Heartlands and Hinterlands

8/3/2019 Heartlands and Hinterlands

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heartlands-and-hinterlands 1/23

Society for American Archaeology

Heartlands and Hinterlands: Alternative Trajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamiaand the Southern LevantAuthor(s): Steven E. Falconer and Stephen H. SavageReviewed work(s):Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 37-58Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282075 .

Accessed: 07/02/2012 21:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/282075?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/282075?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam



HEARTLANDS AND HINTERLANDS:

ALTERNATIVE TRAJECTORIES OF EARLY URBANIZATION IN

MESOPOTAMIA AND THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Steven E. Falconer and Stephen H. Savage

Comparative ank-sizeanalysesrevealhighlyvariablecoursesof urbanizationn ancientMesopotamiaand the

southernLevantduring he ourth throughearlysecond millenniaB.C. Whiletraditional ank-sizemethodsdo not

consider he effectsof archaeological ampling,weproposea revisedapproachbasedon Monte Carlosimulation,which ncorporatesite-recoveryates and demonstrates he advantagesof 'full-coverage"urvey.Wehighlight he

rapiddevelopment f urbanprimacy n southernMesopotamia'sheartland Adams1981) and the more staticrural

integrationof the Diyala hinterland Adams 1965). In contrast,BronzeAge urbanizationn the southernLevantdescribesa mosaic of urbanand ruralsystems ollowing independent rajectories.We callfor greaterattentiontosmall sites, whichoften define heshapeof rank-sizedistributions.Ourapproachlluminatesmodestcasesof urban-izationin termsof structure, ather hansimply of reduced cale,and avoidsa tendency o categorize uch cases asderivative.

Los andlisiscomparativos el rangode tamaniode asentamientos evelanunagranvariabilidadn el rumbohacia

la urbanizacion n la Mesopotamiaantiguay en el sur de Levantea travesdel cuarto milenio hastaprincipiosdel

segundo milenio A.C. Los metodos de rango-tamanoempleadostradicionalmenteno consideran os efectosdelmuestreoarqueologico.Por ello proponemosuna perspectiva istinta de aquellos,basadaen la simulacionMonteCarlo la cual incorpora stimacionesde los sitios recuperados demuestra as ventajasde los reconocimientos e

superficie e "coberturaotal."Distinguimosaprimaciadelrdpidodesarrollo rbano n el nucleode la Mesopotamiasurena(Adams1981) de la integracion uralmds estdticaen la periferiadelDiyala (Adams1965).En contraste,aurbanizacion n la Edad de Bronce en el sur de Levantepresentaun mosaicode sistemas ruralesy urbanosque

siguen trayectoriasndependientes. onemosmayoratencionen los sitiospequenos, os cuales con recuenciadefinenla forma de las distribuciones e rango-tamano.Nuestroperspectiva lustra casos modestos de urbanizacion nterminosde estructura n lugarde una simpleescalareducida, evita la tendenciade categorizar stos casos comoderivativos.

T he title of Robert Adams's book Heart-

land of Cities succinctly captures a theme

that unifies many of the most influential anal-

yses of early civilizations: the evo-

lution of urbanism. Urbanized societies fea-

tured city centers that were differentiatedfrom, but integrated with, their rural periph-eries (e.g., Redman 1978:215-216). The

closely related process of "urbanization" gaverise to urban economic and political primacy,

based on the "increasingly substantial pro-

portion of the population of a settlement sys-tem [that] came either to live in a central

place or to be involved in a variety of waysin the activities of a central place" (Clarke

1979:436). A substantial literature focuses onthe diverse forms and functions of pre-in-dustrial cities (e.g., Sanders and Webster 1988;

Wheatley 1971; Adams 1966). However, we

argue that urban studies are most compelling

Steven E. Falconer * Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402

Stephen H. Savage * Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53201

American Antiquity, 60(1), 1995, pp. 37-58.

Copyright ? 1995 by the Society for American Archaeology

37



AMERICANANTIQUITY

when they comprehend entire networks of

sedentary settlement and, in so doing, distin-

guish different trajectories whereby cities,

towns, villages, and hamlets became incor-

porated or disarticulated as regional systemscoalesced or broke down (e.g., Adams 1981).

Nonsedentary populations tend to leave more

ephemeral archaeological signatures that of-

ten elude effective recovery and dating byextensive regional surveys. Regrettably, this

aspect of society can only be addressed tan-

gentially (e.g., regarding Early Bronze IV pas-toralism in the Levant) with the data we as-

semble here.

This study offers a comparative perspec-tive on the initial urbanization of lowland

Mesopotamia and the southern Levant, two

regions characterized by the early appearanceof cities and broad regional survey coverage.

Using revised methods of rank-size analysisbased on Monte Carlo simulation, we high-

light a variety of urbanized settlement sys-tems in the "heartlands" and "hinterlands"

of both regions. Our approach not only high-

lights fundamental distinctions between the

courses of Mesopotamian and Levantine ur-banization, but also strikingchronological and

geographical variation within each region.Our results reveal further that the orderingof rural sites often serves to distinguish the

rank-size distribution of one settlement sys-tem from another. Thus, when attempting to

capture urbanized systems as whole entities,small places, as well as central ones, may serve

as key defining elements.

The diversity between and within Meso-

potamian and Levantine settlement systemscalls for a renewed body of interpretive par-

adigms with which the full panorama of pre-industrial urbanism may be explored. As a

case in point, the spectacular growth of met-

ropolitan Uruk in the fourth and third mil-

lennia B.C. may provide the classic textbook

example of urban nucleation, but it does not

necessarily prefigure all courses of urbaniza-

tion in Mesopotamia, let alone other regionsof the Near East. Our approach is particularly

valuable for interpreting less ostentatious ex-pressions of urbanism in terms of structure

and development, rather than simply re-

duced scale.

We begin with a discussion of rank-size

analysis, followed by a proposal for how it

might be adapted to the special nature of ar-

chaeological sampling and survey data. Our

rank-size analyses corroborate Adams's

(1981) portrait of southern Mesopotamia as

a centrally important urban "heartland" in

which the earliest cities, striking for their im-

pressive size, are accompanied by the deci-

mation of surrounding villages as they grow.In contrast, the Diyala Plain constituted a

Mesopotamian "hinterland,"distinct and well

removed from the Uruk heartland, that was

characterized by a dwindling array of small

towns and cities situated amid proliferatingrural settlement. Interestingly, Bronze Agesettlement in the southern Levant emerges as

neither an urban heartland nor a rural hin-

terland. Rather, a patchwork of urban and

rural systems followed variable trajectoriesat different times and in different subregions.Urbanism was primarily a coastal phenom-enon apparently superimposed on a resilient

network of rural settlement. Systems of smalltowns and villages in the Levantine hill coun-

try and Jordan Valley followed their own

courses of development that generally cannot

be attributed to the influences of waxing and

waning coastal urbanism.

These alternative expressions of urbaniza-

tion heighten our appreciation of early urban

diversity and signal a need for renewed at-

tention to the significance of small commu-

nities in stratified settlement systems. Ana-

lytical methods, such as those applied here,that are tailored for archaeology and accom-

modate a full spectrum of settlement typeswill inevitably enhance our insight on urban-

ism, and other issues of social complexity, in

southwestern Asia and elsewhere.

Rank-Size Analysis

Auerbach (1913) originally observed that the

cities of modern industrial nations, when

ranked according to their populations, aredistributed such that the largest city has twice

38 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconer and Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONNMESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

1000

,N.,.

oo

1000

100

10

1

\x

10

b

10

Rank

10100

Rank

Figure 1. Examples of primate and convex rank-size distributions (a), and a primo-convex distribution created by

combining the two distributions in a (b).

the population of the second-ranked city,three times the population of the third-ranked,and so on. Following this "rank-size rule,"the size of any nth-ranked place is predicted

by dividing the size of the largest place by n,and the rank and population of cities describe

a log-normal distribution when plotted log-

arithmically (Haggett 1971:101; see Figure1A).

Applying the Principle of Least Effort, Zipf

(1949) invoked "Economic Man" to explainthe interaction of two opposite courses of

economic action that create the rank-size rule.

The "Force of Diversification" encourages a

large number of "small, widely scattered and

largelyautarchical communities" located nearraw material sources, while the "Force of

Unification" moves raw materials to a very

limited number of massive centers of pro-duction and consumption (1949:352).

Conventional applications in archaeologyassume that the forces of diversification and

unification are equal, which provides an ex-

pedient resolution to the dilemma of assign-

ing values to Zipfs two forces. However, the

assumption also renders the formula used by

archaeologists a special case of the general

equation that is open to critical discussion(Kowalewski 1982; Richardson 1973; Dzie-

wonski 1972; Moore 1959).

Interpreting Rank-Size Curves

Log-normal distributions in accordance with

the rank-size rule "appear to be typical of

larger countries with a long tradition of ur-

banization, which are politically and eco-

nomically complex" (Berry 1961:582). Ar-

chaeologists infer that such distributionssignify regional systems in which cities are

39

.W7---__-------I



AMERICANANTIQUITY

well integrated with their subordinate com-

munities (e.g., Adams 1981:72-74; Johnson

1980). Observation of "log-normality" in

western industrialized nations (e.g., Vining

1955:Figure 1) inspired Auerbach's original

formulation, but pre-industrial settlement

patterns tend not to conform to the values

expected under the special case of the rank-

size rule applied in archaeology. Therefore,most archaeological inferences are derived

from the manner and degree to which rank-

size distributions depart from log-normal.These departures may be classified into "pri-

mate," "convex," and "primo-convex" forms

(Johnson 1977; Paynter 1983), which poten-

tially indicate various expressions of strongor weak integration between large and small

communities.

Primate Distributions

Primate distributions are generated by set-

tlement systems that contain fewer inter-

mediate and large places than predicted by

the rank-size rule, or in which the first-ranked

place is considerably larger than expected

(Figure 1A). Typical primate patterns, whichare somewhat concave (see Johnson 1977),

may indicate an extraordinary centralization

of political or economic functions, as ex-

emplified by several long-lived Mesoameri-

can systems in which "the primate center

provided unique services having to do with

maintenance of a regional boundary for a set

of local subsystems. The primate center's

special activities often involved a combina-

tion of high order sacred ceremonialism,

macroregional elite exchange, foreign diplo-

macy, and war" (Kowalewski 1982:65).

Primate distributions may also result from

the constraints of settlement system bound-

aries. Johnson, following Smith (1976) and

Blanton (1976), notes that the primate con-

dition is associated frequently with centers or

peripheries of former colonial empires, "in

systems which are sufficiently bounded so as

to inhibit the development of more than one

highest order central place" (1977:496-497).

Johnson also cautions that "problems in sys-

tem boundary definition. . . may produce es-

sentially artificial primate distributions in

both archaeological and modern data sets"

(1977:498). This may be particularly true

when the entire extent of a settlement systemhas not been identified. Therefore, archaeo-

logical interpretations should consider the

possibility that there may be "a role for the

primate city that extends beyond its regionalhinterland" (Skinner 1977:238).

Convex Distributions

A convex distribution contains more inter-

mediate and large places than predicted by

the rank-size rule (Figure 1A). "In these caseslarge settlements are smaller or small settle-

ments are larger than expected" (Johnson

1977:497). In contrast to many primate sys-

tems, a convex distribution indicates rela-

tively little integration of political and eco-

nomic services among communities in a

settlement system, particularly less "verti-

cal" integration between large cities and

smaller rural communities (Johnson 1980;

Paynter 1982). For example, data from the

Levantine Central Hills reveal pronouncedrank-size convexity that implies minimal ar-

ticulation between dispersed Bronze Age vil-

lages (see discussion below).

Johnson (1980) suggests further that as theybecome increasingly integrated, settlement

systems will shift from convex to log-normalto primate distributions. Adams notes this

sequence in the combined Warka and Nip-

pur-Adab survey data, and our analyses sug-

gest another example in the upper end of the

rank-size curves for the Levantine CoastalPlain (see discussion below). Alternatively, a

convex pattern may result from pooling two

or more adjacent settlement systems, or from

the exclusion of a primate center from its

subordinate settlement system (Johnson

1980; Paynter 1983).In yet another twist to rank-size interpre-

tation, some convex distributions may reflect

central place economic organization (John-son 1977; Crumley 1976). Central Place The-

ory (e.g., Christaller 1933) predicts that plac-

40 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONN MESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

es of equivalent economic function will be

equivalent in size, resulting in a stepwise

ranking, rather than the more continuous dis-

tribution predicted by the rank-size rule. Such

a stair-step distribution is inherently convex,

especially when a system has multiple high-est-order central places.

Primo-convex Distributions

Primo-convex distributions incorporate ele-

ments of rank-size primacy in their upper-size range and convexity in their lower range.For example, the primo-convex curve in Fig-ure 1B was created by combining the primate

and convex curves in Figure 1A. Primo-con-vex distributions may represent a special ex-

pression of pooling: the superimposition of a

centralized or colonially derived system (ex-

pressed in a primate upper curve) on a lower-

level system that may be loosely integratedor have an element of central place organi-zation (reflected in a convex lower curve).This possibility is particularlyintriguing, since

it suggests the simultaneous operation of two

distinct settlement systems in a single region.

Toward an Accommodation of Rank-Size

Analysis and Archaeological Data

Although rank-size methods are used com-

monly in settlement pattern analysis, archae-

ological interpretations often rely simply on

judgmental appraisals of the shapes of rank-

size distributions. This approach sidesteps the

issue of how far a distribution must departfrom log-normal to merit interpretation as

primate or convex. Attempts at greater sta-

tistical rigor use the Kolmogorov-Smimov

one-tailed-goodness-of-fit test (hereaftercalled the "K- test") to determine whether an

observed rank-size plot is significantly dif-

ferent from an expected one (Sokal and Rohlf

1969; Paynter 1982, 1983). The K- test is a

distribution-free test of the null hypothesisthat a sample is drawn from a particular pop-ulation. "The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test re-

jects the null hypothesis if there are differ-

ences in the central tendency, range, or shape

of the sample and population distributions,

thus making it a very general test of noni-

dentity" (Paynter 1982:156). As it is used in

rank-size analysis, the K- test measures the

maximum deviation between cumulative

distributions of observed and expected site

sizes (Shennan 1990:55-61; Thomas 1986:

322-337). The maximum deviation (the K-

statistic) is compared to a predetermined val-

ue for a given alpha level in a statistical table

(e.g., Thomas 1986:504-506). If the devia-

tion exceeds this value, the observed distri-

bution is considered to be significantly dif-

ferent from the expected one.

Problems with Rank-Size Analysis of

Archaeological Data

There are several fundamental considera-

tions that affect the applicability of rank-size

analysis to archaeological data. First, the K-

test may not be appropriate for archaeolog-ical analyses for at least four reasons:

1. The K- test assumes that the individual

observed and expected values are indepen-dent of each other. However, none of the

expected values are selected independently,since they follow directly from the size of the

largestobserved site as prescribed by the rank-

size rule.

2. Although the test is designed for contin-

uous frequency distributions, the expectedvalues assume a step-wise distribution, againin accordance with the rank-size rule.

3. The observed frequency distributions are

assumed to be drawn from largerpopulationswith replacement. However, they are clearlynot drawn with replacement, since we count

each site only once.

4. Both frequency distributions are as-

sumed to have no upper bound. This is true

of the observed data set, but the expecteddistribution is bounded at its upper end bythe size of the largest observed site.

These characteristics of archaeologicalrank-size data call traditional archaeological

applications of the K- test into serious ques-tion. While the procedure for calculating the

maximum deviation between observed and

41



AMERICANANTIQUITY

expected distributions remains acceptable, we

argue that appropriate measures of statistical

confidence for archaeological data must be

derived empirically.The calculation of appropriate confidence

levels follows directly from a second majorconsideration underlying archaeological rank-

size analyses: archaeological site distribu-

tions are samples drawn from larger popu-lations according to uncertain sample pro-

portions that can only be estimated. Previous

tests of significance do not account for this.

Since the shape of any observed distribution

is affected by its sample proportion (based on

survey coverageand

intensity), quantitativeanalysis must incorporate estimated site re-

covery rates to produce meaningful results.

Thus, the issue of sampling cannot be sepa-rated from the issue of statistical confidence.

Additional issues stem from difficulties in-

herent in sensing archaeological sites and es-

timating their sizes. Archaeological site sizes

may be over- or under-estimated, particular-

ly at deeply stratified sites or those subject to

alluviation. The area of a stratified site often

reflects the extent of its largest occupation,which may inflate our estimates of smaller

habitations in other periods. In contrast, al-

luvial or colluvial blanketing of site fringesin some regions (e.g., lower Mesopotamia and

the Jordan Valley) may cause underestima-

tion of occupations at or below modern sur-

face levels.

Further, the effects of such systematic er-

rors on the analysis of any observed rank-

size distribution will be particularly acute to-

ward its lower end, since this is precisely wherethe majority of sites in an expected log-nor-mal distribution are located and where the

likelihood is greatest that sites in the target

population have been missed or obliterated.

Applying the K- Test Through Monte Carlo

Simulation

Given the limitations of the traditional K-

test, our analyses utilize the RankSize com-puter program (Savage 1993)1, which applies

Monte Carlo simulation methods and ac-

commodates the special characteristics of ar-

chaeological data and sampling. This pro-gram analyzes a set of observed site sizes based

on an estimate of the sample proportion it

represents. The simulation first sorts the ob-

served data and calculates a K- statistic (that

is, the maximum deviation between the ex-

pected and observed values), keeping it for

later reference. The program then creates a

simulated population based on the rank-size

rule starting from the largest site size in the

observed data. The number of sites in this

simulated population is determined by mul-

tiplying the number of observed sites by the

reciprocal of the sample fraction. Thus, if a

survey yields a sample of 100 sites that are

assumed to represent 90 percent of the pop-ulation, that population contains 100 / .90 =

111 sites. The largest site in the population

equals the largest site in the sample. The re-

maining 110 sites are generated according to

the rank-size rule. Clearly, this method is onlyas accurate as the estimate of the sample pro-

portion, but it forces the analyst to confront

the sampling issue explicitly.The simulated population becomes the ba-

sis for a long series of random computer runs.

Each run draws a sample of sites from the

simulated population equal to the number of

observed sites. (The user may always include

the largest observed site size or allow it to

vary; all of our analyses include it.) The sim-

ulation then calculates a K- statistic that mea-

sures the maximum deviation between this

sample and its own expected, log-normal dis-

tribution. The program repeats this proce-dure over a large number of runs, stores the

K- statistics produced by each run, and sorts

them in ascending order. Finally, the simu-

lation compares the value of the original K-

statistic for the observed data to the range of

K- values from the random runs to estimate

the probability that a K- value greater than

or equal to the observed value will be ob-

tained by random samples drawn from a log-normal population. For example, if only 3

percent of the simulated K-values are as largeor larger than the observed K- value, we may

42 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconer and Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONN MESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

infer that it is unlikely that the observed sam-

ple is drawn from a log-normal population.

Whereas a traditional test categorizes an

observed K- statistic as significant or nonsig-nificant at a predetermined alpha level (typ-

ically .05), we prefer to estimate the proba-

bility that an observed distribution could have

been drawn from a log-normal population.The lower the probability, the greater our

confidence that the original settlement sys-tem may be interpreted as differing from log-normal (primate, convex, or a combination

of the two). The analyst may deem some

probability estimates as highly diagnostic and

others as more equivocal. Rather than a sim-ple pass-fail result, this approach provides a

variety of possible outcomes and interpretive

avenues (see Cowgill 1977).The potential for misestimating observed

site areas may be accommodated by random-

ly inflating or diminishing the sizes of sites

picked by the RankSize program for simu-

lated distributions. This might be done with-

in a preset percentage range, for a predeter-mined proportion of sites, for example. To

compensate for the likelihood of missing moresites at the lower end of an observed distri-

bution, it may be advantageous to incorpo-rate a "sliding probability" of site recovery

rangingfrom near certainty for extremely largecities to very modest levels for diminutive

villages and hamlets. The addition of these

two routines to the RankSize procedure would

raise a variety of questions regarding how

these potential sources of sample bias should

be measured and simulated. While we do not

attempt to address these concerns in detailhere, experimental results indicate that the

introduction of these two sources of vari-

ability into the RankSize program tends to

result in modestly higher probability figures.

Therefore, the probabilities discussed below

may tend to slightly exaggerate the departureof observed rank-size distributions from log-normal.

We apply RankSize simulations to site size

data, revealing a variety of trajectories where-

by early urbanized settlement systems arosein Mesopotamia and the southern Levant.

Each analysis poses two questions: 1) How

low is the probability that the observed dis-

tribution could be drawn from a log-normal

population? 2)In

lightof this

probabilityand

the observed rank-size plot, what is the shape

of the observed distribution (and the likely

shape of the original population)? In each case,

we assume that the largest site reported was

the largest settlement in the original system

under study. We introduce the settlement data

from each region with an assessment of sur-

vey methods and site recovery rates from

which we estimate an average sample pro-

portion. The number of settlements in each

original population is calculated by multi-plying the number of observed sites by the

reciprocal of the sample proportion. When a

probability value is very low, we argue that

our sample represents a noteworthy depar-

ture from the log-normal distribution pre-

dicted by the rank-size rule, and we address

the archaeological implications of that de-

parture.

Interestingly, the settlement patterns ana-

lyzed in this study generate very few equiv-

ocal probability figures. The majority of ob-served distributions in both Mesopotamia and

the southern Levant have probabilities of

<.01 of simply representing samples of a

larger log-normal population. The remaining

cases, with two Mesopotamian exceptions,

provide substantially larger values (ranging

between .24 and .93) more clearly indicative

of effective adherence to the rank-size rule.

Our approach begins to accommodate the

uncertainty inherent in archaeological field

and analytical procedures and illustrates thebenefits of larger sample proportions. Sim-

ulated K- statistics rarely exceed observed

values when the observed data represent a

high sample proportion, rather than a low

one. For example, when analyzed at sample

proportions ranging between .05 and .95,

Early Bronze III settlement data from the

Levantine Coastal Plain show that site re-

covery rates must be greater than 75 percentto generate an extremely low probability that

an observed sample was drawn from a log-normal population (Figure 2). This obser-

43



AMERICANANTIQUITY

0

. C

CisIe

0

X IM/m,

,.6

).2 ~

n-~~~~I/:

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 55 60 65 70 75Sample Percent

vation reinforces the call for full coverage

survey (e.g., Fish and Kowalewski 1990) and

careful consideration of the factors that de-

termine site survivorship and recovery.

Mesopotamian Survey Chronology and

MethodsOur analyses of urbanization in Mesopota-

mia draw data from the Warka,Nippur-Adab,

and Diyala surveys conducted by Adams

(1981; 1965; Adams and Nissen 1972) (Fig-

ure 3). All three survey areas lie beyond the

frontiers of modern cultivation and present

only the "low, featureless relief' of sparse

vegetation, "long disused canal levees, and

the rubble strewn mounds of former settle-

ments" (Adams 1981:xvii). The Warka and

Nippur-Adab surveys encompass the heart-

land of early Mesopotamian city and state

development: the central floodplain of the

Euphrates River. The Diyala Survey assesses

early canal systems and agrarian settlement

in the lower Diyala River drainage, a region

that constituted a rather detached hinterland

of the urban developments farther to the

south. We concentrate on the explosion of

Mesopotamian urbanism centered on Uruk

during the Early-Middle Uruk, Late Uruk,

and Early Dynastic I periods (following Ad-

in80 5 90 95 Figure 2. Probability estimates

at increasing sample proportionsfor Early Bronze III data from

the Levantine Coastal Plain.

ams 1981; see Table 1). We omit data from

the enigmatic phenomenon known as "Jem-

det Nasr," which may have been a regionalceramic style or an archaeologically elusive

time period (Adams 1981:81; Finkbeiner and

Rollig 1986).2

Large-scale archaeological reconnaissance

in Mesopotamia has relied on visits to sitesidentified from maps or aerial photographs,as well as vehicular reconnaissance along par-allel transects (usually 0.5-1.0 km apart) or

across river levees (e.g., Adams 1965:120;

1981:38-39; Wright 1981:298). Perhaps the

major natural impediment to site recovery in

Mesopotamia is alluviation, which may re-

duce the apparent size of a site, or obscure it

altogether, particularly in cases of small sites

from earlier periods (e.g., Stronach 1961; Ad-

ams 1975). As a formal test of the efficiencyof jeep reconnaissance, Adams (1981:40-42)

restudied 13 sq km north and east of ancient

Nippur in which nine sites were identified

originally. More intensive coverage revealed

three additional sites and required modifi-

cation of the descriptions or dating of four

others. These results suggest that settlement

inventories for the Nippur-Adab Survey and

others like it may be deficient by one-quarterto "as much as one-third" (Adams 1981:42).

This deficiency tends to underestimate site

44 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONN MESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERNEVANT

Figure 3. Mesopotamian surveyareas. Approximate coverages:

Diyala Survey = 8,000 km2;Nip-

pur-Adab Survey = 3,450 km2;Warka Survey = 2,800 km2.

Adapted from Adams (1965:119,

1981:42), Adams and Nissen

(1972:4).

counts at the lower end of rank-size curves.

On the basis of Adams's systematic restudy,a rarity in Near Eastern survey archaeology,we estimate an average recovery rate of 70

percent, which we apply as the sample pro-

portion for our analyses of Mesopotamiansettlement.3

Hyperurbanization in the MesopotamianHeartland

The Uruk and EarlyDynastic I periods reveala pattern of population growth in a dwindlingnumber of communities in the combined

regions of the Warka and Nippur-Adab sur-

veys. Ancient Uruk achieved primate status

through a process of urban "agglomeration"in which it absorbed much of the rural pop-ulation immediately

surroundingit,

therebyswelling to 400 ha and "no less than 40,000

to 50,000" inhabitants by Early Dynastic I

(Adams 1981:85; Adams and Nissen 1972:

19-21). The rank-size plots in Figure 4 follow

Johnson's (1980) prescription for the devel-

opment of such a primate system.4 To beginthe sequence, our simulation of Early-Mid-dle Uruk settlement generates a probabilityof

only.03 that the observed distribution

rep-resents a random departure from log-normal(Table 2). The Early-Middle Uruk rank-size

plot shows this distribution to be convex.The Late Uruk rank-size distribution,

though also convex, has a much higher prob-

ability (p = .71) of representing a random

departure from log-normal. Therefore, this

settlement pattern is more justifiably inter-

preted as adhering to the rank-size rule, rath-er than deviating substantially from it. In this

case, verydifferent

probability estimates re-sult from rather similar data sets primarily

45



AMERICANANTIQUITY

Table 1. Mesopotamian Chronology.

Period Beginning Date Ending Date

Early DynasticI ca. 2900 B.C. ca. 2600 B.C.

Jemdet Nasr ca. 3100 B.C. ca. 2900 B.C.

Late Uruk ca. 3500 B.C. ca. 3100 B.C.

Early-Middle Uruk ca. 4000 B.C. ca. 3500 B.C.

Note: Based on historical correlations and recalibrated radiocarbon dates (see Porada et al. 1992: Figures 3, 4;Adams 1981:81-82).

due to an increase in the size of the largestsite (Warka) in the Late Uruk Period.

Data from the subsequent Early DynasticI Period generate a very low probability (p <

.01)that the

primaterank-size curve in

Fig-ure 4 is a product of chance. Indeed, we es-

timate that by Early Dynastic I more than 60

percent of the sedentary populations around

Warka and Nippur lived in a total of only

five communities, each larger than 40 ha

(Falconer 1987:Figure 5; Adams 1981:Table

7).

Although our rank-size plots do not pro-

vide highly convex patterns suggestive of

pooling, separate analyses of northern and

southern settlement "enclaves" (followingAdams 1981:70-90) reveal two distinct, but

related routes by which urbanization devel-

oped more locally. In the Early-Middle Uruk

Period, the Nippur-Adab enclave to the north

was more heavily populated, particularlywith

village farmers (Adams 1981:70; Falconer

1987:Figure 7). The growth of Uruk in the

subsequent Late Uruk Period (from 70 to 100

ha) was accompanied by an apparent shift in

rural settlement from the north to the south.

Adams suggests that "if we take into account

the artificial limitations of the survey area

... literally tens of thousands of small vil-

lagers appear to have abandoned their homes

and moved southward" (1981:70). This tran-

sition is manifested in rank-size curves that

developin

very differentmanners.

The Nippur-Adab data produce probabil-

Table 2. Summary of Simulation Runs for Mesopotamian Survey Regions.

Numberof Sites Ob-

Largest Number Sample in Pop- served Proba- Curve

Region Period Sitea of Sites Percent lationb K-Value bilityc Shape

Warka/Nippur-Adab Early Dynastic I 400.0 98 70 140 .643 <.01 Primate

Late Uruk 100.0 156 70 223 .288 .71 L-norm

Early-Middle

Uruk 70.0 203 70 290 .335 .03 Convex

Nippur-Adab Early Dynastic I 50.0 34 70 49 .441 <.01 Convex

Late Uruk 50.0 49 70 70 .408 <.01 Convex

Early-MiddleUruk 50.0 144 70 206 .389 <.01 Convex

Warka Early Dynastic I 400.0 64 70 91 .688 <.01 Primate

Late Uruk 100.0 107 70 153 .336 .04 Primate

Early-MiddleUruk 70.0 59 70 84 .492 <.01 Primate

Diyala Early Dynastic I 36.0 37 70 53 .243 .93 L-norm

Early-Late Uruk 36.0 21 70 30 .286 .68 L-norm

a Size in hectares.b

Number of sites in population=

number of observed sitesx

(1/sample percent).c Probability of drawing a K- value greater than or equal to the observed value at random from a log-normal

population, based on 1,000 random runs for each row.

46 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONNMESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

_

v:5-D

t^

Rank Rank

Figure 4. Rank-size distributions for Early-Middle

Uruk and Early Dynastic I settlement within the com-

bined areas of the Warka and Nippur-Adab surveys. Datafrom Adams (1981:Table 7).

ity estimates consistently less than .01, with

rising K- statistics, and rank-size distribu-

tions that denote increasing convexity (seeAdams 1981:Figure 17). This convexity be-

comes accentuated as the system loses small-

er settlements. The Warka Survey data like-

wise produce very low probability values and

rank-size plots that start as distinctly pri-mate, then approach log-normal in the Late

Uruk Period due to the addition of medium-

and small-sized settlements (Adams 1981:

Figure 17). In Early Dynastic I, while the

Nippur-Adab enclave continued to lose vil-

lages, the city of Uruk quadrupled in size,

providing a rank-size distribution that once

again is resoundingly primate (Figure 5).In general, these trends portray a society

that became highly urbanized by relocating

and reducing its rural population. In this casethe process had two related facets. A growingsouthern populace "agglomerated" in the

quintessentially primate center of Uruk, while

settlement to the north became increasinglyurbanized only in a residual sense, as the hi-

erarchy of towns and villages below Nippurand Adab withered. Interestingly, both pat-terns strongly imply decreased agrarian pro-

ductivity and contradict the expectation that

urban authorities willencourage

rural farm-

ing communities to ensure a strong agricul-tural base and their own self-preservation

Figure 5. Separate Early Dynastic I rank-size distri-

butions for the Warka and Nippur-Adab survey areas.

Data from Adams (1981:Table 7).

(Adams 1981:88). Only late in the third mil-

lennium B.C. (i.e., the Early Dynastic II

through Isin-Larsa periods), do cities en-

courage an abundance of surrounding vil-

lages in a process of "ruralization" (Yoffee

1986; Robinson 1972) more in keeping with

this expectation (Adams 1981:130-170; Fal-

coner 1987:122-123). As we shall see, thisprocess of simultaneous urban aggregationand rural depopulation describes only one,counterintuitive and potentially maladap-

tive, expression of urbanization that does not

typify the development of early urbanism in

other time periods or regions of southwestern

Asia.

Small-scale Urbanism in the DiyalaHinterland

The long-term trajectory for settlement on

the Diyala Plain, which stands as a counter-

point to that of the Warka and Nippur-Adabregions, starts with the appearance of rela-

tively modest cities in the Uruk Period and

charts their decline and disappearance by ca.

1000 B.C. (Falconer 1987:128-133; Adams

1965:36-42). The Diyala's sparse regional

population became overwhelmingly and in-

creasingly rural over these millennia. By Ear-

ly Dynastic I,10 towns and cities measured

10 ha or larger (including Tell Asmar and

Khafajah; see Figure 3). More impressively,

47

N

CT



AMERICANANTIQUITY

---Uruk observed------ EDI observed-

Expectedboth)

100

Rank

Figure 6. Rank-size distributions for settlement within

the Diyala Survey area. Data from Adams (1981:Figures

8, 10; 1965:Table 10, Figure 2, Appendix C, map sections

1B-4B).

the frequency of villages (less than or equal

to 4 ha) jumped from 71 to 90 percent (Fal-coner 1987:Figure 12). These data would sug-

gest a pattern of "ruralization" like that

around Uruk following the Early DynasticPeriod. However, despite apparently convex

rank-size plots (Figure 6), very high proba-

bility estimates reveal that the observed Urukand Early Dynastic I settlement distributions

represent merely chance departures from log-

normal (Table 2). This approximation of log-

normal contrasts fundamentally with the de-

veloping primacy of Uruk's settlement sys-

tem. Adams observes that the emergence of

fortified towns in the Diyala found "little ap-

parent reflection in the disposition of the re-

maining, smaller settlements over the coun-

tryside" (1965:38). Like their much larger

counterparts to the south, the Diyala's towns

and cities emerged amid an array of poten-

tially subordinate villages, but apparentlyfailed to exert a comparable molding influ-

ence on surrounding settlement patterns.While metropolitan behemoths came to

dominate the Mesopotamian heartland, set-

tlement in the Diyala hinterland emerged as

an alternative expression of urbanism based

on a log-normal integration of small cities,

towns, and proliferating villages.

Lower Mesopotamia and the Diyala do notexhaust the range of early urban expressions

in the Near East. However, they do bear wit-

ness to two classic patterns by which urban-

ism might first appear: through the nucle-

ation of a predominating primate city or the

coalescence of a stratified, but less central-

ized, settlement system on a much smaller

scale. By virtue of their early appearance and

massive scale (at least for Uruk) these pat-terns serve as touchstones for the interpre-tation of cities and regional settlement else-

where in the Near East. The southern Levant

provides a striking case in point in which

conventional models of urbanism hinge ex-

plicitly or implicitly on reference to earlier,

larger-scale events elsewhere in southwestern

Asia, notably Mesopotamia or Syria.

Conventional Approaches to Levantine

Urbanism

A substantial and growing literature explores

the rise of Levantine cities and towns usinga variety of data and interpretive angles, but

sharing a set of common themes. With the

exception of a handful of recent works (e.g.,Joffe 1991a; Finkelstein and Gophna 1993;

Gophna and Portugali 1988), urbanism istreated as a regionwide phenomenon, with

little discussion of its variable manifestations

in the southern Levant's constituent settle-

ment zones (Esse 1989; Dever 1987; Richard

1987). Secondly, urbanism is construed as

structurally equivalent to that found else-

where; it simply occurred later, and on a re-

duced scale. For example, Kempinski (1978)attributes the appearance of EarlyBronze Agecities to a process of nucleation analogous to

that around Uruk. Third, many authors pro-

pose that antecedent forms of Bronze Agematerial culture, and the technology that pro-duced it, are found elsewhere, notably in Egypt

and Syria (Ilan and Sebbane 1989; Kempin-ski 1989). Therefore, this material evidence

and an associated tradition of urbanism must

have spread into the southern Levant, pre-

sumably from earlier, exotic sources (Dever

1987; Gerstenblith 1983). Jointly, these sup-

positions hold that the first urbanized soci-

eties in the southern Levant were secondary,derivative expressions of early urbanism. The

48 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995

g.Nc



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONNMESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

southern Levant is described as a "backwa-

ter" in comparison to neighboring regions,which nonetheless featured "truly urban" so-

ciety during the Bronze Age (Dever 1976;

Kenyon 1973).Our study reverses the conventional inter-

pretive process applied to the southern Le-

vant. Instead of emphasizing foreign rela-

tions and the effects of cities on the entire

southern Levant, we break the region into

constituent units, from which analytical re-

sults are assembled to reinterpret the mosaic

of Bronze Age urbanism.

LevantineSurvey Chronology

and Methods

Settlement data from the southern Levant

derive from a variety of surveys in Israel north

of the Negev Desert, the West Bank of the

Jordan River, and the Jordan Valley (e.g., see

Joffe 199 lb:Table 1, Figures 2-4). In contrast

to Mesopotamia, this region features signif-icant variation in topographic relief, modem

vegetation, and human habitation. The

southern Levant can be divided longitudi-

nally into a series of geomorphic zones (Fig-

ure 7; see Horowitz 1979:11-19). A coastalplain up to 50 km wide extends in from the

Mediterranean shoreline. The landscape then

rises to form a north-south chain of hills

reaching 300 m asl. Major valleys separatethe northern hills of the Galilee from the cen-

tral hills that extend through the West Bank.

The eastern slope of this hilly backbone

plummets rapidly to the Jordan Valley, where

the valley floor lies between 100 and 350 m

below sea level. Relatively sparse Mediter-

ranean maquis and oak and pistachio rem-

nant forests populate the Levantine hill coun-

try, while only vestiges of natural vegetationexist amid the modem settlement and agri-culture of the Levantine Coastal Plain and

Jordan Valley (Gophna et al. 1986; al-Eisawi

1985).The success of early Levantine urbanism

oscillated dramatically through the Early and

Middle Bronze ages, which covered the third

and early second millennia B.C. (Table 3).

Early Bronze I provided a formative, village-level prelude to the fortified towns and cities

^^7 Negev Desert

Figure 7. Geomorphic/settlement zones in the southern

Levant. Hatched areas indicate survey subregions con-

sidered in this study. Approximate coverages: Total

southern Levant = 15,000 km2; Coastal Plain = 2,650km2;Central Hills = 7,500 km2;Jordan Valley = 1,700

km2.Compiled from Broshi and Gophna (1984:Table 11),

Ibrahim et al. (1976:Figure 1, 1988:192-193).

that emerged in Early Bronze II and III (Joffe1991a). This urban florescence paralleled the

rise of the Egyptian state during Dynasties I-

VI (Kemp 1983:71-116; Ben-Tor 1991; Kan-

tor 1992:17-21; Stager 1992:40-41). Subse-

quently, Egypt entered the First Intermediate

Period, during which centralized authority

collapsed and regional economic ties were at-

tenuated (Ward 1971; Stager 1992:41). The

southern Levant simultaneously experiencedwholesale abandonment of cities in favor of

village life and nonsedentary pastoralism

during Early Bronze IV (Dever 1980; 1989)5.

49



AMERICANANTIQUITY

Table 3. Levantine Chronology.

Period Beginning Date Ending Date

Middle BronzeIIB-C ca. 1800 B.C. ca. 1500 B.C.

Middle BronzeIIA ca. 2000 B.C. ca. 1800 B.C.

Early Bronze

IV ca. 2300 B.C. ca. 2000 B.C.

Early BronzeIII ca. 2700 B.C. ca. 2300 B.C.

Early BronzeII ca. 3100 B.C. ca. 2700 B.C.

Early Bronze I ca. 3500 B.C. ca. 3100 B.C.

Note: Based on historic correlations and recalibrated

radiocarbon dates (see Falconer 1993, Stager 1992:40-

1, Joffe 1991b:Table 3, Richard 1987).

Unfortunately, published settlement data for

this striking period of collapse are available

only from the coastal plain.

The duration of the Middle Bronze Age

approximated that of Egypt's Middle King-dom (Weinstein 1975). While Egypt reesta-

blished state-level government and far-flung

economic influence, Levantine cities ree-

merged suddenly ca. 2000 B.C. in Middle

Bronze IIA. During Middle Bronze IIB and

C the region's cities and general population

grew to sizes unsurpassed until the Roman

and Byzantine periods (i.e., first-seventh cen-

turies A.D.; Broshi 1979). The archaeological

distinctions between Middle Bronze IIB and

C are subtle and not universally recognized

(Falconer 1987:180-181), and settlement data

commonly are analyzed jointly, as we do here.

This study draws on data compiled by sev-

eral authors for specific periods (Joffe 1991b;

Broshi and Gophna 1984; 1986) or regions

(Finkelstein and Gophna 1993; Gophna and

Portugali 1988; Ibrahim et al. 1975, 1988) in

the southern Levant. Since this literature cites

a wide variety of local and regional surveys,it offers few discussions of survey methods.

Levantine surveys typically collate data from

earlier surveys and maps, while new field-

work combines purposive vehicular recon-

naissance, intensive pedestrian tactics, and

questioning of local inhabitants (Joffe 1991 b:

34-44; Ibrahim et al. 1976:44). Most authors

presume virtually complete survey coverage

(e.g., Finkelstein and Gophna 1993:2) and

judge the likelihood of finding additional

largersites to be "practically nil" (Broshi and

Gophna 1986:88; 1984:50). Hence, as in

Mesopotamia, the vast majority of unde-

tected sites are likely to have been small.

Despite the lack of an explicit study of sur-

vey efficiency like Adams's, we may approx-

imate site recovery rates based on several

considerations. First, since Levantine sur-

veys encompass areas of substantial modern

habitation and agriculture, these factors un-

doubtedly obscure small sites to a greater ex-

tent than in Mesopotamia. On the other hand,

Levantine alluviation, which does affect somesites (e.g., Braun 1985; Rosen 1986:45), is

limited to the intermittent erosion of hill

slopes (Beaumont 1985), rather than the con-

tinuous massive silt transport of the Tigris

and Euphrates rivers. While natural factors

may affect site visibility more commonly in

Mesopotamia, cultural influences may have

a greater impact in the Levant. In sum, we

estimate Levantine site recovery rates on the

same order as those for Mesopotamia, but

nudge them slightly higher because of the pre-dominance of intensive localized surveys that

rely more heavily on pedestrian tactics (Joffe

1991b:34-44), rather than macroscopic ve-

hicular coverage.6 These considerations sug-

gest an average site recovery rate on the order

of 75 percent, only slightly lower than that

guessed by Broshi and Gophna (1984:41,

1986:73, 88).

Rank-Size Analyses of Levantine Urbanism

In light of the preeminence normally ascribed

to fortified Bronze Age cities in the southern

Levant (e.g., Dever 1987; Richard 1987), we

might anticipate accordingly primate rank-

size settlement distributions. When com-

bined for the entire region, Bronze Age sur-

vey data do produce a series of probabilities

below .01 (Table 4). However, these values

reflect convex departures from log-normal, as

exemplified for the high points of Levantine

urbanism in Early Bronze III and Middle

Bronze IIB-C (Figure 8). This consistent pat-

tern implies a series of poorly integrated re-

50 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995




gionwide systems or the pooling of many more

localized settlement networks. As we shall

see, these two interpretations are not mutu-

ally exclusive.First, let us consider the possibility of

pooled systems before returning to argu-ments for integration and disintegration be-

low. Finkelstein and Gophna (1988) note that

the Bronze Age ushered in the economic

"conquest" of the central hill country. Unlike

the coastal plain and Jordan Valley, which

were ideal for lowland agriculture, the central

hills were best suited for large-scale fruit

growing and summer pasturage. Thus, a cor-

ollary of Bronze Age urbanism was an emerg-ing potential for significant economic spe-

cialization and pastoral interplay between

6

Nd

Rank

Figure 8. Rank-size distributions for Early Bronze III

and Middle Bronze II B-C settlement in the southern

Levant. Data from Joffe (1991b), Finkelstein and Gophna

(1993), Gophna and Portugali (1988), Broshi and Gophna

(1984; 1986), Ibrahim et al. (1976, 1988).

Table 4. Summary of Simulation Runs for Southern Levant.

Numberof Sites Ob-

Sample in served

Largest Number Per- Popu- K- Proba- Curve

Region Period Sitea of Sitesb cent lationc Value bilityd Shape

Southern Levant Middle Bronze IIB-C 80.0 219 75 292 .479 <.01 ConvexMiddle Bronze IIA 80.0 96 75 128 .573 <.01 Convex

Early Bronze III 30.0 202 75 269 .406 <.01 Convex

Early Bronze II 40.0 151 75 201 .377 <.01 Convex

Early Bronze I 40.0 243 75 324 .370 <.01 Convex

Coastal Plain Middle Bronze IIB-C 64.0 59 75 79 .610 <.01 P-cnvxeMiddle Bronze IIA 65.0 51 75 68 .745 <.01 P-cnvxe

Early Bronze IV 5.0 16 75 24 .564 <.01 D-cnvxr

Early Bronze III 25.0 12 75 16 .250 .25 L-norm



Central Hills Middle Bronze IIB-C 15.0 91 75 121 .385 <.01 ConvexMiddle Bronze IIA 12.0 9 75 12 .444 <.01 Convex




Jordan Valley Middle Bronze IIB-C 7.0 26 75 35 .308 .24 L-normMiddle Bronze IIA 7.0 13 75 17 .231 .29 L-norm


Early Bronze II 20.0 32 75 43 .219 .69 L-norm

Early Bronze I 20.0 64 75 85 .219 .78 L-norm

a Size in hectares.b Includes only sites with unequivocal dates of occupation and known size. Some counts are underestimated (e.g.,MBIIA in the Central Hills).c Number of sites in population = number of observed sites x (1/sample percent).d Probability of drawing a K- value greater than or equal to the observed value at random from a log-normal

population, based on 1,000 random runs for each row.e P-cnvx = Primo-convex curve.f D-cnvx = "Double convex" curve.

51



AMERICANANTIQUITY

100 -

_................. EB I observed--- EB ml observed

-_-- - Expected (EB I & HI)

10-

SU~:_^^-~10 100

Rankank

Figure 9. Rank-size distributions for Early Bronze I

and Early Bronze III settlement on the Coastal Plain.

Data from Joffe (1991b), Gophna and Portugali (1988),

Broshi and Gophna (1984).

highlands and lowlands (Finkelstein and

Gophna 1993). Therefore, it is not surprising

that Bronze Age society followed multiple

courses of development, which may be dis-

tinguished according to geomorphic zones of

settlement. We present analyses of settlement

in the coastal plain, the central hills, and the

Jordan Valley, which reveal these variabletrajectories, and collectively constitute the

early urbanization of the southern Levant.7

The Coastal Plain

If there was a "heartland" of Levantine ur-

banism, it was the Mediterranean coastal

plain, which contained most Bronze Age

communities 10 ha and larger (Falconer

1994). Among the best-known sites in the

coastal plain are Tell Dor, Aphek, Tell Gezer,Tell el-'Areini, and Ashkelon (see Figure 7).

During the Early Bronze Age, a growing

coastal population became increasingly con-

centrated in larger towns and cities as rural

settlement dwindled (Gophna and Portugali

1993). Coastal settlement data produce prob-

abilities below .01 for Early Bronze I and II,

and a more equivocal estimate of.25 for Ear-

ly Bronze III. Unlike any pattern found in

Mesopotamia, these data describe slightly

convex upper rank-size curves that join morepronounced lower convex curves character-

Figure 10. Rank-size distributions for Early Bronze IV

and Middle Bronze II B-C settlement on the Coastal

Plain. Data from Gophna and Portugali (1988), Broshi

and Gophna (1986).

ized by stair steps (Figure 9). These unusual

distributions bear a striking resemblance to

primo-convex curves, but since their upper

portions are convex rather than concave, we

refer to their form as "double convex."

Through the Early Bronze sequence, the

lower curves become increasingly truncated.

The relatively high probability estimate forEarly Bronze III (p = .25) reflects a particu-

larly drastic curtailment of the rural settle-

ment that defined the lower curves of Early

Bronze I and II. This trend presages the sub-

sequent abandonment of coastal sedentism

in EarlyBronze IV. Coastal population growth

resumed on a grander scale in the Middle

Bronze Age (Gophna and Portugali 1988).

Very low probabilities (p<.0O) again reflect

compound rank-size distributions that de-

part substantially from log-normal (Figure10). Unlike those of the Early Bronze Age,

these curves are primo-convex, and reflect

slightly increased numbers of medium- and

small-sized settlements.

Following the examples and general rea-

soning summarized earlier, we propose that

these primo-convex and "double convex"

rank-size distributions signify the superim-

position of multiple, contemporaneous set-

tlement systems. Coastal settlement during

the Early Bronze IV Period is particularlynoteworthy for interpreting these curves. A

CZ

._c/

Rank

[Vol. 60, No. 1, 19952




modest array of very small towns (two mea-

sure 5 ha each) and diminutive villages (none

larger than 1 ha) comprised a "decapitated"

settlementsystem

that followed the aban-

donment of larger towns and cities. This con-

vex distribution has a very low probability

(p<.01) of being drawn from log-normalpopulation. Since the Early Bronze IV rank-

size distribution results from the elimination

of an upper settlement curve, this convex

curve is comparable to the lower curves of

Early Bronze I-III. This pattern provides cir-

cumstantial evidence that each compoundcurve of Early Bronze I-III may indeed be

composed of an upper distribution of townsand cities superimposed on a relatively dis-

crete lower curve of villages and hamlets.

In keeping with this interpretation, our data

suggest that an Early Bronze Age network of

loosely knit towns and cities was established

amid a dwindling and increasingly disartic-

ulated system of small villages. Statuary ex-

cavated from coastal sites and texts from

Egypt suggest that this patterning reflects the

presence of Egyptian commercial missions in

coastal towns (Ahituv 1978; Na'aman 1981).While also "compound," the Middle Bronze

rank-size plots differ in three respects: the

more concave upper curves suggest more cen-

tralized integration of towns and cities, the

more extended lower limbs reflect more pro-nounced ruralism, and the upper and lower

curves remain more closely articulated.

We must conclude that despite containingmost of the Levant's cities, the coastal plainwas neither a heartland of urban nucleation,

nor a hinterland of lower level urban-ruralintegration. Early Bronze coastal cities re-

mained relatively static in size and number

(Joffe 199 lb:Table 23), and their lack of rank-

size primacy suggests that they failed to exert

the influence of centers like Uruk, even on a

reduced scale. During the Middle Bronze Age,both urban and rural populations grew, but

only slightly (Falconer 1994). An element of

Middle Bronze Age rank-size primacy, which

became more pronounced in MB IIB-C, sug-

gests that MB cities could have had a moldinginfluence, but exercised it only to a limited

0)

rC

10

Rank

Figure 11. Rank-size distributions for Early Bronze II

and Middle Bronze II B-C settlement in the Central Hills.

Data from Finkelstein and Gophna (1993), Joffe (1991b),

Broshi and Gophna (1984; 1986).

extent. This portrait of coastal urbanism may

be clarified with reference to the Levantine

"hinterlands" of the central hills and Jordan

Valley.

The Central Hills

With the emergence of highland/lowland eco-nomic interaction (see above), we might pre-

dict that coastal settlement systems may have

incorporated rural communities in the ad-

joining central hills. Indeed, Early and Mid-

dle Bronze settlement data produce consis-

tently convex rank-size distributions (p< .01;

Figure 11), as we would expect if villages in

the hills supplemented coastal ruralism. Oth-

er analyses verify that hill country villagesbecame more abundant between EarlyBronze

I and II (Joffe 1991 b:Tables 20, 21), and pro-liferated dramatically in the Middle Bronze

Age (Broshi and Gophna 1986; Falconer

1994). However, these communities declined

drastically during the first urban climax of

Early Bronze III as part of a general popu-lation drop in the hill country (Finkelsteinand Gophna 1993). So, during Early Bronze

I and II and the Middle Bronze Age, some

settlement in the central hills may have com-

pensated for the otherwise under-represented

ruralism of the coastal plain. In contrast, Ear-ly Bronze III represents a nadir in rural set-

53



AMERICANANTIQUITY

a

.Nu

Rank

Figure 12. Rank-size distributions for Early Bronze I,

Early Bronze III, and Middle Bronze II B-C settlement

in the Jordan Valley. Data from Joffe (1991b), Broshi

and Gophna (1984; 1986), Ibrahim et al. (1976, 1988).

tlement contemporaneous with that of the

coastal plain.

The Jordan Valley

Among the settlement zones within the

southern Levant, only the Jordan Valley dis-

plays patterns of development that resemble

any of those found in Mesopotamia. Much

as we saw for the Diyala, very high EarlyBronze I and II probability estimates suggesta similar pattern of close adherence to log-normal and low-level hinterland integration

(Figure 12). However, unlike the Diyala, the

Jordan Valley experienced a drop in popu-lation and settlement frequency (Joffe 1991 b:

Table 18). While valleywide population lev-

eled off in Early Bronze III, the settlement

system became significantly less integrated as

suggested by its convex rank-size distribution

(p<.01). In this case, rather similar EarlyBronze II and III rank-size curves generate

very different simulation results, primarilybecause the lower end of the Early Bronze III

curve consists of smaller sites, which implya shrinking population of rural farmers.

During the Middle Bronze Age, sedentarysettlement redeveloped in the Jordan Valleyon a more modest scale. The valley's popu-lation grew slightly, while the number of set-

tlements roughly doubled (Broshi and

Gophna 1986; Falconer 1994). Settlement

data produce relatively high probabilities that

the observed convex distributions are simply

samples drawn from a log-normal popula-tion. It appears that after the non-urban in-

terlude of Early Bronze IV, local inhabitants

dispersed into a renewed hinterland network

of towns and villages, which was again rough-

ly analogous to that of the Diyala.

Summary of Levantine Urbanism

Early Bronze Age urbanization in the Levant

is striking, because while urban communities

grew, primarily along the Mediterranean

coast, regional population declined as smallersettlements dwindled in number and size in

all three subregions (Joffe 1991 b:Tables 8, 11,

12, Figures 9, 10). Far from anticipating this

waning sedentary population, most conven-

tional interpretations view the Early Bronze

Age as a period of pronounced population

growth (e.g., Amiran 1970; Richard 1987).

Instead, these patterns hint that rural popu-lations may have adopted strategies of "re-

silience" (Adams 1978) based on increased

pastoralism that peaked during the urban col-lapse of Early Bronze IV. This interpretationfinds circumstantial support in the persistent

compound nature of coastal rank-size curves

and the declining ruralism of the central hills

and Jordan Valley.In contrast, Middle Bronze Age urbaniza-

tion fits conventional expectations much bet-

ter. Survey data suggest population growth,both in cities and the general countryside.While compound rank-size curves still sug-gest that cities and towns were superimposedon coastal ruralism, urban-rural integrationbecame enhanced and may have extended

into the hill country. In the Jordan Valley,settlement returned to a distinct pattern of

hinterland development similar to that of the

Diyala, but on a further reduced scale.

Interestingly, the advent of cities in the third

millennium B.C. and their rejuvenation in

the early second millennium B.C. followed

different courses of development. Further,

when dissected geographically, settlementdata from both periods reveal distinct, some-

54 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONN MESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERN EVANT

times divergent settlement trajectories within

the coastal plain, central hills, and Jordan

Valley, a composite pattern perhaps most

characteristic of Levantine urbanism. While

the southern Levant must have been affected

by the actions of foreign cities and states,

notably those of Egypt, its own expression of

urbanism was not simply derivative. Rather,

the earliest urbanism in the southern Levant

described an intriguing patchwork, in which

the largest cities were superimposed on a

much broader network of resilient towns and

villages that followed their own courses of

development.

Conclusions

Orthodox approaches to Near Eastern ur-

banism treat the rise of Near Eastern cities

as a uniform phenomenon with core and

marginal expressions. Adams recalls that

Benno Landsberger, a noted Assyriologist,

criticized his choice of the Diyala Basin for

initial survey reconnaissance because this

work defined a derivative "dialect" of early

urbanism "before the paradigm of the heart-

land [was] known" (Adams 1981 :xviii). Mosttreatments of the southern Levant follow a

similar logic in which the rise of Bronze Age

cities is interpreted as a local vernacular ex-

pression of Near Eastern urbanization. This

view holds that Levantine urbanism simply

followed and echoed that of Syria and Mes-

opotamia, but on a smaller scale. While Mes-

opotamia is justifiably renowned for its heart-

land of very early, highly nucleated cities, our

rank-size analyses also elucidate a distinct

expression of hinterland development in theDiyala based on more modest, but consis-

tently integrated town and village life. In con-

trast, we demonstrate that Early Levantine

urbanism rarely adheres to either of these

general patterns, but represents a distinct geo-

graphic and chronological mosaic that defies

simple categorization. We conclude that Near

Eastern urbanization did not include so much

a Mesopotamian core and its dialectical off-

shoots, as a polyglot arrayof alternative forms

of city life and its relations with the country-side.

Ultimately, our study implies that cities do

not, in any uniform sense, epitomize all "ur-

banized" societies. A fuller comprehension

of urbanization as a highly variable phenom-

enon requires that we expand our compre-hension of non-urban components in strati-

fied settlement systems. We suggest that small

communities are most important in this re-

gard, not simply as a supporting foundation

for urbanism. Instead, configurations of rural

settlement often define the overall contours

of rank-size distributions and, in so doing,

may reveal peculiar courses of rural devel-

opment that contribute to the variety of tra-

jectories for early urbanization in Mesopo-

tamia, the southern Levant, and elsewhere in

southwestern Asia.

Acknowledgments. We thank George Cowgill, Charles

Redman, Norman Yoffee, and especially Keith Kintigh

for their abundant commentary on preliminary versions

of this study. The mathematical assumptions underlying

the K- test were brought to our attention through lengthy

discussion with Dennis Young, Department of Mathe-

matics, Arizona State University. Carole Crumley, Keith

Kintigh, Kenneth Kvamme, and Barbara Stark made

helpful suggestions during the development of the sim-ulation program. Moawiyah Ibrahim, James Sauer, and

Khair Yassine kindly provided access to the field notes

and ceramic collections of the East Jordan Valley Survey.

Falconer derived site size estimates from these sources

with the support of a National Endowment for the Hu-

manities Travel to Collections Grant.

References Cited

Adams, R. McC.

1965 Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement

on the Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

1966 The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Meso-

potamia and Prehispanic Mexico. University of Chi-

cago Press, Chicago.

1975 An Early Prehistoric Site in the Warka Region.

Sumer 31:11-16.

1978 Strategies of Maximization, Stability, and Re-

silience in Mesopotamian Society, Settlement, and

Agriculture. Proceedings of the American Philo-

sophical Society 122:329-335.

1981 Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settle-

ment and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the

Euphrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Adams, R. McC., and H. Nissen

1972 The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of

55



AMERICANANTIQUITY

Urban Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chi-

cago.

Ahituv, S.

1978 Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of

Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 28:93-105.Amiran, R.

1970 The Beginnings of Urbanization in Canaan. In

Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century,edited by J. A. Sanders, pp. 83-100. Doubleday,Garden City, New York.

Auerbach, F.

1913 Das Gesertz der Bevolkerungskontration. Pe-

termanns Mitteilungen 1913:74.

Aurenche, O., J. Evin, and F. Hours (editors)

1987 Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chron-

ologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 B.P.

BAR International Series 379, British Archaeolog-

ical Reports, Oxford.Beaumont, P.

1985 Man-induced Erosion in Northern Jordan. In

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan,

vol. 2, edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 291-296. Jordanian

Department of Antiquities, Amman.

Ben-Tor, A.

1991 New Light on the Relations Between Egyptand

Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze Age.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-

search 281:3-10.

Berry, B. J. L.

1961 City Size Distributions and Economic Devel-

opment. Economic Developmentand CultureChange9:573-588.

Blanton, R. E.

1976 The Role of Symbiosis in Adaptation and So-

ciocultural Change in the Valley of Mexico. In The

Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology

and Sociology, edited by E. R. Wolf, pp. 181-201.

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Braun, E. L.

1985 En-Shadud.: Salvage Excavations at a Farming

Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. BAR In-

ternational Series 249, British Archaeological Re-

ports, Oxford.

Broshi,M.

1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Ro-

man-Byzantine Period. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 236:1-10.

Broshi, M., and R. Gophna1984 The Settlements and Population of Palestine

During the Early Bronze Age II-III. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 253:41-53.

1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements

and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 261:73-90.

Christaller, W.

1933 Die zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland: eine

ikonomisch-geographische Untersuchung uber die

Gesetzmiissigkeit der Verbreitungund Entwicklungder Siedlungen mit stidtischen Funktionen. Jena.

Clarke, D. L.

1979 Towns in the Development of Early Civiliza-

tion. In Analytical Archaeologist. Collected Papers

of David L. Clarke, edited by N. Hammond, et al.,

pp. 435-443. Academic Press, New York.Cowgill. G.

1977 The Trouble with Significance Tests and What

We Can Do About It. American Antiquity 42:350-

368.

1990 Towards Refining Concepts of Full-Coverage

Survey. In The Archaeology of Regions. A Case for

Full Coverage, edited by S. Fish and S. Kowalewski,

pp. 249-259. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C.

Crumley, C. L.

1976 Toward a Locational Definition of State Sys-

tems of Settlement. American Anthropologist 78:59-

73.Dever, W. G.

1980 New Vistas on the Middle Bronze I Horizon

in Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 237:35-64.

1987 Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age: The Ze-

nith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archae-

ologist 50(3): 149-177.

1989 The Collapse of the Urban Early Bronze Agein Palestine-Toward a Systemic Analysis. In L'ur-

banisation de la Palestine a l'age du Bronze ancien,

edited by P. de Miroschedji, pp. 215-246. BAR In-

ternational Series 527, British Archaeological Re-

ports, Oxford.Dziewonski, K.

1972 General Theory of Rank-Size Distributions in

Regional Settlement Systems: Reappraisal and Re-

formulation of the Rank-Size Rule. Papers of the

Regional Science Association 29:75-86.

al-Eisawi, D. M.

1985 Vegetation in Jordan. In Studies in the History

andArchaeology ofJordan, vol. 2, edited by A. Had-

idi, pp. 45-57. Jordanian Department of Antiqui-

ties, Amman.

Esse, D. L.

1989 Secondary State Formation and Collapse in

Early Bronze Age Palestine. In L'urbanisation de la

Palestine a l'age du Bronze ancien, edited by P. de

Miroschedji, pp. 81-96. Bar International Series 527,

British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Falconer, S. E.

1987 Heartland of Villages.:Reconsidering Early Ur-

banism in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann

Arbor.

1994 The Development and Decline of Bronze Age

Civilization in the Southern Levant: A Reassess-

ment of Urbanism and Ruralism. In Development

and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, pp.

305-333, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart.

Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

56 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995



Falconerand Savage] EARLYURBANIZATIONN MESOPOTAMIANDTHESOUTHERNEVANT

Finkbeiner, U., and W. Rollig (editors)

1986 Jamdet Nasr: Period or Regional Style? Beiheft

zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, B62.

Wiesbaden.

Finkelstein, I., and R. Gophna1993 Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Pat-

terns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcol-

ithic and Early Bronze Periods and the Beginningof Urbanism. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research 289:1-22.

Fish, S., and S. Kowalewski (editors)1990 The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full

Coverage. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C.

Gerstenblith, P.

1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle

Bronze. American Schools of Oriental Research

Dissertation Series, No. 5. American Schools of Ori-ental Research, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Gophna, R., and J. Portugali1988 Settlement and Demographic Processes in Is-

rael's Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the

Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 269:11-8.

Gophna, R., N. Liphschitz, and S. Lev-Yadun

1986 Man's Impact on the Natural Vegetation of the

Central Coastal Plain of Israel During the Chalcol-

ithic Period and the Bronze Age. TelAviv 13/14:71-

84.

Haggett, P.

1971 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. St.Martin's, New York.

Horowitz, A.

1979 The Quaternary of Israel. Academic Press, New

York.

Ibrahim, M., J. Sauer, and K. Yassine

1976 The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. Bulletin

of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222:

41-66.

1988 The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1976 (Part

Two). In Archaeology of Jordan:Essays and Reports,edited by K. Yassine, pp. 189-207. University of

Jordan, Amman.

Joffe, A. H.

1991a Early Bronze I and the Evolution of Social

Complexity in the Southern Levant. Journal ofMed-

iterranean Archaeology 4(1):3-58.199 lb Settlement and Society in Early Bronze I and

II Canaan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ari-

zona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Johnson, G. A.

1977 Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology.Annual Review of Anthropology 6:479-508.

1980 Rank-Size Convexity and System Integration:A View from Archaeology. Economic Geography56(3):234-247.

Kantor, H. J.

1992 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its For-

eign Correlations Before the First Intermediate Pe-

riod. In Chronologies in Old WorldArchaeology, 3rd

ed., edited by Robert W. Ehrich, pp. 3-21. Univer-

sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kemp, B. J.

1983 Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and SecondIntermediate Period, c. 2686-1552 B.C. In Ancient

Egypt: A Social History, edited by B. G. Trigger, B.

J. Kemp, D. O'Connor, and A. B. Lloyd, pp. 71-

182. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kempinski, A.

1978 The Rise of an Urban Culture. Israel Ethno-

graphic Society Studies, no. 4. Israel Ethnographic

Society, Jerusalem.

1989 Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Ca-

naan, in L'urbanisation de la Palestine a l'age du

Bronze ancien, edited by P. de Miroschedji, pp. 163-

168. BAR International Series 527, British Archae-

ological Reports, Oxford.Kenyon, K.

1973 Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age, in Cam-

bridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 2, part 1, pp.77-116. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kowalewski, S.

1982 The Evolution of Primate Regional Systems.

Comparative Urban Research 9(1):60-8.

Moore, T.

1959 A Note on City Size Distributions. Economic

Development and Cultural Change 6:465-466.

Na'aman, N.

1981 Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation

of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31(3-4): 172-185.

Paynter, R. W.

1982 Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Pat-

terns in HistoricalArcheology. Academic Press, New

York.

1983 Expanding the Scope of Settlement Analysis.In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited byJ. Moore and A. Keene, pp. 233-75. Academic Press,New York.

Porada, E., D. P. Hansen, S. Dunham, and S. H. Babcock

1992 The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000-

1600 B.C. In Chronologies in Old World Archae-

ology, 3rd ed., edited by Robert W. Ehrich, pp. 77-121. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Redman, C. L.

1978 The Rise of Civilization. W. H. Freeman, San

Francisco.

Richard, S.

1987 The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapseof Urbanism. Biblical Archaeologist 50:22-43.

Richardson, H. W.

1973 Theory of the Distribution of City Sizes: Re-

view and Prospects. Regional Studies 7:239-251.

Robinson, D. J.

1972 Changing Settlement Patterns in Colonial His-

panic America. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism,edited by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and D. W. Dim-

57



AMERICANANTIQUITY

bleby, pp. 931-943. Schenkman, Cambridge, Mas-

sachusetts.

Rosen, A. M.

1986 Cities of Clay: The Geoarchaeology of Tells.

Universityof

ChicagoPress,

Chicago.Sanders, W. T., and D. Webster

1988 The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition. Ameri-

can Antiquity 90:521-546.

Savage, S. H.

1993 A Rank-Size Simulation Study of Settlement

on the Levantine Coastal Plain during the Chalcol-

ithic, Early, and Middle Bronze Ages. Manuscript

on file, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State

University, Tempe.

Schiffer, M. B.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Rec-

ord. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shennan, S.

1990 QuantifyingArchaeology. Academic Press, New

York.

Skinner, G. W. (editor)

1977 The City in Late Imperial China. Stanford Uni-

versity Press, Stanford.

Smith, C. A.

1976 Regional Economic Systems Linking Geo-

graphical Models and Socioeconomic Problems. In

Regional Economic Systems, vol. 1, edited by C.

Smith, pp. 3-68. Academic Press, New York.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf

1969 Biometry. Freeman Press, San Francisco.

Stager, L. E.

1992 The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic

through EarlyBronze Times. In Chronologies in Old

World Archaeology, 3rd ed., edited by Robert W.

Ehrich, pp. 22-41. University of Chicago Press, Chi-

cago.

Stronach, D.

1961 The Excavations at Ras al 'Amiyah. Iraq 23:

95-137.

Thomas, D. H.

1986 Refiguring Anthropology: First Principles of

Probability and Statistics. Waveland, Prospect

Heights, Illinois.

Vining, R.

1955 A description of certain aspects of an economic

system. Economic Developmentand CulturalChange

3:147-195.

Ward, W. A.

1971 Egyptand theEast Mediterranean World,2200-

1900 B.C.; Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations

During the First Intermediate Period. American

University of Beirut, Beirut.

Weinstein, J. M.

1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Mid-

dle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research 217:1-16.

Wheatley, P.

1971 The Pivot of the Four Quarters:A Preliminary

Inquiryinto the Origins and Character of the Ancient

Chinese City. Aldine, Chicago.

Wright, G. A.

1973 Bristlecone Pine Calibrations of Radiocarbon

Dates: SomeExamples

from the Near East. Amer-

ican Journal of Archaeology 77:197-201.

Wright, H. T.

1981 The Southern Margins of Sumer: Archaeolog-ical Survey of the Area of Eridu and Ur. In Heart-

land of Cities, by R. McC. Adams, pp. 295-345.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yoffee, N.

1986 The Process of Ruralization in Social Evolu-

tionary Theory. Paper presented at the 51st Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

Zipf, G. K.

1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Ef-

fort:An Introduction to Human

Ecology.Addison-

Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts

Notes

' The RankSize programwas written by Savage in Turbo

Pascal 6.0 (Borland International 1990) for IBM PC or

compatible computers.2 These periods lie at the crossroads of prehistoric ra-

diocarbon-based chronologies and historic chronologies.

Radiocarbon recalibrations tend to push these horizons

earlier, often by several centuries (e.g., see Aurenche,

Evin, and Hours 1987).3 Most archaeological sites in Mesopotamia and the

southern Levant are multiphase mounded tells in which

later deposits obscure the habitation areas of earlier stra-

ta. Since site size often can only be estimated according

to the area covered by the largest occupation, some es-

timates are inflated. However, most survey reports offer

period-by-period size estimates whenever possible, pri-

marily for larger sites.

4 For the sake of graphic clarity only selected curves are

presented in our rank-size figures (Figures 4-6, 8-12).

However, simulation results for all rank-size analyses

are included in Tables 2 and 4.

5This period is referredto as "Intermediate Bronze" or"Intermediate EB-MB" in some literature (see discus-

sion in Falconer 1993).6 Schiffer (1987:340-353) provides a broader discussion

of the many factors that influence site recovery rates by

archaeological surveys.7 These zones correspond to geographic zones 4, 6, 7,

and 9 in Joffe 1991b, and Broshi and Gophna 1984 and

1986.

Received September 28, 1993; accepted August 1, 1994

58 [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995

Heartlands and Hinterlands

Documents

Transcript of Heartlands and Hinterlands