Post on 22-Apr-2023
The Thing The “Protoboleráz” Phenomenon
Szilvia Fábián1
Attila Kreiter1 Tibor Marton2 András Rajna3 Gábor Serlegi2
Silesia and related areas from 46th to 36th centuries BC Chronology and taxonomy
Special dedicated session 29th of May 2015 XIX Silesian Archaeological Symposium, Wroclaw 27th – 30th of May
2015
¹Hungarian National Museum
²Institute of Archaeology of HAS
³Ferenczy Museum, Szentendre
Questions to answer What shall be the correct designation for the communities producing “Protoboleráz” artefacts? Is it justified to identify them as a homogeneous culture or shall “Protoboleráz” be seen simply as a period or archaeological horizon (or phase)? What are the main characteristics of the material culture emerging in the Danube-Tisza Interfluve at the end of the Middle Copper Age, and how is it related to previous cultures in the area? What kind of social network was developed between the communities that lived in the Danube-Tisza Interfluve and those in the surrounding territories? Is it justified to see the lesser-known Danube-Tisza Interfluve as an area predominated by a single, homogeneous community during the entire period when the “Protoboleráz” material culture prevailed? Which phenomena that contributed to the more homogeneous (Boleráz-)Baden complex, can be dated to the Middle Copper Age, and what role did material culture play in the process? Is the “Protoboleráz” material in fact a step towards the Baden?
The areas of the excavations
Area of clay extraction (160.000 m²)
Area of excavation (136.000 m²); number of features: 467
Area of excavation (41.000 m²); number of features: 174
Abony 36
Abony 49
Mátra hydroquartzite
Szentgál radiolarite obsidian
Szeleta quartz-porphyry
Craccow-Jurassic flint
Carpathian radiolarite
Mátraháza- Felnémet opal
Gerecse radiolarite
Tevel flint
Abony
Nagytevel
Szentgál
Gerecse Mátraháza
Szeleta
Tokaj
Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Bogyoszló)
Cracow
Volhynia
88%
3% 3% 3%
1% 1% 1%
0%
50%
6%
3%
0% 5%
0% 5%
0% 5%
8%
5% 8% 5%
Mátra hydroquartzite Mátraháza-Felnémet opal Carpathian radiolarite Gerecse radiolarite obsidian Szentgál radiilarite Cracow-Jurassic flint Szeleta quartz porphiry Volhynian flint cortex Mezőzombor lymnoquartzite burnt, indeterminate radiolarite Abony 49 Abony 36
Füzesabony-Pusztaszikszó
Sz. Kállay 1988.
Abony 36 – Fea 251
Abony 36 – Fea 253
Abony 36 – Fea 211
Abony 36 – Fea 408
Characteristics suggesting ritual function
Human skeleton
Cultic deposition of vessels
Animal skeleton
Abony 36 - Typochronological sequence
Vessels from the ”southern” group of pits
Vessels from the ”northern” group of pits
Vessels from the domestic unit of the settlement
Phase 1: very fine to fine sandy + grog (Fabric 2). By this period technological variability decreased considerably.
Sample 11 Sample 22
Phase 2: very fine + grog (Fabric 1), very fine to fine sandy + grog (Fabric 2), very fine micaceous + grog (Fabric 5).
Sample 1 Sample 4 Sample 27
Phase 3 – increased varibiality: very fine fabric + grog (Fabric 1), very fine to fine sandy fabric + grog (Fabric 2), fine to medium sandy fabric + grog (Fabric 3), very fine to fine calcareous + grog (Fabric 6), very fine to fine + grog + organic tempering (Fabric 7).
Sample 2 Sample 9 Sample 33 Sample 30 Sample 36
ABONY 36
Pots: very fine + grog (Fabric 2a), very fine to fine + grog (Fabric 5), very fine to medium ’clean’ + grog (Fabric 6),
Sample 1 - non-local? Sample 23
Sample 2 Sample 6 - Furchenstich Sample 8 – non-local?
Sample 3 Sample 5 Sample 12 Sample 15
Sample 9 Cups: very common amounts of very fine to medium + grog (Fabric 8), very fine to fine + grog (Fabric 5), very fine + grog (Fabric 2b), very fine to medium, chert (Fabric 4) Sample 7 - Furchenstich
Mugs: very fine to fine + grog (Fabric 5), very common amounts of very fine to medium + grog (Fabric 8), very fine + grog (Fabric 2b), very fine to medium ’clean’ + grog (Fabric 6)
ABONY 49
Bodrogkeresztúr
Protoboleráz
Absolute chronology of Abony 49. and Abony 36. in comparison with the Late Copper age sequence of Balatonkeresztúr
Boleráz
Early Baden
Late Baden
4432-4268 – 4334-4161 cal.BC
3717-3672 – 3680- 3635 cal.BC
3544-3440 – 33472-3353 cal.BC
3455-3141 – 3233-2974 cal.BC
3191-2949 – 3037-2817 cal.BC VERA
Conclusion The ”Protoboleráz” material probably appears at lot more sites in the Carpathian Basin, as we know but it is difficult to recognise. Typologically heterogeneous, it is a transiton from the Middle- to the Late Copper Age (in Hungary). Ceramic technology is also heterogeneous then it became homogenous. Symbolic activities had connections to both the Middle and the Late Copper Ages. Network of raw materials of chipped stones covered a more closed area than the previous periods. This tendencies seems to be stronger during the Late Copper Age. Chronologically: it fits perfectly between the Middle Copper Age cultures and the Boleráz (Baden). The big question is: Is the name ”Protoboleráz” correct?