Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 26/1. (2010)
Biba Teržan: Observations on graves in Lapuş
Biba Terzan well. On the one hand, there are animals, probably wolves, and radiating suns, which form a frieze in the upper part of the neck. On the other, anthropomorphic figures in a worshipping position with the hands in the form of a branch decorate the area of the vessels shoulder between the horns or animal protomes. The last figures are rather similar to the upright, variously decorated and sometimes grouped rows of triangles, which form either the lower frieze around the neck or the outcurving rim of the vessels. They appear in combination with the tree-branch pattern.4 The second characterising ceramic group consists of channelled pottery, which is likewise represented predominantly by large vessels with a tall cylindrical or conical neck (Fig. 2). These vessels too are decorated with large, mostly snail-like horns, large bosses encircled by a channel, and larger knobs as well as with bands of wavy or spiral channels.5 Closely related to this last group are amphorae with a tall cylindrical or conical neck, in the centre of which two handles are attached (Fig. 2). As a rule, the neck is decorated with several horizontal, incised bands. The belly is decorated with horns or bosses as well as channels, that is to say, in the manner of channelled pottery.6 The fourth group is constituted by bowls with a marked rim, a slightly convex body and a flat base (Fig. 1-2). The bowls are decorated with very canonical patterns in the incised or chip-carved technique: On the base is either a concentric spiral or a circle surrounded by rays; the vessel’s walls carry complex spiral motifs as well as hanging triangles (Wolfszahn) or standing triangles, zigzag lines and diagonal strokes. The entire composition on each bowl relays the impression of dynamic movement, perhaps the cyclic course of the sun through the firmament or the cosmos.7 There is a general consensus among scholars as to the dating and the cultural ascription of these ceramic groups, and this can be summarised as follows:8 According to the kind of decoration, the vessels with a tall cylindrical or conical neck, horns and animal protomes as well as bowls with spiral ornamentation all belong to chip-carved pottery (Fig. 1- 2), in the tradition of the so-called “Carpato-Mycenaean decorative style”, which is characteristic for the Suciu de Sus culture. It is assumed that this culture developed further in Lapuş9 and is designated there as a “post classical phase”-Lapuş 1. It is dated to the same time as Hânsel’s Late Danubian I or Reinecke Bronze Age C2/D.10 11 By contrast, channelled pottery, in particular the tall cylindrical or conical necked vessels with snail-like protuberances, are brought into association with the Gava culture (Fig. 2). Further, although their basic form resembles leading forms of the Kyjatice culture, the amphorae are also assigned to Gava pottery, in view of their channelled decoration (Fig. 2)." This pottery then characterises the phase Lapuş 2 and is dated to Hansel’s Late Danubian II or Hallstatt A. At first glance this chronological division seems quite logical and plausible. However, a preliminary investigation on combinations among the grave goods found in the tumuli at Lapuş reveals a surprising picture of a different consequence. It is conspicuous that weapons are only found in tumuli in which chip-carved vessels with tall cylindrical or conical neck are present (Fig. 1). Indeed, the regular equipment consists of a sword or dagger and an axe as well as a socketed axe, and occasionally a chisel (tumulus 4, 2 and l).12 The tumuli concerned are those with unurned cremation graves. 4 Kascó 1975, 55 ff. Fig. 5-8; ibid. 2001a, Fig. 4-11; ibid. 2004a, PI. 50-52. See also Terzan 2005. 5 Kacsó 2001a, Fig. 12-21; ibid. 2004a, PI. 54; 55,3. 6 Kacsó 1975, Fig. 5; 13,2; ibid. 2001a, Fig. 20; ibid. 2004a, PI. 53; 55,2. 7 Kacsó 1975, 53 ff.. Fig. 2-4; ibid. 2001a, Fig. 22-25; ibid. 2004a, PI. 26-28. 8 See Kacsó 1975; ibid. 2001a; ibid. 2001b; ibid. 2004b; Vulpe 1975; Bader 1979, 21 ff.; Hiittel 1979, 44 ff. Yet, a detailed discussion of the problematic cannot be made here. 9 In this reference, see Hiittel's critical remarks; Hiittel 1979, 44. 10 Hansel 1968, 22 ff., 168 ff. Fig. 2; Beilage 2, 5, etc. 11 Cp. Kemenczei 1984, 64 ff. PI. 130, 1.3; 133,14; see also Hansel 1987. 12 Kacsó 1975, 49 ff. Fig. I; ibid. 2001a, Fig. 26, H 1,H 2, H 4. 204
