Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
V. Conclusions. Contribution of the Petea-Csengersima Excavations to the Knowledge of the Late Bronze Age
expressed in two or three sites from the western area of the culture (the grave at Nyírkárász— Gyulaháza710, the bronze deposit at Rozsály711 and the possibly the setdement at Noroieni l2) and in a site in the eastern area (the settlement at Căşei)713. The strong correspondence between the Suciu lib phase and the Uriu—Opályi type deposits needs to be considered as an element of reference in dating. The great number of Suciu de Sus Ilb/Uriu-Opályi bronze finds associations, but also the information concerning the functioning of the large settlement of Petea-Csengersima suggest a long evolution of the Suciu de Sus lib, during the Bz D stage. The habitation that follows (Lăpuş II-Gáva I) is strongly linked to the series of Cincu—Suseni/ Kurd deposits. As already shown, there are some finds from Lăpuş, Libotin, Kriva that indicate on the one hand the employment of black channelled pottery in association with Uriu—Opályi type bronze finds (in the first two sites in association with excised pottery). On the other hand, in the settlement at Carei — Spitz Farm there is a relatively high quantity of excised pottery in a settlement where a deposit from the Cincu— Suseni/ Kurd series was discovered. These finds, some originating from closed complexes, express very nuanced associations. However in this moment they seem to offer slight chances for more exact dating, as long as some of the pieces from Uriu—Opályi type deposits are also present in Cincu—Suseni type deposits. In this sense it needs to be kept in mind that there is more information indicating that each of these types of deposits had been buried during long time intervals and not due to political events that took place in certain moments. Thus the Uriu-Opályi type deposits ended up dated in a larger period from Reinecke BzC (C2) till the beginning of the Ha A714, and those of Cincu—Suseni/ Kurd type during a longer interval in Ha A (possible due to the weak expressiveness of the Turia—Jupalnic series)715. As a result a more cautious dating of the Suciu lib phase is required during the BzD phase, since there is no certain data to argue for (or against) a beginning in the BzC period or a continuation along a certain course of the HaA stage. The Suciu lib phase corresponds to the Late Bronze 2a stage in the east of Hungary716 and in the Late Bronze II stage in the north-west of Romania and Transylvania717. The setdement at Petea—Csengersima confirms the long evolution of the Suciu de Sus culture in the Plain of Satu Mare, as it was already attested by the research in the settlement at Culciu Mare. In this region the potential presence of the Berkesz group is not taken into consideration, this location having functioned during the BzD stage, after the end of the Suciu de Sus culture718. Recent research from the north-east of Hungary seriously questions even the existence of this cultural group. In a wider region of Nyírség conclusive data appeared concerning the presence of the Hajdúbagos -Cehăluţ group, that ends up inhabiting this region also in the BzD stage719. The settlement at Nyirmada witnessed a Hajdúbagos - Suciu lib cohabitation, which thus is similar with the Egyek-Suciu mix, 7,0 Mozsolics 1960, 113-123; Almássy- Istvánovits — Kurucz 1997, abb.9. 711 Mozsolics 1973, p. 204, p. 90. 712 Lazin 1996, p. 57-58, fig. 1. (The B4 type- Uioara variant axe found on the surface of a Suciu de Sus settlement, where later black-red channelled pottery was uncovered) . 7,3 Gogâltan 2001, p. 192, pl. VI. 714 For the discussions concerning the larger dating of the Uriu—Ópályi type deposits see: Gumă 1993, p. 262; Kacsó 1996, p. 238-239; Kacsó 1990a, p. 46; Kobal' 2000, p. 17-19; Gogâltan 2001, p. 196. 715 The expressiveness of the few deposits of the Turia-Jupalnic group for a distinct chronological interval is contested (Vulpe 1981, p. 429, Chicideanu 1983, p. 14-15, Kacsó 1996, p 251). The dating of the Cincu— Suseni deposits in the second half of the Ha A1 phase and the first half of the Ha A2 phase was upheld by M. Gumă (1993, p. 262). The Gyermely type was refused the possibility of expressing a chronological interval distinct from that of the deposits dated in Ha B1 (Hansen 1994, p. 404). 716 Kemenczei 1984, p. 88-92, 96 (chronological table). 7,7 Gogâltan 2001, p. 197-198. 718 The situation forwarded by Kacsó (1987, p. 75, chronological table) was later corected (Kacsó 1990a, p. 46 şi Kacsó 2001, p.239-240). 7,9 Nagy 2007, p. 84-85; Nagy 2007, p. 145-146; Bejinariu - Székely — Sana 2008, p. 206. 99
