Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Southeast Romania)

Abstract

The Eneolithic cemetery of Sultana-Malu Roşu is located in the southeast of Romania, Sultana village, in
the commune of Mânăstirea, Călăraşi County. From a cultural point of view it was used by two communities
belonging to the Boian and the Gumelniţa cultures. Between 2006 and 2011 50 inhumation graves have
been discovered there. Most of the graves are similar to each other and, in terms of basic elements of the rite
and funerary rules, they reflect common burial traditions characteristic to the Eneolithic sequence.
Most of the skeletons were found in normal anatomical position. Most of them had been laid in a foetal
position (lateral, dorsal or ventral) on their left side. Only in three cases were the skeletons lying in foetal
positions on their right side. There is no relationship between the age or sex of the individuals and the
position of the skeletons. Re-burials represent a special situation. We consider these situations as representing
the result of accidental or exceptional circumstances that did not allow for normal conduction of funerary
rites. This paper will try to present the traditions, rules and exceptions identified in the cemetery from Sultana-
Malu Roşu based on the archaeological evidence.

Full text

BAR International Series 2410
2012
Homines, Funera, Astra
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Funerary Anthropology
5-8 June 2011
‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University
(Alba Iulia, Romania)
Edited by
Raluca Kogălniceanu
Roxana-Gabriela Curcă
Mihai Gligor
Susan Stratton

Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of Brish Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2410
Homines, Funera, Astra: Proceedings of the Internaonal Symposium on Funerary Anthropology.
5-8 June 2011, ‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University (Alba Iulia, Romania)
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012
ISBN 978 1 4073 1008 4
Cover image: Alba Iulia-Lumea Noua - Human Remains. Trench III/2005, Square B (-0,70-0,80m). Foeni cultural group
(4600-4500 BC). Copyright Mihai Gligo
This work was possible with the nancial support of the Sectorial Operaonal Program for Human Resources Development 2007-
2013, co-nanced by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the tle ‘Social sciences
and humanies in the context of global development -development and implementaon of postdoctoral research’.
Printed in England by 4edge, Hockley
All BAR tles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all tles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
107
Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
(Southeast Romania)
Cătălin Lazăr
Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, Romania
Mădălina Voicu
Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, Romania
Gabriel Vasile
Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, Bucureşti, Romania
Abstract
The Eneolithic cemetery of Sultana-Malu Roşu is
located in the southeast of Romania, Sultana village, in
the commune of Mânăstirea, Călăraşi County. From a
cultural point of view it was used by two communities
belonging to the Boian and the Gumelniţa cultures.
Between 2006 and 2011 50 inhumation graves have
been discovered there. Most of the graves are similar to
each other and, in terms of basic elements of the rite
and funerary rules, they reflect common burial
traditions characteristic to the Eneolithic sequence.
Most of the skeletons were found in normal anatomical
position. Most of them had been laid in a foetal
position (lateral, dorsal or ventral) on their left side.
Only in three cases were the skeletons lying in foetal
positions on their right side. There is no relationship
between the age or sex of the individuals and the
position of the skeletons. Re-burials represent a special
situation. We consider these situations as representing
the result of accidental or exceptional circumstances
that did not allow for normal conduction of funerary
rites. This paper will try to present the traditions, rules
and exceptions identified in the cemetery from Sultana-
Malu Roşu based on the archaeological evidence.
Key words
Cemetery, graves, primary and secondary burials,
Eneolithic, Romania, Southeastern Europe
Generally, the study of funerary practices represents an
important source of information about the life of
prehistoric communities. Burials offer an unique
perspective about the past, regarding the funerary rites,
habits, spiritual beliefs and social organization of a
particular society, traditions and innovations, similarities
and differences between cultures, and the presence or
absence of interactions between the people of
neighboring and distant cultures (Nikolova 2002). That
is why burials have continually exercised a special
attraction for anthropologists and archaeologists.
In this context cemeteries are a special case, because
they represent an association of several graves
belonging to one or more communities, contemporary
or not, constituting an exceptional source of
information, throwing light on many aspects of life and
death in prehistoric societies (Todorova 1978, 74).
Also, cemeteries can provide evidence of specific
funerary traditions, the evolution of funerary space,
changes to burial behavior, variability and many
particular customs of past communities.
In this paper we will try to explore the particular case
of one of the most recent cemeteries discovered in
Romania, Sultana-Malu Roşu, because it has been the
subject of complex interdisciplinary research that
allowed us to record some original data on specific
funerary behaviors of the Eneolithic communities in
Romania.
Geographical and geological setting
The Eneolithic cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu is
located in the northern area of the Balkan region, in the
southeast of Romania, on the right bank of the old
Mostiştea River (which has been converted into several
artificial lakes), about 7 km from the Danube river,
near the border with Bulgaria (Figure 1). From an
administrative point of view the site is located in
Sultana village, Călărași County.
The Mostiştea Valley (about 92 km long) is located in
the southeast of the Romanian Plain and runs into the
Danube from the north. A succession of lakes has
formed along the valley either by natural processes or
as a result of anthropogenic interventions (Gâşteanu
1963; Ghiţă 2008). On the right side of the valley lies
the high plain of the Bărăgan Cornulesei Mostiştea
Plain that ends south, at the Danube, with large terraces
fragmented by valleys formed by the northern
tributaries of the Mostiştea River. The right side of the
valley makes the transition to the Bărăgan itself
through a fragmented valley plain (Mihăilescu 1925;
Coteţ 1976; Ghiţă 2008).
In terms of the geomorphological setting, the site of
Sultana-Malu Roşu is positioned at the intersecting area
of the Vlăsiei, Mostiştea and Bărăganul Lehliului
Plains (Figure 1), an area characterized by the extent of
loess and saucer fields (Coteţ 1973; Ghiţă 2008).The
soil formed on loess deposits and in some areas there
are small sand hills. The great thickness of the loess
deposits (>20 m), the depth of the water table and the
great density of saucers and suffusion gullies had
favored the repartition of specific soil classes

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
108
(Mihăilescu 1969; Ghiţă 2008). The underground water
table may be found at a low depth. The altitude for this area is between 4 and 80 m above Black Sea level
(Mihăilescu 1925, 1969; Gâşteanu 1963; Ghiţă 2008).
Figure 1. Map of Romania and the location of the Sultana-Malu Roşu site.
Table 1 contains the geographic coordinates of the
cemetery area. The corresponding absolute altitude of
this area is at least 45.021 m and maximum 46.740 m.
All data are reported in the STEREO-70 projecting
system of coordinates and 1975 Black Sea elevation
system reference.
North Latitude
East Longitude
44° 15' 40.3292"
26° 52' 2.6103"
44° 15' 40.3577"
26° 52' 2.8609"
44° 15' 39.4114"
26° 52' 3.0610"
44° 15' 39.1235"
26° 52' 1.3720"
44° 15' 39.7711"
26° 52' 1.2342"
44° 15' 39.9275"
26° 52' 2.6986"
Table 1. The geographical coordinates (latitude / longitude)
of the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery.
The chronological and cultural framework
From the cultural point of view, the cemetery of
Sultana-Malu Roşu was used by two communities
belonging to the Boian and the Gumelniţa cultures.
Both cultures belong to large Eneolithic cultural
complexes, Boian-Maritsa-Karanovo V and
Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI respectively
(Table 2), which cover almost all the Balkan area
(Todorova 1978; 1986; Dumitrescu, Bolomey and
Mogoşanu 1983; Bojadjiev, Dimov and Todorova
1993; Comşa 1993; Petrescu-Dâmboviţa 2001a; 2001b;
Popovici 2010).
Most archaeologists consider that the Kodjadermen-
Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultural aggregate originated
from the evolution of the Boian-Maritsa-Karanovo V
cultural complex (in the case of the Boian culture only
the final phases, as the earliest phases belong to the
Middle Neolithic). This phenomenon occurred so
rapidly that from its origin it can be referred to as a
unique culture with regional attributes (Dumitrescu,
Bolomey and Mogoşanu 1983; Petrescu-Dâmboviţa
2001b; Popovici 2010).
Generally, Romanian researchers use the terms Boian
and Gumelniţa cultures. The general chronology of these
two cultures is presented in Table 2 and covers the end
of the 6th millennium BC, the whole 5th millennium BC
and the beginning of the 4th millennium BC.
Culture Phase
General
Chronology
Boian
Vidra
5000-4500 BC
Spanţov
Gumelniţa
A1
4500-3700 BC
A2
B1
Table 2. The Eneolithic chronological and cultural sequence
in Southeastern Romania.
Based on AMS radiocarbon dating obtained for Sultana-
Malu Roşu cemetery (n = 5) we can estimate that the
graves belong to the probable chronological interval

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
109
range of 5071 - 4450 cal BC (91.8% - 95.4%
probability). From a cultural point of view, this means
that the graves can be included in the Vidra and Spanţov
phases of the Boian culture, corresponding to the A1 -
A2 phases of the Gumelniţa culture. However, if we
consider the cultural sequence represented in the tell
settlement of Sultana-Malu Roşu, then in the future it
may also be possible to find graves belonging to the B1
phase of the Gumelniţa culture. On the other hand, these
radiocarbon data indicate that Sultana-Malu Roşu
cemetery was in use for approximately 600 years.
Obviously, this is just a preliminary observation; future
excavations and the new radiocarbon data will bring
supplementary explanations about the chronological
range of the use of this cemetery.
Archaeological background
The Eneolithic site of Sultana-Malu Roşu was the first
Gumelniţa site submitted to scientific research at the
beginning of twentieth century (Andrieşescu 1924). At
that moment research on the tell settlement began, and
this process continued until the '80s (Isăcescu 1984a;
1984b). The flat settlement from the Boian culture was
discovered in the '70s after a survey of the area, and it has
never been excavated (Şerbănescu and Trohani 1978).
The cemetery was found many years later by the
authors, in 2006, based on an interdisciplinary research
program (Trohani et al. 2007; Andreescu and Lazăr
2008). The archaeological research in the necropolis of
Sultana-Malu Roşu is an ongoing project, with 50
graves so far discovered.
From a methodological point of view, our research of
the cemetery involved a series of geo-magnetic
prospects, a cartographical platform managed through a
Geographic Information System (GIS), aerial research
to investigate the evolution of the landscape,
microstratigraphic methods used to record the
stratigraphic data, and sampling for
paleoparasitological, paleodietary, DNA, and 14C
analysis (Lazăr et al. 2008; 2009).
Figure 2. The 3D reconstruction model of the Sultana-Malu Roşu site.
Traditions and rules
Generally, tradition is defined as what is preserved
from the past and retained in the present, being
accepted by those who receive and who in turn transmit
it across generations. This involves the perpetuation of
certain practices and customs deemed to be necessary
and worthy of being preserved and passed on (Pouillon
1999, 673).
In the case of funerary customs we are dealing with a
projection of the collective identity of the communities
through conservative rules. They are reflected by the
location of cemeteries in relation to the settlement, the
organization of the graves in the funerary area, the
treatment given to the dead, gestures performed by the
participants at the funerary ceremony, etc.
On the other hand, in the case of prehistoric burials
things are more complicated due to the lack of
complementary information sources (historical or
literary texts, inscriptions, oral sources, direct
observations, etc.). Under these conditions, the data
provided by archaeological excavations remain the
only evidence able to help us in identifying the process
of funerary traditions and rules characteristic to the past
communities.
The cemetery and its relationship with the settlements
The main funerary form for the Eneolithic communities
from Romania and the Balkans are extramural
cemeteries, although there are also other forms of
treatment of the deceased (e.g. intramural necropolises,

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
110
burials inside the settlement). During the Eneolithic
period cemeteries become an authentic funerary
standard, a special kind of use of space involving a
separation of the domestic area from the funerary area,
a spatial and conceptual delimitation of the living from
the dead (Lazăr 2011).
Most probably, burial in cemeteries away from
settlements indicates a parallel and a deeper decoupling
of ritual practices through the creation of more public
performance space to express the individual and group
identities (Bailey 2000, 208; Chapman et al. 2006,
171). Generally, the cemeteries were probably located
in affordable, manageable areas unused for economic
activities. The area separating the cemeteries from the
settlements also seems to have been easily accessible
(flat or sloping) and at a short distance (with a few
exceptions - see below) allowing transport of the
deceased to the necropolis.
In the case of Sultana-Malu Roşu two settlements
belonging to two different communities used the same
cemetery (Figure 2). The cemetery is located on the
high terrace of the Mostiştea Lake, at 150 m (±1 m)
west from the Gumelniţa tell settlement (from Sultana-
Malu Roşu) and 320 m (±1 m) east from the Boian flat
settlement (Sultana-Gheţărie). The Sultana-Malu Roşu
cemetery is in the middle-distance visibility range
according to Higuchi’s visibility indices (Higuchi
1983), which shows again that the necropolis and the
settlement are always inter-visible (Lazăr 2011).
Most of the Eneolithic cemeteries from the Balkans are
associated with a single settlement (Comşa 1974a;
1974b; Todorova 1978; 1982, 1986; Lazăr 2011). Only
in a few cases is a single cemetery associated with
multiple settlements, as in the case of our cemetery. In
three of those situations we have an association with
two settlements (Căscioarele, Durankulak and probably
Cernica), and only in one case probably more than two
settlements (Varna I), demonstrating that the Sultana-
Malu Roşu case is not a exception (Margos 1961, 128-
129; 1978, 146-148; Şerbănescu 1996a; 1998; I. Ivanov
1993, 20; Cantemir and Bălteanu 1993, 3; Şerbănescu
and Şandric 1999; Marinescu-Bîlcu 2000, 115; Lazăr
2001a; Comşa and Cantacuzino 2001; Dimov 2002, 28;
Boyadžiev 2008, 85-87; Slavchev 2010).
Based on the archaeological information and
radiocarbon data it is clear that these communities were
not contemporary, and therefore there is continuity in
the use of cemeteries, which reflects a tradition in the
funerary rules of those people and perhaps even
descendant communities.
Internal structure and organization of the cemetery
The graves from Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery are
grouped on the terrace edge and slopes. In terms of
planimetry, the graves are placed at variable distances.
In some cases they are placed at distances of under 1
m, forming apparent groups (e.g. graves 4 and 5;
graves 8 and 12; graves 9 and 11, graves 14 and 24,
graves 25 and 22), whereas in other instances graves
are more distanced from each other (Figure 3).
Generally, with few exceptions, the graves seem to be
aligned into parallel rows oriented to the direction east-
northeast (Figure 3).
The same organization of the graves was identified in
other Eneolithic cemeteries in the Balkans: Goljamo
Delčevo, Targovište, Vărăşti-Grădiştea Ulmilor and
probably Devnja (Todorova-Simeonova 1971;
Todorova et al. 1975; Angelova 1986; 1991; Comşa
1995).
Besides the graves found in the perimeter of the
cemetery, some pits, which are connected with the
funerary process, were also discovered (Figure 3). Four
pits have so far been discovered (C6/2007, C1/2009,
C1/2011 and C2/2011). They had a circular shape,
variable dimensions, and contained pottery fragments,
charcoal, burnt clay fragments, stones, animal bones,
shells, etc. In our opinion the presence of such
complexes in the area of the cemeteries may be related
to certain stages of the funerary ceremony (possibly
remains of the funerary banquet), or may reflect some
commemorating ceremonies. Materials from the pits
could be the result of dedicated deposition of the
deceased. Similar cases have also been identified in
other Eneolithic cemeteries from the Balkan area (e.g.
Vinica and Măriuţa-La Movilă) (Radunčeva 1976, 75-
77, 80-81; Parnic et al. 2007, 231).
Grave structures
The burials presented here are individual. They consist
of ordinary pits devoid of plaster lining or any traces of
related constructions. Based on the data collected so
far, the graves from the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery
were not marked on the surface, or the markings that
were potentially used were made of materials that did
not preserve.
The altitudes for the base of the pits are between -1.03
m and -2.20 m, some in the layer considered to
represent a palaeosoil from the prehistoric period (s.u.
T1003) and others in the loess layer (s.u. T1004). The
elevations of the tops of the grave pits vary between
0.65 m and 1.90 m and the levels from which the pits
were dug were between -0.70 m and -1.80 m beneath
the prehistoric layer (s.u. T1003).
In most of the cases the shape of the pits was
predominantly oval and irregular, except for some
secondary burials (graves 16, 19, 20 and 37) when the
pits were circular (Figure 3). In the case of primary
burials, considering the burials that contained
articulated skeletons, the size of the pits was close to
the size of the bodies. In the case of secondary burials
some of the pits are larger than necessary (graves 3, 10,
20, 23 and 37), whereas others have a smaller size to fit
the skeletal parts placed in them (grave 16).
The situation from Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery falls
within the series of cases known from other Eneolithic
cemeteries, where the funerary pits had irregular oval
shape, of varying sizes, depending on the size of the

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
111
dead bodies (e.g. Devnja, Durankulak, Vinica,
Chirnogi-Şuviţa Iorgulescu, Vărăşti-Grădiştea Ulmilor,
Sultana-Valea Orbului, Goljamo Delčevo, Măriuţa-La
Movilă, etc.) (Todorova-Simeonova 1971; Todorova et
al. 1975; Radunčeva 1976; Bălteanu and Cantemir
1990; Comşa 1995; Şerbănescu 2002; Boyadžiev 2006;
Lazăr and Parnic 2007).
Figure 3. The general plan of the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery.
Figure 4. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – grave 35.
Figure 5. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – general view.
The orientation of the pits from Sultana-Malu Roşu
cemetery was very consistent, along an east - west axis
(Figure 7). Even some of the reburials (graves 20, 23,
27, 28) seem to have had the same orientation (Figure
3). Only a few cases (graves 2, 3, 26 and 43) had a
different orientation, which was closer to a north -
south axis.
The orientation along an east - west axis is also known
in other necropolises belonging to Eneolithic period
(Goljamo Delčevo, Căscioarele-D’aia parte, Curăteşti,
Radingrad, etc.) (Todorova et al. 1975; T.G. Ivanov
1982; Şerbănescu 1996a; Şerbănescu and Soficaru
2006). This way of positioning the funerary pits may
reflect a rule turned into a tradition, transmitted from
generation to generation, from Boian communities to
the Gumelniţa communities.
The treatment of the dead – primary burials
Most of the graves followed the same pattern (Figure
6). The majority of individuals were laid out in a foetal
position (laterally, dorsal or ventral), on the left side, in
normal anatomical order (Figures 5 and 6). There were
a few graves with the skeleton in other positions. From
a total of 50 graves, a number of 31 deceased were
placed crouched on the left side and only four (graves
22, 24, 26 and 41) on the right side. Also, there was
one case with the skeleton in ventral extended position
(grave 35 – Figure 4).

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
112
Figure 6. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – body position ratio
(n = 36).
The deposition of the dead in a foetal position on the
left side is also characteristic for other Eneolithic
necropolises from the Balkans. It is very interesting
that this type of deposition of the deceased is
characteristic both to cemeteries belonging to the
Boian culture (e.g. Andolina, Curăteşti, Popeşti-
Vasilaţi, Sultana-Valea Orbului), and also for the
Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultural
complex (e.g. Vărăşti-Grădiştea Ulmilor, Targovište,
Kubrat, Chirnogi-Terasa Rudarilor, Chirnogi-Şuviţa
Iorgulescu, Măriuţa-La Movilă, Vinica, Goljamo
Delčevo, Gumelniţa) (Mikov 1927; Comşa 1974a;
1974b; 1995; Todorova et al. 1975; Radunčeva 1976;
Şerbănescu 1985; 1999; 2002; 2007; Angelova 1986;
1991; Bălteanu and Cantemir 1990; Şerbănescu and
Soficaru 2006; Lazăr and Parnic 2007). Most of these
cemeteries also contained individuals deposited in a
crouched position on the right side, but in a very small
percentage. We also know some cemeteries, especially
in the Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultural
complex, where individuals deposited in a crouched
position on the right side represent the majority (e.g.
Durankulak). However, these cases probably represent
exceptions (Dimov, Boyadžiev, Todorova 1984;
Todorova and Dimov 1989; Todorova 2002).
The deposition of the bodies in a crouched position on
the left side can be considered as another funerary rule
transmitted by the Boian communities and inherited by
the Gumelniţa communities. Obviously this process of
transmitting rules was not total and absolute, as there
are many cases which show other preferences or other
funerary rules.
A special case in terms of position is the individual
from Grave 35 from the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery
(Figure 4). It was deposited in an extended position on
the back. The legs are crossed and the upper part of the
body was twisted towards the right. From the cultural
point of view this grave can be assigned to the Boian
culture, based on AMS radiocarbon data (6020 ± 40
BP). For this case some elements of similarity can be
found in the Boian cemetery from Cernica, where there
have been found many skeletons in the extended
position, in nine graves skeletons having their lower legs
crossed (Comşa and Cantacuzino 2001), as in the case of
Grave 35 from the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery.
Figure 7: Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – orientation of the
funerary pits (n = 49).
The orientation of the individuals from the Sultana-
Malu Roşu cemetery was determined by the orientation
of the funerary pits. In most cases (92%) they were
placed with the head close to the eastern direction, in
the range between 65° ENE and 88° E (Lazăr et al.
2008, 2009). There is no relationship between the
position of the individuals and their orientation.
The preferential eastwards orientation of the dead has
also been observed in other Eneolithic cemeteries from
the Balkan region: Chirnogi-Terasa Rudarilor,
Chirnogi-Şuviţa Iorgulescu, Kubrat, Vărăşti-Grădiştea
Ulmilor, Tărgovište, Radingrad, Vinica, Măriuţa-La
Movilă, Căscioarele-D’aia parte, Curăteşti, Popeşti-
Vasilaţi, Gumelniţa, etc. (Mikov 1927; Comşa 1974a;
1974b; 1995; Radunčeva 1976; T.G. Ivanov 1982;
Şerbănescu 1985; 1988; 1996a, 1996b; 1998; 1999;
Angelova 1986; 1991; Bălteanu and Cantemir 1990;
Lazăr 2001b; Şerbănescu and Soficaru 2006; Lazăr and
Parnic 2007).
The orientation of the bodies seems to be another
important funerary rule for these prehistoric
communities. In this case, again, we are dealing with
strong traditions which are perpetuated by the people
of the Boian culture to those of the Gumelniţa culture.
Treatment of the dead – secondary burials
Secondary burials represent a special situation. We use
the term “reburial” in a very inclusive sense since some
of the complexes exhibit features that make the
tenability of this interpretation delicate.
So far, we have identified nine such cases in the
Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – graves 3, 10, 16, 19, 20,
23, 27, 28 and 37 (Figure 14). Generally, they all

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
113
contain human bones from a single individual. Only in
Grave 28 have the long bones from two individuals
been found. Usually these graves contained the same
skeletal elements (long bones, skulls, ribs, vertebrae
etc.). Except for Grave 23, they all contained
disarticulated skeletal elements without anatomical
connection.
Figure 8. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – grave 16.
The reburials can be divided in two categories: graves
containing skeletal remains that were apparently
selectively grouped (graves 10, 16, 23 and 28) (Figure
8), and graves containing random skeletal elements
(graves 19, 20, 27 and 37).
These characteristics, as well as the stratigraphic
relationships of these complexes recorded in the field,
seem to indicate the intentional deposition of the
osteological remains in pits, and on the basis of
archaeological data we exclude the possibility of later
intervention. We consider these situations as
representing the result of accidental or special
circumstances that did not allow for the normal
conduction of funerary rites. Alternatively, these
complexes may reflect differential treatment of certain
individuals of the community, exclusive practices, or
occasional habits.
Similar situations are also known in the Eneolithic
necropolis of Varna I (burials type 1.D, as catalogued
by the author of the excavations), Vărăşti-Grădiştea
Ulmilor, Vinica and Devnja (Todorova-Simeonova
1971; I. Ivanov 1978; Radunčeva 1976; Comşa 1995;
Chapman 2010).
We do not exclude the possibility that these cases
could be more numerous in the Balkans, but the
evidence for secondary burials may be confused by the
archaeologist with the disturbance of the graves.
Grave goods and funerary offerings
Only a few graves from the Sultana-Malu Roşu
cemetery contained a funerary inventory, and in most
of the cases it was modest. The percentage of graves
with inventory represents 16% (Figure 9). On the other
hand, for the graves without any materials, we do not
exclude the possibility that they had possessed
perishable grave goods, made of wood, leather, coat,
vegetal fibers etc.
Figure 9. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – grave goods and
offerings distribution.
The grave goods are divided into three categories:
ceramic artifacts, lithic artifacts and adornments.
Only Grave 6 had pots as grave goods, placed by the
head of the dead. Potsherds were found in several other
graves (graves 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 40),
but they cannot be considered grave goods as they
could have arrived in the grave pit as the result of post-
depositional processes.
The second category of grave goods, lithic artifacts, is
represented by flint blades (graves 1, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20,
34 and 45) and a polished stone axe made of limestone
(grave 1). It must be mentioned that the lithic artifacts
were found exclusively in adult male graves. Their
position in the grave varied: near the left arm (the axe,
blade in grave 34, blade in grave 45), near the right
shoulder (the blade in Grave 1), near the arms (the
blade in Grave 11), and under the skull (the blade in
Grave 12), on the hip bones (flint tool in grave 13).
Their location in the grave confirms that they were
personal attributes of the deceased.
The adornments were found only in a few graves (1,
13, 14 and 48) and they consisted of beads made of
shells of Spondylus gaederopus or Dentalium, bone,
marble and malachite. In most cases the shape of the
beads is cylindrical and tubular, followed by prismatic,
biconvex and bitruncated. Generally, the beads were
found near the neck, hands or hip bones.
In Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery some of the graves (2,
12, 19, 28, 31, 33, and 34) and complexes (C6/2007,
C1/2009, C1/2010 and C4/2011) contained animal
bones (Figure 9). These remains were probably placed
as offerings. Regarding the animal species Ovis aries is
represented by a metatarsus found in the grave 2; Bos
taurus was represented by a diaphysis fragment of a
humerus, an almost complete right horn core with a
part of the frontal bone attached at the base (C1/2009)
and a neurocranium including a left horn core (grave
28). The last two pieces come from the same animal,

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
114
demonstrating that the two complexes were
contemporaneous. Three right upper molars of the
same species were found in C6/2007 together with a
lower left jaw of Sus domesticus and two Unio sp.
shells. Cervus elaphus was represented by a fragment
of an un-fused lumbar vertebra found in C1/2009. The
same complex contained two other fragments of
lumbar vertebrae and two diaphyses of long bones
which could not be identified taxonomically. Grave 12
contained a river shell and grave 19 an unidentifiable
bone fragment. The presence of animal bones within
these complexes suggests the practice of a funerary
ritual.
Similar situations were encountered in other Eneolithic
necropolises from the Balkans (Durankulak, Vinica,
Gumelniţa, Goljamo Delčevo, Măriuţa-La Movilă etc.)
(Todorova et al. 1975; Radunčeva 1976; Lazăr 2001b;
Avramova 2002; Spassov and Iliev 2002; Lazăr and
Parnic 2007).
Sex and age ratios
The anthropological analyses made so far on 35
skeletons showed that most of them belonged to adults
and only two to Infans (grave 2 and a mandible
fragment from grave 21). To it we can also add the
three children’s graves discovered in 2011 (graves 38,
42 and 43) (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – age ratio (n = 49).
Figure 11: Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – sex ratio (n = 39).
There is a higher number of female subjects (n = 22)
compared with the number of male subjects (n = 12)
(Figure 11). We must mention that some of the skeletons
(graves 36 - 50) have not yet been anthropologically
determined.
In the reburial cases no preference for male or female
subjects was observed, the percentages of the
representation being equal. From the point of view of
the age, all individuals belong to the adult category.
The burial customs do not reflect any sex or age
differences among the deceased also.
Other exceptions
Besides these ‘normal burials’ from the Sultana-Malu
Roşu cemetery, we also identified some particular
cases illustrated by the removal of skeletal material
(Figure 14). We have identified nine such cases so far
– graves no. 7, 14, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 49 (Figure
13). In six cases (graves no. 7, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 49)
we found complete skeletons, articulated but without
skulls. In our opinion these situations reflect post-
burial intervention in the graves with the aim to
retrieve selected anatomical elements. This assumption
is proved by the archaeological data, because in five
cases (graves no. 7, 31, 33, 34 and 49) we identified
extraction/intervention pits.
In other four cases (graves 14, 25, 32 and 42) the
skeletons are without skulls and also missing other
body parts:
 Grave 14 – only the lower body bones articulated;
removal of entire superior part (except the left
humerus) (Figure 12).
 Grave 25 – near-complete skeleton; removal of
skull and entire left arm bones.
 Grave 32 – only leg bones and a part of the hip
bone articulated; removal of entire superior part.
 Grave 42 – complete skeleton; removal of tibias
and fibulas.
Figure 12. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – grave 14.
In the case of graves 14 and 32 the identification of the
intervention/extraction pits was possible. These cases
do not reflect any sex or age differences among the
deceased, all of them belonging to the adult category;
the percentage of male and female subjects is equal.

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
115
Figure 13. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – grave 33.
Probably the most challenging question is where are
the missing parts? Based on archaeological data we can
partially answer to this question, at least for the
Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery. An important part of the
missing bones can still be found in the cemetery. We
refer to the secondary burials which reflect the process
of removal of the bone and, after that, of reburial.
Another part of the missing bones from the graves
could also be found in the cemetery but in other
contexts. In the case of the Grave 21 a right mandible
fragment of a child had been associated with an adult
skeleton in anatomical connection. This situation
reflects a different type of reburial, but also proves the
manipulation process.
Figure 14. Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery – type of burial ratio
(n = 49).
Similar cases are attested in the Eneolithic necropolises
of Varna I, Devnja and Vinica (Chapman 2010).
Also, an important part of the missing bones from the
graves can be found in the settlement. For example, in
Sultana-Malu Roşu tell settlement, as in other
Eneolithic settlements, many scattered human bones
(skulls, long bones etc.) were documented, discovered
in different contexts (foundation trenches, waste areas,
abandonment levels etc.).
This situation reflects a complex process of
manipulation of human bones (grave interventions;
extraction and sorting of the bones; preservation of
some anatomical elements; re-deposition of certain
bones in the cemeteries or in the settlements).
Conclusions
Based on the available information we can conclude
that the Sultana-Malu Roşu cemetery corroborates
many of the characteristics documented in other
cemeteries belonging to the Eneolithic period. This
situation is very similar to the cemeteries of
Durankulak and Căscioarele-D’aia parte.
Generally, the cemeteries used by different
communities, both culturally and chronologically, are
best suited for a complex analysis to identify
perpetuated traditions and preserved funerary practices.
In our case, specific information on grave size,
location, orientation and grouping, as well as on grave
inventory, recorded in this cemetery, indicate to us the
perpetuation of certain funerary rules from the Boian
communities to the Gumelniţa communities. This
process of perpetuation is not complete and there are
also new elements or particular customs. This is a
normal situation, especially if we consider that any
culture is traditionally seeking to promote their
ancestors’ rules and knowledge, but also the new ones
defined by the coevals (Pouillon 1999).
From the point of view of the traditions, funerary practices
are probably most likely conservative, representing
reflections of the eschatological concepts of a particular
community accumulated along several generations. On
the other hand, they represent an extended form of
identities, both personal and collective.
Probably during prehistory, as in the present,
cemeteries were a public space, which made them an
ideal place where traditions can be built and rebuilt by
the living through the dead. Also, this metaphorical
reconstruction allows the living to express individual
and group identities. All this demonstrates the
existence of some social strategies as social adaptations
in the Eneolithic period.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ciprian Astaloș (University College London)
for improving the English translation of this paper.
The work of dr. C. Lazăr was supported by CNCSIS-
UEFISCSU, project number 2/03.08.2010 PN II-RU
code 16/2010.
The work of M. Voicu and G. Vasile was supported by
a grant of the Romanian National Authority for
Scientific Research, CNCSIS – UEFISCDI, project
number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-1015.

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
116
References
Andreescu, R. and Lazăr, C. 2008. Valea Mostiştei.
Aşezarea gumelniţeană de la Sultana-Malu Roşu.
Cercetări Arheologice XIV-XV, 55-76.
Andrieşescu, I. 1924. Les fouilles de Sultana. Dacia I,
51-107.
Angelova, I. 1986. Praistorijki nekropol pri gr.
Targovište. Arheoloijski Institut i muzej na Ban.
Interdiscijplinarni Izsledvanija XIVA, 49-66.
Angelova, I. 1991. A Chalcolithic Cemetery near the
Town of Tărgovište. In J. Lichardus (ed.), Die
Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium
Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6-13.11.1988, Teil 1,
101-105. Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
Avramova, M. 2002. Die tierreste in den Grabanlagen.
In H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak, Band II. Die
Prähistorischen Gräberfelder, Teil 1, 121-126. Sofia,
Anubis Ltd.
Bailey, D.W. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion,
Incorporation and Identity. London, Routledge.
Bălteanu, C. and Cantemir, P. 1990. Contribuţii la
cunoaşterea unor aspecte paleodemografice la
populaţia neolitică de la Chirnogi - Şuviţa Iorgulescu.
Studii şi Cercetări de Antropologie 28, 3-7.
Bojadjiev, J., Dimov, T. and Todorova, H. 1993. Les
Balkans orientaux. In J. Kozlowski (ed.), Atlas du
Néolithique européen. Vol. 1: L'Europe orientale, 61-
110. Liège, ERAUL, 45.
Boyadžiev, Y. 2006. Mobility of individuals and
contacts between communities in the 5th millennium
B.C. (according to cemeteries information). Bulletin of
the Institute of Archaeology XXXIX, 13-55.
Boyadžiev, Y. 2008. Changes of the burial rites within
the transition from Hamangia to Varna culture. In V.
Slavchev (ed.), Studia In Memoriam Ivani Ivanov: The
Varna Eneolithic Necropolis and Problems of Prehistory
in Southeast Europe, 85-94. Varna, Regional History
Museum of Varna, Acta Musei Varnaensis, VI.
Cantemir, P. and Bălteanu, C. 1993. Considérations
anthropologiques sur le matériel néolithique de
Căscioarele (département Călăraşi). Annuaire Roumain
D’Anthropologie 30, 3-7.
Chapman, J. 2010. ‘Deviant’ burials in the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe, in K.
Rebay-Salisbury, M.L. Sørensen and J. Hughes (eds.),
Body Parts and Bodies Whole. Changing Relations and
Meanings, 30-45. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Chapman, J., Higham, T., Slavchev, V., Gaydarska, B.
and Honch, N.V. 2006. The social context of the
emergence, development and abandonment of the
Varna cemetery, Bulgaria. European Journal of
Archaeology 9(2-3), 159-183.
Comşa, E. 1974a. Istoria comunităţilor culturii Boian.
Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RSR.
Comşa, E. 1974b. Die Bestattungssitten im rumänischen
Neolithikum. Jahresschrift für Mitt-eldeutsche
Vorgeschichte für das Landesmuseum für vorgeschichte
in Halle-Forschungsstele für die Bezirke Halle und
Magdeburg 58, 113-156.
Comşa, E. 1993. La Roumanie méridionale. In J.
Kozlowski (ed.), Atlas du Néolithique européen. Vol.
1: L'Europe orientale, 151-189. Liège, ERAUL, 45.
Comşa, E. 1995. Necropola gumelniţeană de la Vărăşti.
Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă IV(1), 55-193.
Comşa, E. and Cantacuzino, Gh. 2001. Necropola
neolitică de la Cernica. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei
Române.
Coteț, P. 1973. Geomorfologia României. Bucureşti,
Editura Tehnică.
Coteț, P. 1976. Câmpia Română. Studiu de morfologie
integrată. Bucureşti, Ceres.
Dimov, T. 2002. Entdeckung und Erforschung der
prähistorischen Gräberfelder von Durankulak. In H.
Todorova (ed.), Durankulak, Band II. Die
Prähistorischen Gräberfelder, Teil 1, 24-34. Sofia,
Anubis Ltd.
Dimov, T., Boyadžiev, Y. and Todorova, H. 1984.
Praistoricheski nekropol kraj s. Durankulak,
Tolbukhinski okrug. Dobrudja I, 2-18.
Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey, A. and Mogoşanu, F. 1983.
Esquisse d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie jusqu’à la
fin de l’âge du bronze. Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi
Enciclopedică.
Gâşteanu, P. 1963. Lacurile din Republica Populară
Română. Geneză şi regim hidrologic. Bucureşti,
Editura Academiei RSR.
Ghiţă, C. 2008. The microrelief as result of
morphohydroclimatic conditions in Mostistea river
basin. Revista de Geomorfologie 10, 103-111.
Higuchi, T. 1983. Visual and Spatial Structure of
Landscapes. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Isăcescu, C. 1984a. Staţiunea eneolitică de la Sultana -
com. Mînăstirea. In Documente recent descoperite şi
informaţii arheologice, 11-20. Bucureşti, Editura
Academiei RSR.
Isăcescu, C. 1984b. Săpăturile de salvare de la Sultana,
com. Mînăstirea, jud. Călăraşi. Cercetări Arheologice
VII, 27-42.
Ivanov, I. 1978. Les fouilles archéologiques de la
nécropole chalcolithique à Varna (1972-1975). Studia
Praehistorica 1-2, 13-26.

Traditions, Rules and Exceptions in the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu
117
Ivanov, I. 1993. À la question de la localisation et des
études des sites submergés dans les lacs de Varna.
Pontica XXVI, 19-26.
Ivanov, T.G. 1982. Tell Radingrad. In H. Todorova
(ed.), Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien,
166-174. München, C.H. Beck, Materialien zur
Allegemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, 13.
Lazăr, C. 2001a. Descoperiri funerare aparţinând
culturii Gumelniţa pe teritoriul României. In S.
Marinescu-Bîlcu (ed.), O civilizaţie ‘necunoscută’:
Gumelniţa, cd-rom, București, cIMeC.
Lazăr, C. 2001b. Date noi privind unele morminte
gumelniţene. Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos
XVI-XVII, 173-183.
Lazăr, C. 2011. Some Observations about Spatial
Relation and Location of the Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-
Karanovo VI Extra Muros Necropolis, in S. Mills and
P. Mirea (eds.), The Lower Danube in Prehistory:
Landscape Changes and Human Environment
Interactions - Proceedings of the International
Conference, Alexandria 3-5 November 2010, 95-115.
Bucureşti, Renaissance.
Lazăr, C. and Parnic, V. 2007. Date privind unele
descoperiri funerare de la Măriuţa-La Movilă. Studii de
Preistorie 4, 135-157.
Lazăr, C., Andreescu, R., Ignat, T., Florea, M. and
Astaloş, C. 2008. The Eneolithic Cemetery from
Sultana-Malu Roşu (Călăraşi County, Romania). Studii
de Preistorie 5, 131-152.
Lazăr, C., Andreescu, R., Ignat, T., Mărgărit, M., Florea,
M. and Bălăşescu, A. 2009. New data about the
Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Călăraşi
County, Romania). Studii de Preistorie 6, 165-199.
Margos, A. 1961. Otkriti sledi ot novi nakolni celishta
vav Varnenskoto ezero. Izvestija na Narodnija Muzej
Varna XII, 128-131.
Margos, A. 1978. Les sites lacustres dans les lacs de
Varna et la nécropole de Varna. Studia Praehistorica 1,
146-149.
Marinescu-Bîlcu, S. 2000. Mormânt. In C. Preda (ed.),
Enciclopedia Arheologiei şi Istoriei Vechi a României,
vol. III, 112-117. Bucureşti, Editura Enciclopedică.
Mihăilescu, V. 1925. Vlăsia şi Mostiştea. Evoluția
geografică a două regiuni din Câmpia Română.
Buletinul Societății Regale Române de Geografie
XLIII, Bucureşti.
Mihăilescu, V. 1969. Geografia fizică a României.
Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RPR.
Mikov, V. 1927. Selişnata moghila pri c. Balbunar.
Izvestija na Arheologiskija Institut IV, 251-284.
Nikolova, L. 2002. Diversity of Prehistoric Burial
Customs: Part 1. Towards the Structure and Meaning of
the Burials in Settlements in Later Balkan Prehistory.
Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 5, 53-87.
Parnic, V., Lazăr, C., Parnic, A., Ignat, T., Popovici,
D., Vlad, F., Bălăşescu, A., Radu, V. and Haită, C.
2007. Măriuţa, com. Belciugatele, jud. Călăraşi, Punct:
La Movilă. In Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din
România. Campania 2006. A LXI-a Sesiune Naţională
de Rapoarte Arheologice, Tulcea, 29 mai-1 iunie 2007,
230-232. Bucureşti, cIMeC.
Petrescu-Dâmboviţa, M. 2001a. Eneoliticul timpuriu,
in M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria
Românilor, vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate,
148-154. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române.
Petrescu-Dâmboviţa, M. 2001b. Eneoliticul dezvoltat,
in M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria
Românilor, vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate,
154-168. Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române.
Popovici, D. 2010. Copper Age Traditions North of the
Danube River, in D.W. Anthony and J.Y. Chi (eds.),
The Lost World of Old Europe. The Danube Valley,
5000-3500 BC, 91-111. New York, Princeton
University Press.
Pouillon, J. 1999. Tradiţie, in P. Bonte and M. Izard
(eds.), Dicţionar de Etnologie şi Antropologie, 673-
675. Iaşi, Polirom.
Radunčeva, A. 1976. Vinica - Eneolitno seliste i
nekropol, Sofia. Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite.
Razkopki i Prouchvania, VI.
Slavchev, V. 2010. The Varna Eneolithic cemetery in
context of the Late Cooper Age in the East Balkans, in
D.W. Anthony and J.Y. Chi (eds.), The Lost Worls of
Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC, 192-
210. New York, Princeton University Press.
Spassov, N. and Iliev, N. 2002. The animal bones from
the prehistoric necropolis near Durankulak (NE
Bulgaria) and the latest record of Equus hydruntinus
Regalia. In H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak, Band II.
Die Prähistorischen Gräberfelder, Teil 2, 313-324.
Sofia, Anubis Ltd.
Şerbănescu, D. 1985. Vestigii neolitice descoperite la
Ulmeni. Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos I, 25-35.
Şerbănescu, D. 1988. Raport preliminar de cercetare
arheologică asupra săpăturilor de salvare din zona
gropilor de împrumut pentru canal Dunăre-Bucureşti.
Punctul Terasa Rudari, comuna Chirnogi, judeţul
Călăraşi. Campania 1988, Arhiva Muzeului Dunării de
Jos Călăraşi, mss.
Şerbănescu, D. 1996a. Căscioarele, jud. Călăraşi, Punct
C2: D’aia Parte. In Situri arheologice cercetate în
perioada 1983-1992, 28-29, Brăila.

Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Gabriel Vasile
118
Şerbănescu, D. 1996b. Chirnogi, jud. Călăraşi. In Situri
arheologice cercetate în perioada 1983-1992, 33. Brăila.
Şerbănescu, D. 1998. Căscioarele - D’aia parte, jud.
Călăraşi. In Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice.
Campania 1997. A XXXII-a Sesiune Naţionalǎ de
Rapoarte Arheologice, Cǎlǎraşi, 20-24 mai 1998, 14.
Cǎlǎraşi, Muzeul Dunării de Jos.
Şerbănescu, D. 1999. Necropola neolitică de la Popeşti,
com. Vasilaţi, jud. Călăraşi. In M. Neagu (ed.), Cultura
Boian pe teritoriul României, 15-16. Călăraşi,
Ministerul Culturii.
Şerbănescu, D. 2002. Observaţii preliminarii asupra
necropolei neolitice de la Sultana, jud. Călăraşi.
Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos XIX, 69-86.
Şerbănescu, D. 2007. Necropola de la Curăteşti.
Communication presented at the XLI National Session
of Archaeological Reports in Tulcea, Romania.
Şerbănescu, D. and Şandric, B. 1999. Căscioarele -
D’aia parte, jud. Călăraşi. In Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice. Campania 1998. A XXXIII-a Sesiune
Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice, Vaslui, 30 iunie-4
iulie 1999, 25. Bucureşti, cIMeC.
Şerbănescu, D. and Soficaru, A. 2006. Sultana, com.
Mănăstirea, jud. Călăraşi, Punct: Valea Orbului. In
Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.
Campania 2005. A XL-a Sesiune Naţională de
Rapoarte Arheologice, Constanţa, 31 mai-3 iunie
2006, 343-347. Bucureşti, cIMeC.
Şerbănescu, D. and Trohani, G. 1978. Cercetările
arheologice pe Valea Mostiştea. In V. Vrabie (ed.),
Ilfov. File de Istorie, 18-32. Bucureşti, Editura
Academiei RPR.
Todorova, H. 1978. The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria
in the Fifth Millenium B.C. Oxford, Archaeopress,
British Archaelogical Reports, International Series, 49.
Todorova, H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in
Nordostbulgarien. München, C.H. Beck, Materialien zur
Allegemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, 13.
Todorova, H. 1986. Kamenno-mednata Epokha v
Bulgariya. Peto Khilyadoletie predi Novata Era. Sofia,
Izdatepstvo Nauka i Izkustvo.
Todorova, H. 2002. Durankulak, Band II. Die
Prähistorischen Gräberfelder, Teil 1 & 2. Sofia,
Anubis Ltd.
Todorova-Simeonova, H. 1971. Kusneoeneolitnijat
nekropol krai gr. Devnja. Izvestija na Narodnija Muzej
Varna 7, 3-40.
Todorova, H. and Dimov, T. 1989. Ausgrabungen in
Durankulak 1974-1987. In S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic
of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern
Connection. Kongress Szolnok Szeged 1987, Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica II, 291-310. Budapest,
Pytheas.
Todorova, H., Ivanov, S., Vasilev, V., Hopf, M.,
Quitta, H. and Kohl, G. 1975. Selishtnata Mogila pri
Goljamo Delcevo. Sofia, Bulgarskata Akademiya na
Naukite, Razkopki i Prouchvania, V.
Trohani, G., Andreescu, R., Lazăr, C., Ignat, T., Haită,
C., Soficaru, A. and Gatej, M. 2007. Sultana, com.
Mânăstirea, jud. Călăraşi, Punct: Malu Roşu, in M.V.
Angelescu and. F. Vasilescu (eds.), Campania 2006. A
LXI-a Sesiune Naţională de Rapoarte Arheologice,
Tulcea, 29 mai-1 iunie 2007, 352-354. Bucureşti,
cIMeC.