Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
IV. Habitation of the Lăpuş II-Gáva I Archaeological Culture
position. Certain cups from Berveni that are adorned with Suciu de Sus ornaments483 suggest a taking over of this form from the Suciu de Sus culture. Type 2 includes cups with slightly arched bodies fitted with a handle with angular profile. It is a form distinguished through the profile of the handle but also through the different shapes of its two component parts. The interior part of the handle has a circularoctagonal section while the outside part, with which it has an angular junction point, has a strip like section. This type is illustrated only by two examples (PL 9/6, 18/6). Cups of this type had been uncovered in the necropolis at Lăpuş, where they are present only in tumulus burials with channelled black-red pottery484, and thus being a specific form of the second horizon of the necropolis. The presence of a cup with angular profiled handle is mentioned also in the case of the settlement at Nagykálló485. For the origin of this handle type one may take into consideration a possible Komarow influence, without excluding the possibility of a spontaneous apparition within the pottery of the Lăpuş group486. Type 3 is represented by a cup with a wide mouth, arched body and small handle (PI. 24/9). The rim is thickened, it lacks a neck, while the body with maximum diameter at the level of the mouth grows narrower towards the base. It is the only cup type with a handle that does not exceed the height of the mouth. Analogies have not been found within finds that are close in time and space. Type 4 includes short cups with greatly over raised handles. Their neck is cylindrical and the shoulder marked by a strip in relief from which a very short body and strongly tilted starts and which ends in a very narrow base and difficult to distinguish. The handle is greatly over raised compared to the short body, having almost double its height. The diameter of the cups ranges between 8,1 and 12 cm. One example seems to be taller than all the others and is included into a separate subtype (subtype 4B - PL 9/4). Subtype 1A (very short) is frequent, present in a proportion of 31,18% of the total of typological cups that have been assigned to a period. The short cups from the Lăpuş II—Gáva I habitation at Petea—Csengersima have a greater frequency than those within the Suciu de Sus habitation (type 4). Compared to the incised horizontal lines underneath the rim of the Suciu de Sus cups, the Lăpuş II-Gáva I cups are also present in a great number (PL 6/6, 14/6, 17/3, 21/13, 39/11, 41/1). Alongside these there are also examples from which the incised lines are missing (PL 4/5, 7/2, 39/12). The abandonment of incised decoration in the case of some of the type 4A cups (from the Lăpuş II—Gáva I habitation) takes place at the same time with the adoption of some channelled ornaments at the level of the maximum diameter (motifs CD, GE, GF) and the use of bi-chrome firing for some examples. The presence in certain archaeological complexes of some cups with incisions alongside those lacking incisions (PL 39/11,12) or of one example fitted with incisions but also with channelled decoration on the body and a black coloured outside and brick-coloured interior (PL 14/6) illustrates the transformation process of the form. At Petea—Csengersima there are indications that the short cup with over raised handle appears in a late period of the Suciu de Sus settlement (and implicitly of the culture) and continues to be intensely used during the Lăpuş II-Gáva I habitation. As mentioned earlier within the presentation of the form of the Suciu pottery, this type of cup is specific of the Upper Tisa region and the north-east of Transylvania. Here we need to mention the great number of examples from the settlement at Nyirmada487 or from the Gáva I finds from the area of Carei488 but also from the north-east of Hungary489. The presence of arched channels that frame the knobs of an example from Berveni may be related to the Hajdiibagos-Cehăluţ 483 Németi 1990, fig-9/6,9. 484 Kacsó 1981, p. 41-42; Kacsó 2004a, pl. LXII/3. 485 Kacsó 1981, p. 41, nota 111. 48<i Kacsó 1981. p. 41. 487 Tóth - Marta 2005, p. 120-128, abb, 11/5,7. 488Németi 1990, p. 41-42. 489 Kemenczei 1984, p. 70, taf. CXXV/11-13, 15-16, 18-19. 74
