Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 1. (2019)
Sándor Berecki, Attila Nándor Hágó: A neolithic Settlement from Tărgu Mureş. I. The Courtyard of the Fortress
8 S. Berecki - A. N. Hágó with a few identified features. On the territory of the fortress the site was investigated through trenches and surfaces. In some cases, the modern filling layer - which in some places was more than 1-metre-deep - was removed mechanically (Pl. 1/2). The most significant results for the Neolithic site were provided by the excavations from the courtyard of the Petru Maior University, where a considerable quantity of pottery and animal bones were unearthed, which will be the subject of a later study. The first investigations determined the stratigraphic chronology of the site, which was almost uniform throughout the fortress. The earliest settlement dates to the Early Neolithic, then the plateau was inhabited again in the Late Bronze Age.5 The first levelling of the plateau can be dated to the beginning of the Early Iron Age, when an open settlement existed on this place.6 Based on scarce Roman discoveries it seems that in the first centuries AD a small settlement was established on this terrace, and was followed by another habitat dating from the Early Migration Period.7 Another important settlement was documented for the Early Middle Ages,8 when large scale levelling preceded the building of the church and Franciscan friary during the fourteenth century. The building of civilian households in the middle of the sixteenth century was followed by the construction of towers and a fortification system in 1604-1658. This was a period of important landscape transformations. A new phase of building erections and reconstructions began in 1711 with the establishment of the Habsburg garrison in the fortress. Therefore, one can reflect on the intensity of the disturbance generated by later settlements and ground levelling activities to the prehistoric sites. The most significant intervention was undoubtedly caused by the construction of the friary the foundations of which were dug down into the Bronze Age layer, while some dwellings, such as the cellar or the combustion chamber of the heating system were deepened into the sterile clay layer. Furthermore, the lime pits of the modern restauration works were often deepened into the Neolithic layer (Pl. II/l). The Neolithic layer appeared at different depths from one area to another, on the one hand, as a result of the historical and recent anthropic ground levelling works of the terrace, and on the other, because of the natural slopes and uneven surface of the plateau (Pl. II). Generally, it appeared at an average depth of more than 2 metres from the present surface. In trench S1/1999, near the church, the lower part of the Neolithic layer was at 3.05 m with a significant agglomeration of archaeological material at 2.40-2.90 m. In trench SI 1/2001 and surface C7/2004 from the territory of the Franciscan friary the Neolithic layer was identified between l. 80 and 2.60 m again with a significant material agglomeration at 2.30-2.60 m, while in S23/2007 Neolithic finds were found 1.60-2.00 m deep. In sector В (Pl. 1/2) the sterile clay stratum below the Neolithic layer appeared at a depth of 1.80 m, while in sector C (north of the friary, in the central area of the fortress) as well as outside the fortress towards east, in the courtyard of the university, this layer was at a depth of 1.15-1.30 m. The data suggests that during the Neolithic the hill had a slightly higher plateau in the area of the church, and gentle, uneven slopes in all directions with not too extensive, lower terraces. Based on the horizontal stratigraphy of the site the Neolithic settlement covers a relatively large area. Unfortunately, the lack of major archaeological features from this period does not allow the evaluation of the settlement. Since the excavations revealed only an open air hearth - a rare occurrence in this period9 - and two furbished surfaces, probably floors or clay platforms. The 5 From the archaeological excavations of Al. Bogdan, Molnár and Peticä (2001) published few Copper Age materials however, since the recent excavations did not document any traces from this period, we consider that either the Copper Age settlement was restricted only to the perimeter researched by the archaeologist from Bucure^ti, or - more likely - the published materials came from another site (most probably §incai-Cetatea Pägänilor), which got mixed accidentally in the deposit with those from the fortress. 6 Berecki 2013a; 2013b; 2015. 7 Körösfői 2009. 8 László 2008. 9 Maxim 1999, 56.
