No General Descriptions provided.
| inferred Absent | |
| inferred Absent |
| inferred Absent | |
| inferred Absent |
| inferred Absent | |
| inferred Absent |
| inferred Absent | |
| inferred Absent |
| Year Range | Early East Africa Iron Age (tz_east_africa_ia_1) was in: |
|---|
Inhabitants. The following is worth noting here: "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
in squared kilometers. The following is worth noting here: "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
People. The following is worth noting here: "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
levels. Autonomous homesteads. "The ubiquity of Urewe [ceramics], coupled with its relatively small size, suggests that these vessels were produced and used by family-groups, and on a regular, domestic level. However, it is evident that Urewe-related activities also transcend the purely utilitarian realm, with the remarkable emphasis placed on quality of production. On the domestic level, this investment in commonplace objects may be an example of ceramics being used as tools of social cohesion or as the 'channels through which society implants its values in the individual—every day at mealtimes' (David et al. 1988: 379). As such, the importance of family and the home is emphasised through investment in key domestic goods—ceramics. This picture of small-scale, familial units fits well with the wider evidence from archaeology, which suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
levels. Likely no hierarchical administrative organization; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "The ubiquity of Urewe [ceramics], coupled with its relatively small size, suggests that these vessels were produced and used by family-groups, and on a regular, domestic level. However, it is evident that Urewe-related activities also transcend the purely utilitarian realm, with the remarkable emphasis placed on quality of production. On the domestic level, this investment in commonplace objects may be an example of ceramics being used as tools of social cohesion or as the 'channels through which society implants its values in the individual—every day at mealtimes' (David et al. 1988: 379). As such, the importance of family and the home is emphasised through investment in key domestic goods—ceramics. This picture of small-scale, familial units fits well with the wider evidence from archaeology, which suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
Likely no centralisation, and therefore also no bureaucracy; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
Likely no centralisation, and therefore also no bureaucracy; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
Likely no centralisation, and therefore also no bureaucracy; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
Likely no centralisation, and therefore also no bureaucracy; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]
Likely no centralisation, and therefore also no bureaucracy; dispersed network of homesteads instead. "[A]rchaeology[...] suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146]