CHAPTER THREE
ON SOME POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF A NEWLY DISCOVERED EARLY BRONZE AGE, LARGE-SCALE SILO COMPLEX AT AMAZIYA, NAHAL LACHISH (ISRAEL)
Ianir Milevski, Eliot Braun, Daniel Varga, and Yigal Israel
Introduction
Researchers on the region of the northern Negev suggest that during the Early Bronze Age I the region was occupied largely by small agricultural communities.1 At most of those settlements storage facilities (presumably for grain) were small and obviously geared for private consumption associated with individual domestic units. However, a village at Amaziya and another at Lahav differ in that they were associated with clusters of much larger storage units (also presumably for grain) with capacities that obviously far exceeded the needs of occupants of those sites. Such installations suggest that, contrary to the prevailing social paradigm at most communities, those sites were associated with a different type of social organization involving some degree of centralized control and a redistribution system. This was likely catalyzed by interaction with one or both of two large communities in the region with associations to what is believed to be Egyptian colonial activity in the southern Levant.
Amaziya: Location and Finds
In 2010 and 2011 the Israel Antiquities Authority conducted two extensive seasons of salvage excavations at Amaziya (Duweimeh) on the southern bank of Nahal (wadi or seasonal water course) Lachish. The site is located about nine kilometers east southeast of Tel Lachish (Israel grid reference 191850–605050; Google Earth map reference 31° 32’16.46N /34° 54’ 43.15”) (Figure 3.1), in the south Judean Shephela (piedmont of low hills and narrow valleys), on a hill with limestone outcrops; its summit, about 390 miles above sea level, lies at around sixty meters above the surrounding wadis. Amaziya, and the excavation site, is strategically situated between two major geographic zones, the northernmost extension of the loess plains of the northern Negev and the western edge of the southern Judean Incline. To the west lie major ancient settlements along Nahal Lachish, the northernmost reaches of the Negev (which extends far to the south), and beyond, the low-lying Mediterranean Littoral. To the north is the central Judean Shephela, which to the south gradually tapers off with the Judean Incline to merge with the Negev. The Eocene hills in the area of Amaziya and adjacent alluvial valleys (Picard and Golani 1992) lie between isohyets of three hundred and four hundred millimeters of annual rainfall (Alster et al. 1956: pl. IV/2:a).
Excavations indicate the site was occupied mainly during the first and fourth phases of the Early Bronze (EB henceforth) Age (i.e., EB I and EB IV) in Areas B1 and B2 and later periods in the other areas (Figure 3.2). This puts the date of the relevant levels at approximately 3600–3000 BC for EB I, 2600–2300 BC for EB III, and 2300–1950 for EB IV. Although architectural remains of the EB Age are restricted to Areas B1 and B2, pottery from that era was also found in Areas C and D, which includes finds dated to EB III.
Figure 3.2 Amaziya, aerial view of Area B2, facing south.
Areas B1 and B2 are on the northern slope of the site, between two smaller, seasonal water courses that debouch into Nahal Lachish. There, two precincts devoted to different functions were unearthed in a large exposure, a domestic area with house foundations and adjacent installations (Area B1), and a nearby large-scale complex of subterranean, circular silos (Area B2).
Description of Area B1: Domestic Structures
In an exposure of about 1,250 square meters, in this excavation precinct on the lower northwestern slope of this natural hill (Figure 3.3), we found a group of rectilinear rooms, several small, circular stone-lined pits (silos?), and a constructed corridor leading to natural cave complex with several cavities linked to one another by narrow passages. While evidence of several phases of occupation was discerned in this area during excavations, its final stratigraphic profile remains to be fully reconstructed after completion of the study of associated material culture remains. It is, however, possible to note at present that the major phases of occupation of Area B1 date to EB I and EB IV. The earliest remains of domestic architecture are dated to EB I, as is the evidence for earliest utilization of the cave. However, most findings from the cave complex indicate its latest use was for olive oil production and the processing and storage of grains and/or legumes during EB IV.
Figure 3.3 Amaziya, plans of Areas B1 and B2.
Description of Area B2: The Large-Scale Silo Complex
This precinct, adjacent to and northeast of Area B1, was covered with an overburden of soil that yielded evidence of agricultural activity during the most recent two millennia. Below that layer were two phases of circular, stone-lined pits obviously intended for storage (Figures 3.3, 3.4, Table 3.1). The earlier and main phase is represented by eleven large silos. Nine were fully or partially excavated; the upper parts of two more were exposed. These silos tended to diminish slightly in diameter at their bases. Two subterranean silos of a later phase are considerably smaller.
Figure 3.4 Amaziya, closer view of storage pits.
The silos, unearthed over an area of about five hundred square meters, were arranged in horizontal rows parallel to the natural slope of the hill; others may lie buried in adjacent unexcavated areas to the south and east, which, for lack of time and resources, could not be explored. The structures uncovered to date are considered to be part of a large-scale complex of silos purposely located but deliberately set apart from the adjacent residential sector of the EB I occupation in Area B1. The two areas were separated by an unoccupied, open space about ten meters wide.
All the silos were constructed of fieldstones without stone pavements. Those belonging to the early phase range from 2.6 to 3.0 meters in their maximal (upper), preserved diameters and 2.4 to 2.8 meters at their bases (Table 3.1). Those from the late phase were considerably smaller, ranging in their diameter from 0.8 to 1.1 meters (reconstructed depth 0.4 meters). We assume that portions of the walls of the large silos originally stood to a greater height and, thus, were probably visible aboveground. The upper portions of their walls collapsed into the silos (see, e.g., Figure 3.4, [2]), giving the average reconstructed depths of the silos measurements between 1.8 and 2.00 meters. Reconstructed depths (Table 3.1) were calculated from the quantity of fallen stones found during excavation of the silos.
Ancient residents of Amaziya excavated the large silos in the natural rendzina soil, arranged in precise rows and aligned with the natural, sloping topography. All those features were constructed of natural fieldstones laid in successive courses with no evidence for the use of any mortar or plaster between them. Floors of the silos were of the same rendzina soil or, in some instances, of underlying bedrock.
Construction techniques distinguished within the excavated silos are expressed in preferences by their builders for two different categories of fieldstones (Table 3.1). One group of silos was fashioned from unworked, naturally rounded stones (Type A, e.g., Figure 3.4, 2), while a second group showed a preference for somewhat larger and more angular fieldstones (Type B, e.g., Figure 3.4, 3). The upper portions of several silos were built with Type B stones, while their lower and medium courses were built of Type A stones (Figure 3.4, 2). The distinction possibly suggests a rebuilding of upper phases of those silos and even a slight chronological distinction in some instances. Alternately, the different stone types could be expressions of other considerations, which remain obscure. Silos of the later phase, built of even smaller fieldstones, Type C (e.g., Figure 3.4, 4), also dry bonded, were paved with the same type of stones.
While nothing was found within the silos that would indicate their definitive functions, analogous subterranean structures from many periods and places indicate their likely purposes as grain stores (Pfälzner 2002). A projected study of soil samples from within the pits at Amaziya will, it is hoped, produce evidence of phytoliths to confirm our theory of their functions as storage facilities for agricultural produce placed directly within them, as no evidence for partitions or containers (e.g., bags or pottery vessels) was encountered in the excavation. Although, Pfälzner (2002: 269) has suggested that in some instances storage facilities would have contained sacks of grain, he referred to freestanding granaries and not underground silos. While a large percentage of pottery sherds, typical of Late EB I (Figure 3.5, A) found in fills within the silos at Amaziya is of storage jars (see below Figure 3.5, A.9), they are not believed to have been in situ as there was no possibility of restoring any vessels to even near complete shapes, while the percentage of similar types of sherds is the same for Area B1.
Dating the Silos
Dating of these silos is based on an overwhelming mass of evidence of material culture, mainly pottery sherds, found within them and within the earthen matrix into which they were dug. In addition, the material extracted from the excavation of Loci 1780 and 1781 (the space between two silos, Loci 1732 and 1739, respectively; see Figure 3.4) indicates a terminus post quem for the silos of the early phase, while the material found within the silos of the last phase (Loci 1721 and 1767) gives a terminus ante quem for the early phase. Since pottery dated to the end of the EB I was found in both contexts, the silos are dated to that late phase—that is, circa 3000 BC—which coincides with the presence of Late Egyptian Dynasty 0/Naqada III B-C material (see below).
The suggested Late EB I date of the Amaziya silos seems consistent with their association to the adjacent, dated domiciles, and a parallel complex at Site 301 at the Halif (Lahav) Terrace (see below), farther to the south but still within the Judean Shephela (see Figure 3.1 and Table 3.2). That site yielded somewhat similar structures dating to EB I, albeit constructed of both mud-brick and stone (Dessel 2009: 24, 35, figs. 18a, 18b). Although fewer in number, those at the Halif Terrace2 also appear to have been arranged in rows and aligned horizontally along a slope, thus suggesting they were part of a large, centralized storage facility.3
Table 3.2 Comparative Table of Amaziya with Local Sites and Egyptian Chronology
Cultural Material Associated with the Silo Complex and Its Dating
Most of the artifacts associated with fills in Areas B1 and B2 can be dated to very late phases of EB I (Figure 3.5, A), a period correlated with late Dynasty 0/Naqada III B-C in Egypt (Braun 2001, 2011a, 2011b). That correlation is strengthened by a small but highly indicative assemblage of imported Egyptian pottery and other, morphologically Egyptian style (i.e., “Egyptianized”) vessels, which could be either imported or of local manufacture (Figure 3.5, B). Although some sherds were in scattered fills and even within the silos, the bulk of the Egyptian and Egyptianized material at Amaziya was found within two large pits, both in Areas B1 and B2.
Most ceramic finds were fragments of medium to large, late EB I, south Levantine type, storage vessels, which is consistent with what is expected at an agriculture-based village, as remains of domiciles and associated spaces encountered in Area B1 indicate the settlement to have been. Notable finds from Area B1 are a small, stone-lined pit, querns, mortars, pounders, and hammer stones, as well as flint tools, including prismatic (i.e., so-called Canaanean) sickle blades and tabular scrapers.
Interpreting Amaziya in Context
The Significance of the Amaziya Storage Complex
If, as our hypothesis suggests, the stone-lined pits in Area B2 (early phase) are indeed large silos used for grains and/or legumes, then they are primary evidence for such activity on a scale hardly perceived previously in the archaeological record of the late fourth millennium in the southern region. Were the whole site to be excavated, we believe more silos would be exposed. The single exception known to date of a contemporary, analogous storage facility in the region may be at the Halif Terrace, where five silos of a similar, albeit less extensively exposed, installation were found. Its full extent remains obscure, and it is possible that it may have been as large a storage facility as that unearthed at Amaziya.
Differences in the arrangement and sizes of the silos at Amaziya between chronological phases within the complex probably represent variations in storage strategies. The most significant aspect of this organization is that it is opposed to what is known from most other previous and relatively contemporary occupations in the southern Levant (e.g., Milevski 1992: 69–70; Braun and Milevski 1993: 10–11; Levy 2006: pls. 5.9–5.11; Garfinkel, Ben-Shlomo, and Kuperman 2009; Golani 2010). They have limited storage facilities arranged around domestic units. By contrast, these units form a large, centralized complex located within a specialized zone of the settlement, clearly associated with an economic system that dealt with significant surpluses, centrally organized. Such evidence argues for surpluses and an accumulation of wealth (Pfälzner 2002) which must have been under control of one or a group of individuals, who possessed greater access to them. Thus, the implications of this find suggest a ranked as opposed to egalitarian society, a highly unusual social structure for a small, rural, agriculture-based community of late EB I, especially as no great difference in house sizes is apparent at the site. It is therefore reminiscent of other areas, such as the American Southwest, where the symbolic appearance of egalitarianism masks a ranked society (Mills 2000).
As previously stated, which agricultural products were stored in the complex, whether grains, pulses, or some other commodities, remains obscure. However, if the silos of Amaziya contained grain, it is possible to calculate the overall weight needed to fill them and then to calculate the size of cultivated lands needed to grow that many plants (Table 3.1). If only the silos of the early phase that were excavated are taken into account, then, based on the consideration that each cubic metercan store about seven hundred kilograms, something in the neighborhood of sixty-eight metric tons of grain were stored in those silos.
Although traditional, modern Palestinian agriculture yields approximately five hundred kilograms of grain per hectare, the estimate offered here is minimal and most fitting with ancient south Levantine agricultural capacities. Accordingly, a conservative amount of approximately one hundred kilograms of grains per hectare is suggested for late EB I production capacity, with a corresponding sixty-eight hectares of land required (see Garfinkel, Ben-Shlomo, and Kuperman 2009).
That size of cultivated area is clearly beyond the working capacity of even several village families and raises questions about the socioeconomic structure of the settlement and the silo complex. Who cultivated the lands that produced such large amounts of grain to be stored within the silos? Does that evidence indicate an economic system controlled by a superior entity or is it evidence of a tax or tribute collection system imposed on the inhabitants of the settlement by leadership groups, with elements of a controlled workforce and related logistics?
The silo complex at Amaziya could belong to what Pfälzner (2002: 261–262, 267–272) calls “redistributive mode of storage,” a term borrowed from Polanyi, Arensberg, and Pearson (1957) and Fried (1967) and their redistributive mode of circulation of goods. That mode supposes a centralizing tendency in an economic system, local or otherwise, based on the gathering of agricultural products organized by a political or religious entity. Stored products are utilized by a central institution as exchange goods (e.g., Milevski 2011: 132–145) or as means of supplying other institutions, or as payment for workers or soldiers, or as seeds. This type of redistributive system is associated with pre-state societies.
We do not know whether foodstuffs stored in this facility were redistributed among a specific population or were utilized as means to finance individuals or groups of elevated or special status. Thus, it is difficult to interpret the significance of this unusual arrangement for large-scale storage of foodstuffs, especially as the silos’ storage capabilities obviously superseded likely needs of inhabitants of the site. As there is no evidence at Amaziya or at nearby small, rural sites for the existence of such an elevated class of inhabitants, we suggest the possibility of some sort of economic relations with an external polity and/or polities, for which there are two prime candidates (see below).
If, as may be suggested by the evidence, there was a similar arrangement at the Halif Terrace, then there is a likelihood that the southern Shephela, where these sites are located, was a fertile grain- and/or legume-producing region in Late EB I. Certainly the region’s valleys and relatively abundant rainfall offer sufficient resources for development of such activity (Levy et al. 1997: 3–4).
While it is too early to evaluate the full importance of this information, it is possible to suggest a likely milieu in which such a system of surpluses could have functioned. The archaeological record has yielded information on two possible candidates for external polities likely to have had economic relations with communities at Amaziya and the Halif Terrace.
Possible Associations with Socially Complex Polities
A large structure with multi-pillared hall at Tel Erani (Kempinski and Gilead 1991) (Figure 3.1), part of a larger architectural complex, Building 7102, is clearly more than a simple domicile. Its size and plan within what appears to be a very large settlement suggest the likelihood of a public function that may indicate a ranked or perhaps a hierarchical social system consistent with a polity based on a relatively large population in need of considerable food resources. The proximity of Tel Erani to Amaziya and the Halif Terrace makes it a likely candidate for having had economic associations related to consumption of economic surpluses from these smaller communities. Unfortunately, the date of the Tel Erani complex, Building 7102, remains unresolved as the information on it derives from one large-scale excavation that offers conflicting evidence (Brandl 1989) and of another, in an adjacent precinct (Kempinski and Gilead 1991). A date for Building 7102 in late EB I seems likely, although there is a possibility it originated in an earlier phase, sometimes associated with Layer C at Tel Erani (Kempinski and Gilead 1991), which corresponds with early Dynasty 0 or Naqada IIIA (and see Milevski and Baumgarten 2008). A fortification wall at the site may also be related to that same EB I settlement (but could also date to EB III) and thus additional evidence of a ranked society.4
Another, albeit somewhat more physically distant, candidate for a consumer of surpluses amassed at Amaziya and the Halif Terrace is an Egyptian colony, apparently with a major base at the large fortified site of Tell es-Sakan (de Miroschedji and Sadeq 2000; Teeter 2011; see also Figure 3.1)near the Mediterranean coast and its likely satellites at several smaller independent sites and possibly in enclaves within primarily indigenous south Levantine communities. While the existence of this colony, with a complex, hierarchical social organization, does not seem to be in doubt, its extent and influence are a subject of ongoing debate (e.g., Brandl 1992 and Andelkoviç 1995 versus Braun 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2011a: 114–19; in press).
From Egyptianized bullae at ‘En Besor (Schulman 1976, 1980; Schulman and Gophna 1992; see also Figure 3.1), the Halif Terrace (Levy et al. 1997), and possibly from Tel Erani (bullae purportedly found in Layer D but without sealings; see Kempinski and Gilead 1991: 171), it is known that an Egyptian polity was engaged in some form of administered economic activity, apparently with local populations in the southern region. Such bullae document Egyptian administrative activity at communities where south Levantine material culture was dominant, but where excavators found considerable quantities of Egyptian associated artifacts, imports, and objects made locally in Egyptian styles. Quantities of similar ceramic artifacts, including serekhs (stylized royal insignia) on fragments of Egyptian vessels from Tel Erani, Small Tel Malhata, Tel Ma’ahaz, and Arad, as well as Egyptian pottery from Amaziya, offer evidence of additional economic activity in the southern region, some of it seemingly under royal auspices. In addition, some of that material also made its way into areas farther south (Yekutieli 2004). What is unclear, however, is whether the evidence presently known of Egyptian-south Levantine contacts is indicative of a direct relationship or one through an intermediary such as seems to have been in place at Tel Erani, with its large population, incipient signs of social complexity, and significant repertoire of Egyptian imports (Brandl 1989; Braun, personal knowledge), including a serekh of the ruler, Narmer (Yeivin 1960; Braun 2011a).5 Although there is a string of campsites along the Sinai Coast from the Nile Delta to the southern Levant, the evidence suggests nothing more than simple trade in Late EB I when the Egyptian colony was founded and thrived (Oren 1989; Gophna 1987, 1990a, 1992; Braun, in press).
Unless the Egyptian colony at Tell es-Sakan (de Miroschedji and Sadeq 2000) brought its own farmers and animal husbandmen to make it self-sustaining, it would have had to rely on either a massive flow of goods from the Nile Valley (for which there is no significant evidence) or on a local hinterland to provide sustenance for its many inhabitants. That it had a large population is suggested by the sizable dimensions of three successive phases of massive mud-brick fortification, which represent a quite significant investment of human labor. Even if Tell es-Sakan’s fortifications were created by corvée workers of local origin, as Yekutieli (2004), who argues for Egyptians enslavement of locals, might argue, the workforces that created those massive structures had to be fed. That would involve considerable quantities of provender for people and possibly also for beasts of burden.
Tell es-Sakan appears to have been the core, or “mother colony” of an Egyptian colonization effort under royal auspices, and may well have been the gateway for the virtual flood of Egyptian goods that marks a primary zone of activity at specific sites north of Tell es-Sakan along the southern stretch of the Mediterranean Littoral at the end of EB I (Braun and van den Brink 2008; Braun 2011a). However, EB I sites in those areas were relatively large and had their own significant populations, which may not have allowed them to yield sufficient surpluses necessary to supply an Egyptian colony, although the presence of significant quantities of Egyptian and Egyptianized objects at some of them suggests the likelihood of trade or some other mechanism for the transference of objects. Perhaps such a situation prompted Egyptian activity outside the primary zone of contact between the colony and local south Levantine communities, accounting for the smaller but significant quantities of Egyptian objects at Amaziya, the Halif Terrace, and Small Tel Malhata.
Amaziya and the Halif Terrace in the southern Shephela are in the eastern hinterland of Tel Erani and not so very distant from the Egyptian colony at Tell es-Sakan and its likely satellites at Tel Ma’ahaz (Amiran 1977; Amiran and van den Brink 2001; Beit-Arieh and Gophna 1999), Taur Ikhbeineh (Amiran 1976; Oren and Yekutieli 1992), and ‘En Besor (Gophna 1995). Surpluses from Amaziya and other similar sites, such as the Halif Terrace and perhaps even Small Tel Malhata (Amiran, Ilan, and Arnon 1983; Amiran and Ilan 1993), could have supplied one or another or even both those polities. Such stored surpluses could even imply some sort of political control from recipient polities, although the mute evidence of artifacts can only allow for speculation concerning such relationships.
Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery at Amaziya (Figure 3.5, B)
It is difficult to understand the meaning of the small complement of Egyptian and Egyptianized pottery recovered at Amaziya. It consists of remains of about twenty vessels, none of which is complete. Included are fragments of several “wine jars” (e.g., Figure 3.5, B.5), small and medium-size bottles (for example, Figure 3.5, B.2–3), cylindrical vessels (for example, Figure 3.5, B. 1), and coarse ware bowls (for example, Figure 3.5, B.4) or vats and jars (for example, Figure 3.5, B.6). Four fragments of coarse, heavy baking bowls, sometimes described as “bread molds,” are an unexpected element that cannot be easily explained. These examples of so-called kitchenware are often thought to be evidence of Egyptians residing at a site and practicing their parochial foodways (Sobas 2009). However, these few fragments may be interpreted in another way.
It is also possible that locals were engaged in not only producing grain but also grinding it into flour and perhaps even baking loaves of bread for Egyptians. Such an arrangement might also explain the relatively large cache of baking tray fragments found at the Halif Terrace, which together weighed more than five hundred kilograms (Levy et al. 1997: 307, figs. 7–8). They appear to have been concentrated in a small storage space of irregular plan, mistakenly identified as a “tabun” or oven by the excavators,6 but for which there is neither direct evidence nor functional analogies in the archaeological record. That quantity seems an extraordinarily large collection of such parochial type vessels for a typical south Levantine, rural, agricultural-based occupation (Seger 1996; Levy et al. 1997: 34; Alon and Yekutieli 1995; Dessel 2009).7 It is similar to Amaziya, albeit with a significantly greater quantity of Egyptian and Egyptianized objects. As Levy et al. (1997: 34) have suggested, that large concentration of baking bowls may well reflect some form of centralized food distribution, which would be out of character for such a community.
Another hint of the significance of those vessels comes from Gophna and Gazit’s (1985) description of thousands of fragments of baking bowls found in association with the Egyptian occupation at ‘En Besor (Stratum III). Although significantly some were unfired and obviously fashioned at the site or nearby, it is difficult to understand why a diminutive site consisting of a single building, which obviously did not house more than a small complement of people, would yield such prodigious quantities of these vessels, unless they were intended for use elsewhere. We tentatively suggest that Egyptians may have actually produced those vessels for distribution to sites with indigenous populations at Amaziya and the Halif Terrace, who then provided baked loaves of bread, possibly for Egyptian consumers. Notable features of several of the baking bowls from ‘En Besor are three different potters’ marks on their internal surfaces (Gophna 1990b), which would have left raised characters on the loaves baked in them, making them identifiable to a centralized authority otherwise unfamiliar with sources of production.
Can the four examples from Amaziya be evidence of some similar but far less bountiful production? Once again we may only speculate on what their true significance is, but indubitably it is bound up with the intense Egyptian activity in the southern Levant in Late EB I (see below). Suffice it to note that the presence of these baking bowls does not prove Egyptians were resident at the site, although they clearly indicate some kind of interaction.
The existence of such storage complexes and economic systems that saw surplus commodities going from sites such as Amaziya and the Halif Terrace to larger concentrations of populations, presumably polities with hierarchical, complex social systems, could also explain the phenomenon of ‘En Besor, associated with so many bullae fastened to sacks of commodities. That diminutive site seems to have been a way station or depot for gathering and transferring them, presumably to a “mother colony” at Tell es-Sakan farther to the west on the same water course, and/or to its satellites. Bullae at the Halif Terrace and possibly at Tel Erani also suggest direct associations with Egyptian economic activity.
Tel Erani, with its own significant population, and possibly with an addition of an Egyptian element (Brandl 1989), perhaps resident in an enclave within a local south Levantine population, could also have been a possible consumer of surpluses produced at smaller sites in the southern Shephela, or as noted above, could have had a “middleman” status. Such economic activity, trade or even one-sided, forced export/import (i.e., tribute, slavery, looting), could explain most Egyptian imports at select sites and perhaps the Egyptian imports at Amaziya.
Suggested Models of Economic Interaction
If Tel Erani or another indigenous population center had political and/ or economic control of Amaziya and Tell Halif, that would suggest local producers, either as individual or communal agriculturalists, sent their products to a central entity that stored them (e.g., as in the diagram in Figure 3.6, 1). That could be at a facility at the population center or, alternately, even at some outlying site such as Amaziya. As suggested by Earle (2002: 216–218), a portion of those products could be used as staples for subsistence. As D’altroy and Earle (1985) proposed, the use of staples rather than the amassing of wealth yields one kind of strategy for promotion on the part of leadership organizations. The remainder would have been redistributed within a population associated with a central entity, which did not produce its own food. Such a process would involve not only grain, legumes, and other dry goods but also liquids such as olive oil and wine.
If Egyptian colonial control of the southern Shephela was in effect, in particular in the Nahal Lachish area, the model could have functioned as illustrated in Figure 3.6, 2. In that model the colony, as representative of its Nile Valley sponsors, would also get stored foodstuffs, but the redistribution would be done by Egyptian functionaries (soldiers?) in the source area of agricultural products.
In the first scenario (Figure 3.6, 1) it is evident that the process of centralization and redistribution of grain and other commodities was connected with local developments, which probably are related to major circulation of goods and the beginnings of urbanization in the south-central region (Milevski 2011). The precise time span remains uncertain, but by late EB I there is indubitable evidence of fortified settlements in the southern Levant, with the peripherally located Arad, in the southeast as one of the lesser examples (Braun 2011a).
If, on the other hand, the large-scale silo complex was related to the Egyptian presence in the southern Levant, it must have been involved in some form of economic activity with local populations in its eastern and southern hinterlands. That would favor the interpretation also of the model of “staple finances” (Figure 3.6, 2). A mutual association, indicated by quantities of Egyptian associated materials found at Amaziya, Tel Erani, the Halif Terrace, and other sites in the southern region, would link them to the Egyptian colony dated to the end of EB I or the last eighth of the fourth millennium BC (Braun 2001).
Notes
1. We wish to thank Linda Manzanilla and Mitchell Rothman for the invitation to publish this chapter and for their critical comments on the text. Thanks are also due Ram Gophna, for his insightful comments on an earlier version of this chapter. We also would like to express our thanks to Alex Fraiberg, Vladic Lipshitz, and Ilan Peretz, as well as Anna Filin, Amir Weitzman, and Svetlana Talis, field supervisors and their assistants, respectively, who participated in the excavation. For their expertise in the study of artifacts and the documentation of the excavation, the authors are also indebted to Omry Barzilai (flint items), Avi Hajian, Mark Cummin, Sharon Gal and Yaakov Shmidov (draft plan and sections), Mendel Kahan and Boris Antin (final plans), Yasser Alamor and Raed Abu Halaf (administration), and workers from Rahat, Qiriat Gat, and Sderot. Pictures and illustrations are courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
2. This installation should not be confused with the so-called Silo Site at the Halif Terrace (Alon and Yekutieli 1995), which is a mistranslation of a Hebrew word for silage. It was named for its location adjacent to a modern, bulldozer-cut silage pit, called a “mulch silo” (Levy et al. 1995: 28). Neither should this installation be confused with the cobbled floor of a large circular platform found in Area A (Levy et al. 1997: fig. 4), at one time designated “silo” and associated with a “possible public storage area” (Levy et al. 1995: 30), but which seems to be more likely domestic in function.
3. Although described as an “Egyptian-style tomb,” a single burial of a female adult in flexed position found on fill at least fifty centimeters above the floor of the cave, is the only evidence of a burial there. It had no accompanying grave goods and thus, cannot be dated. The purported parallels with Dynasty 1 Tombs at Helwan, Egypt, dated to EB II, seem spurious (Braun 2002: 177) and it seems more likely that in Late EB I the cave was not a tomb, but had some other function. It is interesting to note that the Late EB I houses at the Halif Terrace, generally rectilinear in plan and roughly similar to those at Amaziya, Area B1, were also accompanied by analogous use of natural caves, one of which also had a stone-line corridor leading to its entrance (Levy et al. 1997: fig. 12a). Another, similar underground complex was found at nearby Ziqit (two kilometers south of Amaziya), which was also related to domestic structures dated to the EB I, III, and IV (Y. Baumgarten, personal communication; see also Table 5.2).
4. Renewed excavations at the site slated for the summer of 2015 by Ben Gurion University of the Negev and the Institute of Archaeology of Jagiellonian University, Krakow, will hopefully shed additional light on this late prehistoric period.
5. Whose famous palate is associated with Uruk Mesopotamian sources.
6. This is a small room of irregular plan. Recent excavations of “ovens” with such baking trays at Tel Erani show them to be roughly circular pits of about one meter in diameter and about sixty centimeters deep.
7. Dessel (2009: 34) notes the discovery of an unfired vessel of this type at the Lahav Terrace, in situ, in House 100025, which, except for its relative abundance of Egyptian pottery, is undistinguished from the surrounding houses. Does this represent the presence of an Egyptian in residence, or is it a sign of the household embellished with imported ceramic wares, which adopted an Egyptian custom for baking bread?
References
Alster, Yosef, Mordechai Gilead, David Amiran, Naphtali Roznan, Moshe Gardon, Uri Zidon, and Uri Kadmon, eds. 1956. Atlas of Israel. Cartography, Physical Geography, History, Demography, Economics and Education. Jerusalem: Department of Surveys, Ministry of Labour and Bialik Institute.
Amiran, Ruth. 1976. Taur Ikhbeineh. ’Atiqot (English Series) 11: 105–106.
Amiran, Ruth. 1977. Excavations at Tell Ma’ahaz 1976, 1978. Israel Museum News 12: 63–64.
Amiran, Ruth, and Orit Ilan. 1993. Malhata, Tel (Small). In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern, 937–938. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Amiran, Ruth, Orit Ilan, and Carmela Arnon. 1983. Excavations at Small Tel Malhata: Three Narmer Serekhs. Israel Museum Journal 2: 75–83.
Amiran, Ruth, and Edwin C. M. van den Brink. 2001. A Comparative Study of the Egyptian Pottery from Tel Ma’ahaz, Stratum I. In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. Samuel R. Wolff, 29–58. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Andelkoviç, Branislav. 1995. The Relations between Early Bronze Age I Canaanites and Upper Egyptians. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy, Centre for Archaeological Research.
Beit-Arieh, Isaac, and Ram Gophna. 1999. The Egyptian Protodynastic (Late EB I) Site at Tel Ma’ahaz: A Reassessment. Tel Aviv 26 (2): 191–207.
Brandl, Baruch. 1989. Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani. In L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs: 20–24 octobre 1986, ed. Pierre de Miroschedji, 357–388. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Brandl, Baruch. 1992. “Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern Coastal Plain and Lowlands of Canaan during the EB I Period. In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Cairo, 21–24, October, 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, ed. Edwin C. M. van den Brink, 441–477. Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink.
Braun, Eliot. 2001. Proto and Early Dynastic Egypt and Early Bronze I-II of the Southern Levant: Uneasy Correlations. Radiocarbon 43: 1202–1218.
Braun, Eliot. 2002. Egypt’s First Sojourn in Canaan. In Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE, ed. Edwin C. M. van den Brink and Thomas E. Levy, 173–189. London: Leicester University Press.
Braun, Eliot. 2003. South Levantine Encounters with Ancient Egypt at the Beginning of the Third Millennium. In Ancient Perspectives on Egypt, ed. Roger Matthews and Cornelia Roemer, 21–38. London: University College London Press.
Braun, Eliot. 2004a. Egypt and the Southern Levant: Shifting Patterns of Relationships during Dynasty 0. In Egypt at Its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt,’’ Krakow, 28th August-lst September 2002, ed. Stan Hendrickx, Renée F. Friedman, Krzysztof M. Cialowicz, and Marek Chlodnicki, 507–17. Leuven: Peeters.
Braun, Eliot. 2004b. More Evidence for Early Bronze Age Glyptics from the Southern Levant. Levant 36: 13–30.
Braun, Eliot. 2011a. Early Interaction between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant. In Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, ed. Emily Teeter, 106–22. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Braun, Eliot. 2011b. South Levantine Early Bronze Age Chronological Correlations with Egypt in Light of the Narmer Serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New Interpretations. In Egypt at Its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt,’’ London, 27th July-lst August 2008, ed. Renee F. Friedman and Peter N. Fiske, 975–1001. Leuven: Peeters.
Braun, Eliot. In press. Little Pot Who Made Thee? Dost Thou Know Who Made Thee? In Vienna II—Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century, University of Vienna, May 14–19, 2012.
Braun, Eliot, and Ianir Milevski. 1993. Baja Khorvat ‘Illin. Una aldea del Bronce Antiguo cerca de Beth Shemesh. RevistadeArqueología 142: 8–15.
Braun, Eliot, and Edwin C. M. van den Brink. 1998. Some Comments on the Late EB I Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j at Umm el Ga’ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan. Egypt and the Levant 7: 71–94.
Braun, Eliot, and Edwin C. M. van den Brink. 2008. Appraising South Levantine-Egyptian Interaction: Recent Discoveries from Israel and Egypt. In Egypt at Its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt“ Toulouse, 5–8 Sept. 2008, ed. Béatrix Midant-Reynes, Yann Tristant, Joann Rowland, and Stan Hendrickx, 642–688. Leuven: Peeters.
D’Altroy, T., and T. Earle. 1985. Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26 (2): 187–206.
de Miroschedji, Pierre, and Moain Sadek. 2000. Tell es-Sakan, un site du Bronze Ancien décovert dans la région de Gaza. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Letteres 2000 (January–March): 123–144.
Dessel, J. P 2009. Lahav I. Pottery and Politics: The Halif TerraceSite 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium BCE. Reports of the Lahav Research Project Excavations at Tell Halif, Israel, Vol. 1. Winona Lake: Indiana Eisenbrauns.
Earle, Timothy K. 2002. Bronze Age Economics: The First Political Economies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fried, Morton. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.
Garfinkel, Yosef, David Ben-Shlomo, and Tali Kuperman. 2009. Large-Scale Storage of Grain Surplus in the Sixth Millennium BC: The Silos of Tel Tsaf. Antiquity 83: 309–325.
Golani, Amir. 2010. Bequo’a: A New Proto-Historic Site in the Judean Foothills. In New Collected Papers. Vol. 4, 24–31. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Israel Antiquities Authority.
Gophna, Ram. 1987. Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period. In Egypt, Israel Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. Anson F. Rainey, 13–21. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Gophna, Ram. 1992. The Contacts between ‘En Besor Oasis, Southern Canaan, and Egypt during the Late Predynastic and the Threshold of the First Dynasty: A Further Assessment. In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Cairo, 21–24, October, 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, ed. Edwin C. M. van den Brink, 385–393. Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink.
Gophna, Ram. 1990a. The Early Bronze I Settlement at ‘En Besor Oasis. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 1–11.
Gophna, Ram. 1990b. The Egyptian Pottery of En Besor. Tel Aviv 17: 144–162.
Gophna, Ram, ed. 1995. Excavations at ‘En Besor. Tel Aviv: Ramot.
Gophna, Ram, and Dan Gazit. 1985. The First Dynasty Egyptian Residency at ‘En Besor. Tel Aviv 12 (1): 9–16.
Kempinski, Aharon, and Isaac Gilead. 1991. New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985–1988 Seasons. Tel Aviv 18: 164–192.
Levy, Thomas E., ed. 2006. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. London: Equinox Publishing.
Levy, Thomas E., David Alon, Patricia Smith, Yuval Yekutieli, Yorke Rowan, Paul Goldberg, Naomi Porat, Edwin C. M. van den Brink, A. J. Witten, Johnathan Golden, Caroline Grigson, Leslie Dawson, Agustin Holl, John Moreno, and Morag Kersel. 1997. Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500–3000 BCE): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995 Excavations. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 307: 1–52.
Levy, Thomas E., Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Yuval Goren, and David Alon. 1995. New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan. Biblical Archaeologist 58: 26–35.
Milevski, Ianir. 1992. Nota sobre sistemas de almacenamiento en Palestina. Aula Orientalis 10: 69–85.
Milevski, Ianir. 2011. Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant. A Marxist Perspective. London: Equinox Publishing.
Milevski, Ianir, and Yaakov Baumgarten. 2008. Between Lachish and Tel Erani: Horvat Ptora, a New Late Prehistoric Site in the Southern Levant. In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East April 3–8, 2006, Vol. II, ed. Joaquín Ma. Córdoba and Miquel Molist, 609–626. Madrid: UAM Ediciones.
Mills, Barbara. 2000. Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehistoric Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Oren, Eliezer. 1989. Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto-Canaanite Interconnetions, In L’urbanisationdela Palestine a l’Age du Bronze Ancien, ed. P. de Miroschedi, 389–405. Oxford: BAR International Series 527.
Oren, Eliezer D., and Yuval Yekutieli. 1992. Taur Ikhbeineh: Earliest Evidence for Egyptian Interconnections. In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Cairo, 21–24, October, 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, ed. Edwin C. M. van den Brink, 361–384. Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink.
Pfälzner, Peter. 2002. Modes of Storage and the Development of Economic Systems in the Early Jezireh Period. In Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday, ed. Lamia Al-Gailani Werr, John Curtis, Harriet Martin, Augusta McMahon, Joan Oates, and Julian Reade, 259–286. London: Nabu Publications.
Picard, Leo Y., and Uri Golany. 1992. Geological Map. Northern Sheet. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.
Polanyi, Karl, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Economies in History and Theory. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Schulman, Alan. 1976. Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor. ‘Atiqot (English Series) 11: 16–26.
Schulman, Alan. 1980. More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor. ‘Atiqot (English Series) 14: 17–33.
Schulman, Alan, and Ram Gophna. 1992. Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor. In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rdMillennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Cairo, 21–24, October, 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, ed. E. C. M. van den Brink, 395–416. Tel Aviv: E. C. M. van den Brink.
Seger, Joe D. 1996. The Point One Principle: A Case Study from the Halif Terrace. In Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, 245–268. Mississippi State: Cobb Institute of Archaeology.
Sobas, Magdalena. 2009. Tell el-Farkha 2006–2008. Pottery from Cult Room 211. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 13: 25–41.
Teeter, Emily. 2011. Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. Oriental Institute Publications 33. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Yeivin, Shmuel. 1960. Early Contacts between Canaan and Egypt. Israel Exploration Journal 10:193–203.
Yekutieli, Yuval. 2004. The Desert, the Sown and the Egyptian Colony. Egypt and the Levant 14:1–9.