Pop, Dan: The Middle Bronze Age Settlement of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Archaeological inventory and interpretation of the Middle Bronze Age features
780 C. It can also be noticed that the pits are more concentrated nearby the houses in the northeastern part of the site (1104, 105, 1109), close to the houses in the south-western part (west of houses 544 D, 566, 569, 597), as well as around houses 935 and 1150 in the eastern area of the settlement. There were several situations of overlapped Middle Bronze Age features: pit 537 B overlapped pits 537 A and 537 C; pit 537 A overlapped pit 537 C; pit 782 A overlapped pit 782 B; pit 1461 was overlapped by pits 1462 and 1463, and pit 1630 A overlapped pit 1630 B. Given the homogeneity of the archaeological material, we could only refer to the digging sequence of these pits, without being able to observe further chronological differences. Pits with various shapes and sizes belonging to the early phase of the Suciu de Sus culture (most of them not yet fully published), are known at: Halmeu “Fd/wd”26, Lăpuşel “Ciurgäu”21, Medieşu Aurit “Cioncaş”2H, Moftinu Mic29. In the Transcarpathian Ukraine, pits are mentioned in the settlements at Diakovo - the point “Kişerda” (26 pits), Solotvino (three circular pits)30, and Kvasove II (household pits)31. ÍI.3. The cultural layer The Middle Bronze Age cultural layer was uncovered in several parts of the studied area. They were numbered like the features. Thus, the features 536, 544, 671 E, 1152, 1210, 1083 B, 1210 A, 1246, 1400, 1597, 1606 represent in fact the Suciu de Sus I cultural layer. The latter was also observed around features 1495, 1497-1499, 1502-1503; 865 and 867, 1302-1303. I kept the numbering used by the authors of the research in order to make easy the identification of the materials coming from these features on the site plan, but I did not count them together with the houses, the pithouses, the pits and the post holes. According to the observations made so far, the cultural layer was between 25 and 40 cm thick. Its research was difficult because in some situations it was covered by a 8-40 cm thick sterile yellow clay layer. Most of the times it was noticed in the margins of the features dating from the later ages. The presence of the sterile clay layer which covered the Middle Bronze Age cultural layer is very likely the result of a flood and it might be possible that the Middle Bronze Age habitation ceased because of this flood. Neither in the case of the other settlements of the Suciu de Sus culture, nor at Csengersima was stratigraphically visible the sequence of the evolutionary stages of the Suciu de Sus culture, defined by horizontal stratigraphy. In the excavated parts of the cultural layer, a significant quantity of Suciu de Sus I ceramics was found, as well as some objects of fired clay and stone. III. Archaeological inventory and interpretation of the Middle Bronze Age features. The inventory of the Bronze Age features uncovered only ceramic sherds, except for a fragmentary stone mould and several objects made of burnt clay. The fragmentary condition of the material allowed their graphic reconstruction in few cases. In other situations only the reconstruction of the diameter was possible, sometimes even of a part from the vessel profile. The absence of complete vessels or of the vessels that could be wholly restored made difficult the complete reconstruction of shapes. Depending on the method used when the clay for the vessels was prepared, we could distinguish three ceramic categories: coarse pottery, which prevailed in quantity. The composition of its fabric comprised sand with large grains, small stones, superficially crushed sherds and mica. Their aspect was not homogeneous; the fabric of that category of vessels was irregularly burnt. It was dark-grey or black-grey, rarely brick-red. It was covered by a consistent slip on the outside (up to 1,5 mm thick), brick-red coloured, rarely brown. The inside slip was black-grey or creambrick-red. Pots and portable cooking-vessels were made of such fabric. Marta 2004a, 39-46. 27 Kacsó 1995, 84. 28 Bader, Dumitraşcu 1970, 128. 29 Németi 1987, 109, fig. 16/1. 30 Vasiliev 2002, 32, pl.8-9. 31 Kobal’ 2007, 585. 13
