No General Descriptions provided.
| 36 S |
| Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic |
| Middle and Late Chalcolithic in Konya Plain | |
| Mittleren und Spaten Kupferzeit in Konya Plain | |
| Chalcolithique Moyen et Final en plaine de Konya | |
| Konya Ovasi Orta ve Gec Kalkolitik |
| Konya Plain - Early Bronze Age |
| continuity |
| Succeeding: Konya Plain - Early Bronze Age (tr_konya_eba) [population replacement] | |
| Preceding: Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic (tr_konya_eca) [continuity] |
| quasi-polity |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown | 5000 BCE 4000 BCE |
| present | 3999 BCE 3001 BCE |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| present |
| unknown |
| Year Range | Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic (tr_konya_lca) was in: |
|---|---|
| (5000 BCE 3001 BCE) | Konya Plain |
The current chronological framework used in Anatolian archaeology is mainly based on a local variant of the Three Age System whose transitional dates are mostly imported from outside the region. The transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age is arbitrary. In Anatolia at this time is the lack of specific units of cultures, and with a definite spatial and chronological extension [1]
[1]: Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 7
Determining the geographic frontiers of Central Anatolia is also problematic. The frontiers are not only linked to climate and topography, but also to the location of sites. Pontic Mountains can be considered the South border, and similarly, the Taurus Mountains were in the South frontier. The Eastern boundary is the easiest to define: it is a straight line between modern Malatya and Trabzon. Western border is formed by crucial sites like Beycesultan, Demircihöyük, Karataş-Semayük. During Early Bronze Age, some Indo-European nations arrived on this land - this happened around 2300 BCE. Most of the Early Bronze Age II sites in Anatolia saw massive and violent destruction and these disasters brought an end to the EB II period.
[2,564-3,846]
"The eight layer 2B buildings that have been excavated completely occupy about 700m². If these buildings were inhabited by core families of about 5 people the number of residents in this area would have been about 40 people. Extended to the site as a whole this would result in a population of approximately 5128, and assuming that betweeen 25 percent and 50 percent of the site would not have been built up even during its peak occupation this could be reduced to between 2564 and 3846"
[1]
[1]: Construcing Communities, Clustered Neighbourhood Settelments of the Central Anatolia Neolithic CA.8500-5500 CAL. BC, Bleda S. During 2006, Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, pp.278
Km2.
90,000 in m²
[1]
-- the reference has 8500-5500 in the title. check that this number is not for earlier period than this.
The Central Anatolia Plain (including Cappadocia with occasional references to Cilicia) and North-Central Anatolia within the bend of the Kizil Irmah River.
The subject of the database is the culture of the Middle and Late Chalcolithic located in Central Anatolia (including Cappadocia, with occasional references to Cilicia) and also North-Central Anatolia in the bend of the river Kizil Irmah. As many publications state, this era is considered as the dark ages and that during this time nothing really significant happened.
[1]: Construcing Communities, Clustered Neighbourhood Settelments of the Central Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 CAL. BC, Bleda S. During 2006, Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, pp.278
"Takyan Höyük (twelve hectares), Kazane Höyük (twenty hectares), Domuztepe (twenty hectares), Tell Kurdu (twelve to fifteen hectares) […] these settlements stand out as being substantially larger than most other contemporaneous sites in northern Mesopotamia and beyond; they may, in fact, represent regional centers in a two-or three-tiered settlement hierarchy."
[1]
"Chalcolithic Asia Minor has sometimes been characterized as a period dominated by farming villages, with some exploitation of natural resources such as salt and obsidian, which could be exchanged with other groups for their intrinsic value. Indeed, there is some evidence to support the idea that raw materials were exchanged over considerable distances. This is manifested, for example, in the exchange of obsidian; a site such as Aphrodisias contains obsidian from Cappadocian sources and the Aegean islands of Melos and Giali, and a similar situation has been documented at Dedecik Heybelitepe. However, there is also evidence for the exchange of artifacts produced especially for export purposes and produced in labor intensive local industries. The best evidence for this comes from the Middle Chalcolithic site of Kulaksizlar, located in western Asia Minor. At this site, there is evidence for the production of stone vessels and figurines. These were produced from marble, and a large number of blanks, waste by products, manufacturing rejects, and stone working tools were found here, constituting about 90 percent of the surface assemblage. The most common artifacts produced at Kulaksizlar are pointed beakers and ‘Kilia figurines"".
[2]
The Middle and Late Chalcolithic era in central Anatolia was dominated by agricultural villages, exploiting natural resources such as salt or obsidian, which could be also exchanged with other groups. At that time many specialized workshops existed that produced items used for exchange (dishes, blades, shell ornaments, etc.). One of the most important raw materials for the Chalcolithic society was clay, because of its wide use in the economy. We also should not forget about the importance of stone, which served not only for making tools and figurines but was also part of house structures (e.g. foundations). Timber was also a valuable resource - so when abandoning a house, all wooden structures were dismantled in order to re-use it for a new home. Obsidian was used mainly for manufacturing blades, while animal bones were used as a material for making tools and jewelry. Copper, just like wood, was a valuable raw material for every village. Many copper items such as maces, axes or bracelets have been found.
During this period, living quarters were based on a honeycomb model. Buildings formed large clusters, dividing into smaller ones as they got closer to the center. They were mainly built from mud-brick and probably had a few stories - this hypothesis is based on foundation excavations of the load-bearing structures such as pillars made of wood. The insides of these buildings consisted mainly of a few small rooms, of which some were used as storage areas or private quarters. The inside walls and floors were plastered, sometimes decorated (geometric patterns, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic decorations - very often showing bull as main subject of the drawing). The dwellings were built with wooden elements that were removed when vacating the house (hence pits in the foundations). The houses were used for a time period of 10 years up to a few decades, and after that time they were demolished to build new ones in their place (sometimes, the houses were burned down as a part of a ritual). Thus, the tallow settlement had risen - through the constant material accumulation. The settlement consisted of many different types of buildings. It was possible to distinguish the ones that belonged to the elite by their size and complexity.
[1]: (Özbal 2011: 179) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/U5C5XR8K.
[2]: Starożytna Anatolia, 10,000-323 BCE, SR Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Rozdział 36
Many sources suggest that the people living in that era were worshiping their ancestors. There is also evidence for a cult linked with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines. This was a common cult and the figurines related to this are found in many places. These figurines were made of clay and stone, sometimes painted with precision to show as many features as possible, and other times made schematically, not putting much emphasis on the details. The height of such figurines could vary from a few centimeters to even a meter or more. Interestingly, some of them do not have heads, and could have been intentionally deprived of them - thus suggesting a link with the cult of the skull, which started in the areas of Anatolia already in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A era.
1.
2.3. Individual soldier
During this time, complex fortifications also started appear. They usually had huge entrance gates, thick walls and towers. It is also clear that some buildings were connected to the walls. Those are interpreted as houses for soldiers and their families or magazines for weapons. Based on the known excavation data it is clear that the main weapons that were used in the Middle and Late Chalcolithic were slingshots, hatchets, axes, blades and maces (some of them were probably used as tools). Unfortunately, due to the limitations of archaeological data, we unable to determine the presence or absence of such phenomena as war, assaults or raids.
1. Elite
2.3.
The houses were used for a time period of 10 years up to a few decades, and after that time they were demolished to build new ones in their place (sometimes, the houses were burned down as a part of a ritual). Thus, the tallow settlement had risen - through the constant material accumulation. The settlement consisted of many different types of buildings. It was possible to distinguish the ones that belonged to the elite by their size and complexity.
unknown Houses for soldiers and their families would imply full-time warriors.
During this time, complex fortifications also started appear. They usually had huge entrance gates, thick walls and towers. It is also clear that some buildings were connected to the walls. Those are interpreted as houses for soldiers and their families or magazines for weapons.
unknown Houses for soldiers and their families would imply full-time warriors.
During this time, complex fortifications also started appear. They usually had huge entrance gates, thick walls and towers. It is also clear that some buildings were connected to the walls. Those are interpreted as houses for soldiers and their families or magazines for weapons.
Houses for soldiers and their families would imply full-time warriors.
During this time, complex fortifications also started appear. They usually had huge entrance gates, thick walls and towers. It is also clear that some buildings were connected to the walls. Those are interpreted as houses for soldiers and their families or magazines for weapons.
Possible but not confirmed. Archaeologists found a possible "shop for renting cooking ware: Within were once wooden shelves holding dozens of vessels of all shapes and sizes, including Omphalos bowls with dimples in the bottom, a staple Çadır pottery tradition. Outside these buildings were large, apparently private, courtyard areas." [1]
Paintings on the walls. Mud was applied to the brick. On a white background, the paintings are painted with red ocher patterns. Gray and blue are used too, but rarely. Only geometric patterns. We do not know whether there was overall design paintings (there are only fragments of plaster). Fragments of plaster show what might be called " irrational Meanders ". We do not know whether they transmit any information. [1]
[1]: Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
Probably found shop for renting cooking ware: Within were once wooden shelves holding dozens of vessels of all shapes and sizes, including Omphalos bowls with dimples in the bottom, a staple Çadır pottery tradition. Outside these buildings were large, apparently private, courtyard areas." [1]
’At Hacınebi already in Level A evidence for a massive stone buttressed wall, nearly four meters in height, and monumental mudbrick platforms, were discovered’. [1]
[1]: Rana Özbal, ‘The Chalcolithic of Southeast Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 187
’At Hacınebi already in Level A evidence for a massive stone buttressed wall, nearly four meters in height, and monumental mudbrick platforms, were discovered’. [1]
[1]: Rana Özbal, ‘The Chalcolithic of Southeast Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 187
Only archaeological evidence for mudbrick and stone buttressed walls at this time
Güvercinkayası was located on the top of a steep rock formation [1] . "Mersin-Yumuktepe has been surrounded by massive city wall measuring about a meter thick, which was offset at regular distances and had slit windows at regular intervals from which defenders could safely shoot enemies. This wall was complete with a city gate flanked by two towers. To the East of the city gate, a series of domestic residences was built up against the city wall, each consisting of a front and a back room. The back rooms were about nine to fifteen square meters and might have served as living rooms of nuclear households, Garstang suggestets that they might have been inhabited by soldiers with their families." [1]
[1]: Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
"Fortifications of Mersin XVI are the earliest of the type of structure. Carefully planned, built of mudbrick on a stone foundation, it stood on the top of a fifty-foot mound. The sides had been steeply revetted to from a glacis, adding considerably to its strength. The fortress appears to have had single storey, with a continuous roof over the barrack rooms which provided a platform for the garnison whose main weapons was the sling. Behind the 1-5 metre thick defensive wall, provided with stout offsets, lay a series of rooms each lit by two slit windows in the outer walls. Each rooms had small open courtyard in front, grinding platforms, grain bins, hearths and other domestic arrangements. Doors in the site walls made communication possible along the inner face of the wall. On the northwest site of the mound, a track or ramp led from the river to the "Water Gate" which was about two metres wide and flanked on either site by a projecting tower containing a guardroom. An important building, which the excavators thought to be the ruler’s residence, formed a rectangular block divided down the middle by a long central courtyard containing a domed oven. The group of rooms lay on either side. Thus the plan of the structure resembles that of manny an Early Bronze Age house at Byblos". [1]
[1]: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, James Mellaart, KHAYATS Beirut1966, p.102
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Anatolia well known at the time for copper deposits [1] Copper or bronze mace-head from Can Hasan [2] and items found made from smelted copper have been dated to around 5000 BC [3] ‘There is some evidence for substantial subterranean copper ore mining (e.g., at Kozlu in central Anatolia). The use of arsenical copper appears to be a hallmark of the time’ [4]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 55) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961 Author(s): D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 1962, British Institute at Ankara, pp.34
[3]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2j.html
[4]: Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, ‘The Chalcolithic on the Plateau’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 165
maces found have generally been of copper and widespread bronze objects do not appear widespread until 2500 BCE although bronze weapons had been found in Tombs around 3000 BCE [1]
[1]: James D. Muhly, ‘Metals and Metallurgy’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, pp. 864-867
"The best-preserved Chalcolithic Anatolian fortress at Mersin, which was strongly fortified with wall, gate and glacis, dating from about 4500. Storefrooms near the gate had piles of slingstones ready for use by defenders […]." [1] Sling. [2] [2] Sling bullets. [3] Sling pellets (Yumuktepe). [4] 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia." [5] 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons". [5]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006: 286) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
[2]: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, James Mellaart, KHAYATS Beirut1966, p.102
[3]: Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965: Fifth Preliminary Report, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 16 1966, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 116
[4]: Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU,News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
[5]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
Javelins were common weapons found in Chalcolithic Middle East and Levant. [1] The harpoon could have been used for hunting or warfare. No evidence yet of a javelin weapon designed specifically for or in active use for warfare.
[1]: (Anfinset 2016: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4G68J7F3.
"Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE." [1] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE." [2]
[1]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
"The mace was among man’s oldest weapons (at least 6000 B.C.E. at Catal Huyuk)". [1] ’Copper or bronze mace-head from Can Hasan’. [2] 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons". [3]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
[2]: Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961 Author(s): D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 1962, British Institute at Ankara, pp.34
[3]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
’3300-3000 BC: nine short swords (very unusual at this early date), twelve spearheads, and a quadruple spiral plaque. (copper)’ [1] "The traditional view is that sword use - as a secondary weapon - dates from about the seventeenth century BCE. [2] although earlier swords are also known in Susiana."
[1]: James D. Muhly, ‘Metals and Metallurgy’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, pp. 864-865
[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons" [1] : ’especially striking is the widespread appearance of triangular daggers’. [2]
[1]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[2]: Ulf-Dietrich Schoop, ‘The Chalcolithic on the Plateau’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 165
[1]: Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.90
[2]: Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965: Fifth Preliminary Report, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 16 1966, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 118
first used for warfare for chariots much later that this polity
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
present until 4250, based on the previous polity as mentioned in the overall description above, and suspected unknown thereafter
present until 4250, based on the previous polity as mentioned in the overall description above, and suspected unknown thereafter
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
This time is earlier than the earliest reference in Greece c1600 BCE: "Early Mycenaean and Minoan charioteers wore an arrangement of bronze armor that almost fully enclosed the soldier, the famous Dendra panoply." [1] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period. [2]
[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[2]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Earliest reference for present we currently have is for the Hittites. [1] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE. [2] Earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer. [3]
[1]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
[2]: (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
Technology not yet available
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Technology not yet available