Pop, Dan: The Middle Bronze Age Settlement of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Archaeological inventory and interpretation of the Middle Bronze Age features
H.G. Hüttel thought of T. Bader's observations about the absence or presence of the excised pottery of the Suciu de Sus culture that were real. He dated the phases suggested by T. Bader in accordance with the Suciu de Sus “imports” from other cultures (Otomani, Egyek etc.) and in accordance with the metal pieces that had been found. He, thus, considers that the Medieşu Aurit phase can be dated in the Reinecke A2 period and it is synchronous with Otomani II; the Culciu Mic phase was drawn a parallel with the Otomani III phase and with the Vărşand group and it was dated in the Reinecke-Milojcic At - A3 phase, and the Culciu Mare classical phase was dated to the Reinecke Bi phase. So, there are two pre-classical phases and one classical phase represented by the finds of the Culciu Mare, Medieşu Aurit, Suciu de Sus - the flat necropolis, Igrici Matata and Nyíregyháza-Morgó. Between the end of the Suciu de Sus archaeological culture and the manifestations of the type Lăpuş I, there is a hiatus in Transylvania, but in Hungary this hiatus is replaced by the Berkesz Demecser group101. When C. Kacsó made the presentation of his PhD dissertation in 1981, he made an important statement about the necropolis from Lăpuş, namely that phase I from Lăpuş preserves many elements of the Suciu de Sus and still differs from it through the big number of elements that are not specific of the Suciu de Sus archaeological culture, so that the first phase from Lăpuş cannot be fit into the IIIrd phase of the Suciu de Sus, because this type of finds is called “Lăpuş group”102. C. Kacsó noticed the close similarity between the first two phases established by T. Bader and brings them together in one phase which he entitles Suciu de Sus I. This phase is characterized by pottery decorated with incisions and grooves and is represented by the settlements at Culciu Mic, Boineşti, Giuleşti, Seini, Bârsana “Cetăţuia ", Sarasău “Moară” and by the tumulus from Medieşu Aurit. It was dated in the Reinecke B, period based on the pattern from Culciu Mic and the bracelet from Boineşti. A synchronization of the Suciu de Sus I phase with the Wietenberg III and Otomani III has been suggested based on the observations from the settlement at Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului” according to which a Wietenberg II layer was superimposed by a Suciu I layer, and based on the discoveries made at the vessels hoard from Valea lui Mihai: two Suciu de Sus vessels in the context of the Otomani III period. The second phase called Suciu de Sus II dominated by incised-excised decorations is dated in the Reinecke B2-C period in the Maramureş and Lăpuş region. This period is followed by the Lăpuş group which is represented by the discoveries made in the tumulus necropolis from Lăpuş, Bicaz and Suciu de Sus, as well as by the funerary feature from Libotin. The proof for this dating is mainly based on the presence of new forms: bulged vessels of the Lăpuş type and bi-conical cups with handles fit with a button103. The synchronism of the Suciu de Sus I with Otomani III, namely with Wietenberg III is also suggested by V. Vasiliev as a result of the archaeological research at Solotvino10"1. Recently, FI. Gogâltan has stated that the materials he found in the settlement at Căşeiu cannot be included in any of the stages defined so far, implying the existence of a phase after the Suciu II and prior to the Lăpuş I phase105. This “new cultural aspect” has been identified in the upper Someş Basin, in the post Wietenberg III stage and is defined as a mixture of elements of the Suciu de Sus - Lăpuş, Cehăluţ and Noua cultures106. In a study on the Suciu de Sus finds in the area of the Transilvanian cultures, C. Kacsó does not exclude the possibility that the two vessels in the vessel hoard from Valea lui Mihai actually belong to the Suciu de Sus II phase based on the fact “the technique used in decorating is not an absolute criterion in the internal division of the Suciu de Sus culture”, but “the observation that the excised pottery exclusively fits the second phase of the culture still stays valid”107. A new division of the Suciu de Sus culture has been recently suggested by L. Marta. So, phase I of the culture should be defined only by the discoveries from Medieşu Aurit (Medieşu Aurit phase at T. Bader), Lăpuşel and Solotvino, sites that lack excised pottery and prevail incised pottery. This period has been dated in the Reinecke B[ period. It is followed by the Suciu de Sus Ila phase dated in the Reinecke BrC period, which comprises the final stages from Culciu Mic 1(11 Hüttel 1979, 32-46. 1,12 Kacsó 1981b, 107-108. 103 Kacsó 1987, 67-68; Kacsó 1995, 95-97; Kacsó 1999, 56-57. 104 Vasiliev 2002,41-43. 105 Gogâltan, Isac 1995, 5-26; Gogâltan 2001, 195-196. I<)h Kacsó 2007b, 94. 107 Kacsó 2007a, 52. 22
