Marta, Liviu: The Late Bronze Age Settlements of Petea-Csengersima (Satu Mare, 2009)
IV. Habitation of the Lăpuş II-Gáva I Archaeological Culture
from Nagykálló518, Vajdácska5'9, Cărei520, Lăpuş521 the vessels with hypertrophied protuberances adorned with spiralled wide channelled decoration are associated with deposits and bronze pieces specific of the Cincu - Suseni/ Kurd type. We shall see the same kind of association is encountered in the case of the vessels from Petea—Csengersima. Hypertrophied protuberances had been discovered in reduced numbers also in the settlements of the Gáva culture at Grăniceşti522, Paroszló523, Teleac (level l)524 and Mediaş525. The amphorae from these settlements are generally developed forms, other elements, specific of the vessels form, characteristic of the first phase of the culture,526 being encountered in isolated cases. A few protuberances had been discovered during the excavation in the setdements at Köröm and Priigy527. These, as in the case of the hypertrophied protuberance at Grăniceşti, were found together with fully evolved Gáva pottery, which differs from the pottery of the Upper Tisa region associated with bronze pieces that belong to the Cincu- Suseni/ Kurd type deposits. As a conclusion we can state that hypertrophied conical protuberances are characteristic of Gáva I and Lăpuş II type finds and continue to appear in some setdements from the evolved phase of the Gáva culture. In the cases with more clear data (Paraszló, Teleac I, Grăniceşd, Mediaş) vessels with hypertrophied protuberances can be linked with an earlier habitation of the period in which the Gáva culture is fully developed (Gáva II in the accepted use here) 528. Concerning the origin of the hypertrophied protuberances in the Lăpuş II-Gáva 1 environment, based on two vessels discovered at Oarţa de Jos and Lazuri, an adoption from the Suciu de Sus culture is plausible529. This is also suggested by certain vessels from Lăpuş I type pottery530. Oval protuberances (CB) are present only on a single vessel from Petea-Csengersima (PI. 17/4), being absent from the vessels of the pottery in the sites dated within the same period. On the other hand arched protuberances (CC) are encountered on three vessels from the same setdement, having analogies within the Lăpuş II type finds531. Impressed and finger-impressed decoration (the D group of ornaments). This decoration technique was used to obtain groups of finger-impressions (DA) or rows of triangles (DB). These ornaments were made by impressing the tips of certain instruments into the soft clay of the vessels. This decoration technique is relatively rarely used. Motif DA (PI. 10/5) is present also on the vessels of the Suciu de Sus culture. It continues to be used in a chronological horizon in the nearby settlement at Lazuri532 that corresponds to that of the settlement at Petea—Csengersima, and also in neighbouring areas, on Gáva I533 or Lăpuş534 518 Mozsolics - Hegedűsz 1963, p. 259, Kemenczei 1982, p. 73-95. 5,9 Mozsolics 1985, p. 210-211, taf. 158/1. 520 Iercoşan 1988, p. 127-129; Németi 1990, p.42-43,47, fig. 22/4-6; p. 68; Bader 1996, 270, 266-267; Németi 1999, p. 68. 521 The beginning of the Lăpuş II phase is associated with pieces specific of the Uriu—Opályi deposits, while its evolution with Cincu—Suseni/ Kurd type pieces. (Kacsó 2001, p. 237-239). 522 László 1994, p. 78, fig. 29/7. 523 Patay 1976, fig. 2/1-2. 524 Vasiliev—Aldea—Ciugudean 1991, pi. 29/13-14,18. 523 Pankau 2004, taf. 31/13, 48/6-7. 526 Vasiliev 2008, p. 9-13. 527 Kemenczei 1984, taf. CXXX-CXLVIII (Köröm), taf. CXLIX -CLVII (Priigy). 528 Patay 1976, p. 200-2001; Vasiliev-Aldca—Ciugudean 1990, p. 82; László 1994, p. 93; Pankau 2004, p. 97; Vasiliev 2008, p. 13-14. 529 Kacsó 2001, p. 241; Kacsó 2004a, pl. XLVII/4. 530 Kacsó 2001, abb. 4, 5 (Lăpuş). 53' Kacsó 2001, abb. 16, 20 (Lăpuş); Kacsó 2003, pl. XXVII/4. 532 Marta 2008, p. 113 (nr. 1), pl. IV/1. 533 Németi 1990, fig. 6/2 (Berveni). 534 Kacsó 1993, pl. 1/16 (Suciu de Sus). 78
