lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Lithic raw material procurement at BodrogkeresztúreHenyeGravettian site, northeast Hungary

Gy€orgy Lengyel*

Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Institute of History, Faculty of Arts, University of Miskolc, Egyetemv�aros utca 1, 3515 Miskolc-Egyetemv�aros,Hungary

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 7 August 2014

Keywords:GravettianLithic raw materialProcurement strategyCurated tool kitAdaptive behavior

* Tel.: þ36 46 565 223.E-mail address: bolengyu@uni-miskolc.hu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.0271040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

a b s t r a c t

The Carpathian basin provides abundant lithic raw material sources for stone tools. In spite of theirabundance, Gravettian lithic assemblages contain raw materials from north and east of the Carpathians.BodrogkeresztúreHenye assemblage from Northeastern Hungary is one of the sites yielding an exoticstone assemblage. The procurement strategy of these raw materials has not been discussed until now inthe theoretical background of forager societies. The present study demonstrates that Gravettian lithicprocurement strategy was opportunistic, most probably embedded in daily foraging, and the technologywas adapted to the natural stone environment and anticipated needs during mobility. Although theexotic stones are of high quality and apparently the result of thorough selectivity, those seem to havebeen acquired with the same strategy, and the reason why those are present in the BodrogkeresztúreHenye assemblage is that they were taken as a mobile toolkit, and arrived at the site exposed tocuration for a long time.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The territory of the Carpathian basin is abundant in siliceousrock formations which were the most frequent raw material sour-ces for stone tools of Palaeolithic (Bir�o, 1988, 2009, 2010; Bir�o andDobosi, 1991; Bir�o et al., 2000; Kasztovszky et al., 2008; Dobosi,2009; Szeksz�ardi et al., 2010; Mester et al., 2012). Besides thelocal sources, Upper Paleolithic societies exploited exotic sourceslocated north and east of the Carpathians, hundreds of kilometersaway from the sites in Hungary (Sim�an, 1989; Bir�o, 2009; Dobosi,2009). Exotic raw materials are usually underrepresented in thearchaeological assemblages, but in exceptional cases those maysignificantly outnumber local materials in the lithic assemblage(Dobosi and K€ovecseseVarga, 1991).

The BodrogkeresztúreHenye Gravettian site in NortheastHungary represents one of the assemblages that include exotic rawmaterials. Although their number is low compared with the localmaterials, exotic stones have been argued to represent exchange ofgoods, indirect connections between the source areas and the site,and proofs of control over raw material sources at distant locations(Sim�an, 1989, 1990, 1996; Dobosi, 1997, 2000, 2009; Bir�o et al.,

reserved.

2000; Bir�o, 2009). These contradictory arguments however werebased on “guesses” (Dobosi, 1997), instead of discussing thearchaeological data in the topic of lithic raw material procurement(Andrefsky, 2009).

Lithic procurement studies are often interested in the way thesources were exploited and the stones transported to the residen-tial base of hunteregatherers. Classically, it can be explained withembedded and/or direct procurement strategies (Binford, 1979;Gould and Saggers, 1985). Embedded procurement operateswithin subsistence activity mostly in the foraging area of the resi-dential camp (Binford, 1980; Kelly, 1983), and therefore, local rawmaterial dominance in the archaeological assemblage couldstraightforwardly represent this strategy. The neutral model ofprocurement also shows that materials environmentally abundantin the foraging area have a higher probability of being procured andhence they may dominate the archaeological assemblage. Mostprobably, ecological factors such as optimal foraging strategies in-fluence stone raw material procurement patterns (Brantingham,2003).

The embedded procurement model does not involve issues howraw materials were selected and whether there is any effect of thedistance between the site and the source on the procurement.Because subsistence activity can take place anywhere resources areavailable, people may bring lithic materials far from the locus oftheir discard even with an embedded strategy (Binford, 1979). This

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303 293

may occur during residential mobility, but task groups exploitingthe logistical radius of the residential base with forays may alsocarry exotic materials even from considerable distances (Binford,1982).

Raw material sources generally are distributed in patches in thelandscape, and they provide a wide range of stones(F�ebloteAugustins, 1997; Duke and Steele, 2010). Various litho-logical environments contain siliceous rocks of different characters(Luedtke, 1992), among which the prime variance is given by thefracturing properties, the quality, which usually affects the lithictechnology (Crabtree, 1972; Goodyear, 1979; Bradbury et al., 2008;Tixier, 2012).

The direct procurement model shows that people may launchlithic forays to exploit raw material sources in a considerable dis-tance if those provide higher quality stones than the sources nearthe residential base (Gould and Saggers, 1985). When high qualitystones characterize the local sources, the lithic assemblages doesnot tend to contain exotic stones (Andrefsky, 1994a, 1994b;F�ebloteAugustins, 2009), unless those are acquired through socialevents or symbolic behavior (Gould,1968; Gould et al., 1971). Directprocurement model assumes that the archaeological assemblagedominated by high quality distant raw material depicts theawareness of the positive technological consequences of highquality stones in the production and the use of stone tools (Beckand Jones, 1990). The decision concerning which raw materialsource is to be exploited can also rely on more complex factors thanthe technology alone. The attractiveness of the source can be givenby its abundance, accessibility, stone knapping quality, the diffi-culty of terrain, the size of the stones, and the costs of extraction(Wilson, 2007). The neutral model of lithic procurement nonethe-less illustrates that a bias towards certain raw material types in thearchaeological assemblage cannot only be the result of a specializedstrategy. Foraging paths passing raw material sources may causebiased procurement (Brantingham, 2003).

Because foragers do not leave their sites without tools,another agent responsible for travelling the raw material is thecuration of personal gears of stone tools (Binford, 1979;Bamforth, 1986; Kuhn, 1992, 1994). Curation is needed to beplanned ahead as foragers often move over large areas (Kelly,2013), because the lithic source distribution does not always fitthe path of mobility (Bamforth, 1986; Andrefsky, 1994a; Wilson,2007). The room for the transportable material is generally fixed(Brantingham, 2003), and therefore the curation is about maxi-mizing the number of tools from the least amount of raw ma-terial. Curation usually takes the advantage of the smoothfracturing character of high quality isotropic material. This pro-vides efficient technological productivity, and conditions forsuccessful, continuous reesharpening of tools to prolong theiroperations as long as possible (Bamforth, 1986; Kuhn, 1992;Andrefsky, 1994b; Brantingham et al., 2000; Bradbury et al.,2008). The size of the tools in the curated personal gear issupposed to be small (Kuhn, 1994), although large tools alsowould be suitable (Morrow, 1996). In spite of the initial size ofthe tools or the material, lengthy curation commonly consumesthe volume of the material through intensified reduction, whichis either a nodule or a kit of flakes (Newman, 1994; Brantingham,2003). The duration of curation is also related with the distancebetween the source and the locus of discard. Accordingly, thecurated tool kit decays with distance (Wilson, 2007). Universalfeatures of distant raw materials curated in the archaeologicalassemblages compared with the locally available materials arefewer number, lesser weight, higher rate of productivity, effi-ciency, intensive reduction, and higher quality.

Models related with lithic procurement strategy offer ways toexplain the presence of exotic raw materials in the

BodrogkeresztúreHenye assemblage. Relying on the given theo-retical options, this study aims at uncovering the procurementstrategy in relations among raw material accessibility, availability,quality, and the consumption of material by the technologicalprocess.

2. Method

Raw material accessibility and availability is studied withsource identification using the comparative collection of theHungarian National Museum (Bir�o and Dobosi, 1991; Bir�o et al.,2000) and the lithic raw material reference database of E€otv€osLor�and University, Budapest (Mester, 2013). The principal of thesiteesource distance relation is that if a raw material type hadmore than one source and differentiating them is impossible,then the closest source is regarded as the locus of exploitation.“Flint” is reserved for those silicites appearing as nodules inmarine sedimentary lithological environments (G€otze, 2010;P�richystal, 2010). For other siliceous rocks, I follow Hungarianterminological standards (Bir�o and Dobosi, 1991; Bir�o et al.,2000; Bir�o, 2010).

The location of lithic sources is divided into three zones (Bir�oand Dobosi, 1991): local, regional, and remote. The limits of zonesare drawn by the results of lithic source identification. Local ma-terials are located within ~10 km radius of the site. Regional rawmaterials are located from ~40 km to ~80 km from the site. Remotesources are located north and east to the range of the Carpathians,between ~230 km and ~420 km distance from the site.

Rawmaterial quality is related to theworkability of stone duringknapping. It is divided into two relative classes which are based onan experimental study of the BodrogkeresztúreHenye assemblage(Lengyel, 2013). The experiments pointed out that stones of het-erogeneous texture provided lower knapping quality and produc-tion rate of blades compared with stones of isotropic texture. Iclassify materials having homogeneous fine grained texture as su-perior quality, and materials that have uneven grain size structure,fissures, and cavities, as inferior quality.

To study the rate of consumption by the technology, thearchaeological assemblage is divided into four main categories of ageneral Upper Palaeolithic technology: blades, flakes, debris, andcores (Inizan et al., 1999). All categories include complete andbroken specimens and formal tools. This division regards the bladesas the purpose of the lithic production because Gravettian assem-blages are dominated by blade technology including blade toolpreponderance (Kozłowski and Sobczyk, 1987; Hromada andKozłowski, 1995; Sobczyk, 1996; Kazior et al., 1998; Dobosi, 2000;Kozłowski, 2000; �Za�ar, 2007; Nov�ak, 2008; Noiret, 2009). The cat-egories of flakes, debris, and cores are regarded as auxiliary in therealization of the blade production. Because of this approach, corerejuvenation elements (Inizan et al., 1999) are sorted into thecategory of flakes. “Blades” includes artifacts regardless of thetwofold division bladeebladelet.

The ratio of blades within the given raw material group is ex-pected to show the consumption rate: the higher the ratio, thegreater the consumption. This also relates to the productivity andefficiency of the technology. The proportions are measured byweight because it expresses volume of raw materials regardless toissues of fragmentation. I use counts and calculate frequency toshow the consumption of blanks for formal tools.

Formal tools are classified into four groups: endscrapers, burins,edge retouched tools, and armature. Edge retouched tools includesartifacts with edge retouch, notch, denticulation, and splinteredspecimens. Armature includes backed tools, points, and trunca-tions, all of which could have been parts of a hunting weaponry.

Table 1Composition of the lithic assemblage.

Frequency Percent

Blade 895 30.1Flake 1223 41.1Laminar core 132 4.4Flake core 55 1.8Core platform rejuvenation 49 1.6Blade tool 215 7.2Flake tool 171 5.7Debris 236 7.9Total 2976 100.0

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303294

3. The material

The Gravettian site is located on a small hill, Henye, east of thevillage Bodrogkeresztúr in Northeast Hungary. The village sits atthe southwestern extremity of the TokajePre�sov Mountains, northof the volcanic cone of Mount Tokaj, at the edge of the PannonianPlain (Fig. 1).

Two excavations, in 1963 and in 1982 (Fig. 2), and several fieldsurveys collected the archaeological material of Bodrogker-esztúreHenye (V�ertes,1966; Dobosi, 2000). Both excavations foundthe loess stratigraphy disturbed by agriculture (Dobosi, 2000,68e78). A few burnt loess surfaces may have marked undisturbedarchaeological horizons which yielded ~3% of the total assemblage.These finds typologically and technologically are similar to thoserecovered in disturbed finding contexts (Dobosi, 2000). Theradiocarbon dating of the site to 28e26 ka BP was considered un-reliable because of unrelated samples and archaeological finds(Lengyel, 2008e2009).

This study derives the lithic assemblage from both excavationcampaigns, including finds from the surface of the trenches, fromthe disturbed matrix, and from the poorly preserved archaeologicallayer. Although the archaeological integrity of the assemblage islow due to taphonomic issues, I suppose the lithics compose a

Fig. 1. Location of Bodro

whole assemblage because of the absence of archaeological findsother than Gravettian and the uniform typological and technolog-ical composition of finds from disturbed and undisturbed contexts.

The lithic technology is characterized by laminar production(Table 1). Most tools were made on blades. Chronologically infor-mative tool types are the fl�echette, microgravette, backed bladelet,shouldered blade, Vachons point, and variants of back-edetruncated bladelets (Figs. 3 and 4) (Demars and Laurent, 1992).These artifacts show strong similarity to the typology of the lateperiod of the Gravettian (�Za�ar, 2007; Wilczy�nski et al., 2015).

gkeresztúreHenye.

Fig. 2. Excavation trenches at the site (Dobosi, 2000; Fig. 5).

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303 295

4. Results

Local materials comprise ~90% of the total weight of theassemblage (Table 2). These are the “stone marrow” (SM), limnicquartzite (LQ), and obsidian of Carpathian 2 type (OC2) (Fig. 5).

Table 2The frequency of raw materials (%) in the assemblage by artifact categories. B e

blade, F e flake, D e debris, C e core.

Access Raw material B F D C Total % Total gramm

Local SM 4.7 26.2 7.4 14.4 52.8 20,349LQ 4.9 10.4 4.5 10.9 30.7 11,830OC2 0.5 2.1 0.0 4.0 6.7 2582Subtotal 10.2 38.7 12.0 29.3 90.1 34,761

Regional OC1 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.3 2.2 830RAD 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.1 2.8 1084FP 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 217BC 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.9 329Subtotal 1.5 2.3 0.4 2.3 6.4 2460

Remote PF 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 3.7 1420SF 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 66JF 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 162SWF 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21Subtotal 2.9 1.2 0.2 0.1 4.3 1669Total 14.5 42.1 12.6 31.6 100.0 38,561

SM and LQ are available from small to large size debris on thefield due to the decomposition of their originally banks and beds of~0.1e1.0 m thick. OC2 is nodular but most specimens are smallerthan ~5 cm. SM and LQ have inferior quality, because their textures

are heterogeneous, which is due to sharp and random grain sizechange from fine to coarse in the same block, and also to that blocksinclude minor cavities and fissures. OC2 has superior quality due tofine, homogeneous, and glossy texture.

SM, LQ, and OC2 represent all the possible siliceous rockssources in the local zone (Bir�o and Dobosi, 1991; Bir�o et al., 2000;Bir�o et al., 2005; Szeksz�ardi et al., 2010). Also, the ratio of mate-rials in the assemblage signifies the natural abundance of lithicsources because the inferior quality materials are dominant in thelocal zone (Bir�o, 1988; B�acskay, 1995; Lengyel, 2013).

Regional raw materials make up 5.5% of the total assemblage.These are the obsidian of Carpathian 1 type (OC1) of Vini�cky inEastern Slovakia, the radiolarite (RAD) and the black menilitic chert(BC) from the Carpathians (Valde-Nowak, 1991; Kaminsk�a et al.,2000; Kaminsk�a, 2001, 2013; P�richystal, 2013), and the felsitic por-phyry (FP) of eastern BükkMountains (V�ertes and T�oth, 1963;Mark�oet al., 2003; T�oth, 2011). RAD and BC artifacts have pebble cortex, andtherefore they are supposed to originate in either Pleistocene orolder river gravels south of their primary sources (Kaminsk�a, 2013).OC1 have similar features to OC2, but Neolithic archaeological as-semblages prove that nodules ~15 cm were available (Kasztovszkyet al., 2014). Besides these exceptional instances, most OC1 speci-mens are small, similar to OC2 (Williams and Nandris, 1977;Tak�acseBir�o, 1986; Kaminsk�a, 2013). RAD is also of fine grained su-perior quality. BC is homogeneous but coarse grained. FP has het-erogeneous graining, fissures, and also is densely laminated.

The availability of regional materials is diverse. OC1 is similar toOC2. RAD and BC may be rare in river gravels because these ma-terials are underrepresented in the geology of the Carpathians

Fig. 3. Stone tools made of flint raw material: 1 e crest fragment; 2, 5, 12 e baked-truncated blade; 3 e Vachons point; 4, 6, 8, 13 e burin; 7 e end-scraperetruncation; 9, 14 e

retouched blade; 10 e fl�echette; 11 e end-scraper.

Fig. 4. Tools made of limnic quartzite (1e8), Carpathian obsidian type 2 (9), stone marrow (10, 15), and Carpathian obsidian type 1 (11e14): 1 e baked-truncated blade; 2 e

fl�echette; 3 e pointed blade; 4, 11, 12, 14 e end-scraper; 5, 15 e blank blade; 6 e retouched blade; 7, 9 e backed blade; 8 e Vachons point; 13 e microgravette; 10 e burin.

Fig. 5. Raw material sources of Henye assemblage and major Late Gravettian sites. 1 e Krak�oweSpadzista; 2 e Jaksice II; 3 e Ka�sov; 4 e Molodova V.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303298

(P�richystal, 2013: 118e125). FP, at its primary source and in streambeds cutting through FP beds, is extensively available (T�oth, 2011).

Raw materials from the regional zone do not represent all theavailable sources. LQ outcrops are located at several areas of theTokajePre�sovMountains, and streams often erode blocks of varioussizes (Bir�o, 1988; Sim�an, 1995a; Kaminsk�a, 2013). Although thedifferentiation of LQ subtypes is difficult (Szeksz�ardi et al., 2010),except for probably a few items from Korl�at, all the middle andnorthern TokajePre�sov sources seem to be unrepresented in theassemblage. Outside the TokajePre�sov Mountains, silicites ofsouthern Bükk Mountains origin (Tak�acseBir�o, 1986), silicite ofAvas Hill at Miskolc (Sim�an, 1995b; Hartai and Szak�all, 2005), all

Fig. 6. Proportions of artifacts by

located near FP sources, and other siliceous rocks found inGravettian context on the eastern foothills of Bükk Mountains(Ringer and Holl�o, 2001) are missing at Henye.

Remote raw materials make up 4.3% of the total assemblage.These are flint types found between the Oder and Prut rivers northof the Carpathians. All are homogeneous fine grained materials ofsuperior quality.

Erratic Silesian flint (SF) and �Swieciech�ow flint (SWF) with theirprime sources in Silesia and the Holy Cross Mountains in Poland(Balcer, 1976; Dmochowski, 2006), respectively, are also present inglacial sediments east of Krak�ow near the Jurassic flint (JF) sourcesof Krak�oweCzestochowa plateau (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski,

weight according to distance.

Fig. 7. Proportions of raw materials by quality according to distance.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303 299

1976;Wilczy�nski et al., 2015). This areamay be the limit of northernremote raw material sourcing. The closest eastern flint sources arelocated at the PruteDniester (PF). Compared with data publishedearlier (Dobosi, 2000), most of the BodrogkeresztúreHenye flintspecimens are PF instead of erratic sources. PF thus makes up 3.7%of the total assemblage.

Remote flints are available as nodules of various sizes. JF hasabundant outcrops at several locations (Kaczanowska andKozłowski, 1976), and the glacial sediments near JF prime sourcesmay contain small amount of SWF and SF (Wilczy�nski et al., 2015).PF sources are abundant (Bir�o, 2011). The archaeological items donot represent all the siliceous rock sources betweenKrak�oweCzestochowa plateau and PruteDniester upper valleys inthe remote area (Mester et al., 2012; Mester and Farag�o, 2013;P�richystal, 2013; Valde-Nowak, 2013).

The ratio of artifact types from the three regions is inconsistent(Fig. 6). From the regional zone to the local zone, the ratio of coresseems to slightly increase, but the ratio of blades is doubled, whileflakes and debris decrease. The remote zone shows a significant

Fig. 8. Consumption of blanks for tools. Percent of formal tools with

change in the distance continuum. Blades abruptly raise and highlydominate over the other technological categories. Other categoriesdiminish or disappear (Table 2).

A similar tendency is shown regarding the ratio of superiorquality that increases parallel with the distance (Fig. 7). Conse-quently, the blade ratio co-rises with superior quality ratio byprocurement zones while the other three categories decrease.

The blank consumption also significantly changes towards theremote materials. The use of both flakes and blades increases in thetoolkit towards remote materials which means that ~40% of theremote blades and 25% of remote flakes are formal tools (Fig. 8).However, in absolute numbers, most of the blade and flake tools aremade of local materials and after a drastic drop in number at theregional zone, remote blades reach almost the same number aslocal blades in the toolkit (Fig. 9).

The distribution of length measurements is uneven by rawmaterial zone (Fig. 10, Table 3). The sizes of flakes and especially thecores markedly decrease from local to remote zones. A similartendency is visible for the blank blades, while the formal blade tools

in the total number of blades and flakes by raw material zones.

Fig. 9. The number of tools by blanks by raw material zones.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303300

seem to slightly increase in length together with the distance. Thenaturally small-sized obsidian affects the length data distribution,decreasing the regional blade tools median by ~1 cm.

Table 3Counts, mean length, and standard deviation for Fig. 10.

N Meanlength [mm]

Std. Deviation

Blade Local Blank 192 50.8 18.2Formal tool 86 42.7 23.3

Regional Blank 25 41.8 15.9Formal tool 38 42.6 20.9

Remote Blank 25 37.3 16.2Formal tool 86 46.6 21.4

Core Local 150 47.3 19.8Regional 17 39.1 11.7Remote 5 35.8 5.4

Flake Local Blank 387 39.3 16.7Formal tool 104 46.8 19.4

Regional Blank 48 28.8 10.9Formal tool 42 32.3 9.5

Remote Blank 38 29.5 10.0Formal tool 25 36.5 13.6

Fig. 10. Boxplot of artifacts length data [mm] by raw material zones, and blanks andformal tools. Numbers at the boxes show median. Further data related to this diagramare in Table 3.

The proportion of tool types by procurement zone broken downby quality classes shows local and regional materials are assembledin the retouched tools class accompanied by endscrapers, while thedistant material tool kit primarily consist of burins with a strongcomponent of retouched tools (Fig. 11). The armature is always theleast.

5. Discussion

The preponderance of easily accessible materials from theforaging radius of the site, the good correspondence between thespectrum of raw material types in the archaeological assemblageand the natural sources, and the lack of rawmaterial preference canbe related with an embedded procurement (Binford, 1979) or witha neutral procurement strategy (Brantingham, 2003). In theregional zone, which corresponds to the logistical radius of ahunteregatherer residential camp, the materials seem to be bias-edly selected towards superior quality. Other, generally inferiorquality sources, were omitted. Selectivity could represent a directprocurement. However, if the weight of lithic rawmaterial from theregional zone is the archaeological representation of lithic supplyby task groups which are supposed to bring considerable amountsof goods (Binford, 1980), then these territories must have beenrarely or not exploited through direct procurement.

In comparison to the local materials, the ratio of the four tech-nological categories of the regional materials is more similar thandifferent. Although these materials are predominantly of superiorquality, the tool type composition of regional zone is unbiased to-wards any type compared to the local tool kit that is also dominatedby retouched tools. This also refutes a direct procurement strategy.

The blade productivity only slightly increases towards theregional zone while the ratio of the other three artifact categorieshardly changes. Only the consumption of blanks for tools shows atendency of linear increase. This could be the result of the durationof raw material consumption. The most likely routes heading northto pass through the Carpathians are the Hern�ad and the Ondavavalleys. The former includes radiolarite secondary sources, and thelatter can be reached while passing OC1 sources. I would not rejectthat the path dependence of the neutral procurement model causebias towards the superior quality in the regional zone(Brantingham, 2003), and therefore the major direction of mobilitypoints to the north, the remote zone of raw materials.

The major change in the proportions appears with the remotematerials. The exclusiveness of superior quality in the remote stoneassemblage sources could straightforwardly mean a thorough se-lection. The generally superior quality stone raw material envi-ronment north and east of the Carpathians alone can explain thisbias. The increased ratio of blades, their high absolute numbers inthe toolkit, the high consumption of blanks for tools, and the tooltype composition may show remote materials are curated (Binford,1979; Goodyear, 1979; Bamforth, 1986; Kuhn, 1992, 1994). Thehighest ratio of blades may stem from that blades arrived

Fig. 11. Proportions of artifacts according to distance.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303 301

readyemade at the site, and that the superior quality gave a betterchance to efficiently reduce the raw material in personal gear, aslithic experiments demonstrated that against the local inferiorquality LQ (Lengyel, 2013).

The diminishing size of artifacts also reflects the reduction andconsumption of a curated kit. However, the almost equivalent sizeof remote compared to local blade tools shows that larger artifactscan serve as a mobile toolkit, and that artifacts could have beenkept without significant reesharpening and transformation fromone type into another. This may be related to the anticipated longterm use that makes the curated toolkit serve in a variety of tasksand not in specialized functions (Bamforth, 1986). For this purpose,generally edge retouched types can be used, but the burin, whichpredominates the remote tool kit, also could be of more generalfunction rather than only engraving hard material (Tom�askova,2005; �Sajnerov�aeDu�skov�a, 2007). Therefore, superior quality ma-terials from remote sources seem to completely fulfill the re-quirements of a curated mobile tool kit, the weight optimization,tool number maximization from technologically easily controllablematerial, and the multiple functionality (Kuhn, 1994).

Because the curation shows the raw material chosen to betransported and not the way it is gathered, the procurementstrategy at the remote materials zone has remained obscure. Here, Isuppose that a consistent lithic procurement behavior must havebeen practiced over the range of BodrogkeresztúreHenye Gravet-tian hunters. This argument can be supported by archaeologicaldata from both the regional and remote sourcing zones. In theformer, except in the lower layer at Ka�sov (Nov�ak, 2004), local rawmaterials predominate in all the Gravettian assemblages (Sim�an,1989; Dobosi and Sim�an, 1996, 2003; Kaminsk�a, 2001; Ringer andHoll�o, 2001). In the Krak�ow area, Carpathian radiolarite mayappear, and raw material from the Pannonian basin, except for afew obsidian items, is almost absent (Kozłowski and Sobczyk, 1987;Sobczyk, 1996; Noiret, 2009; Wilczy�nski and Wojtal, 2011;Kozłowski, 2013; Wilczy�nski et al., 2015). In the PruteDniesterzone, the local flint is highly dominant and a few artifacts are madeof other types of chert from the eastern slope of the Carpathians(Noiret, 2009). The superior quality dominance from remote zonesmay be the result of the same lithic procurement strategy. Ifhunteregatherers material remains in the archaeological recordreflects the area they foraged for keeping sufficient diet (Goodyear,1979; Kelly, 1983, 2013; Pryor, 2008; Verpoorte, 2009), then the

lithic procurement is subordinate, easily embedded into subsis-tence activity, related with an opportunistic adaptive behavior thatadjusts the technological knowledge to the rawmaterial availabilityfor both immediate and anticipated use.

6. Conclusion

I argue that the basic raw material procurement strategy ofBodrogkeresztúreHenye Gravettian population is related to thelocal source exploitation at any region foraged, most probablyembedded in subsistence activity or acquired through neutralprocurement. It certainly demonstrates an opportunistic behaviorthat successfully adapted the organization of lithic technology toenvironmental constraints, and involves curation and providenttechnological plans as part of the whole behavior.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Viola T. Dobosi for providing full access toBodrogkeresztúreHenye Gravettian assemblage. Also, I thankKatalin T. Bir�o, Erika Kov�acs, Andr�as Mark�o, and J�ozsef Pusk�as of theArchaeological Repository of the Hungarian National Museum forgiving professional and logistic assistance during my study. Thecomments of the two reviewers on the manuscript considerablyhelped improve the paper, for which I am honestly thankful. Thisresearch was supported by the European Union and the State ofHungary, coefinanced by the European Social Fund in the frame-work of T�AMOP 4.2.4. A/2e11e1e2012e0001 ‘National ExcellenceProgram’, Magyary Zolt�an postdoctoral fellowship (grant IDA2eMZPDe13e0181).

References

Andrefsky Jr., W., 1994a. The geological occurrence of lithic material and stone toolproduction strategies. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9 (5), 375e391.

Andrefsky, W., 1994b. Rawematerial availability and the organization of technology.American Antiquity 59 (1), 21e34.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, andmaintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17 (1), 65e103.

Balcer, B., 1976. Position and stratigraphy of flint deposits, development of exploi-tation and importance of the �Swieciech�ow flint in Prehistory. Acta Archae-ologica Carpathica 16, 179e199.

Bamforth, D.B., 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity51 (1), 38e50.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303302

B�acskay, E., 1995. H5, Erd}ob�enyeeS�as patak, Borsod county. Archaeologia Polonia33, 395e400.

Beck, C., Jones, G.T., 1990. Toolstone selection and lithic technology in early GreatBasin Prehistory. Journal of Field Archaeology 17 (3), 283e299.

Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curatedtechnologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35 (3), 255e273.

Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunteregatherer settlementsystems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45 (1), 4e20.

Binford, L.R., 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 1, 5e31.

Bir�o, K.T., 1988. Distribution of lithic raw materials on prehistoric sites. An interimreport. Acta Archaeologica Academaiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40, 251e274.

Bir�o, K.T., 2009. Sourcing raw materials for chipped stone artifacts: the state-eofetheeart in Hungary and the Carpathian Basin. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S.(Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. WileyeBlackwell, pp. 47e53.

Bir�o, K.T., 2010. Terminological practice for siliceous rocks in Hungary from pet-roarchaeological point of view. Archeometriai M}uhely 7 (3), 195e202.

Bir�o, K.T., 2011. Magyarorsz�agi kovak}ozetek kutat�asa. Archeometriai M}uhely 8 (3),211e218.

Bir�o, K.T., Dobosi, V.T., 1991. Lithotheca e the Comparative Raw Material Collectionof the Hungarian National Museum. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

Bir�o, K.T., Dobosi, V.T., Schl�eder, Z., 2000. Lithotheca e the Comparative Raw Ma-terial Collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum,Budapest.

Bir�o, K.T., Mark�o, A., Kasztovszky, Z., 2005. ’Red’ obsidian in the Hungarian Palae-olithic characterisation studies by PGAA. Praehistoria 6, 91e101.

Bradbury, A.P., Carr, P.J., Cooper, D.R., 2008. Raw material and retouched flakes. In:Andrefsky Jr., W. (Ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, andCuration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 233e256.

Brantingham, P.J., 2003. A neutral model of stone raw material procurement.American Antiquity 68, 487e509.

Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W., Rech, J.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2000. Raw materialquality and prepared core technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 27, 255e271.

Crabtree, D.E., 1972. An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the IdahoState University Museum 28. Pocatello, Idaho.

Demars, P.eY., Laurent, P., 1992. Types d'outils lithiques du Pal�eolithique sup�erieuren Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire No7. Presses du CNRS, Paris.

Dmochowski, P., 2006. A new classification of erratic flint from western Poland. In:Wi�sniewski, A., Płonka, T., Burdukiewicz, J.M. (Eds.), The Stone: Technique andTechnology. Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wrocław, pp. 217e226.

Dobosi, V.T., 1997. Rawmaterial management of the Upper Palaeolithic (a case studyof five new sites, Hungary). In: Schild, R., Sulgostowska, Z. (Eds.), Man and Flint.Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa e OstrowiceSwietokrzyski, September 1995. Warszawa, pp. 189e193.

Dobosi, V.T. (Ed.), 2000. BodrogkeresztúreHenye (NE Hungary), Upper PalaeolithicSite. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

Dobosi, V.T., 2009. Filling the void: lithic raw material utilization during the Hun-garian Gravettian. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleo-lithic Societies. WileyeBlackwell, pp. 116e126.

Dobosi, V.T., K€ovecseseVarga, E., 1991. Upper Palaeolithic site at Eszter-gomeGyurgyalag. Acta Archaeologica Academaiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 43,233e255.

Dobosi, V.T., Sim�an, K., 1996. New Upper Paleolitic site at Megyasz�oeSzelestet}o.Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 5e22.

Dobosi, V.T., Sim�an, K., 2003. HonteParassa III. Orgon�as, Upper Palaeolithic settle-ment. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 15e29.

Duke, C., Steele, J., 2010. Geology and lithic procurement in Upper PalaeolithicEurope: a weightseofeevidence based GIS model of lithic resource potential.Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 813e824.

F�ebloteAugustins, J., 1997. La circulation des mati�eres premi�eres au Pal�eolithique,vol. 1 e 2. ERAUL 75. Li�ege.

F�ebloteAugustins, J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw materialtransfers: the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm? In: Adams, B.,Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. WileyeBlackwell,pp. 25e46.

Goodyear, A.C., 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw MaterialsAmong PaleoeIndian Groups of North America. In: Research Manuscript Series.Book 127. http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/127.

Gould, R.A., 1968. Living archaeology: the Ngatatjara of western Australia. South-western Journal of Anthropology 24 (2), 101e122.

Gould, R.A., Saggers, S., 1985. Lithic procurement in Central Australia: a closer lookat Binford's idea of embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity 50 (1),117e136.

Gould, R.A., Koster, D.A., Sontz, A.H.L., 1971. The lithic assemblage of the Westerndesert aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36 (2), 149e169.

G€otze, J., 2010. Origin, mineralogy, nomenclature and provenance of silica and SiO2rocks. Archeometriai M}uhely 7 (3), 163e176.

Hartai, �E., Szak�all, S., 2005. Geological and mineralogical background of the Palae-olithic chert mining on the Avas Hill, Miskolc, Hungary. Praehistoria 6, 15e21.

Hromada, J., Kozłowski, J.K. (Eds.), 1995. Complex of Upper Palaeolithic Sites NearMoravany, Western Slovakia. Moravanye�Zakovska (Excavations 1991e1992),vol. 1 (Krak�ow).

Inizan, M.eL., ReduroneBallinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1999. Technology andTerminology of Knapped Stone. CREP, Meudon, Nanterre.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J.K., 1976. Studia nad surowcami krzemiennymipołudniowej cze�sci wyzyny KrakowskoeCzestochowskiej. Acta ArchaeologicaCarpathica 16, 201e216.

Kaminsk�a, L., 2001. Die Nutzung von Steinrohmaterialien im Pal€aolitikum derSlowakei. Quart€ar 51/52, 81e106.

Kaminsk�a, L., 2013. Sources of raw materials and their use in the Palaeolithic ofSlovakia. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources and InterregionalHuman Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. Polish Academy of Artsand Sciences, Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 99e109.

Kaminsk�a, L., Kozłowski, J.K., Kazior, B., Pawlikowski, M., Sobczyk, K., 2000. Longterm stability of raw materials procurement systems in the Middle and UpperPalaeolithic of Eastern Slovakia: a case study of the Topla/Ondava river valleys.Praehistoria 1, 63e81.

Kasztovszky, Z., Bir�o, K., Mark�o, A., Dobosi, V., 2008. Cold neutron prompt gammaactivation analysis e a nonedestructive method for characterization of highsilica content raw materials. Archaeometry 50, 12e29.

Kasztovszky, Z., Bir�o, K.T., Kis, Z., 2014. Prompt gamma activation analysis of theNyírlugos obsidian core depot find. Journal of Lithic Studies 1 (1), 151e163.

Kazior, B., Kozłowski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 1998. Lithic inventories. In: Kozłowski, J.K.(Ed.), Complex of Upper Palaeolithic Sites Near Moravany, Western Slovakia,MoravanyeLopata II (Excavations 1993e1996), vol. 2. Jagellonian University,Krak�ow, pp. 43e83.

Kelly, L.R., 1983. Hunteregatherer mobility strategies. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 39 (3), 277e306.

Kelly, L.R., 2013. The Lifeways of Hunteregatherers. The Foraging Spectrum. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kozłowski, J.K. (Ed.), 2000. Complex of Upper Palaeolithic Sites Near Moravany,Western Slovakia. Late Gravettien Shouldered Points Horizon Sites in theMoravany e Banka Area, vol. 3 (Nitra).

Kozłowski, J.K., 2013. Raw materials procurement in the Late Gravettian of theCarpathian Basin. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources andInterregional Human Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. PolishAcademy of Arts and Sciences, Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 63e85.

Kozłowski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 1987. The Upper Paleolithic site Krak�ow e Spadzistastreet C2. Excavations 1980. Prace Archeologiczne 42, 7e68.

Kuhn, S.L., 1992. On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Paleolithic.Journal of Anthropological Research 48 (3), 185e214.

Kuhn, S.L., 1994. A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits.American Antiquity 59 (4), 426e442.

Lengyel, G., 2008e2009. Radiocarbon dates of the “Gravettian Entity” in Hungary.Praehistoria 9e10, 241e263.

Lengyel, G., 2013. Knapping experiments on lithic raw materials of the EarlyGravettian in Hungary. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources andInterregional Human Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. PolishAcademy of Arts and Sciences, Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 39e51.

Luedtke, B.E., 1992. An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. ArchaeologicalResearch Tools, vol. 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, LosAngeles.

Mark�o, A., Bir�o, K., Kasztovszky, Z., 2003. Szeletian felsitic porphyry: non-edestructive analysis of a classical palaeolithic raw material. Acta Archae-ologica Academaiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54, 297e314.

Mester, Z., 2013. The lithic raw material sources and interregional human contactsin the northern Carpathian regions: aims and methodology. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.),The Lithic Raw Material Sources and Interregional Human Contacts in theNorthern Carpathian Regions. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences,Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 9e21.

Mester, Z., Farag�o, N., 2013. The lithic raw material sources and interregional humancontacts in the Northern Carpathian regions: report and preliminary results ofthe field surveys. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources andInterregional Human Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. PolishAcademy of Arts and Sciences, Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 23e37.

Mester, Z., Farag�o, N., Lengyel, G., 2012. The lithic raw material sources and inter-regional human contacts in the northern Carpathian regions: a research pro-gram. Anthropologie 50 (3), 275e293.

Morrow, T.A., 1996. Bigger is better: comments on Kuhn's formal approach tomobile tool kits. American Antiquity 61 (3), 581e590.

Newman, J.R., 1994. The effects of distance on lithic material reduction technology.Journal of Field Archaeology 21 (4), 491e501.

Noiret, P., 2009. Le Pal�eolithique sup�erieur de Moldavie. ERAUL 121. Li�ege.Nov�ak, M., 2004. Gravettian occupation in the lower layer of Ka�sov I. In:

Svoboda, J.A., Sedl�ackov�a, L. (Eds.), The Gravettian along the Danube. Pro-ceedings of the Mikulov Conference, The Dolní V�estonice Studies, vol. 11,pp. 217e242. Brno.

Nov�ak, M., 2008. Flint and radiolarite assemblages: technology and typology. In:Svoboda, J.A. (Ed.), Pet�rkovice: on Shouldered Points and Female Figurines, TheDolní V�estonice Studies, vol. 15. Institute of Archaeology at Brno, Academy ofSciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, pp. 70e142.

Pryor, A.J.E., 2008. Following the fat: food and mobility in the European UpperPalaeolithic 45,000 to 18,000 BP. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23 (2),161e179.

P�richystal, A., 2010. Classification of lithic raw materials used for prehistoric chip-ped artefacts in general and siliceous sediments (silicites) in particular: theCzech proposal. Archeometriai M}uhely 7 (3), 177e182.

P�richystal, A., 2013. Lithic Raw Materials in Prehistoric Times of Eastern CentralEurope. Masaryk University, Brno.

G. Lengyel / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 292e303 303

Ringer, �A., Holl�o, Z., 2001. Saj�oszentp�eter Margitekapued}ul}o, egy fels}oepaleolitlel}ohely a Saj�o v€olgy�eben. A Herman Ott�o Múzeum �Evk€onyve 40, 63e71.

�Sajnerov�aeDu�skov�a, A., 2007. Tools of the Mammoth Hunters: the Application ofUse-wear Analysis on the Czech Upper Palaeolithic Chipped Industry. In: BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1645, Oxford.

Sim�an, K., 1989. Northern flint in the Hungarian Palaeolithic. In: Kozlowski, J.K.(Ed.), “Northern” (Erratic and Jurassic) Flint of South Polish Origin in the UpperPalaeolithic of Central Europe. Institute of Archaeology, Jagellonian University,Cracow, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence eKrak�ow, pp. 87e94.

Sim�an, K., 1990. Population fluctuations in the Carpathian Basin from 50 to 15thousand years BP. Acta Archaeologica Academaiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42,13e19.

Sim�an, K., 1995a. The Korl�ateRavaszlyuktet}o workshop site in NortheEasternHungary (H4). Archaeologia Polonia 33, 41e58.

Sim�an, K., 1995b. Prehistoric mine on the Avas Hill at Miskolc. Archaeologia Polonia33, 371e382.

Sim�an, K., 1996. Paleolithic in the NortheEast Hungary. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.),Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region. Archeologický ústav AV �CR, Brno,pp. 39e48.

Sobczyk, K., 1996. Krak�oweSpadzista unit D: excavations 1986e1988. Folia Qua-ternaria 67, 75e127.

Szeksz�ardi, A., Szakm�any, G., Bir�o, K.T., 2010. Tokajiehegys�egi limnokvarci-tlimnoopalit nyersanyagok �es pattintott k}oeszk€oz€ok archeometriai vizsg�alata I.:f€oldtani viszonyok, petrogr�afia. Archeometriai M}uhely 7 (1), 1e18.

Tak�acseBir�o, K., 1986. The raw material stock for chipped stone artefacts in thenorthern MideMountains tertiary in Hungary. In: Bir�o, T.K. (Ed.), Interna-tional Conference on Prehistoric Flint Mining and Lithic Raw Material Iden-tification in the Carpathian Basin. Sümeg Papers 1. BudapesteSümeg,pp. 183e195.

Tixier, J., 2012. A Method for the Study of Stone Tools. Arch�eoLogique 4. CentreNational de Recherche Arch�eologique Mus�ee National d'Histoire et d'Art,Luxemburg.

Tom�askova, S., 2005. What is a Burin? Typology, technology, and interregionalcomparison. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (2), 79e115.

T�oth, Z.H., 2011. Újabb adal�ek a szeletai üveges kvarcporfír el}ofordul�ashoz:Bükkszentl�aszl�o, HidegeVíz. Gesta 10, 147e149.

Valde-Nowak, P., 1991. Menilite hornstone deposits and their prehistoric exploita-tion. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 30, 55e86.

Valde-Novak, P., 2013. The North-Carpathians province of silica rocks during StoneAge. In: Mester, Z. (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources and InterregionalHuman Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. Polish Academy of Artsand Sciences, Krak�oweBudapest, pp. 87e97.

Verpoorte, A., 2009. Limiting factors on early Modern Human dispersals: the hu-man biogeography of Late Pleniglacial Europe. Quaternary International 201,77e85.

V�ertes, L., 1966. The Upper Palaeolithic site on Mt. Henye at Bodrogkeresztúr. ActaArchaeologica Academaiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 18, 3e14.

V�ertes, L., T�oth, L., 1963. Der Gebrauch des glasigen Quarzporphyres imPal€aolithikum des BükkeGebirges. Acta Archaeologica Academaiae ScientiarumHungaricae 15, 3e10.

Wilczy�nski, J., Wojtal, P., 2011. Jaksice II e a new Gravettian site in southern Poland.P�rehled Výzkum�u 52, 37e41.

Wilczy�nski, J., Wojtal, P., Łanczont, M., Mroczek, P., Sobieraj, D., Fedorowicz, S., 2015.Loess, flints and bones: multidisciplinary research at Jaksice II Gravettian site(southern Poland). Quaternary International 359e360, 114e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.002.

Williams, O., Nandris, J., 1977. The Hungarian and Slovak sources of archaeologicalobsidian: an interim report on further fieldwork, with a note on tektites. Journalof Archaeological Science 4 (3), 207e219.

Wilson, L., 2007. Understanding prehistoric lithic raw material selection: applica-tion of a gravity model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (4),388e411.

�Za�ar, O., 2007. Gravettienska stanice v Tren�cianskich Bohuslavicach. Filozofick�aFakulta, Univerzita Kon�stantína Filozofa v Nitre, Nitra, Slovakia (UnpublishedMA thesis).