See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342076534

Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Article in Praehistorische Zeitschrift · May 2020

DOI: 10.1515/pz-2020-0010

CITATIONS READS

12 1,373

1 author:

Dragos Diaconescu
National Museum of Banat, Romania, Timisoara
34 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dragos Diaconescu on 15 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

  Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2020; 95(1): 17–47
Abhandlung
Dragoș Diaconescu*
Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2020-0010
Zusammenfassung: In Siebenbürgen kann der ältere Hori­
zont der Tumuli-Gräberfelder mit Kulturphänomen der
frühen Bronzezeit verbunden werden (Kulturgruppen
Livezile/Bedeleu, Șoimuș und Copăceni). Einige Ent­
deckun­gen aus der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts
wurden ursprünglich der Ockergrabkultur zugerechnet
(Câmpia Turzii, Cipău, Răscruci). Die archäologischen
Untersuchungen in Silvașu de Jos (Landkreis Hunedoara)
sowie ältere und jüngere Entdeckungen in Bodo, Bucova
Pusta IX und Bucova Pusta IV belegen, dass die Yamnaya-
Kultur das untere und mittlere Mureștal als Verbindungs-
weg von Zentral- und West-Siebenbürgen zur Theiß-Ebene
nutzte. Zeitlich läßt sich dieser Befund mit der frühen
Bronzezeit synchronisieren.
Kombiniert man nun die Beobachtungen in der Theiß-
Ebene und an der unteren Donau (Trnava, Bulgarien), so
zeigt sich, dass die Anlage von Hügelbestattungen auch in
Siebenbürgen der Yamnaya-Kultur vorausgeht, dies basie-
rend auf den Ergebnissen von Cheile Aiudului sowie jüngst
in Silvașu de Jos. Zu verstehen ist dies als Beleg der Nut-
zung der Tumuli seitens der Coțofeni III-Gemeinschaften.
Schlüsselwörter: Tumulus, Yamnaya-Kultur, Coțofeni-
Kultur, Siebenbürgen, Körperbestattung, Brandbestattung
Résumé: L’horizon ancien des nécropoles de tumuli de
Transylvanie était lié aux cultures du Bronze ancien
(groupes culturels de Livezile/Bedeleu, Șoimuș and
Copăceni). Certaines découvertes faites durant la deu-
xième moitié du 20e siècle lors de recherches sur les
Scythes furent attribuées à la culture des Tombes à ocre
(Câmpia Turzii, Cipău, Răscruci). Les recherches archéolo-
giques effectuées à Silvașu de Jos (district de Hunedoara) –
et les découvertes plus ou moins récentes faites à Bodo,
Bucova Pusta IX et Bucova Pusta IV – démontrent que la
culture Yamnaya a emprunté la moyenne et basse vallée
du Mureș. Ce corridor relie en effet les découvertes effec-
tuées en Transylvanie occidentale et centrale à celles de
*Corresponding author: Dr. Dragoş Diaconescu, National ­Museum
of Banat, Archaeology, Huniade Square, no. 1, Timişoara, Romania.
E-mail: goshu_d@yahoo.com.
la plaine de Tisza. Cet événement est contemporain des
premières manifestations du Bronze ancien. Et en com-
plément des observations faites dans la plaine de Tisza
et le long du Bas-Danube (Trnava, Bulgarie), les résultats
obtenus à Cheile Aiudului et récemment à Silvașu de Jos
montrent très bien que les tumuli étaient déjà à la mode
dans les communautés Coțofeni III, précédant donc aussi
la culture Yamnaya en Transylvanie.
Mots-clés: tumuli, culture Yamnaya, culture Coțofeni,
Transylvanie, inhumation, incinération
Summary: The older horizon of the tumuli cemeteries
from Transylvania were connected with the Early Bronze
Age cultural phenomenon (Livezile/Bedeleu, Șoimuș and
Copăceni cultural groups). Some of the discoveries made
especially during the second half of the 20th century while
searching for the Scythians were considered as belong-
ing to the Ochre Grave Culture (Câmpia Turzii, Cipău,
Răscruci). The archaeological research from Silvașu de
Jos (Hunedoara county), together with the older and more
recent discoveries from Bodo, Bucova Pusta IX and Bucova
Pusta IV, prove that the Lower and Middle Mureș valley
were used as a path by the Yamnaya Culture, connecting
the discoveries from central and western Transylvania to
those from the Tisza Plain. This event is contemporary
with the earliest manifestation of the Early Bronze Age.
Moreover, completing again the observations made on
the Tisza Plain and Lower Danube (Trnava, Bulgaria), it is
clear that the barrow trend precedes the Yamnaya Culture
also in Transylvania, based on the results from Cheile
Aiudului and, recently, Silvașu de Jos, showing that the
barrows were used by the Coțofeni III communities.
Keywords: barrows, Yamnaya culture, Coțofeni culture,
Transylvania, inhumation, cremation
Rezumat: Necropolele tumulare timpurii din Transilvania
au fost legate îndeobște de manifestările caracteristice
Bronzului Timpuriu (grupurile culturale Livezi/Bedeleu,
Șoimuș și Copăceni). Câteva dintre descoperirile de acest
gen, făcute în mod special în a doua jumătate a secolu-
lui al XX-lea, în căutarea sciților, au fost considerate ca
aparținând Culturii Mormintelor cu Ocru (Câmpia Turzii,
18 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Cipău, Răscruci). Cercetările arheologice de la Silvașu
de Jos (județul Hunedoara) împreună cu descoperiri
mai vechi sau de dată recentă cum sunt cele de la Bodo,
Bucova Pusta IX și Bucova Pusta IV arată faptul că valea
inferioară și mijlocie a Mureșului a fost folosită de cultura
Yamnaya, conectând astfel descoperirile din zona centrală
și vestică a Transilvaniei cu cele din câmpia Tisei. Aceste
evenimente sunt contemporane cu cele mai vechi manifes-
tări ale Bronzului Timpuriu din vestul României. Mai mult
decât atât, completând încă o dată observațiile din câmpia
Tisei și Dunărea de Jos (Trnava, Bulgaria), este clar faptul
că moda mormintelor tumulare precede cultura Yamnaya
și în Transilvania, aspect demonstrat de descoperirile de la
Cheile Aiudului și, mai nou, Silvașu de Jos, situri ce arată
utilizarea tumulilor de către comunitățile Coțofeni III.
Keywords: tumuli, cultura Yamnaya, cultura Coțofeni,
Transilvania, inhumație, cremație
1 Introduction
The Indo-Europeanisation of Europe is generally con-
nected with the arrival of the Kurgan people1 from the
eastern steppes. The archaeological culture representa-
tive for this migration2 is the so-called Yamnaya/Pit Grave/
Kurgan Wave III/Late Ochre Grave Culture. One of the most
characteristic elements for this archaeological culture
were the funerary mounds which covered primary or sec-
ondary graves, where the skeletons lay predominantly
supine with bent knees, oriented west-east and hosted
by funerary chambers (oval or rectangular in shape) with
stone or wooden beam lids, funerary chambers interpreted
generally as a house of the dead.
2 Research background
Since 1872, the Society of History and Archaeology, the
forerunner of what is now the National Banat Museum
of Timișoara, has prioritised the research of the earthen
mounds in the Banat region3. Since then, Kislégy Gyula
Nagy has excavated in 47 mounds from the area of the
following parishes: Dudeștii Vechi, Cenad, Sânnicolau
1 Gimbutas 1993, 205–206.
2 See for new opinions regarding this concept Kristiansen et al. 2017,
337 and Heyd 2017, 354.
3 Medeleț/Toma 1997, 14.
Mare, Teremia Mare, Tomnatec, Vizejdia and Nerău4. It
is important to mention here the activity of F. Medeleț
and I. Bugilan, which were compiled into a comprehen-
sive study5 written in Romanian. A total of 135 mounds or
groups of mounds were mapped by these two researchers
and 104 mounds or groups of mounds not checked in the
field, but identified from cartographic and bibliographi-
cal sources, were established6. After the publication of this
study, unfortunately, this topic was left aside.
Still, even if eight of the discoveries from Romanian
Banat and western Transylvania were to be assigned to
the Yamnaya Culture, this territory is not accordingly rep-
resented on the maps of the Yamnaya Culture.7 For Roma-
nian Banat, three discoveries (Bucova Pusta IX8, Bucova
Pusta IV9 and Bodo10) and for western Transylvania five
discoveries (Cîmpia Turzii11, Cipău12, Răscruci,13 Agriș14 and
4 Medeleț/Bugilan 1987, 100. The authors underlined the methodo-
logical lack in excavation’s technique.
5 Ibid.
6 See ibid., map between pp. 102–103.
7 See for example Kaiser/Winger 2015, Fig. 1; Ivanova 2013, Fig. 1;
Kristiansen et al. 2017, 337, suggest that after 3000 BC the pastoral
economy of Yamnaya type covers the eastern central European terri-
tories: Hungary, Bulgaria and Transylvania; even if they are north of
Bulgaria, in Romanian Walachia and Moldavia, a consistent number
of Yamnaya barrows were also found (see Frînculeasa et al. 2015 and
Burtănescu 2002).
8 Nagy 2015, 151. No. 5 on Figure 1 in the present study.
9 Krauss et al. 2016, 298–302. No. 5 on Figure 1 in the present study.
10 Stratan 1974, 71–74. No. 6 on Figure 1 in the present study.
11 Ferenczi 1974, 127–135; Crișan et al. 1992, 117–118. The name of the
site is Gîlmea de pe șes and it is situated ca. 1 km SSW of the modern
train station of Câmpia Turzii. The description presented allows us
to consider that the grave discovered here is a primary one, the ori-
entation being SW-NE. The position of the body was supine with the
legs in the so-called frog position. The presence of organic material is
mentioned. The lack of inventory is underlined and the presence or
absence of ochre is doubtful (e. g. Ciugudean 2011; Vasiliev 1980 are
mentioning the presence of the ochre, but Popescu 1968 and Crișan
et al. 1992, 117–118 do not mention its presence in this grave). No. 9 on
Figure 1 in the present study.
12 Vasiliev 1980, 36. Lazăr 1995, 156 cat. no. XLVII,2.D.b. A detailed
description is missing. They mention an ochre-grave identified in the
central area of a small tumulus situated into a group of tumuli near
the train station from Cipău. No. 8 on Figure 1 in the present study.
13 Crișan et al. 1992, 327 cat. no. 3 Fig. 191. Name of the site: Glimeie.
A group of three, flattened tumuli. The largest one was excavated
in 1970 by V. Vasiliev. A detailed description is missing, being men-
tioned only the presence here of an ochre grave. No. 11 on Figure 1
from present study.
14 Diaconescu 2012, 27–30. The description of this double grave from
the site Măgura Agrișului exhibits, except for the presence of ochre,
all the characteristics of the Yamnaya Culture graves. The pit of the
grave is rectangular in shape, its dimension measuring 1.78 × 0.80 m.
The orientation was W-E, one of the skeletons was lying on its back,
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania 19

Fig. 1: light green circle: Livezile group tumuli sites; pink circles: Ochre Grave Culture tumuli sites;
black circles: anthropomorphic stelae sites; green circles: Coțofeni Culture tumuli sites (the ground map,
fragment from Kaiser/Winger 2015, Map 1).

Silvașu de Jos15) present the attributes for being in-
corporated into the Yamnaya phenomenon (Figure 1,
nos. 5–11).
Volker Heyd considers the Banat area to be part of
the western zone of distribution for the Yamnaya Culture,
though only one discovery from Romanian Banat is rep-
resented on the general map (i. e. Bodo)16. Western Tran-
sylvania is seen as a possible sixth area of distribution
of the western zone, but with uncertainty regarding the
discoveries from Răscruci and Cipău and only one secure
site: Cîmpia Turzii17. If, indeed, detailed descriptions for
the discoveries from Răscruci and Cipău are missing, the
sites from Cîmpia Turzii, Agriș and Silvașu de Jos display
certain features characteristic for the Yamnaya phenom-
enon. If the position of the secure sites from Romanian
Banat and western Transylvania is to be followed (see
Figure 1), it is clear that, between the milestones estab-
lished by the sites from Bucova Pusta, Bodo, Silvașu de
Jos and Cîmpia Turzii, other funerary sites specific for this
cultural phenomenon should be found.

with its legs in the frog-like position; the other one is slightly contract-
ed on its left side, with flexed legs. No. 10 on Figure 1. 17 Ibid. 538 and Fig. 1. In the same source is also located the Livezile-
15 Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, 108–110. No. 7 on Figure 1. Baia site, representative for the Early Bronze Age Livezile cultural
16 Heyd 2011, Fig. 1. group.
20 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Here it is important to discuss again the anthropomor-
phic stelae discovered in Transylvania18 connected to the
North Pontic finds. Thus, these kind of items were found in
Baia de Criș19, Florești-Polus20, Gherla21, Ciceu-Mihăiești22
(nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 from Figure 1 accordingly, from the south
towards north). The stelae from Baia de Criș and Ciceu-Mi-
hăiești show clear analogies with items incorporated into
Natalevka type23, the only difference being the absence of
the head representation in Baia de Criș’s menhirs, a detail
which is considered either an accident or intentional24. For
the fragmentary statue from Gherla, the best analogy is
the stela from Antonovka, connected to Yamnaya graves25.
18 See Ciugudean 2011, 27–28.
19 Téglás 1885, 16–20; Pârvan 1925, 422–429; Alexandrescu 1963,
145–149; Floca 1966, 41–50; Rișcuța 2001, 139–167. Four anthropomor-
phic stelae were accidentally found here, three of them in 1881 and
the fourth one in 2000. Even if the first three items were considered to
belong either to the Dacian civilization (e. g. Téglás 1885, Floca 1966),
either to the beginning of the Bronze Age (Pârvan 1925 or Alexan-
drescu 1963), a comprehensive analysis done by Rișcuța 2001, 148
assigns all four stelae to the Nataljevka sub-type in Telegin’s typol-
ogy (see Telegin 1987, 41 Bild 2 – here it is necessary to underline
that in Telegin 1987, 41 where his typological chart is presented, he
named the sub-type IIa as Nataljewka and IIb as Kasanki type, but
the Bild 2 legend contradicts the text, so sub-type IIa is Kasanki and
IIb is Nataljewka). The error from Telegin 1987, 41 was perpetuated by
Rișcuța 2001, 48, where the author considers that the anthropomor-
phic stelae from Baia de Criș belong to the sub-type IIa, labeling them
as belonging to the Nataljewka type.
20 Rotea 2009, 15; Rotea et al. 2014, 30–31. This fragmentary menhir
was found on the perimeter of the stone ring which encircled Tumu-
lus R1 from Florești/Polus, (see Rotea 2009, 15). According to Rotea
et al. (2014, 30–31), Tumulus R1 hosts five inhumation graves, one of
which (grave M1) was dated via AMS: Beta 317258: 3930±30 BP. Ciu-
gudean 2011, 28, presumes that the anthropomorphic stela was con-
nected to a tumulus belonging to a Yamnaya-related group, disturbed
by secondary Early Bronze Age graves and relocated near the stone
slabs of the outer ring.
21 Orosz 1904, 405–408. Ciugudean 1982, 60–61, Rișcuța 2001, 144.
This fragmentary stela is considered to belong to the Type I in Tel-
egin’s typology (Telegin 1987, 41 Bild 2), this type being considered
as a primitive/simple one, lacking any pictorial representations. An-
other statue of the same type was mentioned as being discovered at
Sărata (Bistrița/Năsăsud county) according to Alexandrescu (1963,
149) and Rișcuța (2001, 144), but no graphic representation of this
item was published.
22 Rotea 2004, 74 and Fig. 1. This stela was accidentally found in
1968 or 1969. Ciugudean (2011) considers this item as belonging to the
sub-type IIb from Telegin’s typology.
23 Telegin/Mallory 1994, Fig. 7,10.
24 Ibid. 10; Rișcuța (2001, 142) considers that, probably, the head
was manufactured separately. Floca (1966, 43) considers that the
head was likely broken in ancient times, the argument for this being
the shaping up of the neck. This assertion is strongly supported by
the menhirs published in Floca (1966, Pl. B and especially C).
25 Telegin/Mallory 1994, Fig. 3,6.
The menhir from Pianu de Jos was published as be-
longing to the Iron Age26, but quite recently this object was
revaluated and considered with probability as a primitive
type of anthropomorhic-stela27.
The existence of these types of anthropomorphic
stelae located in areas with significant territorial connec-
tion to funerary mounds exhibiting Yamnaya elements
(see Figure 1) is a good collateral argument for the pres-
ence of this cultural phenomenon in the intra-Carpathian
area, as well.
Using the existing literature and recent field survey
results, a total of 320 sites defined by the presence of
mounds are possible to be registered in the area of Roma-
nian Banat and western Transylvania (see Figure 2). In 290
cases, the number of mounds is specified and the number
of counted mounds is 583. For 30 sites, mentioned in the lit-
erature, there are no indications for the number of mounds.
Taking into account a minimum number of mounds/site
(i. e. 1), at least 30 more mounds can be considered. Thus,
a minimal estimation for the number of the mounds from
western Transylvania and Romanian Banat is 613.
For 220 sites, no cultural attribution is available, but
their precise geographical position is known. Sixty-two
sites have no cultural attribution and no precise geograph-
ical position. Thirty-eight sites have a precise location
and cultural attribution (four are assigned to Coțofeni
culture, eight to Yamnaya/Ochre Grave Culture and 27 to
the Livezile-Bedeleu/Șoimuș/Copăceni cultural groups).
A total of 63 mounds were investigated by archaeological
excavation.
3 Case study: Silvașu de Jos
The research on the site of Silvașu de Jos – Dealu Țapului
started in 2006 as part of a rescue excavation project. The
site is situated on an interfluve separating the valleys of
the Cerna and Strei rivers. The watershed divide is in the
form of a reverse “Y” letter, with the vertical part oriented
south-north (see Figure 10).
In 2006, seven mounds were identified28, more or less
in the central, unforested area of the interfluve. From 2007
on, the archaeological excavation was included into sys-
tematic project. Later on in 2011, another three mounds
(M8–M10) were identified on a southwestern ramification
of the watershed divide. In 2017, another 16 mounds were
26 Ciugudean 1982.
27 Ciugudean 2011, 27–28.
28 Luca et al. 2007, 334.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania 21

Fig. 2: The distribution of the mound sites from western Transylvania and Romanian Banat and the
­correlation with those identified in eastern Hungary (map redrawn using Kaiser/Winger 2015, Map 1 and
Horváth et al. 2013, Fig. 3).

identified in the forested area situated north to the inter-
fluve’s crossing (see Figure 10).
Two distinct papers29 and nine archaeological
reports30 presented the results of the archaeological exca-
vations from four mounds from this site: M1, M3, M4 and
M7 (Figure 11). The so-called mound M7 turned out to be a
colluvial accumulation, which was originally recorded as
a flattened mound31. The situation from mound M1 (height
of 1, 63 m) was published in detail32, proving for the first
time that the site from Dealu Țapului is a tumuli ceme-
tery. Three features assigned to the Coțofeni Culture were
identified and labelled as C.5, C.6, and C.8. The central
one (C.5) contains fifteen ceramic vessels and traces of a
29 Luca et al. 2012 and Diaconescu/Tincu 2016.
30 Luca et al. 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; Diaconescu et al. 2012;
2016; 2017; 2018.
31 Luca et al. 2012, 56.
32 Ibid. 49–55. For the stratigraphical situation from this mound see
the diagram from Figure 3, below.
pyre, organised more or less as a pile, which fell down in
a south-easterly direction during the burning process33.
Features C.6 and C.8 contain the remains of another four
ceramic pots (one in C.6 and three in C.8). Using the com-
parative method, all nineteen complete/fragmentary pots
are characteristic for the stage Coțofeni IIIb34, according
to Petre Roman’s chronological system for the Coțofeni
Culture35.
The research conducted in mound M4 (height of
1.24 m) during 2010–2011 and 2015 revealed an inhu-
mation grave in the centre of it. The shape of the grave
pit was oval, the long axis running E-W. The position of
the skeleton, oriented W-E, was supine with bended
knees (collapsed to the left). The skull was turned facing
south-southeast, lying practically on the right shoulder
33 Ibid. 53.
34 Ibid. 74.
35 Roman 1976, 35–49.
22 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 3: Stratigraphical matrix for the researched mounds from Silvașu de Jos with the corresponding 14C dates.
(see Figure 12). Near the skull, next to the left mandible
angle was identified a small bone artefact, considered to
be an earring. The EDAX analysis conducted for this item
shows high values of carbon (59.49 %), oxygen (37.17 %)
and phosphor (1.07 %)36, proving that the raw material
used for manufacturing this object was bone. The stra-
tigraphy of the mound M4 reveals three main layers (see
Figure 13 and the matrix from Figure 3). The lower one
(layer 3) is dark brown-spotted dark grey in colour and in
it was dug the pit of grave no. 1, the grave which can be
considered as a primary one. The upper stratum (layer 2
or the mantle of the tumulus), reddish-brown in colour,
was used to cover and seal the grave. Layer 1b is connected
with the post-elevation time of the mound. The excavation
of the north-western quarter of the mound during the 2011
and 2015 research campaigns reinforces and supports the
stratigraphical observations done in 2010 and reveals the
absence of other graves in this part of the mound.
The main focus of the field research during 2015–2017
from Silvașu de Jos was the mound M3, nevertheless the
highest from this area of the site (height of 2.71 m). The
inner stratigraphy of this tumulus was composed of
three main layers, nos. 2, 3 and 4 (see Figure 14 and the
36 See Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, Images 2 and 3.
matrix from Figure 3). Layer 4, the lower one, includes
dark brown, dense, clayish soil and was used to arrange a
pyre (labelled as feature C2), composed of three levels of
wooden beams (the bottom level composed from beams
disposed N-S, the intermediary one from beams disposed
W-E and the upper one oriented also N-S). On this wooden
structure and around it were disposed ceramic vessels,
some of them intentionally broken (seventeen restorable
vessels were identified so far – see Figure 15). The eastern
half of the pyre was arranged by digging into the soil of
layer no. 4 and, for the western side of the structure, in
order to create a horizontal disposal of the beams, short
vertical posts were disposed into the ditch labelled as C.6
(for the ground plan, see Figure 15). All the pottery discov-
ered is typical for the Coțofeni IIIb stage, some of the re-
cipients being almost identical to some of the vessels from
mound M1. In direct correlation to the wooden structure,
partially overlapped by it, in a shallow pit (labeled as C.5)
were found cremated human bones37. Above all these fea-
tures and also above layer no. 4 was disposed layer no. 3,
37 Diaconescu et al. 2017, 130. The preliminary analysis done by
Dr. Kathryn Grow Allen (University of Buffalo) shows that the great
majority of the bones from feature C.5 are human and belong to the
skeletons of two individuals.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
a layer which played the role of the mantle for the Coțofeni
Culture’s barrow.
This pre-existing mound was re-used for funerary pur-
poses by arranging the feature C.3 (Grave no. 1)/2015. The
implementation of the grave into the tumulus was done
by digging into layer no. 3 a pit-dwelling (feature C.1 –
see Figure 14 and 16) large enough to accommodate all
the ritual elements for this inhumation grave. The grave
pit was stepped, rectangular in shape with rounded cor­
ners. The body was situated into a rectangular, presuma-
bly wooden, box. Over time, the destruction of the wooden
cover of this box caused, most probably, the several
post-mortem fractures of the skeleton. The orientation was
W-E, in supine position, with bended knees collapsed to
the right (see Figure 16). The skull is slightly turned to the
left, with the chin to the chest. After the arrangement of
the grave, the feature C.1 was filled in and then covered—
together with layer no. 3—by layer no. 2, brown-reddish
in colour, clayish and dense; this layer was, in fact, the
mantle of the second phase of the tumulus, the barrow
being re-heightened in this manner.
Based on the above observations, two main phases
of this tumuli cemetery were established. The first one,
belonging to the Coțofeni Culture, is comprised of the
features C.5, C.6 and C.8 from mound M1 and feature C.2
from mound M3. The second phase, younger, is connected
to the inhumation graves, considered to belong to the
Yamnaya phenomenon38. This stage corresponds with
grave no. 1/2010 from mound M439 and grave no. 1/2015
from mound M3. The Coțofeni Culture phase was AMS
dated by four 14C dates and the Yamnaya phase by five
dates40 (see Figure 3).
Using as prior estimates the stratigraphical relation
between feature C.2 and Grave no. 1 from mound M3, a
model was built in OxCal v. 4.341, where the dates belong-
38 Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, 115.
39 An investigation of the paleo-diet’s possible interference with the
quality of the date resulted from the sample given by grave 1/2010
from mound M, conducted by Poznan Laboratory, shows the follow-
ing results: δ13C=-20.2‰, δ15N=10.2‰. According to Giblin/Yerkes
2016, 87, 90, “the δ13C values for human bone (mean: –20.1 %o) fall
within the observed range of carbon isotope values (-21‰ to –19‰)
for diets based on terrestrial C3 plants and animals from Europe”
and “…diet based on manure-enriched cereals and animal products
would result in human δ15N values of 9‰ to 11‰ similar to predicted
diets based primarily on meat protein”. Both of the values obtained
from Silvașu de Jos are framed in the values which would indicate a
very low possibility of reservoir effect interference.
40 For a detailed description of these dates, except date RoAMS 5C
obtained from human tooth, see Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, 113, Tab. 1.
41 Bronk-Ramsey 2009. All the 14C dates from this study were cali-
brated using the calibration curve IntCal 13 (see Reimer et al. 2013).
23
ing to the Coțofeni III features from mounds M1 and M3
were included into the older phase and into the younger
one the dates related to the inhumation graves from
mounds M4 and M3.
The agreement of the obtained model (see Figure 4)
is 101 %, which indicates that the stratigraphical succes-
sion documented in mound M3 is suitable to be used as
prior estimate. The bounded sums of these two stages of
the mounds from Silvașu de Jos, created independently,
are obviously flattened by the calibration curve (see
Figures 5; 6), but still show that the Coțofeni stage falls
between ca. 3300–3100 calBC (mean 3220 calBC) and the
Yamnaya stage between ca. 2880–2600 calBC (mean 2730
calBC).
The direct comparison between these two stages
shows a time gap clearly visible (see Figure 7), even if the
values of the bounded sums are strongly influenced by the
aspect of the calibration curve between 3400–2900 and
2800–2500 calBC.
Thus, it can be asserted that in the case of Silvașu
de Jos the Yamnaya graves are both primary and second-
ary and the last occupation reused pre-existent earthen
mounds belonging to the Coțofeni Culture phase III, cov-
ering cremation graves42.
42 This fact is very well supported by the case of Trnava tumuli. Here
in tumulus no. 1 (named also Glavcovska mound according to Jovano-
vić 1992, 244) were found 10 graves, from which two of them (graves
no. 2 and 5) are related to cremation (Nikolov 1976, 51). Jovanović
1992, 245 assigns the cremation graves to level II of this mound (three
stratigraphical levels are considered as characterising this mound).
Alexandrov 1995, 257 considers that graves 1–6 (levels I and II in
Jovanović’s 1992 stratigraphical model) belong to the Coțofeni II–III
Culture, while the graves no. 7–10 belong to a post-Coțofeni horizon.
Jovanović 1992, 247 considers that the askos vessel from grave 1 (i. e.
level I according to the same source) is typical for the pottery belong-
ing to the Coțofeni IIIa from Oltenia (the same opinion at Nikolova
1994, 134), while Roman 1982, 46 asserts, regarding the Trnava dis-
coveries, that grave 9 (i. e. level III according to Jovanović) is young-
er then the other graves (nos. 1–6) that belong to the Orlea-Sadovec
complex, a horizon partially older, partially contemporaneous with
the early Coțofeni stage (this aspect is also discussed by Alexandrov
2002, 142). Ciugudean 1986, 73 supports this opinion, attributing the
earliest graves from Trnava and the discovery from Cîrna to the Orlea-
Sadovec group – Coțofeni I horizon. Popa 2009, 743; 748 stresses the
fact that the Măceșu type of amphora (the vessel type which shows
up in graves no. 1 and no. 5 from Trnava, tumulus I) is typical for
funerary contexts belonging to the Coțofeni Culture and integrates
the Trnava discovery into Coțofeni III phase. Interesting enough is the
fact that Roman 1976, Pl. 97/5 integrates the amphora-like vessel from
Măceșu de Jos into the third phase of the Coțofeni Culture and on p. 33
underlines the similarities between the recipient from Trnava, grave
no. 1 from Tumulus I and that one from Măceșu de Jos.
24 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 4: The Bayesian model for the mounds from Silvașu de Jos.

Fig. 5: Individual bounded sum for Coțofeni phase from Silvașu de Fig. 6: Individual bounded sum for Yamnaya phase from Silvașu de
Jos. Jos.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
4 Enlarging the Perspective
The Yamnaya phenomenon benefits from a high number
of 14C dates43, but unfortunately the estimated chronologi-
cal range is too long.
Based on this observation and using the experience
gained in the Silvașu de Jos research project, one of the reli-
able directions worth following, at this stage of research, is
the identification of burial mounds with a clear stratigraph-
ical situation and also with a congruent 14C dataset. Thus,
nine sites, situated between the Dnieper and Tisza rivers,
together with the one from Silvașu de Jos, were compiled
and Bayesian approaches were performed, using as prior
estimates the internal stratigraphic observations made
by various authors.44 These sites are, with regard to the
numbers from Figure 2, as follows: 1. Sárrétudvari-Örhalom
(see Figures 17, 25)45, 2. Silvașu de Jos-Dealu Țapului (see
Figures 4, 26), 3. Trnava-Glavcovska Mogila46, 4. Ariceștii
Rahtivani-Mound no. IV (see Figures 18, 27), 5. Păulești-
Mound no. III (see Figures 19, 28), 6. Smeeni-Movila Mare
(see Figures 20, 29), 7. Geshanovo-Poruchik, tumulus I (see
Figures 21, 30), 8. Prydnistryanske-Sites no. 1 (see Figures
22, 31), 9. Kirovograd-Sugokleja (see Figures 23, 32), 10. Ore-
chov-Tarasova Mogila (see Figures 24, 33).
Using this methodology, it was possible to identify
seven horizons of absolute chronology connected to the
burial mounds (marked with different colours; see for this
the map from Figure 8 and Figures 25–33). The first two
horizons (ca. 4200–4000 calBC and ca. 3650–3400 calBC)
were identified only in the barrow from Tarasova Mogila47
(phases 1 and 2), which was situated on the left side of the
Dnieper river (i. e. east of the river). This fact should not
be conspicuous as, even since Marija Gimbutas defined
the Kurgan Culture, it was proved and underlined that
this barrow custom originates from the eastern steppes
towards central Europe.
43 Rassamakin/Nikolova 2008, 60–61 mentions 214 radiocarbon
dates for the Ukrainian territory. On page 61, no. 10, the lack of accu-
racy for some of these dates is underlined. According to Frînculeasa
et al. 2017, 123–124; 127–128; 129–130, Tab. 5; 6; 7 for the modern terri-
tory of Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Hungary, 78 radiocarbon dates
from tumuli are available.
44 See the following notes (no. 47–52).
45 In the Bayesian model of this barrow, the date Poz-39563: 4530±60
BP, from grave no. 8 (charred plant material as raw material) was not
included, because it is considered too old and susceptible to further
correction (see Horváth et al. 2013, 165, Tab. 3).
46 Even if, unfortunately, the tumulus no. 1 from Trnava does not
benefit from 14C dates, the diagnostic funerary inventory identified
here allows the parallels with other similar sites.
47 Govedarica et al. 2006, 81–96.
25
Fig. 7: Direct comparison between the bounded sums of the two
phases from Silvașu de Jos barrows.
Starting with the third phase from Tarasova Mogila
(ca. 3400–3050 cal BC) it is possible to observe the third
horizon, in the present approach, into the sites from
Sárrétudvari (phase 1)48 (Tisza Plain), Silvașu de Jos
(phase 1)49 (south-western Transylvania), Ariceștii Rah-
tivani (phase 1)50 (Romanian Walachia), Trnava (phase 1
and 2)51 (north-western Bulgaria) and Prydnistryanske
(phase 1)52 (Yampil region, next to the eastern shore of
the Dniester river, modern Ukraine). This horizon is rep-
resented, from the pottery styles point of view, by the
Coțofeni type into the features from Silvașu de Jos53,
Trnava54 and Ariceștii Rahtivani55 and by the Gordinești
type56 into the burials from Prydnistryanske.
48 Dani-Nepper 2006, 32–41. A Bayesian model for this mound,
based on the stratigraphical phases of the tumulus, was already cre-
ated by Kulcsár–Szeverényi 2013, 72, fig. 2.
49 Diaconescu-Tincu 2016, images 17–19.
50 Frînculeasa et alii 2014, 190–192, 205, tab. 2. In the Bayesian
model created for this mound the date DeA 2880.1.1 from skeleton A,
grave 4 was excluded from the start, due to the authors assertion (see
Frînculeasa et alii 2014, 204, n. 11).
51 Nikolov 1976, 51; Alexandrov 1995, 257; Jovanović 1992, 244–247.
The attribution of the Trnava levels I and II to this stage is done based
on the cultural and chronological attribution of the pottery to the
Coțofeni III phase.
52 Goslar et alii 2015, 260–261.
53 Diaconescu-Tincu 2016, 112. The vessel presented in Figure 8, from
this study, is provided by feature C2 from mound M3 (unpublished).
54 Nikolov 1976, 51. The vessels presented in Figure 8, from this
study, belong to the grave 3 (level I) and grave 5 (level II) of the tumu-
lus no. 1 from Trnava.
55 Frînculeasa et alii 2014, 222, pl. 5. The vessel presented in Figure 8
belongs to the grave no. 3 from Ariceștii Rahtivani IV.
56 Klochko et alii 2015, 207, fig. 21/1. The vessel presented in Figure 8
is provided by feature III/3 from barrow III.
26 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
The fourth horizon (ca. 3100–2900) can be connected
to an early phase/influence of the Yamnaya Culture (in
the area west of the Black Sea) or early Yamnaya phase
north of the Black Sea. This stage was identified on Sár-
rétudvari (phase 2), Ariceștii Rahtivani (phase 2 and 3),
Păulești (phase 1 and 2)57, Smeeni (phase 1)58 (Romanian
Walachia), Geshanovo (phase 1)59 (northeastern Bulgaria),
Prydnistryanske (phase 2a) and Kirovograd60 (phase 1)
(Ukraine, between Dniper and Dniester rivers). The pottery
styles recognisable are the Horodiștea-Foltești II-Cerna-
vodă II into the barrow of Smeeni61 and early Yamnaya
pottery into the site of Kirovograd62.
The horizon corresponding to the classical Yamnaya
Culture, namely the fifth horizon (ca. 2900–2600) is to
be found in Sárrétudvari, Silvașu de Jos, Trnava, Smeeni,
Geshanovo, Prydnistryanske, Kirovograd and Tarasova
Mogila, appearing as the most widespread stage from the
territorial point of view. The pottery styles identifiable
are as follows: Makó and Livezile types at Sárrétudvari63,
57 Frînculeasa et al. 2013, 27.
58 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 51–77.
59 Boyadziev 1995, 176.
60 Nikolova/Kaiser 2009, 212–227.
61 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, Pl. 33,4.5. The vessel presented in Figure 8,
from this study, belongs to grave M.12 from the barrow from Smeeni.
The best analogy for this pot can be found at Ivanova/Toschev 2015,
Fig. 27,1, the vessel is considered as Cernavodă II/Foltești II (the vessel
from Ivanova/Toschev 2015, is quoted as being published by Berciu
et al. 1973, but unfortunately in this paper the vessel from Ivano-
va/Toschev 2015, Fig. 27,1 cannot be found). Frînculeasa et al. 2017,
94 found analogies with the vessel from grave M.12 in Găvănoasa
(M.5/T.1), Sărățeni (M.14/T.3) and Burlănești (barrow 2) the last item
showing resemblances only with regard to the decorative motifs. The
first two discoveries (from Găvănoasa and Sărățeni) are framed in
the early phase of the Budzhak Culture. Interesting is the fact that
Levitki et al. 1996, 87 found good decorative analogies for the pot
from grave M.14/T.3 with the vessel from grave M.12 from Smeeni,
quoting Simache/Teodorescu 1962, Fig. 3,1). Ivanova 2013, 95 speaks
about contacts with Coțofeni, Cernavodă II and Zimnicea and in Fig.
9 frames the vessels from Burlănești and perhaps Găvănoasa into the
Budzhak Culture, early stage (3000–2500 BC). Another good analogy
can be quoted here and comes from Baratovka and was integrated
into the Late Lower Mikhailovka Culture and Tripolje C2 (see Rassam-
akin 2002, 54, Fig. 4,4.A/9), a vessel which later is presented as an
Usatovo import (see Rassamakin 2013, Fig. 28).
62 Nikolova/Kaiser 2006, 217 Abb. 10. The pot presented in Figure
8, from this study, belongs to grave no. 20 from the Sugokleja bar-
row. The vessel has all the characteristics of the type 3, group 1, sub-
group 1 according to N. Shishlina typology (see Shishlina 2008, 60
Fig. 36.
63 Dani/Nepper 2006, 41–42 found the best analogies for the pot
from grave 9 with Livezile type of pottery and for the vessels from
graves 4 and 7 with the Makó pottery.
Zimnicea-Batin at Trnava64 and Smeeni65 and finally, clas-
sical Yamnaya steppe pottery at Tarasova Mogila66 (includ-
ing here the vessels with corded ornamentation).
The sixth horizon (ca. 2700–2350 calBC) is connected
with Late Yamnaya/Early Catacombnaya elements and
shows up in Smeeni, Kirovograd and Tarasova Mogila. The
pottery associated is connected with the Early Catacomb-
naya type of pottery at Kirovograd and Tarasova Mogila.
The last horizon, the seventh (ca. 2450–2150 calBC),
represented by the Catacombnaya Culture, is present only
in Kirovograd and has no diagnostic pottery items.
5 Discussions
The observations from above show that the Yamnaya
horizon (stage 2) from Silvașu de Jos-Dealu Țapului is fully
contemporary to the phase 3 from Sárrétudvari-Örhalom
and thus it can be asserted that the presence of the Yam-
naya-type of graves from Transylvania is contemporary
with early Livezile and Makó pottery styles and, probably,
with Șoimuș and/or early Copăceni pottery styles. If the
bounded sums of the Yamnaya graves from Silvașu de
Jos and the available dates belonging to Livezile group67
are compared (see Figure 9), it is possible to observe that
the Livezile group sum is slightly later than the Yamnaya
graves sum from Silvașu de Jos. Here also can be under-
lined the fact that the only two available 14C dates from
funerary contexts, belonging to the so-called Livezile cul-
tural group from Transylvania, come from two secondary
graves from Livezile-Baia and Meteș-Meteșel68, an aspect
64 Nikolov 1976, 45 Fig. 11a. The askos vessel belongs to grave no. 9
from tumulus no. 1, assigned to level III of the tumulus. Alexandrov
2002, 142 questions the appurtenance of this jug to the Trnava tu-
mulus I, based on information from the Vratza museum inventory
register (see also Frînculesa et al. 2017, 100 no. 117).
65 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 101 Pl. 34. Strong analogies can be seen in
the Zimnicea cemetery (see Alexandrescu 1974, Pl. 4,6).
66 Govedarica et al. 2006, 71–72 Abb. 19,4; Abb. 20,3. The vessels pre-
sented in Figure 8 belong to graves nos. 18 and 20, both of them being
attributed to the Yamnaya Culture.
67 The available dates are Bln 4624 from the Livezile-Baia settle-
ment, Poz-42712 from grave 2 tumulus 2 from the Livezile-Baia and
Deb-6871 from grave 9 Sárrétudvari tumulus (grave which contains a
Livezile type of ceramic vessel).
68 Grave no. 2 from tumulus no. 2 from Livezile and grave 3 from tu-
mulus no.1 from Meteș (see Gerling/Ciugudean 2013, 184–185 Fig. 4–5.
For the fact that these two graves are secondary, see Ciugudean 1996,
52; 56. Here it is important to mention the fact that the date Poz-42714:
3660±50 BP from grave 3 tumulus 1 from Meteș-Meteșel is quite late
and this value was considered by Gerling/Ciugudean 2013, 184–185 as
proof of intermittent inhumations during the Early Bronze Age in the
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania 27

Fig. 8: The distribution of the chronological stages established and of the pottery styles. Orange: stage 1; Purple: stage 2; Red: stage 3;
Brown, blue and black: stage 4; Green: stage 5; Grey: stage 6; Ochre: stage 7. The stages’ colours correspond to those from Figures nos.
25–33 (redrawn using Kaiser/Winger 2015, Map 1).

which underlines a very important fact: the samples
from Livezile-Baia și Meteș grave date secondary inhu-
mations and consequently not the moment of erection of
the mound for its initial purpose (i. e. to host the primary
grave). Thus, this observation can be strongly considered
in the preliminary discussion about a presumptive contem-
poraneity between Yamnaya-type graves and the primary
graves of Livezile type; this aspect can be underlined also
by the presence of two golden hair-rings in grave no.1/
Apuseni mountains. The same idea applies to Gogâltan 2015, 65 who
speaks about the contemporaneity of this date with the Textilmuster
and Besenstrich type of pottery in the lowlands of Transylvania. Thus,
this date was excluded from the group of dates belonging to the Livez-
ile group, on which ground the bounded sum for this group was built.
tumulus III from Ampoița-Peret69, similar in shape to the
golden hair-ring from grave no. 8/tumulus I from Trnava70,
a grave attributed to the Yamnaya culture71. Another col-
lateral argument for this assumption is the presence into
the Livezile group tumuli funerary inventory72 of the
69 Ciugudean 1996, 33; 1991, Abb. 20,4–5.
70 Nikolov 1976, 46 Fig. 12,c.
71 Jovanović 1992, 245; Alexandrov 1995, 257 framed graves no. 7–10
to a post-Coțofeni stage. This analogy between the hair-rings from
Ampoița and the hair-ring from Trnava is underlined also by Ciu-
gudean 1991, 94: „Sie finden perfekte Analogien im Gräberfeld von
Leukas (Goessler 1927, Beilage 60,4) und in dem Tumulus von Tärnava
(Nikolov 1976, Abb. 12)”.
72 Rișcuța et al. 2009, 280–281 argue against this cultural attribution
considering that the pottery styles in this Early Bronze Age tumuli are
characteristic of late Coțofeni, Copăceni and Șoimus groups.
28 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 9: The bounded Sums of the Yamnaya stage from Silvașu de Jos (grey) and Livezile group (red).
Brillenspirale type of pendants (e. g. Mada-Chichiorele,
grave 5 tumulus T373, Cheile Aiudului-Dealul Velii, grave 4
tumulus T.IX74, Livezile-Dealul Sârbului75, Ampoița-Peret,
grave 1 tumulus III76), items which appear also in the
southern Romanian region of Walachia in the grave no. 3
from tumulus T.I from Ploiești Triaj77, grave no. 2, barrow
V from Ariceștii Rahtivani and grave no. 3 from Blejoi
mound III. The only graves 14C dated are those from Wala-
chia, but unfortunately the BP values of these data are not
available yet, but the calibrated diagrams of them were
included in a recent publication78 and the chronological
stage can be estimated roughly at ca. 3200–2850 calBC and
overlaps the fourth chronological stage as it was defined
above, this stage proposed as being connected with the
early Yamnaya influences. Thus it can be asserted that the
Brillenspirale pendants were used as funerary inventory in
the pre-/early Yamnaya contexts in the area of Romanian
Walachia around 3100–2900 calBC.
Regarding the end of the Late Copper Age/Late Ene-
olithic in Transylvania (i.e the third phase of the Coțofeni
73 Rișcuța et al. 2009, 267 Fig. 9,1. This is considered to be a primary
grave.
74 Vlassa et al. 1985–1986, Pl. XI,3; Ciugudean 1996, 119, Fig. 97,2
mentions three items of this type from this site.
75 Ciugudean 1996, Fig. 21,7 asserts that this item comes from the
tumuli of this site, belonging to K. Herepey excavations.
76 Ciugudean 1996, Fig. 31,12. Here the grave is considered as being
primary.
77 Frînculeasa et al. 2013, Pl. 17/1. This grave is considered as a sec-
ondary one (see Frînculeasa et al. 2013, 29).
78 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 131 Fig. 24.
Culture) the followings can be asserted: the absolute dates
belonging to this horizon were already discussed several
times79 and the latest dates (UZ-2868: 3755±70 BP, UZ-2869:
4085±70 and UZ-2870: 4030±75 BP) come from Poiana Am-
poiului site, where the Coțofeni III layer (divided in three
sub-layers) is overlapped by an Early Bronze Age layer as-
signed to the Livezile cultural group80. The chance for an
intrusive character of the samples provided for the dates
(UZ-2868, UZ 2869 and UZ-2870) is very probable81 as long
as even H. Ciugudean considers the UZ-2868 date too late
for the Coțofeni Culture82. The samples for UZ-2869 and
UZ-2870 come from the lower layer (trench S.II) belonging
to the Coțofeni III Culture from Poiana Ampoiului site and
the sample for UZ-2868 comes from the same research unit
(S.II) from a pit belonging to the last Coțofeni layer83 (i. e.
the younger, upper layer?). These three dates are quite late
compared to the dates Bln-4621:4260±41 BP and Bln-4620:
4239±40 BP coming from the same site, trench S.V, the
lower Coțofeni layer also, but from a dwelling. A new AMS
date, Hd-29517, published just as a diagram of the sum of
the Coțofeni layer from Poiana Ampoiului84, is provided
also by the lower layer of the Coțofeni Culture (trench S.IV
79 Băjenaru 1998, 16–17; Ciugudean 2000, 58; Frînculeasa et al. 2015,
79 Fig. 14; Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, 114–115.
80 Ciugudean 1996, 63–64.
81 See also Băjenaru 1998, 6. Unfortunately, the raw material of the
samples is not mentioned.
82 Ciugudean 2000, 58.
83 Ibid.
84 Ciugudean 2015, 169 Fig. 2. For this date, the raw material of the
sample is bone.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania 29

Fig. 10: The position of the Silvașu de Jos tumuli cemetery.

Fig. 11: The central area of the cemetery from Silvașu de Jos showing the position of mounds M1, M3 and M4.
30 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 12: The position of Grave no. 1/2010 from mound M4, Silvașu de Jos.

in this case). A very important fact is that the sum for the
dates provided by the Poiana Ampoiului site (date UZ-2868
is not included) shows, on the upper part of the diagram,
two distinct groups of uniform distribution proving that
here we are dealing with two distinct chronological sets of
dates, the left set generated by the date Hd-29517 (ca. 3350–
3100 calBC) and the right one by the dates Bln-4621, Bln-
4620, UZ 2869 and UZ-2870 (ca. 2900–2450 calBC), even if
all these samples are asserted to date the earliest Coțofeni
layer from this settlement. This aspect underlines the
already mentioned fact, that the intrusive character of the
samples for the dates obtained by the Zürich laboratory is
very probable. Thus, the end of the Coțofeni III phase in
Transylvania is not clear at this moment, the late values
of the dates from the lower layer from trench S.II compara-
tive to the values of the other dates from trenches S.V and
S.IV is very hard to explain, this aspect being emphasised
by the value of the only 14C date (Bln-4624: 4109±44 BP,
i. e. 2872–2571 cal BC, 93.9 % probability) from a domestic
feature belonging to the Livezile group, a cultural group
considered to have developed from the Coțofeni setting
with Zăbala-Foltești influences85.
85 Ciugudean 2013, 20.
 

Fig. 13: The southern profile of trench S. 3, showing the position of Grave no. 1/2010 from mound M4, Silvașu de Jos.
Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
31

Fig. 14: The northern profile of trench S. 1 from mound M3, Silvașu de Jos.
32 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 15: The position of the Coțofeni III assigned features and sherds from mound M3, Silvașu de Jos.

A quite recent Bayesian analysis conducted for the
available Coțofeni III dates shows that this phase is most
likely framed between ca. 3250–2800 calBC86. The estima-
tion of the stage 2 from Silvașu de Jos between ca. 2860–
2600 calBC shows that the very end of the Coțofeni III
phase could be contemporary with the first presence of the
Yamnaya type of graves in southwestern Transylvania and
with the early stage of Livezile cultural group.
For the Romanian Banat region it is stated that the
Yamnaya type of graves is contemporary with the latest
Baden manifestations and to the Makó/Kosihy-Čaka
Culture87.
In connection with the latest Baden horizon, F. Gogâl-
tan discusses the 14C dates provided by the Foeni-Gaz
site, underlying the “unclear” situation of features 3 and
5 and the “questionable” character of the dwelling88 (i. e.
according to the excavators89, features 8, 9, 10, 11). The
fifteen 14C dates published from this site90 are provided by
feature 3 (9 dates), feature 4 (1 date), feature 5 (1 date),
feature 10 (2 dates) and feature 8 (2 dates). The date
Poz-38230:7830±50 BP is very old, so its intrusive char-
acter is very probable, this being the reason for having
been removed from the representative group of dates
for the excavated features91. Three different chronologi-

86 Diaconescu/Tincu 2016, 115 Images 13–14. This contradicts the

image presented by Gogâltan 2015, Fig. 23 where, in the western and 88 Ibid. 60; 61 Fig. 8.
central Transylvania, the Late Coțofeni phase is seen as lasting until 89 Krauss/Ciobotaru 2013, Abb. 9
ca. 2650 calBC. 90 Ibid. 62 Tab. 2.
87 See Gogâltan 2015, Fig. 10. 91 Ibid. 63.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 16: The position of the Grave no. 1/2015 from mound M3, Silvașu de Jos.
cal stages were defined92, but neither on the basis of the
Harris matrix established93, nor on the cultural appurte-
nance of the sherds identified here (e. g. fragments from
a Baden-Kostolac vessel94 were found in features 3, 4, 5;
in feature 5 was also found a diagnostic pottery fragment
belonging to Makó/Kosihý–Čaka95, considered to be a
result of perturbation during the Early Bronze Age). Thus
the first stage, assigned to a Kostolac house comprises four
dates, three of them from feature 3 and one from feature
5: MAM-11203 – 4214±27 BP, MAMS-10893a – 4133±25 BP,
MAMS-10893b – 4126±26 BP, Hd-29516 – 4017±48 BP96.
The second stage, considered connected to activities from
92 Ibid. Abb. 16.
93 Ibid. Abb. 11.
94 Ibid. Abb. 13.
95 Ibid. Abb. 15.
96 Ibid. 61.
33
the Early Bronze Age, was defined by three dates, all of
them belonging to feature 3: MAMS-10894 – 3936±25 BP),
Poz-38231 – 3915±35 BP, MAMS-10891 – 3902±25 BP97. The
last stage, attributed to the Nagyrév group, is comprised
of seven dates, two of them from feature 3, feature 8 and
feature 10 and one from feature 4: MAMS-10892 – 3712±25
BP, MAMS-10895 – 3696±31 BP, MAMS-10897b – 3751±26
BP, MAMS-10897a – 3724±32 BP, MAMS-10898a – 3727±31
BP, MAMS-10898b – 3718±25 BP, Poz-38232 – 3640±35 BP98.
It can be observed that feature 3 provides dates for every
stage defined on Foeni-Gaz, even if this feature belongs to
the earliest stratigraphic stage of the site, dated via AMS.
The date from feature 4, stratigraphically belonging to
the same layer as feature 3, was assigned to the Nagyrév
97 Ibid.
98 Krauss/Ciobotaru 2013, 61; 63.
 34
Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 17: The Bayesian model for the mound from Sárrétudvari. Fig. 18: The Bayesian model for the mound IV from Ariceștii Rahtivani.
 

Fig. 19: The Bayesian model for the mound III from Păulești.

Fig. 20: The Bayesian model for the mound from Smeeni.
Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
35
 36

Fig. 21: The Bayesian model for the mound Porouchik from Geshanovo.
Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 22: The Bayesian model for the mound from Prydnistrianske.
 

Fig. 24: The Bayesian model for the mound Tarasova Mogila from Orechov.

Fig. 23: The Bayesian model for the mound Sugokleja from Kirovograd.
Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
37
38 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 25: The bounded sums for the stages from the Sárrétudvari mound.

Fig. 26: The bounded sums for the stages from the Silvașu de Jos mounds.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania 39

Fig. 27: The bounded sums for the stages from the Ariceștii Rahtivani mound.

Fig. 28: The bounded sums for the stages from the Păulești mound.
40 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania

Fig. 29: The bounded sums for the stages from the Smeeni mound.

Fig. 30: The bounded sums for the stages from the Geshanovo mound.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 31: The bounded sums for the stages from the Prydnistrianske mound.
group stage. Practically, if the probable distribution of the
dates99 is taken into account, it is noticeable that it exhib-
its three groups, which correspond completely with the
three chronological stages proposed100.
If the dates assigned to the Kostolac house stage from
Foeni-Gaz are considered to mark the end of Baden man-
ifestations in the Banat plain, a short comparison of the
bounded sum from this stage and the bounded sums of the
Makó/Kosihy-Čaka Culture defined stages101 from Uivar-
Gomilă102 (see Figure 34) shows that the early Makó/Ko-
99 Gogâltan 2015, Fig. 8.
100 Krauss/Ciobotaru 2013, Abb. 16.
101 Woidich 2009, 359.
102 Schier/Drașovean 2004, 202 for date Hd-22711: 4164±24 BP be-
longing to a crouched burial from trench II; Woidich 2009, 359 for
dates Hd-27842: 4105±55 BP from a pit from trench XIII and Hd-27787:
3938±32 BP. A fourth date, published by Gogâltan 2015, 58 is Hd-xxx:
4007±41 BP, but the source of the information and the bibliographical
reference (i. e. Gogâltan 2015, 58, n. 11) are a little puzzling as they
refer to Woidich/Szentmiklosi 2013, 239 note 16 (correct Woidich/
41
sihy-Čaka stage from Uivar is fully contemporary with the
Baden-Kostolac house stage from Foeni-Gaz, the stage 2
from Silvașu de Jos and the third phase of the Sárrétudvari
tumulus. An absolute chronology for the Makó Culture was
already proposed and the first stage is defined by the 14C
dates offered by the graves 4 and 9 from Sárrétudvari-Örh-
alom103, both of them being incorporated in phase 3 of the
mound. The partial coexistence of the Late Baden-Kos-
tolac type material with Early Bronze Age I material (early
Makó and Livezile) is an already stated fact104 and seems
to be supported by the absolute dates from the Romanian
Banat region (the dates belonging to the Baden-Kostolac
horizon from Foeni-Gaz and the early Makó dates from Ui-
Szentmiklosi 2013, 238, note 16) and there is mentioned only the date
Hd-27787, an aspect mentioned also by Gogâltan 2015, 58, n. 11 (?).
Because of these factors, this date will not be taken into account in
the Bayesian models proposed for the Makó/Kosihy-Čaka cultural
stages from Uivar.
103 Kulcsár/Szeverényi 2013, 73 Fig. 3.
104 Ibid. 75.
42 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 32: The bounded sums for the stages from The Kirovograd mound.
var-Gomilă) and also by the presence into Feature 5 from
Foeni-Gaz of both pottery styles (Late Baden and Makó)105.
Thus, for the Banat region it is possible to conclude that,
during ca. 2800–2600 calBC, the Late Baden-Kostolac and
Early Makó pottery styles and the graves of Yamnaya type
(Bucova Pusta IV, Bucova Pusta IX and Bodo) are contem-
poraneous, marking practically the transition from the
Late Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age in this region.
105 Krauss/Ciobotaru 2013, Abb. 13; 15.
Conclusions
The presence of the pre-Yamnaya tumuli burials was
already underlined in the western territory of the Yamnaya
Culture, but for the area west of the Carpathian ­Mountains,
only two sites from Hungary were highlighted (Sárrétud-
vari and Tiszavasvári)106 based on their respective stages
of research. The research from Silvașu de Jos-Dealu
Țapului certify the presence of this pre-Yamnaya earthen
tumuli horizon also in the southwestern part of Transyl-
vania, exhibiting cremation and Coțofeni III-style pottery,
the same rite aspects appearing also in Bucova Pusta IV107,
106 Frînculeasa et al. 2015, 79; 80; 82 Fig. 16.
107 Diaconescu et al. 2015, 42 Fig. 4; 5.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 33: The bounded sums for the stages from the Orechov mound.
where an infant cremation burial is connected to a
Coțofeni bowl108. Thus the observations from the Trnava
tumuli, level II (graves nos. 2 and 5), are strengthened
and the discussion about the cultural attribution of the
Coțofeni III assigned graves from tumulus no. V/1975 from
Cheile Aiudului-Dealul Velii109 or grave no. 2 from Livez-
ile-Dealul Sîrbului110, both of these barrows being char-
acterised by stones coverings, is re-opened. The presence
of the Coțofeni-style pottery from Romanian Walachia in
inhumation grave no. 3 from Ariceștii Rahtivani IV111, 14C
108 Krauss et al. 2016, 301 Abb. 8 offers clear data for the position
of this cremation grave in the southern periphery of the mound, the
bowl covering the cremated remains is assigned to the Coțofeni Cul-
ture (analogy for this bowl is to be found in Ovchartsi, grave no. 10 –
see Alexandrov 2015, Fig. 17) and the bone fragments were attributed
to a young woman. Also, in the same source, the Bucova-Pusta IV is
specifically considered a tumulus.
109 Rișcuța et al. 2009, 280 mentions the possibility that Coțofeni III
items can be part of an anterior habitation layer, as long as Late
Coțofeni elements are combined with Early Bronze Age components.
110 Vlassa et al. 1985–1986, 63 considered that the vessels published
by Herepey 1901, III Táb. 21; 23 are typical for Coțofeni III-phase pot-
tery.
111 The vessel from grave no. 3 from Ariceștii Rahtivani IV has good
analogies in the Coțofeni III environment, regarding the shape, at
Boarta and Deva (see Popa 2009, Pl. 226,2; Pl. 348,4) and ornamental
motifs at Răchita and Românești (Popa 2009, Pl. 614,3 and Pl. 639,10;
this ornamental motif is labeled as A15 by Popa 2012, 72)
43
dated to 3340–3010 calBC (93.9 %) in very good correla-
tion with the Coțofeni phase of the tumuli from Silvașu de
Jos, underlines the fact that this pre-Yamnaya horizon of
tumuli burials uses Late Eneolithic pottery also in western
Transylvania and Romanian Banat, similarly with what is
observed north of the Lower Danube, where Coțofeni, Cer-
navodă II, Foltești, Usatovo, Gordinești and Ezero types of
pottery are used as funerary inventory112. The same situa-
tion can be underlined also north of the Black Sea, where
the Usatovo group is characterised, among other things, by
the tumulus cemeteries113. In the same geographical and
chronological frame can be positioned the tumuli of the
Životilovka grave type114, where the presence of Gordinești
(Kasperovo) pottery is a common element115. This horizon
also appears in Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary116, labelled
as Period II in the Hungarian chronological system devel-
oped within the last century117.
An early phase/influence of the Yamnaya Culture
west of the Black Sea corresponds to the fourth stage
112 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 161.
113 Popovici 2018, 46–47. See also Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 115–117 for
several discoveries of this type.
114 Popovici 2018, 90.
115 Rassamakin 1999, 97.
116 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 156 quoting Alexandrov 2010; 2011; Heyd
2011; Ecsedy 1977; Dani/Nepper 2006.
117 Horváth et al. 2013, 171.
44 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Fig. 34: The bounded sums for the Makó phases from Uivar-Gomilă and the Baden phase from Foeni-Gaz.
defined above, and includes discoveries from Ukraine118,
Bulgaria119, Serbia120, Romania121 and Hungary122. This
horizon can be paralleled with Period III, as defined by
T. Horváth123.
Classical Yamnaya Culture (stage five here or
Period IV124) discoveries are spread west of the Black Sea
118 E. g. Kirovograd (graves nos. 8; 14; 20 – see Nikolova/Kai-
ser 2009, 232 Tab. 1) and Prydnistrianske (feature 4 – see Goslar et
al. 2015, 261 Tab. 2).
119 Ovchartsi, (Kaiser/Winger 2015, 127 Tab 1; Alexandrov 2015, 40;
Alexandrov/Kaiser 2016, 364 tab. 3), Geshanovo (Alexandrov/Kaiser
2016, 360 Tab. 1).
120 Padej (Girić 1987, 73; Alexandrov/Kaiser 2016, 360 Tab. 2; Frîn-
culeasa et al. 2017, 128).
121 Ariceștii Rahtivani, mound IV (graves nos. 1 and 2, see Frîncu-
leasa et al. 2014, 205 Tab. 2), Păulești (tumulus III graves 4A, 1A, see
Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 129), Smeeni (grave no. 5, see Frînculeasa et
al. 2017, 130), Ploiești (grave 4A, see Frînculeasa et al. 2015, 59).
122 Sárrétudvari (grave no. 10 – see Dani/Nepper 2006, 48).
123 Horváth et al. 2013, 171.
124 Ibid. 171–172.
according to the already-asserted opinions125, corrobo-
rated by corded pottery, generally associated with the
steppe area, or with local style of pottery126. The discov-
eries presented above offer the opportunity of also includ-
ing the Romanian Banat and western Transylvania regions
into the Yamnaya territory. It is important to underline that
the present sites from this area assigned to this culture are
connected to the lower and middle Mureș valley indicating
that this river is, most likely, the pathway towards Tran-
sylvania.
Acknowledgements: The documentation for this topic was
possible due to a Renewed Research Stay granted by the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and hosted by the
Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität
Berlin (February–April 2018).
125 Heyd 2011, 536–539 and Kaiser/Winger 2015, 116 Fig. 1.
126 Frînculeasa et al. 2017, 119. See, also, Figure 8 from this study.
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Bibliography
Alexandrescu 1963: D. Alexandrescu, În legătură cu statuile-
menhir de la Baia de Criș. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 1,
1963, 145–150.
– 1974:–, La nécropole du Bronze Ancien de Zimnicea (dép.
Teleorman). Dacia. Nouvelle Série XVIII, 1974, 79–93.
Alexandrov 1995: S. Alexandrov, The Early Bronze Age in Western
Bulgaria: Periodization and Cultural Definition. In: D. Bailey/
I. Panayotov/S. Alexandrov (eds), Prehistoric Bulgaria.
Monographs in World Archaeology 22, 1995, 253–270.
– 2002: –, Post Cernavodă III-Boleráz phenomena south of
the Danube. Annuary of the Institute of Archaeology with
Museum – BAS, II, 2002, 140–147.
– 2010: –, Prehistoric barrow graves with extended inhumations
between the Danube and the Balkan Rage. Studia Prehistorica
13, 2010, 277–292.
– 2011: –, Prehistoric Barrow Graves between the Danube and
the Balkan Range. Stratigraphy and Relative Chronology. In:
S. Müller-Celka/E. Borgna (eds), Ancestral Landscapes: Burial
mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern
Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium BC).
Traveaux de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 58
(Lyon 2011) 307–320.
– 2015: –, Moghilini grobove ot rannata bronzova epoha v
Trakija (55 godini po-kisjno). Arheologhija LVI/1–2, 2015,
33–48.
–/Kaiser 2016: –/E. Kaiser, The Early Barrow Graves in West Pontic
Area. Cultures? Migrations? Interactions? In: V. Nikolov/
W. Schier (eds), Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Neolithikum bis in
die Früheisenzeit (6000–600 v. Chr.). Kulturelle Interferenzen
in der zirkumpontischen Zone und kontakte mit ihren
Nachbargebieten, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa
30 (Rahden/Westf. 2016) 359–370.
Bajenaru 1998: R. Băjenaru, Discuții privind cronologia absolută a
culturii Glina. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie
49/1, 1–22.
Berciu et al. 1973: D. Berciu/S. Morintz/P. Roman, P., Cultura
Cernavodă II. Așezarea din sectorul b de la Cernavodă. Studii și
Cercetări de Istorie Veche 24/3, 1973, 373–405.
Boyadziev 1995: Y. D. Boyadziev, Chronology of the Prehistoric
Cultures. In: D. Bailey/I. Panayotov/S. Alexandrov (eds),
Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology 22,
1995, 149–191.
Bronk-Ramsey 2009: C. Bronk-Ramsey, Bayesian analysis of
radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/1, 2009, 337–360.
Burtănescu 2002: F. Burtănescu, Epoca timpurie a bronzului între
Carpaţi şi Prut cu unele contribuţii la problemele perioadei
premergătoare epocii bronzului în Moldova. Bibliotheca
Thracologica 37 (Bucureşti 2002).
Ciugudean 1982: H. Ciugudean, Stela antropomorfă de la Pianu de
Jos (jud. Alba). Apulum XX, 1982, 59–63.
– 1986: –, Grupul tumular Bedeleu şi câteva consideraţii
privind epoca timpurie a bronzului în vestul Transilvaniei.
Apulum XXIII, 1986, 67–82.
– 1991: –, Zur frühen Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen im Lichte der
Ausgrabungen von Ampoiţa, jud. Alba. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 66/1, 1991, 79–114.
– 1996: –, Epoca timpurie a bronzului în centrul şi sud-estul
Transilvaniei. Bibliotheca Thracologica XIII (Bucureşti 1996).
45
– 2000: –, Eneoliticul final în Transilvania și Banat: cultura Coțofeni.
Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica XXVI, 2000.
– 2011: –, Mounds and mountains: burial rituals in Early Bronze Age
Transylvania. In: S. Berecki/R. Neméth/B. Rezi (eds), Bronze
Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin (Târgu Mureş
2011) 21–57.
– 2013: –, Preistoria și protoistoria. In: V. Moga/G. T. Rustoiu (eds),
Județul Alba. Istorie, cultură, civilizație. Alba Iulia 2013, 13–31.
– 2015: –, Contacte între Cultura Amforelor Sferice și comunitățile
Coțofeni în spațiul transilvan. In: C. Schuster/C. Tulugea/
C.Terteci (eds), Buridava XII/1 Symposia Thracologica X. Volum
dedicat profesorului Petre I. Roman la cea de-a 80-a aniversare
(Râmnicu Vâlcea 2015) 164–175.
Crișan et al. 1992: I. H Crișan/M. Bărbulescu/E. Chirilă/V. Vasilev/
I. Winkler, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Cluj. Bibliotheca
Musei Napocensis V, 1992.
Dani/Nepper 2006: J. Dani/I. M., Nepper, Sárrétudvari–Őrhalom.
Tumulus grave from beginning of the EAB in Eastern Hungary.
Communicationes Archaelogicae Hungariae, 2006, 29–48.
Diaconescu 2012: A. Diaconescu, Greuceanu și Sânziana din epoca
străveche. In: I. S. Nistor (ed.), Mituri și legende din tradiția
multimilenară a Clujului (Cluj 2012) 27–30.
Diaconescu/Tincu 2016: –/S. Tincu, Considerații arheologice privind
necropola tumulară de la Silvașu de Jos-Dealu Țapului
(oraș Hațeg, jud. Hunedoara). Analele Banatului XXIV, 2016,
107–141.
– et al. 2012: –/C. C. Roman/D. Diaconescu/C. Doncuţiu/
A. Matei/M. Constatin/F. Tănăsie, Silvaşu de Jos, oraş Hateg,
jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Dealu Ţapului, Campania 2011. Cronica
Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2011, 2012,
130–131.
– et al. 2015: –/R. Krauß/D. Ciobotaru/E. Marinova et al., Sânicolau
Mare-Bucova Pusta IV, Campania 2014. Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice 2015, cat. no. 15, 41–43.
– et al. 2016: –/S. Tincu/C. I. Suciu/A. Rusu et al., Silvaşu de Jos,
oraş Hateg, jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Dealu Ţapului, Campania
2015. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România, 2016,
85–86.
– et al. 2017: –/–/A. Rusu et al., Silvaşu de Jos, oraş Hateg, jud.
Hunedoara, Punct: Dealu Ţapului, Campania 2016, Cod sit:
87601.01. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România 2017,
cat. no. 73, 130–131.
– et al. 2018: –/–/–, Silvaşu de Jos, oraş Hateg, jud. Hunedoara,
Punct: Dealu Ţapului, Campania 2017. Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice din România 2018, 124–125.
Ecsedy 1977: I. Ecsedy, The people of the pit-grave kurgans in
eastern Hungary, Budapest, 1979.
Ferenczi 1974: I. Ferenczi, Új távlatok az erdélyi rézkor kutatásában
Az Aranyosgyéresen föltárt halomsír. Korunk XXIII/1, 1974,
127–135.
Floca 1966: O. Floca, Statuile primitive antropomorfe de la Baia de
Criș. Sargetia IV, 1966, 41–49.
Frînculeasa et al. 2013: A. Frînculeasa/B. Preda/O. Negrea et al.,
Bronze Age tumulary graves recently investigated in Northern
Walachia. Dacia. Nouvelle Série LVII, 2013, 23–64.
– et al. 2014: –/–/T. Nica/A. D. Soficaru, Un nou tumul preistoric
cercetat la Ariceștii Rahtivani (jud. Prahova). Studii de
Preistorie 11, 2014, 189–227.
– et al. 2015: –, B. Preda/V. Heyd, Pit-graves, Yamanya and Kurgans
along the Lower Danube: Disentangling IVth and IIIrd Millenium
46 Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
BC Burial Customs, Equipment and Chronology. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 90/1–2, 2015, 45–113.
– et al. 2017: –/A. Simalcsik/B. Preda/D. Garvăn, Smeeni-Movila
Mare. Monografia unui sit arheologic regăsit. Bibliotheca
Musaios 13, 2017.
Gerling/Ciugudean 2013: C. Gerling/H. Ciugudean, Insights into the
Transylvanian Early Bronze Age using Strontium and Oxygen
Isotope Analysis: A pilot study. In: Transitions to the Bronze
Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change in
the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring
Regions (Budapest 2013) 181–202.
Giblin/Yerkes 2016: J. Giblin/R. Yerkes, Diet, dispersal and social
differentiation during the Copper Age in eastern Hungary.
Antiquity 90, 2016, 81–94.
Gimbutas 1993: M. Gimbutas, The Indo-Europeanization of
Europe: the intrusion of steppe pastoralists from south Russia
and the transformation of Old Europe. Word 44/2, 1993,
205–222.
Goessler 1927: P. Goessler, VI. Abschnitt. Die Einzelfunde der
Ausgrabungen. In: W. Dörpfeld, Alt Ithaka: ein Beitrag zur
Homer. Studien und Augrabungen auf der Insel Leukas-Itaka
1–2 (München 1927) 275–338, Beilagen 56–89.
Gogâltan 2015: F. Gogâltan, The Early and Middle Bronze Age
Chronology on the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin.
Revisited after 15 Years. In: R. E. Németh/B. Rezi (eds), Bronze
Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin: proceedings of the
International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş: 2–4 October 2014
(Târgu-Mureș 2015) 53–95.
Goslar et al. 2015: T. Goslar/V. Klochko/A. Kośko et al., Chronometry
of Late Eneolithic and ‘Early Bronze’ cultures in the Middle
Dniester area: investigations of the Yampil barrow complex.
Baltic-Pontic Studies 20, 2015, 256–291.
Govedarica et al. 2006: B. Govedarica/E. Kaiser/J. Rassamakin et
al., Der Grabhügel, Tarasova Mogila‘ bei der Stadt Orechov.
Neue Angaben zur Periodisierung und Chronologie der äneoli-
thischen und bronzezeitlichen Steppenkulturen im Azovgebiet.
Eurasia Antiqua 12, 2006, 63–112.
Herepey 1901: K.Herepey, Alsófehér vármegye őskora, II/1
(Nagyenyed 1901) 79–103, I–XXIII ta.
Heyd 2011: V. Heyd, Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black
Sea. In: S. Müller-Celka/E. Borgna (eds), Ancestral Landscapes:
Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central
and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd
millennium BC). Traveaux de la maison de l’Orient et de la
Méditerranée 58 (Lyon 2011) 535–555.
– 2017: –, Kossinna’s smile. Antiquity 91, 2017, 348–359.
Horváth et al. 2013: T. Horváth/J. Dani/A. Pető et al., Multi-
disciplinary Contributions to the Study of Pit Grave Culture
Kurgans of the Great Hungarian Plain. In: V. Heyd/G. Kulcsár/
V. Szeverény (eds), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional
Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change in the Third Millennium
BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions (Budapest
2013) 153–179.
Ivanova 2013: S. Ivanova, Connections between the Budzhak Culture
and Central European groups Of The Corded Ware Culture.
IBaltic-Pontic Studies 18, 2013, 86–120.
–/Toschev 2015: –/G. Toschev, The Middle-Dniester cultural contact
area of Early Metal Age Societies. The frontier of Pontic and
Baltic drainage basins in the 4th/3rd–2nd Millennium BC.
Baltic-Pontic Studies 20, 2015, 336–405.
Jovanović 1992: B. Jovanović, Chronological relations of Late
Aeneolithic of the Central and Eastern Balkans. Balcanica XXIII,
1992, 243–253.
Kaiser/Winger 2015: E. Kaiser/K. Winger, Pit graves in Bulgaria and
the Yamnaya Culture. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 90/1–2, 2015,
114–140.
Klochko et al. 2015: V. Klochko/A. Kośko/S. Razumov et al.,
Eneolithic, Yamnaya, Catacomb and Babyno Culture
cemeteries, Pidlisivka, Barrow 1, Yampil Region, Vinnitsa
Oblast: Archaeometry, Chronometry and Taxonomy.
Baltic-Pontic Studies 20, 2015, 40–77.
Krauss/Ciobotaru 2013: R. Krauss/D. Ciobotaru, D., Daten zum Ende
des Badener Keramikstils und dem Beginn der Frühbronzezeit
aus Foeni-Gaz im rumänischen Banat. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 88/1, 2013, 38–113.
– et al. 2016: –/C. Schmid/D. Ciobotaru/V. Slavchev, Varna
und die Folgen – Überlegungen zu den Ockergräbern
zwischen Karpatenbecken und der nördlichen Ägäis. In:
M. Bartelheim/B. Horejs/R. Krauß (eds), Von Baden bis
Troia: Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer.
Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka (Bonn 2016)
273–315.
Kristiansen et al. 2017: K. Kristiansen/M. E. Alltentoft/K. M. Frei et
al., Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and
language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe. Antiquity
91, 2017, 334–347.
Kulcsár/Szeverényi 2013: G. Kulcsár/V. Szeverényi, Transition to
the Bronze Age: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in the
First Half of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin.
In: V. Heyd/G. Kulcsár/V. Szeverényi (eds), Transitions to the
Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural
Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and
Neighbouring Regions (Budapest 2013) 67–92.
Lazăr 1995: V. Lazăr, Repertoriul arheologic al județului Mureș
(Târgu-Mureș 1995).
Levitki et al. 1996: O. Levitki/O. Manzura/T. Demcenko, Necropola
tumulară de la Sărățeni (București 1996).
Luca et al. 2007: S. A. Luca/C. C. Roman/D. Diaconescu/
D. M. Romanet al., Silvașu de Jos, oraș Haţeg, jud. Hunedoara,
Punct: Dealul Ţapului. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din
România. Campania 2006, 2007, 334–335.
–/et al. 2008: –/–/S. Tincu, Silvașu de Jos, oraș Haţeg,
jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Dealul Ţapului. Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice din România. Campania 2007, 2008, 280.
–/et al. 2009: –/S. I. Purece,/C. C. Roman et al., Silvașu de Jos,
oraș Haţeg, jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Dealul Ţapului. Cronica
Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2008, 2009,
194–195.
–/et al. 2010: –/D. Diaconescu/F. Dumitrescu-Chioar et al., Silvașu
de Jos, oraș Haţeg, jud. Hunedoara, Punct: Dealul Ţapului.
Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2009,
2010, 171–173.
–/et al. 2011: –/D. Diaconescu/C. C., Roman et al., Cercetările
arheologice de la Silvaşu de Jos – Dealu Ţapului.
Campaniile anilor 2006–2010. Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului
Bucovinei XXXVIII, 2011, 7–54
–/et al. 2012: –/–/– et al., The Archeological Research from
Silvașu de Jos–Dealul Ţapului. The Archaeological Campaigns
from 2006–2010. In: C. Cosma (ed.), Studii de Arheologie şi
Istorie. Omagiu Profesorului Nicolae Gudea la 70 de ani, Seria
  Dragoș Diaconescu, Step by Steppe: Yamnaya culture in Transylvania
Interferenţe Etnice şi Culturale în mileniile I a. Chr. – I p. Chr.,
XX (Cluj-Napoca 2012) 43–76.
Medeleț-Bugilan 1987: F. Medeleț/I. Bugilan, Contribuții la problema
și la repertoriul movilelor de pământ din Banat. Banatica 9,
1987, 87–107.
–/Toma 1997: –/Toma, N., Muzeul Banatului. File de cronică
I. 1872–1918 (Timișoara 1997).
Nagy 2015: G. K Nagy, Jurnal arheologic. In: D. Tănase (ed.), Gyula
Kisléghi Nagy. Jurnal Arheologic (Timișoara 2015) 19–179.
Nikolov 1976: B. Nikolov, Mogilni pogrebeniya ot rannobronzovata
epoha do Tarnava i Knezha, Vrachanski okrag. Arheologiyai 3,
1976, 38–51.
Nikolova 1994: L. Nikolova, On the Early Bronze Age burial rites
in the Bulgarian lands. In: P. Roman/M. Alexianu (eds),
Relations-Thraco-illyro-Helléniques Actes du XIVe Symposium
National de Thracologie (à Participation internationale). Băile
Herculane (14.–19. septembre 1992), 1994, 130–140.
Nikolova/Kaiser 2009: A. V. Nikolova/E. Kaiser, Die
absolute Chronologie der Jamnaja-Kultur im nördlichen
Schwarzmeergebiet auf der Grundlage erster dendrochronolo-
gischer Daten. Eurasia Antiqua 15, 2009, 209–240.
Orosz 1904: E. Orosz, Egy őskori kőbálvány Szamosújvárról. Archae-
ologiai Értesitő XXIV, 2009, 405–406.
Pârvan 1925: V. Pârvan, V., La „Statue-menhir” de Hamangia.
Dacia II, 1925, 422–429.
Popa 2009: C. I. Popa, Cultura Coţofeni. Cu privire specială asupra
Transilvaniei (Unpublished PhD manuscript, Alba-Iulia 2009).
– 2012: –, Contribuții la preistoria Văii Sebeșului (I). Locuiri Coțofeni
din zona deluroasă. Bibliotheca Musei Sabesiensis III, 2012.
Popescu 1968: D. Popescu, Săpăturile arheologice din Republica
Socialistă România în anul 1967. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 19/4, 1968, 677–698.
Popovici 2018: S. Popovici, Comunităţi de păstori în stepele
nord-vest pontice (sfârşitul mileniului IV – începutul mileniului
III a. chr.) (Unpublished PhD manuscript, Chișinău 2018).
Rassamakin 1999: Y Rassamakin, The Eneolithic of the Black Sea
Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and Economic Development
4500–2300 B.C. In: M. Levine/Y. Rassamakin/A. Kislenko/N.
Tatarintseva (eds), Late PrehistoricExploitation of the Eurasian
Steppe (Cambridge 1999) 59–182.
– 2002: –, Aspects of Pontic Steppe Development (4550–3000
B.C.) in the Light of the New Cultural-Chronological Model. In:
K. Boyle/C. Renfrew/M. Levine (eds), Ancient interactions: east
and west in Eurasia (Cambridge 2002) 49–73.
– 2013: –, From the Late Eneolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age
in the Black Sea Steppe: What is the Pit Grave Culture (Late
Fourth to Mid-Third Millennium BC)? In: V. Heyd/G. Kulcsár/
V. Szeverény (eds), Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional
Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change in the Third Millennium
BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions (Budapest
2013) 113–138.
–/Nikolova 2008: –/A. V. Nikolova, Carpathian Imports and
Imitations in Context of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of
the Black Sea Steppe Area. In: P. Biehl/Y. Rassamakin (eds),
Import and Imitation in Archaeology. Schriften des Zentrums
für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes
11 (Langenweißbach 2008) 51–87.
View publication stats
47
Reimer et al. 2013: P. Reimer/E. Bard/A. Bayliss et al., IntCal13 and
Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years
cal BP. Radiocarbon 55/4, 1869–1887.
Rișcuța 2001:N. C. Rișcuța, O nouă descoperire arheologică la
Baia de Criș (jud. Hunedoara). Thraco-Dacica XXII/1–2, 2001,
139–171.
– et al. 2009: –/C. Popa/I. V. Ferencz, Cercetări arheologice la
Balșa și Mada (jud. Hunedoara) si câteva observatii privind
necropolele tumulare din Muntii Apuseni. Apulum XLVI, 2009,
257–286.
Roman 1976: P. I. Roman, Cultura Coțofeni (București 1976).
– 1982: – Constituirea noilor grupe etno-culturale de la începutul
Epocii Bronzului. Carpica XIV, 1982, 39–49.
Rotea 2004: M. Rotea, Non-ferrous metallurgy in Transylvania of
Bronze Age. Acta Musei Napocensis XXXIX–XL, 2004, 7–17.
– 2009: –, Pagini din preistoria Transilvaniei. Epoca bronzului
(Cluj-Napoca 2009).
– et al. 2014: –/M. G. Netea/C. De-La-Rua/T. Tecar et al., The archae-
ological contexts of DNA samples collected from prehistoric
sites in Transylvania. Acta Musei Napocensis LI/I, 2014, 21–60.
Schier/Drașovean 2004: W. Schier/F. Drașovean, Vorbericht über
die rumänisch–deutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in
der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, Kreis Timiş, Rumänien
(1998–2002). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 79/2, 2004. 145–230.
Shishlina 2008: N. Shishlina, Reconstruction of the Bronze Age
in the Caspian Steppes. Life styles and life ways of pastoral
nomads. BAR International Series 1876 (Cambridge 2008).
Simache/Teodorescu 1962: N. I. Simache/V. Teodorescu, Săpăturile
arheologice de salvare de la Smeieni (r. Buzău, reg. Ploiești).
Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice VIII, 1962, 273–282.
Stratan 1974: I. Stratan, Un mormânt cu ocru la Bodo (com. Balinț,
jud. Timiș). Tibiscus III, 1974, 71–74.
Telegin 1987: D. J. Telegin, Über kulturelle Kontakte zwischen der
neo-äneolithischen Bevölkerung des Nordpontischen Gebietes
und der Balkan – Donauregion. In: D. Srejović/N. Tasić (eds),
Hügelbestattung in der Karpaten-Donau-Balkan-Zone während
der äneolithischen Periode. Internationales Symposium, Donji
Milanovac 1985 (Beograd 1987) 37–44.
–/Mallory 1994: –/J. P. Mallory, The Anthropomorphic Stelae of the
Ukraine: The Early Iconography of the Indo-Europeans. Journal
of Indo-European Studies Monograph 11 (Washington 1994).
Téglás 1885: G. Téglás, Bányászobrok a daciai Aranyividékröl.
Archaeologiai Értesitő V, 1885, 16–20.
Vasiliev 1980: V. Vasiliev, Sciții agatîrși pe teritoriul României
(Cluj-Napoca 1980).
Vlassa et al. 1985–1986: N. Vlassa/M. Takács/G. Lazarovici,
Mormintele tumulare din Banat şi Transilvania din perioada
eneolitică tîrzie. Acta Musei Napocensis XXII–XXIII, 1985–1986,
59–78.
Woidich 2009:M. Woidich, Uivar und der Beginn der Bronzezeit im
Rumänischen Banat. Analele Banatului XVII, 2009, 357–365.
–/Szentmiklosi 2013: –/Al. Szentmiklosi, Uivar and its Significance
for the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the Romanian
Banat. In: V. Heyd/G. Kulcsár/V. Szeverényi (eds), Transitions
to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio–Cultural
Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and
Neighbouring Regions (Budapest 2013) 233–244.