IRON AGE COMMUNITIES IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

9–11 October 2009

Edited byBERECKI Sándor

Editura MEGACluj-Napoca

2010

CONTENT

Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................7

Mitja GUŠTINTh e Eastern Traces on the Slopes of the Eastern Alps. Some Examples of Iron Age Contacts along the Danube and Sava Rivers ....................................................................................................................9

Tiberiu Ioan TECAR–József-Gábor NAGYA Community from the First Iron Age from Gheorghieni–Valea Mare (Cluj County). Preliminary study .................................................................................................................. 15

Marija LJUŠTINATh e Late Hallstatt Communities in the Serbian Part of the Danube Basin .............................................. 59

Róbert SCHOLTZNew Data on the Scythian Age Settlement History of Szabolcs County, Hungary ................................. 79

Horea POP–Ioan BEJINARIULate Hallstatt–Early La Tène Settlement from Porţ–Paliș (com. Marca, Sălaj County, Romania) ........ 99

Jan BOUZEKTh e Beginnings of the La Tène Art in Bohemia and the East................................................................... 107

J. Vincent S. MEGAW–M. Ruth MEGAWA World Turned Upside Down. Th e Bronze Plaque from Stupava, okr. Malacky ................................. 115

Tiberius BADEREin wiederaufgebautes frühkeltisches Gehöft im Keltenmuseum Hochdorf/Enz ................................. 127

Zoltán CZAJLIK–Attila CZÖVEK–Péter CSIPPÁN–Balázs HOLL–Enikő MAGYARI–Szilvia SZÖLLŐSI–László RUPNIK–Lőrinc TIMÁRArchaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Data on Late Iron Age Settlements in South-Eastern Transdanubia (Tolna County) ...................................................................................................................... 149

Maya HAUSCHILD“Celticised” or “Assimilated”? In Search of Foreign and Indigenous People at the Time of the Celtic Migrations ....................................................................................................................................................... 171

János NÉMETITh e Problem of Hand-Made Pottery from La Tène (Celtic) Contexts in North-Western Romania. A Comparison with Neighbouring Regions –Tisza Valley and Transylvania ........................................ 181

Aurel RUSTOIU–Mariana EGRIDanubian Kantharoi – Almost Th ree Decades Later ................................................................................. 217

Peter C. RAMSLTh e La Tène Age Cemetery of Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Flur Reinthal Süd, Lower Austria and the Connections to Other Parts of the Middle European Corridor ................................................. 289

Marko DIZDARKantharoi of Autochthonous – “Pannonian” Origin from the La Tène Culture Cemetery in Zvonimirovo, Croatia ................................................................................................................................ 297

Iosif Vasile FERENCZ–Lucian Dan VAIDAMiddle La Tène Arrowheads from Transylvania ....................................................................................... 309

Károly TANKÓLa Tène ceramic Technology and Typology of Settlement Assemblages in Northeast Hungary (3rd–2nd century BC) ....................................................................................................................................... 321

Maciej KARWOWSKIPrellenkirchen. Celtic Settlement in the Foreland of the Carpathian Basin ........................................... 333

Sándor BERECKI–Daniel Mihai CIOATĂAn Iron Age Homestead from Sângeorgiu de Mureș, Transylvania ........................................................ 349

Imola KELEMENTh e Archaeozoological Analysis of the Animal Bones from Sângeorgiu de Mureș–Roman-Catholic Cemetery ...................................................................................... 383

Gelu FLOREASarmizegetusa Regia. Un Certain Modèle Urbain ..................................................................................... 389

Cătălin Nicolae POPAA New Framework for Approaching Dacian Identity. Th e Burial Contribution ................................... 395

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................425

MIDDLE LA TÈNE ARROWHEADS FROM TRANSYLVANIA

Iosif Vasile FERENCZ*–Lucian Dan VAIDA***Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation

Deva, Romania**Museum of Border Regiment

Năsăud, Romaniafi osifvasile@yahoo.commuzeu_gr@yahoo.com

Keywords: Transylvania, Celts, La Tène, arrowheads, burials

One of the most investigated ancient civilisations in Europe can be considered the Celtic La Tène culture. It can be understood as a consequence of the remarkable achievements recorded in diff erent areas of their material culture. In the same time, contacts with the Mediterranean civilisations resulted in the fi rst references in the ancient literary descriptions. Th e Celts’ movements eastward determined the diff u-sion of the La Tène Culture in diff erent territories, including Transylvania and the neigh-bouring areas. Most of the spe-cialists considered that the fi rst colonists arrived in the western part of present Romania and in some areas from Transylvania at the end of Early La Tène, maybe at the end of 4th cen-tury BC (Rustoiu 2005a, 57–58; Rustoiu 2005b, 51). An archaeological evidence for this moment could be a few burials from cemeteries like Pişcolt–Nisipărie from Satu Mare County (Németi 1986, 71–82; Németi 1988, 49–73; Németi 1989, 75–114; Németi 1992, 59–112; Németi 1993, 117–129). Th e evidence of the La Tène civilisation in Transylvania suddenly ended at the end of LT C1, a period dated around the fi rst quarter of the 2nd century BC (Ferencz–Ciută 2005; Ferencz 2007, 159–160; Ferencz 2008, 17).

In the entire Carpathian Basin a diversity of artefacts could be observed consisting of pottery, jewellery, weapons and, rarely, tools. Among the usual Celtic weaponry there can be mentioned the swords, shields, spears or/and javelins (Rustoiu 2008, 151–152). In many cases warriors used big knives,

Fig. 1. Th e spread of arrowheads in Transylvania and in the neighbouring area (Middle La Tène).

Iron Age Communities in the Carpathian Basin, 2010, p. 309–319

310 | Iosif Vasile Ferencz–Lucian Dan Vaida

the so called Hiebmesser and only exceptionally helmets. Even if it was considered a Celtic creation, the chain mails are rare in the burials’ inventory in the Eastern area of the La Tène civilisation (Rustoiu 2008, 25–30). Sparse weapons of the Celtic inventories are the arrowheads.

A few arrowheads were unearthed from La Tène graves, some are known from “classical” (Vouga 1923, 55–56), others from recent (Sankot–Vojtěchovská 2001, 312, fi g. 18.2/9–10) discoveries. Lately, in the archaeological features from Transylvania – graves and dwellings – a few arrowheads were identi-fi ed in some important sites dated to the Late Iron Age. Th ese are: the settlement from Ciumeşti, Satu Mare County (Crişan 1966, 41; Zirra 1980, 72, footnote 35), the cemetery from Dezmir, Cluj County (Crişan 1973, 50–51), Fântânele–La Gâţa in Bistriţa-Năsăud County (Vaida 2008, 240), Orosfaia, also in Bistriţa-Năsăud County (Vaida 2000, 136, fi g. 6/17) and Pişcolt–Nisipărie, Satu Mare County (Németi 1992, 108, fi g. 3/7 a–c). Unfortunately – probably because of their incidental appearance in the Celtic La Tène weaponry – some of the published artefacts beside a more or less detailed description lack any illustration.

Morphologically the pieces present a large variety. Generally, the arrowheads from Transylvania could be framed in four diff erent types, each of the pieces having individual morphological characteristics.

Type Image Description Chronology

ICiumeşti – settlement- bronze, leaf-shaped, with three edges, Scythian type

LT C1 (3rd horizon at Pişcolt). V. Zirra considered, that these arrowheads were used for a long period in the Early and Late Iron Age

II

Dezmir – cemetery- iron, pyramidal shape, in the lower part the arrowhead ends in a nail-like stem, used for fi xing to the arrow shaft

LT B2, around 300 BC (2nd horizon at Pişcolt)

Orosfaia – cemetery- iron, pyramidal or conical shape. In the lower part, the arrowhead ends in a nail-like stem, used for fi xing to the arrow shaft

LT C1 (3rd horizon at Pişcolt)

III

Fântânele – cemetery- iron elongated shape, at the mid-section, the piece is bolded like a pyramid

LT B2 (2nd horizon at Pişcolt)

IV Pişcolt – cemetery- iron, triangular shape, plate with tube

LT C1 (3rd horizon at Pişcolt)

Fig. 2. Th e typology of the Middle La Tène arrowheads from Transylvania.

Type I is represented by the bronze arrowhead discovered at Ciumeşti (Pl. I/1). From the authors’ description marks out that it was leaf-shaped, with three edges, similar to the so called “Scythian” type. Vlad Zirra, while publishing the artefacts belonging to that assemblage relieved that such arrowheads were used for a long period in the Early and the Late Iron Age (Zirra 1980, 72, footnote 35). Th e chro-

a

b

Middle La Tène Arrowheads from Transylvania | 311

nology of the settlement was determined between the second quarter of the 3rd century BC and the entire LT C1 (Zirra 1980, 71; Rustoiu 2008, 89). Th e diff usion area of the so called “Scythian” arrow-heads was delineated by M. Párducz based on the discoveries known at the beginning of the 8th decade of the 20th century (Párducz 1973, 28, map 1). Dorin Sârbu recently remarked that such arrowheads can be only dated according to their archaeological contexts (Sârbu 2009, 78).

In our opinion type II has two variants. Th e fi rst, “a” is represented by the iron arrowhead dis-covered at Dezmir, with a pyramidal shape (Pl. II/2). In the lower part it had a stem, about which I. H. Crişan supposed that it was used for fi xing the arrowhead to the shaft . Th e same author observed that the object was so oxidized that the pyramidal shape with four edges could only be observed on a small part on its top. Th e grave – and therefore the arrowhead – was dated to the LT B2 period, more precisely around 300 BC (Crişan 1973, 51). An analogy could be a piece discovered in Switzerland, at La Tène and published by Paul Vouga (Vouga 1923, pl. 13/20).

Th e second variant “b” was found at Orosfaia (Pl. IV/17). Th e arrowhead had a conical shape and it also had a stem. Its shape is like the butt-spike’s, which is frequent fi nding, but its size is too small to be one. It is unlikely that it belonged to a small – maybe children – spear. In the inventory of the same grave, among other weapons and military equipment pieces, there were two spearheads and two butt-spikes (Pl. IV/10–13). Th e butt-spikes in both of the cases are bigger then the above presented piece. Analogies for this type of arrowhead are missing. Chronologically, the inventory suggested a dating in the LT C1.

Type III is represented by an iron piece discovered at Fântânele–La Gâţa. Th e piece had a fi li-form shape with a thickened, pyramidal body. Th e head is sharpened and the opposite part is fl attened (Pl. III/6). It is belonging to a LT B2 warrior grave (Vaida 2008, 240). Such Late Iron Age discoveries are unknown, while similar pieces are known from medieval assemblages dated to the 9th–13th centuries (Ioniţă 2009, 119, no. 31–37).

Type IV included a triangular, iron piece with tubes for fi xation on the shaft s (Pl. V/6 a–c). Based on the rest of the inventory this piece from Pişcolt was dated to the middle La Tène (Németi 1992, 108). Th ese kinds of arrowheads are also mentioned from the site at La Tène (Vouga 1923, pl. 13/25).

*

Th e arrowheads presented above were mainly discovered in funerary contexts, with one excep-tion – the piece revealed from a pit house at Ciumeşti. Almost all the arrowheads were discovered in warrior graves, along with other weapons. Th erefore, it seems that bows and arrowheads were used in the battle. But their rarity questions this idea. Th e weapons used by the Celtic warriors were described by the ancient sources and one of the suggestive texts is that written by Strabo: “Th e equipment [of the Gaul] is in keeping with the size of their bodies; they have a long sword hanging at their right side, a long shield, and lances in proportion, together with a madaris somewhat resembling a javelin; some of them also use bows and slings; they have also a piece of wood resembling a pilum, which they hurl not out of a thong, but from their hand, and to a farther distance than an arrow. Th ey principally make use of it in shooting birds.” (Strabo, Geography, IV, 4, 3).1

Based on this, the Celtic weapons were determined quite precisely (Rustoiu 2008, 151, fi g. 75). Th erefore, it seems likely that the signifi cance of the arrowheads in diff erent archaeological contexts had another meaning. We think that the arrowheads point to an occupation: the hunting, also mentioned in the fragment reproduced above by the geographer from Amaseea. Moreover, we must remark that this activity is well attested due to the great number of wild animal bones discovered in the sites dated in the Late Iron Age (Szabó 1992, 84). An interesting detail concerning the hunting is that reported by the same Strabo, who mentioned that the Celts from Britain traded with the Romans among another merchandise, very good hunting dogs, used in war, too (Strabo, Geography, IV, 5, 2).

Conclusions can be drawn by analyzing the archaeological features of the arrowheads. As it was mentioned, most of them was unearthed in warrior graves, therefore it can be suppose that the usage of the bow by the Transylvanian La Tène communities – as well as by the inhabitants of the neighbouring

1. Translated: ed. H. C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.: http://www.perseus.tuft s.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D4%3Asection%3D3, seen on 17.12.2009.

312 | Iosif Vasile Ferencz–Lucian Dan Vaida

areas – represents a specifi c occupation of the aristocratic warriors. Much more, we think that the hunt-ing was practiced mostly by the aristocracy.

Another argument sustaining the hypothesis is given by the piece discovered at Ciumeşti, since it was revealed in a dwelling; an unusual context for arrowheads. At Ciumeşti six pit houses were inves-tigated, disposed in two groups at some distance one from the other. Inside each group there was one pit house of larger dimensions, with two “rooms” (Zirra 1980, 69–70). In a recent study concerning the famous grave with helmet from Ciumeşti, A. Rustoiu, pointed that even the warriors with rich grave goods probably lived in usual houses with usual inventory (Rustoiu 2006, 66). It seems probable that the two pit houses were the most important households of the community, with a warrior family mem-ber, an aristocrat who therefore practiced the arrow hunting.

Th e arrowhead discovered at Ciumeşti diff ers in shape and in material from the others. Th is suggests that its presence in the middle La Tène feature could be explained by contacts with other com-munities where those kinds of artefacts were common.

We think that the presence of single arrowheads in the graves from Dezmir, Fântânele and Orosfaia could be understood as “pars pro toto” a custom observed earlier for some other La Tène funerary inventory objects (Ferencz 1996, 92). Th e three pieces discovered at Pişcolt published by János Németi were interpreted as arrowheads based on their shape. But their large dimension – with-out knowing their precise weight – does not recommend them to be thrown by a bow. Regarding the Roman arrowheads, Elisabeth Erdmann pointed out that the pieces that have a weight larger than 12 g could not be considered arrowheads, arguing that such heavy weapons could be only thrown by war machines (Erdmann 1982, 5, 10). Since in that period war machines were not used by the Celts, those artefacts most probably had other functionality. In his work Strabo described a weapon used for bird hunting (Strabo, Geography, IV, 3, 3) mentioning that the Celts used to throw it by hand. Based on its particularities, the pieces from Pișcolt might have been such weapons. In any case, the pieces belonged to weapons thrown by hand.

In Europe, the use of the bow is confi rmed at the end of the Palaeolithic Age, and since then the shape and the techniques were in a continuous evolution, conditioned by the requirements of the warri-ors and hunters, by the raw materials or the cultural tradition. Christian Lepers noticed that in Western Europe in the Late Iron Age the composite bow used by the Celts was the result of the relations with other cultures (Lepers 2005, 32–33).

Synthesizing the above presented, we must notice that the bow wasn’t one of the most impor-tant weapons for the Celts, but its use is attested by the archaeological discoveries and also by ancient sources. Its presence in some funerary inventories probably shows an infrequent occupation – the hunt-ing, which was practised only by a small part of the community. Based on the known fi ndings, we think that the hunting was an occupation mostly of the elites.

Th e three pieces discovered at Pişcolt could be interpreted in a diff erent way, since in that grave weapons were not discovered, only “razors” were revealed. So that grave might have belonged to a hunter.

It is diffi cult to explain the typological diversity of the arrowheads. Some kind of explanation could be that the hunting was not a very spread activity of the La Tène communities. It is possible that sometimes the arrowheads were made by craft smen who never saw arrowheads, making their own in a personal manner. In other cases, like the objects discovered at Ciumeşti and Pişcolt have analogies in other sites and their shapes seem to be “standardized”. Th e diff erences of the shapes and the dimensions can indicate their use for diff erent kinds of animals.

Chronologically it can be noticed, that all the features with arrowheads are dated to the 3rd cen-tury BC or at the beginning of the next one (they are contemporary with the 2nd and the 3rd horizons from Pişcolt–Nisipărie). Th e absence of this kind of artefacts for the Early and Middle La Tène period from central Transylvania and the valley of the main rivers (Mureș and Târnava) could be the conse-quence of the lack of researches (Ferencz 2007). Th e typology of arrowheads and bows as weapon or hunting accessory, their signifi cance and use should constitute the object of further investigations.2

2. Th e authors wish to thank to the colleagues who helped with bibliography and comments: Aurel Rustoiu (Archaeology and Art History, Cluj Napoca), Liviu Petculescu (National Museum, Bucharest), Dorel Bondoc (Oltenia Museum, Craiova), Cristian Dima (Transylvanian National Museum, Cluj Napoca), Marius Barbu (Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation, Deva) and Delia Roman (Hunyad Castle, Hunedoara).

Middle La Tène Arrowheads from Transylvania | 313

Bibliography

Crişan 1966 Crişan, I. H., Materiale dacice din necropola celtică de la Ciumeşti şi problema raporturilor dintre daci şi celţi în Transilvania, Baia Mare, 1966.

Crişan 1973 Crişan, I. H., Descoperiri celtice de la Cluj, Peţelca şi Şeica Mică, ActaMN, X, 39–64.Erdmann 1982 Erdmann, E., Vierkantige Pfeilspitzen aus Eisen von der Saalburg, SJ, 38, 5–11.Ferencz 1996 Ferencz, I. V., Morminte celtice cu car din Transilvania, BCSŞ, 2, Alba Iulia, 91–101.Ferencz–Ciută 2005 Ferencz, I. V.–Ciută, M. M., Consideraţii pe marginea unor materiale descoperite la

Şeuşa (com. Ciugud, jud. Alba), Istros, XII, 239–254.Ferencz 2007 Ferencz, I. V., Celţii pe Mureşul mijlociu, Sibiu.Ferencz 2008 Ferencz, I. V., South-western Transylvania between the end of the IVth until the

beginning of the IInd century BC, IN: Sîrbu, V.–Stângă, I. (ed.), Th e Iron Gates Region During the Iron Age. Settlements, necropolises, treasure, Drobeta Turnu Severin, 13–26.

Ioniţă 2009 Ioniţă, A., Catalogue of the Items in the Bulgaria Lot, IN: Tănăsescu, B. (ed.), Treasure lost, treasure regained, part I, Giurgiu, 118–125.

Lepers 2005 Lepers, C., Arcs et fl èches. Histoire et savoire-faire, Liege.Németi 1986 Németi J., Unele aspecte ale cronologiei Latène-ului în nord-vestul României,

ActaMP, 10, 71–82.Németi 1988 Németi I., Necropola Latène de la Pişcolt, jud. Satu Mare I, Th raco-Dacica, 9, 1–2,

49–73.Németi 1989 Németi I., Necropola Latène de la Pişcolt, jud. Satu Mare II, Th raco-Dacica, 10, 1–2,

75–114.Németi 1992 Németi I., Necropola Latène de la Pişcolt, jud. Satu Mare III, Th raco-Dacica, XIII,

1–2, 59–112.Németi 1993 Németi I., Necropola Latène de la Pişcolt, jud. Satu Mare IV, Th raco-Dacica, XIV, 1–2,

117–129.Párducz 1973 Párducz, M., Probleme der Skythenzeit im Karpatenbecken, ActaArch, 25, 27–63.Rustoiu 2005a Rustoiu, A., Archäologische und historische hinweise betrefend den anfang de

Keltischen kolonisation des Innenkarpatischen raumes, Apulum, 42, 57–75.Rustoiu 2005b Rustoiu, A., Repere arheologice şi istorice privind începutul colonizării celtice a

spaţiului intra-carpatic, Istros, XII, 45–64.Rustoiu 2006 Rustoiu, A., A journey to Mediterranean. Peregrinations of a Celtic Warrior from

Transylvania, StudiaUBB, 51, 1, 42–85.Rustoiu 2008 Rustoiu, A., Războinici și societate în aria celtică transilvăneană, Cluj-Napoca.Sankot–Vojtěchovská 2001 Sankot, P.–Vojtěchovská, I., Un dépôt des objects en métal et en os du début de La

Tène à Libčice–Chýnov, IN: Collis, J. (ed.), Society and Settlement in Iron Age Europe L'Habitat et l'Ocupation du Sol en Europe. Actes du XVIIIe Colloque de l'AFEAF, Winchester April 1994, Sheffi eld.

Sârbu 2009 Sârbu, D., Scythian antiquities, IN: Tănăsescu, B. (ed), Treasure lost, treasure regained, part I, Giurgiu 77–81.

Szabó 1992 Szabó M., Les celtes de l'Est. Le second Age du fer dans la Cuvette des Karpats, Paris.Vaida 2000 Vaida, L., Th e Celtic Cemetery from Orosfaia, IN: Gaiu, C.–Rustoiu, A. (ed.), Les

Celtes et les Th raco/Daces de l'est du Bassin des Carpates, Les actes du colloque national qui lieu a Bistriţa le 16–17 octobre 1998, Bistriţa, 135–159.

Vaida 2008 Vaida, L., Preliminary Considerations regarding the Celtic Cemetery from Fântânele (the point “La Gâţa”), IN: Sîrbu, V.–Vaida, D. L. (ed.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe, Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology Bistriţa, Romania May 9th–11th, 2008, Cluj-Napoca, 237–246.

Vouga 1923 Vouga, P., La Tène. Monographie de la station publiée au nom de la Commision des fouilles de La Tène, Leipzig.

Zirra 1980 Zirra, V., Locuiri din a doua epocă a fi erului în nord-vestul României, StCom Satu Mare, 4, 39–84.

314 | Iosif Vasile Ferencz–Lucian Dan Vaida

List of fi gures

Fig. 1. Th e spread of arrowheads in Transylvania and in the neighbouring area (Middle La Tène).Fig. 2. Th e typology of the Middle La Tène arrowheads from Transylvania.

List of plates

Pl. I. 1. Th e pit-house no 4–5/1965 from Ciumeşti; 2–8. objects discovered in the archaeological feature (aft er V. Zirra).

Pl. II. Grave goods from M3 from Dezmir (aft er I. H. Crişan).Pl. III. 1. Fântânele–La Gâţa, Bistriţa-Năsăud county, grave no. 15; 1–7. pieces belonging to the inventory

(1–5, 7. aft er L. Vaida, without scale; 6. Arrowhead, drawing I. V. Ferencz); 8. Th e grave (photo L. Vaida).

Pl. IV. Grave M2 from Orosfaia, Bistriţa-Năsăud county (aft er L. Vaida, without scale). Pl. V. Pişcolt–Nisipărie the inventory of the grave M20 (aft er J. Németi).