“Empires and resources: Central Anatolian obsidian at Urkesh (Tell Mozan, Syria) during the Akkadian period,”
Journal of Archaeological Science 40, pp. 1122-1135.
Central and Eastern Anatolia, because of the presence of many volcanos, was from the Palaeolithic period onward one of the most important sources of obsidian for both Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia.
This paper presents the analysis on obsidian artefacts of the Bronze Age found at Urkesh: around the 97% of these items (probably considered as prestigious objects) turned out to be made of Eastern Anatolian obsidian.
The introduction (paragraph 1) presents the main obsidian sources in Anatolia (namely Acıgöl, Göllü Daǧ, Nenesi Daǧ, Hasan Daǧ [Central Anatolia] and the Bingöl sources, Muş, Nemrut Daǧ, Meydan Daǧ and Tendürek Daǧ [Eastern Anatolia]) and retrace the ancient Mediterranean (both costal and ground) routes, identifying Mesopotamia as the Central Anatolian obsidian ‘interaction zone’, while the Levant and Anatolia where the ‘interaction zone’ of Eastern Anatolian obsidian.
Paragraph 2 deals with the relationship between Hurrians and Akkadians and the possibility of Akkadian geopolitical interest in Northern Mesopotamia (some scholars stressing a direct control of Akkadian empire in the area, others convergingly opposing this reconstruction).
Paragraph 3 describes the paths towards the identification of Tell Mozan with Urkesh, underlining the role of the city in the control of the Mardin pass, within the frame of metal trade (mostly towards Diyarbakır, literally ‘the real of copper’). Despite its importance, the authors stress Urkesh was never a larger political center, i.e. it “did not develop beyond city-state” (p. 1124).
The reasons for such an evidence are explicated in paragraph 4, suggesting a political interdiction or limit of the Akkadian empire on the area (as also testified by the interdynastic marriage between Naram-Sin’s daughter Tar’am-Agade and probably a king of Urkesh).
Paragraph 5 describes the methods and materials, i.e. the artefacts analysed (97 samples on a total of 820 obsidian items, around 12% of the assemblage, dating from 2400 BC to 1300 BC) and the methods of analysis. Sub-paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 focus respectively on the obsidian assemblage and sourcing sample, on geochemical analyses and source identification, and on magnetic analyses for quarry distinction.
Paragraph 6 explores the results, presenting sourced artefacts and their contexts: sub-paragraph 6.1 offers geochemical results (underlining the high percentage of obsidian from Kömürcü and the Göllü Daǧ), while sub-paragraph 6.2 displays magnetic results (also in this case detecting of obsidian from two different quarries at Kömürcü); sub-paragraph 6.3 deals with the stratigraphic context of the finds, i.e. the service courtyard (AK, see AK projection) of the Royal Palace.
Paragraph 7 offers an interpretation and a discussion about the diffusion of obsidian at Urkesh (and in Northern Mesopotamia, as well): sub-paragraph 7.1 suggests a possible arrival via the Middle Euphrates, while sub-paragraph 7.2 allegedly advances the hypothesis of a comparison with some Aegean parallels (i.e. the ‘piggybacking’ on metals); sub-paragraph 7.3 describes a ‘metal paradox’: “In the case of Akkadians potentially accessing Central Anatolian metals such as silver, lead, and copper (and thus Göllü Daǧ obsidian), there is an apparent paradox. There was not only copper ore in the Tur Abdin highlands near Diyarbakır but also silver (and lead). In fact, one Hurrian myth relates the tale of a young god, Silver, who lives in the mountainous hinterland and travels to Urkesh in search of his father […]. Copper, silver, and lead apparently were readily available via the Mardin Pass; however, Göllü Daǧ obsidian artefacts at Urkesh (and some lead isotope signatures in silver) imply the Akkadians may have accessed these metals from Central Anatolia via a supra-regional exchange network. Would, though, Central Anatolian metals have supplemented or replaced Diyarbakır resources? The sole evidence we have at present […] is that Eastern Anatolian obsidians are not yet identified in the same stratum as the Göllü Daǧ obsidian” (p. 1131). Sub-paragraph 7.4 investigates Eastern Anatolian obsidians the possible role of transhumant people in the trading of the row material, from Anatolia to Northern Syria; the following sub-paragraph 7.5 continues on this way, further discussing the concepts (and realities) of states, nomads and territoriality (i.e., capability of having control on a certain territory); sub-paragraph 7.6 deals with the topic of a possible role played by trading also on the definition and determination of elite identity.
Paragraph 8 concludes recalling the data presented in the previous paragraphs and stressing the key-role of Urkesh in the commercial and political situation of the third millennium BC, on the border between the Akkadian empire (to the South) and the Transcaucasian people (to the North).
[About this topic, cf. mostly Frahm 2014, here above and Frahm and Feinberg 2013b].