Bronze Age Connectivity

in the Carpathian Basin

Proceedings of the International Colloquium
from Târgu Mureş

13–15 October 2016

BIBLIOTHECA MVSEI MARISIENSIS

SERIES ARCHAEOLOGIC A

XV

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMS

FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

Editor
SÁNDOR BERECKI
BRONZE AGE CONNECTIVITY
IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM

FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

13–15 October 2016

Edited by
BOTOND REZI
RITA E. NÉMETH

Editura MEGA
Târgu Mureș
2018
 © Mureş County Museum, 2018
Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Manager

Cover:
The Hasfalva Disc (Hasfalva/Haschendorf, Austria, 1914)
(Collection: Soproni Múzeum, Sopron; photo made by Géza Szabó, Wosinsky Mór Museum, Szekszárd)

Muzeul Judeţean Mureş

CP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328
Târgu Mureş, România

ISBN 978-606-020-058-1
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e-mail: [email protected]
 Contents

Colin P. QUINN
The Potential of Network Approaches to Understand Connectivity and Complexity in Bronze Age
Transylvania and Carpathian Basin 9

Tobias L. KIENLIN
A Hero is a Hero is a ...? On Homer and Bronze Age Social Modelling 19

Nicole TAYLOR
Connectivity Despite Boundaries? Scaling Down Narratives of Connectivity Related to Bronze Age Fortified
Sites on the Central Hungarian Plain 33

Klára P. FISCHL
Settlement Structure as a Part of a Group’s Identity Markers 41

Robert STANIUK
The World Within a Household – Kakucs–Turján Mögött Case Study and the Interrelatedness of Middle
Bronze Age Pottery 55

Amy NICODEMUS
Pecica–Şanţul Mare: A Bronze Age Entrepȏt In The Lower Mureş Region 75

Marija LJUŠTINA, Katarina DMITROVIĆ

Balancing Traditional Values and Novelties: Middle Bronze Age Communities of Serbian Part of the
Carpathian Basin and their South-western Neighbours  87

Tibor-Tamás DARÓCZI
Bronzization and the Eastern Carpathian Basin 95

Gabriel BĂLAN, Colin P. QUINN, Gregory HODGINS

The Cultural and Chronological Context of the Bronze Age Cemetery from Sebeș–Între răstoace 183

József PUSKÁS
Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River  217

Attila LÁSZLÓ
Differences in the Development of Cultural Changing Processes in the Late Bronze Age. Once more about
the Chronology of the Replacement of the Noua-Coslogeni Culture by the Succeeding Cultures in the Intra-
and Extra Carpathian Territories  279

Claes UHNÉR, Johannes KALMBACH, Svend HANSEN, Horia CIUGUDEAN

Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort 295

Tim PICCOLINI–Tobias L. KIENLIN

The Hero’s Sword: On Local Appropriation and Social ‘Institutions’ 305
Carol KACSÓ
Der Depotfund von Kriva und seine Stellung in der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit im Oberen Theissgebiet 317

Liviu MARTA, János NÉMETI

Bronze Hoards from Pir and Ciumeşti. Reflections of Cultural Mobility and Connectivity in the Carpathian
Region and the North-Western Balkans 329

Géza SZABÓ, Péter KUNFALVI, Mónika BÉKEFI

Local and Interregional Connections Through the Comparison of the Hasfalva Disc and the Balkåkra Disc 345

Abbreviations 361
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal
Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River

József PUSKÁS
Târgu Secuiesc, Romania
[email protected]

Keywords: Wietenberg culture, settlement patterns, metal discoveries, visibility

analysis, landscape archaeology, connectivity

Introduction
The aim of the paper is to discuss and analyse the Middle Bronze Age settlement pattern in a specified
area, namely the Târgu Secuiesc Depression, and the connections between the neighboring and further
areas. On a small scale (in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression) this will be possible by analysing the distribu-
tion and extension of settlements, the terrain formations on which they are located. The visibility analysis
also provides data about the possible visual connections between the inhabited areas, burial sites and
metal discoveries. The wider connections, possible communication routes between the studied area and
the neighboring regions will be analysed through the distribution of metal artifacts.
Recently L.  Dietrich studied the Middle Bronze Age social structure of the area (Dietrich 2010,
191–206; Dietrich 2014, 272–276). She discussed the relationship between the metal findings (axes
and swords) and fortified settlements respectively the salt deposits/salt springs. She concluded that very
likely the fortified settlements were centers of an elite, which controlled the salt trading and communica-
tion/commercial routes, at least in Transylvania, maintaining direct contacts with the Mycenaean world
(Dietrich 2010, 201–202). In the opinion of N. Boroffka the fortified settlements were a place of refuge,
build upon the fact that no inner constructions are known (Boroffka 1994, 100).

Geographical environment
The Târgu Secuiesc Depression or the valley of the Black River (Hu: Felsőháromszéki-medence; Ro:
Depresiunea Târgu Secuiesc) is the eastern extension of the Braşovului Depression, being the eastern-
most geological formation of this type in the Carpathian Basin (Pl. 1/1). Situated inside the Curvature
Carpathians, the depression is part of the Eastern Carpathians. The altitude varies between 520 m (Reci)
and 630 m (Poian, Lemnia) above sea level (a.s.l.), being bordered by higher mountains, except the south-
western segment. Its formation take place in the Upper Pliocene, when a sector of the Carpathians sunken
(Mutihac–Ionesi 1974, 349). The depression was filled with Quaternary sediments (Murgeanu 1970,
66).
The eastern border is formed by the Vrancei Mountains (Hu: Háromszéki havasok), made of Paleogene
flysch (Mutihac–Ionesi 1974; Kisgyörgy 2000, 15; Xántus–Xántus 2009, 9). The massif has two sub-
divisions: north the Breţcu Mountains (Hu: Berecki havasok), at south the Lăcăuţ-Gorunul Mountains
(Hu: Lakóca-Gór-havas). The highest peak is the Gorunul (Hu: Gór-havas), measures 1785 m a.s.l. The
western border is the Bodoc Mountains (Hu: Bodoki hegység), formed in the Cretacious orogenesis. The
highest peak, the Vârful Cărpiniş (Hu: Kő möge) has 1240 m a.s.l. The northwestern, northern and south-
ern boundary is formed by the Turia- (Hu: Torja), the Nemira- (Hu: Nemere) respectively the Întorsurii
(Hu: Bodzafordulói) Mountains.
The neighboring regions and depressions can be accessed through several mountain passes. Those
leading to east were used probably since the first settlers of these lands, being used to the present days. The

Bronze Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin, 2018, p. 217–278

218 ‌| József Puskás

most important is the Oituz Pass (Hu: Ojtozi szoros; Pl. 1/2–3) and the Kádárút Pass from Ojdula (Pl. 1/2–
4), leading to Moldova. The western lands, the valley of the Olt river can be accessed by the Turia Pass (Hu:
Torja hágó; Pl. 1/2–1) and the passage from Reci. The Cătruşa Pass ((Hu: Katrosa átjáró; Pl. 1/2–2) leading
to north, in the valley of the Kászon stream, made connection with the Caşin and Ciuc depressions.
If we take a look on the First Military survey of the Habsburg Empire made in the second half of the
18th century (1769–1773), we can see that the mountains were interlaced by roads and paths, connecting
the neighboring regions. Very likely these or nearby roads were used through prehistory too (Pl. 2–3).
The climate is temperate-continental, locally being influenced by the geomorphological characteris-
tics of the Eastern Carpathians. The average yearly temperature in between 7.1 and 7.6 ºC. The average
annual precipitation is 600–700 mm (Sztáncsuj 2015, 106), higher in the mountain regions, where, over
1600 m a.s.l. can reach the 1200–1400 mm (Xántus–Xántus 2009, 17).
The Târgu Secuiesc Depression has an extended water network. The main river is the Black River,
crossing the basin in northeast–southwest direction. With more than 25 riversegments the catchment
area is approximately 2320 km2 (Kisgyörgy 2000, 17–18). Important tributaries are the Kászon, Torja,
Esztelnek, Bereck, Gelence and Kovászna streams. Often the immediate surrounding of the waters is a
marshy area. On the military surveys from the 18th to the mid–20th century, we can see that the lower and
the northern, northeastern parts of the depression had an extensive marshland. This is also suggested by
the dense network of drainage channels made in the communist era in the northern and middle part of
the depression to prevent the lands from inundations. Some of the swamps are still existing, but cover-
ing a much smaller area. The water is often standing on the pastures, mainly in spring, after snowbreak
(Fig. 1). Obviously the marshlands had dense flora. For example, near Lunga and Lemnia a similar area is
preserved even today, being formed mainly by willow and reed grass (Fig. 1). On satellite images the path
of former meanders is still visible today, for example between Lunga and Ojdula or southeast of Ţufalău
(Fig. 1). Another argument for a different environment in the near past are the toponyms, often related
to mud, swamp, bush etc. The uninhabitableness in the distant past of these areas is also evidenced by the
lack of the archaeological discoveries.
The mountains are covered by extended deciduous and coniferous forests. The most common conifer-
ous trees are the scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), larch (Larix decidua) and spruce (Picea excelsa), while among
the decidouos the common beech (Fagus silvatica), pedunculated oak (Quercus robur), silver birch (Betula
pendula) etc. can be mentioned. The dense forests assure habitat to a diverse wildlife. Large mammals are
common, like the brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus
scrofa) etc. (Xántus–Xántus 2009, 12).
The studied area has no significant mineral resources (like copper ore, salt deposits etc.) which could
be used in the Bronze Age, but the nearby deposits could be accessed (Fig. 2). Significant copper deposits
are known from the Eastern and Southern Carpathians, just to mention the close ones (Boroffka 2006,
88, fig. 1–2). A recent study debating the Late Iron Age settlements mentions also possible tin deposits
in the Eastern Carpathians (Ştefan et al. 2015a, 36, pl.  III). The most important amber deposits in
Romania can be found relatively close to the studied area, namely at the southeastern slopes of the Eastern
Carpathians, in the area of the Monteoru culture (Boroffka 2002, 146, fig.  1). The mineral springs,
mofette of different composition could be used in therapy and not only. Because of the post-volcanic
activities, the Târgu Secuiesc Depression dispose of numerous mineral springs and gas emanations located
mostly at the foot of the mountains (ex: Turia, Covasna, Ojdula etc.), but in a less number they appear
even near the valley of the Black River (Hătuica, Imeni etc.) (Xántus–Xántus 2009, 19–25).
The Middle Bronze Age environment is hard to reconstruct, since in the studied area no such
researches were carried out. In Romania until the beginning of the 21st century only a few similar studies
dealt with the paleoenvironment and archaeobotany (Cârciumaru 1996, 7). Luckily in the last decade
the number of researches on this topic increased significantly. Thereout a few studies are dealing with the
vegetation history of southeastern Transylvania, based on samples taken from the Luci (Hu: Lúcs) and
Mohoş (Hu: Mohós) peat bogs, located in Harghita County (Panait–Tanţău 2012, 92–99 and see further
bibliography; Tanţău et al. 2014, 141–152).
From a climatic point of view the Middle Bronze Age is part of the Subboreal (ca. 2500–900 B.C.)
period. Compared to present day this climate oscillation is characterized by dryer and warmer weather
(Cârciumaru 1996, 18; Tanţău et al. 2014, 150–151). In the forests the hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) is
dominant, but the spruce (Picea), oak (Quercus), birch (Betula) etc. also occur (Ciută 2012, 40; Panait–
Tanţău 2012, 95). Regarding human activity in the area the first pollen record of cereals can be dated
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 219

Fig. 1. Examples of marshy areas in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression: satellite images of former
riverbeds (top left Ţufalău, top right Lunga; source: ArcGIS Romania) and photos of swampy
areas (middle: Săsăuşi, bottom: Lunga). Pictures taken at the end of February 2017.

Fig. 2. Distribution area of different metal ores, respectively salt and amber in Romania.
The square represents the studied area (map after Boroffka 2006, 88, fig. 1).
220 ‌| József Puskás

around 4300 cal BP (Panait–Tanţău 2012, 95; Tanţău et al. 2014, 150), but without any major impact
on the surrounding forest flora (Ciută 2012, 39).

Economy
We dispose of scarce information about the agriculture of the Wietenberg population. In the studied
area at Sânzieni–Táncospad approximately 2 liter of carbonized millet was discovered in 1913 (JSzNM
1915, 14; Cârciumaru 1996, 114, 144).1 A significant amount of carbonized seeds were discovered in
the ritual site at Oarţa de Sus–Ghiile Botii (Kacsó 2011, 412). The great variety of seeds shed light on
the cultivated species like: emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), common wheat (Triticum aestivum), bar-
ley (Hordeum vulgare), Chenopodium sp. etc. (Cârciumaru 1996, 93). Recently at Rotbav as household
leftovers was found a small amount of einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), Triticum sp., Hordeum sp.
and a few acorns (Quercus) (Dietrich 2014, Anhang 6). Similar species were cultivated in the area of the
neigbouring Otomani and Monteoru cultures (Cârciumaru 1996, 144; Németi–Molnár 2012, 59). At
Sărata-Monteoru different vegetable seeds, like ervil (Vicia ervilia) and camelina (Camelina sativa) were
found (Cârciumaru 1996, 144).
The animal husbandry had also an important role in the economy of the Wietenberg communities.
Unfortunately, from the Târgu Secuiesc Depression we don’t have any archaeozoological analysis. Not
far from the studied area, the osseous remains of the Rotbav settlement were recently published. In the
Middle Bronze Age layers the most common bone remains belong to the cattle (Bos taurus) and ovicaprid.
It occurs in a similar percentage, 34.9 respectively 32.3%. The domestic pig (Sus domesticus) is repre-
sented by 20.4%, while the horse (Equus caballus) 3.3%. The proportion of wild animal bones is very low
(Dietrich 2014, Anhang 5).
Archaeozoological studies were made on bones discovered at Derşida, too. The results are significantly
different from the above mentioned site. While the occurrence of the domesticated animals is similar, the
percentage of wild animals is much higher (41.5%) (Chidioşan 1980, 98–99). After the excavations made
in 1999–2000 a much significant material was analysed, giving different results: the minimal number of
cattle (26.11%), ovicaprid (28.66%) and pig (25.47%) individuals had a similar proportion, while the per-
centage of wild animals is much lower compared to the earlier results (Bindea 2008, 85–87). From Mintiu
Gherlei the ovicaprid bones are predominant, representing 65.11% of the osseous material. The cattle are
represented by one, the pig by two individuals (Bindea 2008, 93–94). At Boiu the cattle were dominant
with 14 individuals, while the ovicaprid and the pig five individuals each (Bindea 2008, 94). At Noşlac
the osseous remains exclusively belong to domesticated animals. The cattle and pig bones are the most
common, while other species are represented by one bone each (Bolomey 1984, 440–441; Boroffka
1994, 230). Analysis was made on bones found in the ritual place at Oarţa de Sus and Tureni. Both being
discoveries with special and ritual importance it doesn’t reflect the reality and proportion of economical
production, meanwhile provides further data on the livestock raising (Haimovici 2003, 57–64; Bindea
2008, 87, 94–95; Kacsó 2011, 411).
As we can see in the Wietenberg area the highest number of osseous remain belong to the cattle or
the ovicaprid followed by the pigs (Cârciumaru 1996, 51). This means that beside the agriculture a sig-
nificant role had the animal husbandry. For that the Middle Bronze Age people needed extended pasture
grounds. Probably the lands inconvenient for agriculture, like marshy areas, were used for grazing, but
also high pastures and maybe transhumant pastorialism was practiced (Boroffka 2005, 131).

Research history
The first recorded archaeological discoveries made in the studied are can be traced back to the mid–
19th century. They mostly belong to the roman periods and include pottery, metal discoveries and coins
(Neigebaur 1851, 279–281). The discovery of different Late Bronze Age hoards are also recorded (ex.: the
two hoards from Zagon, the one at Pădureni). These objects mainly get into private collections or to the
museum in Cluj-Napoca, or worse, disappeared (Gooss 1876; Téglás 1887, 181–204).
The foundation of Székely National Museum (SNM) in 1875 made possible the collection of archaeo-
logical (and not only) artifacts in an institutionalized way and making accessible to the great public. At
the beginning the archaeological collection is characterized by stray finds, discovered during field works,

1
The designation of the finding place as Sânzieni–Piatra de tocilă (Küszürűkő) is erroneous.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 221

constructions (ex: the Middle Bronze Age discoveries near the Târgu Secuiesc–Barbarian cemetery in 1907
during railway construction; the different bronze hoards etc.).
In our area at the end of the 19th beginning of 20th centuries archaeological excavations were made
by ‘professional archaeologists’, making possible the proper documentation and description. The first
excavation was made by G. Nagy in 1882 at the Târgu Secuiesc–Barbarian cemetery, discovering several
Migration Period cremation graves and a few Wietenberg ceramics (Nagy 1882, 158). The excavations at
Boroşneu Mare–Roman fort in 1911 by V. Csutak and F. László can also be mentioned, and the two excava-
tions at Sânzieni–Urakszerelábjai and Táncospad sites in 1913 by the above mentioned specialists (JSzNM
1914, 14; JSzNM 1915, 14–15). Beside the material of different periods the researches brought to light
Wietenberg artifacts, consisting mostly of pottery and clay objects.
In the first half of the 20th century several monographs and papers dealt with the Transylvanian pre-
history. The first author who used the “Wietenberg culture” typonym was H. Schroller in 1933, consider-
ing the similar finds as Neolithic (Schroller 1933, 12–20). The repertory of M. Roska in 1942 and the
paper about the Wietenberg culture (as Kolozskorpád II) in 1944 (Roska 1944, 22–42) summarized the
discoveries from the valley of the Black River too.
Between the end of the World War II and 1989 the archaeological researches aiming the Bronze
Age significantly increased. The plain settlements from Cernat–Robert’s land, Poian–Kőhát, Turia–Padláb/
Roman-catholic cemetery, Turia–Apor manor/Silos, Reci–Telek were researched in several campaigns,
while the fortified settlements at Lutoasa, Valea Seacă and Turia in one each. In 1988 the cemetery from
Turia–Vármegye was excavated. The results were published in short reports and articles (regarding the
references, see the Catalogue of Middle Bronze Age discoveries). Important works including the south-
eastern Transylvanian discoveries were published by Horedt (1960) and Chidioşan (1980).
The turning point in 1989 unfavoured the archaeological excavations. In the last more than 25 years
only three excavations were conducted in prehistoric sites: at Albiş in 2001 and 2003 and in Valea Mică in
2010. In the last decade field surveys resulted the discovery of several new sites (Puskás 2012, 115–150;
Puskás 2013, 155–206; Puskás 2015b, 257–290) and the publishing of old materials is ongoing (Puskás
2015a, 97–129; Puskás 2016, 89–103).
The most significant works after 1989 concerning the Wietenberg culture and somehow related to
the studied area were published by Andriţoiu (1992), Boroffka (1994) and Dietrich (2010, 191–206;
Dietrich 2014), just to mention the most important ones.

Catalogue of Middle Bronze Age Discoveries

I. Settlements
Method
The catalogue of settlements is divided in two: in the first part are included the settlements discovered
on terraces, slopes, on naturally unfortified terrain, called “plain settlements” (I.1.), while the second deals
with proper fortified settlements or settlements on hilltops/mountaintops, often fortified naturally (I.2.).
In the present state of research, we know of 26 open settlements, but their number is constantly
increasing thanks to new field surveys. The settlement description is focusing on the placement in the
terrain, the extension, instead of detailed stratigraphical and material presentation. The catalogue summa-
rizes only the certain Wietenberg discoveries, ignoring the discoveries with unknown finding place, often
appearing in the Archaeological Repertory of Covasna County (Rep-Covasna 1998). In earlier papers
sites with Bronze Age discoveries sometimes appear (Puskás 2013, 157–158), but the material doesn’t
permit a closer cultural definition. These were also ignored.
The study of settlements began with field walking on previously known sites, to determine the exten-
sion. These usually are located outside the inhabited area, so the ploughing facilitated my task. Choosing
the location was preceded by studying topographical maps, looking for flood-free prominences, possible
habitable areas etc. On the field the perimeter of a site was determined by the spread of pottery scatters.
Lacking a handheld GPS, the perimeter was aligned to different landmarks, milestones and other easily
identifiable objects on terrain. Always on the same day any points and perimeter of the sites were put
on map, namely on Google Earth. The reference points defining the extension of the sites were always
easily identifiable. Satellite images of different years and browsers were also consulted, and sometimes
proved useful (ArcGIS Romania, INIS Viewer-Geoportal ANCPI, Historical Imagery application of
Google Earth). On some of the sites photographs were taken for visibility study. These were taken from
222 ‌| József Puskás

the interior of the site, to find out what is visible from the given point. Sometimes the pictures were taken
outside the site, from a nearby place, with a good view on the surroundings. The surface covered by the
Middle Bronze Age settlement was hard to estimate, since some sites included pottery from other periods
too, with a much greater extension that the studied one. So, the extension of the Middle Bronze Age set-
tlements presented in Table 1 is normative.

Site name Estimated Period Site name Estimated Period

size (ha) size (ha)
Albiş–Csiszér garden 1–1.5 Wietenberg III Reci–Telek ? Wietenberg III
Albiş–Márton garden 1.5–2 Wietenberg III Săsăuşi–III. Közép/ 1.5–2 Wietenberg III
Középső határ
Boroşneu Mare–Ro- 3 Wietenberg II Sânzieni–Urakszere- 1–1.5 Wietenberg II
man fort lábja
Cernat–Robert’s land 1–1.5 Wietenberg II Sânzieni–Táncospad 2–3 Wietenberg II
Cernat–Hill of the 2–2.5 Wietenberg II? Sânzieni–Küszürűkő 0.5–1 Wietenberg II
church
Cernat–Captain I. 5.5 Wietenberg II Sânzieni–Bakóné 1–1.5 Wietenberg II
Cernat–Molnár 2 II. 0.75 Wietenberg II? Târgu Secuiesc– ? Wietenberg II?
Sinka
Imeni–Hill of the 2–2.5 Wietenberg III Târgu Secuiesc–Bar- ? Wietenberg II?
church barian cemetery
Imeni–Rákosdomb 1–2 Wietenberg III Turia–Apor manor/ 0.5–1? Wietenberg II/
Silos Wietenberg III?
Leţ–Várhegy ? Wietenberg II? Turia–Padláb ~1.5/6.75/7 Wietenberg II
Lunga–Outside the 1.5–2 Wietenberg II? Turia–Hill of the 1.5–2 Wietenberg II
ditch church
Mărtănuş–Tanorok 0.5–1 Wietenberg II? Turia–Vármegye- 1.5–2 Wietenberg II?
Mogyorós
Poian–Kőhát 2–2.5 Wietenberg II Valea Seacă–Ter- 0.05–0.1? Wietenberg II
race of the Várpatak
stream
Tabel 1. Estimated extension and periodization of Wietenberg settlements in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression.

To determine the chronology of the settlements we used the pottery discovered through field sur-
veys and the archaeological material resulted from the excavations of the past decades, located in the
depot of the SNM.  The dating raised difficulties since many vessel forms and decorating motifs were
Site name Estimated size (ha) Period used in a long period of time, remain-
Cernat–Ika fortress ? ? ing unchanged from the beginning to
Covasna–Fairy fortress ? ? the end of the culture (Boroffka 1994,
Covasna–Salt mountain 1? ? 248–249). The phase-specific ornaments
fortress and techniques (ex: meandric motif
Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress 0.4–0.45 Wietenberg II? and Zahnstempelung technique for the
Turia–Torja fortress 0.2–0.25 Wietenberg II? / Wietenberg III period) made possible
Wietenberg III the dating of a few settlements, but an
Valea Mică–Badger fortress 0.2–0.25 Wietenberg II? earlier usage can’t be excluded. Where
Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress ? ? excavations were made and these orna-
Valea Seacă–Cece fortress ? Wietenberg II? ments and techniques are totally missing
Tabel 2. Extension and periodization of Wietenberg hilltop/ it seems plausible an earlier dating (ex:
fortified settlements in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression. Turia–Padláb, Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja,
Cernat–Robert’s land etc.).
The visibility or viewshed analysis provide data about “the regions that are visible from a particular
point in the terrain” (Kantner–Hobgood 2016, 1305). In the present paper this was made with the
Global Mapper 17, on SRTM 90 m (3 arcsec) DEM (Jarvis et al. 2008), with a 2 m above ground trans-
mitter elevation.2 The view radius was set on 15 km, despite of this distance barely can any settlement be
The visibility analysis was made first on 3 arcsec (90 m) maps. After finding that 1 arcsec (30 m) maps are available too, I
2
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 223

seen with naked eye. Based on my field observations the optimal line of sight is within 3.5–4 km, beyond
that the efficiency of observation decreas significantly. The 15 km viewshed is more likely normative, a
suggestion about the main area and direction of visibility.

I.1. Plain settlements

I.1.1. Albiş (Hu: Kézdialbis)–Csiszér-garden (Hu: Csiszér-kert; Ro: Grădina Csiszér)
Albiş is a small village, located in a lateral valley of the Black River and administratively belongs to
the parish of Cernat. In the summer of 1998 during field surveys a Middle Bronze Age settlement was
discovered while digging the foundation of a house, where in 2001 archaeological excavations were made
by the researchers of the Székely National Museum. A 10 m long and 2 m wide trench was opened. The
2.7 m thick cultural layers belonged to different periods of human history (Székely Zs. 2003a, 470). Based
on the description of Zs. Székely the Middle Bronze Age deposit was 0.75 m thick. There is no evidence
for more than one Middle Bronze Age stratification. The Bronze Age material belongs to the Wietenberg
culture, very likely to its 2nd and beginning of 3rd phase of evolution. Among the Wietenberg material a
Monteoru sherd was identified.
The settlement is located in a small valley, surrounded by hills, on the bank of a brook. It has a good
visibility only to southeast (Fig. 3).
Bibliography: Rep-Covasna 1998, 69, nr. 167; Székely Zs. et al. 1999, 161–170; Székely Zs.–Bordi
2000a; Székely Zs.–Bordi 2000b, 131–144; Székely Zs. 2001a, 38–39; Székely Zs. 2001b, 177; Székely
Zs. 2003a, 469–482; Székely Zs. 2007; Dietrich 2014, 322, nr. 1; Puskás 2015a, 98; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.2. Albiş (Hu: Kézdialbis)–Márton and Bajka garden (Hu: Márton és Bajka kert;
Ro: Grădina Márton şi Bajka)
The Márton garden site is located on the left bank of the Albis stream, on a flood-free slope, having a
good visibility on the surrounding area (Fig. 3). The Middle Bronze Age ceramics was collected by Á. Tóth,
a local inhabitant. In the immediate neighbourhood of the site, at Bajka garden, archaeological excavations
were made in early 2000’s, resulting the discovery of a few Wietenberg ceramic fragments (Székely Zs.
2004).
Bibliography: Székely Zs. 2004; 2007, 89–93; Puskás 2015, 7–16; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 3. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Albiş.

I.1.3. Boroşneu Mare (Hu: Nagyborosnyó)–Roman fort

The Boroşneu Mare settlement is located in the southern part of the Black River’s water-shed. The vil-
lage is situated on a flood-free plateau, near a stream, being an attractive place for prehistoric and ancient
peoples, too. In the 2nd century AD a roman fort was established. During the 20th century four campaigns
of excavations were made to locate and clarify the dimensions of this fortress. With this occasion Middle
Bronze Age sherds were found too, a few belonging to the Wietenberg and Monteoru cultures.

started to remake them, but after 2–3 attempts I realized that the difference is negligible, so in this paper I continued to use
the 3 arcsec versions. For other “possible shortcomings” on visibility analysis see Kantner–Hobgood 2016, 1307.
224 ‌| József Puskás

The prehistoric settlement is situated on a high terrace, with a steep slope, on the left bank of the Nagy
stream. It has a good visibility on the southern part of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression and the lower val-
ley of the Black River (Fig. 8). As we can see on old military surveys the plain beneath the terrace was a
swampy area, often flooded by the Black River and its tributaries.
Bibliography: JSzNM 1912, 64; Roska 1944, 27, nr. 43; Horedt 1960, 110, nr. 22; Boroffka 1994,
25, nr. 78; Rep-Covasna 1998, 51, nr. 78; Bordi–Popa 2013, 263, 266; Dietrich 2014, 323, nr. 10b;
Puskás 2015a, 98–99; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.4. Cernat (Hu: Csernáton)–Robert’s land (Hu: Róberttag; Ro: Pământul lui Robert)
In the first half of the 1960’s (1962–1965) on the place called Robert’s land archaeological excavations
were made by Z. Székely. Several features belonging to the Neolithic, Middle and Late Bronze Age, Late
Iron Age and Migration period were discovered. During the excavations in section XI (S.XI) two Bronze
Age layers were distinguished, delimited by a yellow, sandy layer, probably result of a land-slide (Pl. 5).
Unfortunately, in the archive of the SNM there is no excavation journal, only the drawings of different
profiles. Because of this it’s difficult to assign the ceramics to one of the layers. Probably the lower deposit
belongs to the Middle Bronze Age (Wietenberg and Monteoru cultures), as long as the upper to Late
Bronze Age (Noua and perhaps late Monteoru).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1970a, 309; Székely Z. 1971, 392; Rep-Covasna 1998, 70–72, nr. 179;
Székely Z. 1978a, 26; Székely Zs. 2007, 62–67; Munteanu 2010b, 39; Dietrich 2014, 324, nr. 14;
Puskás 2015a, 99; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 4. Location of the Cernat–Robert’s land and Cernat–Captain I settlements (left) and viewshed
analysis of the Cernat–Robert’s land and Cernat–Molnár 2 II settlements (right).

I.1.5. Cernat (Hu: Csernáton)–Damokos-manor/Hill of the Church (Hu: Templomdomb/ Damokos-kúria

kertje; Ro: Movila bisericii/Grădina conacului Damokos)
In 1980 in the courtyard of the Damokos-manor (the actual parish hall), in the vicinity of the reformed
church block of flats were built. The foundation pits disturbed and destroyed prehistoric settlement layers.
Material from different periods was found. The most significant discovery was a circular fireplace belong-
ing to the Wietenberg culture. Nearby, at the Hill of the Church a verification trench was opened, where
beside Neolithic and Late Iron Age sherds a half Monteoru cup was found.
The site is located on the left bank of the Csernáton stream, on a high, flood-free terrace, delimited
northwest, west and southwest by a steep slope. The visibility is crowded by the nearby, higher hills. Only
the valley of the stream is clearly observable (Fig. 5).
Bibliography: Székely Zs. 1983, 147; Székely Zs. 1988, 46; Székely Z. 1990, 96; Boroffka 1994, 94,
nr. 539; Rep-Covasna 1998, 73–74, nr. 196; Puskás 2015a, 99; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.6. Cernat (Hu: Csernáton)–Captain I. (Hu: Kapitány I.; Ro: Căpitan I.)
On the left bank of the Nagy völgy stream, on a slope with slight inclination, through field surveys a
Middle Bronze Age settlement was identified. The pottery fragments belong to the 2nd phase of develop-
ment of the Wietenberg culture. A few Late Bronze Age (Noua) and Late Iron Age ceramics were also
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 225

found. There is a good visibility mostly to southwest and west. A good view to northeast and east neces-
sitate a short walk to the top of the slope (Fig. 4–5).
Bibliography: unpublished.

I.1.7. Cernat (Hu: Csernáton)–Molnár 2 II. 

Situated c. 2.2 km south from the previous settlement, also on the left bank of the Nagy völgy stream,
with a similar position (Fig. 4–5).
Bibliography: unpublished.

Fig. 5. Location of the Cernat–Damokos manor and Cernat–Molnár 2 II (left) and viewshed
analysis of the Cernat–Damokos manor and Cernat–Captain I settlements (right).
View on the Cernat–Damokos manor settlement from southwest (bottom).

I.1.8. Imeni (Hu: Imecsfalva)–Hill of the Church (Hu: Szentegyház dombja/Jancsó tag; Ro: Dealul Bisericii/
Pământul lui Jancsó)
Identified through field surveys in 2013, the Middle Bronze Age settlement is located on a flood-
free slope, near the confluence of the Black River and Gelence stream (Fig. 6). The settlement measures
approximately 1.5–2 ha. The Wietenberg ceramics, at least partially, belongs to the 3rd phase of evolution.
Because of the common vessel forms and decorating motifs the existence of the earlier, 2nd phase can’t be
excluded either. From the settlement is a good view on the nearby areas.
Bibliography: Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2015b, 258–259; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.9. Imeni (Hu: Imecsfalva)–Rákosdomb

Another settlement, approximately 1.3 km northeast from the previous one, is located also on a low
terrace, with slight inclination, at the confluence of the Black River with the Gelence respectively the Rákos
streams. The placement on the terrain of the settlement is very similar to its neighbour, being delimited
at north-northwest by the Rákos stream, at south-southwest by the Gelence stream (Fig. 6). Beside the
Middle Bronze Age ceramics Late Bronze Age (Noua) and Dacian period material was found too.
Bibliography: unpublished.
226 ‌| József Puskás

Fig. 6. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Imeni.

I.1.10. Leţ (Hu: Lécfalva)–Várhegy

In 1949 and 1955 in two campaigns excavations were made by Z. Székely and I. Nestor at the modern
period fortress Székelybánja, placed at Várhegy (Hillfort). Under the modern remains several Neolithic lay-
ers were discovered belonging to different cul-
tures. On the occasion of the 1955 excavations
a few Middle Bronze Age sherds (Wietenberg
and Monteoru) were found, in unknown con-
text, very likely in secondary position. Until
recent only the Monteoru ceramic was pub-
lished (Puskás 2015a, 99–100).
As we can see on orthophotos (Fig. 7) the
western part of the plateau is probably sec-
tioned by a ditch in north-northeast–south-
southwest direction. A possible rampart is
also presumed. Very likely it is an artificial
earthwork, but because of the lack of archaeo-
logical researches we can’t say anything about
Fig. 7. Orthophoto of the Leţ–Várhegy settlement (after the period of construction. In general this
Sztáncsuj 2015, 111, fig. 44; photo by M. Szabó). type of fortification is not common in the
Modern Age, so probably it doesn’t belong to
the Székelybánja fortress. Another possibility is a Late Bronze Age (Gáva) fortification, but usually they
are located on mountaintops (see for example: Csernat–Óvár hegyese; Porumbeni Mari–Várfele: Dietrich
2014, 309–310). Since the plateau was inhabited from the Neolithic and Copper Age, we can’t exclude a
fortification system belonging to this period (Sztáncsuj 2015, 114–118) and reused later, even in Middle
Bronze Age. With no archaeological data this remains a theory.
The settlement is located on a high, outstanding plateau, on the right bank of the Black River, with
a good view on the surrounding areas, mostly on the lower valley of the river (Fig. 8). The plain beneath
the terrace is similar to the one at Boroşneu Mare: until the second half of the 20th century the area was a
marshy, hard-to-cross countryside.
Bibliography: Roska 1942, 299–300; Székely Z. et al. 1951; Nestor 1957, 61; Székely Z. 1971,
392; Székely Z. 1978a, 26; Zaharia 1990, 35; Rep-Covasna 1998, 54–55, nr. 91; Munteanu 2010b, 39;
Puskás 2015a, 99–100; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.11. Lunga (Hu: Nyujtód)–Outside the ditch (Hu: Árkon kívül; Ro: În afara şanţului)
Settlement identified through field survey in 2014. It’s located at the confluence of the Esztelnek and
Csomortán streams, on a mildly outstanding slope (Fig. 9). Looking at the military survey maps we can
see, the area nearby the settlement, mostly in the immediate vicinity of the streams were marshy areas,
probably often flooded.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 227

Fig. 8. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age
settlements from Reci–Telek, Boroşneu Mare–Roman fort and Leţ–Várhegy.

Bibliography: Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.12. Mărtănuş (Hu: Kézdimartonos)–Tanorok

Located on the left bank of the Martonos stream, the Middle Bronze Age settlement is situated on a
small elevation. The visibility from north, east and south is prevented by mountains, only to west is opened
(Fig. 10). The western part being built-in, unfortunately we couldn’t estimate the line of sight of the settle-
ment. Beside the Wietenberg pottery a few Noua (Late Bronze Age) ceramics was found too.
Bibliography: Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 9. Location (up left) and viewshed analysis (up right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Lunga–
Outside the ditch and Săsăuşi–III. Közép. View of the Săsăuşi–III. Közép site from northwest (bottom).

I.1.13. Poian (Hu: Polyán, Kézdiszentkereszt)–Kőhát (Ro: Panta de piatră)

In the early 1960’s on a shallow slope of the Telek/Veres árok stream, between Poian and Belani, dur-
ing field-works archaeological material was found. In the period between 1963 and 1967 Z. Székely inves-
tigated the area in five campaigns. Through the excavations several Middle and Late Bronze Age (Noua
228 ‌| József Puskás

and Gáva), Late Iron Age and Late Migration period features were discovered. In the Middle Bronze Age
findings the Wietenberg material was dominant, with a few sherds belonging to other cultures – Costişa
and Monteoru. In 1967 a child-grave was excavated, with a small bowl as grave-good. Z. Székely consid-
ered it belonged to the so-called “Ciomortan culture”, but in a recent study R. Munteanu considered it as a
Monteoru vessel. Beside this bowl I have been able to identify two other sherds, most probably belonging
to the Costişa culture. In the southern part of the settlement a Wietenberg cremation grave was excavated
(Székely Zs. 1989, 246; Puskás 2016, 89–90).
The settlement is located on the left bank of the stream, at the foot of the mountain Kőhátponk, on a
smooth slope. Being bordered by mountains from southwest, west and north, it has a good view only to
northeast, east and southeast, covering the northern part of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression (Fig. 10).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1968, 425–426; Székely Z. 1970b; Székely Zs. 1997, 80, nr. 39; Rep-Covasna
1998, 117, nr. 422; Méder 2006, 43; Munteanu 2010a, 271–276; Munteanu 2010b, 39; Dietrich 2014,
328, nr. 49; Puskás 2015a, 100; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 10. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze
Age settlements from Poian–Kőhát and Mărtănuş–Tanorok.

I.1.14. Reci (Hu: Réty)–Telek

The site is known from the end of the 1950’s, where in 1957–1959 archaeological excavations were
made by Z. Székely. Beside a rich Copper Age, Late Bronze Age (Gáva), Dacian and Migration Period
material a few Wietenberg ceramic fragments were found too, belonging probably to the 2nd and 3rd phase
of development.
The settlement is located on the right bank of the Black River, on a terrace with steep western and
southern edges and mildly slope on southeast and east. There is an excellent view on the surrounding area,
less to northeast, north and northwest (Fig. 8).
Bibliography: Székely 1959b, 196–199; Székely 1960, 179–181; Székely 1962, 325–328; Székely
1965, 21–32; Székely 1966, 5–16; Boroffka 1994, 68–69, nr. 349; Rep-Covasna 1998, 121–122, nr. 455;
Dietrich 2014, 329, nr. 55; Puskás 2015a, 108; Ştefan et al. 2015b, 137–139; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.15. Săsăuşi (Hu: Kézdiszászfalu)–III. Közép/Középső határ (Ro: Hotarul de mijloc)

The settlement is situated on the left bank of the Black River, on a low prominency (Fig. 9). Located
on plain terrain, the visibility is slightly crowded by higher terraces from east and south. The majority
of Middle Bronze Age ceramics belong to the Wietenberg culure, but the recent field surveys brought to
light a few Monteoru Ic3 sherds, too. Beside the Middle Bronze Age pottery a significant Late Bronze Age
(Noua) ceramics were discovered.
Bibliography: Puskás 2012, 119–122; Kacsó 2013, 138; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.16. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Urakszerelábja (Ro: Locul domnesc)

In 1907 during the railway construction between Târgu Secuiesc and Breţcu, at Sânzieni a Bronze Age
and Migration Period settlement and burials were discovered and partially destroyed. After field surveys a
significant Middle Bronze Age (Wietenberg) and Late Bronze Age (Noua) ceramic get to the Székely National
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 229

Museum’s depot. In 1913 F. László made archaeological excavations. Beside the ceramic material a golden
hair ring and a cremation burial was found, both belonging to the Middle Bronze Age (Puskás 2016, 90–91).
The settlement is situated on the left bank of the Kászon stream, on a flood-free terrace, starting at
Sânzieni, ending at Tinoasa. The southwestern part is a smooth slope (Fig. 11). The settlement had a good
visibility on the surrounding areas, mostly on the lower valley of the Kászon stream (Fig. 12–13).
Bibliography: ArchÉrt 1914, XXXIV/2, 157–158; JSzNM 1914, 14; Mihalik 1914, VIII, 172; Roska
1942, 122; Popescu 1956, 199–200; Zaharia 1959, 109, Abb. 2/3; Horedt 1960; 114, nr. 146; Boroffka
1994, 80, nr. 427; Rep-Covasna 1998, 132, nr. 521; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 90–91.

Fig. 11. The site seen from southwest (top) and view on the surroundings from the site
(bottom) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja.

I.1.17. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Táncospad (Ro: Terasa de jos)

The settlement is known in the literature from the beginning of the 20th century. In 1913 archaeologi-
cal excavations led by V. Csutak, brought to light Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age (Noua) and Roman
period artefacts.
Bibliography: JSzNM 1914, 14; JSzNM 1915, 14; Roska 1942, 122, nr. 114; Roska 1944, 25, nr. 27;
Horedt 1960, 114, nr. 147; Boroffka 1994, 80, nr. 426; Rep-Covasna 1998, 132, nr. 520; Dietrich 2014,
330, nr. 7s; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.18. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Küszürűkő (Ro: Piatra de tocilă)

The excavations made by Z. Székely in 1975, beside a rich Copper Age material, brought to light a few
Wietenberg ceramics and a cremation burial. The grave was considerd by Z. Székely as a Tumulus Grave burial
(Székely Z. 1977, 125–127), but very likely it’s a Wietenberg creamtion grave (Puskás 2016, 91–92). The other
Wietenberg fragments were found mixed with Dacian material. The Wietenberg pottery probably belongs to
the 2nd phase of developement. The Archaeological Repertory of Covasna County (Rep-Covasna 1998, 132, nr.
518) mentions Noua discoveries (probably after Florescu 1991, 120, nr. 496) from this site, which is incorrect.

Fig. 12. Location of the Middle Bronze Age sites from Sânzieni (right). The
Sânzieni–Küszürűkő site seen from east (left, photo by F. Nagy).
230 ‌| József Puskás

The settlement is located on a high terrace, on the right bank of the Kászon stream and the left bank
of a small stream, with a good visibility on the lower valley of the Kászon stream (Fig. 12–13).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1977, 125–127; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 91–92.

I.1.19. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Bakóné

Discovered in 2011 during field surveys, the settlement is located between the Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja
and Sânzieni–Táncospad settlements, on the terrace of the Kászon stream. Just like the above mentioned
sites this one has a good view on the surrounding areas, too (Fig. 12–13).
Bibliography: Puskás 2013, 155–156; Puskás 2015a, 109; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 13. Viewshed analysis of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Sânzieni.

I.1.20. Târgu Secuiesc (Hu: Kézdivásárhely)–Sinka

Situated in the proximity of the confluence of the Kászon and Torja stream, the settlement is located
on outstanding terrace, with a good visibility on the northern, eastern and southeastern parts of the Târgu
Secuiesc Basin (Fig. 14). Beside a very rich Late Bronze Age (Gáva) pottery we collected a few Middle
Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age (Noua) ceramic sherds too. On this site was found the famous bone but-
ton with C-hook decoration (Székely Z. 1978b).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1978b, 289–290; Puskás 2015b, 263–264; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.1.21. Târgu Secuiesc (Hu: Kézdivásárhely)–Barbarian cemetery (Hu: Barbár temető; Ro: Cimitirul barbar)
The Târgu Secuiesc–Barbarian cemetery site was discovered at the end of the 19th century. In 1882
G. Nagy made a small excavation, revealing an unknown number of cremation burials belonging to the
Migration Period (Nagy 1882, 158). A few Wietenberg ceramic fragments were discovered, too. In the
older literature, from the railway, which is a few meters from this site, Middle Bronze Age cremation
burial is mentioned (Horedt 1951, 204; Horedt 1960, 114, nr. 163–164; Crişan–Dănilă 1960, 147;
Soroceanu et al. 1976, 67; Andriţoiu 1978, 255; Boroffka 1994, 84, nr. 465). The recent studies show
that there is no substantial evidence for the existence of the burial, and probably it was a result of misun-
derstanding (Puskás 2016, 90, footnote nr. 11).
The settlement is located on a high terrace, cca. 1 km west from the confluence of the Torja and
Kászon streams. There is a good visibility to northeast, east and southeast, mostly on the valley of the Black
River (Fig. 14). A significant part of the settlement was destroyed by different construction works.
Bibliography: Nagy 1882, 158; Roska 1944, 25, nr. 28; Horedt 1951, 204; Horedt 1960, 114, nr.
163–164; Crişan–Dănilă 1960, 147; Soroceanu et al. 1976, 67; Andriţoiu 1978, 255; Boroffka
1994, 85, nr. 465–466; Dietrich 2014, 331, 1t–2t; Puskás 2016, 90, footnote nr. 11.

I.1.22. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Garden of the Apor-manor/Silos (Hu: Apor kúria kertje/Silók;
Ro: Grădina conacului Apor/Silozuri)
In 1984 and 1985, on a high terrace of the right bank of the Torja stream archaeological excavations
were made by Z. Székely. The works brought to light a rich Neolithic and Late Iron Age archaeological
material, but also an interesting Middle Bronze Age ceramics, too. Latter belongs to the Wietenberg and
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 231

Fig. 14. Location (top left) and viewshed analysis (top right) of the Middle Bronze Age
settlements from Târgu Secuiesc. The site from Târgu Secuiesc–Sinka (bottom).

Fig. 15. Location of Middle Bronze Age setlements from Turia (top left) and viewshed
analysis of the Turia–Apor manor and Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós settlements (top right).
View of the Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós settlement from southwest (bottom).
232 ‌| József Puskás

Monteoru (early and late phases) cultures. Unfortunately, there were no Bronze Age features identified,
probably being destroyed by the later settlements.
The settlement is located on a flood-free terrace, close to the Torja stream (Fig. 15). The visibility is
reduced by the higher terrace on the left bank of the stream respectively by the farther hills located west,
south-west and south of the settlement. A good visibility is on the immediate valley of the stream, approxi-
mately 2 km southeast, and 3–4 km northwest.
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1988, 160; Székely Zs. 1996, 115–118; Boroffka 1994, 97–98, nr. 590;
Rep-Covasna 1998, 143–144, nr. 580; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 72; Puskás 2015a, 100–101; Puskás 2016,
94.

I.1.23. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Padláb/Roman-catholic cemetery (Ro: Cimitirul romano-catolic)

Initiated in 1986 the excavations at Turia–Padláb were continued in two other campaigns (1987–
1988), revealing a rich archaeological material belonging to the late Copper Age (Coţofeni culture),
Middle Bronze Age (Wietenberg culture) and Dacian period. The existence of an Early Bronze Age
(Schneckenberg culture) settlement, mentioned in the literature, it wasn’t confirmed by the revise of the
findings in the SNM’s depot. Based on the documentation (profile drawings and excavation journals)
there are two Middle Bronze Age cultural layers, the
upper belonging to the Wietenberg culture, the lower
to “a culture related to Ciomortan” (note of Z. Székely
in the excavation journal). The Bronze Age ceram-
ics found in the SNM’s depot belong entirely to the
Wietenberg culture (Pl.  7–11). One sherd is deco-
rated with crosshatched triangles and impressed dots,
which could have mislead Z. Székely. Similar deco-
ration is common to the Ciomortan/Costişa group,
but in my opinion it can be interpreted as influence
or import ware, like the majority of the similar dis-
coveries (Puskás 2015a, 107) in the studied area.
So very likely both Bronze Age layers belong to the
Wietenberg culture (Pl. 6/2).
The settlement is located on the right bank of the
Torja stream (Fig. 15), on a high, flood-free plateau,
the northern side being abrupt. There is a good vis-
ibility to north, mainly on the valley of the stream
(Fig.  17). In different orthophotos a three ditch for-
tification system can be observed, so extended, it
is almost inappreciable from the ground (Fig.  16).
Maybe that’s why it wasn’t described before. It is oval
shaped, the fore-axis in northwest–southeast direc-
tion, measuring approximately 0.6 km in length and
0.35 m in width. The first enclosure has an area of ca.
Fig. 16. The enclosures of the Turia–Padláb
site (top). The ditches seen in enhanced 1.36 ha. The western part includes part of the modern
colour made in Photoshop (bottom). cemetery, while the rest is a modern agricultural field.
In this area were the excavations made. The second
enclosure has a surface of 6.75  ha. The recent field surveys confirmed that, at least in the southeastern
part of this enclosure the Bronze Age and the Dacian settlements still extended. The third enclosure is
measuring 7.2 ha. In the southeastern part there were no archaeological finds. The rest of the second and
third enclosures were not surveyed because of the standing crop. Just east from the third ditch a lot of Late
Bronze Age (Gáva) and Dacian ceramics were found. The total surface of the fortified area is more than
15 ha (cca. 15.3 ha). The next question is when and who built it? The construction of an edifice like this
requires a huge workforce. If we take a look at the number of Coţofeni sites in the studied area (Méder
2004, 41, Harta I) we can see there is not so many settlements which could provide such a workforce. The
other possibility is the Middle Bronze Age or La Téne construction. Also the possibility of Late Bronze Age
(Gáva) construction can’t be excluded. The number of settlements are roughly the same in all three periods,
theoretically they could assure the necessary infrastructure for a work of this proportions. But to present
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 233

day in this parts of Transylvania we don’t know of any other similar construction. The fortified settlements
both the Wietenberg and Dacians (even the Gáva) are located on mountaintops, hard-to-approach places
(Ştefan et al. 2015b, 140–141). The dating of the ditches remains unsolved until proper researches.
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1990, 95–96; Székely Z. 1994, 13–14; Rep-Covasna 1998, 144, nr. 582;
Puskás 2013, 164, nr. 17; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 73; Puskás 2015a, 109; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 17. Viewshed of the Turia–Padláb and Turia–Hill of the church settlements (top left). Orthophoto of the
Turia–Padláb site (top right) and view from the same site with the visible settlements and burials (bottom).

I.1.24. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Hill of the church (Hu: Templomláb/Karatna; Ro: Dealul bisericii)
In 1986 several excavations were made at Turia, led by Z. Székely. One was near the reformed church
on the left bank of the Karatna stream, close to the confluence with the Torja stream. Beside the large quan-
tity of Chalcolitic pottery (Ariuşd culture), Bronze Age Wietenberg and Monteoru sherds were found, too.
The settlement was situated on a high terrace, with a good visibility to northwest, west and southwest,
covering the valleys of the Karatna and Torja streams (Fig. 17–18).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1988, 160; Puskás 2013, 165–166; Puskás 2015a, 101; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 18. View towards west from the Turia–Hill of the church settlement.

I.1.25. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Vármegye-Mogyorós (Ro: Judeţ-Aluniş)

On the left bank of the Torja stream, situated on a high, flood-free terrace Copper (Ariuşd culture)
and Bronze Age (Wietenberg culture) ceramic fragments were found. Good visibility is assured on the
immediate valley of the Torja stream on approximately 4–4.5 km long, after that it’s reduced by the terrain
(Fig. 15).
Bibliography: Puskás 2012, 126–127; Kacsó 2013, 138–139; Puskás 2016, 94.
234 ‌| József Puskás

I.1.26. Valea Seacă (Hu: Szárazpatak)–Terrace of the Várpatak stream (Hu: Várpatak terasz; Ro: Terasa
Pârâului Cetăţii)
In 1975 on the terrace of the Várpatak stream archaeological excavations were made by Z. Székely.
In the two trenches (S.I. and C.1.) traced in the northeast-southwest direction, Middle Bronze Age and
Dacian period vestiges were revealed (Pl. 4/1). The Bronze Age material consists of ceramic fragments
from different vessels.
The settlement is located in a secluded valley, on the right bank of the Várpatak stream, on a slight
slope. There is a good view on the two neighboring valleys, and almost no visual contact with the Kászon
stream’s valley (Fig. 19).
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1980, 23–24; Székely Z. 1981, 23; Boroffka 1994, 98, nr. 591; Rep-
Covasna 1998, 133, nr. 529; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 77; Puskás 2015a, 109; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 19. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Valea Seacă–Terrace of the
Várpatak stream plain settlement and Valea Seacă–Cece fortress hilltop settlement.

I.2. Fortified or hilltop settlements

In this category are included discoveries from hilltops and proper fortified settlements. The discover-
ies are mostly composed by ceramic fragments. It seems that these terrain formations were used in the
Middle Bronze Age too, but due to the lack of archaeological excavations we can’t determine if they were
fortified settlements or place of other activities. Since they were placed on naturally fortified places, near
streams, with good visibility on surroundings, we consider they had controlling function. Most of these
hilltops were intensely used in the later periods, resulting the destruction of Bronze Age cultural layers
and features.

I.2.1. Cernat (Hu. Csernáton)–Csonka/Ika fortress (Hu: Ika vára/Csonka vár; Ro: Cetatea Ika)
The medieval fortress is located on a hilltop, at the confluence of the Ika and Nagy streams, at the
eastern foots of the Bodoc mountains. In 2010 archaeological excavations were made by Zs. L. Bordi at the
southern tower. In the following years, after a landscaping, he collected ceramic fragments belonging to
the Wietenberg culture (SNM). Fortification unconfirmed.
Compared to neighboring mountains the hill has low altitude, making possible a good view only on
the immediat sorroundings, namely the lower valleys of the above mentioned streams (Fig. 20). In present
day the ruins of the medieval fortress and a rebuilt tower are visible.
Bibliography: information by Zs. L. Bordi; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.2.2. Covasna (Hu: Kovászna)–Fairy fortress (Hu: Tündérvár; Ro: Cetatea zânelor)
The fortification from Covasna is first mentioned by Orbán (1869, 154–155), presenting as a medi-
eval fortress. The first excavations were made by S. Ferenczi in 1942, but the results remained unpub-
lished. The next campaign was led by Z. Székely in 1968 (Székely Zs. 2014, 56–60). Unfortunately,
we don’t know if this researches brought to light any Middle Bronze Age pottery. The first mention of
Bronze Age pottery, beside a rich Dacian and hallstatt fragments, was made in 1999, when a few sherds
were discovered on Terrace III (Sîrbu–Crişan 1999, 73; Sîrbu et al. 1999). In the first publication two
Bronze Age sherds belonging to the Schneckenberg or Wietenberg cultures are mentioned, while the
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 235

Fig. 20. Location (top left) and viewshed (bottom left) of the Cernat–Csonka/Ika fortress. View to southeast
from the site (top right) and the hill seen from southwest (bottom right – photo by E. Balla).

second publication wrote about a few sherds

belonging to the Wietenberg culture. Bronze
Age fortification unconfirmed.
The fortification is located on a promontory,
at the confluence of the Miske and Várpatak
streams. The visibility is reduced by the ambient
mountains, allowing a good observation of the
immediate surroundings (Fig. 21–22). Also the
mountains (Bodoc Mountains) on the other part
of the basin are still visible, because of the long
distance (about 28–30 km) it has no importance.
Bibliography: Orbán 1869, 154–155; Rep-
Covasna 1998, 77–78, nr. 209; Sîrbu–Crişan
1999, 73; Sîrbu et al. 1999; Székely Zs. 2014,
Fig. 21. View on the surrounding valley from the
56–60; Dietrich 2010, 204, Fundliste 5/9; Covasna–Fairy fortress (photo: Google Earth).
Dietrich 2014, 324, nr. 18; Puskás 2015a, 108;
Puskás 2016, 94.

I.2.3. Covasna (Hu: Kovászna)–Salt mountain fortress (Hu: Sóstó-tető vára; Ro: Vârful Leului sărat)
The settlement/fortress is known in the literature since the end of the 20th century, but no archaeologi-
cal excavations were ever made. The records are mentioning ramparts, and a lot of pits, probably made
by treasure hunters. Recently D. Buzea from the National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians has shown
me a ceramic fragment which very likely belongs to the Wietenberg culture. It was discovered during field
surveys. Unconfirmed fortification system.
236 ‌| József Puskás

The settlement is located northeast from the center of the city Covasna, at the right bank of the
Hankó/Mész stream, on the top of an oval-shaped hill. There is a very good view on the southern part of
the depression, not to mention the close sorrounding area (Fig. 21–22). The settlement has a visual con-
tact with the Covasna–Fairy fortress and vice-versa, the distance being cca. 3.4 km (Fig. 21). The plateau
is measuring approximately 1 ha.
Bibliography: Rep-Covasna 1998, 79, nr. 211; Kisgyörgy 2008, 97–99; Székely Zs. 2014, 56–60.

Fig. 22. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Covasna–

Salt mountain fortress and Covasna–Fairy fortress.

I.2.4. Lutoasa (Hu: Csomortán)–Csuklyán fortress (Hu: Csuklyán vára; Ro: Cetatea Ciuchian)
The fortress is located on a mountaintop called Várhegy, on the right side of the Ragadó/Kis-Lemhény
stream, north of the village Lutoasa. The northeastern, southern and western parts of the mountain are
abrupt. The oval-shaped construction, measuring 80 × 64 m, can be approached easily from the north-
western part, being fortified with wall and ditches.
The first written mention about the fortress was made by B. Orbán in 1869, who considered an old,
szekler fortification (Orbán 1869, 120). The first archaeological excavations were made in 1950, by the
R. P. R. Academy (Macrea et al. 1951, 285). The first trench (See above) had no archaeological material,
while the second (See below) resulted a few pottery sherds. The authors of the paper claim that the pot-
tery was discoverd at the bottom of the wall, on the original level, concluding the stone constructions is
younger than the layer with ceramic. At the end of discussion the author query the Bronze Age dating of
the wall (Macrea et al. 1951, 297).
In 1978 new excavation were carried out by Z. Székely. The first trench (S.I) was 30 m long and 1 m
wide, northwest-southeast direction, cutting the wall and three ditches. The profile had the following
stratigraphy: under a 0.05–0.1 m thick upper layer (humus) was a 0.25–0.6 m thick yellow-brown sandy
layer mixed with smaller and bigger stones (Pl. 6/1). The two side of the wall was made of slabstones, the
interior being filled with stone and sand. At the bottom the wall had a 2.5 m width, the top 3 m. According
to documentation the wall is keeping at 0.8 m height. The first and the second ditch was 1.6 m respectively
1.4 m wide and 0.6 m deep both. The third ditch wasn’t excavated, but it was the shallowest. Hereinafter
the presentation is circumstantial because of the contradictory information between the publication and
archaeological documantation. In the publication Székely presents the second and third trenches (S.II–
III) as being 10 m long each (Székely Z. 1981, 22), while on the plan of the excavation area this seems 5,
respectively 4 m long. The fourth trench (S.IV) is described as being 20 m long, as on the plan it measures
only 13.75 m. Near the S.IV a rectangular trench was opened, measuring 5 × 5 m according to the paper,
and 4 × 4.5 m on the plan. The archaeological material is very scarce, consisting of a few ceramic fragments
belonging to the Middle Bronze Age and a broken grinding stone.
The settlement has a good view on the surrounding areas, mostly on the valley beneath the hill, but
also has visual contact farther, to the northern part of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression (Fig. 23).
Bibliography: Orbán 1869, 120; Macrea et al. 1951, 296–298; Székely Z. 1981, 21–23; Székely Z.
1988, 154, 157; Boroffka 1994, 55, nr. 264; Rep-Covasna 1998, 94–96, nr. 281; Kisgyörgy 2008, 150–153;
Dietrich 2010, 204, Fundliste 5/20; Dietrich 2014, 327, nr. 37; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 237

Fig. 23. Location (left, photo: Google Earth) and visibility analysis (right) of the Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress.

I.2.5. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Torja fortress (Hu: Torja vára; Ro: Cetatea Turia)
The fortification is located on the top of a mountain. First was described by B. Orbán in the 1860’s.
He considered an ancient szekler construction (Orbán 1869, 90–91). The fore-axis of the fortification
is oriented north-northeast–south-southwest, measuring 80 m in lenght and 30 m width (Székely Zs.
2003b, 75). The eastern side of the promontory is abrupt, the rest being more smooth. The fortification
consists of a ditch and a rampart situated on the western and northern sides (Fig. 24). The wall is clearly
visible along the ditch, but hard to see on the eastern and southern sides, if there was at all. In present day
the fall between the top of the rampart and the bottom of the ditch is approximately 2.5–3 m (estimated).
The archaeological excavations were made in 1984 by Z. Székely (Székely Z. 1999, 157). There were
traced at least five, but more likely eleven trenches (in the description of the excavations only four trenches
are presented, but on the plan there is eleven: Székely Zs. 2003b, 75, 78, fig. 1). In S.I the rampart had
3.8 m width, beeing made of stones and clay.

Fig. 24. Satellite image (left, photo: ArcGIS Romania) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Turia–Torja fortress.

The author of the excavations claims that the reddish color of the wall can be attributed to a major fire
(Székely 2003b, 75) (Fig. 25). The archaeological material consists of ceramic fragments belonging to the
Wietenberg culture. The meandric decorations and Zahnstempelung technique suggest, that the settle-
ment was in use at least in the 3rd phase of evolution of the above mentioned culture (Székely Zs. 2001b,
185, fig. 5/4–13; Székely Zs. 2003b, 80–81, fig. 5–6).
The promontory is located at the confluence of the Fóris and Jajdon streams. The fortification has a
good visibility to it’s surroundings, such as 1–1.5 km north and east, 2–3 km to southeast and south. A
farther view is possible to southwest and west, cca. 5–6 km along the Jajdon valley. The western, northwest-
ern and northern side of the settlement is surrounded by gentle slopes (artificial terrace?), which could be
inhabited as well. But in present day we don’t have any confirmation of a possible “lower settlement”. About
8 km southeast lies the Turia–Hill of the church settlement, but it’s to far for proper observation (Fig. 24).
Bibliography: Orbán 1869, 90–91; Székely Z. 1988, 154, 157; Boroffka 1994, 87, nr. 480;
238 ‌| József Puskás

Rep-Covasna 1998, 145, nr. 590; Székely Zs. 1998, 174; Székely Z. 1999, 157; Székely Zs. 2001b, 176–
177; Székely Zs. 2003a, 471; Székely Zs. 2003b, 75–76; Kisgyörgy 2008, 118–121; Dietrich 2010, 205,
Fundliste 5/40; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 70; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 25. The location of the fortress seen from the entrance of the Turia Pass from Turia (top). Details
from the fortified settlement: details of the rampart (middle bottom) and the ditch (right bottom).

I.2.6. Valea Mică (Hu: Kispatak)–Badger fortress (Hu: Borz vára; Ro: Cetatea bursucului)
The fortified settlement is located 600  m southwest
from the village Valea Mică, on a hilltop, between the conflu-
ence of the Megye and Kőhíd streams (Fig. 26). The hilltop
is enclosed on south by a scarp, from west, north and east a
deep ditch. On the southwestern part the hill is connected
by a saddle with the rest of the mountain. Here another for-
tification ditch can be observed (Sztáncsuj 2015, 60–61).
The settlement is located on oval-shaped plateau, measur-
ing 75 × 30 m, oriented southwest-northeast (Ştefan et al.
2015b, 139). During the excavations in 2010 several Middle
Bronze Age ceramic fragments were found. The plateau was
first inhabited in the Copper Age, after that in the Early and
Middle Bronze Age, then in the Dacian period. We don’t dis-
pose of any information about the building period of the for-
tification. Being a naturally and very likely artificialy fortified
Fig. 26. Satellite image of the Valea Mică– hilltop, we assume it had a controlling and/or observational
Badger fortress (photo: Google Earth). function. Unconfirmed Bronze Age fortification system.

Fig. 27. The Valea Mică–Badger fortress seen from north (left; photo by
S. Sztáncsuj) and visibility analysis of the site (right).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 239

The hill is surrounded by higher mountains, so the visibility is limited exclusively on the close prox-
imity of the settlement (Fig. 27). In the northeastern part there is a ‘narrow window’, which assure a farther
view, on the mountains near the city Covasna. In my opinion this doesn’t have any significance in the
Bronze Age, maybe in the latter period (Ştefan et al. 2015b, 141).
Bibliography: Sztáncsuj 2010, 14; Sztáncsuj 2015, 60–62; Ştefan et al. 2015b, 139–140; Puskás
2015, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

I.2.7. Valea Scurtă (Hu: Kurtapatak)–Jewish fortress (Hu: Zsidóvár; Ro: Cetatea jidovească)
The first mention of the fortified settlement was made by Z. Székely in 1999. He places it on the top
of the Pólya mountain (Székely Z. 1999, 157–158). Z. Kisgyörgy on the other hand locate the fortress 1.5
km south, on the Huddó peak (Kisgyörgy 2008, 148–149). Until present day I haven’t seen the settlement
personally (Fig. 28).
Bibliography: Rep-Covasna 1998, 118, nr. 428; Székely Z. 1999, 157–160; Székely Zs. 2001b, 176;
Kisgyörgy 2008, 148–149; Székely Zs. 2003a, 471; Dietrich 2010, 204, Fundliste 5/31; Dietrich 2014,
332, nr. 2v; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

Fig. 28. Probable location of the Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress (right) and the visibility analysis of the site (right).

I.2.8. Valea Seacă (Hu: Szárazpatak)–Cece fortress (Hu: Cece vára; Ro: Cetatea Cece)
Located in the lateral valley of the Kászon stream, on the right bank of the Várpatak stream, on the
top of the mountain called Cece. The first mention of the fortress was made by Orbán (1869, 112). In
1975 Z. Székely conducted archaeological excavations at the fortress and the terrace of the stream (see the
settlement catalogue nr. 25). From the six trenches only one provided Middle Bronze Age material, from
a thin layer at the bottom of the eastern wall (Pl. 4/2). Probably the rest of the Bronze Age settlement was
destroyed by the Dacian settlement (Székely Z. 1980, 24–25; Székely Z. 1981, 23). There is no certain
evidence for a Bronze Age fortification.
The fortified settlement has a similar position like the Valea Mică–Badger fortress settlement: a small
shoulder of a mountain rounded by higher formations. The visibility is reduced by these mountains, allow-
ing the observation of the immediate vicinity, mostly on the two valleys located east of the site. The area
coverd is approximately 4 km east and southeast and ca. 6 km southwest. Only a small fragment is observ-
able from the valley of the Kászon stream (Fig. 19).
Bibliography: Orbán 1869, 112; Székely Z. 1980, 24–25; Székely Z. 1981, 23; Székely Z. 1988, 154,
157; Rep-Covasna 1998, 133, nr. 528; Székely Zs. 2003a, 472; Kisgyörgy 2008, 140–143; Dietrich
2010, 205, Fundliste5/41; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 76; Puskás 2015a, 108; Puskás 2016, 94.

II. Burials
The burials of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression were recently debated by the author of the present arti-
cle (Puskás 2016, 89–103). Today we have knowledge of five burial sites. The one at Turia–Vármegye is a
cemetery, made of 25 graves. Another burial site is also at Turia, at the place called Kecskegödör, where one
or two graves were found. Three other burials, each consisting of one grave, are known from settlements
or the close proximity of them (Puskás 2016, 94).
240 ‌| József Puskás

II.1. Poian (Hu: Kézdiszentkereszt, Polyán)–Kőhát (Ro: Panta de piatră)

The archaeological excavations in 1965 (see the Catalogue of settlements, nr. 12) brought to light a
cremation burial, which was discovered at the southeastern part of the settlement. The pit of the grave was
circular, measuring 1.25 m across. At the bottom, at 1 m deep from the surface a few stones and vessel
fragments were found (Puskás 2016, 89–90).
Bibliography: Székely Zs. 1989, 246; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 138, nr. 741; Palincaş 2014, 103,
fig. 2, nr. 38; Puskás 2016, 89–90; Berecki 2016, 44, nr. 3.

II.2. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlelék)–Urakszerelábja (Ro: Locul domnesc)

In 1910 F. László mentioned in a field journal some pit of urns, disturbed probably by the construc-
tion of the railway (see the Catalogue of settlements, nr. 15). The excavations were made only after three
years, but then no Bronze Age burials were found (for details see Puskás 2016, 90). It seems the burial(s)
were at the border of the former Middle Bronze Age settlement.
Bibliography: Schroller 1933, 78; Puskás 2016, 90–91; Berecki 2016, 44, nr. 4. 2.

II.3. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlelék)–Küszürűkő (Ro: Piatra de tocilă)

The excavations in 1975, beside a few Middle Bronze Age pottery sherds from cultural layer (see the
Catalogue of settlements, nr. 17), revealed a creamtion burial, too (Székely Z. 1977, 125–127; Puskás
2016, 91–92). The funerary urn was deposed on a stone slab. Near or inside the urn was a small two
handed vessel.
Bibliography: Székely Z. 1977, 125–127; Boroffka 1994, p. 106, footnote 1; Motzoi-Chicideanu
2011, 147, nr. 844; Palincaş 2014, 303, fig. 2, nr. 42; Puskás 2016, 91–92; Berecki 2016, 44, nr. 4. 1.

II.4. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Kecskegödör (Ro: Groapa caprei/Groapa ţapului)

In 1986, the excavations at Turia–Kecskegödör brought to light a rich Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş) mate-
rial. Beside this a Middle Bronze Age funerary urn was discovered, covered by stone slabs. Inside the urn
a small, perforated stone axe or maybe pendant was found (Székely Zs. 1995, 130, nr. 26; Puskás 2016,
92–93, M1). In the SNM’s collection a few other Middle Bronze Age sherds were identified, which prob-
ably belong to a second grave. The fragments present strong burn marks (Puskás 2016, 92–93, M2).
The burial site was located on a high terrace (on which the Turia–Templomláb and Vármegye-
Mogyorós sites are located), on the left bank of the Torja stream. The closest known settlement lies cca.
0.9 km south from the graves (Turia–Padláb/Roman-catholic cemetery), while other three 1.35 km west,
1.45 km northwest, respectively 2 km southeast (Turia–Garden of the Apor-manor/Silos, Turia–Hill of the
church, Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós). The burial site is visible only from the Turia–Padláb/Roman-catholic
cemetery settlement.
Bibliography: Székely Zs. 1995, 130, nr. 26; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 539–540; Palincaş 2014,
310, 317; Puskás 2016, 92–93; Berecki 2016, 45, nr. 20.

II.5. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Vármegye (Ro: Judeţ)

In 1988 a cemetery consisting of 25 burials was discovered. All of them were cremation graves with
funerary urn, except M7, where only the ashes were placed in a pit (Székely Zs. 1995, 127–130; Motzoi-
Chicideanu 2011, 539–540). The cemetery was dated to the Late Bronze Age by the author of the excava-
tions, but challenged by the later studies (Rep-Covasna 1998, 144–145, nr. 583; Cavruc–Rotea 2000,
158; Popa 2005, 143), dating to the Wietenberg I or II periods.
The cemetery is located near the Torja stream, on a flood-free terrace. The nearest known settlement
is at 0.85 km east (Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós). Other three are situated 1.2 km southwest (Turia–Padláb/
Roman-catholic cemetery), 2.4 km west (Turia–Garden of the Apor-manor/Silos) and 2.5 km northwest
(Turia–Hill of the church). Just like the previous one the cemetery can be seen only from the Turia–Padláb/
Roman-catholic cemetery settlement.
Bibliography: Székely Zs. 1989, 246; Székely Zs. 1990, 111–113; Boroffka 1994, 97, nr. 589; Székely
Zs. 1995, 125–146; Székely Zs. 1998, 174; Rep-Covasna 1998, 144–145, nr. 583; Cavruc–Rotea 2000,
158; Székely Zs. 2001b, 176; Popa 2005, 143; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011, 539–540; Palincaş 2014, 313,
317, 319; Dietrich 2014, 331, nr. 71; Puskás 2015a, 109; Puskás 2016, 94; Berecki 2016, 45, nr. 20.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 241

III. Metal discoveries
III.1. Cernat (Hu: Csernáton)–Hegyes (Ro: Vârful ascuţit)
In 2009 a collaboration between the Institute of Archaeological Sciences of the Eötvös Lóránd
University from Budapest and the Székely National Museum from Sfântu Gheorghe made possible metal
detecting researches at the site from Cernat–Hegyes (V. Szabó 2011, 335–336; V. Szabó 2016, 188). Beside
the Late Bronze Age metal discoveries a small Middle Bronze Age deposition was also found, consisting of
a Pădureni type axe. The upper part of the shaft hole was broken and attached to the blade. The object was
placed in a small pit. The importance of the find is highlighted by its discovery by archaeologists and the
proper documentation of the finding context, being a unique case in the studied area. A detailed analysis
will be made in a forthcoming study.
The site is located on the left bank of the Csernáton stream, on a top of a hill. On the northern part it
was fortified by a ditch and rampart, dating to the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age and the Dacian period.
A good visibility on the surroundings and the Black River valley is assured by the dominant position.
Bibliography: V. Szabó 2011, 335–336; V. Szabó 2016, 188.

III.2. Covasna (Hu: Kovászna)–Vajna garden (Hu: Vajna Sámuel kertje; Ro: Grădina lui Sámuel Vajna)
Probably before 1870, in the garden of
Vajna Sámuel from Covasna two or three
axes were discovered at a depth of 2 m. Two
of the objects get to the museum of the col-
lege in Aiud, while another into the National
Museum in Budapest. The two axes from
Aiud are made of copper, while the com-
position of the third one is unknown. The
objects can be included in the Pădureni
type. Recently T.  Soroceanu discussed the Fig. 29. Axes from Covasna–Vajna garden (after Soroceanu
Middle Bronze Age metal deposits from 2012a, 230, Taf. 10/4–6; scale only for the third object).
Romania, presenting the axes from Covasna
(Soroceanu 2012a, 28–31), making unnecessary any additional repetition (Fig. 29).
Bibliography: Soroceanu 2012a, 29; Székely Zs. 2014, 49; Dietrich 2014, 335, Anhang 2/2.

III.3. Pădureni (Hu: Sepsibesenyő)–Forró garden (Hu: Forró telek; Ro: Grădina Forró)
In the middle of the 1870’s,
during a construction of a stable
on the courtyard of F.  Forró, a
bronze hoard was found, con-
sisting of several axes. Eight of
the objects get into the collec-
tion of different institutions,
while the others disappeared.
The exact number of the axes is
still unknown, some are talking
about 20–25 (Nagy 1913, 313),
others 28 (Téglás 1887, 184) Fig. 30. The finding place (left) and composition
items (Fig. 30). The description of the Pădureni–Forró garden hoard.
of the finding context and the
objects were recently made by Soroceanu (2012a, 58–68). The illustration of all existing objects was
published by Nagy (1913, 314, VIII/34–41), being cited by latter authors. Sometimes confusion in the
literature led to the multiplication of the objects. For example, Vulpe is mentioning twelve existing axes,
while Petrescu-Dîmboviţa fourteen (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 41).
The finding place is located on the right bank of the Besenyő stream, on a slope between a mountain/
hill and a stream, cca. 150 m north from the local church. The slope has an eastern aspect. In present day
the ruins of the stable are still visible (Fig. 31), making possible a particularly accurate localization of the
findspot. The village Pădureni is situated on a particularly remote place, in a valley closed by hills, with a
242 ‌| József Puskás

Fig. 31. View of the site from east (top, left bottom) and from the garden (right).

clear view on the close surroundings. Today a significant part of the valley is covered by an artificial lake,
but the finding place was higher, so the hoard was hidden in a place protected by floods.
Bibliography: Soroceanu 2012a, 64; Dietrich 2014, 335, Fundliste 1/8.

III.4. Poian (Hu: Polyán, Kézdiszentkereszt)–Unknown finding place

The Pădureni type axe from Poian is presented by Nagy (1913, 314, VIII/43) (Fig. 33/1). In the text
Poian is mentioned together with the axe discoveries from Ţufalău and Pădureni (Nagy 1913, 313), with
no data concerning the find circumstances. The axe is not mentioned in the SzNMÉ 1890, where the
bronze weapon collection of the SNM is first presented. J. Hampel describes an axe from Rolyán (sic!),
being held in 1875 in the Cserey Museum (the predecessor of the SNM) at Imeni (Hampel 1892, 127).
Since Rolyán settlement doesn’t exist in Covasna County, but neither on the whole territory of the former
Austria-Hungary, we’ve to consider it a misspelling. This is also mentioned by M. Roska, but he doesn’t
provide new data (Roska 1942, 122). Hampel’s description and Nagy’s drawing significantly differs.
Bibliography: Hampel 1892, 127; Nagy 1913, 313–314, VIII/43; Hänsel 1968, 187, Liste 43/15; Vulpe
1970, 44, nr. 118; Dietrich 2010, 202, Fundliste 1/7; Dietrich 2014, 335, Anhang 2/7.

III.5. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Urakszerelábja (Ro: Locul domnesc)

In 1913 a golden hair ring
was discovered as a stray find
(see catalogue number I.1.16).
It was heart-shaped, with
taperd upper part, the endings
are overlapping. The cross sec-
tion of the endings is crescent-
shaped (Fig.  32). Dimensions:
height: 19.5  mm, width:
Fig. 32. The golden hair ring from Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja (1. drawing after
the excavation journal made by F. László; 2. after Roska 1942, 77, 93, kép/3).
16.5  mm, maximum width of
the endings: 4.3  mm, width
of the tapered part: 2.2  mm,
weight: 4.5 g. The hair ring can be included in type B1b after Zaharia (1959, 109, Abb. 2/3, 110). The
object was destroyed in 1945 at Zalaegerszeg.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 243

Bibliography: ArchÉrt 1914, XXXIV/2, 157–158; JSzNM 1914, 14; Mihalik 1914, VIII/2–3, 172;
Roska 1942, 122; Popescu 1956, 199–200; Zaharia 1959, 109, Abb. 2/3; Rep-Covasna 1998, 132, nr.
521.

III.6. Sânzieni (Hu: Kézdiszentlélek)–Unknown finding place

In 1942 a number of three or four axes were discovered during ploughing near Sânzieni. One of
the axes can be included in the Pădureni type, while two other looks similar to the Pătulele type. The
hoard probably had a fourth item too, unfortunately disappeared. The objects were recently studied by
Soroceanu (2012a, 95–97).
The precise location of the finding place is not known yet. It must be somewhere between the moun-
tain Perkő and the Kászon stream, the only arable area between Sânzieni and Caşinul Mic (Soroceanu
2012a, 95–96). The place is very similar to the one at Pădureni–Forró garden: a mildly, flood-free slope,
bordered by a mountain and a stream. The slope has a western aspect. T. Soroceanu locates the finding
place on outstanding plateau (Soroceanu 2012b, 230). The only outstanding place is the mountain Perkő,
but he also mentions that it wasn’t discovered there (Soroceanu 2012a, 95–96). The only possible place
for ploughing is the gentle slope near the Kászon stream, lying between Sânzieni and Caşinul Mic, at the
foot of the mountain Perkő.
Bibliography: Soroceanu 2012a, 95–96; Soroceanu 2012b, 230; Dietrich 2014, 335, Fundliste 1/10.

III.7. Turia (Hu: Torja)–Unknown finding place

The first mention of a bronze axe from Turia was made by J. Hampel in 1880 (Hampel 1880, 33–34).
In 1886 Hampel mentions again, making a mistake with the illustration, presenting an axe from Pădureni
(Hampel 1886, pl. XXXI, fig. 4). In 1890 Nagy realized that the object illustrated by Hampel is incor-
rect (SzNMÉ 1890, 50, first footnote), but on the same page he presents the object from Turia, as an axe
similar to the objects from Pădureni (SzNMÉ 1890, 50). I don’t think he would make such a mistake
on the same page, meaning that the Turia axe really existed. In 1913 Nagy published the drawing of the
Turia axe (Nagy 1913, 314, VIII/42). Later Roska concluded that Nagy made a mistake placing the axe
to Turia, since the image of Hampel’s publication is from Pădureni (Roska 1942, 21). The latter authors
quoting Roska, ignored the publication of G. Nagy, placing the axe from Turia to Pădureni (Vulpe 1970,
Taf. 9/122). Recently T. Soroceanu mentions the probability that Nagy made a mistake or the existence of
an axe from Turia should be considered (Soroceanu 2012a, 66, footnote 32). Both Roska and Soroceanu
overlook the fact that Nagy was aware of the mistake made by Hampel, and very likely he wouldn’t repeat
it. In the registry book of the SNM the axe is registered as a donation by J. Imecs, not mentioning the find-
ing place. The object was destroyed in the bombing at Zalaegerszeg in 1945 (Fig. 33/2).
Bibliography: Hampel 1880, 33–34; Hampel 1886, pl. XXXI, fig. 4 (wrong illustration); Hampel 1892,
4; SzNMÉ 1890, 1, 50; Nagy 1913, 313, 314, VIII/42; Roska 1942, 21; Hänsel 1968, 187, Liste 42/5; Vulpe
1970, Taf. 9/122; Mozsolics 1973, 118; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, pl. 5/8; Soroceanu 2012a, 66.

Fig. 33. 1. The axe from Poian, 2. Turia, 3. Zagon (1–2 after Nagy 1913, 314, VIII/42–43; 3.
photo made by Á. Jurás, Déri Museum, Debrecen; scale only for the 3rd object).
244 ‌| József Puskás

III.8. Ţufalău (Hu: Cófalva)–Unknown finding place

In november 1840, on the road between Ţufalău (Hu: Cófalva) and Brateş (Hu: Barátos) a golden
hoard was discovered in a clay vessel. The vessel was destroyed, but the metal objects were partially saved.
The hoard consisted of (at least) four golden axes, placed with their blade upright. Near the axes several
other objects were found, made also of gold: four discs, decorated with spiral ornamentation, and prob-
ably the fragment of a bigger one, two twisted bracelets (one fragmentary, with spiral ending), thirteen
small buttons, one fragmentary, ten hair rings (description after Mozsolics 1968, 1–76). The literature
also mentions a raw gold nugget and a golden bead, but meanwhile disappeared (Mozsolics 1949, 26)
(Fig. 34). The exact location is unknown, but very likely it was found in the vicinity of Ţufalău, near a small
elevation, on the right bank of the Kovászna stream (Fig. 35).

Fig. 34. The composition of the Ţufalău hoard after Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 2– 3,
17/1–2 (present figure after Metzner-Nebelsick 2013, 331, Abb. 3).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 245

Fig. 35. The possible locations of the Ţufalău hoard (base map after the 2nd military survey 1853–1870).

The axes belonging to the hoard were divided in two main groups. The first one is formed by the axes
nr. 1–2 of Fig. 34. After A. Mozsolics those can be included in the Da type Schaftlochäxte (Mozsolics
1967, 20) or in the Apa-Nehoiu type Schaftlochäxte after Vulpe (1970, 54). In the typology emerged by
B. Hänsel the axes belong to the Nackekammäxte group, Ţufalău variant (Hänsel 1968, 188, Liste 45), In
the work of W. David one of the axes appear as Typ III (Ţufalău-Nehoiu-Tiszafüred) (Fig. 34/2), while the
other as the Moldoveneşti variant (IIIa; Fig. 34/1) of the same type (David 2002, 429–430). In a later work
the classification of the first axe (Fig. 34/1) remained unchanged, while the second was included in the
Ţufalău variant (IIId) (David 2013, 97–100).
The second group is formed by two axes (Fig.  34/3–4), included by Mozsolics in the Ca type
(Mozsolics 1967, 17) and Pădureni type by Vulpe (1970, 44). Hänsel included them in the Äxte mit
verlängertem Schaftloch group, Ţufalău variant (Hänsel 1968, 186, Liste 42).
The ten hair rings (Fig. 34/23–32) can be divided in three groups. The first group contained seven
objects (Fig. 34/26–32), joint together, while the second group was formed by two hair rings (Fig. 34/23–
24). The third was joint to the fragmentary bracelet (Fig. 34/25). All the items had overlapping endings.
Six of the objects were heart-shaped (Fig. 34/23–25, 27–28, 32), three oval-shaped (Fig. 34/29–31) and one
with flatten (Fig. 34/26) and twisted ending. Two was decorated with punctiform motifs (Fig. 34/25, 31).
The hair rings were attributed to B type after the typology of Zaharia (1959, 116–117).
The bracelets are a rare type of jewelry for this culture and period. The first one is twisted beyond
doubt (Fig.  34/34), but the second one is questionable (Fig.  34/33). It looks like a fragmentary object,
with two spiral endings, one partially missing. A. Mozsolics does not exclude that the object was wreath
in a thin wire, rather than twisted (Mozsolics 1949, 25). The spiral endings are mostly common for Late
Bronze Age, but sometimes they appear in a much smaller number in Middle Bronze Age too (Mozsolics
1968, Taf. 26).
Bibliography (selected): AcadÉ 1841/II/2, 72–75; OBLK 1846, nr. 19, 148; Arneth 1851, Taf. XIV;
AcadÉ 1853/XII/1, 254–258; Orbán 1869, 156; Gooss 1876, 18; Téglás 1887, 182–183; Hampel 1892,
23; Nagy 1913, 312–313, VII. ábra; Pârvan 1926, 386–387; Mozsolics 1949, 14–29; Zaharia 1959, 117;
Mozsolics 1967, 211, Taf. 5/5; Mozsolics 1968, 1–77; Hänsel 1968, 59–60, 114; Vulpe 1970, 40, 44, 50,
54; Bader 1990, 190; Rep-Covasna 1998, 55, nr. 93; David 2002, 285; Metzner-Nebelsick 2013, 329,
331, Abb. 3.

III.9. Zagon (Hu: Zágon)–Unknown finding place

The first mention of the axe(s) was made in 1915 by L. Zoltai, reporting the existence of disc-butted
axes (Nackenscheibenaxt) in the collection of the Déri Museum in Debrecen, with the finding place Zagon
(Zoltai 1915, 124). M. Roska is writing about two axes of different type (Roska 1942, 310). A. Mozsolics
is also refering on two objects, publishing their drawings too. As it turned out the objects get into the
museum as a part of the Löfkovics collection (Mozsolics 1967, 177–178). The kind informations and
246 ‌| József Puskás

pictures from the Déri Museum resulted, that the shaft-hole axe published by Mozsolics (1967, Taf. 44/4)
as being from Zagon is originally from Aştileu, Bihor County. Al. Vulpe, taking the erroneous informa-
tions from Mozsolics, placed the finding place to Zagon too. In reality in the collection of the Déri Museum
two disc-butted axes are from Zagon: one with a simple disc, presented by Mozsolics as the second object
(Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 44/5), the other with disc and spike, also mentioned by Mozsolics (1967, 177).
The disc-butted axe is considered by Vulpe as a Bikács-Borleşti variant of the B1 type Nackenscheibenaxt,
but the poll is not rounded. It is much closer to the Ighiel variant. On the picture, made recently, the deco-
ration described by Mozsolics is unobservable. The other axe is a B3 type Nackenscheibenaxt, yet unpub-
lished. The B3 type axes are belonging to the Late Bronze Age (Kacsó 2015, 548). Since the B1 type is dated
to the Middle Bronze Age, the association of both objects with a possible deposit is questionable. In this
paper only the B1 type axe will be analysed (Fig. 33/3).
Bibliography: Zoltai 1915, 124; Roska 1942, 310; Mozsolics 1967, 177–178; Vulpe 1970, 46.

Middle Bronze Age Settlement Network

Settlement distribution and visibility analysis
The formation and development of settlements are principally affected by the environmental and
geographical conditions. The communication routs, such as main rivers, passes also influenced the growth
and evolution of certain settlements.
Now let’s see the geomorphological facilities and their interaction with the Middle Bronze Age settle-
ments. The distribution of Middle Bronze Age settlements, based on their location on terrain features, can
be divided in four main groups.

Group 1. The first group of settlements are located in the close vicinity of rivers, streams, confluences,
emerging maximum 3 m above floodplain, on mildly ascending slopes. The surrounding area could be
used for agriculture, while the marshy areas for animal husbandry (Fig. 36). Three of the known settle-
ments (Imeni–Rákosdomb; Imeni–Hill of the church and Săsăuşi–III.  Közép/Középső határ) are located
near the Black River, while the other three next to small tributaries (Cernat–Molnár 2 II.; Cernat–Captain
I.; Lunga–Outside the ditch). The area of this settlements vary between 0.75 and 5.5 ha.
The visibility analysis was made in a single point each, in the interior of the settlement. Being placed
on slopes, we can see that in some cases (Cernat–Molnár 2 II.; Cernat–Captain I.) the visibility is reduced
to one direction (in our case to east). Since the top of the slope (where are no obstructive factors) is only
200–300 m from the measuring point, the view to east easily could be solved by a short walk. The two
settlements from Imeni were located in the vicinity of a confluence. The visibility zone is reduced on the
surroundings of the settlements, not more than 3 km. If we consider that in the Bronze Age the area wasn’t
tilled at the present day scale (which is very likely) and the bushy areas or even forests covered a much
more extended area, than this distance can be reduced even more. In my opinion the visibility didn’t play
an important role in the placement of this group of settlements. In any case: the location of these settle-
ments are not in strategical points, from a military point of view, but more likely an economical one (pri-
mary agricultural and livestock raising).

Fig. 36. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 1 (Cernat–Captain I).

Group 2. The second group is the most numerous, with fifteen settlements. They are located on flood-
free, high terraces, with one side abrupt, sometimes hard to approach, with excellent soil for agriculture.
The valleys below the terraces are mostly floodplains, inconvenient for plant cultivation, but good for graz-
ing (Fig. 38). The settlements are located on the banks of the tributaries of the Black River, or sometimes
at confluences. The Middle Bronze Age sites cover between 0.7 and 3 ha. The settlements belonging to
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 247

this group are: Albiş–Márton garden, Boroşneu Mare–Roman fort, Cernat–Damokos manor, Leţ–Várhegy,
Reci–Telek, Sânzieni–Küszürűkő, Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja, Sânzieni–Táncospad, Sânzieni–Bakóné, Târgu
Secuiesc–Barbarian cemetery, Târgu Secuiesc–Sinka, Turia–Apor manor/Silos, Turia–Hill of the church,
Turia–Padláb and Turia–Vármegye/Mogyorós.
The placement made possible a better view on the surrounding area, mostly on the valleys of the riv-
ers, and neighbouring settlements. An interesting example is the case of the Torja stream valley. There are
four settlements located on the terraces flanking the stream, each settlement having a 3–4 km long seg-
ment, with a good perspective on it. The settlements are located that way, that these segments are covering
the whole upper valley of the stream. Entering the Turia Pass there is the Torja fortress watching. Between
the fortress and the last plain settlement (Turia–Templomláb) there is a small uncovered ‘gap’. Maybe in the
future there will be discovered another settlement. The possible function of these settlements, namely to
watch the valley of the stream and the road to the pass yet remain only a hypothesis, since we don’t know
if they were in use in the same time. Based on the archaeological material this seems plausible, since only
Wietenberg II ceramics are known from the sites.
I’ve tried a ranking of the settlements in the valley of the Torja stream, based on the visibility and
the results of the excavations. The importance of the Turia–Padláb settlement is highlighted by the fact,
that with all the neighboring settlements (Turia–Apor mason/Silos, Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós and Turia–
Templomláb) there is a visibility connection. From the Turia–Apor mason/Silos only the Turia–Padláb
and maybe the Turia–Templomláb settlements can be seen. The longer habitation in the first settlement is
confirmed by the two Middle Bronze Age cultural layers. If we take in consideration the possibility, that,
at least partially, the fortification system could belong to the Wietenberg culture, than the importance of
this settlement is evident.
Another settlement with a dominant position is the one at Leţ–Várhegy. With a possible fortification,
could control the Black River’s valley and the entrance/exit to the Târgu Secuiesc Depression. The set-
tlement from Boroşneu Mare–Roman fort has a similar placement, but no trace of any ditch or rampart
belonging to the Middle Bronze Age.
We have to take in consideration the
posibility, that settlements with similar
placement could serve as centers of a smaller
area, rather than mountain or hilltop fortifi-
cations. This could be supported by the dom-
inant postion of the sites, from where most of
the nearby settlements and areas are visible,
the existence of a possible fortification sys-
tem (ditch and rampart). For the confirma-
tion or refutation of this hypothesis further
researches are needed.
The Wietenberg cremation graves and
the cemetery are also located on the top of
the terraces, making exception the grave
from Poian–Kőhát. The location of the Fig. 37. Situation of Middle Bronze Age
burials from Turia (Turia–Kecskegödör and settlements and burials from Turia.
Turia–Vármegye) is visible only from one of
the settlements, namely the Turia–Padláb. It looks like the close vicinity of the burial sites was not inhab-
ited, the closest settlement being at 0.85 km away. Interesting is the relation between the habitations and

Fig. 38. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 2 (Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja).

248 ‌| József Puskás

burials from Turia: it looks like the settlements were forming a semi-circle around the burials (Fig. 37). We
have a different situation at Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja, Poian–Kőhát and Sânzieni–Küszürűkő, where one
burial in each site appear inside or at the edge of the settlement.

Group 3. The settlements of the third group are located at the edge of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression,
at the foot of mountains, in lateral valleys, near small streams. Even though these settlements appear to
be isolated, the archaeological excavations suggest the opposite (Fig. 39). For example, the Albiş–Csiszér
garden settlements had a 0.75 m thick Middle Bronze Age deposition, the Cernat–Robert’s land Bronze
Age cultural layer sometimes exceeded the 0.6 m, unusual for the Wietenberg settlements (Rotea 1993,
34). On the other hand, the Valea Seacă–Terrace of the Várpatak stream settlement had a layer thickness
between 0.1 and 0.4 m. 0.6 m was measured near the pit of the LaTéne house. Also in this group can be
included the settlement from Mărtănuş–Tanorok and Poian–Kőhát.
Since they are located in lateral valleys the settlements had a good view only on the plain areas of
the basin. The soils have a poor quality compared to the previous two groups. Even in present day these
landforms are used for grazing. The hinterland is formed by the mountains. There is no visual connection
with the closest hilltop settlements. The only exception is the habitation in the Várpatak stream. Maybe the
settlements located on the western slopes of the Bodoc Mountains (Albiş–Csiszér garden; Cernat–Robert’s
land) were placed near roads, leading to the Olt River valley. The location of the Valea Seacă–Cece fortress
and Valea Seacă–Terrace of the Várpatak stream settlements suggest the existence of a northern route,
maybe along the Kászon stream leading to the neighboring depressions. The other possibility is that there
was a side route in the valley of the Várpatak stream leading to east. Anyway the importance of this area is
highlighted by the existence of the fortress and the settlement.

Fig. 39. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 3 (Poian–Kőhát).

Group 4. This category includes the hilltop/mountaintop and fortified settlements. In the present
state of research, we know of eight examples, two or three having proper fortification (rampart and ditch),
while the other five are discoveries on naturally fortified promontories. In this case there is no documented
Middle Bronze Age construction. If there was any, it was destroyed by the later (Iron Age, Middle Ages)
habitations. The extension of the settlements is limited by the relief. The one from Turia and Lutoasa does
not exceed the 0.5 ha, measuring 0.2–0.25 respectively 0.4–0.45 ha. The plateau on which the Covasna–
Salt mountain fortress is located has an estimated 1 ha surface. Without any archaeological research and
based on a single Middle Bronze Age fragment any conclusion would be beyond reason. The fortified set-
tlement from Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress was published without dimensions, even on the plan the scale is
missing. For the other hilltop settlements we don’t dispose of any data about the covered area.
The excavations inside the settlements didn’t brought to light any construction, which could suggest
a more or less permanent habitation. Maybe the problem should be searched in the excavation technique.
The narrow trenches (approximately 0.5–0.6 m wide) didn’t provide enough data to appreciate the impor-
tance or even the existence of any features. Let’s take as example the Păuleni–Várhegy site, which could
reflect on the problem of why the Turia–Torja fortress and Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress is ‘empty’. The forti-
fied settlement from Păuleni–Várhegy was used in the Middle Bronze Age by the Wietenberg population
too. It has a similar dimension to the Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress, 80 × 50 m (Cavruc 2005a, 82; Cavruc
2005b, 334) sometimes being mentioned as having 90 × 60 m (Cavruc 2000, 93). The first excavations
were led by Z. Székely in the late 1950’s and 60’s (Székely Z. 1959a, 238–240; Székely Z. 1970c, 71), being
made in the ‘conventional’ narrow-trench technique, furthermore three wider trenches were opened. The
researches haven’t revealed any trace of surface constructions (Székely Z. 1970c, 72). The excavations
reopened in 1999 were made in a different technique, with wide trenches, resulting the discovery of four
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 249

Wietenberg houses and several pits (Cavruc 2000, 96; Cavruc–Buzea 2002, 46–49). The existence of a
fifth house was also confirmed (information by V. Kavruk). The geomagnetic investigations carried out in
2010, suggests that probably remains from further dwellings are located along the rampart (Ştefan et al.
2010, 430). Maybe similar excavations and investigations could reveal a much complex inner structure of
the Middle Bronze Age fortified settlements in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression too.
The surroundings of these settlements are unsuitable for agriculture because of the poor quality top-
soil, but good for animal husbandry. The visibility is limited mostly on the surroundings. The habita-
tions are bordered by higher mountains (ex: Cernat–Ika fortress, Valea Seacă–Cece fortress, Turia–Torja
fortress). In other case (Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress, Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress, Covasna–Salt mountain
fortress) there is an excellent view on the valley of the Black River, but the higher mountains situated in the
background, the deep and snaky stream valleys restrict the visibility into the mountainous regions. None
of these settlements have visual contact between each other, within a 25 km radius. The only exception
is the Covasna–Fairy fortress and the Covasna–Salt mountain fortress (distance: 3.3 km), and maybe the
Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress and Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress (distance: 5.7 km). The relation between the
hilltop/fortified and plain settlements is unclear. The close contact between the two types of habitation is
suggested only in the valley of the Várpatak stream at Valea Seacă, where the distance is approximately 0.2
km. The distance between the next closest plain settlement and hilltop settlement is about 2.6 km, meas-
ured between the Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress and Poian–Kőhát. In the case of the others the distance is
even bigger. For example, the Turia–Turia fortress has only two plain settlements in its line of sight within
a 10 km radius, the closest being at 6 km.
Since we don’t dispose of any information about the inner structure of the fortified settlements, it’s
hard to decipher their function. For example, the Turia–Torja fortress is located in the ‘entrance’ of the Turia
Pass. On the other side of the Bodoc Mountains, at the ‘exit’ is another hilltop/fortified settlement, the Vápa
fortress (Pl. 3/1). The placement of the Cernat–Ika fortress, Valea Mică–Badger fortress and Valea Seacă–
Cece fortress suggest a similar function, namely watching over roads leading in and out of the depression.
The existence of several roads through the Bodoc Mountains in the 18th century is confirmed by the first
military survey, one passing just near the Cernat–Ika fortress settlement (Pl. 2/1). The Dacian settlement at
Valea Mică–Badger fortress was linked to roads coming from the Întorsura Buzăului Depression (Ştefan
et al. 2015b, 140). The use of these routes in the Bronze Age is not confirmed, but seems plausible. The
relation between the plain settlement from Turia and the Turia–Torja fortress is yet unclear. It looks like
the fortified settlement was used in the Wietenberg III phase, while the settlements in the previous period.
Maybe the Turia–Apor manor/Silos could be partially contemporaneous with the fortification.

Fig. 40. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 4 (Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress).

Middle Bronze Age Metal Objects: Distribution and Deposition

Pădureni type axes
These types of axes have the most common occurrence in southeastern Transylvania, but in a smaller
number also can be found on a larger area. The type was defined by Al. Vulpe, as having two variants,
and probably were used as weapons. The above mentioned author has analysed them together with the
Monteoru type, because they are closely related both typologically and chronologically (Vulpe 1970,
42–44). Prior to this B. Hänsel included four axes from Pădureni (with others even from Bulgaria) in the
Ţufalău variant of the Äxte mit verlängertem Schaftloch (Hänsel 1968, 186–187, Liste 42). As we can see
the Pădureni axes are a heterogeneous type, with diverse forms. The boundary between other types (ex:
Pătulele) sometimes is unclear, often being hard to classify objects in one or the other type.
In Vulpe’s opinion the main distribution area of the axes is Transylvania, namely the area of the
Wietenberg culture. A small number of objects also appear in the Monteoru culture’s area (Vulpe 1970,
250 ‌| József Puskás

48), but not occurring south of the Danube. On the other hand, Hänsel places several axes similar to the
Pădureni types to Bulgaria, some of those being included by Vulpe in the Pătulele type (Vulpe 1970, 39,
footnote 1). E. Chernyh also draw parallel between the Pădureni type and the T–18 and T–20 Bulgarian
types (Черных 1978, 150). Recently R. Băjenaru considered a few axes from Bulgaria very similar to the
Pădureni type (Băjenaru 2013, 151–52, footnote 15) (Fig. 42). The general characteristics tend to this
form, interpreted as a Bulgarian variant (information by R. Băjenaru). A comprehensive revision of the
form is obvious and necessary.
The findings in the studied area can be divided in two main groups: 1) stray finds, consisting of one
object, with no precise finding place (Poian, Turia) and 2) deposits, made of one up to twentyfive objects.
Sometimes the Pădureni axes are found together with other types (Sânzieni and Ţufalău), proving the
contemporaneity of the objects. The type was dated to the Middle Bronze Age, namely to the 2nd phase of
the Wietenberg culture (Vulpe 1970, 48; Dietrich 2010, 196, Abb. 3; Soroceanu 2012a, 68).

Pătulele type axes

In the studied area this type is represented by two axes, discovered in the hoard from Sânzieni, together
with one or two Pădureni type items (Vulpe 1970, 38). The design of the Pădureni and Pătulele types are
similar, sometimes being hard to include objects in one or the other category. In Bulgaria the T–16 types
correspond to the Pătulele axes (Черных 1978, 150).
The distribution area covers the present day Romania, Bulgaria and eastern Serbia. One axe was dis-
covered in Thebes, Greece, in a layer dated to the final EH II-beginning of EH III (Ailincăi 2005, 272;
Ailincăi 2009, 52; Băjenaru 2014, 241), while similar finds are known from the Caucasus region too
(Ailincăi 2009, 51). The distribution pattern is uniform, without any concentration on a specific area
(Fig. 42). Chronologically they belong to the first half of the Middle Bronze Age, contemporaneous with
the Pădureni type axes (Vulpe 1970, 12, Abb. 1/39). H. Ciugudean dated the Pătulele axes from southwest-
ern Transylvania to the Early Bronze Age (Ciugudean 1996, 124).

Typ III or Apa-Nehoiu axes

Two objects from the studied area are belonging to this type, namely two of the golden axes from
Ţufalău. In Vulpe’s typology the axes represent the Ţufalău variant of the Apa-Nehoiu type axes (Vulpe
1970, 54). This type chronologically belongs to the Middle Bronze Age, in the Reinecke A2 (-B1?) period
(Mozsolics 1967, 121–122; Vulpe 1970, 50; David 2002, 313–314, David 2013, 98, Abb. 6). On David’s
first map (Karte 1) the Ţufalău and Pădureni type axes are included in the Reinecke B period (David 2002,
Karte 1).
The main distribution area is the Danube-Tisza region (Fig. 41). In Romania it is known from the area
of the Wietenberg and Otomani cultures, rarely outside the Carpathians (Vulpe 1970, 56, Taf. 47). The
Transylvanian distribution also suggests the existence of a main northwestern-southeastern communica-
tion corridor, confirmed by the other, above mentioned metal hoards.

Nackenscheibenaxt
The only disc-butted axe (Nackenscheibenaxt) from southeastern Transylvania is known from Zagon.
A. Mozsolics classified as a Type B axe (Mozsolics 1967, 41), while Vulpe included in the Type B1 Bikács-
Borleşti variant (Vulpe 1970, 73). More likely it can be included in the Ighiel variant. The main distribu-
tion area is the Hungarian Plain (Danube-Tisza region), but in a much smaller number also occur in the
Wietenberg area and Moldova (Mozsolics 1967, 40, Abb. 11; Vulpe 1970, 77).

Other objects
The objects presented below are entirely made of gold, belonging to the Ţufalău treasure, exception
making the hair ring discovered at Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja. The composition of the Ţufalău treasure rep-
resents a particular case. In the area of the Wietenberg culture there is no such a discovery, nor on a wider
area. The closest analogies in Transylvania, except the axes and the decorated phalerae, are the golden
jewelry set found in pit nr. 1 at Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 1987, Abb. 22; Kacsó 2004, pl. XXXIX; Kacsó 2011,
409–410, fig. 209). Similar phalerae are known from golden hoard of Şmig (Roska 1942, 250, 310. kép;
V. Szabó 2015, 126–127).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 251

Hair rings
Starting from the Middle Bronze Age the number of golden objects significantly increased, compared
to the earlier period. Probably the most common artifacts are the hair rings or, using the german expres-
sion, Lockenringe. Despite the large number only a few studies dealt with it. For Transylvania is worth
mentioning the contributions of H. Schmidt and E. Zaharia (Schmidt 1904, 615–624; Zaharia 1959,
104–134). In his work about the pre-roman gold crafting D. Popescu continue to use the typology emerged
by Schmidt, mentioning also the necessity of a revision (Popescu 1956, 202, footnote 4).
The hair rings often occur as grave goods, deposits, but also as stray finds (Popescu 1956, 200;
Ţârlea–Popescu 2013, 54). A common form is the heart-shape, with thickened, overlaping endings, with
triangular or boat-shaped cross-section, sometimes decorated with incision or circular impressions. The
distribution area is covering a wide region including the Carpathian Basin, Moravia, parts of the Balkan
Peninsula, through the north-pontic area to the Caucasus (Popescu 1956, 203; Mozsolics 1959, 263).
The hair ring from Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja is a stray find, without defined context. Based on the
ceramic material can be dated to the Middle or Late Bronze Age (Wietenberg or Noua culture). The analo-
gies suggest a Middle Bronze Age dating.
The Ţufalău type hair rings also had a wide distribution area, being a common form in the Bronze
Age. The chain-like tacking is documented in some of the golden deposits, like the one from Vinča
(Garašanin 1954, 70, T. XLVI/1), Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 2011, 409–410, fig. 209), Şmig (Roska 1942, 250,
310. kép; V. Szabó 2015, 126–127), Tiszasűly (Mozsolics 1949, 24, 8. kép) etc. Similar to the decorated
hair rings are known from Argeş (Leahu 1992, pl. I/1–3; Ţârlea–Popescu 2013, 50–51), Colţi (AAR
2013, 201) and Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 2004, pl. XXXIX).

Decorated discs
They can be separated in two groups. The first one is made by five objects (Fig. 34/5–9), three being more
or less undamaged (Fig. 34/7–9), while the other two are fragments. Four have similar dimensions, while the
other looks like a small piece from a bigger disc (Fig. 34/5). All five had been decorated with flowing, continu-
ous spirals, in au-repoussé technique, sometimes joint together, sometimes separated. Some of the edges are
uneven, suggesting incompletion, or maybe they were cut out from a bigger object. Similar discs are known
from other Transylvanian deposits too, also made of gold, but only one from Săcuieni has more or less identi-
cal decoration (Ţârlea–Popescu 2013, 53, bottom right). The objects from Ostrovu Corbului (AAR 2013,
212–213), the other two discs from Săcuieni (Ţârlea–Popescu 2013, 53, top and bottom left), the one from
Vărşand (Popescu 1956, 207, fig. 123/3) are decorated with S-hooked motifs and not proper spirals. The clos-
est analogies for the spiral motif can be found on the Wietenberg pottery and clay constructions (Horedt
1960, 109, Abb. 3; Boroffka 1994, Taf. 60/1; 85/10; 114/12 etc.). Some spirals on the discs are very similar
to those from the shaft graves from Mycenae, appearing on stone sculptures (Karo 1930, Taf. V–VI), jewelry
(Karo 1930, Taf. XXI/56–59, 63–68), diadems (Karo 1930, Taf. XXXVII/234) and golden discs (Karo 1930,
Taf. LXIV), but “the Shaft Graves do not provide any pieces identical in form and decoration to the Romanian
phalerae” (Harding 1984, 195). For the origin of the Wietenberg spirals Mycenaean influence was presumed,
but some scholars debated a “Wietenberg without Mycenae” possibility (Dietrich–Dietrich 2011, 67–84).
The second group is represented by small phalerae (Fig. 34/10–22), with umbo in the center, bordered
by punctiform motifs, executed in au-repoussé technique. They appear in the Shaft Graves, but in more
meticulously decorated form, and the small holes are missing (Karo 1930, Taf. LXV/691, 708–713, 715–
719, 721–722). From Transylvania the Ostrovu Mare (AAR 2013, 212–213) and the Şmig (Mozsolics
1968, Taf. 15/1–2, 4–10) treasures provide analogies.
The possible usage of the discs is debated. Most of the mentioned analogies have small perforations.
Probably they were sewn up on textile or leather clothes or other organic wear (Ţârlea–Popescu 2013,
56). On the spiral-decorated objects from Ţufalău these little holes are missing. We can’t exclude the pos-
sibility of belonging to a larger object from which they were later removed, for example some kind of
diadem, similar to the Mycenaean ones from graves I and IV (Karo 1930, Taf. XXXV–XL). Another pos-
sibility is that these objects supposed to have nice, rounded edges, but a careless or amateurish craftsman
failed to accomplish. Recently, on the Hungarian Plain a Middle Bronze Age cemetery was excavated,
revealing a female grave. On and near the skull a pair of phalerae, three hair rings and several beads were
discovered, all made of gold. They were identified as part of a headdress (Dani–Sz. Máthé 2015, 41–42).
This also proves that similar objects can be interpreted as women’s jewelry and cloth accessories.
252 ‌| József Puskás

Fig. 41. Distribution of Middle Bronze Age golden discs and Typ III axes in
the Carpathian Basin and the neighbouring areas (see List 1–2).

Twisted bracelets
The twisted bracelets are not common to the Wietenberg culture. In a higher number they were pro-
duced in the Late Bronze Age, made of bronze and gold too (Mozsolics 1968, 27). But very likely both
bracelets from Ţufalău (Fig. 35/33–34) can be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. Almost identical jewelry
was discovered in the ritual pit nr. 1 from Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 2011, fig. 209), dated to the Wietenberg II
period (Kacsó 2011, 409). Analogies for the fragmentary item are still missing from Middle Bronze Age
contexts.

Composition of the hoards and deposition landscapes

Metal deposits are remnants of a sacred ritual or a profane act (V. Szabó 2009, 124–127), which today
are hard or impossible to reconstruct (Neumann 2010, 238). In the studied area we have nine points
where metal objects were found. Four, maybe five belong to deposits (Cernat, Pădureni, Sânzieni, Ţufalău,
eventually Covasna), while four are considered stray finds. The stray finds also could be depositions (one
object depots), but so far we are not able to distinguish them from lost objects (Neumann 2010, 237).
To understand the motives of deposition, knowing the precise finding context is essential. In the case of
the stray finds no information regarding the finding context is known, not even an approximate location,
exception making the golden hair ring from Sânzieni. Since it was found in or near a settlement with one
or more graves, the probability of being a grave good must be considered. Similar objects are very rare in
Wietenberg burials, until present only one is known, from Cluj-Napoca (Rotea et al. 2008, 52).
The bronze deposits of this period are similar in composition: they are composed only by axes, made of
one or more, up to 25–28 items (Dietrich 2010, 196, Abb. 3). The hoards included mainly whole, unbro-
ken objects, but sometimes damaged ones were used. For example, at Cernat–Hegyes only a broken axe was
deposited; two of three axes from Covasna had broken cutting edge. The Pădureni deposit also included at
least one fragmentary object (SzNMÉ 1890, 49, 2 footnote). It looks like the Ţufalău hoard excels not only
by its material, but by the composition too. The Middle Bronze Age hoards in and around Transylvania are
mainly formed by axes (Pădureni, Sinaia, Parava etc.; Vulpe 1970, 44–46) or jewelry (Oarţa de Sus, Ostrovu
Mare, Şmig etc.). The oddity of the Ţufalău treasure lies in the combination of these types of objects.
We dispose of scarce information concerning the emplacement of the objects inside the hoards.
Sometimes they were placed in a clay vessel (Ţufalău), but it looks like the majority was deposed simply in
the ground. The fact that the objects were discovered during foundation digging (Pădureni, Covasna?) or
fieldwork (Sânzieni) means that they were placed in some kind of hollow or pit. Only the Ţufalău hoard
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 253

provides information about the emplacement of the objects inside the vessel: the axes were deposited
vertically, with the cutting edge upwards. This type of deposition is rare and unusual (Soroceanu 1995,
38), being interpreted as a votive offering (Soroceanu 1995, 40). The original crosswise position of the
axes from Sânzieni is questionable, since they were discovered during ploughing and very likely disturbed.
Deposition places are situated in open areas. Most of the finding places are on mildly slopes, terraces,
outside of settlements, but not too far from them. The hoards from Pădureni, Covasna and Sânzieni were
placed on flood-free slopes, between a stream and a mountain/hilltop. The Ţufalău hoard was also on a
flood-free terrace, but in a relatively plain terrain, in the close vicinity of the Kovászna stream. On older
maps river meanders are depicted approximately 10–20 m from the possible finding place of the hoard.
The surrounding area probably always was a floodplain of the Black River and its tributaries, resulting the
formation of a swampy area. The closest settlement known to the hoard is Leţ–Várhegy, at a distance of
cca. 1.6 km.
The possible function and meaning of depositions was the subject of several studies. The aim of the
present paper is the connectivity, so we will not enter into details regarding this topic.

Connectivity – a small link in a wide region

During prehistoric times the most important communication routes were the rivers (Fischl–Kiss
2015, 52), connecting distant areas and making possible not only the flow of goods and raw materials,
but informations and technologies as well. On a smaller scale, namely in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression,
similar considerations were kept in mind. Probably the main northeast-southwest route was along the
Black River, connecting the Oituz Pass and the Bârsei Depression. This is suggested by many settlements
discovered on the terraces of the river. The larger tributaries, like the Torja, Kászon, Csernáton etc.
streams were also used, mostly leading to the neighboring depressions, valleys. In the northern part of
the studied area the existence of an east-west route is also possible, between the Oituz and Torja Pass.
This is suggested by the high number of settlements and metal discoveries in this area (Fig. 43). The
importance of the Oituz Pass in the communication between the Wietenberg and Monteoru tribes is
highlighted by the ceramic discoveries. The majority of the Wietenberg pottery found east and south of
the Carpathians constringe near the Moldavian side of the pass. This is true for the Monteoru pottery
too, which in Transylvania is concentrating on the Târgu Secuiesc Depression (Puskás 2015a, 107–108,
fig. 7). Probably other valleys, mountain paths were also used to cross the region. If the hypothesis that
hilltop settlements were placed near roads is correct, many other hilltop/fortified settlements are waiting
to be discovered.
The direction of long-distance communication routes can be presumed by the distribution of metal
and other valuables, like amber for example. Since the studied area lack the amber objects, first we will
deal with the distribution of metal artifacts and the possible spreading routes. The distribution area of the
artifacts always extends beyond the limit of certain cultures, proving the long distance contacts between
far regions.
As we can see on the distribution map of different axe types, the Pădureni axes are spread from the
northwestern part of Transylvania to the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. A concentration in the south-
eastern part of Transylvania is obvious, explicable probably with the proximity of the Copper depos-
its in the Eastern Carpathians, for example from Bălan (Vulpe 1970, 48). The main spread direction in
Transylvania is to northwest, probably following the main distribution of salt and gold deposits. A route
along the Southern Carpathians is also probable, taking in consideration the southern Transylvanian dis-
coveries. Outside the Carpathians they appear in the Monteoru environment, probably as a result of inter-
tribal change. Probably similar processes led to the distribution on the Balkan Peninsula.
Although the distribution of Pătulele type axes does not show a similar pattern, the gold objects,
mainly the gold discs and Ţufalău-Nehoiu-Tiszafüred axes suggest a similar communication route.
Because of the small number of the objects the route drawn must be taken with reserves. The western-
northwestern contact is also confirmed by the metallurgical analysis made on the “first” axe and some
phalerae of the Ţufalău hoard, which indicate a Transylvanian origin of the raw material, namely the
Metaliferi Mountains in western Transylvania (Hartman 1968, 72; Hartman 1970, 41). Regarding the
origins of the treasure, most of the authors agree on the local production of the objects (Mozsolics 1968,
44; Harding 1984, 195; Bader 1990, 190), by local meaning the Carpathian Basin, very likely the area of
the Wietenberg culture.
254 ‌| József Puskás

Fig. 42. Distribution of the Pădureni and Pătulele type axes (see List 3–4).

The direction of the northwestern route points to the Upper Tisa region (present day northwestern
Romania, northeastern Hungary respectively eastern Slovakia), where the existence of an outstanding met-
allurgical center was outlined (Kovács 1977, 32–33; Fischl et al. 2013, 363; Kemenczei 2003, 168–169).
This center had evident contacts with Scandinavia, confirmed by the distribution of Apa-Hajdusámson
type swords (Fischl–Kiss 2015, 50; Pernicka et al. 2016, 82). Regarding the provenance of raw mate-
rial a recent study states that “the copper for the objects of the Apa hoard predominantly derives from the
Mitterberg area in Salzburg, Austria” (Pernicka et al. 2016, 73).
Other, often quoted discoveries, related to possible communication routes are the amber discoveries
and the bone cheek-pieces. Until present day, from Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (Wietenberg area)
the objects made of amber are entirely missing (Boroffka 2002, 147, fig. 2, 153). M. Gimbutas presents a
possible amber route leading along the western side of the Romanian Eastern Carpathians, including the
studied area too (Gimbutas 1965, 48–49, fig. 15). The lack of amber discoveries in Middle Bronze Age
Transylvania doesn’t support the existence of an amber route in the area. For some reason the Wietenberg
communities didn’t use the amber, at least in significant proportions. The reason wasn’t the distance from
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 255

Fig. 43. Possible Middle Bronze Age routes in the valley of the Black River.

the main amber transportation ways, since in the close vicinity of the area, in the outer Carpathian region
significant amber deposits can be found, and were exploited by the Monteoru communities (Boroffka
2002, 153). The contact between the Wietenberg and Monteoru areas are also documented, so a possible
isolation is out of question.
Further contacts with Western and Eastern Europe and the steppe region is supported by the distri-
bution of horse cheek pieces (Boroffka 1998; Makarowicz 2009, 319–320, 324, fig. 20). The southern
contacts are mostly represented by the distribution of Mycenaean type (Type A) swords in Transylvania,
even though most of them were very likely local replicas than original, Aegean craftworks (Dietrich
2010, 200). In the opinion of L. Dietrich direct contacts between southeastern Transylvania and mainland
Greece, were based on gold and salt trade (Dietrich 2010, 201–202), transacted through the passes of the
Eastern and Southern Carpathians (Bader 1991, 29).

Conclusions
The settlements of the Wietenberg culture can be found on almost every terrain formation, from the
low lying slopes and terraces to the mountaintops over 1000 m high (Boroffka 1994, 100). The situation
is somehow similar in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression. The majority of the habitations are located near the
256 ‌| József Puskás

valleys of the streams, on flood-free terraces, with good agricultural and animal keeping possibilities. The
surface of the settlements is generally between 1–2.5 ha, suggesting modest habitation, with a few houses
and probably annexes. In the case of the 1st group of settlements the visibility doesn’t play a significant
role when choosing a place for living. Very likely economical aspects were considered. Probably similar
conceptions were kept in mind in the case of the 2nd group. Furthermore, the possibility of centers placed
on terrace must be considered (like the Turia–Padláb and Leţ–Várhegy sites). This seems plausible since
they are close to other settlements, on a dominant, central place, with a good visibility on the surrounding
areas, and possibly they were fortified.
In the studied area the burials are always located on the left bank of the streams. This doesn’t mean
that we have to do with a division between the world of the living and the dead, since settlements were
discovered on the left bank of the streams too.
The function of the hilltop/fortified settlements is yet unclear. Recently L. Dietrich concluded that
similar constructions can be linked to local elite, being centers, dominating and marking territories
(Dietrich 2010, 202). A. Harding mentions “that hillforts were intimately connected with their sur-
rounding landscapes and could hardly have arisen without them, whether or not they viewed them as
the central points of territories” (Harding 2007, 152). No doubt the constructions of similar propor-
tions included a significant workforce and organization. But the placement of some of these settlements
is not central, at least viewing from the depression. They were built on the edge of the depression, often
remote, hard to see and hard to reach places. It looks like they are located near roads leading in or out
from the area. The thin and particularly poor cultural layer suggests a not too intensive habitation. Some
authors consider that these fortified settlements were refuge places (Boroffka 1994, 100), others even
trying to elucidate against whom were they built (Székely Z. 1999, 158). In our opinion these fortifi-
cations were constructions to watch the roads. This does not exclude the possibility that they were the
‘headquarters’ of local chieftains in the same time, combining the economical and defensive/controlling
functions.
The contacts with the neighboring areas are confirmed by several discoveries. The Wietenberg ceramic
fragments found in Monteoru environment, and vice versa, attest the close contacts between the two sides
of the Carpathians (Puskás 2015a, 97–129).
The distribution of metal discoveries, such as axes and jewelry confirm the direction of a north-
western communication route and contacts with the Upper Tisza region. Through this route the Târgu
Secuiesc Depression could latch in the Scandinavian and Central European intercommunication on the
one hand and to south, with the Myceanaen world on the other hand. The lack of natural resources in the
studied area, such as salt, gold, copper etc. proves that the area wasn’t important as a source of raw mate-
rial. More likely the elite gained power and wealth through controlling the routes leading across the area.
This wealth is attested by rich metal deposits and particularly dense settlement network. If this people had
direct contact with the Aegean or Scandinavian tribes is hard to say. Very likely not, being only a key-link
in a long chain of exchange.

Acknowledgements
This work was possible with the support of a Domus Hungarica grant (ID: DMSZJ2016–14), provided
by the Hungarian Academy of Science, between 6–26th February 2017. Title of the application: “Középső
és késő bronzkori fémleletek a Felsőháromszéki-medencében. Middle and Late Bronze Age metal discoveries
in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression”.
I’m grateful to Dr. V. Szabó Gábor for the useful comments and suggestions made on the structure of
the text and figures. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Nikolaus Boroffka, Dr. Radu Băjenaru for providing me
literature, to Dr. Sztáncsuj Sándor for giving access to the material from the deposit of the SzNM and for
the photos depicting some of the sites presented above, to Á. Jurás for the photo of the Zagon axe and to
E. Balla for some of the photos from Cernat.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 257

Appendix
List 1 – golden discs (Fig. 41)
(list made after Popescu 1956, 196–250; Mozsolics 1968, 1–76;
AAR 2013; Dani–Sz. Máthé 2015, 42)

1. Adoni (Bihor County, RO); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 17/4.

2. Csáford (Zala County, HU); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 27.
3. Grăniceri (Arad County, RO); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 23/2; 24.
4. Ostrovu Mare (Mehedinţi County, RO); AAR 2013, 212–213.
5. Polgár (Hajdú-Bihar County, HU); Dani–Sz. Máthé 2015, 42.
6. Săcuieni (Bihor County, RO); AAR 2013, 53.
7. Şmig (Sibiu County, RO); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 14; 15/1–10; 16/1–2, 9–10.
8. Ţufalău (Covasna County, RO); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 3/1–3, 4–15.
9. Vatin (South Banat District, RS); Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 26.
10. Vărşand (Arad County, RO); Popescu 1956, 167, fig. 123/3.

List 2 – Typ III axes (Fig. 41)

(list made after David 2002, 429–430; David 2013)

1. Moldova (RO) – stray find; David 2002, 430.

2. Moldova (RO) – stray find; David 2002, 430.
3. Moldoveneşti (Cluj County, RO) – stray find; David 2002, 430.
4. Nehoiu (Buzău County, RO) – stray find; David 2002, 430.
5. Tiszafüred (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County, HU) – grave goods; David 2002, 430.
6. Ţufalău (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; David 2002, 429–430.

List 3 – Pădureni type axes (Fig. 42)

(list made after Vulpe 1970, 44–46; Rustoiu 1995; Ştefan–Plantos 2014; Băjenaru 2013;
informations by R. Băjenaru)

1. Bratovo (Burgas District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.

2. Brătila (Bacău County, RO) – stray find; Ştefan–Plantos 2014, 347–354.
3. Câmpia Turzii (Cluj County, RO) – stray find; Rustoiu 1995, 73–82.
4. Cernat (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; unpublished.
5. Covasna (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 45.
6. Cucuteni (Iaşi County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 46.
7. Găleşti (Mureş County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
8. Guşteriţa (Sibiu County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
9. Hălchiu (Braşov County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
10. Hărman (Braşov County, RO) – hoard (?); Vulpe 1970, 44.
11. Lozen (Haskovo District, BG) – Băjenaru 2013, 152, footnote 15.
12. Malnaş (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
13. Marpod (Sibiu County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
14. Măgheruş (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
15. Menghishevo (Shumen District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.
16. Miceşti (Cluj County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 46.
17. Mitrovtsi (Montana District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.
18. Moigrad (Sălaj County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
19. Parava (Bacău County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 45.
20. Pădureni (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 44–45.
21. Pârscov (Buzău County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 46.
22. Pleven (Plevna District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.
23. Poian (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 44.
24. Racoşul de Jos (Braşov County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
258 ‌| József Puskás

25. Răcăciuni (Bacău County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
26. Roşiori de Vede (Teleorman County, RO) – information by R. Băjenaru.
27. Sânzieni (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 45.
28. Sebeş (Alba County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
29. Sfântu Gheorghe (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 44.
30. Sighişoara (Mureş County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
31. Sighişoara (Mureş County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
32. Şimleul Silvaniei (Sălaj County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 45.
33. Sinaia (Prahova County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 46.
34. Tatul (Kardzhali District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.
35. Tătaru (Prahova County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
36. Teişani (Prahova County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
37. Telish (Hristova District, BG) – Băjenaru 2013, 152, footnote 15.
38. Tomeşti (Harghita County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.
39. Turia (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Nagy 1913, 314, VIII/43.
40. Ţufalău (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Mozsolics 1949, 17–20.
41. Ugarchin (Lovech District, BG) – Băjenaru 2013, 152, footnote 15.
42. Vârghiş (Covasna County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 45.

List 4 – Pătulele type axes (Fig. 42)

(list made after Vulpe 1970, 37–39; Ailincăi 2005, 271–277; Ailincăi 2009, 49–56;
Ciugudean 1996, 124; informations by R. Băjenaru)

43. Arcuş (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 38.

44. Avrămeşti (Harghita County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
45. Belovo (Varna District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
46. Borač (Šumadija District, RS) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
47. Bucureşti (RO) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
48. Buneşti (Braşov County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
49. Byala Slatina (Vratsa District, BG) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
50. Coslogeni (Călăraşi County, RO) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
51. Emen (Veliko Târnovo District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
52. Fibiş (Timiş County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
53. Hotnitsa (Veliko Târnovo District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
54. Malcoci (Tulcea County, RO) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 49–56.
55. Mircea-Vodă (Dâmboviţa County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
56. Niculiţel (Tulcea County, RO) – stray find; Ailincăi 2005, 271–277.
57. Pazardzhik (Pazardzik District, BG) – information by R. Băjenaru.
58. Pătulele (Mehedinţi County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
59. Pianul de Jos (Alba County, RO) – stray find; Ciugudean 1996, 124.
60. Pobit kamak (Razgrad District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
61. Podari (Dolj County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
62. Raven (Kardzali District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
63. Sânzieni (Covasna County, RO) – hoard; Vulpe 1970, 38.
64. Sava (Varna District, BG) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
65. Scărişoara (Bacău County, RO) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
66. Sibiu (Sibiu County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
67. Şoimuşu (Harghita County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
68. Sokobanja (Zaječar District, RS) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
69. Thebai (Boeotia Region, GR) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 51.
70. Ugarchin (Lovech District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
71. Varbitsa II (Pleven District, BG) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 39, note 1.
72. Vidima (Lovech District, BG) – stray find; Ailincăi 2009, 50.
73. Zlatna (Alba County, RO) – stray find; Vulpe 1970, 38.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 259

References

AAR 2013 Oanţă-Mărghitu, R. (Ed.), Aurul şi Argintul Antic al României. Catalog de expoziţie,
Bucureşti.
AcadÉ 1841 Magyar Academiai Értesítő, I, 2, 72–75.
AcadÉ 1853 Magyar Academiai Értesítő, XII, 1, 254–258.
Ailincăi 2005 Ailincăi, S. C., Un topor din bronz descoperit la Niculiţel (jud. Tulcea), SCIVA, 54–56,
271–277.
Ailincăi 2009 Ailincăi, S. C., A new Bronze Age axe discovered in Northern Dobrudja, Peuce S.N.,
VII, 49–56.
Andriţoiu 1978 Andriţoiu, I., Cimitirul de incineraţie din epoca bronzului de la Deva, SCIVA, 29, 2,
241–256.
Andriţoiu 1992 Andriţoiu, I., Civilizaţia tracilor din sud-vestul Transilvaniei în epoca bronzului, BT, II,
Bucureşti.
ArchÉrt 1914 A Székely N. Múzeum 1913-iki állapotáról..., ArchÉrt, XXXIV, 2, 156–160.
Arneth 1851 Arneth, J., Archaeologische Analecten. Tafeln zu den Sitzungsberichten der Philoso-
phisch-Historischen Klasse, Wien.
Bader 1990 Bader, T., Bemerkungen über die Ägäischen Einflüsse auf die alt- und mittelbronze-
zeitliche Entwicklung im Donau-Karpatenraum, IN: Orientalisch-Ägäische Einflüsse
in der Europäischen Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums, Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum. Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Monographien, 15,
Bonn, 181–205.
Bader 1991 Bader, T., Die Schwerter in Rumänien, PBF, IV, 8, Stuttgart.
Băjenaru 2013 Băjenaru, R., Varia Metalurgica (I). Despre topoarele de la Măluşteni (jud. Vaslui) şi
Gostinu (jud. Giurgiu), SCIVA, 64, 1–2, 149–158.
Băjenaru 2014 Băjenaru, R., Sfârşitul bronzului timpuriu în regiunea dintre Carpaţi şi Dunăre, Cluj-
Napoca.
Berecki 2016 Berecki, S., The Bronze Age site from Luduş, BMM, X, Cluj-Napoca.
Bindea 2008 Bindea, D., Arheozoologia Transilvaniei în pre- şi protoistorie, Cluj-Napoca.
Bolomey 1984 Bolomey, A., Expertiza oaselor de animale din aşezarea de tip Wietenberg de la Noşlac
(jud. Alba), IN: Soroceanu, T., Materialen zur Bronze- und Hallstattzeit Siebenbürgens
(II), ActaMN, XXI, 433–458.
Bordi–Popa 2013 Bordi, Zs. L.–Popa, A., Castrul roman de la Boroşneu Mare: o sută de ani de la prima
cercetare arheologică sistematică, Acta Siculica, 261–308.
Boroffka 1994 Boroffka, N. G. O., Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit
in Südosteuropa, UPA, 19, Bonn.
Boroffka 1998 Boroffka, N., Bronze- und früheisenzeitliche Geweihtrensenknebel aus Rumänien und
ihre Beziehungen, EA, 4, 81–135.
Boroffka 2002 Boroffka, N., Observaţii asupra descoperirilor preistorice de chihlimbar din România,
Apulum, XXXIX, 145–168.
Boroffka 2005 Boroffka, N., Siedlungsmuster im bronzezeitlichen Siebenbürgen – Am Beispiel des
Gebietes um Aiud, jud. Alba, IN: Horejs, B.–Jung, R.–Kaiser, E.–Teržan, B. (Hrsg.),
Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinem Schülern gewidmet, UPA,
21, Bonn.
Boroffka 2006 Boroffka, N., Resursele minerale din România şi stadiul actual al cercetărilor privind
mineritul preistoric, Apulum, XLIII, 1, 71–94.
Cârciumaru 1996 Cârciumaru, M., Paleoetnobotanica, Iaşi.
Cavruc 2000 Cavruc, V., Noi cercetări în aşezarea Păuleni (1999–2000). Raport preliminar. Prezen-
tare generală, Angustia, 5, 93–102.
Cavruc 2005a Cavruc, V., The Ciomortan group in the light of new researches, Marmatia, 8/1, 81–123.
Cavruc 2005b Cavruc, V., Some Eneolithic and Bronze Age funeral evidence on the salt exchange
routs in southeast Transylvania, IN: Mousaios, X. International Colloquium of Funer-
ary Archaeology. Abstracts. The tombs and the subsoil resources in the Eastern and
southeastern Europe (2nd millennium B.C. 1st millennium A.D.), Buzău, 325–351.
Cavruc–Buzea 2002 Cavruc, V.–Buzea, D., Noi cercetări privind epoca bronzului în aşezarea Păuleni (Cio-
mortan). Campaniile din anul 2001–2002. Raport preliminar, Angustia, 7, 41–88.
260 ‌| József Puskás

Cavruc–Rotea 2000 Cavruc, V.–Rotea, M., Locuirea Wietenberg de la Păuleni (campaniile 1999–2000),
Angustia, 5, 155–172.
Chidioşan 1980 Chidioşan, N., Contribuţi la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul României. Aşezarea Wieten-
berg de la Derşida, Oradea.
Ciugudean 1996 Ciugudean, H., Epoca timpurie a bronzului în centrul şi sud-vestul Transilvaniei, BT,
XIII, Bucureşti.
Ciută 2012 Ciută, B., Plant species within the diet of Prehistoric communities from Transylvania,
Cluj-Napoca.
Crişan–Dănilă 1960 Crişan, I. H.–Dănilă, Ş., Cimitirul de incineraţie din epoca bronzului de la Bistriţa,
MCA, VII, 145–150.
Dani–Sz. Máthé 2015 Dani, J.–Sz. Máthé, M., Nagy, rendezett temetők, IN: Hága T.  K.–Laczi O.–Dani J.
(eds.), A Csillagos Ég Lakói. Fejezetek a temetkezés és halotti a kultusz történetéből
Hajdú-Bihar megye területéről. Kiállítási katalógus, Debrecen, 38–42.
David 2002 David, W., Studien zur Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfund-
gruppe Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta, BMA, XVIII, Alba Iulia.
David 2013 David, W., Eine mit Spiralhakenranken verzierte altbronzezeitliche Nackenkammaxt
siebenbürgischen Typs aus Südwestböhmen. Wo wurden die Schaftlochäxte vom Typ
Apa-Nehoiu hergestellt?, IN: Rezi, B.–Németh, E.  R.–Berecki, S.  (eds.), Bronze Age
Crafts and Craftsman in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Collo-
quium from Târgu Mureş, 5–7 October 2012, BMM, VI, Târgu Mureş, 91–138.
Dietrich 2010 Dietrich, L., Eliten der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit im südöstlichen Karpaten-
becken, PZ, 85, 191–206.
Dietrich 2014 Dietrich, L., Die mittlere und späte Bronzezeit und die ältere Eisenzeit in Südostsieben-
bürgen aufgrund der Siedlung von Rotbav, UPA, 248, Bonn.
Dietrich–Dietrich 2011 Dietrich, L.–Dietrich, O., Wietenberg ohne Mykene? Gedanken zu Herkunft und
Bedeutung der Keramikverzierung der Wietenberg-Kultur, PZ, 86, 67–84.
Fischl et al. 2013 P. Fischl, K.–Kiss, V.–Kulcsár, G.–Szeverényi, V., Transformations in the Carpathian
Basin around 1600 B. C., IN: Meller, H.–Bertemes, F.–Bork, H. R.–Risch, R. (Hrsg.),
1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruch? 4. Mitteldeutscher
Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). 1600 – Cultural change
in the shadow of the Thera-Eruption? 4th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany
October 14–16, 2011 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgschichte
Halle, 9, Halle, 355–371.
Fischl–Kiss 2015 Fischl, K.–Kiss, V., Exchange Networks in the Middle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin:
The Movement of Visible and Invisble Commodities, IN: Suchowska-Ducke, P.–Scott
Reiter, S.–Vandkilde, H. (eds.), Forging Identities. The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age
Europe, Volume 2, BAR, 2772, Moesgaard, 47–54.
Florescu 1991 Florescu, A. C., Repertoriul culturii Noua-Coslogeni din România. Aşezări şi necropole.
Répértoire de la culture Noua-Coslogeni en Roumanie. Établissements et Nécrpoles, Cul-
tură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos, IX, Călăraşi.
Garašanin 1954 Garašanin, D., Katalog der Vorgeschitlichen Metalle, Beograd.
Gimbutas 1965 Gimbutas, M., Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Paris–London.
Gooss 1876 Gooss, C., Chronik der Archäologischen Funden Siebenbürgens, Braşov.
Haimovici 2003 Haimovici, S., Resturile animaliere şi umane dintr-o groapă de cult (Groapa 4) a cul-
turii Wietenberg de la Oarţa de Sus–Ghiile Botii, Marmatia, 7/1, 57–64.
Hampel 1880 Hampel, J., Magyarhoni régészeti leletek repertoriuma, ArchKözl, XIII, 2, 33–75.
Hampel 1886 Hampel, J., Trouvailles de l’Âge du Bronze en Hongrie, Budapest.
Hampel 1892 Hampel, J., A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban, II, Budapest.
Hänsel 1968 Hänsel, B., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, IN:
Milojčić, V. (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittel-
meer-Kulturraumes, 7, Bonn.
Harding 1984 Harding, A. F., The Mycenaeans and Europe, London.
Harding 2007 Harding, A., Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age Europe, Archaeolingua, Series
Minor, 25, Budapest.
Hartmann 1968 Hartmann, A., Über die spektralanalytische Untersuchung einiger bronzezeitlicher
Goldfunde aus dem Donauraum, BerRGK, 46–47, 63–73.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 261

Hartmann 1970 Hartmann, A., Prähistorische Goldfunde aus Europa. Spektralanalytische Untersu-
chungen und deren Auswertung, IN: Bittel, K.–Junghans, S.–Otto, H.–Sangmeister,
E.–Schröder, M. (Hrsg.), Studien zu der Anfängen der Metallurgie, 3, Berlin.
Horedt 1951 Horedt, K., Ceramica slavă din Transilvania, SCIV, 2, 2, 189–218.
Horedt 1960 Horedt, K., Die Wietenbergkultur, Dacia N.S., VI, 107–137.
Jarvis et al. 2008 Jarvis, A.–Reuter, H. I.–Nelson, A.–Guevara, E., Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version
4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90 m Database.
JSzNM 1912 Jelentés a Székely Nemzeti Múzeum 1910. és 1911. évi állapotáról, Sfântu Gheorghe.
JSzNM 1914 A Székely Nemzeti Múzeum igazgató-választmányának jelentése a Múzeumok és Könyv-
tárak Országos Országos Főfelügyelőségéhez a Múzeum 1913. évi fejlődéséről és állapo-
táról, Sfântu Gheorghe.
JSzNM 1915 A Székely Nemzeti Múzeum igazgató-választmányának jelentése a Múzeumok és Könyv-
tárak Országos Országos Főfelügyelőségéhez a Múzeum 1914. évi fejlődéséről és állapotá-
ról, Sfântu Gheorghe.
Kacsó 1987 Kacsó, C., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Verbreitungsgebietes und der Chronologie der
Suciu de Sus-Kultur, Dacia N.S., XXXI, 1–2, 51–75.
Kacsó 2004 Kacsó, C., Mărturii arheologice, “Colecţii Muzeale”, I, Baia Mare.
Kacsó 2011 Kacsó, C., Repertoriul Arheologic al judeţului Maramureş I–II, BM, 3, Baia Mare.
Kacsó 2013 Kacsó, C., Câteva observaţii cu privire la o monografie a culturii Wietenberg, IN:
Niculică, B. P.–Boghian, D. (eds.), Semper fidelis. In honorem magistri Mircea Ignat,
Suceava, 125–140.
Kacsó 2015 Kacsó, C., Topoarele cu disc şi spin de la Oarţa de Sus şi Odeşti (jud. Maramureş),
IN: Spinei, V.–Ursulescu, N.–Cotiugă, V.  (Ed.), Orbis Praehistriae. Mircea Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa – in memoriam, Honoraria, 11, Iaşi, 543–558.
Kantner–Hobgood 2016 Kantner, J.–Hobgood, R., A GIS-based viewshed analysis of Chacoan tower kivas in
the US Southwest: were they for seeing or to be seen?, Antiquity, 90, 353, 1302–1317.
Karo 1930 Karo, G., Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai, München.
Kemenczei 2003 Kemenczei, T., A bronzkori fémművesség, IN: Visy, Zs. (Ed.), Magyar régészet az ezred-
fordulón, Budapest, 167–174.
Kisgyörgy 2000 Kisgyörgy, Z., Kovászna megye útikönyv, Miercurea Ciuc.
Kisgyörgy 2008 Kisgyörgy, Z., Háromszéki vártúra-kalauz, Baraolt.
Kovács 1977 Kovács, T., A bronzkor Magyarországon, Budapest.
László 1911 László, F., Háromszék vármegyei praemykenaei jellegű telepek. Stations de l’époque
pré-mycénienne dans le comitat de Háromszék, Dolgozatok-Travaux, II, 175–259.
Leahu 1992 Leahu, D., Tezaurul de aur din epoca bronzului descoperit pe teritoriul judeţului
Argeş, CA, IX, 111–113.
Macrea et al. 1951 Macrea, M.–Buzdugan, I.–Ferenczi, G.–Horedt, K.–Popescu, I.–Russu, I.  I.–Székely,
Z.–Vasiu, N.–Winkler, I., Despre rezultatele cercetărilor intreprinse de şantierul
archeologic Sft. Gheorghe-Breţcu, 1950, SCIV, II, 1, 285–311.
Makarowicz 2009 Makarowicz, P., Baltic-Pontic Interregional Routes at the start of the Bronze Age,
Baltic-Pontic Studies, 14, 301–336.
Méder 2004 Méder, L. L., Ceramica culturii Coţofeni din valea Oltului Superior şi a Râului Negru,
BCȘS, 10, 35–51.
Méder 2006 Méder, L. L., Hallstattische-keramik aus Poian–Kőhát, Marisia, XXVIII, 43–59.
Metzner-Nebelsick 2013 Metzner-Nebelsick, C., Gedanken zur Frage des kulturellen Wandels in der Zeit um
1600 v. Chr. in Nordwest-Rumänien und Nordost-Ungarn, IN: Meller, H.–Bertemes,
F.–Bork, H. R.–Risch, R. (Hrsg.), 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-
Ausbruch? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle
(Saale). 1600 – Cultural change in the shadow of the Thera-Eruption? 4th Archaeological
Conference of Central Germany October 14–16, 2011 in Halle (Saale), Tagungen des
Landesmuseums für Vorgschichte Halle, 9, Halle, 327–353.
Mihalik 1914 Mihalik, J., A Múzeumok és Könyvtárak Orsz. Főfelügyelősége hatáskörébe tartozó
közgyűjtemények fejlődése az 1913. évben, MúzKönyvÉrt, VIII, 2, 113–237.
Motzoi-Chicideanu 2011 Motzoi-Chicideanu, I., Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi
Inferioară, Bucureşti.
Mozsolics 1949 Mozsolics, A., A cófalvi (Tufalău) aranylelet, AntHung, 3, 14–29.
262 ‌| József Puskás

Mozsolics 1959 Mozsolics, A., Der Goldfund von Kengyel, ActaArchHung, IX, 253–263.
Mozsolics 1967 Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson
und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest.
Mozsolics 1968 Mozsolics, A., Goldfunde des Depotfundhorizontes Hajdúsámson, BerRGK, 45–47,
1–76.
Mozsolics 1973 Mozsolics, A., Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von
Forró und Ópályi, Budapest.
Munteanu 2010a Munteanu, R., Reconsiderarea unei descoperiri funerare: mormântul de la Poian, jud.
Covasna, Angustia, 14, 271–276.
Munteanu 2010b Munteanu, R., Începutul bronzului mijlociu în depresiunile marginale ale Carpaţilor
Orientali, BMA, XXIV, Piatra Neamţ.
Murgeanu 1970 Murgeanu, G. (Ed.), Harta Geologică. 29. Covasna, Bucureşti.
Mutihac–Ionesi 1974 Mutihac, V.–Ionesi, L., Geologia României, Bucureşti.
Nagy 1882 Nagy, G., Jelentés a Kézdi-Vásárhelyen f. évi ápril 13. és 14-én tett ásatásokról, Nemere,
40, 158.
Nagy 1913 Nagy, G., Skytha leletek, ArchÉrt, XXXIII, 4, 295–318.
Neigebaur 1851 Neigebaur, J. F., Dacien. Aus den Ueberresten des klassischen Alterthums, mit besinderen
Rücksicht auf Siebenbürgen, Braşov.
Németi–Molnár 2012 Németi, J.–Molnár, Zs., Bronzkori hatalmi központok északnyugat-Erdélyben: a
Nagykároly–Bobáld-tell. Bronzezeitliche Machtzentren in Nordwest-Siebenbürgen: der
Tell von Carei–Bobáld, MonSZTRT, 1, Szeged.
Nestor 1957 Nestor, I., Raport despre sondajele de la Leţ–Várhegy (Reg. Autonomă Maghiară, r. Sf.
Gheorghe), MCA, III, 59–63.
Neumann 2010 Neumann, D., Depositions of the Bronze Age–Perception and Cultural Practice in
Prehistoric Landscapes, IN: Müller, J. (Ed.), Landscapes and Human Development:
The Contribution of European Archaeology. Proceedings of the International Workshop
“Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes
(1st–4th April 2009)”, UPA, 191, Bonn, 237–248.
OBLK 1846 Oesterreichische Blätter für Literatur und Kunst, III, 19, Wien, 148.
Orbán 1869 Orbán, B., A Székelyföld leírása történelmi, régészeti, természetrajzi és népismei szem-
pontból. III. Kötet. Háromszék, Pest.
Palincaş 2014 Palincaş, N., Body and Social order in Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (Central
Romania, c. 1900–1450 BC), EJA, 17, 2, 301–328.
Panait–Tanţău 2012 Panait, A.-M.–Tanţău, I., Late Holocene vegetation history in Harghita Mountains
(Romania), Georeview, 21, 92–99.
Pârvan 1926 Pârvan, V., Getica. O protoistorie a Daciei, Bucureşti.
Pernicka et al. 2016 Pernicka, E.–Nessel, B.–Mehofer, M.–Safta, E., Lead Isotope Analyses of Metal Objects
from the Apa Hoard and Other Early and Middle Bronze Age Items from Romania,
ArchAustr, 100, 57–86.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977 Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M., Depozitele de bronzuri din România, Bucureşti.
Popa 2005 Popa, C. I., Modificări culturale la finalul bronzului timpuriu şi începutul bronzului
mijlociu în Transilvania, IN: Popa, C. I.– Rustoiu, G. T. (eds.), Omagiu profesorului
Ioan Andriţoiu cu prilejiul împlinirii a 65 de ani. Studii şi Cercetări Arheologice, Alba
Iulia, 51–183.
Popescu 1956 Popescu, D., IV.  Prelucrarea aurului în Transilvania înainte de cucerirea romană,
MCA, II, 196–250.
Puskás 2012 Puskás, J., Adatok Kovászna megye régészeti repertóriumához (II.), CsSzMÉ, VIII,
115–150.
Puskás 2013 Puskás, J., Adatok Kovászna megye régészeti repertóriumához I., Acta Siculica 2012–
2013 (2013), 155–206.
Puskás 2015 Puskás, J., New Prehistoric discoveries from Albiş/Kézdialbis (Covasna County),
Marisia, XXXIV–XXXV, 2014–2015 (2015), 7–16.
Puskás 2015a Puskás, J., Contact Zone: Middle Bronze Age Cultural Connections in the Valley of the
Black River (Covasna County, Romania), IN: Németh, R.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age
Chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from
Târgu Mureş. 2–4 October 2014, BMM, VIII, Târgu Mureş, 97–129.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 263

Puskás 2015b Puskás, J., Contribuţii la repertoriul archeologic al judeţului Covasna III, MCA S.N.,
XI, 257–290.
Puskás 2016 Puskás, J., Descoperiri funerare din epoca mijlocie a bronzului în valea Râului Negru
(jud. Covasna), MCA S.N., XII, 89–103.
Rep-Covasna 1998 Cavruc, V. (Ed.), Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Covasna, Seria Monografii Arheo-
logice, I, Sfântu Gheorghe.
Roska 1942 Roska, M., Erdély régészeti repertóriuma I. Őskor. Archäologisches Repertorium von Sie-
benbürgen I. Urzeit, Thesaurus, Tom I. Praehistorica, Kolozsvár (Cluj), 1942.
Roska 1944 Roska, M., A Kolozskoprád II.  jellegű kultúrfacies kerámiai emlékei Erdélyben,
Közlemények, IV, 1–2, 22–42.
Rotea 1993 Rotea, M., Aşezările culturii Wietenberg, EphemNap, III, 25–41.
Rotea et al. 2008 Rotea, M.–Tecar, M.–Nagy, Sz.–Pupeză, P.–Tecar, T.–Săsăran, L., Floreşti–Polus
Center. Preliminary observations, ActaMN, 43–44/1, 47–88.
Rustoiu 1995 Rustoiu, G., Un topor de bronz de la Câmpia Turzii, BCŞS, 1, 73–82.
Schmidt 1904 Schmidt, H., 2. Troja – Mykene – Ungarn. Archäologische Parallelen, ZfE, XXXVI,
608–656.
Schroller 1933 Schroller, H., Die Stein- und Kupferzeit Siebenbürgens, VF, 8, Berlin.
Sîrbu et al. 1999 Sîrbu, V.–Crişan, V.–Buzea, D., 42. Covasna, jud. Covasna. Punct: Cetatea Zânelor,
CCA. Campania 1999, Bucureşti, 31.
Sîrbu–Crişan 1999 Sîrbu, V.–Crişan, V., Cetatea dacică „Valea Zânelor”–Covasna, Angustia, 4, 71–81.
Soroceanu 1995 Soroceanu, T., Die Fundumständen bronzezeitlicher Deponierungen – Ein Beitrag zur
Hortdeutung beiderseits der Karpaten, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Bearb. u. Red.), Bronzefunde
aus Rumänien, PAS, 10, Berlin, 15–80.
Soroceanu 2012a Soroceanu, T., Die Kupfer- und Bronzedepots der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit in
Rumänien. Depozitele de obiecte din cupru şi bronz din România. Epoca timpurie şi
mijlocie a bronzului, ArchRom, V, Cluj-Napoca–Bistriţa.
Soroceanu 2012b Soroceanu, T., Die Fundplätze bronzezeitlicher Horte im heutigen Rumänien, IN:
Hansen, S.–Neumann, D.–Vachta, T. (Hrsg.), Hort und Raum. Aktuelle Forschungen
zu bronzezeitlichen Deponierungen in Mitteleuropa, Berlin, 227–254.
Soroceanu et al. 1976 Soroceanu, T.–Blăjan, M.–Cerghi, T., Cimitirul de incineraţie de la Aiton, FI, IV, 57–82.
Ştefan et al. 2010 Ştefan, D.–Ştefan, M.  M.–Constantin, C., Studiul geomagnetic al fortificaţiilor din
epoca bronzului de la Păuleni Ciuc – Ciomortan “Dâmbul Cetăţii”, jud. Harghita,
Angustia, 14, 427–436.
Ştefan et al. 2015a Ştefan, M.– Ştefan, D.–Buzea, D. L., From sites to landscapes in Late Second Iron Age
Eastern Transylvania. New perspectives on the fortified sites from Jigodin, EphemNap,
XXV, 21–42.
Ştefan et al. 2015b Ştefan, M.– Ştefan, D.–Buzea, D. L., Studii de arheologie aeriană în siturile dacice din
sud-estul Transilvaniei, Angustia, 19, 133–162.
Ştefan–Plantos 2014 Ştefan, C.  E.–Plantos, C., Un topor de tip Pădureni de la Brătila–Lacul Belci, jud.
Bacău, SCIVA, 65, 3–4, 347–354.
V. Szabó 2009 V. Szabó, G., Kincsek a föld alatt. Elrejtett bronzkori fémek nyomában, IN: Anders, A.–
Szabó, M.–Raczky, P. (eds.), Régészeti dimenziók. Tanulmányok az ELTE BTK Régészet-
tudományi Intézetének tudományos műhelyéből, Budapest, 123–138.
V. Szabó 2011 V.  Szabó, G., Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzehortfunde im Siedlungkontext – Neue For-
schungsergebnisse aus Ostungarn, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, R.  E.–Rezi, B.  (eds.),
Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International
Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, BMM, IV, Târgu Mureş, 335–356.
V. Szabó 2015 V. Szabó, G., Bronzkor: az őskori fémművesség virágkora, IN: Vágó, Á. (Ed.), A Kár-
pát-medence ősi kincsei. A kőkortól a Honfoglalásig, Budapest, 104–183.
V. Szabó 2016 V.  Szabó, G., Hortfunde und Siedlungen. Neue Fakten zum Kontext der spät-
bronzezeitlichen Deponierungen im Ungarn, IN: Hansen, S.–Neumann, D.–Vachta,
T. (Hrsg.), Raum, Gabe und Erinnerung. Weihgaben und Heiligtümer in prähistorischen
und antiken Gesellschaften, Berlin Studies of the Ancient World, 38, Berlin, 165–209.
V. Szabó–Dénes 1999 V.  Szabó, G.–Dénes, I., A délkelet-erdélyi Vargyas-patak szorosának 1200/9. számú
barlangjában talált kora bronzkori depólelet, Acta 1998/1, 123–138.
264 ‌| József Puskás

Székely Z. 1959a Székely, Z., Raport preliminar asupra sondajelor executate de Muzeul Regional din Sf.
Gheorghe în anul 1956, MCA, V, 231–245.
Székely Z. 1959b Székely, Z., Cercetări arheologice efectuate în Regiunea Autonomă Maghiară, MCA,
VI, 187–201.
Székely Z. 1960 Székely, Z., Săpăturile executate de Muzeul Regional din Sf. Gheorghe (Reg. Autonomă
Maghiară), MCA, VII, 179–190.
Székely Z. 1962 Székely, Z., Sondajele executate de Muzeul Regional din Sf. Gheorghe, MCA, VIII,
325–340.
Székely Z. 1965 Székely, Z., Contribuţii la dezvoltarea culturii Noua în sud-estul Transilvaniei, StCom
Sibiu, 12, 21–34.
Székely Z. 1966 Székely, Z., Aşezări din prima vîrstă a fierului în sud-estul Transilvaniei, Braşov.
Székely Z. 1968 Székely, Z., Contribuţii la începutul epocii bronzului în sud-estul Transilvaniei, SCIV,
19, 3, 423–428.
Székely Z. 1970a Székely, Z., Săpăturile executate de Muzeul din Sf. Gheorghe (1959–1966), MCA, IX,
297–315.
Székely Z. 1970b Székely, Z., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea prelucrării metalelor la începutul epocii bronzu-
lui în sud-estul Transilvaniei, SCIV, 21, 2, 201–208.
Székely Z. 1970c Székely, Z., Cultura Ciomortan, Aluta, II, 71–75.
Székely Z. 1971 Székely, Z., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea epocii bronzului în sud-estul Transilvaniei,
SCIV, 22, 3, 387–400.
Székely Z. 1977 Székely, Z., Cultura mormintelor tumulare în sud-estul Transilvanie, SCIVA, 28, 1,
125–127.
Székely Z. 1978a Székely, Z., Contribuţii privind epoca bronzului în sud-estul Transilvaniei, Aluta,
VIII–IX (1976–1977), 25–36.
Székely Z. 1978b Székely, Z., Butonul de os de la Târgu Secuiesc (jud. Covasna), SCIVA, 29, 2, 289–290.
Székely Z. 1980 Székely, Z., Cetatea dacică din valea Caşinului, Cumidava, XII/1, 1979–1980 (1980),
23–34.
Székely Z. 1981 Székely, Z., Cetăţi din epoca bronzului în judeţul Covasna, Aluta. Studii şi Comunicări,
21–30.
Székely Z. 1988 Székely, Z., Consideraţii privind dezvoltarea culturii Wietenberg în sud-estul Transil-
vaniei, Aluta, XVII–XVIII, 1985–1986 (1988), 153–188.
Székely Z. 1990 Székely, Z., Ritual magico-religios în aşezarea culturii Coţofeni la Turia (jud. Cov-
asna), SympThrac, 8, Satu Mare, 95–96.
Székely Z. 1994 Székely, Z., Noi descoperiri dacice de la Turia (jud. Covasna), Cumidava, XV–XIX,
1990–1994 (1994), 13–17.
Székely Z. 1999 Székely, Z., Egy ismeretlen bronzkori erődítmény Kovászna megyéből, Acta 1998,
157–160.
Székely Z. et al. 1951 Székely, Z.–Chirilă, E.–Daicoviciu, C.–Kiss, S.–Protase, D.–Russu, I., I. Săpăturile din
anul 1949 la Leţ–Varheghiu (Trei-Scaune), MCA, 3–20.
Székely Zs. 1983 Székely, Zs., Rezultatul ultimelor cercetări din judeţul Covasna, în aşezări din epoca
bronzului şi prima vîrstă a fierului, MCA, XV, 143–148.
Székely Zs. 1988 Székely, Zs., Aşezarea din epoca bronzului (cultura Wietenberg) de la Cernat (jud.
Covasna), SympThrac, 6, Piatra Neamţ, 46.
Székely Zs. 1989 Székely, Zs., Contribuţii privind riturile funerare din epoca bronzului în sud-estul
Transilvaniei, SympThrac, 7, Tulcea, 246.
Székely Zs. 1990 Székely, Zs., O figurină de lut din cultura Wietenberg de la Turia – judeţul Covasna,
SympThrac, 8, Satu Mare–Carei, 111–113.
Székely Zs. 1995 Székely, Zs., Necropola de incineraţie de la Turia, judeţul Covasna, IN: Cercetări arheo-
logice în aria nord-tracă, I, Bucureşti, 127–146.
Székely Zs. 1996 Székely, Zs., Egy bronzkori lakóház Torjáról, Acta 1995, 115–118.
Székely Zs. 1997 Székely, Zs., Perioada timpurie şi începutul celei mijlocii a epocii bronzului în sud-estul
Transilvaniei, BT, XXI, Bucureşti.
Székely Zs. 1998 Székely, Zs., Unele probleme ale epocii bronzului târziu în sud-estul Transilvaniei,
Acta 1997, 1, 173–178.
Székely Zs. 2001a Székely, Zs., 14. Albiş, com. Cernat, jud. Covasna, Punct: Grădina Csiszér (Csiszér
kert), CCA. Campania 2001, Bucureşti, 38–39.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 265

Székely Zs. 2001b Székely, Zs., Some aspects of the Late Bronze Age in southeastern Transylvania, IN:
Kacsó, C. (Hrsg.), Der Nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare,
7.–10. Oktober 1998, Baia Mare, 175–189.
Székely Zs. 2003a Székely, Zs., New aspects of Wietenberg culture from southeastern Transylvania. The
open settlement from Albiş (Cernat com., Covasna District), IN: Kacsó, C. (Hrsg.),
Bronzezeitliche Kulturscheinungen im Karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den
benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburtstag,
Baia Mare, 10.–13. Oktober 2001, Baia Mare, 469–482.
Székely Zs. 2003b Székely, Zs., Descoperiri privind epoca bronzului şi perioada romană la Cetatea Turia
şi la Pasul Oituzului, Mousaios, VIII, 75–85.
Székely Zs. 2004 Székely, Zs., Nr. 20, Albiş, com. Cernat, jud. Covasna. Punct: Curtea lui Bajka Ferenc,
CCA. Campania 2003. http://cimec.ro/Arheologie/cronicaCA2004/cd/index.htm
Székely Zs. 2007 Székely, Zs., Csernáton község régészeti monográfiája, Miercurea Ciuc.
Székely Zs. 2014 Székely, Zs., Kovászna régészeti múltja, Miercurea Ciuc.
Székely Zs. et al. 1999 Székely, Zs.–Bartók, B.–Bordi, Zs. L., Aşezarea culturii Wietenberg de la Albiş, com.
Cernat (jud. Covasna), Acta 1998/1, 161–170.
Székely Zs.–Bordi 2000a Székely, Zs.–Bordi, Zs. L., 11. Albiş, com. Cernat, jud. Covasna, Punct: Grădina
Csiszér (Csiszér kert), CCA.  Campania 1999. http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/new-
cronica2000/indici/cronica.htm
Székely Zs.–Bordi 2000b Székely, Zs.–Bordi, Zs. L., Noi periegheze arheologice la Albiş (Cernat, j. Covasna)
campania 1999, Acta 1999/1, 131–144.
SzNMÉ 1890 A Székely Nemzeti Múzeum Értesítője, I, Sfântu Gheorghe.
Sztáncsuj 2010 Sztáncsuj, S., Raport de cercetare arheologică preventive. Boroşneu Mic–Borzvára
(Cetatea Bursucului) (com. Boroşneu Mare, jud. Covasna), Sfântu Gheorghe, ms.
Sztáncsuj 2015 Sztáncsuj, S., Grupul cultural Ariuşd pe teritoriul Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca.
Tanţău et al. 2014 Tanţău, I.–Feurdean, A.–de Beaulieu, J.-L.–Reille, M.–Fărcaş, S., Vegetation sensitivity
to climate changes and human impact in the Harghita Mountains (Eastern Romanian
Carpathians) over the past 15000 years, JQS, 29, 2, 141–152.
Ţârlea–Popescu 2013 Ţârlea, A.–Popescu, A.-D., Aurul şi argintul în epoca bronzului şi prima epocă a
fierului, IN: Oanţă-Mărghitu, R. (Ed.), Aurul şi Argintul Antic al României. Catalog de
expoziţie, Bucureşti, 48–63.
Téglás 1887 Téglás, G., Az erdélyi medencze őstörténelméhez. V. Oltvidék N.-Szeben környékéig,
OTTÉ, XII/2, 181–204.
Vulpe 1970 Vulpe, Al., Die Äxte und Beile in Rumäniein, PBF, IX, 2, München.
Xántus–Xántus 2009 Xántus L.–Xántus J., Háromszéki Havasok, Erdély Hegyei, 32, Miercurea Ciuc.
Zaharia 1959 Zaharia, E., Die Lockenringe von Sărata-Monteoru und Ihre Typologischen und
Chronologischen Beziehungen, Dacia N.S., III, 103–184.
Zaharia 1990 Zaharia, E., Descoperiri ale culturii Monteoru în sud-estul Transilvaniei, Thraco-Dacica,
XI, 1–2, 33–37.
Zoltai 1915 Zoltai L., Debreczen szab. kir. város muzeuma, ArchÉrt, XXXV, 115–134.
Черных 1978 Черных, Е. Н., Горное дело и металлургия в древнейшей Болгарии, София.

List of figures

Fig. 1. Examples of marshy areas in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression: satellite images of former riverbeds (top left
Ţufalău, top right Lunga; source: ArcGIS Romania) and photos of swampy areas (middle: Săsăuşi, bottom:
Lunga). Pictures taken at the end of February 2017.
Fig. 2. Distribution area of different metal ores, respectively salt and amber in Romania. The square represents the
studied area (map after Boroffka 2006, 88, fig. 1).
Fig. 3. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Albiş.
Fig. 4. Location of the Cernat–Robert’s land and Cernat–Captain I settlements (left) and viewshed analysis of the
Cernat–Robert’s land and Cernat–Molnár 2 II settlements (right).
Fig. 5. Location of the Cernat–Damokos manor and Cernat–Molnár 2 II (left) and viewshed analysis of the Cernat–
Damokos manor and Cernat–Captain I settlements (right). View on the Cernat–Damokos manor settlement
from southwest (bottom).
266 ‌| József Puskás

Fig. 6. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Imeni.
Fig. 7. Orthophoto of the Leţ–Várhegy settlement (after Sztáncsuj 2015, 111, fig. 44; photo by M. Szabó).
Fig. 8. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Reci–Telek,
Boroşneu Mare–Roman fort and Leţ–Várhegy.
Fig. 9. Location (up left) and viewshed analysis (up right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Lunga–
Outside the ditch and Săsăuşi–III. Közép. View of the Săsăuşi–III. Közép site from northwest (bottom).
Fig. 10. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Poian–Kőhát and
Mărtănuş–Tanorok.
Fig. 11. The site seen from southwest (top) and view on the surroundings from the site (bottom) of the Middle
Bronze Age settlements from Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja.
Fig. 12. Location of the Middle Bronze Age sites from Sânzieni (right). The Sânzieni–Küszürűkő site seen from east
(left, photo by F. Nagy).
Fig. 13. Viewshed analysis of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Sânzieni.
Fig. 14. Location (top left) and viewshed analysis (top right) of the Middle Bronze Age settlements from Târgu
Secuiesc. The site from Târgu Secuiesc–Sinka (bottom).
Fig. 15. Location of Middle Bronze Age setlements from Turia (top left) and viewshed analysis of the Turia–Apor
manor and Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós settlements (top right). View of the Turia–Vármegye-Mogyorós set-
tlement from southwest (bottom).
Fig. 16. The enclosures of the Turia–Padláb site (top). The ditches seen in enhanced colour made in Photoshop (bot-
tom).
Fig. 17. Viewshed of the Turia–Padláb and Turia–Hill of the church settlements (top left). Orthophoto of the Turia–
Padláb site (top right) and view from the same site with the visible settlements and burials (bottom).
Fig. 18. View towards west from the Turia–Hill of the church settlement.
Fig. 19. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Valea Seacă–Terrace of the Várpatak stream plain settle-
ment and Valea Seacă–Cece fortress hilltop settlement.
Fig. 20. Location (top left) and viewshed (bottom left) of the Cernat–Csonka/Ika fortress. View to southeast from the
site (top right) and the hill seen from southwest (bottom right – photo by E. Balla).
Fig. 21. View on the surrounding valley from the Covasna–Fairy fortress (photo: Google Earth).
Fig. 22. Location (left) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Covasna–Salt mountain fortress and Covasna–Fairy
fortress.
Fig. 23. Location (left, photo: Google Earth) and visibility analysis (right) of the Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress.
Fig. 24. Satellite image (left, photo: ArcGIS Romania) and viewshed analysis (right) of the Turia–Torja fortress.
Fig. 25. The location of the fortress seen from the entrance of the Turia Pass from Turia (top). Details from the forti-
fied settlement: details of the rampart (middle bottom) and the ditch (right bottom).
Fig. 26. Satellite image of the Valea Mică–Badger fortress (photo: Google Earth).
Fig. 27. The Valea Mică–Badger fortress seen from north (left; photo by S. Sztáncsuj) and visibility analysis of the site
(right).
Fig. 28. Probable location of the Valea Scurtă–Jewish fortress (right) and the visibility analysis of the site (right).
Fig. 29. Axes from Covasna–Vajna garden (after Soroceanu 2012a, 230, Taf. 10/4–6; scale only for the third object).
Fig. 30. The finding place (left) and composition of the Pădureni–Forró garden hoard.
Fig. 31. View of the site from east (top, left bottom) and from the garden (right).
Fig. 32. The golden hair ring from Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja (1. drawing after the excavation journal made by
F. László; 2. after Roska 1942, 77, 93, kép/3).
Fig. 33. 1. The axe from Poian, 2. Turia, 3. Zagon (1–2 after Nagy 1913, 314, VIII/42–43; 3. photo made by Á. Jurás,
Déri Museum, Debrecen; scale only for the 3rd object).
Fig. 34. The composition of the Ţufalău hoard after Mozsolics 1968, Taf. 2– 3, 17/1–2 (present figure after Metzner-
Nebelsick 2013, 331, Abb. 3).
Fig. 35. The possible locations of the Ţufalău hoard (base map after the 2nd military survey 1853–1870).
Fig. 36. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 1 (Cernat–Captain I).
Fig. 37. Situation of Middle Bronze Age settlements and burials from Turia.
Fig. 38. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 2 (Sânzieni–Urakszerelábja).
Fig. 39. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 3 (Poian–Kőhát).
Fig. 40. Example for the placement of settlements belonging to Group 4 (Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress).
Fig. 41. Distribution of Middle Bronze Age golden discs and Typ III axes in the Carpathian Basin and the neigh-
bouring areas (see List 1–2).
Fig. 42. Distribution of the Pădureni and Pătulele type axes (see List 3–4).
Fig. 43. Possible Middle Bronze Age routes in the valley of the Black River.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 267

List of plates

Pl. 1. 1. The location of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression within Romania; 2. the Middle Bronze Age discoveries
within the basin.
Pl. 2. 1. Mountain roads and paths in the 18th century in the area of the Cernat–Csonka fortress; 2. Lutoasa–
Csuklyán fortress (after the First Military Survey of the Habsburg Empire).
Pl. 3. 1. Mountain roads and paths in the 18th century in the area of the Turia–Torja fortress; 2. Valea Seacă–Cece
fortress and Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress (after the First Military Survey of the Habsburg Empire).
Pl. 4. 1. Profile of the trench of the Valea Seacă–Terrace of the Várpatak stream settlement; 2. the Valea Seacă–Cece
fortress.
Pl. 5. Stratigraphy of the Cernat–Robert’s land site.
Pl. 6. 1. Stratigraphy of the Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress; 2. Stratigraphy of the Turia–Padláb settlements.
Pl. 7. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–11. S.I/1986).
Pl. 8. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–6. S.I/1986).
Pl. 9. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–10. S.I–IV/1986–87).
Pl. 10. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–3. S.II/1987; 4–9. S.I/1988).
Pl. 11. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–10. S.II/1988).

List of tabels

Tabel 1. Estimated extension and periodization of Wietenberg settlements in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression.
Tabel 2. Extension and periodization of Wietenberg hilltop/fortified settlements in the Târgu Secuiesc Depression.
268 ‌| József Puskás

1
I.2.8
2. I.1.26

I.2.7 II.1 I.2.4

I.1.13/II.1
III.6
I.2.5 3.
1. I.1.18/II.3 III.4
I.1.24 II.5 I.1.16/II.2
III.7 II.4 III.5 I.1.11
I.1.25 I.1.19
I.1.22
I.1.23 I.1.20
I.1.17
I.1.12
I.1.21 I.1.15
I.2.1
I.1.6 4.
III.1
I.1.4 I.1.5 I.1.7
I.1.9
I.1.1
I.1.2 I.1.8

III.3
I.2.3
I.1.14 I.1.10
III.8 III.2
I.2.2
I.1.3

I.2.6

III.9

Plate 1. 1. The location of the Târgu Secuiesc Depression within Romania; 2. the Middle Bronze Age discoveries
within the basin.
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 269

I. 2. 1.

I. 2. 4.

Plate  2. 1. Mountain roads and paths in the 18th century in the area of the Cernat–Csonka fortress; 2. Lutoasa–
Csuklyán fortress (after the First Military Survey of the Habsburg Empire).
270 ‌| József Puskás

Vápa fortress

I. 2. 5

I. 2. 8

I. 2. 4.
I. 2. 5.

Plate 3. 1. Mountain roads and paths in the 18th century in the area of the Turia–Torja fortress; 2. Valea Seacă–Cece
fortress and Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress (after the First Military Survey of the Habsburg Empire).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 271

m
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

m
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9

m
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

m
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

- humus
- LaTéne layer
- MBA layer
- yellow clay
- stone
B - LaTéne dwelling 2

Plate 4. 1. Profile of the trench of the Valea Seacă–Terrace of the Várpatak stream settlement;
2. the Valea Seacă–Cece fortress.
272 ‌| József Puskás

m
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1
2
3

- stone
1 - humus 5 - second Bronze Age
2 - LaTéne layer layer - burnt soil
4 - yellow, sandy layer - charcoal, ash
3 - first Bronze age 6 - steril soil
layer - ceramic

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1
2

3
4
5

m
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1

3
4

3
5 6

m
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
1

3
3 3
4 4
4 5
6

Plate 5. Stratigraphy of the Cernat–Robert’s land site.

 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 273

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0m

1
2
3

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 m

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 m

- humus - Bronze Age layer - stone 1

m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1
2 dacian dwelling
3
4

m
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1
2
Wietenberg dwelling
3
4

- humus - Coţofeni layer

- Wietenberg layer 1 - yellow layer without

archaeological material
- Wietenberg layer 2 2

Plate 6. 1. Stratigraphy of the Lutoasa–Csuklyán fortress; 2. Stratigraphy of the Turia–Padláb settlements.

274 ‌| József Puskás

1
0 5 cm

4
5

6 7

10 11
0 5 cm

Plate 7. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–11. S.I/1986).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 275

2
0 5 cm

3
0 5 cm

5
4

6
0 5 cm

Plate 8. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–6. S.I/1986).
276 ‌| József Puskás

1 2

0 5 cm

7
8

9 10

0 5 cm

Plate 9. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–10. S.I–IV/1986–87).
 Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River | 277

2
1

3
0 5 cm

6 7

8 9

0 5 cm

Plate 10. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–3. S.II/1987; 4–9. S.I/1988).
278 ‌| József Puskás

4
3
0 5 cm

5 6

7 8

0 5 cm
10

Plate 11. Middle Bronze Age ceramic from the Turia–Padláb settlement (1–10. S.II/1988).
 Abbreviations

AAMT Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, New York

ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens, Cambridge University press
Acta Acta, Muzeul Național Secuiesc, Institutul de Sud-Est, Sfântu Gheorghe
Acta Siculica Acta Siculica. A Székely Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Sfântu Gheorghe
ActaAntArch Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, Szeged
ActaArch Carpathica Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Academia Scientiarum Polona Collegium Cracoviense,
Kraków
ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest
ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
ActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău
ActaMPa Acta Musei Papensis, Pápa
ActaPraehistArch Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin
ActaTS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu
ACUISPP Atti del XIII Congresso dell’ Unione Internazionale dalle Scienze Preistoriche e Proto-
storiche, Forli
Adoranten Adoranten. Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art, Bohuslän
Aegaeum Aegaeum, Le service d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de la Grèce antique, Université
de Liège
Aegis Aegis. Actes de Colloques, Louvain
Agria Agria, Annales Musei Agriensis. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), Eger
AgroT Agrokémia és Talajtan, Budapest
ÄgypLev Ägypten und Levante: internationale Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie, Wien
AIARS Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, Athína
AJA American Journal of Archaeology. The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of Amer-
ica, Boston
Alba Regia Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, Székesfehérvár
Aluta Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
AmAnthropol American Anthropologist
AmAntiq American Antiquity, Washington, DC
AMNWD Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Oldenburg
Analele Banatului Analele Banatului S.N., Arheologie-Istorie, Timişoara
Angustia Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe
AnnalesHSS Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, Paris
AnnalesUA Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, Alba Iulia
AnnalesUVT Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Târgoviște
AnnHumBiol Annals Of Human Biology, Abingdon-on-Thames
ANODOS Studies of the Ancient World, Trnavska Univerzita
AnthropPaper Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
AntHung Antiquitatis Hungarica, Budapest
Antiquitas Antiquitas. Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und
provinzial-römischen Archäologie, Bonn
Antiquity Antiquity, London
AntJ The Antiquaries Journal, Cambridge
APR Allard Pierson Series, Amsterdam
Apulum Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
ARA Annual Review of Anthropology, Santa Cruz, USA

Bronze Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin, 2018, p. 361–366

362 ‌| Abbreviations

Archaeolingua SM Archaeolingua Seria Minor, Budapest

Archaeologia Archaeologia or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity, London
Archaeology Archaeology: a magazine dealing with the antiquity of the world, New York
Archaeometry Archaeometry, Oxford
ArchAntS Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
ArchAnzeiger Archäologischer Anzeiger, Berlin
ArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca, Wien
ArchBibStud Arcaheological and Biblical Studies, Atalanta
ArchD Archäologie in Deutschland, Darmstadt
ArchE Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am Rhein
Archeometriai Műhely Archeometriai Műhely elektronikus folyóirat, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest
ArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest
ArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest
ArchInfo Archäologische Informationen, Bonn–Heidelberg
ArchInt Archaeology International, London
ArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in
Mainz
ArchKözl Archaeológiai Közlemények, Budapest
ArchMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Berlin
ArchPolski Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, Lublin
ArchRom Archaeologia Romanica, Cluj-Napoca–Bistriţa
ArchRoz Archeologické Rozhledy, Prague
ArheoVest ArheoVest, ArheoVest Association Timișoara
ArhMold Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi
ARSIIPP Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protoistoria, Firenze
ASAtene Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente, Athína
ASGE Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad
ASM Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes, Instituti Archaeologici Nit-
riensis Academiae Scientiarum Slovacae, Nitra
AVsL Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Sibiu
Baltic-Pontic Studies Baltic-Pontic Studies. The Journal of Adam Mickiewicz University, Požnan
BAR British Archaeological Reports, International Series/British Series, Oxford
BAS Bibliotheca Archaeologica Istros. Seria Honoraria, Brăila
BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Athína
BCȘS Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia
BerBB Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege, München
BerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Frankfurt
BHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, Timișoara
BHAW Blackwell History of the Ancient World, Malden, Mass.
BIA Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London
BibAya Biblioteca Ayacucho, Caracas
BibTyr Biblioteca Tyragetia, Chișinău
BIP Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale Tulcea
BIS Balkanološki Institut Sanu: Posebna Izdanja, Beograd
BM Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia Mare
BM Apulensis Bibliotheca Mvsei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
BMA Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, Piatra Neamţ
BMÉ A Bihari Múzeum Évkönyve, Berettyóújfalu
BMM Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria(es) Archaeologica, Târgu Mureș
BMNAB Biblioteca Muzeului Naţional de Antichităţi din Bucureşti
BMOP British Museum Occasional Paper, London
BMS Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
BSC Bibliothèque de Sociologie Contemporaine, Paris
 Abbreviations | 363

BSTN Bead Study Trust Newsletter, Oxford

BT Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureşti
BUA Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, Alba Iulia
BudRég Budapest Régiségei, Budapesti Történeti Múzeum
CA Cercetări Arheologice, București
CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Cambridge
Carpica Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă „Iulian Antonescu”, Bacău
CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
CentEuJChem Central European journal of chemistry, Berlin–Warsaw
CH Colecţia Historia, Baia Mare
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden–Boston–Köln
ComArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest
Corviniana Corviniana. Acta Musei Corviniensis, Hunedoara
Crisia Crisia, Muzeului Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea
CritInq Critical Inquiry, Chicago
CsSzMÉ Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve, Miercurea Ciuc
Cumidava Cumidava, Muzeul de Istorie Brașov
CurrAnth Current Anthropology, Chicago
Dacia S.N. Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948),
Bucureşti; Nouvelle Série (N.S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene,
Bucureşti
Danubius Revista Muzeului de Istorie Galaţi
DDMÉ A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve. Annales Musei Debreceniensis de Friderico Déri
nominati, Debrecen
DissArchBudapest Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eöt-
vös nominatae, Budapest
DissPann Dissertationes Pannonicae, ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de
Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, Budapest
DM Dissertationes et Monographie, Beograd
DolgCluj Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Cluj-Napoca
DolgSzeged Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Ferencz József-Tudományegyetem Archeologiai
Intézetéből (1925–1936)/ Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Ferencz József Tudományegy-
etem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből (1937–1940)/ Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Horthy
Miklós Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből (1941–1943), Szeged
EA Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens, Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Berlin
EAZ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, Berlin
EcoAnthr Economic Anthropology, Society for Economic Anthropology, Fort Collins
EJA European Journal of Archaeology, Cambridge
ELS Edinburgh Leventis Studies, Edinburgh
EMEÉ Erdélyi Múzeum-Egylet Évkönyvei, Cluj-Napoca
EphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
ERAUL Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège
ErdMúz Erdélyi Múzeum. Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egylet Történelmi Szakosztályának Közlönye,
Cluj-Napoca
EthnoMittUng Ethnologische Mitteilungen aus Ungarn. Illustrierte Zeitschrift für die Völkerkunde
Ungarns und der damit in ethnographischen Beziehungen stehenden Länder, Budapest
FAA Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft, Rahden/Westf.
FAH Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Budapest
FAS Freiburger Archäologische Studien, Rahden/Westf.
FI File de istorie, Bistriţa
FolArch Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Budapest
FUB Freiburger Universitätsblätter, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
GAT Gothenburg Archaeological Theses, Göteborg
Geoarchaeology Geoarchaeology, an International Journal
364 ‌| Abbreviations

Geochronometria Geochronometria. Journal on Methods and Applications of Absolute Chronology

Georeview Georeview: Scientific Annals of Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava
Germania Germania, Frankfurt am Main
GFW Geschichte: Forschung und Wissenschaft, Hamburg–Münster
GG Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Historische Sozialwissenschaft, Berlin
GlassTech Glass Technology, Sheffield
GPMHQP Grabungen des Pelizaeus-Museums Hildesheim in Qantir-Piramesse, Hildesheim
Gyulai Katalógusok Gyulai Katalógusok, Gyula
HDL Human Development in Landscapes, Bonn
Hesperia Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton
HistTheo History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History, Hoboken, NJ
HOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc
HungArch Hungarian Archaeology e-journal
IA Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.
ICA Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, New York
IEMA Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology Distinguished Monograph
Series, Albany
IPH Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Budapest
Iraq Iraq, Cambridge
Istros Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila
IUPPS International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli
JAA Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Jahrbuch RGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz
JahrIVUF Jahresbericht des Institut für Vorgeschichte des Universität Frankfurt a. M.
JAMÉ A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza
JAMT Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
JAR Journal of Archaeological Research
JAS Journal of Archaeological Science
JBS Journal of Baltic Studies. Journal of the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Stud-
ies, Seattle
JCA Journal of Conflict Archaeology, Glasgow
JEA Journal of European Archaeology, Durham
JEgypArch The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology, Leeds, Mass
JGS Journal of Glass Studies, Corning, New York
JICA Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, London
JIES The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Hattiesburg, Miss.
JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Sheffield
JMV Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, Berlin
JQS Journal of Quaternary Science, Hoboken, USA
JSA Journal of Social Archaeology
JWP Journal of World Prehistory
KBAK Kölner Beiträge zu Archäologie und Kulturwissenschaften, Bonn
Korall Korall, Társadalomtörténeti folyóírat, Budapest
KorrblVsL Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Sibiu
Közlemények Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti-, Művészeti- és Néprajzi Tárából,
Cluj-Napoca
Kulturbericht Burgenland Kulturbericht des Amtes der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Eisenstadt
MAA Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry: international journal, Rhodes
MAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien
Marisia Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş
Marmatia Marmatia, Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean Maramureş, Baia Mare
MBGAEU Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte,
Berlin
 Abbreviations | 365

MCA S.N. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti

MemAnt Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti
MFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Szeged
Millenni Millenni. Studi di Archeologia Preistorica, Roma
MonCRA Monographie du Collection de Recherches Archéologiques, Paris
MonOUCA Monograph. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford
MonWA Monographs in World Archaeology, Madison
Mousaios Mousaios, Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Muzeul Brăilei, Buzău
MSVF Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Marburg
Musaica Musaica, Universitas Comeniana, Zbornik Filozofickej Fakulty, Bratislava
Muse Muse. Annual of the Museum of Art and Archaeology University of Missouri
MúzFüz Csongrád Múzeumi Füzetek Csongrád
MúzKönyvÉrt Múzeumi és Könyvtári Értesítő. A Múzeumok és Könyvtárak Orsz. Főfelügyelőségének
és Országos Tanácsának Hivatalos Közlönye, Budapest
NachrichtenDA Nachrichten über deutsche Altertumsfunde, Berlin
NAR Norwegian Archaeological Review, Abingdon-on-Thames
Nature Nature. The international weekly journal of science, London
Nemere Nemere, Sfântu Gheorghe
Offa Offa, Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalter-
archäologie, Neumünster
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Louvain
OREA Oriental and European Archaeology, Wien
Ősrégészeti levelek Ősrégészeti levelek. Prehistoric newsletter, Budapest
OTTÉ Orvosi- és Természettudományi Értesítő, Cluj-Napoca
OZBH Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Berg- und Hüttenwesen, Wien
PAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, München
PAT Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum, Institute of Archaeology and Art His-
tory Cluj-Napoca
PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London
Peuce S.N. Peuce. Serie Nouă. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie și Arheologie, Tulcea
Philia Philia. International Journal of Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Istanbul
PhysChemMin Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, Berlin–Heidelberg
PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Washington, DC
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, London
Preistoria Alpina Preistoria Alpina, Rivista scientifica del Museo delle Scienze, Trento
PZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin
QatStud Qaṭna-Studien: Supplementa, Wiesbaden
QPC Quadernos de Prehistoria Castellana, Madrid
Recherces Archéologiques Recherces Archéologiques, Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University,
Kraków
RégFüz Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest
RevBis Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud, Bistrița
Revista Arheologică Revista Arheologică, Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural, Chișinău
RGZM Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien, Bonn–Mainz
RGZMTag Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz – Tagungen, Mainz
SAM Sheffield Archaeological Monographs, Sheffield
SANU Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Balkanološki Institut Posebna Izdanja, Beograd
SAO Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa, Berlin
Savaria Savaria Pars Archaeologica, a Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, Szombathely
SAX Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Budapest
SBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bonn
Science Science, Washington
366 ‌| Abbreviations

SciRep Scientific Reports, London

SCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), Bucureşti
SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göteborg
SIMAL Studies in Mediterranean archaeology and literature: Pocket-book, Uppsala
SK Sapientia Könyvek, Cluj-Napoca
Skalk Skalk, Aarhus
SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia, Nitra
Soproni Szemle Soproni Szemle. A Soproni Városszépítő Egyesület helytörténeti folyóirata
Specimina EA Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis, Pécs
SPP Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze
SSAA Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, Sheffield
StCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare
StCom Sibiu Studii şi Comunicări, Muzeul Brukenthal, Sibiu
StudAntArch Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iași
StudArchHist Publications from the National Museum: Studies in Archaeology & History, København
Studia Troica Studia Troica, Universität Tübingen
Studii de Preistorie Asociaţia Română de Arheologie, Bucureşti
StudIstTrans Studii de Istorie a Transilvaniei 2, Seria Istorie, Oradea–Cluj-Napoca
StudUniv Babeş-Bolyai Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Seria Geologia, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
SympThrac Symposia Thracologica, Institutul Român de Tracologie, Bucureşti
SzMMÉ A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv (1973–1990), Szolnok
SzVMK A Szegedi Városi Múzeum Kiadványai, Szeged
Talanta Talanta. The International Journal of Pure and Applied Analytical Chemistry, Amster-
dam
TAS Les Travaux de l’Année Sociologique, Paris
TAT Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, Tübingen
TermKözl Természettudományi Közlöny. Havi Folyóirat Közérdekű Ismeretek Terjesztésére,
Budapest
Terra Sebus Terra Sebus, Acta Musei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
Thraco-Dacica Thraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, Bucureşti
TI Tyragetia International, Chişinău
Tibiscum S.N. Tibiscum. Seria Nouă, Caransebeş
Tisicum Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, Szolnok
Történelmi Szemle Történelmi Szemle. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóköz-
pont Történettudományi Intézet, Budapest.
TPA Theses and Papers in Archaeology, Stockholm
Tyragetia Tyragetia S.N., Anuarul Muzeului Naţional de Istorie al Moldovei, Chişinău
UPA Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn
VAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest
Vasárnapi Újság Vasárnapi Újság, Budapest
VDBMB Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum, Bochum
VF Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, Berlin
VMK Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, Wien
WorldArch World Archaeology, Abingdon-on-Thames
Zephyrvs Zephyrvs, Universidad de Salamanca
ZfE Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Berlin
Ziridava Ziridava, Studia Archaeologica, Muzeul Arad
Археологія Археологія, Kiev
Старинар Старинар. Орган Српског Археолошког Друштва, Beograd
Старинар H.C. Старинар. Орган Археолошког Института – Нова Серија, Beograd
ТКИЧп Труды Комиссии по Изучению Четвертичного периода, Vil’njus