Reassessing the origins of Near Eastern obsidian vessels: Not as simple as “Central Anatolia”

Abstract

In the 1960s, Renfrew and colleagues tested an obsidian vessel from Tepe Gawra in northern Iraq. The vessel was attributed to their “Group 1e-f” chemical type, which matched obsidian from the Acıgöl volcanic complex in central Turkey as well as unclear locations in eastern Turkey and Armenia. Renfrew and colleagues favored an attribution of the vessel to Acıgöl, and consequently, an association between obsidian vessels and central Turkey became widely held in the literature. Given the destructive nature of chemical analysis until the 21st century, obsidian vessels and fragments were almost never tested, so there were few chances to overturn or support this association. Furthermore, such vessels have attracted much attention as likely prestige objects. To consider value and meanings derived from a material’s source, however, it is crucial to have the correct identification of its origin. First I consider the available sourcing data for previously studied vessel fragments. Second I report my new source identifications for a vessel with an uncertain provenience in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, fragments from Ur, and the same vessel from Tepe Gawra tested by Renfrew and colleagues. Only the site located in south-central Turkey (Domuztepe) had polished artifact fragments from the obsidian sources of Cappadocia. For Mesopotamian (Tepe Gawra, Ur, Kenan Tepe) and Zagros (Tal-e Malyan) sites, the vessels instead derived from four sources in eastern Turkey: Sarıkamış 2, Nemrut Dağ 2, Bingöl B, and Meydan Dağ. Thus, the association between obsidian vessels and central Turkey must be abandoned, as must narratives based on this association (e.g., exchange between early states or elites in Cappadocia and Mesopotamia).