Society for American Archaeology Heartlands and Hinterlands: Alternative Trajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant Author(s): Steven E. Falconer and Stephen H. Savage Reviewed work(s): Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 37-58 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable 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 ofcontent 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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-
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.
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-
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-