2013_Raczky, P. - Siklósi, Zs.: Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern...

Met

hod

Reconsideration of the Copper Agechronology of the eastern CarpathianBasin: a Bayesian approachPal Raczky & Zsuzsanna Siklosi∗

Budapest

NorthernTiszaregion

0 km 200

N

Understanding the prehistoric narrative of aregion requires good dating, and in recentyears good dating has moved increasinglyfrom models drawn from types of artefactsto a framework provided by radiocarbonsequences. This in turn is bringing a changein the way events are described: from broadcultural histories to a network of localsequences. In this case study, the authors applythis rethinking to the Copper Age in a keyregion of Europe, the Great Hungarian Plainin the Carpathian Basin. They replace thetraditional Early and Middle Copper Age,defined by pottery types, with an 800-yearsequence in which six cemetery and settlementsites experience different trajectories of use, andthe pottery types make intermittent and often

contemporary appearances. In this new chronology based on radiocarbon, the variations in potteryuse must have some other explanation.

Keywords: Hungary, Carpathian Basin, Tisza region, Copper Age, fifth millennium BC,radiocarbon, AMS, Bayesian analysis, Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztur and Hunyadihalompottery types

IntroductionIn the 1950s, the chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin was establishedindirectly, through correlations with cultural sequences in the Balkans and cross-dating withthe Aegean and Troy (Banner & Bognar-Kutzian 1961; Kalicz 1963; Makkay 1976: 271).This has been revised by radiocarbon dates (Hertelendi et al. 1995: 242; Raczky 1995;Glaser 1996; Yerkes et al. 2009), and is now being further refined by the application ofBayesian analysis to the more numerous AMS dates that have become available. A new

* Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eotvos Lorand University, Muzeum korut 4/B, Budapest H-1088, Hungary(Email: [email protected]; [email protected])

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 87 (2013): 555–573 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870555.htm

555

Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern Carpathian Basin

model of Carpathian Copper Age chronology based on this approach is offered here, andcalls into question the validity of earlier schemes based on pottery typology.

In eastern Hungary, the chronology has been traditionally constructed mainly from threeceramic signatures, named Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztur/Hunyadihalom and Baden, whichwere equated with the Early, Middle and Late Copper Age. This scheme was derived largelyfrom the excavation of the cemetery at Tiszapolgar-Basatanya and the stratigraphy of theSzekely-Zoldtelek site (Kutzian 1955: 78–81; Kalicz 1958; Banner & Bognar-Kutzian 1961;Bognar-Kutzian 1963: 535–41, 1972: 183–97; Patay 1974). The Basatanya cemetery playeda crucial role because it was, at the time, believed that the 155 burials uncovered spanned theentire Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur periods. The Copper Age was dated between 3300 and2400/2300 uncal BC, within which the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur (early and middle)sequence was assigned to the period between 3300 and 2700 uncal BC (Bognar-Kutzian1963: 541–55). Later Bognar-Kutzian suggested three different chronological schemes forthe Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin in view of the traditional (short) and the new (long)chronology (Bognar-Kutzian 1972: 210–11).

On the basis of calibrated radiocarbon dates, Evzen Neustupny subsequently placedthe Tiszapolgar culture between 4500 and 4000 cal BC and the Bodrogkeresztur cultureto between 4000 and 3600 cal BC (Neustupny 1968: table 5; 1969: table 3). This newchronology called for a revision of the use-life of the Basatanya cemetery, extending it from200 to 900 years (see below).

The first radiocarbon dates for the Early and Middle Copper Age in the Great HungarianPlain, made on samples from the Basatanya cemetery, were published in the 1980s, andcould be fitted neatly into Neustupny’s cultural and chronological model (Bognar-Kutzian1985; Benko et al.1989; Bankoff & Winter 1990; Ehrich & Bankoff 1992). At roughly thesame time, Kalicz published a series of maps illustrating the diachronous distribution ofthe Copper Age cultures of the Carpathian Basin (Kalicz 1988). These visual modelssuggested that the cultural complexes represented by the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkereszturcultures were successive entities with a closed geographic distribution in the Tisza region.

From the late 1990s, the widespread application of Bayesian analysis has led to athird radiocarbon revolution (Bayliss 2009). This statistical method, using calibrated AMSmeasurements based on samples from secure closed archaeological contexts, enables theconstruction of high precision time-scales (Bayliss et al. 2011). In contrast to earlierdating systems that only offered a low-resolution perspective on prehistoric cultures andchronological periods, this new dating method allows the reconstruction of the finertemporal dynamics of a particular site. This has obvious implications for material culture,and in particular for the interpretation of the chronology of ceramic styles. The approach hasalready led to the replacement of a number of earlier, unilinear typo-chronological schemeswith more precise spatio-temporal models for some regions and cultures (e.g. Muller 2001,2002).

The present study proposes a revised chronological and interpretative framework for theCopper Age of the Great Hungarian Plain based on the new methods. AMS radiocarbondates were taken from samples of human bone, animal bone and charcoal from fourcemeteries, one settlement and one enclosure in the upper Tisza basin of the Great HungarianPlain (Figure 1; Table 1). The dates have been calibrated with the IntCal09 calibration curveC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

556

Met

hod

Pal Raczky & Zsuzsanna Siklosi

Figure 1. The northerly Tisza region of the Great Hungarian Plain, showing the location of the sites discussed in the study.

(Reimer et al. 2009) and the OxCal 4.1 program (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Bayesian analyseswere then applied to derive the posterior density estimates for the beginning and end ofeach site (Table 2; Buck et al. 1991). Calibrated radiocarbon dates are discussed using theone sigma values which account for 68.2% of the probability of the date falling withinthe relevant range.

ResultsTiszapolgar-Basatanya

The 155 Copper Age burials of the Basatanya cemetery (Figure 2) have provided thefoundation for the Early and Middle Copper Age chronology of the Great HungarianPlain (Bognar-Kutzian 1963, 1972), based on graves containing Tiszapolgar assemblages(Figure 3) and those containing Bodrogkeresztur assemblages (Figure 4). The cemetery’swestern section was seen as being opened during the later Tiszapolgar period (marked red on

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

557

Reconsiderationofthe

Copper

Age

chronologyofthe

easternC

arpathianB

asin

Table 1. AMS and conventional radiocarbon dates from the Early and Middle Copper Age sites and their archaeological context discussed in thestudy.

ArchaeologicalSample context, graveno. Lab. No. Site Period Culture Feature Material BP St. dev. δC13 (1σ )∗ cal BC (68.2%) cal BC (95.5%) goods References

1 Poz-36369 Tiszapolgar-Basatanya

LN Tisza Grave 84 human bone 6100 50 -21.1+−0.2 5210–4940 5210–4850 1 vessel Bognar-Kutzian 1963:158, pl. 75.2;unpublishedradiocarbon date


ECA Tiszapolgar Grave 56 human bone 5480 40 -16.9+−0.5 4370–4260 4450–4250 5 vessels andfragments, 5 flintblades, domesticsow’s mandible,sheep bones

Bognar-Kutzian 1963:119–121, pl. 48.6,63.7–11, 66.1–3,5–6, 121.5, 9;unpublishedradiocarbon date


ECA Tiszapolgar Grave 36 human bone 5470 40 -20.7+−0.1 4360–4260 4450–4230 6 vessels, polishedstone axe, snail shell

Bognar-Kutzian 1963:87–89, pl. 43.1–3,5–7, 72.6;unpublishedradiocarbon date


MCA Bodrogkeresztur Grave 123 human bone 5340 40 -20.6+−0.2 4260–4060 4330–4040 5 vessels and fragment,stone beads, flintblade, bone awl,pebble, goat bones

Bognar-Kutzian 1963:203–204, pl.97.7a–b, 102.8–10,107.3–7, 109.1–4;unpublishedradiocarbon date


ECA/MCA Tiszapolgar/Bodrog-keresztur

Grave 57 human bone 5320 40 -20.4+−0.5 4240–4050 4320–4040 6 vessels, stone beads Bognar-Kutzian 1963:121–123, pl. 64.4,67.1–2, 5-6, 121.6,11a–e; unpublishedradiocarbon date


MCA Bodrogkeresztur Grave 105 human bone 5260 40 -18.3+−0.4 4230–3990 4240–3970 4 vessels, copperdagger, copper pin,long flint blade, flintblade, obsidian core,flint core, stoneplate, ochre, 2laminae of wild boartusk, sheep bones

Bognar-Kutzian 1963:179–181, pl.95.1–9, 96.1–4a–c;unpublishedradiocarbon date

C©A

ntiquityPublications

Ltd.

558

Method

PalRaczky

&Z

suzsannaSiklosi


MCA BodrogkereszturB

Grave 130 human bone 5260 40 -20+−0.1 4230–3990 4240–3970 5 vessels andfragments,stone beads,ochre

Bognar-Kutzian1963: 209–211,pl. 115.1–2,112.4–8, 122.3a–f;unpublishedradiocarbon date


ECA/MCA Tiszapolgar/Bodrog-keresztur

Grave 48 human bone 5190 40 -19.6+−0.1 4040–3960 4230–3820 4 vessels,mussel shell

Bognar-Kutzian1963: 104–105,pl. 56.3–4, 6–7;unpublishedradiocarbon date

9 VERA-3785 Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to-dulo

ECA Tiszapolgar Grave 30/34 human bone 5370 40 -20.8+−1.6 4330–4070 4340–4050 n.a. Kovacs & Vaczi 2007:408






ECA Tiszapolgar Grave 30/34 animal bone 5370 45 -20.3+−0.7 4330–4070 4340–4050 n.a. Kovacs & Vaczi 2007:408


ECA Tiszapolgar Grave 57/61 animal bone 5360 35 -20.6+−1.0 4320–4070 4330–4050 n.a. Kovacs & Vaczi 2007:408

14 Bln-3931 Fuzesabony-Pusztaszikszo

MCA BodrogkereszturLudanice

n.a. charcoal 5350 90 n.a. 4330–4050 4350–3980 n.a. Kallay 1990;unpublishedradiocarbon date













C©A


Ltd.

559

Reconsiderationofthe

Copper

Age

chronologyofthe

easternC

arpathianB

asin

Table 1. ContinuedArchaeological

Sample context, graveno. Lab. No. Site Period Culture Feature Material BP St. dev. δC13 (1σ )∗ cal BC (68.2%) cal BC (95.5%) goods References



n.a. charcoal 5460 70 n.a. 4440–4230 4460–4060 n.a. Kallay 1988;unpublishedradiocarbondate

20 Poz-33547 Pusztataskony-Ledence Site1

MCA Bodrogkeresztur F381/S494 human bone 5460 40 -26.1+−0.5 4360–4260 4370–4230 unpublished


MCA Bodrogkeresztur F381/S494 snake bone 5490 40 -24.6+−0.7 4370–4260 4450–4250 unpublished


MCA Bodrogkeresztur F381/S494 hedgehog bone 5420 40 -23.2+−0.3 4340–4250 4360–4080 unpublished


MCA Bodrogkeresztur F381/S494 brown hare bone 5420 40 -24+−0.3 4340–4250 4360–4080 unpublished

24 VERA-4198 Rakoczifalva-Bagifold

MCA Bodrogkeresztur F137/S149,grave

human bone 5285 30 -23.6+−1.3 4230–4040 4240–3990 4 vessels, stonebeads

Csanyi et al. 2010:252, 263



human bone 5290 35 -17.1+−0.7 4230–4040 4240–3990 3 vessels, copperpin, copperdagger, stoneknife, stonearrowhead

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263



human bone 5285 40 -22.2+−1.0 4230–4040 4240–3990 1 vessel, stoneknife

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263



human bone 5415 35 -22.6+−1.8 4330–4250 4350–4170 6 vessels, goldentip of a smallstick, copperaxe, 2 stoneknives, 3arrowheads,chipped stonetool, ochre, 2animal bones

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263



human bone 5380 30 -16.1+−1.6 4330–4170 4340–4070 2 vessels, 2 stoneknives

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263

C©A


Ltd.

560

Method

PalRaczky

&Z

suzsannaSiklosi



human bone 5450 35 -16.4+−1.6 4350–4260 4360–4240 2 vessels, copperawl, 2 stoneknives

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263



human bone 5365 35 -18.7+−0.6 4330–4070 4330–4050 4 vessels, copperbracelet,polishedstone tool,animal bone

Csanyi et al. 2010:256, 263



human bone 5400 45 -21.5+−0.8 4340–4230 4350–4060 3 vessels, stoneknife, antlertool, animalbone

Csanyi et al. 2010:263.



human bone 5315 40 -19.6+−1.6 4240–4050 4320–4000 7 vessels Csanyi et al. 2010:252, 263

33 Poz-36361 Tiszaluc-Sarkadpuszta

MCA Hunyadihalom Grave 2 human bone 5070 40 -21.3+−0.2 3950–3800 3970–3770 2 silver pendants Patay 2005: 60–61,fig. 70–71;unpublishedradiocarbon date


MCA Hunyadihalom Grave 8 human bone 5050 40 -20.9+−0.2 3950–3790 3960–3710 1 vessel Patay 2005: 60,fig. 68–69;unpublishedradiocarbon date


MCA Hunyadihalom Grave 7 human bone 5020 40 -21.9+−0.2 3940–3710 3950–3700 3 vessels Patay 2005: 59–60,fig. 66–67;unpublishedradiocarbon date

∗These δ13C values cannot be used for palaeoecological reconstructions because of the method of sample preparation.

C©A


Ltd.

561


Table 2. Results of the Bayesian analysis of the radiocarbon dates from Early and MiddleCopper Age sites discussed in the study.

Start End Span CombinedSite (68.2%) (68.2%) (68.2%) (68.2%)

Tiszapolgar-Basatanya 4420–4280 4040–3910 300–510 –Tiszapolgar 4480–4270 4350–4170 0–300 –Tiszapolgar/Bodrogkeresztur transitional 4430–4040 4060–3650 0–150 –Bodrogkeresztur A 4420–4070 4220–3840 0–580 –Bodrogkeresztur A & B 4290–4060 4160–3920 0–300 –Rakoczifalva-Bagi fold 4340–4270 4220–4100 60–200 –Rakoczifalva-Bagi fold West 4350–4260 4310–4220 0–50 –Rakoczifalva-Bagi fold East 4250–4110 4160–4010 0–80 –Tiszaluc-Sarkadpuszta 3990–3810 3910–3700 0–250 –Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to 4350–4260 4310–4210 0–60 –Fuzesabony-Pusztaszikszo 4400–4240 4310–4060 0–120 –Pusztataskony-Ledence Site 1 – – – 4340–4260

Figure 2) and the cemetery’s use was continuous during the entire Bodrogkeresztur sequencein the eastern section (in yellow). On the grounds of Bognar-Kutzian’s interpretation, thegraves representing the typological transition between the two cultures lay in the cemetery’smiddle part (in green), while the latest burials formed a separate cluster in the eastern end(in blue; Bognar-Kutzian 1963: 295–99).

The use-life of the cemetery was first proposed as 200–220 years (Bognar-Kutzian1963: 350–52), revised, from an analysis of the calibrated radiocarbon data, to 900 years(Forenbaher 1993: 237, 246, fig. 3, table 1). This radical difference has clearly affectedthe previous social analysis of the cemetery (Skomal 1980, 1983; Nevizansky 1984: 294–97, 301–303; Meisenheimer 1989: 68; Sofaer Derevenski 1997, 2000; Chapman 2000).Although Bognar-Kutzian suggested that the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur graves werepossibly contemporary, she eventually rejected this interpretation (Bognar-Kutzian 1963:519–20), deciding that the graves had been dug according to a predetermined pattern fromwest to east (Bognar-Kutzian 1963: 229–31). Nevizansky and Chapman too concludedthat the burials were laid out in rows according to a specific sequence (Nevizansky 1984;Chapman 2000). Both Bognar-Kutzian and Patay noted that the transitional graves lay atthe boundary between the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur burials, and provided both thetypological and the chronological link between the two periods. However, this interpretativeframework does not explain why superimposed burials can only be found in this area.Nevizansky suggested that this could perhaps be attributed to a lack of grave markers(Nevizansky 1984: 294). Patay assumed that a longer period had elapsed after the latestTiszapolgar burials and that the location of earlier graves was no longer remembered when thetransitional burials took place. He suggested a similar temporal gap between the transitionalgraves and the first Bodrogkeresztur burials (Patay 2008: 42). He distinguished several graveclusters, which in his view could be correlated with kinship groups, and he also claimed thatthe sequence of the burials in these clusters did not correspond to the pattern of rows.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

562

Met

hod


Figure 2. Plan of the Copper Age cemetery at Tiszapolgar-Basatanya. Graves of the Tiszapolgar culture are marked in red,those of the Bodrogkeresztur culture in yellow (with late graves in blue) and transitional graves in green.

We took samples from two Tiszapolgar burials (Table 1: Graves 36 and 56), twotransitional burials (Graves 57 and 48), two Bodrogkeresztur burials (Graves 123 and 105)and a late Bodrogkeresztur burial (Grave 130). The uncalibrated dates for the two Tiszapolgarburials were earlier than the ones for the transitional and the Bodrogkeresztur graves. However,the Bayesian analysis indicated that there were significant overlaps between the dates(Figure 5). The dates for Grave 56 (Tiszapolgar burial) and the partially superimposedGrave 57 (transitional burial) correlated well with the stratigraphic position of the twoburials (Figure 2). At the same time, Grave 123 (Bodrogkeresztur burial) and Grave 57


563


Figure 3. A typical male grave with Tiszapolgar style pottery (Grave 56) from the Tiszapolgar-Basatanya cemetery. The planof the grave is based on the original field documentation and not on the publication. a) hollow pedestalled bowl; b) jar; c)flint blade; d); human bone from the skeleton; e) deep bowl; f ) storage jar; g) cup; h) animal bones; i–k) human bones fromthe skeleton; l) domestic sow’s mandible; m–p) flint blades. Also three sherds from the fill of the grave pit not indicated on theoriginal plan.


564

Met

hod


Figure 4. A typical female grave with an infant with Bodrogkeresztur style pottery (Grave 130) from the Tiszapolgar-Basatanya cemetery. The plan of the grave is based on the original field documentation and not on the publication. a)flowerpot-shaped vessel; b) bowl; c) fragmented large vessel; d) jug; e) disc-shaped limestone beads; f ) lump of pigment; g) flatdish.


565


Figure 5. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the Copper Age cemetery at Tiszapolgar-Basatanya.

(transitional burial) were almost contemporary, but Grave 48 (transitional) appeared to beyounger than Grave 130 which was assigned to the cemetery’s latest phase on typologicalgrounds.

The overlap between the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur periods could in part beattributed to the plateau in the calibration curve (Figure 5, Table 2). But it was quiteclear, even from the uncalibrated dates, that the earlier typo-chronological sequence for theBodrogkeresztur period was unreliable and needed a major revision. On the testimony ofthe seven new samples, the Copper Age cemetery was opened after 4420–4280 cal BC andwas used until 4040–3910 cal BC, indicating a use-life of 300–510 years (Table 2).

We also took a new sample from the single burial which Bognar-Kutzian had assignedto the Late Neolithic (Grave 84; Table 1). The date for this burial confirmed both hertypological conclusions (Bognar-Kutzian 1963: 158, 518) and the accuracy of the earlierC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

566

Met

hod


conventional radiocarbon measurement (Bognar-Kutzian 1985: 296). The Late Neolithicgrave definitely predated the Early Copper Age burials by several centuries.

Pusztataskony-Ledence Site 1

The single Copper Age feature uncovered during the large-scale salvage excavations herewas a pit containing the burial of an adult woman deposited with Bodrogkeresztur stylevessels, a brown hare, twelve snakes, a hedgehog, a toad, a frog and the skull of a Europeanwater vole (Fuzesi & Sebok 2009: 368). Samples from the human and three animal remains(brown hare, hedgehog and snake) were submitted for AMS dating which indicated theremains were contemporaneous (Table 1), and thus the burial can be dated to 4340–4260cal BC (Table 2). This grave appears to be remarkably early compared to the earlier acceptedBodrogkeresztur dates and it also seems to be coeval with the Tiszapolgar burials of theBasatanya cemetery.

Tiszaluc-Sarkadpuszta

Patay uncovered a settlement and four graves of the Hunyadihalom culture at this site, whichwas investigated between 1974 and 1990. The site was dated to the close of the MiddleCopper Age (Bodrogkeresztur) and assigned to a period later than the Basatanya cemetery(Patay 2005). We took samples from three of the Hunyadihalom burials (Table 1: Grave 2,Grave 7 and Grave 8). The results indicate that the graves had been dug after 3990–3810 calBC and before 3910–3700 cal BC, suggesting an occupation of up to 250 years (Table 2).The settlement is thus indeed later than the Basatanya cemetery, but earlier than previouslyassumed, dating to the early rather than the mid fourth millennium BC.

Fuzesabony-Pusztaszikszo

The solitary circular ditch and palisade system and the ritual well in the centre of theenclosure uncovered at this site yielded typical finds of the early Bodrogkeresztur–Ludaniceculture (Kallay 1990). The conventional radiocarbon dating of the six charcoal samples takenfrom various parts of the features indicated a use-life between 4400–4240 and 4310–4060cal BC for this unusual structure, unassociated with any settlement (Tables 1–2). Thesedates are again too ‘early’ compared to the traditional dates for the culture, although it mustbe borne in mind that there are difficulties in comparing conventional measurements oncharcoal with AMS measurements on bone samples.

Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to-dulo

The 34 inhumation graves of the burial ground at Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to-dulo aretypical representatives of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgar culture (Kovacs & Vaczi 2007).Calibrated dates obtained from five samples (human and animal bone) taken from threegraves gave a time-span of between 4350–4260 cal BC and 4310–4210 cal BC for thecemetery’s use-life (Tables 1–2). These dates harmonise with the Tiszapolgar dates fromthe Basatanya cemetery and provide a reliable indication for the general chronology ofTiszapolgar cemeteries.


567


Rakoczifalva-Bagi-fold

A cemetery of the Bodrogkeresztur culture investigated at Rakoczifalva-Bagi-fold near Szolnokyielded fresh data for the chronological framework of the Middle Copper Age in the Tiszaregion. The 79 graves in the completely excavated burial ground formed two groups: thewestern group comprised 64 graves, the eastern one 11 graves and there were 4 graves betweenthe two groups (Csanyi et al. 2010: 244–45). The nine AMS radiocarbon measurements(Table 1) gave a time span of between 4340–4270 cal BC and 4220–4100 cal BC for theuse of the cemetery. There was a definite chronological difference between the two gravegroups: the earlier one in the cemetery’s western part began after 4350–4260 cal BC and itsuse ended before 4310–4220 cal BC, while the later, eastern group started after 4250–4110cal BC and remained in use until 4160–4010 cal BC (Table 2).

While these dates are surprisingly early compared to the previously acceptedBodrogkeresztur dates, they fit in with the chronology of the Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to burial ground (Oross et al. 2010: 400) and the Tiszapolgar period established for theBasatanya cemetery described above.

AssessmentThe new AMS dates clearly show that the extraordinarily long use-life of the Basatanyacemetery assumed previously can be explained by the long standard deviations (180–220years) of the conventional dates. At the same time, a plateau can be noted between 4300and 4000 cal BC in the calibration curve, encumbering a more precise dating and causinga systematic bias in the dates falling into this range (Walanus 2009), which in our caseobviously influences the interpretation of the Early and Middle Copper Age. One questionin this respect is whether the overlap between the calibrated dates from Rakoczifalva-Bagi-fold, Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to, Pusztataskony-Ledence Site 1 and Tiszapolgar-Basatanyacould be explained by the plateau. A glance at the uncalibrated dates from these sites revealsthat there is a similar overlap between the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur dates, meaningthat the bias of the calibration curve affected the dates evenly (Figure 6). Therefore, we mayassert that the Tiszapolgar burials from Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to and the Bodrogkereszturburials from Rakoczifalva-Bagi-fold are indeed contemporaneous, as are the Tiszapolgarburials of the Basatanya cemetery and the Bodrogkeresztur burial of the Pusztataskony-Ledence site. These dates and correspondences appear to be independent of the bias in thecalibration.

Another methodological problem is caused by the fact that the bulk of the new AMSdates comes from human bone samples, which raises the possibility of a reservoir effect.The radiocarbon dates for the two human and animal bone samples from Grave 30/34of the Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to site were identical, while there was a difference of 65years between the two human and animal bone samples from Grave 57/61. The practicallycontemporaneous dates for the human and animal bone samples (taken from three differentspecies) collected from the Pusztataskony grave too suggest that the early date cannot beexplained by the reservoir effect (Table 1). The carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis ofsamples from the Early and Middle Copper Age cemeteries in the Great Hungarian Plain(including the Basatanya and the Hajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to burial grounds discussedC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

568

Met

hod


Figure 6. The uncalibrated and calibrated dates based on AMS measurements for the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkereszturceramic styles.

here) indicated that freshwater resources did not play a major role in the diet (Giblin2011).

DiscussionThe new research shows that there is a mismatch between the traditional cultural sequenceand the radiocarbon dates in the Great Hungarian Plain. AMS measurements suggest thatthe use of the sampled sites began around 4350 cal BC, and lasted until around 4000 cal


569


Figure 7. Chronological chart, showing the period of use of the six sites sampled, with the occurrence of the predominantpottery types.

BC (Table 2, Figure 7). Variants of the Tiszapolgar ceramic style can be found throughoutthis period, while the Bodrogkeresztur ceramic style, supposed to have superseded it, actuallyoccurs in graves dated to the earliest part of the sequence. In the Basatanya cemetery, gravescontaining Bodrogkeresztur type pottery appeared from around 4300 cal BC and the latestburials of this type are not later than 4000 cal BC. This would imply that the Tiszapolgarand Bodrogkeresztur ceramic styles were partly coeval in the region served by this cemetery.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

570

Met

hod


The stylistic changes in pottery that were previously interpreted as reflecting chronologicalchanges must be owed to a host of other factors.

AMS dates for other Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur sites in the northern and centralregions of the Great Hungarian Plain also offer convincing evidence for the synchronous useof the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur ceramic styles. Although this can in part be explainedby the distortions in the calibration curve, the uncalibrated dates too reflect the simultaneousexistence of the two styles, confirming that we are not dealing with a virtual effect caused bythe calibration curve. This certainly calls for a re-assessment of the ceramic typology of theEarly and Middle Copper Age and a re-consideration of the contextual role of ceramic stylesand their chronological and/or social implications. The chronological framework outlinedin Figure 7 also has implications for Copper Age metallurgy. It would appear that heavycopper implements appeared much earlier in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin,as did gold (Grave F201/S328 at Rakoczifalva-Bagi-fold) and silver artefacts (Grave 2 atTiszaluc-Sarkad).

The handful of AMS dates from Transdanubia suggests that the Middle Copper Age (inthe traditional cultural sense) can be dated earlier in this region too (Oross et al. 2010: 392).It would appear that the observations made in the Tisza region are valid not only for thatregion, but also for the broader territory of the Carpathian Basin.

ConclusionUsing calibrated radiocarbon dates with Bayesian analysis is an approach that can generatedetailed time/space models with multiple trajectories, replacing earlier models of generalisedculture change, and providing prehistorians with a more precise means of exploring economicand social issues (Whittle et al. 2011). The archaeological examples cited here clearly showthat the ceramic styles of the Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur assemblages, which until nowhave been regarded as chronological markers of the Early and Middle Copper Age, couldbe in use at the same time. Our initial observations must obviously be tested against alarger series of AMS dates from the period’s settlements and from sites across the entireGreat Hungarian Plain in order to fill in the finer details of the broad canvas outlinedhere.

AcknowledgementsThe project is funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA Grant 101062, “Chronologicaland spatial relations of Early and Middle Copper Age settlements, cemeteries and metal finds on the GreatHungarian Plain”). Zsuzsanna Siklosi’s work is also supported by the European Union and co-financed bythe European Social Fund (TAMOP-4.2.1./B-09/1/KMR-2010-0003). We are grateful to Katalin Sebok forgenerously allowing the publication of the find assemblage from Pusztataskony-Ledence and to ZsuzsannaZoffmann for the anthropological analysis of the human remains from the grave. We are indebted to KatalinNagy for the preparation of the illustrations. We wish to thank our colleagues in the Department of Anthropologyof the Hungarian Natural History Museum for their help in collecting samples for the radiocarbon measurementsand our colleagues in the Hungarian National Museum for their help in re-drawing the grave assemblages ofthe Tiszapolgar-Basatanya cemetery. Finally, we thank the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for theHumanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences for their kind permission to study and use the documentation


571


from Basatanya. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of Antiquity for their helpful comments on thedraft version of this paper and their useful suggestions.

ReferencesBANKOFF, H.A. & F.A. WINTER. 1990. The Later

Aeneolithic in southeastern Europe. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 94/2: 175–91.

BANNER, J. & I. BOGNAR-KUTZIAN. 1961. Beitrage zurChronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens.Acta Archaeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae 13: 1–32.

BAYLISS, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: usingradiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon51/1: 123–47.

BAYLISS, A., J. VAN DER PLICHT, C. BRONK RAMSEY, G.MCCORMAC, F. HEALY & A. WHITTLE. 2011.Towards generational time-scales: the quantitativeinterpretation of archaeological chronologies, in A.Whittle, F. Healy & A. Bayliss (ed.) Gathering time:dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southernBritain and Ireland: 17–59. Oxford: Oxbow.

BENKO, L., F. HORVATH, N. HORVATINCIC & B.OBELIC. 1989. Radiocarbon andthermoluminescence dating of prehistoric sites inHungary and Yugoslavia. Radiocarbon 31/3:992–1002.

BOGNAR-KUTZIAN, I. 1963. The Copper Age cemetery ofTiszapolgar-Basatanya (Archaeologia Hungarica 42).Budapest: Akademiai kiado.

– 1972. The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgar culture in theCarpathian Basin (Archaeologia Hungarica 48).Budapest: Akademiai kiado.

– 1985. Contribution to the prehistoric chronology ofHungary. Mitteilungen des Archaologischen Institutsder Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14:293–98.

BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis ofradiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/1: 337–60.

BUCK, C.E., J. KENWORTHY, C.D. LITTON & A.M.F.SMITH. 1991. Combining archaeological andradiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach tocalibration. Antiquity 65: 808–21.

CHAPMAN, J. 2000. Tension at funerals. Micro-TraditionAnalysis in Later Hungarian prehistory(Archaeolingua Series Minor 14) Budapest:Archaeolingua.

CSANYI, M., P. RACZKY & J. TARNOKI. 2010. Daskupferzeitliche Graberfeld vonRakoczifalva-Bagi-fold in Ungarn. Das Altertum 55:241–70.

EHRICH, R.W. & H.A. BANKOFF. 1992. Geographicaland chronological patterns in East Central andSoutheastern Europe, in R.W. Ehrich (ed.)Chronologies in Old World archaeology: 375–94.Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

FORENBAHER, S. 1993. Radiocarbon dates and absolutechronology of the Central European Early BronzeAge. Antiquity 67: 218–20, 235–56.

FUZESI, A. & SEBOK, K. 2009. Tiszabura, Ledence.Regeszeti kutatasok Magyarorszagon2009/Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009:367–68.

GIBLIN, J. 2011. Isotope analysis on the GreatHungarian Plain: an exploration of mobility andsubsistence strategies from the Neolithic to theCopper Age. Unpublished PhD dissertation, OhioState University, Columbus.

GLASER, R. 1996. Zur absoluten Datierung derVinca-Kultur anhand von 14C-Daten, in F.Drasovean (ed.) The Vinca Culture, its role andcultural connections: 175–212. Timisoara: TheMuseum of Banat.

HERTELENDI, E., N. KALICZ, P. RACZKY, F. HORVATH,M. VERES, E. SVINGOR, I. FUTO & L.BARTOSIEWICZ. 1995. Re-evaluation of theNeolithic in Eastern Hungary based on calibrateddates. Radiocarbon 37/2: 239–45.

KALICZ, N. 1958. Rezkori sztratigrafia Szekely kozseghataraban. Copper Age stratigraphy in the outskirtsof the village Szekely. Archaeologiai Ertesıto 85: 3–6.

– 1963. Die Peceler (Badener) Kultur und Anatolien(Studia Archaeologica II). Budapest: Akademiaikiado.

– 1988. The new results of the investigation on theHungarian Copper Age. Rassegna di Archeologia 7:75–103.

KALLAY, A. 1990. Die kupferzeitliche Ringanlage vonFuzesabony. Jahresschrift fur MitteldeutscheVorgeschichte 73: 125–130.

KOVACS, K. & G. VACZI. 2007. The cemetery of theEarly Copper Age Tiszapolgar culture atHajduboszormeny-Ficsori-to-dulo, in J.K.Kozłowski & P. Raczky (ed.) The Lengyel, Polgarand related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic inCentral Europe: 397–409. Krakow: Polish Academyof Arts and Sciences; Budapest: Eotvos LorandUniversity Institute of Archaeological Sciences.

KUTZIAN, I. 1955. Die Ausgrabungen inTiszapolgar-Basatanya, in Fejer, K. (ed.) Conferencearcheologique de l’Academie Hongroise des Sciences:69–87. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum.

MAKKAY, J. 1976. Problems concerning Copper Agechronology in the Carpathian Basin. Copper Agegold pendants and gold discs in Central andSouth-East Europe. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 28: 251–300.


572

Met

hod


MEISENHEIMER, M. 1989. Das Totenritual, gepragt durchJenseitsvorstellungen und Gesellschaftsrealitat: Theoriedes Totelrituals eines kupferzeitlichen Friedhofs zuTiszapolgar-Basatanya (Ungarn) (BritishArchaeological Reports international series 475).Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

MULLER, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung-und Spatneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet(4100–2700 v. Chr.): eine sozialhistorischeInterpretation prahistorischen Quellen.(Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 21). Rahden:Marie Leidorf.

– 2002. Zur Belegungsabfolge des Graberfeldes vonTrebur: Argumente der typologieunabhangigenDatierungen. Prahistorische Zeitschrift 77/2:148–58.

NEUSTUPNY, E. 1968. Absolute chronology of theNeolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central andSouth-Eastern Europe. Slovenska archeologia 16:19–60.

– 1969. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic andAeneolithic periods in Central and South-EasternEurope II. Archeologicke rozhledy: 16/1: 783–809.

NEVIZANSKY, G. 1984. Sozialokonomische Verhaltnissein der Polgar-Kultur aufgrund derGraberfeldanalyse. Slovenska Archeologia 32/2:263–310.

OROSS, K., T. MARTON, A. WHITTLE, R.E.M. HEDGES

& L.J.E. CRAMP. 2010. Die Siedlung derBalaton-Lasinja-Kultur inBalatonszarszo-Kis-erdei-dulo, in J. Sutekova, P.Pavuk, P. Kalabkova & B. Kovar (ed.) Panta Rhei:studies in chronology and cultural development ofSouth-Eastern and Central Europe in earlierprehistory presented to Juraj Pavuk on the occasion ofhis 75th birthday: 379–405. Bratislava: ComeniusUniversity.

PATAY, P. 1974. Die hochkupferzeitlicheBodrogkeresztur-Kultur. Bericht derRomisch-Germanischen Komission 55: 3–71.

– 2005. Kupferzeitliche Siedlung von Tiszaluc (InventariaPraehistorica Hungariae 11). Budapest: MagyarNemzeti Muzeum.

– 2008. A bodrogkereszturi kultura belsoidorendjerol/Uber die innere Chronologie derBodrogkeresztur-Kultur. Archaeologiai Ertesıto 133:21–48.

RACZKY, P. 1995. New data on the absolute chronologyof the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin, in T.Kovacs (ed.) Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichteund Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens(Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 7): 51–60.Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum.

REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W.BECK, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E.BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH,P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J.HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K.F. KAISER,B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING,R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S.TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT &C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009. IntCal09 andMarine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves,0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51/4: 1111–50.

SKOMAL, S.N. 1980. The social organisation of theTiszapolgar Group at Basatanya—Carpathian BasinCopper Age. Journal of Indo-European Studies 8/1:75–91.

– 1983. Wealth distribution as a measure of prehistoricchange: Chalcolithic to Copper Age cultures inHungary. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of California, Los Angeles.

SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. 1997. Age and gender at the siteof Tiszapolgar-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 71:875–89.

– 2000. Rings of life: the role of early metalwork inmediating the gendered life course. WorldArchaeology 31/3: 389–406.

WALANUS, A. 2009. Systematic bias of radiocarbonmethod. Radiocarbon 51/2: 433–36.

WHITTLE, A., F. HEALY & A. BAYLISS. 2011. Gatheringtime: causewayed enclosures and the early Neolithicof southern Britain and Ireland, in A. Whittle, F.Healy & A. Bayliss (ed.) Gathering time: dating theEarly Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain andIreland: 1–16. Oxford: Oxbow.

YERKES, R.W., A. GYUCHA & W. PARKINSON. 2009. Amultiscalar approach to modeling the end of theNeolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain usingcalibrated radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/3:1071–1109.

Received: 30 January 2012; Accepted: 30 March 2012; Revised: 12 August 2012


573

2013_Raczky, P. - Siklósi, Zs.: Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern...

Documents

Transcript of 2013_Raczky, P. - Siklósi, Zs.: Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern...