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 However, the contemporaneity can be found in Vinca site itself. Lazarovici has published reports of two ALPC import sherds from the lower pits. On the basis of this and other imports at Gornea from Vinca A layers, and from the North-Banat sites (Satchinez, Fratelia, Freidorf, Bodrogu-Nou, Bäile-Calacea etc.) (LAZAROVICI 1983.135., Fig. l:12.,7.,l-4.) he placed the beginning of Alföld LPC, and the connections between this and Vinca A, alternating into his Vinca A2 (end) - A2/3 (LAZAROVICI 1977.63., LAZAROVICI 1983.135., LAZAROVICI 1990.23.) A3 (LAZAROVICI 1981.187., LAZAROVICI 1990.33.), Bl (LAZAROVICI 1976.211., LAZAROVICI 1979.224.) periods. Studying a part of these finds in the original we realized that the classification of the linear import finds was misleading. The import sherds from the Vinca site are very probably the earliest or at least classical ALPC ones. In the case of Gornea in the A2 layer the import pieces are surely not the earliest type of ALPC pieces, but at least classical or Szarvas-Érpárt. One of the keys to the connections is in the Satchinez IX material (DRASOVEAN 1991.24-26, DRASOVEAN 1993.2547.). In the Satchinez pit 4 the ALPC import is surely not the earliest type, but classical. It is important to note that in the same pit black painted sherds occurred too. In pit 5 a painted Esztár face-pot, and a characteristic sherd made with the earliest Bukovattechnique, with alternating unburnished and burnished parts of the S-form pattern and incisions were together (DRASOVEAN 1993- Pl. L9, Pl. V.2., Pi. VI. 11.). The currently known Esztár data precedes the date of Satchinez! Summarizing all that, the chronological system of Lazarovici which is worked out in great detail from the Vinca side, handled the different LPC phases as one chronological unit, disregarding the periodization of the Hungarian and Slovakian research. In Kalicz and Makkay's great monograph on „Linearbandkeramik" (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977.9394.) there is a contradiction between the written chronology, categories of the chart for map 3 and and that of the graphical representation of the LPC sites and their groups in Tab. 3. In the written chronology it has been analysed in detail and it has been clearly demonstrated, that the Younger Phase refers to the category of the different groups (Tiszadob, Esztár, Szakáihát, etc). On Tab. 2 the Younger Phase is between the category of the Early Phase and that of the local groups. Similarly, on Tab. 3, there is a category for the Younger Phase which is independent from that of the local groups. On Map 3 an additional category appears, the „transitional period" between the Early and Younger Phases, 6 These contradictions, the misleading use of the tenn „Protovinca' sites to the Körös complex (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1974, 1976) led to of the Hungarian finds with their own. which probably equates with the Younger Phase of Tab. 2. The contradiction is that in the written definition there is not such a defined category for transitional or younger finds, which should clearly differ from the characteristics of the Early Phase and the Local Groups. We see a chronological gap here, as the „short sequence" of the text became significantly longer and detailed on the maps and graphic representations. If we use the very precisely analysed categories of the written version, we get a very similar result to that which seems to be possible from the 14C dates. This chronological contradiction can be checked by different ways: 1. The North-Eastern Roumanian find complexes: in the area of Érmellék the same period (ALPC) is fullfilled by the find complexes which are named Piscolt Group by the Roumanian research (Piscolt, Ciumesti, Capleni, Moftimu-Mic etc). In the first phase of it which is not otherwise like the earliest ALPC or rather the second half of it - the black paint is richer in comparison with the middle Tisza Region sites. The earliest characteristic linear incised motifs are inevitably present. The second (with classical LPC finds) and third phase are identical with the different, long life phases of the Esztár-Szamos region Groups. It is questionable, however, whether the sites of the ALPC 1 (pear-like black painted) period also exist independently in the central areas of the Esztár Group or not, because those sites which show superposition or horizontal stratigraphy between the two, only occur at the borderlines of Esztár (Ciumesti, Piscolt, Ebes). 2. On Map 3 the area where the sites of the Early (Raczky: ALPC 2) and Transitional Phase are represented in the area north of the Berettyó in the rest of the Érmeilék, the Nyírség and the Szatmári síkság, is completely empty. South of the Berettyó to the line of the Sebes Körös there is only one uncertain Transitional Phase site (Ártánd-Lencsésdomb, Cat. 12) with uncertain painted pottery. The other site very close to the Esztár-distributional area is Gáborján-Vár (Cat. 112) where the find is a single piece of a pedestal of a bowl, with black paint between the incsions and red paint inside - it was defined as early/late find. It is not inside the Esztár area, but on the borders of it. If we look at the distribution map of the former period (Map 2, Körös, Szatmár II), the situation is very similar. There are no sites on the Esztár area, only „Protovinca", Szatmár II and Körös ones: NagyecsedPéterzug, Furta-Csátó are on or outside the borderlines of Esztár (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977. Nr. 270. Map 1). and the turning up of Méhtelek finds which relegate the Szatmár I uisunderstanding when foreign researchers judged the connections 116 Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994