sourcing raw materials for chipped stone … · the provenancing of chipped stone tool raw...

UNCORRECTED PROOF

Chapter 4

SOURCING RAW MATERIALS FOR CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS: THE STATE-OF-THE-ART IN HUNGARY AND THE CARPATHIAN BASINKatalin T. Biró Hungarian National Museum

ABSTRACT

The provenancing of chipped stone tool raw materials is an integral part of prehistoric research. Such studies include the necessary steps of field survey, fingerprinting, and characterization of geological outcrops, together with investigations of the archeological evidence. The state of such research, however, varies by country and region. It is argued here that joint projects involving international cooperation can advance the field, and promising examples will be presented from Central Europe with special focus on problems to be solved. An Internet based network of information systems is advocated to facilitate the wide dissemination of the results of lithic raw material studies.

Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, 1st edition. Edited by B. Blades and B. Adams, ©2009 Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-6837-3.

Copy-edited by Caroline McPherson

INTRODUCTION

Lithic provenance analysis has a long tradition in Central Europe. The Carpathian Basin is a unique area within this region, surrounded by high mountains of the Alpean system (Alps, Carpathes, Dinarids) and currently comprising about eight independent political

units (Figure 4.1). Due to the regional/national organi-zation of research centers and projects, knowledge of lithic resources and their distribution is highly variable, even within the territory of a single country. Thematic conferences and joint projects have furthered the sub-ject significantly, but we still lack the degree of practical geological knowledge our prehistoric ancestors pos-sessed. Indeed, some source regions are still unknown to us or are imprecisely located, while others may not exist any longer due to prehistoric exploitation and/or modern destruction of the sources.

Blades_C004.indd 47Blades_C004.indd 47 12/13/2008 11:34:19 AM12/13/2008 11:34:19 AM

UNCORRECTED PROOF

48 Katalin T. Biró


The practical application of source identification (i.e., fingerprinting raw materials by quantitative methods) and collection of distribution data from archeological sites also varies by country, region, and to some extent, chronological periods. Though lithic provenance stud-ies as a rule are diachronic in the sense that the same raw material sources could be, and were, utilized over longer periods of time, there is substantial variation in accessibility, as well as recognizability of important raw materials.

This chapter will focus on lithic raw materials utilized during the Hungarian Paleolithic. It must

be stressed, however, that much of this knowledge originates from the study of much younger prehis-toric periods and wider geographical areas inside andoutside the Carpathian Basin.

IDENTIFICATION OF LITHIC RAW MATERIALS

A necessary first phase in lithic raw material research is the identification of the raw material type. Simple as it may seem, even this phase is burdened with all the

MaterialsAndesiteChalcedonyChertFlientHornstoneHydroopaliteHydroquartziteJasperLimnoopaliteLimnoquartziteLyditeNummulithic chertObsidianOpalPlasma

QuartziteRadiolariteRock crystalSzeketian felsitic porphyry

Figure 4.1 Relief map of the Carpathian Basin with location of important chipped stone raw material sources documented in the Lithotheca Collection of the HNM (see Figure 4.2 for key).


UNCORRECTED PROOF

Sourcing raw materials for chipped stone artifacts 49


difficulties of interdisciplinary collaboration and ana-lytical archeology. Macroscopic investigation of such material has its limitations despite the availability of large comparative collections, and was even more dif-ficult before such collections came into existence. The geological/petrological/geochemical characterization of siliceous rocks is a young and complex field due to the relative chemical homogeneity and limited varia-tion in mineral composition (Figure 4.2).

Tracing long-distance movements and postulated interactions between communities requires a systematic approach to the identification of raw material sources. Such an approach is represented by the geology–archeology oriented studies in a number of countries in Central Europe (Kozłowski 1972–73; Bárta 1979; Kaminska 1991; Floss 1994). In the late 1970s, lithic provenance studies were still rare in Hungary (Patay 1976; Lech 1981). In the early 1980s, a systematic collection of potential sources took place under the auspices of the Hungarian Geological Institute.

The results were presented in 1986 at a regional international conference in Sümeg, Hungary (Biró 1986;1987) and the collected samples have been incorporated into the “Lithotheca” raw material collection housed in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. The Lithotheca contains geological specimens and prove-nance information, two catalogue volumes (Biró-Dobosi 1990; Biró-Dobosi-Schléder 2000) and a web-page with true color images of the most important raw material varieties have been published (www.ace.hu/litot). The collection continues to grow and has proved to be an excellent tool for provanance studies.

In addition to the expansion and continued documen-tation of the Lithotheca collection, the performance of analytical studies on the sample set continues in order to facilitate comparisons with archeological mate-rial, preferably by non-destructive methods. Recently, such analyses have focused on raw materials used for polished stone tools as part of the UNESCO-IGCP 442 project (Biró-Szakmány 2000), obsidian (Elekes et al. 2000; Kasztovszky-Biró 2004), grey flint (Kasztovszky-Biró 2002), radiolarite (Biró et al. 2002), and Szeletian felsitic porphyry (Markó et al. 2003). Current efforts also involve the analysis of other raw materials utilized in prehistory as part of the “Atlas of Prehistoric Raw Materials” project (www.ace.hu/atlas).

LITHIC RAW MATERIAL UTILIZATION IN THE PALEOLITHIC PERIOD

Provenancing Paleolithic material is a difficult task as artifacts are often heavily patinated, making mac-roscopic identification difficult, if not impossible. The availability of specific raw material sources also changes with time and the probability of the same resources being accessible throughout the Paleolithic period is less than in relatively modern times. Typically, effective provenance studies were primarily initiatedon younger prehistoric assemblages with tightly controlled temporal affiliations. In such cases, settle-ment density, resource exploitation, supply patterns, and production on an industrial scale help facilitate archeological interpretations. In contrast, Paleolithic sites as events are dispersed over a vast period of time. It is difficult to identify the “trade partners” when the documented evidence is separated by at least several generations. It is also difficult to establish to what extent the distribution of goods (basically lithics, but also jewellery in the form of fossil shells and amber)

MineralsSiO2 minerals

Rock crystalJasperChalcedonyOpal

RocksSiliceous rocks (~ silex)

SedimentaryLyditeHornstoneChertRadiolariteFlint

PostvolcanicHydroquartziteHydroopalite

Postvolcanic-sedimentaryLimnoquartziteLimnoopalite

VolcanitesObsidianFelsitic quartz porphyry(Andesite)

Sedimentary rocksSilicified limestone

Nummulitic silexMetamorphic rocks

Quartzite

Figure 4.2 Nomenclature draft for chipped stone raw materials in the Carpathian Basin.


UNCORRECTED PROOF

50 Katalin T. Biró


reflects the actual movement of a particular commu-nity or its direct/indirect contact with other groups. A postulated sign of trade in the Upper Paleolithic is the establishment of workshop settlements around par-ticular sources, as recently argued by Dobosi (1997). Recently, raw materials of apparent importance among the Paleolithic populations of the region were summa-rized at the Krosno conference on the Paleolithic of the Carpathian region (Biró 2002).

In the Neolithic the situation is more clear. Relatively dense settlement networks can be discerned, and the environs of lithic raw material sources tend to be unin-habited. Of course there are exceptions in certain peri-ods, but these exceptions are associated with individual cultures, when particular communities appear to have exercised tight control over specific lithic resources.

To date, the most comprehensive sourcing studies of Paleolithic lithic inventories have been conducted on the earliest (Lower or Middle Paleolithic) assemblages.

Pioneering petroarcheological studies were restricted to the determination of mineral composition (quartz, chalcedony) and atypical fossils, often present in shape-less aggregates in the siliceous matrix (e.g., Vendl 1930). More accurate sourcing was accomplished in situa-tions where the analyst had good regional knowledge on the site environs, primarily for Lower Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic, and Early Upper Paleolithic sites. This was partly explained by proximity to raw mate-rial sources, usually woodlands and foot-hill regions, as an important factor in the selection of a settlement location. Examples of such situations include the sites of Tata (Végh-Viczián 1964), Érd (Dienes 1968), and Vértesszo los (Varga-Máthé 1990) (Figure 4.3).

As Upper Paleolithic hunters moved from the envi-rons of lithic sources to the open steppe regions they became detached from the raw material sources. Such groups appear to have been highly mobile, following herds of animals (typically reindeer) and covering

Figure 4.3 Raw material acquisition area for Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites in Transdanubia (Vértesszolos, Tata, Érd).


UNCORRECTED PROOF



considerable distances. The lithic raw materials used reflect such movements and, to a much lesser extent, the contacts of the community. The pattern of lithic raw material exploitation consisting of a centrally located archaeological site tied to possible resources in a “star-pattern” has been referred to as the action radius model. This model postulates that raw mate-rial sources were directly visited by the inhabitants of a settlement (Biró et al. 2001a,b). Figure 4.4 illus-trates the action radius model based on data from the Upper Paleolithic Gravettian site of Bodrogkeresztúr in northeast Hungary. The same array of contacts is often proposed when assessing more recent (Neolithic or younger) sites, as demonstrated by Raczky et al. (2002: 850) for the Late Neolithic site of Polgár. In this case, however, we must be aware that we are dealing with the product of several factors and not necessarily the actual movement of people between a settlement and a raw material source.

Mapping the occurrences of source-specific or unique materials allows the reconstruction of broad temporal patterns of specific commodity utilization, and has been especially successful in Hungarian Paleolithic studies. Raw material sourcing projects supported by analytical methods have been success-fully performed on several specific materials, includ-ing obsidian (Biró et al. 1986, 1988; Elekes et al. 2000; Kasztovszky-Biró 2004), Szeletian felsitic porphyry (Vértes-Tóth 1963; Simán 1986; Markó et al. 2003), rock crystal (Dobosi-Gatter 1996), and recently, nummulitic silex (Markó-Kázmér 2004). Source identification of these materials has been investigated by the application of different chemi-cal and physical fingerprinting techniques. Obsidian has been of particular interest due to its easy recog-nition and limited source area compared to its wide archeological distribution (Vértes 1953; Gábori 1950; Biró 1984).

Figure 4.4 Action radius plot for the Upper Paleolithic settlement Bodrogkeresztúr.


UNCORRECTED PROOF

52 Katalin T. Biró


The investigation of common raw materials that occur at several localities, such as radiolarite, limnic silicites, or hornstone, are more problematic. A partic-ular problem is the frequent use of secondary sources of these materials, such as river gravels, during the Paleolithic. Such deposits exploited in the past do not necessarily correspond to the modern distribution of these same materials. Intensive patination can also be a problem. Chemical fingerprinting for these raw mate-rials is still in an embryonic state (Elekes et al. 2000; Biró et al. 2002).

The diffusion radius of certain materials appears to be dependant on quality. Certain unique raw materi-als, such as obsidian or rock crystal, were moved over hundreds of kilometers, though the quantity of such materials decreases with distance. The regular sup-ply zone seems to be confined to much smaller areas, where distance from the nearest source was an impor-tant limiting factor. As a result of both systematic surveys and diachronic petroarcheological investiga-tion of archaeological lithic assemblages, it appears that all the important raw material sources currently identified were utilized during the Paleolithic period. It also appears that the use of regional and secondary resources (e.g., pebble deposits) was more important than among subsequent Holocene groups still reliant on lithic raw materials.

TASKS FOR THE FUTURE

Elucidating the basic raw material stock of the Carpathian Basin was a major step in the analysis of Paleolithic raw material distribution and exchange networks in Hungary. Much work is needed, however, to refine our understanding of the lithic exploitation systems at this time. Important tasks include refining the precision of provenancing basic raw materials such as radiolarite, flint, or limnic quartzite. Also, the revi-sion of lithic assemblage descriptions in relation to raw material utilization is important in light of our existing, as well as developing, knowledge. Provenancing tech-niques, mainly non-destructive geochemical methods, should be used more extensively both on archeological and comparative geological material and followed by comprehensive studies of the technological reduction chain of individual raw materials. By these steps, we can refine our insights into the movement, trade, and circulation of various lithic raw materials during the Paleolithic period.

REFERENCES

Bárta, J. (1979) K problematike proveniencie surovin na vyrobu stiepanej kamennej industrie v paleolite Slovenska. Slovenska Archaeologia 27, 5–15.

Biró K.T. (1984) Distribution of obsidian from the Carpathian Sources on Central European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica Kraków 23, 5–42.

Biró K.T. (ed.) (1986) Oskori kovabányászat és koeszköz-nyersanyag azonosítás a Kárpát medencében/International conference on prehistoric flint mining and lithic raw mate-rial identification in the Carpathian Basin – Sümeg Papers. Budapest KMI Rota 1, 1–342.

Biró K.T. (ed.) (1987) Oskori kovabányászat és koeszköz-nyersanyag azonosítás a Kárpát medencében/International conference on prehistoric flint mining and lithic raw material identification in the Carpathian Basin – Sümeg Proceedings. Budapest KMI Rota 2, 1–284.

Biró, K.T. (2002) Important lithic raw materials in the Carpathian region. In: Jan Ganczarski (ed.) Starsza i srod-kowa epoka kamienia w Karpatach Polskich /The Older and Middle Stone Age in Polish Carpathians. Krosno Mitel 301–15.

Biró K.T., Pozsgai I., and Vladár A. (1986) Electron beam microanalyses of obsidian samples from geological and archaeological sites. Acta Arch Hung 38, 257–78.

Biró K.T., Pozsgai I., and Vladár A. (1988) Central European obsidian studies. State of affairs in 1987. Archaeometrical Studies in Hungary 1: Budapest KMI 119–30.

Biró K.T., Dobosi V.T., and Litotheca S.Z. (2000) Comparative raw material collection of the Hungarian National Museum II. Budapest Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 1–320.

Biró K.T., Bigazzi G., and Oddone, M. (2001a) Instrumental analysis I. The Carpathian sources of raw material for obsidian tool-making: (Neutron activation and fission track analyses on the Bodrogkeresztúr-Henye Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. In: Dobosi V.T. (ed.) 2001 Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 221–40.

Biró, K.T., Elekes Z., and Gratuze, B. (2001b) Instrumental analysis II. Ion beam analyses of artefacts from the Bodrogkeresztúr-Henye lithic assemblage. In: Dobosi V.T.(ed.) Bodrogkeresztur-Henye (NE-Hungary) Upper Palaeolithic Site. Budapest Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 241–45.

Biró, K.T., Elekes, Z., and Uzonyi I. (2002) Árpád Kiss Radiolarit minták vizsgálata ionnyaláb analitikai módszerekkel/Investigation of Radiolarite Samples by Ion-Beam Analytical Methods. Archaeológiai Értesíto 127, 103–34.

Biró K.T. and Dobosi V.T. (1991) Litotheca: Comparative raw material collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Budapest Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 1–268.

Biró K.T. and György, S. (2000) Current state of research on Hungarian Neolithic polished stone artefacts. Krystalinikum Brno 26, 21–37.


UNCORRECTED PROOF



Dienes, I. (1968) Examen petrographique de l’industrie. In: Gábori-Csánk, La station du Paléolithique moyen d’Érd, Hongrie. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 111–4.

Dobosi V.T. (1978) A pattintott koeszközök nyersanyagáról Folia Archaeologica. Budapest 29, 7–19.

Dobosi, V.T. (1997) Raw material management of the upper palaeolithic (A case study of five new sites, Hungary). In: Schild, R. and Sulgostowska, Z. (eds) Man and Flint. Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium. Warszawa 189–95.

Dobosi, V.T. (ed.) (2001) Bodrogkeresztur-Henye (NE-Hungary) Upper Palaeolithic site, Hungarian National Museum. Budapest 1–245.

Dobosi V.T. (1996) Palaeolithic tools made of rock crystal and their preliminary fluid inclusion investigation Folia. Archaeologica (Budapest) 45, 31–50.

Elekes, Z., Biró, K.T., Rajta, I., Uzonyi, I., Gratuze, B., and Kiss Á.Z. (2000) Analyses of Obsidian and Radiolarite Samples by Ion Beam Techniques. Paper presented at 32th ISA Conference, Mexico City.

Floss, H. (1994) Rohmaterialversorgung im Paläolithikum des Mittelrheingebietes. Monographien d. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 21, 1–407.

Gábori M. (1950) Az Oskori obszidián – kereskedelem néhány problémája. Archaeólogiai Értesíto, Budapest, 77, 50–3.

Gáboriné, C.V. (1968) La station du Paléolithique moyen d’Érd, Hongrie. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1968, 1–277.

Kaminska, L. (1991) Vyznam surovinej základne pre mladopaleoliticku spolocnost vo vychodokarpatskej oblasti/L’importance de la matiere pour les communantes du Paléolithique superieur dans l’espace des Carpathes orienta. Slovenská Archeológia (Bratislava) 39, 7–58.

Kasztovszky, Z. and Biró K.T. (in press) Fingerprinting Carpathian Obsidians by PGAA: First Results on Geological and Archaeological Specimens. In press for the Proceedings of the 34th ISA Symposium, Zaragoza.

Kasztovszky, Z., Biró, K.T., and Dobosi, V.T. (in press) Investigation of gray flint samples with Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis. In press for the Proceedings of the 33rd ISA Symposium, Amsterdam.

Kozłowski, J.K. (1972–73) The Origin of Lithic Raw Materials Used in the Palaeolithic of the Carpathian Countries. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Kraków 13, 5–20.

Kretzoi M. and Dobosi V.T. (eds) (1990) Vértesszolos – Site, man and culture. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 1–552.

Lech, J. (1981) Flint mining among the early farming communities of Central Europe. Przeglad Archaeologiczny, Wrocław 28, 5–55.

Markó, A., Biró, K.T., and Kasztovszky, Z. (2003) Szeletian felsitic porphyry: Non-destructive analysis of a classical

palaeolithic raw material. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest 54, 297–314.

Markó, A. and Kázmér, M. (2004) The use of nummulithicchert in the Middle Palaeolithic in Hungary. In: Fülöp-Cseh (eds) Die aktuellen Fragen des Mittelpaläolithikums. Tudományos Füzetek Tata, vol. 12, pp. 53–64.

Patay P. (1976) Les matières premières lithiques de l’âge du cuivre en Hongrie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica (Kraków) 16, 229–38.

Raczky, P., Meier-Arendt, W., Anders, A., Hajdú, Z., Nagy, E.,Kurucz, K., Domboróczki, L., Sebok, K., Sümegi, P., Magyari, E., Szántó, Z., Gulyás, S., Dobó, K., Bácskay, E., and Biró, K.T., and Polgár C. (1989–2000) Summary of the Hungarian-German Excavations on a Neolithic Settlement in Eastern Hungary. In: Aslan et al. (eds) Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, Band 2. Remshalden-Grunbach Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner pp. 833–59.

Simán K. (1986) Felsitic quartz porphyry. Sümeg Papers Budapest 271–77.

Varga I.D. (1991) Kövecses Az Esztergom-Gyurgyalag lelohelyen elokerült koeszközök vizsgálata. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest 43, 267–9.

Vargáné M.K. (1990) Petrographic analysis of the lithic raw materials of the Vértesszolos implements. In: Kretzoi-D. (ed.) Vértesszolos – Site, man and culture. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 287–99.

Vendl A. (1930) A büdöspesti paleolitos szilánkok kozettani vizsgálata. Matematikai és Természettudományos Értesíto, Budapest 47, 468–83.

Végh, A. and Viczián, I. (1964) Petrographische Untersuchungen an den Silexwerkzeugen. In: Vértes et al. (eds) Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest, 43, 129–31.

Vértes L. (1953) Az oskokor társadalmának néhány kérdésérol (On some questions concerning palaeolithic society). Archaeológiai Értesíto, Budapest 80: 89–103.

Vértes L. (1965) Az oskokor és az átmeneti kokor emlékei Magyarországon. A Magyar Régészet Kézikönyve. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1–385.

Vértes, L. et al. (1964) Tata, eine Mittelpalaeolithische Travertin-Siedlung in Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest 43.

Vértes L. and Tóth, L. (1963) Der Gebrauch des Glasigen Quartzporphyrs im Paläolithikum des Bükk-Gebirges. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest 15, 3–10.

INTERNET RESOURCES

www.ace.hu/atlaswww.flintsource.netwww.ace.hu/litot


sourcing raw materials for chipped stone … · the provenancing of chipped stone tool raw...

Documents