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

Known sites in 2001

Kalicz 2001.

”Protoboleráz” ceramic types

Kalicz 1980 Kalicz 1969

”Protoboleráz” sites in Pest County

Geographical situation of the Abony sites

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?

Location of the Abony sites

Abony 49.

Abony 36

Settlement pattern

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

Abony 49

N

Domestic unit

Economic unit

Northern ‘sacral district’

Southern ‘sacral district’

Abony 36

Törökbálint

Traces of raw material network

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

Symbolic activities

„Northern” group of pits

„Southern” group of pits

‘Sacral’ districts

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

Traces of symbolic action

Ceramic typology

Cups, mugs and jars (Abony 49 site)

Pots and bowls (Abony 49 site)

„Bodrogkeresztúr-like” pottery forms

„Furchenstich” decoration

Balaton-Lasinja-like forms „Lower Danube” (?) style

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

Absolute Chronology

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?

Thank you for your attention!