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 ... Makkay, N. Kalicz and O. Trogmayer started from the typological evidence of Ószentiván VIII and partly from the early Vinca sites that Protovinca pottery differs clearly from that of Vinca A. They based their theory on this, and on the geographical distribution and the horizontal chronology. According to this view-point, they regarded these find complexes as the genetic roots (even outside!?) of the Vinca culture. In the meantime others accepted this theory. In 1977 Gh. Lazarovici published his Gornea excavation and later his synthesis on the Neolithic of Banat (LAZAROVICI 1977., LAZAROVICI 1979.). According to the analysis of the Gornea and the Roumanian Banat find comlexes, he placed the assemblages of the so-colled Protovinca period with the Vinca A2 period within his new chronological frame. He considers the earliest Vinca phase at Gornea to be earlier in time (Vinca Al) than the lower levels (pit levels) at the type site of Vinca. He has found the parallels with Ószentiván VIII and Banat type of artifacts in the Vinca A2--3 layers of Gornea. In his system built on four Starcevo phases following Milojcic, Vinca Al is contemporaneous with Starcevo Illb, Vinca A2 with Starcevo IVa, Vinca A3 with Starcevo IVb. Thus the (second) Protovinca period is parallel with Starcevo IVa. In the same year N. Kalicz and J. Makkay published their comprehensive monograph about the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977.). They considerd the whole (older and younger, with the exception of the latest independent groups) linear complex as a post-Protovinca formation and equated it with the full Vinca A sequence (KALICZMAKKAY 1977. Chronological Chart). In their very detailed chronology which was based on thorough typological analyses they made chronological divisions as follows: 1. The „Protovinca" age Szatmárgroup. 2. An Early Phase (signified by the sites, like Hortobágy-Falnvéghalom, Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom, Abádszalók, Bodrogkeresztúr, Tarcal, Barca HI, etc). 3. An Intermediate Phase (see Map 3, the typological distinctions are not clear for this unit however). 4. A Late Phase ofALPC (thisperiod was already the time of the local groups of Tiszadob, Szakáihát, Esztár-Szamos Region, and Bükk. These latter - with the exception of the earliest part of Tiszadob — were ranged with the Vinca B1-B2 period (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977.93-). In 1986 and 1988 P. Raczky attempted to combine the results of previous research with the evidence that had accumulated in the time that had passed. He was right to question the reliability of the Protovinca concept applying to the area outside Vinca territory for two reasons. As for the term „Protovinca" he pointed out that it is not a consistent category, because north of the Maros, the Vinca Culture itself never existed. The other reason was chronological. According to this he found „Protovinca" to be contemporaneous with the early part of Vinca A, and regarded it as identical to the Körös IV phase (RACZKY 1988.28.). In this new chronological framework within the ALPC he distinguishes four phases: 1. The phase (formerly called) Szatmár II, as ALPC 1. 2. The Hortobágy-Faluvéghalom-Barca III type complexes. 3. Tiszadob-Kapusany, Sonkád-Raskovce, Berettyószentmárton-Morotva, Békés-Déló etc. 4. Bükk, Szakáihát, Esztár. He ranges the first three phases parallel with Vinca A time (RACZKY 1986.38-39.). In his latest volume in 1988 the sequence is shorter. Only the 1st and 2nd phases have been mentioned as being contemporaneous with Vinca A. So, in this chronological system the relation of the younger phases (3 and 4) to the Vinca sequence has remained open, but indirectly it means the ranging of the whole Esztár-SzakálhátTiszadob-Szamos complex with the period of Vinca B (RACZKY 1988.29.). At this point we have to return to the Tisza-Maros region. At first glance the different geographical distribution, and the parallelism between the Vinca A and „Protovinca" 14C dates seems to contradict each other. During recent years we had a chance to study the new Early Vinca finds from Liubkova, near Gornea, and most of the Banat find complexes. The excavator similarly to Gh. Lazarovici dates the beginning of the settlement to the Vinca Al, parallel to Starcevo III.B2. (LUCA 1991.153.). It would be hard to test the theory that Gornea could be older than the type site simply on the published findings without 14C analyses. What is sure is that the age of Northern-Banat type Vinca A artifacts is somewhat later and differs from the earliest Vinca period both of Gornea and of the Vinca sites. So before the excavation of Gornea and Liubkova one can presume rightly that Vinca-like assemblages within the Körös Culture may have preceded the Vinca A period (according to Milojcic) on the basis of the Ószentiván find complex. The Vinca Al complexes at Gornea and Liubkova naturally may differ from that of the Vinca toponym site, but the dates of their origins are probably very similar. Consequently, the „Protovinca" period was followed by a second Vinca A period in the Banat. The few 14C dates discussed above indicate the meeting point of the two units in time, at around 5350. The parallelism between Vinca Al (Lazarovici) and „Protovinca" finds can also be shown partly typologically. The two „Protovinca" periods separated by J. Makkay can be equated very well with Lazarovici's Vinca sequence, but in a different way from his Vinca-ALPC equation. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994 115