The simplest architectural structure, known since the Neolithic era. From ancient times to the present day, it has been used in all buildings covered with flat or gabled roofs. In the past, wooden or stone beams were laid on posts made of the same materia—today, natural stone is replaced with metal and reinforced concrete.
Around 2500 BC: The Beginning of Column Design
Poulnabrone Dolmen, County Clare, Ireland. Image: Jon Sullivan, Public Domain
Ancient Egyptian architects remained faithful to the post-and-lintel system but gave meaning to architectural forms. The columns in their temples began to depict a palm tree, a lotus, or a bundle of papyrus. These stone “thickets” symbolize the afterlife forest, through which the souls of the deceased must pass to a new life. Thus, architecture became a visual art. Later, in Mesopotamia, architecture was also used to create large sculptures, but they preferred to sculpt bulls, griffins, and other creatures of the animal world.
The Greeks made architecture itself the theme of architecture as an art form, specifically focusing on the work of its structures. From this point forward, the supports of the post-and-lintel system not only decorated buildings but also visually demonstrated that they were supporting weight. These elements sought to evoke sympathy from viewers and, for greater credibility, mimicked the structure and proportions of human figures—male, female, or maiden.
This strictly logical system of supporting elements is called an order. Typically, three main orders are distinguished: Doric, Ionic, Corinthian.
Additionally, two supplementary orders are recognized: Tuscan, Composite.
The development of these architectural orders marks the birth of European architecture.
Around 70 AD: The Beginning of the Widespread Use of Arched Structures
The Grange, nearby Northington, England, by William Wilkins, 1804, Europe’s first house designed with all external detail of a Greek temple. Image: Wikimedia
The Romans began to widely use arches and arched structures (vaults and domes). While a horizontal beam can crack if it is too long, the wedge-shaped parts in an arch under load do not break but compress, and stone is difficult to destroy by pressure. Consequently, arched structures can cover much larger spaces and bear significantly heavier loads.
However, despite mastering the arch, Roman architects did not invent a new architectural language to replace the ancient Greek one. The post-and-lintel system (i.e., columns and the elements they support) remained on the facades, but often it no longer served a structural purpose, instead functioning solely as decoration. In this way, the Romans transformed the classical order into mere decor.
318: The Return of Early Christian Architects to Wooden Roof Trusses
The Colosseum, from “Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae”. Image: Met Museum
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought down the economy of those territories we today call Western Europe. There was not enough money for constructing stone roofs, although there was a need for large buildings, primarily churches. Therefore, Byzantine builders had to return to wood and, with it, to the post-and-lintel system. The rafters—the structures under the roof, where some elements (braces), according to geometric laws, work not on bending but on tension or compression—were made of wood.
532: The Beginning of the Use of Domes on Pendentives by Byzantine Architects
St. Peter’s Basilica in Romei The engraving by Stefan du Pérac was published in 1569, five years after the death of Michelangelo.
A technological breakthrough in Byzantine architecture was placing a dome, invented back in Ancient Rome, not on round walls enclosing the inner space but on four arches, with only four points of support. Between the arches and the dome ring, double-curved triangles—pendentives—were formed. (In churches, they often depict the evangelists Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John—the four pillars of the church.) In particular, thanks to this construction, Orthodox churches have the appearance we are familiar with.
Around 1030: The Return to Arched Vault Construction in Romanesque Architecture
The dome of St. Sophia Cathedral in Istanbul. Image: A.Savin, Wikipedia
By the beginning of the second millennium AD, powerful empires were emerging in Europe, each considering itself the heir of Rome. The traditions of Roman architecture were revived. Magnificent Romanesque cathedrals were again covered with arched structures, similar to ancient ones—stone and brick vaults.
1135: Gothic Architects Give Arched Structures a Pointed Shape
East front of Speyer Cathedral, Germany. Image: Immanuel Giel , CC BY-SA 3.0
Arches and arched structures have a serious drawback: they tend to “spread out.” Before Gothic architecture, architects combated this effect by building thick walls. Then, a new technique emerged: arches and vaults began to be made pointed. A structure of this shape exerts more downward force onto supports than sideways pressure. Furthermore, this system was supported on the sides by special “bridges”—flying buttresses—which extended from freestanding columns called buttresses. Consequently, the walls were freed from all loads, made lighter, or even eliminated entirely, giving way to glass paintings known as stained glass windows.
1419: During the Renaissance, Baroque, and Classicism, Styles Are Formed Regardless of New Structural Innovations
Orléans Cathedral: choir and nave seen from the choir. Image: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0
The Renaissance gave the world the greatest domes, but from this moment on, large styles no longer arose primarily due to construction innovations but rather as a result of changes in the worldview. Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque, Rococo, Classicism, and Empire were born more due to philosophers, theologians, mathematicians, and historians (and to some extent those who introduced fashionable manners) than to inventors of new roof structures. Until the Industrial Revolution, innovations in construction technologies ceased to be the determining factor in changing styles.
1830: The Beginning of the “Railroad Fever” Led to the Widespread Use of Metal Structures in Construction
View of the Piazza Sancti Annunciatore. Painting by Giuseppe Zocchi
Rails, initially intended only for railroads, turned out to be an ideal building material from which strong metal structures are easily created. The rapid development of land steam transport contributed to the growth of rolled metal production capacities, ready to provide engineers with any number of channels and I-beams. The frames of high-rise buildings are still made from such parts today.
1850: Glass Becomes a Full-fledged Building Material
The Duke of Wellington’s train and other locomotives being readied for departure from Liverpool, 15 September 1830
The factory production of large-sized window glass made it possible to develop construction technologies first for large greenhouses and then for grandiose buildings for other purposes, in which either all the walls or roofs were made of glass. Fairy-tale “crystal palaces” began to come to life.
1861: The Beginning of Industrial Use of Reinforced Concrete
The Crystal Palace at Sydenham Hill, London. It was designed by Sir Joseph Paxton for the Great Exhibition of 1851 and rebuilt in 1852–54 at Sydenham Hill but was destroyed in 1936. Image: BBC Hulton Picture Library
Attempts to reinforce concrete date back to Ancient Rome. Metal rods for reinforcing roofs began to be actively used from the beginning of the 19th century. In the 1860s, a gardener named Joseph Monier, while searching for a way to make garden tubs more durable, accidentally discovered that embedding metal reinforcement in concrete significantly increased the strength of the resulting element. In 1867, the invention was patented and subsequently sold to professional engineers who developed methods for using this innovative technology.
However, the enterprising gardener was only one of several pioneers of this new construction technology. For instance, in 1853, French engineer François Coignet built a house entirely of reinforced concrete, and in 1861 he published a book on its application.
1919: The Integration of All Technological Capabilities in a New “Modern” Style
Le Corbusier’s Esprit Nouveau pavilion in Paris, 1925. Image: Public Domain
In his manifesto published in the magazine “L’Esprit Nouveau,” Le Corbusier, one of the leading modernist architects, formulated five principles of modern architecture. These principles returned architecture to ancient ideals—not externally but fundamentally. The image of the building once again truthfully reflected the work of structures and the functional purpose of volumes.
By the beginning of the 20th century, facade decoration was perceived as deceit. There was a need to return to the origins, drawing inspiration from ancient Greek temples that honestly depicted the work of structures. However, modern roofs were now made of reinforced concrete, whose significance lies in its ability to resist tearing where a part is subjected to bending, thanks to embedded reinforcement. Consequently, modern structures could span almost any width.
As a result, buildings could be entirely devoid of columns and decorations, featuring continuous glazing and thus acquiring the “modern look” familiar to us today.
The infantry in ancient times constituted the most crucial component of armies. The well-known examples include Greek phalanxes and Roman legions, but other military formations were equally vital. Infantry was present in all ancient armies, forming their most essential part for the majority of the time. During antiquity, there was a significant evolution in infantry tactics, accompanied by the emergence of diverse weapons. Most foot soldiers of that era fought with spears, swords, javelins, and bows. Perhaps the most potent weapon was the sword, a symbol of war even today.
Initially, ancient infantry was modestly equipped, armed only with spears and shields. Gradually, infantry started using armor, swords, bows, and various other weapons. As mentioned, the strongest infantry forces belonged to the Roman Empire and Greece. Their armies were nearly invincible, as evidenced by the vast extent of their territories. As infantry declined towards the end of antiquity, it coincided with the decline of the entire Roman army. In 476, the fall of the Roman Empire occurred, marking the end of ancient times, but infantry remained a crucial part of armies into our era.
The First Ever Infantry
Since around 9000 BC, with the advent of settled agricultural communities, warfare began to evolve. Disciplined and hierarchical agricultural societies started forming organized armies. The ownership of permanent territories created the need for large battles where the victorious army could destroy the defeated one, securing additional necessary territories for their leaders. With the advent of civilization, the need for organized, striking units arose.
The phalanx, a formation of infantry fighting in a closed formation with spears or pikes, is one of the oldest military formations. The name “phalanx” itself comes from Greek, meaning a cylinder. Its history is closely tied to the armies of ancient Greece and Alexander the Great, but phalanxes were used two thousand years earlier by the armies of city-states in southern Mesopotamia, which emerged around 3000 BC.
At that time, most weapons were made of low-quality bronze due to a lack of tin in the Middle East. Many weapons archaeologists find from that period are made of silver or gold, often deposited in the tombs of kings or aristocracies. Still, it is assumed that these are enhanced versions of standard field weapons, mainly spears, axes, and daggers. Spears at that time were evidently designed for stabbing at short range, not for throwing, and their tips were securely attached to the shaft to remain in place even after penetrating an enemy’s body or shield.
Axes had rounded edges capable of crushing the helmets and skulls of enemies. Elaborately decorated daggers served as last-resort backup weapons. Considering the importance of fortifications in Sumerian warfare, it’s intriguing that archaeological finds lack throwing weapons, although their use is not entirely unknown. The main component of Sumerian armies probably consisted of phalanxes, standing in the center during battles, while light units with spears and axes fought on the flanks.
Ancient Egyptian Infantry
Egyptian infantry. E. Wallis. 1875.
During the Old Kingdom of Egypt (circa 2650–2150 BC), the army consisted of conscripts numbering several tens of thousands, supplemented by mercenary fighters from the Nubian tribes south of Egypt. After the fall of the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom (2050–1640 BC) emerged. The Middle Kingdom’s army was composed of conscripts, where one man from every hundred inhabitants had to serve.
Professional commanders, subordinate to the pharaoh, led the army. Records indicate the existence of commanders of strike units, suggesting the presence of heavy infantry units even at that time. Around 1720 BC, Egypt was invaded by the Hyksos, Semitic people advancing from behind the Sinai, exploiting the country’s political discord and their technological advantage to subjugate Egypt, which they accomplished in 1674 BC. The Hyksos altered Egyptian military culture by introducing technologies from the Near East. They taught the Egyptians to build fast and sturdy chariots for decisive military actions, produce high-quality bronze weapons, and craft composite bows.
The New Kingdom army (1565–1085 BC) combined Egyptian organization, Hyksos techniques, and a new doctrine based on aggressive maneuvers. The core of the army comprised professionals highly motivated by promises of loot, slaves, and land, giving rise to a new warrior caste. During times of war, this army was supplemented by conscripts, each of whom underwent basic training. Egyptian infantry was organized into companies of 250, further divided into squads of 50. There were two main types of infantry: archers, who were fully equipped with composite bows at the Battle of Kadesh, and the Nakhtu-aa (shock troops).
At that time, archers only wore loincloths and were apparently not intended to engage with the enemy directly. However, there was some development in the equipment of Nakhtu-aa soldiers. They were equipped with spears with broad heads, short axes with small bronze heads, and wooden shields with a round upper part. From 1500 BC onwards, armor became common—mostly a reinforced fabric encircling the body, but leather or bronze helmets were also used. Infantry tactics relied on massive salvos of archers, which could decide battles considering the power and accuracy of composite bows (with a range of over 655 feet), the training level of Egyptian archers, and the lack of suitable armor at that time. Archers were evidently deployed in ranks and trained to shoot in salvos, supporting the advance of war chariots or Nakhtu-aa.
The Egyptian infantry also included mercenaries. The Medjay were members of Nubian tribes used as archers in the early New Kingdom. Mercenaries from maritime nations were also employed. During the Battle of Kadesh, Ramesses II had personal guards from the Sherden tribe. The Sherden were the first specialized swordsmen in history, and the metal sword is undoubtedly a weapon of Indo-European nations. Swords were likely initially made of bronze, but iron usage increased around 1200 BC.
Assyrian Infantry
The Diversion of an Assyrian King by Frederick Arthur Bridgman. Oil on canvas. 1878.
“I pierced the throats of raging lions, each with a single arrow.”
Ashurbanipal
The Assyrians, alongside the Hittites, were among the first to extensively utilize iron. Unlike tin, which was scarce in the Middle East, iron was abundant, allowing for the production of higher-quality weapons than those made of bronze. Additionally, iron weapons could be mass-produced, enabling the equipping of truly immense armies. In 845 BC, Ashurnasirpal III, the son of Shalmaneser III, marched into Syria with an army of 120,000 men, while the Egyptians had approximately 20,000 men at Megiddo and Kadesh. Shalmaneser III waged war for 31 of the 35 years he spent on the throne. The pinnacle of these conflicts was the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BC, where the Assyrians emerged victorious but suffered heavy losses. At this stage of expansion, the Assyrian army included strike units of war chariots and cavalry, but the backbone was the infantry.
In the Assyrian army, farmers were temporarily conscripted during the summer and released during harvest time to avoid disrupting the agricultural calendar. Archers played a significant role in the Assyrian army. They supported the war chariot attack by shooting from behind shields held by spearmen. Both types of units wore typical Assyrian conical helmets and sleeveless cloaks extending to the ankles—likely made of leather with vertically attached bronze strips. Archers also played a vital role in the siege of cities. Depictions on gates from that era show that each archer had his own shield-bearer, protecting him from enemy projectiles.
After Shalmaneser’s death, weak kings ruled, and the empire declined for eighty years, eventually falling into subjugation to its hated rival, Babylon. Then Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC) revived the empire. He implemented extensive reforms in the army. Under his successors, the empire reached its greatest extent. Tiglath-Pileser III replaced farmers with conscripts from each province and also demanded contingents from vassal states. Images from Tiglath-Pileser’s era again depict pairs of archers and shield-bearers, but shields are often replaced by tall, portable reed barriers covered with leather or metal, curved at the top to protect the pair from projectiles at a steep angle. By 700 BC, different formations were also in use. Panels from Nineveh dating between 700 and 692 BC, displayed at the British Museum, depict scenes from Sennacherib’s campaigns.
One panel shows the attack on the Jewish city of Lachish in 701 BC. In the foreground stands a phalanx-like formation of shock troops, deep in six to seven rows, armed with circular shields and 6.5-foot-long spears raised above their heads. The soldiers also wear shortened cloaks and new helmets with a horsehair crest—possibly the helmets of the Kisir Sharruti (Royal Guard). Behind them are six to seven rows of archers, some without armor and others with long cloaks similar to those worn by their ancestors. Three rows of slingers in armor follow. The firepower of archer units was truly formidable (the Assyrian composite bow could shoot up to 2100 feet). Regardless of formations, the Assyrian infantry excelled at sieges, field attacks, guerrilla warfare, coordination with other infantry units and various types of weapons.
Persian Infantry
Ancient Persian infantry and nobleman.
In 550 BC, the Persian ruler Cyrus II overthrew the last Median king, Astyages, and embarked on campaigns to conquer Babylon and Anatolia. Cyrus’s successors added Egypt, northern India, and parts of southeastern Europe to the Persian Empire. The Persian army at that time relied on conscripts from the provinces and was immense even by standards prevailing 2000 years later. Units were organized into bazarabam (thousands), divided into sataba (hundreds), and then dathabam (tens). The backbone of early Persian armies was infantry, relying heavily on the massive deployment of archers, protected by shield-bearers accompanying them.
The forefront of infantry formations consisted of sparabara (shield-bearers), where sparabara carried rectangular shields made of reeds covered with leather, reaching from ankles to shoulder height. Each dathabam was deployed in a row of ten men, with shield-bearers standing in front of archers. The leader of the shield-bearers wielded a 6.5-foot-long spear for the defense of the entire section. In case their leader fell, archers had to defend themselves with short, curved, spikeless swords as best as they could. Initially, Persians used simple bows with an effective range of around 500 feet, not yet employing composite bows. Persian archers effectively supported attacking cavalry, but their shots lacked the power to deter determined shock units, as seen in the battles of Marathon and Plataea.
In hand-to-hand combat against Greeks and Macedonians, Persians faced a disadvantage due to inadequate armor. Consequently, whenever possible, Persians sought to shoot from prepared positions or behind natural obstacles. Besides Persians and Medes, the main part of Persian armies consisted of contingents from subjugated lands. These soldiers utilized their own national weapons, organization, and tactics.
Over the next 150 years, the Persian army evolved, partially influenced by experiences gained in battles against the Greeks. Between 490 and 479 BC, attempts were made to address the lack of heavy infantry by equipping Kurdish, Mysian, and other mercenaries with shields and spears. Persians also frequently hired Greek mercenaries, especially hoplites. Another unit, the Kardaka, comprised young Persian nobles and, according to Ptolemy, served as heavy infantry.
In comparison to the armies of the Middle East, the ancient Greek armies appeared small, technically less advanced, and tactically straightforward. However, the Greeks achieved decisive victories over the Persians at Marathon and Plataea. In 480 BC, a mere 7,000 Spartans and their allies halted at Thermopylae a Persian force at least ten times their size. Greek military culture differed significantly from that of the Near East: Warrior ethics remained strong, and armies relied on aggressive attacks by shock units fighting in phalanxes. Heavy infantry, drawn from private units of wealthy citizens, had a personal stake in the battle’s success and were deeply infused with nationalistic ideology and heroic myths.
During the Greek Dark Ages, battles resembled uncontrolled brawls. Radical changes began around 700 BC when the phalanx of heavy infantry developed in Corinth, Sparta, and Argos. The political and cultural roots of the phalanx can be traced to the emergence of the polis, dated to around this time. The primary requirement for the polis was the ability to defend itself in times of war. Sparta represented an extreme case, where all men were lifelong soldiers and were not allowed to pursue any occupation other than the military. Even in democratic Athens, all men between 17 and 59 years old had to serve in case of war. Thus, the phalanx was a group of fellow citizens who stood in resistance to an attacker, and their motivation could hardly surpass the motivations of regular conscripts, professional soldiers, or mercenaries.
Basic Equipment
The most crucial part of a heavy infantryman’s equipment was the hoplon, or shield, which gave these units their name (hoplites). The hoplon was essentially a shallow dish made of wood, initially only rimmed with bronze, later fully covered in bronze, measuring on average 30–40 inches in diameter. It had a double handle consisting of a leather or metal strap across the center, through which the arm could be passed up to the elbow, and loops made of leather or rope at the edge, held by the hand.
It could be held at the elbow, with part of the weight resting on the shoulder, making it easier to carry but less flexible than a shield with a single handle. The hoplon was adorned with a symbol—faces of monsters, minotaurs, and other creatures were particularly popular. Still, the Spartans enforced strict uniformity, decorating all their shields with the letter lambda, representing Lakedaimonioi, the ancient name for Spartans.
Another significant component of heavy infantry equipment was the helmet, and there were several variants. The most common type was the Corinthian helmet, covering the entire head and face, with a T-shaped cutout for the eyes and mouth; later versions also had a nose guard. Hoplites also used body armor. From the 6th century BC, laminated protectors made of many layers of fabric, with a total thickness of up to 2 inches, came into use. These protectors covered the shoulders and torso, and they included a skirt to protect the abdomen and groin, usually divided to allow walking and running. Leg guards, often shaped according to the wearer’s muscles, completed the heavy infantry’s equipment.
The primary weapon of hoplites was the spear, designed for thrusting and approximately 5 to 8 feet long, with an ash shaft, an iron flat head, and a bronze butt spike. Many swords have been found, but from the 5th century BC, two main types became standard: one was about 24 inches long, with a double-edged leaf-shaped blade for cutting. The second, of Etruscan or Macedonian origin, had an edge on one side and a curved hilt. Swords were used purely as backup weapons; the main weapon of shock troops was always the spear.
Common Tactics
The most common tactic of the phalanx was direct advance and contact with the enemy. Thucydides describes the advance of two armies at Mantinea: The opponent advanced wildly and angrily, while the Spartans advanced slowly to the sound of flutes. This custom had nothing to do with religion; the music aimed to maintain a steady pace, preventing their ranks from breaking during the march. Spartans, and later others, marched into battle to the sound of war songs that urged them to emulate their invincible ancestors. According to contemporary testimonies, phalanx battles against phalanxes were a mixture of shield pushing—othismos—and spear thrusting until one side gave way.
Thucydides, in his description of the Battle of Delium (424 BC), recounts fierce fights on the Theban left wing, where soldiers were stuck together with shields until one of them yielded. Gaps were then created in the Theban lines, into which the Athenians sent their light infantry. Another piece of evidence for the importance of pressure is the increasing depth of the phalanx, which reached fifty ranks with the Thebans at Leuctra. Since their commander, Epaminondas, wanted them to please him and take one more step, it is quite possible that his phalanxes were essentially overwhelming the Spartans. So, even if the phalanx did not crush the enemy at first contact, it could defeat them through gradual weakening, with the most crucial factors being the depth of the formation and the combat determination of those involved.
Peltasts and Other Light Infantry
Pelta shield.
Similar to heavy infantry (hoplites), peltasts also got their name from the shield they used. The pelta was a crescent-shaped wicker shield with a single handle in the center, covered with goat or sheepskin. Although commonly used in the Mycenaean period, the pelta around the 5th century BC became associated with assault units generally referred to as peltasts. However, this name most appropriately applies to mountain tribes from Thrace (currently northeastern Greece and southern Bulgaria), where the pelta shield originated. Thracian tribes fought in wooded mountainous regions, and their tactics relied on sudden attacks, ambushes, and brief skirmishes, making the Thracians the most renowned light infantry of antiquity.
Thracian peltasts served as conscripts in the Persian army that invaded Greece in 480 BC and as mercenaries in the Greek army from the Peloponnesian Wars onwards. During the Peloponnesian Wars, Greek armies began to use not only shock troops (hoplites) but also assault units (peltasts) and ranged units (archers, slingers). The need to cooperate with and defend against these units of the enemy is reflected in the phalanx tactics.
The Significance of Light Infantry
Greek armies started incorporating light infantry into their forces around 490 BC, with Herodotus claiming that the Athenians had 800 archers at Plataea. However, light infantry was not a regular component of any Greek polis. The shortage of light infantry was felt, for example, during the Peloponnesian War by the Athenian commander Demosthenes, who led units of hoplites and a smaller number of archers into the mountains of Aetolia in central Greece. Like the Thracians, the Aetolians inhabited rugged terrain and developed a warfare tactic that perfectly exploited such terrain. Demosthenes’ hoplites were defeated in a manner later called guerrilla warfare:
They descended from all sides of the mountains, hurling their spears and retreating whenever the Athenian army advanced, only to reappear when it momentarily withdrew. The battle proceeded for a while in this manner, alternating between advancing and retreating. In both cases, the Athenians were at a disadvantage. However, they managed to hold their ground until the arrows of the archers ran out. With the ability to turn the situation using the arrows they had, the lightly armed Aetolians fell easily under the rain of Athenian arrows. However, once the commander of the archers fell, his men scattered. The soldiers, exhausted from constant maneuvering, were caught in riverbeds of dried rivers with no escape or died in other parts of the battlefield when they lost their way. — Thucydides, Athenian historian and general.
In the years following the Corinthian War from 395–387 BC, light units became an integral part of Greek armies, inspired by the talented military innovator Iphicrates of Athens. In the initial phases of the war, Iphicrates supported the Corinthian side and, utilizing large mercenary forces, including Thracians, organized several incursions into Arcadia in the central part of the Peloponnese. In 390 BC, the Spartan army was destroyed near Corinth. Peltasts continually attacked the Spartans, and whenever the Spartans tried to catch them, the peltasts quickly fled.
Due to their light equipment, the Spartans were unable to catch them. After the war, the Athenians hired Iphicrates and his peltasts for many clients, including the Persian king Artaxerxes. They fought in the Persian army, suppressing the Egyptian uprising and performed more than adequately. However, there are no records of using this light phalanx in battle. Still, its influence on the Macedonian phalanx cannot be ignored.
Philip II and the Macedonian Phalanx
After Philip II became the Macedonian king in 359 BC, he initiated a series of military reforms that transformed poorly disciplined feudal levies into one of the most impressive armies of the classical era. Philip professionalized the Macedonian army by introducing military training even in times of peace, regular, structured pay, and allocating land to veterans after completing military service.
Units underwent regular training and marches in full equipment to strengthen the physical condition and instinctive discipline of the soldiers. Alongside these fundamental changes, there were several organizational adjustments. One of the most important was the introduction of a new type of phalanx. During the reconstruction of the Macedonian army, Philip was likely inspired by several sources. From 368 to 365 BC, he was held hostage in Thebes and probably learned much about the Greek phalanx there. He also drew inspiration from Iphicrates and his peltasts.
Philip’s most radical innovation, however, concerned the weaponry. The primary weapon of the Macedonian and Hellenistic phalanx was the sarissa, a two-handed spear carried under the arm, similar to what Iphicrates had introduced. The sarissa adopted by Philip aimed to give his hoplites an advantage in longer reach compared to the spears of Greek armies, and it was also used because a two-handed weapon is more difficult to parry.
According to Polybius, a Greek historian from the 2nd century BC, the sarissa was 20–23 feet long, with 13 feet protruding in front of the hoplites preparing for impact. The Macedonian phalanx advanced in double strength, creating a dense barrier of spears, behind which marched massive rows of men. Philip also chose a formation based more on quantity than the individual’s skills because most men in the Macedonian army were farmers who couldn’t match the Greek hoplites in battle. The hoplites of the Macedonian army had less armor, making the Macedonian phalanx much more mobile than the Greek one.
The Macedonian army was formidable and organized, but it also had its weaknesses. For its effectiveness, it was necessary for the men to trust each other because each individual covered his fellow soldier with his shield, and each unit functioned as a unified entity. Therefore, the men forming the phalanx had to maintain closed ranks under all circumstances, which, however, with proper soldier training and discipline, was not a problem in Philip’s army.
Roman Infantry
Roman Republic Infantry
Until the 6th century BC, the inland tribes of Italy were strongly influenced by the Celtic Hallstatt culture from the north more than the Greeks from the south. The influence of Celtic culture is evident in Roman military history. Combat means were closely related to the tribal model, and there is evidence of the existence of an elite order of victors and war priests dedicated to the god of war, Mars, the father of Romulus and Remus, the legendary founders of Rome. The Romans initially fought only with swords; blades up to 28 inches long were found alongside bronze arrowheads. They had helmet types like the calotte, initially shaped like a pot, made of bronze, and worn as hats. Armor primarily protected the chest.
Around 600 BC, the Romans subdued the Etruscans, a people of unknown origin whose culture was centered in several large cities in northern Italy. Shortly before achieving dominance, they incorporated the phalanx of hoplites into their arsenal and introduced its organization to Rome and other subjugated nations. In the Etruscan-Roman army, all adult male citizens of the state served. The population was divided into voting classes known as centuries, with each class equipping itself at its own expense for war according to its financial capabilities. The Romans expelled the Etruscans at the end of the 6th century BC, but they apparently retained the phalanx of the Greek type.
However, in many battles with the Gauls and Samnites, its weaknesses were exposed. The Samnites lived in harsh and mountainous terrain, so most of them were armed with spears, shields, and light armor. The Romans learned from these battles and introduced legions. Legions were divided into maniples, each consisting of two centuries. In the legions, there were hastati, principes, and triarii. Hastati were young men armed with spears (later swords), shields, and light armor. Principes were well-armed men in their prime. The Triarii were old veterans armed with spears and strong armor.
Further Reforms
The Roman legions underwent additional reforms after facing the fast and agile Carthaginian armies during the Punic Wars. As for the army, it still consisted of a militia composed of citizens of the middle and upper classes. Each man was expected to perform military service for sixteen years, up to the age of 46, to which he annually reported during times of war. However, the nature of Roman military power gradually changed: from 392 BC, soldiers received regular pay, making this army more like a modern professional army than a conscripted force.
The obligation to perform military service during the long wars in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC led many legionaries to practically become professional soldiers. Legionaries were granted increasingly more exemptions from property contributions, and after the catastrophic defeat at Cannae, farmers and even slaves were enlisted in the army. A legion consisted of 4,200 men, and this number could be expanded to 5,000. The legion was divided into centuries of 80–100 men, and two centuries formed one maniple, the main tactical unit of the Roman army at that time.
Each man had to protect himself with a scutum (shield), and his armament included two pila (spears). The pila were of two kinds – heavy and light. Some heavy pila were round with a diameter of a palm’s length, while others were square. Each was equipped with a head with backward hooks of the same length as the shaft. The head was firmly attached to the shaft with several rivets, so that in action, the iron cracked before it separated, although at the point of contact with the wood, it was one and a half fingers thick; such great care was taken in its secure attachment. — Polybius
The Hastati and Principes were primarily armed with the gladius hispaniensis, a sword described by Polybius as excellent, sharp, and strong. The gladius was likely adopted from the Spanish Celtiberian tribes after the Second Punic War. It was forged from iron, with a blade measuring 20 inches in length. Its long point suggests it was used for thrusting, which is more effective than slashing. Roman maniples provided more space than tight Greek phalanxes, resulting in a diverse mix of individual combat in battles. In this way, the Romans often emerged victorious due to the outstanding performance of individually well-trained fencers.
Roman Empire Infantry
The first Roman Emperor Augustus, like his great uncle Caesar, recognized that military success greatly contributed to political popularity. Therefore, a cautious expansion policy alternated with the improvement of the empire’s defense. This trend continued until the Germanic leader Arminius destroyed three Roman legions in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Augustus discouraged his successor Tiberius from aggressive wars, yet further conquests occurred. In 43 AD, Emperor Claudius ordered an invasion of Britain, and between 100 AD and 115 AD, Emperor Trajan conquered Dacia (modern-day Romania) and Mesopotamia. Trajan’s successor Hadrian adopted a passive defensive policy.
The strategy of the Roman Empire required only a small professional army. In 31 BC, there were 60 legions, but Augustus reduced them to 28 legions composed of long-serving volunteers. The traditional sixteen-year military service from the times of war became the minimum for conscripts. The property ownership requirement was completely abolished, allowing any Roman citizen who passed the selection process to join the army. Each legion was led by a legate (a senator appointed directly by the emperor) and six tribunes. The organization resembled that introduced by Gaius Marius. Therefore, ten cohorts consisted of six centuries of 80 men each, with the first cohort expanding to 800 men with an extra century.
The equipment of the legionaries underwent limited development. They used the pilum, with a design similar to the Republican era but significantly lighter, until around 200 AD. The sword was shortened, with a blade of approximately 20 inches, indicating a purely thrusting weapon. Legionaries wore mail armor until the end of the 1st century, when it gradually gave way to the distinctly Roman lorica segmentata, armor made of iron strips connected by hooks, straps, or bands. Around the same time, the original oval shield called scutum was replaced by a rectangular shield made of layers of wood covered with leather, with its sides protected by a bronze sheet. Regarding helmets, there was minimal uniformity, with the Gallic helmet being the most commonly used, named so because armorers in Gaul crafted it.
The Roman legions constituted the main striking force of the Roman army, facing the greatest threats. The responsibilities of barracks work and voluntary operations fell on the shoulders of auxiliary forces; these auxilia were comprised of non-Roman citizens and subjects of the Roman Empire. Auxiliary forces further supported legions in larger conflicts. Auxilia consisted of conscripts from tribes, mercenaries, or allies; since the time of Emperor Augustus, there were at least 70 cohorts of auxiliary infantry units composed of long-serving professionals organized similarly to legionary cohorts.
Each auxiliary cohort was recruited from a specific province of the Roman Empire, and its name indicated the province of origin. However, from the late 1st century AD onwards, cohorts were often assembled elsewhere, and conscriptions from new areas led to great diversity in their ethnic composition. The main incentive for conscripts was the prospect that after completing 25 years of service, Roman citizenship with full rights would be granted to auxiliary forces and their descendants. Cohorts were composed of archers, slingers, or heavy infantry. The equipment of auxiliary forces lagged behind that of legions by at least one generation.
Tactics of the Roman Empire Army
During the early Roman Empire, large-field battles were not too frequent. Instead, there were campaigns against insurgents, typically concluded with legionary attacks against their fortifications. Military campaigns became more of a routine logistical and technical matter than a tactical problem. This period is characterized by a doctrine that relied on the formidable power of ranged weaponry. In 68 AD, future Emperor Vespasian besieged the Jewish city of Jotapata (Yodfat), initiating daily attacks with bombardment involving at least 350 missile throwers and 700 archers.
When his son Titus conquered Jerusalem two years later, he likely had the support of 700 missile throwers. The importance of ranged firepower in field battles continued to grow; against the Alans in 135 AD, Arrianus deployed his two legions behind a wall of overlapping shields, with two rows of archers and missile throwers standing behind the protective barricade formed by the legions, shooting down the Alan cavalry. Under the protection of ranged firepower, legions attacked fortified positions and sometimes used special formations. The most famous of these is the “testudo” (tortoise). This formation reflects the level of training in the Roman Empire army, as its execution required very intensive training.
The Decline of Roman Infantry
From the mid-2nd century AD, the primary external threats to Rome were the barbaric Germanic tribes. The decline in the effectiveness of the Roman army was a result of the expansion meant to counter the barbarian threat. Military service became mandatory, a highly unpopular move that contributed to the decline of the army. It was offset by the conscription of barbarians, leading to the barbarization of Roman weapons and tactics. The tactical advantage achieved through professionalism—the excellent equipment and tactics of legions from the time of the Republic and the early Roman Empire—was eventually sacrificed for strategic considerations.
The main weapons of Roman infantry included the spatha sword, a dagger, a heavy spear called the spiculum, which could be thrown or thrust, and a lighter javelin known as the vericulum. The spatha was a slashing sword with a blade length of 28 inches, likely derived from the Gallic longsword and used by cavalry in the Augustan period.
Many infantrymen of that time ceased wearing armor, even helmets, which proved to be a significant disadvantage when facing the Goths, who accompanied their raids with a hail of projectiles, and later against the Hunnic mounted archers. The armor consisted almost exclusively of helmets. The helmets bore signs of unskilled mass production, unable to meet the needs of the new conscript army. Ranged firepower was formidable and likely aimed to prevent barbarians from getting within reach, where their size and ferocity could decide the outcome of the battle.
In the city of Şanlıurfa, Turkey, a prehistoric anthropomorphic figure known as the Urfa Man (Turkish: Urfa Adamı), or Balıklıgöl Statue, was uncovered during construction work. The age of the Urfa Man is 9000 BC, which places it in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic time period (c. 10,000–6500 BC). There are only a few miles between the Urfa Man and other prehistoric sites, Göbeklitepe (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A/B) and Nevalı Çori (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B).
The Urfa Man is the oldest known representation of a life-sized human sculpture. This makes it the oldest known statue in the world.
The Urfa Man was discovered in 1993 during road work in the Yeni Mahalle neighborhood north of Balıklıgöl (“Fish Lake”). Nevertheless, the precise location of its discovery has been lost to history. The Urfa Man was discovered while dismembered into four separate parts. It is unknown if the statue’s dismemberment was caused by the road work.
Even though the statue was dismembered, it was still whole. It was discovered under the foundations of the ancient Urfa dwellings that were near large water sources close to the north of Balıklıgöl during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period (10,000–6500 BC).
The findings confirmed in 1997 that the region had been continuously occupied since the time the statue was created.
The discovery of Pre-Pottery Neolithic “terrazzo floors” and other artifacts, such as distinctive flint tools, attest to this settlement’s existence.
Age
The estimates put its age between 11,000 and 9500 BC but the recent data points to c. 9000 BC. The statue may have been carried from the nearby Urfa Yeni-Yol site, which is from Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (c. 10,000–c. 8,800 BC). This site is also close to the other Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, Gürcütepe and Göbeklitepe (the oldest known temple in human history).
The statue is made of light sandstone and stands around 6 feet 3 inches in height (190 cm). The body is 21 inches in width and 25 inches in depth. It has no mouth and instead has two depressions inlaid with black obsidian for eyes, which is a natural volcanic glass highly valued back at the time.
The statue is completely naked, save for a V-shaped collar.
This object might as well be a metal necklace. The Urfa Man’s hands seem to clasp and conceal the genital region, and it has no visible feet or legs; instead, it tapers to the ground for support. No evidence suggests why this statue was created or utilized in the first place.
The statue stands on no legs. He has no facial hair or beard and no mouth. Many theories have been put forth to explain the missing mouth, such as that the person shown is wearing a mask or is concealing some truths. When seen from the front, the hands are joined at the navel. The museum notes that “the statue unquestionably represents male sexuality predominantly”. Since it is near the Göbeklitepe, a similarly dated religious sanctuary, the Urfa Man might be representing a local god.
Some Older Statuettes
Both the Lion-Man (Löwenmensch) figure and the Venus of Hohle Fels from Germany from the same time period (aged 35,000–41,000 years) are the earliest known statuettes in the world. Other oldest Upper Paleolithic statuettes include the Venus of Dolní Věstonice (aged 25,000–29,000 years), the Venus of Willendorf (aged almost 30,000 years), and the Venus of Brassempouy (aged 21,000–26,000 years), which existed before the discovery of the Urfa Man.
Are There Possibly Older Statues?
One of the oldest statues that are similar to the Urfa Man in appearance is from ʿAin Ghazal, an archaeological site in the Levant, Jordan. This site yielded anthropomorphic statues created between 7200 BC and 6250 BC.
The Urfa Man is shown prominently at the Şanlıurfa Archaeological Museum. Created around 11,000 years ago, it is the oldest statue in history. However, looking at the elaborated statuettes, which are incredibly older, there are likely statues that are many millennia older than the Urfa Man waiting to be unearthed (likely in Turkey again, the birthplace of civilization).
The Tartaria maps refer to ‘historical’ maps depicting the region of Tartaria in northern Asia. These maps offer insights into the alleged geography, landscape, and culture of the Tartaria region that supposedly existed in ‘hidden history’. This huge territory between the Caspian Sea and the Pacific Ocean, including the present-day boundaries of China and India, is referred to as Tartaria in Western European literature and cartography. From the 13th through the 19th centuries, the toponym was in regular usage.
In many derogatory titles that had little to do with the actual inhabitants of the area, Tartaria became the most popular term for Central Asia and Siberia in European sources. European knowledge of the area was exceedingly limited, discontinuous, and partly mythological until the 19th century. The region historically known as Tartaria is now often referred to as Inner or Central Eurasia. The majority of the people in these areas have spent centuries raising cattle, despite the dry climate.
A descriptive map of Russia and Tartaria by the explorer Anthony Jenkinson (1562). This is a scan of the map from the 1575 edition of Ortelius’ Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, first published in 1570 and republished many times between 1571 and 1641.
Tartaria by Jodocus Hondius, 1606
A Tartaria map created by Jodocus Hondius (1563–1612).
A Tartaria map created by the Flemish and Dutch engraver and cartographer Jodocus Hondius (1563–1612). The map is from circa 1606. It depicts places like Tartaria, Central Asia, Asiatic Russia, the Great Wall of China, and the early Northwest Coast of America.
The island of Corea, Cape de Fortuna, and the Straits of Anian are noteworthy landmarks. The map covers the Black Sea and Russia in addition to showcasing specifics about Nova Zembla. Livestock, tents, and scenes depicting nomadic tribes are examples of decorative components.
Asiae Nova Descriptio, 1567–1570
A Tartaria map from 1567-1570: Asiae Nova Descriptio (A New Description of Asia).
A Tartaria map from 1567–1570. Abraham Ortelius, Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, English publication as The Theatre of the Whole World, London 1606; this map is a reduction of Ortelius’ 8-sheet map of Asia from 1567, which was primarily taken from Giacomo Gastaldi’s wall-map of Asia from 1559–161.
Tartaria and the Greater Part of the Kingdom of China, 1680
This map of Tartaria is from the special collection of the University of Amsterdam. This map was published by Frederik de Wit (1629–1706). He was a Dutch cartographer and artist. The map shows Oceanus Occidentalis (Atlantic Ocean) and Mare Tartaricum (Arctic Ocean).
1667 Atlas Maior
A Tartaria map published in Joan Blaeu’s 1667 Atlas Maior.
The large middle area, surrounded by yellow borders, reads “TARTARIA.” This is a Tartaria map from the 1667 printing of the Tenth of Blaeu’s series of twelve atlases. The book is titled “Le Grand Atlas, ou Cosmographie Blaviane,” in which the Earth, the Sea, and the Heavens are described.
The large pink area at the right reads “TARTARIA.” It was a brand-new map depicting the whole of the Russian Empire as it was at the time of Peter the Great’s passing. The maps read, “In the immortal memory of this great monarch.”
An example of S. A. Mitchell Sr.’s map of Russia in Asia and Tartaria from 1853. Beginning in the Ural Mountains and ending at the Caspian Sea, it stretches all the way to Siberia, Kamtschatka, and Japan in the east. Includes most of northern China as well as parts of Mongolia and Korea farther to the south.
A map of the Great Tartary and China, together with the neighboring parts of Asia, adapted from Mr. De Fer’s map of Asia. This work is dedicated to Prince William, Duke of Gloucester.
An old map of Tartaria shows northern China, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, as well as southern Russia and eastern China. The first English-made global atlas has this map, Speed’s map of Tartaria. There is a distinct depiction of the Great Wall of China, and the map’s interior is extensively marked.
The map of Tartaria by the geographer and cartographer Petrus Bertius (1565–1629). Bertius is best known as a mapper for his version of the Geographia of Ptolemy. In this 16th or 17th century Tartaria map, China is represented with “Chi” at the right and Parthia is shown at the bottom left next to the Caspian Sea, which reads Mar de Sala.
Originally called “Carte de Tartarie” (Tartaria Map), it was created by the cartographer Guillaume Delisle (1675–1726) in 1706. The description on the bottom left side explains that this Tartaria map was drawn on the relationships of several travelers from different nations and on some observations made in French by Guillaume Delisle of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Paris.
Tartaria Map of the Kingdom of the Great Khan, 16th Century
An ancient Tartaria map drawn out by the great Brabantian mapper, geographer, and cosmographer Abraham Ortelius (1527–1598). The map shows the “Kingdom of the Great Khan,” which is likely Genghis Khan.
The map of Grand Tartaria by the French cartographer Guillaume Sanson (1633–1703) at the French National Library. This map above is probably a copy from 1674–1719.
1719 Tartaria Map
This map of Asia and Tartaria (top) includes all of the East Indies, Japan, and India.
This map of Asia and Tartaria (top) includes all of the East Indies, Japan, and India. It is drawn from H.A. Chatelain’s Atlas historique or nouvelle introduction à la chronologie (Historical Atlas or New Introduction to Ancient & Modern History, Chronology & Geography), 1719. He was a Huguenot pastor of Parisian origins.
3rd Map of Chinese Tartaria, 1737
From the New Atlas of China, Chinese Tartary, and Tibet, 1737.
Third Map of Chinese Tartary or Tartaria, from the New Atlas of China, Chinese Tartary, and Tibet, 1737. It includes the regions occupied by the Mongols north of the Great Wall and the lands of Ordos, encircled by the Yellow River.
Japan, Korea, Inner Mongolia, the Kingdom of Manchuria, and the Province of Great Tartary, North China, are depicted on a single Tartaria map named Tatariae Sinensis from 1749. Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville (1697–1782), was a notable cartographer. Johann Tobias Mayer (1723-1762; elder), was also a renowned cartographer. Their works are housed in the National Library of France.
Independent Tartaria map from 1851 with short stories about the Bride Chase, the Tartars traveling, and the Tent during those times. Engraved for the Illustrated Atlas of R. Montgomery Martin. Among the last great creators of colorful maps was the British John Tallis (1817–1876).
The Indus culture remains the most enigmatic of the great sophisticated civilizations due to its indecipherable writing, astonishingly contemporary cities, and massive empire, the end of which is just as unknown as its commencement. Little is known about it, despite the fact that it influenced a large area about 5,000 years ago.
Many people are unaware that the Indus civilization is one of the three major early sophisticated civilizations. Indeed, little is known about these people despite the fact that their dominion was once greater than that of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia put together. The only thing we know for sure is that they had a profound impact on the whole region, which is now Pakistan, as well as on sections of India and Afghanistan, beginning approximately 2800 B.C.
The reasons for this culture’s emergence and subsequent fall, some 700 years apart, remain unknown. Also, nobody knows for sure what language the locals spoke, and nobody has been able to understand the writing, which does not seem to be connected to any of the established scripts.
The Indus civilization’s early years
Early human settlement and the domestication of animals and plants started in the Indus River area, where Stone Age artifacts indicate people began to dwell some 10,000 years ago. They were a typical agricultural society from around 6500 B.C. forward, when they began raising cattle and growing wheat, among other crops.
At about 2600 B.C., however, everything changed. Huge cities home to thousands of people sprung up all throughout the Indus basin. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are two of these cities that have provided archaeologists with their first glimpses of these mysterious people and their way of life.
The Indus city plans are very similar, giving the impression that they were all drawn out at the same time. Buildings and streets inside them, as shown by excavations, adhered to a rigorous geometric layout, startlingly comparable to the districts of contemporary towns. Broad avenues ran along north to south, while narrower streets intersected at right angles, much like the squares on a chessboard.
A standardized architecture
A majority of the residences in the neighborhood were large rectangles. Mohenjo-daro and Harappa had a very consistent exterior look; unlike the colossal structures typical of Mesopotamia, they were designed with functionality in mind. Not even enormous temples or palaces were built. The majority of the structures were made from burned mud bricks, and they all followed the same design: Typically, after passing through a vestibule, one would enter a courtyard that the rest of the rooms would be organized around. Some of the homes included lofts or roof decks that could be used as extra living space.
Researchers have speculated that the Indus civilization may have been the first to have advanced urban planning because of its remarkably practical, cohesive structure and design.
Water from the tap and central sewerage
Furthermore, the remainder of the infrastructure in these Bronze Age towns was remarkably advanced for its time. Mohenjo-daro, for instance, had a public bath and a central well about 4,000 years ago. Many people, however, had their own very modest wells dug into the mud brick walls of their homes in order to get potable water. Some structures may have even had running water piped in via these underground networks. According to the excavations, the sewage from the homes was carried through clay pipes into the municipal sewer system, which consisted of sewers covered with bricks and ran down the main streets.
Much of Mohenjo-daro was constructed on a plateau to prevent it from flooding, with watchtowers and fortifications along its southern side to ward off invaders. Raw materials for jewelry production and a large number of beads point to the existence of workshops in addition to residential structures in these cities. Some of these raw minerals could only be sourced from Central Asia or farther afield, indicating the sophisticated trading network that the ancient Indus society had.
Fixed units of measurement and reference weights
One such indicator of the Indus culture’s sophisticated level 4,500 years ago is its unified and astoundingly exact system of units of measurement. Buildings, plazas, and even the mud bricks themselves all seem to adhere to consistent proportions, according to surveys of Indus towns. These may all be reduced to 0.69 inches (17.6 mm), the putatively fundamental measuring unit of the Indus civilization.
Precise rules
In 2008, researchers unearthed the clay crossbeam of a scale with lines cut into it at regular intervals—every 0.69 inches—in the Indus city of Kalibangan. Subunits of this measurement, called angulam, were reportedly recognized by many smaller markings in between. It is already clear to Indus specialists that the builders at Harappa adhered to strict standards of proportion and beauty, rather than relying on chance.
Early on in the excavations at Mohenjo-daro in 1931, researchers uncovered a number of cube- and cuboid-shaped blocks of limestone of varying sizes, proving that the people of the Indus empire were also methodical when it came to weight. Extensive digging has uncovered similar blocks from other cities, each one looking like an egg next to the originals. What were they, though?
Reference weights for trade
Clues might be gleaned from the places where the blocks were unearthed, since they often turned up with artifacts associated with commerce such as seals and merchandise. These blocks have now been identified as reference weights and utilized in the commerce sector for the purpose of measuring items. The tiniest bricks weighed 0.89 grams (0.031 ounces), which is lighter than the gram unit.
Within a certain weight category, there is only roughly a 6% variation in Indus weights.
The Indus script, which has yet to be deciphered
A depiction of the single horned bull in an Indus seal with Indus hieroglyphs.
The Indus people’s writing looks like a blend between Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform, with its use of triangles, circles with cross-like letters, and plant-like symbols. Neither of those things has anything to do with it, and the meaning of its characters is still a mystery.
One explanation is that, unlike the lengthy Mesopotamian text tablets, Indus characters often occur in clusters of no more than six. They are often affixed to clay seals, miniature tablets, and talisman-like amulets. They are often mixed with animal representations, particularly on the seals.
Mysterious signs and animal symbols
It is possible that the animals’ emblems denoted certain people or clans, and that the names or legitimacy of the owners were indicated by the text. Clay jars, metal implements, and even gold jewelry have all been unearthed with the mysterious writing. Names found in that area may also date back approximately 5,000 years to the people who lived in the Indus Valley.
However, the Indus script remains as mysterious as it was when first found, despite decades of efforts to translate it. Not only is it unclear what language the strings were written in, but it’s also possible that the same script was used for more than one language. While some in the academic community are convinced that it is a genuine script, others see the symbols not for what they are, but for what they represent, such as religious or political iconography.
Mathematical aid
But Mumbai’s Tata Institute of Basic Research researcher Mayank Vahia disputes this. A few years ago, he utilized mathematics to crack the code of the puzzling characters and found evidence that they were, in fact, a legitimate script with a set canon of symbols and an underlying grammar.
The research conducted by Vahia and his coworkers is founded on the so-called Markov model, a statistical technique for forecasting the likelihood of an occurrence based on its antecedents. Insights into the Indus script’s underlying grammatical structure can be gained using the statistical approach. Any meaning attributed to a symbol during the decipherment process using such a model must be consistent with the meanings of the symbols that came before and after it.
A specific sequence
The studies verify the existence of meaning in the string of characters. If researchers randomly switched characters in their model or transplanted a hieroglyph from one set of characters to a sequence on another artifact, the likelihood of the new sequence matching the predicted language and its patterns dropped quickly. These findings provide more evidence that Indus writing follows a consistent set of rules.
It seems to be adaptable as well. Given that seals with sequences of these characters have been uncovered in both the Indus and Mesopotamian regions. However, the signs there are ordered differently from those from the Indus Valley, suggesting that the identical symbol sequences may have had a distinct meaning in that region. The possibility that the Indus script may have been used to express a variety of themes in western Asia is an intriguing finding. The concept that the hieroglyphs were only religious or political symbols is hard to square with the available evidence.
The meaning of the mysterious symbols, and whether or not they represent actual writing, are still mysteries. In this case, archaeologists and linguists are banking on luck in the shape of fresh discoveries that may provide more insight. Nothing will be certain until a multilingual tablet, a type of Indus Rosetta Stone, is discovered.
How peaceful was Indus Valley Civilization?
Archaeological digs in the town remnants have uncovered no indications of conflict or violence, neither in the destruction of structures nor in combat scenes on art items or pottery, which has long been one of the most remarkable elements of the mysterious Indus civilization. No signs of a superior or subordinate caste or a governing elite were to be found.
Therefore, it was theorized that the Indus civilization was structured more like a “grassroots government,” in which the populace gave political and religious leaders little power and the social order was relatively flat. As a result, it was assumed that very little physical force was required to maintain order in society.
However, throughout the summer of 2012, archaeologists discovered objects that broke, or at least severely rattled, the picture of the empire as a place of peace. 160 corpses from three Harappan tombs were analyzed by a team of experts headed by Gwen Robbins Schug of Appalachian State University in Boone. Numerous traces of severe injuries were discovered, most notably in bones dating to the late Indus civilization era (ca. 1900–1700 BC).
Signs of beatings and fightings
15 percent or more of the skulls in a tomb from this time period showed signs of violence, such as cracks or fractures in the top of the skull from a hit from a blunt weapon or other damage to the bones. A male in his mid-30s had a broken nose and a cut across his forehead from a sharp weapon, and a lady had been battered to death, judging by the fractured skull.
The skull trauma does not seem to have resulted from an accident or to be consistent with postmortem trauma. Experts say the evidence points inexorably to violent interactions between people. They claim that women and children were disproportionately affected by such violence at that period. The researchers concluded that the level of violence in Harappa was very high, even by city standards, and was the highest of any Southeast Asian region at the time. That begs the question, why?
Turmoil and violence
By comparing them to tombs and corpses from previous eras of the Indus civilization, researchers were able to deduce that signs of violence were, in fact, exceedingly uncommon. It seems that murder and manslaughter were very rare even when Harappa had more than 30,000 residents. However, something shifted about 1900 B.C., and the Indus civilization started to crumble.
This era was a time of social upheaval all throughout the known world, as many towns were abandoned and people moved out of the countryside. The rise in hostility and violence may be traced back to this period of change and the stress and uncertainty it produced among the populace.
The inhabitants of Harappa’s metropolis clearly experienced regular bouts of war and hardship. This shows that, at least during this time period, the Indus Empire was not a very peaceful one.
What caused the demise of the Indus Valley Civilization?
The fall of the Indus civilization is baffling, as is the fall of many other early great civilizations. Why did this civilization, which once occupied 390,000 square miles (1 million square km) and accounted for up to 10 percent of the world’s population, go away over time? What caused people to abandon the Indus Valley’s major cities and, in many cases, the whole area after 700 years?
There are many proposed explanations for this mystery, but there are only a few solid pieces of evidence. Social upheaval, invasions by neighboring peoples, and a reduction in commerce are all possible explanations that have been proposed by some experts. While some believe that internal strife or external threats to civilization led to its demise, others point to the weather as the likely culprit.
Floods and dry seasons
The Indus Valley and its tributaries were very fertile at the period of the Indus culture, providing abundant opportunities for proper agriculture to feed even bigger towns. Nonetheless, the glacial meltwater from the Himalayas and a considerably less predictable factor: the monsoon, were responsible for this fertile soil and water supply.
In the upstream areas, near the rivers’ sources, the rain was heaviest during the wet season. This water then rolled down the rivers again, generating floods, as it does to this day in Bangladesh and Pakistan, in the form of flash floods and high tides. As was the case with the Nile at the same time, the fertile soil along the riverbanks was made possible by the river’s periodic flooding.
However, unlike ancient Egyptians and even Mesopotamian societies, those who lived in the Indus Valley reportedly didn’t try to manage and regulate these floods by means of irrigation systems. A traditional irrigation farming system has not left any traces that we can find. Could this have been the beginning of the downfall?
Did the monsoon contribute to the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization?
How did weather contribute to the demise of the Indus civilization? After all, other sophisticated cultures like the Maya and the Khmer Empire at Angkor Wat fell victim to dry seasons, too. In fact, in 2012, researchers uncovered Indus culture-related data supporting the same thing.
The researchers began by developing a computerized topography model of the Indus Valley, which was done by Liviu Giosan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and his colleagues. The researchers dug pits and sifted through the silt to piece together the history of the region and the river movements within it. University College London co-author Dorian Fuller discusses how the discovery of this geological data allowed the team to integrate prior knowledge of Indus communities, climate, and agricultural practices.
Climate-friendly, at least initially
The results of the analysis showed that the climate had a major impact on the development of the Indus civilization. Several centuries passed before the first settlements were established in this area, and the environment gradually became drier as a result. The researchers estimate that the height of this dry era occurred about 3200 B.C., which is also when the Indus civilization started to develop.
They believe this is not a coincidence, since climatic change during this period reduced the severity of flash floods along the Indus and its tributaries, but still caused sufficient flooding to enrich the soil in the areas close to the rivers. In particular, the fertile soil and plentiful water supply in the plains where the Indus meets its three connected tributaries—the Jhelum, the Chenab, and the Ravi—made for abundant crops.
Harappa, too, called this place home, since it was nestled within a chain of hills not far from the river’s lush floodplains. Further to the northeast, in the Ghaggar-Hakra river system’s basin, a second population center emerged. The monsoon rains were the primary supply of water for these rivers, not the melting snow. That’s why experts say there weren’t any devastating spring floods, but there was plenty of water throughout the rainy season.
The Himalayas provide a safe haven
Unfortunately, this paradise did not endure. Actually, the drought became much worse. As the monsoon moved east, the Ganges area began receiving more precipitation than the Indus basin. Around 1900 B.C., the Indus River and its tributaries became less prone to catastrophic floods, and large swaths of the southern Ghaggar-Hakra river system were without water for months at a time.
“The expansion of Indus Civilization-era communities near the Ghaggar-Hakra system’s birthplace can also be explained by this,” Giosan says. It’s because even at the foot of the Himalayas, there were still modest floods that permitted at least one harvest a year. However, this repeated climatic change proved disastrous for the tens of thousands of people living in the lowlands’ megacities. As a result, the fields’ ability to provide for the ever-increasing food needs of the populace was severely compromised by the arid weather.
Time to emigrate
If water was becoming more limited, then why didn’t the people of Harappa and the other settlements at least create an irrigation system? Because they could have done something far less difficult. The people of the Indus were able to expand into the wetter lands to the east, towards the Ganges River, whereas the people of Mesopotamia and Egypt were hemmed in by deserts and arid plains. Nonetheless, this movement reduced the overall population density in the Indus Valley.
As the water supply dwindled, people increasingly stopped living in cities and instead settled in smaller communities. It’s likely that society at the time was particularly susceptible to various forms of disruption because of the severity with which the environment had changed. But even this doesn’t explain all that went wrong with the Indus civilization in a single, deterministic explanation. Therefore, it is still not officially known what caused the Indus civilization to collapse.
In 1906, a Danish math historian and philologist named Johan Ludvig Heiberg was able to get his hands on a library catalog. In it was observed a prayer book made of parchment – which was inscribed twice. The book’s synopsis and a transcription of an earlier, overwritten part were both included in the catalog. The earlier text must have originated with Archimedes, a fact that was instantly apparent to Heiberg, one of the foremost experts on ancient Greek mathematics.
This means that the Danish scholar has uncovered the earliest surviving copy of Archimedes‘ works written in Greek. There are no other known copies of the mathematician’s writings that are older than this one by around 400 years. Ancient originals no longer exist since the papyrus scrolls on which Archimedes penned his treatises in the 3rd century BC have long since been destroyed. Texts from antiquity were only carried down if someone copied them at regular intervals.
The Archimedes Palimpsest is consisting of 174 parchment folios.
Page-turning, not page-scrolling, has been the norm since late antiquity
Imaging a palimpsest page reveals the original Archimedes text underneath.
Papyrus was the medium of choice for Archimedes’ writings, most of which were letters to colleagues. All capital letters, no punctuation, and no spaces between words characterize his writing style. The Library of Alexandria, the biggest library of its day, currently has some of his correspondence.
However, even it wasn’t enough to keep Archimedes’ works hidden for long. Papyrus scrolls were no longer used after the 4th century. Books, or codexes, were the format of choice. Any ancient writings that were not in codex form were then forgotten. Authors who were well-liked by their contemporaries in the literary and reading communities could count themselves fortunate, since their works were often reproduced.
That was not the case with Archimedes. We are aware of this because of Eutokios. The mathematician offered commentary on Archimedes’ treatises from the 5th century and highlighted the great challenges Archimedes had in acquiring his writings. In addition to the commentary, Eutokios also transcribed the writings of Archimedes himself, ensuring that many of his writings would endure through the generations.
Only three complete works of Archimedes have survived
Eutokios had avoided the biggest threat, but the ancient book culture still faced more challenges in the near future. Because most libraries went the way of the dinosaurs along with the rest of antiquity. The best scribes and copyists were now located in Christian monasteries, where they showed little enthusiasm for Archimedes’ work.
Since then, only three codices containing Archimedes’ writings have been discovered. All three were originally from Constantinople, which is now Istanbul, and were reproduced in the 9th and 10th centuries. Later, researchers came up with the very original titles Codex A, B, and C for these three versions.
The original text has been translated into other languages. The Latin and then the Arabic versions of Archimedes were still available. Three novels only made it into the Middle Ages from copies of the original Greek manuscripts. Codex B was first recorded as part of a papal library in 1311, and after that it disappeared. So, Codex A was the primary source for Archimedes for centuries, until its disappearance in 1564.
Then came the codex C. At first, nobody could find the book. Codex C was written on parchment and included seven of Archimedes’ treatises. It was made of prepped animal skin. This allowed for easy text extraction and subsequent page reuse. And in 1229, this was precisely what happened with the book.
The most well-known palimpsest ever discovered, Codex C
A page of Archimedes Palimpsest. The prayer book text is read from top to bottom, while the original Archimedes manuscript is read from left to right in a fainter font underneath it. (Credit: The Walters Museum- CC BY 3.0)
It is uncertain how Codex C made its way from Constantinople to Jerusalem, but once there, a local monk dismantled the book, wiped the pages with acid, and then scraped the text off with a stone. After that, he folded the papers in half lengthwise, flipped them through a full 90 degrees, and re-inscribed the text with Christian prayers. The original Codex C was now a palimpsest. But if you squinted, you could make out sketches and words from Archimedes’ treatises.
A monastery close to Bethlehem was where we would find the palimpsest, but a few decades later it turned up in Constantinople. There are no myths or legends surrounding the object’s origin or its subsequent placement. An 1840s citation, however, places it in the Constantinople library of the Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or Metochion. After Heiberg uncovered the palimpsest, he decoded the majority of Archimedes’ Greek text and quickly publicized his findings. Heiberg also photographed the palimpsest, which proved to be crucial since not long thereafter the book was lost forever.
Archimedes is now protected by the World Wide Web forever
Finally making its way to Paris, the piece spent decades collecting dust in a dark, damp basement. In October of 1998, an auction company in New York auctioned a palimpsest that was in such terrible shape that it could hardly be read.
The Greek Ministry of Culture was one of two desperate bids, but in the end, an unnamed American paid $2,000,000 for the book. As it turned out, he cared about keeping the book safe for future generations. This prompted him to make it accessible for study by donating it to Baltimore’s Walters Art Museum not long after he bought it.
It took 10 years for specialists there, led by William Noel, to fix it, remove mold and adhesive, and then scan it using complex imaging techniques. This allowed for the majority of the text to be reconstructed and made legible again. William Noel chronicled the exciting tale of the palimpsest with the help of Reviel Netz in their book, “The Archimedes Codex.”
In this way, the removal of Archimedes’ writing in 1229 helped ensure its continued existence. Indeed, the Internet has made it possible to see what may be the most well-known palimpsest ever in stunningly crisp detail. A remarkable illustration of the string of luck that has to be strung together for ancient wisdom to survive the test of time.
In little over a few centuries, the Mayan culture had all but vanished. There is no agreed-upon explanation for the fall and disappearance of the Maya civilization. Although there are various plausible theories that explain the decline of Maya. Let’s have a look at them here.
There wasn’t any kind of pandemic, curse, or earthquake behind the end of the Maya civilization. American archaeologist Michael D. Coe calls the collapse of the Maya civilization “the deepest social and demographic catastrophe of all the history of the humanity.” And this decline did not happen suddenly. Today, historians and scientists believe that a confluence of several causes led to the abandonment of Mayan cities between the years 800 and 1000.
The Soil Depletion
Chichén Itzá, Tonina, Calakmul, Caracol, Palenque, and many more besides! There are hundreds of city-states in Maya land, including a dozen that can support as many as 70,000 people apiece (such as Tikal). According to research by American climatologist Benjamin I. Cook, between 600 and 800 CE, the Mayan population reached a high of almost 10 million. Time when many flourishing settlements sprung up, including Yaxchilán, Bonampak, Piedras Negras, Copán, Ceibal, Xunantunich, and the Altar de los Sacrificios.
Today, there are several theories to explain why the Mayan towns were abandoned. (Image: Pixabay)
A strength at first glance, however, may rapidly become a vulnerability when you consider that these millions of people also represented millions of hungry stomachs. There was limited space for farming in their tropical and wooded environment. Due to the poor quality of the soil, milpa was employed: two to three years of cultivation followed by eight to ten years of fallow. As their numbers expanded, farmers no longer observed this period of rest and instead enhanced cultural exchange. At this time, the procedure was already in progress.
It required around 15 hectares and 50 days of labor to feed a household of 10 Maya people for a year. A catastrophic threat to Maya communities whose livelihoods depended on the land.
Because of this, Mayan farmers cleared forested areas that are tens of miles from their houses to expand their agricultural domains. An enormous loss of forest cover, which exacerbated problems like soil erosion and nutrient deficiencies as well as, in certain locations like the Petén, significant landslides, and, hence, productivity limitations. The Mayan people were forced to leave the cities because of the widespread malnutrition, starvation, and illnesses that resulted from it.
Climate Change Amplified by Deforestation
Photograph of Maya sacrifice taken from within the cave Actun Tunichil Muknal in Belize. This skeleton is popularly known as the “Crystal Maiden”. Image: Wikimedia.
Scientists have long known that stalagmites provide a powerful witness of the weather conditions of the past due to their unique composition. These limestone structures in the cave of Actun Tunichil Muknal were of interest to anthropologists, climate scientists, and archaeologists in 2012.
After a lengthy period of rainfall (about 450–660), the Maya area underwent spells of significant drought beginning in the 800s, as determined by analyzing its chemical composition, notably the concentration of mineral salts.
As a consequence, a dramatic reduction in yields occurred during the heat wave era due to the overexploitation of resources during the wet years, which was accompanied by a rise in population. An increase in the intensity of a natural occurrence brought on by deforestation. The switch from forest to maize decreased the quantity of moisture transmitted from the land to the sky, which lowered the level of precipitation.
Recent NASA computer calculations suggest that the loss of this forest resulted in a 3 to 5 degree Celsius temperature rise and a 20 to 30% decrease in precipitation. Unfortunately for these communities, corn—their primary food source—is very vulnerable to drought. To assure a harvest, they require at least an annual rainfall of roughly 24 inches or 600 millimeters.
Research shows that the critical 18-inch or 450-millimeter barrier for growing maize was seldom fulfilled between 760 and 910. This occurrence, when added to the soil’s depletion, was a fatal blow. The Maya peasants were unable to provide for themselves in the cities, so they migrated westward into what is now Mexico.
A Dated Political Structure
Map of the Maya region, with main rivers, mountain ranges and regions.
“Theater-states.” This was the governmental structure that the main Mayan towns had, according to American archaeologist Arthur Demarest’s book “Ancient Maya.” This society did not have a king who controlled the government and the economy, but instead relied on a representative government. Kings with “charismatic and shamanic” personalities called K’uhul Ajaw (divine lords) were placed in charge of each city, with the responsibility of maintaining communication between humans and the supernatural. His power came from the ritualization of his deity. The decline of the Maya culture was hastened in part due to these wasteful practices.
The territory’s structure, with so many separate cities, encouraged rivalry. The king felt pressure to increase his displays of riches as a symbol of his superiority over his subjects. The growth of cities from the 700s to the 800s amplified this competition for status. The enormous expenditures eventually brought the city to collapse.
The population boom and polygamy among the elite, which expanded the number of princes eager to face each other for positions of power, also contributed to the instability. Disputes that became deadly were a desecrated kind of authority. When the K’uhul Ajaw started acting “too human,” people had a harder time believing in him. More so since the notables of the time were unable to alleviate the famine that afflicted the Mayan populace in the 800s.
The only thing Maya found to do to stop the drought was to engage in more gory rites, offering sacrifices to the gods of rain (Chac) and agriculture (Ahmakiq). The ingredients for collapse were met: a devastated society in which people feared for their safety every day. As a result, uprisings sprang out, and the Maya presumably fled to the north.
Civil Conflicts Within the Maya Civilization
Stones from Maya temples, village castles, abandoned palaces, toppled thrones, and even damaged sculptures were used to construct hastily erected defensive walls. Not only do the ruins from the late classical era (about 900) stand in stark contrast to the typical Maya environment, but they also bear witness to a high degree of militarism and bloodshed.
The Mayan city-states often engaged in conflict and rivalry with one another. A method for kings to strengthen their rule and acquire human sacrifices for the gods. However, the instability seems to have been more pronounced after the year 900. Cities were drawn further and deeper into a hellish spiral as the frequency and severity of disputes rose.
A large portion of the population fled to exile as a result of the conflict, and governmental Maya authority began to weaken. The decline of Maya society paved the way for the conquest of the region by neighboring civilizations in Mesoamerica. Frescoes and pottery from the 9th century in places like Chichén Itzá, Tikal, and Ceibal witness the confluence of Mayan and Toltec patterns.
More centralized systems, like those of the Toltecs and Mixtecs, which the Aztecs would eventually adopt, gradually superseded the Maya “theater-states.” Even though the great cities were deserted, however, the Mayan culture has not been eradicated. About 6 million individuals in Central America can still communicate in Mayan languages.
The most pivotal moment in human history occurred around 11,000 years ago, when agriculture was first developed. It made space for novel ways of thinking and doing things, as well as for a reorganization of society. For what reasons did modern Homo sapiens first begin farming? Actually, nobody can say for sure. The emergence of agriculture, however, was crucial to the subsequent growth of urban centers, literacy, and ultimately, civilization.
Since the Neolithic Era forward, human sustenance has shifted away from hunting and gathering to agriculture and livestock raising. In the 10th millennium BC, this shift began in the Near East and spread to other population hubs throughout the globe. Population expansion, attesting to a change in lifestyle that resulted in higher food demands, explains this phenomenon.
Several key innovations have shaped the history of agriculture, including the plow, crop rotation, irrigation systems, and the use of fertilizers. These innovations improved crop yields and made agriculture more efficient.
Improvements in Farming
Several times during the 10th and 8th millennia B.C., people on all four continents “developed” agriculture on their own. The archaeological remnants of plants and animals are our only source of information, although their numbers were likely far larger in reality. Even before the first traces of agriculture, it’s likely that ancient hunter-gatherers had established a kind of proto-agricultural by dispersing seeds or tubers from the plants they had gathered from the wild to ensure that the plants would not be depleted.
Neolithic agricultural equipment.
Recent hunter-gatherer cultures apparently still engaged in this method, as shown by anthropological research. Under the right circumstances, it has even developed into a full-fledged manufacturing sector. Tools like the millstone for grinding, the knife for harvesting, and the digging stick were all creations of the hunter-gatherers. There was no need to develop brand-new technologies to facilitate the emergence of agriculture.
While humans have been around for at least 300,000 years, agriculture as a subsistence economy didn’t emerge until around 11,000 years ago and it took centuries to become widespread. This means that fewer than 5% of human history, or around 500 generations, has been spent as “farmers.” Accordingly, natural selection has led to our species’ development, notably in our forager ancestry. Natural selection, however, benefited those who engaged in agriculture. The evidence may be found in the decipherment of the human genome.
For instance, lactase, an enzyme that allows newborns to digest lactose, a milk protein, has persisted in adults thanks to a genetic mutation in the DNA of Central European herders 6,000 years ago. After the age of four, most people lose the ability to digest lactose because this enzyme stops being produced. This mutation is now widespread throughout Europe but is rare or nonexistent in regions such as the Far East and South America, where milk production from domesticated animals is not commercially exploited.
Early agricultural societies used various techniques, such as slash-and-burn agriculture, terracing, and the cultivation of staple crops like wheat, barley, and rice. These techniques varied depending on the region and available resources.
Agriculture Helps Increase the Population
Paleolithic village.
Thus, the descendants of settled farmers rose to prominence at the expense of their nomadic ancestors. Because of their low reproductive success, the latter were driven to the margins of the earth, if not eradicated altogether, while farmers came to rule the world. The number of Homo sapiens has increased from 2–5 million to 8 billion since the advent of agriculture. This agricultural production system has never ceased changing natural vegetation, with more alarming environmental repercussions, and this is directly responsible for the dramatic increase in the world’s population.
Despite the wide spread of agriculture, only a select few societies were able to develop under the influence of this economic model. To begin, have a look at South-West Asia. Due to the semi-arid environment, the ruins in this area are in remarkably good condition, making it one of the finest documented regions in the world by archaeologists. Cereals like wheat, barley, and rye, as well as legumes like peas, chickpeas, and lentils, grow wild in their native environment in the Fertile Crescent (seen on the map). The previous ice age occurred 23,000 years ago, and at that time, wheat and barley were already being cultivated.
About 14,000 years ago, in the southern Levant, people settled down thanks to the great yields and easy storage of these plants (Israel, Palestine, Jordan). Then, starting about 11,000 years ago, locals started growing and using grains commercially on a huge scale. Through Darwinian selection, the plants that were most suited to cultivation eventually became the dominant species, while their wild relatives were extinct over the course of the next millennium. Domestication (or cultivar improvement) began with natural selection and evolved into the intentional breeding used today.
Early Stages of Livestock Breeding
Agriculture of Ancient Egypt.
Animal husbandry, including the domestication of the cow, goat, sheep, and pig, also began in this period, around 10,500 years ago. Plants and animals provided the starch (a vast energy store!) that powered the subsequent flourishing of civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Europe beginning in the 4th millennium BC. This agricultural assemblage could adjust to many climates, allowing it to expand from northern Europe to the Americas, Africa, and even Australia. The urbanization, irrigation, animal traction, and literacy that followed the development of agriculture.
Further annual grain plants were domesticated elsewhere, giving birth to additional civilizations as well. These included rice and millet in China, maize in Central America, quinoa in South America, and millet and sorghum in Africa. In tropical regions like the Amazon and New Guinea, horticultural systems based on tubers have become the backbone of subsistence agriculture.
That begs the question: why did we develop agriculture? Scientists have long been intrigued by this subject, and they often discuss it by bringing up topics like population expansion, climate change, technical, mental, and social advancements, or the overexploitation of resources. However, it is common for us to mix the causes with the results. The habitat, climate, and civilization of each agricultural domestication site are distinct from one another. The “why” question has been replaced by a focus on the “how” and “by what procedures” of agriculture’s spread to new areas of the globe.
Bibliography
Melinda Zeder (2011). “The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East”. Current Anthropology.
One of the first human societies, Ancient Egypt, had been around for a very long time. King Narmer of Egypt united Upper and Lower Egypt before the year 3000 BC. He ushered in a dynasty of pharaohs that ruled Egypt for nearly 2,500 years. The Nile’s frequent yearly floods ensured more bountiful crops, which contributed to Egypt’s and the Pharaohs’ long lifespans and prosperous rule. The river served as the primary north-south transportation corridor, and the vast desert that surrounded it served as a natural barrier against invaders while also providing a source of construction materials and valuable metals. As a result of the Nile’s depletion, Egypt became a desert, and the development of Egyptian civilization was likely prevented. Egypt is a gift from the Nile, as the Greek historian Herodotus put it in the 5th century BC.
The Nile Valley is 500 miles (800 kilometers) long, beginning at the first cataract of the river near the old Egyptian boundary and ending at the Mediterranean. The Nile rises in the Ethiopian Highlands, much to the south of modern-day Egypt.
Back in Ancient Egypt, the waters of the Nile River were swelled by the onset of summer’s heavy rains, and by the conclusion of the season, it overflowed its banks into Egypt. As the water levels dropped, the floods left behind a damp, silty landscape. The Ancient Egyptians never required flood walls or elaborate water management techniques.
Ancient Egyptians planted their seeds in the fall in the rich, soggy soil, and then allowed the crops to mature in the winter sun. Then, in the spring, they harvested the fields just in time for the next flood. Only when the Nile floods were really bad did the people suffer from famine.
Around the 6th millennium BC (6000 to 5001 BC), farmers established themselves in the Nile Valley. The Sahara, now a huge grassland punctuated by numerous lakes, was formerly cultivable when North Africa was wetter than it is now. The environment started becoming drier and more desert-like about 4000 BC. Some Egyptian farmers became nomad herders, while others settled in the Nile Valley.
The beginnings of Egyptian culture
People living in the Nile Valley had been dividing the country into two distinct parts for thousands of years: Upper Egypt, in the south, along the river, and Lower Egypt, in the north, surrounding the delta. The southern area was guarded by the vulture goddess Nekhbet, while the northern part was guarded by the cobra goddess Wadjet. Both regions also had their own symbols, the lotus and the white crown in the south, the papyrus and the red crown in the north.
A kingdom developed in the southern area of Upper Egypt just before 3000 BC. It was during this time that the pictographic writing system of hieroglyphics was in widespread use. According to history, Narmer, the first king of Egypt, united the land by leading an army to victory over Lower Egypt. He made Memphis the new state capital due to its central location and strategic importance. Egypt’s successor kings built a robust administration during their time in power. Due to his divine lineage as the son of Ra, the sun god, the king was able to rule for all time.
The documents that have made it down to us have allowed historians to create a thorough list of the royal dynasties that dominated ancient Egypt and the approximate dates of their reigns, which span nearly continuously from 2920 to 30 BC. They did this by creating time eras in Egypt’s history. Following the collapse of the early dynasties (2920–2649 BC), the old empire (2649–2134 BC) saw royal rule expand southward all the way to Nubia. The conflict between competing dynasties (the first intermediate period, 2134–2040 BC) was followed by the reunification of Egypt under the Middle Kingdom (2040–1640 BC).
Pharaoh: ruler, and deity or a god-king
The Pharaohs were the kings and queens of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh was both a human king and the divine offspring of the sun deity Ra. The Egyptians saw the Pharaoh as the embodiment of the gods, who sent him to Earth to act as a mediator between the gods and humans. The Pharaoh only would become a god after his death if the Egyptians believed he had supernatural abilities, such as the ability to control the Nile’s annual floods.
How the Pharaoh’s authority shaped Egyptian society
During his reign, the pharaoh had unchecked authority since he served as head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and spiritual leader for his people. Supporting him in his efforts was a strong administration, with the viziers as the show-stopping protagonists. Since this was the case, the pharaoh enjoyed unchecked and consolidated authority.
The many facets of the pharaoh’s authority were represented by his characteristics. He represented national sovereignty by donning the pschent, the twofold crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. The uraeus, the snake symbol of protection, was tattooed on his forehead. The ruler held two scepters (the hook and the whip) as symbols of his authority.
Up to Alexander the Great‘s invasion of Egypt in 332 BC, 31 dynasties of pharaohs ruled Egypt in succession (because the following rulers, i.e., the Macedonian and Ptolemaic dynasties, were not really pharaohs).
Ancient Egyptian Empire
About 2649 BC, a time period known as the Old Empire began. Both the Egyptian kingdom and culture were expected to develop their signature features during this time. The Old Kingdom was the time when ideals were established that would serve as constant touchstones for years, if not millennia, to come.
The notion of divine kingship underpinned the whole of pharaonic Egyptian society. The king, as the reincarnation of Horus and the son of Osiris, acted as both an interpreter and an agent of the life force that kept the universe going. He was the only person responsible for managing the government and the economy. He had ownership of all of Egypt. The peasants, who were deemed to be dependents and were thus obligated to do tasks, did so in family teams overseen by royal authorities. The Old Kingdom monarchy was centralized and bureaucratic, yet it was not an arbitrary system. Power and fairness were always inextricably intertwined concepts.
In the beginning, only the king could attain immortality. When he dies, he becomes like the deity Osiris and watches over his home and the people from above. Therefore, the primary task of Egyptian dynasties was the building of tombs that would stand the test of time and ensure the king’s eternal legacy. The Egyptians led military expeditions against the Nubians, Libyans, and Sinai nomads since the reign of Snefru (about 2625–2601 BC) to acquire the raw materials needed for their great achievements, like wood from Lebanon.
The builders of the Egyptian pyramids
Massive structures began to arise throughout the Old Kingdom. Imhotep, minister to King Djoser, erected the first royal tomb at Saqqara, a seven-tiered structure with rows of stones defining the levels. This huge monument was built to honor a king who, even in death, continues to watch over his subjects.
Thanks to the pyramids of Giza, we know the names of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. The slanting sun rays symbolized by the pyramids’ form let the king’s soul reach heaven after death. For decades, a massive workforce was recruited to create these massive stone monuments.
The Pharaoh was mummified after his death. Mummification, a method that emerged in Ancient Egypt about the 3rd millennium BC, involved drying the corpse to prevent it from decomposing further. The bandage made the body seem nearly alive. In this way, the body would serve as a home for the soul all the time.
The pharaoh’s body was relocated to the pyramid’s central burial chamber. The walls of the chamber were covered with texts and magic formulae, and the luxurious items inside were meant to follow the departed into the afterlife. As soon as the funeral was over, the entrance to the room was blocked up with stones.
The pyramids were not constructed by slaves, as is often believed, but rather by trained artisans with the assistance of idle peasants during the flood season. How the hundreds of massive stone slabs were lifted and stacked one above the other remains a mystery.
Due to the high cost involved, pyramid building was abandoned after the end of the Middle Kingdom. When it came to displaying their riches and authority, the following Egyptian kings favored constructing temples adorned with huge bas-reliefs and sculptures.
The Middle Kingdom
The seated scribe, c. 2620-2500 BC. (Credit: Rama, BY-SA 2.0)
The period between the end of the 7th dynasty and the start of the 6th dynasty, or roughly 2152 BC and 2065 BC, is known as the First Intermediate Period. The invasions caused the region to become fractured, starvation to develop, and rebellion movements to proliferate, all of which coincided with the spread of the religion of Osiris, goddess of agriculture (who also taught mankind the technique of making beer).
In the year 2050 BC, after many years of civil conflict, Egypt was finally reunited under the rule of Mentuhotep II of Thebes. The Old Kingdom’s rigid structure was gradually dismantled and replaced with a more malleable Middle Kingdom governance, beginning about the year 2050 or 1786 BC.
During this time period, a theological compromise was reached with the Theban and Heliopolitan clergy in which Amun was connected with Ra. This was done in an effort to strengthen national unity. Throughout the 2nd millennium, the authority of the Amun priesthood was to be strengthened. Amenemhat I (1991-1962 BC) and Senusret III (1877-1843 BC), kings of the 12th dynasty, worked to reduce regional influence over the central government.
By acting as an intermediary between Amun-Ra and humanity, the pharaoh was able to increase his own authority, decreasing regional feudalism and guaranteeing the continuity of the kingdom during his own reign. Simultaneously, the possibility of eternal life opened up to a wider range of people. From now on, anybody could go there, so long as they adhere to the ritual’s tight guidelines. During this time, scribes reached the height of their power; they were the first real “middle class,” standing between commoners and nobles.
The Middle Kingdom wasn’t more “imperialist” than the one before it, but its kings still wanted to protect Egypt by fortifying its outposts. In the north-east, Amenemhat I had the “Prince’s Wall” built in front of the Bedouins (around 1976 BC); in the south, the high valley of the Nile was annexed up to Semma, beyond the second cataract, at the borders of Nubia. And it was protected by the construction, under the 12th dynasty, of fourteen fortresses that extended from Elephantine to Semna (Nubia).
Amenemhat III (1842–1797 BC) had a massive funerary complex, the “labyrinth” of the Greeks, in the center of the city and constructed and ordered massive works of drainage and irrigation for its expansion.
Egypt’s culture was revived after a period of invasion
A painting of an ancient Egyptian chariot. (Credit: Image)
After nearly three centuries of relative stability, the Ancient Egyptians began a period of turmoil known as the second intermediate period (1640–1532 BC). The inflow of Semitic inhabitants from Asia, who had been pushed out by the Indo-European invasions, threatens the stability of Egypt’s government. The Hyksos, who had established themselves in the region to the northeast of the Delta, waited until the pharaohs of the 13th and 14th dynasties fell from power to conquer all of Lower Egypt.
As a result of their military prowess, Egypt was able to acquire horses and chariots. Avaris, the Hyksos’ power hub, enters a new intermediate era as the seat of a 15th foreign dynasty. The Hyksos monarchs followed the Egyptian pharaohs’ example and adopted their cartouche and procedure, as well as Egyptian culture and religion.
Pharaoh: its origins and significance
The southerners put up a fight against the invaders. The rulers of Thebes took it upon themselves to free the land between Elephantine and Abydos. Even though Kamose was successful in his fight against the Hyksos, it was his brother, the Pharaoh Ahmose I, who ultimately expelled the invaders and united the land once more. When he assumed power in around 1552 or 1070 BC, he established the 18th dynasty and the New Kingdom. It was Ahmose who established the New Kingdom and the 18th dynasty (about 1552-1070 BC). It was during this era that the title “pharaoh” first appeared in historical records. This moniker, which translates to “great palace,” was chosen to reflect their prominent position within the administration.
The Egyptians realized that the period of seclusion from which their nation had benefited until the advent of the Hyksos was finished after experiencing foreign occupation. Egypt invested heavily in its military and fought a succession of endless battles for four centuries to secure its position of dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean marine commerce, the control of the Syro-Palestinian ports, and the caravan routes going to Mesopotamia.
The New Kingdom, in contrast to the Old and Middle Kingdoms, was unwaveringly imperialist; it vied with the Mitanni and the Hittites, the other two major nations of the time, for dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean, but it was never victorious.
The New Kingdom: the golden age of Ancient Egypt
Thutmose III (1481-1425 BC).
The 18th dynasty (c. 1570–1319 BC) was the height of Ancient Egyptian power and prestige on the international stage (thanks to conquests) and inside the country (thanks to the opulence of the court and the blossoming of literature and the arts; see the Necropolis of the Valley of the Kings). From the time of Pharaoh Amenhotep I (1546–1524 BC), Egyptian forces flooded Syria and reached the Euphrates; however, these early successes were rapidly nullified by local revolts and a dynastic crisis in Egypt (usurpation of queen Hatshepsut, 1503-1482 BC).
In 1482-1450 BC, under Thutmose III, all of the previous conquering efforts in Asia had to be restarted from scratch. This king, the greatest in Egyptian history, commanded no less than eighteen expeditions to Asia during his lifetime. At Megiddo (1482 BC), he destroyed a great Syrian-Palestinian alliance led by Mitanni, then he captured Kadesh on the Orontes (1474 BC), and finally he reached the Euphrates again, completing the conquest of Syria (1472 BC).
Ahmose, during the start of the 18th dynasty, retook control of southern Nubia, which had previously been subjugated to the Middle Kingdom. Expeditions led by Thutmose II and Thutmose III penetrated far into Kush, extending Egypt’s southern frontier to the fourth cataract (before 1477 BC). The New Kingdom’s administrative structure reflected a tremendous amount of regional variation. Once the middle class of scribes and prosperous peasants vanished with the Hyksos invasion, the pharaohs were forced to rely on a body of city officials that was considerably less in number than previously but was hereditary.
Nothing about imperial rule in the conquered nations could be described as dictatorial. When a viceroy was put in charge of Nubia, the region was rapidly and thoroughly Egyptianized. However, the pharaohs in Asia were content with a more lenient regime of protectorates and alliances, which left the local princes in place, and respected the local customs, languages, and indigenous religions. Economic responsibilities (trade contracts guaranteeing Egypt’s standing as a favored country), military obligations (annual payment of a tribute in kind: slaves, ore, horses, war chariots, livestock, timber, oil, etc.), and financial commitments all helped to establish Egyptian suzerainty (each subjugated people had to provide a contingent which served on the spot, under the command of Egyptian officers).
From the Amarna Period until the Ramesside Dynasty
Bas-relief depicting Amenhotep IV (Pharaoh Akhenaten, c. 1360- 1342 BC) while worshiping the solar disc, 18th dynasty. (Image)
It was under the reign of Amenhotep III (about 1417–1379 BC) that the “Egyptian peace” reached its pinnacle, ushering in an age of extraordinary affluence, luxury, and sweetness of life. The Theban priesthood, however, had not stopped expanding its sphere of authority and land holdings since the New Kingdom’s outset; the high priest of Amun had become something of a de facto second personage of the State.
Amenophis IV (1379–1362 BC) chose to leave the worship of Amun, the deity of his dynasty, and create the pure religion of Aten, the solar disk, as a reaction to this interference and, possibly, also to base the Pharaonic empire permanently on a religion more broadly available to men of all nations. The king, now known as Akhenaten (which means “Splendor of Aten”), and his wife, Nefertiti, relocated the capital from Thebes to the city of Akhenaten (or Amarna in Egyptian).
The Theban priesthood, representing Egyptian particularism, fought back violently against the revolution. Upon becoming king, Tutankhamun (1361–1352 BC), Amenhotep IV’s son-in-law and heir, had to immediately make peace with the Amun priests, return to Thebes, and reinstate the traditions. The crisis not only crippled the Egyptian monarchy outside (the Hittites having replaced the Egyptians in Syria by around 1375 BC), but also severely damaged its reputation domestically. After a period of chaos after the death of young Tutankhamun, the general Horemheb took control (1348–1320 BC) and began the restructuring of the state on the basis of the strictest traditionalism, with the backing of the Theban church, which was more powerful than ever. Egypt’s 19th dynasty (1319–1200 BC) was an attempt to revive the country’s former Asian dominance.
Sometime between 1318 and 1304 BC, Seti I retook southern Palestine. Ramses II (1304–1238 BC) attempted to retake Syria from the Hittites, but was defeated at Kadesh (c. 1300 BC), and subsequent campaigns were fruitless. Finally, in 1284 BC, the Egyptians and Hittites signed a treaty dividing Syria between them, and the treaty was confirmed by Ramses II’s marriage to the daughter of the Hittite king Hattusili III. This meant that the New Kingdom gave up on Eastern dominance for good, but it also brought around forty years of calm, during which classical Egyptian civilization shone its last light (construction of the funerary temple of Abu-Simbel, of the hypostyle hall of Karnak).
Decline of the pharaohs and end of Ancient Egypt
With the threat posed by the Hittites eliminated, the territory now needed to be protected from the Sea Peoples, who were making their way inland from the coasts of Asia Minor and Greece after being pushed out of those areas by subsequent Indo-European invasions and the arrival of the Dorians in the Aegean Sea. Merneptah, son and successor of Ramses II, drove them back.
Because of Pharaoh’s oppression, the Jews decided to escape Egypt and go with Moses to the land that God promised them. The New Kingdom’s collapse started with the death of Ramses III, the second king of the 20th dynasty. After the Assyrians and Libyans destroyed the empire and surrounded it, the priesthood of Amun, led by high priest Herihor, seized authority in Upper Egypt.
Egypt had lost the ability to defend itself against the relentless invasions, notwithstanding brief periods of strength under the reigns of pharaohs Shoshenq I (945-924 BC) and Psamtik I (664-610 BC). The final pharaohs were so badly off financially that they couldn’t even afford a tomb before it was destroyed. From then, Egypt fell under the rule of the Nubians, the Assyrians, and the Persians until finally capitulating to Alexander the Great’s army in 332 BC. The Ptolemies, a family of Greek ancestry, took control of Egypt and established themselves as the ruling dynasty.
Up to the 2nd century BC, Alexandria, the Ptolemaic capital, was a thriving economic and cultural hub. The Ptolemaic empire eventually collapsed due to internal strife, populist uprisings, and battles with the Seleucids. A series of weak monarchs led to the collapse of the Ptolemaic dynasty in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, when Rome became more involved in the country’s affairs.
Cleopatra was the last and most well-known of the Ptolemaic monarchs. She reigned autonomously at first but eventually received help from Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. After she and her son Ptolemy XIV, Caesarion, died in 30 BC, the Ptolemaic dynasty collapsed and Augustus seized Egypt for the Roman Empire. Incredibly, even the earliest known civilization managed to leave behind a rich cultural and artistic legacy that would be appreciated by future generations.
