Empires and resources: Central Anatolian obsidian at Urkesh (Tell

14 Pages·2012·1.52 MB·English

by  Ellery Frahm

JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135
ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Empires and resources: Central Anatolian obsidian at Urkesh (Tell Mozan, Syria)
during the Akkadian period
Ellery Frahma,*, Joshua M. Feinbergb,c
aDepartmentofArchaeology,TheUniversityofSheffield,NorthgateHouse,WestStreet,SheffieldS14ET,UnitedKingdom
bInstituteforRockMagnetism,UniversityofMinnesota,310PillsburyDriveSE,Minneapolis,MN55455,UnitedStates
cDepartmentofEarthSciences,UniversityofMinnesota,310PillsburyDriveSE,Minneapolis,MN55455,UnitedStates
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: AlmostalloftheobsidianusedtocraftstonetoolsintheNearEastfromthePalaeolithiconwardorig-
Received20May2012 inatedfromvolcanoesintwogeographicregions:CentralAnatoliaandEasternAnatolia.Fivedecadesof
Receivedinrevisedform obsidiansourcinghasledtotheviewthatCentralAnatolianobsidianslargelyfollowedtheMediterra-
25July2012
neancoastandrarelyreachedfarthereastthantheMiddleEuphrates,whereasEasternAnatoliansources
Accepted31July2012 almostexclusivelysuppliedsiteseastoftheEuphrates.ThispaperdiscussestheidentificationofCentral
AnatolianobsidianartefactsattheBronze-AgesiteofTellMozan(Urkesh)innortheasternSyria.Mostof
Keywords:
theobsidiansatTellMozan(97%)camefromtheEasternAnatoliansources,asexpectedfromestablished
NorthernMesopotamia
distribution models. Artefactsof CentralAnatolian obsidian, however,wereexcavatedfromonewell-
KhaburTriangle
BronzeAge constrained context: the deposits on a palace courtyard that date to the height of the Akkadian
Akkadianempire empire’s influence at this third-millennium Hurrian religious and political centre. In particular, the
TellMozan obsidiancamefromtheKömürcüsourceofGöllüDag!.Potentialexplanationsforthisexoticobsidianare
Urkesh discussed. This obsidianmighthave“piggybacked”on thedistribution ofCentralAnatolianmetalsor
Exchangenetworks arrivedatthiscityasroyalgiftsorprestigeitems.OtherdiscussedmechanismsincludeAkkadian-linked
Geochemicalobsidiansourcing changesineitherterritorialityinvolvingpastoralnomadsresponsibleforthearrivalofEasternAnatolian
Magneticobsidiansourcing
obsidians or identity construction of elites based on involvement in Central Anatolian economic and
politicalnetworks.
!2012ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction 1964;Renfrewetal.,1966,1968).Theyshowed,bythestartofthe
BronzeAge,theEasternAnatolianobsidian“interactionzone”was
AcrossMesopotamiaandtheLevant,nearlyalloftheobsidian Mesopotamian,whereastheCentralAnatolianzonewasLevantine
used to craft stone tools from the Palaeolithic onward originated and Anatolian. Later regional studies reinforce these trends (e.g.,
from volcanoes in Anatolia (i.e., modern Turkey; Fig. 1). The Cauvin and Chataigner,1998; Chataigner,1998, Chataigner et al.,
Anatolian obsidian sources occur in two geographic regions: the 1998).Simplyput,CentralAnatolianobsidiansareextremelyrare
Central Anatolian sources (Acıgöl, Göllü Dag!, Nenezi Dag!, and inMesopotamia.Outofabout1000sourcedandpublishedMeso-
HasanDag!)andEasternAnatoliansources(theBingölsources,Mus¸, potamian obsidian artefacts, the number with Central Anatolian
NemrutDag!,MeydanDag!,andTendürekDag!,amongothers).Five origins can be counted on one hand, and most of them have no
decadesofsourcingNearEastobsidianartefactshasledtotheview spatiotemporalcontext.
that, outside of Anatolia, use of Central Anatolian obsidians is HerewediscussthediscoveryofCentralAnatolianobsidianat
a principally Levantine phenomenon. These obsidians primarily theBronze-AgesiteofTellMozan(ancientUrkesh).Locatedinthe
followedtheMediterraneancoastandrarelyreachedfarthereast northeastern cornerof Syria, this earlyHurrianpolitical and reli-
thanMiddleEuphratessites,whereastheEasternAnatoliansources gious centre lies within the proposed “supply zone” for Eastern
almostexclusivelysuppliedsiteseastoftheEuphrates.Thistrend Anatolianobsidians(Dixonetal.,1968).Thissitealsoliesnearthe
wasfirstrecognisedbyRenfrewandcolleagues(CannandRenfrew, mouth of the Mardin Pass between the Anatolian highlands and
Mesopotamianlowlands,permittingreadyaccesstoEasternAna-
toliaanditsresources(Fig.2).IndeedmostoftheobsidiansatTell
Mozan (97%) came fromthe Eastern Anatolian sources, as antici-
* Correspondingauthor.Tel.: [phone].
E-mailaddresses:e.frahm@sþheffield.ac.uk,[email protected](E.Frahm), pated from the established regional distribution patterns (Fig.1;
[email protected](J.M.Feinberg). Renfrew and Dixon,1976; Chataigner et al.,1998). We identified,
0305-4403/$eseefrontmatter!2012ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.07.019
E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135 1123
Fig.1. NearEasternobsidiansources,theirestablisheddistributionpatterns,andlocationsmentionedinthetext.SourcesofobsidianartefactsatTellMozanaremarkedbyfullblack
circlesandlabelled.TheinsetscorrespondtoFigs.2and10.
however, three Central Anatolian obsidian artefacts from a well- We identified not only the Central Anatolian volcano where
constrained context: deposits on a palace courtyard that date to these artefacts originated (Göllü Dag!) but also the particular
theknownheightofAkkadianinfluenceatthiscity.Thepresenceof obsidian-bearinglavaflowofthevolcano:the“Kömürcü”sourceon
anysuchobsidianinthisassemblagerepresentsananomalyinthe itsnortheasternflanks.Binderetal.(2011)identifiedthisspecific
accepted patterns. Tell Mozan and Göllü Dag! are 600 km apart sourceastheremnantsofthePaleo-KabakTepelavadome.High-
(linearly), three times farther than the nearest obsidian sources: quality obsidians are accessible near Kömürcü village, where
NemrutDag!andtheBingölsources(200kmtothenorth;Fig.1). streamsanderosionhavecutintotheobsidian-bearinglayersofthe
This is a rare, if not unique, discovery in Northern Mesopotamia dome.Balkan-Atlı etal. (1999) refertothis location as“the most
that enables new insights into changing Bronze-Age economics spectacular and the best known of the obsidian sources of Göllü
and/orgeopolitics. Dag!withitsabundantoutcropsandseveralworkshopsorknapping
Fig.2. TheMiddleEuphrates,BalikhRiver,andKhaburTrianglearchaeologicalsiteswithpriorobsidiansourcingresults;alsolistedinTable1.
1124 E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135
areas” (137). These workshops, however, are all Palaeolithic debated.ASumeriantablet,unearthedatNippurincentralIraqby
through Chalcolithic. Despite extensive surveys, Bronze-Age thejointexpeditionoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch
obsidian quarries remain unknown (Balkan-Atlı et al., 2011). Our andtheOrientalInstituteofChicago,famouslydescribesAkkadian
findings,usingrockmagnetismasameansofhigh-resolutionintra- territory, attesting that the god Dagan gifted Sargon “the upper
flow obsidian sourcing, suggest these Göllü Dag! artefacts at Tell land, (namely) Mari, Yarmuti, (and) Ebla, up to the Cedar Forest
MozancamefromatleasttwoquarryinglocationsoftheKömürcü (and)uptotheSilverMountain”(translatedbyKramer,1963;see
obsidiansource. Fig.1forsitelocations).ThusitisgenerallyheldthattheAkkadian
TheoccurrenceofthisexoticCentralAnatolianobsidianatTell empire extended from Southern Mesopotamia into Northern
Mozan represents a change in Northern Mesopotamian regional Mesopotamia and westward to the Eastern Mediterranean coast
dynamicsduringtheAkkadianperiod(circa2350e2150BCE).The (andperhapsCyprus).
movementofGöllüDag!obsidiantoUrkeshatthistimewasmost Thereare,however,largeuncertaintiesaboutAkkadiangeopo-
likelyaccompaniedbyeortriggeredbyesomeotherphenomenon litical interests and the nature of their “control” across Northern
involving the material (e.g., objects, technologies, people) and/or Mesopotamia. Adams (1966) proposes that Akkadian influence
social(e.g.,ideas,identities)world.Themechanismsandrouteby across the north “fell decisively short of full imperial control”
whichtheartefactswerebroughttoUrkesharepresentlyambig- during the reign of Naram-Sin (159). Some researchers maintain
uous,buttheirarrivalissynchronouswiththeknownheightofthe thattheAkkadiansexertedfullcontroloveragriculturalproduction
Akkadianempire’sinfluenceatthecity.Avarietyofexplanations intheregion(WeissandCourty,1993).Othersproposetheirempire
andcontextsareexploredhere.TheAkkadiansmayhaveeffected primarilyexertedinfluenceoverneighbouringpolities’distribution
a period of exchange among Khabur-Triangle and Middle- routesforstrategicnaturalresources,particularlytogainaccessto
Euphrates settlements, tapping into what S¸ahog!lu (2005) terms such valuable highland materials as metals and timber (Nissen,
theAnatolianTradeNetwork(ATN;Fig.1)andperhapsevendriven 1988; Michalowski,1993; Marcus,1998; Van De Mieroop, 2007).
by access to Central Anatolian metals. Considering the similar Trade under the Akkadians is thought to have been principally
occurrence of Göllü Dag! obsidian in Bronze-Age Cretian palaces state-controlled,becomingaprivateendeavourduringthesubse-
(Carter and Kilikoglou, 2007), the artefacts may have arrived at quent Old Assyrian Trade Colony period (OTAC, circa 1950e1750
Urkeshasprestigeitems,royalgifts,orsimilarly“activeagentsin BCE;Mallowan,1965;Veenhof,1997).
the maintenance of complex social relations” (Gero, 1989: 103). ReadersinterestedinbroaderhistoricalcontextsofHurriansand
This “exotic” obsidian may also reflect Akkadian-tied changes in Akkadians are directed to general books about this region and
either identity construction of the Urkesh royals or territoriality period: Kurht (1995), Akkermans and Schwartz (2003), Snell
involvingpastoralistsresponsibleforthearrivalofEasternAnato- (2005),andVanDeMieroop(2007).Additionally,aneditedbook
lianobsidiansatTellMozan. on the socioeconomics of third-to second-millennium Northern
MesopotamiaandAnatoliaisnewlypublished:Lanerietal.(2012).
2. Thepeople:HurriansandAkkadians
3. TheSite:TellMozanasUrkesh
Knowledge regarding the Hurrians, who lived in Northern
MesopotamiaduringatleastthethirdandsecondmillenniaBCE,is Tell Mozan sits at the north-middle of the Khabur Triangle in
sofragmentarythatmanyauthorsusewordslike“mysterious”and northeastern Syria (Fig. 2), a transitional region between the
“enigmatic” to discuss them. As explained by Wilhelm (1989), AnatolianmountainstothenorthandMesopotamianplainstothe
Hurrianshad“oneofthemostimportantancientEasternciviliza- south.ThesettlementwasinhabitedsincetheHalafPeriod(sixth
tions, and yet we have far less information, linguistic as well as millenniumBCE)andabandonedaround1300BCE,whenAssyrians
historical and cultural, about them than we do about the Sume- assumed control across Northern Mesopotamia. Covering over
rians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Hittites, or the Canaan- 130ha(1.3km2)duringtheEarlyandMiddleBronzeAges,itwas
ites” (v). Until recently, information about the Hurrians was among the largest cities in the region (Buccellati and Kelly-
essentially limited to glyptic and epigraphic sources (e.g., name Buccellati,1988;Pustovoytovetal.,2011).Inaddition,itsitsnear
lists, seal impressions, texts, and inscriptions) and subsequent theterminusoftheMardinPassintotheTaurusmountains’front
linguisticanalyses.Basedonsuchevidence,theHurrianswerean range, the Tur Abdin. Akkermans and Schwartz (2003) propose
ethnicminorityinNorthernMesopotamiansettlementsalongthe “Mozan’slocationatthenorthernedgeoftheKhaburplainsnear
transitional zone between Anatolia and Southern Mesopotamia. theMardinsaddlemayindicatecontroloftheroutetothecopper
ThusKurht(1995)reports,atthetime,“sourcesfortheHurriansare minesofeasternAnatolia”(285e286),inparticulardepositsnear
exclusivelylinguistic: there are no artefacts or buildings that can Diyarbakır(Turkishfor“realmofcopper”).
withanycertaintybedefinedas‘Hurrian’intype”(284).Thatyear, ThepoliticalimportanceofUrkeshismanifestedinthepalace
Tell Mozanwas identified as the city of Urkesh, the political and complexonthetell’swesternside(AinFig.3).Thecomplexhastwo
religiouscentreofthird-andsecond-millenniumHurrianculture, key components: a service wing and a formal-residential wing,
previously known from texts preserved in Hittite archives bothwithcourtyards.Itwasconstructedduringthesite’sPhase2a
(Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati,1995). Forexample, a myth iden- andthereignofTupkish,aHurrianking,circaabout2260BCE.The
tifiestheHurrianancestralgodKumarbiasthe“father”ofUrkesh, next two kings lived in this palace as well. The site’s religious
whereheresides,anditsuggestskinshipbetweentheHurriansin significance is reflected in a temple (B), which sits atopa terrace
Urkeshandpopulationsinthemountainousnorth(Hoffner,1990: thatrose30movertheplains,andamonumentalstonestaircase
46e47). Therefore, Tell Mozan is one of very few archaeological thatlinksthetempleterracetoaplaza(J).
siteswheretheHurrianswereknowntohavebeentherulersand Despitesuchpoliticalandreligioussignificance,Urkeshdidnot
amajorityofthepopulation. develop beyond a city-state (Buccellati, 2003). Instead, mountain
TheAkkadianempire,centredinthecityofAkkadsomewhere villages in the region likely had Hurrian inhabitants who were
inSouthernMesopotamia,reachedapoliticalapexfromthe24thto culturally linked to Urkesh. Such ties facilitated access to the
22ndcenturiesBCEafteraseriesofpurportedconquestsbySargon highland resources “even if the kings exerted no direct adminis-
ofAkkadandhissuccessors.Somesuggestthisdynastyestablished trativeormilitarycontrolovertheruralhinterland”(Buccellatiand
thefirstempireinhistory(Liverani,1993),butitsextentismuch Kelly-Buccellati,2001:27).Suchanorganisationofresourcecontrol
E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135 1125
Fig.3. ThelocationsofUnitsA7andA9relativetothepalaceexcavations(left)andAreasA,B,andJonthetell(right).CompiledandredrawnfromvariousUrkeshexpeditionmaps.
mayhavebeenareasonthatUrkeshmightnothavefallenunder compared artefacts to geo-referenced geological specimens using
Akkadianconquest(BuccellatiandKelly-Buccellati,2002).Instead, amultidisciplinaryapproachinvolvinggeochemistry(asameansto
anAkkadianking,Naram-Sin(thegrandsonofSargon),mayhave identify “source” on the scale of individual obsidian-bearing lava
established an alliance with Urkesh through the marriage of his flowsatavolcano)androckmagnetism(asameanstodistinguish
daughterTar’am-AgadetoanunknownHurrianruler. “source”onthescaleofindividualquarryinglocationsataflow).
4. Theory:Akkadianinfluence 5.1. Obsidianassemblageandsourcingsample
The precise nature of Akkadian influence at Urkesh has been ObsidianaccountsforathirdoftheTellMozanlithicassemblage
a topic of considerable debate. The discussion centres on seal whiletheothertwo-thirdsarecherts.Whereasobsidianmustbe
impressionsthatread“[Of]Naram-Sin,thekingofAkkad,Tar’am- obtainedfromAnatolia,chertsareavailableasnodulesalongriver
Agade,hisdaughter”(BuccellatiandKelly-Buccellati,2002:13).Her and stream beds throughout the region. Though Tell Mozan was
sealings were excavated from Phase 2b strata of the palace continuously inhabited since the Halaf period (circa 6200e
complex, meaning that she would have lived there soon after 5300 BCE), our work focused on the Early Bronze Age III (2700e
Tupkish,whoseruledatestotheinitialportionofNaram-Sin’sreign 2200 BCE) to Late Bronze Age II (1400e1300 BCE). During this
or a bit earlier. Hence strata before the palace date to the Early period,theassemblageisdominatedbytwotooltypes:(1)adhoc
Akkadianperiod(circa2260BCE;Phase2a),TupkishandTar’am- flake tools and (2) blade tools, including prismatic blades,
Agadedatetothemid-Akkadianperiod(circa2240BCE;Phase2b), segments, and blade-based tools such as geometric microliths,
and the last king beforethe palace’s abandonment, Ishar-k"anum, scrapers,andpoints.Chertandobsidiantoolswereretainedbeside
datestotheLateAkkadian(circa2200BCE;Phase3). copperanditsalloys,whichwereusedtocraftobjectssuchasspear
The implications of Tar’am-Agade at Urkesh are uncertain. pointsandpins.Fragmentsofanobsidianvesselandothercarved/
BuccellatiandKelly-Buccellati(2002)arguethatshewasmarriedto groundobjects,includingincisedbeads,datingtothisperiodhave
thekingwhosucceededTupkish.Thisinterpretationsupportsthe alsobeendiscoveredatTellMozan.
proposedalliancebetweenAkkadandUrkesh.Thealternative,that Afteranon-sitesurveyof820obsidianartefacts,asampleof97
Tar’am-Agade was there to either accompany or serve as an artefactswasapprovedforexportbytheSyrianDirectorateGeneral
Akkadian administrator, cannot be discounted. Such an official at ofAntiquitiesandMuseums.Thus12%oftheobsidianassemblage
UrkeshmightindicateAkkadiancontrolifnotconquest.Akkermans was chemically sourced. To gain export approval, artefacts were
andSchwartz(2003)contendthatthe“discovery[ofhersealings]is non-diagnosticchipdebris(Figs.4and5).Thespatiotemporalspan
of considerable historical importance, but the significance of of these artefacts reflects the site’s most recent excavations: 81
Tar’am-Agade’s presence is, as yet, elusive” (285). The situation artefactsfromAreaA(thepalacecomplex),13artefactsfromJ(the
regardingTar’am-Agadereflectstheaforementioneduncertainties templeterraceandadjacentplaza),andthreeartefactsfromB(the
aboutAkkadian“control”acrossNorthernMesopotamia.Itseems temple complex). The97 artefacts spanmorethanamillennium,
mostlikely,however,iftheAkkadiansindeedsoughtcontrolover fromabout2400BCEtothesite’sabandonmentcirca1300BCE.The
resources,changesatUrkeshmaybeexpectedwhentheirinfluence export agreement specified only non-destructive analyses of the
wasgreatest,thatis,duringTar’am-Agade’spresence. artefacts.
5. Methodsandmaterials:artefactsandanalyses 5.2. Geochemicalanalysesforsourceidentification
OuridentificationofKömürcüobsidianartefactsatTellMozan The artefacts’ chemical compositions were compared to over
began with an on-site survey of the lithic assemblage, and we 900geo-referencedgeologicalobsidianspecimens,includingover
1126 E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135
Fig.4. SourcedartefactsfromUnitA7:(left)obsidianfromGöllüDag!(specificallyKömürcü)inCentralAnatoliaand(right)obsidiansfromEasternAnatoliansources.
450fromEasternAnatolia,280fromCentralAnatolia,and170from originated. Such flows, however, may cover a dozen or more
the Caucasus. These artefacts and geological specimens were square kilometres, and layers of high-quality obsidian are buried
geochemicallyanalysedusing twoanalytical techniques: electron across much of the flow (Fig. 7 in Frahm, 2012b). Obsidian is
microprobe analysis (EMPA; using the procedures published in availablewherethislayerwasexposedbyerosion,tectonics,and/
Frahm, 2012a) and portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF; Frahm, in or slope processes. The Kömürcü source, as noted in the Intro-
press). EMPA has been previously used for obsidian sourcing by duction,consistsofobsidianexposureswherestreamsanderosion
MerrickandBrown(1984)inEastAfrica,WeislerandClague(1998) have sliced into the Paleo-Kabak Tepe lava dome. Hence people
in Hawaii, and Tykot(1995) in the Mediterranean and elsewhere would have collected high-quality obsidian from discrete loca-
(TykotandChia,1997;Rosenetal.,2005).Obsidiansourcingusing tions, such as the aforementioned workshop sites near the
pXRFhasbeenmainlytestedinEastAsia(PhillipsandSpeakman, obsidian exposures. These quarries, as we call them here, are
2009; Jia et al., 2010), the Americas (Craig et al., 2010; Nazaroff specificlocationswithinachemicallyhomogeneous(ornearlyso)
et al., 2010; Millhauser et al., 2011), and Oceania (Burley et al., obsidianflow.Thusarchaeologicallyimportantactivities,including
2011;McCoyetal.,2011;Sheppardetal.,2011).Acombinationof the first stages of the reduction sequence, occurred at spatial
theseanalyticaltechniquesandsubsequentdataanalysesallowed resolutionsthatconventionalgeochemicalsourcingstudiescannot
us to detect subtle distinctions amongst geochemically similar typically resolve. Different groups and/or lithic traditions may
sources(Frahm,2012b).Manypriorstudiesreportdifficultiesdis- also be associated with different quarries of a single flow (Davis
tinguishingKömürcüfromotherlavaflowsontheeasternflanksof etal.,1992).
GöllüDag!(i.e.,EastKayırlı,EastBozköy)anduseacombined“East Different portions of an obsidian-bearing flow cooled at
GöllüDag!”sourceidentification(e.g.,Pernickaetal.,1997;Bellot- different rates and thus experienced different ranges of temper-
Gurlet,1998;Chataigneretal.,1998;Poidevin,1998;Abbèsetal., atures, viscosity, and oxidation conditions. Within obsidian,
2001, 2003; Bressy et al., 2005; Carter and Shackley, 2007; microscopicmineralsaresuspendedintheglass,andtheirsizes,
Poupeauetal.,2010). shapes, physical arrangements, and mineralogyare highlysensi-
tive to the local cooling history. This, in turn, affects the rock
5.3. Magneticanalysesforquarrydistinction magneticpropertiesoftheobsidian.Magneticanalysisofobsidian
with the goal of artefact sourcing is not new (e.g., McDougall,
Conventionalgeochemicalsourcingtechniquesareoftenableto 1978; McDougall et al.,1983; Hammo,1984,1985; Schmidbauer
identify the particular lava flow fromwhich an obsidian artefact et al., 1986; Urrutia Fucugauchi, 1999; Vásquez et al., 2001;
Fig.5. SourcedartefactsfromUnitA9:(left)obsidianfromGöllüDag!(specificallyKömürcü)inCentralAnatoliaand(right)obsidiansfromEasternAnatoliansources.
E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135 1127
any, spatial information). In contrast, hysteresis parameters e
saturation magnetisation (Ms), saturation remanence (Mrs), coer-
civity(Hc),andcoercivityofremanence(Hcr)eareaffectedmore
directly by the local cooling history (and hence contain spatial
informationas differentparts of a flowcooled at different rates).
Thesemagneticparametersweredeterminedforall97TellMozan
artefactsand704ofthegeologicalreferencespecimensviamajor
hysteresis loops and back-field measurements. A paper on our
techniques is currently in preparation (Feinberg and Frahm, in
preparation), but here we present the first archaeologically
significantresults.
6. Results:sourcedartefactsandtheircontexts
Theresultsofourgeochemicalandmagneticanalysesrevealed
the unexpected presence of Central Anatolian obsidian at Tell
Fig.6. EMPAmeasurementsofAl2O3,TiO2,andZrdistinguishthreeartefacts(fullblack Mozan, potentially from two quarries at the Kömürcü source of
circles)thatmatchthegeologicalspecimensfromGöllüDag!(greyXs).
Göllü Dag!; however, their stratigraphic contexts are equally
important.
Stewart et al., 2003; Weaver et al., 2005, 2009; Sternberg et al.,
2010, 2011; Zanella et al., 2012); however, its application has 6.1. Geochemicalresults:KömürcüatGöllüDag!
been minor compared to conventional geochemical techniques.
Many of these studies have had mixed success, usually due to AllTellMozanobsidianartefactswereexpectedtohaveEastern
large variability in obsidian magnetic properties within a single Anatolianorigins.PreviousstudiesforBronze-AgeandChalcolithic
flow. Because these studies attempted to distinguish amongst sitesintheKhaburTriangleattributedartefactsonlytotheEastern
different sources (that is, the same goal for which geochemical Anatolian obsidian sources (Table 1). Only one artefact found on
techniques have excelled for the last five decades), such a high the surface of Tell Halaf, lyingon thewesternmost fringes of the
degree of intra-flow variation has been problematic (but not Khabur Triangle (Fig. 2), came from Göllü Dag!, although the
necessarilydetrimental). precise source there is not known (Francaviglia and Palmieri,
Ourapproachisnovelandusesthermal-dependenteandthus 1998).
spatial-dependent e magnetic properties of obsidian to distin- ThreeofthesourcedartefactsfromTellMozan,however,came
guish amongst different quarries (Feinberg et al., 2009; Johnson fromGöllüDag!,specificallytheKömürcüsourceonthevolcano’s
et al., 2009; Hillis et al., 2010; Frahm, 2012c; Feinberg and easternslopes.Figs.6and7reveal,basedonbothEMPAandpXRF
Frahm, in preparation.). Thus, some of the variations that hinder measurements, three obsidian artefacts are chemically distinct
inter-flow differentiation are the very mechanisms that make from the others but match the Göllü Dag! geological specimens.
intra-flowdifferentiationpossible. Inparticular, magnetic param- Table2showsthat,whenthesameEMPAandpXRFdataareana-
eters such as susceptibility (c) and natural remanent magnet- lysed in multi-dimensional space, Kömürcü obsidian is the best
isation(NRM)areoftentoodependentonthemereabundanceof matchforallthreeartefacts.Asmentionedpreviously,priorstudies
magnetic mineral grains to be useful (and hence contain little, if have had difficulties distinguishing Kömürcü obsidian from the
surrounding sources. Our two independent analytical techniques
bothidentifiedKömürcüobsidianasthebestmatch,corroborating
theresult.Onekeytosuccesswasourreferencecollection,which
includes82specimensfromGöllüDag!and20fromthreeKömürcü
locations.
6.2. Magneticresults:twoquarriesatKömürcü
After Kömürcü was geochemically identified as their exact
source, the three artefacts were compared magnetically to the
geologicalspecimensfromthreeKömürcüoutcrops.Nineofthe20
specimens were suitable for measuring the aforementioned
hysteresis parameters. Fig. 8 shows the artefacts and Kömürcü
geologicalspecimensplottedusingthreeoftheseparameters.Note
the geological specimens from three different Kömürcü locations
fall into three discrete clusters. One of these locations (the black
squares)was the famed Kaletepeworkshop area, whereobsidian
wasworkedfromthePalaeolithictoChalcolithic(Balkan-Atlıetal.,
1999,2011).ThemagneticresultssuggesttheTellMozanartefacts
didnotoriginatefromanyofthesecollectionlocations,including
theKaletepeworkshop,whichisconsistentwithalackofBronze
Agematerialthere.Furthermore,theartefactsfallintotwoclusters,
Fig.7. pXRFmeasurementsofRb,Zn,andZrdistinguishthreeartefacts(fullblack suggestingtheobsidiancamefromatleasttwodifferentquarries.
circles)thatmatchthegeologicalspecimensfromGöllüDag!(greyXs).ThepXRFdata
WithoutadditionalsamplingattheKömürcüsource,wecannotbe
werecalibratedusingasetof18Anatolianobsidianspecimensanalysedusingneutron
activation analysis (NAA) and laboratory-based XRFat the Universityof Missouri’s more precise about the quarrying locations. At present, though,
ResearchReactorCentre. we can propose that obsidian for the Tell Mozan artefacts came
1128 E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135
Table1
TheresultsfrompublishedobsidiansourcingstudiesinNorthernMesopotamia(Fig.2).AsshowninFig.1,theMiddleEuphratessitesfallneartheedgeofreconstructedCentral
Anatolianobsidiandistributionzones.IntheKhaburTriangle,justoneartefactfoundonthesurfaceofTellHalaf,onthewesternmostborderofthebasin,originatedinCentral
Anatolia.CentralAnatoliansourceassignmentsarehighlightedinbold.
Region(WesttoEast) Site Period Reference Artefacts’sourceassignments
n Region Source
MiddleEuphrates(NorthtoSouth) Dja’de Neolithic Pernickaetal.,1997 3 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
2 EasternAnatolia BingölB
1 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
TellHalula Neolithic Pernickaetal.,1997 7 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
6 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
4 EasternAnatolia BingölB
2 undetermined
1 CentralAnatolia NeneziDag!
JerfelAhmar Neolithic Pernickaetal.,1997, 23 EasternAnatolia BingölB
Abbèsetal.,2001,2003 22 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
CheikhHassan Neolithic Gratuzeetal.,1993, 17 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
Pernickaetal.,1997, 5 EasternAnatolia BingölB
Abbèsetal.,2001,2003 1 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
1 Undetermined
Mureybet Neolithic Gratuzeetal.,1993, 53 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
Pernickaetal.,1997, 5 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
Abbèsetal.,2001,2003 2 EasternAnatolia BingölB
AbuHureyra Neolithic McDanielsetal.,1980 47 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
28 EasternAnatolia BingölB
24 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
BalikhRiver TellAssouad Neolithic Gratuzeetal.,1993 3 EasternAnatolia BingölB
2 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
KhaburTriangle(WesttoEast) TellHalaf surfacefinds FrancavigliaandPalmieri,1998 2 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
2 EasternAnatolia MeydanDag!
1 EasternAnatolia BingölB?
1 CentralAnatolia GöllüDag!
1 undetermined
TellKashkashok LateNeolithic Gratuzeetal.,1993 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
4 EasternAnatolia BingölB
TellGudeda EarlyBronzeAge Chabotetal.,2001 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
TellMullaMatar BronzeAge Pernickaetal.,1997 1 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
Tell‘Atij EarlyBronzeAge Chabotetal.,2001 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
2 undetermined
ChagarBazar Chalcolithic CannandRenfrew,1964 1 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
LateNeolithic CannandRenfrew,1964 1 EasternAnatolia MeydanDag!?
TellBrak unknown ForsterandGrave,2012 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
LateChalcolithic Khalidietal.,2009 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
3 EasternAnatolia BingölB
1 EasternAnatolia MeydanDag!
Surfacefinds FrancavigliaandPalmieri,1998 4 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
1 EasternAnatolia BingölB?
TellBarri Surfacefinds FrancavigliaandPalmieri,1998 18 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
2 EasternAnatolia MeydanDag!
2 EasternAnatolia BingölB?
TellHamoukar Surfacefinds HallandShackley,1994 9 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
1 undetermined
LateChalcolithic Khalidietal.,2009 27 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
2 EasternAnatolia BingölB
2 undetermined
1 EasternAnatolia MeydanDag!
Surfacefinds FrancavigliaandPalmieri,1998 16 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
HirbetTueris Surfacefinds HallandShackley,1994 11 EasternAnatolia BingölA/NemrutDag!
from two different quarries, neither of which was the Kaletepe somewhatconjecturalinthattheircontinuitycannotyetbeshown
workshop. in a single exposed profile. Table 3 summarises the stratigraphic,
chronological, and historical data for A7 and A9 as well as the
6.3. Stratigraphiccontext:servicecourtyardofthepalace quantitiesandtypesofobsidianartefactsintheirstrata.Notethat,
forbothunits,almostone-thirdoftheexcavatedobsidianartefacts
Theartefacts’contextsareassignificantastheirorigins.Twoof weresourced.Mostimportantare thecontextsfortheGöllüDag!
theartefactswerefoundinUnitA9andoneinUnitA7(Fig.3),both obsidian.InA9,forexample,twoobsidianartefactswererecovered
ofwhichincludethepalace’sservicecourtyardanditsfoundations from Feature 156, an accumulation on a pebble surface likely
aswellasstratafromlaterphases(inparticularPhase4,thefirst deposited while craft activities were conducted in the courtyard,
post-palacesettlementperiodcirca2100e2000BCE,andPhase5, andbothartefactsareassignedtoGöllüDag!.Thestrataaboveand
thesecondsuchperiodcirca2000e1800BCE).UnitA2separatesA7 belowcontainedonlyEasternAnatolianobsidians.Thesameistrue
andA9,andithasbeenexcavatedonlythroughthePhases4and5 in A7: Göllü Dag! at the service courtyard entrance with Eastern
strata. Hence, the stratigraphic links between A7 and A9 remain Anatolian obsidians above and below. Additionally, the magnetic
E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135 1129
Table2
Threeartefacts’sourceassignmentsbasedonpXRFandEMPAdata.GöllüDag!isthebestmatchforthesourcecomplex,andamongtheGöllüDag!sources,theKömürcüsource
isthebestmatch.Bestmatchesaredeterminedbythehighestproportionofnearestneighbours(%NN)basedonmulti-dimensionalEuclideandistancematrices.
Artefact pXRFsourceassignments EMPAsourceassignments
Sourcecomplex Source/outcrop Sourcecomplex Source/outcrop
Bestmatch %NN Bestmatch %NN Bestmatch %NN Bestmatch %NN
A7q892f261k12 GoöllüDag! 100% Kömürcü 32% GoöllüDag! 96% Kömürcü 95%
A9q463f156k3piece1 GoöllüDag! 100% Kömürcü 38% GoöllüDag! 93% Kömürcü 80%
A9q463f156k3piece2 GoöllüDag! 100% Kömürcü 30% GoöllüDag! 43% Kömürcü 31%
data suggest (1) the two A9 artefacts originated from different tradepersebutinsteadthetradeofanothermaterialorobject,the
quarries and (2) the one A7 artefact might have come from the movementofpeople,oranotherphenomenonaltogether,including
samequarryasoneA9artefact. territoriality,diplomacy,oreliteidentity.
TheseresultsarestratigraphicallyshowninFig.9,highlighting
use of Göllü Dag! obsidian soon after the service courtyard’s
7.1. ArrivalviatheMiddleEuphrates?
constructiondespiteuseofEasternAnatolianobsidiansbeforeand
after.Therefore,GöllüDag!obsidian,potentiallyfromtwodifferent
Obsidian from Göllü Dag! certainly did not follow a 600-km
quarriesatKömürcü,coincideswiththepresenceofTar’am-Agade.
straight line to Urkesh. Instead, a likely path seems a west-east
Given the limitations of negative evidence, we cannot strongly
route from the Middle Euphrates, where settlements frequently
assert that use of Göllü Dag! obsidian was exclusive during this
used Göllü Dag! obsidian, at least during the Neolithic (Table 1,
period.Asofyet,however,noothersourcedartefactscanbetimed
Figs.1 and 2). No post-Neolithic sourcing studies are published
so preciselywithTar’am-Agade,so mechanismsforadecrease in
for Middle Euphrates sites, so concurrent data are unavailable.
thearrival ofEasternAnatolianobsidiansaregivensomeconsid-
Such a route is consistent with the Göllü Dag! artefact from the
eration.Itisequallylikely,ifnotmoreso,thatobsidianinthepalace
surface of Tell Halaf, on the far western edge of the Khabur
service courtyard arrived at Urkesh through mechanisms distinct
Triangle.ItisalsocongruouswiththeAkkadiansaccessing,what
fromobsidianinothercontexts.Severalpossibleexplanationsare
S¸ahog!lu (2005) terms the Anatolian Trade Network (hereafter
discussedbelow.
ATN;circa2500e2100BCE;Fig.1).GöllüDag!liesnearthenexus
of the ATN, which reached the Middle Euphrates. It has been
7. Interpretationanddiscussion
suggested that Tell es-Sweyhat, located in Middle Euphrates
(near Jerf el Ahmar, Fig. 2), was the location of an Akkadian
Determining the nature of Akkadian influence at Urkesh is
trading enclave, providing support for such a route. Most
aheavyburdentoplaceonthreeexoticobsidianartefacts.Wecan,
recently, though, the excavators have interpreted the area in
though, consider a number of hypotheses regarding mechanisms
questionasaproductioncentreandcaravanseraionawest-east
fortheartefacts’arrivalinthepalacecomplex.Westressthat,when
trade route (Zettler,1997; Holland, 2002), remaining consistent
discussing “obsidian trade” in third-millennium Northern Meso-
withourhypothesisedpath.
potamia,suchexchangeshouldnotnecessarilybeconceptualised
BytakingadvantageoftheATN,Naram-Sin,underwhoserule
asobsidian-driven.Instead,itshouldbeunderstoodmorebroadly
the Akkadian empire reached its greatest extent, could have
assomephenomenoninwhichobsidianplayedeitheraprimaryor
gained access to various Central Anatolian resources (including
secondary role. Obsidian distribution might not reflect its own
GöllüDag!obsidian),evenwithoutextendingAkkadianinfluence
far beyond the Middle Euphrates. When the ATN (2500e
2100 BCE) and later OATC system (1950e1750 BCE) are consid-
ered together, there was an established trade network between
CentralAnatoliaandNorthernMesopotamiaformuchofthespan
between 2500 and 1750 BCE.In the latter period, exchangewas
intensive and managed in “modern” ways (Veenhof,1997). Yet,
despitetheseknownlong-distanceroutes,GöllüDag!obsidianis
only known at Urkesh concurrently with Naram-Sin’s reign and
Tar’am-Agadeinthepalace.TheAkkadians,directlyorindirectly,
may have been an impetus for exchange amongst Khabur-
Triangle (e.g., Urkesh) and Middle-Euphrates (e.g., Tell es-
Sweyhat)settlements.
ConsiderthattheGöllüDag!obsidianartefactswereunearthed
intheservicecourtyardofthepalacecomplex.Urkeshlikelyhad,at
leastinpart,apalaceeconomy.Thecomplex,particularlyitsservice
courtyard,mayhaveservedasmorethanjusttheroyalresidence
and centre of government. It also possibly served as a craft
productioncentre,amarketplacethatadministereddistributionof
goods,andacaravanseraithatfacilitatedlong-distanceexchange.
Fig.8. Aplotofthreemagnetichysteresisparametersesaturationremanence(Mrs), Depositionofobsidianartefactsmighthaveoccurredthroughany
coercivity(Hc),andcoercivityofremanence(Hcr)erevealsthatthegeologicalspeci- of theseactivities. Althoughthe mechanismcannotbeidentified,
mensfromthreedifferentKömürcülocations(solidcircles,squares,andtriangle)fall
eachscenarioimpliessomedegreeofpalacecontroloroversight.
intodiscreteclusters.ThethreeTellMozanartefacts(opencircles)fallintotwodistinct
Thisraises thedistinct possibilitythatobsidianarrived atUrkesh
clusters,suggestingthattheycamefromatleasttwoquarriesdifferentfromthethree
geologicalcollectionlocations. embeddedwithinsomeotherpalaceactivity.
1130 E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135
Table3
Summarisedstratigraphy,chronology,andobsidianartefacts(includingartefacttypesandproportionsourced)forunitsA7andA9.ThefeatureswithCentralAnatolian
obsidiansarehighlightedinbold.
Unit Feature Phase Approxdate Period Relevant Obsidian Basicartefacttypes Sourcedartefacts Feature/stratumcomments
(MiddleChron) individuals
n n %
A7 f56 Phase4/5 2100-1800BCE UrIII/Old 2 Flake/debitage(1), 1 50% Post-palacesettlementperiod;
Babylonian blade(1) housesandburialsrevealan
f63 2 Flake/debitage(1), 1 50% intensivesettlementover
blade(1) formerpalace
f69 2 Flake/debitage(1), 1 50%
scraper?(1)
f121 Phase3? 2200-2100BCE LateAkkadian 6 Flake/debitage(5), 5 83% Accumulationsincourtyardarea
blade(1) whileitwasanopenspacesoon
f148 2 Flake/debitage(1), 1 50% afterthepalacewasabandoned
blade(1)
f261 Phase2b 2240BCE mid-Akkadian Tar’am-Agade 2 Flake/debitage(1), 1 50% Accumulationatentranceto
blade(1) servicecourtyard
f465 Phase2a 2260BCE EarlyAkkadian Tupkish 4 Flake/debitage(3), 3 75% Foundationsofthepalacecomplex
blade(1) anditsservicecourtyard;both
f480 1 Flake/debitage(1) 1 100% datetothepalace’sconstruction
21 A7totals-sourced 14 67%
strata
48 A7totals-allstrata 14 29%
A9 f126 Phase4? 2100-2000BCE UrIII 8 Flake/debitage(7), 3 38% Scatteredpost-palaceoccupation;
core?(1) sparsehouses
f98 Phase3 2200-2100BCE LateAkkadian 10 Flake/debitage(9), 6 60% Accumulation,openspaceafter
scraper(1) palaceabandoned
f156 Phase2b 2240BCE mid-Akkadian Tar’am-Agade 2 Flake/debitage(2) 2 100% Accumulationonthecourtyard’s
pebblesurface
f247 Phase2a 2260BCE EarlyAkkadian Tupkish 5 Flake/debitage(3), 3 60% Foundationsofservicecourtyard;
blade(2) f247sitsdirectlyatopf260;both
f260 2 Flake/debitage(2) 2 100% datetothepalace’sconstruction
27 A9totalsesourced 16 59%
strata
56 A9totalseallstrata 16 29%
7.2. AegeanParallels:“piggybacking”onmetals? Dag! volcano havedeposits rich in silverand copper (Yeneret al.,
1989; Yener and Vandiver, 1993). Hence Carter and Kilikoglou
AsimilarsituationoccursinBronze-AgeCrete,whereGöllüDag! (2007) suggest that Göllü Dag! obsidian arrived on the island
obsidians have been rarely found alongside artefacts from the through“piggybacking”onthemetalstradeviaanetworksuchas
abundant Aegean obsidian sources (Melos and Giali). Carter and theATNorOATC.
Kilikoglou (2007) sourced 60 Middle Bronze Age artefacts (circa This proposal is supported by lead isotope analyses of Cretan
20th century BCE) fromMalia in central Creteand identified five copper artefacts, which have signatures consistent with Central
artefacts of Göllü Dag! obsidian. They propose GöllüDag! obsidian AnatolianoresbeginningintheMiddleBronzeAge(SolesandStos-
reachedCreteduetoexploitationofa“crucialmetalliferouszone” Gale,2004;PoursatandLoubet,2005).Thus,asmetalmovedfrom
surroundingthevolcano(YenerandVandiver,1993:238;seealso CentralAnatoliatoCrete,sotoomayhaveobsidian.Furthermore,
Wiener,1991:327e328).Indeed,theTaurusmountainsnearGöllü they state obsidian distribution may have been embedded in
Fig.9. AsimplifiedstratigraphyofthesourcedobsidianartefactsinUnitsA7andA9.OnlyGöllüDag!obsidianwasidentifiedsoonafterthepalaceservicecourtyard’sconstruction
despiteuseofEasternAnatolianobsidiansbeforeandafter.
E.Frahm,J.M.Feinberg/JournalofArchaeologicalScience40(2013)1122e1135 1131
diplomatic contacts between Crete’s first “Minoan palaces” and silver)implytheAkkadiansmayhaveaccessedthesemetalsfrom
Central Anatolian kingdoms.In other words, theobsidian arrived Central Anatolia via a supra-regional exchange network. Would,
onCrete,theyhypothesise,intheformof“royalgifts”orprestige though,CentralAnatolian metals have supplemented or replaced
objects.GöllüDag! obsidianhasbeenchemicallyidentifiedatone Diyarbakırresources?Thesoleevidencewehaveatpresent(albeit
other Proto-palatial Cretan site: Knossos, specifically within the only negative evidence with all the associated caveats) is that
Central Palace Sanctuary (Wiener,1991; Panagiotaki,1998,1999). Eastern Anatolian obsidians are not yet identified in the same
Theyalsonote that GöllüDag! lies near Kültepe, a majorregional stratum as the Göllü Dag! obsidian. Thus it is worth at least
trading centre that served as a key node of the OATC network consideringscenarioswherebyEasternAnatolianobsidiansmight
(Veenhof,1972;SherrattandSherratt,1991;Dercksen,1996,2005), havedecreasedat,orevendisappearedfrom,Urkesh(althoughthe
andastorehouseintheKülteperoyaltemplecomplexheld3000kg burdenonourartefactsmaynowbetoogreat).Todosoinvolves
ofobsidiansourced,atleastinpart,toGöllüDag!(KatsujiKobayashi discussing probable mechanisms by which Eastern Anatolian
inCarterandKilikoglou,2007;Özguç,1996). obsidiansarrived.
TheGöllüDag!obsidianatUrkeshmayrepresentaverysimilar
phenomenon.Theartefacts may notreflect awest-east“obsidian 7.4. EasternAnatolianobsidiansandtranshumance
trade”somuchasametalstradeinwhichGöllüDag!obsidianwas
an embedded element either deliberately or incidentally. The Eastern Anatolian obsidians were likely brought to Urkesh, at
obsidianstillcouldhavebeenanimportantcomponentofexchange leastinpart,bytranshumantnomads.Therolesoftranshumancein
althoughnotwhatcompelledtheAkkadianempiretoparticipatein obsidian distribution, particularly in Eastern Anatolia, have been
CentralAnatoliannetworks.Theimpetusmayhavebeenmetals. long discussed (e.g., Hole, 1968; Wright, 1969; Crawford, 1978;
Muchhasbeenmadeofthereferenceto“theSilverMountain” Williams-Thorpe,1995;Cauvin,1996;Chataigner,1998,Chataigner
regarding Akkadian territory in the aforementioned tablet from et al., 1998). Archaeological evidence supports this subsistence
Nippur;however,itdoeshintataninterestinthismetal.Infact, modelintheregionformillennia(UrandHammer,2009)andeven
Mesopotamian silver artefacts may support this interpretation. suggestsawidespreadreturntonomadisminthethirdmillennium
AlmostallsilverknownintheNearEastisderivedfromsilver-rich BCE (Sallaberger, 2007). In addition, we have third- and second-
galena,aleadsulphideoreusedinantiquity(Moorey,1985:107e millennium accounts of nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples in
126, Ebeling and Meissner, 1997: 130). Therefore, all silver arte- NorthernMesopotamia(e.g.,Edzard,1976;Postgate,1976).Conse-
facts contain trace quantities of lead, and a number of third- quently, regarding Hurrian populations living in the mountains
millennium silver Mesopotamian artefacts have lead isotope through the Mardin Pass, Wilhelm (1989) asserts that they most
signatures consistent with Central Anatolian ores (Yener et al., likely practiced “varied forms of ‘mountain nomadism’” supple-
1991:561).Itispossible,underNaram-Sin,theAkkadianstapped mentedbytradewithvillagersandcity-dwellers(16).
intothe ATN to access silver and other metals from ore deposits While acknowledging differences in politics and climate
within the vicinity of Göllü Dag!, and obsidian distribution was betweentheBronzeAgeandtoday,wecanconsiderethnohistorical
insteadasecondaryphenomenon. accountsfromthisregion.Cribb(1991)documentsinteractionsof
Because the Göllü Dag! obsidian was discovered in the palace Alikan nomads, who summered at Nemrut Dag! volcano, with
complex,itispossiblethattheartefactsdidnotarriveatUrkeshvia villagerstothesouth:
simple “down-the-line” exchange but instead as gifts or other
Duringthewintermonths,thetribeisdispersedinsmallunitsof
prestige items intended for royalty. Later second-millennium
twotofivetentspitchedwithinorontheoutskirtsofvillagesto
Akkadian-language tablets also refer to obsidian (ṣurru) having
thesouthoftheTaurusMountains.Althoughthevillagershave
economic, apotropaic, and symbolic value and being suitable as
no tribal or kinship connection with the Alikan As¸iret, the
akinglygift(Gelbetal.,1962:257e258).Analogoustothesituation
wintering nomads become a temporary part of the village
at Malia on Crete, obsidian might have been a component of
community, drawing on its services and land resources, and
“international relations” in the Bronze Age and served as a gift
coming under the authority and protection of the [governor].
between elites to accompany metal shipments and/ordiplomatic
(198)
communiqués.Thispossibilityraisesaseriesofquestions.Towhom
at Urkesh would the gifts be sent? An Akkadian administrator in The Alikan were integrated into Tur Abdin villages and their
appreciation for trade conducted for the good of the empire? A economiesduringwinter,andnaturalresourcesfromtheirsummer
Hurriankingresistingagainstit?Asaroyalgift,obsidianbecomes pasturesmayhavebeenusedforbarter.Crawford(1978)pointsout,
lessabouttradeandmoreaboutdiplomacy. basedonhistoricalrecords,migrationsofnomadicgroupsreadily
produce a criss-crossing de facto exchange network. Surveys of
7.3. Ametalsparadox? nomadicpastoralists,conductedduringthe1930sFrenchoccupa-
tionofSyria,mentionKurdishpastoralistswhoseasonallymigrated
Considering the circulation of metal and other materials with between Lake Van and Jebel Sinjar (Fig. 10; Haut-Commissariat,
themovementofobsidianintheNearEastisnotanewsuggestion 1930). Other groups migrated between Jebel Sinjar and central
(e.g., Wright, 1969), and given the proximity of the Diyarbakır Iraq (British Naval Intelligence, 1944). Yet other nomads moved
copperminestotheMardinPassandTellMozan,thepotentialfor east-west and intersected these groups, enabling an intersecting
interwovendistributionhasbeenconsideredbefore.Inthecaseof exchange networkamongstthem.Furthermore,theytradedwith
Akkadians potentiallyaccessing Central Anatolian metals such as villagers along their routes. Likelymechanisms forexchange also
silver,lead,andcopper(andthusGöllüDag!obsidian),thereisan includereligiousfestivalsandgatheringssuchastheannualtrading
apparentparadox.TherewasnotonlycopperoreintheTurAbdin bazaarsdescribedbyCrawford(1978).
highlands near Diyarbakır but also silver (and lead). In fact, one
Hurrianmythrelatesthetaleofayounggod,Silver,wholivesinthe 7.5. States,nomads,andterritoriality
mountainous hinterland and travels to Urkesh in search of his
father(Hoffner,1990:46e47).Copper,silver,andleadapparently Thesemechanismsofobsidiandistributioncouldhavechanged
were readily available via the Mardin Pass; however, Göllü Dag! if territorialityalso changed under Akkadian influence. To use an
obsidianartefactsatUrkesh(andsomeleadisotopesignaturesin ethnohistorical analogy, consider the aforementioned Kurdish