Search

Copyright of Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A Copper Age settlement and cemetery was fully excavated at Rákóczifalva-Bivaly-tó Site 1/C in 2005-2007, making it possible to compare the use of its material culture in closely related, coeval, but different archaeological contexts. Such a rare set of circumstances allows the authors to highlight methodological issues associated with the distorting effect of archaeological finds made on sites where only settlement or burial data are available, and on the importance of choosing appropriate analytical units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main goal of our research project was to date the Early and Middle Copper Age (4500/4450–3800 cal BC) of the Great Hungarian Plain more precisely. In our project, we took samples for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating from both settlement features and burials, and the data were analyzed using Bayesian modeling. We examined the Early and Middle Copper Age finds of the Great Hungarian Plain on several levels (site, microregional, and regional levels) using a bottom-up approach. The AMS measurements were supplemented by statistics-based pottery analysis in order to make our understanding of the relationship between the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures more detailed. As a result, we can see a significant, 130 (68.2%) 230 years overlap between the two types of find assemblages, which contradicts to the earlier accepted chronological sequences created by the traditional culture-historical approach. According to the stylistic analyzes, the two ceramic styles are not clearly distinguishable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]