Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 30/1. (2010)
Articles
12 Á. Cs. Balázs and Herculane-Pepera hotilor,38 The “trestle” motive, according to P. Roman, is characteristic for the third phase,39 but was noticed also in phase I at Cefa.40 The “fish-skeleton” motive, for which we have analogies from Sibiu,41 Basarabi, Bistret, Cluj-Napoca, Livezile,42 is considered by P. Roman as specific for the two last phases, but at Mice^ti, Vinerea and Uioara de Jos they were noticed in the first phase as well. The “deepened triangle” motives are common in all the phases of the culture. The impressions are also commonly used, we have hatched bands (Pi. 3/2; 8/2, 5), impressions with successive stitches, “Furchenstich” (PI. 6/4, 5; 8/6; 8/10). The impressions organised in lines (PI. 8/2), La-Roman type ornament, in Transylvania was dated in all three periods of the culture, with analogies from Bernadea,43 Ca§olt-Poiana in Pise,44 Petre§ti,45 Bratei-Mszpdrie, Leliceni-Locul oprit. There were just a few shards with relief decoration (PI. 7/16, 19; 8/7, 9), and the roughening of the surface with barbotine was noticed on a few vessel fragments. No incrustation decoration could be observed. The majority of them are brick-coloured (Fig. 3), with secondary burning noticed only in the case of about 2% of the fragments. The only recipients which had a direct contact with the fire in the moment of their usage, come from the platform of the surface dwelling (8 pot fragments). The others show the traces of the secondary burning from the period when the potshard had been broken, or are the result of a deficient burning.46 41% of the pottery is moderately smoothed, 37% well-, and 15% superficially-smoothed. Only 6% of the pottery was polished (Fig. 4). The burning is almost exclusively oxidizing. Regarding the temper, a variety of combinations were observed, the materials used was sand, gravel, crushed shards, crushed shells, chaff, and in two cases crushed limestone (Fig. 5). Other clay objects were also found, four spindle whorls (PI. 7/1-4), scattered in the layers from 0.30 to 1.60 m. These are found often in Cotofeni settlements: Vinerea-In deal,47 Sebe§Räpa Rope,48 Reghin,49 and a high number were found at $incai also in the previous campaigns,50 which with the loom-weights, show intense textile production. Considering the typology of the forms and ornaments on the pottery found in the site, we consider that the presented material belongs to the second and third phase of the Cotofeni culture, in line with the previous findings from the site. We don’t have enough information, and the findings are too fragmentary to be able to make a more exact chronological framing of the surface dwelling uncovered in this campaign. The five campaigns have uncovered 80 m2 of the first terrace, and 460 m2 of the second terrace. This represents only 6.40% and 5.19% of the entire surface of the two terraces. Therefore, we have now a good image about the importance of the site, the culture of the settlement from 38 Roman 1976, pi. 62/11; 65/10. 39 Roman 1976, 26, fig. 2. 40 Cri$an 1988, 339-351. 41 Luca-Boroffka 1995, pi. 78/4. 42 Roman 1976, pi. 41/1-16. 43 Ciugudean 2000, pi. 41. 44 Paul 1960, 114, fig. 7/1-6; Roman 1976, 157, 57/8-10. 45 Roman 1976, 153-156, pi. 53-56. 46 Lazar 1978, 36. 47 Popa 1998, pi. XXII/3. 48 Roman 1976, pi. 52/34. 49 Moldovan 2006, pl. II/3. Lazár 1978, pl. XVIII.50
