This Late Ubaid phase of Susiana ran from 4700-4300 BCE.
Eighty six sites have been recorded during the Choga Mish period
[1]
, showing that settlement hierarchies consisted of two levels: Choga Mish (the administrative or religious centre) and small villages. There was a degree of centralisation during this period through economic and administrative activities.
[2]
While no information could be found in the sources consulted regarding the polity’s population, the population of Choga Mish is estimated to have had up to 3,000 inhabitants.
[3]
The beginning of this period saw an increase in agricultural processes which were made possible by the cattle-drawn plough and irrigation.
[4]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 42)
[2]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
[3]: (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.
[4]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
| Susa I |
| Succeeding: Susa I (ir_susa_1) [continuity] | |
| Preceding: Susiana - Early Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_1) [None] |
| quasi-polity |
| Year Range | Susiana - Late Ubaid (ir_susiana_ubaid_2) was in: |
|---|---|
| (4700 BCE 4301 BCE) | Susiana |
Choga Mish phase 4400-4200 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]
"Table 3.3 Chronology of the Chalcolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Susiana C / Mehmeh (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 4500-4000 BCE; Bayat / Susa A (probably two different terms for same period) 4000-3500 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 57)
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Choga Mish phase 4400-4200 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]
"Table 3.3 Chronology of the Chalcolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Susiana C / Mehmeh (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 4500-4000 BCE; Bayat / Susa A (probably two different terms for same period) 4000-3500 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 57)
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Choga Mish phase 4400-4200 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]
"Table 3.3 Chronology of the Chalcolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Susiana C / Mehmeh (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 4500-4000 BCE; Bayat / Susa A (probably two different terms for same period) 4000-3500 BCE.
[2]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 57)
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"Table 3.3 Chronology of the Chalcolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Susiana C / Mehmeh (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 4500-4000 BCE; Bayat / Susa A (probably two different terms for same period) 4000-3500 BCE. [1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"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)
"The development of centers on the Susiana plane, beginning with Middle Cha1colithic Chogha Mish and culminating in the rise of Susa during the Late Chalcolithic. suggests a trend towards regional control in some economic and administrative activities (Delougaz and Kantor 1996, Hole 1987b: 89-90). This trend towards centralization may also be suggested by the presence of possible elite or "Khan’s" houses during this time at several sites (Hole 1987a: 41). In spite of these trends, Chalcolithic society throughout Khuzistan presents a strong egalitarian appearance. During the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, differential access to resources may have involved less archaeological1y visible items such as staples. access to water, and control over labor, as it appears to have done at this time in Mesopotamia (Stein 1994)." [1] The Middle Chalcolithic corresponds to 4800-3900 BCE and the Late Chalcolithic corresponds to 3900-3500 BCE in this book.
[1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 173)
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]
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 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]
At Tall-i Bakun in fifth-millennium Fars there was a settlement with houses that had three-five rooms each.
[3]
[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]: (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]: (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.
levels.
"During the Choga Mish phase, the number of sites on the Susiana Plain reached a maximum. At this time solid evidence exists of nondomestic architectural units and of functional differentiation among sites."
[1]
"At Choga Mish, buildings of the phase covered the entire site making it, at 11 hectares, the largest site of its time in Susiana."
[1]
"[…] 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."
[2]
1. Choga Mish - administrative or religious centre. 11 ha.
2. Smaller village
“By the Middle Village Period, a two-level size hierarchy of sites, and the possibility that temples and other public or private elite structures may have been present, are our chief evidence of growth in system complexity.”
[3]
Number of sites in the Choga Mish period: 86 sites have been recorded.
[4]
[1]: (Hole 1987, 40)
[2]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
[3]: (Hole 1987, 97)
[4]: (Hole 1987, 42)
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]
At Susa, in the late fifth millennium, "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]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[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.
levels. Inferred from discussion of military organization during this period
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE so this period still very low administrative complexity.
[1]
Liverani says of 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]
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]
Liverani says "possible existence of specialised priests" in reference to Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE temples.
[4]
[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]: (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.
Wright and Johnson have argued that ’specialized governments’ did not develop until the 4th millennium BCE in southwestern Iran.
[1]
In the early 5th millennium BCE, Chogha Mish’s monumental ’Burnt Building’ was burned down (hence its name), and the Late Susiana I phase in general saw the abandonment of Chogha Mish.
[2]
Moreover, even the large Burnt Building was likely not a specialized administrative building: it showed signs of having been used as a lithic workshop.
[3]
Susa was founded during the late 5th millennium and a large monumental building was constructed on the haute terrasse, ’but we remain uncertain of its nature’.
[4]
A monumental building was constructed at Farrukhabad during the Late Susiana I period, but the evidence does not seem strong enough to code this as a specialized government building rather than, say, an elite residence where administrative activities involving seals also took place.
[4]
Administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[5]
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."
[6]
Though the reference concerns the Ubaid there was a large temple complex in Susiana e.g. Choga Mish. Still inferred absent, however, as these buildings associated with temples are unlikely to be specialized government buildings.
[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, 13, 16) 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, 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.
[4]: (Alizadeh 2008, 16) 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.
[5]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[6]: (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 preceding 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]
Full-time bureaucrats are even less likely to have been present in this period (Late Susiana I and II) because Chogha Mish appears to have been ’deserted for most of the Late Susiana I phase’.
[3]
Wright and Johnson have argued that ’specialized governments’ did not develop until the 4th millennium BCE in southwestern Iran.
[4]
For neighbouring Mesopotamia: Administrative conventions and writing, for example, developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE.
[5]
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."
[6]
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.”
[7]
[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]: (Alizadeh 2008, 16) 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]: (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.
[5]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[6]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[7]: (Hole 1987, 40-41)
Hajji Muhammad culture ca. 5800-5100 BCE "facilitated the irrigated cultivation of grains and cattle farming" [1] Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE: "The inhabitants of the Mesopotamian lowlands were the first to master, yet still on a local level, the construction of canals for the irrigation of areas which were not arable otherwise, and the drainage of excess water from marshes to drainage basins. As a result, the first fully-fledged agricultural settlements began to appear along irrigation canals." [2] "Although irrigation is implied beginning in the Early Village Period in some regions and possibly only in the Middle Village Period, if at all in others, it is obvious that not all sites are located with primary concern for surface water." According to periodization table Early Village period is 6000 BCE, Middle Village Period c4600 BCE. [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 49) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Leverani 2014, 53) 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.
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.
"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
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/ainsworth/items/itemKey/Q5RVEPUU.
[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. Lamellar armour introduced by the Assyrians (9th century BCE?): "a shirt constructed of laminated layers of leather sewn or glued together. To the outer surface of this coat were attached fitted iron plates, each plate joined to the next at the edge with no overlap and held in place by stitching or gluing." [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
Technology not yet available
Not mentioned in the archaeological evidence
Technology not yet available