spkogalniceanu

8/21/2019 SPKogalniceanu

1/46

A BXVI, 3 (2012), 1-46

Human Remains from theMesolithic to the ChalcolithicPeriod in Southern Romania.

An Update on the Discoveries

Raluca KOGĂLNICEANU

A

The main purpose of this material was to update older synthesis and to

lay the ground for new angles of viewing the human remains.We first defined the categories in which we considered to divide

the discoveries. We used the spatial factor as defining trait, puttingthus the accent on the larger (spatial) context of burials and other hu-man remains rather than on features that are specific to burials bythemselves (such as treatment of the body, grave goods, etc.). We cata-logued and mapped 75 sites from Southern Romania where humanremains were discovered, and in the end we present an overview ofthe data, and highlight some of the major constants and changes inthe disposal of a dead body that occurred in the interval between theMesolithic and the Chalcolithic periods.

The number of finds per period, per area or per culture is too het-erogeneous to draw any final conclusions. We could notice how re-gional or personal interest led to different quantity and quality of thepublished data. The synthesis of the information could, none the less,lead to some observations regarding possible patterns in the spatialrelationship between the living and the dead. The deceased seemedto have played an important role in the communities, their presenceclose to the living being a permanent marker even when and wherecemeteries were used for the burials.

Keywords: Synthesis, human remains, patterns, Mesolithic, Neolithic,Chalcholithic, Southern Romania

I

This article is the first of a series that will be produced within a projectthat tries to analyze the spatial relationship between the living and thedead. In order to perform the spatial analysis, an overview of the ma-terial under study is needed. Last review of this type was publishedalmost 40 years ago (Comșa 1974b), and an update was felt necessaryas many discoveries were made during this interval. The main purposeof this paper is to be, first of all, an updated tool for the scholars thatfocus their research on the study of funerary behavior. As it will beseen, a large number of discoveries are still published with little dataregarding the relationship between human remains and other com-


2/46

plexes in their immediate vicinity, the focus being placed mostly onthe graves or human remains and not on the interaction between themand other structures.

The geographic area that will be considered here is SouthernRomania, between the Carpathian Mountains, the Danube and theBlack Sea. The catalogued discoveries date from the Mesolithic period(Schela Cladovei culture) to the Chalcolithic (Gumelniţa and Sălcuţacultures)1, covering thus a large period of time marked by several ma-

jor changes in the evolution of civilisations.The typology according to which the discoveries will be classified

has at its base the spatial factor, the location of human remains withrespect to the realm of the living (the settlement, the house). The cate-gories go from the disarticulated and then articulated human remainsinside the living area to the use of cemeteries located outside the set-tlements.

In the end of this material we will try to have an overview of thespatial relationship between the living and the dead, and we will try

to see what remained constant and what changed as time passed, ascivilisations evolved and modified many other aspects of their mate-rial culture.

T

During the analyzed period and in the targeted area, there have beenidentified so far several types of discoveries involving human osteologi-cal remains. These range from disarticulated, fragmented and dispersedhuman remains to cemeteries. We have decided to operate with the fol-lowing terms, which combine both ritual and spatial connotations:

a) Disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the

settlement area ()Disarticulated human bones were found both in settlement areaand in cemeteries. When they are found in cemetery areas, their pres-ence can be mostly explained through the involuntary actions of pastand present humans and scavengers. Instead, when they are foundin settlement areas, their presence cannot be so easily explained.According to the context of their discovery and to the body part towhich it belonged, possible interpretations were issued.

b) Articulated bodies inside the settlement area ()Although, apparently, we all know what a grave is and when to use

this term in everyday life, when it comes to archaeological features

it is not always that simple. Not every human bone makes a grave.Not every articulated skeleton makes a grave. Three characteristicsare specific for a grave: a structure built intentionally for hosting abody, the character of the deposition must be intentional and finally,yet importantly, a positive connotation regarding the deceased shouldbe detected and proved (which would mean the exclusion of possiblesacrifices) (Duday 2005, 121-123). This is the reason why we cannotconsider any articulated body found inside a settlement as “grave”. Adistinction should be made between graves, sacrifices and accidents.Unfortunately, the published information is not always helpful whentrying to make these distinctions.

In just a few words, we can suppose an accident when the skeletonis found among the debris of a burned house. Sacrifice can be consid-ered as possible interpretation when the remains are found in found

1 The Romanian periodization systemis used in this article.

2 RALUCA KOGĂLNICEANU


3/46

in one of the following contexts: below house floor, with no visiblesign of floor penetration for the burial, below, near the hearth, in pitsthat could be interpreted (due to their content, other than the humanbones) as cultic pits, etc. Sacrifice can also be considered a possibility ifthe bones bear traces of cut marks. As in any of the above possible situ-ations it is difficult to actually demonstrate a case of accident and evenmore difficult to prove that a sacrifice was involved, we chose not tomake this type of differentiation in the catalogue of discoveries, and tomention only if one of these possible interpretations were consideredby the authors of the discoveries.

c) Isolated graves ()The situation of these graves is somehow confusing. It takes at

least one more person, besides the deceased, to have a burial done.There are several “scenarios” that could lead to the existence of an“isolated” grave:

- The buried individual could have died far from his/her commu-nity and buried where the death occurred or close by. This implies

the existence of at least one other person to perform the burial. In thecases where the grave contains grave goods such as pottery, the abovehypothesis is difficult to consider.

- The grave is part of a cemetery. In the cases where additional ex-cavations were made in the area surrounding the grave without any re-sult, the grave might be a peripheral one to the main nucleus of graves.

- The grave is indeed “isolated” from the settlement and from thecemetery due to some reasons related to the cult (including the “baddeath”, but not exclusively). Again, if the grave contains usual gravegoods, the above hypothesis is difficult to consider, as exclusion is usu-ally applied not only to the place of burial, but also to other elements

related to the burial process.In spite of this logic, we kept the category of “isolated grave”, asthere was no other way to denominate this category of findings.

d) Cemeteries ()The characteristics of a funerary area that would allow us to call it

“cemetery” are the following: 1. It is a special place, used exclusively forthe disposal of the dead during a given period (Sprague 2005, 164) –the exclusivity of site use should be considered only for the period thesite is in use as a burial ground; 2. It contains deceased, buried overa more or less long period of time, and is a theatre of commemora-tive cults (Bertoldi 1997, 31; Duday 2005, 17) – the number of burials

should be larger than a nuclear family (King 1970, 17 cited by Sprague2005, 164); 3. The burials must be contiguous and patterned (Sprague2005, 163); 4. There should be some kind of spatial delimitation be-tween the world of the living and the one of the dead (natural or ar-tificial) (Duday 2005, 17). In other words, “the four practical criteria[of a cemetery] are number of burials, contiguity, compulsoriness, andexclusivity of site use” (Pardoe 1988, 1 cited by Sprague 2005, 163).

We preferred to use the term “cemetery” instead of that of “ne-cropolis”, due to the etymology of these two terms. While “cemetery”(κοιμητήριον = dormitory) is more neutral, the term “necropolis”(νεκρός = corpse + πόλις = city, which means “city of the dead”) indi-

cates that it should be used only in the case of large, well-structuredcemeteries (Kipfer 2000, 384).

Another term used mainly for groupings of Mesolithic burials is

HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE MESOLITHIC TO THE CHALCOLITHIC... 3


4/46

“formal disposal area”. It indicates that the burials are intentional andgrouped, but leaves undetermined the spatial relationship of thesegroupings of graves with the inhabited space (Radovanović 1996, 160).As our purpose is to analyze, in the end, exactly this type of relation-ship, we preferred not to use this term, and to circumscribe the gravesspatially as well as the published data allowed it.

e) Uncertain ()When the degree of articulation of a body or the location of a

grave (or both) was not known or not very clear, we used the term“uncertain” to categorize the context, and gave its description for abetter understanding.

When the information was sufficient, we re-attributed a discoveryfirst labeled as “grave inside the settlement” or “isolated grave” to oneof the other categories.

C

To serve the purpose of this review, the catalogue is ordered alphabeti-cally, while the distribution maps are presented according to differentcriteria (cultural affiliation, type of discovery).

1. Location: Aldeni (com. Cernăteşti, Buzău County) – DealulBalaurului / Gurgiul Balaurului

Discovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed humanremains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (Stoicani-Aldeni aspect)Description: a child mandible in the archaeological layerObservations: the child had a benign tumor of the soft tissues of

the mandible; no other data regarding the context of discovery Bibliography: Comşa 1960a, 6; 1960b, 91; 1974b, 144.

2. Location: Almăjel(u) (com. Vlădaia, Mehedinţi County) –Valea SeacăDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: Vinča – DudeştiDescription: burial of a child wearing a Spondylus braceletObservations: for the same location a Vinča settlement is also known

(National Archaeological Repertory – RAN database 113947.02), butthere is no clear mention as to the spatial relationship between the set-tlement and the grave

Bibliography: Comşa 1993, 154. 3. Location: Alunişu (formerly named Filipescu, com.

Măgurele, Ilfov County) – Movila Filipescu / BroscărieDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: the human remains were found in the defense ditch

# I; the bones were found mixed up with burned wattle and daub, pot-tery fragments; they do not form group of bones

Observations: -Bibliography: Roman 1962, 263, 267. 4. Location: Băile Herculane (Caraş-severin County) – Peştera

Hoţilor / Thieves’ Cave


Cultural manifestation: Sălcuţa (IV phase)



5/46

Description: a human skull without mandible, a human sacrum,a fragment of Bos humerus and a small bowl were found in the rightchamber of cave’s main corridor; they were found in a small space en-closed by the walls of the chamber; the sacrum was found beneath theskull; the skull faced south; the bones belonged to a female, 25-30 yearsold; marks of violence on the skull, the extensive detachment of theskull base; the human bones have been brought there already dried up

Observations: the cave was also inhabited by the Sălcuţa commu-nities

Bibliography: Nicolăescu-Plopşor / Wolski 1974; Roman 2010. 5. Location: Bălăneşti (com. Cozieni, jud. Buzău) – Muchea

MareDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (Stoicani-Aldeni aspect)Description: a skull sprinkled with red ochre, placed under the

fragments of a vessel also sprinkled with ochre

Observations: the skull was found near a houseBibliography: Dumitrescu 1944, 49; Comşa 1960a, 6; 1974b, 144. 6. Loction: Borduşani (com. Borduşani, Ialomiţa County)

– PopinaDiscovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)

disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the set-tlement area

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A2 phase)Description: a) 6 graves (?): G11 – male, 15 years; G14 – child, 1.5

years, flexed on the left side, oriented towards ENE; G15 – child, 8years, flexed, oriented towards N; G16 – child, 3-4 years, flexed on the

left side, oriented towards NE; G17 – child, 7 years, disarticulated skel-eton; G? – rib, mandible, both scapulae, left femur from a child, 0-6months old, found in the destruction level of a house; b) disarticulatedbones: hand remains from a female, 18-20 years; tibia from a 5-6 yearsold child; left forearm of a 14-17 years old female; G19 – fragmentedskull of a child, 2 years, disarticulated skeleton in a hole (?) and in theneighboring area; a humerus of a female, 18 years old, found in a pitfilling; humerus of a child less than 6 months old found in the fillingof a trench (foundation trench of a house?)

Observations: the discoveries were made in the northern part ofthe tell settlement (the only excavated part)

Bibliography: Marinescu-Bîlcu et al. 1995; Bălteanu / Bălteanu1996; Bălteanu 1997; Vasile 2003; Ion 2008, 110.

7. Location: Bucşani (com. Bucşani, Giurgiu County) – LaPod

Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A phase)Description: beneath House # 10 of the first layer, on a lens of sand,

the body of a child of maximum 6 month of age was found, flexed onthe right, oriented towards S

Observations: the house was located in the western third of the tellsettlement

Bibliography: Bem et al. 2002. 8a. Location: Căldăraru (com. Cernica, Ilfov County) –

Mănăstirea Iezerul



6/46

Discovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: Dudeşti (Cernica phase)Description: adult, flexed on the right side, with the skull orient-

ed towards the E; a small black recipient decorated with grooves wasfound in front of the head

Observations: found near a medieval house; the grave was locatednear a Dudeşti settlement

Bibliography: Comşa 1974b, 119. 8b. Location: Căldăraru (com. Cernica, Ilfov County) –

Mănăstirea Iezerul Discovery type: a) cemetery; b) uncertainCultural manifestation: a) Boian (Bolintineanu and Dudeşti

phases) or Dudeşti (Cernica phase) and Boian (Bolintineanu phase);b) Boian (Bolintineanu phase)

Description: a) 379 primary graves, most of them individual, mostof them with the skeleton stretched on the back, some of them flexedor stretched on the right or on the left side, a few stretched face down;

orientation mostly towards the west and neighboring directions; gravegoods consisting mostly in shell, bone or copper jewelry (beads, brace-lets, rings, pendants), polished stone tools (axes, adzes), flint tools(blades, razors, microliths), bone tools (pointers, needles), bone idols;all age and sex groups represented; b) Grave # 356, adult, stretched onthe back, oriented towards WNW, no grave goods

Observations: a) the settlement is approximately 50 m west of thecemetery; b) grave at the periphery of the settlement; it is not clear ifthe grave is located outside or inside the settlement area

Bibliography: Comşa 1975; Comşa / Cantacuzino 2001;Kogălniceanu 2005; Morintz / Kogălniceanu 2009.

9. Location: Călineşti (Teleorman County)Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: several graves; the deceased were buried in flexed po-

sition on a sideObservations: the settlement is located “nearby”Bibliography: Comşa 1974b, 130. 10. Location: Cârcea (com. Coşoveni, Dolj County) –

HanuriDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: Starčevo Criş (Cârcea group – I and IIphases)

Description: a) one skull on the bottom of a pit house, with potteryfragments, near a hearth; several phalanges from a hand were iden-tified beneath the skull that was looking towards W; b) eight skullsdeposited in a pit house (pit # 8), on the floor, with domestic waste:pottery fragments, stone and flint tools, burned animal bones, shellsand snails); c) nine skulls in a ritual pit

Observations: due to the manner of the publication of the data,it is possible that the contexts referred to at b) and c) are one and thesame

Bibliography: Nica et al. 1999; 2001. 11a. Location: Cârcea (com. Coşoveni, Dolj County) –

Viaduct



7/46


Cultural manifestation: Starčevo Criş (Cârcea group – phase III)Description: a) three skulls arranged in a row from north to south

on a bottom of a pit containing pottery fragments, animal bones, culttables, idols, miniature recipients, etc.; b) a skull on the bottom of a pittogether with animal bones and pottery fragments; the skull had cutmarks; c) several fragmented skulls in the defense ditch, together withpottery fragments and animal bones

Observations:Bibliography: Nica / Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1975; Nica et al. 1996. 11b. Location: Cârcea (com. Coşoveni, Dolj County) –

Viaduct Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Vinča-Dudeşti (phase III-IV)Description: five burned individuals found in a ritual ovenObservations: the term used by the author to describe the findings

was “cremated”. As no anthropological analysis has been performed/published, but the author could mention the number of individuals,we assume they were more or less burned, but not actually cremated

Bibliography: Nica 1997. 12. Location: Căscioarele (com. Căscioarele, Călăraşi County)

– D’aia parte (cemetery # 1?) / Vizavi de Puţul Popii (cemetery # 2?)Discovery type: cemetery / cemeteries (?)Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (phases A1 and A2) / Boian

(Spanţov phase) and GumelniţaDescription: cemetery # 1 (?): 31 individuals; 14 of the individuals

were subjected to anthropological analysis; all age groups and both

sexes represented; flexed on the left side; oriented with the heads ap-proximately to the E; among the grave goods there were pottery, stonetool, ochre, boar tusk jewelry; cemetery # 2 (?): 3 graves, same positionand orientation of the deceased as reported for cemetery # 1, one gravewith golden beads and a copper ring

Observations: a) the cultural attribution varies slightly from onesource to another; the common element is that the graves are attributedto the transition phase from the Boian to the Gumelniţa culture, alsoreferred in the literature as Boian- Spanţov or Gumelniţa A1; b) the twocemeteries are located on the western and eastern slopes of the terrace; asthe second cemetery is located 50 m west of the Căscioarele – D’aia parte

one, we consider, until further data is published, that there is only onelarger burial ground, including the discoveries from the both reportedlocations; c) the Gumelniţa A1 settlement is located approximately 300m SE of the cemetery / cemeteries, while the Gumelniţa A2 settlementcould be either the one investigated on a present day island at the loca-tion named Ostrovel , approximately 500 m SE from the burial ground,or an uninvestigated tell settlement currently under the lake waters

Bibliography: Sârbu et al. 1996; Şerbănescu 1996a; 1998; Şerbănescu/ Sârbu 1995; Şerbănescu / Şandric 1999; Şerbănescu / Comşa 2012;Cantemir / Bălteanu 1993.

13a. Location: Căscioarele (com. Căscioarele, Călăraşi

County) – Ostrovel Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Boian (Spanţov phase)



8/46

Description: grave of an adult, flexed on the right side, with thehead towards N found in relation to House # 12/1964 which also con-tained two painted columns, closer to the larger column

Observations: it is not clear the stratigraphic relationship with thehouse, if the grave was inside the house or beneath it; the house has acentral position in the settlement structure

Bibliography: Dumitrescu 1965; 1970. 13b

1. Location: Căscioarele (com. Căscioarele, Călăraşi

County) – Ostrovel Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)

disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the settle-ment area

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A2 phase)Description: a) 6 or 7 child graves beneath House # 1/1964 and be-

neath a nearby house, # 2/1964; other 5 child graves: 2 in the SE end ofthe main trench I, other 2 in the NW extremity of the same trench and1 child in the NW part of the settlement, under houses. The skeletons

were found flexed on the left side, with the head towards ENE; age atdeath varies between 0/0.5 and 7 yearsb) three femurs, two right and one left, two male and one female,

with cut marks; fragment of right maxillary adult; fragment of rightparietal, adult, male; fragment of frontal, Infans II

Observations: there is no context given to the disarticulatedbones

Bibliography: Dumitrescu 1965; 1970; 1986; Lazăr / Soficaru 2005;Ion 2010.

13b2. Location: Căscioarele (com. Căscioarele, Călăraşi

County) – Ostrovel

Discovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed humanremains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (B1 phase)Description: three skulls and three femurs; two skulls were found

in House # 1, at 60 cm from each other, one looking NNW, the otherone looking ESE, both male, 25-35 and 50 years old; another skullfound beneath a house together with a deer horn with its ramifica-tions; three femurs, two right femurs and a left one, two belonging tofemales and one to a male, all wearing cut marks

Observations: there is no context given to the discovered femursBibliography: Dumitrescu 1965; 1986; Lazăr / Soficaru 2005.

14. Location: Cernavoda (Constanţa County) – ColumbiaD and Columbia C

Discovery type: a) cemetery; b) disarticulated, fragmented anddispersed human remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: Hamangia (Goloviţa and Ceamurlia de Josphases)

Description: a) approximately 500 individuals, mostly primary in-dividual graves, but also multiple graves or secondary graves, most ofthem buried stretched on the back, some of them stretched or flexedon the right side, oriented mostly towards ESE and SE, but they rangefrom ENE to S; grave goods: flint tools (blades, scrapers, nuclei), pol-

ished stone tools (axes, adzes), grinding stones (occasionally), bonetools (pointers), pottery (ranging from miniature vessels to large re-cipients), clay and marble idols, “ritual stones”, shell, bone, marble and



9/46

copper jewelry (beads, bracelets, pendants) and also meat offerings;all age and sex groups represented; b) disarticulated human remains,consisting in long bones and skull fragments coming from adult sub-

jects (unpublished data, still under analysis)Observations: a) the cemetery was located at Columbia D; the set-

tlement corresponding to the graves from the Goloviţa phase is locatedSW of the cemetery, in the location Columbia A, B and C . Other closeby habitation traces were located 80 m north of the cemetery, withoutany details regarding the phase they belonged to; b) the dispersed hu-man remains were found in the location Columbia C , the part of thesettlement closest to the cemetery

Bibliography: Morintz et al. 1955; Berciu / Morintz 1957; 1959;Berciu et al. 1959; 1961; Coteţ 2007; Morintz / Kogălniceanu 2008;Necrasov et al. 1990. 15. Location: Cernavoda (Constanţa County) – Coada

ZăvoiuluiDiscovery type: uncertain (possible cemetery and disarticulated

human bones)Cultural manifestation: HamangiaDescription: ritual deposition of human skulls, in one case forming

a grouping of 5 skulls, the rest of them being independent. Remains ofthe postcranial skeleton were found with the skulls, together with oxand goat skulls and pig maxillary

Observations: habitation traces identified at the same location. Itwas mentioned that the human remains were discovered both near thesettlement traces and a little bit further north

Bibliography: Morintz et al. 1955. 16. Location: Cernavoda (Constanţa County) – Cetate

Discovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: primary individual inhumation; adult, flexed on the

right side, oriented towards SSE; grave goods: two clay vessels in frontof the head

Observations: the grave was found in the area of ditch II, at -1.10m; the grave was located near the tell settlement, to the South

Bibliography: Nestor 1937, 16, fig. 6, 7; Comşa 1960a, 7-8; Haşotti1997, 89. 17. Location: Cetatea Veche (com. Spanţov, Călăraşi

County) – Grădiştea

Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: several graves (6 or 7)Observations: no data on the graves; a Gumelniţa settlement is

reported for the same location, but no data regarding the spatial rela-tionship between the graves and the settlement

Bibliography: Şerbănescu 1985, 33; Lazăr 2002; RAN 105277.01. 18. Location: Chirnogi (com. Chirnogi, Călăraşi County) –

Şuviţa IorgulescuDiscovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa; Boian and Gumelniţa in other

sourcesDescription: 54, 58 or 64 graves, according to the source; mostly

buried flexed on a side, but also face down; mostly primary individual



10/46

graves, but also four double graves; oriented mostly towards ESE; al-most all graves had grave goods: shell jewelry (bracelets and beads),copper beads, small bone plates, pottery, stone and flint tools, goldpieces and meat offerings; all sex and age groups present, with a pre-dominance of men

Observations: the settlement is located on the western slope of the valley, while the cemetery is on the eastern slope

Bibliography: Şerbănescu 1996b; Bălteanu / Cantemir 1991; 1992;Marinescu-Bîlcu 2000, 115; RAN 101813.15. 19. Location: Chirnogi (com. Chirnogi, Călăraşi County) –

Şuviţa lui GhiţanDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: -Observations: possible pair-settlement at Chirnogi – Florea

Baltag Bibliography: RAN 101813.12; Morintz / Ionescu 1968, 105.

20. Location: Chirnogi (com. Chirnogi, Călăraşi County) –Şuviţa lui VulpeDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: adult; flexed on the left side; oriented towards EObservations: possible pair-settlement at Chirnogi – Florea

Baltag Bibliography: RAN 101813.11; Morintz / Ionescu 1968, 105. 21. Location: Chirnogi (com. Chirnogi, Călăraşi County) –

Terasa RudariDiscovery type: cemetery

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa A2Description: 16 graves; flexed on the left side; grave goods: pottery,bone tools, beads

Observations: -Bibliography: Şerbănescu 1996b; Lazăr 2002. 22. Location: Chitila (com. Chitila, Ilfov County) – FermăDiscovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)


Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 or A2 phase, according tothe source)

Description: a) 5 graves, of which one double; the two individualsfrom the double grave flexed, one on the left, one on the right, anotherindividual stretched on the back; orientation varied; mostly N-S, butwith the head either to the N or to the S, grave goods: copper bracelet(grave # 2), a fragment of a copper artifact and a clay idol (grave # 5,the one stretched on the back); adults

b) disarticulated human bones covering all ages and sex groups;they do not seem to suggest selection, as cranial bones and long boneswere found together with vertebras, ribs, phalanges etc.; they seem tobelong mostly to disturbed graves

Observations: found in the western part of the site as it was pre-

served, but it was supposed that the tell settlement extended further tothe west; there is no indication regarding the relationship between thegraves or the bones and other archaeological features



11/46

Bibliography: Boroneanţ 1987; 1992; 2000; 2002; Boroneanţ et al.2003; Mănucu-Adameşteanu et al. 2004; 2005; Soficaru et al. 2003. 23. Location: Ciocăneşti (former Andolina) (com. Ciocăneşti,

Călăraşi County)Discovery type: cemeteryCultural manifestation: Boian (Vidra phase)Description: five certain and four less certain graves; both adults

and a child; flexed on the left side; oriented with the head approxi-mately to the E; two had grave goods (a flat trapezoidal axe and beadsmade of shells – Spondylus and Dentalium, and of copper)

Observations: the settlement is a few hundred meters from thecemetery

Bibliography: Comşa 1961a; 1974a, 203-206; 1974b, 125. 24. Location: Constanţa (Constanţa County) – La cişmeaDiscovery type: uncertainCultural manifestation: HamangiaDescription: 2 graves: one flexed on the left, oriented towards SE,

the pit had stone structure, ashes beneath the stones and there werealso animal bones (including a complete horn) found in the pit; theother one incomplete, oriented N-S, had an incomplete recipient anda flint blade

Observations: it is not clear if the graves could be part of a cem-etery or part of a settlement. No traces of habitation reported, but 8waste pits found in the area of the graves

Bibliography: Covacef et al. 2006. 25. Location: Coţatcu (com. Podgoria, Buzău County) –

CetăţuiaDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: Starčevo-Criş (late phase – IV ?)Description: adult, flexed on the left, oriented N-S, without gravegoods

Observations: located in the NW margin of the settlementBibliography: Trohani et al. 2010. 26. Location: Cruşovu (com. Brastavăţu, Olt County)Discovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Vădastra (I phase)Description: a skull fragment, an ulna and a radius were found in

the archaeological layer

Observations: the bones were presumed to come from a destroyedgrave

Bibliography: Mateescu 1957, 105; Comşa 1974b, 122. 27. Location: Cuneşti (com. Grădiştea, Călăraşi County)Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area (?);

b) disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the set-tlement area

Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: a) one or more inhumation graves; b) fragmented

skull of a childObservations: a) excavations made by German archaeologists at

the beginning of the 20th century; it is not clear if the graves were foundon the tell settlement or outside of it

Bibliography: Comşa 1960a, 8; 1974b, 145; 1999, 33.



12/46

28. Location: Curăteşti (com. Frăsinet, Călăraşi County) –Biserica veche

Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: BoianDescription: 20 graves found so far; mostly flexed on the left side

(at least one – G19 – was flexed on the left side and turned with thethorax face down); oriented approximately to the E, one to the S; gravegoods: clay, marble and shell beads, bone rings, flint and stone tools,and pottery

Observations: the settlement of the cemetery has not been identi-fied yet

Bibliography: Şerbănescu / Soficaru 2006; Şerbănescu / Cristache2011. 29. Location: Curcani (com. Curcani, Călăraşi County)Discovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: adult flexed on a side, rich grave goods: 2 stone axes,

a copper chisel, 1 clay plateObservations: there is no information connecting this discoverywith a settlement

Bibliography: Ghianopoulos 1966. 30. Location: Curmătura (com. Giurgiţa, Dolj County)Discovery type: articulated body inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Sălcuţa (phase I or II)Description: in one of the bread ovens identified at the edge of the

settlement a human skeleton was found; it was located in the westernpart of the hearth, on a layer of ashes, face down; two large animalbones found in front of the head, 5 snails on top of the skeleton’s back;

child, 4-5 yearsObservations: the bread ovens were located at the northern edgeof the settlement

Bibliography: Nica / Cîşlaru 1981. 31. Location: Drăgăneşti-Olt (Olt County) – CorboaicaDiscovery type: a) cemetery and b) disarticulated, fragmented and

dispersed human remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: a) Gumelniţa? (A1 phase?) (1 grave),

Sălcuţa (IV phase) (6 graves); b) Gumelniţa or SălcuţaDescription: a) flexed on the left side; oriented approximately to

the W; no clear grave goods except for Grave 5 (Gumelniţa), where the

deceased has a copper axe in his hand; apparently only adult individu-als were found; b) two inferior maxillary bones were found

Observations: a) there is no clear indication as to where the settle-ment is; b) there is no clear cultural attribution for the disarticulatedbones, if they come from the cemetery (Sălcuţa) or from the belowsettlement (Gumelniţa)

Bibliography: Nica et al. 1995. 32. Location: Dridu (com. Dridu, Ialomiţa County)Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: 11 graves; flexed on the left (4 individuals) and on the

right side (4 or 5 individuals); oriented between N and E (4 individu-als) and between S and E (5 individuals); no grave goods; both adultmen and women; no children mentioned



13/46

Observations: the settlement is located in the vicinity Bibliography: Comşa 1980; Nestor / Zaharia 1959; Zaharia 1967;

Necrasov / Cristescu 1961. 33. Location: Dudeşti (Bucharest) – Malul RoşuDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Dudeşti (Fundeni phase – II)Description: adult, flexed on the right side, oriented towards

NNW; ochre traces; parts of the right hand and arm cut before deathObservations: no data regarding the relationship between this

grave and the neighboring archaeological structuresBibliography: Comşa 1956; 1974b; 1998a. 34. Location: Fărcaşele (previously Fărcaşul de Sus) (com.

Fărcaşele, Olt County) – La şcoalăDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: primary double inhumation grave; man, 21-26 years

old plus female 23-29 years old; f lexed on the left side; oriented WSW;

grave goods: the woman wore cylindrical red beads at the neck and acopper beadObservations: the grave was discover in the proximity of the east-

ern corner of a house hearth; it is not clear the relationship of the gravewith the house (inside, beneath, outside?)

Bibliography: Wolski / Nicolăescu-Plopşor 1970; Comşa 1974b,113; Nica 1985, 40.

35. Location: Fărcaşele (previously Fărcaşul de Sus) (com.Fărcaşele, Olt County) – Pe coastă

Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Vădastra (II phase)

Description: adult; flexed on the left side; oriented towards E;grave goods: a storage vessel broken near the headObservations: found in a pit (possible pit-house, had wattle and

daub above)Bibliography: Nica 1970. 36. Location: Fundulea (former Crângu village unified with

Fundulea village in 1968) (com. Fundulea, Călăraşi County)Discovery type: uncertainCultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: one or more inhumation gravesObservations: excavations made by German archaeologists at the

beginning of the 20th century Bibliography: Comşa 1960a, 8; 1974b, 145. 37. Location: Gălăţui (com. Alexandru Odobescu, Călăraşi

County) – Movila Berzei ( Movila Coteţ, Movila Verde – alternativenames of the location)

Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the settle-ment area

Cultural manifestation: Boian (Giuleşti phase)Description: a) 3 graves; 1 flexed on the left side, 2 flexed on the

right side; oriented towards the W; adults and child; b) a skull

Observations: the child was found beneath the platform of thesanctuary; this grave seemed to have been protected by some kind ofroof; near the child a clay altar; there is no data regarding the rela-



14/46

tionship of the other graves and of the skull with other archaeologicalfeatures

Bibliography: Neagu 2003, 118-119. 38. Location: Gârleşti (com. Gherceşti, Dolj County) –

Surupătoare or LivadieDiscovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Sălcuţa (III phase)Description: 15 primary individual inhumation graves; flexed on

the left (7 cases) and on the right side (4 cases); oriented towards N(3 cases), NNW (5 cases), W (1 case), SW (2 cases), SE (1 case); gravegoods: copper beads and pendant in two of the child graves

Observations: the settlement was identified in the vicinity Bibliography: Nica 1993; 1994. 39. Location: Garvăn (com. Jijila, Tulcea County) – Dealul

BugeaculuiDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: possible Gumelniţa

Description: on the northern slope of Bugeac Hill, a grave with thedeceased in flexed positionObservations: verbal info from I. Barnea; a Gumelniţa settlement

is located in vicinity Bibliography: Comşa 1974b, 144. 40a. Location: Glina (com. Glina, Ilfov County) – La NuciDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Boian (Vidra phase)Description: 8 graves of children; flexed on the left (4 on the left)

or on the right side (2 on the right); oriented to the ENE (2 cases), E(3 cases), S (1 case); grave goods: shell beads (in 3 cases), copper beads

(in 1 case, combined with shell beads), and burned seeds in front ofthe skull (1 case)Observations: the graves seem to have been located between hous-

es; one grave was partially covered by the debris of a house, anothergrave find partially beneath an exterior hearth and another grave wasfound at the bottom of a pit

Bibliography: Petrescu-Dâmboviţa 1944, 69-70; Comşa 1960b, 88;1974a, 202-203; 1974b, 125-126.

40b. Location: Glina (com. Glina, Ilfov County) – La NuciDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: isolated human remains in the archaeological layer,

among which a skull fragmentObservations: no clear data regarding the archaeological contextBibliography: Comşa 1960a, 11; 1960b, 92; 1974b, 148. 41. Location: Grădinile (com. Studina, Olt County) – La Islaz Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: one Starčevo-Criş (III phase) and one with

a less certain cultural attributionDescription: 2 graves; flexed on a side (G1 – on the right side,

G2 – undetermined); oriented towards NE (G1); no grave goods men-

tionedObservations: no indication given for the relationship of the graves

with other structures from the same layers



15/46

Bibliography: Nica 1981; Andreescu et al. 2008. 42. Location: Hârşova (Constanţa County) – Tell and

surroundingsDiscovery type: a) isolated grave; b) articulated bodies inside the

settlement area; c) disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed humanremains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: a) Gumelniţa (A2 phase); b-c) GumelniţaDescription: a) adult flexed on the left side, oriented E-W, grave

goods: a bowl, a flint scraper, a flint point; b) 2 or 3 child graves; one ofthem was found beneath a house, with the deceased flexed on the leftside, oriented towards S, with arms and feet tight; the child suffered ofmalformations of the skull and of the spine; it was assumed that it isa case of sacrifice connected with some house foundation cult; c) thedisarticulated remains were mainly found in waste areas; at least oneof them is an ulna

Observations: a) the grave was found a few hundred meters SEfrom the tell settlement

Bibliography: Haşotti 1997, 89; Popovici / Rialland 1996, 56;Popovici et al. 1998-2000, 114; 2011, 51; Ion 2008, 111. 43a+b. Location: Icoana (com. Eşelniţa, Mehedinţi

County) – today the location is under the Danube’s watersDiscovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)


Cultural manifestation: a) Schela Cladovei; b) Schela Cladoveiand/or Starčevo-Criş

Description: a) 2 graves with the individuals stretched on the back,oriented towards N (G2) and W (G3), grave goods: red ochre (G2 and

G3), a tusk tool (G3); b) 3 cases of bones from the skulls (adult femalesand male), a fragment of scapula (adult), a vertebra (mature male), 3hand bones (adult and mature individuals, in one case female), 5 legbones (adult and mature females and males)

Observations: a) the graves seem to be located near houses, butit has also been suggested that the same areas were not used simul-taneously for burial and living and rather the houses were used forburial after they had been used for occupation or vice versa; b) thecultural attribution of these disarticulated bones (Mesolithic or EarlyNeolithic) could not be made and the relationship with archaeologicalfeatures could not be established

Bibliography: Boroneanţ et al. 2008. 44. Location: Însurăţei (Brăila County) – Popina I Discovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A2 phase)Description: 2 human bones (fragment of the left ulna and a right

metatarsal) found in a house (House # 4)Observations: in the SW half of the settlementBibliography: Pandrea et al. 1999; Moise 1999, 172. 45. Location: Ipoteşti (com. Milcov, Olt County) – La conac Discovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 or A2 phase, according to

different sources)



16/46

Description: a fragment of inferior mandibleObservations: found in the superior level; no data regarding the

contextBibliography: Comşa 1962b; 1973b; 1974a, 218; 1974b, 131. 46. Location: Izvoarele (com. Hotarele, Giurgiu County) –

FântâneleDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: one grave with the skeleton flexed on the left side,

oriented towards NE, adult, without grave goodsObservations: no data regarding the spatial relationship with other

archaeological featuresBibliography: Comşa 1970; 1974a, 214; 1974b, 129. 47. Location: Limanu (Constanţa County) – Peştera

Caraciocola / Caraciocola CaveDiscovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Hamangia (II and III phases)

Description: no clear data regarding the number of burials or theburial practice; only one description of an adult’s grave, with the individual stretched on the back and oriented towards the S, with pottery, amarble recipient, shell beads and bracelet as grave goods; we also haveinformation on the existence of a child grave from the same cemetery

Observations: a Hamangia settlement is reported for the same lo-cation

Bibliography: Harţuche 1966; Volschi / Irimia 1968; Galbenu 1970;Georgescu 1974; Pâslaru / Colesniuc 2007; RAN 60641.01.

48. Location: Lişcoteanca (com. Bordei Verde, BrăilaCounty) – Satnoieni I

Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 or A2 phase)Description: child; flexed, oriented towards NE; grave goods:

small clay lid near the head, clay spindle near left elbow, horse hoofnear legs

Observations: no data regarding the relationship of the grave withother archaeological structures

Bibliography: Dragomir 1969, 48-49; 1996, 188. 49. Location: Luncaviţa (com. Luncaviţa, Tulcea County) –

CetăţuiaDiscovery type: a) isolated grave; b) articulated bodies inside the

settlement areaCultural manifestation: a) Gumelniţa (A2 phase); b) GumelniţaDescription: a) human bones from a possible grave located out-

side the settlement, at approximately 300 m SE of the tell; b) disturbedgrave, at a depth of almost 3 m

Observations: b) the grave was discovered at the southern marginof the settlement

Bibliography: Micu et al. 2010; Colectivul 1952, 416; Comşa1960b, 6.

50a+b. Location: Măgura (com. Măgura, Teleorman County) –Buduiasca / TELEOR 003


Cultural manifestation: both Dudeşti and Vinča



17/46

Description: at least 22 bone fragments coming from at least 19individuals; all sex and age groups represented; body parts represented(skull: 16 fragments, superior members: 2 fragments, inferior mem-bers: 2 fragments; phalanx: 1 fragment; mandible: 1 fragment)

Observations: not all the bone fragments found have been ana-lyzed yet; the bone fragments were found in waste pits

Bibliography: Andreescu et al. 2005. 51. Location: Mangalia (Constanţa County)Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Hamangia (phase II Goloviţa, late phase,

phase CIII Mangalia – according to different sources)Description: no data regarding the number of graves, the position

of deposition, and the orientation; there is information regarding theritual burials of skulls; some data regarding the grave goods in general:pottery, stone tools, shell beads and bracelets

Observations: -Bibliography: Comşa 1974b, 132; Volschi / Irimia 1968; Pâslaru /

Colesniuc 2007. 52. Location: Măriuţa (com. Belciugatele, Călăraşi County) – La Movilă

Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (B phase)Description: 4 graves; G1 – flexed on the right side, oriented to-

wards ESE, female, 12-14 years, grave goods: pottery fragment froma plate, an animal bone; G3 – flexed on the left side, oriented towardsE, female, 10 years, no grave goods; G4 – flexed on the left side, ori-ented towards ENE, male, 50 years, grave goods: 1 adze, 1 copperpointer, 1 flint blade, red ochre on the left arm; G5 – flexed on the

left side, oriented towards E, female, 45 years, grave goods: 1 flintbladeObservations: the tell settlement is located nearby Bibliography: Lazăr / Parnic 2007; Gătej et al. 2007. 53. Location: Năvodari (Constanţa County) – Lacul Taşaul

/ La Ostrov Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)


Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A2 phase)Description: a) 2 graves; G1 – stone structure; flexed on the left;

oriented towards NE; grave goods: pottery fragments from 3 vessels, asmall stone axe; G2 – flexed on the back; oriented towards NNE; b) 7fragments of long bones, 1 ulna, 2 metapodial bones, 1 phalanx

Observations: the graves were made near the NW shore of the is-land, on top of a house, after its abandonment, but before the aban-doning of the settlement; there is no data regarding the context of thedisarticulated bones

Bibliography: Marinescu-Bîlcu et al. 2000; 2000-2001; 2001; 2003. 54. Location: Oinacu (com. Oinacu, Giurgiu County)Discovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa

Description: primary individual inhumation; adult, flexed on theright side; grave goods: a deer horn handle with an orifice for puttingthe handle



18/46

Observations: the grave was found near the settlement at Măgura Mare, inside a cemetery from 3rd-4th century A.D.; the grave’s culturalattribution is uncertain

Bibliography: Andrieşescu 1937, pl. XXIX, XXX; Comşa 1960a,13; 1960b, 93; 1974b, 149. 55. Location: Olteniţa (Călăraşi County) – Măgura

Gumelniţa / Măgura Calomfirescu and the nearby terrace ( formerCalomfirescu stables)

Discovery type: terrace – a) cemetery; tell – b) articulated bodiesinside the settlement area; c) disarticulated, fragmented and dispersedhuman remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: a) Gumelniţa; b-c) Gumelniţa (A2 phase)Description: a) at least 16 graves excavated in various moments;

flexed on the left side with one case stretched on the back; orientedtowards the E; some of them had grave goods such as: polished stoneaxes (two cases), flint blade (one case), bone bead (one case), animalbones (one case), sherd (one case); all age groups represented; b) an

individual was found among the burned remains of a house from thelevel 0.65-1.00 m; face upwards, a little bit turned to the right, thebones were broken; c) isolated human remains, among which a skull ofa child, 2 years old, found in a pit filled with ashes, pottery fragments,ochre and other remains, near a house; the skull wore light traces ofburning coming from the direct contact with hot ashes

Observations: a) between the location of the graves excavated byB. Ionescu, S. Marinescu-Bîlcu and E. Tudor in the 60’s and those ex-cavated by D. Şerbănescu in the 70’s there seems to be quite a distance;although they are traditionally considered as part of the same cem-etery, we leave this assertion under question; the pair settlement is a

tell settlement located 100 m SW of the cemetery; c) the skull of thechild was found in the northwestern part of the settlementBibliography: Dumitrescu 1925, 37-38; 1966, 56; 1996; Nicolăescu-

Plopşor, 1966; Comşa 1960a, 11; Şerbănescu 1985; Lazăr 2001. 56. Location: Olteniţa (Călăraşi County) – Valea MareDiscovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: several graves; grave goods: three stone hammer-axesObservations: the graves were discovered during construction

works and there is very little information about them; the pair settle-ment is not clearly identified

Bibliography: Şerbănescu 1985; Lazăr 2002. 57a. Location: Ostrovu Corbului (com. Hinova, Mehedinţi

County) – Botul Cliuciului Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Schela CladoveiDescription: the number of graves varied in different sources from

1 to 5/7; all age and sex groups represented, either stretched on the backwith stretched legs or with legs crossed in Turkish position, oriented to-wards S or E; grave goods: quartzite pieces, bone tools, red ochre, animalbones, shells; some of the graves had large stones around or on the body

Observations: the number of graves varies according to their at-

tribution to the Mesolithic or Neolithic layerBibliography: Roman / Păunescu 1996; Roman / Dodd-Opriţescu

2008; Boroneanţ 2010.



19/46

57b. Location: Ostrovu Corbului (com. Hinova, MehedinţiCounty) – Botul Cliuciului

Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Starčevo-CrişDescription: the number of graves varied in different sources from

0/2 to 6; the rest of the description is the same as aboveObservations: the grave number varies according to their attribu-

tion to the Mesolithic or Neolithic layerBibliography: Roman / Păunescu 1996; Roman / Dodd-Opriţescu

2008; Boroneanţ 2010. 57c. Location: Ostrovu Corbului (com. Hinova, Mehedinţi

County) – Botul Cliuciului Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Sălcuţa-BodrogkéresztúrDescription: 53 graves of which 3 double graves; flexed on a side

(mostly on the left side, some on the right side), oriented mostly to-wards E, but in some cases towards W; rich grave goods: flint and ob-

sidian blades, shell, copper beads, gold pendants, pottery (most of thecases, from 1 to 7 recipients / grave, some animal bonesObservations: the cemetery was located on top of a no longer used

Sălcuţa settlement; there was the supposition that some of the graves,located at the eastern extremity, outside the previous settlement’s area,were classic Sălcuţa graves corresponding to the settlement, but thearguments are lacking strength

Bibliography: Roman / Dodd-Opriţescu 1989, 2008; Roman /Păunescu 1996; 2008. 58. Location: Ostrovu Corbului (com. Hinova, Mehedinţi

County) – Botul Piscului

Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Sălcuţa (phase III?)Description: 5 inhumation graves; the deceased were flexed on the

left side; no grave goodsObservations: the graves were found near a Sălcuţa settlementBibliography: Comşa 1974b, 143; Berciu 1939, 68; Roman / Dodd-

Opriţescu 2008, 8. 59. Location: Palazu Mare (mun. Constanţa, Constanţa

County)Discovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)

Description: grave of an adult (?), stretched on the back; gravegoods: a clay support-table, plate with empty foot, small bowl, anotherfragmented recipient, small chisel, shell bracelet and beads

Observations: in the RAN database a Neolithic cemetery (un-known cultural manifestation) is mentioned; RAN code: 60446.01

Bibliography: Galbenu 1965; 1971, 73-74; Comşa 1974b, 145;Haşotti 1997, 89. 60. Location: Pietrele (com. Băneasa, Giurgiu County)Discovery type: a) cemetery / cemeteries (?); b) articulated bodies

inside the settlement area; c) disarticulated, fragmented and dispersedhuman remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: a) cemetery # 1 (?): at least 50 graves identified with

geomagnetic measurements; excavations uncovered so far 3 graves,



20/46

of which one definitely later based on the dagger found in the grave;cemetery # 2 (?): 3 graves of which 2 in poor conditions and 1 flexedon a side and oriented E-W, no grave goods; b) one skeleton found onthe floor of a house in surface A (on the tell); it was supposed he wascaught under the debris of the burning house; another similar situationwas excavated in surface F, in the southern part of the tell, where, ona house floor, near a hearth, the remains of 3 individuals were found;north of the floor other human bones were found, not in anatomi-cal connection; they belong to 5-6 individuals; it was supposed thatthis situation illustrates a family with three generations that was alsocaught by the fire inside the house; 7 graves were discovered in 2010 inthe lower settlement located north of tell; at least 3 were flexed on theright side and one on the left side; orientation: predominantly S or SE,but one is towards E; one of the graves had as grave goods a flint bladeand a boar tusk pendant; c) on the tell – over 400 disarticulated hu-man bones found in all the layers; there is nothing to indicate a certainselection of the bones, as they represent all body parts; in the lower

settlement, north of the tell – on a shell covered area, in its eastern partbut also central, a human skull was found, laid on the left side, togetherwith the first two vertebras. On the skull there was a flint blade; other7 bones (long, vertebra, clavicles) were scattered on the shell coveredsurface; another fragment of skull was found beneath the shell layer

Observations: a) the settlement is located approximately 40 m Eof the cemetery # 1 (?) and SW of cemetery # 2 (?); b) there is no datapublished yet regarding the location of the graves in the context of thesettlement and their spatial relationship with other structures

Bibliography: Toderaş et al. 2009; Vulpe et al. 2011; Hansen et al.2012.

61. Location: Popeşti (com. Vasilaţi, Călăraşi County) – former CAP-Zootehnic section

Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Boian (Vidra or Giuleşti phase, according

to the source)Description: 16 primary, individual inhumation graves; flexed on

the left side (15 cases) and on the right side (1 case); oriented mostlytowards NE and E; grave goods present in 7 graves: shell, bone andcopper beads, bone ring, stone and flint tools; all sex and age groupsrepresented

Observations: there is no data regarding a possible pair settlement

Bibliography: Şerbănescu 1999; Neagu 2003, 117; Necrasov et al.1990, 192-193. 62. Location: Radovanu (com. Radovanu, Călăraşi

County) – La Muscalu / Valea Coadelor Discovery type: a) cemetery; b) articulated bodies inside the set-

tlement area; c) disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human re-mains in the settlement area; d) unknown

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase)Description: a) 17 primary individual inhumation graves, flexed

on the left side (9 cases) and on the right side (2 cases), oriented fromNE to SSE (9 cases), and from SSW to WSW (2 cases), with rare grave

goods (3 cases): flint blade, shell beads, pottery; b) in the high set-tlement – 6 graves between houses; small children; flexed on the leftside; oriented towards ESE and ENE; without any grave goods; c) a



21/46

metacarpal in the archaeological layer; d) 2 graves (G 24 and G 25):one adult, flexed on the left side, oriented towards E, no grave goodsand one child, flexed on the left side, oriented towards NNE, withoutgrave goods

Observations: a) the pair-settlement (fortified) is located on theterrace east of the cemetery, and it is the same site as the one where thegraves of the small children were found; d) the location Valea Coadelor is connected with the location La Muscalu: VC is NE of LM , in the val-ley; the two graves were found in relationship with two houses foundat the same location; it is not clear if the graves are part of a cemeteryor were buried in the open settlement located in the valley

Bibliography: Comşa 1974a, 214-218; 1990, 104-108; 1998b. 63. Location: Rasova (com. Rasova, Constanţa County)Discovery type: isolated grave (?)Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: -Observations: a Gumelniţa settlement is mentioned for Rasova –

Valea Caramancea in the RAN database; RAN code for the settlement:62805.07; it is not clear if the grave can be connected with this settle-ment or not

Bibliography: Comşa 1977, 70; Haşotti 1997, 89. 64. Location: Sălcuţa (com. Sălcuţa, Dolj County) – Piscul

CornişoruluiDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: SălcuţaDescription: a fragmentary mandible of a 40-45 years old maleObservations: no data regarding the context of discovery

Bibliography: Berciu 1961, 358-359; Comşa 1974b, 144. 65. Location: Sarichioi (com. Sarichioi, Tulcea County) – La

BursuciDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa A1Description: two piles of bones (marked as G4 and G5) were found

on house floors; other bones, especially phalanxes, were found bothrandomly or in pits

Observations: it is not clear the stratigraphic situation of the twopiles of bones and of the disarticulated bones – the piles of bones

were found in houses and the only houses mentioned are those of theGumelniţa A1 layer, but they are included in the later cemetery; thedisarticulated bones found randomly in the layer could be scatteredremains from other graves; those found in pits remain also unclear aspits were made both during the habitation of the area and after that

Bibliography: Oberländer-Târnoveanu / Oberländer-Târnoveanu1979.

66a. Location: Schela Cladovei (mun. Drobeta-TurnuSeverin, Mehedinţi County) – Canton (km 854)

Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the set-

tlement areaCultural manifestation: Schela CladoveiDescription: a) the number of Mesolithic graves is not clear. In all,



22/46

so far, at least 71 graves have been excavated (of which some Starčevo-Criş graves); most of them are formal burials, with the deceasedstretched on the back, oriented parallel to the Danube’s flow, mainlytowards SE; red ochre around the bodies; grave goods: perforated fishteeth or shells; all sex and age groups represented

Observations: the burials were located around habitation struc-tures, hearths, altars; b) the disarticulated remains could come fromearlier graves, disturbed; the practice of excarnation was also noticed;skulls found in houses (in one instance the number of skulls found in-side a house corresponded with the number of headless bodies buriedaround the house)

Bibliography: Boroneanţ et al. 1997; 1999; Boroneanţ / Boroneanţ2009; Bonsall 2008.

66b. Location: Schela Cladovei (mun. Drobeta-Turnu Severin,Mehedinţi County) – Canton (km 854)

Discovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Starčevo-Criş

Description: the number of Early Neolithic graves is not known;they are few compared to the Mesolithic ones; three possible suchgraves were pointed out; two of them were flexed on a side (right andleft), were oriented towards NE and NW; grave goods: clay weight

Observations: the relationship of the graves with other complexesis not known

Bibliography: Boroneanţ / Boroneanţ 2009. 67. Location: Suceveni (com. Suceveni, Galaţi County) –

StoboraniDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (Stoicani-Aldeni aspect)

Description: double grave; male, 17 years, flexed on the left side, ori-ented towards the E; near the abdomen – skull fragments belonging to achild; grave goods: grinding stone, animal bones, shells, large fish bone

Observations: the grave was located 4 m SE from House # VBibliography: Dragomir 1996, 188-190. 68a. Location: Sultana (com. Mânăstirea, Călăraşi County) –

Malu RoşuDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: BoianDescription: one individual, stretched on the back Observations: the grave (G 35) was found in the Gumelniţa cem-

etery located on the terrace; a Boian settlement is located in the vicin-ity, in the place called Terasa Gheţărie / Valea lui Malciu and anotherone a little bit further at the Irrigation Station

Bibliography: Șerbănescu / Trohani 1978, 21-22; Andreescu et al.2011; Lazăr et al. 2012. 68b. Location: (com. Mânăstirea, Călăraşi County) –

Malu RoşuDiscovery type: a) cemetery; b) isolated grave(s) (?); c) articulated

bodies inside the settlement area; d) disarticulated, fragmented anddispersed human remains in the settlement area

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa

Description: a) 48 graves by 2011 (the excavation continues); flexedmostly on the left side, oriented towards the E; there are some cases ofdisarticulated skeletons and secondary inhumations; grave goods: pot-



23/46

tery, lithic artifacts (flint blades, polished stone axe), shell and stonebeads; possible meat offerings indicated by animal bones and rivershells; the presence of several waste pits in the cemetery was signaled;all age and sex groups represented; b) 1 grave so far, discovered in 1974(3 graves in other sources); adult, flexed on a side, oriented N-S; apolished stone chisel in the hand, near the head; c) adult, flexed on theleft side, oriented towards SE, possible grave goods: an animal bone; d)adult mandible, probably male

Observations: a) located 200 m W of the tell settlement; b) located300 m S of the tell settlement; c) the grave was found in 1942, at -1.00-1.50 m, in an archaeological layer situated on the SW slope of the tell;d) found in 1923, at -2.80 m, in a Gumelniţa layer

Bibliography: Comşa 1960a, 11; 1974b, 148-149; Lazăr 2010; Lazăret al. 2008; 2009; 2012; Andreescu et al. 2010; 2011; 2012. 69. Location: Sultana (com. Mânăstirea, Călăraşi County) –

Valea Orbului / Odaia VlădiciiDiscovery type: cemetery

Cultural manifestation: Boian (Bolintineanu phase or Bolintineanuand Giuleşti phases, according to different sources)Description: 253 graves up to 2007; the inhumations were mainly

individual, with the deceased in flexed position on the left side, onthe back, but with the head and feet turned to the left, or face downwith flexed feet to right or left; the orientation was mainly to the SE;grave goods: shell, rock, bone or copper jewelry, bone idols; all age andsex groups represented; the excavation was not completed; the burialswere made on the two slopes of a valley, with differences of ritual be-tween the graves of each slope (north-eastern or south-western)

Observations: two possible pair settlements in the vicinity, but no

connection between the cemetery and these settlements established yetBibliography: Şerbănescu 2002; Şerbănescu / Androne 2003;Şerbănescu et al. 2004, 2008; Şerbănescu / Soficaru 2006.

70. Location: Stoeneşti (known as Tangâru, that was unifiedto Stoeneşti in 1968) (com. Stoeneşti, Giurgiu County)


Cultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: a fragment of mandible and several long bonesObservations: found in 1956-1957, in various places and at various

depths

Bibliography: Comşa 1960a, 18; 1974b, 150. 71a. Location: Vădastra (com. Vădastra, Olt County) –

Măgura Fetelor / Măgura CetăţiiDiscovery type: disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human

remains in the settlement areaCultural manifestation: VădastraDescription: fragments of a skull and two other small disarticu-

lated bonesObservations: no data regarding the context of the findingsBibliography: Mateescu 1971, 57; Comşa 1974b, 122. 71b. Location: Vădastra (com. Vădastra, Olt County) –

Măgura Fetelor / Măgura CetăţiiDiscovery type: articulated bodies inside the settlement areaCultural manifestation: Sălcuţa



24/46

Description: a child (Infans II) grave discovered by C. Mateescuin 1946; the deceased was flexed on the left side, oriented towards theE (direction of the look SSW 36); grave goods: few pottery fragmentsand clay beads

Observations: no data regarding the context of the grave, the spa-tial relationship with other archaeological features

Bibliography: Mateescu 1971, 59; Comşa 1974b, 144. 72. Location: Vărăşti (com. Dorobanţu, Călăraşi County) –

Grădiştea Ulmilor / “Boian A” Discovery type: a) cemetery, b) articulated bodies inside the set-

tlement areaCultural manifestation: Boian (Vidra phase)Description: the total number of graves and the relationship of

these graves with the settlement is not always clear. The number ofgraves varies from 14 (in the published synthesis) to 18 (if we add upthe information from various excavation reports); some of them werelocated inside the settlement area, some of them outside the settlement,

near its margin; all age groups represented both inside and outside thesettlement; all sex groups represented; flexed on the left side, orientedbetween NNE and ESE, mainly towards NE with one exception towardsSW; grave goods: shell beads (2 cases), copper needle (1 case)

Observations: -Bibliography: Comşa 1958, 404; 1959a; 1959b; 1961b; 1962a;

1973a; 1974a, 207-211. 73. Location: Vărăşti (com. Dorobanţu, Călăraşi County) –

Grădiştea Ulmilor / near “Boian B” Discovery type: cemetery Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 and A2 phases)

Description: more than 120 graves: 4 graves attributed to theGumelniţa A1 phase, 117 graves attributed to the Gumelniţa A2 phase;flexed on the left side (117 cases) or on the right side (12 cases), seated(1 case); oriented mostly between NNE and SSE; grave goods: in 28graves, clay lamps, flint and bone tools, copper needles, pottery; goldartifacts, shell beads; all age and sex groups represented

Observations: the cemetery was founded on top of two succes-sive Gumelniţa settlements from an evolved phase; the attribution ofgraves per phases is questionable; there is a mention of a grave fromthe end of the Gumelniţa culture also

Bibliography: Comşa 1962a; 1973a; 1974a; 1995.

74. Location: Vidra (com. Vidra, Ilfov County) – MăguraTătarilor / Măgura Jidovilor

Discovery type: a) articulated bodies inside the settlement area; b)disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains in the set-tlement area

Cultural manifestation: Gumelniţa (A1 phase and maybe A2phase)

Description: a) 4 graves of which 3 children; G1 – adult, flexedon the right side, oriented towards NW; grave goods: two flint blades,red stones; three vertebras, ribs and a skull from a different indi-

vidual found in the pit – these bones wear cut marks; G2 – child,

beneath the legs of G1; G3 and G4 – two children, located close toeach other, flexed on the right side, oriented towards NW, gravegoods: rectangular clay plates; b) isolated human skulls found inside



25/46

houses, near hearths; mandible was found in the defense ditch # 1Observations: no data regarding the relationship of the graves with

other archaeological structuresBibliography: Rosetti 1934, 38-39; Rosetti / Morintz 1961, 73;

Comşa 1974a, 212. 75. Location: Zimnicea (Teleorman County) – CetateDiscovery type: isolated graveCultural manifestation: GumelniţaDescription: adult, flexed on a side, grave goods: shell beadsObservations: the grave was found in the area of the Dacian settle-

ment (info Al. Alexandrescu)Bibliography: Comşa 1974b, 150.

P

In order to delineate behavioral traits across space and time we needa fair number of discoveries to analyze. As we can notice both on thegeneral distribution map (fig. 1a) and from the graphic based on this

map (fig. 1b), the number of discoveries is not equilibrated both tem-porally and spatially. This situation is sometimes determined by thearea covered by a cultural manifestation, as is the case with the SchelaCladovei culture, identified so far only in the Iron Gates area (fig. 2).But in most of the cases, the larger or smaller number of discoveries isdue to the different zonal archaeological activity. The large interest ofthe archaeologists for the Gumelniţa culture led to the largest numberof finds attributed to this culture (fig. 1b). The intensity of discoveriesattributed to the Boian and Gumelniţa cultures from Călăraşi County(fig. 8, 9) is the result of a more ample survey activity in the area com-pared to other counties.

Although the categories of discoveries vary for each cultural mani-festation, some traits can be distinguished:

Groups I and II (Schela Cladovei and Starčevo-Criș cultures) (fig. 2,3) are characterized by the presence of osteological human remains onlyinside the settlement area, both articulated and disarticulated. If we con-sider only the Romanian area, it would seem that this is the pattern ofthe spatial relationship between the living and the dead. The discoveryof a Starčevo-Criş cemetery at Malăk Preslavec (Boyadžiev 2009, 4), inBulgaria, is an indicator that the burial of the deceased outside the livingspace started at least beginning with the Early Neolithic period.

Group III (Vinča and Dudești cultures) (fig. 4, 5) can be charac-

terized by diversity. Each culture is represented by three discoveries,each discovery belonging to a different category. The novelty of thisperiod is the isolated graves that can be a hint for possible cemeteries,as mentioned before. In both cases (Almăjel and Căldăraru) a settle-ment was located in the immediate vicinity. At Căldăraru, a cemeteryis also located in the same area, with the possibility (in the absenceof absolute dating), that some of the graves could be attributed tothe Dudeşti culture. Vinča cemeteries are known in the Serbian area,at Botoš and Gomolava (Borić 1996), which, in spite of the reducednumber of discoveries, is an indicator that the burial of deceased incemeteries was a practice, even if it was not yet clearly attested for theRomanian area.

Groups IV and V (Vădastra, Hamangia, Boian, Gumelniţa andSălcuţa cultures) (fig. 6-9) are characterized by the presence of all



26/46

Fig. 1a. General map with all the discoveries



27/46

Fig. 1b. Graphic illustrating the numberof sites / culture with osteological hu-man remains

categories of discoveries, including well-established cemeteries. Anexception to this is the Vădastra culture, but this could be the resultof the extremely limited number of finds attributed to this culturalmanifestation.

The constant trait identified so far is the presence of osteologi-cal human remains, articulated or disarticulated, inside the set-tlement area. An innovation, if we consider only the discoveriesfrom the Romanian space, appears to be the presence of cemeter-ies, starting with the end of the Neolithic and beginning of theChalcolithic (group IV of cultures). But the Starčevo-Criş cemeteryfrom Bulgaria and the Vinča ones from Serbia (mentioned above)

seem to indicate that the use of cemeteries for disposal of the de-ceased was a long established practice, starting at least from theEarly Neolithic period.

The presence of the articulated bodies inside the settlement ar-eas (fig. 12a), considered as graves, was attributed, in the Romanianliterature, to the burial practice of certain periods and cultural mani-festations.

Sometimes, the interpretation put the accent on the burials ofchildren inside the living space (Comşa 1988-1989; Bodea 1997). Thepresence of adult individuals buried inside the settlement area and ofchildren buried in cemeteries seems to contradict, at least in most of

the situations researched so far, the age-related choice for the place ofburial (Kogălniceanu 2008).

A new direction of analysis was proposed by Yavor Boyadžiev, whoargued that, as long as the number of burials inside the settlementsis not representative for the population of that settlement, we cannotspeak of practice, but should speak of exception (Бояджиев 2001).This theory is supported also by the sites where there are both articu-lated bodies (a limited number of them) inside the settlement area andan extramural cemetery.

The disarticulated human remains inside the settlement areawere as frequently attested as the articulated bodies (fig. 12b, 13a).According to body parts, these can be divided into the followinggroups: skull, long bones of the members and the rest of the bones.The skull and the long bones can represent the result of a selection.



28/46

Fig. 2. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Schela Cladovei culture



29/46

Fig. 3. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Starčevo-Criș culture



30/46

Fig. 4. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Vinča culture



31/46

Fig. 5. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Dudeşti culture



32/46

Fig. 6. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Vădastra culture



33/46

Fig. 7. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Hamangia culture



34/46

Fig. 8. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Boian culture



35/46

Fig. 9. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Gumelniţa culture



36/46

Fig. 10. Sites with osteological human remains attributed to the Sălcuţa culture



37/46

a b

Fig. 12. Graphic illustrating the number of articulated bodies inside the settlement area (a) and of disarticulated, fragmented anddispersed human remains inside the settlement area (b) per cultural manifestation.

The values indicate the number of sites for each culture

a b

Fig. 11. Graphic illustrating the number of cemeteries (a) and of isolated graves (b) per cultural manifestation.The values indicate the number of sites for each culture

They are easy to gather and carry, as compared with the fragile or smallbones. In addition, the skull was in various societies invested with spe-cial significance which transformed it in an object to be preserved. Ofcourse, to consider a bone the result of a selection, repetition must beconfirmed so intentionality can be assumed.

Two main directions of interpretations were formulated regardingthese body parts: cultic and funerary. According to the context of discov-ery, these can be connected to the houses, hearths, pits or in the strata.

The largest number of cemeteries and isolated graves were attrib-

uted to the Gumelniţa culture (fig. 11). Isolated graves appear onlyoccasionally in other cultural manifestations.

Some interesting observations can be made based on this generalreview of the data.

First of all, an attempt to follow the recurrence of the categories offinds, by themselves or in patterned combinations (fig. 13b) showedthe following:

a) In most of the cases, the discoveries belonged to only one cat-egory: only cemeteries – 23%, only isolated graves – 14%, only disar-ticulated human remains inside the settlement area – 21%, only articu-lated bodies inside the settlement area – 21%.

b) The most frequent combination of categories is the one bring-ing together articulated and disarticulated human remains inside thesettlement area – 11%. This is not surprising, as it might be a reflec-



38/46

b

tion of intense human activity involving the human remains inside theliving space, be it for burial or other cultic reasons. The disarticulatedremains, when they are found in the archaeological layer (and not ina clearly articulated context) could be the result of the disturbing of

graves and other complexes involving human remains. From a predic-tive point of view, in a site where one of these two categories is found,the other one should also be expected.

c) The sites most intensely and extensively researched (Radovanu,Olteniţa, Pietrele, Hârşova and Sultana – Malu Roşu) providedthe most complex combination of categories: cemetery (+ isolatedgraves, possible indicator of a second cemetery) + articulated bodiesinside the settlement area + disarticulated bodies inside the settle-ment area. Although all these sites were attributed to the Gumelniţaculture (all its phases of evolution), we consider that this image is theresult of the extensive research, and that if other sites, both from theGumelniţa culture and from other cultural manifestations, would beresearched in a similar manner, they could provide a similar, com-plex image.

Fig. 13. a Graphic illustrating the articulated bodies vs. the disarticulated, fragmented and dispersed human remains inside thesettlement area, per cultural manifestation; b table illustrating the frequency of occurrence of a certain category of discovery, ei-

ther alone, or in various combinations, per culture. The values indicate the number of sites for each culture

a



39/46

Another observation regards the memory of space, which ap-plies both for the living and for the dead in several cases. That manyGumelniţa settlements were built on top of Boian ones is a known factand it led to the formation of the tells. It seems that in some cases, ,the cemeteries were also used for a long period of time, even acrosscultures. Such examples are the Hamangia cemetery from Cernavoda

and the Boian cemetery from Căldăraru. They were both used fora very long period. In the Căldăraru case it is even possible that theearliest graves were from the time of the nearby Dudești settlement.Another newer case seems to be the one of the Gumelniţa cemeteryfrom Sultana – Malu Roșu, where a possible earlier (Boian?) grave wasalso found.

I

The main purpose of this material was to update older synthesis and tolay the ground for new angles of viewing the funerary discoveries.

The number of finds per period, per area or per culture is too het-

erogeneous to draw any final conclusions. We could notice how re-gional or personal interest led to different quantity and quality of thepublished data. The synthesis of the information could, none the less,lead to some observations regarding possible patterns in the spatialrelationship between the living and the dead.

The deceased seemed to have played an important role in the com-munities, their presence close to the living being a permanent markereven when and where cemeteries were used for the burials.

Acknowledgements: Research financed by the project The socio-hu-manistic sciences in the context of a globalized evolution – the devel-

opment and implementation of the postdoctoral research and studiesprogram, contract code: POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104, project co-financedby the European Social Fund through the Development of the HumanResources 2007-2013 Sectorial Operational Program.

B

Бояджиев, Я. 2001. Погребалнатапрактика intra muros през нео-лита и халколита в българскитеземи: обичай или изключение. –Apxeoлoгия 52, 3-4, 16-24.

Andreescu, R.R. / Moldoveanu, K. /

Bălăşescu, A. / Haită, C. / Radu, V.

/ Lazăr, C. / Mirea, P. / Zaharia, P. /

Stavrescu-Bedivan, M. / Soficaru, A.

/ Bailey, D.W. / Mills, S. / Jones, G. /

Pannett, A. / Craddock-Bennett, L. /Reeves, S. / Thissen, L. / van As, A. /

Jacobs, L. / Bogaard, A. / Charles, M. /

Craigie, R. / Macklin, M. / Robinson, R. /

Tapper, B. 2005. Măgura, com. Măgura,

jud. Teleorman. Punct: Buduiasca,TELEOR 003. In: Cronica CercetărilorArheologice din România. Campania2004. A XXXIX-a Sesiune Naţională deRapoarte Arheologice, Jupiter-Mangalia,25- 28 mai 2005. Bucureşti. 224-234.

Andreescu, R.R. / Lazăr, C.A. / Florea,

M. / Opriş, V. / Voicu, M. / Vasile,

G. / Ignat, T. / Parnic, V. / Chiţonu,

M. 2012. Sultana, com. Mânăstirea, jud. Călăraşi. Punct: Malu Roşu. In:

Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologicedin România. Campania 2011. AXLVI-a Sesiune Naţională de RapoarteArheologice, Târgu Mureş, 23-26 mai

2012. Bucureşti. 136.

Andreescu, R.R. / Lazăr, C.A. /

Moldoveanu, K. / Ignat, T. / Haită, C. /

Bălăşescu, A. / Radu, V. / Chitonu, M. 2011. Sultana, com. Mănăstirea, jud.Călăraşi. Punct: Malu-Roşu. In: CronicaCercetărilor Arheologice din România.Campania 2010. A XLV-a SesiuneNaţională de Rapoarte Arheologice,Sibiu, 26-29 mai 2011. Sibiu. 133-134.

Andreescu, R.R. / Lazăr, C.A. / Florea, M.

/ Moldoveanu, K. / Haită, C. / Bălăşescu, A. / Radu, V. / Ignat, T. / Soficaru, A.

/ Ion, A. / Neagu, G. / Chitonu, M.

/ Mărgărit, M. 2010. Sultana, com.



40/46

Bălăşescu, A. / Radu, V. 2002. Bucşani,com. Bucşani, jud. Giurgiu. Punct Pod,La Pădure. In: Cronica CercetărilorArheologice din România. Campania2001. A XXXVI-a Sesiune Naţională deRapoarte Arheologice, Buziaş, 28 mai-1iunie 2002. Bucureşti. 67-70.

Berciu, D. 1961. Contribuţii la proble-mele neoliticului în România în luminanoilor cercetări. București.

Berciu, D. 1939. Arheologia preistoricăa Olteniei. – Arhivele Olteniei 18, 101-103, 1-90.

Berciu, D. / Morintz, S. 1

spkogalniceanu

Documents