Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 46-47 (2001-2002) (Pécs, 2003)

Régészet - Katalin T. Bíró–Zsolt Schléder–Judit Antoni–György Szakmány: Petroarchaeological studies on polished stone artefacts from Baranya county, Hungary II. Zengővárkony: Notes on the production, use and circulation of polished stone tools

50 A Janus Pannonius Múzeum évkönyve 46-47 (2001-2002) IGNEOUS basalt phonolite tephrite granite undefined volcanic SEDIMENTARY cherty limestone bituminous limestone porcelanite sandstone marl limestone undefined sedimentary METAMORPHIC greenschist serpentinite amphibolite hornfels undefined metamorphic 80 30 27 1 1 46 38 21 19 7 5 8 12 2 6 4 10 The comparable petroarchaeological data Consistency of analysis in the macroscopical surveys by Schléder and Biró Macroscopical analysis of rocks deprived from their original geological settings (i.e., transport by (prehistoric) people) is always a demanding task with many pitfalls. In the archaeological context, the problem is made even more acute by weathering - in soil, on surface - of the items and effects of stone-working technology, polish and usage. Not even the same persons on the same material will have exactly the same opinion at different occasions. In course of the present series of analysis we had the chance to check or consistency in 44 cases. Of these, 31 proved to be identical, 11 with minor differences of opinion, 2 completely contradictory. Further analysis may give a more stable basis for the identification of rocks and provenance. We made thin section analysis from altogether 8 pieces of the Zengővárkony material where the macroscopical opinion has proved basically correct (phonolite, basalt). It was especially interesting to check our data with former opinion of Z. Almády. Not only the consistency of determination but also the terminology was different in some cases. The field surveys and analytical studies of the past few years allowed us to locate the Mecsek sources with more precision and thus we can attribute some of the terms of Almády in the light of the new examinations. We had 140 instances to compare the individual petroarchaeological classifications. Of these, 72 proved to be identical within minor differences in wording, 18 with differences of terminology only, 36 with minor differences of opinion, 13 completely contradictory. Among the raw materials used in large quantities at Zengővárkony, the most typical ones were called by Almády basalt (typically, basalt by Schléder and Biró as well), microgranite (typically, phonolite/tephrite by Schléder and Biró) microgabbro (typically, phonolite or basalt by Schléder and Biró) diabase (mainly, tephrite or basalt). Most of the differences arise from not recognising the local alkaline vulcanites, i.e., tephrites/phonotephrites in the Zengővárkony material. In the case of sedimentary rock there is a basic incertitude for the identification of "dust tuff" and related items on both sides while we all agree on the grey bituminous limestone (Kantavár limestone) used in a number of instances. Metamorphic rocks used at Zengővárkony constitute only a small proportion of the polished stone tool inventory, much smaller than typical for Neolithic sites. They are determined so far on a macroscopic level and further analyses would be necessary for more exact determination of the rocks and, even more, the sources. Polished stone tool typology and petroarchaeological information The connections between types and raw material used at Zengővárkony can be studied on 280 items. The typology of polished stone tools is not formulated clearly, in spite of considerable efforts made in this field. For the present analysis, a widely applicable general approach was used. The following types were separated: (Table 3, Fig. 3.) Table 3. Typological distribution of polished stone tools and related technological types surveyed from Zengővárkony Tool type pieces axe with shaft-hole trapeze form chisel triangular/rounded butt chisel shoe-last form chisel chisel-axe raw material half-finished axe other other pieces with shaft-hole polisher with axe prints polisher mace-head hammer with shaft-hole shaft hole core retucheur 2 hoe with shaft-hole parallel edge chisel hammer axe unidentified 146 46 45 30 16 10 9 9 7 6 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 27 The main types are illustrated with drawings by J. Antoni (Fig. 4.). The most frequent type was the axe with shaft-hole, the production of which is amply documented at Zengővárkony. Different types/forms of chisels were also frequent in the material, their raw mate-