Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece

Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 343–349

Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece V. Kilikoglou, Y. Bassiakos, A. P. Grimanis, and K. Souvatzis Laboratory of Archaeometry, N.C.S.R. ‘‘Demokritos’’, Aghia Paraskevi, 15310, Attiki, Greece

A. Pilali-Papasteriou and A. Papanthimou-Papaefthimiou Department of Archaeology, University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece (Received 1 August 1994, revised manuscript accepted 25 May 1995) The excavations at Mandalo in Macedonia, Greece, have produced a remarkably high number of obsidian objects, dated to the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age. Eleven of these samples were analysed by instrumental neutron activation for 19 minor and trace elements, in order to determine their provenance. It was found that all Neolithic and one Bronze Age samples came from the Carpathian 1 source, while another Early Bronze Age sample came from the Demenegaki source in Melos. The overlap between Carpathian and Melian obsidian distributions is evidence for interactions of ancient Macedonia with central Europe and the Aegean. Also, according to this finding, the Carpathian distribution pattern has now been extended for another 400 km to the south, from Vincˇa to Mandalo. ? 1996 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: OBSIDIAN, CARPATHIAN, MELOS, MANDALO, MACEDONIA, INSTRUMENTAL NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS, PROVENANCE.

The white-spotted obsidian from Giali was used for tool making only locally (Sampson, 1984) and was mainly exploited for manufacture of stone vases in Minoan Crete (Renfrew et al., 1965; Aspinall et al., 1972; Renfrew & Aspinall, 1989). Upon the present evidence, Macedonia in Greece is the northernmost boundary of Melian obsidian distribution. In addition, finds of obsidian are rare in Macedonia and Thrace, due to the long distance from the main sources of the material (Melian, Anatolian and central European). Archaeological samples of the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, though still of undiagnostic origin, are known from the Macedonian settlements of Kritsana (Heurtley, 1939), Giannitsa (Chrysostomou, 1989), Dispilio and Makrigialo, whereas a Late Bronze Age flake was found in Thessaloniki Toumba. Moreover, obsidian was reported for the first time in Thrace at the site of Makri (Efstratiou, 1990). Only a few obsidian objects from three Macedonian sites have been studied by chemical analysis and their provenance has been determined. Melian obsidian has been identified in all three—Nea Nikomedeia, Servia and Sitagroi (Figure 1). Specifically sample no. 5016 from Nea Nikomedeia is attributed to Demenegaki, samples no. 5001, 5002 and 438-5 from Sitagroi come from Adamas and no. 437-5 from Demenegaki (Aspinall et al., 1972; Williams Thorpe, Warren & Nandris, 1984b; Renfrew & Aspinall, 1989). The important source of Çiftlik

Introduction bsidian was widespread in southern Greece throughout the Neolithic period and the Early Bronze Age, during which it was still used along with bronze. Only when knowledge of ironworking was brought to the Aegean did obsidian stop being an important raw material (Renfrew, Cann & Dixon, 1965). The earliest use of the obsidian in the prehistoric Aegean is documented by finds at the Franchthi Cave in the Peloponnese dated to the Upper Palaeolithic and Lower Mesolithic period. In other areas, like Thessaly, it is known from the preceramic contexts of Sesklo, Argissa and Soufli Magoula, or from the Early Neolithic levels of Knossos in Crete and Nea Nikomedeia in Macedonia, Greece. Only during the Later Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age did it become popular across southern Greece (Renfrew et al., 1965; Aspinall, Feather & Renfrew, 1972; Jacobsen, 1981). Most of the obsidian found over south and central Greece originates from the two well known Melian sources of Adamas and Demenegaki, as these are the two main sources which provide workable obsidian. Additional sources, albeit less important, are known to be in Antiparos in the Cyclades and Giali in Dodecanese. The main source in Antiparos has produced small quantities of workable obsidian; two pieces have been found at Saliagos island (Renfrew & Aspinall, 1989).

O

343 0305-4403/96/030343+07 $18.00/0

? 1996 Academic Press Limited

344 V. Kilikoglou et al.

Figure 1. Map containing the main areas mentioned in the text. Arrows with broken line indicate obsidian transportation based on previous works, while the ones with continuous are results of the present work.

in Cappadokia has also provided small quantities of obsidian in the Aegean, as indicated by its sporadic occurrence at Sitagroi (sample no. 5003) and Knossos (Aspinall et al., 1972; Renfrew & Aspinall, 1989). However at the site of Mandalo, in western Macedonia, Greece, an unusually high number of obsidian objects has been excavated. The prehistoric site of Mandalo is situated on a tell in the foothills of Mount Paiko, 20 km west of Pella, the ancient capital of the Macedonian kingdom. The site covers an area of 0·2 hectares and is 7 m high. It was systematically excavated in the period 1980–1986 and many remains of the prehistoric settlement were brought to light (Pilali-Papasteriou & Papanthimou-Papaefthimiou, 1989).

A series of 19 radiocarbon dates has defined three main phases of occupation (Maniatis & Kromer, 1990): Phases Ia–Ib and II date between 4600–4000 , which is the end of Late Neolithic period. Phase III coincides with the Early Bronze Age (2950–2200 ). 14C determinations point to a stratigraphic discontinuity between the 5th and the 3rd millennia , which suggest a break in habitation during the 4th millennium . These chronological divisions are compatible with the pottery sequence: fine black-burnished ware prevails in the 5th millennium layers, whereas coarse storage vessels with impressed decoration make up most of the 3rd millennium assemblage. Evidence for architecture is provided by the remains of timber buildings, but no complete reconstruction is possible due to the asymmetrical position and density

Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece 345

of the post holes and the poor preservation of the mud-brick walls (Kotsakis, 1987). By the end of the Late Neolithic period the settlement or at least part of it, was surrounded by a stone wall which has been uncovered at the top of the mound. Technology and craft specialization are represented in Mandalo by large quantities and variety of pottery and other small finds. Numerous loom-weights, spindle-whorls, stone and bone tools are also present. Early metallurgy and use of copper is indicated by a clay crucible from the Late Neolithic layers and a few copper objects including an Early Bronze Age axe. Two burials and a series of female figurines are the main indicators of the community’s ideology. Cultural and chronological links of Mandalo are difficult to establish with certainty. Features like headless figurines, clay cylinders and certain ceramic styles of phase Ib–II seem to associate Mandalo with Suplevec, C { rnobuki, Bakarno Gumno I–II and in particular Maliq II. These groups are usually linked with the first phase of Rachmani culture, Dimini I–IV, Sitagroi III and Late Neolithic of Dikili Tas. Mandalo III can correlate with Sitagroi IV–Va, Pentapolis I–II, the second phase of Early Bronze Age of Dikili Tas, phases 8 and 9–10 of Servia as well as Maliq IIIa, Karanovo VIIa and Ezero B. In this paper eleven obsidian samples from Mandalo were analysed by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). Nine of the samples came from phase II and two from phase III. INAA is the most widely applied analytical technique for obsidian provenance studies (Aspinall et al., 1972; Williams Thorpe et al., 1984a, 1984b; Filippakis et al., 1981). Published analytical data cover most of the known sources of interest and were used here for comparison with the analyses of the obsidian Mandalo samples.

Materials and Methods The archaeological objects studied included blades and implements not exceeding 3 cm in length. Eleven samples were black and semi-transparent, while one was opaque and dark green in colour. No surface patina or pits were observed under the binocular microscope. All samples analysed were chipped off from the archaeological objects and etched in HF (1N) for 10 min in order to remove the outer surface. Then the samples were ground and a 100–200 ìm fraction was taken for analysis. This grain size is small enough to enable samples to take the shape of the vials and avoid geometry problems during measurements. Also this size is large enough to avoid handling difficulties of powdered samples, as for example attachment to the vial wall. Each sample weighing approximately 100 mg was irradiated for 2 h at the Demokritos swimming pool reactor with a thermal neutron flux of 2·7#1013

n.cm "2.s "1. Along with the samples two standards were irradiated: a primary NIST standard, Obsidian Rock and a check USGS standard, AGV-1. After irradiation samples were measured twice. First, 8 days after irradiation, for the determination of Sm, Lu, U, Yb, As, Sb, Na, La and then 3 weeks later for the determination of Ce, Th, Hf, Ba, Cs, Sc, Rb, Fe, Ta, Co and Eu. All elemental concentrations were determined on the basis of the reference material Obsidian Rock, except for La which was determined using AGV. The gamma-ray spectra of standards and samples were analysed with the programme SPECTRAN-AT V4.0 of Canberra Industries.

Results and Discussion The elemental concentrations for all archaeological samples analysed are listed in Table 1. In the same table the excavation record number for each sample and an average percent analytical error for each element, are also listed. The major constituent of the total error was the contribution of counting statistics. Obsidian, unlike other rocks, is usually remarkably homogeneous. However, cases of inhomogeneous elemental distribution within a source have been reported (Bowman, Asaro & Perlman, 1973), but experience has shown that there are no such problems with the central and eastern European, including the Aegean, sources (Shelford et al., 1982). Therefore, the number of samples analysed in a project is not essential to the overall accuracy of the results and the conclusions based on them, at least when one deals with the above sources. In many cases obsidian sources have been chemically characterized with success by analysis of only a few samples and further addition of samples in the group made it more compact (Williams Thorpe et al., 1984b; Carpathian 1 group). Our analytical results were compared with published data for Melos (Renfrew & Aspinall, 1989; Shelford et al., 1982) and central and eastern European sources (Williams Thorpe et al., 1984b). Straightforward comparison of data produced at different laboratories, even if the same analytical technique has been employed, normally introduces additional uncertainties due to the incompatibility among the various reference materials used (Harbottle, 1980). In the case of obsidian there is an additional problem arising from the fact that in many cases the irradiated samples vary widely in shape and mass, seriously affecting the geometry during counting (Aspinall et al., 1972). Therefore, the absolute elemental concentrations produced in this way are practically invalid. In the past, for all the above reasons results have been expressed relative to the concentrations of Sc, as this element is usually determined in obsidian with high precision. The first time that neutron activation data, normalized to Sc, appeared in the bibliography was in the paper of Aspinall et al. (1972), where samples were plotted on the basis of

LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN EBA EBA

7276/BA-BB/86 7168/BA/83 7270 18006/BB/86 7168/BA/83 10235/DA/85 7263/BA/85 16006/BB/86 7258/BA/85 14034/EA/85 8161/BB/83

Error (%)

Date

Sample

3

2·83 2·61 3·25 2·65 2·69 2·67 3·16 3·05 2·49 2·65 3·40

Na

4

210 180 180 190 200 200 180 170 190 210 120

Rb

4

12·9 10·1 10·9 11·9 12·0 12·0 11·0 9·6 10·0 11·3 4·05

Cs

5

570 550 520 630 590 620 580 550 570 680 640

Ba

1

3·39 3·25 3·22 3·48 3·37 3·60 3·28 3·34 3·21 3·55 2·34

Sc

2

0·72 0·69 0·67 0·75 0·72 0·78 0·77 0·78 0·71 0·81 1·09

Fe

6

0·24 0·32 0·30 0·22 0·21 0·42 0·37 0·50 0·48 0·33 1·29

Co

5

2·77 2·74 2·73 2·97 2·67 2·79 2·92 2·65 2·86 3·10 4·13

Hf

9

1·5 1·1 1·4 1·3 1·3 1·3 1·2 1·1 1·3 1·3 0·9

Ta

15

0·4 0·3 0·4 0·3 0·2 0·4 0·4 0·3 0·3 0·3 0·2

Sb

2

22·7 25·7 26·8 23·8 29·3 24·0 26·2 26·7 24·1 27·9 25·4

La

Table 1. Elemental concentrations in ppm (Na and Fe in %) of the archaeological samples. The error values are average

4

51·7 54·1 56·8 55·4 66·2 58·4 54·6 62·7 55·1 64·9 46·6

Ce

5

4·98 4·54 4·64 4·71 5·18 4·62 4·60 5·44 4·43 3·20 3·15

Sm

8

0·32 0·31 0·36 0·30 0·37 0·39 0·29 0·33 0·40 0·42 0·63

Eu

15

0·7 0·7 0·7 0·7 0·6 0·7 0·6 0·8 0·7 0·7 0·6

Tb

6

3·24 3·33 3·25 3·38 3·09 3·02 3·40 3·26 3·27 3·02 2·53

Yb

6

0·42 0·49 0·48 0·39 0·37 0·39 0·48 0·47 0·38 0·42 0·41

Lu

3

16·2 16·3 17·1 16·5 19·2 16·7 15·9 16·2 15·2 19·2 14·1

Th

7

9·7 8·9 9·0 9·3 8·0 9·2 8·5 8·7 8·9 8·5 3·8

U

346 V. Kilikoglou et al.

Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece 347

Figure 2. Discrimination among the sources of interest after Williams Thorpe et al. (1984b). -: The archaeological samples from Mandalo; ;: geological samples from Carpathia and Melos.

two discriminate factors: one was a linear combination of the concentrations of the elements Cs, Ta, Rb, Th, La, Ce normalized to Sc and the other the ratio Fe/Sc. Since then, these factors have been used extensively because they provide satisfactory discriminative power among the Aegean, central European, Italian and some Anatolian sources (Williams Thorpe et al., 1984b), while there were cases where even simple— two element—plots were successful (Hallam, Warren & Renfrew, 1976; Williams Thorpe et al., 1984a; discrimination among the Italian sources). The archaeological samples from Mandalo were placed in the plot of Figure 2 (circles), originally produced by Williams Thorpe et al. (1984b) and contained the fields of the main eastern Mediterranean and Anatolian sources. It can be seen that ten (all Neolithic and one Bronze Age) out of the 11 samples are clearly clustered with the Carpathian 1 source while one (Early Bronze Age) with the Melos D (Demenegaki) source. In order to overcome possible uncertainties due to any systematic errors that might be present in our analyses and also to check our analyses against the existing bibliography, seven geological samples were analysed. Two coming from Melos A (Adamas), two from Melos D (Demenegaki) and three from Carpathian 1 (Vinicˇky and Cejkov in Slovakia) taken from the ‘‘Lithotheca’’ collection of the Hungarian National Museum. The results of these analyses are in Table 2, along with the collection code numbers of the Slovakian samples. All these samples have also been included in Figure 2 (diamonds). It is clear from the plot that the geological samples plot securely in the fields that correspond to the geographical areas where the samples come from. However, better assignment of the samples to their places of origin can only be done after element-to-element comparison, as a plot does not usually contain 100% of the information. Also the discrimination of Carpathian 1 group from 2a and

2b is essential in terms of accurate location of the source and Figure 2 does not offer complete discrimination. Comparisons with published average values of Williams Thorpe et al. (1984b), especially of the elements that most discriminate Carpathian 1 and 2 (Sc, La, Ce, Th), confirmed the match between Mandalo and the Carpathian 1 source. Only the concentrations of Sm are not compatible with the above values, which can be explained by the interference of the high U values (about 10 ppm) to the 103 KeV 153Sm peak. This, and not the counting statistics, is also the main reason for the relatively high error (8%) that Sm has been determined with. For the Melos-Demenegakiassignment the average values of Shelford et al. (1982) were used and again there was an acceptable agreement among all the elements. The results of this work can shed some light on the provenance and distribution patterns of obsidian in the prehistory. However, they should be considered qualitatively because the Mandalo samples analysed may not be representative of the whole sequence. Nevertheless the fact that all the nine Late Neolithic come from Carpathian 1 shows a definite preference to this source before the Bronze Age. Carpathian obsidian has been widely used in central Europe and the Balkans, but its presence in Greece is now for the first time attested at Mandalo, where nine samples of Carpathian origin date to phase II (4600– 4100 ). We are probably dealing with the earliest evidence of use of Carpathian obsidian in western Macedonia and this fact has to be considered within the context of cultural contacts between the Balkans and Mandalo. The archaeological data currently available suggest some cultural affinities observed in pottery, figurines and cylinders, which connect Mandalo with prehistoric settlements like Maliq, Suplevec and C { rnobuki. We should note that the above sites have not provided up to now evidence of use of Carpathian obsidian, whose southernmost boundary has so far been Vincˇa (Carpathian 1), Veliki Popovic´ (Carpathian 1) and Divostin (Carpathian 1 and 2a) (Williams Thorpe et al., 1984b). Whether the distribution of this material was part of an organized exchange network or occasional reciprocal exchange among elite groups of eminent individuals, is difficult to say. For the present time it is reasonable to assume that Carpathian obsidian was redistributed through Vincˇa further south along the river routes (Chapman, 1981). Carpathian 1 source, most commonly used in the Neolithic, provided obsidian that was used for longdistance exportation (Williams Thorpe et al., 1984b). This type of obsidian is also found in the Grotta Tartaruga and Sammardenchia in north Italy (Williams Thorpe et al., 1979, 1984b; Randle, Barfield & Bagolini, 1993). Both sites are considered to be the furthest appearances of this type of obsidian and there is co-existence with Liparian obsidian. The Early Bronze Age at Mandalo marks a decrease in the use of Carpathian obsidian. On the other hand,

Source

Adamas Adamas Demenegaki Demenegaki Cejkov Vinicˇki Vinicˇki

Sample

AD1 AD2 DE1 DE2 L86/187 L86/191 L86/189

3·13 3·09 3·06 3·03 2·80 2·71 2·51

Na

130 130 120 120 200 210 190

Rb 4·21 4·46 3·99 4·06 12·0 10·1 10·7

Cs 680 720 650 670 620 570 530

Ba 1·64 1·63 2·29 2·28 3·36 3·17 3·30

Sc 0·84 0·85 1·08 1·06 0·71 0·78 0·75

Fe 0·67 0·61 1·18 1·22 0·31 0·54 0·38

Co 3·69 3·51 3·95 4·00 2·39 2·70 2·80

Hf 1·0 0·9 1·1 0·9 1·5 1·4 1·4

Ta 0·2 0·2 0·2 0·3 0·2 0·3 0·4

Sb 22·8 22·9 23·5 23·5 26·2 26·9 27·7

La 48·3 48·3 46·7 46·4 55·9 62·5 57·2

Ce

3·45 2·66 2·60 3·34 2·77 2·93 4·80

Sm

0·49 0·48 0·56 0·58 0·41 0·47 0·39

Eu

0·5 0·5 0·6 0·6 1·7 1·6 1·4

Tb

2·42 2·41 2·51 2·32 3·37 3·17 3·00

Yb

Table 2. Elemental concentrations in ppm (Na and Fe in %) of the source samples. The analytical errors are approximately the same as the ones included in Table 1

0·36 0·38 0·33 0·41 0·48 0·43 0·46

Lu

15·2 15·5 13·8 14·1 16·6 17·4 15·2

Th

3·7 3·3 3·6 3·2 11·0 9·7 8·7

U

348 V. Kilikoglou et al.

Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece 349

Melian obsidian now occurs for the first time, thus suggesting an increasing influence of Aegean cultures. It is worth noting that Mandalo is the first site where Melian obsidian overlaps with Carpathian, despite the fact that only one piece was found to be of Melian origin. Aegean links can be discerned in other categories of archaeological record such as figurines (Papanthimou & Papasteriou, 1989). It is possible that Melian obsidian reached western Macedonia through the north-east Aegean and eastern Macedonia as suggested by the archaeological finds from sites in those regions, though continental routes, via Thessaly, may have been also used (Renfrew et al., 1965). Further research on obsidian provenance of the other Macedonian and Thracian sites, as well as their adjacent areas, where obsidian has been reported, will contribute significantly to the understanding of the mobility of this material as well as mechanisms of exchange and cultural interactions between central Europe and the Aegean. The overlapping of Carpathian and Melian obsidian distributions at Mandalo is a starting point.

Conclusions (1) Nine Late Neolithic and two Early Bronze Age obsidian objects from Mandalo, in Macedonia, Greece, were analysed by INAA. It was found that all nine Late Neolithic and one Early Bronze Age samples have Carpathian 1 provenance, while the other Bronze Age originates from the Demenegaki source in Melos, which probably shows a preference to the Carpathian source before the Bronze Age. (2) The distribution area of Carpathian obsidian has now been extended for another 400 km to the south, from Vincˇa to Mandalo and it is the first time that Aegean and central European obsidian distributions have been found to overlap. This is also the greatest distance of any obsidian object from the Carpathian source area. (3) Contacts of Mandalo with the Balkans and the Aegean during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age are also attested in pottery. Furthermore, it could be suggested that Carpathian obsidian reached Mandalo via Vincˇa through the river routes, while Melian obsidian through north-east Aegean or continental routes.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Dr Katalin Takacs-Biro of the Hungarian National Museum for providing the obsidian from the Carpathian sources.

References Aspinall, A., Feather, S. W. & Renfrew, C. (1972). Neutron activation analysis of Aegean obsidians. Nature 237, 333–334.

Bowman, H. R., Asaro, F. & Perlman, I. (1973). Compositional variations in obsidian sources and archaeological implications. Archaeometry 15, 123–127. Chapman, J. (1981). The Vinca culture of south-east Europe. Oxford: BAR 117. Chrysostomou, P. (1989). O neolithikos oikismos ton Giannitson B. To archeologiko ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 3, 119–130. Efstratiou, N. (1990). Neoteres erevnes sto neolithiko oikismo tis Makris: anaskafiki periodos 1990. To archeologiko ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 4, 595–612. Filippakis, S. E., Grimanis, A. P. & Perdikatsis, B. (1981). X-ray and NAA of obsidian from Kitsos Cave. Science and Archaeology 23, 21–26. Hallam, B. R., Warren, S. E. & Renfrew, C. (1976). Obsidian in the western Mediterranean: characterization by neutron activation analysis and optical emission spectroscopy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 85–110. Harbottle, G. (1980). Provenience studies using neutron activation analysis: the role of standardization. In (J. Olin & A. Franklin, Eds) Archaeological Ceramics. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 67–77. Heurtley, W. A. (1939). Prehistoric Macedonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobsen, T. W. (1981). The beginning of settled village life in Greece. Hesperia 50, 303–319. Kotsakis, K. (1987). Apokatastasi katopseon passalopikton oikimaton me te voethia electronikou ypologiste stin anaskah tou Mandalou D. Makedonias. In Eilapini tomos timitikos gia ton kathigiti N. Platona. Vikelaia Vivliotheke Demos Herakliou: Heraklion, pp. 117–124. Maniatis, Y. & Kromer, B. (1990). Radiocarbon dating of the Neolithic Early Bronze Age of Mandalo, W Macedonia. Radiocarbon 32, 149–153. Papanthimou, A. & Papasteriou, A. (1989). O proistorikos oikismos sto Mandalo: Nea stoichia stin proistoria tis Dytikis Makedonias. In Archea Makedonia: 5o diethnes symposio. Idrima Meleton Hersonnesou tou Aimou: Thessaloniki, pp. 1207–1211. Pilali-Papasteriou, A. & Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou, A. (1989). Nees anaskafikes erevnes sto Mandalo Dytikis Makedonias. In Egnatia 1, Epistimoniki Epetiris Philosophikis Scholis Panepistimiou Thessalonikis Panepistonio Thessalonikis: Thessaloniki, pp. 17–27. Randle, K., Barfield, L. H. & Bagolini, B. (1993). Recent Italian obsidian analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 503–509. Renfrew, C., Cann, J. R. & Dixon, J. E. (1965). Obsidian in the Aegean. Annual of the British School at Athens 66, 225–247. Renfrew, C. & Aspinall, A. (1989). Aegean obsidian and Franchthi cave. In (T. W. Jacobsen, Ed.) Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fascicle 5, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 257–279. Sampson, A. (1984). O opsianos tis Nisirou kai i diadosi tou sto Aegeo. Anthropologika 5, 63–74. Shelford, P., Hodson, F., Cosgrove, M. E., Warren, S. E. & Renfrew, C. (1982). The obsidian trade: the sources and characterisation of Melian obsidian. In (C. Renfrew & J. M. Wagstaff, Eds) An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–192. Williams Thorpe, O., Warren, S. E. & Barfield, L. H. (1979). The sources and distribution of archaeological obsidian in Northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina 15, 73–92. Williams Thorpe, O., Warren, S. E. & Courtin, J. (1984a). The distribution and sources of archaeological obsidian from southern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 135–146. Williams Thorpe, O., Warren, S. E. & Nandris, J. G. (1984b). The distribution and provenance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 183–212.