Abstract
Arid regions in the Old World Dry Belt are assumed to be marginal regions, not only in ecological terms, but also economically and socially. Such views in geography, archaeology, and sociology are—despite the real limits of living in arid landscapes—partly influenced by derivates of Central Place Theory as developed for European medieval city-based economies. For other historical time periods and regions, this narrative inhibited socio-economic research with data-based and non-biased approaches. This paper aims, in two arid Graeco-Roman landscapes, to show how far approaches from landscape archaeology and social network analysis combined with the “small world phenomenon” can help to overcome a dichotomic view on core places and their areas, and understand settlement patterns and economic practices in a nuanced way. With Hauran in Southern Syria and Marmarica in NW-Egypt, I revise the concept of marginality, and look for qualitatively and spatially defined relationships between settlements, for both resource management and social organization. This ‘un-central’ perspective on arid landscapes provides insights on how arid regions functioned economically and socially due to a particular spatial concept and connection with their (scarce) resources, mainly water.
Highlights
Arid regions in the Old World Dry Belt are assumed to be marginal regions, in ecological terms, and economically and socially
The case studies below demonstrate on a certain spatial scale how land-use and habitational patterns in ecologically marginal regions can be conceptualized differently when seen through the lens of interaction, and how marginality applies only to limited areas in the lives of the population
The choice of a marginal landscape characterized by aridity requires a more nuanced and differentiated application of central place theory based on different environmental and cultural settings
Summary
Central place theory (CPT)— developed by Christaller 1933 [1]—revolves around human agents, settlements, and economies. Central place theory has been and can be adapted to areas and historical settings other than medieval Europe [3], since its evaluations are based mainly on economical parameters With this rather limited spectrum of parameters, it dominated the historical-archaeological thinking of European and American academia for a long time. As is the case for central places, we should look for a more balanced terminology for not repeating pre-determined categorizations that can bias our interpretations [19] This view on landscapes opens new processes for considering parameters, like interaction and relationships, to better understand inter-human interaction, economic systems, trade relationships, habitational traditions, or centers. The combination of the approaches of central place theory and landscape archaeology is a promising method for examining the past in a dynamic and not a hierarchical mode, which is still common in European academia even after the attainment of post-colonialism. It is a matter of ideology and power relationships, and about barely measurable advantages or influences on how people behave, identify, or react
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
