The Archaeology of Nucleation in the Old World: Spatiality, Community, and Identity

Description

The Archaeology of Nucleation in the Old World explores the role of the built environment in expressing and shaping community organization and identity at prehistoric and historic nucleated settlements and early cities in the Old World. The spatial layout of large settlements results from the interaction of social, political, economic, and religious orders. Subsequent structural changes governed by the application, manipulation, and challenges of these orders yield a dynamic built environment which influences the processes of organization and identity formation. Taking advantage of advances in archaeological methods and theory that allow investigations of nucleated settlements to an extent and depth of detail that was previously impossible, the contributors to this volume address specific topics, such as how the built environment and location of activity zones help us to understand social configurations; how various scales of social units can be recognized and the resulting patterns interpreted; how collective actions contribute to settlement organization and community integrity; how changes in social relations are reflected in the development of the built environment; how cooperation and competition as well as measures to mitigate social and communication stress can be identified in the archaeological record; and how the built environment was used to express or manipulate identity. Cover Title Page Copyright page Contents Page List of Figures Chapter 1 Figure 1.1. A street in the ancient Greek city of Selinus (Selinunte) on the southwest coast of Sicily, showing the linear alignment of buildings and walls, facing south (photo by R. Salisbury). Figure 1.2. Mosaic on the building of the National Museum of History in Tirana, Albania (photo by A. Gyucha). Figure 1.3. The Baiterek Tower in Astana, Kazakhstan. The inset shows the gilded handprint of the country`s former president in the tower (photo by D. Pugh). Figure 1.4. Manhole cover, depicting the Aztec Sun Stone in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago (photo by A. Gyucha). Chapter 2 Figure 2.1. House plan at the Akşehir Settlement, showing an economically dependent household (figure by the author). Figure 2.2. House plan at the Çumra Settlement. Note the number of kitchens, indicating the number of families economically independent in the same compound (figure by the author). Figure 2.3. The Çumra Settlement, Upper Quarter. Two of the household clusters are highlighted (figure by the author). Figure 2.4. The Akşehir Settlement. A household’s spatial distribution within the site after economic separation (figure by the author). Figure 2.5. The Çumra Settlement, Upper Quarter. The herd/flock gathering around wells, the routes from settlement to pastureland, and the distribution of threshing floors (figure by the author). Figure 2.6. The Akşehir Settlement. The herd/flock gathering in the center and the route from settlement to pastureland (figure by the author). Chapter 3 Figure 3.1. Ruins of the ceremonial center of Göbekli Tepe (adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe). Figure 3.2. Burial mounds at Gamla Uppsala (photo by the author). Figure 3.3. Distribution map of Late Iron Age oppida between the Atlantic and East Europe (figure by the author). Figure 3.4. Reconstruction of the center of the oppidum of Corent with major public structures (adapted from Poux 2014). Figure 3.5. Plan of the Titelberg oppidum. 1: Cultic ditch that marks the boundary of the public space; 2: Excavation of the monumental center; 3: Concentration of the La Tène habitat; 4: Possible Roman military establishment; 5: East gate; 6: West gate Figure 3.6. Plan of Temple A at Manching (modified from Sievers 2010 by the author). Figure 3.8. Bibracte. Late Iron Age public space of ‘La Terrasse’ and the nearby Gallo-Roman temple (adapted from Fichtl 2005). Figure 3.9. Aerial view of the oppidum of San Cibrán de Las, with the acropolis on the top and the two concentric circles of fortifications (adapted from Álvarez-González et al. 2017). Chapter 4 Figure 4.1. Case study area in the eastern Carpathian Basin within Hungary, with locations of major settlements mentioned in the text. 1: Polgár-Csőszhalom; 2: Öcsöd-Kováshalom; 3: Csárdaszállás-Félhalomdűlő; 4: Vésztő-Mágor; 5: Szeghalom-Kovácshalom; 6 Figure 4.2. Interpretation of the magnetic anomalies at the Late Neolithic settlement of Csárdaszállás-Félhalomdűlő in the Körös region, eastern Hungary (figure by the author). Figure 4.3. The household cluster activity zones model (figure by the author). Chapter 7 Figure 7.1. Tripolye sites in the Southern Bug and Dnieper Interfluve and neighboring regions. Landscapes: a: Forest-steppe upland dissected landscapes; b: Loess upland terrace landscapes; c: Floodplain landscapes; d: Pine forest terraces; e: Northern s Figure 7.2. Settlement clusters, with the centers at Nebelevka and Maidanetske. 1: Gordashivka 1; 2: Kryvi Kolena; 3: Leshchivka; 4: Nebelevka; 5: Pischane; 6: Maidanetske; 7: Moshuriv 1; 8: Romanivka; 9: Talne 2; 10: Talne 3. Circles indicate settlement Figure 7.3. Graphs showing the weak (A) and strong (B) Allee-effect (adapted from Lockwood et al. 2007). Figure 7.4. Mortality pulses impacting lower cohorts and then moving upward through the pyramid (figure by E.B.W. Zubrow). Figure 7.5. The number of survivors at the end of each cohort whose beginning age is listed on the x axis—a geometric c simulation (figure by E.B.W. Zubrow). Chapter 5 Figure 5.1. Sites, archaeological groups, and regions mentioned in the text. I: Central Körös Valley; II: Tiszazug; III: Upper Tisza Valley; 1: Aszód-Papi földek; 2: Borđoš; 3: Csárdaszállás-Félhalomdűlő; 4: Čoka-Kremenjak; 5: Öcsöd-Kováshalom; 6: Polgá Figure 5.2. Szeghalom microregion: Middle Neolithic (circles) and Late Neolithic (rectangles) settlements in 5- and 10-km radius around Szeghalom-Kovácshalom (figure by the author). Figure 5.3. Öcsöd microregion: Middle Neolithic (circles) and Late Neolithic (rectangles) settlements in 5- and 10-km radius around Öcsöd-Kováshalom (figure by the author). Figure 5.4. Polgár Island: Middle Neolithic (circles) and Late Neolithic (rectangles) settlements in 5- and 10-km radius around Polgár-Csőszhalom (figure by the author). Figure 5.5. The Szeghalom-Kovácshalom settlement complex (adapted from Gyucha et al. 2019). Figure 5.6. The Öcsöd-Kováshalom settlement complex. Roman numbers indicate excavation trenches, Arabic numbers mark settlement nuclei (modified from Raczky and Füzesi 2018 by the author). Figure 5.7. The Polgár-Csőszhalom settlement complex. 1: Enclosed tell; 2: Ditch and palisade enclosure in the horizontal site (modified from Mesterházy et al. 2019 by the author). Chapter 6 Figure 6.1. Location of SE TRB. I: Lowland zone; II: Upland zone; IIIA: Mountain zone; IIIB: Zone of foreland plateaus, plains, and basins; 1: Loess landscape; 2: Para-lowland landscape; 3: Approximate boundaries between major ecological units; 4: Large S Figure 6.2. Distributions of Early and Middle Neolithic sites in the Bronocice microregion. 1: Lengyel–Polgár complex (33 sites): a: 0.5–3.0 ha, b: 4.5–5.5 ha; 2: SE TRB (106 sites, excluding Beaker/Baden horizon): a: < 2 ha, b: 2.1–4.9 ha, c: 5.0–10.0 ha Figure 6.3. Results of geomagnetic prospection in the southeastern part of Mozgawa. White quadrangles indicate potential houses (figure by K. Cappenberg, M. Korczyńska, and J. Ociepka). Figure 6.4. Reconstructed density of anthropogenic features at Mozgawa (figure by K. Cappenberg and M. Korczyńska). Figure 6.5. Development of the Bronocice site. A, B, C: Basic zones of the site; BR I to III: Settlement phases of the Funnel Beaker culture; BR IV and V: Settlement phases of the Funnel Beaker culture, with influences from the Baden culture (i.e., Beaker Figure 6.6. ‘Fuzzy’ chronology of Funnel Beaker culture surface findings at Mozgawa (1–3). Typological dating (which does not quite fit to the absolute dating, see text): TRB I: c. 3600–3500 BC; TRB II: c. 3500–3300 BC; TRB III: c. 3300–3100/2900 BC (fi Chapter 8 Figure 8.1. Distribution of nuraghi–tombe dei giganti and nuraghi–water-temples in Sardinia (figure by the author). Figure 8.2. Voronoi-partitioning into regions based on distance to points between Class 3 and Class 2 nuraghi and surrounding nuraghi (figure by the author). Figure 8.3. Intervisibility of nuraghi and water-temples. White arrows indicate false matches, black arrows indicate true matches (figure by the author). Figure 8.4. Voronoi-partitioning of Class 3 nuraghi and surrounding nuraghi in the test area (figure by the author). Figure 8.5. Cumulative viewshed and intervisibility of water-temples and nuraghi (5000 m in radius, upper) and Class 3 nuraghi and surrounding nuraghi (10,000 m in radius, lower). White arrows indicate false matches, black arrows indicate true matches (fi Chapter 9 Figure 9.1. Jutland and the Limfjord region, with emphasis on the former hills around present-day Aalborg. Wetlands are marked light gray and arable land is marked dark gray. The division is based on cadastral maps from the late 18th and early 19th centur Figure 9.2. Diagram showing the length of Iron Age longhouses at Nørre Tranders. Ninety-one longhouses are included in the diagram, of which length cannot be determined for 45 (figure by the author). Figure 9.3. Simplified ground plans of two longhouses at Nørre Tranders. To the left is House A288, to the right is House A104. Chalk floor is marked light gray, postholes black, and fireplaces and wall ditch gray (figure by the author). Figure 9.4. Burned House A371 seen from the east. A test trench separates the chalk floor in the dwelling room in the western part and the byre in the eastern part. The fireplace of the house is positioned in the middle of the dwelling room. The burned li Figure 9.5. The excavated area at Nørre Tranders, with the distribution of the 50 short longhouses (top) and the 41 regular longhouses (below). Forty-five longhouses are marked with a light gray line, indicating that their length could not be measured (fi Chapter 10 Figure 10.2. Nucleated common-fenced villages from Jutland (adapted from Rindel 1999). Figure 10.3. Result of point-pattern analysis. Point distributions are on the left. Yellow and red indicate the highest concentration of sites, blue indicates lower concentrations. On the right, the differences between two consecutive periods are highligh Figure 10.4. Development of clustered villages in the Oksbøl settlement cell. Overall settlement development between sand dunes and marshlands are indicated on the top. Triangles indicate sites with Late Bronze Age and EPRIA farmsteads, circles indicate s Figure 10.5. ERIA row-village at Vejen Vestermark. Two rows of farmsteads were laid out according to a pre-defined parcel structure (figure by S. Dollar). Chapter 11 Figure 11.1. Southern Etruria and Latium vetus in Central Italy (figure by the author). Figure 11.2. Etruscan and Latin networks of Orientalizing bronze ribbed bowls. A: Bimodal; B: Unimodal derived from bimodal and georeferenced (figure by the author). Figure 11.3. Orientalizing Age Latin network. Unimodal georeferenced network derived from a bimodal network of sites and all types of objects combined (figure by the author). Figure 11.4. Characteristic measures of southern Etruria and Latium vetus cultural networks from the Final Bronze Age to the Archaic Period: average distance, average degree, network density, betweenness centralization, and degree centralization (figure b Figure 11.5. Efficiency measures calculated on fluvial and terrestrial routes networks in Etruria and Latium vetus: global efficiency, second weighted and normalised Laplacian eigenvalue, local efficiency, and average weighted degree (figure by I. Morer a Figure 11.6. Comparison between the Latin empirical network (black) with Model One (LL, blue), Model Two (GL, green), Model Three (EE, red) and the modification of Model Three (EE-PA, yellow) (adapted from Fulminante et al. 2017). Chapter 12 Figure 12.1. Viewshed analysis, with areas intervisible with the Folly Lane marked in lighter colors. Crown copyright/database right 2012. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service (figure by the author). Figure 12.2. Viewshed analysis from five points along the Gorhambury Lane, illustrating changing vistas available to travelers (figure by the author). Figure 12.3. Viewshed analysis, with areas intervisible with the Stanway complex marked in lighter colors. Crown copyright/database right 2012. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service (figure by the author). Figure 12.4. Viewshed analysis, with areas intervisible with the Lexden tumulus marked in lighter colors. Crown copyright/database right 2012. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service (figure by the author). Figure 12.5. Viewshed analysis from five points along the Gosbecks Road, illustrating changing vistas available to travelers (figure by the author). Chapter 13 Figure 13.1. The territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) during the reign of Grand Duke Gediminas (1316–1341). 1: The GDL at the end of the 13th century; 2: The adjacent territories recognizing the authority of the GDL; 3: Expansion of the GDL dur Figure 13.2. The hillforts of Kernavė (photo by A. Kuzmickas). Figure 13.3. Kernavė in the 13th and 14th centuries. 1: Duke’s residence; 2: Defensive hillforts; 3: Fortified Town; 4: Upper Town; 5: Lower Town I – craftspeople properties in the peatbog area; 6: Lower Town II – possible location of the marketplace; 7: Figure 13.4. Buildings and fences in the excavated area of the Lower Town (modified from Vitkūnas 2005 by R. Vengalis). Chapter 14 Figure 14.1. Etruria and the major nucleated centers (figure by the author). Figure 14.2. A comparison of three nucleated centers. A: Chiusi; B: Veii; C: Aquarossa (figure by the author). Figure 14.3. A comparison of relationships between five nucleated centers and their countryside. The sea is represented by an anthropomorphized dolphin, drawing on the artistry of the Etruscan ‘Micali’ painter (figure by the author). Figure 14.4. Three phases of development in Veii. A: Bronze Age; B: Iron Age; C: Archaic Period (figure by the author). Figure 14.5. The layout of nucleation in Perugia (figure by the author). List of Tables Authors List Nucleation as Social Process: Built Environment, Community Organization, and Identity. An Introduction to the Volume Attila Gyucha and Roderick B. Salisbury What Does Settlement Layout Tell Us About the Community? An Ethnoarchaeological Study E. Nurcan Yalman From Sanctuaries to Towns: The Role of Religion in Early Urbanization Manuel Fernández-Götz Activity Zones and Community Formation: The Role of Spatial Structure in Early Nucleated Villages Roderick B. Salisbury Population Aggregation and Social Transformations in Middle-Range Societies: A Comparative Study of Neolithic Nucleated Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain Attila Gyucha Large Settlements of the Funnel Beaker Culture in Lesser Poland: Instruments of Social Cohesion and Cultural Conversion Spatio-Demographic Structure and Social Organization: A Linear Trajectory or Overlapping Trends? Aleksandr Diachenko and Ezra B.W. Zubrow Sanctuaries and Settlements: Spatial Organization in the Nuragic Landscapes of Sardinia Ruth Beusing Settlement Mounds, Identity, and Continuity in the Settlement Organization of Iron Age Jutland Niels Haue Multilinear Settlement Development and Nucleation during the Early Iron Age in Southwestern Jutland, Denmark Niels Algreen Møller and Scott Robert Dollar Nucleated Settlements as Assemblages: A Regional Network Approach to Built Environments Francesca Fulminante Landscape as Metaphor: Burial Monuments and ‘Landscapes of Power’ in Late Iron Age Britain Karolis Minkevičius Kernavė Town in the 13th and 14th Centuries: Social and Cultural Patterns of Community Rokas Vengalis and Gintautas Vėlius The Creation and Maintenance of Powerful Places in Etruria Simon Stoddart