Conclusions:
"In conclusion, obsidian was an indispensable material
for the Mezraa Teleilat residents throughout the Neolithic
period. Over time, there is a notable increase in obsidian
in the Transitional phase compared to PPNB, and a
subsequent decrease in PN. In other words, its frequency
rises and falls through time. What is striking is that
consumption of green obsidian continues through all
phases. Most of the obsidian was imported from East
Anatolia’s obsidian sources, while Central Anatolian
obsidian was rarely present. The Neolithic inhabitants
sought two specific types of obsidian from eastern sources
– not black, gray, or brown, but green obsidian, particularly
the translucent and semi-translucent types. Since
Phase IV, these two types were most widely used obsidians
and in demand at Mezraa Teleilat. A slight shift in
quantity and importance from the translucent green to
the semi-translucent green obsidian occurred after Phase
IV. This may be due to either a bias in archaeological
recovery or possibly a shift in cultural preference or
availability of sources. These two obsidian types were
most likely imported from either Bingöl A or Nemrud
Dağ. While the distance between Mezraa Teleilat and
Bingöl is approximately 332 km (206 miles), the Nemrud
Dağ source is around 420 km (261 miles), Central Ana -
tolian sources are ca. 337 km (209 miles) away. It is not
known why the eastern Anatolian obsidian was favored
from LPPNB onwards, particularly the peralkaline green
obsidian in the Levant, while the Cappadocian obsidian
was more popular in earlier times. It should be noted,
however, that no serious counting or chemical laboratory
analysis has been done to differentiate eastern from
Cappadocian obsidian in many prehistoric sites. Since
both East and Central Anatolian obsidian were distributed
widely and intensively within the Neolithic, it seems
that neither distance nor the geographic advantage or
disadvantage of certain routes could be the sole factor
in its distribution. The LPPNB shift in obsidian sources
could instead be due to a shift in worldview and/or political
relations, perhaps a result of populations who were
experiencing societal, economic, and symbolic changes
at the end of the Neolithic.
Current data do not allow us to determine whether
obsidian was knapped at the site. Neither can we decide
whether specialists in obsidian production were present
at Mezraa Teleilat since many elements of debitage are
lacking. Hence, it is likely that obsidian arrived in the
form of highly standardized finished products, acquired
by either direct or indirect means of exchangeexchange/trade.
However, it should also be emphasized that some knapping
areas may yet exist in unexcavated portions of the
mound. We simply do not know whether knapping was
practiced on the site until we find the missing pieces of
the chaine opératoire. Other sites contemporary with
Mezraa Teleilat, such as Akarçay Tepe (Arimura et al.
2000; Borrell Tena 2007), Tell Kashkashok (Nishiaki
2000), Tell Sabi Abyad (Copeland 1996), and Tell el-
Kerkh (Arimura 2007) in northern Syria show a predominance
of unipolar bladelets and an almost total lack
of other debitage products, and it therefore seems plausible to conclude that obsidian was not likely knapped on
these sites. Yet the presence of one or two core trimming
elements (Fig. 2: 6-7) and flakes (Fig. 2: 12-13), while
statistically insignificant, may convey hints of some onsite
knapping. Evidently the Neolithic people of Mezraa
Teleilat were dependent on specialists to manufacture
standardized blades and bladelets – and possibly tools
such as the identical corner thinned blades that were used
over a large area during this time. Who were these specialists?
How was obsidian circulated to Mezraa Teleilat
and other neighboring sites? What was the mechanism
of obsidian trade? We simply do not know. Using ethnohistorical
accounts, we assume that obsidian was circulated
by local or non-local seasonal itinerant merchants/
specialists who were active as few as several
decades ago in Turkey and Cyprus, and who plied their
trade by fixing and producing blades for threshing sledges
(Ataman 1999; Whittaker 2000). A possible contribution
of hunters who might have visited Mezraa Teleilat
or contact between hunters, pastoralists, and farmers in
certain zones for circulation of goods and ideas may also
be imagined (Bar-Yosef 2001).
Detailed technological and macro-specific analyses of
obsidian raw material indicate that core reduction strategies
were strictly maintained throughout the Neolithic
and, based on this long-term stability, formed a technological
tradition. Obsidian was brought to Mezraa Teleilat
predominantly as unipolar bladelets and blades, and these
finished products were highly standardized in terms of
size, form, and raw material. In short, patterns of obsidian
raw-material usage and obsidian technological attributes
lend support to an interpretation of continuous occupation
at the site and a culturally shared tradition of lithic
manufacture and procurement that stretched from the
Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Pottery Neolithic at
Mezraa Teleilat.