Table Of ContentANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS
MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NO. 37
OBSIDIAN ANALYSES AND PREHISTORIC
NEAR EASTERN TRADE: 7500 TO 3500 B.C.
BY
GARY A. WRIGHT
ANN ARBOR
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1969
© 1969 by the Regents of the University of Michigan
The Museum of Anthropology
All rights reserved
ISBN (print): 978-1-949098-11-2
ISBN (ebook): 978-1-951519-33-9
Browse all of our books at
sites.lsa.umich.edu/archaeology-books.
Order our books from the University of Michigan
Press at www.press.umich.edu.
For permissions, questions, or manuscript queries,
contact Museum publications by email at umma-
[email protected] or visit the Museum website at
lsa.umich.edu/ummaa.
FOREWORD
T
HIS WORK is a rewriting and reediting of my doctoral disser
tation which was submitted to the University of Michigan in
June, 1968. I wish to thank the members of my doctoral committee,
Professors Robert Whallon, Jr. (chairman), Richard Beardsley,
William Farrand, Acton A. Gordus, James B. Griffin, and Jeffrey
Parsons, for their helpful comments and suggestions during the
preparation of the dissertation.
The obsidian studies were initiated at the University of
Michigan l,.lnder the co-direction of J. B. Griffin, of the Museum of
Anthropology and Dr. A. A. Gordus, of the Department of Chem
istry, and followed the lead of Cann and Renfrew's (1964) work on
Mediterranean obsidians. I should like to thank Drs. Robert J.
Braidwood, Halet <;ambel, J. R. Cann, Jean Perrot, Colin Renfrew,
and Henry T. Wright for the Near Eastern obsidian specimens
reported on here. Braidwood and Perrot also provided data on
sites which they are currently excavating but which have not been
fully published. A major part of the support for the analysis of
the obsidian came from the National Science Foundation Grant,
No. G. S. -1196 to Griffin and Gordus. The analytical work was
done by Gordus and his associates.
Dr. K. V. Flannery was originally scheduled to be a member
of the doctoral committee, however field work commitments pre
vented him from attending the defense. Dr. Flannery kindly read
most of what is published here and provided me with a number of
helpful suggestions and ideas, as well as unpublished data. Dr.
Frank Hole allowed me to utilize the unpublished data from his
doctoral dissertation on Jarmo and Sarah (Hole, n.d. ).
My early interest in the problems of N·ear Eastern prehistory
was stimulated and encouraged by one of my former teachers, Dr.
Arthur J. Jelinek. Drs. Jelinek and Braidwood and Mrs. Linda
Braidwood first introduced me to fieldwork in the Near East.
I wish also to thank Dr. Richard A. Watson, Washington Uni
versity, St. Louis, who accompanied me on a survey of obsidian
sources in Central and Eastern Turkey during October and Novem
ber, 1968. Unhappily, adverse conditions prevented us from
collecting from many obsidian flows.
iii
iv FOREWORD
All of the above deserve my thanks. None of them, however,
should be held responsible for my interpretations of the elemental,
geological, ethnological, or archaeological data.
January 5, 1969 Gary A. Wright
Cleveland, Ohio
CONTENTS
I. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Obsidian Sources in the Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. Obsidian in the Near East: 7500 to 3500 B.C.. . 17
Distribution . 17
Uses ..... . 27
Trade and Transport . 45
IV. Near Eastern Trade: 7500 to 3500 B.C. 53
Sources of Other Raw Materials .... 54
The Preceramic: 7500 to 6250 B.C .. 57
The Early Ceramic Phases: 6250 to 5200 B.C ... 62
Halaf-Ubaid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
v
I
THE PROBLEM
T
HE STUDY of trade in prehistoric times has been of some
interest to archaeologists for a considerable period of time.
The recovery of exotic, nonlocal raw materials and/or craft
items in an excavation poses a number of interrelated questions.
When Squier and Davis first unearthed obsidian artifacts in Hope
wellian mounds in the eastern United States 120 years ago, they
were aware of these problems. They commented: "To measure
the bounds of intercourse, casual or constant, or define the course
of migration, it is necessary to ascertain the exact primitive
locality of the product in question" (Squier and Davis, 1848: 278).
First of all, then, we are interested in what source or sources
were being utilized. When this question is answered, the archaeol
ogist is in a position to accept, to reformulate or to reject the
hypotheses about the nature of the trade system with which he has
been working.
We may take the Hopewellian obsidian a step further. More
than 10,000 pieces of obsidian, ranging from chipping debris and
cores to well-made ceremonial objects have been recovered in
Hopewellian sites in the Scioto Valley, Ohio. Guesses as to the
source area from which this raw material was derived have in
cluded Alaska, the Pacific Coast of North America, Yellowstone
National Park, the southwestern United States, and central Mexico.
In no case have there been any petrological or chemical (elemental
composition) data offered in support. Although some data on the
elemental composition of different obsidian flows in Yellowstone
Park have been available since 1899 (Iddings, 1899), no systematic
examination of Hopewellian obsidian in reference to its composi
tion was undertaken until 1966. To anticipate some of the results
to be presented elsewhere, neutron activation analysis studies at
the University of Michigan have clearly demonstrated that the
Hopewellian obsidian derived from two separate flows in Yellow
stone Park (Griffin et al., 1969).
In the particular case of the Hopewell, the source of the ob
sidian has anthropological implications. For example, a number
of investigators have seen similarities between cultural traits in
various areas of Mexico (never as one complex) and in Hopewell.
Among these is the presence of obsidian. If the Hopewellian
1
