About 10 km east of Miercurea-Ciuc, near the village of Şoimeni (Csikcsomortán in Hungarian), on the promontory called locally Várdomb (“hill fort” in Hungarian), lies the well-known fortified settlement site of Păuleni-Ciomortan. It is situated at the foot and to the west of the Ciuc Mountains, between the upper course of the River Olt and the Trotuş stream, the latter connecting the Ciuc Depression to Moldavia. It is also worth mentioning the situation of the site immediately in front of the Vlăhiţa pass, the gorge running through the Harghita Mountains, the natural border between the Ciuc Depression and central Transylvania. The site was discovered by Alexandru Ferenczi between the wars, and included in the inventory of the Dacian fortresses in Transylvania. The first archaeological excavations were carried out in 1954 by the Ciuc Szeckler Museum, and then in 1956, 1960 and 1967 by the National Szeckler Museum, under the direction of Zsékely Zoltán. They showed that they had actually been occupied several times before the Dacian period. The earliest layer was assigned to the Ariuşd-Cucuteni culture. After that, according to Zsékely, the site was occupied by people of the Coţofeni culture, and in the Middle Bronze Age by bearers of the Ciomortan and Wietenberg cultures. However, Zsékely failed to establish whether the Ciomortan and Wietenberg material belonged to two successive occupation levels or to a single level that combined two different cultural components. The fortifications of the site (rampart and trenches) were attributed to the Bronze Age. Contrary to what Ferenczi thought, Zsékely found no evidence of Dacian occupation, although older records indicated an iron sword and Roman coins of the Dacian period uncovered in the site. The first excavations were restricted to narrow trenches, which were unable to recover houses or other structures. In fact, these excavations were confined to establishing the main occupation phases of the site. Their most important finding was the discovery of a new Bronze Age cultural group, soon to be included in the archaeological literature under the name of “Ciomortan culture” (the term deriving from one of the Hungarian names of the neighbouring village – Csomortán). After the conclusion of this research, the site attracted numerous treasure hunters, who carried out unauthorized digging caused irreversible damage to this important site. In 1999 – 2005 the Museum of Eastern Carpathians, in collaboration with the National History Museum of Transylvania, the Romanian Institute of Thracology and the Piatra-Neamţ Museum of History, and with the support of the Ministry of Culture and Cults, resumed work at the site. On this occasion, the aim was not simply to uncover the succession of occupation phases but to look at larger areas; as a result, the new work revealed several houses and other structures, unlike the earlier work. Although the new excavations confirmed most of Zsékely’s conclusions, they brought to light much new important information. Thus, contrary to the earlier belief that the earliest occupation belonged to a “rather late” period of the Ariuşd-Cucuteni culture, the new work showed that it actually dates to its early phase (A1-2). It also results that there were two successive Ariuşd-Cucuteni layers, the first belonging to a long-lasting occupation phase, and the second to a short one. Between the Ariuşd-Cucuteni and Coţofeni occupations, the settlement was occupied twice: first, at the very beginning of the period, by bearers of the Ciomortan culture, and soon after by people of the Wietenberg culture. Furthermore, we found out that the so-called Ciomortan culture was really a local variant of the Costişa culture, which is found mainly on the other side of the Carpathians in western Moldavia. Cucuteni-Ariuşd Stratigraphy. Păuleni 1 level, as results from the 2004 researches (which contains many complexes studied or still under research) might be related to the older Ariuşd phase or other sites and belongs to the Cucuteni A1 or Protocucuteni. Most data, images and published information belong to Păuleni 1. Two-three large complexes from the Cucuteni A1/A2 phase, named Păuleni 2 follow, which contain a developed architecture. The third phase contains also two-three complexes; two of them overlap those belonging to Păuleni 2. The architecture and the pottery of Păuleni 3 horizon reflect a late development process. Then we found sporadic traces belonging to the Bodrogkeresztúr-Scheibenhenckel horizon. Aspects of the pottery. Older statistical data show that Păuleni 2 level is richer than those belonging to Păuleni 3. Păuleni 1 level. It contains a high percentage of fine pottery, black and glazed. Decoration consists in white painting (thin lines on cups). The red and brown pots are decorated with white spirals. The pottery is of a very good quality. The fabric consists of very fine sand grains, with no mud. Only seldom the painting is bichrome. Judging from these characteristics, the first level, Păuleni 1 dates to Cucuteni A1. It marked the birth of the Cucuteni culture in Transylvania, where we found no Precucuteni 3 elements. Similar pottery was discovered at Ariuşd, Olteni, Bod, Ciucsângiorgiu and in Moldavia at Izvoare (so called Protocucuteni). In Păuleni 2 level and especially in House 5 we found redder pottery than the black category. It might be the result of evolution as well as that of the secondary firing, related to the house burning. There is much more white painted pottery, made on red or brown colour; pottery is of very good quality, contains sand, and was very well fired. This level has all the characteristics of the Cucuteni A1 phase, maybe A1/A2; similar discoveries were made at Poduri, Frumuşica, Ariuşd; Precucuteni 2 or 3 elements are missing. In Păuleni 3 level, pottery shows clearly an involution process, comparing to Păuleni 2. White or black angobe, as well as white painting decoration can be found in a smaller percentage. Black glazed pottery is specific of semi-fine pottery. From all points of view, it seems to be an involution process. As concerns the chronology of Păuleni 1 and 2 levels and of Ariuşd – Cucuteni A1 and A2, we performed many recent statistical analyses upon these materials. As a matter of fact, when Vl. Dumitrescu determined the Cucuteni A1 phase he took into account such materials as those from Frumuşica, materials which appear in the Păuleni 1 and 2 levels, but also at Tg. Mureş, Olteni, Ariuşd, Leţ, Ciucsângiorgiu and Bod. Although it is not our intention to create regionalisms in the Cucuteni Culture, this fact has been underlined by Iuliu Paul (Petreşti Culture) and others, and we cannot do otherwise but state that the earliest and most numerous Cucuteni A1 materials are in Transylvania. As regards the starting point of the Cucuteni Culture originating from Precucuteni 3, idea accepted by some of our colleagues from Bessarabia and Ukraine, we cannot ignore the fact that in Transylvania, we lack Precucuteni 3discoveries, but, more importantly, they are not present in the early Ariuşd settlements. These would plead for an Ariuşd group or for a genesis under the influence of the Petreşti Culture, Foeni group, for the Ariuşd – Cucuteni complex. In fact, the discoveries of Gumelniţa type are late, at least from the comparative stratigraphical point of view, as the C14 results confirm. The genesis of the Gumelniţa Culture originating from Boian is an opinion, which should be revised, the polished black pottery, the white painting, that Gumelniţa A1, mentioned and never demonstrated convincingly, should belong to the same process, maybe later, which gave birth to the Copper Age in Transylvania and in the rest of the territory. The Neolithic genesis of these civilizations (Gumelniţa, Sălcuţa, Petreşti, Cucuteni) could allow the elimination of the term of Aeneolithic, which thus has no real support. The syntheses that can be observed among the Neolithic civilizations and those newly emerged belong to a local, regional process of synthesis, which only has consequences here and there, as for example in Ukraine.