Pop, Dan: The Middle Bronze Age Settlement of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Archaeological inventory and interpretation of the Middle Bronze Age features
east of the Tisa river17. In the north-western Romania they spread on the river courses: Vişeu, Iza, Mara, Cosău, Tisa, Tur, Someş, Crasna, Sălaj, Lăpus and Ţibleş58. The first information on the archaeological research carried out by D. Teleki and J. Szendrei in the locality of Suciu de Sus, in the places called “Poduri ”59 and “Troian ”60 places, where they excavated a flat cemetery and a tumulus, dates back to 1887. At the beginning of the 20th century, M. Roska resumed the research at Suciu de Sus and Lăpuş, and in 1940 he used for the first time the term "Felsöszőcs type ceramics" / Suciu de Sus. Similar finds in the Ukraine were named Stanovo. They were subsequent to the excavations carried out by the Zatlukál brothers in a flat cremation cemetery discovered there, in 193161. Almost 250 sites of that culture6” have been attested so far. Most of them have been known from fieldwlkings, as only few of them have been intensely researched. The latter category includes the settlements at Boineşti “Coasta Boineştilor”bi, Culciu Mare “Sub grădini"M, Culciu Mic “La gropi de siloz”0', Lazuri “Lubi-Tag"00, Mcdieşu Aurit “Şuculeu”67 (jud. Satu Marc), Lăpuşel “Ciurgău”bi, Mesteacăn “Valea caselor”69, Oarţa de Jos “ Vâlceaua Rusului”10, Oarţa de Sus “Om/ Făgetului”1', Vad “Poduri”72 (Romania); Medvedivce “Babinka”73, Diakovo “Kişerda”, “Modicitag / Mondicitag”, "Ferma”, “Virágvár”1*, Kvasove75, Solotvino “Cetate” (Ukraine)76, Skrabské “Záhumienky” (Slovakia)77, as well as the funerary finds from Medieşu Aurit “Togul lui Schweizer”1'1, Nyírkarász-Gyulaháza (Ungaria)79, Stanovo80, Lochovo “Şkorobabki” (Ukraine)81, Vel'ke Raskovce82; Zemplinske Kopcany “Kutka” (Slovakia)83. The results of these investigations have raised several hypothesis about the historical evolution of the Suciu de Sus archaeological culture. We remind here several of the hypotheses, without having as purpose to present them all or to criticize them, because on one hand some of them are supported only by the archaeological material that has been published and, on the other hand, only few of the long-time investigated sites have the materials completely published. Until the middle 70es several opinions have been expressed regarding the old archaeological materials from Suciu de Sus and Lăpuş, from Nyírkarász-Gyulaháza and Stanovo, 57 Roska 1940, 1-26; Kalicz 1960,3-15; Mozsolics 1960, 113-123; Kovács 1967, 27-58; Kemenczei 1963, 182-183; Kemenczei 1984, 28-39; ARANYAK 1997; Marta, Tóth 2005,107-143. 58 Bader 1972,509-535; Vulpe 1975, 69-76; Bader 1978, 62-77; Bader 1979, 3-31; Vulpe 1995, 394; Vulpe 2001, 261, 280-281; Kacsó 2003a, 105-181 (old literature); Kacsó 2004a, 77-87; Kacsó 2004b, 327-340; Kacsó 2007a, 43-62; Pop D. 2008, 61-92 (old literature); Vulpe 2008, 269-273. 59 Roska 1940, 6-7 no.9, fig. 1/9; Roska 1942, 90 no.78; Kacsó 1993, 31. 60 Roska 1940, 6-7 no.9,fig. 1/9, 22; Roska 1942, 90 no.78; Bader 1976, 37-45, pi. 3/1; Kacsó 1993, 31-32. 61 Zatlukál J„ Zatlukál E. 1937. 62 For the actual state of research of Suciu de Sus culture in Romania see: Pop D. 2008, 61-92. 63 Mihálik 1892, 316-320; Bader 1978, 14, 17, 64-66, 75-76, 87, 99-101, 114, 121 no.15. 64 Bader 1972, 509-535; Bader 1979, 3-31; lercoşan 1993, 83 no,14a; Bader 1996, 265-266, 271. 65 Bader 1978, 17, 64-69, 75-76, 84, 87, 99, 107, 124 no.32, pi. 37/9; pi. 39; pi. 45-46; pi. 54; pi. 62/25, pi. 95/32. Bader 1979,3-4,6-7, 10-13,22-23,25,27 no. 17; fig. 1/17; pi. 2-3. 66 Németi 1997, 78-86. 67 Dumitraşcu, Bader 1967, 10-11, 16-18, 28; Bader 1972, 514 no. 21; 520-522, fig. 2/21; pi. 12/8; pi. 13- 15; Bader 1978, 16, 64-66, 68, 75, 126 no. 55; pi. 37/16; pi. 50/15; pi. 53/3; pi. 54. 68 Kacsó 1995, 83-99. 69 Kacsó 1987, 59 no. 18,66, 69; pl. 5/7-19; pl. 9/1-11. 70 Kacsó 1987,66, 69, fig. 20-21. 71 Kacsó 1980, 39 no. 8b, 43, fig. 2/1-14. 72 Kacsó 1987, 66 no. 27a; pl. 14-15. 73 Balaguri 1967, 79-83; Balaguri 1968, 149-152. 74 Potuchniak 1958, 9-30, pl. 1-18; Balaguri 1969, 61-68; fig. 1-3; Balaguri 1974; Balaguri 1976. 75 Kobal’ 1997, 120; Balaguri 2001, fig.71; 71 A; Kobal’2007, 583-599. 76 Kobal’ 1997, 115-151; Vasiliev 2002, 29-45. Budinsky-Kricka 1977, 72-73, 79; Demeteiuvá 1984, 18, 27, 34, fig. 1/9; pl. 30/8-15. 78 Bader 1978, 17, 68-70, 74, 81, 91, 114-115, 126 no. 55; pl. 37/17; pl. 42/3; pl. 43; pl 44/ 1-6, 8-13, 243; pl. 95/55. 79 Mozsolics 1960, 113-123; ARANYAK 1997, 19-23. 80 Zatlukál J„ Zatlukál E. 1937, 66-73. 81 Potuchniak 1958,74-78. 82 Demeterová 1984, 12, 19, 24-32, 34, 38-39, 41,43-46; fig. 1/13; pl. 25-27/1-2,5-6,8. 83 Demeterová 1984, 12, 19-50; fig. 1/5; fig. 2; pl. 1-24; pl. 27/ 9,11-13. 19
