Pop, Dan: The Middle Bronze Age Settlement of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
II. Cultural assigning of the Middle Bronze Age finds
within which 174 archaeological features belonging to the Late Bronze Age and to the Roman time were identified and excavated3. II. Interpretation of the Middle Bronze Age archaeological features It should be mentioned from the beginning that the assigning of the features found in Csengersima was based on the ceramic that might have belonged to the early phase of the Suciu de Sus culture. When we assigned the features to a certain category or when we established their functions we considered the descriptions, observations and considerations in the fieldwork diary elaborated by Istvánovits Eszter and Almássy Katalin. In order to become familiar with the material, I have studied the artefacts that were found in 1867 features, and those of the Middle Bronze Age were all photographed and largely drawn in the period 2004-2009. When we assigned certain features to the Middle Bronze Age, we considered in particular the decoration technique of the ceramics, as well as other features: the fabric, the ceramic types and their spatial distribution throughout the site. It has happened many times that the subsequent habitations have destroyed the depositions that had belonged to the Middle Bronze Age, thus the materials were mixed with objects of later features. Without knowing for certain the type of feature that was excavated, we included those as well in our repertoire because they showed the extent of the settlement dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Based on these considerations, we could assign 82 features to the Middle Bronze Age, and in other 62 features that belong to later periods there were present Bronze Age artefacts. In 50 cases Middle Bronze Age materials were found in Roman Age features, in nine cases they were present in Late Bronze Age features, in two cases they occurred in Early Mediaeval contexts, and there was only one case with mixed materials of the Late Bronze Age and Roman Age. The finds of the Middle Bronze Age were concentrated in the western side of the investigated area from Határátkelő. We could not specify the extent or density of the settlement within the un-excavated surface, but there is no doubt that it continued towards the west terrace. There are also five cases in which such artefacts appeared in the central, eastern and northern part, west of the Erge brook, but no such discovery was made in the eastern part that was excavated east of that brook or in the Romanian side of the site (Petea customs point). 11.1. Houses This category includes 20 features of which 9 were quasi-rectangular within the groundplan, 8 were oval, one was circular (1109), one had not been documented (935), and another house was destroyed by a Roman Age feature (1009), its shape being impossible to outline. Except the houses that will be next mentioned, most of the features there were not found heating systems, post holes, clay floor or other elements that could assign them to that category. Lacking in such specific elements, the authors of the archaeological investigation have included them in the category of the pits, except a few situations. In most cases, because of the excavation method applied, the identification of the features was made at the level of the sterile soil and not at the level they had been built. Thus, any attempt to classify them in accordance with their depth could lead to wrong conclusions. 11.1.1. Surface houses We included in this category five features with or without clay floors. Only three cases illustrated such arrangements, which were more or less disturbed by the subsequent habitations, and in one of the cases it could only be assumed. Two of the features were quasi-rectangular, while the size of the other two was impossible to determine with certainty. The best preserved was the floor of the house 566. That was the largest floor preserved; it had a surface of 11.4 square meters and dimensions of 380 x 300 cm. We could appreciate that house 569 had significant dimensions, as indicated by the part that was preserved from it (258 x 304 cm). House 1009 must have been large too, based on the remains that were preserved in situ and according to the daub / 3 Almássy, Istvánovits, Marta, Pop 2009; Németi, Lazin, Gindele, Marta 2000, 74 no. 104; Marta 2005, 75- 94, Marta 2009, 10-11. 9
