What is the evidence?

observation

Ceramic and settlement assemblages conventionally called Amirabad begin around the final centuries of the target interval in some schemes.

Inspect the sources →
Review and provenance

Specialist reviewer: not recorded. Review date: not recorded.

Dataset workflow: proposed. This is separate from specialist review.

Confidence describes the stated assessment; it does not certify expert approval. How review works.

Chronology

Dating intervals may describe uncertainty or phases; their width alone does not establish event duration.

Preferred assertion

900 BCE–800 BCE

Precision: range

low

Working range preserves source uncertainty and should be refined with site-level dates.

  • informs · provides historiography
    ARCHAEOLOGY v. Pre-Islamic Central Asia — Vadim Mikhailovich Masson (1986)

    Supports cautious placement and highlights uncertainty.


    Locator: Amirabad chronology and terminology review

Interpretation and caveats

The horizon represents local Khorezm change and overlap with earlier traditions; its exact start and relationship to Tazabagyab require renewed dating.

Event context

Classification

Event type: final bronze early iron transition

Evidence layer: archaeological

Timeline role: regional core

Why it matters to the timeline

The event covers the requested Amirabad tradition only where it overlaps 900-800 BCE.

Research notes

  • Supports cautious placement and highlights uncertainty. Role: provides historiography. Locator: Amirabad chronology and terminology review.

Evidence and sources

  • informs · provides historiography
    ARCHAEOLOGY v. Pre-Islamic Central Asia — Vadim Mikhailovich Masson (1986)

    Supports cautious placement and highlights uncertainty.


    Locator: Amirabad chronology and terminology review

Where to go next

Referenced records