Susiana in sixth-fifth millennium: "In all respects, Susiana was large and rich enough to sustain a vigorous indigenous culture in parallel with, and separate from, that of Mesopotamia."
[1]
Hajji Muhammad culture ca. 5800-5100 BCE - lower Mesopotamia and at least part of Susiana. Region "facilitated the irrigated cultivation of grains and cattle farming ... This was the initial phase of Ubaid culture, through which lower Mesopotamia would eventually take the lead in terms of technological and organisational development in the Near East. ... In terms of periodisation, the rise of Ubaid culture marks the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Chalcolithic period."
[2]
"Architecture and organization of space within a typical village is difficult to reconstruct. Most sites have been explored through limited exposures, and have not yielded coherent architectural plans (see Hole 1987a: 40). The only exception to this is the site of Jaffarabad located on the Susiana plane approximately 7 km north of Susa. During the Early Chalcolithic, this site consisted of an agglomeration of domestic mud brick structures made up of large long halls flanked by smaller rooms (Dollfus 1975: 18 and figures 6-7). One hall had an area of 11.5 x 3.15 m. Some of the domestic complexes had buttressed walls. Almost no open space existed between these structures. The artifacts recovered from the domestic complexes reflect normal domestic activities. The presence of kilns and wasters are the only evidence for craft production at the site (Dollfus 1975)."
[3]
[1]: (Hole 2006, 228) Hole, Frank in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 172)
| Susiana - Early Ubaid |
| continuity |
| Succeeding: Susiana - Early Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_1) [None] | |
| Preceding: Susiana A (ir_susiana_a) [continuity] |
| quasi-polity |
| inferred absent |
| present | |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present | |
| absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| present | |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| Year Range | Susiana B (ir_susiana_b) was in: |
|---|---|
| (5700 BCE 5101 BCE) | Susiana |
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Hajji Muhammad culture spread to Khuzistan settlements of the Khazineh phase.
[1]
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Hajji Muhammad culture spread to Khuzistan settlements of the Khazineh phase.
[1]
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Hajji Muhammad culture spread to Khuzistan settlements of the Khazineh phase.
[1]
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[1]
"Ubaid culture lasted a long period of time, from 5100 to 4500 BC in its early phase, and 4500 to 4000 BC in its late phase. Initially, it remained confined to the same area as Eridu and Hajji Muhammad, displaying a marked continuity in terms of settlement and pottery types. This led to the alternative periodisation of the Eridu, Hajji Muhammad, Early Ubaid, and Late Ubaid phases as Ubaid 1, 2, 3, and 4."
[2]
Crawford (2006)
Hajji Muhammad pottery "is not confined to a single chronological phase and has no independent chronological existence."
[3]
"the admittedly flawed evidence from the three stratified sites discussed above illustrates convincingly the overlap between Hajji Muhammad and Eridu/Ubaid 1 wares on the one hand, and between Hajji Muhammad and Ubaid 3 pottery on the other."
[4]
Joan Oates showed pottery of Southern Mesopotamia known as Eridu, Hajji Muhammad, Ubaid 1 and Ubaid 2 related in linear evolution and re-named Ubaid 1-4. Late, an earlier phase Ubaid 0 was proposed for Tell el-’Oueili and a Terminal Ubaid or Ubaid 5 between the end of Ubaid 4 and the beginning of Uruk. Additionally, Ubaid 3 is often subdivided into phases a and b. "The whole sequence is now thought to cover the mid-sixth to mid-fifth millennia."
[3]
"The stratigraphic evidence we have quoted from South Mesopotamia, the Hamrin, southwest
Iran, and the Gulf is far from satisfactory, but there is now enough of it to be able to raise serious doubts about the status of Hajji Muhammad ware as the marker of a separate chronological period. Instead, we should probably now see it as defining the later part of the Ubaid 1 period and the early stages of the Ubaid 3 period. There is, as yet, no instance in which it is the only pottery style found in a stratigraphic context."
[5]
"if our pottery has no independent chronological existence, it must mean that Ubaid 1 on the one hand, and Ubaid 3 on the other, had a longer life than previously thought and that the rate of change was therefore slower than is currently accepted."
[6]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Liverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Crawford 2006, 163) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
[4]: (Crawford 2006, 165) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
[5]: (Crawford 2006, 166) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
[6]: (Crawford 2006, 167) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
"it is evident that ’Ubaid developed out of Hajji Muhammad just as the latter is derived from Eridu. This continuity of cultural evolution has led certain scholars to simplify the sequence into ’ Ubaid 1-4, Eridu being ’ Ubaid I, Hajji Muhammad ’Ubaid 2, etc., against the better judgement of the excavators. As it tends to obscure the links of these two early cultures with Susiana and favours the theory of autochthonous development (which can no longer be maintained, in view of the recent discoveries at Ali-Kush and Tepe Sabz), the alternative system may have to be rejected." [1]
[1]: (Mellaart 1970, 287-288) Mellaart, J. in Edwards, I E S. Gadd, C J. Hammond, N G L. eds. 1970. The Cambridge Ancient History. Volumes 1-2. Cambridge University Press.
(Relationship): "it is evident that ’Ubaid developed out of Hajji Muhammad just as the latter is derived from Eridu. This continuity of cultural evolution has led certain scholars to simplify the sequence into ’ Ubaid 1-4, Eridu being ’ Ubaid I, Hajji Muhammad ’Ubaid 2, etc., against the better judgement of the excavators. As it tends to obscure the links of these two early cultures with Susiana and favours the theory of autochthonous development (which can no longer be maintained, in view of the recent discoveries at Ali-Kush and Tepe Sabz), the alternative system may have to be rejected."
[1]
(Entity): "the admittedly flawed evidence from the three stratified sites discussed above illustrates convincingly the overlap between Hajji Muhammad and Eridu/Ubaid 1 wares on the one hand, and between Hajji Muhammad and Ubaid 3 pottery on the other."
[2]
[1]: (Mellaart 1970, 287-288) Mellaart, J. in Edwards, I E S. Gadd, C J. Hammond, N G L. eds. 1970. The Cambridge Ancient History. Volumes 1-2. Cambridge University Press.
[2]: (Crawford 2006, 165) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
Hajji Muhammad ware: "The proposed usage for formal eating and drinking made them a desirable item for display purposes in a society that was, perhaps, beginning to see the emergence of a social hierarchy."
[1]
[1]: (Crawford 2006, 167) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
"Chogha Mish was already a sizable settlement by the Early Chalcolithic period (Early Susiana or Susiana a), covering an area of more than 3.5 ha (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 280). Most other villages rarely exceeded 1 ha."
[1]
Early Chalcolithic: 5500-4800 BCE. Using the Seshat estimated range of [50-200] inhabitants per hectare, this would give us an estimate of 175-700 inhabitants.
"Settlement throughout Khuzistan was sparse during the Early Cha1colithic (Hole 1987a). These early settlements consisted of small undifferentiated villages located near streams in regions where dry farming was possible. Most sites did not exceed I ha in area. Some may have contained up to 400 persons (Hole 1968: 254)."
[2]
AD: perhaps we cannot use this information if we code the Hajji Muhammad area stricto sensu (where Susa was situated) and not the Khuzistan region.
[1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180)
[2]: ( Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 171)
levels.
1. Large village
2. Small village
"Chogha Mish was already a sizable settlement by the Early Chalcolithic period (Early Susiana or Susiana a), covering an area of more than 3.5 ha (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 280). Most other villages rarely exceeded 1 ha."
[1]
Early Chalcolithic: 5500-4800 BCE. Using the Seshat estimated range of [50-200] inhabitants per hectare, this would give us an estimate of 175-700 inhabitants.
[1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180)
levels.
In the later Uruk phase "Urban Revolution" c3800-3000 BCE that the following quote refers to religious ideology became more complex, so can infer still low level religious complexity in this period: "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality."
[1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE so this period very low administrative complexity.
[1]
Hajji Muhammad ware: "The proposed usage for formal eating and drinking made them a desirable item for display purposes in a society that was, perhaps, beginning to see the emergence of a social hierarchy."
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Crawford 2006, 167) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois.
Not present for earlier periods and read nothing to suggest major change, such as warrior burials (although that alone would not mean professionalism). In 7000-6000 BCE period a general reference was: "The social structure of these communities was thus characterised by few heads of households (elders), marked gender, age and provenance barriers, but few socio-political differences. Consequently, burials do not display any significant diffferences in status." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
levels.
In the later Uruk phase "Urban Revolution" c3800-3000 BCE that the following quote refers to religious ideology became more complex, so can infer low level religious complexity in this period: "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality."
[1]
Liverani says "possible existence of specilised priests" in reference to nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples.
[2]
This suggests that certainly before 5100 BCE highly unlikely to be specialised priests in Susiana or the wider region.
However the existence of temples in the wider region of this period might appear to contradict this logic so coding uncertain_absent_present due to time uncertaintly.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 53) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
levels.
In the later Uruk phase "Urban Revolution" c3800-3000 BCE that the following quote refers to religious ideology became more complex, so can infer low level religious complexity in this period: "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality."
[1]
Liverani says "possible existence of specilised priests" in reference to nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples.
[2]
This suggests that certainly before 5100 BCE highly unlikely to be specialised priests in Susiana or the wider region.
However the existence of temples in the wider region of this period might appear to contradict this logic so coding uncertain_absent_present due to time uncertaintly.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 53) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Not present for earlier periods and read nothing to suggest major change, such as warrior burials (although that alone would not mean professionalism).. In 7000-6000 BCE period a general reference was: "The social structure of these communities was thus characterised by few heads of households (elders), marked gender, age and provenance barriers, but few socio-political differences. Consequently, burials do not display any significant diffferences in status." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Hajji Muhammad culture ca. 5800-5100 BCE "facilitated the irrigated cultivation of grains and cattle farming" [1] "If the earliest inhabitants of Eridu were Sumerians ... then it must be accepted that they made their homes in the plain only after having mastered irrigation techniques in their former abodes at the foot of the Zagros mountains, probably in Khuzistan." [2] "Although irrigation is implied beginning in the Early Village Period in some regions and possibly only in the Middle Village Period, if at all in others, it is obvious that not all sites are located with primary concern for surface water." According to periodization table Early Village period is 6000 BCE, Middle Village Period c4600 BCE. [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mellaart 1970, 289) Mellaart, J. in Edwards, I E S. Gadd, C J. Hammond, N G L. eds. 1970. The Cambridge Ancient History. Volumes 1-2. Cambridge University Press.
[3]: (Frank 1987, 84 + 17) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
Not until later. Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs."
[1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation. These were two very different materials, to be used as units on different occasions with different goods, and thus complementing each other." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation. These were two very different materials, to be used as units on different occasions with different goods, and thus complementing each other." [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture [1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture [1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture [1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture [1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture [1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56
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
"Round and ovoid sling pellets have been dug up in early Sumer and Turkestan. Ovoid sling pellets have been unearthed at the neolithic sites on the Iranian tableland. In later times, the sling was used in Palestine and Syria. It was introduced in Egypt at a still later date." [1]
[1]: (Singh 1997, 90) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.
Stone arrowheads 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 arrows. [1] They had become more sophisticated here but still not yet specialized for warfare. [2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
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. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Arrowheads have been found, but is unlikely to be a more sophisticated bow at this time. "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE." [1]
[1]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
Not mentioned in evidence and extremely unlikely being a weapon of the Americas
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Bone needles/knives were present by 7200 BC, but no hard evidence for use in warfare [1] Stone blades had been in production in Iraq/Iran since the Paleolithic: ’The Baradostian lithic industry is dominated by blade production. Characteristic tools include slender points, backed blades and bladelets, twisted bladelets with various kinds of light retouch, end scrapers, discoidal scrapers, side scrapers, and burins.’ [2] Obsidian blades have also been found for this period [3] Knife blades became longer during this time but this was for butchery rather than warfare [4]
[1]: (Alizadeh 2003, 82)
[2]: Nicholas J. Conard, Elham Ghasidian, and Saman Heydari-Guran, ’The Paleolithic of Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, pp. 38-39
[3]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 57
[4]: (Leverani 2014, 41) 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
Not used for military purposes until much later
Evidence for use as 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]
[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.
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
There is evidence for loincloths being used, but it would hardly count as armor and there is no evidence for warfare at this time:‘The early periods at Tepe Sialk (I-IV) were a time of important technological innovation. A carved bone knife handle representing a man wearing a cap and a loincloth found in a Sialk I context is one of the earliest known anthropomorphic representations from Iran’ [1]
[1]: Ali Mousavi, ’The History of Archaeological Research in Iran: A Brief Survey’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 7
Technology not yet available
Not mentioned in the archaeological evidence
Technology not yet available