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

Measurement series 10 (date: 11/1985) TableS Series 10 Source or site File name Measurement data - Impulse ratio (Si = 1000) Group Source or site File name Na/Si Al/Si K/Si Ca/Si Fe/Si Ti/Si Group Szőllőske 2. 19E210 4 65 135 21 14 2 CI Szó'lló'ske 2. 19E211 6 172 113 33 12 2 Cl (új háttér) Szőllőske 2. 19E212 4 172 107 34 10 1 Cl Bodrogkeresztúr (87) 19E213 4 187 122 45 22 5 C2E Bodrogkeresztúr (87) 19E214 4 187 121 43 23 3 C2E Tolcsva (88) 19E215 4 179 114 37 17 2 C2T Tolcsva (88) 19E216 4 180 119 37 16 2 C2T Török 1. 19E217 5 168 103 21 8 1 Török 1. Catköy 19E217 5 168 103 21 8 1 Török 1. Catköy 19E218 6 166 104 23 11 1 Török 2. Karacaören 19E219 5 171 120 33 13 2 Török 2. Karacaören 19E220 5 172 117 34 11 1 Török 3. Karacaören 19E221 5 180 109 33 12 2 Török 3. Karacaören 19E222 5 177 111 31 11 2 Török 4. Bogazköy 19E223 5 185 110 36 15 1 Török 4. Bogazköy 19E224 5 181 112 33 17 3 The aim of series of measurements was to examine Turkish obsidian samples and compare them with Central European ones. The Turkish obsidian samples were partly collected from the source region in the frames of a study trip, sponsored by the Hungarian National Council for Grants, partly presented by the colleagues of the Turkish Geological Institute (MTA). The pieces analysed so far were collected from Catköy [1], Karacaören [2-3] and Bogazköy [4] in Central Anatolia [31]. The Karacaören and Bogazköy samples are very similar in chemical composition to the Carpathian 1 variant; in fact, it was impossible to separate them within the limits of precision. The Catköy specimen is different from our obsidian as well as the rest of the pieces analysed so far from the Central Anatolian sources, its Al, K and Ca content is considerably lower than that of the Carpathian 1 obsidian. Measurement series 11 (date: 05/1987) This measurement series was devoted entirely to the problem of Eastern Mediterranean obsidian source characterization. Samples examined in this series included étalons and new geological pieces from the Carpathian sources, new items from Georgia, collected by L. SUGÁR, a set of samples from Anatolia, partly analysed previously, as well as Armenian obsidian samples already analysed. The results of these analyses are summarized on a comparative table (Table 7). The data are grouped to show the relative differences in chemical composition, compared to the Carpathian 1 (Slovakian) obsidian. We can observe, that material from the examined sources of Catköy and Bogazköy yielded two varieties of obsidian: one of the Catköy pieces very near to those of Kömürcü köyü, whereas the main variety of Bogazköy agrees well with the pieces of Karacaören and the other variety from Catköy. Nemrut Dag is seemingly different from the rest; it can be distinguished on basis of its perlitic