Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Habitation of te Suciu de Sus Archaeological Culture
The origin of this type of vessel can be easily determined because the examples that together with vessel forms and ornamental motifs characteristic of the middle phase of the Suciu de Sus culture77 78 have a few hybrid elements which link them direcdy to vessels from the first phase of the Suciu de Sus culture79. From the point of view of some constituent elements, the roots of this type of vessel seem to go back as far as the Middle Bronze Age80. Type 2 differs from type 1 first of all through a larger neck. No complete example has been recovered, but on the basis of the preserved fragments it can be stated that type 2 vessels are higher than their maximum diameter. The preserved parts of one example (PI. 64/1) indicate that the maximum diameter was at the level of the shoulder, on the basis of which it can be presumed that the body had a conical shape similar to the one indicated by the vessel discovered at Satu Mare81 or that of the amphorae with excised decoration from the necropolis at Lăpuş82. On the other hand a third vessel has an almost globular body (PI. 54/15). Some of the type 2 vessels have cylindrical necks (subtype 2A, Typ. pl. 1, Pl. 54/15, 65/2) and others have arched necks (subtype 2B, Typ. pl. 1, Pl. 30/12, 31/10, 41/11, 47/13, 52/9, 64/1). Subtype 2A is represented by 6 examples, while subtype 2B is represented by 11 vessels. The most of the type 2 vessels are undecorated, but some of them do have a rich ornamentation (PI. 52/9, 64/1). Amphorae with tall necks have been discovered in other sites of the Suciu de Sus culture as well83. The absence of this form in the early sites of the culture does not allow a clear indication of its origins84. Amphorae with tall necks are present in the Piliny culture85, in the Cehăluţ — Hajdúbagos culture86, in the Berkesz87 group and in the group of discoveries from the Kosice basin88. This type of vessel is present within different cultures. However, the similarity between a vessel with a globular body from Petea- Csengersima (PI. 54/15) and the amphorae from the Otomani III-IV/ Hajdúbagos89 and Egyek9" cultural areas place this type of vessel in the context of the development of the Upper Tisa Basin91. The common elements of long necked amphorae from the first phase of the necropolis at Lăpuş92, the transfer of this form into the second phase of this cultural group93 and into the Gáva I94 cultural area mark out this type’s later evolution. One of the 77 Stanovo (Zatlukál — Zatlukál 1937, 5—6. ábra), Beregovo (Balahuri 1975, ris. 2/4), Diakovo (Balahuri 1975, ris.2/1-2; 2001, ris.66/1-2, 4.); Suciu de Sus (Bader 1976, pl.V/1) Culciu Mic (Bader 1978, pi. XLVI/ 8), Orţa de Jos — Vâlceaua Rusului (Kacsó 2004, abb. 4/1,2), Nyírmada (Tóth - Marta 2005, abb. 4), Dorolţ (Marta 2007, ris 1/3) 78 The examples mentioned in the previous footnote from Diakovo, Culciu Mic, Dorolţ and Oarţa de Sus. 79 Marta 2007, p. 6-7. 80 For the Otomani III phase one can mention the bosses from the tips of the spirals made by means of pushing the walls of the vessels outward (Bader 1978, pl. XXI,/17, XXII/6, 12; Németi — Molnár 2007, pl. 75, 78, 96, 98). For the treatment of the transmition of some elements from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age for a larger area see N. Boroffka (1994, p. 7-18; 1999, p. 113-125). 81 Bader - Lazin 1980, fig. 17. 82 Kacsó 2001, abb. 4-9. 83 Culciu Mare - Sub grădini (Bader 1978, pl. LII/ 2), Satu Mare - Borseg (Bader - Lazin 1980, fig. 17), Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 2003, pl. XXIII/ 22), Oarţa de Jos (Kacsó 2004, abb.4/4), Bicaz - Igoaie (Kacsó 2005, pl. 2/,1, 6/1,7, 11/1). 84 It is possible that the example from Oarţa de Jos attests links with the 2nd phase of the culture, given the fact that bowls and cups from this site (Kacsó 2004, abb.2/1,3, 3/3,5,10,15) have common elements with the pottery from the Culciu Mic and Boineşti settlements (Bader 1978, pi. XLV — XLVIII). 85 Kemenczei 1984, taf. II/l, 2, III/ 2-5, XIV/1-3. 86 Bejinariu - Lakó 2000, fig. 23/6,7, 25/3. 87 Kemenczei 1984, taf. LVI/ 1-4. 88 Demeterová 1984, pl. 1/8, 11, III/4, VIII/1, IX/6, XI/10, XVII/11, XVIII/ 5,9, XIX/7, XXVI/1,2. 89 Hájek 1953, fig. 10; Ordentlich 1963, fig. 15/ 1-2, 4; Kovács 1970, fig. 1/17, 19, 20, 2/6, 16. 90 Kalicz 1958, pi. 4/7. 91 László 1973, p. 599-601. 92 Kacsó 2001, abb. 4-11. 93 Lăpuş (Kacsó 2001, p. 235-236, abb. 11-21), Libotin (Kacsó 1990, fig. 5). 94 Kacsó 1981, p. 31. 23
