MUZEUL JUDEEAN BUZU

MOUSAIOS
XIX
Residential Centres
(dava, emporium, oppidum, hillfort, polis)
and Cult Places in the Second Iron Age of Europe
Proceedings of the International Colloquium
Buzu (Romania), 23-26 October 2014

Edited by
Valeriu Srbu and Sebastian Matei

BUZU
2014

BUZUCOUNTYMUSEUM

International Colloquium
Residential Centres
(dava,emporium,oppidum,hillfort,polis)
and Cult Places in the Second Iron Age of Europe
23rd-26th October 2014

BUZU
2014

Editorial board:

Sebastian MATEI
Valeriu SRBU
Laureniu GRIGORA
Daniel COSTACHE

Authorsareresponsibleforthequalityoflanguage

CopyrightBUZUCOUNTYMUSEUM,2014

www.muzeubuzau.ro
ISSN 1582 - 0688

Corespondena,schimburiledecartei
comenzilesevortrimitela:
MuzeulJudeeanBuzu,
Bd.NicolaeBlcescunr.50
120360,Buzu
Romania

Thecorrespondence,thebookexchange
andtheorderscouldbesentto:
MuzeulJudeeanBuzu,
Bd.NicolaeBlcescunr.50
120360,Buzu
Romania

email:home@muzeubuzau.ro

email:home@muzeubuzau.ro

XIX
Residential Centres
(dava,emporium,oppidum,hillfort,polis)
and Cult Places in the Second Iron Age of Europe
Proceedings of the International Colloquium
Buzu (Romania), 23rd-26th October 2014

Edited by
Valeriu Srbu and Sebastian Matei

BUZU
2014

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULT
CENTERSINTHEEASTCARPATHIANAREADURING
THE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Keywords:EastCarpathianarea,fortification,residentialcenter,centerofreligiousworship

Abstract:IntheEastCarpathianareaasaresultofarchaeologicalresearchtherehavebeenfoundabout120
fortifications dated from 6th to 3rd centuries BC. Most of them are grouped in socalled agglomerations,
whichconsistofseveralfortifiedsitesandavariablenumberofopensettlements.Withineachconcentration
of this kind there is singled out (by its location, the complexity of defensive system and the findings
discoveredwithinit)afortification,whichusuallyisconsideredtobearesidentialcenter.Alongwithother
structures and complexes of civil nature, within them there are also discovered some complexes and
artifacts of cultic nature, which denote an intense religious activity. Therefore, this allows us to consider
thatthesefortificationsservedascentersofreligiousworshipforboththecommunityofthefortressandfor
thesurroundingsettlements.

Surface research and archaeological investigations undertaken in East

Carpathianarearevealedtheremainsofabout120fortifications(Fig.1),whichcanbe
attributed to the 6th 3rd centuries (Zanoci 1998, p. 117161; Teodor 1999, p. 133184;
Arnut2003,p.183282;Haheu2008,p.6682;Zanoci2011,p.119122,map2).Asa
resultofmapping,itwasnotedthatmostofthemareplacedwithinagglomerations
consistingofseveralfortressesandavariablenumberofciviliansettlements(Zanoci
1998, p. 2425; Teodor 1999, p. 1617; Arnut 2003, p. 1516). Among these in every
agglomeration there is a fortified site occupying usually the middle place and
havingastrongdefensivesystem.Usually,therearefoundtheremainsofdwellings,
manyhouseholdpitsandrichandvariedarchaeologicalfindingsdenotinganintense
economic activity. On the basis of these findings, fortifications of this type are
interpreted as residential, administrative and economic centers (Zanoci 1998, p. 108
110; Niculi et alii 2013a, p. 300). In some of them, especially where extensive
archaeologicalinvestigationswereconducted,remainsofcultbuildingsorcomplexes
and objects of religious worship were discovered, which allow us to talk about an
intensereligiousactivityinthesesites.
Among the agglomerations of settlements known in the EastCarpathian
areathereisonesituatednearthevillageofSaharnaintheRezinaDistrict,insouthern
Middle Dniester region on the right bank of the river. Here, as a result of study of
orthophotoplans and archaeological research seven fortifications (Fig. 2) and about
sevenciviliansettlementswerefound.Inthisagglomerationthewayoflocationof
fortifiedsitesisofparticularinterest.ThefortressofSaharnaMare(Fig.3)withan
MousaiosXIX,Buzu,2014,p.259276.

260

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Fig.1.Distributionoffortificationsofthe4th3rdcenturiesintheEasternCarpathian
area.

area of about 6 ha occupies a central position, being located on interfluve formed at

theconfluenceoftwostreamstheSaharnaandtheCrac.Althoughthisformofrelief
has steep slopes on three sides, the fortress was reinforced with a circular defense
system, consisting of a wall of wooden framework with earth and stone filling,
bastionsandditches(Niculietalii2008,p.8899,pl.57,photo1326;Niculietalii
2010,p.365371,fig.811;Niculietalii2013b,p.219237,fig.7,9,1114,18,20,21,23,
24).FromthesoutheastsidethefortressofSaharnaMarehadthreefortificationsLa
an, La an I and La an II, located on the right high and steep bank of the
streamofCrac.ThreeotherfortifiedsitesSaharnaMic,SaharnaDealulGrimidon
and Saharna La Vile built on the left bank of the Saharna stream guarded the
northern flank of the settlement of Saharna Mare. These ones, like the central site,
werefortifiedwithaningeniousdefensesystemconsistingofwallsoftwowooden
facingswithearthandstonefilling,aswellassemicircularbastions(Niculietalii
2014,p.2729).ThisarrangementoffortifiedsitesintheSaharnamicrozoneprovided
perfectmutualvisibility,includingthefortressintheinterfluve.Consideringthe

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

261

Fig.2.LocationoffortifiedsitesintheSaharnamicrozone.

geostrategic position of the fortress of Saharna Mare, we can assume that it was not
only a powerful military center, but also a residential center protected by six
fortificationssituatedaroundit.
Research in the Saharna Mare site conducted at the end of the 1940s and
recently (20012008), besides numerous constructions and civil complexes, revealed
somearticlesforreligiouspurposes.Theseincludeninehearthspreviouslycalledby
G.D.Smirnovculttables/mastaba1.Theyareconcentratedinthecentralpartofthe
site,most(six)beingplacedonthemidlineorientedapproximatelynorthsouth(Fig.
3).Thehearths,generally,haveapolygonalshape,theirlengthbeingbetween0,7m
and2,3mandthewidthbeing0,41,0m.Theyconsistofaclaycrustwithathickness
of 0,080,14 m arranged directly on the ancient ground surface or on a layer of
limestone slabs (Fig. 4, 5). Hearth no.3, the surface of which has an incized dcor
representingasemicirclewithadiameterof0,3m,isofaspecialinterest(Niculiet
alii2008,p.104,fig.95/4,9).
Theirpolygonalshapeandthelargesizeindicateasignificantdifferencefrom
thehearthsfoundindwellingsanddesignatedforheatingandcooking,whichwere
usuallyroundorovalinshape.
Fire hearths or hearths for worship (Vulpe 1957, p. 8586) have a religious
connotation, being interpreted by some experts as altars (Iconomu 1980, p. 52; Sanie
1995, p. 44). Their shape, mainly square or polygonal, and placement in special

1Sixhearths(Fig.5)werefoundinSectionno.4in2002(Niculietalii2008,p.104105,pl.4/4,fig.95,96),
other three (Fig. 4) come from excavations of G.D. Smirnov carried out in the late 40s of last century
(unpublishedinformationfromthepersonalarchiveofG.D.Smirnov).

262

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

constructions, as in Zolotaja Balca (Vjazmitina 1969, s. 132133), Seutopolis, Pistiros,

Fig. 3. Topographical plan of the Saharna Mare fortress and the location of cultic
hearths.

Philippopolis (Niculi and Arnut 2004, p. 7188), or outside the dwellings, as in

Hansca (Niculi 1987, 114, ris. 34), Crlomneti (Mgureanu 2004, p. 249258) and
others,appearstobeasignificantargumentinfavorofreligiousnatureofthesetypes
ofhearths2.

Fordiscussion

of the meaning of hearths for worship see Arnut 2014, p. 192-194.

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

263

Fig.4.SaharnaMare.Cultichearths(aftertheG.D.Smirnov).

Hearthsaltars accompanied in some cases by remains of human sacrifice

represent a specific ensemble of cult structures characteristic of this period. They
reflect the worship of certain deities and respect for the beliefs, mainly of chthonic
character,bythecommunitiesofthesecenters.

264

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Fig.5.SaharnaMare.Cultichearths.

ItshouldbenotedthathearthaltarshavebeenfoundonlyinSaharnaMare,
and not in other archaeological settlements studied in southern Middle Dniester.

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

265

Fortified and unfortified settlements located nearby also had no such religious
structures. Concentration of hearthaltars in a fortified site with a strong defensive
system demonstrates that the fortress of Saharna Mare was a residential center,
around which existed adjacent settlements. Together they constituted a political,
administrative, military, economic and religious community, which controlled the
riverandlandaccessandtraderoutesintheMiddleDniesterarea.

Fig.6.LocationoffortressesintheareaofOldOrhei.

Anotheragglomerationofsites,withinwhichthereisareligiouscenter,was
foundinthelowerbasinoftheRutRiver,inamicrozonecalledOldOrhei(Fig.6).
Asaresultofsurfaceresearchandarchaeologicalinvestigationstherewerediscovered
remains of nine fortresses (Butuceni, Butuceni Incinta de est, Mcui Poiana
Ciucului, Mui Dealul cel Mare, Trebujeni Cot, Trebujeni Piscul
Ciobanului, Trebujeni Potrca, Trebujeni Scoc, Trebujeni Selitra) and 13 civil
settlements (Zanoci 2004, p. 45, fig. 1; Postic 2010, p. 6266, fig. 29). The fortress of
Butucenistandsapartamongthembecauseofitscentralpositionandthemagnitude
ofthedefensivesystem.

266

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Fig.7.Butuceni:1planofthefortressindicatingtheplaceofasanctuary;2viewof
thepromontoryfromthenortheast

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

267

It was built on a high and rocky promontory formed by a bend of the Rut
River(Fig.7).Onthreesides,thewest,southandeast,thefortresswasfortifiedwitha
wall,whichconsistedofwoodenfacingsfilledwithstones,gravelandearth.Onthe
west and east sides, the most accessible ones, the wall was supplemented by
ditches. The east side was reinforced with a wall of stone and burnt brick located
about13meastoftheditch(Niculietalii2002,p.6364,fig.5053).

Fig.8.Butuceni.Circularsanctuary:1plan;2proposalforreconstitution.

Inside,alongwiththeremainsofseveraldwellings,someofwhichhadstone
foundations,therewasidentifiedalsoasacredarea,whichlikeinSaharnaMarewas
placed in the center of the site. Within this area the remains of a sanctuary and an
adjacent rectangular building with two rooms were found. The sanctuary was
composedofanovalaltarwithdiameters1,32,0m,builtofstone.Onitssurfacethere
werepreservedtracesofburning,derivedprobablyfromthesacredbushthatburned
duringreligiousprocesses.Aroundthealtarinthreeconcentricsemicirclestherewere
found21pits,whereprobablypillarsofwoodfromtheconstructionofthesanctuary
weredugin.Inthevicinityofthealtartherewerethreepits,afterwhichintheshape
of a horseshoe there were other six. The entire construction was surrounded by the
other12pits,formingacirclewithadiameterofabout9m(Fig.8).Thus,thealtarwith
pits constituted a single complex representing a sanctuary that varies in diameter
from8to9mandarectangularbuildingwithtworooms.Intheruinsofthesanctuary
andthebuildingtherewerefoundabladeofacurvedironknifeand1403fragments

268

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Fig.9.LocationoffortressesintheareaofCodriiHncetiului.

of pottery. Of these,789 ones of pottery made by hand (nine handmade vesselsare

characteristicofGetaecultureofthe4th3rdcenturiesBC),30fragmentsofawheel
made Getae bowl, and 586 fragments of four Greek amphorae. These artifacts
demonstrate that the sacred complex from Butuceni belonged to the Getae culture
(Niculi1987,s.75;Niculietalii2002,p.4142,fig.59).

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

269

Reconstitution of the sanctuary allows us to assume that, besides the sacred

function,thisstructurehadafunctionalcharacterservingasacalendar,whichwasso
necessaryfortheagriculturalcommunitiesinthisarea(Niculi1987,s.7282).
Circular sanctuaries similar to that from Butuceni were found in the site of
DolineniintheMiddleDniesterregion(Smirnova1976,p.309317,fig.1/3)andinthe
BradfortressintheSiretvalley,whichchronologicallybelongtoamuchlatertime
the 1st century BC (Ursachi 1995, p. 6271, fig. 23). During this period, along with
circularsanctuariestherebegantobeusedalsorectangularonesknownbyfindingsin
BtcaDoamneidatedthe2nd1stcenturiesBC(Gostar1969,p.1922).

Fig.10.PlanoftheStolnicenifortresswiththelocalizationofthetumulusIV.

270

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Thus, the fortress of Butuceni, along with its function of a political,

administrative, military and commercial center, also played a key role in terms of
religionforthecommunitiesfromtheLowerRutregionofthe4th3rdcenturiesBC.
A concentration of ThracoGetae sites is also known in the southern forest
stepperegionoftheareabetweenthePrutandtheDniester,inCodriiHncetilor.In
this region (Fig. 9) there were identified seven fortifications (Hansca, Pojreni,
Suruceni, Horodca Mare, Horodca Mic, Durleti and Stolniceni) and about 17 open
settlements(Lapunjan,Niculi,Romanovskaja1974,s.5762;Zanoci1998,p.25).
Among them of particular interest is the fortification of Stolniceni (Fig. 10)
locatedonapronouncedplateauandfortifiedonitsaccessiblesouthern,easternand
northern sides by a defensive system consisting of two ramparts with adjacent
ditches (Srbu and Arnut 1995, p. 378380, fig. 1, 2). Despite the fact that these
important archaeological investigations are far from complete, the remains collected
sofarhaveundeniablesignificance.
For example, under the undisturbed mantle of the tumulus IV there were
found 29 inhumation burials. Skeletons found at a depth of 0,350,40m from the
current level of the tumulus mantle are arranged in a circle. Some of them are
partially,somecompletelydestroyed.Therearealsoskeletonsburiedwithoutskulls.
Althoughtheirorientationisdifferent,onesorientedNWprevail10burials.Therest
are orientedN 5 ones; SW 4; E3; SE2;S2; NE 2; W1.Along with the
skeletons there are found bronze arrowheads with three wings, pyramidal bone
arrows, fragments of bronze and iron fibulae, fragments of bronze bracelets,
fragmentsofGetaepotteryofthe4th3rdcenturiesBC(Niculietalii2013c,p.312,
fig. 4/17). Because of the way the dead are arranged, absence of sepulchral pits,
dispersionofgoodsandsoonwecanspeakratherofareligiouscomplexthanabout
usualburials.
At the current stage of research, it is difficult to determine whether the
Stolnicenisitefunctionedasaresidential,militaryandeconomiccenter,ratheritcan
beinterpretedasareligiouscenterforthecommunitiesofthisregion.
Agglomerationsoffortifiedandcivilsiteswerealsofoundintheareawest
of the Prut (Teodor 1999, p. 1517). For example, such a situation is attested on the
right bank of the Middle Prut East, where there are known the fortresses of the
Buneti,Mona,Arsura,Fedeti,Trzii,Rducneniandmanyunfortifiedsettlements
(Teodor1989,123;Zanoci1998,25).
Among these sites the fortress of Buneti occupies a special position being
locatedonapromontoryandsurroundedbyarampartcompletedonthesouthside
with an adjacent ditch (Bazarciuc 1979, 129131). As a result of archaeological
investigationsundertakeninsidethefortress,therewerediscoveredmanydwellings,
two hoards of ornaments, a princely diadem of gold, a large number of iron and
bronze tools, and large quantities of ThracoGetae and imported pottery (Bazarciuc
1983, p. 249273; Bazarciuc 1987, p. 3337). Among the structures found at Buneti
thereisoneofconsiderablesize(56m2),inwhichmanyreligiousobjectswere

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

271

Fig.11.SaharnaMic.Culticcomplex.

272

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

discovered,whichallowedV.Sirbutointerpretitasasacredplace(Srbu1993,p.111
112).Takingintoconsiderationthegeostrategiclocation,dimensionsofthedefensive
constructions(therampartontheaccessiblesideispreservedtoaheightof5m),and
theremainsfoundinsidethefortress,itcouldbearesidential,military,economicand
religiouscenterforthecommunitiesoftheMiddlePrutbasin.
Another residential center could be the fortress I of Stnceti, which
subsequentlywasaddedwiththeFortressII.Withinitszoneofinfluencetherewere,
probably, the fortifications from CotuCoplu (ovan and Ignat 2005) and Victoria
Stuceni(Punescuetalii1978,p.56)aswellasseveralcivilsettlementsintheregion.
The fortress I of Stnceti was located on a prominent plateau and was
fortified on the east and south sides by a rampart with adjacent ditch, both of
considerable proportions (Florescu and Florescu 2005, p. 132135). Inside there were
found the remains of dwellings, household pits and rich and varied archaeological
findings.Itisalsonotedthepresenceofacomplexofworshipinthecenterofthesite,
whichrepresentsritualdepositsofanimalskeletons,humanskullsandfragmentsofa
quadrilateralhearth(FlorescuandFlorescu2005,p.111112,fig.43).Thediscoveryof
thisreligiouscomplex,andotherobjectsofculticsignificance,placesthefortification
of Stnceti among sites that could serve as religious centers both for people in the
fortressandfromtheadjacentarea.
TangibleevidenceoftheactivitiesrelatedtothespirituallifeofThracoGetae
communities are also found in fortifications adjacent to residential, economic and
religiouscenters,buttheirvolumehereismoremodest.
For example, in the fortress of Saharna Mic located in the vicinity of the
fortress of Saharna Mare in the complex no. 1 was discovered an agglomeration of
stones, pieces of burnt clay, fragments of pottery with traces of secondary burning,
coalsandashes(Fig.11).Onthisovalplatformtherewasfoundthelowerpartofthe
bodyofahandshapedvesselsurroundedby18stones.Atthebottomtherewereput
strawandchaff,fromwhichtherewerekepttheashesandcharredwheatgrains.On
thistabletherewasahumanskull.Onthejawoftheskulltherearetracesofancient
cut and a well preserved molar, which would witness the sacrifice of an adult
(Niculietalii2008,p.3435,fig.19/1,3,47,photo7).
Humansacrificeswerealsofoundinseveralfortificationsaroundthecenter
of Butuceni. Thus, in the fortress of Trebujeni Potrca, at the base of the lower
rampart,togetherwithfragmentsofvesselsofthe4thcenturyBCahandfulofmillet
grainsandbonesofthecranialvaultofahumanskullwerefound(Niculi1998,p.
45).InthesiteofMscuiDealulcelMare,atthebaseoftheramparttwohearthsof
burntclaywerefound.Underthehearthno.1therewasachildsskeletonpreserved
in part on a length of 0,98m. Skeleton was deposited in dorsal decubitus position,
facing west (Fig. 12). Lack of the upper and partly the lower parts of the body, the
skull preserved only in part, with traces of blows with a sharp object, as wellas the
position under the hearth suggest the idea of human sacrifice for the sake of
constructionofthedefensivestructure(Zanoci2004,p.47,fig.10).

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

273

Fig.12.McuiDealulcelMare.Culticcomplex:1planandprofile;2
viewofhearthsinsitu;3stratigraphicprofileofthehearthno.1;4locationofthe
remainsofahumansacrificeinsitu.

The presence of this evidence of human sacrifice found in ThracianGetae

fortifications and civil settlements suggests that the ThracianGetae communities
knewthecustomoffoundationsacrifices,whichhadbeenwidelypracticedamongthe
Balkanpeoples(Arnut2014,p.127129).
Different beliefs associated with magic and superstition were witnessed due
to findings of anthropomorphic statuettes in the fortresses of Mcui Poiana
Ciucului(Niculi1987,s.105),CotuCoplu(ovanandIgnat2005,p.51,pl.16/9,
10),Fedeti(Coman1977,p.255,fig.1/8),andothers.
Thus,basedontheabove,itisclearthatthemaineconomic,military,political
and administrative centers contain archaeological information that indisputable
witnesses the presence of a wide range of religious and cult constructions

274

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

characteristicofagriculturalcommunitiesintheareatotheeastoftheCarpathiansin
thesecondhalfofthe1stmillenniumBC.
Itmayalsobenotedthatinthesites,wheresanctuarieswithrowsofcolumns
have been found, there are not known hearthsaltars, which could function at the
sametime.Althoughitistooearlytodrawfinalconclusions,however,asitseems,it
is already possible to outline a hierarchy or a separation / specialization of
residentialandreligiouscenters.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnut, T. 2003. Vestigii ale sec. VIIIII a. Chr. n spaiul de la rsrit de Carpai.
Chiinu.
Arnut, T. 2014. Spaii sacre i practici funerare din mileniul I a. Chr. n arealul
carpatobalcanic.BonsOffices,Chiinu.
Bazarciuc, V.V. 1979. Raport preliminar asupra cercetrilor efectuate de muzeul
ornescHuinanul1978,MCA,Oradea,129131.
Bazarciuc, V.V. 1983. Cetatea getodacic de la Buneti, jud. Vaslui, SCIVA, 34/3,
249273.
Bazarciuc, V.V. 1987. Noi descoperiri n cetatea getodacic de la Buneti (jud.
Vaslui),SCIVA,38/1,3339.
Coman, Gh. 1977. Figurine antropomorfe getodacice descoperite n judeul Vaslui,
SCIVA,28/2,253256.
Florescu,A.,Florescu,M.2005.CetiletracogeticedinsecoleleVIIIIa.Chr.dela
Stnceti(jud.Botoani).CetateadeScaun,Trgovite.
Gostar,N.1969.CetidacicedinMoldova.Bucureti.
Haheu,V.2008.SistemedefortificaiitracogeticelaestdeCarpai.Chiinu.
Iconomu,C.1980. Un aspect al influenii elenistice n lumea getodacic, Cercetri
istorice,XI,229247.
Lapunjan, V.L., Niculi, I.T., Romanovskaja, M.A. 1974. Pamjatniki rannego
eleznogoveka.ArheologieskajakartaMoldavii,vyp.4,Kiinev.
Mgureanu, D. 2004. Vetre decorate descoperite n aezarea de la Crlomneti
Cetuia(jud.Buzu),249258.In:Dacogeii80deanidecercetriarheologicesistematicela
cetiledacicedinMuniiOrtiei(Eds.A.RusuPescaru,I.Ferencz),Deva.
Niculi,I.T.1987.SevernyefrakijcyVIIvvdon.e.Kiinev.
Niculi, I. 1998. Raport preliminar despre rezultatele spturilor arheologice la
cetateageticPotrcadinrezervaiamuzealOrheiulVechidinanul1997,Chiinu.
Niculi, I., Arnut, T. 2004. Cult Constructions in the BalkanCarpathianPontic
SpaceintheFirstMilenniumB.C.,7188.In:AspectsofSpiritualLifeinSouthEastEurope
fromPrehistorytotheMiddleAges(Eds.V.Cojocaru,V.Spinei),Iai.
Niculi,I.,Teodor,S.,Zanoci,A.2002.Butuceni.Monografiearheologic.Vavila
EdinfSRL,Bucureti.

ADMINISTRATIVE,RELIGIOUSANDCULTCENTERSINTHE
EASTCARPATHIANAREADURINGTHE2NDHALFOFTHE1STMILLENNIUMBC

275

NiculiI.,Zanoci,A.,Arnut,T.2008.HabitatuldinmileniulIa.Chr.nregiunea
NistruluiMijlociu(situriledinzonaSaharna).BonsOffices,Chiinu.
Niculi, I. Zanoci, A., Arnut, T., B, M. 2010. Evoluia sistemului defensiv al
siturilor din zona Saharna n mileniul I a. Chr., 359393. In: Tracii i vecinii lor n
antichitate.StudiainhonoremValeriiSrbu(Ed.I.Cndea),Brila.
Niculi, I.,Zanoci,A., B, M.2013a.Diachronic evolution of sites fromSaharna
area, the region of Middle Dniester, 295314. In: The Thracians and their Neighbors in the
Bronze and Iron Ages. (Eds. Cr. Schuster, O. Crstina, M. Cosac, G. Murtoreanu)
Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Thracology (Trgovite, 10th14th
September2013),vol.I,Trgovite.
Niculi, I., Zanoci, A., B, M., Matveev, S. 2013b. Investigaiile arheologice la
situlSaharnaMare(20092012),II,Tyragetias.n.,VII/1,219292.
Niculi,I.,Arnut,T.,UrsuNaniu,R.,Corobcean,A.2013c.Raportpreliminar
desprespturilearheologicedinincintafortificatdinepocafieruluidelaStolniceniHnceti
(20112012),Chiinu.
Niculi, I., Zanoci, A., B, M., Corobcean, A. 2014. Cercetri geospaiale i
arheologice n microzona Saharna, 2729. In: Sesiunea tiinific a Muzeului Naional de
IstorieaMoldovei(1617octombrie2014,Chiinu).Rezumatelecomunicrilor,hiinu.
Punescu, A., adurschi, P., Chirica, V. 1978. Repertoriul arheologic al judeului
Botoani.Bucureti.
Postic, Gh. 2010. Caracteristici arheologice, 5367. In: Peisajul cultural Orheiul
Vechi(Ed.Gh.Postic),Chiinu.
Sanie,S.1995.Dinistoriaculturiiireligieigetodace.Iai
Srbu, V. 1993. Credine i practici funerare, religioase i magice n lumea geto
dacilor.Galai.
Srbu,V.,Arnut,T.1995.IncintafortificatdelaStolniceni,RaionulHnceti,Rep.
Moldova,378400.In:Cercetriarheologicenarianordtrac,vol.I,Bucureti.
Smirnova, G. 1976. Sanctuarul de lng satul Dolinean din regiunea Nistrului. SCIVA,
37/3,309317.
ovan, O.L., Ignat, M. 2005. Aezarea getic fortificat de la CotuCoplu, jud.
Botoani.CetateadeScaun,Trgovite.
Teodor, S. 1989. Civilizaia getodacic la Est de Carpai. Consideraii topografice,
115126.In:SymposiaThracologica,7,Tulcea.
Teodor, S. 1999. Regiunile estcarpatice ale Romniei n secolele VII .d.Hr.
Consideraiigeneraleirepertoriuarheologic.VavilaEdinfSRL,Bucureti.
Ursachi,V.1995.Zargidava.CetateadacicdelaBrad.Bucureti.
Vjazmitina, M.I. 1969. Frakijskie elementy v kulture naselenija gorodi Ninego Dnepra,
119134.In:DrevniefrakijcyvSevernomPriernomore,Moskva.
Vulpe,R.1957.antierularheologicPopeti,MCA,III,227246.

Zanoci,A.1998.FortificaiilegetodacicedinspaiulextracarpaticnsecoleleVIIIIa.
Chr.VavilaEdinfSRL,Bucureti.

276

IonNICULI,AurelZANOCI,MihailB

Zanoci,A.2004.TracogeiidinbazinulRutuluiInferior.CetateaMcuiDealul
cel Mare, 4581. In: Thracians and Circumpontic World (Eds. I. Niculi, A. Zanoci, M.
B) Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology (sept. 2004,
ChiinuVadulluiVod),II,Chiinu.
Zanoci,A.2011.Tipologiaievoluiaconstruciilordefensivedinspaiulestcarpatic
nsec.XII/XIIIIa.Chr.,Tyragetias.n.,V/1,117152.

IonNiculi,StateUniversityofMoldova,Chiinu

AurelZanoci,StateUniversityofMoldova,Chiinu,email:
azanoci@gmail.com

MihailB,StateUniversityofMoldova,Chiinu,email:
mb_usm@yahoo.com