Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:59:08.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The mechanics of the obsidian trade: a suggestion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Harriet Crawford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our knowledge of the obsidian trade makes it an unique phenomenon in the prehistory of the Middle East. We know more about it than about any comparable exchange network. A great deal of work has now been done on the chemical composition of obsidian and on the location of its sources, on quantitative analyses, and on the spatial distribution of the material. The two major areas of supply, Central Anatolia and the area west of Lake Van have been extensively explored and individual sources pinpointed. It has been possible to reconstruct the movement of obsidian to sites as far away as Beidha in South Palestine and to Ali Kosh in South-West Iran. The distances involved are well over 1,600 km as the crow flies. Comparatively little work has been done on the mechanism of the trade, on the processes by which the obsidian changed hands, probably because such processes are difficult and sometimes impossible to determine from the archaeological record. In order to attempt such a task it is necessary to broaden our conceptual basis for studying data bearing on trade. To quote Adams (1974, 241) 'What is needed for this broadening to occur is a much more substantial awareness of ethnohistoric, historic and ethnographic studies of trade.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 52 , Issue 205 , July 1978 , pp. 129 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. Mcc. 1974- Anthropological perspectives on trade, Current Anthropology, 15.3, 239-258.Google Scholar
Anati, E. 1962. Prehistoric trade and the puzzle of Jericho, BASOR, CLXVII, 25-31.Google Scholar
Ashkenazi, T. 1938. Tribus semi-nomades de la Palestine du Nord (Paris).Google Scholar
Barth, F. 1964. Nomads of South Persia (Oslo).Google Scholar
Browman, D. L. 1974. Pastoral nomadism in the Andes, Current Anthropology, 15.2, 188-197.Google Scholar
Ferdinand, K. 1962. Nomadic expansion and commerce in Afghanistan, Folk, IV, 123-129.Google Scholar
Geographical Handbook Series. 1944. Iraq and the Persian Gulf (London).Google Scholar
Haut Commissariat De La Republique FranÇaise, 1930. Les tribus nomades et semi-nomades des états de Levant placés sous mandat Français (Beyrouth).Google Scholar
Helms, S. W. 1975. Jawa 1973: a preliminary report, Levant, VII, 20-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, E. S. 1976. The history of European agriculture— the uplands, Phil. Trans. Roy Soc., London, B. 375, 159-173-Google Scholar
Johnson, D. L. 1969. The nature of nomadism (Chicago)Google Scholar
Lee, R. B. Devore, L.. 1968. Man the hunter (Chicago).Google Scholar
Pires-Ferreira, J. 1975. Formative Mesoamerican exchange networks (Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1969. Trade and culture process in European prehistory, Current Anthropology, 10.2-3, 151-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance, in (eds.), Sabloff, J. A. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., Ancient civilisations and trade (Albuquerque, N. M.).Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E. Cann, J. R.. 1968. A further analysis of Near Eastern obsidian, Proc. Prehist. Soc., XXXIV, 327-330.Google Scholar
Wright, G. A. 1969. Obsidian analyses and prehistoric Near Eastern trade 7500-3500 BC (Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
Wright, H. T. 1972. A consideration of interregional ex-change in Greater Mesopotamia, in (ed.), Wilmsen, E. N., Social change and interaction (Ann Arbor). Google Scholar