A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 36. - 1994 (Nyíregyháza, 1995)

Ferenc Horváth–Ede Hertelendi: Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza region

HORVÁTH-HERTELENDI earliest influences of the Szakáihát, and the characteristics of ALPC 3 (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977. Cat. 383.). It must be said in conclusion that 14C dating at the present time of research does not produce a clear a very detailed chronological framework for the period discussed above both because of the inaccuracy of some of the dates and the lack of great series in themselves. The dates in most cases roughly follow the archaeological relative sequence, but it is hard to decide when the dates that are too early were measured from charcoal or from samples deriving from false stratigraphic positions. This confusion seems at first glance to turn the traditional chronological sequence upside down. Chapman's attempt to place the absolute time-span of Vinca A between roughly 5400-5080, contradicts the archaeological dating when one compares the Late Vinca A age of archaeological units to those of Bánat, Alföld and further North Hungarian and East Slovakian units. These units, in the sense of traditional cross-dating belong inevitably to the Vinca B period. Thus, the main question remains whether our cluster VII really belongs to Vinca A period on the basis of one radiocarbon date of Vinca Bjelo Brdo used by Chapman, or whether it belongs to the beginning of the B period. The turn of Vinca A and B at Anza suggests a somewhat earlier date (cca. 5200) however. In spite of the difficulties surrounding this theory, there is no cause to cease dealing with 14C dating in archaeology. The only solution is to measure bone or grain samples, or very well preserved young (thin) wood from a very well checked stratigraphic situation. It is, however, a significant result of the short survey that archaeological units which were earlier thought to be sequential have proved in some cases to have existed concurrently. We think, however, that valuable results could be achieved with a „compromise" between the 14C dates in harmony with the archaeological traditional dating and the modified interpretation based on the re-evaluation of those find-complexes which data is in contradiction with the archaeological definition and dating. For this purpose we have to consider again the contradictions of the traditional datings and classifications of single archaeological units. Discussion In the following, we will attempt to reconstruct the Middle Neolithic chronology of the Tisza Region on the basis of a study of the Tisza-Maros angle. The starting point is the absolute chronological frame based on 14C dates analysed above. According to these the Middle Neolithic of our area starts with the 5 BOWMAN-AMBERS-LEESE 1990.73- This date is not represented 114 beginning of the Vinca A period around 5400 B.C., and finishes with the middle of the Szakáihát period in the second part of the Vinca A period around 5150 B.C. Within this 250 year interval we have to place in time the so-called „Protovinca", Late Körös, Vinca A, the ALPC, and the earliest of Szakáihát sites. Within this time-span (Vinca A) we have three horizons of undisputed 14C dating: 1. Ószentiván VIII (1-2) - Deszk Olajkút pit 15 Kotacpart - cca. around 5350 B.C. 2. Tiszasziget - in concordance both in 14C and traditional dating with Satchinez pit 4, Tápé-Lebő A level 16-15 - cca. 5250 B.C. 3. Ószentiván VIII (3) - Tápé-Lebő A levels 15-14 in full concordance with Békésszentandrás - cca. 5150 B.C. 4. Tápé-Lebő A levels 14-13, (together with Ostoros and Szamossályi) - cca. 5050 B.C. - already at the beginning of Vinca Bl! We need to assume a subperiod of Vinca Al and the earliest „Protovinca" sites dated between 5400 and 5350 B.C. The first horizon can be compared to Vinca A1/A2, the second to Vinca A2/A3, the third to Bl, because of the gradual and staggered nature of the communities' spread. If we place the sites on a map it is clear that „Protovinca'VLate Körös sites can be found both south and north of the Maros river. The Vinca A sites are restricted to the area south of the Maros, ALPC and earliest Szakáihát sites are north of the Maros (Fig. 2). Only one relative chronological conclusion can be drawn from this distribution, the so-called „Protovinca" sites in this region must at least partly precede the developed Vinca A settlements, which can only be contemporary with the two following archaeological units living north of the Maros. Although Ószentiván (earliest) Vinca A data coincide with the so-called „Protovinca" data, it seems to be evident that later sites must have an earlier phase which precedes the appearance of the typical Vinca sites in the Banat. South of the Maros river it can be seen very clearly: near to the Ószentiván VIII site there are „Protovinca" sites too (Ószentiván II, DeszkOlajkút, Gyálarét etc.). From different starting-points and results the similar twofold division of „Protovinca" time has been established even earlier (MAKKAY 1982.42., MAKKAY 1987.121.18-23., Karte 1., GOLDMAN 1991.44.). The main differences, however, lie in the chronological definition and the cultural classification. When the theory of Protovinca-Vinca developement was concerned at the end of the sixties,- J. i Fig. 1 because of technical difficulties. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994