Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
III. Habitation of te Suciu de Sus Archaeological Culture
45/3,7, 46/1, 65/3). It has a more slender form than the preceding types, but its dimensions are similar to these: the diameter of the mouth ranging between 16 and 25,5 cm and the height varying (preserved in a few cases) from 16 to 27 cm. Type 3 has a reduced frequency within the pot category (7,17%). The clay from which these vessels are made is usually coarse clay, but their surfaces, especially their outside, are well smoothed. Type 3 is scandy represented among the published ceramic material from other sites of the Suciu de Sus culture, the only known analogy having been found in the eponymous necropolis'23. No vessel with similar shape has been observed within neighbouring cultures as well. This type lacks decorative elements, the only occurring accessories being strip shaped handles under the rim. As a result it can be stated that this type comprises the general complexes that contain coarse pottery from the western region of the Suciu de Sus culture. Type 4 have a conical body, with the area above the shoulder growing narrower (PI. 48/1, 56/1, 64/4). This type of vessels is similar to some bowls, although they are higher than the diameter of the mouth. The diameter of the mouth ranges between 16 and 27 cm and the height ranges between 18 and 28 cm. Type 4 pots have handles but lack in any other accessories or decoration. It has a reduced occurrence, only three examples having been found within the complexes of the settlement. The small number of type 4 pots may be determined by the difficulty in distinguishing them from other bowl types due to their fragmentary condition. In the surrounding cultural environments the only known analogy was discovered in a pit at Berveni, being attributed to the early phase of the Gáva culture123 124 125 126. Type 5 is represented by one example from Petea-Csengersima (PL 53/9). It has an out curving rim, a body that has straight walls in its upper region and which curves in the proximity of the base. This type of pot was not observed among the vessels from other Suciu de Sus sites, neither in the ceramic repertory of the neighbouring cultures. Its scanty occurrence may be due to its rather rare production and also because of the difficulty in distinguishing it from other pot types because of its fragmentary state. The pots of the Suciu de Sus culture, as in other archaeological cultures, seem to have had common functionality, linked to the storage and preparation of food. This is indicated by their unusually high number, by their discovery in a few storage pits and in numerous refuse pits, and also by the frequent cases in which these show signs of secondary firing. At Petea—Csengersima there are signs of their use in ritual contexts. This is asserted by the discovery of four examples in vertical position (PL 2/7, 6/13,14, 11 /16)123. These were discovered in the eastern limit of the Suciu settlement, in the area of the bronze deposit, where amphorae of the Suciu culture were also discovered in identical position 2 . The discovery of a clay weight and of small bone fragments at the base of one of the pots, and another weight placed next to the pot (S9 complex7), offers further indications for considering the pots that were found in the deposits of this area of the setdement as having a possible ritual character. Storage vessels. These are vessels with great capacity/volume, with a wide mouth, out curving rim, bi-conical body, its upper half growing wider towards the half of its height and with its lower half growing narrower towards the base (PL 34/6, 42/5, 63/12). Its very narrow base does not ensure the stability required to support its upper wider half. A complete example from Culciu Mare127 shows that the vessel could be stable if buried in the ground. This vessel has a 123 Roska 1942, p. 90/10. kép. 124 Németi 1990, fig. 3/2. 125 The vessels had been discovered complete or lacking the mouth broken off by the plough. However due to the poor quality of the clay they broke and could not be restored. 126 The location of their deposition is the only argument for their attribution because similar forms are also found in the subsequent habitation horizon (Lăpuş II—Gáva I). 127 Bader — Lazin 1980, fig. 15. 27
