This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-2232, within PNCDI III, TE 14/2020. Thanks are due the Romanian Water Administration, Prut-Bârlad branch for providing LiDAR derived DEM.
1Much has been written about Cucuteni culture over time and yet it continues to generate special interest, particularly on account of several debated issues related to the presence and evolution of this civilization in the Eastern Carpathian region of Romania, but also east of the Prut and Dniester rivers (Moldova and Ukraine). The work of our team is among the recent initiatives, culminating also in publications (Asăndulesei, 2017; Asăndulesei et al., 2020). These contributions, representing mostly interdisciplinary approaches, have produced solid new evidence positing a mandatory reassessment of issues related to the internal organization of settlements that had already been clarified in common opinion.
2The Chalcolithic Cucuteni culture is the richest and most widespread prehistoric cultural manifestation from the Eastern Carpathian area. This as well as its extremely varied character were behind the decision to consider in our research specific case studies belonging to this culture. The culture, which has a long tradition of archaeological research going back to the late 19th century, has been presented extensively elsewhere (Asăndulesei et al., 2017); here we highlight only some of the general issues still under debate. The Romanian part of this culture developed between 4600 and 3600/3500 cal BC. Known especially for its painted polychrome ceramics of high quality and its coroplastic art, especially of the anthropomorphic kind, which reveals a deep artistic and aesthetic sense, the Cucuteni culture is also extremely dynamic in terms of the typology of its settlements, making it an excellent focus for this study, warranted by the new data from non-invasive surveys on the planimetric interpretation of the sites.
3The present paper discusses a number of cases from north-eastern Romania (Fig. 1): Stroiești-Pietrărie (Iași county) – Cucuteni phases A/B, Focuri-Dealul Cioclea – Cucuteni phase A, Codreni (Vaslui county) – Cucuteni A/Stoicani-Aldeni, Drăgușeni-Cetățuie (Suceava county) – Cucuteni phase B. Parallels from other sites in the wider region are presented for the purpose of classifying the types of anomalies.
Figure 1. The research area in northeastern Romania (ArcMap 10.6.1).
4Oblique air photography, LiDAR surveying and particularly geophysical prospecting (vertical gradient or total field magnetic measurements using a five-probe Sensys instrument and a Geometrics G858 in duo-sensors configuration mode) have all contributed data to understanding the typology of Cucutenian sites from Eastern Romania by highlighting distinct characteristics of a planimetric nature.
5The buried subterranean Eneolithic structures, which are especially striking on the magnetic maps (Fig. 2), can be classified with respect to the form and intensity of the magnetic signal in terms of their functional purpose. They are either typically fired or rarely unfired dwellings, places of clay extraction, rubbish or storage pits, fortification ditches, palisade, pottery kilns, etc.
Figure 2. Magnetic maps for case studies: 1. Stroiești-Pietrărie; 2. Focuri-Dealul Cioclea; 3. Codreni, 4. Drăgușeni-Cetățuie.
6With respect to the arrangement of the dwellings inside the settlements, an entirely new model has been proposed, differing from what was known before for the area between the Carpathians and the Prut (Asăndulesei, 2015, 2017; Asăndulesei et al., 2020). It comprises two main areas with a high density of archaeological remains, which are distinct but which eventually form a unitary whole. The dwellings are generally rectangular in shape and their size ranges for the most part between 40 m2 and 150 m2. There is a number of special buildings with different alignments, sometimes unburnt but not overlapping other detected structures. Likewise, noteworthy are the megastructures, strategically placed in the planimetric context of the sites (150-220 m2). Structures located near the tentative access to the settlements should also be considered as special in terms of their possible defensive function alongside the complex system of ditches.
7Based on the geophysical data, it is possible to classify the ditches surrounding Cucutenian settlements into several types. There are cases in which the initial stage of settlement development benefits from the presence of two deep, parallel rows with wide openings in the upper part. They are joined by a third, much narrower and not too deep, but with a trajectory similar to the other two (see Focuri-Dealul Cioclea). Another situation encountered is that of an assemblage of two or three perfectly parallel ditches, very narrow and shallow, which delineate the habitation (see the Codreni site). Even when the sites are located on promontories with steep slopes, there is at least one ditch encompassing the settlement on all sides. The diversity of these features makes it difficult to determine their functionality. Still, it is possible that the deep ones, doubled by a possible palisade ditch, represent a complex defensive system. The shallow narrow ditches could rather have had a ritual character and apotropaic role, as well as being the remains of palisade works. With respect to the diversity of ditch types, a somewhat similar situation or parallels can be found also in the eastern Carpathian area, at Scânteia–Dealul Bodești and Ruginoasa–Dealul Drăghici.
8Pits are another category of magnetic features detected as part of the planimetry of Cucutenian sites. They have been observed in all of the presented case studies; their presumed purpose was either as refuse pits or storage bins (see the Codreni site).
9The total surface area of the sites varies, from approximately 1.5 ha for Focuri-Dealul Cioclea to 3 ha for Codreni, 4.5 ha for Stroiești-Pietrărie and 5 ha for Drăgușeni-Cetățuie, but the largest can be more than 10 ha, as estimated in the case of Ripiceni–Holm (Asăndulesei et al., 2020). A difference with respect to the size of the Cucutenian sites has been observed and becomes conspicuous as we move from the high terraces from the southern part of the Moldavian plain towards the much wider and more extensive plateaus of the north-eastern part of this landform unit.