Storage Structures of the Late Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant and the Urbanisation Process

Golani, Amir; Yannai, Eli

doi:10.1080/00310328.2015.1096049

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the debates as to the size of sites in the EB vs. those of the MB and sites of Mesopotamia, there are some additional considerations-the size of sites as reported by excavators varies in the consideration of the acropolis area only (walled area or tell summit) or the inclusion of the lower town (e.g. [119]; [22]; [120]). Likewise, the largest urban sites of Mesopotamia extend over not only one acropolis and lower town but in many instances cover the summits of multiple hills which (e.g.…”

Section: Distinguishing Between Urban and Rural And Upper And Lower Townsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beginning during the subsequent EB Ib (Phase 3: c.3300-2900 cal BCE), urban sites are first argued to appear in the southern Levant (e.g. [22]; [120]). However, as can be seen in Figs 2 and 3, both rural and putative urban sites continue to demonstrate a range of choices in animal management with no clear pattern in taxonomic proportions between rural and urban groups.…”

Section: Taxonomic Proportionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, cattle may have been kept on urban sites as labour sources in trade activities or for the movement (and storage, e.g. [22]) of agricultural surplus. This may potentially have contributed to the increased representation of cattle during the EB II and III, although one might then expect to see a more consistent increase is also in the presence of other beasts of burden, namely domestic equids (absent during the EB II but present during the EB III although absent again in the MB II).…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the disagreements over interpretation, there is a clear need to comparatively consider multiple aspects of social and societal development in order to understand the nature of EB society in the southern Levant. This has become apparent within both viewpoints ( [15]; [22]; [3]; [6]). Recent investigations of putative urbanism in this region have successfully utilised comparisons between EB and MB settlement dynamics and productive specialisation ( [3]) between developments in the southern Levant with those in the northern Levant and Mesopotamia ( [3]; [23]), and also between regions within the southern Levant ( [24]; [25]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

There and back again: A zooarchaeological perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant

Gaastra

Greenfield

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple arguments for or against the presence of 'urban' settlements in the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant have identified the need to compare these settlements against their rural hinterlands through multiple lines of evidence. This meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from the region compares and identifies patterns of animal production, provisioning and consumption between the supposed "urban" and rural sites of the southern Levant from the Early Bronze (EB) against the (more widely recognised urban) Middle Bronze (MB) Ages. It also identifies distinct and regionally specific patterns in animal production and consumption that can be detected between urban and rural sites of the southern Levant. The taxonomic and age profiles from EB Ia and Ib sites do not demonstrate any urban versus rural differentiation patterning, even though fortifications appear in the EB Ib. Beginning in the EB II and clearly visible in the EB III, there is differentiation between rural and urban sites in the taxonomic and age proportions. Differentiation is repeated in the MB II. The clear differentiation between "urban" and rural zooarchaeological assemblages from the EB II-III and MB suggest that rural sites are provisioning the larger fortified settlements. This pattern indicates that these sites are indeed urban in nature, and these societies are organized at the state-level. From the EB II onwards, there is a clear bias in the large centres towards the consumption of cattle and of subadult sheep and goats with a corresponding bias in smaller rural sites towards the consumption of adult sheep and goats and a reduced presence of cattle. After the emergence of this differential pattern, it disappears with the decline in social complexity at the end of the Early Bronze Age, only to come 'back again' with the re-emergence of urban settlement systems in the Middle Bronze Age.

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing Between Urban and Rural And Upper And Lower Townsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Taxonomic Proportionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

There and back again: A zooarchaeological perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant

Gaastra

Greenfield

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct indications of large-scale, centralised storage are, however, rare, and usually associated with the Early Bronze Age and later periods (e.g. Mazar 2001; Milevski et al 2014; Golani & Yannai 2016). Moreover, ethnographic evidence for ritual and symbolic behaviour pertaining to large-scale storage (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%