The distribution and provenance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe

Jownal qf’ilrchaeological

Sciewe 1984. 11, 183-212

The Distribution and Provenance of Archaeological Obsidian in Central and Eastern Europe Olwen Williams Thorpe,athS. E. Warrenc and J. G. Nandri& The sources of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe are briefly described and analyses of48 samples from 10 of these sources in northeast Hungary and southeast Slovakia are reported. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis was used to determine 16 trace elements and two major elements. Principal Components Analysis supported by Discriminant Analysis showed seven analytical groups in these data. A total of 270 pieces of archaeological obsidian were assigned by Discriminant Analysis to three of the Carpathian source groups defined, the remaining four source groups not being represented in the archaeological record. The three source groups used are: (1) Sziillijske and M&I Toroiia in Slovakia (designated group Carpathian 1); (2) CsepegG For&, Tolcsva area, Olaszliszka and ErdabCnye in Hungary (Carpathian 2a); and (3) Erdiibknye (Carpathian 2b). Carpathian 2a and 2b type obsidians are both found at the re-deposited source of Erdlibbnye. Carpathian obsidian was used most widely in Hungary, Slovakia and Romania, and also reached south to the Danube in Yugoslavia, west to Moravia, Austria and to the Adriatic near Trieste, and &th to Poland. Carpathian 2a obsidian was used in the Aurignacian period, Carpathian 1 in the Gravettian and Mesolithic, and Carpathian 1,2a and 2b in the Neolithic, when Carpathian 1 predominated and obsidian use was at its most intensive. Only Carpathian 1 type has been identified in the Copper and Bronze Ages. There is no evidence at present for any overlap between the Carpathian obsidian distribution and the distributions of the Near Eastern or Aegean sources, but there is an overlap with Mediterranean obsidian at the Neolithic site of Grotta Tartaruga in northeast Italy where Liparian and Carpathian 1 material were identified. The distribution of obsidian from the Carpathian sources is considered in terms of linear supply routes. Based on limited available evidence the supply zone is significantly smaller and the rate of fall-off with distance slightly lower than that reported for Near Eastern obsidians.

OBSIDIAN, CENTRAL EUROPE, EASTERN EUROPE, : INSTRUMENTAL NEUTRON CARPATHIAN SOURCE GROUPS. ACTIVATION ANALYSIS.

Kqwords

Introduction

Obsidian characterization has now become a well-established field of research both in the Old World and the New, and its contribution to the reconstruction of trade mechanisms and exchange networks in prehistory is weil recognized (e.g. Earle & Ericson, 1977). “Department of Earth Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, England. *Formerly ,at the University of Bradford. ‘Postgraduate School of Physics, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 IDP, England. “Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WCl, England. 183 030~4403/84/030183

- 30 $03.00~0

@ 1984 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited

184

0. WILLIAMS

THORPE

ET AL.

However, little work has so far been done on the characterization of obsidian from central and eastern Europe. The Carpathian sources were discussed by Nandris (1975) and Williams & Nandris (1977) but only a small amount of analytical data on source and archaeological obsidian has been reported (Cann & Renfrew, 1964; Milisauskas, 1976; Aspinall et al., 1972; Wright, 1968). This paper reports further data on the sources, and.327 chemical analyses of geological and archaeological obsidians. The aims of these analyses were to characterize the known sources, and determine a distribution of material from these to archaeological sites. In addition, we wished to use the available data on amounts of obsidian from different parts of central and eastern Europe to consider the type of distribution involved. To use the term “trade” for this may be inappropriate: it is too specific and has misleading connotations. The Sources

Sources of obsidian occur in the Carpathians in three regions: (1) central Slovakia, (2) southeast Slovakia/northeast Hungary (Zemplen Mountains), (3) the western U.S.S.R. (Figure 1). These sources have been described by Williams & Nandris (1977). The possibility of archaeologically useable sources in Romania was investigated and claims for their existence dismissed by Nandris (1975). The central Slovak obsidian sources all produce highly fractured and crystalline material, and can also be disregarded for archaeological studies. The remaining sources are : Hungary. Tokaj ; Erdbbenye ; Telkibanya ; Csepegij For& ; three localities at Tolcsva ; Olaszliszka. All were sampled by the authors. Tokaj produces only small pieces of obsidian (up to 8mm, Nandris, 1975); the obsidian of Telkibanya is mainly perlitic and friable. Southeast Slovakia. Szolliiske: Mala Torona; Streda nad Bodrogom; “Southeast Slovakia perlite periphery”; Bjrsta, Cejkov. Samples of workable obsidian were obtained from the first four sources. Bjrsta and Cejkov were not sampled. “Southeast Slovakia perlite periphery”, whose exact location is unknown, produces rounded lumps of brownish, semi-transparent obsidian, in perlite. These were obtained from Dr A. Zeman, Ustredni Ustav Geologicky, Prague. The appearance of this obsidian is very similar to samples obtained from Streda nad Bodrogom, and the two localities may be the same (this suggestion is supported by analysis; see below). Sources in the U.S.S.R., at Khust, Beregovo, Mukakvo, and Gertsovtse-Fedeleshovtse (Williams and Nandris, 1977) have not yet been investigated or sampled. An interesting feature of the Hungarian/Slovak sources is the overall difference in colour and transparency between obsidians from the two areas: Hungarian obsidian is almost exclusively black and opaque, while Slovak material is grey or grey-brown, and semi-transparent. There is one exception to this rule (a piece of semi-transparent obsidian from Tolcsva in Hungary), but colour may clearly be used as a first guide to source area. Archaeological Obsidian in Central and Eastern Europe

Figure 2 shows the distribution of sites reported to have obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Site lists for each country and detailed location maps may be found in Thorpe, 1978. The distribution stretches east to the Black Sea, west to Germany (C. Willms, pers. comm., 1981) and Austria, northwest to central Poland, and south to southern Yugoslavia and Macedonia. The most widespread use of obsidian was in

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

185

Figure I. Geological sources of obsidian in the Carpathians (after Williams and Nandris, 1977). 1. Tokaj ( = Bodrogkeresztur Lebuj-kanjar), 2. Olaszliszka, 3. Erobenye, 4. Tolcsva, 5. Csepcgb; Forms, 6. Telkibanya, 7. By&a, 8. Cejkov, 9. Mali Tororia, 10. Szdlloske (= Vinicky), 11. Streda nad Bodrogom, 12. Nova Bana, 13. Hlinik nad Hronom, 14. Kremnitz, 15. Sklene Teplice, 16. Ban& Stiavnica, 17. Mukacevo, 18. Beregovo, 19. Gertsovtse-Fedeleshovtse region, 2!,Khust.

IJ Figure

km

2. Distribution

of archaeological

obsidian

in central

and eastern

Europe.

186

0.

WILLIAMS

THORPE

ET

AL.

Middle Poloeolhthlc Upper Palaeollthlc Mesollthlc ’ Early Neollthlc Middle Neollthlc Late Neolithic Copper Age Bronze Age

Figure 3. Chronology all sites in the Zempltn

of sites with Mountains

obsidian in central and eastern Europe. are marked due to lack of space.

Not

Slovakia, southern Poland, Hungary, (especially northeastern Hungary and down the Tisza and Danube valleys), and northwest Romania. The distribution is largely a riverine one, with concentrations of sites along the Mures and Kb;rGs/Cris rivers in Romania, on the upper Vistula and its tributaries, and the Morava/Dyje area of Moravia, as well as along the Tisza and Danube rivers. The distribution also corresponds well with the distribution of Linear Pottery sites, both Early and Middle phases (Tringham, 1966). The use of obsidian appears to die out to the north and west of the distribution indicated on Figure 2; only four finds are known from Germany and western Austria, and none from northern Poland. To the south, Melian obsidian was widely used in Greece (Renfrew & Wagstaff, 1982) though there seems on the present evidence to be an intermediate area in which obsidian was little used, in Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia (Thorpe, 1978). As if to compensate for this, earlier neolithic sites in those areas use a wide range of stone for their tools, with a great variety of geological origins, types and colours but all selected for their isotropic fracture properties. To the east, the situation is uncertain; the use of Armenian sources in the Black Sea area has not yet been investigated, and while obsidian was certainly in use in the western U.S.S.R. (Figure 2 and Thorpe, 1978), no samples were obtained from this area. Obsidian is first in evidence in central and eastern Europe in the Middle Palaeolithic period, at Subaljuk (Hungary) in the Mousterian. It increases in frequency in the Upper Palaeolithic Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures, when it is found in Hungary,

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

187

Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. During the Aurignacian, use of obsidian was still relatively limited even close to the source area, (6’;/, and 0.9% of total stone work at Barca I and II respectively, 19% at Tibava; Banesz, 1956, 1960, 1968). In the Gravettian, some sites near the sources, such as Cejkov, have a stone industry almost exclusively of obsidian (Banes,, 1959, 1974). This is also true of the Mesolithic, when obsidian was intensively used in northwest Romania, for example at Valea lui Mihai, and Ciumegti-Pasune (Tringham, 1966, 1971), and was also used more rarely further from the Carpathian sources. The most widespread use of obsidian occurred in the Neolithic, when it was used especially for blade tools, with a particular rise in popularity in the Middle Neolithic in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Its frequency declined in the Late Neolithic in some areas. In Slovakia obsidian became rare in the Tiszapolgar and Latiany Cultures (SiSka, 1968, 1972a, b) as it was almost totally replaced by flint from Volhynia, and in Poland a similar drop is seen in the Middle Lengyel Pleszow Group (SiSka, 1972~; Kozlowski, 1969). The reason for this Late Neolithicdecline in obsidian-occurring before the advent of alternative technology in the form of metal working-is not known, but may be due either to depletion of the sources (see Williams & Nandris, 1977, p. 125 for discussion of the relative sizes of obsidian artefacts and pieces now available from the sources) or to the breakdown of the trading or social networks which disseminated the material. The decline in obsidian use continued in the Copper and Bronze Ages, and may be related to the arrival of metallurgy, although there is not necessarily a link between the two technologies. This decline in obsidian is less marked in Romania, where it is only in the Bronze Age that a significant drop in numbers of sites using this material is seen. Figure 3 shows the distribution of sites with obsidian by time periods. It is clear that obsidian was widely dI&ibuted in central and eastern Europe at a very early date, with Palaeolithic and Mesolithic finds as far apart as the Danube and the Vistula. The increased use in the Early and Middle Neolithic is reflected by the larger number of sites of these periods. The amounts of obsidian found at individual sites may give us a first indication of the extent of the Carpathian source distribution. Figure 4 shows the amount of obsidian at individual sites gradually decreasing as one moves away from the Hungary/Slovak source area, suggesting that all this area lies within a Carpathian distribution-a surmise tested by the analysis described in the next section. Methods of Analysis of Central and Eastern European Obsidians

Forty-eight pieces of obsidian from sources in Slovakia and Hungary, and 279 samples from archaeological localities in central and eastern Europe were analysed by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis for 15 trace elements (16 for geological samples) and two major elements. The procedure described by Hallam et al. (1976) was followed, except that a different primary standard was used: NPS- 1, a multi-element pottery standard prepared at the Bradford Laboratories, and calibrated against Perlman Standard Pottery (Hunter, 1975). Corrections for neutron flux variations were made using zinc foils to measure the flux next to each sample. Geological samples were crushed and archaeological samples were analysed whole. Locations and details of geological samples may be found in Appendix 1. Precision of analysis for samples in powdered form is 515% over the range of elements reported. Residual systematic errors lower the precision obtained for whole artifacts to l&25%, although this can be reduced by normalizing data to an internal standard such as scandium. Archaeological samples were corrected for shape variations using correction factors calculated by the authors, based on the method described by

188

0. WILLIAMS

THORPE

ET AL.

) Aurignaclan I Gravettlan 1 Mesahthic ) Nealtthlc perlad unspectfied J Early Nealithlc 1 Middle Neolithic 1 Late Neolithic I Capper Age I Bronze Age

Figure 4. Amounts of obsidian found at archaeological sites in central and eastern Europe. Sites are marked as follows: A. 50% or more of stone work is obsidian OR more than 500 pieces of obsidian OR described in literature as having much obsidian; B. 549% of stone work is obsidian OR 20-500 pieces; C. less than 5% of stone work is obsidian OR obsidian occurrence described as “rare”.

Warren (1973). Means and standard deviations on our analyses of United States Geological Survey rock standard G-2 are shown in Appendix 3 and may be compared with published data (e.g. Abbey, 1980). Archaeological samples loaned by museums and other institutions were returned after 2-3 years. Analytical results for 48 geological samples are given in Appendix 2, and results for archaeological samples may be found in Thorpe (1978). Results of Analysis and Data Treatment Geological source samples

The analytical data for the 48 geological source obsidians were subjected to Principal Components Analysis using the PA1 option available in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (N ie et al., 1975). The version of the Package available on the Bradford University Cyber 170-720 computer provides direct information on the interrelationship between the 18 chemical elements determined in the analysis and provides indirectly the four principal factor scores for each sample, derived after taking into

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

Factor

Figure 5. Principal Components geological source obsidians.

Analysis

Figure 6. Principal Components geological source obsidians.

Analysis

Factor

OBSIDIAN

I

principal

factor

scores

1 and 2 for 48

factor

scores

1 and 4 for 48

4

principal

account the geochemical correlations between the variables. The scores serve as independent variables and can be plotted in combination or in pairs as shown in Figures 5 and 6 to reveal chemical similarities among samples. Figures 5 and 6 indicate that seven analytical groups exist within the source data. One source locality (Erdiibknye) is represented in more than one analytical group and the groups combine localities as follows.

190

Group Group Group Group Group Group Group

0. WILLIAMS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

THORPE

ET AL.

Szolloske; Mala Toroiia; “South-east Slovakia perlite periphery”; Streda nad Bodrogom; Csepego For&; Tolcsva sources: Olaszliszka, Erdobenye; Erdiibenye; Tokaj, upper section; Tokaj, lower section; Telkibanya.

Although there is some evidence for source localities forming subgroups within an analytical group, both the similarity of the rare earth element patterns within a group and the geographical proximity of the source localities justify the reduction to seven analytical groups. The groups were subsequently shown to be chemically distinct from each other using the Discriminant Analysis routine in the SPSS package. Means and standard deviations on these groups are given in Table 1. Archaeological samples

Some preliminary treatment of the archaeological data was considered desirable before assigning archaeological samples to geological sources using the Discriminant Analysis programme available in the SPSS package (Nie et al., 1975). In general the archaeological data had larger coefficients of variation (C.V.) than the geological source data, mainly caused by residual systematic errors in corrections for the irregular shapes of the archaeological samples but also because of small changes in irradiation conditions over the longer time span of the irradiations of the archaeological material compared with the source material. To make the data more compatible, the geological data were broadened to give a C.V. for each element consistent with the archaeological data, and all data were then normalized to an internal element. Scandium was chosen as the internal element partly because the active isotope, 46Sc, provides intense peaks in the y-ray spectrum and partly because it has a low resonance absorption cross-section making it insensitive to changes in thermal/epithermal neutron fluxes. Terbium, ytterbium and lutetium were excluded from the Discriminant Analysis because these elements were not determined for some of the archaeological samples. In the Discriminant Analysis the seven source groups were as defined above, and were shown to be analytically distinct using the remaining 14 normalized element concentrations. The assignment of the archaeological samples was consistent with an earlier method based on cluster analyses and element ratios (Thorpe, 1978) and showed that only three source groups were being exploited. A total of 242 samples were assigned to Group (1) now re-designated as the Carpathian 1 group. Sixteen samples were assigned to Group 3 re-designated as Carpathian 2a, and six samples were assigned to Group 4, re-designated Carpathain 2b. Mean and S.D. on these groups of archaeological samples are given in Table 2 with the mean and S.D. on the corresponding source groups. Only in two cases was there any significant probability of misassignment to the source groups. One of these samples was assigned to Tokaj by Discrimant Analysis, but inspection of the heavier rare-earth elements indicates that the sample is more typical of Carpathian 1 sample composition; in the other the cause is an anomalous value for thorium, one of the significant discriminating elements. A further six archaeological samples which had earlier been shown to have slightly anomalous compositions (Thorpe, 1978) were included in the Discriminant Analysis. One was assigned to Group 3, one to Group 4 and four to Group 1. These samples are not included in the table of mean and S.D. of archaeological groups (Table 2). In addition nine samples analysed were not included in the Discriminant Analysis, either because they had very anomalous compositions or because their appearance was consistent with industrial glass or slag (details in Thorpe, 1978, p. 242).

5

HUngUy

All measurements

1

Hungmy

69 ?08

136 f48

where

I1 6 fl9

170 fl2

are ppm except

13.3 f088

343 +30

i 2.53 CJ to-17

II I to.81

107 f071

225 i44

223 il2

86 *o-s2

169 ilO

P 2 78 0 io-02

IO 7 to48

I71 i72

indicated.

597 k25

155 f34

183 f48

462 133

559 *93

588 *49

529 236

5-93 il 36

3.79 kO.27

451 2026

536 iOl5

4-55 io20

2 96 f008

3-61 +016

042 *o-12 o-47 2025

0 91 iO.08

030 *o-o5

146 too2

055 iO.08

023 kO.03

044 f015

O-83 i005

103 ?OlO

l-52 *004

I21 LO.05

0.94 f002

090 to.07

3 84 f0.17

3 80 f022

4 69 fO-43

5.29 f0.40

4.80 +Ol6

231 fOl5

2.67 f015

067 iO06

0.75 f005

095 ?007

l-04 *007

I.03 io-I2

IO4 *o-o5

I I5 fO.08

29-O 246

37.5 fl.9

43-9 f2.5

45 6 fl.53

39.3 t2-31

176 2046

29.1 f26

4.45 kO.35

484 *o-35

88 3 ?r43 70-6 i7l

5 93 i-O-63

5 58 20-53

4 98 20-55

3-01 f0.36

2-88 +043

108 3 ?66

88 0 +53

85 7 *5-7

403 f25

68 7 1-7.0

0.56 *00x

022 +O-09

0.18 *o-o5

0 62 fO-01

o-54 kO.05

075 a03

O-44 +005

067 f0.15

o-55 fO-06

0 72 fO-I7

076 1015

0.77 iOl7

0 68 f0.03

0.92 f004

2.77 iOll

2.49 kO.20

3.11 kO48

3.09 *o II

289 fOl5

0.37 +011

2 50 2007

0 33 f002

038 ?004

036 to.05

0.41 kO.02

175 f055

256 +23

28-6 222

26 3 t1.0

25 3 fl.4

99 kO.29

009 fO-004

0 36 20-04

17.6 ill

037 2001

3R5 fO-23

3.93 20.28

5.72 f055

4.70 fl I6

5 22 +O-65

4.07 *o-37

7 97 ?088

2a

MalBTorona

2h

3 FrdGbklyc camples

Carpathm

(‘reprgd ForriiTolcs~a. OlarrlrrLka 2 Erddb&nycmnplcs

Carpathm

SAlb,kc

All measurements

3

6

22

lb

4

242

I

Carpathian

2.46 kO.35 2.38 to-04

are ppm except

R 2.66 0 fOl6 9 2.78 (T +0.02

I2.71 0 kO.13 P 2.70 0 *0.17

r 0 P 0

where

209 +21 223 +12

219 i48 225 544

203 &42 171 *7

Rb

deviations

Na ( ‘.I

and standard

No. of samplea I” group

2. Means

SOUX~,‘gKlUp

Table

indicated.

ID6 f- I.0 I I.1 +081

IO-7 kl.4 IO.7 50.7

12.5 * I-7 IO.7 kO.5

CS

672 +223 462 *33

PII 10.40 5.36 kO.15

451 i-031 4.55 *020

3.43 +0.32 3.61 *O-l6

SC

I.43 f0.10 I.52 k.004

I-18 kO.07 l-21 * 0.05

0x1 * 0.08 090 50.07

Fe ('")

archaeological

621 * 189 559 193

542 *145 529 +36

Ba

of Carpathian

I.45 f014 1.46 io.02

0.53 +O.Ob 0.55 +oos

0.28 +O.ll 044 *o-15

co

obsidian

546 kO.31 5.29 +040

4.99 kO.56 4.80 kO.46

2-80 kO.48 267 10.15

Hi

groups

0.89 kO.16 1.04 +_0.07

I-23 kO.32 I.03 +0.12

1118 iO.36 I.15 + 0.08

Ta

44.3 52.0 456 + 1.53

39x ?20R 393 k2.3,

27.7 k2.09 29.1 12.6

La

and corresponding

85.9 t 12.5 88.0 fS.3

79.7 * 13.4 us.7 * 5.7

60.0 kY.4 68.7 i-7.0

Ce

5.76 20.41 5.58 -to53

+o.ss

4.98 ) *,-I, 4-98

0.63 io.07 0.62 f0.01

0.57 kO.07 0.54 to-05

038 kO.08 0.44 ioo5

Eu

grmps

3-53 co.73 2.88 kO.43

Sm

source

072 kO.18 0.76 +0.15

0.73 kO.16 0.77 *o 17

070 +0.18 O-92 *o-o4

Tb

3-34 jo.35 3.09 *O-II

3.17 kO.53 2.89 io.15

3.20 iO.48 250 10.07

Yb

25-7 k2.l 26.3 * I.0

245 k27 2>3 * I.4

17.4 i2.8 17-6 f II

Th

6.21 k I-26 4-70 k 1.16

521 * I.59 5.22 *O-65

9.26 + 2.3 7.97 +0%3

ti

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

193

100 Antiparos

D Pontine

Is

a

50

is +

20 Acigtil

c J-&O + 3 + z + u) -7s

IO

Car

5 Sardinia

A

2

k

I 0

0.5

I.0

I.5

i

3

sb ( Fe % + Co )

Figure 7. Discrimination between Carpathian obsidians and other European and Near Eastern obsidians. Sources of information: Hallam et al. (1976) Aspinall et al. (1972), Epstein (1977) McDaniels (1976) and unpubl. data from A. Aspinall and J. A. Pearson, University oft Bradford. Pantelleria is not included on this diagram since its high Rare Earth Element and iron contents [La approx. 2OOppm, Eu approx. Sppm, Fe approx. 6% (Hallam et al., 1976)] immediately distinguish it from all the sources included here. For discrimination between Carpathian 1, 2a and 2b and Sardinia B see Figures 5, 6 and text.

The colour distinction between Slovak and Hungarian source obsidian noted above is seen also in the archaeological material. Carpathian 1 samples (Slovakia) are generally grey and semi-transparent, and Carpathian 2a and 2b (Hungary) black and opaque. Three exceptions to this rule were seen in the archaeological samples. Discrimination between the Carpathian obsidian sources

sources and other European and Near Eastern

In order to relate the Carpathian obsidian source data to previous studies of obsidian in Europe and the Near East, the parameters suggested by Aspinall et al. (1972) were used. Cobalt was added to improve discrimination. Archaeological and geological source data are plotted on Figure 7, which shows good discrimination between all major European and Near Eastern obsidian sources. Overlaps occur only between Carpathian 1 and 2a/b (resolved by the Principal Components Analysis and Discriminant Analysis discussed above), and between Sardinia B and Carpathian 2a/b. The latter may be resolved by examination of Ta and Cs, these elements showing clear distinction between the two groups (Hallam et aZ., 1976; Mackey & Warren, 1982 for Sardinia B data; Table 1 of this paper for Carpathian data).

194

0. WILLIAMS

?

iource

THORPE

ET AL.

unknown

Figure 8. Geological provenance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Sites are numbered as follows. I. San Quirino. 2. Vlasca Jama. 3. Grotta Zingari, 4. Grotta Tartaruga. 5. Grotta Lonza.. 6. Abri de Roccia di. Monrupino. 7. lstrian Peninsula, 8. TiBetice Kyjovice. 9. Kiilna. IO. Boiitov. 11. Dolni VeStonice, 12. Wetzleinsdorf, 13. Ptibice, 14. Smolin, 15. Sady, 16. Nova Dedina, 17. Qlszanica. 18. Aszod, 19. Presov. 20. Cana, 21. Bohdanovce. 22. Fancsal. 23. BorSod. 24. Diozgiir -Tapolca. 25. Tibava. 26. Kopcany, 27. Cejkov. 28. Sirnik, 29. KaSov, 30. Vel’ka Torotia, 31. Somotor, 32. Panyok. 33. C&c. 34. Mikohaza. 35. Palhara. 36. Satoraljiujhely. 37. Sarospatak. 38. Site between Tolcsva and Erdiihorvati. 39. Erdohorvati. 40. Site scatter below Terhegy Mountain 41. Boldogkoviralja. 42. Baskb. 43. Olaszliszka. 44. Bodrogkereszttir. 45. Szerencs. 46. Csoszhalom, 47. Szilmeg ( Folyas). 48. Tiszacsege. 49. Szeleveny. 50. Szentes Besenyhalom. 51. Lebohalom. 52. Oszentivan ( ~Tiszasziget). 53. Horgos Kamoras. 54. Pores, 55. Kovago. 56. Zengiivirkony, 57. Pecsvaradr-Aranyhegy. 58. Babarcs, 59. Villanykovesd, 60. Klakar, 61. Gornja Tuzla, 62. Beljin Ravnica. 63. Banjica. 64. Vi&a. 65. Selevac. 66. Divostin, 67. Veliki Popovit. 68. Potporanj Kremenjak, 69. Balta Sarata. 70. Ruginosu, 71. Berettyhszentmarton. 72. Furta Csato. 73. Rasolfu Mare. 74. Nagyecsed. 75. Mehtelek. 76. Gura Baciului. 77. Cluj, 78. Ghirbom, 79. Sincrai, 80. Sitagroi. 81. Nea Nikomedeia, 82. Servia. Analyses for site nos. I-6 from Williams Thorpe cr al.. 1979; for site nos. 80 -8 I _ Aspinall et al. 1972; for site no. 82. Thorpe. 1978.

Discussion Figure 8 shows the provenance of obsidian in central and eastern Europe (including data from this work and earlier published data), indicating the use of six source groups: Carpathian 1, Carpathian 2a, Carpathian 2b, Lipari, Melos, and Ciftlik (Ciftlik and Melos analyses from Sitagroi and Nea Nikomedeia, Aspinall et al., 1972; Servia analyses, Thorpe, 1978; Lipari analyses, Williams Thorpe et al., 1979). The most

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

195

widely used type of obsidian is Carpathian 1, the grey transparent obsidian of Szolloske and MalL Toroiia in Slovakia. The smaller number of Carpathian 2a pieces could be from one of several closely-spaced localities in Hungary: Olaszliszka, Csepego For&, Tolcsva or Erdobenye. Since these are all re-deposited sources (Williams & Nandris, 1977), it is possible that undiscovered sources of the same nature exist in the Hungarian Zemplen. Carpathian 2b obsidian is again from a re-deposited source, found with Carpathian 2a material at Erdobenye. It is clear that some organized collection and storing of obsidian was practised, since hoards of unworked lumps have been found at Bask6 and Erdohorviti (Nandris, 1975) and Cejkov (Banesz, 1974). Analyses from Bask6 have revealed both Carpathian 2a and 2b obsidian, while Erdohorviti and Cejkov have Carpathian 1 material. Though Slovakian Carpathian 1 obsidian clearly predominated, Hungarian material was distributed over similar distances; for example to Ghirbom in Romania to the east, and to Divostin to the south. Many sites used both Hungarian and Slovak obsidian, for instance Lebohalom in southern Hungary with Carpathian 1, 2a and 2b, and Gura Baciului in Romania with 1 and 2b. It is interesting that even in the Hungarian Zemplen Mountains, it is the Slovak obsidian which was most widely used. The chronological distribution of the three Carpathian source groups is summarized in Figure 9. The earliest type used, at the Aurignacian sites of Tibava and Nova Dedina (in Slovakia and Moravia respectively) was Carpathian 2a, from Hungary. However, by the Gravettian, the Slovakian Carpathian 1 obsidian was in use and no Hungarian obsidian has yet been found at this period. In the Neolithic, while all three groups were known, Carpathian 1 was much the most commonly used. All Copper and Bronze Age occur&nces are Carpathian 1. Nandris (1975) has suggested that forest clearance associated with the Neolithic may have led to the discovery of further obsidian sources. This may explain the appearance of Carpathian 2b during this period. There is at present no evidence for any Mediterranean, Aegean or Near Eastern obsidian in central or eastern Europe. The Ciftlik obsidian at Sitagroi and Melian obsidian at Nea Nikomedeia and Servia (Aspinall et al., 1972; Thorpe, 1978) remain the most northerly occurrences of obsidian from these source areas. There is however an overlap between the Carpathian and Mediterranean groups in north east Italy, at the Neolithic cave site of Grotta Tartaruga (Williams Thorpe et al., 1979). There, both Liparian and Carpathian 1 obsidian were identified (Figure 8). This is clearly an area of mainly Liparian obsidian, and the Carpathian piece must be seen as an exception, reflecting perhaps the links of the Trieste Vlasca culture with Central Europe (Barfield, 1971). Distribution mechanisms

Several different mechanisms have been postulated by Renfrew (1972) and the concepts further developed (Renfrew, 1975) to account for the observed distribution of artifacts/ raw materials from a source. Some of these mechanisms would give rise to the same type of spatial distribution, as indeed would several mathematical models which relate the density of artifacts to distance from the source (Renfrew, 1977). All these models considered only the integrated effects over time whereas Ammerman (1979) showed that the same type of distribution pattern could arise if equilibrium had not been established in an extended series of exchanges. Numerous examples of fall-off patterns have been discussed by Hodder & Orton (1976) and differences in the rate of fall-off attributed to the prestige value of the items exchanged or to the mode of transport available. They proposed a general relationship between Q (quantity) and X (distance) of the form logQ=a-bX”+s

196

0. WILLIAMS Mills EC 2ooo

THORPE

ET AL.

Vistuk Europe

North IEAKERS

-

-

GLOBULAR

-

AMPHI

E-----

--1

HUNGARIAN

COPPER

AGE

EAbLY HELLADIC I

I

TRB--

3ooo

8

i/4

4000

- CVl Inpr*snd *on

5ooc

6ooo 9om -ATER

PALAEOLITRIC -

2oooo C 1 Corpothion ca Corwthion Ceb Corpothmn LI Lipori

e.g.Corwthion

Figure source

groups

I

20 2b

FTN BK

First Temperate BOlldkr0lTik

TRB

Trichterbecher

2Qooo

Neolithic

z IO sites with I Obsidian

9. Chronological and geographical distribution groups. The ornament indicates the approximate enclosed therein.

of Carpathian obsidian extent of the cultural

where a, b, and c1 are constants and E is the error. The values of a, b and a vary according to the type of material and in the case of the distribution of Near Eastern obsidian, the value of a is close to unity. The expression then reduces (ignoring E) to logQ=a-bX

where a is the intercept and b is the rate of fall-off in log (% Q) with X. The latter expression is equivalent to that derived by Renfrew et al. (1968) for an extended series of exchanges arising from contact between villages (the so called down-the-line transfer) and by Warren (1981) for linear diffusion (with loss) when equilibrium has been established in the exchange system. In the case of Near Eastern obsidians Renfrew et al. (1968) defined Q as the percentage of obsidian relative to the total number of lithic pieces including obsidian and explained the shape of the distribution pattern in terms of two zones: a supply or direct access zone surrounding the source in which obsidian comprises at least 80% of the

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

197

total lithic material, and a contact zone in which obsidian is exchanged. The radius of the supply zone (the value of X at Q = SOo/,)is about 200 km for the Antolian source at Ciftlik and about 340 km for the Armenian source at Lake Van. The radius is readily calculated from a and b. It is suggested here that instead of b, a new concept of “+ distance” is introduced. This is the distance within the contact zone over which the percentage of obsidian reduces to half its initial value. It has a value of about 45 km for the Anatolian source and 72 km for the Armenian source. The application of the above concepts to the distribution of obsidian in central and eastern Europe has to be approached with some caution. First, we are considering three source areas of obsidian in the Zemplen mountains rather than the single source assumed in discussions on linear exchange mechanisms. The concept of competition and interaction zones between sources was introduced by Hallam et al. (1976) in relation to the distribution of western Mediterranean obsidians. However, in central and eastern Europe, with a relatively small distance between sources compared to the extent of the distribution, and with one source being much more important than the other two, it is reasonably valid to consider the sources as a single source area for theoretical discussion. Secondly, the distribution is by no means unidirectional although it may be considered in theory as a small number of independent trade routes from an inexhaustible source area. Thirdly, the period of exploitation spans the Mousterian to the Bronze Age. The data are too sparse to treat each period separately but the time span too large to permit conflation. Only the Eneolithic and Neolithic periods, considered as a whole, offer sufficient data points to justify discussion. Fourthly, many of the sites are located along or close to the main rivers. It is therefore probable that both overland and water transportation hw to be considered. Reid (1977) suggests a factor of two improvement in transport rate by river compared with overland, and that the number of days involved in travel may be a more relevant parameter than distance travelled. One difficulty common to all spatial distribution studies is the need to normalize the data to allow for differences in scale of excavation at different sites. Normalization to number of households, to excavation volume, to total quantity (in either mass or number of pieces) of artifact have all been suggested (Cobean et al., 1971; Sidrys, 1977; Wright, 1969). Warren (1981) has drawn attention to the influence of the normalization technique on the apparent fall-off pattern. For central and eastern Europe published data only permits normalization to total number of pieces of stone found and there is a choice of using the ratio of obsidian to flint or of obsidian to obsidian and flint. The latter technique, used here, implies that obsidian and flint may have similar functions in the lithic tool kit and can substitute readily for each other subject only to availability of materials. In these approaches distance should be linear distance travelled rather than “as the crow flies”. Since many of the sites are located at or reasonably close to rivers (Figure 2) the use of river transport is taken, following Reid (1977) to reduce the distance along the line by a factor of two. Restricting the discussion to Eneolithic and Neolithic sites close to and to the south of the Zemplen Mountains (in order to consider distribution in one direction only), and reducing the distances covered along rivers by a factor of 2, the fall-off in log (percentage obsidian) with distance is as given in Figure lo(a). The fall-off pattern conforms approximately to the two zone concept of distribution with a small supply zone and a more extensive contact zone. The radius of the supply zone (Q = 80%) is then 25 km. In terms of the direct access model this would imply that sites in and close to the Zemplen source area enjoyed unrestricted use of the obsidian sources but exercised some aspect of control over supply to more distant sites. At its lowest level this control may have arisen simply because they alone had detailed knowledge of the location of the sources. In the contact area the “$ distance” is 85 km (a similar figure to that for the Near

198

0.

\-I

0

WILLIAMS

100

200

Welghted

distance

THORPE

ET

300

400

‘from source

(km)

AL.

Figure 10. (a) Decrease in obsidian use with increasing distance from the source area (Hungarian and Slovak Zempltn Mountains). Sites numbered are: (1) Cejkov, (2) KopEany, (3) Bohdanovce, (4) Mehtelek, (5) Aszod, (6) Hodoni Pociorani, (7) VinEa, (8) Liubcova, (9) Valea R&i, (10) Bals, (1 I) Schela Cladovei, (12) Poiana in Pisc (Casolt), (13) Ostrovul Banului, (14) Tirgu Ocna, (15) Let Varhegy. Line is best straight line through all points; edge of supply zone is marked with a dotted line. Distance is weighted according to length of travel along rovers (see text). (b) Geographical positions of sites in (a). Sites are numbered as in (a). @, Source area (Zemplen Mountains).

Eastern source of Lake Van). It is then possible to deduce from Figure 10(a) that at 250 km to 350 km distance from the sources obsidian should comprise from 13% to 5% of the lithic assemblage. In this region Vinea (site number 7) is one of two sites which have significantly higher percentages of obsidian than anticipated [obsidian use at VinEa varies from 9 to 65% of the total stonework between levels 4.5 and 8.6 m (Srejovii: & Jovanovie, 1957), and the mean level of use is plotted on Figure lo]. This could be interpreted as an example of central place redistribution (Renfrew, 1975) within the overall exchange network. A difficulty facing all discussions on exchange mechanisms is that, at present, the data on which the discussions are based are sparse and liable to significant error, especially when the percentages of obsidian are low. The modes of exchange are not known nor are the reasons for the distribution of obsidian to distant sites when supplies of suitable alternative materials such as flint and quartz are closer to hand. The supply routes cannot be established with any certainty nor discussed in relation to more modem routes as Ericson (1981) has done in the case of Californian obsidians from different source areas. Thus considerable variations can exist in the estimate of distance travelled or time taken to particular sites. This would make it unwise to extend the argument to statistical weighting of percentages by the distances of sites from the sources as has been attempted by Sidrys (1977) in his treatment of the distribution of obsidian to Mayan sites. All that can be established is that there is a general fall-off in the percentage of obsidian found on central and eastern European sites with increasing distance from the sources in the Zempltn mountains, and that the present discussion on trade mechanisms should be

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

199

regarded as introducing possible concepts to be considered further when we have more detailed knowledge of the utilization of lithic resources in this area. Conclusions

There are at least four source areas which produce workable obsidian in northeast Hungary, and a further four in southeast Slovakia. All were characterized on the basis of their trace element content, using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Analyses of 279archaeological obsidiansfromcentral andeastern Europe show that three analytically distinct types were used. These were designated Carpathian 1, 2a and 2b, and correlate with sources as follows. Carpathian 1. Szolloske, Mala Torona (Slovakia); Carpathian 2a. Csepegii For&, Tolcsva, Erdobenye, Olaszliszka (Hungary); Carpathian 2b. Erdob&ye (Hungary). Erd&&nye, a re-deposited source, produces two types of obsidian (2a and 2b). The majority of archaeological samples analysed (242 pieces) belong to group Carpathian 1 (Slovakia), while 16 samples are Carpathian 2a, and 6 Carpathian 2b (Hungary). Carpathian obsidian was traded throughout Hungary and Slovakia, to west and central Moravia, Austria and northeastern Italy, and north to Poland. The earliest type of obsidian in evidence is Carpathian 2a (Aurignacian) but from the Gravettian to the Bronze Age Carpathian 1 predominated. The Carpathian distribution overlaps with the Mediterranean (Lipari) obsidian distribution at Grotta Tartaruga near Trieste but there is no evidence for any interaction with the Aegean or Near Eastern sources. The distribution of obsidian&om the Carpathian sources may be considered in terms of a linear exchange mechamsm with a small supply zone of radius 25 km and a contact zone of at least 418 km equivalent linear distance, in which the rate of fall-off is expressed as a 5 distance of 85 km. Acknowledgements

We thank Dr N. Kalicz of the Institute of Archaeology, Budapest, for all his help and advice, particularly in obtaining samples for analysis; also Dr Istvan Lazar and Jonas Karpati who gave invaluable help with fieldwork in Hungary. John Crummett helped with all stages of the analysis, and Dr Chistoph Willms gave us information on German obsidian. Richard Thorpe made many valuable comments and suggestions on early drafts of the paper. For sample loans and access to museum reserve collections we thank the following people and institutions: Dr L. Rozloinik, Dr A. Z&man, Dr E Bacskay, MS J. A. Pearson, Professor C. Renfrew, Dr J. Chapman, Dr E. Ruttkay, Dr I. BognarKutzian, Dr J. Korek, Herman Otto Museum Miskolc, Dr A, Benac, Dr J. Todorovic, Dr L. Szekeres, Dr T. Sekelj, Dr 0. Trogmayer, Dr S. SiSka, Dr L. Banesz, Dr Podbbrsky, Dr K. Valoch, Vychodoslovenske Museum Kosice, Dr M. Slaninak, Dr Almerigogna, Professor and Dr Cassola, Dr Z. Letica, Dr E. Hats, MS E. Elster, Dr S. Milisauskas, Dr Gerdina, Dr C. Riley, the Museo Civic0 di Storia ed Arte Trieste, Dr E. Perlaky and Dr B. Jovanovic. Carol Whale typed the manuscript and the figures were drawn by John Taylor and Helen Boxall. We thank Mr D. Devereux for his help with computer analysis of data. This work was financed by the Natural Environment Research Council, and we are grateful for additional funds made available to one of the authors (O.W.T.) for fieldwork in Eastern Europe. Fieldwork for J. G. Nandris was financed by the British Academy, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hayter Fund and The Central Research Fund of London University, and the British Council.

200

0. WILLIAMS

THORPE

ET AL.

References Abbey, S. (1980). Studies in “standard samples” for use in the general analysis of silicate rocks and materials. Geostandards Newsletter 4, 1633190. Ammerman, A. J. (1979). A study of obsidian exchange networks in Calabria. World Archaeology 11,95-l 10. Aspinall, A., Feather, S. W. & Renfrew, C. (1972). Neutron activation analysis of Aegean obsidians. Nature 237, 3333334. Banesz, L. (1956). Paleolitickjl sidelnj, objekt v Tibava na vychodnom Slovensku. Archeologicke Rozhledy 9,761-770. Banes,, L. (1959). Cejkov II-III, No& Paleoliticke stanice s obsidianovou industriou. Archeologicke Rozhledy II, 769-780. Banesz, L. (1960). Die problematik der palaolithikum besiedlung in Tibava Slovenska Archeologia 8, 7-58. Banesz, L. (1968). Barca pri Kosiciach: palaeoliticke nalezchi Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej Akademie vied. Banesz, L. (1974). Hromadn) nalez obsidianovej suroviny na Gravettskom, sidlisku v Cejkove. Archeologicke Rozhledy 26, 51-54. Barfield, L. H. (1971). In (H. Schwabedissen, ed.) The first Neolithic Cultures of North-Eastern Italy. Fundamenta. Die Anfange des Neolithikum vom orient bis Nordeuropa 6, 182-216. Cann, J. R. & Renfrew, C. (1964). The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 30, 111-133. Cobean, R., Coe, M., Perry, E. Jr, Turekian, K. & Kharkar, D. (1971). Obsidian trade at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Science 174, 66667 1. Earle, T. K. 8~ Ericson, J. E. (eds). (1977). Exchange Systems in Prehistory. San Francisco: Academic Press. Epstein, S. (1977). The trade in Near Eastern Obsidians. M.A. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Ericson, J. E. (198 1). Exchange and Production Systems in Californian Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports Sl 10. Hallam, B. R., Warren, S. E. & Renfrew, C. (1976). Obsidian in the Western Mediterranean: characterization by neutron activation analysis and optical emission spectroscopy. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 42, 85-l 10. Hodder, I. and Orton, C. (1976). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, R. (1975). Neutron activation analysis of St Neots Type Ware M.A. dissertation, University of Bradford. Kozlowski, J. K. (1969). Neolityczne i wczesnoeneolityczne materialy krzemienne ze stanowisk Nowa Huta-Pleszow. Materialy Archeologizne Nowej Huty 2, 138. Mackey, M. P. & Warren, S. E. (1983). The identification of obsidian sources in the Monte Arci region of Sardinia. In (A. Aspinall & S. E. Warren, eds) The Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry. Bradford, 30 March to 3 April, 1982, pp. 42043 1. McDaniels, J. B. (1976). An analytical study of obsidian from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. M.A. dissertation, University of Bradford. Milisauskas, S. (1976). Archaeological Investigation on the Linear Culture village of Olszanica. Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. Nandris, J. G. (1975). A reconsideration of the south-east European sources of archaeological obsidian. Institute of Archaeology (University ofLondon) BuLletin 12, 71-101. Nie, N. H., Bent, D. H. & Hadlai Hull, C. (1975). Statistical Packagefor the Social Sciences. London: McGraw-Hill. Reid, P. E. W. (1977). An analysis of trade mechanisms in European Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Renfrew, C. (1972). The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium B.C. London: Methuen and Co. Renfrew, C. (1975). Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication. In (J. A. Sabloff & C. C. Lamberg-Karlowsky, eds) Ancient Civilisation and Trade, pp. 3359. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

SOURCES

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

OBSIDIAN

201

Renfrew, C. (1977). Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In (T. K. Earle & J. E. Ericson, eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, pp. 7 l-90. San Francisco: Academic Press. Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E. & Cann, J. R. (1966). Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 32, 3672. Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E. & Cann, J. R. (1968). Further analyses of Near Eastern Obsidians. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 319-31. Renfrew, C. & Wagstaff, M., (Eds), (1982). An Island Polity: The Archaeology cfExploitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SiSka, S. (1968). Tiszapolgar Kultura na Slovensku. Slovenskh Archeolbgia 16, 61-176. &Ska, S. (1972~). Grgberfelder der Laiiiany-Gruppe in der Slowakei. Slovenskk Archeolbgia 20, 107-175. Si‘ska, S. (1972b). Zu Beziehungen des Nijrdlichen Theissgebietes und Siidostpolens im Jungneolithikum und Alteren ,&neolithikum. Zbornik FilozoJckej Fakulty Univerzity Komenski?ho Musaica RoEnit 23, 13-21. Srejovik, D. & JovanoviC, B. (1957). Pregled kamenog orudja i oruzja iz Vin’ce. Arheolo?ki Vestnik 8, 256296. Sidrys, R. (1977). Mass-distance measures for the Maya obsidian trade. In (T. K. Earle & J. E. Ericson, eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, pp. 91-107. San Francisco: Academic Press. Thorpe, 0. W. (1978). A study of obsidian in prehistoric Central and Eastern Europe, and its trace element characterization. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bradford. Tringham, R. (1966). The Early Neolithic of Central Europe. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Tringham, R. (1971). Hunters, Fishers and Farmers ofEastern Europe, 6000-3000 B.C. London: Hutchinson University Library. Warren, S. E. (1973). Geocmical factors in the Neutron Activation Analysis of archaeological specimens. Archaeometry 15, 115-I 22. Warren, S. E. (198 1). Linear exchange mechanisms and obsidian trade. Revue d’tirchtometrie 5, 167-75. Williams, 0. & Nandris, J. (1977). The Hungarian and Slovak sources of archaeological obsidian: an interim report on further fieldwork, with a note on tektites. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 207-219 Williams Thorpe, 0.. Warren, S. E. & Barfield, L. H. (1979). The sources and distribution of archaeological obsidian in Northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina 15, 73-92. Wright, G. A. (1968). Obsidian analysis and Early Trade in the Near East: 7,500 to 3,500 B.C. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan. 69-2413, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wright, G. A. (1969). Obsidian analysis and Prehistoric Near Eastern trade: 7,500 to 3,500 B.C. Anthropological Papers 37. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Patkb

Tolcsva.

Hill

Bellb; Field

Forms

Tolcsva,

Hungary Csepegb;

Slovakia;

nad Bodrogom

Streda

“Southeast periphery”

Torona

( = Vinicky.

Mala

Slovakia Srollo’ske

Source

perlite

or SelcSka)

Appmdix

oJgrologid

.satnph

position

unknown

of

21’27’E 4817’N. on west side of Tolcsva village

21”25’E 48’18’N. 2 km southwest of Erdohorvati 21’27’E 48”17’N. on west side of Tolcsva village

Exact

21 ‘47’E 48’22’N. 7 km east-southeast Satorauljairjhely

21’45’E 48’24’N. 6 km northeast ofSatorauljai?jhely

21’47’E 48“23’N. 8 km east of Satorauljalijhely

Position

I. Locations

analysed

obsidian

Glassy

Glassy obsidian lumps, with hydrated surface

Glassy obsidian lumps, hydrated surface Glassy obsidian lumps. with hydrated surface

obsidian

obsidian

Glassy

Glassy

obsidian

Glassy

Description

by

0. Williams Thorpe and Mr I. Lazar Dr E. Bacskay Hungarian Geological Survey Dr E. Bacskay Hungarian Geological Survev

Dr A. Z&man Ustredni Ustav Geologicky, Prague

Dr L. Rozlo&k Department of Mineralogy and Geology. University KoSice Dr L. Rozloinik Department of Mineralogy and Geology, University KoSice Dr L. Rozloinik Department of Mineralogy and Geology, University KoSice

Collected

of

of

of

612/l

l-12

614/6610

5

2

61211-5

61 l&IO

61 I14

61 l/5

6llj1~3

Run Nos

5

5

1

I

3

No. of samples analysed

,

Telkibanya

section

Tokaj. Lower exposure

of

of

Catholic

section

Roman

Tokaj. Upper exposure

Erdobenyc

Olasrliszka

Tolcsva.

Cemetery village

21”22’E

48”27’N.

2 I ‘23’E 48’9’N. 3 km northwest of Tokaj village

2 I -26’E 48’ l4’N. Northwest side of Olaszliszka village 21‘19’E 48”17’N. 2.5 km northwest of Erddbenye village 2 I “23’E 48”9’N. 3 km northwest ofTokaj village

2127’E 48’17’N. on west side ofTolcsva

Small glassy obsidian lumps (up to 8 mm) with hydrated surface Small glassy obsidian lumps (up to 8 mm) with hydrated surface Perlite containing a few small lumps of glassy obsidian

Glassy obsidian lumps with altered pitted surface

Glassy obsidian lumps with hydrated surface

Glassy obsidian lumps, with hy$rated surface

0. Williams Mr I. Lazir

Thorpe

MS J. A. Pearson Dr J. G. Nandris

MS J. A. Pearson Dr J. G. Nandris

and

and

and

Dr E. Bacskay Hungarian Geological Survey Dr E. Bicskay Hungarian Geological Survey 0. Williams Thorpe and Mr I. La&

5

3

5

5

I

5

614/I

614/ll

612,/6-

615/6-

61 l/12

61513-5

5

13

10

12

61 l/l 61 l/2 611/3 61115 61 l/4 61 l/6 61 l/7 61 l/S 61 I,‘9 61 l/l0 612/l

Run

no.

Source

2. Analysts

ofohsidiansfrom

southeast Slovakia Szolloske southeast Slovakia Szolliiske southeast Slovakia Mala Torotia southeast Slovakia Streda nad Bodrogom southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia Csepego Forms northeast Hungary

Sz6116ske

Arpmdix (la)

2.34 2.40 2.42 2.34 2.52 2.40 2.44 2.38 244 2.45 2.68

Na(“i,)

geological

163 176 167 178 162 166 184 165 178 158 219

Rb 10.3 10.8 10.3 11.3 7.3 8.9 9.6 8.0 8.8 9.0 8.9

Cs

SOU~TP.S in fhc Carpathians

543 552 546 476 497 619 623 565 611 611 678

Ba

[ppm

3.61 3.78 3.61 3.39 2.91 2.81 2.99 2.95 3.04 2.98 4.54

SC

except

0.92 0.95 0.92 0.79 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.94 1.21

Fe(%)

0.46 0.57 0.51 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.22 0.52

Co

Na and Fe (percentage

263 2.81 2.16 2.48 2.08 2.16 2.42 2.32 2.46 2.39 5.39

Hf

1.05 i.22 1.14 1.20 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.10 0.96 1.08 1.05

Ta

element)]

k

2

z

$

F 5 K v,

P e

61 l/l 611/2 61113 611i5 61114 61 l/6 61117 61 l/8 61 l/9 611/10 612/l

Run no.

2 continurd

(Ih)

Sziillijske southeast Slovakia SzBIliiske southeast Slovakia Sziilliiske southeast Slovakia Mall Torotia southeast Slovakia Streda nad Bodrogom southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia “Perlite periphery” southeast Slovakia Csepegii Forms northeast Hungary

Source

Appmdi.u

30.2 31.0 29.9 25.3 17.9 16.8 17.7 17.4 18.1 17.7 37.7

La 70.1 74.1 72.1 58.5 38.3 41.6 36.4 40.9 43.1 41.7 831

Ce 3.49 2.82 2.74 2.47 2.82 2.60 3.38 3.31 3.30 2.67 544

Srni 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.37 0.74 0.69 0.78 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.52

Eu 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.66 0.63 0.72 0.65 0.70 0.69 0.72

Tb 2.46 2.48 2.45 260 0.54 0.40 0.23 0.26 0.43 0.37 2.91

Yb 0.38 0.36 0:37 0.35 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.35

Lu 17.8 18.4 18.3 16.0 9.6 9.7 10.2 9.7 10.2 10.2 24.1

Th 6.84 7.90 8.17 8.97 4.59 4.34 3.68 3.66 3.96 4.20 5.87

U B 4 G 3 G 1 B 5 Br4 G/Br G/Br G/Br G/Br G/Br G 0

C/TT*

2 4 3 2 4

CSPhA CPhA CA CPhA A CPh PhA CSA CPhA PhA CA

Remarks?

8

$

s z EI

$

K F;

6

if

z

% 9

8

s

61 l/l2 615/10 615/l 1 615/12 61516

61515

615:4

615/3

61512

61212 61213 61214 61215 61416 61417 614/8 61419 614/10 612/l 1 612112 615/l

Run no.

Csepego Csepego Csepegii Csepego Tolcsva, Tolcsva. Tolcsva. Tolcsva, Tolcsva. Tolcsva. Tolcsva, Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Olaszliszka. Erdobenye Erdobenye Erdobitnye Erdobenye

(20)

Catholic

Roman

Cemetery

Cemetery

Cemetery

Cemetery

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

Catholic

Roman

northeast northeast northeast northeast northeast

Catholic

Catholic

northeast

northeast

northeast

northeast

northeast Hungary northeast Hungary northeast Hungary northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Hill northeast Hungary Hill northeast Hungary Catholic Cemetery northeast

Roman

Roman

Forms Forras Forms Forms Bell6 Bell6 Bell6 Belle Be116 Patkb Patko Roman

2 conrinwd

source

Appcwdix

200

2.67

2.62 2.81 2.85 3.07 2.91 2.75

2.69

2.64

215 207 209 226 221 226

211

210

227

263 280 305 290 166 177 183 156 162 281 265

2.64 2.53 2.71 2.58 2.53 2.63 2.57 2.47 2.49 2.85 3.10

2.70

Rb

Na(%)

9.7 11.5 9.5 11.5 10.5 IO.3

10.0

10.8

IO.9

11.1

11.3 10.4 11.4 10.5 10.8 10.1 11.6 10.6 108 10.9 11.4

Cs

432 753 521 504 465 454

476

411

473

472

636 658 593 540 528 620 669 573 588 637 612

Ba

4.56 5.06 4.65 4.95 4.60 4.68

4.53

4.60

4.61

4.60

4.47 4.42 4.52 4.19 4.35 4.44 4.48 4.21 4.40 4.61 4.56

SC

1.23 1.29 1.24 1.32 I.26 I.24

1.20

1.23

1.20

1.23

1.18 1.19 1.20 1.18 1.14 1.18 1.20 1.11 1.16 1.23 1.21

Fe(%,)

0.55 0.68 0.63 0.52 0.55 0.56

0.44

0.55

0.50

0.54

0.62 0.45 0.58 0.44 0.55 0.56 0.77 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.62

Co

4.36 5.27 4.54 5.52 4.71 4.68

4.35

4.88

490

4.91

5.10 5.15 5.28 5.10 4.53 3.99 4.83 4.18 3.81 4.90 5.29

Hf

1.00 1.14 1.24 I.29 1.11 1.08

1.02

1.15

1.15

0.98

0.97 1.00 1.06 0.98 0.86 0.94 0.96 0.87 0.79 1.02 1.03

Ta

no.

611/12 615/10 615/l I 615/12 61516

61515

61514

61513

61512

61212 61213 61214 61215 61416 61411 614/8 61419 614/10 612/l 1 612112 615/t

Run

Csepegd Csepegii Csepego Csepegh Tolcsva, Tolcsva, Tolcsva. Tolcsva, Tolcsva. Tolcsva, Tolcsva, Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Tolcsva. Hungary Tolcsva, Hungary Olasrliszka Erdobenye Erdiibenye Erdobenye Erdobenye

2 continurd

(2h)

Cemetery

Cemetery

Cemetery

Cemetery

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

Catholic

Catholic

Catholic

Catholic

northeast

northeast

northeast

northeast

northeast Hungary northeast Hungary northeast Hungary northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Field northeast Hungary Hill, northeast Hungary Hill, northeast Hungary Catholic Cemetery northeast

northeast northeast northeast northeast northeast

Roman

Roman

Roman

Patko

Forras Forras For& Forms Bell6 Belle Bell6 Bell6 Be116 Patko Patko Roman

Source

Appmdix

39.9 41.3 41.9 43.7 42.0 41.0

40.3

41.3

76.7 101.3 80.8 92.7 80.8 78.3

84.7

84.0

83.1

83.3

39.9 42.5

90.8 80.7 90.9 84.0 83.2 89.4 91.6 81.8 83.7 90.2 89.7

Ce

37.3 36.4 38.4 36.2 37.4 36.9 36.8 35.6 38.3 39.3 39.6

La

5.08 4.30 5.49 5.62 5.62 5.06

4.86

5.03

5.51

5.21

5.32 5.00 5.26 5.22 4.16 4.24 4.14 3.77 4.49 5.61 5.16

km

0.53 0.61 0.49 0.62 0.56 0.59

0.57

0.56

0.56

0.52

0.49 0.44 0.52 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.54 0.52 0.53

Eu

0.69 1.35 0.73 0.74 0.82 0.71

0.64

0.63

0.83

0.66

0.96 0.72 0.89 0.86 0.68 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.53 0.88 0.89

Tb

2.81 2.90 2.87 3.22 2.94 3.04

2.81

2.94

3.07

3.02

2.92 2.65 3.07 2.83 2.87 2.69 2.69 2.66 2.78 2.91 3.00

Yb

0.40 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.41

0.41

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.33 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.29

Lu

25.8 26.9 26.9 28.1 26.9 26.8

25.3

25.4

27.2

25.4

23.7 23.1 24.9 23.3 24.9 24.3 25.4 23.6 24.5 23.9 24.7

Th

5.02 6.08 4.88 5.33 5.55 5.07

4.96

4.89

5.21

4.53

5.39 5.66 5.76 5.69 4.74 4.78 4.36 3.97 4.35 6.54 6.18

U

A A PhA PhA

B0 BO

PhA

SpA

PhA

A

PhA A A A CPhA CPhA PhA A A PhA PhA

Remarks?

G/B0 BO

G/B0

G/B0

G,IBO

G/B0

G 0 G 0 GO G 0 B3 BO G/B0 G/B0 G/B0 G/B0 G/B0

C/TT*

614/l

612/10

61219

61218

1

Tokaj, northeast Tokaj, northeast Tokaj, northeast Tokaj, northeast Tokaj, northeast

61216

61217

northeast northeast northeast

Erdobenye, Erdobtnye, Erdobenye.

61517 615/8 61519

Tokaj, Lower Section northeast Hungary

Upper Section Hungary Upper Section Hungary Upper Section Hungary Upper Section Hungary Upper Section Hungary

Source

Run no.

(30)

I.93

2.32

2.38

2.66

2.66

2.64

2.77 2.80 2.78

Nat%)

2 conrinued

Hungary Hungary Hungary

Appendix

164

332

322

390

352

318

214 237 219

Rb

9.4

12.3

13.1

14.6

12.9

13.8

11.0 10.4 12.0

Cs

118

144

153

227

244

147

462 495 429

Ba

3.48

4.22

4.29

4.87

4.58

4.57

526 5.53 5.28

SC

0.78

0.97

0.95

1.19

I.03

1.00

1.50 1.57 I.49

Fe(%)

0.38

0.29

0.36

0.33

0.30

3.60

4.46

4.11

5.24

4.78

4.86

4.85 5.39 5.63

1.44 1.46 1.48

0.23

Hf

Co

0.75

0.94

0.86

0.98

0.93

1.05

1.03 0.98 1.11

Ta

Tokaj. Tokaj, Tokaj, Tokaj, Tokaj,

Tokaj,

612/6 61217 612/8 612/9 612/10

614/11

Lower

Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper

Erdobenye, Erdobtnye, Erdobenye,

no.

61517 615/8 61519

Run

section

section section section section section

northeast northeast northeast

Source

northeast

northeast northeast northeast northeast northeast Hungary

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

2 continued

Hungary Hungary Hungary

Appendix

(3h)

110.5 103.2 118.9 103.5 105.6 83.4

35-8

82.1 89.5 92.3

44.4 47.3 45.0 44.1 44.4 47.3 43.3 40.3

Ce

La

444

6.33 6.26 6.48 5.58 4.99

4.97 5.96 5.80

‘ b Sm

0.15

0.13 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.13

0.62 0.61 0.62

Eu

0.55

0.75 0.86 0.87 0.65 0.46

0.62 0.76 0.91

Tb

2.27

3.90 2.86 3.17 2.98 2.64

2.97 3.17 3.13

Yb

0.36

0.32 0.31 0.36 0.40 0.43

0.39 0.43 0.40

Lu

23.1

29.7 28.9 31.5 25.9 26.9

26.1 27.4 25.5

Th

3.65

5.86 5.92 6.48 5.17 5.19

5.30 5.43 3.36

U

BO

BO BO BO BO BO

GO G/B0 G/B0

C/TT*

PhA

PhA Ph PhA PhA A

SPhA PhA SPhA

Remarks?

s

E

2

%

g

: SI

TelkibLnya. Telkibinya. Telkibinya. TelkibLnya. Telkibinya,

614/l 61412 61413 61414 61415

northeast northeast northeast northeast northeast

Section Section

Tokaj. Tokaj.

614112 614/13

Lower Lower

Source

Run no.

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

northeast northeast

Appdix

Hungary Hungary

2 conrinud

1.67 1.86 1.72 2.01 2.03

2.15 2.18

Na(%)

(4a)

138 137 142 130 132

162 183

Rb

6.8 5.7 7.1 7.1 7.8

12.4 12.9

Cs

561 587 618 624 597

185 162

Ba

4.90 5.04 7.49 7.35 4.88

3.89 4.00

SC

1.00 0.98 0.89 0.82 0.87

0.83 0.88

Fe(%)

0.68 0.75 0.22 0.22 0.47

0.32 0.55

Co

3.79 4.06 3.78 3.94 3.62

3.77 4.04

Hf

-

0.68 0.72 0.73 0.62 0.60

0.71 0.80

Ta

P

0

c!

Telkibanya Telkibanya Telkibanya Telkibanya Telkibanya

614/l 61412 61413 61414 61415

Lower Lower

Tokaj, Tokaj,

614/12 614/l 3

Run no.

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

northeast northeast

Hungary Hungary

2 rontinurd

(4b)

28.9 36.8 25.1 25.8 28.6

37.1 39.5

La

66.9 83.1 69.4 66.6 66.9

90.4 91.1

Ce

4.20 4.84 4.56 4.66 3.98

4.96 5.11

bSm

0.64 0.65 0.53 0.48 0.52

0.18 0.32

Eu

0.52 0.63 0.83 0.53 0.82

0.49 0.61

Tb

2.67 2.83 2.68 2.93 2.75

2.58 2.63

Yb

0.34 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.30

0.35 0.43

Lu

17.3 18.5 17.2 17.3 17.3

26.2 27.6

Th

3.89 4.01 3.45 3.96 3.93

4.20 3.94

U

GO GO GO BO G/B0

BO BO

C/TT*

Perlitic Perlitic Perlitic Ph (many) Ph(many)

PhA A

Remarks?

*Colour and transparency/translucency scale. Colour: B Black: Br brown; G Grey. Transparency~ translucency scale after Cann and Renfrew (1964). tRemarks: C = Cloudy; S striated; V vesicles; Sp spherulites; Ph phenocrysts; A sample altered hydrated. Each sample analysis is listed over two parts. half the elements in part (a). half the elements in part (b). Means +_S.D. on each source group are given in Table 1.

northeast northeast northeast northeast northeast

Section Section

Source

App~ii.~

or

212

0.

WILLIAMS

THORPE

ET

AL.