Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk, Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape, Chișinău, 2018, 150 p. by Postica Gheorghe

Ministry of Education, Culture and Research of the Republic of Moldova

Gheorghe POSTICĂ, Valerii KAVRUK

Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape

Chișinău, 2018

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

CZU: 902/904(478) P 87

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Coperta, design & prepres: Veaceslav POPOVSCHI

Descrierea CIP a Cameei Cărții Postică Gheorghe. Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape / Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk; Min. of Education, Culture and Research of the Rep. of Moldova. – Chişinău: S. n., 2018 (F.E.-P. “Tipografia Centrală”). – 152 p.: fig. color. Referinţe bibliogr.: p. 136-150 (244 tit.) şi în subsol. – 500 ex. ISBN 978-9975-53-935-7 902/904(478) P 87

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

CONTENTS

PREFACE........................................................................................................ 5 1. GENERAL DATA ON LANDSCAPE............................................................. 7

3. THE FORMATION OF THE LANDSCAPE................................................. 26 3.1. General Stages.................................................................................... 26 3.2. Stage I. The genesis of geological formations, relief and river network................................................................................................ 26 3.3. Stage II. The genesis and formation of the archaeological landscape............................................................................................ 27 3.4. Stage III. The recognition of the Landscape’s heritage value, its research and preservation............................................................... 56 3.5. Preserving of the archaeological landscape............................................................................................. 59 4. THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE LANDSCAPE................................. 61 5. THE PEŞTERA SITE.................................................................................. 65 5.1. The known archaeological evidance.................................................. 66 5.2. The Mongol town Shehr al-Cedid...................................................... 75 5.3. The Moldavian town of Orhei............................................................. 96 6. THE BUTUCENI SITE.............................................................................. 105 6.1. Locating Site..................................................................................... 105 6.2. Getae Fortifications.......................................................................... 108 6.3. The Peştera rock-carved cave........................................................... 116 6.4. The Bosie Pârcălab Monastery Rock-Carved Cave........................... 121 6.5. The Trebujeni-Mine Rock-Carved Cave............................................ 125

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2. NATURAL SETTING OF THE LANDSCAPE................................................. 7 2.1. Geographical position.......................................................................... 7 2.3. Geomorphology................................................................................. 14 2.4. Hydrology........................................................................................... 22 2.5. Eco-zone............................................................................................. 23 2.6. Climatex............................................................................................. 23 2.7. Soils.................................................................................................... 24 2.8. Flora.................................................................................................... 24 2.9. Fauna.................................................................................................. 25

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

7. THE MAȘCĂUȚI SITE............................................................................. 126 7.1. General............................................................................................. 126 7.2. The Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului Getae Fortress.................................. 127 7.3. The Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare Getae Fortress................................. 127 7.4. The Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului Early medieval fortress..................... 127 7.5. The Macicauţi Hermitage Rock-Carved Cave................................... 127 7.6. The Peşterile Ciucului Rock-Carved Cave........................................ 129 7.7. The Bisericuţa Chapel Rock Carved Cave........................................ 129 8. THE SITES IN THE LANDSCAPE’S BUFFER ZONE................................. 129 9. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 132

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE LANDSCAPE................................................. 136

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is well known in the Republic of Moldova and among specialists from Russia and Romania, however both the public and specialists from outside Eastern and South-Eastern Europe are unaware of this cultural heritage. During the last 60 years were published many works on the archaeology, architecture, ethnography and geography of Orheiul Vechi landscape, but among them there is no publication accessible to the reader in an international language, which could help an unknowing Russian or Romanian reader to get a comprehensive knowledge of this landscape. This time, the authors although being archaeologists, one specialised in medieval archaeology and another in prehistoric archaeology, but both with relevant experience in the management of archaeological heritage, did not intend to approach this landscape from a strictly archaeological point of view and possibly insist on some questionable issues regarding the chronology of vestiges, their typology, etc. The authors, based on the achievements of several generations of specialists - biologists, botanists, architects, ethnographers, historians and archaeologists, have proposed themselves to offer the international reader a general, whole and integrated picture of the entire Landscape from Orheiul Vechi, with its aspects that were formed by both the action of Nature and of Man. The authors insist that no element, regardless of how informative it may look, be it the medieval inscriptions engraved on walls or on crosses from the churches dug in the rock of Răut River, or the star with an Arabic inscription found on the wall of a Moldavian palace, or many others like these, can not be interpreted correctly from a historical point of view other than when viewed in the general context of the sites and the entire Landscape. The authors are convinced that beyond the extremely generous source for the reconstruction of the past the vestiges of nature and culture from this Landscape provide, this heritage space, with all its components, regardless of their age, nature or character, is an integral part of the landscape in which we live today. In other words, the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is not just a phenomenon of the past, but also of the present. Under these circumstances, as people who value history, as we are historians of formation, we are also persons organically integrated in the life of today’s society with an optimistic look in the future. Therefore, with this publication the authors are concerned not only with the deciphering of the past but, above all, with the proactive preservation of this Landscape, which can become an emblematic identity objective for the Republic of Moldova. When we add the adjective “proactive” to the preservation word, we want to emphasize that we do not address the issue of preservation to be done at all costs and in the detriment of other spheres of concern and the local community. Such an approach, on one hand, is overcome and, on the other hand, is not feasible even for

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

PREFACE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

economic reasons. Proactive preservation presumes a real interest of the community, economic agents, especially those in the field of tourism, local and central authorities. Generous goals such as preserving and integrating the Orheiul Vechi archaeological heritage can be achieved only if all the factors affected by this objective are aware that the efforts and consumed resources will result in a reasonable future with concrete and tangible benefits, such as increase in welfare of the inhabitants, improvement of environmental conditions, job creation, social inclusion and other.

Figure no. 1. Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Gh.Postică).

Figure no. 2. Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Gh.Postică).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape represents a group of exceptional archaeological sites, located in a natural fortified space, with unique features on the world scale. The name of “Orheiul Vechi” comes from the homonym town that existed in these places during the late medieval period. The term of “Orhei” is a linguistic echo of the medieval town (“Orhei” coming from the Mongol term of “Өргөө” (=Urga), meaning palace and residence, but also from “ruins of a palace”, the latter meaning reflecting in fact the situation on the abandoned town at the beginning of modern times). Being a result of the millennial impact of the human genius on the environment, the Archaeological Landscape Orheiul Vechi represents an extraordinary deposit of heritage values, a place of rare beauty and great attractiveness which deeply impresses each visitor. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is located close to the eastern border of Moldova, in the meeting place of three major geographical zones: the Eurasian steppe, the East-European forest-steppe, and the Carpatho-Danubian basin. It includes an amphitheatre bordered by high rocky banks of the Răut River, as well as two capes within it, streamlined by the meandering course of the river. In this way the landscape is well naturally protected. At the same time, the Răut River links the Landscape with the Dniester River which is the most important route between the Carpathians and the Black Sea. It includes three archaeological sites: Peştera, Butuceni and Maşcăuţi, with remains dating between ca. 30.000 BC and 1800 AD. The exceptional defence potential of the Landscape and its connection to the natural trans-regional communication network have been ingeniously turned into account during the Early Iron Age and the Middle Ages by the societies whose main resources were provided by war, trade and political domination. The most remarkable parts of the Landscape are: the compact group of Getae fortresses (6th – 3rd centuries BC), the Mongol town of Şehr al-Cedid (ca. 1330 – 1369 AD), and the Moldovan town of Orhei (ca. 1370 – 1540 AD). All of them were the most important politic-and-military, economic and cultural centres in the region.

Figure no. 3. The location of the Republic of Moldova.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

1. GENERAL DATA ON LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The archaeological remains within the Landscape reveal very intense demographical and cultural interferences, bringing together peoples and cultures specific to the territories between China and Carpathians, Anatolia and Baltic Sea. The many religious edifices uncovered within the Landscape – shrines, temples and monasteries – display the succession and coexistence of different religions: pagan, Muslim and Christian, while the laic buildings combine oriental and Carpatho-Danubian architectural styles. Human settlements have brought significant transformation to the landscape through building the large defensive structures and digging over 200 caves and grottoes, as well as by the dramatic deforestations. Thus, the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is the joint work of nature and man. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is located in the central-eastern part of the Republic of Moldova and lies along the gorge of the lower course of the Răut River, 14 km upstream from the confluence of the Răut and the Dniester Rivers. Administratively, the Landscape comprises the territory of the Trebujeni, Butuceni and Morovaia villages, belonging to the Trebujeni commune of Orhei district. The geographic center point for Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is: Northing: 47o 18’ 20’’; Easting: 28o 58’30’’.

Figure no. 4. The location of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape in the Republic of Moldova.

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 5. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (the boundaries of the Landscape is highlighted in red).

Figure no. 6. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (is highlighted in red).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is managed by the Public Institution Orheiul Vechi Cultural-Natural Reserve. The Property is clearly delimited by a border line, of which length is 13.232,0397 m. Its trail follows the Landscape natural limits (the river course and edges of the steep banks) and the border lines of the ownerships and the road lines. The boundary encompasses the surface of 539,127 ha. In this way, between the border of the Property and that of buffer zone there is a surface of 10.525,433 ha and length 48.647,863 m. The border of the buffer zone is the same of buffer zone of Cultural-Natural Reserve Orheiul Vechi, and was officially established by the Government Decision no. 228, 23.03.2009. The limits of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are formed by natural landmarks (the route of the Răut River, cliffs, bottoms and banks of ravines), boundaries of the land properties and roads. The Landscape follows a tortuous path defined from four sides: northern, western, southern and eastern. On the northern side, the boundary route has a length of 3520.54 meters. It starts in the junction point between the Răut River and the ravine from the northern bank of the Peştera promontory, beside defence line no. 1 of the medieval town of Orhei and ends at the edge of the forest located on the east bank of the Morova ravine. For about 2/3 of this side (2023.60 meters), the boundary follows the course of the Răut River, to its confluence with the ravine on the southern bank of the Butuceni promontory, at 119.50 meters east of the Trebujeni bridge. From this point, the boundary ascends on the ravine’s course (214.31 meters), then follows several interconnected country roads to the edge of the Morova ravine (739.05 meters). Further, on a natural ridge, the boundary (331.50 meters) descends to the Morovaia brook. Then, over a length of 106.38 meters, the boundary follows the aforementioned stream route and reaches its intersection with a ravine that starts at the edge of the forest on the east bank of the Morova ravine. Subsequently, the boundary ascends on the above-mentioned ravine to the edge of the forest (105.70 meters). On the eastern side, the boundary route has a length of 1749.66 meters. Starting from the end of the northern side, it follows a country road (1663.48 meters) on the eastern edge of the Morova ravine, up the Maşcăuţi-Ustia road. The last segment of this boundary, measuring 86.18 meters, follows the road to the Răut River, near the Maşcăuţi bridge. On the southern side, the boundary route has a total length of 4571.09 meters. Further along on the east side, it follows the course of the Răut River over a distance of 2029.50 meters. Then it ascends through a ravine to the south terrace of Răut (332, 68 meters). Further, it follows interconnected country roads over a distance of 1913.95 meters. In the west, it passes through two interconnected ravines over a length of 294.96 meters. On the western side, the route of the boundary has a total length of 3390.73 meters. This side, in continuation to the south side, along most of its length (3068.14 meters), up to the Brăneşti-Trebujeni highway, the boundary follows country interconnected roads stretching over the southern and western edge of the Răut gorge. From the Brăneşti-Trebujeni highway, along the defense line no. 1 of the medieval town of Orhei (146.44 meters), the boundary crosses an agricultural field. Subsequently, it goes down through the ravine from the north bank of the Peştera promontory over a length of 176.15 meters, up to the Răut River, where the northern and the western boundaries connect.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is part of the Moldovan Orheiul Vechi cultural-natural Reserve created by Law no. 251 of 04.12.2008 and the government decision no. 228 of 23.03.2009 on establishing the “Orheiul Vechi” cultural-natural Reserve. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is located in the central part of the Reserve, occupying an area of 539.1278 ha, which represents 10.8 % of the total surface. At the same time, the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is part of the Orhei National Park, established by Moldovan parliament’s decision no. 201 of 12.07.2013, which extends over an area of 33790.0 ha and encompasses the Orheiul Vechi culturalnatural Reserve.

Figure no. 7.

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (the boundaries of the Landscape are highlighted in red, and its buffer zone boundaries are highlighted in pink).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 8. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape and the CulturalNatural Reserve. A – The Area of the Archaeological Landscape, B – The Area of the Cultural-Natural Reserve, C - The Area of the buffer zone.

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

The Orhei National Park correlated with Orheiul Vechi Reserve and Archaeological Landscape.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 9.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

2. NATURAL SETTING OF THE LANDSCAPE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2.1. GEOGRPHICAL POSITION

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is situated at a distance of 50 km northeast of the capital of the country, the city of Chişinău. The site is located on the eastern edge of the Moldavian Plateau on a calcareous formation dating to the Sarmatian Stage (23.7 to 5.3 million years ago), along steep gorges cut through this formation by the River Răut. Because of its location and extraordinarily defensible geographical setting – a virtual castle with moats and walls superior to any built by humans – the site has been occupied by political, economic, and military centres for thousands of years. As such, it was also a point of cultural intersection and communication. As the position changed hands, it served to integrate cultures and civilizations on the east-west and north-south axes of South-Eastern Europe. The site is located at the intersection of the sylvo-steppe and steppe regions, and is part of the massive Codry Orhei (Orhei Forest), a historic-geographical subdivision recognized as exceptional even in antiquity. Human groups have flourished within the natural fortress provided by the gorges for at least 30,000 years. According to the Landscape study1, besides the variety and originality, the Landscape shows the remarkable geomorphological and defensive unity.

2.2. GEOMORPHOLOGY The Landscape resembles a hemispherical amphitheatre of 3,500 meters (EastWest) x 1,500 meters (North–South), one that is defined by the Răut River’s steep and high banks. The extremely tortuous course of the Răut River, ranging from 15 to 20 meters in width, has produced embedded meanders, which stretch together through limestone bedrock for 7,000 meters. The downstream left bank is nearly upright and reaches ca. 100-148 meters in altitude. At the western and south-eastern ends of the escarpment, two natural passages, of 80 meters and 300 meters wide respectively, link this naturally fortified central area to the surrounding region. In the southern part of the Landscape, the Răut River has cut a very sharp loop that encloses the Butuceni limestone Promontory from the north, south and west. The length of the promontory is 3,000 meters (East - West), and the widths varies between 15 meters in its western end and 300 meters in the eastern one. Its altitude gently increases eastwards, from 1 meter at its western end to 120 meters at the eastern one above Răut level. The Peştera promontory is situated north of the Butuceni promontory, on the opposite side of the Răut River. It is oval-shaped, 2,500 meters in length (East – West), and 850 meters wide (North – South). The Peştera promontory is delimited by Răut’s 1 Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, 138 p.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 10. Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape. Hillschade model derived from 30 cm resolution LIDAR data by Willi Megarry.

The Orheiul Vechi Landscape is located at the intersection of three major geomorphological zones: the Central Moldovan Plateau, Northern Moldovan Plain and Lower Dniester Plain. Under these conditions, the geomorphologic framework is somewhat transient. The Răut River was the principal agency by which the unusual landscape of Orheiul Vechi was formed. The Răut is a right-bank tributary of the Nistru (Dniester) River, which flows into the Black Sea after 286 km. The source of the Răut is in the northern region of the Republic of Moldova, near the village of Rediu-Mare, Donduşeni district. It joins the Dniester River in the central part of the country, near the village of Ustia, Criuleni district.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

next loop from the south, east and north. In contrast with the Butuceni promontory, the Peştera promontory presents gentle slopes. The Landscape is dramatic and beautiful because of its highly unusual geomorphology. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape occupies a relic of Sarmatian fossil limestone, specific to the northern Black Sea zone, covered with a layer of sediments of clay and chernozem dating to the Quaternary. The present-day terrain is the result of complex geomorphological processes. These include deposits from times when the region was covered by sea water, erosion by flowing water, seismic events, karst, landslides, slope failures, and other mass wasting processes. These occurred in the Tertiary (Miocene, Pliocene) and the Quaternary (Eopleistocene, Pleistocene, Holocene) periods.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

To the north, the Răut flows through fields and valleys, while in the southern part, beginning from the town of Orhei and continuing to the confluence with the Dniester River, it crosses the Sarmatian limestone, carving a deep, meandering gorge with rocky banks, giving this region a monumental and a mysterious aspect.

Figure no. 11. The geomorphological plan of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by L.Chirica, T. Castarveț, N. Boboc).

The segment of the Răut River gorge surrounding The Archaeological Landscape of Orheiul Vechi is not only the deepest and most aesthetically impressive, but also the most scientifically and culturally important section of the formation. This combination of factors has created one of the most visually striking and historically and scientifically important archaeological sites in the world.

Figure no. 12. The Sarmatian limestone of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (By Gh. Postică).

In addition to being aesthetically striking, the terrain of the Landscape is very rough. Thus, inside the landscape altitudes vary greatly - from 24 m from sea level (Răut water level) to 120 m (the Butuceni promontory) and 140 m (the slope and the base of the Peştera promontory) - and at the same time a number of ravines, through which, during rains and melting snow, waters bring fragments of the undercut rock material to the interior of the landscape. The landscape’s high roughness, on the one hand,

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

emphasises the natural demarcation and the defensive character of the area, and on the other hand, it fragments the landscape in more or less autonomous components.

Figure no. 13. The relief structures of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (By Pavel Daniel).

Figure no. 14. Features and forces of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (By Pavel Daniel).

As shown by the study on the natural forces of gravity and pressure on the land in the area, the Peştera, Butuceni and Maşcăuţi promontories show a high degree of

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 15. The activity of force lines in the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (By Pavel Daniel).

Figure no. 16. The values of the slopes of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (By Pavel Daniel).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

stability, while Răut’s floodplain is subject to pressure, generating a marked instability, and, as such, rock fractures and rock falls frequently occur. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that it is the aforementioned promontories that present traces of dwelling and long-term occupation, while Răut’s floodplain presents no such traces.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The valley of the Răut River consists of the minor and major River beds, the terraces of the River, and the slopes. The asymmetrical slopes of the valley were formed by the River as it cut through limestone reefs that were deposited in the middle Sarmatian period 13 - 8 million years ago, and clay alluvial deposits of the Quaternary age (the Late Pleistocene 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago; clay deposits of the Miocene and Pliocene (8.0-2.0 million years ago) in the Orheiul Vechi region are absent due to the erosion of these rocks in the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene by the waters of the Dniester River, which at that time covered the present the Răut’s Riverbed). In the Orheiul Vechi region, this resulted in the formation of a gorge, relatively narrow, with a width of not more than 1.0 – 2.0 km. The Răut’s minor River bed, which is about 20.0 – 22.0 m higher than the level of the Black Sea, represents a water channel with average depths of 0.7 - 1.2 m during low-water periods, while in periods of high water the depth can reach as much as 6.0 6.5 m. The width of the Riverbed varies between 30 and 50 m, the average flow of the River is 9.93 m3/s, the average annual flow is 0.35 km3, the maximum being 0.80 km3 (1981), and the minimum 0.066 km3 (1959). Depending on the season, the flow of the Răut represents 50% of the annual volume during the spring, 23% during the summer, 14% during the autumn and 13% during the winter2.

Figure no. 17. The Răut River in the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Ion Chistruga).

Nicolae Boboc, Tudor Castraveţ, Lazar Chirică, Caracterizarea geologică şi hidrogeologică a complexului istorico-natural Orheiul Vechi, In: Analele ştiinţifice USM, Seria Ştiinţe chimico-biologice, Chişinău, 2007, p. 192-195; Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi, / Coord. șt. Gh.Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, p. 12-35.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Răut River has concave or convex banks with many steep slopes. Inclines are up to 90º. Some segments display especially rich and varied plants and animal life, for example the Trebujeni sector (right slope), the Peştera or Trebujeni-Butuceni sector (left slope) and the Butuceni sector (right slope). The steep and high banks of the Răut, delineating the landscape, provided a natural fortification that humans have always exploited. The prominent limestone geological formations that they surround, because of the complex and varied environment there and the occurrence of extremely fertile soil, provide in great abundance all of the essential needs of human life. The rarity and unique characteristics of the geomorphology at Orheiul Vechi also contributed to the arrangement and development of sacred spaces. It is well known that rocks and caves are often deified, or are used as areas for carrying out religious, magic and ritual practices. In Orheiul Vechi, as research has shown, the maximum density of archaeological evidence of such practices was found in the Butuceni promontory. Here, in the same place, during both the Iron Age and the early twentieth century, sacred structures were built: first, a Getae sanctuary, and then an Orthodox church. In the immediate vicinity of the two sacred buildings, approximately 120 caves and caverns were dug in the steep banks of the promontory. They were mainly used for religious practice. Thus, churches were built in some caves, and others, were used as convents or monasteries. Other sites on the landscape were used in similar ways. For example, on the Peştera promontory, two mosques and two churches were successively built, and on the Maşcăuţi promontory two convents were dug in rock, and on the hill and in the valley two churches were constructed.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 18. The Morova Ravine in the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Ion Chistruga).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The tortuous path of the Răut River, as an important geomorphological component, traverses and encompasses the entire landscape. On the one hand, it ensures a natural connection between landscape’s components, and on the other, it provides a link with the outside world, particularly along the Dniester River’s valley.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2.3. HYDROLOGY

The Orheiul Vechi area is part of the Moldovan hydrographical basin. The bedrock of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape has produced many features. The water sources are of two distinct natures: groundwater and River water. The underground water is provided from six aquifers: - Horizon of alluvial and diluvial deposits of the Holocene age. - Horizon of alluvial deposits of the Upper Pleistocene age. - Sporadic waters from the eluvial and eluvial-diluvial deposits of the Upper Pliocene - Holocene. - Aquifer horizon in alluvial rocks of the Upper Pliocene. - Aquifer horizon of the rocks from phase III of the Middle Sarmatian. - Aquifer horizon of the Middle and Lower Sarmatian. The groundwater formed from the waters of the abovementioned horizons encompasses the entire landscape. The water comes up often in the form of natural springs with very strong flow. At the same time, by digging relatively deeper, one can easily burrow water wells in any part of the valley. In some places, water in the wells is fed by subterranean hot springs. In these wells, water can reach temperatures of over 60 degrees Celsius. Water from wells has long been used for washing laundry and taking baths. The Răut River is a major hydrographical artery which traverses the landscape. This Rivers’ water is fresh, and has multiple origins: atmospheric water, rainwater and groundwater. In the landscape’s perimeter, the length of the Răut River is 5 km and the width 20 m, while depth varies between 2-3 m. Periodically, Răut overflows, flooding the entire floodplain, thus contributing to soil fertilization through alluvial deposits. The existing water resources in the landscape’s area, of underground origin, had a positive impact on the habitat over the millennia. People have always had sufficient water for themselves and for their livestock, irrigation of the fields, hygiene and household needs. The most important hydrographical artery of the area is the Răut River. Besides it being an important rich source of water, it also served as a way of transportation, both within the landscape and within the entire valley of the Dniester River. At the same time, the River was also an important source of food, due to the rich aquatic wildlife. The existing water resources in the area, accessible to humans, both the underground sources and from the Răut River, were particularly rich. The landscape’s water abundance provided the fertility of the land, including during times of drought, when water from underground sources was naturally evaporated through particles which permeated the soil to the surface. In this way, on the one hand the humidity of the fertile soil was ensured, and on the other hand, the existing water minerals fertilized the soil. The waters present in this landscape provide not only humidity in this region, but

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

also contain many elements and chemicals (CO3-, HCO3-, Cl-, SO42-, NO2-, NO3-, Ca2+, Mg2+, NH4+, Na++K+) which increase the quality of natural resources3.

2.4. ECO-ZONE

Figure no. 19. The eco-zones in Orheiul Vechi cultural-natural Reserve (by L. Chirică, T. Castraveț, N. Boboc).

2.5. CLIMATE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

A wide range of ecosystems including natural ecosystems (forest, steppe, meadow, cliffs, aquatic) and anthropogenic (agrocoenoses and settlements) are present within the landscape. Due to its location in a region of cliffs, situated at the intersection of the wooded zone with the steppe and wooded-steppe zones, it has formed numerous small ecozones that nourish unusual sets of plant life. The natural eco-zones include forests, steppe, wetlands, reefs and water. Other eco-zones have been created by anthropic means, and are seen in the agricultural fields and villages, in which most households keep a garden.

The Landscape is situated on the July isotherm of +21° C and the January isotherm reaches -3° C to -4° C. The maximal air temperature in the summer, +41,5° C was registered on 21st July 2007, the lowest temperature in the winter, -38,5°, was registered 3

Nicolae Boboc, Lazar Chirică, Maria Sandu, V. Brega, P. Spătaru, Elena Tofan, Aspecte hidrochimice ale apelor freatice din aria complexului istorico-natural Orheiul Vechi, In: Buletinul Academiei de Ştiinţe a Moldovei, Ştiinţele Vieţii, Nr. 2, Chişinău, 2008, p. 159-165; Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, p. 31-35.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

on 25th January 1942. The average atmospheric precipitation is 500 mm. The duration of the sunny hours is 22,8-23,4% per year. Wind direction is mainly from the NorthEast, while the duration of calm atmosphere is 42%. The site benefits from temperatemoderate climate conditions with frequent occurrence of meteorological phenomena. In terms of the risks of climatic phenomena, the Landscape is in a low risk area, which was an advantage for the human habitat. The climatic conditions at Orheiul Vechi, in terms of factors favouring the human habitat, are among the best in Moldova.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2.6. SOLIS The landscape is found at the confluence of three pedological zones: sylvo-steppe areas of Northern Moldova, sylvic zone of Central Moldova, and the steppe zone of Southern Moldova4. Under these circumstances, specific characteristics of each of the aforementioned soil areas are present in Orheiul Vechi. Thus, in the region of Orheiul Vechi, very diverse types of soil are found: - Alluvial soils, stratified as clay-sandy and clay, developed in the wetlands of the River Răut; - Diluvial soils. These soils were formed in the Holocene period and are well developed on the Quaternary terraces of the Răut River, including the surface of the Peştera promontory; - Humus-carbonated soils (reziders) predominate on the surface of the slopes of the Răut River; - Levigated chernozem soils are present on the high terraces of the Dniester River; - Grey forest soils. These soils are present beneath the forests. The pedological originality of The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is also conditioned by its specific location. From a pedological point of view this zone is situated at the intersection of three lines of soils: molic chernozem, levigate chernozem and poor humiferic chernozem. All these ensure the high fertility of the soil, both for agriculture and grazing, as well as wild flora and fauna.

2.7. FLORA Due to favourable climatic conditions, extraordinary geomorphological variety, soils rich in minerals and water as well as high soil diversity, the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is characterized by an extremely diverse and rich flora, including many rare plant species. Flora from the Orheiul Vechi region includes more than 500 species of vascular plants, of which 66 are rare species and 13 are threatened with extinction5. The steppe sector includes more than 100 superior xerophyte plant species, of which 32 are rare species protected by the state, including 4 from the Red Book of 4 5

A. Ursu, Raioanele pedogeografice şi particularităţile regionale de utilizare şi protejare a solurilor, Chişinău, 2006. C. Certan, Plante rare din rezervaţia peisajistică Trebujeni, In: Conferinţa Internaţională a tinerilor cercetători: rezumatele lucrărilor, Chişinău, 2005, p. 47; C. Certan, L. Cuharschi, Flora braniştii Trebujeni, In: Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Buletin Ştiinţific: Revista de Etnografie, Ştiinţele Naturii şi Muzeologie, Serie Nouă, volumul 2 (15) Ştiinţele Naturii, Chişinău, 2005, p. 51-52; A. Istrati, V. Chirtoacă, Gh. Simonov, Contribuţii floristice în landşaftul natural Trebujeni, In: Congresul I al botaniştilor din Moldova, Chişinău, Ştiinţa, 1994, p. 14-15; A. Negru, V. Ghendov, A. Istrati, Specii periclitate din rezervaţia peisagistică Trebujeni, In: Biodiversitatea vegetală a Republicii Moldova, Chişinău, 2001, p. 135-138; Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, p. 37-45.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

2.8. FAUNA The hydrogeological and vegetation diversity in the region of Orheiul Vechi determined the development in the area of a diverse fauna, which occupies practically all ecological niches. Within the borders of the historical-natural complex, 144 vertebrate species have been recorded, including 18 species of mammals, 91 species of birds, 9 reptile species, 2 species of amphibians, 6 species of fish and one important species of insects and molluscs. Among the vertebrate animals living in the region of the Orheiul Vechi complex one can identify: 5 species threatened with extinction, 10 vulnerable species and 10 rare species; and among the insects 8 species are threatened with extinction, and 17 are vulnerable. There are 20 vertebrate species and 27 insect species from the region of Orheiul Vechi in the Red Book of Moldova, and 3 species in the Red List of Europe. One species of snake in the region of Orheiul Vechi (Elaphe longissima) is included in the World Red Book, and 4 species of snakes from this region are included in the List for Europe of the Bern Convention as species threatened with extinction7. All these features of the landscape were important resources for subsistence (food), construction and crafts (stone, wood) and facilities (ways of communication, means of defense) necessary for human life.

6 Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, p. 37-45. 7 Ibidem, p. 46-52.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Moldova, one in the Red List of Europe, 19 in the Red List of Romania and 6 in the Red Book of Ukraine. Mesophyte grasslands have less diversity, with 74 species of wild plants, among which only one rare plant species is recorded - Allium angulosum L. (category IV-a). Saxicol flora or reef landscape flora are the most complete. With around 200 wild plant species, of which 15 are rare plants, including 7 species from the Red Book of Moldova, two species included in the Red List of Europe and one species included in the Red List of Romania6. Drobişor (Genista tetragona Bess.) is an endemic species formed on limestone of the Middle Sarmatian. Experts in the field of the region’s saxicol ecosystem complex believe it is a remedy that would favour the formation of new superior (vascular) plant species. In general in the region of Orheiul Vechi 19 species of vascular plants included in the Red Book of Moldova (2001), 4 species included in the Red List of Europe, 21 species from the Red List of Romania (1994) and 7 from the Red Book of Ukraine (1996) have been recorded. Four other species of vascular plants from the Orheiul Vechi region deserve special mention: Drobişor (Genista tetragona Besser), Şiverechia (Schivereckia podolica (Besser) Andrz.), Degiţel (Pulsatilla grandis Wend.) and Crin de pădure (Lilium martagon L.). All of them are included in the Red List of Europe.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

3. THE FORMATION OF THE LANDSCAPE 3.1. GENERAL STAGES

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Orheiul Vechi archaeological landscape was formed during three major stages: I. The constitution of geological formations, relief and river network. At this stage the major elements of the current relief formed naturally. It is set between approximately 13.000.000 and 30.000 years ago. II. The constitution and development of the archaeological landscape. During this period, since the establishment of the first human communities and until modern times, man has adapted to the existing natural environment, modified it, adjusting it to his needs. During this stage, as a result of human activity, the archaeological deposits were created within the Landscape. This stage included the time from the Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 30.000 BC) to the mid-twentieth century. III. Awareness of the Orheiul Vechi Landscape heritage value, its research and preservation. This stage begins with the first steps of researching and protecting the archaeological landscape. Due to the long-lasted research, the heritage value of the landscape was understood. In order to protect it and turn it into account, the legal and institutional framework was created. During this stage, works of conservation and protection of the archaeological heritage are systematically carried out. This stage covers the time span since 1947 till present times.

3.2. STAGE I. THE GENESIS OF GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS, RELIEF AND RIVER NETWORK During the first stage, according to scientific data, the following processes occurred in successive order: - Formation of the Sarmatian limestone reef in the Sarmatian Sea during the Miocene (ca. 13 million – 8 million years BP) - Formation of the Meotian - Miocene clay deposits (8.0 - 5.3 million years BP) and Pontian-Pliocene (ca. 5.3 - 2 million years BP) - Erosion of Meotian - Pontic deposits by the waters of the Dniester River in late Pliocene – early - Eopleistocene (about 2.0 million years) and the formation of clay deposits (terraces no. 7-11) during the Eopleistocene (ca1.8-0.8 million years BP) - Formation of the Răut River gorge, the adjacent defiles, relief (terraces no. 1-4), vegetation and fauna of the Quaternary (0.8 - 0.3 million years BP)8. The process of forming the current natural landscape of the Orheiul Vechi area begins in the period between the Middle Sarmatian and Miocene epoch, about 13 million years ago when the territory represented the bottom of sea known in literature as “Sarmatian Sea”. During the Middle Sarmatian (= Bessarabian), due to the sea water’s low salinity, in combination with high temperatures in the area, coral and mollusc fossils colonies intensively developed, which in a relatively short geological time, over the span of only a few million years, formed superimposed platforms 8

Nicolae Boboc, Tudor Castraveţ, Lazar Chirică, Caracterizarea geologică şi hidrogeologică a complexului istorico-natural Orheiul Vechi, p.192-195.

together with limestone reefs, the thickness of which reached from a few centimetres up to 2-3 metres, depending on climatic factors. During the late Miocene (8 - 5.3 million years BP) and Pliocene (5.3 - 1.8 million years BP) the alluvial deposits of clay and sand were formed in the continental area of the Meiotic Sea and Pontic Sea. These deposits are not found in Orheiului Vechi due to the fact that they were eroded by the waters of the Dniester River in late Pliocene – early Eopleistocene. During Eopleistocene, as a result of the alluvial deposits of the Dniester River, clay and sand deposits formed in the area of Orheiul Vechi forming five terraces (nos. 7-11). Following the Pontic retrogression, which took place about 1 million years ago, in the Quaternary, as a result of the processes of fluvial erosion of the Middle Sarmatian limestone, the meandering gorge of the Răut River and its tributaries’ gorges have emerged in the Orheiul Vechi area. During this period, four new terraces of the Răut River have been formed (nos. 1-4), and the relief, vegetation and fauna gained a similar aspect to the current ones. Following the aforementioned natural processes by 30th millennium BC, when the first human groups began to set up the camps in the area, the exclusively natural process of formation of the landscape roughly ended. It met complex habitat conditions, with its advantages and disadvantages. The main advantages offered by the landscape were the existence of natural defence conditions (e.g. the steep banks of the Răut, the promontories surrounded by the course of the river, the existence of natural grottos and caves in the river rock cliffs), the terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna - broadly comparable to other areas - that represented the source of food and other needs. Furthermore, the landscape is traversed by the Răut River, which, beyond the fact that it was an important source of water and food, also constituted a natural way of communicating with the neighbouring areas and beyond. At the same time, human life in the area was and is strongly disadvantaged by the scarcity of fertile soils. They are concentrated exclusively in the riverside of Răut, the area of fertile ground representing about 20 % of the total area of the landscape.

3.3. STAGE II. THE GENESIS AND FORMATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE Following the natural processes extending over more than 10 million years a natural landscape was formed in the Orheiul Vechi area, quite different from the rest of the region. There are three significant elements that give this landscape its unique character. First of all, the relief clearly defines this landscape from the rest of the area, provides a natural protection, both of the entire landscape, and its components. Secondly, the landscape is crossed by the Răut River, the most important tributary of the Dniester, which provide favourable conditions for long-distance exchange and connection. The third significant feature of the Landscape is the acute shortage of soils suitable for plant cultivation. Under these circumstances, the natural landscape of Orheiul Vechi did not offer favourable conditions for rural communities whose subsistence was based entirely on agriculture. Alternatively, the complex societies with social, political, military and

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

religious structures whose main economic sources were secured in trade and political domination were particularly favoured by this natural setting. Thus, the most intense and complex settlements in the gorge of the Răut River were present in three distinct eras: Getae (4th-3rd centuries BC), Mongol (ca. 1330-1369 AD) and medieval Moldovan (15th-16th centuries AD). These phases, beyond some significant differences between them, shared several essential elements: a) the high role of trade in their economic activity; b) the existence of powerful political, military and religious structures; c) the importance given to defence planning. In exchange, the settlements that were based on natural economy, pre-eminently ensuring their food from the direct use of natural resources of the area (e.g. from the Palaeolithic, Eneolithic, the first Iron Age, the late antiquity, the early medieval period, modern period) were shorter and less successful. Because the scarcity of the natural food resources, in some periods (e.g. Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age) the area have not been inhabited. The second phase of the formation of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape started with the establishment of the first human communities in the area. At this stage, man substantially adapted and changed the natural landscape, thus adding to the landscape the new and most active component - the human factor. Since the Upper Palaeolithic until the recent period, without major disruptions, human communities have adapted to the environment, exploiting it for housing, shelter and food. Throughout this period, human communities have turned into account the natural resources available, creating various material structures (settlements, dwellings, worship buildings, fortifications, roads etc.) arranged in the cliffs, underground and at the surface. The material traces of human occupations have created successive archaeological deposits, affecting the remains of previous eras every time. Thus, the interaction of man and nature has enriched the landscape with a new component archaeological remains. These represent the most important characteristic of the Orheiul Vechi Landscape. Currently, many relics from different eras are found at the surface and underground, from the Palaeolithic to the modern era9. Most archaeological remains are deep underground. At the same time, some evidence – traces of structures for defence (ramparts, trenches, etc.), of public interest (markets, warehouses, cult buildings, bath houses, stone pillars etc.) and housing (houses with stone walls, caves, grottos etc.) – are visible at the surface today. The most visible archaeological remains in the landscape of Orheiul Vechi date back to three periods: Getae (6th – 3rd centuries BC), Mongol (the town of Şehr al-Cedid, ca. 1330-1369 AD) and Moldovan (town of Orhei, ca. 1370-1540 AD). The archaeological deposits in the landscape area are very complex. On the one hand, they consist of remains from different eras, often in the same spots, and on the other hand, because of the damage and dislocation, they are often found in redeposited position. The archaeological landscape was created in ten major phases: 1. Upper Palaeolithic, 30.000 - 20.000 years BC; 2. Eneolithic, 5th century BC (Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolie culture); 3. First Iron Age, ca. 1100-550 BC (Chişinău-Corlăteni, Cozia-Saharna cultures); 9 Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, p. 55-69.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

4. Second Iron Age, ca. 550-50 BC (Getae and Poienești-Lucașeuca cultures); 5. Late Antiquity period, ca. 200-425 AD (Sântana de Mureș-Cerneahov culture); 6. Early medieval period, 5th – 9th centuries AD (Costişa-Botoşana-Hansca and Lozna-Borniş cultures); 7. Early medieval period, 10th-14th centuries AD (Dridu and Brăneşti-Lencăuţi cultures); 8. Period of the Mongolian town of Şehr al-Cedid, ca. 1330-1369 AD; 9. Period of the Moldovan town of Orhei, ca. 1370-1540 AD; 10. Period of the post-urban period, ca. 1540-1946 AD.

About 30.000 years ago, human communities settled on the Orheiul Vechi landscape for the first time ever. They were hunters and plant gatherers. During the Upper Palaeolithic, as far as the archaeological researches show, they built the shortlived seasonally occupied camps. The Palaeolithic evidence has been found in the upper part of the Peştera promontory, at a distance of ca. 300 metres apart10. Within their perimeter, only isolated artefacts were discovered: finished tools and flint chips, as well as fragments of hunted animals’ bones. In this context, it was noted that Palaeolithic habitation structures introduced the first anthropogenic component in the area. However, during this period the landscape was not significantly affected. Throughout the time span between the 10th – 6th millennia BC, as indicated by research, the Landscape was not occupied by people. Just during the 5th millennium BC human communities entered and settled in the area. 2. ENEOLITHIC, 5TH MILLENNIUM BC (PRECUCUTENI-CUCUTENI-TRIPOLIE CULTURE)

In the 5th millennium BC the first human group with a sedentary lifestyle, pertaining to the Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolie culture, have settled in the Landscape. According to the unanimous opinion of the scholars, this culture was one of the most advanced European civilisations of the respective era. Its origins lie in the east Carpathian area, from where it spread eastwards to the Dnieper River in central Ukraine and westwards to Upper Olt and Mureş rivers in central Romania. This culture evolved over approximately 1.600 years. The communities of this culture took up residence in two locations of the Landscape: in the eastern part of the Peştera promontory and on the western edge of the Butuceni promontory, the distance between them being of about 2.000 metres11. The inhabitants from that period arranged durable settlements, with solid housing and household structures, substantial traces of which are clearly visible today. The houses were arranged both at the surface and underground. Those at the surface were built of wood and daub. Clumps of burnt daub fragments with imprints of timer and wattle are present where they once stood. Being the first farmers to enter the landscape of Orheiul Vechi, they introduced domestic species of plants and animals for the first time ever. At the same time, by systematically processing the land around settlements, Gheorghe Postică, Istoricul cercetării arheologice în zona Orheiului Vechi, In: Miscellanea historica et arhaeologica in honorem professoris Ionel Cândea, Brăila: Ed. Istros, 2009, p. 209-248. 11 Ibidem.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

1. UPPER PALAEOLITHIC, 30.000 - 20.000 YEARS BC

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

as well by the disposal of waste of organic origin, they have substantially affected the soil and flora. One particularly important consequence of settlements and the longstanding farming of the land in that period was the essential changing of the soil – formation of chernoziom. Therefore, the Eneolithic human groups, through their way of life and economic activity, significantly affected the natural landscape of Orheiul Vechi. The stable occupation of Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolie people materialised in the formation of substantial archaeological deposits. The soil in the area of these settlements abounds in ashes, burnt wood, numerous artefacts, animal bones, etc. Around 4.000 BC these communities withdrew from the area, and around 3.300 BC this culture ceased to exist. This was followed by about 2.800 years during which the area has been mainly uninhabited. Only occasionally and sporadically in the area shepherds looking for new pastures would stop for a short while in the Landscape. In this context, just a few isolated Bronze Age sherds found without context at the bottom of the Peştera promontory testify the human presence in the area. Steadfast dwelling within the landscape, as well as in the entire adjacent area, resumed only around 1150 BC with the settlement of the Early Iron Age communities – people of the Chişinău-Corlăteni culture (1150-950 BC).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

3. FIRST IRON AGE, CA. 1150-650 BC (CHIŞINĂU-CORLĂTENI, COZIA-SAHARNA CULTURES)

By the mid-twelfth century BC, the communities of the Chişinău-Corlăteni culture penetrated the forest-steppe zone of Moldova. This culture has its origins in remote areas of Banat (western Romania and northern Serbia today) and is regarded as being related to cultural entities of Central European origin. Research conducted across the landscape revealed only Chişinău-Corlăteni type pottery fragments, which are identified in three locations: on the Butuceni promontory (near the present-day church), in the eastern part of the Peştera promontory, as well as in the south-western part of the promontory respectively. In the current stage of research, it is impossible to estimate the duration and character of these settlements. The Cozia-Saharna culture (the regional variant of the Babadag culture) communities settled in the Landscape in the 10th-9th centuries BC. This culture, according to the research conducted in Romania and Bulgaria, originates from the north-east of the Balkan Peninsula. The Cozia-Saharna people settled on the Butuceni promontory where the Birth of the Holy Virgin church is located currently. In that place, the archaeological excavations identified traces of a construction, possibly a house. In the frame of the construction and in its immediate vicinity, clusters of artefacts were found: pieces of daub with wattle imprints, numerous fragments of pottery etc. In the current state of research the duration and nature of the time of dwelling in the Butuceni promontory cannot be estimated. In the 6th-3rd centuries BC the area of this settlement was included in the Getaen settlement described below, which probably destroyed and moved many of its vestiges. Moreover, in early 20th century AD, the traces of this settlement were dramatically affected during the construction of the Birth of the Holy Virgin church. Currently, traces of the settlement cannot be observed at the surface. During the 8th and 7th centuries BC the Landscape seems to have not been inhabited. Only starting with the settlement of Getae tribes in the 6th century BC,

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

and especially in the 4th-3rd centuries BC, the long-lasting human occupation was resumed in the area12. 4. THE SECOND IRON AGE, CA. 550-50 BC (GETAE AND POIENEŞTI-LUCAŞEUCA CULTURES)

During the Second Iron Age, two archaeological cultural groups lived in the Orheiul Vechi landscape: Getae (6th-3rd centuries BC) and Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca (2nd-1st centuries BC)13. The Getae, according to the sources written by ancient authors and to the archaeological evidence, was one of the first peoples of southeast Europe whose name is known. They belonged to a linguistic family of Indo-European origin – Thracians, who inhabited the territory between the Northern Carpathians, Aegean and Black seas, the Dniester and Tisza rivers. In the 6th-3rd centuries BC the Orheiul Vechi Landscape and its surroundings have been extensively inhabited by Getae. A number of 7 settlements date back to this period, of which 3 are open villages and 4 are fortified settlements – centres of political, military and religious authority. During this period, the occupation of the Landscape was very stable and complex. The aforementioned settlements, in fact, are part of a broader regional structure comprising the Răut gorge over a length of 5 kilometres, from Maşcăuţi to Furceni. This territorial structure is made up of 7 fortified settlements and 17 open ones. The settlements outside the Orheiul Vechi archaeological landscape belong to the buffer zone of the Landscape. The Getae communities from the Răut gorge area were complex, with a clearly set social hierarchy, organised within a distinct territorial structures. In the mid-sixth century BC, the practice of strengthening landscaping settlements located in the most important points begins throughout the perimeter. Over the next two centuries throughout the basin of the Răut gorge a series of strongly fortified settlements appear. These fortified settlements are lined exclusively along the Răut River. Thus, on the one hand, they formed an entire complex system of defence of that area, and on the other, they ensured the effective control of the most important tributary of the Dniester River – the Răut River. Regionally, the concentration of the most of the fortified Getae settlements is noticed in the Middle Dniester Valley and the Răut gorge – more than 50 % of the general number of all fortified settlements of this period. Thus, ca. 100 fortified Getae settlements are known throughout entire Moldova, of which 40 are situated in the Middle Dniester Valley, and 15 along the Răut. In these circumstances the obvious attention of the Getae towards defending segments of strategic importance of their eastern border, and also for the control of the two rivers which, at that time, were the most important trade routes in the area, is obvious. Building a string of fortified settlements along the two rivers clearly highlights the special concern of the Getae elite to control the major trade routes that provide access to the Greek city-states in the northern Black Sea coast and through the latter – to the commercial network of goods and ideas between the Mediterranean and Black Sea. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that the highest share of Greek imports from the Getae environment in this region is documented namely in these fortified settlements. 12 13

Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p. Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

a) GETAE CULTURE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Getae ingeniously turned into account the defensive potential of the area. To arrange power centres in the area, they chose the locations protected by natural landscape, inaccessible heights, flanked by high, steep banks of the Răut River and its tributaries. At the same time, the access portions were barred by ramparts made of stone, wood and earth with adjacent ditches dug in the rock. In this way, they, on the one hand, adapted their defence needs to the surrounding landscape, and on the other hand, where the natural framework did not provide sufficient defence, they built impressive defensive structures, dramatically affecting the existing landscape. Currently, most traces of these fortifications are visible to the naked eye and give a special touch of the entire landscape. Furthermore, starting from the Getae period, some defence structures were flattened, so they could be highlighted through invasive and non-invasive research. The fortified settlements within the landscape are spread over an area of 3000 x 700 kilometres, occupying the most prominent places in the strategically important points. The most important fortification is located on the left bank and the other two on the right bank of Răut. The fortification of the left bank of Răut includes the entire surface of the Butuceni promontory, while the ones on the opposite bank are on the terrace of the Maşcăuţi slope in the Poiana Ciucului and Dealul cel Mare points. Of these, the Getae fortifications on the Butuceni promontory are the most prominent. The group of the Getae fortified settlements within the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape was erected close to the boundary between the Getae-Dacian lands and Scythia.

Figure no. 20. Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape at the intersection of the Thracian, Scythian and antique Greek worlds.

The Butuceni fortified settlement. By the mid-6th century BC the process of strengthening the areas of strategic importance begins in the Răut lower basin for the first time ever. The earliest fortifications are attested on the Butuceni promontory14. Over the next four centuries, the fortified settlement in Butuceni undergoes several important changes consisting in enlarging the enclosure, building new fortifications, refurbishing old ones and changing its entire structure. Overall, 10 lines of defence made up of ramparts and trenches, a wall and a palisade are identified at the Butuceni promontory. The fortification system of the Getae settlement in Butuceni has undergone three major stages over four centuries of existence. The first stage comprises the 6th-5th centuries BC, during which the settlement was fortified with adjacent ramparts and ditches from the east and west, marking the central part of the Butuceni promontory along a length of 70 x 50 / 60 metres. This space was flanked by the high banks of Răut, difficult to enter from north and south. To improve the defence of the spot, two lines of defence were built. Access from the west was barred by a rampart and ditch (no. 4) and from the east, with a similar line of defence (no. 6). At first Getae built the wooden structures for the ramparts, which are made up of two parallel rows of wooden pillars anchored in native rock, among those being linked with wattle. Then, in front of these structures ditches were dug to a depth of 2.5-3.0 metres in the native rock. The earth and stone extracted from the ditches were deposited inside the wooden structure. It is notable that in both cases of the fortified lines, the trenches were placed in front of the ramparts, that is from the east (no. 6) and the west respectively (no. 4). As a result of these fortifications, the central part of the promontory was protected from all sides. These fortifications have significantly altered the pre-existing landscape background. During the first stage, dwellings and religious buildings were constructed inside the fortification. In the northeast of the fortification a sanctuary was built. It consisted of a round building with wooden pillars inserted into the native rock; in the centre of the building a shrine was arranged. As a result of the occupation and various activities within the fortified settlement, rich archaeological deposits were formed consisting of traces of constructions, in situ and in a secondary position, traces of combustion (ash and charcoal), domestic waste (fragmented pottery, animal bones etc.). These overlapped over the debris from the First Iron Age dwelling belonging to the Cozia-Saharna cultural group. The second stage comprises the 4th-3rd centuries BC. At this stage, the settlement was significantly extended. In the eastern part, it expanded by 2.000 meters, up to the saddle through which the Butuceni promontory is linked to the Ţiganca plateau. In the opposite direction, to the west, the settlement was extended by 900 meters, up to the end of the promontory. The new limits of the settlement were marked by two new defence lines. Thus, in the east, the linking saddle of the promontory was barred by a new rampart and ditch (no. 10). At the same time, another defensive line (no. 1) was built at the western end of the promontory, near the Răut bank. In addition, a defence line (no. 9) blocking access from the south was built in the south-east of the promontory, next to the current village of Morovaia. The defence line no. 10 barred to 14

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

the most vulnerable access route to the settlement. It was the largest defence building created throughout the existence of the settlement. This fortification has seen two basic steps. Initially two parallel rows of wooden pillars anchored in native rock were raised, interlinked with other wooden elements. Afterwards, in the close east proximity of this structure, a 2.5 metres deep ditch was dug in the rock. The earth and stone extracted from the ditch were used as emplecton of the wooden structure. After the burning of the wood structure of the fortification, probably after a foreign invasion, possibly, the Scythians, over the structure of the rampart the inhabitants built a stone wall with a width of 2.30 metres. The rampart of the defensive line is currently 3 to 8 metres high. The thickness of the rampart currently reaches 18 to 21 metres at the base. The rampart’s length is 364 metres. Currently, this line of defence represents the most visible element of the site and one of the most prominent of the whole landscape. The line of defence on the opposite side (no. 1) traversed the western slope of the promontory, directly facing Răut’s meander. The defensive line is made up of a rampart with two adjacent trenches in the front part from the west. These trenches reflect two phases in the evolution of defence line no. 1. At the first stage, the rampart included a wooden structure similar to that of the rampart no. 10, and the second, a stone structure, perhaps a wall which was demolished back in the antiquity period and dumped in the ditch no. 2. The rampart, which is now destroyed over a portion of more than 30 metres, extends over a length of 220 metres, has a height of 1.5-2.5 metres and the base width of about 18 metres. At the same time, the defensive elements (no. 4 and no. 6) were levelled. Furthermore, a new fortification was set up (no. 2) in the acropolis. It was oval-shaped and measured 252 x 48 metres. The acropolis was enclosed by a rampart made up of two parallel rows of massive wooden pillars nestled in the native rock, at a distance of 2 metres between them. Probably, the space between the two rows of pillars was filled with an earth and stone emplecton in ancient times. On the eastern side of this construction a gateway was set up. This was supported by four massive pillars, the gate width being about 2 metres. In front of the eastern side of this construction a defensive moat (no. 7) was dug, the area in front of the gate being spared over the same width. At approximately 15 metres east of the moat, a stone rampart was built (no. 8). In the western part of the acropolis, behind the main wall an additional rampart of similar structure was built within the area surrounded by it at a distance of about 10 metres, the two being separated by a moat (no. 3). Inside the acropolis, various constructions were raised, of which some with stone walls and other made of wood and clay. Some of these annexes were destined for housing and others were presumably public buildings. Simultaneously, a construction was built in the east of the extended enclosure, recently detected by means of non-invasive research. The detected outline of the construction is circular, measuring approximately 250 x 150 metres. As far satellite images provided the by NASA database show, this building is made up of at least 3 ramparts and trenches with a circular circumscribed outline. In the centre of the complex, behind the three circles, a hemispherical protrusion is noticeable. In the current stage of research there is no evidence on the nature and purpose of this complex. However, it seems plausible to assume that the complex could have had a religious character. In close connection with this complex, a defensive line (no. 9)

formed of a moat and a rampart was raised for protection. Having an arched route that was oriented east-westwards, touching with one end the steep bank of Răut, it blocked the access to the circular complex from the south. Thus, it is evident that the circular complex was bordered from all sides: from the northwest, by the steep bank of the Răut River; from the east by the steep bank of the Morovaia ravine; from the south by defence line no. 9 and from the northeast by defensive line no. 10. As a result of fortifications and the development of the acropolis, traces of habitation from the first stage of the Getae settlement as well as from the First Iron Age were partially affected in the fourth - third centuries BC. Therefore, in the second period major works were undertaken increasing the settlement’s precinct area tenfold. It drastically changed its internal structure, thus modifying the whole landscape. Traces of fortifications and inner structures of this period are still clearly visible today at the ground surface. Again, those who revamped the entire settlement perfected the natural defensive with those built by people. The third stage includes the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. At this stage, after a period of serious damage, the fortified settlement was restricted to the area from the west side of the Butuceni promontory. Thus, it was limited to the east by a new line of fortification (no. 5), consisting of rampart with an adjacent east ditch, crossing the territory of the acropolis on the north – south axis, and from the west, by the fortified line no.1. These fortifications were used for a very short time. At the beginning of the second century BC the Getae abandoned the Butuceni promontory. From then until the twentieth century this area was not inhabited and exploited. Only in 1904 the Birth of the Holy Virgin church was raised in the western part of the acropolis, which currently dominates the landscape. During the building of the church a part of the acropolis was irreversibly damaged. However, the site damaged dramatically after 200 BC. Alternatively, over the centuries, in many parts of the site, due to natural factors, the soil along with archaeological remains sometimes slipped to the base of the promontory, traces of these processes being visible at ground surface. In the period contemporary with the second stage of the Getae fortification’s evolution in Butuceni in the basin of the lower Răut River, Getae communities built other fortified settlements. Two of these: Maşcăuţi-Poiana Ciucului and MaşcăuţiDealul cel Mare, are within the range of the Landscape. The Maşcăuţi-Poiana Ciucului fortified settlement was built in the fourth century BC and it was used over about two centuries. It was located on the right bank of the Răut River, on the territory of the present Maşcăuţi village at 500 metres south of the Butuceni settlement. The fortified settlement from Maşcăuţi was arranged on the upper terrace of the Maşcăuţi slope, at an altitude of 100 to 110 metres above Răut, covering an area of approximately 250 x 250 metres. From the north, the settlement is flanked by the steep bank of Răut and from the east - a steep bank of a deep ravine, which enters the valley of Răut. The settlement occupies a land spot between two steep banks perpendicular to one another. To prevent the access to the settlement from the plateau, the settlement was barred with an arch-shaped defensive line linking the two steep banks. The defensive line was formed of a moat and a rampart. The moat was dug over a length of ca. 200-250 metres, its opening is 4.5-5 metres wide, and its depth is of 1.7-2 metres wide. The settlement has undergone several phases

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

of occupation. Inside it in various stages they numerous houses were built of timber, wattle and daub. At the same time, to ensure favourable conditions for storage of food and other material goods many store pits were excavated in the settlement. The sheer artefacts discovered in this settlement show that the community was involved in trade, both with the barbarian world and the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast. At the same time, the spot in the immediate vicinity of the fortified settlement, beyond the line of defence – the so-called extra-muros – was occupied and exploited. This settlement, especially its fortified side, substantially modified the existing landscape. Around the year 200 the Getae settlement was abandoned, the spot being occupied by the Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca people in a short time, who lived here for about two centuries. Subsequently, in the Early Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries) open and fortified settlements stood in the same place. Thus during the period between the second century BC and 15th century AD the Getae settlement was severely affected. However, the traces of the Getae settlement are still visible today. The Maşcăuţi-Dealul cel Mare fortified settlement15 was built in the fourth century BC and functioned for about two centuries. It was located on the Răut terrace at an altitude of about 110-120 meters above Răut, at a distance of approximately 600 meters east of the Poiana Ciucului settlement. The location was naturally bordered on three sides: from the north by the steep bank of Răut, a deep ravine in the west, from the east another shallow ravine, both ravines being arranged perpendicular to the river. In these circumstances, a defensive line made up of a trench and arc-shaped rampart was built, which bar access from the open plateau and east ravine. Thus, an enclosure measuring 700 x 240 meters was set up. At the same time, in the eastern part of the enclosure, between the exterior mound and the steep bank of Răut another defensive line was built, with a straight shape perpendicular to the bank of Răut. In this way, a distinct space of 200 x 80 meters was defined inside the settlement. Unlike other fortifications within this settlement’s landscape, the defence lines was made up of just one mound, without a trench and the two ramparts were relatively small - up to 0.5 metres. In the centuries following the abandoning, this place was not affected by human habitation. At the same time, throughout recent decades, Maşcăuţi villagers chaotically exploited the settlement by building a quarry, affecting a part of the enclosure of the settlement. Thus the three Getae fortified settlements have substantially contributed to the current aspect of the archaeological landscape of Orhei. Open Getae settlements. Besides the fortified settlements numerous rural open settlements were found in the Răut gorge in the Getae period, two of which in the perimeter of the Orheiul Vechi archaeological landscape, both on the Peştera promontory between the Răut valley, between current villages of Butuceni and Trebujeni. These settlements were set at opposite ends of the promontory, in the fourth century BC and ceased in the year 200 BC. Both had relatively equal areas of about 300 x 200 metres. Partially, one of these settlements overlapped the traces of habitation from the Eneolithic age, affecting them in some way. Following the steadfast dwelling, substantial archaeological deposits traces consisting of dwellings 15

Aurel Zanoci, Traco-geţii din bazinul Răutului Inferior. Cetatea Măscăuţi „Dealul cel Mare”, In: Thracians and circumpontics world. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, Chişinău-Vadul lui Vodă, 6-11 september 2004, vol. II, Chişinău 2004, 45-81.

and household constructions, combustion residues (ash and burned wood) and numerous fragments of pottery and animal bones were formed on the location of these settlements. These deposits changed the composition of the soil layer contributing to the formation of chernoziom soil. Traces of these deposits can be seen with the naked eye at the surface. In the following centuries, and until modern times, the promontory was inhabited and intensively exploited. Thus the archaeological deposits of these settlements were largely displaced, their remains being most often found in secondary position. Therefore, these settlements have significantly contributed in changing the natural and cultural landscape in the area. In conclusion, during the Getae period, a huge leap in terms of domestication of the natural landscape of Orheiul Vechi was made, in other words, the natural environment was fully integrated into all spheres of human activity, material and spiritual. Life during the Getae period affected most of the landscape. During the four centuries of intense habitation, the Getae substantially altered the topography of the area - with many elevations (ramparts, houses, religious buildings, household complexes etc.). At the same time - through various excavation works (ditches and pits) and the systematic practice of agriculture and other occupations - the soil and subsoil of the entire landscape was strongly affected in this period. The habitation and intense activities in the perimeter of the landscape during the Getae period had dramatically affected the archaeological deposits from previous eras. Thus, the Getae fortified settlement on the Butuceni promontory displaced and destroyed a good part of the Cozia-Saharna culture’s settlement; the open Getae settlement from the south-western part of the Peştera promontory affected the remains of the First Iron Age and the eastern part of the Peştera promontory partially affected the Eneolithic settlement. At the end of the third century - beginning of the second century BC, an archaeological culture known as Poienești-Lucașeuca spreads in the Carpathian-Dniester area. This culture combined material elements specific for the Getae culture, as well as cultures found between the Eastern Carpathians and the Baltic Sea. b) POIENEȘTI-LUCAȘEUCA CULTURE

In the last decades of the third century BC two settlements pertaining to the Poienești-Lucașeuca culture were established in the landscape perimeter, which were inhabited until the end of the first century BC, as well as at least one cemetery. One of these settlements occupied the premises and surroundings of the former fortified settlement form the Getae Maşcăuţi-Poiana Ciucului. This settlement affected an area of approximately 300 x 200 metres. Within this settlement a number of pits and surface houses were built during two centuries of existence. Economic activities such as agriculture and crafts have produced consistent material remains, which formed archaeological deposits consisting of clay fragments, traces of combustion of organic matter, numerous fragments of pottery and other artefacts. This dwelling overlapped Getae archaeological deposits, affecting them considerably. After leaving this settlement, during the medieval period, in the 5th-15th centuries, this area was affected by successive settlements which in turn disrupted the Poienești-Lucașeuca archaeological deposits. Thus, deepened features were sometimes perforated by new excavations, while the cultural layer was moved.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

A second settlement of the Poienești-Lucașeuca culture was established on the western end of the Peştera promontory, at its southern base16. This community has affected an area of approximately 400 x 200 metres where there was a short-term settlement the first Iron Age. A number of pit and surface houses and landfills were built within the Poienești-Lucașeuca settlement. The inhabitancy and activities in the area resulted in numerous vestiges materials such as animal bones, fragments of pottery, clay and others forming a fairly consistent archaeological deposit. At the same time, in the immediate vicinity of residential complexes, there was a graveyard, the funeral rite being cremation. The archaeological traces of this cemetery are seen in the form of burned human bones deposited in pottery buried in the ground. This settlement and the cemetery were severely affected by the successive habitation in the medieval period (5th-16th centuries), so that often the Poienești-Lucașeuca type archaeological remains are found in re-deposited position. Therefore, in the 2nd-1st centuries BC two settlements and archaeological traces of a necropolis were added to the Orheiul Vechi landscape, which affected the soil and subsoil, as well as archaeological deposits from previous periods. Currently, isolated remains specific to the aforementioned culture can be observed at the surface of the sites. During the first two centuries of our era, as far as research shows, the landscape of the Orheiul Vechi area has not been inhabited. Moreover, throughout Moldova region during the given period, steadfast habitation has not been recorded. It was not until around 250 AD that sedentary population settlements reappeared in the region, including in the perimeter of the Orheiul Vechi landscape. These belong to the Sântana de MureșCerneahov culture, which in the third – first half of the fifth century encompassed vast territories from the Dnieper to the centre of Transylvania and the lower Danube. 5. LATE ANTIQUITY PERIOD, CIRCA 200-425 (SÂNTANA DE MUREȘ-CERNEAHOV CULTURE)

In late Antiquity period, starting from the mid-third century, two settlements of the Sântana de Mureș-Cerneahov culture were established within the Orheiul Vechi Landscape, which lasted until the late fourth or early fifth century. Both settlements were founded on the right bank of Răut River, one of them at the southern foot of the Peştera promontory, and the other on the upper terrace of the Maşcăuţi slope – at the Poiana Ciucului point. It should be noted that, compared with most settlements of this culture that are famous for their impressive dimensions, the Orheiul Vechi settlements of this period are small and modest. The first of these settlements, the on the Peştera promontory, partially overlapped the Getae settlements of the Second Iron Age, affecting it to insignificant extent. Shortly after this site ceased to be inhabited and until the 16th century, a village built in this point heavily affected it. Therefore, most of the traces of the Late Antiquity settlement are in the second position, currently being observed in the form of isolated ceramic fragments at the surface. The second settlement of the Sântana de Mureş-Cerneahov culture was founded in Maşcăuţi, Poiana Ciucului point. It was built on top of the traces of Getae and 16 Gheorghe Postică, Octavian Munteanu, Aşezarea culturii Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca de la Orheiul Vechi (Cercetările arheologice din anii 1996-1998), In: Cercetări arheologice aria nord-tracică, Bucureşti, t. III, 1999, p. 385-456.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca type occupations slightly affecting them. In turn, the traces of the Late Antiquity settlement were later overlaid by the successive habitation in the second half of the first millennium and the second millennium, so that at the current stage, the traces of the settlement can be seen with the naked eye at the ground surface in the form of fragments of pottery. In the next period, during the middle and second half of the first millennium, major changes took place within the Landscape with the installation of a habitat model characterised by an exclusively rural, patriarchal and autarkic lifestyle, a model which perpetuated in the area for nine centuries.

In the 5th-7th centuries the great migrations of peoples (Huns, Alans, Avars, Slavs and Bulgarians) took place in most of southeast Europe. This period was marked by the cultural degradation and ruralisation, so as everywhere in the region the relatively small groups with a rudimentary culture, based on natural subsistence economy, have settled. In the Răut gorge the situation was the same. The groups settled in this period within the Landscape belong to the Costişa-Botoşana-Hansca archaeological culture. In the eighth and ninth centuries, in the context of geopolitical stabilisation in the region and notable progress in all areas of life (population growth, habitat amplification, emergence of specialised crafts, accentuated development of metallurgy etc.), the material culture of indigenous communities undergoes major changes. In the archaeological material, these processes are reflected through the formation of the Lozna-Borniş indigenousbased culture, more advanced and with more substantial deposits. A number of four settlements were established in the Orheiul Vechi region between approximately the years 450 - 550, which lasted throughout the 7th-9th centuries. These are documented in the following locations: two on the Peştera promontory, one on the Butuceni promontory and the fourth on the Maşcăuţi slope. These settlements were relatively small, up to 300 x 150 metres. In each of these settlements two levels of living from the respective period are attested. In the first level there are pit houses with stone ovens, with archaeological material consisting of fragments of rudimentary hand-made pottery, iron, bronze, stone and bone and others tools, as well as traces of organic matter combustion. In the second level, the areas of settlements considerably expand, reaching 600 x 250 metres. The houses of this period are larger, there is a mass occurrence of clay ovens used for reducing iron ore, baking bread and burning pottery. During this period, along with hand-made pottery, the transition towards wheel-made pottery is attested. We also note the increasing quality and number of metal objects. The transition from one stage to another occurred gradually, without significant damage. The settlements in this period were built on top of those from previous eras. Thus, the Maşcăuţi early medieval era overlapped and heavily affected the traces of occupation from the Iron Age and Late Antiquity, sometimes dislodging them; early medieval settlements from the foot of the Peştera promontory overlapped the traces of occupation from the Iron Age; the early medieval settlement on the western end of the Butuceni promontory overlapped and affected traces of habitation from the Eneolithic and the Getae period.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

6. EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD, 5TH – 9TH CENTURIES (COSTIŞA-BOTOŞANA-HANSCA AND LOZNA-BORNIŞ CULTURES)

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

In the following period, on the site of these settlements habitation specific to the Dridu culture (10th-11th centuries) appeared and then the ones from the 12th-14th centuries (Brăneşti-Lencăuţi culture), both of local descent. In these circumstances, naturally, the new successive settlements did not produce significant damage, old buildings and facilities being only sealed and levelled down. Alternatively, traces some of these settlements have been affected in the 14th and 16th centuries by the Şehr al-Cedid and Orheiul Vechi medieval towns. Currently, scattered sherds and other artefacts are observed at the surface in redeposited condition where these settlements used to stand.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

7. EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD, 10TH-14TH CENTURIES (DRIDU AND BRĂNEŞTILENCĂUŢI CULTURES)

In the 10th-11th centuries major changes occur in the geopolitical context in the south-eastern and eastern Europe. During this period, the Prut-Dniester space was surrounded by four powerful state entities: in the Carpathian Basin the Hungarian State, in the Balkan-Danube space - First Bulgarian Empire, in the Ponto-Caspian steppes - Khazar Khaganate, and in the space between Dnieper and Dniester - Kievan Rus’. They exerted important political, economic and cultural influence on the space between the Dniester and Prut. At the same time, in the steppes north of the Black Sea and in the territory west of the Dniester, the importance and influence of nomadic groups (Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans, Alans and others) increases. In this context, important changes also take place in the Răut gorge. Thus, through local development processes, four settlements with a material culture known in the literature as the Dridu culture (10th-11th centuries) set up in the area. This culture combines the local native elements and the ones caused by the influences from the Byzantine Empire, first Bulgarian Empire and nomadic polities. Over the next three centuries (12th-14th) this part of Europe was strongly marked by a series of events that have fundamentally changed the geopolitical context. Thus, in the 12th century the Cumans settled in the Carpathian-Danubian region, forming a new political entity: the Danubian Cumania; at the end of the century, the second Bulgarian Empire forms in the Balkan-Danube region. In 1241 most of Eastern Europe was conquered by the Mongols; under the impact of the Mongol invasion Kievan Rus’ falls apart and various kniezates (small medieval polities) appear on its ruins, among which closest one to the Dniester was the Halych-Vohlynean kniezate. In this context, within the space encompassed between the north and northeast of Moldova, after local evolutions, as well as under significant impact from the aforementioned entities, a new culture known in the literature as Brăneşti-Lencăuţi culture (12th-14th centuries) was formed. Within the Orheiul Vechi landscape, during this period, on the site of the four settlements of the Dridu culture habitat changes occur that were manifested by the development of new houses, arts and workshops. Houses and household structures from this period were similar to those from the previous period. Alternatively, due to advances in pottery and intensification of trade relations, the role of the fast wheelmade pottery has dramatically increased. This latter change was possible only in the context in which the craft has become highly specialised and trade oriented.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Settlements of this period did not exceed the borders of those from the previous period, newly built homes were of the same type, so there is no doubt that the inhabitants of these settlements were in fact descendants of the Dridu culture. At the same time, in the settlements of the Brăneşti-Lencăuţi culture within the landscape, foreign elements have emerged. In both cultures, among the items of foreign origin several so-called cauldrons, the ceramic vessels specific to nomadic populations in the Ponto-Caspian steppe, are met. Starting with the mid-14th century, the traces of these settlements were affected by the changes made during the building of the Şehr al-Cedid town. Currently, the traces of the settlements from the pre-Mongolian era – burnt organic matter, iron slag, fragments of pottery etc. – are visible to the naked eye at the ground surface. In the mid-14th century a long period of exclusively rural civilization in the Lower Răut Basin ended. After that, henceforth, over the next two centuries, the habitat in this area will be characterised by the existence of an urban settlement surrounded by villages. 8. PERIOD OF THE MONGOLIAN TOWN OF ŞEHR AL-CEDID, CA. 1330-1369

After the Mongols have conquered Iran and Caucasus, in 1222 they entered the Black Sea region for the first time. In 1223 they defeated the combined forces of Russian principalities and Cumans in the Battle of the Kalka River (today the Donetsk region, Ukraine). After this battle in the region established the calm. In 1224 the Mongol ruler Gengis Khan divided his empire among his four sons, the western part of the empire (Central Asia and the possessions beyond the Volga River) becoming a possession of Jochi. In 1236 the Mongols resumed their expansion on Eastern Europe by conquering one by one the Russian principalities and the steppes of northern Black Sea (Dești Kipceak) controlled by the Cumans, in 1240 being conquered the last great regional bastion – the town of Kiev. In 1241 the Mongols penetrated the Carpathian-Danubian region, reaching Central Europe and the Adriatic Sea. Following the death of the Ögedei Khan in 1242, the Mongols retreated from Central Europe and established their border line on Eastern Carpathians and the Danube River17. As a result of the Mongol conquests between 1236-1242, Batu Khan, the son of Jochi Khan, created the immense Mongolian Empire of the Golden Horde in the vast spaces between Siberia and Central Asia and up to the Carpathians and lower Danube. Its capital, Sarai, was on the River Volga and then transferred at the beginning of the 14th century to Sarai Berke, which was in that period one of the greatest cities in the world with a population of over 600 thousand. The Golden Horde included two distinct phenomena: the nomadic specific to the steppes and the urban with trade and crafts aspects. In this context, the sedentary towns (Central Asia, the Volga region, the Caucasus, Crimea, Moldova) and the nomads from the steppes (the Mongols, the Cumans, the Pechenegs) represented two distinct socio-economic spheres within the Golden Horde with low interaction between each other, being kept united by the political-military factor18. Until the early 14th century, the Mongols practiced an animist pagan religion, while being tolerant of other faiths practiced within the Golden Horde. During the reign of Uzbeg Khan (1312-1341) the Mongols adopted Islam, which was imposed as the official state religion of the Golden Horde. 17 Виктор Спиней, Господство Золотой Орды в Валахии и Молдавии, In: Золотая Орда в мировой истории, Казань, 2016, p. 403-426 [Viktor Spinej, Gospodstvo Zolotoj Ordy v Valahii i Moldavii, In: Zolotaya Orda v mirovoj istorii, Kazan’.]. 18 Н.Д. Руссев, На грани миров и эпох. Города низовий Дуная и Днестра в конце XIII-XIV вв., Кишинев, 2000. 240 с. [N.D. Russev, Na grani mirov i ehpoh. Goroda nizovij Dunaya i Dnestra v konce XIII-XIV vv., Kishinev.].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

a) THE GOLDEN HORDE DOMINANCE IN THE CARPATHIAN-DNIESTER REGION

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

After the death of Batu Khan in 1255, the Golden Horde prosperity lasted for nearly a century, until the assassination of Jani Beg Khan in 1357. At the end of the 13th century, in the western regions of the Golden Horde, power was usurped by Nogai Khan, who settled in the Lower Danube region (Isaccea), leading an independent policy from the central power of Sarai. Thus, in the lower Danube region and east of the Carpathians there appeared a second political centre of the Golden Horde. In the last two decades of the 13th century, Nogai Khan was virtually the ruler of the entire Golden Horde Empire, also controlling the local rulers from Bulgaria and even some from the Byzantine Empire, and conducting at the same time military expeditions to Central Europe. Given this situation, the importance of the Dniester region increased, within the general political context of the Golden Horde. Subsequently, Toqta Khan (1291-1312) had a similar position in the Lower Danube region. Since the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, the Mongols promoted a policy of stability in the Carpathian-Danubian region and founded in this context several towns of oriental type: at Isaccea (on the site of the ancient city of Noviodunum), at Belgorod-Dnestrovskii (on the site of the ancient city of Tiras), at Costești (in the Botna River valley near the present Costești village, 30 km south-west of Chișinău) and at Orheiul Vechi (the Shehr al-Cedid town). Of all these towns, the most advanced and best preserved one is the Mongol town from Orheiul Vechi.

Figure no. 21. Shehr al-Cedid town in the geopolitical regional context in the years 1350-1369.

In 1348-1349 the Golden Horde Empire was affected by a terrible plague (also called “the Black Death”), which contributed to its decay and to a partial exodus of urban population from the towns western to Volga, including the space between the Dniester and Prut rivers, and particularly the town of Shehr al-Cedid. After the assassination of Jani Beg Khan from 1357, the political centres of the Golden Horde on the Volga River went through a civil war that lasted for decades. In this context, some regions of the

Golden Horde started to break apart and become independent. In this context, in 1362 at the Blue Waters Battle (Ukraine), Tartars suffered a heavy defeat by the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania, who in this way took control of the territories between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers, including Kiev town. In these circumstances, in 1362-1365, the town of Shehr al-Cedid from the PrutDniester region became the residence of the Abdallah Khan, proclaimed ruler of the Golden Horde, but who was de facto controlling at that time only the western part of the Mongol Empire. In this context, in the town of Orhei there were minted the first coins of “Yanghi-Şehr al-Mahrusa” and „Şehr al-Cedid” types, with the wording „Abdalah Han”, in this way being noted the special role of this locality19. After the departure of Abdallah Khan in the Volga region, in 1366-1369, the Shehr al-Cedid town became the residential centre of a local ruler who promoted a separatist policy against the Golden Horde, renegaded Islam and converted to Christianity. Judging by the wordings of the coins from this period, the ruler of Shehr al-Cedid town bore the title of „Sheik” (1366-1367) and „Emir” (1367-1369). The Emir of the Shehr alCedid town is identified with „dominus Demetrius princeps Tartarorum”, mentioned in the Diploma of the King Louis I of Hungary of 22 April 1368. It is also noteworthy that in 1362 the Emir Demetrius together with his brothers Kutlabuga and Koçubey were defeated in the Blue Waters Battle against the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania. In the late 60’s of the 14th century, the Golden Horde lost all the control in the Dniester region. In this context, in 1369 the Mongol coinage ceased in Shehr al-Cedid, the respective territories being included in the 70’s under the administration of the young Christian Principality of Moldova which emerged at the east of Carpathians in the middle of the 14th century. Thus, in the context of the competition between the European world with the Mongol one, the first succeeded, and brought back to the Christian world the border regions with the Islamic world. b) THE SHEHR AL-CEDID / YANGHI SHEHR TOWN

Around 1330, in the context of political fragmentation of the Golden Horde (the state entity detached from the Mongol Empire, which included territories between Central Asia and the Lower Danube), an impressive medieval Oriental town, known as Şehr al-Cedid/Yangy Şehr (= New Town) was founded on the Peştera promontory. The Mongolian political elite chose this location to found the town due to its natural defence aspects of the landscape and its natural connection to the Dniester River, which provided the link between the Carpathian Basin and the Black Sea. In this way they perfectly adapted their need to dominate and control one of the most strategically important spots in the region. Within the city several production workshops functioned: coin manufacturing, iron processing workshops, goldsmith, pottery, bone carving workshops, lime kilns and others. To secure the raw materials needed for these workshops, numerous craftsmen, most often brought from distant centres of Central Asia and Oriental Caucasus, widely 19 Eugen Nicolae, Quelques considérations sur les monnaies tatares de “La Ville Neuve” (Yanghi şehr/Şehr al-Gedid), In: Studii şi cercetări de numismatică, 1995, t.IX, p. 197-200) ; C. Янина, Новый город (Янги-шехр=Шехр ал-Джедид) – монетный двор Золотой Орды и его местрнахождение, In: Нумизматический сборник ГИМ, ч. V, вып 1 / ТрГИМ, Москва, вып. 49, 1977, c. 193-213 [S. Yanina, Novyj gorod (Yangi-shekhr=Shekhr al-Dzhedid) – monetnyj dvor Zolotoj Ordy i ego mestrnahozhdenie, In: Numizmaticheskij sbornik GIM, ch. V, vyp 1 / TrGIM, Moskva, vyp. 49].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

exploited resources in the landscape and in its surroundings. The limestone needed to produce lime was extracted from the local rocks, iron ore was extracted the soils of the Răut gorge. Therefore, the economic activities affected both the premises of the town and its surroundings. The archaeological deposits inside the town abounds in iron slag and clay, pottery and bone processing waste and other. Sites of exploitation of ore in the area were also identified, for instance, in the Răut valley traces of mining of limestone were observed. Throughout the four decades of existence of the town, its inhabitants erected many buildings made of stone and burned and unburned brick. We mention some of the most important buildings: the Citadel, Caravanserai, mosque, mausoleum, three public bathhouses with efficient sewer systems, many houses and workshops. All these activities have produced consistent archaeological deposits consisting of household and waste production, abandoned objects, construction debris, etc. Although the town only existed for four decades, the cultural layer with the remains of Mongolian period is particularly consistent and rich, sometimes reaching up to 1.50 metres in thickness. All these have brought substantial changes to the landscape, the ruins of many buildings being visible with the naked eye. Currently, there are many traces of constructions, artefacts, food, ash etc. which are visible at the ground surface. At the same time, two cemeteries existed inside the city, unmarked at the surface. Beyond the traces of various urban and economic activities, monumental works were also made within the town of Şehr al-Cedid. One of them is a bas-relief carved in rock, on steep slope north of the Peştera promontory, near the citadel. This image represents a mongoloid type man, in all likelihood a major military figure. The basrelief is now clearly visible on its original site. The town occupied the entire surface of the Peştera promontory inside the sinuous course of the Răut River. Isolated on three sides by the inaccessible banks of Răut, the town was naturally well-protected. The only access to the town was possible from the west. This place was defended during the Mongolian period by a permanent garrison starting from the second phase of the town’s existence. Inside the city many buildings, residential, crafts, government residences, buildings and other public interest, as well as three bath-buildings were raised. They were concentrated in distinct parts of the city. Thus, the homes for military garrison were built at the western entrance to the city; the administrative residence was in the middle of the city; the commercial area consists of the market place and the Caravanserai were arranged in the central-eastern part of the town; two mosques were built within the town: first in the centre of the town, and the second, according to Muslim tradition, in the immediate vicinity of the Caravanserai; the Christian church was built in the vicinity of the Caravanserai; craft workshops were mainly concentrated around the commercial area; two cemeteries operated within the city, one at its western edge, and the other – near the church; three bathhouses were built near Răut in different places: one on the northern slope of the promontory and two on the southern one; also many houses were built throughout the promontory. A multipurpose centre that combined various activities was found near the city’s central mosque. Close to and near its walls, many residential and production structures were built, including 3 large clay ovens, 9 typically oriental bread baking ovens – socalled tandir ovens, a pottery workshop consisting of three rooms, 8 store pits and 3

household and dwelling buildings. At the same time, a goldsmith workshop made up of three rooms with stone walls, as well as many wooden houses with large clay ovens were joined to the Caravanserai’s wall. In the space between the mosque and caravanserai, a very large oven for burning lime was built during the stage of their building. Throughout its forty years of existence, the Şehr al-Cedid town went through three basic phases. 1. During the first phase (approximately 1330-1350) a mosque (no. 1) was built with a mausoleum in the basement. 2. During the second phase (circa 1350-1366) a caravanserai (building designed to accommodate caravans of merchants and their goods), a new mosque (no. 2) and three public bathhouses were built. At the end of this phase (1363-1365), in the context of intensifying tensions within the Golden Horde, the military importance of the town sharply increased. Therefore, Abdullah Khan of the Golden Horde moved from the capital of this state of Sarai on the Volga River, to the town of Şehr al-Cedid in the Răut valley. Under these circumstances, in the only naturally unfortified place to access the town, at the western entry, a military garrison was set up, yurt type circular houses, where the military body stationed. 3. During the third phase (1366-1369) on the site of the former mosque no.1, a palace surrounded by the walls of a citadel, used as the residence of the governor (seyh / amir) was built. During the same period, in the context of the town’s elite conversion to Christianity, a church was built. It was a period of maximum authority of the town, a fact confirmed, among other, by the numerous silver and bronze coins with legends of Şehr al-Cedid/Yangi Şehr struck in this town. Between 1366 and 1369, in the context of the elite’s transition from Islam to Christianity, the mausoleum mosque has undergone dramatic change, being transformed into the emir’s palace of residence. The land of the previous building was enlarged and the underground part was assigned another use, being converted into a warehouse or pool of water. In building the foundations stones from old buildings were used, including a stone from the former mosque with an Arabic inscription20. In the 60s of the 14th century the geopolitical context was getting worse for the Mongolian authorities in the region. In addition to tensions within the Golden Horde, the apparition of in the immediate vicinity of the Christian state of Moldova – Ţara Moldovei (1359) – contributed to this. In these circumstances, part of the Mongols (Muslims) from the area and the town based on the Răut River took refuge in the interior regions of the Golden Horde. In all likelihood, the Christian Mongols from Şehr al-Cedid remained in the town, soon integrating into the Christian state of Moldova. Contrary to previous interpretations, the Mongolian town was not destroyed during its period under Moldovan control. On the contrary, according to recent research, the town adapted to its new status as a Christian town under the authority of the Ţara Moldovei. Settlements in this period fully overlapped the previous settlements on the Peştera promontory: Palaeolithic, Eneolithic, Early Iron Age, late Antiquity and the early 20

Eugen Nicolae, Inscripţia funerară din secolul al XIV-lea descoperită la Orheiul Vechi în 1986, In: Simpozion de Numismatică. 26-28 noiembrie 2003. Comunicări, studii, note. Chişinău, 2005, p. 81- 88.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

medieval period. Since the construction of Mongolian city involved major interventions in the ground (trenches for foundations of buildings, walls, pit housing, landfills, and the funeral complexes and others), this substantially affected the archaeological remains from those eras, often shifting them, destroying them and by using them in new structures. Compared with the damage to the material traces of previous eras, the damage caused during the Mongolian period was the most dramatic. At the same time, it should be noted that during the Mongolian town some areas outside the city enclosure were also exploited. Thus, on the upper terrace of the Maşcăuţi slope, from the times of the pre-Mongol period, rural dwelling was continued by indigenous people, whose traces combines both remains specific to native culture and of Oriental nature. Therefore, the Mongolian town fundamentally altered the landscape of Orheiul Vechi, affecting both the natural framework and traces of habitation from previous periods, within the city itself and its surroundings. Currently, traces of this city are among the most clearly visible archaeological remains in the area. The walls of many buildings uncovered during the archaeological excavations and preserved in situ (citadel, mosque no. 2, caravanserai, bathhouse no. 2) are visible with the naked eye. Furthermore, stones extracted from Mongolian town’s buildings are seen in the walls and fences currently found in Trebujeni and Butuceni inserted in the latter. It is notable that the memory about the existence of the “Tatar bathhouse” on the Răut River banks in the fourteenth century near the village of Trebujeni, through the use of the “Feredeu” toponym (feredeu in Romanian means bath) used for the site of the ruins of the former baths, has remained in the living memory of the local population till now. The remains of this city represent the most striking part of the archaeological landscape of Orheiul Vechi. 9. PERIOD OF THE MOLDOVAN TOWN OF ORHEI, CA. 1370-1540 a) CHRISTIAN RECONQUISTA AGAINST THE TARTARS AND THE FORMA4TION OF ȚARA MOLDOVEI

Christian Reconquista against the Tartar rule in the Carpathian region began at the end of the 13th century when the Christian powers of Central Europe triggered the fight to restore to Christendom the area east of the Carpathians and north of the Black Sea. During the late 13th and the first half of the 14th century, the fight against the Tartars was conducted by the kings of Hungary. Beginning with the mid-14th century a second front was opened against Tartars by the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania. The first successes in fighting the Tartars were obtained in the 80’s of the 13th century by the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV (1272-1290). Significant results in the struggle with the Tartars were however obtained in the 40’s-50’s of the 14th century by King Louis I of Anjou (1342-1382), who managed to obtain a series of victories over the Tartars on the Eastern Carpathian line, and to erect several citadels on the Trotuș and Moldova rivers that stem the Tartar invasions to Transylvania. The fortifications erected east of the Carpathians by King Louis I formed the nucleus of a Hungarian military mark which was led by a ruler from Maramureș named Dragoș. This military mark was overlapping a local territorial structure from the valley of the Moldova River – traditionally named Țara Moldovei. This feature generated a conflict

between the Romanian local rulers and the Hungarian Crown at the end of the 50’s of the 14th century. As a result, in 1359, the Romanian Voivode Bogdan declared the independence from Hungary of Țara Moldovei from the valley of the river with the same name. It is noteworthy that Voivode Bogdan, like Voivode Basarab I from Wallachia, situated south of the Carpathians, benefited of support from the Tartars in his fight of assertion of the statehood of Țara Moldovei, proof of this being the ring with Arabic inscriptions found in his tomb from the Church of Rădăuți (Romania). It is also noteworthy that in 1362 the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania (1341-1377), managed to provoke a categorical defeat to the Tartars led by Kutlabuga, Koçubey and Demetrius at the Blue Waters Battle, thus beginning to put an end to the Mongol domination in the Dniester region. Meanwhile, in 1365 the Hungarian King Louis I was forced to recognize the independence of Țara Moldovei, thus baptizing a new political-military entity to the east of the Carpathians, which became in the following centuries the main stabilizing regional factor and a shield of Christendom in the fight against the Tartars that established afterwards in Crimea, and the Ottoman Turks who started to become military important in the north of the Danube at the end of the 14th century. In its first decade of independence, Țara Moldovei included territories around the Carpathians from the valleys of the Moldova and Siret rivers, the Suceava Plateau and Bucovina. During the same period, the central and southern part of the Prut-Dniester region, including the woods of Orhei, continued to be dominated by the Tartars, ruled between 1363-1365 by Abdallah Khan, and between 1366-1369 by an Emir who renegaded Islam and converted to Christianity. Between 1375 and 1391 Ţara Moldovei extended to the Dniester and the Black Sea and created a system of alliances with Poland, Lithuania and Wallachia. At the beginning of the 15th century, during the reign of the Voivode Alexandru cel Bun (14001431) Țara Moldovei became a very important political-economic regional factor. Further, in the second half of the 15th century, during the reign of the Voivode Stephen the Great (1457-1504) Țara Moldovei peaked its development and became a true shield of Christendom in the struggle against the Ottoman Empire and the Crimea Tartars. In this context, the Moldovan Voivodes created a system of fortifications bordering the Carpathians in west, the Lower Danube and the Black Sea in the South, the Dniester River in the east, and the Bucovina region in the north. Within the fortifications from the eastern part, the most important point was the Orhei citadel that restricted access to the heartland of Țara Moldovei. Thus, the Orheiul Vechi citadel would play an important defensive role not only for Țara Moldovei, but also for Central Europe, restricting the access of Tartars from the eastern steppes during the 15th and 16th centuries.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 22. Orhei town in the geopolitical regional context in the years 1390-1450.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

b) THE EVOLUTION OF THE MEDIEVAL TOWN

Around 1370 the medieval town on the Peştera promontory was integrated into Ţara Moldovei, becoming one of the most important citadels of this state in the process. The city also changed its name – in 1470 it was certified for the first time under the name of Orhei (=ruins of ancient settlement). Throughout the existence of the medieval town on the Peştera promontory, numerous structures were built in its surroundings. Thus, various caves and grottos were arranged in the steep slopes of the Butuceni promontory and the Maşcăuţi cliffs. Some of these were used for religious purposes (churches, Christian monks’ cells grouped within convents / monasteries), others were built as storage spaces, places of refuge for local laic communities. In the immediate vicinity of the Moldovan town, on the upper terrace of the Maşcăuţi slope, on the place of the settlements in the early medieval period, rural living was perpetuated, the traces of which make up the latest layer of the respective site. c) CAVE DWELLING ON THE BUTUCENI PROMONTORY

In the 15th century on the northern bank of the Butuceni promontory, a cave hermitage was founded, known as the Trebujeni hermitage (rebuilt in the 17th century by the chief magistrate Bosie)21. At the same time, west of the hermitage, in the cliff, on 400 metres-long sector, there were many grottoes and caves arranged. Some of them served as cells for the hermit monks and others as shelters for locals. It is worth mentioning that in the first half of the 16th century, the Butuceni promontory was owned by the ruler of Moldova, being part of the estate of the settlement called in present days as Trebujeni. In the same area, many caves (today there are about 80) were arranged earlier 21 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Trebujeni (al lui Bosie Pârcălab) şi moşia Trebujeni/Butuceni din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tiragetia, S.N., vol. 3 [18], nr.2, 2009, p. 2-89.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

(possibly in 13th-14th centuries), about 400 metres west of the Trebujeni hermitage. They are located in inaccessible cliffs, almost vertical, at an altitude of 25 - 50 metres above the level of the Răut River, over an approximately 460 metres long segment. Some caves and grottoes were used by hermits, others by inhabitants during times of adversity. In the first half of the 15th century, on the Maşcăuţi terrace, concurrent with the medieval town on the Peştera promontory, a rural settlement existed under the name of Macicăuţi, first attested in a document written in 143622. In the same document, near that settlement an apiary is also mentioned - a citadel designed as a palisade of tree trunks stuck in the ground. The settlement was most likely found in the place of Poiana Ciucului, where archaeological traces are attested both from the 14th century and the 15th-16th centuries. Traces of dwellings, pottery and other artefacts characteristic for the 15th and 16th centuries are attested here. Conversely, the remains of the apiary have not yet been archaeologically attested. In the years 1468-1470, according to written documents, at the base of the Maşcăuţi slope, near the cave complex known as Chilioare on the right bank of Răut, in its immediate vicinity, a monastic settlement known as Schitul Macicăuţi or Schitul Pârcălabului Albu was founded. Within the area of this hermitage there were cave groups on the slope with the same name (Chilioare, Peşterele Ciucului, Holm), the foundation of which must be set to an earlier stage. In the immediate vicinity of the hermitage lies the cave group Chilioare. Currently it encompasses 20 cave rooms arranged on 3 levels. The second cave group - Peşterile Ciucului - is located about 800-900 metres to the west. It included 29 caves and grottos superposed on five levels. It was designed on the steep bank of the Răut at an altitude of 60-80 metres above the water level and spread over a distance of about 100 m. The third cave group Holm, is located at about 150 metres from the Peșterile Ciucului. It was made up of several grottos located on an almost vertical wall, very difficult to access, at an altitude of about 80 metres from the level of Răut. e) TARTAR TOPONYMS IN THE ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Tartar-Mongol presence in the Orheiul Vechi region and its neighbouring territories was heavily imprinted in the collective memory of the late medieval, premodern and modern periods from Moldova. In this regard, significant are the historical toponyms mentioned in the written documents from the 15th and 16th centuries. A significant toponym with Tartar origins is “Chişinău” (the term comes from the Tartar word „keşene”, which has three meanings: „tomb chapel, mausoleum”, „skete, monastery” or „bathroom”)23. It is attested in the region of The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape, as well as in the neighbouring territories from the central part of the Republic of Moldova. In The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape, the toponym “Chişinău” is attested in the proximity of the archaeological objective “The Tartar bath” (14th century) in a document signed by the Voivode of Țara Moldovei on the 10th of May, 1574. 22 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Maşcăuţi/Macicăuţi (al lui Albu Pârcălab) şi moşia Maşcăuţi din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tyragetia, s.n., vol. V [XX], nr. 2, 2011, p. 119-138. 23 Sergiu Bacalov, Consideraţii privind perioada tătaro-mongolă din istoria oraşului Chişinău, In: Identităţile Chişinăului, Chişinău, 2015, p. 29-55.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

d) RURAL AND CAVE DWELLING ON THE MAŞCĂUŢI TERRACE AND SLOPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The same toponym is documentary attested in another 4 cases from the neighbourhood of Orheiul Vechi: “The Chișinău of Acbaş” on the River Bâc, in 1436, on the current location of the capital of the Republic of Moldova, the city of Chișinău; „Red Chişinău”, in 1455, not far from the confluence of rivers Botna and Dniester; „The Big Chişinău”, in 1535 on the River Botna, and “Chişinău on the River Răut” in 1573. A historical toponym that records the Tartar presence in the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape region and its adjacent territories is “Seliștea Tătărască”, attested in 1436, on the River Bâc near the actual city of Chișinău, and in 1502, in the Tigheci region. Another toponym is the “Tartarian wells” on the River Iligaci, documentary attested in 1555 and the „Tartarian well” on the River Răut, mentioned in 1569. Particularly important for The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are the toponyms „Tartarian mounds”, from the River Ichel from the neighbourhood of Orheiului Vechi and „Tartarian tombs”, mentioned in 1602 on the Mașcăuți estate which is part of Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape.

Figure no. 23. Map of the Tartar origin toponyms from Țara Moldovei mentioned in written historical documents between the 15th and the 17th centuries (by S. Bacalov). f) THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE HESYCHAST MONASTIC MOVEMENT AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE FIRST CAVE HERMITAGES IN THE DNIESTER BASIN

During the Moldovan period of the medieval town from Orheiul Vechi, cave hermitages were carved in the limestone rock of the Răut gorges where hermits perpetuated for centuries Christianity, an element which profoundly marked the region and the Middle Dniester basin.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Around the middle of the 16th century, for unexplained reasons, the urban life at Orheiul Vechi ceased (the citadel’s demolition possibly occurred in the context of the Ottoman occupation of Tighina and building the town of Bender). In the following

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Hesychasm represents an ascetic Christian tradition known since the 4th and 5th centuries, but which was organized as a movement of spiritual and theological revival during the 13th and 14th centuries. Hesychast revival occurred at Mount Athos in Greece. Its artisans were Nikephoros the Monk and St. George the Sinaite, their struggle being theologically crowned by St. Gregory Palamas who justified the hermit movement on the basis of biblical testimonies and Christian traditions. The hesychast spirituality spread to the Slavic and Romanian principalities from the Mount Athos and from the Byzantine Empire. It penetrated the Romanian principalities beginning with the 14th century. It spread from the Mount Athos to Bulgaria (the Paroria and Kelifarevo monasteries) and Serbia, and then north of the Danube in Wallachia and Țara Moldovei. North of the Danube, the beginning of the hesychast movement is related to the name of St. Nicodim, the founder of Tismana monastery (c. 1375). Hesychasm became widespread east of the Carpathians, including in the Dniester region from the last quarter of the 14th – the beginning of the 15th century24. In the Middle Dniester region the hesychast tradition was known since the 11th12th centuries. It originated from the Pecerska Lavra monastery from Kiev, thanks to the work of St. Anthony Pechersky who along with his disciples founded several cave hermitages in the Middle Dniester basin (Bakota, Satanov, Leadova, Nagoreni, Mejigore-Zapadnoe, Bubnişče) in the present day Ukraine25. At the beginning of the 15th century a new phase of hesychasm started in Russia, originating from the Mount Athos and the Byzantine Empire, its most notorious promoters being the Kiev metropolitan, Ciprian (1381-1406), St. Serhie of Radonej (14th century), and St. Nil of Sora (1433-1508)26. Turkish occupation of Bulgaria and Serbia in the late 14th century and the fall of Constantinople (1453) had tragic consequences for the hermits of these countries as well as for the hermits from Mount Athos. On the other hand, the Romanian principalities (Wallachia and Moldova) kept a certain freedom from the Turks, in this way offering throughout the long Ottoman domination a favourable environment for the hermit life both in the major monasteries built by the Romanian rulers and in the sketes and hermitages. In these circumstances, the hesychast movement actively developed in the Middle Dniester basin between the 15th and the 18th centuries, and especially in the Orheiul Vechi region.

Michelina Tenace, Creștinismul Bizantin. Istorie, teologie, tradiții monastice, traducere de Al. Cistelecan, Chișinău, Editura Cartier istoric, 2005. 25 I. Винокур, П. Горишнiй, Бакота. Столица давньоруського Пониззя, Kaм’янець-Подiльський, 1994 [I.Vinokur, P. Gorishnij, Bakota. Stolica davn’orus’kogo Ponizzya, Kam’yanec’-Podil’s’kij]. 26 Г. М. Прохоров, Исихазм и общественная мысль в Восточной Европе в XIV веке, In: Русь и Византия в эпоху Куликовской битвы, СПб: Алетейя, 2000 [G. M. Prohorov, Isihazm i obshchestvennaya mysl’ v Vostochnoj Evrope v XIV veke, In: Rus’ i Vizantiya v ehpohu Kulikovskoj bitvy, SPb: Aletejya].

10. THE POST-URBAN PERIOD, CA. 1540-1946 a) RURAL DWELLING ON THE PEŞTERA PROMONTORY

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

decades, the city’s former territory was used for various necessities in the area. In the early seventeenth century for a fairly short period of time, the old borough was reactivated in an attempt to restore the former fortress. Subsequently, the town has evolved on a strictly rural path, becoming property of the Iasi-based Golia Monastery, which was administratively subordinated to the Monastery of Vatopedi in Mount St. Athos27. Three basic phases are highlighted in the development of the Peştera promontory in the post-urban period: 1. Ca. 1540-1600 – phase of the Peştera village; 2. Ca. 1600-1630/1660 - phase of the Peştera marketplace; 3. Ca. 1660-1770 - phase of the Mihăilaşa village; 4. 1770-1946 - phase of the agricultural use.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

1. First phase (ca. 1540-1600)

In mid-16th century the territory of the former town on the Peştera promontory is owned by the Ţara Moldovei, as part of the Peştera estate, which had its administrative centre on the territory of the current Brăneşti village, located about 3 kilometres to the west. In this context, the post-urban settlement from Orheiul Vechi according to written documents is given a new name - Peştera. In 1576 the territory of the cliffs and Peştera settlement was connected to the Trebujeni/Golăieşti estate, according to the prince of Moldova, Petru Şchiopu’ instructions. The latter territory as ruled by the great chancellor Ioan Golăi, and its administrative centre was in the north, on the opposite bank of Răut. In the second half of the 16th century at the north-eastern end of the Peştera promontory, in the place of the ford crossing over Răut, in front of the former Tartar bathhouse a water mill was built, known in written documents as Moara de la Feredeu (The Mill at the Bathhouse) and was first mentioned in written documents in 1588 and 1591. This mill, together with the accompanying accumulation lake existed until the twentieth century. Compared to the urban period, the Peştera settlement considerably narrowed its dwelling space, occupying parts inside the old citadel, on the commercial territory of the former Caravanserai and the space located southwards facing the cave monastery of chief magistrate Bosie. The settlement had a surface of about 10-15 hectares. 2. Second phase (ca. 1600-1630/1660)

Around 1600 Moldovan Voievode (Prince) Ieremia Movilă made an attempt to restore the Orheiul Vechi citadel, certain orders being given in written form to this effect, bringing the estate under the voivode’s possession once more. The attempts to restore the town between 1604 and 1612 proved to be unsuccessful. However, starting with 1604, in the area of the citadel and the old trade centre, an urban settlement was formed, being attested in the documents of the time under the name – the Peştera borough, administered by one of the voivode’s chief magistrate and a şoltuz (townspeople community counsel leader) on behalf of the townsfolk, being at that time a modest local trade centre. 27

Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Trebujeni (al lui Bosie Pârcălab) şi moşia Trebujeni/Butuceni din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tiragetia, S.N., vol. 3 [18], nr.2, 2009, p. 2-89.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

In the 30’s of the eighteenth century the Peştera promontory is returned under the administration of the Golia Monastery in Iași, the latter being subordinated to the Monastery of Vatopedi in Mount St. Athos. During the same period, the Peştera borough becomes a rural settlement and in the 60’s it has a new name – Mihăilaşa. During that period, in the context of the division of land on estates, a rampart representing a land boundary was raised through the centre of the former medieval town, traversing the promontory Peştera from north to south. Currently, the traces of this wave in some segments can be seen with the naked eye at the ground surface. In the first half of the seventeenth century inside the former mosque, on the site of the ruins of an older dwelling, a light wooden building surrounded by an enclosure made of large wooden pillars was set up. Around the year 1770 the centre of the Mihăilaşa village on the Peştera promontory is abandoned, the residents being transferred in the hearth of the Trebujeni village on the left side of the Răut River. In this context, Orheiul Vechi’s medieval church is closed and deserted. The territory of the Peştera promontory continued to be owned by the Golia Monastery in Iasi, and since secularisation (1863) and until 1914 this territory was a property directly subordinated to the Monastery of Vatopedi in Mount St. Athos. Archaeological research conducted revealed archaeological rural residential remains dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These are surface dwellings built of clay in wooden frameworks. Inside the houses burnt brick ovens were arranged, taken from the ruins of the old town’s buildings. This rural settlement covers an area of approximately 5-7 hectares. Archaeological deposits of this period are relatively poor and contain artefacts specific to rural settlements (ceramics, bricks, etc.). This settlement did not dramatically affect the existing landscape at the time. Currently this settlement’s traces are barely visible. Therefore, the Orheiul Vechi landscape was affected during this post-urban settlement, but much less compared to the urban period. 4. Fourth phase (1770-1946)

After finally leaving the area of the former medieval city, the Peştera promontory does not show traces of habitation. Over the next two centuries, this territory is used strictly for traditional agriculture by the residents of the current Butuceni and Trebujeni villages. b) RURAL AND CAVE DWELLING ON THE BUTUCENI PROMONTORY

In 1574 the territory of the Butuceni promontory becomes property of the dignitary (chief magistrate) Ieremia. Meanwhile, a settlement was founded in the south of the promontory, on the territory of the current village of Butuceni, which originally was called Trebujeni, since the beginning of the seventeenth century also called Butuceni, name derived the word “butuci” (= logs, cut tree trunks). In 1661 the central part of the Butuceni promontory passes to the Golia Monastery in Iaşi. In 1863, in connection with the secularization of the properties of the monasteries in Romania, including Golia Monastery in Iași, the central area of the Butuceni promontory passed under the direct administration of the Monastery of Vatopedi in Mount St. Athos until the First World War (1914). Butuceni promontory’s part that

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

3. Third phase (ca. 1660-1770)

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

belonged to the monastery, except for the territory in the south-east (in the direction of the Morovaia village) was used for cutting lumber and grazing during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At the same time, the western part of the promontory remained under the ownership of a freeholder (small privately owned land) being used for dwelling and agriculture. In this sector, near the rampart no. 1 of the Getae citadel, in front of the Hucişca gorge, a water mill functioned (attested in 1616) since the beginning of the 17th century and up until the 20th century. In this context, a memorial stone with Cyrillic inscription in Romanian language was raised on the crest of the Getae rampart in 1745 which was dedicated to Iordache Guriţenco who helped restore the watermill. This stone has been kept in a good state till now. From the second half of the 16th century until the early nineteenth century, in the Butuceni promontory’s cliffs old cave complexes continued to function, which had been developed and multiplied along the way. In 1665, the Trebujeni cave monastery, located about 1,700 metres south of the eponymous village, was rebuilt by chief magistrate Bosie28. The cave church was extended, and important lapidary inscriptions in Cyrillic letters in Romanian and Slavonic languages were engraved on its facade, which inter alia record the fact that chief magistrate Bosie’s foundation act. The hermitage was dedicated to St. Nicholas. Apart from the cave church, the monastery also owned a 60 metres long segment of a suite of 10 monastic cells on the same terrace. The monastery complex was built at the base of the slope, about 15 metres above the Răut River’s level, and about 78 – 80 metres below the current level of the promontory. This monastery existed until the mid-eighteenth century, when it was disbanded for unclear reasons. In the 16th – 18th centuries, hermit monks and villagers regularly used the many caves and grottoes located at about 400 metres west of the Trebujeni Hermitage for religious, economic or defence needs. At the western end of the stretched segment of caves and grottos, in the mid-seventeenth century, the freeholders in Butuceni dug a cave church in the cliff for the village. For this purpose they used and adapted a previous building of the cave, located at an altitude of 30 metres above the level of the Răut. This church was dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and was later called the Peştera Church29. At the same time, above it, on top of the cliff, a massive stone cross was raised, still found in good condition and representing an external symbol of this church. In the eighteenth century, after more earthquakes - most likely - in 1738, when there was an earthquake measuring 7.7 degrees on the Richter scale, the church’s entrance stairs facing the river collapsed. As a result, the church ceased to function for some time. Around 1795-1796, in order to reinstate the cave church, the villagers of Butuceni village invited monks from the Peştera hermitage, which was located on the Brăneşti village estate’s territory, about 2 kilometres away, to serve in this holy place and carry out the necessary church services. Probably, on this occasion, a new entrance facing the river was installed in the church, through the use of an older cave construction nearby. In 1816, in connection with the dissolution of the Peştera hermitage from the Brăneşti estate and the transfer of monks from another monastery, the cave church near the village of Butuceni was closed. In this context, in 1820 at the request of the residents of Butuceni and by a Metropolitan Church of Chişinău and Hotin decision, 28 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Trebujeni (al lui Bosie Pârcălab) şi moşia Trebujeni/Butuceni din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tiragetia, S.N., vol. 3 [18], nr.2, 2009, p. 2-89. 29 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Peştera şi moşia Peştera (Orheiul Vechi) din ţinutul Orhei (de la primele atestări documentare până în secolul al XIX-lea), In: Tyragetia: Istorie. Muzeologie, S.N., vol. 2, nr. 2, 2008, p. 141-162.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

the rock church was reopened as a parish of the village. Also, to facilitate access to the church, a new entry from the village was set up, in the form of a deep tunnel. In 1821 a church bell tower made of stone was built above the cave church which is preserved until the present day. In the year 1904 a stone church dedicated to the Birth of the Virgin Mary was built in the central part of the Getae citadel on the Butuceni promontory. Between 1904 and 1944 the Peştera cave church dedicated to the Assumption was virtually closed in the process, being used only at Christmas and Easter. Once the atheist Soviet regime was established in 1944, the Peştera church and the Butuceni church were closed and converted into warehouses. During 1552-1568, the village of Macicăuţi in Poiana Ciucului was abandoned, its location being moved to another spot, about 500 metres to the southeast. Currently, archaeological traces of habitation can be seen at the site: stone foundations of some buildings and pottery fragments specific to the 16th - 18th centuries. Moreover, this settlement, according to historical documents, has stood here until 1785 at which time this place was abandoned, its inhabitants moving to the centre of the site of the current Maşcăuţi village30. In the second half of the 16th century - beginning of the 19th century a very active monastic life grew at the base of the Maşcăuţi cliff, promoted by the Macicăuţi hermitage. Three separate cave complexes on the slopes with the same name (Chilioare, Peşterele Ciucului and Holm) and an isolated chapel were subordinated. The land part of the Macicăuţi hermitage was found at the foot of the slope, at the creek of the Răposu gorge facing the current stone-built church on the Butuceni promontory. Here, according to written data, there was a church, hermitage and annexes. This hermitage functioned until 1809, when it was disbanded and abandoned. In the following decades, the land of the hermitage (the church and other buildings) were ruined, currently an earth and stone protrusion being observed on the spot. The cave part of the Macicăuţi hermitage – the Chilioare group developed gradually. It was made up of 20 cave rooms tiered on three levels, some of which were built during the 16th and 17th centuries by hermit monks of the hermitage. At approximately 200 metres to the west from the site of the Macicăuţi hermitage, at an altitude of approximately 30 metres above the level of the Răut River, a cave prayer chapel on the walls of which different crosses and signs were engraved was built in the 16th – 17th centuries. During the same period, the hermit monks from the hermitage periodically used the older Macicăuţi cave group Peşterile Ciucului, at the distance of about 800-900 metres to the west, as well as those in Holm. The latter group was severely affected by earthquakes in the years 1738, 1792 and 1802, when a significant percentage of the rooms collapsed. Currently, all caves and grottoes in the Maşcăuţi slope are visible to the naked eye and give a unique style to the Orheiul Vechi landscape, the marks of the original design (benches, crosses and signs engraved in stone, traces of wood structures and others) being preserved inside. 30 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Maşcăuţi/Macicăuţi (al lui Albu Pârcălab) şi moşia Maşcăuţi din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tyragetia, s.n., vol. V [XX], nr. 2, 2011, p. 119-138.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

c) RURAL AND CAVE DWELLING ON THE MAŞCĂUŢI SLOPE AND TERRACE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

3.4. STAGE III. THE RECOGNITION OF THE LANDSCAPE’S HERITAGE VALUE, ITS RESEARCH AND PRESERVATION 1. Archaeological research of the Landscape

The first written records of historical and archaeological vestiges from Orheiul Vechi date back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, their scientific significance being acknowledged in the early twentieth century. The practical turning into account of the Old Orhei archaeological remains however began in the late 40’s - early 50’s of the twentieth century, when the first systematic archaeological investigations started, continuing with minor interruption till now31.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

a) RESEARCHING THE PEŞTERA PROMONTORY SITE

The archaeological research of Orheiului Vechi began in 1946 and continue until the present day. Throughout 70 years, 56 archaeological excavation campaigns (1946-1962, 1968-1991, 1993-2001 and 2009-2011) and two non-invasive archaeological campaigns (2013, 2014) were carried out on the Peştera promontory archaeological site. A total area of over 30.000 square meters was investigated in different sectors of the site, including: - Defence line no. 1 - in 1952-1953. - Defence line no. 2 - in 1952-1953, 1977. - The border rampart no. 3 - in 1952, 1954-1957, 1977, and 1996. - The medieval citadel - in 1952-1957, 1996-2001, 2011. - The palace in the citadel (Palatul Pârcălabului) – in 1950-1957, 1993-1995. - The mosque - in 1956, 1968-1970, 1977-1978, 2011-2012. - The caravanserai - in 1968-1970, 1977-1978. - The church - in 1954, 1960, 1973, 1996. - Bathhouses no. 1, 2 - in 1949-1950. - Bathhouse no. 2 - in 1978-1982, 2010-2011. Extensive archaeological investigations were conducted on the plateau behind the defence line no. 2, in the west and east sectors of the citadel, within cemeteries east of the citadel, near the stone-build church on the western edge of the site, in the Trebujeni Road and Butuceni Road, as well as in the meadow on the west side of the promontory. The archaeological excavations have provided rich evidence. This evidence was described in extensive reports and published in over 200 academic works - books and articles. Among them, the following works are most relevant: - Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi (The Cultural Landscape of Orheiul Vechi) / coordinator Gh.Postică, Chişinău, 2010, 138 p. - Orheiul Vechi. Cercetări arheologice (Orheiul Vechi. Archaeological Research) 1996-2001 / author Gh.Postică, Iaşi, 2006, 229 p., 125 fig., 98 foto. - Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură (The Orheiul Vechi site. Architectural Monument) / author T. Nesterov, Chişinău, 2003, 235 p. - Ceramica locală de la Orheiul Vechi în secolele XIV-XVI (Local pottery from Orheiul Vechi in the 14th-16th centuries) / author A. Gorodenco, Brăila, 2000, 125 p. - Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic 1998, Chişinău, 1999, 72 p. - Древности Старого Орхея. Золотоордынский период (Antiquities of Orheiul Vechi. 31

Gheorghe Postică, Istoricul cercetării arheologice în zona Orheiului Vechi, In: Miscellanea historica et arhaeologica in honorem professoris Ionel Cândea, Brăila: Ed. Istros, 2009, p. 209-248.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

- - - -

Golden Horde period) / authors: Е.Н. Абызова, П.П. Бырня, А.А. Нудельман, Chişinău, 1981. 99 c. Древности Старого Орхея. Молдавский период период (Antiquities of Orheiul Vechi. Moldovan period) / authors: Е.Н. Абызова, П.П. Бырня, А.А. Нудельман, Chişinău, 1982. 99 с. Молдавский средневековый город в Днестровско-Прутском междуречье (XVначало XVI в.) (The Moldovan medieval town in the area between the Dniester and Prut Rievrs (15th-16th centuries)) / authors: П.П. Бырня, Chişinău, 1984, 204 c. Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее (Archaeological excavations in Orheiul Vechi) / coordinator: П.П. Бырни, Chişinău, 1991, 159 c. Два клада из Старого Орхея (Two treasures from Orheiul Vechi) / authors: П.П. Бырня, Т.Ф. Рябой, Chişinău, 2000, 100 c.

Archaeological research of the fortifications on the Butuceni promontory was carried out during over 19 archaeological campaigns, including in 1947-1949, 1956, 1983-1985, 1987-1990, 1994-1996, 1999-2000 and 2013-2015. In total, an area of over 6,000 square meters was investigated. In this context, the following heritage objectives were researched: - Defence line no. 1 - in 2013-2014. - Defence lines no. 2 and no. 3 - in 1983-1985. - Defence line no. 4 - in 1999-2000. - Defence line no. 5 - in 1988-1999. - Getae Citadel - in 1947-1949, 1956, 1983-1985, 1987-1990, 1994-1999. - The cave structure – in 1998-2001. Following the excavations on the Butuceni promontory a very big archaeological collection of research documents was compiled, excavations reports, over 50 scientific papers were published, including the synthesis paper: Butuceni. Monografie arheologică (Butuceni. Archaeological Monography) / authors I.Niculiţă, S.Teodor, A.Zanoci, Bucharest, 2002, 252 p. c) RESEARCH OF THE SITE ON THE MAŞCĂUŢI TERRACE AND SLOPE

The archaeological research of the Butuceni promontory fortifications was carried out throughout 7 archaeological campaigns, including in 1950, 1961, 1985, 1995 and 2001-2003. A total area of over 1.000 square meters was investigated. Traces of earth ramparts and ditches, houses, metallurgical furnaces etc. were discovered. Following these excavations it was developed a very big archaeological collection of research documents, excavations reports, a number of scientific articles were published. 2. CHANGES AND NEGATIVE INFLUENCES OF THE CONTEMPORARY HUMAN FACTOR TO THE LANDSCAPE

In recent decades, among anthropogenic factors that adversely affected the archaeological landscape of Orheiul Vechi we note: agricultural works, development pressure, unauthorised stone quarries, unauthorised tourism, motor vehicle traces and unauthorised interventions with metal detectors.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

b) RESEARCH OF THE SITE ON THE BUTUCENI PROMONTORY

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

a) INFLUENCES ON THE PEŞTERA PROMONTORY ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Over the last 70 years the archaeological landscape on the Peştera promontory has undergone various changes and negative influences as a result of the anthropogenic factor. The most visible interventions are on the following objectives of archaeological heritage: Defence line no. 1. It is affected by the Brăneşi-Trebujeni highway, traversing it over an approximately 10 metres wide segment. At the same time, the northern sector of the rampart, over a length of 270 metres (about 60 per cent of the total length) was levelled and the adjacent ditch filled in the 20th century, as a result of the agricultural work in the 1970th. Currently, this sector is subject to annual ploughing. Defence line no. 2. In the north it is affected by the Brăneşi-Trebujeni highway that crosses an approximately 10 metres wide segment, and in the south, by the road to Butuceni over an approximately 8 metres wide segment. Furthermore, the segment of the rampart at western entrance to the promontory, over a stretch of 40 metres (50 % of the total length of the sector), was destroyed in the 1980’s in connection with the construction of the road. Finally, the southern end of the fortified line no. 2, which connects with the Răut bank with a length of 90 metres (about 30 % of the total length of the sector), was levelled over time, the trench being filled. Currently, this area is fallow, partly covered by the parking lot and traversed by the highway. The Citadel. Since the 70’s of the 20th century, the territory of the citadel was crossed by the Brăneşi-Trebujeni road of 10 metres wide. The stone foundations of the house in the south-west corner are affected by human interventions, which led to the collapse of more portions. Border rampart no. 3. It was mostly levelled due to agricultural works or the highway construction. Two-thirds of the space of the Peştera site is subject to agricultural works, in these sectors the land is being annually ploughed to a depth of 35-40 centimetres in some places perennial crops being planted: vines and trees. In three sectors of the Peştera promontory the cultural layer was destroyed when soil or gravel removed for road construction in the 80’s of the 20th century: at the entrance to the promontory, to the east of the fortification line no. 2, on an area of about 60 x 30 metres east of the citadel; on an area of about 60 x 30 m and at western edge of the promontory, near the bridge over the Răut River, on an area of about 120 x 50 metres. The territory of the site is affected by two asphalt roads that cross the territory of the site. In the upper part of the west-east axis it was affected by the BrăneştiTrebujeni road. Also the site has been damaged by the Butuceni-Trebujeni road. Also, there are several tracks on the territory of the site, of which the largest one traverses the Răut River in the area from Butuceni to Trebujeni. b) INFLUENCES ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE BUTUCENI PROMONTORY

The fortifications on the Butuceni promontory were affected by construction works, decorative stone, and gravel and clay extraction over the years. Along the way, the following archaeological objectives were affected: - Defence line no. 1 – severely affected in the central area by the construction of the highway and bridge over Răut in 1982. - Defence line no. 2 and no. 3 - affected in the southern part, covered by rural constructions. - Defence line no. 5 – affected by the road that crosses an 8 metres wide portion

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

and clay and gravel extractions. - Defence line no. 6 - affected by gardening and contemporary constructions. - Traces of the /Getae sanctuary - affected by vehicles parking in the area. - Discovered traces of the Getae palisade fortress - affected by climate as a result of human negligence. The cultural layer the Landscape was destroyed and in the following parts: - 70 x 50 metres from the western end of the Butuceni promontory as a result of soil excavation for the highway construction in 1982. - 100 x 40 metres in the area of rampart no. 5 as a result of unauthorised extraction of clay and gravel. - 20-10 metres from the central part of the promontory, following the extraction of clay and gravel. - 100 x 50 metres, due to the construction and development of the Morovaia stone mine The upper layer of soil was affected in the eastern part of the promontory as a result of planting in shrub plantations in 1970’s - 1980’s. The archaeological landscape from the Maşcăuţi terrace was affected by agricultural works and unauthorised extractions of stone and gravel. The surface of the Maşcăuţi-Poiana Ciucului site was affected to a depth of 30-40 centimetres by the annual ploughing, cultivation of vines and fruit trees. In the perimeter of the Getae Maşcăuţi-Dealul cel Mare citadel, was affected through deterioration of an area of land measuring 160 x 120 metres. 3. NEGATIVE CHANGES AND INFLUENCES TO THE LANDSCAPE BROUGHT BY NATURAL FACTORS

At various times in history, the archaeological landscape of Orheiului Vechi was influenced and continues to be influenced by various natural factors with negative impact, including periodic overflows (once every 10-15 years) of the Răut River, earthquakes high magnitudes of 7-8 degrees (30-50 years periodicity). Răut’s overflows had a negative impact, repeatedly, on the human habitat and farmland, and earthquakes caused the collapse of rocks and cave complexes, the traces of these activities still being visible. Furthermore, throughout history, climatic factors had and continue to have a negative influence on the cave complexes; high and low temperatures, wind and rain, significantly contributed and still contribute to the erosion of the limestone cliffs, as well as their periodic collapse.

3.5. PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

c) INFLUENCES ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE ON THE MAŞCĂUŢI TERRACE

1. THE PLACE OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE IN THE ORHEIUL VECHI RESERVE AND THE ORHEI NATIONAL PARK

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is part of the Orheiul Vechi CulturalNatural Reserve and the larger Orhei National Park.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Orhei National Park is located in the central part of the Republic of Moldova (the Woods of Orhei), 46 km north of the capital Chişinău. Its area is 33792.09 hectares, including areas that are public property of the state – 19509.51 hectares (18551.4 hectares – state growing stock), property of the local public authorities – 4404.87 hectares, and private property – 9877.71 hectares. The Orheiul Vechi Cultural-Natural Reserve occupies the eastern part of the Orhei National Park. The Reserve has an area of 4978.99 hectares and a buffer zone of 6085.57 ha. The perimeter total of the Reserve is 43517.29 m, and the perimeter total of the Buffer Zone is 48647.86 m. It corresponds to the territory of the commune of Trebujeni (Trebujeni, Butuceni and Morovaia) (3924.60 ha) and of some adjacent territories from the neighbouring communes/villages: Ivancea (villages of Furceni and Brăneşti) (381.57 ha), Susleni (8.06 ha) – Orhei district; Maşcăuţi (647.17 ha) – Criuleni district and Molovata (17.59 ha) – Dubăsari district. The territory of the buffer zone of Orheiul Vechi Reserve belongs to the communes/ villages of Trebujeni (68.35 ha), Susleni (633.76 ha), Piatra (338.60 ha), Ivancea (villages of Furceni and Brăneşti) (1255.18 ha) – Orhei district; Maşcăuţi (2597.97 ha) – Criuleni district; Holercani (479.42 ha), Marcăuţi (232.16 ha), Molovata (480.13 ha) – Dubăsari district. The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape corresponds to the centre of the Orheiul Vechi Cultural and Natural Reserve, occupying an area of 539.12 ha, and the area of protection corresponds to the rest of the entity, or an area of 10525.433 ha. The total perimeter of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is 13232.04 m.

2. LEGAL STEPS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is situated in the middle of this area, which enjoys a status of Monument, of the Natural-Cultural Reserve and of the National Park, all being legally protected by State. The Status of the Monument protected by State is stipulated in the Register of the monuments of the Republic Moldova protected by State, approved by the Decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova no. 1531-XII on 22nd June 1993 considering “the implementation of the Law on the protection of monuments (Central Zone: no. 1,066 – the Getae Butuceni Fortress; no. 1,067 – the Butuceni complex of caves; no. 1,069 – Bosie Pârcalab Monastery; no. 1072 - medieval city Orhei archaeological Reserve; no. 1,073 – Peştera cave Church, belfry and the stone cross; no. 1,074 - Butuceni funeral stone; no. 1240 – Trebujeni I; no. 1251 - Orheiul Vechi Citadel; no. 1,248 – The cave near Trebujeni; no. 332 – Maşcăuţi fortress). The Status of the Cultural-Natural Reserve is stipulated in the “Law regarding the creation of the Orheiul Vechi Cultural and Natural Reserve”, no. 251-XVI, 12.04.2008 and the Decision of the Government “Regarding the creation of the Orheiul Vechi Cultural and Natural Reserve”, no. 228, 23.03.2009. The Status of National Park is stipulated in the Annex no.2 of the Law of the Republic of Moldova “Concerning the Areas protected by State”, No. 1538-XIII, 25 February 1998 and the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Moldova no. 923, 12.11.2014 for approval of the Orhei National Park functioning Regulation. Orheiul Vechi was declared a state protected cultural heritage obective for the first time by Governmental Decision of the Former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic No. 183 from 22.02.1949.

The status of state protected objective was later confirmed by the Governmental Decisions No. 748 from 21.07.1953, No. 349 from 22.10.1971, No. 256 from 08.08.1975, and by the Parliament Decision No. 1531-XII from 23.06.1993. The Archaeological Complex Orheiul Vechi was declared a “State Reserve” by the Governmental Decision of the Former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic No. 77 from 15.03.1968, and “Cultural-Natural Reserve” by the Law No. 251-XVI from 04.12.2008 and the Governmental Decision No. 228 from 23.03.200932. The Orheiul Vechi Reserve was included as an autonomous unit in the National Park Orhei by the Parliament Decision No. 201 from 2.07.2013 and the Governmental Decision No. 923 from 12.11.2014. The administrative structure of the “Museum-Touristic Complex Orheiul Vechi” was first set by the Governmental Decision of the Former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic No. 77 from 15.03.1968. The current administrative structure of the Reserve was created according to the Law No. 251-XVI from 04.12.2008 and the Governmental Decision No. 228 from 23.03.2009. The borders of the State Reserve and of the buffer zone of the Orheiul Vechi Reserve were approved by the Governmental Decree of the Former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic No. 839-p from 24.12.1968, the Decision of the Executive Committee Orhei No. 49 from 15.02.1979, and the Decision of the Board of the Ministry of Culture from 22.08.1980. The current borders of the Reserve were approved by the Governmental Decision No. 228 from 23.03.2009. The zonal functioning scheme of the State Reserve Orheiul Vechi was approved by the Governmental Decision of the Former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic No. 503 from 31.12.1969. The same document approved the Plan for archaeological research, restoration, construction and management of the Reserve territory. At the current stage, it is being implemented the Territorial Development Plan of the Orheiul Vechi cultural-natural Reserve and the Regulation for functional zoning approved by Government Decision in 2017. State programs and other measures regarding Orheiul Vechi were approved by the Governmental Decisions No. 470-XII from 31.01.1991, No. 506 from 11.09.1991, No. 1378 from 10.12.2001, and No. 476 from 21.04.2003 and no. 719 of 10.06.2016. The borders of the Archaeological Landscape Orheiul Vechi were delimited by the Decree of the Minister of Culture No. 207 from 14.08.2014.

4. THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE LANDSCAPE From the natural and archaeological point of view, the Landscape represents an ensemble. Its natural unity is given by its borders drawn by the banks of the Răut River. Within the Landscape, the natural environment is quite varied. It includes cliffs, meadows, plateaus, river, ravines, streams and others. The main natural units of the Landscape are the Peştera promontory, Butuceni promontory, Maşcăuţi slope and the Răut River. The archaeological unity of the Landscape is determined by the settlement, exploitation and use of the entire space, from ancient times to the modern period. The Landscape as a whole represents a unitary ecological niche that ensured the conditions and resources necessary for the perpetuation of human life in this place. The density of archaeological remains within the Landscape, as compared to the 32

Gheorghe Postică, Iulia Postică, Consideraţii privindpoliticile muzeale în cadrul complexului Orheiul Vechi şi perspective de viitor, In: Tyragetia, vol. IV (XIX), nr. 2, 2010, p. 291-296.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

adjacent areas, is far superior. Although the Landscape is unitary, the variety of the relief, soils and resources led to the degree, concentration and types of the occupancy of the entire space to vary greatly over various periods of time. Thus, the largest density of archaeological evidence within the Landscape was attested in three locations: on the Peştera promontory, on the Butuceni promontory and the Maşcăuţi slope. These locations are defined as separate sites - major components of the Landscape. Each of the sites contains the remains of different types of occupation (settlements, workshops, cemeteries and others) from various periods. Over the millennia, from the Palaeolithic to the modern period, these sites were interlinked, and people used them as constituent, interconnected parts of the ecological niche in which they ensured their habitat, subsistence, social, political and spiritual life.

Figure no. 24. The Map of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Gh.Postică).

The three sites, although closely intertwined, both now and in the more or less distant past, represent the most important structures of the Landscape. The largest one, and at the same time, the most consistent one in terms of archaeological traces, is the Peştera site. It covers an area of approximately 146.75 hectares and is located in the northern part of the Landscape. Artefacts from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, first and second Iron Age, late Antiquity, medieval and modern times are found throughout this site. Of these, the most consistent and representative evidence are those of the medieval towns of Şehr al-Cedid and Orhei. The Butuceni site occupies the central part of the Landscape and covers an area of 164.24 hectares. Traces of the first and second Iron Age, Middle Ages and the modern era are found throughout the site. Of these, the most consistent and expressive traces are the Getae fortified settlement and the medieval cave rooms. The Maşcăuţi site is found in the southern part of the Landscape and covers an area of 79.74 hectares. The site contains evidence from the second Iron Age, Late Antique and late Medieval periods. Of this, the most representative are the Getae fortified settlements and cave rooms from the medieval and pre-modern periods.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Currently, all these sites are interconnected through many communication routes, revolving around the tortuous path of the Răut River - the main axis linking the major components of the Landscape. Also, there are many communication land routes between these sites. For instance, between the Peştera promontory and the Maşcăuţi slope there are several access paths on land. Moreover, the Răut River being relatively narrow, in many places bridges are set up, ensuring good connections between the main components of the Landscape. On the other hand, these sites’ past settlements were closely interlinked, the components of the Landscape providing complementary functions for each other. For instance, the medieval cave rooms on the Butuceni promontory and Maşcăuţi slope, since the 14th century, have been integrated into the religious life of the medieval settlements throughout the Landscape area. Another example of this sort is the simultaneous coexistence of the three Getae fortified settlements on the Butuceni promontory and Maşcăuţi slope, these being parts of the same political, administrative, military and religious unitary system. In the same vein, it should be highlighted that the Mongolian town of Şehr al-Cedid, occupying the Peştera promontory, had several satellite rural settlements on the Butuceni promontory and Maşcăuţi slope. Within the above-mentioned sites a number of objectives were attested: - 25 settlements dating from different periods – from Palaeolithic to modern times; - 7 earth and stone fortification systems, 5 of which date from Early Iron Age and 2 from Middle Ages; - 2 medieval towns; - 6 cemeteries, 1 of which dates from Early Iron Age and 5 from the Middle Ages; - 177 caves and grottos dug during Middle Ages and Modern Period in the

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 25. The Map of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape (by Gh.Postică).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

limestone banks of the Răut river. They were used for religious and cult practices (monk cellars, churches, hermitage-monasteries). It should be specified that the above data is based both on the traditional researches and modern scientific non-invasive (geospatial, landscape and geophysical studies) investigations. The earliest site at Orheiul Vechi is a Late Palaeolithic (ca. 30 – 20.000 BC) camp site. Several long-term rural settlements from later periods were uncovered at the gentle slopes of the Peştera Promontory. One of such settlements dates from Copper Age (the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture, ca. 5.000 – 4.000 BC), another one dates from the Early Iron Age (Chişinău-Corlăteni culture, ca.1.150 – 900 BC). Table no. 1. The cultural-chronological dates of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape No Époques

Archaeological cultures

Peştera Site

Palaeolithic

30,0 – 20,0 Millennia BC

Settlements (2)

Eneolithic

Bronze Age

Iron Age

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Tripolje culture 14 – 13 Century BC 12 – 10 Century BC, ChisinăuCorlăteni culture

Settlement

7 – 5 Century BC, Getae culture

4 – 3 Century BC, Getae culture Settlements (2)

Fortress

3 – 1 Century BC, Poieneşti-

Settlement,

Lucaşeuca culture

Necropolis

Antique

3 – 4 Century AD, Sîntana de

period

Mureş-Cernjahov culture

Settlement

culture

Maşcăuţi Site

Sporadic sherds

9 – 8 Century BC, Cozia-Saharna

Fortress (2), Settlement

Fortress (2) Settlement

Settlement

5 – 7 Century AD

Settlements (2)

Settlement

8 – 9 Century AD

Settlements (2)

Settlement

Fortress

10 – 11 Century AD

Settlements (2)

Settlement

Fortress

12 – 13 Century AD

Settlements (2)

Medieval period

14 Century AD, Golden Horde

and local culture

al Cedid,

culture

Orhei, necropolis

Modern

17 – 18 Century AD, Moldavian

Settlement

period

culture

Peştera

culture

Settlement

Settlement (2),

Settlement,

Necropolis Sity-Fortress

19 – 20 Century, Industrial

Settlement

Sity Shehr

15 – 16 Century AD, Moldavian

5 – 4 Millennia BC, Cucuteni-

Butuceni Site

Monastery rock- Monastery carved Monastery and Hermitage rockcarved Cave complex

rock-carved Monastery rock-carved

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

5. THE PEŞTERA SITE

Figure no. 26. The Peştera Promontory, east view (by Ion Chistruga).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Peştera archaeological site is situated in the northern part of the Landscape. It covers the entire promontory, both its upper and lower parts, comprising the surface of 2000x800 m.

Figure no. 27. The Peştera Promontory, east view (by Ion Chistruga).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

5.1. THE KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

The Peştera site contains evidence, which covers the time span between Late Palaeolithic and Modern period. The known archaeological evidence includes: - 2 Late Palaeolithic camps dating from the 30th – 12th Millennia BC; - The Eneolithic settlement attributed to the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture dating from 5th Millennia BC; - Sporadic Bronze Age sherds, dating from the 14th – 13th centuries BC; - 2 Early Iron Age settlements attributed to the Chişinău-Corlăteni culture dating from the 12th – 10th centuries BC; - 2 Iron Age settlements attributed to the Getae culture dating from the 4th – 3rd centuries BC; - 1 Late Iron Age settlement and a cemetery attributed to the Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca culture and dating from the 2nd – 1st centuries BC; - The settlement of the Sântana de Mureş-Cernjahov culture, 3rd – 4th centuries AD; - 2 early medieval (5th – 7th centuries AD) settlements; - 2 early medieval (8th – 9th centuries) AD settlements; - 2 early medieval (10th – 11th centuries AD) settlements; - 2 early medieval (12th – 13th centuries AD) settlements; - The medieval town of the oriental type belonging to the Golden Horde: Shehr al-Cedid (New Town) dating from 1330-1369 AD; - The medieval Moldovan town Orhei dating from the end of the 14th century – the middle of the 16th century AD; - a rural medieval settlement – the village Peştera – dating from the second half of the 16th century – the 18th century AD. 20 objectives were documented within the Peştera site: 1. The Late Palaeolithic camp situated at the northwest end of the site (630x180 m). 2. The Late Palaeolithic camp situated at the top of the site in its central part (550x150 m). 3. The Eneolithic (Cucuteni-Tripolie culture) settlement situated in the eastern part of the site. (500x200 m). 4. The Bronze Age sporadic shreds found in the western part of the site. 5. The Early Iron Age settlement (the Chişinău-Corlăteni culture, 12th-10th centuries BC) situated in the northeast part of the site (260x130 m). 6. The Early Iron Age settlement (the Chişinău-Corlăteni culture, 12th-10th centuries BC) situated at the southwest end of the site (200x140 m). 7. The Iron Age Getae settlement (4th-3rd centuries BC) situated at the northeast part of the site (500x170 m). 8. The Iron Age Getae settlement (4th-3rd centuries BC) situated at the southwest part of the site (540x140 m). 9. The Late Iron Age (Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca culture, 2rd-1st centuries BC) situated in the southwest part of the site (440x150 m).

Figure no. 28. Maps of archaeological settlements of the Palaeolithic (a) and Eneolithic (b) (by Gh. Postică).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 29. The maps of archaeological settlements of the Iron Age: 12th – 10th centuries BC (a), 9th – 8th centuries BC (b).

10. The settlement from the late antique period (Sântana de Mureş-Cerneahov culture, 3rd-4th centuries AD) situated in the southern part of the site (480x240 m). 11. The early medieval settlement from 5th – 7th centuries AD (Costişa-BotoşanaHansca culture) situated in the southwestern part of the site (420x180 m). 12. The early medieval settlement from 5th – 7th centuries AD (Costişa-BotoşanaHansca culture) situated in the northwestern part of the site (550x250 m).

Figure no. 29. The maps of archaeological settlements of the Iron Age: 6th-5th (c), 4th-3rd (d) (by Gh. Postică).

13. The early medieval settlement from 8th – 9th centuries AD (Lozna-Borniş culture) situated in the southwestern part of the site (420x180 m). 14. The early medieval settlement from 8th – 9th centuries AD (Lozna-Borniş culture) situated in the northwestern part of the site (550x250 m). 15. The early medieval settlement from 10th-11th centuries AD situated in the southwestern part of the site (420x180 m).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 30. The maps of archaeological settlements of the antique and medieval period: 3rd – 1st centuries AC (a), 3rd – 4th centuries (b) (by Gh. Postică).

16. The early medieval settlement from 10th-11th centuries AD situated in the northwestern part of the site (550x250 m). 17. The early medieval settlement from 12th-14th centuries AD situated in the western part of the site (420x180 m).

Figure no. 31. The maps of archaeological settlements of the medieval period: 5th – 7th centuries (a), 8th – 9th centuries (b) (by Gh. Postică).

18. The medieval town of oriental type Shehr al-Cedid dating from the years 13301369 AD covers the entire site (2000x800 m). 19. The medieval Moldovan town Orhei Vechi from the years 1370-1550 AD covers the entire site (2000x800 m). 20. The settlement Peştera dating from the 16th-18th centuries AD, covers the central and eastern part of the site (800x300 m).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 31. The maps of archaeological settlements of the medieval period: (c), 12th-13th centuries (d) (by Gh. Postică).

Figure no. 32. The maps of archaeological settlements of the medieval period: 14th century (a), 15th-16th centuries (b), (by Gh. Postică).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 32. The maps of archaeological settlements of the medieval period: centuries (c) (by Gh. Postică).

Many medieval monumental buildings were uncovered and researched within the site33. The most prominent buildings from the 14th centuries are as follows: the mosque, the caravanserai, 3 oriental baths, and a human stone statue. Among the buildings from the 14th – 16th centuries, the following are most important: the citadel, the “pârcălab (the medieval Moldovan term meaning “governor”) palace”, and a stone house. Two defence ramparts date from 15th – 16th centuries. The border rampart dates from the 17th century. The archaeological excavations carried out in the site uncovered over 200 features (houses, storage pits etc.) predominantly medieval. A huge amount of artefacts (ca. 10.000 tools, weapons, ornaments, coins, details of clothes etc.) was found during the excavations. The pottery includes over 200 000 units, and the osseous material includes over 50 000 animal bones. A series of findings in the site are exceptional, unique or very rare. Thus, among the most remarkable buildings dating from the period of the Mongol domination one should mention the citadel, the bath and the mausoleum, the mosque and the caravanserai. Among the most prominent buildings of the Moldovan town Orhei, the church and the “Pârcălab Palace” should be mentioned. The most remarkable artefacts found in the site are the bronze plate of oriental type, several rare coins minted at Shehr al-Cedid monetary, two bronze cannons cast in ca. 1470, and others. Among the settlements known within the Peştera site, the most important and consistent considering both their academic and heritage importance are the Mongol town Shehr al-Cedid and the Moldovan town Orhei. Moreover, their evidence is the best preserved. 33

Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură. Chişinău, 2003; P. Bârnea, T. Reaboi, Arhitectura monumentală a Oraşului Nou (Şehr al-Cedid), In: Memoria Antiquitatis, 1995, t. 20, p. 249-269.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

5.2. THE MONGOL TOWN SHEHR AL-CEDID In terms of planimetry and architecture, the Mongolian town Shehr al-Cedid has passed through two basic periods. During its early period the town predominantly showed the elements characteristic to nomadic military camps. During the second period it transforms into nearly fully oriental town. Since most of the earlier structures were destroyed we know rather little about the first period of the Mongol town. In exchange, the structures from the second period of the town are well preserved and reveal the substantial data on the town’s planimetry. During four decades of development, the town never had a single planimetric concept, growing in line with the economic, political and religious possibilities. Under this settlement are expressly defined the specific compartments of the Tatar-Mongol towns from the vast Eurasian space, including: the military camp in the access zone of the town, the urban cemetery and two mausoleums in the western part of the town, residential district of Tasch Hauli type (the courtyard of the Sheik or local emir) – a palace built of brick inscribed in quadrangle stone fortification in the northern part of the town, bazaar (city market) with public buildings (caravanserai and mosque) and handicraft workshops located in the central part of the town, residential areas in the adjacent zones and public baths along the edge of the town, on the bank of the Răut River. Therefore, in line with Mongolian specifics, which did not involve the building of the defensive structures (earth ramparts, stone walls and ditches), the security of the Şehr al-Cedid town was ensured by the military camp, located in the only passage to the town. In the top of the town, in the third – fifth decades of the 14th century was arranged a sacred space and the city’s memorial, composed of cemetery and mausoleums (“mazare”) dedicated to outstanding personalities of the time, most likely some Sheiks of the known order of Sufis, who were present during that period in the town. In the 60’s of the 14th century a palace of brick was built above one of the mausoleums. It was surrounded by a stone built quadrangular citadel (forming a courtyard of Tasch Hauli type). Further to the east, in the centre of the town, in the bazaar area, three large public buildings – the Mosque (Juma type), the Caravanserai and a Church – were erected. In the same period three distinct stone public baths were built in the lower part of the town along the river. 2. THE ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of Shehr al-Cedid town includes various public buildings, built in oriental style, characteristic at that time for the Islamic world of the vast Eurasian space34. The buildings of the town located on Răut River were the result of the cultural syncretism involving the various architectural traditions brought to Europe from the depths of Asia. Moreover, these constructions were erected by foreign architects and craftsmen, brought here during Mongol expansion from different territories, including Central Asia, Povolgia and Caucasus. 34

Э.Д. Зиливинская, Архитектура Золотой Орды. Часть I. Культовое зодчество: mонография, Казань, 2014 [Eh.D. Zilivinskaya, Arhitektura Zolotoj Ordy. CHast’ I. Kul’tovoe zodchestvo: monografiya, Kazan’]; Э.Д. Зиливинская, Очерки культового и гражданского зодчества Золотой Орды: монография, Астрахань, 2001 [Eh.D. Zilivinskaya, Ocherki kul’tovogo i grazhdanskogo zodchestva Zolotoj Ordy: monografiya, Astrahan’].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

1. THE PLANIMETRY TOWN

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The architecture of Shehr al-Cedid town is characterized by public buildings of stone and / or brick. Among them can be distinguished: the Mausoleum, the Tasch Hauli Palace, the Juma Mosque, the Caravanserai and the three Baths. Also there were documented various handicraft workshops (pottery, jewels, metallurgy, etc.) and multiple dwelling houses (on ground or buried) provided with technical installations typical for oriental culture, like tandyr oven or sufa stove with heating system khan. The Mausoleum, located within the palace, had a cruciform planning, provided with a crypt in the central part, oriented on longitudinal axis towards Mecca. It had square brick walls, identical in shape and size with similar pieces of the Islamic world. One of the essential elements of the Shehr al-Cedid town is the stone citadel, which separates and protects a palace and its courtyard of Tasch Hauli type. Architecture of the citadel fits perfectly into the characteristics of the Tasch Hauli type courtyards (Tasch – stone, Haule – courtyard) of Central Asia. According to the oriental architecture, this building has the appearance of a quadrangular enclosure with the gate in the middle of one side (south), the walls plastered with mortar and supported on the corners by full circular towers (of guldasta type) and in the centre of the sides by semi-circular or trapezoidal towers. Similar walls were also erected around the Ribat type buildings (= fortified Sufi monastery). The Palace inside the citadel, according to the Asian technologies of the time, was built of burnt bricks on the outside and of sun-dried clay bricks inside. The architecture of the building is of oriental type. On each corner of the main facade of the palace full towers (of guldasta type) were built. In the middle of the main facade, in front of the entrance, a square room – a porch was built, which is another typical oriental element. Another important component of the Shehr al-Cedid town’s architecture is the Juma Mosque, located in the bazaar area. In the mosque are distinguished in particular a number of elements of Islamic architecture: the portal of aivan type, with a typical oriental decoration and located on the north side; the minaret situated in the northeastern corner of the mosque; the water pool arranged in the central part; the mihrab - in the form of a semicircular prominence arranged on the midpoint of the southern side oriented towards Qibla. The Mosque of Shehr al-Cedid, as compared with other similar buildings of the time, stands out as the hugest and complete construction of its kind in the whole area under the Mongolian control. The mosques of this magnitude, during that period are not known even in the capital of the Golden Horde – Serai town. Near the mosque the Caravanserai was built. According to the oriental architecture Caravanserai represents a quadrangular courtyard, equipped with two portals of aivan type, the rooms for storing goods and hosting the merchants and their pack animals, as well as the water pool in the middle. In the last period of the Shehr al-Cedid town, near the Caravanserai was built a Christian Church. Inside the church was discovered a double grave of individuals dressed in specific clothes for oriental nobility, accompanied by oriental style ornaments, and buried according to Christian funeral ritual. The church architecture indicates a characteristic style of the Moldovan Principality at its initial stage of affirmation. It shows the substantial penetration of Christian religion and of the Moldovan church architecture in the Mongol town.

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

Within the Shehr al-Cedid town very well presented are the oriental baths. Three stone built baths were uncovered in the town. Two of them are of the Greco-Roman tradition, with successive compartments, the third one, with multiple rooms and cruciform areas in the middle, is a Hammam-type bath, a medieval oriental original creation. Thus, an organic symbiosis of antique Greco-Roman and medieval Oriental architectural traditions are present in the Shehr al-Cedid town. It is also noteworthy that the Hammam-type bath from Orheiul Vechi is the most advanced building of its kind in the Eurasian space. This type of bath will become dominant in the 15th century in the Ottoman Empire. Many technical installations of oriental type were uncovered in the Shehr al-Cedid town. In this regard, are highlighted the buildings with tandyr oven or sIufa stove with heating system khan, well documented in the rooms of the Tasch Hauli Palace, but also in other dwellings of the residential zones of the town. These constructions are specific technical installations of the oriental world, which in the first case were ovens for baking bread, and in the second for house heating streamline. In this context, a particular interest is the fact that the oriental stoves with heating system khan were prototypes for the Moldavian stoves of the late medieval period.

The archaeological evidence uncovered in Shehr al-Cedid reveals the advanced technologies of oriental origin. Among the most visible of such technologies the obtaining cast iron technology, the use of mercury for amalgamation and modeling glazed pottery of oriental type should be mentioned. Cast iron production technology was discovered in ancient China and widespread in Eastern Europe during the Mongol expansion. Shehr al-Cedid town is among the first settlements in Europe which have used and promoted cast iron production technology. Production of cast iron at Shehr al-Cedid in the 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s - 60â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of the 14th century is documented by cast iron melting furnaces, associated with waste from metallurgy of cast iron (slaggy iron) and various artefacts made of cast iron (cauldrons, etc.). The technology of using mercury for the amalgamation of gold and silver was known from ancient times, fist in China and Greco-Roman world; this technology is widely spread in the Middle Ages in most developed oriental centres (China, Iran, Khorezm). During the Mongol domination, this technology has been widespread in urban Eurasian centres, including Shehr al-Cedid. Since the mercury is toxic it was transported in special hermetic ceramic pots known as spherical cones. These containers are common in the 14th century among the archaeological remains discovered in the Golden Horde towns. The discovery in the Shehr al-Cedid settlement of large amounts of spherical cones demonstrates the important role of using mercury technology in activities of the local metallurgists, which by the amalgamation method could separate gold from other metals and obtain alloys for the production of jewelry, gilded or silvered vessels, etc. The technology of glazing ceramics in the early medieval period was well known in Byzantium and Orient. In 13th- 14th centuries, Mongols have played important role in spreading of the glaze technology in Eastern Europe, and the Shehr al-Cedid town becomes one of the key link in the propagation chain of this advanced technology.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

3. THE TECHNOLOGIES

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The promotion of glazing ceramics technology in Shehr al-Cedid in the 14th century is demonstrated by discovery of glazed ceramic kilns, a lot of waste from their production, including glazed slaggy clay, as well as many glazed pottery of this period. 4. THE MONUMENTAL ARTS

Mongolian town Shehr al-Cedid stands out through various pieces of monumental art, produced from local limestone rock, according to the technologies and concepts characteristic for the Islamic Eastern world of that time. Cultural interference of Eurasian dimension occurs at Shehr al-Cedid by some exceptional examples of monumental art. These include votive and funeral stone slabs, as well as by the anthropomorphic sculptures. By shape and decoration, the stone votive slabs belong to the monumental art style known in the Islamic world. Anthropomorphic sculpture at Orheiul Vechi is of Turanic tradition, featured to nomads from the Eurasian steppes.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

5. THE CITADEL

The Citadel is situated at the top of the cape, at the edge of the northern steep bank35. It includes the palace built with mausoleum, and the enclosure made of stone walls. The planimetry of these structures is of oriental type. The perimeter of the enclosure is trapezoidal in shape. In its southern wall a gate was documented. The corners of the walls are reinforced by four full towers, and on sides are reinforced with five buttresses, of which three are semi-oval and two are trapezoidal in shape. The Citadel dimensions are 127/121 x 106/92 m; the wall width – about 1.8 m and about 3.0 m diameter of the towers.

Figure no. 33. The Orheiul Vechi Medieval Citadel, seen from west (by Gh. Postică).

35 Г. И. Постикэ, Цитадель золотоордынского города Шехр аль-Джедид (Старый Орхей, Молдова), In: Российская археология, Москва, 2005, № 2, p. 151-155 [Gh. I. Postică, Citadel’ zolotoordynskogo goroda SHekhr al’-Dzhedid (Staryj Orhej, Moldova), In: Rossijskaya arheologiya, Moskva].

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 34. The general plan of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by Gh. Postică).

Subsequent research refuted this interpretation and reached the conclusion that the palace was built and used in two distinct periods: Mongolian and Moldovan. There were two different stages during the Mongolian period. Initially, in the years 1330-1350, the building served as a mosque with mausoleum in the basement. In the second stage, during 1366-1369, in the context of the transition of Mongolian elite from Islam to Christianity, the building underwent dramatic changes and respectively changed the destination. On this place has been built a palace that became the residence of the emir of the Mongolian political entity of the Prut-Dniester region. At this stage, the onground part of the preceding construction was extended, and a different destination (storeroom or water tank) was given to its underground part. In making the palace, besides new materials were used old foundations and walls.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Citadel dates from the final period of the Golden Horde domination over the region, i.e. in the years 1366-1369. The recent research has revealed that the citadel was a residence of the Tatar-Mongol emir Demetrius attested in 1368 in the diploma of the king Louis de Anjou of Hungary (Demetrios tartarorum princeps). Later, during the Moldovan town Orhei – 15th century – the citadel was remodeled as a residence of the pârcălab of Orhei (Orhei county governor appointed by the king of Moldova). The palace is situated within the Citadel and is joined the north curtain wall. It has a trapezoidal plan with different orientation as compared with that of the enclosure of the citadel. Based on the erroneous dating and historical attribution according to which this building would have belonged only to the Moldovan horizon, this building was named by Soviet scholars “Pârcălab palace”. According to this interpretation, the building served as a dwelling residence of the military commander of the Orhei fortress.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

6. THE MAUSOLEUM WITH MOSQUE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

This construction had two important components: the underground mausoleum and the mosque at the ground surface36. The underground part of the building was composed of a funeral room and three or rather four annexes. In this way, the underground part of the building was rather cruciform. The northern annex is missing, because the north wall of the citadel was later built at that place, which destroyed the annex. The cruciform ground plan was required to ensure the necessary balance support for such vaults typical for Islamic buildings. The Mausoleum. The largest room of the mausoleum was the crypt. It was rectangular in shape (7,2 x 7,6 m). To every side of the room was attached equal sized rectangular annexes of about 5,0 x 2,4 m. It was a typical construction in the Islamic world of that period. A prominent Mongolian man was buried in the crypt. His remains have been uncovered by archaeological excavations. The crypt was connected with annexes through niches arranged in its walls. The mausoleum’s walls were made of burnt bricks, square with side length of 21-25 cm and a thickness of 5.4 cm., identical to those in Central Asia. The bricks have been linked with waterproof mortar produced from local limestone in lime off workshops, documented archaeologically around the citadel.

Figure no. 35. Orheiul Vechi, the plan of the mausoleum foundation in the Citadel (by G.D. Smirnov). 36

Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură, Chişinău, 2003.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 36. The plaque with the inscription in Arab language uncovered in the underground wall of the Palace in the medieval citadel of Orheiul Vechi (by G.D. Smirnov).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Mosque. The mosque was erected in continuation of the mausoleum walls. Because the demolitions occurred in the immediate aftermath, only the foundation walls have been preserved. In all likelihood, the mosque had cruciform planimetry, and in accordance with the Islamic tradition, its longitudinal axis was oriented towards Mecca. The mosque had five rectangular rooms, of which the largest was the central one. They were built in the continuation of the crypt walls. Like the mausoleum’s planimetry, four side rooms were attached to these rooms. The most important of them was the southern room facing Mecca, which in Islamic tradition is called a mihrab. Based on the typology of this kind of building devoted to Islam, it can be concluded with high degree of certainty, that every room of the mosque was covered by a dome. The existence of the mosque is clearly confirmed by the stone plaque with the inscription written in Arabic language “This mosque was built by order of the pious benefactor Alih...san”. Afterward, during Moldovan period, in the 15th century, the plaque was used to line the walls of the underground “The Pârcălab Palace”.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

7. THE PALACE In the context of the aforementioned religious change, the mosque and mausoleum were integrated in a newly constructed building, much larger, which served as the residence of a local governor (the princeps attested in documents of the time). Under these conditions, the mausoleum and the mosque became the component parts of the residential palace. The Palace had trapezoidal planimetry with the dimensions of 40,0 x 26,0 / 16.0 m. The facade was facing south. The corners were consolidated by roundish towers of the type known in Central Asia under the name of guldasta. They were meant to protect the corners of the building of destruction, and at the same time, it was the oriental kind of decoration that usually was applied to the mausoleums, mosques, madrases, hanaka, caravanserai and aristocratic homes. The northern outer wall was made of the citadel wall, built of limestone, while other walls were built of bricks. The exterior wall base is of about 1.60 m tall. The outer side of the western, southern and eastern walls of the palace was made of two rows of burnt bricks; the inside side was made of two rows of saman â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sun-dried clay bricks. The palace was comartimented in 26 rectangular rooms: livings, hallways and dependencies. The partitio walls, except those from the mosque, were made just of saman. In the central part of the facade wall of the palace was built a square porch. Its outer side was built of burnt brick, while the inner side was built of saman. The palace was richly decorated, as attested by numerous fragments of marble decorative items, stone and blue glazed brick, uncovered during the excavations. Thus, the town of Shehr al-Cedid experienced two major steps: Muslim (1330-1366) and Christian (1366-1369). Accordingly, there are two distinct stages of construction shown above. However, there is a continuity of construction techniques and oriental architecture during the transition from one stage to another.

Figure no. 37. The general plan of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by G. D. Smirnov, 1953).

Figure no. 38. The ruins of the Palace in the Citadel (by G. D. Smirnov, 1953).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 39. The ruins of the Palace in the Citadel (by G. D. Smirnov, 1953).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 40. The ruins of the Palace in the Citadel (by G. D. Smirnov, 1953).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The Mosque is located in the middle of the plateau, 21 m west of the Caravanserai, the two structures being parts of a single design37. Only the foundations and the remains of walls, less than 50 cm in height, are extant. The Mosque was quadrilateral in plan. The entry into the building was through the northern wall. At the entry stands the portal, the traces of which are now in evidence as pillar bottoms. In the middle of the opposite, southern side, the building is semicircular, forming an area interpreted as a Mihrab. A tower with a hexagonal base, identified as the Minaret, is located in the north-eastern corner. On the eastern and western sides, 17 m from the northern side, quadrilateral extensions are present The building has the dimensions of 57.70 x 51.70 m. According to Muslim tradition, its longer axis is oriented north – south, towards Mecca. The thickness of the walls varies between 1.30 and 1.35 m. The foundation is 35-40 cm thicker than the walls. The entrance pillars have a height of 4.08 m, –they are 1.55 m thick, and the distance between the pillars is 3.8 m. The prominence from the southern side has a diameter of 2.5 m. The sides of hexagonal base in the northeast corner are 3.05 to 3.4 m long. The outer and inner sides of the walls are made of poorly worked stone slabs, and the space between them is filled with emplecton. The portal’s blocks were reinforced with iron clamps. In central part of the building, archaeologists identified a pit with the dimensions of 3.84 x 4.36 m, dug at a depth of 0.9 m in sterile soil. The bottom and sides of the pit were plastered with waterproof mortar. This pit was surely used as a water tank, Muslim traditions requiring its presence in every mosque.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

8. THE MOSQUE

Figure no. 41. Archaeological Plan of the Mosque and Caravanserai (by P.P. Bârnea, E.Abâzova). 37

Э. Д. Зиливинская, Очерки культового и гражданского зодчества Золотой Орды: монография, Астрахань, 2011 [Eh. D. Zilivinskaya, Ocherki kul’tovogo i grazhdanskogo zodchestva Zolotoj Ordy: monografiya, Astrahan’]; П.П. Бырня, Т.Ф. Рябой, Культовые памятники золотоордынского времени в Старом Орхее, In: Revista arheologică, 2, 1998, p. 87-100 [P.P. Byrnya, T.F. Ryaboj, Kul’tovye pamyatniki zolotoordynskogo vremeni v Starom Orhee, In: Revista arheologică].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 42. The general plan of the mosque, reconstructed (by E. Bâzgu, 2011).

Figure no. 43. The reconstruction of the northern gate of the mosque, made (by E.Bîzgu, 2011).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

9. THE CARAVANSERAI

The remains of the Caravanserai are found at the centre of the promontory, 21 m east of the Mosque38. The foundations and a part of the 1.5 m high walls were preserved. The building has a rectangular shape, with the dimensions of 55.87 x 26.50 m. It has two entrances, one from the north and another one from the south. Only the bases of the pillars were preserved, but they mark the locations of the entrances. A number of architectural details were found in the building, including the limestone column bases. The main entrance portal pillars were found in the middle of the northern wall. The portal was 6.91 m wide, and the pillars were 2.82 m long and 1.76 m wide, with a 3.0 m interval between them. The southern portal of entry was narrower by 85 cm. The entrance level here was raised approximately 1.0 m from the foundation elevation. This last feature noticeably differentiates it from the northern portal. The pillars on the southern entrance are not bonded to the precinct’s walls. The walls of the caravanserai were rubble filled (opus emplecton) limestone. Lime mortar was used to construct the 1.1 to 1.12 m thick walls. A square feature with rounded corners, as viewed from above, was found in the center of the courtyard at a depth of 1.05 m. The dimensions of this feature are 3.80 x 3.50 m. It was plastered with the same type of mortar as used to build the Mosque. The plaster was 4.5-5.0 cm thick. Towards it, drawn on the longitudinal axis of the building, was found a trench, 6.40 m long, 0.70 to 1.00 m wide, and 0.60 m deep. It was probably a reservoir, and a channel to fill it with water was also found. Traces of a few trenches, the wall foundation, and gallery pillars were found within the perimeter of the building.

Figure no. 44. Archaeological reains of the Caravanseari at Orheiul Vechi (by Gh. Postică, 2009). 38

П.П. Бырня, Т.Ф. Рябой, Ibidem, p. 87-100; Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură. Chişinău, 2003.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 45. The Caravanserai. The general plan. Reconstruction (by E.Bîzgu, 2011).

Figure no. 46. The Caravanserai. The gate. Reconstruction (by E.Bîzgu, 2011).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

10. THE TATARS BATH A structure designated the Tatars Bath (no. 2) is located on the north-eastern outskirts of the town of Shehr al-Cedid, on the bank of the Răut River39. It is an oriental Hamam-type building with a hypocaust system inherited from the Roman thermae, which is based on underground hot air circulation. The bath’s foundation is made of limestone, has a quadrangular shape, 37.0 x 21.0 m in size, oriented on the east-west axis. It consists of six basic sections and several secondary sections. There is an apodyterium to the west (room no. 1), which in the oriental tradition was used for relaxation and communication after taking a bath. In the northern part of the apodyterium, a sufa type hypocaust/furnace approximately 1.5 m wide and about 8.0 m long was discovered. A vertical niche, 40 cm deep and 70 cm wide and which starts from the floor is found in the southern wall. It used to be the furnace’s funnel, used for preparing coffee, a regular element in oriental baths. To the east are two rooms (no. II, III): both tepidarium, rooms in which to luxuriate in heat. Around them are five annexes (no. II, 1-3 and no. III, 1-2), used for sanitary purposes, representing the latrine with its entrance from the tepidarium through a tunnel, both being heated through the hypocaust and supplied with water through pipes. In the central part of both bath sections there are cruciform halls (no. IV, 1-4, and V, 1-4), enclosed in a square, with side length of approximately 10.0 m, known in antiquity as caldarium or hammam in oriental tradition. At the corners of the room, are insulated cabins (no. IV, 5-8 and V, 5-8), where the temperature rose to high levels. These were intended as laconicum, supplied with water through pipes. Last room from the east is a technical one (no. VI), being designed for the boiler room.

Figure no. 47.

The foundation of tatar bath in Orheiul Vechi (by Ion Chistruga, 2016).

39 П.П. Бырня, Э.Д. Зиливинская, Бани Старого Орхея, In: Средневековые памятники Днестровско-Прутского междуречья. Кишинев, 1988, c.4-27 [P.P. Byrnya, Eh.D. Zilivinskaya, Bani Starogo Orheya, In: Srednevekovye pamyatniki DnestrovskoPrutskogo mezhdurech'ya. Kishinev]; Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură. Chişinău, 2003.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 48. Plan (a), profile (b) and reconstruction version (c) of Tatar Bath (By Gh. Postică, G. D. Smirnov, T.Nesterov).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

11. ETHNO-CULTURAL INTERFERENCES IN SHEHR AL-CEDID TOWN

Ethno-cultural interferences between different populations within the Shehr al-Cedid town are demonstrated eloquently by the anthropological studies of human bones uncovered in the cemetery of the town 40. It was shown that the anthropological type specific to Mongols was attested just in 25% the graves, the rest of the individuals being of various European anthropological types which included the alien populations coming from North of the Black Sea, from Crimea and Povolgia, as well as a pre-Mongolian local population. In this context, it can be stated that people of Mongolian origin were just members of political, administrative and military elite, while the remaining 75% of the population was composed of individuals with diverse European origins. In this anthropological group distinguishes the mixt European subgroup, which was the largest and most likely represents the social category involved in trade and crafts. Besides, it is well known that the Mongols intentionally brought to their towns the most skilled craftsmen from conquered territories. Therefore, this subgroup was composed largely of craftsmen, specialists in architecture, construction, technology, etc. At the same time a significant number (9%) of individuals show anthropological features specific to native population of Moldova in the period before Mongol conquest. Most likely, this subgroup represents the local population, which in one way or another were integrated in the town’s life. The complex anthropological composition of the Mongolian period necropolis is particularly relevant in terms of human interference in the area. It is obvious that the population of Shehr al-Cedid town was made up of individuals with different origins: military Mongols, traces of which are most pronounced and associated with the dwellings of yurt type located at the entrance of the town in the military camp, together with the artefacts of Mongolian particular type (arrows, items of clothing, etc.). Instead, people involved in various economic activities in the town (crafts, trade and others) were of East-European origin, settled in this town in different ways: most craftsmen were brought from various towns conquered by the Mongols, the merchants were coming from the territories between the Volga River and the Crimea, while the locals were involved in different ancillary works. The civilization of Shehr al-Cedid town was the result of a complex process of cultural interference. The largest share in this process belongs to the Oriental civilizations of China, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Asia Minor. In the same process have actively participated specific elements of nomadic populations of Eurasia (Mongols, Cumanians, Pechenegs, etc.). To these are added the natives (Moldovans and Slavs). So, the cultural components mentioned above are correlated with those three groups of the Shehr al-Cedid town during Mongolian period.

40 М.С. Великанова, Антропология средневекового населения Молдавии: по материалам памятника Старый Орхей, Москва, РАН, 1993, 260 с. [M.S. Velikanova, Antropologiya srednevekovogo naseleniya Moldavii: po materialam pamyatnika Staryj Orhej, Moskva, RAN].

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 49. The stone statue of the north slope of the Peștera promontory, 14th century (by V. Gukin).

Figure no. 50. Treasure of silver ingots (Somme) from the 14th century discovered in Orheiul Vechi (by Moldova Histrory National Museum).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 51. Oriental type pottery from 14th century discovered in Orheiul Vechi (by Moldova Histrory National Museum).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 52. Oriental bronze vessel from 14th century discovered in Orheiul Vechi (by Moldova Histrory National Museum).

Figure no. 53. Local bronze coins issued in the town Shehr al-Cedid in the years 1362-1369 (by Gh. Postică).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

5.3. THE MOLDAVIAN TOWN OF ORHEI Between the end of the 14th and the middle of the 16th century, Orhei was a key point in the fortifications network of Moldova because of its strategic location and natural fortification. It was both a stronghold and a town designed to blend the spectacular location with exceptional architecture in an organic way. Orhei, as well as the previous Mongol town, occupied the entire surface of the Peştera promontory. The only entrance to the promontory, was blocked in this period with two enormous earth ramparts, each having wooden palisades and deep ditches in front of them. Medieval Orhei is frequently mentioned in the epoch documents, grace to the fact that beyond its strategic importance it also represented a very important political and administrative regional centre, that was led by “pârcălabi” (governors), who had great influence in the political life of the Moldovan State. Thus, the governor of Orhei occupied the first place in Ruler’s Stephen the Great (1457-1504) assembly41.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

1. THE PLANIMETRY OF THE TOWN

During the Moldovan period, the planimetry of the town, due to the objective circumstances (the configuration of the land and the existing buildings from the Mongolian period) retains some elements of the Mongolian town planimetry. Some of the buildings of the town, such as the Christian church, have retained their original purpose, while most of them have changed their functions by the adoption of the Moldovan urban models. Therefore, the Christian church, built at the end of the Mongol period, has continued the same functionality throughout the entire existence of the town. At the middle of the next century, near the citadel was built a second church. During this period the cemetery has changed its location. While during the Mongol period the cemetery was next to military camp, during the Moldovan period two cemeteries were arranged around the two churches. During the Moldovan period the wall of the Mongolian residential courtyard has been transformed in the town’s citadel, and the palace inside of it became the residence of the local governor. The walls of the baths were integrated in the dwellings and other buildings of the Moldovan town. Nearby and on the territory of the mosque, as well as in the area of the Caravanserai, a number of dwellings were built during the Moldovan period. Some of these have included the walls and other elements of the mosque. Therefore, without destroying buildings from Mongolian period, residents of the Moldovan period have integrated the walls of the mosque in the inhabited part of the town. At the same time, some specific to the Moldovan urban planimetry elements have appeared during the Moldovan period of the town. Thus, on the former military camp a defensive system was built. It was done of two defence lines of ramparts with palisade and the ditch. This is one of the most important elements that distinguish Orhei of Shehr al-Cedid. 41

Andrei Eşanu, Valentina Eşanu, Moldova medievală. Structuri executive, militare şi ecleziastice.Studi,. Chişinău, 2001; П.П. Бырня, Молдавский средневековый город в Днестровско-Прутском междуречье (XV – начало XVI в.), Кишинев, 1984 [P.P. Byrnya, Moldavskij srednevekovyj gorod v Dnestrovsko-Prutskom mezhdurech›e (XV – nachalo XVI v.), Kishinev].

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Around 100 dwellings, various production and household buildings, many coins, iron and bronze tools and weapons, jewelry, as well as rich ceramic and osteological material have been uncovered within the borders of the medieval Orhei.

Figure no. 55. Silver Moldavian Groş minted by Stephen the Great in 1496, discovered in Orheiul Vechi (by Gh. Postică).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 54. Moldavian pottery from the 15th-16th centuries (by G. D. Smirnov).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2. THE ARCHITECTURE During the Moldovan period of the town (1370-1540), the structures built during Mongolian period have been generally preserved, but also enriched with new elements42. Therefore, the fortification system around the Tasch Hauli courtyard was transformed into a citadel. The palace inside the courtyard was rebuilt and transformed in the military and administrative residence. The stone citadel during the Moldovan period has retained both planimetry and typical oriental architecture, the defensive system being unique as shape and style in the whole of Romanian space (Moldova and Wallachia) during the 15th – 16th centuries, which were dominated by European architectural styles. During the Moldovan period of the town the Christian church continued to function near the Caravanserai, since it represented an important link in perpetuating the architecture from Mongolian period. A very important innovative element during the Moldovan period of the town is represented by two huge fortifications made of earth and wood, with palisades and adjacent ditches, which closed the only access to the town, and enriched the urban landscape with fortified elements from all sides. Through this work, which combines the advantages of natural fortifications of the landscape with complementary man-made fortifications, the town has become, for the first time in its history, a complex fortress secured from all sides.

3. THE CITADEL The Citadel from the Moldavian epoch was a building around the palace that was inherited from the Mongol town. The previous structures were repaired and consolidated. In some areas, substantial changes were made. For example, in the southern entrance a gate with a trap-hole was built.

4. THE PÂRCĂLAB PALACE During the Moldovan period, the citadel palace was transformed into the residency of the Orhei pârcălab (governor). In this sense, the destination of the underground chamber of the palace was changed, making it a water reservoir. The brick walls of this chamber were covered up with the shaped stones taken from the former Muslim mosque, a proof of this being the Arabic inscriptions from the stones of one of its walls. The ceiling of the reservoir had a vaulted shape. In order to strengthen the chamber, it was used chalk mortar, and the space between the old and the new walls was filled with a layer of clay of 20-30 cm thick. The overall thickness of the walls was of 1.3 meters. In this way resulted a reservoir that preserved water for long time, which was a vital measure in case of sieges.

42 Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură. Chişinău, 2003.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

5. THE STONE HOUSE

Figure no. 56. House from the 15th century in the south-western part of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by Gh. Postică, 2001).

Gheorghe Postică, Complexul monumental din piatră din secolul XV descoperit în citadela Orheiului Vechi, In: Revista Arheologică, Serie Nouă, 2005, vol. I, nr. 2, p. 371-387. 44 Gheorghe Postică, Două tunuri din bronz din perioada lui Ştefan cel Mare, In: Arheologia Moldovei, XVII, Bucureşti, 2004.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

At the end of the 14th century and during the 15th, several dwellings were built in the southern part of the Citadel. All of them had brick ovens. A stone two-leveled house was uncovered in the western corner of the citadel43. It was built at the beginning of the 15th century and was in use for about 100 years. Its underground part was dug in the limestone rock to the depth of 3.20 m. The space at the basement is a rectangle of 10.60 x 6.40 m. The stone walls have been preserved at a height of 2.0 m. The roof of the house and the second level were supported by 16 wooden pillars, of which traces are visible in the stone works and on the floor. In the first half of the 15th century the access inside was through a special entrance preserved on the southern side, while during the second half of the century the en trance was from the north. On the floor of the house, eight hearths and a brick oven were built. Inside the house two bronze cannons from Stephen the Great period were found44. These seem to have been hidden here by the defenders of the Orhei citadel in 1510, during the Crimean Tatars invasion.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 57. House from the 15th century in the south-western part of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by Gh. Postică, 2001).

100

Figure no. 58. Bronze cannons found in the stone house from the 15th century, in the south-western part of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by Gh. Postică, 2000).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

6. THE DWELLINGS IN THE CITADEL

Figure no. 59. House from the 15th century in the south-western part of the Orheiul Vechi Citadel (by Gh. Postică, 1999).

7. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 1 Rampart no. 1 is situated at the entrance of the Peștera promontory, about 500 meters west of the Citadel. The rampart was built in the 15th century. It is 430 meters long, and is composed of two segments: northern and southern. The first segment is 270 meters long. It begins from the northern steep versant of the river Răut and is oriented to south-west. It crosses the agricultural fields, and is crossed by the BrăneștiTrebujeni road. From there, it continues to the south of the road and then it abruptly turns to the south-east and continues 160 meters, to the steep bench of the Răut in front of the access bridge to Butuceni village. The sector at the southern edge, near the chasm in front of the village of Butuceni, is preserved very well, so the protection rampart and the adjacent ditch are clearly visible at the ground surface. Since the area near the southern segment of the rampart is not used for agricultural purposes, it is preserved relatively well here.

8. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 2 Rampart no. 2, built in the 15th and 16th centuries, is situated on the Peştera promontory, in the place with the least width of about 200-250 meters, east to the rampart no. 1. It includes two elements: an earth mound with traces of wooden frame structure and a ditch in front of it dug in the limestone rock. 45

Gheorghe Postică, Orheiul Vechi: cercetări arheologice 1996-2001, Iaşi, Ed. Univ. Al. I. Cuza, 2006.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

At the end of the 14th century and during the 15th, several dwellings were built in the southern part of the Citadel. All of them had brick ovens45.

101

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The rampart has a total length of about 760 meters and is composed of three segments: northern (no. 1), central (no. 2) and southern (no. 3). The first segment with a width of about 160 meters is situated on the north-eastern, almost vertical slope of the river Răut, in front of the Trebujeni village. The second one with a length of about 100 meters is situated on the top of the promontory, in the narrowest part of it, and begins from the steep edge of Răut in front of Trebujeni village, and then it continues until the Brăneşti-Trebujeni road. The southern part of this segment of the rampart was destroyed on the length of about 40 meters in the 1970’s during the road building, and the ditch in this sector was occluded. The third segment, almost 500 meters long, is situated on the southern slope of the Peştera promontory and extends to the meadow of the river Răut. It is best preserved in its northern side, even though it was partially leveled here in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

9. THE BORDER RAMPART NO. 3

102

Rampart no. 3 dates to 17th century. It is situated in the central part of the former medieval town in the middle of the Peştera promontory, and separates the area in two almost equal parts. The land rampart no. 3 is situated 10-24 meters east of the Citadel. Its North – South axis is about 800 meters long. It crosses the Peştera promontory from the steep edge of Răut near the Trebujeni village towards in the rock carved church “Peştera”. 22 meters east of the Citadel, at the edge of the steep slope in front of the Trebujeni village, the rampart was excavated. A mound of earth has resulted of this excavation. In rest, in the mentioned sector, the rampart was destroyed. Further to the south – near the southeast corner of the Citadel – a rather short part of the rampart is well preserved. After that, the wall is crossed by the road that goes down to Butuceni. The earth rampart has a height of at most 1 meter from the nowadays terrain level, and its basis is 10-12 wide. There is no ditch evidence nearby the rampart, even if its eastern part one can see a shallow cavity. The rampart was built from the soil taken in the medieval town. It superposes a cemetery from the second part of the 15th and the 16th centuries. As the available evidence shows, the rampart was built during the reign of the Prince of Moldavia Ieremia Movilă (1595-1600, 1600-1606).

10. THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH The church was built in central part of the Peştera promontory at 50 m southern of the Caravanserai46. Its limestone foundations are well preserved, at a height of almost 1 meter. It is was a church of Orthodox Christian rite. The church is rectangular in plan, and includes three rooms: a square nave, a circular altar apse, a polygonal narthex with apse. The outer width of the church in the part of the nave is about 6.5 meters, and the total outer length, including the apse, is of 16.5 meters. The separating wall between the nave and the narthex had its foundation with 50 cm higher than the foundation of the outer walls. In the narthex have been identified two graves, one of a male and the 46 Tamara Nesterov, Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură. Chişinău, 2003.

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 60. Perspective geometry and archaeological plan of the church from the fair zone of Orheiul Vechi (by T. Nesterov).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

other one of a female, the deceased persons being inhumed in clothes woven with filaments of gilded silver, and having on them jewelry of silver and gold. The church was archaeologically studied between 1947-1951, 1972 and 1974-1975. The date of the erection of the church is established between the end of the 60â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of the 14th Century and the 16th-17th centuries, and the graves in the narthex are hypothetically attributed to the Tatar emir of Christian rite Demetros, and to his wife.

103

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

104

Figure no. 61. Evidence of clothing woven with gilded filaments, and golden inventory from the burial dated with the last quarter of the 14th Century, discovered in the Orheiul Vechi church (by G. D. Smirnov).

11. ETHNO-CULTURAL INTERFERENCES IN ORHEI TOWN The anthropological studies on human bones from the cemetery of the town during Moldovan period (Orhei in the 15th – 16th centuries) are exclusively of European type47. There were three anthropological subgroups: the descendants of the Mongolian inhabitants of the North Pontic and North Caspian origins, the descendants of the native population of Moldova in pre-Mongolian period and the descendants of indigenous inhabitants of former Mongolian town. A significant number of individuals are of mixed origins of the three subgroups. In this condition it is obvious that since the town began to be part of the Moldovan state most of the inhabitants of Shehr al-Cedid continued to live in the town of Orhei. However, it was established the withdrawal of Mongols out of the town, which represented the departure of military population and the arrival of locals from different parts of Moldova. The civilization of the town during Moldovan period was also the result of complex cultural interference, and here we can highlight, in order of importance, the following major components: Moldovan urban culture component, the specific component of the European populations strongly orientalised during Mongolian period, the local population in the area and component resulting from more and more closer relations 47 М.С. Великанова, Антропология средневекового населения Молдавии: по материалам памятника Старый Орхей, Москва, РАН, 1993, 260 с. [M.S. Velikanova, Antropologiya srednevekovogo naseleniya Moldavii: po materialam pamyatnika Staryj Orhej, Moskva, RAN].

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

with various adjacent areas, mainly from the Polish-Lithuanian state and Genoveses from the Black Sea region. To some extent those three cultural components correlate with the three anthropological subgroups, determined by the anthropological studies on in the town’s cemetery during Moldovan period.

6. THE BUTUCENI SITE 6.1. LOCATING SITE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The Butuceni archaeological site occupies the main area of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape, on the surface of the Butuceni promontory, stretching from east to west over a length of 3,000 m and a width from 300 m in the northeast, up to 15 m in the centre of the promontory48. Much as at the Peştera, cave is an obvious natural fortress. From the north, it is protected by the almost vertical bank of Răut, and from the south and west it is surrounded by the inaccessible opposite bank of the Răut, just as steep, but much higher. From the southeast and east, a natural defensive wall is provided by the rocky edge of the promontory near the neighbouring village Morovaia. Entrance to the Butuceni promontory can only be gained at its north-eastern end. Here, in the north, there is a 200 m wide passageway to the promontory, which is inaccessible from anywhere else: on the east and west are canyons cut by the Răut, and elsewhere by the canyon of a left tributary near Morovaia Village. To block this entrance, the ancient inhabitants have built a huge fortification made of earth.

Figure no. 62. The Butuceni archaeological site, general view from the west (by Ion Chistruga). 48

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p.; Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi, / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010, 138 p.

105

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 63. The central part of Butuceni archaeological site, view from the west (by Ion Chistruga).

106

Figure no. 64. The central part of Butuceni archaeological site, view from the west (by Ion Chistruga).

The upper part of the Butuceni promontory is relatively level, although the slope increases to the west. In the central part of the promontory there is a Christian church named of the Birth of the Holy Virgin, built in 1904, which stands as that a dominant presence in the Orheiul Vechi area, giving the archaeological landscape a sober and mysterious appearance. The present-day Orthodox place of worship is located in the centre of the Getaen fortress from the 6th – 3rd centuries B.C. This promontory, just as in ancient times, is crossed from east to west by a road coming from the pass to its central and western part. In the central part of the promontory, a very steep path emerges from the road, making its way to the Butuceni village, situated at the base of the promontory in its southern part near the Răut floodplain. The archaeological remains on the surface of the Butuceni promontory date from the Eneolithic (5th – 4th mil. BC), Iron Age (ninth centuries I BC) and the Middle Ages (8th – 9th and 14th – 19th centuries). In the west of the promontory, on the territory of the Butuceni village, remains from the Eneolithic (Cucuteni-Tripolie culture), Getae from the 4th – 3rd centuries BC, Middle Ages (8th – 9th and 14th as well as 15th – 17th century) were identified. In the southern part of the promontory, within the village’s boundaries, Golden Horde coins, as well as Getae, Greek and medieval ceramics were found during household activities. In the northern part of the Butuceni promontory, on the steep calcareous bank, numerous rupestral cavities are present - caves and caverns, used as Christian hermitages, convents and monasteries from the 15th -19th centuries. On the central surface of the Butuceni promontory, archaeologists attest the presence of Getaen ruins, with six ramparts, and the traces of a citadel, related to four basic stages: Stage I: 9th - 7th century BC, settlement of the Cozia-Saharna type; Stage II: 6th - 5th century BC, Getae settlement; Stage III: 4th century - first half of the 3rd century BC, Getae Citadel; Stage IV: the second half of the third century - first half of the second century BC Getae settlement. Rampart no. 5 (fortification number 10 after I. Niculiţă) built at the east base of the Butuceni promontory to protect the settlement dates back to the 9th – 8th centuries BC. Two ditches (fortifications number 4 and number 6) date back to the 6th -5th centuries BC. They are located in the middle of the promontory (today: near the Birth of the Holy Virgin Church), and protected a citadel found in this area. A citadel with a wooden palisade (fortification no. 2) dates back to 4th – 3rd centuries BC. Its measurements are: 70.0 x 60.0 m, centred on the site of the current church, protected by a trench to the west (fortification number 3), another trench (fortification number 7) and a stone wall (fortification number 8) to the east. Rampart no. 1 (fortification no. 1) and the Rampart no. 2 (fortification no. 5) date back to the second half of the third century – first half of the second century. The following the monumental complexes were investigated in Butuceni over the years: Ramparts of defence (no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the Citadel (stone wall, palisade, stone houses). Portions of the defence ramparts and trenches number 2 and 3, as well as the traces of the citadel’s palisade were left uncovered to turn into account the museum value.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

107

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

108

The most immediately visible archaeological sites within the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are the rock-carved complexes dug into the Sarmatian limestone rocks near the villages of Butuceni and Trebujeni. They provide the visitor with the first hint of ancient human presence in the area, and lend distinctive colours and a sense of monumental view of the Landscape. The rock-carved complexes represent a classical example of man and nature working together for many centuries. For religious, social, and agrarian purposes, humans have clearly turned into account the grottos and the karst caves, which master pieces, are created by nature over millennia. Over time, the occupants of the Landscape developed these complexes by extending them, even creating new rock-carved complexes in the massif of the Sarmatian limestone. The rock-carved complexes blend perfectly with other types of monuments, both archaeological and architectural, as well as the environment of the Landscape, forming an organic unity of cultural and natural elements that offers a unique and original insight into the cultural activities of man over millennia, and his interaction with nature. The emergence of the rock-carved complexes in this region was favoured by the character of the limestone, which made them relatively easy to form, and which conditioned the construction of caves for habitation. The monastic rock-carved complexes in the area of Orheiul Vechi are dated on the basis of more carved inscriptions from the 17th-19th centuries. When the archaeological context is also taken into account, an extended chronology is established for the 14th19th centuries. There are 4 groups of cave arrangements on the northern surface of the Butuceni promontory’s slope: the rupestrial group Peştera - 72 structures, including a monastery and several churches; the Pârcalab Bosie monastery group cave - 10 structures (a monastery with a church); the Trebujeni group Stone Mine - 25 structures, and a number of isolated caves - 15 structures.

6.2. GETAE FORTIFICATIONS 1. THE CITADEL The citadel within the Butuceni archaeological site is located at the top of the Butuceni promontory, near the Birth of the Holy Virgin Church built in 1904, which is located at the heart of the ancient fortification49. The citadel, which is referred to in the literature (prof. I. Niculiţă) as “defensive line number 2 “, represents the remains of a fortification from the fourth century - mid-third century BC, setting the third phase in the evolution of the fortified settlement on the Butuceni promontory. Archaeological research has revealed the elongated and oval shape of the fortification, oriented along the east-west axis of the promontory. In ancient times, the citadel was made of a wall consisting of two parallel rows of wooden stakes (a palisade) arranged vertically, limiting the entire perimeter of the citadel, being additionally protected by a trench from the west, and by a trench and a stone wall from the east. The archaeological traces of the old palisades, can be seen in two rows of deep holes in the limestone rock, located on the edge of the Butuceni promontory, provided with trenches at the east and west ends and the traces of a stone wall at its eastern edge. 49

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 65. The Butuceni archaeological site, general view from the south (by Ion Chistruga). ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 66. The Butuceni archaeological site, view from the south-east (by Ion Chistruga).

109

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 67. Southern view of the Getae Citadel (by Ion Chistruga).

Figure no. 68. The trail of the Getae Citadel (by Gh. Postică).

110

The length of the palisade with adjacent trenches on its east-west axis, is 235.0 metres, and together with the stone wall at the eastern end is 252.0 metres. The fortification’s width on the south-north axis ranges from 30.0 m at the ends, to 48.0 m in its central part. The holes left by the palisade poles (circular in plan or as elongated grooves) dug at 0.25-0.50 m into the natural limestone rock are found in two parallel rows distanced at 2.0-2.2 m from one another, in some sectors (the south-western part), they reach a width of 3.8-4.0 m. These dimensions represent the width of the former palisade wall. The west end of the fortification consisted of two palisades separated by a trench approximately 32 m long, with a width of about 3.0 m, and a depth of 1.6-2.4 m, which intersected the promontory perpendicularly. The overall width of the fortifications on the western edge (two palisades and a trench) was 12.0 m. At its eastern end, the citadel was protected by a moat, located at a distance of 3.0 m and a stone wall located at a distance of 17.0 m from the edge of the palisade. The trench’s width at the top is 2.4-2.5 m, 0.8 m at the bottom, and the depth is 1.42.0 m. In the central sector, parallel to the stone wall, the moat had a gap of 4.6 m, representing the location of the gateway to the citadel. The citadel with palisade is intersected in the middle by two ramparts and trenches from other Getae settlement phases: Rampart no. 3 from the 7th – 5th century BC and rampart no. 2 dated to the second half of the 3rd century - first half of the 2nd century BC. The traces of the palisade, quite emphasised, are located below the current level of the ground. At the present stage, the rows of palisade poles holes of the southern side of the citadel are open to the general public, the other being covered with soil. Traces of a Getae sanctuary, from the 4th – 3rd centuries BC were discovered in the central part of the fortress. These consist of three concentric circles, the outer having a diameter of 9,0 m. In this outer circle could be seen evidence of 12 poles, their postholes being preserved in limestone rock. The second circle had a diameter of 6,0 m, and was made of 6 poles. There inside had a diameter of 3,0 m, and was made of 3 poles. An oval-shaped boulder with the length of 2.0 m and width 1.5 m, was found in the centre of the sanctuary. A quadrangle building was uncovered close to the sanctuary. Inside this some pithoi (large storage ceramic ware) and Greek amphorae were discovered. Both round and rectangular structures seem to have been component parts of the same cultic building. The archaeologist who excavated this structure thinks that the sanctuary was also used as a calendar. A rich archaeological inventory, including Getae and Greek pottery (amphorae, ceramics coated with black and red lacquer) was also discovered in the citadel. The percentage of Greek pottery is unusually high in the Butuceni citadel, representing around 20-25%, reaching up to 50% in some areas, which represents a very high ratio for the settlements in the Barbaricum where import material usually constitutes up to 2-4%.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

111

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 69. Getae pottery, dated to the 4th-3rd centuries BC found in the Butuceni citadel (by I. Niculiță and G. D. Smirnov).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

2. THE EASTERN PRECINCT CITADEL

112

The Eastern precinct citadel is a place of refuge, dated to the 4th century - first half of the 3rd century BC50. It is located on the eastern open area of the Butuceni plateau, between the rampart no. 4 (fortification no. 9 after I. Niculiţă) and rampart no. 5 (fortification no. 10). The Eastern precinct is protected by the steep banks of the Butuceni promontory: from the northwest – the steep bank of the Răut river found opposite of the Peştera promontory (above the Bosie Pârcălab Monastery), from the south – the steep bank above the village of Morovaia, from the east – the west steep bank of the Râpa Morova) and the two large defence ramparts: rampart no. 4 – located along the south bank and the rampart no. 5 – located at the base of the Butuceni promontory from the north, at the gateway to the citadel. The Butuceni-Trebujeni and Morovaia-Trebujeni roads traverse the fortification’s area. The inner surface of the eastern Precinct is populated with bushes. The cultural layer within the Eastern Precinct is basically absent. Getae pottery fragments and Greek amphorae are present sporadically. The length of the Eastern Precinct on the West-East axis on the south side (the edge of the slope above the Morovaia village) is about 1,500 m long, on the northern side (corresponding to rampart no. 5) – 365 m. On the northwest side (the edge of the Răut river slope, opposite of the Peştera promontory) is about 1,200 m; on the eastern side (on the western slope of the Râpa Morova ravine) is about 760 m. 3. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 1

The Defence Rampart no. 1 of the Butuceni archaeological area is located at the western edge of the Butuceni promontory, directly on the “muzzle” of the promontory, about 100.0 m south and southwest of the bridge over the Răut River. The fortification, with a total length of about 220 m, consists of two parallel ramparts with adjacent trenches from the northwest. The fortification is oriented from the southwest to the northeast. 50

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002, 252 p.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

4. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 2

Defence Rampart no. 2 (no. 5 for I. Niculiţă) of the Butuceni site is located in the central part of the Butuceni promontory51. It is at a distance of 10.0 m east of the the Birth of the Holy Virgin Church, directly next to the east wall of the religious complex, perpendicular intersecting the promontory area, from northeast to southwest. The rampart, with a total length of 195 m, consists of a single segment in the form of a straight line, oriented from northeast to southwest. The northeast ridge, located on the crest of the promontory and the southern slope over a length of 108 m, was fully preserved, while the part in the southwest, on top of which lies the current village of Butuceni, is levelled. The road leading to the churchyard traverses the eastern edge of the rampart. The rampart is made of gravel and earth. Traces of a wooden palisade were found in the mantle of the rampart. The width of the rampart’s base is - 10.0 to 11.0 m and it is between 1.10 and 1.80 m high. The defence ditch, dug in limestone rock, was found at the eastern base of the rampart. In the upper part of its opening, the ditch is of 6.6-7.8 m wide, and is 1.0-1.4 m deep at the base, and it is deep of 2.5-2.8 m below the ancient level. Rampart no. 2 is in a good state of preservation in the northeast, and in poor condition at the south-western part, which is superposed by the present-day village Butuceni.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Two roads coming from the bridge over the Răut River cross the central part of the rampart and ditches: the first one, through the inferior side of the promontory leads directly to the Butuceni village and the second one leads to the top of the promontory on the brink leading to the Peştera monastery. In these sectors, the rampart and trenches were mostly destroyed during the construction of the bridge over Răut in 1982-1983. In the central part of the rampart, currently destroyed, a café (owned by Ion Morari) was built, which borders to the east with a well-preserved stretch of the rampart. Its clay profile is quite visible. In the north-eastern side, north of the road leading to the Peştera monastery, the rampart and ditches were preserved on a length of about 50 m, with a hardened surface, thus well preserved and conserved. The height of the rampart in this part is up to 2.0-3.5 m, the width of the rampart’s base being over 20 m, the depth of the ditch of 2.0-3.0 m and about 15 m wide. In the southwest, west of the road leading to the Butuceni village, the rampart and ditches were preserved over a length of about 80 m, reaching the water of the Răut River. The rampart’s height is 1.0-1.5 m, the width of its base is about 18-20 m, the depth of the trench is 0.5 m and its width is of 10-12 m. The surface of the rampart and the ditch is occupied with the local peasant’s fields, thus the surface being ploughed up and planted with vineyards. The rampart and trench are mainly levelled, but is outlined quite well, including from the profile of the side of the road, directly under the fence, where the rampart’s curve is clearly seen especially its crest. In this sector, a stone stele with Slavonic inscriptions is found at the edge of the rampart.

5. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 3

Rampart no. 3 (no. 6 for I. Niculiţă) of the Butuceni52 site is located in the central part of the promontory, at a distance of 60.0 m to the east of the altar of the Birth of the 51 52

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002. Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002.

113

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Holy Virgin Church and about 30 m east of rampart no. 2, perpendicularly intersecting the promontory area. Just parts of the defence rampart and ditch are well preserved. Thus, in the upper part of the promontory, the rampart was levelled in antiquity and the ditch filled, a fact confirmed by the archaeological excavations carried out by I. Niculiţă. The next part of the southern area of the slope preserved traces of rampart and ditch at the surface. The third part, located further to the south, is occupied by the current village and is fully levelled. The total length of the rampart (up to the bank of the Răut River) was of 180.0 m. The current length of the fortification visually observable on the surface of the south slope of the promontory is about 60 m; the length of the trench (investigated largely) on the area of the promontory is about 40 m. The length of the fortification under the current Butuceni village is about 80 m. The trench is 4.6 to 6.8 m wide at the opening, and 2.4-3.2 m wide at the base, and is 2.8-3.6 m deep below the level of the native rock. Rampart no. 3 dates to the 6th-5th centuries BC, the second phase of the settlement. Rampart no. 3 (nominated by Ion Niculiţă as “defensive line no. 6”) is contemporary with the ditch (defensive line no. 4), under the Birth of the Holy Virgin Church. Together they form a fortified complex in the aforementioned period. Most of the rampart (except its southern versant) is destroyed. The trench is well preserved in the sector atop the promontory and the southern versant.

114

6. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 4

It is located in the eastern part of the Butuceni promontory53. Its starting point is at a distance of about 900 m from the Birth of the Holy Virgin Church, defined by I. Niculiţă as “defensive line no. 9”. The western end of rampart no. 4 is based on the northern edge of the promontory. From there it is oriented to southeast over a length of 18 m, subsequently turning and reorienting to the east, on the southern edge of the Butuceni promontory, over the Morovaia village and up to the western edge of the Râpa Morova ravine mouth. Rampart no. 4, with a total length of about 1,200 m, is made up of two segments. The first of them begins at the northern edge of the promontory, continues to the southeast for about 120 m; after the start of the second segment, it turns to the northeast with a length of about 1,200 m. The rampart’s base is built from gravel and earth. Traces of a wooden palisade seen as two rows of stake pits dug in the native limestone rock were found in the rampart’s mantle. The width of the rampart’s base is 3.20 to 3.60 m and it is 0.50 m high. In front of the southern edge, the rampart slope is inclined. I. Niculiţă, S. Teodor and A. Zanoci date the rampart no. 4 to the 4th century - 1st half of the 3rd century BC. They attribute it to the 3rd phase of the Butuceni settlement. During that time, rampart no. 4 together with the rampart no. 5 closed the eastern area of the Butuceni promontory, forming a separate enclosure, which probably served as a refuge citadel for people from the unfortified neighbouring settlements. Rampart no. 4 is almost levelled for the most part, but the visible parts are still in a satisfactory state of preservation. 53

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Rampart no. 5 (no. 10 for I. Niculiţă) represents a fortified system, located in the north-eastern Butuceni promontory, facing the West-East direction54. The western end of the rampart rests on the steep bank of the Răut river, over the Izvorul din stâncă (Rock Spring), about 240 m east of the Trebujeni bridge. The eastern end of the fortification is axed on the steep banks of the Râpa Morovăii ravine. Thus, it forbade access to the surface of the Butuceni promontory, turning it into a veritable fortress organically combining the natural features of fortification and man’s engineering. The rampart has a total length of about 364.0 m, its width - 18.0 to 21.0 m, being generally 2.5-3.0 m high, and at the west end - about 8.0 m high. The ditch was dug into the native rock and had a width of about 5.0 m at the top, 1.7 to 3.5 m at the base, and was 1.0-2.5 m deep. The rampart has an opening at the western end, which may have been laid down by the ancient engineers. Currently, it crosses the TrebujeniMorovaia / Butuceni road. Rampart no. 5 underwent two construction stages: 1. the phase of the rampart with wooden palisade and 2. the phase of the rampart with stone wall and wood constructions. The rampart is dated by I. Niculiţă, S. Teodor and A. Zanoci as starting from 9th to 8th centuries BC and up to 3rd-2nd centuries BC, and is attributed to the phase 1 to phase 4 of the Butuceni settlement. In phase 3 of the settlement, the 4th-3rd centuries BC, rampart no. 5 and rampart no. 4 formed a separate precinct of the citadel on the Butuceni promontory, known in the literature as the Eastern Precinct, which probably served as a refuge for Getaes living in unfortified settlements nearby.

Figure no. 70. Defence rampart no. 5 of the Butuceni Getae Citadel. Seen from west (by Gh. Postică). 54

Ion Ion Niculiță, SilviaTeodor, Aurel Zanoci, Butuceni. Monografie arheologicã, București, 2002.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

7. THE DEFENCE RAMPART NO. 5

115

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 71. Defence rampart no. 5 of the Butuceni Getae Citadel. Seen from east (by Gh. Postică).

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

6.3. THE PEŞTERA ROCK-CARVED CAVE The rock-carved cave of Butuceni is situated in sectors no. 14-16 of the promontory of the same name, on a surface of ca. 460 sq m55. It comprises a system of grottos, former hermit cells and a monastic centre, the latter known by the name of Peştera Church56.

Figure no. 72. The demarcation plan of the north sectors of the slope of the Butuceni promontory (by Gh. Postică).

116

55 Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010. 56 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Peştera şi moşia Peştera (Orheiul Vechi) din ţinutul Orhei (de la primele atestări documentare până în secolul al XIX-lea), In: Tyragetia. Istorie. Muzeologie, S.N., vol. 2, nr. 2, 2008, p. 141-162.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The surface of the promontory in the above-mentioned sector slopes from east to west, at a height of circa 50 - 55 m above the waters of the Răut. The lower part of the promontory is accessible up to a height of c. 30 - 35 m. The upper part is inaccessible due to the steepness of the rock. The slope is composed of horizontal layers of Sarmatian limestone, separated by exokarstic layers whose width ranges from 2 - 3 cm up to 1 - 1.5 m, which, given the thinness of the limestone and under the influence of natural or human factors led to the formation of multiple grottos used in the past for the purpose of creating some cult places, monastic cells and churches. In the lower part of the promontory, about 20 - 30 m above the waters of the Răut, the exokarstic layers are covered by diluvial soils and collapsed limestone blocks from the grottos in the upper levels. The exokarstic layers can be seen starting at a height of 17 - 20 m above the level of the Răut river, or 25 - 33 m lower than the promontory’s peak. Morphological analysis of the promontory using a computerised panoramic method led to the discovery, in the sector occupied by the rock-carved cave of Butuceni, of 25 exokarstic levels in its upper part which makes up 2/3 of the promontory’s height. The exokarstic horizon marked no. 1 is situated c. 20 m above the level of the Răut river, while the last level, marked no. 24, attested in the eastern part of the rock-carved cave of Butuceni, is 2 m lower than the present peak of the promontory, or c. 48 m above the level of the Răut.

Figure no. 73. The Peștere rock-carved cave, 15th – 19th centuries, in the north part of the Butuceni promontory, the Sectors no. 16-17 (by Gh. Postică).

117

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 74. The Peștere rock-carved cave, 15th – 19th centuries, in the north part of the Butuceni promontory (by Gh. Postică).

118

Within the area occupied by the rock-carved cave of Butuceni there are 72 rockcarved cavities worked by human hands and 63 natural grottos, 9 of the latter with traces of human activity. To these one must add at least another unrecorded 120 karstic cavities (natural grottos) in the central and eastern parts of the complex; therefore the total number of karstic grottos rises to around 185 - 200 units. The absolute majority of these are situated in the lower part of the slope. Thus, half of the recorded natural grottos (31 of the total, or 49 %) are situated in exokarstic horizons no. 1-11, others (27, or 43%) are situated in the horizons from the middle of the slope (no. 12-16) and only 5 grottos (8 %) are in the upper exokarstic levels (no. 17-21). Among the rock-carved features with habitation or cult functions (73 in total) in the complex of Butuceni, one can distinguish constructions made of a single room – 50 (68.5 %), of two rooms – 5 (6.8 %), of 3 rooms – 2 (2.7 %), of 4 rooms – 1 (1.4 %), of 5 rooms – 4 (6.8 %), of 6 rooms – 3 (4.1 %), of 7 rooms – 1 (1.4 %), of 10 rooms – 2 (2.7 %), of 12 rooms – 1 (1.4 %) and of 14 rooms – 1 (1.4 %). The rock-carved constructions with more than one room (from 2 to 14) – which number 23 or 35.9% of the total number of 73 – are situated as a rule in the three upper exokarstic horizons (no. 16-18); they are found more rarely in the exokarstic horizons no. 12-15 – 6 complexes (26.1 %) – and are completely missing from the lower horizons. Spatially, the artificial grottos in the Peştera Group are grouped into 12 sectors, marked from east to west as follows: no. I – 6 rock-carved cavees, II – 6, III – 5, IV – 6, V – 5, VI – 9, VII – 9, VIII – 2, IX – 2, X – 1, XI – 16 and XII – 6. The most numerous is group no. XI, which contains the church of Peştera Church which functioned from the 16th/17th to the mid-20th centuries. Among the rock-carved features of the complex of Butuceni is a remarkable monumental church (no. 44), called Peştera, situated at the level of exokarstic horizon

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

no. 14, which still functions today, and two other churches of smaller size (no. 6 and no. 19) located at the level of horizon no. 16, discovered as a result of the architectural elements analysis.

Figure no. 76. Graphic plan of the Monastic hermitage rock-carved cave, 15th – 19th centuries, in the north part of the Butuceni promontory (by T. Bobrovskji and B. Riduș).

The Peştera Church is situated in the middle of the slope at a height of c. 40 m above the river waters. It is composed of two units: Church and body of monastic cells. The general dimensions of the complex are about 25 x 8-12 m. A stone cross (17th-18th centuries) and a belfry (1822) were built above the church complex on the surface of the promontory of Butuceni.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 75. raphic plan of the Monks hermitage rock-carved cave, 15th – 19th centuries, in the north part of the Butuceni promontory (by T. Bobrovskji and B. Riduș).

119

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 77. The Peştera Church rock-carved cave, 15th -19th centuries, of the north part of the Butuceni promontory (by Gh. Postică).

120

Figure no. 78. The Belfry (1822) of Peştera Church rock-carved cave, 15th -19th centuries, of the south part of the Butuceni promontory (by Gh. Postică).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

The church was built through the reuse of some older rooms whose traces are clearly visible on the surface of the walls. It is positioned along the slope, and is made up of Altar, Nave and Passage. The church is oriented on a west-east axis with a deviation of 20 degrees towards the south. The length of the Church is 14.7 m, the breadth is 4 m in the Nave, and the height 2.6 – 3.5 m. The complex of cells is situated to the west of the Church 0.6 -0.7 m above, being connected to the latter through a special corridor. The cells are distributed radially, opening towards the centre and receiving light from outside. The Church functioned in several phases from the 17th centuries to the beginning of the 19th (1816). From 1816 the Church of Peştera functioned as the parish Church of the village of Butuceni, and in 1822 a passage was built to it from the village. From 1904 the Church of Peştera functioned only during the time of major holy-days (Easter and Christmas). In 1946 the Church of Peştera was closed, and in 1996 it was taken over by an Orthodox monastic community which still uses it.

6.4. THE BOSIE PÂRCĂLAB MONASTERY ROCK-CARVED CAVE The rock-carved complex of the Bosie Pârcălab Monastery is situated ca. 1.5 km east of the Peştera Church in a less accessible place57. It represents a relatively archaic complex comprising a rock-carved church and 9 monastic cells, all of them situated in the same exokarstic horizon 25 m above the level of the river. 57

Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Trebujeni (al lui Bosie Pârcălab) şi moşia Trebujeni/Butuceni din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tiragetia, S.N., vol. 3 [18], nr.2, 2009, p. 2-89.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 79. The limestone cross of the Peştera Church rock-carved cave, 17th -18th centuries, the north part of the Butuceni promontory (by Gh. Postică).

121

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Figure no. 80. The rock-carved Bosie Pârcălab Monastery, from the north (by Gh. Postică, 2007).

122

Figure no. 81. The Church of the Bosie Pârcălab rock-carved Monastery, from the north (by Gh. Postică, 2007).

Figure no. 82. The Church of the Bosie Pârcălab rock-carved Monastery, interior (by Gh. Postică, 2007).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The church is marked with medieval inscriptions on stone written with Cyrillic characters in the Slavonic and Romanian languages; these are the only inscriptions of this kind preserved in the Republic of Moldova. On the outside walls of the Church, at the entrance, there are 9 inscriptions, 3 of which are of great importance. The inscription that gives the name of the rock-carved church is situated in the arched niche. At present the inscription is degraded and only those 4 lines into which it has been divided can be read. Its text is in the Slavonic language and has been preserved only due to a written record from the 19th century: “The Church of the hierarchy of Christ, of the Holy Father Wonder Worker, Nicolae”. The foundation inscription of Bosie pârcălab is situated to the left of the church’s entrance. It is framed by a motif similar to an unfolded paper roll which is probably a heraldic cartouche. The inscription is marked by an open crown with three fleurons; the central one has a cross above it: „СЕЙ МАНАСТИР / РАБЪ БЖIЙ БОСIЙ / ПЫРКАЛАБ ОРХЕОВ / СЪВРЪШИ СЪ ПОДРУЖI/ЕМ И ЧАДИ СВОИМИ / В ЧЕС ГУ БУ ЗА ОТ/ПУЩЕНIЕ ГРЕХОВ СВОИХ / СЕЛЕВЯСТР У ЛТ 7173 (1665)” [This monastery was built by God’s slave Bosie, pârcălab of Orhei, together with his wife and children, in the name of God, for the forgiveness of his sins, Seleveastru, year 7173 (1665)].

Figure no. 83. The cave inscription of the Church of the Bosie Pârcălab rock-carved Monastery (by Gh. Postică, 2008).

123

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

To the right of the rock-carved church’s entrance portal is located the second complex rock-carved inscription, unique to this place, and written in the Romanian language with Cyrillic characters: „АЧЕСТУ ЗАПИС ЛАУ ФЪК/УТЪ ВАСИЛЕ АНДЕ/ЕСКУЛ ШИ КУ РЬЗМИРИ/ЦЪ ЛЕКА I(Н) ЗИЛЕЛЕ ЛУI / КОСТАТИН ВОД(А) КЪНДУ А(У) ЕРЬ/НАТ УКРАИНА I(Н) ИВАНЧЕ ШИ / АУ ФОСТЬ СТЕЦЪ ХАТМАН / ЛА УКРАИНА ШИ НОИ А(М Е)/РНАТУ АТУНЧЕ АИЧЕ / ЛТО 7198 НОЕ (М) 20 (1689)” [This inscription was made by Vasile Andeescul and with Răzmeriţă Leca in the days of Konstantin Vodă when the Ukrainians wintered in Ivancea, led by Steţ Hatman to Ukraine, and we wintered then here in the year 7198, November 20 (1689)].

124

Figure no. 84. The cave inscription of the Church of the Bosie Pârcălab rock-carved Monastery (by Gh. Postică, 2008).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

Figure no. 85. The Monks cave of the Bosie Pârcălab rock-carved Monastery (by Gh. Postică, 2008).

6.5. THE TREBUJENI-MINE ROCK-CARVED CAVE It is situated on the north-eastern edge of the promontory of Butuceni, around 0.5 km east of the village of Trebujeni. The stone quarry was exploited at the end of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th century. The complex comprises around 25 rooms on the same exokarstic level, 20 m above the waters of the Răut.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

On the basis of the inscriptions the monastic complex is dated to the 17th century, the oldest date being 16 February 1656. Bearing in mind that beneath these texts there exist traces of older inscriptions, we can suppose that this cult place functioned from at least the 16th century onward.

125

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

7. THE MAȘCĂUȚI SITE

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

7.1. GENERAL

126

The Mașcăuți archaeological site it is situated on the Mașcăuți terrace58, at the right side of the Răut, in front the Butuceni village. It stretches at a length of ca. 2.5 km from northwest to southwest – from the elbow of the river to the rock quarry situated northwest of the Mașcăuți village. Within the archaeological site, the terrace of the Răut river is cut into five gorges, from which three (Hucișca, Râposu and Culicăuca) are rather wide, and other two narrow. In place of these breaks were formed three rock promontories. In two of these, naturally fortified, ancient citadels were set up. One of them is the earth fortress Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului. It was set up at the promontory on the left side of the Râposu gorge, face to face to the Butuceni fortress. Another earth fortress Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare, occupies the promontory on the right side of the Culicăuca gorge, at about 0.6 km east of Poiana Ciucului. On the steep bank of the limestone terrace, at the height of 100-130 m above the river level, two monastic rock cave hermitages and several single caves are present. At the top part of the versant, at the left side of the Râposu gorge, bellow the Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului” fortress, the hermitage named Macicauţi Hermitage is situated. It is compound of 20 rock carved rooms. At the right side of the Hucișca gorge, in the superior part of the slope, is situated another cave hermitage called locally Peșterile Ciucului. This hermitage contains 29 rock carved rooms. Many other isolated grottos are present at the Mașcăuți versant. Some of them were used as dwellings of hermit monks, and one as a small rock carved chapel (paraclis). The archaeological research in Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului has uncovered several contexts: - the Getae (4th – 3rd centuries BC) fortress, - two open settlements of the Poieneşeti-Lucaşeuca culture from the 3rd – 1st centuries BC, - the Sântana de Mureş-Cerneahov culture, from 3rd – 4th centuries AD; - the early medieval (9th – 11th centuries AD) fortress; - an open medieval (12th – 16th centuries AD) settlement, - rock-carved complexes dating in 15th – 19th centuries BC. At Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare the Getae (4th – 3rd centuries BC) fortress is present. Of these, the most representative are: the Getae fortress at Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare, the early medieval fortress at Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului, the Macicauţi Hermitage rock carved and Peşterele Ciucului , as well as the Bisericuţa chapel.

58 Sergius Ciocanu, Schitul Maşcăuţi/Macicăuţi (al lui Albu Pârcălab) şi moşia Maşcăuţi din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tyragetia, s.n., vol. V [XX], nr. 2, 2011, p. 119-138; Sergiu Musteață, Populaţia spaţiului pruto-nistrean în secolele VIII-IX, Chişinău, Pontos, 2005; Aurel Zanoci, Traco-geţii din bazinul Răutului Inferior. Cetatea Măscăuţi „Dealul cel Mare”, In: Thracians and circumpontics world. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, Chişinău-Vadul lui Vodă, 6-11 september 2004, vol. II, Chişinău 2004, 45-81.

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

7.2. THE MAȘCĂUȚI-POIANA CIUCULUI GETAE FORTRESS The Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului Getae fortress is located about 3 km northwest of the Mașcăuți village and occupies a promontory the Răut river and the Răposu gorge join, 100 - 110 m above the river water level. It is situated close to other Getae fortresses, 0.5 km south of the Butuceni one (on the opposed side of Răut) and 0.6 km west of the Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare. It is triangular-shaped in plan (270 x 170 m). From east and north, the fortress is naturally defended by steep banks of the gorge. Its south and west sides meet a wide-open plateau. Here a powerful fortification system was built. This system included a defence moat (200-250 m long, 4.5-5,0 m wide and 1.7-2.0 m deep) provided with wooden palisade documented by archaeological research. Archaeological investigations have shown that the fortress, which also has traces of extra-muros habitation, experienced several phases of occupation. Within the fortress, remains of houses built of wattle and daub, storage pits rich in pottery – barbarian and Greek (especially amphorae) – tools, weapons and ornaments.

The Getae fortress Mașcăuți-Dealul cel Mare dates to 4th – 3rd centuries BC. It is located at a distance of about 400 m west of the Mașcăuți village, on the right terrace of the Răut River, ca. 120 m above the river level. Significantly, it is positioned in front of the Butuceni Getae fortress and 0.6 km east of the Mașcăuți-Poiana Ciucului fortress. From north, the fortress is naturally defended by the steep bank of the river gorge, while a deep ravine marks its western natural border. In this way, the fortress was well naturally defended from two sides. In the southern and eastern wide opened sides of the fortress, a large rampart built in 4th – 3rd centuries, defends it. It was, as the archaeological research has revealed, 4.0 m wide and 0.3 m tall. The fortress is ca. 600 m long and 200 m wide. It includes two component parts: eastern citadel (180 x 80 m) and a western precinct (620 x 200 m), the two being separated by a rampart.

7.4. THE MAȘCĂUȚI-POIANA CIUCULUI EARLY MEDIEVAL FORTRESS The medieval fortress of 9th –10th centuries AD is superposed over the Getae fortress. It was protected from the north and east by the steep bank of the ravine, and from the west – by an arch-shaped ditch (no. 4). It was dug in limestone rock to a depth of 2.4 m. Its width is of 3.0 m. From east it was provided with wooden palisade. The fortress’s sizes are 300x200 m. It is worth mentioning that archaeological research also revealed traces of human settlement in extra-muros.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

7.3. THE MAȘCĂUȚI-DEALUL CEL MARE GETAE FORTRESS

7.5. THE MACICAUŢI HERMITAGE ROCK-CARVED CAVE This is situated in the middle of the slope of Maşcăuţi at a place called Chilioare on the right bank of the river Răut, at a crossroads with the gorge of Răposu, on the axis of the church of the village of Butuceni. The complex contains around 20 rock-carved rooms situated on five levels, some

127

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

of them interconnected through specially arranged openings. The present state of the Hermitage’s components suggests the destruction over time of several rooms, and blockage of the entrances to upper rooms by fragments of rock and earth that fell from the slopes. The preserved rock-carved cells are small, and were clearly designed for an austere life; the entrances were protected by doors or wooden walls, traces of which have been preserved in the rock. In some publications the complex is mentioned under the incorrect name, the Hermitage of Rafail.

128

Figure no. 86. The Macicauţi Hermitage seen from north (by Gh. Postică, 2007).

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

7.6. THE PEŞTERILE CIUCULUI ROCK-CARVED CAVE

Figure no. 87. Overview of the Peşterele Ciucului Rock-Carved Cave (by Gh. Postică, 2008).

7.7. THE BISERICUŢA CHAPEL ROCK CARVED CAVE This is a Christian church arranged in an isolated cave. It is located 150 m west of Macicauţi Hermitage, 30 m above the river level of Răut. It is a quadrangular room 2 x 2 m 1.6-1.8 m high dug into limestone rock. Ten crosses of various shapes are engraved on its walls. The church dates in 14th – 17th centuries AD.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

This is situated in the upper part of the promontory of Maşcăuţi (at a height of 60 - 80 m) on the right bank of the river Răut, opposite the south-western edge of the village of Butuceni. The complex contains 29 grottos and karstic galleries distributed on five levels and which have been largely destroyed by tectonic processes. On the walls of some rooms can be seen a variety of rock-carved signs, while on the floor an archaeological layer with the 14th-18th centuries, pottery was uncovered.

129

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

8. THE SITES IN THE LANDSCAPE’S BUFFER ZONE

In the buffer zone of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are documented a large number of archaeological sites, which are directly related to the sites within the Landscape59. Altogether, they form an assemblage of sites. In total, in the buffer zone, in a radius of about 2 km, 22 archaeological sites were identified, some of them researched. The known sites are as follows: Trebujeni-Sat, Trebujeni-Lutărie, Trebujeni-Valea Ţigancii, Trebujeni-Piscul Ciobanului, TrebujeniFântâna Joiei, Trebujeni-Selitra I-III, Trebujeni-Selitra, Trebujeni-Scoc , TrebujeniPotârca, Trebujeni-Gura Ivancei, Furceni-Cot, Furceni, Furceni-Ivancea, BrăneştiValea Budăi, Brăneşti-Cariere, Furceni-Brăneşti, Brăneşti-Biserica, Brăneşti-Ivancea, Morovaia, Măşcăuţi-Zaverna, Măşcăuţi-Livada Boierului, Maşcăuţi-Zăvoi. Table no. 2. The Archaeological Site of the Buffer zone of the Orheiul Vechi Landscape

S S

6 Trebujeni-Selitra I-III

7 Trebujeni-Selitra

F S

11 Furceni-Cot

S S

13 Furceni-Ivancea

14 Brăneşti-Valea Budăi

15 Brăneşti-Cariere

16 Furceni-Brăneşti

S S

17 Brăneşti-Biserica

18 Brăneşti-Ivancea

19 Morovaia

S S

21 Măşcăuţi-Livada

S,F

12 Furceni

22 Maşcăuţi-Zăvoi

17 – 18 Century AD, Moldavian culture

S S

10 Trebujeni-Gura Ivancei

9 Trebujeni-Potârca

S S

F S

15 – 16 Century AD, Moldavian culture

14 Century AD, Golden Horde and local culture

12 – 13 Century AD

10 – 11 Century AD

8 – 9 Century AD

3 Trebujeni-Valea Ţigancii 4 Trebujeni-Piscul Ciobanului 5 Trebujeni-Fântâna Joiei

8 Trebujeni-Scoc

5 – 7 Century AD

3 – 4 Century AD, Sîntana de Mureş-Cernjahov culture

3 – 1 Century BC, PoieneştiLucaşeuca culture

4 – 3 Century BC, Getae culture

12 – 10 Century BC, ChisinăuCorlăteni culture

5 – 4 Millennia BC, CucuteniTripolje culture

1 Trebujeni-Sat 2 Trebujeni-Lutărie

20 Măşcăuţi-Zaverna

130

6 Milllenia BC, Linear Pottery culture

30,0 – 20,0 Millennia BC

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

9 – 8 Century BC, CoziaSaharna culture

Archaeological cultures (F - Fortress; S – Settlement; N – Necropolis)

The Site

S S,N

S S

Gheorghe Postică, Istoricul cercetării arheologice în zona Orheiului Vechi, In: Miscellanea historica et arhaeologica in honorem professoris Ionel Cândea, Brăila, 2009, p. 209-248; Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2010.

Figure no. 88. The Map of the archaeological sites of the buffer zone of the Orheiul Vechi Reserve (by Gh. Postică).

Time periods for known archaeological sites at The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are as follows: - Palaeolithic, 30-20 thousand years BC - 2 sites; - Neolithic: Linear Pottery culture, 6th millennia BC – 2 sites; - Eneolitic: Cucuteni-Tripolie culture, 5th-4rd millennia BC - 4 sites; - Iron Age: Chişinău-Corlăteni culture, 12th-10th centuries BC - 1 settlement; CoziaSaharna culture, 9th-8th centuries BC - 1 settlement; Getae culture, 4th-3rd centuries BC - 4 fortresses, 13 settlements and 1 necropolis; Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca culture, 3rd - 1st centuries BC - 4 settlements; - Late antic: Sântana de Mureş-Cernjahov culture, 3rd-4th centuries - 5 settlements; - Early medieval culture: 5th-7th centuries - 7 settlements; 8th-9th centuries - 5 settlements; 10th-11th centuries - 8 settlements; - Late Medieval culture, 12th-14th centuries - 3 settlements; 14th century - 6 settlements; 14th century – 16th century – 10 settlements; 17th-18th centuries - 8 settlements.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

131

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

9. CONCLUSIONS

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

The research valences of the Landscape

132

The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is unique among archaeological sites, even among those that lie within terrain that provides natural defence. While hills and mountaintops, peninsulas and islands, canyons, and river meanders all have been used by humans as places of refuge or surveillance, the extraordinary geological characteristics of Orheiul Vechi provide the framework for a sustain presence in an almost unassailable location. The meanders of the Răut River have cut through limestone bedrock, forming escarpments hundreds of meters high. Compared to the natural fortress of Orheiul Vechi, castle moats and walls pale in comparison. Within this naturally fortified Landscape are the most fertile soils in the world, varied ecosystems, and abundant plants and animals. The Răut River provides an inexhaustible supply of water for consumption and sanitation. The outstanding characteristics of the Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape are as follows: 1. Extraordinary natural land forms Within a single, circumscribed area, one can see dramatic rock escarpments that create a huge natural amphitheatre, the walls of which defend the Landscape within. This amphitheatre contains a sharply meandered river of great beauty, which flows among massive rock promontories. The experiences being inside and outside are quite different: people positioned outside perceive a spectacular “divine” creation, while from inside this Landscape generates a sense of peaceful, comfortable and secure universe. 2. Geomorphological unity and ecological diversity The geomorphology of the Landscape provides sharply defined natural boundaries. On the other hand, it harmoniously combines a great diversity of ecological zones, which include all those characteristic of the region. Among them are rocky areas, steppe, forest, aquatic, floodplain, agricultural lands, and rural areas. These Eco zones were of great value to the human occupants of the Landscape throughout history, as they could obtain everything need for life without venturing outside the protected area. 3. Remarkable wealth of the area in subsistence resources The area provides rich resources necessary for sustaining human life: water, soil, animals and plants etc. At the same time it offers particularly favourable habitat facilities, including building materials (wood, stone, sand, clay), and the natural fortification of the Landscape provides high security to its inhabitants. All above ensured successive resistance even against prolonged siege. During peace the inhabitants had also easy access – by the river and natural tracks – to the neighbouring areas for supplying foods and other raw materials. 4. Key geostrategic position By the natural routes of communication – Răut River and Dniestr – Orheiul Vechi is well connected to the extensive spaces between the Northern Carpathians, Black Sea Basin, Eurasian steppes and Central Europe. At the time, the key position of the place ensured the control of the most important routes of communication and trade in the whole region.

5. Exceptionally powerful natural fortification In contrast with the water barrier provided by the Răut River and the escarpments that border it, castle moats and walls pale in comparison. The whole Landscape is surrounded by water, arduous and high cliffs that are difficult to cross. Butuceni Promontory is a dominant rock geological formation extremely difficult to access. This served as very effective surveillance point. Another important advantage of Orheiul Vechi is that it occupies the highest and dominant elevation in the region, making the approach of attackers quite difficult and easy to observe from there. Further, access to the site by the Răut was so easily controlled from the high banks along the circuitous route of the river that it was effectively impossible for an invading force to make its way to the site by water. 6. Border zone between sedentary European and nomadic Eurasian cultures Beginning with the Eneolithic period, until the end of Medieval Period, the Eurasian steppe was occupied by semi-nomadic and nomadic tribes. In historical times, the earliest of such tribes were Scythians and Sarmatians; in the Post- Roman period the documents mention Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Hungarians, Comans, and Mongol and Tartars. All of the populations just mentioned ensured their subsistence from pastoralism and war. In parallel, Central and Southeastern Europe was occupied predominantly by sedentary agricultural populations. Orheiul Vechi was situated at the very border between these two worlds. One of the relevant examples is how this area was successively occupied by the nomadic Mongols and then by sedentary Moldovans. Due to the prolonged and direct contacts between these worlds in this area, the archaeological evidence found in Orheiul Vechi shows the intense process of exchange, and resulting political and cultural influence. Thus, one can observe Scythian and Greek elements in Getaean fortress in Butuceni Promontory. The Medieval Mongol Shehr al-Cedid town is rich in coins and other goods that originated in Poland, Hungary, Russia, and the Caucuses. In exchange, the Moldovan town Orheiul inherited some Mongol cultural patterns. 7. Intense sacrality Throughout the many historical epochs at Orheiul Vechi, from the earliest times until the present, the cliffs and caves within the Landscape have been used for religious purposes. For example, at Butuceni Promontory Iron Age sanctuary dating to the 5th and 3rd centuries BC was found. It belongs to the same period as the famous Dacian sanctuaries at Sarmizegetusa in Romania (a World Heritage Site), but it dates to about two centuries earlier. In the same area in the Medieval Period, in the modern period and even today, were and are built other kinds of cult structures: caves arranged as churches or monasteries, and an the Santa Maria Orthodox Church, erected in 1904. 8. Sustainable utilization of the Landscape In every period, the inhabitants of the Landscape were able to exploit the available resources in such a way that they didn’t exhaust them. This strategy ensured the continuity of life in the same place through millennia, with no interruption. Subsistence activities included fishing and hunting in parallel with agriculture. They used the most available local materials for building houses and other structures. While we have no direct evidence of conservation practices in past times, the continuous occupation at Orheiul Vechi stands in stark contrast to many places in the world where resources were exhausted and settlements abandoned.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

133

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

9. Dominant commercial, military and political position throughout ancient and medieval epochs Settlements with particularly high political, military and commercial status were founded within the Landscape through various historical epochs: Formidable Getaen-Dacian Butuceni fortress situated in the middle of „barbarian” world, and strongly connected to antique Greek civilization; Mongol medieval town of crucial importance situated at the western border of Islamic Civilization – Shehr al-Cedid; Strategically important Medieval town – Moldovan fortress Orheiul Vechi.

134

The heritage value of the Landscape The Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is an exceptional example of interference of human values between the Carpathian-Danubian-Pontic and Eurasian areas throughout the early Iron Age and the Middle Ages. Between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC, the cultural interferences occurred in the Orheiul Vechi area through the movement of people, ideas and goods, between the local Thracian-Getae population, ancient Greek cities from the Black Sea Coast, the Scythian tribes from the Eurasian steppes, and the German tribes from the Baltic Sea Coast. In the 14th – 16th centuries, during the existence of the Mongolian town of Şehr al-Cedid / Yanghi Shehr (= New Town), the most western centre of the Mongol Empire, Tartar-Mongols and other peoples brought by them (Cumans, Pechenegs, Alans etc.) came in great numbers to this town. At the same time, the elements of civilization and culture specific both to the Eurasian nomadic tribes and urban centres from China, Central Asia, Volga Valley, Caucasus and Anatolia introduced in the town through migration, slavery and trade. These interferences are reflected in the urban planning, architecture, monumental art and technology. In this city various religions overlap: pagan, Muslim and Christian, as well as various languages: Mongolian, Arabic, Turkic, Persian, and those of the native population: Slavic and Romanian. Towards the end of this period, in the context of the weakening of the Mongol Empire and the advancement of the European powers, the Christianity spreads throughout the city, thereby affecting, among other things, part of Mongolian elites. After 1369, the city, under its new name, Orhei, becomes part of the young Christian state named Țara Moldovei. In this new position, the city will exist until ca. 1540. Along with the remaining population of the former town of Shehr al-Cedid, large communities originating from Țara Moldovei settle in this town. Orhei inherits and integrates the oriental culture and civilization of Shehr al-Cedid (planning, architecture, clothing, etc.). It quickly turns into a major European urban centre. From this historic moment, the town became one of the most important outposts of Christianity on the border with the Islamic world. Throughout the existence of this town, the most important vectors of civilizational, cultural, economic and political relations become the Western ones: from Hungary, Poland, Russia and Wallachia. In the same context, Orheiul Vechi Archaeological Landscape is a remarkable example of a traditional human settlement particularly representative of the Getae culture, as well as of the medieval Oriental and Carpatho-Danubian urban civilisations, with the land use characteristic for the high-ranked ancient and

medieval polities, being an outstanding example of the interaction between man and nature. As compared with the similar properties in the region, it is the most complex, best preserved and protected archaeological landscape. During the Iron age (6th – 3rd centuries) this Landscape was owned by the most powerful Getae political entity at the eastern border of the north Thracian world. To ensure control over this strategic place Getae have raised fortresses along the Răut River, cleverly exploiting the defensive properties of the rocky geological formations. Several rural villages situated around these fortresses provided them with foods and row materials. In 1330 the Mongolian city of Shehr al-Cedid was founded in the central part of the Landscape. Until 1369 this town was a regional capital of the Golden Horde. The town occupied a cape bordered on three sides by steep banks of Răut, with the only possible access from the west. In this way, the town was big enough and well naturally protected. In accordance with the defensive strategy specific to the nomadic Mongols, a military camp with yurt type housing was set up in the access area on the western edge of the city. In 1370 the town was integrated into the young Christian state Țara Moldovei, and the town has got the name of Orhei. This town will last here until 1540. It was the most important urban settlement in Eastern Moldova, and at the same time the most important eastern outpost of the country. Unlike the Mongols, the Moldovans, in accordance with the specific European defensive strategy, solved the issue of defending the settlement by building two rows of impressive ramparts and ditches, which closed the only access pathway. Both in the Mongolian and Moldovan periods, several small villages existed around the city, providing food and raw materials. The Shehr al-Cedid town is the only representative example of urban oriental civilization in this part of Europe, while the Orhei town was the only major Moldovan town in eastern half of Țara Moldovei.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

135

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

BIBLIOGRPHY OF THE LANDSCAPE I. Archaeology and History Abâzova E., Reaboi T., Reabţeva S. Piese din metale neferoase de la Orhei Vechi, In: Tyragetia, XIII, Chişinau, 2004, p. 49-59. 2. Arnăut T. Arheologul G. D. Smirnov şi unele probleme de concepţie privind istoria mileniului I. î.e.n., In: Tirageţia, III, 1993, p. 275-281. 3. Arnăut T., Matveev S., Cirimpei C. Cercetări arheologice la Măşcăuţi, Raion Criuleni, Republica Moldova, In: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice 1995, Bucureşti, p. 53-54. 4. Bacumenco L. Structuri geospaţiale în zona Codrii Orheiului şi raporturile lor cu elementul antropic, In: Arheologia Moldovei, XXVI, Bucureşti, 2003, p 179-194. 5. Bacumenco L. Ţinutul Orheiului în secolele XV-XVI, Iaşi, Ed. Univ. Al. I. Cuza, 2006, 358 pag, XXX pl. 6. Bejenaru L., Bacumenco L., Stanc S. Date arheozoologice privind complexul arheologic Orheiul Vechi, In: Tyragetia, XII, 2003, p. 85-86. 7. Bârnea P.P. Orheiul Vechi - unele observaţii cu privire la procesul de urbanizare în Moldova feudală, In: Arheologia Moldovei, XV, Iaşi, 1992, p.181-184. 8. Bârnea P. Despre soarta istorică a Orheiului Vechi, In: Tiragetia, III, Chişinău, 1996, p. 145-150. 9. Bârnea P., Reaboi T. Arhitectura monumentală a Oraşului Nou (Şehr al-Cedid), In: Memoria Antiquitatis, 1995, t. 20, p. 249-269. 10. Bârnea P. Oraşul medieval în Moldova (secolul XV - primul sfert a secolului XVI). Chişinău, 1997, 83 p. 11. Bârnea P., Reaboi T. Investigaţiile arheologice din Orheiul Vechi în anul 1987, In: Revista Arheologică, nr. 2, 1998, p. 151-159. 12. Bârnea P., Reaboi T., Nicolae E., Telnov N. Materiale arheologice relative la economia monetară din epoca Hoardei de Aur descoperite la Orheiul Vechi, In: Simpozion de numismatică. Comunicări, studii şi note. Bucureşti, 2000, p.141-149. 13. Bârnea P., Nicolae E. Un ornament pseudocufic, In: Simpozion de numismatică, Bucureşti, Editura Enciclopedică, 2002. 14. Bâzgu E. Reevaluări cronologice ale complexului monastic rupestru “Butuceni-Orhei”, In: Arta, 1997, p. 130-139. 15. Borziac I., Telnov N. Staţiunea paleolitică Scoc, In: Tyrageţia, XII, Chişinău, 2003, p.11-24. 16. Ciocanu S. Schitul Peştera şi moşia Peştera (Orheiul Vechi) din ţinutul Orhei (de la primele atestări documentare până în secolul al XIX-lea), In: Tyragetia: Istorie. Muzeologie, S.N., vol. 2, nr. 2, 2008, p. 141-162. 17. Ciocanu S. Schitul Trebujeni (al lui Bosie Pârcălab) şi moşia Trebujeni/Butuceni din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tiragetia, S.N., vol. 3 [18], nr.2, 2009, p. 2-89. 18. Ciocanu S. Schitul Maşcăuţi/Macicăuţi (al lui Albu Pârcălab) şi moşia Maşcăuţi din Ţinutul Orhei, In: Tyragetia, s.n., vol. V [XX], nr. 2, 2011, p. 119-138. 19. Chirtoagă I. Sud-Estul Moldovei şi stânga Nistrului (1484-1699), București, 1999. 20. Dron I. Enigma toponimului Orhei, In: Destin românesc, 1999, nr. 3, p. 3-8. 21. Eşanu A., Eşanu V. Moldova medievală. Structuri executive, militare şi ecleziastice. Studii, Chişinău, 2001. 22. Eşanu A. Vlaicu pârcălab – unchiul lui Ştefan cel Mare, Chişinău, 2001. 23. Eşanu V. Pârcălabii de Orhei în epoca lui Ştefan cel Mare, In: Destin românesc, An. IX, 2002, nr. 1, p. 9-15 24. Ghid de monumente şi situri istorice din Republica Moldova, Chişinău, 1995. 25. Golub V. Din istoria Muzeului de Istorie şi Etnografie Orhei, In: Studii de muzeologie şi muzeografie. Omagiu lui Nicolae Răileanu la 60 de ani, vol. I, Chişinău, 2004, p. 330-341. 26. Gorodenco A. Ceramica locală de la Orheiul Vechi în secolele XIV-XVI, Brăila, 2000.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

136

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36.

37. 38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Gorodenco A. Istoria, de la enigme la real, In: Enigmele Basarabiei. Chişinău, 2000, p. 30-33. Hîncu I. Cetăţi antice şi medievale timpurii din Republica Moldova, Chişinău, 1993, p. 91-92 Hâncu I. Orheiul Vechi, Chişinău, 1995. Hâncu I. Rezultatele cercetărilor arheologice la biserica cu pronaosul lărgit din Orheiul Vechi, In: Tyragetia, III, Chişinău, 1996, p. 139-144. Hâncu I., Nesterov T. Orheiul Vechi, In: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 1995. A XXX-a sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice, Brăila, 1996, p. 85-86. Hâncu I. Construcţiile monumentale de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 14-19. Mateevici N. Contribuţii la cercetarea şi studierea materialului ceramic grecesc de la cetatea getică de la Butuceni, In: Stuia in honorem Ion Niculiţă. Omagiu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani, Chişinău, 1999, p. 177-195. Matveev S. Reconstrucţia sistemului de fortificaţii a cetăţii Potârca (jud. Orhei). Studiu de caz, In: Studii de istorie veche şi medievală: Omagiu Profesorului Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, 2004, p. 115-120. Munteanu O. Cultura Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca: două aspecte în baza aşezării de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Thracians and circumpontic World, II, Chişinău, 2004, p. 343-365. Musteaţă S. Aşezarea medievală timpurie Măşcăuţi-Livada Boierului, In: Conferinţa ştiinţifico-didactică Ştiinţele umaniste în serviciul integrării europene, secţia Istorie şi Filosofie, Universitatea Liberă Internaţională din Moldova, Chişinău, 1999, p. 11-12. Musteaţă S. Cercetarea arheologică a aşezării Măşcăuţi-Livada Boierului în anii 1997-1998, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 40-41. Musteaţă S. Noi realităţi arheologice atestate în cadrul aşezării Măşcăuţi-Livada Boierului, In: Probleme ale ştiinţelor socio-umaniste şi ale modernozării învăţămîntului. Conferinţa anuală a profesorilor U.P.S. “Ion Creangă”, Chişinău, 1999. Musteaţă S. Unele consideraţii preliminare privind rezultatele cercetărilor arheologice din cadrul cetăţii getice Măşcăuţi-Cetate, In: Tracii şi Lumea Circumpontică. Congresul al IX-lea Internaţional de Tracologie, Chişinău-Vadul lui Vodă, 6-11 septembrie 2004, Rezumate, Chişinău, 2004, p. 88-90. Musteață S. Populaţia spaţiului pruto-nistrean în secolele VIII-IX, Chişinău, 2005. Nesterov T. Rezervaţia istorico-arheologică Orheiul Vechi, In: Chişinău Seminar Euroasia environmental NGOs Information Center, Chişinău, 1998, p. 43-48. Nesterov T. Orheiul Vechi, In: Natura. Chişinău, 1998, nr. 2, p. 10. Nesterov T. Palatul pârcălabului de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Enigmele Basarabiei, Chişinău, 2000, p. 26-29. Nesterov T. Arhitectura locuinţelor de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Revista de Etnografie, Chişinău, 2001, nr. 1 (3), p. 174-180. Nesterov T. Bisericile de la Orheiul Vechi în contextul arhitecturii ecleziastice din Ţara Moldovei, In: Arta, Chişinău, 2001, p.42-51. Nesterov T. Biserica de piatră de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Sub zodia Vătăşanu, Cluj-Napoca, 2002. Nesterov T. Monumentele de arhitectură musulmană de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Sud-Est, Chişinău, 2002, nr. 2, p. 118-122. Nesterov T. Situl Orheiul Vechi. Monument de arhitectură, Chişinău, 2003. Nesterov T. Particularităţi tehnico-constructive şi planimetrice ale locuinţelor de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Arta 2003, Chişinău, 2003, p. 23-31. Nesterov T. Continuitatea modelului structural-numeric paleocreştin în arhitectura medievală timpurie a Moldovei, In: Arta 2004, Chişinău, 2004, p. 5-12. Nesterov T. Orheiul Vechi şi familia domnitoare Movilă, In: Revista de Istorie a Moldovei, 2005, nr. 1-2, p. 4-11.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

137

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

138

52. Nicolae E. Quelques consideration sur les monnaies tatares de „La Ville Neuve” (Yanghi şehr/Şehr alGedid), In: Studii şi cercetări de numismatică, 1995, t.IX, p. 197-200. 53. Nicolae E., Bârnea P. Un ornament pseudo-cufic, In: Simpozion de Numismatică 2001, Chişinău, p. 151-157. 54. Nicolae E., Postică Gh. Câteva monede descoperite la Orheiul Vechi, In: Simpozion de Numismatică. Chişinău, 28-30 mai 2000, Bucureşti, 2001, p. 135-140. 55. Nicolae E. Monedele de cupru bătute în Oraşul Nou (Şehr al-Gedid), In: Simpozion de numismatică, Chişinău, 24-26 septembrie 2002. Comunicări, studii şi note, Bucureşti, 2003, p. 167-168. 56. Nicolae E. Inscripţia funerară din secolul al XIV-lea descoperită la Orheiul Vechi în 1986, In: Simpozion de Numismatică. 26-28 noiembrie 2003. Comunicări, studii, note. Chişinău, 2005, p. 81- 88. 57. Nicolae E. O capsulă de teriac descoperită la Orheiul Vechi, In: Simpozion de Numismatică, Chişinău, 26-28 noiembrie 2003, Comunicări, studii şi note, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucureşti 2005, p. 181-184. 58. Nicolae E. Un tezaur de monede tătăreşti descoperit la Orheiul Vechi, In: Simpozion de Numismatică, Chişinău, 20-22 octombrie 2005, p. 10. 59. Niculiţă A. Tezaurul de monede de cupru din vremea lui Jan Kazimir de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Simpozion de numismatică, Bucureşti, Editura Enciclopedică, 2003. 60. Niculiţă I. Cetatea de la Butuceni în lumina noilor descoperiri arheologice, In: Symposia Thracologica, Satu-Mare, 1990, p.168-170. 61. Niculiţă I. Habitatul traco-getic de la Butuceni, In: Thaco-Dacica, t. XVII, 1-2, Bucureşti, 1996, p. 139-167. 62. Niculiţă I. Cerecetarea arheologică a cetăţii traco-getice Trbujeni-Potârca din preajma Orheiului Vechi în anii 1996-1998, Orheiul Vechi, In: Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 33-35. 63. Niculiţă I., Zanoci A., Teodor S. Săpături arheologice de la Butuceni, raionul Orhei (1993-1994), In: Cercetări arheologice în aria Nord-Tracă, vol. I, Bucureşti, 1995, p. 472-490. 64. Niculiţă I., Zanoci A., Teodor S. Săpăturile arheologice de la Butuceni, raionul Orhei, 1995-1996, In: Cercetări arheologice în aria nord-tracă, II, Bucureşti, 1997, p. 292-339. 65. Niculiţă, I., Zanoci, A. Les vestiges du type Saharna-Solonceni decouverts sur le promontoire de Butuceni, In: Thraco-Dacica, XX, 1999, p.135-142. 66. Niculiţă I., Matveev S., Potângă E. Săpăturile arheologice de la cetatea getică Potârca din anul 1998, In: Symposia Professorum, Seria Istorie, Chişinău, 1999, p. 8-10. 67. Niculiţă I., Matveev, S., Potângă E. Cetatea traco-getică Potârca, In: Cercetări arheologice în aria nordtracă, III, Bucureşti, 1999, p. 279-343. 68. Niculiţă I., Teodor S., Zanoci A. Butuceni. Monografie arheologică, București, 2002, 252 p. 69. Niculiţă I. Traco-Getica. Studii şi Materiale, Chişinău, 2004, 283 p. 70. Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi / Coord. șt. Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, 2010, 138 p. 71. Popa Al. Nomadische Stadtgrunder [Orheiul Vechi], In: Archäolgie in Deutschland,3, 1999, p. 58. 72. Postică Gh. Investigaţiile arheologice de la Orheiul Vechi în anii 1996-1997, In: Cronica cercetărilor arheologice. Campania 1997. A XXXIII sesiune naţională de rapoarte arheologice, Bucureşti, 1998. 73. Postică Gh. Cu privire la cronologia cetăţii medievale de piatră de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Conferinţa ştiinţificodidactică anuală. Universitatea Liberă Internaţională din Moldova, Rezultatele comunicărilor, Chişinău, 1998. 74. Postică Gh. Cercetările arheologice de la Orheiul Vechi în anii 1996-1998, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 31-33. 75. Postică Gh. Precizări pe marginea cronologiei cetăţii medievale de piatră de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 38-39. 76. Postică Gh. Complexul arheologic Orheiul Vechi, In: Symposia Professorum ULIM, Chişinău, 1999. 77. Postică Gh. Complexul arheologic Orheiul Vechi, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 9-13.

78. Postică Gheorghe, Mănăstirile rupestre de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 20-25. 79. Postică Gh. Repertoriul monumentelor arheologice medievale timpurii din raionul Orhei (precizări ştiinţifice pe marginea publicaţiilor din anii 50-80), In: Orheiul Vechi. Buletin istorico-arheologic, Chişinău, 1999, p. 54-63. 80. Postică Gh. Observaţii stratigrafice privind cetatea medievală de pământ de la Orheiul Vechi (în baza investigaţiilor arheologice din anii 1996-1999), In: Symposia Professorum ULIM, Chişinău, 2000. 81. Postică Gh. Problema cronologiei cetăţilor medievale de la Orheiul Vechi în lumina ultimelor cercetări arheologice, In: Restituţio in integrum. Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice, 17 iunie 2000, Chişinău: ULIM, 2000, p. 5-6. 82. Postică Gh. Şehr al-Jedid - oraş oriental din sec. XIV în valea Răutului, In: Ştiinţa universitară la începutul mileniului trei. Materialele simpozionului internaţional, Chişinău, 2002. 83. Postică Gh. Citadela Orheiului Vechi în lumina cercetărilor arheologice din anii 1996-2000, In: Arheologia Moldovei, XXVI, Bucureşti, 2003, p. 91-143. 84. Postică Gh. Orheiul Vechi: vatră de istorie şi civilizaţie, In: Moldova şi Lumea, 2004, nr. 1, p.14-18. 85. Postică Gh. Două tunuri din bronz din perioada lui Ştefan cel Mare, In: Arheologia Moldovei, XVII, Bucureşti, 2004. 86. Postică Gh. Orheiul Vechi. Ghid turistic, Chişinău, 2004, 24 p., ed. II, 2007. 87. Postică Gh. Orheiul Vechi. Tourist guide. Chişinău, 2004, 24 p. ed. II, 2007. 88. Postică Gh. Vestigii arheologice din perioada lui Ştefan cel Mare la Orheiul Vechi, In: Ştefan cel Mare personalitate marcantă în istoria Europei (500 de ani de la trecerea în eternitate). Referate şi comunicări, Chişinău, 2005, p. 11-15. 89. Postică Gh. Consideraţii privind „citadela de pământ” de la Orheiul Vechi în lumina săpăturilor arheologice din anii 1996-2001, In: Revista arheologică, Chişinău, nr.1, 2005, p.133-151. 90. Postică Gh. Complexul monumental din piatră din secolul XV descoperit în citadela Orheiului Vechi, In: Revista arheologică, t. I, nr. 2, 2005, p. 371-387. 91. Postică Gh. Orheiul Vechi: cercetări arheologice 1996-2001, Iaşi, Ed. Univ. Al. I. Cuza, 2006, 224 pag, 125 fig., 98 foto color. 92. Postică Gh. Tunurile din bronz din timpul lui Ştefan cel Mare şi Sfânt descoperite în cetatea medievală de la Orheiul Vechi, In: Cohorta. Revistă de istorie militară, 2006, nr. 1, p. 58-65. 93. Postică Gh. Diversitatea expresiilor culturale ale habitatului tradiţional de la Orheiul Vechi şi perspectiva includerii sitului în Lista patrimoniului mondial UNESCO, In: Conferinţa Internaţională UNESCO “Diversitatea expresiilor culturale ale habitatului tradiţional”, 2-4 august 2007, Chişinău, 2007, p. 25-31. 94. Postică Gh. Cetatea Orheiului în strategia lui Ştefan cel Mare, In: Tyragetia, Serie Nouă, vol. I [XVI], nr. 2, 2007, p. 9-16. 95. Postică Gh. Citadela medievală a Orheiului Vechi şi problema localizării centrului politic al principelui Dimitrie din anii 60 ai secolului al XIV-lea, In: History & Politics, Nr. 1-2, 2008, p. 133-142. 96. Postică Gh. Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi: definire, caracteristici, semnificaţie, In: Romanii in Europa medievala (intre Orientul bizantin si Occidentul latin). Studii in onoarea Profesorului Victor Spinei / Volum ingrijit de D. Teicu şi I. Cândea, Muzeul Brailei, Braila, Edit. Istros, 2008, p. 717-753. 97. Postică Gh. Peisajul Cultural Orheiul Vechi: clasare, valoare, autenticitate, integritate, In:Studii de muzeologie / Bibioteca „Tyragetia”, XVI, Chişinău, 2008, p. 55-78. 98. Postică Gh. Istoricul cercetării arheologice în zona Orheiului Vechi, In: Miscellanea historica et arhaeologica in honorem professoris Ionel Cândea, Brăila, 2009, p. 209-248. 99. Postică Gh., Postică Iu. Consideraţii privind politicile muzeale în cadrul complexului Orheiul Vechi şi perspective de viitor, In: Tyragetia, vol. IV (XIX), nr. 2, 2010, p. 291-296.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

139

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

140

100. Postică Gh., Munteanu O. Aşezarea culturii Poieneşti-Lucaşeuca de la Orheiul Vechi (Cercetările arheologice din anii 1996-1998), In: Cercetări arheologice aria nord-tracică, Bucureşti, t. III, 1999, p. 385-456. 101. Sava A. Documente privitoare la târgul și ținutul Orheiului, București, 1944. 102. Şlapac M. Cetăţi medievale din Moldova (mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea – mijlocul secolului al XVI-lea). Chişinău, 2004. 372 p. 103. Travkin S. Descoperiri numismatice din Orheiul Vechi (anul 1987), In: Revista arheologică, Chişinău, nr. 2, 1998, p. 163-165. 104. Zanoci A. Fortificaţiile geto-dace din spaţiul extracarpatic în secolele VI-III a.Chr., Bucureşti, 1998. 105. Zanoci A. Traco-geţii din bazinul Răutului Inferior. Cetatea Măscăuţi „Dealul cel Mare”, In: Thracians and circumpontics world. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, Chişinău-Vadul lui Vodă, 6-11 september 2004, vol. II, Chişinău, 2004, p. 45-81. 106. Zanoci A. Unele consideraţii cu privire la vârful de săgeată din fier descoperit la Măşcăuţi-Dealul cel Mare, In: Studii de istorie veche şi medievală: Omagiu Profesorului Gheorghe Postică, Chişinău, 2004, p. 137-140. 107. Zanoci A., Matveev S. Situl traco-getic Măşcăuţi-Dealul cel Mare, In: Carpatica, 15, 2002, Ujgorod, p. 85-98. 108. Абызова Е.Н. К вопросу о сфероконусах из Старого Орхея и Костешты, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1976-1978 г., Кишинев, 1982, с. 171-174 [Abyzova E.N. K voprosu o sferokonusah iz Starogo Orheya i Kosteshty, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 19761978 g.]. 109. Абызова Е.Н. Неполивная керамика XIV в. из Старого Орхея, In: Археологические исследования средневековых памятников Днестровско-Прутского междуречья, Кишинев, 1985, с. 35-58 [Abyzova E.N. Nepolivnaya keramika XIV v. iz Starogo Orheya, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya srednevekovyh pamyatnikov Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya]. 110. Абызова Е.Н., Бырня П.П., Нудельман А.А. Древности Старого Орхея. Золотоордынский период, Кишинев, 1981, 99 с. [Abyzova E.N., Byrnya P.P., Nudel’man A.A. Drevnosti Starogo Orheya. Zolotoordynskij period]. 111. Абызова Е.Н., Бырня П.П., Нудельман А.А. Древности Старого Орхея. Молдавский период, Кишинев, 1982, 99 с. [Abyzova E.N., Byrnya P.P., Nudel’man A.A. Drevnosti Starogo Orheya. Moldavskij period]. 112. Абызова Е.Н., Бырня П.П. Археологические работы в Старом Орхее в 1974-1976 гг., In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1979-1980 гг., Кишинев, 1983, с. 53-76 [Abyzova E.N., Byrnya P.P. Arheologicheskie raboty v Starom Orhee v 1974-1976 gg., In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1979-1980 gg.]. 113. Абызова Е.Н., Бырня П.П. Некоторые данные о результатах исследования городища Старый Орхей, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1981 г., Кишинев, 1985, с. 188-197 [Abyzova E.N., Byrnya P.P. Nekotorye dannye o rezul’tatah issledovaniya gorodishcha Staryj Orhej, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1981 g.]. 114. Абызова Е.Н., Бырня П.П. Топография и культурная стратиграфия Старого Орхея, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1982 г., Кишинев, 1986, с. 117 [Abyzova E.N., Byrnya P.P. Topografiya i kul’turnaya stratigrafiya Starogo Orheya, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1982 g.]. 115. Абызова Е.Н., Рябой Т.Ф, Рябцева С.С. Два ювелирных украшения из раскопок городища Старый Орхе, In: Ювелирное искусство и материальная культура. Тезисы докладов участников тринадцатого коллоквиума, СПб, Гос. Эрмитаж, 2004. c. 6-8 [Abyzova E.N., Ryaboj T.F, Ryabceva S.S. Dva yuvelirnyh ukrasheniya iz raskopok gorodishcha Staryj Orheia, In: Yuvelirnoe iskusstvo i material’naya kul’tura. Tezisy dokladov uchastnikov trinadcatogo kollokviuma].

116. Абызова Е.Н., Рябцева С.С. Изделия из цветных металлов и инструментарий ювелиров в контексте золотоордынских древностей Пруто-Днестровского междуречья, In: Золотоордынская цивилизация / Сборник статей, Выпуск 2, Казань, 2009, c. 139-153 [Abyzova E.N., Ryabceva S.S. Izdeliya iz cvetnyh metallov i instrumentarij yuvelirov v kontekste zolotoordynskih drevnostej Pruto-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ya, In: Zolotoordynskaya civilizaciya / Sbornik statej]. 117. Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее / под. ред. П.П. Бырни, Кишинев, 1991 [Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee / pod. red. P.P. Byrni]. 118. Бырня П.П. Краткие итоги археологических раскопок в Старом Орхее в 1969 году, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1968-1969 гг., Кишинев, 1972, с. 183-200 [Byrnya P.P. Kratkie itogi arheologicheskih raskopok v Starom Orhee v 1969 godu, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1968-1969 gg.]. 119. Бырня П.П. Краткие итоги археологических исследований в Старом Орхее в 1971 г., In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1970-1971 гг., Кишинев, 1973, с. 199-216 [Byrnya P.P. Kratkie itogi arheologicheskih issledovanij v Starom Orhee v 1971 g., In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1970-1971 gg.]. 120. Бырня П.П. Усадьба ремесленников XIV в. в Старом Орхее в 1969 году, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1972 г., Кишинев, 1974, с. 188-204 [Byrnya P.P. Usad’ba remeslennikov XIV v. v Starom Orhee v 1969 godu, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1972 g.]. 121. Бырня П.П. Ювелирная мастерская XIV в. из Старого Орхея, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1973 г., Кишинев, 1974, с. 229-241 [Byrnya P.P. Yuvelirnaya masterskaya XIV v. iz Starogo Orheya, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1973 g.]. 122. Бырня П.П. Молдавский средневековый город в Днестровско-Прутском междуречье (XV- начало XVI в.), Кишинев, 1984 [Byrnya P.P. Moldavskij srednevekovyj gorod v Dnestrovsko-Prutskom mezhdurech’e (XV- nachalo XVI v.)]. 123. Бырня П.П. Новые материалы из Старого Орхея, In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, с.91-106 [Byrnya P.P. Novye materialy iz Starogo Orheya, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee]. 124. Бырня П.П. Об аграрном характере хотара молдавского города XV - начала XVI вв., In: Хозяйственные комплексы древних обществ Молдовы, Кишинев, 1991, с. 109-125 [Byrnya P.P. Ob agrarnom haraktere hotara moldavskogo goroda XV - nachala XVI vv., In: Hozyajstvennye kompleksy drevnih obshchestv Moldovy]. 125. Бырня П.П. Из истории исследования Старого Орхея (1946-1958), In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, c. 5-43 [Byrnya P.P. Iz istorii issledovaniya Starogo Orheya (1946-1958), In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee]. 126. Бырня П. П., Виноградова Н. М. Археологические работы в Старом Орхее, In: Археологичкские открытия 1972, Москва, 1973, с. 406-407 [Byrnya P. P., Vinogradova N. M. Arheologicheskie raboty v Starom Orhee, Arheologichkskie otkrytiya 1972]. 127. Бырня П.П, Зиливинская Э.Д. Бани Старого Орхея, In: Средневековые памятники ДнестровскоПрутского междуречья, Кишинев, 1988. c. 4-27 [Byrnya P.P, Zilivinskaya Eh.D. Bani Starogo Orheya, In: Srednevekovye pamyatniki Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya]. 128. Бырня П.П., Нудельман А.А., Рябой Т.Ф. Два монетно-вещевых клада XVI-XVII вв., In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии, Кишинев, 1985, с. 239-249 [Byrnya P.P., Nudel’man A.A., Ryaboj T.F. Dva monetno-veshchevyh klada XVI-XVII vv., In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii]. 129. Бырня П.П., Руссев Н.Д. Гончарный комплекс XIV в. из Старого Орхея, In: Средневековые памятники Днестровско-Прутского междуречья, Кишинев, 1988, c. 122-131 [Byrnya P.P., Russev N.D. Goncharnyj kompleks XIV v. iz Starogo Orheya, In: Srednevekovye pamyatniki DnestrovskoPrutskogo mezhdurech’ya].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

141

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

142

130. Бырня П.П., Руссев Н.Д. О неполивной керамике XIV века из Пруто-Днестровья, In: Северное Причерноморье и Поволжье во взаимоотношениях Востока и Запада в XII-XVII веках, Ростов-наДону, 1989, c. 100-108 [Byrnya P.P., Russev N.D. O nepolivnoj keramike XIV veka iz Pruto-Dnestrov’ya, In: Severnoe Prichernomor’e i Povolzh’e vo vzaimootnosheniyah Vostoka i Zapada v XII-XVII vekah] 131. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т. Ф. Археологические работы в Старом Орхее, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1983 г., Кишинев, 1988, с. 113-125 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T. F. Arheologicheskie raboty v Starom Orhee, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1983 g.]. 132. Бырня П. П., Чеботаренко Г. Ф. Материалы к археологической карте Молдавии, In: Материалы и исследования по археологии и этнографии МССР, 1964 [Byrnya P. P., Chebotarenko G. F. Materialy k arheologicheskoj karte Moldavii, In: Materialy i issledovania po arheologhii i etnografii MSSR]. 133. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. О некоторых ювелирных изделиях из Старого Орхея, In: Памятники древнейшего исскуства на территории Молдавии, Кишинев, 1989, с.97-103 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. O nekotoryh yuvelirnyh izdeliyah iz Starogo Orheya, In: Pamyatniki drevnejshego isskustva na territorii Moldavii]. 134. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. Раскопки в Старом Орхее, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1986 г., Кишинев, 1992, с.237-248 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. Raskopki v Starom Orhee, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1986 g.]. 135. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. Культурные и торговые связи золотоордынского города Шехр ал-Джедид в середине XIV в., In: Международные отношения и государственные структуры в Центральной, Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европе в VI-XVII вв. / Материалы научной конференции, Запорожье, 1993, с.74-78 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. Kul’turnye i torgovye svyazi zolotoordynskogo goroda Shekhr alDzhedid v seredine XIV v., In: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i gosudarstvennye struktury v Central’noj, Vostochnoj i Yugo-Vostochnoj Evrope v VI-XVII vv. / Materialy nauchnoj konferencii]. 136. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. Золотоордынский город XIV в. в Днестровско-Прутском междуречье по материалам городища Старый Орхей), In: Древнее Причерноморье. III чтения памяти профессора П.О.Карышковского, Одесса, 1996 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. Zolotoordynskij gorod XIV v. v Dnestrovsko - Prutskom mezhdurech’e po materialam gorodishcha Staryj Orhej), In: Drevnee Prichernomor’e. III chteniya pamyati professora P.O.Karyshkovskogo]. 137. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. К вопросу о топографии золотоордынского города в Молдавии (по материалам Старого Орхея), In: Новые исследования археологов России и стран СНГ, СПб., 1997 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. K voprosu o topografii zolotoordynskogo goroda v Moldavii (po materialam Starogo Orheya), In: Novye issledovaniya arheologov Rossii i stran SNG]. 138. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. Культовые памятники золотоордынского времени в Старом Орхее, In: Revista arheologică, 2, 1998, p.87-100 [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. Kul’tovye pamyatniki zolotoordynskogo vremeni v Starom Orhee]. 139. Бырня П.П., Рябой Т.Ф. Два клада из Старого Орхея, Кишинёв, 2000,100 с. [Byrnya P.P., Ryaboj T.F. Dva klada iz Starogo Orheya]. 140. Великанова М.С. Антропология средневекового населения Молдавии: по материалам памятника Старый Орхей, Москва, РАН, 1993, 260 с. [Velikanova M.S. Antropologiya srednevekovogo naseleniya Moldavii: po materialam pamyatnika Staryj Orhej]. 141. Виноградова Н. М., Бейлекчи В, C., Бырня П. П. Раскопки трипольского поселения в Старом Орхее, In: АИМ 1972, Кишинев, 1974, с. 67-77 [Vinogradova N. M., Bejlekchi V. S., Byrnya P. P. Raskopki tripol’skogo poseleniya v Starom Orhee, In: AIM 1972]. 142. Гукин В. Д. Половецкое изваяние из Старого Орхея, In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, c. 68-72 [Gukin V. D. Poloveckoe izvayanie iz Starogo Orheya, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee].

143. Зиливинская Э.Д. Архитектура Золотой Орды. Часть I. Культовое зодчество: mонография, Казань, 2014 [Zilivinskaya Eh.D. Arhitektura Zolotoj Ordy. Chast’ I. Kul’tovoe zodchestvo: monografiya]. 144. Зиливинская Э.Д. Очерки культового и гражданского зодчества Золотой Орды: монография, Астрахань, 2011 [Zilivinskaya Eh.D. Ocherki kul’tovogo i grazhdanskogo zodchestva Zolotoj Ordy: monografiya]. 145. Златковская Т. Д., Полевой Л. Л. Городища Прутско-Днестровского междуречья IV-III вв. до н.э. и вопросы политической истории гетов, In: Материалы и исследоваеия по археологии, вып. 150, Москва, 1969 [Zlatkovskaya T. D., Polevoj L. L. Gorodishcha Prutsko-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ya IV-III vv. do n.eh. i voprosy politicheskoj istorii getov, In: Materialy i issledovania po arheologhii]. 146. Калашникова Н., Нестеров Т. К вопросу об атрибуции богатого захоронения из каменной церкви Старого Орхея (доклад прочитан на XIII коллоквиуме), In: Ювелирное искусство и материальная культура. Тезисы докладов участников XIV коллоквиума (11-16 апреля 2005 года). Санкт-Петербург: Изд. Гос. Эрмитажа, 2005, с. 39-40 [Kalashnikova N., Nesterov T. K voprosu ob atribucii bogatogo zahoroneniya iz kamennoj cerkvi Starogo Orheya (doklad prochitan na XIII kollokviume), In: Yuvelirnoe iskusstvo i material’naya kul’tura. Tezisy dokladov uchastnikov XIV kollokviuma (11-16 aprelya 2005 goda)]. 147. Кетрару Н. А. Палеолитические и мезолитические местонахождения в бассейне р. Реут, In: Антропрген Молдавии, Кишинев, 1969 [Ketraru N. A. Paleoliticheskie i mezoliticheskie mestonahozhdeniya v bassejne r. Reut, In: Antroprgen Moldavii]. 148. Кетрару Н. А. Памятники эпох палеолита и мезолита / Археологическая карта МССР, вып. 1, Кишинев, 1973, с. 105, nr. 116-117 [Ketraru N. A. Pamyatniki ehpoh paleolita i mezolita / Arheologicheskaya karta MSSR]. 149. Курдиновский В. Археологическая поездка по Бессарабии, In: Кишиневские Епархиальные Ведомости, 1905, № 24, c. 821-829; 1906, № 3, c. 81-88 [Kurdinovskij V. Arheologicheskaya poezdka po Bessarabii, In: Kishinevskie Eparhial’nye Vedomosti]. 150. Курдиновский В. Окрестности Старого Орхея, In: Кишиневские Епархиальные Ведомости, 1906, № 41, с. 1311-1317; № 42, с. 1342-1345 [Kurdinovskij V. Okrestnosti Starogo Orheya, In: Kishinevskie Eparhial’nye Vedomosti]. 151. Курдиновский В. Местоположение Старого Орхея, Ответ на статью «Дополнение к с статье Окрестности Старого Орхея», In: Кишиневские Епархиальные Ведомости, 1907, № 9, с. 313-318; № 10, с. 353.357; № 11, с. 388 [Kurdinovskij V. Mestopolozhenie Starogo Orheya, Otvet na stat’yu «Dopolnenie k s stat’e Okrestnosti Starogo Orheya», In: Kishinevskie Eparhial’nye Vedomosti]. 152. Лапушнян В. Л., Никулицэ И. Т., М. А. Романовская. Памятники раннего железного века / Археологическая карта МССР, вып. 4, Кишинев, 1974, с. 21-23, nr. 66-67; c. 45-46, nr. 17-22; c. 5355, nr. 43-45, 48-49; c. 81, nr. 7; c. 82, nr. 11 [Lapushnyan V. L., Nikuliceh I. T., M. A. Romanovskaya. Pamyatniki rannego zheleznogo veka / Arheologicheskaya karta MSSR]. 153. Маркевич В. И. Материалы к карте неолитических памятников Пруто-Днестровского междуречья, In: Краткие сообщения Одесского государственного археологического музея, Одесса, 1962 [Markevich V. I. Materialy k karte neoliticheskih pamyatnikov Pruto-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ya, In: Kratkie soobshcenya Odesskoko gosudarstvennogo arheologiceskogo muzeya]. 154. Маркевич В. И. Памятники эпох неолита и энеолита, In: Археологическая карта МССР, вып. 2, Кишинев, 1973, с. 129, nr. 297 [Markevich V. I. Pamyatniki ehpoh neolita i ehneolita, In: Arheologicheskaya karta MSSR]. 155. Нестеров Т. Атрибуция и датировка богатого захоронения из каменной церкви в Старом Орхее. Новые данные, In: Ювелирное искусство и материальная культура. Тезисы докладов участников XV коллоквиума (10-16 апреля 2006 года). Санкт-Петербург: Изд. Гос. Эрмитажа,

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

143

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

144

2006, с. 60-63 [Nesterov T. Atribuciya i datirovka bogatogo zahoroneniya iz kamennoj cerkvi v Starom Orhee. Novye dannye, In: Yuvelirnoe iskusstvo i material’naya kul’tura. Tezisy dokladov uchastnikov XV kollokviuma (10-16 aprelya 2006 goda)]. 156. Нестерова Т. Топоним Орхей в свете истории Старого Орхея, In: III Международная научная конференция «Язык и культура». Тезисы докладов,- M., 2005, c. 311-312 [Nesterova T. Toponim Orhej v svete istorii Starogo Orheya, In: III Mezhdunarodnaya nauchnaya konferenciya «Yazyk i kul’tura». Tezisy dokladov]. 157. Нестерова Т. П. Золотоордынское парное захоронение из каменной церкви в Старом Opxee, In: Золотоордынская цивилизация. Сборник статей. Выпуск 2, Казань, 2009, c. 191-198 [Nesterova T. P. Zolotoordynskoe parnoe zahoronenie iz kamennoj cerkvi v Starom Opxee, In: Zolotoordynskaya civilizaciya. Sbornik statej]. 158. Николае Е. Две монеты финальной стадии золотоордынского господства к западу от Днестра, In: Stratum-plus, Chişinău, 1999, nr. 6 [Nikolae E. Dve monety final’noj stadii zolotoordynskogo gospodstva k zapadu ot Dnestra, In: Stratum-plus]. 159. Никулицэ И.Т. Исследование археологических памятников на скалистом мысу у с. Бутучень, In: Древнейшие общества земледельцев и скотоводов в Северном Причерноморье в V тыс. до н. э. – V в. н. э., Кишинев 1991, р. 95-97 [Niculiță I.T. Issledovanie arheologicheskih pamyatnikov na skalistom mysu u s. Butuchen’, In: Drevnejshie obshchestva zemledel’cev i skotovodov v Severnom Prichernomor’e v V tys. do n. eh. – V v. n. eh.]. 160. Никулицэ И., Заноч А. Фрако-гетские поселенния I тыс. до н.э. центральных Кодрах Молдовы, In: Carpatica, 13, Ужгород, 2001, p. 107-115 [Niculiță I., Zanoch A. Frako-getskie poselenniya I tys. do n.eh. central’nyh Kodrah Moldovy, In: Carpatica]. 161. Нудельман А. А. Европейские монеты вв. из раскопок Старого Орхея (1970-1971), In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1970-1971 гг., Кишинев, 1973, с. 216-236 [Nudel’man A. A. Evropejskie monety vv. iz raskopok Starogo Orheya (1970-1971), In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1970-1971 gg.]. 162. Нудельман А. А. Монеты из раскопок и сборов 1972-1973 гг., In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии (1973 г.), Кишинев, 1974, с. 205-206 [Nudel’man A. A. Monety iz raskopok i sborov 19721973 gg., In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii (1973 g.)]. 163. Нудельман А. А. К вопросу о составе денежного обращения в Молдавии в XIV — начале XVI в. (По материалам кладов), In: Карпато-Дунайские земли в средние века, Кишинев, 1975, с. 97-98 [Nudel’man A. A. K voprosu o sostave denezhnogo obrashcheniya v Moldavii v XIV - nachale XVI v. (Po materialam kladov), In: Karpato-Dunajskie zemli v srednie veka]. 164. Полевой Л.Л. Нумизматические данные к истории молдавского средневекового города Старый Орхей, In: Краткие сообщения Института истории материальной культуры, Вып. 66, Москва, 1956 [Polevoj L.L. Numizmaticheskie dannye k istorii moldavskogo srednevekovogo goroda Staryj Orhej, In: Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury]. 165. Полевой Л.Л., Бырня П.П. Средневековые памятники XIV-XVII вв. / Археологическая карта МССР, вып. 7, Кишинев, 1974, с. 37-39, nr. 37-39; c. 85-87, nr. 95-101 [Polevoj L.L., Byrnya P.P. Srednevekovye pamyatniki XIV-XVII vv. Arheologicheskaya karta MSSR]. 166. Постикэ Г.И. Раскопки средневекового поселения у с. Бутучены, In: Археологические открытия 1983 г., Москва, 1985, с. 358-359 [Postică G. I. Raskopki srednevekovogo poseleniya u s. Butucheny, In: Arheologicheskie otkrytiya 1983 g.]. 167. Постикэ Г.И. Цитадель золотоордынского города Шехр аль-Джедид (Старый Орхей, Молдова), In: Российская Археология, № 2, Москва, 2005, p. 151-155 [Postcă G.I. Citadel’ zolotoordynskogo goroda Shekhr al’-Dzhedid (Staryj Orhej, Moldova), In: Rossijskaya Arheologiya].

168. Постикэ Г. Культурно-природный заповедник Орхейул Векь: проблемы управленияи разработки номинационного досье для включения в Список Всемирного наследия, In: Материалы Международного научно-практического семинара государств-участников СНГ «Управление всемирным наследием и глобальные вызовы современности» 1-3 марта 2011, Москва, Российская Федерация, Москва, 2011, c. 96-101 [Postică G. Kul’turno-prirodnyj zapovednik Orhejul Vek’: problemy upravleniyai razrabotki nominacionnogo dos’e dlya vklyucheniya v Spisok Vsemirnogo naslediya, In: Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo nauchno-prakticheskogo seminara gosudarstv-uchastnikov SNG «Upravlenie vsemirnym naslediem i global’nye vyzovy sovremennosti» 1-3 marta 2011, Moskva]. 169. Постикэ Г. Культурное наследие пограничья Молдовы и Украины - кретивный ресурс сплочения народов, In: Семинар по международному диалогу в контексте историко-кудьтурного наследия «Культурное наследие: Общество. Диалог», Киев, 20 мая 2011, с. 44-46 [Postică G. Kul’turnoe nasledie pogranich’ya Moldovy i Ukrainy - kretivnyj resurs splocheniya narodov, In: Seminar po mezhdunarodnomu dialogu v kontekste istoriko-kud’turnogo naslediya «Kul’turnoe nasledie: Obshchestvo. Dialog”]. 170. Рабинович Р. А. Жилище древнерусского времени с мыса Пештере, In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, c. 63-68 [Rabinovich R. A. Zhilishche drevnerusskogo vremeni s mysa Peshtere, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee]. 171. Рикман Э.А. Памятники сарматов и черняховской культуры / Археологическая карта Молдавии, Вып. 5, Кишинев, 1974, c. 104, nr. 426 (Требужены IV-Cтарый Орхей) [Rikman Eh. A. Pamyatniki sarmatov i chernyahovskoj kul’tury / Arheologicheskaya karta Moldavii]. 172. Руссев Н.Д. Возникновение городов Поднестровья XIV в. в свете нумизматических материалов, In: Нумизматические исследования по истории Юго-Восточной Европы, Кишинев, 1990,.. c. 118139 [Russev N.D. Vozniknovenie gorodov Podnestrov’ya XIV v. v svete numizmaticheskih materialov, In: Numizmaticheskie issledovaniya po istorii Yugo-Vostochnoj Evropy]. 173. Руссев Н.Д. К хронологии золотоордынского города в урочище Старый Орхей, In: Проблемы истории и археологии Нижнего Поднестровья. Часть I. История, Белгород-Днестровский, 1990, s. 75-77 [Russev N.D. K hronologii zolotoordynskogo goroda v urochishche Staryj Orhej, In: Problemy istorii i arheologii Nizhnego Podnestrov’ya. Chast’ I. Istoriya, Belgorod-Dnestrovskij.]. 174. Руссев Н.Д. Единичные находки неджучидских монет золотоордынского времени в Днестровско-Прутском междуречье, In: Древнее Причерноморье. II чтения памяти проф. П.О. Карышковского, Одесса, 1991, c. 81-83 [Russev N.D. Edinichnye nahodki nedzhuchidskih monet zolotoordynskogo vremeni v Dnestrovsko-Prutskom mezhdurech’e, In: Drevnee Prichernomor’e. II chteniya pamyati prof. P.O. Karyshkovskogo]. 175. Руссев Н.Д. Городские центры Днестровско-Дунайских земель и Золотая Орда (моменты и ареалы эволюции), Кишинев, 1991, c. 39-66 [Russev N.D. Gorodskie centry Dnestrovsko-Dunajskih zemel’ i Zolotaya Orda (momenty i arealy ehvolyucii)]. 176. Руссев Н.Д. Мусульмане на Рэуте и Ботне, In: Архив на поселищните проучания. Велико Търново, 1994. Кн. 3-4, c. 156-162 [Russev N.D. Musul’mane na Rehute i Botne, In: Arhiv na poselishchnite prouchaniya. Veliko T”rnovo]. 177. Руссев Н.Д. Поливная керамика золотоордынского городища Старый Орхей: перспективы хронологической интерпретации, In: Историко-культурные связи Причерноморья и Средиземноморья X-XVIII вв. по материалам поливной керамики, Симферополь, 1998, c. 175177 [Russev N.D. Polivnaya keramika zolotoordynskogo gorodishcha Staryj Orhej: perspektivy hronologicheskoj interpretacii, In: Istoriko-kul’turnye svyazi Prichernomor’ya i Sredizemnomor’ya X-XVIII vv. po materialam polivnoj keramiki, Simferopol’].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

145

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

146

178. Руссев Н.Д. Молдавия в «тёмные века»: материалы к осмыслению культурно-исторических процессов, In: Stratum-plus / Неславянское в славянском мире. Chişinău, 1999, № 5, c. 379-407 [Russev N.D. Moldaviya v «tyomnye veka»: materialy k osmysleniyu kul’turno-istoricheskih processov, In: Stratum-plus / Neslavyanskoe v slavyanskom mire]. 179. Руссев Н.Д. На грани миров и эпох. Города низовий Дуная и Днестра в конце XIII-XIV вв, Кишинев, 2000, 240 с. [Russev N.D. Na grani mirov i ehpoh. Goroda nizovij Dunaya i Dnestra v konce XIII-XIV vv.]. 180. Руссев Н.Д. Золотая Орда на Нижнем Дунае, In: Золотоордынская циливизация. Сборник статей. Выпуск 2, Казань, 2009, c. 90-102 [Russev N.D. Zolotaya Orda na Nizhnem Dunae, In: Zolotoordynskaya cilivizaciya. Sbornik statej]. 181. Рябой Т.Ф. Шехр-ал-Джедид - золотоордынский город Днестровско-Прутского междуречья. Автореферат диссертации канд. ист. наук., 1993 [Ryaboj T.F. Shekhr-al-Dzhedid - zolotoordynskij gorod Dnestrovsko-Prutskogo mezhdurech’ya. Avtoreferat disertații kandidata istoriceskih nauk]. 182. Смирнов Г. Д. Итоги археологических исследований в Молдавии в 1946 году, In: Учен. Зап. Инта ист., языка и лит. Молд. Науч.-исслед. базы АНСССР, 1949, 2, c. 189-202 [Smirnov G. D. Itogi arheologicheskih issledovanij v Moldavii v 1946 godu, In: Uchennyie Zapiski Instituta istorii, yazyka i literatury Moldavskogo Nauchn-issledovatelskoi bazy ANSSSR]. 183. Смирнов Г. Д. Археологические исследования Старого Орхея (МССР), In: Краткие сообщения о докл. и полевых исслед. Ин-та истории материальной культуры, Mосква, 1954, t. 56, c. 24-39 [Smirnov G. D. Arheologicheskie issledovaniya Starogo Orheya (MSSR), In: Kratkie soobshcheniya o dokladah i polevyh issledovanii Instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury]. 184. Смирнов Г. Д. Производство красноглиняных печных изразцов и опыт реконструкции печей по материалам Старого Орхея (XV в), In: Известия Молд. Филиала АН МССР, 1956, 4, c. 56-89 [Smirnov G. D. Proizvodstvo krasnoglinyanyh pechnyh izrazcov i opyt rekonstrukcii pechej po materialam Starogo Orheya (XV v), In: Izvestiya Moldavskogo Filiala AN MSSR]. 185. Смирнов Г. Д. Декоративные кирпичи из молдавского города Старый Орхей (относящиеся к XV в.), In: Известия Молд. Филиала АН МССР, 1956, 4, c. 67-72 [Smirnov G. D. Dekorativnye kirpichi iz moldavskogo goroda Staryj Orhej (otnosyashchiesya k XV v.), In: Izvestiya Moldavskogo Filiala AN MSSR]. 186. Смирнов Г. Д. Старый Орхей., In: БСЭ. Изд. 2-е, Москва, 1958, t. 51, c. 292 [Smirnov G. D. Staryj Orhej., In: Bolshaja Sovetskaja Enciclopedia, Izd. 2-e, Moskva, 1958, t. 51, c. 292]. 187. Смирнов Г. Д. Заселение романизированными племенами Прутско-Днестровсго междуречья в свете археологических материалов, In: Материалы и исследования по археологии Юго-запада СССР и Румынской Народной Республике, Кишинев, 1960, c. 309-316 [Smirnov G. D. Zaselenie romanizirovannymi plemenami Prutsko-Dnestrovsgo mezhdurech’ya v svete arheologicheskih materialov, In: Materialy i issledovaniya po arheologii Yugo-Zapada SSSR i Rumynskoj Narodnoj Respublike]. 188. Смирнов Г. Д. Из истории Старого Орхея, In: Известия Молд. Филиала АН МССР, 1960, nr. 4 (70) [Smirnov G. D. Iz istorii Starogo Orheya, In: Izvestiya Moldavskogo Filiala AN MSSR]. 189. Смирнов Г. Д. Археологические разведки в нижнем течении Реута, In: Материалы и исследования по археологии и этнографии Молдавской ССР, Кишинев, 1964, c. 248-254 [Smirnov G. D. Arheologicheskie razvedki v nizhnem techenii Reuta, In: Materialy i issledovaniya po arheologii i ehtnografii Moldavskoj SSR]. 190. Смирнов Г. Д. К вопросу о пашеном земледелии в Молдавии в связи с находкой клада сельскохозяйственных орудий XIV в., In: Тезисы докл. И сообщ. седьмой сессии, симпозиума по аграрной истории Восточной Европы, Кишинев, 1964, c. 41-42 [Smirnov G. D. K voprosu o

pashenom zemledelii v Moldavii v svyazi s nahodkoj klada sel’skohozyajstvennyh orudij XIV v., In: Tezisy dokladah I soobshcheniah sed’moj sessii, simpoziuma po agrarnoj istorii Vostochnoj Evropy]. 191. Смирнов Г. Д. Археологические памятники Пруто-Днестровского междуречья XIV-XV вв., In: Тезисы докл. Первого симпозиума по археологии и этнографии Юго-запада СССР, Кишинев, 1964 [Smirnov G. D. Arheologicheskie pamyatniki Pruto-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ya XIV-XV vv., In: Tezisy dokladov Pervogo simpoziuma po arheologii i ehtnografii Yugo-Zapada SSSR]. 192. Смирнов Г. Д. Археологические разведки в нижнем течении р. Реут, In: Материалы и исследования по архнологии и этнографии Молдавии, Кишинев, 1964, с. 32 [Smirnov G. D. Arheologicheskie razvedki v nizhnem techenii r. Reut, In: Materialy i issledovaniya po arhnologii i ehtnografii Moldavii]. 193. Смирнов Г. Д., Рафалович И.А. Раннеславянские находки VI-VII вв. из Старого Орхея, In: Известия АН МССР, 1965, 12, c. 74-76 [Smirnov G. D., Rafalovich I.A. Ranneslavyanskie nahodki VI-VII vv. iz Starogo Orheya, In: Izvestiya AN MSSR]. 194. Смирнов Г. Д. О работе Молдавской и Прутско-Днестровской археологических экспедиций Института истории Академии наук МССР за 1946-1964 гг., In: Известия АН МССР, 1966, 2, c. 70-75 [Smirnov G. D. O rabote Moldavskoj i Prutsko-Dnestrovskoj arheologicheskih ehkspedicij Instituta istorii Akademii nauk MSSR za 1946-1964 gg., In: Izvestiya AN MSSR]. 195. Смирнов Г. Д. Средневековые города Прутско-Днестровского междуречья, In: Тезисы докл. Всесоюзн. Сессии, посвященной итогам археологических и этнографических исследований 1966 г., v, 1967, c. 28-29 [Smirnov G. D. Srednevekovye goroda Prutsko-Dnestrovskogo mezhdurech’ya, In: Tezisy dokladov Vsesoyuznoy Sessii, posvyashchennoj itogam arheologicheskih i ehtnograficheskih issledovanij 1966 g.]. 196. Смирнов Г. Д., Полевой Л.Л., Рафалович И.А. Надгробие XV века из Старого Орхея со славяномолдавской надписью, In: Limba şi literatura moldovenească, Chişinău, 1962, nr. 4, p. 45-50 [Smirnov G. D., Polevoj L.L., Rafalovich I.A. Nadgrobie XV veka iz Starogo Orheya so slavyano-moldavskoj nadpis’yu]. 197. Смирнов Г. Д., Полевой Л.Л. Археология Молдавии в годы Советской власти, In: Советская археология, 1967, 3, c. 73-81 [Smirnov G. D., Polevoj L.L. Arheologiya Moldavii v gody Sovetskoj vlasti, In: Sovetskaya arheologhiya]. 198. Спиней В. Господство Золотой Орды в Валахии и Молдавии, In: Золотая Орда в мировой истории, Казань, 2016, p. 403-426 [Spinej V. Gospodstvo Zolotoj Ordy v Valahii i Moldavii, In: Zolotaya Orda v mirovoj istorii]. 199. Тельнов Н. П. Исследование железоделательных сооружений поселения Скок, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1982 г., Кишинев, 1986, c. 84-96 [Tel’nov N. P. Issledovanie zhelezodelatel’nyh sooruzhenij poseleniya Skok, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1982 g.]. 200. Тельнов Н. П. Исследование славянского селища Скок, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1983 г., Кишинев, 1988, c. 101-113 [Tel’nov N. P. Issledovanie slavyanskogo selishcha Skok, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1983 g.]. 201. Тельнов Н. П. Раскопки поселения Скок, In: Археологические исследования в Молдавии в 1984 г., Кишинев, 1989, c. 187-193 [Tel’nov N. P. Raskopki poseleniya Skok, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldavii v 1984 g.]. 202. Тельнов Н. П. Итоги работ на поселении Скок, In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, c. 53-63 [Tel’nov N. P. Itogi rabot na poselenii Skok, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee]. 203. Тельнов Н. П. Славянские железоделательные сооружения в Молдове, In: Хозяйственные

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

147

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

148

комплексы древних обществ Молдовы, Кишинев, 1991, c. 85-99 [Tel’nov N. P. Slavyanskie zhelezodelatel’nye sooruzheniya v Moldove, In: Hozyajstvennye kompleksy drevnih obshchestv Moldovy]. 204. Тельнов Н. П., Рабинович Р. А. Результаты работ на поселении Скок, In: Aрхеологические исследования в Молдове в 1985 г., Кишинев, 1990, c. 194-212 [Tel’nov N. P., Rabinovich R. A. Rezul’taty rabot na poselenii Skok., In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldove v 1985 g.]. 205. Тельнов Н. П., Рабинович Р. А. Aрхеологические раскопки на поселении Скок, In: Aрхеологические исследования в Молдове в 1986 г., Кишинев, 1992, c. 208-223 [Tel’nov N. P., Rabinovich R. A. Arheologicheskie raskopki na poselenii Skok, In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Moldove v 1986 g.]. 206. Тельнов Н. П., Рабинович Р. А. Aрхеологические исследования на поселении Скок [Tel’nov N. P., Rabinovich R. A. Arheologicheskie issledovaniya na poselenii Skok], In: Vestigii arheologice din Moldova, Chişinău, 1997, p. 252-262. 207. Тельнов Н. П., Рабинович Р. А. Поселение Скок. Результаты исследований в 1988 г., In: Stratum Plus: Неславянское в славянском мире, 1999, № 5, c. 274-286 [Tel’nov N. P., Rabinovich R. A. Poselenie Skok. Rezul’taty issledovanij v 1988 g., In: Stratum Plus: Neslavyanskoe v slavyanskom mire]. 208. Ткачук М. Е. Новые данные к исследованию памятников типа Поянешты-Лукашевка (По материалам Старого Орхея), In: Археологические исследования в Старом Орхее, Кишинев, 1991, c. 44-53 [Tkachuk M. E. Novye dannye k issledovaniyu pamyatnikov tipa PoyaneshtyLukashevka (Po materialam Starogo Orheya), In: Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Starom Orhee]. 209. Травкин С.Н. Некоторые врпоосы нумизматики и истории Старого Орхея (золотоордынский период), In: Stratum-plus / Время денег, Кишинев, 1999, № 6 [Travkin S.N. Nekotorye vrpoosy numizmatiki i istorii Starogo Orheya (zolotoordynskij period), In: Stratum-plus / Vremya deneg]. 210. Усиневич А. Дополнение к с статье Окрестности Старого Орхея, In: Кишиневские Епархиальные Ведомости, 1907, № 1, с. 17-22 [Usinevich A. Dopolnenie k s stat’e Okrestnosti Starogo Orheya, In: Kishinevskie Eparhialinie Vedomosti]. 211. Федоров Г. Б., Чеботаренко Г. Ф. Памятники древних славян (VI–XIII) / Археологическая карта Молдавии, Вып. 6, Кишинев, 1974, c. 16, nr. 25-26; c. 29, nr. 91; c. 65-66, nr. 236-240; c. 98, nr. 281 [Fedorov G. B., Chebotarenko G. F. Pamyatniki drevnih slavyan (VI–XIII) / Arheologicheskaya karta Moldavii]. 212. Хынку И. Г. Древнейшие памятники родного края (городища центральной Молдавии), Кишинев, 1992, 81 c. [Hîncu I. G. Drevnejshie pamyatniki rodnogo kraya (gorodishcha central’noj Moldavii)]. 213. Янина С. Новый город (Янги-шехр=Шехр ал-Джедид) – монетный двор Золотой Орды и его местрнахождение, In: Нумизматический сборник ГИМ, ч. V, вып 1, Москва, вып. 49, 1977, c. 193213 [Yanina S. Novyj gorod (Yangi-shekhr=Shekhr al-Dzhedid) – monetnyj dvor Zolotoj Ordy i ego mestrnahozhdenie, In: Numizmaticheskij sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Istoriceskogo Muzeja]. Architecture, Ethnography 214. Bâzgu E. Influențe orientale în arhitectura vernaculară de piatră din zona Orheiului Vechi, In: Diversitatea expresiilor culturale ale habitatului traditional, Chișinău, 2007, p. 40-52. 215. Bâzgu E., Ursu M. Arhitectura populară din zona Orheiului Vechi, Chişinău, 2005. 216. Bâzgu E., Ursu M. Arhitectura vernaculară în piatră, Chișinău, 2009, 256 p. 217. Poliptic molda. Artă moldovenească din veacurile XIV-XIX / alct. P.Balan, V.Druc, Chişinău, 1985, p. 46-49. 218. Şaranuţa S. P. Prosoape populare moldoveneşti, Chişinău, 1969. 219. Şaranuţa S.P. Ornamente populare moldoveneşti, Chişinău, 1984. 220. Гоберман Д. Н. По Молдавии, Ленинград: Искусство, 1975, c. 34-55 [Goberman D. N. Po Moldavii].

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

221. Константинова Г. Поэтика молдавского народного зодчества, Кишинэу, 1983 [Constantinova G. Poehtika moldavskogo narodnogo zodchestva]. 222. Лившиц М.Я. Декор в народной архитектуре Молдавии, Кишинев, 1971 [Livshic M.Ya. Dekor v narodnoj arhitekture Moldavii]. 223. Тораманян А.Х. Зодчество Молдавии XIV-начала XX вв. и его связи с архитектурой Закавказья. Автореферат диссертации на соискание cтепени доктора наук, Ленинград, 1967 [Toramanyan A.H. Zodchestvo Moldavii XIV-nachala XX vv. i ego svyazi s arhitekturoj Zakavkaz’ya. Avtoreferat dissertazzii na soiskanie stepeni doktora nauk]. 224. Тораманян А.Х. Об архитектуре крепостных сооружений Молдавии, In: Историкофилологический журнал Академии Наук Армянской ССР, Ереван, 1974, № 3, с. 181-190 [Toramanyan A.H. Ob arhitekture krepostnyh sooruzhenij Moldavii, In: Istoriko-filologicheskij zhurnal Akademii Nauk Armyanskoj SSR. Erevan]. 225. Ременко Г. У истоков прекрасного, Кишинэу, 1975 [Remenko G. U istokov prekrasnogo]. 226. Boboc N., Castraveţ T., Chirică L. Caracterizarea geologică şi hidrogeologică a complexului istorico-natural Orheiul Vechi, In: Analele ştiinţifice USM, Seria Ştiinţe chimico-biologice, Chişinău, 2007, p. 192-195. 227. Boboc N., Chirică L., Sandu M., Brega V., Spătaru P., Tofan E. Aspecte hidrochimice ale apelor freatice din aria complexului istorico-natural Orheiul Vechi, In: Buletinul Academiei de Ştiinţe a Moldovei, Ştiinţele Vieţii, Nr. 2, Chişinău, 2008, p. 159-165. 228. Roşca V. Stratigrafia Basarabului de pe Platforma Moldovenească, In: Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală: Buletin Ştiinţific, Serie Nouă, Volumul 1 (14), Chişinău, 2004, p. 237-259. 229. Roşca V. Aspecte paleogeografice ale sarmaţianului din Basarabia, In: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004) / Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Chişinău, 2004, p. 41-43. 230. Roşca V., Cemîrtan G. Geologia zonei complexului muzeal Orheiul Vechi. In: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004) / Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Chişinău, 2004, p. 45-49. 231. Верина В.Н. Особенности гидрографии и гидрологии бассейна р. Рэут, In: Ученые записки Тираспольского гос. пед. ин-та им. Т.Г.Шевченко, вып. IX, Кишинев, Картя молдовеняскэ, 1960 [Verina V.N. Osobennosti gidrografii i gidrologii bassejna r. Rehut, In: Uchenye zapiski Tiraspol’skogo gos. ped. in-ta im. T.G.Shevchenko]. 232. Кравчук Ю.П., Верина В.Н., Сухов И.Н. Заповедники и памятники природы Молдавии. Кишиев, 1976 [Kravchuk Yu.P., Verina V.N., Suhov I.N. Zapovedniki i pamyatniki prirody Moldavii]. Flora 233. Certan C. Plante rare din rezervaţia peisajistică Trebujeni, In: Conferinţa Internaţională a tinerilor cercetători: rezumatele lucrărilor, Chişinău, 2005, p. 47. 234. Certan C., Cuhaschi L. Flora braniştii Trebujeni, In: Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Buletin Ştiinţific: Revista de Etnografie, Ştiinţele Naturii şi Muzeologie, Serie Nouă, volumul 2 (15) Ştiinţele Naturii, Chişinău, 2005, p. 51-52. 235. Istrati Af., Chirtoacă V., Simonov Gh., Contribuţii floristice în landşaftul natural Trebujeni, In: Congresul I al botaniştilor din Moldova, Chişinău, 1994, p. 14-15. 236. Negru A., Ghendov V., Istrati A. Specii periclitate din rezervaţia peisagistică Trebujeni, In: Biodiversitatea vegetală a Republicii Moldova, Chişinău, 2001, p. 135-138.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Geology-Hydrology

149

Gheorghe Postică, Valerii Kavruk

237. Pânzaru P. Conspectul florei vasculare din pădurile de stâncării ale Republicii Moldova, In: Aspecte ştiinţifico-practice a dezvoltării durabile a sectorului forestier din Republica Moldova (conferinţă internaţională), Chişinău, 2006, p. 165-169.

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Fauna

150

238. Postolachi V. Structura demografică a complexului serpentofaunistic Trebujeni, In: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004) / Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Chişinău, 2004, p. 30-31. 239. Postolachi V., Ţurcanu V. Importanţa complexului teritorial Trebujeni pentru menţinerea diversităţii serpentofaunistice, In: Simponzionul jubiliar consacrat aniversării a 30 de ani de la formarea rezervaţiei „Codii”, 27-28 septembrie 2001, vol. III, Lozova, p. 59-60. 240. Postolachi V., Ţurcanu V., Zubcov N. Serpentofauna bazinului Nistrului de Mijloc, In: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004) / Muzeul Naţional de Etnografie şi Istorie Naturală, Chişinău, 2004, p. 28-30. 241. Roşca V., Cemîrtan G. Geologia zonei complexului muzeal Orheiul Vechi. In: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004), Chişinău, 2004, p. 45-49. 242. Ţurcanu V., Postolachi V. Starea şi diversitatea comunităţilor serpentofaunistice în ecosistemele forestiere, In.: Materialele conferinţei ştiinţifice dedicate comemorării centenarului de la fondarea „Societăţii naturaliştilor şi a amatorilor de ştiinţe naturale din Basarabia” (29-30 martie 2004), Chişinău, 2004, p. 11-13. 243. Zubcov N., Ţurcanu V., Jurminschii S., Buciuceanu L., Ştirbu V. Şerpii din bazinul Nistrului, Chşinău, 2002, 24 p. 244. Кравчук Ю. П., Верина В. Н., Сухов И. М. Заповедники и памятники природы Молдавии, 1976 [Kravchuk Yu. P., Verina V. N., Suhov I. M. Zapovedniki i pamyatniki prirody Moldavii].

ORHEIUL VECHI ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE

Gheorghe PosticÄ&#x192;, Valerii Kavruk

151

Com. 9974 Î. S. Firma Editorial-Poligrafică “Tipografia Centrală”, MD-2068, Chişinău, str. Florilor, 1 Tel. 022 40-42-52