Aparaschivei, D., Bilavschi, G., Pîrnău, L. (eds.), Varia Archaeologica (I). Tradiție și inovație în cercetarea arheologică din România și Republica Moldova, Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca, 2020
The archaeological site at Beidaud-Calebair is located in central Dobroudja, at the eastern extre... more The archaeological site at Beidaud-Calebair is located in central Dobroudja, at the eastern extremity of Casimcea Plateau, at approx. 12 km west of Golovița Lake and 7 km south of Altân Tepe copper mine. In 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 archaeologists Gavrilă Simion and Elena Lăzurcă investigated a fortified settlement at this location.
The fortification walls are of irregular shape, almost trapezoidal. The northern and western sectors were protected by two vallums / wooden walls with adjacent ditches, while the southern and western sectors coincide with the steep slope of the promontory and were probably consolidated with a simple palisade or a wooden wall. The land and air view distinguish at least three access areas – one in the north, one in the north-east corner and one on the western side.
The two research campaigns aimed to obtain stratigraphic data from the defensive system and the enclosed are. Unfortunately, the data was only succinctly published, on various occasions. The researchers considered that the earliest inhabitation dated to the end of the Bronze Age (Coslogeni culture) and Early Iron Age (Babadag culture), when Vallum I was thought to have been erected. The second inhabitation layer consists of numerous pits and dwellings with hand-made pottery and a large number of Greek pottery that could be dated to the 6th-5th centuries B.C.
After processing the entire inventory preserved from the archaeological campaign at the site, and after studying the research documentation, we were able to provide a new interpretation of the finds at Beidaud. This paper refers strictly to the finds from the early inhabitation period. Though published on several occasions, the research undergone so far at Beidaud-Calebair still raises several questions regarding the early inhabitation at the site. Research notes are rather succint and part of the layouts have been either lost or never drawn. Such deficiencies render difficult the reconstituion of the contexts and, implicitly, the establishment of a clear inhabitation timeline. Under these circumstancs, we could only use the typological method.
Thus, in our opinion, it is rather uncertain that inhabitation at the site began at the end of the Bronze Age, in a chronological horizon contemporaneous with Noua-Coslogeni cultures. As mentioned above, the pottery ascribed to this level (though some analogies can be identified in the Babadag culture) was found in uncertain contexts, often mixed with pottery specific to the Iron Age. The same enygma floats around the context of the bronze dagger, which, in our opinion, is an isolated find.
Most likely, inhabitation at the site started the Babadag culture, in the 10th-9th centuries B.C. Despite the insufficient documentation, the inhabitation seems to be specific to the Babadag culture, as the research unearthed mainly pits and dwellings dug in the ground. As the investigated area is rather small, we cannot estimate the inhabited surface. However, considering the data on Babadag culture sites, inhabited areas are usually large. Therefore it probably expanded beyond the fortified enclosure, which, in our opinion, dates to a later period.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
This volume brings together the contributions of 38 scholars concerned with Bronze Age topics on both sides of the Carpathians. It is dedicated to Tudor Soroceanu, on the occasion of his 80th birthday, as a modest homage to the scientific and spiritual legacy he left us.
BURIALS IN EIA SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN THE BALKANS, TISZA AND DNESTR
- ABSTRACT -
PROBLEMATICS
Burials in settlements are a particular funerary phenomenon, documented worldwide, in different eras and contexts. Archaeologically speaking, burials consist of skeletons or parts of human skeletons, in or not anatomical position, deposited in disused habitat structures (pits, dwellings). Often labelled as “macabre” findings, “atypical” or “irregular” burials, this is undoubtedly a type of treatment of the human body after death.
As this practice is often documented at the same time with the existence of actual cemeteries, the hypotheses regarding the status of the individuals deposited in the settlements are numerous. Setting aside some of the exceptional findings – such as A and B grave circles from Mycenae, which prove the special social position of the buried individuals – the human bones found in domestic context were most of the times considered to be the result of human sacrifices or burials of persons of special status: slaves, war prisoners, heretics, pariahs, convicts, etc. On the other hand, we need to take into account the ethnographic sources indicating that human societies practised numerous and complex funerary rituals, some of them involving manipulations and treatments of the body starting from the time of death until final deposition.
In this context, we can ponder upon the nature of the social and ritual mechanisms that led to the separation or dissolution of the usual limits between the living and the dead.
Within this problematic, our project sets out to draw up a list of the cases of burials in early Hallstattan settlements spread between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza Rivers, to analyze the respective inventory and the identified ritual gestures, compare them with similar situations from other areas and eras and confront them, in the end, with historical documentation.
SPACE AND AGE
Early Iron Age (ca. 1200/1100 – 800/700 BC) is characterized by the emergence and dissemination of iron metallurgy. This technology that was born in eastern Anatolia and neighbouring areas (Armenia and Cilicia) spread rapidly from the end of 2nd millennium BC, but especially during the so-called Dark Ages in Greece. This period was much tormented in the Aegean-Anatolian area, as the Sea People rose while the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean civilization fell.
In the northern Balkans, at the end of the 2nd millennium and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, classic cultural manifestations of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Monteoru, Noua, Coslogeni, Suciu de Sus, Žuto-Brdo–Gârla Mare, Cruceni-Belegiš, Zimnicea-Plovdiv etc.) come to an end and new ones take shape. Despite the emergence of the first iron artefacts, this is the peak of bronze metallurgy and of the deposition of bronze artefacts in ritual contexts.
The area we’ve selected for the study of this category of findings corresponds to the dissemination of several early Hallstattan archaeological cultures with grooved pottery (Bistreţ-Işalniţa, Gáva-Holidrady, Chişinău-Corlăteni etc.), but also with stamped and incised pottery (Pšeničevo, Babadag, Insula Banului, Gornea-Kalakača, Belozerka, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni), which are a variation of the funerary ritual . Nevertheles, in the entire area, in various proportions, probably due to the level of the investigations in the settlements, intramuros graves were also found.
STATE OF RESEARCH
Though the first such finds were uncovered since the 50’s, an analysis thereof is rather new archaeological endeavour in southern and Eastern Europe. The known publications so far mostly approach individual finds (e.g. Gomolava, Babadag, Niculiţel, Jurilovca–Orgame, Svilengrad, Saharna, Pusztataskony etc.). Syntheses on this topic are scarce and incomplete regarding the number of finds, area and method of investigation . Therefore an interdisciplinary approach over an extended area of various contemporaneous cultural manifestations may lead to the formation of a solid documentary base for an objective interpretation of this funerary practice.
CATALOGUE OF THE FINDS
We have catalogued the finds in the area between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza from 53 EIA sites (broadly 12th c.-8th c. BC) with 226 contexts for human bones from at least 512 individuals.
From the 53 catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from rather recent finds in the intra-Carpathian region, up to Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Novi Sad were included in the areal of Kalakača culture, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery.
Most human bones contexts in settlements were found in the area of Saharna-Solonceni culture, where the site at Hligeni alone provides 86 such contexts. However, this site can now be deemed an exception. More homogenous distribution is encountered at the Lower Danube in the sites ascribed to Babadag culture and in the intra-Carpathian region (Graphic 2).
As one would expect, our knowledge is growing continuously, triggered by new archaeological research, the progress of interdisciplinary investigations of archaeological science, and the diversification of theoretical approaches interpreting material culture from an anthropological perspective. The speed of these accumulations is increasing rapidly, while the number of studies and the variety and complexity of the themes is also continuously growing. That is why the periodic organization of conferences on welldefined themes and the publication of the respective volumes are absolutely necessary, not only in order to be able to integrate the new data into the broader picture, but also for the redefinition of the state of research within certain working areas and to show the experimental investigation of new research directions.
The present volume is the outcome of a conference with the same title organized at Tulcea, Romania, between the 10th and the 13th of November 2017, dedicated to the memory of Professor Alexandru Vulpe. Four prestigious institutions, two from Romania (the Gavrilă Simion Eco-Museum Research Institute, Tulcea and the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest) and two from Germany (the Institut für und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Heidelberg and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung, Berlin), with the generous support of the Mayor’s Office in Tulcea, managed to bring together over 50 scholars, most of them friends, colleagues, collaborators, students or simply acquaintances of Professor Vulpe. The intention of the organizers was to provide a suitable environment for sharing opinions and experience, and for an open and positive discussion, to recognize the current state of research on the topic, and to establish stronger connections for future collaboration in this field.
Contacts among human communities from various cultural areas, the circulation of people, ideas and objects, or the identification of the main communication routes as well as their role in shaping prehistoric societies are likely to remain forever topics of intense discussion within archaeology. The relations between the Carpathian-Balkan area and the Aegean during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age was one of the main themes of study for Alexandru Vulpe. As a supporter of the idea of Ex oriente lux, Vulpe always argued for the major role played by the Helladic civilization in the cultural development of the Carpathian Balkan area. The lectures delivered at the Tulcea conference and the papers published in the present volume highlight once again the complexity of these connections and the multitude of perspectives revealed when approaching such a theme.
Although the title of the volume indicates the main geographic areas in question, contributions from other cultural areas (i.e. Central Europe, the Middle Danube, Northern Pontic area, etc.), whose societies were in close contact with those of the Balkans, were also welcome. The four sections grouping the studies in the volume had not been established from the very beginning; they are the result of the subjects approached by the authors. Reading the papers attentively, one notices the diversity of the subjects and approaches and, in most cases, the novelty of the ideas expressed. We hope that the publication will provide research with a reference volume, opening new perspectives on the matters discussed. The present work is the result of the common effort of all authors, spanning a period of over three years. We wish to thank all contributors for their promptness and seriousness in answering our invitation to the volume, as well as for the openness and patience showed during the entire editing process. We are very much indebted to the Mayor’s Office of the community of Tulcea for the financial help and for the hospitality provided to the participants of the conference. Special thanks go to Douglas Fear (Heidelberg) for the careful language editing of the contributions to this volume.
These daggers are considered a creation of the Bilozerka culture, being dated loosely to the entire evolution of this culture (12th – 10thcenturies BC). The14C dating from the context excavated at Vânători (RoAMS-2130.46: 2791±33), as well as the association of the mould from the Lower Dniepr with late items, attributed by Vadim Bočkarev especially to the Zavadovka cultural group, could indicate for the Kardašinka type daggers a chronological framework situated during the late phase of the Bilozerka culture.
The area around Babadag Lake undoubtedly offered a favourable environment to human communities from the beginning of the first millennium BC. On a surface of approximately 200 km2, no fewer than nine settlements characterised by Babadag type pottery were identified. From a chronological point of view, these sites cover the 10th-9th centuries BC. The only site with an existence covering this entire period is the settlement from Babadag–Cetăţuie. A complex stratigraphy with over 2 m of archaeological depositions was identified here, as well as the only ample fortification works. Such investments necessitated, without doubt, coordination as well as an important mobilisation of the entire community. The unique character of the site from Babadag proves its importance in the studied area, situation indicating the probability of its functioning as a centre around which the other settlements were founded and to which the exploitation of this territory can be connected for approximately two centuries.
This volume brings together the contributions of 38 scholars concerned with Bronze Age topics on both sides of the Carpathians. It is dedicated to Tudor Soroceanu, on the occasion of his 80th birthday, as a modest homage to the scientific and spiritual legacy he left us.
BURIALS IN EIA SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN THE BALKANS, TISZA AND DNESTR
- ABSTRACT -
PROBLEMATICS
Burials in settlements are a particular funerary phenomenon, documented worldwide, in different eras and contexts. Archaeologically speaking, burials consist of skeletons or parts of human skeletons, in or not anatomical position, deposited in disused habitat structures (pits, dwellings). Often labelled as “macabre” findings, “atypical” or “irregular” burials, this is undoubtedly a type of treatment of the human body after death.
As this practice is often documented at the same time with the existence of actual cemeteries, the hypotheses regarding the status of the individuals deposited in the settlements are numerous. Setting aside some of the exceptional findings – such as A and B grave circles from Mycenae, which prove the special social position of the buried individuals – the human bones found in domestic context were most of the times considered to be the result of human sacrifices or burials of persons of special status: slaves, war prisoners, heretics, pariahs, convicts, etc. On the other hand, we need to take into account the ethnographic sources indicating that human societies practised numerous and complex funerary rituals, some of them involving manipulations and treatments of the body starting from the time of death until final deposition.
In this context, we can ponder upon the nature of the social and ritual mechanisms that led to the separation or dissolution of the usual limits between the living and the dead.
Within this problematic, our project sets out to draw up a list of the cases of burials in early Hallstattan settlements spread between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza Rivers, to analyze the respective inventory and the identified ritual gestures, compare them with similar situations from other areas and eras and confront them, in the end, with historical documentation.
SPACE AND AGE
Early Iron Age (ca. 1200/1100 – 800/700 BC) is characterized by the emergence and dissemination of iron metallurgy. This technology that was born in eastern Anatolia and neighbouring areas (Armenia and Cilicia) spread rapidly from the end of 2nd millennium BC, but especially during the so-called Dark Ages in Greece. This period was much tormented in the Aegean-Anatolian area, as the Sea People rose while the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean civilization fell.
In the northern Balkans, at the end of the 2nd millennium and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, classic cultural manifestations of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Monteoru, Noua, Coslogeni, Suciu de Sus, Žuto-Brdo–Gârla Mare, Cruceni-Belegiš, Zimnicea-Plovdiv etc.) come to an end and new ones take shape. Despite the emergence of the first iron artefacts, this is the peak of bronze metallurgy and of the deposition of bronze artefacts in ritual contexts.
The area we’ve selected for the study of this category of findings corresponds to the dissemination of several early Hallstattan archaeological cultures with grooved pottery (Bistreţ-Işalniţa, Gáva-Holidrady, Chişinău-Corlăteni etc.), but also with stamped and incised pottery (Pšeničevo, Babadag, Insula Banului, Gornea-Kalakača, Belozerka, Cozia, Saharna-Solonceni), which are a variation of the funerary ritual . Nevertheles, in the entire area, in various proportions, probably due to the level of the investigations in the settlements, intramuros graves were also found.
STATE OF RESEARCH
Though the first such finds were uncovered since the 50’s, an analysis thereof is rather new archaeological endeavour in southern and Eastern Europe. The known publications so far mostly approach individual finds (e.g. Gomolava, Babadag, Niculiţel, Jurilovca–Orgame, Svilengrad, Saharna, Pusztataskony etc.). Syntheses on this topic are scarce and incomplete regarding the number of finds, area and method of investigation . Therefore an interdisciplinary approach over an extended area of various contemporaneous cultural manifestations may lead to the formation of a solid documentary base for an objective interpretation of this funerary practice.
CATALOGUE OF THE FINDS
We have catalogued the finds in the area between the Balkans, Dnestr and Tisza from 53 EIA sites (broadly 12th c.-8th c. BC) with 226 contexts for human bones from at least 512 individuals.
From the 53 catalogued sites, most of them (cat. no. 1, 3-6, 10, 14, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 51-53) were ascribed to Gáva culture, most of the information concerning burials in settlements coming from rather recent finds in the intra-Carpathian region, up to Tisza River. Other such finds are concentrated at the Lower Danube, mostly ascribed to Babadag culture (cat. no. 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, 24, 27, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43); in our opinion, the site at Tămăoani can be ascribed to Belozerka culture (cat. no. 48). The finds from Upper and Middle Dnestr were ascribed both to Saharna-Solonceni culture (cat. no. 15, 39-40) and Černoles culture (cat. no. 20, 23, 50); the finds at Ostrovul Corbului, Gomolava and Novi Sad were included in the areal of Kalakača culture, and the finds from Sava, Karanovo and Svilengrad are probably part of Pšeničevo culture. A special place among these finds is held by the settlement from Tărtăria, characterized by Basarabi-style decorated pottery.
Most human bones contexts in settlements were found in the area of Saharna-Solonceni culture, where the site at Hligeni alone provides 86 such contexts. However, this site can now be deemed an exception. More homogenous distribution is encountered at the Lower Danube in the sites ascribed to Babadag culture and in the intra-Carpathian region (Graphic 2).
As one would expect, our knowledge is growing continuously, triggered by new archaeological research, the progress of interdisciplinary investigations of archaeological science, and the diversification of theoretical approaches interpreting material culture from an anthropological perspective. The speed of these accumulations is increasing rapidly, while the number of studies and the variety and complexity of the themes is also continuously growing. That is why the periodic organization of conferences on welldefined themes and the publication of the respective volumes are absolutely necessary, not only in order to be able to integrate the new data into the broader picture, but also for the redefinition of the state of research within certain working areas and to show the experimental investigation of new research directions.
The present volume is the outcome of a conference with the same title organized at Tulcea, Romania, between the 10th and the 13th of November 2017, dedicated to the memory of Professor Alexandru Vulpe. Four prestigious institutions, two from Romania (the Gavrilă Simion Eco-Museum Research Institute, Tulcea and the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest) and two from Germany (the Institut für und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Heidelberg and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung, Berlin), with the generous support of the Mayor’s Office in Tulcea, managed to bring together over 50 scholars, most of them friends, colleagues, collaborators, students or simply acquaintances of Professor Vulpe. The intention of the organizers was to provide a suitable environment for sharing opinions and experience, and for an open and positive discussion, to recognize the current state of research on the topic, and to establish stronger connections for future collaboration in this field.
Contacts among human communities from various cultural areas, the circulation of people, ideas and objects, or the identification of the main communication routes as well as their role in shaping prehistoric societies are likely to remain forever topics of intense discussion within archaeology. The relations between the Carpathian-Balkan area and the Aegean during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age was one of the main themes of study for Alexandru Vulpe. As a supporter of the idea of Ex oriente lux, Vulpe always argued for the major role played by the Helladic civilization in the cultural development of the Carpathian Balkan area. The lectures delivered at the Tulcea conference and the papers published in the present volume highlight once again the complexity of these connections and the multitude of perspectives revealed when approaching such a theme.
Although the title of the volume indicates the main geographic areas in question, contributions from other cultural areas (i.e. Central Europe, the Middle Danube, Northern Pontic area, etc.), whose societies were in close contact with those of the Balkans, were also welcome. The four sections grouping the studies in the volume had not been established from the very beginning; they are the result of the subjects approached by the authors. Reading the papers attentively, one notices the diversity of the subjects and approaches and, in most cases, the novelty of the ideas expressed. We hope that the publication will provide research with a reference volume, opening new perspectives on the matters discussed. The present work is the result of the common effort of all authors, spanning a period of over three years. We wish to thank all contributors for their promptness and seriousness in answering our invitation to the volume, as well as for the openness and patience showed during the entire editing process. We are very much indebted to the Mayor’s Office of the community of Tulcea for the financial help and for the hospitality provided to the participants of the conference. Special thanks go to Douglas Fear (Heidelberg) for the careful language editing of the contributions to this volume.
These daggers are considered a creation of the Bilozerka culture, being dated loosely to the entire evolution of this culture (12th – 10thcenturies BC). The14C dating from the context excavated at Vânători (RoAMS-2130.46: 2791±33), as well as the association of the mould from the Lower Dniepr with late items, attributed by Vadim Bočkarev especially to the Zavadovka cultural group, could indicate for the Kardašinka type daggers a chronological framework situated during the late phase of the Bilozerka culture.
The area around Babadag Lake undoubtedly offered a favourable environment to human communities from the beginning of the first millennium BC. On a surface of approximately 200 km2, no fewer than nine settlements characterised by Babadag type pottery were identified. From a chronological point of view, these sites cover the 10th-9th centuries BC. The only site with an existence covering this entire period is the settlement from Babadag–Cetăţuie. A complex stratigraphy with over 2 m of archaeological depositions was identified here, as well as the only ample fortification works. Such investments necessitated, without doubt, coordination as well as an important mobilisation of the entire community. The unique character of the site from Babadag proves its importance in the studied area, situation indicating the probability of its functioning as a centre around which the other settlements were founded and to which the exploitation of this territory can be connected for approximately two centuries.
This paper analyzes the artifacts made of stone (knapped and polished) and hard animal materials discovered at Garvăn–Mlăjitul Florilor site , aiming to improve our understanding of the artifacts’ operational process, from raw material block to discarded item: raw material, typology, technological and functional observations.
The fortification walls are of irregular shape, almost trapezoidal. The northern and western sectors were protected by two vallums / wooden walls with adjacent ditches, while the southern and western sectors coincide with the steep slope of the promontory and were probably consolidated with a simple palisade or a wooden wall. The land and air view distinguish at least three access areas – one in the north, one in the north-east corner and one on the western side.
The two research campaigns aimed to obtain stratigraphic data from the defensive system and the enclosed are. Unfortunately, the data was only succinctly published, on various occasions. The researchers considered that the earliest inhabitation dated to the end of the Bronze Age (Coslogeni culture) and Early Iron Age (Babadag culture), when Vallum I was thought to have been erected. The second inhabitation layer consists of numerous pits and dwellings with hand-made pottery and a large number of Greek pottery that could be dated to the 6th-5th centuries B.C.
After processing the entire inventory preserved from the archaeological campaign at the site, and after studying the research documentation, we were able to provide a new interpretation of the finds at Beidaud. This paper refers strictly to the finds from the early inhabitation period. Though published on several occasions, the research undergone so far at Beidaud-Calebair still raises several questions regarding the early inhabitation at the site. Research notes are rather succint and part of the layouts have been either lost or never drawn. Such deficiencies render difficult the reconstituion of the contexts and, implicitly, the establishment of a clear inhabitation timeline. Under these circumstancs, we could only use the typological method.
Thus, in our opinion, it is rather uncertain that inhabitation at the site began at the end of the Bronze Age, in a chronological horizon contemporaneous with Noua-Coslogeni cultures. As mentioned above, the pottery ascribed to this level (though some analogies can be identified in the Babadag culture) was found in uncertain contexts, often mixed with pottery specific to the Iron Age. The same enygma floats around the context of the bronze dagger, which, in our opinion, is an isolated find.
Most likely, inhabitation at the site started the Babadag culture, in the 10th-9th centuries B.C. Despite the insufficient documentation, the inhabitation seems to be specific to the Babadag culture, as the research unearthed mainly pits and dwellings dug in the ground. As the investigated area is rather small, we cannot estimate the inhabited surface. However, considering the data on Babadag culture sites, inhabited areas are usually large. Therefore it probably expanded beyond the fortified enclosure, which, in our opinion, dates to a later period.
The existence of such ceramic styles is not unique; on the contrary, there is a situation frequently found in the European archaeology and beyond. In the Carpathian-Danube area this horizon with stamped pottery partially coexists with a horizon characterised by channelled pottery (of Belegiš II-Lăpuş II-Gáva tradition), spread mainly in the intra-Carpathian area, but also found outside this area, both being replaced by the Basarabi style (Hänsel 1976; Gumă 1993; László 1994; Leviţki 1994a). In our opinion, the existence of these pottery styles on vast areas during the same chronological framework could represent a proof of networks on long distances, through which were transmitted the pottery-making tradition as well as other aspects of material and spiritual life.
while the secondary burials most likely belong to the middle period of the Bronze Age, some can probably be attributed to the Mnogovalikovaja culture (end of the 3rd mill.-early 2nd mill. BC).