New Discoveries in Jiroft May Change History of Civilization

New Discoveries in Jiroft May Change History of Civilization

Archeological excavations in Jiroft led to the discovery of several objects belonging to the fourth millennium BC, a time that goes beyond the age of civilization in Mesopotamia.

Tehran, 26 January 2006 (CHN) -- Latest archeological excavations in Jiroft, known as the hidden paradise of world archeologists, resulted in the discovery of a bronze statue depicting the head of goat which dates back to the third millennium BC. This statue was found in the historical cemetery of Jirof where recent excavations in the lower layers of this cemetery revealed that the history of the Halil Rud region dates back to the fourth millennium BC, a time that goes well beyond the age of civilization in Mesopotamia

�One of the reasons the archeologists and historians give for Mesopotamia to be the cradle of civilization is that the most ancient historical evidence and relics which have been discovered in Jiroft so far date back to the third millennium BC or nearer, and therefore they argue that this region could not have been the place where civilization began. However, some cultural evidence and ancient artifacts belonging to the fourth millennium BC were traced while digging a trench beneath the Matot Abad cemetery which gave proof to the fact that the history of this region goes back to the sixth millennium BC. Aside from these ancient articles found so far, archeologists were able to unearth a bronze statue of the head of a goat from one of the graves of Jiroft cemetery which raised new questions about the history of this region and whether or not the civilization that lived here is older than that of Mesopotamia,� said Yousof Majidzadeh, head of excavation team in Jiroft.

�Two different kinds of clays were discovered in this cemetery, some belong to third millennium BC while the others go back to the fourth millennium BC. It was supposed that this area was a cemetery in both periods, but the trenches dug under the cemetery indicate that the region was a residential area during the sixth millennium BC. After this area was covered by different sediments and layers little by little over the period of 1000 years, the cemetery was established on the remains of the previous settlement area. The team of archeologists who are working in this area at the present is determined to continue the excavations to study more about the lower layers,� added Majidzadeh.

According to Majidzadeh, geophysical operations by French experts in the region indicate the existence at least 10 historical and archaeological periods in the region belonging to different civilizations who lived in this area during different periods of time in history. According to the French experts who studied this area, the evidence remained from these civilizations may be traced up to 11 meters under the ground.

�What is obvious is that the evidence of Tal-i-Iblis culture in Bardsir can be traced in all parts of the region. Tal-i-Iblis culture, known as Ali Abad period (fourth millennium BC) was revealed by Joseph R. Caldwell, American archaeologist,� said Majidzadeh.

Plunder of Matot Abad cemetery by the smugglers, which caused an unbelievable disaster in the history of archaeology, attracted the attention of public opinion to this region. Only from one of the cemeteries 30 stone dishes were plundered. Some metal and clay dishes as well as some gold articles were plundered by smugglers as well.

The excavations in the lower layers of Jiroft�s cemetery indicate that the history this region goes back to the fourth millennium BC. This further provided the proof to the claim that Jiroft was the cradle of civilization long before civilization first appeared in Mesopotamia, although this claim has not yet been approved by world organizations.

Analytical studies on relics found in Jirof in a research center in the United States indicate that the discovered materials in this region date back to the third millennium BC. Considering an inscription found earlier in the region, archeologists believe that the writing language of Jiroft is more ancient than that of Mesopotamia, and that the script language was spread to Mesopotamia from this region.

http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?section=2&id=6126

well those particular artifacts are 4kBC, but the article mentioned dates int he 6kBC range.

Mari is more like (as a city) from about 2800 to 1000 BC. 

Uruk is the earliest site with a population of more than 14,000 inhabitants by about 3700 BC.  At the same date, Larak and Eridu (other Sumerian cities) had a population of up to 10,000.  Using the round figure of 10,000 inhabitants, this is the estimate to define the early city.  Uruk had attained 10,000 inhabitants obviously prior to 3700 BC, and so may be the earliest city.  All other large habitations like Jericho and Chatal Huyuk would be considered large villages.

I know Ali Kosh, Ganj Dareh and all other ancient cities in Iran should be ignored because there were some ancient cities such as Jericho and �atalhoy�k in the west of Iran, however they were smaller and younger, but does it matter? of course not!

Jericho

http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/j/jericho.html : The ancient site of Jericho (north east of Jerusalem), where obsidian from Anatolia is datable to 8350 BCE, was one of the centers of the first Neolithic, the phase in human development involving domestication of plants and animals. The first evidence of pottery or ceramics (fired clay) has been found in Ganj Dareh. (There are claims for pottery in Japan ca11,000 BCE, but there also have been some fraudulent claims from that area.) Agriculture is generally believed to have preceded herding, which, for some reason, roughly coincides in Ganj Dareh with the appearance of pottery ... 

Toe bones of a goat (Capra hircus) found at the 10,000 year old settlement of Ganj Dareh, Iran give us new insights into the origins of animal domestication in the Near East. New research confirms that Ganj Dareh contains the earliest directly dated evidence of livestock domestication in the world.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/goats/goats.html

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri

Population sizes at that time are very speculative. Actually they are even speculative about the Middle ages, when lists of homes were kept in most cases and have reached us in some. In the 14th century CE there were very few cities in Europe that had 100,000 people or near. Probably only Paris surpassed that figure and not for long. Over 50,000: Florence, Venice, Milan, Genoa, Seville, Cordoba, Granada, Constantinople, Paris, Ghent and Bruggen surely. (I refer again to J. G. Pounds)

When we talk of the first cities we can't expect such size and I must object. Punds define a late medieval middle-sized city as 2,000-10,000. He also makes a typical labor distribution of the diferent types:

• Small (under 2,000): 45% agriculture, 50% crafts, 5% other
• Middle (2-10,000): 15% agr., 50% crafts, 25% services, 10% trade
• Large (10-25,000): 10% agr., 30% crafts, 30% services, 30% trade
• Very large (25-50,000): 30% crafts, 40% services, 30% trade

A "very large" city example is Medieval Rome, "large" city examples are Pisa or Antwerp, a "middle" city case is Rheinfelden. Notice that I can't easily pick apart towns from cities, as in Spanish or Basque the medieval term for "town" has vanished from common language.

Anyhow, I think that a solid defensive wall is proof that the settlement was organized at a level that could resist an invasion by a superior force or a surprise raid. That makes it a polis, in the Greek sense, and therefore a city, even if small.

Probably in the times of early Jerico division of labour was non-existent, surely even private property and the concept of anything that wasn't a tribe. In this sense, you may be right that there wasn't a division of labour - but that probably doesn't remove it from the concept of city, because we are talking of a period when such division hadn't still formed in humankind.

�atalh�y�k is even more surprising: with the population of a large medieval city probably, it had no walls no known hierarchies, nor division of labour that we know of.

But all that, being typical of the Neolithic, is not probably meaningful enough: we have to keep some proportion with the social and demographical reality of the period. If there were no meaningful hierarchies yet, we surely would be unjust with those peoples demanding them to have one in order to classify their anyhow large and sophisticated settlements as cities.

As far as it goes for me, if 2,000 was enough for a middle-sized Medieval city that had walls and a clear urban economical specialization, in the eve of civilization my criteria is far more flexible. The same that our criteria for "city" is not the same now than 600 years ago, it can't be the same for 8,000 years back: the context must be considered.

...

Edit: while in later cities/civilizations social stratification, division of labour and hierarchies became important and dominant, I think it's a nice trait that the first cities didn't need such a stratification to work properly. I somehow opens the possibility that in the future such type of societies can maybe be recreated mutatis mutandi.


Edited by Maju

It isn't just large populations we're talking about, but also how complex the urban society is.  In the model adopted by Modelski, a population of about 10,000 would have been enough to account for the complexity of an urban society (i.e. division of labor) in the early city.   Hierarchies are not even addressed. 

Indeed, in the earliest inscriptions found at Uruk, were lists of occupations, but the evidence does not show the kind of hierarchy we would expect much later with the rise of kingship.  While inscriptions of about 2000 BC describe how history began with "kingship coming down from on high", the Sumerian myths speak of a time when the Sumerian cities were governed by a council of elders who at times of crisis appointed a leader to focus the cities resources to solve the problem, and then, once the crisis was over, relinquished that authority.  

While Modelski doesn't address the issue of the medievel city, it would seem that the medievel towns were cities in miniature.  The complexity of the culture of the more ancient cities was all that was known to the medievel population and thus that tradition of complexity remained intact.  You just can't compare the medievel town to that of large villages like Jericho.

Originally posted by Sharrukin It isn't just large populations we're talking about, but also how complex the urban society is.  In the model adopted by Modelski, a population of about 10,000 would have been enough to account for the complexity of an urban society (i.e. division of labor) in the early city.   Hierarchies are not even addressed.

I'm sure that smaller cities can have division of labour. It's not the size of the city the important thing but wether or not it has a rural hinterland. A city with a solid rural hinterland doesn't need to be focused in agriculture.

Indeed, in the earliest inscriptions found at Uruk, were lists of occupations, but the evidence does not show the kind of hierarchy we would expect much later with the rise of kingship.  While inscriptions of about 2000 BC describe how history began with "kingship coming down from on high", the Sumerian myths speak of a time when the Sumerian cities were governed by a council of elders who at times of crisis appointed a leader to focus the cities resources to solve the problem, and then, once the crisis was over, relinquished that authority.

So what? The same, more or less, did Athens and Rome and nobody would dare to say that civilization only arrived to Rome with Augustus.

While Modelski doesn't address the issue of the medievel city, it would seem that the medievel towns were cities in miniature.  The complexity of the culture of the more ancient cities was all that was known to the medievel population and thus that tradition of complexity remained intact.  You just can't compare the medievel town to that of large villages like Jericho.

Well if small medieval towns had 50% peasants as dwellers, as Pounds sustains, can't we compare them with Jerico?

I think that Mediveal cities like anyone else were not defined by tradition but by function. The cities played a role: administrative, commercial, manufacturer, etc. And it was that role which made them larger or smaller basically. Our cities are huge mostly because industry, trade and services are most important in our economy, while agriculture has been displaced to a very secondary place by mechanization. In ancient and medieval times, instead, agriculture was still central to the economy, demanding most of the workforce, so cities were necessarily small.

I'm sure that smaller cities can have division of labour. It's not the size of the city the important thing but wether or not it has a rural hinterland. A city with a solid rural hinterland doesn't need to be focused in agriculture.

Yes, divison of labor in small later cities, but this is absent in Jericho.  All villages would have had a rural hinterland.  In this respect Jericho, as a walled village was no different from neighboring villages.  But we also need to use caution when speaking about a "hinterland".  In terms of administration, Jericho probably only had its own agricultural hinterland and nothing else.  Surrounding villages were independent.  Archaeology does not detect a more extensive "hinterland" of satellite villages around a "city" until the time of the Sumerian cities of the Uruk Period. 

So what? The same, more or less, did Athens and Rome and nobody would dare to say that civilization only arrived to Rome with Augustus.

Correct, (although some might say that the Roman senate was a form of hierarchy before the emperors) but the only reason why I addressed the issue of "hierarchy" was because you brought it up. 

Well if small medieval towns had 50% peasants as dwellers, as Pounds sustains, can't we compare them with Jerico?

No.  Jericho probably had more like 100% peasants as dwellers, and no hierarchy, but a medievel town did.

I think that Mediveal cities like anyone else were not defined by tradition but by function.

I never said it was "defined" by tradition.  What I was referring to was there there was already a culture of urbanization that the developing Medieval cities could draw upon.  Jericho, on the other hand, had no such precedent.

The earliest evidence of plant domestication occurred in the Damascus basin at Aswan (not to be mistaken with the one in southern Egypt), dating to 10,000 BC at the earliest.  Later places with evidence included Tell Abu Hureyra, Tell Aswad, Karacadag, Netiv Haddud, Gilgal and Jericho from about 8,000 BC.

The earliest evidence of animal domestication occurred at Abu Hureyra at about 7,400 BC, at Ganj Dareh from about 7000 BC, Gritille at about 6,600 BC, and Tell Aswad, Jericho, Ramad, 'Ain Ghazal, Beida and Basta just after 7,000 BC.

The earliest evidence of pottery were at Tell Aswad and 'Ain Ghazal, from about 7200 BC.