Some problems in chronology

Abstract

Recent preoccupation with new scientific methods of archaeological dating has tended to divert interest from the fundamental historical and archaeological concepts which are the primary basis for any chronological outline of cultural development. Despite the tremendous impact of these new techniques, there persist everywhere chronological systems based upon the hypotheses of evolutionary stages inherent in the succession of Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages. In Scandinavia, for example, the concept of a three-phase Neolithic is still current, and the Middle Neolithic has been subdivided into five and, most recently, six sub-phases to accommodate the copious new field evidence. Even the concept of a Middle Neolithic period becomes increasingly awkward to use because we now realize that this was not a unitary cultural period, but one of great cultural diversity characterized by the Megalithic, Single Grave, and Pitted Ware cultures (Becker I96I: 585-93). This type of chronological problem, clear-cut in Scandinavia, becomes extremely complex in central and eastern Europe, where local chronological systems must correlate with widespread regional ones such as the Starcevo-K6r6s-Cris culture or the later (Copper Age) Tiszapolgar culture, both masking themselves under different names in different countries.