3 2 1 motneo io a enntdi aiu aesuis sal soitdwt ra and Pf urban 2001; with Mazar associated 98-100; usually 1985: studies, case (Currid various societies in state-level noted been has silos of importance .Anme fslsaebiti ls rxmt.I sese ohnl trg nanumber a in storage handle to easier is It proximity. close in built are silos of number A 2. evenly distributed grain, the of pressure harbour the withstands large better to which shape, grain cylindrical of A on tons 1. seen year: few be each a tons can stores of principles that millions handle These farm that individual 2001). installations the Beedle from 104-9; scales, 1985: different (Currid worldwide silos of cnmcdsicin,ters fubns n tt omto.Teeapcswr already essay were groundbreaking aspects his These in formation. Childe livestock. state Gordon and by and discussed grain urbanism of socio- of and rise form specialisation the the craft distinctions, full-time accumulation economic in which of the surpluses, development commodity, in the agricultural a stage facilitated of accumulation first become Surplus production the can the history, the human was surplus In of wealth This products. consumption of other created. the for for is exchanged necessary surplus be that can a than harvest. larger it, communities next is the agricultural harvesting until grain all year people stored a of least of at aspect amount for essential kept the be an When to been need crops have Harvested ages. grain the of throughout storage the for Silos Introduction monuments Keywords: of appearance first southern the the mark in to surplus. Tsaf seem Tel demonstrative towers at of barrel-shaped discovered white, silos grain tall, remarkable These the Levant. describe and report authors The oe Garfinkel Yosef of Tsaf silos Tel the BC: millennium sixth in the surplus grain of storage Large-scale eevd 1Arl20;Acpe:6Jn 08 eie:1 uy2008 July 14 Revised: 2008; June 6 Accepted: 2008; April 21 Received: ANTIQUITY nteps,a ela oa,svrluieslpicpe aegie h construction the guided have principles universal several today, as well as past, the In fsalrslsta noelreisalto,mkn tpsil osoegano different of grain store to possible it making installation, large one in than silos smaller of rectilinear an a confining of walls corners rectilinear or than base material the building on space. stress less equal create requires not wall does rounded and A silo shape. the of sides the onto sal(mi:[email protected]) (Email: Israel eateto ntm n nhoooy ake colo eiie e vvUiest,TlAi 69978, Aviv Tel University, Aviv Tel Medicine, of School Sackler Anthropology, and [email protected]) Anatomy (Email: of Israel 76100, Department garfi[email protected]) Rehovot (Email: Israel Science, 91905, of Jerusalem Institute University, Weitzmann Hebrew The Archaeology, of Institute 3(09:309–325 (2009): 83 Levant,Chalcolithic,grain,agriculture,storage,silos 1 ai Ben-Shlomo David , 309 2 aiKuperman Tali & h ra Revolution Urban The lnr2002). alzner ¨ 3 15) The (1950).
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
years, or different crops, separately. In the case of spoilage by fire, humidity, rodents or insects, not all the stored material will be affected. 3. Organisation in rows, adjacent to each other, optimising their arrangement within a confined space.
Tel Tsaf indicates that such silos were built in the ancient Near East as early as the late sixth millennium BC. In addition to their importance in the history of storage, they shed light on surplus accumulation and concentration of wealth on a scale never before reported from the Proto-historic Near East. Their location not in Greater Mesopotamia but in the southern Levant is surprising, as this area has not previously revealed evidence of economic and social complexity at such an early date.
Tel Tsaf Tel Tsaf is located in the central Jordan Valley near Beth Shean (Israel new grid map reference 2015.2024; Figure 1). In 2004-2007 four excavation seasons were conducted by Y. Garfinkel on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Nearly 800m2 were opened and a densely built-up settlement has been unearthed (Garfinkel et al. 2007a & b). The site was occupied only during the Middle Chalcolithic period and a date of 5200- 4600 cal BC has been established on the basis of eight recently obtained radiometric dates (Figure 2). Large-scale excavations exposed a com- posite array of courtyard buildings combining rectilinear rooms, rounded rooms and 19 rounded silos (Figures 3- 5). The silos, which vary in number and size, are located within large open courtyards. They are well-built mud-brick installations, 1-4m in diameter, with thick paved floors and rounded plastered walls (Figures 6-8). These silos conform with the three principles mentioned above: they are rounded, built in groups and arranged in straight lines. Several aspects of the material culture of Tel Tsaf indicate the importance of this site. The basic dwelling unit was a large (over 250m2) courtyard structure. The site Figure 1. Map of the southern Levant and the location of has an important assemblage, including an Tel Tsaf. elaborate type of pottery, not found in any
310 te iei sal(afikl19:168,fu hrso bi otr (Garfinkel pottery Ubaid of sherds four 186-8), 1999: (Garfinkel Israel in site other Tsaf. Tel from dates Radiometric 2. Figure one io n aycoigisaltos(erh,oesadratn is.These pits). roasting and ovens (hearths, installations cooking many and silos rounded units. and architectural 2 major I and four Building silos: 1 unearthed Tables rounded exposure contained in horizontal units presented these large is of The Tsaf Each Tel 5. of and architecture 4 the Figures on information basic The silos (Garfinkel The Tsaf Tel from only far so known is 28-30). Chalcolithic Middle been the have items obsidian 15 nearly Tsaf Tel at However, Levant unearthed. southern period. the during Chalcolithic circulating to Middle materials; stopped exported periods, raw the was Chalcolithic as Early which red and site Obsidian, Neolithic green, the the seal. various during Turkey to stone from from one imported made and chunks, were sealings greenstone beads clay of stone 140 number 100 a about minerals; grave; black single and a in beads 1668 of rvosybe on ntesuhr eat ioi hl oehrwt ag number large a Mayer, with Bar-Yosef together (D. shell Nilotic shells a not Mediterranean Levant; has southern of pottery the such in – Mesopotamia found or been Syria previously North either from imported 13) Figure 2007a: src g hl,i w ocnrtos n of one concentrations, two in shell, egg ostrich hseiec fa nesv xhnentokadacmlto fwat during wealth of accumulation and network exchange intensive an of evidence This Fgr ) ag pncutadicue ag etnua om(10 room rectangular large a includes courtyard open large a 5): (Figure oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef 311 c pers 0 ed nacutadadtesecond the and courtyard a in beads 900 . . comm ) vr20 ed aefrom made beads 2500 over .); tal et 2007a: . × tal et 5m), .
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Table 1. The different buildings in Area C at Tel Tsaf. Elements Building I Building II Building III Building IV
Exposure Nearly complete Nearly complete Small part Nearly complete Excavated area 256m2 200m2 160m2 200m2 Courtyards Large Large Large Large Roofed rooms and Rectangular (1) Upper phase Rectangular (3) Rectangular (2) their number rounded (2) Lower phase rounded (3) Number of silos Upper phase: 4 Upper phase: 2 1 Upper phase: 2 Lower phase: 5 Lower phase: 3 Lower phase: 4 Reconstructed storage Upper phase: Upper phase: 21.7m3 7m3 Upper phase: capacity 51.2m3 Lower Lower phase: 29.8m3 Lower phase: 51.6m3 25.3m3 phase: 35.4m3 Reconstructed weight∗ Upper phase: Upper phase: 15.2 4.9 tons Upper phase: 35.8 tons tons Lower phase: 20.8 tons Lower phase: 17.7 tons Lower phase: 36.1 tons 24.8 tons Reconstructed Upper phase: Upper phase: 30.4 9.8 Upper phase 41.6 cultivated area in 71.6 Lower Lower phase: 35.4 Lower phase hectares∗∗ phase: 72.2 49.6
∗700 kg per m3. ∗∗500 kg per hectare.
Table 2. The silos of Tel Tsaf. The volume is estimated to a height of 2m. Building Outer (inner) Inner area Estimated Silo no. (stratum) diameter (m)(m2) capacity (m3) Notes
C53 I (upper phase) 2.9 6.6 13.2 C64 III 2.1 3.5 7 C66 I (lower phase) 1.9 3.45 6.9 C74 I (lower phase) 2.0 3.15 6.3 Adult burial C98 C122 II (C-3b) 1.5 1.8 3.6 C171 I (lower phase) 2.2 3.8 7.6 C189 ? (C-4c) 1.6 2 4 C272 II (C-3) 3.0 7.05 14.1 Jar burial C310 C286 I (upper phase) 3.3 (3.0) 7.05 14.1 C288 II (C-3) 2.2 3.8 7.6 C339 I (upper phase) 3.25 (3.0) 7.05 14.1 Adult burial C555 C415 I (upper phase) 2.8 (2.5) 4.9 9.8 C471 II/IV (C-3b/4a) 2.6 5.3 10.6 C550 IV (C-4b) 2.2 (1.85) 2.7 5.4 C565 IV (C-4b) 1.8 2.55 5.1 C568 IV (C-4b) 4.0 12.6 25.2 Plastered C582 IV (C-4a) 3.5 9.6 19.2 Infant burial C518 C603 I (lower phase) 2.5 4.9 9.8 Charred cereals C633 I(lowerphase) 1.6 2 4
312 ntlain esr ogl 1.5 roughly measure installations phase. upper C, Area of map General 3. Figure ed.I h ot-etcre ftecutad daett io uilC8wsfound. was C98 Burial silo, a to adjacent courtyard, the of charred corner of south-west patches cereal the charred large In contained between containing silo seeds. and pebbles additional debris An size angular figurines. burnt female same medium-sized by anthropomorphic two covered the of and was wood floor of floor cobbled silos This a equidistant 1). with (Table four them axis, are same there the 4) on (Figure oriented phase lower the In building change. the of courtyard the in held were time. feasts to that time appears from It bones. animal of quantities lhuhtomi tairpi hsswr icre ee h eea lnddnot did plan general the here, discerned were phases stratigraphic main two Although oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef × .madaefildwt un tnsadvr large very and stones burnt with filled are and 0.8m 313
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Figure 4. General map of Area C, lower phase.
In the upper phase (Figure 3) the courtyards contained four silos, which were larger than the earlier silos, reaching a diameter of 3.5m; however, they did not maintain the aligned orientation of the previous phase. In the centre of one of these silos a concentration of large stones covered Burial C555 (Figures 6 and 9).
314 aecmrsdo n rtocusso rcscetdapdu,poal opoetthe protect to probably podium, a created bricks of courses two or one of comprised base as well as constructed, installations. were cooking and rooms silos rectangular rounded large three Here 4). (Figure arrangement interior IV Building courtyard. open an in III deposited Building in 12). was (Figure C310 inserted Burial side was Jar eastern stage C518 silo’s upper Burial the the During silo to Silo 11). next 7; this (Figure (Figure silo of earlier rebuilt stage the was of intermediate it floor the as the During diminished and 2). a Table phase see lowest on the C568, built in level. diameter) were floor in courtyard which (4m the largest below silos, These sunken the were phase. rooms Unlike rounded lower installations, the 10). of cooking its (Figure parts floors, in lower stones the living rooms podium, grinding by rounded indicated and three as flints units, and pottery, residential phase were upper rooms its rounded in rooms rounded few A foreground. II the in Building I Complex Building with season, 2008 the of end the at together. view shown general are C, phases stratigraphic Area Tsaf Tel 5. Figure h osrcintcnqe fteslsaeaprn rmtefil bevtos The observations. field the from apparent are silos the of techniques construction The was size Its phases. main three has them of One here. built were silos rounded Three ag pncutad(h atr athsbe rddaa)wt two with away) eroded been has part eastern (the courtyard open large a : hssrcuei oae ne uligI aigasmlrotiebtdifferent but outline similar a having II Building under located is structure this : nyasalpr fti tutr a enecvtd n n iowsfound was silo one and excavated, been has structure this of part small a only : oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef 315
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Figure 6. Silo 339 in Building I, with stones covering burial in its centre.
grain from rodents and humidity. While the bases were relatively well preserved, the walls of the silos had usually not survived, and consequently their height is not known. The outer wall of the silo was thin and built on top of the podium, with elongated bricks laid on their narrow end. When preserved to a height of about 0.3m (Figure 6) it indicates a cylindrical, barrel-shaped structure. According to ethnographic parallels (e.g. Aurenche 1981: Figure 207; Pfalzner¨ 2002), as well as depictions on somewhat later cylinder seals (Figure 13), that show such structures accessed by ladders, (Amiet 1972: 652: Plate 16, 658-63), a total height of around 2m is estimated (Figure 14). This height seems a conservative approximation, as it is not likely that the height of such thick-floored structures would have been smaller than their diameter. This height is used for the reconstructed storage capacities given in Table 2 (the volume is calculated assuming a cylindrical shape). The interpretation of these structures as silos is based on their cylindrical barrel shape and their spatial organisation, the thick base which protected the grains, and the large quantities of charred seeds found in one of them. On the outer walls of two of the silos, white plaster was still preserved. In their time the silos may have been white towers visible from a distance, manifestation of economic and probably political power. The roofing, which was not preserved, was probably made of a mixture of mud, reeds and wood, as testified by various chunks of such material found in the site’s sediments.
316 ih iewt ne ee.Teha a undt h ih n h ad a eiethe beside lay hands burial. the the and with its right found on the were to lying goods turned infant, grave was one-year-old associated head a No The body. of flexed. that knees was with skeleton side right articulated and east complete the burial. This the in with 11). head found the were flexed, goods knees grave C518: with Burial associated No side west. its the on in lay legs and the and complete was skeleton The 12). a ewe 0ad3 er.Teti agno rgeto neeobtmay the orbit with eye found death an were at were goods of Age and C310: grave fragment Burial fragmentary stage. associated a extremely later No are of a temperatures. the bones margin at The to high burial. it thin female. legs varying into a The and at was cut east years. burned deceased pit the 30 the oven in that and an head indicate 20 by the damaged between with badly oriented was position, was flexed It a south. in silos: the laid with association individual in or within C98: them Burial of all Tsaf, Tel in found were burials Four burials The IV. Building in 568 Silo 7. Figure h uili oae daett h ot-eto io7 n nldsan includes and 74 Silo of south-west the to adjacent located is burial the a uilcnann ent,fudajcn oSl 7 nises (Figure east its on 272 Silo to adjacent found neonate, a containing burial jar a uilfudi io52 retdes-etwt h kl ntews (Figure west the in skull the with east-west oriented 582, Silo in found burial a oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef 317
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Burial C555: an articulated burial found in Silo 339, oriented north-south with the skull in the south. The head turns to the right, the knees were flexed and the arms were slightly flexed at the elbow. The remains are possibly those of a female aged approximately 40 years. The burial was found with 1668 beads placed on the frontal part of the pelvis, organised in six rows (Figure 9). Each of these burials is of a single individual in articulation, usually in flexed position, and they are all associated with a silo, two inside a silo and the two others beside a silo. One of the burials was decorated with 1668 beads. Clearly, the vast majority of the population was not buried in relation to the silos, and these were probably buried in ceme- teries outside the settlement, as at Late Figure 8. Close-up of Silo 565 in Building IV. Chalcolithic Shiqmim (Levy 1987) and other sites. The burials related to the silos reflect selected, possibly important, individuals.
Figure 9. Close-up of the adult burial in Silo 339.
318 uigtePoohsoi eidi h otenLvn,soaefclte eefudin found ( were Neolithic facilities Pottery storage Levant, southern phase: chronological the every in almost period Proto-historic the During facilities Storage Discussion Tsaf. Tel at room rounded A 10. Figure h upyo xgnadcetn oie topee(e-eoha2005). (Ben-Yehoshua ( atmosphere Chalcolithic modified Early 60; a creating Figure and blocking 1, sealed, oxygen 1992: hermetically of probably (Garfinkel supply were jars Munhata the the and activities insect Hagolan avoid To Sha‘ar 117-18). at 2004: levels floor below sunken eo h orlvla h ie fHrly n elWd enn(afikl19:191-3); 1999: (Garfinkel sunken installations, Feinan found Wadi subterranean Tell were rounded and jars and Herzliya pottery shallow of sites small, large Tsaf; the and Tel at of level silos floor the the below found: been have types facilities ideCaclti ( Chalcolithic Culture’ Middle Rabah ‘Wadi the as known is which 127). well, 1999: as (Garfinkel stage this in manufactured were period ar,KfrGlm e iiadTl hn Grne 99 5-) e e,Asawir Teo, Tel few 155-8), a 1999: (Garfinkel to Shuna limited Tell was Gil‘adi, and Kefar capacity ‘Ali, Qiri lined Tel Tel sites: storage were many sides Galim, Their from their Kefar reported end. and been Kabri, slabs have their silos flat on These with kilograms. placed paved hundred were slabs silos elongated these of with floors The stones. with c c 4050 Ccalibrated) BC 6400-5800 . oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef 8050 Ccalibrated) BC 5800-5300 . c 3040 Ccalibrated) BC 5300-4500 . 319 eea ag otr esl eefound were vessels pottery large several : h ag otr esl fteprevious the of vessels pottery large the : nti tg he ifrn storage different three stage this in : c mo esi imtr lined diameter, in less or 1m .
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Figure 11. Infant burial in Silo 582.
(Eisenberg et al. 2001: Figures 3.10, 3.17, 3.18; Yannai 2006: Figures 2.7, 2.8) and ‘Neolithique´ recent’´ Byblos (Dunand 1973: Plates 33: 1-3, 39: 2). Late Chalcolithic (c. 4500-3600 BC calibrated): different strategies were used in this period. Very large pottery vessels (up to 2m high) were found sunken below the floor level at Tell Dalhamiya, Tel Kitan and Abu Hamid (Garfinkel 1999: 249-53). At Gilat, rounded pit silos lined with stones or bricks were reported (Levy et al. 2006: 114-5, Plates 5.9-10); these were about 1-1.5m in diameter. At Abu Matar and Bir Safadi, bell-shaped pits interpreted as silos were found in rather large numbers (Perrot 1955). The Tel Tsaf silos are in sharp contrast to all other Proto-historic silos unearthed in the southern Levant. They are above ground, carefully built and plastered, and their storage capacity is ten times that of the other examples, or even more. It is possible that they reflect a northern Mesopotamian tradition. Rounded free-standing storage installations, 2-4m in diameter, have been reported from a number of Proto-historic sites in Mesopotamia, like Hassuna, Yarim Tepe and Tell Sabi Abyad (Aurenche 1981: Plate 94; Merpert & Munchaev 1984; Verhoeven & Kranendonk 1996: 59-63, Figures 2.9, 2.12, 2.14-15). In contrast to the Tel Tsaf silos, they were never placed in an enclosed courtyard but were located in open areas between structures. Their number per site is quite limited, only two or three at a time.
320 ag ru fslsi oae ntecnr ftevlae rudi ri non-confined in or it Pf around & (Bourdier village, D9; storage the Plate community-level of 64-7, common centre places comprises 1985: the these and Minh-Ha In in houses, the 64-7). located near 1985: settlement. is areas Minh-Ha the silos open & of of (Bourdier centre group peoples the large Nuna in a and the from located Lela rank Africa, West the usually Faso, social Burkina of are from need, villages obtained case to been this have according this in of distribution examples silos Ethnographic with The community, factors. the other of or stored use is common grain when a the is reflecting storage for each Community-level organisation. observations, economic ethnographic and from social inferred different be can strategies storage Various 1946). (Marinatos aspects Melos Social of island and Greek 2-5 the Figures from 104, model 1985: clay (Currid silos a paintings and rounded wall therein) (Amiet Egyptian of Susa references 658-63), from rows 16, seals with cylinder Plate 13): Granaries 652, dated (Figure 1972: 4b). representations Farukhabad in artistic Tepe Plate various organisation at 1981: from state known (Wright found are about later was talk millennium installation can a similar we about a when Indeed, periods, environments. later urban resemble much they fact, of of matter installations a As sites. storage Mesopotamian the to compared when even period, the iue1.Ifn uil30i a,fudajcn oSl 272. Silo to adjacent found jar, in 310 Burial Infant 12. Figure hs h ragmn fteslsadtesaeo trg tTlTa r usadn for outstanding are Tsaf Tel at storage of scale the and silos the of arrangement the Thus, oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef lnr20:246 iue -;frohrexamples other for 6-9; Figures 264-6, 2002: alzner ¨ 321
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
see p. 262 there). Private storage in jars also occurs in the various households as domestic-level storage (Pfalzner¨ 2002: 266, Figure 10). This is probably an example of a relatively egalitarian society, as the whole community belongs to a single clan. Storage on a family or household level is when grain is stored within private property. In an egalitarian society each family stores the products grown in the family’s fields. In a stratified society, families of higher rank may receive a certain portion of the grain cultivated by other members of the community. An ethnographic example of this was observed at the village of Hasanabad in north-western Iran, where the chief of the village stores crops from the entire community in the especially large courtyard of his house, the Qal‘a (Watson 1979: 34, 40, 294, Figure 5.29). In this case the goods ‘taxed’ from various parts of the community are stored in certain confined properties or in central ‘institutional’ structures (for early Near Figure 13. Depiction of rounded silos on cylinder seals from Susa (A: Amiet 1972: Plate 16, 660, 663) and on a wall- Eastern societies see e.g. Hole 1999; painting from Thebes (B: after Currid 1985: Figure 2). Pfalzner¨ 2002 and references therein). In the case of Tel Tsaf we are not dealing with community-level storage, as the silos are located within the privately owned courtyards. This is probably not domestic- level storage in an egalitarian society, due to the relatively large capacity of storage per household. Each building probably housed only a nuclear family, as the roofed area is quite limited. The common estimation of a person’s consumption of cereals per year is around 200kg (Hole 1991; Mazar 2001: 458). Thus, a nuclear family does not need more than 1.5 tons of cereals per year. The Figure 14. Reconstruction of a silo at Tel Tsaf. storage capacity of the courtyard structures at Tel Tsaf is 12 to 24 times larger, with figures like 15.2, 17.7, 20.8, 24.8, 35.8 and 36.1 tons (Table1). Thus, we have a clear indication of surplus accumulation on a scale never unearthed before in the Proto-historic Near East. Possibly, the differences in storage capacities between the buildings at Tel Tsaf reflect differences in the socio-economic status of these families.
322 vle rmo eerltdt eodr uil nslsdrn h aeChalcolithic, Late Chalcolithic. the Middle during the in silos silos in in burials burials primary secondary from burials evolved to structures turn ossuary related in that silo suggest which were similar may or One of India. from Rajastan, examples evolved and ethnographic made Spain were Georgia, various period Iran, presented Chalcolithic Israel, Late from They the silos. in burials imitate secondary for to used ossuaries clay the that te hloihcstsi h otenLvn:AuMtr(ert15:2,13 Figure 173, 26, 1955: (Perrot Matar Abu several Levant: (Levy in Gilat southern occur and probably the 26a) silos in to is sites relationship second in Chalcolithic or The other within deity. burials a Human them. of to threat. desires adjacent possible or any needs from silos the the with legitimacy protect it to greater forces obtaining associating supernatural is by using first system may The connections taxation mechanisms. These a universal 2001). for rather Mazar two 1950; Childe by example, explained been found for be have were (see, cult and site cases storage the many between from in Connections 15). noted figurines (Figure female I Building and large in figurines two silos the two only by between The implied is them. Tsaf Tel with at associated silos the burials of importance religious and symbolic The aspects Symbolic io poorp yV Naikhin). V. by two (photograph between silos found figurine anthropomorphic An 15. Figure sntdaoe l orbras dlsadifnsaie eefudwti io or silos within found were alike, infants and adults burials, four all above, noted As tal et oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef 06 0,37 lt .9.BrYsf&Aao 20)suggested (2001) Ayalon & Bar-Yosef 5.19). Plate 337, 108, 2006: . 323 elad10ca elnsfudi the in found sealings clay and site. 140 stone administration scale. and a by seal to settlement provided be local link may redistribution the further on A considered least be at administration, can of long- degree some for of and evidence kind planning Tsaf some Tel range involved at have The employed must settlement? strategies the in storage families other families ‘payingon elite by tax- or imposed a of system ‘serfs’ evidence collection have we by do Or, cultivated tenants’? territories land large of owning ‘landlords’ system with economic an Does indicate Tsaf? Tel evidence at this to silos grain the within of stored be amounts large that such lands produced the cultivated the Who of settlement. structure questions socio-economic several the a about raises is of and capacity family, This hectare. working single required. the is beyond per clearly 40ha grain of grain, of cultivation tons 20 of accumulate to Therefore, 500kg about oevr rdtoa giutr yields agriculture traditional Moreover,
Research Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf
Burials in relation to silos occur in other cultures and regions of the world in various periods: Iron Age France (Lambot 1998), seventh–first centuries BC Britain (Aldhouse- Green 2004: 331) and 1500-2000 BP Texas (Lovata 1997). Burials in or near structures for the storage of grain may have reflected the belief in regeneration and the analogy made between the rebirth of a seed planted in the ground and the rebirth of a human buried in the silo. Such symbolic significance could have been associated with myths and beliefs related to death and rebirth. The oldest known case of such a myth is the Sumerian resurrection cycle of Inanna and Dumuzi (Jacobsen 1970; 1976), Osiris of the Egyptian mythology (Mettinger 2001: 217-18) and later Persephone in the Greek mythology. A connection between silos and resurrection myths was also suggested for reused silos in Iron Age Europe (Bradley 2003: 19). At Tel Tsaf the burials in silos are among the earliest examples of this concept. Furthermore, in the Sumerian mythology Inanna is associated with the storehouses (Jacobsen 1976: 36, 135), and at Tel Tsaf the two anthropomorphic female figurines were found near silos. Moreover, the two adult individuals buried in or near the silos seem to have been females.
Conclusion The silos of Tel Tsaf represent grain storage on a scale not previously unearthed in the Proto-historic Near East. Differences in the arrangement and sizes of the silos between the structures and the chronological phases probably represent different storage strategies. Their location within nuclear-family courtyard structures reflects a complex economic system with surpluses and accumulation of wealth, which is not distributed equally between members of the community. The amounts of grain that could have been stored in the silos by far exceed the needs of the inhabitants of the buildings accommodated in them, as well as exceeding the cultivation capacity of these people. Therefore, they indicate a high degree of social stratification in this period. The symbolic and religious significance of the silos is indicated by the figurines and burials associated with them. The linkage between death and the storage of grain probably indicates early mythological belief in death and regeneration. This is possibly one of the earliest manifestations of this symbolism, which continues to be prominent in the ancient Near East and beyond for several millennia.
References BAR-YOSEF,O.&E.AYALON. 2001. Chalcolithic ossuaries – what do they imitate and why? ALDHOUSE-GREEN, M. 2004. Changing and shaming: Qadmoniot 34 (1): 34-43 (in Hebrew). images of defeat from Llyn Cerrig Bach to Sarmitzegetusa. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(3): BEEDLE, P.L. 2001. Silos: an agricultural success story 319-40. (Giving Old Barns New Life 4). Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Extension. AMIET, P. 1972. Glyptique susienne des origines al’` ´epoque des Perses ach´em´enides (Memoires´ de la Del´ egation´ BEN-YEHOSHUA, S. (ed.) 2005. E nvironmentally friendly archeologique´ en Iran 43). Paris: Librarie technologies for agricultural produce quality. London: Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. CRC Press & Boca Raton (FL): Taylor & Francis. AURENCHE, O. 1981. La maison orientale: l’architecture du Proche Orient ancien des origines au milieu du BRADLEY, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization quatri`eme mill´enaire. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe. Paul Geuthner. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13:1: 5-23.
324 L C G E C H G goddess The 2004. – 1999. – B J storage possible of implications Economic 1999. – G L 1976. – D ACOBSEN EVY AMBOT ISENBERG OURDIER HILDE URRID ARFINKEL ARFINKEL ARFINKEL UNAND OLE .LmnDlrv (ed.) Leman-Delerive G. nGued odetel I tl e i‘l avant sie‘cle Ier le et VIe le Je’sus-Christ entre nord du Gaule en 58.Nmr iit‘ed ar’inwallonne. re’gion la de Ministe‘re Namur: 75-87. 1-33. set eiiu thi et religieux aspects xaain seasons. excavations oit o eooainSuisBulletin Studies Mesopotamian for period. Society 5 Ninevite the in agriculture lnigReview Planning u.Co. Volta. Pub. Upper in living for designs ulcto ) ai:AscainPal Association Paris: 6). Publication Franc Recherche (Israel) de Munhata (Centre from stages Rabah and Hagolan Society. Israel in site Neolithic University. Hebrew Archaeology, Levant .V A. Archaeology Syria. NE Ziyade, Tell at structures Palestine. irii d’Am Librairie eot1) euae:Ire niute Authority. Antiquities Israel Jerusalem: 13). Report Valley Hula the Age in Bronze site Early and Chalcolithic, Neolithic, a Te’o: xlrto Journal news). Exploration and (notes 2007 Tsaf Tel 2007b. (Ardennes) odn aeUiest Press. University Yale London: religion. Mesopotamian Press. University Harvard (MA): Cambridge culture Mesopotamian and on essays history other and Tammuz of image rhelgclReports. Archaeological British Oxford: 356). Series International Desert, (1982-1984) Negev Israel northern the in societies Chalcolithic 0:97-109. 101: ..1987. T.E. , .19.Mdl hbrstlmn and settlement Khabur Middle 1991. F. , ..15.Teubnrevolution. urban The 1950. V.G. , ..18.Tebeiegaaiso ancient of granaries beehive The 1985. J.D. , .19.LsmrsdAyRomance d’Acy morts Les 1998. B. , elti n hloihcpteyo h southern the of pottery Chalcolithic and Neolithic h raue fdrns:ahsoyof history a darkness: of treasures The ERED .1973. M. , ,T.(W.H.M .P ..M T.T. & J.-P. , . .G A. E., , ,Y.,D.B .1992. Y. , ,Y.,D.B Qdm3) euae:Isiueof Institute Jerusalem: 39). (Qedem 07.TlTa:te2004-2006 the Tsaf: Tel 2007a. . etcrf e etce Pal Deutschen des Zeitschrift aLaT ` 6 267-83. 26: Eue tDcmns S Documents, et (Etudes hqi :suisconcerning studies I: Shiqmim rqee ’retA Maisonneuve. A. d’Orient et erique ´ OPHER EN EN oilsd yls oueV volume Byblos, de Fouilles 1 3-17. 21: h otr sebae fSha‘ar of assemblages pottery The fSaa aoa.Ecvtosa a at Excavations Hagolan. Sha‘ar of n nl:paiusfun pratiques finale: ene ` HradSmtcSre 21). Series Semitic (Harvard ORAN -S -S BiihAcaooia Reports Archaeological (British 72 236-41. 57/2: salEpoainJournal Exploration Israel euae:Ire Exploration Israel Jerusalem: . rrhescae in sociale, erarchie ´ HLOMO HLOMO Ire niute Authority Antiquities (Israel INH e ae C)& (CT) Haven New &R.G oe afikl ai e-hoo&Tl Kuperman Tali & Ben-Shlomo David Garfinkel, Yosef d) 1970. ed.). e ets ie fun rites Celtes: Les -H ¸aisedeJerusalem ,M.F A &M.F 1985. . REENBERG e ok Africana York: New REIKMAN ora fField of Journal eorient. ´ Canadian oadthe Toward reFule4): Fouille erie ´ REIKMAN astina-Vereins ¨ fia spaces: African Town Israel 1 17-29. 21: 2001. . eraires, ´ ´ eraires .Paris: & 57/1: . Tel 325 L M P M Y P L W M M W V ERROT OVATA F EVY ANNAI ERHOEVEN ATSON ARINATOS ERPERT AZAR ETTINGER ALZNER RIGHT ¨ ultnd orsodneHell Correspondance de Bulletin ae nhnu fhs75 his of David honour to in presented Oates Syria and and archaeology Mesopotamia the of on history papers plans: and pots Of Curtis, J. Werr, H.Martin,A.McMahon,J.Oates&J.Reade(ed.) Al-Gailani L. in Early period, the Jezireh in systems economic of development israin nvriyo ea tAustin. at Texas of University dissertation, MA Unpublished Texas. in County, cemetery Karnes prehistoric a (41KA102), site silo 38,167-89. 73-84, retlIsiueo h nvriyo Chicago. of University the of (IL): Institute Chicago Oriental 447-64. 5): Books Research of Oriental Schools American 59; Civilizations Oriental nmmr fDulsL Esse L. lands Douglas neighboring of the memory and in Israel of archaeology (ed.) Wolff the S.R. in in Yerah, Beth at building erBeersheba. near niute Authority. Israel Antiquities Jerusalem: Israel 31). of Report plain Authority coastal Antiquities the in site protohistoric a n ro M) nvriyo Michigan. of University (MI): Arbor 13). Ann Memoirs Anthropology of Museum Michigan Farukhabad Tepe at excavations Plain: tchl:Amvs isl International. Wiksell & Almqvist Stockholm: 50). Series Testament East Near Old Biblica ancient (Coniectanea the in gods’ rising and ‘dying rhelg,atrplg n ut h acur at Israel sanctuary Gilat, the cult: and (ed.) anthropology Levy Archaeology, T.E. in 1990-92, Gilat: 1989, at 1975-77, excavations sequence: sanctuary The 2006. itrshAcaooic nttu eIstanbul. te Instituut Historisch-Archaeologisch Nederlands Syria Istanbul: in 25-119. (1991-1993) Leiden Antiquities National of the Museum and (1988) the Amsterdam of of excavations University the on report settlement: Neolithic (ed.) Akkermans P.M.M.G. in architecture, and stratigraphy excavations: nnrhetr rq 1978-1979. Iraq, northwestern settlement in III: Tepe Yarim at research expedition’s 7.Tco A) nvriyo rzn Press. Arizona of University (AZ): Tucson 57). Iran odn auPublications. Nabu London: .. .A D. T.E., , .20.Tesgicneo h granary the of significance The 2001. A. , .15.Teecvtosa elAuMatar, Abu Tell at excavations The 1955. J. , ..19.Acaooia netgtosa the at investigations Archaeological 1997. T.R. , .2006. E. , .1981. H. , ..1979. P.J. , Vkn udPbiain nAnthropology in Publications Fund (Viking ,N.&K.M .20.Mdso trg n the and storage of Modes 2002. P. , .14.Geir elHlaiu ancien. l’Helladique de Greniers 1946. S. , ,M.&P.K ...2001. T.N.D. 524 odn Equinox. London: 95-214. : LON E sr(EnAai)I xaain at excavations I: Asawir) (‘Ein Esur ‘En AnearlytownontheDehLuran rhelgclehorpyi western in ethnography Archaeological salEpoainJournal Exploration Israel ,Y.M.R UNCHAEV RANENDONK h ideo resurrection: of riddle The th OWAN birthday 94 Soviet 1984. . elSb ba,late Abyad, Sabi Tell Suisi Ancient in (Studies ´ enique &M.K 96 The 1996. . Sumer 259-86. : 0 337-51. 70: Uiest of (University ERSEL 3 54-68. 43: :17-40, 5: Studies (Israel . :
Research