Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Habitation of te Suciu de Sus Archaeological Culture
relatively reduced frequency. Practically, from among the vessels with high frequency in Petea—Csengersima, type 1 amphorae, pots of type 2B and 3 and type 2 cups are absent from the settlement at Culciu Mare. While analysing these vessel types it was observed that they are present within other settlements of the Suciu culture together with vessel forms and ornaments that are present at Culciu Mare299. This fact might indicate that their absence from this settlement is first of all a result of the small number of published vessels (it is worth mentioning that only 2 examples of the pot category from Culciu Mare have been published!). The comparison of the ornamentation indicates a similar situation. Only two of the ornamental motifs from Culciu Mare are missing from the settlement at Petea— Csengersima: a solar ornament and an ornament in the form of a cross300. Both ornaments are present on the base of vessels, some vessels remark themselves for a tendency in applying rare ornaments. It has been observed that the numerous common ornamental motifs are from the categories with high frequency within the settlement at Petea—Csengersima and generally within the Suciu de Sus culture. In conclusion, a clear similarity is noticeable between the ceramic repertories of the two settlements from the Satu Mare region that belong to the late phase of the Suciu de Sus culture (the Suciu III phase — Bader or the Suciu II phase — Kacsó). The difference between their potteries is reduced to a few types and to variants or a few ornamental motifs, usually rarer, that are absent from Culciu Mare due to the fact that a smaller quantity of ceramic material was published from this site. In order to assess the beginning of the settlement at Petea—Csengersima it is important to evaluate its pottery together with that of the settlements at Culciu Mic and Boineşti. The relevance of this comparison lies in the fact that both settlements are considered to be older than the settlement at Culciu Mare. The settlements have been attributed to the Suciu II phase by T. Bader301, while C. Kacsó assignes them to the end of the Suciu I phase, with elements from the Suciu II phase302. Within the pottery of these settlements there are certain specific forms specific of the first phase of the Suciu culture, like the small beakers303, cups with the body in the shape of a turban304 305 and bowls/dishes with arched bodies303. There are also common forms with the pottery of the late phase of the Suciu de Sus culture: pot variants lAb and 2A, bowl/ dish variants 1A, IB, 2A, 2B and 4A, cup variant IBa or trays and strainers. At Culciu Mic and Boineşti an outstanding note is given by vessels that represent intermediate forms between the Suciu I vessels and the vessels from Petea- Csengersima and Culciu Mare:-the amphora from Culciu Mic306 is an intermediary form between some vessels from the first phase of the culture307 and type 1 or 2 vessels from the late settlements;-the bowls with arched bodies from Boineşti308 whose shoulders begin to be more pronounced foreshadow the type 3 bowls from the settlements at Petea—Csengersima and Culciu Mare;- the cups of subtype 1 A, a basic form in the late Suciu settlements, are announced by a cup from Culciu Mic309; 299 An exception is cup type 2 that is less occurring in the sites of the Suciu de Sus culture. 300 Bader 1978, pi. LI/6, LII/5. 301 Bader 1978, p. 75. 302 Kacsó 1987, p. 67-68; Kacsó 1995, p. 96. 303 Bader 1978, pl. XLVII/5, XLVIII/17. 304 Bader 1978, pl. XLV/3. 305 Bader 1978, pl. XLV/11, 12,14, XLVII/16,18,19. 306 Bader 1978, pl. XLVI/8. 307 Bader 1978, pi. XLIV/9,13 (Medieşu Aurit); Kacsó 1995, pl. VI/1,2, VII/1. 308 Bader 1978, pl. XLV/14, XLVII/25,29. 309 Bader 1978, pl. XLV/2. A similar cup, considered an intermediary form, was discovered in the Stanovo 1/ Suciu de Sus I setdement from Kvasovo (Kobal1 2007, p. 590-591, ris. 6/1). 49
