Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:00:28.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern Carpathian Basin: a Bayesian approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Pál Raczky  and
Zsuzsanna Siklósi
Pál Raczky
Affiliation:
*Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Múzeum körút 4/B, Budapest H-1088, Hungary (Email: raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu; siklosi.zsuzsanna@btk.elte.hu)
Zsuzsanna Siklósi
Affiliation:
*Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Múzeum körút 4/B, Budapest H-1088, Hungary (Email: raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu; siklosi.zsuzsanna@btk.elte.hu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the prehistoric narrative of a region requires good dating, and in recent years good dating has moved increasingly from models drawn from types of artefacts to a framework provided by radiocarbon sequences. This in turn is bringing a change in the way events are described: from broad cultural histories to a network of local sequences. In this case study, the authors apply this rethinking to the Copper Age in a key region of Europe, the Great Hungarian Plain in the Carpathian Basin. They replace the traditional Early and Middle Copper Age, defined by pottery types, with an 800-year sequence in which six cemetery and settlement sites experience different trajectories of use, and the pottery types make intermittent and often contemporary appearances. In this new chronology based on radiocarbon, the variations in pottery use must have some other explanation.

Keywords

HungaryCarpathian BasinTisza regionCopper Agefifth millennium BCradiocarbonAMSBayesian analysisTiszapolgárBodrogkeresztúr and Hunyadihalom pottery types

Information

Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 87 , Issue 336 , 1 June 2013 , pp. 555 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bankoff, H.A. & Winter, F.A.. 1990. The Later Aeneolithic in southeastern Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 94/2: 175-91.Google Scholar
Banner, J. & Bognár-Kutzián, I.. 1961. Beiträge zur Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13: 1–32.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51/1: 123-47.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Van Der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Mccormac, G., Healy, F. & Whittle, A.. 2011. Towards generational time-scales: the quantitative interpretation of archaeological chronologies, in Whittle, A., Healy, F. & Bayliss, A. (ed.) Gathering time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland: 17–59. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Benkö, L., Horváth, F., HorvatinčIć, N. & Obelić, B.. 1989. Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating of prehistoric sites in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Radiocarbon 31/3: 992–1002.Google Scholar
Bognár-Kutzián, I. 1963. The Copper Age cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya (Archaeologia Hungarica 42). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.Google Scholar
Bognár-Kutzián, I. 1972. The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture in the Carpathian Basin (Archaeologia Hungarica 48). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.Google Scholar
Bognár-Kutzián, I. 1985. Contribution to the prehistoric chronology of Hungary. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14: 293-98.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/1: 337-60.Google Scholar
Buck, C.E., Kenworthy, J., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.M.F.. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65: 808-21.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 2000. Tension at funerals. Micro-Tradition Analysis in Later Hungarian prehistory (Archaeolingua Series Minor 14) Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Csányi, M., Raczky, P. & Tárnoki, J.. 2010. Das kupferzeitliche Gräberfeld von Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld in Ungarn. Das Altertum 55: 241-70.Google Scholar
Ehrich, R.W. & Bankoff, H.A.. 1992. Geographical and chronological patterns in East Central and Southeastern Europe, in Ehrich, R.W. (ed.) Chronologies in Old World archaeology: 375-94. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Forenbaher, S. 1993. Radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology of the Central European Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 67: 218-20, 235-56.Google Scholar
Füzesi, A. & SeböK, K. 2009. Tiszabura, Ledence. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2009/Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009: 367-68.Google Scholar
Giblin, J. 2011. Isotope analysis on the Great Hungarian Plain: an exploration of mobility and subsistence strategies from the Neolithic to the Copper Age. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Gläser, R. 1996. Zur absoluten Datierung der Vinča-Kultur anhand von 14C-Daten, in Draşovean, F. (ed.) The Vinč a Culture, its role and cultural connections: 175–212. Timişoara: The Museum of Banat.Google Scholar
Hertelendi, E., Kalicz, N., Raczky, P., Horváth, F., Veres, M., Svingor, É., Futó, I. & Bartosiewicz, L.. 1995. Re-evaluation of the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary based on calibrated dates. Radiocarbon 37/2: 239-45.Google Scholar
Kalicz, N. 1958. Rézkori sztratigráfia Székely község határában. Copper Age stratigraphy in the outskirts of the village Székely. Archaeologiai ´ Ertesítő 85: 3–6.Google Scholar
Kalicz, N. 1963. Die Péceler (Badener) Kultur und Anatolien (Studia Archaeologica II). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.Google Scholar
Kalicz, N. 1988. The new results of the investigation on the Hungarian Copper Age. Rassegna di Archeologia 7: 75–103.Google Scholar
Kállay, A. 1990. Die kupferzeitliche Ringanlage von Füzesabony. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73: 125–130.Google Scholar
Kovács, K. & Váczi, G.. 2007. The cemetery of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture at Hajdúböszörmény-Ficsori-tó-dűlő, in Kozłowski, J.K. & Raczky, P. (ed.) The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe: 397–409. Kraków: Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences; Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeological Sciences.Google Scholar
Kutzián, I. 1955. Die Ausgrabungen in Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, in Fejér, K. (ed.) Conférence archéologique de l’Académie Hongroise des Sciences: 69–87. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Makkay, J. 1976. Problems concerning Copper Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Copper Age gold pendants and gold discs in Central and South-East Europe. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28: 251–300.Google Scholar
Meisenheimer, M. 1989. Das Totenritual, geprägt durch Jenseitsvorstellungen und Gesellschaftsrealität: Theorie des Totelrituals eines kupferzeitlichen Friedhofs zu Tiszapolgár-Basatanya (Ungarn) (British Archaeological Reports international series 475). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum Jungund Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100-2700 v. Chr.): eine sozialhistorische Interpretation prähistorischen Quellen. (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 21). Rahden: Marie Leidorf.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 2002. Zur Belegungsabfolge des Gräberfeldes von Trebur: Argumente der typologieunabhängigen Datierungen. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 77/2: 148-58.Google Scholar
Neustupný, E. 1968. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Slovenská archeológia 16: 19–60.Google Scholar
Neustupný, E. 1969. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe II. Archeologické rozhledy: 16/1: 783–809.Google Scholar
Nevizánsky, G. 1984. Sozialökonomische Verhältnisse in der Polgár-Kultur aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse. Slovenská Archeológia 32/2: 263–310.Google Scholar
Oross, K., Marton, T., Whittle, A., Hedges, R.E.M. & Cramp, L.J.E.. 2010. Die Siedlung der Balaton-Lasinja-Kultur in Balatonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő, in Šuteková, J., Pavúk, P., Kalábková, P. & Kovár, B. (ed.) Panta Rhei: studies in chronology and cultural development of South-Eastern and Central Europe in earlier prehistory presented to Juraj Pavúk on the occasion of his 75th birthday: 379–405. Bratislava: Comenius University.Google Scholar
Patay, P. 1974. Die hochkupferzeitliche Bodrogkeresztúr-Kultur. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission 55: 3–71.Google Scholar
Patay, P. 2005. Kupferzeitliche Siedlung von Tiszalúc (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 11). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Patay, P. 2008. A bodrogkeresztúri kultúra belső időrendje´ről/Ü ber die innere Chronologie der Bodrogkeresztúr-Kultur. Archaeologiai ´ Ertesítő 133: 21–48.Google Scholar
Raczky, P. 1995. New data on the absolute chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin, in Kovács, T. (ed.) Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 7): 51–60. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Mccormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., Van Der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C.E.. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51/4: 1111-50.Google Scholar
Skomal, S.N. 1980. The social organisation of the Tiszapolgár Group at Basatanya—Carpathian Basin Copper Age. Journal of Indo-European Studies 8/1: 75–91.Google Scholar
Skomal, S.N. 1983. Wealth distribution as a measure of prehistoric change: Chalcolithic to Copper Age cultures in Hungary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 1997. Age and gender at the site of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 71: 875–89.Google Scholar
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 2000. Rings of life: the role of early metalwork in mediating the gendered life course. World Archaeology 31/3: 389–406.Google Scholar
Walanus, A. 2009. Systematic bias of radiocarbon method. Radiocarbon 51/2: 433-36.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Healy, F. & Bayliss, A.. 2011. Gathering time: causewayed enclosures and the early Neolithic of southern Britain and Ireland, in Whittle, A., Healy, F. & Bayliss, A. (ed.) Gathering time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland: 1–16. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Yerkes, R.W., Gyucha, A. & Parkinson, W.. 2009. A multiscalar approach to modeling the end of the Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain using calibrated radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51/3: 1071–1109.Google Scholar