I generated a network based on geographic proximity of sites to their 3 closest neighbours and identified very seperate modules after running the G-N algorithm. It's interesting to compare this with the network derived from obsidian data. I focused in on the sites of the Balikh River Valley, along with the hilly areas of eastern Anatolia to see how these geographically seperate communities were interwoven, and it seems that they are not very well connected, at least in terms of edge weight. The exception is Halula but according to the evaluation of margin of error output by Peeples
's  Brainerd-Robinson script, sample size is not an issue for this site's connections in particular. There is also an interesting triange, with 2 nodes more significantly connected than the other, and it will be interesting to see how connections with distant sites shift over time for this group. Will edge weights become more heavy, will they become more distributed, will these two predictions occur simultaneously?
Additionally, I initially looked at this group including Gobekli Tepe, which is spatially between these two zones, but upon remembering about the probably ritualistic nature of this site I excluded it. Perhaps this would have a larger impact on the connection between these two sites, as it is speculated at Gobekli Tepe may have been a centre for pilgrimage. I'm thinking of Knappett's removal of Akrotiri as a connector of Crete and the S. Aegean to test resilience of exchange after the volcanic eruption on Thera. Is this a comparable case?
I hope to get to see how this changes over time. I must refer back to Renfrew 1976 (or was it 77?) who did a more focused analyses based on obsidian source (excluding typology to a degree) on the Balikh region in particular. I think he even went at a finer temporal scale of the region, which I have clumped into the ASPRO chronology.