Kovács Tibor (szerk.): Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 7; Budapest, 1995)

Pál Raczky: New data on the absolute chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin

New data on the absolute chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin PÁL RACZKY Following the separation of the Copper Age as a distinct and independent historical period in Hungary, the definition of the absolute and relative chronological position of this developmental phase became one of the main concerns of prehistoric research in the later 19th century.

1 Following the increasingly precise and reliable observations made in the course of various excavations in the early 20th century,

2 it was, by the late 1950s, securely established that in the Great Hungarian Plain the Copper Age is represented by the Tiszapolgár-Bodrogkeresztúr-Baden sequence.

3 The corresponding assemblages and sequences in Transdanubia were distinguished somewhat later: the Lengyel-Balaton-Lasinja-Baden sequence was set up in the 1960s and 1970s.

4 The stratigraphical observations made on the Székely-Zöldtelek and the TiszapolgárBasatanya sites,

5 which finally gave a clear and unambiguous answer to often vigorous debates - and also clarified the occasional misunderstanding -, proved to be crucial for establishing a coherent relative chronology for this period. The separation of the independent Hunyadi-halom

6 and Furchenstich horizons

7 marked a finer periodization of the Middle Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin. Following the interpretation of distinct groups in the archaeological record as asynchronous phenomena, and their assignment to independent evolutionary sequences, a wholly new approach was marked by the synchronization of the 'Pit-grave-Yamnaja culture' with the Baden culture in Eastern Hungary,

8 and the recognition of a similar synchronous relation between Late Baden and Vucedol in Transdanubia.

9 Concurrently with the clarification of the finer details of the internal development and the separate phases of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin, the 1 Kubinyi (1861) Vol. II, 81-82; Römer (1866) 26; Hampel (1876) 137-141; Hampel ( 1895); Pulszky ( 1883); Pulszky ( 1884). 2 Hillebrand (1927); Hillebrand ( 1929); Tompa (1937) 50-61. 3 Kutzián (1955) 69-71; Banner (1956); Banner-Bognár-Kutzián (1960); Bognár-Kutzián (1961); Banner-Bognár-Kutzián (1961); Bognár-Kutzián (1963) 535-541; for a general overview of the Hungarian terminology, see Kalicz (1982b); for an overview of this terminology in a European context, see Lichardus (1991). 4 Kahcz (1969); Kahcz (1973); Kahcz (1974); Raczky (1974). 5 Kahcz (1958); Kutzián (1955); Bognár-Kutzián (1963). late 1950s saw the first attempts to fit the relative chronological time-scale to an absolute chronology through cultural traits that were either considered to be important for some reason or other, or suggested contact with farther-lying regions. These primarily involved cross-datings with the Balkanic cultures, with the Helladic sequence in the Aegean and with Troy in Western Anatolia with the aid of 'chronological anchors'. Pioneering studies were published by I. BognárKutzián, J. Banner and N. Kalicz.

10 The so-called Jordansmühl- 'depas" cup of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture and certain vessel forms of the Baden culture, such as the face urns from Center, played a decisive role in these archaeological correlations that, at the same time, also outlined the framework of an early absolute chronology. With the comprehensive syntheses worked out by G. Childe and V. Milojcic,

11 there evolved a consensus over the Hungarian Copper Age in the early 1960s according to which its three main phases could by and large be correlated with Troy I-V, and could be placed between 2300 and 1900/1850 B.C. With the appearance of C-14 dates this apparently stable chronological framework was upset, as indicated, for example, by Bognár-Kutzián

1 s 1963 monograph in which the Hungarian Copper Age is assigned to the period between 3300 and 2400/2300 B.C., even though the earlier accepted, 'historic' dates are also quoted.

12 The studies by E. Neustupny and C. Renfrew

13 - in which the calibrated C-14 chronology was extended to cover the Copper Age of all of South-East Europe -, revealed a marked contrast between the historical chronology and the new dating methods. In the 1970s the Copper Age development of Hungary was set in a wider context through the comparison of various find 6 Bognár-Kutzián (1969); Roman (1971); Kahcz (1979-80). 7 Kahcz (1973) 158-159; Kahcz (1980) 257-267. 8 Ecsedy (1979) 47-52. 9 Ecsedy (1978) 105-114. 10 Bognár-Kutzián (1958); Banner-Bognár-Kutzián (1961); Kahcz (1963)77-84. 11 Childe (1929); Childe (1939); Milojcic (1949). 12 Bognár-Kutzián (1963) 541-555. 13 Neustupny (1968); Neustupny (1969); Renfrew (1969); Renfrew (1970).