Tálas László szerk.: The late neolithic of the Tisza region (1987)
The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A survey of recent archaeological research (N. Kalicz and P. Raczky)
A SURVEY OF RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH Tab of a dipper representing a human face. Coka—Kremenjak (Csóka-Kremenyák). Tisza— Vinca culture. H: 6.5 cm [15] Lid fragment decorated with plastically rendered human face. Coka-Kremenjak (Csóka—Kremenyák). Tisza— Vinca culture. H: 4.4 cm [16] most levels of tell settlements. Changes are only perceptible in vessel forms and pottery ornamentation: painting disappears altogether and is replaced by pointed knobs and lugs, and patterns composed of impressed dots and punctates, that will later become distinctive traits of the Tiszapolgár culture. On the testimony of the stratigraphic sequence from Babska this period can be equated with Vinca D 2 . In Transylvania this corresponds to the Proto-Tiszapolgár phase of the Herpály culture, and to the youngest phase of the Petresti and Ariusd cultures; in Transdanubia to the unpainted phase (III) of the Lengyel culture. Some prehistorians correlate this Lengyel phase with the Szob-Topolcany and the Moravany horizon. The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region ends with the Proto-Tiszapolgár phase; the rise of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture involved radical changes in the economy and in settlement forms and patterns. Tells disappear from the landscape, only to reappear in the Bronze Age. According to earlier views the Vinca C and D periods and thus the Late Neolithic of the Tisza region can be synchronised with the Larissa and Rachmani cultures of Greece. This latter was mainly based on the distribution of pastose red and white painting. However, this view is no longer tenable for it has since become clear that the traditional definition of the Larissa culture should be rejected, which in turn led to a chronological gap between the Dimini and Rachmani cultures, involving uncertainties in the distinction between the finds of these two cultures. On the other hand, the cultural definition of the Rachmani culture is still not unambiguous and thus its chronological limits are rather broad, since for example, its final phase is thought to survive into the Early Bronze Age. There is increasing evidence for the interconnections between the fully developed Copper Age and the Aegean Early Bronze Age, as well as the Rachmani culture. (For a comprehensive discussion of chronological issues, see: MILOJ CIC 1949, 70-94; BOCNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 505-555; 1966, 264-270, 274-278; 1972, 183-188, 202-204, 207-211; GAZDAPUSZTAl 1969, 125-139; GOLDMAN 1984, 45-67; HORVÁTH 1982, 201-222; 1985, 89-96; KAUCZ 1970a, 13-23; 1983-84, 271-293; 1985a, 21-51; KOREK 1972; KAUCZ-RACZKY 1984, 131-133; MAKKAY 1976, 251-300; 1982, 60-67 and the chronological chart; TROGMAYER 1957, 54-60; 1969, 467^80; RACZKY 1982, 177-190; 1985, 103-104, 106-108; BRUKNER 1980-81, 16-26; 1982-83, 1-14; CHAPMAN 1981, 17-31; COMSA 1974, 22-24; 35-38; BRUKNER et al. 1974, 69-94, 434-440; DlMlTRIJEVIC 1968,120-122; 1971, 141-172; GARASANIN 1961, 345-348; 1982, 116-129; HAUPTMANN 1985, 19-30; LAZAROVICI 1976, 203-234; 1979, 177-183; 1983, 141-161; LlCHARDUS 1974, 104-119; PAVÚK 1964, 37-56; 1969, 345-358; PAVUK-SISKA 1981, 52-54; PAUL 1981; 231-234; SHERRATT 1982a, 298-302, 307-308; 1983, 33-36; SlSKA 1968, 61-80, 154-157, 162-164; TRINGHAM 1971, 186-195; TITOV 1980, 358-366; TOCIK-LICHARDUS 1964, 245-278; VÍZDAL 1970, 217-234; 1980, 141-142.) The following C 14 dates are available for the Late Neolithic of this region. Longer series of dates offering a firmer basis for absolute dating are still lacking; however, the currently available dates can be used as suitable starting points in working out an absolute chronology, and, at the same time, confirm the relative chronology and the wider cultural setting of the cultures flourishing in the Great Hungarian Plain during this period. 27
