Marta, Livius et al.: The Late Bronze Age Settlement of Nyíregyháza-Oros „Úr Csere” (Satu Mare, 2010)

IV. Liviu Marta - Nagy L. Márta - Daniel V. Sana: Ceramics

pottery assigned to the Hajddbagos-Cehăluţ cultural group, too50. This type of shape continued to be used during the Gáva culture period as well51.

Type 3 has a cone-shaped, slightly inclined (almost vertical) body, poorly pronounced shoulder, almost cylindrical neck and out-curved rim (PI. 8/6). Only one item of the third category was discovered in the settlement of Oros and its analogies seem to be very rare within the Hajddbagos-Cehăluţ (Berkesz) type of pottery52. These vessels with high neck, slightly pronounced shoulder and narrow body continue to survive in the discoveries of the Tisa Plain (The Great Hungarian Plain) dated to the HaA (pre- Gáva)53.

Type 4 is represented by the bi-conical amphorae, with an out-curved rim (PI. 2/1, 6/3). This type is represented in Oros settlement by four vessels. The type 4 decoration is poor as compared with that of other types of amphorae, consisting only in some knobs. Analogies of type 4 are found in the settlements of the Hajddbagos-Cehăluţ cultural group Suplacu de Barcău54 and Crasna55 but also in the ceramics from other cultures and cultural aspects of the Tisa Basin and northern Transylvania56. The presence, in the settlement of Oros, of a vessel glossy-black in the exterior and brick-red in the interior (PI. 2/1), its similitude in terms of form and decoration with the vessels of the Lăpuş II-Gáva I habitation horizon 57, makes us consider a possible transfer of shape between the two cultural horizons.

Type 5 is similar in shape to type 1, but with a more pronounced shoulder, a more arched neck, two over-raised handles that start from the rim and get to the shoulder (PI. 27/3). Although only one item of this type was discovered in the settlement of Oros, analogies of type 5 are relatively numerous in the Hajddbagos- Cehăluţ cultural group 58, this shape being one of its features. Similar types of

50 Németi 1978, PI. 1/2; Ignat 1984, PI. 1/1; Németi 2009, PI. 1/2 (pots); Nagy 2005, Pi. 6/1.

51 V. Szabó 1996, PI. 10/10, 25/8, 45/4.

52 Kemenczei 1984, Pl. LVI/7.

53 V. Szabó 1996, PI. 8/3.

54 Ignat 1984, PI. 1/2.

55 Bejinariu-Lakó 2000, PI. 20/1-3.

56 In the Piliny culture (Kemenczei 1984, Pl. XVIII/1, XXXVIII/1,2,7), the Berkesz group (Kovács 1967, PI. 14/12; Kemenczei 1984, Pl. LVI/11), the Igriţa cultural group (Emödi 1980, Pl. 11/68, 78; 1983, PI. 3/2; Chidioşan-Emodi 1982, PI. 1/5; 3/2; Andriţoiu 1992 , PI. 60/5,8.), the Suciu de Sus culture (Pop 2003, PI. 4; Kacsó 2005, PI. 4; Marta 2009, p.

24, Pi. 25/14, 29/2, 33/1), the group of discoveries from the Kosice basin (Demeterová 1984, Pl. VII/19, VII/3, XX/10), within the Lăpuş II-Gáva I cultural horizon (Kacsó 1981, p. 34; Németi 1990, PI. 7/2, Marta 2009, p. 64-65, PI. 12/1, 16/3, 26/10).

57 Marta 2009, p. 64-65.

58 Kovács 1970, PI. 1/16-17,22, 4/9; Bader 1978, Pl. XXVI/8; Kacsó 1997, Pl. XII/2; Nagy 2005, PI. 1/1.

26