Two different archaeological entities, the phase A of the Petrești culture and the Foeni cultural group were defined in the second half of the XXth century and, respectively in the first two decades of the XXIth century. At some point these two concepts were considered to be distinct, being considered characteristic to the Transylvania and Banat areas; lately the phase A of the Petrești culture was integrated into the Foeni cultural group, its youngest stage being seen as a continuation of the Foeni phenomenon from Banat into the Transylvanian territory. Using the Bayesian approaches based on thoroughly selected prior-estimates it was demonstrated that the events connected with these two archaeological concepts, both in the Banat and Transylvania, can be separated on several chronological stages which are not influenced by their territorial affiliation. This aspect, corroborated to the similarity regarding the pottery styles considered characteristic for Foeni group and phase A of the Petrești culture are strong arguments in the assertion regarding the fact that these two concepts act like a singular cultural manifestation in Banat and Transylvania, which can be labelled as Petrești A/Foeni phenomenon and can be considered as the first phase of the Transylvanian Petrești culture as was defined by I. Paul.
[1] The core of this paper was presented by D. Diaconescu in 2017 at the International Symposium of Archaeology and History ‘The history border from Antiquity to present times – In memoriam Constantini Daicoviciu’, 43rd Edition, Caransebeș, Romania.
[2] Iuliu Paul, Cultura Petrești [The Petrești culture] (București: Museion, 1992), 140, cat. no. 20.
[3] Ibid., 141, cat. no. 30.
[4] Ibid., 142, cat. no. 35.
[5] Ibid., 140, cat. no. 21.
[6] See Iuliu Paul, “Periodizarea internă a culturii Petrești în lumina evoluției ceramicii pictate,” [The inner periodisation of the Petrești culture in the light of the painted pottery evolution], in Muzeul Brukenthal Sibiu. Studii și comunicări. Arheologie-Istorie 20 (1977): 15–26.
[7] Paul, Cultura, Pl. XXIX.
[8] Ibid., 58.
[9] Ibid., 72.
[10] Ibid., 72.
[11] Ibid., 74.
[12] Ibid., 24–25, 74, 76.
[13] Ibid., 58–59.
[14] According to Florin Drașovean, “The Petrești culture in Banat,” in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie III (1994): 139–170, 163, this type of ornament appears in Daia Română at an unspecified level.
[15] According to Florin Drașovean, “Cultura Petrești în Banat,” [The Petrești culture in Banat], in Studii privind așezările preistorice în arealul Tisa–Mureșul inferior/Studies concerning human settlements in the Tisa–Lower Mureș area/Prehistóriai Települések a Tisza és a Maros alsó szakaszának Térségében, Ed. Ștefan Kilyeni (Timișoara: Orizonturi Universitare, 1999), 5-20, 14, the decorative motif of the F1 type appears also in Daia Română at an unspecified level.
[16] Paul, Cultura, 54; Mihai Gligor, Aşezarea neolitică şi eneolitică de la Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă, în lumina noilor cercetări [Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă Neolithic and Eneolithic Settlement in the Light of Recent Research] (Cluj–Napoca: Mega, 2009), 83.
[17] Paul, Cultura, 53, 54. It is mentioned that fragments of this type of pottery occur mainly within level I of Daia Română but also within levels II1 and II2. Precucuteni I type pottery is a stable presence in sites containing Turdaş or Foeni ceramics in the Central and Southern Transylvanian area (see Mihai Gligor, “Despre ceramica de tip Precucuteni în Transilvania,” [About Precucuteni type pottery in Transylvania], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 46 (2009): 233–246, Pl. IV). Their presence is attested in the layers Mintia II, Turdaş II, Deva–Tălaş II, Pianu de Jos I, Daia Română I and II, Cerișor–Cauce cave level II, upper part, which are associated with the pottery of Turdaş, Foeni and/or Petreşti A types.
[18] Paul, Cultura, 49.
[19] Ibid., 24–25, 74, 76.
[20] Ibid., 75–76.
[21] Ibid., 50–52.
[22] Iuliu Paul, “Der gegenwärtige Forschungstand zur Petrești-Kultur,” in Praehistorische Zeitschrift 56 (1981): 197–234, 202.
[23] Wolfram Schier, “Measuring change: the Neolithic Pottery Sequence of Vinča-Belo Brdo,” in Documenta Praehistorica XXVII (2000): 187–197, 188, Fig. 1b.
[24] Assigned by Paul, Cultura, 52 to the end of stage A1, the same dwelling is attributed to stage A2 also by Paul, Cultura, 55. The dwelling is mentioned as part of level II3 from Păuca (according to Paul, Cultura, 52).
[25] Paul, Cultura, 52.
[26] Ibid., Table 2.
[27] Ibid., Table 1.
[28] Ibid., 126.
[29] Gheorghe Lazarovici, Neoliticul Banatului (Cluj–Napoca: Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis IV, 1979), 166–167. See Florin Medeleț and Ioan Bugilan, “Contribuții la problema și la repertoriul movilelor de pământ din Banat,” [Zur Frage der Erdhügel im Banat; Problemestellung und Fundaufnahme], in Banatica 9 (1987): 87–197, 132, n. 71 related to the first painted materials of this type, discovered by F. Medeleț in 1979, then considered to be the Petreşti type of pottery in the western part of Romania. Drașovean, “Cultura,” 5; Florin Drașovean, “The Petrești culture in the Banat,” in Studii privind așezările preistorice în arealul Tisa – Mureșul inferior/Studies concerning human settlements in the Tisa – Lower Mureș area/Prehistóriai Települések a Tisza és a Maros alsó szakaszának Térségében, Ed. Ștefan Kilyeni (Timișoara: Orizonturi Universitare, 1999), 21-36, 21; Florin Drașovean, “A Petrești-Kultúra Bánságban,” [The Petrești culture in Banat], in Studii privind așezările preistorice în arealul Tisa – Mureșul inferior/Studies concerning human settlements in the Tisa – Lower Mureș area/Prehistóriai Települések a Tisza és a Maros alsó szakaszának Térségében, Ed. Ștefan Kilyeni (Timișoara: Orizonturi Universitare, 1999), 37-52, 37 state that the first such materials from Banat were discovered by A. Agotha, K. Germann and Fr. Resch in 1968 at Parța–Tell no. 2 (also called Parța –Vest) and thus, essentially, not at Foeni, as was indicated in the aforementioned source.
[30] Florin Drașovean, “Cultura Petrești în Banat,” [The Petrești culture in Banat], in Studii de istorie a Banatului XVI (1993), 1-43; Florin Drașovean, “The Petrești culture in Banat,” in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie III (1994), 139-170; Drașovean, “Cultura,” 5-20, the same text as Drașovean “Cultura Petrești”; Drașovean, ”The culture”, 21-36, the same text as Drașovean “The Petrești culture”.
[31] Florin Drașovean, Cultura Vinča târzie (faza C) în Banat [Die Späte Vinča-Kultur (Stufe C) im Banat] (Timișoara: Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, I, 1996), 84–86.
[32] Sabin Adrian Luca, Cristian Roman and Dragoș Diaconescu, Cercetări arheologice în peștera Cauce. Volumul 1 [Archaeological researches in Cauce cave. Volume 1] (Sibiu: Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis IV, 2004), 89; Sabin Adrian Luca, ‘The Neolithic and Eneolithic Periods in Transylvania’, in The Danube Script. Neo-Eneolithic writing in South-Eastern Europe, Ed. Joan Marler (Sebastopol, 2008): 23–38, 31, 32 – in this case, the author uses the concept of the Foeni group and also that of the Mintia group as the Transylvanian variant of the first; Sabin Adrian Luca, “Issues in defining the Foeni-Mintia cultural group in Transylvania,”in Itinera in praehistoria. Studia in honorem magistri Nicolae Ursulescu quinto a sexagesimo anno, Eds. Vasile Cotiugă, Felix Tencariu, George Bodi (Iași: Editura Universității ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’, 2009), 199–210, 199–202; Sabin Adrian Luca and Cosmin Urian, “Neue archäologische Funde im Kreis Temesch/Timiş sowie einige Fragen zur einordnung der Kulturgruppe Foieni-Mintia in Siebenbürgen,”in Forschungen zur Volks-und Landeskunde 55 (2012), 7–31.
[33] Florin Drașovean, “Transilvania și Banatul în neoliticul târziu. O contribuție la originile culturii Petrești,” [Transylvania and the Banat in the Late Neolithic. A contribution to the origins of the Petrești culture], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 40 (2003): 39–58, 40; Florin Drașovean, “Transylvania and the Banat in the Late Neolithic. The origins of the Petrești culture,”in Antaeus 27 (2004): 27–36, 33–34; Florin Drașovean, “Zona thessalo-macedoneană și Dunărea mijlocie la sfârșitul mileniului al VI-lea și începutul mileniului al V-lea,” [The Thessalian-Macedonian region and the Middle Danube in the late sixth and early fifth millennium BC], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 42 (2005): 11–26, 13; Florin Drașovean, “Burials in the area of the Foeni culture group,” in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie XIV (2006): 129–134, 129; Mihai Gligor, “Consideraţii privitoare la neoliticul târziu/eneoliticul timpuriu din sud-vestul Transilvaniei. Materialele ceramice de la Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă,” [Remarks concerning the Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic in Southwestern Transylvania. Pottery from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 43 (2006): 9–34; Mihai Gligor, “Cercetări arheologice preventive de la Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă. O descoperire aparţinând grupului Foeni,” [Preventive archaeological research at Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă site. A new discovery belonging to the Foeni group], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 44 (2007): 1–28; Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 168–171.
[34] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 9, the E2 and E3 types; Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 78 mentions only type E3.
[35] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 13, 14
[36] Ibid., 8.
[37] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 137, n. 61.
[38] Information kindly provided by Fl. Drașovean.
[39] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 11.
[40] Ibid., 15, types of motifs G54–G57.
[41] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 137. According to Drașovean, “Transilvania și Banatul,” 43, the white painted motifs are characteristics only of the Banat region, more precisely to the Foeni eponymous site. A contrary opinion at Drașovean, “Transylvania and the Banat,” 30: ‘On the other hand, white painted ornaments were discovered at Foeni and have, by now, been found in Transylvania, too’ (more probably due to a translation error of the Romanian text from Drașovean, “Transilvania și Banatul,” 43).
[42] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 15.
[43] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 9. The burnished/polished ornaments are considered to be the most common from the Foeni site, with a percentage of 27%. The same source (Drașovean, “Cultura,” 14) mentions a percentage of 24% (?); Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 86, indicates also a percentage of 24%, but Drașovean, ‘Transylvania and the Banat,” 29 mentions again a percentage of 27%.
[44] The F type at Drașovean, “Cultura,” 9–10.
[45] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 85, n. 182. The author mentions the presence of this morphological element of Foeni pottery in the intra-Carpathian area at Mintia, Archiud, Șoimuș, Turdaș and Petrești. Paul, Cultura, 49 specifies the presence of these band-handles in the morphological repertoire of the Petrești culture pottery but calls them drainage gutters.
[46] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 9.
[47] Ibid., 9.
[48] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 28, 85, 112, nr. cat. 15, using the chronological system determined by Gh. Lazarovici for the C phase of the Vinča culture. See a detailed presentation of the Parța–Tell no. 2 in Florin Drașovean, “Cultura Vinca, fazele C și D, în Banat,” [The Vinča culture’s phases C and D, in Banat], in Cultura Vinča în România. Origine, evoluție, legături, sinteze, Eds. Gheorghe Lazarovici, Florin Drașovean (Timișoara, 1991), 59–70, 67–68). The C1 stage in Lazarovici’s proposal (Lazarovici, Neoliticul, 76, Table 7 the fifth column from right to left) is synchronous to the C2 sub-phase in Wolfram Schier’s chronology for Vinča culture – see Wolfram Schier, “The relative and absolute chronology of Vinča: new evidence from the type site,” in The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections, Ed. Florin Drașovean (Timișoara: Mirton, 1996), 141–161, Fig. 9).
[49] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 86.
[50] See Drașovean, “The Petrești culture”; Drașovean, Cultura Vinča; Florin Drașovean, “Die Petrești-Kultur im Banat,” in Praehistorische Zeitschrift 72, 1 (1997): 54-80; Drașovean, “Cultura”; Drașovean, “Transylvania and the Banat”; Florin Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme de la sfârșitul neoliticului târziu și începutul eneoliticului timpuriu din Banat și Transylvania. O abordare bayesiană a unor date absolute publicate de curând și republicate recent,” [Certain syncronisms between the end of the Late Neolithic and the beginning of the Early Eneolithic in Banat and Tranylvania. A Bayesian approach to published absolute dates], in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie XXI (2013): 11-34; Florin Drașovean, “Despre cronologia relativă și absolută a neoliticului și eneoliticului timpuriu din răsăritul Bazinului Carpatic. O abordare Bayesiană,” [Remarks on the realtive and absolute chronologies on the Neolithic and Early Eneolithic of the Eastern Carpathian Basin. A Bayesian approach], in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie XXII (2014): 33-67.
[51] Drașovean, “The Petrești culture”; Drașovean, “Die Petrești-Kultur”; Drașovean, ”Cultura”.
[52] Drașovean, ”Cultura,” 20.
[53] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 32, 84–86
[54] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 59–60, 80, 97, 99, 108, 112. Also in the same source (Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 107), the naming of the Foeni/Petrești A group appears.
[55] Drașovean, “Transylvania and the Banat”; Drașovean, “Zona thessalo-macedoneană”; Drașovean, “Burials”; Florin Drașovean, “Cultural relationships in the Late Neolithic of the Banat,” in Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans as uncovered by the last decade of research, Eds. Florin Drașovean, Dan Leopold Ciobotaru, Margaret Maddison (Timișoara, 2009), 259-273, 261-262.
[56] Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 19.
[57] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 138.
[58] Ibid., 137.
[59] Ibid., 138.
[60] The bibliographical references done by Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 138 for the site from Turdaș–Luncă, connected with this phase, are to be found in Sabin Adrian Luca, Aşezări neolitice pe Valea Mureşului. II. Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdaş–Luncă. I. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995 [Neolithic settlements on the Mureș valley. II. New archaeological research from Turdaș–Luncă. I. The 1992–1995 campaigns] (Alba Iulia: Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVII, 2001), Fig. 24/6, 8. The stratigraphical provenience of these two sherds is, more or less, unclear. The one from Fig. 8 is from layer II, according to Luca, Așezări neolitice II, 159 and the stratigraphical position of the one from Fig. 24/6 is not specified.
[61] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 138.
[62] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 139. The materials from Hunedoara–Judecătorie are attributed by Florin Drașovean, “Locuirile neolitice de la Hunedoara–Cimitirul reformat și Grădina Castelului și o luare de poziție față de câteva opinii privind realitățile neo-eneoliticului din sud-vestul Transilvaniei,” [Neolithic settlements from Hunedoara–Cimitirul reformat and Grădina Castelului and a position regarding the Neo-Eneolithic facts from the southwest of Transylvania], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 39 (2002): 57–93, 67, to a cultural phenomenon connected to Petrești culture and not to the Turdaș culture (according to Sabin Adrian Luca and Cristian Roman, “Materiale eneolitice descoperite la Hunedoara–Judecătorie,” [Eneolithic materials discovered at Hunedoara–Judecătorie], in Corviniana. Acta Musei Corvinensis V (1999): 6–11 or Luca, “Issues in defining,”205), more precisely to the Hunedoara cultural group. Quite recent rescue studies frame the materials from Hunedoara–Judecătorie as belonging to the Foeni group, phase III (according to Sorin Tincu, “Cercetările arheologice preventive de la Hunedoara. Considerații privind încadrarea culturală și cronologică a descoperirilor,” [The archaeological researches from Hunedoara. Considerations regarding cultural and chronological framing of the discoveries], in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie XXIII (2015): 63–87). Based especially on the so-called Late Neolithic pottery from Hunedoara–Dealul Sânpetru, Hunedoara–Biserica Reformată, Hunedoara–Grădina Castelului and Hunedoara–Judecătorie, the Hunedoara cultural group was defined as a synthesis phenomenon on the periphery of the Foeni and/or early Petrești area. This group is considered to be similar to phase III of the Foeni group according to Gligor, Așezarea neolitică or to the phase Turdaș IV according to Luca, “Issues in defining” – see Drașovean, “Locuirile neolitice,” 78–79; Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 99–100; Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 19.
[63] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 139–140; Mihai Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului timpuriu în Transilvania: o abordare bayesiană,” [The beginning of Early Eneolithic in Transylvania: a Bayesian approach], in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie XXII (2014): 91–105, 95.
[64] Paul, Cultura, 75.
[65] Sabin Adrian Luca, Aşezări neolitice pe Valea Mureşului. I. Habitatul turdăşean de la Orăştie–Dealul Pemilor (punct X2) [Neolithic settlements on the Mureș valley. I. The Turdaș culture settlement from Orăştie–Dealul Pemilor (point X2)] (Alba Iulia: Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis IV, 1997), 73–74 places the discoveries from the intermediary level (II) from Turdaș-Luncă as possibly Foieni [sic] and explicitly situated in the same time span as phase C of the Vinča culture, as prior to the discoveries of Petrești A and AB [sic] in the site in question; Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 173, n. 173 considers that the discoveries named by Luca, Așezări neolitice I, 74 as Petrești A would actually be Foeni. Luca, Așezări neolitice II, 146 attributes the Petrești ‘level(s)’ from Turdaș–Luncă only to the phase Petrești A-B. Sabin Adrian Luca, Așezări neolitice pe valea Mureșului (III). Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdaș–Luncă. II. Campaniile anilor 1996–1998 [Neolithic settlements on the Mureș valley. III. New archaeological researches from Turdaș–Luncă. II. The excavations from 1996–1998] (Sibiu: Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis XXV, 2018), 79 assigns level III from the site from Turdaș to the oldest Petrești, labelled as phase I, as defined by I. Paul [sic]. This denominative of phase I of the Petrești culture, even if was not defined by I. Paul as such, is used also by Drașovean, “The culture,” 30.
[66] Luca, Așezări neolitice I, 75.
[67] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 85.
[68] Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 19.
[69] Ibid., 19. This opinion is perpetuated also by Cătălin Bem, Sistemul de fortificare al stațiunii eneolitice de la Pianu de Jos–Podei (Alba, România). Între simbolism și rațiuni defensive, [The fortification system of the Eneolithic site from Pianu de Jos–Podei (Alba, Romania). Between symbolism and defensive reasons] (Târgoviște: Cetatea de Scaun, 2015).
[70] Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 19.
[71] Drașovean, “Cultura,” 15; a similar pottery appeared at the site from Pianu de Jos–Podei, in the Cx212 complex (Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 58, fig. 127/5); this could demonstrate possible Lengyel cultural influence/imports (N/A).
[72] The decorative motifs known as ridged alveoli or ‘plastic relief’ (Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 227) are attributed to the Foeni group, Transylvanian variant due to the materials from Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă (see Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 83).
[73] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 84. A V-shaped decorative pattern made of ‘small berries’ that frames a protome appears on a black-topped pottery container discovered in the Banat area at Moșnița Nouă-Obiectiv 16, a feature attributed to the Foeni group, according to Cristian Floca, Șapte milenii de istorie în zona Moșnița (jud. Timiș). Cercetările arheologice de salvare din perioada 2010–2015 [Seven millennia of history in the Moşnița area (Timiș County). Archaeological rescue excavations from 2010–2015] (Timișoara, 2016), 61, 65 – the image from the right upper corner.
[74] Drașovean, “Cultura Petrești’, 5, Fig. 2; see the same typological chart at Drașovean, ‘The Petrești culture’, Fig. 2; Drașovean ‘Die Petrești-Kultur’, Abb. 2; Drașovean, ‘Cultura’, Fig. 1.
[75] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 138.
[76] Ibid., 139–140.
[77] Florin Drașovean, “In regards to certain Late Neolithic–Early Eneolithic synchronism from Banat and Transylvania. A Bayesian approach to published absolute dates’, in Studii de Preistorie 10 (2013): 13–48, 22.
[78] Paul, Cultura, 114, 127 mentions only the bc values for the range provided by these data (3900–3700 bc and 3950–3760 bc, respectively), without specifying the number of obtained 14C data.
[79] Paul, Cultura, 114, 127, Pl IVb/Fig. 8-9.
[80] Ibid., 114. Same opinion at Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 95; also here, the author mentions the fact that in levels II4 and III1 from Daia Română, the trichrome ceramics specific to phase AIII [sic] appear. In fact, it is polychrome painted pottery type AIII that appears (cf. Paul, Cultura, 51).
[81] These are presented in Paul, Cultura, Pl. IVb/Fig. 8-9.
[82] The fourth sample from the left towards right from Paul, Cultura, Pl. IVb/Fig. 8.
[83] The fifth sample from the left towards right from Paul, Cultura, Pl. IVb/Fig. 8.
[84] The first sample from the left towards right from Paul, Cultura, Pl. IVb/Fig. 8.
[85] The second sample from the left towards right from Paul, Cultura, Pl. IVb/Fig. 8 and Pl. IVb/Fig. 9; even if Paul, Cultura, 114 claims that the dates obtained by the Berlin laboratory are dating the levels II1 and II2.
[86] Cornelia Magda Mantu, “Relative and absolute chronology of the Romanian Neolithic,” in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie și Istorie VII–VIII (1999–2000): 75–105, Table 1/70–72.
[87] Ibid., Table 1/70–72. The lack of information in question, visible also in Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 20; Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 49.
[88] Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, “Absolute chronology of the Late Vinča culture in Romania and its role in the development of the Early Copper Age,” in Homage to Milutin Garašanin, Eds. Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov (Belgrade, 2006): 277–293, 281, 288, Fig. 7.
[89] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 143; Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 95.
[90] G. Kohl and H. Quitta, “Berlin radiocarbon measurements I,” in Radiocarbon 6 (1964): 308–317, 308.
[91] Cornelia Magda Lazarovici and Gheorghe Lazarovici, Arhitectura neoliticului și epocii cuprului din România. II. Epoca Cuprului [Neolithic and Copper Age Architecture in Romania. II. Copper Age] (Iași: Trinitas, 2007), 35 (the authors publish, for unknown reasons, only two of these data, individually calibrated, Bln 1197 and Bln 1199). Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 18 and Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 44 agree with this opinion but slightly nuanced it. See a similar opinion in Dragoș Diaconescu, “About a copper bracelet from Brukenthal National Museum’s collections and some remarks regarding chronological aspects of the Early and Middle Coper Age from Transylvania, Tisza Plain and Lower Danube region,” in Brukenthal Acta Musei XI.1 (2016): 17–32, 20, where I considered, due to overly simplistic criteria, these data as being able to be integrated in the history of research.
[92] Lazarovici, “Absolute chronology,” Fig. 7.
[93] Ibid., 281.
[94] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 44, Fig. 13a–3b.
[95] Christopher Bronk Ramsey, “Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates,”in Radiocarbon 51, 1 (2009): 337–360.
[96] Reimer, P. J.; Bard, E.; Bayliss, A.; Beck, J. W.; Blackwell, P. G.; Bronk Ramsey, C.; Grootes, P. M.; Guilderson, T. P.; Haflidason, H.; Hajdas, I.; Hatt, C.; Heaton, T. J.; Hoffmann, D. L.; Hogg, A. G.; Hughen, K. A.; Kaiser, K. F.; Kromer, B.; Manning, S. W.; Niu, M.; Reimer, R. W.; Richards, D. A.; Scott, E. M.; Southon, J. R.; Staff, R. A.; Turney, C. S. M.; van der Plicht, J., ‘IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP,” in Radiocarbon 55, 4 (2013): 1869–1887.
[97] See Nona Palincaș, “Câteva observații cu privire la utilizarea datelor radiocarbon,” [Some remarks concerning the work with radiocarbon dates], in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 48, 1 (1997): 17–30, 29 and Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 141–142.
[98] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 48.
[99] Ibid., 38.
[100] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 37, asserts that for the accuracy of the dating process were preferred, when possible, the ‘short live samples’ [sic], collected from clear stratigraphical contexts, but no clear assignments were done. Dušan Borić, “The end of the Vinča world: modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age Transition and the notion of Archaeological Culture,” in Chronologies, Lithics and Metals: Late Neolithic and Copper Age in the Eastern Part of the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans, eds. S. Hansen, P. Raczky, A. Anders, A. Reingruber, 206 asserts, quoting Drașovean “Zona thesallo-macedoneană,” that the sampled material for the conventional dates from Foeni is charcoal. No such information can be found in Drașovean, “Zona thesallo-macedoneană.”
[101] P. Ascough, G. Cook, M. Church, E. Dunbar, Á. Einarsson, T. McGovern, A. Dugmore, S. Perdikaris, H. Hastie, A. Friðriksson and H. Gestsdóttir, “Temporal and Spatial Variations in Freshwater 14C Reservoir Effects: Lake Mývatn, Northern Iceland,” in Radiocarbon 52, 2–3 (2010): 1098-1112, 1110.
[102] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 48.
[103] Alasdair Whittle, Alex Bayliss, Alistair Barclay, Bisserka Gaydarska, Eszter Bánffy, Dušan Borić, Florin Drașovean, János Jakucs, Miroslav Marić, David Orton, Ivana Pantović, Wolfram Schier, Nenad Tasić and Marc Vander Linden, “A Vinča potscape formal chronological models for the use and development of Vinča ceramics in southeast Europe,” in Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016): 1–60, 40, Fig. 37.
[104] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 54, Table I, considers the beginning of the Foeni I stage to be contemporary to Vinča C3 (W. Schier’s chronology), and, consequently, the end of the Foeni III phase is situated immediately after the end of Vinča D.
[105] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 141 (the data obtained from the samples ALN 01 to ALN 10); Mihai Gligor, “Contribuții la cronologia absolută a complexului funerar de la Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă. Noi date 14C AMS,” [Contributions to the absolute chronology of the Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă Funerary Complex. New 14C AMS data], in Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 16/I (2012): 283–292, 286 (the data obtained from the samples ALN 11 and ALN 12); Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 94 (the data obtained from the samples ALN 01 to ALN 04, ALN 09 to ALN 20, ALN 22 and ALN 23).
[106] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 141-142.
[107] For the data published in Gligor, Așezarea neolitică and Gligor, “Contribuții la cronologia,” the raw material of the samples was clearly described. The samples published in Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” (ALN 13 to ALN 20, ALN 22 and ALN 23) specified the values of N (nitrogen) and C (carbon), which indicate that these are bones, most likely human.
[108] Julia Giblin and Richard Yerkes, “Diet, dispersal and social differentiation during the Copper Age in eastern Hungary,” in Antiquity 90, 349 (2016): 81–94, 83–89.
[109] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. XX. See also Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” Figs. 1–3 for an arrangement of the data in strong connection to the research units where the samples were collected.
[110] Ibid., Pl. XX and Gligor, “Contribuții la cronologia,” 283–284.
[111] Mihai Gligor and Kirsty McLeod, “Disarticulation as a Transylvanian Early Eneolithic practice? A case study from Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă (Romania),” in Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 18/II (2014): 61–86, 67, Fig. 8 propose a Bayesian model for this feature, integrating the data into a single phase; the model shows a slightly poor agreement of 48%.
[112] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 36–37.
[113] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 43 creates a phase labelled ‘funerary depositions’, where the same data set and the same methodology of creating R_Combine for the data coming from the same feature are used. The phase ‘funerary depositions’ was integrated into the same Bayesian model with the phase ‘pits’ and considered younger in the inner structure of the model – see Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” Fig. 12.
[114] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 142; Gligor, “Contribuții la cronologia,” 290 suggested the time span ca. 4600–4500 cal BC.
[115] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 139.
[116] Ibid., 32. The English translation of the quoted sentences belongs to D. Diaconescu.
[117] Ibid., 32. The English translation of the quoted sentence belongs to D. Diaconescu.
[118] Ibid., 36–37.
[119] Ibid., 213, Pl. CXLVII/1. The reference to the illustrative material from Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 88, cat. no. 4 is made, inaccurately, towards Pl. CXLVIII/1.
[120] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 87–90.
[121] Ibid, 38, pl. CLIX/1 and pl. CXIV/4.
[122] Diaconescu, “Copper bracelet,” 20, n. 22–24. It should be emphasised that the best analogy for the shape of the vessel is in Paul, Cultura, p. XXVIa/4 and not in Paul, Cultura, Pl. XXVI/4 as it appears, erroneously, in Diaconescu, “Copper bracelet,” 20. n. 24. To these analogies, can be added a vessel discovered at Uioara de Jos attributed to phase A-B, see Sorin Tincu, “Cultura Petrești” [The Petrești culture] (PhD diss., ‘Lucian Blaga’ University, Sibiu, 2011), 321, Fig. 91b; Sabin Adrian Luca and Horia Ciugudean, “O depunere rituală aparținând culturii Petrești descoperită la Uioara de Jos,” [A ritual deposition assigned to the Petrești culture found at Uioara de Jos], in Apulum. Acta Musei Apulensis 55, (2018): 9–22, 11, Fig. 2 are discussing this special discovery but without a proposal of chronological classification in any phase of the Petrești culture).
[123] Gligor, “Contribuții la cronologia,” 284.
[124] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 101, Fig. 4, the data from Sp. I/2013 are integrated into a single phase.
[125] See https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcalhelp/hlp_analysis_error.html, accessed in 02.09.2020.
[126] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 94. The data Poz-58210 and Poz-58211 come from the skeletons M1 and M2, located at depths of -1.75 m and -1.90 m, respectively. Instead, the data Poz-58212 and Poz-58213 come from the skeletons M4 and M5 located at the depths 1 m and 0.20–0.35 m. Thus, altimetrically, there are two burying moments.
[127] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 92.
[128] Ibid., 92, 94 the sample ALN#13. This datum is included into the Foeni cultural group data set from Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă, but it is inserted only into the model from Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” Fig. 1, 100, where, in the proposed structure of the model, it shows an agreement of 6%.
[129] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. XX.
[130] Ibid., 40, Pl. VII/1, CXCVI/2.
[131] Ibid., 40.
[132] Ibid., 141–142.
[133] Luca and Roman, “Materiale eneolitice,” 6.
[134] Ibid., 8. See the critic comment from Tincu, “Cercetările,” 67–68 regarding this chronological and cultural framing.
[135] Tincu, “Cercetările,” 66. The bone samples were characterised by, according to the reports of the Poznan laboratory, a lack of collagen, thus making it impossible to date them via AMS.
[136] Tincu, “Cercetările,” 66.
[137] Ibid., 66.
[138] Ibid., 64, 65. According to pl. 3 from the same source, these two research units, S.VA and S.VB, are arranged in the form of the letter L, the distance between the two complexes being ca. 12 m.
[139] Tincu, “Cercetările,” 67, 70–72, Fig. 2, 8–10.
[140] According to Tincu, “Cercetările,” 71, Fig. 8, 9.
[141] See Tincu, “Cercetările,” 72, Fig. 10.
[142] Tincu, “Cercetările,” 67, Fig. 4, 7.
[143] Ibid., 67.
[144] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 138.
[145] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 107.
[146] Ibid., 117, G16.
[147] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 92–93, 94, Table 1, the positions RAH#1, RAH#2, RAH#3, RAH#4.
[148] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 93.
[149] I would like to thank again to Dr. Cristopher Bronk Ramsey for the very useful explanations kindly offered for this kind of situation and for the solutions suggested in verifying the real concordance of the data from this type of Bayesian models.
[150] Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 93.
[151] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 121.
[152] Ibid., 120, G21.
[153] Adrian Gligor, “Interferențe culturale la sfârşitul eneoliticului din bazinul mijlociu al Mureşului în lumina cercetărilor de la Ampoiţa–La Pietri şi Șeușa–Gorgan (jud. Alba),” [Cultural interferences at the end of the Eneolithic in the middle basin of the Mureş river in the light of the researches from Ampoiţa–La Pietri and Șeușa–Gorgan (Alba County)] (PhD diss., ‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University, Cluj-Napoca, 2014).
[154] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 120–121, G21, Tab. 3; Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului,” 104, Fig. 10 also proposed a general model for the Foeni group, but with only two phases (Foeni Banat and Foeni Transylvania), using only the data from Foeni (published until 2014) and the data from Alba Iulia, zone A of the site. The model presented shows an agreement of 57% and presents no boundaries.
[155] According to Drașovean, “Despre cronologia”.
[156] According to Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului”.
[157] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 120–121, G21, Tab. 3 attributes them to stage labelled as II/III.
[158] In Diaconescu, “Copper bracelet,” 19–21, I expressed opinions regarding the chronology of the Petrești culture, and I considered, at that time, that the phases A-B and B of the Petrești culture were defined by exactly the same data as phases IV and V of the Foeni–Petrești complex according to C. Bem (equivalent to the chronology proposed by F. Drașovean, with Petrești phases A-B and B in the internal chronological model defined by I. Paul). I also emphasised that, for the Petrești A phase, the only viable 14C date was considered to be the AMS date from C1 – Sp. III/2005, the sample coming from the same context as the painted vessel from Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. CLIX, Pl. CLXIII, Pl. CCXI/5, a vessel considered, both then and now, to be representative of the Petrești culture, phase A (see Diaconescu, “Copper bracelet,” 20, n. 23–24).
[159] Tincu, “Cultura,” 116; the author considered these materials to be Foeni and/or Foeni–Mintia.
[160] Cosmin Suciu, “Jumătate de veac de uitare. Situl neolitic de la Timișoara-Ronaț (Triaj),” [Half a century of oblivion. The Neolithic site from Timișoara-Ronaț (Triaj)], in Arheologia Banatului. Cercetări. Descoperiri. Intervenții, Eds. Victor Bunoiu and Dan Vlase (Timișoara: Editura Antem, 2015): 34–35; Cosmin Suciu, Dragoș Diaconescu, Adrian Ardelean, Kathryn Grow Allen, “Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Punct: Ronaț-Triaj. Proprietatea Duma, Așezare civilă, datare Foeni târziu/Petrești A. Cod RAN: 155252.18. Autorizație: Nr. 65/26.04.2016,” [Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Point: Ronaț-Triaj. Duma propriety. Civil settlement, dating Late Foeni/Petrești A. RAN code: 155252.18. Authorization: No. 65/26.04.2016], in Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România 2017. Campania 2016 (București, 2017): 216–217; Cosmin Suciu, Dragoș Diaconescu, Alexandru Hegyi, Dorel Micle, “Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Punct: Ronaț-Triaj. Așezare civilă, datare Foeni/Petrești A. Cod RAN: 155252.18. Autorizație: Nr. 72/25.04.2017,” [Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Point: Ronaț-Triaj. Civil settlement, dating Foeni/Petrești A. RAN code: 155252.18. Authorization: No. 72/25.04.2017], in Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România 2018. Campania 2017 (București, 2018): 139–140; Cosmin Suciu, Dragoș Diaconescu, Adrian Ardelean, Alexandru Hegyi, “Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Punct: Ronaț-Triaj. C.F. 430019/Timișoara, Așezare civilă, datare Foeni/Petrești A. Cod RAN: 155252.18. Autorizație: Nr. 130/29.05.2017,” [Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Point: Ronaț-Triaj. C.F. 430019/Timișoara. Civil settlement, dating Foeni/Petrești A. RAN code: 155252.18. Authorization: No. 130/29.05.2017], in Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România 2018. Campania 2017 (București, 2018): 216–217.
[161] Drașovean, “Despre cronologia,” 43, 64, Fig. 12 based on the phase labelled ‘pits’ is underlying the fact that the habitation layer of the Foeni group from the site of Alba Iulia–Lumea Nouă is contemporary to the beginning of the level II from the Foeni site.
[162] According to Mihai Gligor, Mariana Roșu and Călin Șuteu, “New evidence on burial practices in Petrești culture,” in Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice (serie nouă) IX (2013): 67–81, 68–69, the graves no. M2 and no. M1 have arranged cysts from the adobe of the feature L1/C34, aspect that imposes the fact that the respective burials were furnished at a post-destruction moment of the feature L1/C34, this dwelling being part of the Petrești A-B layer, between the depths of 0.20–0.50 m (see Gligor et al., “New evidence,” 68).
[163] Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 86, 89, 108; at the same time, also in Drașovean, Cultura Vinča, 107, the author uses the name Foeni/Petrești A. Lazarovici and Lazarovici, Arhitectura neoliticului, 38 considers that the Foeni/Petrești A is a better denomination compared to ‘Petrești A–Foeni’ because the migration direction is from Foeni towards Petrești A. See below, in the present paper, the brief discussion about the migration concept, especially n. 166.
[164] Drașovean, “Transylvania and the Banat,” 29–30, asserts that ‘…the technology of the Foeni ceramics is so closed connected with the discoveries from Transylvania so that if some ceramic categories of the two cultures were artificially mixed…it would hardly be possible to separate them’.
[165] Drașovean, “Zona thessalo-macedoneană,” 13.
[166] David W. Anthony, “Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater,” in American Anthropologist 92, 4 (1990): 895–914, 897–898, 904, states that migration occurs extremely rarely just in one direction, usually with a return movement to the place of origin.
[167] According to Anthony, “Migration in Archaeology,” 902–903, the farmers from the plains of North America travelled, preceded by scout-hunters, between 200 and 500 miles (i.e. 321–804 km) in a time span of 25–50 years.
[168] See Krisztián Oross, Tibor Marton, Alasdair Whittle, Robert Hedges and Lucy Cramp., “Die Siedlung der Balaton-Lasinja-Kultur in Balatonszarszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő,” in Panta Rhei: Studies in Chronology and Cultural Development of South-Eastern and Central Europe in Earlier Prehistory Presented to Juraj Pavúk on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, Eds. J. Sutekova, P. Pavuk, P. Kalabkova, and B. Kovar (Bratislava: Comenius University, 2010): 381–407, 392–401, for such an analysis.
Fig. 1. The idealised stratigraphical and cultural diagram of the Daia Română site (based on observations by Paul, Cultura, 51).
Appendix 1. The 14C data belonging to Foeni group and Petrești culture.
Map 1. The distribution of the Foeni (dark blue dots) and Petrești A (red dots) sites from Banat and Transylavania. Cultural attributions according to Tincu, “Cultura”.
Fig. 2. The bounded Sum of the 14C data from Daia Română, layer II.
Fig. 3. The bounded Sum of the conventional 14C data from Foeni, level I.
Fig. 4. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the Daia Română, layer II and Foeni, level I (only conventional 14C data).
Fig. 5. The Bayesian model (the AMS 14C data) for the Foeni site, using as prior-estimates the attribution to the stratigraphical levels (according to Drașovean, “Despre cronologia”).
Fig. 6. The Bayesian model (the AMS 14C data) for the Foeni site, presenting the bounded Sums for the stratigraphical levels.
Fig. 6a. The bounded Sums for the levels I, II and III from Foeni site.
Fig. 7. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums for level I from Foeni site (conventional vs. AMS types).
Fig. 8. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and III from Foeni site and the Vinča culture absolute chronology (processing after Whittle et al., “A Vinča,” fig. 37).
Fig. 9. The Bayesian model for the AMS data from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site, using as prior-estimates the stratigraphical observations from trench Sp. III/2005 (published by Gligor, Așezarea neolitică).
Fig. 10. The bounded Sum of the AMS data from the human bone depositions from zone A of the Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site.
Fig. 11. The bounded Sum of the AMS data from the skeletons found in Ditch 1 from zone B of the Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site.
Fig. 11a. The Bayesian model of the AMS data from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site, zone B, Ditch using as prior-estimates the stratigraphical observations from Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului”.
Fig. 11b. The bounded Sums of the two stratigraphical phases from Ditch 1, zone B of the Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site.
Fig. 12. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and II from Foeni site and the bounded Sum of the phase M1 Ditch 2 2005 from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site.
Fig. 12a. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and II from Foeni site and the bounded Sums of the phase Human Bone Deposits zone A and Lumea Nouă, zone B, Sp. I / 2013, Ditch 1 (according to Fig. 11b) from Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă site.
Fig. 13. The bounded Sum of the AMS data from Hunedoara-Judecătorie site (according to Tincu, “Cercetările”, fig. 10).
Fig. 14. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and II from Foeni site and the bounded Sum of the data from Hunedoara-Judecătorie site.
Fig. 15. The Bayesian model of the AMS data from Pianu de Jos site, using as prior-estimates the opinions from Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, presenting the bounded Sums of the phases Pianu de Jos Graves and Pianu de Jos Human remains.
Fig. 16. The bounded Sum of the phase Pianu de Jos Graves from the Pianu de Jos site.
Fig. 17. The bounded Sum of the phase Pianu de Jos Human remains from the Pianu de Jos site.
Fig. 18. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and III from Foeni site and the bounded Sums of the phases Pianu de Jos Graves and Pianu de Jos Human remains from Pianu de Jos site.
Fig. 19. The Bayesian model of the AMS data from Răhău site, creating a singular phase.
Fig. 20. The bounded Sum of the singular phase from Răhău site.
Fig. 20a. The inconsistencies of the Răhău data, using the direct comparison between the Sum of the singular phase from Răhău and each date from this phase. It is clear that the Sum graphic is strongly influenced by three groups of data.
Fig. 21. The bounded Sum of the Răhău phase, using the only two dates considered viable also by Gligor, “Începuturile eneoliticului”.
Fig. 22. The direct comparison between the bounded Sums of the levels I, II and III from Foeni site and the bounded Sum of the data from Răhău.
Fig. 23. The Bayesian model, in tabular format, for the Foeni-Petrești cultural complex, using as prior-estimates the opinions from Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 120-121, Tab. 3. The low values of the agreement (lower than 60%) are marked in red.
Fig. 24. The Bayesian model for the Foeni-Petrești cultural complex, using as prior-estimates the opinions from Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 120-121, Tab. 3, showing an agreement of 2%.