The Chronology of the Bronze Age Tell and Tell‑like Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 Years

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2, 198–214 The Chronology of the Bronze Age Tell and Tell ‑like Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 Years Florin Gogâltan In memory of Professor Bernhard Hänsel (1937–2017) ABSTRACT Fifteen years ago, during an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship at the Institut für Prähistorische Archäo‑ logie, Freie Universität Berlin Ihave put together acatalogue of Early Bronze Age (EBA) and Middle Bronze Age (MBA) multi ‑stratified settlements in the Carpathian Basin (ca. 2500–1600/1500 BC). Atotal of 188 multi ‑stratified sites ascribed to five horizons were placed in chronological order. The new AMS data have substantially modified the absolute chronology of this period. The present paper focuses only on recent information regarding the chronology of the tell and tell ‑like settlements in the Carpathian Basin. KEYWORDS Bronze Age; tell and tell ‑like settlements; Carpathian Basin; Chronology. During the summer of 1999, Professor Bernhard Hänsel and my mentor Dr.Tudor Soroceanu were visiting Cluj together, planning to process the hoard from Uioara, the largest Bronze Age find of this type discovered in the Carpathian Basin. Unfortunately, this project failed. Nevertheless, as aresult of three hours long discussion, Professor Hänsel advised me to apply for an Alexander von Humboldt scholarship. With regard to the research project, he inquired about my thoughts on the Bronze Age tells from the Carpathian Basin. Ianswered sincerely that apart from afew small ‑scale investigations that Ihave carried out in the tells at Foeni ‑Cimitirul Ortodox (Gogâltan 2014b), Foeni ‑Gomila Lupului (Gogâltan 2014c), and Semlac ‑Livada lui Onea (Gogâltan 2014d), Iam not particularly familiar with the subject. To my surprise, he also admitted his failure to grasp the formation process of the Bronze Age multi ‑layered settlements of the Carpathian Basin, even though he achieved significant results with his research of the tell at Mošorin ‑Feudvar and its surroundings. As faith would have it, my project entitled Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Studien zu Siedlungswesen und Chronologie der Zeit um 2000 v.Chr. was accepted, and Ibecame an Alexander von Humboldt fellow at the Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin for aperiod of nearly two years (between March 2001 and December 2002). The acquaintance of Professor Hänsel and the period spent in Berlin have fundamentally changed not only my life, but also the lives of other family members. He will forever remain in my thoughts. WHAT MAKES ASITE ATELL? The first and most difficult task was to establish the characteristics of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin. According to the literature on the subject, the most important strati‑ graphic accumulations occur when the same community repeatedly constructs and recon‑ structs surface houses made of clay and having a wooden structures on an area confined by 199FLORIN GOGÂLTAN defensive works. There are situations when the stratigraphic accumulations exceeded one meter and comprised three levels of habitation belonging to the same ‘archaeological culture’. Such sites were designated as tells. In cases when only two archaeological levels could be identified within a1 m thick stratigraphy, the respective site was included in the category of so ‑called tell ‑like settlements. When no archaeological excavations have been carried out, but there was still information in the secondary literature concerning the existence of atell, these were included in the category of mound or hill ‑shaped settlements (Siedlungshügel, settlement mound) indicating the continuation of habitation on the same spot (Gogâltan 2002, 23–24). Based on information found in the literature published prior to 2002, anumber of 188 Bronze Age sites meeting the above ‑mentioned criteria were recorded (Gogâltan 2005, 161, Abb. 1; Gogâltan 2006, 61, Abb. 1; Gogâltan 2008, 40, fig. 1; Gogâltan 2017, map 1, annexe 1) (Fig. 1). 1 Right from the start, Iwas aware that such adefinition of the multi ‑stratified settlements is debatable. Iwas encouraged however to continue this path given that from amethodological point of view, the coherence of the research can only be assured by respecting aprinciple as‑ sumed from the beginning. The catalogue could only be viable if based on stratigraphic criteria. These opinions concerning the terminology of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin drew the attention of the specialists on this topic.2 Some rejected my proposal,3 other ignored it (Uhnér 2010; Duffy 2014; Nicodemus 2014) or even misinterpreted my aforementioned assertions.4 For the majority of specialists who subsequently dealt with the question of Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin, with some exceptions,5 the aspects of terminology were not included among their scientific priorities (Rosenstock 2009; David 2009; Fischl– Kienlin 2013; Kienlin 2015; Danietal. 2016; etc.). 1 The list of these settlements– not included here for the sake of saving printing space– can be found in Gogâltan 2017, annexe 1. 2 Some of my first articles concerning the problems of the tells in the Carpathian Basin appear mentioned in: Link 2006, 7–10, etc.; Molnár 2006, 76; Dani– Fischl 2010, 105; Hansen 2010, VII; Hansen– Toderaş 2010, 138; Draşovean– Schier 2010, 165; Martaetal. 2010, 128; Earle– Kristiansen 2010b, 24; Earle– Kristiansen 2010c, 254; Raczky– Anders– Bartosziewitz 2011, 57; Rosenstock 2012, 42; Kienlin 2012; Metzner ‑Nebelsick 2013, 332, 340; Kienlin 2015; Fischl– Krauss 2016, 328–329; etc. Some have even forgotten to cite my opinions: ‘Unserer Meinung nach waren diese spezifischen befestigten Siedlungen (aus mindestens drei Siedlungsschichten bestehende und mit einer unteren Grenze der Schichtgröße von einem Meter) ein Wirtschats‑ und Handelszentrum oder Sitz der Macht für jede Mikroregion’ (Németi– Molnár 2012, 15). 3 T. Link’sopinions as well as mine were criticised by F. Horváth, one of the specialists with extensive experience in the study of the Carpathian Basin tell ‑settlements (Horváth 2009, 159–160). This is not the place to reply to his observations, but Ihope to be able to do so at another occasion on the grounds of the information acquired during new research project on the tells in Western Romania. Reactions to my stratigraphic criteria can be found at R. Ganslmeier in his analysis of the ‘tellartigen Siedlung’ at Niederröblingen in Central Germany (Ganslmeier 2011, 37–42). See also T. Kienlin (2012, 257–258; Kienlin 2015) and his reserves concerning the economic and social function of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 2010). Aresponse to some of his critical observations can be found in Gogâltan 2016. 4 See for example opinions that were not put forward by me: ‘Some have suggested that the term “tell” be abandoned altogether. Gogâltan (2001, 23), for example, has argued that the word is an Arabic and archaeological neologism that causes more confusion than it helps’ (Parkinson– Gyucha 2012, 112). 5 Fischletal. 2015, 120: ‘Due to the relatively limited thickness of their layers (sometimes less than one meter in the preserved state) most of them can only be classified into the category of tell ‑like settlements.’ 200 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fig. 1: The Bronze Age multi ‑layered settlements in the Carpathian Basin (ca. 2500–1600/1500 BC). 201FLORIN GOGÂLTAN DATING THE TELL SETTLEMENTS IN CARPATIAN BASIN Asubsequent phase of this research was centred on the question regarding the chronology of these sites (Gogâltan 2005). The limited number of pages allocated in the Festschrift ded‑ icated to Bernhard Hänsel hindered the possibility of discussing the chronology of each site published in the catalogue. Even though some of the information put forward in the above‑ ‑mentioned study have since become outdated, Ibelieve that the publication of the list con‑ taining the multi ‑stratified EBA and MBA settlements in the Carpathian Basin together with their chronology as it was conceived 15 years ago (Gogâltan 2017) offers the only possibility of revising this stage of research, thus allowing us to step forward. Fig. 2: The Early and Middle Bronze Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 2008). The relative and absolute chronology of these sites are based on the radiocarbon dates available in 2002 for both tells and other site types belonging to communities which developed multi‑ ‑stratified settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Everything was grounded in what Ihave defined some years ago as the Hungarian ‑Transylvanian EBA and MBA chronology of the eastern Car‑ pathian Basin (Gogâltan 1999). Naturally, references were made to the relative chronological system of Central Europe (southern Germany and Austria), the Hänsel system and the chronol‑ ogy of the Helladic period (Fig. 2). At that time, Ihave structured the chronological evolution of tell and tell ‑like settlements into five distinct horizons, covering the period between ca. 2500 BC and 1600/1500 BC (Gogâltan 2005, 161–172; Gogâltan 2008, 40–41; Gogâltan 2017). From achronological point of view, the earliest tell, namely the one at Vinkovci ‑Tržnica, belonging to the Somogyvár ‑Vinkovci Culture, was founded around 2500 BC and represented the first horizon in my scheme (Gogâltan 2017, map 2).The next chronological horizon, dated approx‑ imately between 2400 and 2300 BC was characterized by the first tells of the Nagyrév culture, such as the ones located along the right bank of the Danube: Bölcske ‑Vörösgyűrű = Vörösgyír, 202 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Dunaföldvár ‑Kálvária = Öreghegy, Sióagárd ‑Gencs puszta = Várdomb and Gerjen ‑Váradpuszta = Várad, in addition to the ones from the middle course of the Tisza River: Tószeg ‑Laposhalom and Nagyrév ‑Zsidóhalom = Áldozóhalom (Gogâltan 2017, map 3–4).The third chronological horizon, dated approximately between 2300 and 1950 BC is marked by the emergence of the majority of Bronze Age tell settlements (Gogâltan 2017, map 5–6). As mentioned earlier, the lack of sufficient data in many cases did hinder the accurate determination for the date of emergence of the tells. This is also reflected in my chronological table, where no less than 96 settlements, which represent more than half of the 188 cases included in the catalogue pre‑ sented uncertain dating during the EBA III and MBA I(Gogâltan 2017, annexe 2). It is for this reason that Iwas forced to employ awider chronological sequence for the third horizon. The fourth horizon (MBA II/Reinecke A2), dated approximately to 1950– after 1700 BC, represents the emergence of the majority of Bronze Age multi‑layered settlements in the Carpathian Ba‑ sin, even in the area of the Maďarovce Culture (Gogâltan 2017, map 7). The last horizon, the fifth one, was dated around 1650 and before 1500 BC, and is characterized by the foundation of only afew new tell settlements (Gogâltan 2017, map 8). Like in the Late Neolithic, 3000 years before, towards the end of the MBA this type of habitat suddenly ceased to exist. Subsequently, some of the specialists dealing with the issue of Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin adopted and used the chronological framework proposed in the abovementioned article (Kienlin 2015, 36; Jaeger 2016, 92; etc.). RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS The last 15 years of archaeological research in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Serbia were marked by ahigh number of excavations on sites attributed to the EBA and MBA. Very impor‑ tant are the systematic research projects in the Bronze Age tell settlements from Vráble ‑Fidvár (Bátoraetal. 2012), Santovka ‑Nad Búrom (Bátora– Tóth 2014, 327–328), Veselé ‑Hradisko‑ ‑Podzámske (Marková– Staššíková ‑Štukovská 2015) in Slovakia, Százhalombatta ‑Földvár (Poroszlai– Vicze 2005; Stig Sørensen– Vicze 2013), Túrkeve ‑Terehalom (Csányi– Tárnoki 2013), Kakucs ‑Bala ‑domb (Jaeger– Kulcsár 2013), Polgár ‑Kenderföld (Dani– Máthé– Szábó 2003), Ároktő ‑Dongóhalom (Fischl 2006) in Hungary, Carei ‑Bobald (Németi– Molnár 2012), Pecica ‑Șanțul Mare (Nicodemus– O’Shea 2015), Toboliu ‑Dâmbul Zănăcanului (Gogâltan 2017), Sântion ‑Dealul Mănăstirii=Klastrom domb (Gogâltan 2017) in Romania, Mošorin ‑Feudvar (Falkenstein– Hänsel– Medović 2016), and Orešac ‑Židovar in Serbia (Ljuština 2013). The archaeological investigation of the tells was completed by aseries of projects dedi‑ cated to the study of certain micro ‑regions for which this particular type of settlement was characteristic. In Hungary this is the case of the Benta Valley (Earle– Kristiansen 2010a; Earleetal. 2014), the Bronze Age Körös Off ‑Tell Archaeology (Duffy 2014) or the Borsod Plain and the Bükk mountains foothills (Fischl– Kienlin– Tugya 2015). In Romania, we have to mention the non ‑invasive research carried out on the Carei Plain and the valley of the Ier River (Martaetal. 2010; Kienlin– Fischl– Marta 2017, 107–117) or the project entitled ‘Living in the Bronze Age Tell Settlements. AStudy of Settlement Archaeology at the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin’, hosted by the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Romanian Academy of Sciences in Cluj ‑Napoca (Gogȃltan– Cordoş– Ignat 2014; Gogâltan 2016).6 6 This work was funded by agrant of the Ministry of National Education, CNCS– UEFISCDI, project number PN‑II‑ID‑PCE–2012–4‑0020. See www.bronzeagetells.ro. 203FLORIN GOGÂLTAN Rather recently Ihad the opportunity to discuss the chronology of EBA and MBA on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 3), whereby references were made to the new contributions with regard to the chronology of this period in Hungary and Slovakia (Gogâltan 2015). Compared to what Ihave proposed in 2005/2008 (Gogâltan 2005, Abb. 2; Gogâl‑ tan 2008, fig. 2) and reiterated in 2014 (Gogâltan 2014a, fig. 6), aseries of modifications have emerged. The Bronze Age tells and tell ‑like settlements are only characteristic of Western Romania, while their presence could not be documented in Transylvania (Gogâltan 2014a, pl. I). Consequently, references will be limited to the chronological system and cultural and historical evolution of the respective region. Thus, EBA Iwas dated between 2700/2600 BC and ca. 2400 BC.On the territory of present ‑day Western Romania, the Makó ‑Kosihy ‑Čaka and Șoimuș communities continue their evolution during EBA II (ca. 2400–2200/2100 BC). Their habitat, just as that of the so ‑called Nyírség group, is characterized by flat settlements. EBA III (2200/2100–2000/1900 BC) is marked by the emergence of the first multi ‑stratified settlements belonging to the Mureș, Gornea ‑Foeni and Sanislău ceramic styles (Gogâltan 2014a, fig. 6). The evolution of the Gornea ‑Foeni group, marked by pottery decorated with ‘textile impressions’, and Mureș type communities is continued throughout the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (2000/1900 BC). The tells and tell ‑like settlements belonging to the Cornești ‑Crvenka, Otomani, and Wietenberg ceramic styles evolve up to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (1600/1500 BC) (Gogâltan 2014a, fig. 6). Fig. 3: The chronology of the EBA and MBA in Western Romania. 204 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 In the meantime, new points of view regarding the chronology of EBA and MBA in the Carpathian Basin were put forward. In her PhD. thesis Amy Nicodemus, without giving any explanations, employs arelative chronological system according to which both EBA and MBA are divided into two phases (Aand B). According to the author, EBA A(ca. 2800/2700–2500/2400 BC) comprises the early phases of the Mureș and Nagyrév Cultures, furthermore the Makó, Coțofeni, and Vučedol Cultures, as well as the Csepel Group. EBA B (ca. 2500/2400–2200/2000 BC) on the other hand is marked by the emergence in the Great Hungarian Plain of the tells belonging to the early phases of the Mureș, Nagyrév, and Hatvan Cultures, as well as by the Nyírség Culture in the north ‑eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. In Transdanubia we find the Somogyvár ‑Vinkovci Culture and somewhat later the Kisapostag Culture, while in Tran‑ sylvania this period is represented by the Glina III ‑Schneckenberg Culture. Anyone wishing to understand the reasoning behind this configuration will be left wondering, since there are no arguments brought forward in this regard by the book. The discussion is similar in the case of MBA, which according to the author ‘continues many organizational aspects from the EBA, but in some areas more centralized polities emerge’ (Nicodemus 2014, 111). The early stages of MBA (2200/2000–1800/1700 BC) are marked by the classic phase of the Mureș Culture, the late phase of the Hatvan Culture, the ‘Ottomány’ and Vatya Cultures, and in addition ‘Wietenberg groups are found throughout Transylvania’ (Nicodemus 2014, 111). In asimilar fashion to the previous period ‘the latter Middle Bronze Age (MBA B, ca. 1800/1700–1500/1400 BC) shows amix of regional continuity and organizational change’ (Nicodemus 2014, 112). Even though the chronological assertions are somewhat questionable, the study contains anumber of chapters which makes it an essential reference with regard to the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. The fact that the realities regarding EBA and MBA are quite different from the picture offered in the aforementioned book is demonstrated by two new studies which Ihave not discussed in my abovementioned paper. The paper by Viktória Kiss and her collaborators published in the volume edited by Rita E. Németh and Botond Rezi, offers an important con‑ tribution for the understanding of the transition period between EBA and MBA in western Hungary. The new AMS radiocarbon data from the Kisapostag necropolis in Bonyhád places the EBA III stage in an interval dated to 2100–1900 BC, which makes it contemporaneous with the earlier part of the A1b sequence of the Central European chronology (cf. Stockhammeretal. 2015). Compared to the previously held views, both the beginning and the end ‑point of this stage is raised by ca. 50 years (Kissetal. 2015). If indeed this is the case MBA I– which as it will be shown incorporates the early stages of certain tells such as Pecica, Százhalombata, Kakucs, etc.– would have to be ruled out. Klára P.Fischl, Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár, and Vajk Szeverényi, who are among the best known specialists of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Hungary, have put forward anew synthesis concerning the cultural and historical realities from around 2200 BC on the territory of modern ‑day Hungary based on ca. 30 new AMS data available for the interval be‑ tween 2500/2400 and 2200/2100 BC.There are no significant differences between the cultural and chronological outline proposed by the aforementioned authors and my own assertions regarding Western Romania (Fischletal. 2015). However, Ido wish to underline that we cannot account for an Ottomány/Otomani Icultural reality placed in EBAIII. The earliest phase of Otomani ‑Cetățuie/Várhegy is represented by the Sanislău ceramic style (for the most recent study see Ordentlich– Lie– Ghemis 2014), already noted by Petre Roman and János Németi many years ago (Roman– Németi 1986, 212; see also Molnár 2014, 17, n. 92, 29, n. 227, 119–120), but adopted as such only by certain colleagues from Hungary (Dani 2001, 136). Recently, an interesting contribution concerning the chronology of EBA in the Carpathian Basin was put forward by Géza Szabó. The author’sassertion is that the Early Bronze Age period 205FLORIN GOGÂLTAN should only by divided into two phases, without further subdivisions. Thus EBA I(2600/2500– ~2150 BC) covers the lifetimes of the Makó ‑Kosihy ‑Čaka, Somogyvár ‑Vinkovci, proto ‑Nagyrév Cultures as well as the Bell Beaker Csepel Group. EBA II (~2150– ~ 1900 BC) comprises the early period of expansion of the Nagyrév, early Maros, Nyírség, Hatvan Cultures, as well as the Encrusted Pottery Culture in Transdanubia (Szabó 2017). It is my conviction that this new chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin should be taken into account as it simplifies the relative chronology and is corroborated by the new AMS data. Based on the 14C data published for aseries of sites, such as Wietenberg sites in Central Transylvania, Otomani ‑Gyulavarsánd sites in North ‑Western Transylvania and North ‑Eastern Transylvania, and the Füzesabony ‑Otomani Culture sites in Slovakia, Zsolt Molnár assert‑ ed that ‘the MB Iperiod can be placed in the 2070–1890 BC interval, the MB II phase in the 1910–1730 BC interval, while the MB III phase can be dated to the 1760–1530 BC chronological segment’ (Molnár– Ciută 2017). In general, this corresponds to the abovementioned chrono‑ logical scheme. WHERE ARE WE TODAY? Due to the limited space available for this paper, the discussion will be narrowed down to the investigations which have determined today the course of the debate concerning the chro‑ nology of the Bronze Age tell and tell ‑like settlements in the Carpathian Basin. The oldest habitation sequence of the Vráble tell (Early Makó–Kosihy–Čaka phase) is datable around 2700 BC (Nowaczinskietal. 2012, 293). In this context the Vinkovci tell settlement may have begun before 2500 BC, but this is merely asupposition. Furthermore, we do not know of any other multi ‑stratified settlements attributable with certainty to the EBA Istage i.e. to the first horizon of Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin (2700/2600–ca. 2400 BC). Concerning the first tells of the Nagyrév Culture, and implicitly the second horizon in the tell evolution (EBA II ‑ ca. 2400–2200/2100 BC), we have no new information (Fischletal. 2015, 506, 513). The only certain data come from the cemeteries of this period (Gogâltan 2015, 62; Danietal. 2016, 222–224). In terms of the relative chronology it is necessary to reconsider the chronological position of the beginnings of the Sanislău settlements of the North ‑Eastern Carpathian Basin (in addition to the tell from Săcuieni ‑Cetatea Boului) which can be ascribed to EBA III and not EBA IIb (Gogâltan 2017, 31–32, annexe 2). The chronology of the third horizon that Ihave previously set between 2300 and 1950 BC, re‑ quires some corrections. Based on information from tell ‑settlements in Semlac which belongs to the Mureș Iceramic style (Fig. 4)7 and Foeni–Cimitirul Ortodox (pottery decorated with textile impressions, shallow incisions made with broom strokes, or deeper ones resembling tree bark), the beginning of EBA III in absolute chronology should be placed after 2200 BC.This 7 The new AMS data published by Amy Nicodemus (2014, fig. 6.12), modifies the earlier picture regarding the dating of this tell (Gogâltan 2015, 61, n. 18). Ido not wish to comment the issue of this analysis here (adetailed review will be provided in the publication concerning my own survey in the respective site), however, it has to be underlined that the Semlac 2 sample obtained from the base of the sediment is almost contemporary with the Semlac 1 sample which was taken from the upper part of the stratigraphic sequence pertaining to the Bronze Age at the respective site. Furthermore, samples Semlac 3 and 4 cover aperiod of ca. 300 years, the latter being contemporary with the final stage of the Makó ‑Kosihy ‑Čaka horizon (Fig. 4). Iwish to convey my gratitude to my colleague Florin Drașovean for his assistance in devising the Bayesian model as well as for the helpful discussions regarding the errors in collecting these samples. 206 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 is corroborated by an older sample belonging to the Hatvan habitation at Tószeg (Gogâltan 1999, 220, Nr. 102), as well as by certain newer data from the tell at Včelince ‑Lászlófala (Görs‑ dorf– Marková– Furmánek 2004, tab.1–2, fig. 8) and Százhalombata (Uhnér 2010, 347). Bronze artefacts suggest that EBA III was mainly contemporary with the Central–European Br A1 (Gogâltan 2015, 62; Fischletal. 2015, 515). Fig. 4: Bayesian modelling of 14C dates from Semlac. As mentioned above (Gogâltan 2015, 70), during the last 15 years, only alimited number of AMS data were published with regard to the MBA tell and tell ‑like settlements (2000/1900– 1600/1500 BC) in the Carpathian Basin. For Hungary, the information was brought together by Claes Uhnér, Mateusz Jaeger, Gabriella Kulcsár, and Paul Duffy (Uhnér 2010, 347–352; Jaeger 2010, 315, ryc. 1; Jaeger– Kulcsár 2013, fig. 20–22; Duffy 2014, 291–296; Jaeger 2016, fig. 30–33). The recent absolute data available for the Vatya tells at Százhalombatta (Uhnér 2010, 347) and Kakucs (Jaeger– Kulcsár 2013, fig. 19), in addition to an older sample from Bölcske (Gogâltan 1999, 223, nr. 148), allows us to pinpoint the beginning of these settlements to what was hitherto considered to be MBA I(2000/1900–ca. 1900 BC). The same can be said concerning the tell ascribed to the Mureș community at Pecica, which was dated to 2000–1900 BC (Nicodemus– O’Shea 2015, fig. 17). The older data coming from the Otomani ‑Füzesabony tell at Gáborján ‑Csapszekpart are also to be placed in the aforementioned chronological se‑ quence (Gogâltan 1999, 222, nr. 124–126). An AMS sample retrieved from the upper levels of the Otomani tell at Sântion indicated the interval of 1800/1700 BC (Fig. 5). We hitherto do not possess any information concerning the date of the ca. 1.5 m thick deposits at the respective site, but still it is very likely that the beginnings of this settlement are also to be placed in the so ‑called MBA Iperiod. Based on these new data, it is possible to divide the old 3rd horizon of Bronze Age multi ‑stratified settlements of the Carpathian Basin in two parts comprising ahorizon characteristic to the EBA III period and one ascribed to the MBA Iperiod. Regarding the MBA II period (ca. 1900–ca. 1700 BC), there are anumber of new data that prove the continuity of habitation in the tells at Százhalombata (Uhnér 2010, 347), Kakucs (Jae‑ ger– Kulcsár 2013, fig. 19), and Pecica (Nicodemus– O’Shea 2015, fig. 17). While for the 213FLORIN GOGÂLTAN Link, T. 2006: Das Ende der neolitischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 134. Bonn. Ljuština, M. 2013: Sudul Câmpiei Panoniceîn prima jumătate amileniului II î.Hr. Studiu de caz. Židovar, Banatul de sud, Serbia [Southern border of the Panonian Plain in 1 st half of 2 nd millennium BC.Case study of Židovar, south Banat district, Serbia]. Istros (Brăila) 19, 79–117. Marková, K.– Staššíková ‑Štuková, D. 2015: Nové poznatky oopevnenom sídlisku staršej doby bronzovej vo Veselom, okr. Piešťany [New Data on the Bronze Age defensive at Vesele, District of Piešťany, Slovakia]. In: J. Gancarski (ed.): Pradziejowe osady obronne w Karpatach. Krosno, 131–144. Martaetal. 2010 = Marta, L.– Kienlin, T.L.– Rung, E.– Schramm, P.: Recent Archaeological Research on the Bronze Age Fortified Settlements of the Ier Valley, North ‑Western Romania. In: Horejs– Kienlin eds. 2010, 121–138. Metzner ‑Nebelsick, C. 2013: Gedanken zur Frage des kulturellen Wandels in der Zeit um 1600 v. Chr. in Nordwest ‑Rumänien und Nordost ‑Ungarn. In: H. Meller– F. Bertemes– H.‑R. Bork– R. Risch (eds.): 1600– Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera ‑Ausbruchs? / 1600– Cultural change in the shadow of the Thera ‑Eruption? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9. Halle (Saale), 327–353. Molnár, Zs. 2006: Daten zur Problematik der frühen Entwicklungsphase der Otomani ‑Kultur. In: Gaiu– Găzdac (eds.) 2006, 75–119. Molnár, Zs. 2014: Contribuții la cunoașterea culturii Otomani din nord ‑vestul Transilvaniei. Ceramică și metal. Cluj ‑Napoca. Molnár, Zs.– Ciută, B. 2017: Aspects regarding the economy of the Otomani communities in North ‑Western Transylvania. Data concerning the Middle Bronze Age agriculture in light of the investigations carried out in the Carei ‑Bobald tell. Analele Banatului XXV, 57–90. Neméth, R.E.– Rezi, B. eds. 2015: Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the Interna‑ tional Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 2.–4. October 2014. Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria archaeo‑ logica 8. Cluj Napoca. Németi, J.– Molnár, Zs. 2012: Bronzkori hatalmi központok északnyugat ‑erdélyben. ANagykároly ‑Bobáld ‑tell [Bronzezeitliche Machtzentren in Nordwest ‑Siebenbürgen. Der Tell von Carei ‑Bobáld]. Monográfiák aSzegedi Tudományegyetem Régészeti Tanszékéről 2. Szeged. Nicodemus, A.J. 2014: Bronze Age Economies of the Carpathian Basin: Trade, Craft Production, and Agro ‑Pastoral Intensification. Unpublished PhD. dissertation. University of Michigan. Available online: http://hdl.handle. net/2027.42/107331 (accessed on 21.6.2020). Nicodemus, A.– O’ Shea, J.M. 2015: From relative to absolute: the radiometric dating of Mureş Culture ceramics at Pecica ‑Şanţul Mare. In: S. Forțiu– A. Stavilă (ed.): Interdisciplinaritate în Arheologie și Istorie in Memoriam Florin Medeleț. Simpozion Arheo Vest, Edițiaa III ‑a. Timișoara, 28. noiembrie 2015. Arheo‑ vest 3. Szeged, 691–702. Nowaczinskietal. 2012 = Nowaczinski, E.– Schukraft, G.– Hecht, S.– Rassmann, K.– Bubenzer, O.– Eitel, B.: AMultimethodological Approach for the Investigation of Archaeological Ditches– Exemplified by the Early Bronze Age Settlement of Fidvár near Vráble (Slovakia). Archaeological Prospection 19, 281–295. Ordentlich, I.– Lie, M.– Ghemis, C. 2014: Otomani ‘Cetățuie=Várhegy’, Bihor County. In: Gogâltan– Cor‑ doş– Ignat eds. 2014, 139–147. Parkinson, W.A.– Gyucha, A. 2012: Tells in Perspective. Long ‑Term Patterns of Settlement Nucleation and Dispersal in Central and Southeast Europe. In: R. Hofmann– F.‑K. Moetz– J. Müller (eds.): Tells: Social and Environmental Space 3. Proceedings of the International Workshop ‘Socio ‑Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years. The Creation of Landscapes II’ (14th–18th March 2011) in Kiel. Universitätsforschun‑ gen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 207. Bonn, 105–116. Poroszlai, I.– Vicze, M. eds. 2005: Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. SAX. Report 2– Field Season 2000–2003. Százhalombatta. 214 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Raczky, P.– Anders, A.– Bartosziewitz, L. 2011: The Enclosure System of Polgár ‑Csőszhalom and its Interpretation. In: S. Hansen– J. Müller (eds.): Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wan‑ del 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Internationale Tagung 15.–18. Oktober 2007 in Kiel. Archäologie in Eurasien 24. Berlin, 57–79. Roman, P.– Németi, I. 1986: Descoperiri din perioada timpurie (pre Otomani) aepocii bronzului în nord‑ ‑vestul României. Studii și Cercetări Istororie Veche şi Archeologie 37/3, 198–232. Rosenstock, E. 2009: Tells in Südwestasien und Südosteuropa. Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition eines Siedlungsphänomens. Urgeschichtliche Studien 2. Grunbach. Sava, V.– Ignat, A. 2016: The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Lower Mureș Basin. In: Gogâltan– Cordoş (eds.) 2016, 181–199. Stig Sørensen, M.L.– Vicze, M. 2013: Locating Household Activities on aBronze Age Tell. In: M. Madella– G. Kovacs– B. Kulcsarne ‑Berzsenyi– I. Brizi Godino (eds.): The Archaeology of Household. Oxford– Oakville, 159–178. Stockhammeretal. 2015 = Stockhammer, Ph.W.– Massy, K.– Knipper, C.– Friedrich, R.– Kromer, B.– Lindauer, S.– Radosavljević, J.– Wittenborn, F.– Krause, J.: Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large–Scale Radiocarbon Dating. PLoS ONE 10/10, 1–32. Szábo, G. 2017: Problems with the periodization of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin in light of the older and recent AMS radiocarbon data. Archeometriai Műhely 14/2, 99–116. Uhnér, C. 2010: Makt och samhälle Politisk ekonomi under bronsåldern iKarpaterbäckenet. Göteborg. Vicze, M.– Poroszlai, I.– Sümegi, P.eds. 2013: Koszider. Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem. Százhalombatta. Florin Gogâltan Institutul de Arheologie și Istoria Artei / Universitatea de Vest Timișoara str.M. Kogălniceanu, nr. 12‑14 Cluj Napoca, Romania [email protected].