Sourcing flint from Sweden and Denmark

Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 17, pp. 15–25 (2010) Sourcing lint from Sweden and Denmark A pilot study employing non-destructive energy dispersive X-ray luorescence spectrometry Richard E. Hughes1, Anders Högberg* 2 & Deborah Olausson3 * Corresponding author (anders.hogberg@malmo.se) 1 Geochemical Research Laboratory, 20 Portola Green Circle, Portola Valley, CA 94028, U.S.A. 2 University of Lund and Malmö Heritage, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund, Box 117, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden 3 Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund, Box 117, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden his article presents the results of a pilot study exploring the feasibility of using non-destructive energy dispersive X-ray luorescence (EDXRF) spectrometry for the chemical sourcing of lint from three geographical areas: eastern Denmark and southwestern Sweden (Stevns Klint, Møns Klint, Södra Sallerup), south and southwestern Sweden (Klagshamn, Östra Torp, Smygehuk) and southeastern Sweden (Hanaskog). he EDXRF results showed that the lint samples from Stevns Klint are all chemically alike on the basis of Si/Ca/Fe and Ca/Fe ratio data, even though they possess markedly diferent visual qualities and are of diferent geological ages. he samples from Södra Sallerup, Sweden, and Stevns Klint, Denmark, are chemically similar. Since the chalk slabs at Södra Sallerup were re-deposited by glacial ice, the results of the chemical analysis may indicate that they originated from the same formation that emerges at Stevns Klint. he samples from Klagshamn, Östra Torp and Smygehuk are visually alike and bear the same chemical signature; all three originate from the same geological formation of Danian age but are from diferent localities. he Common Kristianstad Flint (Hanaskog) is distinctive in appearance and the results of the EDXRF instrumental analysis yielded a corresponding unique Ca/Fe chemical signature. In summary, the pilot study successfully revealed distinctions among the lint samples. Keywords: lint, chemical sourcing, energy dispersive X-ray luorescence (EDXRF) analysis, south Sweden, Denmark Archaeologists have long been in need of reliable and replicable means to identify the speciic sources of the raw materials used to manufacture archaeological artefacts. In Scandinavian archaeology, Carl Johan Becker (1952) made one of the irst eforts to establish reliable criteria for diferentiating Scandinavian lint types so that the origins of the raw material sources for the Neolithic lint axe hoards in northern Sweden could be identiied. Becker relied on appearance and physical qualities to narrow down the origin of the lint to the Senonian deposits of eastern Zealand or southwestern Scania (Becker 1952:69; Knutsson 1988:51). In a recent study of Late Neolithic daggers, Jan Apel (2001) drew on Becker’s results to advance far-reaching conclusions about manufacturing centres and exchange systems. Other studies have focused on the availability and use of diferent lint sources and outcrops on a local or regional level (Högberg 2001, 2002; Knarrström  richard e. hughes, anders hgberg & deborah olausson 2001; Carlsson 2004). he terms “lint” and “chert” are often used interchangeably and there is a lack of consensus among archaeologists as to what to call ine-grained, knappable siliceous rocks. Some regard lint as a type of chert, others consider lint to be one type of rock and chert another (Luedtke 1992). In this article we follow the Scandinavian practice and refer to all chert varieties as lint. here are two ways to identify the primary source of a piece of lint: 1) based on optical, or macroscopic, properties of the material, and 2) via instrumental analyses of chemical composition. Although many Scandinavian archaeologists have addressed questions concerned with the origins of lint as a raw material, most conclusions have been based on macroscopic properties, which tend to be described subjectively and can be altered signiicantly by post-depositional knapping and/or patination. A recent study of Scandinavian lint (Högberg & Olausson 2007) illustrates the variety and complexity of this material and demonstrates the diiculties involved in arriving at a wholly satisfactory macroscopic classiication based on morphology alone. his article presents the results of a pilot study which explores the feasibility of using non-destructive energy dispersive X-ray luorescence spectrometry (EDXRF) for the chemical sourcing of lint from southern Sweden and eastern Denmark. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify what we mean by “source”, a term that has been used in a variety of ways in archaeology (for a discussion, see Hughes 1998). From the standpoint of instrumentally-based analyses, the term source usually refers to a distinct entity – a basalt, andesite, obsidian, chert or lint – deined on the basis of unique combinations and concentrations of chemical constituents (Hughes 1986:49) that may be diferentially bounded in space. In obsidian sourcing research, sources are deined geochemically, by their chemical composition rather than by their spatial extent (Hughes 1998:104). In western North America, for example, some chemically discrete obsidian sources occur over a very small geographical area, perhaps only a few kilometres, while artefact-quality obsidian formed in ash-low tuf sheets in adjacent geographical areas may occur widely over an area of perhaps 10 000 square kilometres (Hughes & Smith 1993). Scandinavian lint chemical types occur over even larger areas. Consequently, we use the term “source” interchangeably with “chemical type” to underscore chemical coherence, not spatial distribution.  Optical Methods Optical methods, appealing to the observable physical properties of specimens, are of course the fastest and least costly way to assign a lint artefact to a source. Becker’s (1952) classiication relied on visual qualities, as does the system proposed recently by Högberg and Olausson (2007). Although it is generally possible to distinguish among Scandinavian lint types using variables such as colour, cortex morphology, translucency and homogeneity, it is clear that there is some overlap and ambiguity involved in any optical classiication system (Bettinger et al. 1984). he classiication proposed by Högberg and Olausson (2007) is based principally on the appearance of primary lint augmented by observations made at the various primary sources visited in the course of the study. However, the appearance of lint can be seriously altered by post-depositional weathering and patination (Luedtke 1992). In some cases the appearance of the cortex or the transition between the cortex and the lint are the main diagnostic feature. When this is absent it may be impossible to distinguish visually between two types (Fig. 1). Högberg and Olausson (2007) also show that the same type of lint can sometimes occur at a number of separate locations. In an earlier attempt to identify lint on the basis of appearance, Lis Ekelund Nielsen (1993) was able to distinguish reliably between three varieties of lint used for the manufacture of Neolithic axes on Jutland by employing a combination of visual characteristics (mostly colour, texture and fossils), thin sections and examination at 25–50x magniications under a stereomicroscope to support her classiication. Kinnunen et al. (1985) and Tralau (1974) have attempted to identify lint sources on the basis of their fossil content, but because not all types of Scandinavian lints contain recognizable fossils, this method is of limited value. Instrumental Methods Although various geochemical analyses of chalk lint have been carried out in England and the Netherlands (de Bruin et al. 1972; Sieveking et al. 1972; Craddock et al. 1983; Bush & Sieveking 1986; Gardiner 1990; McDonnell et al. 1997), no systematic work has been done to characterize the geochemical composition of Scandinavian lint sources. A chemical analysis of specimens of Senonian lint from Stevns Klint, Denmark showed that it consisted of 98.44% SiO2 (Micheelsen 1966:308). In order to identify lint artefacts found at edxrf sourcing flint from sweden and denmark Figure 1. An example illustrating the difficulty of visually distinguishing among different types of flint. The Grey Band Danian Flint (Högberg & Olausson 2007:104ff) to the left can be found on northern Jutland in Denmark and in southwestern Scania in Sweden. It has a characteristic grey band at the transition between the flint matrix and the cortex. If this flint is knapped so that the cortex and grey band are removed, it becomes difficult to distinguish it on visual qualities alone from the Scandinavian Senonian Flint (to the right), for example (Högberg & Olausson 2007:88ff). Scandinavian Senonian Flint can be found in northern Jutland and on Zealand in Denmark and in southwestern Scania in Sweden. Finnish Stone Age and Bronze Age sites as being made either of “eastern” (i.e. Russian) or “western” (i.e. Danish or Swedish) lint, Matiskainen et al. (1989) used atomic absorption spectrometry to analyse 71 samples for 20 chemical elements, and succeeded in distinguishing between these two broad source categories on the basis of ive elements. Subsequently, Costopoulos (2003) tested new elemental composition data on the same samples using an electron microprobe and an energy dispersive spectrometer and arrived at a similar conclusion. As with optical characterization, there are problems associated with instrumental methods. he instrumentation required to carry out the analyses is expensive and the work requires specialist knowledge. Costs can be high and the analysis generally requires close cooperation between the archaeologist and the analyst. Bush (1976:48) lists the following prerequisites for successful identiication of a chert source by trace element analysis, but these strictures also apply to the use of other (major, minor and rare earth) elements: 1. he material from each source must not vary widely in its trace element composition. 2. he trace elements used should be ones that will be uniformly distributed through the chert and not likely to be concentrated in occasional rare mineral grains. 3. he “ingerprint” of each source, i.e. its composition in terms of trace elements, must be suiciently distinct to allow for differentiation between sources. While the actual elements used to construct sourcespeciic chemical signatures (sensu Hughes 1998:104) may vary from region to region depending on the compositions of the materials studied, the combinations of elements must be suiciently clear-cut to distinguish among the possible outcrops/sources in any particular area (cf. Malyk-Selivanova et al. 1998:679). he Flint Problem Because of the way they are formed, lints in chalk and limestone can be assumed to fulil the three requirements listed by Bush (1976). Since lint is composed mainly of SiO2, one approach has been to measure the trace elements whose origins are non-carbonate materials (e.g. clay minerals and heavy minerals) which  richard e. hughes, anders hgberg & deborah olausson were incorporated in the lint as it was being formed by the replacement of calcium carbonate with silica (Tite 1972:308). he impurities present in a speciic lint are a relection of many factors, including the types of rock present in adjacent land masses, weathering processes afecting these rocks, the nature of the processes transporting sediments into bodies of water, the chemical conditions in the deposition basin, and the distance between the basin where the lint was forming and dry land (Luedtke 1992:36). he lints in the north European Maastrichtian chalk and the Danian limestone were formed by the replacement of calcium carbonate in a molecule-to-molecule process, resulting in the preservation of the non-carbonate material that existed in the chalk/limestone. It is this noncarbonate material that served as the prime source of trace elements in the lint. he chalk in any particular horizon is generally uniform in composition, but there are nonetheless signiicant chemical variations with time between horizons, so that one horizon should be discernable from another (Sieveking et al. 1972:156; Bush 1976:48; Craddock et al. 1983:138; Bush & Sieveking 1986:134; McDonnell et al. 1997). Parts of a formation that were closer to the source of sediments, were covered by shallower water, or were deposited in water with somewhat diferent pH or oxidizing/reducing conditions may nevertheless difer in some ways from the rest of the formation, although they may be similar in other ways (Bush & Sieveking 1986:134; Luedtke 1992:55). hrough the entire Late Cretaceous-Danian time interval the land masses surrounding the Danish Basin were lat and low-lying and the climate was arid. As a result, very little terrigenous material reached the shallow epicontinental sea in northwestern Europe (Surlyk & Håkansson 1999). Because of this, Scandinavian lints contain low concentrations of trace elements, which place high demands on analytical methods. Ideally, these must be capable of detecting a large suite of elements, even when these elements occur at very low concentrations. Traditional analytical methods such as X-ray luorescence, PIXE or NAA have previously yielded variable results when employed for lint sourcing (Craddock et al. 1983:138). Primary and Secondary Flint Sources in Scandinavia Flint can be found in primary deposits in Denmark and in southern Sweden, where there are numerous outcrops of Danian, Maastrichtian and Campanian age. hese sources were exploited in situ by prehistoric  people to varying degrees, either through mining efforts or by taking advantage of lint layers eroding out of clif faces. he primary sources were then augmented by secondary ones located in glacial moraines and on beaches, where ice movements had excavated lint from primary sources and redeposited it, creating a complex mixture of diferent lint types over large parts of the region. Provenance determinations in Scandinavia are therefore greatly complicated by the geological conditions, which have made large quantities of secondary lint available to prehistoric populations on beaches and in glacial till (Högberg & Olausson 2007). he instrumental sourcing methods in use today can tell us the primary source of the lint we are investigating, but they do not enable us to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Once the primary sources have been successfully deined, there may be further diiculties connected with linking a piece of lint (or a lint artefact) from a secondary context with one of the primary sources. For the geochemical ingerprinting of lint to be useful in sourcing archaeological artefacts, it must be assumed that the lint composition remain unaltered by exposure to soil, weathering, or other processes for the long periods of time for which the lint remains were exposed at the surface (Bush 1976:48; Rapp 1985:355; McDonnell et al. 1997:372). Luedtke (1992:57) and hacker & Ellwood (2002:476) caution against using cortical or weathered surfaces of samples for geochemical sourcing, since lint is susceptible to a number of post-depositional processes which can alter their internal chemistry. Only a few systematic studies have been carried out to test this assumption, however. In one such study, de Bruin et al. (1972) used non-destructive NAA to measure elements in lint from several north European sources and found when comparing the results for nodules in the Rijckholt mine in the Netherlands with those for lint lakes from the workshop outside the mine that the Rijckholt mine and workshop specimens were not chemically identical. heir conclusion was that the chemical composition of the lakes had been altered by the depositional environment (de Bruin et al. 1972:63). However, Bush (1976:48) writes that chalk cherts (lints) are dense and of low permeability, which reduces the possibility of trace elements being removed by leaching or of material being added from the groundwater. he conclusion to be drawn is that geochemical analyses of lints from secondary contexts may be complicated and the prospects of identifying the primary source for any given artefact may be problematic. edxrf sourcing flint from sweden and denmark Table 1. Source, description, type of flint according to Högberg and Olausson (2007) and samples included in the study. Source Description Östra Torp An abandoned modern limestone quarry. Type of flint Matte Danian Flint, Östra Torp Variety Klagshamn An abandoned modern limestone quarry. Matte Danian Flint, Östra Torp Variety A Maastrichtian chalk and Danian limestone Matte Danian Flint, Östra Stevns Torp Variety and Scandicliff by the sea. Klint navian Senonian Flint Smygehuk Södra Sallerup Møns Klint Hanaskog Sample Ten flint nodules collected from a quarry dump. Ten flint nodules collected from a quarry dump. Ten flint nodules from each of two layers of Danian age and ten nodules from one layer of Senonian age, all collected in situ. An outcrop on a beach. Matte Danian Flint, Östra Ten flint nodules collected from the Torp Variety outcrop. Ten flint nodules collected in situ Large chalk slabs containing flint which were Scandinavian Senonian Flint from dumps at the modern quarry. scooped up by glacial ice and re-deposited at the site. Systematic mining of flint started here in the Early Neolithic, and chalk quarrying has continued until quite recently. A Masstrichtian chalk cliff by the sea. Scandinavian Senonian Twenty nodules from each of two Flint flint layers. An abandoned modern limestone quarry. Common Kristianstad Nine nodules collected from quarry Flint dumps. Nevertheless, the irst order of business is to generate a chemical “ingerprint”, or chemical proile, for each known primary source. Once that step is completed, one may ind that the geochemical signature of a secondary lint occurrence matches that of one of the primary sources (prompting one to conclude that the lint came from that source), or that it may not match any of the known sources. However, even assuming we are able to achieve a successful characterization of the primary sources, geochemical analysis alone cannot tell us whether the lint was collected or mined directly from the outcrop in question or whether it was derived from a nodule in a secondary geological deposit that was “mined” by a glacier (Williams-horpe et al. 1999:210). A possible method for making this distinction has been described by Shockey (1995), who used polarization to distinguish between quarry area specimens and streamrolled rocks representing the same material. Geochemical Analysis of Scandinavian Flints In an attempt to ind a reliable method for chemically characterizing Scandinavian lint sources, Högberg and Olausson initiated a study of lint from ten geological contexts. A total of 119 nodules were collected from the ten localities in southern Sweden and Denmark (Table 1, Fig. 2) and samples from these nodules were submitted for geochemical analysis. Several methods were tested: Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICPMS), Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) of solutions, ICP-MS of solutions and Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF). LA-ICP-MS can provide compositional data on 50–60 elements, while the other techniques typically provide compositional data on 30 elements or less (Speakman et al. 2002). Laser ablation ICPMS has lower detection limits for many elements than do the other instrumental techniques (Gratuze et al. 2001; Speakman et al. 2002), and this method has been used successfully on English chalk lint (Rockman pers. comm. 2002). EDXRF typically measures fewer elements than ICP techniques, and with a lower precision, but it can rapidly generate data for a large number of elements without sacriicing any portion of the sample for analysis (Giauque et al. 1993). Only the last of these methods proved efective for the present samples. Before we describe the successful results we achieved using EDXRF, we will briely describe the diiculties we encountered with the others. Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) A total of 360 lake samples taken from the 119 lint nodules were submitted to the Research Reactor  richard e. hughes, anders hgberg & deborah olausson Figure 2. Map of south Scandinavia showing the sources of flint mentioned in the text. The distance between Klagshamn and Hanaskog is approximately 125 km. Center at the University of Missouri-Columbia for LA-ICP-MS. Laser ablation ICP-MS requires little sample preparation other than resizing to it inside the sample chamber. he samples were washed in deionized water and left to dry. Each sample was then crushed into coarse fragments, and relatively lat interior fragments with little or no cortex were selected for analysis. he results showed that the samples had a high silica concentration, which unfortunately resulted in  dilution of the other elements. he conclusion was that this method, as employed under existing analytical conditions, was unsuitable for characterizing Scandinavian lint types (Speakman et al. 2002; Speakman pers. comm. 2004). Samples from the same nodules were subsequently analysed by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectroscopy and Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-MS and ICP-OES) of solutions at the Analytical Unit of the University of edxrf sourcing flint from sweden and denmark Greenwich. Sample preparation for this method involved crushing the lakes and then milling them to a ine powder. 0.5000 g of each powder was then dissolved in acid and heated to near dryness. his procedure was repeated twice, and inally the powder was dissolved in nitric acid. his approach resulted in the removal of Si from the lint and dissolving of the remaining lint (Wray 2005). he results indicated that the samples were quite homogeneous within each respective layer or locality, while the layers and localities were distinct from each other (Wray pers. comm. 2006). Further sampling and more detailed analyses would be necessary, however, before deinitive geochemical compositions could be established for the sources using these methods. Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Analysis (EDXRF) Because of the obvious importance of artefact conservation in archaeology, neither ICP-MS nor ICP-OES, being destructive methods, is ideally suited for use in artefact provenance studies. Although X-ray luorescence analysis has been applied with great success to the study of volcanic rocks such as obsidian (e.g. Jack 1976; Reeves & Ward 1976; Stross et al. 1976; Nelson 1984, 1985; Hughes 1986; Asaro et al. 1994; Shackley 2005; Iovino et al. 2008; Hughes & Lucas 2009), it has not to our knowledge been as widely used on sedimentary rocks such as chalk lint. EDXRF has certain other advantages in addition to being a completely non-destructive method. Its precision for trace and rare earth element measurement is not as good as that of ICP-MS or ICP-OES, but its sensitivity to certain low atomic number major elements (e.g. Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe) allows measurements of these to be used in combination to identify contrasts among certain Scandinavian lint types. Instrumentation and Results To determine whether or not non-destructive EDXRF would be useful for the characterization of Scandinavian lints, a sample of ive lakes detached from different nodules recovered from each of ten collection localities (including three separate layers at Stevns Klint and two at Møns Klint) was analysed (see Table 1 and Fig. 2 for locations). he instrumental analysis was performed by Hughes using a QuanX-EC™ (hermo Electron Corporation) EDXRF spectrometer equipped with a silver (Ag) X-ray tube, a 50 kV X-ray generator, a digital pulse processor with automated energy calibration and a Peltier cooled solid state detector with 145 eV resolution (FWHM) at 5.9 keV. he X-ray tube was operated at various voltage and current settings to optimize the excitation of the elements selected for analysis. Sample pretreatment for the whole rock EDXRF analyses was limited to cleaning with distilled water to remove any noticeable surface contaminants. Special care was taken to avoid directing the X-ray beam onto obvious patinated surfaces (see above) or calcareous or fossil inclusions. he only other requirement was that each sample should be relatively lat, > c. 2–3 mm thick and >15–20 mm in diameter. Although no analyses were performed here on lint artefacts, the same size parameters should apply to archaeological specimens as to geological samples. Initial analyses were conducted for the trace elements rubidium (Rb Kα), strontium (Sr Kα), yttrium (Y Kα), zirconium (Zr Kα) and niobium (Nb Kα), but it quickly became apparent that these data could not be employed because the peak/background counts were far lower than the element-speciic detection limits of EDXRF. A second set of experiments included analyses for Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Mn and Fe (using the Kα emission line for each element) but, as with the above trace elements, the extremely low number of X-ray emission counts/second generated for Al, K, Ti and Mn indicated that these elements similarly would not yield reliable data. Subsequent experiments focused on Si, Ca and Fe, as these generated much higher count rates (counts/second over the background). he analyses for Si, Ca, and Fe were conducted at 30 deadtimecorrected seconds in order to generate backgroundsubtracted integrated net count rate (counts/second) data. Overlapping Kα and Kβ line contributions from adjacent elements were stripped, and the tube current was scaled automatically to the physical size of each specimen. Although these experiments employed integrated count rate data, the typical 2σ quantitative analysis measurement precision for SiO2, Ca and Fe was 1–2% relative. A ternary diagram plot for the 50 specimens examined by EDXRF in this pilot study is shown in Figure 3. As expected in the light of the data published by Micheelsen (1966), all the samples contained relatively high amounts of SiO2, but the variations in Ca and Fe composition allowed the lints to be partitioned into two general groups, one consisting of the samples from Smygehuk, Östra Torp and Klagshamn and the other of those from Møns Klint, Stevns Klint  richard e. hughes, anders hgberg & deborah olausson Figure 3. Ternary diagram plot for the Scandinavian flint samples. and Södra Sallerup. he samples from Hanaskog plotted close to the latter group, although this source was found to contain a higher proportion of Fe. A bivariate plot of Ca vs. Fe (Fig. 4) provides a somewhat clearer picture of these chemical relations by removing the high Si from the picture. he same two-part separation as was documented in Figure 3 also appears in Figure 4, but with some reinement. In this case a relatively high Ca group (made up of Smygehuk, Östra Torp and Klagshamn) and a group with relatively low Ca and Fe (consisting of Møns Klint, Stevns Klint and Södra Sallerup) are apparent, while Hanaskog is clearly distinguished from both of these other two groups on the basis of its relatively higher Fe. he reader will have immediately noticed that these provisional chemical groupings are to a certain extent geographically discrete. he Smygehuk, Östra Torp and Klagshamn localities are all in southwestern Scania, Sweden, Hanaskog is in northeastern Scania, Sweden, and Møns Klint, Stevns Klint and Södra Sallerup are in eastern Denmark and southwestern Scania (see Fig. 2). It is notable that, although Klagshamn and Södra Sallerup are located only about  20 km from one another, the Ca/Fe ratio data show that lints from these sources represent quite diferent chemical types. Discussion Luedtke (1992) observed that chemical variation in chert formations is often correlated with variability in their visual characteristics. In general, the more extreme the visible diferences within a chert type, the more extreme the chemical variability (Luedtke 1992:54). he results indicate, however, that this generalization cannot be reliably applied to the lints we have analysed. When we compare the chemical signatures based on the EDXRF analyses with the geological contexts, spatial locations and visual qualities of the lint samples, interesting results appear. he samples from Stevns Klint are all chemically alike in terms of their Si/ Ca/Fe and Ca/Fe ratio data, yet they possess markedly diferent visual qualities and are of diferent geological ages. he samples are of both Maastrichtian and Danian ages and are classiied visually as representing Scandinavian Senonian Flint or the Östra Torp Variety of edxrf sourcing flint from sweden and denmark Figure 4. Bivariate plot of Ca/Fe composition for the Scandinavian flint samples. Matte Danian Flint. We note, too, that the samples from Södra Sallerup and those from Stevns Klint are chemically similar, although the two localities are about 50 km apart. We know that the chalk slabs at Södra Sallerup are not in situ. Bertil Ringberg (1980:57f) has suggested that they were removed from the loor of the Baltic Sea to the south and re-deposited in their present location by glacial ice. It is therefore entirely possible that the chalk and its lint at Södra Sallerup comes from the same formation as that which emerges at Stevns Klint, in which case the origin of the slabs must lie southwest of Södra Sallerup. Our chemical data are consonant with this conclusion. he samples from Klagshamn, Östra Torp and Smygehuk are visually alike and bear the same chemical signature. All three originate from the same geological formation of Danian age but are from diferent localities. he Common Kristianstad Flint (Hanaskog) is distinctive in appearance and the results of our EDXRF instrumental analysis yielded a corresponding unique Ca/Fe chemical signature. Future work notwithstanding, these pilot study results reveal distinctions among three geographical areas: eastern Denmark with southwestern Sweden (Stevns Klint, Møns Klint, Södra Sallerup), southwestern Sweden (Klagshamn, Östra Torp, Smygehuk) and southeastern Sweden (Hanaskog). While we are gratiied by these initial research results, we caution that they are only preliminary. More samples need to be analysed from these localities to ensure that the groupings remain discrete, and additional samples need to be tested from localities not included in this study to determine the degree to which Si/Ca/Fe signatures remain useful for identifying lints in this part of the world in general. Further work will also be undertaken to convert the integrated intensity data to concentration estimates in order to facilitate comparisons with research conducted at other laboratories. It should be pointed out that these results are applicable to fresh, unpatinated surfaces. Since patination may alter the surface chemistry (Shepherd 1972; Luedtke 1992; Högberg & Olausson 2007), it is important to investigate whether EDXRF analysis is accurate for patinated lint as well. his will be the subject of further studies. Our ultimate objective is to apply these chemical distinctions to the analysis  richard e. hughes, anders hgberg & deborah olausson of prehistoric artefacts of diferent ages to establish whether or not there was change and/or continuity through time in material acquisition and conveyance patterns in diferent parts of Scandinavia. Acknowledgements his paper was revised and expanded from a talk delivered at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, October 20, 2008. Economic support was provided by Birgit och Gad Rausings Stiftelse för Humanistisk Forskning and by Elisabeth Rausings minnesfond. English language revision by Malcolm Hicks. References Apel, J. 2001. Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The Social Aspects of FlintDagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal BC. Uppsala. Asaro, F., Salazar, E., Michel, H. V., Burger, R. L. & Stross, F. H. 1994. Ecuadorian Obsidian Sources Used for Artifact Production and Methods for Provenience Assignments. Latin American Antiquity 5, pp. 257–277. Becker, C. J. 1952 Die nordschewedischen Flintdepots. Acta Archaeologica XXIII, pp. 65–79. Bettinger, R. L., Delacorte, M. G.& Jackson, R. J. 1984. Visual Sourcing of Central Eastern California Obsidians. In R. E. Hughes (ed.): Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin, pp. 63–78. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 45. Berkeley. Bush, P. R. 1976. The use of trace elements in the archaeological classiication of cherts. Staringia 3, pp. 47–48. Bush, P. R. & Sieveking, G. d. G. 1986. Geochemistry and the provenance of lint axes. In G. d. G. Sieveking & M. B. Hart (eds.): The scientiic study of lint and chert, pp. 135–140. Cambridge. Carlsson, T. 2004. Mellan kvarts och linta. In T. Carlsson (ed.): Mötesplats Motala – de första 8 000 åren, pp. 54–57. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Stockholm. Costopoulos, A. 2003. Prehistoric lint provenance in Finland: reanalysis of Southern data and initial results for the North. Fennoscandia archaeologica XX, pp. 41–54. Craddock, P. T., Cowell, M. R., Leese, M. N. &Hughes, M. J. 1983. The trace element composition of polished lint axes as an indicator of source. Archaeometry 25(2), pp. 135–163. de Bruin, M., Korthoven, P. J. M., Bakels, C. C. & Groen, F. C. A. 1972. The use of non-destructive activation analysis and pattern recognition in the study of lint artefacts. Archaeometry 14(1), pp. 55–63. Gardiner, J. 1990. Flint Procurement and Neolithic Axe Production on the South Downs: a re-assessment. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9. pp. 119–140. Giauque, R. D., Asaro, F., Stross, F. H. & Hester, T. R. 1993. Highprecision non-destructive X-ray luorescence method applicable to establishing the provenance of obsidian artifacts. X-Ray Spectrometry 22, pp. 44–53. Gratuze, B., Blet-Lemarquand, M. & Barrandon, J.-N. 2001. Mass spectrometry with laser sampling: A new tool to characterize archaeological materials. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 247(3), pp. 645–656. Högberg, A. 2001. Öresundsförbindelsen. Flinta i yngre bronsålder och  äldre järnålder. Malmö Kulturmiljö. Malmö. Högberg, A. 2002. Production Sites on the Beach Ridge of Järavallen. Aspects of Tool Preforms, Action, Technology, Ritual and the Continuity of Place. Current Swedish Archaeology 10(2002), pp. 137–162. Högberg, A. & Olausson, D. 2007. Scandinavian Flint: An Archaeological Perspective. Århus. Hughes, R. E. 1986. Diachronic Variability in Obsidian Procurement Patterns in Northeastern California and Southcentral Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology 17. Hughes, R. E. 1998. On Reliability, Validity, and Scale in Obsidian Sourcing Research. In A. F. Ramenofsky & A. Steffen (eds.): Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space and Material, pp. 103–114. Salt Lake City. Hughes, R. E., & Lucas, G. M. 2009. Geochemical Identiication of the Source for Obsidian Artifacts from the Viking Settlement at Hofstaðir in Mývatnssveit, Northeastern Iceland. Archaeologia Islandica 7, pp. 41–54. Hughes, R. E. & Smith, R. L. 1993. Archaeology. Geology and Geochemistry in Obsidian Provenance Studies. In J. K. Stein & A.R. Linse (eds.): Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientiic Perspectives, pp. 79–91. Geological Society of America Special Paper 283. Iovino, M. R., Maniscalco, L., Pappalardo, G., Pappalardo, L., Puglisi, D., Rizzo, F. & Romano, F. P. 2008. Archaeological Volcanic Glass from the Site of Rocchicella (Sicily, Italy). Archaeometry 50, pp. 474–494. Jack, R. N. 1976. Prehistoric Obsidian in California I: Geochemical Aspects. In R. E. Taylor (ed.): Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp. 183–217. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Kinnunen, K., Tynni, R., Hokkanen, K. & Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1985. Flint raw materials of prehistoric Finland: rock types, surface textures and microfossils. Geological Survey of Finland 334. Geologian tutkimuskeskus, Espoo. Knarrström, B. 2001. Flint a Scanian Hardware. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Lund. Knutsson, K. 1988. Making and using stone tools. AUN 11. Uppsala. Luedtke, B. E. 1992. An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Malyk-Selivanova, N., Ashley, G. M., Gal, R., Glascock, M.D. & Neff, H. 1998. Geological - Geochemical Approach to “Sourcing” of Prehistoric Chert Artifacts, Northwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology 13(7), pp. 673–708. Matiskainen, H., Vuorinen, A. & Burman, O. 1989. The Provenance of Prehistoric Flint in Finland. In Y. Maniatis (ed.): Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, pp. 625–643. Amsterdam. McDonnell, R. D., Kars, H. & Jansen, B. H. 1997. Petrography and Geochemistry of Flint from Six Neolithic Sources in Southern Limburg (The Netherlands) and Northern Belgium. In A. Ramos-Millán & M. A. Bustillo (eds.): Siliceous Rocks and Culture, pp. 371–84. Granada. Micheelsen, H. 1966. The Structure of Dark Flint from Stevns, Denmark. Meddelelser fra Dansk Geologisk Forening 16, pp. 285– 368. Nelson, F. W., Jr. 1984. X-ray luorescence Analysis of Some Western North American Obsidians. In R. E. Hughes (ed.): Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin, pp. 27–62. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 45. Berkeley. Nelson, F. W., Jr. 1985. Summary of the Results of Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Maya Lowlands. Scanning Electron Microscopy II, pp. 631–649. Nielsen, L. E. 1993. Proveniensundersøgelser av lint i europæisk arkæologi: metoder og muligheder - og muligheder i Danmark. Aarhus edxrf sourcing flint from sweden and denmark universitet. Rapp, G. J. 1985. The provenance of artifactual raw materials. In G. J. Rapp & J. A. Gifford (eds.): Archaeological Geology, pp. 353–375. New Haven, Connecticut. Reeves, R. D. & Ward, G. K. 1976. Characterization Studies of New Zealand Obsidians: Toward a Regional Prehistory. In R. E. Taylor (ed.): Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies:Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp. 259–287. Park Ridge, New Jersey. Ringberg, B. 1980. Beskrivning till Jordartskartan Malmö SÖ. SGU Serie Ae, nr. 38. Shackley, M. S. 2005. Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. Tucson. Shepherd, W. 1972. Flint: its Origin, Properties and Uses. Faber and Faber. London. Schockey, D. E. 1995. Some observations of polarization and luorescence in primary and secondary source lithic materials. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 44, pp. 91–115. Sieveking, G. d. G., Bush, P., Ferguson, J., Craddock, P. T., Hughes, M. J. & Cowell, M. R. 1972. Prehistoric lint mines and their identiication as sources of raw material. Archaeometry 14(2), pp. 151–76. Speakman, R. J., Neff, H., Glascock, M. D. & Higgins, B. J. 2002. Characterization of archeological materials by laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma--mass spectrometry. In K. Jakes (ed.): Archaeological Chemistry VI: Materials, Methods and Meaning, pp. 48–63. Washington, D.C. Stross, F. H., Hester, T. R., Heizer, R. F. & Jack, R. N. 1976. Chemical and Archaeological Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidians. In R. E. Taylor (ed.): Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies:Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp. 240–258. Park Ridge, New Jersey. Surlyk, F. & Håkansson, E. 1999. Maastrichtian and Danian strata in the southeastern part of the Danish Basin. In G. K. Pedersen & L. B. Clemmensen (eds.): Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 29–68. Geological Institute, Copenhagen. Thacker, P. T. & Ellwood, B. B. 2002. The Magnetic Susceptibility of Cherts: Archaeological and Geochemical Implications of Source Variation. Geoarchaeology 17(5), pp. 465–482. Tite, M. S. 1972. Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology. New York. Tralau, H. 1974. Micropalaeontological analysis of Ordovician lint artifacts from a stone age settlement at Ire, Gotland. In G. Janzon (ed.): Gotlands Mellanneolitiska Gravar, pp. 247–249. Studies in North-European archaeology, Stockholm. Williams-Thorpe, O., Aldiss, D., Rigby, I. J. & Thorpe, R. S. 1999. Geochemical Provenancing of Igneous Glacial Erratics from Southern Britain, and Implications for Prehistoric Stone Implement Distributions. Geoarchaeology 14(3), pp. 209–46. Wray, D. 2005. Test report 092. Analytical Unit, University of Greenwich. On ile, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University. Personal communication Rockman, Marcy. 2002. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ 85712 USA. Speakman, R. Jeff. 2004. Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor, Columbia, MO 65211 USA. Wray, David. 2006. School of Science, The University of Greenwich at Medway, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB UK. 