103 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 OBSIDIAN AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR CAPPADOCIAN PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC Öğr. Gör. Fevzi Volkan Güngördü Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi volkangungordu@nevsehir.edu.tr ABSTRACT During prehistoric times, due to its natural structure and impressive color, obsidian was a common material for tool production. As a result of chemical analyses, scientists are capable for source analyses on obsidians which have unique elemental compositions in every different sources. By means of these analyses, which obsidian sources were exploited to produce obsidian tools can be identified. This information is significant for archaeologists in the process of realizing interregional connections. Cappadocia region is one of the significant obsidian sources in the Near East. Cappadocian obsidians were exploited and manufactured by local Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites and they were diffused in Syria, Levant and Cyprus. The identification of Cappadocian obsidians in different regions of the Near East is important to show the connections between Syria, Levant, Cyprus and Cappadocia in 10.000 years ago. Keywords: Obsidian, chemical analyses, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Near East, Cappadocia. OBSİDYEN VE SERAMİKSİZ NEOLİTİK DÖNEM’DE KAPADOKYA İÇIN ÖNEMİ ÖZET Prehistorik çağlarda hem doğal yapısı hem de etkileyici rengi sayesinde obsidyen alet üretiminde sıkça kullanılan bir hammaddedir. Kimyasal analizler sonucunda ana kompozisyonunun anlaşılabileceği obsidyenin, farklı kaynaklarda farklı birleşenleri içerisinde barındırması bilim adamlarına kaynak analizi yapma imkânı sağlamaktadır. Bu sayede farklı yerleşimlerde ele geçen obsidyen aletlerin üretiminde, hangi doğal kaynakların kullanıldığı saptanabilmektedir. Bu bilginin arkeologlar açısından önemi ise, yazının olmadığı prehistorik çağlarda bölgeler arası ilişkilerin obsidyen üzerinde yapılan bu analizler sonucunda saptanabilmesidir. Yakındoğu’nun en önemli obsidyen kaynaklarından biri Kapadokya bölgesidir. Kapadokya obsidyenleri günümüzden 10.000 yıl önce hem bu bölgedeki yerel Seramiksiz Neolitik Dönem yerleşimleri tarafından kullanılmış hem de Suriye, Doğu Akdeniz ve Kıbrıs gibi Yakındoğu’nun diğer bölgelerine de yayılmıştır. Yakındoğu’ da farklı bölgelerde Kapadokya obsidyenin saptanması, Kapadokya’nın 104 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 Kıbrıs, Suriye ve Doğu Akdeniz bölgeleri ile günümüzden 10.000 yıl önceki ilişkilerini göstermesi açısından önemlidir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Obsidyen, kimyasal analizler, Seramiksiz Neolitik, Yakındoğu, Kapadokya I. OBSIDIAN AND ITS CHEMICAL CONFIGURATION For prehistoric times, long before the existence of writing systems, scientists must rely on materials which are available to understand the prehistoric inter-regional connections. For that reason obsidian has a crucial significance in Near Eastern archaeology The term obsidian drives from the Roman named Obsius who lived in Ethiopia (Balkan-Atlı, 2008: 191). Categorized as a glass, obsidian consists of 70% silicon dioxide which is related to rhyolite and granite, and also some non-silicious materials (Balkan-Atlı, 2008: 191; Whittaker, 1994: 69). Obsidian results from the rapid cooling of molten rock after a volcanic eruption. If the molten rock does not cool rapidly enough, crystals separate and the rock loses its glass quality (Whittaker, 1994: 69). Obsidian mainly has a black or green color. Emergence of these different colors is related to the oxidation status of the chemical elements. For example the existence of magnetite causes a black color or hematite a reddish color and iron a green (Balkan-Atlı, 2008: 191). Especially in prehistoric times, obsidian was seen as perfect raw material for tool production. Due to its more delicate nature relative to other materials, obsidian can have a finer cutting edge. Consequently it is used to manufacture blades and projectile points, (Whittaker, 1994: 69). Geochemical analyses allow us to identify the elemental composition of obsidian samples. Archaeologists can use these signatures to locate the source of the raw material. Hence archaeologists can infer the inter-regional connections in prehistoric times by means of these geochemical analyses (Andrefsky, 2000: 41-42, Leute, 1987: 101). Scientific studies on obsidian started in 1960s and continued to develop in more recent years (Shackley, 2008: 199). Today different geochemical analysis techniques (such as X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), Particle included X-ray emission analysis (PIXIE), Electron used microprobe analysis (EMPA) and Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) are using on obsidian. Each technique requires different samplings and provides different information (Andrefsky, 2000: 43). 105 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 II. OBSIDIAN SOURCES IN THE NEAR EAST In the Near East, Anatolia, Caucasia and some Aegean islands contain obsidian deposits. Obsidian from Caucasian sources tends to be found mainly at Transcaucasian sites. On the contrary, Anatolian obsidians appear at many different regions in the Near East (Chataigner, Poidevin, Arnaud, 1998: 518). Obsidian sources in Anatolia can be separated into different groups based on location: Central Anatolia, Southeastern Anatolia, Northeastern Anatolia, Northern and Western Anatolia (Renfrew, Dixon, Cann, 1966: 33) III. OBSIDIAN SOURCES IN CAPPADOCIA In Cappadocia, obsidian deposits are known in the provinces of Nevşehir, Niğde, Aksaray, east and south-east of the south end of the Tuz Gölü (Todd, 1980: 30). In the Acıgöl area, Kaleiçi, Acıgöl, Güneydağ, Kocatepe-Acıgöl and Hotamış Dağ are the main obsidian sources (Todd, 1980: 30). The Acıgöl and Çiftlik deposits are the oldest obsidian beds in Anatolia (Ercan, Şaroğlu, Kuşcu 1994: 506). Obsidian sources in the Göllü Dağ region (Niğde, Melendiz plain) are known from the Kömürcü Köyü area, Sırça Deresi and Kayırlı (Todd, 1980:33). According to the chemical analyses, Göllü Dağ obsidians can be divided into two different groups as Göllü Dağ-East and Göllü Dağ-West (Chataigner, Poidevin, Arnaud 1998: 525-526). Moreover Nenezi Dağ contains a high dome with a large obsidian flow on its western bank and there are some highly poisonous Barium-rich obsidian sources exist in Hasan Dağ (Karakapı and Tahtayayla) (Ercan, Şaroğlu, Kuşcu, 1994:506). IIIa. Cappadocian Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites and Obsidian As it mentioned above, Cappadocia region contains numerous obsidian sources. These different obsidian deposits were exploited by both Cappadocian Neolithic sites and also some other Near Eastern Neolithic sites. In Aksaray province Aşıklı Höyük is one of the better known PrePottery Neolithic settlements. The architecture of Aşıklı Höyük consists of clustered rectangular mudbrick dwellings, streets, alleys and also some monumental buildings (Esin, 2000: 22-24; Esin, Harmankaya, 2007: 268). The chipped stone industry of Aşıklı Höyük is mainly based on obsidian. Nenezi Dağ and Kayırlı obsidian deposits were exploited by Aşıklı Höyük’s inhabitants. Knapping occured both at these sources and also at Aşıklı Höyük (Esin, Harmankaya, 2007: 266). The chipped stone 106 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 assemblage contains cores, blades, bladelets, small triangels, lunates, arrowheads, scrapers and burins (Balkan-Atlı, 1994: 221). Musular which is located only 300/400 m. northwest of Aşıklı Höyük, is another Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Aksaray province with significant obsidian artifact deposits (Özbaşaran, 2000a: 129). The PrePottery Neolithic architecture of Musular consists of Building A, units N and Z, and some rock-cut and built channels (Özbaşaran et al, 2007: 274). As at Aşıklı Höyük, the chipped stone industry of Musular is mainly obsidian and the raw material can be sourced to Göllü Dağ and Nenezi Dağ obsidian sources. The chipped stone assemblage there contains cores, flakes, blades, scrapers, arrowheads, borers and burins (Kayacan, 2003: 7, Özbaşaran, et al, 2007: 276, Duru, Özbaşaran, 2005: 22-23). Kömürcü Kaletepe which is located on the northern slope of Göllü Dağ on a rhylotic formation is an obsidian workshop where both the exploitation and knapping processes were carried out (Balkan-Atlı et al. 1999: 3, Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2001: 1). This site contains both MiddlePaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic layers (Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2007: 218). Kömürcü Kaletepe has a unique type of naviform bidirectional core which has not been found on any other Anatolian Neolithic sites (BalkanAtlı, Binder, Cauvin, 1999: 138). These cores were used to produce bidirectional blades which are significant to manufacture arrowheads. Moreover the site also yields prismatic blade production assemblages. According to Nur Balkan-Atlı and Didier Binder these two different production techniques require a high proficiency (Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2001: 12, Balkan-Atlı, Binder 2007: 219). IIIb. Cappadocian Obsidians in the Near East In the Near East, Cappadocian obsidians were found in Syria, Levant and Cyprus. In terms of diffusion, evaluations can be classified in two different aspects. Firstly, as a raw material, Cappadocian obsidians have been found in Syria, Levant and Cyprus. Göllü Dağ obsidians have been identified at Syrian Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites such as Mureybet, Cheikh Hassan and Jerf el-Ahmar. They also were recovered from the well-known Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Jericho as well as the Cypriot Neolithic site Khirokitia (Chataigner, Poidevin, Arnaud, 1998: 523-525, Renfrew, Dixon, Cann, 1968: 325). In addition, Kömürcü obsidians were found at some Syrian Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites such as Dja’ de, Mureybet and Halula (Balkan-Atlı et al. 2000: 46, Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2001: 14). Kömürcü examples have been identified in another Cypriot Neolithic site, 107 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 Shillourokambos (Balkan-Atlı et al. 2000: 46, Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2001: 14, Briois, Gratuze, Guilaine, 1997: 105). Secondly, in terms of knapping techniques, the Kömürcü Kaletepe obsidian workshop produced two types of blades: bidirectional and prismatic. Although bidirectional blade production has been documented in Syria and Levant at sites the Kaletepe style has only been recovered at Dja’ de. Prismatic blade production has been identified in Syria and Cyprus at sites such as Mureybet, Tell Halula and Shillourokambos (Balkan-Atlı et al. 2000: 46, Balkan-Atlı, Binder, 2001: 14). VI. SIGNIFICANCE OF OBSIDIAN IN CAPPADOCIAN PREPOTTERY NEOLITHIC CONTEXT Obsidian is one of the common materials for tool production especially in prehistoric times due to its fascinating color and natural structure. Its fingerprint quality is crucial for archaeologist when the process of understanding the interregional connections in prehistoric times when long before the writing systems exist. By means of source analyses on obsidian, archaeologists can identify the sources and then establish a relation between the source location and the archaeological context where the finished product belongs. The Cappadocia region has a significant role in the Near East for 10.000 years due to both its central location and its possession of valuable raw materials. In particular Cappadocia was one of the most significant obsidian producing areas of the entire Near East. Geochemical analyses show that Cappadocian obsidians reached in Syria, Levant and also Cyprus revealing long distance cultural interactions 10. 000 years ago. Moreover their presence at the Cypriot Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites Shillourokambos and Khirokitia indicate maritime connections between Cappadocia and Cyprus during earlier periods. 108 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 Map: Diffusion of the Cappadocian Obsidians 10.000 years ago REFERENCES Andrefsky, W. Jr. (2000). Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Balkan-Atlı, N. (1994). “The Typological Characteristics of Aşıklı Höyük Chipped Stone Industry.” In Hans Georg Gebel and Stefan Karol Kozlowski, eds., Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: ex oriente, 209-221. (2000). “Kapadokya Obsidyen Araştırmaları ve Kömürcü Kaletepe Obsidien Atölyesi Kazısı.” In Oktay Belli, ed., Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999). İstanbul: Başak Matbaacılık, 32-38. (2008). “Prehistoric Obsidian Mining in Göllü Dağ.” In Ü. Yalçın, H. Özbal, A. G. Paşamehmetoğlu, eds., Ancient Mining in Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean. Ankara: Atılım University, 191-208. Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D. (2001). “Obsidian exploitation and blade technology at Kömürcü-Kaletepe (Cappadocia, Turkey).” In Isabella Caneva, Cristina Lemorini, Daniela Zampetti, Paolo Biagi eds.,Beyond Tools. Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant. Berlin: ex oriente, 1-16. (2007). “Kömürcü-Kaletepe Obsidyen İşçiliği”. Özdoğan, M. N. Başgelen, eds., Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 217-222. 109 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., Cauvin, M.C. (1999). “Obsidian Sources, Workshops, and Trade in Central Anatolia.” Özdoğan, M. N. Başgelen, eds., Neolithic in Turkey The Cradle of Civilization New Discoveries. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 133-145. Balkan-Atlı, N., Binder, D., Cauvin, M.C., Faydalı, E. (1999). “Kömürcü /Kaletepe Obsidyen Atölyesi 1997 Kazısı.” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 20(1): 1-21. (2000). “1998 Kömürcü/Kaletepe Obsidyen Atölyesi Kazısı.” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 21(1): 41-50. Briois, F., Gratuze, B., Guilaine, J. (1997). “Obsidiennes du site néolithique précéramiqué de Shillourokambos (Chypre).” Paléorient 23(1): 95-112. Chataigner, C., Poidevin, J.L., Arnaud, N.O. (1998) “Turkish Occurrences of Obsidian and Use by Prehistoric Peoples in the Near East from14,000 to 6.000BP.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 85:517-537. Duru, G., Özbaşaran, M. (2005). “A ‘Non-Domestic Site in Central Anatolia.” Anatolia Antiqua 13: 15-28. Ercan, T., Şaroğlu, F., Kuşçu, İ. (1994) “Features of obsidian beds by volcanic activity in Anatolia since 25 million years BP” In Demirci. Ş., Özer, A.M., Summers, G.D., eds., Archaeometry 94 The Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium of Archaeometry. Ankara: Tübitak, 505-513. Esin, U. (2000). “Aşıklı Höyük Kurtarma Kazıları.” In Oktay Belli, ed., Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999). İstanbul: Başak Matbaacılık, 20-28. Esin, U., Harmankaya, S. (2007). “Aşıklı Höyük.” In Özdoğan, M. N. Başgelen, eds., Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 255-272. Kayacan, N. (2003). “Chipped Stone Industry of the Neolithic Site of Musular (Cappadocia): Preliminary Results.” Anatolia Antiqua 11: 1-10. Leute, U. (1987). Archaeometry, An introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology and the History of Art. - Weinheim, New York: VHC. Özbaşaran, M. (2000). “Melendiz Boyu Yerleşmelerinden: Musular.” In Oktay Belli, ed., Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999). İstanbul: Başak Matbaacılık, 44-50. Özbaşaran, M., Duru, G., Kayacan, N., Erdoğdu, B.,Buitenhuis, H. (2007). “Musular 1996-2004 Genel Değerlendirme.” In Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen, eds., Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 273-283. Shackley, M. S. (2008). “Archaeological Petrology and the Archaeometry of Lithic Materials.” Archaeometry 50: 194-205. Todd, I.A. (1980). The Prehistory of Central Anatolia I The Neolithic period. Göteborg: Paul Aström Förlag. 110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3(2014) 103-110 F. S. Güngördü / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences 3(2014) 103-110 Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E., Cann, J.R. (1966). “Obsidian and Early Cultural contact in the Near East.”Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 32: 30-72. (1968). “Further Analysis on Near Eastern Obsidians.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 319-331. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flint knapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.