Khalidi Lewis Gratuze 2012

New perspectives on regional and interregional obsidian circulation in prehistoric and early historic Arabia

Lamya KhaLidi, Krista Lewis & Bernard Gratuze

SummaryUntil recently, the western Arabian Peninsula has had an enigmatic role in the large-scale prehistoric exchange networks of the greater ancient Near East. New geological and archaeological data recovered from obsidian-rich zones as well as sites in south-west Arabia and beyond, have begun to elucidate the region’s unprecedented position as a regional and interregional supplier and consumer of obsidian as early as the sixth millennium BC. This paper reviews recent data on obsidian sourcing in Arabia as well as new source matches to archaeological sites in the major source zone supplying obsidian across the region, namely the Dhamār highland plains of Yemen, and discusses the results within the context of previous obsidian research. These data offer new perspectives that will allow us to broaden our understanding of the development of ancient Near Eastern societies over time, to include south-west Arabia. Furthermore, these new data provide us with a preliminary diachronic view of the intensification and fluctuations in obsidian circulation and their relationship to the major societal transformations that occurred between the Neolithic and early historic periods in the region.

Keywords: south-west Arabia, prehistory, early history, obsidian circulation, exchange networks

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to review past, present, and future questions in light of the VAPOR1 project’s recent obsidian sourcing results for Arabia (Khalidi et al. 2010), and to present the data in such a way that it is possible to begin to see what new potentials such studies can have for our understanding of prehistoric and early historic Arabia’s intra- and inter-regional exchange spheres.

Our recent programme to develop obsidian research thoroughly in the greater Middle East and the African Horn has led to results that have allowed us to begin to restructure research questions and agendas to facilitate a reconstitution of such dynamics in Arabia and beyond and to make use of negative data. These developments in Arabian obsidian research result from the systematic sampling and geochemical analysis of known and unknown obsidian sources, and the analyses of over 200 obsidian artefacts collected and excavated by the Dhamār

1 The Volcanological and Archaeological Program for Obsidian Research is a multi-institutional collaboration directed by L. Khalidi (CSIC), B. Gratuze (CNRS), and C. Oppenheimer (Cambridge).

Survey Project (DSP) as well as by collaborating projects from sites across Arabia and the African Horn. New data has also made it possible to reassess previously published obsidian data by comparing it to our growing database of source and artefact compositions.

In this paper, we present the most recent results of Laser Ablation High-Resolution Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-HR-ICP-MS) of obsidian artefacts collected from surveys and soundings carried out by the DSP (currently directed by K. Lewis, University of Arkansas at Little Rock) from 1995 to 2010, on sites ranging from the Neolithic to the Himyarite periods in the highland plains of Yemen. We focus mainly on the DSP region in this paper because the highland plains of Dhamār include the majority of Arabian obsidian sources supplying obsidian to sites across the Arabian Peninsula. This region is therefore a central point from which obsidian is distributed. In addition, a large sample of worked obsidian from both excavated and surveyed sites in this localized region and dating to all periods of interest has been analysed.

The substantial geological, archaeological, and chronological datasets we have for this large and yet

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42 (2012): 1–22

geographically coherent zone allows us to begin to illustrate local distribution networks near the sources, so as to understand the intra-regional systems that were in place and that would have obstructed or facilitated the exchange of this material at longer distances. Finally, this large dataset allows us to demonstrate the potentials and limits of such data, including the way they can reorient future research strategies and questions on prehistoric exchange.

Studies of archaeological obsidian exchange systems

Obsidian research has advanced considerably since Renfrew, Cann, and Dixon’s seminal articles on obsidian trade (Renfrew & Dixon 1976; Renfrew, Dixon & Cann 1966; 1968). In what concerns Near Eastern obsidian circulation, years of continued work on the obsidian rich zones of the Mediterranean basin, Anatolia, and the Transcaucasus have enriched our understanding of the way ancient cultures overlapped and forged economic and cultural ties and breaks. Research on ancient Near Eastern exchange systems rarely overlooks the importance of obsidian circulation (Cauvin 2002; 1998; Cauvin & Balkan-Atli 1996). The accumulated results of this work show general trends of Cappodocian sources supplying sites in the Levant and western Syria at large distances as early as the Natufian and well into the pottery Neolithic periods (Briois, Gratuze & Guilaine 1997; Cauvin et al. 1998; 1991). Over time there is a general increase in supply from Taurus mountain sources (Bader, Merpert & Munchaev 1994; Fornaseri et al. 1975–1977), which appear to have become the foremost suppliers to Mesopotamia and the Gulf by the ΚUbaid period and well into the end of the Chalcolithic period, when large Canaanean blades made from chert began to replace obsidian production.

Because Arabia has a youthful history of archaeological research relative to other regions in the Middle East, and hence patchy regional and chronological datasets, it is not yet feasible to paint a clear picture of interaction dynamics at any point in its ancient past. Despite the pioneering work of V. Francaviglia, who initially documented and analysed two of the larger and most visible obsidian sources in Yemen, namely Jabal Isbīl and Jabal Lisī (Francaviglia 1990a; 1990b), few matches have previously been made between sites in Yemen and any source in Arabia or beyond. Archaeological research programmes in both the lowlands and highlands of south-west Yemen

demonstrated that while significant quantities of obsidian could be found on most sites (Edens & Wilkinson 1998: 70; Keall 2004; Khalidi 2007: 38; Tosi 1986: 404), some of which had few other preserved remains, source analyses pertaining to these archaeological obsidian artefacts were consistently inconclusive (Francaviglia 1990b: 134; Khalidi 2007: 40). Questions arose that highlighted the need for continued obsidian research in underexplored obsidian source zones such as those of Arabia and East Africa.

The southern Red Sea region is rich in obsidian source areas, which are concentrated in the highlands of Yemen and Saudi Arabia and in the African Rift zone. Most of these are largely unexplored. While isolated data has been collected from single outcrops, there have not previously been any comprehensive programmes to recover geological and archaeological obsidian in the area on a large scale.

The lack of correspondence between archaeological materials and the known natural obsidian sources (including those of outlying source zones such as those of Anatolia, Transcaucasia, and the Mediterranean) encouraged the initiation of a programme dedicated to solving these issues. The VAPOR project, begun in 2008 and sponsored by the CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique), the Fyssen Foundation, and the Leverhulme Trust, is a collaborative project initiated by L. Khalidi and involving B. Gratuze and S. Boucetta, archaeometrists at the CNRS-Orléans, and C. Oppenheimer, a volcanologist at the University of Cambridge, as well as host projects such as the DSP and a number of international archaeological projects with which we have collaborated, both on the ground and in the laboratory. The objectives of this programme are mainly to consolidate previous research on obsidian and to update and add to previous obsidian databases for the greater region, with the aim of building a platform that makes this data accessible to the archaeological community and better allows us to understand the dynamics of prehistoric exchange and social networks across all — not just some — regions.

The Eritrean coast and Ethiopian highlands are littered with unexplored sources, some inaccessible, while the Yemen highlands are proving to have potential beyond previous expectations. The presence of source zones on each side of the Red Sea offers an exceptional setting for the study of prehistoric and early historic exchange mechanisms and for the study of the incentives that drew populations to choose one region over another, despite distance or rough or unfamiliar terrain.

Lamya Khalidi, Krista Lewis & Bernard Gratuze2

Advances in obsidian source identification and sampling

The overwhelming absence of matches between artefact and source (Francaviglia 1990b: 134) previously encountered in Arabia has been reversed as a result of systematic geological sampling along obsidian sources in the region. Implemented at small and larger scales, this strategy has proved successful in identifying previously unexplored major and minor primary and secondary obsidian sources that were exploited in varying degrees over time.

Past exploitation of minor sources, often of mediocre quality and workability, is of particular interest for understanding the subtle complexities of spheres of interaction, as it provides evidence of alternative modalities and human choices in resource acquisition strategies. Unfortunately, such minor sources are often overlooked because they are less evident in the landscape and archaeological record. Nonetheless, extrapolated from matches to these small minor sources are hints of the inner workings of local economies and intra-regional territoriality, a key element to understanding control over resources within obsidian-rich zones like those of highland Yemen. The identification of secondary obsidian sources, such as those resulting from waterborne deposition of cobbles, is essential to such studies, as these sources are often more accessible to local populations.

In tandem with an intensive programme dedicated to the geochemical analyses of obsidian artefacts recovered from sites dating to different periods across Arabia as well as in localized regions such as that of the Dhamār highland plains (DSP), the results of thorough geological source sampling have provided a geological and archaeological data platform that is beginning to map obsidian distribution within and out of Arabia during the Holocene. Collaborations with colleagues working on sites in the Middle East and Africa have contributed significantly to an obsidian database, which currently can also be applied to signal unexplored source areas and their approximate localization through compositional affinity to known obsidian sources.

Highland Yemen obsidian sources: sampling strategies and chronology

From 2008, sampling and analysis of obsidian sources has concentrated on the highlands of Yemen, and has more recently expanded to the Ethiopian Rift valley.

Large numbers of samples from eight different obsidian sources in the highland plains of Yemen, from several sources in the Ethiopian Rift Valley, and from one source in the Ethiopian Afar have been analysed at the IRAMAT-CNRS (Institut de Recherche sur les Archéomatériaux) in Orléans using LA-HR-ICP-MS, a virtually non-destructive method. This research has also allowed us to identify two periods of volcanism in the Yemen highlands, the younger in the eastern and the older in the western central highland plains.

Of the younger Quaternary obsidian-rich volcanoes in the eastern central highlands, Jabal Isbīl happens to be the largest (and hence most visible) volcano in the Arabian Peninsula. It has an oblong caldera almost 4 km long and a series of smaller adjacent outcrops (Дayd al-Дalal being the most prominent of these) that belong to the larger Isbīl complex. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) of a sample taken from an exposed section of Дayd al-Дalal dates it to the end of the fourth millennium BC, suggesting large-scale eruption during this period (Khalidi et al. 2010). In the same zone lies a second rather large source, that of Jabal Lisī and an associated collapsed caldera, al-Gharga, which forms part of the Lisī complex.

In the Yemeni western highlands four previously unknown and/or unexplored sources were recorded and analysed including YafāΚ (noted as DS179, a workshop site, in Wilkinson, Edens & Gibson 1997: 122) and three minor sources on and near the MaΒnaΚat Māryah (DS3) plateau (Jirāb al-Sūf, Māryah, Jibjibiyyah). The latter sources make up what will later be referred to as the YafāΚ region sources for the purpose of simplification. All of these outcrops pertain to an Oligocene period of volcanism.

These sources were sampled systematically along their many flows and were complemented by and compared to previously published geological data. The analyses of these sources show compositional variation across one source outcrop. For example, in the case of YafāΚ we have variation that reflects slightly different compositional groups from the same outcrop. Similarly, the Дayd al-Дalal and al-Gharga flows belonging to the larger Isbīl and Lisī complexes have variant compositions to their larger counterparts. Figures 1–5 demonstrate the subtle overlap that can occur in compositions within and across flows, and how these can nonetheless be distinguished from one another and matched with artefact compositions, as a result of the large number of elements determined for each source.

From the large number of archaeological materials analysed using the same laboratory method, we were also

New perspectives on regional and interregional obsidian circulation in prehistoric and early historic Arabia 3

able to distinguish seven compositional groups whose precise source outcrop has not yet been identified. Many of these groups (1–4) have very strong compositional affinity to the YafāΚ source and therefore belong to a YafāΚ source flow that remains unexplored, or to a source nearby that is in the same compositional family as that of YafāΚ. Group 5 has compositional affinities to the Jabal Lisī flows and signals an unexplored flow in its immediate region. Not only can these groups be distinguished

from one another, but they also associate different sites with each other via their relationship to a single source outcrop, even if it is unknown. When this data is spatially plotted, the distribution and density of sites exploiting the same outcrops often allow us to isolate the general area in which these unidentified outcrops may be located — an indication of the potential of such intensive programmes of analysis — in order to determine the presence and location of unknown obsidian outcrops.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20

La/Yb

La/T

h

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

0.50.60.70.80.91.01.1

1 2 3 4La/Yb

La/T

h

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

05 10 15 20

La/Yb

La/T

h

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

Artefacts from Yafa' ridge

Artefacts from Jirab al Souf

Artefacts from Al Gharga

Artefacts from Jebel Isbil

Artefacts from Hayd al Halal

Artefacts group 1

Artefacts group 2

Artefacts group 3

Artefacts group 4

Artefacts group 5

Artefacts group 7

0.5

1.0

1.5

1 2 3 4La/Yb

La/T

h

Figure 1a. Diagram La/Th-La/Yb for the geological obsidian

outcrops analysed.

Figure 1b. Diagram La/Th-La/Yb matching obsidian artefacts from highland sites to highland obsidian sources

analysed.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Rb

Ce

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Rb

Ce

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge






Artefacts group 1

Artefacts group 2

Artefacts group 3

Artefacts group 4

Artefacts group 5

Artefacts group 7

Figure 2a. Diagram Ce-Rb for the geological obsidian outcrops analysed.

Figure 2b. Diagram Ce-Rb matching obsidian artefacts from highland sites to highland obsidian sources analysed.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Rb

Zr

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Rb

Zr

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge






Artefacts group 1

Artefacts group 2

Artefacts group 3

Artefacts group 4

Artefacts group 5

Artefacts group 7

Figure 3a. Diagram Zr-Rb for the geological obsidian outcrops analysed.

Figure 3b. Diagram Zr-Rb matching obsidian artefacts from highland sites to highland obsidian sources analysed.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Sm/Eu

Yb/E

u

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

0

100

200

300

400

0 100 200 300Sm/Eu

Yb/

Eu

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Sm/Eu

Yb/E

u

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge






Artefacts group 1

Artefacts group 2

Artefacts group 3

Artefacts group 4

Artefacts group 5

Artefacts group 7

0

100

200

300

0 100 200 300Sm/Eu

Yb/

Eu

Figure 4a. Diagram Yb/Eu-Sm/Eu for the geological obsidian outcrops analysed.

Figure 4b. Diagram Yb/Eu-Sm/Eu matching obsidian artefacts from highland sites to highland obsidian sources analysed.


Figure 5b. Diagram Nb/Zr-Y/Zr matching obsidian artefacts from highland sites to highland obsidian sources analysed.

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Y/Zr

Nb/

Zr

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Y/Zr

Nb/

Zr

Jebel Lisi

Jebel Isbil

Al Gharga

Jirab al Souf

Hayd al Halal

Maryah Jibjibiya

Yafa' Ridge






Artefacts group 1

Artefacts group 2

Artefacts group 3

Artefacts group 4

Artefacts group 5

Artefacts group 7

Figure 5a. Diagram Nb/Zr-Y/Zr for the geological obsidian outcrops analysed.


Figure 6. A map of the DSP survey area in the Dhamār central highland plains of Yemen, illustrating all the registered sites in relation to major modern towns and the three major source zones in the area.


Archaeological obsidian sampling in the Dhamār Survey Project area

As a result of the geochemical data collected from geological sources, we can report many matches between archaeological material and obsidian outcrops in Yemen’s highland zone.

In this paper we present the results of LA-HR-ICP-MS analysis of 163 samples of archaeological obsidian collected from forty-three different sites in the DSP survey area where since 1995, the DSP has recorded 410 sites (Fig. 6). Although these forty-three sites represent approximately 10% of the total sites recorded, the selection process used reflects a spatially and chronologically representative sample. Thirty-nine per cent of samples come from excavated strata, and the remaining 61% from surface collections. Two sites in particular (DS3: MaΒnaΚat Māryah and DS15: Ashrāf) are over-represented, with forty-eight obsidian samples analysed from DS3 and twenty analysed from DS15. Two sites therefore represent about 40% of the total archaeological obsidian analysed. In this paper, the DS3 samples are figured into calculations in a proportional way so as not to skew the data.

Trends in obsidian supply across periods

The most striking result of the site-to-source analyses for the Dhamār area archaeological obsidian is that the YafāΚ region in the western highland plains was the major source zone supplying most sites during all periods (76% of all archaeological obsidian analysed matches sources in the YafāΚ region). Forty-three per cent of all archaeological obsidian analysed matches the YafāΚ source itself, while 33% of all archaeological obsidian analysed matches the other related YafāΚ region (YR) sources (Fig. 7). These include compositional groups 1–4 that are probably unexplored flows of the YafāΚ source itself, the minor source of Jirāb al-Sūf (predominantly supplying sites in its immediate vicinity, namely DS3 and DS15), and the minor Oligocene traps of Māryah and Jibjibiyyah (compositionally related minor sources) which lie in proximity to each other and, along with Jirāb al-Sūf, belong to the same plateau system that marks the western edge of the highland plains and the eastern edge of the 3000 m escarpment that descends to the Tihāmah coastal plain.

Matches to Lisī and Isbīl are low across periods, making up only 10% of obsidian supply, with Lisī

Figure 7. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for all analysed DSP sites.

having supplied 4% and Isbīl 6%. Group 5, however, has compositional affinities to Jabal Lisī and may consist of an unexplored flow of the Lisī outcrop or another outcrop in its immediate vicinity. It makes up 13% of archaeological obsidian across periods. The remaining 1% cannot be matched to known sources or to other archaeological sample compositions.

Trends in obsidian supply in the DSP survey region by period

Many sites surveyed and excavated by the DSP have multiple periods of occupation (Fig. 8). With surface finds on multiple occupation sites, save in cases where tools or debitage are chronologically diagnostic, it is not always clear to which period the obsidian collected pertains. With this and the fact that 39% of obsidian was collected from excavated and dated contexts in mind, we are still able to see spatial trends in obsidian supply over time.

Neolithic sites

Of 410 sites identified by the DSP, only sixteen have clear Neolithic components. Thirty-nine samples of obsidian were analysed from nine of these sites. These analyses indicate that in the Neolithic only three source areas were exploited. Fifty-nine per cent of archaeological obsidian analysed matches the YafāΚ source, while 21% is attributed to the YafāΚ region sources (Fig. 9/a). The third source supplying obsidian in this period is that of Group 5/Lisī. Twenty-three per cent of archaeological obsidian corresponds to this group. No other groups or source areas are represented in the Neolithic assemblage.


Site Number

Site Name

Site Name (Arabic)

Source Matches Period Excav-ated

DS3 Māryah ماريه YafāΚ (21), YR (27) NEO BA IA IMY DS15 Ashraf أشرف YafāΚ (14), YR (6) IA NEO DS34 Al-Hijrah الهجرة YafāΚ (2), Gr5 (1) BA DS82 Qarn ΚOmr عمرقرن Gr5 (1) IA * DS101 Дammat al-QāΚ عحّمة القا YafāΚ (2) BA * DS136 YafāΚ (2) IA DS144 Bothān ُبـثان Gr5 (2) BA NEO DS163 Shadharbah شذربه YafāΚ (2) HIMY DS179 Khol al-Mathari خل المثري YafāΚ (3), YR (1) BA IA HIMY NEO? DS181 Dhāwran ذاورن Unknown (2) HIMY ISL DS217 Al-ΚIrr العّر Lisī (2) EBA DS226 Ribat ΚAmran رباط عمران Gr5 (1) HIMY * DS226 Ribat ΚAmran رباط عمران Isbīl (1), YafāΚ (1) EBA * DS226 Ribat ΚAmran رباط عمران YafāΚ (1) NEO * DS227 Al-Wātyah الواطية Isbīl (1) BA * DS228 Al-Kharrayb الخّريب Lisī (1), Gr5 (1) LBA * DS234 Al-Kisāwer الكساور YafāΚ (1) BA DS269 Jabubat al-Jeruf جببة الجروف Lisī (2), Gr5 (1), YafāΚ (1) EBA * DS283 Al-Дaradhi يالحراض Gr5 (2) NEO DS293 Дawāgir حواجر YR (2) BA * DS297 Ghazwān غزوان Gr5 (1), YafāΚ (2) NEO * DS301 YafāΚ (1) BA DS302 Lisī (2) BA HIMY DS314 ΚAfarāΜ عفارة YafāΚ (4), YR (1) HIMY NEO DS319 Isbīl (1) BA DS319 Gr5 (3) NEO DS320 Дanakat حنكت Isbīl (1) BA HIMY DS321 ShaΚtham شعثم Isbīl (2) IA HIMY DS322 MiqtaΚ مقطع YR (1) IA * DS324 Дayd al-Sawad حيد السواد YR (5) EBA * DS326 JabΉān جبحان YafāΚ (1) IA DS336 Jabal Дadman جبل حدمن Lisī (1) IA DS336 Jabal Дadman جبل حدمن YR (1) NEO DS338 Дayd Bayān حيد بيان YR (2) IA HIMY DS339 Musowliq مسولق YR (2) BA DS340 Дumaydiyyah حميدية YR (2) IA DS341 Madīyar مدَير YR (2) IA HIMY DS342 Al-Khāniq الخانق YR (2) BA DS343 YR (2) IA HIMY DS344 Jabal Дadman جبل حدمن YR (1) IA DS352 YR (2) BA DS355 Al-QuΒūr القصور YR (1) IA HIMY DS359 Zulām زالم YR (2) BA HIMY DS360 Дayd Mahfī حيد مهفي YR (1) BA DS394 Manjida منجدة YafāΚ (3) BA NEO DS396 Khirra 1 خّرة YafāΚ (4) BA DS397 Khirra 2 خّرة YafāΚ (5), YR (1) BA IA HU24A ShaΚb al-RāΉa شعب الراحة YafāΚ (2) NEO BA HU29B ShaΚb al-RāΉa شعب الراحة YR (2) NEO BA HU51 Дabīl al-Jamal حبيل الجمال YafāΚ (2) NEO BA JR1 YafāΚ (1), YR (1) Prehistoric ISL

Key: DS: Dhamār Survey; HU: Дazm al-ΚUdayn; JR: Jabal RaΜs; Gr: Group; YR: YafāΚ region; NEO: Neolithic; BA: Bronze Age; IA: Iron Age; HIMY: Himyarite; ISL: Islamic

Figure 8. A list of the DSP and Western Escarpment sites (HU and JR) from which obsidian

artefacts were collected and analysed, and their relative (surveyed sites) or absolute (excavated sites) single-period or multi-period designation(s).


The spatial distribution of Neolithic sites shows an east–west division in acquisition strategies, with sites supplied with YafāΚ obsidian restricted to the west of Lisī and trending along a north–south axis. Sites that were being supplied with Group 5 obsidian are concentrated to the south of Lisī. The Group 5 obsidian does not appear west of a certain point, and clearly shows YafāΚ having a monopoly over the western portion of the plains and along a large north–south corridor, signalling a potential territorial demarcation. One area, however, of clear overlap in the YafāΚ and Group 5 use can be seen at

two adjacent sites, DS297 Ghazwān and DS 226 Ribat ΚAmran, midway between and slightly south of the two sources, suggesting a contrasting economic or political situation to what is seen in the rest of the survey area in this period (Fig. 9/b).

Bronze Age sites

Of 410 sites identified by the DSP, 101 have Bronze Age components. Fifty-seven samples of archaeological obsidian were analysed from twenty-five of these sites.

Figure 9a. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for Neolithic period sites in the DSP region.

Figure 9b. Distribution of Neolithic sites in the DSP area in relation to the major source zones. The icons represent source matches identified for each site analysed.


Figure 10b. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for later Bronze Age period sites in the DSP

region.

Figure 10a. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for Early Bronze Age period sites in the DSP

region.

Figure 10c. Distribution of Bronze Age sites in the DSP area in relation to the major source zones. The icons represent source matches identified for each site analysed.

These can be broken down into Early Bronze Age sites, which are represented by thirteen samples from four sites, and Middle and Late Bronze Age sites represented by forty-four samples from twenty-one sites.

A major shift in obsidian supply trends is visible between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age periods.

Generally, the dominant suppliers of obsidian during the Bronze Age remain the western highland sources (YafāΚ and YafāΚ region; Fig. 10/a, b). After the Neolithic period, however, there is an increased exploitation of the YafāΚ region sources (38% Early Bronze Age; 35% Bronze Age), in tandem with a major proportional decrease in


exploitation of the YafāΚ outcrop in the Early Bronze Age (15%) that picks up again by the later Bronze Age (43%). Even if the majority of suppliers of obsidian in the YafāΚ region are later proved to pertain to the YafāΚ outcrop, local Bronze Age populations appear to be intentionally intensifying their exploitation of flows other than those (currently) attributed to the YafāΚ outcrop. During the Bronze Age, we also see a dramatic episodic introduction of Lisī in the Early Bronze Age followed by a sharp decrease in the later Bronze Age (31% Early Bronze Age; 7% Bronze Age). Isbīl obsidian was also first introduced, although in smaller quantities (8% Early Bronze Age; 6% Bronze Age), on sites in the region during this period. Exploitation of Group 5 obsidian drops markedly from 23% to 8% from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, and then stays nearly the same through the Bronze Age.

Despite the introduction of obsidian from the source of Isbīl to sites in the region during the Bronze Age, the percentages of obsidian matching this source are consistently low during this period. The YafāΚ zone supplies significantly fewer sites in the Early Bronze Age than in the Neolithic (79% Neolithic; 53% Early Bronze Age) but exploitation of its sources increases dramatically from the Early to later Bronze Age to return to a level similar to that seen in the Neolithic (78%). Exploitation of the Lisī zone (if we take Group 5 into account) shows an opposing trend. Group 5 accounts for 21% of obsidian supplied to sites in the Neolithic, but with the introduction of the Lisī outcrop in the Early Bronze Age, the supply of Lisī zone obsidian almost doubles to 39%, and then drops again to 16% in the later Bronze Age.

Spatial distribution of matches for Bronze Age sites shows a continuation (from the Neolithic period) of the YafāΚ zone’s monopoly of a north–south corridor (Fig. 10/c). In this period, however, an additional geographic distinction is evident; north of YafāΚ sites are only supplied by YafāΚ region sources, while south of YafāΚ sites are only supplied by the YafāΚ outcrop. Group 5, Lisī and Isbīl source matches appear on sites south of the Isbīl/Lisī complex. These overlap with obsidian with a YafāΚ origin, in the southern part of the north–south aligned corridor, e.g. at the sites of DS34 al-Hijra and DS 226 Ribat ΚAmran. Interestingly, this is the very same area for which we noted overlap in source utilization during the Neolithic period.

Iron Age sites

Of 410 sites recorded by the DSP, ninety-two have Iron Age components. Fifty samples of archaeological

obsidian were analysed from fifteen of these sites. Percentages for the Iron Age period show two interesting trends. The first is an increase in the exploitation of the YafāΚ region sources from 35% in the Bronze Age to 44% in this period (Fig. 11/a). The second is that Iron Age populations in the highland plains appear to be highly focused on the western highland sources (92%, including the YafāΚ outcrop [48%], and the YafāΚ region sources [44%], which is an even more specialized supply pattern than in the Neolithic [79% western highland source supply]). The major contrast to Neolithic networks, however, is that the remaining sources are all represented in the sampled assemblages but to a very small degree. For example, the Group 5/Lisī sources make up only 4% and the Lisī outcrop only 2% of obsidian supplied to Iron Age sites. Just as we see in the Bronze Age, Jabal Isbīl remains a consistently low supplier (4%).

The YafāΚ region outcrops continue to dominate the same north–south corridor that is spatially evident in previous periods. As in earlier periods, the southern end of this corridor has an overlap of supply, although in smaller quantities and variability than the Bronze Age. As in the Bronze Age, we continue to see that the YafāΚ region outcrops dominate as suppliers north of the YafāΚ outcrop, while the YafāΚ outcrop dominates to its south, with a single exception (Fig. 11/b).

Himyarite sites

Of 410 sites recorded by the DSP, 133 have Himyarite (first century BC–sixth century AD) occupation. Thirty samples of archaeological obsidian were analysed from fourteen of these sites.2 Percentages for the Himyarite period demonstrate a significant decrease in the exploitation of YafāΚ outcrop obsidian from the preceding Iron Age period (from 48% to 27%), and a dominance of the YafāΚ region outcrops (46%), unlike the preceding Bronze and Iron Age periods (Fig. 12/a). Supply from Isbīl (10%) is slightly higher than in the Bronze and Iron Ages while matches to the Lisī outcrop remain low in numbers (7%) since its introduction and abundant exploitation in the Early Bronze Age.

Group 5 appears to be on a decline as a supply zone from the Neolithic onwards (from 21% to 3%).

2 The site of MaΒnaΚat Māryah is represented by forty-eight samples of analysed obsidian. The results of the analyses show that the supply was roughly equal in numbers of obsidian artefacts originating from the YafāΚ outcrop and from the YafāΚ region (see Lewis et al. 2010). In an effort not to skew the data, these forty-eight samples are represented as two samples, as a ratio of 1/1 YafāΚ outcrop:YafāΚ region.


Figure 11a. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for Iron Age period sites in the DSP region.

Figure 11b. Distribution of Iron Age sites in the DSP area in relation to the major source zones. The icons represent source matches identified for each site analysed.

Interestingly, two samples analysed from a single site with a dominant Islamic component (making up 6% of the total) do not match any known outcrops or compositional groups. The site of Dhāwran (DS181) is located in an area at the north-east edge of the DSP survey area and is close to the escarpment where Oligocene traps of poor quality are likely to be exposed. The dominantly Islamic occupation of this site (exploitation of obsidian in the Islamic period often only occurs when a site is on the location of a source outcrop) and its position

along the zone of exposures of Oligocene obsidian traps make these unknown compositions likely candidates for minor sources in the vicinity and thus very localized consumption trends.

Besides YafāΚ outcrop sources continuing to supply sites of the Himyarite period at longer distances and in more directions than other sources, we also note that the southern end of the north–south corridor remains a juncture where source supplies overlap. Significantly, the remaining matches to other sources remain very close to


Figure 12b. Distribution of Himyarite sites in the DSP area in relation to the major source zones. The icons represent source matches identified for each site analysed.

Figure 12a. Overall percentages of obsidian source matches for Himyarite period sites in the DSP region.

the source outcrops in this period. Four sites matching source outcrop are located on or in extreme proximity to the sources (YafāΚ outcrop: DS179; Isbīl: DS320, DS321; Lisī: DS302) and are therefore not visible on the map as they overlap with the source icon. Their distribution is restricted, a trend that is more common as metal becomes more accessible to populations, as it does in this period. A good example of this trend is DS 3, whereby 50% (n=24) of the site’s worked obsidian comes from the source of Jirāb al-Sūf, immediately adjacent to the site.

Comparing site-to-source matches across periods with attention to their geographical distribution demonstrates an additional benefit of such studies. If exploitation of obsidian sources is by and large limited to sites near outcrops during this period (the case of YafāΚ being the exception; Fig. 12/b), then the spatial distribution of Himyarite sites matching sources should help us to zone in more precisely on the locations of unexplored outcrops and flows. For example, the distribution of Himyarite site-to-source matches on the map reveals a distinct


cluster of YafāΚ region matches, which probably point to an unknown local source in this area.

Discussion and conclusion

When interpreted in isolation, obsidian source characterization can provide information on the geological origin of worked obsidian recovered from archaeological sites. It does not, however, necessarily allow for a proper understanding of the dynamics of the exchange and movement of this and other materials (i.e. in what form, by whom, and through what precise channels the material was transported). Data on site-to-source matches become increasingly pertinent to understanding contact spheres when they accompany comprehensive volcanological and geomorphological studies as well as technological studies of craft production (lithic studies being foremost), and the social and economic structures that accommodate the activities taking place on inter- and intra-site levels.

The eastern highland sources that were analysed by V. Francaviglia (1990a; 1990b) did not produce matches with archaeological specimens at the time of their analysis because many of the artefacts were either older in date than the eastern highland eruptions (Khalidi et al. 2010: 2341) or originated from source outcrops and flows not yet identified at the time. Our systematic sampling methodology and our new source finds have helped to identify the origins of most of the artefacts that we have collected as well as those that were previously published as unidentified (Khalidi et al. 2010: 2339–2340; Lewis et al. 2010: 222–223; Barca, Lucarini & Fedele 2011).

All analysed obsidian material (n=163) excavated and dated by the DSP to between the sixth millennium BC and the Himyarite period, corresponds to local highland obsidian exchange networks. Our register of highland sites analysed and matching highland obsidian sources and highland composition Groups 1–5 now stands at forty-three (of 410) DSP sites across the highland central plains. Only two of the analysed obsidian samples (from a single site) have an unknown origin but are most likely from unexplored highland Tertiary traps of poor quality near the site in question.

Complementary technological studies of the obsidian industries in the region demonstrate that obsidian production continued to play a significant role well into the Himyarite period (e.g. DS 181 Dhāwran, DS 3 MaΒnaΚat Māryah; see Lewis et al. 2010) despite the introduction of iron production and use. In later periods, however, the functional role of obsidian tools became increasingly more minor. By the Himyarite period it is

mainly characterized by relatively informal utilization of unstructured debitage that enabled inhabitants to produce sharp-edged multi-purpose tools on a need-to-use basis and where obsidian was easily accessible. This was a major change from the previous technologies and industries that characterize the Neolithic and Bronze Age highlands such as carefully worked hunting tools (bifacially worked projectiles [Neolithic] and composite backed barbs and points [Bronze Age]).3

Our results show that the most extensively exploited source areas in the highland plains of Yemen were the YafāΚ outcrop and YafāΚ region source areas. In the Dhamār survey region, western sources dominate the supply of obsidian across periods of occupation, except during the Early Bronze Age when we notice a clear introduction and maximum use of previously unexploited sources (Lisī and Isbīl outcrops) in the east. Following the Early Bronze Age, these sources continued to be used to supply sites locally but appear to decrease in importance for the overall region. Furthermore, their supply was limited to a distribution that is concentrated immediately south of the outcrops.

Our observation that the YafāΚ outcrop dominated the supply of obsidian across all periods represented is strengthened by the fact that obsidian varieties from the YafāΚ outcrop are of the highest quality yet known in the region and that the geological obsidian at the outcrop is most abundant in the form of sub-angular medium-sized nodules, which are ideal natural supports for laminar and lamellar debitage. The existence of extensive blade and bladelet workshop areas along the YafāΚ outcrop (DS179) is of no surprise, given the evident demand for this particular variety of obsidian over time and the potential ease with which it could be exploited for blade production.

Hypothesizing routes of exchange through spatial analysis

Applying our new matches to diachronic statistical and spatial analysis of analysed obsidian from sites in this key resource-rich region has thus enabled us to observe trends in obsidian circulation, potential territorial demarcations

3 Neolithic industries are referred to as ‘Arabian Bifacial Tradition’ in the literature (Edens 1982), while backed barbs and points are referred to as ‘geometric microliths’. Little micro-wear has been carried out on Yemeni industries as a result of poor surface alteration on tools. Preliminary observations of impact wear and techno-morphological characteristics on certain of these artefacts, however, point to a likelihood that both these industries were used as projectiles for hunting.


and/or corridors of movement of people and goods across periods, as well as possible trends in local preferences and choices relating to resource quality and acquisition strategies.

Neolithic exchange routes

During the Neolithic the finer-quality YafāΚ sources were dominant, with Group 5/Lisī playing a substantial but secondary role. During this period, however, we observe a total absence of supply from the Lisī outcrop and Isbīl complex. Interestingly, the same trends hold true for obsidian from Neolithic sites excavated by the Italian Archaeological Mission (IAM) to Yemen in the Khawlān eastern highlands. Obsidian from these sites was recently sourced by LA-ICP-MS and applied to our published geological database (Barca, Lucarini & Fedele 2011; Khalidi et al. 2010). The IAM results demonstrate that the majority of sites match the YafāΚ outcrop, and a smaller but significant number match the Lisī complex (Barca, Lucarini & Fedele 2011). These Neolithic sites (Wādī al-Najīd al-AbyaΡ [NAB] group and Wādī al-Thayyilah [WTH] group) are located approximately 25–60 km north of the Lisī and Isbīl complexes and approximately 30–75 km north-north-east of the YafāΚ outcrop along the Wādī Dānah drainage system.4 Matches between YafāΚ outcrop and these sites extend supply further north and east than is visible on our DSP map (see Fig. 1; Barca, Lucarini & Fedele 2011).

A YafāΚ outcrop match to the Neolithic site of MātāfaΉ in the Omani Dhofar region, located 1000 km (as the crow flies) from YafāΚ (Khalidi et al. 2010: 2339), adds an interesting challenge to future studies on the dynamics of Neolithic long-distance exchange systems. Spatial analyses applied to our site-to-source matches in the immediate region of the Yemen highland obsidian outcrops allow us to hypothesize where local route systems may have passed and which of these may have extended further distances from the source areas. For example, a southern route (corridor passing near the modern town of Yarīm) is discernible (see Fig. 9/b) where there is a visible overlap in the representation of source

4 It must be noted that in this paper distances refer to the shortest distance between two points (in this case, source outcrop and site) and do not reflect the topography, the distance travelled if following potential corridors of movement, or the presence of intermediaries or points of redistribution like marketplaces, for example. Kilometres are used to compare approximate distances to one another, and not to insinuate that these were the actual distances travelled by people at any one time or that these networks were not hierarchical or complex.

outcrops on sites. This suggests that all varieties exploited during this period were moving south.

Using this data we observe that this north–south corridor may have extended north into YafāΚ territory where the YafāΚ outcrop prevails, and only western sources are represented. This corridor may well have continued northwards towards the СanΚāΜ plains, although this remains to be determined. Given matches to other contemporary sites in the Khawlān area (Barca, Lucarini & Fedele 2011; Khalidi et al. 2010: 2339), however, this route may have branched, veering east towards the Wādī Dānah drainage, which links the eastern highlands to the MaΜrib region. Interestingly, our analyses (Khalidi et al. 2010) as well as those of Barca, Lucarini and Fedele (2011) validate the presence of a supply of Lisī obsidian along this eastern route during this period. We would then expect Neolithic sites in eastern lowland Yemen (desert fringe and ДaΡramawt) to have access to both YafāΚ and Lisī obsidian. Both possible routes (the southern and the eastern) may have been used to redistribute YafāΚ obsidian to the Omani Dhofar region during this period, although the eastern remains the less circuitous of the two.

Analysis of eight obsidian samples from surveyed sites (all with Neolithic components) in the western escarpment survey area (Дazm al-ΚUdayn and Jabal RaΜs, directed by L. Khalidi) match the YafāΚ outcrop and the YafāΚ region sources (Jirāb al-Sūf, Groups 2 and 4; Khalidi et al. 2010: 2339–2340). These sites are located between 970 and 470 m above sea level along the Wādī Zabīd drainage and are distributed as far west as the Tihāmah foothills (see Fig. 8).

While the western highland sources (YafāΚ outcrop and YafāΚ region sources) were clearly also supplying obsidian to the west, there is little indication of circulation of highland obsidian beyond the natural interface separating the highlands and coastal lowlands of south-west Yemen. Of thirty-three obsidian artefacts analysed from fourteen (of 180) sites surveyed along the Tihāmah coastal plain (Khalidi 2007: 40), there is only one match to highland sources reported west of the foothills. This match to the YafāΚ outcrop pertains to a recent analysis by LA-HR-ICP-MS carried out at the IRAMAT-Orléans (2011) on an obsidian flake from a multi-period (Neolithic to Bronze Age) shell midden site on the Red Sea littoral. It is unclear whether this single surface sample dates to the Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, or Bronze Age period. The presence of one YafāΚ outcrop match on the coast, however, is interesting given the evident African orientation of the Tihāmah coastal peoples at this time (Khalidi 2008; 2009).


Bronze and Iron Age exchange routes

Intensive use of a greater diversity of sources is noted during the Early Bronze Age, with the Lisī outcrop both appearing for the first time and reaching its supply peak. This increased diversity may reflect increased territorial control and competition over resources; developments that would be further supported by transformations in highland settlement patterns at the time (settlement growth, greater number and dispersal of sites, higher demographics; see Wilkinson 2010: 56, 59).

By the later Bronze Age, the YafāΚ source region recovered its position as the foremost supplier of obsidian in the area. The southern route continued to have sites with a diversity of sources represented and persisted in this way across periods. All eastern highland sources continued to be represented but in extremely small quantities. This obsidian was limited to sites in the region due south of the eastern obsidian source zone. During this period, we also observe a clear north–south territorial divide in the western source zone. The distribution of YafāΚ region obsidian is concentrated in a cluster north of the YafāΚ outcrop. The lack of overlap with YafāΚ outcrop obsidian on the sites falling in this cluster suggests that the distribution of obsidian from the assumed source outcrop in this area (signalled by the density of a single type of obsidian in one area) was being controlled within up to a 10 km radius from the point of extraction or production. The introduction of previously unencountered obsidian varieties (namely eastern), fluctuations in degrees of exploitation from the Early Bronze Age to the later Bronze Age, and what may be interpreted as the first signs of competition over resources (and territory) are in line with the socio-economic transformations that occurred during the highland Bronze Age (Edens 1999; Edens, Wilkinson & Barratt 2000).

The YafāΚ source region prevailed in the Iron Age during which time it provided over 90% of obsidian to sites in the region. Very little obsidian from the eastern sources is witnessed during this period, and what we have analysed was not circulating far from its origin. Otherwise, spatial trends continue to appear as they did for the Bronze Age, save a more pronounced and dominant north–south corridor. In addition to the spatial north–south pattern observed from mapping the obsidian data, more than one prehistoric to early historic north–south corridor is noted by Wilkinson, who interprets the presence of large sites such as Bronze Age Дawāgir (DS293) and Bronze and Iron Age Kharābat JabΉān (DS326) as well as major Iron Age/Himyarite sites and inscriptions found in alignment

in a passage conducive to moving and pasturing animals, as evidence of three parallel north–south routes (Wilkinson 2003: 163–165, fig. 6). The fact that the alignment holds true across periods and more or less still retains its function today, both locally and more formally in the case of the asphalted Dhamār–Ibb road, is further testament to the fact that this passage may have been an avenue of movement from as early as the Neolithic. What we interpret as the increased demarcation of routes in the Iron Age is in line with the formalization of trade routes during this period, when the South Arabian kingdoms vied for control over access routes to valued resources and to regions exchanging goods for incense.

Himyarite exchange routes

During the Himyarite period, we observe that the western sources were not as overwhelmingly dominant as during the Iron Age, but remained major to supply. We note, however, that most sites match nearby sources. Within the YafāΚ region source group, the poor-quality Jirāb al-Sūf outcrop is heavily represented on sites in the surrounding micro-region, unlike in earlier periods. This and other minor poor-quality outcrops are near the site of MaΒnaΚat Māryah (DS3), which was a major Himyarite centre and certainly the most important site in the region at the time. It is likely that these minor sources were exploited and redistributed micro-locally by the inhabitants of MaΒnaΚat Māryah (Lewis et al. 2010).

The Isbīl outcrop reached a peak in exploitation (although at only 10%) during this period. All of the sites supplied by Isbīl, however, are located on the flanks of the outcrop itself. With the exception of the YafāΚ outcrop, which continued to have high representation and wide distribution — although in smaller quantities and to fewer sites — the remaining sources were supplying only to sites in their immediate area, or were located on the outcrops themselves. The quantities of obsidian generally decrease in the Himyarite period, but we have noted that they decrease or are non-existent especially with distance from source. One could argue that the desire for quality obsidian became less of a factor with time; but the fact that the highest-quality obsidian (YafāΚ) available continued circulating at relatively large distances from the outcrop, albeit in smaller densities, while poor-quality obsidian did not, makes this a disputable statement, and further highlights the need to understand the intricacies of exchange dynamics in tandem with continued complementary archaeological studies in this region.


Discussion summary

Our current obsidian data match the highland obsidian sources to local highland sites (5–10 km) as well as those in the eastern highlands (25–75 km) in differing intensities over time, with evident fluctuations both in supply and in demand. The large dataset provides a window, for the first time, into the complex and changing economic structures that existed in the highlands of Yemen. Furthermore, we are able to link these localized and competing interaction spheres to sites in the east and as far afield as the Omani Dhofar region (1000 km), and to sites as far west as the western foothills (100 km) and the Tihāmah littoral (160 km).

As we have demonstrated, the addition of obsidian data to existing scholarship will only further associate Yemen’s prehistoric to early historic populations with the wider archaeology of the Near East, and demonstrate that the same socio-economic transformations and expressions

of territoriality were occurring in the highlands of Arabia as in the rest of the ancient Near East.

Acknowledgements

The Yemeni Social Fund for Development and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock provided funding for DSP fieldwork. Lamya Khalidi was funded by a Fyssen Foundation postdoctoral grant in 2008. Analyses were made possible at the IRAMAT-CNRS as part of a Plan Pluri-Formation grant. We would like to thank the Yemeni General Organization for Antiquities and Museums (GOAM), and specifically Ali Sanabani and Ahmed al-Mosabi, for their active participation in the VAPOR project. We would also like to thank the CEPAM-CNRS for having hosted the VAPOR project in its initial years and the IMF-CSIC in Barcelona for continuing to support it.

References

Bader N.O., Merpert N.J. & Munchaev R.M. 1994. Les importations d’obsidienne sur les sites des IXe–VIIe millénaires B.P. du Djabal Sinjar, Iraq.

Paléorient 20/2: 6–8.Barca D., Lucarini G. & Fedele F.G. 2011. Provenance of obsidian artefacts from the Wādī Ath-Thayyilah 3 Neolithic site (Eastern Yemen Plateau)

by LA-ICP-MS Method. Archaeometry 21 December: 1–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00643.x.Briois F., Gratuze B. & Guilaine J. 1997. Obsidienne du site néolithique précéramique de Shillourokambos, Chypre. Paléorient 23/1: 95–112.Cauvin M.C. 2002. L’obsidienne et sa diffusion dans le Proche-Orient Néolithique. Pages 13–30 in J. Guilaine (ed.),

Matériaux, productions, circulations du Néolithique à l’Âge du Bronze. Séminaire du Collège de France. Paris: Éditions Errance.

Cauvin M.C. & Balkan-Atli N. 1996. Rapport sur les recherches sur l’obsidienne en Cappadoce, 1993–1995. Anatolia Antiqua 4: 249–271.Cauvin M.C., Besnus Y., Tripier J. & Montigny R. 1991. Nouvelles analyses d’obsidiennes du Proche-Orient: modèle de géochimie des magmas utilisé pour la

recherche archéologique. Paléorient 17/2: 5–20.Cauvin M.C., Gourgaud A., Gratuze B., Arnaud N., Poupeau G., Poidevin J-L. & Chataigner C. (eds). 1998. L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du volcan à l’outil. (British Archaeological Reports,

International Series, 738). Oxford: Archaeopress.Edens C. 1982. Toward a definition of the western RubΜ al-Khali ‘Neolithic’. Atlal 6: 109–124. 1999. The Bronze Age of Highland Yemen: chronological and spatial variability of pottery and settlement.

Paléorient 25/2: 103–126.Edens C. & Wilkinson T.J. 1998. Southwest Arabia during the Holocene: recent Archaeological developments. Journal of World

Prehistory 12/1: 55–119.


Edens C., Wilkinson T.J. & Barratt G. 2000. Hammat al-Qa and the roots of urbanism in southwest Arabia. Antiquity 74: 854–862.Fornaseri M., Malpieri L., Palmieri A.M. & Taddeucci A. 1975–1977. Analyses of obsidians from the Late Chalcolithic levels of Aslantepe (Malatya). Paléorient 3: 231–246.Francaviglia V.M. 1990a. Obsidian sources in ancient Yemen. Pages 129–136 in A. de Maigret, G. Gnoli & D. Faccenna (eds),

The Bronze Age Culture of Khawlan at-Tiyal and al-Hada (Yemen Arab Republic). Rome: ISMEO.1990b. Les gisements d’obsidienne hyperalcaline dans l’Ancien Monde: étude comparative. Revue d’Archéométrie

14: 43–64.Keall E.J. 2004. Possible connections in antiquity between the Red Sea coast of Yemen and the Horn of Africa. Pages 43–

55 in P. Lunde & A. Porter (eds), Trade and Travel in the Red Sea region. (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs, 2). (British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1269). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Khalidi L. 2007. The formation of a southern Red Seascape in the late prehistoric period: tracing cross-Red Sea culture-

contact, interaction, and maritime communities along the Tihāmah coastal plain, Yemen in the third to first millennium BC. Pages 35–43 in J. Starkey, P. Starkey & T. Wilkinson (eds), Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea: Proceedings of Red Sea Project III. (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs, 5). (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1661). Oxford: Archaeopress.

2008. The late prehistoric standing stones of the Tihâma (Yemen): the domestication of space and the construction of human-landscape identity. Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée (RMMM): Yémen, territoires et identités 121–122: 17–33.

2010. Holocene Obsidian Exchange in the Red Sea region. Pages 279–291 in M.D. Petraglia & J.I. Rose (eds), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Khalidi L., Oppenheimer C., Gratuze B., Boucetta S., Sanabani A. & al-Mosabi M. 2010. Obsidian sources in highland Yemen and their relevance to archaeological research in the Red Sea

region. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2332–2345.Lewis K., Khalidi L., Eisenberger B. & Sanabani A. 2010. Mapping Masna’at Māryah: using GIS to reconstruct the development of a multi-period site in the

highlands of Yemen. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40: 213–226.Renfrew C. & Dixon J.E. 1976. Obsidian in western Asia: a review. Pages 137–150 in G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth & K.E.

Wilson (eds), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth.Renfrew C., Dixon J.E. & Cann J.R. 1966. Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72. 1968. Further analysis of Near Eastern obsidian. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 319–331.Tosi M. 1986. Archaeological activities in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1986: Neolithic and protohistoric cultures,

survey and excavations in the coastal plain (Tihāmah). East and West 36: 400–415.Wilkinson T.J. 2003. The organization of settlement in highland Yemen during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the

Seminar for Arabian Studies 33: 157–168. 2010. Environment and long-term population trends in southwest Arabia. Pages 51–66 in M.D. Petraglia

and J.I. Rose (eds), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Wilkinson T.J., Edens C. & Gibson M. 1997. The Archaeology of the Yemen high plains: a preliminary chronology. Arabian Archaeology and

Epigraphy 8: 99–142.


Authors’ addressesLamya Khalidi, Institución Milá Y Fontanals (IMF), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), C/Egipcíaques, 15 Barcelona, E-08001, Spain.e-mail [email protected]

Krista Lewis, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Department of Anthropology, 2801 S. University Ave, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA.e-mail [email protected]

Bernard Gratuze, Institut de Recherche sur les ArchéoMATériaux (IRAMAT), UMR 5060 du CNRS, Université d’Orléans, Centre Ernest-Babelon, 3 D rue de la Férollerie, F-45071 Orléans, Cedex, France.e-mail [email protected]


Khalidi Lewis Gratuze 2012

Documents

obsidian artefacts

consumer of obsidian

published obsidian data

new data

obsidianrich zones

unknown obsidian sources

archaeological data

arabia khalidi