Affiliation:
1. Gannon University , Erie , PA , USA
Abstract
Abstract
This paper provides a new perspective on the long-debated issue of “collapse” at the end of the urban Early Bronze Age III (EB III, traditionally ca. 2300 BCE) in the southern Levant. In the past, the facts on the ground – manifesting the classic characteristics of a devastating collapse (destruction/abandonment) at the end of EB III – appeared to be followed by a rural “dark age” or “pastoral-nomadic” interlude in Early Bronze IV (EB IV), also known as the Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA). The “dark age” then ended upon the regeneration of urbanism after 2000 BCE in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA). This conceptualization of dramatic culture change in the Early Bronze Age has dominated the scholarly literature since the mid-20th century, bolstered by the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theories on the collapse of nations and civilizations. Current theoretical constructs on collapse look to the post-collapse period for insights on the process itself. A post-collapse urban-to-rural process, documented by nine continuous occupational phases at the EB III/IV transition, has recently come to light at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan. This archaeological profile suggests strong local resilience in the aftermath of collapse, evident in the maintenance of traditions and social memory of settled life at the ancestral home. This adaptive cycle militates against traditional “collapse” modeling positing an apocalyptic break in Early Bronze Age civilization; instead, it resonates with resilience and resilience theory. Moreover, a plethora of new evidence has accumulated illuminating a type of “rural complexity” witnessed by a considerable database of EB IV permanent, multi-phased agricultural settlement sites belying the so-called pastoral-nomadic interlude rubric. Applying the construct of societal transformation, the hypothesis driving this research is that archaeological stratification at Khirbat Iskandar supports a process of recovery, resilience, and societal transformation, a reevaluation particularly apropos when contextualized in the new higher Early Bronze Age chronology.
Reference124 articles.
1. APAAME. 2011. Aerial Photographic Archive of Archaeology in the Middle East. www.humanities.uwa.edu.au/research/cah/aerialarchaeology (accessed September 30, 2016).
2. Bechar, Shlomit. 2013. “Tel Hazor: A Key Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” Near Eastern Archaeology 76 (2): 73–5, https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.76.2.0073.
3. Bell, Barbara. 1971. “The Dark Ages in Ancient History.” American Journal of Archaeology 75: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/503678.
4. Ramsey, Christopher Bronk, Michael W. Dee, Joanne M. Rowland, Thomas F. G. Higham, Stephen A. Harris, Fiona Brock, Anita Quiles, Eva M. Wild, Ezra S. Marcus, and Andrew J. Shortland. 2010. “Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt.” Science 328: 1154–7.
5. Burke, Aaron A. 2017. “Amorites, Climate Change, and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C” In The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14 and Climate Change: Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 7–8 March 2014, edited by Felix Höflmayer. Oriental Institute Seminars 11, 261–307. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.