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

Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology ... near to the beginning of Karanovo III at Karanovo. It is important to note that the data of the components of this cluster overlap with each other. This implies a short period of time. The earliest dates of Vinca A from Ószentiván VIII and Vinca itself are even a bit earlier. Here we reach a problematic point of the Protovinca-Vinca development. To avoid interrupting the evaluation of the dates we will return to this problem later. The fifth two dates (belonging to cluster VII) can again hardly be regarded as a self-sufficient cluster within the Körös series. Although the values are in accordance with the archaeological definition (Late Körös) it is problematic where they fit into the whole sequence. The Deszk-Olajkút date parallels to the last cluster of Vinca A (Chapman) age Szakáihát data, as does the last Endrőd 35 sample which suggests a later settlement feature. It also suggests that the last Körös communities could survive in isolation among Vinca A3 (Lazarovici), south of the Maros, ALPC/Early Szakáihát and the surrounding areas, north of the Maros and Körös valley. New statistical results from Békés county from the site of Dévaványa-Réhely show the same conclusion (GOLDMAN 1991.41.,44.). However the premise of such a long a survival of the Late Körös Culture, namely till the beginning of the Vinca B period, can be excluded. The series of the Vinca culture includes two clear groups and one single date. The earliest two from Ószentiván VIII are somewhat later in absolute time' than the beginning of Vinca A and Karanovo III. This group of Vinca A data belongs to cluster IVtogether with the ALPC Sonkád 1, Zemplinske Kopcany (EastLinear), Korlát (Tiszadob), and the so-called „Protovinca" data. The data of Zemplinske Kopcany and Korlát is early for dating typologically. The Tiszasziget date coincides - within cluster VI- with Satchinez Vinca (A2/3. Lazarovici = Al/2. Milojcic), Tiszavasvári-Keresztfal and the middle group of Szakáihát data inside Vinca A (Chapman). The later Ószentiván date fits into the Sonkád 2-3, Tarnabod pit 1 (ALPC), Békésszentandrás (Szakálhát-Szarvas-Érpart),and the three last Vinca A age sets data of the Szakáihát Culture series (cluster VII). Surprisingly, unlike traditional archaeological chronology, the earliest values (cluster V) of the Szakáihát Culture take place between the earliest Vinca A dates from Ószentiván and those of Tiszasziget-Satchinez (Vinca A2/3 Lazarovici) central to the Vinca A (Chapman) period (cluster V). The new date from Satchinez very probably signifies the later part of the settlement (Vinca A3 Lazarovici) (DRASOVEAN 1993.48.). The archaeological material allows both 3 I. Bognár-Kutzián's excavation. We are grateful to her for consul 4 KALICZ-RACZKY 1987.28-29. These data are not represented on dating within a longer timespan, however. In terms of archaeology on the basis of 14C data, the appearance of the earliest Szakáihát Culture took place around the turn of the Vinca A2 and A3 (Lazarovici) periods. This dating of the lowermost layers of Battonya-Parázstanya and Tápé-Lebő is too early, when compared to the archaeological relative chronology however. When interpreting it there are two possibilities: 1. This data could refer to the age of older wood samples. The first real date in this case for the earliest appearance of the Szakáihát Culture is in the second block of data, which is in full agreement with the Satchinez and Tiszasziget data (both Lebő and Satchinez samples were taken from bone). 2. The data is correct, so we ought to consider the possibility of a Vinca A2/3 (Lazarovici) - earliest Szakáihát ALPC 2 - earliest Tiszadob (14C) - Early Esztár interrelation. The important dates of Esztár from the Berettyóújfalu-Szilhalom site support this concept. It is worthy of note that, the first two groups of Szakáihát data belong to the Vinca A phase even if we accept an earlier dating for its ending, contrary to Chapman because it can not be placed at an earlier date, such as the beginning of Anza IVb. When analysing the LPC sequence, similarly suprising conclusions can be drawn. Because our original purpose was to reevaluate the 14C of the Vinca A period, we are dealing only with that data which does not exceed the latest dating as defined by CHAPMAN (1981.). The earliest date from Korlát, which was classified with the Tiszadob Group by the excavator (KOHL-QUITTA 1963.300.), seems to be too early according to the archaeological dating, as it belongs to our cluster IV, i.e. parallel to the socalled „Protovinca-Period", and the earliest data of Ószentiván VIII. This is because this value dates the Tiszadob group in its first period(?) as partly contemporary with the Zemplinske Kopcany and Szamos Groups as well. The similarly early date for Sonkád needs more attention too, as it has later dates as well. These together seem to represent the entire life-span of this site. The age of the second period(?) of the Tiszadob Group can be determined by the date of Tiszavasvári-Keresztfal, which places it in the time of the Vinca A period. The third represented Tiszadob data (Ostoros) - together with Szamossályi and further dates of Szakáihát at Lebő (cluster VIII) signify the very end of the Vinca A (Chapman) period in time. It is noticeable that the single date of the classical ALPC (Tarnabod-Templomföld pit 1) falls between the second and third data for Tiszadob. The second period of the same site (pit 2) in full accordance with the Békészentandrás data shows the tig about the unpulished find-complex, ig. 1 because of technical difficulties. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994 113