ArticlePDF Available

Caucasus Connections? New Data and Interpretations for Armenian Obsidian in Northern Mesopotamia

October 2016
Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 9(1)

DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.023

Authors:

Ellery Frahm

Yale University

Stuart Campbell

The University of Manchester

Elizabeth Healey

The University of Manchester

Contact across long distances is evident in the Neolithic of the Near East, whether driven by social networks, exchange links, or movement of individuals or populations. Movement of material, such as obsidian, can elucidate these processes but is often studied within a bounded world that places Mesopotamia at the center. This paper focuses on links that cut across the traditionally imposed boundaries between Northern Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. While Armenia is one of the world’s most obsidian-rich landscapes, reports of Armenian obsidians in Northern Mesopotamia are scarce. The confirmation (or lack thereof) of these rare reports has important consequences regarding the movement of people, material, and information out of the Caucasus. As discussed here, all but one report either cannot be corroborated or are demonstrably erroneous. For one archaeological site, data processing methods led to overlaps in the signals for different obsidian sources. For another site, one element used in source identification suffered from unsystematic error. For other sites, data and key details went unpublished at the time. To corroborate past work that had identified Armenian obsidian at Domuztepe, 66 artifacts were newly sourced by electron microprobe analysis and portable X-ray fluorescence. This sample was biased toward artifacts potentially from Armenia. Our analyses revealed that 15 artifacts match Pokr Arteni, one of the most used obsidian sources in Armenia. For reasons not yet clear, obsidian was brought to this Late Neolithic settlement over a distance of 670 km linearly and more than 800 km on foot. Additionally, there are artifacts from four other sources within the Kura-Araxes basin, lending extra support to movement of materials, if not people, between the Caucasus and Domuztepe. Furthermore, there are similar patterns in the two chemical varieties of Pokr Arteni obsidian at Domuztepe and at a Late Neolithic site in Armenia, reflecting similar processes or behaviors at this source.

Content uploaded by Ellery Frahm

Content may be subject to copyright.

UNCORRECTED PROOF

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 15 May 2016

Received in revised form 8 July 2016

Accepted 18 August 2016

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Armenia

Syria

Turkey

Caucasus

Northern Mesopotamia

Late Neolithic

Obsidian sourcing

Inter-regional contact

Portable XRF (pXRF)

Electron microprobe analysis (EMPA)

ABSTRACT

Contact across long distances is evident in the Neolithic of the Near East, whether driven by social networks, exchange

links, or movement of individuals or populations. Movement of material, such as obsidian, can elucidate these processes

but is often studied within a bounded world that places Mesopotamia at the center. This paper focuses on links that cut

across the traditionally imposed boundaries between Northern Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. While Armenia is one

of the world's most obsidian-rich landscapes, reports of Armenian obsidians in Northern Mesopotamia are scarce. The

confirmation (or lack thereof) of these rare reports has important consequences regarding the movement of people, ma-

terial, and information out of the Caucasus. As discussed here, all but one report either cannot be corroborated or are

demonstrably erroneous. For one archaeological site, data processing methods led to overlaps in the signals for different

obsidian sources. For another site, one element used in source identification suffered from unsystematic error. For other

sites, data and key details went unpublished at the time. To corroborate past work that had identified Armenian obsidian

at Domuztepe, 66 artifacts were newly sourced by electron microprobe analysis and confirmed by portable X-ray fluores-

cence. This sample was biased toward artifacts potentially from Armenia. Our analyses revealed that 15 artifacts match

Pokr Arteni, one of the most used obsidian sources in Armenia. For reasons not yet clear, obsidian was brought to this

Late Neolithic settlement over a distance of 670 km linearly and > 800 km on foot. Additionally, there are artifacts from

four other sources in the Kura-Araxes basin, lending extra support to movement of materials, if not people, between the

Caucasus and Domuztepe. Furthermore, there are similar patterns in the two chemical varieties of Pokr Arteni obsidian

at Domuztepe and at aLate Neolithic site in Armenia, Aratashen, potentially reflecting similar processes or behaviors at

this source.

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

Caucasus connections? New data and interpretations for Armenian obsidian in

northern Mesopotamia

Ellery Frahm a, b, ⁎, Stuart Campbell c, Elizabeth Healey c

aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey Center #395, 301 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

bDepartment of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States

cSchool of Arts, Languages, and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

1. Introduction

It has been argued that identifying materials, resources, or goods

moved “between different areas and different societies are the most

tangible evidence that an archaeologist can hope for when looking to

establish contact between prehistoric peoples”(Glascock, 2002:1). In

this regard, the use of chemical analyses to match obsidian artifacts

to their volcanic origins is cited as one of the great success stories

in archaeological science (e.g., Williams-Thorpe, 1995; Henderson,

2001; see also a recent discussion by Freund, 2013). Over the past five

decades, obsidian artifact sourcing has provided rich evidence to bet-

ter understand intra- and inter-regional mobility, exchange, and social

interactions (e.g., Earle and Ericson, 1977; Ericson and Earle, 1982;

Shackley, 1998, 2005; Glascock, 2002; Dillian and White, 2009; and

the chapters within). However, the scale of long-distance interaction

has a distinct character, connecting non-contiguous regions and

groups situated within different natural and cultural contexts. Such

⁎⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota,

Hubert H. Humphrey Center #395, 301 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United

States.

Email address: frah0010@umn.edu, elleryfrahm@gmail.com (E. Frahm)

interactions would not necessarily occur through routine encounters

within day-to-day patterns of mobility or social networks, yet they are

observable via the medium of material transport. With a resource such

as obsidian, especially where there are multiple potential sources, it

is particularly striking if utilized sources lie far more geographically

distant than closer –and apparently functionally equivalent –geolog-

ical deposits. While it is well established that cultural factors can be

as significant as functional and economic ones in resource selection,

the occurrence of materials, including obsidian, at great distances from

their sources can sometimes lead to dramatic interpretations, includ-

ing proposed intercontinental economic networks and foraging areas

far larger than ethnographically attested.

In the Near East, the interaction and movement of people be-

tween regions, especially those on the Mesopotamian periphery (e.g.,

the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Iranian Plateau), has long been a fa-

vored explanatory device for changes in the archaeological record. As

observed by Hackenbeck (2008), mobility, including migration en

masse, has often lain at the core of narratives involving the spread

of agriculture, metallurgy, and other innovations out of the Near

East. That is, the Near East has long been conceptualized as acenter

from which cultural and technological changes radiated. Contempo-

rary perspectives tend to be more nuanced, focusing on a wider range

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.023

The dawn and rise of antimony use in the southern Caucasus

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022

Antimony (Sb) was utilised over several millennia as the prime material to opacify or decolour glass and glazes, as well as an accompanying element in copper (Cu) alloys. Metallic antimony objects are rare, and mostly confined to Chalcolithic Central Italy and to the first millennia BCE in the southern Caucasus. The innovation of antimony use in metallurgy seems to be confined to the southern Caucasus, and the invention of it might be even more specifically situated in the Great Caucasus. Preexisting knowledge of mining set the pathway for the initial stage of antimonial copper alloys in the first half of the third millennium BCE and for metallic antimony ornaments in the second half of the third millennium BCE. However, the first major expansion of antimony in the metallurgy of the Racha-Lechkumi district in the southern Caucasus (present-day Georgia) started around 1700 BCE, while its spreading in glassmaking occurred in the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Explanations that place antimony adoption within its broader social context are favoured over those that consider material or geological properties in isolation. A recurring theme is the importance of comparative analysis, both geographically and between the different pyrotechnologies, including the precious metals and glass industries, to explore how social, political, climatic and economic conditions affected adoption and innovation patterns. All these factors are considered to explain why the extraction of antimony blossomed in the Late Bronze Age in the southern Caucasus and to reconstruct a framework of exploitation, distribution/trade and use of antimony in the Caucasus and its neighbouring regions in the south and east.

Variability in Obsidian Blade Production Technology of the Neolithic Southern Caucasus: New Data from Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

Recent investigations in the Neolithic Southern Caucasus have shed new light on the advent and development of Neolithic culture in the area, which is thought to have emerged around 6000 B.C.E., likely as a result of interaction with the Neolithic communities of bordering regions to the south. Given the geographic and environmental diversity of the Southern Caucasus, the corresponding regional variability of the culture is increasingly attracting attention. Focusing on obsidian pressure blade technology in the region, which is often treated generically so far, this paper investigates the variability in this technology and then makes comparisons among contemporaneous sites. Based on the examination of blade cores obtained from the Neolithic sites of Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in the Middle Kura Valley, two techno-typologically distinct core types were defined—namely, unifacial and circumferential blade cores. Further, the distribution patterns of the detected technological traces on the surface of the cores, likely caused by firm immobilization for a lever or long crutch pressure debitage, appeared to correspond to the defined core types. Considering the distribution pattern of surface stigmas vis-à-vis the specific blade core type, strategies involving multiple blade production technologies, perhaps each employing different immobilization devices for pressure debitage, can be assumed to be present at the two sites studied. A preliminary comparison with contemporaneous sites on the Ararat Plain in the Araxes Valley provided the basis for considering the regional needs and tradition behind the assumed blade production strategy, probably specific to Middle Kura Valley. Nevertheless, the newly defined and potentially unique unifacial core type may provide a clue to trace technological variability among regions. By exploring the regional variability of the blade production technology through this new perspective, vital questions regarding the Neolithization process or the relationship among groups at that time can be addressed.

New data on different patterns of obsidian procurement in Georgia (Southern Caucasus) during the Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Age Periods

Article

Dec 2022

The analysis of 107 obsidian samples collected in the course of the archaeological investigations carried out from 2009 to 2019 by the Georgian-Italian expeditions in Eastern Georgia in the provinces of Shida Kartli (Natsargora, Aradetis Orgora and Okherakhevi) and Kakheti (Tsiteli Gorebi 5) allowed us to confirm the existence of two contrasting obsidian procurement patterns in the region. Virtually all the samples (56 out of 57) from the province of Shida Kartli, west of the present capital Tbilisi, regardless of their site of origin and of their date, which varies from the late 4th to the early 1st millennium BC, originate from a single general source (i.e., the outcrops of the Chikiani volcano near lake Paravani in southern Georgia). On the other hand, the samples from the early 5th millennium site of Tsiteli Gorebi 5 in the province of Kakheti, close to the present border of Azerbaijan, originate from seven different volcanoes located in Armenia (Gegham, Syunik, Gutansar and Tsaghkunyats), in southern Georgia (Chikiani), and in eastern Turkey (Sarıkamış region and Yağlıca Dağ). They thus outline for Kakheti a more complex multisource procurement pattern, already familiar from other sites of the same region, as well as of the neighbouring area beyond the Georgian/Azerbaijani and Georgian/Armenian borders, which deserves being further investigated in the future.

Rosenberg etal 2022 JAAS-Tsaf Obsidian beads

Article

Jun 2022

Danny Rosenberg

It has long been recognized that the use of beads for bodily adornment was a powerful means of creating and expressing social identities. Their symbolic signifcance and meaning-making lies in the intersection of how and where they are worn, their life histories of production and ownership, the time and skill invested in their manufacture, plus the cosmological import and values accorded their raw materials. While obsidian is known to have traveled to the southern Levant from various Anatolian sources since the Epipalaeolithic period, its use to make beads is rare. Over eight seasons, excavations at Tel Tsaf (ca. 5,200–4,700 cal. BC) in the Jordan Valley, Israel, have produced the richest obsidian bead assemblage in the southern Levant, part of a larger set of objects, and raw materials that attest to this Middle Chalcolithic community’s participation in long-distance exchange networks. This paper details the obsidian bead assemblage, its morphometric and technological characteristics, and raw material sources based on their chemical compositions. It then discusses the assemblage’s broader socio-economic significance, and the possible means through which members of the community came to procure them.

The obsidian beads from Middle Chalcolithic Tel Tsaf (ca. 5,200–4,700 cal. BC), Jordan Valley, Israel: technology, provenance, and socio-economic significance

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022

It has long been recognized that the use of beads for bodily adornment was a powerful means of creating and expressing social identities. Their symbolic significance and meaning-making lies in the intersection of how and where they are worn, their life histories of production and ownership, the time and skill invested in their manufacture, plus the cosmological import and values accorded their raw materials. While obsidian is known to have traveled to the southern Levant from various Anatolian sources since the Epipalaeolithic period, its use to make beads is rare. Over eight seasons, excavations at Tel Tsaf (ca. 5,200–4,700 cal. BC) in the Jordan Valley, Israel, have produced the richest obsidian bead assemblage in the southern Levant, part of a larger set of objects, and raw materials that attest to this Middle Chalcolithic community’s participation in long-distance exchange networks. This paper details the obsidian bead assemblage, its morphometric and technological characteristics, and raw material sources based on their chemical compositions. It then discusses the assemblage’s broader socio-economic significance, and the possible means through which members of the community came to procure them.

Not only a tool-stone: Other ways of using obsidian in the Near East

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021

Elizabeth Healey

Obsidian was used widely in the Near East in prehistoric and early historic times to make tools and other objects. We know quite a lot about its use as a tool-stone, but much less about other objects made from it, although such things in other contexts would be regarded as markers of identity. This apparent duality of use raises the question of whether the object made or obsidian as a raw material was more significant; it also raises questions about whether the same crafts-people were involved in both the production of tools and other objects or whether they were separated. As research progresses, we are increasingly realising that there is much information that is scattered and that more holistic and integrated approaches are needed. This demands in-depth study of individual objects using multi-disciplinary approaches. Significant areas for further study include the use of geochemical analysis to determine the provenance of the obsidian from which the objects were made and so to evaluate choice of source. Advanced technological investigation is also needed to elucidate manufacturing methods and techniques. These include studies of manufacturing techniques and surface topography as well as an evaluation of experimental data, not only to elucidate which techniques might have been used but also to assess skill and time input. The objects also need to be examined for indications of use and their context of deposition considered in greater detail. The type of objects produced and the way they were crafted also need to be compared to similar objects made of other materials to see if obsidian had a privileged position. Research into these matters is still at an early stage and this paper can only summarise what we know in order to provide a foundation for further study.

Reflections on the Circulation of Extraordinary Items in Early Chalcolithic Southwest Asia: Sourcing the Obsidian Mirror and Giant Blade Core of Kabri (Israel)

Article

Feb 2025

Protocols, pitfalls, and publishing for pXRF analyses: From "know how" to "best practices"

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024
JASR

Ellery Frahm

Portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) exists in a somewhat liminal state as a technique in the archaeological sciences. On one hand, pXRF is essentially energy-dispersive XRF (EDXRF) condensed to fit into a handheld instrument. On the other hand, it is still often defined by a few strident critiques more than a decade ago, the focus of which were pXRF users, not the instruments. There were three themes in those critiques: perceived weaknesses in (1) research design, (2) element quantification, and (3) publishing, especially as it relates to data evaluation. Recently, Johnson et al. (2024) sought to address the third critique, by both surveying the literature and proposing a checklist of 18 variables that, they argue, should be published to “result in better science” from pXRF users. While this is an important topic, the study and list are flawed and, thus, will not achieve their goal. We do, though, share the aim of aiding archaeologists in becoming effective pXRF users. Here I adopt a different tack. Drawing on 24 years of X-ray spectrometry experience, my intent is to share knowledge that can help the expanding community of pXRF practitioners. Ranging in topic from safety to research design and common pitfalls, I aim to share my experience in a way that can, I hope, be useful to those beyond my own students. Much of what I teach about pXRF – both inside and outside the classroom – is here for anyone to read and implement themselves.

Reassessing the origins of Near Eastern obsidian vessels: Not as simple as “Central Anatolia”

Article

Aug 2024
JASR

Ellery Frahm

This article is freely available until October 13, 2024 via the link below. You will be taken directly to the final version of this article on ScienceDirect, which you are welcome to read or download. No sign up, registration or fees are required: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1jexT,rVDBjZqC

The obsidian sources of eastern Turkey and the Caucasus: Geochemistry, geology, and geochronology

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2023
JASR

Ellery Frahm

It has been 25 years since the publication of the monograph L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du volcan a` l’outil (Cauvin et al., 1998) and, within it, Poidevin’s (1998) chapter that summarized all available geochemical and geochronological data for obsidian sources in Turkey and the Caucasus. It was a highly valuable resource to those of us working on Near Eastern obsidian sourcing in the early 2000s; however, an update is long overdue. Poidevin (1998) compiled 229 analyses for obsidian sources in eastern Turkey and the Caucasus, and while he recognized the importance of independent analytical data, he was also frustrated that the few available data obscured real differences in obsidian composition versus variation among the different analytical facilities. Today we are closer to Poidevin’s (1998) goal. Here I summarize more than 7300 elemental analyses for 58 geochemically distinct obsidian sources. For example, Poidevin (1998) had just two analyses for Meydan Dag ̆, a highly important obsidian source, whereas here I report consensus values for 22 elements in Meydan Dag ̆ obsidian based on 423 analyses from 25 independent techniques and laboratories. Not all 58 of the known obsidian sources within this region, however, have been so well characterized, and it is clear that there remains work to be done.

Ripples in the stream: Transcaucasia-Anatolian interaction in the Murat/Euphrates basin at the beginning of the third millennium BC

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2003

Mitchell Rothman

The Circulation of People and Knowledge in Uruk Mesopotamia

Chapter

May 2013

Susan Pollock

YARIM TEPE II:: THE HALAF LEVELS

Chapter

Feb 1994

Stones of the living and bones of the dead? Contextualising the lithics in the Death Pit at Domuztepe

Chapter

Jan 2011

Interpretation of contexts such as the ‘Death Pit’ at Domuztepe often leads to the privileging of the more unusual and striking remains over the less ‘attractive’ material so that the totality of the context is rarely discussed; lithics in particular tend to receive little more than passing mention where there are other more obviously striking foci for interpretation. In this paper, although we focus on the lithics found in the different phases of the Death Pit, and compare them to the lithic assemblages from other contexts we are conscious of the need to discuss them from the point of view of their context. In the ensuing discussion we investigate a number of possible perspectives and argue that lithics in conjunction with other materials can actually offer useful angles on interpretation not available from the more prominent finds alone.

Why do people use exotic raw materials?: The case of obsidian in the Near East during the Halaf Period

Chapter

Aug 2011

Elizabeth Healey

Mesopotamian and Persian migrations

Chapter

Feb 2013

D. T. Potts

Migration is a phenomenon that was frequently adduced in 19th and early 20th-century archaeological and historical literature as an explanation for the diffusion of specific cultural traits, such as pottery styles. The fact that written (epigraphic or literary) confirmation of migration was in almost every case lacking, combined with the probability that alternative explanations (trade, artistic influence of one area on another, changing fashions) could account for the appearance of similar material culture in widely separated locales, meant that such diffusionist explanations went out of fashion after the mid-20th century. Having said that, migration undoubtedly did occur in some situations, even though documentary evidence is lacking. Keywords: archaeology; empire; colonialism; war; cultural diversity; empire; antiquity

Obsidian

Article