Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Habitation of te Suciu de Sus Archaeological Culture
The exchanges made between the Suciu de Sus culture and the Hajdhbagos-Cehăluţ cultural group confirm the differential dating of the sites from the Suciu II phase (Kacsó). The settlement at Pişcolt marks an early stage of these relations333. The evolution of this setdement is linked with the first period of the Middle Tumulus culture335 336. The analyses of the numerous Suciu de Sus imports at Pişcolt indicate the existence of some elements specific of the pottery from the group of setdements considered to be prior to those at Petea—Csengersima. In this sense one should mention the presence of the “wheat grain” shaped ornament337 or the presence on a great number of vessels of the triangular spaces filled with parallel incision338. The preponderance of the spaces filled with incised lines compared to excised spaces, the simplicity of the excised ornaments, especially of the spirals"39 (compared to the ornaments from Petea-Csengersima), all provide good analogies within the pottery of the setdements at Boineşti340, Oarţa de Jos341 and Bicaz342. It can be said that within the setdement at Pişcolt the pottery from the Suciu II phase (Kacsó) has an early aspect, linking the early period of this phase with the Hajdubagos-Cehăluţ culture (probably to its early period). The specific cup to this culture imported in Petea—Csengersima (PI. 49/6) reflects the inter-cultural exchanges in a recent stage. In conclusion it can be said that the setdement at Petea-Csengersima starts in a subsequent period to some settlements from the Suciu de Sus II period (Kacsó) and Hajdubagos-Cehăluţ. The setdements of both cultures contain bronze finds specific of the period prior to the one of the Uriu-Opályi type deposits. Thus the beginning of the Suciu de Sus setdement at Petea-Csengersima can be placed in a period prior to the Uriu-Opályi type deposits or in a period contemporary with them. From the point of view of relative chronology it can be placed within a late stage of the BzC phase or as late as the BzD period. Having in mind the considerations concerning the wide date of the Uriu-Ópályi type deposits343, there are no definite elements for a more exact date for the beginning of the setdement. In order to asses the duration of the Suciu de Sus habitation at Petea-Csengersima we can take into account the surprisingly large surface of the setdement. Within this surface area the absence of a great concentration of archaeological complexes does not indicate an intense habitation of the setdement. The study of the spreading of different pottery types showed the existence of territorial differences, capable of sustaining a successive habitation in the setdement’s territory. In this sense one can take into account the presence of the cup type 4 (this type was intensely used within the Lăpuş II—Gáva I habitation) and the presence of pottery with black outside and brown-brick coloured interior only within the Suciu de Sus complexes, in the eastern area of the setdement. Some changes within the framework of the material culture and the successive habitation in different areas of the setdement indicate that it functioned during a few decades (at least two generations). In order to establish the end of the Suciu de Sus habitation at Petea-Csengersima the Baierdorf type bronze knife discovered within the S34 complex 15 (PI. 39/13) proves to be of significant help. Within this complex pottery fragments specific of the Lăpuş II—Gáva I habitation (PI. 39/14) were found alongside excised fragments (PI. 39/15-16, 40/2-4,7). 335 Németi 1978, p. 106, 120, tig. 6/1,3, 7/1,3,5,8-9,11, 10/3-4. 336 Kacsó 1997, p. 88. 337 Németi 1978, fig. 7/8. 338 Németi 1978, fig. 7/3,5,8-9, 10/4. 339 There need to be mentioned the spirals on the potter)' fragments in fig. 6/1, 73, 11 and the general ornamentation of the cup in fig. 7/5 (Németi 1978). 340 Bader 1978, pl. XLVII-XLVIII. 341 Kacsó 2004, abb. 3/5-10, 15. 342 Kacsó 2005, pl. 1/6,11, 5/7, 6/16, 7/2. 343 For the discussions concerning the wide 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. 52
