TrClcER

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Natalia Szych ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ wczesna epoka miedzi wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Fruh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite precoce d Anatolie centrale pierre d une periode Chalcolithique d Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu da Erken Kalkolitik Donem ♥ wczesna epoka miedzi/wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Früh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite précoce d'Anatolie centrale/piérre d'une période Chalcolithique d'Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu'da Erken Kalkolitik Dönem ... this is not machine readable.

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥ inapplicable


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 6000-5500 BCE ♥ [1]

The chronology for areas of Central Anatolia is based on a modified version of the three-age system developed in European archaeology (Stone, Bronze and Iron ages). For areas of Anatolia, two additional terms were introduced: Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The latter is not, as the name would suggest, determined on the basis of copper artifacts, but on the basis of the emergence of painted pottery. It derives from Mesopotamia, where the division of the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic was related to the introduction of painted pottery.

The most recent attempt to construct a healthy chronological scheme for the Central Anatolian Neolithic was proposed by the CANeW workshop[2]. On the basis of the archaeological evidence from various sites in the region, the time trajectories of the development were identified, taking into account not a wide scope of aspects - architectural developments, burial practices, material culture (pottery, lithic industry, metallurgy etc.) and economy. The main unit of the proposed scheme is ECA - Early Central Anatolian. The ECA IV (6000-5500 cal BC) corresponds to what is conventionally labeled as 'Early Chalcolithic'.

At the start of the Early Chalcolithic, around 6000 cal. BC, we can see a continuation of the changes settlement patterns that began in the Late Neolithic. This period is marked by a shift in settlement from Çatalhöyük East to Çatalhöyük West and the existence of full- farming sites such as Can Hasan I, Koşk Höyük and Tepecik-Çiftlik. The number of sites in the region increased [3].

The date 5500 cal BC marks a major disruption: most of the sites were abandoned. This date marks the beginning of the Middle Chalcolithic - it is a completely new period different from the preceding, a prelude of a new system[4]. The nature of this major breakage is still under-recognized.

As for radiocarbon dating: The levels II-V (Neolithic and Chalcolithic)of Koşk Höyük date to 6300-5600 cal BC[5]. From the Early Chalcolithic Level 3 at Tepecik - Çiftlik, we have a single c14 date - around 6000 BC[6]. Six radiocarbon dates are available from Can Hasan 2B which, when combined, provide a time range between 5715-5635 cal. BCE. Absolute dates from levels 7-3 are not available[7]. As for the Çatalhöyük West, the c14 samples were taken from a deep sounding and cannot draw a conclusive picture yet. Nevertheless, one date 5980 to 5810 cal BC (68% probability[8]).

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ quasi-polity ♥

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

The area of Central Anatolia is distinct for the fact that each site corresponds to a separate culture. However, it is possible to posit contacts between them, through similarities in pottery decorations (motifs)or architectural systems.

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Konya Plain - Late Neolithic ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ continuity ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ ♥ unknown

We cannot determine the capital for the whole of this region unambiguously. However, it is possible that Can Hasan I, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials, could have had a similar function. Also, Çatalhöyük West, with its 8 ha, is much larger than other sites, and it has beem suggested that it played a role of a central site[9].

♠ Language ♣ Indo-European language ♥ Indo-European language ? There is a hypothesis proposed by Colin Renfrew in 1987 - that Indo-European languages ​​began to spread with the beginning of agriculture[10]

General Description

The work on this codebook is focused on the area of the Central Anatolia Plain (including Cappadocia with occasional references to Cilicia) and North-Central Anatolia within the bend of the Kızılırmak River. The main sites include Çatalhöyük West, Canhasan, Yümüktepe / Mersin, Köşk Höyük, Gelveri Güzelyurt, Tepecik - Çiftlik, Gözlükule / Tarsus. The majority of the data was obtained from reports of excavations at three of the mentioned sites: Çatalhöyük West, Canhasan and Köşk Höyük. The chronology for areas of Central Anatolia is based on a modified version of the three-age system developed in European archaeology (Stone, Bronze and Iron ages). However, for the Anatolian areas, it was necessary to introduce two additional terms: Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The latter was to be determined on the basis of copper artifacts. However, it became known that the origins of manufacturing copper tools date back to Aceramic Neolithic. So, instead, the beginning of the Chalcolithic in Central Anatolia came to be determined by the emergence of painted pottery.

Some geometric wall paintings and decorations on ceramics from the Early Chalcolithic period have been found, and can be considered as 'Nonwritten records'. Pottery in the Early Chalcolithic is mostly painted. The majority of these paintings are red or brown straight-line geometric motifs, applied over a cream or yellowish-buff slip. In addition to the expanded production of ceramics, stone and flint was used for tools. However, the dominant material for manufacturing tools was obsidian, which was probably imported from the Ilıcapınar areas (Cappadocian sources- Niğde area, where sites of Tepecik - Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük are located-PF). Metallurgy of the period is not different from that of the Neolithic, except for copper pins and small ornaments at Mersin XXII-XXI.

The area of Central Anatolia is distinguished by the fact that each site corresponds to a separate culture. However, the contacts between them are possible, since there are similarities in the pottery decorations and in architecture.

Completing the codebook for Early Chalcolithic Konya Plain was not an easy task, as we do not always have a requisite amount of relevant data from archaeological research. However, an attempt was made to reconstruct the functioning of the societies of the Early Chalcolithic period, based on the data available. The information was primarily gathered from the reports from excavations, as well as general studies on prehistoric areas of Anatolia. The most problematic variables were, for example, "Society variables" , "Law", "Bureaucracy characteristics", for it is a society for which we have no written sources.

Floors were made of compact clay.

"Many clay figurines were recovered from one of the burnt structures (House 3) at Can Hasan in 2B level as well as a clay spindle-whorl; sling stones; stoppers; and animal figurines. Some of the women figurines in various sizes are flat and schematic; but the eyes; ears; nose; and chin were clearly depicted. Plain or painted ones are existent. Another group was depicted in crouching or sitting position. Their necks are high and details are observed to be shown besides the chin. They are all painted." [11] [12]

At Çatalhöyük West, L-shaped clay objects were found, with geometric incised decorations. The same objects were also found in Çatalhöyük East [13].In total, nearly 400 of those objects were recorded at Çatalhöyük[14]. These are the so-called 'potstands'. Placed in pairs over the fire they would support a cooking pot[15]. As they appear in the Late Neolithic, they may be an important index of shift away the use of interior fixed architectural fire installations for cooking, towards the use of ceramic vessels balanced on potstands [16].

Potstands have been also found at Can Hasan (mainly in levels II and I).[17].

"In all Chalcolithic Age levels of Yumuktepe; baked clay spindle whorls and clay sling pallets are the dominant types. There are also loom weights and a number of figurines." [18]

"At Gelveri Güzelyurt a baked clay animal figurine is the only figurine for now. There are other clay finds like a brush and a pintaderas stamp. A female figurine was found during 2007 excavations made of terra cotta with coarse paste in beige color." [19]

At Köşk Höyük in level I were found two female figurines: one seated, the other standing and two horn-shaped objects recovered in the so-called sanctuary[20]. Also at level II, there were more female figurines found, whole and pieces.

Wooden supports in two-storied buildings. [21]

It may be assumed the wood was easily obtained as the forests covered vast areas in the region [22].

"Pieces of blades and flakes were found at 2A at Can Hasan." [23] "Careless work is observed in flintstone and obsidian tools of 2B." [24] "Blades and flakes made of obsidian were recovered from the third level. A retouched piece is thought to be used as a perforator." [25]

"At Yumuktepe level XXIV was found tools in Neolithic tradition and biface points are observed to continue. In general; blade and large flake industries are dominant. Both obsidian and flint are used." [26]

Obsidian tools were found at Gelveri Güzelyurt: knives and scrapers shaped from flake-blades. Long sickle blades are also present. [27]

At Köşk Höyük, obsidian is the dominant material for producing tools.Also, pieces of obsidian mirrors have been found.

The Cappadocian sources - Göllüdağ and Nenezi Dağ- are of significance since the Neolithic period[28].

"Polychrome stone vessels; stone and shell beads; axes; marble bracelets; and grinding stones were recovered from the 2A level at Can Hasan."[29]" Grinding stones; mortar; pestles; shallow bowls; spouted vessels; marble bracelets; and stopper were recovered from the 2B structures."[30] "The ground stone finds of the third level consist of pestles; grinding stones; and beads."[31]

Small stone bowls made out of white or red- green marble were recovered from Köşk Höyük; other stone finds include: celts, querns, mortars, pestles, hammering and grinding stones[32].

At Tepecik-Çiftlik stone artefacts include mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, basins made of basalt and rhyolite, axes made of limestone and basalt and finally- polishing stones made out of pebbles[33].

The site of Çatalhöyük West brought about a number of stone tools: these are grinding stones (querns), axes, pestles and stone vessels[34]. The raw material of these artefacts is usually of volcanic origin.

At Gelveri Güzelyurt, many stone tools were found, e.g. vessels, numerous broken pestles and mace heads. [35]

"Flat axes (polished {?} flat axe) in various sizes and grinding stones are recovered almost in all levels; from Level XXIV at Yumuktepe site. There are stone object pieces that are interpreted as idols by the excavator." [36]

PF:The geology of Melendiz- Göllüdağ and Hasan Dağı region makes available volcanic rocks, metamorphic rocks such as limestone and other; however specific sources of materials have not been targeted[37].

"At Level XXIII-XX at Yumuktepe the foundations of the architectural structures are built meticulously out of stones with smoothed corners and the walls are put up with mudbrick." [38] At the sites of the land of Cappadocia, stone was used for building houses (among others, the sites Köşk Höyük and Tepecik-Çiftlik)[39].

"A piece of copper; and traces of copper / bronze observed on earth hint the existence of usage of metal at 2A level at Can Hasan. A mace head made of copper; a bracelet made of copper or bronze found on the arm of a skeleton; and a piece of copper were recovered from 2B level at Can Hasan." [40]

"The most interesting finds of the site are the copper finds. One of the oldest copper pins in Anatoila is recovered in Levels XXIII-XX at Yumuktepe." [41]

"Beads made of shells; and although its raw material is not known for sure; a bracelet made of ivory from 2A level at Can Hasan are the other interesting finds." [42] [43]

At Gözlükule/Tarsus, a lead ring and other lead pieces were found[44].

"Bone finds like axe rod-handles made of antler; hammers; awl; spatula; bone hook; palettes; and points were recovered from the 2A settlement at Can Hasan. One of the spatulas are decorated with geometric motifs. [45]

"Awls and pins are existent; carrying the same features; in all levels at Yumuktepe." [46]

Among stones used for making of ornaments at Tepecik - Çiftlik are pyrites, goethites, limestones, turquoises, malachites and azurites[47].

"The most common bone finds inside level 3 during 2007 campaign at Tepecik - Çiftlik are the awls. This is followed in quantity by a large amount of "phalanx idols" made of the phalanx bones of wild horses and wild donkeys." [48]

"Beads made out of marine shells are recovered on a floor form Level II at Köşk Höyük. The researches that were performed on the southern wing in 2005 revealed a burnishing stone made of hematite; and a pig head shaped necklace bead made of agate underneath the floor in the northern half in phase I. [49] [50]

On Köşk Höyük pottery, we can see a scene of agricultural work that looks like harvesting crops[51].

"Technically, Early Chalcolithic metalwork is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Neolithic, except for copper pins and small ornament at Mersin XXII-XXI, which suggest an interest in small luxury items." [52]

"At Yumuktepe at level XXIV was found rectangular structures with stone foundations and round storage bins; most probably in open courts. The storage bins are interpreted as granaries." [53]

At Köşk Höyük at level I, in the Northeastern trench, is an area interpreted as a sanctuary[54]. "The sanctuary/cult building in level II is a rectangular structure with a regular sill and door. In this two-partitioned sanctuary; horns and bones of bulls and cows are found well-arranged on a platform. The place is interpreted as a sanctuary due to the relief decoration on a potsherd. The relief is of a human figure with thin and long body; and a scepter in one hand; interpreted as a god." [55]

At Gelveri Güzelyurt an alley/street was found, which extends in the East-West direction between buildings inside trech AI[56].

During 2002 excavations at Köşk Höyük, two streets were found at the site[57].

Based on the available data, it can be concluded that there was some exchange. But it was rather the exchange of ideas and thoughts on the technical side, rather than the exchange of finished materials.

Pottery imports. This is just a hypothesis, since the ceramics show, inter alia, the influence of Halaf culture.[58]

"The ceramics of Can Hasan 2B began largely as a mixture of painted (red-on-cream wash)and burnished wares: vertical and horizontal rows of zigzag lines are the basic painted patterns. Gradually, the quality of both types improve, and the burnished fabrics (gray, red-brown and buff) have their surfaces both well polished and incised; in the last building level a new pottery type appears - white-slipped red ware with painted designs of simple horizontal lines and cross-hatched triangles executed in brown or black." [59]

Ceramics at Yumuktepe Level XXIV: White incrustation on black surface is seen on sherds; besides the Hassuna-like pottery with red paint decoration on crème surface or with incised decoration. Levels XXIII-XX: The same wares continue with little change in the decoration motifs[60]. Painted pottery similar to painted Halaf wares that were scarce in lower levels increase in number from Level XX on. There are also sherds related with Can Hasan III, Çatalhöyük West, and Hacilar.

"Pottery of Köşk Höyük is hand-made and consist mostly of monochrome wares with black; dark gray; light and dark red pastes. Level II yields a small amount of polichrome ware with geometric decorations painted in red; brown; and black on light colored surface. Geometrical decorations are applied also by incrustation; but rarely. The forms are bowls with or without handles; mugs; rectangular vessels; globular vases with long neck; everted rim; and flat base; storage jars of various sizes." [61]


Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Natalia Szych ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ ♥ KM2

The area includes Central Anatolia Plain (including Cappadocia with occasional references to Cilicia) and North-Central Anatolia within the bend of the Kızılırmak River.

"The highest point of Western Çatalhöyük [the correct name should be: Çatalhöyük West- PF]; which was settled after people left the Neolithic Age settlement at the Eastern Çatalhöyük [the correct name should be: Çatalhöyük East- PF]; is 6 m above the level of the plain that is 1004 m above the sea level. Its diameter is approximately 300 m. The northwestern part of the mound is cut by a road; and the northeastern part by an old river bed replaced by a channel. Another reason why its dimensions cannot be exactly understood is that the mound is partly surrounded by alluvium like in Eastern Çatalhöyük. According to the researches; Western Çatalhöyük covers an area of 6.9 hectares. This is 8.5 hectares when the find distribution at the level of the alluvium is considered." [62]

Çatalhöyük West: 8 ha; Canhasan I: 9ha; Yümüktepe/ Mersin: 12ha; Tepecik - Çiftlik: 6 ha; Köşk Höyük:4 ha[63] [64]

♠ Polity Population ♣ [2500-4000] ♥

Between 2564-3846 people.

Calculations are based on the level 2B of Canhasan I, and the assumption that in each of the buildings, a family with about 5 persons resided [65]

Çatalhöyük West: 8 ha; Canhasan I: 9ha; Yümüktepe/ Mersin: 12ha; Tepecik - Çiftlik: 6 ha; Köşk Höyük:4 ha[66] [67]

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ [2,500-3,800] ♥

Between 2564-3846 people.

Calculations are based on the level 2B of Canhasan I, and the assumption that in each of the buildings, a family with about 5 persons resided [68]

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 2 ♥ For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of 'Specialized Buildings', it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period.

♠ Administrative levels ♣ [1-2] ♥ For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of 'Specialized Buildings', it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment[69]

♠ Religious levels ♣ 1 ♥ Not mentioned by sources, would require expert input. Rituals in the Early Chalcolicthic include burials of all types. Most burials are located under the floors of houses, bodies stacked on the right side in hocker position. In many cases, the skull is missing. At Köşk Höyük, all burials have burial gifts such as vessels, beads, and obsidian tools. Anthropomorphic figurines have also been found, which are most probably connected to some unspecified rituals. Widespread standardisation and routinisation of ritual practices (e.g. burial, house burning, wall plastering) at Çatalhöyük suggests at least some religious hierarchy [70].

♠ Military levels ♣ [1-2] ♥ For the period of the Early Chalcolithic, we do not know of any specific conflicts between different social groups or cultures. We have no evidence of archaeological or historical warfare. However, the lack of such evidence does not mean we can exclude the potential of warfare taking place. The listed handheld weapons have been placed in the category of warfare because we have no archaeological evidence for the purposes for which they were used - whether they were used only for hunting or for hypothetical battles. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment[71]

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ ♥ unknown

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Examination system ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Merit promotion ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ inferred absent ♥ No information found in relevant literature.

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Judges ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Courts ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ inferred absent ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ ♥ unknown. At Gelveri Güzelyurt, an alley/street was found which extends in East-West direction between buildings inside trech AI [72] - maintained as such?

During 2002 excavations at Köşk Höyük, two streets were found at the site[73]

♠ Bridges ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Canals ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Ports ♣ inferred absent ♥

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ ♥

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ absent ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ absent♥
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ absent ♥
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥

The following quote indicates that among the variety of decorated objects found, none had any markings that could be interpreted as inscriptions

At Çatalhöyük West, L-shaped clay objects were found, with geometric incised decorations. The same objects were found also in Çatalhöyük East [74]. In total, nearly 400 of these objects have been recorded at Çatalhöyük[75]. These are the so-called 'potstands'. Placed in pairs over the fire, they would support a cooking pot[76]. As they appear in the Late Neolithic, they may be an important indicator of a shift away from the use of interior fixed architectural fire installations for cooking, towards the use of ceramic vessels balanced on potstands [77]. Potstands have also been found at Can Hasan (mainly in levels II and I).[78]. "At Can Hasan is some evidence that walls were coated with white plaster, and fragment of red-on-white painted plaster suggest some rooms were ornamented with geometric patterns." [79] "Simple; geometrical decorated painted plaster pieces; recovered in the space deposit; on the floor; are observed to have come from the upper levels due to their lying position. A thin level of gray or light blue whitewash on white plaster was revealed in one of the rooms of a building (No:3). Red paint on white plaster was used on the walls and on the floor of another building (No:9)."[80] Here, decorated pottery should be mentioned. Some of the sherds reveal pointille, impressed, scratched, incised and channeled decoration. Triangles, zigzags, and wavy-lines are the frequent patterns in decoration[81]. Pottery in the Early Chalcolithic is mostly painted. The majority of the decorations are red or brown painted straight‐line geometric motifs, applied over a cream or yellowish‐buff slip, which is subsequently burnished. It is characteristic of the Konya Plain sites, such as Çatalhöyük West and Canhasan. For sites of Cappadocia, pottery is characterized by relief decorations (e.g. sites: Köşk Höyük and Tepecik / Çiftlik)[82]. "The fine wares decorated with high reliefs of Köşk Höyük Levels I and II are extraordinary. These depict the mother goddess; other deities; human figures; vegetation; and various animals such as bull; goat; donkey; antelope; deer; serpent; ram; tortoise; and birds. Some of these depictions are stylized like the goddess figures with her hair waving with the wind and the one with her hands on her waist or realistic like a chamois. Some are decorated with white incrustation and some (especially serpents' eyes) with inlayed obsidian pieces."[83] PF: interpretation of the figurines as representations of the Goddess is nowadays considered universalistic and non-context dependent and, as such, rejected.

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Calendar ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Religious literature ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Practical literature ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ History ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Philosophy ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Scientific literature ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Fiction ♣ inferred absent ♥


Money

♠ Articles ♣ ♥
♠ Tokens ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Precious metals ♣ ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ inferred absent ♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Postal stations ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ General postal service ♣ inferred absent ♥

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Natalia Szych; Thomas Cressy; Edward A L Turner ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later. Beads and tools carved from copper have been found but no weapons or smelting at this time [84]
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later


Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ [absent; present] ♥ Bone harpoons found for this time, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting.[85] 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.
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥ New world weapon.
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ At the site of Can Hasan I, clay sling bullet was found, which may suggest the use of slings.[86] 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia."[87] The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association.[88] At the site of Canhasan I, clay sling bullet was found[89], which may suggest the use of slings, but whether it was used for warfare purposes is unknown.
♠ Self bow ♣ inferred present ♥ Arrowheads were found at Köşk Höyük site.[90] [91]
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE."[92] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE."[93]
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥ Not invented yet
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥ Not invented yet
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent ♥ Not invented yet
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥ Not invented yet
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent ♥ Not invented yet

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ present ♥ The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association.[94] There is a rich groundstone industry, both for grinding plant material and ochres, and for small axes and maces.[95] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "The mace was among man's oldest weapons (at least 6000 B.C.E. at Catal Huyuk)".[96]
♠ Battle axes ♣ inferred present ♥ "Axes made of polished stones." [97] PF: interpretation of those axes (that often have small dimensions) as battle axes is tentative. There is a rich groundstone industry, both for grinding plant material and ochres, and for small axes and maces.[98]
♠ Daggers ♣ present ♥ At Tepecik - Çiftlik site[99]. At Köşk Höyük site[100] [101].
♠ Swords ♣ absent ♥ According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "All armies after the seventeenth century B.C.E. carried the sword, but in none was it a major weapon of close combat; rather, it was used when the soldier's primary weapons, the spear and axe, were lost or broken."[102]
♠ Spears ♣ present ♥ At Köşk Höyük site[103] [104].
♠ Polearms ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ present ♥ Dogs were used to defend villages against attacking humans/animals[105]
♠ Donkeys ♣ [absent; present] ♥ In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward.[106] "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.[107] (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."[108]
♠ Horses ♣ [absent; present] ♥ unclear if domesticated horses became widespread in this period
♠ Camels ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
♠ Elephants ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
♠ Shields ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
♠ Helmets ♣ absent ♥ Earliest reference for present we currently have is for the Hittites.[109] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE.[110] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer.[111]
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Limb protection ♣ inferred absent ♥ According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist)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."[112] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period.[113]
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Plate armor ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ present ♥ Base camps with fortified walls are present, defending against animal or human attackers [114]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ absent ♥ not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ absent ♥ not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
♠ Ditch ♣ absent ♥ not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
♠ Moat ♣ absent ♥ not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥ No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes [115]
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ absent ♥ Only archaeological evidence for mudbrick walls at this time
♠ Fortified camps ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Long walls ♣ suspected unknown ♥ km. not mentioned in the archaeological evidence
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ ♥
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ ♥
♠ Impeachment ♣ ♥

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥ The name of the research assistant or associate who coded the data. If more than one RA made a substantial contribution, list all.

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ production of public goods ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Moralizing Supernatural Powers

♠ Moral concern is primary ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is certain ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing norms are broad ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is targeted ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement of rulers ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by elites ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by commoners ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in afterlife ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in this life ♣ unknown ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is agentic ♣ unknown ♥

These data were reviewed by expert advisors and consultants. For a detailed description of these data, refer to the relevant Analytic Narratives, reference tables, and acknowledgements page. [116] [117] [118]

References

  1. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 127-129
  2. Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., “Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia” The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.).2002, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul;
  3. Baird, D., ‘Konya Plain’ Anatolian Archaeology 3 (1997), p. 13
  4. Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., 2002, Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul; p.71
  5. Öztan, A. 2012 “Koşk Höyük” .M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 45
  6. Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 104
  7. Çilingiroglu, Ç. "Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir)." (2009).
  8. Biehl, P., et al. "One community and two tells: the phenomenon of relocating tell settlements at the turn of the 7th and 6th millennia in Central Anatolia." Socio-environmental Dynamics Over the Last 12 (2012): 59.
  9. Baird, D. "Early Holocene settlement in Central Anatolia: Problems and prospects as seen from the Konya Plain. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen eds., 'The Neolithic of Central Anatolia'. Istanbul 2002:150
  10. C. Renfrew, 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press
  11. French D.H.,1964. Can Hasan, Karaman 1962. Ankara, p.22
  12. French D.H., 1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p. 90
  13. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 133
  14. Ketchum S., “The Ovens and Hearths of Çatalhöyük: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cooking and Pyrotechnology”. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2013: 260
  15. Mellaart, J., "Çatal Hüyük West." Anatolian Studies 15 (1965): 153, fig. 10
  16. Ketchum S., “The Ovens and Hearths of Çatalhöyük: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cooking and Pyrotechnology”. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2013: 260
  17. French, D. 2010. Canhasan Sites 3: Canhasan 1: The Small Finds. London: 43-44, fig. 39-40
  18. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  19. Gülçur-Kiper,2009. Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışması. Ankara, p. 288
  20. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 95-96
  21. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press,
  22. Kuzucuoglu, C. “The environmental frame in central Anatolia from the 9th to the 6th millennium B.C. cal. An introduction to the study of relations between environmental conditions and the development of human societies”. In F. Gérard & L. Thissens (Eds.), The Neolithic of central Anatolia 2002, Istanbul: IFEA & Ege Yaylnlari:41
  23. French D.H.,1965. Excavations at Can Hasan. Fourth Preliminary Report, 1964. London, p.29
  24. French D.H.,1963. Excavations at Can Hasan. Second Preliminary Report, 1962. London, p. 35-36
  25. French D.H., 1967. Excavations at Can Hasan. Sixth Preliminary Report, 1966. London, p.173
  26. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  27. Gülçur-Kiper,2009. Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışması. Ankara, p. 288
  28. Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 99
  29. French D.H.,1966. Excavations at Can Hasan. Fifth Preliminary Report, 1965. London, p.116
  30. French D.H.,1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p. 90
  31. French D.H., 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan 1967; Seventh Preliminary Report. London, p.48
  32. Öztan, A. 2012 “Koşk Höyük” .M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 42
  33. Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 101
  34. Ozbek, O. :A Preliminary Analysis of Ground Stone Tools And Vessels From Trench 8, West Mound Çatalhöyük: Çatalhöyük Archive 2009 Report: 53
  35. Gülçur-Kiper,2009. Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışması. Ankara, p. 288; Gülçur-Kiper,2009. Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışması. Ankara, p. 288
  36. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  37. Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 102
  38. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press. Oxford
  39. Burcin ERDOGU, 2009. Ritual symbolism in the early chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, p.Burcin ERDOGU, 2009. Ritual symbolism in the early chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, p.134
  40. French D.H.,1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p. 89
  41. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press. Oxford
  42. French D.H., 1964. Can Hasan; Karaman 1962. Ankara, p.21
  43. French D.H., 1967. "Excavations at Can Hasan. Sixth Preliminary Report; 1966. London, p. 170
  44. Özgüç T., 1948. Elbistan Ovasındaki Tetkik Gezileri ve Karahöyük Kazısı. Ankara, p. 27
  45. French D.H., 1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p.89
  46. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press. Oxford
  47. Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 102
  48. BIÇAKÇI E., S. BALCI, Ç. ALTUNBİLEK-ALGÜL, 2009. Tepecik-Çiftlik 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları. Ankara, p. 208-209
  49. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 97
  50. ÖZTAN; A. - F. AÇIKGÖZ - S. ÖZKAN - M.C. EREK - B.S. ARBUCKLE, 2007. 2005 Yılı Köşk Höyük Kazıları Raporu. Ankara, p.535
  51. Burcin ERDOGU, 2009. Ritual symbolism in the early chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, p.136
  52. Sagona Antonio, Zimansky Paul, 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge, London, New York, p. 139
  53. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press. Oxford, plan in fig. 24
  54. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 95-96
  55. Silistreli U., 1989. Köşk Höyük Figürin ve Heykelcikleri. Ankara, p. 62
  56. Gülçur-Kiper, 2009 Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışmas. Ankara, p. 286-287
  57. ÇİĞDEM, S. - H. ÖZKAN - H. YURTTAŞ, 2004.2002 Yılı Gümüşhane ve Bayburt İlleri Yüzey Araştırması
  58. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press
  59. Sagona Antonio, Zimansky Paul, 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge, London, New York, p.128
  60. Garstang J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford University Press, fig. 52-59
  61. http://www.tayproject.org/TAYages.fm$Retrieve?CagNo=1990&html=ages_detail_e.html&layout=web
  62. http://www.tayproject.org/TAYmaster.fm$Retrieve?YerlesmeNo=560&html=masterengdetail.html&layout=web
  63. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 138-139
  64. Sharp Joukowsky Martha, 1996. Early Turkey Anatolian archaeology from prehistory through the Lydian Period., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company USA, p. 108
  65. During Bleda S., Constructing Communities. Clustered Neigbourhood Settlements of the Cental Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 Cal. BC. 2006, p. 278
  66. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 138-139
  67. Sharp Joukowsky Martha, 1996. Early Turkey Anatolian archaeology from prehistory through the Lydian Period., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company USA, p. 108
  68. During Bleda S., Constructing Communities. Clustered Neigbourhood Settlements of the Cental Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 Cal. BC. 2006, p. 278
  69. Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303
  70. Whitehouse, H. & Hodder, I. in Religion in the emergence of civilization: Çatalhöyük as a case study (ed. Hodder, I.) 122-145 (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
  71. Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303
  72. Gülçur-Kiper, 2009 Gelveri Yüksekkilise 2007 Yılı Sondaj Çalışmas. Ankara, p. 286-287
  73. ÇİĞDEM, S. - H. ÖZKAN - H. YURTTAŞ, 2004.2002 Yılı Gümüşhane ve Bayburt İlleri Yüzey Araştırması
  74. Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 133
  75. Ketchum S., “The Ovens and Hearths of Çatalhöyük: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cooking and Pyrotechnology”. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2013: 260
  76. Mellaart, J., "Çatal Hüyük West." Anatolian Studies 15 (1965): 153, fig. 10
  77. Ketchum S., “The Ovens and Hearths of Çatalhöyük: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cooking and Pyrotechnology”. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2013: 260
  78. French, D. 2010. Canhasan Sites 3: Canhasan 1: The Small Finds. London: 43-44, fig. 39-40
  79. Sagona Antonio, Zimansky Paul, 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge, London, New York, p.128
  80. French D.H., 1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p.90
  81. Tezcan B., 1958. Aksaray Çevresinden Derlenen Eserler. Ankara.
  82. Burcin ERDOGU, 2009. Ritual symbolism in the Early Chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, p.134
  83. http://www.tayproject.org/TAYages.fm$Retrieve?CagNo=1990&html=ages_detail_e.html&layout=web
  84. https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2c.html
  85. (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  86. (French 2010: 44) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/U6GA7BJN.
  87. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  88. Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
  89. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 44.
  90. Silistreli U., 1987. 1985 Köşk Höyüğü. Ankara, p. 174
  91. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 95
  92. Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
  93. (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
  94. Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
  95. Ian Hodder, ‘Çatalhöyük: A Prehistoric Settlement on the Konya Plain’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 945
  96. (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  97. BIÇAKÇI E., S. BALCI, Ç. ALTUNBİLEK-ALGÜL, 2009. Tepecik-Çiftlik 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları. Ankara, p. 208-209
  98. Ian Hodder, ‘Çatalhöyük: A Prehistoric Settlement on the Konya Plain’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 945
  99. Biçakçi E., Ç. ALTINBİLEK, E. FAYDALI, 2006. Tepecik Çiftlik 2004 Yılı Çalışmaları. Ankara, p. 224
  100. Silistreli U., 1987. 1985 Köşk Höyüğü. Ankara, p. 174
  101. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 95
  102. (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  103. Silistreli U., 1987. 1985 Köşk Höyüğü. Ankara, p. 174
  104. Silistreli U., 1991. Les Fouilles de Köşk Höyük. p. 95
  105. (Leverani 2014, 41-44) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  106. (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  107. (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  108. (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
  109. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
  110. (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  111. (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  112. (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  113. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
  114. (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  115. https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html
  116. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  117. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  118. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html