Content uploaded by Florin Gogaltan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florin Gogaltan on Apr 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNIVERSITÄTSFORSCHUNGEN
ZUR PRÄHISTORISCHEN ARCHÄOLOGIE
HABELT-VERLAG · BONN
LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Prähistorische Konfl iktforschung
Universität Frankfurt/M.
Römisch-Germanische Kommission Frankfurt/M.
Band 346
Materialisierung von Konfl ikten
herausgegeben von
edited by
Svend Hansen
Rüdiger Krause
2019
Materialisation of Confl icts
Materialisierung von Konflikten
Materialisation of Conflicts
Universitätsforschungen
zur prähistorischen Archäologie
Band 346
2019
Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Prähistorische Konfliktforschung
Universität Frankfurt/M.
Römisch-Germanische Kommission Frankfurt/M.
Prähistorische Konfliktforschung 4
herausgegeben von Svend Hansen und Rüdiger Krause
herausgegeben von
edited by
Svend Hansen
Rüdiger Krause
2019
Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
Materialisierung von Konflikten
Beiträge der Dritten Internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz
vom 24. bis 27. September 2018 in Fulda
Materialisation of Conflicts
Proceedings of the Third International LOEWE Conference,
24-27 September 2018 in Fulda
Redaktion: Andrea Streily, Berlin
Englisches Korrektorat & Übersetzungen: Emily Schalk, Berlin
Satz & Layout: Habelt-Verlag, Bonn
ISBN 978-3-7749-4229-5
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;
detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über ‹http://dnb.dnb.de› abrufbar.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
Die vorliegende Publikation wurde durch den
Open-Access-Publikationsfond der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main gefördert und ist unter
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-515307 verfügbar.
VORWORT
DER HERAUSGEBER
Die Reihe „Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori-
schen Archäologie“ trägt dem Bedürfnis Rechnung,
Examensarbeiten und andere Forschungsleistungen in
!
Ursprünglich hatten sich fünf Universitätsinstitute in
Deutschland zur Herausgabe der Reihe zusammenge-
funden, der Kreis ist inzwischen deutlich größer ge-
"#$
sind eingeladen, als Mitherausgeber tätig zu werden
%
&'"
( )#* -
*"+
#$.$/
gleicher Anordnung des Umschlages haben die ver-
0 '"
1 $ #
"2 $
%#)3)*'2
Herausgeber sind derzeit:
4.5/
6.)/
!./
.#5/
11$7.8&/
5#4)9.&/
79.)/
.;&/
%#3.5&/
#).4/
)#./
+)./
<).4/
=).#5/
+).+&/
7=.+/
=>.5&/
?4.4>/
%&4.#5/
4@4@./
?.5&/
=?&.#5/
=15.)/
75C!.5&/
=5&.4/
05&.4/
55&C;.4/
5@!@./
5.!1/
.5&/
$1.)/
71.5/
)./
7.=/
)C%>.;&/
%.)/
4%IC+I.;/
=&%.4>/
+%.?1/
+.%/
%+I.;/
;#+./
+>./
;#C%&.5&/
3.(/
02.?1/
4C);.3>/
8.4>/
VII
Inhalt / Contents
Inhalt / Contents
IX
1
13
45
67
85
93
133
147
163
191
223
241
Vorwort / Foreword
Allgemeine Studien / General Studies
Oliver Nakoinz (Kiel), Jutta Kneisel (Kiel) and Hermann Gorbahn (Kiel)
Competition and Conciliation: Modelling and Indicating Prehistoric Conicts
Rüdiger Krause (Frankfurt a. M.)
Zur Professionalisierung des Krieges in der Bronzezeit
Christian Horn (Gothenburg)
Showmen and Fighters – Bronze Age Rock Art and Weaponry in Scandinavia
William O´Brien (Cork)
Metal in Water: a Materialisation of War in the Irish Bronze Age?
Hai Ashkenazi (Tel Aviv) and Raphael Greenberg (Tel Aviv)
Shattered Maceheads at Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah: Symbolic Power and Destruction,
but Whose?
Fallstudien / Case Studies
Svend Hansen (Berlin)
Hillforts and Weaponry in the Early and Middle Bronze Age
Frank Verse (Fulda)
Kulturelle Kontinuität und Diskontinuität während der späten Bronzezeit in Osthessen
Hélène Blitte (Frankfurt a. M.)
LOEWE Excavations between Vogelsberg and Rhön Mountains in Eastern Hesse:
an Overview
Gábor V. Szabó (Budapest)
Die goldene Beinschiene, das Panzerdepot und das Schwertpaar. Neue Narrative zur
Ideologie der spätbronzezeitlichen Kriegerelite in Ungarn
Florin Gogâltan (Cluj-Napoca), Victor Sava (Arad) and Rüdiger Krause (Frankfurt a. M.)
Sântana-Cetatea Veche. A Late Bronze Age Mega-fort in the Lower Mureș Basin in
Southwestern Romania
Biba Teržan (Ljubljana)
Waenweihungen in der Karsthöhle Mušja jama/Fliegenhöhle bei Škocjan (Slowenien):
Sieger – Verlierer – Überlebende
Davide Delno (Coimbra)
Preparing the Landscape for Conict. Some Examples of ‘Castling’ during the Final
Bronze Age in Southwestern Europe. Between Practical and Symbolic Use of Hilltop
Walled Settlements
VIII Inhalt / Contents
259
277
299
323
347
365
Nick orpe (Winchester)
Scales of Conict in Bronze Age to Iron Age Britain: Enemies Both Outside and Within
Silke Müth (Kopenhagen)
Die spätklassische Stadtmauer von Messene: Koniktvorbereitung und Koniktprävention
Guido M. Berndt (Berlin)
e Armament of Lombard Warriors in Italy. Some Historical and Archaeological
Approaches
Daniel Föller (Frankfurt a. M.)
Taking Fortresses in Aquitaine. e Semantics of Conict in the Historiographical
Record of the Carolingian Conquest, 760–769 CE
Abschlussdiskussion / Panel Discussion
Autorenliste / List of Authors
IX
Krieg in prähistorischer Zeit: Fakten und Fiktionen
Die dritte LOEWE-Tagung fand vom 24. bis 27.
Sep tember 2018 in Fulda (Hessen) statt und stand
thematisch unter dem Überbegri „Materiali-
sierung von Konikten“. Nach den ersten beiden
internationalen Jahrestagungen unseres LOEWE-
Schwer punkts „Prähistorische Koniktforschung“
in Frankfurt a. M. (2016) und Alba Iulia (2017)
haben wir mit einer dritten LOEWE-Tagung 2018
zum einen die Frage in den Mittelpunkt gestellt, wie
sich von materiellen, archäologischen Überresten
auf Konikte schließen lässt; zum anderen sollte
die Frage beantwortet werden, welche materiellen
Spuren von Konikten sich überhaupt dokumen-
tieren lassen und wie sich diese Dokumentationen
auf die Interpretation kriegerischer Konikte aus-
wirken. Hierzu lassen sich verschiedene Zugänge
beschreiben, die in den Vorträgen in konkreten
Fallbeispielen vertie und in theoretischer Per-
spektive diskutiert wurden.
1. Materialisierte Vorbereitung von Konikten
Bewanete Konikte werden meist sehr aufwen-
dig materiell vorbereitet: Waen werden pro-
duziert und Befestigungsanlagen errichtet oder
verändert (ausgebaut), Vorräte und Ausrüstung
gesammelt etc. Dieser Prozess beschränkt sich
nicht nur auf die Herstellung und Veränderung
von Objekten, sondern kann auch soziale, kul-
turelle und wirtschaliche Konsequenzen zur
Folge haben. Diskurse manifestieren sich in ver-
schiedensten Medien, militärische Sozialstruk-
turen determinieren Siedlungsformen oder brin-
gen spezische materielle Kulturen hervor.
2. Materialisierungen von Koniktverläufen
Die Gewalt innerhalb eines bewaneten Konikts
ist eine spezische Form sozialen Handelns für die
Kombattanten, aber auch für Dritte. Die Motive
und Eekte können dabei sehr unterschiedlich
sein, immer jedoch hat Gewalt zum Ziel, phy-
sischen Schaden an Körpern von Menschen und
Objekten zu hinterlassen. Doch sind die – be-
absichtigten wie unbeabsichtigten – materiellen
Schäden als Resultat von Kampandlungen nicht
die einzige Möglichkeit, wie sich Koniktverläufe
materialisieren können. Selbst wenn es nicht zu
Kampandlungen kommt, bewegen sich in ei-
nem Konikt zahlreiche Lebewesen und Objekte
im Raum (Truppen- oder Fluchtbewegungen,
Versorgungslinien etc.), und auch diese Bewe-
gungen hinterlassen materielle Spuren. Daneben
können Produktion und Distribution von Gütern
vom Verlauf eines Konikts beeinusst werden,
sei es durch das Fehlen von Arbeitskräen oder
Materialien, sei es durch veränderte Bedürfnisse.
3. Materialisierte Folgen von Konikten
Nach einem Konikt sind die materiellen Folgen
von Koniktvorbereitung und -verlauf von den
Akteuren zu bewältigen. Einerseits kann damit
das Reparieren oder Ersetzen von zerstörten, be-
schädigten oder entfernten Objekten gemeint
sein, andererseits aber auch der Umgang mit
Verletzungen bei Menschen oder Tieren und mit
toten Körpern. Auch Kriegsbeute gehört in diesen
Kontext. Zudem ergeben sich aus Koniktausgän-
gen häug materielle Folgen, etwa durch die Aus-
handlung von Entschädigungen oder Tributen,
oder Veränderungen in der Kontrolle von Terri-
torien, was wiederum zu weitreichenden Rück-
koppelungen führen kann, auf materieller wie
immaterieller Ebene. Besonders ist die kulturelle
Bewältigung von Konikten hervorzuheben, die
sich etwa in Denkmälern oder in sozioökonomi-
schem Wandel materialisieren kann.
4. Materialisierte Symbolisierungen von Konikten
Zu den drei genannten Materialisierungsaspekten,
die sich an realen kriegerischen Koniktphasen
orientieren, kommt ein vierter ergänzender
Gesichtspunkt hinzu. Konikt-, Kampf- und
Gewaltbereitscha haben im Verlauf der Mensch-
Vorwort
XVorwort
heitsgeschichte vielfältige Symbolisierungen
erfahren, die einen materiellen Niederschlag
gefunden haben. In Stein gemeißelte Gewaltver-
herrlichung und Siegermythen, Darstellungen
von Kriegsgöttern, Heldenembleme, Pfähle, Stelen
und repräsentative Waen – alle diese materiali-
sierten Artefakte verweisen nicht nur auf tatsäch-
liche Auseinandersetzungen, sondern vielmehr
noch auf kulturelle Deutungen von Gewalt und
Krieg. Sie legitimieren Feindschaen, verweisen
auf Wehrhaigkeit und prämieren gewaltbereite
Haltungen und Praktiken.
Die Tagung wurde am 24. September 2018 durch
Ministerialrat Daniel Köfer vom Hessischen Mi-
nis terium für Wissenscha und Kunst (HMWK)
erönet. Teilnehmende Kolleginnen und Kollegen
aus zwölf Ländern haben in 22 Referaten über ihre
Forschungen berichtet; am Schluss fand am Nach-
mittag des 26. September 2018 eine zweistündige
Abschlussdiskussion statt, die wir ebenso wie die
Vorträge in diesem Tagungsband vorlegen können.
Wir danken dafür allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen.
Für die sorgfältige redaktionelle Bearbeitung
der Beiträge danken wir Frau Dr. Andrea Streily,
für die englischen Übersetzungen und Über-
arbeitungen Frau Dr. Emily Schalk. Der Verlag
Dr. Rudolf Habelt hat in bewährter Weise die
Drucklegung übernommen, wofür wir Frau Dr.
Susanne Biegert sehr danken. Wir danken auch
dem Open-Access-Publikationsfonds der Uni-
versitätsbibliothek der Goethe-Universität Frank-
furt a. M. für die nanzielle Zuwendung, durch
die eine zusätzliche Open-Access-Publikation des
Sammelbandes ermöglicht worden ist.
Rüdiger Krause und Svend Hansen
Frankfurt a. M./Berlin im September 2019
Information und Programm der Konferenz:
www.uni-frankfurt.de/praehistorische_Koniktforschung unter “Events”
Open-Access-Publikation der 3. LOEWE-Konferenz:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-515307
Die 2016-2018 im Rahmen des LOEWE-Projekts durchgeführten Ausgrabungen in den Hessischen
Mittelgebirgen und in Rumänien sind auf der Homepage abruar:
www.uni-frankfurt.de/praehistorische_Koniktforschung unter “Highlights”
XI
Krieg in prähistorischer Zeit: Fakten und Fiktionen
e third LOEWE conference was held on Sep-
tember 24–27, 2018, in Fulda (Hesse) with the spe-
cic thematic topic “Materialisation of Conicts”.
Following the rst two international annual con-
ferences of our LOEWE focal project “Prehistoric
Conict Research”, which were held in Frankfurt
a. M. (2016) and in Alba Iulia (2017), the central
line of inquiry of the third LOEWE conference in
2018 was concerned with the conclusions that can
be drawn from the material and archaeological
remains of conicts and the information that they
provide. Further, to what extent can these material
remains be documented at all, and what inuence
might such documentation exert upon our inter-
pretations of warlike conicts. In this regard vari-
ous approaches were made and described in the
specic case studies and discussed in theoreti cal
perspectives.
1. Materialised preparation for conict
e material preparations made for armed conict
were usually quite extensive: Weapons were pro-
duced and fortication measures were constructed
or renewed, reserve provisions and armament were
collected, etc. ese preparatory steps were not lim-
ited to the production and improvement of objects
alone; they also had social, cultural and economic
consequences. e resultant discourse is manifested
in various media, and military social structures
were determinative in settlement arrangements or
led to specic material cultural forms.
2. Materialisations in the course of conict
Violence in armed conicts is a specic form of
social behaviour among the combatants as well as
for third persons. e motives and eects thereof
can vary greatly, yet violence is always aimed at
inicting lasting physical damage to humans
and to objects. However, the material damages –
whether intentional or not – that resulted from
battles are not the sole possibility for materialising
the course of conicts. Even in cases in which ac-
tual ghting did not occur, there were numerous
living beings and other objects involved (troops,
refugees, supply lines, etc.) that le behind visible,
material traces as well. Further, the production
and distribution of goods were aected during the
course of conict, for example, through the lack of
workforces or materials, or due to changes in daily
or other needs.
3. Materialised consequences of conicts
In the aermath of conict the material conse-
quences of preparations made prior to and the
course of conict present a great challenge for the
participants involved. is pertains to, on the one
hand, objects that were destroyed, damaged or
taken away, while, on the other hand, to caring for
wounded persons or animals and removing dead
bodies. War booty also belongs to this context. In
addition, there are oen material consequences to
conicts, such as negotiating reparations or trib-
utes, or changing the control of territories, which
in turn could lead to far-reaching reactions in a
material as well as an immaterial aspect. Especially
noteworthy is the cultural challenge and reac-
tion to conict, as materialised – for example – in
monuments and in socioeconomic changes.
4. Materialised symbolisation of conicts
In addition to the aforenamed aspects of materi-
alisation concerning actual phases of warlike con-
frontations, there is still an augmentative fourth
aspect: In the course of human history conict,
battle and the willingness to ght have received
diverse symbolisations that are reected in ma-
terial objects. e glorication of violence and
historical myths chiselled in stone, images of war
gods, monuments and emblems of heroes, com-
memorative stelae and posts, and representative
weaponry not only allude to actual confronta-
tions, but also reect cultural interpretations of
Foreword
Foreword
XII
violence and war. ey legitimise enmities, signify
defensibility and represent a primarily aggressive
attitude and behaviour.
e third LOEWE conference was opened on
September 24, 2018, by Daniel Köfer, council of
the Hesse Ministry for Science and Art (HMWK).
Participant colleagues from twelve countries re-
ported on their research, in all 22 scientic pa-
pers. In closing, on the aernoon of September
26, 2018, two-hour panel discussion was held,
which is also included in this volume of papers.
We are very grateful to all colleagues for their par-
ticipation.
Information and conference-program:
www.uni-frankfurt.de/praehistorische_Koniktforschung via “Events”
Open access publication of the 3rd LOEWE conference:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-515307
Excavations carried out in 2016–2018 in the Central German Mountains in Hesse and in Romania as
part of the LOEWE project can be accessed online:
www.uni-frankfurt.de/praehistorische_Koniktforschung via “Highlights”
We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Andrea
Streily for her thorough editorial processing of all
papers and to Dr. Emily Schalk for English trans-
lations and proofreading. e publishing house
Dr. Rudolf Habelt has in its well proven way as-
sumed the publication of this volume, for which
we extend our thanks to Dr. Susanne Biegert.
We are grateful for the nancial support of Open
Access-Publication Funds from the university li-
brary of the Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M.,
which made this additional publication of the
conference volume in open access possible.
Rüdiger Krause and Svend Hansen
Frankfurt a. M./Berlin, September 2019
XIII
Krieg in prähistorischer Zeit: Fakten und Fiktionen
Poster der LOEWE-Konferenz in Fulda 2018 / Poster for the LOEWE conference in Fulda 2018
191
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
In memoriam Alexandru Szentmiklosi (1971–2019)
Florin Gogâltan, Victor Sava and Rüdiger Krause
Sântana–Cetatea Veche. A Late Bronze Age Mega-fort in the
Lower Mureș Basin in Southwestern Romania
Introduction
Because of the site’s size and the abundance of ar-
chaeological ndings, the Bronze Age mega-fort
at Sântana–Cetatea Veche has sparked the interest
of antiquarians from a very early time onwards.
e German settlers who formerly inhabited the
area were already aware of the existence of an old
fortication just outside of the village, as shown
by the rst Austrian military survey (1769–1772),
which denotes the location of the “Alte Schanz”,
clearly distinguished from the so-called “Römer
Schanz” situated nearby (Fig. 2). e same map
indicates that a tavern was established on the
northeastern corner of the fortication (“Wirths-
haus an der Schanz”),1 whose remains are still vis-
ible on the ground today. We are clearly dealing
once more with an example of historical memory
preserved by a local community in a toponym.
e name “Cetatea Veche”, i.e. “old fort”, was
adopted by the Romanian Railways for the since
decommissioned train station situated inside the
perimeter of the prehistoric fortication.
is very signicant archaeological site is situ-
ated in southwestern Romania, 15 km west of the
Apuseni Mountains and 25 km from the point
where the Mureș River exits from the mountain
gorge (Figs. 1. 28,7). e fortication was erected
upon a higher part of the plain, sheltered from the
periodic oods of the Mureș River, which today
ows at a distance of 20 km from the site. Flood
control and marsh-draining works undertaken
by the authorities of the Habsburg Empire dur-
ing the 18th and 19th centuries have dramatically
changed the landscape of the region. e palaeo-
environmental analyses in conjunction with the
study of the region’s oldest maps have unveiled the
image of a region with a strong tendency towards
1 www.mapire.eu.
ooding and marsh formation, especially in the
lowland areas. e numerous watercourses of the
plain together with the multiannual ooding of
the Mureș River ensured the perpetuation of a
marshy scenery. Furthermore, the high density of
watercourses throughout the plain led to the frag-
mentation of the entire Lower Mureș Basin.2
In the following the most recent results produced
by archaeological research at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche in 2018 will be presented. Even though many
of the aspects presented below, such as the history of
research at this place, have already been published
early on, we believe that it is important to precisely
2 Blazovich 1996; Gyucha/Duy/Frolking 2011; Gulyás/
Sümegi 2011a; 2011b; Sümegi et al. 2011; Salisbury/
Bácsmegi/Sümegi 2013; Sava 2015, 12-15. e Italian
cleric Rogerius (Rogero di Puglia) oers a concise de-
scription of the landscape of the Criș and Mureș River
Basins in his famous Carmen miserabile (Epistola ma-
gistri Rogerii in miserabile carmen supra destructione
regni Hungariae per tartaros facta) written in the mid-
13th century AD (Rogerius XXXIV-XXXIV).
Fig. 1 Map of the Intra-Carpathian region and the administra-
tive map of Romania with the location of Sântana (the map of
the Intra-Carpathian region was realised by H. Balész, source:
http://www.ace.hu/igcp442/maps.html; the administrative map
of Romania was elaborated by the authors)
192 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
History of research
As it was common at that time, the site drew the
attention of local antiquarians during the 19th
century:4 e rst detailed description of the “old
fort” was published by Sándor Márki towards the
end of the century.5 Nonetheless, it is quite sur-
prising that even though decades earlier an im-
portant Bronze Age gold hoard was discovered
(Fig. 3),6 this remarkable nd did not generate
immediate interest among local antiquarians.
In spite of appeals for investigation made by the
Hungarian Archaeological Society in Budapest,
or later by Constantin Daicoviciu, director of the
4 Fábián 1835, 91; Parecz 1871, 8. 19; Miletz 1876, 166-
167; Péch 1877.
5 Márki 1882, 112-121; 1884, 185-194.
6 Hampel 1889, 375; 1890, 190; Márki 1892, 34. 39-41;
Dörner 1960; Rusu 1972, 49 no. 58; Mozsolics 1973,
208 Taf. 104. 105; Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1996 Pl.
XII-XIII; Kemenczei 1999, 67, Kat. 52; Rusu/Dörner/
Ordentlich 1999 Abb. 13-14.
Fig. 2 e fortication at Sântana (“Alte Schanz”) and the “Wirtshaus an der Schanz” on the map of the rst military survey of the
Habsburg Empire (1769-1772) (source: www.mapire.eu)
establish the extent of our comprehension concern-
ing the archaeological realities of the site. Recent
research there was carried out within the frame-
work of the LOEWE project “Prehistoric Conict
Research – Bronze Age Hillforts between Taunus
and Carpathian Mountains”, abiding by its main
scientic guidelines.3 In addition to the archaeo-
logi cal excavations, the research eort also included
the magnetometric survey of the entire area of the
fortication coupled with a LiDAR scanning of a
territory measuring nearly 850 ha. e archae o-
logi cal excavation undertaken in the eastern part
of the defensive line pertaining to enclosure III, has
produced new absolute chronological data which
in conjunction with previously obtained chrono-
logical information placed the fortication in the
interval between the 15th and 13th centuries BC.
3 Hansen/Krause 2018b.
193
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Archaeological Institute in Cluj, the situation re-
mained unchanged: No archaeological research of
the site was initiated.7
Following the end of World War II and the in-
statement of the communist regime in Romania,
all archaeological institutions were restructured.
At the beginning of the 1950s numerous young
archaeologists took on positions in these institu-
tions, among them Egon Dörner at the Regional
Museum in Arad and Mircea Rusu at the Institute
of Archaeology in Cluj. Both were born in Arad
County and bound by a lifelong friendship, cir-
cumstances which eventually prompted them to
engage jointly in the commencement of archaeo-
logical research at Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Basing
on a series of short unpublished reports found in
the archive of the Museum of Arad, we know that
the rst small-scale excavations were undertaken
at Sântana in the year 1952. Moreover, from the
very start the Bronze Age pottery recovered from
the surface during eldwork proved that they were
dealing with a prehistoric site and not a site of the
Avar period, as previously thought. e dating was
7 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 17-18.
corroborated by subsequent small-scale excava-
tions and surveys carried out during the next year.
8
Although the initial archaeological investiga-
tions were conducted at Sântana–Cetatea Veche in
1952, systematic research campaigns began only a
decade later, in the summer of 1963. e research
team included Mircea Rusu from the Institute of
Archaeology in Cluj-Napoca, Egon Dörner, head
of the Department of Ancient History and Ar-
chaeology in the Museum of Arad, as well as Ivan
Ordentlich from the County Museum of Oradea.
e rst campaign focused on investigating the
northern part of enclosure III, the northwestern
part of enclosure I, while two further trenches
were opened inside the same enclosure (see be-
low Fig. 6). A total number of four trenches were
opened during this rst campaign. As a result of
these investigations, the fortication at Sântana
was dated unequivocally to the late stages of the
Bronze Age.9 e rst report concerning the re-
sults of this campaign was published in the Ro-
8 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 20-21.
9 Horedt 1967a, 149; 1967b, 21; Rusu 1969; Horedt
1974, 224 no. 19; Dörner 1976, 42-44.
Fig. 3. Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Gold artefacts from the hoard discovered in 1888 (the archive of the Museum of Arad)
194 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
manian language in 1996,10 followed by its trans-
lation into German in 1999.11 Both reports focus
on general descriptions regarding the nds from
every trench, display abundant illustrations and
emphasise the chronology of the artefacts, espe-
cially the metal objects.
In 2008, 45 years later, as a result of a collabo-
ration between the Museum of Arad and the In-
stitute of Archaeology and Art History in Cluj-
Napoca, the University of Bochum (Professor Tobias
L. Kienlin), the West University in Timișoara (Pro-
fessor Dorel Micle), the rst small scale magneto-
metric survey were carried out on the site, covering
the southeastern part of the fortication.
12
In 2009
rescue excavations had to be undertaken in the area
of the defensive enclosure III, due to the construc-
tion of a new gas pipeline. Additionally, two further
trenches were opened inside the respective perim-
eter.
13
In 2011 the northern part of the site was re-
10 Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1996.
11 Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1999.
12 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 27.
13 e preliminary results of the excavations were pub-
lished in Gogâltan/Sava 2010, while the Eneolithic
nds were discussed in Sava et al. 2014 and Sava 2015,
searched again with new small-scale excavations,
with the aim of understanding the stratigraphy of
the respective area.
14
During 2014 and 2015, a series of eld surveys
and aerial archaeological surveys were carried out
within the framework of the project entitled “Liv-
ing
in the Bronze Age Tell Settlements. A Study of
Settlement Archaeology at the Eastern Frontier of
the Carpathian Basin”, hosted by the Institute of
Archaeology and Art History from Cluj-Napoca
(Romanian Academy of Sciences) (Fig. 4).15 e re-
search eorts concentrated mainly on a number of
Middle Bronze Age sites in the vicinity of Sântana,
and only partially on the site at “Cetatea Veche”.16
Systematic research of the respective site was widely
adopted in 2018 in the collaboration between the
51-54. 227-230. 233-234. In addition to aforemen-
tioned publications, the Bronze Age nds which
came to light in 2009 were also partially addressed in
Gogâltan/Sava 2012; Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013;
Gogâltan/Sava 2018; Sava/Gogâltan/Krause 2019.
14 e majority of nds as well as the identied features
belong to the Eneolithic period (Baden Culture), see
Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2012; Sava 2015, 52-53.
15 Gogâltan/Cordoş/Ignat 2014; Gogâltan 2016.
16 Sava 2014.
Fig. 4. Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Aerial photography of the fortication, April 2014 (photo by the authors)
195
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Museum of Arad, the Goethe University in Frank-
furt am Main and the Institute of Archaeo logy
and Art History in Cluj-Napoca. e project was
generously nanced by the LOEWE program “Pre-
historic Conict Research – Bronze Age Hillforts
between Taunus and Carpathian Mountains”.
Geomagnetic prospection and
3D-landscape modelling
e magnetometric prospection in 2018 was car-
ried out by Dr. Arno Patzelt & Partner in two cam-
paigns. Accordingly, the rst campaign took place
parallel with the archaeological eldwork during
July 2018, while the second campaign was organ-
ized later that year in October. In order to cover the
entire fortication, the area included in the geo-
physical survey was extended to 102 ha (Fig. 5).
No information could be gathered, however, from
a number of areas, such as the railway line cross-
ing roughly through the middle of the site, the gas
pipelines, the transmission towers and in addition a
small area in the northern part of the site where the
ruins of the former Sântana–Cetatea Veche train
station can be located. e obvious aim of these in-
vestigations was to identify the defensive elements
and their characteristics, together with the evolu-
tion of the habitation within the perimeter of these
defences. As we shall see, in order to ensure a better
understanding of the structure of the site, the exten-
sion of the geophysical survey area was necessary.
e magnetometric anomalies conrmed the
existence of at least three defensive systems, which
since the 1963 investigations are designated enclo-
sures I, II and III (Fig. 6). Traces of huge amounts
of burnt material such as clay at the surface, as well
as the results of the archaeological investigation
conrmed that the fortications had all burned
down. Enclosure I has an approximately rectan-
gular shape with rounded corners, measuring al-
most 20 ha. Its defensive architecture consists of
a ditch and palisade. e results of the magneto-
metric survey suggest that the defensive system
was not built uniformly: the northeastern side only
displays a palisade, while the rest of the perimeter
incorporates more complex defences consisting of
a rampart17 and ditch combination. Unquestion-
17 Henceforth, the term “palisade/wall” will be used with
regard to the hitherto unique situation documented
in Late Bronze Age mega-forts in the Lower Mureș
ably, the interpretation of the magnetometric data
needs to be validated in detail by archaeological ex-
cavations. e entire perimeter seems to have had
a single gate, positioned in the northwestern cor-
ner and constructed in the so-called “en chicane”
technique, which thus sets it apart from the cases
documented at Cornești–Iarcuri18 and Csanád-
palota–Földvár.19 e closest analogy can be found
at Munar–Wolfsberg (Fig. 28). Nevertheless, with-
out proper archaeological investigations it remains
uncertain as to whether the respective gate belongs
to the Middle Bronze Age tell or to the large Late
Bronze Age fortied settlement from Munar.20
Enclosure II displays a dierent defensive
system (Fig. 6), apparently consisting of a ditch
and palisade combination, whereby the palisade
shows traces of re in various places. No traces
of a rampart can be seen on the ground today,
nor in the magnetometric anomaly map, as is the
same case with the other two enclosures I and
III. e constructors of this defensive area seem
to have focused on the integration of the old wa-
tercourse that originally bordered enclosure I. A
similar strategy was employed at Cornești–Iarcuri
through the extension of the second ring and the
integration of the Carani and Lacului valleys.21
Still, the reasons behind such measures are dif-
cult to explain. e defences in this part of en-
closure II could only full their role eciently in
conjunction with the eastern and northeastern
part of the so-called enclosure III. Indeed, as
shown below in detail, our excavations in the
summer of 2018 resulted in the identication of
two construction phases of the palisade/timber
and clay wall. Furthermore, it is possible that the
four interruptions in the ditch are in fact the en-
trances into the fortication.
Valley. e palisade proper, as will be shown below,
was incorporated into a wood and clay structure, re-
sulting in a wall with a thickness of more than 1 m
constructed on the edge of the rampart.
18 Szentmiklosi et al. 2011 Figs. 12-13; Heeb et al. 2012
Abb. 6; Heeb/Jahn/Szentmiklosi 2014, 19-20 Fig.
19; Szentmiklosi et al. 2016, 106 Fig. 1.2; Heeb et al.
2017b, Fig. 5; 2018 Abb. 3.
19 Szeverényi/Priskin/Czukor 2014 kép 7; Czukor et al.
2017 kép 2; Szalontai et al. 2017 ábr. 3.
20 Gogâltan 2016, 93-94 Fig. 5; Sava/Gogâltan 2017, 91
Figs. 10-13.
21 Szentmiklosi et al. 2011 Fig. 2; Nykamp 2017, 30 Figs.
14-15; Heeb et al. 2018 Abb. 1; Krause et al. 2019, 136
Abb. 3-4; Lehmphul et al. 2019, 254 Fig. 1.
196 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 5. Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e magnetometric survey of the fortication (magnetogram by Dr. Patzelt & Partner)
Fig. 6. Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Plan of the main defensive systems (enclosures I-III) (plan by the authors)
197
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
e largest enclosure III at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche, covers an area of approximately 90 ha and
has mostly an oval shape, whereas its northern side
is almost straight (Fig. 6). In this case, the results of
the magnetometric investigation were conrmed
by the three campaigns of archaeological excava-
tions undertaken in 1963, 2009 and 2018. Accord-
ingly, the defensive elements of enclosure III are
composed of a large earthen rampart, a palisade
or a timber-and-daub wall built on the edge of the
rampart and two ditches that ran along most of the
enclosure’s length. e northern and eastern sector
of the palisade or timber-and-clay wall was certain-
ly destroyed in a massive re. e strong anomaly
recorded on the eastern, southern and southwest-
ern segments is a result of the wall’s remains be-
ing washed into the defensive ditch below. e two
ditches run along most of the rampart’s length with
the exception of the western side, where the mag-
netometric data suggests the existence of a single
ditch. Moreover, it should also be noted that on a
small part of the northern sector of enclosure III,
on the line of the gas pipeline, the ditches are ab-
sent. is is the area where the enclosure and the
old watercourse meet. Here it seems that the two
ditches running along the rampart were relocated
along the watercourse. Further, it can be noted that
in certain parts, such as the northeastern corner
and the area in the vicinity of the southwestern
gate, the distance between the ditches and the ram-
part increases. On the southwestern side the ram-
part is interrupted in two places, most likely these
being the only entrances to enclosure III. ese
entrances or gates seem to be blocked by ditches
positioned in front of them, most likely intended
as a defensive measure. Visible in back of the ram-
part running along enclosure III are clay extraction
points, just as in the case of the rst and second
ring enclosures in Cornești–Iarcuri.22
In addition to the three fortications that are
actually visible on the ground, the magnetometric
survey identied further ditches inside the forti-
cation, which are situated in the western half of
enclosure III (Fig. 6). One of these ditches, which
22 Szentmiklosi et al. 2011 Fig. 12a-c.
Fig. 7 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Plan showing the main defensive systems and the buildings identied in the magnetometric survey
(plan by the authors)
198 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
separates the entire area along an east-west axis,
seems to be oriented towards the north; this was
deduced in view of a clay extraction point located
behind the ditch. Other ditches delimit larger as
well as smaller areas in the northwestern corner
of enclosure III. Some of the interruptions might
indicate possible entrances to the fortication, but
this hypothesis needs to be validated by archaeo-
logical research. Furthermore, the aforesaid inner
ditches may possibly demarcate areas with various
economic functions or even residential areas, con-
sidering the high density of surface dwellings with-
in the northwestern sector of enclosure III (Fig. 7).
A further surprising fact provided by the mag-
netometric survey is the existence of a complex
system of ditches outside enclosure III. Consider-
ing the size of the researched area, it is impossible
to state with certainty at this time whether we are
dealing with newly discovered defensive works, or
whether these ditches had an altogether dierent
role. e fact that a ditch situated in the western
sector of the fortication, north of the railway line,
is in reality the continuation of enclosure III’s inner
ditch, seems to indicate a certain degree of contem-
poraneity between the two ditches. For example,
similar ditches positioned outside of the fortica-
tion are also present in Csanádpalota–Földvár
23
and
23 Szeverényi et al. 2017, 138-139 Fig. 5.
Fig. 8 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Examples of buildings identied in the magnetometric survey, arranged according to their length
(illustration by the authors)
199
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Makó–Rákos-Császárvár,
24
both located not too far
from Sântana–Cetatea Veche (Fig. 28), as well as at
Gradište Idjoš in the Serbian Banat.
25
In addition to the identication of the main
de fen sive elements of the mega-fort at Sântana–
Cetatea Veche, the magnetometric survey oered
a rst insight into the dynamics of habitation
within this fortication (Fig. 7). e identied
structures are concentrated in the smallest enclo-
sure I as well as in the northern corner of enclo-
sure III. e space between these structures varies,
depending on the dimensions of the buildings.
Even though a certain degree of linearity can be
observed with regard to their layout, such an as-
sertion can only be substantiated by means of ar-
chaeological research once the chronological rela-
tion between the buildings is determined (Fig. 8).
At any rate, the situation diers from that of the
dwellings investigated inside the Late Bronze Age
fortications in Cornești–Iarcuri26 and at Căuaș–
24 Szeverényi et al. 2017, 139. 141 Fig. 6.
25 Molloy et al. 2017, 164-165 Fig. 2.
26 Lehmphul et al. 2018, 38-43; Heeb et al. 2018 Abb. 4;
Krause et al. 2019, 143. 145-146 Abb. 12. 15-17. 20;
Lehmphul et al. 2019 Fig. 13.
Sighetiu, which thus far represents a unique
situation with regard to the realities of the eastern
Carpathian Basin.27 A further aspect that should
be noted is the lack of dwellings in the area of the
watercourse and the absence of fort gates.
ere are quite a few cases in which the shape of
the structures as well as their interior partition can
be studied based on the geophysical data. What we
can determine so far is that the constructions are
rectangular, some of them displaying multiple com-
partments, the majority having a north-northwest
– south-southwest orientation (Fig. 8). Most struc-
tures display a length between 10 and 20 m; however,
some of the constructions are truly impressive in
terms of size, with lengths exceeding 40 m. Indeed,
one of the buildings situated inside enclosure I is
ca. 60 m long and 40 m wide, and the geomagnetic
structures of at least two large complexes can be
recognised (Fig. 9). Here we expressly warn against
any overly hasty attempt at interpreting this unusual
nd complex, for the geomagnetic ndings and
structures exhibit constructions that might belong
to dierent contexts and buildings.
27 Kienlin/Marta 2014, 385-392.
Fig. 9 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e largest building structure discovered 2018 at Sântana
(magnetogram by Dr. Patzelt & Partner)
200 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
From the very beginning it was noticed that
the respective structures were positioned in an
area with higher elevation, which is in fact the
most visible point within the fortication, as
shown by the digital terrain model (Fig. 11). e
freshly ploughed eld revealed a large quantity
of burnt daub fragments, some quite large in size,
deriving from the demolition of the building’s
walls, as well as typical Late Bronze Age II (Rei-
necke Bronze C and D) pottery fragments. e fact
that we are dealing with a structure of impressive
dimensions is also suggested by the lighter colour
displayed by the surface of the mound, due to the
high concentration of daub fragments and traces
of burning, a situation usually only encountered
along the burnt rampart parts in enclosures I and
III (Fig. 10). On the other hand, we must repeat
our counsel against hasty interpretations of this
nd context. Namely, the geomagnetic anoma -
lies and the structures deduced from it must rst
be veried through archaeological excavations.
Investigations in the area of this specic structure
began in 2019; the rst results will be presented in
a forthcoming publication.
Geomagnetic survey is an essential part of
every modern archaeological research; however,
the results need to be validated by archaeological
investigations in order to avoid the risk of specu-
lation. Accordingly, invasive methods are essential
in the analysis and interpretation of any archaeo-
logical context, especially in the case of Sântana–
Cetatea Veche, where several Eneolithic features
are known in addition to places of medieval and
modern structures. Comparing the magnetomet-
ric data of Sântana–Cetatea Veche with similar
coeval fortied settlements on the lower course of
the Mureș River, one can note both marked simi-
larities as well as considerable dierences. First of
all, the ditches in Sântana–Cetatea Veche, when
compared with those of the Early- and Middle
Bronze Age tells in the region,28 seem to have lost
their central defensive role.29 Emphasis was placed
by the constructors of the period on the massive
ram parts built in various techniques and com-
pleted by strong palisades and earthen walls.30
With regard to the dierences, the most sig-
nicant aspect concerns the relatively large num-
ber of buildings identied at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche, as well as their dimensions. For example, at
Corneşti–Iarcuri only a small number of rectan-
gular structures could be documented, each with
lengths varying between 10 and 20 m.31 During
28 Gogâltan 2016, 92 Fig. 5, 95. 8, 96. 9, 97. 10.
29 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 33. 36; Szentmiklosi et al. 2011,
826 Fig. 4; Szentmiklosi et al. 2016, 110 Fig. 4; Sze-
verényi et al. 2017, 138-139.
30 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 29-30; Szentmiklosi et al. 2011,
826 Figs. 4-7; Szeverényi et al. 2017, 141.
31
e rst enclosure comprised a single, relatively small-
sized rectangular building (Heeb et al. 2012 Abb. 7).
Fig. 10. Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Aerial photography of enclosure I (photo by N. Kapcsos)
201
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
the 2013 campaign a 16-m long and 10-m wide
rectangular structure with two compartments was
investigated. e charcoal remains oered a wide
dating, which covers a period set between 1610
and 1210 calBC, the latter date representing the
terminus post quem for the respective structure.32
In the case of Csanádpalota–Földvár, neither the
magnetometric survey nor the rescue excavation
carried out there in 2011 managed to identify
surface structures that are similar to those docu-
mented in Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e same can
be stated concerning the fortications at Gradište
Idjoš33 and Munar–Wolfsberg.34 e closest, albeit
still quite relative analogy for the large structures
Recently further structures were identied in the sec-
ond enclosure; however, their interpretation is some-
what problematic. ese structures seem to have been
constructed exclusively of rammed earth (Lehmphul
et al. 2018).
32 Heeb et al. 2018, 398 Abb. 4; Krause et al. 2019, 143.
145 Abb. 11-14.
33 Marić et al. 2016; Molloy et al. 2017.
34 Gogâltan 2016, 90-94; Sava/Gogâltan 2017.
constructed inside the fortications has been
hitherto found at Lăpuș, in northwestern Roma-
nia, located at a considerable distance from Sân-
tana. Recent excavations in Lăpuș, which focused
on so-called tumulus 26 have highlighted numer-
ous burnt and superimposed rectangular struc-
tures with a north-northwest – south-southeast
orientation. e largest building documented at
Lăpuș was 22 m long and 11 m wide and tted
with a porch façade and a central hearth. It has
been compared to the structure of a megaron.35
In October 2018 the LiDAR scanning of the
fortication and its surroundings was undertaken
in an area covering up to 850 ha. e scanning
and the aerial photography was carried out by the
National Institute for Aerospace Research “Elie
Carafoli”/I.N.C.A.S. Bucharest, with the use of
a Hawker Beechcra King Air C90-GTx model
plane equipped with a Giegl LMS Q680i system.
35 Metzner-Nebelsick/Kacsó/Nebelsick. 2010, 221-222.
224 Fig. 4; Kacsó/Metzner-Nebelsick/Nebelsick 2011,
347-349.
Fig. 11 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e LiDAR survey of the fortication and of its surroundings
(National Institute for Aerospace Research, Bucharest; data processing and mapping by F. Becker)
202 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
e highly important aspect with regard to the re-
lation of the mega-fort at Sântana–Cetatea Veche
and its surroundings has already been highlighted
(Fig. 11). As mentioned above, it seems that the
position of enclosure I was determined by the wa-
tercourse found there. At a certain point, due to
natural causes (possibly drought or the shi in the
watercourse), or human intervention, the riverbed
had either dried out or was drained, and part of
enclosure III was erected upon it.36 Furthermore,
the digital terrain model shows that the largest and
most complex construction at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche (Figs. 9–10) was situated upon a small hill,
which oered good visibility over the entire area.
Moreover, the existence of three other articial
mounds in the southern and southeastern part of
enclosure III should also be noted.
e archaeological excavations 1888–2018
e rst small-scale archaeological investigation
at Sântana–Cetatea Veche was carried out in 1888
by Aurel Török, prompted by the discovery of the
gold hoard. Although the results of the excava-
tion were never published, it seems that the nds
comprised three inhumation burials and several
pottery fragments.37 As stated above in the sec-
tion concerning the history of research, the in-
vestigations were eectively put on hold for more
than half a century until the small campaign by
Egon Dörner and Mircea Rusu took place, which
was aimed at the chronological evaluation of the
fortication.38 e rst systematic campaign was
further delayed until 1963,39 this investigation fo-
cusing on the northern part of enclosure III. Two
construction phases were identied, each with
its own defensive ditch. Furthermore, the edge
of the rampart revealed the presence of a tim-
ber palisade. In the same area, behind the ram-
part, an inhumation burial assigned to the Late
Bronze Age was discovered. e second trench
was aimed at assessing the northwestern side of
enclosure I. Based on the publication, the de-
36
Based on the data gathered on the occasion of the 2009
campaign, the hypothesis whereby the watercourse
was deviated in order to ll the ditch pertaining to en-
closure III, was put forward (Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 36).
37 Dörner 1960, 472; Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 17.
38 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 20-21.
39 Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1996; 1999.
fences in this sector consisted solely of a simple
palisade. A further two trenches were opened in
the interior of the same enclosure, both yielding
pottery nds, bronze artefacts, and burnt clay
platforms interpreted as traces of dwellings. Two
such approximately rectangular structures meas-
uring ca. 14/15 × 8 m were investigated. Based
on these excavations the authors of the investiga-
tions concluded that Sântana–Cetatea Veche had
two phases of evolution: the rst one typical for
Bronze Age D, when the rst defensive elements
were constructed, and the second phase dated to
the Hallstatt A1 period, during which the forti-
cation was extended to 80 ha.40
e next archaeological excavations took place
only aer almost half a century later, when the ex-
pansion of the gas pipeline network during 2009
aected certain parts of the fortication at Sân-
tana–Cetatea Veche. Although a major pipeline
was already in place since the time of the com-
munist regime, a ramication was added to the
network towards the town of Pâncota, which cut
through the northern defences of enclosure III.
Consequently, a team composed of archaeologists
from the Museum of Arad and the Institute of Ar-
chaeology and Art History in Cluj-Napoca carried
out rescue excavation work in autumn 2009. A to-
tal of three trenches were opened, one of which
sectioned the defense line of enclosure III, while
the other two trenches were placed in the interior
of the fortication.41 Trench S1, perpendicular to
the defensive system, initially measured 80 × 4 m,
but was later widened to 6.5 m in the front and
the back of the rampart. e investigation showed
that the rampart was made of rammed earth and
was 27 m long and approximately 2.5 m high.
In order to ensure its stability, the rampart was
built upon a bed of beams enforced with rocks. A
palisade and a wall made of large wooden posts
joined with planks and wattle coated with clay
were erected on the edge of the rampart. Approxi-
mately 8 m in front of this rampart a 10-m wide
and 3-m deep ditch was dug.42 ree burials were
revealed, two inhumations and one cremation, in
back of the rampart as well as in the earthen lenses.
40 Rusu 1969, 1298; Dörner 1976, 42-44.
41 e preliminary results of this campaign were pre-
sented shortly aer the conclusion of the investiga-
tions (Gogâltan/Sava 2010).
42
See the graphical reconstruction of this part of enclo-
sure III in Oltean 2016, 9 and Gogâltan/Sava 2018 Fig. 2.
203
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
All of the burials were heavily disturbed; they
were ascribed to the Late Bronze Age.
Excavation trenches S2 and S3 were opened in
back of the clay extraction pit for the construc-
tion of the rampart.
43
e initial dimensions of the
trenches were 10 × 1.5 m; they were extended later
in order to allow the comprehensive examination
of the archaeological features identied. e fea-
tures comprised two Late Eneolithic pits belong-
ing to the Baden Culture, a Late Bronze Age pit
and a semi-subterranean house of modern times.
Owing to the lack of sucient funds the investi-
gation in the summer of 2011 was limited to a sin-
gle trench (S4) measuring 3 × 3 m. e trench was
opened at 20 m northwest-west from the gas pipe-
line in the northwestern area of enclosure III. Its
aim was to clarify the stratigraphic sequence in this
part of the fortication and additionally to identify
a possible habitation level that might be contem-
porary with the third enclosure. With regard to the
stratigraphy, it should be noted that the artefacts
found above the level of -0.45 m were without ex-
43 See Gogâltan/Sava 2010 Fig. 17.
ception in secondary position due to agricultural
activity. e nds include a number of Late Eneo-
lithic pottery fragments, as well as pottery sherds
decorated with channels typical for the Late Bronze
Age. Under this mixed layer emerged a habitation
level belonging to the Baden Culture.
As mentioned above, the systematic research
of the site recommenced in 2018 as a result of
the partnership between the Museum of Arad,
the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main and
the Institute of Archaeology and Art History in
Cluj-Napoca. In the summer of 2018 the defences
of enclosure III were once again investigated with
the aim of clarifying a series of features with regard
to the construction method employed as well as to
collect samples for radiocarbon dating. Trench S5
measuring 62 × 3 m was opened in the vicinity of
the eastern corner of enclosure III (Fig. 12). To
our surprise the investigation there revealed ar-
chaeological structures, which had not been ob-
served during the 2009 campaign. Specically,
at a distance of 400 m to the east, the defences
consisted of a rampart, palisades/walls in two
construction phases, both destroyed by re, as
Fig. 12 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Aerial photography of trench S5, enclosure III. July 2018 (photo by the authors)
204 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 13 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Aerial photography of trench S5, enclosure III with two ditches. July 2018 (photo by the authors)
Fig. 14 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. e southern prole of trench S5, enclosure III. Detail of the earth rampart and the rst ditch
in the foreground (photo by the authors)
205
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Fig. 15 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. e southern prole of trench S5, enclosure III (drawing by the authors)
206 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 16 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. e burnt remains of palisade no. 2, which had fallen into the ditch. Trench S5, enclosure III
(photo by the authors)
Fig. 17 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. e remains of palisade no. 2 with a lot of burnt daub. Trench S5, enclosure III
(drawing by the authors)
207
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
well as two defensive ditches placed in front of the
rampart (Fig. 13). As expected, the rampart was
constructed of rammed earth. is simple, yet
ecient construction method was already docu-
mented in the northern sector of enclosure III dur-
ing the campaigns of 1963 and 2009. It is clearly
visible that the rampart was built by adjoining
the soil lenses extracted from the ditch, especially
from the area behind it; these were then rammed
into place. As a result, the structure of the ram-
part displays deposits of various colours (Fig. 14).
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the
rampart was erected upon an archaeological level,
which dates to the Eneolithic period and extends
across the entire length of the rampart. e ex-
cavation also uncovered three pits cut from the
aforementioned level and belonging to the same
period, reaching down until the yellow clay below.
Due to the fact that this sector of the rampart is
situated on higher ground, there was no need for
the additional stabilization of the foundation with
wooden beams and rocks, as was the case in the
area investigated in 2009. Accordingly, the pre-
served width of the rampart is nearly 20 m, while
its height is 1.8 m, of which the earth added on
top of the Eneolithic habitation level makes up
only 1.1 m (Fig. 15).
e front side of the rampart revealed the
charred remains of a structure, which began to
emerge already at a depth of -0.25 to -0.30 m, di-
rectly below the plough level, and exhibiting traces
of charring and fragments of daub of various sizes.
e entire structure erected on the edge of the
rampart had slid a distance of 8 m down the slope
of the rampart into the defensive ditch found at
its base (Figs. 16-17). Following the removal of
the charred remains, a number of six postholes
displaying a zigzag shape were outlined, while
a ditch and further postholes were identied in
front of them (Fig. 18). Based on the analysis of
the daub fragments and of the dimensions and
the distribution of the postholes, it seems that
the building technique of the palisade/wall corre-
sponds to that used for the construction of houses
Fig. 18 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. Postholes of a wooden construction on the edge of the rampart.
Trench S5, enclosure III (photo by the authors)
208 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 19 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. e remains of palisade no. 1 with the burnt remains fallen into the ditch.
Trench S5, enclosure III (photo by the authors)
Fig. 20 Sântana–Cetatea Veche 2018. Southern prole of ditch no. 1 with burnt daub fallen into the ditch in two layers.
Trench S5, enclosure III (photo by the authors)
209
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
in the region. According to this method, the
wooden poles were adjoined by a network of
wattle and planks, aer which the entire construc-
tion was coated with a consistent layer of clay.
Most likely the wall was provided with a roof;
otherwise it would have rapidly deteriorated as an
aer-eect of the precipitation (Fig. 27).
A 6.5-m wide and 2.48-m deep ditch (ditch no. 1)
was dug at the base of the rampart. A second
defensive ditch, 7.6 m wide and 2.5 m deep, was
identied at a distance of approximately 12 m
from the rst one, towards the exterior (Figs. 13.
15). Ditch no. 2 yielded only a small number of
nds, as it had lled up gradually under natural
circumstances. Ditch no. 1, by contrast, presented
a far more interesting archaeological situation.
Upon clearing away the remains of the burnt pali-
sade/wall (context 5 – palisade no. 2), a yellow clay
layer approximately 20 cm thick (context 23) was
identied. Underneath this layer the remains of a
second burnt palisade, which had collapsed and
slid into the ditch, were documented (context 24 –
palisade no. 1) (Fig. 19). Both the radiocarbon
data as well as the stratigraphy attest the existence
of two dierent stages in the functioning of the
fortication. e destruction of palisade no. 1
(context 24) was followed by the refurbishment of
the entire defensive system, whereby the rampart
and the remains of the burnt palisade were cov-
ered by a layer of yellow clay. Subsequently, ditch
no. 1 was deepened and a new palisade/wall (con-
text 5 – palisade no. 2) was erected. is too was
eventually destroyed by re (Fig. 20).
Chronology of enclosure III at Sântana–
Cetatea Veche
e destruction layer of palisade/wall no. 2 yielded
a series of pottery fragments decorated with hori-
zontal or diagonal channels or with channels
arranged as garlands, bowls with inturned rims, as
well as various types of biconical vessels (Fig. 21).
Identical nds were also reported from the pre-
vious excavations.44 e vessel shapes and deco-
ration of the pottery documented here are found
throughout the eastern part of the Carpathian
Basin, from the Serbian Banat to southeastern
Slovakia.45 e lower Mureș Basin comprises
numerous settlements that yielded such ceramic
nds.46 is pottery is traditionally assigned to
the Bronze AgeD – HallstattA1 period, bearing
various names among which are Sântana-Lăpuș-
Pecica, Cruceni-Belegiš II, Lăpuș or proto-Gáva.
Leaving aside these typo-chronological consid-
erations, 13 AMS radiocarbon dates were made to
set up an independent chronology. e samples
were collected from various archaeological con-
texts belonging to the third fortication (enclo -
sure III). Four of these stem from trench S1, i.e.
from the northern sector of the defensive system,
while the remaining nine come from trench S5 and
the eastern sector. In the case of trench S1, three
samples were collected from the ll of the defensive
ditch and one from a burial found in back of the
rampart, the burial designated cx. 41.
47
e nine
samples from trench S5 were collected in palisade
no. 1 (three samples), palisade no. 2 (two sam-
ples), the postholes (two samples) and defen
sive
ditch no. 1 (two samples) (Figs. 22–24; Table 1).
48
Analysing solely the ve contexts which eective-
ly pertain to the fortication, thereby excluding
burial cx. 41, the following chronological situation
can be described (Fig. 24). e fact that palisade
no. 1 is earlier than palisade no. 2 (Figs. 15. 20),
as indicated by the stratigraphy, is corroborated by
the AMS results. If we exclude the very late date
MAMS 37709, then palisade no. 1 can be dated
to the 15
th
century BC. Even the average value
of the three dates indicates a dating at the end of
the respective century. e other contexts (pali-
sade no. 2, the postholes and the two ditches) are
all approximately contemporary and functioned
throughout the course of the 14
th
century BC, or
possibly during the rst half of the 13
th
century BC
as well.
44 Gogâltan/Sava 2010 Figs. 11-12. 37-38.
45 Przybyła 2009, 76-95; Szabó 2017.
46 Pădureanu 1985 Pl. VII,2; Sava/Hurezan/Mărginean
2011 Figs. 171-172. 197; 2012 Pls. 10. 11,4-6. 12; Sava/
Matei 2013 Pl. 9,1; Sava 2016 Pls. 6,1. 7,2-8.
47 For a detailed discussion regarding the chronology of
the nds from the 2009 excavation see Sava/Gogâl-
tan/Krause 2019.
210 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 21 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Pottery fragments from palisade no. 2 (drawings by C.I. Popa)
211
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Tab . 1 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. List of AMS dates (enclosure III, excavations 2009, 2018)
212 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 22 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e calibrated AMS data from enclosure III (excavation 2018)
Fig. 23
Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Enclosure III, excavations 2009, 2018. Distribution of the AMS measurements on the calibration curve
213
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Conclusions
Even though the magnitude of the archaeologi-
cal excavations carried out over time within the
perimeter of the fortication at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche seems to be insignicant compared to the
huge dimensions of the site, essential facts regard-
ing the construction methods employed, as well as
the functioning and destruction of enclosure III
can be put forward. Both the old and new archaeo-
logical investigations have proven that the outer
rampart was constructed of rammed earth with a
palisade/wall made from timber and daub erected
on its edge. e entire fortication was enclosed
by defensive ditches, their course indicated by
the magnetometric mapping. Trench S5 opened
in 2018 yielded clear evidence with regard to the
existence of two palisades/walls. Palisade no. 1
(context 24) represents in chronological terms the
rst stage of the fortication, which was eventu -
ally destroyed. As a result of this devastating event,
a new palisade/wall was built, which corresponds
with the postholes identied on the edge of the
rampart and with the destruction layer (context 5).
While in the case of palisade/wall no. 1 no clear
evidence of an attack mounted against the forti-
cation could be determined (apart from the de-
48 e AMS data were analysed by the laboratory at
Klaus-Tschira-Archäometrie-Zentrum at Curt-Engel-
horn-Zentrum Archäometrie gGmbH in Mannheim.
struction by re), the nds yielded by palisade/
wall no. 2 include 23 burnt clay projectiles (Fig. 25)
in addition to a bronze arrowhead.
It must be noted that besides these nds, which
in addition to the destruction by re of the pali-
sade/wall, eectively attest the existence of a siege,
previous campaigns have also produced numer-
ous burnt clay projectiles,49 an arrowhead,50 as
well as two spearheads51 (Fig. 26). To this we can
add the remains of the young male individuals
found in the defensive ditch, revealed in trench
S1, with one of them displaying traces of blows to
the cranium.52 All of these pieces of evidence in-
dicate that enclosure III was destroyed as a result
of siege. e reconstruction of the palisade/wall
revealed in trench S5 (Fig. 27), and its subsequent
destruction has the potential of indicating two
violent events occurring at some distance apart
in time. ere is a gradually growing amount of
evidence with regard to recurring conicts that
took place at the end of the Bronze Age. During
this period conicts and war activities seem to in-
crease, as is documented in the Tollense Valley in
49 Gogâltan/Sava 2018.
50 Gogâltan/Sava 2010, 43 Fig. 43; Gogâltan/Sava/Mer-
cea 2013, 38 Pl. 10,3-4.
51 Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1996 Pl. XIV,11.13; Gogâl-
tan/Sava/Mercea 2013, 31 Pl. 1,13-14.
52 Gogâltan/Sava 2012, 70 fn. 92 Fig. 10.
Fig. 24 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. e chronological and stratigraphic model of enclosure III (graphic by the authors)
214 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Fig. 25 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Burnt clay projectiles discovered among the remains of palisade no. 2 (drawings by C.I. Popa)
215
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Fig. 26 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Spearheads and arrowheads from dierent nd spots within the fortications
(photo by I. Scripciuc)
Fig. 27 Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Reconstruction of the combat situation in front of enclosure III (trench S5) (graphic by R. Olteanu)
216 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
northeastern Germany.53 Hence, the Bronze Age
mega-fort at Sântana–Cetatea Veche is an impor-
tant component in the debate regarding the exist-
ence of warfare,54 and armies consisting of profes-
sional warriors55 during this period.
Equally of interest are the various aspects of
dierentiation and social life within the fortica-
tion. e identication of large-sized buildings is
surprising, as such constructions are eective-
ly unknown in most regions of Europe (Fig. 9).
Accordingly, the exact dating, the assessment of
the construction method, as well as the identica-
tion of its function present a challenge to research
for the future. It goes without saying that only
archaeological excavations can provide answers
to these issues. At the same time they also hold
the potential of opening up new perspectives for
53 Terberger et al. 2018 with the older literature.
54 Hansen 2015.
55 See Krause in this volume.
our understanding of Bronze Age society. Virtu-
ally every contemporary unfortied settlement
in the region comprises only modest dwellings,
which do not have anything in common with the
impressive dimensions and the complex nature
of constructions identied at Sântana–Cetatea
Veche through the geophysical surveys.56
e Lower Mureș Basin, covering an area of
approximately 11.700 km2, has hitherto yielded
eight fortications, all built in the lowlands
(Fig. 28). e same environment half a century or
a century earlier witnessed the ourish of multi-
stratied or so-called tell settlements, enclosed
by impressive defensive ditches.57 Gaining an un-
56 is is the case of the settlements at Șagu (Sava/
Hurezan/Mărginean 2011), Sânicolau Mare (Stavilă
2015), Felnac (Sava 2016), Peciu Nou (Szentmiklosi
2016), Voiteg (Szentmiklosi/Medeleț 2016) and re-
cently at Conop (excavations by V. Sava in 2018).
57 Gogâltan 2016.
Fig. 28
Map of the Lower Mureș Basin with the location of Late Bronze Age fortications: 1 Csanádpalota–Földvár; 2 Cornești–Iarcuri;
3 Gradište Idjoš; 4 Makó–Rákos-Császárvár; 5 Munar–Wolfsberg; 6 Orosháza–Nagytatársánc; 7 Sântana–Cetatea Veche; 8 Végegyháza–
Zsibrik-domb (mapping by F. Becker, basis of data: EU-DEM v. 1.1 © European Union)
217
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
derstanding of the processes that led to the dis-
appearance of these communities, together with
the emergence of the large Late Bronze Age forti-
ed settlements represents our second challenge.
In the case of Sântana–Cetatea Veche, the im-
pressive number of gold, bronze and copper arte-
facts discovered there may suggest the possible
exploitation of the metal deposits found not far
away, at the base of the Zarand Mountains.58 In
the future, complex geochemical analyses of arte-
facts and ores can shed light on the source of raw
materials employed for these artefacts. Above all,
we need to gain basic information and data on the
issue of economy and subsistence, from archaeo-
botanical and osteological studies as well, in order
to better understand the socio-economic founda-
tions of these large mega-sites and their surround-
ings. Only then we can oer explanations for the
rise and fall of these huge sites at the eastern edge
of the Pannonian Basin.
References
Blazovich 1996
L. Blazovich, A Körös – Tisza – Maros-Köztelepülései a
Középkorban (Szeged 1996).
Czukor et al. 2017
P. Czukor/A. Priskin/C. Szalontai/V. Szeverényi, Késő
bronzkori földvárak a Dél-Alföldön. In: C. G. Szabó/
M. Bálint/G. Váczi (eds.), A második hajdúböszörményi
szitula és kapcsolatrendszere (Budapest – Hajdúböször-
mény 2017) 211–230.
Dörner 1960
E. Dörner, Der Goldfund von Sântana Arad. Dacia N.S.
IV, 1960, 471–479.
Dörner 1976
E. Dörner, Cu privire la tracii de pe teritoriul arădean la
începutul hallstattului timpuriu. Ziridava 6, 1976, 41–46.
Fábián 1835
G. Fábián, Arad vármegye leírása históriai, geographiai,
és statisjtikai tekinteben II (Budapest 1835).
Gogâltan 2016
F. Gogâltan, Building power without power? Bronze
Age fortied settlements on the Lower Mureș Basin. In:
F. Gogâltan/C. Cordoş (eds.), Prehistoric settlements: so-
cial, economic and cultural aspects. Seven studies in the
Carpathian area (Cluj-Napoca 2016) 87–113.
58 Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013.
Gogâltan/Cordoș/Ignat 2014
F. Gogâltan/C. Cordoș/A. Ignat (eds.), Bronze Age
tell, tell-like and mound-like settlements at the eastern
frontier of the Carpathian Basin. History of research
(Cluj-Napoca 2014).
Gogâltan/Sava 2010
F. Gogâltan/V. Sava, Sântana „Cetatea Veche”. O forti-
caţie de pământ a epocii bronzului la Mureşul de jos/ A
Late Bronze Age Earthwork on the Lower Mureș (Arad
2010).
Gogâltan/Sava 2012
F. Gogâltan/V. Sava, War and Warriors during the Late
Bronze Age within the Lower Mureş Valley. Ziridava.
Studia Archaeologica 26, 2012, 61–81.
Gogâltan/Sava 2018
F. Gogâltan/V. Sava, A Violent End. An Attack with Clay
Sling Projectiles against the Late Bronze Age Fortica-
tion in Sântana (South-Western Romania). In: Hansen/
Krause 2018a, 349–370.
Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2012
F. Gogâltan/V. Sava/L. Mercea, Sântana, jud. Arad. Punct:
Cetatea Veche. In: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice.
Campania 2011. XLVI-a Sesiune Naţională de rapoarte
arheologice, Târgu Mureș, 23–26 mai 2012 (Bucureşti
2012) 126–127.
Gogâltan/Sava/Mercea 2013
F. Gogâltan/V. Sava/L. Mercea, Sântana “Cetatea Veche”.
Metal and power. Ziridava. Studia Archaeologica 27,
2013, 21–72.
Gulyás/Sümegi 2011a
S. Gulyás/P. Sümegi, Farming and/or foraging? New envi-
ronmental data to the life and economic transformation
of Late Neolithic tell communities (Tisza Culture) in SE
Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2011,
3323–3339.
Gulyás/Sümegi 2011b
S. Gulyás/P. Sümegi, Riparian environment in shaping
social and economic behavior during the rst phase of
the evolution of Late Neolithic tell complexes in SE Hun-
gary (6th/5th millennia BC). Journal of Archaeological
Science 38, 2011, 2683–2695.
Gyucha/Duy/Frolking 2011
A. Gyucha/P.R. Duy/T.A. Frolking, e Körös Basin
from the Neolithic to the Hapsburgs: Linking Settlement
Distributions with Pre-Regulation Hydrology rough
Multiple Data Set Overlay. Geoarchaeology: An Interna-
tional Journal 26 (3), 2011, 392–419.
Hampel 1889
J. Hampel, A n. múzeumi régiségosztály az 1889. Archaeo-
logiai Értesitő IX, 1889, 375–378.
218 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Hampel 1890
J. Hampel, A n. múzeum érem- és régiség-osztálya az
1890. Archaeologiai Értesitő X, 1890, 189–191.
Hansen 2015
S. Hansen, Krieg in der Bronzezeit. In: H. Meller/M. Schef-
zik (eds.), Krieg. Eine archäologische Spurensuche. Begleit-
band zur Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vor -
geschichte Halle (Saale), 6. November 2015 bis 22. Mai
2016 (Darmstadt 2015) 205–2012.
Hansen/Krause 2018a
S. Hansen/R. Krause (eds.), Bronzezeitliche Burgen zwi-
schen Taunus und Karpaten/ Bronze Age Hillforts be-
tween Taunus and Carpathian Mountains. Beiträge der
Ersten Internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz vom 7. bis 9.
Dezember 2016 in Frankfurt/M./ Proceedings of the First
International LOEWE Conference, 7–9 December 2016
in Frankfurt/M. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori-
schen Archäologie 319, Prähistorische Konikt forschung
2 (Bonn 2018).
Hansen/Krause 2018b
S. Hansen/R. Krause, Prähistorische Koniktforschung:
Burgen der Bronzezeit zwischen Taunus und Karpaten.
In: Hansen/Krause 2018a, 1–15.
Heeb/Jahn/Szentmiklosi 2014
B.S. Heeb/C. Jahn/A. Szentmiklosi, Geschlossene Ge-
sellscha? Zur Gestaltung und Bedeutung bronzezeit-
licher Festungstore. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica
46, 2014, 1–37.
Heeb et al. 2012
B.S. Heeb/A. Szentmiklosi/A. Harding/R. Krause, Die
spätbronzezeitliche Befestigungsanlage Corneşti-Iarcuri
im rumänischen Banat – ein kurzer Forschungsbericht
der Jahre 2010 und 2011. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeo-
logica 44, 2012, 47–48.
Heeb et al. 2017a
B.S. Heeb/A. Szentmiklosi/R. Krause/M. Wemho (eds.),
Fortications: e Rise and Fall of Defended Sites in the
Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age of South-East Eu-
rope. International Conference in Timişoara, Romania
from November 11th to 13th, 2015. Berliner Beiträge zur
Vor- und Frühgeschichte 21 (Berlin, 2017).
Heeb et al. 2017b
B.S. Heeb/A. Szentmiklosi/A. Bălărie/R. Lehmpuhl/
R. Krause, Corneşti-Iarcuri – 10 years of research (2007–
2016). Some important preliminary results. In: Heeb et al.
2017a, 217–228.
Heeb et al. 2018
B. Heeb/R. Lehmphul/A. Szentmiklosi/A. Bălărie/R. Krause,
Corneşti-Iarcuri im rumänischen Banat und sein bronze-
zeitlicher Kontext. In: Hansen/Krause 2018a, 395–406.
Horedt 1967a
K. Horedt, Problemele ceramicii din perioada bronzu-
lui evoluat în Transilvania. Studii şi Comunicări Muzeul
Brukenthal. Arheologie-Istorie 13, 1967, 137–156.
Horedt 1967b
K. Horedt, Probleme der jüngerbronzezeitlichen Kera-
mik in Transsilvanien. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 9,
1967, 5–26.
Horedt 1974
K. Horedt, Befestigte Siedlungen der Spätbronze- und
der Hallstattzeit im innerkarpatischen Rumänien. In:
B. Chropovský (ed.), Symposium zu Problemen der jün-
geren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa. 25.–29. September
1970, Smolenice, CSSR (Bratislava 1974) 205–228.
Kacsó/Metzner-Nebelsick/Nebelsick 2011
C. Kacsó/C. Metzner-Nebelsick/L.D. Nebelsick, New
Work at the Late Bronze Age Tumulus Cemetery of Lăpuş
in Romania. In: E. Borgna/S. Müller Celka (eds.), An-
cestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and
Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans –
Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium B.C.). Proceed-
ings of the International Conference held in Udine, May
15th–18th 2008. Travaux de la Maison de L’Orient et de la
Méditerranée 58 (Lyon 2011) 341–353.
Kemenczei 1999
T. Kemenczei, Spätbronzezeitliche Goldschatzfunde. In:
T. Kovács/P. Raczky (eds.), Prähistorische Goldschätze
aus dem Ungarischen Nationalmuseum (Budapest 1999)
63–79.
Kienlin/Marta 2014
T.L. Kienlin/L. Marta, New Geophysical Data on the In-
ternal Structure of the Gáva Sites of Andrid-Corlat and
Căuaş-Sighetiu in North-Western Romania. In: T.L.
Kienlin/P. Valde-Nowak/M. Korczyńska/K. Cappen-
berg/J. Ociepka (eds.), Settlement, Communication and
Exchange around the Western Carpathians. International
Workshop held at the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiello-
nian University, Kraków, October 27–28, 2012 (Oxford
2014), 381–403.
Krause et al. 2019
R. Krause/A. Szentmiklosi/B. Heeb/R. Lehmphul/
K. Teinz/A. Bălărie/C. Herbig/A. Stobbe/J. Schmid/
D. Schäer/M. Wemho, Cornești-Iarcuri. Die Ausgra-
bungen 2013 und 2014 in der befestigten Gorßsiedlung
der späten Bronzezeit. Eurasia Antiqua 22, 2016 (2019),
133-184.
Lehmphul et al. 2018
R. Lehmphul/A. Georgescu/B. Heeb/A. Szentmiklosi/
A. Bălărie/K. Teinz/R. Krause/M. Wemho, Häuser, Gru-
ben und ein »Lausitzer« Gefäß – Ergebnisse der Feld-
forschungen 2016 und 2017 an der spätbronzezeitlichen
Siedlung Corneşti-larcuri im rumänischen Banat. Acta
Praehistorica et Archaeologica 50, 2018, 31–43.
Lehmphul et al. 2019
R. Lehmphul/B. Heeb/A. Szentmiklosi/A. Stobbe/
R. Krause, e Genesis of the Fortifcation of Corneşti-
Iarcuri near the Mureş Lower Course (Romanian Banat)
– A Phase Model on the Chronology of the Settlement
and Fortifcation Structures. In: S. Hansen/R. Krause
219
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
(eds.), Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe. Proceedings
of the Second International LOEWE Conference, 9–13
October 2017 in Alba Iulia. Universitätsforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie 335, Prähistorische Kon-
iktforschung 3 (Bonn 2019) 253-278.
Marić et al. 2016
M. Marić/N. Mirković-Marić/B. Molloy/D. Jovanović/
P. Mertl/L. Milašinović/J. Pendić, New Results of the Ar-
chaeological Excavations on the Site Gradište near Idoš:
Season 2014. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Soci-
ety 32, 2016, 125–153.
Márki 1882
S. Márki, A szent-annai avar-ring. Archaeologiai Értesitő
II, 1882, 112–121.
Márki 1884
S. Márki, A szent-annai avar gyűrű. A Kölcsey-Egyesület
Évkönyve 1884, 185–194.
Márki 1892
S. Márki, Arad vármegye története I (Arad 1892).
Metzner-Nebelsick/ Kacsó/Nebelsick 2010
C. Metzner-Nebelsick/C. Kacsó/L.D. Nebelsick, A Bronze
Age ritual structure on the edge of the Carpathian Ba-
sin. Satu Mare. Studii şi Comunicări. Seria Archeologie
XXVI/1. In: L. Marta (ed.), Amurgul mileniului II a.Chr.
în Câmpia Tisei şi Transilvania/ Das Ende des 2. Jahrtau-
sendes v.Chr. auf der eiß-Ebene und Siebenbürgen
(Satu Mare 2010) 219–233.
Miletz 1876
J. Miletz, Temes és Arad- vármegyék történelmi és
régészeti emlékei. Történelmi és Régészeti Értesitő II,
füzet IV, Temesvár 1876, 165–180.
Molloy et al. 2017
B. Molloy/D. Jovanović/N. Mirković-Marić/M. Marić/
P. Mertl/L. Milašinović, e Late Bronze Age fortication
of Gradište Idjoš in its regional context. In: Heeb et al.
2017a, 161–172.
Mozsolics 1973
A. Mozsolics, Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeck-
ens. Depotfundhorizonte von Forró und Ópályi (Buda-
pest 1973).
Nykamp 2017
M. Nykamp, Human-environment interactions in the en-
virons of the Late Bronze Age enclosure Corneşti-Iarcuri,
western Romania (Doctoral thesis, Berlin 2017).
Oltean 2016
R. Oltean, Cetăţi, castele şi alte forticaţii din România.
De la începuturi până spre anul 1540 (Bucureşti 2016).
Parecz 1871
I. Parecz, Arad-megye és Arad-város ismertetése (Arad
1871).
Pădureanu 1985
E.D. Pădureanu, Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic de
pe valea Mureşului inferior şi a Crişului Alb. Crisia XV,
1985, 27–51.
Péch 1877
J. Péch, A zsadányi avar telepek Temes vármegyében.
Történeti és Régészeti Értesitö III, füzet IV, Temesvár,
1877, 49–59.
Przybyła 2009
M.S. Przybyła, Intercultural Contacts in the Western Car-
pathian Area at the Turn of the 2nd and 1st Millennia BC
(Warszawa 2009).
Rogerius
Rogerius, Carmen miserabile (cântecul de jale), ediţie
anastatică. Traducere şi introducere G. Popa-Lisseanu,
cuvânt înainte pentru ediţia actuală Doru Marta, postfaţă
Emanuel Engel (Oradea 2006).
Rusu 1969
M. Rusu, Sântana. In: J. Filip (ed.), Enzyklopädisches
Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas II (Stutt-
gart 1969) 1298.
Rusu 1972
M. Rusu, Consideraţii asupra metalurgiei aurului din
Transilvania în Bronz D şi Hallstatt A. Acta Musei Napo-
censis IX 1972, 29–63.
Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1996
M. Rusu/E. Dörner/I. Ordentlich, Forticaţia de pământ
de la Sântana – Arad în contextul arheologic contempo-
ran. Ziridava XIX–XX, 1996, 15–44.
Rusu/Dörner/Ordentlich 1999
M. Rusu/E. Dörner/I. Ordentlich, Die Erdburg von Sân-
tana-Arad in dem zeitgleichen archäologischen Kon-
text. In: N. Boroa/T. Soroceanu (eds.), Transsilvanica.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte
des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschri für Kurt
Horedt (Rahden/Westf. 1999) 143–165.
Salisbury/Bácsmegi/Sümegi 2013
R.B. Salisbury/G. Bácsmegi/P. Sümegi, Preliminary en-
vironmental historical results to reconstruct prehistoric
human-environmental interactions in Eastern Hungary.
Central European Journal of Geosciences 5 (3), 2013,
331–343.
Sava 2014
V. Sava, Sântana “La nord de oraș”, Arad County. In:
Gogâltan/Cordoș/Ignat 2014, 231–232.
Sava 2015
V. Sava, Neolithic and Eneolithic in the Lower Mureş
Basin (Cluj-Napoca 2015).
Sava 2016
V. Sava, e Archaeological Site of Felnac “Complexul
Zootehnic” (Arad County). Discussions on the Late
Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery. Ziridava. Studia
Archaeologica 30, 2016, 69–108.
Sava/Gogâltan 2017
V. Sava/F. Gogâltan, e Bronze Age Fortications in
Munar “Wolfsberg”, Arad County. e 2014 and 2017 Ar-
chaeological Researches. Analecta Archaeologica Resso-
viensia 12, 2017, 75–100.
220 Florin Gogâltan · Victor Sava · Rüdiger Krause
Sava/Gogâltan/Krause 2019
V. Sava/F. Gogâltan/R. Krause, First Steps in the Dating
of the Bronze Age Mega-Fort in Sântana-CetateaVeche
(Southwestern Romania). In: S. Hansen/R. Krause (eds.),
Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe. Proceedings of the
Second International LOEWE Conference, 9–13 October
2017 in Alba Iulia. Universitätsforschungen zur prähi-
storischen Archäologie 335, Prähistorische Koniktfor-
schung 3 (Bonn 2019) 161–176.
Sava/Hurezan/Mărginean 2011
V. Sava/G. P. Hurezan/F. Mărginean, Șagu Sit A1_1. O
aşezare a epocii nale a bronzului la Mureşul de jos / Șagu
Sit A1_1. A Late Bronze Age settlement on the Lower
Mureş (Cluj-Napoca 2011).
Sava/ Hurezan/Mărginean 2012
V. Sava/G. P. Hurezan/F. Mărginean, Late Bronze Age
Metal Artifacts Discovered in Şagu, Site “A1_1”, Arad –
Timişoara Highway (km 0+19.900 – 0+20.620). Ziridava.
Studia Archaeologica 26 (1), 2012, 83–107.
Sava/Matei 2013
V. Sava/D. Matei, Prehistoric and Second-fourth-century
Discoveries on the Present-day Territory of Aradu Nou
District, in the City of Arad. Ziridava. Studia Archaeolo-
gi ca 27, 2013, 89–122.
Sava et al. 2014
V. Sava/L. Andreica/X. Pop/F. Gogâltan, Out of ordinary
or common burial practice? A Funerary Discovery from
the Baden Settlement at Sântana “Cetatea Veche”. Ziridava.
Studia Archaeologica 28, 2014, 39–76.
Stavilă 2015
A. Stavilă, Considerații asupra locuirii de epoca bronzu-
lui de la Sânicolau Mare-Seliște. In: S. Forțiu/A. Stavilă
(eds.), ArheoVest, Nr. III: [Simpozion ArheoVest, Ediția a
III-a:] In Memoriam Florin Medeleț, Interdisciplinaritate
în Arheologie și Istorie, Timișoara, 28 noiembrie 2015
(Szeged 2015) 229–254.
Sümegi et al. 2011
P. Sümegi/G. Persaits/T. Törőcsik/K. Náfrádi/D. G. Páll/
J. Hupuczi/D. Molnár/T. Lócskai/B. Mellár/C. Tóth/
S.G. Tasnádiné, Maroslele-Pana régészeti lelőhely kör-
nyezettörténeti vizsgálata. In: T. Paluch (ed.), Maroslele-
Pana: Egy középső neolitikus lelőhely a kultúrák határvi-
dékén. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Monographia
Archaeologica II (Szeged 2011) 205–246.
Szabó 2017
G.V. Szabó, A Gáva-kerámiastílus kora. Az Alföld a haj-
dúböszörményi szitulák földbekerülésének időszakában.
In: G.V. Szabó/M. Bálint/G. Váczi (eds.), A második
haj dúböszörményi szitula és kapcsolatrendszere. e
second situla of Hajdúböszörmény and its relations (Bu-
dapest-Hajdúböszörmény 2017) 231–278.
Szalontai et al. 2017
C. Szalontai/A. Priskin/P. Czukor/V. Szeverényi, Őskori
tájhasználat a Délkelet- Alföldön néhány késő bronzkori
földvár alapján. In: V. Blanka/Z. Ladányi (eds.), Inter-
diszciplináris tájkutatás a XXI. században. A VII. Magyar
Tájökológiai Konferencia tanulmányai, Szeged, 25-27
martie, 2017 (Szeged 2017) 565–573.
Szentmiklosi 2016
A. Szentmiklosi, Cercetările arheologice de la Peciu
Nou-Bocar, jud. Timiș. Banatica 26, 2016, 203–237.
Szentmiklosi/Medeleț 2016
A. Szentmiklosi/F. Medeleț, Sondajul arheologic din așe-
zarea de epoca bronzului de la Voiteg-Groapa cu vulpi.
Banatica 26, 2016, 239–255.
Szentmiklosi et al. 2011
A. Szentmiklosi/B.S. Heeb/J. Heeb/A. Harding/R. Krause/
H. Becker, Corneşti-Iarcuri – a Bronze Age town in the
Romanian Banat. Antiquity 85, 2011, 819–838.
Szentmiklosi et al. 2016
A. Szentmiklosi/A. Bălărie/B.S. Heeb/P. Urdea, Atestarea
arheologică a celei de a patra linii de forticații a cetății
de epoca bronzului de la Cornești-Iarcuri (jud. Timiș).
Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, Serie Nouă XII, 2016,
105–114.
Szeverényi/Priskin/Czukor 2014
V. Szeverényi/A. Priskin/P. Czukor, Csanádpalota - Juhász
T. tanya (M43 55. lh.) késő bronzkori erődített település
feltárása: előzetes jelentés a 2011–2013. évi ásatások ered-
ményeiről. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1, 2014,
35–60.
Szeverényi et al. 2017
V. Szeverenyi/P. Czukor/A. Priskin/C. Szalontai, Recent
work on Late Bronze Age fortied settlements in south-
east Hungary, In: Heeb et al. 2017a, 135–148.
Terberger et al. 2018
T. Terberger/D. Jantzen/J. Krüger/G. Lidke, Das bronze-
zeitliche Kampfgeschehen im Tollensetal – ein Großer-
eignis oder wiederholte Konkte? In: Hansen/Krause
2018a, 103–123.
221
Sântana–Cetatea Veche
Florin Gogâltan, Victor Sava and Rüdiger Krause, Sântana–Cetatea Veche. A Late Bronze Age
Mega-fort in the Lower Mureș Basin in Southwestern Romania
Our contribution provides an overview of the archaeological investigations carried out, including those
in 2018, at the large fortication of Sântana–Cetatea Veche, north of Arad in Romania. e new research
was undertaken within the framework of the LOEWE project “Prehistoric Conict Research – Bronze
Age Hillforts between Taunus and Carpathian Mountains”. In accordance with the main scientic guide-
lines of the project, the research eorts encompassed archaeological eldwork, magnetometric surveys
of the entire area of the fortication, as well as a LiDAR scan covering an area of nearly 850 ha. As a
result of the excavation undertaken in the eastern part of the defences pertaining to enclosure III, new
absolute chronological data were obtained, which in corroboration with the older information oer a
clear dating of the fortication system to the 15th to 13th centuries BC.
Florin Gogâltan, Victor Sava und Rüdiger Krause, Sântana–Cetatea Veche. Ein spätbronzezeitliches
“Mega-fort” im unteren Mureș-Becken in Südwest-Rumänien
Unser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die archäologischen Untersuchungen, einschließlich derjenigen
im Jahr 2018, die in der großen, nördlich von Arad in Rumänien gelegenen Befestigung von Sântana–
Cetatea Veche durchgeführt wurden. Die neuen Forschungen fanden im Rahmen des LOEWE-Projeks
“ Prähistorische Koniktforschung – Burgen der Bronzezeit zwischen Taunus und Karpaten” statt. Ge-
mäß den wissenschalichen Hauptrichtlinien des Projektes umfassten die Forschungsarbeiten archäo-
logische Feldarbeiten, magnetometrische Surveys des gesamten Gebietes der Befestigung sowie LiDAR
scanning auf einer Fläche von 850 ha. Als Ergebnis der Ausgrabung im östlichen Teil der Verteidigungs-
anlagen im Bereich der Befestigung III wurden neue absolute chronologische Daten gewonnen, die in
Verbindung mit den älteren Informationen eine zuverlässige Datierung des Befestigungssystems in das
15. bis 13. Jh. v. Chr. ergeben haben.
