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

HORVATH-HERTELENDI pottery (in the case of earlier research), a small number of bones, thus the accuracy of the data can not be consistant. 5. The most minor difficulty is the contradiction between the date and the archaeological definition of the sample, in the case if an earlier phase at the site can be demonstrated. In this case the correction can be done theoretically. Unfortunately, in the opposite case when there was not a later phase at the site, nothing can be done to remedy the inaccuracy. The evaluation of the dates in an attempt of 14C cross-dating between the Balkans and the Tisza Region Karanovo I at Azmak, the beginning of Starcevo at Grivac-Barice and Anza la can be regarded as the earliest Neolithic period in the Balkans in reference to which we have 14C data. These precede the first real cluster of Körös data. The two earliest Körös dates can not be bound to the first cluster because they are older by one hundred and five hundred years respectively. Not too much can be done with the earliest datum without a series of dates and without such an early archaeological material. We have to emphasize that this date comes from an aimed measurement of a bone sample (MaroslelePana pit 4), so it is highly accurate. Because this date is known, and there is no question of inaccuracy, such an early phase of the Neolithic (monochrom?) in the Southern Alföld must be a reality. The placement of the relatively old Gyálarét date in time also has difficulties when we look at the archaeological finds themselves. O. Trogmayer thought it to be the earliest Körös site on the basis of the lack of the „put-on" barbotine decoration (TROGMAYER 1964. 85-86.). This statement may refer only to a certain part of the artifacts, however, one can see that a significant part of the whole complex belongs to a much later horizon, namely the Late Körös period. The first real cluster (I) involving 4 dates, coincides with the date of Anza II. This, according to the Röszke-Lúdvár date, is the currently known lower limit of find-complexes in Hungary where white on red paint occurs. The new aimed dating in the Debrecen laboratory supports this. The date of the same type of paint of Szarvas 23 differs from this, but very probably: a) it means the end of the occurrence of this phenomena, or b) the measured sample does not signify the earliest Körös-period of the site but the classical, following one. This paint is typical of Anza lb, the absolute date of which is very close to Grivac-Barice, which lasted 1 For the internal division of the site see: MAKKAY 1990.120. 2 The detailed discussion of this question: MAKKAY 1982.35. 112 throughout the interval of our cluster. To summarize, the absolute date when the dotted white on red paint can be placed in time in Hungary is around 5800 B.C. The samples from Grivac-Barice (5985-5725) support this dating very clearly. Unfortunately, we do not know more 14C dates concerning sites where the dotted and geometric pattern of white on red paint is characteristic (Nosza-Gyöngypart, Ludas-Budzsák, Donja Branjevina II, Lepenski Vir Illa, Dobanovci, CIrcea, Gura Baciului, Let-Várhegy, Galabnik, Gradeshnita-A etc.). Another point of evidence would be the age of the Lepenski Vir Ilia painted pottery, but it places this horizon after 5500 B.C. (Lepenski Vir ID - parallel with Anza III. The very problematic Lepenski Vir data has been discussed many times." At any rate so late a dating of these types (Vinca A!) seems to be problematic. At the similar time in Dikili Tash I, the white on red paint upon black topped ware differs from the afore mentioned types (SEPERI ADES 1989.Fig.4). Cluster II consists of 3 dates which fit into the archaeological definition of the samples, or as we have mentioned above in the case of Szarvas 23, to the middle (classical Körös) phase of the Körös site. According to the placement in time by cross-dating of calibrated 14C data, this cluster is later than the end of the Starcevo layer at Divostin and is contemporary with the Karanovo II phase at Karanovo. Cluster III starts with the Battonya-Basarága layer which broadly overlaps the layers both above and below it. It has been dated to cluster III on the basis of the Late Körös archaeological classification by J. Makkay (RADIOCARBON XVI.48-49., BOWMANAMBERS-LEESE 1990.73-). The rest of the data is in full accordance with the dating done by the excavators (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1974.24., KALICZ-MAKKAY 1976.23-24., TROGMAYER 1968.a.l0-ll.). In absolute chronology Anza III parallels this cluster. ClusterIV, in the case of the Körös data, is unproblematic, each of the components agrees with the archaeological dating and any deviation from the dating can be satisfactorily explained (TROGMAYER 1968.b.

8.). In the case of Szarvas 23 a substantial selection of the artifacts belongs to this late period (MAKKAY 1987.18. Abb. 3.4-8.,.MAKKAY 1990.120. PI.

1.15-18., PI.

3.26-28.). All the sites belonging to this group show the developing characteristics of the earliest Vinca Culture among the Late Körös type of find-complexes (Hódmezővásárhely-Kotacpart, Deszk -Olajkút, Szarvas 23, Katalszeg). This period falls in with the dates of the beginning of Vinca A period (which is completely identical with the date of the end of the Starcevo Culture at Starcevo!) and is very Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994