"mark odegard" <
markodegar-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=656
> Gerry Reinhart-Waller writes to Piotr
>
> Have you posted to Lucyna on the Bronocice pot? Her date of 3400BC
(2775+-50) was from a published article by Janusz Kruk and S.
Milisauskas entitled _Rise and fall of neolithic Societies_ (1999)
>
> I remember reading a similarly sensational date. This would put it in
the right place at the right time for the start of the Globular Amphora
culture (3400-2800), though its attributed to TRB (Trichterbecher,
funnel beaker) culture (4500-2700), which brackets it.
>
> This really is one of the very oldest depictions of a wheeled vehicle
anywhere. The great question is not so much who made the pot, as who
made the wagon that served as the model. The Yamna culture (3600-2200)
represents the standard model's PIE homeland. They rode horses and had
fine steppe-worthy vehicles. My sources hint that the Baden culture
(3600-2800), particularly Hungary, might be the place we should look.
>
> Mark.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
I sent this to Gerry two days ago, but it seems to have gone astray:
I got in touch with LD. She says the UNCALIBRATED radiocarbon date is
2775+/-50 BC and the CALIBRATED date is ca. 3400 BC. Ugh! I need a
detailed introduction to the absolute chronology of Central Europe. The
calibration curve presented on
http://209.217.18.237/SAA_Communication_Figs.htm
shows, as far as I can judge, that the calibrated estimate is 3640-3370
BC with 95.4% confidence, which bears out LD's information. The
Bronocice III site belongs to the late phase of the Trichterbecher
(Funnel Beaker) culture. LD's source is
J.Kruk & S.Milisauskas 1999). Rozkwit i upadek spoÅeczeÅstw
rolniczych neolitu (The Rise and Fall of Neolithic Societies). Kraków
[she doesn't give the publisher].
I'll try to find the book, it seems worth reading over the Christmas
break.
Piotr
---------------
PS The date is not sensational, just deeper. It is still the late TRB
period. The dates in the literature may be misleading if the author
forgets to say if they are calibrated or not. Calibration (based on
dendrochronological data) makes EVERYTHING substantially older (ca. 7
centuries in this case!). The range of possible datings for the pot is
pretty wide because the relevant section of the calibration curve has
up-and-down "wiggles" which make several ACTUAL dates compatible with
the same radiocarbon dating. The first time I looked at that curve I
read the dates incorrectly. It seems the pot is REALLY about 5.5
millennia old.
Piotr