Distinguishing Nemrut Dağ and Bingöl A obsidians: geochemical and landscape differences and the archaeological implications

Sourcing obsidian from Tell Aswad and Qdeir 1 (Syria) by SEM-EDS and EDXRF: Methodological implications

“…Our specific interest lay in their ability to discriminate between the products of eastern Anatolian sources, not least the important peralkaline products of Bingöl and Nemrut Dag (Fig. 1), two of the most important sources in Near Eastern prehistory, whose chemical similarity has often made them difficult to discriminate (Frahm, 2012). Previous applications of these techniques have focused primarily on archaeological case studies where central Anatolian (Cappadocian) raw materials were of primary importance (Carter and Shackley, 2007;Poupeau et al, 2010); it was thus our intention in this project to broaden the analytical remit of EDXRF and SEM-EDS through the study of assemblages that were more likely to contain tools made from eastern Anatolia obsidians.…”

Multiple sources: The pXRF analysis of obsidian from Kenan Tepe, S.E. Turkey

“…In the past the two peralkaline sources, Nemrut Dağ and Bingöl A, have proved difficult to distinguish but recent analyses have regularly been able to reliably distinguish them using a range of element combinations and ratios (e.g. Frahm 2012;Orange et al 2013;Carter et al 2013). In the Kenan Tepe artefacts, the two groups correspond well with source material representing the two peralkaline sources Nemrut Dağ (339 artefacts) and Bingöl A (122 artefacts) apart from the small number (4) that fall between them where the exact peralkaline sub-source has to remain undetermined.…”

“…In the Kenan Tepe artefacts, the two groups correspond well with source material representing the two peralkaline sources Nemrut Dağ (339 artefacts) and Bingöl A (122 artefacts) apart from the small number (4) that fall between them where the exact peralkaline sub-source has to remain undetermined. While multiple sub-groups at Nemrut Dağ have been attested by a range of studies Frahm 2012;Orange et al 2013), most have not been identified in archaeological contexts, perhaps due to being of insufficient quality for knapping and it now seems likely that most come from the Sicaksu source (Robin et al 2015). In most archaeological studies (e.g.…”

Reassessing obsidian field relationships at Glass Buttes, Oregon

“…The road onto this lobe ends at an extensive scatter of abundant obsidian fragments. Such scatters at the complex seem to be the remnants of the flow's obsidian layer, exposed on flat areas by erosion and deflation (i.e., the covering sediment has washed and blown away; see Frahm, 2012: Fig. 7, Frahm, 2014a for simplified cross sections of an obsidian-bearing flow).…”