Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 26/1. (2010)
Bejinariu Ioan: Aspects of the Late Bronze Age Cultural Evolution in Northwestern Romania (the Upper Barcău and Crasa Rivers)
Aspects of the Late Bronze Age Cultural Evolution in Northwestern Romania Some vessels have been restored, the cups represent a numerically well represented category. Most common variant is the cup with the broad rounded base, and narrower mouth (PI. 16/2; 18/10-11). The form is among the findings (unfortunately, without stratigraphic context) from Doh “La izvoare”64 or from Nyirlugos (northeast Hungary), recently published 65 Metallic inventory of Late Bronze Age complexes consist in 11 pieces. Most are small pieces, needles (PI. 18/7) or spindle of bronze pins (PI. 18/5-6), a loop ring made of bronze sheet (PI. 18/2), probably one nit (PI. 18/4) and other undeterminable fragments (PI. 18/1,3). A fragment of one mould made of sandstone, with traces of use found in pit C 79 and a cast residue constitute direct evidence of bronze processing in this settlement. From C 47 complex comes one bronze needle with pyramidal head and “collar” on neck (PI. 18/8). Dimensions are: 13 cm. long, head diameter-1,1 cm. This needle type, generic called "bohemian" profile needles type (Nadeln mit „böhmischer”Profilierung) are well represented numerically, especially in the Lausitz culture area (north Moravia, north-eastern Bohemia, Silesia). The needle from Pericei can be classified in Mostkovice variant of the type, which occurs in archaeological contexts assigned to Late Tumulus Period respectively Early and Old Umfield Period 66 In eastern part of Carpathian Basin, this type of needles appears rarely. We note here the piece found at Dubravica, in eastern Serbia67 or that from Guşteriţa II deposit68 Comparing pottery coming from these two excavations presented above, we may notice the presence of some common elements. I refer especially to bicolor pottery species, decorated with wide channels or facets. This category is poorly represented at Zăuan, in comparison to Pericei site. Unfortunately neither of the two settlements do not provide reliable evidence for a precise chronology during the third phase of Late Bronze. Archaeological inventory resulting from the excavation of Zăuan "Bánffytag" is not very numerous and unfortunately the uncovered pottery is associated to metal artifacts without chronological value. Comparing the findings from Zăuan with those of Suplacu de Barcău "Lapiş" provide support to make chronological analysis of Zăuan materials. As noted, some shapes and decorations are common to both settlements, located in the Barcău valley, to 10 km away from one another. Chronological context in which the settlement from Suplacu de Barcău “Lapiş” had evolved could be "traced" through metal artifacts, but also thanks to an considerable quantities of "imports" Lăpuş type pottery, unfortunately unpublished yet69 Among them the needles discovered at Suplacu de Barcău in House 1 and House 270. We note those two specimens with thickened head (an identical artifact was found in Cehăluţ settlement from Crasna “CsereoldaC’), those two Velenszentvid type needles respectively7'. As it is said, the first needles cannot be earlier than Reinecke D72 whereas the last ones may be even later73. This raises the obvious possibility that the settlement of Suplacu de Barcău to extend its development in the early period of Urnfield culture74. Due to the similarities between the potteries of these two sites cannot exclude a broadly similar chronology to that of Zăuan “Bánffytag”. Considering that Cehăluţ “component” at Zăuan is even more "diluted" compared with Suplacu de Barcău, are likely that Zăuan to be even slightly late. In my view there is a certain chronological sequence of period final Bz D - early stage Hallstatt A. In the repertory of Late Bronze Age pottery from Pericei “Kellertag” like in the Zăuan case it is visible that Cehăluţ "component" is reduced. But the materials listed as 64 Bejinariu et. Al. 2004, PI. V/2, VI/5 65 Nagy 2005, PI. V/5,7,8 66 Rihovsky 1979, 153-158; Novotná 1980, 135-137; Essen 1985, 54-59 67 Vasiő 2003, 78, No. 505 68 Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 95-97, PI. 160/10 69 Kacsó 1995, 111 70 Ignat 1984, Pl. XII/3-6 71 Rihovsky 1983, 20-21 72 Vasiliev et al. 1991,64-65, Boroffka 1999, 124, Nt. 66; Idem 2000, Nt. 67 71 Boroffka 1999, 124, Nt. 66; Idem. 2000, Nt. 67 74 Kacsó 1997, 88; Idem. 1999, 101 241
