Sometimes Defence is Just an Excuse: Fortification Walls of the Southern Levantine Early Bronze Age

Abstract

The Early Bronze Age (EBA) of the southern Levant was the first period in which many sites became fortified. This process reached its climax during the latter part of the period (namely Early Bronze III). Until recently, most scholars saw this phenomenon as an indication that the period was characterized by a high level of organized conflict. The following article analyses the fortifications of eight EBA sites, as well as other markers of warfare, and argues that the period's fortifications were not as tactically efficient as they seem. Furthermore, other markers of war are generally missing. It seems that the period's fortifications were built mainly to demonstrate a town's might and power while deterring potential attackers. Taking into account the rise of social complexity during the period, they were also used to consolidate the society through the construction process and possibly to control movement and serve as a boundary marker. Incipient leaders, who planned and coordinated the construction, used possible threats and the construction process to aggrandize themselves as being the ‘protectors’ of the settlement.

Resistance and Authority at the Beginning of Urbanism: The Case of Tel Bet Yerah Broken Maceheads

“…Although the EBA has been seen as a violent period (e.g. Yadin 1963), our recent research contests this notion due to the lack of other weapons, a dearth of clear destruction levels, and the poor functionality of the period's fortifications (Ashkenazi 2020). This, together with the impracticability of the EB mace as a weapon for war, make the booty‐destruction option less plausible.…”

“…Despite that, little evidence of centralized administration or social stratification was found. On the other hand, during the EB III ( c .2850–2500/2450 BC), prestige items became somewhat more common, fortifications became more elaborate, and palatial structures were built in several fortified centres, all elements likely testifying to a more stratified society (Philip 2008; Greenberg 2019; Ashkenazi 2020; Paz 2020). Concurrent with the transition to EB III, the first evidence for the arrival of a distinct, non‐local material cultural assemblage appears at sites in the northern Jordan Valley.…”

Villavieja (Fuentes de Cesna-Algarinejo, Granada). Nuevas aportaciones a los poblados amurallados de la Edad del Cobre en el Subbético de Andalucía

“…El problema radica en buscar una única razón explicativa de todos estos lugares en la diversidad territorial donde se encuentran. En nuestro caso, podemos concluir que el diseño preconcebido nos indica su intencionalidad, señalando una incipiente poliorcética (Keeley et al 2007), al que hay que unir otros significados que expliquen un sobreesfuerzo muy por encima de las potenciales amenazas (Delfino 2016;Ashkenazi 2020). Existe una intencionalidad a elaborar una estructura socialmente significativa por su extensión y diseño que implicó reforzar su estabilidad mediante soluciones prácticas (anchura de muro, plataforma o muro de refuerzo, ataluzamiento, etc).…”

Ancient Urban Assemblages and Complex Spatial and Socio-Political Organization in Iron Age Archaeological Sites from Southern Africa

“…Influenced by their western home backgrounds and experience, many early European observers interpreted the Zimbabwe Culture stone walling as defensive and described the ancient city of Great Zimbabwe as a fortress (Bent, 1896;Hall, 1905). This was an unsurprising view, given that many monumental or stone-built constructions known in Europe and Asia were generally assigned a defensive fortification function without consideration of any other possibilities, an interpretation which is no longer wholly acceptable as recently discussed by Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi, 2020).…”