bs_bs_banner
Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
doi: 10.1111/arcm.12002
O B SI D I A N SOURCE S IN T HE REG I O N S O F ER ZU R U M A N D
K A RS (NORT H-E AST T URKEY ) : N EW D A TA *
C. CHATAIGNER
Archéorient, UMR 5133, CNRS/Université Lyon 2, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon, France
M. IŞIKLI
Atatürk University in Erzurum, Faculty of Letters, Department of Archaeology, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey
B. GRATUZE†
IRAMAT CEB, UMR 5060, CNRS/Université d’Orléans, 3 D rue de la Férollerie, 45071 Orléans Cedex 2, France
and V. ÇIL
Atatürk University, Oltu Faculty of Earth Sciences, 25400 Oltu/Erzurum, Turkey
The obsidian sources on the Erzurum–Kars Plateau have not been extensively surveyed, and
their geochemical signatures are still poorly understood. Yet a significant number of artefacts
from archaeological sites in Georgia and Armenia have produced chemical compositions that
are unrelated to any Turkish or Caucasian source analysed so far. Their origins may lie in
these poorly known deposits. The objective of the collaborative project undertaken by the
University of Erzurum and the French mission ‘Caucasus’ is to study the sources of obsidian
in the Erzurum and Kars regions, in order to shed light on the intensity of exploitation of this
material, and to highlight the exchange networks that may have existed between north-eastern
Turkey and the southern Caucasus. The analyses that we have carried out on the samples
taken during this exploratory survey have enabled a definite extension of the territory of
circulation of this obsidian to western Transcaucasia. The lack of knowledge concerning the
diffusion of obsidian from the regions of Erzurum and Kars thus appears for the moment
mainly related to insufficient geochemical characterization of the sources, confirming the
importance of future surveys.
KEYWORDS: OBSIDIAN GEOCHEMISTRY, NORTH-EAST TURKEY, OBSIDIAN OUTCROPS,
LA–ICP–MS ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
The Erzurum–Kars Plateau makes up the northern part of the East Anatolian High Plateau,
formed by the northward convergence of the Arabian Plate with Eurasia, which began in the Early
Miocene. The uplift of this region reached an average elevation of 2 km above sea level during
the Middle Miocene (c. 13–11 Ma) and the volcanic activity began immediately after the uplift.
This volcanism extended to the entire region, producing lava flows and pyroclastic products that
are variable in their composition (from basalts to high silica rhyolites/obsidians). Although
*Received 11 July 2012; accepted 5 October 2012
†Corresponding author: email [email protected]
© University of Oxford, 2013
2
C. Chataigner et al.
fissure eruptions dominated the volcanic activity, there are numerous small volcanic centres,
corresponding essentially to central eruption sites (Keskin et al. 1998; Yılmaz et al. 1998; Sengor
et al. 2008).
These sources of obsidian on the Erzurum–Kars Plateau have not been extensively surveyed,
and their geochemical signatures are still poorly understood. Yet a significant number of artefacts
from archaeological sites in Georgia and Armenia have produced chemical compositions that are
unrelated to any Turkish or Caucasian source analysed so far. Their origins may lie in these
poorly known deposits.
The collaborative project undertaken by the University of Erzurum and the French mission
‘Caucasus’ has as its objective the study of sources of obsidian in the Erzurum and Kars regions,
in order to shed light on the intensity of exploitation of this material and the exchange networks
that may have existed between north-eastern Turkey and southern Caucasus.
METHODS
Surveys
To obtain an exhaustive database on the sources of obsidian from north-eastern Turkey, the first
step is to conduct systematic geological surveys in order to identify the primary deposits (domes,
flows) and secondary deposits (pebbles in the river beds) and to take samples for geochemical and
geochronological analyses.
The obsidian outcrops known at the present time only represent part of the actual extension
of the deposits; the information found in geological publications or transmitted orally indicates
the existence of obsidian in zones where it has never been studied. Moreover, the few samples
known today for the north-east Turkey sources, and which circulate from laboratory to laboratory, come from earlier surveys that recorded the location of the samples in an imprecise or
even erroneous manner (‘misidentified’ samples; Frahm 2010). To the criteria (accuracy, precision, reproducibility and validity) necessary for a valid study of provenance (Frahm 2012), it
is necessary to add a first condition, without which the other four unfortunately have no value:
the exactness of the location of sampling. If this basic piece of data is erroneous, any analysis,
even of the highest quality, will give only incorrect results. Thus the phase of survey and
inventory is fundamental.
These methodical surveys will be carried out following the technique used by Mouralis et al.
(2002) in central Anatolia. A thorough study of the geological and geomorphological contexts as
well as detailed cartography will establish the exact locations of the obsidian deposits and the
succession of eruptive episodes to which they belong.
An initial exploratory survey of short duration was carried out in October 2011 in the provinces
of Erzurum and Kars (Fig. 1) in order to evaluate the extent of the task that lay ahead in
identifying sources of obsidian in these regions. This survey, organised by M. Isıklı, professor at
the Atatürk University of Erzurum, was undertaken with the participation of V. Cil, geologist at
the Oltu Faculty of Geosciences, Aysegul Akın, student at the University of Erzurum, and C.
Chataigner, director of the Caucasus mission of the MAEE (CNRS, Lyon, France).
Analyses
Laser ablation high resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA–HR–ICP–
MS) is the method that is currently used for obsidian sourcing at the Centre Ernest-Babelon
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
3
Figure 1 The location of the Erzurum and Kars regions in eastern Turkey.
(IRAMAT, Orleans, France). All the measurements presented in this paper were carried out using
the high-resolution mass spectrometer Element XR (from Thermo Fisher Scientific) coupled with
a VG UV Laser probe laser ablation sampling device that operates at 266 nm. The analytical
protocol used, which allows the determination of 38 elements in obsidian samples, is the same as
the one described in Chataigner and Gratuze (2013a,b).
In order to relate the obsidian samples from our recent geological survey to obsidian data
published by other research teams, our analytical results are compared with results obtained using
different analytical methods, bulk analysis either directly on a solid sample (powder-NAA, XRF:
Brennan 1995; Keller et al. 1996; Oddone et al. 1997; Keskin et al. 1998) or on dissolved
samples (ICP–OES and ICP–MS: Renfrew et al. 1966; Keskin et al. 1998; Poidevin 1998; Gallet
2001; Delerue 2007) and punctual methods operating either directly on the surface of the object
or after polishing (SEM–EDS and WDS, EPMA, PIXE: Delerue 2007; Frahm 2010). Not all of
these methods determine the same elements, and it is thus not possible to plot all the published
results on the same graphs.
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
4
C. Chataigner et al.
THE ERZURUM REGION
The Erzurum and Pasinler basins (Fig. 2) were formed during the Miocene as a result of localized
extensions associated with the activity of major strike–slip faults when the Arabian and Eurasian
Plates collided.
Situation
Around Erzurum. The basin of Erzurum is drained by the Karasu River, which is one of the two
tributaries of the Euphrates. This basin, which was filled with lacustrine deposits during the
Quaternary, is bordered on the north by the Dumlu Dağ and to the south by the Palandöken
Dağlari. Several sources of obsidian, both primary (domes, flows) and secondary (deposits in the
rivers), were recorded.
Başköy. In his study on the volcanism of the region of Erzurum, Pasquaré (1971) mentions a large pyroclastic volcano north-west of Başköy, which rises to a height of 600 m above
the plateau. This volcano presents a mantle of vitreous laminated tuffs, among which some
layers consist entirely of pure obsidian up to 15–20 cm thick. This deposit has never been
sampled.
Güzelyurt (or Tambura). Pasquaré (1971) also mentions obsidian-rich pyroclastic cones in the
Kible Tepe system, which presents parallel alignments in a south-west/north-east direction,
Figure 2 A map of the Erzurum–Pasinler region, with obsidian deposits and archaeological sites mentioned in the text
(after Brennan 2000).
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
5
and rises at the edge of the Erzurum plain upstream from Tambura (the present-day village of
Güzelyurt). Some obsidian samples, taken by T. Ercan ‘near Tambura’, were dated by fission
tracks to 6.90 1 0.32 Ma (plateau age) (Bigazzi et al. 1998) and then analysed by different
laboratories (Oddone et al. 1997; Delerue 2007; Frahm 2010).
Certain authors consider this deposit to be the most important obsidian source in the
Erzurum region (Frahm 2010). However, during a survey carried out in 2006, K. Kobayashi
found only poor-quality, small-grained obsidian there, and stated that this type of obsidian is
not suitable for making tools because of its non-vitrified state and small grain size (Kobayashi
and Sagona 2008).
Adaçay River. A field survey near the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age site of Pulur (located in the
village of Ömertepe, 12 km west of Erzurum) led to the discovery of water-worn obsidian
cobbles, up to 20 cm in diameter, in the adjacent Adaçay River, which originates in the
Palandöken Dağları (Brennan 1995). Other deposits located downstream were mentioned,
south of Ilica, not far from the confluence with the Karasu River (Poidevin 1998; Delerue
2007).
Sögütlü. West of Ömertepe, on the left bank of the Adaçay River, the eastern flank of the Güney
Dağ is scattered with blocks of obsidian and, on the summit, this material is plentiful as loose
stones in a kilometre-wide depression (Poidevin 1998). White ashy material containing obsidian
fragments also appears in outcrops on the lower slope, near the village of Sögütlü; this formation
was dated by Ar/Ar to 8.4 1 0.2 Ma (Poidevin 1998). Four samples of obsidian from Güney Dağ
were analysed and named ‘West Erzurum’ (Poidevin 1998).
Around Pasinler. The Pasinler Basin is part of the headwaters of the Araxes River, which drains
east to the Caspian Sea. In historical times, it was an important trade and human migration route,
and it is likely that this has been the case throughout much of the Holocene (Collins et al. 2005).
Obsidian pebbles are numerous in the Araxes River (secondary deposits) and outcrops have been
found north of Pasinler (primary sources).
Araxes River. Up river from the town of Pasinler, in the bed of the Araxes River, many
water-worn cobbles measuring up to 20 cm in diameter were found (Brennan 2000).
North of Pasinler. The Büyükdere (or Malikom) River, which flows into the Araxes near
Pasinler, cuts through the dome of Ziyaret Tepe (or Karagüney Dağ) to the north of the village of
Büyükdere. On the east flank of the gorge are located five separate obsidian flows, each one an
outcrop up to several metres thick; they are interbedded with obsidian-rich tuffs. Pebbles and
small cobbles of obsidian also occur in the volcanic tuffs exposed on the west side of the gorge
(Brennan 2000). These outcrops, discovered at the beginning of the 1990s, have been mentioned
under various names by the laboratories that have analysed a few samples: ‘Tizgi’ (Bigazzi et al.
1997, 1998), ‘Pasinler’ (Poidevin 1998), ‘Malikom Gorge’ (Brennan 2000) and ‘Hasanbaba Dağ’
(Frahm 2010). Samples have been dated by fission tracks from 6.17 1 0.28 Ma to 5.55 1 0.26 Ma
(plateau ages) (Bigazzi et al. 1997, 1998) and by Ar/Ar to 5.4 1 0.1 Ma (plateau age) (Poidevin
1998).
In 2006, a new survey defined the locations of outcrops on the dome itself: between the
villages of Kotandüzü and Calyazı, and further north near Calyazı village (Kobayashi and
Sagona 2008).
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
6
C. Chataigner et al.
Survey
The objective of the survey was to verify the existence of the obsidian source near Başköy,
mentioned by Pasquaré (1971), and to investigate the outcrops close to the villages of Güzelyurt,
Sögütlü and north of Pasinler (Fig. 2). (Additional data about the location of the obsidian
outcrops are available online.)
Başköy. The intra-mountain basin of Başköy is irrigated by a tributary of the Karasu, the
Tuzla Çay River, which flows from the Palandöken Dağlari. This depression appears to have
once been occupied by a lake that progressively turned into a swamp. At the present time, a
dam on the Tuzla Çay has created a reservoir, which occupies the western part of the basin of
Başköy. Climatically, the basin enjoys a favourable location, protected from the north winds by
the nearby mountains: in spite of the altitude (nearly 2200 m), the village of Başköy is occupied throughout the year.
The southern flank of the mountain Kuşakli Dağ, which rises to the west of the village, is
scattered with blocks of obsidian (GPS # 167: N 39°42.836’ E 41°08.985’; alt. 2147 m). The
outcrop is visible mainly at the lower end of the slope; higher up, the blocks are more rare.
Outcrops at other points on the mountain have been mentioned by the villagers. A thorough
survey of the entire Kuşakli Dağ is necessary. This obsidian is black in colour, opaque and
sometimes banded; the surface is shiny.
An archaeological site (Başköy Hüyük) was discovered on the left bank of the Tuzla Çay River,
on the edge of the swampy depression. Early Bronze Age (Kuro-Araxes culture) pottery sherds
were collected there, as well as medieval pottery (GPS # 170: N 39°41.828’ E 41°08.490’; alt.
2151 m).
Güzelyurt (or Tambura). Going north, to join the valley of the Adaçay, we investigated the
mountains to the south and west of Güzelyurt and passed the GPS point mentioned by Kobayashi
and Sagona (2008): we found no obsidian. Shepherds from Güzelyurt, who have criss-crossed the
mountains around the village for years, have confirmed that they have never seen obsidian in this
sector, whereas they know the deposit of Başköy well.
The origin of the obsidian sampled by T. Ercan ‘near Tambura’ thus remains to be defined. It
hardly seems likely that it comes from the immediate environs of the village. However, the region
that extends to the west of Güzelyurt, and includes the ranges of Tabye Dağ and Kible Tepe,
should definitely be surveyed in a future mission.
Sögütlü (or Güney Dağ). In the valley of the Adaçay, the village of Sögütlü is situated near the
foot of Güney Dağ. Small blocks of obsidian are scattered on the eastern flank of this mountain
(GPS #177: N 39°53.403’ E 41°06.149’; 1852 m), on the right bank of a torrent that carries down
from the top a large quantity of blocks and pebbles, which are deposited in the Adaçay River. The
confluence of the two watercourses is situated near the village of Ömertepe where the archaeological site of Pulur, which produced numerous obsidian artefacts (Chalcolithic to Late Bronze
Age) (Brennan 2000), is located.
The obsidian of Güney Dağ is black or dark grey, mainly uniform and opaque, and rarely,
banded with light grey bands.
Pasinler. At the south-west foot of the Karagüney volcano (or Ziyaret Tepe), on the left bank
of the Büyükdere River (GPS # 155 N 40°03.976’ E 41°37.244’; alt. 2035 m), there is an outcrop
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
7
of black obsidian that is uniform, opaque, shiny and of excellent quality. It was exploited in
prehistory, as several artefacts were collected, among which were a unipolar nucleus and a large
blade.
On the way to the village of Kotandüzü (GPS # 156 N 40°04.666’ E 41°37.749’; alt. 2175 m),
many blocks of obsidian (shiny black for the most part, but also mottled black and red) are
scattered on the ground. Further north, the deposit appears in a section made by the road (GPS
# 157 N 40°06.394’ E 41°38.913’; alt. 2273 m).
The two other outcrops, discovered by Kobayashi along the road leading to Çaliazı (Kobayashi
and Sagona 2008), indicate the large extent of the obsidian source of Karagüney Dağ. A thorough
survey is essential in the future to locate all the outcrops.
On the west bank of the Büyükdere River, pebbles, cobbles and small outcrops of obsidian
(black, uniform, opaque, shiny) occur in volcanic tuffs (GPS #153 N 40°05.061’ E 41°36.848’;
alt. 1954 m). Near the village of Pelitli, scattered obsidian blocks are visible along the road
leading north-west to Karakale, suggesting the presence of other outcrops nearby (GPS #154
N 40°06.303’ E 41°38.031’; alt. 2087 m).
Chemical analyses
The analyses carried out at the IRAMAT laboratory (Orléans, France) have enabled more
complete determination of the geochemical characteristics of the obsidian sources in the region
of Erzurum–Pasinler (Table 1).
Başköy. If we compare our values with those already published for Erzurum and Pasinler,
we observe that the obsidians from Başköy form a new chemical group, which has not previously been identified. Although it has barium and zirconium (Fig. 3) contents similar to
those of obsidian originating from Pasinler, elements such as lanthanum, thorium (Fig. 4)
and also lithium, boron, magnesium, zinc, cerium and uranium enable these flows to be
differentiated.
Sögütlü (or Güney Dağ). The samples from Sögütlü are characterized by higher contents of
Fe2O3, Ti and Zr than the obsidian from Başköy (Table 1). Two variants can be distinguished
(Figs 3 and 4):
• A first group with a zirconium content of around 500 ppm and a barium content of around
100 ppm. To this variant belong our Güney Dağ samples, the ‘Pulur pebbles’ collected in the
Adaçay River by Brennan (2000) and most of the samples taken on Güney Dağ by Poidevin
(1998) (‘W-Erzurum 1’).
• A second group, represented only by the sample ‘W-Erzurum 2’ from Poidevin, characterized
by lower zirconium (around 300 ppm) and higher barium contents (around 600 ppm). This
sample, which under the microscope shows many phenocrysts and microlites of plagioclase,
would correspond to an ultimate evolution of the magmatic chamber characterized by an
advanced stage of fractionated crystallization.
Güzelyurt (or Tambura). Some analysis reported by Oddone, Delerue and Frahm are attributed
to outcrops referred to as ‘Güzelyurt’ or ‘Tambura’. The origin of the samples mentioned remains
to be determined. The published analyses are rare and their results are not in agreement (Table 2
and Fig. 3).
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Outcrops
Başköy 167 1
Başköy 167 1’
Başköy 167 2
Başköy 167 3
Sögütlü 176 2
Sögütlü 176 2’
Sögütlü 176 1
Sögütlü 176 1’
Sögütlü 176 3
Sögütlü 176 3’
Pasinler 152
Pasinler 155
Pasinler 156
Pasinler 157
Kizil Kilisa 159 1
Kizil Kilisa 159 2
Kizil Kilisa 159 3
Kizil Kilisa 159 4
Kizil Kilisa 164
Hamamlı 133
Hamamlı 135
Hamamlı 137
Hamamlı 138
Mescitli 128
Mescitli 130
Mescitli 129
Mescitli 131
Yaglica 150
Yaglica 151
Yaglica 144
Yaglica 146 A
Yaglica 146 B
Yaglica 147 A
Yaglica 147 B
Average
SD
Chemical
groups
South
Erzurum
West
Erzurum
Pasinler
Sarıkamış
North
Kizil Kilisa
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Sarıkamış
North
Hamamlı
Sarıkamış
South
Mescitli
Yaglica
South
Yaglica
Summit
Muş
70.9
0.9
75.0
74.8
75.2
74.8
74.6
75.5
75.3
77.7
78.1
78.3
78.9
77.5
77.4
77.0
77.2
76.7
77.0
77.1
77.0
77.1
77.3
77.8
76.7
74.3
73.7
74.0
72.3
72.3
72.5
72.0
75.3
75.9
75.5
76.2
SiO2
15.6
0.9
14.1
14.3
14.0
14.4
14.7
14.1
14.0
13.0
13.2
12.5
12.3
12.7
12.8
13.0
12.5
12.8
13.1
12.8
12.9
13.1
12.9
12.6
13.2
14.2
13.6
13.2
14.4
14.0
14.3
14.4
13.9
13.3
13.8
13.2
Al2O3
1.27
0.02
1.19
1.18
1.14
1.33
1.13
1.00
0.99
0.87
0.62
0.78
0.70
1.04
0.99
1.08
1.10
1.27
1.07
1.06
1.04
0.98
1.08
1.03
1.10
1.42
2.41
2.23
2.50
2.28
2.48
2.38
1.44
1.31
1.41
1.38
Fe2O3
0.0028
0.0002
0.212
0.210
0.209
0.190
0.216
0.137
0.135
0.063
0.061
0.055
0.052
0.030
0.028
0.037
0.037
0.036
0.031
0.031
0.033
0.028
0.040
0.037
0.053
0.099
0.025
0.020
0.085
0.091
0.087
0.090
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
MgO
0.36
0.03
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.84
0.87
0.82
0.82
0.45
0.42
0.41
0.36
0.32
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.32
0.31
0.34
0.41
0.35
0.33
0.50
0.45
0.46
0.45
0.48
0.39
0.42
0.42
CaO
wt%
4.12
0.16
4.33
4.40
4.36
4.23
4.22
4.02
4.19
3.67
3.52
3.92
3.62
4.31
4.33
4.33
4.61
4.50
4.22
4.53
4.42
4.30
3.94
3.96
4.02
4.30
4.96
5.10
5.11
5.51
4.93
5.30
4.16
4.51
4.23
4.27
Na2O
6.57
0.58
3.58
3.57
3.60
3.46
3.47
4.08
4.24
4.13
4.00
4.10
4.13
4.03
4.03
4.09
4.27
4.19
4.03
4.19
4.17
4.01
4.30
4.27
4.41
4.60
4.40
4.53
4.15
4.58
4.35
4.38
4.16
4.22
4.16
4.23
K2O
0.050
0.001
0.062
0.059
0.060
0.057
0.060
0.055
0.055
0.042
0.039
0.042
0.043
0.078
0.078
0.077
0.077
0.082
0.076
0.078
0.076
0.073
0.045
0.042
0.046
0.056
0.062
0.062
0.071
0.073
0.075
0.074
0.041
0.040
0.039
0.040
MnO
0.048
0.001
0.201
0.199
0.196
0.198
0.198
0.145
0.145
0.090
0.086
0.080
0.077
0.068
0.068
0.081
0.081
0.084
0.076
0.074
0.077
0.077
0.082
0.077
0.097
0.153
0.162
0.158
0.201
0.198
0.208
0.207
0.082
0.077
0.085
0.078
TiO2
97
7
31
31
33
31
30
35
38
37
32
36
38
48
49
45
50
46
44
46
59
46
51
52
47
43
76
81
60
68
68
71
71
77
74
77
Li
140
3
30
30
29
30
29
35
36
23
21
24
22
28
28
25
26
26
25
25
25
24
27
29
25
22
42
41
35
37
37
36
47
48
47
47
B
286
8
1206
1193
1176
1187
1189
868
857
540
515
478
461
410
407
488
484
502
458
441
461
460
494
462
579
919
972
946
1203
1188
1244
1241
490
459
509
465
Ti
389
11
481
459
461
439
467
428
422
322
304
329
337
604
602
600
598
639
592
601
591
565
346
329
356
437
483
478
548
565
580
575
314
312
303
312
Mn
103
5
44
43
45
41
44
36
38
30
29
40
33
70
66
72
78
76
69
72
71
65
37
41
41
45
97
98
84
213
98
93
58
72
61
65
Zn
145
4
100
99
100
96
97
117
125
117
113
120
124
132
136
127
132
127
126
131
128
127
169
168
164
142
167
173
138
158
149
154
141
147
143
146
Rb
8.6
8.2
8.3
8.4
Sr
0.9
0.1
76
80
82
80
86
57
52
18
18
19
15
1.9
1.6
3.4
3.1
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
2.5
5.8
0.62
0.56
15
12
9.8
12
ppm
Chemical compositions of obsidian samples from the regions of Erzurum and Kars (survey 2011).
(a) Oxide concentrations expressed at weight percentages (wt%) and element concentrations in parts per million (ppm)
Table 1
44
5
13
13
13
13
14
13
12
17
18
17
16
35
36
37
34
38
38
36
36
37
25
25
25
23
43
42
37
38
39
39
28
27
28
26
Y
148
18
137
135
132
138
143
103
93
83
88
69
65
133
138
172
164
191
178
172
178
179
135
127
158
236
454
436
396
409
416
413
178
171
181
166
Zr
63
4
18
17
17
17
18
19
18
12
12
13
13
28
28
27
26
28
28
26
27
27
26
25
25
25
30
30
27
27
28
27
24
23
24
23
Nb
9.6
0.2
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.5
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
5.8
5.8
5.4
4.3
8.8
8.9
7.1
7.7
7.6
7.5
6.5
6.3
6.5
6.6
Cs
5.4
0.5
490
485
488
496
508
547
517
422
425
356
322
27
28
40
40
25
27
25
26
25
9.2
9.3
21
55
8.8
8.8
159
131
130
134
56
54
56
54
Ba
8
C. Chataigner et al.
Outcrops
Başköy 167 1
Başköy 167 1’
Başköy 167 2
Başköy 167 3
Sögütlü 176 2
Sögütlü 176 2’
Sögütlü 176 1
Sögütlü 176 1’
Sögütlü 176 3
Sögütlü 176 3’
Pasinler 152
Pasinler 155
Pasinler 156
Pasinler 157
Kizil Kilisa 159 1
Kizil Kilisa 159 2
Kizil Kilisa 159 3
Kizil Kilisa 159 4
Kizil Kilisa 164
Hamamlı 133
Hamamlı 135
Hamamlı 137
Hamamlı 138
Mescitli 128
Mescitli 130
Mescitli 129
Mescitli 131
Yaglica 150
Yaglica 151
Yaglica 144
Yaglica 146 A
Yaglica 146 B
Yaglica 147 A
Yaglica 147 B
Average
SD
Chemical
groups
South Erzurum
West Erzurum
Pasinler
Sarıkamış
North
Kizil Kilisa
Sarıkamış
North
Hamamlı
Sarıkamış
South
Mescitli
Yaglica
South
Yaglica
Summit
Muş
14
2
28
28
28
29
30
30
28
25
26
20
19
25
26
33
32
33
33
32
33
34
42
41
45
48
45
45
38
43
42
43
32
32
32
31
La
36
2
47
46
47
47
48
49
48
45
44
37
35
54
55
64
64
66
66
63
64
65
75
73
77
83
87
88
76
82
82
84
64
63
62
61
Ce
4.1
0.3
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.4
3.1
5.3
5.5
6.3
5.8
6.7
6.4
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.7
6.9
8.7
8.3
7.6
8.0
8.0
8.0
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
Pr
17
2
14
14
14
14
14
13
12
14
15
12
12
20
21
24
22
24
23
23
24
23
22
21
22
25
33
33
28
31
31
32
22
23
21
21
Nd
(b) Element concentrations expressed in part per million (ppm)
4.8
0.6
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.6
2.6
2.4
1.9
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.4
5.5
5.2
5.2
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.3
6.7
6.6
5.8
7.2
6.7
6.7
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.0
Sm
0.16
0.07
0.44
0.52
0.47
0.38
0.51
0.47
0.41
0.34
0.35
0.32
0.36
0.15
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.27
0.25
0.32
0.25
0.22
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.21
0.14
0.13
0.42
0.49
0.39
0.44
0.23
0.22
0.19
0.16
Eu
5.1
0.6
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.0
4.1
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.3
6.5
5.9
5.9
5.1
5.8
5.2
4.3
3.6
4.0
3.5
Gd
1.08
0.12
0.32
0.37
0.29
0.34
0.33
0.37
0.33
0.41
0.43
0.40
0.40
0.86
0.88
0.92
0.88
0.99
0.93
0.90
0.94
0.82
0.65
0.65
0.61
0.55
1.1
1.1
1.00
1.00
1.09
0.97
0.80
0.68
0.78
0.65
Tb
7.3
0.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.4
5.9
5.9
6.1
5.7
6.5
5.9
5.8
5.9
6.4
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.7
7.5
7.4
6.3
7.2
6.7
6.9
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.3
Dy
1.6
0.2
0.45
0.42
0.44
0.45
0.50
0.46
0.41
0.61
0.60
0.62
0.53
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.94
0.86
0.83
0.85
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.97
1.00
0.99
0.97
Ho
ppm
4.7
0.7
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.5
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.8
4.1
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.6
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.8
Er
0.74
0.09
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.27
0.21
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.53
0.52
0.57
0.55
0.57
0.60
0.54
0.59
0.68
0.44
0.37
0.41
0.48
0.77
0.73
0.59
0.65
0.58
0.64
0.50
0.40
0.45
0.40
Tm
5.4
0.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.5
2.2
2.3
2.0
1.7
4.1
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.4
5.3
5.3
4.6
5.4
5.0
4.6
3.1
3.3
3.1
2.9
Yb
0.80
0.10
0.24
0.23
0.28
0.27
0.28
0.25
0.24
0.32
0.37
0.31
0.29
0.54
0.68
0.66
0.70
0.58
0.62
0.67
0.68
0.75
0.51
0.41
0.51
0.48
0.72
0.87
0.59
0.83
0.74
0.69
0.45
0.50
0.52
0.46
Lu
6.3
0.7
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.8
3.0
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.3
4.7
5.1
5.7
5.3
6.1
5.8
5.7
5.8
6.1
4.7
4.6
5.3
6.7
11
10
9.0
9.8
9.9
9.7
5.0
5.0
5.4
4.8
Hf
4.7
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.6
Ta
18
2
14
15
14
14
16
19
17
15
16
13
13
16
17
17
16
17
18
17
17
19
31
31
32
30
18
18
14
17
16
16
19
20
19
18
Th
7.7
0.3
5.9
5.6
5.9
5.7
5.7
7.3
7.6
6.0
5.7
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.8
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.7
11
10
10
9.3
6.9
7.4
5.9
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.4
U
0.036
0.002
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
5.3
5.6
5.1
4.8
5.2
5.0
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.24
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.068
0.073
0.13
0.23
0.019
0.020
0.40
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
Ba/Zr
5.9
0.4
6.4
6.0
5.9
6.2
5.9
9.7
9.9
24
24
18
22
14
17
12
13
14
16
15
15
16
5.8
7.0
8.3
9.6
14
16
10
11
13
11
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.4
Ba/Sr
0.43
0.02
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.14
Nb/Zr
0.29
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Y/Zr
0.69
0.05
0.71
0.76
0.72
0.76
0.77
0.71
0.66
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.95
1.45
1.41
1.40
1.42
1.40
1.45
1.16
1.17
1.16
1.14
Y/Nb
0.79
0.01
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
La/Th
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
9
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
C. Chataigner et al.
Figure 3 A Ba versus Zr diagram of obsidian from the Erzurum and Pasinler regions.
10
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
11
Figure 4 An La versus Th diagram of obsidian from the Erzurum and Pasinler regions.
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
12
C. Chataigner et al.
Table 2 Values reported by Oddone, Delerue and Frahm for the Güzelyurt/Tambura obsidian
Analyst
Ref.
Oddone et al. (1997)
Delerue (2007)
Frahm (2010)
Frahm (2010)
D30
D30.SP1
EA41 (two measurements)
EA42 (eight measurements)
Fe2O3
Na2O
Ba
Zr
Nb
Zn
Ce
Method
3.13
2.43
0.73
0.75
5.80
4.82
3.95
4.03
100
391
40
133
103
355
340
119
116
76
79
38
56
84
89
NAA
MEB–EDS
EMPA
EMPA
Pasinler (or Karagüney Dağ). The analyses of our obsidian samples from the Karagüney
Dağ confirm that this volcano is one of the sources of the ‘Pasinler group’, defined by the
samples collected so far near this town: north of Pasinler (Poidevin 1998; Delerue 2007), in the
basal tuffs in the environs of Pasinler (Keskin et al. 1998), in the valley of the Araxes near this
town (Brennan 2000) and north of the village of Tizgi (Oddone et al. 1997; Frahm 2010)
(Figs 3 and 4).
In the ‘Pasinler group’, the variations in Ba, Rb, Zr and La contents, which show a continuous
increase, suggest the existence of several flows produced by the magmatic chamber and also the
probable existence of several vents. The consistency of the Ti/Zr and Nb/Zr ratios confirms that
all these samples are co-magmatic (Poidevin 1998).
Diffusion
The archaeological artefacts attributed to the sources of Erzurum and Pasinler are very few. Most
come from sites of these regions, as well as from the plain of Bayburt (Brennan 2000).
In the region of Pasinler (Fig. 2), the site of Sos Hüyük, occupied from the middle of the fourth
millennium to the end of the first millennium bc (from the Late Chalcolithic to the Iron Age), and
the sites of Tepecik Koy 1 and Tepecik 2 (Bronze Age), have produced artefacts in obsidian that
comes exclusively from the Pasinler source (Brennan 2000).
In the Erzurum region, of the 20 samples coming from six Bronze Age sites (Pulur, Karaz,
Cinis, Asiklar Höyük, Askale Höyük and Alaca Höyük: Fig. 2), only four come from the deposit
situated to the north of Pasinler; the other 16 artefacts originate from Güney Dağ (or Sögütlü)
(Brennan 2000). The hypothetical deposit of ‘Tambura’ is not represented.
In the plain of Bayburt (Fig. 5), which lies north-west of Erzurum on the south flank of the
Pontides range, the obsidian of Pasinler predominates: it is represented by 11 of the 12 samples
analysed, which come from a Chalcolithic site (Gundulak Tepe), and four Early Bronze Age sites
(Çaryiryolu Tepe 2, Kilise Tepe, Ivikler Tepesi and Büyük Tepe: Brennan 1995, 2000). The
twelfth artefact, from Ivikler Tepesi, could come from the obsidian source at Erzincan analysed
by Poidevin (1998). Brennan (2000) states that the relatively small quantity of obsidian present
in the Bayburt region, as well as the small size of the individual fragments, suggests infrequent
contact between the Bayburt and Pasinler areas.
For the Near East, the following attributions to the source of Pasinler have been proposed:
• An obsidian bladelet (TK 4082) from Kurdu (Fig. 5), situated in south-east Turkey, near the
Mediterranean Sea, found in an Amuq E/Ubaid (fifth millennium bc) level (Bressy et al. 2005).
Frahm questions this attribution in affirming that the sources of Pasinler and Muş (south of
Erzurum, west of Lake Van) are difficult to distinguish chemically. In fact, the obsidian of the
region of Muş is very poorly known; only a few samples taken by T. Ercan were analysed by
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
13
Figure 5 Diffusion of the sources of obsidian from the Erzurum–Pasinler region.
Oddone et al. (1997), Delerue (2007) and Frahm (2010). However, thanks to F.-X. Le Bourdonnec, we have recently been able to analyse four samples from Muş: their composition differs
clearly for several minor and trace elements (Ti, Nb, La, Ce, Cs and Zn) from that of Pasinler. The
artefact of Kurdu definitely comes from Pasinler.
• A small piece of obsidian from Domuztepe, situated not far from Kurdu in the Kahramanmarash plain (Fig. 5), was found in a Halaf context (sixth millennium bc) (Healey 2007). This
obsidian is black with red inclusions. As the results of analysis have not been published, it is
impossible to confirm (or invalidate) this determination.
• Six of the artefacts from Tell Mozan in Syria, in the Khabur basin (Fig. 5), were attributed
by Frahm (2010) to the sources of Pasinler or Muş. These ‘Muş/Pasinler’ artefacts come
from contexts at the end of the third and second millennia (2300–1300 bc). Frahm (2010)
believes that Muş is the most probable origin for the obsidian of Tell Mozan, because the
distance between the site and the deposit ‘is only’ 200 km, while it is 340 km through the
mountainous terrain to Pasinler, and also because the Muş Plain is roughly halfway between
the Bingöl and Nemrut Dağ sources, both of which were exploited at Tell Mozan. The analyses
that we have carried out on the samples from Muş confirm the attribution of the artefacts of
Mozan to Muş.
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
14
C. Chataigner et al.
Figure 6 A map of the Kars region.
THE KARS REGION
The Kars region (Fig. 6) forms a large plateau between 1500 and 2000 m asl, with only a few
isolated elevations above 3000 m (Ala Dağ, Yaglica Dağ): its southern part is deeply cut by the
Araxes River.
Situation
Around Sarıkamış. Several obsidian deposits were discovered around the town of Sarıkamış
(Fig. 6):
• Near the village of Mescitli, the big road that leads from Karakurt, in the valley of the Araxes,
at Sarıkamış, cuts through a volcanic sequence made up of pyroclastics, where obsidian may be
observed as blocks measuring from 1–2 cm to 1–2 m in pink–yellow tuffs (Keller and Seifried
1990; Ercan et al. 1996). Other flows are visible north of Mescitli, on the flank of Çiplak Dağ
(Keller and Seifried 1990; Bigazzi et al. 1998; Frahm 2010).
• More to the east, near the village of Şehitemin, other obsidian samples were taken (Ercan et al.
1996; Bigazzi et al. 1997, 1998; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010).
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
Table 3
15
Fission track dating of obsidian outcrops in the Sarıkamış
region
Sarıkamış
Location
Date
‘South’
Sarıkamış–Karakurt road;
east flank of Çiplak Dağ
• 4.38 1 0.23 Ma (D22)
• 4.73 1 0.25 Ma (D28)
• 4.74 1 0.25 Ma (D23)
‘South’
3 km north of Şehitemin
village
• 4.44 1 0.20 Ma (D15)
• 4.85 1 0.27 Ma (D18)
‘North’
7–10 km south of Hamamlı
village
• 3.55 1 0.20 Ma (D11)
• 3.76 1 0.22 Ma (D12)
• South-east of Sarıkamış, obsidian was collected over a large territory south of the village of
Hamamlı (Bigazzi et al. 1997, 1998; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010).
• West of Sarıkamış, near the village of Handere, another obsidian deposit was discovered
(Gallet 2001). It was perhaps from this spot that the sample ‘from west of Sarıkamış’, mentioned
by Keller and Seifried (1990), came.
The dates established by fission tracks for the deposits of Mescitli, Şehitemin and Hamamlı
show that at least two generations of obsidian, separated by a time gap of about a million years,
are present in the region of Sarıkamış (Bigazzi et al. 1998) (Table 3).
To the east and to the south of the city of Kars
Araxes River. Innocenti has indicated obsidian in the Araxes valley: a sample (AG247) has
been dated by K/Ar to 6.9 1 0.9 Ma (Innocenti et al. 1982). According to Poidevin (1998), this
deposit is located about 5–10 km east of Gaziler, not far from the confluence of the Araxes and
the Akhurian.
Kars River. Obsidian pebbles were collected in the valley of the Kars River, at three
locations:
• from Akbaba Dağ, a small mountain situated 15 km south-west of the city of Kars (Keller
et al. 1996; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010).
• Near the village of Gelırlı, 12 km south of Kars; two of them were dated by fission tracks by
Bigazzi et al. (1997, 1998): 4.13 1 0.21 Ma (D7) and 4.02 1 0.20 Ma (D9); the sample from
Gelırlı analysed by Gallet (2001) was an artefact.
• A few kilometres from the confluence with the Akhurian (or Arpaçay) River, near the village
of Küçük Çatma (or Aküzüm) (Keller et al. 1996; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010).
Yaglica Dağ (or Digor). Outcrops of obsidian located about 10 km south of the town of Digor,
near the village of Yaglica, on the north-east flank of Yaglica Dağ, have been mentioned in several
articles (Innocenti et al. 1982; Ercan et al. 1996; Keller et al. 1996; Oddone et al. 1997; Bigazzi
et al. 1998; Frahm 2010). They are generally called ‘Digor’ or ‘Kars-Digor’.
This obsidian has been dated by K/Ar to 2.7 1 0.3 Ma (Innocenti et al. 1982) and by fission
tracks to 3.0 1 0.21 Ma (Bigazzi et al. 1998). Only seven chemically analysed samples have been
published (Oddone et al. 1997; Delerue 2007; Frahm 2010).
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
16
C. Chataigner et al.
Survey
The objective of our survey in the Kars region was to study an obsidian deposit in the province
of Oltu, a deposit that had never before been analysed, and to investigate the sources of Sarıkamış
and Digor (Fig. 6). (Additional data about the location of the obsidian outcrops are available
online.)
Kizil Kilisa. The geologists of the Atatürk University branch at Oltu know the obsidian of this
region very well; the students use it, as well as other semi-precious stones, to make jewellery
(rings, necklaces).
The source of the obsidian is found near the border between the provinces of Oltu and
Sarıkamış, all around the seasonal village of Kizil Kilisa, at an altitude of about 2300 m. The
fields north-west of the village, at the foot of Kumru Daği (2845 m), are scattered with blocks of
obsidian (GPS #159 N 40°25.516 E 42°27.210’; alt. 2300 m), and the outcrop is visible in the
slope that edges the road. The villagers inform us that another outcrop exists higher up, in the
forest, but that it is not possible to go there, as it is a protected zone. Different varieties of obsidian
are present: black, uniform, opaque, shiny; grey opaque with whitish veins; black with red–brown
veins; and mottled red–brown and black.
On the left bank of the Ayudere River, in front of the village (GPS #164 N 40°24.870’
E 42°27.411’; alt. 2314 m), rises a hill that is also scattered with obsidian blocks, which are black
opaque with red–brown veins and rare white inclusions or mottled black and red–brown.
These outcrops of obsidian, which will be called ‘Kizil Kilisa’ until the volcanic vents
from which these lava flows originated can be precisely determined, are located some
15 km north-west of Sarıkamış. A thorough geological survey of the entire sector north of
Sarıkamış is absolutely essential in order to make a list of the different flows and their centres of
emission.
Hamamli. Some 10 km south-east of Sarıkamış, at the foot of the volcanoes Ziyaret Dağ and
Agbaba Dağ, is the village of Hamamlı, at an altitude of 2200 m. Everywhere in the fields that
extend south of the village and which are drained by streams descending the Agbaba Dağ,
scattered blocks are visible (GPS #135; N 40°18.131’ E 42°41.824’; alt. 2213 m). They are of
black obsidian, opaque and shiny, mainly uniform, but sometimes with rare brown bands.
At the eastern edge of the village, a small quarry exposes veins of black obsidian in a matrix
of whitish volcanic tuff (GPS #134; N 40°18.284’ E 42°42.118’; alt. 2216 m). A road leading to
the south-west crosses an outcrop 3–4 km further on (GPS #137: N 40°17.026 E 42°40.760’; alt.
2047 m). The obsidian is black in colour, uniform, opaque and shiny.
Mescitli. Near the village of Mescıtlı passes the big road that links Karakurt to Sarıkamış. This
road cuts through levels of ignimbrites in which are bands of obsidian outcrops (GPS #128:
N 40°13.193’ E 42°38.737’; alt. 1825 m). These outcrops are probably due to a pyroclastic surge
(Gallet 2001). Obsidian is present on both sides of the road: it is mainly shiny black, translucent,
with fine bands, and sometimes mottled red–brown and black, opaque.
It is from this zone at the south foot of Çiplak Dağ that most of the samples called ‘Mescitli’
or ‘south of Sarıkamış’ come (Keller and Seifried 1990; Ercan et al. 1996; Gallet 2001).
Yaglica Dağ. South-east of the city of Kars, Yaglica Dağ is a mountain about 15 km in diameter,
rising to an altitude of 2900 m. It dominates the neighbouring plain by about 600 m, but the
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
17
Araxes valley to the south by more than 1500 m. On the approach to Yaglica (Kagızman district),
the fields on either side of the road are scattered with obsidian blocks (GPS #142: N 40°14.319
E 42°20.836’; alt. 1975 m). These blocks are small, some 10 cm in diameter: the material is black
and opaque, with many whitish inclusions. It hardly seems suitable for knapping.
On either side of the road, small quarries have been dug into the flank of the mountain. The
inhabitants of the village of Yaglica extract fragments of obsidian to use in construction (as a
binder for concrete). This is again a black opaque obsidian with many whitish inclusions; it
outcrops in volcanic tuff (GPS #143: N 40°14.175 E 042°20.405’; alt. 2021 m).
The road leading to the village of Keşişkiran, to the west, passes directly over an outcrop (GPS
#144: N 40°14.548’ E 43°19.749’; alt. 2134 m). Here, the obsidian is matte black and contains
fewer inclusions. Further along the road, in the cuts visible on the left side, various varieties of
obsidian outcrop:
• shiny black with grey bands and many whitish inclusions, but also mottled red–brown and
black with inclusions (GPS #146: N 40°14.551’ E 43°19.620’; alt. 2154 m);
• matte black with rare inclusions, red-brown uniform with rare inclusions, mottled redbrown and black with many small inclusions (GPS #147: N 40°14.696’ E 43°19.301’; alt.
2173 m).
In the descent towards Kagızman and the Araxes valley, a small Iron Age fortress appears, of
which enclosure walls and many remains of buildings are still present (GPS #149: N 40°13.112’
E 43°18.971’; alt. 1950 m). The ground is scattered with artefacts in obsidian of very high
quality, without inclusions.
A hundred metres lower down on the slope is an outcrop of obsidian, the texture of which is
quite different from what we have collected so far. It is a shiny black material, that is uniform,
without any inclusions visible to the naked eye. It outcrops in a whitish gangue of volcanic tuff,
coloured yellow in places by sulphur deposits (GPS #150; N 40°12.878’ E 43°18.778’; alt.
1830 m).
A few hundred metres lower down, in the descent towards Kuruyayla, a new outcrop appears
that also contains obsidian of superb quality, with different varieties: shiny black uniform and
red–brown with black veins (GPS #151: N 40°12.544’ E 43°18.841’; alt. 1690 m). Below the
village of Kuruyayla, many obsidian fragments shine on the slopes and small blocks are scattered
over the road.
Thus the survey on Yaglica Dağ has shown:
• the abundance of obsidian and the large number of outcrops that must be sampled to determine
the different variants present on the mountain;
• the distinction between two groups—in the summit zone, an obsidian containing many whitish
inclusions, and on the southern flank, an obsidian of very high quality, without inclusions.
Chemical analyses
Region of Sarıkamış. The chemical analyses (Table 1) confirm that the different deposits of
obsidian in the region of Sarıkamış are divided into two groups (Figs 7 and 8):
• The ‘Sarıkamış South’ group, represented by the obsidian from Mescitli and Şehitemin, is
characterized by notable contents of barium, as well as relatively low contents of heavy rare
earths (yttrium, erbium and ytterbium). This group, which is the oldest (4.9–4.4 Ma; Bigazzi
et al. 1998), comes from a fairly undifferentiated magma (Gallet 2001).
• The ‘Sarıkamış north’ group, represented by the obsidian from Kizil Kilisa, Handere and
Hamamlı, is characterized by a low barium content, as well as higher values of yttrium and
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
C. Chataigner et al.
Figure 7 A Ba versus Zr diagram of obsidian from the Kars region.
18
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
19
Figure 8 A Ba/Zr versus Y/Nb diagram of obsidian from the Kars region.
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
20
C. Chataigner et al.
especially zirconium. This group, the latest (3.8–3.5 Ma; Bigazzi et al. 1998), comes from a more
evolved magma, in which zircon is found as micro-crystals (Gallet 2001).
Most of the samples from Sarıkamış analysed by Frahm (2010) were labelled Mescitli and/or
Şehitemin and integrate well into the Sarıkamış South group. A single sample (EA04) was
labelled ‘ca. 5 km SE Hamamlı village’. This sample also integrates into the Sarıkamış South
group, while the deposit at Hamamlı is characteristic of Sarıkamış North—as the analyses of
Poidevin and Gallet (Gallet 2001), Delerue (2007) and our analyses show. It is possible that, as
for other samples of the corpus put together by Frahm, there were errors of geographical location
in the transmitted material (Frahm 2010, ‘misidentified’ samples). Moreover, in the field, the
obsidian flows of Hamamlı and of Şehitemin are contiguous, and errors of attribution concerning
the origin of the samples are possible. It is thus essential to carry out a thorough geological survey
with identification of the different obsidian flows, and to find the centres of eruption.
Valley of Kars. The analyses of the pebbles collected by Poidevin in the valley of the Kars River,
from Akbaba Dağ and near the confluence with the Akhurian or Arpaçay (Gallet 2001) (Fig. 6),
show that all these samples come from Sarıkamış North sources (Figs 7 and 8). In fact, pebbles
carried down by the Kars River were found as far away as the Akhurian canyon, which forms the
frontier between Turkey and Armenia, just downstream from the confluence with the Kars River
(Chataigner and Gratuze 2013a,b).
Yaglica Dağ. The chemical analyses of the obsidian samples from Yaglica Dağ show that, on the
Ba versus Zr diagram (Fig. 7), the obsidian from the summit zone forms a distinct assemblage,
but those of the south flank are close to the obsidian of Sarıkamış South. However, in the Ba/Zr
versus Y/Nb diagram (Fig. 8), the group of the south flank of Yaglica Dağ is well individualized.
The comparison of the values published by Frahm (2010) with our data shows that Frahm’s
high-titanium group (EA36) may correspond to our Yaglica Summit group, while the lowtitanium group (EA37) probably corresponds to our southern flank group.
Diffusion
A better understanding of the geochemical signatures of the different deposits of obsidian in the
region of Sarıkamış and Yaglica has enabled the attribution of several artefacts from the west of
Armenia to these sources. Some artefacts from Georgia were also attributed to these sources.
Western Armenia. The circulation of obsidian between the different deposits of Kars and
western Armenia is henceforth attested to have occurred from the Mesolithic to the late Bronze
Age (Fig. 9).
The cave of Kmlo, in the middle valley of the Kasakh, occupied at the very beginning of the
Holocene (tenth to eighth millennia bc), has produced an obsidian sample from Sarıkamış South,
the 19 other pieces analysed coming from deposits in Armenian lands (Chataigner and Gratuze
2013a,b). The deposits of Sarıkamış South are far from Kmlo (about 5 days’ walk). In Mesolithic
times, mobility and interaction at multiple spatial scales are well attested. Some of the longdistance transport of lithic materials may have been embedded in the long-distance acquisition of
more ‘symbolic’ materials, which required either negotiation with groups local to the source areas
or ‘transactions during seasonal ceremonies’ (Lovis et al. 2006).
In the late Neolithic (the first half of the sixth millennium bc), the village of herders and
farmers at Aratashen, in the lower valley of the Kasakh, produced artefacts from Sarıkamış South
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
21
Figure 9 Caucasian sites with obsidian supply from the Kars region.
(17% of the pieces analysed) and Sarıkamış North (10%) (Chataigner and Gratuze 2013a,b).
These deposits are situated 5 or 6 days’ walk from the site, towards the west; the source at Arteni,
which provided most (50%) of the supply for the village, lies 11/2 day’s walk in the same
direction. Arteni is situated not far from the ‘salt mountain’ of Tuzluca, which rises on the right
bank of the Araxes, near its confluence with the Akhurian. It is possible that this place played an
important role as a meeting and trading place for the populations of the region of Kars and the
plain of the Ararat, a role that it played up to the 19th century (Ouoskherdjan 1828).
In the Early Bronze Age, the site of Karmrakar (10 analysed artefacts), in the upper valley of
the Akhurian (north-western Armenia), was supplied with obsidian only from the region of Kars:
Sarıkamış North (60%), Yaglica Dağ (30%) and Sarıkamış South (10%) (Chataigner and Gratuze
2013a,b). Obsidian pebbles from the deposits of Sarıkamış North were transported by means of
the Kars River up to its confluence with the Akhurian and deposited on its banks; it is probable
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
22
C. Chataigner et al.
that at least a part of the obsidian supply from Sarıkamış North came from these secondary
deposits.
In the Late Bronze Age, the site of Keti, established not far from Karmrakar, produced obsidian
from Arteni, but also from Sarıkamış North and Yaglica (Chataigner and Gratuze 2013a,b). The
territory of supply of the upper Akhurian villagers was appreciably the same as that of their
predecessors of the Early Bronze Age.
Georgia. The recent study of some obsidian pieces found on the Upper Palaeolithic site of
Ortvale Klde (Fig. 9) in Georgia, in the basin of the River Kvirila, has shown that for two artefacts
the obsidian came from Sarıkamış North, and that a slightly different third example probably
came from another deposit of the same source (Le Bourdonnec et al. 2012).
CONCLUSION
Throughout this exploratory survey, we realized how poorly the obsidian sources of north-eastern
Turkey are known and to what degree they represented a remarkable potential as a raw material,
in abundance and in quality.
An extensive work of survey remains to be accomplished, as the outcrops that we have
observed only represent a part of the territory in which obsidian sources are present. The exact
location of each deposit, the volcanic context of the eruption from which it came, the conditions
(relief, altitude, climate etc.) of accessibility to the material—all these parameters must be taken
into account to carry out sampling accurately and to understand the possibilities for exploitation.
The diffusion of obsidian from north-eastern Turkey appears to have been, in our present state
of knowledge, mainly local, as the evidence from Near Eastern sites remains limited. However,
the analyses that we have carried out on the samples taken during this exploratory survey have
enabled a definite extension of the territory of circulation of this obsidian to western Transcaucasia. The lack of knowledge concerning the diffusion of obsidian from the regions of Erzurum
and Kars thus appears for the moment mainly related to insufficient geochemical characterization
of the sources, confirming the importance of future surveys.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the authorities of Atatürk University in Erzurum for their
support, and to the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs for the funding of the
exploratory survey. They are grateful to F.-X. Le Bourdonnec (IRAMAT, France) for providing
samples of obsidian from Mus.
REFERENCES
Bigazzi, G., Poupeau, G., Bellot-Gurlet, L., and Yegingil, Z., 1998, Provenance studies of obsidian artefacts in Anatolia
using the fission-track dating method: an overview, in L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: du volcan à l’outil
(eds. M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.-L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner), 69–89,
BAR International Series 738, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Bigazzi, G., Yegingil, Z., Ercan, T., Oddone, M., and Özdogan, M., 1997, Age determination of obsidian bearing
volcanics in Eastern Anatolia using fission track dating method, Geological Bulletin of Turkey, 40(2), 57–72 (in
Turkish).
Brennan, P., 1995, Obsidian in the Bayburt–Erzurum area, eastern Anatolia, Cultural interaction in the Near East: papers
read at a symposium held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29–30 September
1994) (ed. G. Bunnens), 27–36, Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series vol. 5, Peeters Press, Louvain.
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
Obsidian sources in the regions of Erzurum and Kars (north-east Turkey)
23
Brennan, P., 2000, Obsidian from volcanic sequences and recent alluvial deposits, Erzurum district, north-eastern
Anatolia: chemical characterisation and archaeological implications, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 37, 128–52.
Bressy, C., Poupeau, G., and Yener, K. A., 2005, Cultural interactions during the Ubaid and Halaf periods: Tell Kurdu
(Amuq Valley, Turkey) obsidian sourcing, Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 1560–5.
Chataigner, C., and Gratuze, B., 2013a, New data on the exploitation of obsidian in the southern Caucasus (Armenia,
Georgia) and eastern Turkey. Part 1: Source characterization, Archaeometry (in press).
Chataigner, C., and Gratuze, B., 2013b, New data on the exploitation of obsidian in the southern Caucasus (Armenia,
Georgia) and eastern Turkey. Part 2: Obsidian procurement from the Upper Paleolithic to the Late Bronze Age,
Archaeometry (in press).
Collins, P., Rust, D., Bayraktutan, S., and Turner, S., 2005, Fluvial stratigraphy and palaeoenvironments in the Pasinler
Basin, eastern Turkey, Quaternary International, 140–1, 121–34.
Delerue, S., 2007, L’obsidienne dans le processus de Néolithisation du Proche-Orient (12000–6500 av. J.-C. cal.), Thèse
de doctorat, France.
Ercan, T., Saroglu, F., and Kuscu, I., 1996, Features of obsidian beds formed by volcanic activity in Anatolia, in
Archaeometry 94: the proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Archaeometry, Ankara 9–14 May 1994 (eds. S. Demirci,
A. M. Özer and G. D. Summers), 505–13, Tübitak, Ankara.
Frahm, E., 2010, 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, PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Frahm, E., 2012, Evaluation of archaeological sourcing techniques: reconsidering and re-deriving Hughes’ four-fold
assessment scheme, Geoarchaeology: An international Journal, 27, 166–74.
Gallet, S., 2001, Les obsidiennes de la région de Kars et de Sarıkamış—géochimie et application à l’archéologie, Travail
d’étude et de recherche, Université de Clermont-Ferrand.
Healey, E., 2007, Obsidian as an indicator of inter-regional contacts and exchange: three case-studies from the Halaf
period, Anatolian Studies, 57, 171–89.
Innocenti, F., Mazzuoli, R., Pasquaré, G., Radicati di Brozolo, F., and Villari, L., 1982, Tertiary and Quaternary volcanism
of the Erzurum–Kars area (eastern Turkey): geochronological data and geodynamic evolution, Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research, 13, 223–40.
Keller, J., and Seifried, C., 1990, The present status of obsidian source identification in Anatolia and the Near East, PACT,
25(4), 57–87.
Keller, J., Djerbashian, R., Karapetian, S., Pernicka, E., and Nasedkin, V., 1996, Armenian and Caucasian obsidian
occurrences as sources for the Neolithic trade: volcanological setting and chemical characteristics, in Archaeometry
94: the Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Archaeometry, Ankara 9–14 May 1994 (eds. S. Demirci, A. M. Özer
and G. D. Summers), 69–86, Tübitak, Ankara.
Keskin, M., Pearce, J. A., and Mitchell, J. G., 1998, Volcano-stratigraphy and geochemistry of collision-related volcanism
on the Erzurum–Kars Plateau, northeastern Turkey, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85, 355–404.
Kobayashi, K., and Sagona, A., 2008, A survey of obsidian sources in the provinces of Erzurum, Erzincan, Rize and
Bitlis, 2006, Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi, 25(2), 185–96.
Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Nomade, S., Poupeau, G., Guillou, H., Tushabramishvili, N., Moncel, M.-H., Pleurdeau, D.,
Agapishvili, T., Voinchet, P., Mgeladze, A., and Lordkipanidze, D., 2012, Multiple origins of Bondi Cave and Ortvale
Klde (NW Georgia) obsidians and human mobility in Transcaucasia during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic,
Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 1317–30.
Lovis, W., Whallon, R., and Donahue, R., 2006, Social and spatial dimensions of Mesolithic mobility, Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 25, 271–4.
Mouralis, D., Pastre, J.-F., Kuzucuoglu, C., Türkecan, A., Atici, Y., Slimak, L., Guillou, H., and Kunesch, S., 2002, Les
complexes volcaniques rhyolitiques quaternaires d’Anatolie centrale (Göllü Dağ et Acigöl, Turquie): genèse, instabilité, contraintes environnementales, Quaternaire, 13(3), 219–28.
Oddone, M., Yegingil, Z., Bigazzi, G., Ercan, T., and Ozdogan, M., 1997, Chemical characterisations of Anatolian
obsidians by instrumental and epithermal neutron activation analysis, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, 224(1–2), 27–38.
Ouoskherdjan, J., 1828, Mémoire de Jean Ouoskherdjan, prêtre arménien de Wagarchabad, in Mémoires relatifs à l’Asie
contenant des recherches historiques, géographiques et philologiques sur les peuples de l’Orient (ed. H. J. Klaproth),
228–309, Librairie Orientale, Paris.
Pasquaré, G., 1971, Cenozoic volcanics of the Erzurum area (Turkish Armenia), Geologische Rundschau, 60, 900–11.
Poidevin, J.-L., 1998, Les gisements d’obsidienne de Turquie et de Transcaucasie: géologie, géochimie et chronométrie,
in L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient : du volcan à l’outil (eds. M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze,
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••
24
C. Chataigner et al.
N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.-L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner), 105–203, BAR International Series 738, Archaeopress,
Oxford.
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E., and Cann, J. R., 1966, Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East, Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society, 32, 30–72.
Schneider, G., 1990, Herkunft von Obsidianartefakten in Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen, 21, 67–72.
Sengor, A. M., Özeren, M., Keskin, M., Sakinç, M., Özbakir, A., and Kayan, I., 2008, Eastern Turkish high plateau as
a small Turkic-type orogen: implications for post-collisional crust-forming processes in Turkic-type orogens, Earth
Science Reviews, 90, 1–48.
Yılmaz, Y., Güner, Y., and Şaroğlu, F., 1998, Geology of the Quaternary volcanic centres of the east Anatolia, Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85, 173–210.
© University of Oxford, 2013, Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–••