The use of SEM-EDS, PIXE and EDXRF for obsidian provenance studies in the Near East: a case study from Neolithic Çatalhöyük (central Anatolia)

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

“…In a previous sourcing study of Ç atalhöyük obsidian, Poupeau et al (2010) demonstrated the efficacy of EDXRF and SEM-EDS to discriminate Anatolian obsidian sources, though it was noted that the latter was incapable of distinguishing products of two central Anatolian sources, Acıgöl and Göllü Dag. Conversely, SEM-EDS is capable of working with small and thin samples (with low detection limitsabout 0.1 wt% [see Kuisma-Kursula, 2000]) attributes that can present problems for EDXRF (Davis et al, 1998).…”

“…More recently there has been a turn towards nondestructive techniques such as EDXRF (Shackley, 1998), particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE) (Butalag et al, 2008;Le Bourdonnec et al, 2005) and SEM-EDS (Acquafredda and Muntoni, 2008) for reasons of cultural sensitivity, cost and speed of analysis, all of which is beginning to permit the characterization of significantly larger data sets (Carter and Shackley, 2007;Poupeau et al, 2010).…”

“…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.…”

On sourcing obsidian assemblages from the Mediterranean area: analytical strategies for their exhaustive geochemical characterisation

“…While the development of efficient and reliable methods and protocols is certainly essential, this trend not only led to the multiplication of the techniques applied to the obsidian material but, consequently, to the proliferation of heterogeneousand thus hardly comparable -sourcing data. This 'idealistic' methodological quest was later given less importance, to focus on the instrumentation that was readily available to the researchers working in the field, and to find new -preferably non-destructive -ways to apply them to obsidian geochemical characterisation (Gratuze et al, 1993;Davis, 1994;Acquafredda et al, 1999;De Francesco et al, 2008Poupeau et al, 2010;Forster and Grave, 2012;Frahm, 2012a;Le Bourdonnec et al, 2005. This 'switch' eventually brought the attention back to the essence of obsidian geochemical sourcing itself: providing information to resolve the archaeological problem(s) associated with each specific assemblage.…”

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

“…The lack of attention to these choices at a site-level has been amplified by the fact that only a small proportion of the artefacts from each site have been provenanced. It is only recently that exceptions have started to emerge, such as Çatalhöyük in Central Anatolia and Tell Aswad and Qdeir 1 in Syria where comprehensive analyses using laboratory based instruments has afforded a highly nuanced picture of obsidian use in central Anatolia (Carter et al 2005;2006;Carter and Shackley 2007;Poupeau et al 2010) and extended our understanding of the use of eastern sources (Orange et al 2013). Now that non-destructive analysis and portable instruments are readily available, opportunities for analysing large numbers of obsidian artefacts from a single site have become much more practical.…”