THE GEOCHEMISTRY OF THE MAJOR SOURCES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSIDIAN ON HOKKAIDO ISLAND (JAPAN): SHIRATAKI AND OKETO

The geochemical compositions for obsidian from two of the most important sources on the Japanese island of Hokkaido, Shirataki and Oketo, are presented. This work represents the first systematic study of obsidian geochemistry on Hokkaido from the view of modern methodological standards. The study was performed with the help of neutron activation analysis to determine the concentrations for 28 elements. The results obtained allow us to subdivide both sources into two geochemical groups (Shirataki‐A and ‐B; and Oketo‐A and ‐B), with each representing an individual sub‐source. Obsidian from both Shirataki and Oketo sources is identified at archaeological sites located on Hokkaido, on the neighbouring Sakhalin Island and Kurile Islands, and in the lower course of the Amur River basin. The distance of obsidian transport during the Upper Palaeolithic was up to ～250 km, and in the following Neolithic and Palaeometal periods up to ～1200 km. This testifies to the wide distribution of Hokkaido obsidian to archaeological complexes in North‐East Asia and its active transport/exchange in prehistory. The data presented here should be used as a reference for the obsidian geochemistry of Shirataki and Oketo sources from now on.     

Flint and Quartzite: Distinguishing Raw Material Through Bone Cut Marks

Since the 1980s, several experimental analyses have been able to differentiate some lithic tool types and some of their raw materials according to the morphology of cut marks imprinted by such tools when used for butchering activities. Thus, metal tool use has been differentiated in contexts with an abundance of lithic tools, or even the use of hand axes has been documented in carcass processing, in contrast with simple unretouched or retouched flakes. As important as this information is, there are still other important aspects to be analysed. Can cut marks produced with different lithic raw material types be differentiated? Can cut marks made with different types of the same raw material type be characterized and differentiated? The objective of this study is to evaluate if cut marks resulting from the use of different flints and different quartzites are distinguishable from each other. In the present work, an experimental analysis of hundreds of cut marks produced by five types of flint and five varieties of quartzite was carried out. Microphotogrammetry and geometric–morphometric techniques were applied to analyse these cut marks. The results show that flint cut marks and quartzite cut marks can be characterized at the assemblage level. Different types of flint produced cut marks that were not significantly different from each other. Cut marks made with Olduvai Gorge quartzite were significantly different from those produced with a set comprising several other types of quartzites. Crystal size, which is larger in Olduvai Gorge quartzites (0.5 mm) than Spanish quartzites (177–250 μm), is discussed as being the main reason for these statistically significant differences. This documented intra‐sample and inter‐sample variance does not hinder the resolution of the approach to differentiate between these two generic raw material types and opens the door for the application of this method in archaeological contexts.     

Technology Transfer at the Periphery of the Mycenaean World: The Cases of Mycenaean Pottery Found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy)*

The study of technology transfer in pottery production to the periphery of the Mycenaean world has been addressed by considering two different areas, southern Italy and central Macedonia. Technological features such as ceramic paste, decoration and firing have been determined for different ceramic groups established according to provenance criteria. The studies of technology and provenance have been performed following an archaeometric approach, using neutron activation analysis, petrographic analysis, X‐ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. The results have revealed the existence of two different models. On the one hand, southern Italy seems to exhibit a more organized pottery production, which follows a Mycenaean‐like technology, while in central Macedonia production is probably more varied, being based in part on the technology of the local tradition.     

OBSIDIAN IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE NEAR EAST: A PROVENANCING SUCCESS STORY

Obsidian provenancing studies comprise one of the most productive and successful research programmes of archaeological science. Obsidian characterization has been successful because workable obsidian is homogeneous on a small scale, analysable by a large number of methods, and is restricted to a small number of mainly readily distinguishable geological sources. Analytical, dating, source, and trade studies within the western Mediterranean, central and eastern Europe, the Aegean, and Anatolia and the Near East during the last 30 years or so are reviewed. Research has shown that distributions are mainly separate in the four regions examined, and that obsidian was traded up to 900km in the prehistoric period. Publications on obsidian in the areas under review reached a peak of frequency in the later 1970s and 1980s, but have now decreased in number. This may reflect changing fashions in archaeometric studies, and a current lack of routine application of the provenancing methods developed.