296
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
Introduction
Research on the provenance of artefacts made of
waterless volcanic glass (obsidian) began at the mo-
dern methodological level in the 1960s, first in the
Mediterranean (Cann, Renfrew 1964) and afterwards
in the Americas, Europe, East Africa, Oceania, and
East and Southeast Asia (see bibliographies: Skin-
ner, Tremaine 1993; Pollmann 1999). The success
of obsidian source studies in the 1970s to 2010s,
following the pioneering works of the 1960s, was
due to the fact that almost every source of obsidian
has a unique ‘geochemical portrait (signature)’ (i.e.
the content of several chemical elements) which can
be determined using analytical methods (Williams-
Thorpe 1995; Glascock et al. 1998; Shackley 2005;
Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and north-
eastern regions of Russia and exchange networks
in the prehistory of Northeast Asia> a review
Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, RU
kuzmin@fulbrightmail.org< kuzmin_yv@igm.nsc.ru
ABSTRACT – This overview is based on the results of 25+ years of provenance studies to identify the
sources of high-quality volcanic glass (obsidian) in prehistoric cultural complexes of the far eastern
and northeastern regions of Russia (Maritime Province, the Amur River basin, Sakhalin Island, the
Kurile Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula, Chukotka region, the Kolyma River basin, and the High Arctic),
as well as in adjacent parts of Northeast Asia (Hokkaido Island, the Korean Peninsula, and Manchu-
ria). The extended networks of obsidian exchange in antiquity are reconstructed for the southern
Russian Far East and Northeastern Siberia. A possible mechanism of long-distance obsidian exchange/
trade in Northeastern Siberia is suggested.
IZVLE∞EK – Pri≠ujo≠a presoja je osnovana na rezultatih ve≠ kot 25 let ∏tudij provenience pri iskanju
izvorov visoko kakovostnega vulkanskega stekla (obsidiana) v prazgodovinskih kulturnih kompleksih
na ruskem Daljnem Vzhodu in v regijah severovzhodne Rusije (obmorske province, obmo≠je reke Amur,
otok Sahalin, Kurilsko oto≠je, polotok Kam≠atka, obmo≠je ∞ukotka, obmo≠je reke Kolime in Arkti≠no
vi∏avje) kot tudi v sosednjih delih severovzhodne Azije (otok Hokkaido, Korejski polotok in Man≠uri-
ja). Za obmo≠ji ju∫nega dela ruskega Daljnega Vzhoda in severovzhodno Sibirijo smo ∫e rekonstru-
irali raz∏irjeno mre∫o menjave obsidiana v preteklosti. Predlagamo pa mo∫ne mehanizme menjav/
trgovine z obsidianom na dalj∏e razdalje na obmo≠ju severovzhodne Sibirije.
KEY WORDS – obsidian; provenance study; prehistoric exchange; far eastern Russia; Northeastern
Siberia
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – obsidian; provenienca; prazgodovinska menjava; ruski Daljni Vzhod; severo-
vzhodna Sibirija
{tudije provenience obsidiana na obmo;ju ruskega Daljnega Vzhoda
in v severovzhodni Rusiji ter mre/e menjav v prazgodovini
v severovzhodni Aziji> pregled
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.18

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
297
tion Analysis (NAA); and (2) X-ray Fluorescence
(XRF). Full descriptions of these methods were given
previously (Kuzmin, Glascock 2014; Kuzmin et al.
2002a; 2008; Glascock et al. 2011; Grebennikov et
al. 2018), and here I refer to these publications for
more details. As for the research strategy employed
by our group since 1992, we initially identified, using
XRF and NAA, the geochemical groups for a few do-
zen obsidian artefacts from Primorye Province and
the Amur River basin. This made it possible to find
out about the number of primary obsidian sources
which were exploited (Glascock et al. 1996; Shac-
kley et al. 1996). Afterwards, all major primary sour-
ces of obsidian in these regions were examined by
NAA (Kuzmin et al. 2002a; Popov et al. 2005; Glas-
cock et al. 2011; Kuzmin et al. 2013). First, the full
version of NAA, which allows the determination of
28 elements with high precision (one part-per-mil-
lion, or 10
–4
%), was used. When the ‘geochemical
signatures’ of the main sources were established, it
was possible to use the abridged version of NAA
(with measurement of the content of 7–12 elements)
for the examination of artefacts only, due to the
relatively high cost of the full NAA and its destruc-
tive nature (samples become radioactive and need
to be utilised as low-level nuclear waste).
Other analytical methods used by different groups
of South Korean, Australian and US scholars in east-
ern Russia and adjacent Northeast Asia were Proton-
Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) and Proton-Induced
Gamma-ray Emission (PIGME) (Kim et al. 2007;
Doelman et al. 2008); portable XRF and a laser ab-
lation version of the Inductively Coupled Plasma –
Mass Spectrometry (LA–ICP–MS) (Phillips 2010); and
a Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis (PGAA) (Jwa
et al. 2018).
As a result of the comparison based on established
statistical procedures (Glascock et al. 1998), com-
mon geochemical groups for sources and archaeolo-
gical samples were identified (Kuzmin, Glascock
2014). This made it possible to determine with a
high degree of reliability from where the ancient
people acquired obsidian. This information consti-
tutes a solid basis for the reconstruction of the pro-
curement and exchange of raw materials in the pre-
historic cultural complexes of the entire Northeast
Asia.
Various groups of scientists up to early 2019 have
analysed about 3110 samples of obsidian from far
eastern and northeastern Russia, as well as from
adjacent parts of Northeast Asia – the Korean Penin-
Carter 2014). The establishment of primary sources
for obsidian artefacts is very important for under-
standing the patterns of ancient migrations and con-
tacts.
Obsidian is quite common in the far eastern and
northeastern regions of Russia, in the prehistoric as-
semblages of Kamchatka Peninsula, Chukotka region,
Primorye (Maritime) Province, Sakhalin Island, and
Kurile Islands (Kuzmin 2010; 2014; Grebennikov et
al. 2018). In other parts of eastern Russia – the Amur
River basin, northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk,
the basins of the Kolyma and Indigirka rivers, and
the High Arctic (Kuzmin 2014; Pitulko et al. 2019) –
obsidian tools are also present but are not numerous.
Actual studies of archaeological obsidian in these
regions only began in the early 1990s (Glascock et
al. 1996; Shackley et al. 1996), even though in east-
ern Russia the presence of such artefacts has been
known since the end of the nineteenth century (Kuz-
min 2014.144). In this overview, brief information
on the current state-of-the-art in obsidian provenance
research in eastern Russia is presented, based on the
latest summaries (Kuzmin 2010; 2011; 2012; 2014;
2017; 2019).
Methodology of obsidian provenance research
and the materials used
Since the 1960s (Cann, Renfrew 1964; Parks, Tieh
1966; Griffin et al. 1969), the identification of obsi-
dian sources for archaeological materials has been
conducted by comparing the geochemical composi-
tion (mainly of trace elements – U, Th, Ta, Hf, Lu,
Yb, Dy, Tb, Eu, Sm, Nd, and some others) of obsidian
from primary sources and archaeological assemblages
(see Glascock et al. 1998; Shackley 2005). One of
the most important conditions for the interpreta-
tion of geochemical data is the use of uniform analy-
tical standards, although this is not always the case;
therefore, data from different laboratories often can-
not be compared (see review: Suda et al. 2018a). In
our case studies described here, all measurements
for eastern Russia were performed in one laborato-
ry, the Research Reactor Center of the University of
Missouri (Columbia, MO, USA) (Glascock et al. 2007),
using the same methodology (Glascock et al. 1998).
This makes it possible to conduct a direct comparison
of the results obtained for both primary (‘geological’)
locales of obsidian and artefacts.
Two main analytical techniques for the geochemical
analysis of obsidian in eastern Russia were used by
our informal Russian-US group: (1) Neutron Activa-

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
298
sula, Northeast China (Manchuria), and Hokkaido Is-
land (Tab. 1) (see Kuzmin, Popov 2000; Popov et
al. 2005; Kim et al. 2007; Doelman et al. 2008;
2012; 2014; Phillips 2010; Jia et al. 2010; 2013;
Kuzmin 2014; Kuzmin, Glascock 2014; Kim 2014;
Lee, Kim 2015; Lynch et al. 2016, 2018; Kuzmin et
al. 2018; Grebennikov et al. 2018; Chang, Kim
2018; Pitulko et al. 2019). Due to the plethora of in-
formation on obsidian geochemistry for the Honshu
and Kyushu islands of Japan, available mostly in Ja-
panese only (Sugihara 2014), these regions are ex-
cluded from this overview; some English summaries
have recently been published and can serve as pri-
mary data (see Tsutsumi 2010; Obata et al. 2010;
Ikeya 2014; 2015; Sato, Yakushige 2014; Shiba
2014; Shimada 2014; Shimada et al. 2017; Suda et
al. 2018b).
Results and discussion
Sources of obsidian in Primorye Province
In the southern part of Primorye Province, the main
primary source of obsidian (more precisely, water-
less volcanic glass) is the Shkotovo (Basaltic) Pla-
teau (Tab. 1, Fig. 1). High quality volcanic glass is
associated here with basic rocks (basalts and ande-
site-basalts), unlike the majority of sources in North-
east Asia which are part of acidic rocks (mainly rhyo-
lites) in volcanic arc positions (Kuzmin et al. 2013;
Wada et al. 2014). Although basaltic glasses have
been known in Primorye for a long time (Petrov, Za-
murueva 1960), their detailed study only began in
the 1990s (Kuzmin et al. 2002a). During the erup-
tion of molten basalt, pillow lavas were formed at
the contact of the hot basalt mass and cold water
or solid surface. Due to rapid cooling of the lava,
spherical (‘pillow-shaped’) bodies with a diameter
of 1–5m were created (Doelman et al. 2012). The
surface layer of pillow lava consists of volcanic glass.
Obsidian on the Shkotovo Plateau is present in the
form of hyaloclastites, a material formed during the
fragmentation of the glassy outer part of pillow lava
blocks. Welded crusts with volcanic glass are also
known in this region; they are relatively thin (up to
0.3–0.5m) horizons of non-crystallised glass at the
contact of the lava flow and the underlying surface.
Another primary source of volcanic glass of acidic
(rhyolite) composition is located in the basin of the
Gladkaya River in the extreme southwestern part of
Primorye (Kuzmin et al. 2002a), but it was not wide-
ly exploited in prehistory (Kuzmin 2014; Doelman
et al. 2014).
Obsidian source on the Korean Peninsula
As far as we know today, the single primary obsidi-
an source in Korea of alkaline composition is situat-
ed near the modern Paektusan Volcano (Popov et al.
in press). It was originally recognised by Kuzmin et
al. (2002a) and Vladimir K. Popov et al. (2005), but
for a long time our knowledge was based exclusi-
vely on archaeological materials (i.e. obsidian arte-
facts). Only a handful of ‘geological’ samples with
unknown exact location – somewhere within the
northern part of Korea, called today the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea – were
analysed in the early-mid 2010s (Kim 2014.169; Yi,
Jwa, 2016; Jwa et al. 2018; Popov et al. in press).
Regions
Geological Archaeological
Main obsidian sources*
samples samples
Primorye (Maritime) Province 102 390 BP, PA
Amur River basin 12 39 OP, BP, SH-OK
Sakhalin Island – 206 SH-OK, AK
Kamchatka Peninsula 63 444 KAM-01 – KAM-15
Kurile Islands – 773 SH-OK, KAM-01, KAM-02, KAM-04, KAM-05, KAM-07
Chukotka 37 216 LK, KAM-01, KAM-03, KAM-08, VAK
Siberian Arctic (Zhokhov I.) – 14 LK
Manchuria (Northeast China) – 533 PA, BP
Korean Peninsula 14 211 PA, KO
Hokkaido Island 53 – SH-OK, AK, TM
Number of samples 281 2826 3107**
*   BP Basaltic Plateau< PA Paektusan Volcano region< OP Obluchie Plateau< SH-OK Shirataki and Oketo< AK Akaigawa<
KAM-01 – KAM-15 various Kamchatkan sources (see for details> Grebennikov, Kuzmin 2017)< LK Lake Krasnoe< VAK
Vakarevo type< KO Koshidake< TM Tokachi-Mitsumata.
** Total number of obsidian samples analysed for this overview (see text for references).
Tab. 1. Number of samples analysed for each region of Northeast Asia (1992–2019), and major obsidian
sources used in prehistory.

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
299
Nevertheless, all these data testify in favour of a sin-
gle geochemical group which reflects the ‘geochemi-
cal signature’ of a primary source. Based on compre-
hensive analysis of all available evidence, it is con-
cluded that the primary obsidian locale previously
named ‘Paektusan’ or PNK1 is situated somewhere
south of the Paektusan Volcano (Fig. 1). It is hoped
that in the near future it will be possible to pinpoint
the exact position of this important source in the lo-
gistically difficult region of North Korea.
Sources of obsidian in the Amur River basin
The major primary source of volcanic glass in the
Amur River basin is known from the Obluchie Pla-
teau, where it is confined to basaltic hyaloclastites
(Glascock et al. 2011) (Tab. 1; Fig. 1); its geological
position is similar to the Shkotovo Plateau. There are
also data about the existence of another kind of ba-
saltic obsidian in this region, but the exact location
of its source is still unknown. In the meantime, we
called it ‘Samarga’ (Kuzmin 2014.Fig. 6.1), and sug-
gest that it is situated in the Samarga River basin,
the northern part of Primorye Province (Kuzmin et
al. 2002a; Glascock et al. 2011).
Sources of obsidian on Hokkaido Island
Our informal Russian-US-Japanese group conducted
NAA analyses of four major obsidian sources on Hok-
kaido Island – Shirataki (with two sub-sources), Oke-
to (with two sub-sources), Akaigawa, and Tokachi-
Mitsumata (Kuzmin et al. 2002b; 2013; Kuzmin,
Glascock 2007). Other primary obsidian locales from
Hokkaido (around 17 in number), consisting of c.
17–20 geochemical groups, were investigated by
Keiji Wada et al. (2014) and Jeffrey R. Ferguson et
al. (2014). All these sources are situated in a volca-
nic arc setting (Wakita 2013; Wada et al. 2014).
Sources of obsidian on Kamchatka Peninsula
The Kamchatka Peninsula of eastern Russia is one of
the few regions in the world with a high concentra-
tion of obsidian sources, along with the Japanese
Islands (Kannari et al. 2014.Fig. 4.2) and Mesoame-
rica (Glascock et al. 1998; 2010). Today, at least 30
to 40 locales of acidic volcanic glass (associated with
rhyolites and rhyodacites) are known in Kamchatka
(Grebennikov, Kuzmin 2017; Grebennikov et al.
2010). They are genetically related to the volcanism
of the subduction zone of the Kurile-Kamchatkan arc
(see Khain 1994). The major problem in the geolo-
gical investigations of this region is its remoteness,
and the logistical aspect of fieldwork is difficult and
costly.
Currently, our Russian-US group has determined the
geochemical composition of only 16 primary sour-
ces of Kamchatkan obsidian (Grebennikov, Kuzmin
2017). This is due to the difficulty of carrying out
Fig. 1. Prehistoric obsidian exchange/trade networks in the southern Russian Far East and neighbouring
Northeast Asia (after Kuzmin 2017, modified).

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
300
fieldwork in the Sredinny Range which is devoid of
roads and settlements (Grebennikov et al. 2010.
90). Sources are usually lava flows, extrusive (em-
bedded in other rocks) bodies and pyroclastic flows.
Of the 30 to 40 primary locales, 14 sources were
actively used in prehistory.
Obsidian source in the Chukotka region (North-
eastern Siberia)
It has been known for a long time that an obsidian
source exists on Lake Krasnoe (with krasnoe mean-
ing ‘red’) in the lower reaches of the Anadyr River
(Nasedkin 1983) (Fig. 2), but more precise informa-
tion about it was non-existent before our fieldwork
in 2009. As a result of a survey and study of obsidi-
an and other rocks on the shore and around Lake
Krasnoe, we were able to obtain reliable data on the
geology and geochemistry of this source (Popov et
al. 2017; Grebennikov et al. 2018). Obsidian in Chu-
kotka is part of the rhyolites of the West Koryak vol-
canic belt, and it can be found as pebbles and small
boulders on the eastern shore of the lake; the pri-
mary source is perhaps currently under water (Gre-
bennikov et al. 2018.609).
Prehistoric obsidian exchange networks in the
far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia
One of the main tasks of studying obsidian for ar-
chaeological purposes is to establish the patterns of
its acquisition from primary sources, which allows
reliable reconstructions of obsidian exchange net-
works, as well as human contacts and migrations in
prehistory (Williams-Thorpe 1995; see also Kuzmin
2012; 2015; 2017). Currently, the existence of seve-
ral large-scale exchange systems has been established
(using obsidian as a commodity) for the southern
part of the Russian Far East and adjacent regions,
and for Northeastern Siberia (Figs. 1–2). Obsidian
in these regions was most intensively exploited in
the Stone Age – the Upper Palaeolithic (c. 25000–
12 000 years ago) and the Neolithic (c. 12 000–3000
years ago) (Kuzmin 2011; 2015). In the Bronze and
Early Iron ages (c. 3000–1500 years ago), the value
of obsidian as a raw material almost vanished, with
the exception of Kamchatka and the Siberian Arctic,
where the ancient populations continued to use it
until the arrival of Russian settlers in the 17
th
–18
th
centuries AD, who introduced metals.
Three obsidian exchange networks have been recon-
structed in the mainland Russian Far East (Fig. 1;
Tab. 1), centred around the sources of the Shkotovo
and Obluchie plateaus, and the Paektusan Volcano.
While obsidian from the Shkotovo Plateau and the
Paektusan sources is widely distributed in the re-
gion, including Primorye, the Korean Peninsula, Man-
churia, and the Amur River basin, the Obluchie Pla-
teau supplied only the Amur River basin. The distan-
ces from the sources to the utilisation sites in Pri-
morye and the Amur River basin range from a few
kilometres to 660–700km in a straight line, and for
the Paektusan obsidian network it is even further,
up to 800km (Fig. 1). The extensive exchange of ob-
sidian centred around the Paektusan source was ini-
tially established by our group in the early 2000s
(Kuzmin et al. 2002a); subsequent studies confirm-
ed this conclusion (Doelman et al. 2008; 2012).
In insular Russian Far East – Sakhalin Island and the
Kurile Islands – the main sources of obsidian were
Shirataki and Oketo locales on Hokkaido Island (Fig.
1). Obsidian from the Shirataki source was also de-
tected on the mainland (lower reaches of the Amur
River), and it was brought there c. 8000 years ago
(Glascock et al. 2011). The distance from the Hok-
kaido sources to the utilisation sites in some cases
exceeds 1000km in a straight line. For the Kurile Is-
lands, the use of obsidian from several Kamchatkan
sources has been established (Fig. 1), with distances
of up to 1400–1500km as the crow flies. These ob-
sidian exchange networks are an example of the su-
per-long transport of raw materials, and their exis-
tence would be impossible without the use of water-
craft from c. 10000 years ago onwards (Kuzmin
2016; 2017).
Based on current knowledge on obsidian sourcing in
insular Northeast Asia, one can confidently say that
obsidian from sources in the Japanese Islands almost
never reached the mainland part of the region, except
the lower Amur River basin (Kuzmin et al. 2013)
and the southernmost part of the Korean Peninsula
(Kim 2014; Kim et al. 2007; Lee, Kim 2015). As for
the latter, the main supplier of obsidian was the Ko-
shidake source in northern Kyushu Island; it was
also transported to the Ryukyu Archipelago in later
prehistory (Obata et al. 2010; Kuzmin 2010.Fig.
8.8). The use of watercraft for the creation of this net-
work since the Upper Palaeolithic is evident, because
even during the Last Glacial Maximum, c. 27000–
23000 years ago, the Korea (Tsushima) Strait be-
tween the Korean Peninsula and Kyushu Island exi-
sted, with c. 20km width (Kuzmin 2017.Fig. 4).
Research conducted on the Kamchatka Peninsula by
our group allowed us to reconstruct several obsidian
exchange networks, with distances from sources to
utilisation sites up to 600–650km in a straight line.

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
301
The study of the obsidian sources in Kamchatka is still
in its initial stage, primarily due to the high cost of
fieldwork in the more remote parts of the peninsula
where the majority of sources are located. Currently,
on the basis of general geological and geochemical
data, the most promising areas that require research
have been identified (Grebennikov, Kuzmin 2017).
Northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and adjacent areas)
is a relatively new territory for the study of obsidian
sources at the modern methodological level. Accord-
ing to the results of geochemical analyses of c. 220
artefacts from the Chukotka region, a single source
of obsidian was found, at Lake Krasnoe (Grebenni-
kov et al. 2018). The raw materials from this locale
spread beyond Chukotka – to the Koryak Uplands,
the basin of the Kolyma River, and Alaska (Greben-
nikov et al. 2018; Kuzmin et al. 2018; Rasic 2016)
(Fig. 2). The distance from the source to the utilisa-
tion sites in some cases exceeds 1000km in a straight
line.
The latest data from this region were obtained for
the Zhokhov site in the High Arctic (76°N latitude).
Here 79 obsidian artefacts were found in the Meso-
lithic cultural layer, dated to c. 8900–8600 years ago
(Pitulko, Pavlova 2016). A provenance study of 14
artefacts showed that the raw material of all of them
originated from the Lake Krasnoe source (Pitulko
et al. 2019). The straight distance between site and
the source is c. 1500km; considering the coastline
of the Arctic Ocean at the time of human occupation,
it would be c. 2000km (Fig. 2; Pitulko et al. 2019.
Fig. 7). The obsidian from the Zhokhov site along
with other archaeological localities in Northeastern
Siberia (Kuzmin et al. 2018) is evidence of the su-
per-long-distance transport of raw material. It also
shows that the size of the human interaction sphere
in the Mesolithic of the Siberian Arctic was very
large, up to c. 4000000km
2
(Pitulko et al. 2019).
An important feature of obsidian exploitation by an-
cient humans in the eastern regions of Russia is the
use of this raw material from several sources at a
given site from the same cultural component; such
cases have been repeatedly noted in Kamchatka, Pri-
morye, Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands (Kuz-
min 2014). The clearest example in this respect is
Fig. 2. Distribution of obsidian of the Lake Krasnoe source in Northeastern Siberia and Alaska (modified
from Kuzmin 2019 and Pitulko et al. 2019). Red circles are sites with geochemically-characterised obsid-
ian artefacts belonging to the Lake Krasnoe source.

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
302
the multilayered Ushki site cluster in Kamchatka
(Kuzmin et al. 2008). In the Late Pleistocene Layer 7
(dated to c. 12 600–17 400 years ago), seven sources
of obsidian were identified. In the Final Pleistocene
Layer 6 (dated to c. 11900–12900 years ago), the
use of obsidian from four primary sources was de-
tected. In the Holocene strata 5–1 (dated to c. 300–
10 100 years ago), obsidian from one to six sources
was determined. The distance from the site to the
sources of obsidian is c. 140–260km in a straight
line, and the sources are c. 250–500km apart. This
complex strategy in the acquisition of valuable raw
material in the harsh sub-Arctic environment, reve-
aled after obsidian provenance research done by our
group (see Kuzmin et al. 2008; Grebennikov, Kuz-
min 2017; Grebennikov et al. 2010), represents a
striking pattern of human adaptation to the natural
environment in northeastern Russia in the late Up-
per Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic.
One of the most important aspects in the study of
the acquisition and use of archaeological obsidian
is the mechanism for acquiring raw material from
remote sources. In the southern Russian Far East,
the travel distance of obsidian pebbles transported
by rivers is up to 30–50km downstream from the
source (Pantukhina 2007). Because today the pres-
ence of long-distance movement of obsidian, which
greatly exceeds the range of obsidian transport by
natural agents, is well-established (Figs. 1–2; Tab.
1), the issues related to exchange of this high-quality
raw material are of great significance. Studies done
in the Mediterranean and Near East in the 1960s
(Renfrew 1975) allowed the creation of the ‘down-
the-line’ concept of prehistoric trade/exchange. The
main components of this concept are: (1) a supply
zone, with a radius of up to 300km from the centre
where the utilisation site is located, with the share
of obsidian in the composition of the raw materials
up to 80%; and (2) a contact zone beyond the sup-
ply zone, inhabitants of which could not easily visit
the sources of obsidian due to the large distance to
them, and they exchanged (traded) obsidian with
people of the supply zone; the share of obsidian ran-
ges from 30–40% to 0.1%.
In many cases established by our group for eastern
Russia, the archaeological obsidians are separated
from the primary sources by distances greater than
c. 300km (Figs. 1–2), and this is evidence of well-
developed exchange/trade networks, especially in
Northeastern Siberia where the raw material from an
obsidian source of Lake Krasnoe was spread in an
enormously large area, with straight distances be-
tween end points up to c. 2000–2250km (Fig. 2).
This kind of obsidian spread across an enormously
large region can be called ‘super-long-distance’ ex-
change. It would be impossible to maintain the acqui-
sition of obsidian from so remote a source without
primitive trade and/or exchange, as is also evident
in some other parts of Asia (Campbell, Healey 2018)
and other continents (Haines, Glascock 2013).
The reconstruction of exchange/trade networks re-
quires a detailed study of the petrographic composi-
tion of stone artefacts, and technical and technolo-
gical investigation of obsidian products (tools, along
with flakes and other sub-products), in order to un-
derstand the nature of raw materials brought to uti-
lisation sites – in the form of either angular blocks,
cores or finished products. Using the Zhokhov site
(Mesolithic, c. 8900–8600 years ago) as a case study,
one can conclude that obsidian was used for making
microblades (Pitulko et al. 2019). No obsidian cores
were found, although it seems that microblade ma-
nufacture occurred at the site. Therefore, obsidian
appeared at the Zhokhov site in a semi-ready form
(cores and blades). Other rocks from the Zhokhov
site, including local flint and sandstone, and ‘exotic’
chalcedony, were also used as raw materials for the
manufacture of microblades by pressure flaking (Pi-
tulko et al. 2012). The technological analysis of the
lithics concluded that the raw material was not in
the form of blocks, but prepared cores and large bla-
des were transported to the site. This is true in terms
of both local and ‘exotic’ rocks (Pitulko et al. 2012.
240).
Some information on the distribution of obsidian ar-
tefacts and their typological characteristics exists for
other parts of Northeastern Siberia (Fig. 2). At archa-
eological sites in the lower Kolyma River course
dated to the Neolithic (c. 7000–3000 years ago), the
main obsidian artefacts are blades and their frag-
ments, flakes, insets, and arrowheads, while a few
obsidian prismatic cores were also recovered (Kuz-
min et al. 2018). It seems that obsidian was brought
to the lower Kolyma River region from far away in
the form of cores, and blade-making was perform-
ed locally. The high value of obsidian as an ‘exotic’
raw material forced prehistoric people to use cores
to complete exhaustion. Several sites with obsidian
were excavated at the Lake Tytyl’ cluster in western
Chukotka (Kiryak 2010), and they belong to the Me-
solithic (c. 11 200 years ago) and Neolithic (c. 4800
years ago). Some of the artefacts (the exact num-
ber is unknown, but it is relatively small), especial-
ly points, are made of obsidian. It was suggested

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
303
that this area may have served as a ‘hub’ for the
exchange of obsidian between the source in eastern
Chukotka and the Kolyma River basin and territo-
ries west of the Kolyma River (Pitulko et al. 2019)
(see Fig. 2). Because in the Kolyma River and Lake
Tytyl’ regions obsidian was traded as an ‘exotic’ raw
material with populations near the source located at
Lake Krasnoe (Grebennikov et al. 2018; Kuzmin et
al. 2018) – at least c. 400–800 km away in a straight
line – the exchange of it was carried out as prepared
cores and tools rather than unworked pieces.
As far as I know, similar work has not yet been car-
ried out in far eastern Russia. Some of the steps
taken in this direction for the southern Russian Far
East and Manchuria (see Doelman et al. 2008; 2012;
2014) are still at a very preliminary stage.
Conclusions
Over the last 25+ years, significant progress has
been achieved in obsidian provenance research in
eastern Russia. The main networks of prehistoric ex-
change / trade of obsidian were reconstructed in the
continental and insular parts of the southern Rus-
sian Far East; more work is underway in the north-
ern part of the Russian Far East (Kamchatka Pen-
insula) and in Northeastern Siberia.
However, several issues still remain unresolved. The
lack of standardisation for geochemical analyses con-
ducted by different researchers has often made it
impossible to compare the results obtained. To over-
come this problem, a parallel analysis of obsidian
source samples from Hokkaido Island was conduct-
ed in several laboratories, followed by interpreta-
tion of the results and determination of the optimal
analytical strategy (Suda et al. 2018a). The Kam-
chatka Peninsula remains the least studied region in
eastern Russia in terms of the provenance of archa-
eological obsidian; the exact positions of seven sour-
ces used in prehistory are currently unknown (Gre-
bennikov, Kuzmin 2017). The question of the me-
chanism of obsidian exchange between the popula-
tions near the sources and those who lived at a con-
siderable distance from the primary obsidian locales
requires in-depth study.
This study was conducted on the State Assignment of
the Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Sibe-
rian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
with funding provided by the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education of the Russian Federation. I am
grateful to several colleagues for long-term collabora-
tion, especially to Dr. Vladimir K. Popov (deceased),
Dr. Michael D. Glascock, Dr. Andrei V. Grebennikov,
and Dr. Vladimir V. Pitulko; to Prof. Emeriti Akira
Ono and Jong-Chan Kim; and to Prof. Clive Oppen-
heimer. I am grateful to Prof. Mihael Budja for the
invitation to participate in this volume, and to an
anonymous reviewer for useful comments. Dr. Susan
Keates kindly corrected the grammar, although all
possible mistakes belong to me.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Campbell S., Healey E. 2018. Diversity in obsidian use in
the prehistoric and early historic Middle East. Quaternary
International 468: 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.09.023
Cann J. R., Renfrew C. 1964. The characterization of obsi-
dian and its application to the Mediterranean region. Pro-
ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 111–133.
Carter T. 2014. The contribution of obsidian characteriza-
tion studies to early prehistoric archaeology. In M. Yama-
da, A. Ono (eds.), Lithic Raw Material Exploitation and
Circulation in Prehistory. University of Liege. Liege: 22–
33.
Chang Y. C., Kim J. C. 2018. Provenance of obsidian arti-
facts from the Wolseongdong Paleolithic site, Korea, and
its archaeological implications. Quaternary International
467: 360–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.034
Doelman T., Jia P. W., Torrence R., and Popov V. K. 2014.
Remains of a puzzle: the distribution of volcanic glass ar-
tifacts from sources in Northeast China and Far East Rus-
sia. Lithic Technology 39: 81–95. 
https://doi.org/10.1179/0197726114Z.00000000035
Doelman T., Torrence R., Popov V., Ionescu M., Kluyev N.,
Sleptsov I., Pantyukhina I., White P., and Clements M.
References
∴ ∴

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
304
2008. Source selectivity: an assessment of volcanic glass
sources in the southern Primorye region, Far East Russia.
Geoarchaeology 23: 243–273.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20216
Doelman T., Torrence R., Popov V., Kluyev N., and Slept-
sov I. 2012. Volcanic glass procurement and use in the
Late Paleolithic, central Primorye, Far East Russia. In I.
Liritzis, C. M. Stevenson (eds.), Obsidian and Ancient Ma-
nufactured Glasses. University of New Mexico Press. Al-
buquerque: 97–114.
Ferguson J. R., Glascock M. D., Izuho M., Mukai M., Wada
K., and Sato H. 2014. Multi-method characterisation of
obsidian source compositional groups in Hokkaido Island
(Japan). In A. Ono, M. D. Glascock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y.
Suda (eds.), Methodological Issues for Characterisation
and Provenance Studies of Obsidian in Northeast Asia.
British Archaeological Reports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Ox-
ford: 13–32.
Glascock M. D., Braswell G. E., and Cobean R. H. 1998. A
systematic approach to obsidian source characterization.
In M. S. Shackley (ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies:
Method and Theory. Plenum Press. New York & London:
15–65.
Glascock M. D., Krupianko A. A., Kuzmin Y. V., Shackley
M. S., and Tabarev A. V. 1996. Geochemical characteriza-
tion of obsidian artifacts from prehistoric sites in the Rus-
sian Far East: initial study. In I. S. Zhushchikhovskaya, A.
L. Ivliev, and N. N. Kradin (eds.), Arkheologiya Severnoi
Patsifiki. Dalnauka Press. Vladivostok: 406–410.
Glascock M. D., Kuzmin Y. V., Grebennikov A. V., Popov
V. K., Medvedev V. E., Shewkomud I. Y., and Zaitsev N. N.
2011. Obsidian provenance for prehistoric complexes in
the Amur River basin (Russian Far East). Journal of Ar-
chaeological Science 38: 1832–1841.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.022
Glascock M. D., Speakman R. J., and Neff H. 2007. Archae-
ometry at the University of Missouri Research Reactor and
the provenance of obsidian artefacts in North America.
Archaeometry 49: 343–357.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00305.x
Glascock M. D., Weigand P. C., Esparza López R., Ohner-
sorgen M. A., Garduño Ambriz M., Mountjoy J. B., and Dar-
ling J. A. 2010. Geochemical characterisation of obsidian
in western Mexico: the sources in Jalisco, Nayarit, and Za-
catecas. In Y. V. Kuzmin, M. D. Glascock (eds.), Crossing
the Straits: Prehistoric Obsidian Source Exploitation in
the North Pacific Rim. British Archaeological Reports IS
2152. Archaeopress. Oxford: 201–217.
Grebennikov A. V., Kuzmin Y. V. 2017. The identification
of archaeological obsidian sources on Kamchatka Penin-
sula (Russian Far East) using geochemical and geological
data: current progress. Quaternary International 442B:
95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.020
Grebennikov A. V., Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D., Popov
V. K., Budnitskiy S. Y., Dikova M. A., and Nozdrachev E. A.
2018. The Lake Krasnoe obsidian source in Chukotka
(Northeastern Siberia): geological and geochemical frame-
works for provenance studies in Beringia. Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences 10: 599–614.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0379-z
Grebennikov A. V., Popov V. K., Glascock M. D., Speakman
R. J., Kuzmin Y. V., and Ptashinsky A. V. 2010. Obsidian
provenance studies on Kamchatka Peninsula (Far Eastern
Russia): 2003–9 results. In Y. V. Kuzmin, M. D. Glascock
(eds.), Crossing the Straits: Prehistoric Obsidian Source
Exploitation in the North Pacific Rim. British Archaeo-
logical Reports IS 2152. Archaeopress. Oxford: 89–120.
Griffin J. B., Gordus A. A., and Wright G. A. 1969. Identi-
fication of the sources of Hopewellian obsidian in the Mid-
dle West. American Antiquity 34: 1–14.
Haines H. R., Glascock M. D. 2013. A glass menagerie of
meaning: obsidian exchange in Mesoamerica. In C. Helm-
ke, J. Nielsen (eds.), The Maya in a Mesoamerican Con-
text: Comparative Approaches to Maya Studies. Verlag
Anton Saurwein. Markt Schwaben: 197–208.
Ikeya N. 2014. Identification of archaeological obsidian
sources in Kanto and Chubu regions (central Japan) by
Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence analysis. In A. Ono,
M. D. Glascock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.), Metho-
dological Issues for Characterisation and Provenance
Studies of Obsidian in Northeast Asia. British Archaeo-
logical Reports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Oxford: 111–123.
2015. Maritime transport of obsidian in Japan during
the Upper Paleolithic. In Y. Kaifu, M. Izuho, T. Goebel,
and A. Ono (eds.), Emergence and Diversity of Modern
Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia. Texas A&M Uni-
versity Press. College Station: 362–375.
Jia P. W., Doelman T., Chen C., Zhao H., Lin S., Torrence
R., and Glascock M. D. 2010. Moving sources: a prelimi-
nary study of volcanic glass artifact distributions in North-
east China using pXRF. Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence 37: 1670–1677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.01.027
Jia P. W., Doelman T., Torrence R., and Glascock M. D.
2013. New pieces: the acquisition and distribution of vol-
canic glass sources in Northeast China during the Holo-
cene. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 971–982.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.001

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
305
Jwa Y.-J., Yi S., Jin M.-E., Kasztovszky Z., Harsányi I., and
Sun G.-M. 2018. Application of Prompt Gamma Activation
Analysis to provenance study of the Korean obsidian ar-
tefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20:
374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.05.016
Kannari T., Nagai M., and Sugihara S. 2014. The effective-
ness of elemental intensity ratios for sourcing obsidian ar-
tefacts using Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence spec-
trometry: A case study from Japan. In A. Ono, M. D. Glas-
cock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.), Methodological Is-
sues for Characterisation and Provenance Studies of
Obsidian in Northeast Asia. British Archaeological Re-
ports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Oxford: 47–66.
Khain V. E. 1994. Geology of Northern Eurasia (Ex-
USSR). Part 2. Phanerozoic Fold Belts and Young Plat-
forms. Gebrüder Borntraeger. Berlin & Stuttgart.
Kim J.-C. 2014. The Paektusan Volcano source and geo-
chemical analysis of archaeological obsidians in Korea. In
A. Ono, M. D. Glascock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.),
Methodological Issues for Characterisation and Prove-
nance Studies of Obsidian in Northeast Asia. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Oxford: 167–
178.
Kim J. C., Kim D. K., Yoon M., Yun C. C., Park G., Woo H.
J., Hong M.-Y., and Lee G. K. 2007. PIXE provenancing of
obsidian artefacts from Paleolithic Sites in Korea. Bulletin
of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 27: 122–128.
Kiryak (Dikova) M. A. 2010. The Stone Age of Chukotka,
North-Eastern Siberia (New Materials). British Archaeo-
logical Reports IS 2099. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Kuzmin Y. V. 2010. Crossing mountains, rivers, and straits:
A review of the current evidence for prehistoric obsidian
exchange in Northeast Asia. In Y. V. Kuzmin, M. D. Glas-
cock (eds.), Crossing the Straits: Prehistoric Obsidian
Source Exploitation in the North Pacific Rim. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 2152. Archaeopress. Oxford: 137–
153.
2011. The patterns of obsidian exploitation in the late
Upper Pleistocene of the Russian Far East and neighbo-
uring Northeast Asia. Natural Resource, Environment
and Humans 1 (Meiji University Center for Obsidian
and Lithic Studies): 67–82.
2012. Long-distance obsidian transport in prehistoric
Northeast Asia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association 32: 1–5.
2014. Geoarchaeological aspects of obsidian source stu-
dies in the southern Russian Far East and brief compa-
rison with neighbouring regions. In A. Ono, M. D. Glas-
cock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.), Methodological
Issues for Characterisation and Provenance Studies
of Obsidian in Northeast Asia. British Archaeological
Reports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Oxford: 143–165.
2015. Northern and northeastern Asia: archaeology. In
P. Bellwood (ed.), The Global Prehistory of Human
Migration. Wiley-Blackwell. Chichester: 191–196.
2016. Colonization and early human migrations in the
insular Russian Far East: a view from the mid-2010s.
Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 11: 122–132.
2017. Obsidian as a commodity to investigate human
migrations in the Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Pa-
leometal of Northeast Asia. Quaternary International
442B: 5–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.021
2019. Obsidian acquisition and exchange in prehistoric
cultures of the Russian Far East and Northeast Siberia:
A review of the 25 years of research. Prehistoric Ar-
chaeology. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 1: 92–
107 (in Russian with English abstract).
Kuzmin Y. V., Alekseyev A. N., Dyakonov V. M., Grebenni-
kov A. V., and Glascock M. D. 2018. Determination of the
source for prehistoric obsidian artifacts from the lower
reaches of Kolyma River, Northeastern Siberia, Russia, and
its wider implications. Quaternary International 476:
95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.02.017
Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D. 2007. Two islands in the
ocean: prehistoric obsidian exchange between Sakhalin
and Hokkaido, Northeast Asia. Journal of Island & Coa-
stal Archaeology 2: 99–120.
2014. The Neutron Activation Analysis of volcanic glas-
ses in the Russian Far East and neighbouring Northeast
Asia: a summary of the first 20 years of research. In A.
Ono, M. D. Glascock, Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.),
Methodological Issues for Characterisation and Pro-
venance Studies of Obsidian in Northeast Asia. British
Archaeological Reports IS 2620. Archaeopress. Oxford:
85–93.
Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D., and Izuho M. 2013. The geo-
chemistry of the major sources of archaeological obsidian
on Hokkaido Island (Japan): Shirataki and Oketo. Archae-
ometry 55: 355–369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00694.x
Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D., and Sato H. 2002b. Sources
of archaeological obsidian on Sakhalin Island (Russian
Far East). Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 741–
750. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0748

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin
306
Kuzmin Y. V., Popov V. K. (eds.). 2000. Volcanic Glasses
of the Russian Far East: Geological and Archaeological
Aspects. Far Eastern Geological Institute. Vladivostok (in
Russian with English abstract).
Kuzmin Y. V., Popov V. K., Glascock M. D., and Shackley
M. S. 2002a. Sources of archaeological volcanic glass in
the Primorye (Maritime) Province, Russian Far East. Ar-
chaeometry 44: 505–515.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4754.t01-1-00082
Kuzmin Y. V., Speakman R. J., Glascock M. D., Popov V. K.,
Grebennikov A. V., Dikova M. A., and Ptashinsky A. V.
2008. Obsidian use at the Ushki Lake complex, Kamchat-
ka Peninsula (Northeastern Siberia): implications for ter-
minal Pleistocene and Early Holocene human migrations
in Beringia. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2179–
2187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.02.001
Lee G. K., Kim J. C. 2015. Obsidians from the Sinbuk ar-
chaeological site in Korea – evidences for strait crossing
and long-distance exchange of raw material in Paleolithic
Age. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2: 458–
466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.04.005
Lynch S. C., Kato H., and Weber A. W. 2018. Obsidian re-
source use from the Jomon to Okhotsk period on Rebun
Island: an analysis of archaeological obsidian. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 17: 1007–1017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.004
Lynch S. C., Locock A. J., Duke M. J. M., and Weber A. W.
2016. Evaluating the applicability of portable-XRF for the
characterization of Hokkaido obsidian sources: a compa-
rison with INAA, ICP–MS and EPMA. Journal of Radio-
analyical & Nuclear Chemistry 309: 257–265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-016-4766-9
Nasedkin V. V. 1983. Kislyi Vulkanizm i Vodosoderzha-
shchie Stekla Severo-Vostoka SSSR (The Acidic Volca-
nism and Water-Containing Glasses of the Northeastern
USSR). Nauka Publishers. Moscow (in Russian).
Obata H., Morimoto I., and Kakubuchi S. 2010. Obsidian
trade between sources on northwestern Kyushu Island
and Ryukyu Archipelago (Japan) during Jomon period. In
Y. V. Kuzmin, M. D. Glascock (eds.), Crossing the Straits:
Prehistoric Obsidian Source Exploitation in the North
Pacific Rim. British Archaeological Reports IS 2152. Ar-
chaeopress. Oxford: 57–71.
Pantukhina I. 2007. The role of raw material in microb-
lade technology at three Late Palaeolithic sites, Russian
Far East. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Associa-
tion 27: 144–153.
Parks G. A., Tieh T. T. 1966. Identifying the geographical
source for artefact obsidian. Nature 211: 289–290.
https://doi.org/10.1038/211289a0
Petrov V. P., Zamurueva M. G. 1960. O steklovatykh sha-
rovykh lavakh r. Levaia Lefu na Dal’nem Vostoke (About
the glassy pillow lavas of the Levaya Lefu River in the Far
East). Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seriya geologiche-
skaia 11: 69–75. (in Russian)
Phillips S. C. 2010. Bridging the gap between two obsidi-
an source areas in Northeast Asia: LA–ICP–MS analysis of
obsidian artefacts from the Kurile Islands of the Russian
Far East. In Y. V. Kuzmin, M. D. Glascock (eds.), Crossing
the Straits: Prehistoric Obsidian Source Exploitation in
the North Pacific Rim. British Archaeological Reports IS
2152. Archaeopress. Oxford: 121–136.
Pitulko V. V., Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D., Pavlova E. Y.,
and Grebennikov A. V. 2019. ‘They came from the ends
of the earth’: Long-distance exchange of obsidian in the
High Arctic during the Early Holocene. Antiquity 93: 28–
44. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.2
Pitulko V. V., Pavlova E. Y. 2016. Geoarchaeology and
Radiocarbon Chronology of Stone Age Northeast Asia.
Texas A&M University Press. College Station.
Pitulko V. V., Pavlova E. Y., Ivanova V. V., and Girya E. Y.
2012. The Zhokhov site: geology and stone industry (pre-
liminary report on the excavations of 2000 through 2005).
Stratum plus 1: 211–256. (in Russian with English ab-
stract)
Pollmann H.-O. 1999. Obsidian – Bibliographie: Artefakt
und Provenienz. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Bochum.
Popov V. K., Grebennikov A. V., Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M.
D., Nozdrachev E. A., Budnitsky S. Y., and Vorobey I. E.
2017. Geochemistry of obsidian from Krasnoe Lake on
the Chukchi Peninsula (Northeastern Siberia). Doklady
Earth Sciences 476: 1099–1104.
Popov V. K., Kuzmin Y. V., Grebennikov A. V., Glascock M.
D., Kim J.-C., Oppenheimer C., Budnitskiy S. Y., Hong M.-Y.,
and Kim J.-Y. 2019. The “puzzle” of the primary obsidian
source in the region of Paektusan (China/DPR Korea).
Quaternary International 519: 192–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.12.028
Popov V. K., Sakhno V. G., Kuzmin Y. V., Glascock M. D.,
and Choi B.-K. 2005. Geochemistry of volcanic glasses of
the Paektusan Volcano. Doklady Earth Sciences 403:
254–259.
Rasic J. T. 2016. Archaeological evidence for transport,
trade, and exchange in the north American Arctic. In T. M.

Obsidian provenance studies in the far eastern and northeastern regions of Russia and exchange networks in the prehistory of ...
307
Friesen, O. K. Mason (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the
Prehistoric Arctic. Oxford University Press. New York:
131–152.
Renfrew C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions
of integration and communication. In C. Lamberg-Karlov-
sky (ed.), Ancient Civilization and Trade. University of
New Mexico Press. Albuquerque: 3–59.
Sato H., Yakushige M. 2014. Obsidian exploitation and
circulation in Late Pleistocene Hokkaido in the northern
part of the Japanese Archipelago. In M. Yamada, A. Ono,
A. (eds.), Lithic Raw Material Exploitation and Circula-
tion in Prehistory. University of Liege. Liege: 159–177.
Shackley M. S. 2005. Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology
in the North American Southwest. University of Arizona
Press. Tucson.
Shackley M. S., Glascock M. D., Kuzmin Y. V., and Tabarev
A. V. 1996. Geochemical characterization of archaeological
obsidian from the Russian Far East: a pilot study. Inter-
national Association for Obsidian Studies Bulletin 17:
16–19.
Shiba K. 2014. Acquisition and consumption of obsidian
in the Upper Palaeolithic on Kyushu, Japan. In M. Yamada,
A. Ono, A. (eds.), Lithic Raw Material Exploitation and Cir-
culation in Prehistory. University of Liege. Liege: 205–230.
Shimada K. 2014. Upper Palaeolithic obsidian use in cen-
tral Japan: the origin of obsidian source exploitation. In
M. Yamada, A. Ono, A. (eds.), Lithic Raw Material Explo-
itation and Circulation in Prehistory. University of Liege.
Liege: 179–203.
Shimada K., Yoshida A., Hashizume J., and Ono A. 2017.
Human responses to climate change on obsidian source
exploitation during the Upper Paleolithic in the Central
Highlands, central Japan. Quaternary International 442B:
12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.07.047
Skinner C. E., Tremaine K. J. 1993. Obsidian: An Interdi-
sciplinary Bibliography. San Jose University. San Jose.
Suda Y. and 15 co-authors. 2018a. Inter-laboratory valida-
tion of the WDXRF, EDXRF, ICP–MS, NAA and PGAA ana-
lytical techniques and geochemical characterization of
obsidian sources in northeast Hokkaido Island, Japan.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17: 379–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.11.013
Suda Y., Tsuchiya M., Hashizume J., and Oyokawa M.
2018b. Chemical discrimination of obsidian sources in
the Kirigamine area and provenance analysis of obsidian
artifacts from the Hiroppara prehistoric sites I and II, cen-
tral Japan. Quaternary International 468: 72–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.11.014
Sugihara S. (ed.) 2014. Occurrence of Obsidian in Ja-
pan and its Physical and Chemical Analysis. School of
Arts and Letters, Meiji University. Tokyo. (in Japanese with
English title)
Tsutsumi T. 2010. Prehistoric procurement of obsidian
from sources on Honshu Island (Japan). In Y. V. Kuzmin,
M. D. Glascock (eds.), Crossing the Straits: Prehistoric
Obsidian Source Exploitation in the North Pacific Rim.
British Archaeological Reports IS 2152. Archaeopress. Ox-
ford: 27–55.
Wada K., Mukai M., Sano K., Izuho M., and Sato H. 2014.
Chemical composition of obsidian in Hokkaido Island,
northern Japan: the importance of geological and petro-
logical data for source studies. In A. Ono, M. D. Glascock,
Y. V. Kuzmin, and Y. Suda (eds.), Methodological Issues
for Characterisation and Provenance Studies of Obsi-
dian in Northeast Asia. British Archaeological Reports IS
2620. Archaeopress. Oxford: 67–84.
Wakita K. 2013. Geology and tectonics of Japanese islands:
A review – the key to understanding the geology of Asia.
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 72: 75–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.04.014
Williams-Thorpe O. 1995. Obsidian in the Mediterranean
and Near East: A provenancing success story. Archaeo-
metry 37: 217–248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1995.tb00740.x
Yi S., Jwa Y.-J. 2016. On the provenance of prehistoric ob-
sidian artifacts in South Korea. Quaternary International
392: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.012