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

Distinguishing the geochemically similar Bingöl A and Nemrut Da? peralkaline obsidians is a major challenge in Near Eastern obsidian sourcing. Despite abundant claims in the literature otherwise, this study reveals that Bingöl A and Nemrut Da? obsidians are distinguishable with adequate source sampling and highly accurate and repeatable data for geochemically important elements. Earlier research has endeavored to link a simple geochemical trend (peralkalinity) to specific locations at Nemrut Da?, but existing schemes to distinguish Bingöl A and Nemrut Da? obsidians cannot validly link compositional clusters to the landscape. This study demonstrates that additional elements are required to attribute artifacts to specific obsidian-bearing lava flows at the volcano. Limitations of this newly analyzed collection of geo-referenced Nemrut Da? and Bingöl specimens suggests caution is still warranted in sourcing peralkaline obsidians, but a few archaeological implications are clear. New sourcing results from Tell Mozan in northeastern Syria refute a widespread assumption that one can use maximal efficiency to deduce whether peralkaline obsidian artifacts originated from Nemrut Da? or Bingöl A. The ability to discern among these sources also enables inquiries into issues of cultural and technological preferences regarding these obsidians.     

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

In this paper we evaluate the relative analytical capabilities of SEM-EDS, PIXE and EDXRF for characterizing archaeologically significant Anatolian obsidians on the basis of their elemental compositions. The study involves 54 geological samples from various sources, together with an archaeological case study involving 100 artifacts from Neolithic Çatalhöyük (central Anatolia). With each technique the artifacts formed two compositional groups that correlated with the East Göllü Da? and Nenezi Da? sources. The non-destructive capabilities of these methods are emphasized (albeit with certain analytical limitations in the case of SEM-EDS), suggesting important new techniques for Near Eastern obsidian provenance studies.     

Provenance of prehistoric obsidian artefacts from Kul Tepe,northwestern Iran using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis

Analysis by X-ray fluorescence of 53 obsidian artifacts the main source of obsidian for the workshops in Kul Tepe was Syunik but obsidian sources as far as west as the Lake Van region (Nemrut Da? and Meydan Da?) and as far north as Gutansar were also utilized. These new results indicate a broad network of trade and exchange.     

How reliable are our published archaeometric analyses? Effects of analytical techniques through time on the elemental analysis of obsidians

To assess the analytical accuracies and precisions of archaeometric elemental analyses by different techniques, a relatively homogeneous material such as obsidian must be studied. An assessment of published elemental concentration data from two Anatolian obsidian sources shows that while in most cases analytical accuracy is as high as is commonly expected, in some cases it is not. It also shows that the dispersions of elemental concentration data (indicators of analytical precisions) coming from modern analytical procedures are akin to the estimated homogeneity of the obsidian. Based on this latter observation, if one has element dispersion data from a single analytical technique, with a single source of obsidian as a control, data sets that contain multiple, but similar sources of obsidian may be differentiated.     

A Diachronic Study of Networks of Ceramic Assemblage Similarity in Neolithic Western Anatolia,the Aegean and the Balkans (c.6600–5500 bc)

This study compares the results of Jaccard and Kulczynski‐2 similarity measures on a sample of ceramic assemblages to reveal spatio‐temporal patterns in the relationship between Neolithic sites in western Anatolia and south‐eastern Europe (c.6600–5500 bc ). The results show that the relationship between spatial distance and ceramic assemblage similarity has increased through time, which supports previous interpretations of leapfrog migrations and subsequent regionalization in ceramic assemblages during the Neolithic. A diachronic network analysis demonstrates the continuation of Aegean networking after the spread of farming.