Bronze Age Connectivity

in the Carpathian Basin

Proceedings of the International Colloquium
from Târgu Mureş

13–15 October 2016

BIBLIOTHECA MVSEI MARISIENSIS

SERIES ARCHAEOLOGIC A

XV

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMS

FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

Editor
SÁNDOR BERECKI
BRONZE AGE CONNECTIVITY
IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM

FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

13–15 October 2016

Edited by
BOTOND REZI
RITA E. NÉMETH

Editura MEGA
Târgu Mureș
2018
 © Mureş County Museum, 2018
Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Manager

Cover:
The Hasfalva Disc (Hasfalva/Haschendorf, Austria, 1914)
(Collection: Soproni Múzeum, Sopron; photo made by Géza Szabó, Wosinsky Mór Museum, Szekszárd)

Muzeul Judeţean Mureş

CP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328
Târgu Mureş, România

ISBN 978-606-020-058-1
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro
 Contents

Colin P. QUINN
The Potential of Network Approaches to Understand Connectivity and Complexity in Bronze Age
Transylvania and Carpathian Basin 9

Tobias L. KIENLIN
A Hero is a Hero is a ...? On Homer and Bronze Age Social Modelling 19

Nicole TAYLOR
Connectivity Despite Boundaries? Scaling Down Narratives of Connectivity Related to Bronze Age Fortified
Sites on the Central Hungarian Plain 33

Klára P. FISCHL
Settlement Structure as a Part of a Group’s Identity Markers 41

Robert STANIUK
The World Within a Household – Kakucs–Turján Mögött Case Study and the Interrelatedness of Middle
Bronze Age Pottery 55

Amy NICODEMUS
Pecica–Şanţul Mare: A Bronze Age Entrepȏt In The Lower Mureş Region 75

Marija LJUŠTINA, Katarina DMITROVIĆ

Balancing Traditional Values and Novelties: Middle Bronze Age Communities of Serbian Part of the
Carpathian Basin and their South-western Neighbours  87

Tibor-Tamás DARÓCZI
Bronzization and the Eastern Carpathian Basin 95

Gabriel BĂLAN, Colin P. QUINN, Gregory HODGINS

The Cultural and Chronological Context of the Bronze Age Cemetery from Sebeș–Între răstoace 183

József PUSKÁS
Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns and Metal Discoveries in the Valley of the Black River  217

Attila LÁSZLÓ
Differences in the Development of Cultural Changing Processes in the Late Bronze Age. Once more about
the Chronology of the Replacement of the Noua-Coslogeni Culture by the Succeeding Cultures in the Intra-
and Extra Carpathian Territories  279

Claes UHNÉR, Johannes KALMBACH, Svend HANSEN, Horia CIUGUDEAN

Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort 295

Tim PICCOLINI–Tobias L. KIENLIN

The Hero’s Sword: On Local Appropriation and Social ‘Institutions’ 305
Carol KACSÓ
Der Depotfund von Kriva und seine Stellung in der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit im Oberen Theissgebiet 317

Liviu MARTA, János NÉMETI

Bronze Hoards from Pir and Ciumeşti. Reflections of Cultural Mobility and Connectivity in the Carpathian
Region and the North-Western Balkans 329

Géza SZABÓ, Péter KUNFALVI, Mónika BÉKEFI

Local and Interregional Connections Through the Comparison of the Hasfalva Disc and the Balkåkra Disc 345

Abbreviations 361
 Geophysical Investigation and Settlement
Structure of the Teleac Hillfort

Claes UHNÉR
Romano-Germanic Commission
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
claes.uhner@dainst.de

Johannes KALMBACH
Romano-Germanic Commission
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
johannes.kalmbach@dainst.de

Svend HANSEN
German Archaeological Institute
Eurasia Department
Berlin, Germany
svend.hansen@dainst.de

Horia CIUGUDEAN
National Museum of the Union
Alba Iulia, Romania
horiaion2001@yahoo.com

Keywords: Teleac, Transylvania, Bronze Age, Iron Age, hillfort, settlement

structure, geophysical survey, fortifications, communication and trade.

Claes UHNÉR, Johannes KALMBACH, Svend HANSEN, Horia CIUGUDEAN

The Teleac hillfort
The Teleac hillfort is located on the eastern side of the Mureş River, some 5 km northeast of Alba
Iulia in southwestern Transylvania (Fig. 1). The settlement has a commanding position on a high bluff,
rising more than 100 m over the Mureş floodplain (Fig. 2). The basic layout of Teleac is made up of Jidovar
hill and the Gruşet plateau in the upper eastern and north-eastern parts of the hillfort, and the lower
southern settlement. Teleac’s northwestern part is covered by a dense forest and is not considered here.
The southeastern and northwestern sides of the site are demarcated by sharp ridges that are tied together
by a well preserved more than 600 m long earth rampart, which is further strengthen by a double ditch
system along the north eastern side of Jidovar hill and one or perhaps two ditches in front of the Gruşet
plateau (Ciugudean 2012, 107; Vasiliev et al. 1991, 23–32, pl. II–IV). The site’s western side facing the
floodplain is eroded, but judging from the steep terrain it is likely that it was easily defended. Linking the
southeastern and northwestern rims of the site with a ditch and rampart system was a cost-effective way to
create a well-fortified 30 ha area that utilised the defensive advantages offered by the natural contour lines.
Much of what is known of Teleac comes from large-scale investigations conducted between 1978
and 1987, when 45 long and narrow trenches were excavated in various parts of the site (Vasiliev et
al. 1991, fig.  4). These investigations established that the hillfort has three main occupational phases

Bronze Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin, 2018, p. 295–304

296 ‌| Claes Uhnér, Johannes Kalmbach, Svend Hansen, Horia Ciugudean

(Teleac I–III), starting in the 11th century BC

(late HaA) and ending in the 8th century BC
(HaC). This encompass the early phase of
the local Gáva culture to the Basarabi culture
(Ciugudean 2009; 2011; 2012; Boroffka
1994, 17; Vasiliev et al. 1991, 105–129).
The excavations in the 1970’s and 80’s
found 57 buildings (Vasiliev et al. 1991,
169). The majority are oval, about 50 cen-
timetre deep pit-buildings with diameters
between 3 to 4 meters. Surface structures
are poorly preserved and consist of seven to
twelve square metre accumulations of wattle
and daub mixed with charcoal (Vasiliev et
al. 1991, 38; Kemenczei 1984, 62; Marta
2009, 55–56). 11 hearths and 1 oven are asso-
ciated with the buildings (Vasiliev et al.
1991, 38–40). However, the narrow trenches
combined with Teleac’s large size made it
Fig. 1. Location of Teleac and sources of raw materials in
Transylvania (adapted from Boroffka 2009, fig. 1).
impossible to study the internal organisation
of the settlement in detail.
Recent geomagnetic prospection and excavation of the hillfort and adjoining areas north of the forti-
fication system have showed that there is a high agreement between magnetic anomalies recorded during
prospection and features found during excavation, and the combination of these two data sets makes it
possible to gain some tentative insights of the internal settlement pattern in Teleac and the use of adjacent
areas outside the fortification.

Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of the Teleac hillfort facing north-east. Jidovar hill with the rampart and double ditch
defensive system is on the left from where the road cuts the rampart. Gruşet plateau is on the right of the road.

Data acquisition, processing and basic interpretation of buildings and settlement structure
20.3 ha were surveyed in Teleac in 2016, divided into 7.1 ha north of the settlement and 13.2 ha inside
the fortification system (Fig. 3–4). Some areas of the hillfort ware not surveyed due to heavy vegetation
and steep terrain. Work was conducted with a 5-channel SENSYS MAGNETO®-MX ARCH magnetom-
eter mounted on a 2 m wide hand-drawn fiberglass carriage with the sensors mounted in 50 cm inter-
vals. Geo-referencing was made with a Leica D-GPS (GS09) with the rover on the magnetometer, which
enables data acquisition with RTK fix and a positional accuracy of (±0.02/±0.02 m) during prospection.
 Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort | 297

Fig. 3. 3D model and magnetogram of the Teleac hillfort. The outline of the fortification system is marked in black

Primary processing and data interpolation were made with the SENSYS DLMGPS and MAGNETO® –
ARCH software package, and post-processing was carried out in Oasis montage 8, producing a surfer7
GRID. Further analysis and generation of maps were performed in QGIS 2.14. The excavations were con-
ducted using single context methodology and documented in TachyCAD with a Leica total station that
allows detailed comparisons of the magnetogram and excavation results.
It is difficult to differentiate and understand various types of geomagnetic anomalies in Teleac using a
regular greyscale magnetogram because of the complex stratigraphy, where several features oftentimes are
located in the same area but at different depths in the cultural layers at the site. A contour map in combina-
tion with a false colour map of the geomagnetic grid, which displays anomalies based on nanotesla values
(nT) was therefore produced in GIS. Through this procedure it is possible to exclude buried metal objects
and other sources of interference, and more importantly to distinguish and gain a good overview of vari-
ous anomalies. Excavation of areas previously subjected to geophysical survey showed that there is a high
agreement between the magnetogram and archaeological features (Fig. 6), and through the integration of
these data-sets and using the excavated anomalies as a baseline for understanding other anomalies it is
possible to gain insight into the hillfort’s settlement structure.
Our focus in this paper is pit-buildings as this is the type of feature we have best information on.
They appear to have values ranging between 4 and 10 nT, and after excluding anomalies that fall outside
the normal size-range for pit buildings, a distribution map was generated (Fig.  4). This map should
not be seen as a definite statement regarding the settlement structure in Teleac as it only addresses one
feature type and as it is impossible to determine which buildings are contemporary. What appear to
be densely occupied areas may actually have had scattered buildings over a long period of time. That
said, the considerable build-up of cultural deposits indicate that most parts of the hillfort were densely
occupied or used for other settlement activities. It should also be noted that the function of pit buildings
is somewhat unclear, although recent excavations in Teleac seem to indicate that they were linked to
economic activities and not used as living quarters. Even though various cultures have different prox-
emic systems, the limited floor areas make these small pit-buildings unsuitable as family dwellings, as
a person typically require between 6 and 10 m2 of living space (Casselberry 1974, 119; Naroll 1962,
588). It therefore seems likely that people lived in surface structures, but because of their poor preserva-
tion in Teleac very little is known of their architecture. A ca 8 × 4 m large surface building was found
during the 2016 excavation campaign 300 m north of the hillfort, but this structure is dated to the 8th
century BC and thus somewhat younger than the end of the main occupation of the hillfort. Similar to
the surface buildings found during the excavations in the 80s, this building was badly preserved, but
298 ‌| Claes Uhnér, Johannes Kalmbach, Svend Hansen, Horia Ciugudean

Fig. 4. Topographic map of Teleac and plan of the geophysical survey conducted
in 2016 showing anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings: A. Jidovar Hill; B. Gruşet
plateau; C. Lower settlement; D. Northern fortifications; E. Southern ridge.

the outline could be recognised by a well-defined layer with inclusions of daub along the north-eastern
side and a shallow ditch filled with daub delimiting the south-western side. The structure had a hearth
in its eastern part. Only one shallow post hole was associated with the house, which is consistent with
previous surface buildings found in the hillfort. It seems that traditional post architecture was not used
in Teleac. Perhaps buildings had horizontal sleeper beams that lay directly on the ground, or were built
using mud-brick architecture (Uhnér 2017). Even though parts of the house are visible on the magne-
togram, it has so far been difficult to identify surface buildings using geophysics inside the hillfort, and
although a distribution of these structures would be an important component for understanding the
internal settlement structure in Teleac, at this point we have to make do with anomalies conforming
with pit-buildings. But despite these caveats, pit-buildings are good general indicators of Teleac’s settle-
ment structure, in particular when combined with anomalies corresponding with pits and fire instal-
lations as they reveal aspects of the organisation of space. Comparing the results from the excavations
with the geophysical measurements from the same areas, it appears that predominantly features from
the uppermost levels are recorded on the magnetogram, which in most parts of Teleac implies late Gáva
occupation as preserved Basarabi features are rare (Vasiliev et al. 1991; Ciugudean 2012; Uhnér
2017). This does not solve the contemporaneity problem (Schacht 1984), but although the anomalies
discussed in this paper may not be contemporary in a strict sense, it is at least possible to tentatively
understand aspects of the settlement structure.

Gruşet plateau
The northern part of the Teleac hillfort comprise of the Gruşet plateau that extends from Jidovar
hill in the east, along the northern defensive system, to the northwestern limit of the settlement where
the rampart turns south towards the Mureş valley. The plateau is flat near the rampart, and then starts to
gently slope towards the south. The area is demarcated in the south by a steep incline leading down to the
lower settlement (Fig. 5).
 Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort | 299

Fig. 5. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings on the Gruşet plateau.

Geophysical prospection of the plateau in 2016 shows a line of anomalies corresponding with our
criteria for pit-buildings located along the eastern part of the rampart. This resembles the situation with
the fortified settlement Felsőtárkány–Várhegy in north-eastern Hungary (Matuz 1992, 83; Metzner-
Nebelsick 2012, 430) and Smolenice–Molpír in western Slovakia (Stegmann-Rajtár 1998, 263–265;
Dušek–Dušek 1995), which both have buildings next to the fortification systems. South of these anoma-
lies there is a long, about 15 m wide stretch of land that is largely empty, which is followed by scattered pit-
buildings and several spherical anomalies about 1 to 2 m in size in the south of the plateau. A 10 × 10 m
trench was opened at the plateau based on information on the magnetogram, which in addition to a few
smaller features displayed a 4.5 × 2.5 m well defined anomaly in the south-western part of the excavation
area and a 3 × 2.5 m in the southeastern section. The two larger anomalies turned out to be pit buildings,
and their general outlines were visible directly below the 0.2 m thick top-soil together with a small hearth
and two pits in the northern part of the trench. These features account for the best defined anomalies on
the magnetogram inside the borders of the trench (Fig. 6). Although the 10 × 10 m trench is not yet exca-
vated down to the sterile, it appears that this section of the magnetogram mainly displays anomalies from
the same stratigraphic level, which in chronological terms belongs to the later Gáva occupation on the site
(Ciugudean 2012). Five fire installations were also found when excavating the pit-buildings, including a
well preserved up-draft pottery-kiln with the combustion chamber under the firing chamber and a large
oven with ventilation holes along the bottom of the hemispherical superstructure. But although these fire
installations were found inside the horizontal outlines of the pit-buildings, it appears they belong to an
earlier settlement phase.
Using the magnetogram and excavation results from the 10 × 10 m trench as a baseline, it seems that
the Gruşet plateau had row of pit-buildings along the rampart, whereas the area further south only had
dispersed buildings. Taking the occurrence and distribution of other magnetic anomalies into account,
there is a large concentration of features about 1 to 2 m in size around the pit-buildings at the central and
southern parts of the plateau. The excavations in the 1970s and 80s found fragments of several fire instal-
lations in the same area, which together with the various ovens and hearths from the 10 × 10 m trench
strongly indicates that this part of the settlement was used for activities involving high-temperature heat-
ing, such as pottery production and perhaps metalworking. Such an arrangement would make sense as
300 ‌| Claes Uhnér, Johannes Kalmbach, Svend Hansen, Horia Ciugudean

Fig. 6. Comparison of the magnetogram of the 10 × 10 m trench on the Gruşet

plateau and features found during excavation of the trench in 2016.

firewood could be transported from the Secașelor Plateau north-east of the settlement without having to
carry it uphill from the Mureș floodplain. Another advantage was the plateau’s removed position from
Jidovar hill and the lower settlement, and the open section of land which separated the area with fire
installations from the pit buildings along the Gruşet rampart, which limited the risk of fire spreading in
case of an accident. At this point it is unclear how long the plateau was used for high-temperature produc-
tion activities, but the 2 m deep cultural deposits along the rampart and 1.6 m thick accumulations further
south clearly illustrates an active, long-term use of space.

Jidovar hill
The highest part of the hillfort is made up of Jidovar hill in the east (Fig. 7). The hill comprises of a
lower section that slopes towards the Gruşet plateau, followed by three long and narrow terraces higher up
the slope, and a large area with flat terrain close to the hilltop. The highest part of the hill has a steep, earth
and timber tower construction. Jidovar hill seems to have formed a separate enclosed part of the fortifica-
tion system, and was the first part of the site that was fortified, shortly after the initial Gáva occupation
phase (Ciugudean 2012, 107, 112–113; Vasiliev et al. 1991, 27, pl. III–IV). The southeastern side of the
hill is made up of the steep southern ridge and the north-eastern section is delimitated by the double ditch
and box rampart system which runs down to the intersection where Jidovar hill meets the Gruşet Plateau.
Here the hill contour lines turn hard south-west before continuing in an arc towards the southern ridge.
A geophysical survey conducted in 2010 and 2011 documented a curvilinear band with low nT readings
and several spots of higher intensity, which seems to support the notion that Jidovar hill were enclosed
by a separate fortification system (Ciugudean 2012, 113; Uhnér 2017). The same curvilinear band was
also picked up by the geomagnetic survey conducted in 2016, although it should be noted that the spots of
higher intensity were not recorded.
The magnetogram generated in 2016 shows large amounts of settlement activities at the lower hill
section, followed by lesser activities on the two narrow terraces further uphill, whereas the flat area below
the tower at the top is largely empty of anomalies. That the latter area is lacking anomalies can perhaps
 Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort | 301

Fig. 7. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings at Jidovar hill.

be explained by the weather-exposed position high up on the hill, but the excavations in the 1980s docu-
mented up to 2 m deep cultural deposits just below the tower (Vasiliev et al. 1991, 27, pl. IV). It is likely
that these deposits at least in part were formed by erosion of the tower construction, but at this point it
is unclear if the flat area further westward also has cultural layers which were built up from activities not
resulting in variations in the magnetic field, or if the flat area lacks occupational deposits altogether.
Although no excavations were conducted at Jidovar hill following the geophysical prospection con-
ducted in 2016, it appears to be a good agreement between magnetic anomalies and features found in
the upper layers. In 2011 a 10 × 10 m trench was opened at the lower hill-slope (Uhnér 2017). Because
of time-constraints it was backfilled after defining the first level under the plough horizon, and the non-
excavated features are clearly recorded on the magnetogram.
It appears that the lower part of Jidovar hill and the first terrace uphill had a dispersed pattern of
pit-buildings, whereas the second and third terrace only had isolated buildings. The area with flat terrain
near the top of the hill is bare of buildings. This picture is consistent with other anomalies on the magne-
togram, which show a gradual decrease from the dense lower part of the hill to the largely empty upper
area. Intensive settlement activities at the lower hill section are also strongly indicated by the up to 160 cm
deep cultural layers documented in a recent sounding.

The lower settlement

The southern part of the site is made up of the lower settlement. It lies well protected in a depression
with gently rising sides below a steep incline leading up to the Gruşet plateau to the north and Jidovar hill
in the east. The western side of the lower settlement is delimited by a sharp drop down to the Mureş flood-
plain. The lower settlement has several small plots of land where vegetables and animal fodder are grown,
and it is the only part of the hillfort that is currently used for agriculture. Jidovar hill and the Gruşet pla-
teau have not been ploughed in modern times.
The magnetogram of the lower settlement is full of anomalies indicative of pit buildings, and it is obvi-
ous that this part of the site has the largest concentration of these features (Fig. 8). Unfortunately there
are a few narrow land strips that have not yet been surveyed which disturb the picture somewhat. But it
appears that the buildings are distributed into three or four large clusters together with a large number of
302 ‌| Claes Uhnér, Johannes Kalmbach, Svend Hansen, Horia Ciugudean

Fig. 8. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings in the lower settlement.

magnetic anomalies less than 2 m in size that probably are pits and various fire installations. Surrounding
these clusters are several mostly empty areas.
Despite the caveat that pit-buildings were not used for housing, it seems that the lower settlement was
the most densely occupied area in Teleac. This adds up as it is both the lowest and best weather protected
area of the settlement. It also makes sense from logistical grounds as it is the area closest to the river, which
was the hillfort’s primary water source, and because it is likely that the principal site catchment area was
located on the Mureş floodplain.

Areas north of the hillfort

The magnetogram of the surveyed areas immediately outside the northwestern part of the hillfort
is largely empty and signs of habitation first appear by a small creek 300 m north of the fortification sys-
tem. A 20 × 20 m trench was excavated adjacent to the creek based on information on the magnetogram.
Similar to the situation inside the hillfort, the features found in the 20 × 20 m trench had a high agreement
with anomalies on the magnetogram. They proved to belong to two chronological phases. The youngest
features and finds are from the Early Medieval period and include two well preserved pit-buildings. An
older occupation phase was found under a several decimetres thick colluvium and comprise of the previ-
ously mentioned HaD surface building and a few adjacent pits.

Concluding discussion
To reiterate some of the points made earlier, the magnetogram show intensive settlement activities
in almost all parts of the hillfort with flat terrain, whereas the up to 2 m deep cultural layers in the same
general areas demonstrates the long-term nature of these activities. There are however some noticeable
differences between various parts of the hillfort. The most densely occupied area was in the lower settle-
ment, while Jidovar hill had a more dispersed building pattern. Gruşet plateau stands out with a concen-
tration of buildings adjacent to the rampart followed by a large area that appears to have been used for
high-temperature production activities. The overall picture is then of an internal settlement organisation
where separate areas were used for different activities, and although Jidovar hill and Gruşet plateau do not
 Geophysical Investigation and Settlement Structure of the Teleac Hillfort | 303

appear to have been as densely occupied as the lower settlement, it seems that Teleac with its 30 ha had
a large permanently settled population perhaps reaching the low thousands. This begs the question, why
was Teleac so large and heavily fortified?
Transylvania is rich in mineral resources (Fig. 1; Boroffka 2009; Wollmann–Ciugudean 2005;
Harding–Kavruk 2013) and the Mureş valley is one of the main lines of communication that connects
the Transylvanian Plateau with the Pannonian Plain in the west. This makes it likely that much transpor-
tation and trade passed through the immediate region surrounding Teleac, and this strategic location
presented the hillfort’s population with possibilities to partake and profit from trade which facilitated
the growth of the settlement. The sheer size of the settlement is a strong indication that it was successful
in these endeavours, and that Teleac was an important hub for east – west trade between southeastern
Transylvania and surrounding regions. Teleac’s importance in this respect is further underscored by the
hillfort’s substantial fortification system (Uhnér 2017). One reason to build impressive defensive sys-
tems may be to display wealth and power to achieve higher status compared with neighbouring societies
(Renfrew 1986, 8), but to elect to do this with defensive constructions is at least in part connected to
functional military needs. That Teleac’s fortification system had real military value is emphasised by that
the land directly north of the rampart was kept open, which denied would-be attackers the use of built
up areas as cover in case of an assault. An important aspect of fortifications is of course that they provide
defence against aggression, but an additional feature of military strongholds is that they can be used to
control the immediate surrounding region, which in the case of Teleac also included transportation and
trade in the Mureş valley.
Against the background that fortified settlements were common in Central Europe throughout the
Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Rind 1999; Chropovský–Herrmann 1982; Jockenhövel 1990),
it seems there was a widespread need for defence, and as many of these sites are positioned along natural
communication lines they appear to be linked to an increasing amount and importance of trade (Earle
et al. 2015; Kristiansen 1998, 111–120). Settlements such as the Teleac hillfort had thus probably a dual
role: they provided defence against aggression and acted as power centres that controlled adjacent ter-
ritories and communication lines.

References

Boroffka 1994 Boroffka, N., Probleme der jungbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Ostungarn und
Westrumänien, IN: Ciugudean, H.–Boroffka, N.  (eds.), The early Hallstatt period
(1200–700 B.C.) in southeastern Europe. Proceedings of the international symposium
from Alba Iulia, 10–12 June, Alba Iulia, 7–23.
Boroffka 2009 Boroffka, N., Mineralische Rohstoffvorkommen und der Forschungsstand des urge-
schichtlichen Bergbaues in Rumänien, IN: Bartelheim, M.–Stäuble, H.  (Hrsg.), Die
wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas. The economic foundations of the
European Bronze Age, Rahden, 119–146.
Casselberry 1974 Casselberry, S., Further refinement of formulae for determining population from floor
area, WorldArch, 6, 1, 117–122.
Chropovský– Chropovský, B.–Herrmann, J., (Hrsg.), Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in
Herrmann 1982 Mitteleuropa, Berlin–Nitra.
Ciugudean 2009 Ciugudean, H., Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der befestigten Siedlung von Teleac,
Analele Banatului, 17, 65–85.
Ciugudean 2011 Ciugudean, H., Periodizarea culturii Gáva în Transilvania în lumina noilor cercetări,
Apulum, 48, 69–102.
Ciugudean 2012 Ciugudean, H., The chronology of the Gáva culture in Transylvania, IN: Blajer,
W. (Hrsg.), Peregrinationes archaeologicae in Asia et Europa Joanni Chochorowski dedi-
catae, Krakow, 107–121.
Dušek–Dušek 1995 Dušek, M.–Dušek, S., Smolenice–Molpír – Befestigter Fürstensitz der Hallstattzeit II,
Nitra.
Earle et al. 2015 Earle, T.–Ling, J.–Uhnér, C.–Stos-Gale, Z.–Melheim, L., The political economy and
metal trade in Bronze Age Europe: understanding variability in terms of comparative
advantages and articulations, EJA, 18, 4, 633–657.
304 ‌| Claes Uhnér, Johannes Kalmbach, Svend Hansen, Horia Ciugudean

Harding–Kavruk 2013 Harding, A.–Kavruk, V., Prehistoric production and exchange of salt in the Carpathian-
Danube Region, IN: Harding, A.–Kavruk, V. (eds.), Explorations in salt archaeology in
the Carpathian zone, Budapest, 209–217.
Jockenhövel 1990 Jockenhövel, A., Bronzezeitlicher Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Untersuchungen zur
Struktur frühmetallzeitlicher Gesellschaften, IN: Bader, T. (Hrsg.), Orientalisch-Ägä-
ische Einflüsse in der Europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums, Bonn,
209–228.
Kemenczei 1984 Kemenczei, T., Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns, Budapest.
Kristiansen 1998 Kristiansen, K., Europe before history, Cambridge.
Marta 2009 Marta, L., The Late Bronze Age settlements of Petea–Csengersima, Satu Mare.
Matuz 1992 Matuz, E., A kyjaticei kultúra földvára Felsőtárkány–Várhegyen, Agria, 27/28, 5–84.
Metzner-Nebelsick 2012 Metzner-Nebelsick, C., Social transition and spatial organisation: the problem of the
Early Iron Age occupation of the strongholds in Northeast Hungary, IN: Anreiter,
P.–Bánffy, E.–Bartosiewicz, L.–Meid, W.–Metzner-Nebelsick, C.  (eds.), Archaeologi-
cal, cultural and linguistic heritage: Festschrift for Erzsébet Jerem in honour of her 70th
birthday, Budapest, 425–448.
Naroll 1962 Naroll, R., Floor area and settlement population, AmAntiq, 27, 4, 587–589.
Renfrew 1986 Renfrew, C., Introduction: peer polity interaction and socio-political change, IN: Ren-
frew, C.–Cherry, J. (eds.), Peer polity interaction and socio-political change, Cambridge,
1–18.
Rind 1999 Rind, M., Höhenbefestigungen der Bronze- und Urnenfelderzeit: der Frauenberg oberh-
alb Kloster Weltenburg I, Regensburg.
Schacht 1984 Schacht, R., The contemporaneity problem, AmAntiq, 49, 4, 678–695.
Stegmann-Rajtár 1998 Stegmann-Rajtár, S., Spinnen und Weben in Smolenice–Molpír. Ein Beitrag zum
wirtschaftlichen und religiös-kultischen Leben der Bewohner des hallstattzeitlichen
Fürstensitzes, SlovArch, 46, 263–287.
Uhnér 2017 Uhnér, C., Teleac: defence and trade in a Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age hillfort
in Transylvania, IN: Heeb, B.–Szentmiklosi, A.–Krause, R.–Wemhoff, M. (eds.), For-
tifications: the Rise and Fall of Defended Sites in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age of
South-East Europe, Berlin, 205–216.
Vasiliev et al. 1991 Vasiliev, V.–Aldea, I. A.–Ciugudean, H., Civilizația dacică timpurie în aria intracarpa-
tică a României. Contribuții arheologice: așezarea fortificată de la Teleac, Cluj-Napoca.
Wollmann– Wollmann, V.–Ciugudean, H., Noi cercetari privind mineritul antic in Transilvania (I),
Ciugudean 2005 Apulum, 42, 95–116.

List of figures

Fig. 1. Location of Teleac and sources of raw materials in Transylvania (adapted from Boroffka 2009, fig. 1).
Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of the Teleac hillfort facing north-east. Jidovar hill with the rampart and double ditch
defensive system is on the left from where the road cuts the rampart. Gruşet plateau is on the right of the
road.
Fig. 3. 3D model and magnetogram of the Teleac hillfort. The outline of the fortification system is marked in black.
Fig. 4. Topographic map of Teleac and plan of the geophysical survey conducted in 2016 showing anomalies inter-
preted as pit-buildings: A. Jidovar Hill; B. Gruşet plateau; C. Lower settlement; D. Northern fortifications;
E. Southern ridge.
Fig. 5. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings on the Gruşet plateau.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the magnetogram of the 10 × 10 m trench on the Gruşet plateau and features found during
excavation of the trench in 2016.
Fig. 7. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings at Jidovar hill.
Fig. 8. Distribution of geomagnetic anomalies interpreted as pit-buildings in the lower settlement.
 Abbreviations

AAMT Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, New York

ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens, Cambridge University press
Acta Acta, Muzeul Național Secuiesc, Institutul de Sud-Est, Sfântu Gheorghe
Acta Siculica Acta Siculica. A Székely Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Sfântu Gheorghe
ActaAntArch Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, Szeged
ActaArch Carpathica Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Academia Scientiarum Polona Collegium Cracoviense,
Kraków
ActaArchHung Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest
ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
ActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău
ActaMPa Acta Musei Papensis, Pápa
ActaPraehistArch Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin
ActaTS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu
ACUISPP Atti del XIII Congresso dell’ Unione Internazionale dalle Scienze Preistoriche e Proto-
storiche, Forli
Adoranten Adoranten. Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art, Bohuslän
Aegaeum Aegaeum, Le service d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de la Grèce antique, Université
de Liège
Aegis Aegis. Actes de Colloques, Louvain
Agria Agria, Annales Musei Agriensis. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), Eger
AgroT Agrokémia és Talajtan, Budapest
ÄgypLev Ägypten und Levante: internationale Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie, Wien
AIARS Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, Athína
AJA American Journal of Archaeology. The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of Amer-
ica, Boston
Alba Regia Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, Székesfehérvár
Aluta Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
AmAnthropol American Anthropologist
AmAntiq American Antiquity, Washington, DC
AMNWD Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Oldenburg
Analele Banatului Analele Banatului S.N., Arheologie-Istorie, Timişoara
Angustia Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe
AnnalesHSS Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, Paris
AnnalesUA Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, Alba Iulia
AnnalesUVT Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Târgoviște
AnnHumBiol Annals Of Human Biology, Abingdon-on-Thames
ANODOS Studies of the Ancient World, Trnavska Univerzita
AnthropPaper Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
AntHung Antiquitatis Hungarica, Budapest
Antiquitas Antiquitas. Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und
provinzial-römischen Archäologie, Bonn
Antiquity Antiquity, London
AntJ The Antiquaries Journal, Cambridge
APR Allard Pierson Series, Amsterdam
Apulum Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
ARA Annual Review of Anthropology, Santa Cruz, USA

Bronze Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin, 2018, p. 361–366

362 ‌| Abbreviations

Archaeolingua SM Archaeolingua Seria Minor, Budapest

Archaeologia Archaeologia or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity, London
Archaeology Archaeology: a magazine dealing with the antiquity of the world, New York
Archaeometry Archaeometry, Oxford
ArchAntS Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
ArchAnzeiger Archäologischer Anzeiger, Berlin
ArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca, Wien
ArchBibStud Arcaheological and Biblical Studies, Atalanta
ArchD Archäologie in Deutschland, Darmstadt
ArchE Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am Rhein
Archeometriai Műhely Archeometriai Műhely elektronikus folyóirat, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest
ArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest
ArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest
ArchInfo Archäologische Informationen, Bonn–Heidelberg
ArchInt Archaeology International, London
ArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in
Mainz
ArchKözl Archaeológiai Közlemények, Budapest
ArchMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Berlin
ArchPolski Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, Lublin
ArchRom Archaeologia Romanica, Cluj-Napoca–Bistriţa
ArchRoz Archeologické Rozhledy, Prague
ArheoVest ArheoVest, ArheoVest Association Timișoara
ArhMold Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi
ARSIIPP Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protoistoria, Firenze
ASAtene Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente, Athína
ASGE Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad
ASM Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes, Instituti Archaeologici Nit-
riensis Academiae Scientiarum Slovacae, Nitra
AVsL Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Sibiu
Baltic-Pontic Studies Baltic-Pontic Studies. The Journal of Adam Mickiewicz University, Požnan
BAR British Archaeological Reports, International Series/British Series, Oxford
BAS Bibliotheca Archaeologica Istros. Seria Honoraria, Brăila
BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Athína
BCȘS Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia
BerBB Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege, München
BerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Frankfurt
BHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, Timișoara
BHAW Blackwell History of the Ancient World, Malden, Mass.
BIA Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London
BibAya Biblioteca Ayacucho, Caracas
BibTyr Biblioteca Tyragetia, Chișinău
BIP Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale Tulcea
BIS Balkanološki Institut Sanu: Posebna Izdanja, Beograd
BM Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia Mare
BM Apulensis Bibliotheca Mvsei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
BMA Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, Piatra Neamţ
BMÉ A Bihari Múzeum Évkönyve, Berettyóújfalu
BMM Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria(es) Archaeologica, Târgu Mureș
BMNAB Biblioteca Muzeului Naţional de Antichităţi din Bucureşti
BMOP British Museum Occasional Paper, London
BMS Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
BSC Bibliothèque de Sociologie Contemporaine, Paris
 Abbreviations | 363

BSTN Bead Study Trust Newsletter, Oxford

BT Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureşti
BUA Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, Alba Iulia
BudRég Budapest Régiségei, Budapesti Történeti Múzeum
CA Cercetări Arheologice, București
CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Cambridge
Carpica Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă „Iulian Antonescu”, Bacău
CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
CentEuJChem Central European journal of chemistry, Berlin–Warsaw
CH Colecţia Historia, Baia Mare
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden–Boston–Köln
ComArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest
Corviniana Corviniana. Acta Musei Corviniensis, Hunedoara
Crisia Crisia, Muzeului Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea
CritInq Critical Inquiry, Chicago
CsSzMÉ Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve, Miercurea Ciuc
Cumidava Cumidava, Muzeul de Istorie Brașov
CurrAnth Current Anthropology, Chicago
Dacia S.N. Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948),
Bucureşti; Nouvelle Série (N.S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene,
Bucureşti
Danubius Revista Muzeului de Istorie Galaţi
DDMÉ A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve. Annales Musei Debreceniensis de Friderico Déri
nominati, Debrecen
DissArchBudapest Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eöt-
vös nominatae, Budapest
DissPann Dissertationes Pannonicae, ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de
Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, Budapest
DM Dissertationes et Monographie, Beograd
DolgCluj Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Cluj-Napoca
DolgSzeged Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Ferencz József-Tudományegyetem Archeologiai
Intézetéből (1925–1936)/ Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Ferencz József Tudományegy-
etem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből (1937–1940)/ Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Horthy
Miklós Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetéből (1941–1943), Szeged
EA Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens, Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Berlin
EAZ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, Berlin
EcoAnthr Economic Anthropology, Society for Economic Anthropology, Fort Collins
EJA European Journal of Archaeology, Cambridge
ELS Edinburgh Leventis Studies, Edinburgh
EMEÉ Erdélyi Múzeum-Egylet Évkönyvei, Cluj-Napoca
EphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
ERAUL Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège
ErdMúz Erdélyi Múzeum. Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egylet Történelmi Szakosztályának Közlönye,
Cluj-Napoca
EthnoMittUng Ethnologische Mitteilungen aus Ungarn. Illustrierte Zeitschrift für die Völkerkunde
Ungarns und der damit in ethnographischen Beziehungen stehenden Länder, Budapest
FAA Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft, Rahden/Westf.
FAH Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Budapest
FAS Freiburger Archäologische Studien, Rahden/Westf.
FI File de istorie, Bistriţa
FolArch Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Budapest
FUB Freiburger Universitätsblätter, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
GAT Gothenburg Archaeological Theses, Göteborg
Geoarchaeology Geoarchaeology, an International Journal
364 ‌| Abbreviations

Geochronometria Geochronometria. Journal on Methods and Applications of Absolute Chronology

Georeview Georeview: Scientific Annals of Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava
Germania Germania, Frankfurt am Main
GFW Geschichte: Forschung und Wissenschaft, Hamburg–Münster
GG Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Historische Sozialwissenschaft, Berlin
GlassTech Glass Technology, Sheffield
GPMHQP Grabungen des Pelizaeus-Museums Hildesheim in Qantir-Piramesse, Hildesheim
Gyulai Katalógusok Gyulai Katalógusok, Gyula
HDL Human Development in Landscapes, Bonn
Hesperia Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton
HistTheo History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History, Hoboken, NJ
HOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc
HungArch Hungarian Archaeology e-journal
IA Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.
ICA Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, New York
IEMA Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology Distinguished Monograph
Series, Albany
IPH Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Budapest
Iraq Iraq, Cambridge
Istros Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila
IUPPS International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli
JAA Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Jahrbuch RGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz
JahrIVUF Jahresbericht des Institut für Vorgeschichte des Universität Frankfurt a. M.
JAMÉ A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza
JAMT Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
JAR Journal of Archaeological Research
JAS Journal of Archaeological Science
JBS Journal of Baltic Studies. Journal of the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Stud-
ies, Seattle
JCA Journal of Conflict Archaeology, Glasgow
JEA Journal of European Archaeology, Durham
JEgypArch The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, London
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology, Leeds, Mass
JGS Journal of Glass Studies, Corning, New York
JICA Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, London
JIES The Journal of Indo-European Studies, Hattiesburg, Miss.
JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Sheffield
JMV Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, Berlin
JQS Journal of Quaternary Science, Hoboken, USA
JSA Journal of Social Archaeology
JWP Journal of World Prehistory
KBAK Kölner Beiträge zu Archäologie und Kulturwissenschaften, Bonn
Korall Korall, Társadalomtörténeti folyóírat, Budapest
KorrblVsL Korrespondenzblatt des Vereins für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, Sibiu
Közlemények Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti-, Művészeti- és Néprajzi Tárából,
Cluj-Napoca
Kulturbericht Burgenland Kulturbericht des Amtes der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Eisenstadt
MAA Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry: international journal, Rhodes
MAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien
Marisia Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş
Marmatia Marmatia, Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean Maramureş, Baia Mare
MBGAEU Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte,
Berlin
 Abbreviations | 365

MCA S.N. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti

MemAnt Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti
MFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Szeged
Millenni Millenni. Studi di Archeologia Preistorica, Roma
MonCRA Monographie du Collection de Recherches Archéologiques, Paris
MonOUCA Monograph. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford
MonWA Monographs in World Archaeology, Madison
Mousaios Mousaios, Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Muzeul Brăilei, Buzău
MSVF Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Marburg
Musaica Musaica, Universitas Comeniana, Zbornik Filozofickej Fakulty, Bratislava
Muse Muse. Annual of the Museum of Art and Archaeology University of Missouri
MúzFüz Csongrád Múzeumi Füzetek Csongrád
MúzKönyvÉrt Múzeumi és Könyvtári Értesítő. A Múzeumok és Könyvtárak Orsz. Főfelügyelőségének
és Országos Tanácsának Hivatalos Közlönye, Budapest
NachrichtenDA Nachrichten über deutsche Altertumsfunde, Berlin
NAR Norwegian Archaeological Review, Abingdon-on-Thames
Nature Nature. The international weekly journal of science, London
Nemere Nemere, Sfântu Gheorghe
Offa Offa, Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalter-
archäologie, Neumünster
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Oxford
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Louvain
OREA Oriental and European Archaeology, Wien
Ősrégészeti levelek Ősrégészeti levelek. Prehistoric newsletter, Budapest
OTTÉ Orvosi- és Természettudományi Értesítő, Cluj-Napoca
OZBH Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Berg- und Hüttenwesen, Wien
PAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, München
PAT Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum, Institute of Archaeology and Art His-
tory Cluj-Napoca
PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London
Peuce S.N. Peuce. Serie Nouă. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie și Arheologie, Tulcea
Philia Philia. International Journal of Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Istanbul
PhysChemMin Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, Berlin–Heidelberg
PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Washington, DC
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, London
Preistoria Alpina Preistoria Alpina, Rivista scientifica del Museo delle Scienze, Trento
PZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin
QatStud Qaṭna-Studien: Supplementa, Wiesbaden
QPC Quadernos de Prehistoria Castellana, Madrid
Recherces Archéologiques Recherces Archéologiques, Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University,
Kraków
RégFüz Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest
RevBis Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud, Bistrița
Revista Arheologică Revista Arheologică, Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural, Chișinău
RGZM Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien, Bonn–Mainz
RGZMTag Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz – Tagungen, Mainz
SAM Sheffield Archaeological Monographs, Sheffield
SANU Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Balkanološki Institut Posebna Izdanja, Beograd
SAO Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa, Berlin
Savaria Savaria Pars Archaeologica, a Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, Szombathely
SAX Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Budapest
SBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bonn
Science Science, Washington
366 ‌| Abbreviations

SciRep Scientific Reports, London

SCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), Bucureşti
SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göteborg
SIMAL Studies in Mediterranean archaeology and literature: Pocket-book, Uppsala
SK Sapientia Könyvek, Cluj-Napoca
Skalk Skalk, Aarhus
SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia, Nitra
Soproni Szemle Soproni Szemle. A Soproni Városszépítő Egyesület helytörténeti folyóirata
Specimina EA Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis, Pécs
SPP Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze
SSAA Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, Sheffield
StCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare
StCom Sibiu Studii şi Comunicări, Muzeul Brukenthal, Sibiu
StudAntArch Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iași
StudArchHist Publications from the National Museum: Studies in Archaeology & History, København
Studia Troica Studia Troica, Universität Tübingen
Studii de Preistorie Asociaţia Română de Arheologie, Bucureşti
StudIstTrans Studii de Istorie a Transilvaniei 2, Seria Istorie, Oradea–Cluj-Napoca
StudUniv Babeş-Bolyai Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Seria Geologia, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca
SympThrac Symposia Thracologica, Institutul Român de Tracologie, Bucureşti
SzMMÉ A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv (1973–1990), Szolnok
SzVMK A Szegedi Városi Múzeum Kiadványai, Szeged
Talanta Talanta. The International Journal of Pure and Applied Analytical Chemistry, Amster-
dam
TAS Les Travaux de l’Année Sociologique, Paris
TAT Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, Tübingen
TermKözl Természettudományi Közlöny. Havi Folyóirat Közérdekű Ismeretek Terjesztésére,
Budapest
Terra Sebus Terra Sebus, Acta Musei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
Thraco-Dacica Thraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, Bucureşti
TI Tyragetia International, Chişinău
Tibiscum S.N. Tibiscum. Seria Nouă, Caransebeş
Tisicum Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, Szolnok
Történelmi Szemle Történelmi Szemle. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóköz-
pont Történettudományi Intézet, Budapest.
TPA Theses and Papers in Archaeology, Stockholm
Tyragetia Tyragetia S.N., Anuarul Muzeului Naţional de Istorie al Moldovei, Chişinău
UPA Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn
VAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest
Vasárnapi Újság Vasárnapi Újság, Budapest
VDBMB Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum, Bochum
VF Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, Berlin
VMK Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, Wien
WorldArch World Archaeology, Abingdon-on-Thames
Zephyrvs Zephyrvs, Universidad de Salamanca
ZfE Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Berlin
Ziridava Ziridava, Studia Archaeologica, Muzeul Arad
Археологія Археологія, Kiev
Старинар Старинар. Орган Српског Археолошког Друштва, Beograd
Старинар H.C. Старинар. Орган Археолошког Института – Нова Серија, Beograd
ТКИЧп Труды Комиссии по Изучению Четвертичного периода, Vil’njus