No General Descriptions provided.
| 36 S |
| Konya Plain - Late Neolithic |
| Unknown |
| Late Ceramic Neolithic | |
| Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya | |
| Le Neolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya | |
| Konya Ovasnda Gec Neolitik Cag |
| Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic Neolithic |
| Preceding: Konya Plain - Ceramic Neolithic (tr_konya_mnl) [None] | |
| Succeeding: Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic (tr_konya_eca) [continuity] |
| Year Range | Konya Plain - Late Neolithic (tr_konya_lnl) was in: |
|---|---|
| (6600 BCE 6001 BCE) | Konya Plain |
Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Néolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasι’nda Geç Neolitik Çağ ... this is not machine readable.
Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Néolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasι’nda Geç Neolitik Çağ ... this is not machine readable.
Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Néolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasι’nda Geç Neolitik Çağ ... this is not machine readable.
Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Néolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasι’nda Geç Neolitik Çağ ... this is not machine readable.
This time range occurs in literature as ’Late Ceramic Neolithic’, the beginning of which is dated to 6600 BCE when at the site of Çatalhöyük there is clear evidence of cultural transition [1] .
[1]: Düring B. 2006.Constructing communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolia Neolithic c.a. 8.500-5500 Cal BC, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten. pg. 17.
This population range for Çatalhöyük (as the biggest settlement in Konya Plain) occurs most frequently in literature and was estimated by C.Cessford [1] as the population number at any one time. According to the experts, after c.a. 6,600 BCA the number of population could have started to decline [2] .
[1]: Cessford C. 2005. Estimating the Neolithic population of Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons,323-26. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. pg. 326.
[2]: Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2. pg. 158.
is a rough calculation based on combining settlement estimates
In Çatalhöyük houses archaeologists found wall paintings and reliefs depicting geometric, anthropomorfic and zoomorphic motifs [1] , but its role as some kind of communication or writing system is quite unknown.
[1]: Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 174, 180-181.
No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.
No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.
No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes [1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html
Only archaeological evidence for mudbrick walls at this time
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later. Beads and tools carved from copper have been found but no weapons or smelting at this time [1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2c.html
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
"At Çatalhöyük clay balls have been interpreted as sling ammunition. "The use of the sling is alos attested in wall art that features a purported slinger." [1] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia." [2] The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association. [3] At the site of Canhasan I, clay sling bullet was found [4] , which may suggest the use of slings, but whether it was used for warfare purposes is unknown.
[1]: (Knüsel: Glencross and Milella 2019: 83) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WH6NHDHM.
[2]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[3]: Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
[4]: French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 44.
At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, obsidian arrowheads were recorded, part of which were made in a high-skilled technique (on symmetrical bipolar points). [1] This can suggest special purpose of arrows, maybe in warfare, but it is quite unknown. At the site of Pιnarbașι, obsidian projectile points were found, which can be identified as arrowheads. However, even if self bow was used, it was not for warfare purpose but mainly produced for hunting-related activities [2] . At the site of Çatalhöyük, the men depicted on wall paintings are equipped with some kind of weapon, probably bows, but due to the presence of zoomorphic creatures, in that case it is more likely to be connected with hunting activity. However, there is no certainty to these statements [3] . Furthermore, at Çatalhöyük settlement elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points are recorded. It could have been used as arrowheads. [4] Even so, was self bow used in terms of warfare is unknown. According to Hodder these large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh. [4]
[1]: Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 99-100.
[2]: Baird D., Carruthers D., Fairbairn A., Pearson J. 2011. Ritual in the landscape: evidence from Pιnarbașι in the seventh-mlilenium cal BC Konya Plain. Antiquity 85. pg. 387.
[3]: Czeszewska A. 2013. Wall paintings at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000-2008 seasons.
[4]: Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
Bone harpoons found for this time, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting. There is no reason to believe that other humans couldn’t be the target for these though [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE." [1] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE." [2]
[1]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "The mace was among man’s oldest weapons (at least 6000 B.C.E. at Catal Huyuk)". [1] The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association. [2]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
[2]: Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "All armies after the seventeenth century B.C.E. carried the sword, but in none was it a major weapon of close combat; rather, it was used when the soldier’s primary weapons, the spear and axe, were lost or broken." [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, long (approximately 18-25 cm) bifacially retouched obsidian points were found [1] , which can be identified as a spear’s part, but its use in warfare is unknown. At the site of Çatalhöyük elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points (which could have been use as spear points) were found. According to Hodder these large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh.. [2]
[1]: Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Tepecik-Çiftlik [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.)"The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 100.
[2]: Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, long (approximatly 18-25 cm) bifacially retouched obsidian points were found [1] , which can be identified as a dagger, but its use in warfare is unknown. At the site of Çatalhöyük finely flaked flint daggers and elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points (which could have been use as daggers) were found. [2] Were these daggers in any way related to warfare is unknown. According to Hodder large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh. [2]
[1]: Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Tepecik-Çiftlik [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.)"The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 100.
[2]: Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Southern wall, a wallpainting depicting two horse-like animals was found [Czeszewska 2010: 171], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is rather unknown.
At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Southern wall, a wallpainting depicting two horse-like animals was found [Czeszewska 2010: 171], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is rather unknown.
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
’ In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3] At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Western wall, a wallpainting depicting a row of donkeys and people facing right was found [Czeszewska 2010: 167], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is unknown.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
’ In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3] At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Western wall, a wallpainting depicting a row of donkeys and people facing right was found [Czeszewska 2010: 167], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is unknown.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
At the site of Can Hasan, two pairs of skeletons were found buried under the threshold [1] . At Çatalhöyük, bones of domesticated dogs occur. Dogs were treated like wild animals, being eaten during rituals. Their remains occur mainly in middens in abandoned houses [2] . Dogs were used to defend villages against attacking humans/animals [3]
[1]: French D.H. 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan 1967: seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18. pg.52 .
[2]: Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg.76-77.
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 41-44) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) the earliest reference in Greece c1600 BCE: "Early Mycenaean and Minoan charioteers wore an arrangement of bronze armor that almost fully enclosed the soldier, the famous Dendra panoply." [1] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period. [2]
[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[2]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Earliest reference for present we currently have is for the Hittites. [1] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE. [2] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer. [3]
[1]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
[2]: (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
Technology not yet available
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Technology not yet available