The Chronology of the Bronze Age Tell and Tell‑like Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 Years

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2, 198–214 The Chronology of the Bronze Age Tell and Tell‑like Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 Years Florin Gogâltan  In memory of Professor Bernhard Hänsel (1937–2017) ABSTRACT Fifteen years ago, during an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship at the Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin I have put together a catalogue of Early Bronze Age (EBA) and Middle Bronze Age (MBA) multi‑stratified settlements in the Carpathian Basin (ca. 2500–1600/1500 BC). A total of 188 multi‑stratified sites ascribed to five horizons were placed in chronological order. The new AMS data have substantially modified the absolute chronology of this period. The present paper focuses only on recent information regarding the chronology of the tell and tell‑like settlements in the Carpathian Basin. KEYWORDS Bronze Age; tell and tell‑like settlements; Carpathian Basin; Chronology. During the summer of 1999, Professor Bernhard Hänsel and my mentor Dr. Tudor Soroceanu were visiting Cluj together, planning to process the hoard from Uioara, the largest Bronze Age find of this type discovered in the Carpathian Basin. Unfortunately, this project failed. Nevertheless, as a result of three hours long discussion, Professor Hänsel advised me to apply for an Alexander von Humboldt scholarship. With regard to the research project, he inquired about my thoughts on the Bronze Age tells from the Carpathian Basin. I answered sincerely that apart from a few small‑scale investigations that I have carried out in the tells at Foeni‑Cimitirul Ortodox (Gogâltan 2014b), Foeni‑Gomila Lupului (Gogâltan 2014c), and Semlac‑Livada lui Onea (Gogâltan 2014d), I am not particularly familiar with the subject. To my surprise, he also admitted his failure to grasp the formation process of the Bronze Age multi‑layered settlements of the Carpathian Basin, even though he achieved significant results with his research of the tell at Mošorin‑Feudvar and its surroundings. As faith would have it, my project entitled Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Studien zu Siedlungswesen und Chronologie der Zeit um 2000 v.Chr. was accepted, and I became an Alexander von Humboldt fellow at the Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin for a period of nearly two years (between March 2001 and December 2002). The acquaintance of Professor Hänsel and the period spent in Berlin have fundamentally changed not only my life, but also the lives of other family members. He will forever remain in my thoughts. WHAT MAKES A SITE A TELL? The first and most difficult task was to establish the characteristics of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin. According to the literature on the subject, the most important strati‑ graphic accumulations occur when the same community repeatedly constructs and recon‑ structs surface houses made of clay and having a wooden structures on an area confined by FLORIN GOGÂLTAN 199 defensive works. There are situations when the stratigraphic accumulations exceeded one meter and comprised three levels of habitation belonging to the same ‘archaeological culture’. Such sites were designated as tells. In cases when only two archaeological levels could be identified within a 1 m thick stratigraphy, the respective site was included in the category of so‑called tell‑like settlements. When no archaeological excavations have been carried out, but there was still information in the secondary literature concerning the existence of a tell, these were included in the category of mound or hill‑shaped settlements (Siedlungshügel, settlement mound) indicating the continuation of habitation on the same spot (Gogâltan 2002, 23–24). Based on information found in the literature published prior to 2002, a number of 188 Bronze Age sites meeting the above‑mentioned criteria were recorded (Gogâltan 2005, 161, Abb. 1; Gogâltan 2006, 61, Abb. 1; Gogâltan 2008, 40, fig. 1; Gogâltan 2017, map 1, annexe 1) (Fig. 1).1 Right from the start, I was aware that such a definition of the multi‑stratified settlements is debatable. I was encouraged however to continue this path given that from a methodological point of view, the coherence of the research can only be assured by respecting a principle as‑ sumed from the beginning. The catalogue could only be viable if based on stratigraphic criteria. These opinions concerning the terminology of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin drew the attention of the specialists on this topic.2 Some rejected my proposal,3 other ignored it (Uhnér 2010; Duffy 2014; Nicodemus 2014) or even misinterpreted my aforementioned assertions.4 For the majority of specialists who subsequently dealt with the question of Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin, with some exceptions,5 the aspects of terminology were not included among their scientific priorities (Rosenstock 2009; David 2009; Fischl – Kienlin 2013; Kienlin 2015; Dani et al. 2016; etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 The list of these settlements – not included here for the sake of saving printing space – can be found in Gogâltan 2017, annexe 1. Some of my first articles concerning the problems of the tells in the Carpathian Basin appear mentioned in: Link 2006, 7–10, etc.; Molnár 2006, 76; Dani – Fischl 2010, 105; Hansen 2010, VII; Hansen – Toderaş 2010, 138; Draşovean – Schier 2010, 165; Marta et al. 2010, 128; Earle – Kristiansen 2010b, 24; Earle – Kristiansen 2010c, 254; Raczky – Anders – Bartosziewitz 2011, 57; Rosenstock 2012, 42; Kienlin 2012; Metzner‑Nebelsick 2013, 332, 340; Kienlin 2015; Fischl – Krauss 2016, 328–329; etc. Some have even forgotten to cite my opinions: ‘Unserer Meinung nach waren diese spezifischen befestigten Siedlungen (aus mindestens drei Siedlungsschichten bestehende und mit einer unteren Grenze der Schichtgröße von einem Meter) ein Wirtschats- und Handelszentrum oder Sitz der Macht für jede Mikroregion’ (Németi – Molnár 2012, 15). T. Link’s opinions as well as mine were criticised by F. Horváth, one of the specialists with extensive experience in the study of the Carpathian Basin tell‑settlements (Horváth 2009, 159–160). This is not the place to reply to his observations, but I hope to be able to do so at another occasion on the grounds of the information acquired during new research project on the tells in Western Romania. Reactions to my stratigraphic criteria can be found at R. Ganslmeier in his analysis of the ‘tellartigen Siedlung’ at Niederröblingen in Central Germany (Ganslmeier 2011, 37–42). See also T. Kienlin (2012, 257–258; Kienlin 2015) and his reserves concerning the economic and social function of the Bronze Age tells in the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 2010). A response to some of his critical observations can be found in Gogâltan 2016. See for example opinions that were not put forward by me: ‘Some have suggested that the term “tell” be abandoned altogether. Gogâltan (2001, 23), for example, has argued that th (...truncated)