BookPDF Available

The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The study of funerary rites and rituals used by different prehistoric communities is one of the most difficult issues of the scientific research, because of the complexity of the phenomenon itself and the so-called "opacity" of the archaeological discovery. Given these conditions, the subject needs careful attention, both from the perspective of the structure of the existing data but also of the different types of possible interpretations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Catalogue of the
Neolithic and Eneolithic
Funerary Findings from Romania
_____________________________________
NATIONAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF ROMANIA
MONOGRAPHIC SERIES NO. VII
The Catalogue of the
Neolithic and Eneolithic
Funerary Findings from Romania
_____________________________________
Edited by
Cătălin Lazăr
with contributions from
Mihai Florea, Ciprian Astaloș,
Mădălina Voicu, Theodor Ignat, Vasile Opriș
Scientific reviewers: dr. Valentina Voinea, dr. Andrei Soficaru, and dr. Adrian Bălășescu
Publisher: Dan Iulian Mărgărit
Cover: Dan Iulian Mărgărit
Text editing: Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu, Mihaela Golea, and Laura Aruxandei
Translation: Mădălina Voicu and Ciprian Astaloș
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României
The catalogue of the neolithic and eneolithic funerary findings from
Romania / Cătălin Lazăr, Theodor Ignat, Mădălina Voicu, ... - Târgovişte :
Cetatea de Scaun, 2012
ISBN 978-606-537-135-4
I. Lazăr, Cătălin
II. Ignat, Theodor
III. Voicu, Mădălina
902(498)
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyformorbyanyelectronicormechanical
means,includinginformationstorageandretrievalsystems,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisheror
authors,exceptinthecaseofareviewer,whomayquotebriefpassagesinareview.
ISBN 978-606-537-135-4
©EdituraCetateadeScaun,Târgovişte,2012
tel./fax.:0245218318,0721209519;
editura@cetateadescaun.ro,www.cetateadescaun.ro
CONTENTS
_____________________________________
Introduction
Cătălin Lazăr
7
Chapter I
Methodological Aspects
Cătălin Lazăr, Mihai Florea
11
Chapter II
Early Neolithic
Cătălin Lazăr
19
Chapter III
The Index of Funerary Discoveries from Early Neolithic
Cătălin Lazăr, Ciprian Astaloș
23
Chapter IV
Middle Neolithic
Cătălin Lazăr
49
Chapter V
The Index of Funerary Discoveries from Middle Neolithic
Cătălin Lazăr, Mădălina Voicu
53
Chapter VI
Early Eneolithic
Cătălin Lazăr
67
Chapter VII
The Index of Funerary Discoveries from Early Eneolithic
Cătălin Lazăr, Vasile Opriș
71
Chapter VIII
Middle Eneolithic
Cătălin Lazăr
109
Chapter IX
The Index of Funerary Discoveries from Middle Eneolithic
Cătălin Lazăr, Theodor Ignat
113
Abbreviations
183
Index
185
Appendix
191
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
7
INTRODUCTION
___________________________________________________________________________
Cătălin Lazăr
The study of funerary rites and rituals used by different prehistoric communities is one
of the most difficult issues of the scientific research, because of the complexity of the
phenomenon itself and the so-called "opacity" of the archaeological discovery. Given these
conditions, the subject needs careful attention, both from the perspective of the structure of
the existing data but also of the different types of possible interpretations.
Unfortunately, in the Romanian literature are severely lacking syntheses dedicated to
the funerary discoveries from the Neolithic and Eneolithic. The only attempt to publish such a
study is the article written by E. Comșa in 1960, Contribuţie cu privire la riturile funerare din
epoca neolitică de pe teritoriul ţării noastre (Comșa 1960a). Some years later, in 1974, the
same author updates the data in an article called Die Bestattungssittenim Rumänischen
Neolithikum (Comșa 1974b). Besides these two syntheses, there are diverse attempts to
present the funerary finding from these periods of time (e.g., Comșa 1987; Marinescu-Bîlcu
2000; Schuster et alii 2008; Enea 2011), but them are mostly incomplete regarding the index
of findings. Also, we must mention here those studies dedicated exclusively to some cultures
or geographical areas of Romania (e.g., Comșa 1960b, 1974a, 1995a, 1995b, 1999; Paul 1992;
Luca 1994; Hașotti 1997; Popovici 1999, 2010; Lazăr 2001, 2011; Băcueţ-Crişan 2004, 2005;
Astaloș & Virag 2007; Bem 2008; Suciu 2009, Kogălniceanu 2012, etc.)
Besides these contributions, the funerary discoveries from the actual Romanian
territory were part of some syntheses dedicated to the Balkan area by various foreign authors
(e.g., Tringham 1971; Chapman 1983; Lichardus et alii 1985; Bailey 2000; Lichter 2001;
Paluch 2004; Debois 2008, etc.).
However, these syntheses are far from covering the entire information available, the
data set used being incomplete mostly because of the language barrier, as most data are
published in Romanian and not in international languages.
In these conditions, we consider legitimate the present attempt to publish a repertoire
of all the sites known at the moment. This will be a genuine apparatus for archaeologists, BA,
MA, and PhD students, being conceived in a simple, coherent, accessible and useful manner.
Moreover, publishing this repertoire in an international language, we hope to make the
data available to all those who are interested. Still, we have to mention that we had a series of
difficulties regarding the data available. Great part of discoveries does not have the necessary
information for a complete and complex analysis mainly because of an unscientific field
research or imprecise and unreliable published data.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
8
Most of the times, in quest for a chronological framing or simply just a description of
the funerary features, many authors took in consideration only the most relevant elements.
However, some aspects omitted at the time turned out to be of maximum importance.
Last but not least, we have to keep in mind that a great part of these errors or
misunderstandings and lack of data happen because of the manner in which some authors
choose to “mechanically” use previously published data, without the effort of verifying the
source or the new publications.
Finally, for the kindness and generosity in facilitating the access to materials and data
connected to funerary features included in our analyses, some yet unpublished, we wish to
thank the colleagues Radian Andreescu (București), Sanda Băcueţ-Crişan (Zalău), Adina
Boroneanţ (Bucureşti), Gheorghe Lazarovici (Cluj Napoca), Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu
(București), Cristian Micu (Tulcea), Pavel Mirea (Alexandria), Cătălin Nicolae (București),
Sabin Popovici (Caracal), Done Şerbănescu (Olteniţa), Cristian Ștefan (București), Cristian
Virag (Satu Mare) and Valentina Voinea (Constanța).
This work was supported by two grants of the Romanian National Authority for
Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project numbers PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-1015 and
PN-II-RU code 16/2010.
REFERENCES
Astaloș & Virag 2007 C. Astaloş, C. Virag, Descoperiri funerare neolitice din
judeţul Satu Mare, in Satu Mare. Studii şi Comunicări,
XXII, I, 73-96.
Bailey 2000 D. W. Bailey, Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation
and Identity, London.
Băcueţ-Crişan 2004 S. Băcueţ-Crişan, Burial Rites in the Neolithic in
Northwest Romania, in A Nyíregyházi Jósa András
Múzeum Évkönyve, XLVI, p. 71-83.
Băcueţ-Crişan 2005 S. Băcueţ-Crişan, Rituri şi ritualuri funerare în neoliticul
din Nord-Vestul României, in Marmatia, 8, 1, p. 5-24.
Bem 2008 C. Bem, Traian - Dealul Fântânilor: fenomenul Cucuteni
A-B, Târgovişte.
Chapman 1983 J. Chapman, Meaning and Illusion in the Study of Burial in
Balkan Prehistory, in A. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria,
vol. I, Nottingham, p. 1-42.
Comşa 1960a E. Comşa, Contribuţie cu privire la riturile funerare în
epoca neolitică de pe teritoriul ţării noastre, in Omagiu lui
Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani,
Bucureşti, p. 83-103.
Comşa 1960b E. Comşa, Considérations sur la rite funéraires de la
civilisation de Gumelniţa, in Dacia N.S., IV, p. 5-30.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
9
Comșa 1974a E. Comşa, Istoria comunităţilor culturii Boian, Bucureşti.
Comșa 1974b E. Comşa, Die bestattungssitten im rumänischen
neolithikum, in Jahresschrift für Mitt-eldeutsche
Vorgeschichte für das Landesmuseum für vorgeschichte in
Halle-Forschungsstele für die Bezirke Halle und
Magdeburg, 58, p. 113-156.
Comșa 1987 E. Comşa, Neoliticul pe teritoriul României. Considerații,
Bucureşti.
Comșa 1995a E. Comşa, Ritul şi ritualul funerar al purtătorilor
culturilor Boian şi Gumelniţa din Muntenia, in Acta Musei
Napocensis, XXXII, 1, p. 257-267.
Comșa 1995b E. Comşa, Morminte ale purtătorilor culturii Starčevo-
Criş descoperite în Moldova, in Acta Musei Napocensis,
XXXII, 1, p. 245-256.
Comșa 1999 E. Comşa, Rituri şi ritualuri funerare din epoca neolitică
din Muntenia, in Istorie şi Tradiţie în Spaţiul Românesc,
IV, p. 18-35.
Debois 2008 S. Debois, Approche des comportements funéraires dans
la région du Bas-Danube à la fin du Néolithique, in
L’Anthropologie, 112, 4, p. 661-690.
Enea 2011 S. Enea, Elemente de arheologie funerară în spațiul
Carpato-Danubian. Neoliticul și eneoliticul, Cluj Napoca.
Hașotti 1997 P. Haşotti, Epoca neolitică în Dobrogea, Constanţa.
Kogălniceanu 2012
R. Kogălniceanu, Human Remains from the Mesolithic to
the Chalcolithic Period in Southern Romania. An Update
on the Discoveries, in Archaeologia Bulgarica, XVI, 3, p.
1-46.
Lazăr 2001 C. Lazăr, Descoperiri funerare aparţinând culturii
Gumelniţa pe teritoriul României, in S. Marinescu-Bîlcu
(ed.), O civilizaţie "necunoscută": Gumelniţa, cd-rom,
cIMeC, București.
Lazăr 2011 C. Lazăr, A Review of Gumelniţa Cemeteries from
Romania, in Izvestija na Regionalen Historicheski Muzej
Ruse, 14, p. 146-157.
Lichardus et alii 1985 J. Lichardus, M. Lichardus-Itten, G. Bailloud, J. Cauvin, La
Protohistoire de l’Europe, Paris.
Lichter 2001 C. Lichter, Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des
südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums,
Mainz.
Luca 1994 S. A. Luca, Rit şi ritual de înmormântare la cultura
Bodrogkeresztúr şi grupul Decea Mureşului în România,
in Studii de Istorie a Transilvaniei, 1, p. 9-16.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 2000 S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, Mormânt, in C. Preda (ed.),
Enciclopedia Arheologiei şi Istoriei Vechi a României, vol.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
10
III, București, p. 112-117.
Paul 1992 I. Paul, Cultura Petreşti, Bucureşti.
Paluch 2004 T. Paluch, A Körös-Starčevo kultúra temetkezései, in A
Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, XLVI, p 23-
51.
Popovici 1999 D. Popovici, Observations about the Cucutenian (phase A)
communities behavior regarding the human body I, in
Annales D’Université „Valahia” Târgovişte, 6, p. 25-38.
Popovici 2010 D. Popovici, Copper Age Traditions North of the Danube
River, in D. W. Anthony, J. Y. Chi (eds.), The Lost World
of Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC, New
York, p. 91-111.
Schuster et alii 2008 C. Schuster, R. Kogălniceanu, A. Morintz, The living and
the dead. An analysis of the relationship between the two
worlds during prehistory at Lower Danube, Târgovişte.
Suciu 2009 C. I. Suciu, Cultura Vinča în Transilvania, Alba Iulia.
Tringham 1971 R. Tringham, Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern
Europe: 6000-3000 BC, London.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
11
Chapter I
METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
___________________________________________________________________________
Cătălin Lazăr & Mihai Florea
The current territory of Romania has a special situation regarding the funerary
findings chronologically assigned to the Neolithic and Eneolithic. They are the result of
systematic research or surveys, but also random findings due to land-use planning or
construction works. In recent years, the existence of large scale works, especially in the
infrastructure domain, coupled with the archaeological excavations, led to new important
discoveries.
In Romania, the number of Neolithic and Eneolithic funerary findings amounts to over
2500 graves, discovered in settlements and cemeteries or isolated. To these, we have to add a
considerable number of scattered human bones discovered generally in nonfunerary contexts.
The Romanian archaeologists realized over time various repertories of archaeological
sites, often strictly limited by the territorial borders of administrative units (e.g., Păunescu et
alii 1976; Lazăr 1995; Cavruc 1998; Luca 2004; Luca et alii 2005, etc.). When referring to
the entire territory of the country, the repertoires targeted cultures or cultural phases and
various chronological segments (e.g., Popovici 2000; Lazarovici et alii 2009, etc.).
Moreover, there were some attempts to classify certain categories of artifacts, most of
the time published in catalogues of collections of museums in Romania (e.g., Marinescu-
Bîlcu & Ionescu 1967; Cucoș 1973), or in exhibition catalogues (e.g., Drașovean & Popovici
2008; Anthony & Chi 2010, etc.), which obviously have a limited value, given that the pieces
presented were selected as representative, but they do not represent the totality of the
discoveries in the category.
Indexing and centralizing all these discoveries in order to realize a practical and useful
apparatus is the main desideratum of this work. In order to accomplish this, there have been
used various sources of information, starting with the existing archaeological bibliography
and the databases available online (e.g., National Archaeological Repertory, Mapserver for
the National Cultural Heritage, Mobile Cultural Objects Classified in the National Cultural
Heritage data base etc.), continuing with cartographic and photographic archives, but also data
and unpublished artifacts, found in the archives of institutions in Romania, and finally direct
information gathered from the authors of various archaeological researches still unpublished.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
12
I.1. The geographical and administrative framework
The geographical area concerned within this book is located in the south-east of the
European continent (Fig. 1) and comprises an area of 237.500 km
2
, which includes most of
the landform known and also a generous hydrographic network, plus the access to the Black
Sea (Fig. 2). The current territory of Romania is called the Carpathian-Danubian-Pontic
space, because Romania overlaps a European territorial system, shaped by the circle formed
by the Romanian Carpathians and the regions bordering and complementary subordinated to
the Carpathians, bounded in the south by the Danube, and in the eastern part by the Black Sea
(Fig. 2) (Pătru et alii 2006; Nicolae 2008).
Fig. 1. Map of Europe and location of Romania.
Romania is situated in the northern hemisphere, at the intersection of the parallel of
45° North latitude and the 25° meridian East longitude, and in Europe, in the central
southeastern part (Fig. 1) at approximately equal distances from the ends of the European
continent (Lungu 2004; Pătru et alii 2006; Nicolae 2008).
The title of this book draws accurately on the political and administrative area
analyzed – the current area of Romania. However, this approach is limited and subjective
because communities of the past are not limited to the current administrative boundaries as
they are certified in the neighbouring regions, which currently belong to other political
entities (Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova) (Fig. 4).
In terms of the administration, Romania is divided into several administrative-
territorial units referred to as counties. According to the Constitution, the territory is
organized in communes, cities and counties. From historical point of view, there are three
traditional provinces: Wallachia (regions of Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobrudja), Moldavia and
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
13
Transylvania (consisting of the regions of Banat, Crișana, Maramureș, Sătmar and
Ardeal/Transylvania) (Erdeli & Cucu 2006; Pătru et alii 2006).
The county is the administrative-territorial unit, similar to the regions or provinces of
other countries, in Romania being certified 41 counties (Fig. 3) to which is added the capital
city - Bucharest. The commune is the basic administrative unit and is made up of one or more
villages. According to the National Institute of Statistics (SIRUTA 2008 http://www.insse.ro),
Romania has 2860 communes totalling 12965 villages. The city is an urban area, with
administrative functions for a more extensive geographical area, usually located nearby; there
are 3203 cities (Nistor 2000; Erdeli & Cucu 2006).
Fig. 2. Geographical map of Romania.
Regarding the names of contemporary localities, after which the archaeological sites
are named, there are specificities from one region to another, sometimes from one county to
another, the toponymy reflecting historical and geographical traditions and the cultural, ethnic
and linguistic heritage. However, there are a series of toponyms which are frequent on the
entire territory of Romania, often associated with archaeological sites, a fact which may
sometimes produce confusions. Some examples would be: Izvoare/-le (24 cases), Măgura (19
cases), Livezi/-le (12 cases), Ciocănești (7 cases), Cheia (6 cases), Măgurele (5 cases), etc.
Other times, the association between a toponym and discoveries from different
chronological periods leads to confusions, omissions or misunderstandings.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
14
Fig. 3. Administrative map of Romania (from Wikipedia.org).
I.2. Chronological framework
The chronological framework of the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods on the territory
of Romania is, according to
14
C data, situated between ca. 6600 B.C. and ca. 3800/3700 B.C.,
no later than 3500 B.C., when it is conventionally recognized the begining of the Bronze Age
(Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 2001, p. 121). Unfortunately, the radiocarbon dates from Romania are
still few in number for this segment of time, which leads to a fragmented image of the
calendar years of this period.
Also, the established temporal framework is mostly conventional, ideal, and
subjective, since it relates strictly to the distribution of certain categories of artifacts in an
interval of calendar years established through absolute dating methods
1
. In fact, at least for
prehistory, this way of distributing the objects is far from grasping the ethnic, political, social
or demographic realities.
I.3. Archaeological background
From archaeological point of view, the geographic space is perceived by the
Romanian archaeologists as a spatial delimitation of areas in which certain categories of
archaeological materials occur, specific to various communities (cultures or cultural groups)
in the past, using mostly the notion of cultural area. The limits of these conventional entities
are set out in report with the existing knowledge at a given time, more precisely with the
number of discoveries and their geographical distribution (Fig. 4). The new findings
inherently lead to the modification of those "boundaries".
1
Should not be forgotten that before absolute dating methods appeared, the typological method in conjunction with the stratigraphic method,
formed the basis for archaeological periodisation and chronological division of the past into segments.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
15
Fig. 4. An example of Eneolithic cultures distribution map from Southeastern Europe
(after Lazarovici et alii 2009).
Thus, cultural areas expand or compress according to the stage of the archaeological
research, reflecting only the spatial distribution of certain artifacts, and not ethnic, political,
social or demographic realities (Fig. 4).
Romanian archaeology understands by the term of archaeological culture a structure
made up of several elements (types of habitat, burial practices, ceramic forms, techniques and
ornamental motifs, objects made of metal, stone, bone and horn) that are distributed in a well-
defined geographical space (Vulpe 2001, p. 211-214).
According to this definition, the culture represents "a concept that means the totality
of the elements that make up the social, material and spiritual frame, created by humans in
the course of history" (Babeş 1994, p. 390). Typically, each archaeological culture presents a
periodization, in several phases and subphases, reported to historical ranges.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
16
The concept of culture, but also other notions as complex, group, aspect or cultural
facies were used excessively by the Romanian archaeologists, which led to an excessive
fragmentation of the prehistoric archaeological landscape (Chicideanu 2000, p. 118).
I.4. Analysis pattern
The analysis and index system which will be applied to the Neolithic and Eneolithic
funerary discoveries aim at the identification of those specific and common traits allowing the
cataloguing of sites into a unitary and coherent manner. The proposed model is based on a
structural approach of the elements specific for the funerary discoveries.
Generally, for the proper indexing and coherency of discoveries, but also for the
avoidance of confusion, we present the funeral sites on major chronological segments – the
Early Neolithic, the Middle Neolithic, the Early Eneolithic and the Middle Eneolithic, as they
have been defined in the last synthesis dedicated to the prehistory of Romania (Petrescu-
Dîmbovița & Vulpe 2001). We do not discuss the Late Eneolithic in our book, because,
according to the Romanian school of archaeology, it represents a period of transition from the
Eneolithic to the Bronze Age. During this time, the evolution of Early and Middle Eneolithic
cultures is interrupted largely because of transformations taking place due to intrusions of
new populations, especially from the north-pontic steppes. New cultures and cultural
complexes come into being (Horodiştea-Folteşti-Cernavoda II, Coţofeni, Cernavoda III,
Baden, etc.) which, despite the fact that they preserve some Middle Eneolithic elements, they
have a new appearance, marked by the synthesis with the new elements mentioned above
(Ursulescu 2002).
We preferred this version and not other (e.g., geographical area, provinces or counties)
for a better control of the information, but also we aimed at a preliminary grouping of the
archaeological data, for an easier use of them by researchers.
Each chronological segment will include a chapter within which will be presented the
features of the period in question, the periodization, the absolute and relative chronology, as
well as the cultures that are framed in those segments. Later, the archaeological sites will be
numbered with Arabic numerals, in alphabetical order of their names. If for a certain locality
there are several identified sites, there will be used Roman numerals for their separation.
Administrative data will include the county or the city and also the local toponym of
the archaeological site (if any).
Geographical information about archaeological sites will include geographical
coordinates - latitude and longitude (degrees, minutes, seconds). We have chosen to offer the
geographic coordinates for each site presented in the catalogue in order to allow, especially
for foreign researchers, the exact positioning of sites on the map
2
, and in order to avoid
frequent errors of localization, a situation often encountered in the archaeological literature
(e.g., Lichter 2001; Debois 2008, etc.). It is to mention that in the case of the sites researched
by us, we provide the absolute coordinates of the actual sites, and in the case of sites taken
from the literature we provide the absolute coordinates of the territory where the
archaeological site lies. Also, the altimetric values of the sites (m.a.s.l.) will be presented,
related to the reference plane Black Sea-1975.
2
All the maps on this book can be checked online at the following web site:
http://www.arcgis.com/explorer/?open=78b929caf0e84febbb25c8b6372470c4.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
17
The archaeological data will include the culture to which the funerary discovery of
that site is attributable, and the type of discovery. For a coherent and cohesive presentation we
preferred to split the types of discoveries in the following categories: intra-muros burial (-s),
intra-muros cemetery, extra-muros cemetery, isolated grave (-s), cave burial (-s), tumulus
burial (-s), cenotaph (-s) and scattered bones.
To these we add an abstract about the respective discovery, obviously depending on
the information available. We will consider the presentation of the funerary rite (inhumation
or cremation), the number of graves or anatomical elements, the context, location in relation
to other features in the settlement (in the case of intra-muros discoveries) or location(s) (in the
cases of extra-muros discoveries), the structures and funeral arrangements, funeral treatment
(disposal, position, orientation), the deposit of cremated bones (in the case of the cremation
graves), inventory objects found and funerary offerings (for graves themselves), other
archaeological material associated with the discoveries (for scattered bones) and
anthropological data. If radiocarbon data are available, they will be mentioned. The
presentation of each site will end with the references available for these discoveries.
At the end of the volume there will be an index of places and an index of terminology
that will help those interested to find different types of information in the pages of this book.
Also, there will be a chapter with appendices comprising statistical data regarding the
Neolithic and Eneolithic funerary discoveries from Romania.
REFERENCES
Anthony & Chi 2010 D. W. Anthony, J. Y. Chi (eds.), The Lost World of Old
Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC, Princeton and
Oxford.
Babeş 1994 M. Babeş, Cultură, in C. Preda (ed.), Enciclopedia
Arheologiei şi Istoriei Vechi a României, vol. I, Bucureşti,
p. 390.
Cavruc 1998 V. Cavruc (ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului
Covasna, Sf. Gheorghe.
Chicideanu 2000 I. M. Chicideanu, Mormânt, in C. Preda (ed.),
Enciclopedia Arheologiei şi Istoriei Vechi a României, vol.
III, Bucureşti, p. 108-112.
Cucoș 1973 Ș. Cucoș, Ceramică neolitică din Muzeul Arheologic
Piatra Neamţ, Piatra Neamţ.
Debois 2008 S. Debois, Approche des comportements funéraires dans
la région du Bas-Danube à la fin du Néolithique, in
L’Anthropologie, 112, 4, p. 661-690.
Drașovean & Popovici 2008 F. Drașovean, D. N. Popovici, Neolithic Art in Romania,
Olten.
Erdeli & Cucu 2006 G. Erdeli, V. Cucu, România: populație, așezări umane,
economie, București.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
18
Lazarovici et alii 2009 C. M. Lazarovici, Gh. Lazarovici, S. Țurcanu, Cucuteni -
A Great Civilization of the Prehistoric World, Iași.
Lazăr 1995 V. Lazăr, Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Mureş, Târgu
Mureş.
Lichter 2001 C. Lichter, Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des
südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums,
Mainz.
Luca 2004 S. A. Luca (ed.), Arheologie şi istorie (I). Descoperiri din
judeţul Caraş- Severin, Sibiu.
Luca et alii 2005 S. A. Luca (ed.), C. Roman, D. Diaconescu, C. Suciu,
Repertoriul Arheologic al Judeţului Hunedoara, Alba
Iulia.
Lungu 2004 M. Lungu, Antologia Statelor Lumii, ediția a II-a,
Constanța.
Marinescu-Bîlcu &
Ionescu 1967
S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, B. Ionescu, Catalogul figurinelor
eneolitice din Muzeul Olteniţa, Sibiu.
Nicolae 2008 C. Nicolae, Introducere în geografia regională a
României, București.
Nistor 2000 I. S. Nistor, Comuna și județul: evoluția istorică, Cluj-
Napoca.
Pătru et alii 2006 I. Pătru, L. Zaharia, R. Oprea, Geografia fizică a
României, București.
Păunescu et alii 1976 Al. Păunescu, P. Șadurschi, V. Chirica, D. M. Pippidi,
Repertoriul arheologic al județului Botoșani, Botoșani.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 2001 M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Eneoliticul timpuriu, in M.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria Românilor,
vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, p.
148-154.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa &
Vulpe 2001
M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria
Românilor, vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate,
Bucureşti.
Popovici 2000 D. Popovici, Cultura Cucuteni. Faza A. Repertoriul
aşezărilor, Piatra Neamț.
Ursulescu 2002 N. Ursulescu, Începuturile istoriei pe teritoriul României,
Iaşi.
Vulpe 2001 Al. Vulpe, Introducere la epoca metalelor, in M. Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria Românilor, vol. I.
Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, p. 211-214.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
19
Chapter II
EARLY NEOLITHIC
___________________________________________________________________________
Cătălin Lazăr
Generally, for the Romanian area, the Early Neolithic is chronologically situated
between ca. 6600 – 5500 B.C., which marks the beginning of a new period of evolution for
the human civilization (Dumitrescu et alii 1983, p. 70-71; Comşa 1987, p. 26-27; Ursulescu
2001b, p. 124-125).
In terms of the sequence, this follows the Mesolithic and it is followed by the
Developed Neolithic (or Middle/Late according to the terminology used so far by the
Romanian school of archaeology). Altogether, the onset of this period is marked by the
phenomenon of neolithisation, defined by the type of economics practiced by the human
communities, as well as the "imposition" of a new economical and technical device (Leroi-
Gourhan 1983, p. 224). The neolithisation
1
3
phenomenon has differently developed in various
geographical areas
2
4. Without insisting too much on the characteristics of this period, it is to
remember that a series of technological advances and economic changes will lead to the
transformation of the inherent mental, ideological and social features, with major
consequences in the further development of human civilization (Hodder 1990, p. 31-32, 41-
43; Bailey 2000, p. 39-41, 74-75).
The cultural and historical approach of the Romanian school of archaeology drawn the
existence of three "cultural groups" for the Early Neolithic period: 1. Gura Baciului-Cârcea or
1
This term is a theoretical construct in fashion in the first half of the 20
th
century (but not only) designed to explain in a simple manner the
way in which certain human communities have reached another stage of technological and economic development (the change is reflected in
the archaeological discoveries by the emergence of new categories of objects, unknown in the previous periods). The technical and
economical characteristics of the new era were based on agriculture and animal husbandry, doubled by technological innovations (new
techniques of treatment of nonmetallic materials) and the discovery and use of new raw materials.
This theoretical construct induced a preconceived opinion about the way of life of these communities, much too generalized, based on
archetypes or "premeditated" explanations. Interdisciplinary studies carried out in the last period, over some sites in areas presenting a
stratigraphic sequence of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic (the Iron Gates, Middle Dniepr, Scandinavia, etc.), shown that the major element
that defines the Neolithic (Neolithic = economy based on agriculture and raising livestock, Mesolithic = economy based on hunting, fishing,
gathering) is in a good measure false, as even if the differences in diet between human groups belonging to the two periods are obvious, they
are not in the sense postulated by the theoretical concept of neolithisation (see Lillie 1996, p. 135-142; Radovanović 2000, p. 332-339, 343-
347; 2006, p. 107-121; Bonsall et alii 1997, p. 50-92; Borić et alii 2004, p. 221-243; Lillie & Jacobs 2006, p. 880-886). Changes in food
sources and production/procurement strategies of food are far to fit the model defined for the Neolithic period.
2
Generally, there are three concrete situations of neolithisation so far accepted – primary areas (in which "forms of Neolithic life" are
revealed independently), areas which are being neolithisated by acculturation and others through colonization (Childe 1958, p. 341-345). The
Romanian archaeology, as well as other schools in the Balkans, generally accepted the thesis of the neolithisation by diffusion, the first
"cultures" of the Neolithic in this area are considered to be the result of the penetration of communities from other regions (Dumitrescu et alii
1983, p. 71; Comşa 1987, p. 26-28; Ursulescu 2001a, p. 115, etc.). Recent studies have shown that these assertions are in good measure false,
the changes specific to this period being the result of a much more complex phenomenon, based on social mechanisms that do not necessarily
implied migrations and colonization or intake of populations (see Zvelebil 2001; Budja 2001, 2003).
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
20
newer - Precriş; 2. Starčevo-Criş; 3. Ciumeşti or Pişcolt
3
5 (Vlassa 1966, p. 9-48; 1972, p. 7-
28; Lazarovici 1969, p. 4-26; Dumitrescu 1970, p. 187-199; Paul 1970, p. 97-104; Lazarovici
& Németi 1983, p. 34-36; Nica 1976, p. 435-463; Dumitrescu et alii 1983, p. 66; Comşa
1987, p. 27-33; Ursulescu 2001b, p. 125-134; Ciută 2000, p. 5-101).
We have to mention that the Early Neolithic cultures in Romania cannot be strictly
reduced to the country’s current politico-administrative territory. They cover a much larger
geographic area. Thus, the Starčevo-Criş culture occupies part of the former Yugoslavia,
eastern Hungary (where it is known as the Körös
46
culture) and north-central area of the
Republic of Moldova (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1993; Ursulescu 2001b). More recently, some authors
consider the discoveries in northern Bulgaria (Kremikovci, Ovčarovo and Tsonevo groups)
and Macedonia (Anzabegovo-Vršnik group) as belonging (or being "related") to the Starčevo-
Criş cultural complex (Ursulescu 2001b; Minichreiter 2001).
Instead, the Pișcolt (Ciumești) group includes Hungary (the Alföld or AVK culture,
the Szatmár II group), Southwestern Ukraine (the Diakovo cultural group), reaching up in
eastern Slovakia (the East Slovak linear ceramics, Vel’ke Raskovce, Kopčany or Kopusany
cultural groups) (Kalicz & Makkay 1977; Dumitrescu et alii 1983; Comșa 1987; Virag 2004).
It is to consider that the funeral practices specific to this area, chronologically include
the use of both funeral rites, as well as various funeral treatments. The funerary discoveries
from this chronological segment are certified for the Starčevo-Criş and Pişcolt communities.
However, some of the graves from Gura Baciului
57
8were attributed to the Precriş
ceramic group (Ciută 2005, p. 113-115). From our point of view, this connection is forced and
weakly argued, those archaeological features presenting specific characteristics of the
Starčevo-Criş funerary ritual. Under these circumstances, we will analyze these graves in the
chapter dedicated to the Starčevo-Criş ceramic group.
REFERENCES
Bailey 2000 D. W. Bailey, Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation
and Identity, London.
Bonsall et alii 1997 C. Bonsall, R. Lennon, K. McSweeney, C. Stewart, D.
Harkness, V. Boroneanţ, L. Bartosiewicz, R. Payton, J.
Chapman, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron
Gates: a palaeodietary perspective, in Journal of
European Archaeology, 5, p. 50-92.
Borić et alii 2004 D. Borić, G. Grupe, J. Peters, Ž. Mikić, Is the Mesolithic–
Neolithic Subsistence Dichotomy Real? New Stable
3
This redefinition was made by Gh. Lazarovici (Lazarovici & Németi 1983, p. 34-36). His opinion was that the most representative and most
numerous ceramics have been discovered at the site of Pişcolt not at Ciumeşti, and on the basis of chronological analogies, this new cultural-
historical construction was assigned to the Middle Neolithic (Lazarovici & Németi 1983, p. 34-36; Lazarovici 1993, p. 247-249). The most
recent synthesis of the Romanian Neo-Eneolithic (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa & Vulpe 2001) keeps the traditional classification (Ursulescu 2001b,
p. 133), which is why we will refer to it.
4
Named after the Körös River whose basin covers a part of the eastern Hungary; in Romania the same river is named Criş.
5
In fact, M. Ciută mentions at one point that "(...) not all of the graves discovered at Gura Baciului belong to the Precriş culture, only, no
more than 5", later stating that "actually less than 5", and finally describe only grave no. 1 (Ciută 2005, p. 113-114).
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
21
Isotope Evidence from the Danube Gorges, in European
Journal of Archaeology, 7, 3, p. 221-248.
Budja 2001 M. Budja, The transition to farming in Southeast Europe:
perspectives from pottery, in Documenta Praehistorica,
28, p. 27-45.
Budja 2003 M. Budja, Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkans Early
Neolithic: where in the puzzle, in Documenta
Praehistorica, 30, p. 115-130.
Childe 1958 G. V. Childe, The Dawn of European Civilization, Sixth
Edition Revised, New York.
Ciută 2000 M. Ciută, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea celui mai vechi
orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din România. Cultura
Precriş, in Apulum, XXXVII, 1, p. 51-101.
Ciută 2005 M. Ciută, Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spaţiul
intracarpatic transilvănean, Alba Iulia.
Comșa 1987 E. Comşa, Neoliticul pe teritoriul României. Considerații,
Bucureşti.
Dumitrescu 1970
Vl. Dumitrescu, Cu privire la cea mai veche cultură
neolitică din România, in Studii şi Cercetării de Istorie
Veche, XXI, 2, p. 187-199.
Dumitrescu et alii 1983 Vl. Dumitrescu, Al. Bolomey, F. Mogoşeanu, Esquisse
d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie jusqu’á la fin de l’âge
du bronze, Bucureşti.
Hodder 1990 I. Hodder, The Domestication of Europe. Structure and
Contingency in Neolithic Societies, Cambridge.
Kalicz & Makkay 1977 N. Kalicz, J. Makkay, Die Linienbandkeramik in der
Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene, Budapest.
Lazarovici 1969 Gh. Lazarovici, Cultura Starčevo-Criş în Banat, in Acta
Musei Napocensis, VI, p. 3-26.
Lazarovici 1993 Gh. Lazarovici, Les Carpates meridionales et la
Transylvanie, in J. Kozlowski (ed.), Atlas du Néolithique
européen. Vol. 1: L'Europe orientale, Lge, p. 243-284.
Lazarovici & Németi 1983 Gh. Lazarovici, I. Németi, Neoliticul dezvoltat din nord-
vestul Romaniei (Sălajul, Sătmarul şi Clujul), in Acta Musei
Porolissensis, VII, p. 17-60.
Leroi-Gourhan 1983 A. Leroi-Gourhan, Gestul şi Cuvântul, vol.1 Tehnică şi
limbaj, Bucureşti.
Lillie 1996 M. Lillie, Mesolithic and Neolithic Population of Ukraine:
Indications of Diet From Dental Pathology, in Current
Anthropology, 37, 1, p. 135-142.
Lillie & Jacobs 2006 M. Lillie, K. Jacobs, Stable isotope analysis of 14
individuals from the Mesolithic cemetery of Vasilyevka II,
Dnieper Rapids region, Ukraine, in Journal of
Archaeological Science, 33, p. 880-886.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
22
Nica 1976 M. Nica, Cârcea, cea mai veche aşezare neolitică de la
sud de Carpaţi, in Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche,
XXVII, 4, p. 435-463.
Marinescu-Bîlcu 1993 S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, Les Carpates orientale et la Moldavie,
in J. Kozlowski (ed.), Atlas du Néolithique européen. Vol.
1: L'Europe orientale, Liège, p. 191-241.
Minichreiter 2001 K. Minichreiter, The architecture of Early and Middle
Neolithic settlements of the Starčevo culture in Northern
Croatia, in Documenta Praehistorica, 28, p. 199-214.
Paul 1970 I. Paul, Săpăturile din vara anului 1960 de la Ocna Sibiului,
in Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, IX, p. 97-104.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa &
Vulpe 2001
M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria
Românilor, vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate,
Bucureşti.
Radovanović 2000 I. Radovanović, Houses and Burials at Lepenski Vir, in
European Journal of Archaeology, 3, 3, p. 330-349.
Radovanović 2006 I. Radovanović, Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic
contacts in the Iron Gates Region and the Central
Balkans, in Documenta Praehistorica, 33, p. 107-124.
Ursulescu 2001a N. Ursulescu, Problema neolitizării, in M. Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria Românilor, vol. I.
Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, p. 111-116.
Ursulescu 2001b N. Ursulescu, Neoliticul timpuriu, in M. Petrescu
Dîmboviţa, Al. Vulpe (eds.), Istoria Românilor, vol. I.
Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, Bucureşti, p. 124-133.
Virag 2004 C. Virag, Așezările grupului neolitic Pișcolt în nord-vestul
României, in Satu Mare. Studii și Comunicări, XVII-XXI,
1, p. 13-26.
Vlassa 1966 N. Vlassa, Cultura Criş în Transilvania, in Acta Musei
Napocensis, III, p. 9-48.
Vlassa 1972 N. Vlassa, Cea mai veche fază a complexului cultural
Starčevo-Criş în România, in Acta Musei Napocensis, IX,
p. 7-28.
Zvelebil 2001 M. Zvelebil, The agricultural transition and the origins of
Neolithic society in Europe, in Documenta Praehistorica,
28, p. 1-26.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
23
Chapter III
THE INDEX OF FUNERARY DISCOVERIES FROM EARLY NEOLITHIC
_______________________________________________________________________
Cătălin Lazăr & Ciprian Astaloș
The number of funerary discoveries attributable to the Early Neolithic is not very big –
about 80 graves (Fig. 1). Of these, the vast majority are inhumation graves and only one is a
cremation grave (Gura Baciului - grave no. 7). To these can be added more than 90 human
bone remains found in various domestic contexts (Fig. 1).
The funerary behavior of specific populations of the Early Neolithic was particularly
complex, involving the use of both inhumation and cremation, the depositions of skulls,
double graves, funerary differentiated treatments, unconventional funerary practices. So far,
there are not known necropolises belonging to the cultures from this period.
Below we present the list of sites in Romania where Early Neolithic funerary
discoveries were made.
1. Andrid
Commune: Andrid
County: Satu Mare
Toponymic: Păşune/Ördöngös
Latitude / Longitude: 47°30'52.9267" N,
22°20'49.7731" E
Altitude: 120 m
Culture: Pişcolt (Ciumeşti)
Type: intra-muros burials
Without a clear archaeological context,
there are four inhumation graves
mentioned in the literature, discovered
accidentally during the damming work.
They contained individuals deposited in
crouched position, without other
archaeological data.
Reference: Németi 1999; Astaloş & Virag
2007.
2. Basarabi
Town: Calafat
County: Dolj
Toponymic: La Vârtej
Latitude / Longitude: 44°00'25.9076" N,
23°00'37.2281" E
Altitude: 66.3 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones
Within this settlement, in one of the pits
researched on this occasion was discovered
a fragment of a human jaw with a strongly
blunted dental crown (Fig. 2).
Unfortunately no other archaeological
details about this discovery are available.
Reference: Nica 1971.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
24
Fig. 1. Map of Early Neolithic funerary findings (numbers of sites correspond to the numbers on the map).
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
25
Fig. 2. The human jaw from Basarabi settlement.
Without scale (after Nica 1971).
3. Căpleni I
Commune: Căpleni
County: Satu Mare
Toponymic: Canalul de Irigații
Latitude / Longitude: 47°42'43.7591" N,
22°30'16.0406" E
Altitude: 120 m
Culture: Pişcolt (Ciumeşti) (?)
Type: intra-muros burial
During the rescue excavations for an
irrigation canal in the area were discovered
some Pişcolt archaeological features,
including a grave. It was discovered inside
a pit (G1) and contained an individual
lying on the right side, with the legs gently
bent, oriented SE-NW. Keeping in mind
the fact that the pit was situated at a
considerable distance from the rest of
Pişcolt features (ca. 400 m), and that there
is a Tiszapolgár settlement nearby, some
authors incline to attribute the grave to this
culture.
Reference: Iercoşan 1987, 2002; Németi
1999; Lichter 2001; Băcueț-Crișan 2004;
Astaloş & Virag 2007.
4. Căpleni II
Commune: Căpleni
County: Satu Mare
Toponymic: Togul lui Reök/Reök-tag
Latitude / Longitude: 47°42'43.7591" N,
22°30'16.0406" E
Altitude: 120 m
Culture: Pişcolt (Ciumeşti)
Type: intra-muros burial
An inhumation grave (no. 2) has been
discovered on this site, attributed to the
Early Neolithic. The grave has been
identified within the settlement, near a
housing area and it contained an individual
lying in crouched position, on the left side,
SES-NWN oriented (Fig. 3). The funeral
inventory is missing.
Reference: Iercoşan 1993, 2002; Németi
1999; Lichter 2001; Astaloş & Virag 2007.
Fig. 3. The grave no. 2 from Căpleni II. Without
scale (after Astaloş & Virag 2007).
5. Cârcea I
Commune: Coşoveni
County: Dolj
Toponymic: La Hanuri
Latitude / Longitude: 44°16'8.1906" N,
23°53'10.2300" E
Altitude: 140 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones
In different contexts (especially pits)
within the settlement were discovered
numerous fragments of scattered human
bones without anatomical connectivity,
associated with ceramic fragments, and
other archaeological pieces and animal
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
26
bones. Among them there are eight human
skulls and other anatomical elements
(femur, tibia etc.).
Reference: Bolomey 1976; Nica 1976;
Nica et alii 1999, 2001; Ion et alii 2009.
Fig. 4. The "facial mask" from Cârcea II settlement
(after Ion et alii 2009).
6. Cârcea II
Commune: Coşoveni
County: Dolj
Toponymic: Viaduct
Latitude / Longitude: 44°16'18.0921" N,
23°53'13.2247" E
Altitude: 138.5 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones, intra-muros burial
During the research of the settlement,
some scattered human bones, especially
skulls and long bones, were found in the
defensive ditch and in pits. A noteworthy
addition to these is the "facial mask",
discovered in pit no. 9 (Fig. 4).
Some authors recall a child skeleton, with
traces of burning, deposited on a hearth.
Reference: Nica & Nicolăescu-Plopşor
1975; Nica 1977; Bolomey 1980;
Lazarovici & Maxim 1995; Nica et alii
1996; Lichter 2001; Haimovici 2006; Ion
et alii 2009.
7. Cenad
Commune: Cenad
County: Timiș
Toponymic: -
Latitude / Longitude: 46°08'19.8164" N,
20°35'17.2299" E
Altitude: 88.1 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
Within the Neolithic settlement identified
in the area, was found a human skeleton
with red ochre and a flint blade.
Reference: Comșa 1960, 1974; Lichter
2001.
8. Cernat
Commune: Cernat
County: Covasna
Toponymic: Dealul de Aur
Latitude / Longitude: 45°57'47.7228" N,
26°01'35.2249" E
Altitude: 570 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials
Within the Starčevo-Criş settlement
identified in the area, three graves were
discovered and attributed to this culture,
about which we have only summary data.
Grave no. 1 belonged to a single
individual, deposited in crouched position,
and oriented S-N. The second grave
contained the skeleton of an individual in
the same position, oriented SE-NW. Grave
no. 3 belonged to an individual deposited
in moderately crouched position, oriented
E-W. A ceramic vessel with four legs was
placed near the deceased, in the skull area.
According to Z. Székely "there were pots
in the other two graves, but they were
broken and discarded by workers". The
graves were found at depths which vary
between 0.80 m and 1.00 m.
Reference: Székely 1970; Comșa 1974;
M. Ciută 1997; Lichter 2001; Lazăr 2008.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
27
9. Cluj Napoca
Town: Cluj Napoca
County: Cluj
Toponymic: Str.30 Decembrie
Latitude / Longitude: 46°46'11.2460" N,
23°35'17.7876" E
Altitude: 354.8 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
On the occasion of digs for a foundation
work for a block of flats, five graves
belonging to different historical periods
have been discovered. Of these, one (grave
4) was attributed to the Early Neolithic.
The pit was approximately oval shaped
(1.50 x 0.50 m) and was found at a depth
of about 7 m from the current level. The
authors mention that "the pit base was
lined with a thin layer of small river
pebbles".
Fig. 5. Grave no. 4 from Cluj Napoca
(after Vlassa 1970).
Unfortunately the skeleton was destroyed,
but on the information available it can be
ascertained that the individual has been
oriented NW-SE and deposited on the right
side (Fig. 5). Red ochre was sprinkled over
the body of the deceased. The funeral
inventory consists of a fragmentary vessel
deposited near the skull.
Reference: Necrasov 1965b; Vlassa 1970,
1976; Comșa 1974; Lichter 2001; Lazăr
2008.
10. Coţatcu
Commune: Podgoria
County: Buzău
Toponymic: Cetățuia
Latitude / Longitude: 45°28'30.2642" N,
27°00'11.1545" E
Altitude: 284.2 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
On the occasion of the research of the
Early Neolithic settlement, at its extremity,
was identified an inhumation grave,
assigned to the same chronological and
cultural horizon. It contained an individual
deposited in crouched position on its left
side, oriented N-S (Fig. 6), without funeral
inventory.
Reference: Andreescu et alii 2009;
Trohani et alii 2010.
Fig. 6. The Early Neolithic grave from Coțatcu
(after Trohani et alii 2010).
11. Cristian I
Commune: Cristian
County: Sibiu
Toponymic: Cristian I
Latitude / Longitude: 45°47'6.6196" N,
24°01'47.1449" E
Altitude: 438.2 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials
The preventive archaeological research
carried out for the construction of the Sibiu
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
28
– Orăștie highway revealed a large
Starčevo-Criş settlement. Among the many
archaeological features investigated, there
are mentioned a series of graves assigned
to the same culture. Unfortunately, they are
not yet published, the data at our disposal
being minimal.
Reference: Luca et alii 2012.
12. Cuina Turcului
Commune: Dubova
County: Mehedinţi
Toponymic: -
Latitude / Longitude: 44°35'53.0608" N,
22°15'40.6979" E
Altitude: 288.4 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones
The research carried out at this site,
situated in the Ciucarul Mare Mountain,
now covered by the waters of the reservoir
of the Iron Gates dam, revealed near the
Epipaleolithic settlement levels, three
layers assigned to the Starčevo-Criş
culture. In these layers, over 40 scattered
human bones have been identified .
The data about the archaeological context
are scarce. In all three levels, human teeth
have been identified, and in the second
level a skull fragment was found near a
hearth. From the level III comes the
complete bone of a 7 years old child,
which may be related to a possible grave.
The osteological remains are kept at the
"Francisc Rainer" Institute of
Anthropology in Bucharest.
Reference: Păunescu 1978; Lazăr &
Soficaru 2004.
13. Dudeştii Vechi (Beşenova Veche)
Commune: Dudeştii Vechi
County: Timiș
Toponymic: Movila lui Deciov (Östelep)
Latitude / Longitude: 46°03'49.3124" N,
20°28'42.2913" E
Altitude: 80.2 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials, scattered bones.
In 1907-1908, amateur archaeologist G. N.
Kisleghi, found in Beşenova Veche (today
Dudeştii Vechi), some inhumation graves,
three of which are attributed to the Early
Neolithic (graves no. 1, 4 and 5). The
resumption of this site in 2001, led to the
identification of another grave which,
considering the stratigraphy and the
treatment of the deceased, corresponds to
the type described by G. N. Kisleghi. The
graves contained individuals deposited in
crouched position, with various
orientations and without funeral inventory.
Only in the case of grave no. 1 was
discovered a red ochre ball in the skull
area. Also, within the perimeter of the
settlement were discovered two human
cranial fragments.
Reference: Kutzián 1944; Comşa 1960,
1974; Lazarovici 1969; Lichter 2001;
Lazarovici & Ciobotaru 2002.
14. Glăvăneştii Vechi
Commune: Andrieşeni
County: Iași
Toponymic: -
Latitude / Longitude: 47°33'39.3749" N,
27°16'2.5981" E
Altitude: 100.3 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials
In 1949, a Starčevo-Criş settlement was
discovered south of mound IV, in the
meadow of the Jijia River, on a small
grind. Here, E. Comşa discovered a double
inhumation grave. Not far from it, another
grave belonging to the same culture was
found.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
29
Fig. 7. The grave no. 2 from Glăvăneştii Vechi.
Without scale (after Comșa 1995).
The grave no. 1 is located near the
southern side of a surface dwelling. The
skeleton was badly preserved. The
individual was deposited in extreme
crouched position, on the right side, with
the skull oriented to the SE. It had no
funeral inventory. Near the aforementioned
dwelling was found another similar
building, with the long axis parallel to the
first. The second grave (no. 2) was
discovered near its corner. It is a double
grave, which contained the osteological
remains of two individuals (2A and 2B),
oriented NE-SW (Fig. 7). The two
skeletons are side by side, with the
columns of the spine being parallel. The
first skeleton (2A) was placed in
moderated crouched position, on the left
side and the second skeleton (2B) is
located behind the 2A skeleton, placed in
the same position. The grave held no
funeral inventory.
Reference: Comşa 1995; Lichter 2001.
15. Gornea I
Commune: Sichevița
County: Caraş Severin
Toponymic: Cărămidărie
Latitude / Longitude: 44°40'56.4845" N,
21°51'18.0747" E
Altitude: 120 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
An inhumation grave was found within a
Starčevo-Criş dwelling. It contained the
osteological remains of a single mature
individual, mostly destroyed. A series of
ceramic fragments considered to be in
relation to the grave were found in the
same perimeter.
Reference: Luca & Dragomir 1985;
Lazarovici & Maxim 1995.
16. Gornea II
Commune: Sichevița
County: Caraş Severin
Toponymic: Căuniţa de Sus
Latitude / Longitude: 44°40'56.4845" N,
21°51'18.0747" E
Altitude: 120.2 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones
Numerous fragments of skull and scattered
human bones were discovered in non-
funeral contexts within a Starčevo-Criş
settlement. Of great interest is a femoral
epiphysis, which presents a perforation.
Also, the author of the excavations (Gh.
Lazarovici) mentions other perforated
human bone fragments.
Reference: Lazarovici 1977; Lichter 2001.
17. Gornea III
Commune: Sichevița
County: Caraş Severin
Toponymic: Locurile Lungi
Latitude / Longitude: 44°40'56.4845" N,
21°51'18.0747" E
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
30
Altitude: 120 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
Within the Starčevo-Criş settlement was
discovered a grave belonging to the same
culture. The individual was oriented E-W,
deposited in strongly crouched position, on
the right side (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. The grave from Gornea III. Without scale
(after Lazarovici, unpublished).
The upper limbs were folded on his chest.
The backbone was slightly curved, and the
head was strongly pushed back. Ceramic
fragments were placed all over the body,
but especially on the lower limbs.
Reference: Lazarovici 1977; Lichter 2001;
Lazăr 2008.
18. Grădinile
Commune: Studina
County: Olt
Toponymic: La Izlaz
Latitude / Longitude: 43°56'42.3457" N,
24°25'0.3675" E
Altitude: 76.35 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials
During the research of a multilevel
settlement, an inhumation grave was
discovered in the Early Neolithic level.
The individual was buried in a strongly
crouched position, on the right side,
oriented N-S (Fig. 9). A few ceramic
fragments were discovered around the
pelvis and the lower limbs.
Fig. 9. The grave no. 1 from Grădinile. Without
scale (after Nica 1981).
The resumption of the research in this
prehistoric settlement led to the discovery
of a new inhumation grave, also assigned
to the Starčevo-Criş culture.
Reference: Nica 1981, 1986; Lichter
2001; Lazăr 2008.
19. Grumăzeşti
Commune: Grumăzeşti
County: Neamţ
Toponymic: -
Latitude / Longitude: 47°08'32.1836" N,
26°22'45.4395" E
Altitude: 367.4 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial, scattered bones
A Starčevo-Criş settlement was identified
in the western part of the Târpeşti village,
on the left bank of the Netedu River, near
its confluence with Topliţa, on a low
terrace. An inhumation grave was
discovered near a dwelling. The individual
was buried at a depth of -0.80 m / -0.85 m,
in crouched (stressed) position, on the left,
with the upper limbs folded on the side and
palms under the head. It was oriented W-E,
looking to the South, so the skull swirled
unnaturally (Fig. 10).
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
31
Fig. 10. The grave from Grumăzești settlement.
Scale 1:20 (after Marinescu-Bîlcu 1971).
The funeral inventory is missing.
Interestingly, at a depth of -0.60 m / -0.65
m (only at 0.20 m above the grave) there
was a complex of small stones mixed with
ceramic fragments and pieces of adobe,
which was most likely a form of marking
the grave on the surface.
Later, a skull and other osteological human
remains were discovered in the same
settlement, without knowing their exact
number. The human bones have been
associated with ceramic fragments, stones
and animal bones.
Reference: Marinescu-Bîlcu 1971, 1972;
Comșa 1974.
20. Gura Baciului
Commune: Baciu
County: Cluj
Toponymic: -
Latitude / Longitude: 46°47'15.8089" N,
23°31'15.1581" E
Altitude: 390.7 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burials, scattered bones
First, in 1960, two human cranial
fragments were discovered inside a pit.
Later, 10 graves were found among the
structures of living quarters or in the pits of
the former dwellings. Most of them are
inhumation graves with one cremation
grave (no. 7).
The graves usually contain individuals in
anatomical connection, deposited in
crouched position, both on the left and
right side, with different orientations. It is
to mention that grave no. 8 is not a
particular grave, but a human skull found
in isolation, and grave no. 10 contained
human bones without anatomical
connection, mixed with animal bones and
other archaeological material (ceramics).
The funeral inventory is missing in most
cases. In grave no. 4 was found a grinder
and a pestle, and in grave no. 9 a flint
flake. In the cases of graves no. 1 (Fig. 11),
2 and 6, the bodies have been associated
with ceramic fragments belonging to the
Starčevo-Criş culture.
Fig. 11. The grave no. 1 from Gura Baciului.
Without scale (after Vlassa & Palkó 1965).
Also, almost all of the tombs held animal
bones which are probably associated, most
likely, to offerings during the funeral
ceremonies.
One of the inhumation graves (no. 6) has
been dated: Lv-2157 = 6400 ± 90 B.P.
The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania
32
Grave no. 7 was considered to be a
cremation grave and it is the only one of its
kind belonging to the Starčevo-Criş culture
in Romania. It featured the remains of
cremation, consisting of ashes, charcoal
pieces, and strongly calcined human bones
deposited into a pit with a diameter of 55-
60 cm, immediately below the deposits of
a house platform - P24. The pit was placed
in the south-eastern corner of the dwelling
P24. There were found the remains of
scorched earth, implying that the cremation
took place elsewhere, and later the debris
was deposited in the pit. Above them was
placed a stone head of the so-called "Gura
Baciului type" (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12. The cremation grave from Gura Baciului.
Without scale (after Lazarovici & Maxim 1995).
The osteological material collected from
the grave consists of small fragments (of
1.5 cm – a maxillary fragment with 3 teeth;
to 3-5 mm), loose, most white, only few
were black, with traces of burning, the
latter having a shiny appearance. The
grave had no funeral inventory.
Reference: Vlassa & Palkó 1965;
Necrasov 1965a, 1965b; Vlassa 1972,
1976; Comșa 1974; Necrasov et alii 1990;
Lazarovici & Maxim 1995; Mantu 2000;
Lichter 2001; Lazăr 2008; Lazăr & Băcueţ-
Crişan 2011.
21. Leţ
Commune: Boroşneul Mare
County: Covasna
Toponymic: Várhegy
Latitude / Longitude: 45°51'23.1597" N,
26°01'19.8443" E
Altitude: 537.6 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: intra-muros burial
On the occasion of completion of surveys
in an archaeological complex comprising
of three Neo-Eneolithic settlements, two
stacked graves have been discovered. They
were found in ditch no. 1. According to the
author of this research, the graves do not
belong to the Starčevo-Criş culture. Other
researchers have attributed at least one of
these graves (no. 2) to this culture. The
grave belonged to a child, "hacked to
pieces", buried at a depth of 0.65 m.
Starčevo-Criş ceramic fragments covered
the upper part of the body. Other fragments
of Starčevo-Criş ceramics, animal bones
and pieces of adobe were also found in the
pit.
Reference: Nestor 1957; Comşa 1960,
1974; Lazarovici 1984; Lichter 2001.
22. Măgura
Commune: Măgura
County: Teleorman
Toponymic: Buduiasca / TELEOR 003
Latitude / Longitude: 44°01'14.1188" N,
25°24'41.2295" E
Altitude: 55.6 m
Culture: Starčevo-Criş
Type: scattered bones </