Papers
Obsidian Assemblage of Mezraa Teleilat: Evidence of Cultural and Chronological Continuation from Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic to Pottery Neolithic
Neo-Lithics 2/07,
Discussion and Conclusions
In conclusion, obsidian was an indispensable material for the Mezraa Teleilat residents throughout the Neolithic period. Over time, there is a notable increase in obsidian in the Transitional phase compared to PPNB, and a subsequent decrease in PN. In other words, its frequency rises and falls through time. What is striking is that consumption of green obsidian continues through all phases. Most of the obsidian was imported from East Anatolia’s obsidian sources, while Central Anatolian obsidian was rarely present. The Neolithic inhabitants sought two specific types of obsidian from eastern sources – not black, gray, or brown, but green obsidian, particularly the translucent and semi-translucent types. Since
Phase IV, these two types were most widely used obsidians and in demand at Mezraa Teleilat. A slight shift in quantity and importance from the translucent green to the semi-translucent green obsidian occurred after Phase IV. This may be due to either a bias in archaeological recovery or possibly a shift in cultural preference or availability of sources. These two obsidian types were most likely imported from either Bingöl A or Nemrud Dağ. While the distance between Mezraa Teleilat and Bingöl is approximately 332 km (206 miles), the Nemrud
Dağ source is around 420 km (261 miles), Central Anatolian sources are ca. 337 km (209 miles) away. It is not known why the eastern Anatolian obsidian was favored from LPPNB onwards, particularly the peralkaline green obsidian in the Levant, while the Cappadocian obsidian was more popular in earlier times. It should be noted,however, that no serious counting or chemical laboratory analysis has been done to differentiate eastern from Cappadocian obsidian in many prehistoric sites. Since both East and Central Anatolian obsidian were distributed widely and intensively within the Neolithic, it seems that neither distance nor the geographic advantage or disadvantage of certain routes could be the sole factor in its distribution. The LPPNB shift in obsidian sources
could instead be due to a shift in worldview and/or political
relations, perhaps a result of populations who were experiencing societal, economic, and symbolic changes at the end of the Neolithic.
Current data do not allow us to determine whether obsidian was knapped at the site. Neither can we decide whether specialists in obsidian production were present at Mezraa Teleilat since many elements of debitage are lacking. Hence, it is likely that obsidian arrived in the form of highly standardized finished products, acquired by either direct or indirect means of exchange/trade. However, it should also be emphasized that some knapping areas may yet exist in unexcavated portions of the mound. We simply do not know whether knapping was practiced on the site until we find the missing pieces of the chaine opératoire. Other sites contemporary with
Mezraa Teleilat, such as Akarçay Tepe (Arimura et al. 2000; Borrell Tena 2007), Tell Kashkashok (Nishiaki 2000), Tell Sabi Abyad (Copeland 1996), and Tell el-Kerkh (Arimura 2007) in northern Syria show a predominance of unipolar bladelets and an almost total lack sible to conclude that obsidian was not likely knapped on these sites. Yet the presence of one or two core trimming elements (Fig. 2: 6-7) and flakes (Fig. 2: 12-13), while statistically insignificant, may convey hints of some onsite knapping. Evidently the Neolithic people of Mezraa Teleilat were dependent on specialists to manufacture standardized blades and bladelets – and possibly tools such as the identical corner thinned blades that were used over a large area during this time. Who were these specialists? How was obsidian circulated to Mezraa Teleilat and other neighboring sites? What was the mechanism of obsidian trade? We simply do not know. Using ethnohistorical accounts, we assume that obsidian was circulated by local or non-local seasonal itinerant merchants/ specialists who were active as few as several decades ago in Turkey and Cyprus, and who plied their trade by fixing and producing blades for threshing sledges (Ataman 1999; Whittaker 2000). A possible contribution of hunters who might have visited Mezraa Teleilat or contact between hunters, pastoralists, and farmers in certain zones for circulation of goods and ideas may also be imagined (Bar-Yosef 2001).
Detailed technological and macro-specific analyses of obsidian raw material indicate that core reduction strategies were strictly maintained throughout the Neolithic and, based on this long-term stability, formed a technological tradition. Obsidian was brought to Mezraa Teleilat predominantly as unipolar bladelets and blades, and these finished products were highly standardized in terms of size, form, and raw material. In short, patterns of obsidian raw-material usage and obsidian technological attributes lend support to an interpretation of continuous occupation at the site and a culturally shared tradition of lithic manufacture and procurement that stretched from the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Pottery Neolithic at Mezraa Teleilat.
Like (8)Hole-making Tools of Mezraa Teleilat with Special Attention to Micro-borers and Cylindrical Polished Drills and Bead Production
Neo-Lithics 1/08
From first page:
Archaeological remains of Neolithic societies show a
great deal of change in many aspects towards the end
of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). Many of the
characteristics of sophisticated PPNB cultures such as
large settlements, cult buildings and/or temples, highly
elaborate art and ideological representations, and
technological advances in lithic industries disappeared
relatively quickly. The end of the PPNB period around
8200 BP and the transition to the Pottery Neolithic (PN)
is commonly referred to the “PPNC” or “Final PPNB.”
It is characterized by the abandonment of many previously
flourishing large PPNB settlements across the
Near East as well as a reduction in the size of settlements,
shifts in settlement organization, and a decrease
in population. This phenomenon may reflect important
socio-economic and ecological changes during the 8th
millennium BP. It has been observed and particularly
well documented across the Near East, but comparable
phenomena are also attested in Anatolia (Özdoğan
2002).
The phenomenon has remained an enigma due to a lack
of continuously occupied sites from PPNB to PN,
although recent discoveries of a few sites in northern
and southern Levant have broadened our knowledge.
Mezraa Teleilat (Fig. 1) is one of those rare sites that
shows a stratigraphic continuation and provides invaluable
information about LPPNB and early PN societies.
In contrast to the broad socioeconomic and material
changes noted above, flint and obsidian chipped stone
technology, raw material usage, and tool typology demonstrate
great similarities from earliest to latest Neolithic
occupations. Several significant changes also occurred
in knapping technology and tool repertoire (cf. Coşkunsu
2007, 2008). As a consequence, products made by such
tools changed too, for example, hole-making tools and
beads/pendants at the site. This paper focuses on two
particular minor flint tool types, which are grouped under
the category of “hole-making tools.” They are associated
with bead production, craft specialization, and
trade/exchange at Mezraa Teleilat by technological, typo-logical, and use-wear analysis, and experimentation. The
tools discussed here are micro-borers (MB; Fig. 3: 4, 6)
and cylindrical polished drills (CPD; Fig. 3: 7-11; Fig.
4: 1).
Add Comment