M. Járó - L. Költő szerk.: Archaeometrical research in Hungary (Budapest, 1988)
Analysis - BIRÓ Katalin, POZSGAI Imre, VLADÁR András: Central European obsidian studies. State of affain in 1987
Comparative table of obsidian main element composition Obsidian source/group Na Al K Ca Fe Si Carpathian 1. / / / i / / / Carpathian 2T ( + ) (+) + ( + ) + — Carpathian 2E (+) + + + — Paravan/Georgia, USSR ( + ) ( + ) ( + ) = (-) Armenia, USSR + ( + ) = (•) Kars, Turkey + = (-) Nemrut Dag, Turkey Kömürcü, Turkey + (-) (-) (•) Nemrut Dag, Turkey Kömürcü, Turkey ( + ) = (-) Catköy 1. Turkey = = Catköy 11. Turkey = ( + ) = (*) Bogazköy l.a Turkey (*) ( + ) = = ( + ) ( + ) Bogazköy l.b Turkey = (+) (•) = ( + ) ( + ) Bogazköy 2. Turkey (+) •»• (-) (-) (*) = Karacaören Turkey (+) ( + ) (•) = = ( + ) Key: = same amount as in Carpathian 1; within variation limit ( + ) slightly more than in Carpathian 1; over variation limit (-) slightly less than in Carpathian 1; under variation limit + . more than in Carpathian 1; relative difference over 10% - less s than in Carpathian 1; relative difference over 10%, relative differences exceeding 20% are marked with double sign. character as well. The other source examined from Eastern Anatolia in the environs of Kars gives suberb quality obsidian, seemingly different enough from Carpathian obsidians (higher Na content, somewhat lower K content and lower Ca content than that of Carpathian 1 obsidian; it is nearer to Armenian obsidian, which is, in fact, not far from it. The difference between the Armenian and the Eastern Anatolian obsidian is partly in the Al content, and less characteristic difference can be observed between their Ca content. We do not pretend that these measurements can be of any final solution to the problems of the Eastern Mediterranean obsidian characterization. Even the sourcing work is rather casual; as it was pointet out by M. ÖZDOGAN [32], the source localisation work on Turkish obsidian sources is defficient and unfortunately badly coordinated; everybody is surveying the same sources that are relatively easy to reach. The other problem, that some of the sources interact, on the basis of chemical composition. This was the case for optical emission spectroscopical investigations conducted by RENFREW et al. as well [26]. Anyhow, it is important to know even the limits of a method, so we can conclude that by means of routine EDS, Carpathian 1 obsidian cannot be reliably separated from one of the Central Anatolian obsidian types. This is far from being an academic problem; the joint occurrence of Carpathian 1 and Anatolian obsidians have already been demonstrated, by means of neutron activation analysis, for some archaeological sites of the Balkan Penninsule [25]. The next step we must make is an EDXRF examination of the same set of samples to see if differences in the trace element composition of the obsidian samples prove to be sufficient for source characterization.
