| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Province seat 3. Tao seat 4. Prefecture seat 5. County seat 6. Town 7. Village Province: 18 provinces [1] Tao: Grouping of two or more prefectures for certain purpose, was interposed between the prefectures and provinces [2] Prefecture (Fu): 180 prefectures [3] "The Ch’ing judicial system rose upward through a territorial hierarchy of some six different levels. It began with the 1,500 xians or counties (also called districts) and similar regions and then proceeded to the higher levels of the 180 prefectures and the 18 provinces. Thence cases went to the Board of Punishments at the capital and then to a fifth level, the three high courts. The emperor was the top level. He might confirm or reject recommendations concerning capital cases sent up from below.” [3] [1]: (J. Zhang, 2011, 237) [2]: (Zhang, 2011) [3]: (Fairbank 1978 23) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital City2. Province3. Tao seat inferred4. Prefecture (Fu) seat inferred5. County (Xian) seat inferred6. Town/City (Xiancheng)7. Village Province: 18 provinces [1] Tao: Grouping of two or more prefectures for certain purpose, was interposed between the prefectures and provinces [2] Prefecture (Fu): 180 prefectures [3] “The Ch’ing judicial system rose upward through a territorial hierarchy of some six different levels. It began with the 1,500 xians or counties (also called districts) and similar regions and then proceeded to the higher levels of the 180 prefectures and the 18 provinces. Thence cases went to the Board of Punishments at the capital and then to a fifth level, the three high courts. The emperor was the top level. He might confirm or reject recommendations concerning capital cases sent up from below.” [3] [1]: (J. Zhang, 2011, 237) [2]: (Zhang, 2011) [3]: (Fairbank 1978 23) |
||||||
|
levels. The earliest known village settlement have been found in the Valley of Mexico around 2000 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (Emmerich 1963: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/ZZ8EAUQ8. |
||||||
|
levels. "In the period 1500-1000 BCE [...] the Basin developed a two-tiered settlement system".
[1]
[1]: (Evans 2004: 124) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EWW3Q2TA. |
||||||
|
levels. "In the period 1500-1000 BCE [...] the Basin developed a two-tiered settlement system".
[1]
[1]: (Evans 2004: 124) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EWW3Q2TA. |
||||||
|
levels. Archaeological survey and excavation data indicates that settlement hierarchy ranged from 2 to 3, depending on the settlement cluster in question. The number of settlement clusters with a 3-level hierarchy increases over time.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[1]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [4]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [5]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
levels. Archaeological survey and excavation data indicates that settlement hierarchy ranged from 2 to 3, depending on the settlement cluster in question. The number of settlement clusters with a 3-level hierarchy increases over time.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[1]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [4]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [5]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
levels. "A minimum of three size grades is therefore observable in housing during the later Formative: palatial candidates at the largest cities, elite residencies at midtier towns, and common residencies across the settlement spectrum".
[1]
Some settlement clusters have a 3-tier settlement hierarchy, while others have a 4-tier settlement hierarchy.
[2]
[3]
[4]
Late Formative (1) Regional Center -- 3,000-10,000 inhabitants(2) Large Village -- 1,000-3,000 inhabitants(3) Small Village -- 100-1,000 inhabitants(4) Hamlet -- 10-100 inhabitants [1]: (Carballo 2016: 150) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7B7A8KA6. [2]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [3]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [4]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. |
||||||
|
levels. Some settlement clusters have a 3-tier settlement hierarchy, while others have a 4-tier settlement hierarchy.
[1]
[2]
[3]
(1) Regional Center -- 3,000-10,000 inhabitants(2) Large Village -- 1,000-3,000 inhabitants(3) Small Village -- 100-1,000 inhabitants(4) Hamlet -- 10-100 inhabitants [1]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. |
||||||
|
levels. Information retrieved from Fig 3.3 of Carballo 2016
[1]
which indicates the presence of City/Supra-regional centre; town /provincial centres; and Village/hamlet in the Classic period settlement.
[1]: (Carballo 2016: 67) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7B7A8KA6. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from previous period.
|
||||||
|
levels. The polity included Hamlets, Small Villages, Large villages and small provincial or regional centres. Information retrieved from table 5.13 of Sanders et al. 1979
[1]
[1]: (Sanders et al 1979: 138) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/L743EUD5. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from settlement hierarchy of the previous period, somewhat supported by the following quote: "During the Middle postclassic Period, small independent polities were founded [...] these were often city-states, encompassing an urbanized community and its surrounding hinterlad with farming villages".
[1]
[1]: (Evans 2004: 428) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EWW3Q2TA. |
||||||
|
levels. Information retrieved from a map of the settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico during the Aztec rulership.
[1]
[1]: (Smith 1979: 116-117) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2JN8GGSP |
||||||
|
During this period the population lived in small-size settlements
|
||||||
|
1. Royal/chiefly centre
2. Dispersed households "Hawai’i lacked anything approaching urban centers, and although there were substantial differences in population density corresponding to an uneven topographic distribution of soil and hydrologic resources (see discussion that follows), the general trend was of dispersed households, each occupying and farming its own adjacent plots. Moreover, while the commoners were sedentary on their lands, the ali’i were known to move about in relation to available food stocks. This peripatetic pattern of chiefly movement is well described, and underlies the metaphor of the chief as a “shark who travels on the land” (He manōholo ̒āina ke ali’i; Pukui 1983:87: Proverb 799). Nonetheless, there were distinct chiefly and royal centers, marked by concentrations of larger residences adjacent to temples of the main state cults of Kū and Lono. [...] Surrounding the king’s own extensive household compound were the residential courts of several principal ali’i and advisors, the houses of warriors, and the main Hale o Lono or temple to the god in whose name the annual tribute was collected. While this settlement plan has certain innovations reflecting Western contact (notably the gun drilling (p.51) field and the shipyard), in most respects it was probably typical of royal courtly centers in the late precontact era." [1] [1]: (Kirch 2010, 50-51) |
||||||
|
1. Royal/chiefly centre
2. Dispersed households "Hawai’i lacked anything approaching urban centers, and although there were substantial differences in population density corresponding to an uneven topographic distribution of soil and hydrologic resources (see discussion that follows), the general trend was of dispersed households, each occupying and farming its own adjacent plots. Moreover, while the commoners were sedentary on their lands, the ali’i were known to move about in relation to available food stocks. This peripatetic pattern of chiefly movement is well described, and underlies the metaphor of the chief as a “shark who travels on the land” (He manōholo ̒āina ke ali’i; Pukui 1983:87: Proverb 799). Nonetheless, there were distinct chiefly and royal centers, marked by concentrations of larger residences adjacent to temples of the main state cults of Kū and Lono. [...] Surrounding the king’s own extensive household compound were the residential courts of several principal ali’i and advisors, the houses of warriors, and the main Hale o Lono or temple to the god in whose name the annual tribute was collected. While this settlement plan has certain innovations reflecting Western contact (notably the gun drilling (p.51) field and the shipyard), in most respects it was probably typical of royal courtly centers in the late precontact era." [1] [1]: (Kirch 2010, 50-51) |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Capital (Honolulu) :: 2. Towns ::: 3. Villages
|
||||||
|
levels.
Before the nucleated villages of the Late Woodland Patrick phase "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
Before the nucleated villages of the Late Woodland Patrick phase "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
Before the nucleated villages of the Late Woodland Patrick phase "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
Before the nucleated villages of the Late Woodland Patrick phase "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
1.Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] 2. Smaller housing areas [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) |
||||||
|
levels.
Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] "It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [2] [3] Houses organized around a courtyard In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area." [4] "Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. [5] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) [2]: (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990 [3]: Milner 2006, 99-100) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. The History Press. Charleston. [5]: (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) |
||||||
|
levels.
Down to 3 levels of settlement. 1. Hamlets (5 houses at most) 2. Hamlet integration site (single mound site). 3. Multi-mound centers (3 of these left in this period) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Larger sitesMorton, Sleeth, C.W. Cooper, and Crable. 2. Small family homesteads Note: these impermanent sites are not part of the settlement hierarchy 3. Short-stay activity campsFor hunting and gathering. [1]: G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Semipermanent summer villages PT: levels 2 and 3 below should not be counted because they are impermanent hunting camps. Additionally, why should summer and winter camps count as _separate_ levels? 2. Summer hunting camps 3. Winter camps The Illinois had about 60 villages in 1660CE. [2] [1]: C. Callender, Illinois, in B. Trigger, Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15: Northeast (1978), pp. 673-680 [2]: (Muller 1997, 207) |
||||||
|
levels.
4 levels widely-agreed upon. "There was a four-tier hierarchy of sites, and these sites were integrated in terms of the organization of ritual space and in terms of material culture traits." [1] "There were at least four in terms of settlement, but it is not clear how or even if they were “stacked” organizationally. Smaller mound centers may have been independent but not “separate” from the larger Cahokian polity, perhaps reflecting a form of “complicated factionalism” in a network of elite controlling families." [2] 5 level alternative hypothesied as [3] : 1. Hamlets (family head, 4 or 5 houses. 5-10 km away. On agricultural soils. Some argue seasonal. Could also be permanent.) 2. Hamlet integration site (single mound site) 3. Inner village ritual site 4. Multi-mound centers 5. Cahokia Settlement 1. "First is the central administrative complex, containing three large mound and plaza complexes (Cahokia, East St.Louis, and St. Louis)." [4] 2. "The second is an area of regular interaction which might be called “greater Cahokia.” This area contains 8-12 mound a plaza complexes with their own internal divisions." [4] 3. "Third is a larger regional scale, including, for example, sites of the Langford Tradition and the Spoon River Focus. We do not have a good understanding of how sites in the larger region tie together. Each region seems to be separated by buffer zones. Perhaps each region reflects a single polity." [4] 4. "During most of the Mississippian phases, communities outside of Cahokia were small and moundless, referred to as homesteads, farmsteads or hamlets. However, a number of villages of small to moderate size were scattered throughout the area, some with one or two mounds, which were probably local centers with special functions." [5] Cahokia 120 mounds; East St. Louis 45 mounds; St. Louis 26 mounds. [6] [1]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [2]: (Kelly 2014, 22) [3]: (Peregrine 2015, Personal Communication) [4]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13) [5]: (Iseminger 2010, 30) [6]: (Iseminger 2010, 30-31) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. The History Press. Charleston. |
||||||
|
levels.
4 levels widely-agreed upon. "There was a four-tier hierarchy of sites, and these sites were integrated in terms of the organization of ritual space and in terms of material culture traits." [1] "There were at least four in terms of settlement, but it is not clear how or even if they were “stacked” organizationally. Smaller mound centers may have been independent but not “separate” from the larger Cahokian polity, perhaps reflecting a form of “complicatedm factionalism” in a network of elite controlling families." [2] 5 level alternative hypothesied as [3] : 1. Hamlets (family head, 4 or 5 houses. 5-10 km away. On agricultural soils. Some argue seasonal. Could also be permanent.) 2. Hamlet integration site (single mound site) 3. Inner village ritual site 4. Multi-mound centers 5. Cahokia Settlement 1. "First is the central administrative complex, containing three large mound and plaza complexes (Cahokia, East St.Louis, and St. Louis)." [4] 2. "The second is an area of regular interaction which might be called “greater Cahokia.” This area contains 8-12 mound a plaza complexes with their own internal divisions." [4] 3. "Third is a larger regional scale, including, for example, sites of the Langford Tradition and the Spoon River Focus. We do not have a good understanding of how sites in the larger region tie together. Each region seems to be separated by buffer zones. Perhaps each region reflects a single polity." [4] 4. "During most of the Mississippian phases, communities outside of Cahokia were small and moundless, referred to as homesteads, farmsteads or hamlets. However, a number of villages of small to moderate size were scattered throughout the area, some with one or two mounds, which were probably local centers with special functions." [5] [1]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [2]: (Kelly 2014, 22) [3]: (Peregrine 2015, Personal Communication) [4]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13) [5]: (Iseminger 2010, 30) |
||||||
|
levels.
Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] "It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [2] [3] Houses organized around a courtyard In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area." [4] "Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. Shift from nucleated to dispersed configuration "Soon after A.D. 1000 people’s lives changed abruptly. Two of the most obviously signs of a profound alteration in the fabric of this society are a great increase in moundbuilding and a shift in small communities from nucleated to dispersed configurations." [5] "The beginning of the Mississippian period was marked by an abrupt shift in the character of peripheral communities ... The predominantly nucleated pattern of settlement was abandoned in favor of widely scattered single-family farmsteads." [6] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) [2]: (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990 [3]: Milner 2006, 99-100) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [5]: (Milner 2006, 168) [6]: (Milner 2006, 100) |
||||||
|
levels.
Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] "It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [2] [3] Houses organized around a courtyard In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area." [4] "Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. Shift from nucleated to dispersed configuration "Soon after A.D. 1000 people’s lives changed abruptly. Two of the most obviously signs of a profound alteration in the fabric of this society are a great increase in moundbuilding and a shift in small communities from nucleated to dispersed configurations." [5] "The beginning of the Mississippian period was marked by an abrupt shift in the character of peripheral communities ... The predominantly nucleated pattern of settlement was abandoned in favor of widely scattered single-family farmsteads." [6] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) [2]: (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990 [3]: Milner 2006, 99-100) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [5]: (Milner 2006, 168) [6]: (Milner 2006, 100) |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Villages: Miksic and Goh (2016) tell us that "Archaeologists have found permanent village communities [in Cambodia]...there is little variation in size or evidence that a hierarchy of sites developed."
[1]
However, Stark (2006) suggests that "settlement hierarchies (or heterarchies?) formed during the first millennium b.c. in almost all regions where complex polities subsequently emerged," but does not go into further detail.
[2]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2016: 106) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2EZ3CBBS. [2]: (Stark 2006: 410) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P84DW4ZB. |
||||||
|
levels. Acording to Miksic and Goh, "there was a change from a two-tier to a three-tier settlement hierarchy in the south Mekong in the Preclassic and Protoclassic," but they do not specify what this was. 1. Villages "Archaeologists have found permanent village communities [in Cambodia]...there is little variation in size or evidence that a hierarchy of sites developed."
[1]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2016: 114) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2EZ3CBBS. |
||||||
|
levels. There were probably three levels of settlements: the negara were the largest and most important cities, the pura were smaller cities with political auhtority, and then there were the grama, which consisted of towns or large villages.
[1]
’Within this period of competition and endemic conflict [the 250 years from AD 550], the inscriptions of Jayavarman I reflect a breakthrough in state formation, with his appointment of state officials and creation of at least three and probably four levels of settlement hierarchy.’
[2]
The site of Oc Eo covered about 450 ha. "En 1946, une reconnaissance aérienne me permit d’obtenir une vision claire de l’ensemble qui consiste en un rectangle de 15oo mètres sur З000 mètres orienté nord-nord-est — sud-sud-ouest, enfermant une surface de 459 hectares, soit environ la moitié d’Ankor-Thom."
[3]
[1]: (O’Reilly 2007, p. 99) [2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 405) [3]: (Malleret 1951, 76) |
||||||
|
levels. ’Within this period of competition and endemic conflict [the 250 years from AD 550], the inscriptions of Jayavarman I reflect a breakthrough in state formation, with his appointment of state officials and creation of at least three and probably four levels of settlement hierarchy.’
[1]
The site of Oc Eo covered about 450 ha. "En 1946, une reconnaissance aérienne me permit d’obtenir une vision claire de l’ensemble qui consiste en un rectangle de 15oo mètres sur З000 mètres orienté nord-nord-est — sud-sud-ouest, enfermant une surface de 459 hectares, soit environ la moitié d’Ankor-Thom."
[2]
[1]: (Higham 2014b, p. 405) [2]: (Malleret 1951, 76) |
||||||
|
levels. Derived by extrapolating from Higham’s description of ancient Funan from 550 CE. ’Within this period of competition and endemic conflict [the 250 years from AD 550], the inscriptions of Jayavarman I reflect a breakthrough in state formation, with his appointment of state officials and creation of at least three and probably four levels of settlement hierarchy.’
[1]
[1]: (Higham 2014b, 405) |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Capital city (monumental structures, theatre, market, hospital, central government buildings),(2) Major centres a day’s journey or less than 25km from Angkor (market, administrative buildings),(3) Regional centres approximately 150km from Angkor (administrative buildings, storehouse),(4) Village centres less than 350km from Angkor (taxation office, shrine), and(5) Hamlet (residential only). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ [1] ’With distance from Angkor, the inscriptions appear to diminish in number in two stages, consistent with three decreasing levels of influence. Frequencies remain fairly constant up to about 150 km. Beyond this distance, there are fewer inscriptions to 350 km, and after that there are almost none.108 The shapes of the curves may also be a function of the pattern of settlement. For example, the dip in the 25-50 km interval may be related to the proximity of the Tonle Sap Lake, the associated swamps and the Kulen Hills, where there are few temples, while at 150 km the Dangrek Mountains could have affected settlement patterns. It may also be partly due to the existence of modern political boundaries and a potential for Khmer sites and inscriptions in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand to be less frequently recorded or published than those inside Cambodia.’ [2] See also Lustig’s (2009) six classes of inscription ’density’ [3] [1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 133) [3]: (Lustig 2009, pp. 147-148) |
||||||
|
levels. E.g., (6) Yasodharapura (monumental structures, theatre, market, hospital, central government buildings) (5) Former capital cities (monumental structures, market, theatre), (4) Major centres a day’s journey or less than 25km from Angkor (market, administrative buildings), (3) Regional centres approximately 150km from Angkor (administrative buildings, storehouse)), (2) Village centres less than 350km from Angkor (taxation office, shrine), and (1) Hamlet (residential only). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’
[1]
’With distance from Angkor, the inscriptions appear to diminish in number in two stages, consistent with three decreasing levels of influence. Frequencies remain fairly constant up to about 150 km. Beyond this distance, there are fewer inscriptions to 350 km, and after that there are almost none.108 The shapes of the curves may also be a function of the pattern of settlement. For example, the dip in the 25-50 km interval may be related to the proximity of the Tonle Sap Lake, the associated swamps and the Kulen Hills, where there are few temples, while at 150 km the Dangrek Mountains could have affected settlement patterns. It may also be partly due to the existence of modern political boundaries and a potential for Khmer sites and inscriptions in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand to be less frequently recorded or published than those inside Cambodia.’
[2]
See also Lustig’s (2009) six classes of inscription ’density’
[3]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 133) [3]: (Lustig 2009, pp. 147-148) |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with Classic Angkor. E.g., (1) Yasodharapura (monumental structures, theatre, market, hospital, central government buildings) (2) Former capital cities (monumental structures, market, theatre), (3) Major centres a day’s journey or less than 25km from Angkor (market, administrative buildings), (4) Regional centres approximately 150km from Angkor (administrative buildings, storehouse)), (5) Village centres less than 350km from Angkor (taxation office, shrine), and (6) Hamlet (residential only). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’
[1]
’With distance from Angkor, the inscriptions appear to diminish in number in two stages, consistent with three decreasing levels of influence. Frequencies remain fairly constant up to about 150 km. Beyond this distance, there are fewer inscriptions to 350 km, and after that there are almost none.108 The shapes of the curves may also be a function of the pattern of settlement. For example, the dip in the 25-50 km interval may be related to the proximity of the Tonle Sap Lake, the associated swamps and the Kulen Hills, where there are few temples, while at 150 km the Dangrek Mountains could have affected settlement patterns. It may also be partly due to the existence of modern political boundaries and a potential for Khmer sites and inscriptions in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand to be less frequently recorded or published than those inside Cambodia.’
[2]
See also Lustig’s (2009) six classes of inscription ’density’
[3]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 133) [3]: (Lustig 2009, pp. 147-148) |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Angkor Thom (monumental structures, theatre, market, hospital, central government buildings) (2) Former capital cities (monumental structures, market, theatre), (3) Major centres a day’s journey or less than 25km from Angkor (market, administrative buildings), (4) Regional centres approximately 150km from Angkor (administrative buildings, storehouse)), (5) Village centres less than 350km from Angkor (taxation office, shrine), and (6) Hamlet (residential only). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’
[1]
’With distance from Angkor, the inscriptions appear to diminish in number in two stages, consistent with three decreasing levels of influence. Frequencies remain fairly constant up to about 150 km. Beyond this distance, there are fewer inscriptions to 350 km, and after that there are almost none.108 The shapes of the curves may also be a function of the pattern of settlement. For example, the dip in the 25-50 km interval may be related to the proximity of the Tonle Sap Lake, the associated swamps and the Kulen Hills, where there are few temples, while at 150 km the Dangrek Mountains could have affected settlement patterns. It may also be partly due to the existence of modern political boundaries and a potential for Khmer sites and inscriptions in Laos, Vietnam and Thailand to be less frequently recorded or published than those inside Cambodia.’
[2]
See also Lustig’s (2009) six classes of inscription ’density’
[3]
[1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Lustig 2009, p. 133) [3]: (Lustig 2009, pp. 147-148) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
.
1. AyutthayaThe capital. 2. "Great cities" (mahanakhon)Including "the old northern cities" and "ports around the head of the gulf". 3. Tributary centresFor example, "the port cities down the peninsula which simultaneously looked southwards to the Malay world", as well as urban centres in "the interior states of Khmer, Lao, Lanna, and Shahn". 4. VillagesInferred from the fact that most of the population would likely not have lived in cities (RA’s guess). [1]: (Baker and Phongpaichit 2009, p. 13) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital2. Great cities (mahanakhon)3. Towns4. Villages. The first period of the Rattanakosin era (1781-1868) maintained a similar administrative hierarchy to that of the 4-tiered pattern of the Ayutthaya kingdom: 1. Royal Capital; 2. Four towns under the administration of the king (muang luk-luang); 3. Other towns under administration of governors (muang phraya-maha-nakhon); 4. Outlying towns or colonies (muang prathetsarat) which sent tributes to the king. In the late eighteenth century the second tier of inner-ring towns was absorbed into the capital. [1] [1]: (73) Wongsekiarttirat, W. Central-Local Relations in Thailand: Bureaucratic Centralism and Democratization. In, Turner, M. (ed) 2016. Central-Local Relations in Asia-Pacific: Convergence or Divergence? Springer. |
||||||
|
levels. Miksic and Goh (2016) state that although a large complex of sites has been found in west Java (the Buni Complex) which date from the transitional period between Preclassic and Protoclassic, not enough data have been collected to indicate whether any hierarchy existed...."
[1]
Higham (2004) states the hierarchies are: 1. Village or Simaas recorded in inscriptions dating from at least the fifth century: "Most record the establishment of sima, defined villages, segments of villages, or rice fields whose tax status was redefined or permanently established." 2. States: "Four inscriptions in the style of the mid-fifth century C.E. have been identified in western Java in Indonesia. They mention a state called Taruma and its king, Purnavarman. These are the earliest evidence in Java for the formation of states ruled by kings who had adopted Indian names and Hindu religion..."
[2]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2016: 233) [2]: (Higham 2004: 157: 342) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/JBEBEPPM. |
||||||
|
levels. Before 500CE: "The archaeological record is yet to evince anything like the cities in Central Java, complete with streets, which some Chinese visitors reported as hearsay at about 1650 B.P. (Hall 1992: 194). However, Java and Bali certainly do present evidence of larger habitations, pre-1500 B.P., than had been established elsewhere in the archipelago. An average population of around 900 people has been estimated for Gilimanuk, which then may have been effectively a tiny island off Bali’s northwest coast (Soegondho 1995: 16-18). Elsewhere along the north coast, too, there is a persistent pattern of designated cemeteries within the settlement (Prasetyo 1994/1995), or else of burials underlying much of the settlement (Sukendar et al. 1982). This suggests nucle- ated villages whose inhabitants staked their claim to residence through burial of the ancestors within the village perimeter. A circular hole of 30 cm diameter at Anyar, West Java (Sukendar et al. 1982: 9), may reflect a house pile. Sukendar (1986) interpreted one circle of upright stones at Bandowoso, in East Java’s hinterland, as the stone piles for a ceremonial center, and Van Heekeren (1958: 48) offered a similar interpretation for the rectangular arrangements of stone uprights at the nearby site of Pakauman. Pakauman also contains a stone statue, presumed to represent an ancestor, as well as stone sarcophagi and dolmens. These Early Metal Phase megalithic complexes crop up on the volcanic soils in the flatter hinterland reaches right along Bali and Java, as well as the Lampung and Pagar Alam districts of Southern Sumatra (e.g. Bellwood 1997; Van Heekeren 1958)."
[1]
At the onset of the next period: "Like Sanjaya, initially the Sailendra leaders were rakrayan, or regional leaders, rulers of a watak that integrated village clusters (wanua) participating in a regional irrigation and/or otherwise networked society. As rakrayan, these earliest Sailendra rulers provided the political stability necessary to maintain the local irrigation and marketing networks, and through their patronage of Indic religion they constructed sacred cults to legitimize the regional integration of wanua into watak." [2] 1. Towns? (reported by the Chinese but not confirmed archaeologically) 2. Villages (wanua) [1]: (Bulbeck in Peregrine and Ember 2000, 104-105) [2]: (Hall 2011, 123) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large town e.g. capital Kediri/Daha 2. Village3. Hamlet Ruling class, religious authority, hamlets, non-farming sub-communities, commoners, slaves. Hamlets within villages came to increased prominence and became taxable units within the larger community. Other non-farming sub-communities emerged as regular features of expanded settlement complexes e.g. groups of artisans, small religious establishments, and merchant enclaves. [1] " [2] [1]: (Christie 1991, 36) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Village3. Hamlet Ruling class, religious authority, hamlets, non-farming sub-communities, commoners, slaves. Hamlets within villages came to increased prominence and became taxable units within the larger community. Other non-farming sub-communities emerged as regular features of expanded settlement complexes e.g. groups of artisans, small religious establishments, and merchant enclaves. [1] More broadly speaking, the state is characterized as consisting of villages (wanua), religious communities, and the royal compound (râjya), which was the social center [2] [1]: (Christie 1991, 36) [2]: (Hall 2000, 60) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Lineage Dwellings or Hamlets Extended family households traditionally served as the primary residential units: ’The domestic unit was an extended family, based on the women of a lineage or sublineage. It consisted of at least one experienced older woman and two more younger women of childbearing age together with their husbands. Unmarried sons and brothers slept apart in their lineage’s meeting house. Extended family households continued through the periods of foreign administration.’ [1] ’These impressive sites, however, do not reflect the experience of the average Micronesian. Most lived in dispersed extended-family homesteads. On atolls, the inhabitants generally preferred the lagoon side of the larger islands for ease in launching canoes and for protection from cyclones. On the high islands, people also wanted access to lagoons, although easily defensible sites were sometimes preferred, such as the tops of steep cleared slopes.’ [2] ’In aboriginal times there used to be associated with most lineages a dwelling house, jimw. This house varied in size depending on the number of its inhabitants. Since married men normally went to live in the jimw of their wives’ lineages, the occupants of an jimw were the women of a lineage and their husbands. The only males of the lineage who resided there were boys below puberty. A large jimw was usually partitioned off into sleeping compartments along its side walls under the eaves, one for each married woman and her husband with their small children, and a separate one for the unmarried girls past puberty. The house had a sand floor spread over with coconut fronds. Its occupants slept and sat on mats plaited from pandanus leaves. The central part of the house formed a sort of living room in which minor cooking was done over an open fire, ordinary meals were taken, and where the members of the household whiled away the time before going to bed.’ [3] ’Not all houses were of this type, for some were much smaller, without partitions, and were occupied by only one or two couples. Such houses were used when a lineage had only a few women, or when a man brought his wife to live on his own land instead of going to live in her lineage household. In the latter case it was customary to build a separate house for the man and wife, since it is normally taboo for a man to sleep in the same house with his sisters. A small house might also be built alongside the main one if the latter became too crowded.’ [3] The settlement pattern became more concentrated in the colonial period, with households merging into villages: ’Chuuk was divided into small districts, each consisting of a small island or a wedge-shaped segment of a larger one. Not clustered into villages, households were scattered on rising land back from the shore. With population growth many of the once looser neighborhoods have become more densely settled villages. Land holdings were scattered.’ [1] ’The old, large lineage house is in little use today. The Trukese now live in smaller houses of the old type or in new-style houses, raised on posts and built of planks with corrugated iron roofs. These smaller houses are still occupied by the women of a lineage, either singly or in pairs, and are clustered together either by lineage or by descent line. [Page 68] Thus the old pattern of organization is still maintained even though the physical arrangement has been somewhat modified.’ [4] Land was held by individuals as well as lineages: ’Land was held privately both by individuals and matrilineal, corporate descent groups. Rights in undeveloped space, productive soil, trees and gardens were separable. When soil and breadfruit trees were given in grant, the grantor retained residual rights and the grantee acquired provisional rights. Grantors and grantees could be either individuals or corporations. Full rights went to the survivor on the death or extinction of the other.’ [1] [1]: Goodenough, Ward and Skoggard 1999) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5IETI75E. [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 67 [4]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 67p |
||||||
|
levels. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ‘2’ or ’Autonomous local communities’. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the Trukese possess groups of ’3’ or ’100-199’, smaller than 200-399, 400-1000, any town of more than 5,000, Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more), and Cities of more than 50,000 (one or more).
1. Colonial Posts and Towns 2. Villages and Hamlets |
||||||
|
Settlement hierarchies are difficult to reconstruct because of limited archaeological exploration and poor preservation of the record; archaeological interest has been mostly focused on the Bronze Age past of the island while the small size of the Neolithic sites and their establishment in low-land, riverine locations subject to complex natural and human-cased concealing processes obscure most aspects of the Neolithic landscape. The only known site dated to the Earlier Neolithic period (7000-5300 BCE) was that of Knossos. Domestic units, simple in construction and layout, tend to crowd together and all testimonies shows that people, although lived as separate households, constituted themselves communally.
[1]
[2]
Knossos however was not the only Early Neolithic site; indirect hints points to the existence of sites, albeit still undiscovered, to favorable niches in low-land and riverine locations and/or in easily reached areas of the north coast of the island (Gerani Cave in Rethimnon district, Tylissos in Heraklion district, and Malia and the Mirabello Bay in Lasithi district).
[3]
During the Late Neolithic period (ca. 5300-4500 BCE) Knossos expand to become a large village. Residences are now more clearly partitioned into separate domestic units and this new spatial arrangement suggests "an encroachment on what had previously been a communal space of production and consumption".
[4]
The size of the houses suggest that they were used by extended households rather by a single nuclear family. Other sites appeared/continue to be inhabited in many regions of the island: Gerani Cave in the Rethimnon district, Tylissos, Katsabas, Galeni-Roukani, and Mesara area in Heraklion district, and Malia, Sphongaras, Kalo Chorio, Kavousi and Magasas in Lasithi district.
[5]
The Final Neolithic period (ca. 4500-3000 BCE) mark a significant expansion in settlement by the occupation of most areas of high agricultural productivity, defensible sites, and the colonization of more marginal areas.
[6]
[5]
The extent of the Knossian settlement stayed broadly within the limits reached during the Late Neolithic period. Another important settlement was established on the hill of Phaistos, in the Mesara area.
[7]
[8]
The occupation of defensible sites may not be the respond to an exogenous and/or hostile movement of population. As Tomkins suggested this "may reflect intensifying local competition within and/or between sites, manifest in a developing sense of territoriality and resource circumscription, perhaps caused or exacerbated by a major shift towards greater climatic uncertainty that may occur around this time."
[9]
The increase in the number of sites, especially in marginal regions, has often been thought to reflect demographic expansion. Although some form of population growth might have occurred, it should be noted that most of these sties are small and short-lived. The colonization of marginal areas reflects "a variety of push and pull factors. In the face of more aggressive acquisitive strategies by more successful households, some households in large lowland villages may eventually, have chosen to take their chance with migration and economic diversification."
[10]
Understanding the relationship between these various sites (small and large village-sized settlements, hamlets, farms and field houses) is still a matter of scholarly inquiry. The preserved testimonies points to marked differences to the access of sources of wealth and social power (agricultural surplus and high-value/exotic ideas, finished products and raw materials).
[1]: Halstead, P. 1995. "From sharing to hoarding: the Neolithgic foundations of Aegean Bronze Age society," in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 12), Liège, 16-17 [2]: Tomkins, P. 2010. "Neolithic antecedents," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 36-7. [3]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 27-33, fig. 3.1. [4]: Tomkins, P. 2010. "Neolithic antecedents," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 37. [5]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 33-5, fig. 3.1. [6]: Branigan, K. 1999. "Late Neolithic colonization of the uplands of eastern Crete," in Halstead, P. (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (SSAA 2), Sheffiled, 57-65 [7]: Watrous, L. V. and Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 2004. "Initial growth in social complexity (Late Neolithic-Early Minoan I)," in Watrous, L. V., Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, H. (eds), The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete, Los Angeles, 221 [8]: Todaro, S. and Di Tonto, S. 2008. "The Neolithic settlement of Phaistos revisited: evidence for ceremonial activity on the eve of the Bronze Age," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 177-90. [9]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 38. [10]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 39. |
||||||
|
levels. 3100-2200 BCE: Small nucleated villages and isolated hamlets coexisted throughout the island, especially in lowland and coastal areas.
[1]
The size of these sites is about 2 ha aside Knossos where a settlement of 5 ha already existed since the Final Neolithic period.
[2]
[3]
This settled scape is characterized by a considerable degree of regionalism which is expressed in material culture and social practices.
[4]
[3]
From the Early Minoan II onwards (2700-2200 BCE), the importance of coastal sites considerably increased while many inland sites seems to be abandoned. Monumental constructions appeared for the first time at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Tylissos, and Palaikastro. Many sites were destroyed or burned at the end of the period and this has been interpreted as the outcome of conflict between different social groups aspiring to political and economic power.
[5]
2200-1900 BCE: Settlement hierarchy change: nucleated villages seems less important and there is a new emphasis on mountain zones. Knossos, Malia and Phaistos increased considerably and become centers of a significant importance. The central monumental construction suggest the presence of a authority controlling the surrounding hinterland.
[6]
These large centers and their supporting surrounding regions each form complex social, political and economic landscapes, in which larger regional-scale integrations could occur.
[7]
[1]: e.g. Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70-2. [2]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 35 [3]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 150. [4]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70 [5]: Warren, P. M. 1987. "The genesis of the Minoan palace," in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm, 245-248. [6]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 114-76. [7]: Manning, S. W. 2008. "5: Protopalatial Crete. 5A: Formation of the palaces," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 108. |
||||||
|
levels. 3100-2200 BCE: Small nucleated villages and isolated hamlets coexisted throughout the island, especially in lowland and coastal areas.
[1]
The size of these sites is about 2 ha aside Knossos where a settlement of 5 ha already existed since the Final Neolithic period.
[2]
[3]
This settled scape is characterized by a considerable degree of regionalism which is expressed in material culture and social practices.
[4]
[3]
From the Early Minoan II onwards (2700-2200 BCE), the importance of coastal sites considerably increased while many inland sites seems to be abandoned. Monumental constructions appeared for the first time at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Tylissos, and Palaikastro. Many sites were destroyed or burned at the end of the period and this has been interpreted as the outcome of conflict between different social groups aspiring to political and economic power.
[5]
2200-1900 BCE: Settlement hierarchy change: nucleated villages seems less important and there is a new emphasis on mountain zones. Knossos, Malia and Phaistos increased considerably and become centers of a significant importance. The central monumental construction suggest the presence of a authority controlling the surrounding hinterland.
[6]
These large centers and their supporting surrounding regions each form complex social, political and economic landscapes, in which larger regional-scale integrations could occur.
[7]
[1]: e.g. Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70-2. [2]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 35 [3]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 150. [4]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70 [5]: Warren, P. M. 1987. "The genesis of the Minoan palace," in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm, 245-248. [6]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 114-76. [7]: Manning, S. W. 2008. "5: Protopalatial Crete. 5A: Formation of the palaces," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 108. |
||||||
|
levels. Excavated testimonies supplemented with information from systematic survey projects provide a sound starting point for the reconstruction of settlement hierarchies during the Protopalatial period.
[1]
[2]
According to the most widely accepted narrative Crete was divided into regional polities controlled by political fractions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. These cities, their extend varies from 60 ha (Malia and probably Phaistos) to 56 ha (Knossos), were the "capitals" of the regional quasi-polities dominating the political scape of Crete.
[3]
Small towns, their size varies from 3 to 5 ha., were scattered in the hinterland. Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were in the periphery of these towns and even in remote and marginal areas.
Intensively surveyed Old Palace regions provide important evidence on regional site hierarchies. In the Malia region, the survey has detected three concentric circles of villages and hamlets around the palatial centre. [4] In the Western Mesara plain, Phaistos (60 ha.) was surrounded by eight village-sized sites, including the towns of Kommos, Kalamaki, and Hagia Triada. [5] Outside these centers there were 27 hamlets, 15 farmsteads, and 11 very small sites. Settlements patterns points to the rise in occupational specialization and social diversity. Several of the larger Middle Minoan IB-II sites (1900-1800 BCE) have specialized functions; Kommos was a port, Kamares a regional place of cult, and Paterikes a pottery centre. A site close to Hagia Triada was a stone quarry. Other sites possessed elite cyclopean residencies. The large number of villages and hamlet-sized sites suggest an increased population and intensive land use. In most settlements the main productive activities were farming and stock-breeding, others led the industries and quite a few were of commercial character owing to their harbors. The road network appears extensive and presumably therefore it facilitated contacts and the transport of goods from the inland. Many harbours in small windward bays linked peripheral centres with the Aegean islands and the Levant. In contrast to these regions controlled by palace-centered institutions, there are areas which failed to provide evidence for a developed hierarchy. [6] In the Pediada plain, the wealthiest region of the island after the Mesara, varied and intensive archaeological research has failed to detect the socio-political developments that could have led to the rise of palace-centred polities such as those which emerged in the neighboring areas of Knossos, Malia and Phaistos. [7] On the contrary, independent groups, sharing common cultural idiosyncrasies, were active in the Pediada during the early Protopalatial period. The common cultural horizon does not, of course, necessarily indicate that these centres also shared an identical socio-political organization. Each urban centre in the Pediada should be assessed within its own specific setting. Local ruling groups, indeed, might have followed their own political, social, economic and ceremonial strategies. Competition among the major centres of power over material and social resources - especially considering the fact that they operated within the same regional setting - would inevitably promote an unstable political landscape. Competition was probably intense in areas close to the territorial borders of various sub-zones. The case of the Pediada demonstrates the complexity of the Protopalatial political landscape, which cannot be reduced to simplistic models of socio-political development. Local groups can and do differ quite widely in their socio-economic choices and attitudes, breaking away from what we see as the cultural ‘mainstream’. [1]: See the various contributions in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield. See also Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge, 19-45 [2]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 61-83. [3]: There is no information for the extent of Petras during the Old Palace period. The size of the Neopalatial town was about 2.5 ha. [4]: Muller, S. 1997. "L’ organization d’un territory minoen," Dossiers d’Archéologie 222, 52. [5]: Watrous, L., Hadzi-Vallianou, D., and Blitzer, H. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23), Los Angeles, 278-81. [6]: Driessen, J. 2001. "History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 61. [7]: Rethemiotakis, G and Christakis, K. S. 2011. "landscapes of power in Protopalatial Crete: new evidence from Galatas, Pediada," SMEA 53, 195-218. |
||||||
|
levels. Excavated testimonies supplemented with information from systematic survey projects provide a sound starting point for the reconstruction of settlement hierarchies during the New Palace period.
[1]
[2]
[3]
According to the most widely accepted narrative Crete was divided into regional polities controlled by political fractions residing in monumental complexes, generally known as "palaces", built at the center of large urban centers. These large towns -their extend is 25 ha or more- were the "capitals" of the regional quasi-polities dominating the political landscape of Crete. Small towns, their size varies from 10 to 4 ha, were scattered in the hinterland. They were provided with substantial central buildings which in their architectural layout emulate these of the capital towns. Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were in the periphery of these towns and even in remote and marginal areas.
[1]: See the various contributions in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield. See also Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge, 19-45 [2]: Driessen, J., and Macdonald, C.F. 1997. The Troubled Island. Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège [3]: Bevan, A. 2010. "Political Geography and Palatial Crete," Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23, 27-54 |
||||||
|
levels. Knossos was the main political, administrative and economic centre of the island. The analysis of the Linear B texts found in the palace and archaeological data shows that Knossos controlled a series of second-order (e.g. Kydonia and Phaistos) and third-order (e.g. Tylissos) centers.
[1]
[2]
Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were scattered in the hinterland especially during the Late Minoan IIIA period.
[3]
The area of east Crete may have been independent of the Knossian control perhaps organized into a separate polity or group of polities.
[4]
[1]: Bennet, J. 1988. "Outside in the distance: problems in understanding the economic geography of Mycenaean palatial territories," in Olivier, J.-P. and Palaima, T. G. (eds), Text, Tablets and Scribes. Studies in Mycenaean Epigraphy and Economy Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. (Minos Suppl. 10), Salamanga, 19-42 [2]: Bennet, J. 1990. "Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete," American Journal of Archaeology 94, 193-211. [3]: Driessen, J. 2001. "History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 64. [4]: Bennet, J. 1987. "The wild country east of Dikte: the problem of east Crete in the LM III period," in Killen, J. T., Melena, J. L., and Olivier, J.-P. (eds), Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek presented to John Chadwick (Minos 20-22), Salamanga, 77-88. |
||||||
|
1-4 The Knossian state was disintegrated in independent regional entities (quasi-polities) centered upon a large town.
[1]
. The size of these towns varies from 4 to 54 ha. Some were densely occupied while habitation in others was more dispersed, suggesting a trend toward a ruralization of the urban setting. Data points to a four-tiered hierarchy: the large town is surrounded by villages, hamlets, and farmhouses. The most important centers were Kydonia (Chania), in west Crete and Hagia Triada, in south-central Crete.
[2]
[3]
[4]
The reference to a wanax (king) in the inscription painted on the shoulder of some inscribed stirrup jars, produced in the area of west Crete, prompting the speculation for the presence of a "palatial" authority.
[5]
By the end of Late Minoan IIIB most settlements had suffered destruction or abandonment.
[1]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 76. [2]: La Rosa, V. 2010. "Ayia Triada," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 495-508 [3]: Vlazaki-Andreadaki, M. 2010. "Khania (Kydonia)," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 518-28 [4]: Kanta, A. 2001. "Cretan refuge settlements: problems and historical implications within the wider context of the eastern Mediterranean towards the end of the Bronze Age," in Karageorgis, V. and Morris, C. E. (eds), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C., Nicosia, 13-21. [5]: Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. and Hallager, E. 2007. "New and unpublished Linear A and Linear B inscriptions from Khania," Proceeding of the Danish Institute at Athens V, 7-22. |
||||||
|
The settlement patterns appears to be more dispersed than before and their is no evidence for a site hierarchy
[1]
By the end of Late Minoan IIIB most settlements had suffered destruction or abandonment. During the next period, 1200-1000 BCE, settlement patterns changed and followed marked regional tranjectories.
[2]
[3]
[4]
In the area of west and central Crete many sites experienced growth and retrieval (e.g. Chania, Knossos, Phaistos, and Kastelli Pediada). The growth of these sites has encouraged some scholars to assert the arrival of newcomers. The process of nucleation around certain lowland settlements surrounded by arable lands and costal sites provided with harbors is in contrast to the limited regional occupation. This pattern highlight the significant changes in economic, social and ideological aspects of local societies. The foundation of new inland sites (Sybrita and Gortyna) and the diffusion of defensible sites, although less numerous that these in east Crete, suggest complex settlement patterns able to deal with diversified environmental resources. In the area of east Crete the consequence of the LM IIIB crisis were more disruptive. Many plain and costal sites were abandoned and new settlements were founded on strategic locations at night altitudes. The population growth and the increased in size of the upland settlements lead to a stable occupation and even to the emergence of some major sites (e.g. Kavousi-Vronda and Karphi).
[1]: e.g. Hayden, B. J. 2004. "Vrokastro and the settlement pattern of the LM IIIA-Geometric periods," in Day, L. P., Mook, M. S., and Muhly, J. D. (eds), Crete Beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), Philadelphia, 240. [2]: Borgna, E. 2003. "Regional settlement patterns in Crete at the end of LBA," SMEA 45, 153-83. [3]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 76-7 [4]: Nowicki, K. 2000. Defensible Sites in Crete c. 1200-800 B.C. (LM IIIB/IIIC Through Early Geometric) (Aegeaum 21), Liège. |
||||||
|
levels. Excavation data and survey information is very limited (especially for the 10th and 9th centuries BCE).
[1]
[2]
[3]
A large settlement was the center of a sparsely populated territory. Each regional landscape was organized for maximum exploitation of local resources and maximum security. This large center might represent the first synoecism of local population which will led to the emergence, during the late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE, of small city-states. Interdependence and economic and social cooperation between sites is assumed because of topographic isolation and shared water supplies, agricultural land, and pasture.
[4]
[1]: For an overall picture on settlement hierarchies during this period see Borgne, E. 2003. "regional settlement patterns, exchange systems and sources of power in Crete at the end of the Late Bronze age: establishing a connection," SMEA 45, 153-83 [2]: Hayden, B. J. 2004. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, east Crete. Volume 2: The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies (University Museum Monograph 119), 137-66 [3]: Haggis, D. C. 2005. KAVOUSI I. The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistory Monographs 16), 81-5 [4]: Haggis, D. C. 2005. KAVOUSI I. The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistory Monographs 16), 83. |
||||||
|
1-2, 5 levels. Crete is divided into regional city-states which controlled a well defined region. The settlement hierarchy within these states is simple. It was centered upon the city where all the government, public and religious buildings were located and villages and hamlets scatted throughout its rural countryside. City-states were independent of their neighbors and there was a political unity among the urban centre and the rural settlements.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Lembesi, A. 1987. "Η Κρητών Πολιτεία," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 166-72. |
||||||
|
levels. 1-2, 5 Crete is divided into regional city-states and state-confederations which controlled a well-defined region. In Classical period, there seem to have been about 35-40 city states of which most survived up to the early 2nd century BCE as is shown by the treaty signed by Eumenes II with 30 individual Cretan states in 183 BCE.
[1]
The settlement hierarchy within city-states is centered upon the city (its population usually is less that 1,000 souls and in very few cases arrives at 2,500-5,000 souls) where all the government, public and religious buildings were located, and villages and hamlets scatted throughout its rural countryside. State-confederations, located mostly on mountainous regions, are formed by villages and hamlets centered upon an important regional sanctuary. City-states and state-confederations were independent of their neighbors.
[2]
[1]: Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete. An Archaeological Survey and Gazetteer of Late Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Crete, Warminister, 11. [2]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 188-92. |
||||||
|
levels. 1-2, 5 Crete is divided into regional city-states and states-confederations which controlled a well-defined region. In the early Hellenistic period, there seem to have been about 35-40 city states of which most survived up to the early 2nd century BCE as is shown by the treaty signed by Eumenes II with 30 individual Cretan states in 183 BCE.
[1]
The settlement hierarchy within city-states is centered upon the city where all the government, public and religious buildings were located, and villages and hamlets scatted throughout its rural countryside. State-confederations, located mostly on mountainous regions, are formed by villages and hamlets centered upon an important regional sanctuary. Knossos, Gortyna, and Kydonia were cited by Strabo as the most powerful city-states.
[2]
Between 260-240 BCE the power of Knossos seems to have been dominant.
[3]
Knossos and Gortyn were the principal political centers of the island until the Roman conquest.
[1]: Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete. An Archaeological Survey and Gazetteer of Late Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Crete, Warminister, 11. [2]: Strabo, Geography, 10.476. [3]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 153-54. |
||||||
|
1. The capital (Rome)
2. Provincial capitals (Ephesus, Lugdunum)3. Client States/Kingdoms (Cappadocia, Egypt, Numidia)4. Colonies/coloniae (Pompeii in Italy, Cremna in Anatolia, Camulodunum in England) and Municipia (Volubilis in Mauretania)5. Tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized6. Village/vici7. Pagi (rural settlements) In lower population density regions there could be no difference between vici and pagi. There could also be some overlap between provincial capitals and coloniae/municipia. As a result, the code ’6 levels’ corresponds to more populous regions, whilst in sparser populated regions the code ’4 levels’ should be used. [1] [2] [1]: (Edmondson 2006) [2]: (Gleason 2006) |
||||||
|
1. The capital (e.g. Constantinople)
2. Administrative centers (e.g. Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Antioch, Trier)3. Provincial capitals (Ephesus, Lugdunum)provinces had capital cities (e.g. Carthage in Africa Proconsularis, Epehsus in Asia, etc.) 4. Colonies/coloniae (Pompeii in Italy, Cremna in Anatolia, Camulodunum in England) and Municipia (Volubilis in Mauretania)5. tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized6. village/vici7. pagi (rural settlements) |
||||||
|
1. Capital
2. Capital of a provinceHermopolis, Gortyn, Damascus ... 20,000-50,000 inhabitants Sardeis, Ephesos, Thessaloniki, Berytus, Corinth ... 50,00-150,000 inhabitants 3. City in a provinceAphrodisias, Selge, Scupi, Argos ... 5,000-20,000 inhabitants 4. Town in a provinceIasos, Cyme, Aphrodito ... 1,000-5,000 inhabitants 5. Village6. Hamlet ?. Farmstead |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Capital of a province3. City in a province4. Town in a province5. Chorion - village community.6. Agridia - Hamlet ?. Farmstead "Unlike the West, it did not originate as an independent peasant community with common meadowland and distribution of arable land, but was a taxable unit whose boundaries were defined by the fisc. The Byzantine rural community was only an economic unit in so far as this served the purpose of taxation. Membership of the village community resulted from inscription on the tax list. It was this principle which determined other forms of peasant settlements, individual farmsteads and hamlets. In Byzantine rural economy the most important role was played by the typical village settlement in which the farmsteads formed a close nucleus round which the arable land of the peasants was grouped. The Byzantines called this kind of settlement a chorion. In addition there were also individual farms situated in the middle of an agricultural estate. These were called ktesidia and for purposes of taxation were linked with the nearest village settlement as a taxable unit. The so-called hamlets (agridia), consisting of a widely distributed group of houses and farms, were treated in the same way." [1] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 174) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
levels. 1-3 Written sources (excavated testimonies are very meager) suggest the existence of 29 towns the largest of which were Khandax (the modern Heraklion), Gortys (south central Crete) and Kydonia (west Crete) the population of which is speculated to 12,000 inhabitants.
[1]
Small villages and hamlets were scattered in the hinterland. Almost nothing is known about the situation of the towns of Crete and about the urban and country population.
[1]: Παπαδόπουλος, Ι.Β. 1948. Η Κρήτη υπό τους Σαρακηνούς (824-961), Athens, 37; Christides, B. The Conquest of Crete by Arabs (ca. 824). A Turning Point in the Struggle Between Byzantium and Islam, Athens, 97-8; 106-08. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Capital of a province3. City in a province4. Town in a province5. Chorion - village community.6. Agridia - Hamlet ?. Farmstead "Unlike the West, it did not originate as an independent peasant community with common meadowland and distribution of arable land, but was a taxable unit whose boundaries were defined by the fisc. The Byzantine rural community was only an economic unit in so far as this served the purpose of taxation. Membership of the village community resulted from inscription on the tax list. It was this principle which determined other forms of peasant settlements, individual farmsteads and hamlets. In Byzantine rural economy the most important role was played by the typical village settlement in which the farmsteads formed a close nucleus round which the arable land of the peasants was grouped. The Byzantines called this kind of settlement a chorion. In addition there were also individual farms situated in the middle of an agricultural estate. These were called ktesidia and for purposes of taxation were linked with the nearest village settlement as a taxable unit. The so-called hamlets (agridia), consisting of a widely distributed group of houses and farms, were treated in the same way." [1] Mainly Greek terminology, vaild for later period (9th cent. onwards) [2] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 174) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015, Personal Communication) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Capital of a province3. City in a province4. Town in a province5. Chorion - village community.6. Agridia - Hamlet ?. Farmstead "Unlike the West, it did not originate as an independent peasant community with common meadowland and distribution of arable land, but was a taxable unit whose boundaries were defined by the fisc. The Byzantine rural community was only an economic unit in so far as this served the purpose of taxation. Membership of the village community resulted from inscription on the tax list. It was this principle which determined other forms of peasant settlements, individual farmsteads and hamlets. In Byzantine rural economy the most important role was played by the typical village settlement in which the farmsteads formed a close nucleus round which the arable land of the peasants was grouped. The Byzantines called this kind of settlement a chorion. In addition there were also individual farms situated in the middle of an agricultural estate. These were called ktesidia and for purposes of taxation were linked with the nearest village settlement as a taxable unit. The so-called hamlets (agridia), consisting of a widely distributed group of houses and farms, were treated in the same way." [1] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 174) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1.. Center 2. Villages 3. Hamlets "For the Formative Period, Bauer has identified another three-tiered settlement system in the Cusco Basin, as well as thirty-one small sites in the Paruro region that may or may not have been organized hierarchically." [2] "Our regional survey data document a multitiered settlement pattern for the Late Formative Phase, with numerous small sites, a variety of bigger settlements, and a single center (Map 5.2)." [3] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 39) [2]: (Covey 2006, 61) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 45) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large village (1-5 ha): Cluster of villages near the modern location of Cuzco. "The location of these large Qotakalli Period sites surrounding Cuzco suggests that there may also have been a large village in the area now covered by the city. Based on these findings, it is proposed that local power was concentrated in the western end of the Cuzco Basin during the Qotakalli Period. In other words, although there was a continuation of a chiefly society in the basin from Late Formative times to the Qotakalli Period, the loci of elite occupation may have shifted slightly from the single site of Wimpillay to a dense array of sites in the area where Cuzco is now. The cluster of sites in this area during the Qotakalli Period suggests that the power and wealth of the valley may have become divided between groups of elite households located in a series of separated but closely spaced kin-based (i.e. ayllu) settlements." [1] 2. Secondary center "Settlements were more numerous near the best agricultural land, and a site hierarchy suggests that social organization may have been complex with secondary centers beyond the immediate vicinity of Cuzco." [2] 3. Small village (<1ha) "While most of the sites with Qotakalli ceramics are small, we estimate that at least 14 Qotakalli sites in the basin were villages measuring 1-5 ha." [3] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 52) [2]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [3]: (Covey and Bauer 2013, 543) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Prior to the Wari occupation of the Lucre-Huaro area, the Cusco Basin was characterized by a two- or three-tier settlement hierarchy, with a few clusters of two or three small villages (1-5 hectares each) possibly indicating the most important settlement areas. In addition to these are single small villages, some of them surrounded by hamlets, as well as groups of hamlets." [1] 1. Large village (1-5 ha): Cluster of villages near the modern location of Cuzco. "The location of these large Qotakalli Period sites surrounding Cuzco suggests that there may also have been a large village in the area now covered by the city. Based on these findings, it is proposed that local power was concentrated in the western end of the Cuzco Basin during the Qotakalli Period. In other words, although there was a continuation of a chiefly society in the basin from Late Formative times to the Qotakalli Period, the loci of elite occupation may have shifted slightly from the single site of Wimpillay to a dense array of sites in the area where Cuzco is now. The cluster of sites in this area during the Qotakalli Period suggests that the power and wealth of the valley may have become divided between groups of elite households located in a series of separated but closely spaced kin-based (i.e. ayllu) settlements." [2] 2. Secondary center "Settlements were more numerous near the best agricultural land, and a site hierarchy suggests that social organization may have been complex with secondary centers beyond the immediate vicinity of Cuzco." [3] "few clusters of two or three small villages (1-5 hectares each) possibly indicating the most important settlement areas" [1] 3. Small village (<1ha) "single small villages, some of them surrounded by hamlets, as well as groups of hamlets." [1] "While most of the sites with Qotakalli ceramics are small, we estimate that at least 14 Qotakalli sites in the basin were villages measuring 1-5 ha." [4] [1]: (Covey 2006, 60) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 52) [3]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [4]: (Covey and Bauer 2013, 543) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 200-300 ha including outlying settlements. [1] "Urban capital surrounded by densely populated hinterland." Capital - Heartland - Colonies. [2] 2. Major imperial administrative centre [3] Pikillacta (47ha) [4] Viracochapampa Conchopata [5] 3. Minor imperial administrative centreHonco Pampa Huaro - 9ha [6] Batan Orqo Cerro Baul - c.10 ha [7] Jincamocco - c. 15 ha [8] Azangaro Wari Willka [5] 4. VillageCuzco basin largest settlements 3-4 ha [1] 5. HamletThese settlements would include sites of 1 ha and smaller, as seen in the Cuzco Valley. [9] [1]: (Covey, Bauer, Bélisle, Tsesmeli 2013, 538-552) [2]: (Covey 2006, 58) [3]: (McEwan ed. 2005, 1) [4]: (Covey, Bauer, Bélisle, Tsesmeli 2013, 540) [5]: (Milosz and Makowski 2014, 286) [6]: (Glowacki 2012, 190) [7]: (Moseley M E, Feldman R A, Goldstein P S, Watanabe L in Isabell and McEwan ed. 1991, 132) [8]: (Schreiber in Alcock et al 2001, 90) [9]: (Covey et al 2013, 543) |
||||||
|
levels.
The four-tiered settlement hierarchy (1000-1400 CE) minus the administrative centre level which was 1300 CE onwards. [1] 1. Cuzco (capital)2. Large villages3. Small villages and hamlets Tiers suggested by d’Altroy from Bauer and Covey 2004 [2] : 2. Cuzco (center) - 50ha2. Town. About ten. Towns over 10 ha seem to be in the Lucre political sphere [3] 3. Smaller villages. About twenty. 1.00-7.00 ha on Covey’s map [3] 4. Hamlets and other small sites. Over a hundred. 0.25-1.00 ha on Covey’s map [3] Cuzco Basin had large, undefended villages located near the valley floor. [4] In Vilcanota Valley two higher orders of settlement were added after 1000 CE. [5] The map produced by Covey [3] shows four settlements over 10ha in the Lucre Basin. From this we can infer: 1. Choquepukio (60 ha) 2. Other big settlements (over 10ha), possibly principal towns of other quasi polities. Huaro could be one of them. 3. Villages. 4. Hamlets. [1]: (Covey 2003, 339-339) [2]: (D’Altroy 2014, 79) [3]: (Covey 2006, 108) [4]: (Covey 2006, 95) [5]: (Covey 2003, 338-339) |
||||||
|
levels.
Four-tiered settlement hierarchy (1000-1400 CE) [1] 4. Cuzco (capital) - 50 ha 3. Administrative centre - c1300 CE onwards. Example: Pukara Pantillijlla, which was over 10ha [2] 2. Large villages - 7 ha 1. Small villages and hamlets - under 4 ha. [3] 1250-1350 CE: largest town to the north was the 10 ha Pukara Pantillijlla. [4] [1]: (Covey 2003, 338-339) [2]: (Covey 2003, 338) [3]: (Covey 2003, 339) [4]: (D’Altroy 2014, 82) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Capital city (Cuzco) At its height "Cuzco became a cosmopolitan center, and people from diverse areas of the empire came to live there." [2] Occupied almost exclusively by about 12 royal ayllus [3] "Commoners and foreigners were not permitted to live there and had to leave the city each night. These peoples were housed in satellite communities surrounding Cuzco at a short distance. As a result, Cuzco never grew to the enormous size of the capitals of European empires such as Rome or even as large as some of its key administrative centers in the provinces." [4] Cuzco had 20,000 inhabitants at its peak [1] and "the urban core was a planned settlement, covering about 40 hectares." [5] Alan Covey: These are both weak readings of the ethnohistory. Eyewitnesses stated that nobles from across the empire had houses in Cuzco, and there were diverse populations of retainers in Inca royal households, as well as populations of craft specialists living in outer districts. McEwan’s statement about population size is inaccurate regarding the size of provincial centers, which did not have permanent populations larger than Cuzco’s. Only Chan Chan, the coastal Chimú capital, would have rivalled Cuzco in terms of population, and its size was probably greatest before Inca conquest. [6] 2. City (provincial)Inca provincial centers Hatun Xauxa (Peru), Cotapachi (Bolivia), Campo del Pucara (Argentina) [7] Quito was a very important city, on the way to becoming the second capital of the Inca empire. [8] Cajamarca had 7,000-10,000 inhabitants in 1532 CE [3] Unsubstantiated. Alan Covey: Statement on Quito is accurate, but there are better sources, like Frank Salomon. The number given for Cajamarca is not based on any early colonial source that I am aware of. [6] 3. Town.Can have as many as 4,000-5,000 inhabitants. "In the Upper Mantaro Valley, my colleagues and I have recorded more than 125 Inca-era settlements within about a day’s walk of the provincial center of Hatun Xauxa. The largest of those towns, Marca and Hatunmarca, each contained about 4,500 residential structures. We estimate that their populations were probably in the order of 4,000-5,000." [9] 4. VillageExample, Muyu Cocha. Large village. No evidence that is was occupied during the Killke Period. Perhaps created to house state construction workers. [10] 5. Hamlet [11] These hamlets could have grouped one or several canchas. The Cancha architectural unit was a walled domestic compound and "the basic settlement unit in the Andean region from the inception of agriculture and llama herding to post-colonial times" [3] Alan Covey: completey untrue. [6] (AD: we probably should not take anything written by Kaufmann and Kaufmann for granted.) Killke period hamlets occupied between 0.25-1 ha [12] so Inca period hamlets were probably of a similar size. [1]: (Bauer 2004, 3) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 106) [3]: (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2012) [4]: (McEwan 2006, 76) [5]: (D’Altroy 2014, 198) [6]: (Covey 2015, personal communication) [7]: (Bauer 2004, 96) [8]: (Salomon, F., 1986. Native lords of Quito in the age of the Incas: The political economy of north Andean chiefdoms (p. 84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9]: (D’Altroy 2014, 294) [10]: (Bauer 2004, 95-96) [11]: (Bauer 2004, 95) [12]: (Covey 2006, 124) |
||||||
|
levels.
Spain: 1. Capital (Madrid): Permanent court established in the 1560s by Philip II. [1] 1. Unofficial Capital: Before the 1560s: "The capital was where the monarch, the embodiment of the body politic, was to be found… often Toledo and other leading cities." [1] 2. Kingdoms/Provinces: Castile, Aragon, Valencia, León, Andalusia, Granada, Catalonia, Murica, Navarre [2] 3. Regional Capitals: Barcelona, Seville, Zaragoza, Pamplona [3] 4. Cities: Toledo5. Towns6. Villages7. Rural Settlements Colonial Outposts
1. Audiencia Capitals. Examples: Bogota, Lima, Panama, Quito2. Major Provincial Cities. Examples: Cusco, Cartagena, Arequipa, Guayaquil,3. Missions 3. Presidios 3. Town4. Village (inferred)5. Rural Settlement (inferred) Colonies Under the Iberian Union (1580-1640)
[1]: (Alves, Abel. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email. [2]: (Sommerville, Johan. “Spain in the Seventeenth Century.” https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/spain.htm https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KQS9J33T) [3]: Sommerville, Johan. “Spain in the Seventeenth Century.” https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/spain.htm https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KQS9J33T [4]: (Kamen 2002, 24) Kamen, Henry. 2002. Spain’s Road to Empire: The Making of a World Power, 1492-1763. London: Penguin Books. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5IIFB6KQ |
||||||
|
levels.
Sanganakallu first permanent settlement in South India dating to 3000 BCE? -- need to check Sanganakallu-Kupgal Bellary District archaeological projectEXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/web_project/intro.html NOTE: Three types of sites exist from this period: permanent settlements, long-stay encampments, and short-stay encampments [1] . They could be ordered into a hierarchy in terms of size, but, considering the widespread evidence for egalitarianism at the time [2] , perhaps it would be wrong to describe the relationship between differently-sized sites as "hierarchy"? "The archaeological record of the Neolithic Period (2700-1200 BC) in northern Karnataka and western Andhra Pradesh documents a regional social landscape of small village communities where relatively egalitarian social relations appear to have been a common practice. Neolithic settlements consisted of small circular wattle-and-daub houses grouped together in villages and camps, in some cases together with stock enclosures, communal butchering, and tool-making areas (Fuller et al., 2007; Paddayya, 1998, 2001). Where adequately documented, settlements contain houses with little variation in size, design, or content. The only significant dimension of variability observed in mortuary practices is that between adult and subadult burials (and perhaps in more limited terms sex), suggesting that the transition to adulthood was an important measure of difference and likely rank within Neolithic society (Bauer et al., 2007). Other than this, there is no evidence for Neolithic social differences or ranking in the archaeological record." [3] [1]: D. Fuller, Dung Mounds and Domesticators: Early Cultivation and Pastoralism in Karnataka, in C. Jarrige, V. Lefevre (eds), South Asian Archaeology, vol. 1: Prehistory (2006), pp. 121-123 [2]: P. Johansen, The politics of of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0(0): 1-28 [3]: P. Johansen, The politics of of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0:0, pp. 1-28 |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
based on size and complexity
The archaeological and literary profile of cities from this period are less well developed than during the proto-historic Happaran period. The primary evidence is in the Ganga valley, and less information outside of this area. [1] (4) Imperial Capital: Pataliputa. 2500 hectares (12 square miles.) Largest Asian city at the time. [2] (3) Large secondary centres: Taxila, Mathura, Brita. All secondary cities 240 hectares to 16 hectares in size. [3] (2) Smaller settlements. 14-4 hectares in size. [4] (1) Villages and semi-permanent encampments. No firm data. "The archaeology of village settlements of the Mauryan period has scarcely begun." [4] [1]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 334-344 [2]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, p.118. [3]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.p.209. [4]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p.209. |
||||||
|
levels. Based on codes from previous and subsequent polities: by Satavahana Empire - 1.Capital 2. nagara (city or palace) 3. nigama (market town) 4. gama.
[1]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2001: 170) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/JZ73UGSF. |
||||||
|
levels.
Contemporary inscriptions refer to the following three types of settlement beyond the capital [1] : 1.Capital 2. nagara (city or palace)3. nigama (market town)4. gama (village) [1]: C. Sinopoli, On the Edge of Empire: Form and Substance in the Satavahana Dynasty, in S. Alcock (ed), Empires (2001), p. 170 |
||||||
|
levels.
"The Vakataka period is particularly important as far as Vidarbha (eastern part of Maharashtra) history is concerned, as it witnessed a drastic change in settlement pattern" [1] 1. Capital 2. Capital town (pura, nagara?)3. Town (gramma? gulma?)4 Village (agra)5. Khetaka, Vataka, Palli? "As against six capital towns or nagaras, 103 villages are mentioned in 34 inscriptions of the Vakatakas. The suffxes added to the names seem to grade the settlements in some kind of hierarchical position depending upon the density of population. Their relative density of population indicated by their names with the suffixes like khetaka, palli, vataka, etc. (see for details Misra 1987)." [1] List of suffixes to villages in Vakataka inscriptions [1] Khetaka - surrounded by rivers or hills? smallness? [1] Vataka - settlement surrounded by an enclosure [1] Palli - same as ghosha in Amarakosha, ghosgha means pastoral or cowherd settlement [1] the word Palli is of Telugu origin, and means "a small village". [1] Gramma"Grama could vary in size as regards their population; they could consist of one or more kuti (s) according to the Vinayapitaka, or on the other hand, could have 100 to 500 families, according to Kautilya. Villages were also know as adra." [1] Pura capital town "The words pura and nagara seem to be synonymous." [1] Nagara Gulma"The suffix gulma in the name Vatsagulma is also interesting. Manu regards gulma as a station where an army unit was posted for protection of the kingdom (Misra 1987: 645-647)." [1] Vardhana [1]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162.< |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital(s) [1] [2] 2. Seat of a mandala’s viceroyInferred from the fact that the empire was divided in mandalas, each governed by a viceroy [3] . 3. Seat of a vishaya governor (manneya)Inferred from the fact that mandalas were divided into vishayas [3] , which were probably governed by manneyas [4] . 4. Village [3] [1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), pp. 31 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 49 [3]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 38 [4]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), pp. 50 |
||||||
|
levels.
Nowhere is a settlement hierarchy explicitly described, but it was probably roughly something like the following: 1. CapitalThe Emperor’s place of residence and the place from which he administered the empire, as inferred from [1] . 2. Provincial centresInferred from the fact that the Empire was divided into provincial administrative units, each with its own ruling administrators [2] . 3. VillagesThe smallest administrative unit mentioned by sources, e.g. [3] . [1]: S.N. Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization (1999), p. 377 [2]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), pp. 359-361 [3]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), pp. 361 |
||||||
|
levels. It is very difficult to identify the administrative divisions under the Hoysalas, though inscriptions speak of nadus and vishayas. We do not know which unit was bigger of the two
[1]
.
1. Capital city [2] 2. Town [2] 3. Village [2] [1]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137 [2]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137-8 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital City, the City of Vijayanagar - encompassed by massive fortifications and was of enormous size. According to the accounts of foreign travelers to India during the 15th and 16th centuries, the circumference of the city was 60 miles, and it was a highly populous city [1] . According to another source, the city covered 10 square miles in 1500 [2] . 2. Provincial capitals - The Empire was divided into several principal provinces [3] .3. Town between provincial city and village? inferred4. Village - Lowest territorial division in the Karnataka portion of Vijayanagara [4] . [1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 368 [2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 1 [3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374 [4]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374-5 |
||||||
|
Administration of parganas adjacent to cities inhabited by peasants lacking strong lineage organizations could be managed on a village by village basis.(81) Villagers carried agricultural products to sell at the nearest market or pargana town. (91) By the 1680s hundreds of prosperous market towns (qasbas) had proliferated in northern India. In each pargana the central town served as a principal market. Gradually, the networks of these trading towns and larger villages grew more dense. (194) Each provincial capital had a governor, responsible directly to the emperor. (59, 67)
[1]
1. The capital 2. Provincial capitals3. Towns4. Villages [1]: Richards, J. F. 1995. The Mughal Empire, Part 1. Volume 5. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels. At the first level were semisedentary villages that the Iroquois lived in year round, but moved to new village sites every 10 to 25 years. The second level consisted of 1 to 4 villages that were part of tribal clusters, which could include chiefs in certain areas.
[1]
[1]: (Hasenstab 2001: 453) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EQZYAI2R. |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Larger Villages doubling as Capitals of the confederacy of individual nations; (1) Residential Villages comprising several Longhouses Most Iroquois lived in residential villages: ’Villages were built on elevated terraces in close proximity to streams or lakes and were secured by log palisades. Village populations ranged between 300 and 600 persons. Typically, an enclosed village included numerous longhouses and several acres of fields for growing crops; surrounding the village were several hundred more acres of fields for growing crops. Longhouses were constructed of log posts and poles and covered with a sheathing of elm bark; they averaged 25 feet in width and 80 feet in length, though some exceeded 200 feet in length. Villages were semi-permanent and in use year round. When soil fertility in the fields declined and firewood in the vicinity of the village became scarce the village was moved to a new site. This was a gradual process, with the new village being built as the old one was gradually abandoned. The settlements of the 5 tribes lay along an east-west axis were connected by a system of trails.’ [1] ’The primary local groups of Iroquois society were the extended household and the village. Each extended family lived in a long bark structure, some of which were from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet in length by sixty in breadth, known as longhouses. Throughout its length was a central passageway in which were located hearths at intervals of ten to twelve feet with each hearth being used by two conjugal families. On both sides of this central passageway were apartments each occupied by a simple family. The composition of the group inhabiting the longhouse appears to have been controlled by the matriarch of a lineage. Influential matriarchs who held a chiefly title tended to group their female relatives around them in the same longhouse.’ [2] ’The characteristic dwelling of the Iroquois was a log and bark community house known as the longhouse (ganonh[unknown] sees) designed to accommodate five, ten, or twenty families. The longhouse ranged in length from 30 to 200 feet, in width from 15 to 25 feet, and in height, at the center, from 15 to 20 feet. The average longhouse was 60 feet in length, 18 feet wide, and 18 feet high. It was built with a framework of upright posts with forked tops. The lower ends of the posts were set one foot into the ground to form a rectangular space the size of the building to be constructed. Horizontal poles were tied with withes to the vertical poles, along the sides and across the tops. A steep triangular or rounded roof was formed by bending the slender, flexible poles toward the center above the space enclosed by the poles.’ [3] Some larger villages or towns doubled as capitals of the confederacy or individual nations: ’The term “longhouse” was at one time symbolically applied to the League, and its members spoke of themselves as the “Hodinonhsióni ónon,” “the people of the longhouse.” The symbolic longhouse was represented as extending from the Hudson River to Lake Erie. It sheltered within its walls the five tribes who kept the five fires of the longhouse. At the ends of the house stood the doorkeepers, the Mohawk at the east and the Seneca at the west. In between these were the Oneida who kept the second fire and the Cayuga who kept the fourth fire. They were regarded as the younger brothers whose duty it was to care for the captives. In the center were the Onondaga who kept the ever-burning central fire and presided over the council of the league, and whose principal village (Onondaga, later Onondaga Castle) was the capital of the confederacy. At one time Onondaga was one of the most important and widely known towns in North America north of Mexico.’ [4] ’They had begun their tribal existence as a Huron phratry upon a fishing expedition, pressing on in advance of their kin to the lower St. Lawrence. Quebec was for some time their chief town. Probably they were the people whom Jacques Cartier found there. Their Huron kindred built Hochelaga on the island of Montreal. Between these related tribes arose jealousy and finally war. The Mohawks drove the Hurons from Hochelaga and built their capital there. This was the height of Mohawk power. Apparently they held the country from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the headwaters of the Mohawk. From their capital at Montreal they controlled the great river down to Gaspe. Vermont and the Adirondacks were their hunting-grounds, and their outlying dependency the Oneidas had for some time had a permanent town in New York.’ [5] Settlements were initially heavily concentrated, but became smaller and more dispersed during the colonial period, especially in the 19th century: ’Iroquois settlements were formerly much concentrated. Before 1687, the League Iroquois were 12 or 13 villages, ranging between 300 and 600 persons per town: Mohawk (3), Oneida (1), Onondaga (2), Cayuga (3), Seneca (4). Two Seneca towns comprised upward of 100 houses, of which a good proportion were extended bark houses sheltering composite families. During the next century settlements dispersed and were smaller, the bark house giving way to log houses of smaller dimensions. By 1800 the bark longhouse was a thing of the past. With it went old patterns of coresidence.’ [6] ’What them was the impotus for change? Most Iroqueis were non-Christian in 1820; however, by 1860 most had become Christian. The spread of Christianity was accsnpanied by a number of intorrolated eausal facters. The land tenure system changed from the late 1820’s when Darling made his roport public. Most of the Iroquois were no longer living in villages by 1840. Only two villages existed, the Mehawk and Tusearera. Formerly, the Cayuga and Onendaga had longhouses in which whele lineages lived and the matron rodistributed the produce (Campbell, 1958.) In 1842, three-quartors of the pepalation lived on small homestead farms and oultivated plets avoraging 20 acres (Canada Province, 1847). Food was redistributed prinarily among individual homesteads.’ [7] [1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [2]: Noon, John A. 1949. “Law And Government Of The Grand River Iroquois”, 29 [3]: Lyford, Carrie A. 1945. “Iroquois Crafts”, 11b [4]: Lyford, Carrie A. 1945. “Iroquois Crafts”, 10a [5]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. Ii”, 188 [6]: Fenton, William N. 1951. “Locality As A Basic Factor In The Development Of Iroquois Social Structure”, 41 [7]: Foley, Denis 1994. “Ethnohistoric And Ethnographic Analysis Of The Iroquois From The Aboriginal Era To The Present Suburban Era”, 182 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capitals 2. Villages3. Individual homesteads. "Villages were built on elevated terraces in close proximity to streams or lakes and were secured by log palisades. Village populations ranged between 300 and 600 persons. Typically, an enclosed village included numerous longhouses and several acres of fields for growing crops; surrounding the village were several hundred more acres of fields for growing crops. [...] Villages were semi-permanent and in use year round. When soil fertility in the fields declined and firewood in the vicinity of the village became scarce the village was moved to a new site. This was a gradual process, with the new village being built as the old one was gradually abandoned. The settlements of the 5 tribes lay along an east-west axis were connected by a system of trails.’ [1] Some larger villages or towns doubled as capitals of the confederacy or individual nations: "In the center were the Onondaga who kept the ever-burning central fire and presided over the council of the league, and whose principal village (Onondaga, later Onondaga Castle) was the capital of the confederacy. At one time Onondaga was one of the most important and widely known towns in North America north of Mexico." [2] Settlements became smaller and more dispersed during the colonial period, especially in the 19th century: "Iroquois settlements were formerly much concentrated. Before 1687, the League Iroquois were 12 or 13 villages, ranging between 300 and 600 persons per town: Mohawk (3), Oneida (1), Onondaga (2), Cayuga (3), Seneca (4). Two Seneca towns comprised upward of 100 houses, of which a good proportion were extended bark houses sheltering composite families. During the next century settlements dispersed and were smaller, the bark house giving way to log houses of smaller dimensions. By 1800 the bark longhouse was a thing of the past. With it went old patterns of coresidence." [3] "Most of the Iroquois were no longer living in villages by 1840. Only two villages existed, the Mehawk and Tusearera. Formerly, the Cayuga and Onendaga had longhouses in which whole lineages lived and the matron redistributed the produce (Campbell, 1958.) In 1842, three-quarters of the population lived on small homestead farms and cultivated plots averaging 20 acres (Canada Province, 1847). Food was redistributed primarily among individual homesteads." [4] However, there were still capitals at Buffalo Creek and in the new Onondaga lands in Canada, and it seems reasonable to infer that some villages did exist, however much their number may have diminished. [1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [2]: Lyford, Carrie A. 1945. “Iroquois Crafts”, 10a [3]: Fenton, William N. 1951. “Locality As A Basic Factor In The Development Of Iroquois Social Structure”, 41 [4]: Foley, Denis 1994. “Ethnohistoric And Ethnographic Analysis Of The Iroquois From The Aboriginal Era To The Present Suburban Era”, 182 |
||||||
|
levels.
"A forthcoming analysis of the settlement pattern of the province of Nabada centered at Tell Beydar demonstrates the pattern identified by Wilkinson (Sallaberger and Ur forthcoming). Using textual and archaeological sources the authors of this study have suggested the following hierarchical settlement pattern for Early Jazira III-IV settlements in the province of Nabada belonging to the kingdom of Nagar: 1) A provincial capital (e.g., Tell Beydar, 22.5 ha), 2) Smaller tell settlements (ca. 7 to 10 ha), 3) Villages (ca. 2.5 to 4 ha), and 4) Hamlets (ca. less than 2.5 ha). It will be demonstrated below that this four tier hierarchy provides the basic outline of the settlement pattern characteristic of the Levant throughout the Bronze Age." [1] Settlement patterns were somewhat different in the highland areas, due to the lesser availability of cultivatable land. Hence, in the highlands there were three tiers of settlements: "1) Modest, but well-fortified “capitals” at Jerusalem (ca. 4 to 5 ha?) and Shechem (ca. 4 ha) which were located approximately 50 km apart and were about 4 or more ha in size. 2) Smaller, comparably fortified villages located along major routes through the highlands which included settlements like Abu Zarad (2 ha), Beth-El (2 ha), Beth-Zur (1.5 ha), Dothan (< 4 ha), Far‘ah North (3.1 ha), Hebron (ca. 4.9 ha), Kheibar (2 ha), Marjama (3 ha), en-Najjar (2.5 ha), ‘Urma (1.5 ha), and Shiloh (1.7 ha) which were located within 30 km (a single day’s journey) of the larger centers and were usually less than 4 ha in size. 3) Small, rural settlements, most of which were unfortified, of less than 1 ha in size which filled in the landscape between the large and medium sized settlements." [2] Kennedy [3] adds three more levels: 5) shrine site—smaller than a village, with primarily cultic activity and little population 6) outpost—small fortified sites with no evidence of residential use. 7) nomadic/seasonal site. [1]: Burke (2004:238). [2]: Burke (2004:272). [3]: Kennedy (2013:15). |
||||||
|
levels. Mostly by analogy to Canaanite settlement patterns,
[1]
which exhibited the following pattern:
1) A provincial capital,2) Smaller tell settlements,3) Villages,4) Hamlets,5) shrine site—smaller than a village, with primarily cultic activity and little population6) outpost—small fortified sites with no evidence of residential use.7) nomadic/seasonal site. It is unlikely that the Phoenicians would have had nomadic sites, and perhaps they did not have uninhabited shrines; but it is possible that their trading outposts were similar in form. [1]: Burke (2004:238), Kennedy (2013:15). |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city. 2. Fortified cities.3. Administrative centers. "Most of these sites served as royal and administrative centers or border fortresses rather than standard towns. They were devoted to public buildings and had large open spaces. Very little was found that attests to domestic quarters." [1] 4. Ring-shaped villages.5. Agglomerated villages. is this a distinct hierarchy from #4, or simply a size difference? I.e. did ring-shapped villages serve a greater set of administrative, political, economic, ritual functions than agglomerated villages, or were they basically the same in function but differed in typical size?6. Farmsteads.7. Seasonal or nomadic camps. "Volkmar Fritz identifies three general settlement types: (1) ring-shaped villages, (2) agglomerated villages, and (3) farmsteads. Characteristic of the first type—ring-shaped villages—is the arrangement of houses in a closed circle or oval, with an open area in the center, an arrangement that possibly functioned as a means of defense, as well as providing an open area for keeping animals. The agglomerated village type consists of individual buildings, or complexes of several buildings, with streets of varying width and irregular open areas left between the individual units. The edges of this village type are open, and living space is relatively close and restricted. The third type of settlement—farmsteads—consists simply of single buildings or groups of buildings surrounded by a widely extending wall, which may have functioned as an enclosure for animals." [2] [1]: Finkelstein (2013:104). [2]: McNutt (1999:49) |
||||||
|
Susa was the administrative capital. Persepolis was the ceremonial and religious center. Ecbatanna were commercial, strategic and provincial centers.
[1]
1. Capital City. 2. Satrap capital.3. Provincial capital.4. Town.5. Village6. Hamlet [1]: (Farazmand 2001, 57) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (50,000-100,000 inhabitants), at Seleucid-on-the Tigris. [1] 2. Major city (20,000-50,000 inhabitants) (e.g.Seleukeia-Pieria, 250-300ha; Antioch, 225ha; Apameia, 205-255ha; Laodikeia, 220ha) [2] 3. Large city (10,000-20,000 inhabitants) (e.g. Kyrrhos, Chalkis, Beroia and Seleukeia-Zeugma, 65-100ha) [2] 4. Small city (5,000-10,000 inhabitants) (e.g. Doura-Europos, Djebel Khaled) [2] 5. Town (inferred, based on references to cities and villages)6. Village (e.g Baitokaike, recorded to have been given to a sanctuary of Zeus) [3] [1]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p94 [2]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p92-3 [3]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p110 |
||||||
|
Reference: Hassan.
The rough hierarchy is as follows: 1. Alexandria 300-400K 2. Memphis and Ptolemais 100K 3. nome captials (e.g. Thebes, Mendes, Krokodilopolis) 30-40K ref for Thebes: Vleeming. Hundred-gated Thebes. 1995. 4. towns 5-10K 5. villages 1-2K 6. hamlets/scattered settlements 0.1 to 0.2K. EWA: ref. W. Clarysse. an article 1994 Memphis D J Thompson has hectare data Alexandria New Archaeology may have hectare data |
||||||
|
levels.
Speaking exclusively of Southeastern Galilee, Leibner comments: "[Almost] all of the large settlements (20 dunams and greater) are located at the margins of the valleys or abutting extensive patches of alluvial soil…. This is also true among the smaller sites; most are located in proximity to extensive agricultural plains.… [and] near a permanent water source. The pattern that emerges is of a series of medium and large-sized settlements near extensive areas suitable for agriculture… most fortified or at the very least with natural fortifications. In addition to these, there are a few small settlements [of less than 10 dunams area], mostly in fortified locations, with no small farms at all in the agricultural areas." [1] 1. Capital (Jerusalem)2. Large and medium-sized settlements3. Small settlements [1]: Leibner (2009: 318-319). |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Village; (1) Hamlet The A’chik population was mostly rural, relying on subsistence agriculture. The following information is taken from the ’colonial era’ data sheet and therefore remains in need of verification. Residential villages varied in size: ‘Villages are scattered and distant from one another in the interior areas. These villages are generally situated on the top of hillocks. The houses are built together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pig sties. The houses are built, together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pigsties, on piles around the slope of the hillock, using locally available bamboo, wood, grass, etc. The approach to the rectangular house is always built facing the leveled surface of the top, while the rear part of the house remains horizontal to the slope. Nowadays new pile-type buildings using wood and iron as major components are being made in some traditional villages also. In addition, buildings similar to those of the neighboring plains are also constructed. The villages may remain distant from agricultural fields (JHUM). In order to guard a crop (during agricultural seasons) from damage by wild animals, the people build temporary watchtowers (BORANQ) in trees in the field. Bachelor dormitories exist in some villages for meetings and recreation.’ [1] The mean size of villages may have decreased during the colonial period: ‘In former days, Garo villages were of considerable size and used to contain as many as two or three hundred houses. Liability to attack by a neighbouring village made this necessary, and the danger was further guarded against by sowing the approaches with sharp-pointed bamboo stakes called wamisi in Garo, but better known as panjis. These presented a very formidable obstacle to an enemy, and effectually prevented a sudden attack. Nowadays, when every man is at peace with his neighbour, the necessity no longer exists for large collections of houses, and the difficulty of finding sufficient land close to big villages for the support of their inhabitants, has resulted in their being broken up into small hamlets situated perhaps as much as four or five miles apart, which, however, in most cases, retain the name of the parent village. In order to distinguish them there is added to the name of each hamlet the name of its nokma, or headman.’ [2] ‘In Garo society the village is the largest group of which all the members regularly join in cooperative activities, but more extensive organizations are also recognized. First, several neighboring villages may be considered to be related. One of these is usually believed to have been the original village from which the founders of the other “daughter” villages moved. [...] The peace which the British imposed on the hills may have made it possible to live in smaller and more scattered villages than the people had formerly done. Perhaps most of the groups of linked villages that are now to be found have resulted from the splitting of larger villages during the period of British rule. The difficulty of access to the fields would make more dispersed settlement desirable so long as enemies did not threaten. Nowadays villages only rarely move, split up, or die out. I saw just one village in the process of being moved. This was an undertaking that was destined to last for three years, since the villagers could not muster sufficient labor to rebuild more than a third of their houses in a single year. The move was being made solely for the sake of the water supply, which was failing at the old site.’ [3] New villages grew out of small pioneer hamlets: ‘There are different sizes of village in the Garo Hills. I have seen small villages consisting of two or three huts, practically isolated from all the advantages of a big village. On the other hand, in a big village there may be as many as fifty or more huts. The size of the big village entirely depends on the space that is available for the house building and also the facilities the inhabitants of the village may derive for cultivation and other purposes from the surroundings of the locality. The largest village, I visited, was situated on the slopes of the hills, as is the usual practice, facing long strip of valley, nearly about a mile and a half long and about half a mile broad. It is easily understandable that people living in such villages take to plough and utilise the valley for agricultural purposes. It has, therefore, the advantage of accommodating larger people than it is possible for the village which is situated on the hill slopes and which is to depend primarily on jhum cultivation as described hereafter. Usually, an average sized village contains ten to fifteen houses. The economic factor is one of the main guiding principles regarding the expansion of a village. Availability of arrable land or hillocks for jhum cultivation, good drinking water, facilities of conveyance and also facilities of market places are some of the main factors, which the Garos consider before they fix up a place to start a new village. The common practice is to have one house for one family consisting of husband, wife, and children. Occasionally, the old mother or the mother-in-law also stays in the family.’ [4] [1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [2]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garos”, 40 [3]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 235 [4]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 7 |
||||||
|
levels.
The British sent punitive campaigns into the hills in order to suppress resistance as well as infighting. Full administrative control was established around 1873. Most authors consider the area ’pacified’ for the remainder of the colonial period. The ’military’ codes refer to armed groups of A’chik villagers rather than the British colonial troops. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the A’chik possess groups of ’100-199’, smaller than 200-399, 400-1000, any town of more than 5,000, Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more), and Cities of more than 50,000 (one or more). SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’2 levels above community’. (1) Village and (2) Hamlet. (3) Town; (2) Village; (1) Hamlet The A’chik population was mostly rural, but with some urban migration to the administrative capital of the district occurring during the colonial period: ‘Tura is the only town in the district. It is the administrative headquarters of the Garo Hills district. According to 1961 Census, it had a population of 8,888 out of which 4,370 were Garo. Tura is linked with the plains of Assam by three major roads; one enters the district near its north-eastern corner and traverses the district almost diagonally half-way; the other two roads enter the district through the north-western corner and one traverses the district south-eastwardly diagonally half-way, and the other follows the western border of the district, but from the middle of the western border line enters Tura from an westerly direction. All these three roads are all-weather roads meant for all types of vehicular traffic.’ [1] Residential villages vary in size: ‘The population in a village ranges from 20 to 1,000 persons. The population density tends to decrease as one moves towards the interior areas from the urban areas of the districts. Villages are scattered and distant from one another in the interior areas. These villages are generally situated on the top of hillocks. The houses are built together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pig sties. The houses are built, together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pigsties, on piles around the slope of the hillock, using locally available bamboo, wood, grass, etc. The approach to the rectangular house is always built facing the leveled surface of the top, while the rear part of the house remains horizontal to the slope. Nowadays new pile-type buildings using wood and iron as major components are being made in some traditional villages also. In addition, buildings similar to those of the neighboring plains are also constructed. The villages may remain distant from agricultural fields (JHUM). In order to guard a crop (during agricultural seasons) from damage by wild animals, the people build temporary watchtowers (BORANQ) in trees in the field. Bachelor dormitories exist in some villages for meetings and recreation.’ [2] The mean size of villages may have decreased during the colonial period: ‘In former days, Garo villages were of considerable size and used to contain as many as two or three hundred houses. Liability to attack by a neighbouring village made this necessary, and the danger was further guarded against by sowing the approaches with sharp-pointed bamboo stakes called wamisi in Garo, but better known as panjis. These presented a very formidable obstacle to an enemy, and effectually prevented a sudden attack. Nowadays, when every man is at peace with his neighbour, the necessity no longer exists for large collections of houses, and the difficulty of finding sufficient land close to big villages for the support of their inhabitants, has resulted in their being broken up into small hamlets situated perhaps as much as four or five miles apart, which, however, in most cases, retain the name of the parent village. In order to distinguish them there is added to the name of each hamlet the name of its nokma, or headman.’ [3] ‘In Garo society the village is the largest group of which all the members regularly join in cooperative activities, but more extensive organizations are also recognized. First, several neighboring villages may be considered to be related. One of these is usually believed to have been the original village from which the founders of the other “daughter” villages moved. [...] The peace which the British imposed on the hills may have made it possible to live in smaller and more scattered villages than the people had formerly done. Perhaps most of the groups of linked villages that are now to be found have resulted from the splitting of larger villages during the period of British rule. The difficulty of access to the fields would make more dispersed settlement desirable so long as enemies did not threaten. Nowadays villages only rarely move, split up, or die out. I saw just one village in the process of being moved. This was an undertaking that was destined to last for three years, since the villagers could not muster sufficient labor to rebuild more than a third of their houses in a single year. The move was being made solely for the sake of the water supply, which was failing at the old site.’ [4] New villages grow out of small pioneer hamlets: ‘There are different sizes of village in the Garo Hills. I have seen small villages consisting of two or three huts, practically isolated from all the advantages of a big village. On the other hand, in a big village there may be as many as fifty or more huts. The size of the big village entirely depends on the space that is available for the house building and also the facilities the inhabitants of the village may derive for cultivation and other purposes from the surroundings of the locality. The largest village, I visited, was situated on the slopes of the hills, as is the usual practice, facing long strip of valley, nearly about a mile and a half long and about half a mile broad. It is easily understandable that people living in such villages take to plough and utilise the valley for agricultural purposes. It has, therefore, the advantage of accommodating larger people than it is possible for the village which is situated on the hill slopes and which is to depend primarily on jhum cultivation as described hereafter. Usually, an average sized village contains ten to fifteen houses. The economic factor is one of the main guiding principles regarding the expansion of a village. Availability of arrable land or hillocks for jhum cultivation, good drinking water, facilities of conveyance and also facilities of market places are some of the main factors, which the Garos consider before they fix up a place to start a new village. The common practice is to have one house for one family consisting of husband, wife, and children. Occasionally, the old mother or the mother-in-law also stays in the family.’ [5] As indicated above, we have provisionally assumed that migration to Tura was fairly insignificant in the early colonial period. [1]: Majumdar, Dhirendra Narayan 1978. “Culture Change In Two Garo Villages”, 16 [2]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [3]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garos”, 40 [4]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 235 [5]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 7 |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Towns housing rulers (Omanhene); (2) Villages integrated into the recognized regional power hierarchies, comprising multiple family farms; (3) residential Hamlets and other non-permanent micro-settlements Most authors recognize both towns and villages, the latter growing out of small micro-settlements founded by family groups: ’It is interesting to think that these small nations of the Gold Coast, each consisting of a few towns and villages with a bare handful of population, have been so highly successful in maintaining this well-developed form of self-government. The Akan nations, with all the disadvantages of lack of transferring thought by any means other than speech, and in the absence of any proper medium of communication, have been able to march abreast of the times, adhering to their ancient, but by no means archaic, form of self-government.’ [1] ’Most of the towns scattered over the whole of Guinea have grown from villages originally founded and occupied by single family groups. As each family gets larger and the households increase in number, the village community grows, and its general affairs are guided and controlled by the patriarch of the family, who, now headman of the [Page 4] village, is assisted by a council composed of the eldest members of each family group or household, and other fit and proper persons, who are generally old men.’ [2] ’The Penin of the subsequent settlers exercises similar rights over his own people, and as the household grows larger so is that Penin assisted by a person “sitting behind” him. The founder of the village or his successor is now called Odzikuro (owner of the village), who, in looking after the village affairs, is assisted by the Penin of the new [Page 7] settlers, and thus arises the village council. The different family groups become the village community, and in all public matters the village council, composed of the Penin of each important household, acts, the Odzikuro being president of such council. The members of the village council have a spokesman (Kyiami, a linguist), whose office is hereditary, but is traced in the male line, for a son succeeds as linguist his father, and not his uncle. Land in possession of the founder of the village is family stool property. Land cleared and occupied by subsequent settlers who have joined the founder is the property of the subsequent settlers. Land acquired by the founder and the settlers together is held by the village community, and becomes attached to the stool of the person for the time being head of the village. All the inhabitants of the village have each of them a proportionate share in such lands as common property, without any possession or title to distinct portions. From the moment a tribal community settles down finally upon a definite tract of land, the land begins to be the basis of society in place of kinship. The Odzikuro, with the village council, has the control of such land, but each person has the right to cultivate any portion of it, and having done so or settled on it, he may not be removed by any single individual unless the council so decrees.’ [3] ’Suppose the original founder of the village to be a junior member of the family, whose elder brother was the family stoolholder; there still will be seasons when he and those under him would have to take part in observing the annual custom of the family stool, and participate in the family festival. And where there are several subordinate branches of a similar nature, the stoolholder of the original family acquires a greater importance and influence, and is termed Ohene - a term which has been rendered indifferently in English, king, caboceer, head chief, chief, and even headman. The Ohene will now have under him ( a) his family: comprising (i.) members under his immediate control, and (ii.) subordinate family groups that have branched off from the parent family; ( b) settlers: (i.) family groups in the same village as the Ohene, and (ii.) family groups sprung from the aforesaid and living in other places. In addition to individual persons enjoying his protection, there may be among his retinue a whole family or village community, to or for whom money loans have been given. These swell the retinue of the Ohene, and are included in his own bodyguard (Gyasi), a portion of the fighting men of the village community. Like the others, the headman of the protected family or community attends the annual festival of the Ohene, and to the tribunal of the Ohene these vassals have the right to appeal. Moreover, the oath of the stool of the Ohene is binding on them. The whole community is now likened to a body of which the Ohene supports the head, and the next in authority to him the foot. The Ohene of the oldest ancestry and most powerful becomes by election or tacit consent of the other Ahenefu of the district or country Omanhene, that is, a king. In reference to his own particular jurisdiction he is Ohene, and as such he may not interfere in the domestic [Page 9] affairs of any other fellow-ohene, so far as they do not injuriously affect the district as a whole.’ [4] According to Sarbah, Fante communities enjoyed a greated degree of autonomy than other Akan settlements: ’According to some ancient writers, there are two forms of government at the Gold Coast, namely, Monarchical and Republican. The districts of Axim, Ahanta, Fanti, and others were, previous to the year 1700, considered to be commonwealths; whereas Commenda, at that time a very populous district, Effutu or Fetu, Asebu, and Accra, were of the first kind. Henry Meredith, whose work was published in 1811, describes the governments along the coast as partaking of various forms. At Appolonia it was monarchical and absolute; in Ahanta it was a kind of aristocracy; but in the Fanti country, and extending to Accra, it was composed of a strange number of forms; for in some places the government was vested in particular persons, whilst in others it was in the hands of the community. What struck him as strange in the Fanti districts was that they frequently changed their form of government on certain occasions by uniting together under particular persons for their general safety, giving implicit [Page 26] obedience to their leaders; but as soon as the object of their union was attained, they reverted to their independent units. What is undoubtedly true is, that for very many years the Fanti town and village communities have enjoyed independence in a greater degree than any other tribes on the Gold Coast. In Appolonia one finds that so much authority was vested in the Omanhene that writers frequently thought his power was absolute. But on examining the constitutions of these places, they will be found to be sprung from the same root; the monarchical form of government so mentioned is what is common in Wassaw and other inland districts, and the republican is simply the constitution of some of the sea-coast towns close to European settlements and forts. These coast towns are communities whose government is based on the system already described; the president is Ohene, and his office is elective. Each town is divided into several parts, for fighting purposes, called companies (Asafu). One of these companies acts as the Gyasi to the Ohene. The Tufuhene is responsible for the good order of all the fighting men; the orders of the Ohene and his council are communicated to them by the Tufuhene.’ [5] Spatial proximity to colonial forts was associated with significant cultural changes: ’Pursuing the same object, they claimed tribute on the takings of the fishermen at Axim, Elmina, and Mowre, who were forbidden under severe penalties from holding any communication whatever and from trading with any other Europeans. Moreover, they attempted to exercise in these coast towns jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters, and assumed the power of life and death. In spite, however, of these oppressive measures, they were compelled to, and did pay, every year to the local rulers and their people, the rents for their forts and other establishments; nor could they wholly deter the people from trading or otherwise dealing with other European traders, against whom the Dutch now took extreme measures as enemies and interlopers.’ [6] ’The government of the sea-coast communities is a variation of the general system which has been described. This variation has been caused by frequent intercourse with European traders and the accumulation of wealth by means of lucrative trade. Ancient travellers who wrote described only what they saw in the coast towns. From these men one learns that, over two centuries ago, at seedtime farmers marked out for farming their plots of land, situate usually on rising grounds near the towns and villages. The next step was to obtain the permission of the Ohene or his officers in charge of the land, after permission had been granted, to pay the usual rent. The head of the family, assisted by his wives, children, and any slaves he might possess, prepared the ground for sowing. When the day of sowing arrived, the farm belonging to the village, or town chief, was first sown by all the people, and the others followed in due course. † This custom has continued to modern times with slight modifications. A few years ago the sum of half a crown was paid to landowners on asking for a plot of land to farm on for one season, but within the last two years this sum has been raised to ten shillings; in some instances, such as for land near the large towns, as much as a pound has been paid.’ [7] [1]: Danquah, J. B. (Joseph Boakye) 1928. “Gold Coast: Akan Laws And Customs And The Akim Abuakwa Constitution”, 16 [2]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 3p [3]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 6 [4]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 8p [5]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 25p [6]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 72 [7]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 24 |
||||||
|
levels. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the Ashanti possess ’Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more)’, meaning that they are likely to have a settlement hierarchy as follows: (1) Town (administrative buildings, storehouse)) (2) Village (shrine) (3) Hamlet (residential only). This remains to be confirmed. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’3 levels above community’
(1) the Capital with its central administrative and political functions;(2) regional Towns housing the leaders of divisions of the Ashanti Union;(3) Villages integrated into the recognized regional power hierarchies, comprising multiple family farms;(4) residential Hamlets and other non-permanent micro-settlements A reviewer of Arhin’s work comments on some general features of the territorial hierarchy: ’the Asante people formed a typical African kingdom, headed by a paramount ruler called “king” who, from his central village or town, administered the community in groups of villages with their own administrative and political organizations that owed absolute allegiance to the king, sometimes miles away. In every such African kingdom there was a princely city, special in every sense-the home of the paramount ruler of the state, the centre of government, and the residence of members of the royal family, religious leaders, courtiers, members of the extended-family system, servants, and slaves. Its economic, political, and cultural characteristics flowed down to the villages that made up the state [...] Every village consisted of free-born citizens, servants, and slaves. Individuals were like the fingers of a hand, all working together for the betterment of the village and, through the council of elders and the king’s representative or chief, paying tribute to and serving their lord and master’ [1] Arhin’s own work confirms this: ’An Asante state consisted of divisions ( amansin), which in turn consisted of villages ( nkuro) and hamlets ( nkuraa). The hamlet was of no political significance, since, like the hunting lodge ( nnanso), it was a temporary settlement. The village, inhabited by members of localised matrilineages of three or more of the dispersed Akan matriclans ( mmusua) (Rattray 1929: 67), was headed by an individual called the owner of the village ( odekro).’ [2] Villages can accordingly be differentiated from Hamlets by virtue of their integration into regional lineage structures: ’A village proper is distinguished from less permanent settlements as much by social complexity as by sheer size. Nearly all established villages are occupied by a number of distinct matrilineal groups, perhaps as many as five or six. [...] The establishment of a core of women in a village, who have children there, and whose daughters there give birth to other daughters who will continue the matrilineage, marks that settlement’s existence as an independent and viable unit. Marriage, birth and death, as much as sheer numbers, mark the distinction between a well-established village and a settlement of less certain status.’ [3] Hamlets could develop into more complex villages: ’an akuraa might, in favourable circumstances, develop into a village proper ( okrom), with its own name and chief or odekuro and a clearly defined position in the kingdom’s political and military framework. This change in status usually occurred gradually and only after the place became the primary residence of many of those using it.’ [3] [1]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 478 [2]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 473 [3]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 25 |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families Icelanders continued to reside on dispersed farmsteads rather than concentrating in villages and towns: ’All Icelanders lived on farms. No towns developed in Iceland in the Middle Ages. Fishing was carried out from coastal farms, and also from seasonal fishing stations when fish, especially cod, came ashore. Cereal crops were grown in Iceland in the Middle Ages, mainly in the south, but animal husbandry (cattle and sheep) was the mainstay. Both provided meat, and milk for cheese and skyr (milk curd), and the sheep’s wool was woven into cloth which was Iceland’s principal export commodity until the 14th century [...]. The Icelandic way of life is well illustrated by the units of value used: alin vadmáls (an ell, about 50cm, of woollen cloth), kúgildi (the value of a cow), equivalent to 120 ells, and subsequently fiskur (fish), equivalent to half an ell.’ [1] In the Sturlung period, a small number of chieftains had managed to establish large manors, expropriating labour and resources from landless workers and larger landholdings: ’Because of the absence of the law of odel, and through the influence of the church as well as of the government and the chieftain class landed property had been gathered in the hands of a few. As the class of smaller freeholders was disappearing, the people were becoming a struggling and oppressed peasantry with a limited outlook, few political interests, and less of public spirit and individual self-assertion than formerly.’ [2] According to Karlsson, this pattern did not change significantly during the transition to a mixed agrarian/fishing economy, although some settlement shifts occurred: ’It was in the years after 1300 that seasonal fishing stations became esablished on the southwest coast, and the wealthiest sector of society began to congregate in this region. The most powerful chieftains had almost all been based inland. Now the prosperous élite began to settle along the coast between Selvogur in the southwest and Vatnsfjördur in the West Fjords. Hvalfjördur and Hafnarfjördur developed into Iceland’s most important trading centres. The royal administration in Iceland was located at Bessastadir [...] This period saw the development of the mixed agrarian/fishing society that typefied the Icelandic economy for centuries. In January and Feburary, people travelled from rural areas to the fishing stations, where they remained until spring, fishing from small boats. This was the most favourable fishing season, as fish stocks were plentiful, the weather was cool enough to permit fish to be dried before spoiling, and relatively few hands were required on the farm. People were thus domiciled in rural areas, on farms.’ [3] The wealthier elites attempted to inhibit the development of new occupational classes: ’Yet another distinction appears as early as in the laws of the Commonwealth, which was to persist through Icelandic history. The ruling class wanted to divide Iceland into two kinds of people: farmers and their wives, and landless workers who were contracted by the year to work for farmers, and lived in their homes. Untiring efforts were ade to prevent the development of two other social classes: casual workers who sold their labour to the highest bidder at any season, and householders who were resident by the sea, living by fishing, and had neither land nor livestock.’ [4] See also Commonwealth-period data sheet. [1]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 12p [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 249 [3]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 24p [4]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 13 |
||||||
|
levels. Territorial polities cannot be assumed to have existed at this point. It is also worth noting that it is not clear how much of the site Mehgarh was inhabited at any one time
[1]
.
1. ?Mehrgarh2. ?Villages Village farming community begins at least by 7th millennium BCE. [2] [1]: Alessandro Ceccarelli, pers. comm. to E. Cioni, Feb 2017 [2]: (Ahmed 2014, 312) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
1. Large settlementFor example, Quetta Miri (23 ha) and Mundigak (9 ha). 2. Possible medium-sized ’producer’ settlements 3. Small settlements Worth noting: "Some settlements show signs of specialization in particular crafts or other industrial activities, such as the procurement of raw materials. For example, huge quantities of figurines were produced at Mehrgarh in this period, suggesting mass production. Lewan, a village in the Bannu Basin in northern Baluchistan, specialized in the production of stone tools, including querns, axes, and hammers, which were traded over a wide area. A degree of specialization had begun earlier, for example at Mehrgarh, but it was becoming more pronounced in this period." [3] [1]: (Possehl 2002, 44) Gregory Possehl. 2002. The Indus Civilization. Delhi: Published on behalf of Indian Archaeological Society [by] B.R. Pub. Corp. [2]: New Delhi: distributed by D.K. Publishers’ Distributors, 1980. [3]: (McIntosh 2008, 69) |
||||||
|
levels. "The Harappan settlement pattern may offer some clues to the organization of society. The settlements fall basically into three categories. First there are a very few enormous settlements, the cities. These were at least 60 hectares in extent (Dholavira, which may actually be as much as 100 hectares) and could be as large as 250 hectares (Mohenjo-daro)."//"At the opposite end of the spectrum were rural settlements: farming villages, pastoralist and hunter-gatherer camps, and fishing villages. These could range in size from less than a hectare to 7 or 8 hectares...In addition, there were villages whose inhabitants were specialists, such as the shellfishers and shellworkers of Nageshwar. These settlements had none of the complexity of towns but were probably not self-sufficient in subsistence products like villages. They may have been occupied only seasonally by people who spent the rest of the year in primary production.//"The third category, towns, is an amorphous catch-all, including a great diversity of different types of settlement. They were usually quite small, around 1 to 5 hectares, and, though some were larger, few exceeded 16 hectares. This figure does not include the suburbs that may have existed outside many towns; traces of suburban settlement have been reported outside a few and are suspected at others, but none has been properly investigated."
[1]
1. Cities 2. Towns 3. Villages 4. Pastoralist and hunter-gatherer camps [1]: (McIntosh 2008, pp. 260-261) Jane McIntosh. 2008. The Ancient Indus Valley. Santa Barbara; Denver; Oxford: ABC-CLIO. |
||||||
|
levels. "The Harappan settlement pattern may offer some clues to the organization of society. The settlements fall basically into three categories. First there are a very few enormous settlements, the cities. These were at least 60 hectares in extent (Dholavira, which may actually be as much as 100 hectares) and could be as large as 250 hectares (Mohenjo-daro).//"At the opposite end of the spectrum were rural settlements: farming villages, pastoralist and hunter-gatherer camps, and fishing villages. These could range in size from less than a hectare to 7 or 8 hectares. Their inhabitants were essentially primary producers of subsistence products who would also have undertaken domestic crafts such as weaving and woodworking. In addition, there were villages whose inhabitants were specialists, such as the shellfishers and shellworkers of Nageshwar.//"The third category, towns, is an amorphous catch-all, including a great diversity of different types of settlement. They were usually quite small, around 1 to 5 hectares, and, though some were larger, few exceeded 16 hectares. This figure does not include the suburbs that may have existed outside many towns; traces of suburban settlement have been reported outside a few and are suspected at others, but none has been properly investigated.//"While towns resembled cities in that they housed officials, traders, and other occupational specialists and probably provided services for the people of their area, the majority were also specialist centers."//"The settlement pattern seems to indicate that both towns and villages were tributary directly to their local domain capital (city), links between them being maintained by pastoralists and via water transport; towns also acted as funnels through which local goods were channeled toward the city."
[1]
1. Cities 2. Towns 3. Villages 4. Pastoralist and hunter-gatherer camps [1]: (McIntosh 2008, pp. 260-261) Jane McIntosh. 2008. The Ancient Indus Valley. Santa Barbara; Denver; Oxford: ABC-CLIO. |
||||||
|
Inferred. Pirak is the best-preserved site in the Kachi Plain from this time. Although other sites such as Pathani Damb have also been found, it is difficult to estimate their extent due to the poor preservation of the site. “Although no systematic surveys have been carried out in the Kachi plain, it appears that this region lying between highland Baluchistan and the Indus valley was occupied without break by sizable settlements throughout the second and into the first millennium BC.”
[1]
[2]
[1]: Jarrige, J-F. (2000) Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan) at the beginning of the Second Millennium BC. In, Lahiri, N. The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization. Permanent Black, Delhi., pp345-362. p346 [2]: Jarrige, J-F. (1979) Fouilles de Pirak. Paris : Diffusion de Boccard.p390 |
||||||
|
Inferred. Pirak is the best-preserved site in the Kachi Plain from this time. Although other sites such as Pathani Damb have also been found, it is difficult to estimate their extent due to the poor preservation of the site. “Although no systematic surveys have been carried out in the Kachi plain, it appears that this region lying between highland Baluchistan and the Indus valley was occupied without break by sizable settlements throughout the second and into the first millennium BC.”
[1]
[2]
[1]: Jarrige, J-F. (2000) Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan) at the beginning of the Second Millennium BC. In, Lahiri, N. The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization. Permanent Black, Delhi., pp345-362. p346 [2]: Jarrige, J-F. (1979) Fouilles de Pirak. Paris : Diffusion de Boccard.p390 |
||||||
|
1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)
2. Regional capitals 3. Towns 4. Villages (5. Hamlets?) |
||||||
|
There has been very little excavation of verified Greek settlements, with only one Greek site directly excavated. If this one example typified the situation in the Indo-Greek Kingdom, the Greek polis was the administrative, ritualized, and monumental heartland of the territory, but not the dominant population centre and represented a new construction. Below this newly urban space were the existing infrastructure of towns and villages.
[1]
1. Greek Polis Peucelaotis (Shaikhan Dheri) measured 1.8 x 1.5 km. [2] 2. Surrounding towns 3. Villages [1]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed. The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. pp. 156-157 [2]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 2: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: Unesco, 1992., p.106. |
||||||
|
1. City - capital
Kanishka I (128-150 CE) moved the capital to Purushapura. [1] He had regional capitals at Taxila, Begram and Mathura. [2] 2. City - administrative center"Major administrative centers are believed to have been Peshawar in northwest Pakistan and Mathura in the Ganges Basin." [3] 3. Towns2nd and 3rd CE in Bactria: "During this period the country consisted of towns, including the important cities of Balkh and Termez, and rural settlements (roughly in the ratio of one to seven)." [4] Vichi (Bhita) estimated population of population of between 10,000 and 20,000 persons. "In Sisupalgarh (ancient Kalinga˙nagara), where the ruins of the ancient city cover an areaof about 1.36 km2". "Begram, north of Kabul, at the confluence of the Panjshir and Ghorband rivers. The city was rectangular in shape, extending 800mfrom north to south and 450m from east to west with a citadel in the northeast." [5] "The cities became centres for the production of commodities for sale, hence their key importance in the city-village-nomadic-steppe system." [6] 4. Rural settlements5. Nomadic camps. Commune "There is some direct, and a great deal of indirect, evidence to show that the commune occupied an important place in the socio-economic life of Central Asia and in the ancient East as a whole. This seems to have continued until the Early Middle Ages, for which evidence is available. Thus, the commune in Sogdiana was known as naf; it consisted of the aristocracy (azat, azatkar), merchants (xvakar), and free peasants (who were members of the commune) and craftsmen (karikar). ... According to the written sources, the azat owned the land and the villages and were the chief retainers of the local and provincial rulers." [7] " In all probability, there was more land under communal ownership than any other type. There is some evidence to show that communes owned whole irrigation systems and the regions irrigated by them, as well as settlements and grazing lands. Localities settled by rural communes were called varzana, vardana or gava, meaning village or rural district, and it was precisely at this time that the fortified settlement of Vardanze, in the northern part of the Bukhara oasis, was established." [8] [1]: (Samad 2011, 83) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [2]: (Murugan 2013, 27) Murugan, Suresh. 2013. Introduction To Social Work. Social Work Department. PSG College of Arts and Science. [3]: (Sinopoli 2006, 337) Sinopoli, Carla M. Imperial Landscapes of South Asia. in Stark, Miriam T. ed. 2006. Archaeology of Asia. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. [4]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 475) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [5]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 2: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: Unesco, 1992,p.287, 288. [6]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 2: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: Unesco, 1992,p.292. [7]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 280) Mukhamedjanov, A R in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. [8]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 281) Mukhamedjanov, A R in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
[1]
The levels potentially consisted of:
1. Fortified Urban communities: Balkh, Termez. Balkh described as having 3,000 monks. It had a circumference of c. 20 li. Temez had "perhaps 1, 000 monks." It had a circumference of 20 li. The area of the ’town’ is 10 ha. The area of the town plus suburb is 70 ha. [1] 2. Subjugated agricultural villages 3. Nomadic peoples ’Without cities and towns, they follow water and grass, using felt to make tents, moving to the cold places in summer, to the warm ones in winter.’ [2] [1]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilizations, p. 152 [2]: De la Vaissière, É. "Is there a Nationality of the Hephthalites." Bulletin of the Asia Institute 17 (2008): pp 119-132. |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Capital 2. Provincial capitals 3. District capitals (shahrestan) 4. Large towns 5. Villages 6. Nomadic fiefs (Late Sasanian period nomads given fiefs in return for military service). [1]: (Daryaee 2009, 124-135, 148) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
For issues with population estimates, especially in the period before large scale conversion to Islam, see the arguments presented in Blankinship’s End of the Jihâd State
[1]
For detailed coverage of the individual polities below, see Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A historical encyclopedia [2] The settlement hierarchy can be divided into six subsets: 1. Metropoles 50,000-150,000 Cairo, Damascus [3] 2. Provincial Centres 20,000-50,000: Antioch, Alexandria [3] 3. Provincial cities 10,000-20,000: Jerusalem [3] 4. Small towns 500-10,000 Gaza, Hebron [3] 5. Villages 200-500 6. Nomadic peoples (i.e Berbers) [1]: (Blankinship 1994, 272-275) [2]: (Dumper and Stanley 2007) [3]: (Shatzmiller ????, 59) |
||||||
|
These are based on the minimalist estimates put forth by J.C Russel in Medieval Regions and Their Cities.
[1]
His estimates are lower than others but have the largest amount of evidence to support them. The full arguments regarding urbanization and demographics for the later part of the Abbassid period can be found in Maya Shatzmiller’s Labour in the Medievel Islamic World.
[2]
The settlement hierarchy can be divided into seven subsets: 1. More than 150,000: Baghdad, Samarra [2] 2. Metropoles (50,000-150,000): Cairo [3] 3. Provincial Centres (20,000-50,000): Antioch, Alexandria [3] 4. Provincial cities (10,000-20,000): Jerusalem [3] 5. Small towns (500-10,000): Gaza, Hebron [3] 6. Villages (200-500) [1]: Russell, Josiah Cox. Medieval regions and their cities. David & Charles, 1972. [2]: Maya Shatzmiller, Labour in the Medievel Islamic World pp.57-61 [3]: Maya Shatzmiller, Labour in the Medievel Islamic World pp.59 |
||||||
|
1. City: Mansura, (sacked in 1026 CE),Thatta, Thatti
[1]
2. Town: large numbers destroyed by the shifting current of the Indus river, very little archeological evidence remaining. a full list of 47 sites can be found in An Illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of Sindh. [2] 3. Village: Bhiro Bham [3] [1]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 93-103 [2]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 94-95 [3]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 101 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital Firuzkuh described as "summer capital". Single period of occupation of 75 years. Destroyed by Mongols 1223 CE, so origin c1148 CE. [1] 2. City3. towns4. villages [1]: Thomas, David. Firuzkuh: the summer capital of the Ghurids http://www.academia.edu/188837/Firuzkuh_the_summer_capital_of_the_Ghurids |
||||||
|
"Delhi in the thirteenth century had grown to be one of the largest cities of the Muslim world. A number of other cities had emerged as major urban centres during this period - Multan, Lahore, Anhilwara, Kara, Kambath, Sonargaon and Lakhnauti, to name a few".
[1]
(6) Delhi - described in contemporary sources as the the largest city in the sub-continent. [2] (5) Large cities/regional capitals - Lahore, Multan, Patan, Cambay, Kara. [2] (4) Wilayat (larger provinces) [3] (3) Shiqq/Sarkar (sub province) [3] (2) Parganah (aggregate of villages)/Sadi [3] (1) Village [3] [1]: (Ahmed 2011, 101) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [2]: Habib, Irfan, ‘Non-Agricultural Production and Urban Economy’, in The Cambridge economic history of India Vol. 1,, ed. by Tapan Raychaudhuri and Irfan Habib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp.82-83. [3]: Qureshi, I. H. (1971). The administration of the Sultanate of Delhi (p. 93). Oriental Books Reprint Corporation; exclusively distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 201-203. |
||||||
|
1. City: Thatta
[1]
2. Town: large numbers destroyed by the shifting current of the Indus river so very little archaeological evidence remains. A full list of 47 sites can be found in ’An Illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of Sindh’ for precursors. There seems to be evidence that the current of the Indus remained relatively stable and that waterways were maintained. [2] 3. Village [3] [1]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 93-103 [2]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 94-95 [3]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 101 |
||||||
|
3: 1766 CE; 1: 1779 CE. The Durrani ruled from the sparsely populated and rural Pashtun region of Afghanistan. As such, the settlement hierarchy was inverse to the majority of empires in that the large populated cities were underneath the power of a much smaller and extractive rural elite. After the death of the first Shah, internal conflict meant that effective control was limited to the city of Kabul and the surrounding countryside.
[1]
1766 CE 1. Kandahār(capital) 2. Provincial capitals (Sind, Punjab, Kashmir, Khosasan, Turkistan) 3. towns 4. Villages 1779 CE 1. Kabul [1]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press, 2010. pp. 97-109 |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. "Because a great number of sites and features such as large villages, pit houses, burials, and shell middens of the Jomon period have been found, many archaeologists believe the inhabitants lived there all year round. However, even with strong evidence of a stable society, there is no doubt that there was a radial development pattern of hunting camps, plant gathering camps, and fishing camps with a residential base at the center."
[1]
1. Central residential base 2. Hunting campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. 2. Gathering campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. 2. Fishing campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. [1]: (Matsui 2001, 120) |
||||||
|
levels. "Because a great number of sites and features such as large villages, pit houses, burials, and shell middens of the Jomon period have been found, many archaeologists believe the inhabitants lived there all year round. However, even with strong evidence of a stable society, there is no doubt that there was a radial development pattern of hunting camps, plant gathering camps, and fishing camps with a residential base at the center."
[1]
1. Central residential base 2. Hunting campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. 2. Gathering campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. 2. Fishing campsSmall, temporary, peripheral. [1]: (Matsui 2001, 120) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Relatively permanent large-scale settlements.These were the main residential sites. It is unclear whether they were occupied year-round or whether the main settlement was moved seasonally. 2. Smaller, shorter-lived settlements. Also: Extremely small sites, made up of one or two buildings. Extremely small sites, where there is evidence for use/occupation, but not of buildings. [1]: Matsui, A. 2001. Jomon. In Peregrine, P. and M. Ember (eds) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 3: East Asia and Oceania 119-126. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. |
||||||
|
levels. Large villages (400 to 500 people) and small settlements.
[1]
[1]: (Barnes 2015: 131) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/T5SRVKXV. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from previous quasi-polities.
[1]
[1]: • (Barnes 2015: 131) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/T5SRVKXV. |
||||||
|
1. large settlements (estimated size around 30-20 hectares)
2. small villages (estimated size around 2-0.5 hectares) The large regional centres were surrounded by smaller satellite villages [1] [1]: K. Mizoguchi, 2013. The Archaeology of Japan. From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 123. |
||||||
|
3. large settlements
2. small villages1. hamlets |
||||||
|
levels.
4.City 3. Town2. village1. Hamlet |
||||||
|
levels.
4. Capital City (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples) Kyoto Population: 3. Provincial Capitals/Cities (kokufu)Population: for example the previous capital Nara. 2. Town s(toshiteki na ba/kedai to machi)Population: 1. Villages (residential)Population: Medieval settlement organization: Kyoto, provincial capitals/cities (kokufu), towns/temple towns (toshiteki na ba/kedai to machi), villages. [1] [1]: Fujita Hirotsugu, trans. David Eason. 2017. Geography in History and History in Geography. In, Karl Friday (ed) Routledge Handbook of Premodern Japanese History. Routledge Press: 13-23. (p.17-19) |
||||||
|
5. Cities (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples)
Population: ’cities such as Kyoto and Kamakura that developed into flourishing cities due to their position as either imperial or shogunal capitals.’ [1] 4. Market Town (market) Population: ’Market towns (ichiba machi) originated in the Kamakura period as areas the government authorized to sell produce and other goods on certain days of the month. [2] 3. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods. [3] 2. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [2] 1. Village (residential) Population:10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life.’ [3] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.60 [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. |
||||||
|
6. Cities (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples)
Population:??? ‘Between 1550 and 1700 Kyoto was the first city to surpass a population of 100,000 people.’ [1] 5. Castle Town /Market Town (market, regional government buildings, military fortifications) Population: ’Castle towns trace their origin to the Muromachi period and the construction of wooden defenses typically located on hills for reasons of protection and surveillance. These fortifications were the precursors to the castles and castle-building styles that grew more elaborate during the Warring States period. As the military and political significance of castles grew, they also became the focal point for economic activity within their local region. With the rise of commerce around castles, merchants, artisans, and peasants joined the warrior class in taking up residence within a castle’s sphere of influence. Castles became castle towns as a result.’ [2] ‘During the 16th century, castle towns (joka machi) began their transformation into town and city complexes. This occurred in part because castle towns served as government administration centres. Many daimyo and almost all samurai lived within the castle town complexes. Merchants, traders, artisans, craftspeople, and others were eventually incorporated into these towns and cities to provide the labor and market activity needed to support the work conducted there and to further build and maintain the infrastructure. As a result of this dynamic, castle and market towns came to occupy the same location.’ [3] 4. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? ’Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods’ [4] 3. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [3] 2. Post-Station Towns (accommodation, shops, entertainment, transport hubs) Population:??? ‘Post-station towns (shukuba machi or shukueki) grew up along the medieval and early modern road systems that connected cities and towns to each other.’ [3] Their presence in the Muromachi period is referenced in (Yamamura 2008:p251) ’the shugosho were frequently located in post towns and port cities, areas of strategic importance in communications.’ [5] 1. Village (residential) Population:10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life.’ [4] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.63. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.60 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. [5]: Yamamura, Kozo (ed). 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 3. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press [sixth edition].p.251 |
||||||
|
levels.
Coded 6 for previous period. Should we assume loss of at least one level for this period? |
||||||
|
5. Cities (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples)
Population: ‘Between 1550 and 1700 Kyoto was the first city to surpass a population of 100,000 people.’ [1] 4. Castle Town /Market Town (market, regional government buildings, military fortifications) Population: ’By the Azuchi-Momoyama period (late 16th century), castle towns became the political and administrative hubs of daimyo domains, and it is estimated that in most domains one-10th of the population resided in its castle town. Some of them, at least, were to become Japan’s largest cities, such as Edo and Osaka. [2] ‘During the 16th century, castle towns (joka machi) began their transformation into town and city complexes. This occurred in part because castle towns served as government administration centres. Many daimyo and almost all samurai lived within the castle town complexes. Merchants, traders, artisans, craftspeople, and others were eventually incorporated into these towns and cities to provide the labor and market activity needed to support the work conducted there and to further build and maintain the infrastructure. As a result of this dynamic, castle and market towns came to occupy the same location.’ [3] 3. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? ’Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods’ [4] 2. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [3] 1. Village (residential) Population: 10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life.’ [4] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.63. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.60-61 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
‘the urban population grew from about 1.4 million (7 or 8 per cent of the total) in the early Tokugawa period to about 5 million (about 16 per cent of the total) by the end of the century.’
[3]
6. Metropolises (palace, monumental structures, theatre, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples) Population: 200,000 -1,400,000 [2] Edo (Tokyo), Kyoto and Osaka ‘were commonly referred to as the santo (three metropolises), and were the three main pillars of the urban system. [3] ‘Between 1550 and 1700 Kyoto was the first city to surpass a population of 100,000 people. By 1700 the city was estimated to have approximately 350,000 individuals. Osaka had roughly 500,000 people in the mid 18th century, dropping to 375,000 in 1801 and 317,000 in 1854.’ [2] 5. Castle Town /Market Town (market, theatre, regional government buildings, military fortifications) Population:1,000-100,000 [3] Estimated about 200 Castle towns throughout the archipelago. [3] ‘During the 16th century, castle towns (joka machi) began their transformation into town and city complexes. This occurred in part because castle towns served as government administration centres. Many daimyo and almost all samurai lived within the castle town complexes. Merchants, traders, artisans, craftspeople, and others were eventually incorporated into these towns and cities to provide the labor and market activity needed to support the work conducted there and to further build and maintain the infrastructure. As a result of this dynamic, castle and market towns came to occupy the same location.’ [4] 4. Post-Station Towns (accommodation, shops, entertainment, transport hubs) Population: 500- 3,000 ‘Post-station towns (shukuba machi or shukueki) grew up along the medieval and early modern road systems that connected cities and towns to each other.’ [4] ‘...by the later Tokugawa period there were some 250 stations spotted irregularly at intervals of about 5-10kilometers... At each town a manager’s office supervised the station’s activities, while inns furnished lodgings and shop provided entertainment, footgear, meals, medicines, and other essentials. In addition, each town was supposed to maintain a specified number of porters and packhorses to move goods and people. [5] 3. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods... Even after restrictions on foreign trade were enacted by the shogunate in the 16th century, ports engaged in domestic trade continued to thrive. [6] 2. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [4] 1. Village (residential) Population:10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life, and mountain villages developed in the early modern period around lumber and other products that found flourishing markets in the expanding towns and cities of the Edo period.’ [6] [1]: Sorensen, André. 2005. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty First Century. Routledge.p.12 [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.63. [3]: Sorensen, André. 2005. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty First Century. Routledge.p.12. [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [5]: Totman, Conrad. 1993. Early Modern Japan. University of California Press. Berkeley; London. p.154-55. [6]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Hamlet or Longhouse Community ’Each longhouse, as each BILEK, is an autonomous unit. Traditionally the core of each house was a group of descendants of the founders. Houses near one another on the same river or in the same region were commonly allied, marrying among themselves, raiding together beyond their territories, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. [...] Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves).’ [1] ’Iban settlements are still predominantly in the form of longhouses. During the time when headhunting was endemic, the longhouse provided a sound strategy of defense. It continues to be a ritual unit, and all residents share responsibility for the health of the community. A longhouse is an attenuated structure of attached family units, each unit built by a separate family. The selection of different building materials and the uneven skills of Iban men who build their own houses are apparent in the appearance of family units, some with floors of split bamboo, others with planed and highly polished hardwood floors. The average width of a family unit is 3.5 meters, but the depth, that is, from front to back, varies widely. A longhouse may include as few as four families with 25 residents in a structure less than 15 meters long, or as many as 80 families with 500 residents in a house about 300 meters long. Access to a longhouse is by a notched-log ladder or stairs. At the top of the ladder is an uncovered porch (TANJU’) on which clothing, rice, and other produce may be dried. Inside the outer wall is a covered veranda (RUAI), which is the thoroughfare for traffic within the house, where women and old men sit during the daytime weaving or carving, and where families gather in the evening to recount the days events or to listen to folklore told by story-tellers. Beyond the inner wall is the family apartment (BILEK), where the family cooks and eats its meals, stores its heirlooms, and sleeps. Above the BILEK and extending halfway over the RUAI is a loft (SADAU) where the family’s rice is stored in a large bark bin and where unmarried girls sleep. The longhouse is constructed with its front to the water supply and preferably facing east. The core of each longhouse community is a group of siblings or their descendants. Through interethnic marriages, members of other societies may become part of Iban settlements to be assimilated as "Iban" in a generation or two. Until the past quarter-century, all Iban lived in or were related to longhouse settlements. Life in the longhouse was considered "normal", and those few people who lived in single-family dwellings apart from the longhouse were thought to be possessed by an evil spirit. [1] A longhouse constitutes an autonomous hamlet or village: ’The universal rule is that each long-house constitutes a single community; in other words, among the Iban the village and the long-house coincide. Moreover, traditionally each long-house community is an autonomous entity, not subject to the control of any other group. Every long-house is situated on part of a specified tract of land, and between long-houses there are always recognized boundaries, consisting in the main of unambiguous natural features such as streams or ridges. Each long-house then, is the domicile of a compact and independent community of families, and is situated on the bank of a river that is part of a specified territory over which these various families have either rights of access or ownership.’ [2] [1]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Iban Agriculture: A Report On The Shifting Cultivation Of Hill Rice By The Iban Of Sarawak”, 8 |
||||||
|
levels. The Iban are likely to have a settlement hierarchy as follows: (1) Hamlet (residential only). SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’Autonomous local communities’.
[(2); Colonial Towns;] (1) Hamlet or Longhouse Community ’Each longhouse, as each BILEK, is an autonomous unit. Traditionally the core of each house was a group of descendants of the founders. Houses near one another on the same river or in the same region were commonly allied, marrying among themselves, raiding together beyond their territories, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. [...] Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves).’ [1] ’Iban settlements are still predominantly in the form of longhouses. During the time when headhunting was endemic, the longhouse provided a sound strategy of defense. It continues to be a ritual unit, and all residents share responsibility for the health of the community. A longhouse is an attenuated structure of attached family units, each unit built by a separate family. The selection of different building materials and the uneven skills of Iban men who build their own houses are apparent in the appearance of family units, some with floors of split bamboo, others with planed and highly polished hardwood floors. The average width of a family unit is 3.5 meters, but the depth, that is, from front to back, varies widely. A longhouse may include as few as four families with 25 residents in a structure less than 15 meters long, or as many as 80 families with 500 residents in a house about 300 meters long. Access to a longhouse is by a notched-log ladder or stairs. At the top of the ladder is an uncovered porch (TANJU’) on which clothing, rice, and other produce may be dried. Inside the outer wall is a covered veranda (RUAI), which is the thoroughfare for traffic within the house, where women and old men sit during the daytime weaving or carving, and where families gather in the evening to recount the days events or to listen to folklore told by story-tellers. Beyond the inner wall is the family apartment (BILEK), where the family cooks and eats its meals, stores its heirlooms, and sleeps. Above the BILEK and extending halfway over the RUAI is a loft (SADAU) where the family’s rice is stored in a large bark bin and where unmarried girls sleep. The longhouse is constructed with its front to the water supply and preferably facing east. The core of each longhouse community is a group of siblings or their descendants. Through interethnic marriages, members of other societies may become part of Iban settlements to be assimilated as "Iban" in a generation or two. Until the past quarter-century, all Iban lived in or were related to longhouse settlements. Life in the longhouse was considered "normal", and those few people who lived in single-family dwellings apart from the longhouse were thought to be possessed by an evil spirit. [1] A longhouse constitutes an autonomous hamlet or village: ’The universal rule is that each long-house constitutes a single community; in other words, among the Iban the village and the long-house coincide. Moreover, traditionally each long-house community is an autonomous entity, not subject to the control of any other group. Every long-house is situated on part of a specified tract of land, and between long-houses there are always recognized boundaries, consisting in the main of unambiguous natural features such as streams or ridges. Each long-house then, is the domicile of a compact and independent community of families, and is situated on the bank of a river that is part of a specified territory over which these various families have either rights of access or ownership.’ [2] Most migration to urban centres took the form of temporary labour migration rather than permanent migration. Iban generally resided in longhouse villages during the Brooke Raj period. [1]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Iban Agriculture: A Report On The Shifting Cultivation Of Hill Rice By The Iban Of Sarawak”, 8 |
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of ’Specialized Buildings’, it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period.
|
||||||
|
"Takyan Höyük (twelve hectares), Kazane Höyük (twenty hectares), Domuztepe (twenty hectares), Tell Kurdu (twelve to fifteen hectares) […] these settlements stand out as being substantially larger than most other contemporaneous sites in northern Mesopotamia and beyond; they may, in fact, represent regional centers in a two-or three-tiered settlement hierarchy."
[1]
"Chalcolithic Asia Minor has sometimes been characterized as a period dominated by farming villages, with some exploitation of natural resources such as salt and obsidian, which could be exchanged with other groups for their intrinsic value. Indeed, there is some evidence to support the idea that raw materials were exchanged over considerable distances. This is manifested, for example, in the exchange of obsidian; a site such as Aphrodisias contains obsidian from Cappadocian sources and the Aegean islands of Melos and Giali, and a similar situation has been documented at Dedecik Heybelitepe. However, there is also evidence for the exchange of artifacts produced especially for export purposes and produced in labor intensive local industries. The best evidence for this comes from the Middle Chalcolithic site of Kulaksizlar, located in western Asia Minor. At this site, there is evidence for the production of stone vessels and figurines. These were produced from marble, and a large number of blanks, waste by products, manufacturing rejects, and stone working tools were found here, constituting about 90 percent of the surface assemblage. The most common artifacts produced at Kulaksizlar are pointed beakers and ‘Kilia figurines"". [2] The Middle and Late Chalcolithic era in central Anatolia was dominated by agricultural villages, exploiting natural resources such as salt or obsidian, which could be also exchanged with other groups. At that time many specialized workshops existed that produced items used for exchange (dishes, blades, shell ornaments, etc.). One of the most important raw materials for the Chalcolithic society was clay, because of its wide use in the economy. We also should not forget about the importance of stone, which served not only for making tools and figurines but was also part of house structures (e.g. foundations). Timber was also a valuable resource - so when abandoning a house, all wooden structures were dismantled in order to re-use it for a new home. Obsidian was used mainly for manufacturing blades, while animal bones were used as a material for making tools and jewelry. Copper, just like wood, was a valuable raw material for every village. Many copper items such as maces, axes or bracelets have been found. During this period, living quarters were based on a honeycomb model. Buildings formed large clusters, dividing into smaller ones as they got closer to the center. They were mainly built from mud-brick and probably had a few stories - this hypothesis is based on foundation excavations of the load-bearing structures such as pillars made of wood. The insides of these buildings consisted mainly of a few small rooms, of which some were used as storage areas or private quarters. The inside walls and floors were plastered, sometimes decorated (geometric patterns, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic decorations - very often showing bull as main subject of the drawing). The dwellings were built with wooden elements that were removed when vacating the house (hence pits in the foundations). The houses were used for a time period of 10 years up to a few decades, and after that time they were demolished to build new ones in their place (sometimes, the houses were burned down as a part of a ritual). Thus, the tallow settlement had risen - through the constant material accumulation. The settlement consisted of many different types of buildings. It was possible to distinguish the ones that belonged to the elite by their size and complexity. [1]: (Özbal 2011: 179) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/U5C5XR8K. [2]: Starożytna Anatolia, 10,000-323 BCE, SR Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Rozdział 36 |
||||||
|
During the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, many societies developed into more sophisticated urban communities. This is a time when proto-city-states emerged, and the density of population was growing.
|
||||||
|
[1]
1. large settlements (e.g. Kaneš estimated range 50ha, AcemhÖyük 56ha, Karahōyük Konya 50 ha, Alişar 28ha) [2] 2. small villages and farmsteads 0,1-5 ha (very poorly investigated, data about their existance comes from field walking surveys, not regular excavation) [3] [1]: Dercksen J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Sofiety in Kaniš. [in:] J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO, pg. 137-138 [2]: Michel C. 2011. The karum Peeriod on the Plateau. [in:] S. McMahon (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 317 [3]: Yener K. A. 2007. The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age kingdoms and Alalakh: Mukish, Kanesh and trade. Anatolian studies 57, pg. 153 |
||||||
|
1. Capital Bogazköy-Hattusa.
2. Large settlements (e.g. Masat Höyük-Tapikka, Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, Alaca Höyük, Inandıktepe). 3. Small villages and farmsteads 0,1-5 ha (very poorly investigated, data about their existence comes from field walking surveys, not regular excavation). |
||||||
|
1. Capital Bogazköy-Hattusa.
2. Large settlements (e.g. Masat Höyük-Tapikka, Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, Alaca Höyük, Inandıktepe).3. Small villages and farmsteads 0,1-5 ha (very poorly investigated, data about their existence comes from field walking surveys, not regular excavation). |
||||||
|
1. Capital Bogazköy-Hattusa.
2. Large settlements (e.g. Masat Höyük-Tapikka, Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, Alaca Höyük, Inandıktepe).3. Small villages and farmsteads 0,1-5 ha (very poorly investigated, data about their existence comes from field walking surveys, not regular excavation). |
||||||
|
1. City/Town
At time when Konya Plain controlled by larger kingdom e.g. Carchemish? Northern Tabal? 2. Village3. Hamlet In the early iron age in central Anatolia are known only villages and hamlets (Gordion, Boğazköy, Kaman Kalehöyük) [1] [2] "Peripheral areas within the kingdom’s frontiers typically contained a number of communities called ’cities’ in the texts, the majority of which could have been no more than small villages. But the larger kingdoms must have contained, in addition to the capital, one or more relatively large settlements or cities, the centres probably of regional sub-kingdoms, over each of which a local ruler presided. Regional administrations under local rulers appear to be attested within the kingdoms of Carchemish and Adanawa, for example. at certain periods in their history. The local man was subordinate and directly answerable to the occupant of the royal seat in the kingdom’s capital." [3] [1]: Genz H. "The Iron Age in Central Anatolia".In: Tsetskhladze G. R. (2011) The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the first millenium BC. Paris. Pg: 336. [2]: Voigt M. M. "The Changing Political and Economic Roles of a First Millennium B.C.E. City". In: Steadman. S. R., McMahon G. (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. Oxford. Pg: 1077. [3]: (Bryce 2012, 81) |
||||||
|
1. Capital
2. Town3. The number of settlements and their sizes are unknown. We can just identify two big cities (Gordion, Ankyra), and some other sites with Phrygian layers, but their function in settlement net is unknown [1] . [1]: Atasoy, E., S. Buluç, 1982, "Metallurgical and Archaeological Examination of Phrygian Objects", Anatolian Studies, Vol. 32, pg:158 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town"Since Tuatti is referred to by name and apparently held sway over several towns, one suspects that he was the most powerfulof these kings." [1] [2] 3. Village [1]: (Melville 2010, 87-109) Melville, Sarah. "Kings of Tabal: Politics [2]: Competition, and Conflict in a Contested Periphery." in Richardson, Seth. ed. 2010. Rebellions and Peripheries in the Mesopotamian World. American Oriental Series 91. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake. |
||||||
|
levels. A very rough estimate.
|
||||||
|
levels.
At least three. 1. City 2. Town3. |
||||||
|
levels. The Cappadocian kingdom had some cities, including the capital Mazaca as well as Tyana, Kybistra and Hanisa
[1]
, but there is a lack of detailed evidence for the size of these cities and their importance in relation to other Cappadocian settlements
[2]
. Without details of settlement size or population, a rough three-level settlement hierarchy can be given to Cappadocia:
1. City - Mazaca, Tyana, Kybistra, Hanisa and possibly Ariaratheia 2. Town - Priene3. Village [1]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432 [2]: Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p838 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital - Konya was also probably the largest city. [1] 2. Cities - Sivas, the second city. Also Antalya, Erzincan, Malatya which were all all important trading cities. [1] 3. Small cities/ towns - e.g. Erzurum, Amasya, Aksaray. [1] 4. villages. Rural life was arranged around villages. [2] Ibn Said “believed that in his time the Seljukid realm comprised 400, 000 villages, 36, 000 of which were in ruins. No doubt one would go too far either to accept these figures as valid, or to dismiss them as useless, since he did not make them up.” [3] [1]: Cahen, Claude. The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century. Translated by P. M. Holt. A History of the Near East. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. P.121. [2]: Cahen, Claude. The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century. Translated by P. M. Holt. A History of the Near East. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. P.78 . [3]: Cahen, Claude. The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century. Translated by P. M. Holt. A History of the Near East. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. Pp.88-89 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Tabriz [1] 2. Cities "Mostawfī distinguishes in his account of the revenues of the different provinces and districts between the revenues of certain towns and their surrounding districts (welāyāt) ... Among the towns and districts described in this way, all of which were situated on the main trade routes, were Baghdad, Kūfa, Wāseṭ, Ḥella, Isfahan, Solṭānīya, Qazvīn, Qom, Kāšān, Hamadān, Yazd, Tabrīz, Ojān, Ahar, Šūštar, Āva, Sāva, Zanjān, Marāḡa, and Shiraz." [2] 3. Towns 4. Villages 5. Hamlets [1]: Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p.142. [2]: Ann K. S. Lambton, ’ECONOMY v. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE END OF THE IL-KHANIDS (part 3)’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-5-part2-islamic |
||||||
|
1. Capital city (Istanbul)
2. Provincial city3. District cityBy 16th century Sanjaks based around a town with a population of about 100,000. [1] 4. Town5. Village6. Nomadic tribes (Turcomans) [2] [1]: (Imber 2002, 184 Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 34) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city (Istanbul) 2. Provincial city3. District cityBy 16th century Sanjaks based around a town with a population of about 100,000. [1] 4. Town5. Village6. Nomadic tribes (Turcomans) [2] [1]: (Imber 2002, 184 Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 34) Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert. 1997. ’General Introduction’ in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. Volume One: 1300-1600 edited by Halil Inalcik with Donald Quataert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city (Istanbul) 2. Provincial city3. District cityBy 16th century Sanjaks based around a town with a population of about 100,000. [1] 4. Town5. Village6. Nomadic tribes (Turcomans) [2] [1]: (Imber 2002, 184 Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 34) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
1. Rome.
2. Satellite town.3. Villages (need to be checked). |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
1. Capital ’Rome’
2. Provincial capitals3. tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized4. village/vici5. pagi (rural settlements). Hierarchy varied with population density. |
||||||
|
1. The capital (Rome)
2. Provincial capitals3. Client States/Kingdoms (e.g. Cappadocia, Egypt, Numidia)4. Colonies/coloniae and Municipia5. Tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized6. Village/vici and7. Pagi (rural settlements).In lower population density regions there could be no difference between vici and pagi. There could also be some overlap between provincial capitals and coloniae/municipia. As a result, the code ’6 levels’ corresponds to more populous regions, whilst in sparser populated regions the code ’4 levels’ should be used. [1] [2] [1]: (Edmondson 2006) [2]: (Gleason 2006) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. The capital (e.g. Ravenna) 2. Administrative centers (e.g. Rome)3. Provincial capitals (Londinium)4. Larger towns5. village/vici6. pagi (rural settlements) |
||||||
|
1. Capital, Ravenna.
2. Provincial capitals"The principal city in Dalmatia was Salona, where the comes and Gothic garrison resided." [1] 3. Municipia4. Tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized5. Village/vici6. pagi (rural settlements). The Gothic language "reveals a world of kindreds, villages (weihs), and small regions (garvi). Towns (baurg) were probably the remains of Roman cities and fortlets. ... Garvi was the equivalent of the Latin pagus and within it ties between neighbors (garazna) and kin-organized life." [2] [1]: (Burns 1991, 174) [2]: (Burns 1991, 117) |
||||||
|
1. Large cities: Rome and Ravenna
Rome and Ravenna were most likely the largest settlements within the Duchy/Republic, although reliable population figures do not exist for this period. 2. Cities of duchies e.g. PerugiaUntil 756 CE, under the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Italian polities subscribing to a nominal Byzantine suzerainty were organized into city-based Duchies (Duchy of Rome, Duchy of Venetia, Duchy of Calabria, Duchy of Naples, Duchy of Perugia, Pentapolis, Lucania etc). After 756 CE, the duchies were officially controlled from Rome through Papal government administration. Every major city had a bishop. Regional governors. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [1] Cities such as Perugia, an important garrison town securing the route between Ravenna and Rome, would have had a population of at least a few thousand people. [2] 3. TownsAgrotowns and surviving Roman-era towns, such as Tres Tabernae or Centum Cellae (now Civitavecchia). 4. Villages, fortified settlements, rocchethese ranged from scattered houses with only vague association to quasi-military encampments. The first castles (castra, castella) began appearing in the tenth century. Fortified settlements, the predecessors of these castles, were walled towns such as Albano, Ariccia, and Tuscolo. [3] 5. Villages, fortified settlements, rocche [1]: (Woods 1921, 48) [2]: Noble, [3]: Wickham (2015), 42 |
||||||
|
1. Rome - capital
35,000 inhabitants or more: Rome, maybe Bologna [1] 2. Other large city - Ravenna, Viterbo, Orvieto10,0000-35,000 inhabitants: Ravenna, Viterbo, Orvieto [2] 3. Regional cityAlbano 5,000-10,000 inhabitants 4. Town100-4,000 inhabitants: Tres Tabernae or Centum Cellae. This one is a guesstimate and should be bracketed; Tres Tabernae, in the southern Campagna, was an important bishopric in late antiquity but by this period was little more than a village. 5. castelli and castra10-100 inhabitants: castelli and castra: These were nucleated settlements, surrounded by a circuit wall, that originated in 10th- and 11th-century efforts to control agricultural surpluses and peasant production, often by monasteries such as Farfa. [3] Examples from Lazio in this period include Tusculo. [4] Although there were some fortified settlements (oppida) in Lazio before the 10th century, castles begin to appear in the documents from the 930s: Montorio was founded in 934, Bocchignano in 939. [5] Wickham stresses the degree to which these foundations required detailed planning and substantial demographic shifts, since these new foundations had to be populated from the surrounding area. [6] [1]: Bairoch, et. al., 41 [2]: Lansing, 18, estimates the population of Orvieto and its contado, the area of the surrounding countryside under its control, at around 19,000-32,000; within the city itself, we know that there were 14,000-17,000 people [3]: See, in general, Toubert (1977), 91-93 [4]: Toubert (1977), 196 [5]: Wickham )2015), 43 [6]: Wickham (2015), 44 |
||||||
|
1. Capital, Rome
2. City in provinces/dutchies 3. Towns 4. Villages |
||||||
|
The papal palace complexes within Rome; Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Perugia); towns; villages
Papal palace complexes: The papal palaces in Rome-especially the Lateran and the Vatican-contained increasingly large bureaucracies, especially after the end of the Schism in 1417 and the return of a single, unitary papacy to Rome. 1. Rome: Rome contained between 30,000 and 55,000 people during this period, and was unquestionably the largest city of the papal states. 2. Large provincial cities: Bologna was the second city of the papal states in every way; next to Rome, it was the largest town, contained a venerable university, and was the socio-economic center of the Romagna region. [1] 3. towns: Towns such as Ancona, Orvieto, or Terracina contained between 10,000 and 20,000 people, and often served as administrative centers for provincial government. 4. villages: Market towns or small towns such as Iesi in the Marche region; these often were little more than a population center with a market, parish church, and the local lord’s castle. An example of a small village of this nature which grew into a larger town is Loreto, also in le Marche: because of the shrine to the Holy House of the Virgin, it grew into a pilgrimage site during the 16th century. (5. Hamlets) [1]: Partner, 408-420, for Bologna during this period |
||||||
|
levels. The papal palace complexes within Rome; Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Ancona); towns; villages
Papal palace complexes: The papal palaces in Rome-especially the Lateran and the Vatican-contained increasingly large bureaucracies. 1. Rome: The largest city of the Papal States; although the 1527 sack reduced the population, the city quickly recovered. 2. Large provincial cities: Bologna, Ancona, Ferrara. 3. Towns: Provincial centers such as Perugia served as administrative centers for provincial government. 4. Villages: Market towns such as Norcia. |
||||||
|
Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Perugia); towns; villages
1. Rome: Rome contained around 160,000 people by 1750, and was unquestionably the largest city of the papal states. [1] Marino has described it as a parasitic city with no productive base. 2. Large provincial cities: Bologna (65,000 inhabitants in 1718; [2] 70,964 inhabitants in 1791 [3] ) 3. towns: Provincial centers such as Perugia (which contained around 17,385 people in 1656 [4] and 13,997 people in 1736 [5] served as administrative centers for provincial government. 4. villages: Market towns such as Norcia, with 2146 residents in 1736 [6] Ancona, which held 20,000 people in the mid-seventeenth century, had declined to about 7,000 inhabitants around 1700, [2] following papal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities there. [1]: Marino, 66 [2]: Carpanetto and Ricuperati, 16 [3]: Beloch, 240 [4]: Black, 219 [5]: Bairoch, 230 [6]: Beloch, 230 |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Sakha Homesteads (Balagan, Urasy) and Farms Nomadic Sakha alternated between winter yurts and summer homes: ’As horse and cattle breeders, the Yakut had a transhumant pattern of summer and winter settlements. Winter settlements comprised as few as twenty people, involving several closely related families who shared pasture land and lived in nearby yurts (BALAGAN) with surrounding storehouses and corrals. The yurts were oblong huts with slanted earth walls, low ceilings, sod roofs and dirt floors. Most had an adjoining room for cattle. They had substantial hearths, and fur-covered benches lining the walls demarcated sleeping arrangements according to social protocol. Yurts faced east, toward benevolent deities. In summer families moved to larger encampments with their animals. The most ancient summer homes, URASY, were elegant birch-bark conical tents. Some could hold one hundred people. Their ceilings soared at the center point, above a circular hearth. Around the sides were wide benches placed in compartments that served as ranked seating and sleeping areas. Every pole or eave was carved with symbolic designs of animals, fertility, and lineage identities.’ [1] ’Traditional pastoralism in central Yakutia required homestead self-reliance, with intense dependence on calves and foals in a harsh climate. Stables, corrals, and haying developed in conjunction with hardy breeds of cattle and short, fat, furry horses. Richer families owned hundreds of horses and cattle; poorer ones raised a few cattle or herded for others. A huge variety of dairy products, including fermented mare’s milk, (Russian: KUMYS), was the staple food, with meat for special occasions. The diet was augmented by hunting (bears, elk, squirrels, hare, ferrets, fowl), fishing (salmon, carp, MUSKSUN, MUNDU), and, under Russian influence, agriculture (cereals). Wealthy Yakut hunted on horseback using dogs. The poorest Yakut, those without cattle, relied on fishing with horsehair nets and, in the north, herded reindeer like their Evenk and Yukagir neighbors.’ [1] Only later did Russian invaders build riverside towns: ’In 1632 the Russian invaders erected a little fortress called Lesnoi Ostroshek, on the eastern bank of the Lena; ten years later they transferred it seventy kilometers to the south, where it became the center of the territory under the name of the City of Yakutsk. The fortress, now the City, of Olekminsk was erected by a Cossack party under the command of Buza in 1635. In the summer of 1637 Buza built two flat-bottomed ships, called kocha, and descended to the mouth of the Lena River, and traveled in an easterly direction on the Polar Sea. Not far from the mouth of the Omoloi River he was barred by ice and was compelled to abandon his ships. For three weeks his party walked over mountain ridges until they arrived at the upper reaches of the Yana River, where they met Yakut and took many sable skins from them as tribute.’ [2] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 221 |
||||||
|
levels.
Settler Towns; Settler Villages; Sakha Homesteads (Balagan, Urasy) and Farms Nomadic Sakha alternated between winter yurts and summer homes: ’As horse and cattle breeders, the Yakut had a transhumant pattern of summer and winter settlements. Winter settlements comprised as few as twenty people, involving several closely related families who shared pasture land and lived in nearby yurts (BALAGAN) with surrounding storehouses and corrals. The yurts were oblong huts with slanted earth walls, low ceilings, sod roofs and dirt floors. Most had an adjoining room for cattle. They had substantial hearths, and fur-covered benches lining the walls demarcated sleeping arrangements according to social protocol. Yurts faced east, toward benevolent deities. In summer families moved to larger encampments with their animals. The most ancient summer homes, URASY, were elegant birch-bark conical tents. Some could hold one hundred people. Their ceilings soared at the center point, above a circular hearth. Around the sides were wide benches placed in compartments that served as ranked seating and sleeping areas. Every pole or eave was carved with symbolic designs of animals, fertility, and lineage identities.’ [1] ’Traditional pastoralism in central Yakutia required homestead self-reliance, with intense dependence on calves and foals in a harsh climate. Stables, corrals, and haying developed in conjunction with hardy breeds of cattle and short, fat, furry horses. Richer families owned hundreds of horses and cattle; poorer ones raised a few cattle or herded for others. A huge variety of dairy products, including fermented mare’s milk, (Russian: KUMYS), was the staple food, with meat for special occasions. The diet was augmented by hunting (bears, elk, squirrels, hare, ferrets, fowl), fishing (salmon, carp, MUSKSUN, MUNDU), and, under Russian influence, agriculture (cereals). Wealthy Yakut hunted on horseback using dogs. The poorest Yakut, those without cattle, relied on fishing with horsehair nets and, in the north, herded reindeer like their Evenk and Yukagir neighbors.’ [1] When agriculture became more common, the Sakha living near Russian settlements adopted more permanent log houses: ’When living near cities or Russian settlements, the Yakut abandon their earth huts and live in log houses of the Russian type. Fig. 23 illustrates a log house of a rich Yakut elder on the Lena River not far from the City of Yakutsk.’ [2] Russian settlers established peasant villages: ’Being agriculturists exclusively, they could not follow their calling in the tundras of Turukhansk and they addressed a request to the government that they be transferred to Yakutsk Province. The request was granted. Beginning in 1860 groups of skoptzy were transferred to Yakutsk Province. By 1885, near the cities of Yakutsk, Olekminks, and Viliuisk, and on the Aldan River (near Ust-Maisk) they had ten villages with a population of 1181. This was a strange society which would have become extinct in fifty years had not additional convicted persons been exiled every year and thus replaced the departed. Industrious and with sufficient means, the skoptzy developed agriculture on a great scale and thus contributed to its success in the Yakut country. Early in the summer, they arranged hot beds which were protected during the cold nights; thus they grew the most delicate edible plants as early in the season as is possible only in a warm climate. Between 1885 and 1890 they had under cultivation 13,625 acres of land and were striving to seize the State lands. They employed Yakut laborers and thus the latter learned to cultivate the land.’ [3] Russian invaders also built fortresses and riverside towns: ’In 1632 the Russian invaders erected a little fortress called Lesnoi Ostroshek, on the eastern bank of the Lena; ten years later they transferred it seventy kilometers to the south, where it became the center of the territory under the name of the City of Yakutsk. The fortress, now the City, of Olekminsk was erected by a Cossack party under the command of Buza in 1635. In the summer of 1637 Buza built two flat-bottomed ships, called kocha, and descended to the mouth of the Lena River, and traveled in an easterly direction on the Polar Sea. Not far from the mouth of the Omoloi River he was barred by ice and was compelled to abandon his ships. For three weeks his party walked over mountain ridges until they arrived at the upper reaches of the Yana River, where they met Yakut and took many sable skins from them as tribute.’ [4] Proximity to towns became an important factor of social and economic stratification: ’The system of tsarist administration was no different here from what existed in any other part of Northern Siberia. The Dolgans, Yakuts and Evenks had to pay the fur-tax as “natives” and formed “clans” headed by princelings, while the tundra peasants were forced to pay a poll tax, were formed into a “community” and headed by an elder. People living many hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest centers were economically dependent on the merchants who monopolized supplies to the region, bought up all the furs, and cruelly exploited the population.’ [5] ’These circumstances undoubtedly discourage the activity of the Yakut, who no longer endeavors to procure wealth, because it is the likeliest means of making him the object of persecution. Thus property, tranquillity, and population decrease. The princes or chiefs dwelling near towns acquire their luxuries, and oppress their dependant tribes to procure wine and brandy in addition to their koumis: this was never known among them till the year 1785. I will farther add, that in 1784 the district of Gigansk produced 4834 tributary natives; but in 1789 their number amounted only to 1938. Mr. Bonnar, the captain of the district of Zashiversk, told me, that the tributary nations in his circle amounted to only half the number that they were five years ago and that these were very poor indeed.”’ [6] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 142 [3]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 182 [4]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 221 [5]: Popov, A. A. 1964. “Dolgans”, 656 [6]: Sauer, Martin 1802. “Account Of A Geographical And Astronomical Expedition To The Northern Parts Of Russia By Commodore Joseph Billings, In The Years 1785-1794”, 112p |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Residential Hamlets The Shuar lived in autonomous residential hamlets (these are sometimes referred to as ’Jivaras’ by scholars): ’Each community is politically independent with its own headman. Each is also located four or more kilometers from their nearest neighboring community. The community is made up of patrilineally and affinally related individuals, traditionally consisting of from 80 to 300 people (30 to 40 people in the twentieth century), living in one house called a JIVARIA. For defensive purposes, this house is built on a steep hill usually at the upper end of a stream. The house itself is approximately 13 meters by 26 meters in size, elliptical in shape, and has a thatched roof. In times of war, two or more communities united to fight a common enemy, as was the case when the Spanish attempted to conquer them.’ [1] The Jivaria housed the whole kin-based community: ’The Jívaro have a tropical-forest agriculture, growing cassava, corn (maize), sweet potatoes, and other crops supplemented by the gathering of wild fruits, fishing, and hunting. The blowgun and poisoned darts are their chief weapons. Related families live in a single large community house rather than in a village.’ [2] ’The houses are always very spacious since they have to serve more than one family. According to one of my informants, such a house is inhabited by up to 50 persons. As a rule it is the Curaca, as the chief, with his children and their wives and husbands. And since a Curaca may have up to ten wives, the great number of dwellers can be explained without difficulty. The aforementioned house of the Curaca Laichape had a width of 10 meters and a length of 15 meters. 20 - 30 persons lived in this house.’ [3] ’It is the rule that a settlement consists of only one house. Two houses, as I had seen them, for instance, in S. Antonio, are rarely found together. The various houses form, however, larger or smaller groups, separated from each other by forest and yet connected with each other by narrow footpaths. One such group has a definite name.’ [3] ’“Jivaro houses, it might be noted, are never built closely together after the manner of a village, but widely separated in the jungle, with greater resultant personal freedom and less squabbling amongst neighbours. A wise precaution which we in our country might emulate to advantage.”’ [4] ’Generally, there are many families living in a single house, usually about 15 people united by close family ties. The building has the form of an elongated ellipse( ) (fig. 10). the long axis of which measures 15 to 25 meters. The framework is made in the following manner: two posts about 4 meters high, placed in the foci of the ellipse, support a longitudinal ridge-pole, four other posts measuring about 3 meters in height, located on the periphery at the angles of the [584] rectangle inscribed in this ellipse, support two transverse longitudinal timbers which outline this rectangle. All this framework is of chonta wood (Bactris Iriartea) and the joints are secured with the aid of lianas. The walls( ) are made of cane-stalks (Guadua angustifolia) placed close together; in addition to this they are reinforced on the inside to a height of 1 50 from the ground by planks of chonta or caña about 5 cm. wide, arranged in such a manner that their joints never coincide with the interstices of the exterior wall. This precaution is for the purpose of preventing an enemy thrusting his lance through the fissures and striking the Jíbaro in his bed, which, as well shall see, is backed up against the partition. The battens are made of caña stalks spaced o 50 apart and placed in diverging rays from the longitudinal beam to the peripheral beams; cross-beams placed at the same distance from each other complete the lattice work upon which the roof rests; the roof is formed of little bundles of straw called cambana or of leaves of a kind of Pandanus (cambaalga), skillfully imbricated from the edges toward the center.’ [5] Autonomous hamlets were separated by no-man’s lands: ’The redistribution of settlements and creation of no-man’s lands between them has been a repeated consequence of escalated hostilities between or within Jivaroan subgroups. The fact that these buffer zones may not be reoccupied or exploited for several decades is important to the reestablishment of game densities in zones that may have experienced considerable hunting over long periods of time. The relationship between game depletion, armed conflict, and no-man’s lands is explored below and in greater detail elsewhere (see Bennett Ross 1980:48,53).’ [6] ’The escalation of hostilities also may lead relatives to withdraw from home communities and unite at a single fortified settlement. However, attempts to construct separate dwellings and gardens require time and considerable effort, and the stress placed on the facilities and resources available to such communities provides an important impetus to reconcile the difficulties when possible.’ [7] Hamlets were left behind and reestablished elsewhere periodically: ’The Indians are inhabitants of a region which extends along the upper course of the Marañón River, from Yusamaro downward to Puerto Meléndez at the Pongo de Manseriche. They live in this region in small and widely dispersed settlements close to the banks of the River. I have been informed that their chief settlements are located farther up along the tributary rivers. Beyond Yusamaro no Indians are said to remain anymore, yet formerly their settlements are said to have extended to the Pongo Rentema. They had moved down to the Marañón River on account of the quarrels they had with the whites or, rather, the mestizos. Their settlements can not be called permanent anyway. Despite the fact that the Indians live at one place for a long time, and in relatively permanent dwellings at that, they are said to leave their settlements frequently for no special reason in order to reestablish themselves again at some distance from the former settlement.’ [8] During the early Ecuadorian period, there was apparently no significant migration of Shuar to colonial towns: ’By 1899, when the explorer Up de Graff ascended the Marañón, Barranca was considered the westernmost outpost of civilization on the river (1923:146). It had, nevertheless, withstood its own share of Indian attacks (Larrabure i Correa 1905/II:369; IX:357-367). Less than a year prior to Up de Graff’s visit, Barranca was nearly devastated by a party of Huambisas who arrived from upriver ostensibly to trade, but then burned and looted most of the cauchero quarters (Up de Graff 1923:150).’ [9] ’By the turn of the century, when Ecuadorian missionaries had reunited some of the scattered refugees and reestablished their town on the Bobonaza River, there were at least a dozen caucheros exploiting rubber along western tributaries of the middle Pastaza such as the Huasaga (Fuentes 1908/I:194ff.), which was gradually being occupied by southward-moving Achuarä.’ [10] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jivaro [3]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 52 [4]: Dyott, George Miller 1926. “On The Trail Of The Unknown In The Wilds Of Ecuador And The Amazon”, 160 [5]: Rivet, Paul 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research”, 583p [6]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 93 [7]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 96 [8]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 46 [9]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 91 [10]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 89 |
||||||
|
levels. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ‘1’ or ‘None’.
(1) Residential Hamlets The Shuar lived in autonomous residential hamlets (these are sometimes referred to as ’Jivaras’ by scholars): ’Each community is politically independent with its own headman. Each is also located four or more kilometers from their nearest neighboring community. The community is made up of patrilineally and affinally related individuals, traditionally consisting of from 80 to 300 people (30 to 40 people in the twentieth century), living in one house called a JIVARIA. For defensive purposes, this house is built on a steep hill usually at the upper end of a stream. The house itself is approximately 13 meters by 26 meters in size, elliptical in shape, and has a thatched roof. In times of war, two or more communities united to fight a common enemy, as was the case when the Spanish attempted to conquer them.’ [1] The Jivaria housed the whole kin-based community: ’The Jívaro have a tropical-forest agriculture, growing cassava, corn (maize), sweet potatoes, and other crops supplemented by the gathering of wild fruits, fishing, and hunting. The blowgun and poisoned darts are their chief weapons. Related families live in a single large community house rather than in a village.’ [2] ’The houses are always very spacious since they have to serve more than one family. According to one of my informants, such a house is inhabited by up to 50 persons. As a rule it is the Curaca, as the chief, with his children and their wives and husbands. And since a Curaca may have up to ten wives, the great number of dwellers can be explained without difficulty. The aforementioned house of the Curaca Laichape had a width of 10 meters and a length of 15 meters. 20 - 30 persons lived in this house.’ [3] ’It is the rule that a settlement consists of only one house. Two houses, as I had seen them, for instance, in S. Antonio, are rarely found together. The various houses form, however, larger or smaller groups, separated from each other by forest and yet connected with each other by narrow footpaths. One such group has a definite name.’ [3] ’“Jivaro houses, it might be noted, are never built closely together after the manner of a village, but widely separated in the jungle, with greater resultant personal freedom and less squabbling amongst neighbours. A wise precaution which we in our country might emulate to advantage.”’ [4] ’Generally, there are many families living in a single house, usually about 15 people united by close family ties. The building has the form of an elongated ellipse( ) (fig. 10). the long axis of which measures 15 to 25 meters. The framework is made in the following manner: two posts about 4 meters high, placed in the foci of the ellipse, support a longitudinal ridge-pole, four other posts measuring about 3 meters in height, located on the periphery at the angles of the [584] rectangle inscribed in this ellipse, support two transverse longitudinal timbers which outline this rectangle. All this framework is of chonta wood (Bactris Iriartea) and the joints are secured with the aid of lianas. The walls( ) are made of cane-stalks (Guadua angustifolia) placed close together; in addition to this they are reinforced on the inside to a height of 1 50 from the ground by planks of chonta or caña about 5 cm. wide, arranged in such a manner that their joints never coincide with the interstices of the exterior wall. This precaution is for the purpose of preventing an enemy thrusting his lance through the fissures and striking the Jíbaro in his bed, which, as well shall see, is backed up against the partition. The battens are made of caña stalks spaced o 50 apart and placed in diverging rays from the longitudinal beam to the peripheral beams; cross-beams placed at the same distance from each other complete the lattice work upon which the roof rests; the roof is formed of little bundles of straw called cambana or of leaves of a kind of Pandanus (cambaalga), skillfully imbricated from the edges toward the center.’ [5] Autonomous hamlets were separated by no-man’s lands: ’The redistribution of settlements and creation of no-man’s lands between them has been a repeated consequence of escalated hostilities between or within Jivaroan subgroups. The fact that these buffer zones may not be reoccupied or exploited for several decades is important to the reestablishment of game densities in zones that may have experienced considerable hunting over long periods of time. The relationship between game depletion, armed conflict, and no-man’s lands is explored below and in greater detail elsewhere (see Bennett Ross 1980:48,53).’ [6] ’The escalation of hostilities also may lead relatives to withdraw from home communities and unite at a single fortified settlement. However, attempts to construct separate dwellings and gardens require time and considerable effort, and the stress placed on the facilities and resources available to such communities provides an important impetus to reconcile the difficulties when possible.’ [7] Hamlets were left behind and reestablished elsewhere periodically: ’The Indians are inhabitants of a region which extends along the upper course of the Marañón River, from Yusamaro downward to Puerto Meléndez at the Pongo de Manseriche. They live in this region in small and widely dispersed settlements close to the banks of the River. I have been informed that their chief settlements are located farther up along the tributary rivers. Beyond Yusamaro no Indians are said to remain anymore, yet formerly their settlements are said to have extended to the Pongo Rentema. They had moved down to the Marañón River on account of the quarrels they had with the whites or, rather, the mestizos. Their settlements can not be called permanent anyway. Despite the fact that the Indians live at one place for a long time, and in relatively permanent dwellings at that, they are said to leave their settlements frequently for no special reason in order to reestablish themselves again at some distance from the former settlement.’ [8] During the early Ecuadorian period, there was apparently no significant migration of Shuar to colonial towns: ’By 1899, when the explorer Up de Graff ascended the Marañón, Barranca was considered the westernmost outpost of civilization on the river (1923:146). It had, nevertheless, withstood its own share of Indian attacks (Larrabure i Correa 1905/II:369; IX:357-367). Less than a year prior to Up de Graff’s visit, Barranca was nearly devastated by a party of Huambisas who arrived from upriver ostensibly to trade, but then burned and looted most of the cauchero quarters (Up de Graff 1923:150).’ [9] ’By the turn of the century, when Ecuadorian missionaries had reunited some of the scattered refugees and reestablished their town on the Bobonaza River, there were at least a dozen caucheros exploiting rubber along western tributaries of the middle Pastaza such as the Huasaga (Fuentes 1908/I:194ff.), which was gradually being occupied by southward-moving Achuarä.’ [10] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jivaro [3]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 52 [4]: Dyott, George Miller 1926. “On The Trail Of The Unknown In The Wilds Of Ecuador And The Amazon”, 160 [5]: Rivet, Paul 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research”, 583p [6]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 93 [7]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 96 [8]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 46 [9]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 91 [10]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 89 |
||||||
|
EWA: example of vassal capital: Byblos. District capital and vassal capital is the same but district capital is within Egypt and vassal capital is for outside. There is strong inferred evidence for the level of hamlets.
1. Memphis, Thebes, Pi-Ramesses 2. Provincial Capital or Regional Centre [1] 3. Town (rare)4. Village5. Hamlet "There was a distinct heirarchy of settlements. The cities were Memphis, Thebes and (later) Pi-Ramesse. Elsewhere, in any given region, the provincial capital was usually the most important administratively and probably the largest in population. It was surrounded by a zone of fairly large and densely concentrated villages (interspersed by rare towns intermediate in administrative function (and size?) between the villages and the capital. Unfortunately, it is impossible to equate this hierarchy with any certainty to Egyptian nomenclature; ’cities’, ’towns’ and ’villages’ (respectively niwt, dmi and whyt) were distinguished from each other, but the terms appear to be used with great looseness. Slightly less ambiguous are smaller units, such as ’nobleman’s estate’ (bhm) and ’house (hamlet? of X’ (’tnx)." [2] [1]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [2]: (O’Connor 1983, 211-213) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
EWA: example of vassal capital: Byblos. District capital and vassal capital is the same but district capital is within Egypt and vassal capital is for outside. There is strong inferred evidence for the level of hamlets.
1. Capital 2. Vassal capital or Regional Centre [1] (3. Towns)(4. Villages)(5. Hamlets) "There was a distinct heirarchy of settlements. The cities were Memphis, Thebes and (later) Pi-Ramesse. Elsewhere, in any given region, the provincial capital was usually the most important administratively and probably the largest in population. It was surrounded by a zone of fairly large and densely concentrated villages (interspersed by rare towns intermediate in administrative function (and size?) between the villages and the capital. Unfortunately, it is impossible to equate this hierarchy with any certainty to Egyptian nomenclature; ’cities’, ’towns’ and ’villages’ (respectively niwt, dmi and whyt) were distinguished from each other, but the terms appear to be used with great looseness. Slightly less ambiguous are smaller units, such as ’nobleman’s estate’ (bhm) and ’house (hamlet? of X’ (’tnx)." [2] [1]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [2]: (O’Connor 1983, 211-213) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels. AD: uncoded, so replaced by a code.
1. Memphis, capital. 2. Town3. Village(4. Hamlet) |
||||||
|
levels. At most: (1) Capital; (2) Regional centres; (3) Minor centres; (4) Villages; (5) Hamlets. Inferred from previous periods.
1. Capital Memphis. Palace 2. City eg. Mendes. "During the Late Period, provincial centers display much diversity and prosperity. Mendes, a city sacred to the ram god Banebdjed, contains a series of massive temple enclosures, a ram hypogeum, an elaborate shrine dedicated to Shu, Geb, Osiris, and Re, shrines built by Nectanebo I-II, private and royal burials (e.g., Nepherites), and other structures (Hansen 1999: 497; Redford and Redford 2005: 170-94). Explor- ation outside the temple precincts at Mendes suggests the residential area lay to the east and south, with a harbor to the east (Redford 2005: 8). In addition, geophysical surveys have been used at Buto and Tell el-Balamun to reveal much of the Saite settlement (Herbich and Hartung 2004: 16; Herbich and Spencer 2006: 17)." [1] Temple 3. TownGovernment administrative building 4. Village "Thebes had a special status, at least for a part of the Saite period." [2] [1]: (Mumford 2010, 334-335) [2]: (Manning 2015, Personal Communication) |
||||||
|
levels.
This is the code for the Saite Period: 1. Capital 2. City3. Town4. Village Demographic estimates for Ancient Egypt [1] : Late Period to Ptolemaic-Roman: 1069 BC-AD 400 1. Largest towns. 85-170 ha. 25,000-50,000 inhabitants. 294 inhabitants per hectare.2. Medium towns. 25-65 ha. 7,500-25,000 inhabitants. 300-385 per hectare3. Small towns. 8-15 ha. 2,500-5,000 inhabitants. 312-333 per hectare. "During the Late Period, provincial centers display much diversity and prosperity. Mendes, a city sacred to the ram god Banebdjed, contains a series of massive temple enclosures, a ram hypogeum, an elaborate shrine dedicated to Shu, Geb, Osiris, and Re, shrines built by Nectanebo I-II, private and royal burials (e.g., Nepherites), and other structures (Hansen 1999: 497; Redford and Redford 2005: 170-94)." [2] [1]: (Mumford 2010, 331) [2]: (Mumford 2010, 334) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Reference: Hassan.
The rough hierarchy is as follows: 1. Alexandria 300-400K 2. Memphis and Ptolemais 100K 3. nome captials (e.g. Thebes, Mendes, Krokodilopolis) 30-40K ref for Thebes: Vleeming. Hundred-gated Thebes. 1995. 4. towns 5-10K 5. villages 1-2K 6. hamlets/scattered settlements 0.1 to 0.2K. EWA: ref. W. Clarysse. an article 1994 Memphis D J Thompson has hectare dat Alexandria New Archaeology may have hectare data |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital - city 2. TownsMany specialist workers "must have been urban dwellers, living in towns and cities that apparently did not need protection by surrounding walls ..." [1] "Intermediate-sized houses excavated at Matara would indicate that there were also people who belonged to neither the elite nor the peasantry, at least in Aksumite times." [1] Adulis known before the city of Aksum. [2] 3. VillagesFirst century CE. "Where there used to be only villages, small towns and cities are now developing." [3] 4. HamletsTowns, villages and isolated hamlets. [4] "In central Tegray the ancient landscape was characterized by a clearly-cut hierarchy in size of the settlements, ranging from the city of Aksum, over 100ha in size, to small compounds less than 1ha in area, and included large and small villages, elite residences, residential compounds, farming hamlets and workshops. Large settlements, ranging from 7ha to over 11ha in area, were located mainly at the base or sometimes on the top of the hills. Isolated elite palaces were often scattered in the open plain. Villages, hamlets and compounds were located on the top or along the slopes of the hills." [5] [1]: (Connah 2016, 141) Graham Connah. 2016. African Civilizations: An Archaeological Perspective. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Kobishanov 1981, 381) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [3]: (Anfray 1981, 376) F Anfray. The civilization of Aksum from the first to the seventh century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [4]: (Fattovich 2017, 94) Rodolfo Fattovich. Aksumite culture. Siegbert Uhlig. David L Appleyard. Steven Kaplan. Alessandro Bausi. Wolfgang Hahn. eds. 2017. Ethiopia: History, Culture and Challenges. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing. [5]: (Fattovich 2017, 96) Rodolfo Fattovich. Aksumite culture. Siegbert Uhlig. David L Appleyard. Steven Kaplan. Alessandro Bausi. Wolfgang Hahn. eds. 2017. Ethiopia: History, Culture and Challenges. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital town 2. Provincial town"L’empire etait subdivise en royaumes et en provinces eux-memes morceles en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [1] 3. Small agricultural villages "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [2] "By about 100 B.C.E., the Soninke’s ancestors began establishing small settled communities, and around 600 B.C.E. these grew into large villages administered by chieftains." [3] [1]: (Kabore, P. http://lewebpedagogique.com/patco/tag/ouagadou/) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 23) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1. Capital (i.e. Cairo).
2. Provincial capital (e.g. Fustat). 3. Dependent cities (Mecca and Medina). 4. Other large cities. 5. Towns. 6. Villages. "Housing in the medieval Islamic world included tents, mud huts, reed huts, single-story residences, multistoried tenements, and elaborate palaces." [1] [1]: (Lindsay 2005, 122) Lindsay, James E. 2005. Daily Life in The Medieval Islamic World. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital town 2. Provincial town"L’empire était subdivisé en royaumes et en provinces eux-mêmes morcelés en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [1] 3. Small agricultural villages "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [2] "By about 100 B.C.E., the Soninke’s ancestors began establishing small settled communities, and around 600 B.C.E. these grew into large villages administered by chieftains." [3] [1]: (Kabore, P. http://lewebpedagogique.com/patco/tag/ouagadou/) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 23) |
||||||
|
levels. Settlement hierarchy refers to the capital, important trading cities, mud-walled towns (“the basic building-block of government was the kafu, a community of anything from 1000 to 15,000 people living in or near a mud-walled town” ruled by a fama.), outlying villages who pay occasional tribute to the fama.
[1]
The Mali empire was based upon a center-periphery political administration, in turn divided into three geopolitical sectors: provinces, districts, and village communities. The peripheral areas were composed of the conquered people of the tributary states and were ruled indirectly.
[2]
1. Capital town e.g. Niani 2. Commercial town e.g. Walata3. Basic mud-walled small town called a kafu4. Smaller settlements/villages [1]: (62-64) Oliver, R.A. 2001. Medieval Africa, 1250-1800. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (59) Williams, R. 1990. Hierarchical Structures and Social Value: The Creation of Black and Irish Identities in the United States. Cambridge University Press |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
Pollack mentions cities, small towns, villages, and farming hamlets that are turned into villages once they become too populous.
[3]
1. Cairo, capital. 2. Provincial capitals (e.g. Damascus) 3. Dependent cities (e.g. Mecca and Medina) 4. Large townships. 5. Small towns. 6. Villages 7. (Hamlets?) Tribes. [1]: Luz, N. 2014. The Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape. Cambridge University Press [2]: Rabbat, N. 2010. Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria. Bloomsbury Publishing, 20 [3]: (39-40) Pollak, N. The General Organization of the Mamluk State. In, Hatwig, G. (ed) 2012. Muslims, Mongols and Crusaders. Routledge Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
Pollack mentions cities, small towns, villages, and farming hamlets that are turned into villages once they become too populous.
[3]
1. Cairo, capital. 2. Provincial capitals (e.g. Damascus) 3Dependent cities (e.g. Mecca and Medina) 4. Large townships. 5. Small towns. 6. Villages 7. Hamlets and Tribes. [1]: Luz, N. 2014. The Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape. Cambridge University Press [2]: Rabbat, N. 2010. Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria. Bloomsbury Publishing, 20 [3]: (39-40) Pollak, N. The General Organization of the Mamluk State. In, Hatwig, G. (ed) 2012. Muslims, Mongols and Crusaders. Routledge Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
1. Cairo, capital. 2. Provincial capitals (e.g. Damascus) 3. Dependent cities (e.g. Mecca and Medina) 4. Large townships. 5. Small towns. [2] 6. Villages 7. Hamlets and Tribes. [1]: Luz, N. 2014. The Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape. Cambridge University Press [2]: Rabbat, N. 2010. Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria. Bloomsbury Publishing |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city 2. Large town3. Town - kafu4. Village Within the Mande-speaking heartland the basic building-block of government was the kafu, a community of anything from 1000 to 15,000 people living in or near a mud-walled town and ruled by a hereditary dynast called a fama." [1] "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [2] From Niane 1975:4 Provinces: Garrison and police forces. [3] Supposedly provincial capital?Towns/cities: more or less autonomous.Village: the basic administrative unit. [3] [1]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 62) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [3]: (Niane 1975, 106) |
||||||
|
1. Royal capital.2. Aristocratic strongholds.3. Village
|
||||||
|
1. Capital (homeland).2. Capital (eastern lands).3. Vassal strongholds.4. Towns.5. Villages.
|
||||||
|
1. Capital city2. town3. feudal estates4. village
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1. Capital city2. Commanderie capital3. District capital3. Foreign vassal city (e.g. in Ferghana)4. Town5. Village.
Ruth Mostern (pers. comm) noted that district capital and foreign vassal city seem co-equal rather than one being subordinate to the other. [1] [1]: (Mostern, Ruth. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
1. Capital city
2. Provincial capital 3. Tributary capital 4. County capital 5. Town 6. Village |
||||||
|
1. Capital city2. Provincial capital3. Tributary capital4. County capital5. Town6. Village.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Perhaps 5-6 levels, taking up earlier imperial modes? (there seems to be a similar division into central court/capital city, prefecture, commandery, districts and villages as in earlier times; maybe more after 486 CE reforms.
1. Capital 2.3.4.5. "Li Ping (2000, 59) has noted that the Northern Wei, after establishing its capital at Pingcheng (modern Datong) in 398, divided the Sang’gan River basin of northern Shanxi into the Inner Capital District, which would include the capital city and the central basin area (jinei). This zone would be inhabited by the bulk of the settled farming population, Tuoba and related households and probably a large portion of the central army cavalry units, not to mention the palace guard units. The Outer Capital District, which would include the hills and mountains surrounding the basin area (jiwai) would be settled by nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal and clan groups who were never completely de-tribalized. Together these two zones would comprise the Capital District (dianfu). These two zones were administered by Eight Councillors (babu diafu) and Eight Chieftains (babu dashuai), respectively." [1] [1]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.65-66) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. inferred continuity with Tang periods
1. Capital 2. Large cities (21)3. smaller towns4. villages?5. Hamlets? |
||||||
|
levels.
4. Capital City (Nara) (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples) Population:200,000 3. CityPopulation: for example the previous capital Fujiwara. 2. TownPopulation: 1. Village (residential)Population: Population:’A minister of the left or minister of the right was entitled to two thousand households of about forty villages, approximately the number of households in a province the size of Suo or Nagato, and such income was tax exempt.’ |
||||||
|
levels.
"Studies of Chinese urban history have pointed to a revolutionary change in urban settlement after the Rebellion. The change was conditioned by the rise of long-distance trade between the north and the south and the increase in rural markets across the country. Kaifeng is a well-known case. It was the first city in Chinese history to be chosen as the political centre because it was a hub of transport and trade." [1] "In a general survey of urban development in China prior to 960, Shi Nianhai counted 21 large cities that performed a key role in inter- and intra-regional trade after the mid-Tang period." [1] Possible hierarchy:1. Capital 2. Secondary Capitals3. Large cities (21)4. Smaller towns5. Villages?6. Hamlets? [1]: (Liu 2015, 57) |
||||||
|
levels.
1)Capital in Mongolia 2) Regional capitals e.g. of Persia or Korea 3) Cities 4) Towns 5) Villages The basic economic unit of Mongols was the nomadic camp [ayil], "normally consisting of a single extended family with its own tent (ger) and herds". [1] [1]: Thomas Allsen, ‘The Rise of the Mongolian Empire’, in Herbert. Franke and Denis C. Twitchett (eds), The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6. Alien Regimes and Border States, 710-1368 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995), p. 325. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital City2. Province (Sheng)Ming had 16 provinces including Liaodong, North Zhili, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Henan, South Zhili, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangxi, Huguang, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Guangdong. [1] 3. Prefecture/Subprefecture4. CountyMing had about 1,173 counties. The totals fluctuated as boundaries were revised [2] 5. CantonsMing counties were subdivided into half a dozen or more cantons [3] 6. TownshipCantons were divided into about a dozen townships [3] 7. WardsTownships were divided into dozen of wards. A ward was small enough- mandated as fifty families in the Yuan, a hundred or so families in the Ming- to conform the contours of existing villages, or that was ideal. [4] [1]: (Brook, 2010, p.41) [2]: (Brook, 2010, p.39-42) [3]: (Brook, 2010, p.47) [4]: (Brook, 2010, p.47-48) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Larger walled and open-settlement sites. eg. Ivolga, Tereljiin Dorvoljin. 2. Large seasonal habitations associated with local elite activities.3. Seasonal campsites of herding families. "Habitation and activity sites of the Xiongnu period also show substantial differences in size, construction, and composition, in spite of the fact that to date very few of these settlements have been systematically studied (Bemmann 2011). Archaeologists have located seasonal campsites of herding families as well as larger seasonal habitations that may have been associated with local elite activities (Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2007; Houle and Broderick 2011). In addition to these campsites, large settlements having more intensive use and significant infrastructural investment have also been investigated. One example from the Egiin Gol valley is a site (EGS 131) with an extensive wall and ditch system perched above the main river on a substantial rise. Test excavations discovered a sparse ceramics scatter and a bronze mirror imported from China, but there was little evidence for consistent or repeated occupation. The function of this site is still unknown; but, given its prominent and defensible location, it may have been for temporary protection or possibly a site for hosting ceremonial events (Wright et al. 2009: 381-382).Many larger walled and open-settlement sites have been mapped and excavated in Siberia and Mongolia as well. Some of these have planned layouts and include semi-subterranean houses, workshop areas, large central architectural structures, and very different kinds of use histories. The prominent settlements of Boroogiin Suurin in Mongolia or Ivolga in south Siberia are clearly village-like occupations where multi-resource production including farming, herding, and craft specializations was practiced (Davydova 1995; Pousaz et al. 2007). Others, such as the walled sites of Tereljiin Dorvoljin and Bayan Under (Fig. 8.4) may have been elite residences or ritual centers (Danilov 2011). This range of site structures, arrangements, and sizes suggests a great deal more functional and economic dif- ferentiation than is generally assumed of steppe societies." [1] [1]: (Honeychurch 2015, 230) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. This is the code for the earlier Imperial Xiongu Confederation.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
c500 CE and after "It may be assumed that by then some of the Juan-juan already lived a settled life and practised agriculture. The original sources repeatedly mention that their khagans obtained ‘seed millet’ from China (some 10,000 shi each time). This shows that the Juan-juan society and state had gradually developed from nomadic herding to a settled agricultural way of life, from yurts to the building of houses and monumental architecture, from the nomadic district to towns. They had invented their own system of writing and developed their own local culture and Buddhist learning flourished." [1] "It is also known from the sources that the number of nomadic bu could vary from one thousand tents (i.e. about 4-5 thousand people) to several tens of thousands of people (Taskin 1984, pp. 275-276, 294). Chapter 103 of the Wei shu reports that the Rouran had 10 "nomads’ camps" in 521." [2] "From Chinese chronicles: "They do not have towns surrounded with inner and outer walls, but herd livestock, going from place to place in search of water and grass. Their homes are felt tents, which they take to the place where they stop." " [1] "the Hsiung-nu Huns in China were changing their society ... as attested by the discovery of a city built by them in northwestern China’s Shaanxi Province in the fifth century C.E." [3] [1]: (Kyzlasov 1996, 317) [2]: (Kradin 2005, 162) [3]: (Waldman and Mason 2006, 396) Carl Waldman. Catherine Mason. 2006. Encyclopedia of European Peoples, Volume 2. Facts On File. New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“Before they invaded the Empire, the Huns, like other nomads, probably lived in fairly small tenting groups, perhaps 500-1,000 people, who kept their distance from their fellows so as to exploit the grassland more effectively. Only on special occasions or to plan a major expedition would larger numbers come together and even then they could only remain together if they had outside resources. The image of a vast, innumerable swarm of Huns covering the landscape like locusts has to be treated with some scepticism.”
[1]
“What is most important in Ammianus’ account is his observation that Hun society was fundamentally pastoralist, without agriculture and without permanent settlements. In its essentials, life on the semiarid steppes that stretch across Asia from Mongolia to the Black Sea has changed little in sixteen hundred years.”
[2]
“Finally they reached Attila’s base, which Priscus describes as a ’very large village’. The Huns must originally have lived in tents, probably round felt ones similar to the yurts and gers of modern Central Asia; but for his permanent base, Attila had abandoned these and both his own palace and those of his leading nobles were constructed in wood. Nor were they simple log cabins, for the wood was planed smooth, and the wooden wall which surrounded them was built with an eye ’not to security but to elegance’, though it was also embellished with towers. The only stone building was a bath-house, constructed on the orders of one of Attila’s leading supporters, Onegesius. He had had the stone imported from the Roman province of Pannonia across the Danube. It was built by a Roman prisoner of war who had hoped to secure his release after the job was done. Unhappily for him, he had made himself indispensable and was kept on to manage the bath-house. The exact location of Attila’s village unfortunately remains a mystery and no traces of it have been found; but it probably lay a short distance east of the Danube, in northern Serbia or southern Hungary.”
[3]
: 1. The King’s base :: 2. Nomadic villages
[1]: (Kennedy 2002: 31) Kennedy, Hugh. 2002. Mongols, Huns and Vikings: Nomads at War. London: Cassell. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/ZN9N624X [2]: (Kelly 2009: 16) Kelly, Christopher. 2009. The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome. London; New York: W. W. Norton & Company. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/NCDATP6U [3]: (Kennedy 2002: 44) Kennedy, Hugh. 2002. Mongols, Huns and Vikings: Nomads at War. London: Cassell. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/ZN9N624X |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital Balkh, Gandhara. 2. Large town / new foundationsKidarite rule "coincided with ... the foundation of new cities such as Panjikent and Kushaniya. (The name of the latter probably indicates a Kidarite royal foundation, as neither the Great Kushans nor the Kushano-Sasanians had exerted control over that region.)" [1] 3. Small town ?4. Village ? [1]: (Grenet 2005) Grenet, Frantz. 2005. KIDARITES. Iranicaonline. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kidarites |
||||||
|
levels.
This is the code for the Hephthalites. 1. Fortified urban community 2. Village3. Nomadic peoples |
||||||
|
levels. Estimate from other, similarly sized/structured settlements in the region and elsewhere
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
"The Uighur Empire, which ruled Mongolia from 744 to 840, converted to Manicheism and built numerous cities and settlements in Mongolia." [1] 1. City with royal palace 2. Town3. Settlements "Associated with the growth of agriculture we find the development of towns, the presence of which is well attested in the passage just quoted. We know also two important cities built on the initiative of Uighur kaghans. One of them was Bay-Balik [lit. "Rich Town"], to which I referred earlier. Work on its construction was started in 757 upon an order from kaghan. The other was Karabalghasun, built at about the same time. Both, then, were completed under Mo-yen-ch’o kaghan, so that the process of urbanization must have begun very quickly after the empire was founded. Very little is known about Bay-Balik, and its precise significance for the Uighurs is unclear. It is certain, however, that Karabalghasun developed into quite an impressive city. It contained a royal palace, which appears from the Shine-usu inscription (south side, line 10) to have been built at about the same time as the city itself, and was completely walled. Tamim records that "the town has twelve iron gates of huge size. The town is populous and thickly crowded and has markets and various trades."4 2 He adds that it was dominated by a golden tent, which could be seen from some distance outside the city. It stood on the flat top of the palace and could hold 100 people. At least part of the Uighur community had forsaken its nomadic past. Even outside the great cities of the west like Kocho and Beshbalik, a settled urban civilization was being developed." [2] [1]: (Atwood 2004, 560) [2]: (Mackerras 1990, 337-338) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2 Metropolitan centre3. Town4. Village "Satellite towns and villages like those that surrounded Merv were to be found at all the other metropolitan centers." [1] 5. Hamlets?Were rural caravanserei settled by caravanseri workers? [1]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. |
||||||
|
levels. Probably four levels (see below) "With the expansion of the empire, the Khitans organized around three geographical divisions, a north, a central, and a southern region. Inside these core regions organizational imposition was practiced. Beyond the core, overlay organization and marginal incorporation were utilized to administer the diverse populations. Dual administration also was used, with Khitans in the northern division governed by traditional law and Chinese subjects in the south governed by Chinese administrators (Biran 2006, p. 66)."
[1]
"As the empire grew, central, western, and southern capitals were established, along with many other major settlements and border outposts (Jagchid 1981; Mullie 1922; Perlee 1962; Scott 1975; Steinhardt 1997). All of their capitals were in the region of the Great Wall, and the southern capital was located at present-day Beijing." [2] 1. Capital 2. Regional capital3. Major settlement4. smaller settlement? "There were about fifty known Khitan settlements." [3] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 227-228) [2]: (Rogers 2012, 228) [3]: (Kradin 2010, 253) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Metropolitan centre 2. Town3. Village "Satellite towns and villages like those that surrounded Merv were to be found at all the other metropolitan centers." [1] [1]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
.
[3]
:1. Capital city :: 2. Provincial cities ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. ‘Hamlets’ (tiny settlements such as a few fisherman’s huts but no village)
[1]: Boyle 1968: 142. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/CFW8EE6Q [2]: Barthold 1968: 152-153. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/2CHVZMEB [3]: Buniyatov 2015: 84. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SAEVEJFH |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Metropolitan centre 2. Town3. Village |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.Of England’s 2.2 million people in 1485, less than 10 percent lived in cities. Of these, London was by far the largest (see map 3). It was at once the capital, the legal center, and the primary seaport for trade with Europe... The next largest cities – Norwich in East Anglia, Bristol (a seaport off the huge Bristol Channel at the mouth of the Severn) to the west, Coventry in the south Midlands, and York in the North – had no more than 10,000 people each in 1485. Below them came major county towns like Dorchester or Stafford and cathedral cities like Lincoln or Salisbury with a few thousand inhabitants apiece… Below this level, the country was dotted by numerous market towns ranging in population from a few hundred to one thousand. (map 3)… Abingdon, then in Berkshire, and Richmond in Yorkshire are good examples. Such towns served relatively small rural areas, perhaps 6 to 12 miles in radius…These towns were not very urban: they consisted of only a few streets, a market square, and the surrounding land, which most townsmen farmed to supplement their income from trade. On market days and some holy days their populations would swell. Otherwise we would barely recognize them as towns. Most English men and women lived in the countryside – not in cities or even towns, but in settlements of, perhaps, 50 to 300 people.”
[1]
: 1. Capital city - London :: 2. Major Cities ::: 3. Market towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Hamlets
[1]: (Bucholz et al 2013: 16-18) Bucholz, Robert, Newton Key, and R.O. Bucholz. 2013. Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=1166775. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XQGJH96U |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village or Gemarkungen settlement4. Hamlet or Farmstead Possible settlement levels [1] Estimated size of farmstead populations: 10-25 people. Village Gemarkungen settlement (idealised as 6km2 hexagon, 300-360 people - Lower Rhine area) Towns Cities Clovis victorious over Alamans c506 CE. Region retained own identity and law code. Dux/duces. [2] [1]: (Damminger in Wood ed. 1998, 61-69) [2]: (Wood 1994, 161) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village or Gemarkungen settlement4. Hamlet or Farmstead Possible settlement levels [1] Estimated size of farmstead populations: 10-25 people. Village Gemarkungen settlement (idealised as 6km2 hexagon, 300-360 people - Lower Rhine area) Towns Cities Chlother II created sub-kingdom for Dagobert I in 623 CE. This established division between west (Neustria and Burgundy) and East (Austrasia - Dagobert I). [2] [1]: (Damminger in Wood ed. 1998, 61-69) [2]: (Wood 1994, 140) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city Paris may have grown from about 25,000 in 1200 to 210,000 in 1328 CE. [1] Regional City or colonial city (Kingdom of Navarre c.1200 CE) 2. Capital of a principalityFrance c1300 CE 12 cities 20,000-50,000 population [2] Marseille, Montpellier, Lyon, and Bordeaux about 30,000. [1] 3. Large Town - with district administrative buildingsFrance c1300 CE 20 cities 10,000-20,000 population [2] Avignon about 1300 CE population 5,000-6,000 [3] ballooned to 40,000 ten years after arrival of Pope [4] - 1319 CE. Provins over 10,000 population 1200-1300 CE [5] 4. Small town 5. Hamlet90% population lived in rural settlements [1] [1]: (Percy Jr 1995) [2]: (Turchin and Nefedov 2009, 118) [3]: (Spufford 2006, 169) [4]: (Spufford 2006, 84) [5]: (Kibler and Clark 1995, 1446) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
There has been very little excavation of verified Greek settlements, with the major work based on a handful of Bactrian Greek sites. From what limited work that has been undertaken, The Greek polis was the administrative, ritualized, and monumental heartland of the territory, but not the dominant population centre and represented a new construction. Below this new urban space was the existing infrastructure of towns and villages of the indigenous Bactrians.
[1]
For the most recent survey of archaeological sites, see the survey found below.
[2]
Appian: “Seleucus founded sixteen Antiochs, nine Seleucias, five Laodiceas, three Apameas, and one Stratonicea (in total , thirty-four new cities”.
[1]
1. Greek Polis 2. Surrounding towns3. Villages [1]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed. The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. pp. 156-157 [2]: Mairs, R. (2013) ‘The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. Supplement 1,’ Hellenistic Far East Bibliography, www.bactria.org, 17 February 2013 |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
: 1. Capital city :: 2. Provincial Capital ::: 3. City :::: 4. Town ::::: 5. Village :::::: 6. Tacharayin Kaghakner (‘temple cities’ - complexes which “had their own self-sufficient economic base and commercial networks.”
[3]
[1]: Hovannisian 2004: 49. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8B4DBDFU [2]: Panossian 2006: 56. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/GZLDRKAY [3]: Payaslian 2007: 16. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H8NEU6KD |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Himyarite capital 2. Capitals of subjected kingdoms3. Larger urban areas, like the port Al-Muza4. Hagar (town)"The basis of the Middle Period social structure was the bayt "a village or clan community" although this most assuredly is not meant to convey the meaning of a village community as a bayt could be both in the countryside and within the walls of a hagar, town." [1] Sabaean hagar consisted of bayts. [2] 2. Coloniesc50 CE. "The Himyarite King Charibael had authority over distant sites in East Africa including the trading settlement at Rhapta in northern Tanzania. He leased this settlement to a merchant oligarchy from Muza who ran trade operations from the port and collected taxes on any incoming business. The Periplus explains: ’the region (Rhapta) is under the rule of the governor of Mapharitis, since by some ancient right it became subject to the Kingdom of Arabia when it was first established. The merchants of Muza hold it through a grant from the king and collect taxes from it." [3] [1]: (Korotayev 1996, 19-20) Andrey Vitalyevhich Korotayev. 1996. Pre-Islamic Yemen. Socio-political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD. Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden. [2]: (Korotayev 1996, 21) Andrey Vitalyevhich Korotayev. 1996. Pre-Islamic Yemen. Socio-political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD. Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden. [3]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Himyarite capital 2. Capitals of subjected kingdoms3. Larger urban areas, like the port Al-Muza4. Hagar (town)"The basis of the Middle Period social structure was the bayt "a village or clan community" although this most assuredly is not meant to convey the meaning of a village community as a bayt could be both in the countryside and within the walls of a hagar, town." [1] Sabaean hagar consisted of bayts. [2] 2. Coloniesc50 CE. "The Himyarite King Charibael had authority over distant sites in East Africa including the trading settlement at Rhapta in northern Tanzania. He leased this settlement to a merchant oligarchy from Muza who ran trade operations from the port and collected taxes on any incoming business. The Periplus explains: ’the region (Rhapta) is under the rule of the governor of Mapharitis, since by some ancient right it became subject to the Kingdom of Arabia when it was first established. The merchants of Muza hold it through a grant from the king and collect taxes from it." [3] [1]: (Korotayev 1996, 19-20) Andrey Vitalyevhich Korotayev. 1996. Pre-Islamic Yemen. Socio-political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD. Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden. [2]: (Korotayev 1996, 21) Andrey Vitalyevhich Korotayev. 1996. Pre-Islamic Yemen. Socio-political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD. Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden. [3]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2.3. Village"Northerners are grouped into broad confederations - Hashid, Bakil, Madhij, Himyar, Quda’a - all united ultimately by a remote common ancestor, Qahtan." [1] "Among the people of the southern Yemen highlands, social solidarity beyond the extended family rests mainly on common residence in a town or village ... no firm social basis exists for the formation of powerful coalitions to challenge or sustain a ruler." [1] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 50) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
levels. Six levels under later Fatimids and earlier Abbasids.
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city e.g. Shiraz or Baghdad "Rule in the mediaeval Islamic world was generally city based. The Samanids, Buyids and Ghaznavids based their rule in towns, Bukhara, Shiraz and Baghdad, and Ghazna, respectively. ... Cities frequently possessed a building called the dar al-imara, or in the case of capitals, dar al-mamlaka, which served as the governor’s residence and as a physical manifestation of a ruler’s authority." [1] 2. Regional capitals3. Cities4. Towns5. Villages (6) Shiraz, (5) Baghdad, (4) regional capitals, (3) cities, (2) towns, (1) villages [2] Don’t know what to make of this reference. In context of Buyid’s federated system Shiraz was not above Baghdad. There was no single central capital, the different kingdoms had their own central capital. Also, what do "regional capitals" mean? - ET: [1]: (Peacock 2015, 166) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press. [2]: Busse, H. 1975. Iran under the Būyids. In Frye, R. N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4. The period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuq’s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.271 |
||||||
|
levels.
"Satellite towns and villages like those that surrounded Merv were to be found at all the other metropolitan centers." [1] 1. Capital 2. Metropolitan centrethe decentralized nature of Seljuq rule meant that many cities and urban life flourished, includings Hamadān, Nišāpur (Nishapur), Ray, Shiraz, Yazd, Tabriz and Šervān. [2] 3. Town4. Villagee.g. the villages outside Isfahan [3] [1]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [2]: Daniela Meneghini ’SALJUQS v. SALJUQID LITERATURE’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-v [3]: Golombek, Lisa. “Urban Patterns in Pre-Safavid Isfahan.” Iranian Studies 7, no. 1/2 (January 1, 1974): 20-24. |
||||||
|
levels. Capital, provincial capital, town, village.
|
||||||
|
EWA:
1. Cairo 150K, 2. Alexandria 35-70k or Damascus 18-50k,3. Nomal/Provincial Capitals like Fayum City 10-20k,4. Villages 1-2k,5. Hamlets 0.1-0.2 (inferred) Ref: Shatzmiller. for low estimates. Russell for the high estimates. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital - Zabid 2. Large town - e.g. Aden3. Town4. Small town / Tribal capital"retreated to al-Mukhairif, the tribal capital, where the governor presently pursued him with a military force". [1] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 122) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. This is based on the codes for the Rasulids as ’Sultan ’Amir also appears to have been emulating the high period of Rasulid power a hundred years earlier’
[1]
1. Capital - Zabid 2. Large town - e.g. Aden3. Town4. Small town / Tribal capital"retreated to al-Mukhairif, the tribal capital, where the governor presently pursued him with a military force". [2] [1]: Porter, Venetia Ann (1992) The history and monuments of the Tahirid dynasty of the Yemen 858-923/1454-1517, Durham theses, Durham University, p. 4 Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5867/ [2]: (Stookey 1978, 122) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
levels.
Under Shah Abbas Isfahan’s population grew to 200, 000 [1] Under Ṭahmāsp I (r. 1524-76) the main city "Tabriz, may have had as many as 80,000 inhabitants; Hormuz perhaps numbered 50,000. Most other cities were much smaller, with Isfahan, Kashan and Shiraz having a population of between 15,000 and 20,000 people.” [2] 1. Large cities e.g Isfahan and Tabriz. 2. Small cities e.g. Kashan and Shiraz. 3. Towns 4. Villages (5. Hamlets) [1]: Blow, David. Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009, p.193. [2]: Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Erdosy "recorded the presence of four distinct tiers of settlement in the Era of Integration between 600 and 350 BCE (Erdosy 1988 : 55). These included (1) Kausambi, which increased in size to 50 hectares, (2) two sites between 10 and 49.9 hectares, (3) two between 6 and 9.99 hectares and (4) seventeen less than 5.99 hectares. The smallest category of sites was represented by simple ceramic scatters and has been interpreted as agricultural sites, as they had no evidence of craft activities. Craft activities were represented in the next category, sites between 6 and 9.99 hectares, as slag was recovered from a number of those settlements surveyed. Erdosy has termed the next category, between 10 and 49.9 hectares, towns, and the site of Kara has provided evidence of metal, semi-precious stone and shell working and coins."
[1]
[1]: (Coningham and Young 2015: 380: 381) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DIGG6KVA. |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Imperial Capital (Pataliputra); (2) Large secondary centres (Taxila, Mathura, Brita); (3) Smaller settlements; (4) Villages. Inferred from Mauryan Empire. The Sunga Dynasty was in effect the continuation of the Mauryan Empire as it was established in a coup by the Mauryan general Pushyamitra Sunga (Roy 2015, 19).
[1]
[2]
[3]
[1]: (Singh 2008: 118) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/VUIEUHVK. [2]: (Allchin 1995: 209) [3]: (Roy 2015: 19) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/35K9MMUW. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. "Sizable settlements do not figure in the purely plain areas until the coming of the Iron Age."
[1]
[1]: (Sharma 2007: 71) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/NBZAVZ3U. |
||||||
|
levels. "Sizable settlements do not figure in the purely plain areas until the coming of the Iron Age."
[1]
[1]: (Sharma 2007: 71) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/NBZAVZ3U. |
||||||
|
levels.
Example in the Li Luo River Valley:1. Big villages. 75ha is the biggest in the Li Luo River Valley. 2. Smaller villages. 3 to 6 ha. "There was significant differentiation in the size of middle and late phase Yangshao settlements. Settlement hierarchies have been identified from systematic survey and reconnaissance (Liu 1996; Liu and Chen 2000). In the Yi-Luo River valley,Yangshao sites range in size from less than one hectare to about 75 hectares, which formed a two-tiered settlement hierarchy (Liu 1996:254). There is a three- tiered hierarchy in the Lingbao region of western Henan. There is an unusually large settlement (about 90 hectares) called Beiyangping located between two tributaries, while most sites range in size from about 2 hectares to 36 hectares (Henan Institute of Cultural Relics et al. 1999; Henan Team et al. 1995)." [1] Example in the Yangping River Valley:1. Regional center. eg: Beiyangping, 90 ha. 2. Secondary central settlement. Eg: Xipo, 40 ha.3. Smaller villages. 2ha and bigger. "A full-coverage survey was conducted in the Zhudingyuan 铸鼎原 area in central Lingbao in western Henan in 1999 to establish a database of prehistoric sites along two small tributaries of the Yellow river - the Yangping 阳平 river in the west and the Sha 沙 river in the east. A total of 31 sites, dating from the pre-Yangshao to late Longshan 龙山 periods were recorded. For the Miaodigou period, there was a sharp increase in the quantity of settlements (from 13 in the early Yangshao period to 19) and a marked increase in the size of settlements (from 44ha in the early Yangshao period to 189.3 ha). Even more significantly, a clear three-tiered settlement hierarchy appeared in the Miaodigou period. The Beiyangping site in the middle Yangping river valley is about 90 ha in size and obviously a regional center. The Xipo site previously mentioned, located in the upper Sha river valley, is 40ha in size and the secondary central settlement. The full survey in the Yuanqu 垣曲 basin in southern Shanxi resulted in the same pattern. There also was a sharp increase in quantity of settlements (from eight in the early Yangshao to 20) and size (from 25.16ha in early Yangshao to 109.16) during the Miaodigou period. A three-tiered hierarchy of settlements occurred in the basin for the first time. The largest site, Beibaotou 北堡头, is 30 ha in size and might have been the regional center. The second largest site, Xiaozhao 小赵, is 15 ha in size and might have been a secondary center. The rank-size distribution is near a log-normal curve, indicating a well-integrated social system (Dai 2006: 19)." [2] "In the earlier phase, the settlement patterns exhibited strong egalitarian tendencies. No settlement hierarchy has been detected. In the later period, the variation of settlement size and structure increased; some settlements were built in masonry or earthen wall enclosures. Although systematic settlement system study is still lacking, it has been noted that some sites, in the dozens, clustered together, and the variation in site size suggests the emergence of settlement hierarchy." [3] "Many of these sites were occupied during the middle Yangshao phase as well, up to ca. 3500 B.C. Most sites range in size from ca. 3 to 6 hectares (Chang 1986:116-19), but Jiangzhai, an extensively excavated site, is ca. 18 hectares in size (Yan 1999:136)." [4] [1]: (Underhill and Habu 2008, 131-132) [2]: (Li 2013, 218) [3]: (Lee in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 334) [4]: (Underhill and Habu 2008, 128) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Taosi (280 ha) 2. More than 100ha (3) 3. Between 10 and 99 ha (23) 4. Smaller than 10 ha (27) "It is argued that Taosi controlled a three- (Liu and Chen 2012, p. 221) or four-tier (He 2013) settlement hierarchy in the area between the Fen River and the Kuai River. A recent study counted 54 Taosi-period sites in this region; at least 3 of them, not including Taosi itself, are more than 100 ha in size, 23 are between 10 and 99 ha, and the rest are smaller (He 2013). Regardless of the exact number of hierarchical tiers (which in any case may be impossible to determine based on current data), the range in size, the more-or-less even distribution of the largest sites, and the association between labor investment and the largest site (Taosi) do suggest the development of a regional settlement hierarchy and the ability of the center(s) to recruit labor and accumulate resources." [1] "At the same time, there was an increase in the size of settlements. All the Longshan settlements in the Zhengzhou-Luoyang region can be classified into four different size groups: (1) from 40-100ha, (2) 15-40ha, (3) 5-15 ha, and (4) smaller than 5 ha. So far there are only 10 sites in the large size class, just 1 percent of the known sites, including two sites of the Wangwan Type north of the Songshan mountains: Cuoli in the Luoyang city area (50ha) and Miaodian in Jiyuan city (80ha); and two sites of the Meishan Type south of the Songshan mountains: Xinzhai (over 100ha) and Wadian in Yuxian county (40ha). Although the quantity of small sites also had increased in comparison to the late Yangshao period, the sizes of the other, smaller sites had not increased (Zhao Chunqing 1999). The six other large sites are: Taipu 太仆 in Shanxian county (70ha), Boluoyao 菠萝窑 in Mengjin county (40ha), Xi- wangcun 西王村 in Luoning county (45ha), Laofandian 老樊店 in Songxian county (50 ha), Dasima 大司马 in Wuzhi county (100 ha), and Yangxiang 杨香 in Qinyang county (75ha)." [2] "Settlement System. Scholars have focused on understanding individual sites rather than regions. Settlement hierarchies have been proposed for more than one region, primarily on the basis of large-scale reconnaissances. However, as noted above, a few systematic, regional surveys have begun. Relatively large settlements surrounded by walls Of rammed earth are present in several regions and are thought to represent political centers (such as Wangchenggang, Pingliangtai, Haojiatai, Mengzhuang, all in Henan; Dinggong, Bianxianwang, Jingyanggang in Shandong; Shijiahe in Hubei). For several areas, surveys and reconnaissances suggest three levels in the settlement hierarchies. It appears that good agricultural soils and water sources were important factors affecting site location. Regional surveys are beginning to reveal evidence for use of upland areas as well." [3] "Recent intensive surveys in Shandong and Henan have disclosed clusters of ruins of walled Longshan culture towns of different sizes, forming settlement hierarchies of at least two levels, some stretching over an area of several hundred square kilometers." [4] "From the network of small, largely self-sufficient villages of the middle Neolithic phase, the archaeological record of the Longshan era shows a hierarchical complex of territorial relationships gravitating around a single, increasingly large, political center. These hierarchical relationships probably included the creation of strong codependent ties between the center and its surrounding villages." [5] [1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339) [2]: (Zhao 2013, 242) [3]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157) [4]: (Chang 1999, 64) [5]: (Demattè 1999, 136) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital - Erlitou - 300 ha at maximum expansion2. Regional center3. Secondary center - Eg. Shaochau (60ha), Dashigu (50 ha)4. Small villages "Archaeological fieldwork demonstrates that with the emergence of the Erlitou capital, quite a few new settlements appeared in the Luoyang basin centered around the Erlitou site. Larger sites are distributed at intervals, revealing a large, structured network of settlements. The Shaochai 稍柴 site (60ha) seems to be located in the eastern section of a vital communication route in the Luoyang basin. In addition to being a secondary center, the important functions of this settlement included protecting the capital and transferring resources (Chen Xingcan et al. 2003; Liu et al. 2004: 75-100). More than 20 sites dating to the Erlitou period (10-30 ha in size) have been found in the surrounding area. Some sites have remains of white pottery or ritual drinking vessels of delicate pottery. These other Erlitou period sites (including burials) are concentrated around Songshan 嵩山 (Mt Song), including the area from Zhengzhou to Luoyang, and the area from the Yinghe and Ruhe rivers to Sanmenxia city. The sites are all large or medium-sized settlements located in valleys and basins. They must have been regional centers in the core area of the Erlitou state (Nishie 2005). The city discovered at Dashigu 大师姑 (51ha), 70km east of the Erlitou site, might be a military town at the eastern edge of the Erlitou state territory, or the center of another polity (Zhengzhou Kaogusuo 2004). We can conclude that there was a four- tiered settlement hierarchy in the Erlitou culture consisting of a large capital settlement, regional centers, secondary centers, and numerous small villages. This settlement pattern is in sharp contrast to the Longshan settlement pattern in which various regional centers coexisted and competed for power." [1] "A four-tier regional settlement hierarchy appeared during the Erlitou period, signifying the domination of the Erlitou site (as the paramount center) over a state-level system with at least three levels of political control above ordinary villages (Liu and Chen 2003, following the definition by Wright 1977). [...] Criticism has been leveled at different elements of this reconstruction. [...] Even more substantially, the proposed four-tier regional settlement hierarchy model has been criticized as being based on subjective criteria (Peterson and Drennan 2011; see further below)." [2] "Likewise, Erlitou may very well have been at once a political capital, a ceremonial center, and a nexus of elite production. Unfortunately, information concerning spatial practices at Erlitou and other Bronze Age Chinese sites is fragmentary at best, and characterizations are necessarily somewhat crude and speculative on current evidence." [3] [1]: (Xu 2013, 301-302) [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 330) [3]: (Campbell 2014, 25) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capitals. Zhengzhou (1500 ha), Xiaoshuangqiao, and Huanbei "Exemplified by Zhengzhou and Anyang, each city was composed of a centrally situated ceremonial and administrative enclave occupied primarily by royalty, priests and a few selected craftsmen, whereas the peasantry and the majority of artisans lived in villages dispersed throughout the surrounding countryside (Wheatley 1971: 30-47)." [1] 2. Auxiliary capitals or important military stations, with a surrounding wall of rammed earth. Yanshi (190 ha) 3. Small cities that served as military fortresses, with a surrounding wall. Panlongcheng 盘龙城 (75 ha) 4. Smaller villages. 10-30ha. Mengzhuang 孟庄 (30ha) in size. Tertiary center "The structure of the political centers of the Erligang period is different from anything seen before. Although many of them are enclosed by rammed-earth walls, a tradition that was underway during the Neolithic period, their standard rectangular shape and clear internal division suggest a much more formal definition of what such a city should look like (Fig. 7). The walls of two sites are impressive, measuring 17-25 m wide at the base and 9 m tall. The inner walls of Zhengzhou enclosed an area of about 300 ha, but the area inside the recently discovered outer walls was as large as 1,500 ha (Fig. 8). The area inside the walls of Yanshi, which may have been one of the secondary centers of Zhengzhou, is roughly 200 ha. While there has not yet been a systematic survey, settlement around the two sites is reportedly very dense, including relatively large tertiary centers (Liu and Chen 2003, pp. 87-101; Yuan and Zeng 2004)." [2] "Differences in site size for the early Shang period can be explained with reference to terms for different kinds of settlements from various Chinese historical texts. It seems that the different settlement tiers identified by archaeologists represent a hierarchical social structure which included large settlements that were regional capitals (du 都), military towns or large sites that served as auxiliary capitals (yi 邑), small cities that functioned as military strongholds, and common settlements. My colleagues and I have identified four sizes or ranks of settlements for the early Shang period as a whole (ranks 1-4, from large to small). My discussion below focuses on interpreting the functions of each type of site for the entire early Shang period. The very large or rank 1 sites such as Zhengzhou, Xiaoshuangqiao, and Huanbei should be interpreted as capitals (see Table 16.1). Each of these sites is several hundred hectares in size, and each has a walled palace zone. [...] Rank 2 settlements are large sites that served as auxiliary capitals or important military stations. Most of these sites have a surrounding wall of rammed earth. The site of Yanshi, for example, is rectangular and covers an area of 190ha. [...] Rank 3 sites are relatively small cities that served as military fortresses. These settlements are considered cities because they are walled. Generally they are located at important transportation junctions in the peripheral region of the early Shang dynasty.Panlongcheng 盘龙城 is located about 5km from Wuhan city, Hubei province. Since it has a walled palace zone, it also probably once had a wall surrounding the settlement as well. Therefore, many scholars regard it as a city. The walled zone is approximately rectangular in plan, encompassing an area of 75 ha. [...] Commoners lived in the smallest (rank 4) settlements about 10-30 ha in size. They must have had close relations with larger, neighboring sites. For instance, Mengzhuang 孟庄 is relatively large and circular in shape, around 30ha in size. The excavations there discovered trash pits, building foundations, pottery kilns, water wells, and burials (Henan Provincial 1999: 241-246)." [3] [1]: (Liu and Chen 2012, 295) Liu, Li. Chen, Xingcan. 2012. The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 347-348) [3]: (Yuan 2013, 327-330) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
pre-reforms (fifth c bce):
1. Capital city 2. town3. feudal estates (?)4. village post-reforms (fifth c bce): 1. Capital city 2. Commandery capital3. County4. town5. village |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital: Kaifeng 2. Prefectural Capital: Luoyang, Beijing, Nanjing: Prefectural capitals had urban populations between 20,000-100,000. [1] 3. Large City4. City5. Market Town [2] 6. Village7. Hamlet There was a more complex hierarchy for taxation purposes (1077). [1] Level / commercial taxes / # "large cities" Level I: 100,000-400,000 strings. (1) Level II: 50,000-100,000 strings. (7) Level III: 30,000-50,000 strings. (20) Level IV: 20,000-30,000 strings. (26) Level V: 10,000-20,000 strings. (73) "Only 44 out of 1,132 county seats (less than 4 per cent) were able to contribute 10,000 strings or more." [1] Kaifeng as the political center: "Studies of Chinese urban history have pointed to a revolutionary change in urban settlement after the Rebellion. The change was conditioned by the rise of long-distance trade between the north and the south and the increase in rural markets across the country. Kaifeng is a well-known case. It was the first city in Chinese history to be chosen as the political centre because it was a hub of transport and trade." [3] According to population study by Gilbert Rozman Kaifeng was in the 1 million range. 30 cities had 40,000-100,000, 60 cities roughly 15,000, possibly 400 towns had 4,000-5,000 people. [4] [1]: (Liu 2015, 56) [2]: (Mote 2003, 161) Mote, Frederick W. 2003. Imperial China: 900-1800. Harvard University Press. [3]: (Liu 2015, 57) [4]: (Mote 2003, 164) Mote, Frederick W. 2003. Imperial China: 900-1800. Harvard University Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Small village. "The original settlement appears to have occurred on a small patch of relatively high ground, and was probably restricted to a few circular huts of straw coated with mud daub." [1] "people were kept apart by virtue of their occupations and their ethnic identities. Sedentary communities, though clustered were dispersed." [2] "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [3] [1]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) [2]: (Reader 1998, 242) [3]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Larger village (perhaps exceeding 10 ha, or up to 2000 people) 2. Smaller village "people were kept apart by virtue of their occupations and their ethnic identities. Sedentary communities, though clustered were dispersed." [1] "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [2] [1]: (Reader 1998, 242) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Town (20,000-30,000 people) 2. Large village (2,000 people)3. Small agricultural settlement "During the late first millennium A.D., several nearby settlements comparable in size to Jenne-jeno existed, and the density of rural settlements may have been as great as ten times the density of villages in the hinterland today." [1] "The mound that rose from the Niger floodplain with the growth of Jenne-jeno did not stand alone. Indeed, it was surrounded by twenty-five smaller mounds, all within a distance of one kilometre, all occupied simultaneously." [2] "people were kept apart by virtue of their occupations and their ethnic identities. Sedentary communities, though clustered were dispersed." [3] "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [4] "In the deposits dated from the fifth century, there are definite indications that the organization of society is changing... The round houses at Jenne-jeno were constructed with tauf, or puddled mud, foundations, from the fifth to the ninth century." [5] "As we currently understand the archaeology of the entire Jenne region, where over 60 archaeological sites rise from the floodplain within a 4 kilometer radius of the modern town (Pl. 7) , many of these sites were occupied at the time of Jenne-jeno’s floruit between 800-1000 C.E.. We have suggested that extraordinary settlement clustering resulted from a clumping of population around a rare conjunction of highly desirable features (Pl. 8) : excellent rice-growing soils, levees for pasture in the flood season, deep basin for pasture in the dry season and access to both major river channels and the entire inland system of secondary and tertiary marigots from communication and trade." [5] [1]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 22) [2]: (Reader 1998, 230) [3]: (Reader 1998, 242) [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [5]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city 2. Provincial cities?3. Towns?4. Villages/hamlets? |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. 2. Towns.3. Villages.4. Hamlets. "The Bambara relied heavily on the extended family for order and structure. Society was organized by patrilineal lineages, with families residing togetther in large compounds. Several lineages composed a village, which was then ruled by a chief. Marriages were an ’investment,’ intended to unite households, lineages, and villages for the common good." [1] "In contrast to the ’eternal landscape.’ the state-generated landscape included three settlement types. The most important of these are the Fadugu, towns of the king or Fama, being either capitals or locations of secondary royal courts. ... Next, there are Dendugu - literally ’son’s villages - towns created by the king either to house his sons or to hold military garrisons commanded by the nobility. Finally, there are the Cikebugu: agricultural hamlets, normally founded by the state. The inhabitants of such hamlets were, notionally, resettled captives taken either in battle or in raids. Although termed slaves by outsiders, theirs was not a chattel status; rather they were more like serfs who were tied to a village and obliged to provide the Fama (ruler) with a disproportionate quantity of their produce." [2] [1]: (Keil 2012, 108) Sarah Keil. Bambara. Andrea L Stanton. ed. 2012. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Sage. Los Angeles. [2]: (Monroe and Ogundiran 2012, 177) J Cameron Monroe. Akinwumi Ogundiran. Power and Landscape in Atlantic West Africa. J Cameron Monroe. Akinwumi Ogundiran. eds. 2012. Power and Landscape in Atlantic West Africa: Archaeological Perspectives.Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels. Lack of data. Estimate as with earlier polities.
1. Capital 2.3.4. |
||||||
|
levels. About the Serje and Oyuela settlement pattern analyses for the 16th century: "Finally, in both cases, the information refers to the last period of prehispanic occupation, which leaves open the question of how the observed settlement patterns developed"
[1]
Study of the Concha, Chenge, Gairaca and Neguanje Bays: "The development of settlement hierarchies is a relatively late and less than obvious phenomenon. During the Neguanje and Buritaca Periods it is possible to identify only one hierarchy. All the sites are relatively small and there are no clear breaks in their distribution. During both periods there is a pattern where all sites are relatively small, at the same time that a few are somewhat larger; yet, there are no differences that are significant enough to consider them a separate class." [2] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 3 hectares:1 ha (5 sites), 2 ha (8 sites), 3 ha (1 site). Between the 1st and the 6th century. [3] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 4 hectares: 1 ha (3 sites), 2 ha (6 sites), 3 ha (1 site), 4 ha (1 site). Between the 6th and the 10th century. [3] "In comparison to Tairona settlements, the Neguanje period villages are much smaller (1 to 8 hectares), although structures are also round in shape and some already have rough masonry walls similar to those built during the Tairona period (See Chapters 4 and 5)." [4] Pueblito was between 6 and 8 ha: "The data recovered through the shovel tests was used to map out the extents of the Neguanje period occupation, indicating the existence of a small village covering 6 to 8 hectares organized along the banks of the permanent streams." [5] For the second phase (6th-9th centuries), which corresponds to the beginnings of a ranked society, two types of settlements can be identified: villages without any kind of ’architectural’ work, and villages that are set up as regional centres with megalithic infrastructure. "Para la segunda fase (siglos VI-IX), correspondiente, como dijimos, al comienzo de una sociedad de rangos, se identifican dos tipos de asentamientos: las aldeas sin ninguna clase de trabajo ’ "arquitectónico" y las instaladas a manera de centro de una región con infraestructura megalítica." [6] [1]: (Langebaek 2005, 23) [2]: (Langebaek 2005, 71) [3]: (Langebaek 2005, 81) [4]: (Giraldo 2010, 52) [5]: (Giraldo 2010, 285) [6]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels. About the Serje and Oyuela settlement pattern analyses for the 16th century: "Finally, in both cases, the information refers to the last period of prehispanic occupation, which leaves open the question of how the observed settlement patterns developed"
[1]
Study of the Concha, Chenge, Gairaca and Neguanje Bays: "The development of settlement hierarchies is a relatively late and less than obvious phenomenon. During the Neguanje and Buritaca Periods it is possible to identify only one hierarchy. All the sites are relatively small and there are no clear breaks in their distribution. During both periods there is a pattern where all sites are relatively small, at the same time that a few are somewhat larger; yet, there are no differences that are significant enough to consider them a separate class." [2] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 3 hectares:1 ha (5 sites), 2 ha (8 sites), 3 ha (1 site). Between the 1st and the 6th century. [3] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 4 hectares: 1 ha (3 sites), 2 ha (6 sites), 3 ha (1 site), 4 ha (1 site). Between the 6th and the 10th century. [3] "In comparison to Tairona settlements, the Neguanje period villages are much smaller (1 to 8 hectares), although structures are also round in shape and some already have rough masonry walls similar to those built during the Tairona period (See Chapters 4 and 5)." [4] Pueblito was between 6 and 8 ha: "The data recovered through the shovel tests was used to map out the extents of the Neguanje period occupation, indicating the existence of a small village covering 6 to 8 hectares organized along the banks of the permanent streams." [5] For the second phase (6th-9th centuries), which corresponds to the beginnings of a ranked society, two types of settlements can be identified: villages without any kind of ’architectural’ work, and villages that are set up as regional centres with megalithic infrastructure. "Para la segunda fase (siglos VI-IX), correspondiente, como dijimos, al comienzo de una sociedad de rangos, se identifican dos tipos de asentamientos: las aldeas sin ninguna clase de trabajo ’ "arquitectónico" y las instaladas a manera de centro de una región con infraestructura megalítica." [6] [1]: (Langebaek 2005, 23) [2]: (Langebaek 2005, 71) [3]: (Langebaek 2005, 81) [4]: (Giraldo 2010, 52) [5]: (Giraldo 2010, 285) [6]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Main towns with 1,000 structures or more. Excavated sites: Pueblito (100ha), Ciudad Perdida (30ha). Sites recorded in ethnohistory: Bonda, Pocigueica. They have more than 200 structures and a civic-ceremonial centre. Their residential areas are arranged into neighbourhoods. 2. Large town with 400 to 1,000 structures, including ceremonial houses and temples. Above 10 ha, like Nulicuandecue (13 ha).3. Pueblos (villages) of 20, 40 or 60 houses. 1-5 ha. "Fast forward next to 1975. Archaeologists Luisa Fernanda Herrera and Gilberto Cadavid have almost completed a large survey of the northern and western sides of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, locating and documenting two hundred and eleven sites with similar characteristics, ranging from a few terraces and circular buildings, stone paths and stairways to very large towns like Pueblito surpassing one hundred hectares. Site 200 found in this survey, or Buritaca 200, as it was then called, is Ciudad Perdida, the “Lost City”, comprising more than 30 hectares of stone masonry terracing, circular and oblong buildings, stairways, and flag-stoned paths and sidewalks." [1] "Spanish informants describe a densely populated area with towns and settlements of all sizes, from pueblos of 20, 40, or 80 houses to large towns with 400 to 1,000 structures that included ceremonial houses and temples. These figures fit well with the archaeological evidence from coastal and from highland regions for the existence of a three-level hierarchy of sites (Serje 1987; Oyuela Caycedo 1987b) in which the larger ones, such as Pueblito, have some 1,000 structures (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1954a: 161; 1954b; G. Reichel-Dolmatoff and A. Reichel-Dolmatoff 1955). Major towns, such as Bonda and Pocigueica, were governed by chiefs (caciques) and seem to have formed the nuclei of incipient states. " [2] "Not surprisingly, prehispanic societies took advantage of this river and its resources, including the Muisca, Tierradentro, San Agustin/ Alto Magdalena, and Tairona chiefdoms of Colombia. In general, these chiefdoms exhibited two-tier settlement systems, composed of multiple primary centers with associated second-level communities." [3] "What is absent on the Alto Buritaca is a neat hierarchy of settlements, the pattern often used to identify the centralized organizations of chiefdoms. Oyuela-Caycedo has written, “Decentralized political complexes coordinated the whole commercial enterprise for one or more of the mountainous valleys, as indicated for Ciudad Perdida.” " [4] "The only projects that contribute data about the distribution of settlements at the regional scale are those of Serje and Oyuela. The former attempts to differentiate among the types of Late Period settlements on the Buritaca Basin based on the number of dwelling platforms. Using such criteria, Serje (1987:90) identifies ’provincial capitals’, like Buritaca 200 or Pueblito, with more than two hundred terraces; second order sites, with an average of eighty terraces; and peripheral sites, with fewer than fifty terraces. Based on that information a ’three-tiered settlement hierarchy’ is proposed (Serje 1987:90). Oyuela (1995) also makes an attempt to evaluate the information about settlement patterns as they relate to models of social organization in Gaira and the Alto Buritaca Basin. Oyuela evaluated the presence of centralization in the settlements found in those two regions. Based on the rank-size method (Johnson 1981) he found a strongly convex distribution in both regions, thus proposing that the chiefdoms in the Sierra Nevada and the coastal plain did not constitute "centralized organizations" (Oyuela 1995:126)." [5] "Nevertheless, if the larger regional scale is considered, two or more clearly differentiated hierarchies may be identified. In fact, the studied area is very close to Pueblito (approximately 10km) where the Bonda settlement might belong, one of the places that the Spanish considered the seat of an important chiefdom (Figure1). Given that the most conservative estimate for Pueblito’s area is 4km2, such a site would represent a higher level in the hierarchy." [6] "Site size and complexity ranges from a few masonry terraces with domestic structures to very large towns with elaborate stone masonry terracing, flag-stoned paths and walk ways, public areas, and canals covering over one hundred and fifty hectares." [7] Gaira settlement hierarchy, three levels: 10 ha and above, between 2 and 6 ha, and below 1ha. "El gráfico de Gaira (Figura 5) efectivamente tiene una forma convexa fuerte. El centro primario es el asentamiento de Gaira (13.5 ha); el segundo asentamiento más grande está localizado donde hoy día se encuentra el Sena (10 ha). Los resultados muestran que el primer asentamiento no es muy diferente de los otros (todos los datos presentados en el gráfico están en m2) Sólo después del octavo asentamiento es que hay una caída en el tamaño de éstos. Hay tres clases de asentamientos: uno por encima de las 10 hectáreas, el segundo entre las 6 y 2 hectáreas y un último grupo de asentamientos pequeños por debajo de una hectárea." [8] Buritaca settlement hierarchy four levels: 8 ha, between 3 and 4 ha, between 1 and 3 ha, and below 1 ha; Oyuela-Caycedo also mentions the site of Buritaca 200 (Ciudad Perdida) at 20ha and Nulicuandecue at 13 ha. "En contraste, el gráfico del alto Buritaca muestra una distribución convexa más cercana a la normal logarítmica (Figura 6). El asentamiento de mayor rango es Buritaca 200 con 20 hectáreas, seguido por Nulicuandecue con 13 hectáreas. En este caso, la distribución parece estar más cerca a la esperada en un sistema integrado. Igualmente, en contraste con Gaira, hay tendencia hacia la centralización, pero ésta no es fuerte como para estar formando una distribución cóncava. Considerando la cercanía de Buritaca 200 y Nulicuandecue (un día de camino), es probable que existiese algún tipo de competencia entre estos dos asentamientos. En cuanto a los tipos de asentamientos, una tipología de éstos basada de manera principal en atributos cualitativos fue previamente desarrollada. En comparación, se pueden definir cuatro clases de asentamientos: uno con asentamientos por encima de ocho hectáreas y compuesto por cuatro asentamientos que son los más monumentales; una suave caída en el gráfico separa otro grupo de asentamientos con tamaños entre cuatro y tres hectáreas, y un tercer grupo compuesto por pequeñas aldeas con tamaños entre una y tres hectáreas. El último está conformado por asentamientos con un tamaño por debajo de una hectárea y es el final del gráfico de rango-tamaño." [9] Oyuela-Caycedo’s proposed classification (1986): 1. Primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors 2. Secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors grouping or dividing the residential terraces)3. Villages that sometimes exhibit megalithic infrastructure in their central sector4. temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps In the Classic Period [for Oyuela-Caycedo, after the 9th century] there are at least four types of settlement: temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps. Villages that sometimes present megalithic infrastructure in their central sector. The third type are the secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors in the residential terraces). The last type of settlement consists in primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors. Given their strategic location, it is possible that their function was to distribute and exchange products within the region, as in the well-studied cases of Formative Mesoamerica. "En el período clásico se distinguen por lo menos cuatro tipos de asentamientos como son: sitios de habitación temporal, sin ningún vestigio megalítico, tal vez campamentos ocasionales de pesca o de obtención de sal. Aldeas que en algunas ocasiones presentan infraestructura megalítica en el sector central. El tercer tipo son los centros secundarios de regular tamaño que presentan un sector central cívico ceremonial con estructuras megalíticas (no se observan sectorizaciones entre las terrazas de vivienda). El último tipo de asentamiento lo constituyen los centros primarios regionales, de los cuales se conocen dos, que son Pueblito y Ciudad Perdida. Estos se caracterizan por constar de una zona central de carácter cívico ceremonial y más de ciento cincuenta terrazas de vivienda agrupadas en sectores. Dada su situación estratégica, es probable que la función de esos asentamientos fuera la distribución y el intercambio de productos dentro de la región, de manera análoga a los bien estudiados casos de Mesoamérica durante el formativo." [10] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 22-23) [2]: (Bray 2003, 301-2) [3]: (Moore 2014, 386) [4]: (Moore 2014, 396) [5]: (Langebaek 2005, 21-3) [6]: (Langebaek 2005, 79) [7]: (Giraldo 2010, 54) [8]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 122) [9]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 124) [10]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Main towns with 1,000 structures or more. Excavated sites: Pueblito (100ha), Ciudad Perdida (30ha). Sites recorded in ethnohistory: Bonda, Pocigueica. They have more than 200 structures and a civic-ceremonial centre. Their residential areas are arranged into neighbourhoods. 2. Large town with 400 to 1,000 structures, including ceremonial houses and temples. Above 10 ha, like Nulicuandecue (13 ha).3. Pueblos (villages) of 20, 40 or 60 houses. 1-5 ha. "Fast forward next to 1975. Archaeologists Luisa Fernanda Herrera and Gilberto Cadavid have almost completed a large survey of the northern and western sides of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, locating and documenting two hundred and eleven sites with similar characteristics, ranging from a few terraces and circular buildings, stone paths and stairways to very large towns like Pueblito surpassing one hundred hectares. Site 200 found in this survey, or Buritaca 200, as it was then called, is Ciudad Perdida, the “Lost City”, comprising more than 30 hectares of stone masonry terracing, circular and oblong buildings, stairways, and flag-stoned paths and sidewalks." [1] "Spanish informants describe a densely populated area with towns and settlements of all sizes, from pueblos of 20, 40, or 80 houses to large towns with 400 to 1,000 structures that included ceremonial houses and temples. These figures fit well with the archaeological evidence from coastal and from highland regions for the existence of a three-level hierarchy of sites (Serje 1987; Oyuela Caycedo 1987b) in which the larger ones, such as Pueblito, have some 1,000 structures (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1954a: 161; 1954b; G. Reichel-Dolmatoff and A. Reichel-Dolmatoff 1955). Major towns, such as Bonda and Pocigueica, were governed by chiefs (caciques) and seem to have formed the nuclei of incipient states. " [2] "Not surprisingly, prehispanic societies took advantage of this river and its resources, including the Muisca, Tierradentro, San Agustin/ Alto Magdalena, and Tairona chiefdoms of Colombia. In general, these chiefdoms exhibited two-tier settlement systems, composed of multiple primary centers with associated second-level communities." [3] "What is absent on the Alto Buritaca is a neat hierarchy of settlements, the pattern often used to identify the centralized organizations of chiefdoms. Oyuela-Caycedo has written, “Decentralized political complexes coordinated the whole commercial enterprise for one or more of the mountainous valleys, as indicated for Ciudad Perdida.” " [4] "The only projects that contribute data about the distribution of settlements at the regional scale are those of Serje and Oyuela. The former attempts to differentiate among the types of Late Period settlements on the Buritaca Basin based on the number of dwelling platforms. Using such criteria, Serje (1987:90) identifies ’provincial capitals’, like Buritaca 200 or Pueblito, with more than two hundred terraces; second order sites, with an average of eighty terraces; and peripheral sites, with fewer than fifty terraces. Based on that information a ’three-tiered settlement hierarchy’ is proposed (Serje 1987:90). Oyuela (1995) also makes an attempt to evaluate the information about settlement patterns as they relate to models of social organization in Gaira and the Alto Buritaca Basin. Oyuela evaluated the presence of centralization in the settlements found in those two regions. Based on the rank-size method (Johnson 1981) he found a strongly convex distribution in both regions, thus proposing that the chiefdoms in the Sierra Nevada and the coastal plain did not constitute "centralized organizations" (Oyuela 1995:126)." [5] "Nevertheless, if the larger regional scale is considered, two or more clearly differentiated hierarchies may be identified. In fact, the studied area is very close to Pueblito (approximately 10km) where the Bonda settlement might belong, one of the places that the Spanish considered the seat of an important chiefdom (Figure1). Given that the most conservative estimate for Pueblito’s area is 4km2, such a site would represent a higher level in the hierarchy." [6] "Site size and complexity ranges from a few masonry terraces with domestic structures to very large towns with elaborate stone masonry terracing, flag-stoned paths and walk ways, public areas, and canals covering over one hundred and fifty hectares." [7] Gaira settlement hierarchy, three levels: 10 ha and above, between 2 and 6 ha, and below 1ha. "El gráfico de Gaira (Figura 5) efectivamente tiene una forma convexa fuerte. El centro primario es el asentamiento de Gaira (13.5 ha); el segundo asentamiento más grande está localizado donde hoy día se encuentra el Sena (10 ha). Los resultados muestran que el primer asentamiento no es muy diferente de los otros (todos los datos presentados en el gráfico están en m2) Sólo después del octavo asentamiento es que hay una caída en el tamaño de éstos. Hay tres clases de asentamientos: uno por encima de las 10 hectáreas, el segundo entre las 6 y 2 hectáreas y un último grupo de asentamientos pequeños por debajo de una hectárea." [8] Buritaca settlement hierarchy four levels: 8 ha, between 3 and 4 ha, between 1 and 3 ha, and below 1 ha; Oyuela-Caycedo also mentions the site of Buritaca 200 (Ciudad Perdida) at 20ha and Nulicuandecue at 13 ha. "En contraste, el gráfico del alto Buritaca muestra una distribución convexa más cercana a la normal logarítmica (Figura 6). El asentamiento de mayor rango es Buritaca 200 con 20 hectáreas, seguido por Nulicuandecue con 13 hectáreas. En este caso, la distribución parece estar más cerca a la esperada en un sistema integrado. Igualmente, en contraste con Gaira, hay tendencia hacia la centralización, pero ésta no es fuerte como para estar formando una distribución cóncava. Considerando la cercanía de Buritaca 200 y Nulicuandecue (un día de camino), es probable que existiese algún tipo de competencia entre estos dos asentamientos. En cuanto a los tipos de asentamientos, una tipología de éstos basada de manera principal en atributos cualitativos fue previamente desarrollada. En comparación, se pueden definir cuatro clases de asentamientos: uno con asentamientos por encima de ocho hectáreas y compuesto por cuatro asentamientos que son los más monumentales; una suave caída en el gráfico separa otro grupo de asentamientos con tamaños entre cuatro y tres hectáreas, y un tercer grupo compuesto por pequeñas aldeas con tamaños entre una y tres hectáreas. El último está conformado por asentamientos con un tamaño por debajo de una hectárea y es el final del gráfico de rango-tamaño." [9] Oyuela-Caycedo’s proposed classification (1986): 1. Primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors 2. Secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors grouping or dividing the residential terraces)3. Villages that sometimes exhibit megalithic infrastructure in their central sector4. temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps In the Classic Period [for Oyuela-Caycedo, after the 9th century] there are at least four types of settlement: temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps. Villages that sometimes present megalithic infrastructure in their central sector. The third type are the secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors in the residential terraces). The last type of settlement consists in primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors. Given their strategic location, it is possible that their function was to distribute and exchange products within the region, as in the well-studied cases of Formative Mesoamerica. "En el período clásico se distinguen por lo menos cuatro tipos de asentamientos como son: sitios de habitación temporal, sin ningún vestigio megalítico, tal vez campamentos ocasionales de pesca o de obtención de sal. Aldeas que en algunas ocasiones presentan infraestructura megalítica en el sector central. El tercer tipo son los centros secundarios de regular tamaño que presentan un sector central cívico ceremonial con estructuras megalíticas (no se observan sectorizaciones entre las terrazas de vivienda). El último tipo de asentamiento lo constituyen los centros primarios regionales, de los cuales se conocen dos, que son Pueblito y Ciudad Perdida. Estos se caracterizan por constar de una zona central de carácter cívico ceremonial y más de ciento cincuenta terrazas de vivienda agrupadas en sectores. Dada su situación estratégica, es probable que la función de esos asentamientos fuera la distribución y el intercambio de productos dentro de la región, de manera análoga a los bien estudiados casos de Mesoamérica durante el formativo." [10] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 22-23) [2]: (Bray 2003, 301-2) [3]: (Moore 2014, 386) [4]: (Moore 2014, 396) [5]: (Langebaek 2005, 21-3) [6]: (Langebaek 2005, 79) [7]: (Giraldo 2010, 54) [8]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 122) [9]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 124) [10]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Town 2. Camp The second Khaganate had towns: "In contrast to the Mongols, however, the Turks encouraged the voluntary creation on their territory of large Sogdian colonies which engaged in agriculture, handicrafts and trade, and even founded towns (Pulleyblank, 1952; Kliashtorny, 1964:114-22)." [1] [1]: (Khazanov 1984, 256) |
||||||
|
levels.
There were no permanent settlements. There are some indications that the Naiman territory possibly included permanent settlements. This is uncertain. Avarga site near Kerulen River consists of several tens of houses protected on one side by an earthen rampart has been proposed by some to be a permanent settlement, but it is not universally accepted (Shiraishi 2006). |
||||||
|
levels.
"Permanent settlements in Mongolia had begun with the conversion of the Mongols to Tibetan Buddhism in the sixteenth century. The first towns grew up around the monastic establishment. These included Hohhot (Ch. Huhehaote), whose major construction began in 1555, and Urga (modern Ulaan Baatar), the headquarters of the leading Buddhist cleric of Mongolia since the early seventeenth century." [1] 1. Towns 2. Villages(3. Hamlets/ Isolated farms) [1]: (Perdue 2005, 232) |
||||||
|
levels.
Perdue’s map [1] indicates the presence of regional capitals and towns; however these probably corresponded to the Chinese administration.Erdeni Batur had built a capital for the Zunghars at Kubak Zar near Tashkent but it fell into disuse after his death (before the start of our polity) [2] Zunghar farms are also mentioned [3] From this we can infer at least two levels, towns and villages/farms, even though this society was nomadic. 1. Towns 2. Villages/hamlets/farms "In sum, competition with the Qing state drove the Zunghars to un- dertake significant steps toward “self-strengthening.” Like many earlier nomadic empires, they established cities, developed agriculture, fostered trade, and generated tax revenues, but the primary motivation was not “as- similation” to settled societies’ customs but mobilization of resources for defense." [4] "Those Oirats who stayed in Jungaria, led by the Choros under their khan Baatur-Khongtaiji (1634-53), consolidated their hold on the area, symbolizing this by stabilizing their headquarters in the form of a city which became the modern Chuguchak (Tacheng)." [5] [1]: (Perdue 2005, 3) [2]: (Perdue 2005,106) [3]: (Perdue 2005) [4]: (Perdue 2005, 307) [5]: (Soucek 2000, 170) |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Small Residential Villages Residential villages were predominant: ’Small villages with populations not exceeding 720 are the typical units of settlement, with houses dispersed in a more or less rectangular form around a central earth or grass "square." Villages are in flat clearings where the grass is scrupulously cut and kept free of rubbish. Houses are built by the men, each house normally being occupied by one nuclear family. Bachelors’ houses, of the same size and construction, are also built.’ [1] ’This chapter describes briefly the Orokaiva pattern of production and distribution, with particular reference to Sivepe and Inonda. Traditionally the villager operated within quite narrowly circumscribed physical limits. Each community functioned largely as an independent subsistence unit, almost all the requirements of life being produced through shifting agriculture and the subsidiary pursuits of fishing, hunting and foraging on its own land. Production was directed almost entirely to immediate and direct consumption, none of the staple foodstuffs except yams lending themselves to storage; exchange was confined largely to kindred within the community or in closely neighbouring communities. Beyond this, minor and informal trade links had developed between some of the inland and coastal peoples, but the degree of inter-dependence established can be considered insignificant.’ [2] The rural settlement pattern may have become more dispersed during the colonial period: ’Williams and others judge that with the modern pacification, the Orokaiva have tended to disperse in even smaller living units than before. This appears to apply particularly to the relatively densely populated Lamington slopes, though a few instances of larger aggregations approaching a village type also occurred, particularly as a result of Mission influence. Over against this greater dispersal, the people have mingled more freely as a result of travel on the government roads and trails (which they have to keep in order), trading, Mission and official gatherings, and other new opportunities for interpersonal relations. One special feature of Orokaiva life in modern times is the annual burning-off of grasslands by hunting parties in order to get wild game. This has probably involved the assembly of larger groups and is one of the few activities which could induce intersettlement co-operation. The writer sensed the parallel of the crude local fires set for garden clearing and the general burning-off of grasslands to the major burning and blackening in the wake of the volcano-doubtless a mighty job of clearing to the Orokaiva eye.’ [3] ’The social system is characterized by flexibility in arrangements for group membership and for transmission of rights to land. A village normally contains more than one clan branch and consequently is not necessarily a landholding unit. Residents may have closer kinship ties to residents of other villages than with some of their coresidents. Nevertheless, common residence implies some community of interest and a degree of group solidarity that is reinforced by government policy, which recognizes villages rather than descent groups as functional entities. Marriages between members of different clan branches within the village also reinforce this solidarity, which is expressed in ways such as daily food gifts, cooperation in certain tasks, and joint ceremonial activities. On the average, a lineage comprises three households. Usually, several clans are represented in a village, with members of a single clan (clan branches) being scattered among a number of neighboring villages. Lineages are more localized in cha racter, frequently being confined to a single village and tending to occupy one section of it.’ [1] [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Waddell, Eric, and P. A. Krinks 1968. “Organisation Of Production And Distribution Among The Orokaiva: An Analysis Of Work And Exchange In Two Communities Participating In Both The Subsistence And Monetary Sectors Of The Economy”, 23 [3]: Keesing, Felix Maxwell 1952. “Papuan Orokaiva Vs Mt. Lamington: Cultural Shock And Its Aftermath”, 18 |
||||||
|
levels. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ‘2’ or ’Autonomous local communities’. We have excluded colonial settlements from the code here.
[(1) Colonial Settlements;] (2) Small Residential Villages Residential villages are predominant: ’Small villages with populations not exceeding 720 are the typical units of settlement, with houses dispersed in a more or less rectangular form around a central earth or grass "square." Villages are in flat clearings where the grass is scrupulously cut and kept free of rubbish. Houses are built by the men, each house normally being occupied by one nuclear family. Bachelors’ houses, of the same size and construction, are also built.’ [1] ’This chapter describes briefly the Orokaiva pattern of production and distribution, with particular reference to Sivepe and Inonda. Traditionally the villager operated within quite narrowly circumscribed physical limits. Each community functioned largely as an independent subsistence unit, almost all the requirements of life being produced through shifting agriculture and the subsidiary pursuits of fishing, hunting and foraging on its own land. Production was directed almost entirely to immediate and direct consumption, none of the staple foodstuffs except yams lending themselves to storage; exchange was confined largely to kindred within the community or in closely neighbouring communities. Beyond this, minor and informal trade links had developed between some of the inland and coastal peoples, but the degree of inter-dependence established can be considered insignificant.’ [2] The rural settlement pattern may have become more dispersed during the colonial period: ’Williams and others judge that with the modern pacification, the Orokaiva have tended to disperse in even smaller living units than before. This appears to apply particularly to the relatively densely populated Lamington slopes, though a few instances of larger aggregations approaching a village type also occurred, particularly as a result of Mission influence. Over against this greater dispersal, the people have mingled more freely as a result of travel on the government roads and trails (which they have to keep in order), trading, Mission and official gatherings, and other new opportunities for interpersonal relations. One special feature of Orokaiva life in modern times is the annual burning-off of grasslands by hunting parties in order to get wild game. This has probably involved the assembly of larger groups and is one of the few activities which could induce intersettlement co-operation. The writer sensed the parallel of the crude local fires set for garden clearing and the general burning-off of grasslands to the major burning and blackening in the wake of the volcano-doubtless a mighty job of clearing to the Orokaiva eye.’ [3] The colonial authorities also established settlements. [Ira Baschkow (pers. comm.): Through WWII these were only small settlements, hardly worthy of the term "town" at all. Janice Newton (pers. comm.): A few families of Orokaivans had visited Port Moresby and worked there or been imprisoned there before the second World War, . By the 1970s Port Moresby had built up quite a large population in squatter settlements but these were informally ordered into regional sections and sometimes involved rent payments to original landowners. Popondetta was a small agricultural base before the war, became strategic during the war as an allied air base and was developed as a small administration centre with a few general stores after the war. Although there were small ’squatter like’ settlements around the outskirts in 1977-9 it was nothing like Port Moresby in terms of makeshift developments. Jonathan Ritchie (pers. comm.): Does he mean Port Moresby? The other ‘urban’ locations were hardly that, at least in Northern District/Province) - and wasn’t Higaturu the main centre - not a town at all but the administrative headquarters? Nigel Oram (Colonial Town to Melanesian City) and Ian Stuart (Port Moresby Yesterday and Today 1970.)have written about early Port Moresby (and should have population estimates).] ’The establishment of towns, unknown before the coming of Europeans, has forced an even more drastic adaptation than have the changes in rural areas. For a man to leave his village and go to work in the town means long separation from his family and from his kin, an experience unheard of in the past. Separation from his relatives means that he may be facing dangerous risks from the sorcery of foreigners in an unknown country. This is one reason why migrant workers tend to live in kin clusters in the towns. Unemployment, inadequate living quarters, low wages, the necessity for paying in cash for all goods and services, and the obligation to send cash gifts to relatives in the villages, all add to the town dwellers’ difficulties.’ [4] ’The small urban population lives for the most part in towns whose original location was determined either by access to a good harbour for early colonial planters or, in the interior, by the availability of level land sufficient for an airstrip. Despite the greatly diminished importance of plantations and the relocation of most of these airstrips out of the towns, those origins helped determine the existing urban layout. Port Moresby and Lae, on the Huon Gulf, are the largest cities.’ [5] Popondetta is a notable example: ’Popondetta is a small town, population 6343 in 1980 (National Statistics Office 1980:14), with a few general stores, a market, hospital, courthouse, various government and semi-government offices and an hotel. It is a sleepy town, livened only recently by oil palm activity, the bustle of wholesale buying for village trade stores, and the ‘fortnight’, the government pay day, which stimulates a long weekend of drinking, singing and the occasional fight. Children love to visit the ‘town’, but adult women in particular yearn for the bright lights of Port Moresby spoken of by their menfolk.’ [6] We have provisionally assumed that most Orokaiva continued to reside in rural villages rather than small colonial settlements. [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Waddell, Eric, and P. A. Krinks 1968. “Organisation Of Production And Distribution Among The Orokaiva: An Analysis Of Work And Exchange In Two Communities Participating In Both The Subsistence And Monetary Sectors Of The Economy”, 23 [3]: Keesing, Felix Maxwell 1952. “Papuan Orokaiva Vs Mt. Lamington: Cultural Shock And Its Aftermath”, 18 [4]: Dakeyne, R. B. 1969. “Village And Town In New Guinea”, 3 [5]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea [6]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 77p |
||||||
|
levels. "Towns began to appear in the late first millennium over much of Europe, with considerable populations and large-scale industrial activity."
[1]
From this we can infer that most settlements before the 1st millennium BCE were villages or hamlets."The fortified settlements had a hierarchical system of population with an area of influence more or less extensive."
[2]
[1]: (McIntosh 2006, 155) [2]: (Clop Garcia 2001, 25) |
||||||
|
levels. "Towns began to appear in the late first millennium over much of Europe, with considerable populations and large-scale industrial activity."
[1]
From this we can infer that most settlements before the 1st millennium BCE were villages or hamlets. "Settlements varied between two primary forms in the Earlier Bronze Age. One was a simple hamlet of several small, square structures, probably housing one or more extended family groups. The other was a fortified town, usually built on an easily defended prominence and surrounded by a series of walls and ditches."
[2]
[1]: (McIntosh 2006, 155) [2]: (Peregrine 2001, 412-413) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Village 2. Farmstead 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age) "centralization of power but only at a restricted scale and in three forms (Brun and Pion 1992): 1. A cluster of dispersed farms gravitate around a monument, a sort of tomb-sanctuary, which symbolizes the unity of the territorial community. This community is ruled by a chief who occupies one of the farms. 2. A cluster of farmsteads polarized by a village, near which is found the territorial sanctuary. ... 3. Identical in organization to #2, but the central role of the village is held by a fortification. It appears that this type of settlement owes its existence to the control it exerted over long-distance exchange, especially over exchange in metal." [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Fortified center Includes cemeteries of tumuli and is "the seat of the local aristocracy." [1] 2. Village 3. Farmstead Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) "the settlement pattern changes markedly. There is a great increase in the number of fortified sites. Small cemeteries of tumuli appear, often close to the fortifications. Typologies of ceramic and metal objects indicate the fragmentation of previous cultural units. Bronze hoards become more numerous - they are larger and their composition is more varied. Iron working becomes widespread. Rare earlier, iron objects increase rapidly in number during the ninth and eighth centuries BC. ... A small fortification, the seat of the local aristocracy, polarizes each politically autonomous territory." [1] 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age) "centralization of power but only at a restricted scale and in three forms (Brun and Pion 1992): 1. A cluster of dispersed farms gravitate around a monument, a sort of tomb-sanctuary, which symbolizes the unity of the territorial community. This community is ruled by a chief who occupies one of the farms. 2. A cluster of farmsteads polarized by a village, near which is found the territorial sanctuary. ... 3. Identical in organization to #2, but the central role of the village is held by a fortification. It appears that this type of settlement owes its existence to the control it exerted over long-distance exchange, especially over exchange in metal." [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Fortified center Includes cemeteries of tumuli and is "the seat of the local aristocracy." [1] 2. Village 3. Farmstead Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) "the settlement pattern changes markedly. There is a great increase in the number of fortified sites. Small cemeteries of tumuli appear, often close to the fortifications. Typologies of ceramic and metal objects indicate the fragmentation of previous cultural units. Bronze hoards become more numerous - they are larger and their composition is more varied. Iron working becomes widespread. Rare earlier, iron objects increase rapidly in number during the ninth and eighth centuries BC. ... A small fortification, the seat of the local aristocracy, polarizes each politically autonomous territory." [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
"The period between 600 and 500 BC in west central Europe was characterized by rapid, regionally specific changes in social organization which are documented directly in the burial record and indirectly in the settlement evidence ... The increase in social complexity does not seem to have survived the late Hallstatt/early La Tene transition, although the late La Tene Viereckschanzen and relatively rapid appearance of many Late Lat Tene oppida from a dispersed settlement base (Murray forthcoming) indicate that continuity was maintained throughout this time." [1] relationship between small dispersed settlements and hilltop settlements unclear [2] [1]: (Arnold 1995, 51) [2]: (Arnold 1995, 52) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Town (possibly becoming fortified later in time period) Early Iron Age settlements had large towns [1] which then collapsed 450 - 400 BCE "Small fortified cities became common in the fourth and third centuries BC." [2] "All oppida are characterized by household units composed of individual houses plus ancillary structures (granary, cellar, pit) centered around a palisaded courtyard. This household cluster evokes, in reduced form, contemporary farms. Thus, the traditional architectural organization was still the structural basis of the later settlements." [3] 2. Hamlets and villages Small communities predominated, hamlets and farmsteads typically had a population of about 50. [1] 3. Farmstead "Agricultural complexes inhabited by single extended families (up to perhaps fifteen people)" [4] [1]: (Wells 1999, 45-47) [2]: (Brun 1995, 16) [3]: (Brun 1995, 18) [4]: (Wells 1999, 57) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Implied degree of urbanisation by the mid-3rd century (actual fortification occurred later?) Urban aristocrats formed and maintained a standing cavalry corps. Cavalry replaced war-chariots by 250 BCE. [1] "the first indigenous coins in temperate Europe were minted during the third century B.C." [2] "Small fortified cities became common in the fourth and third centuries BC." [3] "All oppida are characterized by household units composed of individual houses plus ancillary structures (granary, cellar, pit) centered around a palisaded courtyard. This household cluster evokes, in reduced form, contemporary farms. Thus, the traditional architectural organization was still the structural basis of the later settlements." [4] 2. HillfortSW France, Champagne [5] or 2. TownSeveral hundred inhabitants. [6] 3. Hamlets and villagesVast majority of population in temperate Europe. 20-100 people [6] Hamlets < 50 population [7] 4. Farmstead"Agricultural complexes inhabited by single extended families (up to perhaps fifteen people)" [6] [1]: (Kruta 2004, 110) [2]: (Wells 1999, 54) [3]: (Brun 1995, 16) [4]: (Brun 1995, 18) [5]: (Collis 2003, 145) [6]: (Wells 1999, 57) [7]: (Wells 1999, 45) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Oppida fortified urban settlement from 150 BCE [1] Made use of strategic locations: communication routes; market places; staging posts; valley entrances; on hills; spurs; plateaus. On plains defences were entirely man-made. [2] "Small fortified cities became common in the fourth and third centuries BC." [3] 2. HillfortSW France, Champagne [4] or 2. TownSeveral hundred inhabitants. [5] 3. Hamlets and villagesVast majority of population in temperate Europe. 20-100 people [5] Hamlets < 50 population [6] 4. Farmstead"Agricultural complexes inhabited by single extended families (up to perhaps fifteen people)" [5] [1]: (Wells 1999, 49-54) [2]: (Kruta 2004, 102) [3]: (Brun 1995, 16) [4]: (Collis 2003, 145) [5]: (Wells 1999, 57) [6]: (Wells 1999, 45) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village or Gemarkungen settlement4. Hamlet or Farmstead Possible settlement levels [1] Estimated size of farmstead populations: 10-25 people. Village Gemarkungen settlement (idealised as 6km2 hexagon, 300-360 people - Lower Rhine area) Towns Cities [1]: (Damminger in Wood ed. 1998, 61-69) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City Paris 25,000? 1200 CE [1] 2. Town"no town surpassed 10,000 inhabitants between the 8th century and the year 1000." [2] Avignon about 1300 CE population 5,000-6,000 [3] Provins over 10,000 population 1200-1300 CE [4] 3. Small town 4. Hamlet90% population lived in rural settlements [1] [1]: (Percy Jr 1995) [2]: (Percy Jr 1995, 1739-1740 CE) [3]: (Spufford 2006, 169) [4]: (Kibler and Clark 1995, 1446) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city Paris may have grown from about 25,000 in 1200 to 210,000 in 1328 CE. [1] Regional City or colonial city (Kingdom of Navarre c.1200 CE) 2. Capital of a principalityFrance c1300 CE 12 cities 20,000-50,000 population [2] Marseille, Montpellier, Lyon, and Bordeaux about 30,000. [1] 3. Large Town - with district administrative buildingsFrance c1300 CE 20 cities 10,000-20,000 population [2] Avignon about 1300 CE population 5,000-6,000 [3] ballooned to 40,000 ten years after arrival of Pope [4] - 1319 CE.Provins over 10,000 population 1200-1300 CE [5] 4. Small town 5. Hamlet90% population lived in rural settlements [1] [1]: (Percy Jr 1995) [2]: (Turchin and Nefedov 2009, 118) [3]: (Spufford 2006, 169) [4]: (Spufford 2006, 84) [5]: (Kibler and Clark 1995, 1446) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Capital city Paris > 400,000 c1700 CE [2] 2. Provincial cityLyon 100,000 c1700 CE [2] Provincial centres < 60,000 [2] 3. Large town - municipal government4. Town - parish government?5. Village6. HamletUrbanization: 14% 1600 CE. [3] Colonial outposts Pondicherry - Indian colonies lost 1755 CE (?) Reunion Antilles CaribbeanMartinique 20,761: 1702 CE; 36,229: 1715 CE Santo Domingo: 6,688: 1673 CE; 38,651: 1722 CE Canada and North America - abandoned 1763 CEInhabitants of French origin: 2,500: 1660 CE; 7,850: 1675 CE; 20,000: 1700 CE. [1]: (Ladurie 1991, 154, 244, 281) [2]: (Briggs 1998, 53) [3]: (Ladurie 1991, 306) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Proto-urban Site of Sarazm" [1] "The ruins demonstrate the early development of proto-urbanization in this region." [1] There were other settlements in addition to Sarazm. [2] "All those findings prove that Sarazm, following the first nucleation of the mid-to-late fourth millennium BC, developed into a proto-urban centre supplying manufactured goods to its own population as well as those of a vast hinterland." [3] [1]: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1141 [2]: (Anthony and Brown 2014, 63) Anthony, David W. Brown, Dorcas R. Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes. in Mair, Victor H. Hickman, Jane. eds. 2014. Reconfiguring the Silk Road: New Research on East-West Exchange in Antiquity. University of Pennsylvanian Press. [3]: (Sarazm Management Plan 2005, 22) |
||||||
|
levels.
"C’est suite à cette mutation profonde qu’émerge l’âge du fer ancien (période Yaz I) aux alentours de 1500-1300 av. JC, avec l’apparition d’établissements ruraux disséminés en oasis, comportant quelquefois un petit batiment fortifié qui devait abriter une petite élite gérant la richesse produite par l’exploitation des terres et la maîtrise de l’irrigation." [1] In the Yaz I period: small rural settlements around oases, with sometimes a small fortified building which might have hosted local elites. 2 levels? (1. Settlement with fortified building (elite stronghold?) ) 2. Settlement without fortified building. [1]: (Bendezu-Sarmiento and Mustafakulov 2013, 208) |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the scale of the largest settlements (200 ha)
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Fortified town 2. ? -- settlements outside the walls of this town? |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City state 2. Outlying satellite village “In the seventh century Samarkand again covered the whole plateau of Afrasiab, an area of 219 ha. Other Sogdian towns were much smaller. The area of Bukhara (without the citadel) was 34 ha, and that of Panjikent (also without the citadel) 13.5 ha. The buildings within the city walls have been best studied in Panjikent." [1] these are settlement levels for whole region, not for individual polity within region 1. Capital (Samarkand - 219 ha) 2. Large town (e.g. Bukhara - 34 ha) 3. Small town (Panjikent - 13.5 ha) 4. Villages [1]: (Marshak 1996, 244) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. Bukhara 2. Secondary town/provincial capital. Eg. Samarkand3. Town4. Village5. Hamlet |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Village (administrative center) 2. Hamlet (residential only) |
||||||
|
levels. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the Miao possess groups of ’200-399’, smaller than 400-1000, any town of more than 5,000, Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more), and Cities of more than 50,000 (one or more). (2) Village and (2) Hamlet.
[(3) Chinese Provincial Capitals; (2) Chinese Towns;] (1) Hmong and other Villages and Hamlets Most Hmong lived in small villages or dispersed hamlets: ’At higher elevations, as on the plateau straddling Guizhou and Yunnan, settlements are rarely larger than twenty households. An average village in central Guizhou might have 35 or 40 households, while in Qiandongnan villages of 80 to 130 families are common, and a few settlements have close to 1,000 households. Villages are compact, with some cleared space in front of the houses, and footpaths. In some areas houses are of wood, raised off the ground, and with an additional sleeping and storage loft under a thatched or tiled roof. Elsewhere they are single-story buildings made of tamped earth or stone depending on local conditions. Windows are a recent introduction. Animals are now kept in outbuildings; in the past they were sheltered under the raised house or kept inside. Many settlements are marked by a grove of trees, where religious ceremonies are held.’ [1] ’The Miao settlement is called “chai” (Illus. 12, 13), built generally against a mountainside or along a river, without any uniform appearance. The chai wall is made of earth or stone slabs, and there is no definite number of gates. The streets of a chai zigzag up and down, with tiny alleys on both sides. In each alley there are a few families. The alleys are interconnected. Without a guide one can get lost once inside a chai; turning right and left, one will be unable to find an exit. Chinese passing through a Miao chai often cannot find a single Miao, because they have gone into hiding in small alleys, barring the doors and refusing to come out. The Miao chais are not located along lines of communication but in the deep mountains and valleys accessible only by small paths. Although visible at a distance, they often cannot be reached. Without modern arms, they cannot be easily taken. For the last few hundred years continuous Miao unrest in western Hunan may be largely related to the fact that their chais were easy to defend and difficult to capture.’ [2] ’3) Lodging. Most of the Miao-I tribes live clustered in hamlets in the mountains, except the Chung-chia and the Sui-chia among the I, who live near water, hence the names “Kao-shan Miao” /high mountain Miao/ and “Shui-Chung-chia” /water Chung-chia/. It is said that the Miao-I must live in the high mountains in order to thrive and that if they live at the bottom of the mountains, they would suffer disaster and death. But, today, the Miao-I have gradually learned to live /on the plains/ and well-to-do farmers who have moved downhill are increasing in number. Although they cannot avoid pestilence, their suffering is not necessarily more than those living uphill. Most of the Miao-I follow the traditions of their ancestors and live precariously on the cliffs in backward conditions. Their living quarters are generally on one level, but some of the Miao-I in the southeast also build storied houses. In houses of one level men and beasts share the floor, but in the storied houses, men live upstairs and beasts downstairs. An ordinary house has one to three rooms; in the latter case, the rooms are small. If there is only one room, then it is used for cooking, eating, sleeping, and all other purposes. The construction of the houses is rather crude. Except those of a few wealthy families, which are enclosed with wooden or brick walls and covered with mud, tile or slate roofs, an average house is built of bamboo or corn stalks with tree barks as walls and straw for a roof. They are often slanting and dilapidated. Worse still, some of the poorest Hua Miao and Ch’ing Miao still live today in mountain caves in conditions as wretched as those in the inferno.’ [3] ’The Magpie Miao live in villages, occasionally compact but normally consisting of a cluster of separate hamlets. These are located on mountain slopes, usually far enough away from main transportation routes to be inaccessible and readily defensible. The Miao lack any political organization of their own, and are thoroughly integrated into the Chinese administrative system. The basic political, as well as economic and social unit, is the village. Villages are grouped into townships and divided into hamlets of about ten to twenty households each. The headmen of both the village and the hamlet are appointed by the chief of the township. The members of different villages or hamlets are bound principally by affinal ties. They may cooperate for the common good, but they lack any formal organization of an indigenous character. Disputes between members of the same hamlet are settled, if possible, within the hamlet. Those between members of different hamlets of the same village are adjudicated by a council composed of the village headman and the heads of the hamlets involved. If this council cannot effect a settlement, the litigants have a right to carry their dispute to the chief of the township or even to the Chinese court of the county.’ [4] ’They [the Ch’uan Hmong; comment by RA] do not live in villages, towns, or cities but are interspersed among a much larger population of Chinese who live in the towns and cities and in many of the farmhouses.’ [5] Government offices were generally located in Chinese towns and provincial capitals: ’Like Kweiyang, the hsien city of Lung-li was in an open plain, but a narrow one. The space between the mountains was sufficient for a walled town of one long street between the east and west gates and one or two on either side. There were fields outside the city walls. Its normal population was between three and four thousand, augmented during the war by the coming of some “companies” for the installation and repair of charcoal burners in motor lorries and the distillation of grain alcohol for fuel, an Army officers’ training school, and the engineers’ corps of the railway being built through the town from Kwangsi to Kweiyang. To it the people of the surrounding contryside, including at least three groups of Miao and the Chung-chia, went to market. It was also the seat of the hsien government and contained a middle school, postal and telegraph offices, and a cooperative bank, with all of which the non-Chinese, as well as the Chinese, had some dealings. A few of the more well-to-do families sent one of their boys to the middle school. Cases which could not be settled in the village or by the lien pao official, who was also a Chinese, were of necessity brought to the hsien court, as well as cases which involved both Miao and Chinese.’ [6] The infrastructural facilities available to urban and rural settlements differed considerably: ’The Ch’uan Miao are an ethnic group living on the borders of Szechwan, Kweichow, and Yunnan Provinces, western China. The country is very mountainous with numerous peaks rising 3,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level. There are many streams, forests, waterfalls, perpendicular or overhanging cliffs, natural caves and natural bridges, and deepholes or pits where the water disappears into the bowels of the earth. While the roads between the Chinese towns and villages are generally paved with stones, most of the roads are narrow footpaths up and down the steep mountainsides or through fields and forests.’ [7] [1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao [2]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 59 [3]: Che-lin, Wu, Chen Kuo-chün, and Lien-en Tsao 1942. “Studies Of Miao-I Societies In Kweichow”, 8 [4]: Rui, Yifu 1960. “Magpie Miao Of Southern Szechuan”, 145 [5]: Diamond, Norma: Cultural Summary for the Miao [6]: Mickey, Margaret Portia 1947. “Cowrie Shell Miao Of Kweichow”, 40b [7]: Graham, David Crockett 1954. “Songs And Stories Of The Ch’Uan Miao", 1 |
||||||
|
levels. Nothing in the sources indicate a particularly elaborate settlement hierarchy.
|
||||||
|
levels. The analysis of settlement pattern confirmed the existence of two-tiered settlement system, which consist of few smaller hamlets or villages (ar. 1 ha) neighbouring the central bigger village. However there is possible to notice some differences between southern and northern regions of the Ubaid. In the northern regions the central villages were bigger (even 10-12 ha) and probably denser populated comparing to the southern regions such as e. g. the Hamrin. Stein believed that the settlement system in the northern Ubaid was even more complex, but there is impossible to establish the exact levels of complexity.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Stein 2010, 25 [2]: Stein 1994, 38 |
||||||
|
levels. cities (1), towns (2), villages (3), hamlets (4)
[1]
[2]
; The biggest cities had between 40 to even 100 ha in extent in the Early Uruk Period, towns reached size of 10 ha. The huge agglomarations had even more than 100 ha (Uruk - 250 ha), big towns had - 50 ha, smaller towns - 25 ha, but there are known also smaller towns, ar. 15 ha.
[3]
[1]: Crawford 2004, 16 [2]: Algaze 2012, 73 [3]: Algaze 2012, 73-74 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Provincial capitalProvincial capitals built along international trade routes. [1] "Akkadian administrative centers and settlements have been identified in the Diyala region and Akkad, the Himrin Basin, Assyria, Sumer, southwestern Iran, and Syria." [2] 3. Lesser administrative center"Awal/Suleimeh was therefore a low-level center dedicated to revenue-gathering from the local population, rather than a seat for extensive local direct exploitation, as seen on the lower Diyala, in Babylonia, and in Sumer." [3] 4. Village"Passing through the region from city to city during the Akkadian period, one might have seen villages, towns, and manors surrounded by gardens, orchards, and fields, as well as considerable expanses of unihabited territory where nomadic people could move about freely and peaceably." [4] 5. 1. City - c. 100 ha (e.g. Umma, Uruk)2. Large Town - 30 ha (Shuruppak, Adab)3. Town - 15 ha4. Village - 7 ha5. Hamlet - 2 ha [5] [1]: (Baizerman 2015) Baizerman, Michael. 2015. Dawn and Sunset: A Tale of the Oldest Cities in the Near East. AuthorHouse. [2]: (Foster 2016, 53) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [3]: (Foster 2016, 62) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [4]: (Foster 2016, 35) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [5]: Adams 1981, 142 |
||||||
|
levels. "Despite these changes, the total number of inhabitants and the relations between cities and villages remained roughly the same [as in the Ur III period]."
[1]
Copied over from IqUrIII page: The territory of the largest cities is bigger than 200 ha ( e. g. Umma, Girsu, Lagash, Larsa, Isin, Suheri), the capital - Ur-50 ha, smaller cities- between 40-200ha (e. g. Zabalam, Adab), bigger towns - 20-40 ha (e.g. Wilaya), smaller towns - 10-20 ha and villages
[2]
1. Large cities2. smaller cities3. Towns4. Villages [1]: (Liverani 2014, 186) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7DRZQS5Q/q/liverani. [2]: Ur 2013, 143-144 |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Large cities, (2) smaller cities, (3) towns, (4) villages
Large cities include the capital, Babylon, and others such as Ur, Eshnunna and Mari. They had monumental palaces and temples. After the collapse of the Ur III period, during the time of the city-state, religious centres had spread from Ur to the new city-states who established temples and religious centres of their own. [1] Babylon and other major city-states were able to gain power by dominating smaller cities. [2] Tell Harmal, the site of the ancient town Shaduppum, was under the rule of Eshnunna during the petty state period. It had a town wall, temples (used for administration), shops and domestic houses. [3] [1]: Gill, A. 2008. Gateway of the Gods: The Rise and Fall of Babylon. London: Quercus. p.56 [2]: Oates, J. Babylon. Revised Edition. London: Thames and Hudson. p.55 [3]: Oates, J. Babylon. Revised Edition. London: Thames and Hudson. p.70 |
||||||
|
levels. Copied from IqBabKs: (1) large cities, capital - Babylon (2) cities - provincial capitals (3)towns (4) villages
[1]
"Within the land of Sumer and Akkad, the administration of the dynasty of Isin continued along the same lines as in the Kassite period. We know of around twenty provinces ruled by a governor (šakin ma¯ti, then šakin te¯mi). Some of these provinces were named after their main city (Nippur, Isin, Dur-Kurigalzu, and so on). There were also other territorial entities and tribal ‘houses’ (defined with the term Bït plus the name of the ancestor). The ‘urban’ provinces were mainly in the north (in the former land of Akkad), and less in the south, where Ur seems to have been the most vital city. ‘Tribal’ provinces were mainly located in the area east of the Tigris. It is possible that, within the land, the traditional duties of the ‘governors’ were taking care of irrigation systems and temple architecture. In the provinces along the borders, these tasks were more military and governors had a more personal, rather than administrative, relationship with the king." [2] [1]: (Liverani 2014, 364-370) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7DRZQS5Q/q/liverani. [2]: (Liverani 2014, 462-463) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7DRZQS5Q/q/liverani. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with previous periods.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with previous periods.
|
||||||
|
1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)
2. Regional capitals 3. Towns 4. Villages (5. Hamlets?) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (Baghdad) 2. Regional city (e.g. Isfahan)3. Smaller city/town (e.g. port, Basra)4. Town/Village5. Hamlet? |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Villages "The implication is that during the eighth millennium B.C., the environmental conditions were favorable in Iran (if not the whole Near East) to allow the establishment of early villages in a number of environmental niches suitable for the transition from collecting and hunting food to producing it." [1] Incipient food production in Khuzistan, Bus Mordeh period 7500-6500 BCE. [2] According to Mortensen early villages may have clustered together, "each group widely separated from the next." Examples in Susiana: Chogha Bonut, Boneh Favili, and Chogha Mish." [3] [1]: (Alizadeh 2003, 8) [2]: (Leverani 2014, 34) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
levels.
8,000-7,000 BCE Neolithic, includes site of Ali Kosh in Khuzistan. "Sedentary village communities began to have between 250 and 500 inhabitants, regular mud-brick houses, and an economy based on agriculture and the farming of sheep, goats and pigs (and cattle by the end of the period)." [1] According to Mortensen early villages may have clustered together, "each group widely separated from the next." Examples in Susiana: Chogha Bonut, Boneh Favili, and Chogha Mish." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 38) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Villages were normally relatively small, an aspect that, combined with the matrimonial strategies of the time, indicates that settlements only had a few large families or even just one." [1] According to Mortensen early villages may have clustered together, "each group widely separated from the next." Examples in Susiana: Chogha Bonut, Boneh Favili, and Chogha Mish." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
levels.
Coded 1 for previous period for which the general reference was: "Villages were normally relatively small, an aspect that, combined with the matrimonial strategies of the time, indicates that settlements only had a few large families or even just one." [1] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large village 2. Small village "Chogha Mish was already a sizable settlement by the Early Chalcolithic period (Early Susiana or Susiana a), covering an area of more than 3.5 ha (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: 280). Most other villages rarely exceeded 1 ha." [1] Early Chalcolithic: 5500-4800 BCE. Using the Seshat estimated range of [50-200] inhabitants per hectare, this would give us an estimate of 175-700 inhabitants. [1]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180) |
||||||
|
levels. "Like most of Mesopotamia, during its most stylistically unified period in the Ubaid 1-3 periods (5300-4600 BC), Susiana was occupied by small villages (2 hectares or less). Presumably, these villagers subsisted through irrigation agriculture and animal husbandry (Dollfus 1985; Hole 1985). Not until the middle of this period did one site, Choga Mish, increase rapidly in size to 11 hectares. The site for which the area is named, Susa, had not been founded yet."
[1]
1. Choga Mish (11ha) 2. Small villages (2ha or less) Jaffarabad phase: Choga Mish 3.5-4.5 ha. Jaffarabad 2000sq m. Jovi 1 to 1.5 ha. [2] [1]: (Rothman 2001, 11-12) [2]: (Hole 1987, 40) |
||||||
|
levels.
"During the Choga Mish phase, the number of sites on the Susiana Plain reached a maximum. At this time solid evidence exists of nondomestic architectural units and of functional differentiation among sites." [1] "At Choga Mish, buildings of the phase covered the entire site making it, at 11 hectares, the largest site of its time in Susiana." [1] "[…] Although they are sparse, the published findings imply that Choga Mish was a center of regional importance. It remains to be determined how large and extensive the elaborate architectural precinct is and precisely what activities occurred there. Uses as an administrative and temple center have been suggested (Kantor 1976: 28) but neither can be demonstrated on the basis of presentely available evidence." [2] 1. Choga Mish - administrative or religious centre. 11 ha. 2. Smaller village “By the Middle Village Period, a two-level size hierarchy of sites, and the possibility that temples and other public or private elite structures may have been present, are our chief evidence of growth in system complexity.” [3] Number of sites in the Choga Mish period: 86 sites have been recorded. [4] [1]: (Hole 1987, 40) [2]: (Hole 1987, 40-41) [3]: (Hole 1987, 97) [4]: (Hole 1987, 42) |
||||||
|
levels."Susa figuratively, and perhaps literally, heads the settlement system. The next level consists of agricultural villages and herding camps, which are full-range domestic and economic units. The third tier holds the specialist communities: the Khan’s houses, craft manufactories, and possibly trading posts. Most of this diversity is evidenced in excavations or inferred from survey, but to define types does not enable us to specify how many of each type may be present or to exclude the possibility that a single site may have served several functions."
[1]
1. Susa 2. Agricultural villages and herding camps3. Khan’s houses, craft manufactories and trading posts. Number of sites in Susiana [2] : Early Susa Phase: 58 Late Susa Phase: 31 Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE): 18 "Second, with the exception of Susa and Chogha Mish, the sites were uniformly small, well under two hectares, although there is a slight tendency for sites that were occupied longer to be larger (table 9)." [2] "With roughly forty small settlements around it on the Susiana plain, Susa in the Susa I period was at least four times larger than any of its neighbours (Wright and Johnson 1985: 25; see also Hole 1985) and clearly, by virtue of its stepped platform, in possession of a monumental structure which, regardless of its exact function, must have been unusual in the context of Khuzistan in the late fifth and early fourth millennium BC. Whether, therefore, we wish to describe it using terms such as ‘ceremonial centre’, or to characterize its level of social organization as a ‘chiefdom’, as some scholars have chosen to do, is another matter. [3] "It is clear that there was a temple center at Susa but it is quite unclear what its effect was on any individual settlement. With a ’span of control’ (see Johnson, chapter 4) of fifty to seventy sites (the number of sites under its authority) and considering the distances to remote sites, its leaders could have effected only the most minimal control on the region generally, although as a shrine it may have commanded devout allegiance." [4] "To continue with the settlement system, we have a center at Susa and elite residences at scattered sites. Other sites, for the most part, are therefore residential and nonelite. I propose that there are also “manufactories”, sites at which certain crafts such as pot making or basket making, flint knapping, cheese making, and so forth were practised (Hole 1983). A site of this type would be Jaffarabad during the Choga Mish Phase when it consisted solely of ceramic kilns. Depending on the distribution of raw products and the development of market proclivities, there might have been a large number of such specialist sites which could, of course, have occurred at residential villages and herding camps as well. Finally, we must consider the pastoral component. Although we lack any direct evidence of it during this period on the Susiana Plain, a well-developed pastoral economy in western Iran is implied by the tombs in the mountains of Pushti-Kuh." [4] [1]: (Hole 1987, 92) [2]: (Hole 1987, 42) [3]: (Potts 1999, 49-50) [4]: (Hole 1987, 43) |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk = 3 "The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center. 1. Large center 2. Small center3. Village Uruk period = 4 "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." [2] 1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha. 2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. [3] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181) [3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk = 3 "The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center. 1. Large center 2. Small center3. Village Uruk period = 4 "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." [2] 1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha. 2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. [3] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181) [3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Center - Susa 2. Villages3. Other sites In his review of J Alden’s paper, Sumner (1988) says: "Susa was the center of a very small system with 5 villages and a scatter of 26 sites that are interpreted as representing brief occupations by local shepards." [1] [1]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Old Elamite I/Susa IV (ca. 2700-2200 B.C.) ... The rank-size distribution (figure 46) shows that Susa was larger than predicted by the settlements in the local system, and it was therefore ’primate.’ The second largest settlement, Tepe Senjar, was smaller than predicted by the model. There were about 32 other sites ranging in size from 0.2 to 0.7 hectares. The gravity model for the interaction between sites shows that some of these sites fall into two major clusters or enclaves - one centered at Susa and the other at Chogha Pahn (KS-3) (figure 47). The rest of the sites can be considered as isolated, and they may have been relatively autonomous." [1] "The Akkadian expansion inevitably had to collide with Elam and its Awan dynasty. The latter ruled over an aggregation of smaller settlements spread across the Iranian plateau. In terms of size, demography and productivity, Elam was a worthy rival of the Akkadian empire." [2] [1]: (Schacht 1987, 175) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Under Ur III region east of the Mesopotamian core area was "unincorporated territories". Here soldiers were settled in small settlements commanded by junior captains, medium-sized settlements commanded by senior captains and large settlements (including Susa, Sabum and Urua) run by generals or governors. [1] [1]: (Potts 2016, 124-125) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. Susa 2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. Susa 2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the "Ville Royale" [1] 2. City - Haft Tepe - excavations of a burial complex found halls, royal tombs and a kiln. Based on acquired knowledge, it probably also contained a scribal school (many inscribed tablets have been recovered) and craft industries. [2] Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall [3] 3. Towns4. Villages "Middle Elamite I (ca. 1475-1300 B.C.) ... Susa (55 hectares), with one associated village (KS-23), was a central place for the following sites: (1) Haft Tepe (30 hectares ...), which was a central place for ... - sites of 1 to 6.5 hectares; (2) Chogha Pahn (20 hecatres ...), a central place for ... - 3.5, 2.5, 3.5, 10.7 hectares, respectively; (3) Tepe Senjar (13 hectares ... 1.64), - a central place for ... - sites of 5 hectares each; (4) Tepe Galeh Bangoon/KS-37 (10.7 hectares ...)." [4] [1]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194 [2]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201 [3]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222 [4]: (Schacht 1987, 180-181) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the "Ville Royale" [1] 2. City - Haft Tepe - excavations of a burial complex found halls, royal tombs and a kiln. Based on acquired knowledge, it probably also contained a scribal school (many inscribed tablets have been recovered) and craft industries. [2] Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall [3] 3. Towns4. Villages "Middle Elamite I (ca. 1475-1300 B.C.) ... Susa (55 hectares), with one associated village (KS-23), was a central place for the following sites: (1) Haft Tepe (30 hectares ...), which was a central place for ... - sites of 1 to 6.5 hectares; (2) Chogha Pahn (20 hecatres ...), a central place for ... - 3.5, 2.5, 3.5, 10.7 hectares, respectively; (3) Tepe Senjar (13 hectares ... 1.64), - a central place for ... - sites of 5 hectares each; (4) Tepe Galeh Bangoon/KS-37 (10.7 hectares ...)." [4] [1]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194 [2]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201 [3]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222 [4]: (Schacht 1987, 180-181) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the "Ville Royale" [1] 2. City - Haft Tepe - excavations of a burial complex found halls, royal tombs and a kiln. Based on acquired knowledge, it probably also contained a scribal school (many inscribed tablets have been recovered) and craft industries. [2] Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall [3] 3. Towns4. Village [1]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194 [2]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201 [3]: Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222 |
||||||
|
levels. The following polity, Neo-Elamites 2, had four levels. We can infer that the Neo Elamites 1 would have a similar range of settlement ranks.
1. Large cities. Susa. Madaktu, identified as Tepe Patak, a 6 ha site, although this is debated [1] 2. Small cities. In his annals Sennacherib (an Assyrian king) describes destroying the ’strong cities’ and the ’small cities’ [2] . This infers heirarchy between different cities.3. towns4. villages According to Quintana, there were 14 royal cities (main cities), with their territories; 12 districts and 20 cities near the boundary with Hidalu. "En su saqueo del territorio elamita, allá por el año 646 a.C., nos dice que destruyó 14 ciudades reales, es decir principales, con sus territorios, 12 distritos y 20 ciudades de la frontera con Hidalu, en una distancia de 60 beru (entre 650 y 700 kms): “asolé Elam hasta su más lejana frontera,” dice. Otro texto del mismo rey asegura: “todo el país de Elam abatí como un diluvio,” confirmando así que recorrió todo el territorio elamita (Weidner 1931-32: 3)." [3] Names of the royal cities: " Así podemos ver mencionadas las ciudades de Bitimbi, Naditu, Bit- bunaku, Hartabanu, Tubula, Madaktu, Haltemas, Susa, Dinsarri, Sumuntunas, Pidilma, Bubilu, Albinak, Duruntas, Hamanu, etc.11 Como las ciudades más fundamentales, es decir como ca- pitales o residencias reales nos encontramos con Madaktu.12 Luego están Susa, Bubilu y Hidalu que tiene su propio rey." [4] [1]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 272 [2]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 271 [3]: (Quintana 2011, 169-170) [4]: (Quintana 2011, 170) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large cities. Susa. Madaktu, identified as Tepe Patak, a 6 ha site, although this is debated [1] 2. Small cities. In his annals Sennacherib (an Assyrian king) describes destroying the ’strong cities’ and the ’small cities’ [2] . This infers heirarchy between different cities.3. towns4. villages According to Quintana, there were 14 royal cities (main cities), with their territories; 12 districts and 20 cities near the boundary with Hidalu. "En su saqueo del territorio elamita, allá por el año 646 a.C., nos dice que destruyó 14 ciudades reales, es decir principales, con sus territorios, 12 distritos y 20 ciudades de la frontera con Hidalu, en una distancia de 60 beru (entre 650 y 700 kms): “asolé Elam hasta su más lejana frontera,” dice. Otro texto del mismo rey asegura: “todo el país de Elam abatí como un diluvio,” confirmando así que recorrió todo el territorio elamita (Weidner 1931-32: 3)." [3] Names of the royal cities: " Así podemos ver mencionadas las ciudades de Bitimbi, Naditu, Bit- bunaku, Hartabanu, Tubula, Madaktu, Haltemas, Susa, Dinsarri, Sumuntunas, Pidilma, Bubilu, Albinak, Duruntas, Hamanu, etc.11 Como las ciudades más fundamentales, es decir como ca- pitales o residencias reales nos encontramos con Madaktu.12 Luego están Susa, Bubilu y Hidalu que tiene su propio rey." [4] [1]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 272 [2]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 271 [3]: (Quintana 2011, 169-170) [4]: (Quintana 2011, 170) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. City - capital Susa 2. Large town (similar magnitude to Susa)3. Town4. Village "One of the most radical settlement pattern changes instituted during the Elymean period was in the layout and construction of many rural villages and towns. For millennia the people of the Susiana, as did their counterparts elsewhere in Southwest Asia, reoccupied particular locations with such consistency that the well-known ’tell’ sites were formed. Yet the Elymeans, and the Sasanians after them, constructed on virgin land scores of communities whose archaeological remains suggest that they were sprawling, unwalled villages of very different composition from that of the densely packed, circumvallated communities of previous periods." [1] Parthian and Sasanian period in Susiana noted for 1. development of large, planned cities. 2 . unwalled, sprawling villages "significantly, these architectural changes are the products of the Elymean and Parthian periods, although they continue and increase in frequency in the Sasanian and Early Islamic periods, and they appeared in many areas of Greater Mesopotamia" 3. heavily monetized economy 4. "massive capital investments in dams, roads, and canals" 5. great intensification agriculture. [2] [1]: (Wenke 1981, 313) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [2]: (Wenke 1981, 314-315) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 |
||||||
|
levels.
Towns and villages. [1] Provincial capitals: "The structure of the central administrative council was probably mirrored on a smaller scale in the provincial council of the princely appanages(huku mat, iyalat, ulka, saltanat) and the military governorships (darughagi, hukumat, iyalat). Though ulka is not, strictly speaking, a technical term for princely appanage during the Turkmen period as previously discussed, the word frequently occurs in conjunction with the term khurish, a fixed share of provincial revenues allotted to a royal prince for his upkeep. The appanage-holding prince theoretically may have been immune from interference by the central authorities, but the inhabitants could nevertheless refer their grievances against the actions of a royal prince to the sultan.65 Minor princes were usually accompanied to their appanages by their guardians, representing either the confederates or the warband, who then became chiefs of staff of the provincial councils and garrison commanders of the provincial capitals." [2] 1. Capital. Amid until 1467-1469 when it was replaced by Tabriz. 2. Provincial capitals3. Villages4. Hamlets "At Aleppo, the Aqquyunlu so distinguished themselves in battle that Timur allegedly rewarded Ibrahim, Qara ’Usman’s eldest son, with the city of Amid, held by Timur since its capture from al-Zahir ’Isa~Artuqi in 1394/796. This is the first reference to Aqquyunlu control of that city, which remained capital of the Principality until Uzun Hasan’s conquests of 1467-69/872-74, when it was replaced by Tabriz." [3] [1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation [2]: (Woods 1998, 19) [3]: (Woods 1998, 41) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Other large cities3. Towns4. Villages5. |
||||||
|
The larger and more permanent settlements were probably close to the floodplain (Mahgar Dendera), but the possible remains of those would have been washed away by the Nile a long time ago already.
[1]
[1]: Shaw, I. 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press. Pg. 40. |
||||||
|
1: 4000-3650 BCE; 2: 3650-3000 BCE
[1]
Naqada IA-B: Villages Nagada IC-III: chiefdoms/proto-states centers. Villages Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [4] Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 Naqadian Egypt is a quasi-polity, or rather a collection of quasi polities. During the majority of Naqada I there were single villages, which might have formed temporary alliances with other villages, but in fact were politically independent. Most of these villages consisted of 50 to 200 habitants. However it is possible that some of these alliances grew up to the bigger towns consisted 1,000 or 2,000 people. It is during Naqada IC that these towns and villages started to unite and polities began to form. Now instead of scattered villages, there are a few chiefdoms with the town-centres, called sometimes pre-states and later, as the unification and polity development proceed, proto-states. So the rapidly changes in the polity population coded above is not only an effect of growing population but also or even first of all the result of development of the chiefdoms size. The exact time and the spreed of unification is not known so scholars can only show the level of changes in some distinguishing point. And this is exactly what G. P. Gilbert did. [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: G. p. Gilbert: 2004. Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt. Archaeopress: Oxford. pg: 108. [3]: Ciałowicz, M.A. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.pg:156. [4]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
1: 4000-3650 BCE; 2: 3650-3000 BCE
[1]
Naqada IA-B: Villages Nagada IC-III: chiefdoms/proto-states centers. Villages Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [4] Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 Naqadian Egypt is a quasi-polity, or rather a collection of quasi polities. During the majority of Naqada I there were single villages, which might have formed temporary alliances with other villages, but in fact were politically independent. Most of these villages consisted of 50 to 200 habitants. However it is possible that some of these alliances grew up to the bigger towns consisted 1,000 or 2,000 people. It is during Naqada IC that these towns and villages started to unite and polities began to form. Now instead of scattered villages, there are a few chiefdoms with the town-centres, called sometimes pre-states and later, as the unification and polity development proceed, proto-states. So the rapidly changes in the polity population coded above is not only an effect of growing population but also or even first of all the result of development of the chiefdoms size. The exact time and the spreed of unification is not known so scholars can only show the level of changes in some distinguishing point. And this is exactly what G. P. Gilbert did. [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: G. p. Gilbert: 2004. Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt. Archaeopress: Oxford. pg: 108. [3]: Ciałowicz, M.A. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.pg:156. [4]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Large centres (Hierakonpolis, Naqada, Abydos...) 2. Minor centres (e.g. Adaima) 3. Villages (inferred)Gerzean: "The hierarchy of chiefs amounted in essence to a hierarchical management system. Village chiefs were "clients" of a district chief, who in turn was a client to a regional chief. Clients owed loyalty to their superior chief (Mair, 1967)." "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [2] [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Large centres (Hierakonpolis, Naqada, Abydos...) 2. Minor centres (e.g. Adaima) 3. Villages (inferred)Gerzean: "The hierarchy of chiefs amounted in essence to a hierarchical management system. Village chiefs were "clients" of a district chief, who in turn was a client to a regional chief. Clients owed loyalty to their superior chief (Mair, 1967)." [2] "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [3] [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: (Hassan 1988, 172) [3]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. 1. Memphis 2. Regional centres (Hierakonpolis, Abydos)3. Minor centres (Aswan, Naga-el-Deir)4. Villages(5. Hamlets) |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
At most: (1) Capital; (2) Regional centres; (3) Minor centres; (4) Villages; (5) Hamlets. Inferred from previous periods.
|
||||||
|
level. Around 26 settlements were occupied during the Tierras Largas phase
[1]
. Most of these settlements were small villages or hamlets, except for San José Mogote which was larger and had public buildings and a defensive palisade, although sources do not suggest there is evidence that the influence of San Jose Mogote extended beyond the village to other villages.
1. Including both the largest village, San Jose Mogote, and smaller villages throughout the valley. Large village: San José Mogote (estimated at 7.8ha in size), although it consisted of 9 loosely clustered residential areas. [2] [3] . The site included: nuclear family houses; subterranean storage pits (collectively 1,000kg maize per household); ritual “men’s houses”; and a palisade defense along western periphery consisting of a double line of posts, dated to 1300 BCE (which could have extended further but archaeological remains have been destroyed in other areas) [2] Small villages or hamlets (most were between 0.1-1.5 ha in size). Smaller villages: The "type site" for this phase, Tierras Largas, covered around 1.58-2.24ha and consisted of 5-10 households with nearby storage pits. [4] [1]: Kowalewski, S. A. and R. D. Drennan (1989). Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology. [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11802 [3]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p78 [4]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p84 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. San José Mogote-79 ha (including all the barrios outside the central part of the settlement, roughly 20ha in size) and grew to include over 1000 people. [1] San Jose Mogote also had numerous public buildings (including Structures 1 and 2, which were pyramidal platforms for buildings on top). [2] 2. Villages-0.1-2ha with 10-12 families. [3] [4] . Examples of these settlements include: Fábrica San José, San Sebastián Abasolo and Tierras Largas. [5] [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p11 [2]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p110 [3]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p375 [4]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390, p374 [5]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p65-68 |
||||||
|
levels. The settlement hierarchy is based on the size of settlements and the presence or absence of public buildings.
[1]
1. Primary center In addition to San Jose Mogote, in this period "several smaller centers with public architecture were established in the other arms of the valley", e.g. Yeguih, Tilcajete, Tlapacoyan. [2] P Yeguih and Tilcajete have also been called primary centers (San José Mogote, Yegüih, San Martin Tilcajete)35-60ha [3] . San Jose Mogote had large public buildings, including Structures 28 (a temple) and 19 (a platform for the temple and other buildings). [4] [5] 2. Smaller centers"This basic settlement patterna dominant center surrounded by a cluster of smaller settlements and lower densities of population at greater distances from the center" [6] Secondary centres (e.g. Huitzo, Tomaltepec, El Mogote)El Mogote was 25ha [7] and these sites had their own public buildings (such as the 3m high adobe structure at Tomaltepec) [8] 3. Satellite settlements of the smaller centers"Clusters of settlements were established around these new centers, which may have been the head towns of small, spatially discrete polities that had variable degrees of autonomy from San Jose Mogote (Blanton et al., 1999, pp. 43-44)." [9] Villages (e.g. Fábrica San José, San Sebastián Abasolo, Tierras Largas).95-3ha [1] [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p125 [2]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 27) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1 [3]: Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493, 459 [4]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p127-9 [5]: Spencer, C. S. (1982) The Cuicatlán Cañada and Monte Albán: A study of primary state formation. Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. [6]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 28-29) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1 [7]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2003). "Militarism, resistance, and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico." Social Evolution & History 2: 25-70, 32 [8]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p131 [9]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 27-28) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1 |
||||||
|
levels. There are different opinions as to how many levels of settlement hierarchy there were during this period. Much of the population of the valley moved to the newly founded settlement Monte Albán, which left sites such as San José Mogote abandoned.
[1]
Monte Albán became the largest settlement by far (324ha in size towards the end of this period), but there were two other main settlements in the other arms of the valley (Yegüih and San Martin Tilcajete, the latter covering 52.8ha by the end of this period)
[1]
. If these settlements are excluded (as they were the primary centres of different polities), then the remaining settlements in the Central and Etla valley areas may either form one or two levels, depending on the classification.
[2]
[3]
Yegüih (in Tlacolula subregion) and San Mart´ın Tilcajete (in Ocotl´an-Zimatl´an subregion) were primary centres in the other arms of the valley, with two further levels of settlement hierarchy.
[4]
.
1. Monte Albán-primary centre, estimated at 324ha between 400-200 BCE, and with an 8km2 central complex. [5] (Yeguih in the Tlacolula subregion and San Mart´ın Tilcajete (52.8 ha) in the Ocotl´an-Zimatl´an subregion were also primary centres of different polities within the valley during this period.) [4] 2. villages-<2ha [6] "Table 5.4. Monte Alban Early I population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejutla." [7] Valley of Oaxaca: Level I: 5250; II: 578-1112; III: 210-301; IV: 107-179; No rank: 8-90. [7] [1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p176 [2]: Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery (1996). Zapotec civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, Thames and Hudson London, p163 [3]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2003). "Militarism, resistance, and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico." Social Evolution & History 2: 25-70, p34 [4]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p176-8 [5]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p375 [6]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1982). The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology. [7]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 56) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels of site size, based on settlement size, have been identified by Spencer and Redmond (2004) for this period, in each of the three arms of the Valley of Oaxaca.
[1]
Spencer and Redmond suggest that the increasing complexity in the Ocotlán-Zimatlán and Tlacolula valleys may have been a response to the growing threat from the Zapotecs in the Etla-Central part of the valley.
[2]
1. Primary centre-Monte Albán was the capital of the Zapotec polity during this period. 2. Secondary centre-San José Mogote, San Martin Tilcajete, Yegüih-Lambityeco [3] 3. Tertiary centre-relatively small, civic-ceremonial places [3] 4. Local villages "Table 5.9. Monte Alban Late I population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejutla." [4] Valley of Oaxaca: Level I: 17242; II: 1392-1946; III: 555-879; IV: 233-496; V: 102-221; No rank: 8-98. [4] [1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p176-7 [2]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p178 [3]: Feinman, G. M., et al. (1985). "Long-term demographic change: A perspective from the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3): 333-362, p349 [4]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 63) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. Histograms of settlement size for the MA II period suggest 4 levels of settlement hierarchy
[1]
[2]
1. Primary centre, one settlement (Monte Albán), covered between 416-10,000ha, had a population of around 14,500 and a Main Plaza with public buildings and temple [3] [2] 2. Secondary centres, six suggested settlements (including San José Mogote), Main Plaza with public buildings and temple but smaller than at Monte Albán and population estimates of between 970-1950 people [4] [2] 3. Tertiary centres, estimated 30 "large villages" (including Fábrica San José), of 5-10 ha in size, many of which show evidence for public buildings. [2] 4. Hamlets, more than 400 "small villages" of 1-3ha with a population less than 200 and no monumental architecture or public buildings [3] [2] "Table 6.4. Monte Alban II population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejutla." [5] Valley of Oaxaca: Level I: 14492; II: 979-1947; III: 387-727; IV: 180-343; V: 101-161. [5] [1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2003). "Militarism, resistance, and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico." Social Evolution History 2: 25-70, p34-5 [2]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p174 [3]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p82 [4]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p82, 111 [5]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 84) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. Monte Alban remained the primary centre of the Zapotec polity, but secondary sites (such as Jalieza) grew in size and importance.
1. Monte Alban (estimated population of 16,500 people, living on 1196 terraces, and less than 5 percent of the population lived in 57 much larger, elaborate residences). [1] 2. Secondary centres: Jalieza, in the Valley Grande area (408 ha, estimated population of 12,835 people, >20 public buildings); DMTG, in the Tlacolula subvalley (a cluster of settlements which together had a population of around 12,292 people) [2] [3] 3. Tertiary centres (including new medium-sized settlements on the piedmont, such as Rancho Tejas, Sta. Cruz Mixtepec and "El Choco" near Ayoquezco) [4] [3] 4. Small villages and hamlets (hundreds of small hamlets were present but are less well represented) [5] "Table 7.9. Monte Alban IIIA population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta." [6] Vallay of Oaxaca: Level I: 12835-16507; II: 4925-6195; III: 1789-3219: IV: 715-1575; V: 211-608; VI: 116-197. No rank: 8-100. [6] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p221-2, 226 [2]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390, p382 [3]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p226 [4]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1982). The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology, p87 [5]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p228 [6]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 109) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. Monte Alban declined in administrative importance over these periods, with Jalieza gradually becoming the largest settlement in the valley.
[1]
Smaller, regional towns became more important in the subvalleys.
[1]
Inferred to be the IIIb phase (500-700 CE) settlement pattern: [2] 1. Primary centres-around 2 per cent of sites during this period had a population of 1000-2500 people. The larger sites had some evidence for administrative buildings, elite residences, plazas and occasional ballcourts 2. Secondary centres-around 8 per cent of sites during this period had a population of minimum 180-500 to maximum 380-1000 people.3. Smallest settlements-most sites during this period were small isolated residences, hamlets or villages of fewer than 290 people. [2] "Table 8.7. Monte Alban IV population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta." [3] Valley of Oaxaca: Level 1: 16117; II: 5000-6222; III: 3590-4062; IV: 486-2900; V: 269-405; VI: 102-198; No rank: 8-95. [3] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234 [2]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9 [3]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. Monte Alban declined in administrative importance over these periods, with Jalieza gradually becoming the largest settlement in the valley.
[1]
Smaller, regional towns became more important in the subvalleys.
[1]
Inferred to be the IIIb phase (500-700 CE) settlement pattern: [2] 1. Primary centres-around 2 per cent of sites during this period had a population of 1000-2500 people. The larger sites had some evidence for administrative buildings, elite residences, plazas and occasional ballcourts 2. Secondary centres-around 8 per cent of sites during this period had a population of minimum 180-500 to maximum 380-1000 people.3. Smallest settlements-most sites during this period were small isolated residences, hamlets or villages of fewer than 290 people. [2] "Table 8.7. Monte Alban IV population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta." [3] Valley of Oaxaca: Level 1: 16117; II: 5000-6222; III: 3590-4062; IV: 486-2900; V: 269-405; VI: 102-198; No rank: 8-95. [3] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234 [2]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9 [3]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. For each of the 15-20 smaller polities, there was a head town with supporting villages and hamlets.
[1]
By 900 CE, Monte Alban was no longer a primary center, although it continued to be occupied.
[2]
1. Main town of the polity 2. Village3. Hamlet "Table 10.9. Monte Alban V population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejutla." [3] Valley of Oaxaca: Level I: 11504-13831; II: 6324-6649; III: 1192-3430; IV: 736-953; V: 486-665; VI: 308-545; VII: 204-297; No rank: 8-199. [3] [1]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390. p385 [2]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234 [3]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 172) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred given complexity level.
|
||||||
|
levels. "The sites can be divided into two categories not only by their size, but also their layout."
[1]
[1]: (De Maigret 2002: 144) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/X3MRZCH5. |
||||||
|
levels. "Marib, whose walls enclosed over 100 ha (Fig. 5e), was the largest by far of these towns and dwarfed the nearby fortified places of about 2-6 ha. [...] Walled centers of regional importance fell in the 15- to 30-ha range (e.g., Timna, Bayda, Sawda’, Shabwa), but were often smaller (Macin, Baraqish, and Inabba were only 4-8 ha), perhaps a reflection of more fragmented political scene away from the primate center at Marib. Towns such as Hajar bin Humeid (4 ha), Rayhani (3 ha), and ad-Durayb (2 ha) represent secondary centers in single wadi settlement systems."
[1]
[1]: (Edens and Wilkinson 1998: 96-97) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HGK23ABQ. |
||||||
|
levels. "Marib, whose walls enclosed over 100 ha (Fig. 5e), was the largest by far of these towns and dwarfed the nearby fortified places of about 2-6 ha. [...] Walled centers of regional importance fell in the 15- to 30-ha range (e.g., Timna, Bayda, Sawda’, Shabwa), but were often smaller (Macin, Baraqish, and Inabba were only 4-8 ha), perhaps a reflection of more fragmented political scene away from the primate center at Marib. Towns such as Hajar bin Humeid (4 ha), Rayhani (3 ha), and ad-Durayb (2 ha) represent secondary centers in single wadi settlement systems."
[1]
[1]: (Edens and Wilkinson 1998: 96-97) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HGK23ABQ. |
||||||
|
levels. A very rough estimate based on interpolation between preceding and succeeding polities
|
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Capital cities; (2) Port cities and larger towns; (1) Rural towns and villages The following material was imported from the later data sheets. Most Yemenis lived in rural villages and towns: ’Yemen is an overwhelmingly rural country, with about three-fourths of the people living in the countryside. With only a few exceptions, the rural population is distributed fairly evenly. The monsoon rainfall that causes the western slopes of the massif to be so well-dissected makes the area the most densely populated part of the country. Fertile soils are another regional asset. In varying concentrations, Yemenis inhabit nearly all the country’s geographic zones - from sea level to 10,000 feet (3,000 metres) and higher. (In fact, the intricate variety of subregions and microclimates produces an agricultural base of astonishing diversity.) The scarcity of farmland has greatly influenced rural settlement and construction patterns, as has the need for security. Villages tend to be small, and buildings are erected on ground that cannot be cultivated - frequently along cliffs and rock outcroppings. Homes often consist of several stories (as many as five or more), with the lower floors being made of hand-hewn stone. Upper stories, where the family resides, are usually made of mud brick, a superior insulator. These quarters also have many windows, providing ventilation in the heat of the summer. The location of the living quarters in these upper stories offers the capacity for storage in the lower stories, as well as an element of security. Cities in Yemen follow patterns seen in other parts of the Arab world. Original construction consisted of a walled and fortified old city, in which the ornate multistory home was standard. The old city also contained shops, souks, schools, and mosques. In the modern period, urban areas began to sprawl outside the old city, and the wealthy began to build larger and more-ornate mansions and villas in nearby suburbs.’ [1] Specialists were concentrated in larger towns: ’But the ideological power of the Imamic state did not erase rural political idioms and leadership. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the economic power of urban forces remained circumscribed. Craft production and trade remained small-scale, and specialists were divided in status between those who ruled (families with literate and religious specialties or engaged in long-distance trading) and those who served (the craftsmen and market-service families). In the countryside arms-bearing farmers regarded the groups who worked in craft production, petty trading and market services as a dependent service class attached to their local political communities. Even in large towns the men who performed such occupations were distinguished as Jews or as Muslim strata (mazayinah, bani ’l-khums, nuqqas) marked by sumptuary customs or regulations. Literate specialists, who sought to govern, to regulate the market, and to control long-distance trade, distinguished themselves from the labouring specialists of the market.’ [2] Cities served as economic and political centres and grew significantly only during the 20th century: ’Most Yemenis live in small, widely dispersed farming villages and towns. Three-quarters of the population lives in roughly 50,000 settlements with less than 500 inhabitants. The cities of Aden, Abyan, Al-Houta, Al-Hudaydah (a port), Sana, and Taizz have more than 100,000 residents each. Many foreign countries have assisted in the building of roads, hospitals, and schools, but improvements such as sanitary water facilities and power supply typically remain local development projects.’ [3] We have provisionally adopted a similar distinction while being aware of urban growth in the modern period. This remains in need of confirmation and more material is needed. [1]: (Burrowes and Wenner 2020) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/RMZUSMFG. [2]: Mundy, Martha 1995. "Domestic Government: Kinship, Community and Polity in North Yemen", 13p [3]: Walters, Delores M.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yemenis |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. "No settlement hierarchy may be observed." (Liu 2005: 163) Larger sites on the alluvial plains and smaller sites in hilly areas".
[1]
[1]: (Liu and Chen 2012: 144) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DE5TU7HY $ https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (Venice) 2. Overseas Colonies(eg. Candia) [1] 3. Large or capital cities of overseas colonies 2. City-States3. Large Towns (Inferred from description of local governments) [2] 4. Small Towns (Inferred from description of local governments) [2] 5. Rural Outposts/Villages (inferred) [1]: (Viggiano 2014, 51) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (? 1902, 263) ?. Chapter VIII. Venice. A W Ward. G W Prothero. Stanley Leathes. eds. 1902. The Cambridge Modern History. Volume I. The Renaissance. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (Venice) 2. Overseas Colonies(eg. Candia) [1] 3. Large or capital cities of overseas colonies 2. City-States3. Large Towns (Inferred from description of local governments) [2] 4. Small Towns (Inferred from description of local governments) [2] 5. Rural Outposts/Villages (inferred) [1]: (Viggiano 2014, 51) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (? 1902, 263) ?. Chapter VIII. Venice. A W Ward. G W Prothero. Stanley Leathes. eds. 1902. The Cambridge Modern History. Volume I. The Renaissance. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
“Considering that Tiwanaku itself was the largest site in the valley, covering some 600 ha, these rural settlements have been defined in the following manner: 1. Secondary sites are represented by surface ceramic fragment and lithic artifact scatters over an area that exceeds three hectares. These sites also manifest architectural components, such as worked andesite or sandstone blocks on the surface, as well as one or more mounds. 2. Tertiary sites are characterized by surface artifact scatter over an area between one and approximately three hectares; yet, they lack stone architecture and may or may not exhibit mounds. 3. Quaternary sites are distinguished by artifact scatter over an area of less than a hectare, or by single house mounds within agricultural fields. As shown in Figure 6.18, quaternary sites are generally located in close proximity to the secondary and tertiary sites, with a few exceptions. The visual impression of the pattern, as perceived from the map, is one of a dichotomy. The northern and southern sectors are two separate settlement units. It seems that the Tiwanaku River marked a dividing line between the two sectors. Another important feature of the settlement pattern constitutes the regular spacing that is kept between secondary centers and between secondary and tertiary sites in both sectors of the valley. Statistical analysis (Nearest-Neighbor statistics) of site distribution in the Lower Tiwanaku Valley confirm that secondary sites are regularly distributed and that tertiary and quaternary sites cluster around the secondary installations. While a trend toward randomness can be discerned among tertiary sites, there is definite clustering among quaternary sites (Albarracin-Jordan 1996). Around A.D. 900, Tiwanaku sites became substantially more numerous (Figure 6.19). From a total of 100 sites to 339. Even though the number of secondary sites had not increased, the amount of tertiary and quaternary sites increased drastically.”
[1]
“Hundreds of Tiwanaku settlements are situated in the state’s heartland. Kolata (1993: Fig. 6.11; 1996b: Fig. 1.7) has divided them into four categories. The first category includes only Tiwanaku, which with its size of c. 6 km2 was by far the area’s largest and most powerful settlement, or primary centre. A group of large sites with monumental public architecture – such as Lukurmata and Pajchiri – constitutes the second category. These sites functioned as the secondary centres of the state, supervising and organising production in their respective regions. Tertiary centres were smaller, local-scale administrative and ritual sites. Fourth category settlements – small habitation sites – were by far the most numerous group. Together, the sites belonging to these four categories formed a complex administrative network encompassing the Tiwanaku heartland.”
[2]
: 1. Tiwanaku (capital and largest settlement) :: 2. Secondary sites (area over 3 hectares) ::: 3. Tertiary sites (1-3 hectares with surface artefacts) :::: 4. Quaternary sites (less than 1 hectare, usually agricultural fields)
[1]: (Albarracin-Jordan 1999: 64) Albarracin-Jordan, Juan V. 1999. The Archeaology of Tiwanaku: The Myths, History, and Science of an Ancient Andean Civilization. Bolivia: Impresión P.A.P. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P7MDWPAP [2]: (Korpisaari 2006: 64) Korpisaari, Antti. 2006. Death in the Bolivian High Plateau: Burials and Tiwanaku Society. Oxford: BAR Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/UPGSC7BF |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Large Villages :: 2. Small Villages Villages along the canals of the Salt and Gil rivers could cover hundreds of acres with several hundred inhabitants.
[1]
[2]
[1]: “Hohokam Culture (U.S. National Park Service)”. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/34YMDDCN [2]: McGuire 2018: 5-6. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/C9FB2IXT |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Capital City :: 2. Major cities ::: 3. Industrial towns ::: 4. Large towns.
[1]
::::: 5. Small towns.
[2]
:::::: 6. Villages.
[2]
::::::: 7. Plantations.
[3]
[1]: Volo and Volo 2004: 17. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SIB5XSW97. [2]: Volo and Volo 2004: 13. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SIB5XSW97. [3]: Volo and Volo 2004: 8. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SIB5XSW97. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
: 1. Capital city (Vienna or Prague) :: 2. Major cities ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Hamlets
[1]: (Curtis 2013: 101, 167) Curtis, Benjamin. 2013. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London; New York: Bloomsbury. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/TRKUBP92 [2]: (Berenger 1994: 22) Berenger, Jean. 1994. A History of the Habsburg Empire: 1272-1700, trans. C.A. Simpson. London; New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/URCREW37 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
: 1. Capital and imperial city (Paris) :: 2. Major cities (Administrative and trading centres such as Bordeaux and Nantes.) ::: 3. Industrial towns (New factory towns such as Decazeville and Roubaix) :::: 4. Small Towns ::::: 5. Villages :::::: 6. Hamlets
[1]: Crook 2002: 134, 146. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/29D9EQQE |
||||||
|
“In 1770 the government of Empress Maria Theresa (1717–1780) sought to make an accurate count of the population in the western regions of her realm and to apply a new system of house numbers to “all towns, markets, and villages, even in the most scattered localities.’”
[1]
: 1. Capital city (Vienna in Austria) :: 2. Regional capital cities (e.g. Prague in Bohemia) ::: 3. Market towns :::: 4. Towns ::::: 5. Villages
[1]: (Judson 2016: 16) Judson, Pieter M. 2016. The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge, USA; London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BN5TQZBW |
||||||
|
levels. “There was every reason to regard Prague as a center of political and religious authority. The city’s virtues had been praised since the tenth century and that reputation remained intact extending to the fifteenth century.”
[1]
“An important phenomenon in Czech society in the late Middle Ages were the towns which were now centres of production and commerce. They were divided according to laws and freedoms into royal towns (of which there were 56 at the beginning of the 14th century in the Bohemian crown lands and Silesia), subject towns (60) and smaller towns again (136). Although at the beginning of the 15th century the number of royal towns hardly changed (in Moravia it even decreased), the numbers in the other categories almost doubled. At the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia had in total 556 town centres, which made for a relatively dense urban network.”
[2]
“As for population, that of Prague most likely rose to 35,000 by 1400, and thus joined the largest imperial towns such as Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main and Cologne. Other Czech royal towns had between one and four thousand inhabitants, with the exceptions of Cheb and Kutná Hora, which were larger. Responsibility for the royal towns was the Vice-Chamberlain’s, who had to levy taxes for the royal chamber. Subject towns for the greater part had less than a thousand inhabitants and were subordinate to an aristocratic or religious authority.”
[3]
“Settlements of German farmers in many places spread out into larger surrounding tracts (the areas around Broumov, Trutnov, beneath Ještěd, near Loket, Svitavy, in some parts of the Bohemian-Moravian highlands and south Moravia), and accepted Emphyteusis in large numbers; for them it was the ideal arrangement of villages and their farmlands. The wave of indigenous colonization on the contrary continued rather in the old manner. Its villages were not as extensive and there was a looser arrangement of farmsteads and fields… Since the population was continually growing and larger towns in particular were demanding in consumer terms, attention turned once again to the old, fertile settled territory. From the previous scattering of smaller settlements and isolated farms there emerged in the environs of some large towns a network of populous villages with regularly shaped tillage, which offered better usage of three-field crop rotation. These changes spread in north-western Bohemia (near the towns of Litoměřice and Most) before the mid-13th century (the three-field crop system was best mainly for grain production).”
[4]
: 1. Capital and imperial city (Prague) :: 2. Royal towns ::: Subject towns :::: Small towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Farmsteads
[1]: (Fudge 2010: 19) Fudge, Thomas A. 2010. Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia. London; New York: I. B. Tauris. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Z325C95F [2]: (Pánek and Oldřich 2009: 143) Pánek, Jaroslav and Oldřich, Tůma. 2009. A History of the Czech Lands. University of Chicago Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4NAX9KBJ [3]: (Pánek and Oldřich 2009: 144) Pánek, Jaroslav and Oldřich, Tůma. 2009. A History of the Czech Lands. University of Chicago Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4NAX9KBJ [4]: (Pánek and Oldřich 2009: 105) Pánek, Jaroslav and Oldřich, Tůma. 2009. A History of the Czech Lands. University of Chicago Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4NAX9KBJ |
||||||
|
“The four main entities—the Crown, the Church, guilds, and city councils—were based in multistoried, class-heterogeneous towns and cities that mingled manufacturing, residential, retail, and civic spaces. At the centers of towns and cities stood markets and retail establishments alongside churches and royal offices, as established in Felipe II’s 1573 Royal Ordinances on town planning. Wellordered, properly-consuming urban populations functioned under the principle of policía or “good government,” in which individual desires were subordinated to guarantee order, peace, and prosperity (Nuttall 1922; Schuetz 1987; Ortíz Macedo 1997; Kinsbruner 2005; Kagan 2000, pp. 18–44). This order required a steady and cheap supply of food guaranteed by new officials and institutions, such as the fiel ejecutor, who inspected weights and measures, but also alhóndigas (granaries) that stabilized the price and the pósito, a grain reserve designed to abate scarcity and speculation at times of shortages and bad harvests (Ochoa 2000, pp. 20–23, Borah 1958). The parián or arcaded market that housed leading mercantile establishments stood at the town center, and along the adjoining streets and districts stood the workshops of guild members lending their trade’s name to the street on which they were concentrated. Here and there stood pulperías, the indispensible institution that functioned as stores, pawnshops, restaurants, gathering places, and news exchanges, providing a one-stop financial and commercial center akin to a modern convenience store offering lottery tickets, money orders, a version of the modern ATM, and a community bulletin board.”
[1]
: 1. Capital City (Mexico City) :: 2. State capitals ::: 3. Small cities :::: 4. Towns ::::: 5. Villages :::::: 6. Rural land/plots
[1]: (Bunker and Macias-Gonzalez 2011: 58) Bunker, Steven B. and Macías-González, Víctor M. 2011. “Consumption and Material Culture from Pre-Contact through the Porfiriato,” in A Companion to Mexican History and Culture, ed. William H. Beezley. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp54–82. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SDIQ5VE7 |
||||||
|
: 1. Capital city
:: 2. Main cities ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Farmstead/Hamlets “About one in ten Spaniards lived in towns which, at one time or another between 1500 and 1800, reached the 10,000 mark. This was slightly higher than the European average. There were two giants: the political capital, Madrid, which reached its maximum of about 150,000 in the middle of the seventeenth century, and the gateway to the New World, Seville, which also had 150,000 people before the plague of 1649 and the fading of its economic hegemony. Then came a scattering of provincial capitals—Granada, Valencia, Barcelona—with around 40,000–50,000 inhabitants each, before one reached the average city, with its bishop and royal judge (corregidor), of 10,000–20,000 people. The city was in part a market, but it provided a wider range of services than that.”(Casey 2002: 111) Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT |
||||||
|
1. Capital Cities (Столичные города) - Over 500,000 inhabitants.
2. ’Official’ Cities (Официальные города) - 10,000s to 100,000s inhabitants. 3. ’Statutory’ Cities (’Штатные’ города) - Provincial and Military Cities (Губернские и войсковой города) - 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants. - District Cities (Уездные города) - 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants. 4. ’Non-Statutory’ Cities (’Внештатные’ города) - 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants. 5. ’Extra-Statutory’ and ’Without District’ Cities (Заштатные и безуездные города) - 5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. 6. Intermediary Type (Промежуточный тип) - Various ’Small Towns’ (Различные ’городки’) - Below 5,000 inhabitants. - Slobodas (Слободы) - 2,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. - Colony Centers (Центр колонии) - 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants. 7. Specialized Cities and Urban Settlements (Специализированные города и городские поселения) - Small Towns (Местечки) - Below 5,000 inhabitants. - Industrial Settlements (Промышленные поселения при крупных заводах и рудниках) - 3,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. - Ports and Harbors (Порты и пристани) - 5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. - Cities-Fortresses as District Centers (Города-крепости, являющиеся центрами уездов) - 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. 8. Fortifications with Urban Functions (Укрепления, имеющие городские функции) - Fortresses (Крепости) - A few hundred to a few thousand inhabitants. - Siberian Ostrogs (Остроги Сибири) - Below 1,000 inhabitants. [1] [1]: Белов Алексей Викторович, “Сеть Городов и Городских Поселений Российской Империи При Павле I,” Труды Исторического факультета Санкт-Петербургского университета, no. 11 (2012): 35–44. Zotero link: 3JZDNFD8 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
[3]
: 1. Capital city :: 2. Major cities ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Hamlets
[1]: Curtis 2013: 101, 167. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/TRKUBP92. [2]: ‘Austria-Hungary’. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/47VQW2IL. [3]: Judson 2016: 402. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BN5TQZBW. |
||||||
|
levels. Types of settlements varied between regions as the nomadic Horde conquered and settled in regions which had towns and villages.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
: 1. Capital city (Sarai) :: 2. Major cities (Astrakhan, Ükek, Bulğar) ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Hamlets :::::: 6. Nomadic camps
[1]: Halperin 1987: 35, 36, 77, 84. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VCPWVNM. [2]: Atwood 2004: 36. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SJXN6MZD. [3]: Khakimov and Favereau 2017: 150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/QL8H3FN8 [4]: Schamiloglu 2018: 19. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4DIB5VCX |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Capital cities: Wessex - Winchester; Mercia - Tamworth; Northumbria - Bamburgh (north) and York (south – until 867 CE); Essex - Colchester; East Anglia- tbc; Kent- tbc; Danelaw- York (from 867); Kingdom of England (from 927) - Winchester. These were the centres of royal and administrative power for each kingdom. :: 2. Major Towns:: Important larger market towns such as London, Cambridge, and Ely. They had cathedrals and were the official seat of a diocesan bishop.
[1]
[2]
::: 3. Port and trading towns::: Trading emporium and market towns and ports such as Dover, Sarre, Southampton, and Ipswich.
[1]
[3]
::: 4. Villages::: Villages were mostly situated with access to good ploughing land. Many smaller, more isolated villages were in lower-status areas such as on the margin of occupied districts or in dry or chalky areas. These may have been used by the Germanic immigrants to establish themselves.
[4]
[5]
:::: 5. Hamlets:::: Hamlets were the smallest of settlements, which generally consisted of a few hall-type buildings.
[4]
Village or hamlet settlements were established close together, usually within 2-5 kilometres of each other.
[6]
::::: 6. Monastic communities::::: Slightly more isolated and small communities based on a monastery with a self-sustaining ‘home-farm’ at its centre.
[7]
Double monasteries existed which housed monks and nuns side-by-side in communities ran by an abbess.
[8]
[1]: (Yorke 1990: 40, 65) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [2]: (Wright 2015: 34-36) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [3]: )Wright 2015: 34-36) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [4]: (Higham 2004: 10) Higham, Nick. ‘From Sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages’, History Compass 2, no. 1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XZT7A79K [5]: (Wright 2015: 25, 31) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [6]: (Hamerow 2005: 273-274) Hamerow, Helena. 2005. “The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.” Chapter. In The New Cambridge Medieval History, edited by Paul Fouracre, 1:263–88. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521362917.012. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5JNINHPQ [7]: (Wright 2015: ) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [8]: (Roberts et al 2014: 35) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Chaco Canyon : “Chaco Canyon is a remote and lonely place in northwest New Mexico that stretches for about 20 miles between high sandstone cliffs… A thousand years ago, people lived in the canyon in 11 ‘great houses’, each one of them big enough to provide homes for an entire village.”
[1]
“Now protected as Chaco Culture National Historical Park and honored by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, the canyon contains 11 huge stone buildings or great houses, some of them four stories high and containing hundreds of rooms (Figure 10.9). Smaller stone buildings, mounds, large subterranean ceremonial structures (great kivas), roads, rock- cut stairways, and water- control and garden features combine to form a dense, symbolically ordered landscape.”
[2]
:: 2. Towns :: “Archaeologists currently believe that about a hundred and fifty Anasazi Great House ‘towns’ were connected to Chaco Canyon by roadways.”
[3]
::: 3. Villages ::: “By about A.D. 1100, there had already been some Anasazi village expansion into the country to the west of Santa Fe and eastward from the east slope of the Sangre de Cristos to the Las Vegas area. Here, there were no roadways and Chacoan influence was more tenuous. On the eastern periphery of the Anasazi homeland, villages were generally smaller, jewelry and trade goods fewer, and harvests more modest. Settled village life only lasted several centuries in the hinterlands east of the Pecos River Valley and was never reestablished there until recent times.”
[4]
[1]: (Vivian and Anderson 2002: 9) Vivian, R. Gwinn and Anderson, Margaret. 2002. Chaco Canyon, Digging for the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/996XW2NW [2]: (Snow et al 2020: 194) Snow, Dean R., Gonlin, Nancy, and Siegel, Peter E. 2020. The Archaeology of Native North America, 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5T4C9IQT [3]: (Stuart 2009: 82) Stuart, David E. 2009. The Ancient Southwest: Chaco Canyon, Bandelier, and Mesa Verde. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/X4CQDXF9 [4]: (Stuart 2009: ) Stuart, David E. 2009. The Ancient Southwest: Chaco Canyon, Bandelier, and Mesa Verde. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/X4CQDXF9 |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. Capital city: London had been the capital city of England since William I declared it in 1066. Its population far surpasses that of any other city or town at around 70,000 people in 1300.
[1]
:: 2. Major Towns:: Important larger market towns such as London, York, Cambridge, and Ely. They had cathedrals and were the official seat of a diocesan bishop. The larger towns had a surrounding wall.
[2]
::: 3. Port and trading towns::: Trading emporium and market towns and ports such as Dover, Sarre, Southampton, and Ipswich.
[3]
[4]
::: 4. Villages::: Villages were generally situated with access to good ploughing land. It is often difficult to distinguish what may have been considered a village versus a small town. Villages were varied in layout and organisation – some were carefully planned, others grew up around a farm or village green.
[5]
[6]
[1]: (Prestwich 2005: 20. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [2]: (Prestwich 2005: 22. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [3]: Yorke 1990: 40, 65 [4]: Wright 2015: 34-36 [5]: Higham 2004: 10 [6]: (Prestwich 2005: 19, 22. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (London) 2. Large Cities (ie. Delhi) 3. Cities 4. Large Towns 5. Towns 6. Villages 7. Hamlets "England, it is to be observed from a civil point of view, is divided int counties or shires, hundreds, or as they are termed in some of the northern counties, wapentakes...cities, tithings, towns or vills, (the last three of which, in a legal sense are synonymous, boroughs, and parishes." [1] [1]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 263. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) |
||||||
|
levels.: Capital city: Winchester in the former kingdom of Wessex was the centre of royal and administrative power as well as housing the archbishop and cathedrals, three minsters and an episcopal palace.
[1]
Coins were minted here.
[2]
:: Major Towns:: Important larger market towns such as London, York, Cambridge, and Ely. They had cathedrals and were the official seat of a diocesan bishop.
[3]
[4]
::: Port and trading towns::: Trading emporium and market towns and ports such as Dover, Sarre, Southampton, and Ipswich.
[3]
[4]
::: Villages::: Villages were small and mostly consisted of farmland and a few hall-type buildings. They were generally situated with access to good ploughing land, but some were in lower-status areas such as on the margins of occupied districts or in dry or chalky areas. These may have been used by the Germanic immigrants to establish themselves.
[5]
[6]
:::: Monastic communities:::: Slightly more isolated and small communities based on a monastery with a self-sustaining ‘home-farm’ at its centre.
[7]
Double monasteries existed which housed monks and nuns side-by-side in communities ran by an abbess. After a slump in monastic life during the Viking invasions and colonisations of the Anglo-Saxon period, Benedictine monasteries surged in the tenth century. Sixty monasteries were established between 940 – 1066.
[8]
[1]: (Yorke 1995: 320) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [2]: (Keynes 2000: 462) Keynes, Simon. 2000. “England, c. 900–1016.” Chapter. In The New Cambridge Medieval History, edited by Timothy Reuter, 3:456–84. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521364478.019. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7Q6L256F [3]: (Yorke 1990: 40, 65) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [4]: (Wright 2015: 34-36) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [5]: (Higham 2004: 10) Higham, Nick. ‘From Sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages’, History Compass 2, no. 1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XZT7A79K [6]: (Wright 2015: 25, 31) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [7]: (Wright 2015) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [8]: (Roberts et al 2014: 35-36) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 |
||||||
|
levels."Polities centered on charismatic leaders in larger towns who extended limited control over surrounding villages and, sometimes, other larger settlements. On a classificatory continuum the Limba and Kuranko polities were structurally more akin to political organizations sometimes classed as “simple chiefdoms,” with a slightly greater degree of centralization emerging among the Yalunka in the nineteenth century (Fried 1967; also see de Barros this volume; Johnson andEarle 2000; Service 1975:74–80, 104–64). Simple chiefdoms (following Fried 1967) are characterized by a principal settlement surrounded by smaller villages, with a total population in the thousands. [...] Within the Yalunka area, precolonial sociopolitical organization was somewhat different, exhibiting a greater degree of centralized authority. During the eighteenth century the political situation may have been similar to that noted in the neighboring Limba and Kuranko areas, with spheres of influence centered on the principal towns of Kamba, Musaia, Sinkunia, and Falaba. By 1800, however, under the Samura of Falaba, these settlements had coalesced into what Fyle (1976, 1979b) refers to as the Solima Yalunka kingdom. Falaba emerged as a regional, judicial, and administrative center with the Manga, or king of Falaba, as its leader (Fyle 1979b:49–64; also see Donald 1968:9–12, 44–55). Important cases were tried at Falaba, and all trading and redistribution was supervised by the Manga (Fyle 1979b 55, 84, 88; also see Donald 1968:46–49). The kingdom could also bring wayward towns into line with military force (Donald 1968:58–59, 122–23; Fyle 1979b:41–44). Solima came to include all of the Yalunka chiefdoms of modern-day Koinadugu and Yalunka settlements now in the Republic of Guinea to the north and Kuranko Sengbe Chiefdom to the south (Fyle 1976: 111; 1979b: 13; Laing 1825: 346–47). Yet the power of Falaba and the Manga was not absolute. Important decisions of state could not be made without representatives of the other towns, and leaders met regularly at Falaba to decide matters of policy (Fyle 1979b:53–55; also see Laing 1825:356–67). As in the case with Limba and Kuranko towns, the Yalunka settlements of Musaia, Sinkunia, and Falaba seem to have independently undertaken negotiations with Samori Touré, the British, and the French (e.g., Donald 1968:59–61; Lipschutz 1973:85–92, 106, 125–26). [...] It has been suggested that by the nineteenth century the settlement pattern throughout Sierra Leone centered on large, fortified towns, which were in turn surrounded by smaller satellite villages within an 8-km radius, sometimes occupied by slaves (e.g., Donald 1968:122–25; Jones 1983:169–70; Siddle 1968, 1970:89)."
[1]
"By the middle of [the 19th] century, there were much smaller stateless entities among the Temne and Koranko peoples, but among the latter these small states were linked in some form of psychopolitical network centered on Morifindugu, their point of dispersal deeper into the Sierra Leone region. Although the ruler of Morifindugu, Marlay Bockari, in the second half of the 19th century did not rule over all of these Koranko polities, they all often fell back on Morifindugu in times of difficulty."
[2]
1. Capital/regional ruler’s seat :2. Towns ::3. Villages
[1]: (DeCorse 2012: 285, 287) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/7FGSKCDI/collection. [2]: (Fyle and Foray 2006: xxx) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. |
||||||
|
levels. "Already Fugumba represented something of the power of religion in the eyes of the triumphant Fulbe populations for whom it was both the first city and their holy centre. Infused with the saintly breath of Tcherno Samba, a Fula cleric of formidable spiritual and intellectual stature, it assumed a tutorial role over the religious and political affairs of Futa Jallon. It blessed and consecrated kings, judged and settled disputes and reserved to itself a surprising degree of powers of review over political developments."
[1]
"Thus, after the victory of the marabout party following the holy war against the various ruling Jallonke aristocracies, the Muslim leaders created the Confederation of Futa Jallon under the leadership of Ibrahima Sambegu. Sambegu, known as Karamokho Alfa, was the head of the Sediyanke lineage of the Barry family of Timbo, and carried the title Almamy. The Confederation was divided into nine Dime, sing. Diwal (provinces) whose chiefs bore the title of Alfa and were appointed from among the leaders of the djihad. The territorial division thus corresponded, initially, to the territory liberated by each of the leaders of the Muslim revolution. Thus Karamokho Alfa, the Almamy and head of the Confederation of Futa Jallon, was above all the Alfa of the Diwal of Timbo, the capital. From the beginning, the power of the Almamy, with his seat at Timbo, was limited by the wide autonomy granted to the chiefs of the provinces of Labe, Buriya, Timbi, Kebaali, Kollade, Koyin, Fugumba and Fode Haaji and also by the existence of a Council of Ancients acting as a parliament at Fugumba, the religious capital."
[2]
"The fact that only slaves could be exchanged for European goods explains the oppressiveness of the n ew regime towards the non-Muslims who, captured in vast numbers, were either sold on the coast or kept in runde (slave villages)."
[3]
1. Fugumba :2. Timbo ::3. provincial centres :::4. free settlements ::::5. slave villages
[1]: (Sanneh 1981a: 46) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/M3J4HTAF/item-list [2]: (Barry 1999: 291) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/24W2293H/item-list [3]: (Barry 1999: 293) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/24W2293H/item-list |
||||||
|
levels. "Although there is an abundance of archaeological remains in the ground of the area where it once spread, there is no indication of agglomerations of people above village level, thus there is no evidence that would warrant the existence of communities of a size that would be necessary to develop social stratification, which is regarded as one of the attributes of social complexity. Numerous excavations and prospections have contributed to the notion that no towns or any kind of urban environments existed. The rather small size of almost all recorded sites and the comparatively small quantities of excavated cultural remains even rule out village communities. Apparently the typical settlement of the Nok Culture which occupied the prehistoric landscape during all phases was either a hamlet or a single compound. What can be concluded from this is that there was no high population density and that Nok communities were small-scaled and organised in locally autonomous groups. Probably these groups consisted of only one or a few extended families or a comparable number of people living together at one site."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels.”For the first 400 years of the settlement’s history, Kirikongo was a single economically generalized social group (Figure 6). The occupants were self-sufficient farmers who cultivated grains and herded livestock, smelted and forged iron, opportunistically hunted, lived in puddled earthen structures with pounded clay floors, and fished in the seasonal drainages. [...] Since Kirikongo did not grow (at least not significantly) for over 400 years, it is likely that extra-community fissioning continually occurred to contribute to regional population growth, and it is also likely that Kirikongo itself was the result of budding from a previous homestead. However, with the small scale of settlement, the inhabitants of individual homesteads must have interacted with a wider community for social and demographic reasons. [...] It may be that generalized single-kin homesteads like Kirikongo were the societal model for a post-LSA expansion of farming peoples along the Nakambe (White Volta) and Mouhoun (Black Volta) River basins. A homestead settlement pattern would fit well with the transitional nature of early sedentary life, where societies are shifting from generalized reciprocity to more restricted and formalized group membership, and single-kin communities like Kirikongo’s house (Mound 4) would be roughly the size of a band.”
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 27, 32) |
||||||
|
levels. The near-absence of archaeologically identified settlements makes it particularly challenging to infer the settlement hierarchy. "While the historical sources provide a vague picture of the events of the first 500 years of the Kanem-Borno empire, archaeologically almost nothing is known. [...] Summing up, very little is known about the capitals or towns of the early Kanem- Borno empire. The locations of the earliest sites have been obscured under the southwardly protruding sands of the Sahara, and none of the later locations can be identified with certainty."
[1]
[1]: (Gronenborn 2002: 104-110) |
||||||
|
levels. "Although there is an abundance of archaeological remains in the ground of the area where it once spread, there is no indication of agglomerations of people above village level, thus there is no evidence that would warrant the existence of communities of a size that would be necessary to develop social stratification, which is regarded as one of the attributes of social complexity. Numerous excavations and prospections have contributed to the notion that no towns or any kind of urban environments existed. The rather small size of almost all recorded sites and the comparatively small quantities of excavated cultural remains even rule out village communities. Apparently the typical settlement of the Nok Culture which occupied the prehistoric landscape during all phases was either a hamlet or a single compound. What can be concluded from this is that there was no high population density and that Nok communities were small-scaled and organised in locally autonomous groups. Probably these groups consisted of only one or a few extended families or a comparable number of people living together at one site."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Larger settlements, (2) smaller settlements. "Dueppen (2012a, pp. 311–313) has argued that while village communities had become internally decentralized in Red II, relations between communities throughout Red III may have been more contentious, as smaller communities may have asserted ritual and/or political independence from larger settlements such as Kirikongo. More research is needed at a regional level to evaluate this theory."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2016: 133) |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Larger settlements, (2) smaller settlements. "Dueppen (2012a, pp. 311–313) has argued that while village communities had become internally decentralized in Red II, relations between communities throughout Red III may have been more contentious, as smaller communities may have asserted ritual and/or political independence from larger settlements such as Kirikongo. More research is needed at a regional level to evaluate this theory."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2016: 133) |
||||||
|
levels. As the following quotes suggests, houses where still highly independent, and differientiation was emerging within settlements rather than between them. "While houses were still highly independent, even producing their own pottery, a formalized village structure was likely present with both cadet and senior social segments, founded upon common descent with a common ancestor."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 28) |
||||||
|
levels. (1) hilltop towns/villages; (2) hilltop hamlets; (3) homesteads. These categorizations discussed in Murphy, based on the archaeological classification scheme created by Denbow from his archaeological findings, and some of the basics of which are outlined in his own words below. The names used here for each level are the RA’s own. Level 3 consists of farms with 1000-5000 m2 kraals, housing, and grain storage bins. Level 2 settlements have ca. 10,000 m2 kraals, located on hilltops and with some fortifications. Level 1 settlements possess ca. 80-100,000 m2 kraals. Level 1 otherwise similar to Level 2 except for size. Only three Level 1 sites known to exist: Toutswemogala, Bosutswe and Shoshong. Note that these Levels are numbered in the exact opposite order of those discussed by Murphy & Denbow, I.E. A Level 1 settlement in this system corresponds to a Class 3 settlement in the following quotes. “Denbow has identified three classes of sites within the Toutswe region which appear to form a political and social hierarchy. Class 1 sites are small, more or less circular sites with kraal areas averaging between 1000 and 5000 m2…. Class 1 sites also possess pole and daga house structures surrounding the kraal, grain storage bins and human burials both within and outside the kraal areas…. Class 2 sites are roughly similar in shape to Class 1 sites, but are twice the size with kraal areas averaging 10,000 m2…. Features here include kraals, hut structures, grain storage bins and burials. Class 2 sites are located on hilltops, away from arable land and water sources, and are often fortified…. Class 3 sites share most of the same features with Class 2 sites, differing primarily in their size, number and faunal mortality profiles. Only three Class 3 sites have been identified with an average kraal area estimated at 80,000-100,000 m2.”
[1]
“In the region surrounding Toutswe a threefold hierarchy of settlements in terms of size, location and length of occupation has been found…. The smallest sites in the Toutswe hierarchy (Class 1) have central middens that range between 1,000 and 5,000 square metres in area…. Over 75 per cent of the 159 Class 1 settlements located within a sixty kilometre radius of Toutswe contained shallow dung deposits partially surrounded by the remains of pole and daga houses and grain bins…. Class 2 and 3 villages were located exclusively on hilltops, often at some distance from water supplies and arable land…. The location of the larger village on hilltops away from productive resources may have been related to political factors such as protection of cattle and other resources from raids.”
[2]
[1]: (Murphy 2011; 592-593) Kimmarie A. Murphy, “A Meal on the Hoof or Wealth in the Kraal? Stable Isotopes at Kgaswe and Taukome in Eastern Botswana,” in International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Vol. 21 (2011): 591-601. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/I3QB6TSV/collection [2]: (Denbow 1986; 18-23) James Denbow, “A New Look at the Later Prehistory of the Kalahari,” in The Journal of African History Vol. 27, No.1 (1986): 3-28. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/X3DXN8CW/collection |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Maguta, ‘large villages’ or ‘chief’s villages’; (2) Misha, ‘groups of homesteads’; (3) Dzimba, ‘homesteads.’ These are social hierarchy levels derived from wider Shona-speaking cultural formulations by Chirikure, and consequently may not perfectly correspond to those used in Great Zimbabwe. I believe Chirikure is describing the overall social organization within a polity here, as well as the organization of households within a settlement. All of these levels appear to have been found within a large settlement, and they would also be found structuring settlements outside such a large concentration, as the settlement patterns of Shona-speakers seem to be of a dispersed urbanism model in which social units might simply conglomerate around chiefs’ dzimba to form larger urban units. While this is obviously a model derived primarily from later data from Shona-speaking cultures, the choice to use this in discussing Great Zimbabwe’s potential organization seems to the RA to be an appropriate one. “Great Zimbabwe is a ruined Shona city or guta which controlled a sizeable territory…. From a… philosophical point of view, guta (plural: maguta) had three overlapping definitions… 1) a large settlement with a big population; 2) a large village; and 3) a chief’s village…. Maguta were multi-settlement places whose organisation like that of the state was strongly influenced by social structure…. In general, imba (plural: dzimba) (homesteads) under saimba, was the smallest social unit. A group of dzimba (under masadzimba) formed misha (singular: musha). These were led by samusha. The dzimba of a new chief often became the muzinda or centre of power, with the chief’s homestead becoming a capital. As a collection of homesteads and misha, the guta had no formalised bureaucracy, no formalised division of labour or occupational specialisations…. Since settlement was spread out, maguta exhibited elements of dispersed rather than concentrated urbanism…. In fact, it is highly probable that the majority of the population was dispersed on the territory…, allowing the land to recover to sustain an agropastoral way of life. A comparison of this… logic best explains why Great Zimbabwe’s homesteads appear to be self-sufficient in craft and subsistence activities….”
[1]
.
[1]: (Chirikure 2021, 258-260) Shadreck Chirikure, Great Zimbabwe: Reclaiming a ‘Confiscated’ Past (Routledge, 2021). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MWWKAGSJ/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital : “Although Madurai was a political capital, and a base from which the Pandyan ruler extended his military control over a wider area, the city also had an economic dimension, for it was an inland market center.”
[1]
:2. Major centers :: “It is easy to outline the approximate boundaries of the “traditional” Pāṇḍyan kingdom, with Madurai (Kūṭal) as its capital, known since the Caṅkam literature in the early centuriesof our era, along with Iḷaṅkōykkuṭi (modern Ambasamudram in the Tirunēlveli district) as an important administrative nexus from the 8th century onwards. In these modern districts of Madurai and Tirunēlveli, to which may be added the districts of Śivagaṅga, Rāmanāthapuram, Virutunakar (Virudhunagar) and Tūttukkuṭi (commonly spelled as Thoothukudi), most of the inscriptions until the 10th century—time of the annexation of this territory by the Cōḻa dynasty—, are dated with a Pāṇḍyan king’s regnal year.”
[2]
::3.Towns :::4.Villages ::::“In the heartland of the Pandyan world, however, in the irrigated villages of the Tambraparni valley and in the Tenkasy area, village elites of Brahmans and Vellalas controlled agriculture, and there were no such chiefs. In this old Pandyan core area, a hierarchy of speculative government agents combined “private” enterprise with “public” functions like collecting taxes and dispensing justice. Agents at local and sub-regional levels often came from the Brahman and Vellala landed elite itself. Above these were Brahman and high-castes non-Brahman agents, originally from the Deccan, who had migrated south during the expansion of the Vijayanagar Empire.”
[3]
[1]: (Lewandowski 1977, 187) Lewandowski Susan J. 1977. ‘Changing Form and Function in the Ceremonial and the Colonial Port City in India: An Historical Analysis of Madurai and Madras’. Modern Asian Studies. Vol 11: 2. Pp. 183-212. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/3D6JUUGJ/collection [2]: (Gillet 2017, 221-222) Gillet, Valérie. 2017. ‘Devotion and Dominion Ninth-Century Donations of a Pāṇḍyan King in Temples along the River Kāvēri’. Indo-Iranian Journal. Vol 60. Pp. 219-283. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/TRKMDSA9/collection [3]: Ludden 1979, 357) Ludden, David. 1979. ‘Patronage and Irrigation in Tamil Nadu: A Long-term View’. The Indian Economic & Social History Review. Vol 16: 3. Pp. 347-365. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G7TWCIIW/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1. Capital :2. Major religious sites ::3. Provinces :::4. Towns (inferred) ::::5. Villages (inferred) :::: “Influenced by Buddhism, large stupas and monasteries were sponsored and constructed by the rulers; many of them have survived the ravages of time and are testament to the historical links established between peninsular South Asia and island Sri Lanka.”
[1]
“Buddha visited the Anuradhapura during the third visit to Sri Lanka, seated with his disciples, in a meditative posture, at the places where the great Tupa (present Ruwanwelisaya), Thuparamaya and sacred Bodhi tree coming afterward, marked three important points.”
[2]
“With the passage of time, the number of administrative units within the island increased. By the first quarter of the sixth century, there were already three of these. Silākālā (518-31) handed over the administration of two of the provinces of the kingdom to his elder sons, retaining the rest for himself. To his eldest son Moggallāna he granted the division to the east of the capital; Dakkhinadesa, which was the southern part of the Anurādhapura kingdom, went to his second son, together with the control of the sea-coast.”
[3]
“The introduction of Buddhism, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa (247 BCE–207 BCE), by Arhat Mahinda (from India) made a significant contribution to advancing the urban landscape to the Buddhist sacred city Anuradhapura. The growing demand for food due to the increasing number of urban population in monasteries, worshiping places, related services, and the workforce employed in new constructions, reshaped the landscape and urban agriculture achieving the new balance and created a Buddhist sacred city. However, the new city comprehends the same orientation directed by the natural landscape elements. Adding three more large wewa, and related agriculture lands further strengthened the orientation (Fig. 7d). The citadel and monasteries were in the same location as in the Pandukabhaya’s city, continuing the same anthropological – ethnographical understanding. Agriculture and irrigation signify the boundary/periphery of the urban landscape while the centre is represented by the stupa, monasteries and the citadel. In brief, the orientation in Anuradhapura directs the centre, physically and non-physically. In the urban landscape, centre is symbolized through piers of the stupa, urban monasteries, and citadel, while agriculture and irrigation at the periphery enhance the centre.”
[4]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 581) Schug, Gwen Robbins and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection [2]: (De Silva 2019, 168-170) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection [3]: (De Silva 1981, 21) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection [4]: (De Silva 2019, 170). De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1. Capital :2. Major religious sites (including monasteries) ::3. Provinces (inferred) :::4. Towns (inferred) ::::5. Villages :::::“As in the late Anurādhapura period, however, the most salient manifestation of feudalism lay in the immunities granted to the monasteries. These now extended beyond the conventional rights to labour and the whole or part of the revenue of the block of land or village thus granted, to the transfer of fiscal as well as administrative and judicial authority over the lands thus held. As a result, the monasteries and their functionaries came to be entrusted with much of the local administrative duties traditionally performed by the king’s officials; it would appear that some new administrative structures were developed to cope with this significant enlargement of the role of monasteries in the social system […] At the base of the structure were the village authorities —possibly village headmen—who were entrusted with the collection of taxes due to the king from each village; these were delivered to the king’s officials during their annual tours.”
[1]
“As stated above, the transfer of the capital to Polonnaruva has been portrayed as connected with a religious shift towards a more pluralistic and eclectic patronage at state-level, incorporating Buddhist, Brahmanical and Saivite practices. Indrapala has suggested that in tandem with the widespread appearance of tenth-century Tamil inscriptions dated to the regal years of Cōḻa rulers, there was also an increase in Saiva temples. In the chronicles, it is also stated that Parākramabāhu I (r. 1153–86 CE) constructed twenty-four temples to the gods, and Pathmanathan has recorded the presence of at least fourteen temples within Polonnaruva. In support of this plurality, archaeological investigations at Polonnaruva have identified Saiva and Vaisnava shrines with bronze Nataraja, Śiva and Parvati images. A twelfth-century inscription of Niśśaṅkamalla (r. 1187–96 CE) at Dambulla recorded the construction of a Hindu temple as well as the restoration and construction of Buddhist temples. In Anurādhapura itself, structures north of Abhayagiri dating to the later phases of the city’s occupation were identified as ‘Hindu ruins’ on the basis of their architectural layout and the recovery of several lingams, although this identification has been contested.
[2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 69-70) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection [2]: Coningham et al. 2017, 37) Coningham et al. 2017. ‘Archaeology and cosmopolitanism in early historic and medieval Sri Lanka.’ Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. Edited by Zoltán Biedermann and Alan Strathern. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/DCQMW8E3/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1. Capital :2. Major religious sites ::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages (inferred) :::: “Influenced by Buddhism, large stupas and monasteries were sponsored and constructed by the rulers; many of them have survived the ravages of time and are testament to the historical links established between peninsular South Asia and island Sri Lanka.”
[1]
“Buddha visited the Anuradhapura during the third visit to Sri Lanka, seated with his disciples, in a meditative posture, at the places where the great Tupa (present Ruwanwelisaya), Thuparamaya and sacred Bodhi tree coming afterward, marked three important points.”
[2]
“The introduction of Buddhism, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa (247 BCE–207 BCE), by Arhat Mahinda (from India) made a significant contribution to advancing the urban landscape to the Buddhist sacred city Anuradhapura. The growing demand for food due to the increasing number of urban population in monasteries, worshiping places, related services, and the workforce employed in new constructions, reshaped the landscape and urban agriculture achieving the new balance and created a Buddhist sacred city. However, the new city comprehends the same orientation directed by the natural landscape elements. Adding three more large wewa, and related agriculture lands further strengthened the orientation (Fig. 7d). The citadel and monasteries were in the same location as in the Pandukabhaya’s city, continuing the same anthropological – ethnographical understanding. Agriculture and irrigation signify the boundary/periphery of the urban landscape while the centre is represented by the stupa, monasteries and the citadel. In brief, the orientation in Anuradhapura directs the centre, physically and non-physically. In the urban landscape, centre is symbolized through piers of the stupa, urban monasteries, and citadel, while agriculture and irrigation at the periphery enhance the centre.”
[3]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 581) Schug, Gwen Robbins and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection [2]: (De Silva 2019, 168-170) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection [3]: (De Silva 2019, 170). De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1. The Hague (seat of central bureaucracy) :"The Hague became the bureaucratic center"
[1]
:2. Amsterdam (wealthiest city) ::"The power resources of Amsterdam were extensive, situated in the province of Holland that was, in turn, superior among the other northern Netherland provinces. However, Amsterdam was not the center of a kingdom, and the city itself actually held little institutional power within the Republic."
[1]
"When the interests of the various provinces conflicted, those of Holland and Amsterdam tended to prevail, provided they were in agreement."
[2]
::3. Dordrecht and Utrecht :::4. Leiden ::::"The Republic became a state in which the bureaucratic center (The Hague) was different from the economic and financial center (Amsterdam). Nor did it coincide with a traditional center (Dordrecht or Utrecht), or with a cultural center (Leiden with the first university)."
[3]
::::5. Other major cities (Rotterdam, Haarlem, Delft, Gouda) :::::"Many of the provincial taxes came from the cities, and particularly from the "traditional" six large cities (Amsterdam, Leiden, Haarlem, Delft, Dordrecht, and Gouda) and from the rising Rotterdam and The Hague."
[4]
:::::6. Towns (inferred) ::::::7. Villages (inferred) __colonial possessions__ :2. Major colonial centres (e.g. Batavia) ::"The administration of the VOC in Asia was in the hands of the Governor-General in Batavia, who, together with a number of other high-ranking VOC officials, made up the Raad van Indië, also known as the Hoge Regering or High Government. Each of the members of this council had his own portfolio: bookkeeping, the law, military matters and shipping. [...] Apart from being the Company’s political and judicial headquarters, Batavia functioned as the main transshipment and repair workshop for shipping within Asia and for traffic with Europe."
[5]
::3. Lesser colonial centres (e.g. Dejima)
[1]: (t’Hart 1989: 663) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/B9DVQGBS/collection. [2]: (t’Hart 1989: 672) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/B9DVQGBS/collection. [3]: (t’Hart 1989: 680) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/B9DVQGBS/collection. [4]: (t’Hart 1989: 675) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/B9DVQGBS/collection. [5]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 38-39) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :2. Major religious sites ::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages (inferred) :::: “Influenced by Buddhism, large stupas and monasteries were sponsored and constructed by the rulers; many of them have survived the ravages of time and are testament to the historical links established between peninsular South Asia and island Sri Lanka”
[1]
“Buddha visited the Anuradhapura during the third visit to Sri Lanka, seated with his disciples, in a meditative posture, at the places where the great Tupa (present Ruwanwelisaya), Thuparamaya and sacred Bodhi tree coming afterward, marked three important points. […] The introduction of Buddhism, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa (247 BCE–207 BCE), by Arhat Mahinda (from India) made a significant contribution to advancing the urban landscape to the Buddhist sacred city Anuradhapura. The growing demand for food due to the increasing number of urban population in monasteries, worshiping places, related services, and the workforce employed in new constructions, reshaped the landscape and urban agriculture achieving the new balance and created a Buddhist sacred city. However, the new city comprehends the same orientation directed by the natural landscape elements. Adding three more large wewa, and related agriculture lands further strengthened the orientation (Fig. 7d). The citadel and monasteries were in the same location as in the Pandukabhaya’s city, continuing the same anthropological – ethnographical understanding. Agriculture and irrigation signify the boundary/periphery of the urban landscape while the centre is represented by the stupa, monasteries and the citadel. In brief, the orientation in Anuradhapura directs the centre, physically and non-physically. In the urban landscape, centre is symbolized through piers of the stupa, urban monasteries, and citadel, while agriculture and irrigation at the periphery enhance the centre.”
[2]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 581) Schug, Gwen Robbins and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection [2]: (De Silva 2019, 168-170). De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :2. Major religious sites ::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages (inferred) :::: “Influenced by Buddhism, large stupas and monasteries were sponsored and constructed by the rulers; many of them have survived the ravages of time and are testament to the historical links established between peninsular South Asia and island Sri Lanka.”
[1]
“Buddha visited the Anuradhapura during the third visit to Sri Lanka, seated with his disciples, in a meditative posture, at the places where the great Tupa (present Ruwanwelisaya), Thuparamaya and sacred Bodhi tree coming afterward, marked three important points.”
[2]
“The introduction of Buddhism, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa (247 BCE–207 BCE), by Arhat Mahinda (from India) made a significant contribution to advancing the urban landscape to the Buddhist sacred city Anuradhapura. The growing demand for food due to the increasing number of urban population in monasteries, worshiping places, related services, and the workforce employed in new constructions, reshaped the landscape and urban agriculture achieving the new balance and created a Buddhist sacred city. However, the new city comprehends the same orientation directed by the natural landscape elements. Adding three more large wewa, and related agriculture lands further strengthened the orientation (Fig. 7d). The citadel and monasteries were in the same location as in the Pandukabhaya’s city, continuing the same anthropological – ethnographical understanding. Agriculture and irrigation signify the boundary/periphery of the urban landscape while the centre is represented by the stupa, monasteries and the citadel. In brief, the orientation in Anuradhapura directs the centre, physically and non-physically. In the urban landscape, centre is symbolized through piers of the stupa, urban monasteries, and citadel, while agriculture and irrigation at the periphery enhance the centre.”
[3]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 581) Schug, Gwen Robbins and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection [2]: (De Silva 2019, 168-170) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection [3]: (De Silva 2019, 170). De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Capital :“The old capital of the kingdom is at Jiren, several miles from the new town.”
[1]
:2. Large Towns (inferred from the below quote) ::3.Small towns :::“Jimma markets are not necessarily found in towns although small towns sometimes grow up along caravan routes at the sites of important markets.”
[2]
:::4. Villages/hamlets ::::“Most market places are simply open fields which serve to accommodate from two hundred to several thousand people. Such markets are found at crossroads, on the outskirts of small hamlets, and near compounds of important men.”
[3]
[1]: (Lewis 2001, xvi) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [2]: (Lewis 2001, 54) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection [3]: (Lewis 2001, 54-55) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. While ‘towns’ were not specifically mentioned in the consulted literature, it is reasonable to assume that towns would have been part of the settlement hierarchy in between the confirmed ‘cities’ and ‘villages’. 1.Capital :“Around the mid-1650s, Afgoy became the site of the Geledi Sultanate, composed of a confederation of the Shanta, Aleemo, Garre, Wa’daan, Moobleen, Hubeer and Hintire clans.”
[1]
:2. City ::During the nineteenth century Mogadishu was the port city controlled by the Sultanate of Geledi. “Mogadishu, on the other hand, was really controlled by the Sultan of the Geledi, and minor ports were in the hands of members of other clans.”
[2]
::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages/hamlets ::::“In addition to this, there was that of the villages further in-land. There are today fifteen or so of these villages and hamlets scattered through Geledi territory, the larger of which probably date from an early period.”
[3]
[1]: (Mukhtar 2003, 28) Mukhtar, Mohamed H. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Somalia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Mukhtar/titleCreatorYear/items/J8WZB6VI/item-list [2]: (Rubenson 2008, 88) Rubenson, Sven. 2008. ‘Ethiopian and the Horn’ Ed John H. Flint The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1790 - c. 1870. Vol 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 51-98. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/VRU64Q8P/collection [3]: (Luling 1971, 66) Luling, Virginia. 1971. The Social Structure of Southern Somali Tribes. (Thesis). University of London (University College London). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/5BTAQ3DM/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“With regard to the capital of Awfat, the exceptional character of this site, which delayed and staggered its discovery, lies in the association of three poles: the city proper, particularly vast, the citadel and the necropolis. The typological affinities between these three poles, their complementary functionality, finally the connections allowed by epigraphy, allows us to see a multipolar site. Its necropolis and its tombs now allow to affirm that this site was the seat of the Walasma dynasty between 1285 and 1376.”
[1]
:2. Cities ::“This political and urban heart now appears to be made up of a string of cities located in the middle floor of the escarpment of the central high plateau of Ethiopia, a few tens of kilometres from the Christian territories of the time These Islamic sites, located a day’s walk from each other on a north-south axis, present urban features well marked in the topography, n the density and organization of the habitat, or in reservoir-type developments. Witnesses of the existence of organized communities, all these cities also yield a large mosque and neighbourhood mosques, as well as vast distinctly Muslim cemeteries.”
[1]
::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages (inferred)
[1]: (Fauvelle et al. 2017, 239-295) Fauvelle, François-Xavier et al. 2007. “The Sultanate of Awfāt, its Capital and the Necropolis of the Walasma”, Annales Islamologiques. Vol. 51. Pp 239-295. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/HJCMAMX7/library |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“The first historically known Funj ruler, Amara Dunqas, defeated the Christian kingdom of Alwa in 1504, and founded Sinnar as the capital of a Funj kingdom which reached north to the third cataract, south to the foothills of Ethiopia, and east to the desert of Kordofan.”
[1]
:2. Towns ::“Two of the principal towns had been devastated: Arbaji by a raid of the Shukriyya nomads, incited by Shaykh al-Amin walad Musmarr in 1783-4 and Sennar itself by Nasir, when he captured the town in 1788-9.”
[2]
::3. Village :::“Provincial nobles lived in castles supported by his slave retainers. A provincial lord placed each village in his jurisdiction under the supervision of an experienced slave in order to extract taxes. Provincial nobles, however, had to appear before the Sultan each year to perform obeisance, account for their behavior, and deliver tribute.”
[3]
[1]: (Lapidus 2002, 429) Lapidus, Ira M. 2002. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QW9XHCIW/collection [2]: (Holt 2008, 47) Holt, P.M. 2008. ‘Egypt, the Funj and Darfur’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c.1790. Edited by Richard Grey. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WC9FQBRM/collection [3]: (Lapidus 2002, 431) Lapidus, Ira M. 2002. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QW9XHCIW/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“There were a series of court officials in Bonga and Anderacha, the two capitals of the Kafa Kings.”
[1]
:2. Town ::“Except for Minjiloch, the first Minjo kings are simply remembered for the fact that they respectively founded the towns of Shonga, Addio, and Shada.”
[2]
::3.Village :::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[3]
[1]: (Orent 1970, 282-283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [2]: (Orent 1970, 268) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [3]: (Orent 1970, 283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“There were a series of court officials in Bonga and Anderacha, the two capitals of the Kafa Kings.”
[1]
:2. Town ::“Except for Minjiloch, the first Minjo kings are simply remembered for the fact that they respectively founded the towns of Shonga, Addio, and Shada.”
[2]
::3.Village :::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[3]
[1]: (Orent 1970, 282-283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [2]: (Orent 1970, 268) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [3]: (Orent 1970, 283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Harar :“Although Harar lost much trade because of the growing importance of the route to Tajura, the old city state remained throughout the nineteenth century a leading commercial centre and the focus of Muslim worship and learning for the whole Horn.”
[1]
:2. Other cities ::3. Towns (inferred) :::4. Villages ::::5. Sub-villages :::::“An extension of this system was used for the taxation and supervision of farming regions under the amir’s control. ‘A garad is the chief of a village or sub-village; the damin is the chief of whole tribe. Several garadach, sometimes five or six, come under one damin’.”
[2]
[1]: (Rubenson 2008, 87) Rubenson, Sven. 2008. The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1790 – c. 1870. Edited by John E. Flint. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 51-98. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Rubenson/titleCreatorYear/items/VRU64Q8P/item-list [2]: (Waldron 1984, 34) Waldron, Sidney R. 1984. ‘The Political Economy of Harari-Oromo Relationships, 1559-1874’. Northeast African Studies. Vol 6:1/2. Pp 23-39. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/PUDCFD72/collection |
||||||
|
levels. The following quote, which refers to changes in the Late Formative period, suggests that, at this time, people were largely organized into single independent households or hamlets. "As a result, a new social configuration featuring formalized association and integration of multiple households under a single leadership became necessary as a means of organizing and safeguarding land and labor. It was the beginning of a departure from the two- to three-generation households and hamlets that had been the preferred unit of social organization in the preceding centuries."
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2020: 47-48) |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Alpha "houses"; (2) lesser "houses" (clusters of villages). "As population and settlements increased in the circumscribed rim of the Ifè Bowl, competition for land and resources among the Houses intensified during the last centuries of the Early Formative period, perhaps as early as AD 600. The competitions spurred some of these Houses to build alliances with one another and against other Houses. The alliances resulted in the merging of two or more Houses under a wide range of arrangements. These processes resulted in the birth of the “mega-House” as a new organizational structure. This meant that some of the Houses that had acted as autonomous corporate units lost some of their autonomy in order to become members of a larger sociopolitical unit. Of course, mega-Houses were also formed through forceful incorporation of weak Houses into stronger ones. This development led to the increasing specialization and elaboration of political leadership and to a heightened territorial sensibility. In Ifè oral traditions, thirteen mega-Houses are remembered to have existed during this period of political engineering. These are Ìdó, Ìdèta, Ìloràn, Ìlóròmú, Ìjùgbè, Ìmojùbì, Ìráyè, Ìwìnrìn, Odin, Òkè Àwo, Òkè-Ojà, Omológun, and Parakin (fig. 2.4). Each of these mega-House polities, what Ade Obayemi called “mini-states,” was a federation of contiguous Houses separated by stretches of woods that ranged in distance from a few hundred meters to about a kilometer, but a recognizable ruler from an alpha House governed each of these mega-Houses as a corporate unit. The Ìjùgbè mega-House, for example, comprised Ìjùgbè—the alpha House—and four minor Houses: Eranyiba, Igbogbe, Ipa, and Ita-Asin, each with its own leader, who was also its chief priest. All the leaders of the four corporate houses reported to Obaléjùgbè, “the Lord or Leader of Ìjùgbè.”"
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2020: 53) |
||||||
|
1) Cities, 2) Towns, 3) Villages. Seems reasonable to infer the presence of smaller settlements given the scale of Kwararafa, but there are no explicit references to villages or hamlets in the scholarship. “Two theories have been put forward to identify the region of Nigeria which formed the first power base of the Jukun people. The first suggests that it was on the middle Benue basin, south of the river channel, that the Jukun established the Kwararafa empire often mentioned in traditional Hausa texts. Ruins of the city, which went under the name of Kwararafa, can still be seen in the area. Kwararafa is the Hausa name for the Jukun people and their capital, as well as for their kingdom. When the city was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, its still-extant successor town, Wukari, grew up in the same region.”
[1]
“He further notes that the next statement of the Chronicle with regard to Kwararafa was in the reign of Dauda (1421-38). It was purported that under Queen Amina of Zaria, all the towns, as far as Kwararafa and Nupe were conquered.”
[2]
[1]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 281. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [2]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 74. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
1) Capital city; 2) Cities; 3) Towns; 4) Villages. “By the mid-16th century, however, the Portuguese were actively trading at Allada’s capital, Grand Ardra. Grand Ardra was a city of considerable size, home to approximately 30,000 people; Aliada as a whole had a population upwards of 200,000. Dutch physician Olfert Dapper wrote in his Description of Africa in 1668 of the presence of "towns and villages in great number" in Grand Ardra’s countryside.”
[1]
Not clear whether Allada/Grand Ardra was the only city in the Allada Kingdom, or whether other settlements counted as cities. “These cities also provided the primary markets in their territories. The marketplace at Savi drew 5,000 people on market day in its heyday. Rural communities brought goods to the markets of Savi and Grand Ardra every fourth day (the market week) to ply commodities such as salt, tex tiles, basketry, calabashes, pottery and other products for sale. These polities were thus characterized by regional settlement differentiation, in which urban centers served as political and economic nexuses for smaller settlements across nearby rural areas. Rural communities and urban centers were integrated in terms of production and distribution of everyday domestic products.”
[1]
[1]: Monroe, J. Cameron. “Urbanism on West Africa’s Slave Coast: Archaeology Sheds New Light on Cities in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade.” American Scientist, vol. 99, no. 5, 2011, pp. 400–09: 402. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E5WA63Z2/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Cities, 2) Villages. Cities seem to have been present. “The spheres of their competence overlapped with those of the Edionevbo, the all-Benin City chiefs, Evian and Ogiamwen belonged to the dynasty of Efa chiefs whose authority stretched over the wards of the city inhabited by their tribesmen. Quite evidently, these were the wards whose dwellers now argue that their ancestors had not come to Benin from anywhere, but lived there "from the beginning" (Bradbury 1957:19; Igbafe 1974:2). It is also easy to imagine what tension could exist between the two "city halls" and how much each of them wished to monopolize power over the entire city. Of course, the fall of the Ogiso dynasty was a defeat not only of its last representative Owodo, but of the Edionevbo. No doubt the "king- makers" had nothing against their further influencing the course of events not only in the capital but in the whole country through weak rulers, like the majority of the Ogiso seem to have been.”
[1]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[2]
“During the first millennium when the institution of monarchy - the Ogiso dynasty - was established in Benin, the first king, Ogiso Igodo, called the numerous village communities which were joined together in a political union under him as Igodomigodo. His village at Ugbeku was the capital where he built the royal palace.”
[3]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85; 78. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [3]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from references to cities, towns and villages, extensive trade networks, and agricultural basis for economy: 1) capital, 2) royal towns, 3) ordinary towns, 4) villages or hamlets. There may be additional levels within these, as we know there were agricultural settlements as well as stops along trade routes. “There were two main types of provincial towns, namely royal towns and ordinary towns. The royal towns were administered by princes from the ruling house in the metropolis of Oyo, who were given the title of King (oba) and the opportunity to build their palace to resemble that of the metropolis. The ordinary towns, however, had loose or distant relations with the Oyo metropolis. Their head (bale) was of a lower status than the oba; a bale could not build his palace to resemble that of the Oyo capital or wear a crown, even though his function was exactly that of the oba […] The appointment of [provincial towns’] rulers was usually ratified by the alaafin. Provincial towns were also required to send representatives to the Oyo metropolis during important festivals. Similarly, the alaafin would appoint a local representative (ajele) to monitor and oversee the affairs of provincial towns in order to maintain his interest.”
[1]
“The archaeological survey strategies that have been used to address both topics are the subject of this chapter. The first to be discussed is the survey strategy for mapping the city of Oyo-Ile, the capital of Oyo Empire located in the savanna landscape. The second survey focuses on the Oyo colony that was established in the upper reaches of the rainforest belt (Upper Osun region) to advance the project of Oyo political expansion.”
[2]
“Although Oyo’s metropolis was in the savanna belt, it was in the rainforest that Oyo-Ile scored its first major success towards becoming an empire. It achieved this by establishing colonies on trade routes that linked the savanna hinterlands to the coast.”
[3]
[1]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC-CLIO, 2017: 246. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/note/U7W4UF33/collection [2]: Gosselain, O. P., & MacEachern, S. (2017). Field Manual for African Archaeology (A. Livingstone-Smith & E. Cornelissen, Eds.): 69. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JRMZECR5/collection [3]: Gosselain, O. P., & MacEachern, S. (2017). Field Manual for African Archaeology (A. Livingstone-Smith & E. Cornelissen, Eds.): 71–72. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JRMZECR5/collection |
||||||
|
1) Capital city (Savi); 2) Chief towns; 3) Villages/hamlets. “Astley, A New General Collection, 9, summarizing from the account of Des Marchais, reports that the residences of community leaders resembled towns, each of which was surrounded by radiating settlements: "Each of these twenty-six ... [chief towns] has fewer smaller villages, or hamlets, which are subordinate to it; and although the bounds of the kingdom are small, and consequently the provinces [proportionally] little, yet the country is so populous and full of hamlets, that the whole kingdom seems to be one town, divided into many quarters, and separated only by cultivated lands, which appear like gardens." The Astley account suggests that the king gave each of these twenty-six regional provinces to a prominent man of the kingdom who occupied a "Chief Town" within the provinces.”
[1]
“These architectural clusters are interpreted as sprawling house compounds and associated collections of smaller residential structures, administrative structures, and market facilities. Apparently, Huedans constructed these architectural clusters as accretional and evolving connections of architectural features; they added later building efforts to open zones adjacent to earlier structures. While accretional, this landscape appears to be a purposefully organized one, the negative spaces of the boundary ditches/borrow pits often abutted structures. When viewing the system in plan and in aggregate, interior structures are surrounded by non-contiguous yet radiating collections of structures and ditches. As this pattern repeated itself throughout the landscape, systems of the negative space created by ditches/borrow pits connected to larger structures checked terrestrial movement. During the Hueda era it was, as it is today, difficult to traverse the landscape without passing through or adjacent to a structure. Indeed, it is highly likely that Huedans created these enclosed architectural systems as a form of protection against foreign and domestic threats.”
[2]
[1]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection [2]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 394. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection |
||||||
|
levels. The following quote, which refers to changes in the Late Formative period, suggests that, at this time, people were largely organized into single independent households or hamlets. "As a result, a new social configuration featuring formalized association and integration of multiple households under a single leadership became necessary as a means of organizing and safeguarding land and labor. It was the beginning of a departure from the two- to three-generation households and hamlets that had been the preferred unit of social organization in the preceding centuries."
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2020: 47-48) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Towns or village groups"" (obodo), 2) villages. It seems that Arochukwu was a collection of towns and villages, rather than a capital city. “Regrettably, there is no such collection of the oral traditions of the villages and towns making up the home chiefdom of Arochukwu, which would have been more relevant and reliable for the study of the Aro than the reports of British colonial officers.”.
[1]
“In the late nineteenth century, the Igbo-speaking area of Southeast- ern Nigeria consisted of numerous small-scale societies made up of wards, villages and village groups (’towns’, obodo), most of them with- out a marked degree of political centralisation and hereditary office- holding.6 Exceptions to this pattern - small kingdoms - existed among the towns along the Niger and among the West Niger Igbos. The seg- mentary social organisation was often reflected in dispersed settlement patterns (Ardener 1959).”
[2]
“At the height of their economic prosperity and influence, Arochukwu people founded satellite settlements outside their native homeland (but not tributary States) scattered in different parts of Igbo land. Some of the better-known settlements include Arondizogu, Aro-Okigwe, Aro-Ezinachi, Aro-Amuro, Aro-Ihube, Aro-Obinikpa, Aro-Ubahu etc (Imo State); Aro-Okporoenyi (Umuahia), Aro-Ngwa, Aro-Isuochi (Abia State); Aro-Ajalli (Anambra); Aro-Abakaliki (Ebonyi); Aro-Ngwo (Enugu) and Aro-Ikwerre in River State.”
[3]
“The knowledge here is being elucidated by the known practice of having Aro villages in the Igbo hinterland till date.”
[4]
“Before the foundation of Arochukwu confederacy, the Igbo and the Ibibio of the area operated a political system - village republicanism - based on gerontocracy. However, the end of Igbo-Ibibio hostilities, following the victory of Igbo-Akpa alliance against the Ibibio, culminated in the foundation of the Aro chiefdom comprising elements of the three ethnic groups. Thus, the political system which ultimately emerged - federation under one authority - appeared to be an ostensible aberration of the traditional Igbo-Ibibio system based on kinship. In the emergent organization, there was a king (chief) with a council of representatives of the various towns.”
[5]
“The members of the confederacy comprised neighbouring Aro towns like Abam, Edda and Ohaffia.”
[6]
"
[1]: Nwauwa, A. O. (1992). On Aro Colonial Primary Source Material: A Critique of the Historiography. History in Africa, 19, 377–385: 384. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DINGJJC2/collection [2]: Harneit-Sievers, A. (2002). Federalism to the Bitter End: Politics and History in Southeastern Nigerian ‘Autonomous Communities’. Sociologus, 52(1), 47–76: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/HQRP8DG8/collection [3]: Chidume, C., & Nmaju, U. (2019). The Aro Hegemony: Dissecting The Myth And Reality. 8, 76–87: 78. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WJ5NDV5U/collection [4]: Innocent, Rev. (2020). A Critical Study on the Ibini Ukpabi (Arochukwu Long Juju) Oracle and its Implications on the International Relations During the 20th Century. London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 20(10): 6. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZXZGZSM3/collection [5]: Nwauwa, A. O. (1995). The Evolution of the Aro Confederacy in Southeastern Nigeria, 1690–1720. A Theoretical Synthesis of State Formation Process in Africa. Anthropos, 90(4/6), 353–364: 356. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G4DWA3GQ/collection [6]: Oriji, J. N. (1987). THE SLAVE TRADE, WARFARE AND ARO EXPANSION IN THE IGBO HINTERLAND. Transafrican Journal of History, 16, 151–166; 154 |
||||||
|
1) Capital city; 2) Regional cities and cities in other emirates; 3) Towns; 4) Villages; 5) Homesteads (gandu, patrilineal homesteads). “One of the most striking features of the caliphal system was the emergence of new political centres, many of which also became centres of agricultural production, manufacturing and trade. Sokoto itself was transformed from a small hamlet in 1809 into one of the largest cities in the Central Sudan, with a population of about 100,000 by the end of the century. The city became noted for its heterogeneous wards and its many celebrated artisans, traders and scholars. Many other cities such as Gusau, Kaura-Namoda, Gwadabawa and Illela grew up in the metropolitan region, all with substantial populations drawn from all parts of Western and Central Sudan and Sahel. Outside the Rima Basin, several new towns were built, Bauchi, Ja-lingo and Yola to name but three, all of which grew into large cosmopolitan settlements which drew traders, artisans and peasant cultivators from all over their respective regions.”
[1]
“The dominant unit of production in the Caliphate was the gandu (patrilineal homestead), comprising several generations of kin, clients and slaves.”
[2]
[1]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 104. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection [2]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 105. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Capital/metropolis; 2) Towns; 3) Villages; the distinction between towns and villages may not be significant. “As the head of the royal clan, the king exercised authority over the greater Idah metropolis where the majority of the royal sub-clans resided. The attah also exercised some limited influence over the affairs of provincial royal sub-clans. He controlled appointments to their headships, and through this means was able to increase his area of practical reach in the kingdom. In this manner, through the royal sub-clan heads in the metropolitan and provincial areas, the palace was reckoned to have governed at least half of the total area of the Igala kingdom directly.”
[1]
“The distinction between towns and villages located in Great States and those outside them is more apparent than real. In a very real sense, the power of the court did not extend far beyond the capital and historical maps — including those in this book — which suggest blocks of territory like modern nations, where the impact of government is equally felt everywhere, are misleading. Distant towns sent tribute, which was sometimes essentially symbolic and a description of the Lunda empire in Central Africa is much more widely applicable: ‘a chain of political islands in a sea of woodlands occupied mostly by dispersed villagers recognising no overlord at all.”
[2]
“Successive chapters deal with sacred precincts, family and household religion, and village religion. The distinction between family and village religious systems is crucial to the latter part of the study, as the Igala were able to capitalize on it to enforce their control. The former deals predominantly with the arua or ancestor spirits, while the latter deals with the alusi, which are non- human spirit beings.”
[3]
[1]: Kolapo, F. J. “Post-Abolition Niger River Commerce and the Nineteenth-Century Igala Political Crisis.” African Economic History, no. 27, 1999, pp. 45–67: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AMMWZ5KT/collection [2]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 243. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [3]: Taber, Charles R. “Review of The Igbo-Igala Borderland: Religion and Social Control in Indigenous African Colonialism.” American Anthropologist, vol. 75, no. 6, 1973, 1876–77: 1876. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/M65F6WG9/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) City, 2) Town, 3) Nucleated settlement group, 4) Village. Note that, though Nri and Igbo-Ukwu are referred to in the scholarship as cities (eg title of Afigbo, A. E. (1981). The Holy City of Nri. In Ropes of Sand: Studies in Igbo History and Culture (pp. 31–68). University Press in association with Oxford University Press), there is no undeniable evidence that eg the finds at Igbo-Ukwu are proof that is was actually a town or city. “At this stage any suggestions must be tentative, especially since on the local side it is still very unclear - and will remain so unless the site of Igbo-Ukwu can be re-examined in a radically novel way - whether the location excavated by Shaw was no more than a burial shrine or priest’s abode secluded in the forest, or whether contrarily it was part of a real town of that period with an industrial quarter. Either way, it is acknowledged that the manufacture and burial of so many exquisite objects, most of them essentially non-utilitarian, must be of religious and social significance, as well as economic.”
[1]
“In modern times — and undoubtedly much earlier — the eastern Igbo lived in village groups; although the area is now one of the most densely populated rural areas in Africa, this is not apparent, and scattered homes are surrounded by the ubiquitous oil palm and other indigenous and introduced trees that have economic value. They derived their common identity from maps in the mind, which traced their origin to a putative ancestor. The western Igbo, who also traced their descent to an apical ancestor, lived in nucleated settlements. The genealogical calculus was mirrored in the organisation of space, each quarter tracing its origin to a son or grandson of the founder. The idiom of genealogy was an extremely precise guide to relationships at all levels — within the village, and between the independent communities which comprised the village group and the wider ‘clan’, and an inherent flexibility made it possible to incorporate strangers. There was an evident need to find a beginning in an otherwise endless chain of father-son successions, and this is found in the myth of the stranger from elsewhere — the earth or the sky, or a hunter from far away.”
[2]
“Three categories of tradition emerged from my collections of oral history in the oldest settlements like Agbo, Nri, Owere, etc., and the newer ones of Asaba, Ibusa, Ndikeluonwu, etc.: autochthony, amnesia, and certainty, ’Autochthony’ is the claim of origin from the spot of present habitation, by a maximal lineage with a name like Umudiani or Umu dim ’sons of the earth’; today part of a larger settlement. The Nri Umu di ani lineages perform specific ritual functions in the Eze’s coronation, and in cleansing abominatiin in the town. Their genealogy is as deep as generations before the present elders.”
[3]
“Some Igbo communities, especially trading cities along the Niger like Onitsha and Oguta (Nzimiro 1972) and the ’holy city’ of Nri (Afigbo 1981:31-68) had elaborated chieftaincy institutions in pre-colonial times.”
[4]
[1]: Sutton, J. E. G. (1991). The International Factor at Igbo-Ukwu. The African Archaeological Review, 9, 145–160: 149. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/HBPMUV6T/collection [2]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 248. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [3]: Onwuejeogwu, M. A. (1979). The Genesis, Diffusion, Structure and Significance of Ọzọ Title in Igbo Land. Paideuma, 25, 117–143: 119. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/K2EIJVZ8/collection [4]: Harneit-Sievers, A. (1998). Igbo ‘Traditional Rulers’: Chieftaincy and the State in Southeastern Nigeria. Africa Spectrum, 33(1), 57–79: 59. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TUHHXK22/collection |
||||||
|
1) Birane (cities); 2) Gari (towns); 3) Villages; 4) Hamlets. “The appearance of centralized states seems to have been closely linked with the establishment of great cities called birane (sing, birni) as the centres of political power. The Hausa cities varied in importance at different times”.
[1]
“Bagauda lived and died at Sheme after compelling the local people to recognize his political rule. It was his grandson, Gijimasu (1095-1134), who first established the present city of Kano, when he built his settlement at the foot of Dala hill. He also started to build the city walls, but it was not until the reign of his son Tsaraki (1136-94) that they were completed.”
[2]
“Throughout the country, small rural communities (kauyuka, sing, kauye) were composed of groups of families (gidaje, sing, gida) under the authority of a chief (maigari). These communities consisted, in fact, of farming hamlets that were generally quite small and in some cases of a shifting nature. At the next level came the villages (garuruwa, sing, gari), which were larger and permanent. At their head they had a sarkin gari or magajin gari (village chief), who may on occasion have had district leaders (masuunguwa, sing, mai-unguwa) under him. At the apex of the structure stood the birni (plural birane), the district capital, which was ruled not by a sarkin birni (the expression does not exist in Hausa), but a sarkin kasa or chief of the ’country’, whose authority naturally extended over all the lower-level chiefs.”
[3]
“Thirdly, although there are no statistical data available for the population density of Hausaland, to judge from the numerous villages and towns in the various Hausa states, there are grounds for thinking that the country was not sparsely populated.”
[4]
[1]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 270. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [2]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 271. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [3]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 293–294. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [4]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 295. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection |
||||||
|
Levels: 1) Large (walled) city; 2) City; 3) Large town; 4. Town; 5) Hamlet/ward. “If Ibn Fartua’s assertion that this method of procedure was entirely new, Mai Idris’s reign could have marked the transition from a city state (albeit with far flung trading and political connections) to a territorial state in the Borno area. Professor Cohen has suggested that the founding of the great high walled city of Gazargamu may have marked a major alteration of the political scene in the valley of the Yo river and beyond.”
[1]
“However this may be, by the late seventeenth century there were no easy fields for conquest within immediate range and Mai Idris Alooma looked out from Gazargamu on a political landscape studded with walled cities and stockaded towns that severely circumscribed the scope of raiding armies. In such circumstances, the discovery of a technique of starving such cities and towns into surrender would have been a valuable innovation indeed and what should be noted particularly about it was its persistent, enduring quality- the investment of adequate effort over a sufficient period of time to reduce the enemy to submission.”
[2]
“Households were grouped into political and administrative units, the smallest of which were wards or hamlets. Wards were grouped into villages or cities, these into districts (comprising non-contiguous administrative units), and the totality of districts formed the state. The state was governed by a group of individuals whom we shall call the ruling class, almost all of whom lived in the capital, Birni Gazargamu before the nineteenth century, and Kukawa during the nineteenth century. The ruling class comprised the king (Mai or Shehu), the royal family, free courtiers (both titled and non-titled), and the royal slaves.”
[3]
[1]: GAVIN, R. J. (1979). Some Perspectives on Nigerian History. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 9(4), 15–38: 22. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BPED9ADF/collection [2]: GAVIN, R. J. (1979). Some Perspectives on Nigerian History. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 9(4), 15–38: 22-23. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BPED9ADF/collection [3]: Brenner, Louis. “SOURCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT IN BORNO.” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 7, no. 1, 1973, pp. 49–65: 51. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BGCV72TB/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Cities, 2) major towns, 3) minor towns, 4) villages. “Although the nature of pre Dahomean settlement on the plateau is poorly understood, it is clear that by the 18th century two Dahomean cities rose to dominance across the region: Abomey and Cana. Abomey, an expansive community settled around a marketplace and a series of royal palace compounds, emerged as greater Dahomey’s political capital and home to as many as 30,000 in the 18th century. Nearby Cana also became a significant center on the plateau in this period. It was a major node in regional administration and interregional trade routes, with significant regional markets and as many as 15,000 inhabitants in the 18th century.”
[1]
“Additionally, whereas eighteenth-century sources are relatively silent on the nature of regional governance, by the nineteenth century, towns throughout Dahomey were clearly managed by officials sent from Abomey. Indeed, major centers like Whydah and Allada, as well as minor towns such as Whegbo, were divided into quarters, each of which was controlled by lower-ranking officials36 ’who regulate their own departments, and distribute justice except in some extraordinary cases which are referred to Abomey’.”
[2]
“The fundamental unit of Dahomean society was the patrilineal joint, or extended family, the immediate locus of social production and biological reproduction, the center, in short, of the domestic economy. Each extended family, consisting of a man, his wives, his children, his younger brothers and their children, occupied a family compound, the subsistence base of which was its fields. A series of these compounds comprised a village. Historically, it is probable that all of the joint families in a given village were related through the patrilineal line, forming a localized patrilineal clan.”
[3]
[1]: Monroe, J. C. (2011). Urbanism on West Africa’s Slave Coast: Archaeology sheds new light on cities in the era of the Atlantic slave trade. American Scientist, 99(5), 400–409: 406. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E5WA63Z2/collection [2]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 355. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection [3]: Diamond, S. (1996). DAHOMEY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTO-STATE: An Essay in Historical Reconstruction. Dialectical Anthropology, 21(2), 121–216: 16.https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MW2G58RP/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Capital/cities, 2) towns, 3) villages. “The great majority of its inhabitants spoke Edo, the language of Benin City, with negligible dialect variations, but there were Ibo settlements on the eastern borders, Itsekiri and Ijaw lining the rivers in the south-west, and Yoruba villages on the north-west”.
[1]
“The village was made up of a number of households containing simple, compound and patrilineally extended families.”
[2]
“For administrative purposes the Oba’s domains were divided not into major provinces but into a large number of tribute units—single villages, village groups, and chiefdoms. Most of these ‘fiefs’ (as for convenience sake we may call them) served the Oba through the agency of one of his appointed counsellors of the Palace or Town orders, but other fief-holders included the hereditary Uzama nobles, the Iyɔba (Oba’s mother), Edaikɛn (Oba’s heir), non-titled palace retainers, and, it is said, some of the Oba’s wives.”
[3]
In Benin City: “Within the wall the town was divided into two unequal parts by a long, broad avenue running approximately north-west to south-east. This spatial division corresponded to a Palace/Town dichotomy of great political significance. Ogbe, the smaller area to the south-west, contained the Oba’s palace (Ɛguae-Ɔba) and the houses of most of his Palace Chiefs (Eghaɛbho n’Ogbe). In Orenokhua, to the north-east, lived the Town Chiefs (Eghaɛbho n’Ore) and here, too, were located most of the wards of occupational specialists.”
[4]
[1]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 3. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [2]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 8. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [3]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 10–11. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [4]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 12. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection |
||||||
|
1) Towns, 2) Villages, 3) Hamlets. Kwararafa is described as a city, but though Wukari was its successor as capital, it’s still described as a town. “Two theories have been put forward to identify the region of Nigeria which formed the first power base of the Jukun people. The first suggests that it was on the middle Benue basin, south of the river channel, that the Jukun established the Kwararafa empire often mentioned in traditional Hausa texts. Ruins of the city, which went under the name of Kwararafa, can still be seen in the area. Kwararafa is the Hausa name for the Jukun people and their capital, as well as for their kingdom. When the city was abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, its still-extant successor town, Wukari, grew up in the same region.”
[1]
“Amongst the other Jukun groups of Ibi, Takum, Ussa and Donga, the Wukari Division, no clear knowledge of the meaning of Wukari, except that it was understood to be the capital town of all Jukun people.”
[2]
This warrant is from a few months after Wukari fell under British rule, but its reference to towns, villages and hamlets is probably still relevant to the Wukari period: “Under the power conferred on me by the proclamation No.5, 1900, I, Williams Petch Hewby, Resident of the Upper Benue, do hereby establish a native court at Wukari, with power in accordance with the said proclamation to hear and decide civil and criminal actions between natives within the jurisdiction of the court; which for the present shall be exercised in the town of Wukari; the town of Akwana; all (some 20-25 miles) Jukun villages east of Katsina Ala river on the left bank of the river Benue, (excepting the four villages on the bank of the Benue, viz Sinka, Gidan Wurbo, Osebefu and Gidan Yaku), including all their outlying farm hamlets; and in such of the Deyin [Chamba] and Musi [Tiv] villages lying to the southward and westward of Wukari in Wukari territory as may be practicable under existing circumstances. The court shall consist of the following: President: the present chief Agudu Mallam [Awudumanu] Judge, The Kinda Ajo [Kinda Achuwo] Judge, Abu dan Ashu mallam [Agbu Ashumanu] Judge, Alkali Sualu [Salau] Judge, Audu dan Zenua Scribe, Mallam Diko given under my hand at Wukari this fifth day of April, 1900. (Sign) W.P. Hewb Resident.”
[3]
[1]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann ; University of California Press: 281. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [2]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 65. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection [3]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 142. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :2. Other large centers. ::“In the intervening fertile region of Cayor lie several large centres of population such as Mpal, surrounded by plantations of ground nuts, Luga father south, and Mdaud, the old capital of the Kingdom of Cayor.”
[1]
::3. Villages- “The Damel of Kajoor, for example, had his own stable exclusively of Barbary horses. These would have been used by the slave soldiers of the Damel to carry out raids against villages within Kajoor and on the borders of neighbouring states.”
[2]
[1]: (Reclus 1892, 159) Reclus, Elisee et al. 1892. The Earth and Its Inhabitants: West Africa. New York: D. Appleton and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2494BGCZ/collection [2]: (Webb Jr 1993, 234) Webb Jr, James L.A. 1993. ‘The Horse and Slave Trade between the Western Sahara and Senegambia.’ Journal of African History. Vol. 34:2. Pp 221-246. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JDZFX3SC/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Capital- “Kahone was the capital of the Kingdom of Saloum from the mid-sixteenth to the late nineteenth century.”
[1]
:2. Towns (inferred) ::3. Villages
[1]: (Bigon and Ross 2020, 42) Bigon, Liora and Ross, Eric. 2020. Grid Planning in the Urban Design Practices of Senegal. London: Springer. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MM67I638/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Royal capital - “Fifty kilometres to its north, Lambaye was the capital of the Kingdom of Baol from the mid-sixteenth to the late nineteenth century.”
[1]
:2. Secondary political centers ::“ Beyond these royal capital, secondary political centers developed, such as Kaba in Baol. This village was crossed by one of the ancient slave routes that started in Portudal, the principal trading point for the area, and ended at Lambaye, the chief town of the kingdom.”
[2]
::3. Lesser towns (inferred) :::4. Villages (inferred)
[1]: (Bigon and Ross 2020, 42) Bigon, Liora and Ross, Eric. 2020. Grid Planning in the Urban Design Practices of Senegal. London: Springer. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MM67I638/collection [2]: (Gueye 2003, 54) Gueye, Adama. 2003. ‘The Impact of the Slave Trade on Cayor and Baol: Mutations in Habitat and Land Occupancy’ In Fighting the Slave Trade: West African Strategies. Edited by Sylviane A. Diouf. Athens: Ohio University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/RBB5G77X/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Two levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources: Capital and villages. Due to the presence of capitals and villages within the Kingdom of Sine, it seems reasonable to infer the presence of towns and hamlets also within the kingdom.Capital- “Diakhao was the capital of the Kingdom of Sine from the mid-sixteenth to late nineteenth century.”
[1]
Town (inferred) Villages- “Burials of important people such as lamaan (lineage chief), saltigue (rainmaker) and kumax (leader of the male initiation society) involved several villages and ages, resulting in impressive earthen tumuli several metres high. The deceased was buried with his or her utilitarian possessions, and offerings were deposited on top of the graves.”
[2]
Hamlet (Inferred)
[1]: (Bigon and Ross 2020, 42) Bigon, Liora and Ross, Eric. 2020. Grid Planning in the Urban Design Practices of Senegal. London: Springer. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MM67I638/collection [2]: (Thiaw 2013, 100) Thiaw, Ibrahima. 2013. ‘From the Senegal River to Siin: The Archaeology of Sereer Migrations in North-Western Senegambia. In Migration and Membership Regimes in Global and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Ulbe Bosma. Leiden: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Q2ZFJKTJ/collection |
||||||
|
1.Capital :“Finally, the jogomaay, who had as its own state the village of Tungen in Jurbel, the capital, was personally tied to the brak. All the meetings, and all receptions at the court, were conducted in the home of the jogomaay.”
[1]
:2. Town ::3. Village :::“The kangam, below the royal family, provided the chiefs for the great territorial units, the districts or the villages.”
[2]
[1]: (Barry 2012, 46) Barry, Boubacar. 2012. The Kingdom of Waalo: Senegal Before the Conquest. New York: Diasporic Africa Press. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9KV5MEKN/collection [2]: (Barry 2012, 34) Barry, Boubacar. 2012. The Kingdom of Waalo: Senegal Before the Conquest. New York: Diasporic Africa Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9KV5MEKN/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“Mbakhol was the earliest Wolofiezed Mandinka center, far from the then prominent Jolof capital of Yangyang, the emerging capitals of Mbul, Lambaye and Kahone and the trade routes linking them to the rivers and seaports.”
[1]
:2. Towns (inferred) ::3. Villages – “A village or provincial lord was very anxious to have all of the craft castes represented in his domain and rewarded ‘his’ nenyo with generous gifts.”
[2]
[1]: (Colvin 1986, 68) Colvin, Lucie G. 1986. ‘The Shaykh’s Men: Religion and Power in Senegambian Islam.’ Asian and African Studies. Vol. 20:1 Pp. 61-71. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/GZTDTN6Q/collection [2]: (Colvin 1986, 65) Colvin, Lucie G. 1986. ‘The Shaykh’s Men: Religion and Power in Senegambian Islam.’ Asian and African Studies. Vol. 20:1 Pp. 61-71. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/GZTDTN6Q/collection |
||||||
|
levels. "All such roads led to the capital, which at this time was at a place called Bandabalogo just to the east of modern Kampala. Here, quite exceptionally in the interior of East Africa, was an undoubted town, a well-laid-out mass of thatched huts that housed palace officials, soldiers, artisans, the scores of royal wives and the thousands of other women who kept the court supplied and served, as well as a floating population of corvee labourers and of provincial chiefs, who were required to spend part of their time under the king’s eye. [...] Like most East Africans, the Ganda did not live in nucleated villages but in homesteads scattered about the countryside, often irregularly strung out along a path that traversed the side of a hill. These were dwellings of the ba-kopi, a term usually rendered as ’peasants’ but more suitably as ’commoners’ or ’ordinary people’. [...] At intervals there were somewhat larger groups of huts, including one that was bigger and better built than the rest. Here lived a chief, with his several wives, servants and hangers-on, sometimes known as the ’people of the reed fence’, this being the feature that most clearly distinguished the home of a mwami."
[1]
[1]: (Wrigley 2002: 59-62) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DNKVW9WZ/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels.1. Capital :"The court reminds one of a city: a large agglomeration with specialized functions, not just a political and spiritual center, but also a manufacturing hub where objects in metal, wood, bark cloth, and plaited stuffs were produced, where one found feathered arrows, game from hunts or from trapping, ceramics, tanned leather, blocks of vegetable salt, and construction teams. It was also an economic center where wealth flowed in the form of cattle that collected and redistributed in the name of the king. But the court was not a city in that it was ambulant."
[1]
:2. Residences of wives ::3. Residences of maids :::"The king personally controlled only a few small districts. When he shifted the capital he sometimes turned over the management of the residence he was leaving to one of his wives or even to a woman servant. In that case, the place became a permanent residence (umurwa) managed by a spouse or a servant maid (umuja) who was aided by a representative of the king. The king expropriated the lands of the hill on which the residence was located and sometimes even the lands of the surrounding hills. In return, each residence had to supply a large portion of the corvée labor or goods needed by the court. In the nineteenth century (and even perhaps as early as the seventeenth), a distinction was made between residences of wives, which were exempted from having to provide any tribute or corvée labor to the court, and residences of maids, which had to supply them."
[2]
:2. Headquarters of provincial chiefs and ritualist leaders ::3. Isolated homesteads :::Referring to the Interlacustrine States generally: "Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[3]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 81) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 63-64) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [3]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[1]
NB The following quote suggests no significant centralization before the 18th century: "Indeed, considering what is recorded it seems fairly certain that following Nkuba’s consolidation of personal power over the Hima clans until the eventful reign of Ntare IV (1699-1727/26), the absence of historical information stems from the fact that few people in Ankole then or since would recognize the society of the first ten generations as either an historical or political unit much less as a state. Nkuba and his successors emerge dimly from the spare record as what Ruhinda himself was — a wandering herdsman and warrior. The Mugabe (king) of later years was at this stage merely the leading member of the central clan of a cluster of pastoral clans — the giver of gifts of cattle as his title literally implies rather than the monarch or ruler (Mukama) of a sovereign state."
[2]
[1]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. [2]: (Steinhart 1978: 136) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels.1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Capital :"Each new ruler was obliged to move to a new capital site on his accession and may have found it convenient to shift his capital to a more suitable grazing ground from time to time. Thus, while court attendance was encouraged, the capital did not emerge as an urban or administrative center, merely as the site of the large and prestigious royal kraal where other less imposing structures were erected."
[1]
:2. Intermediate level (perhaps?) ::3. Isolated homesteads :::"Residence patterns were generally based on scattered homesteads, not villages, a fact with far-reaching implications in terms of the kind of socio-political frameworks that evolved."
[2]
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Doornbos 1978: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ISMJWJ4U/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. Towns and Hamlets inferred due to the presence of capital, cities and villages. :1. Capital : “The Pandya dynasty was centered in the city of Madurai on the extreme southern coast of India.”
[1]
::2. Cities :: “From 7th to the 13th century, their capital was Madurai. Other important cities in the kingdom were the port cities, Kanyakumari, Kottalam and Suchindram.”
[2]
:::3. Towns (inferred) ::::4. Village :::: “The relief very likely represents a local legend associated with the village Govindaputtur on the northern bank of the river Kollidam (Coleroon) in Tamil Nadu. An ancient Saiva shrine, it was visited by Appar and Sambandar, two important Saiva saints who may have lived in the seventh century. Both recorded the local tradition of a cow attaining salvation at Govindaputtur by adorning the Sivalinga of the local temple known as Tiruvijayamangai.”
[3]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Middleton 2015, 716) 2015. ‘Pandya Dynasty’ In World Monarchies and Dynasties: Vol 1-3. Edited by John Middleton. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/BISZJCDB/collection [2]: (Kamlesh 2010, 596) Kamlesh, Kapur. 2010. ‘Pandya Dynasty’ In Portraits of a Nation: History of Ancient India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/3TS5DCT6/collection [3]: (Pal 1988, 259) Pal, Pratapadiya. 1988. Indian Sculpture: 700-1800 Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/GI668E2K/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels mentioned in the consulted sources. It is possible to infer the likelihood of towns and hamlets due to the presence of capital, city, and villages.:1. Capital : “The principality of the Cholas in the lower Kaveri valley corresponded roughly to modern Tanjore and Trichinopoly districts of Tamil Nadu, and had its capital at Uraiyur.”
[1]
::2. City :: “Kaveripumpattinam (also known as Pumpuhar or Puhar) was the premier Chola port in early historical times. Classical accounts refer to it as Kahberis or Camara. An entire Sangam collection-the Pattinappalai- is devoted to a description of this place. There are references to its two bustling markets laid out between the two sectors of the city, guarded by officers of the king, and to its inhabitants who spoke different languages.”
[2]
:::3. Town (inferred) ::::4. Village :::: “The land settlement in the Marudam [low land] region had the village form. Hence the village was primarily a settlement of peasants and the settlement remained a continuous process even in the medieval times.”
[3]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Singh 2008, 384) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. London: Pearson Education. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [2]: (Singh 2008, 402) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. London: Pearson Education. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [3]: (Kavitha 2011, 227) Kavitha, M. 2011 ‘Types of Land and Ownership Pattern in the Medieval Tamil Country- An Overview’ In History of People and Their Environs: Essays in Honour of Prof. B.S. Chandrababu. Edited by S. Ganeshram and C. Bhavani. Chennai: Indian Universities Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UTKHZNBJ/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three specific levels mentioned in the consulted sources. Towns and hamlets are inferred due to the presence of capital, city and villages. :1. Capital : “He was replaced in 1674 with a descendant of the nayaka of Thanjavur with the help of the Marathas under their leader Ekoji Bhonsle (around 1630-84), who, after initial conquests in South India, began to display an interest in developments there. A year later, Ekoji himself became the ruler of Thanjavur and established the Maratha dynasty of the Raja of Thanjavur.
[1]
::2. City (Port City) :: “The Dutch had the same benefit, far from the 1660s, they had increasingly begun to concentrate their attention on the far south, from their headquarters at Nagapattinam. This port was also in Maratha territory, for it was in the Thanjavur kingdom.”
[2]
:::3. Town (inferred) ::::4. Village :::: “The king [Shahji] gifted a village to 46 pandits of his court and named it Shanjirajapuram.”
[3]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Lieban 2018, 54) Lieban, Heike. 2018. Cultural Encounters in India: The Local Co-workers of Tranquebar Mission, 18th to 19th Centuries. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/32CRNR7U/collection [2]: (Seshan 2012, 37-38) Seshan, Radhika. 2012. Trade and Politics on the Coromandel Coast: Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries. Delhi: Primus Books. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/MF855FSF/collection [3]: (Appasamy 1980, 10) Appasamy, Jaya. 1980. Thanjavur Painting of the Maratha Period. Vol. 1. New Delhi. Abhinav Publications. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/35BU75NG/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. Cities and hamlets have been inferred due to the presence of capital, town and village.:1. Capital : “Under the Pandyas their capital Madurai and the Pandyan port Korkai were great centres of trade and commerce.”
[1]
::2. City (inferred) :::3. Town ::: “The Ur was a town which was various described as a big village (perur), a small village (sirur) or an old village (mudur). Cheri was the suburb of a town or village, while pakkam was a neighbouring area. Salai was the trunk road and teru the street in a town.”
[2]
::::4. Village :::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Agnihotri 1988, 351) Agnihotri, V.K. 1988. Indian History. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PNX9XBJQ/collection [2]: (Agnihotri 1988, 353) Agnihotri, V.K. 1988. Indian History. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PNX9XBJQ/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. Cities and hamlets inferred due to the presence of capital, towns, and villages. :1. Capital : “The Navaiyat dynasty came to power when Saadutullah Khan was appointed subadhar, or chief of military and revenue officer of the newly established Mughal subah of Arcot in 1710. The Navaiyats, wanting to take advantage of the relative weakness of the links to the Mughal centre, and wanting to carve out an independent dynastic rule for themselves, quickly fell into the traditional pattern of empire-building. They extended existing citadels like Vellore and Gingee by ‘importing’ North Indian traders, artisans and soldiers; they established a number of new market centres; they founded and endowed mosques; and they invited poets, artists and scholars and Sufi holy men to the new capital of Arcot.”
[1]
::2. City (inferred) :::3. Town ::: “There is some confirmation of Mohammad Ali’s respect for temples in Koyilolugu, the Srirangam temple chronicle. When, in 1759, the French attacked the temple town, they plundered Chitrai and Uttira streets. Burhan says that they ‘cut down the trees, destroyed, plundered and vacated the buildings and desecrated the temple.’ When the Nawab’s army reoccupied Srirangam, his officials were ordered to ‘rebuild, inhabit and fortyfy’ the temple.”
[2]
::::4. Village :::: “The nawab of Arcot had presided over an area with different administrative systems. In the southern areas—in Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Pudukkottai, etc.—the poligars had been required to collect tribute to the nawab. The poligar was obliged to provide food and goods for his soldiers in king rather than pay their wages in cash. Similarly the extraction of revenue was organized as a tribute in kind rather than a payment in cash. It was the job of the tax—collector (the village headman) to convert the tribute into cash, which had paved the way for a class of militant merchant-administrators. Thus violence, or the control of the means of violence, became the legitimate emblem of authority in the dry poligar areas.”
[1]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Bugge, 2020) Bugge, Henriette. 2020. Mission and Tamil Society: Social and Religious Change in South India (1840-1900). London: Routledge Curzon. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/9SKWNUF4/collection [2]: (Ramaswami 1984, 331) Ramaswami, N.S. 1984. Political History of Carnatic Under the Nawabs. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PTIS9MB4/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. Towns and Hamlets are inferred due to the presence of capital, city, and villages. :1.Capital :“Most of the lithic inscriptions are found on the sculpted walls of the temples especially in their capital city, Kanchipuram and the port city Mamallapuram.” “Most of the lithic inscriptions are found on the sculpted walls of the temples especially in their capital city, Kanchipuram and the port city Mamallapuram.”
[1]
::2. City :::3. Town (inferred) ::::4. Village ::::“Land grants and generous donations were given to educational institutions like Ghatikas and Mathas. Mathas were residential schools for early education. Ghatikas were centers for higher education, similar to modern day colleges. Inscriptions also reveal the names of the scholars and teachers who not only gave donations but taught various subjects such as Vedas, Vedangas, Itihasas, Puranas and various systems of philosophy. Bahur inscription records a land grant given by King Nriptunga Varman for a school at Bahur (the word Vidyasthana is used for school). The school was already well-established. Three villages were donated by the king. The learned men of the village controlled and maintained the institution. A wide variety of subjects were taught including subjects such as logic, Mimansa, Puranas, Vedangas, Sanskrit language, literature and grammar.”
[2]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Kamlesh 2010, 563) Kamelsh, Kapur. 2010. ‘The Pallava Dynasty’ In History of Ancient India: Portraits of a Nation. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UETBPIDE/collection [2]: (Kamlesh 2010, 572) Kamelsh, Kapur. 2010. ‘The Pallava Dynasty’ In History of Ancient India: Portraits of a Nation. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UETBPIDE/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Two levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources: Capital and villages. Due to the presence of capitals and villages within the Kalabhra Tamil region, it seems reasonable to infer the presence of towns and hamlets. :1. Capital :“The great ruler Acutavikranta Kalabhra ruled from Kaveripumpattinam in Tanjore district at the mouth of the river probably in the fourth century A.D. The second capital of the Kalabhras was at Madura.”
[1]
::2. Towns (inferred) :::3. Villages :::“The Kalabhra chiefs are called evil kings and are charged with the resumption of brahmadeya lands enjoyed by the beneficiaries. The Pandya inscription of the eight and ninth centuries speak of the loss of such lands in the wake of the Kalabhra aggression and also of the encroachment of the sudras on a donated village.”
[2]
::::4. Hamlets (inferred)
[1]: (Gupta 1989, 24) Gupta, Parmanand. 1989. Geography from Ancient Indian Coins and Seals. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/5Z4TFP7P/collection [2]: (Sharma 1988, 9) Sharma, R.S. 1988. ‘Problems of Peasant Protest in Early Medieval India’. Social Scientist. Vol. 16:9. Pp 3-16. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AV7FGCGM/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Two levels mentioned in the consulted sources. Towns and Hamlets are inferred due to the presence of capital and villages. :1. Capital : “In the Vijaynagar times, Thanjavur was ruled on its behalf by the Nayak dynasty from 1532 to 1676 AD. The Nayaks were closely connected to the Vijaynagar kings, and Raghunatha Nayak and Vijayaraghava Nayak did much to put Thanjavur on the cultural map.”
[1]
::2. Town (inferred) :::3. Village ::: “The following quote discusses an agreement between the Nayak of Thanjavur, Vijayaraghava, and the Dutch. “Apart from the above agreement, there is also an elaborate contract between Vijayaraghava Nayak and the Dutch inscribed on a silver plate in the Dravidian language Telugu. The Dutch ‘translation’ of the silver-plate grant of the Nayak Vijayaraghava, dated 24 December 1658, mentions that the following ten villages, which were originally belonging to the palli of the Portuguese, are given to the Dutch by Vijayaraghava.”
[2]
::::4. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Chakravarthy 2016, 78) Chakravarthy, Pradeep. 2016. ‘Thanjavur’s Sarasvati Muhal Library’ India International Centre Quarterly. Vol. 42:3/4. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/CU6HMURQ/collection [2]: (Menon 2001, 303) Menon. A.G. 2001. ‘Copper Plates to Silver Plates: Cholas, Dutch and Buddhism’ In Fruits of Inspiration: Studies in Honour of Prof. J.G. de Caparis. Leiden: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/FU8TFSTT/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted literature. City and hamlets are inferred due to the presence of capital, town, and village.:1. Capital : “The earliest organized missionary effort was made in the territory of the Nayaks of Madura, and their capital, Madura, itself constituted an important missionary centre, though it shared this honour very early with Trichinopoly.”
[1]
::2. City (inferred) :::3. Town ::: “Further, Muttu Krishnappa’s resources were devoted to objects of popular approval, as the building of pagodas, grants of agraharas, and construction of tanks. He is also said to have built a town called Krishapuram between Madura and Skandamalai, and a Siva temple at Kayathur.”
[2]
::::4. Village :::: “A copper plate inscription of 1560 records a grant of twelve villages in the Tinnevelly country by Visvanatha and Ariyanatha.”
[3]
:::::5. Hamlet (inferred)
[1]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 2) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databak/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection [2]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 92) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databak/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection [3]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 71) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databak/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
PROBLEMATIC_DESCRIPTION_FOUND levels._The UK_ : 1. Capital City : London is the imperial capital of the UK and of the British Empire. It was the centre of royal and governmental power. It was by far the most populated settlement in the UK. §REF§( :: 2. Major cities :: Cities such as York, Exeter, Cambridge and Ely in the UK were major centres of urban settlement. They housed a bishop with his seat as a cathedral. They were major points of trade, industry and had the highest number of inhabitants after London. ::: 3. Industrial towns :::: 4. Small towns ::::: 5. Villages :::::: 6. Hamlets _Territories, Domains and Colonies_ British India was divided into: :: 2. Provincial Capitals :: Capital cities in territories outside of the UK. The colonial government operated from this city/settlement. :::
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||