"Chogha Mish became the largest site on the Susiana plan during the Middle Chalcolithic (Middle Susiana or Susiana b-d), during which time it extended over the whole site, an area of about 15 ha (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 284). The settlement consisted primarily of domestic houses, most of which appear to have contained courtyards with associated pottery kilns (Delougaz and Kantor 1975: 95). As with the earlier settlement, a large monumental structure existed among the domestic houses during the end of the Middle Susiana phase (Kantor 1976: 27-28). This building had burned and, as a result, was particularly well~preserved. It contained buttressed exterior walls, whose thickness measured 2 m. The building covered an area of more than 12 x 15 m. The walls had been faced with plaster. The excavated portion of the building reveals an ’L’ shaped hall and a number of small rooms (Kantor 1976: figure II). One room had been stacked full of painted pots. Ceramic was also found throughout the other rooms of the building. Another room contained a large number of flint nodules and blades, indicating its use as a lithic workshop. The remains of a large brick platform or terrace extended more than 15 m from the east side of the building."
[1]
Jaffarabad early settlement covered 2000 sq m. 16 sites have Jaffarabad type pottery in Susiana.Large dwelling rooms or halls associated with smaller storage facilities in a highly nucleated settlement.
[2]
[1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180)
[2]: (Hole 1987, 40)
| Susiana - Late Ubaid |
| Preceding: Susiana B (ir_susiana_b) [None] | |
| Succeeding: Susiana - Late Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_2) [None] |
| quasi-polity |
| Year Range | Susiana - Early Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_1) was in: |
|---|---|
| (5100 BCE 4701 BCE) | Susiana |
"Choga Mish, the largest site (15 ha) on the Susiana plain in the mid-fifth millennium, featured a non-residential building at least 10 x 15 m in size, perhaps on a terrace, with plastered walls up to 1.5 m wide (Kantor 1976: 27-28, fig. 11)." [1] No site of equivalent size at Susa until hundreds of years later. [1]
[1]: (Hole 2006, 231) 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.
"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."
[1]
Jaffarabad is Susiana B.
[2]
"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.
[3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 39)
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"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."
[1]
Jaffarabad is Susiana B.
[2]
"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.
[3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 39)
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"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."
[1]
Jaffarabad is Susiana B.
[2]
"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.
[3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 39)
[3]: (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." [2] Jaffarabad is Susiana B. [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Hole 1987, 39)
Inhabitants. 15 hectares at Seshat approximation of 50 - 200 per hectares provide an estimate of 750 to 3000.
Greatest number of sites cluster near Choga Mish. "Only toward the end of the fifth millennium did settlement shift toward the west, where Susa became the pre-eminent site. The early settlement is estimated to have covered some 15 ha, about the same as Choga Mish."
[1]
"To the north of Susa, along the same terrace, there were some small settlements such as Jaffarabad, Jowi, Bendebal, and Bouhallan that were occupied at various times from the late sixth through late fifth millennia (dollfus 1978)."
[1]
On Khuzistan Plain there were "hundreds of sites dating from the sixth through fifth millennia (Adams 1962; Kouchoukos and Hole 2003)."
[1]
At Tall-i Bakun in fifth-millennium Fars there was a settlement with houses that had three-five rooms each.
[2]
Susa not present at this time: "... from the late sixth millennium B.C. onward its northern part had been settled by farming and livestock-raising peoples. More than one thousand years after the appearance of those first permanent villages Susa was founded, in the north-west corner of the [Khuzistan] plain on the banks of a small stream called the Shaur. The site was occupied more or less continually from about 4000 B.C. until the 13th century A.D., when it was abandoned after the Mongol conquest."
[3]
"Like most of Mesopotamia, during its most stylistically unified period in the Ubaid 1-3 periods (5300-4600 BC), Susiana was occupied by small villages (2 hectares or less). Presumably, these villagers subsisted through irrigation agriculture and animal husbandry (Dollfus 1985; Hole 1985). Not until the middle of this period did one site, Choga Mish, increase rapidly in size to 11 hectares. The site for which the area is named, Susa, had not been founded yet."
[4]
"Chogha Mish became the largest site on the Susiana plan during the Middle Chalcolithic (Middle Susiana or Susiana b-d), during which time it extended over the whole site, an area of about 15 ha (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 284)."
[5]
According to the [50-200] inhabitants range per hectare applied consistently throughout Seshat, this would give us an estimate of [750-3000] inhabitants for Chogha Mish.
[1]: (Hole 2006, 229) 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]: (Pollack 2006, 104) Pollack, Susan 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.
[3]: (Musee du Louvre 1992) Musee du Louvre. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
[4]: (Rothman 2001, 11-12)
[5]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180)
levels. "Like most of Mesopotamia, during its most stylistically unified period in the Ubaid 1-3 periods (5300-4600 BC), Susiana was occupied by small villages (2 hectares or less). Presumably, these villagers subsisted through irrigation agriculture and animal husbandry (Dollfus 1985; Hole 1985). Not until the middle of this period did one site, Choga Mish, increase rapidly in size to 11 hectares. The site for which the area is named, Susa, had not been founded yet."
[1]
1. Choga Mish (11ha)
2. Small villages (2ha or less)
Jaffarabad phase: Choga Mish 3.5-4.5 ha. Jaffarabad 2000sq m. Jovi 1 to 1.5 ha.
[2]
[1]: (Rothman 2001, 11-12)
[2]: (Hole 1987, 40)
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]
Liverani says of nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE: "With Ubaid culture, then, it becomes possible to detect the first steps towards the creation of socio-economic and political structures more complex than the ones characterising villages. The starting point of this process has to be the progress in agriculture, which in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain had become possible through extensive irrigation and the introduction of the cattle-drawn plough. These changes led to the beginnings of labour specialisation, the subsequent emergence of agents responsible for the coordination of social organisation and decision-making processes (mainly centred on the leading role of temples), and the progressive social stratification of communities."
[2]
"Given the formal differences and large geographic distance between the Hamrin and Bakun regions, it is hardly surprising to find differences in daily practices. Perhaps more astonishing is the extent to which they share broadly similar traditions of preparing and serving food, along with similar technological features and generalized types of sociopolitical organization."
[3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Pollack 2006, 104) Pollack, Susan 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.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3000 BCE so this period very low administrative complexity and presumably little capacity to pay and train full time officers and troops. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
At Susa by second half-fifth millennium: "I argue that an agrarian society that relied on ritual specialists to control the forces of nature failed and ultimately gave way to a society based on secular control of human labor in the service of both man and gods." [1] Liverani says "possible existence of specilised priests" in reference to nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples. [2] 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." [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, 53) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
At Susa by second half-fifth millennium: "I argue that an agrarian society that relied on ritual specialists to control the forces of nature failed and ultimately gave way to a society based on secular control of human labor in the service of both man and gods." [1] Liverani says "possible existence of specilised priests" in reference to nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples. [2] 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." [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, 53) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3000 BCE so this period very low administrative complexity and presumably little capacity to pay and train full time officers and troops. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Wright and Johnson have argued that ’specialized governments’ did not develop until the 4th millennium BCE in southwestern Iran.
[1]
During the Middle Susiana period, a monumental structure known as the Burnt Building was built at Chogha Mish (the largest settlement in the region), including a room full of storage jars and evidence of flint tool manufacturing.
[2]
Though it testifies to a high degree of social stratification, the precise function of this building is unclear, and Alizadeh speculates that it was a ’chiefly residence’ (i.e. not set aside for administrative activities).
[3]
The indications of industrial activity within its walls also suggest that we cannot view the Burnt Building as a specialized government building. It was burned down in the early 5th millennium BCE.
[3]
’The size and nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish [during the Middle Susiana period] was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear ... The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus ... Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure ... A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context’.
[4]
This quote suggests possibility of specialized administrative buildings at Choga Mish: "Although they are sparse, the published findings imply that Choga Mish was a center of regional importance. It remains to be determined how large and extensive the elaborate architectural precinct is and precisely what activities occurred there. Uses as an administrative and temple center have been suggested (Kantor 1976: 28) but neither can be demonstrated on the basis of presently available evidence.”
[5]
For neighbouring Mesopotamia: administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[6]
Possibility of "agents responsible for the coordination of social organisation and decision-making processes (mainly centred on the leading role of temples), and the progressive social stratification of communities."
[7]
Though the reference concerns the Ubaid there was a large temple complex in Susiana e.g. Choga Mish.
[1]: (Wright and Johnson 1975, 267) Wright, Henry T., and Gregory A. Johnson. 1975. “Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran.” American Anthropologist 77 (2):267-89. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7B3EQPRT.
[2]: (Alizadeh 2008, 11-13) Alizadeh, Abbas. 2008. Chogha Mish II: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972-1978. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/D9Z3T2K7.
[3]: (Alizadeh 2008, 13) Alizadeh, Abbas. 2008. Chogha Mish II: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972-1978. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/D9Z3T2K7.
[4]: (Peasnall 2002, 181) Peasnall, Brian L. 2002. “Iranian Chalcolithic.” In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Vol. 8: South and Southwest Asia, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin M. Ember, 160-95. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/32Z6KKJA.
[5]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
[6]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[7]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
There is some evidence of the concentration of administrative activities (indicated by excavated sealings and other objects that likely served as ’tokens’) at Chogha Mish during the Middle Susiana period, but ’The precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear’.
[1]
Middle Chalcolithic southwestern Iran saw the ’emergence of administrative, economic, and religious centers’.
[2]
I have coded ’inferred absent’ because the evidence does not seem strong enough to code full-time bureaucrats for this period. Wright and Johnson have argued that ’specialized governments’ did not develop until the 4th millennium BCE in southwestern Iran.
[3]
For neighbouring Mesopotamia: administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[4]
Possibility of "agents responsible for the coordination of social organisation and decision-making processes (mainly centred on the leading role of temples), and the progressive social stratification of communities."
[5]
Though the reference concerns the Ubaid there was a large temple complex in Susiana e.g. Chogha Mish.
[1]: (Peasnall 2002, 181) Peasnall, Brian L. 2002. “Iranian Chalcolithic.” In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Vol. 8: South and Southwest Asia, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin M. Ember, 160-95. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/32Z6KKJA.
[2]: (Peasnall 2002, 162) Peasnall, Brian L. 2002. “Iranian Chalcolithic.” In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Vol. 8: South and Southwest Asia, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin M. Ember, 160-95. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/32Z6KKJA.
[3]: (Wright and Johnson 1975, 267) Wright, Henry T., and Gregory A. Johnson. 1975. “Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran.” American Anthropologist 77 (2):267-89. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7B3EQPRT.
[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[5]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"Like most of Mesopotamia, during its most stylistically unified period in the Ubaid 1-3 periods (5300-4600 BC), Susiana was occupied by small villages (2 hectares or less). Presumably, these villagers subsisted through irrigation agriculture and animal husbandry (Dollfus 1985; Hole 1985). Not until the middle of this period did one site, Choga Mish, increase rapidly in size to 11 hectares. The site for which the area is named, Susa, had not been founded yet." [1] Hajji Muhammad culture ca. 5800-5100 BCE "facilitated the irrigated cultivation of grains and cattle farming" [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]: (Rothman 2001, 11-12)
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Frank 1987, 84 + 17) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
Reference to the first silos from c7000 BCE so presumably existed at this time?
[1]
At Jaffarabad: “While silos or storage bins imply well-developed agriculture, the report on the botanical remains does not inform on the question of irrigation.”
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 40)
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] -- key infrastructures likely to have included some roads along which trade was carried.
[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.
Sealings and other objects ’which appear to have functioned as tokens’ have been recovered surrounding a Middle Susiana-period structure at the site of Chogha Mish. [1] ’The evidence of prehistoric administrative technology at Chogha Mish consists primarily of clay and stone tokens, as well as a few stamp seals and seal impressions. Small baked and unbaked clay tokens occur in all prehistoric Susiana levels’, while seals and sealing first appear in this period, the late Middle Susiana. [2]
[1]: (Peasnall 2002, 181) Peasnall, Brian L. 2002. “Iranian Chalcolithic.” In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Vol. 8: South and Southwest Asia, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin M. Ember, 160-95. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/32Z6KKJA.
[2]: (Alizadeh 2008, 77-78) Alizadeh, Abbas. 2008. Chogha Mish II: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972-1978. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/D9Z3T2K7.
"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. 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
Technology not yet available
‘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
‘production of metal artifacts that now began in earnest with the cold and hot working of copper’ [1] copper based tools and weapons appeared in the 5th millenium BC [2]
[1]: Barbara Helwing, ‘The Chalcolithic of Northern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 84
[2]: Abbas Moghaddam, ‘The Later Village (Chalcolithic) Period in Khuzestan’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 124
‘production of metal artifacts that now began in earnest with the cold and hot working of copper’ [1] copper based tools and weapons appeared in the 5th millenium BC [2]
[1]: Barbara Helwing, ‘The Chalcolithic of Northern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 84
[2]: Abbas Moghaddam, ‘The Later Village (Chalcolithic) Period in Khuzestan’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 124
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Archaeologist have found sling bullets at the Chalcolithic site of Chogha Gavaneh dating from 5000-4000 BCE. [1] "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." [2] 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia." [3] Early Sumer was c4500 BCE but also found at ’neolithic sites’ earlier than this.
[1]: (Forouzan et al. 2012: 3534) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5GSTDKNJ.
[2]: (Singh 1997, 90) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.
[3]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
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] "The bow was probably between 6,000 and 10,000 years old by the dawn of the Bronze Age". [3]
[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.
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 27-28) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
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.
Not used for military purposes until much later
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