Signa Praehistorica D. Pop

SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA Studia in honorem magistri

Attila László septuagesimo anno

Honoraria, 9 Redigit: Victor Spinei

Cover design: Manuela Oboroceanu The English translations were revised by:

Norbert Poruciuc ISBN: 978-973-703-581-3

UNIVERSITATEA „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA”

FACULTATEA DE ISTORIE CENTRUL INTERDISCIPLINAR DE STUDII

ARHEOISTORICE

ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂ INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE IAŞI

MUZEUL NAŢIONAL SECUIESC

SFÂNTU GHEORGHE

SIGNA PRAEHISTORICA Studia in honorem magistri

Attila László septuagesimo anno

Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău et Felix Adrian Tencariu

EDITURA UNIVERSITĂŢII „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” IAŞI-2010

This publication was financially supported by the

Székely Nemzeti Múzeum, Sepsiszentgyörgy/ Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe

and DAAD Alumni Club

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a RomânieiOMAGIU. Attila, László

Signa praehistorica : studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno / ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău et Felix Adrian Tencariu. - Iaşi : Editura Universităţii "Al. I. Cuza", 2010 ISBN 978-973-703-581-3

I. Bolohan, Neculai (ed.) II. Măţău, Florica (ed.) III. Tencariu, Felix Adrian (ed.)

903(498)

CONTENTS/INHALTSVERZEICHNIS/ TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Tabula Gratulatoria ........................................................................................................... 9 On the Occasion of Professor Attila László’s 70th Anniversary ................................. 13 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 19 Abbreviations/Abkürzungen/Abréviations ..................................................................... 41

Nicolae URSULESCU, Alexander RUBEL

Die Ausgrabungen in Cucuteni im Jahre 1910 nach einem unveröffentlichten Grabungsbericht von Hubert Schmidt .......................................... 49 Săpăturile de la Cucuteni din 1910 reflectate într-un raport inedit al lui Hubert Schmidt ................................................................................................................. 57

Marin DINU

On the Censer Type Pots from the Final Period (Horodiştea – Erbiceni – Gordineşti) of the Cucuteni Culture in the Romanian Space West of the Prut .......................................................................................................................... 85

Felix-Adrian TENCARIU

Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology in Neolithic and Chalcolithic .............................................................................................................. 119

János MAKKAY

Two Peculiar Types of the North Caucasian Maikop Culture. Their Southern Parallels and Chronological Importance ........................................ 141

Tiberius BADER

Wiederherstellung des Inhaltes einer alten Entdeckung. - Der Hortfund von Stâna/Felsőboldád bez. Satu Mare und sein Mentor/Fürsprecher Antal Gyurits ................................................................................................................... 165

Nikolaus BOROFFKA, Rodica BOROFFKA

Ein alter bronzener Dolch aus Siebenbürgen ............................................................. 189

Radu BĂJENARU

About the Terminology and Periodization of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube Area ................................................................................... 203

Anca-Diana POPESCU

Deliberate Destruction of Pottery During the Bronze Age – A Case Study ........... 213

Neculai BOLOHAN

“All in One”. Issues of Methodology, Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area ....................................................... 229

Florica MĂŢĂU

Patterns of Deposition. The Metal Artefacts at the End of the Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube Region ............................ 245

Mihai WITTENBERGER

A Special Site of the Noua Culture - Bolduţ, Cluj County ........................................ 265

Dan POP

The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar”, Maramureş County ................. 283

Bogdan Petru NICULICĂ

Karl Adolf Romstorfer, un pionnier de la recherche des dépôts de bronzes de la Bucovine ................................................................................................................. 321

Sorin Cristian AILINCĂI

New Observations on the First Iron Age Discoveries at Revărsarea– Cotul Tichileşti, Isaccea, Tulcea County ...................................................................... 343

Mária FEKETE

Sankt Veit. Angaben zu den prähistorischen Feiern und Götter (namen) sowien dem Schmuck der Zeremonienbekleidung aus Pannonien ........................... 373

Aurel ZANOCI, Valeriu BANARU

Die Frühhallstattzeitlichen Befestigungsanlagen im ostkarpatischen Raum ......... 403

Constantin ICONOMU

Some Dobrudja – Discovered Items from a Private Collection ............................... 443

Adrian PORUCIUC

The Greek Term Keramos (‘Potter’s Clay, Earthenware’) as Probably Inherited from a Pre-Indo-European (Egyptoid) Substratum .................................. 451

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău, Felix Adrian Tencariu

TABULA GRATULATORIA

Adrian Adamescu, Galaţi Ion Agrigoroaiei, Iaşi Serghei Agulnikov, Chişinău Sorin Cristian Ailincăi, Tulcea Ruxandra Alaiba, Iaşi Marius Alexianu, Iaşi Alexandra Anders, Budapest Stelios Andreou, Thessaloniki Mugurel Andronic, Suceava Dan Aparaschivei, Iaşi Tudor Arnăutu, Chişinău Andrei Asăndulesei, Iaşi Costică Asăvoaiei, Iaşi Mircea Babeş, Bucureşti Tiberius Bader, Hemmingen Valeriu Banaru, Chişinău Eszter Bánnfy, Budapest László Bartosiewicz, Budapest Paraschiva-Victoria Batariuc, Suceava Gabriel Bădărău, Iaşi Radu Băjenaru, Bucureşti Luminiţa Bejenaru, Iaşi Ioan Bejinariu, Zalău Cătălin Bem, Bucureşti George Bilavschi, Iaşi Katalin Biró, Budapest Wojciech Blajer, Krakow George Bodi, Iaşi Dumitru Boghian, Suceava

Ovidiu Boldur, Bacău Neculai Bolohan, Iaşi Nikolaus Boroffka, Berlin Rodica Boroffka, Berlin Ilie Borziac, Chişinău Bartók Botond, Sfântu Gheorghe Rezi Botond, Târgu Mureş Octavian Bounegru, Iaşi Jean Bourgeois, Gent Jan Bouzek, Praha Ovidiu Buruiană, Iaşi Dan Buzea, Sfântu Gheorghe Ion Caproşu, Iaşi Valeriu Cavruc, Sfântu Gheorghe Alberto Cazella, Roma Viorel Căpitanu, Bacău John Chapman, Durham Ion Chicideanu, Bucureşti Costel Chiriac, Iaşi Laurenţiu Chiriac, Vaslui Vasile Chirica, Iaşi Jan Chokorowski, Krakow Miron Cihó, Bucureşti Horia Ciugudean, Alba Iulia Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi Marius Ciută, Alba Iulia Gheorghe Cliveti, Iaşi Mihai Cojocariu, Iaşi Jean Marie Cordy, Liège

Tabula Gratulatoria

10

Vasile Cotiugă, Iaşi George Costea, Tulcea Ovidiu Cotoi, Galaţi Cristina Creţu, Iaşi Roxana Curcă, Iaşi Zoltán Czajlik, Budapest Lidia Dascălu, Iaşi Wolfgang David, Manching Mireille David-Elbiali, Gèneve Valentin Dergacev, Chişinău Vasile Diaconu, Tg. Neamţ Marin Dinu, Iaşi Florin Draşovean, Timişoara Sever Dumitraşcu, Oradea Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Piatra Neamţ István Ecsedy, Százhalombatta Linda Ellis, San Francisco Apai Emese, Cluj-Napoca Sergiu Enea, Târgu Frumos Burcin Erdogu, Edirne Mária Fekete, Pécs Marilena Florescu, Iaşi Kalla Gábor, Budapest Nagy Iózsef Gábor, Cluj-Napoca Szabó Gábor, Budapest Alexandra Găvan, Cluj-Napoca Marek Gedl, Krakow Florin Gogâltan, Cluj-Napoca Ştefan-Sorin Gorovei, Iaşi Jochen Görsdorf, Berlin Anthony Harding, Exeter Svend Hansen, Berlin Bernhard Hänsel, Berlin Florin Hău, Suceava

George Hânceanu, Roman Ferenc Horváth, Szeged László Horváth, Nagykanizsa Cătălin Hriban, Iaşi Gheorghe Iacob, Iaşi Mihaela Iacob, Tulcea Constantin Iconomu, Iaşi Ion Ignat, Iaşi Mircea Ignat, Suceava Sorin Ignătescu, Suceava Gábor Ilon, Kőszeg Ion Ioniţă, Iaşi Mihai Irimia, Constanţa Lăcrămioara Istina, Bacău Gheorghe Iutiş, Iaşi Katalin Jankovits, Budapest Erzsébet Jerem, Budapest Albrecht Jockenhövel, Münster Borislav Jovanović, Beograd Gabriel Jugănaru, Tulcea Carol Kacso, Baia Mare Elke Kaiser, Berlin Nándor Kalicz, Budapest Maia Kašuba, Chişinău Imola Kelemen, Cluj-Napoca Tibor Kemenczei, Budapest Róbert Kertész, Szolnok Iosip Kobal’, Užhorod Judit Koós, Miskolc Giorgios Korres, Athens Viaceslav Kotigorojko, Užhorod Kostas Kotsakis, Thessaloniki László Kovács, Budapest Tibor Kovács, Budapest

Tabula Gratulatoria

11

Larisa Krušelnicka, Lviv Olga Larina, Chişinău Ciprian Lazanu, Vaslui Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Iaşi Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cluj-Napoca Dan Lazăr, Iaşi Gabriel Leanca, Iaşi Eva Lenneis, Wien Oleg Leviţki, Chişinău Andreas Lippert, Wien Sabin Adrian Luca, Sibiu Bogdan-Petru Maleon, Iaşi János Makkay, Budapest Jurij N. Maleev, Kiev Igor Manzura, Chişinău Ioan Mareş, Suceava Tamilia Marin, Iaşi Gheorghe Marinescu, Bistriţa-Năsăud Sivia Marinescu-Bîlcu, Bucureşti Erzsébet Marton, Budapest Florica Măţău, Iaşi Lóránt László Méder, Sfântu Gheorghe Aurel Melniciuc, Botoşani Vicu Merlan, Huşi Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, München Lucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Iaşi Virgil Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Iaşi Pietro Militello, Catania Bogdan Minea, Iaşi Ioan Mitrea, Bacău Iulian Moga, Iaşi Adriana Moglan, Iaşi Dan Monah, Iaşi Felicia Monah, Iaşi

Lucian Munteanu, Iaşi Roxana Munteanu, Piatra Neamţ Marian Neagu, Călăraşi Louis Nebelsick, Warsaw Gabriella T. Németh, Százhalombatta Rita Németh, Târgu Mureş Andrei Nicic, Chişinău Bogdan Niculică, Suceava Ion Niculiţă, Chişinău George Nuţu, Tulcea Ivan Ordentlich, Holon Krisztián Oross, Budapest Marcel Otte, Liège Mehmet Özdogan, Istanbul Aleksandar Palavestra, Beograd Nona Palincaş, Bucureşti Dorel Paraschiv, Tulcea Hermann Parzinger, Berlin Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Iaşi Liviu Pilat, Iaşi Alexandru-Florin Platon, Iaşi Cristian Ploscaru, Iaşi Dan Pop, Baia Mare Anca-Diana Popescu, Bucureşti Dragomir Popovici, Bucureşti Adrian Poruciuc, Iaşi Marcin S. Przybyla, Krakow Pál Raczky, Budapest Laurenţiu Rădvan, Iaşi Agathe Reingruber, Berlin Petre Roman, Bucureşti Peter Romsauer, Nitra Eva Rosenstock, Berlin Mihai Rotea, Cluj-Napoca

Tabula Gratulatoria

12

Alexander Rubel, Iaşi Elisabeth Ruttkay, Wien Tatjana L. Samojlova, Odessa Silviu Sanie, Iaşi Eugen Sava, Chişinău Berecki Sándor, Târgu Mureş Wolfram Schier, Berlin Gudrun Schneckenburger, Konstanz Gunter Schöbel, Uhldingen-Mühlhofen Katalin H. Simon, Budapest Galina I. Smirnova, Sankt Petersburg Loredana Solcan, Iaşi Ion Solcanu, Iaşi Tudor Soroceanu, Berlin Victor Spinei, Iaşi Mark Stefanovich, Blagoevgrad Lăcrămioara Stratulat, Iaşi Elena Studenikova, Bratislava Géza Szabó, Szekszárd Miklós Szabó, Budapest Ildikó Szathmári, Budapest Maria-Magdalena Székely, Iaşi Zolt Székely, Sfântu Gheorghe Alexandru Szentmiklosi, Timişoara Sándor Sztáncsuj, Sfântu Gheorghe Monica Şandor Chicideanu, Bucureşti Nikola Tasić, Beograd

Felix Adrian Tencariu, Iaşi Dan Gh. Teodor, Iaşi Silvia Teodor, Iaşi Ion Toderaşcu, Iaşi Henrieta Todorova, Sofia Claudiu Topor, Iaşi Katalin Tóth, Hódmezővásárhely Gerhard Trnka, Wien Senica Ţurcanu, Iaşi Corina Ursache, Vaslui Vasile Ursachi, Roman Nicolae Ursulescu, Iaşi Constantin Emil Ursu, Suceava Lucian Uţă, Piatra Neamţ Mihail Vasilescu, Iaşi Valentin Vasiliev, Cluj-Napoca Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu, Iaşi Magdolna Vicze, Százhalombatta Adrian Viţalaru, Iaşi Valentina Voinea, Constanţa Andreea Vornicu, Iaşi Măriuca Vornicu, Iaşi Alexandru Vulpe, Bucureşti Petronel Zahariuc, Iaşi Aurel Zanoci, Chişinău Olivier Weller, Besançon Mihai Wittenberger, Cluj-Napoca

Signa Praehistorica. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan, Florica Măţău, Felix Adrian Tencariu

THE BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AT LĂPUŞEL “MOCIAR”, MARAMUREŞ COUNTY

DAN POP (BAIA MARE)

Lăpuşel (Recea commune, Maramureş County) is a village

located about 10 km south-west of Baia Mare town, on the lower course of the Lăpuş river, roughly 7 km south-east of the point where it flows into Someş.

Some prehistoric artefacts were discovered at the in “Mociar” point as a result of a field work carried out in the ditch dug by the Romanian National Railway Company in order to upgrade telephone lines1. The place called by the locals “Mociar” is to be found in the west side of the locality, 2 km south of the Lăpuş river and roughly 640 m north of Baia Mare – Dej road. Mociar is a terrace of the Lăpuş river, 1250 m long, oriented N-W – S-W2, 155 m high, bordered on the north and east sides by Arişel brook. The point which revealed pottery fragments is located in the east side of the terrace, in the proximity of Baia Mare – Dej – Cluj Napoca railway, facing the 170+8 kilometer, about 850 m south-west of CFR Lăpuşel halt.

It’s also important to mention that a field work carried out in the north-west side of the terrace uncovered early mediaeval artefacts (STANCIU 1992, 175 NO.14 B; STANCIU 2003, 280 no.22.) (Fig. 1).

1 Investigations targeted the course of the ditch dug by the C.N.C.F.R. between Satulung and Baia Mare and were carried out by Dan Pop and Dorian Ghiman (restorer at the Baia Mare County Museum) on the 7th of June 2000.

2 We assume the error from CCA 2001 (2000 Campaign) p. 131, which erroneously mentions the house length and orientation.

Dan Pop

284

* Archaeological rescue excavations3 aimed at achieving data

on the nature of the discovery, surface and stratigraphy of the site, cultural affiliation as well as rescuing the vestiges influenced by the upgrading works. In order to achieve these objectives, five sections were marked and submitted to investigation of which three were oriented south-north and had the following dimensions: 10 x 3 m (S1 and S2), 10 X 2.60 m (S3) and two sections were oriented east-west, with the dimensions: 19 x 2 m (S4) and respectively, 19 x 3 m (S5). A surface of 181 square meters that totals 103 cubic meters was submitted to research and uncovered 769 prehistoric pottery fragments, 17 wheel-made pottery fragments, fragments from a clay weigh, a broken miniature of a wheel, two obsidian objects and a stone axe. Also, six archaeological features were identified and investigated, among which were a dwelling and a pit that belong to the Bronze Age (fig. 2)4.

Archaeological investigations revealed the following stratigraphy (fig. 3):

- coating plant, 5-10 cm thick; - brown soil, 10-35 cm thick which uncovered many artefacts,

charcoal pieces and stones; in the eastern confines of the surface, between meter 0 and meter 4, the soil is mixed with a large quantity of pebbles, and lacked archaeological materials;

- yellow-reddish clay and ocher, devoid of archaeological material. Some parts of the investigated areas uncovered that the upper part of this layer was cream-yellowish, tamping with many calcareous concretions and a slight presence of ferric oxide. Here and there,

3 The rescue excavations carried out from 6 August until 11 September

was assisted by the author of this article and the students: Antonia Costea (“1 Decembrie” University of Alba Iulia) and Ovidiu Oanea (“Ovidius” University of Constanţa) to whom I kindly thank for the help provided. The funding was supported by the County Museum of Maramureş (the County Museum of History and Archaeology of Maramureş) and the National Railway Company CFR – S.A. Bucharest.

4 The layout was prepared by Dan Pop with help from Ovidiu Oanea and Sergiu Groşan.

The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar”

285

exclusively in the upper part of this layer, were found several pottery fragments. Also, in S2, from meter 4 northward, the upper part of the sterile soil was grey with a little ocher, with no archaeological materials.

** During researches, many vestiges were discovered, among

which pottery fragments took the first place in what concerns quantity. Complete vessels were not found and only one has been restored.

The paste was prepared in accordance with the dimensions of the future vessels. Of fine paste (Pl. 2/3, 6-7; 6/4, 8; 7/2, 5-6, 8-12; 8/7, 10) were made most of the small-sized vessels: cups, pots and scarcely tureens. They were tempered with fine sand and well pounded mica schist that conferred a homogeneous look. The paste was fired hard until it turned black-greyish or brick-reddish. It was then covered by a brick-reddish or brown-brick-reddish slip and rarely black-greyish.

Intermediary pottery (Pl.1/1-2; 2/8-11; 3/1, 3; 4/2-4, 7, 9; 5/1-5, 7, 9; 6/2-3; 7/1, 3, 7; 8/1-2, 6) is mostly represented by pots and bowls/tureens and scarcely by strainers. They were made of a fabric that contained rough sand and mica besides pounded shards. Good firing, the paste was black-greyish, rather homogeneous, smoothed with brick-red or brown-brick-red slip.

Rough paste (Pl.1/3-6; 2/1-2, 4-5; 3/2, 4-5; 4/1, 5-6, 8; 5/6, 8, 10-12; 6/1, 5-7, 9; 7/4; 8/3, 5, 7-8, 11; 9/1-9) was mostly used at making middle-sized and large-sized pots, portable cooking vessels and hardly bowls or tureens. The black-greyish paste contains rough sand, pounded shards and it is covered by brick-red or brown-brick-red slip.

One must also mention that the fragmentary condition of the pottery made it difficult to assign them to one type of pottery fragment or another, especially as few graphic restorations could be done.

The following types emerged from classification:

Dan Pop

286

I. Pots and the variants: I.1. pot with slightly internally bevelled rim; short, conical

neck fit with two symmetrical, band-handles; possibly bulged body; this fragment is decorated on the upper part of its body with wide fluting (pl. 1/1)5.

I.2. pots with slightly flanged rim, slightly conical neck and arched body; the zone between the neck and body is marked; the lower part of the neck is fit with two small handles with semi-circular section. The preserved pieces lack decoration, they were made of intermediary fabric; they have 10,3 cm in diameter (pl. 1/2)6.

I.3. pots with slightly everted and internally bevelled rim, ‘tapered’ or arched neck, bulged or tapered body; the fragments that were preserved lacked decoration and were made of fine and intermediary fabric with the diameter between 16-19 cm (pl. 2/3, 6; 5/1)7.

I.4. pot with thickened rim, wide at the outside and round inside, roughly arched body. It was made of intermediary fabric, and has a diameter of 17-24 cm. One of the fragments was decorated by grooves (plates 5/2, 3; 8/3, 12)8.

I.5. pots with extremely wide rim at the outside, cylindrical or roughly tapered neck and probably bulged body. They were made of intermediary fabric, decorated by incised-excised motifs and narrow fluting (plates 4/2-3; 8/1)9.

5 KACSÓ 1980, fig.1/6 (Sâncraiu Silvaniei), 2/7 (Oarţa de Sus); KACSÓ

1987, 21/12 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); POP 2003, fig.4/1 (Someş Uileac); KACSÓ 2003a, pl.23/22 (Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”).

6 KACSÓ 2006, fig.12/3 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). 7 POP 2003, fig.3/7 (Someş Uileac); KACSÓ 2003a, pl.29/1 (Orţâţa “Pe

Lab”); KACSÓ 2004b, fig. 5/2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”; KACSÓ 2005b, pl.10/8 (Bicaz “Igoaie”); KACSÓ 2006, fig.11/5 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”)

8 KACSÓ 1993, pl.1/13 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); POP 2003, fig.3/2, 4, 5; 4/6, 12 (Someş Uileac); KACSÓ 2006, fig.3/1 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peşteara Valea Rea”); fig.10/ 19 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).

9 POP 2003, fig.3/1 (Someş Uileac); KACSÓ 2004a, fig. 4/1-2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); MARTA, TÓTH 2005, fig.4; MARTA, TÓTH 2006, fig.1; KACSÓ 2006, fig.12/7 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).


287

I.6. pot with evenly thickened rim and extremely everted; tapered neck. The fragments that were preserved from these vessels are corroded; the vessel is made of intermediary fabric (plate 5/5)10.

I.7. pot with thickened rim, rounded and bevelled rim, extremely bulged body. The preserved fragment was made of coarse fabric and was grooved (plate 2/2). Similarities:

I.8. pots with thickened rim at the outside and internally bevelled, the inside of the rim is round or prominent; the body is slightly arched. Most of the pots were made of coarse fabric (1.8.1) and are grooved. Those made of intermediary fabric (1.8.2) either lack decoration or are decorated by small conical knobs (pl. 2/4; 4/1, 5-6; 5/4, 6, 8-12; 6/2, 8; 8/5)11.

I.9. pots with slightly thickened rim at the outside, upraised or internally bevelled; with roughly arched body. They were made of coarse fabric and were decorated by grooves (pl.2/5; 4/4, 8; 6/3, 6, 9). The way these rims were made is similar with the one tureens were made, only that the rim diameter is obviously shorter than the latter12.

I.10. pot with round, evenly thickened rim; with the walls slightly arched towards the inside, no decoration (plate 4/9; 7/3)13. Similarities:

I.11. pot with S-shaped profile and evenly thickened rim; bulged or tapered body made of coarse fabric, decorated by grooves (plate 6/1)14.

10 KACSÓ 1987, fig.9/51 (Mesteacăn); KACSÓ 1993, pl.3/7; 9/13 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”).

11 KACSÓ 1987, fig.4/11 (Cuceu “Cuceul Sec”); KACSÓ 1993, pl.5/1, 4, 5, 7-15, 17 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); GOGÂLTAN, ISAC 1995, pl.4/2; 5/5 (Căşeiu); Gogâltan 2001, pl4/1-3 (Căşeiu); KACSÓ 2004a, fig.6/4 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”).

12 KACSÓ 1993, pl.1/13; 5/1; 7/8; 8/4; 11/10 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); GOGÂLTAN 2001, pl.1/4; 2/4 (Căşeiu); KACSÓ 2004a, fig.5/4 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); KACSÓ 2006, fig.10/ 7; 11/4 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).

13 KACSÓ 1993, pl.1/26 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). 14 KACSÓ 2006, fig.10/20 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).

Dan Pop

288

I.12. pot with inside faceted rim and slightly thickened at the outside; made of intermediary fabric; the preserved fragment lacks decoration (pl. 8/2)15. Similarities: It is most likely that some vessels of this type own the lower part shards (pl. 2/1; 3/1-2, 5; 8/10), the rim (plate 6/7) or the body of other pots (pl. 4/7; 7/7; 8/7). The latter were made either of intermediary or fine fabric, with the maximum diameter fit with either a fake handle or a small ring-handle with circular profile. One of them might have something to do with the lower side fragment from plate 8/10 which was also made of fine quality fabric. The strap handle and the knob-handle were both made of coarse fabric and can be assigned to some pots (pl. 8/4, 8). Also, the fragment decorated by oblique fluting on the body might belong to a pot of fine work on intermediary fabric (pl. 7/7). II. Bowls / tureens (plates 2/8-11; 7/1-4)

II.1. tureens with everted rim, thickened and internally bevelled; semi-spherical body (pl. 2/9-10; 7/1); they are made of intermediary fabric, either lack decoration or have grooved decoration16.

II.2. similar bowls in shape with the previous variant only that these have tapered body and are also made of intermediary paste; some are grooved (pl. 2/8, 11; 7/4)17.

II.3. tureens with everted rim, short and arched neck, tapered body. They were made of fine fabric, decorated below the

15 GOGÂLTAN, ISAC 1995, pl.5/8 (Căşeiu). 16 BADER 1976, pl. 3/2 (Suciu de Sus ?); BADER 1978, pl. 47/16

(Boineşti); KACSÓ 1980, 2/4 (Oarţa de Sus); 2/25-27 (Ariniş); KACSÓ 1987, fig. 1/3 (Baia Mare); 2/8 (Copalnic Mănăştur); 21/5 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); KACSÓ 1990, fig. 9/7 (Libotin); KACSÓ 1993, pl.7/2; 9/2-3 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); GOGÂLTAN, ISAC 1995, pl.6/2; 7/1 (Căşeiu); KOBAL’ 1997, pl. 4/3-4 (Solotvino); KACSÓ 1999, fig. 7/7 (Călineşti); KACSÓ 2006, fig..13/12-15 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”); fig.6/10 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”).

17 KACSÓ 1993, pl.1/8, 12 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); KOBAL’ 1997, pl. 4/3-4 (Solotvino); KACSÓ 1999, fig. 7/7 (Călineşti); KACSÓ 2004a, fig.3/2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); KACSÓ 2006, fig.10/10-11 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).


289

rim by small incisions or notches and by incised-excised decoration over the body (pl. 7/2, 9)18. III. Cups (plates 2/7; 7/5, 6, 8)

III.1. cups with evenly thickened rim, rounded in the upper part and bulged body. The upraised handle lowers down to the upper body part. They were made of fine fabric; they usually lack decoration, except one fragment with impressed decoration (pl. 2/7; 6/8; 7/5, 6). It is most likely that the strap handle comes from this type of cup (plate 7/8)19.

?III.2. the fragments with easily everted rim and internally bevelled probably belong to some cups with bulged or tapered body. They were made of fine quality fabric, decorated by grooves or incised-excised decoration (pl. 6/4; 7/10-11)20.

III. shard from the lower part of a tapered cup, decorated by oblique fluting, made of fine fabric. IV. Strainers (pl. 8/6)

There is only one body shard of this kind of vessel made of intermediary fabric21. V. Portable cooking vessels/pyraunoi (plates 1/3-6; 3/4; 9/1-9)

The settlement at Lăpuşel ”Mociar” revealed some shards of this kind of vessel, either from the upper part, or from the legs. With no exception, they were made of coarse fabric, sometimes covered by a

18 BADER, DUMITRAŞCU 1970, fig. 1/1 (Valea lui Mihai); BADER 1976, pl. 2/2 (Suciu de Sus ?); idem1978, pl. 51/5, 7 (Culciu Mare); NÉMETI 1978, pl. 7/3 (Pişcolt); Kacsó 1980, fig. 1/9 (Bulgari); idem 1987, fig. 8/9 (Mesteacăn); KOBAL’ 1997, fig. 9/2 (Solotvino); POP 2003, fig.5/1, 5, 7 (Somueş Uileac); KACSÓ 2004a, fig.3/1 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); 2006, fig.6/8 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”).

19 KACSÓ 1993, pl.1/16 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); 2006, fig. 13/18 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”); fig.7/3 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”).

20 KACSÓ 2006, fig.12/8 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). 21 DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 18, pl.30/13 (Skrabské); BADER 1978, 72, pl.46/4

(Culciu Mic); pl. 53/5,7 (Culciu Mare); KACSÓ 2006, fig.7/6 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”).

Dan Pop

290

brick-red slip; they often had grooved decoration on both feet sides. This type of vessels is often met in almost all Late Bronze Age sites from N-W Romania22 and neighbouring regions23.

Pottery decoration

The pottery made of coarse fabric is often decorated by grooves; the vessels made of intermediary fabric most often lack decoration, but when it appears, it is incised-excised. The fine fabric pottery either lacks decoration, or it is decorated by incised-excised decoration. Only one fragment was discovered and it was small, black on the exterior and red inside.

22 In the Suciu area they were to be found in settlements only, while in

the Lăpuş group, in settlements and necropolises: BADER 1976, pl. 7/1-5 (Suciu de Sus ?); pl. 10/18 (Lăpuş ?); BADER 1978, pl. 53/1-2 (Culciu Mare); pl. 53/3 (Medieşu-Aurit “Şuculeu”); KACSÓ 1975, 53 n. 37 (Kenézlö, Hajdúsámson, Culciu Mic); fig. 9/1-3 (Lăpuş); LAZAROVICI 1977, 37, fig.1/19 (Căprioara); KACSÓ 1980, fig. 2/30 (Ariniş); KACSÓ 1981, pl. 38/1-8 (Lăpuş); KACSÓ 1987, 51, 59 (Oarţa de Jos, unpublished); fig. 2/43-44,46 (Copalnic Mănăştur “Poiana”); fig. 1/7-8 (Baia-Mare); fig. 7/9-11 (Giuleşti); 9/7 (Mesteacăn); 15/1-3 (Vad); KACSÓ 1990, fig. 10/5-7 (Libotin); KACSÓ 1993, pl. 6/7-8 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”); KACSÓ 1995, pl. 5 (Lăpuşel); KACSÓ 1999, fig. 7/12, 16. (Călineşti); fig. 7/13-15 (Călineşti “Rogoaze”); NÉMETI 1997, 79 (Lazuri, unpublished); KOBAĽ 1997, pl. 8/4 (Solotvino); FISCHL, KISS, KULCSÁR 2001, fig. 5/3 (Debrecen “Fancsika”); 5/4 (Hajdúsámson “Majorosági föld”); 5/5 (Kenézlő); ROMSAUER 2003, 133 for the discoveries made in the Transcarpathian Ukraine we were provided with information from J. KOBAĽ (unpublished portable cooking vessels from Suciu de Sus settlements: Beregovo: “Mala gora”, “Tehelňa” and “Buga”; DEDOVO “Tovvar”; Diakovo; Kvasovo: “Velikij Jarok” and “Podlopošgeď”; POP 2003, 87-88, fig.8 (Someş Uileac); KACSÓ 2003a, pl.1/18 (Ariniş); 2/14 (Bozânta Mică “Grind”); 8/4-9 (“Cioltişor”); 9/7-10 (Corni “Secătura”); 13/8-10 (Lăpuş “Cioncaş” / “Sub Cioncaş”); 18/12 (Lăpuş “Tinoasa”); 21/20-21 (Lăpuşel “Tedeş”); 25/9-11 (Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”); maybe 30/13 (Prislop); 33/9-12 (Săsar “Dâmbu Morii”); 35/11-12; 36/1-4 (Seini “Dagas”); KACSÓ 2004a, fig.6/6-11 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”); KACSÓ 2005a, fig.5/7-10; 6/1-4 (Baia Mare. We can’t discern whether the two fragments published in 1987 were re-edited here, or not); Kacsó 2005b, 52, pl.4/4; 13/5; 14/1-7 (Bicaz “Igoaie”).

23 Especially for this research field: FISCHL, KISS, KULCSÁR 2001 and ROMSAUER 2003.


291

The decorations in relief are extremely rare, the prominent cordons lack and we have only one knob-handle and one conical knob.

The fragmentary condition of the material in most cases does not allow the restoration of the vessels decoration; it is most likely that the neck of the pot from plate 4/3 has a zig-zag motif resembling the one on the vessels from Oarţa de Jos ”Vâlceaua Rusului” (KACSÓ 2004a, fig.4/1) and Buşag ”Pe Tog” (KACSÓ 2003a, pl. 3/1).

Clay objects (pl. 8/9; 9/10)

The cultural layer uncovered a fragmentary, tapered, clay weigh perforated in the upper part (plate 9/10). Such pieces have history in the discoveries from Baia Mare (one) (KACSÓ 2005a, 155, fig.6/12), Boineşti (“several pieces”, only one is published) (BADER 1972, 512, 528, pl. 11/7-9; 1978, 73, pl. 49/25; 1979, 20, pl.6/25), Čopivcy “Krasna girka” (nine are unpublished) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 69), Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” (three) (BADER 1972, 528, pl. 11/7-9), Diakovo (ten) (БАЛАГУРИ 1969a, 154, fig. 1/31; 1974, 32-33, 43, fig. 6/17-18, 8/three pieces; ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 18, pl. 1), Lăpuş “Podanc” (several, unpublished) (KACSÓ 1981, 9), Letca (one fragmentary piece) (BAJUSZ, TAMBA 1988, 94, pl. 21/ no number), Libotin (23 pieces, some are published) (KACSÓ 1990, 81, fig.10/9-11, 11/1-4), Orihovy (21 pieces) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, pl 53/1-21), Romočevica (five pieces with cut tops, unpublished) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 49-52), Seini “Dagas” (one) (KACSÓ 2003a, 117/118 no. 28, pl. 36/6) Tăuţi-Măgherăuş (“several” unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987, 66), Vad “Poduri” (one) (Kacsó 1987, 66, pl. 14/16), Vad “Ştiurdina” (two, unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987, 66), Zemplinske Kopčany (three pieces were found in the sondages from C II/5 and C III/1) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 35, pl.4/6, 9, 13), Čopivci “Krasna girka”(ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 69-70). The afore mentioned weighs are either pyramid-like shaped or tapered with a perforated hole in the upper body part. The literature advanced several hypotheses on their functionality. Therefore, they are classified as fast wheel weighs, weighs for fishing rods or weighs used at fixing the organic material of the roof. As the pieces from Romočvica and Diakovo have the tops cut off, one thought they might have been used as table support.

Dan Pop

292

The cultural layer also uncovered a miniature of a clay wheel, also fragmentary, one of its sides is still preserving the axe hub. (plate 8/9). Similar pieces are known from the Suciu de Sus sites at: Ardusat (one, unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987, 51 no.1), Boineşti (two)(BADER 1978, 73, pl.49/28, 29), Brakovce (one) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 35 (here, spindle whorl), pl. 32/7), Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” (three) (BADER 1978, pl.52/10), Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului” (three) (KACSÓ 2004a, fig.7/1-4), Orţâţa “Ţempe” (one) (KACSÓ 2003a, pl. 28/11), Tiream (one, decorated) (BADER 1972, 512, 528, pl.11/3, 6; 1978, 73, pl.50/8), Zemplinske Kopčany (“several”, unpublished) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 34-35).

The cultural layer revealed two obsidian artefacts: “plain, straight scrapers with thick, regular retouching on chips with fine, grey-brown structure” (pl. 9/12) and a “quasi-prism shaped-like core fragment of grey obsidian which shows traces of negatives” (pl. 9/13)24 and a fragment of a stone axe with pointed butt, perforated, made from andesite and broken by the half sleeve (pl. 9/11). Perforated or flat axes, with no sleeve were also found at: Boineşti (“several”, one, published) (BADER 1979, 20, pl. 6/19), Diakovo (“several” flat, perforated and not perforated, unpublished) (БАЛАГУРI 1969a, 149, 153-154; 1969b 64, 68; 11974, 43.), Seini ”Dagas“ (two flat axes) (KACSÓ 2003a, 118, pl.36/7-8), Sighetu Marmaţiei (one, unpublished) (IVANCIUC 1990, 116-117), Vel'ke Raskovce (one, bipennis, perforated) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 41-42, pl. 26/4).

*** The dwelling was found in the south of surface S1 and

continued between surfaces S1 and S3 and also in western S1. We were not able to interfere in the latter of the extensions with a cassette which would have opened the entire dwelling because the ditch dug by the CFR was located only 0.20 m west of S1 and was already fit with the technical pipe with optical fibre. The nuanced grey fill of the dwelling appeared at the level of the cream-yellowish

24 Classifications made by the late professor dr. Alexandru Păunescu

Similar pieces originate from Prislop (KACSÓ 2003a, 116 no. 21, pl. 30/16-18).


293

clay in which deepened 0.10 m. The dwelling was rectangle-shaped with the dimensions: 1.80 X 2.40 m. Especially in the south-western side, surrounding a partially disturbed hearth, the grey fill uncovered many pottery shards, several river stones and flint, small pieces of charcoal and several daub pieces. According to the remains of the preserved hearth in situ, one could observe that it was circular in shape with a rough diameter of 0.70 m. No other improvements were revealed (fig. 4).

We acknowledge several different types of the Suciu de Sus dwellings. Unfortunately, they are often passing mentions, sometimes described and in several cases illustrated25. Surface dwellings are mentioned at Călineşti “Rogoaze” – a rectangular, surface dwelling of 3.5 X 4 m in dimensions, with a hearth situated in its N-W side (NEMOIANU, TODINCĂ 1981, 66-67); at Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” are mentioned 34 surface dwellings of which two (L2 and L4) are rectangular in shape, with 5 x 4 m in dimensions (L2) and, respectively 3 x 2 m (L4) (BADER 1972, 512, 522; 1978, 66-67; IERCOŞAN 1993, 83 no.14); Homorodu de Jos “Togul popii” (BADER 1978, 68), Lazuri “Lubi Tag”- two (KACSÓ 1995, 50; STANCIU, MARTA 2003, 177-182 no. 110) Lăpuşel “Ciurgău” - “several” (KACSÓ 1995, 84; 2004b, 72); Medieşu Aurit “Şuculeu” - three or four surface dwellings of which only one (L4) is known to have rectangular shape with 1.50 X 0.90 m in dimensions (BADER 1978, 66; IERCOŞAN 1993, 86 no. 24.); Oarţa de Jos “Vîlceaua Rusului” - “several” surface dwellings with interior hearths (BADER 1978, 66; IERCOŞAN 1993, 86 no. 24); Petea ”Vama” - “several” (NÉMETI, LAZIN, GHINDELE, MARTA 2000, 74 no. 104); Vad “Poduri” - “several” dwellings with the foundation made of large river stones (KACSÓ 1987, 66). In the Transcarpathian Ukraine, at Diakovo “Kişerda” four surface dwellings were discovered with interior stoves. One of them had a surface of 28 m2, rectangular shape, with a stove in the centre. The second one was destroyed, but it had covered a surface of roughly 30-32 m2. Still at Diakovo, in the “Modicitag” point, were found three dwellings of this type. The first had rectangular shape, 5,8 x 5 m in dimensions, and had

25 See to this POP 2008.

Dan Pop

294

a stove in the south-eastern corner and a hearth in the opposite corner (БАЛАГУРІ 1974, 28-32, fig. 2-4); the second one had the same dimensions, 7.40 x 5-3.60 m, and a surface of 29-30 m2, with a stove and a pit inside (БАЛАГУРІ 1974, 32-34, fig. 2). The third dwelling had a 24 m2 surface, a stove in the centre and a pit in its eastern side. The settlement from Medvedivce uncovered a 36 m2 surface dwelling with two interior hearths, one in the southern side and another in the north (BALAHURI 1967, 79). Also, seven such dwellings of various dimensions, with quasi-rectangular shape were submitted to investigations at Solotvino (KOBAĽ 1997, 120, fig.8; VASILIEV, RUSTOIU, BALAGURI, COSMA 2002, 30-32, pl. 8-9).

Pithouses are mentioned at Culciu Mic “La gropi de siloz”, one of them was oval-shaped, it was 7-8 m long and 3,50 m wide (BADER 1978, 67). One was noted at Giuleşti “Valea Mestecăniş” (KACSÓ 2003b, 33, fig. 1b) and at Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului” (KACSÓ, POP 2004, 219-220, nr. 132). In the Transcarpathian Ukraine are known the settlements from Čopivcy “Kaminne” (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 58, pl. 35/4) (one) and two from Medvedivce (BALAHURI 1967, 79), each fit inside with a hearth. One of them had a surface of 14 m2, square-shaped with rounded corners. At Solotvino three such pithouses, oval-shaped dwellings were investigated. The author (Valentin Vasiliev) explained that because of the small depth, they can’t be assigned to the category of pithouses (VASILIEV, RUSTOIU, BALAGURI, COSMA 2002, 30-31).

There are several “dwellings” lacking details, which were found in the Suciu de Sus settlements: two at Bicaz ”Igoaie” (KACSÓ 2005b, 52, fig. 1); Cepa and Dedovo (БАЛАГУРИ 1969a, 149), one at Medieşu Aurit “Cioncaş”26; “dwellings” at Oarţa de Sus ”Oul Făgetului” (KACSÓ 2003a, 121-122), and “several” dwellings with fire hearths at Sâncraiu Silvaniei (LAKÓ 1983, 87, no. 72). F. M. Potuchniak mentioned and illustrated for the Transcarpathian Ukraine, unfortunately in unspecific writing, the dwellings from Čopivcy “Salaši” (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 65), Romočevica

26 BADER, DUMITRAŞCU 1970, 128; note: it might belong to the

Ottomany culture.


295

(ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 49-52, pl. 35/6) and Sil’ce (ПОТУШНЯК 1958, 39-40, pl. 35/3, 5). We only acknowledge one rectangular dwelling in Eastern Slovakia, from the settlement at Skrabské (DEMETEROVÁ 1984, 18).

Surface S5 uncovered two pits: one contemporary and another prehistoric. Besides these was probably another one dating from the Roman Age. The first occurred immediately after the coating plant had been removed and was assigned to the contemporary age according to its content. The black-grey fill revealed several river stones and prehistoric, pottery fragments which certainly fell into the prehistoric layer when the pit was excavated27.

The second pit was detected at 0.35 m in dept, in the southern profile of the surface, and its fill delimited itself from the sterile soil through its colour, and it went maximum 0.60 m in depth. The pit was likely to be circular in ground-plan, had a diameter of 0.95 m and uncovered prehistoric artefacts only. Its profile has a knob-shaped profile of 0.30 m thick, with a threshold in the western side. Because we ran out of financial resources, opening a new cassette was an impossible action for us to do in order to complete the list of observations that have been made so far (fig. 5).

It seems that another connection should be drawn out between a mis-noticed pit and several pottery shards of the same vessel that were made with the fast wheel from grey, fine fabric with black-grey slip on the outside. The shards, all belonging to the vessel body, were revealed in groups, in check 7, at 0. 22 cm in depth. It is likely that they belonged to the Roman Age.

Pits of different shapes and dimensions, most of them unpublished, that belong to the Suciu de Sus culture were revealed at: Bicaz “Igoaie” (KACSÓ 2005b, 52), Călineşti “Rogoaze” -three pits of which one was circular and had the rim diameter of 1.50 m (NEMOIANU, TODINCĂ 1981, 67); Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” -

27 The investigated site is located in the proximity of a resort provided

with a fishing pond, etc. It is most likely that the pit was dug either by the owner or by tourists in order to clean the litter.

Dan Pop

296

“several” (BADER 1978, 67); Halmeu “Vamă” - one pit (MARTA 2004, 39-46); Lazuri “Drumul Dorolţ” - two pits (MARTA 2001, 126 no. 102); Lăpuşel “Ciurgău” - “several pits” of small size (KACSÓ 1995, 84); Medieşu Aurit “Cioncaş” - “pits” (BADER, DUMITRAŞCU 1970, 128); Moftinu Mic - one partially investigated (NÉMETI 1987, 109, fig. 16/1); Oarţa de Sus “Oul Făgetului” - one narrow pit (KACSÓ 2003a, 122); Petea “Vamă” - “pit” (NÉMETI, LAZIN, GHINDELE, MARTA 2000, 74 no. 104; MARTA 2005, 78); Românaşi - one tapered shaped pit (BEJINARIU 2003, 68-69, no. 10) and maybe at Vad “Poduri” - “several” pits (KACSÓ 1987, 66). In the Transcarpathian Ukraine, pits were mentioned at Diakovo in the points “Kişerda” (26 pits) and “Mondicitag” (БАЛАГУРІ 1974, 29, 32, 34, 36), and in the settlement from Solotvino where three circular pits in ground-plan were submitted to research (VASILIEV, RUSTOIU, BALAGURI, COSMA 2002, 32, pl. 8-9). In Hungary, in the resort from Nyírmada were discovered and submitted to investigation 47 pits that belonged to the Late Bronze Age. The investigations in this area were determined by the accidental discovery in 1993 of a vessel deposit that belonged to the Suciu de Sus culture, which most likely was also laid in a pit (MARTA, TÓTH 2005; MARTA, TÓTH 2006).

There aren’t many opinions we can express about this type of construction, on the one hand because we are devoid of descriptions and technical data, and on the other hand because most of the times we lack information and report on their inventory. In these conditions, we can hardly ascertain conclusions and infer potential functionalities or different usage over a short period of time for the same objective. A special character is undoubtedly the small-sized pit where the needle deposit was laid at Petea (MARTA 2005) and probably the small pit from Culciu Mare.

**** Cultural ascription

The extremely small number of pottery shards decorated by incision-excision confirmed by the small number of bichrome (red-black) pottery with fluting as well as by the absence of prominent belts from the coarse pottery makes us see a difference, not necessarily in chronology, but between the site of Lăpuşel “Mociar” on the one hand,


297

and Suciu II or Lăpuş I sites as they are currently defined, on the other hand. Based on the pottery inventory, we can notice a certain resemblance with the site at Căşeiu28. Because the two settlements mentioned above were not submitted to a complex systematic research, I think it is rather early to assume other opinions.

The Bronze Age site from Căşeiu is thought to be either a stage in the Suciu de Sus cultural development to what we call Lăpuş group (GOGÂLTAN 2001, 195), or a new cultural trend (KACSÓ 2007, 94).

Taking into consideration what we already know about the ascription of the Lăpuşel ”Mociar” settlement to the second phase of the Suciu de Sus culture, this seems a more proper assignment than to include it in the series of Lăpuş sites.

Resuming the archaeological investigations would bring light to the cultural belonging of the Bronze Age material on the one hand, and on the other hand we could provide important data in what concerns the Roman Age habitation on the upper Lăpuş river course.

28 The site from Căşeiu reveals the same situation: there were few bi-

chrome (black-red) shards decorated by fluting or incised-excised motifs besides several pottery fragments decorated by belts in relief.

Dan Pop

298

BIBLIOGRAPHY BADER T.

1976 O veche colecţie de ceramică aparţinînd culturii Suciu de Sus în Muzeul judeţean Mureş – Eine alte Keramiksammlung aus der Suciu de Sus Kultur im Kreismuseum Mureş, Marisia, 6, 37-47.

1978 Epoca bronzului în nord-vestul Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică, Bucureşti.

1979 Die Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Nordwestrumänien, PZ, 54, 3-31.

BADER T., DUMITRAŞCU S. 1970 Săpăturile arheologice la aşezarea de tip Otomani de la

Medieşul Aurit – Les fouilles archéologiques dans l’étabilissement de type Otomani de Medieşul Aurit, MCA, 9, 127-136.

BAJUSZ I., TAMBA D. 1988 Contribuţii la topografia arheologică a văii Someşului

(sectorul Căpîlna-Jibou) – Beiträge zur archäologischen Topographie des Someştals, AMP, 12, 91-120.

BALAHURI E. 1966-1967 A Medvegyivcei (Medvegyfalvai) bronlelet, MFMÉvk,

2, 79-83. BALAGURI E. A.

1976 Novje dannye k istorii pozdnej bronzy Zakarpatja, Eneolit i bronzovyj vek Ukrainy, Kiev, 240-256.

BEJINARIU I. 2003 Noi descoperiri ale culturii Suciu de Sus din judeţul Sălaj –

New discoveries belonging to the Suciu de Sus culture from Sălaj county, Marmatia, 7/1, 65-81.

CHIDIOŞAN N. 1970 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea grupei Suciu de Sus în contextul epocii

bronzului din Crişana, SCIV, 21, 2, 287-293. DEMETEROVA S.

1984 Influence de la culture de Suciu de Sus dans la plain de la Slovaquie Orientele, SlovArch, 32, 1, 11-70.


299

FISCHL K. P., KISS V., KULCSÁR G. 2001 Beiträge zum Gebrauch der tragbare Feuerherden (Pyraunoi)

im Karpatenbecken II. (Spätbronzezeit-Früheisenzeit), in: Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit, C. Kacsó (Hrsg.), Symposium Baia Mare, 7.-10. Oktober 1998, Baia Mare, 125-156.

GOGÂLTAN Fl. 2001 The settlement of Căşeiu and some problems concerning the

Late Bronze Age in the center and northern Transylvania, in: Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit, C. Kacsó (Hrsg.), Symposium Baia Mare 7.-10. Oktober 1998, BiblMarmatia 1, Baia Mare, 191-214.

GOGÂLTAN Fl., ISAC A. 1995 Die spätbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Căşeiu, EphemNap, 5,

5-26. IERCOSAN N.

1992-1993 Săpăturile arheologice din judeţul Satu Mare (1971-1990) – Les fouilles archéologiques du département de Satu Mare (1971-1990), StComSatu Mare, 9-10, 77-90.

IVANCIUC C. 1990 Date privind cultura Suciu de Sus în N-V dep. Maramureş,

SympThrac, 8, Satu Mare, Carei, 116-117. KACSO C.

1975 Contributions à la connaissance de la culture de Suciu de Sus à la lumière des recherches faites à Lăpuş, Dacia N.S., XIX, 45-68.

1980 Descoperiri din epoca bronzului în Depresiunea Sălajului – Entdeckungen der Bronzezeit in der Sălaj-Niederung, AMP, 4, 38-46.

1981 Necropola tumulară de la Lăpuş, Teza de doctorat, Cluj-Napoca.

1987 Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Verbreitungsgebietes und der Chronologie der Suciu de Sus-Kultur, Dacia N.S., XXXI, 51-75.

1990 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. Cercetările de la Libotin – Beiträge zur

Dan Pop

300

Kenntnis der Spätbronzezeit im Norden Transsilvaniens. Die Ausgrabungen in Libotin, Thraco-Dacica, 11, 79-98.

1993 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. Cercetările de la Suciu de Sus şi Groşii Ţibleşului – Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Spätbronzezeit im Norden Transsilvaniens. Die Ausgrabungen in Suciu de Sus und Groşii Ţibleşului, RevBistriţei, 7, 29-48.

1995 Noi date cu privire la prima fază a culturii Suciu de Sus – Neue Angaben zum Anfang der Suciu de Sus Kultur, Apulum, 32, 83-99.

1999 Date noi cu privire la preistoria Maramureşului – Neue Daten zur Vorgeschichte in der Maramureş, Angustia 4, 55-70.

2003a Noi descoperiri Suciu de Sus şi Lăpuş în nordul Transilvaniei – Neue Suciu de Sus und Lăpuş – Funde im norden Siebenbürgens, Marmatia, 7/1, 105-181.

2003b Radu Popa şi cercetarea arheologică din Maramureş – Radu Popa und die archäologischen Forschungen in der Maramureş, in: In memoriam Radu Popa. Temeiuri ale civilizaţiei româneşti în context european, D. Marcu Istrate, A. Istrate, C. Gaiu (coord.), Cluj-Napoca, 25-40.

2004a Zu den Problemen der Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Siebenbürgen, in: Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrift für Joszef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag, J. Bátora, V. Furmánek, L. Veliačik (Hrsg.), Nitra, 327-340.

2004b Mărturii arheologice, Baia Mare. 2005a Descoperiri pre - şi proto istorice la Baia Mare – Vor – und

frühgeschichtliche funde in Baia Mare, Marmatia, 8/1, 153-181.

2005b Contribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. Cercetările de la Bicaz – Igoaie, RevBistriţei, 19, 51-70.

2006 Noi date cu privire la descoperirile din epoca bronzului de la Vălenii Şomcutei – Neue Daten bezüglich der bronzezeitlichen Funde von Vălenii Şomcutei, RevBistriţei, 20, 79-102


301

2007 Descoperiri de bronzuri din nordul Transilvaniei (I). Colecţia Ferenc Floth, Baia Mare.

KACSÓ C., POP D. 2004 Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”, jud. Maramureş, CCA,

2003, 219-220, nr.132. KOBAĽ J.

1997 Preliminary report on the results of archaeological research on the multi-level fortified settlement of “Chitattia” (near Solotvino / Akanaszlatina, Transcarpathian region, Ukraine) by the Expedition of the Transcarpathian Museum of Local History – Előzetes jelentés a Szolotvinó / Akanszlatina (Ukrajna. Kárpátalja) környéki “Csitattja” többrétegű erődített telepen a Kárpátalja Honismereti Múzeum által szervezett régészeti feltárás eredményeiről, JAMÉvk, 37-38, (1995-1996), 115-151.

LAKÓ E. 1983 Repertoriul topografic al epocii bronzului şi al Hallstattului

în judeţul Sălaj – The topographical catalogue of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Sălaj district, AMP, 7, 69-100.

LAZAROVICI Gh. 1977 Cercetări arheologice de suprafaţă la hotarele judeţelor Cluj-

Sălaj – Archäologische Oberflächeforschungen in der Kontakt-Zone der Bezirke Cluj und Sălaj, AMP, 1, 35-39.

MARTA L. 2001 Lazuri, com. Lazuri, jud. Satu Mare. Punctul: Drumul

Dorolţ, CCA, 2000, 126, nr. 102. 2004a Un complex arheologic din epoca mijlocie a bronzului

descoperit la Halmeu – A Middle Bronze Age Dwelling Discovered at Halmeu, StCom Satu Mare, (2000-2004), 17-21/1, 39-46.

2004b Halmeu, com. Halmeu, jud. Satu Mare. Punctul: Vamă, CCA, 2003, 133-134, nr. 83.

2005 Der bronzene Nadeldepotfund von Petea, Kr. Satu Mare – Depozitul de ace din bronz descoperit la Petea, jud. Satu Mare, in: Bronzefunde aus Rumänien II. / Depuneri de

Dan Pop

302

bronzuri din România II, T. Soroceanu (Hrsg.), Bistriţa / Cluj Napoca, 75-94.

MARTA L., TÓTH K. 2005 Gefäβdepotfund der Felsőszőcs - Kultur in Nyírmada –

Vályogvető, JAMÉvk, 47, 107-143. 2006 Gefäβdepotfund der Felsőszőcs - Kultur in Nyírmada –

Vályogvető, in: Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde – Problem des Interpretation. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tivodor Lehoczky zum 175 Geburstag, Ushhorod, 5-6. Oktober 2005, Ujgorod, 302-317.

NEMETI I. 1978 Descoperiri de la sfârşitul epocii bronzului din jurul

Careiului – Découvertes de la fin de l’époque de bronze aux environs de Carei, SCIVA, 29, 99-122.

1987 Descoperiri arheologice din teritoriul localităţii Moftinu Mic (jud. Satu Mare) – Archäologische Entdeckungen auf dem Gebiet des Dorfes Moftinu Mic (Kreis Satu Mare), StComSatu Mare 7-8, (1986-1987), 101-137.

1997 Descoperirile arheologice de la Lazuri – “Lubi-tag” (jud. Satu Mare) din anii 1995-1996 – Archaeological discoveries from Lazuri-Lubi-tag (Satu Mare county) in 1995-1996, CAANT, II, Bucureşti, 78-86.

NÉMETI J., LAZIN GH., GHINDELE R., MARTA L. 2000 Petea, com. Dorolţ, jud. Satu Mare. Punct: Vamă, CCA, 1999, 74,

nr. 104. NEMOIANU L., TODINCĂ GH.

1981 Şantierul arheologic Călineşti, jud. Maramureş – Le site archéologique de Călineşti, dép. de Maramureş, CA, 4, 66-69.

POP D. 2003 Aşezarea din epoca bronzului de la Someş-Uileac – The

Bronze Age settlement from Someş – Uileac, Maramureş county, Marmatia, 7/1, 83-104.

2008 Câteva consideraţii privind stadiul cercetării culturii Suciu de Sus şi a grupului Lăpuş – Some considerations about the research stage of the Suciu de Sus culture and the Lăpuş group, StCom SatuMare, 22/1, (2005), 61-92.


303

ROMSAUER P. 2003 Πύραυνοι (Pyraunoi). Prenosné piecky a podstavce z doby

bronzovej a doby železnej, Nitra. STANCIU I.

1992 Descoperiri din a doua jumătate a mileniului I î.Chr. şi mileniul I d.Chr. în judeţul Maramureş – Les découverts provenand de la seconde moitié de 1-er millénaire av.JC et du 1 –er millénaire av. JC dans le dép. de Maramureş, EphemNap, 2, 169-191.

2003 Descoperiri medievale timpurii din judeţele Satu Mare şi Maramureş. Date noi, observaţii şi opinii referitoare la ceramica medievală timpurie din nord-vestul României – Frühmittelalterliche Funde und Befunde aus den Kreisen Satu Mare und Maramureş. Neue Angaben, Bemerkungen und Ansichten zur frühmittelalterlichen Keramik im Nordwesten Rumäniens, Marmatia, 7/1, 249-316.

STANCIU I., L. MARTA 2003 Lazuri, com. Lazuri, jud. Satu Mare. Punctul: Lubi Tag,

CCA, 2002, 177-182, nr. 110. VASILIEV V., RUSTOIU A., BALAGURI E., COSMA C.

2002 Solotvino –“Cetate” (Ucraina Transcarpatică). Aşezările din epoca bronzului, a doua vârstă a fierului şi din evul mediu timpuriu, Cluj-Napoca.

БАЛАГУРИ З. А. 1969a Фельшесевч – Становская групп памятникв зпохи

поздней ьронзы в верхнем потиссье – Les monuments de la civilisation le Felchéchevth-Stanovo de l”Lage du Bronze tardif en Tiss superieur, SovArh, 2, 147-159.

и 1969b Новейшие памятники Фелшесевчской ультуры на территории акарпатской области УССР, MFMÉvk 2, 61-68.

1974 До питання про досліджєння пам’яток пізньобронзової добі у виноградівському раионі Закарпаської області, Зборник Методичний для студентів з археології, Ужгород, 25-47.

Dan Pop

304

ПОТУШНЯК M. Ф. 1958 Археологічні знахідки бронзового та залізного віку на

Закарпатті, Ужгород.


305

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Lăpuşel village and “Mociar” site; the place where was made excavations is marked with black rectangle.

Fig. 2: Archaeological excavations plan.

Fig. 3: A: S 3 - west profile; B: S1- west profile; C: S 2 - west profile; D: S 5 - south profile. 1: humus; 2: brown earth layer (culture layer); 3: yellowish-cream coloured layer earth; 4: light grey coloured layer earth; 5: mixture beetwen brown earth and ballast; 6: yellowish with limonite coloured clay layer, without artifacts; 7: dun-black color dressing of the modern pit; 8: sherds; 9: animal hole; 10: stones; 11: little pieces of the burnt clay.

Fig. 4: Plan and profile of the dwelling no.1. Fig. 5: Plan and profile of the pit no. 1. Pl. 1: Pottery from dwelling no. 1. Pl. 2: Pottery from dwelling no. 1.

Pl. 3: 1-3: Pottery from dwelling no. 1; 4-5: pottery from pit no. 1.

Pl. 4: Pottery from pit no. 1.

Pl. 5: Pottery from culture layer.




Pl. 9: from culture layer: 1-9: pottery; 10: weight made by clay; 11: stone axe; 12-13: obsidian artifacts.

Dan Pop

306

Fig.

1: Lăp

uşel

vill

age

and

“Moc

iar”

site

; the

pla

ce w

here

was

mad

e ex

cava

tions

is m

arke

d w

ith b

lack

rect

angl

e.


307

Fig. 2: Archaeological excavations plan.

Dan Pop

308

Fig.

3: A

: S 3

- w

est p

rofil

e; B

: S1-

wes

t pro

file;

C: S

2 -

wes

t pro

file;

D: S

5 -

sout

h pr

ofile

. 1:

hum

us; 2

: bro

wn

earth

laye

r (cu

lture

laye

r); 3

: yel

low

ish-c

ream

colo

ured

laye

r ear

th; 4

: lig

ht g

rey

colo

ured

laye

r ea

rth; 5

: mix

ture

bee

twen

bro

wn

earth

and

bal

last

; 6: y

ello

wish

with

lim

onite

colo

ured

clay

laye

r, w

ithou

t arti

fact

s; 7:

du

n-bl

ack

colo

r dre

ssin

g of

the

mod

ern

pit;

8: sh

erds

; 9: a

nim

al h

ole;

10:

ston

es; 1

1: li

ttle

piec

es o

f the

bur

nt cl

ay.


309

Fig. 4: Plan and profile of the dwelling no. 1.

Dan Pop

310

Fig. 5: Plan and profile of the pit no. 1.


311

Pl. 1: Pottery from dwelling no. 1.

Dan Pop

312

Pl. 2: Pottery from dwelling no. 1.


313

Pl. 3: 1-3: Pottery from dwelling no. 1; 4-5: pottery from pit no. 1.

Dan Pop

314

Pl. 4: Pottery from pit no. 1.


315


Dan Pop

316



317


Dan Pop

318



319

Pl. 9: Pottery from culture layer: 1-9: artefcts; 10: weight made of clay; 11: stone axe; 12-13: obsidian artifacts.

Signa Praehistorica D. Pop

Documents

Transcript of Signa Praehistorica D. Pop