• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The Bronze-Age Obsidian Industry at Tell Mozan (Ancient Urkesh), Syria: Redeveloping Electron Microprobe Analysis for 21st-Century Sourcing Research and the Implications for Obsidian Use and Exchange in Northern Mesopotamia after the Neolithic

Dissertation
Author: Ellery Edward Frahm
Abstract:
Obsidian tools continued to be utilized in Northern Mesopotamia well beyond the introduction of metal but have received little archaeological attention. It is widely held that obsidian sourcing can offer little new information during a period in which there is a variety of artifacts and texts available to study. Obsidian, though, is unparalleled in its widespread use and ability to be sourced, so it provides unique information about contact, exchange, and migration. Its sourcing can complement other types of information and be used to test existing hypotheses. Before the recent excavations at Tell Mozan (ancient Urkesh) in northeastern Syria, most of the information about its inhabitants, the Hurrians, was inferred from linguistic or textual evidence. Identifying the sources of their obsidian artifacts can be useful for testing some of the highly debated inferences. The research at hand involved three primary goals. I sought, first, to demonstrate a sophisticated approach to obsidian studies in the Near East and, second, to redevelop an analytical technique -- electron microprobe analysis -- for sourcing obsidian. Therefore, I assembled and analyzed a reference collection of over 900 geological obsidian specimens from dozens of sources in Turkey as well as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. I sourced a large number of artifacts (n = 97) so that I could explore spatial and temporal patterns on a site level. In addition, this analytical technique, if applied critically, can (i) control for obsidian as a mixture, (ii) measure artifacts non-destructively, and (iii) discern two chemically similar obsidian sources: Nemrut Da! and Bingöl A. Thus, based on my results, I not only differentiate these obsidians but also pinpoint the collection loci, down to a kilometer, of the Nemrut Da! obsidians found at Tell Mozan. My third goal involved identifying the sources of obsidian represented among the Bronze-Age artifacts at Tell Mozan. These results were, in turn, used to explore temporal and spatial patterns of the obsidian sources used at the site, consider broader implications for obsidian use in Bronze-Age Mesopotamia, and examine two issues regarding Urkesh and its Hurrian inhabitants. The overall similarities for two site areas suggest that people living in various parts of Urkesh had similar access to the same obsidian sources. On the other hand, all the sourced obsidian from the temple came from one flow at Nemrut Dag , and a service courtyard of the palace contains the only Cappadocian obsidian. In fact, the greatest variety of sources is found in units containing palace courtyards. Regarding the broader implications, there is evidence at Tell Mozan of production of prismatic obsidian blades and bladelets (e.g, flakes with cortex, cores, and early-series blades), suggesting they were not imported from a production center. In addition, there is a prevailing assumption that, if Bingöl B obsidian is found at a site, one can presume that all of the peralkaline obsidian artifacts came from Bingöl A, not Nemrut Dag . My results reveal that this assumption, based on maximal efficiency, is specious. The hypothesis of a Hurrian "homeland" as far northeast as Armenia (or beyond) is considered -- but not supported -- in light of my obsidian data. There are no obsidians from northeastern Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, or Russia that would point to a link to those regions. The atypical variety of obsidian sources at the site suggests that the city may have had a mountainous hinterland to the north. When compared to the existing data for other Khabur Triangle sites, my results support a possible exchange link between Tell Mozan and Tell Brak, perhaps as part of an early Hurrian kingdom.

iv v vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements i Dedication ii Abstract iii Table of Contents v List of Tables xiv List of Figures xvi Introduction 1 Part I: Foundations and Problems 12 Chapter 1: Obsidian: Its Origins, Sourcing, and Issues 12 1.1 - Why All the Interest in Obsidian?13 1.2 - What is Obsidian, and How is it Formed?16 1.2.1 - Obsidian as Natural Glass 16 1.2.2 - Obsidian as a Mixture 19 1.2.3 - Formation of Obsidian 29 1.2.4 - Geochemistry of Obsidian 36 1.3 - Fundamentals of Sourcing Studies 39 1.3.1 - Terminology: “Sourcing” versus “Provenancing” 40 1.3.2 - Sourcing, Fingerprints, and Typologies 42 1.3.3 - “Trace-Element Fingerprints” versus Major Elements 44 1.3.4 - The Theory and Postulates of Sourcing 46 1.3.5 - The Goals of Obsidian Sourcing Studies 52 1.4 - Analytical Techniques for Obsidian Sourcing 54 1.5 - Lessons from Ceramics Sourcing 58 1.5.1 - Ceramics as Mixtures and Sourcing Effects 59 1.5.2 - Application to Obsidian Sourcing 64 1.6 - Introduction to EMPA 66 1.7 - Prior Obsidian-Sourcing Studies with EMPA 67 1.7.1 - Merrick and Brown in East Africa 69 1.7.2 - Weisler and Clague in Hawaii 71 1.7.3 - Tykot in the Western Mediterranean 72 1.8 - Research Goals for EMPA and Obsidian Sourcing 74 1.9 - Summary and Concluding Remarks 76 Chapter 2: Obsidian in the Near East: State of Knowledge 79 2.1 - Uses of Obsidian in the Near East 86 2.1.1 - Artifacts from the Epipalaeolithic to the Bronze Age 86 2.1.2 - “Utilitarian/Domestic” versus “Ritual/Symbolic/Elite” 90 2.1.3 - Different Function, Different Exchange?97

v vi vii 2.2 - The Research of Renfrew, Dixon, and Cann (RDC) 98 2.2.1 - The Archaeological Backdrop 98 2.2.2 - Brief Overview of RDC 104 2.3 - Sourced Obsidian from Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant 109 2.3.1 - The Scope of this Compilation 110 2.3.2 - Sourced Obsidian from the Bronze Age 113 2.3.3 - Sourced Obsidian from the Chalcolithic 116 2.3.4 - Sourced Obsidian from the Neolithic 117 2.3.5 - Summarizing the Results 120 2.3.6 - Putting It in Perspective: Advantages of More Data 121 2.4 - The Stagnation of Near East Obsidian Sourcing 126 2.4.1 - Reasons for the Obsidian Sourcing Stagnation 126 2.4.2 - The Effect of Visual Sourcing Approaches 130 2.5 - Other Issues in Near East Obsidian Sourcing 137 2.5.1 - The Numbers of Obsidian Sources 137 2.5.2 - Are Nemrut Da! and Bingöl A Indistinguishable?139 2.6 - Issues with Recent Obsidian Sourcing: Tell Hamoukar 146 2.6.1 - Tell Hamoukar: The Tell and Its Southern Extension 148 2.6.2 - Recent Excavations at Tell Hamoukar 149 2.6.3 - Interpretation of Obsidian in the Southern Extension 150 2.6.4 - An Alternative Interpretation 157 2.6.5 - Sourcing Obsidian from Tell Hamoukar 158 2.7 - Summary and Problems 160 Chapter 3: Tell Mozan, Urkesh, and the Hurrians 163 3.1 - Who were the Hurrians?165 3.2 - Tell Mozan: The Archaeological Site 169 3.3 - The Geographical Setting and Environment 178 3.4 - The Past Environment and Climate 185 3.5 - Urkesh: The Ancient Hurrian City 189 3.6 - The Features and Layout of Tell Mozan 195 3.6.1 - The Temple(s) 196 3.6.2 - The Terrace and Revetment Wall 199 3.6.3 - The Monumental Staircase 203 3.6.4 - The Plaza 205 3.6.5 - The Royal Palace 205 3.6.6 - The Âbi 209 3.6.7 - Road to the Netherworld 211 3.6.8 - The Inner City Wall 212 3.6.9 - Features of the Outer City 212 3.6.10 - Features of Later Habitation Phases 213

vi vii viii 3.7 - Outstanding Questions about the Hurrians 215 3.8 - Concluding Remarks 219 Part II: Methods for Sourcing and Their Evaluation 220 Chapter 4: The Geological Reference Collection and Artifacts 220 4.1 - Terminology: “Samples” versus “Specimens” 223 4.2 - Numbers of Geological Specimens 224 4.3 - Homogeneity of Obsidian Sources 225 4.4 - What Constitutes a “Source”?230 4.5 - Obsidian Fieldwork in Oregon 234 4.6 - Fieldwork Lessons and Specimen Nomenclature 252 4.7 - Assembling the Reference Collection 257 4.7.1 - Turkey Obsidian Specimens 257 4.7.2 - Transcaucasian Obsidian Specimens 266 4.7.2.1 - Azerbaijan 267 4.7.2.2 - Georgia 267 4.7.2.3 - Kabardino-Balkaria Republic 268 4.7.2.4 - Armenia 268 4.7.3 - Excluded Obsidian Sources 269 4.7.3.1 - Unknown Sources in Northeastern Turkey?275 4.7.3.2 - Northwestern Turkey 276 4.7.3.3 - Aegean Sea 278 4.7.3.4 - Mediterranean Sea 279 4.7.3.5 - Carpathian Sources 280 4.7.3.6 - Afghanistan 280 4.7.3.7 - Iran 281 4.7.3.8 - East Africa and Arabian Peninsula 284 4.8 - Selecting Artifacts for Analysis 285 4.9 - Specimen Preparation - Geological Specimens 286 4.9.1 - Specimen Preparation Requirements for EMPA 286 4.9.2 - Use of Petrographic Thin Sections 287 4.9.3 - Preparing Obsidian Specimen Discs 288 4.9.4 - Grinding and Polishing the Specimen Discs 289 4.9.5 - Documenting the Obsidian Specimen Colors 290 4.9.6 - Conductive Coating for the Discs 290 4.10 - Specimen Preparation - Archaeological Artifacts 292 4.10.1 - Artifact Preparation in Prior EMPA Studies 292 4.10.2 - Artifact Preparation in Prior SEM-EDS Studies 294 4.10.3 - Artifact Preparation in the Present Research 297 4.11 - Summary and Concluding Remarks 300

vii viii ix Chapter 5: Redeveloping EMPA for Obsidian Sourcing 302 5.1 - The Basic Principles of EMPA 305 5.1.1 - Atomic Structure and Electron Shells 307 5.1.2 - The Electron Optical System 309 5.1.3 - Interaction Volume and Spatial Resolution 309 5.1.4 - Electron-Specimen Interactions 311 5.1.5 - Attributes of X-rays 311 5.1.6 - Continuous X-rays 312 5.1.7 - Characteristic X-rays 313 5.1.8 - Secondary Electrons 314 5.1.9 - Backscattered Electrons 314 5.1.10 - Energy- and Wavelength-Dispersive Spectrometers 315 5.1.11 - Electron Microscopy 316 5.1.12 - Quantitative Analysis 316 5.1.13 - Errors in the Archaeological Literature 317 5.1.14 - Additional Information 318 5.2 - Choice of Analytical Conditions 318 5.2.1 - Two Sets of Analytical Conditions 320 5.2.2 - Accelerating Voltage 320 5.2.3 - Beam Current 322 5.2.4 - Beam Diameter 324 5.2.5 - Counting Times 327 5.2.6 - Background Measurements 329 5.2.7 - Number of Analyses 332 5.2.8 - Software Modifications 337 5.2.9 - Choice of Calibration Standards 338 5.2.10 - Data Correction Algorithms 340 5.2.11 - Miscellaneous Procedures 343 5.3 - Challenges to Non-Destructive EMPA for Artifacts 344 5.3.1 - Challenge #1: Non-Flat Artifact Surfaces 346 5.3.2 - Challenge #2: Non-Polished Artifact Surfaces 348 5.3.3 - Challenge #3: Surface Hydration of the Artifacts 352 5.3.4 - Challenge #4: Diagenetic Surface Alteration 357 5.3.5 - Summary of the Challenges to Non-Destructive EMPA 362 5.4 - Concluding Remarks 363 Chapter 6: Evaluating the Analytical Procedures and Source Assignment Methods 365 6.1 - What are the Data?366 6.1.1 - Elements Selected for Analysis 366 6.1.2 - Data Treatment 372

viii ix x 6.2 - Assessing Precision 376 6.2.1 - Defining Precision 377 6.2.2 - Approaches to Precision in Obsidian Sourcing 378 6.2.3 - Theoretical Precision of EMPA 379 6.2.4 - Assessing Precision in the Present Research 379 6.3 - Accuracy 380 6.3.1 - Defining Accuracy 382 6.3.2 - Approaches to Accuracy in Obsidian Sourcing 382 6.3.3 - Theoretical Accuracy of EMPA 383 6.4 - Assessing Accuracy in the Present Research 384 6.4.1 - Analyzing Standard Materials as Unknowns 385 6.4.2 - Continuing the Accuracy Assessment 389 6.5 - Accuracy Assessment: Analytical “Round Robins” 389 6.5.1 - A “Round Robin” of Basalt Glass Analyses 390 6.5.2 - A “Round Robin” of Obsidian Analyses 393 6.5.3 - Strengths and Weakness of “Round Robins” 397 6.6 - Acquiring NAA and XRF Data for Comparison 400 6.6.1 - NAA by the Max Planck Institute 401 6.6.2 - NAA at the MURR Archaeometry Laboratory 402 6.6.3 - EDXRF at the MURR Archaeometry Laboratory 403 6.6.4 - A “Blind Test” with NAA and XRF at MURR 404 6.6.5 - WDXRF at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 404 6.7 - Discussion of the NAA and XRF Data and EMPA Accuracy 406 6.7.1 - NAA-MPI and EMPA Accuracy 406 6.7.2 - WDXRF-UWEC and EMPA Accuracy 414 6.7.3 - EDXRF-/NAA-MURR and EMPA Accuracy 423 6.8 - (Re)Defining Reliability and Validity 435 6.8.1 - Hughes’ Reliability and Validity 441 6.8.2 - Reconsidering Reliability 443 6.8.3 - Reconsidering Validity in Sourcing 445 6.8.4 - What Constitutes Validity in Sourcing?449 6.9 - Source Discrimination and Artifact Assignment 450 6.9.1 - Graphical-Based Discrimination and Sourcing 451 6.9.2 - Multivariate Discrimination and Sourcing 454 6.9.3 - Issues with the Multivariate Approach 455 6.9.4 - A Compromise Approach and Focus on Geochemistry 457 6.9.5 - Two- and Three-Dimensional Scatterplots 458 6.9.6 - Elements for Source Assignment 466 6.9.7 - Euclidean Distance Measures 469 6.9.8 - A Minimalist Approach to Data Transformation 470

ix x xi 6.9.9 - Using Euclidean Distances to Assign Artifacts to Sources 473 6.10 - Assessing Validity with Georgian Artifacts 480 6.11 - Summary and Concluding Remarks 483 Part III: Results and Implications 485 Chapter 7: The Bronze-Age Obsidian Artifacts of Tell Mozan and Their Sources 485 7.1 - An Instance of “Artificial Obsidian” 486 7.2 - Observations on the Obsidian Industry at Tell Mozan 489 7.2.1 - Quantities of Obsidian and Chert Artifacts 490 7.2.2 - Obsidian Quality at Tell Mozan 491 7.2.3 - Obsidian Tool Types at Tell Mozan 492 7.2.4 - Ground Obsidian and Platform Preparation 494 7.2.5 - Evidence for Production Activities On-Site 494 7.3 - Three Findings from the Analytical Results 504 7.3.1 - Distinguishing Nemrut Da! and Bingöl A 509 7.3.2 - A Discovery about Meydan Da! and Tendürek Da!512 7.3.3 - Mu", Pasinler, and the Potential for Unknown Sources 514 7.4 - The Urkesh Global Record 516 7.5 - Sourced Obsidian of Site Area A 518 7.5.1 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A1 518 7.5.1.1 - Feature 16 of Unit A1 518 7.5.1.2 - Feature 29 of Unit A1 519 7.5.1.3 - Feature 67 of Unit A1 519 7.5.1.4 - Feature 606 of Unit A1 520 7.5.2 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A2 520 7.5.3 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A6 521 7.5.4 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A7 522 7.5.4.1 - Feature 56 of Unit A7 523 7.5.4.2 - Feature 63 of Unit A7 524 7.5.4.3 - Feature 69 of Unit A7 524 7.5.4.4 - Feature 121 of Unit A7 525 7.5.4.5 - Feature 148 of Unit A7 526 7.5.4.6 - Feature 261 of Unit A7 527 7.5.4.7 - Feature 465 of Unit A7 527 7.5.4.8 - Feature 480 of Unit A7 528 7.5.5 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A8 528 7.5.6 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A9 529 7.5.6.1 - Feature 98 of Unit A9 529 7.5.6.2 - Feature 126 of Unit A9 533 7.5.6.3 - Feature 156 of Unit A9 535 7.5.6.4 - Feature 247 of Unit A9 536

x xi xii 7.5.6.5 - Feature 260 of Unit A9 537 7.5.7 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A10 538 7.5.8 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A14 542 7.5.8.1 - Feature 29 of Unit A14 543 7.5.8.3 - Feature 42 of Unit A14 544 7.5.8.3 - Feature 42 of Unit A14 544 7.5.8.4 - Feature 193 of Unit A14 545 7.5.8.5 - Feature 250 of Unit A14 546 7.5.9 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A15 547 7.5.10 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A16 548 7.5.10.1 - Feature 26 of Unit A16 549 7.5.10.2 - Feature 83 of Unit A16 549 7.5.10.3 - Feature 208 of Unit A16 550 7.5.11 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A17 550 7.5.12 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit A18 551 7.6 - Sourced Obsidian of Site Area B 556 7.7 - Sourced Obsidian of Site Area J 557 7.7.1 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit J1 558 7.7.1.1 - Feature 3 of Unit J1 558 7.7.1.2 - Feature 20 of Unit J1 559 7.7.1.3 - Feature 131 of Unit J1 560 7.7.1.4 - Feature 151 of Unit J1 560 7.7.2 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit J2 561 7.7.2.1 - Feature 1 of Unit J2 561 7.7.2.2 - Feature 42 of Unit J2 562 7.7.2.3 - Feature 62 of Unit J2 562 7.7.3 - Sourced Obsidian of Unit J3 563 7.7.3.1 - Feature 100 of Unit J3 563 7.7.3.2 - Feature 101 of Unit J3 565 7.7.3.3 - Feature 105 of Unit J3 565 7.8 - Overview of the Results 566 Chapter 8: Implications for Northern Mesopotamia and the Near East 577 8.1 - Findings from Tell Mozan with Broader Implications 580 8.1.1 - Specialized Blade Production across Mesopotamia?580 8.1.2 - Gratuze’s Assumption about Nemrut Da! and Bingöl 582 8.1.3 - Peralkalinity and the Nemrut Da! Sources 585 8.2 - Comparative Data from Prior Obsidian Studies 590 8.2.1 - Sourced Obsidian from the Bronze-Age Khabur Triangle 592 8.2.2 - Sourced Obsidian from Bronze-Age Southern Mesopotamia 597 8.2.3 - Sourced Obsidian from the Bronze-Age Upper Euphrates 599

xi xii xiii 8.2.4 - Sourced Obsidian from the Bronze-Age Northern Levant 599 8.2.5 - Sourced Obsidian from Bronze-Age Western Iran 600 8.2.6 - Sourced Obsidian from the Chalcolithic Khabur Triangle 603 8.2.7 - Sourced Obsidian from Chalcolithic Northern Mespotamia 604 8.2.8 - Sourced Obsidian from the Chalcolithic Northern Levant 606 8.2.9 - Sourced Obsidian from Chalcolithic Southeastern Turkey 606 8.2.10 - Sourced Obsidian from Chalcolithic Western Iran 608 8.2.11 - A Note about Sourced Obsidian from the Neolithic 609 8.2.12 - Sourced Obsidian from the Neolithic Khabur Triangle 609 8.2.13 - Sourced Obsidian from the Neolithic Middle Euphrates 612 8.2.14 - Sourced Obsidian from the Neolithic Northern Levant 620 8.2.15 - Sourced Obsidian from Elsewhere in Neolithic Syria 625 8.2.16 - Sourced Obsidian from in Neolithic Southern Mesopotamia 626 8.2.17 - Conclusions about the Prior Data 629 8.3 - Starting to Address Copeland’s Questions 629 8.3.1 - A Note about Approaches to Exchange 632 8.3.2 - What is the Value of Obsidian?635 8.3.3 - Possible Transportation via Rivers 636 8.3.4 - The Importance of Location 638 8.3.5 - Obsidian Sources and their Landscapes 643 8.4 - Summary and Concluding Remarks 649 Chapter 9: Implications for Urkesh and the Hurrians 650 9.1 - Urkesh and Ancient Exchange Routes 651 9.2 - Observations on the Obsidian Data 657 9.2.1 - Obsidian Sources at Tell Mozan 657 9.2.2 - Central Anatolian Obsidian at Tell Mozan 660 9.2.3 - Obsidian Sources by Time 663 9.2.4 - Obsidian Sources by Site Area 665 9.2.5 - Obsidian Sources by Site Unit 668 9.3 - Other Evidence of Contact and Exchange at Tell Mozan 674 9.3.1 - Exotic Materials and Items at Tell Mozan 677 9.3.2 - A Lead Figurine at Urkesh from Troy?680 9.3.3 - The Storehouse of the Royal Palace 681 9.3.4 - Influences of the Early Transcaucasian Complex 682 9.3.5 - “Invisible” Exchange in Northern Mesopotamia 684 9.3.6 - Summary of Contact and Exchange Evidence 687 9.4 - The Existence of a Hurrian “Homeland” to the Northeast 687 9.4.1 - Background of the Debate 688 9.4.2 - Formulating a Hypothesis 691 9.4.3 - Comparison to the Obsidian Data 695

xii xiii xiv 9.5 - The Debate about “The King of Urkesh and Nawar” 696 9.5.1 - “Nawar” as Nagar and Tell Brak: Background 697 9.5.2 - “Nawar” as a Northern Hinterland: Background 699 9.6 - Considering “Nawar” as a Northern Hinterland 701 9.6.1 - Obsidian Distribution in Southeastern Anatolia 702 9.6.2 - Bringing the Obsidian to Urkesh 707 9.6.3 - Comparison to the Data 708 9.6.4 - Interpretation of the Results 710 9.7- Considering “Nawar” as Nagar and Tell Brak 711 9.7.1 - Formulating and Testing the Hypothesis 711 9.7.2 - Comparison to the Obsidian Data 715 9.7.3 - Another Similarity of Urkesh and Nagar 718 9.8 - Implications of the Results Regarding “Nawar” 721 9.8.1 - Could Both Locations Be “Nawar”?721 9.8.2 - Urkesh and Nagar as Gateways or a Gateway/Central-Place Pair 724 9.9 - The Potential Significance of Nemrut Da!729 9.9.1 - Identifying the Collection Loci 729 9.9.2 - Access to Nemrut Da! and Its Obsidians 733 9.9.3 - Inspiration for the Lower Sacral Area?738 9.10 - Summary and Concluding Remarks 743 Conclusion 747 Works Cited 757 Appendices 818 Appendix A - Obsidian Sources in the Near East 818 A.1 - Central Anatolian Sources 820 A.2 - Eastern Anatolian Sources 824 A.3 - Northeastern Anatolian Sources 828 A.4 - Transcaucasian Sources 830 Appendix B - Obsidian and Chert Blade-Tools from Tell Mozan by Site Unit 833 Appendix C - Electron Microprobe Analysis Data of Specimens and Artifacts 851 Appendix D - Source Assignments based on Euclidean Distances 913

xiii xiv xv List of Tables Page T able 122 Table 2.1 - Previously Sourced Post-Neolithic Mesopotamian Artifacts 270 Table 4.1 - Obsidian Collection Areas 331 Table 5.1 - Spectrometer Conditions for Major and Trace Elements 341 Table 5.2 - Reference Standards for Major-Element Analyses 342 Table 5.3 - Reference Standards for Trace-Element Analyses 381 Table 6.1 - Precision Based on an Obsidian Reference Specimen 386 Table 6.2 - Analyses of an International Obsidian Reference Specimen 388 Table 6.3 - Trace-Element Analyses of Standard Materials 391 Table 6.4a - G-Probe-2 Selected Results for EMPA 392 Table 6.4b - G-Probe-2 Results for LA-ICP-MS 395 Table 6.5a - Inter-comparison of analytical results for the obsidian source at Sierra de Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico from Glascock (1999) 396 Table 6.5b - Inter-comparison of analytical results for the obsidian source at Little Glass Buttes, Oregon from Glascock (1999) 398 Table 6.6 - Inter-laboratory comparison of analytical results for the obsidian source at Sierra de Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico 407 Table 6.7 - All NAA-MPI Data for Rapp/Ercan-Collected Specimens from Bassette (1994) 408 Table 6.8 - Example Comparisons of the NAA-MPI Data to the EMPA Data 410 Table 6.9 - Transposed CA01 and CA02 Specimens 410 Table 6.10 - Transposed CA16 and CA17 Specimens 411 Table 6.11 - Example of Bassette's (1994) Specimen Numbering Errors 412 Table 6.12 - Example of Bassette's (1994) Specimen Numbering Errors 413 Table 6.13 - Example of Bassette's (1994) Specimen Numbering Errors 422 Table 6.14 - Comparison of EMPA Data and WDXRF-UWEC Data to Published Values for the Kömürcü Source 424 Table 6.15 - Comparison of WDXRF-UWEC, EDXRF-MURR, and EMPA Data for the Trace Elements

xiv xv xvi 425 Table 6.16a - EMPA Data for Mexican Specimens from MURR Compared to MURR's NAA and EDXRF Data 426 Table 6.16b - EMPA Data for Mexican Specimens from MURR Compared to MURR's NAA and EDXRF Data 428 Table 6.17a: Comparison of EMPA, NAA-MURR, and EDXRF-MURR Data for Armenian Obsidian 429 Table 6.17b: Comparison of EMPA, NAA-MURR, and EDXRF-MURR Data for Armenian Obsidian 430 Table 6.17c: Comparison of EMPA, NAA-MURR, and EDXRF-MURR Data for Armenian Obsidian 475 Table 6.18 - Example of Euclidean Distance Measures and Nearest Neighbors for an Artifact Assigned to Nemrut Da! (EA25) 476 Table 6.19 - Example of Euclidean Distance Measures and Nearest Neighbors for an Artifact Assigned to Nemrut Da! (EA22) 477 Table 6.20 - Example of Euclidean Distance Measures and Nearest Neighbors for an Artifact Assigned to Bingöl B 478 Table 6.21 - Example of Euclidean Distance Measures and Nearest Neighbors for an Artifact Assigned to Kömürcü at Göllü Da! 482 Table 6.22 - Example of Euclidean Distance Measures and Nearest Neighbors for a Georgian Test Artifact 515 Table 7.1 - Comparison of "Meydan Da!" and "Dogubayezid/Tendurek Da!" Geological Specimens 568 Table 7.2 - Artifact Source Assignments by Unit 571 Table 7.3 - Artifact Source Assignments by Source 574 Table 7.4 - Artifact Source Assignments by Period 852 Table C.1 - Major-Element Analyses of Geological Specimens 890 Table C.2 - Trace-Element Analyses of Geological Specimens 906 Table C.3 - Major-Element Analyses of Artifacts 910 Table C.4 - Trace-Element Analyses of Artifacts 914 Table D.1 - Source Assignments of Artifacts based on Euclidean Distance to Centroids of Geological Specimens

xv xvi xvii List of Figures Page Figure 2 Figure I.1 - A prismatic obsidian blade from Tell Mozan 4 Figure I.2 - Tell Mozan (ancient Urkesh) against the Tur Abdin mountains 5 Figure I.3 - Location of Tell Mozan in northeastern Syria 20 Figure 1.1 - An example of microscopic minerals and bubbles in obsidian 22 Figure 1.2 - Backscattered-electron images of mineral inclusions in obsidian 26 Figure 1.3 - An example of flow banding, one form of obsidian heterogeneity 27 Figure 1.4 - Examples of macroscopic flow banding in obsidian 28 Figure 1.5 - Flow banding in an obsidian specimen from Glass Buttes, Oregon 31 Figure 1.6 - A cross-section of an obsidian-bearing rhyolitic lava dome 33 Figure 1.7 - An obsidian spine protrudes out of the outer shell of a lava dome 34 Figure 1.8 - The inner obsidian shell is exposed on the dome’s forward slope 81 Figure 2.1 - RDC’s best-known rendering of their proposed obsidian “supply zones” and “contact zones” during the Neolithic Period 82 Figure 2.2 - RDC’s “obsidian interaction zones” during the Neolithic 82 Figure 2.3 - RDC’s obsidian distribution patterns during the Neolithic 83 Figure 2.4 - RDC’s obsidian sourcing results for the post-Neolithic Period 84 Figure 2.5 - RDC’s post-Neolithic obsidian distribution patterns 84 Figure 2.6 - RDC’s post-Neolithic obsidian distribution patterns 95 Figure 2.7 - Portrait mask of a bearded man from Egypt, circa 180 CE 115 Figure 2.8 - An obsidian vessel from a Chalcolithic tomb at Tepe Gawra in Iraq 151 Figure 2.9 - Roaf’s (1990) obsidian map 153 Figure 2.10 - Reichel’s (2007) modifications to Roaf’s (1990) obsidian map 170 Figure 3.1 - Satellite image of Tell Mozan 173 Figure 3.2 - Topographic map of the High Mound 174 Figure 3.3 - Topographic map of the Outer City 177 Figure 3.4 - The modern village of Mozan lies near the Royal Palace 179 Figure 3.5 - Khabur Triangle features, sites, and modern cities 181 Figure 3.6 - The Tur Abdin mountains lie about 8 km to the north of Tell Mozan

xvi xvii xviii 184 Figure 3.7 - Agriculture and pastoralism are still practiced together 192 Figure 3.8 - One of two lions that served as foundation pegs for the Urkesh temple 198 Figure 3.9 - A partial reconstruction of the temple 198 Figure 3.10 - A square of Unit J3, excavated down to the temple terrace surface 202 Figure 3.11 - The monumental staircase to the temple terrace 202 Figure 3.12 - The revetment wall of the temple terrace 206 Figure 3.13 - Excavations in Area A and the remains of the Royal Palace 235 Figure 4.1 - Nemrut Da! in Eastern Anatolia from space 236 Figure 4.2 - Nemrut Da! in Eastern Anatolia from space 239 Figure 4.3 - Nemrut Da! and its analogue, Newberry Volcano, in central Oregon 240 Figure 4.4 - The caldera of Newberry Volcano as viewed from the caldera rim 242 Figure 4.5 - Göllü Da! and its analogue, Glass Buttes, in central Oregon 243 Figures 4.6 a and b - The Göllü Da!-Kömürcü source 244 Figures 4.7 a and b - The Glass Buttes, Oregon source area 247 Figure 4.8 - The “otherworldly” surfaces of a rhyolitic lava dome 258 Figure 4.9 - Field notes by Rapp and Ercan when collecting obsidian at Göllü Da! 259 Figure 4.10 - Collection areas of Rapp and Ercan at Göllü Da! and Nenezi Da! 261 Figure 4.11 - Field notes by Rapp and Ercan when collecting obsidian at Acıgöl 262 Figure 4.12 - Collection areas of Rapp and Ercan at Acıgöl 264 Figure 4.13 - Map of obsidian sources in Central and Eastern Anatolia 291 Figure 4.14 - Geological reference specimens from EA24 prepared for EMPA 306 Figure 5.1 - Schematic of an electron microprobe and its primary systems 310 Figure 5.2 - A backscattered-electron image of obsidian with spot analyses 335 Figure 5.3 - The measured values will approximate a Gaussian distribution 339 Figure 5.4 - For trace elements, the distribution often includes negative values 345 Figure 5.5 - Obsidian can be non-destructively analyzed in an electron microprobe 361 Figure 5.6 - Surface alteration of obsidian artifacts from Anovitz et al. (1999) 415 Figure 6.1a and b - UWEC-WDXRF Data vs EMPA Data for the Major Elements 416 Figure 6.1c and d - UWEC-WDXRF Data vs EMPA Data for the Major Elements 417 Figure 6.1e and f - UWEC-WDXRF Data vs EMPA Data for the Major Elements

Full document contains 1,044 pages
Abstract: Obsidian tools continued to be utilized in Northern Mesopotamia well beyond the introduction of metal but have received little archaeological attention. It is widely held that obsidian sourcing can offer little new information during a period in which there is a variety of artifacts and texts available to study. Obsidian, though, is unparalleled in its widespread use and ability to be sourced, so it provides unique information about contact, exchange, and migration. Its sourcing can complement other types of information and be used to test existing hypotheses. Before the recent excavations at Tell Mozan (ancient Urkesh) in northeastern Syria, most of the information about its inhabitants, the Hurrians, was inferred from linguistic or textual evidence. Identifying the sources of their obsidian artifacts can be useful for testing some of the highly debated inferences. The research at hand involved three primary goals. I sought, first, to demonstrate a sophisticated approach to obsidian studies in the Near East and, second, to redevelop an analytical technique -- electron microprobe analysis -- for sourcing obsidian. Therefore, I assembled and analyzed a reference collection of over 900 geological obsidian specimens from dozens of sources in Turkey as well as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. I sourced a large number of artifacts (n = 97) so that I could explore spatial and temporal patterns on a site level. In addition, this analytical technique, if applied critically, can (i) control for obsidian as a mixture, (ii) measure artifacts non-destructively, and (iii) discern two chemically similar obsidian sources: Nemrut Da! and Bingöl A. Thus, based on my results, I not only differentiate these obsidians but also pinpoint the collection loci, down to a kilometer, of the Nemrut Da! obsidians found at Tell Mozan. My third goal involved identifying the sources of obsidian represented among the Bronze-Age artifacts at Tell Mozan. These results were, in turn, used to explore temporal and spatial patterns of the obsidian sources used at the site, consider broader implications for obsidian use in Bronze-Age Mesopotamia, and examine two issues regarding Urkesh and its Hurrian inhabitants. The overall similarities for two site areas suggest that people living in various parts of Urkesh had similar access to the same obsidian sources. On the other hand, all the sourced obsidian from the temple came from one flow at Nemrut Dag , and a service courtyard of the palace contains the only Cappadocian obsidian. In fact, the greatest variety of sources is found in units containing palace courtyards. Regarding the broader implications, there is evidence at Tell Mozan of production of prismatic obsidian blades and bladelets (e.g, flakes with cortex, cores, and early-series blades), suggesting they were not imported from a production center. In addition, there is a prevailing assumption that, if Bingöl B obsidian is found at a site, one can presume that all of the peralkaline obsidian artifacts came from Bingöl A, not Nemrut Dag . My results reveal that this assumption, based on maximal efficiency, is specious. The hypothesis of a Hurrian "homeland" as far northeast as Armenia (or beyond) is considered -- but not supported -- in light of my obsidian data. There are no obsidians from northeastern Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, or Russia that would point to a link to those regions. The atypical variety of obsidian sources at the site suggests that the city may have had a mountainous hinterland to the north. When compared to the existing data for other Khabur Triangle sites, my results support a possible exchange link between Tell Mozan and Tell Brak, perhaps as part of an early Hurrian kingdom.