TrClcLT

From Seshat Data Browser
Revision as of 18:44, 13 December 2021 by Admin (talk | contribs) (1 revision imported)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Agnieszka Marta Duda ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ 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 ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥ unknown


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 5500-3000 BCE ♥ 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]

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ quasi-polity ♥

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

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

♠ Capital ♣ ♥

♠ Language ♣ Indo-European language ♥ Indo-European language (hypothesis) [2]

General Description

Determining the chronology of the Middle and Late Chalcolithic period proved to problematic. There are many different types of chronology for this period, as it is based on a variant of the "Three Age System", and the dates are transferred from another region. Lack of exact information on the beginning date of the Middle period of the Chalcolithic era caused a 500-year gap between the Early and Middle Chalcolithic period. Also, the exact date of the end of the Late Chalcolithic and the start of the Bronze Age is not known. Based on data found in the literature, the duration of the Middle and Late Chalcocithic period in central Anatolia is dated to 5500-3000 BC. As already mentioned, those are contractual dates, transferred from other regions. It was not possible to determine the peak date for this period.

C. Renfrew’s hypothesis states that people in this region and era were using a language of Indo-European origin. There are many variations of the Middle and Late Chalcolithic culture, which depended mostly on geographical factors and external influences (e.g. the position of the settlement, sources of raw materials , beliefs , etc.).

Different groups and settlements reached the Early Bronze Age in many different ways. Archaeological sources show strong economic relationships between those settlements. Evidence for these relationships can be seen, among other kinds of proof, in some products, such as kitchen utensils, tools and materials used for manufacturing these.


Agriculture, hunting and gathering are seldom mentioned, due to the scarcity relevant research materials having been published throughout the years. Also, there is no information about farming techniques used by the Chalcolithic society. Their diet consisted mainly of plants grown next to their houses. Animal meat was consumed very rarely (some bones of both domesticated and wild animals have been found and there is evidence of fish and turtle consumption) .

As was mentioned above, this era is considered as the dark ages. So, in order to obtain information about anything besides ceramics, a large number of publications had to be worked through. One of the issues that arose was that the sites that are considered Chalcolithic were studied in the late 60s of the last century and they resulted in rather poor quality information from those excavations. Also, due to Turkey’s ban on any foreign archaeological excavations in that area, it was nearly impossible to acquire any new samples for the analysis. The coding is mainly based on excavation reports, as the information in these has minimal additions from the writers.

Dead people were usually buried under the floors inside the houses - it can suggest that skeleton burial was in place. Bodies were very often tempered with - for example, laid on their side in a contracted position or hampered to fit into small pits. The dead were wearing jewelry upon the burial, and also had other grave goods, of which one of the most impressive was a bronze bracelet found with one of the skeletons (unfortunately, as no anthropomorphic studies very performed, we do not know what sex the buried person was). Very often, one grave had many bodies.

"Artifacts resembling contemporary Balkan styles found at Çadır and similar regional sites may indicate that the peoples of the central plateau also had some contact with Southeast Europe"[3]

Used to cover walls and floors.

"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."[4]

"The mudbrick walls with no foundations and white plaster have survived to a height of 80cm."[5]

"A thick grey-green clay was used as binder for the bricks." Can Hasan[6]

"Floors inside the houses are of clay, although in the south-east corner of House III there is a patch of pebble floor. Outside the houses there are the " courtyards ". These, usually, have a hard floor of white clay." Can Hasan[7]

"There was a " box "-shaped vessel with animal head protome from square R 24 d (CAN/63/498, Pottery batch 474)" Can Hasan[8]

Clay used in the production of vessels, examples[9]:

- Red and Black Burnished Ware - Scored Ware - White painted Ware - Red or Brown Painted Ware - Incised Ware

Wood was used, for example: timber beams and large interior buttresses[10].

"Adjoining A303 (room) contained traces of beams, fallen from the ceiling" (Yumuktepe)[11]

"A feature of the building technique of these houses was the use of timber. Support and reinforcement was given to each wall by small beams measuring up to o-o8 m. in diameter. These were placed first horizontally close to the outer edge of the wall and parallel with it ; then vertically, again near the two faces of the wall; and finally cross-wise through the wall. Each wall was thus efficiently and strongly held together."[12]

Flint/Obsidian present [13]

Obsidian blades (Can Hasan)[14][15]

Long obsidian blades[16]

"Obsidian was not common and when it did occur consisted of simple blades. Several small blades, however, were found with the group of small objects from S 21 c and may also be connected with their manufacture."[17]

stone spindle whorl fragments (in Yumuktepe)[18]

"The crystal consists of single polished lumps with a hole at one end for stringing. With this group of objects were various small tools which may have served for the manufacture and decoration of these pendants."[19]

Stone foundation, even with large stones. Yumuktepe[20]

"A311 is likely the courtyard of this building. This is further supported by paving, formed with small creek stones." Yumuktepe[21]

Traces of corroded copper.[22]

"Noteworthy are two copper implements which were discovered in a burial site in level2 (Can Hasan), a man of approximately 45 years of age was buried with a bracelet and copper mace head"[23]

"Traces of copper or bronze were noted in the soil in baulk Q22 d/23 b in a secondary layer with AA pottery." Can Hasan[24]

Shells

Shells used to make necklaces, earrings and possibly they were sewn on to the fabric.[25]

Copper present[26], example mace-head frome Can Hasan[27], bronze or copper bracelet[28]

Bronze present deliberate combine arsenic and copper alloy to create arsenic bronze artifacts[29], bronze or copper bracelet[30], two axes/pickaxes[31]

Utilitarian non-state owned buildings present[32] Two types of constructions (the economic, social and economic disparities are unknown - these are just the most frequent types of buildings, could also be workshops, shops):

1. High-rise housing estate (houses next to each other, around a large courtyard) - Alișar or Beycesultan. 2. Large free-standing one-room buildings - Can Hasan 1, Camhbel Tarlasi, Earlier also in Ikiztepe. Buildings built of mud brick, mud assumed. Brick or stone foundations situated on the mud. Use of wood to reinforce the structure. The construction of roofs was probably the same as in contemporary Can Hasan. Old walls were used to build new structures [33].

markets present. We do not know whether they were polity owned or not. However, it is worth pointing out that something like this existed.

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."[34]

Trade existed in the Midlle and Late Chalcolithic. Evidence for this can be found in the settlement of Çadır Höyük: "Frequented perhaps for a major local market or a bazaar for exotic trade goods."[35]

Shells[36]

River and volcanic stones served as polishers and grinders[37].

Ivory (bracelet), Can Hasan[38]

"From various squares came about fifteen pieces of imported ware of the Mersin XXIII-XX range."[39]


In Çadır Höyük, a source was found for the production of pottery production.[40].

Interesting case is the miniature vessel found in Yumuktepe[41].

"In this layer a large number of very typical and almost identical pottery, found almost intact, was found which had been produced on both a fast wheel and by hand. These two standard types and similar pottery indicate that controlled mass production started in the Late Chalcolithic period. Also a potter placed a bead inside an intact vessel, for reasons which are unknown to us"[42]

Cloth-making present In Çadır Höyük found a source for the production of textile.[43]

Goldsmith/Silversmith present In Çadır Höyük, metal jewelry was found[44]. Copper or bronze bracelet was found in the grave (Can Hasan) [45].

Inside Çadır Höyük, a fairly well-provisioned house was found - the "burnt house" with a large courtyard and two stories. It had an assemblage indicative of craft activities such as stone tool production and textile production, as well as metal jewelry and a lot of pottery in its inventory[46].

Sources revealed during excavations at Can Hasan, (layer the middle Chalcolithic) show pieces of polychrome ware. Polychrome ware was produced only in Can Hasan[47].

A large number of various shells were found. They made them into necklaces and earrings, possibly also applied on fabrics. The remains suggest that it housed a workshop (shells worked and unworked)[48].

"With the group of small objects in S 21 c was a large number of shells of several varieties The worked examples had been made into pendants of various types (P1. IIb-d, f) and into decorative elements with several piercings possibly for application to cloth. Others were unworked or partially worked and confirm the impression that this may be the remains of some kind of workshop"[49]

On the basis of sources, we can suggest there were workshops producing figurines of clay or stone. Examples of findings:

-Two clay figures depicting women. Characteristic features are excessively elongated head and neck. Together exceed the height of the lower part of the body(Can Hasan)[50].

-"The position of the better preserved is squatting with legs tucked underneath. The body is distinctly obese. On the head fragment the eyes, ears and nose are portrayed plastically but the mouth is not indicated. There is also a crown or headdress. The clay of these figurines is coarse, heavily tempered with straw ; the surface was given a fine white slip and probably burnished. The neck and head of both examples had been built around a long rectangular peg, but there was apparently no cavity on the top of the head." (Can Hasan)[51]

-The upper part of the figure made of marble. Sex is not possible to confirm. Marble polished, detail shown through the incision(Late Chalcolithic, Can Hasan)[52].

- Animal figurines, (Can Hasan)[53][54][55][56], (animal with horns sloping forward)[57].

Processing of obsidian was insignificant, but sifting the ground in a building in the square S26, there were found obsidian chips, flakes and blades, showing what tools were reworked in the building[58].

There are no written sources to confirm the existence of the legal differences between people. Based on excavations, we can see social differentiation by differences in construction (residences[59]), quality of products, the distinction of sex (figures[60])., etc.

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Agnieszka Marta Duda ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ 90 ♥ Km2.

90,000 in m² [61] -- 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.

♠ Polity Population ♣ ♥ unknown

Based on the size of the settlement and the number of households, it is possible to estimate the largest populations in this period. Based on the calculations, it can be said that Can Hasan was populated by about 2564-3846 people during the Middle and Late Chalcolithic period. We should be aware that not necessarily the whole area was occupied at this time.


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

[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"[62]


Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ [2-3] ♥

"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."[63]

"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"".[64]

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.

♠ Administrative levels ♣ [2-3] ♥

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.


♠ Religious levels ♣ [1-2] ♥

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.


♠ Military levels ♣ [2-3] ♥

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.


Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ inferred present ♥ 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.

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ {present; absent} ♥ 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.

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ ♥ unknown

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Examination system ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Merit promotion ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Judges ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Courts ♣ inferred absent ♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ inferred absent ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ markets ♣ suspected unknown ♥ 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."[65]
♠ food storage sites ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Transport infrastructure

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

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ inferred present ♥ quarries for stone for stone walls

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ suspected unknown ♥ 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.[66]
♠ Written records ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Script ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ inferred absent ♥

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 ♣ present ♥ 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."[67]
♠ Tokens ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Precious metals ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Postal System

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

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Agnieszka Marta Duda; Thomas Cressy; Edward A L Turner ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ present ♥ Anatolia well known at the time for copper deposits[68] Copper or bronze mace-head from Can Hasan[69] and items found made from smelted copper have been dated to around 5000 BC [70] ‘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’[71]
♠ Bronze ♣ inferred absent ♥ 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[72]
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ inferred present ♥ Javelins were common weapons found in Chalcolithic Middle East and Levant.[73] 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 ♥ weapon of the Americas
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ "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 […]."[74] Sling.[75][76] Sling bullets.[77] Sling pellets (Yumuktepe).[78] 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia."[79] 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons".[80]
♠ Self bow ♣ inferred present ♥ 'At a number of sites, pressure-flaked arrowheads made from flint appear.'[81] 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons".[82]
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE."[83] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE."[84]
♠ 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 mace was among man's oldest weapons (at least 6000 B.C.E. at Catal Huyuk)".[85] 'Copper or bronze mace-head from Can Hasan'.[86] 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons".[87]
♠ Battle axes ♣ present ♥[88][89]
♠ Daggers ♣ present ♥ 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons"[90]: 'especially striking is the widespread appearance of triangular daggers'.[91]
♠ Swords ♣ inferred absent ♥ '3300-3000 BC: nine short swords (very unusual at this early date), twelve spearheads, and a quadruple spiral plaque. (copper)' [92] "The traditional view is that sword use - as a secondary weapon - dates from about the seventeenth century BCE.[93] although earlier swords are also known in Susiana."
♠ Spears ♣ present ♥ 3300-3000 BC: nine short swords (very unusual at this early date), twelve spearheads, and a quadruple spiral plaque. (copper) [94]
♠ Polearms ♣ suspected unknown ♥ no record of such weapons

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ present: 5000-4250 BCE; suspected unknown: 4249-3001 BCE ♥ present until 4250, based on the previous polity as mentioned in the overall description above, and suspected unknown thereafter
♠ Donkeys ♣ [absent; present] ♥ In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward.[95] "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.[96] (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."[97]
♠ Horses ♣ absent ♥ first used for warfare for chariots much later that this polity
♠ 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 ♣ inferred absent ♥ Earliest reference for present we currently have is for the Hittites.[98] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE.[99] Earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer.[100]
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Limb protection ♣ inferred absent ♥ 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."[101] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period.[102]
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥ "Iron chain mail not introduced until the third century BCE, probably by Celtic peoples."[103]
♠ 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 ♥ Güvercinkayası was located on the top of a steep rock formation[104]. "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."[105]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ inferred absent ♥ not found in settlements
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ inferred absent ♥ not found in settlements
♠ Ditch ♣ absent ♥ not found in settlements
♠ Moat ♣ absent ♥ not found in settlements
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ suspected unknown: 5000-4000 BCE; present: 3999-3001 BCE ♥ 'At Hacınebi already in Level A evidence for a massive stone buttressed wall, nearly four meters in height, and monumental mudbrick platforms, were discovered'.[106]
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ absent ♥ Only archaeological evidence for mudbrick and stone buttressed walls at this time
♠ Fortified camps ♣ absent ♥ Technology not yet available
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ present ♥ "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". [107]
♠ 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 ♣ inferred present ♥ In 4th-millennium BCE Anatolia) archaeologists have linked the presence of prestige goods in juvenile burials to hereditary inequality.[108] 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.

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. [109] [110] [111]

References

  1. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 7
  2. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, C. Renfrew, Cambridge University Press 1987
  3. http://www.cadirhoyuk.com/site-history.html
  4. Prehistoric Mersin; Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Garstang J., 1953. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  5. Excavations at Yumuktepe Höyüğü in 2007 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, pp.86
  6. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.126
  7. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.126
  8. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.126
  9. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.88
  10. Early Turkey, Anatolian Archaeology from Prehistory through the Lydian Period, Matha Sharp Joukowsky, 1996, pp.125.
  11. Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU,News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
  12. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 30
  13. Starożytna Anatolia, 10,000-323 BCE, SR Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Rozdział 36
  14. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 126
  15. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.30
  16. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.90
  17. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34
  18. Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
  19. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34
  20. Excavations at Yumuktepe Höyüğü in 2007 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, pp.86
  21. Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
  22. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.89
  23. Early Turkey, Anatolian Archaeology from Prehistory through the Lydian Period, Matha Sharp Joukowsky, 1996, pp.125
  24. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34
  25. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34-35
  26. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  27. 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
  28. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.36
  29. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  30. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.36
  31. Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU,News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
  32. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 7
  33. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961 Author(s): D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 1962, British Institute at Ankara, pp.32.
  34. http://www.cadirhoyuk.com/site-history.html
  35. http://www.cadirhoyuk.com/site-history.html
  36. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34-35
  37. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.88
  38. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1966, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 17 1967, British Institute at Ankara, pp.170
  39. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.35
  40. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  41. Excavations at Yumuktepe Höyüğü in 2007 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, pp.86
  42. Excavations at Yumuktepe Höyüğü in 2007 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU, pp.86
  43. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  44. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  45. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.36
  46. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36
  47. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 29
  48. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34
  49. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.34-35
  50. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
  51. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
  52. Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report, 1962. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 13 (1963), British Institute at Ankara,pp.30
  53. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
  54. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.89
  55. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.90
  56. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1965, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 16 1966, British Institute at Ankara, pp.118
  57. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1966, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 17 1967, British Institute at Ankara, pp.169
  58. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.89
  59. RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN TURKEY, M. Oluş Arik, James Russell, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 36 (1986), pp.205
  60. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. (Özbal 2011: 179) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/U5C5XR8K.
  64. Starożytna Anatolia, 10,000-323 BCE, SR Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Rozdział 36
  65. http://www.cadirhoyuk.com/site-history.html
  66. Excavations at Can Hasan: First Preliminary Report, 1961. D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 12 (1962), British Institute at Ankara, pp. 33
  67. http://www.cadirhoyuk.com/site-history.html
  68. (Leverani 2014, 55) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  69. 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
  70. https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2j.html
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. (Anfinset 2016: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4G68J7F3.
  74. (Hamblin 2006: 286) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
  75. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, James Mellaart, KHAYATS Beirut1966, p.102
  76. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, James Mellaart, KHAYATS Beirut1966, p.102
  77. Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965: Fifth Preliminary Report, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 16 1966, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 116
  78. Yumuktepe Höyüğü 2010 Isabella CANEVA - Gülgün KÖROĞLU,News of Archaeology from ANATOLIA’S MEDITERRANEAN AREAS, 2011-9, pp.137
  79. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  80. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  81. 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. 161
  82. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  83. Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
  84. (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
  85. (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  86. 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
  87. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  88. Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 15 1965, British Institute at Ankara, pp.90
  89. Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965: Fifth Preliminary Report, D. H. French Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 16 1966, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 118
  90. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  94. 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
  95. (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  96. (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  97. (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
  98. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
  99. (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  100. (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  101. (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  102. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
  103. (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  104. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36.
  105. Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36.
  106. 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
  107. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, James Mellaart, KHAYATS Beirut1966, p.102
  108. (Stein 2001, 274) Gil J. Stein. 2001. 'Indigenous Social Complexity at Hacinebi (Turkey) and the Organization of Uruk Colonial Contact', in Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbours: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation, edited by M. S. Rothman. Sante Fe, NM: SAR Press.
  109. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  110. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  111. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html