The archaeological research from Pianu de Jos-Podei settlement, made by Iuliu Paul in 1960 and 1967, provided a large quantity of orange or red ceramic, assigned to AIa and AIb types from the phase A of the Petrești culture and lately attributed to the Foeni group. This monochrome-red/orange pottery, associated with black, burnished fragments as well as with black-topped shards, the latter sometimes being decorated with burnished stripes and lines, on bitronconic vessels, support-vessels and vessels with leaking beak, was discovered  especially in trenches SI, SIX, SIXA and SXII at depths of between -0.70/0.80 and -1.00/-1.20 m, overlapping Turdaș level, was assigned to three cultural entities: A phase of the Petrești culture, the Foeni group and the Foeni–Petrești cultural complex - phases I, II and III.

[1] 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): 20; 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), Fig. 127.

[2] 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): Pl. 1.

[3] 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), 137–139.

[4] The archaeological materials are stored in the Brukenthal Museum deposits and were analysed by the undersigned in the process of studying the pottery of the Petrești culture. Through this way, I want to thank to Sabin Adrian Luca, general director of the Brukenthal Museum, and to Dragoș Diaconescu, researcher at the Banat National Museum, at that time director of the History Museum –Altemberger House Sibiu, which facilitated my access to these archaeological materials.

[5] Iuliu Paul, “Așezarea neo-eneolitică de la Pianu de Jos (Podei),” [The Neo-Eneolithic settlement from Pianu de Jos-Podei], in Studii și comunicări Muzeul Brukenthal 14 (1969): 33; Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 2015, 6.

[6] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 5.

[7] Paul, “Așezarea neo-eneolitică,” 33–35.

[8] Ibid., 35.

[9] Ibid., 36.

[10] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 5.

[11] Unfortunately, many important ceramic materials were unpublished. These materials have analogies in the ceramics of the Foeni group.

[12] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 5–6.

[13] Ibid., 5.

[14] The access pits for the construction pillars, with analogies in the Gomolava, Foeni, Hunedoara–Judecătorie and other settlements, are considered to be an extensive and elaborate fortification system. We do not dismiss the possibility that some of the pillars had a defensive functionality, but in the case of many postholes, their arrangement is identical to those from the aforementioned settlements, and they likely belong to civilian constructions/houses.

[15] 14 ha, according to C. Bem, instead of 12 ha, as was estimated by I. Paul.

[16] Iuliu Paul, Cultura Petrești [The Petrești culture] (București: Museion, 1992), 72.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Paul, “Așezarea neo-eneolitică,” 37.

[21] Ibid., 38.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Dragoș Diaconescu, “Despre cultura Turdaș și poziția sa cronologică,” [About Turdaș culture and its chronological position], in Analele Banatului. Serie Nouă, Arheologie-Istorie XXII (2014): 76.

[24] Wolfram Schier, “Measuring change: the Neolithic Pottery Sequence of Vinča-Belo Brdo,” in Documenta Praehistorica XXVII (2000): 188.

[25] Sabin Adrian Luca, Așezări neolitice pe valea Mureșului (II). Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdaș-Luncă. I. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995 [Neolithic settlements on Mureș valley (II). New archaeological research from Turdaș-Luncă. I. The 1992–1995 campaigns] (Alba Iulia, 2001) [Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVII], 145; Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 18.

[26] For example, beside Petrești and Turdaș shards, in S4 □12–24, ▼-0.40–0.60m are ceramic fragments belonging to the Coțofeni culture, most likely from an unnoticed upper feature.

[27] Paul, Paul, “Periodizarea,” Pl. I.

[28] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 137–139.

[29] Drașovean, “Despre unele sincronisme,” 19.

[30] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 137–139.

[31] Florin Drașovean, “The transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age in Banat. Tradition and innovation,” in Ad Finem Imperii Romani. Studie in honor of Coriolan H. Opreanu, Eds. Sorin Cociș, Vlad Lăzărescu, Monica Gui, and Dan Deac (Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2015), 137–138; Idem, ‘Despre unele sincronisme’, 19.

[32] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 58–59, ș.a.

[33] In the Petrești culture monography, Iuliu Paul (Paul, Cultura) does not mention the existence of the Petrești A ceramic materials, a fact noticed by Cătălin Bem (Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, 111).

[34] Paul, “Periodizarea,” Pl. I.; Idem, Cultura, 72–76.

[35] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, 137–139.

[36] Especially when, due to the research methods used, they appear associated with Turdaș or Petrești B pottery.

[37] Paul, Cultura, 198, Pl. XXVIII.

[38] Ibid., 71–72.

[39] Ibid., 68.

[40] 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), 10, point 3, Fig. 4/2.

[41] Ibid., 14.

[42] Ibid., Fig. 8/4.

[43] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. LXXV/2, XCII/3–4.

[44] Ibid., Pl. CLVI.

[45] Paul, Cultura, Pl. XXIX.

[46] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. CXVII/7,12, CXXXVI/7, CXXXVII.

[47] Drașovean, “Cultura Petrești,” 74, Fig. 18/4.

[48] Gligor, Așezarea neolitică, Pl. CIV/2, CXXVIII/3–6.

[49] Ibid., Pl. LXXXV/4-5.

[50] Paul, “Așezarea neo-eneolitică,” 37.

[51] Bem, Sistemul de fortificare, Fig. 127.

[52] Cosmin Suciu, Dragoș Diaconescu, Adrian Ardelean, Kathryn Grow Allen, “Timișoara, jud. Timiș. Punct: Ronaț-Triaj,” in Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2016 (București, 2017): 216–217.

[53] 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).

Fig. 1. S IXA, □40, ▼-0,50 m.

Fig. 2. S IX, □18-19, ▼-0,40-0,80 m.

Fig. 3. S IX, □54-60, ▼-0,60-0,80 m.

Fig. 3a. S IX, □54-60, ▼-0,60-0,80 m – Detail.

Fig. 3b. S IX, □54-60, ▼-0,60-0,80m – Detail.

Fig. 4. S IX, □14, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 5. S IX, □15, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 6. S IX, □ 1-15, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 7. S IX, □ 16, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 8. S IX, □ 29-30, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 9. S IX, □ 51, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 10. S IX, □ 49, ▼-1,00-1,20 m.

Fig. 11. S IX, □ 52,55, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 12. S IX, □ 40-50, ▼-1,00-1,20 m.

Fig. 12a. S IX, □ 40-50, ▼-1,00-1,20 m – Detail.

Fig. 13. S IX, □ 19, ▼-1,00-1,20 m - Petrești AIb type ceramic.

Fig. 14. S IX, □ 1-12, ▼-1,00-1,20 m.

Fig. 15. S IX, □ 45, ▼-1,20-1,40 m.

Fig. 16. S IX, □ 13, ▼-1,00-1,20 m.

Fig. 17. S IX, □ 14-15, ▼-1,40-1,60 m.

Fig. 18. S IXA, □ 52, ▼-1,70 m – pit.

Fig. 19. S IXA, □ 46, ▼-0,70-0,80 m.

Fig. 19a. S IXA, □ 46, ▼-0,70-0,80 m – Detail.

Fig. 20. S III, □ 20, ▼-0,70-0,90 m.

Fig. 21. S XII, m 35, ▼-0,50-0,70 m.

Fig. 22. S XII, m 40, ▼-1,80-2,50 m – pit.

Fig. 23. S I, □40, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 24. S I, □20, ▼-0,70-0,90 m.

Fig. 25. S I, □39, ▼-0,80-1,00 m.

Fig. 26. 1–S IX, □ 49, ▼-1,00-1,20 m; 2-S IX, □ 40-50, ▼-1,00-1,20 m; 3–S IX, □ 49, ▼-1,00-1,20 m; 4–8 - S IX, □54-60, ▼-0,60-0,80 m.

Fig. 27. 1–S IX, □ 40-50, ▼-1,00-1,20 m; 2-3-S IXA, □40, ▼-0,50 m.

Fig. 28.1-5-S XII, m 40, ▼-1,80-2,50 m – pit.

Fig. 29. 1-2, passim; 3-SVIII, □39, ▼-0,70-0,80 m; 4-SIXA, □12-15, ▼-0,30-0,50 m; 5-SVIII, □39, ▼-0,70-0,80 m.

Fig. 30. 1-SXII, m 1, ▼-1,00 m; 2-SXII, m 35-39, ▼0,30-0,50 m; 3- SXII, m 17, ▼-0,60-0,70 m; 4-SXII, m 36-37, ▼-0,70-0,90 m.

Fig. 31. Pianu de Jos -Podei –Topographic plan (after Bem, Sistemul de fortificare). The research units approached in this study are marked with red.