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

Abstract

Obsidian is often seen as a proxy for exchange and networking even though the relationship between these elements can be somewhat indirect. Nevertheless, recent studies which involve the provenance analysis of a large number of artefacts from a single site have opened up a number of avenues which are simply not visible when only a small number of artefacts can be provenanced. In this paper, after evaluating the efficacy of our pXRF protocol for the provenancing of large numbers of obsidian artefacts, we go on to use the data set we generated from Kenan Tepe, in SE Turkey, to discuss the wide range of sources present including the hitherto poorly understood Group 3d. Our integrated study of the techno-morphological and contextual aspects of the artefacts alongside the provenance analysis also allows us to track the use of obsidian through time and to profile the use of individual sources. HighlightsAttribution of 882 obsidian artefacts from late prehistoric/early historic Kenan Tepe, south east Turkey to their geological sources. Analysis of change through time in the use of obsidian sources at a single site. Importance of contextual analysis of obsidian use.The first large scale occurrence of the unlocated Group 3d obsidian.

Diversity in obsidian use in the prehistoric and early historic Middle East

“…The analyses of large data sets in the Manchester Obsidian Laboratory is ongoing or in course of publication and the results that we use here are preliminary. Here we draw on the analysis of 675 artefacts from Umm Dabaghiyah, 509 artefacts from Jericho, and 432 artefacts from Domuztepe (the most recent summary of which is in Frahm et al, 2016) as well as 822 artefacts from Kenan Tepe (Campbell and Healey, 2016). These analyses were undertaken using a portable Niton XL3t980…”

“…At Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) Körtik Tepe in the Upper Tigris region, the larger sample size demonstrated that obsidian from Bingöl B was acquired in a different form to that from other sources, although once at site all were treated similarly (Carter et al, 2013). At Kenan Tepe, Group 3d obsidian appears to have been acquired in a raw state and worked using different techniques from the other obsidians present, as well as with a nuanced pattern of change over relatively short periods of time (Campbell and Healey, 2016).…”

“…It is also a picture that has often been based around the site as the primary unit of analysis, when most sites have long periods of occupation and potential variation in specific phases and sub-contexts (already implicit in the phasing in the tables in . Now, however, advances in analytical techniques (e.g., Poupeau et al, 2007;Carter, 2014;Forster and Grave, 2012;Frahm, 2013) make it increasingly feasible to provenance many artefacts from single assemblages (or even entire assemblages) and to link techno-morphological attributes to provenance data in a way that has hitherto not been possible (e.g., Maeda, 2013;Carter et al, 2014;Milić, 2014;Campbell and Healey, 2016). This starts to change our approach to understanding obsidian use in the past.…”

Obsidian provenance analyses at Göytepe, Azerbaijan: Implications for understanding Neolithic socioeconomies in the southern Caucasus

“…The instrument generates X‐rays via a miniaturized 50 kV, 200 μA tube with a silver anode. The procedures used in this analysis have been published by Campbell and Healey (). A 90‐s reading time was used, composed of 20 s each using the main, low and high filters and 30 s using the light filter.…”

“…On the other hand, some southern Caucasian obsidian has recently been identified at sites in south‐eastern Turkey and north‐western Iran, but only after the later part of the Pottery Neolithic period (Glascock ; Nadooshan et al . ; Campbell and Healey ; Frahm et al . ; Mouralis et al .…”