Obsidian Mirrors of Mobility: Tracing Stone Journeys in the Neolithic

 

Introduction

Obsidian, the volcanic glass prized for its sharpness and distinct geochemical “fingerprints,” has provided an unparalleled window into Neolithic social, economic, and cultural interactions. Research since 2020 reveals that communities across Anatolia and adjacent regions exploited both local and distant obsidian outcrops, participating in dynamic exchange networks that bridged Central Anatolia, the Aegean, the Zagros, and, in some cases, reached as far as Central Europe.

Regional Procurement Patterns

Central Anatolia was dominated by key sources such as Göllü Dağ and Nenezi Dağ, with other prominent sources including Acıgöl and Nemrut Dağ. At sites like Balıklı (c. 8200–7900 BC), over 90% of obsidian artefacts derive from the local Göllü Dağ source, with limited input from Nenezi Dağ. This pattern suggests intensive local knapping and a degree of self-sufficiency, contrasting with the more interconnected trade networks in western Anatolia.

The Aceramic Neolithic site of Sıraltepe, likewise near major sources, shows evidence of local workshop production using multiple sources (Göllü Dağ, Nenezi Dağ, Acıgöl), along with specialized artefacts such as obsidian mirrors, which also appear at Tepecik-Çiftlik, Çatalhöyük-East, and Tel Kabri.

Exchange Networks and Long-Distance Conveyance

Northwest and Western Anatolia display greater obsidian source diversity, incorporating supplies from distant Aegean islands as well as central Anatolia. At Bağlarbaşı (late 8th–7th to c. 6000 BC), obsidian artefacts include rare sources such as Acıgöl, Hasan Dağ, and Yalaz in Galatia. Inland routes, rather than coasts, appear crucial to neolithisation in these regions.

In western Anatolia, direct procurement of Melian obsidian—often exceeding 80% of lithic assemblages in late periods—reflects both seafaring skills and regional “gateway” communities serving as nodes in long-distance exchange.

In the Zagros, sites like Ali Kosh and Chagha Sefid feature obsidian from both south-eastern Anatolian and Armenian sources (Nemrut Dağ, Bingöl A/B, Kars-Digor, Meydan Dağ, Geghasar), with phase-specific shifts illustrating changing networks over time.

Recent geochemical analysis demonstrates westernmost distributions of Anatolian obsidian in Neolithic Poland, showing that certain blades originated from Nemrut Dağ nearly 2,200 km away, likely reflecting selective, direct trade or social gifting, as intermediary finds are lacking.

Technological Advances and Methodological Reassessment

Advanced techniques (such as SEM-EDS, PIXE, pXRF, EDXRF) have enabled the discrimination of multiple obsidian sources, challenging earlier models of simple or single-area procurement. Multi-source attributions for prestige objects, vessels, and curated tools are now understood as evidence of complex regional interaction and mobility.

Comparison with Neolithic Britain

Comparable procurement and movement patterns are seen in Neolithic Britain. Axeheads of Langdale tuff from Cumbria and the sources of the stones of Stonehenge (now traced to southwest Wales and  Scotland) and other sites in Wessex were widely distributed, with deposition in many non-utilitarian or symbolic contexts. Much like Anatolian obsidian, these materials reflect both functional utility and symbolic significance in constructing connections across landscapes.

Conclusion

From Anatolia to Cumbria, Neolithic communities demonstrated remarkable capacity for stone acquisition, transformation, and long-distance exchange. Obsidian artefacts and monumental stones were not mere functional objects but powerful symbols of social networks, identity, and connectivity.

 

1. Brandl M, Martinez MM, Hauzenberger C, Filzmoser P, Milić B, Horejs B. Unveiling Neolithic Economic Behavior: A Novel Approach to Chert Procurement at Çukuriçi Höyük, Western Anatolia. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2025;32(1):16. doi: 10.1007/s10816-024-09681-6. Epub 2024 Dec 24. PMID: 39723349; PMCID: PMC11666786.
2. Clough, T.H. McK., & Cummins, W.A. (Eds.). (1988). Stone Axe Studies, Vol. 2. CBA Research Report 67.
   https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/cba_rr/rr67.cfm
3. Frahm, E. (2024). Reassessing the origins of Near Eastern obsidian vessels. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104731
4. Gemici, H.C., Atakuman, O., Kolankaya-Bostancı, E., & Fidan, F. (2024). Diversity of obsidian sources in the northwest Anatolian site of Bağlarbaşı. Quaternary Science Reviews.
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124000441
5. Hughes, R.E. et al. (2025) ‘Long-Distance Obsidian Conveyance During the Neolithic: A Critical Analysis of Three Obsidian Blades Found in Poland’, European Journal of Archaeology, pp. 1–22. doi:10.1017/eaa.2025.10018.
6. Koptekin, D., et al. (2024). Out-of-Anatolia cultural and genetic interactions during the Neolithic. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr3326
   
   
7. Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. London: Simon & Schuster.
   https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/Stonehenge/Mike-Parker-Pearson/9780857207326
8. Zeynalov, A.A. (2025). Procurement and exchange of obsidian in the Middle East.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105313
9. Efe, T., & Baysal, E. (2024). Diversity of obsidian sources in the northwest Anatolian site of Bağlarbaşı and the dynamics of neolithisation. Quaternary International, 689-690, 22-34.
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124000441
10. Milic, M., Horejs, B., & Duru, G. (2024). A novel approach to chert and obsidian procurement at Çukuriçi Höyük. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 57, Article 104687. doi: 10.1007/s10816-024-09681-6
11. Eastham, P. (2023). The Langdale Axe. Hidden Cumbrian Histories.
    https://hiddencumbrianhistories.substack.com/p/the-langdale-axe-0d8
12. Bradley, R., & Edmonds, M. (2019). British Neolithic axehead distributions and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27, 836-859.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-019-09438-6
13. Clarke, A.J.I., Kirkland, C.L., Bevins, R.E. et al. A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature 632, 570–575 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1
14. Keller, J., & Seifried, R. (n.d.). The present status of obsidian source identification in Anatolia and the Near East.
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Present-Status-of-Obsidian-Source-in-Anatolia-Keller-Seifried/4f665c733ef60b7b2e5aab196d473eba0819ab41
15. Nishiaki, Y., et al. (2019). Obsidian provenance analyses at Göytepe, Azerbaijan.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12457
16. Alice Vinet, Neolithic obsidian mirrors from Southwest Asia: A reflection on their diffusion and manufacture. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 62, April 2025, 105047. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105047
17. Nash, D. J., et al. (2020). Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Science Advances, 6, eabc0133.
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc0133
18. Abdullah Hacar, Nilay Çetin, Yakup Ünlüler (2024). New Neolithic finds from the highlands between Central Anatolia and the Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 58, Article 104712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104802
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24004309
19. Baysal, E. (2024). A new area for Neolithic research in Anatolia. Documenta Praehistorica, 45, 34-45.
    https://journals.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/45.3
20. Marchand, F., et al. (2025). Out-of-Anatolia: Cultural and genetic interactions during the Neolithic expansion in West Anatolia. Science, 385(6705), 128-135.
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr3326
21. Amber Roy, Rachel J. Crellin, Oliver J.T. Harris (2023). Use-wear analysis reveals the first direct evidence for the use of Neolithic polished stone axes in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 49, 103882, ISSN 2352-409X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103882.