The 4300-3800 BCE period in the region of Susiana was the tale of two settlements, the fall of Chogha Mish and the rise of Susa. However, the basic mode of living at this time was in agricultural villages and herding camps so the urban aspect should not be exaggerated. The "Urban Revolution" was to come c3800-3000 BCE.
[1]
This was a time when centers developed to a larger scale than before
[2]
, and increased - if still incipient - centralization with the emergence of elite houses, whilst the societies as a whole maintained a "strong egalitarian appearance".
[2]
Prior to the foundation of Susa part of the existing site of Choga Mish was burned and villages surrounding Susa were abandoned, but archaeologists have not yet settled on an explanation why this occurred.
[3]
Susa, which replaced Choga Mish as the biggest settlement in the region, is noted for its comparatively great size compared to surrounding settlements with about 1000 people in the 15-18 hectare urban area, which consisted of non-contiguous groups of houses.
[4]
Hole (1987) estimates there were 10,000 people in the region of Susiana.
[5]
Despite the low population density Susa soon after its foundation became "distinguished by a number of architectural developments which would seem to exceed the scope of activities normally associated with village life".
[3]
most notably a stepped platform.
[6]
Many archaeologists are, however, reluctant to infer from the impressive temple constructions that Susa was a ’ceremonial centre’ or to suggest it was politically organized as a chiefdom.
[6]
Administrative conventions and writing are known to have developed in the later Uruk period.
[1]
There is nevertheless obvious evidence of a central authority in terms of the organization and hoarding of goods. Excavations at Susa discovered may stamp seals and sealings from the Susa I period, some of which may have been used on locked doors. This implies an authority existed "to control the flow of goods in and out of one or more offices or centres of redistribution."
[6]
Earliest and latest radiocarbon 14 dates for Susa are about 4400-3900 BCE and 3700-3500 BCE.
[3]
Tepe Jaffarabad, which is analogue in terms of ceramics, has been radiocarbon dated 4100-3900 BCE and 3900-3700 BCE and "thus generally consistent with the Susa dates"
[3]
- at least for the period from 4100-3700 BCE.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Mario Liverani. Soraia Tabatabai, trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Peasnall 2002, 173) B N Peasnall. Iranian Chalcolithic. P Peregrine. M Ember. eds. 2002. Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia, pp. 160-195. New York: Springer.
[3]: (Potts 1999, 46) D T Potts. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
[4]: (Potts 2016, 48) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
[5]: (Hole 1987, 94) F Hole. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Washington DC. The Smithsonian Institution Press.
[6]: (Potts 1999, 49-50) D T Potts. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
| Susa II |
| continuity |
| Preceding: Susiana - Late Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_2) [continuity] | |
| Succeeding: Susa II (ir_susa_2) [None] |
| quasi-polity |
| [350 to 1,400] people |
| 1 km2 |
| [8,000 to 12,000] people | 4300 BCE 4000 BCE |
| [800 to 1,200] people | 3999 BCE 3800 BCE |
| Year Range | Susa I (ir_susa_1) was in: |
|---|---|
| (4300 BCE 3801 BCE) | Susiana |
In Khuzistan 4500-4000 BCE Susiana C and Mehmeh. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
In Khuzistan 4500-4000 BCE Susiana C and Mehmeh. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
In Khuzistan 4500-4000 BCE Susiana C and Mehmeh. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
In Khuzistan 4500-4000 BCE Susiana C and Mehmeh.
[1]
Susa A: 4200-4000 and Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE)
[2]
C14s for Susa I (which are give some credibility being similar to the spreads at Jaffarbad)
[3]
4395-3955 BCE - Earliest
3680-3490 BCE - Latest
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 41)
[3]: (Potts 2016, 50) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
"It has been suggested that the original stock of the Susian population came from many of the surrounding villages which were abandoned as a prelude to Susa’s foundation (Pollock 1989: 283), and that the burning of at least a portion (see also Kantor and Delougaz 1996) of the site of Choga Mish may have had something to do with the foundation of Susa (Hole 1983: 321), possibly, as Hole has suggested, ‘a deliberate attempt to reestablish some kind of a center and vacate the area of the previous one’ (apud Pollock 1989: 292). Whatever the raison d’être behind Susa’s foundation, and it may have been very mundane indeed, the site’s subsequent development was soon distinguished by a number of architectural developments which would seem to exceed the scope of activities normally associated with village life (Dollfus 1985: 18-19)." [1]
[1]: (Potts 1999, 46)
"It has been suggested that the original stock of the Susian population came from many of the surrounding villages which were abandoned as a prelude to Susa’s foundation (Pollock 1989: 283), and that the burning of at least a portion (see also Kantor and Delougaz 1996) of the site of Choga Mish may have had something to do with the foundation of Susa (Hole 1983: 321), possibly, as Hole has suggested, ‘a deliberate attempt to reestablish some kind of a center and vacate the area of the previous one’ (apud Pollock 1989: 292). Whatever the raison d’être behind Susa’s foundation, and it may have been very mundane indeed, the site’s subsequent development was soon distinguished by a number of architectural developments which would seem to exceed the scope of activities normally associated with village life (Dollfus 1985: 18-19)." [1]
[1]: (Potts 1999, 46)
"In Khuzistan, Susiana, the Soghun Valley of the southeastern plateau, and perhaps elsewhere, Late Chalcolithic society may have been made up of a series of small localized chiefdoms similar to the contemporary Ubaid chiefdoms that existed in Mesopotamia. These chiefdoms would have been based on a system of staple finance rather than on the unequal distribution of prestige items. In this case, power would have been based on the control over water, land, and labor. Elsewhere, especially in the more isolated regions of the highlands, relatively small, self-sufficient, autonomous villages probably continued to exist throughout the Late Chalcolithic." [1] In this book the Late Chalcolithic corresponds to the period between 3900 and 3500 BCE.
[1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 164)
Inhabitants. Coding Seshat standard of 50-200 per hectare for the largest mound group at Susa. According to Dollfus Susa was a city made up of little hamlets rather than a contiguous 15-18 ha urban area. Four separate mound groups, largest 7 ha and 6.3 ha.
[1]
Susa: "... 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 anks 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."
[2]
“The Susa Phase is best known architecturally from Jaffarabad where there was a small domestic settlement of twenty-five to thirty persons contemporary and similar to a village at nearby Bendebal."
[3]
- typical village size?
[1]: (Potts 2016, 48) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
[2]: (Musee du Louvre 1992) Musee du Louvre. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
[3]: (Hole 1987, 41)
in squared kilometers. ha based on calculation with value of 200 persons per hectare. “By various estimates, the size of the settled population in the Late Village Period is between 8,500 and 25,000. (The figure of 200 persons per hectare of settlement is often used in these calculations [Dollfus 1983].)" [1]
[1]: (Hole 1987: 91) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2V3A89C3
People. Coded as a range to allow for flexibility around the value 10,000. Population collapse coded as 10% residual population of the previous levels coded.
Late Village Period (marked at c4200 BCE in periodization table)
[1]
"Now we see a dramatic shift. The number of sites drops quickly in the lowlands, first being apparent in Deh Luran and at a slower rate, but no less drastically, ultimately in Susiana. For practical purposes these regions both appear to have been essentially emptied of people by the end of this period. By now, the mordern climatic regime was established, giving, if anything, enhanced opportunity for the spread of villages into newly favorable areas. But what we see is not expansion, but a general contraction as it is expressed in the numbers of sites."
[2]
“By various estimates, the size of the settled population in the Late Village Period is between 8,500 and 25,000. (The figure of 200 persons per hectare of settlement is often used in these calculations [Dollfus 1983].)"
[3]
"The shifting nature of settlement in the Susiana Period is important for two reasons. First, it implies that estimates of population based on total numbers of sites on the plain are inherently suspect and probably too high, because sites are founded and abandoned through time and not all sites of a phase are occupied simultaneously. […] Even at peak density during the Susiana Period, there were probably fewer than ten inhabitants per square kilometre, an area that might support several times that many by agriculture (Adams and Nissen 1972: 29)"
[4]
"Since Susa stood alone, perforce it must have possessed sole responsibility for all of Susiana, a region in which 10,000 or more people may have resided in a multitude of separate communities."
[5]
Administrative control of Susa over 10,000 people?
"The collapse of the Susa A polity or polities during the Terminal Susa A (Terminal Ubaid) period of the early fourth millennium B.C. on the Susiana Plain was discussed in the previous chapter. It is sufficient to say that this collapse involved a marked decrease in the population of the area."
[6]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 17) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 85) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[3]: (Hole 1987, 91) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[4]: (Hole 1987, 92)
[5]: (Hole 1987, 94)
[6]: (Johnson 1987, 107) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
People. Coded as a range to allow for flexibility around the value 10,000. Population collapse coded as 10% residual population of the previous levels coded.
Late Village Period (marked at c4200 BCE in periodization table)
[1]
"Now we see a dramatic shift. The number of sites drops quickly in the lowlands, first being apparent in Deh Luran and at a slower rate, but no less drastically, ultimately in Susiana. For practical purposes these regions both appear to have been essentially emptied of people by the end of this period. By now, the mordern climatic regime was established, giving, if anything, enhanced opportunity for the spread of villages into newly favorable areas. But what we see is not expansion, but a general contraction as it is expressed in the numbers of sites."
[2]
“By various estimates, the size of the settled population in the Late Village Period is between 8,500 and 25,000. (The figure of 200 persons per hectare of settlement is often used in these calculations [Dollfus 1983].)"
[3]
"The shifting nature of settlement in the Susiana Period is important for two reasons. First, it implies that estimates of population based on total numbers of sites on the plain are inherently suspect and probably too high, because sites are founded and abandoned through time and not all sites of a phase are occupied simultaneously. […] Even at peak density during the Susiana Period, there were probably fewer than ten inhabitants per square kilometre, an area that might support several times that many by agriculture (Adams and Nissen 1972: 29)"
[4]
"Since Susa stood alone, perforce it must have possessed sole responsibility for all of Susiana, a region in which 10,000 or more people may have resided in a multitude of separate communities."
[5]
Administrative control of Susa over 10,000 people?
"The collapse of the Susa A polity or polities during the Terminal Susa A (Terminal Ubaid) period of the early fourth millennium B.C. on the Susiana Plain was discussed in the previous chapter. It is sufficient to say that this collapse involved a marked decrease in the population of the area."
[6]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 17) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[2]: (Hole 1987, 85) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[3]: (Hole 1987, 91) Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
[4]: (Hole 1987, 92)
[5]: (Hole 1987, 94)
[6]: (Johnson 1987, 107) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
levels."Susa figuratively, and perhaps literally, heads the settlement system. The next level consists of agricultural villages and herding camps, which are full-range domestic and economic units. The third tier holds the specialist communities: the Khan’s houses, craft manufactories, and possibly trading posts. Most of this diversity is evidenced in excavations or inferred from survey, but to define types does not enable us to specify how many of each type may be present or to exclude the possibility that a single site may have served several functions."
[1]
1. Susa
2. Agricultural villages and herding camps3. Khan’s houses, craft manufactories and trading posts.
Number of sites in Susiana
[2]
:
Early Susa Phase: 58
Late Susa Phase: 31
Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE): 18
"Second, with the exception of Susa and Chogha Mish, the sites were uniformly small, well under two hectares, although there is a slight tendency for sites that were occupied longer to be larger (table 9)."
[2]
"With roughly forty small settlements around it on the Susiana plain, Susa in the Susa I period was at least four times larger than any of its neighbours (Wright and Johnson 1985: 25; see also Hole 1985) and clearly, by virtue of its stepped platform, in possession of a monumental structure which, regardless of its exact function, must have been unusual in the context of Khuzistan in the late fifth and early fourth millennium BC. Whether, therefore, we wish to describe it using terms such as ‘ceremonial centre’, or to characterize its level of social organization as a ‘chiefdom’, as some scholars have chosen to do, is another matter.
[3]
"It is clear that there was a temple center at Susa but it is quite unclear what its effect was on any individual settlement. With a ’span of control’ (see Johnson, chapter 4) of fifty to seventy sites (the number of sites under its authority) and considering the distances to remote sites, its leaders could have effected only the most minimal control on the region generally, although as a shrine it may have commanded devout allegiance."
[4]
"To continue with the settlement system, we have a center at Susa and elite residences at scattered sites. Other sites, for the most part, are therefore residential and nonelite. I propose that there are also “manufactories”, sites at which certain crafts such as pot making or basket making, flint knapping, cheese making, and so forth were practised (Hole 1983). A site of this type would be Jaffarabad during the Choga Mish Phase when it consisted solely of ceramic kilns. Depending on the distribution of raw products and the development of market proclivities, there might have been a large number of such specialist sites which could, of course, have occurred at residential villages and herding camps as well. Finally, we must consider the pastoral component. Although we lack any direct evidence of it during this period on the Susiana Plain, a well-developed pastoral economy in western Iran is implied by the tombs in the mountains of Pushti-Kuh."
[4]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 92)
[2]: (Hole 1987, 42)
[3]: (Potts 1999, 49-50)
[4]: (Hole 1987, 43)
levels. At Susa "sealings show ceremonies in which a number of individuals perform (fig. 15.8h-j). The latter examples are especially interesting in that they also show dress and the use of beakers and bowls like those found in the cemetery (fig. 15.8i-j). More importantly, they also show hierarchical relations among participants with principal figures flanked by smaller attendants." [1] . Cameron Petrie: "almost everything is speculative and based on almost no evidence" [2]
[1]: (Hole 2006, 234) 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]: Email from Cameron Petrie to Pat Savage 5 Sep 2017
levels.
If there is possibility of a hierarchy for religion in this period than must also be possibility of military heirarchy.
First real army in Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies."
[1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period so this period still very low administrative complexity.
[1]
"Susa excavations have yielded no fewer than 261 stamp seals and sealings dating to the Susa I period (Amiet 1986e: 17), and the variety of sealing types would certainly suggest that the seals were being employed by persons in positions of administrative authority (see also Amiet 1988b: 8) to control the flow of goods in and out of one or more offices or centres of redistribution. Certainly some of the Susa I sealings came off doors which had been locked and sealed (Amiet 1994e: 56; 1994f: 88-9; for the principal of sealing doors see Fiandra 1982)"
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Potts 1999, 49-50)
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] First possibility of this was army of Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." [2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 80) 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]
Depictions on seals at Tepe Gawra (NW Iraq not in NGA region but around the same time): "The human form, in stylized posture, is the first convincing evidence of humans acting a role that we think of today as namash. A namash is a person who is thought to be endowed with the ability to communicate with, and influence the behavior of, supernatural forces."
[2]
At Susa "sealings show ceremonies in which a number of individuals perform (fig. 15.8h-j). The latter examples are especially interesting in that they also show dress and the use of beakers and bowls like those found in the cemetery (fig. 15.8i-j). More importantly, they also show hierarchical relations among participants with principal figures flanked by smaller attendants."
[2]
"At Susa, leaders determined that only ceremonies of sacrifice and supplication carried out on top of platforms would impress the forces that could not be controlled by secular human effort. An elaborate set of rituals, with participation by numerous individuals under the direction of priests, emerged (fig. 15.9)."
[3]
“If a primary motivation for specialized diversification in Khuzistan was to ameliorate the effects of variable resources and agricultural unpredictability, another rational and obvious solution to the same problem was to enhance the ability of mortals to plead their cases before the whimsical forces of nature which capriciously meted out their agricultural blessings. This would explain the emergence of specialized shamans or priests to conduct the services, and the establishment of a stable, monumental edifice in which to perform these rites. I see the platform at Susa as having been constructed specifically for such rites.”
[4]
“In short, I see a system that had achieved a certain level of sophistication through specialized diversification, but one in which social relations were regulated largely on a familial level and the roles such as priesthood were a normal reward of elderly status. At death the priests took the copper symbol of their roles with them.”
[5]
Liverani says "possible existence of specialised priests" in reference to nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples.
[6]
[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]: (Hole 2006, 234) 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.
[3]: (Hole 2006, 238) 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.
[4]: (Hole 1987, 95)
[5]: (Hole 1987, 96)
[6]: (Leverani 2014, 53) 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.
There were monumental structures at Susa during the Susa I period, but their precise function is unclear.
[1]
Potts notes that ’in the course of over a century, the Susa excavations have yielded no fewer than 261 stamp seals and sealings dating to the Susa I period ... and the variety of sealing types would certainly suggest that the seals were being employed by persons in positions of administrative authority ... to control the flow of goods in and out of one or more offices or centres of redistribution. Certainly some of the Susa I sealings came off doors which had been locked and sealed’.
[2]
However, because if they existed these ’centres of redistribution’ would have doubled as warehouses for food and goods, they would be coded under the ’food storage sites’ variable.
For neighbouring Mesopotamia: Administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[3]
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."
[4]
Though the reference concerns the Ubaid there was a large temple complex in Susiana e.g. Choga Mish.
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]
JR: I think this quotation may be referring to an earlier period, when Chogha Mish was the main urban centre in Susiana.
[1]: (Potts 2004, 47) Potts, D. T. 2004. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WDUEEBGQ.
[2]: (Potts 2004, 50) Potts, D. T. 2004. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WDUEEBGQ.
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[4]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[5]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
The speculative tone of Potts’ discussion of the evidence for administrative activities at Susa during the Susa I period suggest that we lack adequate information to be able to discern whether full-time specialist administrators were present: he notes that ’in the course of over a century, the Susa excavations have yielded no fewer than 261 stamp seals and sealings dating to the Susa I period ... and the variety of sealing types would certainly suggest that the seals were being employed by persons in positions of administrative authority ... to control the flow of goods in and out of one or more offices or centres of redistribution. Certainly some of the Susa I sealings came off doors which had been locked and sealed’.
[1]
For neighbouring Mesopotamia: Administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[2]
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."
[3]
Though the reference concerns the Ubaid there was a large temple complex in Susiana e.g. Choga Mish.
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 presentely available evidence.”
[4]
JR: I think this quotation may be referring to an earlier period, when Chogha Mish was the main urban centre in Susiana.
[1]: (Potts 2004, 50) Potts, D. T. 2004. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WDUEEBGQ.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[3]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[4]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
Hajji Muhammad culture ca. 5800-5100 BCE "facilitated the irrigated cultivation of grains and cattle farming" [1] "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. [2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (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] -- 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.
Excavations at Susa have discovered many stamp seals and sealings dating from the Susa I period. [1]
[1]: (Potts 2004, 50) Potts, D. T. 2004. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WDUEEBGQ.
"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
‘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
Base camps with fortified walls are present, defending against animal or human attackers. [1] In Anatolia siege warfare was mentioned in Old Hittite records. [2] Presumably at this time the catapult was not used? In India, according to Jain texts, Ajatashatru, a 5th century BCE king of Magadha in North India, used a catapult "capable of hurling huge pieces of stone". [3] Marsden (1969) said archaeological records exist before the 4th century BCE. [4] The Achaemenids (c400 BCE?) are assumed to have had the catapult because the Macedonians did. [5] Pollard and Berry (2012) say torsion catapults first came into widespread use in the Hellenistic period 4th - 1st centuries BCE. [6] The Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE which encouraged the development of large tension-powered weapons. [7] There is no direct evidence for catapults for this time/location. The aforementioned evidence we currently have covering the wider ancient world suggests they were probably not used at this time, perhaps because effective machines had not been invented yet.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: Siegelova I. and H. Tsumoto (2011) Metals and Metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia, pp. 278 [In:] H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (ed.) Insights Into Hittite History And Archaeology, Colloquia Antiqua 2, Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA: PEETERS, pp. 275-300
[3]: (Singh 2008, 272) Upinder Singh. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Longman. Delhi.
[4]: (Marsden 1969, 5, 16, 66.) Marsden, E. W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: The Historical Development. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
[5]: (Dandamaev 1989, 314) Dandamaev, M A. 1989. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Brill.
[6]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 45) Pollard, N, Berry, J (2012) The Complete Roman Legions, Thames and Hudson, London Rives, J (2006) Religion in the Roman Empire, Wiley
[7]: (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
The counter-weight trebuchet was first used by the Byzantines in 1165 CE.
"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 area since Palaeolithic times, 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.
Not present at this time: "the hand-held crossbow was invented by the Chinese, in the fifth century BC, and probably came into the Roman world in the first century AD, where it was used for hunting." [1] The crossbow also developed after the Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE. [2]
[1]: (Nicholson 2004, 99) Helen Nicholson. 2004. Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300-1500. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke.
[2]: (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
No evidence of bows for this period, so it is unlikely to be a more sophisticated bow. "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.
The mace was the dominant weapon of war between 4000-2500 BCE before the helmet was invented. [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002: 24) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/VAWK3Z9E/q/Gabriel.
"In Sumer the first swords appear about c 3000 BCE." [1]
[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991: 63) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5BTHT9IH/q/Gabriel.
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.
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.
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
"Earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer." [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002: 22) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/VAWK3Z9E/q/Gabriel.