Geochemical characterization of Quaternary tephras from the Campanian Province, Italy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1040-6182/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.qu

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Quaternary International 178 (2008) 288–305

Geochemical characterization of Quaternary tephras from theCampanian Province, Italy

Chris S.M. Turneya,�, Simon P.E. Blockleyb, J. John Lowec, Sabine Wulfd, Nick P. Branchc,Giuseppe Mastrolorenzoe, Gemma Swindlec, Roger Nathanb, A. Mark Pollardb

aSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, GeoQuEST Research Centre, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, AustraliabResearch Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

cDepartment of Geography, Centre for Quaternary Research, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UKdJohn A. & Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas, J.J. Pickle Research Campus, Bldg. 196, 10100

Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758 4445, USAeOsservatorio Vesuviano, 80123 Naples, Italy

Available online 1 March 2007

Abstract

The Campanian province has a rich history of human interaction with volcanic eruptions. In a region currently inhabited by 3 million

people, it is crucial to have precise and accurate geochemical characterization of volcanic units within the region so as to identify the

spatial distribution of past events. Furthermore, tephrochronology is becoming an important tool in the region for correlating past

environmental records. Unfortunately, many of the key units have been geochemically analysed using relatively imprecise methods,

making correlation problematic. Although robust correlations have been established in the Campanian province using a range of

methods, including stratigraphy and geochronology, more distal correlation requires precise geochemical characterisation of individual

glass shards. Here we report major oxide data, geochemically characterising 17 key tephra units within the Campanian province using

wavelength dispersive spectrometry (WDS). The new data confirm the trachytic nature of most of the eruptions. To effect more precise

correlations between units (especially in distal locations), proximal units must be individually analysed for major oxides using WDS on

the vitreous phase, and statistically analysed for robust correlations. In cases where similar geochemistry exists, analysis of trace and rare

earth elements may be necessary.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Campanian volcanic province encompasses the cityof Napoli and comprises several fields of activity, most ofwhich are active today: the Somma-Vesuvius compositestratovolcano, the islands of Ischia and Procida, and thePhlegrean Fields (Scarth and Tanguy, 2001) (Fig. 1). Theregion has a long and complex history of volcanic activity(Peccerillo, 2005), all within a region that has a present daypopulation of 3 million (Heiken, 1999). Throughout theHolocene, the Campanian province has demonstrated along history of volcanic activity and human interaction (DiVito et al., 1987; Mastrolorenzo et al., 2001, 2002, 2006)that provide important analogues for future eruptions.

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights re

aint.2007.02.007

ing author. Tel.: +612 4221 3561; fax: +61 2 4221 4250.

ess: [email protected] (C.S.M. Turney).

The Phlegrean Fields (also known as the Campi Flegreicaldera) is a densely populated, resurgent structure (de Vitaet al., 1999) that is still active. The associated tephras arenamed after their eruptive centre or the locality of their firstidentification. The Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) that formedthe 12–15 km diameter caldera seen today (Fig. 1) eruptedsometime between 37 and 41 ka (Deino et al., 1992; Rosi etal., 1999) and was the most voluminous and widelydispersed Late-Pleistocene tephra in the eastern Mediter-ranean (Pyle et al., 2006). Nested within the CI caldera, afurther caldera collapse erupted the Neapolitan YellowTuff (NYT) approximately 15 ka (Deino et al., 2004),producing the largest known trachytic phreatoplinianeruption in the Mediterranean of the last 200 ka. Inhistorical times, activity has continued, including therelatively recent AD 1538 Monte Nuovo eruption (Di Vitoet al., 1987; Piochi et al., 2005) and bradyseismic activity

served.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2007.02.007

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. The Campanian Province, showing the major fields of volcanic activity: (A) Somma-Vesuvius, Ischia and Procida; and (B) The Phlegrean Fields.

Major craters investigated during this study are named. Open circles with bold letters denote sample locations. AMS: Agnano Monte Spina; A/M:

Avellino & Mercato; Av: Averno; As: Astroni; B: Fondo di Baia; Ci: Cigliano; Co: Concola; FR: Fondo Riccio; M: Miseno; MN: Monte Nuovo; NYT:

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff (Potsdam analyses); N: Nisida; Po: Pompeii; Pr: Procida; S: Solfatara; T: Torregaveta (Belfast analyses of pre-caldera and NYT).

C.S.M. Turney et al. / Quaternary International 178 (2008) 288–305 289

(Di Vito et al., 1999; Morhange et al., 2006). In contrast,the Somma-Vesuvius stratovolcano largely developedsubsequent to the CI (Andronico et al., 1998) and hasproduced several Plinian eruptions over the subsequentmillennia, the most recent of which was the AD 79 eventthat destroyed the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum(Santacroce, 1987). Within Campania, the Phlegrean Fieldsis the most active. Since the eruption of the NYT, at least64 eruptions have been documented, most falling within 3epochs of intense activity: between 12 and 9.5 kaBP (EpochI), 8.6 and 8.2 kaBP (Epoch II), and 4.8 and 3.8 kaBP(Epoch III) (Di Vito et al., 1999; Orsi et al., 2004).

The tephras generated within the Campanian provinceexhibit a geochemical composition ranging from trachyba-saltic to phonolitic (Rosi and Sbrana, 1987; Santacroce,1987; Vezzoli, 1988), although many of them are relativelysimilar. Despite the wealth of stratigraphic descriptions ofmajor eruption units through the province, there is arelative paucity of precise, geochemical characterisation ofmany of the key tephra units found in the region; in spite ofthe large spatial and temporal coverage of many of theseevents in terrestrial and marine records throughout thecentral and eastern Mediterranean region (Keller et al.,1978; Paterne et al., 1986, 1988, 1990; Vezzoli, 1991;Calanchi et al., 1998; Narcisi and Vezzoli, 1999; Siani et al.,2001, 2004). Until relatively recently, the majority ofstudies reporting geochemical analyses of eruption eventshave been restricted to X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) andscanning electron microscope energy dispersive spectro-metry (EDS) (cf. Narcisi, 1996; Davies et al., 2002; Wulf etal., 2004). As a result of the different analytical methodsused by researchers (commonly with different goals inmind that are not specifically aimed at producing data fortephrochronological interpretation), correlations using

geochemical composition alone have frequently provedproblematic (Calanchi et al., 1998). The close similarity ingeochemical signature of a number of the eruptive phasesin this region means that chemical correlation can beextremely difficult, especially when attempting to matchtephra layers from near-proximal and distal locations (seeWulf et al., 2004; Lowe et al., 2007). Secure geochemicalcharacterization is essential for establishing the spatialextent of different eruptive phases, a prerequisite fordeveloping robust reconstructions of volcanic activity andan informed approach to hazard assessment (Orsi et al.,2004). Even so, major element chemistry, coupled withrobust statistical assessment, may not be sufficient toresolve all distal ash deposits to particular eruptions, asthere can be limited variability between the vitreousproducts of eruptions emanating from essentially the sametectonic setting.Here we present part of an ongoing attempt to improve

the correlation of terrestrial and marine environmentalrecords in the Adriatic and Mediterranean using tephro-chronology. In this context it is vital to distinguish thetephras that are relatively easy to classify using majorelement chemistry from those that yield more ambiguousdata. The results of geochemical analyses of a number ofsamples of proximal Campanian deposits and of statisticaltests of the degree to which the tephras can be reliablydiscriminated are presented. These results have helped toinform a long-term sampling and chemical analysisstrategy operated by the University of Oxford (RLA-HA.ox.ac.uk) in collaboration with Royal Holloway,University of London and ISMAR, Bologna, which aimsto improve the geochemical framework for correlatingItalian late Quaternary tephras. The ultimate goal is acomprehensive chemical classification scheme for all

http://RLAHA.ox.ac.uk

http://RLAHA.ox.ac.uk

ARTICLE IN PRESSC.S.M. Turney et al. / Quaternary International 178 (2008) 288–305290

proximal and distal tephras that can be confidentlydifferentiated by analysis of major elements, but supple-mented where necessary by trace, REE and isotopic data.This paper uses the initial output of this pilot study toillustrate the prevalent problems.

With average shard sizes below 80 mm, and littlemineralogical information, it is important to know whichtephras can be confidently characterised by major elementanalyses of the vitreous phase alone; many of the distaldeposits in Adriatic and other important environmentalrecords fall into this category (Lowe et al., 2007). In ourstudy, the sequential measurement of major oxides inindividual glass shards was performed by wavelengthdispersive microprobe that provided highly precise mea-surements, removing the need for bulk-rock analyses andallowing the close monitoring of alkali mobility; asignificant advantage over early measurements usingXRF and EDS (Hunt and Hill, 1993). The major oxidedata obtained from proximal major eruption depositswithin the Campanian province are compared with thoseobtained by previous studies, demonstrating some of theadvantages of WDS for this purpose.

2. Sampling and analytical methods

Pyroclastic units erupted in the Campanian provincewere sampled from proximal-medial fallout deposits (Fig.1). The texture of the deposits we investigated varied fromfine and plane-parallel to coarse and massive. Stratigraphicexposures were cleared prior to sampling. Samples weretaken from units that were dominated by pumice and/orash-sized particles. Glass shards contained therein wereanalysed for their geochemical composition. Only thoseunits relatively rich in glass shards were analysed and arereported here. Radiocarbon ages are reported as relative to‘BP’ (Before Present; AD 1950); all other ages are given in‘calendar’ years.

The tephra units were prepared for major oxidegeochemical analysis (expressed as wt%) using wavelengthdispersive spectrometry (WDS) on the Jeol 733 Superprobeat the Electron Microscope Unit, Queen’s University,Belfast, and Cameca SX100s at the University of Edin-burgh and the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam. Opticalequipment (transmitted and polarised light) on thedifferent microprobes was used to check for the presenceof phenocrysts prior to measurement. To digest organicmaterial but avoid migration of some major oxides throughheating, the Belfast material was acid digested, followingthe procedure outlined by Dugmore (1989); the Oxfordmaterial was floated twice using a specific density mediumof 1.98 g cm�3 (Blockley et al., 2005). No chemicals wereused for the material measured at Potsdam. The analyses atBelfast were undertaken with an accelerating voltage of15 kV, a beam current of 10 nA and a slightly defocusedbeam diameter of approximately 8 mm. A Lipari standardwas analysed at regular intervals during the analysis periodon all 3 probes. A ZAF correction was applied to all

analyses to correct for atomic number, absorption andfluorescence effects (Sweatman and Long, 1969). Theanalyses at Edinburgh were very similar but the accelerat-ing voltage was 20 kV and the beam diameter was 10 mm.At Potsdam, an accelerating voltage of 15 kV was usedwith a beam current of 20 nA and a beam diameter of10 mm. Counter dead time was also corrected for. Virtuallyall analyses exceeded 95% totals (Hunt and Hill, 1993).The geochemical results were comparable between thedifferent operating systems, allowing direct comparison;some small variance was observed between Belfast andEdinburgh but this may relate to either slight differencesbetween probes, extraction methods or the presence ofmicrocrysts not detected during the analyses.

3. Results and discussion

A total of 17 tephra units were sampled in this study,most of which represent Holocene activity in the Campa-nian region (Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 2). The new data arecompared against selected previous studies: di Girolamo etal. (1984), Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Orsi et al. (1992),Pappalardo et al. (1999) and De Astis et al. (2004), as wellas the WDS data from the Lago Grande Monticchio core(Wulf et al., 2004), which have recently been compared to anumber of Adriatic marine tephras (Lowe et al., 2007). Theanalyses indicate that the majority of eruptions in thePhlegrean Fields through the Holocene were trachyte incomposition, though a considerable geochemical range isobserved in some units. Despite the apparent shift in thelocation of the events towards the northeast of thePhlegrean Fields through the Holocene (Di Vito et al.,1999), there is no corresponding trend in the geochemistry.In some sampling locations, the relatively low totals maybe explained by altered tephra (e.g. NYT) or a high volatilecontent (e.g. Avellino).

3.1. Pre-caldera Torregaveta lava

Although of uncertain age, the lowermost exposedoutcrop of dark, bedded lava at the marine cliff ofTorregaveta (Fig. 1; Pappalardo et al., 1999) pre-datesthe eruption of the CI and the formation of the caldera.The shards analysed demonstrate this unit represents atrachyte to trachy-andesite eruption (Fig. 2) and areconsistent with previous analyses (Pappalardo et al., 1999).

3.2. Solchiaro

The Solchiaro eruption was the most recent of all theeruptions from Procida, originating from a crater off thesoutheast of the island (De Astis et al., 2004). The preciseage of this event is not certain; radiocarbon ages obtainedfrom palaeosols underlying the Solchiaro deposits haveprovided ages of 17.2 and 19.6 kaBP (Alessio et al., 1976;Lirer et al., 1991). A varve age obtained from theMonticchio sediment chronology yields approximately

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Eruption events investigated during this study

Tephra Age Composition Reference(s)

Pre-caldera Torregaveta

lava

437 ka Trachyte to trachy-andesite Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Pappalardo et al. (1999)

Solchiaro 21.2 ka Basaltic trachy-andesite through to

trachyte

De Astis et al. (2004)

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff

(NYT)

14.9 ka Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Deino et al. (2004)

Capo Miseno Early phase of Epoch 1

(12–9.5 kaBP)

Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Nisida Early phase of Epoch 1

(12–9.5 kaBP)


Fondo Riccio Late phase of Epoch 1

(12–9.5 kaBP)


Concola Late phase of Epoch 1

(12–9.5 kaBP)


Fondo di Baia 8.6 kaBP Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Mercato-Ottaviano 8 kaBP Phonolite Santacroce (1987), Andronico et al. (1995)

Cigliano Epoch III (4.8–3.8 kaBP) Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Averno 1 4.5 kaBP Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Agnano Monte Spina 4.1 kaBP Phono-trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Solfatara Between 4.1 and 3.8 kaBP Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Astroni Between 4.1 and 3.8 kaBP Trachyte Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Di Vito et al. (1999)

Avellino 3.6 kaBP Phonolite to tephri-phonolitic Santacroce (1987), Andronico et al. (1995), Cioni

et al. (1999)

Pompeii AD 79 Phonolite Santacroce (1987), Cioni et al. (1995), Sacchi et al.

(2005)

Monte Nuovo AD 1538 Trachyte Di Vito et al. (1987), Piochi et al. (2005)

For age of event, ‘ka’ denotes thousands of calendar years ago; ‘kaBP’ denotes thousands of radiocarbon years before present (AD 1950).


21.2 ka (unpublished data). The Solchiaro eruption was themost mafic out of all the tephras investigated during thisstudy (Table 2). The results from WDS obtained on thelowermost units of Solchiaro (equivalent to Solchiaro I asdefined by De Astis et al., 2004) indicate a more silica-richcomposition than suggested by previous studies, showing atrend from basaltic trachy-andesite through to trachyte(Fig. 2). This eruption has been characterised here in farmore detail than previously attempted and as discussedbelow allows statistically robust chemical correlation byWDS using multivariate analysis. Furthermore, the moreevolved units of the glass separates analysed here clearlyindicate a sharp change in Ca/Mg ratios at �1.6wt% CaO,indicating a possible change in magmatic processes duringthe course of the eruption; this step change is alsoobservable in the tephra correlated to Solchiaro in theMonticchio record.

3.3. NYT

The NYT is the equivalent to the marine tephra C-2 inthe central Mediterranean region (Calanchi et al., 1998;Paterne et al., 1988) and has been identified through theApennines (Frezzotti and Narcisi, 1996; Narcisi, 1996;Davies et al., 2002) and across the Alps into Austria(Schmidt et al., 2002). Originating from the PhlegreanFields, the NYT is dated by Ar–Ar to 14.9 ka (Deino et al.,2004) and by radiocarbon to 12 kaBP (Di Vito et al., 1999),

making it a critical marker horizon for the onset of theLateglacial Interstadial in the North Atlantic region (Loweet al., 2001). Our new data are consistent with the WDSdata reported from Procida, the Apeninnes and Austria(Davies et al., 2002; Schmidt et al., 2002), confirming atrachyte composition for this event; in contrast, EDS andXRF analyses suggest a lower silica content (Paterne et al.,1988; Orsi et al., 1992).

3.4. Capo Miseno and Nisida

The Capo Miseno and Nisida events were subaerial(phreatomagmatic) eruptions, generating extensive yellowtuffs in the Phlegrean Fields (Rosi and Sbrana, 1987;Di Vito et al., 1999). The ages of these events are uncertainbut fall within the early phase of the Epoch I eruptions thatspan the period 12–9.5 kaBP (Di Vito et al., 1999).Deposits of these events appear to be restricted toaround their respective vents (Fig. 1) and are bothtrachytic in composition (Fig. 2). The Capo Misenoanalyses are tightly clustered but the Nisida event appearsto have variable total alkali content, ranging from 8.7 to14.7wt%.

3.5. Fondo Riccio and Concola

Fondo Riccio and Concola were generated by relativelysmall eruptions in the western part of the Phlegrean Fields.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Major oxide geochemistry (uncorrected) of glass shards analysed from proximal deposits in the Campanian Region

Sample SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 Cl Total

Pre-Caldera

1 54.9 1.0 16.5 7.2 2.2 5.4 3.6 4.9 95.7

2 54.3 0.8 17.5 6.5 2.4 5.4 3.3 5.5 95.7

3 55.2 0.7 18.6 5.4 1.4 3.4 3.7 7.4 95.8

4 55.7 0.7 18.4 5.7 1.5 3.6 4.6 7.1 97.1

5 56.3 0.6 18.4 4.5 0.8 2.7 4.7 6.4 94.4

6 55.9 0.7 18.5 5.5 1.5 3.8 4.6 7.2 97.5

7 55.5 0.7 18.6 5.5 1.5 3.6 4.3 7.6 97.2

8 54.9 0.8 17.7 6.0 1.6 4.1 4.5 6.1 95.8

9 54.8 0.7 18.3 5.3 1.4 3.5 4.2 7.1 95.2

Mean 55.3 0.7 18.1 5.7 — 1.6 3.9 4.1 6.6 — — 96.1

St. dev. 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.8 — 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 — — 1.0

Solchiaro 45–50 cm

1 51.5 1.7 17.6 8.5 3.3 7.4 4.0 4.1 98.1

2 51.5 1.6 17.7 8.5 3.3 7.5 4.1 4.2 98.3

3 62.1 0.6 17.4 2.1 0.5 1.5 3.0 6.7 93.8

4 51.3 1.6 17.3 8.6 3.4 7.6 4.0 4.1 98.0

5 49.7 1.4 15.7 10.6 8.0 5.6 4.2 3.4 98.6

6 50.4 1.7 16.8 8.5 3.4 7.7 4.2 4.1 96.7

7 59.1 0.4 18.2 3.2 0.7 2.4 3.7 9.9 97.5

8 62.1 0.6 18.0 2.5 0.4 1.2 4.2 7.9 96.9

Mean 54.7 1.2 17.3 6.5 — 2.9 5.1 3.9 5.6 — — 97.2

St. dev. 5.4 0.6 0.8 3.4 — 2.5 2.9 0.4 2.3 — — 1.5

9 (E) 57.7 0.6 16.3 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.9 5.2 7.1 0.0 0.5 91.3

10 (E) 60.1 0.7 17.2 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 5.0 5.7 0.0 0.6 93.5

11 (E) 58.4 0.5 17.7 2.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 5.5 6.4 0.0 0.7 93.1

12 (E) 58.0 0.5 17.1 2.4 0.2 0.3 1.0 7.3 6.2 0.0 0.7 93.8

13 (E) 58.9 0.6 16.7 2.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.4 6.4 0.1 0.4 93.6

14 (E) 58.2 0.6 16.4 2.6 0.2 0.4 0.9 6.7 6.1 0.0 0.6 92.8

15 (E) 58.9 0.5 16.8 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.1 6.5 0.1 0.3 93.3

16 (E) 58.4 0.5 17.1 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.3 6.0 0.1 0.4 91.9

17 (E) 57.0 0.5 16.5 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 3.6 8.8 0.1 0.4 91.0

18 (E) 57.9 0.5 16.4 2.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.7 6.8 0.1 0.3 91.4

19 (E) 58.1 0.7 16.2 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.9 7.1 6.0 0.1 0.5 93.2

20 (E) 58.7 0.6 16.6 2.6 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.9 6.2 0.1 0.3 92.7

21 (E) 59.3 0.5 17.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.3 94.2

22 (E) 58.6 0.7 16.3 2.8 0.2 0.4 0.9 7.0 6.1 0.0 0.5 93.6

23 (E) 57.3 0.5 16.5 2.2 0.1 0.4 1.1 4.8 6.9 0.0 0.3 90.2

24 (E) 57.1 0.6 16.3 2.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 4.5 8.1 0.0 0.4 90.8

25 (E) 58.7 0.5 16.8 2.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.0 6.3 0.0 0.3 92.4

26 (E) 58.2 0.5 16.9 2.4 0.1 0.4 1.1 6.3 6.5 0.1 0.4 92.9

27 (E) 58.1 0.6 16.3 2.6 0.3 0.4 0.9 7.0 5.9 0.0 0.6 92.7

28 (E) 50.0 1.6 16.5 8.7 0.2 3.6 7.5 4.3 3.9 0.7 0.2 97.1

29 (E) 57.1 0.7 16.0 3.0 0.3 0.4 0.9 6.6 6.1 0.0 0.6 91.7

Mean 57.8 0.6 16.6 2.8 0.2 0.5 1.3 5.8 6.4 0.1 0.4 92.7

St. dev. 1.9 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.5

72–74 cm

1 (E) 56.7 0.4 18.1 3.1 0.2 0.5 2.2 5.0 8.2 0.1 94.5

2 (E) 58.2 0.6 16.7 2.5 0.2 0.4 1.0 6.0 6.4 0.1 0.3 92.4

3 (E) 57.2 0.5 16.5 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.4 6.8 0.0 0.3 90.5

4 (E) 50.3 1.6 16.7 8.8 0.2 3.4 7.3 4.2 4.0 0.6 0.2 97.3

5 (E) 58.3 0.7 16.4 2.7 0.2 0.3 1.0 6.4 6.2 0.1 0.5 92.8

6 (E) 57.8 0.5 17.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.0 7.2 0.1 91.6

7 (E) 58.7 0.4 17.0 2.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 5.0 6.8 0.1 0.3 92.1

8 (E) 58.9 0.5 16.7 2.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.8 6.1 0.1 0.3 92.3

9 (E) 58.1 0.5 16.8 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.5 6.3 0.0 0.3 91.6

10 (E) 58.9 0.5 16.6 2.6 0.2 0.4 1.0 6.4 6.6 0.1 0.4 93.7

11 (E) 57.5 0.5 16.6 2.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 4.8 7.8 0.0 91.1

12 (E) 59.1 0.5 17.1 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.0 6.4 0.1 93.2

13 (E) 57.3 0.5 16.4 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.4 7.0 0.1 90.6

14 (E) 58.2 0.4 17.4 3.0 0.3 0.3 1.6 6.1 7.7 0.0 0.8 95.9

C.S.M. Turney et al. / Quaternary International 178 (2008) 288–305292

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2 (continued )


15 (E) 59.2 0.7 16.8 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.9 7.0 6.1 0.0 0.5 94.5

16 (E) 57.7 0.5 16.6 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.4 6.7 0.0 0.4 91.4

17 (E) 58.4 0.5 16.8 2.5 0.2 0.4 1.0 5.9 6.4 0.1 0.4 92.6

18 (E) 58.6 0.6 16.8 2.7 0.2 0.4 1.0 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.4 93.8

19 (E) 55.8 0.5 17.5 3.4 0.1 0.6 2.2 4.9 8.5 0.1 0.7 94.4

20 (E) 57.4 0.5 16.3 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 5.4 6.9 0.0 0.4 91.1

21 (E) 57.6 0.5 17.0 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 4.2 7.1 0.0 0.4 90.3

22 (E) 56.9 0.5 17.0 2.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 5.5 6.3 0.1 0.4 90.0

23 (E) 56.9 0.5 16.3 2.4 0.2 0.3 1.0 4.8 8.0 0.1 0.3 90.8

24 (E) 57.4 0.3 17.1 3.0 0.1 0.6 2.2 4.2 8.7 0.1 0.4 94.1

25 (E) 59.2 0.5 17.0 2.6 0.2 0.4 1.3 6.2 7.2 0.1 0.6 95.2

26 (E) 58.6 0.7 16.4 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 6.9 5.9 0.1 0.5 93.3

Mean 57.7 0.6 16.8 2.7 0.2 0.5 1.4 5.5 6.8 0.1 0.4 92.7

St. dev. 1.7 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.8

90–95 cm

1 61.7 0.7 18.6 2.4 0.4 1.2 5.1 6.2 96.3

2 50.3 1.6 17.7 8.8 3.4 7.4 4.3 3.9 97.4

3 50.8 1.7 17.6 8.8 3.1 7.3 4.3 3.9 97.5

4 49.6 1.7 17.4 8.6 3.0 7.4 4.2 4.0 95.9

5 50.9 1.6 17.7 8.5 3.1 7.1 3.2 3.8 96.0

6 50.4 1.6 17.6 8.5 3.3 7.1 4.3 3.9 96.6

7 50.5 1.6 17.6 8.5 3.1 7.1 4.3 3.9 96.7

8 60.9 0.6 18.4 2.4 0.4 1.0 5.6 6.6 95.9

9 49.8 1.6 17.4 8.5 3.2 6.9 4.5 3.8 95.7

10 54.3 0.9 20.7 4.4 1.3 5.7 3.2 6.6 97.2

Mean 52.9 1.3 18.1 6.9 — 2.4 5.8 4.3 4.7 — — 96.5

St. dev. 4.6 0.4 1.0 2.7 — 1.2 2.5 0.7 1.3 — — 0.6

11 (E) 56.8 0.6 15.9 2.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 7.0 6.0 0.0 90.7

12 (E) 59.2 0.5 17.4 2.3 0.1 0.4 1.1 6.1 6.3 0.0 93.4

13 (E) 59.2 0.6 16.9 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.4 94.3

14 (E) 58.2 0.5 16.8 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.4 92.4

15 (E) 58.4 0.5 16.9 2.3 0.1 0.3 1.2 6.3 6.4 0.1 0.3 92.9

16 (E) 57.1 0.5 16.4 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 4.7 7.6 0.0 0.3 90.6

17 (E) 58.5 0.5 16.7 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.2 6.4 0.0 0.3 92.6

18 (E) 58.2 0.5 16.6 2.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.0 6.2 0.1 0.4 91.9

19 (E) 58.6 0.5 16.8 2.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.1 6.3 0.0 0.3 92.4

20 (E) 59.0 0.6 16.3 2.7 0.2 0.4 0.9 6.9 6.3 0.0 0.5 93.7

21 (E) 59.4 0.6 16.9 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.3 6.8 0.0 0.3 94.4

22 (E) 58.5 0.5 16.6 2.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.2 6.7 0.1 0.4 93.0

Mean 58.4 0.5 16.7 2.4 0.2 0.4 1.1 6.2 6.5 0.0 0.4 92.7

St. dev. 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.2

105–110 cm

1 50.6 1.6 17.3 8.3 3.3 7.4 4.1 3.9 96.4

2 50.2 1.6 17.3 8.4 3.3 7.2 3.9 3.8 95.7

3 49.8 1.6 18.9 8.3 3.2 7.1 4.1 3.8 96.8

4 49.9 1.5 17.0 8.9 4.3 7.0 4.2 3.9 96.6

5 50.0 1.6 17.4 8.6 3.4 7.2 4.1 3.7 96.0

6 49.6 1.6 18.0 8.5 3.4 7.1 4.1 3.8 96.1

7 50.3 1.6 17.5 8.5 3.4 7.1 4.3 3.9 96.6

8 50.6 1.3 19.0 6.9 2.5 7.7 4.1 3.2 95.1

9 49.7 1.6 18.8 8.5 3.3 7.3 4.1 3.7 96.9

10 50.2 1.6 17.3 8.6 3.4 7.2 4.1 3.8 96.3

Mean 50.1 1.6 17.8 8.4 — 3.3 7.2 4.1 3.7 — — 96.2

St. dev. 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.6 — 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 — — 0.5

11 (E) 60.7 0.5 17.7 2.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 5.8 6.9 0.0 94.9

12 (E) 50.6 1.6 17.1 8.8 0.2 3.4 7.4 4.2 4.0 0.7 97.8

13 (E) 58.1 0.4 17.5 3.4 0.1 0.8 2.6 3.5 8.9 0.2 95.5

14 (E) 58.0 0.4 16.9 3.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 7.1 6.3 0.0 93.9

15 (E) 56.0 0.5 17.8 3.7 0.2 0.7 2.4 4.9 8.1 0.2 0.5 94.9

16 (E) 60.8 0.6 18.0 2.6 0.3 0.4 1.1 7.8 6.4 0.1 0.6 98.7

17 (E) 57.9 0.6 16.3 2.6 0.2 0.4 0.9 6.2 5.8 0.0 0.5 91.5

18 (E) 58.3 0.7 16.6 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.9 6.4 5.9 0.0 0.5 92.4


ARTICLE IN PRESS



19 (E) 50.6 1.6 16.3 9.2 0.1 4.2 7.0 4.1 3.8 0.6 97.6

20 (E) 60.5 0.5 17.6 2.6 0.3 0.3 1.1 7.8 6.4 0.1 97.2

21 (E) 58.1 0.4 17.4 3.0 0.3 0.3 1.6 7.2 6.2 0.0 1.0 95.6

22 (E) 56.8 0.5 16.9 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 7.2 6.0 0.0 0.7 92.0

23 (E) 59.2 0.4 17.2 1.9 0.1 0.3 1.0 4.1 7.8 0.0 0.2 92.3

24 (E) 57.0 0.7 15.8 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.9 5.4 7.0 0.0 0.5 90.8

25 (E) 58.2 0.6 16.6 2.6 0.3 0.4 0.9 6.7 6.0 0.0 0.5 92.9

Mean 57.4 0.7 17.1 3.5 0.2 0.8 2.1 5.9 6.4 0.1 0.6 94.5

St. dev. 3.1 0.4 0.6 2.3 0.1 1.2 2.1 1.5 1.3 0.2 0.2 2.5

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff

1 58.1 0.5 18.7 2.8 0.5 2.1 4.6 7.5 94.8

2 56.7 0.5 17.6 2.8 0.5 2.1 4.3 7.5 92.1

3 58.5 0.5 18.3 2.8 0.5 2.2 4.3 7.8 94.8

4 59.3 0.5 18.3 2.8 0.5 2.1 4.5 7.6 95.5

5 59.0 0.5 18.3 2.8 0.5 2.1 4.4 7.8 95.3

Mean 58.3 0.5 18.2 2.8 — 0.5 2.1 4.4 7.6 — — 94.5

St. dev. 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 — 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — 1.4

6 (P) 59.3 0.4 18.1 2.7 0.1 0.5 2.2 4.1 7.3 0.1 0.6 95.4

7 (P) 59.0 0.4 17.7 2.7 0.1 0.5 2.4 3.9 7.4 0.1 0.6 95.0

8 (P) 58.8 0.4 17.8 2.9 0.1 0.5 2.3 4.0 7.1 0.1 0.6 94.5

9 (P) 59.3 0.4 18.0 2.8 0.2 0.5 2.3 4.0 7.3 0.0 0.6 95.3

10 (P) 58.7 0.4 17.8 2.8 0.1 0.5 2.2 3.9 6.8 0.0 0.7 93.9

11 (P) 59.2 0.4 17.9 2.8 0.1 0.5 2.3 4.1 7.1 0.1 0.6 95.0

12 (P) 58.9 0.4 17.7 2.6 0.1 0.5 2.2 4.0 6.7 0.1 0.6 93.8

13 (P) 59.3 0.4 17.9 2.7 0.1 0.5 2.2 3.8 7.3 0.1 0.6 94.8

14 (P) 59.2 0.4 17.8 2.7 0.1 0.5 2.3 3.9 7.3 0.1 0.6 94.8

Mean 59.1 0.4 17.8 2.7 0.1 0.5 2.3 4.0 7.1 0.1 0.6 94.7

St. dev. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6

Capo Miseno

1 57.6 0.5 18.8 3.5 0.7 2.7 4.6 8.0 96.3

2 53.3 0.5 20.3 3.3 0.6 2.4 4.0 8.1 92.5

3 56.4 0.5 19.2 3.4 0.7 2.5 4.6 8.1 95.4

4 56.5 0.5 18.7 3.3 0.7 2.5 4.6 8.3 95.1

5 53.2 0.5 17.9 3.3 0.6 2.5 3.4 9.2 90.6

6 56.5 0.6 18.4 3.6 0.6 2.4 4.0 8.8 95.0

7 58.0 0.5 19.1 3.0 0.5 2.5 3.9 8.8 96.2

8 57.5 0.6 20.1 3.4 0.6 2.3 4.8 8.2 97.5

9 57.9 0.5 19.2 3.4 0.6 2.4 4.9 8.2 97.1

10 55.3 0.5 21.1 3.2 0.6 2.3 4.5 7.5 95.0

11 57.4 0.5 19.0 3.6 0.7 2.4 4.6 8.7 96.9

12 58.0 0.5 19.2 3.1 0.6 2.4 4.2 8.7 96.7

Mean 56.5 0.5 19.2 3.3 — 0.6 2.4 4.3 8.4 — — 95.4

St. dev. 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.2 — 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 — — 2.0

Nisida

1 56.1 0.6 18.8 4.0 0.9 3.5 4.2 8.9 97.0

2 58.0 0.6 19.3 3.9 0.8 3.2 4.1 9.6 99.4

3 55.3 0.6 18.4 4.3 0.9 2.9 3.7 8.0 94.1

4 56.4 0.6 19.2 4.0 0.9 3.3 4.1 9.0 97.5

5 56.4 0.5 18.7 3.9 0.9 3.3 4.0 8.9 96.6

6 57.7 0.6 19.2 4.0 0.9 3.0 2.1 6.1 93.7

7 58.1 0.5 18.7 3.7 0.8 3.9 3.0 7.1 95.7

8 56.1 0.6 18.8 3.8 0.9 3.2 3.2 8.3 94.7

Mean 56.8 0.6 18.9 4.0 — 0.9 3.3 3.5 8.2 — — 96.1

St. dev. 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 — 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 — — 1.9

Fondo Riccio

1 59.4 0.5 19.3 3.3 0.6 2.7 4.0 10.3 100.1

2 56.7 0.5 19.2 4.1 1.0 3.4 3.6 9.3 97.8

3 57.8 0.5 19.2 3.5 0.7 2.7 3.9 9.7 98.0

4 58.1 0.6 19.1 3.4 0.7 2.7 4.4 9.5 98.4

5 55.7 0.7 18.7 5.6 1.7 4.9 3.7 8.0 99.1

6 58.9 0.5 18.9 3.6 0.7 2.2 1.8 7.4 94.0


ARTICLE IN PRESS



7 58.5 0.5 19.2 3.4 0.7 2.9 4.6 9.3 99.1

8 55.0 0.8 18.5 5.7 1.8 5.1 3.3 8.2 98.2

Mean 57.5 0.6 19.0 4.1 — 1.0 3.3 3.7 9.0 — — 98.1

St. dev. 1.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 — 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 — — 1.7

Concola

1 59.8 0.5 18.7 3.3 0.5 2.1 5.5 7.8 98.1

2 59.5 0.5 18.7 3.2 0.5 2.1 5.3 7.8 97.6

3 59.1 0.5 18.9 3.3 0.5 2.2 5.1 7.8 97.5

4 59.6 0.5 18.8 3.3 0.5 2.1 5.4 7.9 98.1

5 54.8 0.8 18.6 6.1 1.9 4.6 2.9 7.6 97.3

6 54.4 0.8 18.2 6.3 2.0 4.8 2.9 7.5 96.9

7 53.9 0.8 18.0 6.1 2.0 5.0 3.0 7.3 96.1

8 53.8 0.8 18.1 5.9 2.0 4.9 3.1 7.3 95.8

9 60.1 0.4 17.9 2.4 0.3 1.8 4.9 7.3 95.3

Mean 57.2 0.6 18.4 4.4 — 1.1 3.3 4.2 7.6 — — 97.0

St. dev. 2.9 0.2 0.4 1.6 — 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.2 — — 1.0

Fondo di Baia

1 59.7 0.6 19.1 2.6 0.4 1.1 7.3 5.6 96.4

2 56.0 0.4 18.8 2.7 0.3 1.5 6.0 7.0 92.6

3 56.8 0.6 18.0 4.2 0.9 2.9 4.3 8.5 96.1

4 60.0 0.4 18.4 2.6 0.3 1.7 3.3 6.6 93.3

5 59.6 0.5 18.5 2.9 0.4 1.6 6.1 7.3 96.8

6 59.7 0.5 17.9 2.8 0.3 1.6 4.7 7.1 94.6

7 60.5 0.4 18.3 2.8 0.3 1.6 4.1 6.8 94.9

8 56.9 0.6 18.5 3.2 0.6 2.9 4.8 7.3 94.9

9 57.4 0.5 18.0 3.0 0.3 1.7 5.5 6.5 92.8

10 57.5 0.5 19.0 3.2 0.4 2.0 5.7 7.2 95.6

11 57.1 0.4 18.8 3.1 0.4 2.0 5.0 7.1 94.0

12 56.1 0.5 18.5 3.5 0.7 2.7 3.8 8.9 94.7

13 55.1 0.7 18.4 5.7 1.8 4.5 3.4 7.3 97.0

14 55.0 0.7 18.4 5.7 1.8 4.6 3.5 7.3 97.1

15 54.7 0.7 18.3 5.7 1.8 4.6 3.5 7.4 96.7

16 53.4 0.5 18.5 3.6 0.7 2.9 3.1 8.2 91.0

17 55.3 0.6 18.2 4.1 0.8 3.4 3.9 8.0 94.3

18 55.8 0.5 18.6 3.5 0.7 2.8 3.7 8.3 93.9

19 56.4 0.5 18.1 3.8 0.7 2.8 3.8 8.0 94.2

20 55.9 0.5 18.3 3.4 0.6 2.6 3.9 8.1 93.3

21 55.0 0.5 18.3 3.4 0.7 2.7 3.7 8.7 93.0

Mean 56.9 0.5 18.4 3.6 — 0.7 2.6 4.4 7.5 — — 94.6

St. dev. 2.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 — 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.8 — — 1.7

Mercato- Ottaviano

1 (P) 56.9 0.1 21.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 1.6 7.7 5.7 0.0 0.6 95.7

2 (P) 58.0 0.1 21.8 1.8 0.2 0.1 1.6 7.9 6.0 0.0 0.6 98.0

3 (P) 57.4 0.1 21.4 1.7 0.2 0.1 1.5 7.9 6.0 0.0 0.6 96.6

4 (P) 56.8 0.1 21.2 1.6 0.2 0.1 1.5 8.0 6.1 0.0 0.6 96.2

5 (P) 56.9 0.1 21.1 1.7 0.2 0.1 1.5 7.1 5.6 0.0 0.6 94.7

6 (P) 57.2 0.1 21.1 1.6 0.2 0.1 1.5 7.3 5.9 0.0 0.6 95.6

Mean 57.2 0.1 21.3 1.7 0.2 0.1 1.5 7.6 5.9 0.0 0.6 96.1

St. dev. 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1

Cigliano

1 58.5 0.5 18.3 3.5 0.7 2.3 4.8 7.6 96.0

2 58.2 0.5 18.5 3.4 0.7 2.6 4.6 7.2 95.8

3 57.5 0.5 18.4 3.5 0.9 2.7 4.3 7.1 94.9

4 57.5 0.5 18.5 3.3 0.6 2.9 4.6 7.1 95.0

5 57.1 0.6 18.6 3.9 0.9 3.0 4.0 7.0 95.2

6 57.7 0.5 18.6 3.5 0.8 2.7 4.4 8.1 96.3

7 55.0 0.5 17.9 3.4 0.7 2.7 3.9 7.9 92.0

8 57.7 0.5 18.3 3.2 0.6 2.4 4.6 7.4 94.8

9 57.5 0.5 18.5 3.5 0.7 2.4 4.6 7.4 95.0

10 57.1 0.6 18.6 3.9 0.9 3.0 4.0 7.0 95.2

12 56.6 0.6 18.2 3.6 0.9 2.7 4.2 7.1 93.9

12 55.5 0.6 17.6 3.5 0.8 2.6 3.6 7.1 91.2


ARTICLE IN PRESS



Mean 57.2 0.5 18.3 3.5 — 0.8 2.7 4.3 7.3 — — 94.6

St. dev. 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 — 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 — — 1.5

Averno

1 60.5 0.4 18.1 2.9 0.2 1.7 6.6 6.3 96.7

2 60.7 0.5 18.4 2.8 0.2 1.7 6.4 6.5 97.2

3 59.7 0.5 18.2 2.7 0.2 1.7 6.6 6.3 95.9

4 60.5 0.5 18.3 2.9 0.2 1.8 6.4 6.6 97.1

5 61.2 0.5 18.4 2.8 0.2 1.7 6.2 6.4 97.4

6 61.3 0.4 18.3 2.8 0.3 1.7 5.2 6.2 96.2

7 59.6 0.4 18.2 2.8 0.3 1.7 6.5 6.3 95.8

8 60.0 0.4 18.5 2.9 0.2 1.7 6.2 6.3 96.3

9 60.1 0.5 18.5 2.9 0.2 1.8 6.4 6.5 96.8

10 59.9 0.5 18.4 2.7 0.2 1.6 6.5 6.4 96.3

11 58.8 0.5 18.4 3.5 0.7 2.6 4.4 9.0 97.8

12 59.3 0.6 18.6 3.6 0.7 2.6 4.0 9.0 98.4

13 58.2 0.5 18.1 3.5 0.7 2.4 4.0 8.5 95.9

14 58.1 0.5 18.7 3.8 0.9 2.9 4.0 8.8 97.8

15 59.3 0.6 18.7 3.6 0.7 2.8 4.6 8.9 99.1

16 58.9 0.5 18.8 3.4 0.6 2.3 4.4 8.7 97.5

17 57.5 0.6 17.7 3.4 0.7 2.4 4.1 8.3 94.7

18 58.1 0.6 18.4 3.8 1.0 3.1 4.3 8.5 97.9

Mean 59.5 0.5 18.4 3.2 — 0.5 2.1 5.4 7.4 — — 96.9

St. dev. 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 — 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.2 — — 1.1

Agnano Monte Spina

1 (P) 59.1 0.5 17.6 3.5 0.1 0.8 2.8 4.1 8.0 0.2 0.6 97.2

2 (P) 59.3 0.5 17.9 3.7 0.1 0.8 2.9 4.2 8.2 0.2 0.6 98.4

3 (P) 58.8 0.5 17.7 3.7 0.1 0.9 3.1 4.2 7.8 0.2 0.6 97.8

4 (P) 60.3 0.5 17.8 3.2 0.2 0.6 2.6 4.5 8.1 0.1 0.8 98.5

5 (P) 60.1 0.5 18.0 3.4 0.2 0.6 2.7 4.5 8.2 0.1 0.8 99.0

6 (P) 60.0 0.5 17.9 3.5 0.2 0.7 2.8 4.6 8.3 0.2 0.7 99.2

7 (P) 59.5 0.5 17.8 3.5 0.1 0.7 2.8 4.3 7.6 0.1 0.7 97.7

8 (P) 59.0 0.5 17.6 3.6 0.2 0.6 2.7 4.3 8.0 0.1 0.7 97.3

Mean 60.2 0.5 17.8 3.3 0.2 0.6 2.6 4.4 8.1 0.1 0.7 98.3

St. dev. 59.6 0.5 17.8 3.5 0.1 0.7 2.8 4.3 8.0 0.1 0.7 98.1

Solfatara

1 (P) 59.1 0.5 17.6 3.5 0.1 0.8 2.8 4.1 8.0 0.2 0.6 97.2

2 (P) 59.3 0.5 17.9 3.7 0.1 0.8 2.9 4.2 8.2 0.2 0.6 98.4

3 (P) 58.8 0.5 17.7 3.7 0.1 0.9 3.1 4.2 7.8 0.2 0.6 97.8

4 (P) 60.3 0.5 17.8 3.2 0.2 0.6 2.6 4.5 8.1 0.1 0.8 98.5

5 (P) 60.1 0.5 18.0 3.4 0.2 0.6 2.7 4.5 8.2 0.1 0.8 99.0

6 (P) 60.0 0.5 17.9 3.5 0.2 0.7 2.8 4.6 8.3 0.2 0.7 99.2

Mean 59.5 0.5 17.8 3.5 0.1 0.7 2.8 4.3 7.6 0.1 0.7 97.7

St. dev. 59.0 0.5 17.6 3.6 0.2 0.6 2.7 4.3 8.0 0.1 0.7 97.3

Astroni

1 57.7 0.5 18.7 3.5 0.7 2.5 4.5 8.0 96.2

2 57.8 0.5 19.3 3.3 0.7 2.5 4.6 8.4 97.0

3 57.1 0.5 18.7 3.5 0.7 2.4 4.3 8.3 95.6

4 57.5 0.6 18.8 3.4 0.7 2.5 4.5 8.0 96.0

5 54.8 0.6 18.6 4.1 1.0 3.3 4.0 7.6 94.0

6 55.0 0.6 19.4 4.1 1.0 3.0 4.1 7.9 95.0

7 53.2 0.6 18.8 4.1 0.9 3.8 3.8 7.8 92.9

8 58.1 0.4 19.3 2.4 0.5 2.3 3.5 8.0 94.5

9 55.7 0.6 17.9 4.4 0.7 2.5 4.1 7.0 93.0

10 56.6 0.5 18.5 3.2 0.6 2.3 4.6 8.0 94.3

11 59.2 0.5 18.6 3.5 0.7 2.1 4.8 8.4 97.8

12 59.3 0.5 18.9 3.4 0.6 2.2 4.8 8.3 98.0

13 59.5 0.5 19.4 3.4 0.6 2.1 4.6 8.3 98.5

14 59.0 0.5 18.6 3.5 0.6 2.2 4.6 8.5 97.6

15 59.3 0.5 19.0 3.4 0.6 2.1 4.7 8.3 97.9

Mean 57.3 0.5 18.8 3.5 — 0.7 2.5 4.4 8.1 — — 95.9

St. dev. 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.5 — 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 — — 1.9


ARTICLE IN PRESS



Avellino

1 (P) 51.9 0.1 21.5 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 7.2 7.4 0.1 0.6 91.5

2 (P) 52.4 0.3 20.2 2.7 0.1 1.0 2.8 5.9 6.6 0.1 0.5 92.6

3 (P) 51.5 0.3 19.5 2.7 0.1 0.5 3.7 6.2 6.5 0.1 0.5 91.5

4 (P) 53.8 0.2 21.9 2.6 0.1 0.6 2.6 6.2 6.7 0.2 0.5 95.4

Mean 52.4 0.2 20.8 2.3 0.1 0.5 2.6 6.4 6.8 0.1 0.5 92.7

St. dev. 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.8

Pompeii

1 (P) 52.7 0.3 21.2 2.4 0.1 0.4 5.8 5.1 5.2 0.1 0.5 93.7

2 (P) 52.0 0.4 19.4 3.3 0.1 0.5 4.3 4.9 7.8 0.3 0.6 93.6

3 (P) 53.2 0.5 19.7 4.0 0.1 0.9 4.4 5.5 7.6 0.1 0.7 96.8

4 (P) 54.2 0.4 20.2 4.1 0.1 0.6 5.6 5.8 7.4 0.6 0.7 99.6

5 (P) 54.8 0.4 20.0 3.6 0.2 0.6 4.6 5.4 8.3 0.1 0.7 98.8

6 (P) 54.1 0.4 20.0 3.5 0.2 0.7 5.5 5.2 8.1 0.2 0.7 98.5

Mean 53.5 0.4 20.1 3.5 0.1 0.6 5.0 5.3 7.4 0.2 0.7 96.8

St. dev. 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 2.6

Monte Nuovo AD 1538

1 55.3 0.5 18.4 3.9 0.8 3.4 3.3 8.8 94.5

2 56.0 0.5 18.3 3.3 0.8 3.0 3.1 8.6 93.7

3 56.5 0.5 18.9 3.0 0.2 1.7 3.6 6.7 91.0

4 56.0 0.5 18.7 4.2 0.9 3.3 2.8 8.3 94.8

5 58.1 0.5 19.9 2.8 0.2 2.2 3.8 6.4 93.8

6 57.2 0.5 19.3 2.9 0.2 1.5 6.2 6.6 94.4

Mean 56.5 0.5 18.9 3.3 — 0.6 2.5 3.8 7.6 — — 93.7

St. dev. 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 — 0.3 0.8 1.2 1.1 — — 1.4

For operating conditions see main text. ‘(E)’ and ‘(P)’ denotes samples measured using the NERC Electron Microprobe Facility at University of

Edinburgh and the GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam respectively; all other samples measured at Queen’s University, Belfast. Depths given alongside

Solchiaro samples denote sub-samples taken within the deposit from the top of the Solchiario I deposit (De Astis et al., 2004).


These events are poorly dated but are known to fall withinthe latter part of the Epoch I eruptions (Di Vito et al.,1999). The composition of both is trachytic. The resultsfrom Fondo Riccio suggest a larger silica and alkalicontent than previous studies have obtained with EDS (diGirolamo et al., 1984; Fig. 2) but are consistent withanalyses using WDS (Giordano et al., 2006).

3.6. Fondo di Baia

The Fondo di Baia eruption was the first in the Epoch IIphase of volcanic activity in the Phlegrean Fields(8.6–8.2 kaBP) and has a palaeosol underlying it, radio-carbon dated to 8.6 kaBP (Di Vito et al., 1999). In contrastto many of the events in Epoch I, this phreatomagmaticeruption event resulted in a relatively widespread distribu-tion of material across the western Phlegrean Fields (Rosiand Sbrana, 1987). The WDS results indicate a trachyticcomposition and are comparable to previous analyses,though with a relatively large alkali content (Fig. 2).

3.7. Mercato-Ottaviano

The Mercato-Ottaviano Plinian eruption occurred at ca8 kaBP and was generated by Vesuvius (Andronico et al.,1995). Deposits of this event are widely dispersed in the

eastern sector and form an essential correlation marker inAdriatic Sea sediments (Paterne et al., 1988). The chemicalcomposition of the pumice glass matrix of the main falloutdeposit is homogenous, phonolitic and comparable toprevious analyses. The minor scoriae juvenile componentscharacterised as tephritic–phonolitic in composition(Rolandi et al., 1993) have not been detected in this study,but are recognised by WDS data from distal lacustrine(Wulf et al., 2004) and marine sediment archives (Jahnsand van den Bogaard, 1998).

3.8. Cigliano

The Cigliano eruption is a relatively small event that fallswithin Epoch III (4.8–3.8 kaBP; Di Vito et al., 1999). Thegeochemical signature indicates that the event was trachy-tic in composition and falls within a narrow range of silicaand total alkali values (Fig. 2 and Table 2), identical to theprevious analysis undertaken.

3.9. Averno 1

The Averno 1 eruption was the largest event in thewestern Phlegrean Fields during Epoch III (the majority ofevents during this epoch were generated in the northeast).Radiocarbon dating of a weakly developed palaeosol


underlying this event indicates the eruption took placesometime after 4.5 kaBP (Di Vito et al., 1999) but prior tothe Agnano Monte Spina and Astroni eruptions. Thetrachytic results are indistinguishable from previousanalyses.

Fig. 2. Total Alkali Silica diagrams (after Le Bas et al., 1986) of tephras analys

circles: di Girolamo et al. (1984), Rosi and Sbrana (1987), Orsi et al. (1995), Pa

normalised (water-free) analyses. Letters given in parentheses after eruption n

3.10. Agnano Monte Spina

The Agnano Monte Spina Tephra is the deposit of thehighest magnitude eruption in the Phlegrean Fields duringEpoch III. A palaeosol underlying the deposit yields a

ed during this study (solid circles). Selected previous studies shown as open

ppalardo et al. (1999) and De Astis et al. (2004). All values represented as

ame denote sampling location (Fig. 1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. (Continued)


radiocarbon age of 4.1 kaBP (de Vita et al., 1999). Twomain pumice fallout units of small-scale hetereogenicalkali–trachytic composition are recognised with variableeasterly to north-easterly dispersal axes. The WDS resultsindicate a phono-trachytic composition and are compar-able to previous analyses (de Vita et al., 1999).

3.11. Solfatara

The main period of volcanic activity of Solfatara tookplace between 4.1 and 3.8 kaBP, but phreatic eruptionscontinued to the 12th century AD (Di Vito et al., 1999).Fallout deposits of the main phreatomagmatic event overlythe Agnano Monte Spina, and are distributed in the north-eastern sector of the Phlegrean Fields. The pumice glassmatrix is trachytic in composition. No chemical data forthe Solfatara tephra is available for comparison.

3.12. Astroni

The Astroni volcano formed from several phreatomag-matic eruptions of variable explosivity within the north-

eastern part of the Phlegrean Fields (Isaia et al., 2004).Stratigraphically, the associated deposits overlie theSolfatara and Averno 2 eruptions and most probably tookplace relatively close in time. Radiocarbon dating of aweakly developed palaeosol underlying the units indicatesthe eruptions took place sometime after 4.1 kaBP butbefore 3.8 kaBP (Di Vito et al., 1999). The trachytic resultsare comparable to previous analyses but have a lessvariable alkali content.

3.13. Avellino

The Avellino tephra formed at ca 3.6 kaBP from aPlinian eruption of Vesuvius (Andronico et al., 1995).It is a compositionally layered fall deposit from basalwhite phonolitic to grey tephri-phonolitic pumicesdispersed east and north-eastward, respectively (Cioniet al., 1999). The chemical results of white facies analysedin this study are comparable to previous analyses,though with a relatively low sodium content (Signorelliet al., 1999).


3.14. Pompeii

A similar caldera-forming event at Mount Vesuviusoccurred during the AD 79 Pompeii eruption. The Plinianphase of this eruption mostly consisted of alternating whiteand grey pumice fallout that was widely dispersed to thesoutheast. The marine equivalent is known as the Z-1tephra (McCoy, 1980). The glass composition of thePompeii event is phonolitic, and the results suggest lowermagnesium and higher sodium and aluminium contentthan previous studies have obtained using XRF (Cioni etal., 1995; Sacchi et al., 2005).

3.15. Monte Nuovo

The AD 1538 Monte Nuovo eruption was the mostrecent historic eruption to have taken place in thePhlegrean Fields (Di Vito et al., 1987; Piochi et al.,2005). The event began as a phreatomagmatic eruption butreverted to a less-explosive strombolian-type during thecourse of the week-long eruption. The trachytic results areindistinguishable from previous analyses, including recentWDS (Piochi et al., 2005).

4. Statistical analyses of chemical data

4.1. Statistical rationale

As the data collated in Table 2 clearly illustrate, there is arelatively constrained range of variability in Campaniantephras. Given the numerous eruptions in the region duringthe Late Quaternary (Wulf et al., 2004), this can present aproblem for tephrochronologists when attempting to relatea distal ash layer to a known eruption. Often, relativelydetailed stratigraphical and chronological informationhave to be brought in to the interpretation. This, whileunderstandable, is far from ideal as there is the potentialfor miscorrelation. For this reason, the tephra communityis increasingly turning to trace element analyses todiscriminate between, or match, different tephras. Evenhere, however, there are problems, as trace elements cannotalways distinguish eruptions of similar major elementchemistry (Shane, 2000).

One potential method of resolving matters is to employmultivariate statistical techniques. This, in theory, is ideal,as there are 9 or more major and minor elements regularlymeasured during most glass analyses. Combining thisinformation in a statistical framework may provide a morerobust method for separating tephras with very similarchemistry. The big advantage here is that differences andsimilarities can be quantified and, therefore, views aboutwhich tephras can or cannot be separated chemically usingmajor elements alone can be objectively examined. To thisend, we have recently examined several hundred analysesof Mid-Holocene age tephras from Adriatic marine coresand statistically correlated them to tephra horizons foundin the Lago Grande Monticchio sequence (Lowe et al.,

2007). In this case, stratigraphical information and datingwere not brought into the interpretation and the classifica-tion was based purely on statistical testing. The statisticalmethod employed, Discriminant Function Analysis(DFA), used all of the Holocene tephras in the Monticchiosequence and was clearly able to discriminate between mosthorizons. When the results of these analyses were subse-quently compared to the stratigraphical and datinginformation, the predicted tephras corresponded extremelywell.Fig. 3 suggests that eruptions which take place within

similar time frames may be easily distinguishable; theconsiderable spread, however, may make general correla-tion with limited stratigraphical information more difficult.To develop the statistical approach further, multivariatecomparisons were performed on the Campanian datapresented here (Fig. 3) and compared to those reportedby Wulf et al. (2004). As the ages for the eruptions andlayers in Monticchio are reasonably well constrained, thisprovides an opportunity to test whether the method canpredict a chronologically plausible correlation.There are several ways in which geochemical data can be

analysed, using either raw data or log transforms of theoxide ratios; for a detailed discussion of the issues seePollard et al. (2006). In order to develop robust results, weattempted linear discriminant functions on the raw data,discriminant functions using Mahalanobis distance on bothraw data and data converted to logs of the oxide values(logged to Al2O3), and logistic regression discriminants onthe same log-ratios. This is a relatively exhaustive statisticalexercise but allows us to discount bias in any one particularmethod. On balance, the results were all close and thecontrolling factors on the ability on to separate tephrachemistry were dependant, as one would expect, the degreeof similarity and the quality and representativeness of thesampling.

4.2. Results

Of the tephras we have analysed in this initial study, 3units (Fondo di Baia, Astroni and the Solchiaro) have beenpreviously correlated to tephra layers found in the LagoGrande Monticchio record on geochemical, chronologicaland mineralogical grounds (Wulf et al., 2004). Suchinformation (particularly the mineral suite) is not alwaysavailable in distal tephra studies. We attempted, therefore,to use only the chemical information to statisticallycompare the tephras to Monticchio. We included all ofthe Monticchio chemistry from as wide a time range aspossible to simulate the level of difficulty encountered whenattempting to match tephras from distal settings.

4.2.1. Solchario

This tephra was analysed in the most detail and at 2different laboratories. This resulted in over 70 analyses,covering the whole range of chemistry from this tephra.The size of this dataset was similar to the successful study

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. First, second and third group discriminants for the data produced in this study. Based on these data, most groups that are closely spaced in time

are easily distinguishable using discriminant functions (such as the Astroni from the Averno). The spread, however, may make correlation based purely on

chemistry difficult without sufficient data generated from proximal sites.


in Lowe et al. (2007), where the average sample size was 50data points per unit. As detailed in Table 3, this tephra wassuccessfully matched to the unit ascribed to the Solcharioin Lago Grande Monticchio, despite the fact that thenumber of tephras set up as possible outcomes was 16;some with a very similar chemistry to the intermediate glassof Solchario. This outcome clearly demonstrates thepotential of a statistical approach where the number ofanalyses available is large.

4.2.2. Neapolitan yellow tuff

This tephra was statistically difficult to match to thelayer that has been ascribed to it in Monticchio (TM-8).The statistical data presented in Table 3 suggests theproximal analyses of the NYT are statistically closer to theslightly lower TM-9 layer in Monticchio. This is unsurpris-ing, however, as there is little chemical data for any of thesesamples and the TM-9 layer has a larger statistical rangethan the TM-8 layer. It is likely this issue could be resolvedwith additional data from both proximal and Monticchiolayers (Lane et al. in progress).

4.2.3. Mercato

This proximal pumice (glass phase) sample was relativelyeasy to correlate to the Monticchio record. A training set of6 early Holocene tephra layers from Monticchio waschosen, and as shown in Table 3, there was a clearstatistical match to the Mercato correlated layer in theMonticchio record; chemical correlation of this tephra onmajor elements was therefore relatively straightforward.

4.2.4. Fondo di Baia

These data provided the least successful match; themethod failed to select for the layer in the Monticchiosequence assigned to the Fondo di Baia. In most cases, thecorrelation was incorrectly made to the early HoloceneSomma-Vesuvius eruption of Mercato (Table 3). This

illustrates the potential for miscorrelation; in this casemany more major oxide data, and possibly supportingtrace element data, are required.

4.2.5. Agnano Monte Spina Tephra (AMST) and Astroni

These are the most intriguing results of all. The Astroniand AMST horizons in the Monticchio record are part ofthe TM-5 group (Wulf et al., 2004). Although Lowe et al.(2007) were able to discriminate between these layers with450 data points, this group is a difficult test. Weattempted four different statistical analyses for the Astronidata, allowing the software (SPSS and a package calledOxComp, a tool for statistical analyses of compositionaldata developed at the RLAHA; Nathan et al., in progressto choose from the whole of the Holocene record.All the approaches employed, however, consistentlyidentified the TM-5 group as the most likely match(Table 4). In all cases, the likeliest correlation to Astroniwas Monticchio layer TM-5d (Tables 3 and 4), which atpresent is thought to be representative of the AMST. Thisillustrates the complexity of mid-Holocene Italian vulcan-ism and highlights the need for more chemical analyses ofproximal deposits, as well as a comprehensive programmeof high-precision radiocarbon dating to better constrainthe age of the eruption events.

5. Conclusions

Previous tephrochronological studies of the Campanianprovince have largely depended on a combination ofstratigraphic, volcanological and geochronological studies.Although robust correlations have been developed for theimmediate region, more distal correlations have largelyrelied on relatively low-precision geochemical analyses oftephra units, often using bulk rock samples. The latterfrequently provide ambiguous and/or imprecise data.The results reported here indicate that the systematic

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Summary output of discriminant function analysis, using proximal vitreous samples for the Agnano Monte Spina, Mercato, Fondo di Baia, Astroni

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff and Solchiaro data generated during this study

Tephra Allocation to Monticchio Tephra Allocation to Monticchio

Fondo Di Baia Solchario Intermediate

FDB TM-6a Mercato-n S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

FDB TM-6-2b Casale (CF) S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

FDB TM-6-1a Fondi di Baia? S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

FDB TM-5-1c Maistro (Ischia) S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies


FDB TM-5-1b Maistro (Ischia) S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?

FDB TM-5-1c Maistro (Ischia) S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?


FDB TM-6a Mercato S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies


FDB TM-6a Mercato S-Int TM-13 Pomici di Base

FDB TM-6a Mercato S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?




FDB TM-6a Mercato S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?



FDB TM-6-2b Casale (CF) S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies



Astroni S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

AST TM-5d Agnano Monte Spina S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies


AST TM-5c Agnano Monte Spina S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies





AST TM-5a Astroni S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

AST TM-5b Astroni S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies







Neapolitan Yellow Tuff S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

NYT TM-8 Neapolitan Yellow Tuff S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

NYT TM-9 Tufi Biancastri, GM1 S-Int TM-12-2a Unknown

NYT TM-8 Neapolitan Yellow Tuff S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

NYT TM-9 Tufi Biancastri, GM1 S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?

NYT TM-9 Tufi Biancastri, GM2 S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies





Mercato S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

Mercato TM-6a/b Mercato S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

Mercato TM-6a/b Mercato S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?





Agnano Monte Spina S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

AMST TM5cd2 Agnano Monte Spina S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

AMST TM-5a Astroni S-Int TM-14-1 Faro di Punta Imperatore?

AMST TM5cd2 Agnano Monte Spina Solchario Basic

AMST TM5cd2 Agnano Monte Spina S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies




ARTICLE IN PRESS


Tephra Allocation to Monticchio Tephra Allocation to Monticchio

AMST TM5b Astroni S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies


AMST TM5cd2 Agnano Monte Spina S-Basic TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

Solchario Intermediate S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies

S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies











S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies S-Basic TM-12-1 Unknown




S-Int TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies S-Basic TM-14a Solchiaro, black facies

S-Int TM-15 Y-3 S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies


S-Basic TM-14b Solchiaro, white facies

Allocations were performed using multivariate analyses on both raw and log-transformed data (log of the ratios of the major elements to Al2O3; see text

for further details). Where the data were multivariate, normal linear discriminant functions were used, and where the data were non-normal (even after log

transforms), then logistic regression allocation DF’s were applied (Aitchison, 1986; Nathan et al., in progress).

Table 4

Statistical analysis results of Astroni, comparing the data from this study with defined tephra layers in the Lago Grande Monticchio (TM-) record from

Wulf et al. (2004)

Raw data linear Raw data Mahalanobis Log-ratio Mahalanobis Log-ratio logistic regression

TM-5d 80% TM-5d 53% TM-5d 74% TM-5d 86%

TM-5a 20% TM-5a 34% TM-5b 13% TM-5a 7%

TM-3c 13% Other 13% TM-5c 7%

TM-5a–d are correlated in the core to the AMST (5d) (Wulf et al., 2004) and Astroni (5a and c; Lowe et al., 2007) eruptions; TM-3 is correlated in the core

to the Vesuvian (Ap) eruptions. While the results are chronologically plausible and the correlation of TM-5d with the Astroni appears robust, the extreme

similarity here between the Astroni and AMST data makes correlation problematic. Trace element analyses are now being explored.


application of wavelength dispersive spectrometry (WDS)on individual glass shards obtained from key horizons withinthe Campanian province may provide more consistent typedata. The results confirm the largely trachytic composition ofthe Campanian eruptions but in some instances indicateconsiderably different values to those previously reported inthe literature. There is no systematic offset between analysesundertaken using SEM, XRF and WDS, and caution isadvised when correlations are based on a mixture of thesedifferent approaches. It is advocated that future correlationsbe based on WDS data, using robust datasets that enable theapplication of discriminant statistical methods. Furtherresearch, now commenced, will examine whether analysis oftrace elements and REE data will lead to successfuldiscrimination between tephras that have highly similarmajor element oxide contents.

Acknowledgements

This work was part-funded by a Leverhulme TrustResearch project (Grant allocation number F/07/537/C)entitled ‘Testing hypotheses of rapid climate change usingtephrochronology’. Many thanks to Stephen McFarlandfor all his help with the WDS analyses at the ElectronMicroscopy Unit, Queen’s University, Belfast. Thanks alsoto Richard Miller (University of Wollongong) and LibbyMulqueeny (Queen’s University, Belfast) who helpeddraught Fig. 2.

References

Aitchison, J., 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data.

Chapman & Hall, London.


Alessio, M., Bella, F., Improta, S., Belluomini, G., Calderoni, G., Cortesi,

C., Turi, B., 1976. University of Rome carbon-14 dates XIV.

Radiocarbon 18, 321–349.

Andronico, D., Calderoni, G., Cioni, R., Sbrana, A., Sulpizio, R.,

Santacroce, R., 1995. Geological map of Somma-Vesuvius Volcano.

Periodico di Mineralogia 64, 77–78.

Andronico, D., Cioni, R., Marianelli, P., Santacroce, R., Sbrana, A.,

Sulpizio, R., 1998. Introduction to Somma-Vesuvius. In: Orsi, G., Di

Vito, M., Isaia, R. (Eds.), Cities on Volcanoes, International Meeting.

Osservatorio Vesuviano, Naples, pp. 14–25.

Blockley, S.P.E., Pyne-O’Donnell, S.D.F., Lowe, J.J., Matthews, I.P.,

Stone, A., Pollard, A.M., Turney, C.S.M., Molyneux, E.G., 2005. A

new and less destructive laboratory procedure for the physical

separation ofdistal glass tephra shards from sediments. Quaternary

Science Reviews 24, 1952–1960.

Calanchi, N., Cattaneo, A., Dinelli, E., Gasparotto, G., Lucchini, F.,

1998. Tephra layers in Late Quaternary sediments of the central

Adriatic Sea. Marine Geology 149, 191–209.

Cioni, R., Civetta, L., Marianelli, P., Metrich, N., Santacroce, R., Sbrana,

A., 1995. Compositional layering and syn-eruptive mixing of a

periodically refilled shallow magma chamber: the AD Plinian eruption

of Vesuvius. Journal of Petrology 36, 739–776.

Cioni, R., Santacroce, R., Sbrana, A., 1999. Pyroclastic deposits as a guide

for reconstructing the multi-stage evolution of the Somma-Vesuvius

Caldera. Bulletin of Volcanology 60, 207–222.

Davies, S.M., Branch, N.P., Lowe, J.J., Turney, C.S.M., 2002. Towards a

European tephrochronological framework for Termination 1 and the

Early Holocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London 360A, 767–802.

De Astis, G., Pappalardo, L., Piochi, M., 2004. Procida volcanic history:

new insights into the evolution of the Phlegrean Volcanic

District (Campania region, Italy). Bulletin of Volcanology 66,

622–641.

Deino, A.L., Curtis, G.H., Rosi, M., 1992. 40Ar/39Ar dating of the

Campanian Ignimbrite, Campanian Region, Italy. In: Proceedings of

the 29th International Geological Congress, Kyoto, Japan.

Deino, A.L., Orsi, G., de Vita, S., Piochi, M., 2004. The age of the

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff caldera-forming eruption (Campi Flegrei

caldera—Italy) assessed by 40Ar/39Ar dating method. Journal of

Volcanology and Geothermal Research 133, 157–170.

de Vita, S., Orsi, G., Civetta, L., Carandente, A., D’Antonio, M., Deino,

A., de Cesare, T., di Vito, M.A., Fisher, R.V., Isaia, R., Marotta, E.,

Necco, A., Ort, M., Pappalardo, L., Piochi, M., Southon, J., 1999. The

Agnano-Monte Spina eruption (4100 yearsBP) in the restless Campi

Flegrei caldera (Italy). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal

Research 91, 269–301.

di Girolamo, P., Ghiara, M.R., Lirer, L., Munno, R., Rolandi, G.,

Stanzione, D., 1984. Vulcanologia e petrologia dei Campi Flegrei.

Bolletin Societe Geology Italia 103, 349–413.

Di Vito, M., Lirer, L., Mastrolorenzo, G., Rolandi, G., 1987. The 1538

Monte Nuovo eruption (Campi Flegrei, Italy). Bulletin of Volcanology

49, 608–615.

Di Vito, M.A., Isaia, R., Orsi, G., Southon, J., de Vita, S., D’Antonio, M.,

Pappalardo, L., Piochi, M., 1999. Volcanism and deformation since

12,000 years at the Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy). Journal of


Dugmore, A., 1989. Icelandic volcanic ash in Scotland. Scottish

Geographical Magazine 105, 168–172.

Frezzotti, M., Narcisi, B., 1996. Late Quaternary tephra-derived paleosols

in central Italy’s carbonate Apennine Range: stratigraphical and

paleoclimatological implications. Quaternary International 34–36,

147–153.

Giordano, D., Mangiacapra, A., Potuzak, M., Russell, J.K., Romano, C.,

Dingwell, D.B., Di Muro, A., 2006. An expanded non-Arrhenian

model for silicate melt viscosity: a treatment for metaluminous,

peraluminous and peralkaline liquids. Chemical Geology 229, 42–56.

Heiken, G., 1999. Will Vesuvius erupt? Three million people need to

know. Science 286, 1685–1687.

Hunt, J.B., Hill, P.G., 1993. Tephra geochemistry: a discussion of some

persistent analytical problems. The Holocene 3, 271–278.

Isaia, R., D’Antonio, M., Dell’Erba, F., Di Vito, M., Orsi, G., 2004. The

Astroni volcano: the only example of closely spaced eruptions in the

same vent area during the recent history of the Campi Flegrei caldera

(Italy). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 133,

171–192.

Jahns, S., van den Bogaard, C., 1998. New palynological and tephros-

tratigraphical investigations of two salt lagoons on the island of Mljet,

south Dalmatia, Croatia. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 7,

219–234.

Keller, J., Ryan, W.B.F., Ninkovich, D., Altherr, R., 1978. Explosive

volcanic activity in the Mediterranean over the past 200,000 yr as

recorded in deep-sea sediments. Geological Society of America Bulletin

89, 591–604.

Le Bas, M.J., Le Maitre, R.W., Streckeisen, A., Zanettin, B., 1986. A

chemical classification of volcanic rocks based on the Total Alkali-

Silica diagram. Journal of Petrology 27, 745–750.

Lirer, L., Rolandi, G., Rubin, M., 1991. 14C age of the ‘‘Museum Breccia’’

(Campi Flegrei) and its relevance for the origin of the Campanian

Ignimbrite. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 48,

223–227.

Lowe, J.J., Hoek, W.Z., INTIMATE group, 2001. Inter-regional

correlation of palaeoclimatic records for the Last Glacial–Interglacial

transition: a protocol for improved precision recommended by the

INTIMATE project group. Quaternary Science Reviews 20,

1175–1187.

Lowe, J.J., Blockley, S.P.E., Trincardi, F., Asioli, A., Cattaneo, A.,

Matthews, I.P., Pollard, A.M., Wulf, S., 2007. Age modelling of late

Quaternary marine sequences in the Adriatic: towards improved

precision and accuracy using volcanic event stratigraphy. Continental

Shelf Research 27, 560–582.

McCoy, F.W., 1980. The upper Thera (Minoan) ash in deep-sea

sediments: distribution and comparison with other ash layers. Thera

and the Aegean world. In: Proceedings of the Second International

Scientific Congress on the Volcano of Thera, Greece.

Mastrolorenzo, G., Petrone, P.P., Pagano, M., Incoronato, A., Baxter,

P.J., Canzanella, A., Fattore, L., 2001. Herculaneum victims of

Vesuvius in AD 79. Nature 410, 769–770.

Mastrolorenzo, G., Palladino, D.M., Vecchio, G., Taddeucci, J., 2002.

The 472 AD Pollena eruption of Somma-Vesuvius (Italy) and its

environmental impact at the end of the Roman Empire. Journal of


Mastrolorenzo, G., Petrone, P., Pappalardo, L., Sheridan, M.F., 2006.

The Avellino 3780-yr-BP catastrophe as a worst-case scenario for a

future eruption at Vesuvius. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 103, 4366–4370.

Morhange, C., Marriner, N., Laborel, J., Todesco, M., Oberlin, C., 2006.

Rapid sea-level movements and noneruptive crustal deformations in

the Phlegrean Fields caldera, Italy. Geology 34, 93–96.

Narcisi, B., 1996. Tephrochronology of a Late Quaternary lacustrine

record from the Monticchio Maar (Vulture Volcano, southern Italy).

Quaternary Science Reviews 15, 155–165.

Narcisi, B., Vezzoli, L., 1999. Quaternary stratigraphy of distal tephra

layers in the Mediterranean—an overview. Global and Planetary

Change 21, 31–50.

Orsi, G., D’Antonio, M., de Vita, S., Gallo, G., 1992. The Neapolitan

Yellow Tuff, a large magnitude trachytic phreatoplinian eruption:

eruptive dynamics, magma withdrawal and caldera collapse. Journal of


Orsi, G., Civetta, L., D’Antonio, M., Di Girolamo, P., Piochi, M., 1995.

Step-filling and development of a three-layer magma chamber: the

Neapolitan Yellow Tuff case history. Journal of Volcanology and

Geothermal Research 67, 291–312.

Orsi, G., Di Vito, M.A., Isaia, R., 2004. Volcanic hazard assessment at the

restless Campi Flegrei caldera. Bulletin of Volcanology 66, 514–530.

Pappalardo, L., Civetta, L., D’Antonio, M., Deino, A., Di Vito, M., Orsi,

G., Carandente, A., de Vita, S., Isaia, R., Piochi, M., 1999. Chemical

ARTICLE IN PRESSC.S.M. Turney et al. / Quaternary International 178 (2008) 288–305 305

and Sr-isotopical evolution of the Phlegraean magmatic system before

the Campanian Ignimbrite and the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff

eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 91,

141–166.

Paterne, M., Guichard, F., Labeyrie, J., Gillot, P.Y., Duplessy, J.C., 1986.

Tyrrhenian Sea tephrochronology of the oxygen isotope record for the

past 60,000 years. Marine Geology 72, 259–285.

Paterne, M., Guichard, F., Labeyrie, J., 1988. Explosive activity of the

south Italian volcanoes during the past 80,000 years as determined by

marine tephrochronology. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal

Research 34, 153–172.

Paterne, M., Labeyrie, J., Guichard, F., Mazaud, A., Maitre, F., 1990.

Fluctuations of the Campanian explosive volcanic activity (south Italy)

during the past 190,000 years, as determined by marine tephrochro-

nology. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 98, 166–174.

Peccerillo, A., 2005. Plio-Quaternary Volcanism in Italy: Petrology,

Geochemistry, Geodynamics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York,

365p.

Piochi, M., Mastrolorenzo, G., Pappalardo, L., 2005. Magma ascent and

eruptive processes from textural and compositional features of Monte

Nuovo pyroclastic products, Campi Flegrei, Italy. Bulletin of

Volcanology 67, 663–678.

Pollard, A.M., Blockley, S.P.E., Lane, C.S., 2006. Some numerical

considerations in the geochemical analysis of distal microtephra.

Applied Geochemistry 21, 1692–1714.

Pyle, D.M., Ricketts, G.D., Margari, V., van Andel, T.H., Sinitsyn, A.A.,

Praslov, N.D., Lisitsyn, S., 2006. Wide dispersal and deposition of

distal tephra during the Pleistocene ‘Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5’

eruption, Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 2713–2728.

Rolandi, G., Maraffi, S., Petrosino, P., Lirer, L., 1993. The Ottaviano

eruption of Somma-Vesuvio (8000 yBP): a magmatic alternating fall

and flow-forming eruption. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal

Research 58, 43–65.

Rosi, M., Sbrana, A., 1987. Phlegrean Fields. Consiglio Nazionale Delle

Ricerche, Quaderni de ‘‘La Ricerca Scientifica,’’ Rome, 175p.

Rosi, M., Vezzoli, L., Castelmanzano, A., Grieco, G., 1999. Plinian

pumice fall deposit of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption (Phlegrean

Fields, Italy). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 91,

179–198.

Sacchi, M., Insigna, D., Milia, A., Molisso, F., Raspini, A., Torrente,

M.M., Conforti, A., 2005. Stratigraphic signature of the Vesuvius 79

AD event off the Sarno prodelta system, Naples Bay. Marine Geology

222–223, 443–469.

Santacroce, R., 1987. Somma-Vesuvius. Consiglio Nazionale Delle

Ricerche, Quaderni de ‘‘La Ricerca Scientifica,’’ Rome, 251p.

Scarth, A., Tanguy, J.-C., 2001. Volcanoes of Europe. Terra Publishing,

Harpenden, 243p.

Schmidt, R., van den Bogaard, C., Merkt, J., Muller, J., 2002. A new

Lateglacial chronostratigraphic tephra marker for the south-eastern

Alps: The Neapolitan Yellow Tuff (NYT) in Langsee (Austria) in the

context of a regional biostratigraphy and palaeoclimate. Quaternary

International 88, 45–56.

Shane, P., 2000. Tephrochronology: a New Zealand case study. Earth

Science Reviews 49, 223–259.

Siani, G., Paterne, M., Michel, E., Sulpizio, R., Sbrana, A., Arnold, M.,

Haddad, G., 2001. Mediterranean Sea surface radiocarbon age

changes since the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 294, 1917–1920.

Siani, G., Sulpizio, R., Paterne, M., Sbrana, A., 2004. Tephrostratigraphy

study for the last 18,000 14C years in a deep-sea sediment sequence for

the South Adriatic. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 2485–2500.

Signorelli, S., Vaggelli, G., Romano, C., 1999. Pre-eruptive volatile (H2O,

F, Cl and S) contents of phonolitic magmas feeding the 3550-year old

Avellino eruption from Vesuvius, southern Italy. Journal of Volcanol-

ogy and Geothermal Research 93, 237–256.

Sweatman, T.R., Long, J.V.P., 1969. Quantitative electron microprobe

analysis of rock forming minerals. Journal of Petrology 10, 332–379.

Vezzoli, L., 1988. Island of Ischia. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche,

Quaderni de La Ricerca Scientifica, Rome, 133p.

Vezzoli, L., 1991. Tephra layers in Bannock Basin (Eastern Mediterra-

nean). Marine Geology 100, 21–34.

Wulf, S., Kraml, M., Brauer, A., Keller, J., Negendank, J.F.W., 2004.

Tephrochronology of the 100 ka lacustrine sediment record of Lago

Grande di Monticchio (southern Italy). Quaternary International 122,

7–30.

Date post:	24-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	reading
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Geochemical characterization of Quaternary tephras from the Campanian Province, Italy

Documents