of the dwelling has remained untapped, and the stone slabs under the 30 cm thick house floor, the 2.5 m long shaped stone threshold, the rich and diverse inventory suggests that this was a particular, large house. In the south-eastern corner of the G1 square, the remaining of an inhumation grave (Mj),11 oriented NE-SW, was discovered. But, because V. Lazar mentioned the tomb as being “disarranged in ancient times”12 without giving any other details, and since the skeleton lacks anatomical connection, the possibility of a misinterpretation is to be taken into account. Reburial or pre-burial excarnation procedures with subsequent burial of the disjointed skeleton should also be carefully considered. The scattered human bones discovered on the platform of three surface houses and in a pit-house from the settlement are suggestive of such a funeral rite. V. Lazar believes it might be a magic-religious practice of slashing corpses or anthropophagism.13 Up to the present moment we know only from the Igrita Cave (Pe§tera Igrita) certain Cotofeni burials with disjointed skeletons.14 Unfortunately no anthropological analysis were performed, which could confirm or rule out completely that the disjointed and fragmented condition of the bones discovered in this settlement was caused by mutilation or intentional chopping right after the death or partially maybe even before. The second surface dwelling (L ), cut by the D section and marked also by the large quantity of burned adobe, was also completely unveiled. Its northern limit was noticed in section F and its southern limit in section G. The finds from the D section and from the lateral squares, other possible dwellings or houses, made V. Lázár to open in 1976 two more sections here, at the southernmost extremities of the G and G: squares. Noted G, and G3, the sections were 30 x 1.5 m NE-SW orientation, and parallel. In the G2 section in the yellow clayey layer, which overlaps the marl layer, numerous pits of different sizes and shapes were found, with various archaeological materials. Compared with the other sections, this contained modest traces of culture, except the earlier mentioned pits. In the parallel section, both the yellow sandy layer that overlaps the marl layer, and the silty yellow layer above are rich in archaeological materials. It was necessary to open six more squares here, laterally, and in the extension of the G, section to fully unveil the surface dwellings found here. But the exact position of these squares is unclear in the campaign report published by V. Lazár, while there is a discrepancy in the dimensions of the squares, and the original drawings made by the author.15 To determine the exact position of these, we have made a reconstruction based on the original sketches from the 1974-1977 campaign (Fig. 1). 9 About the section I, opened in the top of the plateau in 1975, we have only stratigraphic data, V. Lazar gives no information about the findings. 10 Lazar 1977, 25. 11 The later mention of this grave (Lazár 1995, 252), as being discovered in section D, is obviously an error. 12 Lazar 1977,47. 13 Lazar 1982, 37. 14 Emődi 1984, 406-407. 15 Lazár 1977, 22, pl. I; VII.15
