Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
IV. Habitation of the Lăpuş II-Gáva I Archaeological Culture
The presence within this complex of a bi-chrome amphora together with type 1 and 2 amphorae indicates the simultaneous use of these two types. An example that is unlike any other bi-conical amphorae is represented by a fragment that has a few elements that differ from those of other vessels (the reason for which it was considered a particular type: 3B). This is the only vessel from the settlement at Petea— Csengersima that is adorned with channelled decoration arranged to form a garland (PI. 14/5). Channelled decoration arranged in a garland pattern is specific of the cultural groups from the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Hallstatt period in Banat411, the Igriţa cultural group412, and the pre-Gáva culture from the Middle Tisa Basin413. Moreover the elongated form of the handle and its circular section are unusual for Lăpuş type finds as well as for those of Gáva I type. This handle type, through its elongated form may originate from amphorae of the Hajdubagos-Cehăluţ group414 *, attested also among Berkesz type finds413. In this chronological horizon garland shaped decoration is present in great numbers in the region of the Igriţa group. Here it adorns the necks of some bi-conical amphorae accompanied by a register in the upper part comprising two-three horizontal channels416. The use of the rim, the conical neck, the form and positioning of the handles in an almost identical manner with one of the vessels from the cave at Izbândiş417 makes us consider type 3B from Petea—Csengersima likely to be an import from the Igriţa cultural group. Bi-conical amphorae are present within the pottery of the Lăpuş418 group, within the Gáva I pottery in the region of Carei419 and in the north-east of Hungary420. The origin of the bi-conical amphorae used in the Lăpuş II—Gáva I environment might be found in the Suciu de Sus culture (PI. 25/14, 29/2, 33/1, 34/1) but also in its neighbouring cultures421. Biconical forms will continue to be used also in the developed phase of the Gáva culture422. Pots This category includes vessels of average dimensions with upright or oblique walls, with their height greater than the maximum diameter. The majority was made from coarse or intermediate clay, with sand or crushed shard temper. Even in the cases where coarse clay was used the walls were smoothed carefully and generally had a better finish than similar vessels of the Suciu de Sus culture. The colour of the pots is usually in light nuances: brick colour, yellow-grey. Several examples have grey stains due to an uneven exposure during firing. Pots represent 15% of the total of vessels present in archaeological complexes in the settlement. It’s the most frequent pottery form after bowls/dishes and cups. Four main types can be distinguished on the basis of the profiles of the walls. Type 1 pots have vertical walls in their upper part, the walls become narrower only in the proximity of the base. Two subtypes were established based on the way in which the rim was modelled: subtype 1A includes pots with straight vertical edges (PI. 62/6) and subtype 4" Gumă 1993, 168-180, pl. XIII-XXII; Bukvic 2000, T.:l/1,1/6, 3/2. 412 Chidioşan — Emödi 1982, p. 77, fig. 1/4-5, 3/2; 6/8; Chidioşan — Emödi 1983; Andriţoiu 1992, pl. 60/5. 413 It appears in the Csórva group (Trogmayer 1963, p. 85-122, Taf.7-34) and continues to be present also in Ha Al (V. Szabói996, abb. 46/1-2, 4). 414 Németi 1969, pl. XI/ 8; Kacsó 1999 fig. XII/2. 4.5 Kovács 1970, fig. 14/12. 4.6 Emödi 1980, fig. 11/68, 78; 1983, fig.3/2; Chidioşan - Emödi 1982, fig. 1/5; 3/2; Andriţoiu 1992/5, 8. 4.7 Chidioşan — Emödi 1983, fig. 3/2. 418 Kacsó 1981, p. 34. 419 Németi 1990, fig. 7/2. 420 The vessel from the deposit at Tállya (Mozsolics 1985, taf. 158/2); the vessel placed with its mouth downward next to the deposit at Nagykálló (Kemenczei 1982, abb. 6/5; Mozsolics 1985, taf, 158/3). 421 Kemenczei 1984, taf. XVIII/1; XXXVIII/1,2,7 (Piliny culture); Kemenczei 1984, LVI/11 (Berkesz culture); Bejinariu - Lakó 2000, fig. 20/1-3 (Hajdubagos-Cehăluţ cultural group). 422 Zaharia 1965, fig. 10/1; Székely 1983, fig.2/6; Kemenczei 1984, p. 67; Vasiliev — Aldea — Ciugudean 1991, p.81 (type le); László 1994, p. 77-79. 65
