This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Redigit: Victor Spinei
Cover design: Manuela Oboroceanu
The English translations were revised by: Norbert Poruciuc
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”
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 României OMAGIU. 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.)
..................................... 41 Nicolae URSULESCU.............................................................. 13 Bibliography ............................................................................ 141 Tiberius BADER Wiederherstellung des Inhaltes einer alten Entdeckung........................................................................................................................ 85 Felix-Adrian TENCARIU Some Thoughts Concerning the Pottery Pyrotechnology in Neolithic and Chalcolithic .......CONTENTS/INHALTSVERZEICHNIS/ TABLE DES MATIÈRES Tabula Gratulatoria ... 49 Săpăturile de la Cucuteni din 1910 reflectate într-un raport inedit al lui Hubert Schmidt ...................................... 119 János MAKKAY Two Peculiar Types of the North Caucasian Maikop Culture.......................................................................................................... .......................................... 189 Radu BĂJENARU About the Terminology and Periodization of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube Area .................... 203 ................................... 165 Nikolaus BOROFFKA........... 19 Abbreviations/Abkürzungen/Abréviations .................................................................. Their Southern Parallels and Chronological Importance ..... 9 On the Occasion of Professor Attila László’s 70th Anniversary .................................... Alexander RUBEL Die Ausgrabungen in Cucuteni im Jahre 1910 nach einem unveröffentlichten Grabungsbericht von Hubert Schmidt ...............................................................................................................................................................................Der Hortfund von Stâna/Felsőboldád bez....................................... Satu Mare und sein Mentor/Fürsprecher Antal Gyurits ............................................. Rodica BOROFFKA Ein alter bronzener Dolch aus Siebenbürgen ........................................................................ 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 .........................
............................... Tulcea County. Issues of Methodology............. 443 Adrian PORUCIUC The Greek Term Keramos (‘Potter’s Clay.. 403 Constantin ICONOMU Some Dobrudja – Discovered Items from a Private Collection ............. un pionnier de la recherche des dépôts de bronzes de la Bucovine ... 451 . The Metal Artefacts at the End of the Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Lower Danube Region ............................... Maramureş County .............................................. Valeriu BANARU Die Frühhallstattzeitlichen Befestigungsanlagen im ostkarpatischen Raum .......................Bolduţ......................................... 229 Florica MĂŢĂU Patterns of Deposition...................................................................... 213 Neculai BOLOHAN “All in One”.................... Angaben zu den prähistorischen Feiern und Götter (namen) sowien dem Schmuck der Zeremonienbekleidung aus Pannonien .. Earthenware’) as Probably Inherited from a Pre-Indo-European (Egyptoid) Substratum .............. 283 Bogdan Petru NICULICĂ Karl Adolf Romstorfer.......... 265 Dan POP The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar”.......................Anca-Diana POPESCU Deliberate Destruction of Pottery During the Bronze Age – A Case Study .......... Paradigms and Radiocarbon Datings Concerning the Outer Eastern Carpathian Area .. 373 Aurel ZANOCI...................................... Isaccea........... 321 Sorin Cristian AILINCĂI New Observations on the First Iron Age Discoveries at Revărsarea– Cotul Tichileşti........................ 343 Mária FEKETE Sankt Veit.. 245 Mihai WITTENBERGER A Special Site of the Noua Culture ...... Cluj County ...........
Bacău John Chapman. Chişinău Andrei Asăndulesei. Iaşi Dumitru Boghian. Iaşi Ioan Bejinariu. Suceava Ovidiu Boldur. Krakow George Bodi. Târgu Mureş Octavian Bounegru. Praha Ovidiu Buruiană. Alba Iulia Ioan Ciupercă. Iaşi Marius Alexianu. Florica Măţău. Krakow Miron Cihó. Chişinău Bartók Botond. Iaşi Mircea Babeş. Iaşi Valeriu Cavruc. Iaşi Radu Băjenaru. Iaşi Jan Chokorowski. Gent Jan Bouzek. Budapest Wojciech Blajer. Thessaloniki Mugurel Andronic. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan. Alba Iulia Gheorghe Cliveti. Suceava Gabriel Bădărău. Iaşi Alexandra Anders. Iaşi Dan Buzea. Sfântu Gheorghe Rezi Botond. Bucureşti Horia Ciugudean. Tulcea Ruxandra Alaiba. Chişinău Eszter Bánnfy. Berlin Ilie Borziac. Bucureşti Costel Chiriac. Iaşi Katalin Biró. Felix Adrian Tencariu TABULA GRATULATORIA Adrian Adamescu. Suceava Dan Aparaschivei. Iaşi Tudor Arnăutu. Vaslui Vasile Chirica. Liège . Iaşi Mihai Cojocariu. Hemmingen Valeriu Banaru. Iaşi Nikolaus Boroffka. Roma Viorel Căpitanu. Berlin Rodica Boroffka. Iaşi Jean Marie Cordy. Bucureşti George Bilavschi. Iaşi Laurenţiu Chiriac. Chişinău Sorin Cristian Ailincăi. Iaşi Marius Ciută.Signa Praehistorica. Bucureşti Luminiţa Bejenaru. Iaşi Serghei Agulnikov. Sfântu Gheorghe Alberto Cazella. Bucureşti Tiberius Bader. Bacău Neculai Bolohan. Zalău Cătălin Bem. Budapest Paraschiva-Victoria Batariuc. Budapest Stelios Andreou. Galaţi Ion Agrigoroaiei. Iaşi Jean Bourgeois. Budapest László Bartosiewicz. Durham Ion Chicideanu. Sfântu Gheorghe Ion Caproşu. Iaşi Costică Asăvoaiei.
Iaşi George Costea. Szeged László Horváth. Oradea Gheorghe Dumitroaia. Suceava Sorin Ignătescu. Budapest Alexandra Găvan. Tulcea Constantin Iconomu. Münster Borislav Jovanović. Százhalombatta Linda Ellis. Iaşi Wolfgang David. Szolnok Iosip Kobal’. Krakow Florin Gogâltan. Neamţ Marin Dinu. Iaşi Kalla Gábor. Chişinău Vasile Diaconu. Nagykanizsa Cătălin Hriban. Beograd Gabriel Jugănaru. Užhorod Judit Koós. Budapest Tibor Kovács. Berlin Nándor Kalicz. Miskolc Giorgios Korres. Baia Mare Elke Kaiser. Cluj-Napoca Sergiu Enea. Exeter Svend Hansen. Budapest Lidia Dascălu.Tabula Gratulatoria Vasile Cotiugă. San Francisco Apai Emese. Thessaloniki László Kovács. Budapest Nagy Iózsef Gábor. Tulcea Carol Kacso. Edirne Mária Fekete. Iaşi Katalin Jankovits. Iaşi Gheorghe Iacob. Berlin Anthony Harding. Budapest Erzsébet Jerem. Gèneve Valentin Dergacev. Pécs Marilena Florescu. Cluj-Napoca Tibor Kemenczei. Piatra Neamţ István Ecsedy. Timişoara Sever Dumitraşcu. Berlin Bernhard Hänsel. Tulcea Ovidiu Cotoi. Berlin Florin Hău. Iaşi Florin Draşovean. Chişinău Imola Kelemen. Budapest Albrecht Jockenhövel. Roman Ferenc Horváth. Iaşi Mihai Irimia. Suceava Gábor Ilon. Budapest Maia Kašuba. Tg. Iaşi Ion Ignat. Bacău Gheorghe Iutiş. Cluj-Napoca Szabó Gábor. Suceava 10 George Hânceanu. Kőszeg Ion Ioniţă. Cluj-Napoca Marek Gedl. Târgu Frumos Burcin Erdogu. Iaşi Roxana Curcă. Constanţa Lăcrămioara Istina. Iaşi Zoltán Czajlik. Cluj-Napoca Ştefan-Sorin Gorovei. Galaţi Cristina Creţu. Athens Viaceslav Kotigorojko. Iaşi Mihaela Iacob. Budapest . Iaşi Jochen Görsdorf. Iaşi Mircea Ignat. Užhorod Kostas Kotsakis. Budapest Róbert Kertész. Manching Mireille David-Elbiali.
Holon Krisztián Oross. Bucureşti Dragomir Popovici. Istanbul Aleksandar Palavestra. Iaşi Lóránt László Méder. Iaşi Alexandru-Florin Platon. Huşi Carola Metzner-Nebelsick. Vaslui Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici. Németh. Iaşi János Makkay. Wien Oleg Leviţki. Tulcea Hermann Parzinger. Budapest Jurij N. Sibiu Bogdan-Petru Maleon. Iaşi Agathe Reingruber. Iaşi Dan Pop. Wien Sabin Adrian Luca. Warsaw Gabriella T. Chişinău Ciprian Lazanu. Iaşi Gheorghe Lazarovici. Iaşi Lucian Munteanu. Krakow Pál Raczky. Tulcea Ivan Ordentlich. Iaşi Gabriel Leanca.Tabula Gratulatoria Larisa Krušelnicka. Liège Mehmet Özdogan. Chişinău Andreas Lippert. Kiev Igor Manzura. Suceava Tamilia Marin. Berlin Mihai Rotea. Bucureşti Dorel Paraschiv. München Lucreţiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba. Iaşi Gheorghe Marinescu. Budapest Marcel Otte. Bucureşti Erzsébet Marton. Sfântu Gheorghe Aurel Melniciuc. Baia Mare Anca-Diana Popescu. Catania Bogdan Minea. Berlin Petre Roman. Budapest Laurenţiu Rădvan. Botoşani Vicu Merlan. Iaşi Marcin S. Berlin Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. Piatra Neamţ Marian Neagu. Maleev. Iaşi Ioan Mitrea. Cluj-Napoca Dan Lazăr. Iaşi Felicia Monah. Iaşi Virgil Mihailescu-Bîrliba. Suceava Ion Niculiţă. Iaşi Pietro Militello. Târgu Mureş Andrei Nicic. Bacău Iulian Moga. Bistriţa-Năsăud Sivia Marinescu-Bîlcu. Budapest Florica Măţău. Chişinău George Nuţu. Lviv Olga Larina. Iaşi Adriana Moglan. Bucureşti Adrian Poruciuc. Iaşi Liviu Pilat. Przybyla. Chişinău Ioan Mareş. Százhalombatta Rita Németh. Iaşi Roxana Munteanu. Chişinău Bogdan Niculică. Iaşi Cristian Ploscaru. Cluj-Napoca 11 . Iaşi Eva Lenneis. Călăraşi Louis Nebelsick. Iaşi Dan Monah. Nitra Eva Rosenstock. Beograd Nona Palincaş. Bucureşti Peter Romsauer.
Constanţa Andreea Vornicu. Iaşi Aurel Zanoci. Odessa Silviu Sanie. Szekszárd Miklós Szabó. Berlin Victor Spinei. Teodor. Iaşi Ion Toderaşcu. Százhalombatta Adrian Viţalaru. Sfântu Gheorghe Alexandru Szentmiklosi. Besançon Mihai Wittenberger. Chişinău Berecki Sándor. Bratislava Géza Szabó. Iaşi Henrieta Todorova. Iaşi Katalin Tóth. Iaşi Tudor Soroceanu. Smirnova. Iaşi Ion Solcanu. Iaşi Silvia Teodor. Iaşi Eugen Sava. Bucureşti Petronel Zahariuc. Uhldingen-Mühlhofen Katalin H. Iaşi Elisabeth Ruttkay. Vaslui Vasile Ursachi. Simon. Wien Senica Ţurcanu. Samojlova. Sfântu Gheorghe Monica Şandor Chicideanu. Blagoevgrad Lăcrămioara Stratulat. Budapest Maria-Magdalena Székely. Berlin Gudrun Schneckenburger. Timişoara Sándor Sztáncsuj. Chişinău Olivier Weller. Iaşi Valentina Voinea. Cluj-Napoca Mădălin-Cornel Văleanu. Budapest Galina I. Iaşi Corina Ursache. Hódmezővásárhely Gerhard Trnka. Iaşi Alexandru Vulpe. Iaşi Valentin Vasiliev. Konstanz Gunter Schöbel. Iaşi Măriuca Vornicu. Beograd Felix Adrian Tencariu.Tabula Gratulatoria Alexander Rubel. Iaşi Constantin Emil Ursu. Iaşi Zolt Székely. Budapest Ildikó Szathmári. Târgu Mureş Wolfram Schier. Bucureşti Nikola Tasić. Iaşi Magdolna Vicze. Roman Nicolae Ursulescu. Iaşi Elena Studenikova. Sankt Petersburg Loredana Solcan. Cluj-Napoca 12 . Iaşi Dan Gh. Iaşi Mark Stefanovich. Suceava Lucian Uţă. Piatra Neamţ Mihail Vasilescu. Sofia Claudiu Topor. Wien Tatjana L.
The place called by the locals “Mociar” is to be found in the west side of the locality. facing the 170+8 kilometer. 280 no. bordered on the north and east sides by Arişel brook. roughly 7 km south-east of the point where it flows into Someş. Felix Adrian Tencariu THE BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AT LĂPUŞEL “MOCIAR”. . 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. 155 m high. Maramureş County) is a village located about 10 km south-west of Baia Mare town. Florica Măţău.Signa Praehistorica.N.22. Mociar is a terrace of the Lăpuş river. in the proximity of Baia Mare – Dej – Cluj Napoca railway.) (Fig.14 B. 1 Investigations targeted the course of the ditch dug by the C. 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. Studia in honorem magistri Attila László septuagesimo anno Ediderunt Neculai Bolohan. 2 We assume the error from CCA 2001 (2000 Campaign) p.C. on the lower course of the Lăpuş river. about 850 m south-west of CFR Lăpuşel halt. 131. 175 NO. 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. STANCIU 2003. which erroneously mentions the house length and orientation. 1). 2 km south of the Lăpuş river and roughly 640 m north of Baia Mare – Dej road.F. MARAMUREŞ COUNTY DAN POP (BAIA MARE) Lăpuşel (Recea commune. oriented N-W – S-W2. The point which revealed pottery fragments is located in the east side of the terrace.R. 1250 m long.
cultural affiliation as well as rescuing the vestiges influenced by the upgrading works. Here and there. the soil is mixed with a large quantity of pebbles. surface and stratigraphy of the site. 10-35 cm thick which uncovered many artefacts. six archaeological features were identified and investigated. tamping with many calcareous concretions and a slight presence of ferric oxide. Bucharest. Also. with the dimensions: 19 x 2 m (S4) and respectively. in the eastern confines of the surface. two obsidian objects and a stone axe.A. among which were a dwelling and a pit that belong to the Bronze Age (fig. 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. Some parts of the investigated areas uncovered that the upper part of this layer was cream-yellowish. 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. devoid of archaeological material. 5-10 cm thick.brown soil. 19 x 3 m (S5). a broken miniature of a wheel.yellow-reddish clay and ocher. and lacked archaeological materials. between meter 0 and meter 4. 17 wheel-made pottery fragments.Dan Pop * Archaeological rescue excavations3 aimed at achieving data on the nature of the discovery. charcoal pieces and stones.coating plant. A surface of 181 square meters that totals 103 cubic meters was submitted to research and uncovered 769 prehistoric pottery fragments. 2)4. 3 284 . 10 X 2. 3): .60 m (S3) and two sections were oriented east-west. 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). . . Archaeological investigations revealed the following stratigraphy (fig. 4 The layout was prepared by Dan Pop with help from Ovidiu Oanea and Sergiu Groşan. In order to achieve these objectives. fragments from a clay weigh.
4/2-4. 5-6. 6/1. rather homogeneous. Intermediary pottery (Pl. 2/1-2. 3. smoothed with brick-red or brown-brick-red slip. 5-7. 8/1-2. 11. 8-12. 7. The black-greyish paste contains rough sand.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” exclusively in the upper part of this layer. 7/1. The paste was fired hard until it turned black-greyish or brick-reddish. 5/1-5. Good firing. 8/7. 5-6. portable cooking vessels and hardly bowls or tureens. It was then covered by a brick-reddish or brown-brick-reddish slip and rarely black-greyish. especially as few graphic restorations could be done. Rough paste (Pl. 9. 6/2-3. 3/2. ** During researches. 3. 9. 6) is mostly represented by pots and bowls/tureens and scarcely by strainers. 4-5. 7/4. 2/8-11. 4-5. the paste was black-greyish. 7/2. with no archaeological materials. They were made of a fabric that contained rough sand and mica besides pounded shards. 8. many vestiges were discovered. 5. pounded shards and it is covered by brick-red or brown-brickred slip. The paste was prepared in accordance with the dimensions of the future vessels. 4/1. 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. among which pottery fragments took the first place in what concerns quantity. 7-8. 10) were made most of the small-sized vessels: cups. Also. 8/3. 7. 9/1-9) was mostly used at making middle-sized and large-sized pots. 9.1/1-2. Of fine paste (Pl. 3/1. 8. 6-7.1/3-6. 6/4. They were tempered with fine sand and well pounded mica schist that conferred a homogeneous look. 8. 2/3. The following types emerged from classification: 285 . pots and scarcely tureens. Complete vessels were not found and only one has been restored. the upper part of the sterile soil was grey with a little ocher. in S2. 5/6. 10-12. 7. from meter 4 northward. were found several pottery fragments.
and has a diameter of 17-24 cm. Pots and the variants: I. possibly bulged body.4.3. TÓTH 2005. the fragments that were preserved lacked decoration and were made of fine and intermediary fabric with the diameter between 16-19 cm (pl.11/5 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”) 8 KACSÓ 1993.29/1 (Orţâţa “Pe Lab”). the lower part of the neck is fit with two small handles with semicircular section. bulged or tapered body.1. slightly conical neck and arched body. 8/3.1/6 (Sâncraiu Silvaniei). fig.10/8 (Bicaz “Igoaie”). decorated by incised-excised motifs and narrow fluting (plates 4/2-3. TÓTH 2006.4/1 (Someş Uileac).5. fig.12/3 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). they have 10. they were made of intermediary fabric. It was made of intermediary fabric. I. 7 POP 2003. 4/1-2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”).2. 5/2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”. fig. KACSÓ 2006. ‘tapered’ or arched neck. fig. 12 (Someş Uileac). fig. 8/1)9. 3. fig. band-handles. The preserved pieces lack decoration. MARTA. POP 2003. 21/12 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”).1/13 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). KACSÓ 2006. 1/2)6. 2/3. KACSÓ 2003a. cylindrical or roughly tapered neck and probably bulged body. I. 5/1)7.4. roughly arched body. KACSÓ 1987. 2/7 (Oarţa de Sus).10/ 19 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).12/7 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).3/1 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peşteara Valea Rea”).3/7 (Someş Uileac). KACSÓ 2004a.Dan Pop I. pots with slightly flanged rim. fig. pots with slightly everted and internally bevelled rim. I. 12)8.3 cm in diameter (pl. KACSÓ 2005b. pot with slightly internally bevelled rim. wide at the outside and round inside. pot with thickened rim. the zone between the neck and body is marked. pl. pl. I. MARTA. 5 KACSÓ 1980. 1/1)5. short. fig. fig.3/1 (Someş Uileac).1. fig. One of the fragments was decorated by grooves (plates 5/2. 6 KACSÓ 2006.23/22 (Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”). 286 . pl. this fragment is decorated on the upper part of its body with wide fluting (pl. fig. 4/6. 4. pl. fig. KACSÓ 2003a. KACSÓ 2004b. conical neck fit with two symmetrical. 5. pots with extremely wide rim at the outside. 9 POP 2003. They were made of intermediary fabric. fig.3/2. fig. KACSÓ 2006. POP 2003. 6.
They were made of coarse fabric and were decorated by grooves (pl.2/5. KACSÓ 1993. 7/8. no decoration (plate 4/9. Similarities: I. pots with thickened rim at the outside and internally bevelled. 5/1.4/2. 14 KACSÓ 2006. 11/4 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). fig.8. 4/1. pot with thickened rim. fig. KACSÓ 2006. with the walls slightly arched towards the inside. 12 KACSÓ 1993.10/20 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”).5/1. pl. 8. pot with round. Those made of intermediary fabric (1. KACSÓ 2004a.1/4. 2/4 (Căşeiu). 11 KACSÓ 1987. fig. KACSÓ 2004a. 9).3/7.6/4 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”). 17 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). 5. 4. 9/13 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). upraised or internally bevelled. GOGÂLTAN. tapered neck.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” I. 5/5 (Căşeiu). fig. pl. 8-12.10. pl4/1-3 (Căşeiu). KACSÓ 1993. the body is slightly arched. 8/4. pl. 5/4. I. fig. pot with S-shaped profile and evenly thickened rim. The preserved fragment was made of coarse fabric and was grooved (plate 2/2).2) either lack decoration or are decorated by small conical knobs (pl.1/13.1) and are grooved. extremely bulged body. bulged or tapered body made of coarse fabric. with roughly arched body. ISAC 1995. pl. the inside of the rim is round or prominent. 6. the vessel is made of intermediary fabric (plate 5/5)10. I. 2/4. Similarities: I. pl. evenly thickened rim. GOGÂLTAN 2001. 5-6. 8. pots with slightly thickened rim at the outside.9. 10 287 . fig. 6. 11/10 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). 4/4. 6/3. The fragments that were preserved from these vessels are corroded. The way these rims were made is similar with the one tureens were made. rounded and bevelled rim. pl.11.1/26 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). only that the rim diameter is obviously shorter than the latter12.8. 7/3)13.6. 6/2. Gogâltan 2001. 8/5)11. Most of the pots were made of coarse fabric (1. 13 KACSÓ 1993.7. pot with evenly thickened rim and extremely everted. 7-15. decorated by grooves (plate 6/1)14.10/ 7.9/51 (Mesteacăn). I.8.4/11 (Cuceu “Cuceul Sec”).5/4 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”). KACSÓ 1987.
some are grooved (pl. short and arched neck. KACSÓ 1987.6/2. fig. 8/4. fig. made of intermediary fabric. 7/7 (Călineşti). pl.1/8. 2/9-10. pl. semi-spherical body (pl. KACSÓ 1999. 21/5 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”).10/10-11 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). the preserved fragment lacks decoration (pl. pl. II. pl. KACSÓ 1993. 7/1 (Căşeiu). 8/7). 9/7 (Libotin). pl. KOBAL’ 1997. fig. KACSÓ 2006. fig. KACSÓ 2006. 8/2)15. KACSÓ 1990. fig. II. 2/4 (Oarţa de Sus). the rim (plate 6/7) or the body of other pots (pl.Dan Pop I. KACSÓ 1980. tureens with everted rim. 7/7 (Călineşti). GOGÂLTAN. with the maximum diameter fit with either a fake handle or a small ring-handle with circular profile. 2/1. 2/8. fig. Similarities: It is most likely that some vessels of this type own the lower part shards (pl.6/10 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”). 17 KACSÓ 1993. 7/1).1. 47/16 (Boineşti). they are made of intermediary fabric. tapered body.3/2 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”). KACSÓ 1999. BADER 1976. pot with inside faceted rim and slightly thickened at the outside. 11. 2/8 (Copalnic Mănăştur).12. 7/7). 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. thickened and internally bevelled. II. 7/7. Bowls / tureens (plates 2/8-11. They were made of fine fabric. pl. 7/1-4) II.2. 4/34 (Solotvino). tureens with everted rim.. pl. Also. 4/7. BADER 1978. 3/1-2. either lack decoration or have grooved decoration16. fig. decorated below the GOGÂLTAN. The latter were made either of intermediary or fine fabric. KACSÓ 2004a. 8/10). 2/25-27 (Ariniş). 8). 3/2 (Suciu de Sus ?). 5. 7/4)17.5/8 (Căşeiu). 15 16 288 .7/2. 1/3 (Baia Mare). 9/2-3 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). 12 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”).3.13/12-15 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). 4/3-4 (Solotvino). The strap handle and the knob-handle were both made of coarse fabric and can be assigned to some pots (pl. the fragment decorated by oblique fluting on the body might belong to a pot of fine work on intermediary fabric (pl. ISAC 1995. ISAC 1995. pl. KOBAL’ 1997. fig. similar bowls in shape with the previous variant only that these have tapered body and are also made of intermediary paste.
V. fig. They were made of fine quality fabric. The upraised handle lowers down to the upper body part.6/8 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”).1. 7/3 (Pişcolt). 9)18. pl.7/3 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”). 5. With no exception. 18 289 . rounded in the upper part and bulged body. 2006.30/13 (Skrabské). decorated by oblique fluting. BADER 1978. fig. 53/5. 2006. fig. 6. or from the legs. Strainers (pl. It is most likely that the strap handle comes from this type of cup (plate 7/8)19. IV. 13/18 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). 8/9 (Mesteacăn). DUMITRAŞCU 1970. sometimes covered by a BADER. 21 DEMETEROVÁ 1984.2.12/8 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Valea lui Ştefan”). ?III.3/1 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”). 8) III. 20 KACSÓ 2006. pl.7 (Culciu Mare). 6/8. pl.1/16 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). fig. 1/1 (Valea lui Mihai). POP 2003. decorated by grooves or incised-excised decoration (pl. fig. III. 72. fig. fig.46/4 (Culciu Mic). except one fragment with impressed decoration (pl. pl. they were made of coarse fabric. they usually lack decoration. 18. pl. 7/5. idem1978.5/1. the fragments with easily everted rim and internally bevelled probably belong to some cups with bulged or tapered body. 6/4. KACSÓ 2004a. KOBAL’ 1997.7/6 (Vălenii Şomcutei “Peştera Valea Rea”). 7/2. fig. Cups (plates 2/7. 7 (Culciu Mare). 19 KACSÓ 1993. 7/5. fig. 2/2 (Suciu de Sus ?). 51/5. KACSÓ 2006. NÉMETI 1978. 3/4. 9/2 (Solotvino). 7 (Somueş Uileac).The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” rim by small incisions or notches and by incised-excised decoration over the body (pl. 7/10-11)20. Kacsó 1980. III. 6). They were made of fine fabric. 8/6) There is only one body shard of this kind of vessel made of intermediary fabric21. shard from the lower part of a tapered cup. fig. either from the upper part. made of fine fabric. Portable cooking vessels/pyraunoi (plates 1/3-6. BADER 1976. pl. pl. 9/1-9) The settlement at Lăpuşel ”Mociar” revealed some shards of this kind of vessel. idem 1987. fig. 1/9 (Bulgari). cups with evenly thickened rim. 2/7.
Culciu Mic).5/7-10. Kvasovo: “Velikij Jarok” and “Podlopošgeď”. 5/3 (Debrecen “Fancsika”). 37. black on the exterior and red inside. 79 (Lazuri. 37 (Kenézlö. 6/7-8 (Suciu de Sus “Pe Şes”). POP 2003. 10/5-7 (Libotin). 9/7 (Mesteacăn). 13/5. pl. KACSÓ 1995. 9/7-10 (Corni “Secătura”). pl. This type of vessels is often met in almost all Late Bronze Age sites from N-W Romania22 and neighbouring regions23.1/19 (Căprioara). fig. 52. KACSÓ 1980. 6/1-4 (Baia Mare. Diakovo. Only one fragment was discovered and it was small. pl. BADER 1978. 33/9-12 (Săsar “Dâmbu Morii”). Pottery decoration The pottery made of coarse fabric is often decorated by grooves. unpublished). in settlements and necropolises: BADER 1976. (Călineşti). DEDOVO “Tovvar”.1/18 (Ariniş). maybe 30/13 (Prislop). 7/13-15 (Călineşti “Rogoaze”). LAZAROVICI 1977. they often had grooved decoration on both feet sides. but when it appears. KISS. 53/3 (Medieşu-Aurit “Şuculeu”).4/4. 38/1-8 (Lăpuş). 5 (Lăpuşel). 87-88. KACSÓ 2005a. fig. unpublished). 25/9-11 (Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”). 13/8-10 (Lăpuş “Cioncaş” / “Sub Cioncaş”). fig. 21/20-21 (Lăpuşel “Tedeş”). In the Suciu area they were to be found in settlements only. 51.8 (Someş Uileac). 53/1-2 (Culciu Mare). pl. 35/11-12. KOBAĽ 1997. pl. KULCSÁR 2001. The fine fabric pottery either lacks decoration. fig. 5/4 (Hajdúsámson “Majorosági föld”). KACSÓ 1975. fig. pl. KACSÓ 1981. 14/1-7 (Bicaz “Igoaie”). 15/1-3 (Vad). Hajdúsámson. “Tehelňa” and “Buga”. 53 n. NÉMETI 1997. 7/12. it is incised-excised. 16. KACSÓ 2004a. pl. 2/43-44.6/6-11 (Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului”). pl. fig. 2/30 (Ariniş). 133 for the discoveries made in the Transcarpathian Ukraine we were provided with information from J. KACSÓ 1990.46 (Copalnic Mănăştur “Poiana”). KACSÓ 2003a. 22 290 . KACSÓ 1987. 36/1-4 (Seini “Dagas”). KACSÓ 1999. 10/18 (Lăpuş ?). 18/12 (Lăpuş “Tinoasa”). 23 Especially for this research field: FISCHL. 9/1-3 (Lăpuş). fig. 5/5 (Kenézlő). or it is decorated by incised-excised decoration. fig. the vessels made of intermediary fabric most often lack decoration. pl. 1/7-8 (BaiaMare). fig. KISS.Dan Pop brick-red slip. 8/4 (Solotvino). 7/1-5 (Suciu de Sus ?). 8/4-9 (“Cioltişor”). pl. fig. KOBAĽ (unpublished portable cooking vessels from Suciu de Sus settlements: Beregovo: “Mala gora”. fig. KACSÓ 1993. We can’t discern whether the two fragments published in 1987 were re-edited here. Kacsó 2005b. fig. ROMSAUER 2003. FISCHL. while in the Lăpuş group. 2/14 (Bozânta Mică “Grind”). KULCSÁR 2001 and ROMSAUER 2003. or not). 59 (Oarţa de Jos. fig. 7/9-11 (Giuleşti).
pl. 73. Letca (one fragmentary piece) (BAJUSZ. 13). Diakovo (ten) (БАЛАГУРИ 1969a. pl. fig. 28. 21/ no number). Libotin (23 pieces. pl. 81. Seini “Dagas” (one) (KACSÓ 2003a. 9. The fragmentary condition of the material in most cases does not allow the restoration of the vessels decoration. pl. pl. 9). 69). ПОТУШНЯК 1958. pl.4/1) and Buşag ”Pe Tog” (KACSÓ 2003a. weighs for fishing rods or weighs used at fixing the organic material of the roof. unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987. one thought they might have been used as table support. Therefore. 11/7-9. Boineşti (“several pieces”. fig. tapered. 528. 291 . fig. 1979. Clay objects (pl. pl. 49/25. pl. some are published) (KACSÓ 1990.4/6. 1978. The afore mentioned weighs are either pyramid-like shaped or tapered with a perforated hole in the upper body part. 155. pl. Čopivci “Krasna girka”(ПОТУШНЯК 1958. 9/10) The cultural layer uncovered a fragmentary. 32-33. 154. 1). they are classified as fast wheel weighs. Čopivcy “Krasna girka” (nine are unpublished) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. 8/9. TAMBA 1988. Vad “Poduri” (one) (Kacsó 1987. unpublished) (KACSÓ 1981. 94. 11/7-9). Orihovy (21 pieces) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. 528. 18. 8/three pieces. pl. 14/16). clay weigh perforated in the upper part (plate 9/10). the prominent cordons lack and we have only one knob-handle and one conical knob. 20. Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” (three) (BADER 1972. 69-70). 1974.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” The decorations in relief are extremely rare. unpublished) (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. 117/118 no. Such pieces have history in the discoveries from Baia Mare (one) (KACSÓ 2005a.6/12). 11/1-4). 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. The literature advanced several hypotheses on their functionality.6/25). Vad “Ştiurdina” (two. 512. 43. 1/31. 36/6) Tăuţi-Măgherăuş (“several” unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987. Zemplinske Kopčany (three pieces were found in the sondages from C II/5 and C III/1) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984. 66).10/9-11. 66). only one is published) (BADER 1972. 6/17-18. Lăpuş “Podanc” (several. 35. fig. pl 53/1-21). 3/1). 49-52). As the pieces from Romočvica and Diakovo have the tops cut off. fig. Romočevica (five pieces with cut tops. 66.
Diakovo (“several” flat. Seini ”Dagas“ (two flat axes) (KACSÓ 2003a. pl. unpublished) (KACSÓ 1987. 9/13)24 and a fragment of a stone axe with pointed butt. 28/11). pl. grey-brown structure” (pl. perforated) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984. also fragmentary. unpublished) (IVANCIUC 1990. 34-35). 116 no. 20. pl. The cultural layer revealed two obsidian artefacts: “plain.1). 43. Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” (three) (BADER 1978. 1969b 64. Zemplinske Kopčany (“several”. straight scrapers with thick. 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. Similar pieces are known from the Suciu de Sus sites at: Ardusat (one. 528. 51 no.11/3. pl. 512. Perforated or flat axes. 149.Dan Pop The cultural layer also uncovered a miniature of a clay wheel.36/7-8).50/8). pl. decorated) (BADER 1972. with no sleeve were also found at: Boineşti (“several”. bipennis. Brakovce (one) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984. published) (BADER 1979.52/10). 68. pl. 24 292 . 153-154. made from andesite and broken by the half sleeve (pl. 9/11). Orţâţa “Ţempe” (one) (KACSÓ 2003a. 26/4). Alexandru Păunescu Similar pieces originate from Prislop (KACSÓ 2003a. Oarţa de Jos “Vâlceaua Rusului” (three) (KACSÓ 2004a. perforated. unpublished) (DEMETEROVÁ 1984. pl. perforated and not perforated. 11974. regular retouching on chips with fine. one of its sides is still preserving the axe hub. The nuanced grey fill of the dwelling appeared at the level of the cream-yellowish Classifications made by the late professor dr. pl. 73. Boineşti (two)(BADER 1978. Sighetu Marmaţiei (one. 9/12) and a “quasi-prism shaped-like core fragment of grey obsidian which shows traces of negatives” (pl. pl. 73. 6/19). 116-117). 30/16-18). Tiream (one. fig. 41-42.20 m west of S1 and was already fit with the technical pipe with optical fibre. 32/7). 1978.).7/1-4). unpublished) (БАЛАГУРI 1969a. 118. 35 (here. 21. (plate 8/9).49/28. 6. pl. *** The dwelling was found in the south of surface S1 and continued between surfaces S1 and S3 and also in western S1. 29). one. Vel'ke Raskovce (one. spindle whorl).
two (KACSÓ 1995. in the “Modicitag” point.“several” surface dwellings with interior hearths (BADER 1978. 66. the grey fill uncovered many pottery shards. Oarţa de Jos “Vîlceaua Rusului” . GHINDELE.three or four surface dwellings of which only one (L4) is known to have rectangular shape with 1.“several” (NÉMETI. 86 no.“several” dwellings with the foundation made of large river stones (KACSÓ 1987. 4).80 X 2. 24). were found three dwellings of this type.40 m. We acknowledge several different types of the Suciu de Sus dwellings.5 X 4 m in dimensions. IERCOŞAN 1993. respectively 3 x 2 m (L4) (BADER 1972.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” clay in which deepened 0. 110) Lăpuşel “Ciurgău” . 66-67. LAZIN. 50. Petea ”Vama” . The second one was destroyed. MARTA 2000.50 X 0. In the Transcarpathian Ukraine. with a hearth situated in its N-W side (NEMOIANU. 74 no. STANCIU. 66.70 m. Unfortunately. with a stove in the centre. Vad “Poduri” . 84. one could observe that it was circular in shape with a rough diameter of 0.“several” (KACSÓ 1995. MARTA 2003. 512. 83 no. According to the remains of the preserved hearth in situ. sometimes described and in several cases illustrated25. Still at Diakovo. 522. Especially in the south-western side. IERCOŞAN 1993. 72). One of them had a surface of 28 m2. small pieces of charcoal and several daub pieces. 1978. they are often passing mentions. at Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” are mentioned 34 surface dwellings of which two (L2 and L4) are rectangular in shape.).8 x 5 m in dimensions. 66). 5. surface dwelling of 3. 104). but it had covered a surface of roughly 30-32 m2. 66-67).10 m. Surface dwellings are mentioned at Călineşti “Rogoaze” – a rectangular. and had 25 See to this POP 2008. 24. at Diakovo “Kişerda” four surface dwellings were discovered with interior stoves. 68). 2004b. Homorodu de Jos “Togul popii” (BADER 1978. 86 no. rectangular shape. with 5 x 4 m in dimensions (L2) and. Medieşu Aurit “Şuculeu” .90 m in dimensions (BADER 1978. IERCOŞAN 1993. The dwelling was rectangle-shaped with the dimensions: 1. Lazuri “Lubi Tag”.14). The first had rectangular shape. 293 . 177-182 no. several river stones and flint. No other improvements were revealed (fig. surrounding a partially disturbed hearth. TODINCĂ 1981.
28-32. 149). 2). pl. fig. Potuchniak mentioned and illustrated for the Transcarpathian Ukraine. seven such dwellings of various dimensions. COSMA 2002. The settlement from Medvedivce uncovered a 36 m2 surface dwelling with two interior hearths. In the Transcarpathian Ukraine are known the settlements from Čopivcy “Kaminne” (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. which were found in the Suciu de Sus settlements: two at Bicaz ”Igoaie” (KACSÓ 2005b. Pithouses are mentioned at Culciu Mic “La gropi de siloz”. One of them had a surface of 14 m2. 52. 79). 120. 30-32. F. 32-34. fig. COSMA 2002. BALAGURI. Romočevica BADER. 30-31). nr. 58. pl. and “several” dwellings with fire hearths at Sâncraiu Silvaniei (LAKÓ 1983. One was noted at Giuleşti “Valea Mestecăniş” (KACSÓ 2003b. 79). one at Medieşu Aurit “Cioncaş”26. The third dwelling had a 24 m2 surface. 26 294 . 7. VASILIEV.50 m wide (BADER 1978. “dwellings” at Oarţa de Sus ”Oul Făgetului” (KACSÓ 2003a.60 m. 219-220. no. 35/4) (one) and two from Medvedivce (BALAHURI 1967. and a surface of 29-30 m2. POP 2004. they can’t be assigned to the category of pithouses (VASILIEV. 65). 33. 1). 1b) and at Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului” (KACSÓ. oval-shaped dwellings were investigated. RUSTOIU. 8-9). note: it might belong to the Ottomany culture. with a stove and a pit inside (БАЛАГУРІ 1974. with quasi-rectangular shape were submitted to investigations at Solotvino (KOBAĽ 1997. At Solotvino three such pithouses.8. each fit inside with a hearth. it was 7-8 m long and 3.Dan Pop a stove in the south-eastern corner and a hearth in the opposite corner (БАЛАГУРІ 1974. 67). 121-122). unfortunately in unspecific writing. BALAGURI. fig. RUSTOIU. one in the southern side and another in the north (BALAHURI 1967. 72). There are several “dwellings” lacking details. DUMITRAŞCU 1970. 87. Also. The author (Valentin Vasiliev) explained that because of the small depth. fig. square-shaped with rounded corners. 2-4). 128. fig. the second one had the same dimensions. 132). a stove in the centre and a pit in its eastern side. M. Cepa and Dedovo (БАЛАГУРИ 1969a. one of them was oval-shaped. the dwellings from Čopivcy “Salaši” (ПОТУШНЯК 1958.40 x 5-3.
in the southern profile of the surface. 67).The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. The first occurred immediately after the coating plant had been removed and was assigned to the contemporary age according to its content. all belonging to the vessel body. Călineşti “Rogoaze” -three pits of which one was circular and had the rim diameter of 1. from the settlement at Skrabské (DEMETEROVÁ 1984.30 m thick. 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. TODINCĂ 1981. 18). had a diameter of 0. Because we ran out of financial resources. 5). pottery fragments which certainly fell into the prehistoric layer when the pit was excavated27.50 m (NEMOIANU. 35/6) and Sil’ce (ПОТУШНЯК 1958. The shards. 22 cm in depth.95 m and uncovered prehistoric artefacts only. at 0. The second pit was detected at 0. in check 7. Its profile has a knob-shaped profile of 0. 39-40. 52). with a threshold in the western side. pl. The pit was likely to be circular in ground-plan. 35/3. It is likely that they belonged to the Roman Age. Culciu Mare “Sub grădini” The investigated site is located in the proximity of a resort provided with a fishing pond. 49-52. Besides these was probably another one dating from the Roman Age. etc. 5). 27 295 . fine fabric with black-grey slip on the outside.35 m in dept. and its fill delimited itself from the sterile soil through its colour. The black-grey fill revealed several river stones and prehistoric. 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. pl. Surface S5 uncovered two pits: one contemporary and another prehistoric. that belong to the Suciu de Sus culture were revealed at: Bicaz “Igoaie” (KACSÓ 2005b. most of them unpublished. Pits of different shapes and dimensions. were revealed in groups.60 m in depth. It is most likely that the pit was dug either by the owner or by tourists in order to clean the litter. and it went maximum 0. We only acknowledge one rectangular dwelling in Eastern Slovakia.
DUMITRAŞCU 1970. 84).one partially investigated (NÉMETI 1987. 74 no.“several” pits (KACSÓ 1987. MARTA 2000. **** Cultural ascription The extremely small number of pottery shards decorated by incision-excision confirmed by the small number of bichrome (redblack) pottery with fluting as well as by the absence of prominent belts from the coarse pottery makes us see a difference. 296 . and in the settlement from Solotvino where three circular pits in ground-plan were submitted to research (VASILIEV.Dan Pop “several” (BADER 1978. 66). MARTA. on the one hand because we are devoid of descriptions and technical data. COSMA 2002. 122).“several pits” of small size (KACSÓ 1995. 104. In these conditions. no. Moftinu Mic . 126 no. 39-46). 36). 68-69. which most likely was also laid in a pit (MARTA. but between the site of Lăpuşel “Mociar” on the one hand. 32. 16/1). 10) and maybe at Vad “Poduri” . 102). pl. 78). Petea “Vamă” . Halmeu “Vamă” . 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. There aren’t many opinions we can express about this type of construction. RUSTOIU. BALAGURI. we can hardly ascertain conclusions and infer potential functionalities or different usage over a short period of time for the same objective. 109. In the Transcarpathian Ukraine. pits were mentioned at Diakovo in the points “Kişerda” (26 pits) and “Mondicitag” (БАЛАГУРІ 1974. Medieşu Aurit “Cioncaş” . 34. 8-9).“pit” (NÉMETI. Românaşi one tapered shaped pit (BEJINARIU 2003. TÓTH 2005. 32. not necessarily in chronology. 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. fig. 67). in the resort from Nyírmada were discovered and submitted to investigation 47 pits that belonged to the Late Bronze Age.“pits” (BADER. Oarţa de Sus “Oul Făgetului” . Lăpuşel “Ciurgău” .one pit (MARTA 2004. 128).one narrow pit (KACSÓ 2003a. GHINDELE. In Hungary. 29.two pits (MARTA 2001. Lazuri “Drumul Dorolţ” . MARTA 2005. LAZIN. TÓTH 2006). and on the other hand because most of the times we lack information and report on their inventory.
and on the other hand we could provide important data in what concerns the Roman Age habitation on the upper Lăpuş river course. 28 297 . or a new cultural trend (KACSÓ 2007. Resuming the archaeological investigations would bring light to the cultural belonging of the Bronze Age material on the one hand. on the other hand. 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.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” and Suciu II or Lăpuş I sites as they are currently defined. 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. The site from Căşeiu reveals the same situation: there were few bichrome (black-red) shards decorated by fluting or incised-excised motifs besides several pottery fragments decorated by belts in relief. 94). I think it is rather early to assume other opinions. 195). Based on the pottery inventory. 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. this seems a more proper assignment than to include it in the series of Lăpuş sites.
287-293. BALAHURI E. 1984 Influence de la culture de Suciu de Sus dans la plain de la Slovaquie Orientele. Marisia. SlovArch. DUMITRAŞCU S. PZ. BAJUSZ I. 54. 79-83. 1976 Novje dannye k istorii pozdnej bronzy Zakarpatja. 7/1. 331. 2003 Noi descoperiri ale culturii Suciu de Sus din judeţul Sălaj – New discoveries belonging to the Suciu de Sus culture from Sălaj county.. BALAGURI E.Dan Pop BIBLIOGRAPHY BADER T. DEMETEROVA S. 1978 Epoca bronzului în nord-vestul Transilvaniei. TAMBA D. 11-70. 298 . 91-120. A. Bucureşti. 65-81. 1988 Contribuţii la topografia arheologică a văii Someşului (sectorul Căpîlna-Jibou) – Beiträge zur archäologischen Topographie des Someştals. 6. BADER T. AMP. Cultura pretracică şi tracică. BEJINARIU I. Marmatia. 32. 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. 37-47. Kiev. 127-136. 1970 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea grupei Suciu de Sus în contextul epocii bronzului din Crişana. MFMÉvk. 2. 1970 Săpăturile arheologice la aşezarea de tip Otomani de la Medieşul Aurit – Les fouilles archéologiques dans l’étabilissement de type Otomani de Medieşul Aurit. CHIDIOŞAN N.. 1966-1967 A Medvegyivcei (Medvegyfalvai) bronlelet. 240-256. 2. 1. 12. 9. Eneolit i bronzovyj vek Ukrainy. 1979 Die Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Nordwestrumänien. SCIV. 21. MCA.
BiblMarmatia 1. 1981 Necropola tumulară de la Lăpuş. 191-214. Teza de doctorat. 4568. C.. Satu Mare. 1990 Date privind cultura Suciu de Sus în N-V dep. IERCOSAN N.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” FISCHL K. 4. GOGÂLTAN Fl.). C. ISAC A. in: Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Kacsó (Hrsg. AMP. 116-117. 1975 Contributions à la connaissance de la culture de Suciu de Sus à la lumière des recherches faites à Lăpuş. 8. IVANCIUC C. 9-10. 77-90. KISS V. 125-156. 51-75. Symposium Baia Mare 7. P. 1990 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. in: Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. (Spätbronzezeit-Früheisenzeit). Baia Mare. Kacsó (Hrsg.S. KACSO C.. KULCSÁR G. 5-26. 7. XXXI. Cercetările de la Libotin – Beiträge zur 299 . Oktober 1998. GOGÂLTAN Fl. 1992-1993 Săpăturile arheologice din judeţul Satu Mare (19711990) – Les fouilles archéologiques du département de Satu Mare (1971-1990). SympThrac. 38-46. 1980 Descoperiri din epoca bronzului în Depresiunea Sălajului – Entdeckungen der Bronzezeit in der Sălaj-Niederung. Carei. EphemNap. StComSatu Mare. Symposium Baia Mare.).-10. 1995 Die spätbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Căşeiu.S..-10. XIX. 2001 Beiträge zum Gebrauch der tragbare Feuerherden (Pyraunoi) im Karpatenbecken II. Baia Mare. 2001 The settlement of Căşeiu and some problems concerning the Late Bronze Age in the center and northern Transylvania. Dacia N. 5. Oktober 1998.. 1987 Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Verbreitungsgebietes und der Chronologie der Suciu de Sus-Kultur.. Maramureş. ClujNapoca. Dacia N.
1995 Noi date cu privire la prima fază a culturii Suciu de Sus – Neue Angaben zum Anfang der Suciu de Sus Kultur. J.). Die Ausgrabungen in Libotin. 2003a Noi descoperiri Suciu de Sus şi Lăpuş în nordul Transilvaniei – Neue Suciu de Sus und Lăpuş – Funde im norden Siebenbürgens. 20. 51-70. 29-48. Baia Mare. 25-40. A. 1993 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. 327-340. Gaiu (coord. Marcu Istrate. 2006 Noi date cu privire la descoperirile din epoca bronzului de la Vălenii Şomcutei – Neue Daten bezüglich der bronzezeitlichen Funde von Vălenii Şomcutei. Temeiuri ale civilizaţiei româneşti în context european. Furmánek. 2005a Descoperiri pre . 5570. 2005b Contribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. 79-98. Cercetările de la Bicaz – Igoaie.şi proto istorice la Baia Mare – Vor – und frühgeschichtliche funde in Baia Mare. 153181. 1999 Date noi cu privire la preistoria Maramureşului – Neue Daten zur Vorgeschichte in der Maramureş. 19. RevBistriţei. 2004b Mărturii arheologice. Marmatia.). Nitra. Festschrift für Joszef Vladár zum 70. Angustia 4. Cluj-Napoca. V. Veliačik (Hrsg. Cercetările de la Suciu de Sus şi Groşii Ţibleşului – Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Spätbronzezeit im Norden Transsilvaniens. in: In memoriam Radu Popa. C. Apulum. RevBistriţei. 83-99. 11. 32. Die Ausgrabungen in Suciu de Sus und Groşii Ţibleşului. 2003b Radu Popa şi cercetarea arheologică din Maramureş – Radu Popa und die archäologischen Forschungen in der Maramureş. Bátora. 7/1. 7. RevBistriţei. 2004a Zu den Problemen der Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Siebenbürgen.Dan Pop Kenntnis der Spätbronzezeit im Norden Transsilvaniens. D. in: Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Geburtstag. 79-102 300 . L. Istrate. Thraco-Dacica. 8/1. Marmatia. 105-181.
Colecţia Ferenc Floth. LAZAROVICI Gh. 69-100. AMP. 2004b Halmeu. Satu Mare. Kr. 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. 1. Halmeu. Satu Mare. 1977 Cercetări arheologice de suprafaţă la hotarele judeţelor ClujSălaj – Archäologische Oberflächeforschungen in der Kontakt-Zone der Bezirke Cluj und Sălaj. jud. KACSÓ C. StCom Satu Mare. Baia Mare. Lazuri. 115-151. 2003. 2005 Der bronzene Nadeldepotfund von Petea. 2003. jud.132. nr. jud. JAMÉvk. Punctul: Drumul Dorolţ. 2001 Lazuri. CCA. LAKÓ E. 1721/1. Punctul: Vamă. KOBAĽ J. / Depuneri de 301 2007 . 39-46. jud. 83. com. 7. 2000. CCA. Ukraine) by the Expedition of the Transcarpathian Museum of Local History – Előzetes jelentés a Szolotvinó / Akanszlatina (Ukrajna. 37-38. Transcarpathian region. 1997 Preliminary report on the results of archaeological research on the multi-level fortified settlement of “Chitattia” (near Solotvino / Akanaszlatina. 2004 Oarţa de Sus “Dealul Stremţului”. Kárpátalja) környéki “Csitattja” többrétegű erődített telepen a Kárpátalja Honismereti Múzeum által szervezett régészeti feltárás eredményeiről. Satu Mare – Depozitul de ace din bronz descoperit la Petea. Satu Mare. (2000-2004). 102..The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Descoperiri de bronzuri din nordul Transilvaniei (I). com. 219-220. in: Bronzefunde aus Rumänien II. POP D. 35-39. 2004a Un complex arheologic din epoca mijlocie a bronzului descoperit la Halmeu – A Middle Bronze Age Dwelling Discovered at Halmeu. 133-134. MARTA L. (1995-1996). nr. CCA. 126. nr. AMP. Maramureş.
). LAZIN GH. 47. 2005 Gefäβdepotfund der Felsőszőcs . TODINCĂ GH. de Maramureş. Soroceanu (Hrsg. Satu Mare) – Archäologische Entdeckungen auf dem Gebiet des Dorfes Moftinu Mic (Kreis Satu Mare). 2003 Aşezarea din epoca bronzului de la Someş-Uileac – The Bronze Age settlement from Someş – Uileac. NEMOIANU L. 1987 Descoperiri arheologice din teritoriul localităţii Moftinu Mic (jud. CCA. T. Satu Mare. 29. 75-94. jud. 104. NEMETI I. Ushhorod.. com. Ujgorod. 101-137. 2000 Petea.. 107-143. 22/1. Punct: Vamă. 1999.Kultur in Nyírmada – Vályogvető. SCIVA. (2005). Bucureşti. 7/1. jud.Dan Pop bronzuri din România II. StCom SatuMare. II. 5-6. 61-92. Dorolţ. 1978 Descoperiri de la sfârşitul epocii bronzului din jurul Careiului – Découvertes de la fin de l’époque de bronze aux environs de Carei. GHINDELE R. CAANT. StComSatu Mare 7-8. Maramureş – Le site archéologique de Călineşti.. NÉMETI J. MARTA L. 78-86. 2006 Gefäβdepotfund der Felsőszőcs . (1986-1987). Oktober 2005. 302 . 1981 Şantierul arheologic Călineşti. dép. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tivodor Lehoczky zum 175 Geburstag. JAMÉvk. in: Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde – Problem des Interpretation. 4. 1997 Descoperirile arheologice de la Lazuri – “Lubi-tag” (jud. CA. MARTA L. Marmatia. Bistriţa / Cluj Napoca. 83-104. nr. 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. 302-317. 66-69. TÓTH K. 74. 99-122. POP D.. Maramureş county.Kultur in Nyírmada – Vályogvető.. Satu Mare) din anii 1995-1996 – Archaeological discoveries from Lazuri-Lubi-tag (Satu Mare county) in 1995-1996.
Lazuri. COSMA C. 147-159. 303 . RUSTOIU A. jud. 2. observaţii şi opinii referitoare la ceramica medievală timpurie din nord-vestul României – Frühmittelalterliche Funde und Befunde aus den Kreisen Satu Mare und Maramureş. 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. Ужгород. 2003 Descoperiri medievale timpurii din judeţele Satu Mare şi Maramureş. БАЛАГУРИ З. BALAGURI E.JC et du 1 –er millénaire av. în judeţul Maramureş – Les découverts provenand de la seconde moitié de 1-er millénaire av. 2002 Solotvino –“Cetate” (Ucraina Transcarpatică). 110. Date noi. de Maramureş. 2.Chr. Зборник Методичний для студентів з археології. и 1969b Новейшие памятники Фелшесевчской ультуры на территории акарпатской области УССР. 2003 Πύραυνοι (Pyraunoi). 1992 Descoperiri din a doua jumătate a mileniului I î. Prenosné piecky a podstavce z doby bronzovej a doby železnej. Neue Angaben.. 61-68. STANCIU I.. şi mileniul I d. L. Aşezările din epoca bronzului. Punctul: Lubi Tag. SovArh. А. MFMÉvk 2. 7/1. Satu Mare. a doua vârstă a fierului şi din evul mediu timpuriu. 169-191. 249-316. JC dans le dép. nr. 1974 До питання про досліджєння пам’яток пізньобронзової добі у виноградівському раионі Закарпаської області. MARTA 2003 Lazuri. Cluj-Napoca. Marmatia. 25-47.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” ROMSAUER P.. Nitra.Chr. STANCIU I. 2002. VASILIEV V.. EphemNap. 177-182. Bemerkungen und Ansichten zur frühmittelalterlichen Keramik im Nordwesten Rumäniens. CCA. com.
Dan Pop ПОТУШНЯК M. 304 . Ужгород. Ф. 1958 Археологічні знахідки бронзового та залізного віку на Закарпатті.
11: little pieces of the burnt clay. 7: Pottery from culture layer.west profile. 4-5: pottery from pit no. 1. 10: weight made by clay. Pl. 4: Plan and profile of the dwelling no. 9: animal hole. 1. Pl. 8: sherds. 3: yellowish-cream coloured layer earth. Fig. 4: light grey coloured layer earth. the place where was made excavations is marked with black rectangle. Pl. 10: stones. B: S1. 1: humus.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Pottery from dwelling no. 3: 1-3: Pottery from dwelling no. 9: from culture layer: 1-9: pottery. 2: Archaeological excavations plan. 6: yellowish with limonite coloured clay layer. Pl. 11: stone axe. 3: A: S 3 .1. Fig. 1. 6: Pottery from culture layer. Pl. D: S 5 . Pl. 1. 1. without artifacts. 5: mixture beetwen brown earth and ballast. 7: dun-black color dressing of the modern pit. 305 . Pl. 12-13: obsidian artifacts.south profile. Fig. C: S 2 . Pl. 8: Pottery from culture layer. 2: Pottery from dwelling no. 2: brown earth layer (culture layer). 1. 4: Pottery from pit no.west profile. Fig. 5: Pottery from culture layer. 5: Plan and profile of the pit no.west profile. 1: Lăpuşel village and “Mociar” site. Pl.
the place where was made excavations is marked with black rectangle.306 Dan Pop Fig. 1: Lăpuşel village and “Mociar” site. .
2: Archaeological excavations plan. 307 .The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Fig.
west profile. 3: A: S 3 . 3: yellowish-cream coloured layer earth. 2: brown earth layer (culture layer).west profile.west profile. 5: mixture beetwen brown earth and ballast. 6: yellowish with limonite coloured clay layer. 8: sherds. C: S 2 . 7: dun-black color dressing of the modern pit. 10: stones. 11: little pieces of the burnt clay. 9: animal hole. . 1: humus.south profile. 4: light grey coloured layer earth. D: S 5 . without artifacts. B: S1.308 Dan Pop Fig.
The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Fig. 4: Plan and profile of the dwelling no. 1. 309 .
Dan Pop Fig. 310 . 1. 5: Plan and profile of the pit no.
1: Pottery from dwelling no. 311 . 1.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Pl.
Dan Pop Pl. 312 . 2: Pottery from dwelling no. 1.
313 . 1.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Pl. 4-5: pottery from pit no. 1. 3: 1-3: Pottery from dwelling no.
1. 314 .Dan Pop Pl. 4: Pottery from pit no.
The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Pl. 315 . 5: Pottery from culture layer.
Dan Pop Pl. 316 . 6: Pottery from culture layer.
317 .The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Pl. 7: Pottery from culture layer.
318 .Dan Pop Pl. 8: Pottery from culture layer.
9: Pottery from culture layer: 1-9: artefcts. 319 . 12-13: obsidian artifacts. 11: stone axe. 10: weight made of clay.The Bronze Age Settlement at Lăpuşel “Mociar” Pl.