TrNeoLT

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 ♣ Marika Michalak ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Konya Plain - Late Neolithic ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Neolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasnda Gec Neolitik Cag ♥ Late Ceramic Neolithic; Endneolithikum in der Ebene von Konya; Le Néolithique Final dans La Plaine de Konya; Konya Ovasι’nda Geç Neolitik Çağ ... this is not machine readable.

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 6600-6000 BCE ♥ This time range occurs in literature as 'Late Ceramic Neolithic', the beginning of which is dated to 6600 BCE when at the site of Çatalhöyük there is clear evidence of cultural transition[1].

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ ♥

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

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

♠ Capital ♣ ♥ unknown

♠ Language ♣ ♥ inapplicable

General Description

The area discussed concerns Konya Plain located in Central Anatolia in Turkey. The Late Neolithic period for that region started in 6600 BC when some kind of cultural transformation took place at the main site of the plain, at Çatalhöyük (East Mound) - this is visible in material culture (during VI occupational phase). The end is dated to 6000 BC, when, according to the archaeologists, another period called the Chalcolithic period began[2]. For now, four Late Neolithic sites are archaeologically recognizable in Konya Plain. These are: Çatalhöyük, Pιnarbașι rock shelter, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Can Hasan I.

It seems that the biggest and most populated (from 3,500 to 8000, with its peak at ca. 6600 BC, when the number of population started to decrease)[3], Çatalhöyük, is the most crucial site within Konya Plain. This settlement was carefully excavated and examined for over 20 years and it gave us an uncomparable abundance of information. As a consequence, our understanding of the Late Neolithic of Konya Plain is dominated data from Çatalhöyük. There were no sites near Çatalhöyük that would have been permanently occupied[4]. However, during last 300 years many smaller settlements appear[5]. There is a possibility that Pιnarbașι rock shelter located in the distance of 24,5 km could have been a seasonal camp site designed for groups coming from Çatalhöyük[6][7]. At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik and Can Hasan I, domestic structures were uncovered - however, the excavated areas are small in size[8][9]. Due to some cultural similarity (wall/floor plastering, intramural burials, bucrania, tools) between these sites, and a lack of evidence for centralization, this kind of polity structure can be called a quasi-polity.

As the Late Neolithic society seems to be egalitarian, it is hard to say anything about hierarchical complexity. In Çatalhöyük, there is no social stratification visible in the material culture. All buildings are similar in having the same internal features, such as platforms, bucrania, burials under the floor, wall and floor plastering and with the space divided into a main room and a side room. There were no communal or utilitarian public buildings. However, there are some houses, called 'history houses' (name given by Hodder), which are different from other domestic structures. Their occupational periods seem to be longer (on average 70-100 years), and they have more additional elements such as installations and wall paintings. Additionally, more human burials were uncovered under their platforms than under other buildings. The presence of a significant number of people buried (more than could have lived in it) is particularly important as it suggests a special status for these houses[10]. These houses can be considered special purpose houses, creating a space for some rituals connected with burying dead and decapitation. According to Hodder, there may have been a ritual/religious specialist at Çatalhöyük, possessing knowledge of human anatomy[11].

No evidence of writing system has been found for the Late Neolithic period in Konya PLain. In the case of money, there is a possibility that small stone balls found in Can Hasan could have been used as tokens.[12]

Analyzing material remains, it does not look like warfare played an important role in the Late Neolithic of Konya Plain. Taking into account military technologies, it seems that most identified weapons were used in hunting activities. These are possibly projectiles such as slings from Canhasan[13], arrowheads at Tepecik-Çiftlik[14] and Çatalhöyük[15]; also spears and possibly daggers (large obsidian projectile points) were found at Tepecik-Çiftlik[16]. However, identifying the specific uses of these weapons is complicated. For example, sheperds could have used large projectile points as weapons to protect domesticated animals from wild predators. These projectiles could have also been used as knives to butcher domesticated animals, or in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh[17]. Furthermore, Çatalhöyük wall paintings depict people using bows for hunting animals[18], not in scenes connected with warfare. What is more, the location of Çatalhöyük was not in a defensive position and there were no fortification structures that would indicate engagement in warfare. There are also no signs of massacres or destruction at the site, which possibly means that inhabitants of the settlement were not involved in serious conflicts with any enemies.

Archaeological records seem to support the assumption that the ritual sphere of life was well developed. Inside the Late Neolithic houses at Çatalhöyük[19], Tepecik-Çiftlik[20] and Canhasan[21][22], plastered walls and floors were found. It almost certain that plastering was the most widespread and frequent ritual. At Çatalhöyük, walls could have been plastered every month or season. However, after V occupational phase, until the end of the Neolithic settlement, its frequency decreases along with the quality of plaster, which becomes thicker[23]. There are also installations made with animal bones (both wild and domesticated) attached to walls and embedded with plaster. These were found at Çatalhöyük[24], Tepecik-Çiftlik[25] and at Pιnarbașι. In the case of the latter, there were plastered bones (plaster objects), rather than installations[26]. In the upper occupational levels, the number of such plastered features starts to decrease.

Another common type of ritual is intramural burial, where dead were buried under floors inside houses, and this occurred at Çatalhöyük[27], Tepecik-Çiftlik[28] and Canhasan[29]. Burying close people could be assumed to have been a dysphoric ritual. At Çatalhöyük, later interferences can be seeb in some burials. Corpses deprived of skulls were found in history houses, which could have played a role in the circulation of skulls deposited in other houses[30]. If it was a part of an ancestor cult, it can be considered as a possibly euphoric ritual. In some way, decapitation is associated with animal skulls attached to the walls as bucrania, wall paintings depicting headless human figures, intentional destruction of creatures' body parts depicted in the form of reliefs (leopards and unidentified ‘splayed figures’) and fragmentation of figurines (both human and animal). It seems that the daily life of the Late Neolithic people living in houses was full of features related to rituals and the cult, and thus that the mundane sphere was strongly connected with, and inseparable from, the religious sphere. Although, it should be mentioned that during last three centuries of the occupation of the settlements, the number of such features decreases significantly [31].

In economic terms, some changes occured at Çatalhöyük the in upper layers, from V occupational layer up. In the IV layer, food production became more important, which is visible in archaeological records in the form of the central positioning of hearths inside main rooms, but also in the appearance of large storage pots. House building became more specialized and buildings are related to each other through exchange. It seems that houses got larger and gained independence. The streets became wider and the buildings had more free space between them. Also, the duration and occupation period of houses becomes shorter[32]. During the last 300 years of the Late Neolithic period, there is evidence for changes in subsistence and animal herding, integrating arable with the pastoral economy. Inhabitants ceased the exploitation of oak timber, which was accessible from the surrounding uplands, and started to use locally available sources of wood. Also, animal herding was managed close to growing crops[33]. At Çatalhöyük, agriculture production played the most important role, as the major sources of nutrition were cereals such as emmer wheat[34][35]. But apart from exploiting domesticated plants and animals (sheep, goat), wild seeds and cattle were eaten as well[36].

It is supposed that at the beginning of the Late Neolithic period, people were cooperating during hunting activities and in collecting raw material. Groups of men attacking wild animals are depicted on the wall paintings[37]. There is also a great possibility that some groups coming from Çatalhöyük, were seasonally using Pιnarbașι rock shelter[38]. Furthermore, some cooperation would have been needed during ca. 13-day-long journeys[39] to locations in Capadoccia (in a distance of 170-190 km), Nenezi Daǧ and Göllü Daǧ, with the aim of collecting obsidian[40] or to collect other raw materials such as marble from a place located 40 km away[41].

Apart from actions taken for economic purposes, repetitive rituals could have unified people and provided some stability. Through frequent replasterings of walls and keeping similar features in houses (e.g. bucrania, burials under floors and wall paintings), people could feel unity with each other and their mutual bonds could have been strengthened. Also, the cult of ancestors shared by the whole community could have unified its members. Despite a lack of evidence for social stratification, history houses as places full of burials and elaborations can be assumed to have played a role of some religious/ritual centers. There is a possibility that the changes that occurred in the uppermost layers, together with other factors, contributed to some social instability of communities inhabiting small areas. The decreasing number of internal house features, shifts in strategies of production and building construction that indicated an increase in house independence, could have finally resulted in the abandonment of the East Mound at Çatalhöyük and appearance of many other smaller settlements nearby.


It is hard to identify the mode of government due to the lack of knowledge about the relations between the settlements. There is only an assumption that Pιnarbașι rock shelter was occupied by groups from the Çatalhöyük, for both economical and non-economical purposes(see above), but there is no certainty of that. That could have been another group of people living as mobile hunter-gatherers and penetrating area between Pιnarbașι and Çatalhöyük[42]. During the Late Neolithic, Çatalhöyük seems to have been the biggest urban centre in the Konya Plain and for that reason it could have played a central role in the area[43], but there is no certainty that people from this settlement were ruling over Can Hasan I or Tepecik-Çiftlik societies, and what was the mode of mutual relation.

We have no information about warfare relations between the settlements.

There is a possibility that some kind of economic regulation could have been present between the Çatalhöyük settlement and Pιnarbașι rock shelter, because the latter has possibly been used by Çatalhöyük society for economical purposes, such as hunting and processing animals, sheep culling, herd management and tool manufacture[44], but it is quite unknown.

At the Çatalhöyük settlement, people were using a source of clay located nearby. To the North of the East Mound many marl extraction pits were found. As these pits reached down into the sands underneath the marl, it created another local source of clay.[45]

Two main sources were available for Çatalhöyük inhabitants during the Neolithic: Pleistocene Lake Konya and the Holocene alluvial clays of the Çarsamba and May rivers flowing across Lake Konya bed. However, The Early Neolithic (pre-VII occupational level) extensive exploitation of blackswamp clays, marl and Pleistocene sediments coming from around the mounds possibly could have degraded the area creating extraction pits - the deeper ones could have been rather permanent pools connected by minor channels, the shallower ones could have dried out during summer. Due to drying in the Late Neolithic, streams came together creating a larger channel with fewer pools. Clay extraction pits lay in lower shallow pools (alluvium areas), between drier grounds. After VII occupational level, Pleistocene sediments probably became less available and for that reason colluvium started to be exploited for mudbricks[46].

Oak trees and other tree species were located in the nearest uplands of the Çatalhöyük settlement[47]. Since 6500 cal BC, juniper took oaks place and became the dominant charcoal taxon. This change is not related woodland composition, climate changes nor with accessibility to some wood species. The change was probably linked to the shift in the choice of wood species from these located in near uplands to those growing nearer to the site[48]

It seems that inhabitants were using mainly one major source. Until 6500 cal BC, near upland areas were exploited for oak timber. After 6500 BC, other species, such as juniper *which was growing even closer to the site), were used[49]

According to Hodder, sources of obsidian were located in Capadoccia, in a distance of 170 km from Çatalhöyük settlement[50]. According to Düring the nearest source of obsidian was located in a distance of 190 km (Cessford and Carter calculated that probably return journey to the source could have taken c.a. 13 days)[51]

Inhabitants of the Çatalhöyük settlement were using two sources of obsidian located in Capadoccia: Nenezi Daǧ and Göllü Daǧ[52]. It seems likely that in upper occupational levels a major source was obsidian coming from Nenezi Daǧ[53].

Basalt and andesite materials used for production of ground tools came from volcanic outcrops in a distance of c.a. 40 km of the Çatalhöyük settlement[54].

At the site of Can Hasan azurite beads were found[55]. At Çatalhöyük settlement mostly marble beads were found[56]. There are also findings of beads made of carnelian, apatite and shell from the Mediterranean[57].

Probably the nearest source of colored stones used at Çatalhöyük settlement to make beads (as marble) was located in the distance of 40 km[58].

In the Çatalhöyük settlement, beads made of shells and exotic stones, such as apatite and carnelian have been found, but it seems that most of them were made of marble coming from a source about 40 km away[59].

andesite; basalt. In Çatalhöyük andesite and basalt were used to make ground stone tools[60] Andesite and basalt materials came from volcanic outcrops located in a distance of 40 km or more[61].

The data available suggests that in the economy of the Çatalhöyük settlement, agricultural production played the most important role. People were probably eating mainly plant foods, especially cereals[62].

Agriculture was increasingly extensive in dry lands in the surroundings of the Çatalhöyük settlement[63]. In that zone of limited extent, crops would have grown through the winter while not become destroyed during spring floods[64].

Agriculture was increasingly intensive in the alluvial zone[65], where 'floods would have been prolonged and groundwater levels permanently high'[66].


At the site of Çatalhöyük, there was a separate area in each house for storage, located mostly in side rooms. There are findings of grain bins and storage pots[67].

According to Fairbairn, inhabitants of the Çatalhöyük settlement used boats to ferry people and products[68].

According to Hodder, in lower levels of Çatalhöyük settlement there was no distinction between men and women in the case of house tasks (house space was not restricted only to women), general lifestyle (based on bone analysis) or in the diet (one gender could have got better access to some kind of food). [69]. For upper levels (Late Neolithic), Hodder suggests a shift in gender organization. There are more female burials inside houses and figurines depicting women (especially famous figurines of seated women). Due to craft specialization and industrialization of food preparation women's lifestyle could have become more connected with domestic sphere while men could have spent time doing their tasks outdoors.[70]. Whether this gender distinction was in any way connected to some kind of inequality is quite unknown, as these assumptions are just interpretations.

It is hard to estimate. Evidence coming from intramural burials would have been useful but for example at the site of Çatalhöyük people were not buried in houses inside which they lived, but in special purpose houses called 'history houses'.[71] This comment refers to all marriage customs category.

According to Hodder, the elders probably played a significant role in the society of Çatalhöyük. This assumption is based on data about burial practice. It is clear, especially in Building 1, as analysis proved secondary burials were restricted only to adolescents and adults (buried under North-central platform)[72]. What is more, bucrania and other installations inside houses could have marked the status and right of elders, being some kind of memorization of initiation ceremonials[73]. However, whether it was the role of elders to punish other members of society is unknown.

It is hard to make any assumptions about imposing exile due to lack of any evidence that this kind of punishment was even in practice. For now, it is unrecognizable in archaeological evidence.

There is no evidence of that kind of punishment and it is rather impossible to make any assumption related to the act of ostracism, as for now it is unrecognizable in archaeological data.

Based on teeth analyses and animal bone remains, it can be assumed that people at Çatalhöyük were eating mostly cereals, nuts, berries and meat (mostly goat and sheep)[74]. It seems that in other settlements, plants and animals were domesticated, however at Pιnarbașι campsite plant production was probably unimportant[75].

There is no evidence for the existence of a writing system.

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Marika Michalak ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ ♥ ET: 13 ha is 0.13 km2 Çatalhöyük: [130 000]; Tepecik-Çiftlik: uncoded; Pιnarbașι: uncoded; Can Hasan I: uncoded

For Çatalhöyük, settlement area of 13 ha was estimated as the maximum extent of occupied area dated to VI occupational phase. It is certain that after this period the extent of inhabited area started to decrease[76]. For Tepecik-Çiftlik, there is only one value (over 700 m2) estimated for IV occupational level, but it is crucial to note that this is only a dimension of area exposed during excavations[77].

♠ Polity Population ♣ [2500-4000] ♥ is a rough calculation based on combining settlement estimates

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ [3,500-8,000] ♥ This population range for Çatalhöyük (as the biggest settlement in Konya Plain) occurs most frequently in literature and was estimated by C.Cessford[78] as the population number at any one time. According to the experts, after c.a. 6,600 BCA the number of population could have started to decline[79].

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 1 ♥ unknown

♠ Administrative levels ♣ 1 ♥ unknown

♠ Religious levels ♣ 1 ♥ unknown

♠ Military levels ♣ 1 ♥ unknown

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ absent ♥

♠ Examination system ♣ inferred absent ♥ inapplicable

♠ Merit promotion ♣ inferred absent ♥ inapplicable

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ absent ♥

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Judges ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Courts ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ absent ♥
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ ♥
♠ markets ♣ ♥
♠ food storage sites ♣ ♥


Transport infrastructure

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

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ ♥

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ absent ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ suspected unknown ♥ In Çatalhöyük houses archaeologists found wall paintings and reliefs depicting geometric, anthropomorfic and zoomorphic motifs[80], but its role as some kind of communication or writing system is quite unknown.
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥


Kinds of Written Documents

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


Money

♠ Articles ♣ ♥
♠ Tokens ♣ suspected unknown ♥ At the site of Canhasan I, small stone balls were found and according to alternative interpretation they were identified as tokens used in early numerical systems[81]
♠ Precious metals ♣ ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ inferred absent ♥ No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.
♠ Postal stations ♣ inferred absent ♥ No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.
♠ General postal service ♣ inferred absent ♥ No evidence for writing or other record-keeping devices.

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Marika Michalak; 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 [82]
♠ 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 ♣ inferred present ♥ Bone harpoons found for this time, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting. There is no reason to believe that other humans couldn't be the target for these though [83]
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥ New World weapon
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ "At Çatalhöyük clay balls have been interpreted as sling ammunition. "The use of the sling is alos attested in wall art that features a purported slinger."[84] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia."[85] 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.[86] At the site of Canhasan I, clay sling bullet was found[87], which may suggest the use of slings, but whether it was used for warfare purposes is unknown.
♠ Self bow ♣ inferred present ♥ At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, obsidian arrowheads were recorded, part of which were made in a high-skilled technique (on symmetrical bipolar points).[88] This can suggest special purpose of arrows, maybe in warfare, but it is quite unknown. At the site of Pιnarbașι, obsidian projectile points were found, which can be identified as arrowheads. However, even if self bow was used, it was not for warfare purpose but mainly produced for hunting-related activities[89]. At the site of Çatalhöyük, the men depicted on wall paintings are equipped with some kind of weapon, probably bows, but due to the presence of zoomorphic creatures, in that case it is more likely to be connected with hunting activity. However, there is no certainty to these statements[90]. Furthermore, at Çatalhöyük settlement elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points are recorded. It could have been used as arrowheads.[91] Even so, was self bow used in terms of warfare is unknown. According to Hodder these large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh.[92]
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE."[93] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE."[94]
♠ 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 ♣ suspected unknown ♥ 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)".[95] 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.[96]
♠ Battle axes ♣ inferred present ♥ At the site of Canhasan I, stone axes were found[97]
♠ Daggers ♣ inferred present ♥ At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, long (approximatly 18-25 cm) bifacially retouched obsidian points were found [98], which can be identified as a dagger, but its use in warfare is unknown. At the site of Çatalhöyük finely flaked flint daggers and elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points (which could have been use as daggers) were found.[99] Were these daggers in any way related to warfare is unknown. According to Hodder large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh.[100]
♠ 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."[101]
♠ Spears ♣ inferred present ♥ At the site of Tepecik-Çiftlik, long (approximately 18-25 cm) bifacially retouched obsidian points were found[102], which can be identified as a spear's part, but its use in warfare is unknown. At the site of Çatalhöyük elaborate obsidian bifacially flaked projectile points (which could have been use as spear points) were found. According to Hodder these large projectile points may have been used as a weapon in herding (to protect domesticated animals from wild predators), as knives to cut up domesticated animals, and in social or ritual killing/processing of wild animals or human flesh..[103]
♠ Polearms ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ present ♥ At the site of Can Hasan, two pairs of skeletons were found buried under the threshold[104]. At Çatalhöyük, bones of domesticated dogs occur. Dogs were treated like wild animals, being eaten during rituals. Their remains occur mainly in middens in abandoned houses[105]. Dogs were used to defend villages against attacking humans/animals[106]
♠ Donkeys ♣ [absent; present] ♥ ' In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward.[107] "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.[108] (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."[109] At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Western wall, a wallpainting depicting a row of donkeys and people facing right was found [Czeszewska 2010: 167], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is unknown.
♠ Horses ♣ [absent; present] ♥ At the site of Çatalhöyük in Building 1, on its Southern wall, a wallpainting depicting two horse-like animals was found [Czeszewska 2010: 171], but whether this depiction is connected with warfare is rather unknown.
♠ 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.[110] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE.[111] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer.[112]
♠ 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."[113] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period.[114]
♠ 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 [115]
♠ 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 [116]
♠ 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 ♥

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 ♣ inferred present ♥ "It is possible to discern at Catalhoyuk a local version of the formalised and concealed household storage that emerged in other regions of south-west Asia through the PPNB, and that is commonly interpreted as evidence of household ‘economic autonomy’. In this local iteration of the process, concealment of stored plant food within the house was balanced against visible installations of animal parts that plausibly refer to the sharing of meat beyond the household. In the particular historical context of the mid-Neolithic sequence, when the community apparently reached its maximum size, displays of animal remains - particularly cattle heads and horns - may reflect intensifying social negotiations surrounding food consumption on the site as well as rights of access to resources in the wider landscape. We propose that the divisive effects of private storage were subverted through sharing of cattle and other surpluses. [...] [W]e posit that communal social cohesion was a key issue for this densely packed settlement, and that extra-household sharing of meat, particularly from cattle, played an important role in its maintenance. Thus visual celebrations of private stores were socially provocative, but commemorations of communal festivities were desirable (and potentially competitive). Food sharing, rather than storage, thus became the focus of display." [117]

♠ 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. [118] [119] [120]

References

  1. Düring B. 2006.Constructing communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolia Neolithic c.a. 8.500-5500 Cal BC, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten. pg. 17.
  2. Düring B. 2006.Constructing communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolia Neolithic c.a. 8.500-5500 Cal BC, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten.
  3. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2.
  4. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  5. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  6. Baird D., Carruthers D., Fairbairn A., Pearson J. 2011. Ritual in the landscape: evidence from Pιnarbașι in the seventh-mlilenium cal BC Konya Plain. Antiquity 85.
  7. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  8. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  9. French D.H. 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan 1967: seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18.
  10. Hodder I., Pels P. 2010. History houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  11. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  12. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara.
  13. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara.
  14. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  15. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  16. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  17. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  18. Czeszewska A. 2013. Wall paintings at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000-2008 seasons.
  19. Last J. 1998. A design for life. Interpreting the art of Çatalhöyük. Journal of Material Culture 33.
  20. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  21. Düring B. 2006. Constructing communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolia Neolithic c.a. 8.500-5500 Cal BC, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten.
  22. French D.H. 1967. Excavations at Can Hasan 1966: sixth preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 17.
  23. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  24. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  25. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  26. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  27. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  28. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  29. French D.H. 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan 1967: seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18.
  30. Hodder I., Pels P. 2010. History houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge.
  31. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  32. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  33. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  34. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2.
  35. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  36. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  37. Czeszewska A. 2013. Wall paintings at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000-2008 seasons.
  38. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  39. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2.
  40. Carter T., Conolly J., A. Spasojević. 2005. The Chipped Stone [in]: Hodder I. (ed.) "Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons", British Institute at Ankara.
  41. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London.
  42. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 203-204.
  43. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2. pg.160.
  44. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 203-204.
  45. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.72.
  46. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  47. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.74.
  48. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  49. Asouti E., Doherty Ch., Henton E., A. Marciniak. 2013. The nature of household in the upper level at Çatalhöyük: smaller, more dispersed and more independent acquisition, production and consumption units.
  50. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.157.
  51. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2. pg. 160.
  52. Carter T., Conolly J., A. Spasojević. 2005. The Chipped Stone [in]: Hodder I. (ed.) "Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons", British Institute at Ankara. pg: 222.
  53. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.231-2.
  54. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  55. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 56.
  56. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  57. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  58. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  59. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  60. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  61. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.159.
  62. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 198.
  63. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 206.
  64. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 207.
  65. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 206.
  66. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 207.
  67. Hodder I. 2007."The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük", London. pg.155.
  68. Fairbairn A. 2005. A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37.2. pg. 205.
  69. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 194-195.
  70. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 238.
  71. Hodder I., Pels P. 2010. History houses: a new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg: 178.
  72. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 198-199.
  73. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 228.
  74. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 78.
  75. Baird D. 2012. Pιnarbașι: From Epi-Paleolithic Camp-Site to Sedentarising Village in Central Anatolia [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul.
  76. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2. pg. 156, 159.
  77. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 93.
  78. Cessford C. 2005. Estimating the Neolithic population of Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons,323-26. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. pg. 326.
  79. Düring B. 2007. Reconsidering the Çatalhöyük Community: From Households to Settlement Systems. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2. pg. 158.
  80. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg. 174, 180-181.
  81. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 56.
  82. https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2c.html
  83. (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  84. (Knüsel: Glencross and Milella 2019: 83) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WH6NHDHM.
  85. (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers' Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  86. Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
  87. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 44.
  88. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M.. 2012. Pιnarbașι: Tepecik-Çiftlik[in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.) "The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 99-100.
  89. Baird D., Carruthers D., Fairbairn A., Pearson J. 2011. Ritual in the landscape: evidence from Pιnarbașι in the seventh-mlilenium cal BC Konya Plain. Antiquity 85. pg. 387.
  90. Czeszewska A. 2013. Wall paintings at Çatalhöyük [in]: Hodder, I (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000-2008 seasons.
  91. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
  92. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
  93. Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
  94. (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
  95. (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  96. Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
  97. French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara.pg. 56.
  98. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Tepecik-Çiftlik [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.)"The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 100.
  99. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
  100. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
  101. (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  102. Bιçakçι E., Çakan Y.G., Godon M. 2012. Tepecik-Çiftlik [in]: Bașgelen N., P. Kuniholm, M. Özdoǧan (eds.)"The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research", Istanbul. pg. 100.
  103. Hodder I., Meskell L. 2010. The Symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its Regional Context [in]: Hodder I. (ed.)"Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study", Cambridge. pg.60.
  104. French D.H. 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan 1967: seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18. pg.52 .
  105. Hodder I. 2007.The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London. pg.76-77.
  106. (Leverani 2014, 41-44) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  107. (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  108. (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  109. (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
  110. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
  111. (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  112. (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  113. (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  114. Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
  115. (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
  116. https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html
  117. Bogaard, A. et al. 2009. Private pantries and celebrated surplus: storing and sharing food at Neolithic Catalhoyuk, Central Anatolia. Antiquity 83: 649-668.
  118. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  119. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  120. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html