Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T08:50:19.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The problem with tells: lessons learned from absolute dating of Bronze Age mortuary ceramics in Hungary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

Paul R. Duffy Open the ORCID record for Paul R. Duffy [Opens in a new window] ,
Györgyi M. Parditka ,
Julia I. Giblin  and
László Paja
Paul R. Duffy*
Affiliation:
The Archaeology Centre, University of Toronto, 19 Russell Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada
Györgyi M. Parditka
Affiliation:
Museum of Anthropological Archaeology, University of Michigan, 3010 School of Education Building, 610 East University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259, USA
Julia I. Giblin
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice and Anthropology, Quinnipiac University, 275 Mount Carmel Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518-1908, USA
László Paja
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Szeged, Közép Fasor 52, Szeged H-6723, Hungary
*
*Author for correspondence (Email: paul.duffy@utoronto.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prehistoric population decline is often associated with social collapse, migration and environmental change. Many scholars have assumed that the abandonment of the fortified tell sites of the Great Hungarian Plain c. 1500–1450 BC led to significant regional depopulation. The authors investigate the veracity of this assumption by dating graves from Békés 103—a recently excavated Bronze Age cemetery in eastern Hungary. Using decorative motifs and radiocarbon dates to measure changing ceramic styles over more than 1300 years, they consider the implications for non-tell sites known only through surface survey. The results suggest that, even though people abandoned tell sites, regional populations were maintained.

Keywords

HungaryBékés 103Bronze Agetell settlementradiocarbon dating
Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 93 , Issue 367 , February 2019 , pp. 63 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2019 

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.)

References

Ardeleanu, I., Pascu, S. & Pandele, S.. 1983. Atlas pentru istoria României. Bucarest: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.Google Scholar
Bader, T. 1998. Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabony-Komplex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80: 43–108.Google Scholar
Barberena, R., McDonald, J., Mitchell, P.J. & Veth, P.. 2017. Archaeological discontinuities in the southern hemisphere: a working agenda. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 46: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.08.007Google Scholar
Bóna, I. 1958. Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider-Typus. Acta Archaeologica, Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 9: 211–43.Google Scholar
Bóna, I. 1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen (Archaeologia Hungarica Series 49). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Bóna, I. 1994. Les cultures des tells de l'age du bronze en Hongrie, in Bóna, I. & Raczky, P. (ed.) Le Bel Âge du Bronze en Hongrie: 9–39. Mont Beuvray: Centre Européen d'Archéologie du Mont-Beuvray.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865Google Scholar
Cameron, C.M. & Tomka, S.A.. 1993. Abandonment of settlements and regions: ethnoarchaeological and archaeological approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735240Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. & Quinn, C.P.. 2015. The end of the Wietenberg culture in the light of new 14C dates and its chronological relation towards the Noua Culture, in Németh, R.E. & Rezi, B. (ed.) Bronze Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 2–4 October 2014 (Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis, Series Archaeologica VIII): 147–78. Târgu Mureş: Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis.Google Scholar
Csányi, M. 2003. The Tumulus Culture: invaders from the west, in Visy, Z. (ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium: 161–63. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage.Google Scholar
Dani, J. & Kisjuhász, V.. 2013. Bestattungen der Makó-Kultur in Berettyóújfalu, Nagy Bócs-dűlő, in Anders, A. & Kulcsár, G. (ed.) Moments in time: papers presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th birthday: 671–92. Budapest: Prehistoric Society, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Dani, J. & Nepper, I.M.. 2006. Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom tumulus grave from the beginning of the EBA in eastern Hungary. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2006: 29–49.Google Scholar
David, W. 1997. Altbronzezeitliche Beinobjekte des Karpatenbeckens mit Spiralwirbel- oder Wellenbandornament und ihre Parallel auf der Peloponnes und in Anatolien in frühmykenischer Zeit, in Roman, P.I. (ed.) The Thracian world at the crossroads of civilizations: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology: 247–305. Bucharest: Institutul Român de Tracologie.Google Scholar
Duffy, P.R. 2014. Complexity and autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: assessing cultural developments in eastern Hungary. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Duffy, P.R. 2015. Site size hierarchies in middle-range societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37: 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.12.001Google Scholar
Duffy, P.R., Parditka, G., Giblin, J.I., Paja, L. & Salisbury, R.B.. 2014. Discovering mortuary practices in the Körös River Basin, Hungary. Hungarian Archaeology E-Journal: Autumn 2014. Available at: http://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id=279#post-5340 (accessed 29 November 2018).Google Scholar
Duffy, P.R., Paja, L., Parditka, G.M. & Giblin, J.I. In press. Modelling mortuary populations at local and regional levels. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.Google Scholar
Earle, T.K. & Kolb, M.J.. 2010. Regional settlement patterns, in Earle, T.K. & Kristiansen, K. (ed.) Organizing Bronze Age societies: the Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared: 57–86. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ecsedy, I., Kovács, L., Maráz, B. & Torma, I. (ed.). 1982. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája. VI. Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája: A Szeghalmi Járás (IV/1). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Faust, A. & Ashkenazy, Y.. 2009. Settlement fluctuations and environmental changes in Israel's coastal plain during the Early Bronze Age. Levant 41: 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1179/175638009´448230Google Scholar
Fischl, K.P., Kiss, V., Kulcsár, G. & Szeverényi, V.. 2013. Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B.C., in Meller, H., Bertemes, F., Bork, H.-R. & Risch, R. (ed.) 1600—Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs [1600—cultural change in the shadow of the Thera-Eruption] 4th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany October 14–16, 2011 in Halle (Saale) (Band 9): 355–71. Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
Fischl, K.P., Kiss, V., Kulcsár, G. & Szeverényi, V.. 2015. Old and new narratives for Hungary around 2200 BC, in Meller, H.H., Arz, H.W., Jung, R. & Risch, R. (ed.) 2200 BC—a climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the Old World?: 503–23. Halle (Saale): Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäeologie Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
Földessy, J. & Szebényi, G.. 2002. Geological exploration, research and interpretation works in the near-surface zones of Reczk mineralisation between 1986 and 2000—a review. Földtani Kutatás 39(2): 3–9.Google Scholar
Furmánek, V., Veliačik, L. & Vladár, J.. 1999. Die Bronzezeit im Slowakischen Raum. Rahden: Marie Leidorf GmbH.Google Scholar
Gogâltan, F. 1999. The southern border of the Otomani culture. Studia Archaeologica (Morá Ferenc Múzeum Éköynve) 5: 51–76.Google Scholar
Gogâltan, F. 2015. The Early and Middle Bronze Age chronology on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 years, in Németh, R.E. & Rezi, B. (ed.) Bronze Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin: Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târga Mureș, 2–4 October 2014: 53–95. Târga Mureș: Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis.Google Scholar
Harding, A. & Kavruk, V.. 2013. Explorations of salt archaeology in the Carpathian zone. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Jankovich, D., Makkay, J. & Szőke, M. (ed.). 1989. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája VIII. Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája: A Szarvasi Járás (IV/2). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Jankovich, D., Medgyesi, P., Nikolin, E., Szatmári, I. & Torma, I. (ed.). 1998. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája X. Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája: Békés és Békéscsaba környéke (IV/3). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kemenczei, T. 1979. Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gelej (Régészeti Füzetek II 20) Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Kreiter, A. 2005. Technological choices and material meanings: analyses of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from Hungary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T.B.. 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kulcsár, G. & Szeverényi, V.. 2013. Transition to the Bronze Age: issues of continuity and discontinuity in the first half of the third millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin, in Heyd, V., Kulcsár, G. & Szeverényi, V. (ed.) Transitions to the Bronze Age: interregional interaction and socio-cultural change in the third millennium BC Carpathian Basin and neighbouring regions: 67–92. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Liebmann, M.J., Farella, J., Roos, C.I., Stack, A., Martini, S. & Swetnam, T.W.. 2016. Native American depopulation, reforestation, and fire regimes in the Southwest United States, 1492–1900 CE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113: E696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521744113Google Scholar
Michelaki, K. 2008. Making pots and potters in the Bronze Age Maros villages of Kiszombor-Uj-Élet and Klárafalva-Hajdova. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 355–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774308000413Google Scholar
Middleton, G.D. 2015. Telling stories: the Mycenaean origins of the Philistines. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34: 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12048Google Scholar
Middleton, G.D. 2017. The show must go on: collapse, resilience, and transformation in 21st-century archaeology. Reviews in Anthropology 46: 78–105.Google Scholar
Mozsolics, A. 1957. Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Grossen Wanderung. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica VIII: 156.Google Scholar
Németi, J. & Molnár, Z.. 2002. A tell telepek elterjedése a Nagykárolyi-Síkságon és az ér völgyében. Kolozsvár: Scientia Kiadó.Google Scholar
Németi, J. & Molnár, Z.. 2012. Bronzkori hatalmi központok északnyugat-erdélyben: a Nagykároly-Bobáld-tell. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem régészeti tanszék.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, A. 2014. Bronze Age economies of the Carpathian Basin: trade, craft production, and agro-pastoral intensification. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, A. & O'Shea, J.. 2015. From relative to absolute: the radiometric dating of Mureş culture ceramics at Pecica-Şanƫul Mare. Arheovest 3: 691–702.Google Scholar
Paja, L., Duffy, P.R., Parditka, G. & Giblin, J.I.. 2016. Bioanthropological analysis of Békés 103 (Jégvermi-kert, Lipcsei-tanya), a Bronze Age cemetery from southeastern Hungary. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 60: 183–92.Google Scholar
Raczky, P., Hertelendi, E. & Veres, M.. 1994. La datation absolue des cultures des tell de l'age du bronze en Hongrie, in Bóna, I. & Raczky, P. (ed.) Le Bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie: 42–47. Mont Beuvray: Centre Européen d'Archéologie du Mont-Beuvray.Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L. & Friedrich, M.. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50 000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55: 1869–87. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947Google Scholar
Risch, R. & Meller, H.. 2015. Change and continuity in Europe and the Mediterranean around 1600 BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 81: 239–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2015.10Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 2000. Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology 41: 811–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/317403Google Scholar
Sofaer, J. 2015. Clay in the age of bronze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sz. Máthé, M. 1988. Bronze Age tells in the Berettyó Valley, in Kovács, T. & Stanczik, I. (ed.) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain 1: 27–122. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045636Google Scholar
Szatmári, I. n.d. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája. A gyulai és sarkadi járás. Unpublished volume, Békéscsaba, Hungary.Google Scholar
V. Szabó, G. 2003. The expanding world: masters of bronzeworking in the Carpathian Basin, in Visy, Z. (ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium: 163–67. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Duffy et al. supplementary material

Duffy et al. supplementary material 1

Download Duffy et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 684 KB