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

categories (such as copper artefacts and gold pendants): this period was fitted into the horizon of the Eneolithic cultures of South-East Europe,

14 and the absolute chronology of the Copper Age was set between 3600/3500 b.c. and 2300/2200 b.c. on the basis of uncalibrated C-14 dates.

15 However, dramatic differences soon became apparent in the absolute chronologies based on the two dating systems: whilst the calibrated C-14 dates anchored the Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin between 4300 and 2900 B.C.,

16 the 'classical' dates for the same period were set between 2760/2600 and 1900 b.c.

17 This dichotomy became especially conspicuous in one particular region since cultural correlations and relative chronological crosslinks from the Carpathian Basin could be easily traced to Bulgaria and Northern Greece where, however, further archaeological comparisons became increasingly uncertain, with seemingly irreconcilable differences, when fitting relative chronological time-scales, based on various dating methods, to the Helladic and Trojan sequences. A 'chronological fault line

1

, a term coined by C Renfrew for this controversial zone, seemed to divide Europe from the Aegean and the Ancient Near East.

18 The typological correlation of the diagnostic assemblages of the South-East European Copper Age with Helladic and Trojan assemblages was - in harmony with these two diverging chronological concepts carried out along this symbolic line.

19 It is hardly surprising, then, that Hungarian archaeologists researching the Copper Age gave the relevant excavations in Bulgaria and Northern Greece their undivided attention. In the meantime further chronological debates between the 'modified diffusionisf and the 'New Archaeology' schools hardened into a rigid theoretical antagonism.

20 The most outspoken adherent of the historical chronology in Hungary, J. Makkay assigned the archaeological sequence spanning the Neolithic to the Late Copper Age between the Tordos-TärtäriaJemdet Nasr and the EH III-Troy V periods, with absolute dates of 3000/2900 and 2000/1900 B.C.

21 Makkay linked the Tiszaszőlős-MojgrádVarna type treasures to similar assemblages from Troy II-Alaca Höyük, and suggested a virtually identical socio-economic development in Western Anatolia and South-East Europe.

22 The chronological discrepancies of the short chronological framework soon became apparent when Tiszapolgár was correlated with EH I, Bodrogkeresztúr with EH II and Baden with EH III,

23 since beside the synchronization of Jemdet Nasr with the Tartäria-Tordos-Late ALP-Tiszadob sequence,

24 the contemporaneity of Jemdet Nasr with Troy I and EH I-EH II could also be convincingly demonstrated. It was also fairly obvious that Troy I-Jemdet Nasr could not be simultaneously contemporaneous with the Late ALP and Tiszadob, and with the Tiszapolgár culture.

25 In the calibrated C-14 chronological framework the copper artefacts and gold pendants of South-East Europe are assigned to between 4500 and 3600 B.C., and this early Balkanic metallurgy can thus be seen to predate the Troy II-Alaca Höyük metallurgy by some 1500 to 2000 years.

26 The correlation of the BadenCotofeni-Ezero sequence with Troy IV-V, and its dating between 2300-2000/1900 B.C. on the one hand,

27 and the parallelization of the same Baden-CotofeniEzero sequence with pre-Troy I-Troy I on the other, with a date between 3600-2800 B.C.,

28 is another grave contradiction in this chronological system. The proliferation of studies on the finds from the Pevkakia Magoula site in Thessaly greatly contributed to untangling the contradictions outlined in the above.

29 One of the most important conclusions was that the Rachmani typology noted on this site is closely related to the Agora-Kephala-Aigina-Alepotrypa group of Central and Southern Greece. W. Phelps

1 research on the Peloponnesos,

30 K. Zachos

1 excavations in Triphylia

31 and the observations made by A. Dousougli in the Argolid

32 have confirmed the suggestions made by D. French, S. Immerwahr and C. Renfrew,

33 namely that together with the Eutresis II ceramic group - that has a good stratigraphie context -, this assemblage type predates the diagnostic EH I assemblages.

34 Consequently, the Rachmani culture definitely commenced sometime in the FN. Further welldocumented links of the Agora-Kephala-AigmaAlepotrypa group can be traced through typologically matching assemblages from the Greek Islands (e.g. Samos, Crete and Chios), to the Beçik-SivritepeGülpinar-Kumtepe la horizon that predates the Troy I 14 Bognár-Kutzián (1972) 197-210; Dumitrescu (1970); Dimitrijevic (1973); Makkay (1976). 15 Boguár-Kutzián ( 1972) 210-211. 16 Neustupny ( 1968) Table 5. 1 Makkav ( 1985b) chronological chart on p. 6; Ecsedy ( 1981 ) chronological chart on p. 74. 18 Renfrew (1970) 288-292; Renfrew (1973) 115-120. 19 Neuslupnv (1968) 24-28; Renfrew (1969). 20 Milojcic (1973); Mellaart (1971); Renfrew (1973) 21-52. 93-132; tnmbulas (1978); Gimbutas (1979); Gunbutas (1980); Evans-Rasson (1984) 716-718; Makkay (1985a); Renfrew (1986a) 3-6. 21 Makkay (1974-75); Makkay (1976) 262-280; Makkay (1990) 82-116. 22 Makkay ( 1985a); Makkay ( 1985b) 177-192. 23 Makkay (1976) 270-271. 24 Makkav (1974-75); Makkay (1990) 82-102. 25 Kahcz (1985) 27-28 26 Renfrew (1969) 27-38; Branigan (1974) 97-114; Gimbutas (1977); Renfrew (1978a); Renfrew (1978b) 109-110; Todorova (1978); Zanotti(1982); Yakar (1984) 59-60; Muhly (1985) 110-114; Kahcz ( 1992) 7; Raczky (1988) 43-44. 27 Bognár-Kutzián (1958) 179-187; Kahcz (1963) 83-84; NemejcováPavúková (1966) 253-264; Milojcic (1967) 14-15; Hood (1973); Makkay (1976) 270-274; Roman (1979); Podzuweit (1979b) 93-97; Nemejcová-Pavúková (1982); Kaücz (1985) 34-35; NemejcováPavúková (1991); Roman (1992). 28 Neustupny (1968) 24-32; Renfrew (1969) 24-27; Mellaart (1971) 126-133; Easton ( 1976) 149-156; Merpert ( 1979); Todorova ( 1982) 50-51; Séfériadès (1985) 232-238; Sherratt (1986) 442-449; for a general overview, see Hiller ( 1992). 29 Milojcic (1972); Weißhaar (1979a); Weißhaar (1979b); Weißhaaar (1989); Weißhaar (1991); Roman (1979) 308 and note 12; Roman (1992) 28; Hauptmann (1985); Coleman (1987) 3-6; Coleman (1992) Vol. I. 256-264. 276-279; Renfrew (1986b); Parzmger (1991). 30 Phelps (1975) 296-349. 354-355. 31 Zachos (1987) 112-144. 32 Dousougli (1987); Dousougli (1992). 33 French (1972) 17-18; Immerwahr (1971) 1-21; Renfrew (1972) 68-80. 34 Caskey-Caskey(1960) 135.