SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA

Studia in honorem magistri

Attila Lszl
septuagesimo anno

Honoraria, 9
Redigit: Victor Spinei

Cover design: Manuela Oboroceanu

The English translations were revised by:

Norbert Poruciuc

ISBN: 978-973-703-581-3

UNIVERSITATEA ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA

FACULTATEA DE ISTORIE
CENTRUL INTERDISCIPLINAR DE STUDII
ARHEOISTORICE
ACADEMIA ROMN
INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE IAI
MUZEUL NAIONAL SECUIESC
SFNTU GHEORGHE

SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA
Studia in honorem magistri
Attila Lszl
septuagesimo anno
Ediderunt
Neculai Bolohan, Florica Mu et Felix Adrian Tencariu

EDITURA UNIVERSITII ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA

IAI-2010

This publication was financially supported by the

Szkely Nemzeti Mzeum, Sepsiszentgyrgy/

Muzeul Naional Secuiesc, Sfntu Gheorghe
and
DAAD Alumni Club

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

OMAGIU. Attila, Lszl
Signa praehistorica : studia in honorem magistri Attila Lszl septuagesimo anno /
ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Mu et
Felix Adrian Tencariu. - Iai : Editura Universitii "Al. I. Cuza", 2010
ISBN 978-973-703-581-3
I. Bolohan, Neculai (ed.)
II. Mu, Florica (ed.)
III. Tencariu, Felix Adrian (ed.)

903(498)

CONTENTS/INHALTSVERZEICHNIS/
TABLE DES MATIRES
Tabula Gratulatoria ........................................................................................................... 9
On the Occasion of Professor Attila Lszls 70th Anniversary ................................. 13
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 19
Abbreviations/Abkrzungen/Abrviations ..................................................................... 41
Nicolae URSULESCU, Alexander RUBEL
Die Ausgrabungen in Cucuteni im Jahre 1910 nach einem
unverffentlichten Grabungsbericht von Hubert Schmidt .......................................... 49
Spturile de la Cucuteni din 1910 reflectate ntr-un raport inedit al lui
Hubert Schmidt ................................................................................................................. 57
Marin DINU
On the Censer Type Pots from the Final Period (Horoditea Erbiceni
Gordineti) of the Cucuteni Culture in the Romanian Space West
of the Prut .......................................................................................................................... 85
Felix-Adrian TENCARIU
Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology in Neolithic
and Chalcolithic .............................................................................................................. 119
Jnos MAKKAY
Two Peculiar Types of the North Caucasian Maikop Culture.
Their Southern Parallels and Chronological Importance ........................................ 141
Tiberius BADER
Wiederherstellung des Inhaltes einer alten Entdeckung. - Der Hortfund
von Stna/Felsboldd bez. Satu Mare und sein Mentor/Frsprecher
Antal Gyurits ................................................................................................................... 165
Nikolaus BOROFFKA, Rodica BOROFFKA
Ein alter bronzener Dolch aus Siebenbrgen ............................................................. 189
Radu BJENARU
About the Terminology and Periodization of the Early Bronze Age
in the Carpathian-Danube Area ................................................................................... 203

Anca-Diana POPESCU
Deliberate Destruction of Pottery During the Bronze Age A Case Study ........... 213
Neculai BOLOHAN
All in One. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings
Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area ....................................................... 229
Florica MU
Patterns of Deposition. The Metal Artefacts at the End of the Bronze Age
and the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube Region ............................ 245
Mihai WITTENBERGER
A Special Site of the Noua Culture - Boldu, Cluj County ........................................ 265
Dan POP
The Bronze Age Settlement at Lpuel Mociar, Maramure County ................. 283
Bogdan Petru NICULIC
Karl Adolf Romstorfer, un pionnier de la recherche des dpts de bronzes
de la Bucovine ................................................................................................................. 321
Sorin Cristian AILINCI
New Observations on the First Iron Age Discoveries at Revrsarea
Cotul Tichileti, Isaccea, Tulcea County...................................................................... 343
Mria FEKETE
Sankt Veit. Angaben zu den prhistorischen Feiern und Gtter (namen)
sowien dem Schmuck der Zeremonienbekleidung aus Pannonien ........................... 373
Aurel ZANOCI, Valeriu BANARU
Die Frhhallstattzeitlichen Befestigungsanlagen im ostkarpatischen Raum ......... 403
Constantin ICONOMU
Some Dobrudja Discovered Items from a Private Collection ............................... 443
Adrian PORUCIUC
The Greek Term Keramos (Potters Clay, Earthenware) as Probably
Inherited from a Pre-Indo-European (Egyptoid) Substratum .................................. 451

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila Lszl septuagesimo anno

Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Mu, Felix Adrian Tencariu

TABULA GRATULATORIA
Adrian Adamescu, Galai
Ion Agrigoroaiei, Iai
Serghei Agulnikov, Chiinu
Sorin Cristian Ailinci, Tulcea
Ruxandra Alaiba, Iai
Marius Alexianu, Iai
Alexandra Anders, Budapest
Stelios Andreou, Thessaloniki
Mugurel Andronic, Suceava
Dan Aparaschivei, Iai
Tudor Arnutu, Chiinu
Andrei Asndulesei, Iai
Costic Asvoaiei, Iai
Mircea Babe, Bucureti
Tiberius Bader, Hemmingen
Valeriu Banaru, Chiinu
Eszter Bnnfy, Budapest
Lszl Bartosiewicz, Budapest
Paraschiva-Victoria Batariuc, Suceava
Gabriel Bdru, Iai
Radu Bjenaru, Bucureti
Luminia Bejenaru, Iai
Ioan Bejinariu, Zalu
Ctlin Bem, Bucureti
George Bilavschi, Iai
Katalin Bir, Budapest
Wojciech Blajer, Krakow
George Bodi, Iai
Dumitru Boghian, Suceava

Ovidiu Boldur, Bacu

Neculai Bolohan, Iai
Nikolaus Boroffka, Berlin
Rodica Boroffka, Berlin
Ilie Borziac, Chiinu
Bartk Botond, Sfntu Gheorghe
Rezi Botond, Trgu Mure
Octavian Bounegru, Iai
Jean Bourgeois, Gent
Jan Bouzek, Praha
Ovidiu Buruian, Iai
Dan Buzea, Sfntu Gheorghe
Ion Caprou, Iai
Valeriu Cavruc, Sfntu Gheorghe
Alberto Cazella, Roma
Viorel Cpitanu, Bacu
John Chapman, Durham
Ion Chicideanu, Bucureti
Costel Chiriac, Iai
Laureniu Chiriac, Vaslui
Vasile Chirica, Iai
Jan Chokorowski, Krakow
Miron Cih, Bucureti
Horia Ciugudean, Alba Iulia
Ioan Ciuperc, Iai
Marius Ciut, Alba Iulia
Gheorghe Cliveti, Iai
Mihai Cojocariu, Iai
Jean Marie Cordy, Lige

Tabula Gratulatoria

Vasile Cotiug, Iai

George Costea, Tulcea
Ovidiu Cotoi, Galai
Cristina Creu, Iai
Roxana Curc, Iai
Zoltn Czajlik, Budapest
Lidia Dasclu, Iai
Wolfgang David, Manching
Mireille David-Elbiali, Gneve
Valentin Dergacev, Chiinu
Vasile Diaconu, Tg. Neam
Marin Dinu, Iai
Florin Draovean, Timioara
Sever Dumitracu, Oradea
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Piatra Neam
Istvn Ecsedy, Szzhalombatta
Linda Ellis, San Francisco
Apai Emese, Cluj-Napoca
Sergiu Enea, Trgu Frumos
Burcin Erdogu, Edirne
Mria Fekete, Pcs
Marilena Florescu, Iai
Kalla Gbor, Budapest
Nagy Izsef Gbor, Cluj-Napoca
Szab Gbor, Budapest
Alexandra Gvan, Cluj-Napoca
Marek Gedl, Krakow
Florin Gogltan, Cluj-Napoca
tefan-Sorin Gorovei, Iai
Jochen Grsdorf, Berlin
Anthony Harding, Exeter
Svend Hansen, Berlin
Bernhard Hnsel, Berlin
Florin Hu, Suceava
10

George Hnceanu, Roman

Ferenc Horvth, Szeged
Lszl Horvth, Nagykanizsa
Ctlin Hriban, Iai
Gheorghe Iacob, Iai
Mihaela Iacob, Tulcea
Constantin Iconomu, Iai
Ion Ignat, Iai
Mircea Ignat, Suceava
Sorin Igntescu, Suceava
Gbor Ilon, Kszeg
Ion Ioni, Iai
Mihai Irimia, Constana
Lcrmioara Istina, Bacu
Gheorghe Iuti, Iai
Katalin Jankovits, Budapest
Erzsbet Jerem, Budapest
Albrecht Jockenhvel, Mnster
Borislav Jovanovi, Beograd
Gabriel Jugnaru, Tulcea
Carol Kacso, Baia Mare
Elke Kaiser, Berlin
Nndor Kalicz, Budapest
Maia Kauba, Chiinu
Imola Kelemen, Cluj-Napoca
Tibor Kemenczei, Budapest
Rbert Kertsz, Szolnok
Iosip Kobal, Uhorod
Judit Kos, Miskolc
Giorgios Korres, Athens
Viaceslav Kotigorojko, Uhorod
Kostas Kotsakis, Thessaloniki
Lszl Kovcs, Budapest
Tibor Kovcs, Budapest

Tabula Gratulatoria

Larisa Kruelnicka, Lviv

Olga Larina, Chiinu
Ciprian Lazanu, Vaslui
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Iai
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cluj-Napoca
Dan Lazr, Iai
Gabriel Leanca, Iai
Eva Lenneis, Wien
Oleg Leviki, Chiinu
Andreas Lippert, Wien
Sabin Adrian Luca, Sibiu
Bogdan-Petru Maleon, Iai
Jnos Makkay, Budapest
Jurij N. Maleev, Kiev
Igor Manzura, Chiinu
Ioan Mare, Suceava
Tamilia Marin, Iai
Gheorghe Marinescu, Bistria-Nsud
Sivia Marinescu-Blcu, Bucureti
Erzsbet Marton, Budapest
Florica Mu, Iai
Lrnt Lszl Mder, Sfntu Gheorghe
Aurel Melniciuc, Botoani
Vicu Merlan, Hui
Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, Mnchen
Lucreiu Mihailescu-Brliba, Iai
Virgil Mihailescu-Brliba, Iai
Pietro Militello, Catania
Bogdan Minea, Iai
Ioan Mitrea, Bacu
Iulian Moga, Iai
Adriana Moglan, Iai
Dan Monah, Iai
Felicia Monah, Iai

Lucian Munteanu, Iai

Roxana Munteanu, Piatra Neam
Marian Neagu, Clrai
Louis Nebelsick, Warsaw
Gabriella T. Nmeth, Szzhalombatta
Rita Nmeth, Trgu Mure
Andrei Nicic, Chiinu
Bogdan Niculic, Suceava
Ion Niculi, Chiinu
George Nuu, Tulcea
Ivan Ordentlich, Holon
Krisztin Oross, Budapest
Marcel Otte, Lige
Mehmet zdogan, Istanbul
Aleksandar Palavestra, Beograd
Nona Palinca, Bucureti
Dorel Paraschiv, Tulcea
Hermann Parzinger, Berlin
Mircea Petrescu-Dmbovia, Iai
Liviu Pilat, Iai
Alexandru-Florin Platon, Iai
Cristian Ploscaru, Iai
Dan Pop, Baia Mare
Anca-Diana Popescu, Bucureti
Dragomir Popovici, Bucureti
Adrian Poruciuc, Iai
Marcin S. Przybyla, Krakow
Pl Raczky, Budapest
Laureniu Rdvan, Iai
Agathe Reingruber, Berlin
Petre Roman, Bucureti
Peter Romsauer, Nitra
Eva Rosenstock, Berlin
Mihai Rotea, Cluj-Napoca
11

Tabula Gratulatoria

Alexander Rubel, Iai

Elisabeth Ruttkay, Wien
Tatjana L. Samojlova, Odessa
Silviu Sanie, Iai
Eugen Sava, Chiinu
Berecki Sndor, Trgu Mure
Wolfram Schier, Berlin
Gudrun Schneckenburger, Konstanz
Gunter Schbel, Uhldingen-Mhlhofen
Katalin H. Simon, Budapest
Galina I. Smirnova, Sankt Petersburg
Loredana Solcan, Iai
Ion Solcanu, Iai
Tudor Soroceanu, Berlin
Victor Spinei, Iai
Mark Stefanovich, Blagoevgrad
Lcrmioara Stratulat, Iai
Elena Studenikova, Bratislava
Gza Szab, Szekszrd
Mikls Szab, Budapest
Ildik Szathmri, Budapest
Maria-Magdalena Szkely, Iai
Zolt Szkely, Sfntu Gheorghe
Alexandru Szentmiklosi, Timioara
Sndor Sztncsuj, Sfntu Gheorghe
Monica andor Chicideanu, Bucureti
Nikola Tasi, Beograd

12

Felix Adrian Tencariu, Iai

Dan Gh. Teodor, Iai
Silvia Teodor, Iai
Ion Toderacu, Iai
Henrieta Todorova, Sofia
Claudiu Topor, Iai
Katalin Tth, Hdmezvsrhely
Gerhard Trnka, Wien
Senica urcanu, Iai
Corina Ursache, Vaslui
Vasile Ursachi, Roman
Nicolae Ursulescu, Iai
Constantin Emil Ursu, Suceava
Lucian U, Piatra Neam
Mihail Vasilescu, Iai
Valentin Vasiliev, Cluj-Napoca
Mdlin-Cornel Vleanu, Iai
Magdolna Vicze, Szzhalombatta
Adrian Vialaru, Iai
Valentina Voinea, Constana
Andreea Vornicu, Iai
Mriuca Vornicu, Iai
Alexandru Vulpe, Bucureti
Petronel Zahariuc, Iai
Aurel Zanoci, Chiinu
Olivier Weller, Besanon
Mihai Wittenberger, Cluj-Napoca

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila Lszl septuagesimo anno

Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Mu, Felix Adrian Tencariu

SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE POTTERY

PYROTECHNOLOGY IN NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC
FELIX-ADRIAN TENCARIU (IAI)

Amongst the materials gathered as a result of different

archaeological excavations made in different sites dating from
diverse chronological periods (starting obviously, from Neolithic),
the ceramic fragments along with statuettes and other objects made
of baked clay, tend to have a lions share. In some cases, the ceramic
quantity in reference to the inhabited area and the maximum
possible amount of people that used it greatly exceeds the average
mean of vessels necessary to the daily use (the case of Cucuteni
culture represents the best example). Considering the abundance of
ceramic materials, the problem of the production technology holds a
special interest; unfortunately, the Romanian archaeological
literature (and not only the Romanian one), provides descriptions
(often scrupulous) of paste types, shapes and decoration, but it pays
little attention to aspects concerning the technology of pottery
production.
Technological aspects imply the sources and methodology of
obtaining raw material (clay, temper, pigments, and fuel), the paste
composition, the methods of manufacturing the vessels, the
techniques and technology of firing. Firing the pottery is the most
important stage in the producing pottery process this is the stage
when the clay changes its chemical and physical properties,
becoming pottery; this implies a conscious human action, a great

This paper was prepared with the financial support of OIPOSDRU,

through the project Dezvoltarea capacitii de inovare i creterea impactului cercetrii
prin programe post-doctorale POSDRU/89/1.5/S/49944.

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

experience in handling the fire as well as arranging and

manipulating some sort of firing installations. Through firing
installation we define any kind of space, deliberately used for this
activity (open spaces, enclosed and/or arranged or not, hearths,
holes in the ground, onechambered kilns, buried or on the surface,
kilns with two or more chambers horizontally or vertically disposed).
Firing pottery installations in prehistory presents, in our
opinion, a special position, being, besides the abundant quantity of
pottery unearthed from archaeological excavations, one of the few
traces on the pottery craftsmanship of the era. The installations types
used, their dimension and their number offers the possibility of
evaluating the technological level of a certain community or culture;
also it can provide precious data about the ceramic production in
reference to a certain community occupations, and not in the least,
about the number and socio-economical status of the pottery
producers.
The following analysis aims to present, as a synthetic
typology, all the information regarding the pottery firing
installations in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages on the Romanian
territory; this kind of research was attempted before in the Romanian
archaeological literature, at a certain stage of the research (COMA
1976; COMA 1980; ELLIS 1984).
By starting from the archaeological discoveries, corroborated
with some ethnographical data and analogies along with
experimental reconstructions, we will propose a typological sketch of
pottery-firing installations used in bygone periods in the Romanian
space. The essential criterion on which we have built our
classification is the complexity of construction principle, which is, in
fact, a combination of two technical criteria: (1) the relation between
fuel, draught and vessels and (2) the position of chamber (chambers)
in reference to the soils surface. The morphological criterion (the
shape in level and/or in section of the installation) is less relevant, in
our view, being, maybe useful in distinguishing some subtypes of
the patterns established based on the above mentioned criterion;
hence, we identified five essential types of firing pottery installations:
120

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

Type A. Open firing. Unattested (yet) by archaeological

evidences, but frequently met in different ethnographical areas
(CULWICK 1935, 166; ROTH 1935, 217-218, 225-226; DORMAN 1938,
99; HANDLER 1964, 150; HODDER 1982, 37; GOSSELAIN 1992, 570;
TRAORE 1994, 535-549; GODEA 1995, 45; LONGACRE, XIA, YANG
2000, 277; CARLTON 2008; SILVA 2008, 229 etc.) (fig. 1), open firing
was, most likely, practiced in prehistory; evidences are provided by
some ceramic categories these are unequally and irregularly
burned, with spots from the direct contact with fire but also by the
lack of other discoveries of installations, in the majority of
settlements. Important arguments are supplied by discoveries from
Neo-Chalcolithic of Thessaly, from Achilleion (an exterior hearth
with 4 meters diameter) (PERLS 2004, 196) and Dimini (a stone
structure, on which supposedly, the vessels were stored along with the
combustible matter) (http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/01/en/nl/nnii/dimini.html).
Firing in open spaces could have been practiced in spaces
with no prior arrangement, on flat ground or in slightly hollow
portions in the ground, or on special disposed exterior structures,
like hearths, or, less likely, from within the houses. The protection of
the load from the surrounding atmosphere was far more important
than the arrangement or the delimitation of the basis on which the
vessels were placed. Depending on this feature, we distinguish two
subtypes of open firings:
A1. Open firing without protection (fig. 1/6-8) vessels are
stacked along with the combustible matter and the firing is made in
direct contact with the air currents, without any kind of isolation.
A2. Open firing with isolation (fig. 1/1-5) vessels are
stacked along with the combustible matter, and around and above
the charge different materials are placed: large shards, stone plates,
etc., in order to partially protect the vessels from the atmospheric
conditions. Sometimes, the firing can be almost completely protected,
through clothing the pile of vessels and the fuel with a manure or
clay layer under these circumstances, the installations acts more
like a kiln, the firing being contained.

121

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

Type B. Firing pits. A series of pits, of different shapes and

dimensions, which, due to the strong burning of the walls, having
been considered as favorable for firing pottery. In terms of the
functioning system, the pit differs from the open firings through the
complete isolation of the charge from the exterior atmospheric
conditions. Generally speaking, the efficiency of this type of
installation is the result of the small dimensions of the opening
towards the hearth the heat loss is lesser than in the case of the
open firing or of a pit with straight walls. In almost all the cases, the
pits for firing pottery are round or ellipsoidal in shape, with flat
bottom (fig. 2/5): the discovery from Ceptura, Starevo-Cri culture
(early Neolithic) (fig. 2/1) (LICHIARDOPOL 1984, 83); in shape of a
truncated cone or in a shape of a bell (fig. 2/6): Cpleni, CiumetiPicol group (early Neolithic) (fig. 2/2) (IERCOAN 1987, 73-76),
Crcea Dudeti Vina culture (middle Neolithic) (fig. 2/3) NICA
1978, 25), pits in sack shape, with straight walls (fig. 2/7):
Drgneti-Olt, Gumelnia culture (middle Chalcolithic) (fig. 2/4)
(NICA et alii 1997, 9-10).
The pits were arranged through spreading a layer of clay on
the bottom and/or on the walls, or just burned in advance, for
strengthening them.
Type C. Surface one-chambered kiln. Due to the
construction system (clay that was applied on a wattle network) and
shape, most of the times with a semispherical calotte, this type of kiln
is easily confounded with the wasting kilns, present inside the
houses. Discovery of such groups of bigger or smaller kilns, their
position in relation to the working places, or some construction
particularities triggered their inclusion in the firing pottery
installations category. Depending on the number of openings and the
position of the combustible matter towards the vessels we
distinguish a few subtypes:
C1. The simple kiln, without lateral opening for fueling the
fire. This type is attested, for the moment, only at Ariud, in the
aspect bearing the same name of Cucuteni culture. It consisted of a
construction with an approximately semispherical shape, with a
buried hearth and presented a single opening, at the superior part,
122

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

through which the vessels and the combustible matter were being
introduced (LSZL 1914, 313) (fig. 3/4, 7). This shape is, in fact, a
positive imprint of a firing pottery pit.
C2. One-chambered kiln, with lateral opening for fueling the
fire. Its shape is similar to the C1 subtype, the sole exception being
the lateral opening for fueling, which appears as a simple hole at the
walls base (fig. 3/8). This type is attested in the settlement from
Zorlenu Mare (fig. 3/1) (LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003,
382-383), Vina B1 culture, middle Neolithic, and Ariud (fig. 3/5)
(SZKELY, BARTK 1979, 56; ZAHARIA, GALBENU, SZKELY
1981), Cucuteni culture.
C3. One-chambered kiln, with lateral extended opening in
shape of a tunnel (fig. 3/9). It is the kiln in shape of a pear, and offers
the option of partially separate the vessels from the fuel, by igniting
and maintaining the fire in the prolonged mouth of the kiln. The
superior opening enables the draught and it could be partially or
totally covered, depending on the type of firing preferred by the
potter. Kilns in shape of pear have been discovered for middle
Neolithic at Trtria (fig. 3/2) (HOREDT 1949, 50-51), and for middle
Chalcolithic, at Dumeti (fig. 3/6) ALAIBA 2007, 67-68), Cucuteni
culture.
Type D. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access
hole. It is, probably, derived from the simple firing pottery pit, to
which an opening is made at the base, through another access hole
(stokers pit) (fig. 4/3). The initial hole becomes a chamber for
firing the vessels and the communicating tunnel between the two
holes becomes a fueling chamber. Depending on the number of
chambers for firing the vessels, we distinguish two subtypes:
D1. Buried one-chambered kiln, attested in early and middle
Neolithic, at Crcea Starevo Cri culture and Dudeti Vina
culture (fig. 4/1) (NICA 1978, 18 et sqq).
D2. Buried kiln with two communicating chambers for the
vessels, which were facilitated by a single fire tunnel, like those
discovered at Crcea and Leu, Starevo Cri culture and DudetiVina culture (NICA 1978, 25; NICA, NI 1979, 31-37).
123

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

Type E. Kiln with two chambers placed vertically,

separated by a perforated grid made from clay. It is the most
complex firing pottery installation, because of the construction
technique and functioning system. It consists of: a combustion
chamber, generally in a hollow shape; in the middle of the hole a
pillar is saved when digging the earth; a perforated grid made from
clay, usually built from identical, joined elements (clay cones); a
chamber for burning the vessels, built in shape of a vault over the
combustion room, with an opening in the superior part, through
which the vessels were deposited and for allowing the draught (fig.
4/4). The access to the combustion chamber can be direct, through
the burning room, or it can be made through the burning tunnel.
This type of kiln is attested in the middle Chalcolithic, in the
Cucuteni-Tripolie complex, at Valea Lupului (DINU 1957, 164-165),
Glvnetii Vechi (fig. 4/2) (COMA 1976, 24-25), Jvane (VIDEIKO
2004, 276-279), Veselii Kut (TSVEK 2002, 17) and was also used
althrough the final Chalcolithic, at Trinca (ALAIBA 1997, 22; 2007,
132-134) (Horoditea-Erbiceni culture).

Based on these types we propose an evolution sketch of

firing pottery installations (fig. 5); the idea of an evolution is general,
based on the same criterion of construction complexity, without
imposing any diachronic or spatial criteria. We would like to stress
on this specification as we couldnt document a chronologically or
spatial development of a certain type of installation or the
abandonment of another type instead of the other.
The simplest installation for pottery firing was being made in
open air, unprotected; a technological advance was represented by
the version with a kind of isolation. Pit firing evolved from the open
firing, probably because of the same reason to provide an adequate
isolation of the firing. The simple kiln (C1) appeared as a built replica
of a pit, presenting similarities with the firing in open space isolated
with a layer of clay or other material; the kilns with simple lateral
opening (C2) and those with elongated lateral opening (C3) evolved
from C1, due to a need to obtain a supplementary fueling in order to
acquire and maintain higher temperatures and partially avoid the
124

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

contact between the vessels and fuel (C3). The buried kiln with
lateral combustion tunnel (type D), evolved, for the same reasons,
from the simple pit type (B). The kiln with two vertically chambers
represents a better solution to separate the fuel from the vases, being
a hybrid form the burning of the fuel takes place at the soils level,
exactly like in the case of type D, and the vessels are baked on the
surface, in a structure similar to type C.
As we mentioned above, this sketch is only a theoretical
construct; it is also very likely that there is no connection between the
types we have catalogued, and maybe, some of them (or all), were
independently tested, as a result of an effort of innovative
imagination and technical skills of potters from different regions and
periods of time.
Analyzing the placement and repartition of discoveries of
firing installations we can draw just a few conclusions about the
origins or preference of a certain community for a type or another. In
the context marked by insufficient and unequal data, it is difficult to
state if these installations from Romanian Neolithic and Chalcolithic
are local inventions or just local adaptations of a technology
transmitted through the multitude of southern population waves
from Middle East.
Despite these setbacks, we can observe a relative preference,
in Neolithic, for the buried installation holes and buried kilns with
a chamber and a fueling tunnel, and a prevalence of built installation
one chamber or two chambers kilns built on the surface, at least in
Chalcolithic (fig. 6).
We can easily observe that the simplest installation for firing
pottery, the pit, is also the most widely spread, in space and territory,
on Romanian Neo-Chalcolithic space. The pits from the early
Neolithic (Crcea, Ceptura Starevo Cri culture), althrough the
middle Chalcolithic (Poieneti Cucuteni culture), were also
discovered for the middle Neolithic and early Chalcolithic there is a
simple explanation for it the pit was an installation easy to made
and use, and additionally it provided a certain kind of protection of
the load from the atmospheric conditions and a relative control on
the firing atmosphere (especially for the reduction firing).
125

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

Also, as the discoveries made at Crcea show, and

considering the early Neolithic complexes from Croatia and Hungary
(MINICHREITER 2001; MINICHREITER 2008; MAKKAY 2007, 156,
177, 188), a prevalence expressed by the potters from Starevo-Cri
culture for the one-chamber kilns, either buried or on the surface,
with an opening at the base for fueling can be observed; in all these
discoveries in the mentioned above culture, the opening is elongated
like a tunnel, where the fire was being made, the heat reached in the
vessels chamber due to the draught enabled by the superior opening.
These types of installations offered the possibility to obtain higher
temperatures and, more importantly, a better control of the firing
atmosphere. This type might have been the best technological
solution for firing the fine, gracefully painted Starevo pottery; that is
why is documented at Ariud and Dumeti (the surface version), and
also in Cucuteni culture, famous for the quality of its painted pottery.
Due to the scarceness of discoveries, it is hard to trace the evolution
and the diffusion, in time and space of this installation.
A special interest is posed also by the type of kilns with two
vertically chambers, with a pillar or separation wall placed in the
burning room for sustaining the clay perforated grid. Besides an
early, hypothetical discovery at Alba Iulia-Lumea Nou (GLIGOR
2009, 252), this type was almost exclusively used (in the NeoChalcolithic cultures in the Romanian and proximity spaces) by the
potters belonging to the Cucuteni-Tripolie complex. This fact led to
the hypothesis that this type of kiln might as well represent a local
invention of the Cucuteni-Tripolie communities, based on the
gradual completion of the earlier types (COMA 1976, 29-30). We
are not excluding this theory, but in the same time, it must be noted
that this type of kiln was also used on a larger scale from the second
half of the seventh millennium BC in the Middle East (HANSEN
STREILY 2000, 69-81); this area, where Neolithic culture originated
and many technological inventions were developed, was a constant
influence for the South-Eastern part of Europe. This type of kiln is
also found in the early Neolithic from Greece (MYLONAS 1929, 1218) and probably, in other Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures from
Europe. As mentioned earlier, the discoveries of firing pottery
126

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

installations are quite rare in the archaeological researches, therefore,

the missing links cannot be considered as final arguments for
exclusion of any oriental influences, through a Balkan network.
Even more so, when we speak about the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic cultures on Romanian territory, we have to take into
account that there is no linear evolution of those installations;
different types, some simpler, some more complex, were being used
concurrently by the communities belonging to the same culture
(Cucuteni culture is the most convincing they used pits for firing
the pottery, simple kilns, with one or with two vertical chambers) or
even in the same settlement (at Crcea it was discovered a pit for
firing pottery, but also buried kilns with two chambers). The
impossible task of establishing an evolution chain or a certain
succession of technological information is the direct result of the
scarcity and inequality in discovering these installations.
Two complexes were discovered at Dumeti, one with three,
the other one with four kilns. Their successive positions, one with the
mouth placed in the back of the other, at very small distances, shows
that they werent used simultaneously, but rather they were
gradually built when the earlier one was abandoned (ALAIBA 2007,
67-70). However, this is not an argument to contradict the idea of a
special space, destined for pottery craft.
The firing installations archaeologically researched presents
a clear demarcation based on their position towards the settlement
and houses. Some are placed in the middle of the settlement, and
even within houses. These are generally, special spaces reserved for
the ceramic craftsmanship (the complex of kilns from Crcea, the
potters neighbourhood from Ariud, the kiln complex from
Dumeti, the kiln complex from Jvane), or for potters studios (like
those from Zorlenu Mare, Drgneti-Olt, Veselii Kut). The presence
of groups of kilns and the potters work places only strengthens the
idea of specialization of prehistoric artisans; they were members with
a special status in their community, earning their existence through
practicing pottery and having, probably, a kind of authority (social
and/or spiritual) over the communitys structures.
The fact that these installations were placed at a distance
127

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

from the settlement (the inhabited areas) also poses some interesting
problems. Firing pottery involved a certain amount of risk, involving
handling an unpredictable and unstable element fire. The
prevalence, in the pre and proto-historical architecture of wood and
other easily inflammable materials (reed or straw) only increased the
potential risk of fire (obvious from the numerous houses and
settlement destroyed by fire, either accidental or intentional). In this
context, the relative ostracism of the potters when practicing their
craft seems perfectly logical. Another, more symbolical trait of
conduct of the potter can be seen as an additional aspect of this
preventive regulation. This symbolical trait, which is very common
in different ethnographical situations, implies the isolation of the
firing process in order to avoid potential negative influences that the
other members of the community could, intentionally or not, exert on
the delicate process. There can be intentional negative influences,
such as spells, curses, invocation of evil spirits; unintentional actions
could be represented by the negative energies from people that
experience a temporary situation of dirtiness, either bodily or
spiritually (pregnancy, menstrual cycle, recently debuted sexual
intercourse, etc.) We cannot reconstruct in detail those types of
behaviour, but nonetheless they must have been practiced, being
only one facet of the spiritual and symbolical implications that
pottery craft had.
The absence of discoveries of installations in most of the
researched pre and proto-historical sites, besides being an
inconvenient for such a study, represents, in itself a reason for
meditation and proposal of new hypothesis. The traditional
archaeological approach links the existence of abundant quantities of
pottery, with fine, uniform burning, to the existence of sophisticated
installations. Maybe we have to search for these installations in other
forms (especially when we consider the open firing) or in other
places the periphery and the adjacent areas of the settlements.
The future of the studies concerning the technology of firing
pottery largely depends on using inter- and multi-disciplinary
methods in archaeological research. The non-intrusive research, geophysical and geo-magnetic studies, applied to narrow strips of at
128

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

least 100 meters around the settlements should help in locating an

important number of installations for firing the pottery. As useful
would be the physical and chemical detailed analysis on different
categories of ceramic fragments. Thermo analysis, diphractrometry
of X rays, ablution microscopy, Raman diphractrometry, etc. are
modern analysis available to any archaeologist nowadays and offers
the opportunity to build a data base on ceramic paste, characteristics
and ways of reacting to the firing. These data, complemented by
experiments made in the laboratory or on the field and with
installations attested both archaeologically and ethnographically
would substantially enrich the knowledge on the art and craft of
prehistoric pottery.
Translated by Alexandru Bounegru

129

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALAIBA R.
1997
Cercetri arheologice la Trinca-Izvorul lui Luca, R. Moldova
(1994-1995), cultura Horoditea-Gordineti, CAANT, II, p.
20-34.
2007
Complexul
cultural
Cucuteni-Tripolie.
Meteugul
olritului, Iai.
CARLTON R.
2008
The Role and Status of Women in the Pottery-Making Traditions of the
Western
Balkans,
Interpreting
Ceramics,
10,
http://www.uwic.ac.uk/icrc/issue010/articles/04.htm
(accessed 15.03.2009).
COLUSSY T.
2004
The
Process
of
Hopi-Tewa
Pottery
Making,
http://www.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/colu.ht
m (accessed 20.08.2004).
COMA E.
1976
Caracteristicile i nsemntatea cuptoarelor de ars oale din aria
culturii Cucuteni-Ariud, SCIVA, 21, 1, 23-34.
1981
Consideraii asupra cuptoarelor de olar din epoca neolitica, de
pe teritoriul Romniei, Studii i comunicri de istorie a
civilizaiei populare din Romnia, 1, Sibiu, 227-231.
CULWICK G. M.
1935
Pottery Among the Wabena of Ulanga, Tanganyika
Territory, Man, Vol. 35, 165-169.
DINU M.
1957
antierul arheologic Valea Lupului, MCA, 3, 161-176.
DORMAN M. H.
1938
Pottery among the Wangoni and Wandendehule, Southern
Tanganyika, Man, 38, 97-102.
ELLIS L.
1984
The Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, BAR International Series,
217.

130

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

GLIGOR M., LIPOT .

2009
Alba Iulia, jud. Alba Punct: Lumea Nou, str. Bayonne f.n.,
proprietatea Emil Rusu), CCA 2008, 251-253.
GODEA I.
1995
La ceramique, Timioara.
GOSSELAIN O. P.
1992
Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of
Cameroon, Man N.S., 27, 3, 559-586.
HANDLER J. S.
1964
Notes on Pottery-Making in Antigua, Man, 64, 150-151.
HANSEN-STREILY A.
2000
Early pottery kilns in the Middle East, Paleorient, 26, 2, 6981.
HODDER I.
1982
Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material
culture, Cambridge.
HOREDT K.
1949
Spturi privitoare la epoca neo- i eneolitic, Apulum, III,
44-66.
IERCOAN N.
1987
Un cuptor de ars ceramic din epoca neolitic descoperit la
Cpleni (Jud. Satu Mare), AMP, XI, 73-76.
LSZL F.
1914
Fouilles la station primitive de Ersd (1907-1912),
Dolgozatok-Cluj, V, 2, 279-386.
LAZAROVICI Gh., LAZAROVICI M.
2003
The Neo-Chalcolithic Architecture in Banat, Transylvania and
Moldavia, in Recent research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, in:
The Prehistoric Research, V. Grammenos (ed.), Thessaloniki,
553-556.
LICHIARDOPOL D.
1984
Un cuptor aparinnd culturii Cri descoperit la Ceptura,
SCIVA, 35, 1, 80-84.
LONGACRE W. A., XIA J., YANG T.
2000
I Want to Buy a Black Pot, JAMT, 7, 4, p. 273-293.
131

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

MAKKAY J.
2007
The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Krs culture
in the Krs valley, Hungary. The final report, I, The
excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves, Trieste.
MINICHREITER K.
2001
The architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements of
the Starcevo culture in Northern Croatia, DP, XXVIII, 199214.
2008
The White-painted Linear A Phase of the Starcevo Culture in
Croatia, Pril.Inst.arheol.Zagrebu, 24, 1, 21-34.
MYLONAS G. E.
1929
Excavations at Olynthus. Part 1. The Neolithic settlement,
London.
NICA M.
1978
Cuptoare de olrie din epoca neolitic descoperite In Oltenia,
Drobeta, 2, 18-29.
NICA M., NI T.
1979
Les etablissements neolithiques de Leu et Padea de la zone
d'interference des cultures Dudeti et Vina, Dacia N.S.,
XXIII, 31-64.
NICA M., ZORZOLIU T., FNTNEANU C., TNSESCU B.
1997
Cercetrile arheologice n tell-ul gumelnieano-slcuean de
la Drgneti-Olt, punctul Corboaica. Campania anului
1995, CAANT, II, 9-18.
PERLES C.
2004
The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities
in Europe, Cambridge.
PETERSON S.
1997
Pottery by American Indian Women,
http://www.sla.purdue.edu/WAAW/Peterson/Peters
onessay2.html (accessed 22.08.2004)
ROTH K.
1935
Pottery Making in Fiji, The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,
65, 217-233.
132

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

ROY C. D.
2003

African Pottery Techniques,

http://www.uiowa.edu/~intl/rft/pottery.html
(accessed 21.08.2004)

SILVA F. A.
2008
Ceramic Technology of the Asurini do Xingu, Brazil: An
Ethnoarchaeological Study of Artifact Variability, JAMT, 15,
217-265.
SZEKELY Z.
1970
Spturile executate de Muzeul Regional din Sf. Gheorghe (Reg.
Autonom Maghiar), MCA, VII, 179-188.
SZEKELY Z., BARTOK B.
1979
Cuptoare de ars oale din aezarea neolitic de la Ariud,
Materiale, III, 55-57.
TRAORE F.
1994
Cercetri etnoarheologice asupra ceramicii i olritului
tradiional din satul Manta (Republica Mali), AMN, 26-30,
535-549.
TSVEK E.T.
2002
Vesely Kut, a new centre of the east tripolian culture,
ArhMold, XXII, 17-29.
VIDEJKO M.
2004
Etapi tekhnologicnogo keramicnogo virobnictva, in:
Enciklopedija Trypil's'koj civilizacii, I, M. Ju. Videjko
(coord.), Kiev, 276-279.
Web sources:
http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/01/en/nl/nnii/dimini.html
(accessed 12.03.2009)
http://www.traditionsgambia.com/pottery.htm
(accessed 20.08.2004)

133

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

LIST OF PLATES
Fig. 1. 1-7. Open firings from different ethnographical areas
(Gambia 1-2; Burkina Faso 3; Pueblo community, New
Mexico, USA 4, Hopi community, Arizona, USA 5; Potravlje,
Croatia 6-7). 8-9. Schematic representations of open firings
without (type A1) and with isolation (type A2). (after
http://www.traditionsgambia.com/ pottery.htm 1-2; (ROY
2003 3; PETERSON 1997 - 4; COLUSSY 2004 5; CARLTON
20086-7).
Fig. 2. 1-4. Firing pits (type B), discovered at Ceptura, Prahova
County 1; Cpleni, Satu Mare County 2, Crcea, Olt County 3;
Drgneti, Olt County 4. 5-7. Schematic representations of firings
pits with different shapes (LICHIARDOPOL 1984; IERCOAN 1987;
NICA 1978; NICA et alii 1997).
Fig. 3. 1-6. Surface one-chambered kilns, discovered at Zorlenu
Mare, Cara-Severin County 1 (type C2), Trtria, Alba County 2,
(type C) Galibovi, Bulgaria 3 (type C2), Ariud, Covasna County
4 (type C1) and 5 (type C2), Dumeti, Vaslui County 6 (type C3). 79. Schematic representations of surface one-chambered kilns type
C 1-3 (LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003; HOREDT 1949;
LSZL 1914; ALAIBA 2007).
Fig. 4. 1. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access hole,
discovered at Crcea, Olt County (type D2); 2. Kiln with two
chambers placed vertically, separated by a perforated grid made
from clay, discovered at Glvnetii Vechi, Iai County (type E). 3-4.
Schematic representations of firing installations, D and E type
(NICA 1978; COMA 1976).
Fig. 5. Evolutional sketch of pottery firing installations.
Fig. 6. Map of pottery firing installations.

134

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

Fig. 1. 1-7. Open firings from different ethnographical areas (Gambia 1-2;
Burkina Faso 3; Pueblo community, New Mexico, USA 4, Hopi
community, Arizona, USA 5; Potravlje, Croatia 6-7). 8-9. Schematic
representations of open firings without (type A1) and with isolation (type
A2).
(after http://www.traditionsgambia.com/ pottery.htm 1-2; ROY 2003
3; PETERSON 1997 - 4; COLUSSY 2004 5; CARLTON 2008 6-7).

135

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

Fig. 2. 1-4. Firing pits (type B), discovered at Ceptura, Prahova County 1;
Cpleni, Satu Mare County 2, Crcea, Olt County 3; Drgneti, Olt
County 4. 5-7. Schematic representations of firings pits with different
shapes (after LICHIARDOPOL 1984; IERCOAN 1987; NICA 1978; NICA et
alii 1997).

136

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

Fig. 3. 1-6. Surface one-chambered kilns, discovered at Zorlenu Mare,

Cara-Severin County 1 (type C2), Trtria, Alba County 2, (type C)
Galibovi, Bulgaria 3 (type C2), Ariud, Covasna County 4 (type C1) and
5 (type C2), Dumeti, Vaslui County 6 (type C3). 7-9. Schematic
representations of surface one-chambered kilns type C 1-3 (after
LAZAROVICI GH., LAZAROVICI M. 2003; HOREDT 1949; LSZL 1914;
ALAIBA 2007).

137

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

Fig. 4. 1. Buried kiln with lateral fueling tunnel and access hole, discovered
at Crcea, Olt County (type D2); 2. Kiln with two chambers placed
vertically, separated by a perforated grid made from clay, discovered at
Glvnetii Vechi, Iai County (type E). 3-4. Schematic representations of
firing installations, D and E type (after NICA 1978; COMA 1976).

138

Fig. 5. Evolutional sketch of pottery firing installations

Fig. 5. Evolutional sketch of pottery firing installations

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology

139

Fig. 6. Map of pottery firing installations.

Felix-Adrian Tencariu

140