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
contacts685 are still faintly attested, compared to the clearer link between the Suciu II pottery and Wietenberg IV type pottery686. Concerning the date of the Suciu I phase, given the lack of some clear elements to uphold the Suciu I — Otomani II — Wietenberg II synchronism, the date forwarded by T. Bader remains valid (although he advocated the mentioned cultural synchronism) and sustained (initially) with additional arguments by C. Kacsó: Reinecke BzBl = Mozsolics Illb =Hänsel MD I — MD II687. From a historical point of view, within this period the future areas of the culture are still inhabited by Wietenberg III communities (The Sălaj Valley, the middle course of the Someş, the Lăpuş Depression) 688, and in the north by the late Füzesabany communities (the Bereg area) 689. The different weight of the striated pottery in the western and eastern regions of the Suciu I phase already indicates one of the differences that will mark the entire Late Bronze Age, even if we are still dealing with a limited territory of the Suciu de Sus culture, restricted to the Plain of Satu Mare and the Oaş, Maramureş and Baia Mare Basins. The Suáu Ila phase. The settlements of Boineşti and Culciu Mic are considered by T. Bader as illustrative of the Suciu de Sus II phase690. C. Kacsó considers them as settlements specific of the Suciu de Sus I phase, while the presence of excised pottery (in small quantities) is considered to be an element that attests that these settlements continued to exist at the beginning of the 2nd phase691. Within the pottery from Boineşti and Culciu Mic there are several common elements with the pottery of the sites from the first phase of the Suciu de Sus culture (Solotvino, Lăpuşel)692. Comparing the pottery from Culciu Mic and Boineşti with that from Petea—Csengersima ceramic elements had been brought into view that they continue to the final phase of the Suciu de Sus culture. It has been observed that together with these two categories, present at the beginning or at the end of the Suciu de Sus culture, within the pottery from Boineşti and Culciu Mic there is a third category, which through form and decoration is specific of these settlements. A different part of the pottery from Boineşti and Culciu Mic has a transitional character between phase I and the settlements from the end of the culture. The style of the decoration indicates the existence alongside older ornamental motifs of some more complex incised ornaments than those of the first phase of the Suciu de Sus culture. On the other hand the excised ornaments that appear are made in a simpler manner than in the late phase of the culture, represented by the settlements at Petea—Csengersima and Culciu Mare. Numerous ornamental motifs from the late phase (Suciu de Sus lib) have not appeared yet at this evolutionary level of the culture. The idea can be verified in the settlements at Boineşti and Culciu Mic which have an early period in which only incision is used while excised pottery appears at the end of these settlements693. However it is noticeable that the thin cultural layer and especially their very small surfaces694 do not uphold the idea of a long existence of these sites. In this sense the unity of the ceramic repertory from Boineşti and Culciu Mic can be considered as expressive for both the end of the Suciu I phase, but also one needs to have in mind their expressiveness in illustrating the pottery from the beginning of the Suciu de Sus II phase. 685 Costea 1997, p. 40, pi. 27/2; Bejinariu 2003, p. 71. 686 Boroffka 1994a, taf. 56/1,7 (Ciceu—Corabia), 99/12 (Nicula), Gogâltan—Cocis—Paid 1992, p. 12; Gogâltan 2001, p. 194; Bejinariu 2003, p. 71. 687 Bader 1978, p.74; Kacsó 1987, p. 68-72. 688 Kacsó 2003, p.82-83, 88-89. 689 Kovács 2003, p. 526, 531-532. 690 Bader 1978, p. 75. 691 Kacsó 1987, p. 68; Kacsó 1995, p. 96. 692 Kacsó 1995, p. 95; Vasiliev 2002, p.35-41. 693 Kacsó 1995, p.96. 694 The outlines of the two settlements are well delimited, the setdement at Culciu Mic is smaller than 1,2 ha while that at Boineşti is below 0,5 ha ( Bader 1978, p.65). 96
