|
Institutul Pentru Cercetarea
Patrimoniului Cultural Transilvănean în Context European ACTA TERRAE SEPTEMCASTRENSIS IIISSN 1583-1817 Editura Economică, Sibiu 2003 Autor: Sabin Adrian Luca pag.(pages): 20-43 NEW DISCOVERIES OF THE
NEOLITHIC AND AENEOLITHIC FINE ARTS AT TĂRTĂRIA AND LUMEA
NOUĂ, ALBA COUNTY, AND MATTERS CONCERNING
THEIR TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY[1] REZUMAT
Autorul
descrie un lot de 13 piese aparţinând categoriei numită, de obicei,
plastică descoperite în cuprinsul aşezărilor neolitice de la
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii şi Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă. După
descrierea pieselor se propune o discuţie despre cronologia internă
a acestora.
În final, se încearcă descifrarea
semnificaţiei ritualului de distrugere a pieselor de plastică
neolitică şi eneolitică. Varianta în limba română a prezentului
articol va apare în revista APVLVM, numărul 39/2002. The prehistoric Settlements from Tărtăria-Gura Luncii and Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă with Neolithic and
Eneolithic levels, represent through the variety and quality of the Archaeological
materials discovered there, a difficult attempt for any researcher
preoccupied with the study of these periods in the History of Transylvania. Being situated in agricultural areas that are intensely cultivated
nowadays, the materials of these two sites here, are and will still be
rummaged and taken out incidentally. For this reason, these two sites are the
base of several valuable private collections and have systematically been
studied during several stages. The results of the systematic investigations
as well as those obtained from field trips made these Settlements famous. ¤ The Archaeological site from Tărtăria-Gura Luncii was known after a series of accidentally discoveries
made by M. Roska.[2] The prehistoric settlement from Gura
Luncii was the first time systematically investigated by Kurth Horedt
during 1942-1943.[3] Following
excavations were made by Nicolae Vlassa in 1961.[4] The last systematic investigations were made here in 1989 and were
made by Iuliu Paul.[5] ¤ The Description of the
Neolithic and Eneolithic Plastic Arts from Tărtăria-Gura Luncii (Gheorghe Alungulesei’s
collection). 1.Fragment
of statue (Pl.I/3; Photo
1/1). Representing the head and the body from the
neck down. Judging by its main features, this fragment of statue is one of
the most recent of those belonging to the new series of incidentally
discoveries made at Tărtăria. The mask of the statue is a developed
type and slightly pentagonal. The eyes are made of two incisions, the right
one being more oblique than the left one. The nose is round, one of the
nostrils being rendered by an impression in the form of a tear. A very
important feature for the Chronology of the statue is the fact that the top
of the head is drawn towards the back like at many other representations from
Banat and Transylvania belonging to this chronological and cultural level. The
statue is made of brown paste, sandy and for common use. The burning is good.
The part that remained represents the Upper side of a “column idol” which
evolved from those very characteristics of the Starčevo-Criş
Culture and mainly found at the end of the Early phase of the Vinča
Culture. 2.
Fragment of statue (Pl.1/4; Photo
1/5). Representing the head of the statue.
The work represents a triangular mask with a grate nose. A slight incision,
interrupted by the nose, separates the face into two parts. The top of the
statue is blunted and the look is pointed upwards. The slip, in days of yore,
is totally gone. The statue is brick-coloured, sandy structure and light burning,
the paste being baked. The
statue may culturally and chronologically belong to an Early phase of the
Vinča Culture, the Transylvanian alternative. 3.
Head of statue (Pl. I/6; Photo
4/3). As
it appears, the head of the statue does not have a mask. The way in which the
face is made points out the fact that the statue was accomplished under the
influence of an extra-Carpathian culture (Gumelniţa, Sălcuţa,
Precucuteni) that belongs to the Upper Eneolithic. Description: prominent
eyebrows, the eyes rendered by incisions, in a slight oblique position as
compared to the nose; the nose is represented in a realist manner, even the
nostrils are rendered by two intrusions, round mouth. The
fragment is brown and there are liftings of burning on. The statue is
cleansed with sand, chaff and has a very good burning. It is also polished
and has slip (on the outside). This
representation may be chronologically and culturally attributed to one of the
phases of the Petreşti Culture or maybe to the Lumea Noua Culture. 4.
Fragment of altar (Pl.II/3; Photo
1/2-3; 4/4). The
Piece of altar that was kept has two legs as pedestal and a fragment from a
small container. It is also kept an anthropomorphic protoma with a round-pentagonal
mask and the eyes situated almost perpendicularly on the nose are rendered by
incisions. The eyebrows are well defined. The nose of the protoma is
prominent and long. The
fragment is brick-coloured (and black on the inside), it has half-fine sandy
structure, spatula retouches and good burning (as it seems secondary burning
because of a fire). The
altar joins the other works which were found in the Eneolithic strata at
Tărtăria and taking into account its structure and manner in which
it was made, it probably belongs to the Petreşti and Lumea Nouă
Cultures. 5.
Fragment of statue (Pl. II/4; Photo
3/3) representing the head. The
fragment had a pentagonal mask on its face whose inner part is not kept
anymore, being broken a long time ago. The eyes are represented by deep
incisions and the nose follows the model of a small protuberance. From under
the nose another deep incision goes downwards. It is not known on what
distance this lays but not on a very long one, anyway, as it certainly
represents a nostril. The nape of the statue is blunted and so are its
breasts. This representation is yellow coloured, has fine sandy structure,
slip, and a very good burning. All
these features enable us to attribute this fragment of statue to the late
Eneolithic strata of this site. 6.
Fragment of statue (Pl. II/6; Photo
4/2). Only
the torso, it is one of the most beautiful works of this lot of objects. The
head, the arms – from the shoulders down – and the legs – from the thighs
down – were broken in days of yore. The fragment that has been kept is a
clear evidence of the special care of the Ancient author, to render correctly
the anatomical details of the representation (e.g. the number of the
fingers). It appears that like many other statues of the Tisa I Culture, this
one too sat on a throne. The
statue is brown, with grey slip and very good burning (the core of the
structure is black) and cleansed with fine sand. The
features of the statue enable us to attribute it to the Petreşti or
Lumea Nouă strata of this site. 7.
Head (?) made of a river rock (Photo 1/6). From
Tărtăria, too, it comes a round river-boulder on which one may
distinguish the features of a human face. There can be noticed the eyebrows
and semicircular eyes. The mouth, too, is semicircular and broad. The details
that make up the face which are in fact more grotesque than realistic and
though schematic as the Neolithic art usually is, make us think that we are
witnessing – in the best case – a product of the nature. ¤ The
prehistoric settlement from Tărtăria-Gura Luncii is one of the most important Archaeological sites of
Transylvania.[6] Some of
the statues that were incidentally discovered there may be attributed, at
least by their typology, to the already known Stratigraphy of the Ancient
villages of this area. The
first systematic excavations done by K. Horedt during 1942-1943 and published[7],
are according to the picture of the article[8],
much more complex than those done by N. Vlassa in 1961[9].
The latter added to the sections and A, C, D, E and B, F surface areas, which
had been investigated during 1942-1943, the H Section and G surface, both
having been done in 1961.[10]
The most complex excavations are those made in the G surface, which in fact
checked the profiles of the C surface, profiles that were analysed by the
scientist from Sibiu. K.
Horedt claims that the level of the Section A is 1,15 m. Even though the
excavations were deepened to 2,80 m but he couldn't find anything. K.
Horedt's most interesting observation is that the Turdaş pottery can be
found at any depth.[11] It
is a different case in what the B (F) Excavation is concerned. The Stratum
has been deepened up to 2,60 m, and the deepened dwelling discovered on this
occasion was excavated up to 3,80 m depth.[12] In
the C Excavation the painted pottery goes down up to 1,40 m, the Turdaş
pottery being found again there, at each level.[13] In
the E surface, at 3,20 m depth, inhabited ground was reached.[14] After
all these excavations, K. Horedt names the discovered levels
(Tărtăria I – with mud-huts; Tărtăria II a, b and c –
with surface dwellings).[15]
It is also very important the parallel between Tărtăria II b and
Boian A levels on the account of a pottery importation.[16] As
I was saying before, N. Vlassa's excavations were only meant to check the
already known Stratigraphy. I made use of N. Vlassa's conclusions in a quite
recent publication, in order to parallel the Stratigraphy of
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii with
that of Turdaş–Luncă.[17] Stratum no 1
from Tărtăria is generally analogous to Stratum no 1 from
Turdaş-Luncă.[18]
The Stratum is thin and interrupted, here and there, in both sites, and the
dwellings are mainly mud-huts containing very much material.[19] Concerning
the cultural classification of the first level of Tărtăria, it was
meanwhile demonstrated that the classical Tisa I culture is contemporary to
the Vinča C culture. This brings under a question mark the very Early
classification established for the Stratum 1 from Tărtăria.
According to the author's opinion, there are also Starčevo-Criş
materials. In fact, remains of this culture, pointed out by the presence of
hashed chaff used as a cleanser, paralleled with Vinča A. The first
level from Tărtăria was parallel with Vinča B1
because of the Tisa I materials present there. Meanwhile it has been
demonstrated that the latter genetic element, the Tisa I, is later discovered
and parallel to Vinča B2 (the Early Tisa I phase) and
Vinča C1 (the classical Tisa I phase).[20] According
to our observations, regarding the Turdaş stations that have been
investigated during the last 10 years, the presence of chaff as a cleanser is
loose but consistent. This is because of the late development of the Early
phase of Vinča culture and of the perpetuation of the Ancient paste
making technologies, as we have recently noticed on many occasions. Gh.
Lazarovici, the one who knows best the realities of the earlier phase of
Vinča culture in Romania, claimed in 1979 that: “At Tărtăria, besides statues were not found any definite
Vinča elements. But their structures, motifs and forms, the discoveries
from level no. I date later (s.n.) than those from Balta Sărată I,
Trnovačka, Banija, Aradac, cultural research stations belonging to the
Vinča A/B1.”[21]
The same author went on saying that: In
Transylvania… most of the elements considered to be Tisa, belong at present
to the Szakálhát culture, to the Bucovăţ cultural group or to the
Turdaş culture which developed independently of the Vinča culture.[22] All
these observations lead to a later classification of the Stratum, probably in
a period contemporary with level no I from Turdaş-Luncă, in this way being attributed to the earlier phase, or
slightly before it, of the Turdaş culture. Analysing
the state of earlier Vinča sites from Transylvania (Vinča A1-3
and B1)[23]
it comes out that it is possible for these Archaeological materials to be
dated later, as a consequence of a division process that had happened on this
historical area of Romania. Because of the mentioned phenomena and also
because of the contacts with the Vinča mother-areas broken for about 200
years, the Late Neolithic in Transylvania has Ancient features on which
overlaps a kind of painted pottery whose origins are in the NW and W areas of
Romania.[24] Stratum no 2
from Tărtăria, named by N. Vlassa also of“
Turdaş-Petreşti phase”, has exclusively surface dwellings[25],
unlike the Settlements from Turdaş-Luncă
(the lower level II consisting of mud-huts, only the Upper level II
consisting of surface dwellings) and Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor, point X2[26].
Here the “classical” Turdaş levels have a moment “of coming” (with
deepened dwellings). The subsequent level is a “sedentary level” (with
surface dwellings). This
observation suggests at least two ideas, different in their purpose,
concerning the Stratigraphy of those two sections: 1
the presence of those two Ancient levels of mud-huts at Turdaş-Luncă, may represent two
different moments of arrival and – implicitly – a possible hiatus between them. This observation
pleads for the antiquity of the former mud-huts of the both site, but not
earlier than Vinča B. 2)
That at Tărtăria, the Stratum no 1 is bound through the same
relation (coming – staying) as in the level II (or intermediary) at
Turdaş-Luncă and
Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor,
point X2 (earlier phase – late phase) and this makes it Vinča
B2. These
observations, as well as the one according to which the level II from
Tărtăria is 1 m depth[27],
may suggest the idea that there can be found the best Stratigraphy for the
Turdaş culture of this area. Stratum no 3
from Tărtăria is named by N. Vlassa also “Petreşti-Turdaş”.[28]
One may Notice again the resemblance between the Stratigraphy of Turdaş-Luncă and that of
Tărtăria (level III of the former station belongs to the
Petreşti A-B culture – probably A –, while Stratum no 3 of
Tărtăria generally belongs to this phase, too). It
must also be mentioned the observation according to which:… at Tărtăria, one pure
Petreşti Stratum is missing, lacking any Turdaş elements, as it can
be found in the Petreşti Settlements which are dated later and are
situated in places that outruns the maximum extension area of the Turdaş
culture. Moreover, I. Paul goes further in the investigation of the
Petreşti culture monography, claiming that: the Turdaş-Petreşti co-habit seems to have been for a longer
period of time in this area. Here, too, it finally ends with the gradual
spreading of the Petreşti culture in the form of several extensive
Settlements, densely inhabited and belonging to the Middle (A-B) phases,
especially to the late (B) phase.[29]
It can be noticed that the matter concerning this co-inhabit is not at all
cleared up, and that because of at least two reasons: 1.
The secondary implication of Some Turdaş Archaeological elements in the
Petreşti Stratum as a result of the building of the Petreşti
Settlements and Archaeological complex. 2.
The borrowing by the Petreşti inhabitants of Some incised decorative
motives, having their own evolution but still close to the basic model, in
the Petreşti culture. Stratum no 4
from Tărtăria was named Petreşti-Coţofeni
by the same late researcher from Cluj. He thought that from a late phase of
the Petreşti culture and undecorated by painting, it can go to the
Coţofeni culture.[30]
Certainly the chronological distance between the Petreşti culture, phase
B, and the Coţofeni culture is considerable according to our knowledge
at present, and this makes this theory unreliable. H.
Dumitrescu notices that the inhabitants of the Coţofeni culture
preferred, like the Neolithic Turdaş or Petreşti communities[31],
the same kind of habitat – at least during the earlier phases. This
observation is important for the definition of the specific economy at the
end of the Eneolithic.[32] All
these observations can be supplemented with those ones made in 1989, when the
habitation levels that have been previously established, were confirmed. ¤ All
these ideas, have been reminded to the reader for a better cultural and
chronological classification of, at least, several of the statues of the
collection dealt with. We speak about the statues mentioned at Pl. I/3-4,
6;
II/3-4, 6. According to their typological and stylistic features, these
statues could be divided into, at least, two Groups, which would belong to
two different chronological moments. The
former group includes the statues from Pl. I /3-4 and
II/3-4. This series
could also be divided into subgroups because of the statue from Pl. I /
3, on
the one side, and of the statues from Pl. I/4; II/4 on the other side, and
finally because of the altar from Pl. II/3. These
subgroups would also have chronological valences, the subgroup no 1 being the
earlier, by the presence of the statue from Pl. I /3. On the account on Some
similar statues, it was established the antiquity of the ritual complex
discovered by N. Vlassa at Tărtăria.[33]
This one consists of 16 burned-clay statues, two Cycladic alabaster idols, a Spondylus-shell bracelet and three
slates (little plates) with incised marks, none of these having been published
before together with illustrations (the statues). Besides, there were also,
the scattered bones of a human being about 35-40 years old, several of them
burned and the others broken. N. Vlassa thought of a possible form of ritual
cannibalism.[34] Judging
by the image of the anthropomorphic clay statues from the Vinča area, of
the approached chronological moment, it comes out that the anthropomorphic
ones from Gornea[35],
Balta Sărată[36]
or Liubcova[37] could be
the typological model for those of the Tărtăria group. But none of
the approached statues are so structurally compressed as the Transylvanian
deposit. In my opinion, the Archaeological context discovered by N. Vlassa is
truly ritual and has nothing to do with the Stratigraphy that has so far been
known for this site, especially with Stratum no 1. The holy statues were
buried in, having no relation with the habitation strata from
Tărtăria. It rather belongs to an earlier phase, chronologically
classified in a previous stage. The people that buried the statues were
either passing by, or they were doing an initiation or devotion ritual. Its
signification is still unknown to us, the sacred place having been inhabited
only after the signification of the devotion ritual had been forgotten, or
even the Neolithic population changed something in its specific manner of
relating to the divine. This modification appeared together with the
Turdaş culture as it is nowadays called. Each
time this complex of worship was investigated, it was very difficult that it
should also chronologically suit (adapt) to the Stratigraphy in this case, as
the typology of the statues urged their classification into an earlier phase,
and the pottery allowed this only in a compulsory way.[38] We
think that our previous explanation is the solution to our problem regarding
the chronological classification of the ritual complex from
Tărtăria, but also regarding Some Ancient levels that have an
already well-known Stratigraphy in Transylvania. The conservatism of the
earlier Vinča – communities mentioned above – can be noticed in the
perpetuation of some archaic Vinča features, in the Turdaş pottery
and especially in the statues found in these stations. The Turdaş
culture, at a chronological Vinča B or C phase, still observed the
common laws that had already been imposed by the Vinča inhabitants
during the A phase of their culture, while they had for a long time failed to
observe them in their native places. How else could it be explained the fact
that the mask of the Transylvanian statues is triangular – or slightly
pentagonal –, plainly rendered throughout the Late Neolithic, like in the
Turdaş culture. This is characteristic only to the earlier phases of the
Vinča culture in Yugoslavia and in the Southern area of Banat?[39]
How could we explain the fact that all the Vinča and Turdaş statues
in Transylvania have the eyes incised, according to the plainest Vinča
pattern, but considerably complicated during the late phases of the culture
in the mother-areas?[40]
In order to give extra information, I can only refer to the recent
discoveries at Romos[41]
and Turdaş-Luncă[42],
and also bearing in mind the previous discoveries at Turdaş[43]
and those at Tărtăria, dealt with by N. Vlassa. It
is also symbolic the fact that the mask of The Statue from Liubcova is triangular and not pentagonal as
required by the chronological and cultural phase to which the statue is
attributed.[44] It is
also eloquent the case of the tell type settlement, from Chioşoda Veche
where the statues, which followed an Ancient pattern, with triangular mask,
are found in the same mud-huts together with those having pentagonal mask.[45]
It comes out that the typology of the mask form does not always submit to the
common laws, which have so far been established as basic rules, not even in
the Vinča culture. The
latter group includes the statues from Pl.I/6 and II/6. The manner in which
the face of the statue from Pl. I/6 is schematically created is almost
similar to that characteristic for the cultures in the South of the
Carpathyans[46], even if
the procedure still has certain local Influences. Regarding
the statue from Pl.II/6, we are certainly dealing with a statue that has its
origins in the Eneolithic Petreşti levels in this site. The bust has
analogies in the Vinča culture[47],
being possible for this statue to be related to those presented on a throne,
in the Tisa I culture, too.[48] Both
types prove the spreading westwards and southwards of the Eneolithic
Transylvanian World, and the cultural and trade connections of the epoch –
why not? These
statues may come from a level, in which there is a synthesis between the
Turdaş elements, those of Lumea Nouă and the Petreşti culture. ¤ The
station from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă
has been known since 1942, when, after the construction of Some buildings of public
utility, it was discovered a compact Stratum of burn traces and ceramics
fragments. It was during the same year that the first scientific
determinations, historical and Archaeological, concerning the site, were
done. The proper researches took place in 1944, 1945 and 1947.[49]
Further systematic excavations regarding this site were done in 1961.[50] II.
The description of the Neolithic and
Eneolithic statues from Alba Iulia-Lumea
Nouă (Gheorghe Alungulesei’s collection). 8.
Fragment of statue (Pl.I/1; Photo
3/1-2) representing only the head. The mask
on the face is pentagonal, bent. The eyes are rendered by short and oblique
incisions as related to the position of the nose. This one is represented in
a realistic manner, linked to the eyebrows and has a single nostril rendered
by a round impression. The top of the head is blunted and cross-vertically
perforated, here and there. The
statue is brick-coloured, sandy, smooth and with very good burning. It may
belong to the earlier level from Lumea Nouă, more specific to the
Vinča or Turdaş culture. 9.
Fragment of statue (Pl.I/2; Photo
2/1-2) representing the body. The statue is
modelled according to the requirements of the realistic manner popular in
Neolithic and Eneolithic. The pedestal of the bust represents the legs. On
its base there are two short, parallel and overlapped incisions. In its lower
part the pedestal has a round cell. The breasts, which demonstrate the female
sex of the representation – as well as the buttocks, firmly rendered – are
modelled in a realistic manner, even the nipples being present. On the back
of the statue one can see many incisions. From the buttocks two incisions go
up towards the shoulders forming a triangle with its point headed downwards,
and filled with a complicated series of short incisions. The arms of this
representation are wide open. This
fragment of statue suggests that sometimes the incisions made on the
Neolithic and Eneolithic statues may represent not only garments but also
designs. The
statue is brick-coloured, sandy, half-fine and with very good burning. It may
be attributed to the earlier levels of the site from Lumea Nouă, more
specific to the Vinča and Turdaş culture. 10.
Fragment of statue (Pl.I/5; Photo
4/1) representing the head and a part of
the body. This
statue represents one of the most realistically modelled from Lumea
Nouă. The mask covering its face is triangular. The features of the face
are more realistically rendered, similar to a portrait. The top of the statue
is blunted and cross-vertically perforated, here and there. Moreover, on its
extreme-lateral sides there are two perforated “tabs”. The statue has also the right breast blunted, as well
as the right shoulder, on which one can Notice several creases, and, by us,
represent the manner of rendering the clothes for the Upper part of the body. The
statue is brick-coloured, cleansed with sand and chaff, very weak burning,
rather backed. This
representation may belong to the level named as the settlement from where the
group of statues comes. 11.
Fragment of statue (Pl.II/1; Photo
1/4) representing a part from a torso. What
remained of the statue has sexual female features, namely the breasts which
are rendered by two pointed nipples and the buttocks prominently modelled.
The buttocks of this representation are separated by a deep incision. On its
back one can see the extremity of an oblique incision (could it be part of
the incisions representing the hair?). The
statue is black, half-fine, sandy, very good burning. Judging
by its structure and its basic features, the statue may be attributed to the
levels of the Lumea Nouă culture, or probably of the Turdaş
culture. 12.
Fragment of statue (Pl. II/2; Photo
2/3) representing part of a torso from
the neck down up to the first quarter of the thighs. The
statue is decorated with incisions. On the chest there is an incised triangle
with its point headed downwards. Inside it, there are incisions parallel to
one of the sides of the triangle. The back of the statue is decorated with
three angular parallel incisions, which from the buttocks go up point headed.
From the shoulders other angular incisions go down conversely arranged. These
incisions may stand for a garment (probably a shirt). Something new is the
fact that there is a modelled swelling on the lower part of the torso and
there are no buttocks rendered. These details classify a male statue, one of
the few examples of this kind throughout the Neolithic and Eneolithic. The
arms are lateral facing and perforated. The
statue is black, half-fine, cleansed with sand, good burning. This
representation may be considered to belong to the Lumea Nouă culture or
probably to the Turdaş culture. 13.
Fragment of statue (protoma?) (Pl.
II/5; Photo 2/4). Its
adjustment to a pot led to the very schematic representation of its essential
features. The look rendered by the incised eyes is orientated upwards, its
nose is long and the nostrils are in fact two round impressions. The
incisions on the chest and on the back of the protoma suggest its “wrapping”
like that of a mummy. The
representation is brick-coloured, half-fine, sandy, very good burning. According
to its structure and its main features the statue may come from the Lumea
Nouă strata or, probably from those of the Turdaş culture. ¤ The
Stratigraphy of the prehistoric settlement from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă has already been dealt
with in two articles.[51]
According to the former paper, the settlement has a Stratigraphy whose depth
varies from 0,70 to 2 m. This Stratum is divided into three sub-levels
more on the account of the typology of the pottery than on the difference in
colours, in structure or architectural of the discovered levels.[52]
We keep in mind that the painted D1 species, belonging to the
Lumea Nouă culture, is found also
in the lower levels of the Turdaş culture, while the D2
species – belonging to the Petreşti culture – is found, mainly, in the Middle and Upper levels.[53]
These
observations are complemented with those of the I. Berciu’s article, which for
a long time have been ignored. On this occasion we find out more complex and
correct information, about the Stratigraphy of the site.[54] Level
no I (earlier), belongs to the Turdaş culture, with sporadic
Starčevo-Criş ceramics fragments. This level has two different
spheres. The former consists of mud-huts and the letter of surface dwellings.
The mud-huts may be 1,50 m depth. Level
no. II is separated from level no. I by a clay floor. Just like the next
level, this one, too, belongs to the Lumea Nouă culture and has deepened
dwellings and mud-huts. The surface dwellings have not been discovered yet. Level
no III consists of Archaeological materials transitional towards the
Petreşti culture. In what its architecture is concerned, the habitation
of this level consists of surface dwellings. The pottery consists of linear
imports as well as of the best Vinča-Turdaş structure (the
Turdaş culture, in our opinion). Level
no IV belongs to the Petreşti culture. According to the author’s opinion
this level ends the evolution of the Lumea Nouă culture. On this
settlement it has been discovered a vessel deposit belonging to the Basarabi
culture. In
the arable soil, too, have been discovered pottery fragments belonging to the
Coţofeni culture, as well as traces of Roman habitation. Sometimes,
these traces made up an independent level. These
observations of vertical Stratigraphy, and complemented with the ones
obtained from the Comparison of the different areas where excavations had
been done at Lumea Nouă, determined the author of this work to draw
conclusions valid at present, too.[55] The
first observation points[56]
out the participation of the Tisa culture to the genesis of the Petreşti
culture, even if the author claims that this influence is not necessary
fundamental. The
second observation[57]
refers to the birth of the Vinča-Turdaş culture (read about the
earlier A and B phases of the Vinča culture, and about the Turdaş
culture formed on Vinča elements during the late Vinča B2
phase). We do not talk about the old
Vinča-Turdaş culture – earlier Vinča in our places – that is A and B phases – and as it has
also been said in Some articles and books recently published, I totally agree
with observation[58]
– concerning the relative dating of
this civilisation. But it is about another
phase of the ex
Vinča-Turdaş background – Early Vinča – which developed under new circumstances, created by the Middle Neolithic of the central Transylvania. This
couldn’t be more valid, as it also can be noticed – certainly, on a different
scale and with other arguments – throughout my latest works.[59] Further
on, I. Berciu whom we have mentioned so many times, makes observations about
the way in which the earlier Vinča culture evolved in Transylvania,
claiming that: The earlier Vinča
background continued its existence in central Transylvania unlike in its
other areas of development. And went on evolving and assimilating Some
Starčevo-Criş elements. The painted pottery before burning was an
essential one. This phenomenon stands for the originality of the Middle
Neolithic – the Late Neolithic, in our opinion – in the central Transylvania,
this way leading to the lasting of the Vinča–Turdaş and
Starčevo-Criş background and creating the base for the development
of the painted pottery Petreşti culture.[60]
Certainly, the birth of the Petreşti culture was influenced by the
evolution of the Turdaş culture, previous to the Petreşti and
subsequent to the earlier phases of the Vinča culture. It is still an
enigma the role of the Lumea Nouă culture, whose painted materials are
rather a painted species of another culture – the Turdaş culture, in our
case? Similar to the case of the new discoveries in the SW-of Transylvania,
“the Tăualaş facies” it is certain to be painted type of the
Turdaş culture. If it would have been the same case with “the Lumea
Nouă cultural complex” or with “the Lumea Nouă culture”, the
understanding of the historical realities of that moment would be easy. All
the other observations that are to come in this article concern the legs of the
pots, the Decorations of incised points, the technique of vessel making, of
painting, of folds and stone tools making. These are very precise and
accurate for a better understanding of the Transylvanian Neolithic and
Eneolithic of that moment, but they have not been used properly by the
subsequent historiography.[61] The
statues dealt with in this article entirely represent moments of the late
Chronology of the Middle Eneolithic probably of the Lower Eneolithic of the
site Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă. ¤ This
article also allows us to express Some opinions, which do not even need
justification – in my opinion – by bibliographical references as they belong
to those who know the features of the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Banat,
Crişana and Transylvania, and also to all the cultures of the period. The
basic theory is that, entire statues appear very seldom in the Ancient
periods. In our opinion, obviously this observation may change into an axiom,
into a strict rule for the Neolithic and Eneolithic communities. If the entire
statues are more frequent during the Early Neolithic (especially those of the
“Venus” type, but keep in mind that these have obvious Fallus type features,
too), in the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic these are more sporadic. The few
entire statues discovered after the Early Neolithic, are certainly found in
this state because of Some private magic-religious practices. Why
most of the clay statues broke? There
are many ways of separating the head from the body and also of braking up the
body after the head had been removed. Let us see the alternatives of this
ritual. The
head may be removed from the body in many ways: ·
By holding the head in one hand and the body
in the other and then twisting or pulling out the head; if the head was
modelled separately and linked to the body by using the Techniques close at
hand in the epoch, it remained unbroken. ·
By striking the head against a hard object,
in this case the head separated from the body in the same way mentioned
before, but parts of the head (the nape, the top, parts of the mask) are
separately broken. ·
By striking the head against an elastic prop
(the floor, the ground etc), a case in which the head is separated together
with parts of the shoulders, the separation not being very clear and well
delimited as related to the body. ·
By throwing the statue with force and at a
considerable distance, in this case the separation of the head comes as a
result of an incidental blow, without a precise direction, so, the separation
of the anatomical parts of the body, does not observe the possible rules
already mentioned. ·
Finally, breaking-up the statue may undergo
Some subsequent interventions; e.g. the discovery of Some “pagan idols” or of
the statues representing children and their destruction by playing with them. The body, once it had been parted, it may be broken-up once again: ·
The legs are usual separated from the body by
one of the rules mentioned before. This means breaking the legs/the pedestal
from under the buttocks and what remains relatively unbroken is just the torso. The
arms, as part of the torso, are usually broken in several ways: ·
If they are oriented towards lateral and
schematically rendered, the arms will be broken where they are perforated, or
where they are linked to the body. ·
If they are not modelled in a realistic
manner, they will be broken in such a way that the arms and the forearms are
destroyed ·
The ways of breaking the arms follow the
model of separating/breaking the head. Obviously,
Some of the statues, will be broken – or lose part of their body –
incidentally, throughout billions of years there being cases when the statues
were destroyed. But
mostly, this separating and breaking process is done on purpose and develops
rationally. This process implies rational gestures, difficult to understand
now. We can relate these attitudes to the practice of some rituals implying
the worshipping of some deities / gods and especially the piercing and
burning of some parts of the statue, the removal or deterioration of the eyes
or of other anatomical parts. For
the former case, we could approach an old idea of ours, according to which in
the people’s dwellings in the Neolithic and Eneolithic, as well as at other
recent civilisations, there were discovered “boxes with magic objects”. These
may represent phases of the existence of the same deity or deities with
similar powers, and together they contributed substantially to the material
and spiritual prosperity of the family they belonged to. In
the latter case, we are dealing with the “unwritten culture” which is
difficult to make out in any period or epoch. The gestures and the rituals
are wrapped in a mysterious veil. Their rhythm is thrilling but difficult to
feel by a person not very well informed. Its purpose is related to the transcendental.
Only gifted people are able to understand the magic ritual, people who had
also been “chosen” by someone above. Hence, the statues can be made
especially to represent “somebody”, and then broken on purpose, by gestures
and procedures that are meant to hurt the person for whom the magic is done. The
statues can be stung, pierced, broken by twisting them, according to the
rules mentioned above. This may explain the fact that the proportionality of
the human body is obsessively rendered by the Neolithic and Eneolithic
“artists”. All
these observations reveal a World as complicated – and simple in the same
time – as our contemporary Society is its “folklore” manifestations. People
would be, and still are self-conscious in front of the irrational that surrounds
them, sometimes too close. That
is why the interpretation of these gestures and processes who are located
somewhere on the edge of the rational or probably in its plenitude, is
difficult to describe scientifically for the people now-days or for those of
the prehistoric epoch. Translated by Diana Tatu CATALOGUL PLANŞELOR
1.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă. Cap. Cărămizie, nisipoasă,
fină, cu arderea foarte bună. 2.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă. Corp. Cărămizie, nisipoasă,
semifină, cu arderea bună. 3.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Fragment de statuetă. Cap şi pornirea corpului. Brună,
nisipoasă, grosieră, cu arderea bună. 4.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Fragment de statuetă. Cap. Cărămizie, nisipoasă, cu
arderea slabă, coaptă. 5.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă. Cap şi o parte din corp. Brun-cenuşie,
degresată cu nisip şi pleavă, cu arderea slabă,
coaptă. 6.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Cap de statuetă. Brună cu flecuri de ardere, degresată cu
nisip şi pleavă, cu arderea foarte bună, lustruită
şi slipuită. 1.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă. Parte din trunchi. Neagră, semifină,
nisipoasă, cu arderea bună. 2.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă. Parte din trunchi. Neagră, semifină,
nisipoasă, mică, cu arderea bună. 3.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Fragment de altăraş. Cărămiziu (interiorul vasului
negru), semifin, nisipos, spatulat, cu arderea bună (secundară). 4.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Fragment de statuetă. Cap. Gălbuie, fină, nisipoasă,
slipuită, cu arderea foarte bună. 5.
Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă.
Fragment de statuetă (protomă ?). Cărămizie,
semifină, nisipoasă, cu arderea foarte bună. 6.
Tărtăria-Gura Luncii.
Fragment de statuetă. Maronie, slip cenuşiu, cu arderea foarte
bună (miezul piesei este negru).
ABREVIERI BIBLIOGRAFICE
Literatură Bălănescu
1979 – Bălănescu
D., – StComCar 1,
1979, 33-41, 9 planşe. Bălănescu
1982 – StComCar 4, 1982,
113-120. Berciu 1968 –
Berciu I., – Apvlvm 7, 1968, 1, 53-60. Berciu-Berciu
1949 – Berciu
D., Berciu I., – Apvlvm
3, 1949, 1-43. Ciugudean 2000 – Ciugudean H.,
Eneoliticul final în Transilvania şi Banat: cultura Coţofeni. – In: BHAB 26 (Timişoara 2000). Draşovean 1996 – Draşovean
Fl., Cultura Vinča târzie (faza C) în Banat. – In: BHAB 1 (Timişoara 1996). Dumitrescu 1974 – Dumitrescu Vl.,
Arta preistorică în România (Bucureşti 1974). Hegedüs-Makkay 1987 – Hegedüs K., Makkay J.,
Véstö–Mágor. – In: LNTR, 1987, 85-104. Horedt 1949 –
Horedt K., – Apvlvm 3, 1949, 44-69. Korek 1987 – Korek J., Szegvár–Tüzköves. – In: LNTR, 1987, 47-60. Lazarovici 1970 – Lazarovici Gh., – ActaMN
7, 1970, 473-488. Lazarovici 1975 – ActaMN 12, 1975, 13-34. Lazarovici 1977 – Gornea–Preistorie. – In: CB 5
(Reşiţa 1977). Lazarovici 1979 – Neoliticul Banatului. – In: BMN 4
(Cluj Napoca 1979). Lazarovici–Dumitrescu 1985-1986 –
Lazarovici Gh., Dumitrescu H., – ActaMN
22-23,
1985-1986, 3-40. Luca 1989(1990) – Luca S. A., – Apvlvm 26, 1989/1990, 49-54. Luca 1990 – Banatica 10, 1990,
6-44. Luca 1991 – In: BAI 4, 1991, 266-271. Luca 1995-1996 – Sargetia 26, 1995-1996, 1,
45-62. Luca 1997 –
Aşezări neolitice pe valea Mureşului (I). Habitatul
turdăşean de la Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor (punct X2). – In: BMA 4 (Alba Iulia 1997). Luca 1997a – Apvlvm 34, 1997,
37-42. Luca 1998 – Liubcova-Orniţa. Monografie
arheologică (Târgovişte 1998). Luca 1999 – Apvlvm 36, 1999,
5-33. Luca 2000 –
SAA 7, 2000, 90-120. Luca 2001 – Apvlvm 38, 2001,
1, 27-54. Luca 2001a – Festschrift für
Gheorghe Lazarovici. – In: BHAB
30, 123-191
(Timişoara (2001). Luca
2001b – Aşezări
neolitice pe valea Mureşului (II). Noi cercetări arheologice la
Turdaş-Luncă. I. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995.
Bucureşti, – In: BMA 17 (Alba Iulia
2001). Luca-Ciugudean-Roman-Dragotă
2000 – Luca S. A., Ciugudean H., Roman C., Dragotă A., – Apvlvm 36, 2000, 1, 1-50. Luca-Ciugudean-Roman-Dragotă
2000a
– Angvstia 5, 2000, 37-72. Luca-Dragomir
1987 – Luca
S. A., Dragomir I., Banatica 9, 1987, 31-42. Luca-Dragomir
1989 – DaciaNS 33, 1989,
229-234. Luca-Ilieş-Bulzan
2000 – Luca S. A., Ilieş C., Bulzan S., – StUnivBBT 45, 2000, 1, 109-163. Luca-Pinter 2001 – Luca
S. A., Pinter Z. K., Der Böhmerberg bei Broos / Orăştie. Eine
archäologische monographie. – In: BMA 16 (Sibiu 2001). Makkay 1990 – Makkay J., A tartariai leletek
(Budapesta 1990). Milojčić
1965 – Milojčić
Vl., – Germania 43,
1965, 261-273. Paul 1992 – Paul I., Cultura
Petreşti (Bucureşti 1992). Raczky 1987 –
Raczky P., – In: LNTR, 1987, 61-84. Radu 1979 – Radu O., – Tibiscus 5, 1979, 67-76. Roska 1928 – Roska M., – PMJH 3-4, 1928, 3-27. Roska 1941 – Die Sammlung Zsófia von
Torma (Cluj 1941). Roska 1942 – Érdély
régészeti
repertoriumá
(Cluj 1942). Tasić 1973 – Tasić N.,
Neolitska Plastika (Belgrad 1973). Vlassa 1962 – Vlassa N., – StUnivBB 1962,
2, 23-30. Vlassa 1963 – DaciaNS 7, 1963,
485-494. Vlassa 1976 –
Neoliticul Transilvaniei. – In: BMN 3 (Cluj Napoca 1976). X X X 1987 –
The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region (Budapesta – Szolnok 1987).
|
