Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rites

245

Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VII, Iaşi, 2000
SOME DATA ON HOUSE-BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND
FOUNDATION RITES IN THE ARIUŞD-CUCUTENI CULTURE
ATTILA LÁSZLÓ(University of Iaşi)The reconstruction of the building-techniques and of the original
appearance of neolithic-aeneolithic houses has been a long-time
preoccupation of archaeological researches. Particularly heatedcontroversions were and still are carried on, especially in the literature
dealing with the Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, concerning the surface
dwellings with "platforms", i.e. the houses having a floor made up of a
thick layer of clay, with a chaff or sand admixture, applied in most cases
over a bed of large split logs (PASSEK 1949, 7 sq., 132 sq.;
DUMITRESCU et alii 1954, 18-201, especially 176-201; DRAGOMIR
1962; PAUL 1967; 1981, 10-211; 1985; DUMITRESCU 1968;
MARINESCU-BÎLCU 1974, 25-37; MARKEVIČ 1981, 75-88; ELLIS
1984, 20, 48-54; A. LÁSZLÓ 1988, with further literature). An old-time
dilemma, for which researchers still take sides, is whether the platforms
were fired intentionally or whether their burning was caused by the firethat destroyed the house. Another question for archaeologists was the useof these platforms: were they floors placed on the ground, or were they"suspended" on posts at a certain distance from the ground, or eventually
were they remains of the “ground-floor’s” ceiling (respectively the“storey’s” floor) of two storeyed houses? There has also been the problemof the plan and structure of the buildings, of the way of sustaining the roof
and the walls of the houses. Last but not least, of equal importance are theattempts at retracing some foundation rites connected with the building of
the houses and their annexes.
Without intending to analyse these vast and controversial problemson the whole, in the present paper we shall discuss some discoveries andobservations made during the archaeological excavations carried out within
the fortified neolithic site of Malnaş Băi (South-Eastern Transylvania)

246

ATTILA LÁSZLÓ

which can contribute to abetter understanding of some of the problems mentioned above.
*Malnaş Băi health resort is situated in the north-western side of theBraşov Depression, at the southern extremity of the Eastern Carpathians, atan altitude of 565 m and having a moderate sub-Alpine climate(MIHĂILESCU 1969, 255; Judeţele, 215; SÎRCU 1971, 187; ROŞU 1980,207-218, 260-268). Being first mentioned in archaeological literature at thebeginning of the century (F. LÁSZLÓ 1910, 18-19, 44-45; 1911, 177;
1912, 62, 81; 1914, 14), the neolithic site constituted the object of ourresearches during several archaeological excavation seasons (1976-1989).
The site is lying on a promontory 20-25 m high, surrounded on three sides
by abrupt slopes, and situated at the confluence of the Olt river with one ofits small tributaries, the Somos brook. The only possible road up to the site
had been barred by a defence ditch and accompaning rampart. The site
belongs to the Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and displays four
habitation levels (I, II, IIIa, IIIb, numbered upwards), all of thembelonging to the Cucuteni A phase (A. LÁSZLÓ 1980; 1988).
The following part of the paper discusses two platform dwellings
built by different techniques and certains foundation rites connected withthe building of the houses. The first one (L1) is part of the superior level,IIIb, and the second one (L2) is part of level II.
L1 displays the same characteristics as the known dwellings of
Cucuteni and Tripolye area. The only extant traces are the remains of burnt
clay-daub corresponding to the ruins of the house. Under the fallen remainsof the walls -, a mass of fired wattle-and-daub fragments -, extending on acca. 11 x 8 m area, the platform of the house could be clearly observed.
The platform was prepared on a sub-structure of wrought wood (beams,boards) whose smooth surface was imprinted on the inferior side of thefloor’s clay layer. This clay layer, hardened by burning, is well preservedin the form of a cracked "plate", 6-10 cm thick. The only area where there
is no platform is the north-eastern corner of L1, where the hearth of thehouse was situated. This missing part of the platform is not caused by any
subsequent disturbance, but, as it appears, can be attribute to a building
technique for this type of houses. Thus, it has been observed that in otherSome data on house-building techniques and foundation rites

247

sites of the Cucuteni culture the platform is also missing under the hearthsof houses, the hearths being built directly on the ground (DUMITRESCUet alii 1954, 182). Therefore, the hearth places had been previously
established and avoidance of their building on the platform could be ananti-fire security measure: the suppression of the effect of hearth hightemperature on the wooden parts of the platform. It this explanation iscorrect, it can constitute an argument against the theory according to which
the platform was burnt intentionally.
Judging on the only avaible element, the platform, one can statethat the building had a rectangular shape of cca. 8 x 6 m. Because no post
holes were discovered, we can accept an earlier hypothesis of Hubert
Schmidt, taken over by Vladimir Dumitrescu following the uncovering of
44 houses of the Cucuteni A site of Hăbăşeşti (SCHMIDT 1932, 6-7;
DUMITRESCU et alii 1954, 187). According to this hypothesis the walls
were built on wooden beams, laid on the ground, which formed a frame all
around the platforms. Into these beams were inserted the vertical upholding
fork-poles for the roof and the walls, i.e. wood poles on which wasinterwoven the wattle subsequently plastered with a clay and chaffadmixture.
Besides these observations concerning the building technique of
L1, we remark the find of a whole ceramic pot under the platform of thehouse. The vessel was deposited (with its indeterminate content) as anoffering at the beginning of the construction. Such custom, probably as partof a more complex religious ceremony, is a wide-spread manifestation
form of the ancient foundation rituals (see: infra).
L2 was built on other techniques, similar to the technique applied
for constructing the neolithic houses of Ariuşd (Erősd: F. LÁSZLÓ 1914a,323-378, 401-414). After the cleaning of the platform, well preserved andburnt to a red-orange hue, there were observed round holes disposed inlines: the traces of the wooden posts that upheld the lateral and partition
walls, as well as the roof of the house. The house, which underwent several
modifications during its existence, was of rectangular shape of cca. 7,50 x
6,50 m. The clay-daub layer at the same level as the floor was observedoutside the walls all around the house. The dismantling of the remains of
the house and their sectioning along the line of the post holes made several
observations possible concerning the way in which the house was built, thetechnique of fixing the posts included. Thus it could be established that the248

ATTILA LÁSZLÓ

whole operation began by
the digging of several narrow and deep holes disposed in accordance withthe previously conceived plan of the house. The holes had approximately
straight walls and bottom, a diameter of only 35-45 cm and a depth ofabout 1-1,10 m from the superior limit of level I, from where they weredug. The upholding posts were placed one by one in these holes, the empty
spaces being filled with well beaten yellow clay. The posts (whose places
were filled with dark-coloured earth after their rottening) had a diameter of
18-20 cm and were fixed at regular intervals of cca. 1 m. After the putting
up of the poles, the place of the future house was leveled by the spreadingover it of an argillaceous earth layer 10-15 cm thick (which appears in theprofile section as covering level I and the opening of the post holes, being
pierced only by the poles perforations). It was only after these preliminary
operations that they proceeded to the execution of the house floor(platform), to the making of the wattle skeleton of the walls, subsequently
plastered with clay mixed with chaff, and the building of a double-gabled
roof. It is obvious that when the floor was made, the wooden posts werealready standing, a fact which makes the intentional burning of theplatform improbable.
When some of the posts began giving in, it became necessary tostrengthen the house structure by the introduction of secondary upholding
posts. Unlike the original posts, these were not fixed in holes dug from thesuperior limit of level I, but they were placed directly from the surface ofthe house floor (platform). Moreover, both on the northern and easternsides of L2 we identified a complete line of such holes for the secondary
posts, fact which may indicate the moving, at a given moment, of therespective walls from the initial posts into the ones fixed at a later date, ora possible enlargement of the house by building up of additional walls. All
these facts point to the existence of several phases in the functioning of thisbuilding.
Observations regarding the house’s platform can be mentioned tothe same effect. The initial floor of the house was made of a thick layer ofclay laid directly over the leveling layer without wooden sub-structure.
(This fact excludes the possibility that the platform had been “suspended”
on posts at a certain distance from the ground. For such a hypothesis see
PAUL 1967; 1985). At a given moment, probably on one occasion of thereconditioning of the house, the floor was thickened. Over the initial floor

Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rites

249

was found a thick layer made up of fragments of burnt clay-daub carrying
imprints of poles and wattles, as well as fragments of pottery. This mass of
rubble was carefully leveled and covered with a new layer of clay, theresult being a 30 cm thick “platform”. During this operation there had beenplaced into the platform structure numerous ceramic vessels of different
types, also covered with the uppermost layer of clay. Some of these pots
were entirely buried, others fragmentary, and part of them must have been
intentionally broken on the spot, in a ritual way. All these vases, which canbe considered as offerings dedicated to some divinities, were put in theground during rituals, with the aim of securing the durability of thebuilding and the welfare of its inhabitants. (For the question of foundation
sacrifices in neolithic sites, with further references, see MAKKAY 1979;1986).
There are indicia that in the Malnaş site bloodless foundation
sacrifices were not the only ones practised. Thus, under the southern partof hearth 8, situated in close proximity of L2 and belonging to habitationlevel II as well, very many animal bones were discovered. Half of a vasesupport (reclining on a larger flat stone) as well as two small whole vases
were imbedded in the body of the hearth and partially beneath it. Besidethe hearth were also discovered two fragmentary feminine statuettes. The
hearth is badly preserved, with broken edges and this is the reason why wecannot be sure whether the statuettes were intentionally put under it.
Regarding the animal bones, they are very fragmented, broken, most ofthem carrying traces of burning, as it they were part of the left-overs of afeast. By species, the bones come from four or five stags (Cervus elaphus),
at least two deer (Capreolus capreolus), three sheep or goats (Ovicaprinae)
and one beef (Bos taurus) to which can be added two pigs, one of themdomestic (Sus scrofa dom.) and the other probably a wild boar (Sus scrofaferus). The bones come from all parts of the skeleton so one cannot
therefore speak of any preference for a certain part of the animal’s bodies.
Besides the above mentioned animals, a fragment of a marten’s (Martesmartes) jaw was also identified. Statistically speaking, the abovementioned figures generally correspond to the frequency of the different
species of domestic and wild beasts identified in the neolithic site of
Malnaş Băi (the animal bones were determined by Prof. Sergiu Haimovici,University of Iaşi).

250

ATTILA LÁSZLÓInstead of a final
conclusion, we can consider that, very probably, both the hearth 8 and theneighbouring “house” L2 had been a particular destination in the system ofreligious worship of the Malnaş Băi settlement’s prehistoric community.
ADDENDUM
This paper has been prepared for the Third Symposium on Upper
Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and theMediterranean Basin, Budapest, September 3-7, 1990. As the proceedingsof the Symposium were not edited, we are going to publish here the text ofthe paper with sightly adjustements, without the unrecovered illustrations.
(For some details as concerne the pictures see A. LÁSZLÓ 1988).
Meanwhile, concerning the neolithic settlement of Malnaş Băi, thefollowing studies have already been published, which complete theinformation included in this paper: A. LÁSZLÓ 1993; 1993a; 1993b;
1996; 1997; 1998, 21-23 and 50-53 (= plates XVIII-XXI); LÁSZLÓ,HAIMOVICI 1995.
Regarding the chronological position of the Malnaş Băi –settlement, for the habitation layers I-II the following uncalibrated
radiocarbon data were obtained in the Laboratories of Heidelberg,
Germany (Dr. B.Kromer) and Gliwice, Poland (Prof.dr. Anna Pazdur):
Hd – 14118
5663 ± 42 BP (charcoal)
Hd – 14109
5497 ± 100 BP (charcoal)
Hd – 15082
5407 ± 20 BP (bone)
Hd – 15278
5349 ± 40 BP (bone)
Gd – 5858
Gd – 5861
Gd – 5860
Gd – 4682
Gd – 4690

5940 ± 60 BP (charcoal)
5880 ± 80 BP (charcoal)
5490 ± 80 BP (charcoal)
5420 ± 150 BP (charcoal)
4950 ± 100 BP (charcoal)

Without analysing at the moment the value of these data, there is tobe mentioned, that, generally, these datings are in concordance with theradiocarbon chronology of the phase A of the Cucuteni Culture (see:MANTU 1998, especially p.171-192 and tables 7-8).

Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rites251

BIBLIOGRAPHY
DRAGOMIR Ion T.
1962
Unele consideraţii cu privire la modul de construcţie al locuinţelor dinaşezările culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie, SCIV, 13, 2, p.393-398.
DUMITRESCU Vladimir
1968
Cu privire la platformele de lut ars ale locuinţelor unor culturi
eneolitice, AMN, 5, p.389-396.
DUMITRESCU Vladimir et alii
1954Hăbăşeşti. Monografie arheologică, Bucureşti.
ELLIS Linda
1984
The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture. A Study in Technology and the Originsof Complex Society, BAR- Int. Series, 217, Oxford.
JudeţeleJudeţele României Socialiste, Bucureşti, 1969.
LÁSZLÓ Attila
1980Şantierul arheologic Malnaş Băi, jud. Covasna, Materiale, XIV(Tulcea), p.124-126.
1988
Date noi privind tehnica de construcţie a locuinţelor neolitice,ArhMold, 12, p.23-31.
1993
Neue Angaben über die Befestigungsanlagen der Ansiedlungen derAriuşd-Cucuteni Kultur, in: Actes du XIIe CISPP, vol. 2, Bratislava,
p.352-354.
1993a Le sud-est de la Transylvanie dans le néolithique tardif et lechalcolithique. Nouvelles données et considérations, in: The Fourth
Millenium BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium Nessebar(Bulgaria), 28-30 August 1992, Sofia, p.62-76.
1993b Aşezări întărite ale culturii Ariuşd-Cucuteni în sud-estul Transilvaniei.
Fortificarea aşezării de la Malnaş Băi, ArhMold, XVI, p.33-50.
1996
Malnaş-Băi, in: Situri cercetate în perioada 1983-1992, ComisiaNaţională de Arheologie, Brăila, p.68-69.
1997
Malnaş Băi, in: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice 1983-1992, Bucureşti,p.52-53.
1998
Aşezarea de tip Ariuşd de la Malnaş-Băi, in: Simpozionulştiinţific/Catalogul expoziţiei “Cultură şi civilizaţie din CarpaţiiRăsăriteni în lumina noilor descoperiri arheologice”, Sf. Gheorghe,
p.21-23 and 50-53 (= plates XVIII-XXI);LÁSZLÓ A., HAIMOVICI Sergiu
1995 Nature et culture en Transylvanie orientale dans l’énéolithique.
Contributions archéologiques et archéozoologiques à la connaissancedu dévéloppement de la civilisation Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolie, in:Nature et Culture. Actes du Colloque International de Liège, 13-17 dec.

252

ATTILA LÁSZLÓ1993,vol.I,
ERAUL 68, Liège, p.499-528.
LÁSZLÓ Ferencz
1910
In: Csutak V., László F., Jelentés a Székely Nemzeti Múzeum 1908-1909
évi állapotáról [Rapport sur l’état du Musée National Szekler pour lesannées 1908-1909] (following: Jelentés SzNM …).
1911
Háromszék vármegyei praemykenaei jellegű telepek – Stations del’époque pré-mycenienne dans le comitat de Háromszék, DolgozatokTravaux (Kolozsvár/Cluj), 2, p.175-259.
1912
In: Gödri F., Csutak V., László F., Jelentés SzNM, 1910-1911.
1914
In: CsutakV., László F., Jelentés SzNM, 1913.
1914a Ásatások az erősdi őstelepen – Fouilles à la station primitive de Erősd,I, Dolgozatok-Travaux, 5, p.279-417.
MARINESCU-BÎLCU Silvia
1974
Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul României, Bucureşti.
MAKKAY János
1979
Foundation Sacrifices in Neolithic Houses of the Carpathian Basin, in:Valcamonica Symposium III. The Intellectual Expressions ofPrehistoric Man: Art and Religion. Proceedings, p.157-167.
1986
Bauopfer in der Lengyel-Kultur und seine Bezienhungen zu den
Bauopferformen der Körös-Kultur und der Linienbandkeramik, in:Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel-Kultur, Nové Vozokany,
5-9 November 1984. Nitra-Wien, p.169-175.
MANTU Cornelia-Magda
1998 Cultura Cucuteni. Evoluţie, cronologie, legături, Piatra-Neamţ.
MARKEVIČ Vsevolod I.
1981
Pozdne-Tripol’skie plemena severnoj Moldavii, Kišinev.
MIHĂILESCU Vintilă1969
Geografia fizică a României, Bucureşti.
PASSEK Tatjana S.
1949
Periodizacija tripol’skich poselenij, MIA, 10, Moskva-Leningrad.
PAUL Iuliu
1967În legătură cu problema locuinţelor de suprafaţă cu platformă dinaşezările culturilor Petreşti şi Cucuteni-Tripolie, SCIV, 18, 1, p.3-24.
1981
Der gegenwärtige Forschungsstand zur Petreşti-Kultur, PZ, 56, 2,p.197-234.
1985
Neue Erkentnisse zur rumänischen Volksarchitektur, ForVL, 28, 1,p.89-98.
ROŞU Alexandru
1980
Geografia fizică a României, Bucureşti.
SCHMIDT Hubert
1932
Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumänien, Berlin-Leipzig.
SÎRCU Ion
1971
Geografia fizică a Republicii Socialiste România, Bucureşti.

Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rites

253