Obsidian Sources in the Regions of Erzurum and Kars (Northeast Turkey)

Home , Erzurum, Kars

bs_bs_banner

Archaeometry ••, •• (2013) ••–•• doi: 10.1111/arcm.12002

OBSIDIAN SOURCES IN THE REGIONS OF ERZURUM AND KARS (NORTH-EAST TURKEY): NEW DATA*

C. CHATAIGNER

Archéorient, UMR 5133, CNRS/Université Lyon 2, 7 rue Raulin, 69007 Lyon, France

M. IS¸IKLI

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, pre- cision, 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

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.

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 Dag˘ and to the south by the Palandöken Dag˘lari. Several sources of obsidian, both primary (domes, ﬂows) and secondary (deposits in the rivers), were recorded.

Bas¸köy. In his study on the volcanism of the region of Erzurum, Pasquaré (1971) mentions a large pyroclastic volcano north-west of Bas¸köy, 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 Dag˘ları (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 Dag˘ 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 Dag˘ 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 Dag˘) 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 Dag˘’ (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).

Survey The objective of the survey was to verify the existence of the obsidian source near Bas¸köy, 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.)

Bas¸köy. The intra-mountain basin of Bas¸köy is irrigated by a tributary of the Karasu, the Tuzla Çay River, which ﬂows from the Palandöken Dag˘lari. 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 Bas¸köy. 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 Bas¸köy is occupied throughout the year. The southern ﬂank of the mountain Kus¸akli Dag˘, 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 Kus¸akli Dag˘ is necessary. This obsidian is black in colour, opaque and sometimes banded; the surface is shiny. An archaeological site (Bas¸köy 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 Bas¸köy 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 Dag˘ and Kible Tepe, should definitely be surveyed in a future mission.

Sögütlü (or Güney Dag˘). In the valley of the Adaçay, the village of Sögütlü is situated near the foot of Güney Dag˘. 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 Dag˘ 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 Dag˘. 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).

Bas¸köy. If we compare our values with those already published for Erzurum and Pasinler, we observe that the obsidians from Bas¸köy form a new chemical group, which has not pre- viously 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 Dag˘). The samples from Sögütlü are characterized by higher contents of

Fe2O3, Ti and Zr than the obsidian from Bas¸köy (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 Dag˘ samples, the ‘Pulur pebbles’ collected in the Adaçay River by Brennan (2000) and most of the samples taken on Güney Dag˘ 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) ••–•• nvriyo xod 2013, Oxford, of University © Table 1 Chemical compositions of obsidian samples from the regions of Erzurum and Kars (survey 2011). 8

(a) Oxide concentrations expressed at weight percentages (wt%) and element concentrations in parts per million (ppm)

Chemical Outcrops wt% ppm groups

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2OK2O MnO TiO2 Li B Ti Mn Zn Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Cs Ba

Archaeometry South Bas¸köy 167 1 75.3 13.9 1.44 0.024 0.48 4.16 4.16 0.041 0.082 71 47 490 314 58 141 8.6 28 178 24 6.5 56 Erzurum Bas¸köy 167 1’ 75.9 13.3 1.31 0.023 0.39 4.51 4.22 0.040 0.077 77 48 459 312 72 147 8.2 27 171 23 6.3 54 Bas¸köy 167 2 75.5 13.8 1.41 0.023 0.42 4.23 4.16 0.039 0.085 74 47 509 303 61 143 8.3 28 181 24 6.5 56 Bas¸köy 167 3 76.2 13.2 1.38 0.022 0.42 4.27 4.23 0.040 0.078 77 47 465 312 65 146 8.4 26 166 23 6.6 54 West Sögütlü 176 2 73.7 13.6 2.41 0.025 0.35 4.96 4.40 0.062 0.162 76 42 972 483 97 167 0.62 43 454 30 8.8 8.8

•• Erzurum Sögütlü 176 2’ 74.0 13.2 2.23 0.020 0.33 5.10 4.53 0.062 0.158 81 41 946 478 98 173 0.56 42 436 30 8.9 8.8 •(03 ••–•• (2013) •• , Sögütlü 176 1 72.3 14.4 2.50 0.085 0.50 5.11 4.15 0.071 0.201 60 35 1203 548 84 138 15 37 396 27 7.1 159 Sögütlü 176 1’ 72.3 14.0 2.28 0.091 0.45 5.51 4.58 0.073 0.198 68 37 1188 565 213 158 12 38 409 27 7.7 131

Sögütlü 176 3 72.5 14.3 2.48 0.087 0.46 4.93 4.35 0.075 0.208 68 37 1244 580 98 149 9.8 39 416 28 7.6 130 Chataigner C. Sögütlü 176 3’ 72.0 14.4 2.38 0.090 0.45 5.30 4.38 0.074 0.207 71 36 1241 575 93 154 12 39 413 27 7.5 134 Pasinler Pasinler 152 77.3 12.9 1.08 0.040 0.32 3.94 4.30 0.045 0.082 51 27 494 346 37 169 1.6 25 135 26 5.8 9.2 Pasinler 155 77.8 12.6 1.03 0.037 0.31 3.96 4.27 0.042 0.077 52 29 462 329 41 168 1.3 25 127 25 5.8 9.3 Pasinler 156 76.7 13.2 1.10 0.053 0.34 4.02 4.41 0.046 0.097 47 25 579 356 41 164 2.5 25 158 25 5.4 21 Pasinler 157 74.3 14.2 1.42 0.099 0.41 4.30 4.60 0.056 0.153 43 22 919 437 45 142 5.8 23 236 25 4.3 55 Sarıkamıs¸ Kizil Kilisa 159 1 76.7 12.8 1.27 0.036 0.30 4.50 4.19 0.082 0.084 46 26 502 639 76 127 1.7 38 191 28 4.0 25

North Kizil Kilisa 159 2 77.0 13.1 1.07 0.031 0.28 4.22 4.03 0.076 0.076 44 25 458 592 69 126 1.6 38 178 28 4.1 27 al et Kizil Kilisa Kizil Kilisa 159 3 77.1 12.8 1.06 0.031 0.27 4.53 4.19 0.078 0.074 46 25 441 601 72 131 1.7 36 172 26 4.1 25

Kizil Kilisa 159 4 77.0 12.9 1.04 0.033 0.26 4.42 4.17 0.076 0.077 59 25 461 591 71 128 1.7 36 178 27 4.0 26 . Kizil Kilisa 164 77.1 13.1 0.98 0.028 0.26 4.30 4.01 0.073 0.077 46 24 460 565 65 127 1.6 37 179 27 3.9 25 Sarıkamıs¸ Hamamlı 133 77.5 12.7 1.04 0.030 0.32 4.31 4.03 0.078 0.068 48 28 410 604 70 132 1.9 35 133 28 4.3 27 North Hamamlı 135 77.4 12.8 0.99 0.028 0.29 4.33 4.03 0.078 0.068 49 28 407 602 66 136 1.6 36 138 28 4.5 28 Hamamlı Hamamlı 137 77.0 13.0 1.08 0.037 0.29 4.33 4.09 0.077 0.081 45 25 488 600 72 127 3.4 37 172 27 3.9 40 Hamamlı 138 77.2 12.5 1.10 0.037 0.26 4.61 4.27 0.077 0.081 50 26 484 598 78 132 3.1 34 164 26 4.1 40 Sarıkamıs¸ Mescitli 128 77.7 13.0 0.87 0.063 0.45 3.67 4.13 0.042 0.090 37 23 540 322 30 117 18 17 83 12 3.9 422 South Mescitli 130 78.1 13.2 0.62 0.061 0.42 3.52 4.00 0.039 0.086 32 21 515 304 29 113 18 18 88 12 3.7 425 Mescitli Mescitli 129 78.3 12.5 0.78 0.055 0.41 3.92 4.10 0.042 0.080 36 24 478 329 40 120 19 17 69 13 4.2 356 Mescitli 131 78.9 12.3 0.70 0.052 0.36 3.62 4.13 0.043 0.077 38 22 461 337 33 124 15 16 65 13 4.2 322 Yaglica Yaglica 150 75.5 14.1 1.00 0.137 0.82 4.02 4.08 0.055 0.145 35 35 868 428 36 117 57 13 103 19 3.7 547 South Yaglica 151 75.3 14.0 0.99 0.135 0.82 4.19 4.24 0.055 0.145 38 36 857 422 38 125 52 12 93 18 4.0 517 Yaglica Yaglica 144 75.0 14.1 1.19 0.212 0.84 4.33 3.58 0.062 0.201 31 30 1206 481 44 100 76 13 137 18 3.0 490 Summit Yaglica 146 A 74.8 14.3 1.18 0.210 0.86 4.40 3.57 0.059 0.199 31 30 1193 459 43 99 80 13 135 17 2.9 485 Yaglica 146 B 75.2 14.0 1.14 0.209 0.82 4.36 3.60 0.060 0.196 33 29 1176 461 45 100 82 13 132 17 2.9 488 Yaglica 147 A 74.8 14.4 1.33 0.190 0.84 4.23 3.46 0.057 0.198 31 30 1187 439 41 96 80 13 138 17 2.8 496 Yaglica 147 B 74.6 14.7 1.13 0.216 0.87 4.22 3.47 0.060 0.198 30 29 1189 467 44 97 86 14 143 18 2.8 508 Mus¸ Average 70.9 15.6 1.27 0.0028 0.36 4.12 6.57 0.050 0.048 97 140 286 389 103 145 0.9 44 148 63 9.6 5.4 SD 0.9 0.9 0.02 0.0002 0.03 0.16 0.58 0.001 0.001 7 3 8 11 5 4 0.1 5 18 4 0.2 0.5 (b) Element concentrations expressed in part per million (ppm)

Chemical Outcrops ppm groups biinsucsi h ein fEzrmadKr nrhes Turkey) (north-east Kars and Erzurum of regions the in sources Obsidian La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U Ba/Zr Ba/Sr Nb/Zr Y/Zr Y/Nb La/Th

South Erzurum Bas¸köy 167 1 32 64 6.1 22 4.3 0.23 4.3 0.80 4.7 0.97 2.7 0.50 3.1 0.45 5.0 1.8 19 6.4 0.31 6.6 0.14 0.16 1.16 1.7 Bas¸köy 167 1’ 32 63 6.0 23 4.1 0.22 3.6 0.68 4.7 1.00 2.6 0.40 3.3 0.50 5.0 1.7 20 6.8 0.31 6.6 0.13 0.16 1.17 1.6 Bas¸köy 167 2 32 62 5.9 21 4.4 0.19 4.0 0.78 4.6 0.99 2.8 0.45 3.1 0.52 5.4 1.9 19 6.4 0.31 6.8 0.13 0.16 1.16 1.7 Bas¸köy 167 3 31 61 5.8 21 4.0 0.16 3.5 0.65 4.3 0.97 2.8 0.40 2.9 0.46 4.8 1.6 18 6.4 0.32 6.4 0.14 0.16 1.14 1.7 West Erzurum Sögütlü 176 2 45 87 8.7 33 6.7 0.14 6.5 1.1 7.5 1.6 4.5 0.77 5.3 0.72 11 2.0 18 6.9 0.019 14 0.07 0.10 1.45 2.6 Sögütlü 176 2’ 45 88 8.3 33 6.6 0.13 5.9 1.1 7.4 1.6 4.4 0.73 5.3 0.87 10 1.8 18 7.4 0.020 16 0.07 0.10 1.41 2.5 Sögütlü 176 1 38 76 7.6 28 5.8 0.42 5.9 1.00 6.3 1.4 4.2 0.59 4.6 0.59 9.0 1.6 14 5.9 0.40 10 0.07 0.09 1.40 2.7 Sögütlü 176 1’ 43 82 8.0 31 7.2 0.49 5.1 1.00 7.2 1.5 4.4 0.65 5.4 0.83 9.8 1.7 17 6.3 0.32 11 0.07 0.09 1.42 2.6 Sögütlü 176 3 42 82 8.0 31 6.7 0.39 5.8 1.09 6.7 1.5 4.0 0.58 5.0 0.74 9.9 1.8 16 6.1 0.31 13 0.07 0.09 1.40 2.6 Sögütlü 176 3’ 43 84 8.0 32 6.7 0.44 5.2 0.97 6.9 1.5 4.4 0.64 4.6 0.69 9.7 1.8 16 6.2 0.32 11 0.07 0.10 1.45 2.7 Pasinler Pasinler 152 42 75 6.5 22 4.0 0.03 4.0 0.65 4.0 0.94 2.8 0.44 3.3 0.51 4.7 1.7 31 11 0.068 5.8 0.20 0.19 0.96 1.3 Pasinler 155 41 73 6.3 21 4.4 0.06 3.5 0.65 4.1 0.86 2.5 0.37 3.5 0.41 4.6 1.7 31 10 0.073 7.0 0.20 0.19 0.99 1.3 Pasinler 156 45 77 6.7 22 4.4 0.07 3.4 0.61 4.0 0.83 2.5 0.41 3.4 0.51 5.3 1.7 32 10 0.13 8.3 0.16 0.16 0.98 1.4 Pasinler 157 48 83 6.9 25 4.3 0.21 3.3 0.55 3.7 0.85 2.6 0.48 3.4 0.48 6.7 1.6 30 9.3 0.23 9.6 0.10 0.10 0.95 1.6 Sarıkamıs¸ Kizil Kilisa 159 1 33 66 6.7 24 4.9 0.27 4.8 0.99 6.5 1.3 3.9 0.57 4.2 0.58 6.1 1.5 17 6.3 0.13 14 0.15 0.20 1.4 2.0 North Kizil Kilisa 159 2 33 66 6.4 23 5.4 0.25 4.9 0.93 5.9 1.4 3.6 0.60 4.6 0.62 5.8 1.7 18 6.8 0.15 16 0.16 0.21 1.3 1.9 Kizil Kilisa Kizil Kilisa 159 3 32 63 6.2 23 5.5 0.32 4.6 0.90 5.8 1.3 3.9 0.54 4.8 0.67 5.7 1.5 17 6.5 0.15 15 0.15 0.21 1.4 1.8 nvriyo xod 2013, Oxford, of University © Kizil Kilisa 159 4 33 64 6.3 24 5.2 0.25 4.6 0.94 5.9 1.3 3.8 0.59 4.2 0.68 5.8 1.5 17 6.7 0.15 15 0.15 0.20 1.4 1.9 Kizil Kilisa 164 34 65 6.5 23 5.2 0.22 4.9 0.82 6.4 1.3 4.1 0.68 5.1 0.75 6.1 1.5 19 6.7 0.14 16 0.15 0.21 1.4 1.8 Sarıkamıs¸ Hamamlı 133 25 54 5.3 20 4.5 0.15 4.1 0.86 5.9 1.2 3.6 0.53 4.1 0.54 4.7 1.6 16 7.1 0.20 14 0.21 0.26 1.2 1.6 North Hamamlı 135 26 55 5.5 21 4.5 0.23 4.7 0.88 5.9 1.2 3.8 0.52 4.0 0.68 5.1 1.6 17 6.8 0.20 17 0.20 0.26 1.3 1.6 Hamamlı Hamamlı 137 33 64 6.3 24 4.8 0.21 4.8 0.92 6.1 1.2 3.7 0.57 4.7 0.66 5.7 1.5 17 6.3 0.23 12 0.16 0.21 1.4 1.9 Hamamlı 138 32 64 5.8 22 4.9 0.19 4.5 0.88 5.7 1.2 3.5 0.55 4.1 0.70 5.3 1.5 16 6.4 0.24 13 0.16 0.21 1.3 2.0 Sarıkamıs¸ Mescitli 128 25 45 4.0 14 2.6 0.34 2.4 0.41 2.7 0.61 1.6 0.25 2.2 0.32 3.0 0.9 15 6.0 5.1 24 0.15 0.20 1.4 1.6 South Mescitli 130 26 44 4.1 15 2.6 0.35 2.6 0.43 3.0 0.60 1.8 0.25 2.3 0.37 3.0 0.9 16 5.7 4.8 24 0.14 0.20 1.5 1.6 Mescitli Mescitli 129 20 37 3.4 12 2.4 0.32 2.4 0.40 2.5 0.62 1.8 0.26 2.0 0.31 2.7 1.0 13 6.5 5.2 18 0.19 0.25 1.3 1.5 Mescitli 131 19 35 3.1 12 1.9 0.36 2.0 0.40 2.4 0.53 1.5 0.24 1.7 0.29 2.3 1.0 13 6.2 5.0 22 0.19 0.24 1.3 1.4

Archaeometry Yaglica Yaglica 150 30 49 4.1 13 2.3 0.47 2.7 0.37 2.1 0.46 1.4 0.21 1.7 0.25 3.0 1.2 19 7.3 5.3 9.7 0.18 0.13 0.71 1.6 South Yaglica 151 28 48 3.9 12 2.1 0.41 2.3 0.33 1.9 0.41 1.3 0.20 1.5 0.24 2.7 1.1 17 7.6 5.6 9.9 0.19 0.13 0.66 1.6 Yaglica Yaglica 144 28 47 4.1 14 2.2 0.44 2.1 0.32 2.2 0.45 1.3 0.23 1.8 0.24 3.6 1.1 14 5.9 3.6 6.4 0.13 0.09 0.71 2.0 Summit Yaglica 146 A 28 46 4.0 14 2.0 0.52 2.3 0.37 2.1 0.42 1.4 0.21 1.7 0.23 3.5 1.1 15 5.6 3.6 6.0 0.13 0.10 0.76 1.9 Yaglica 146 B 28 47 3.8 14 2.1 0.47 1.9 0.29 1.9 0.44 1.2 0.19 1.6 0.28 3.6 1.1 14 5.9 3.7 5.9 0.13 0.10 0.72 2.0

•• Yaglica 147 A 29 47 4.0 14 2.3 0.38 2.0 0.34 2.0 0.45 1.5 0.22 1.6 0.27 3.3 1.1 14 5.7 3.6 6.2 0.13 0.10 0.76 2.0 •(03 ••–•• (2013) •• , Yaglica 147 B 30 48 4.2 14 2.4 0.51 1.9 0.33 2.0 0.50 1.5 0.27 1.8 0.28 3.8 1.1 16 5.7 3.5 5.9 0.12 0.10 0.77 1.9 Mus¸ Average 14 36 4.1 17 4.8 0.16 5.1 1.08 7.3 1.6 4.7 0.74 5.4 0.80 6.3 4.7 18 7.7 0.036 5.9 0.43 0.29 0.69 0.79 SD 2 2 0.3 2 0.6 0.07 0.6 0.12 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.09 0.7 0.10 0.7 0.5 2 0.3 0.002 0.4 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 9 nvriyo xod 2013, Oxford, of University © 10 Archaeometry •• •(03 ••–•• (2013) •• , .Chataigner C. tal et .

Figure 3 A Ba versus Zr diagram of obsidian from the Erzurum and Pasinler regions. biinsucsi h ein fEzrmadKr nrhes Turkey) (north-east Kars and Erzurum of regions the in sources Obsidian nvriyo xod 2013, Oxford, of University © Archaeometry •• •(03 ••–•• (2013) •• ,

Figure 4 An La versus Th diagram of obsidian from the Erzurum and Pasinler regions. 11 12 C. Chataigner et al.

Table 2 Values reported by Oddone, Delerue and Frahm for the Güzelyurt/Tambura obsidian

Analyst Ref. Fe2O3 Na2O Ba Zr Nb Zn Ce Method

Oddone et al. (1997) D30 3.13 5.80 100 391 40 133 103 NAA Delerue (2007) D30.SP1 2.43 4.82 MEB–EDS Frahm (2010) EA41 (two measurements) 0.73 3.95 355 119 76 38 84 EMPA Frahm (2010) EA42 (eight measurements) 0.75 4.03 340 116 79 56 89 EMPA

Pasinler (or Karagüney Dag˘). The analyses of our obsidian samples from the Karagüney Dag˘ 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 Dag˘ (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 Mus¸ (south of Erzurum, west of Lake Van) are difficult to distinguish chemically. In fact, the obsidian of the region of Mus¸ is very poorly known; only a few samples taken by T. Ercan were analysed by

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 Bourdon- nec, we have recently been able to analyse four samples from Mus¸: 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 Kahramanma- rash 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 Mus¸. These ‘Mus¸/Pasinler’ artefacts come from contexts at the end of the third and second millennia (2300–1300 bc). Frahm (2010) believes that Mus¸ 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 Mus¸ Plain is roughly halfway between the Bingöl and Nemrut Dag˘ sources, both of which were exploited at Tell Mozan. The analyses that we have carried out on the samples from Mus¸ confirm the attribution of the artefacts of Mozan to Mus¸.

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 Dag˘, Yaglica Dag˘): its southern part is deeply cut by the Araxes River.

Situation Around Sarıkamıs¸. Several obsidian deposits were discovered around the town of Sarıkamıs¸ (Fig. 6): • Near the village of Mescitli, the big road that leads from Karakurt, in the valley of the Araxes, at Sarıkamıs¸, 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 Dag˘ (Keller and Seifried 1990; Bigazzi et al. 1998; Frahm 2010). • More to the east, near the village of S¸ehitemin, other obsidian samples were taken (Ercan et al. 1996; Bigazzi et al. 1997, 1998; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010).

Table 3 Fission track dating of obsidian outcrops in the Sarıkamıs¸ region

Sarıkamıs¸ Location Date

‘South’ Sarıkamıs¸–Karakurt road; • 4.38 1 0.23 Ma (D22) east ﬂank of Çiplak Dag˘ • 4.73 1 0.25 Ma (D28) • 4.74 1 0.25 Ma (D23) ‘South’ 3 km north of S¸ehitemin • 4.44 1 0.20 Ma (D15) village • 4.85 1 0.27 Ma (D18) ‘North’ 7–10 km south of Hamamlı • 3.55 1 0.20 Ma (D11) village • 3.76 1 0.22 Ma (D12)

• South-east of Sarıkamıs¸, obsidian was collected over a large territory south of the village of Hamamlı (Bigazzi et al. 1997, 1998; Gallet 2001; Frahm 2010). • West of Sarıkamıs¸, near the village of Handere, another obsidian deposit was discovered (Gallet 2001). It was perhaps from this spot that the sample ‘from west of Sarıkamıs¸’, mentioned by Keller and Seifried (1990), came. The dates established by ﬁssion tracks for the deposits of Mescitli, S¸ehitemin 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 Sarıkamıs¸ (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 Dag˘, 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 Dag˘ (or Digor). Outcrops of obsidian located about 10 km south of the town of Digor, near the village ofYaglica, on the north-east ﬂank ofYaglica Dag˘, 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).

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 Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸, 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 Dag˘i (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 Sarıkamıs¸. A thorough geological survey of the entire sector north of Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸, at the foot of the volcanoes Ziyaret Dag˘ and Agbaba Dag˘, 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 Dag˘, 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 Sarıkamıs¸. 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 Dag˘ that most of the samples called ‘Mescitli’ or ‘south of Sarıkamıs¸’ come (Keller and Seifried 1990; Ercan et al. 1996; Gallet 2001).

Yaglica Dag˘. South-east of the city of Kars,Yaglica Dag˘ 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

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 Kes¸is¸kiran, 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 red- brown 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 Dag˘ 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 Sarıkamıs¸. The chemical analyses (Table 1) conﬁrm that the different deposits of obsidian in the region of Sarıkamıs¸ are divided into two groups (Figs 7 and 8): • The ‘Sarıkamıs¸ South’ group, represented by the obsidian from Mescitli and S¸ehitemin, 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 ‘Sarıkamıs¸ 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

Figure 7 A Ba versus Zr diagram of obsidian from the Kars region. biinsucsi h ein fEzrmadKr nrhes Turkey) (north-east Kars and Erzurum of regions the in sources Obsidian nvriyo xod 2013, Oxford, of University © Archaeometry •• •(03 ••–•• (2013) •• , Figure 8 A Ba/Zr versus Y/Nb diagram of obsidian from the Kars region. 19 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 Sarıkamıs¸ analysed by Frahm (2010) were labelled Mescitli and/or S¸ehitemin and integrate well into the Sarıkamıs¸ South group. A single sample (EA04) was labelled ‘ca. 5 km SE Hamamlı village’. This sample also integrates into the Sarıkamıs¸ South group, while the deposit at Hamamlı is characteristic of Sarıkamıs¸ 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 S¸ehitemin 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 Dag˘ and near the conﬂuence with the Akhurian or Arpaçay (Gallet 2001) (Fig. 6), show that all these samples come from Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Dag˘. The chemical analyses of the obsidian samples fromYaglica Dag˘ 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 Sarıkamıs¸ South. However, in the Ba/Zr versus Y/Nb diagram (Fig. 8), the group of the south flank of Yaglica Dag˘ 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 low- titanium 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 Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸ South, the 19 other pieces analysed coming from deposits in Armenian lands (Chataigner and Gratuze 2013a,b). The deposits of Sarıkamıs¸ 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 long- distance 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 Sarıkamıs¸ South

Figure 9 Caucasian sites with obsidian supply from the Kars region.

(17% of the pieces analysed) and Sarıkamıs¸ 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, 1 which provided most (50%) of the supply for the village, lies 1 /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: Sarıkamıs¸ North (60%), Yaglica Dag˘ (30%) and Sarıkamıs¸ South (10%) (Chataigner and Gratuze 2013a,b). Obsidian pebbles from the deposits of Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Sarıkamıs¸ 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 Transcau- casia. 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.

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 Sarıkamıs¸—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 Dag˘ et Acigöl, Turquie): genèse, insta- bilité, 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,

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 S¸arog˘lu, F., 1998, Geology of the Quaternary volcanic centres of the east Anatolia, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85, 173–210.