site, within 10 km of each other, and both sites utilised pebbles, silex and quartzite.
1 1 V É R T E S 1965.
The petroarchaeological survey of the site16 separated the following rock types in the Vértesszőlős industry:
Sedimentary rocks
i. Radiolarites (jasper, opal, flint chert):
2. Lydites
3. Spongiolites (brecciated a n d calcareous radiolarite, lydite and spongiolite) 4. Marl
5. Limestone
Metamorphic rocks
The author claimed that all the collected types could be located in the Pleistocene terraces of the Általér. She mentioned specifically the Tata-Akasztóhegy pebble quarry as possible source of lydite.
It is clear that the raw material basis of T a t a and Vértesszőlős were close to each other if not identical. Surveying for one implies the same for the other.
N e w investigations on the raw material
Knowing what we know of Tata, after the work of colleagues with suitable calling and expertise, why do we have to investigate the Tata raw material any more?
First of all we have the large number of new finds at hand. Are they the same, are they different? H o w do they relate to the material known previously?
Second, in the meantime Hungarian petroarchaeological research has made important advances. W e k n o w much better the prehistoric raw material stock and have more data on raw material acquisition in general.
Third, we still miss a piece-by-piece identification of the raw material, AU pétro
graphie experts mentioned in their publication bulk results and the investigations, in a way, levigate in the air. Even the thin sections mentioned by Végh and Viczián1 7
are not to be located any more. There are four old thin sections preserved in the Lithotheca collection of the H N M (L 97/305) we suspect to come from the Porhanyó site, but do not know for sure (Plates 1-2.). I have made new microphotos on the thin section slides preserved in the H N M Lithotheca collection. Two of them comprise radiolarites, one quartzite a n d one spongiolite.
Clearly, it is necessary to extend petroarchaeological studies to the new evidence as well as revise the former results.
W h a t has been done already? In fact, not much compared to the quantity of finds.
I have investigated altogether 208 pieces of the 1996 campaign by macroscopic inspec
tion. Two groups emerge very clearly, as for all who h a d done anything on the T a t a material at all: quartzite (98 pieces total, 47% of n = 208) and silex (101 pieces total, 49% of n=2o8). The rest (9 pieces, 4%) comprises limestone a n d calcareous sandstone.
1 6 V A R G A - M Á T H É 1990.
1 7 V É G H - V I C Z I Á N 1964,
82
Silex is made up of radiolarite (6 macroscopic type groups selected), spongiolite (=
Lower Jurassic chert?) and many other uncertain categories, most of t h e m probably also radiolarite (Table i).
The gravel origin of the pieces (silex pebbles preferentially used) make the problem more complex. Both quartzite and silex artefacts have pebble cortex on part of their surface. Q u a r t z i t e tend to have more (68% of total pieces have cortex on the surface of 20% on average each), while it is clearly less frequent on silex (36% of total pieces have cortex on the surface of 23% of the corticated pieces). Most of the silex bearing cortex could only be classified to "uncertain" silices, and the ratio of cortex on t h e m is rather high (over 30%) (Table 2). It can show that part of the silex tools were made of blocks in primary, or at least, not gravel deposit, sources. A n o t h e r explanation can be that the technology for the silex tools comprised a more complex "chaîne opératoire" and therefor the cortex appears only at the exterior decortication flakes.
Instead of conclusions.».
At this stage, it is clearly too early for conclusions. Less than 2% of the total material has been studied. W e can, however, formulate the questions more clearly.
First—can we locate the collecting spot(s) for Tata? D o the raw materials selected for tool-making come, all from secondary sources? W h a t is the geological, primary origin of the individual raw material groups?
And, the big question for me—were the seemingly Bakony origin raw materials (Szentgál radiolarite, Úrkút-Eplény radiolarite, Spongiolite) local, did they have—
probably eroded—outcrops in the Gerecse-Vértes mountain system? Or, did the riv-ers of the Early Pleistocene t r a n s p o r t them? (from where). Also, with availability of special radiolarite types around T a t a we may reconsider some statements concerning the prehistoric trade as well.
The actual state of art can be summarised in the form of two maps. O n the first one ( M a p i.), the exploitation of local (pebble) resources is indicated as suggested by pre-vious studies. O n the second map (Map 2.), I am suggesting other possible contact areas on the basis of published petroarchaeological data and my own observations. A more convincing answer to these problems is expected from the ongoing petroarchae-ological studies.
References
FÜLÖP, J.: Funde des prähistorischen Silexgrubenbaues am Kálvária-Hügel von Tata.
A c t a A r c h H u n g 1973.
F Ü L Ö P 1975
F Ü L Ö P J.: Tatai mezozoós alaphegységrögök. G e o l H u n g Ser. Geol. 1975,1-222.
F Ü L Ö P 1980
F Ü L Ö P J.: HZ Tata "Kálváriadomb." In: Weisgerber, Gerd ed, 5000 Jahre Feuer-steinbergbau. Bochum Deutschen. Bergbau-Museum 1980, 549—551.
G Á B O R I - C S Á N K 1968
K O R M O S T.: A tatai őskőkori telep. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Evkönyve Bp, 1912,
L E C H 1995
L E C H , J, (ed,): Catalogue of flint mines: Hungary (with contribution of Bácskay E„
Simán K „ Biró K.) ArchPolona Warszawa 1995, 370-411.
V A R G A - M Á T H É 1990
V A R G Á N É M Á T H É K.: Pétrographie analysis of the lithic raw materials of the VértesszÖlÖs implements. In: Kretzoi, M . - D o b o s i , V, (eds,): Vértesszőlős, M a n , Site a n d Culture. Bp. 1990, 287-299.
84
V É G H - V I C Z I Á N 1964
V É G H , A . - V I C Z I Á N , L: Petrographische Untersuchungen an den Silexwerkzeugen.
In: Vértes 8>í al.: Tata, eine mittelpaläolithische Travertinsiedlung in U n g a r n . A r c H u n g Bp, 1964,129-131
V É R T E S 1965
V É R T E S L.: Az őskőkor és az átmeneti kőkor emlékei Magyarországon. A Magyar Régészet Kézikönyve. Bp. 1965,
V É R T E S et al.1964
V É R T E S L. 8Í al.: Tata, eine Mittelpalaeolithische Travertin-Siedlung in Ungarn.
A r c h H u n g Bp. 1964.
85
Raw material type group
AveLength AveWidth AveHeight E"weight" (~ g) Ave'weight"
(~g)
Toia/ no. 0/ pieces9 Szentgál radiolarite 15,7 14,3 5,3 6,9 2,3 3 909 Szentgál radiolarite ? 20,75 13,9 6,1 23,4 2,9 8
910 Úrkút- Eplény radiolarite ? 18 n,5 5 0 2
11 H á r s k ú t radiolarite 28 18 7 7,6 3,8 2 911 H á r s k ú t radiolarite í 16 10,5 6,5 8,7 4,3 2 12 Tata type radiolarite 19,4 12,1 4,3 8,3 1,1 7 13 reddish brown
Trans-danubian radiolarite
22,7 19S 9 50,1 7,1 7
15 other Transdanubian radiolarite
15.5 n,5 4 1,5 0,7 2
915 other Transdanubian radiolarite í
21,8 18 9,5 79,3 5,2 15
19 Gerecse radiolarite 17,3 16 5,7 4,5 1,5 3
919 Gerecse radiolarite ? 23,25 20,2 12,2 29 7,2 4 928 Bakony Lower Jurassic
chert (spongiolite)?
2 4 18,7 11,3 0 3
5 3 quartzite 27,2 21 10,3 813,9 8,3 97
953 quartzite? 19 11 9 1,9 1,8 1
999 others (silex, limestone) 2 9 , 4 22,7 n,5 2289,1 4 4 52
total 25,9 2 0 9,8 3324,3 15,9 2 0 8
Table 1.
Raw material type group
Total nr. of pieces (total) pieces with cor- tex AveCortex % (pieces with cor- tex)
9 Szentgál radiolarite 3 0 0 0
909 Szentgál radiolarite ? 8 6,25 1 5 0
910 Urkút-Eplény radiolarite? 2 0 0 0
11 H á r s k ú t radiolarite 2 7,5 1 15
911 H á r s k ú t radiolarite ? 2 7,5 1 15
12 Tata type radiolarite 7 5,71 1 4 0
13 reddish brown
Trans-danubian radiolarite 7 8,57 2 3 0
15 other Transdanubian
radiolarite 2 0 0 0
915 other Transdanubian
radiolarite ? 15 n,33 7 2 4 , 2 9
19 Gerecse radiolarite 3 0 O 0
919 Gerecse radiolarite? 4 11,25 3 15
928 Bakony Lower Jurassic
chert (spongiolite)? 3 0 0 0
53 quartzite 97 13,7 66 ' 20,14
953 quartzite? I 15 1 15
999 others (silex, limestone) 5 2 11,48 19 31,42
total 2 0 8 11,23 1 0 2 22,9