The Relations of The Cruceni-Belegiš Culture With The

229
THE RELATIONS OF THE CRUCENI-BELEGI CULTURE

WITH THE 872%5'2GRLA MARE CULTURE

Alexandru Szentmiklosi

Keywords: Romania, Banat, Late Bronze Age, Cruceni-Belegi Culture
XWR%UGRGrla Mare Culture, relations

The archaeological investigations concerning the Bronze Age within
the area of the Middle and Lower Danube demonstrated the existence of an
ethnical-cultural complex characterized through a series of common
elements that suggest the relationship among the different ethnical-cultural
manifestations within this area. The main common denominator is the
ceramics whose ornamentation consists in motifs executed through
printing, incision, notches and successive stitches. The motifs were inlayed
with white substance. The funerary common ritual, respectively the
cremation, the anthropomorphical statues, the bird-shaped representations
and the clay little bells suggest similar religious beliefs.

Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo cultural group

The origin of the ornamentation of the ceramics, used initially within
a narrow area, respectively in Transdanubia, are difficult to be explained.
The archaeological investigations in Hungary in the second half of the 20th
century revealed the existence, within this huge complex of inlayed
ceramics, of two large areas: the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics
where the Esztergom and Veszprm cultural groups developped, and,
respectively, the southern-Pannonian ceramics of which the Szekszrd and
Pcs
1
groups were characteristic.
As a consequence of the pressure exercised by the communities of the
Tumular Culture (Hgelgrberkultur), warrior populations coming from
Central Europe, to which the hiding of the bronze hoards from Koszider
2

horizon are hypothetically related, communities of the northern-Pannonian
inlayed ceramics culture (Esztergom group) leave Transdanubia and they
ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., Arheologie Istorie, XIV, 1, 2006
http:/ / www.infotim.ro/ mbt/ publicatii/ ab.htm
ANALELE BANATULUI, XIV, 1, 2006
230
withdraw to the south along the valley of the Si river, occupying the area
between the Danube and the Tisza
3
. The movement to the south of the
communities of the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics stimulated, but at
a reduced extent, elements from the southern area of Transdanubia, too.
The grafting of the elements of civilization typical of the communities of
the northern-Pannonian inlayed ceramics with local ones (Gerjen, Vatina
and Verbicioara) determined the appearance of a new ethnical-cultural
manifestation known especially as Szeremle group
4
, and recently as
Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo group
5
in the archaeological literature.
Generally, it is admitted that the formation of the Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo
group took place during the Middle Bronze, in the period of transition from
Bz. A2 to Bz. B1. The evolution of these communities was considered as
being extremely short, respectively to the end of the Bz. B1 phase in P.
Reineckes modified chronological system
6
. But, the presence of certain
ceramic materials typical of the Szeremle group in the region controlled by
the Cruceni-Belegi culture suggests a little bit longer evolution of the
communities of Szeremle-Bjelo Brdo type. Their end took place in the
period in which the first phase of the Cruceni-Belegi culture was
developping, respectively at the beginning of the so-called Reinecke Bz.
B2 phase
7
.
The discoveries typical of the Szeremle group are concentrated along
the Danube, between the river mouth of the Si and that of the Tisza. The
eastern limit was the last narrow path of the Danube, at least to Liubcova,
unless even to Ostrovu Corbului
8
. The short evolution of this cultural
group played a very important role in the genesis of some new ethnical-
culturaI nanifosfafions. no of fhon vas fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture, which developped from the Szeremle communities, that were
coming down to the neighbouring of the western side of the Carpathians
9
.
The Szeremle cultural group is considered, in the same time, one of the
elements that actively participated to the formation of the Cruceni-Belegi
culture.

XWR%UGR-Grla Mare Culture

Tho aroa of sproading of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture includes
the Danubian sector from the confluence of the Danube with the Sava to the
confluence of the Danube with the Isk r. Tho nosf vosforn discovory is
231
that one from Kovin, and the most eastern finding is, for the moment, that
one from Corabia
10
. Tho Iocafion of fho discovorios of Zufo Brdo-Grla
Mare type point out the fact that the communities of this culture occupied
the both banks of the Danube preffering the aits, the holms and the terraces
from the rivers vicinity, that had been not only food source, but also a
major commercial thoroughfare of the prehistory.
Tho oarIy phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture can be situated,
the most probably, in the MD I stage, that means at the end of the Bz. A
phase in P. Reineckes chronological system. The classic phase of this
culture is prolonged into the MD III stage, moment in which the first phase
of the Cruceni-Belegi culture evolves, which started later its evolution. The
imports from the two cultural environments plead for the co-existence of
the two cultures starting from the Bz. B2-C phase in P.Reineckes modified
system
11
. /ccording fo M. $andor-Chicidoanu, fho finaI phaso of fho Zufo
Brdo-Grla Mare culture can be dated on the base of certain bronze objects
found in the horizon II from Balej, these objects being typical of the
Br.D/ SD I phase (Br.D meaning the 12th century)
12
. Tho ond of fho Zufo
Brdo-CrIa Maro cuIfuro is narIod ly fho appoaronco of fho Bisfro -IaIni a
cultural group along the Inferior Danube, which, even if it is originally
connocfod fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, constitutes a distinct
ethnical-cultural manifestation that makes the transition to the Early
Hallstatt.

Cruceni-Belegi Culture

The Cruceni-Belegi culture was considered to be, initially, the result
of a long life together and cultural interpenetration of Periam-Pecica,
Otomani and Grla Mare type, on the Vatina culture background
13
. The
recent investigations have brought significant contributions concerning the
origin of the Cruceni-Belegi culture and its dbut moment. The Cruceni-
Belegi culture was formed on the basis of a mixture of elements of
Litzenkeramik type belonging to the Gumtransdorf-Drassburg group
14
and
inlayed ceramics of Szeremle type, dislocated by the pressure of the
communities of the Tumular Culture (Hgelgrberkultur) from Central
Europe. That mixture was grafted on the local background of Vatina type
15
.
The communities of this culture had direct contacts with the communities
of the inlayed ceramics from Transdanubia
16
. This matter was proved by
232
the numerous archaeological findings from the area of the Vatina culture,
as for example those from Kac-Popov Sala
17
, Vafin, Vin a, Cradina on
Bosuf, in fho gravo fron Vizic-Golokut
18
, Peciu Nou-Stietzel
19
, Foeni-Gomila
Lupului I
20
. An early contact of the inlayed ceramics communities with the
local communities of Vatina type is met in the region of the Middle
Danube, at Hrtkovci-Gomolava, in level IVa, preceeding the phase I of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture (level IVb)
21
. Tho confacf of fho Muro cuIfuro vifh
the inlayed ceramics communities is suggested by the ceramic fragments
decorated with white substance discovered along the lower course of the
Muro, af Iocica-DQ XO0DUH
22
.
Partly contemporary to the new Cruceni-Belegi culture with which it
was contiguous in south, the Tumular Culture (Hgelgrberkultur) from the
Pannonian Plain would contribute to the completion of this culture. Beside
the tumular influences, we have to remind those that come from the
Urnfield area with which the Cruceni-Belegi culture got contemporary.
The contacts with the Zagreb
23
and Csorva
24
groups - considered also the
southern vanguard of the Gava
25
culture - followed after the first contact
with Virovitica group.
The borders of the Cruceni-Belegi culture are relatively well
delimited. The communities of these ethnical-cultural manifestations were
sprod on a Iargo aroa fhaf incIudod, gonoraIIy, Lasforn SIavonia, Ba Ia,
Srem and Banat (excepting the north-western corner, that seems to have
been temporarily controlled by the Tumular Culture communities) (Pl. I).
The presence of this culture north to the Drava is not certified for the
moment, but the region of Baranja has not been sufficiently investigated
26
.
The repertory of the findings from the phases I-II points out a feature
specific to this culture, respectively its spreading in the plain regions, on
the banks of the rivers. Those places constituted favourable conditions not
only for practising agriculture, but also for breeding animals. Following the
geographical disposing of the archaeological sites, in concordance with the
evolution phases of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, there were noticed few
spreading directions. The causes of that movement of populations of
Cruceni-Belegi type were, probably, of economic order (the contacts with
the Mycennean world) and they were maybe the result of a pressure
coming from the Pannonian Plain (the so-called elements of Csrva-Bobda
I type)
27
.
233
The differences existing in the technology of ceramics manufacturing
and burning, as well as in the way of ornamentation determined certain
archaeologists
28
to divide in a erroneous manner that cultural manifestation
into two distinct cultures, the first one (Cruceni-Belegi I) characterized
through the pseudo-corded ceramics, and the second one (Cruceni-
Belegi II) through the fluted ceramics. The unitary evolution of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture in the plain region of Banat ended, according to M.
Cun , fhrough fho appoaranco of sono ofhnicaI-cultural manifestations as
for example Bobda II (Bobda-Csorva) and Susani. The extension to east of
the Cruceni-Belegi communities in the phase II, and the constant
communication that the Danube was mediating permitted the appearance
of some ethnical-cultural manifestations with strong Cruceni-Belegi
traditions as Ticvaniu MareKaralurna III and MoIdova Nou -Liborajdea.
The utilization of different terminologies and of P. Reineckes
modified system
29
, sometimes in wrong concordance with the different
internal periodizations of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
30
, determined me to
include here just the assignment of the archaeological materials discovered
in site to one of the phases of evolution of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. I
used the chronology proposed by F. Gogltan
31
in parantheses. It coincides,
at a large extent, with the phases of evolution of this culture as well as with
the series of bronze hoards chronologically included by M. Petrescu-
Dnlovi a
32
and rocfifiod ly M. Cun
33
. Thus, Late Bz. I corresponds to
the period Bz. B2 C in P. Reineckes modified system and it starts
somewhen before 1500 BC. Late Bz. II corresponds to the so-called period
Reinecke Bz. D. The continuous evolution of the cremation necropoles from
Beograd-Karaburma, TinioaraFratelia, Peciu Nou, Sarva-Gradac etc., as
well as the synchronisms that could be noted among the different phases of
their internal evolution (for example Cruceni II Bolda I, Tinioara-
Fratelia Ticvaniu Mare-Fema no. 2 Beograd-Karaburma III), suggest the
adaptation of the chronology proposed by Fl. Gogltan to the ethnical-
cultural realities from Banat at the end of the 2nd millennium BC. In my
opinion, the period Late Bz. II should be prolonged to the middle of Ha. A1
phase. The last phase of the Bronze Age, Late Bz. III, covers, very probably,
the second half of the period Ha. A1 and the period Ha. A2. The Iron Age I
period is synchronous with Ha. B1 period, when the so-called penetration of
the Gva culture in Banat marks the beginning of the First Iron Age.
234
If it is accepted that a part of the so-called groups of transition formed
on the basis of a direct contribution of the Cruceni-Belegi populations
(Bobda/ Bobda II, Ticvaniu MareKaralurna III and MoIdova Nou -
Liborajdea), represents regionalizations of the phase II of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture, in my opinion, these groups represent the third and the
last - phase (Cruceni-Belegi III). This phase constitutes, at the same time,
the period of transition towards the first Iron Ages whose beginning is
marked by the penetration of Gva communities in Banat, on the brink of
the 2
nd
- 1
st
millennia BC. (1050/ 1000 BC)
34
.
East to the Carpathians, as a consequence of the strong influences of
Cruceni-BoIogis fypo, graffod on fho IocaI lacIground of Zufo Brdo-Grla
Mare type, the Hinova-Mala Vrbica group
35
appears. The archaeological
investigations along the lower course of the Danube, downstream of the
Iron Cafos, doIinifod fho oxisfonco of fho Bisfro -IaIni a cuIfuraI group
36
.
Thaf, ovon if if vas originaIIy connocfod fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture, was constituted in a distinct ethnical-cultural manifestation that
follovod fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, making the transition
towards the Early Hallstatt
37
. The genesis of that cultural group, according
to I. Chicideanu, was due to some western influences of type Cruceni-
Belegi, grafted on the local background Grla Mare
38
. The evolution of that
group started somewhere in the interval Reinecke Bz.D (after 1250 BC) and
ended around 1100 BC
39
(Ha.A1). The chronological parallelism with the
phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi culture is provided by the similarities
among the archaeological materials characteristic of the Bisfro -IaIni a
group and those discovered at Hrtkovci-Gomolava (level IVc) and Dalj-
Livadice, in the levels corresponding to the phase II of the evolution of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture
40
.

7KH 5HODWLRQV RI XWR %UGR-Grla Mare Culture with Cruceni-
Belegi Culture

The vicinity between the Cruceni-BoIogis and Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
cultures determined the achievement of cultural contacts. This fact was
pointed out through the imports discovered in the spreading areas of the
two cultural manifestations (Pl. X). These contacts were observed in several
necropoles and settlements from Banat and the region of the Middle
Danulo (in Sron and Ba Ia).
235
The archaeological investigations in the area of the ex-stables of
C./.I. Cruconi (Tini Counfy), sfarfod in 1958 ly M. Moga and continued,
later, by O. Radu in 1968, emphasized the existence of a cremation
necropolis belonging to the Cruceni-Belegi culture (Pl. X/ 7)
41
. The
inventory of the graves no. 11 (Pl. II/ 2-4), no. 32 (Pl.II/ 1) and no. 96 (Pl.
III/ 1-2), included in the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, contained
vessels and objects whose ornamentation had been executed with incised
and printed motifs inlayed with white substance. The bowl from the grave
no. 11
42
(Pl. II/ 3a-b), through its shape and inlayed ornament, belongs to
the developped phase of the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo group
43
. This fact pleads
for dating this grave among the earliest burials within this necropolis. In
the inventory of the grave no. 96, a bowl of type S.4 was discovered, similar
both to those characteristic of the developped phase of the Szeremle-Bijelo
Brdo group, and to those typical of Dubovac group
44
(Pl. III/ 2a-b).
Another import within the necropolis from Cruceni is the bird-shaped
clanging toy discovered in the funerary inventory of the grave no. 32
45
(Pl.
II/ 1). The bird-shaped clay representation still keeps the white inlay and it
has good analogies with the object discovered in the settlement from Mala
Vrbica
46
.
Tho inporfs of Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare type were discovered also in
other Cruceni-Belegi necropoles from Banat. In the funerary inventory of
fho gravo no. 48, found in fho cronafion nocropoIis fron Iociu Nou (Tini
County, Pl. X/ 33)
47
, a white inlayed cup in fragmentary state (Pl. IV/ 1a-c).
The rescue excavations from the perimeter of the ancient pit of
lorroving cIay fron fho vicinify of fho IocaIify of Voifoni (Tini Counfy)
emphasized the existence of a cremation necropolis belonging to the
Cruceni-Belegi culture (Pl. X/ 46)
48
, in which, in the inventory of the grave
no. 16 from 1998, is mentioned the discovery of an inlayed cup
49
, similar to
that one from the inventory of the grave no. 48 from Peciu Nou. The rescue
investigations permitted the achievement of a short sound trench in the
Cruceni-Belegi settlement, situated in the close vicinity of the necropolis.
Beside an early medieval necropolis, there was discovered a cultural layer
with archaeological materials of Cruceni-Belegi type. Among these there
aro nofod inporfs fron fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture
50
(Pl. V/ 1-3).
Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare imports were noted also in the settlements of
the Cruceni-Belegi culture from Banat, respectively in those from Foeni-
236
Gomila Lupului II and Deta-'XG ULH, findings that complete the general
presentation of cultural exchanges and influences from the second half of
the 2
nd
century BC.
The Cruceni-Belegi settlement from Foeni-Gomila Lupului II (Tini
County, Pl. X/ 17) is located in the close vicinity of the tell-settlement
belonging to the Vatina culture from the same site (Foeni-Gomila Lupului I),
archaeological site in which, beside the characteristic materials of this
culture an inlayed ceramic fragment was discovered too, an import
belonging, probably, to the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo group
51
. This discovery
illustrates the existent contacts between the two ethnical-cultural
manifestations from the end of the Middle Bronze. The contacts with the
inlayed ceramics world are continued also later by the communities of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture. This fact was found in the settlement of this
culture situated in the close vicinity of the tell belonging to the Vatina
culture
52
. In the pit-dwelling house no.2/ 2000, belonging to the phase I of
this culture, there were discovered inlayed ceramic materials characteristic
of fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture (Pl.V/ 4-12, VI/ 1-
3). Similar materials were discovered also in the arranged flooring
53
of the
pit-dwelling house no.1/ 2000, belonging to the II
nd
phase of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture (Pl. VI/ 4).
The presence of numerous archaeological sites in the boundaries of
the town of Deta has been mentioned since the end of the 19th century (Pl.
X/ 11)
54
. The rescue excavations executed at Deta-'XG ULe (Tini Counfy)
55

in 1999, 2000 and 2005 uncovered a settlement of the Bronze Age
superposed by a succession of medieval settlements
56
. Within the
archaeological complexes, there were discovered ceramic fragments
decorated with pseudo-corded, incisions and flutes, as well as inlayed
coranics vifh vhifo sulsfanco (Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare). In the pit dug for
the sustaining post of the factory G.5 there become outlined a conical large
food pit with long cylindrical neck (in the feature C.9). In the brown-
yellowish clayed filling there were discovered ceramic fragments of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture. There were decorated with vertical, oblique and in
garland flutes. Beside these, there were also found ceramic fragments
inlayed with white substance typical of the classicaI phaso of fho Zufo
Brdo-Grla Mare culture
57
(Pl.VI/ 1-5). In the pit dug for the sustaining post
of the factory G.7, in the filling of the feature C.13
58
(an early medieval pit-
dwelling house), there were found ceramic fragments typical of the
237
Cruceni-Belegi culture, as well as an import from the classic phase of the
Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture (Pl. VI/ 10). In the pit dug for the sustaining
post of the factory G.8, in the filling of the feature C.14 (a food storage pit),
beside ceramic materials typical of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, there were
also discovered ceramic fragments inlayed with white substance, imports
characforisfic of fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture
59
(Pl.
VII/ 11-16). A clay drinking horn (rython or trinkhorn), which has good
analogies in the area of the inlayed ceramics from Transdanubia
60
,
appeared in the filling of the feature C.41 (also a food storage pit), from the
pit dug for the sustaining post of the factory G.15.
Extremely interesting is also a ceramic fragment discovered on the
Ioff lanI of fho Tini, af fho norfhorn loundary of fho IocaIify of Dragina
(Tini Counfy, II. X/12)
61
. The ceramic fragment belonged to the superior
part of a black-greyish vessel (amphora ?) of relatively reduced dimensions.
The inferior part of the neck was decorated with double incised lines,
disposed as arches, similar to those from the vessels characteristic of the
Vatina and Cruceni-Belegi cultures, that ended on the distinctly profiled
shoulder of the vessel. On the superior third part, there is schematically
presented a human being that seems to be in a boat. The boat has the prow
raised and the peak is twisted outward (Pl.VII/ 1-2). The human silhouette
was represented through two concentrical circles that suggest the head, the
superior and inferior limbs being represented through two parallel lines
oriented obliquely to down. The two concentrical perfectly round circles,
that make the head of the human silhouette, were executed with the help of
a stamp as that one discovered at Crna-5DPS
62
and at Dubravica-Oraje
63
.
The concentrical circles that represent in a schematized manner the head
are a motif often met in the ornament repertory of the Szeremle group, as
voII as in fhaf ono of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture. It is difficult to
mention if these represent an influence of Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo type, group
that directly participated at the genesis of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, or
one of Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare type, which was a culture with which the
Cruceni-Belegi communities had been partly contemporary
64
.
In fho noighlourhood of C faia (Tini Counfy, II. X/18) fhoro vas
discovorod a lovI inIayod vifh vhifo sulsfanco loIonging fo fho Zufo
Brdo-Grla Mare culture, which, later, reached the collections of the
museum from Szeged (Pl. VII/ 3). The location relatively far-off by the
rogion of fho MiddIo Danulo vhoro fho connunifios of Zufo Brdo-Grla
238
Mare type developped for a short time suggests the presence of an import
in the area of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
65
.
In the south-eastern corner of Banat, in the cremation necropolis from
Liubcova- LJO ULH (Cara-Severin County, Pl. X/ 24)
66
, the graves included
ly C. S c rin in fho phaso III of fho infornaI poriodizafion of fho
necropolis
67
, according fo M. $andor-Chicideanu, have no connection to the
dovoIoppod phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture and nor to the
fypicaI gravos of fho Bisfro -IaIni a group. Thoy voro rafhor characforisfic
of the first phase of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. This matter is suggested by
the amphoras of A1 type from the graves no. 32, 39, 58 and 59, which are
found also in the cremation graves from Beograd-Karaburma, IIandza-
Stojkova Zagrada and Oreac (necropolis II) belonging to the Cruceni-Belegi
culture, even if they have analogies in the necropoles of fho Zufo Brdo-
Grla Mare culture. The undecorated amphoras from graves no. 34 and 69
from Liubcova- LJO ULH, endowed with prominences at the base of the neck,
have analogies in the funerary inventory from graves no.12 and14 from
IIandza-Stojkova Zagrada, in graves no. 68, 173, 269, 273 from Beograd-
Karaburma and in that one of the graves no.8 and 10 from necropolis III
from Oreac. Two bowls of S.23 type discovered at Liubcova- LJO ULH have
analogies both in the necropolis from Cruceni, in the funerary inventory of
the graves no. 93, 94 and 97, as well as in that of the graves discovered at
Dubovac-Kudelite. A cup from a funerary unnumbered complex looks
through its shape like those typical of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
68
.
/ccording fo M. $andor-Chicideanu, the relatively large number of
discoveries of bronze objects within the funerary inventory determine us to
think over the graves within the area of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, which,
often in the phase I, contain metallic inventory
69
.
Archaeological matoriaIs fhaf can lo incIudod in fho Zufo Brdo-Grla
Mare culture come from the boundaries of the localities of Vatin and Vrac.
In the cremation necropolis from Vatin-Bele Vode (Pl. X/ 44), in a grave
discovered in 1893
70
, beside the amphora and the small cup typical of the
phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, there was discovered a bowl inlayed
vifh vhifo sulsfanco loIonging fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture
71

(Pl.IX/ 2). The amphoras shape, typical of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, but
with strong influences of type Hgelgrberkultur, is decorated with parallel
rows of short vertical incisions, as well as incisions in arches characteristic
239
of the inlayed ceramics. B.Milleker mentions a decoration inlayed with
white substance
72
(Pl.IX/ 3).
In the northern part of the locality of Vatin, in the site Selo (Pl. X/ 45),
there were found villanovien urns, assigned to the beginning of the Iron
Age as B.Milleker considers. A few of those urns were decorated with
vertical flutes. In this necropolis there is mentioned the discovery of an
antropomorph statue of Brettidol type
73
in an urn.
Tho archaooIogicaI naforiaIs fhaf couId lo assignod fo fho Zufo Brdo-
Grla Mare culture (kantharoi of type K.3, bowls, pyxidia and small cups)
were discovered in the boundaries of the locality of Vrac, some of them in
less clear archaeological contexts
74
. The archaeological investigations from
Vrac-At (Pl. X/ 47), executed in 1975, uncovered ten cremation graves
assignod oifhor fo SzoronIo group, or fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture,
while two graves are assigned to the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture.
A cup with superelevated handle decorated with oblique flutes on the
maximum diameter, belonging to the phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi
culture
75
appeared in this place, too. The presence of the materials
characteristic of the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture indicates the
prosonco of sono inporfs in fho Zufo-Brdo-Grla Mare area, and, later, the
penetration of some Cruceni-Belegi communities in the phase II of
evolution of this culture.
The same thing is suggested by the findings from Dubovac-Kudelite
(Pl. X/ 13). From the types of vessels discovered in this place, there can be
mentioned the globular urns with trumpet-shaped mouth and fluted
biconical urns, decorated and undecorated bowls with in- or outward rim,
cups with superelevated handle, small vessels of type kantharos, amphora
supports etc. The decoration consists in motifs inlayed with white
substance, incisions, pseudo-cord and flute. The ceramics inlayed with
white substance discovered at Dubovac-Kudelite has good analogies both
in fho coranics of fho SzoronIo group, and in fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo
Brdo-Grla Mare culture (classic variant)
76
. The presence of the pseudo-
corded and fluted vessels indicates the subsequent presence of both phases
of the Cruceni-Belegi culture in the region.
Tho occupafion of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare area by the Cruceni-
Belegi communities is suggested also by the archaeological discoveries
from Oreac, where three cremation necropoles were discovered: one
belongs to the Szeremele-Bijelo Brdo group, the other to the Cruceni-
240
Belegi culture, the latter being considered to be a Hallstatt one
77
. The urn
from the grave no. 3 within the necropolis from Oreac-Proletarska ulica
(necropolis I) (Pl. X/ 30), assigned to the group Szeremele-Bijelo Brdo, is
decorated with the pseudo-corded technique (Litzen) and belongs to the
phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
78
.
In fho loundarios of fho IocaIify of IIandza, in fho sifo Stojkova Zagrada
(Pl. X/ 21), as a consequence of the archaeological investigations from 1949,
there were discovered 18 cremation graves belonging to the both phases of
the Cruceni-Belegi culture and two inhumation graves from the Iron
Age
79
. In the grave no. 2, the urn belonging to the phase I of the Cruceni-
BoIogis cuIfuro had as a Iid a lovI loIonging fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture (Pl.VII/ 4). The vessels assigned to this culture are mentioned also in
the grave no. 4 within this necropolis
80
. The urn of the grave no. 1 is
decorated with vertical and in garland flutes, but printed concentrical
circles ornament specific to the inlayed ceramics - are present above the
handles
81
.
In the south-western corner of Banat, at Perlez-Batka S (Pl. X/ 34),
the archaeological investigations discovered a settlement and a necropolis
assigned to the phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. Within the
settlement, two urns associated with two vessel supports similar to those
discovered at Dubovac were discovered
82
.
The presence of the inlayed ceramics in the necropoles of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture was found also in Srem. At Belegi-Stojica gumno (Pl. X/ 5)
83
,
in the inventory of the grave no. 78, there was discovered a cup, which
belongs to the group
84
(Pl. VIII/ 4) through its shape and decoration. This
import suggests that, at the beginning of the evolution of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture (phase Cruceni-Belegi I), the communities of the group
Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo were still evoluting. The influence of the inlayed
ceramics is emphasized also by the urn of the grave no. 58, a biconical
amphora with high cylindrical neck and outward rim, ornamented with
bands of circular incised lines on the neck and arches on the superior third
part of the vessel (Pl. VIII/ 5). The decoration is completed by a row of
printed concentrical circles disposed on the vessel shoulder, close to the
necks base
85
.
In the cremation plane necropolis from Beograd-Karaburma (Pl. X/ 6),
in the graves no. 61, 157 and 277 there were discovered ceramic artefacts
characforisfic of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture. The urn of the grave no.
241
61, a biconical amphora with trumpet-shaped neck and outward rim was
decorated with vertical incised lines on the maximum diameter of the
vessel and with printed circles of different dimensions on the shoulder and
on the neck. The flat rim also decorated with incised lines and printed
concentrical circles, characteristic both of Szeremle cultural group, and of
fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture (Pl.VIII/ 1). The grave is dated by J.
Todorovi in fho firsf funcfioning phaso of fho nocropoIis, rospocfivoIy af
the horizon of Bz. B1 period in P. Reineckes modified system
86
. The urn of
the grave no. 277 (Pl. VIII/ 2), a globular amphora with a partly maintained
cylindrical neck, was decorated with circular, curved and zigzag incised
lines, hachured rhombs as well as with concentrical hachured circles
87
. The
grave no. 157 was dated in the first phase of the evolution of this necropolis
on the basis of a miniature clay sample of house, whose decoration consists
in incised lines and printed concentrical circles inlayed with white
sulsfanco. If vas assignod fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture
88
(Pl. VII/ 5-
7). The object is unique for this period anticipating the funerary practices
characteristic of the Villanova culture
89
. /ccording fo M. $andor-
Chicideanu, the amphoras used as urns in the three graves, especially that
from the grave no. 61, are similar with those of type A.2 from the western
aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture
90
. In her opinion, the vessels of
kantharos type from the graves no. 265
91
, 266
92
, 287
93
, 297
94
, 305
95
are
comparable as shape to the vessels of K3 type from the shape repertory of
Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare, but with a less elaborate decoration
96
.
Also in Srem, at Erdevik-Lice (Pl. X/ 15), the archaeological
investigations uncovered a prehistoric settlement with more cultural layers.
In the layer belonging to the Bronze Age, there were discovered typical
ceramic materials inlayed with white substance, mixed with ceramic
materials belonging to the Vatina culture and to the first phase of the
97
.
The imports of Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo type in the area of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture (Belegi-Stojica gumno), as well as those of Cruceni-Belegi
type in the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo group fron dzaci-)LOLSRYD NH OLYDGH (Pl.
X/ 28), Oreac-Proletarska ulica (Pl. X/ 30), Moorin-Stubarlija Surduk/Dukatar
Surduk plead for a short co-existence in time of the two ethnical-cultural
manifestations.
The findings of Cruceni-BoIogis fypo fron Ba Ia emphasize the fact
that this culture, even since the first phase of its evolution, penetrates west
242
to the Tisza and occupies the area of the inlayed ceramics communities of
Szeremle-BijoIo Brdo fypo. In fho loundarios of fho IocaIify of dzaci, in
the site )LOLSRYD NH OLYDGH, the surveys and the sound trenches from 1965
revealed the existence of a cultural layer with ceramic materials belonging
to the Bjelo Brdo-Szeremle cultural group. Among these materials, we can
mention a kantharos assigned to the first phase of the Cruceni-Belegi
culture
98
. The archaeological investigations from the boundary of the
IocaIify of Kac, in fho sifos Popov Sala (site no.1) and RW , (site no. 2)
revealed the effective presence of the Cruceni-Belegi communities south to
Ba Ia, sfiII sinco fho phaso I of fho ovoIufion of fhis cuIfuro. In fho sifo Popov
Sala (site no. 1), the archaeological investigations between 1960-1965
showed the existence of a prehistoric site with a succession of dwellings
from different periods of time. In the level belonging to the Bronze Age,
beside the materials belonging to the Vatina culture, there were also
discovered ceramic materials typical of the complex of the inlayed ceramics
(phase I) and of the Otomani culture. The latest levels belong to the
Cruceni-Belegi culture, phases I-II
99
. The rescue excavations in the site RW
I (site no. 2) uncovered a settlement with several cultural layers, belonging
to the Baden, Kostolac, Dubovac, Belegi I and so-called Belegi-Gava
cultures. The stratigraphy of this site is both vertical and horizontal
100
. We
have to mention also the discoveries from the sites Livade
101
, Popov Sala
(site no. 2)
102
and RW,(site I)
103
, where ceramic fragments characteristic of
the first two phases of the evolution of the Cruceni-Belegi culture appear.
Ceramic materials assigned to the phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
are noted in the sites RW,,
104
and Vinogradi
105
.
At Moorin-Stubarlija Surduk/Dukatar Surduk (Pl. X/ 26), the
archaeological investigations uncovered 35 cremation graves and 6
inhumation graves. Five of the cremation graves contained inlayed
ceramics of Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo type, the others being typical of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture, phases I-II. The graves no. 17 and 27 contained,
beside vessels typical of the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, vessels
of type Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo
106
(Pl. VIII/ 6). The surveys and the sound
trenches made at the sites Siget (Pl. X/ 25)
107
and Vinograd (Pl. X/ 27)
108
, from
the boundaries of the locality of Moorin, proved the existence of the
ceramic materials characteristic of the phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi
culture, beside the ceramic materials assigned to the complex of the inlayed
ceramics. This fact demonstrates the control exerted over this territory by
243
the Cruceni-Belegi communities, even since the first phase of their
evolution.
As a result of the surveys executed in the boundaries of the localities
of ur ovo-Velike njive (Pl. X/ 14) and of aijka-,QD NLEUHJ(Pl. X/ 38), there
were discovered both inlayed ceramic fragments and pottery typical of the
phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. Similar discoveries were made also
in the boundaries of the locality of Titel, respectively on the bank of the
Tisza, in the settlement no. 4 (Pl. X/ 39)
109
, as well as in the site Demljankov
Surduk (Pl. X/ 40)
110
. Also in the boundary of the locality of Titel, in the site
Kalvarija (Pl. X/ 42), there was found an entire vessel of kantharos type,
initially considered a grave characteristic of the inlayed pottery
111
.
According to M. $andor-Chicideanu, the vessel can be assigned rather to
the group Szeremle or to the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture
112
. The
archaeological investigations seem to answer the question whether these
discoveries are proofs of the cultural contacts already emphasized in other
archaooIogicaI sifos fron Ba Ia or fhoy provo a graduaI ponofrafion of fho
Cruceni-Belegi communities.
The control of the Cruceni-BoIogis connunifios ovor Ba Ia in fho
phase II of the evolution of this culture is suggested by the archaeological
discoveries within the boundaries of the localities Titel (in the sites Donje
Titelskog polje (Pl. X/ 41)
113
and Rogulicev Surduk (Pl. X/ 43)
114
), urug -
Slatina, sites no. 3 (Pl. X/ 8)
115
and 4 (Pl. X/ 9)
116
and aijka-Salaina (Pl.
X/ 37)
117
.
In the Eastern Slavonia, the archaeological investigations from Dalj-
Livadice (Pl. X/ 10) uncovered a prehistoric site with a cultural layer of 1.5 m
in depth, where more settlements belonging to the Bronze Age are found.
The stratigraphy of 1.5 m in depth was unclear. In the first level there were
discovered, beside materials of type Late Vatina/ Vatina-Belegi
(Cruceni-Belegi I), inlayed ceramic fragments of Bijelo Brdo-Dalj type.
There were also found four antropomorph idols in this level. In the second
level, there were discovered fluted pottery belonging to the phase II of the
118
, among them being noticed materials somehow
IiIo fhoso loIonging fo fho Bisfro -IaIni a cuIfuro
119
.
Ceramic fragments belonging to the Vatin-Belegi phase (Cruceni-
Belegi I) of a spinning wheel, as well as a fragment of a bowl with
ornaments characteristic of the south-Panonnian inlayed ceramics were
244
discovered as a result of archaeological investigations in the boundary of
the locality of Oriolik, in the site Vinogradi (Pl. X/ 32).
Close to the river mouth of the Drava in the Danube, in the
boundaries of the locality of Aljma, in the Podunavlje site (Pl. X/ 1), the
fortuitous discoveries and the sound trenches proved the existence of a
prehistoric settlement with materials assigned to Bijelo Brdo Dalj group
and to Vatina - Belegi group
120
.
The surveys from Erdut-Veliki Varod, in the steep bank of the Danube
(Pl. X/ 16), permitted the identification of a settlement with cultural levels
from several historical periods. The inlayed pottery of Bijelo Brdo-Dalj type
and Cruceni-Belegi, phase II
121
belonged to the Bronze Age.
The extension to the eastern part of Banat of the Cruceni-Belegi
culture is pointed out also by the new discoveries within the boundaries of
fho IocaIify of Ian (Cara-Severin County), in the site 6DW% WUkQ(Pl. X/ 20).
Bosido archaooIogicaI naforiaIs characforisfic of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture there was also discovered an urn with conical leg, decorated with
vertical flutes on the belly and circular flutes on the leg. Adriana Radu
considers that the grave is characteristic of the phase II of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture. Thus, the necropolis from Iam-6DW% WUkQ and that one from
Vrani are the most southern discoveries of Cruceni-Belegi in Romanian
Banat
122
.
/f Svini a-3LDWUD (OLRYHL (Cara-Severin County, Pl. X/ 36) there is
mentioned the discovery, beside ceramic fragments characteristic of the
phaso II of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, of an urn decorated with
circular flutes on the neck and oblique flutes on the belly which are flanked
with four conical prominences (Pl. VIII/ 3). This urn is dated in Bz.D first
half of the Ha.A1 phase
123
. The resemblence with certain amphoras
discovered in the necropoles of Cruceni-Belegi (Cruceni, Dubovac) could
plead for the hypothesis of a late import or even of some Cruceni-Belegi
graves, phase II
124
, in fho vosforn aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture.
The penetration of some Cruceni-Belegi communities in the western
aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture can be observed even since the
first phase of the culture (for example Liubcova- LJO ULH, phase III of the
nocropoIis, in C. S c rins poriodizafion). This ponofrafion is loffor
documented with materials characteristic of the phase II of the Cruceni-
BoIogis cuIfuro (for oxanpIo Dulovac, Vrsac, Ian, Svini a). Thus, fhis
hypothesis of the existence of a collision region between the Cruceni-
245
BoIogis and Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare cultures in the southern region of
Yugoslav Banat seems to be a historic reality. As plausible as this seems to
be also the gradual awarding of this territory by the Cruceni-Belegi
communities in phase II of this cultures evolution
125
.
Tho rich roporfory of coranic shapos of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
culture contributes to the understanding of the general view of the cultural
and commercial contacts existent between the two cultural manifestations.
Thus, the amphoras of A1 type, even if they are more spred in the eastern
aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, in the western area, the similar
shapes can not be certainly assigned to this because they are characteristic
of the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, where this type seems to have
a less developped shoulder
126
. M. $andor-Chicideanu considers that it is
possible that the amphoras from Dubovac, Liubcova, Moorin come from
features which could belong to Cruceni-Belegi culture
127
. The amphoras of
/14 fypo aro nof characforisfic of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture. Those
discovered at Dubovac are similar to those from the area of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture, to which this type has to belong to
128
. The bowls of S23
type, discovered at Dubovac-Kudelite and Liubcova- LJO ULH are typical of
the Cruceni-Belegi culture and they prove the inflitration of the
connunifios of fhis cuIfuro in fho aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
communities. The presence of a bowl of S23 type in a grave, certainly
loIonging fo fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, discovered in the
necropolis from Plosca-Cabana de metal (Dolj County, Pl. X/ 35), seems to be
the most eastern Cruceni-BoIogis inporf vifhin fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare
area
129
. The bowl S21 and S22 types, present in the necropoles from
Dubovac-Kudelite and Mala Vrbica-Livade
130
are also assigned to the
Cruceni-Belegi culture. The vessels of kantharoi K2 and K3 types seem to
have developped from the baroque shapes with rhomb mouth of the Vatina
culture. They became common shapes for more cultural areas: Szeremle-
BijoIo Brdo, Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare and Cruceni-Belegi
131
. The Kantharos K2
type (for example Belegi-Stojica gumno 2 pieces.; Beograd-Karaburma 1
piece; Sarva-Gradac 1 piece) is met both in the typology of the Cruceni-
Belegi ceramics (phase I), and in those of the inlayed ceramics of Szeremle-
BijoIo Brdo and Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare types. Beyond the fact that it proves
a certain chronological synchronism between the Cruceni-Belegi culture
and the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo group, the K2 type emphasizes also a parallel
ovoIufion vifh fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, with which it is related,
246
too. The Kantharos of K.3 type (for example Belegi-Stojica gumno 1 piece;
Beograd-Karaburma 4 pieces; Vrac-Ludo 1 pioco, Sur in 1 piece) is less
present within the area of the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo group, upstream the
confluence of the Danube with the Tisza but it frequently appears in the
Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture both at west and at east of the Iron Gates, as
well as in the sites of the Cruceni-Belegi culture (phase I)
132
.
The cultural and commercial contacts between the Cruceni-Belegi
and Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare cultures could be suggested also by the
discoveries of bronze objects. The distribution of the cordformed pendants
in fho aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare communities is possibly to have
been mediated by the Cruceni-Belegi populations. In the area of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture, this category of jewelry was extremely used during
the phase I while they were abandoned during the phase II. This
hypothesis can be sustained by the discoveries from the Cruceni-Belegi
necropoles from Cruceni, Beograd-Karaburma, Belegi-Stojica gumno
133
.
The influences exerted by the Cruceni-Belegi communities in the
aroa of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture, the final phase, determined the
appoaranco of Bisfro -IaIni a cuIfuraI group. Thaf vas a disfincf cuIfuraI
group that developped in parallel with the phase II of the Cruceni-
Belegi
134
culture. This matter is proved by the bowls discovered at Dalj-
Livadice and Hrtkovci-Gomolava (level IVc), similar to identity with those of
S34 and S35 types from the repertory of shapes characteristic of the cultural
group Bisfro -IaIni a
135
.
Extremely interesting is fho associafion of fho inporfs of Zufo Brdo-
Grla Mare type with the vessels decorated in the pseudo-corded
technique (Litzen type), that are characteristic of the phase I of the Cruceni-
Belegi culture. This association permits a good chronological
synchronizafion of fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture
with the beginning of the Cruceni-BoIogis cuIfuro. If fho inporfs of Zufo
Brdo-Grla Mare type in the Cruceni-Belegi area are relatively numerous,
those of Cruceni-Belegi type, decorated with pseudo-corded (Litzen) are
extremely rare (Dubovac-Kudelite, Oreac-Proletarska ulica, necropolis I).
The lack of the vessels with pseudo-cordod ornanonfs in fho Zufo Brdo-
Grla Mare area, but the large number of inlayed vessels belonging to this
culture in the area controlled by the Cruceni-Belegi culture can be
explained through the interest of the Cruceni-Belegi communities for the
aroa confroIIod ly fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare communities. The Danube
247
constituted one of the major commercial thoroughfares of the prehistory.
The parallel short evolution of the phase I of the Cruceni Belegi culture
vifh fho cIassic phaso of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture can be added to
this explanation. Within this short parallel evolution, the pseudo-corded
technique (Litzen) was abandoned. The next archaeological investigations,
corroborated with new
14
C data, will confirm or refute these hypotheses.

Conclusions

On the basis of the archaeological discoveries both from the area of
the inlayed ceramics communities of Szeremle-BijoIo Brdo and Zufo Brdo-
Grla Mare types, and from the area of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, we can
formulate a few conclusions concerning the relationship between the two
ethnical-cultural manifestations:
1. The appearance of the Cruceni-Belegi culture coincides with the
phaso II (cIassicaI phaso) of fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture. During the
phase I, the Cruceni-Belegi communities (concentrated on the Danubes
course, from the river mouth of the Drava close to the western part of the
Carpafhians, soufh fo Ba Ia and in Banaf) ovoIvo for a shorf poriod of fino
in parallel with the late Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo communities.
2. Even if it comes out a contribution of the inlayed ceramics of type
Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo in the formation of the Cruceni-Belegi culture, this
does not dim the massive genetic background of the Vatina culture. This
background is proved by the perpetuation of some ceramic ornaments and
of some vessels shapes as for example the kantharos.
3. From a typological point of view, there are common ceramic
shapes (kantharos of k2 and k3 types and the amphora of A1 type) in the
area of Cruceni-BoIogis i Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare cultures. These shapes,
especially the kantharos, plead for a certain contemporary existence of the
two cultures.
4. The archaeological discoveries from the south-eastern region of
Banat
(Dubovac-Kudelite, Vatin-Bele Vode, Vrac-At i Vrsac-Ludo (Pl.
X/ 48), Liubcova- LJO ULH), where it is noted a massive mixture of materials
characteristic of the two cultures, suggest the existence, in the phase I of the
Cruceni-Belegi culture, of a collision region
136
. This region will be
occupied later by the communities of this culture (during the phase II of
248
Cruceni-Belegi culture). Their presence in the regions occupied before by
fho Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture is demonstrated by the necropoles of
Cruceni-Belegi culture (phase II) discovered at Banatska Palanka-Rudine
(Pl. X/ 2)
137
, Iam-6DW % WUkQ, Liubcova- LJO ULH, and naylo af Svini a-Piatra
(OLRYHL, as well as by the fluted ceramic fragments with which the bronze
hoards discovorod af KIi ovac-5DVWRYD D
138
and KIi ovac-Katanski brod
139
are
associated.
5. Tho roporfory of fho discovorios of Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare type
from Banat (Pl. X) (imports in the area controlled by Cruceni-Belegi
culture) emphasizes the fact that the most northern discoveries are those
from Cruceni, Foeni, Peciu Nou, Voiteni and Deta. This matter points out
the interest of the Cruceni-Belegi communities for the civilization of the
Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare culture.
6. The cultural contacts between the Cruceni-BoIogis and Zufo Brdo-
CrIa Maro cuIfuros aro onphasizod aIso ly fho appoaranco of fho Bisfro -
IaIni a group, fornod on Zufo Brdo-Grla Mare background on which the
Cruceni-Belegi influences were grafted. The chronological parallelism
between the two ethnical-cultural manifestations is demonstrated by the
coranic naforiaIs siniIar fo fhoso of Bisfro -IaIni a fypo, discovorod in fho
Cruceni-Belegi area, at Hrtkovci-Gomolava and Dalj-Livadice.

The next archaeological investigations will certainly bring new
information concerning the cultural contacts between the two ethnical-
cultural related manifestations.

Alexandru Szentmiklosi
Muzeul Banatului Timisoara
Iia a Huniado, nr.1,
3OOOO2, Tinioara
e-mail: szentmiklosi@yahoo.com

NOTES

1. Bna I., 1975, 194; Bndi G., 1984, 267.
2. Kovcs T., 1977, 17.
3. Tasic, N., 1974, 462-463, Tasic, N., 1988, 48-53, abb. 2, Modovic, M., 1996a, 165, map 1,
Kiss, V., 1998, 165-167, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 15,208.
4. Bna I., 1975, 225-227.
249
5. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 15,208.
6. Bndi G., Kovcs T., 1970, 38-39, apud $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 12; Bndi
G., 1984, 273.
7. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 199, 208.
8. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 217; for the discussions concerning the proto-
Grla Mare ceramics discovered in the settlement from Ostrovu Corbului-Botul
Cliuciului, see pp. 13 and 19.
9. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 217.
12. $andor-Chicideanu, 2003, 209.
13. Radu, O., 1973, 507; S. Morintz has the same opinion too. He considers that both the
Cruceni-Belegi culture and the Dubovac-Zuto rdo-Grla Mare culture develop on
the background Vatina and they fit in the large complex of the cultures with printed
ceramics (Morintz, S., 1978, 45).
14. Moszolics, A., 1942, 48; Benkovsky-Pivovarov, Z., 1992, 344, 349, abb. 3.;Gogltan Fl.,
1993, 66; Gogltan Fl., 1994, 19-2O, Cum , 1997, 57, CogItan II., 1998, 184,
Szentmiklosi Al., 2004 .
15. MoszoIics, /., 1942, 48, Tasic, N., 1974, 462-463; Benkovsky-Pivovarov, Z., 1992, 344,
349, abb. 3.;Gogltan Fl., 1993, 66; Gogltan Fl., 1994, 19-20; Dizdar M., 1996, 26;
Cum , 1997, 57, CogItan II., 1998, 184, Kiss, V., 1998, 165-167, Tasic, N., 1988, 48-53,
abb. 2, Tasic N., 2OO1, 313, 314, Tasic N., 2OO2, 192, Mari|an ., 2OO3, 114-115;
Szentmiklosi Al., 2004, 84 .
16. Fischl P., Kiss V., 2002, 131-133; Kiss V., 1998, 163-164, note 21, 172.
17. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 3O, Modovic Pr., 1998, 75-76, no. 85, 119, Pl. 25/ 1-7;
$andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 236, no. 132.
18. Tasic N., 1996, 147-148, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 195.
19. Personal communication from Florentina Martis. The ceramic material from the
settlement of Vatina type follows to be soon published.
20. Gogltan Fl., 2004, 88-89,142, Pl. VI/ 3.
21. Tasic, N., 1988, 48-53, abb. 2.
22. Wosinszky M., 1904, 52, no.22, Pl. LXXV/ 1-9.
23. /ndoIic D., 1995, 14-15, Simic }., 1994, 199-2OO, Simic }., 1998, 242.
24. Trogmayer, O., 1992, 353-354.
25. Cum M., 1997, 66.
26. Simic }., 1998, 242.
27. Cum , M., 1997, 65-66.
28. Tasic N., 1965, 2OO-201, where Bz.C-D corresponds to the phase Belegi I, and period
Ha.A-B to the phase Belegi II; Horedt, K., 1967, 147-149; Radu, O., 1973, 506-507;
Tasic, N., 1974, 462-464; Morintz, S., 1978, 40-45, Tasic, N., 1983, 156-157; Trogmayer,
O., 1992, 353-354, Tasic, N., 2OO1, 312-315, Tasic, N., 2OO2, 193.
29. Reinecke-Willvonseder-Holste-Torbrge-Rittershofer Bz. A2 (Gogltan Fl., 1999, 15-
19, 42-43, with the old bibliography).
30. }acanovic D., 2OOO, 5O-51.
31. Gogltan Fl., 2000, 43-45.
32. Petrescu-Dmbovi a M., 1977, 39-46, 51-73, 80-119, 121-125.
250
33. Cum M., 1993, 261-263.
34. Cum M., 1993, 181, 19O-191.
35. Cum , M., 1993, 168-179, Cum , M., 1995, 1O3-11O, Cum , M., 1997, 61-67, 73-74.
36. Chicideanu, I., 1986, 40-47, Chicideanu, I., 1995, 168, that include the discoveries from
MaIa Vrbica in tho roportory of discovorios typicaI of istro -IaIni a group
(Chicideanu, I., 1986, 45).
37. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 30-34, 209, 213, with discussions and old
bibliography.
38. Chicideanu, I., 1986, 40-47.
41. Moga M., 1964, 296; Moga M., 1965, 450; Godea I., 1995, 35, fig. 20-21, ModoIo II.,
1995, 289-294, 299-300; Horedt K., 1967a, 17-20; Horedt K., 1967b, 147-149; Radu O.,
1971, 19-23; Radu O., 1973, 503-520.
42. Archaeological investigations executed by M.Moga in 1958.
43. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 198, vol. II, 196, Pl. 191/ 1-3.
44. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 198 vol. II, 196, Pl. 191/ 5-6.
45. Archaeological investigations oxocutod by M.Moga in 1958, $andor-Chicideanu M.,
2003, vol. I, 198, vol. II, 196, Pl. 191/ 4.
46. Vukmanovic M., Popovic P., 1996, 89, 99, PI. V/1O, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol.
I, 198.
47. Cum M., 1992, 29, Cum M., 1993, 151, 293, no. 114, ModoIo Fl., 1995, 289-293, 295-
3O1, Chicidoanu I., 1995, 186, Cum M., 1997, 55, CogItan II., 1998, 2O5, PI. X/21,
Rogozoa P., 1998, 189, PI. I/4O, prof. II. ModoIo s promaturo doath coasod tho
working of the archaeological material from the investigated necropolis. But it will be
published in future.
48. El Susi G., 1990, 249-251, Cum M., 1992, 29, Cum M., 1993, 15, 298, no. 168, ModoIo
Fl., 289, note 6, 290, 292-293, 295, 299-3OO, Chicidoanu I., 1995, 168, Cum M., 1997, 55,
Gogltan Fl., 1998, 205, Pl. X/ 30; Rogozea P., 1998, 189, Pl. I/ 41; Szentmiklosi Al.,
1998, 197-207; Luca A.S., 2005, 404, no.657, pct. 1/ a.
49. Rescue investigations executed by prof. II. ModoIo , nov boing procossing and
publishing.
50. NovoI invostigations oxocutod by prof. IIorin ModoIo in 1986.
51. Gogltan Fl., 2004, 88-89,142, Pl. VI/ 3.
52. Archaeological investigations executed in 2000 and 2004 by the author.
53. Probably an arrangement for hydro-isolating with ceramic fragments disposed
horizontally as for strengthening the structure.
54. Milleker B., 1897, 34; Milleker B., 1905, 34; Milleker B., 1906, 26-27, Cum M., 1993,
252, 288, Cum M., 1997, 55, CogItan II., 1998, 2O5, PI. 1O/11, CogItan II., 1999, 93-
94; Luca A.S., 2005, 121, no.197, pct. 2/ a.
55. The site is located north to the old park Kratzer Antal, today the place where the
factory S.C. Eybl Textile S.R.L is located.
56. Szentmiklosi Al., 2005a, 637-656; Szentmiklosi Al., 2005b, 615-616;
57. Szentmiklosi Al., 2005a, 639.
251
60. Szentmiklosi Al., 2005a, 643-644.
61. Szentmiklosi Al., 2005c, 111-125.
62. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 99, no. 1, vol. II, 116, Pl. 111/ 4.
63. }acanovic D., or ovic /., 1989-1990, 72, T. LXXI.
65. Wosinszky M., 1904, 59, no. 9, Pl. LXXVI/ 1; Garaanin, M., 1959, 82, note 451.
66. Millker B., 1897, 75-76 , S c rin C., 1985, 91-105 , S c rin C., 1992, 21, S c rin C., 1993,
77-78, Cum M., 1992, 26-28, Cum M., 1993, 157, 161-162, ,254, no. 37, pct. b; 291, no.
88, Cum M., 1997, 58-61, 66.
67. S c rin C., Cu|Iura dc Iip ZuIc 3rdc in zcna Pcr i|cr dc icr, ucuroti, 1998 (toz do
doctorat citat do $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003.
68. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 183-184.
70. Milleker B., 1897, 125, Pl. II/ 1-3, 128, 130.
71. Milleker B., 1897, 125, Pl. II/ 1-3, 128, MiIIokor ., 19O5, 36, PI. XV/1b, Trbuhovic V..,
1968, 64, fig.. 34.
72. Milleker B., 1897, 125, Pl. II/ 1-3, 128, 130; Milleker B., 1905, 35, Pl. XV/ 1c (in text it is
wrong XV/ 1a).
73. Milleker B., 1905, 4, 34-41; Milleker B., 1906, 155-157; Foltiny S., 1970, 12.
75. Raajski R., 1975, 16-17, 177, Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Harta 1, no. 9, UzoIac }., 1996, 32,
Harta 6, no. 94, 38, ukvi I|., 2OOO, 185, T.6O/6, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I,
260, no. 322.
76. Milleker B., 1897, 37-38; Wosinsky M., 1904, 57-58, Pl. XCIII-C/ 1; Milleker B., 1905, 34;
Milleker B., 1906, 35-42; Foltiny S., 1968, 343, Taf. 4/ 5; Hnsel, B., 1968, vol. I, 138, vol.
II, 247, Pl. 49/ 1-14; Foltiny S., 1970, 7-8, Pl. 1/1 i II/5, 13, Ioronbahor S., 1988, 31, no.
12; Uzelac J., 1996, 29-30, 37-38, $andor-Chicideanu M., Chicideanu I., 1993, 151-169;
Chicidoanu, I., 1995, 167, Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 1, $andor-Chicideanu M.,
2003, vol. I, 15, 46, 161, 165-166, 198, 228, no. 76.
77. Krstic D., 1962, 76-82, Ma|naric-Pandzic N., 199O, 43-54, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003,
246, no. 216.
78. Ma|naric-Pandzic N., 199O, 43-54, Pl. III/ 2.
79. Marijanski M., 1957, 5-26, Tasic, N., 1962a, 144, ruknor ., 1965, 46, Tasic N., 1965,
227; Foltiny S., 1970, 12-13; Garaanin, D., Vinski-Casparini, K., 1971, 3O9, Tasic N.,
1972, 111, Tasic N., 1974, 241-243; Vulpe Al., 1974, 253; Stratan I, Vulpe Al., 1977, 54;
Morintz S., 1978, 41; Garaanin D., 1983, 671; Tasic N., 1984, 38, Ioronbahor S., 1988,
31, no. 16, Modovic Pr., 1988-1989, 47-48, Tasic N., 1989, 99, 1OO, Tasic, N., 1991, 2O,
Cum M., 1993, 15O, 176, Iovi ki O., 1994, 72, 86, Chicidoanu I., 1995, 167, Modovic
Pr., 1996, 165, Harta 1, no. 11; Uzelac J., 1996, 32-33, Map 7, no. 21, 38; Pap, L., 1998,
32, SzontmikIosi /I., 1998, 2OO, Tasic N., 1998, 99-1OO, ukvic I|., 2OOO, 138-140, T.
49/ 1-7, Tasic N., 2OO2, 19O, UzoIac }., 2OO2, 47, no. 98, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003,
vol. I, 234-235, no. 122.
80. Tasic N., 1998, 1OO, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 27, 234-235, no. 122.
81. Marijanski M., 1957, 17, T.I/ 1.
82. Modovic Pr., 1988-1989, 45, 47, 53, Pl. V/ 2-3, Modovic P., 1996, 17O-171.
252
83. Tasic, N., 1962a, 144, Tasic, N., 1962b, 46-5O, Tasic N., 1963, 5O-52, Tasic N., 1964, 25-
28, Tasic N., 1965, 227, Trbuhovic V.., 1968, 69, IoItiny S., 197O, 12-13;Garaanin, D.,
Vinski-Casparini, K., 1971, 3O9, Tasic N., 1971, 165-167, Tasic N., 1974, 241-243; Vulpe
Al., 1974, 253; Stratan I, Vulpe Al., 1977, 54; Morintz S., 1978, 41; Garaanin D., 1983,
671; Tasic N., 1984, 35, Ioronbahor S., 1988, 26, 31, no. 5, Modovic Pr., 1988-1989, 47-
48, Tasic N., 1989, 98-99, Tasic, N., 1991, 2O-21, Cum M., 1993, 15O, Iovi ki O., 1994,
72, 86-87, Chicidoanu I., 1995, 167, Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 5O, Tasic N.,
1996, 148, 157, T. I/ 3; Kiss V., 1998, 172; Pap, L., 1998, 32; Rogozea P., 1998, 189, Pl. I,
no. 36, Tasic N., 2OO2, 19O-195, Vranic Sv., 2OO2, 185, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol.
I, 221, no. 19, Tasic N.N., Tasic N., 2OO3, 1O6.
84. Morintz S., 1878, 41, 44,, fig.25/1, Tasic N., 1996, 148, 157, T.I/3, Kiss V., 1998, 172, no.
55, Vranic Sv., 2OO2, 1O5.
85. Vranic Sv., 2OO2, 92-93, 132, no.61.
86. Todorovi }., 1977, 13, 15, 144.
87. Todorovi }., 1977, 86, 97, 144.
88. Todorovi }., 1977, 41, 43, 144.
91. Todorovi }., 1977, 81-82, 88.
92. Todorovi }., 1977, 82, 89.
93. Todorovi }., 1977, 91-92, 102.
94. Todorovi }., 1977, 96, 1O6.
95. Todorovi }., 1977, 1OO-101, 114.
97. Medovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 46, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 230, no. 87.
98. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165-166, Map 1, no. 41, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 245, no.
209; S. Morintz mentions discoveries typical of the Cruceni-Belegi culture within the
boundaries of this locality, without providing additional information as concerns the
archaeological site. It is not excluded that this may be the site mentioned by the
archaeologist (Morintz S., 1978, 41).
99. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 3O, Modovic Pr., 1998, 75-76, no. 85, 119, Pl. 25/ 1-7;
$andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 236, no. 132.
100. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Harta 1, no. 29, Modovic Pr., 1998, 75, no. 84, 114, PI. 2O/5-9,
115, Pl. 21/ 1-2, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 236, no. 131.
101. Modovic Pr., 1998, 76, no. 89, 119, Pl. 26/ 6-7; ceramic fragments of Cruceni-Belegi
type, phase I.
102. Garaanin D., 1983, 671; Modovic Pr., 1998, 76, no. 86, 119, PI. 25/1O, coramic
fragments of Cruceni-Belegi type, phases I-II.
103. Modovic Pr., 1998, 74, no. 83, 113, Pl. 19/ 6-7, the wide bands of pseudo-corded lines
on the trumpet-shaped neck of the urn fragment remind of the ornaments typical of
the group Gumtransdorf-Drassburg that constituted the base of the formation of the
cultural group Cruceni-oIogis (Modovic Pr., 1998, 113, Pl. 19/ 6).
104. Modovic Pr., 1998, 73, no. 78, 112, PI.18/8-10; it is not excluded to exist also a Cruceni-
oIogis I phaso (Modovic Pr., 1998, 112, PI.18/8-9).
105. Modovic Pr., 1998, 73, no. 8O, 113, PI. 19/5.
253
106. Modovic Pr., 1996, 164-165; Map 1, no. 22, Modovic Pr., 1998, 63, no. 25, 1O6, Taf.
12/ 6-8, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 243, no. 192.
107. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 25, IaIkonstoin I., 1998, PI. 19/17, 19, 23, 26-27;
Modovic Pr., 1998, 62, no. 21, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 243-244, no. 195.
108. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 24, IaIkonstoin I., 1998, PI. 21/2-7, $andor-
Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 243, no. 194
109. Modovic Pr., 1998, 54, no. 4, 95, PI. 1/6-12, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 255,
no. 283.
110. Modovic Pr., 1998, 54, no. 4, 95, Pl. 1/ 6-12, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 255,
no. 283.
111. Modovic Pr., 1998, 56, no. 7, 97, PI. 3/1.
112. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 255, no. 284.
113. Falkenstein F., 1998, Pl. 17/ 1-3, Modovic Pr., 1998, 57, no. 8, 97, PI. 3/3, $andor-
Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 255, no. 285.
114. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 255, no. 286.
115. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 36, Modovic Pr., 1998, 85-86, no. 133, 131, Pl. 37/ 3-
7, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 225, no. 52.
116. Modovic Pr., 1998, 86, no. 134, 132, Pl. 38/ 8-10, 133, Pl. 39/ 1-3, $andor-Chicideanu
M., 2003, vol.I, 225-226, no. 53.
117. Modovic Pr., 1996, 165, Map 1, no. 26, Modovic Pr., 1998, 66, no. 46, 1O7, PI. 13/9 and
108, Pl. 14/ 1-3, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 251, no. 253.
118. Simic }., 1987a, 22-23; Forenbaher S., 1988, 25, 31, no. 11; Forenbaher S., 1991, 67;
Ioronbahor S., 1994, 53, Simic }., 1994, 189-199, Iozn|ak D., 2OO1, 38-39, $andor-
Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 226, no. 55.
120. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 218, no. 2, pct. b.
121. Foltiny S., 1967, 53, Pl. IV/ 5; Foltiny S., 1968, 349, Taf. 7/ 4; Foltiny S., 1970, 3, 9, Pl.
III/3, IoItiny S., 1968, 349, fig. 7/4, 352, Vinski Casparini, 1973, 179, PI. 6/6, Tasic N.,
1984, 35; Forenbaher S., 1988, 31, no. 13; Forenbaher S., 1991, 67; Forenbaher S., 1994,
53, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 230, no. 89.
122. Radu A., 2005, pp. 89-106.
123. Cum M., 1993, 157, 162, PI. XI/11, $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 176.
132. $andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, vol. I, 55-56
134. Chicideanu, I., 1986, 40-47; Chicideanu, I., 1995, 168.
254
137. Milleker B., 1897, 84-87; Milleker F., 1940, 8-9, Taf. 3-4; Foltiny S., 1967, 51, 62, Pl.
III/1, Tasic N., 1983, 1OO, fig.61 a-d, Tasic N., 1984, 39, Ioronbahor S., 1988, 31, no. 35,
Iovi ki O., 1994, 9O, 1O3, UzoIac }., 1996, 33, Map 7, no. 4, 34, 38, ukvic I|., 2OOO, 125,
T. 43/ 2, 4, 6-7.
138. }acanovic D., 1997, 252, 256, PI. III/11-6, here it is mentioned with the name of
KIi ovac I - Pomrlovo, }acanovic D., 2OOO, 35-56; site |asIc.a a is situated at the eastern
extremity of the island Ostrovo, situated in front of the river mouth of the Mlava in
the Danube. The bronze hoard weighing 3810.5 gr. was found in a biconical urn with
pseudo-corded ornaments, typical of the phase I of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. The
11O ob|octs dato, in D. }acanovics opinion, in the period Ha.A1. The author considers
that the urn with pseudo-corded motifs is characteristic of the end of the phase I and
the beginning of the phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi culture. That corresponds to the
time after 1230, i.e. to the period Br D Ha A according to Reinecke, and it was
accepted by most archaeologists. (sic!). The phase II of the Cruceni-Belegi culture,
characterized by the generalization of the fluted ornaments and of some typical forms
is dated in the Reinecke Bz. D period (Late Bz. II), the transition between the two
phases taking place, probably, at the end of the Reinecke Bz.C period, moment when
the amphoras (urns) of variant A appear, according to the typology of
S.Forenbaher (Forenbaher, S., 1988, 24-25, 29-30, 32-33). This type of urns are assigned
by N.Tasic to tho phaso Ic from tho phaso I of tho Cruconi-oIogis cuIturo (Tasic, N.,
2001, 317). In my opinion, the vessel seems to be rather used again and it could
belong to a metallurgist craftsman. The conditions of the discovery could suggest also
a votive character of its hiding.
139. }acanovic D., 1997, 252-253, 256, Pl. III/ 7-11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An c!ic, D., 1995, Praistorijskog doba (Prehistoric Periods), in Arncc|cska isIrazi.anja., Novi
Sad (1995), 13-15.
Bndi G., 1984, Die Kultur der transdanubichen inkrustierten Keramik, n KFKNB, Beograd
(1984), 267-282.
Bndi G., Kovcs T., 1970, Die historischen Beziehungen derBronzezeitlichen Szeremle Gruppe, in
AAH, 22 (1970), 25-39.
Bemkovsky-Pivovarov Z., 1992, Zum beginn der Belegi-Kultur, in Balcanica, XXIII (1992),
341-349.
Bna I., 1975, Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre sdstlichen Beziehungen, Archaeologia
Hungarica, IL, Budapest (1975).
Brukner B., 1965, Gradite, Turija, Novi Sad naselje sa kraja bronzancg i pc cIa na|sIaIskcg
perioda, in ARHPREG, 7 (1965), 45-46.
Bukvic, L. 2000, Kanelovana keramika Gava komplexa u Banatu, Novi Sad (2000).
Chicideanu, I., 1986, Die Frhtrakische Kultur. Zur Bronzezeit in Sdwest Rumnien, in Dacia,
N.S., XXX, 1-2 (1986), 7-47.
Chicideanu I., 1995, Cultura Cruceni-Belegi, in Comori ale epocii bronzului din Romnia.
Treasures of the Bronze Age in Romania, ucuroti (1995), 167-169.
255
Dizdar M., 1996, 3rcn ancdcbnc nasc|jc u Vinkc.cima Duga Ulica Br. 23 (Bronze Age
Settlement in Vinkovci Duga Ulica 23), in OpusculaArch, 20 (1996), 7-38.
El Susi G., 1990, Ofrandc anima|c din nccrcpc|a dc incincra ic dc |a VciIcg ;jud. Timi). Offrandcs
animaux dc |a ncccpc|cs dincincraIicn dc VciIcg ;dcp. dc Timi), in Thraco-Dacica, XI, 1-2
(1990), 249-251.
Falkenstein F., 1998, Die Siedlungsgeschichtedes Titeler Plateaus, n Feudvar..., II (1998).
Fischl P., Kiss V., 2002, A Vattina-Kultra kutatsa s szaki kapcsolatainak krdse (Die
Forschung der Vattina-Kultur und die Frage ihrer nrdlichen verbindungen), in MFM-
StudArch, VIII (2002), 125-145.
Foltiny S., 1967, Neue Angaben zur Kenntnis der urnenfelderzeitlichen Keramik im sdlichen Teile
des Karpatenbeckens, in Apulum, VI (1967), 50-71.
Foltiny S., 1968, Zum Problem der sogenannten Pseudo-Protovillanovaurnen, in Origini, II,
Roma (1968), 333-356.
Foltiny S., 1970, Ka poznobronzanodobskoj keramici Vojvodine (Zur Sptebronzezeitlichen Keramic
in der Vojvodina), in RVM, 15-17, 1966-1968 (1970), 5-15.
Forenbaher S., 1988, On pseudoprotovillanova urns in Yugoslav Danube area (O
pseudoprtovillanova urnama u jugoslavenskom podunavlju), in Opuscula Arch, 13 (1988),
23-41.
Forenbaher, S., 1991, !a|azisIa grupc ,3c|cgis u isIc ncj S|a.cniji (Sites of the Late Bronze Age
Belegi II group in Eastern Slavonia), in OpusculaArch., 15 (1991), 47-69.
Forenbaher, S., 1994, The Belegi II Group in Eastern Slavonia, in Symp. Alba Iulia, Bibl.MA, I,
Alba Iulia (1994), 49-62.
Garaanin, M., 1959, Neolithikum und Bronzezeit in Serbien und Makedonien, in BERRGK, 39,
1958 (1959), 1-130.
Garaanin D., 1983, Period polja sa urnama Vojvodine, in PJZ, vol. IV, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo
(1983), 668-683.
Garaanin, D., Vinski-Gasparini, K., 1971, Age du Bronze, n Epoque prhistorique..., III,
Beograd (1971), 305-323.
Godea I., 1995, La cramique, Ld. do Vost, Timioara (1995).
Gogltan, Fl., 1993, /aIcria|c arncc|cgicc apar inand cu|Iurii Cruccni-Belegi (The Archaeological
Objects Belonging to Cruceni- Belegi Culture), in Tibiscum, VIII, 1993, 63-73.
Gogltan, Fl., 1994, /aIcria|c arncc|cgicc apar inand cu|Iurii Cruccni-Belegi (The Archaeological
Objects Belonging to Cruceni-Belegi Culture), in Stud.Ist.Trans...., Cluj (1994), 17-22.
Gogltan Fl., 1998, The Cruceni-3c|cgis CcmcIcrq cf |i.czi|c ;Tc|. dia), Commune Banloc, District
Timi ;|cmania), in The Thracian World ..., II, ucuroti (1998), 181-205.
Gogltan Fl., 1999, 3rcnzu| Iimpuriu i mij|cciu in 3anaIu| rcmancsc i pc cursu| infcricr a|
/urcu|ui. Crcnc|cgia i dcsccpcriri|c dc mcIa|, BHAB, XXIII, Timioara (1999).
Gogltan Fl., 2000, AspccIc pri.ind mcIa|urgia brcnzu|ui in bazinu| carpaIic. Ciccanc|c i
nicc.a|c|c cu Icc dc inm nuarc din |cmania (Aspekte der bronzeverarbeitung im
Karpatenbecken. Die Tllenhmmer und Tllenambosse aus Rumnien), in Ephemeris
Napocensis, IX-X, 1999-2000 (2000), 5-59.
Gogltan Fl., 2004, Bronzul mijlociu n Banat. Opinii pri.ind grupu| CcrncIi-Crvenka, Middle
3rcnzc in 3anaI. Opinicns ccnccrning Inc CcrncIi-Crvenka group, in Festschrift fr Florin
/cdc|c Zum 60. Geburstag (Ld. P.Rogozoa, V.Codic ), H/, XXXII (2OO4), 79-153.
Cum M., 1992, Prima cpcc a ficru|ui in zcna dc sud a 3anaIu|ui ;jud. Caras-Severin), in
SympThrac, 9 (1992), 26-37.
256
Cum M., 1993, Cum M., Ci.i|iza ia primci cpcci a ficru|ui in sud-vestul Romniei, BiblThr., IV,
ucuroti (1993).
Cum , M., 1995, The end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in south-
western Romania, western Serbia, and north-western Bulgaria. A short review, in Thraco-
Dacica, XVI, 1-2 (1995), 99-137.
Cum M., 1997, |pcca brcnzu|ui in 3anaI. OrizcnIuri crcnc|cgicc i manifcsI ri cu|Iura|c. Tnc
Bronze Age in Banat. Chronological Levels and Cultural Entities., H/, V, Timioara,
1997.
Hnsel, B., 1968, Beitrge zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, vol. I-II,
Bonn (1968).
Horedt K., 1967a, Probleme der Jngerbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Transsilvanien (Promlemy
ccramiki mldszcgc brazu u Transi|uanii), in ActaArchCarp, IX, 1 (1967), 5-27.
Horedt K, 1967b, Problemele ceramicii din perioada bronzului evoluat n Transilvania(Probleme der
Jngerbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Transsilvanien), in StComS, 13 (1967), 137-156.
Jacanovic D., 1997, !c.i pri|czi c kasncm brcnzancm i rancm g.czdcncm dcbu u 3rani c.u ;!cu
Data About Late Bronze Age and |ar|q |rcn Agcs aI 3rani c.c), in Arncc|cgija isIccnc Srbijc
..., Beograd (1997), 249-258.
Jacanovic D., 2000, PraisIcrijska csIa.a mcIa|nin prcdmcIa iz K|i c.ca ;PrcnisIcric Hcard cf /cIa|
ObjccIs frcm K|i c.ac), in Viminacium, 11 (2000), 35-56.
Kiss V., 1998, Data to the Eastern Relations of Transdanubian Incrusted Pottery Culture, in The
Early and Middle Bronze Age ..., Bibl.MA, VIII, Alba Iulia (1998), 161-189.
Kovcs T., 1977, The Bronze Age in Hungary, Corvina Press, Budapest (1977).
Krstic D., 1962, Tri praistorijske nekropole u Oreacu (Trois necropoles prehistoriques Oresac
prs Vrac), in ZborNM, III, 1961-1962 (1962), 75-91.
Lcvi ki O., 1994, Cu|Iura Ha||sIaIIu|ui canc|aI |a r s riI dc Carpa i, ibI.Thr., VII, ucuroti
(1994).
Loznak, D., 2001, !a|azisIa brcn ancg dcba na Vinkc.a kcm prcdru ju (Bronze Age sites in
Vinkovci region), in Pril.Inst.arheol.Zagrebu, 18 (2001), 33-61.
L rinczi C., Torgmaycr O., 1995, 3iriIua|is .aIqai IcmcI CsanqIc|ck-Paln (Birituales Grberfeld
der Vatya-Kultur in Csanytelek-Pal), in MFM-StudArch I (1995), 49-90.
Luca A.S., 2005, Arncc|cgic i isIcric ;||). Dcsccpcriri din 3anaI, ibI.Soptom. X, Ld. Lconomic ,
ucuroti (2OO5).
Manaric-Pandzic N., 1990, Tri nccbja.|jcna srcdnjcbrcn ancdcbna grcba iz Orcsca u Banatu
(Drei Bisher nichtverffentlichte Mittelbronzezeitliche Grber aus Oreac im Banat), in
OpusculaArch, 14, 1, 1989 (1990), 43-54.
Marijan B., 2003, !a|azi kcramikc s |iccnskim ukrasima u zupanjskcm kraju ;Tnc pcIIcrq uiIn Inc
Litzen decoration from tnc arca arcund Zupanja), in OpusculaArch, 27 (2003), 103-115.
Marijanski M., 1957, Grcb|jc urni kcd ||andzc ;Urncngrabcr .cn ||andza), in RVM, 6 (1957), 5-
26.
Mcdc!c F!., 1995, Campuri|c dc urnc funcrarc din 3anaI ;Unc|c prcb|cmc a|c riIu|ui i riIua|u|ui
funcrar |a Iracii ncrdici Iimpurii dc |a sfariIu| cpccii brcnzu|ui i inccpuIu| cpccii
fierului)(Les champs durnes funraires de Banat), in ActaMN, 32, I (1995), 289-302.
Mcdovic Pr., 1988-1989, Kanelovana keramica prelaznog perioda u Vojvodini (Kannelierte Keramik
der bergangsperiode in der Wojwodina), in RVM, 31 (1988-1989), 45-57.
Mcdovi , P., 1996, Die inkrustierte Keramik der Mittelbronzezeit in der Vojvodina, in The
Yugoslav Danube..., Belgrade-Vrac (1996), 163-183.
257
Mcdovic Pr., 1998, Die Gelndebegehungen im Raum um das Titeler Plateau 1965 und 1969.
|ckcgncsciranjc TiIc|skcg p|aIca i b|izc ckc|inc 1965. i 1969., in Feudvar..., I (1998), 41-140.
Milleker B., 1897, Dc|magqarcrszag rcgiscg|c|cIci a ncnfcg|a|as c| IIi id kb |, I, skcri |c|cIck,
Temesvr (1897).
Milleker B., 1905, A .aIIinai sIc|cp, Temesvr (1905).
Milleker B., 1906, Dc|magqarcrszag rcgiscg|c|cIci a ncnfcg|a|as c| IIi id kb |, vol. III, Temesvr
(1906).
Milleker F., 1940, Vorgeschihte des Banats. Frhe Bronzezeit. Perjamoscher oder Maroscher
Kultur, in Starinar, XV (1940), 3-42.
Moga M., 1964, Muzeul Regional al Banatului, in RevMuz, I, 3 (1964), 294-296.
Moga M.,1965, Observation sur un champ durnes funraires de lge du bronze, in Atti del VI
CISPP, II (1965), 450.
Morintz S., 1978, CcnIribu ii arncc|cgicc |a isIcria Iraci|cr Iimpurii, vol I, Epoca bronzului n
spa iu| carpaIc-balcanic, Ld. /cadomioi, ucuroti (1978).
Mozsolics, A., 1942, Zur Frage der Schnurkeramik in Ungarn, in WPZ, 29 (1942), 30-50.
Pap, L., 1998, Nalazitc pczncg brcnzancg dcba kcd /cIc|a Pc|cj u b|izini 3a kc Pa|ankc
(Archaeological finds from Late Bronze Age near Motel Poloj), in RVM, 40 (1998), 25-38.
Petrescu-Dmbovi a M., 1977, Depozitele de bronzuri din Romnia, Ld. /cadomioi, ucuroti
(1977).
Radu A, CcrccI ri arncc|cgicc dc cpcca brcnzu|ui i na||sIaIIicnc in imprcjurimi|c |cca|iI ii |am
;jud. Cara-Severin). Recherches archologiques de lepoque du bronze et du Hallstatt aux
a|cnIcurs dc |a |cca|iIc |am ;Cara-Severin), in Banatica, 17 (2005), 89-106
Radu O., 1971, Asupra unui mcrmanI dc incincra ic dc |a Cruccni ;bcr cin |incscncrungsgrab
von Cruncei), in Tibiscus, I, 1970 (1971), 19-23.
Radu O., 1973, Cu pri.irc |a nccrcpc|a dc |a Cruccni ;jud. Timi); prcpcs dc |a nccrcp|c|c dc
Cruceni (Dp. Timi)), n SCIV, 24, 3 (1973), 503-520.
Raajski R., 1975, At, Vrac neolitsko naselje i nekropola bronzanog doba, in ARHPREG, 17
(1975), 14-17.
Rogozea P., 1998, |cpcrIcriu| |cca|iI i|cr cu dcsccpcriri apar inand grupu|ui cu|Iura| 3a|Ia S raI
din epoca brcnzu|ui ;Tnc 3a|Ia S raI Tqpc inds frcm 3anaI), in AnB (S.N.), VI (1998),
183-196.
5 c rin C., 1985, Depozitul de bronzuri de la Liubcova- ig| ric ;Dcr 3rcnzcfund .cn |iubcc.a-
ig| ric), in Banatica, VIII (1985), 91-105.
5 c rin C., 1992, Cteva considcra ii pri.ind cpcca brcnzu|ui in sud-vestul Romniei, in
SympThrac, IX (1992), 20-22.
5 c rin C., 1993, Dcsccpcriri Gar|a /arc in zcna Pcr i|cr dc icr ;Dcccu.crIcs Gar|a /arc dc |a
rgion de Portes de Fer), in Banatica, XII/ 1 (1993), 75-83.
Stratan I., Vulpe Al., 1977, Der Hgel von Susani, in PZ, 52 (1977), 28-60.
Szentmiklosi Al., 1998, CaIc.a mcrminIc p|anc dc incincra ic dc |a sfariIu| cpccii brcnzu|ui din
hotarul comunei Voiteni (Some Flat Cremation Graves from the End of Bronzr Age
Unhearthed wiInin Inc VciIcni Ccmmunc 3cundcrics, Timi CcunIq), in AnB (S.N.), VI
(1998), 197-207.
Szentmiklosi Al., 2004, Un mcrmanI dc incincra ic apar inand cu|Iurii Cruccni-Belegi descoperit
|a ag ;jud. Timi). A CrcmaIicn Gra.c 3c|cnging Ic Cruccni-Belegi Culture Discovered at
ag ;Timi CcunIq ), in AnB (S.N.), X-XI (2004), 81-92.
258
Szentmiklosi Al., 2005a, CcrccI ri|c arncc|cgicc dc sa|.arc dc |a DcIa-Dud ric. |apcrI prc|iminar
dc s p Iur ;|cscuc Arcnacc|cgica| |xca.aIicns aI DcIa-Dud ric. Prc|iminarq |cpcrI of
Excavation), in AnB (S.N.), XII-XIII, 2004-2005 (2005), 637-656.
Szentmiklosi Al., 2005b, CcrccI ri|c arncc|cgicc dc sa|.arc dc |a DcIa-Dud ric.|xpczi ic
Icmpcrar , in AnB (S.N.), XII-XIII, 2004-2005 (2005), 615-616.
Szentmiklosi Al., 2005c, Materiale apar inand cu|Iurii Cruccni-Belegi descoperite n hotarul
|cca|iI ii Dragina ;jud. Timi);Materials belonging to the culture Cruceni-Belegi
discc.crcd in Inc bcundarics cf Inc |cca|iIq cf Dragina ;Timi CcunIq), in AnB (S.N.), XII-
XIII, 2004-2005 (2005), 111-125.
$andor-Chicideanu M., 2003, Cu|Iura ZuIc 3rdc-Gar|a /arc. CcnIribu ii |a cuncaIcrca cpccii
brcnzu|ui |a Dun rca /ij|ccic i |nfcricar , vol. I-II, Ed. Nereamia Napocae, Cluj-
Napoca (2003).
$andor-Chicideanu M., Chicideanu I., 1993, Obscr.a ii asupra unor materiale ceamice inedite de
|a Dubc.ac af|aIc in cc|cc ii|c /uzcu|ui 3anaIu|ui ;Obscr.aIicns cn prc.icus|q unpub|isncd
pottery from Dubovac in the collections of the Banat Museum), in AnB (S.N.), II (1993),
151-169.
5imic J., 1987, Dalj-Livadicc, nasc|jc iz brcn ancgdcba. |sIrazi.anjc 1979. gcdinc. Pc|czaj |cka|iIcIa
i nisIcrijaI isIrazi.anja ;Da|j-Livadice; eine bronzezeitliche Siedlung. Untersuchungen im J.
1979), in Osjc ki Zbcrnik, XVIII-XIX (1987), 7-35.
5imic J., 1994, Early Hallstatt Horizon in North-Eastern Slavonia, in Symp. Alba Iulia, Alba Iulia
(1994), 197-218.
5imic J., 1998, |sIrazi.anjc |cka|iIcIa |cIfa|a u Osijcku. Kasnc brcn anc dcba isIc nc S|a.cnijc
(Explorations of Retfala locality in Osijek. The Late Bronze Age in Eastern Slavonia), in
Izdanja HAD-a, 19 (1998), 235-242.
Tasic, N., 1962a, Naselja kulture polja sa urnama u Vojvodini (Siedlungen der Urnenfelderkultur
im stlichen Teile Syrmiens), in RVM, 11 (1962), 127-144.
Tasic, N., 1962b, Belegi, Stara Pazova Praistorijskog naselje i nekropole, in ARHPREG, 4
(1962), 46-50.
Tasic N., 1963, SIcjica gumnc, 3c|cgis, SIara Pazc.a nekropola ravnih polja sa urnama, n
ARHPREG, 5 (1963), 50-52.
Tasic, N., 1965, Pozno eneolitskibronzanodobnii sloj starijeg gvozdenog doba na Gomolavi.
Iskopavanja 1965-1966 (Layers Belonging to the Late Eneolithic, Bronze and Iron Age
Periods at Gomolava), in RVM, 14 (1965), 177-228.
Tasic N., 1971, 3c|cgis siIcs prcnisIcriucs San inc, Gradac, SIcjica Gumnc, in Epoques
prhistorique ... (1971), 164-167.
Tasic N., 1972, Die Pannonische Tiefebene un der zentralbalkan am bergang von der mittleren in
die Spte Bronzezeit, n Balkanika, III (1972), 93-115.
Tasic N., 1974, Bronzano doba, in Praistorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad (1974).
Tasic N., 1983, Jugoslovensko Podunavlije od indoevropske seobe do prodora Skita, Novi Sad-
Beograd (1983).
Tasic, N., 1984a, /|a a faza 3c|cgis ku|Iurc i njcn pc|czaj u razncgu ku|Iura pczncg brcnzancg
doba u yugoslovenskom podunavlju (Die jngere Phase der Belegi-Kultur und ihre Lage in
der Entwicklung der Kulturen der Sptbronzezeit im jugoslawischen Donaugebiet), in
Balkanika, XV (1984), 33-44.
Tasic N., 1984b, Die Verbicioara-Kultur, in KFKNB(1984), 83-92.
259
Tasic, N., 1988, Bronze und ltere Eisenzeit auf Gomolava (Bronzano i gvozdeno doba na
Gomolavi)), in Gomolava, I (1988), 47-58.
Tasic N., 1989, Mittlere Bronzezeit im Jugoslawischen Donauraum (Srednje bronzano doba u
Jugosloveskom Podunavlju), in Godinjak Sarajevo, 25 (1989), 91-102.
Tasic, N., 1991, Prcis du dveloppment des cultures de la zone carpato-danubienne au II
e
millnaire
avant notre re (age du bronze), in Balkanika, XXII (1991), 7-29.
Tasic N., 1996, Das Problem der Funde von Szeremle im Banat und ihre Chronologie, in The
Yugoslav Danube Basin (1996), 147-183.
Tasic, N., 1998, Mittlere Bronzezeit im Jugoslawischen Donauraum, in Godinak Sarajevo, 25
(1998), 91-107.
Tasic N., 2001, The problem of the Belegi (Belegi-Cruceni, Belegi-Bobda) Culture. Genesis,
Duration and Periodization, in Festschrift fr Gheorghe LazaroviciZum 60. Geburstag,
H/, XXX, Ld. Mirton, Timioara (2OO1), 311-321.
Tasic N., 2002, The Necropolis at Belegi and Issue of the Belegi Culture, in Vranic Sv., Belegi,
SIcjica Gumnc nckrcpc|a spa|jcnin pckcjnika. 3c|cgis. SIcjica Gumnc A Necropolis of
Cremation Burials, Beograd (2002), 190-195.
Tasic N.N., Tasic N., 2003, Serbian Prehistoric Archaeology n the 1990s. State of Research, n
Recent Research ..., Thessaloniki (2003), 73-128.
Todorovic J., 1977, Praistorijska Karaburma II necropola bronzanog doba, Dissertationes et
Monographie, XIX, Beograd (1977).
Trbuhovic V.B., 1968, Problemi porekla i datovanja bronzanog doba u Srbiji, Arheoloki Institut
Posebna Izdanja, 4, Beograd (1968).
Trogmayer, O., 1992, Csorva-Belegi-Gva, in Balkanika, XXIII (1992), 351-357.
Uzelac J., 1996, Bronze Age in the South of the Yugoslavian Banat. History and the Present State of
Research, in The Yugoslav Danube Basin (1996), 23-42.
Uzelac J., 2002, |ncc|iI juzncg 3anaIa, Vrac (2002).
Vinski-Gasparini K., 1973, Ku|Iura pc|ja sa zarama u sjc.crncj Hr.aIskcj. Dic Urncnfc|dcrku|Iur
in Nordkroatien, Zadar (1973).
Vranic 5v., 2002, 3c|cgis, SIcjica Gumnc nckrcpc|a spa|jcnin pckcjnika 3c|cgis. SIcjica Gumnc
A Necropolis of Cremation Burials, Beograd (2002).
Vulpe Al., 1974, Prcb|cmc acIua|c pri.ind mcIa|urgia aramci i a brcnzu|ui in cpcca brcnzu|ui in
Romnia (Problmes actuels concernant la mtallurgie du cuivre et du bronze lpoque du
bronze sur le territoire roumain), in Revista de Istorie, 2, 27 (1974), 243-255.
Vukmanovic M., Popovic P., 1996, Predmeti kultne namene na nalazitima bronzanog doba na
crdapu ;Cu|I ObjccIs cn 3rcnzc Agc SiIcs in Inc |rcn GaIcs), in ZborNM, XVI/ 1 (1996),
89-99.
Wosinsky M., 1904, Az skcr mcszbcIcIcs disziIcsu agqagm .cscgc, Budapest (1904).

A
N
A
L
E
L
E

B
A
N
A
T
U
L
U
I
,

X
I
V
,

1
,

2
0
0
6

2
6
0

Pl. I : Map of spreading of Cruceni-Belegi anGXWR%UGR-Grla Mare cultures
261
1

2 3a

4 3b

Pl. II: Cruceni, grave no.32 (1), grave no.11 (2-4 )
262

Pl. III : Cruceni grave no.96 (2-4).
263

1a

1b

1c

Pl. IV : Peciu Nou: grave no. 48
264
1 2 3

Pl. V : Voiteni-Ciacova: ceramic fragments from the settlement (1-3); Foeni-Gomila Lupului II
ceramic fragments from the pit-dwelling house no.2/ 2000 (4 -12).
265
1 2 4.

3
5 6 7

8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15 16

Pl. VI : Foeni-Gomila Lupului II - ceramic fragments discovered in pit-dwelling houses
no.2/ 2000 (1-3) and no.1/ 2000 (4) ; Deta-Dud ric ceramic fragments discovered
in G.5, C.9 (5-9), G.7, C.13 (10), G.8, C.14 (11-16).
266
1 2

3 4
5
6 7

PI. VII : Dragina isolated finding (1-2), C taia (3), IIandza-Stoikova Zagrada, grave no. 2 (4);
Beograd-Karaburma, miniature clay house discovered in the grave no.157 (5-7).
267
1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

Pl. VIII : Beograd-Karaburma, gravo no. 61 (1) and no.277 (2), Svini a-PiaIra ||ic.ci, urn of
Cruceni- Belegi type, phase II (3); Belegi-Stojica gumno, grave no.78 (4) and no.58 (5);
Moorin-Stubarlija Surduk/Dukatar, grave no.17 (6).
268
1
2
3

Pl. IX : Vatin-Bele Vode, cremation grave discovered in 1893 (1-3).

2
6
9

Pl. X: Map of the archaeological sites with discoveries assigned to the Cruceni-Belegi
DQGXWR%UGR-Grla Mare cultures and to the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo cultural group
270

The Relations of The Cruceni-Belegiš Culture With The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relations of The Cruceni-Belegiš Culture With The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relations of The Cruceni-Belegiš Culture With The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What archaeological evidence suggests cultural relations between the Cruceni-Belegiș Culture and the Șimleu-Gârla Mare Culture?

What factors contributed to the formation of the Szeremle-Bijelo Brdo cultural group?

229

THE RELATIONS OF THE CRUCENI-BELEGI CULTURE

You might also like