Settlement Hierarchy List
A viewset for viewing and editing Settlement Hierarchies.
GET /api/sc/settlement-hierarchies/?format=api&page=4
{ "count": 563, "next": "https://seshat-db.com/api/sc/settlement-hierarchies/?format=api&page=5", "previous": "https://seshat-db.com/api/sc/settlement-hierarchies/?format=api&page=3", "results": [ { "id": 151, "polity": { "id": 472, "name": "iq_so_mesopotamia_nl", "long_name": "Southern Mesopotamia Neolithic", "start_year": -9000, "end_year": -5501 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " levels. Nothing in the sources indicate a particularly elaborate settlement hierarchy." }, { "id": 152, "polity": { "id": 473, "name": "iq_ubaid", "long_name": "Ubaid", "start_year": -5500, "end_year": -4000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " 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. §REF§Stein 2010, 25§REF§§REF§Stein 1994, 38§REF§" }, { "id": 153, "polity": { "id": 477, "name": "iq_ur_dyn_3", "long_name": "Ur - Dynasty III", "start_year": -2112, "end_year": -2004 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels. §REF§Ur 2013, 143§REF§<br>1. Large cities2. smaller cities3. Towns4. Villages§REF§Ur 2013, 143§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 154, "polity": { "id": 474, "name": "iq_uruk", "long_name": "Uruk", "start_year": -4000, "end_year": -2900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels. cities (1), towns (2), villages (3), hamlets (4)§REF§Crawford 2004, 16§REF§§REF§Algaze 2012, 73§REF§; 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.§REF§Algaze 2012, 73-74§REF§" }, { "id": 155, "polity": { "id": 107, "name": "ir_achaemenid_emp", "long_name": "Achaemenid Empire", "start_year": -550, "end_year": -331 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 5, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": "Susa was the administrative capital. Persepolis was the ceremonial and religious center. Ecbatanna were commercial, strategic and provincial centers.§REF§(Farazmand 2001, 57) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.§REF§<br>1. Capital City.<br>2. Satrap capital.3. Provincial capital.4. Town.5. Village6. Hamlet" }, { "id": 156, "polity": { "id": 508, "name": "ir_ak_koyunlu", "long_name": "Ak Koyunlu", "start_year": 1339, "end_year": 1501 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>Towns and villages.§REF§(Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation</a>§REF§<br>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.\" §REF§(Woods 1998, 19)§REF§<br>1. Capital. Amid until 1467-1469 when it was replaced by Tabriz.<br>2. Provincial capitals3. Villages4. Hamlets<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Woods 1998, 41)§REF§" }, { "id": 157, "polity": { "id": 487, "name": "ir_susiana_archaic", "long_name": "Susiana - Muhammad Jaffar", "start_year": -7000, "end_year": -6000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>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.\"§REF§(Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§" }, { "id": 158, "polity": { "id": 495, "name": "ir_elam_1", "long_name": "Elam - Awan Dynasty I", "start_year": -2675, "end_year": -2100 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Schacht 1987, 175) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 159, "polity": { "id": 362, "name": "ir_buyid_confederation", "long_name": "Buyid Confederation", "start_year": 932, "end_year": 1062 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital city e.g. Shiraz or Baghdad<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Peacock 2015, 166) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press.§REF§<br>2. Regional capitals3. Cities4. Towns5. Villages<br>(6) Shiraz, (5) Baghdad, (4) regional capitals, (3) cities, (2) towns, (1) villages §REF§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§REF§ <i>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:</i>" }, { "id": 160, "polity": { "id": 507, "name": "ir_elymais_2", "long_name": "Elymais II", "start_year": 25, "end_year": 215 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. City - capital Susa<br>2. Large town (similar magnitude to Susa)3. Town4. Village<br>\"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.\"§REF§(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. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§<br>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.§REF§(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. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 161, "polity": { "id": 486, "name": "ir_susiana_formative", "long_name": "Formative Period", "start_year": -7200, "end_year": -7000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>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).\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 38) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>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.\"§REF§(Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§" }, { "id": 162, "polity": { "id": 172, "name": "ir_il_khanate", "long_name": "Ilkhanate", "start_year": 1256, "end_year": 1339 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Tabriz §REF§Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p.142.§REF§<br>2. Cities<br>\"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.\" §REF§Ann K. S. Lambton, 'ECONOMY v. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE END OF THE IL-KHANIDS (part 3)' <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-5-part2-islamic\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-5-part2-islamic</a>§REF§<br>3. Towns<br>4. Villages<br>5. Hamlets" }, { "id": 163, "polity": { "id": 488, "name": "ir_susiana_a", "long_name": "Susiana A", "start_year": -6000, "end_year": -5700 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>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.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 164, "polity": { "id": 489, "name": "ir_susiana_b", "long_name": "Susiana B", "start_year": -5700, "end_year": -5100 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Large village<br>2. Small village<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180)§REF§ 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.<br>" }, { "id": 165, "polity": { "id": 491, "name": "ir_susiana_ubaid_2", "long_name": "Susiana - Late Ubaid", "start_year": -4700, "end_year": -4300 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 40)§REF§\"At Choga Mish, buildings of the phase covered the entire site making it, at 11 hectares, the largest site of its time in Susiana.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 40)§REF§\"[…] 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.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 40-41)§REF§<br>1. Choga Mish - administrative or religious centre. 11 ha.<br>2. Smaller village<br>“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.” §REF§(Hole 1987, 97)§REF§<br>Number of sites in the Choga Mish period: 86 sites have been recorded. §REF§(Hole 1987, 42)§REF§" }, { "id": 166, "polity": { "id": 490, "name": "ir_susiana_ubaid_1", "long_name": "Susiana - Early Ubaid", "start_year": -5100, "end_year": -4700 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " 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.\" §REF§(Rothman 2001, 11-12)§REF§<br>1. Choga Mish (11ha)<br>2. Small villages (2ha or less)<br>Jaffarabad phase: Choga Mish 3.5-4.5 ha. Jaffarabad 2000sq m. Jovi 1 to 1.5 ha. §REF§(Hole 1987, 40)§REF§" }, { "id": 167, "polity": { "id": 499, "name": "ir_elam_5", "long_name": "Elam - Kidinuid Period", "start_year": -1500, "end_year": -1400 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the \"Ville Royale\" §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194§REF§<br>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. §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201§REF§ Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222§REF§3. Towns4. Villages<br>\"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 ...).\"§REF§(Schacht 1987, 180-181) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§" }, { "id": 168, "polity": { "id": 500, "name": "ir_elam_6", "long_name": "Elam - Igihalkid Period", "start_year": -1399, "end_year": -1200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the \"Ville Royale\" §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194§REF§<br>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. §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201§REF§ Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222§REF§3. Towns4. Villages<br>\"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 ...).\"§REF§(Schacht 1987, 180-181) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§" }, { "id": 169, "polity": { "id": 501, "name": "ir_elam_7", "long_name": "Elam - Shutrukid Period", "start_year": -1199, "end_year": -1100 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Large City - Susa - numerous buildings dated to Middle Elamite period including the \"Ville Royale\" §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.194§REF§<br>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. §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.196-201§REF§ Also Choga Zanbil, with ziggurat, palace and city wall §REF§Potts, D. T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.222§REF§3. Towns4. Village<br>" }, { "id": 170, "polity": { "id": 503, "name": "ir_neo_elam_1", "long_name": "Elam I", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -744 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " 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.<br>1. Large cities. Susa. Madaktu, identified as Tepe Patak, a 6 ha site, although this is debated §REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 272§REF§<br>2. Small cities. In his annals Sennacherib (an Assyrian king) describes destroying the 'strong cities' and the 'small cities' §REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 271§REF§. This infers heirarchy between different cities.3. towns4. villages<br>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).\" §REF§(Quintana 2011, 169-170)§REF§<br>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.\" §REF§(Quintana 2011, 170)§REF§" }, { "id": 171, "polity": { "id": 504, "name": "ir_neo_elam_2", "long_name": "Elam II", "start_year": -743, "end_year": -647 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Large cities. Susa. Madaktu, identified as Tepe Patak, a 6 ha site, although this is debated §REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 272§REF§<br>2. Small cities. In his annals Sennacherib (an Assyrian king) describes destroying the 'strong cities' and the 'small cities' §REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 271§REF§. This infers heirarchy between different cities.3. towns4. villages<br>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).\" §REF§(Quintana 2011, 169-170)§REF§<br>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.\" §REF§(Quintana 2011, 170)§REF§" }, { "id": 172, "polity": { "id": 125, "name": "ir_parthian_emp_1", "long_name": "Parthian Empire I", "start_year": -247, "end_year": 40 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": "1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)<br>2. Regional capitals<br>3. Towns<br>4. Villages<br>(5. Hamlets?)" }, { "id": 173, "polity": { "id": 483, "name": "iq_parthian_emp_2", "long_name": "Parthian Empire II", "start_year": 41, "end_year": 226 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": "1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)<br>2. Regional capitals<br>3. Towns<br>4. Villages<br>(5. Hamlets?)" }, { "id": 174, "polity": { "id": 485, "name": "ir_susiana_pre_ceramic", "long_name": "Pre-Ceramic Period", "start_year": -7800, "end_year": -7200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Villages<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Alizadeh 2003, 8)§REF§<br>Incipient food production in Khuzistan, Bus Mordeh period 7500-6500 BCE.§REF§(Leverani 2014, 34) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>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.\"§REF§(Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 175, "polity": { "id": 509, "name": "ir_qajar_dyn", "long_name": "Qajar Dynasty", "start_year": 1794, "end_year": 1925 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 5, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital<br>2. Other large cities3. Towns4. Villages5." }, { "id": 176, "polity": { "id": 374, "name": "ir_safavid_emp", "long_name": "Safavid Empire", "start_year": 1501, "end_year": 1722 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>Under Shah Abbas Isfahan’s population grew to 200, 000 §REF§Blow, David. Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009, p.193.§REF§ 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.” §REF§Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids</a>.§REF§<br>1. Large cities e.g Isfahan and Tabriz.<br>2. Small cities e.g. Kashan and Shiraz.<br>3. Towns<br>4. Villages<br>(5. Hamlets)" }, { "id": 177, "polity": { "id": 128, "name": "ir_sassanid_emp_1", "long_name": "Sasanid Empire I", "start_year": 205, "end_year": 487 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 5, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": "§REF§(Daryaee 2009, 124-135) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London.§REF§<br>1. Capital<br>2. Provincial capitals<br>3. District capitals (shahrestan)<br>4. Large towns<br>5. Villages<br>(6. Hamlets)<br>" }, { "id": 178, "polity": { "id": 130, "name": "ir_sassanid_emp_2", "long_name": "Sasanid Empire II", "start_year": 488, "end_year": 642 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 6, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": "§REF§(Daryaee 2009, 124-135, 148) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London.§REF§<br>1. Capital<br>2. Provincial capitals<br>3. District capitals (shahrestan)<br>4. Large towns<br>5. Villages<br>6. Nomadic fiefs (Late Sasanian period nomads given fiefs in return for military service)." }, { "id": 179, "polity": { "id": 108, "name": "ir_seleucid_emp", "long_name": "Seleucid Empire", "start_year": -312, "end_year": -63 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 6, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital (50,000-100,000 inhabitants), at Seleucid-on-the Tigris. §REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p94§REF§<br>2. Major city (20,000-50,000 inhabitants) (e.g.Seleukeia-Pieria, 250-300ha; Antioch, 225ha; Apameia, 205-255ha; Laodikeia, 220ha) §REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p92-3§REF§3. Large city (10,000-20,000 inhabitants) (e.g. Kyrrhos, Chalkis, Beroia and Seleukeia-Zeugma, 65-100ha) §REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p92-3§REF§4. Small city (5,000-10,000 inhabitants) (e.g. Doura-Europos, Djebel Khaled)§REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p92-3§REF§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)§REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p110§REF§" }, { "id": 180, "polity": { "id": 364, "name": "ir_seljuk_sultanate", "long_name": "Seljuk Sultanate", "start_year": 1037, "end_year": 1157 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>\"Satellite towns and villages like those that surrounded Merv were to be found at all the other metropolitan centers.\"§REF§(Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton.§REF§<br>1. Capital<br>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. §REF§Daniela Meneghini 'SALJUQS v. SALJUQID LITERATURE' <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-v\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-v</a>§REF§<br>3. Town4. Villagee.g. the villages outside Isfahan §REF§Golombek, Lisa. “Urban Patterns in Pre-Safavid Isfahan.” Iranian Studies 7, no. 1/2 (January 1, 1974): 20-24.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 181, "polity": { "id": 496, "name": "ir_elam_2", "long_name": "Elam - Shimashki Period", "start_year": -2028, "end_year": -1940 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 3, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>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.§REF§(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.§REF§" }, { "id": 182, "polity": { "id": 497, "name": "ir_elam_3", "long_name": "Elam - Early Sukkalmah", "start_year": -1900, "end_year": -1701 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital. Susa<br>2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets." }, { "id": 183, "polity": { "id": 498, "name": "ir_elam_4", "long_name": "Elam - Late Sukkalmah", "start_year": -1700, "end_year": -1500 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital. Susa<br>2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets." }, { "id": 184, "polity": { "id": 492, "name": "ir_susa_1", "long_name": "Susa I", "start_year": -4300, "end_year": -3800 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 3, "comment": null, "description": " 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.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 92)§REF§<br>1. Susa<br>2. Agricultural villages and herding camps3. Khan's houses, craft manufactories and trading posts.<br>Number of sites in Susiana §REF§(Hole 1987, 42)§REF§:<br>Early Susa Phase: 58<br>Late Susa Phase: 31<br>Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE): 18<br>\"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).\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 42)§REF§<br>\"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.§REF§(Potts 1999, 49-50)§REF§<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 43)§REF§<br>\"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.\" §REF§(Hole 1987, 43)§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 185, "polity": { "id": 493, "name": "ir_susa_2", "long_name": "Susa II", "start_year": -3800, "end_year": -3100 }, "year_from": -3800, "year_to": -3501, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 3, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>Early Uruk = 3<br>\"The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center.<br>1. Large center<br>2. Small center3. Village<br>Uruk period = 4<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§<br>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).\" §REF§(Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181)§REF§<br>1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha.<br>2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village<br>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.§REF§(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.§REF§" }, { "id": 186, "polity": { "id": 493, "name": "ir_susa_2", "long_name": "Susa II", "start_year": -3800, "end_year": -3100 }, "year_from": -3500, "year_to": -3101, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>Early Uruk = 3<br>\"The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center.<br>1. Large center<br>2. Small center3. Village<br>Uruk period = 4<br>\"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.\"§REF§(Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.§REF§<br>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).\" §REF§(Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181)§REF§<br>1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha.<br>2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village<br>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.§REF§(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.§REF§" }, { "id": 187, "polity": { "id": 494, "name": "ir_susa_3", "long_name": "Susa III", "start_year": -3100, "end_year": -2675 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 3, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Center - Susa<br>2. Villages3. Other sites<br>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.\"§REF§(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.§REF§" }, { "id": 188, "polity": { "id": 115, "name": "is_icelandic_commonwealth", "long_name": "Icelandic Commonwealth", "start_year": 930, "end_year": 1262 }, "year_from": 930, "year_to": 1050, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels<br>(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families<br>'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.' §REF§Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ '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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland</a>§REF§ '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).' §REF§Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181§REF§ 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).' §REF§Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246§REF§ 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.' §REF§Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179§REF§" }, { "id": 189, "polity": { "id": 115, "name": "is_icelandic_commonwealth", "long_name": "Icelandic Commonwealth", "start_year": 930, "end_year": 1262 }, "year_from": 1051, "year_to": 1200, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 2, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 2, "comment": null, "description": " levels<br>(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families<br>'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.' §REF§Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ '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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland</a>§REF§ '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).' §REF§Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181§REF§ 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).' §REF§Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246§REF§ 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.' §REF§Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179§REF§" }, { "id": 190, "polity": { "id": 115, "name": "is_icelandic_commonwealth", "long_name": "Icelandic Commonwealth", "start_year": 930, "end_year": 1262 }, "year_from": 1201, "year_to": 1262, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 3, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 3, "comment": null, "description": " levels<br>(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families<br>'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.' §REF§Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ '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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ 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.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland</a>§REF§ '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).' §REF§Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181§REF§ 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).' §REF§Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246§REF§ 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.' §REF§Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179§REF§" }, { "id": 191, "polity": { "id": 179, "name": "it_latium_ba", "long_name": "Latium - Bronze Age", "start_year": -1800, "end_year": -900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels. Cornell writes that \"nothing larger than a small village has been detected\" §REF§T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (1995), p. 32§REF§." }, { "id": 192, "polity": { "id": 178, "name": "it_latium_ca", "long_name": "Latium - Copper Age", "start_year": -3600, "end_year": -1800 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels. probably unknown<br>Copper Age settlements are \"archaeologically invisible\" §REF§J. Robb, Violence and Gender in Early Italy, in D.L. Martin and D.W. Frayer, Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past (1997), pp. 111-144§REF§." }, { "id": 193, "polity": { "id": 180, "name": "it_latium_ia", "long_name": "Latium - Iron Age", "start_year": -1000, "end_year": -580 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 1, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 1, "comment": null, "description": " levels." }, { "id": 194, "polity": { "id": 186, "name": "it_ostrogoth_k", "long_name": "Ostrogothic Kingdom", "start_year": 489, "end_year": 554 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 6, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": "1. Capital, Ravenna.<br>2. Provincial capitals\"The principal city in Dalmatia was Salona, where the comes and Gothic garrison resided.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 174)§REF§<br>3. Municipia4. Tributary communities, not necessarily urbanized5. Village/vici6. pagi (rural settlements).<br>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.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 117)§REF§" }, { "id": 195, "polity": { "id": 189, "name": "it_st_peter_rep_2", "long_name": "Rome - Republic of St Peter II", "start_year": 904, "end_year": 1198 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 5, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": "1. Rome - capital<br>35,000 inhabitants or more: Rome, maybe Bologna§REF§Bairoch, et. al., 41§REF§<br>2. Other large city - Ravenna, Viterbo, Orvieto10,0000-35,000 inhabitants: Ravenna, Viterbo, Orvieto§REF§Lansing, 18, estimates the population of Orvieto and its <i>contado</i>, 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§REF§<br>3. Regional cityAlbano 5,000-10,000 inhabitants<br>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.<br>5. castelli and castra10-100 inhabitants: <i>castelli</i> and <i>castra</i>: 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.§REF§See, in general, Toubert (1977), 91-93§REF§ Examples from Lazio in this period include Tusculo.§REF§Toubert (1977), 196§REF§<br>Although there were some fortified settlements (<i>oppida</i>) in Lazio before the 10th century, castles begin to appear in the documents from the 930s: Montorio was founded in 934, Bocchignano in 939.§REF§Wickham )2015), 43§REF§ 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.§REF§Wickham (2015), 44§REF§" }, { "id": 196, "polity": { "id": 190, "name": "it_papal_state_1", "long_name": "Papal States - High Medieval Period", "start_year": 1198, "end_year": 1309 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": "1. Capital, Rome<br><br>2. City in provinces/dutchies<br>3. Towns<br>4. Villages" }, { "id": 197, "polity": { "id": 192, "name": "it_papal_state_3", "long_name": "Papal States - Early Modern Period I", "start_year": 1527, "end_year": 1648 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " levels. The papal palace complexes within Rome; Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Ancona); towns; villages<br>Papal palace complexes: The papal palaces in Rome-especially the Lateran and the Vatican-contained increasingly large bureaucracies.<br>1. Rome: The largest city of the Papal States; although the 1527 sack reduced the population, the city quickly recovered.<br>2. Large provincial cities: Bologna, Ancona, Ferrara.<br>3. Towns: Provincial centers such as Perugia served as administrative centers for provincial government.<br>4. Villages: Market towns such as Norcia." }, { "id": 198, "polity": { "id": 193, "name": "it_papal_state_4", "long_name": "Papal States - Early Modern Period II", "start_year": 1648, "end_year": 1809 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 4, "comment": null, "description": " Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Perugia); towns; villages<br>1. Rome: Rome contained around 160,000 people by 1750, and was unquestionably the largest city of the papal states.§REF§Marino, 66§REF§ Marino has described it as a parasitic city with no productive base.<br>2. Large provincial cities: Bologna (65,000 inhabitants in 1718;§REF§Carpanetto and Ricuperati, 16§REF§70,964 inhabitants in 1791§REF§Beloch, 240§REF§)<br>3. towns: Provincial centers such as Perugia (which contained around 17,385 people in 1656§REF§Black, 219§REF§ and 13,997 people in 1736§REF§Bairoch, 230§REF§ served as administrative centers for provincial government.<br>4. villages: Market towns such as Norcia, with 2146 residents in 1736§REF§Beloch, 230§REF§ Ancona, which held 20,000 people in the mid-seventeenth century, had declined to about 7,000 inhabitants around 1700,§REF§Carpanetto and Ricuperati, 16§REF§ following papal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities there." }, { "id": 199, "polity": { "id": 191, "name": "it_papal_state_2", "long_name": "Papal States - Renaissance Period", "start_year": 1378, "end_year": 1527 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 4, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 5, "comment": null, "description": " The papal palace complexes within Rome; Rome; large provincial cities (Bologna, Perugia); towns; villages<br>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.<br>1. Rome: Rome contained between 30,000 and 55,000 people during this period, and was unquestionably the largest city of the papal states.<br>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.§REF§Partner, 408-420, for Bologna during this period§REF§<br>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.<br>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.<br>(5. Hamlets)" }, { "id": 200, "polity": { "id": 187, "name": "it_ravenna_exarchate", "long_name": "Exarchate of Ravenna", "start_year": 568, "end_year": 751 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Settlement_hierarchy", "settlement_hierarchy_from": 6, "settlement_hierarchy_to": 6, "comment": null, "description": " levels.<br>1. Capital - Ravenna<br>2. Capital of DutchyNew provincial organization had provincial capitals, e.g. Rimini §REF§(Hutton 1926)§REF§<br>3. Other cities in Dutchy4. Towns5. Villages / vici6. Hamlets / pagi" } ] }