| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
km^2
|
||||||
|
km^2
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 3500 km in 1150 BCE and 5500 km in 650 BCE measured from the approx. extent of surveyed and excavated settlements in the NGA.
[1]
[2]
[3]
However, the entire NGA did not correspond to a single unitary polity.
[1]: Tolstoy, Paul, Suzanne K. Fish, Martin W. Boksenbaum, Kathryn Blair Vaughn and C. Earle Smith. (1977). "Early Sedentary Communities of the Basin of Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology, 4(1): 91-106. [2]: Tolstoy, Paul. (1975) "Settlement and Population Trends in the Basin of Mexico (Ixtapaluca and Zacatenco Phases)" Journal of Field Archaeology, 2(4): 331-349. [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. 94-6. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 3500 km in 1150 BCE and 5500 km in 650 BCE measured from the approx. extent of surveyed and excavated settlements in the NGA.
[1]
[2]
[3]
However, the entire NGA did not correspond to a single unitary polity.
[1]: Tolstoy, Paul, Suzanne K. Fish, Martin W. Boksenbaum, Kathryn Blair Vaughn and C. Earle Smith. (1977). "Early Sedentary Communities of the Basin of Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology, 4(1): 91-106. [2]: Tolstoy, Paul. (1975) "Settlement and Population Trends in the Basin of Mexico (Ixtapaluca and Zacatenco Phases)" Journal of Field Archaeology, 2(4): 331-349. [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. 94-6. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. During the Late Formative (c. 650-200 BC), MxFormL includes the regions of Cuauhtitlan, Teotihuacan, Texcoco, Ixtapalapa, and its center of gravity in the Chalco region. The area of the Cuicuilco polity in the southwest Basin of Mexico (Tacuba and Xochimilco) and the uninhabited northern regions (Zumpango and Temascalapa) are the only parts of the Late Formative Basin of Mexico NGA not included in the MxFormL quasi-polity. Although these are discrete settlement clusters with spatial buffer zones between them, the entire 2250 km2 area outlined in red in the Terminal Formative Map was designated the maximal area of the MxFormL quasi-polity. The date range c.650-400 BC was chosen for this maximal territory because it safely precedes the suggested period of Cuicuilco’s territorial expansion c.400-1 BCE. The chronology and characteristics of Cuicuilco’s expansion (c.400-1 BCE) and Teotihuacan’s expansion (c.200-1 BCE) are very poorly understood beyond the general scholarly consensus that the Basin of Mexico was entirely divided between Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan by sometime in the Terminal Formative.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[1]: Cowgill, George L. (2015). Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.41-60. [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. [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. [6]: Brumfiel, Elizabeth. (1976). "Regional growth in the Eastern Valley of Mexico: A test of the “Population Pressure” hypothesis." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 234-249. [7]: Spencer, Charles S., & Redmond, Elsa M. (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 173-199. [8]: González de la Vara, Fernán. (1999). El valle de Toluca hasta la caída de Teotihuacan. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, pp.72-74,109-122, 147-189. [9]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51. [10]: 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. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. During the Terminal Formative (c.200-1 BC), MxFormT includes at least parts of the regions of Cuauhtitlan, Texcoco, Ixtapalapa, and Chalco. The territory of Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan hegemony is very poorly understood during the Terminal Formative, and it is possible that the entire Basin of Mexico was controlled by the two polities at this time. Prominent excavated sites of the MxFormT quasi-polity include Tlapacoya, Temamatla, Torremote-Tlaltenco, Loma Torremote, Cuanalan, and Tezoyuca.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Valley of Mexico = 7,260 square km + Aztec Central Mexico = 20,810 square km.
[1]
[1]: (Smith 1996: 62) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6XJ65SKB |
||||||
|
square kilometers. The area of the entire Big Island is 10,432 km², but it is unclear what the size of the ‘typical’ polity in this quasi-polity would be. "Hawaii 1 is very difficult to say, but most likely to have been several independent polities--maybe as many as 5 or 6."
[1]
[1]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication) |
||||||
|
in square kilometers. During the reign of ‘Umi, the island had a single polity, so the area would be 10,432 (the entire Big Island) for the approximate period of his reign, 1550-1590
[1]
. During the rest of this time period, there were two or three polities. Thus, polity territory fluctuated between one-third and all of island. "Hawaii 1 is very difficult to say, but most likely to have been several independent polities--maybe as many as 5 or 6.’Umi-a-Liloa is said to have been the first to consolidate all of these into one island-wide polity, and he is dated genealogical estimation to ca. AD 1570-1590, toward the end of your Hawaii2 period."
[2]
Between 3 and 6 polities for the revised Hawaii2 period finishing at 1580 CE? Fluctuating between 1/6 and 1/3 of the island? AD.
[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 92, 98. [2]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication) |
||||||
|
To account for a range of polity sizes.10,432- the entire Big Island“By the late seventeenth century, four main polities had emerged, focused on the main islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i, with the fought-over smaller islands being incorporated into one or another of the main units. However, the political dynamism of Hawai’i [the archipelago] in late prehistoric and early historic times emanated primarily from the two largest and youngest islands, Maui and Hawai’i….The Maui and Hawai’i chiefs coveted the generously endowed production systems based on irrigation that these western islands offered. Not long before Cook’s fateful visit in 1778-79, the Maui paramount Kahekili expanded his polity to encompass all of the islands to the west and was engaged in a fierce succession of wars with his arch-rival Kalani’ōpu’u of Hawai’i. After the fateful encounter with the West, Kalani’ōpu’u’s successor—the famous Kamehameha I—made shrewd use of Western arms to incorporate the entire archipelago under his hegemony.”
[1]
[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 300. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 10,832: 1778 ce; 4,173: 1782 ce; 6,259: 1790 ce; 10,432: 1791 ce; 14,988: 1795 ce; 16,624:1810-1819ce. In 1778, Kalani’ōpu’u controlled all of Hawai’i Island, plus the Hana district of Maui (it is unclear exactly how much land the Hana district occupies, so I have estimated 400 square km [about a fifth of the island of Mau’i] and added that to the area of Hawai’i Island). In 1782, Kamehameha held Kona, Kohala, and some of Hamakua - I have estimated these holdings as 40% of the area of the island. He added Puna in 1790, making his holdings 60% of the island (my estimate). He added the rest of Hawai’i Island in 1791; Mau’i, Moloka’i, O’ahu, Lana’I, and Kaho’olawe in 1795; and Kaua’i and Ni’ihau in 1810, thus controlling the entire archipelago (excepting of course the very small, distant, uninhabited islands to the northwest which are technically part of the “Hawaiian Islands”).
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Hawaii “consists of eight main islands and numerous smaller islets of coral and volcanic origin. Situated in the central Pacific Ocean, 2400 miles from San Francisco, the Hawaiian archipelago has an area of 6,450 sq. mi.”
[1]
[1]: (Čuhaj 2012: 1213) Čuhaj, George S. ed. 2012. Standard Catalog of World Coins. 1801-1900. Iowa: Krause Publications. http://archive.org/details/standardcatalogo0000unse_n7n9. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/GL3FWWA9 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Quasi-polities of the American Bottom might cover 100-200 KM2. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"We know that by the mid-300s Cahokia was basically abandoned." [1] "Eric Rupley, however, calculated the catchment needed to feed 15,000 people would be 625 square kilometers, which is well within the possible land area available in the American Bottom." [2] "The Cahokia heartland is about 2000 to 3000 square kilometers" [3] "“central administrative complex” (CAG) and was roughly 14 square kilometers inarea." [4] [1]: (Iseminger 2010, 148) [2]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15) [3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13) [4]: (Emerson 2014, 12) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Oneota was around 60km long by 100km wide.
[1]
[1]: (Pollack 2006: 312) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6FUV3LXY. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Map in Bauxar in B. Trigger, Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15: Northeast (1978), pp. 596197981.19 sq. km estimate calculated using Google Area Calculator.[175,000-225,000]: 1650-1700CE A group of 12 related villages or tribes = to be divided by 12? result would be 16,666 sq km per polity. New estimate: 14,000-19,000 to account for a ’typical’ Illinois polity.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"Eric Rupley, however, calculated the catchment needed to feed 15,000 people would be 625 square kilometers, which is well within the possible land area available in the American Bottom." [1] "The Cahokia heartland is about 2000 to 3000 square kilometers" [2] [1]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15) [2]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"Eric Rupley, however, calculated the catchment needed to feed 15,000 people would be 625 square kilometers, which is well within the possible land area available in the American Bottom." [1] "The Cahokia heartland is about 2000 to 3000 square kilometers" [2] "No other major site was as advantageously situated. Cahokia was located in what was by far the widest expanse of land suitable for settlement in the American Bottom. More people could live there than anywhere else ... The high ground where Cahokia was located was bordered on the north and south by large tracts of low-lying land that received the waters of different upland streams." [3] [1]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15) [2]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13) [3]: (Milner 2006, 168) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Quasi-polities of the American Bottom might cover 100-200 KM2. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. ’General Fanshiman succeeded him taking the title of Great King of Funan, and extended his territory to 5,000 or 6,000 li." (Pelliot, ibid, pp. 277-8)’
[1]
’Funan encompassed much of the southern portion of the Indochinese Peninsula, including territory that is today southern Vietnam, Thai- land, and Myanmar and all of Cambodia.’
[2]
About 300 archaeological sites have been identified by Malleret on the delta and the lower Mekong Valley. "Les sites archéologiques aujourd’hui associés au Funan sont répartis sur l’ensemble du delta et de la basse vallée du Mékong, des deux côtés de l’actuelle frontière khméro-vietnamienne. On sait par les sources chinoises et par l’épigraphie, confirmées aujourd’hui par les résultats des récentes fouilles archéologiques, qu’ils ont prospéré entre le Ier et le VIe siècle E.C. Les recherches rassemblées par Louis Malleret dans son Archéologie du Delta du Mékong restent à ce jour le point de départ obligé de toute étude archéologique des provinces méridionales du Viêt Nam. Cette somme est pour l’essentiel un inventaire systématique d’un ensemble de quelque trois cents gisements ayant produit une quantité variable, parfois minime, d’objets d’intérêt archéologique, allant de l’outil lithique au monument architectural, en passant par la céramique, la glyptique, la numismatique, l’épigraphie ou la statuaire."
[3]
[1]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 48) [2]: (West 2009, p. 222) [3]: (Manguin 2000, 170) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers."General Fanshiman succeeded him taking the title of Great King of Funan, and extended his territory to 5,000 or 6,000 li." (Pelliot, ibid, pp. 277-8)’
[1]
’Funan encompassed much of the southern portion of the Indochinese Peninsula, including territory that is today southern Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar and all of Cambodia.’
[2]
About 300 archaeological sites have been identified by Malleret on the delta and the lower Mekong Valley. "Les sites archéologiques aujourd’hui associés au Funan sont répartis sur l’ensemble du delta et de la basse vallée du Mékong, des deux côtés de l’actuelle frontière khméro-vietnamienne. On sait par les sources chinoises et par l’épigraphie, confirmées aujourd’hui par les résultats des récentes fouilles archéologiques, qu’ils ont prospéré entre le Ier et le VIe siècle E.C. Les recherches rassemblées par Louis Malleret dans son Archéologie du Delta du Mékong restent à ce jour le point de départ obligé de toute étude archéologique des provinces méridionales du Viêt Nam. Cette somme est pour l’essentiel un inventaire systématique d’un ensemble de quelque trois cents gisements ayant produit une quantité variable, parfois minime, d’objets d’intérêt archéologique, allant de l’outil lithique au monument architectural, en passant par la céramique, la glyptique, la numismatique, l’épigraphie ou la statuaire." [3] [1]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 48) [2]: (West 2009, p. 222) [3]: (Manguin 2000, 170) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Michael Vickery points out that the inscriptions left by the chieftains of the adjoining Dangrek region make no reference to Chenla, and that it is most likely that Chenla existed within the boundaries of the modern Cambodian state, somewhere between the Great Lake to the west and Kampot, Takeo or Kompong Speu to the east, and within the Mekong Valley.’
[1]
’This region incorporates the Mekong valley between Phnom Penh and the Dang Raek mountains, with lateral branches to include the drainage basin of the Tonle Sap and the Mun River valley’
[2]
’According to Coedes, this powerful kingdom, which eventually covered a territory almost equal in extent to that of the later Khmer Empire, subsequently divided itself into a ’Land Zhenla’ that included most of Cambodia and the Khorat Plateau, and a ’Water Zhenla’, centered on the Delta.’
[3]
[1]: (Tully 2005, 14) [2]: (Higham 2014, 287) [3]: (Coe 2003, 60) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. ’Angkor, largest of all the agrarian low-density urban sites, controlled a core area of 70,00-100,000 km^2 under Suryavarman I (Early eleventh century), Suryavarman II (early twelfth century), and Jayavarman VII (late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) (Hendrickson 2010) and periodically laid claim to an empire that extended into modern Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam with an area as great as 420,000 km^2.’
[1]
’I begin with territorial consolidation. During most of the period c. 900 to 1350, four major polities ruled large sectors of the mainland. Pagan, centered in Upper Burma, controlled the Irrawaddy basin and a modest upland and peninsular perimeter. Angkor dominated the middle and lower Mekong basin, much of the Chaophraya basin, and more intermit- tently, parts of what is now northern and peninsular Thailand.’
[2]
[1]: (Fletcher 2012, p.300) [2]: (Lieberman 2003, p. 23) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. ’Angkor, largest of all the agrarian low-density urban sites, controlled a core area of 70,00-100,000 km^2 under Suryavarman I (Early eleventh century), Suryavarman II (early twelfth century), and Jayavarman VII (late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) (Hendrickson 2010) and periodically laid claim to an empire that extended into modern Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam with an area as great as 420,000 km^2.’
[1]
[1]: (Fletcher 2012, p.300) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Year 1290 is the peak size of the Khmer territory. Taken from an analysis of the 62 largest empires in history. Other sources show that the territory and population of Angkor was fairly consistent throughout this period.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[1]: (Turchin: Adams and Hall 2006: 222) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/V7364WBS. [2]: (Tully 2005: 33) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/RML8857D?. [3]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995: 167) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/LH9FMNT5. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. A map provided by Wyatt
[1]
suggests that the territory governed by Rattanakosin, tributary states included, corresponded roughly to modern-day Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. According to Google, the current size of each of these is, respectively, 513,120 km2, 236,800 km2, and 181,035 km2, for a total of 930,955 km2. However, the below population estimate probably only applies to the core region, which would have corresponded with Thailand.
[1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. 159) |
||||||
|
km2
Based in Java. Majority of area of Indonesia as a whole at this time covered by another polity, Srivijaya. EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/seasia/xsrivijaya.html |
||||||
|
Km2 0.5 Mm^2 One source says 2.7 EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://empires.findthedata.org/compare/60-150/Majapahit-Empire-vs-Srivijaya-Empire . However, while Majapahit had many vassals, it likely did not have much administrative power outside Java, Bali, and Madura, whose combined territory is c 0.14 EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://www.indonesianhistory.info/map/majapahit.html . Estimate of 0.5 reflects influence of navy.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimated from map of Java. [1] [1]: Gunawan Kartapranata / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The islands were united under a common government in the colonial period: ’The name Chuuk means “high mountains” in the Chuukese language, one of several Malayo-Polynesian languages that are used in the islands. The Chuuk Islands, which form part of the eastern Caroline Islands, are encircled by a barrier bank composed of some 85 sand and coral islets. The bank (often referred to as a reef) encloses a lagoon 822 square miles (2,129 square km) in area and has a diameter of some 40 miles (65 km). Chief islands of the group are Weno (formerly Moen), Tonoas, Fefan, Uman, Uatschaluk (Udot), and Tol. The islands were sighted by the Spanish explorer Álvaro Saavedra in 1528. They were visited occasionally by 19th-century traders and whalers and were included in the German purchase of parts of Micronesia from Spain (1899). Annexed by Japan (1914) and strongly fortified for World War II, the islands (known as the Truk Islands until 1990) were heavily attacked, bypassed, and blockaded by the Allies during the war. The sunken hulls of Japanese ships remain there, along with ruined weapons and fortifications on land. Together with the other islands in what are now the Federated States of Micronesia, the Chuuk group was part of the U.S.-administered United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986.’
[1]
The islands cover a land area of 127.2 square km: ’The high islands of the Chuuk group have mangrove swamps along their coasts, as well as rainforests in the central mountainous areas. The native people are Micronesians who fish, raise pigs and poultry, and grow taro, breadfruit, yams, and bananas. Copra is the chief cash crop. The islands are popular with scuba divers, who come to explore the lagoon’s shipwrecks, many of which have become foundations for new reef growth. The largest urban area is on Weno; the rest of the population resides mostly in traditional villages scattered around the islands. Chuuk has a commercial dock and an international airport, both located on Weno. Total land area 49.1 square miles (127.2 square km). Pop. (2010) 48,654.’
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Chuuk-Islands |
||||||
|
The area of Crete is 8,336 square kilometres. However, according to the most widely accepted narrative Crete, was divided into regional polities controlled by political factions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. How many regional polities were there? Expert input may be needed to code this variable.
|
||||||
|
The area of Crete is 8,336 square kilometres. However, according to the most widely accepted narrative Crete, was divided into regional polities controlled by political factions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. How many regional polities were there? Expert input may be needed to code this variable.
|
||||||
|
Km2. Crete has an area of 8,336 square kilometres, and was dominated by the Knossian palatial state in this period. However, the area of east Crete may have been independent of Knossian control and was perhaps organized into a separate polity or group of polities.
[1]
Coded for roughly half of the island’s total area.
[1]: 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. |
||||||
|
Km2. Crete has an area of 8,336 square kilometres. However, during this period, after the collapse of the Knossian state, it was divided into many small, independent polities.
[1]
Crete, to quote Popham "was free, too, of centralized control and it may be assumed that the various geographical regions, or provinces, existed independently under their local rulers."
[2]
Expert input may be needed to suggest a code for the territory of a typical Post-Palatial polity.
[1]: Borgna, E. 2003. "Regional settlement patterns, exchange systems and sources of power in Crete at the ends of the Late Bronze Age: establishing a connection," SMEA 45, 158. [2]: Popham, M. R. 1994. "Late Minoan II to the end of the Bronze Age," in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N. (eds), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers in Honour of Sinclair Hood, London, 90. |
||||||
|
Km2. During this period Crete was divided up into many small, independent political units.
[1]
Expert input may be needed to suggest a figure for the typical territory of one of these polities.
[1]: Borgna, E. 2003. "Regional settlement patterns, exchange systems and sources of power in Crete at the ends of the Late Bronze Age: establishing a connection," SMEA 45, 153-83. |
||||||
|
Km2. Not much is known about either the island’s population numbers at the time, or its political organization. In terms of population, very few settlements have been excavated, and none of these have yielded enough data for a credible estimate; in terms of political organization, it is likely that elite families were in charge but not much else could be said.
[1]
[1]: Kostis Christakis, pers. comm., May 2016 |
||||||
|
Km2. In this period Crete was divided into regional city-states that controlled well-defined regions.
[1]
[2]
’For Crete, [Hansen and Nielsen] make a quick calculation: having said that there were 49 contemporary cities in Crete, and the island having 8200 km2, the average territory of a Cretan city was of 167km2’.
[3]
[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. [3]: (Coutsinas 2013) Nadia Coutsinas. 2013. "The Establishment of the City-States of Eastern Crete from the Archaic to the Roman Period." CHS Research Bulletin 2 (1). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:CoutsinasN.The_Establishment_of_the_City-States_of_Eastern_Crete.2013. Coutsinas is citing An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis by Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). |
||||||
|
Km2. In this period Crete was divided into regional city-states and state-confederations that controlled well-defined regions. 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 area of the whole island is 8,336 square kilometres, yielding a range of c. 210-240 square kilometres if divided up into 35-40 polities.
[1]: Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete. An Archaeological Survey and Gazetteer of Late Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Crete, Warminister, 11. |
||||||
|
Km2. In this period Crete was divided into regional city-states and state-confederations that controlled well-defined regions. 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 area of the whole island is 8,336 square kilometres, yielding a range of c. 210-240 square kilometres if divided up into 35-40 polities.
[1]: Sanders, I. F. 1982. Roman Crete. An Archaeological Survey and Gazetteer of Late Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Crete, Warminister, 11. |
||||||
|
KM2. Data coded to make it easier for scraper to read.
Actual: 4,500,000: 14 CE; 5,800,000: 117 CE; 4,750,000: 274 CE Maximum Area: 5.0 Mm^2. [1] 5m km^2. Estimates: 14 CE 4476051 km2 [2] 117 CE 5819328 km2 [2] 211 CE 5039845 km2 274 CE 4750000 [1]: (Turchin et. al. 2006, [3]) [2]: (Stockton 2001 152-153) |
||||||
|
KM2. Data coded to make it easier for scraper to read.
Actual: 4,500,000: 14 CE; 5,800,000: 117 CE; 4,750,000: 274 CE Maximum Area: 5.0 Mm^2. [1] 5m km^2. Estimates: 14 CE 4476051 km2 [2] 117 CE 5819328 km2 [2] 211 CE 5039845 km2 274 CE 4750000 [1]: (Turchin et. al. 2006, [3]) [2]: (Stockton 2001 152-153) |
||||||
|
KM2. Data coded to make it easier for scraper to read.
Actual: 4,500,000: 14 CE; 5,800,000: 117 CE; 4,750,000: 274 CE Maximum Area: 5.0 Mm^2. [1] 5m km^2. Estimates: 14 CE 4476051 km2 [2] 117 CE 5819328 km2 [2] 211 CE 5039845 km2 274 CE 4750000 [1]: (Turchin et. al. 2006, [3]) [2]: (Stockton 2001 152-153) |
||||||
|
KM2. Data coded to make it easier for scraper to read.
Actual: 4,500,000: 14 CE; 5,800,000: 117 CE; 4,750,000: 274 CE Maximum Area: 5.0 Mm^2. [1] 5m km^2. Estimates: 14 CE 4476051 km2 [2] 117 CE 5819328 km2 [2] 211 CE 5039845 km2 274 CE 4750000 [1]: (Turchin et. al. 2006, [3]) [2]: (Stockton 2001 152-153) |
||||||
|
[1]
[1]: (Taagepera 1979: 125) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/GPEXGDM4. |
||||||
|
KM2
395: 1.3 Million km2 534 (Re-conquest of Africa) 1.5 Million km2 552/554 (Re-conquest of Italy and southern Spain) 2 Million km2 568 (Loss of Northern Italy to the Lombards) 1.8 Million km2 591 (territorial gains in Mesopotamia and Southern Caucasia) 1.9 Million km2 610 (Loss of control in the interior of the Balkans and of the territorial gains in the East) 1.4 Million km2 620 (Loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Sasanians, of southern Spain to Visigoths) 0.9 Million km2 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km2 |
||||||
|
KM2
395: 1.3 Million km2 534 (Re-conquest of Africa) 1.5 Million km2 552/554 (Re-conquest of Italy and southern Spain) 2 Million km2 568 (Loss of Northern Italy to the Lombards) 1.8 Million km2 591 (territorial gains in Mesopotamia and Southern Caucasia) 1.9 Million km2 610 (Loss of control in the interior of the Balkans and of the territorial gains in the East) 1.4 Million km2 620 (Loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Sasanians, of southern Spain to Visigoths) 0.9 Million km2 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km2 |
||||||
|
KM2
395: 1.3 Million km2 534 (Re-conquest of Africa) 1.5 Million km2 552/554 (Re-conquest of Italy and southern Spain) 2 Million km2 568 (Loss of Northern Italy to the Lombards) 1.8 Million km2 591 (territorial gains in Mesopotamia and Southern Caucasia) 1.9 Million km2 610 (Loss of control in the interior of the Balkans and of the territorial gains in the East) 1.4 Million km2 620 (Loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Sasanians, of southern Spain to Visigoths) 0.9 Million km2 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km2 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 1,780,000: 640 CE; 1,650,000: 650 CE; 1,520,000: 660 CE; 1,260,000: 680 CE; 1,000,000: 700 CE; 1,000,000: 720 CE; 1,000,000: 740 CE; 1,000,000: 750 CE; 967,000: 760 CE; 900,000: 780 CE; 800,000: 800 CE; 790,000: 820 CE; 780,000: 840 CE; 775,000: 850 CE; 770,000: 860 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015 [3] 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km² 700 (loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa as well as Armenia to the Arabs between 632 and 700, establishment of competing Bulgarian Empire north to the Mt. Haemus after 680): 470.000 km² 800 (stabilisation of frontier to the Arabs): 520.000 km² 867 (loss of Sicily and Crete to Arabs, but reconquest of territories in Greece): 520.000 km² 1,300,000 in 500 CE; 2,000,000 in 600 CE; 700,000 in 700 CE; 650,000 in 800 CE. Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication [3]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 1,780,000: 640 CE; 1,650,000: 650 CE; 1,520,000: 660 CE; 1,260,000: 680 CE; 1,000,000: 700 CE; 1,000,000: 720 CE; 1,000,000: 740 CE; 1,000,000: 750 CE; 967,000: 760 CE; 900,000: 780 CE; 800,000: 800 CE; 790,000: 820 CE; 780,000: 840 CE; 775,000: 850 CE; 770,000: 860 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015 [3] 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km² 700 (loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa as well as Armenia to the Arabs between 632 and 700, establishment of competing Bulgarian Empire north to the Mt. Haemus after 680): 470.000 km² 800 (stabilisation of frontier to the Arabs): 520.000 km² 867 (loss of Sicily and Crete to Arabs, but reconquest of territories in Greece): 520.000 km² 1,300,000 in 500 CE; 2,000,000 in 600 CE; 700,000 in 700 CE; 650,000 in 800 CE. Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication [3]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 1,780,000: 640 CE; 1,650,000: 650 CE; 1,520,000: 660 CE; 1,260,000: 680 CE; 1,000,000: 700 CE; 1,000,000: 720 CE; 1,000,000: 740 CE; 1,000,000: 750 CE; 967,000: 760 CE; 900,000: 780 CE; 800,000: 800 CE; 790,000: 820 CE; 780,000: 840 CE; 775,000: 850 CE; 770,000: 860 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015 [3] 630 (Victory over Sasanians, restoration of border of 591 in the East) 1.5 Million km² 700 (loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa as well as Armenia to the Arabs between 632 and 700, establishment of competing Bulgarian Empire north to the Mt. Haemus after 680): 470.000 km² 800 (stabilisation of frontier to the Arabs): 520.000 km² 867 (loss of Sicily and Crete to Arabs, but reconquest of territories in Greece): 520.000 km² 1,300,000 in 500 CE; 2,000,000 in 600 CE; 700,000 in 700 CE; 650,000 in 800 CE. Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication [3]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
Km2. In terms of its political organization, Crete was divided into forty districts and was ruled by an emir who only nominally recognized the Caliph of Baghdad.
[1]
The area of the whole island of Crete is 8,336 square kilometres.
[1]: (Christides 1984) Vassilios Christides. 1984. The Conquest of Crete by Arabs (ca. 824). A Turning Point in the Struggle Between Byzantium and Islam. Athens: Akademia Athenon. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
963-969 CE: "The reign of Nicephorus II marked the beginning of an expansion that went beyond defensive needs." [1] Chase-Dunn 760,000: 880 CE; 750,000: 900 CE; 795,000: 920 CE; 841,000: 940 CE; 864,000: 950 CE; 886,000: 960 CE; 932,000: 980 CE; 1,000,000: 1000 CE; 1,233,000: 1020 CE; 1,229,000: 1040 CE; 1,107,000: 1050 CE; 986,000: 1060 CE [2] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [3] Preiser-Kapeller [4] 520,000: 867 CE - loss of Sicily and Crete to the Arabs, regain of territories in Greece. 610,000: 900 CE - gain of territories on the Balkans and at the Eastern Frontier. 810,000: 1000 CE - conquest of Crete, Cyprus, Cilicia and Northern Syria as well as annexation of parts of Armenia and Bulgaria 1,150,000: 1050 CE - peak of territorial extension due to annexation of Bulgaria and most parts of Armenia "610,000 in 900 CE; 810,000 in 1000 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [5] [1]: (Treadgold 1997, 535) Treadgold, Warren. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. Stanford. [2]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [4]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences [5]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
963-969 CE: "The reign of Nicephorus II marked the beginning of an expansion that went beyond defensive needs." [1] Chase-Dunn 760,000: 880 CE; 750,000: 900 CE; 795,000: 920 CE; 841,000: 940 CE; 864,000: 950 CE; 886,000: 960 CE; 932,000: 980 CE; 1,000,000: 1000 CE; 1,233,000: 1020 CE; 1,229,000: 1040 CE; 1,107,000: 1050 CE; 986,000: 1060 CE [2] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [3] Preiser-Kapeller [4] 520,000: 867 CE - loss of Sicily and Crete to the Arabs, regain of territories in Greece. 610,000: 900 CE - gain of territories on the Balkans and at the Eastern Frontier. 810,000: 1000 CE - conquest of Crete, Cyprus, Cilicia and Northern Syria as well as annexation of parts of Armenia and Bulgaria 1,150,000: 1050 CE - peak of territorial extension due to annexation of Bulgaria and most parts of Armenia "610,000 in 900 CE; 810,000 in 1000 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [5] [1]: (Treadgold 1997, 535) Treadgold, Warren. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. Stanford. [2]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [4]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences [5]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
963-969 CE: "The reign of Nicephorus II marked the beginning of an expansion that went beyond defensive needs." [1] Chase-Dunn 760,000: 880 CE; 750,000: 900 CE; 795,000: 920 CE; 841,000: 940 CE; 864,000: 950 CE; 886,000: 960 CE; 932,000: 980 CE; 1,000,000: 1000 CE; 1,233,000: 1020 CE; 1,229,000: 1040 CE; 1,107,000: 1050 CE; 986,000: 1060 CE [2] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [3] Preiser-Kapeller [4] 520,000: 867 CE - loss of Sicily and Crete to the Arabs, regain of territories in Greece. 610,000: 900 CE - gain of territories on the Balkans and at the Eastern Frontier. 810,000: 1000 CE - conquest of Crete, Cyprus, Cilicia and Northern Syria as well as annexation of parts of Armenia and Bulgaria 1,150,000: 1050 CE - peak of territorial extension due to annexation of Bulgaria and most parts of Armenia "610,000 in 900 CE; 810,000 in 1000 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [5] [1]: (Treadgold 1997, 535) Treadgold, Warren. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. Stanford. [2]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [4]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences [5]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
963-969 CE: "The reign of Nicephorus II marked the beginning of an expansion that went beyond defensive needs." [1] Chase-Dunn 760,000: 880 CE; 750,000: 900 CE; 795,000: 920 CE; 841,000: 940 CE; 864,000: 950 CE; 886,000: 960 CE; 932,000: 980 CE; 1,000,000: 1000 CE; 1,233,000: 1020 CE; 1,229,000: 1040 CE; 1,107,000: 1050 CE; 986,000: 1060 CE [2] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [3] Preiser-Kapeller [4] 520,000: 867 CE - loss of Sicily and Crete to the Arabs, regain of territories in Greece. 610,000: 900 CE - gain of territories on the Balkans and at the Eastern Frontier. 810,000: 1000 CE - conquest of Crete, Cyprus, Cilicia and Northern Syria as well as annexation of parts of Armenia and Bulgaria 1,150,000: 1050 CE - peak of territorial extension due to annexation of Bulgaria and most parts of Armenia "610,000 in 900 CE; 810,000 in 1000 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [5] [1]: (Treadgold 1997, 535) Treadgold, Warren. 1997. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. Stanford. [2]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [4]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences [5]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 743,000: 1080 CE; 500,000: 1100 CE; 540,000: 1120 CE; 580,000: 1140 CE; 600,000: 1150 CE; 580,000: 1160 CE; 540,000: 1180 CE; 500,000: 1200 CE; 350,000: 1204 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Preiser-Kapeller [3] 400,000: 1090 CE - temporal loss of almost entire Anatolia to Turkish groups and of the control over parts of the Balkans to the Pechenegs; permanent loss of remaining possessions in Italy to Normans 670,000: 1150 CE - control over most of the Balkans south of the Danube, of Western Asia Minor and the coastal zones of Anatolia 490,000: 1200 CE - loss of control over Northern Balkans to newly emerging independent kingdoms and of parts of possessions in Anatolia, loss of Cyprus "750,000 in 1100 CE; 600,000 in 1200 CE; 200,000 in 1300 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] "1,115,000 in 1050 CE, 480,000 in 1200 CE, 30,000 in 1400 CE." [5] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [5]: (Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email.) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 743,000: 1080 CE; 500,000: 1100 CE; 540,000: 1120 CE; 580,000: 1140 CE; 600,000: 1150 CE; 580,000: 1160 CE; 540,000: 1180 CE; 500,000: 1200 CE; 350,000: 1204 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Preiser-Kapeller [3] 400,000: 1090 CE - temporal loss of almost entire Anatolia to Turkish groups and of the control over parts of the Balkans to the Pechenegs; permanent loss of remaining possessions in Italy to Normans 670,000: 1150 CE - control over most of the Balkans south of the Danube, of Western Asia Minor and the coastal zones of Anatolia 490,000: 1200 CE - loss of control over Northern Balkans to newly emerging independent kingdoms and of parts of possessions in Anatolia, loss of Cyprus "750,000 in 1100 CE; 600,000 in 1200 CE; 200,000 in 1300 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] "1,115,000 in 1050 CE, 480,000 in 1200 CE, 30,000 in 1400 CE." [5] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [5]: (Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email.) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Chase-Dunn 743,000: 1080 CE; 500,000: 1100 CE; 540,000: 1120 CE; 580,000: 1140 CE; 600,000: 1150 CE; 580,000: 1160 CE; 540,000: 1180 CE; 500,000: 1200 CE; 350,000: 1204 CE [1] Estimates seem much too high for me, maybe relying on unrealistic assumption on the extent of Byzantine power in the Balkans etc. I have tried to circumscribe the Byzantine borders at a specific time for a specific region as exact as possible. [2] Preiser-Kapeller [3] 400,000: 1090 CE - temporal loss of almost entire Anatolia to Turkish groups and of the control over parts of the Balkans to the Pechenegs; permanent loss of remaining possessions in Italy to Normans 670,000: 1150 CE - control over most of the Balkans south of the Danube, of Western Asia Minor and the coastal zones of Anatolia 490,000: 1200 CE - loss of control over Northern Balkans to newly emerging independent kingdoms and of parts of possessions in Anatolia, loss of Cyprus "750,000 in 1100 CE; 600,000 in 1200 CE; 200,000 in 1300 CE." Calculated using a GIS software by Alessio Palmisano. [4] "1,115,000 in 1050 CE, 480,000 in 1200 CE, 30,000 in 1400 CE." [5] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences) [4]: (Palmisano, Alessio. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [5]: (Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email.) |
||||||
|
100-200 squared kilometers. The area near Cuzco within which Late Formative sites have been found
[1]
However, it is not very clear how many quasi-polities occupied this area.
"In a recent overview of the Cuzco Formative Period, Zapata (1998) plots the location of some forty Late Formative sites spread along the Vilcanota River drainage between the site of Machu Picchu and the city of Sicunai. To this sum, we can add thiry additional Late Formative sites in the Province of Paruro and those that have recently been found in the Cuzco Valley. The number of Formative Period sites in the Cuzco Valley is well over eighty (Map 5.1.). Most of these sites date to the Late Formative Phase." [2] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 45) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 42) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"The Qotakalli chiefdom may have covered an area roughly 50 km (31 mi) in diameter" [1] "The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] Northern border likely was the Vilcanota river. "... percentage of Qotakalli materials dramatically diminishes on the far, or northern, side of the Vilcanota River. This suggests ... the influence of Cuzco waned at the river during the Qotakalli Period." [3] Southern border likely was the Apurimac river "the number of sites that contain Qotakalli ceramics declines as one leaves the Cuzco Basin and enters the Province of Paruro. They all but disappear on the far, or southern, side of the Apurimac River." [4] Western border was the Anta plain There was an independent chiefdom on the Anta plain. [4] Eastern border was the Lucre Basin Possible chiefly centres in the Lucre Basin at two large sites, Chokepukio and Mama Qolda. [4] Information copied from the following polity sheet (Qotakalli) as the data comes from Bauer 2004 and Covey 2006. To Bauer, Qotakalli goes from 200-600CE, and Covey refers to the period between 400-600CE."The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] The area described as the "Hypothesized area under the influence of Cuzco-based chiefdom during the Qotakalli Period (AD 200-600)" is equivalent to about 700 square kilometers. [1]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 52 cite: Covey) [4]: (Bauer 2004, 52) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"The Qotakalli chiefdom may have covered an area roughly 50 km (31 mi) in diameter" [1] "The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] Northern border likely was the Vilcanota river. "... percentage of Qotakalli materials dramatically diminishes on the far, or northern, side of the Vilcanota River. This suggests ... the influence of Cuzco waned at the river during the Qotakalli Period." [3] Southern border likely was the Apurimac river "the number of sites that contain Qotakalli ceramics declines as one leaves the Cuzco Basin and enters the Province of Paruro. They all but disappear on the far, or southern, side of the Apurimac River." [4] Western border was the Anta plain There was an independent chiefdom on the Anta plain. [4] Eastern border was the Lucre Basin Possible chiefly centres in the Lucre Basin at two large sites, Chokepukio and Mama Qolda. [4] Information copied from the following polity sheet (Qotakalli) as the data comes from Bauer 2004 and Covey 2006. To Bauer, Qotakalli goes from 200-600CE, and Covey refers to the period between 400-600CE."The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] The area described as the "Hypothesized area under the influence of Cuzco-based chiefdom during the Qotakalli Period (AD 200-600)" is equivalent to about 700 square kilometers. [1]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 52 cite: Covey) [4]: (Bauer 2004, 52) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"The Qotakalli chiefdom may have covered an area roughly 50 km (31 mi) in diameter" [1] "The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] Northern border likely was the Vilcanota river. "... percentage of Qotakalli materials dramatically diminishes on the far, or northern, side of the Vilcanota River. This suggests ... the influence of Cuzco waned at the river during the Qotakalli Period." [3] Southern border likely was the Apurimac river "the number of sites that contain Qotakalli ceramics declines as one leaves the Cuzco Basin and enters the Province of Paruro. They all but disappear on the far, or southern, side of the Apurimac River." [4] Western border was the Anta plain There was an independent chiefdom on the Anta plain. [4] Eastern border was the Lucre Basin Possible chiefly centres in the Lucre Basin at two large sites, Chokepukio and Mama Qolda. [4] Information copied from the following polity sheet (Qotakalli) as the data comes from Bauer 2004 and Covey 2006. To Bauer, Qotakalli goes from 200-600CE, and Covey refers to the period between 400-600CE."The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [2] The area described as the "Hypothesized area under the influence of Cuzco-based chiefdom during the Qotakalli Period (AD 200-600)" is equivalent to about 700 square kilometers. [1]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 52 cite: Covey) [4]: (Bauer 2004, 52) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"The distribution of Qotakalli pottery suggests the precence of a complex prestate polity in the Cusco region that might have controlled an area of up to 1000 square kilometers." [1] "The Qotakalli chiefdom may have covered an area roughly 50 km (31 mi) in diameter" [2] Northern border likely was the Vilcanota river. "... percentage of Qotakalli materials dramatically diminishes on the far, or northern, side of the Vilcanota River. This suggests ... the influence of Cuzco waned at the river during the Qotakalli Period." [3] Southern border likely was the Apurimac river "the number of sites that contain Qotakalli ceramics declines as one leaves the Cuzco Basin and enters the Province of Paruro. They all but disappear on the far, or southern, side of the Apurimac River." [4] Western border was the Anta plain There was an independent chiefdom on the Anta plain. [4] Eastern border was the Lucre Basin Possible chiefly centres in the Lucre Basin at two large sites, Chokepukio and Mama Qolda. [4] 115 sites contained Qotakalli ceramics. [5] [1]: (Covey 2006, 59) [2]: (Quilter 2013, 193) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 52 cite: Covey) [4]: (Bauer 2004, 52) [5]: (Bauer 2004, 51) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Upper limit:"If we use the distribution of provincial centers to estimate the size of the empire, Wari’s control of mountain territory reached 800 km (497 mi.) to the north of the capital, 525 km (326 mi.) to the south, and 275 km (171 mi.) to the east (to the region around Cuzco; it also stretched down to the central and south coast, 350 km (217 mi.) to the west and south-west. Thus the empire extended more than 1,300 km (807 mi.) along its north-south axis; its width varied from about 100 km (62 mi.) in the north, where it encompassed only the highlands, to some 400 km (248 mi.) in the south, where it spanned both highlands and coast. The total spatial extent of the empire could have been as much as 320,000 sq. km (124,000 sq. mi.)." [1] Lower limit: (Alan Covey): "Clearly, the Wari capital region had some span of control, although it might not have been much more than a day’s walk or so, given that a site like Azangaro is treated as a colony. If you said 50 km around the capital, you would have a heartland of around 8000 sq km. There are some corridors that seem to have strategic Wari installations, especially on the Ayacucho-Nasca route. Nevertheless, surveys that work more than about 5-10 km from known Wari installations typically find no Wari sites or material culture. Pikillacta and the Wari colonies around Huaro represent a cluster about 100 sq km in size, and Wari-style pottery is found at nearby sites in a region that might be as large as 500 or so sq km. If you calculated the sustaining area around the generous estimate of Wari sites that Jennings and Craig (2001) list, giving a generous 1000 sq km to the largest centers (Pikillacta and Viracochapampa) and 500 sq km all the others--even tiny and unverified sites--you would maybe get 20,000 sq km. of course, the "mosaic of control" model that is dominant for Wari studies would say that there are some areas with indirectly ruled subjects or client rulers (although the latter should be found only in coastal valleys that had centralized polities and existing political hierarchies). I think doubling that territorial estimate would be a really generous estimate, but I also think that the researchers who continue to ignore the accumulated settlement data from across the highlands would still insist on a much larger territory. For example, Bill Isbell has cited the presence of Wari-style buildings and tombs in Espiritu Pampa (150 km northwest of Cuzco) and the complex at Pikillacta (30 km southeast of Cuzco) as evidence that everything in between was directly governed by Wari--even though Brian Bauer (1992, 2004; Bauer et al. 2015), Veronique Belisle (2010, 2015), Steve Kosiba (2010), Ken Heffernan (1996), Ann Kendall (1994) and I (2006, 2014, Covey et al. 2008) have found patterns suggesting no Wari sites beyond a few hours’ walk of Pikillacta." [2] " As a lower bound, I would probably be more generous than 10,000 sq km. I would probably say 20,000, which would put Wari closer in line with Susa, Early Uruk, and Monte Alban." [2] [1]: (Schreiber in Bergh 2012, 39) [2]: Alan Covey 2017, pers. comm. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Map 1000-1200 CE "Territory of Cuzco Basin polity." [1] About 30km by 20km. South and west: taken early. North and east: more war, polities retained independence from the Incas longer (until about 1400 CE). [2] Vilcanota river formed the northern boundary. [3] "distribution of local Qotakalli and Araway styles drops off markedly beyond about 20 km of the Cuzco Basin." [4] For the Lucre Basin polity: Huaro also exhibits Lucre pottery after the Wari collapse [5] , may be in Choquepukio sphere of control?"The primary distribution of this style essentially encompasses the eastern end of the valley of Cuzco where Choquepukio and Pikillacta are located, extending to the southeast to include the modern towns of Andahuayllas, Huaro, and Urcos." [5] Using Google maps area calculator, and mapping the location of Tipón (known fortress against the Killke), Urcos (furthest point where Lucre ceramic appears), and Choquepukio itself, a conservative estimate would be 70 squared kilometers. However there is no reference to the polity territory in the literature and a settlement survey is lacking to ascertain the extent of the Lucre polity. [1]: (Covey 2006, 108) [2]: (D’Altroy 2014, 81) [3]: (D’Altroy 2014, 82) [4]: (Covey 2003, 338-339) [5]: (McEwan 2006b, 93) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Huaro also exhibits Lucre pottery after the Wari collapse [1] , may be in Choquepukio sphere of control?"The primary distribution of this style essentially encompasses the eastern end of the valley of Cuzco where Choquepukio and Pikillacta are located, extending to the southeast to include the modern towns of Andahuayllas, Huaro, and Urcos." [1] "Before their removal by Huascar, the Pinahua controlled the area on the northern side of the Huatanay River east of the Angostura to its confluence with the Vilcanota River. There is no doubt that the Pinahua once occupied the large site of Choquepukio, since it is specifically and repeatedly mentioned as one of their former towns in the earlier documents of the suit." [2] Using Google maps area calculator, and mapping the location of Tipón (known fortress against the Killke), Urcos (furthest point where Lucre ceramic appears), and Choquepukio itself, a conservative estimate would be 70 squared kilometers. However there is no reference to the polity territory in the literature and a settlement survey is lacking to ascertain the extent of the Lucre polity. [1]: (McEwan 2006b, 93) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 84) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
According to Alan Covey, none of these measurements can be taken into account: "This is an overly crude measure, especially in the Andes, where vast amounts of land are desert or high montane landscapes with potential for permanent human occupation. The maps that we use to show Inca conquests over time are highly problematic, and do not give us enough detail to make meaningful calculations of Inca territory." [1] Expert checked: variable now coded as blank. 41,000: 1400 CE; 125,000: 1450 CE; 1,925,000: 1500 CE; 2,000,000: 1530 CE [2] "In terms of administered territory, it is difficult to assess the total area controlled by the early Inka state, although it is clear that the polity in the Cusco Basin had surpassed the operational boundaries for pre-state polities." [3] Polity heartland was 60 km radius from Cuzco and covers the region inhabited by the Inca of Privilege. [4] " Territory is difficult to measure in the Andes, until we develop an ecologically-sensitive map of archaeological settlement that accounts for the huge areas that are covered by desert, snow-capped mountains, and impassable cliff-sides." [5] "A quick estimate would be to use the Pacific coast as a western boundary, the Colombian border (or Pasto province) as a northern boundary, the Maule River in Chile as a southern boundary, and the rough eastern border that Rowe laid out in his 1945 article, which is more conservative than the map that Parssinen (1992) has developed. I would use D’Altroy (2015) for the general run of that eastern border." [6] From D’Altroy’s map, a territory of about 2,000,000 square kilometers can be estimated. David Beresford-Jones uses an estimate of 1,000,000 square kilometers [7] A range of 500,000-2,000,000 square kilometers takes most possibilities into account. [1]: (Alan Covey 2015, personal communication) [2]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [3]: (Covey 2003, 342) [4]: (Bauer 2004, 22) [5]: Alan Covey 2013, pers. comm. [6]: Covey 2017, pers. comm. [7]: David Beresford-Jones, pers. comm. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[1]
[2]
Estimates from Taagepera’s graph in "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia."
[1]: (Taagepera 1997, 499) Taagepera, Rein. 1997. "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia." International Studies Quarterly 41(3): 475-504. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5A6JA43D [2]: (Taagepera 1997, 484) Taagepera, Rein. 1997. "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia." International Studies Quarterly 41(3): 475-504. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5A6JA43D/ |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
Mauryas in Deccan "The recent archaeological survey by Allchin has also pointed out that while there existed a few possible ’Mauryan’ cities in the Deccan and coast Andhra (such as Dharanikota and Sannati in Karnataka), they were distinctly small in scale compared with the cities of the Gangetic valley." [1] "... such insignificant Mauryan presence in the Deccan may represent the non-unified nature of the Mauryan empire. Although the dynasty succeeded in holding vast territory through its military power and refined ruling structure, it was probably almost impossible to constitute a united empire controlled by central government due to the absence of an efficient communicate network and the great diversity of regional traditions. It is more likely that Mauryan rule in the provincial areas was primarily a supervisory role which remained at the upper level. The main concern in the provincial areas was extracting revenue from existing resources to enrich the core region (i.e. the lower Gangetic Valley) rather than changing local societies to establish unified rule in the empire. Although the Mauryas could possibly have had direct control over a few key locales such as Amaravati/Dhamnakataka, the remaining areas, which most probably retained their megalithic culture, may have been beyond their concern, may have been beyond their concern. In short, the Mauryan imperial expansion did not cause immediate and fundamental social changes in the lower Krishna valley." [1] Mauryan Empire: "more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration ... In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (... though Satavahana and Mauryan inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. ... claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated." [2] [1]: (Shimada 2012, 116) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. [2]: (Alcock 2001, 159) Alcock, Susan E. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. "The epigraphical records of the dynasty suggest that the area comprising Belgaum, North Canara, Shimoga, Chitradurga and Bellary districts formed the Kadamba kingdom during its heydays"
[1]
. This would suggest an area of 49,088 squared kilometers. However, these districts are not all adjacent to one another, which suggests that this polity was somewhat larger, probably including a few more neighbouring districts.
[1]: http://archive.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb032004/spt3.asp |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Roughly the equivalent of the sum of the modern-day Indian states of Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, the region of South Gujarat, half of the state of Madhya Pradesh, the Rayaseema district and half the Andhra district of Andhra Pradesh.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
[1]
. The area is the sum of the modern-day Indian states of Karnataka, Goa, and Telangana, the state of Maharashtra minus its eastern region (Nagpur), the Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, and South Gujarat. This estimate is approximate.
[1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. This is the combined territory of Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh districts of Kurnool and Anantapur, which roughly correspond with this
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
1184: Ruling over the area bounded by Konkana, Alvakheda, Bayalnad, Talakad and Savimale , area between Kaveri and Kabbani rivers [1] up to and about the year 1098: 95 miles long at the longest and 70 miles broad at its widest part, represents the entire known area within which the Hoysala enjoyed the revenues [2] -- this reference refers to period before 1108-1346 CE kingdom By the end of Vishnuvardhana’s rule: he had broken the bones of Malava, Cera, Kerala, Nolamba, Kadamba, Kalinga, Anga, Bangala, Varala, Cola, Khasa, Barbara, Oddaha and others [3] 1192: Sevuna, it is true, had many Kannada-speaking subjects, but south of the Krishna most of the subjects looked either to the Hoysala or to the rulers in the Konkana as their natural lead. The government at Devagiri, a great distance north of the Krishna, had a distinct Maratha bias, and although it was careful to use Kannada subordinates in the actual process of government in the south, its outlook was necessarily different from that which prevailed at Kalyana [4] . 1196 Ballala II took - besides the places already conventionally associated with his name- Banavase, Hanugal, Halasige, Huligere, Nolambavadi, Belvola, Bagadage, Erambarage, Kisukad, Balla, Kuderi and Lokkigundi, Tattavadi. Without epigraphical evidence we cannot establish that effective Hoysala rule (revenue) was exercised to any distance beyond the Malprabha river [5] 1233: Tungabhadr served as the frontier in the north-west of the empire [6] . [1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 24-5 [2]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 26 [3]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 69 [4]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 95 [5]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 96-7 [6]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 116 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Range estimate based on drawing points from the middle of Raichur district to Anantapur city (thus encompassing Bellary between them) then drawing a point to Shivamogga city (which takes in Chitaldurg district). This forms a triangle shape with an area of 20,000. Will express estimate of polity size (maximum extent?) with range of 10,000-30,000.
kingdom of Kampili (Anantpur, Shimoga, and Chitaldurg districts). [1] Anantapur district 19,130 km2 Shimoga district 8,495 km2 Chitradurga district 8,440 km2 While Bellary (not mentioned by source), Anantpur and Chiltradurga districts are contiguous, Shimoga district is not. If the described area shown below outlines the areas under control the kingdom was larger than maps that present it as the region of Bellary only. "The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi." [2] -- If we include Raichur (on the above map) the kingdom would be even larger. [1]: (SarDesai 2007, 149) SarDesai, D. R. 2007. India: The Definitive History. Westview Press. [2]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. km2. Bruce William Wright states that the Iroquois League held a territory of around 28, 270 miles squared.
[1]
Calculated into kilometers squared.
[1]: (Wright 1979: 16) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MKRRCUSL. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The Iroquois at the time inhabited the Great Lakes Area: ’Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.’
[1]
Some aspects of Iroquois social geography make the determination of boundary lines more easy: ’A boundary line would seem at first to be a difficult problem in Indian geography. But a peculiar custom of our predecessors has divested this subject of much of its embarrassment, and enabled us to ascertain with considerable certainty the territorial limits of the nations of the League. The Iroquois rejected all natural boundaries, and substituted longitudinal lines. This appears to have resulted from the custom of establishing themselves upon both banks of the streams upon which they resided. Having no knowledge of the use of wells, they were accustomed to fix their habitations upon the banks of creeks, and easily forded rivers, or in the vicinity of copious springs. Inland lakes were never divided by a boundary line; but the line itself was deflected, that the entire circuit of each lake might be possessed by a single nation. The natural limits which rivers and lakes might furnish having thus been disregarded, and straight lines substituted, the inquiry is freed from some of its difficulties, and greater certainty is given to their boundaries, when certain points upon them are decisively ascertained.’
[2]
These comments seem to indicate an extensive territory of around 100,000 km squared. This was taken from an informal source
[3]
[4]
[1]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36 [2]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 38 [3]: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/HowMuchLand.html [4]: Reid, Gerald. 1996. “Culture Summary: Iroquois.” New Haven, Conn.: HRAF. http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nm09-000. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The Iroquois at the time inhabited the Great Lakes Area: ’Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.’
[1]
Some aspects of Iroquois social geography make the determination of boundary lines more easy: ’A boundary line would seem at first to be a difficult problem in Indian geography. But a peculiar custom of our predecessors has divested this subject of much of its embarrassment, and enabled us to ascertain with considerable certainty the territorial limits of the nations of the League. The Iroquois rejected all natural boundaries, and substituted longitudinal lines. This appears to have resulted from the custom of establishing themselves upon both banks of the streams upon which they resided. Having no knowledge of the use of wells, they were accustomed to fix their habitations upon the banks of creeks, and easily forded rivers, or in the vicinity of copious springs. Inland lakes were never divided by a boundary line; but the line itself was deflected, that the entire circuit of each lake might be possessed by a single nation. The natural limits which rivers and lakes might furnish having thus been disregarded, and straight lines substituted, the inquiry is freed from some of its difficulties, and greater certainty is given to their boundaries, when certain points upon them are decisively ascertained.’
[2]
These comments seem to indicate an extensive territory of around 100,000 km squared. This was taken from an informal source
[3]
. The admission of the Tuscarora added additional people and territory to the League. So far, we have not found figures as to the precise size of the territory added through this process. We have provisionally chosen to hold the code constant (see pre-colonial Iroquois sheet), but this remains in need of confirmation. The subsequent disintegration of the Confederacy as a continuous territory and the fragmentation of the population into reservations also makes the identification of a reasonable code more difficult. The code may therefore more accurately reflect the pre-reservation period rather than the 19th century. We have therefore chosen to cap the code at 1800, although this is only a provisional way of dealing with this problem.
[1]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36 [2]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 38 [3]: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/HowMuchLand.html |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. This represents the range of single polity sizes (rather than the size of Canaan as a whole) taken from Finkelstein’s estimates of the Middle Bronze Age period.
[1]
[2]
In his reckoning, Akko had the smallest polity with c. 400 km^2, and Jerusalem the largest at about 2,850 km^2. Whether or not these polity sizes are accurate—and they may be overstating the case, since they assume that all the available territory is "claimed" rather than no-man’s-land areas existing
[3]
—they are certainly in the ballpark.
[1]: Finkelstein (1992:211) [2]: cf. Burke (2004:267). [3]: Cf. Scott (2009). |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
[1]
Assyrian heartland in northern Iraq covered approximately 4000 km2 [2] [1]: (Chase-Dunn 2011, Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Radler 2014) |
||||||
|
Square kilometers. 2,500,000: 550 BCE; 4,100,000: 525 BCE; 5,500,000: 500 BCE; 4,800,000: 450 BCE; 3,800,000: 400 BCE; 4,325,000: 350 BCE
[1]
Egypt independent from empire between 403 - 343 BCE. [2] At peak 6.2m km2. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Wiesehofer 2009, 91) [3]: (Broodbank 2015, 583) Broodbank, Cyprian. 2015. The Making of the Middle Sea. Thames & Hudson. London. |
||||||
|
Square kilometers. 2,500,000: 550 BCE; 4,100,000: 525 BCE; 5,500,000: 500 BCE; 4,800,000: 450 BCE; 3,800,000: 400 BCE; 4,325,000: 350 BCE
[1]
Egypt independent from empire between 403 - 343 BCE. [2] At peak 6.2m km2. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Wiesehofer 2009, 91) [3]: (Broodbank 2015, 583) Broodbank, Cyprian. 2015. The Making of the Middle Sea. Thames & Hudson. London. |
||||||
|
Square kilometers. 2,500,000: 550 BCE; 4,100,000: 525 BCE; 5,500,000: 500 BCE; 4,800,000: 450 BCE; 3,800,000: 400 BCE; 4,325,000: 350 BCE
[1]
Egypt independent from empire between 403 - 343 BCE. [2] At peak 6.2m km2. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Wiesehofer 2009, 91) [3]: (Broodbank 2015, 583) Broodbank, Cyprian. 2015. The Making of the Middle Sea. Thames & Hudson. London. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. Estimated using maps and Google Maps Area Calculator.
Territory in 300 BCE Iran, Iraq, Transoxania, Syria and the Levant Territory in 200 BCE Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Levant, south eastern half of Anatolia (excluding patches of the coast). 200 BCE Greek City dug up in Bahrain. [1] Territory in 100 BCE Northern Iraq, Syria and the Levant [1]: Smith, Sylvia. 2013. Bahrain digs unveil one of oldest civilisations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22596270 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. Estimated using maps and Google Maps Area Calculator.
Territory in 300 BCE Iran, Iraq, Transoxania, Syria and the Levant Territory in 200 BCE Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Levant, south eastern half of Anatolia (excluding patches of the coast). 200 BCE Greek City dug up in Bahrain. [1] Territory in 100 BCE Northern Iraq, Syria and the Levant [1]: Smith, Sylvia. 2013. Bahrain digs unveil one of oldest civilisations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22596270 |
||||||
|
1,000,000: 300 BCE
Maximum territorial size reached ca. 280 BC of 1 million km2 (60,000 miles2 or 155, 340 km2 excluding the deserts. [1] Maximum territorial size 1,000,000 km2 300 BCE. [2] [1]: (estimation in Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek state. 2d ed. London 1969:144) [2]: (Manning 2015, Personal Communication and his chapter in "Oxford Handbook of economies in the classical world") |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Very rough estimate from the varying descriptions of Judean territory. Records are not precise enough to provide finer-grained estimates by king.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The Garo Hills districts cover an area of 8,000 square kilometers at present: ‘The two Garo Hills districts are situated between 25 degrees, 9 minutes and 26 degrees, 1 minute north latitude and 89 degrees, 49 minutes and 91 degrees, 2 minutes east longitude, covering an area of 8,000 square kilometers. The districts border Bangladesh on the south and west and Assam on the north. Hills cover most of the district, with plains along the fringes. There are a number of hilly streams and rivers; excepting for the Simsang River which forms a wide flood plain none is navigable. The monsoon area produces a thick vegetation on the hills.’
[1]
This regional integration was an artefact of colonial rule. Prior to the establishment of colonial rule, there was no unifying regional authority to govern the Garo Hills as a whole, given the decentralized nature of the A’chik political system. Local headmen led villages or clusters of villages and these therefore controlled smaller bits of land, probably with uninhabited frontier zones in between. It is accordingly difficult to identify a reasonable code for this variable.
[1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Regional integration was an artefact of colonial rule and the superimposition of a colonial administration upon a native system: ‘The two Garo Hills districts are situated between 25 degrees, 9 minutes and 26 degrees, 1 minute north latitude and 89 degrees, 49 minutes and 91 degrees, 2 minutes east longitude, covering an area of 8,000 square kilometers. The districts border Bangladesh on the south and west and Assam on the north. Hills cover most of the district, with plains along the fringes. There are a number of hilly streams and rivers; excepting for the Simsang River which forms a wide flood plain none is navigable. The monsoon area produces a thick vegetation on the hills.’
[1]
Given how colonial authorities introduced an administrative system in which the A’chik participated through the office of Laskar (see below), we have chosen to code for the district rather than for the village level.
[1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Obeng claims this for the whole of the Ashanti Union at the time
[1]
, which covered most of present-day Ghana and some neighbouring regions: ’At the height of its power the Asanteman, the Asante nation, dominated an area much the size of present-day Ghana, and the frontiers of the old kingdom approximated those of the modern republic. This is the area that, following Kwame Arhin, we have come to know as “Greater Asante” rather than “the Asante Empire.” [...] The Asante lacked cartographic skills, and Greater Asante had, therefore, to be “mentally mapped.” In 1817, T. E. Bowdich was the first to make a serious attempt to represent the extent of Greater Asante on paper and to locate what he called the “boundary of Ashantee authority.” In doing so, he drew heavily upon Asante perceptions of space.’
[2]
Wilks’ informants measured distance in travel time rather than geographical figures: ’Kumase, the capital, was the central point from which the great roads of Asante, the nkwantεmpon, radiated out. The day’s journey, the kwansin, was the basic unit in terms of which distance from the capital was measured.’
[3]
But McLeod provides an approximation: ’Looking back they recall how, until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, they controlled an ever-increasing area which at its peak stretched over 550 km into the interior and encompassed many distinctive groups and regions. Asante armies were powerful and well-organised, equipped with imported firearms scarcely available to poorer and more isolated northern groups.’
[4]
The Republic of Ghana today covers an area of almost 240,000 squared kilometers, the coastline being around 540km long. We can therefore accept Obeng’s claim as a reasonable approximation.
[1]: Obeng, J. Pashington 1996. "Asante Catholicism: Religious and Cultural Reproduction Among the Akan of Ghana", 20 [2]: Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 189 [3]: Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 200 [4]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 10 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers ’Iceland is an island situated just to the south of the Polar Circle in the mid-North Atlantic Ocean. With a surface of 103,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles), Iceland is similar in size to the state of Kentucky. It was formed around 20 million years ago through underwater volcanic eruptions at the place where the Midatlantic Ridge and a ridge extending from Scotland to Greenland cross. Compared to other parts of Europe, Iceland has a short geological history, and its formative process is still far from over. The eastern and western halves of the country are slowly drifting apart, with volcanic eruptions filling the fissures with fresh lava. Fire is not the only element that characterizes the Icelandic environment because, as the name of the country indicates, ice also is a dominant factor. There are four major glaciers in the country, including the largest glacier in Europe, Vatnajökull, which is around 8,300 square kilometers (3,200 square miles) in size.’
[1]
Given Iceland’s status as a Commonwealth at the time, we have chosen to treat the natural boundaries of the island as coextensive with its political borders.
[1]: Hálfdanarson, Guðmundur 2010. "The A to Z of Iceland", 28 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. At the time, the Kingdom of Norway covered a large area in the North Atlantic: ’The realm of the king of Norway, when Iceland became a part of it, was centred on the North Atlantic. It stretched from the west coast of Greenland to the Barents Sea in the north, and south to Göteborg and the Orkneys [...]. Purely in terms of distance, Iceland was not far from the middle of this domain; it was within a week’s travel of the main centres, the royal court at Bergen and the archiepiscoal sea at Trondheim. Just over two centuries later, the capital of the state was the city of Copenhagen on the Sound, and Iceland was at the westernmost point of the kingdom. It was King Haakon (1299-1319), son of Magnus, who turned the thrust of the state to the south and east. He moved his court from Bergen to Oslo, and arranged a marriage between his daughter Ingeborg and the brother of the Swedish king, when she was one year old. Their son, Magnus, inherited the thrones of Sweden and Norway in 1319, at the age of three. Norway as an autonomous kingdom had thus practically ceased to exist. The mid-14th century also saw the Balck Death sweep through Scandinavia. The disease was especially virulent in Norway, where as many as two-third of the population may have died in successive epidemics. In the period 1376-80 the boy king Olaf, son of Hakon, inherited the crowns of Denmark and Norway. Thus Iceland became subject to the Danish throne, a relationship that was not finally broken off until 1944. Olaf was also of the Swedish royal house (which ruled Finland too). It is easy to imagne the idea of a unified Nordic realm forming in the mind of Queen Margarethe, mother of the child king. But in 1387 Olaf suddenly died, aged 17. But Margarethe did not give up her plans. She contrived to have herself elected regent in all the Nordic kingdoms, and to have her six-year-old foster-son nominaated heir to all the thrones. In 1397 an attempt was made in the Swedish city of Karlmar to establish a permanent union of the states.’
[1]
Iceland as a whole was made part of the Norwegian dominion: ’Iceland is an island situated just to the south of the Polar Circle in the mid-North Atlantic Ocean. With a surface of 103,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles), Iceland is similar in size to the state of Kentucky. It was formed around 20 million years ago through underwater volcanic eruptions at the place where the Midatlantic Ridge and a ridge extending from Scotland to Greenland cross. Compared to other parts of Europe, Iceland has a short geological history, and its formative process is still far from over. The eastern and western halves of the country are slowly drifting apart, with volcanic eruptions filling the fissures with fresh lava. Fire is not the only element that characterizes the Icelandic environment because, as the name of the country indicates, ice also is a dominant factor. There are four major glaciers in the country, including the largest glacier in Europe, Vatnajökull, which is around 8,300 square kilometers (3,200 square miles) in size.’
[2]
We have therefore opted to treat the political borders of Iceland as co-extensive with its natural boundaries as an island.
[1]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 22p [2]: Hálfdanarson, Guðmundur 2010. "The A to Z of Iceland", 28 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
280,000: 200 BCE; 2,000,000: 100 BCE; 3,000,000: 1 CE; 1,900,000: 100 CE; 1,800,000: 200 CE Maximum extent should include Oman region? "the Gulf region shared to a great extent in a common cultural kione with Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais and Karmania between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Periplus leaves little doubt that some measure of Parthian authority extended to the Oman peninsular during the first century AD ... other late sources certainly suggests that Ardashir encountered a Parthian ruler in eastern Arabia when he campaigned there near the end of his reign. The Parthian presence in the Gulf, less widely acknowledged perhaps than either the earlier Seleucid or the later Sasanian one, was nevertheless a reality." [1] Coinage of Vologases IV (r.147-191 CE) found in Eastern Arabia (e.g. Jebel Kenzan). [2] The campaigns of Mithridates I (171-138 BCE) spread the authority of the Parthian kings. In 113 BCE Mithridates II took the title of ‘King of Kings’. For 300 years from 92 BC, the Parthian Empire was seen as the main foe of the Roman Empire. Parthian power derived from their military successes and control of commerce. Trade flourished as Parthia was an intermediary between Rome and Far East and became part of the network of Silk Roads. [3] [1]: (Potts 2013, 282) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [2]: (Potts 2013, 280) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [3]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
280,000: 200 BCE; 2,000,000: 100 BCE; 3,000,000: 1 CE; 1,900,000: 100 CE; 1,800,000: 200 CE Maximum extent should include Oman region? "the Gulf region shared to a great extent in a common cultural kione with Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais and Karmania between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Periplus leaves little doubt that some measure of Parthian authority extended to the Oman peninsular during the first century AD ... other late sources certainly suggests that Ardashir encountered a Parthian ruler in eastern Arabia when he campaigned there near the end of his reign. The Parthian presence in the Gulf, less widely acknowledged perhaps than either the earlier Seleucid or the later Sasanian one, was nevertheless a reality." [1] Coinage of Vologases IV (r.147-191 CE) found in Eastern Arabia (e.g. Jebel Kenzan). [2] The campaigns of Mithridates I (171-138 BCE) spread the authority of the Parthian kings. In 113 BCE Mithridates II took the title of ‘King of Kings’. For 300 years from 92 BC, the Parthian Empire was seen as the main foe of the Roman Empire. Parthian power derived from their military successes and control of commerce. Trade flourished as Parthia was an intermediary between Rome and Far East and became part of the network of Silk Roads. [3] [1]: (Potts 2013, 282) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [2]: (Potts 2013, 280) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [3]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
280,000: 200 BCE; 2,000,000: 100 BCE; 3,000,000: 1 CE; 1,900,000: 100 CE; 1,800,000: 200 CE Maximum extent should include Oman region? "the Gulf region shared to a great extent in a common cultural kione with Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais and Karmania between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Periplus leaves little doubt that some measure of Parthian authority extended to the Oman peninsular during the first century AD ... other late sources certainly suggests that Ardashir encountered a Parthian ruler in eastern Arabia when he campaigned there near the end of his reign. The Parthian presence in the Gulf, less widely acknowledged perhaps than either the earlier Seleucid or the later Sasanian one, was nevertheless a reality." [1] Coinage of Vologases IV (r.147-191 CE) found in Eastern Arabia (e.g. Jebel Kenzan). [2] The campaigns of Mithridates I (171-138 BCE) spread the authority of the Parthian kings. In 113 BCE Mithridates II took the title of ‘King of Kings’. For 300 years from 92 BC, the Parthian Empire was seen as the main foe of the Roman Empire. Parthian power derived from their military successes and control of commerce. Trade flourished as Parthia was an intermediary between Rome and Far East and became part of the network of Silk Roads. [3] [1]: (Potts 2013, 282) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [2]: (Potts 2013, 280) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [3]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
Note on the rulership of the Kachi Plains:The duration of rule over the Kachi plain is uncertain. Strabo, quoting Apollodorus of Artemita, states that the Indo-Greek territory, "took possession, not only of Patalena, but also, on the rest of the coast, of what is called the kingdom of Saraostus and Sigerdis" [1] (the provinces of Sindh and possibly Gujarat). However, "with archaeological methods, the Indo-Greek territory can however only be confirmed from the Kabul Valley to the eastern Punjab, so Greek presence outside was probably short-lived or less significant". [2] And Dr Tarn, "pleads for literal Greek rule over country extending from Kabul in a straight line nine hundred miles south to Broach...He speaks of the coastal provinces south of Patalene (Indus Delta) remaining Greek". [3] This would include the Kachi Plain but no dates are provided. [3]: R.B.Whitehead, Notes on the Indo-Greeks (1940), pp. 4-5 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
[2,000,000-2,500,000]: 100 CE 60 CE Greater Bactria, Anxi (Indo-Parthia), Kaofu (Kabul Region), Puda (Paktiya), Jipin (Kapisa and Gandhara), and the Taxila region. However, at this time core area was the Taxila region. [1] Vima Taktu (81-100 CE) and Vima Kadphises (101-127 CE) "the entire region of Greater Gandhara including Uddhyana (Swat, Dir & Bajaur) and Upper and Lower Kabul River valleys became a solid part of the Kushan Empire." [1] "North of the Hindu Kush, till the Guissar Mountains, Kushans exercised some influence; but these regions were not strictly under the political control of the Kushan emperors." [1] "Probably Mathura was also established as a vassal State of the Kushan Empire during this period." [1] [3,500,000-4,000,000]: 150 CE Kanishka I (128-150 CE) "the Kushan Empire included besides the territories of Greater Gandhara, Greater Bactria, part of Parthia and the Tarim Basin in Chinese Xingjiang." [1] [2,000,000-2,500,000]: 200 CE Huvishka (155-190 CE) "it seems that the territories north of the Amu Darya and the Tarim Basin became independent but Bactria (south of the Amu Darya) could have remained under Kushan control." [2] [1,000,000-1,500,000]: 250 CE 230 CE "during the rule of the minor rulers, the entire Central Asian region became independent." [2] Note on the Rabatak Inscription "peak territory" "The Rabatak Inscription ... mentions a number of cities which Kanishka says formed a part of his vast empire. The names of these cities are given as Ozene, Zageda, Kasambo, Palabotro and Ziri tambo in the Rabatak inscription, which the translator of the Rabatak inscription, Professor Nicholas Sims-Williams, has identified with the cities of Ujjain, Saketa, Kausambi, Pataliputra and Champa." "This identification, if it is correct, obviously gives a rather exaggerated account of the extent of the Kushan Empire during Kanishka’s reign. This statement in the Rabatak Inscription is not supported by reliable archaeological or historical information from other sources. At best one could agree that Kanishka invaded these territories and forced the rulers to pay tribute, but such an arrangement could not have lasted for very long. These territories could therefore not be considered an integral part of the Kushan Empire." [3] Sogdiana "The territory of Sogdiana (the Zerafshan valley) did not belong to the Kushan Empire". [4] [1]: (Samad 2011, 86) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [2]: (Samad 2011, 87) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: (Samad 2011, 86-87) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [4]: (Harmatta 1994, 429) Harmatta, J. Languages and literature in the Kushan Empire. 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. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
[2,000,000-2,500,000]: 100 CE 60 CE Greater Bactria, Anxi (Indo-Parthia), Kaofu (Kabul Region), Puda (Paktiya), Jipin (Kapisa and Gandhara), and the Taxila region. However, at this time core area was the Taxila region. [1] Vima Taktu (81-100 CE) and Vima Kadphises (101-127 CE) "the entire region of Greater Gandhara including Uddhyana (Swat, Dir & Bajaur) and Upper and Lower Kabul River valleys became a solid part of the Kushan Empire." [1] "North of the Hindu Kush, till the Guissar Mountains, Kushans exercised some influence; but these regions were not strictly under the political control of the Kushan emperors." [1] "Probably Mathura was also established as a vassal State of the Kushan Empire during this period." [1] [3,500,000-4,000,000]: 150 CE Kanishka I (128-150 CE) "the Kushan Empire included besides the territories of Greater Gandhara, Greater Bactria, part of Parthia and the Tarim Basin in Chinese Xingjiang." [1] [2,000,000-2,500,000]: 200 CE Huvishka (155-190 CE) "it seems that the territories north of the Amu Darya and the Tarim Basin became independent but Bactria (south of the Amu Darya) could have remained under Kushan control." [2] [1,000,000-1,500,000]: 250 CE 230 CE "during the rule of the minor rulers, the entire Central Asian region became independent." [2] Note on the Rabatak Inscription "peak territory" "The Rabatak Inscription ... mentions a number of cities which Kanishka says formed a part of his vast empire. The names of these cities are given as Ozene, Zageda, Kasambo, Palabotro and Ziri tambo in the Rabatak inscription, which the translator of the Rabatak inscription, Professor Nicholas Sims-Williams, has identified with the cities of Ujjain, Saketa, Kausambi, Pataliputra and Champa." "This identification, if it is correct, obviously gives a rather exaggerated account of the extent of the Kushan Empire during Kanishka’s reign. This statement in the Rabatak Inscription is not supported by reliable archaeological or historical information from other sources. At best one could agree that Kanishka invaded these territories and forced the rulers to pay tribute, but such an arrangement could not have lasted for very long. These territories could therefore not be considered an integral part of the Kushan Empire." [3] Sogdiana "The territory of Sogdiana (the Zerafshan valley) did not belong to the Kushan Empire". [4] [1]: (Samad 2011, 86) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [2]: (Samad 2011, 87) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: (Samad 2011, 86-87) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [4]: (Harmatta 1994, 429) Harmatta, J. Languages and literature in the Kushan Empire. 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. |
||||||
|
KM2
[1]
2,300,000: 230 CE; 2,400,000: 250 CE; 2,500,000: 270 CE; 2,600,000: 290 CE; 2,700,000: 310 CE; 2,800,000: 330 CE; 2,900,000: 350 CE; 3,000,000: 370 CE; 3,100,000: 390 CE; 3,200,000: 410 CE; 3,300,000: 430 CE; 3,400,000: 450 CE; 3,420,000: 470 CE; 3,440,000: 490 CE
[1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
KM2
[1]
2,300,000: 230 CE; 2,400,000: 250 CE; 2,500,000: 270 CE; 2,600,000: 290 CE; 2,700,000: 310 CE; 2,800,000: 330 CE; 2,900,000: 350 CE; 3,000,000: 370 CE; 3,100,000: 390 CE; 3,200,000: 410 CE; 3,300,000: 430 CE; 3,400,000: 450 CE; 3,420,000: 470 CE; 3,440,000: 490 CE
[1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers,
In 532 CE India was lost after a successful rebellion. In 557 CE - 561 CE the Sasasanids annexed substantial territories, and in 565 CE the Goturks claimed the remainder and took a number of successor kingdoms as vassals. The late fifth and early sixth centuries saw the start of Hephthalite raids on Gandhara and northern India. Information is scarce, but recent discoveries have given evidence of what had been earlier only speculation. Islamic sources describe a series of disastrous campaigns by the Sassasian King Peroz that resulted in his eventual death. [1] Following this victory, the Hepthalties secured control over Central Asia, Korasan and Afganistan from the Sassanian and Kushan Kingdoms. [2] They continued to expand until the sixth century, when they were defeated by a recovered Sassasian Empire fighting alongside another confederation of central Asian nomads known as the Gokturks. This defeat destroyed Hepthalite power in transoxania, though some fragment of power seems to have existed until the Arab invasions. [1] [1]: encyclopedia iranica vol. XII, HAREM I - ILLUMINATIONISM, 2004. Fasc. 2, pp. 198-201 [2]: Docherty, Paddy. The Khyber Pass: a history of empire and invasion. Union Square Press, 2008. p. 105 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers,
In 532 CE India was lost after a successful rebellion. In 557 CE - 561 CE the Sasasanids annexed substantial territories, and in 565 CE the Goturks claimed the remainder and took a number of successor kingdoms as vassals. The late fifth and early sixth centuries saw the start of Hephthalite raids on Gandhara and northern India. Information is scarce, but recent discoveries have given evidence of what had been earlier only speculation. Islamic sources describe a series of disastrous campaigns by the Sassasian King Peroz that resulted in his eventual death. [1] Following this victory, the Hepthalties secured control over Central Asia, Korasan and Afganistan from the Sassanian and Kushan Kingdoms. [2] They continued to expand until the sixth century, when they were defeated by a recovered Sassasian Empire fighting alongside another confederation of central Asian nomads known as the Gokturks. This defeat destroyed Hepthalite power in transoxania, though some fragment of power seems to have existed until the Arab invasions. [1] [1]: encyclopedia iranica vol. XII, HAREM I - ILLUMINATIONISM, 2004. Fasc. 2, pp. 198-201 [2]: Docherty, Paddy. The Khyber Pass: a history of empire and invasion. Union Square Press, 2008. p. 105 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. 6,700,000: 661 CE; 7,850,000: 680 CE; 9,000,000: 700 CE; 11,100,000: 720-750 CE
[1]
Actual control of this territory, especially in areas recently conquered means that this estimate should be viewed with some skepticism. Much of the territory was uninhabited desert. [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. This based on the modern area of the Pakistan province of Sindh, but given that the Sind also control the Kachi plain this is most likely an underestimate.
[1]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindh#Soomro_period |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[60,000-80,000]: 1150 CE; [900,000-1,100,000]: 1175 CE; [1,600,000-1,700,000]: 1200 CE. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[60,000-80,000]: 1150 CE; [900,000-1,100,000]: 1175 CE; [1,600,000-1,700,000]: 1200 CE. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[60,000-80,000]: 1150 CE; [900,000-1,100,000]: 1175 CE; [1,600,000-1,700,000]: 1200 CE. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers, calculated using Google area calculator and map of Sultanate at its height c.1320-1350 CE
The Sultans began to cede territory for the rest of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, losing control of Bengal, the Deccan and the south. [1] [1]: Habib, I. (2005). The Delhi Sultanate in The state and society in medieval India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.37-44. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. This based on the modern area of the Pakistan province of Sindh, but given that the Sind also controlled portions of Balochistan and territory to the north this is most likely an underestimate.
[1]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindh#Soomro_period |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. 1,792,327: 1772 CE; 489,172: 1819 CE Inferred: the 1772 CE estimate is an approximation based on the modern day territory of the component territories of Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, and the former Iranian province of Khorasan. The second date reflects the loss of external territories by the beginning of the nineteenth century.
[1]
Conquests including former territory of the Mughal and Maratha Empires in India, the Afsharid Empire of Persia, and the Khanate of Bukhara. [2] In 1757 CE, the Durrani sacked Delhi and dealt a deathblow to the formerly powerful Moghul Empire. This resulted in the conquest of Punjab, the Sindh, and the Kachi plains. [3] After 1809 CE, the East India company signed the Treaty of Amritsar with a Sikh Maharaja named Ranjit Singh. Following an agreement to halt expansion southward, Singh conquered Multan and the Kachi plains in 1818 CE, Kashmir in 1819 CE, and finally Peshawar in 1823 CE. [3] [1]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. pp. 99-100 [2]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press, 2010. pp. 97-109 [3]: Qassem, Ahmad Shayeq. Afghanistan’s political stability: a dream unrealised. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009. p. 24 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. 1,792,327: 1772 CE; 489,172: 1819 CE Inferred: the 1772 CE estimate is an approximation based on the modern day territory of the component territories of Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, and the former Iranian province of Khorasan. The second date reflects the loss of external territories by the beginning of the nineteenth century.
[1]
Conquests including former territory of the Mughal and Maratha Empires in India, the Afsharid Empire of Persia, and the Khanate of Bukhara. [2] In 1757 CE, the Durrani sacked Delhi and dealt a deathblow to the formerly powerful Moghul Empire. This resulted in the conquest of Punjab, the Sindh, and the Kachi plains. [3] After 1809 CE, the East India company signed the Treaty of Amritsar with a Sikh Maharaja named Ranjit Singh. Following an agreement to halt expansion southward, Singh conquered Multan and the Kachi plains in 1818 CE, Kashmir in 1819 CE, and finally Peshawar in 1823 CE. [3] [1]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. pp. 99-100 [2]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press, 2010. pp. 97-109 [3]: Qassem, Ahmad Shayeq. Afghanistan’s political stability: a dream unrealised. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009. p. 24 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. 1,792,327: 1772 CE; 489,172: 1819 CE Inferred: the 1772 CE estimate is an approximation based on the modern day territory of the component territories of Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, and the former Iranian province of Khorasan. The second date reflects the loss of external territories by the beginning of the nineteenth century.
[1]
Conquests including former territory of the Mughal and Maratha Empires in India, the Afsharid Empire of Persia, and the Khanate of Bukhara. [2] In 1757 CE, the Durrani sacked Delhi and dealt a deathblow to the formerly powerful Moghul Empire. This resulted in the conquest of Punjab, the Sindh, and the Kachi plains. [3] After 1809 CE, the East India company signed the Treaty of Amritsar with a Sikh Maharaja named Ranjit Singh. Following an agreement to halt expansion southward, Singh conquered Multan and the Kachi plains in 1818 CE, Kashmir in 1819 CE, and finally Peshawar in 1823 CE. [3] [1]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. pp. 99-100 [2]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press, 2010. pp. 97-109 [3]: Qassem, Ahmad Shayeq. Afghanistan’s political stability: a dream unrealised. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009. p. 24 |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Centers in Kyushu (south west Japan) and Nara-Osaka-Kobe area until 600 CE when unified by a bureaucracy and Buddhism. So 250-599 CE = Nara-Osaka-Kobe, whilst 600-710 CE = Nara-Osaka-Kobe + Kyushu (south west Japan). "The other main centre was in the fertile, but circumscribed, alluvial systems of the Nara-Osaka-Kobe area, where status differentiation appears instead to have been based on hereditary ritual authority. The fusion of these geographical power-bases had occurred by about A.D. 600, by which time a well-developed bureaucracy in the Nara basin was exerting its authority and promoting Buddhism as a unifying ideology for the new regime, thus replacing the ritual authority vested in earlier individual rulers." [2] "From about A.D. 300 until the capital was moved to Kyoto in the late 8th century, the Nara basin definitely was the centre of sociopolitical development in Japan." [3] "it is difficult to see any evidence for a political unification of a large part of Japan as early as A.D. 369, or shortly thereafter. Yamao (1977) argues, on documentary grounds, that unification was not achieved until about A.D. 531." [4] "the administrative devices of the central state in the Nara were imported from the continent in order to consolidate the power of that state vis a vis the competing polities in the surrounding areas within Japan." [4] There is not a unique polity in this period. The political landscape appears fragmented into a variety of competing chiefdoms. The most important political centres in this period are Miwa, Kawachi and Asuka respectively in the Early, Middle and Late Kofun period [5] . [1]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985: 396) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/A2BBAAY5. [2]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [3]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 394) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [4]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [5]: G. Barnes, 2007. State formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century ruling elite. Routledge, 10. |
||||||
|
KM2.
Centers in Kyushu (south west Japan) and Nara-Osaka-Kobe area until 600 CE when unified by a bureaucracy and Buddhism. So 250-599 CE = Nara-Osaka-Kobe, whilst 600-710 CE = Nara-Osaka-Kobe + Kyushu (south west Japan). "The other main centre was in the fertile, but circumscribed, alluvial systems of the Nara-Osaka-Kobe area, where status differentiation appears instead to have been based on hereditary ritual authority. The fusion of these geographical power-bases had occurred by about A.D. 600, by which time a well-developed bureaucracy in the Nara basin was exerting its authority and promoting Buddhism as a unifying ideology for the new regime, thus replacing the ritual authority vested in earlier individual rulers." [1] [1]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
According to map, provinces in the Heian period covered the whole of Japan, minus the island of Hokkaido. [1] [1]: http://www.ijparker.com/about_heian_japan.htm |
||||||
|
KM2
I have provided the gross land figure for Japan’s three main islands Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku. [1] ’The western and southern borders remained more or less constant, while in the north there may have been some limited expansion into southern Hokkaido. Beyond this is it difficult to be specific. The problem is that in the medieval period we no longer have any convenient yardstick for measuring the extent of Japanese ‘territory’. The old provinces and districts continued to exist, at least in name, but the state ceased to play an active role in defining or maintaining territorial units of local administration. On a smaller scale, the government was involved in defining the boundaries of private landholdings, both by conducting land-surveys such as the ōtabumi of the Kamakura period, and by resolving land disputes through the judicial system. However these activities had merely local significance and did not result in any clarification of Japan’s borders as a whole. As a consequence it is very difficult to say where the frontiers of the medieval Japanese state lay; we know the locations of individual landholdings, and we know the general spheres of activity of the various public officials, but we do not know the outer limits of the system itself—precisely because no attempt was made to define these limits at the time. [2] [1]: Totman, Conrad. 1993. Early Modern Japan. University of California Press. Berkeley; London. p.3-4 [2]: Batten, Bruce. 1999, "Frontiers and Boundaries of Pre-Modern Japan." Journal of Historical Geography 25(2). pp.173-174. |
||||||
|
KM2. 295,000: 1336 CE. At the beginning of the Muromachi period the shogunate’s authority encompassed the whole country therefore I have provided the gross land figure for Japan’s three main islands Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku.
[1]
’By the time of the last shogun, the scope of the bakufu’s control had been reduced almost solely to the city of Kyoto and its close environs. Control of Kyoto, in and of itself, was an important achievement, and the fact that Kyoto became subject to bakufu administration was of major significance for the Ashikaga house’s staying ability.’
[2]
These trends reached a peak during the so-called sengoku or ‘warring states’ period (1467-1568) when the Japanese state itself began to fragment, causing the old borders to lose their original meaning as they were supplemented and replaced by a new system of ‘internal’ borders.
[3]
’regional powers became more and more independent after the Onin War of the mid fifteenth century. During the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries these warlords, known as sengoku daimyo¯, consolidated their rule over domains that were essentially sovereign ‘mini-states’. Admittedly, they were not necessarily conceived as such at the time: the idea of ‘Japan’ as a single country remained fairly strong in the sengoku period, as is clear from the writings of the various Europeans who visited Japan during the sixteenth century.
[3]
[1]: Totman, Conrad. 1993. Early Modern Japan. University of California Press. Berkeley; London. p.3-4 [2]: Yamamura, Kozo (ed). 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 3. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press [sixth edition].p.216 [3]: Batten, Bruce. 1999, "Frontiers and Boundaries of Pre-Modern Japan." Journal of Historical Geography 25(2). p.175 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Typical maximum size of kokka territory of a daimyo.
|
||||||
|
KM2. the gross land figure for Japan’s three main islands Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku.
[1]
’ ’During the process of political re-unification in the late sixteenth century, the emergent borders between sengoku daimyo¯ domains were again ‘demoted’ to the status of internal administrative boundaries. The area under ‘unified’ rule expanded very rapidly in this period, even going beyond Japan’s ‘traditional’ boundaries for a brief period in the 1590s as a result of Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasions of the Korean peninsula. However upon Hideyoshi’s death, all attempts to conquer Korea were abandoned, and Japan’s national territory reverted to more or less the same dimensions as in the medieval period—the three islands of Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu, plus the southern tip of Hokkaido. At least in a formal, political sense, this national territory remained more or less unchanged until the end of the eighteenth century.
[2]
[1]: Totman, Conrad. 1993. Early Modern Japan. University of California Press. Berkeley; London. p.3-4 [2]: Batten, Bruce. 1999, "Frontiers and Boundaries of Pre-Modern Japan." Journal of Historical Geography 25(2). p.175 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Given the gradual extension of Brooke Raj rule, this variable is somewhat difficult to ’codify’. Iban communities and their headmen controlled relatively small tracts of land, but the Brooke Raj administration introduced additional administrative positions for Iban leaders for the purposes of colonial administration and indirect rule. It therefore seems appropriate to treat ’polity territory’ as co-extensive with Sarawak (even though Iban communities also resided elsewhere), given how most of our ethnographic data are from this area.
|
||||||
|
Km2.
90,000 in m² [1] -- the reference has 8500-5500 in the title. check that this number is not for earlier period than this. The Central Anatolia Plain (including Cappadocia with occasional references to Cilicia) and North-Central Anatolia within the bend of the Kizil Irmah River. The subject of the database is the culture of the Middle and Late Chalcolithic located in Central Anatolia (including Cappadocia, with occasional references to Cilicia) and also North-Central Anatolia in the bend of the river Kizil Irmah. As many publications state, this era is considered as the dark ages and that during this time nothing really significant happened. [1]: Construcing Communities, Clustered Neighbourhood Settelments of the Central Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 CAL. BC, Bleda S. During 2006, Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten, pp.278 |
||||||
|
157km long journey from Kaniš to Açemhöyük would be a polity of 25,000 if 157 represented a side of a square. Using 25k as upper limit of a range.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Includes
a) ’core territory’ (Hittite capital Hattusa and a number of regional administrative centres) b) territories peripheral to the core,under the direct control of the king or his officials; c) vassal states subject to the king but under the immediate authority of local rulers; d) from the reign of Suppiluliuma I onwards, two viceregal kingdoms in northern Syria. |
||||||
|
Includes
a) ’core territory’ (Hittite capital Hattusa and a number of regional administrative centres) b) territories peripheral to the core,under the direct control of the king or his officials; c) vassal states subject to the king but under the immediate authority of local rulers; d) from the reign of Suppiluliuma I onwards, two viceregal kingdoms in northern Syria. |
||||||
|
"The Neo-Hittite states varied considerably in size, from a few to several hundred square kilometres. The smaller Tabalian kingdoms are examples of the former, Hamath and Bit-Burutash of the latter."
[1]
Tabal --- the region "Tabal covered much of what was called the Lower Land in Late Bronze Age Hittite texts, including the territory of the Classical Tyanitis. Westwards, it extended to the Konya Plain, encompassing the sites now known as Kizildag and Karadag. The region had been integrated into Hittite territory, probably very early in Hittite history, and served as a kind of southern and south-western buffer zone to the Hittite homeland." [2] Northern Tabal (Tabal ’Proper’) --- a kingdom in the region of Tabal ruling line possibly dates to mid-9th century BCE but could be earlier [3] largest of the Tabal Kingdoms, probably contained sub-regions [4] "it corresponded roughly to the modern provinces of Kayseri and Nigde." [3] Carchemish --- may have had some control over Konya Plain region after the fall of the Hittite Empire? "If one identifies the agricultural hinterland of Karkamis with the plains and valleys west of the river and excludes the mountainous regions to the north, the territory of the kingdom can be assessed at over 750 km2." [5] [1]: (Bryce 2012, 80) [2]: (Bryce 2002, 43) [3]: (Bryce 2012, 142) [4]: (Bryce 2012, 141-142) [5]: (Thuesen 2002, 47) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. It is a hypothetical number calculated from the map of Phrygia.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Total area divided by 20 (approximate number of kings). 110,000 / 20 = 5,500 km2 for size of average polity.
Assyrian annals refer to about 20 kings paying tribute following the invasion of 836 BCE and this number roughly corresponds to the number of early Iron Age sites found in the region. "The large number of kings mentioned implies that the area was divided into city-states controlled by autonomous or semi-autonomous rulers. Since Tuatti is referred to by name and apparently held sway over several towns, one suspects that he was the most powerful of these kings." [1] [2] "The exact location and extent of the ancient polities remain stubbornly elusive, but sources indicate that greater Tabal was bounded in the north by the southern bend of the Halys River, in the west by Phrygia, in the east by Tilgarimmu, Melid, and Urartu, and in the south by Hilakku and Quwe." [1] [2] "The region called Tabal in the Iron Age extended over a large part of south-eastern Anatolia, southwards from the southern curve of the Halys river (Kizil Irmak) toward the Taurus mountains, westwards to the Konya Plain and eastwards towards the anti-Taurus range. The population of the region was very likely a predominantly Luwian one, as it had been throughout the Late Bronze Age and perhaps already in the early second millennium." [3] "Tabal covered much of what was called the Lower Land in Late Bronze Age Hittite texts, including the territory of the Classical Tyanitis. Westwards, it extended to the Konya Plain, encompassing the sites now known as Kizildag and Karadag." [4] "The Neo-Hittite states varied considerably in size, from a few to several hundred square kilometres. The smaller Tabalian kingdoms are examples of the former, Hamath and Bit-Burutash of the latter." [5] Northern Tabal (Tabal ’Proper’) was the largest of the Tabal kingdoms, probably contained sub-regions, "it corresponded roughly to the modern provinces of Kayseri and Nigde." [6] [7] [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. [3]: (Bryce 2012, 141) [4]: (Bryce 2002, 43) [5]: (Bryce 2012, 80) [6]: (Bryce 2012, 142) [7]: (Bryce 2012, 141-142) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
At peak eastern border was at the Halys River. [1] Core area of Lydia Turkish province of Usak. [2] Lydia was an Empire of c250,000 km2 by late 7th century. [3] [1]: (Rich, Kurt M V. 2012. Chasing the Golden Hoard: A Tale of Theft, Repatriation, Greed & Deceit. Authorhouse.) [2]: (Rich 2012) Rich, Kurt M V. 2012. Chasing the Golden Hoard: A Tale of Theft, Repatriation, Greed & Deceit. Authorhouse. [3]: (Broodbank 2015, 537) Broodbank, Cyprian. 2015. The Making of the Middle Sea. Thames & Hudson. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Estimated using Google Area Calculator and the territory shown on the map (above) of Lysimachus’ kingdom around 300 BCE.
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers. 130,000: 129 BCE
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Estimate of Ilkhanate at its greatest extent.
The Ilkhanate emerged from the Mongol conquest of Iran, Iraq and Turkey. The armies of Hulegu had attacked and destroyed many of the great cites of the Middle East, and ended the Abbasid Caliphate. Local dynasties had to submit to Mongol rule. In 1300 the Mongols spilt up their empire into four semi-independent regions, one of these was the Ilkhanate. From then on it was a fairly autonomous polity, although its rulers acknowledged a higher authority in the Great Khan. The Ilkhanate saw the return of stability to the region. Over time the Ilkhanate absorbed influences from Persia and the Middle East, becoming less ’Mongol’. [1] [1]: REUVEN AMITAI, ’IL-KHANIDS i. DYNASTIC HISTORY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/il-khanids-i-dynastic-history; Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp.134-148. |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Permanent basis on the Balkans only from 1352 CE onwards. [2] according to J. MATUZ, Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte. Darmstadt 2006. [2] Ca. 18,000 1320 CE 260,000 in 1389 CE according to Matuz 2006. 690,000 in 1402 CE according to Matuz 2006. [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Permanent basis on the Balkans only from 1352 CE onwards. [2] according to J. MATUZ, Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte. Darmstadt 2006. [2] Ca. 18,000 1320 CE 260,000 in 1389 CE according to Matuz 2006. 690,000 in 1402 CE according to Matuz 2006. [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Permanent basis on the Balkans only from 1352 CE onwards. [2] according to J. MATUZ, Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte. Darmstadt 2006. [2] Ca. 18,000 1320 CE 260,000 in 1389 CE according to Matuz 2006. 690,000 in 1402 CE according to Matuz 2006. [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Permanent basis on the Balkans only from 1352 CE onwards. [2] according to J. MATUZ, Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte. Darmstadt 2006. [2] Ca. 18,000 1320 CE 260,000 in 1389 CE according to Matuz 2006. 690,000 in 1402 CE according to Matuz 2006. [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
KM2.
[1]
Permanent basis on the Balkans only from 1352 CE onwards. [2] according to J. MATUZ, Das Osmanische Reich. Grundlinien seiner Geschichte. Darmstadt 2006. [2] Ca. 18,000 1320 CE 260,000 in 1389 CE according to Matuz 2006. 690,000 in 1402 CE according to Matuz 2006. [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
3,400,000: 1520 CE; 3,833,000: 1540 CE; 4,267,000: 1560 CE; 4,745,000: 1580 CE; 4,836,000: 1600 CE; 4,927,000: 1620 CE; 5,018,000: 1640 CE; 5,109,000: 1660 CE; 5,200,000: 1680 CE in squared kilometers
[1]
5.2 million KM2 at greatest territorial extent. [2] [1]: (Chase Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Turchin, Adams and Hall 2006) Peter Turchin. Jonathan M Adams. Thomas D Hall. 2006. ’East-West Orientation of Historical Empires.’ Journal of World-Systems Research. 12 (2): 219-229 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Average amount of territory controlled by settlements of Latium vetus during the Bronze Age.
|
||||||
|
[1]
By end of the Regal Period, Rome held about one third, or more, of the area of Latium Vetas. [2] "as a consequence of Rome’s urban development during the sixth century, which involved increased economic activity, a rise in population from growth and incorporation of foreigners as new citizens, and the increase in the territorial extent of the Roman state, a new military organization was introduced to take advantage of these economic, demographic, and geographical changes, and the result was a hoplite phalanx recruited from new territorial districts called tribes." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (Cornell 1995, 205) [3]: (Forsythe 2006, 115) Forsythe, Gary. 2006. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. University of California Press. |
||||||
|
At the beginning of the Republic, Roman territory comprised about 500 square miles, and by 338 BCE the territory controlled was 2000 square miles of Latium, expanding north and south.
[1]
[1]: (Noble 2010: 121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/PZWRGX5H. |
||||||
|
At the beginning of the Republic, Roman territory comprised about 500 square miles, and by 338 BCE the territory controlled was 2000 square miles of Latium, expanding north and south.
[1]
[1]: (Noble 2010: 121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/PZWRGX5H. |
||||||
|
At the beginning of the Republic, Roman territory comprised about 500 square miles, and by 338 BCE the territory controlled was 2000 square miles of Latium, expanding north and south.
[1]
[1]: (Noble 2010: 121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/PZWRGX5H. |
||||||
|
KM2. In 265 BCE Roman territory was approximately 50,000 square miles and still growing.
[1]
[1]: (Taagepera 1979: 125) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/GPEXGDM4. |
||||||
|
KM2. in 49 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (Taagepera 1979: 125) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/GPEXGDM4. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
635,016 km².
From 511-549 CE Visigothic Spain was effectively an autonomous sub-kingdom of the Ostrogothic realm and Ravenna received annual tribute. Amalaric was the last of the Visigothic royal line descended from Alaric I (who sacked Rome). "The new king, Teudis (531-548), was that Ostrogothic general appointed to command the military of the peninsular by Theodoric and the former guardian of Amalaric. The former’s accession was probably accompanied by some distribution of royal fisc lands to both the Visigothic nobility and the Ostrogothic warriors who had bolstered the Iberian garrisons during the latter’s minority. Teudis also had previously taken a wife from the family of the Hispano-Roman nobility and that faction of the kingdom too likely shared in the distribution of fisc lands. If the royal authority suffered from all of this, at the same time it advanced the cohesion and mutual interest of the political classes of the new realm." [1] Teudis had been the bodyguard of Amalaric and was effectively leader during Amalaric during his regency. Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great was Amalaric’s grandfather. 511 CE onwards Ostrogothic military helped Visigoths counterattack against the Frankish invasion. Theudis was effectively completely independent in Spain and even ignored an invitation to Theodoric in Ravenna (must have been pre-531, before Theodoric’s death) but he kept paying the annual tributum. Amalaric’s assassination by his own men in 531 CE was "perhaps urged on by Theudis". [2] [1]: Bernard F Reilly. The Medieval Spains. 1993. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Burns 1991, 98-99) Burns, T. S. 1991. A History of the Ostrogoths. Indiana University Press |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Estimate for whole polity/sub-polity area.
Exarchate of Ravenna refers to a region around the capital of this polity/sub-polity. [1] "Geographically the exarchate of Ravenna was bounded on the north by the Adige, the Tartaro, and the principal branch of the Po as far as its confluence with the Panaro. Hadria and Gabellum were its most northern towns in the hands of the imperialists. The western frontier is more difficult to determine with exactitude; it may be said to have run between Modena and Bologna. On the south the Marecchia divided the exarchate from the Dutchy of the Pentapolis whose capital was Rimini. [1] "diagonal strip of territory extending from north of Ravenna to south of Rome, the peninsula’s southern extremities, and various coastal enclaves." [2] [1]: (Hutton 1926) [2]: (Ring 1994, 556) Ring, Trudy. Salkin, Robert M. La Boda, Sharon. 1994. International Dictionary of Historic Places: Southern Europe. Taylor & Francis. |
||||||
|
14,000: 900 CE; 14,000: 1000 CE; 6,000: 1100 CE. This is Wickham’s figure for the territorium Sancti Petri, the fundamental core of the Duchy of Rome.
[1]
The second figure is Wickham’s estimate for Rome’s territory after it had lost effective control of the rest of Lazio, during the crises of the late eleventh century.
[2]
We need to remember, however, that the claims of the papacy were far wider, extending as they did from Rome’s territory (contado) all the way up to the Po River Delta. 14,000: 1000 CE = inferred data.
[1]: Wickham (2015), 36-37, for this figure, and the large size of Rome’s territory in comparison with other Italian polities. [2]: Wickham (2015), 36 |
||||||
|
14,000: 900 CE; 14,000: 1000 CE; 6,000: 1100 CE. This is Wickham’s figure for the territorium Sancti Petri, the fundamental core of the Duchy of Rome.
[1]
The second figure is Wickham’s estimate for Rome’s territory after it had lost effective control of the rest of Lazio, during the crises of the late eleventh century.
[2]
We need to remember, however, that the claims of the papacy were far wider, extending as they did from Rome’s territory (contado) all the way up to the Po River Delta. 14,000: 1000 CE = inferred data.
[1]: Wickham (2015), 36-37, for this figure, and the large size of Rome’s territory in comparison with other Italian polities. [2]: Wickham (2015), 36 |
||||||
|
NB!: 40,000 is a very rough estimate, based on the firmer figure of 44,000 for the mid-17th century, when Ferrara was more or less securely a part of the Papal State. A lower figure seems more suitable for this period, when papal control over the papal states was less secure and often virtually non-existent due to schisms or rebellions. It remains rough, though, and needs more research (see my August 2014 status report-JFR). -- how do we code unsecurely held territory? to be consistent with coding of other polities we might code the full territory that was, that was claimed and for which effort was expended to be retained? - ET
c1200 CE 44,000 |
||||||
|
This was the extent of the Papal States in 1649, following the papacy’s cession of some cities in the Po Valley to the Farnese and Este; the brackets reflect that these areas, in the extreme north of the Papal States, passed back and forth between de facto independence, acknowledgment of papal suzerainty, and direct submission to the papacy during the period.
|
||||||
|
This was the extent of the Papal States in 1649, following some concessions in the Po Valley. The territory contracted and expanded slightly during the period without any substantial adjustments, thus it should be bracketed.
|
||||||
|
km2. An estimate of 16 km2, calculated on the basis that villages were typically 4 km apart.
[1]
The Spanish subjected parts of the Shuar population, but were unable to maintain control over Shuar territory as a whole: ’The first reported white penetration of Jivaro territory was made in 1549 by a Spanish expedition under Hernando de Benavente. Later expeditions of colonists and soldiers soon followed. These newcomers traded with the Jivaro, made peace pacts with them, and soon began to exploit the gold found in alluvial or glacial deposits in the region. Eventually the Spaniards were able to obtain the co-operation of some of the Indians in working the gold deposits, but others remained hostile, killing many of the colonists and soldiers at every opportunity. Under the subjection of the Spaniards, the Jivaro were required to pay tribute in gold dust; a demand that increased yearly. Finally, in 1599, the Jivaro rebelled en masse, killing many thousands of Spaniards in the process and driving them from the region. After 1599, until nearly the middle of the nineteenth century, Jivaro-European relations remained intermittent and mostly hostile. A few missionary and military expeditions entered the region from the Andean highlands, but these frequently ended in disaster and no permanent colonization ever resulted. One of the few "friendly" gestures reported for the tribe during this time occurred in 1767, when they gave a Spanish missionizing expedition "gifts", which included the skulls of Spaniards who had apparently been killed earlier by the Jivaro (Harner, 1953: 26). Thus it seems that the Jivaros are the only tribe known to have successfully revolted against the Spanish Empire and to have been able to thwart all subsequent attempts by the Spaniards to conquer them. They have withstood armies of gold seeking Inkas as well as Spaniards, and defied the bravado of the early conquistadors.’
[1]
The gradual ’fraying out’ of colonial control from ’frontier’ to ’interior’ communities makes the drawing of clear territorial and demographic boundaries more difficult: ’Much of the trade of the Jivaro is between the "interior", relatively isolated groups (particularly the Achuara) and those "frontier" groups living in close proximity to Ecuadorian settlements where they have easy access to Western industrialized products. Through a series of neighborhood-to-neighborhood relays by native trading partners (AMIGRI) these products were passed from the frontier Jivaro into the most remote parts of the tribal territory. Thus the interior Jivaro were supplied with steel cutting tools, firearms and ammunition without having to come into contact with the population of European ancestry. In exchange the frontier Jivaro, whose supply of local game was nearly exhausted, obtained hides, feathers and bird skins (used for ornaments), which were not readily available in their own territory.’
[1]
As indicated above, the Shuar political system was decentralized and fragmented, given the persistence of autonomous communities and ad hoc alliances in warfare. We therefore cannot confidently provide proxy measures.
[1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro |
||||||
|
[1]
Thutmose I (c1530-1520 BCE) conquered the independent kingdom of Kush in northern Sudan. [2] Under Thutmose III (c1504-1450 BCE) Syria and Palestine first conquered 1470-1450 BCE, then lost 1380-1365 BCE. Mostly reclaimed between 1299-1232 BCE, under Ramses II. [3] Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) [2]: (Mokhtar 1981, 265) [3]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 5) |
||||||
|
[1]
Thutmose I (c1530-1520 BCE) conquered the independent kingdom of Kush in northern Sudan. [2] Under Thutmose III (c1504-1450 BCE) Syria and Palestine first conquered 1470-1450 BCE, then lost 1380-1365 BCE. Mostly reclaimed between 1299-1232 BCE, under Ramses II. [3] Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) [2]: (Mokhtar 1981, 265) [3]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 5) |
||||||
|
[1]
Thutmose I (c1530-1520 BCE) conquered the independent kingdom of Kush in northern Sudan. [2] Under Thutmose III (c1504-1450 BCE) Syria and Palestine first conquered 1470-1450 BCE, then lost 1380-1365 BCE. Mostly reclaimed between 1299-1232 BCE, under Ramses II. [3] Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) [2]: (Mokhtar 1981, 265) [3]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 5) |
||||||
|
[1]
Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. The following territories should be included: up the Nile all the way to the fifth cataract: North Levant (Liban, Syria (c. 20% of Syria), Western Jordan, Israel, Libyan coast West of the Delta, about 300 km west of Alexandria. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) |
||||||
|
[1]
Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. The following territories should be included: up the Nile all the way to the fifth cataract: North Levant (Liban, Syria (c. 20% of Syria), Western Jordan, Israel, Libyan coast West of the Delta, about 300 km west of Alexandria. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) |
||||||
|
[1]
Ramses III (c1182-1151 BCE) Asiatic colonies conquered by Sea Peoples. The following territories should be included: up the Nile all the way to the fifth cataract: North Levant (Liban, Syria (c. 20% of Syria), Western Jordan, Israel, Libyan coast West of the Delta, about 300 km west of Alexandria. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet [3]) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimated area around that Delta that has control of Thebes and has influence as far south as Aswan. 21st Dynasty "control was divided between a line of kings in the north and a sequence of army commanders who held the post of high priest of Amun, at Thebes." [1] [1]: (Taylor 2000, 325) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Kingdom of Aksum map on page 59 for 1st - 3rd CE and 4th - 6th CE periods. [1] 1st - 3rd CEMainland Africa: 351,881 km2 4th - 6th CEMainland Africa: 496,929 km2 South Arabia: 159,214 km2 Maximum: 656,143 km2 "It will be argued that, in the course of the military campaigns described in Monumentum Adulitanum II, the Aksumite army pushed as far north as the southeastern frontier of Roman Egypt and as far west as the modern Sudanese-Ethiopian borderlands, Kush was left in peace." [2] [1]: (Falola 2002, 59) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. [2]: (Hatke 2013) George Hatke. 2013. Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World). New York University Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimated from a map showing the Soninke homeland [1] and another map which shows Ghana also extending further east and south into the Niger Inland Delta region. [2] "Among the provinces of Ghana is a region called Sama, the inhabitants of which are known as the Bukum. From that region to Ghana is four day’s travel." [3] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 24) [2]: (Konemann et al 2010, 302 Atlas Historica, Editions Place des Victories. Paris.) [3]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 19) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
KM2. 2,400,000: 969 CE; 1,400,000: 1000 CE; 1,000,000: 1050 CE; 631,000: 1100 CE; 850,000: 1150 CE
"At the peak of their power, their empire spanned Egypt, north Africa (present day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya), Syria, Palestine, Yemen, the Arabian Peninsula, parts of Iraq, Sicily, and north-western India with additional covert cells in Byzantine and central Asian lands." [1] Abu Yaqub Sejestani (d c.971 CE), da’i of Khorasan, "now endorsed the imamate of the Fatimids and propagated their cause in Knorasan, Sistan, and Makran, where numerous Ismailis rallied to the side of the Fatimid da’wa. The Fatimid da’is also succeeded around 347/958 in establishing a Fatimid vassal state centered in Moltan, in northern India, where the kotba was now read in the name of the Fatimid caliphs, instead of their Abbasid rivals.". [2] This Isma’ili state in Multan overthrown by Gaznavids 1005-1006 CE. [2] 1051 CE Zirids declare independence in Tunisia. [3] 2,400,000: 969 CE. Egypt conquered 969 CE under General Jawhar. [4] [1]: (Qutbuddin 2011, 37) Qutbuddin, Tahera. Fatimids. Ramsamy, Edward. ed. 2011. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Volume 2. Africa. Sage. Los Angeles. [2]: (Daftary 2009) Daftary, Farhad. 2009. FATIMIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. IX, Fasc. 4, pp. 423-426. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fatimids [3]: (Oliver 1977, 15) [4]: (Oliver 1977, 10) |
||||||
|
KM2. 2,400,000: 969 CE; 1,400,000: 1000 CE; 1,000,000: 1050 CE; 631,000: 1100 CE; 850,000: 1150 CE
"At the peak of their power, their empire spanned Egypt, north Africa (present day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya), Syria, Palestine, Yemen, the Arabian Peninsula, parts of Iraq, Sicily, and north-western India with additional covert cells in Byzantine and central Asian lands." [1] Abu Yaqub Sejestani (d c.971 CE), da’i of Khorasan, "now endorsed the imamate of the Fatimids and propagated their cause in Knorasan, Sistan, and Makran, where numerous Ismailis rallied to the side of the Fatimid da’wa. The Fatimid da’is also succeeded around 347/958 in establishing a Fatimid vassal state centered in Moltan, in northern India, where the kotba was now read in the name of the Fatimid caliphs, instead of their Abbasid rivals.". [2] This Isma’ili state in Multan overthrown by Gaznavids 1005-1006 CE. [2] 1051 CE Zirids declare independence in Tunisia. [3] 2,400,000: 969 CE. Egypt conquered 969 CE under General Jawhar. [4] [1]: (Qutbuddin 2011, 37) Qutbuddin, Tahera. Fatimids. Ramsamy, Edward. ed. 2011. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Volume 2. Africa. Sage. Los Angeles. [2]: (Daftary 2009) Daftary, Farhad. 2009. FATIMIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. IX, Fasc. 4, pp. 423-426. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fatimids [3]: (Oliver 1977, 15) [4]: (Oliver 1977, 10) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimated from a map showing the Soninke homeland [1] and another map which shows Ghana also extending further east and south into the Niger Inland Delta region. [2] "Among the provinces of Ghana is a region called Sama, the inhabitants of which are known as the Bukum. From that region to Ghana is four day’s travel." [3] Greatest territorial extent: Djaka on the west of the Niger River to the Atlantic Ocean, and north to south, from the Sahara to the edge of Mali. The gold-rich region of Upper Senegal, centered around Gadiaru, Garentel, and Iresni, belonged to the Empire." [4] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 24) [2]: (Konemann et al 2010, 302 Atlas Historica, Editions Place des Victories. Paris.) [3]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 19) [4]: (Diop 1987, 89-90) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1337 CE [1] Map with largest extent of the Mali Empire. [2] expanded into Inland Delta, Gao, and eastern Songhai beginning 14th century. [3] by mid-14th century mansa’s effective rule limited to Mande homelands. [4] "The boundaries of the Empire of Mali stretched from Kaoga (Gao) all the way to the Atlantic and from the Sahara to the tropical forest." [5] [1]: (Davidson 2011, 131) [2]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 58) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 49-50) [4]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 67) [5]: (Diop 1987, 93) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"Songhay and tributary states" [1] - for this period including also the Mande tributary states. Territory expanded westward under Muhammad Ture (1493-1528 CE). [2] Askia Muhammed Toure (r.1493-1529 CE) conquered more territories beyond the Niger Inland Delta, "eastward to the Tuareg kingdom of Agadez" and "northward to the salt pans of Taghaza" [3] "The Songhai Empire extended from east of the Niger River as far as the Atlantic Ocean and ’from the frontiers of the land of Bindoko as far as Teghezza and its dependencies’ under Askia Mohammed." [4] [1]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 58) [2]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 70) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 66) [4]: (Diop 1987, 95) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. |
||||||
|
KM.
850,000: 1250 BCE; 1,000,600: 1200 BCE; 1,160,000: 1150 BCE; 1,050,000: 1100 BCE; 55,000: 1050 BCE [1] Maximum extent reached no further than northern Henan, south-eastern Shanxi provinces of modern China. [2] Core in Henan province "in a triangular area between the cities of Anyang, Luoyang, and Zhengzhou, the latter two which are on the Yellow River." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Keay 2009, 48) [3]: (The Shang Dynasty, 1600 to 1050 BCE. Spice Digest, Fall 2007. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/117/ShangDynasty.pdf) |
||||||
|
KM2.
850,000: 1100 BCE; 850,000: 1000 BCE; 850,000: 900 BCE; 850,000: 800 BCE 850,000: 957 BCE. Peak territorial extent King Zhao of Zhou c955-977 BCE. Western Zhou controlled central plains of China and reached its limit of control to the south. The figure reflects the extent of the typical map of the Western Zhou. "... little of no evidence of any sustained Zhou occupation of the Yangzi River valley." [1] [1]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 319) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
KM2.
850,000: 1100 BCE; 850,000: 1000 BCE; 850,000: 900 BCE; 850,000: 800 BCE 850,000: 957 BCE. Peak territorial extent King Zhao of Zhou c955-977 BCE. Western Zhou controlled central plains of China and reached its limit of control to the south. The figure reflects the extent of the typical map of the Western Zhou. "... little of no evidence of any sustained Zhou occupation of the Yangzi River valley." [1] [1]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 319) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
KM2.
850,000: 1100 BCE; 850,000: 1000 BCE; 850,000: 900 BCE; 850,000: 800 BCE 850,000: 957 BCE. Peak territorial extent King Zhao of Zhou c955-977 BCE. Western Zhou controlled central plains of China and reached its limit of control to the south. The figure reflects the extent of the typical map of the Western Zhou. "... little of no evidence of any sustained Zhou occupation of the Yangzi River valley." [1] [1]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 319) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
KM2.
850,000: 1100 BCE; 850,000: 1000 BCE; 850,000: 900 BCE; 850,000: 800 BCE 850,000: 957 BCE. Peak territorial extent King Zhao of Zhou c955-977 BCE. Western Zhou controlled central plains of China and reached its limit of control to the south. The figure reflects the extent of the typical map of the Western Zhou. "... little of no evidence of any sustained Zhou occupation of the Yangzi River valley." [1] [1]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 319) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
km^2
size of State of Jin by 5th c. bce Hsu: “An expansion of territory is a characteristic of all major states, and the four most powerful states of the Spring and Autumn period — Qi, Jin, Chu, and Qin - all expanded dramatically. Qi Huan Gong annexed 35 neighboring states to become the first ba. Jin Xian Gong took 17 states and subjugated 38, paving the way for Jin to lead the Zhou world for generations. Qin Mu Gong fUS-^ (659—621 B.C.) combined 12 other states to extend its territory in the west. During the reign of King Zhuang of Chu (613-591 B.C.), Chu annexed no fewer than 26 states, many of which were former important Zhou states, and thus became the main threat to the Zhou world.’ Of 148 states that appear in the chronicles of the Spring and Autumn period," the number extinguished by these four major powers adds up to 1*” [1] [1]: (Hsu 1999, 567) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
KM. 2,433,000: 200 BCE; 2,100,000: 180 BCE; 2,643,000: 160 BCE; 3,186,000: 140 BCE; 3,729,000: 120 BCE; 4,567,000: 100 BCE; 5,700,000: 80 BCE; 5,900,000: 60 BCE; 5,783,000: 40 BCE; 5,350,000: 20 BCE; 4,917,000: 1 CE (in kilometers). Contains interpolated data.
[1]
Beginning with a territory of approximately 1.5 million square kilometers. [2] "The Han culture spread as far as Xinjiang, where Han wuzhu coins, bronze mirrors, and silk have frequently been discovered (fig. 8.36)." [3] "In 108 B.C.E., Emperor Wu set up four prefectures - Zhenfan, Lintun, Xuantu, and Lelang - in the northeastern region. ... Emperor Wu also set up four jun in Hexi in northwest China and established relationships with the thirty-six states in the Xiyu region of western China." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Zhao 2015, 56) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [3]: (Chang, Xu, Allan and Lu 2005, 277) Chang, Kwang-chih. Xu, Pingfang. Allan, Sarah. Lu, Liancheng. 2005. The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective. Yale University Press. |
||||||
|
KM. 2,433,000: 200 BCE; 2,100,000: 180 BCE; 2,643,000: 160 BCE; 3,186,000: 140 BCE; 3,729,000: 120 BCE; 4,567,000: 100 BCE; 5,700,000: 80 BCE; 5,900,000: 60 BCE; 5,783,000: 40 BCE; 5,350,000: 20 BCE; 4,917,000: 1 CE (in kilometers). Contains interpolated data.
[1]
Beginning with a territory of approximately 1.5 million square kilometers. [2] "The Han culture spread as far as Xinjiang, where Han wuzhu coins, bronze mirrors, and silk have frequently been discovered (fig. 8.36)." [3] "In 108 B.C.E., Emperor Wu set up four prefectures - Zhenfan, Lintun, Xuantu, and Lelang - in the northeastern region. ... Emperor Wu also set up four jun in Hexi in northwest China and established relationships with the thirty-six states in the Xiyu region of western China." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Zhao 2015, 56) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [3]: (Chang, Xu, Allan and Lu 2005, 277) Chang, Kwang-chih. Xu, Pingfang. Allan, Sarah. Lu, Liancheng. 2005. The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective. Yale University Press. |
||||||
|
KM. 2,433,000: 200 BCE; 2,100,000: 180 BCE; 2,643,000: 160 BCE; 3,186,000: 140 BCE; 3,729,000: 120 BCE; 4,567,000: 100 BCE; 5,700,000: 80 BCE; 5,900,000: 60 BCE; 5,783,000: 40 BCE; 5,350,000: 20 BCE; 4,917,000: 1 CE (in kilometers). Contains interpolated data.
[1]
Beginning with a territory of approximately 1.5 million square kilometers. [2] "The Han culture spread as far as Xinjiang, where Han wuzhu coins, bronze mirrors, and silk have frequently been discovered (fig. 8.36)." [3] "In 108 B.C.E., Emperor Wu set up four prefectures - Zhenfan, Lintun, Xuantu, and Lelang - in the northeastern region. ... Emperor Wu also set up four jun in Hexi in northwest China and established relationships with the thirty-six states in the Xiyu region of western China." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) [2]: (Zhao 2015, 56) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [3]: (Chang, Xu, Allan and Lu 2005, 277) Chang, Kwang-chih. Xu, Pingfang. Allan, Sarah. Lu, Liancheng. 2005. The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective. Yale University Press. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Kingdom of Wu conquered 280 CE. [1] After 316 CE "the entire area north of the Yangi river was in the hands of various non-Han peoples." [2] [1]: (Knechtges 2010, 182) Knechtges, David R. in Chang, Kang-i Sun. Ownen, Stephen. 2010. The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Knechtges 2010, 183) Knechtges, David R. in Chang, Kang-i Sun. Ownen, Stephen. 2010. The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 21,000,000: 1271 CE; 22,000,000: 1280 CE; 23,500,000: 1290 CE; 24,000,000: 1309 CE; 11,000,000: 1310 CE; 10,750,000: 1320 CE; 10,500,000: 1330 CE; 10,250,000: 1340 CE; 10,000,000: 1350 CE; 7,500,000: 1360 CE. Also: 5,000,000: 1369 CE; 3,667,000: 1380 CE; 2,333,000: 1390 CE; 1,000,000: 1400 CE.
Contains interpolated data. [1] [1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. Contains interpolated data. 3,100,000: 1369 CE; 3,367,000: 1380 CE; 3,633,000: 1390 CE; 3,900,000: 1400 CE; 4,420,000: 1410 CE; 4,940,000: 1420 CE; 5,460,000: 1430 CE; 5,980,000: 1440 CE; 6,500,000: 1450 CE; [6,067,000-5,200,000]: 1470 CE; [5,200,000-4,333,000]: 1490 CE; 3,900,000: 1513 CE; 3,845,000: 1530 CE; 3,791,000: 1550 CE; 3,736,000: 1570 CE; 3,682,000: 1590 CE; 3,655,000: 1600 CE; 3,600,000: 1616 CE; 2,950,000: 1630 CE; 2,300,000: 1644 CE
[1]
[1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. Contains interpolated data. 3,100,000: 1369 CE; 3,367,000: 1380 CE; 3,633,000: 1390 CE; 3,900,000: 1400 CE; 4,420,000: 1410 CE; 4,940,000: 1420 CE; 5,460,000: 1430 CE; 5,980,000: 1440 CE; 6,500,000: 1450 CE; [6,067,000-5,200,000]: 1470 CE; [5,200,000-4,333,000]: 1490 CE; 3,900,000: 1513 CE; 3,845,000: 1530 CE; 3,791,000: 1550 CE; 3,736,000: 1570 CE; 3,682,000: 1590 CE; 3,655,000: 1600 CE; 3,600,000: 1616 CE; 2,950,000: 1630 CE; 2,300,000: 1644 CE
[1]
[1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. Contains interpolated data. 3,100,000: 1369 CE; 3,367,000: 1380 CE; 3,633,000: 1390 CE; 3,900,000: 1400 CE; 4,420,000: 1410 CE; 4,940,000: 1420 CE; 5,460,000: 1430 CE; 5,980,000: 1440 CE; 6,500,000: 1450 CE; [6,067,000-5,200,000]: 1470 CE; [5,200,000-4,333,000]: 1490 CE; 3,900,000: 1513 CE; 3,845,000: 1530 CE; 3,791,000: 1550 CE; 3,736,000: 1570 CE; 3,682,000: 1590 CE; 3,655,000: 1600 CE; 3,600,000: 1616 CE; 2,950,000: 1630 CE; 2,300,000: 1644 CE
[1]
[1]: (Chase-Dunn Spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. "At its height the Xiongnu empire controlled a region encompassing all of Mongolia and extending south to the Ordos region in the loop of the Yellow River in northern China (Fig. 1). In the north control extended to the boreal forests of Siberia, including Tuva and Buriatia in the Russian Federation (Kradin 2005a). Based on a variety of maps and geographical information on the location of different groups, at its height the Xiongnu empire encompassed a region on the order of 4,000,000 km2."
[1]
4.2m km2 maximum. [2] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 220-221) [2]: (Kradin, Nikolay. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. May 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 4 million km2 is the code for the Imperial Xiongnu Confederation which appears to still stand for this period, although I have changed it to a range from 3-4 million km2 to reflect some loss of control.
"Before 50 B.C., the Xiongnu split into a northern and southern polity. Both remained well organized and expansionistic at first, but eventually the southern Xiongnu (estimated at 200,000 people) became a vassal state of the Han Chinese, and by A.D. 150 their political control was virtually nonexistent." [1] "At its height the Xiongnu empire controlled a region encompassing all of Mongolia and extending south to the Ordos region in the loop of the Yellow River in northern China (Fig. 1). In the north control extended to the boreal forests of Siberia, including Tuva and Buriatia in the Russian Federation (Kradin 2005a). Based on a variety of maps and geographical information on the location of different groups, at its height the Xiongnu empire encompassed a region on the order of 4,000,000 km2." [2] 4.2m km2 maximum. [3] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 222) [2]: (Rogers 2012, 220-221) [3]: (Kradin, Nikolay. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. May 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. "At its height, Jujan geographical boundaries were similar to those of the Xiongnu (Kradin 2005b, p. 155)."
[1]
"At its height the Xiongnu empire controlled a region encompassing all of Mongolia and extending south to the Ordos region in the loop of the Yellow River in northern China (Fig. 1). In the north control extended to the boreal forests of Siberia, including Tuva and Buriatia in the Russian Federation (Kradin 2005a). Based on a variety of maps and geographical information on the location of different groups, at its height the Xiongnu empire encompassed a region on the order of 4,000,000 km2."
[2]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 224) [2]: (Rogers 2012, 220-221) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers. “Priscus says that Attila ruled ‘all Scythia’. How far did his dominions extend towards the east? Kiessling supposes that the Alans between the Don and an area somewhat west of the Aral Sea also recognized without qualification the overlordship of Attila. This seems scarcely likely to be correct. True, the Alans had never won their independence, but they would appear to have been ruled by Huns who owed little, if any, allegiance to Attila. We shall see that the Hun tribe of the Acatziri, who lived east of the Black Sea, were leading an independent life under their own chieftains until the year 448 (pp. 104ff below), and there is no reason to suppose that they stood alone. We may conclude then that all the Germanic and other nations between the Alps and the Baltic, and between the Caspian (or somewhat west of it) and a line drawn an unknown distance east of the Rhine, recognized Attila and Bleda as their masters. Although the two brothers always acted in concert, so far as we know, and regarded their empire as a single property, they divided it between them and ruled separately; but we do not know which portion was allotted to each.”
[1]
[1]: (Thompson 2004: 84-85) Thompson, E.A. 1996. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/49W8PAAS |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
King Kidara incorporated Gandhara into the kingdom, and "four other territories to the north of it." [1] Further territories may have been taken in India in the mid-5th century when "a considerable portion of central and western Panjab was under Kidarite rule" during the reign of the Gupta king Kumaragupta I (413-455 CE). [2] "total absence of Gupta coins in the western regions of India and in Pakistan" at beginning of Skandagupta’s (455-467 CE) reign. [3] After defeat north of the Hindu Kush by Peroz (Sassanids) in alliance with Hephthalites, Kidarites retreated to Gandhara in India, later to be overrun by the Hephthalites. [4] [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 126) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [2]: (Zeimal 1996, 127) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [3]: (Zeimal 1996, 128) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [4]: (Zeimal 1996, 130) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
King Kidara incorporated Gandhara into the kingdom, and "four other territories to the north of it." [1] Further territories may have been taken in India in the mid-5th century when "a considerable portion of central and western Panjab was under Kidarite rule" during the reign of the Gupta king Kumaragupta I (413-455 CE). [2] "total absence of Gupta coins in the western regions of India and in Pakistan" at beginning of Skandagupta’s (455-467 CE) reign. [3] After defeat north of the Hindu Kush by Peroz (Sassanids) in alliance with Hephthalites, Kidarites retreated to Gandhara in India, later to be overrun by the Hephthalites. [4] [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 126) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [2]: (Zeimal 1996, 127) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [3]: (Zeimal 1996, 128) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [4]: (Zeimal 1996, 130) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Based on a map in Asimov and Bosworth. [1] "Yet a few further and more specific comments may be worthwhile. A Chinese source records the situation in 745 as follows: " The eastern extremity was [the territory of] the Shih-wei, the western, the Altai Mountains, and the southern controlled the Gobi Desert so it covered the entire territory of the ancient Hsiung-nu."9 This passage shows that the Chinese emperor recognized the territorial gains which the kaghan had recently made. It is unfortu nately a somewhat vague statement since the Altai Mountains and the Gobi both cover a large territory, but it certainly suggests that the extent of the Uighur empire was substantial. The Shih-wei lived south of the Kerulen River. A northern limit is not specified, but probably the kaghan assumed that his possessions ran at least as far as Lake Baikal, into which the Orkhon River flows. The territory of the Uighurs was expanded west with the firmer cooynquest of the Basmil and Karluk and then remained constant at least until the death of Tun bagha. The loss of Beshbalik and its aftermath appear to have reduced the extent of the Uighur empire drastically. We are told that the Karluk "over came [the territory round] the Fou-t’u Valley and seized it from the Uighurs."1 0 This valley was probably northwest of Mt. Ótükán,1 1 the sacred forest of the Turkic peoples, and dangerously close to Karabalghasun. In any case, the extent of Uighur alarm over the loss of the Fou-t’u may be gauged from the following comments of the Chinese historian: "The Uighurs trembled with fear and moved all the northwestern tribes, with their sheep and their horses, to the south of their ral camp in order to escape from them [the Karluk]." [2] [1]: (Asimov and Bosworth (eds) 1998, 428) [2]: (Mackerras 1990, 321-322) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
900 CE: 600,000. Greatest extent c930 CE: 2,500,000. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
900 CE: 600,000. Greatest extent c930 CE: 2,500,000. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"Qarluq peoples, lead by the Qarakhanid dynasty, took Bukhara in 992 and Samarqand in 999." [1] 1000 CE 1200 CE Region around Bukhara and Samarkand and the region of the Eastern Khanate. [1]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"Qarluq peoples, lead by the Qarakhanid dynasty, took Bukhara in 992 and Samarqand in 999." [1] 1000 CE 1200 CE Region around Bukhara and Samarkand and the region of the Eastern Khanate. [1]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. The estimated size of the polity in 1210-1218 was between 2.3 - 3.6 million squared kilometres.
[1]
[2]
It stretched from India to Antolia.
[3]
[1]: Turchin, Adams and Hall 2006: 222. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8J2YS3HC [2]: Taagepera 1997: 497. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5A6JA43D [3]: Bosworth 2012: 303. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/B6JRSLIB |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. The estimated size of the polity in 1210-1218 was between 2.3 - 3.6 million squared kilometres.
[1]
[2]
It stretched from India to Antolia.
[3]
[1]: Turchin, Adams and Hall 2006: 222. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8J2YS3HC [2]: Taagepera 1997: 497. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5A6JA43D [3]: Bosworth 2012: 303. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/B6JRSLIB |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1310 CE: 3,500,000; 1320 CE: 2,500,000; 1350 CE: 3,500,000; 1370 CE: 2,500,000; 1390 CE: 0 [1] In the mid-thirteenth century CE: "The Chaghadayid khanate originated as the territory of Chinggis Khan’s second son, Chaghadai, whose lands centered on the Issyk Kul and the Ili river, and included the Muslim territory of Central Asia." [2] After Tarmashirin Khan’s downfall in 1334 CE: "Although the eastern part of the Chaghadayid Khanate was now lost, the Ulus Chaghatay contained large new territories south of the Oxus: northeastern Khorasan and the regions of Qunduz, Baghlān, Kabul and Qandahar. Most of this area was the region of the Qara’unas, a large body of Turco-Mongolian troops (probably three tümens), which had originated as the garrison troops of Qunduz and Baghlān." [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (Forbes Manz 1983, 81) [3]: (Forbes Manz 1983, 82) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. “Around the middle of the fourteenth century the realm of the Oirats extended to the upper Yenisei and the region of Khobdo in the west and to the upper parts of Onon and Kerulen in the east.”
[1]
By entering these approximate coordinates into google maps, the direct paths between these points suggest an area of 589,387km2. Alternatively, “The Oirat owned a vast territory that included the Great Altai and the Khangai Mountains from Tarbagatai and Dzungaria to the sonthwest shore of Lake Baikal, across the lands of the Black Irtysh, Urungn, Kobdo, and Uliassntai, and the sources of the Selenga and Kosogol. They were expanding at this time, and their plundering bands ranged from the outskirts of Peking to western Turkestan.”
[2]
By entering these approximate coordinates into google maps, the direct paths between these points suggest an area of 433,909km2.
[1]: (Kim 2010: 310-311) Kim, Hodong. 1999. “The Early History of the Moghul Nomads: The Legacy of the Chaghatai Khanate,” in The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, ed. Rueven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan. Leiden: Brill. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VV9PPP7M [2]: (Grousset 1970: 479) Grousset, René. 1970. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, trans. Naomi Walford New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7KWZEYBW |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Actual territory sizes still to be found as they have not been specified in any of the consulted sources. The Tudor dynasty held the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Ireland, Principality of Wales and a small amount of land in Calais, France. However, “When England supported a Spanish invasion of France, Henry II of France sent Francis Duke of Guise against English-held Calais, defended by Lord Thomas Wentworth… When the city capitulated, England lost her last territory in France (1–8 January 1558).”
[1]
After Elizabeth I’s death and the ascension of James I of Scotland to the English throne, Scotland was also brought under the territory of the English crown. This is roughly equally to modern Britain’s territory: “Great Britain, which includes the constituent units of England, Wales, and Scotland, is the world’s ninth-largest island. It covers about 80,823 square miles (209,331 square kilometers) and extends about 600 miles (966 kilometers) from north to south and about 300 miles (483 kilometers) from east to west. Britain is the largest island of the British Isles, an archipelago—that is, a group of islands.”
[2]
[1]: (Jaques 2007: 184) Jaques, Tony. 2007. Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E. Greenwood Publishing Group. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/79BVTXM3 [2]: (Burns 2010: ) Burns, William. 2010. A Brief History of Great Britain. New York: Facts on File. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/NWTBBZB5 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 250,000: 511 CE. Total area divided by four regions.
Merovingian kingdoms was a quasi-polity in terms of territory that could be militarily controlled. This figure represents the average sized kingdom within the polity.Merovingian kingdoms was a quasi-polity in terms of population that could be militarily controlled. This figure represents the average sized kingdom within the polity. Total area divided by 4 regions. These figures are for the total area: 350,000: 481 CE; 600,000; 490 CE; 600,000: 500 CE; 1,000,000: 510 CE; 1,000,000: 520 CE; 1,000,000: 530 CE; 1,400,000: 540 CE; 1,400,000: 550 CE; 1,400,000: 560 CE These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. Figures rounded to memorable number (otherwise false precision). Clovis victorious over Alamans c506 CE. Land annexed. [1] 511 CE Kingdom divided: new regions ruled from Rheims (Theuderic), Orleans (Choldomer), Paris (Childebert I) and Soissons (Clothar I). [2] 531 CE Thuringian Kingdom annexed by Theuderic and Clothat I. [2] 534 CE conquest of Burgundy [3] 536 CE received most of the Gothic territory in Provence. [4] 537 CE acquires Provence [5] Clother sole monarch 558-561 CE. 561 CE Clother dies. Kingdom again divided. Paris (Charibert I) Orleans (Guntram), Rheims (Sigibert I), Soissons (Chilperic I) [6] [1]: (Wood 1994, 161) [2]: (Wood 1994, 50) [3]: (Wood 1994, 53-55) [4]: (Wood 1994, 33) [5]: (Wood 1994, 54) [6]: (Wood 1994, 57) |
||||||
|
square kilometres. The exact extent of the Lombard territory in this period is not known as the Byzantines still held intermittent areas in the north of Italy where the Lombards were centred, as well as along the coast, around Rome, and the south of the peninsula.
[1]
However, judging by the maps included in the sources and tracking this on google maps gives a very approximate estimate of around 214,500 square kilometres.
[1]: Wickham 1981: 31. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Z539DW5B |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Merovingian kingdoms was a quasi-polity in terms of territory that could be militarily controlled. This figure represents the average sized kingdom within the polity.
Map: 600 CE EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://www.robertsewell.ca/map600.jpg . Total area divided by six regions. This figure is for the total area: 1,400,000: 540-680 CE These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. Figures rounded to memorable number (otherwise false precision). Merovingians claimed over-lordship in Southern England 550s CE. [1] [1]: (Wood 1994, 176) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
kilometers square
Lombardie774 + Duche Spanish March; 778 Bavaria 787 Papal States; 800 Saxony 777to797: 3 separate rebellions, if anything 777 Breton 770s DB will check Septomania (next to spanish marches) 759 The Alps is the border between Lombardia and Bavaria |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
950 CE: 675,000 KM2 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 900 CE: 800,000 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 850 CE: 1,200,000 (West, East Francia and Lotharingia) These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. 1.1 million km2 at maximum extent |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
950 CE: 675,000 KM2 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 900 CE: 800,000 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 850 CE: 1,200,000 (West, East Francia and Lotharingia) These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. 1.1 million km2 at maximum extent |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
950 CE: 675,000 KM2 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 900 CE: 800,000 (Kingdom in the region of Gaul) 850 CE: 1,200,000 (West, East Francia and Lotharingia) These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. 1.1 million km2 at maximum extent |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"At their heights, the Sabean and Himyarite kingdoms embraced much of historic Yemen." [1] In the fourth century Himyar covered the lands of former Saba, Hadramawt, the mountains and the Tihamah (Red Sea coast) and Yamanat (probably the entire southern coast). [2] [1]: (Burrows 2010, lxiii) Robert D Burrows. 2010. Historical Dictionary of Yemen. Second Edition. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham. [2]: (Hitti 2002, 60) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"At their heights, the Sabean and Himyarite kingdoms embraced much of historic Yemen." [1] In the fourth century Himyar covered the lands of former Saba, Hadramawt, the mountains and the Tihamah (Red Sea coast) and Yamanat (probably the entire southern coast). [2] [1]: (Burrows 2010, lxiii) Robert D Burrows. 2010. Historical Dictionary of Yemen. Second Edition. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham. [2]: (Hitti 2002, 60) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"Umara attributes to Muhammad Ibn Ziyad the extension of Ziyadid territory to the major part of Yemen, i.e. to all the coastal territories from the south, between Hadramawt and Aden, and to the north, along the Red Sea coast as far as Hali, now in Saudi Arabia (Umara 1985: 53-54)." [1] However: "At the end of Ishaq’s rule [c. 970s], several rulers declared their independence at the expense of the Ziyadids: the Yu’firids at San’s, (11), the Zaydi al-Hadi in northern Yemen, (12) and Sulayman b. Tard at ’Aththar, along the Red sea coast (13) (’Umata 1985: 55-64; Chelhod 1978: 56). The territory of Abu al-Jaysh was then reduced from Adan to sharja and from Ghulafiqa to the surroundings of San’a (’Umara 1985: 64 ll. 6-7)." [1] Moreover, based on the following quotes, it seems that this polity was roughly equivalent to the coastal region of modern Yemen. "The Ziyadi state was firmly entrenched in the Tinhama, and enjoyed loose suzerainty over a sultan at Aden, whose authority extended eastward along the coast. The Banu Ziyad, on the other hand, had no influence in the highlands." [2] "Ephemerally, the Banu Ziyad reunited nearly in its entirety the South Arabian state of the Himyarites. They were unable to hold the hinterland, however, against the many separatist movements which arose." [3] The Zaydi Imamate formed one of the borders of this polity: "In 893, Al-Hadi ila al-Haqq (al-Hadi), invited to the North Yemeni town of Saada to mediate local disputes, proceeds to found there the Zaydi imamate that, based on Zaydi Shii teachings, was to hold sway over at least part of North Yemen nearly continuously until the 1962 Revolution." [4] [1]: (Peli 2008: 252) Peli, A. 2008. A history of the Ziyadids through their coinage (203—442/818—1050). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies , 2008, Vol. 38, Papers from the forty-first meeting of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held in London, 19-21 July 2007 (2008), pp. 251-263. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/ADM7C94B/library [2]: (Stookey 1978, 54) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 45) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Burrows 2010, xxiv) Robert D Burrows. 2010. Historical Dictionary of Yemen. Second Edition. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"The Seljuk empire eventually embraced all of what is now Iran and extended to modern day Turkey and the Caucasus. But it was born in Central Asia, it was ruled at its zenith by a Central Asian, its last capital was in Central Asia, and it was there that it met its end." [1] Within the context of declining influence of the caliphate, the Seljuks took control of Anatolia after defeating the Byzantine Empire. [2] [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]: C. E. Bosworth, ’Turks, Seljuk and Ottoman’ in The Oxford Companion to Military History eds. Richard Holmes, Charles Singleton, and Dr Spencer Jones (2001) [3]: Ahmed H. al-Rahim, ’Seljuk Turks’ in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages ed. Robert E. Bjork (2010) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"In 429/1038, at a pilgrimage at Mecca, [’Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ’Ali of the Sulayhi family] gathered enough followers to declare his mission on behalf of the Fatimids and to embark on a campaign of conquests that culminated in the taking of San’a’ in 439/1047 from the Yu’firids." Sulayhids had conquered all of Yemen by 1063 CE. [1] In 1063 CE the Sulayhids had unified Yemen "within the extent of the pre-Islamic Himyarite state". [2] Sulayhids: under al-Mukarram "the kingdom reached its maximum geographic extent and the apogee of its influence abroad." [3] Al-Mukarram extended the rule to Hadramaut. Dhofar and Hijaz were "under Sulayhid political suzerainty." [4] Sulayhids: lost the region of Saba in 1097 CE. [5] "From the foregoing brief account, it may be seen that in one sense there was a Yemeni polity during these troubled centuries. At no time did the values and objectives of would-be rulers and of the population at large agree. Tribes, dynasties, and religious leaders nevertheless acted frequently, if intermittently, over most of Yemen’s territory ... The ad hoc, evanescent coalitions formed are characteristic of a segmental pattern of authority, and thus of weakness of the political system as a whole. Some dynasties - the Sulayhids, the Zuray’ids, the Najab - succeeded in assembling substantial material resources, and were wealthy by the standards of the time; but they failed in the essential task of mobilizing the human energies needed to build and defend a viable Yemeni state. This consequent debility made Yemen an attractive target for foreign ambitions, and the country was in fact to become a family colony of the Ayyubids." [6] [1]: (Hamdani 2006, 776-777) Hamdani, Abbas. Sulayhids. Josef W Meri ed. 2006. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Volume 1, A - K, Index. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Stookey 1978, 62) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 66-67) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Stookey 1978, 67) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 71) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [6]: (Stookey 1978, 99) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimated using Google area calculator and a map. [1] [1]: (http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron141681) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
km2. Calculated with Google map distance calculator. In comparative terms note: "The Safavid polity was never as large physically as those of the Achaemenians or Sassanians."
[1]
Ismail expanded towards Persian Gulf, Kurdistan and Iraq. In fact under Ismail the Safavid polity was at its greatest territorial extent, later Shahs could never hold onto such large borders. [2] [1]: Newman, Andrew J. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006., p.128. [2]: Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids; E Eshraghi, ‘PERSIA DURING THE PERIOD OF THE SAFAVIDS, THE AFSHARS AND THE EARLY QAJARS’, in Chahryar Adle and Irfan Habib (eds), History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. V The Sixteenth to the Mid-Nineteenth Centuries (Paris: Unesco, 1992)pp. 250-75. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
km2. Estimated from known area of territory said to be controlled by Mauryan Empire, roughly equivalent to that of the Sunga Dynasty. The Sunga 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]
"For the finer elements of historical detail, scholars of the textual school have turned to other texts, the chief of which are Harṣacharitam of Bana, the play Mālavikāgnimitra of Kālidāsa, and the Grammatik of Patañjali named Mahābhāṣya. These confine the Śuṅga realm to the “central part of Mauryan Empire,” i.e., the provinces of Kosala, Vidisha, and Magadha."
[2]
"The principal inheritors of the Mauryan power seem to be the Sungas who ruled from Pataliputra but do not appear to have retained the former Magadhan control of even the core of northern India. In Central India, their power did not extend beyond eastern Malwa which had Vidisa as its capital; southward their control ended on the Narmada. North-East from Pataliputra, Kosala with its principal centre of Ayodhya, was under the Sunga control, and so presumably was Ahichchhatra of north Panchala. The Sunga control also extended up to Panjab and the Indus."
[3]
[1]: (Roy 2015: 19) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/35K9MMUW. [2]: (Bhandare 2006, 70) Shailendra Bhandare. 2006. ’Numismatics and History: The Maurya-Gupta Interlude in the Gangetic Plain’ in Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE, edited by Patrick Olivelle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3]: (Chakrabarti 2010, 38) Dilip Chakrabarti. 2010. ’The Shift of the Focus to Orissa, the Deccan, and Malwa’ in The Geopolitical Orbits of Ancient India: The Geographical Frames of the Ancient Indian Dynasties, edited by Dilip Chakrabarti. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. The polity’s borders changed over the course of the fifth century CE, but it would appear that losses in the South-Eastern territories were compensated with gains in the North-West. The estimate, then, roughly corresponds with the combined areas of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Odisha for the earlier period, and Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and the northenmost Indian states for the later period. Based on maps found in Agrawal (1989)
[1]
, Kulke and Rothermund (2004)
[2]
and Stein (2010)
[3]
.
"The Gupta Empire at its height controlled north and central India directly and exercised indirect control over south India. So the Gupta Empire was a smaller entity compared to the Maurya Empire." [4] [1]: (Agrawal 1989) [2]: (Kulke and Rothermund 2004) [3]: (Stein 2010) [4]: (Roy 2016, 21) Kaushik Roy. 2016. Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Roughly corresponding to the combined areas of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (which lies to the east of Uttar Pradesh). The Gahadavalas "expanded themselves in the modern Uttar Pradesh and the eastern part of the Bihar region."
[1]
[1]: (Yadav 2011: 360) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WENWX8HQ. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
km2. Roughly corresponding to a slightly smaller area than the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar combined. Based on a map in Keay (2000).
[1]
[1]: (Keay 2000: 198) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HSHAKZ3X. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers "In most regions, population growth during the Late Neolithic was coupled with the clustering of sites and the formation of site hierarchies. The few sites that were fortified stood at the top of the settlement hierarchy. More than 20 walled sites, some very large in scale, are known from the lower and middle Yellow River area. The relatively regular spacing of these sites, at a distance of some 30-50 km from one another (Guojia 2006, 2007; Liu 2004), suggests that they were central nodes of small-scale polities each covering some 1,500-2,000 km2. Other evidence, such as the association of fortified sites with prestigious buildings and artifacts and specialized production activities, also supports this hypothesis (Liu 2004, pp. 104- 105; Underhill et al. 2008)."
[1]
In Zhengzhou there were sites during the Longshan that were 3 square kilometers at the center. Note: Don’t know how far these sites controlled. [2] [1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339) [2]: (Feinman, Gary. North China Workshop 2016) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Calculated using a radius of 70km around Erlitou = c. 15,394 sq km.
Expansionist view "The size of the area controlled by the Erlitou site during its zenith (phase III) is a debated question. According to one recent model, it extended as far south as Panlongcheng (about 500 km!) and about 100-150 km northwestward to sites such as Dongxiafeng (东下冯) and Nanguan (南关). This expansion is often said to have involved the aggressive conquering of faraway lands, along with the establishment of colonies crucial for the extraction and acquisition of particular resources that were essential for Erlitou’s functioning as a governing state (Liu 2004, pp. 232-234; Liu and Chen 2003)." [1] "Some archaeologists are inclined to classify it as a territorial state with no serious rivals. In their view Erlitou was an expansionist state that had established colonies well beyond the Yilou region, reaching north and south into a large area between the middle Yellow River and the middle Yangzi River. The motive behind the expansion, they argue, was to produce copper, tin, lead, and salt for the core area’s people and workshops. On balance, however, the evidence seems to favor something more modest, a polity confined to the Yilou basin, comparable in size to a large city-state in Mesopotamia or Mesoamerica." [2] Lesser / City-state model "If we use the same methods for delineating the political borders of Erlitou as those used for the Longshan polities, it would seem that the Erlitou polity may have extended no further than perhaps 70 km in each direction, somewhat larger than the Longshan period polities but still not spreading out beyond the local region." [1] [1] "It is equally possible ... that we should not be thinking of early second millennium north China in terms of a single territorial state but rather as a landscape dotted with multiple city-states." [2] "Erlitou is the largest and richest site of an archaeological culture whose distribution covers Henan and adjacent parts of Shaanxi, Shanxi, Hebei, and Hubei." [3] [1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 354-355) [2]: (Wang 2014, 178) Wang, Haicheng. 2014. Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Bagley 1999, 164) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[350,000-400,000] based on idealised circle centered a bit south of the capital Zhengzhou that reaches as far south as Panlongchen "Bagley has described Panlongchen, which was located in eastern Hubei on a tributary of the Yangtze River, 450 km to the south of Erligang, as a "site of Erligang civilization" where the "indigenous population was ruled by an intrusive Erligang elite." [1] Erligang remains at Panlongcheng were spread over 1 km2. Part of area enclosed by rectangular wall 260m by 290m. [2] "The extent of the Erligang polity also is disputed, but even skeptical reviewers agree that its political influence (and probably direct political control) extended considerably beyond the immediate region around Zhengzhou. [3] [1]: (Howard 2012, 111) Howard, Michael C. 2012. Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. McFarland. [2]: (Bagley 1999, 168) Bagley, R. in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L.1999. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 355) |
||||||
|
km^2 Reference?
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Contains interpolated data. 800,000: 960 CE; 550,000: 970 CE; 3,100,000: 980 CE; [3,033,000-2,900,000]: 1000 CE; [2,900,000-2,767,000]: 1020 CE; [2,767,000-2,633,000]: 1040 CE; [2,633,000-2,500,000]: 1060 CE; [2,500,000-2,367,000]: 1080 CE; [2,367,000-2,233,000]: 1100 CE; [2,233,000-2,100,000]: 1120 CE; 2,100,000: 1127 CE (in squared kilometers)
[1]
[1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Contains interpolated data. 800,000: 960 CE; 550,000: 970 CE; 3,100,000: 980 CE; [3,033,000-2,900,000]: 1000 CE; [2,900,000-2,767,000]: 1020 CE; [2,767,000-2,633,000]: 1040 CE; [2,633,000-2,500,000]: 1060 CE; [2,500,000-2,367,000]: 1080 CE; [2,367,000-2,233,000]: 1100 CE; [2,233,000-2,100,000]: 1120 CE; 2,100,000: 1127 CE (in squared kilometers)
[1]
[1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
[5-10] km is my estimate for a small agricultural village and its hinderland. At this early stage there may have been small agricultural villages. "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] Later, the quasi-polity would acquire a 1,100 square kilometer hinterland [2] while "over 60 archaeological sites rise from the floodplain within a 4 kilometer radius of the modern town". [1] This gives us an upper limit and estimate of area magnitude. [1]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) [2]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 22) McIntosh, R J, McIntosh, S K. 1981. The inland Niger delta before the empire of Mali: evidence from Jenne-jeno. Journal of African History. Cambridge University Press. 22 (1): 1-22 Reader, J. 1998. Africa: A Biography of the Continent. Penguin Books. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Al Sa’di’s describes the territory of Jenne as "from Lake Debo in the north to the Volta Bend in the south, and borders on the Bandiagara highlands to the east. It is not clear whether Jenne’s territory was defined by political suzerainty, economic domination, or some other means entirely." [1] 1,100 square kilometer hinterland [2] [1]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 6) [2]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 22) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1,100 square kilometer hinterland [1] "over 60 archaeological sites rise from the floodplain within a 4 kilometer radius of the modern town" [2] "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. The total surface area of Jenne-jeno and its satellites was 69 hectares; the total population when most densely occupied approached 27,000." [3] [1]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 22) [2]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) [3]: (Reader 1998, 230) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1,100 square kilometer hinterland [1] "over 60 archaeological sites rise from the floodplain within a 4 kilometer radius of the modern town" [2] "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. The total surface area of Jenne-jeno and its satellites was 69 hectares; the total population when most densely occupied approached 27,000." [3] [1]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 22) [2]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) [3]: (Reader 1998, 230) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 446,550: 1554-1591 CE; 476,000: 1591-1618 CE; 446,500: 1618-1659 CE. For the period before the conquest of the Niger Inland Delta, the Sultanate’s limits "coincide[d] with the borders of the present-day Morocco"
[1]
. For the period between 1591 and 1618, the area of the Niger Inland Delta is added. Once the Sultanate lost control of the Delta, it is inferred that it returned to covering more or less the same area of modern-day Morocco.
[1]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), p. 40 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 446,550: 1554-1591 CE; 476,000: 1591-1618 CE; 446,500: 1618-1659 CE. For the period before the conquest of the Niger Inland Delta, the Sultanate’s limits "coincide[d] with the borders of the present-day Morocco"
[1]
. For the period between 1591 and 1618, the area of the Niger Inland Delta is added. Once the Sultanate lost control of the Delta, it is inferred that it returned to covering more or less the same area of modern-day Morocco.
[1]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), p. 40 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. 446,550: 1554-1591 CE; 476,000: 1591-1618 CE; 446,500: 1618-1659 CE. For the period before the conquest of the Niger Inland Delta, the Sultanate’s limits "coincide[d] with the borders of the present-day Morocco"
[1]
. For the period between 1591 and 1618, the area of the Niger Inland Delta is added. Once the Sultanate lost control of the Delta, it is inferred that it returned to covering more or less the same area of modern-day Morocco.
[1]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), p. 40 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1750 CE Sausage-shaped, covers Niger river from beyond Timbuktu (but stops before the bend to Gao) through the inland delta and beyond to the two tributaries in the uplands, but not getting very far into Guinea and Senegal (if at all - modern borders not marked on map). Directly bordered to the north by "Kaaria", to the south by "Kong" and to the west by "Fouta Toro". [1] [1]: (Konemann 2010, 314) Konemann, Ludwig ed. 2010. Atlas Historica. Editions Place des Victoires. Paris. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Spread between parts of modern day Mali, Guinea and Senegal in that order only just reaching the inland delta region. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Typical size of one independent Tairona polity estimated for the Upper Buritaca region on the basis of this: "Later work in Ciudad Perdida and the Upper Buritaca river basin supports this argument, since Ciudad Perdida is connected by flagstoned paths to at least twenty five other sites of varying sizes within a seven kilometer radius (Soto 1988)."
[1]
This would give us an area of about 150 sq km.
NGA Territory (all Tairona polities): between 3000 and 6,420 sq km. 6,420 is an estimate calculated using Google Area calculator and the above map [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. Based on current evidence, these primary centers shared cultural styles but retained political independence; for example, there was no single “capital” of the Muisca, Tierradentro, San Agustin/Alto Magdalena, or Tairona chiefdoms. Further, these individual chiefdoms were relatively small, sometimes less than 100 km (60 miles) across, forming a complex political mosaic in Colombia." [3] " These little known polities and their predecessors actively modified the landscape of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia from A.D. 200 until their disappearance around A.D. 1600 at the hands of disease, displacement, and war. In this time however, they built extensive networks of flagstone-paved roads and trails, irrigation and water channeling systems, terraced agricultural fields, and large stone masonry towns over a mountainous area comprising more than three thousand square kilometers, nine different biomes, and altitudes ranging from sea level to 3000 meters elevation." [4] "By 1498, when Spanish explorer Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo anchored in the Bay of Santa Marta to trade steel axes for gold, more than two hundred and fifty Tairona villages and towns with stone masonry and rammed earth architecture could be found throughout the Sierra, from the shore line to altitudes above 2500 meters, covering an area of approximately five thousand square kilometers." [5] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 54) [2]: (Giraldo 2014) [3]: (Moore 2014, 386) [4]: (Giraldo 2010, 1) [5]: (Giraldo 2009, 14) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
According to McEvedy and Jones (1978) the total population of Siberia and Mongolia at this time did not exceed 400,000, while in Russian Turkestan in 1300 BC "we can think in terms of 100,000 people on the steppe." [1] Main part of this area covers 7,000,000 km2, which is an area of 14 per capita. This suggests a polity of 25,000-50,000 would have a territorial share of 350,000-700,000 km2. Since the time period 1400-300 BCE is extremely long I use this average for the 1400-500 BCE period and double it for the last 200 years prior to the rise of the Xiongnu Imperial Confederation. [1]: (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 160-156) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
According to McEvedy and Jones (1978) the total population of Siberia and Mongolia at this time did not exceed 400,000, while in Russian Turkestan in 1300 BC "we can think in terms of 100,000 people on the steppe." [1] Main part of this area covers 7,000,000 km2, which is an area of 14 per capita. This suggests a polity of 25,000-50,000 would have a territorial share of 350,000-700,000 km2. Since the time period 1400-300 BCE is extremely long I use this average for the 1400-500 BCE period and double it for the last 200 years prior to the rise of the Xiongnu Imperial Confederation. [1]: (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 160-156) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
"By approximately A.D. 170 the Xianbei controlled a vast region approximately 3,000 km east-west and 1,500 km north-south (Gardiner and de Crespigny 1977, pp. 29-30)." [1] This would give an area of approximately 4,500,000 squared kilometers. "In connection with this, there are two questions to which I have no answer. The first one is how to rule over such a great territory, which is said to have extended more than 14,000 li (over 5000 km) from east to west and more than 7,000 li (almost 3000 km) from north to south (HHS 90.14a-14b). In the absence of developed means of communication, it seems practically impossible to rule over such a large country." [2] T "Xianbei was approximately 2.3 mn km." [3] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 223) [2]: (Kradin 2011, 202) [3]: (Kradin, Nikolay. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. May 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. "In 712 the Eastern Turks, under Köl Tigin (Kül Tigin), son of Elteriš, defeated the Türgiš kaghan, *Saqal. They reestablished the long-lost Eastern Türk dominion over the Western Turks, becoming by extension the overlords of Ferghana, Tashkent, and probably most of Sogdiana, in place of the Türgiš."
[1]
[1]: (Beckwith 2009, 131) |
||||||
|
uncoded Within the territory of Mongolia with norwestern part of Inner Mongolia and east Trans-Baikal region there were roughly 20 polities (chiefdoms and complex chiefdoms), according to Rashid al-Din (1952). The largest were Naimans, Kereids, Tatars, Merkids, and Mongols whose territories ranged from ?? - ?? km sq. The code reflects the territory size of an ’average’ large polity in this region (referring to those named above).
Inner Mongolia is shaped South West to North East. The territory’s description would make more sense if it included the North Eastern part of Inner Mongolia and East of Lake Baikal. Such an estimate would produce a territory of 1,000,000 km2 which is an average of 50,000 km2 each. AD: Nikolay Kradin confirmed that the map produced by Edward was correct, so this means that his assessment of the territory including the North Eastern part of Inner Mongolia was right. Under another variable Kradin says: "The rough scale of these chiefdoms was ?? km. A mounted messenger could cover this distance in 5-7 days." Orbis database says Roman horse could cover 56 km day [1] 50*6 is 300 km. Square-shaped polity would be 90,000 km2. Because this NGA during this period was a quasi-polity, the codes refer to a typical large polity, such as Naimans, Kereids, Tatars, Merkids, and Mongols. [1]: http://orbis.stanford.edu/ |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. After 1604 CE: “The Mongol state was at that time divided into three independent khanates: the Southern Mongol Chahar khanate, the Northern Mongol Khalkha khanate and the Western Mongol Oirat confederation."
[1]
Area calculated using Google area calculator: 2,789,498.67 sq km. Based on the following quote and Perdue’s map [2] :“Following the collapse of the Yüan dynasty in 1368, its last emperor, the Mongol ejen qaghan (emperor, hereafter spelled kaghan) Toghon Temür, retired from Beijing and returned to Mongolia with his army. Karakorum once again became the capital of a Mongol state, one which now ruled essentially within its own ethnic boundaries. This country, which extended from Manchuria to Kyrgyzstan between the Great Wall of China and Lake Baikal, was a relatively large entity, and its ambitions to regain sovereignty over China still caused considerable anxiety to the Ming dynasty, which had supplanted the Yüan in China. » [3] [1]: (Ishjamts 2003, 216) [2]: (Perdue 2005, 95) [3]: (Ishjamts 2003, 210-211) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. "At its height it encompassed a region that included portions of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, western Mongolia and surrounding areas of southern Siberia, and Xinjiang."
[1]
"The Zunghar Mongols were based in the grasslands of the Yili River region of northern Xinjiang, in the remote northwest of what is now China."
[2]
1928421.84 sq km based on Perdue’s map at the end of the 17th century, estimated using Google area calculator. [3] This would give us a range of 170,000-210,000 sq kilometers. [1]: (Rogers 2012, 236) [2]: (Holcombe 2010, 168) [3]: (Perdue 2005, 3) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The following information refers to the contemporary and colonial periods: ’New Guinea, island of the eastern Malay Archipelago, in the western Pacific Ocean, north of Australia. It is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north, the Bismarck and Solomon seas to the east, the Coral Sea and Torres Strait to the south, and the Arafura Sea to the southwest. New Guinea is administratively divided into two parts: its western half comprises the Indonesian propinsi (or provinsi; provinces) of Papua and West Papua (collectively, formerly called Irian Jaya); and its eastern half comprises the major part of Papua New Guinea, an independent country since 1975. The second largest island in the world (after Greenland), New Guinea is about 1,500 miles (2,400 km) long (from northwest to southeast) and about 400 miles (650 km) wide at its widest (north to south) part. Area island, 317,150 square miles (821,400 square km).’
[1]
The Orokaiva are found in the Northern Division, the district system originating in the colonial period: ’In response to Australian pressure, the British government annexed Papua in 1888. Gold was discovered shortly thereafter, resulting in a major movement of prospectors and miners to what was then the Northern District. Relations with the Papuans were bad from the start, and there were numerous killings on both sides. The Protectorate of British New Guinea became Australian territory by the passing of the Papua Act of 1905 by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The new administration adopted a policy of peaceful penetration, and many measures of social and economic national development were introduced. Local control was in the hands of village constables, paid servants of the Crown. Chosen by European officers, they were intermediaries between the government and the people. In 1951 an eruption occurred on Mount Lamington, completely devastating a large part of the area occupied by the Orokaiva.’
[2]
’THE Orokaiva occupy the major part of the Northern Division of Papua. From Oro Bay, some little distance below Buna on the north-eastern coast, a line might be drawn westward, skirting the foothills of the Hydrographers and the Lamington group and passing over the small divide of the Kumusi and Yodda rivers, to the neighbourhood of Kokoda; thence, curving round the Ajura Kijala, it would proceed northwards, keeping on its left the uninhabited mountains which are merely eastern appendages of the Main Range, and passing through Ioma would continue on to the border of the Mandated Territory. This line, together with the territorial boundary which coincides with the 8th meridian, would enclose the demesne of the people whom we call Orokaiva. One cannot do better than follow the distribution given by E. W. P. Chinnery and the late W. N. Beaver, both of whom travelled the Northern Division more widely than the present writer, and the actual boundaries of the Orokaiva country which appear in the map are approximately theirs.’
[3]
Ethnic boundaries are not always clearly drawn: ’It must be understood, however, that while marking the limits of those people who are distinctly and exclusively called Orokaiva, these boundaries are nevertheless somewhat arbitrary. In a general treatment it would be permissible to include, for instance, the people of the lower Waria and beyond, although they go by a different name. Similarly in the south the specified boundary beginning at Oro Bay cannot be regarded as a rigid limit, for along the coast of Dyke Ackland Bay almost as far as Cape Nelson, there are settled several groups of people who are virtually identical with the Orokaiva although commonly named Okeina. The present report, however, will observe the limits already set down.’
[3]
The Northern Division today is around 22,800 km squared. It is assumed here that the Orokaiva resided in the same territory during the immediate pre-colonial period. But the kind of regional integration that created the Northern Division as a political entity was a product of colonial policies. Prior to that, unstable quasi-polities dominated the scene. The territory controlled by these probably fluctuated heavily, depending on the influence of local big men and the size of the villages supporting them. Also, tribes used to keep large tracts of uninhabited land betweem them. We therefore cannot confidently provide a proxy measure here.
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/New-Guinea [2]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAf Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [3]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray 1930. “Orokaiva Society”, 1 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers ’New Guinea, island of the eastern Malay Archipelago, in the western Pacific Ocean, north of Australia. It is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north, the Bismarck and Solomon seas to the east, the Coral Sea and Torres Strait to the south, and the Arafura Sea to the southwest. New Guinea is administratively divided into two parts: its western half comprises the Indonesian propinsi (or provinsi; provinces) of Papua and West Papua (collectively, formerly called Irian Jaya); and its eastern half comprises the major part of Papua New Guinea, an independent country since 1975. The second largest island in the world (after Greenland), New Guinea is about 1,500 miles (2,400 km) long (from northwest to southeast) and about 400 miles (650 km) wide at its widest (north to south) part. Area island, 317,150 square miles (821,400 square km).’
[1]
The Orokaiva are found in the Northern Divisiont, the district system originating in the colonial period: ’In response to Australian pressure, the British government annexed Papua in 1888. Gold was discovered shortly thereafter, resulting in a major movement of prospectors and miners to what was then the Northern District. Relations with the Papuans were bad from the start, and there were numerous killings on both sides. The Protectorate of British New Guinea became Australian territory by the passing of the Papua Act of 1905 by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The new administration adopted a policy of peaceful penetration, and many measures of social and economic national development were introduced. Local control was in the hands of village constables, paid servants of the Crown. Chosen by European officers, they were intermediaries between the government and the people. In 1951 an eruption occurred on Mount Lamington, completely devastating a large part of the area occupied by the Orokaiva.’
[2]
THE Orokaiva occupy the major part of the Northern Division of Papua. From Oro Bay, some little distance below Buna on the north-eastern coast, a line might be drawn westward, skirting the foothills of the Hydrographers and the Lamington group and passing over the small divide of the Kumusi and Yodda rivers, to the neighbourhood of Kokoda; thence, curving round the Ajura Kijala, it would proceed northwards, keeping on its left the uninhabited mountains which are merely eastern appendages of the Main Range, and passing through Ioma would continue on to the border of the Mandated Territory. This line, together with the territorial boundary which coincides with the 8th meridian, would enclose the demesne of the people whom we call Orokaiva. One cannot do better than follow the distribution given by E. W. P. Chinnery and the late W. N. Beaver, both of whom travelled the Northern Division more widely than the present writer, and the actual boundaries of the Orokaiva country which appear in the map are approximately theirs.’
[3]
Ethnic boundaries are not always clearly drawn: ’It must be understood, however, that while marking the limits of those people who are distinctly and exclusively called Orokaiva, these boundaries are nevertheless somewhat arbitrary. In a general treatment it would be permissible to include, for instance, the people of the lower Waria and beyond, although they go by a different name. Similarly in the south the specified boundary beginning at Oro Bay cannot be regarded as a rigid limit, for along the coast of Dyke Ackland Bay almost as far as Cape Nelson, there are settled several groups of people who are virtually identical with the Orokaiva although commonly named Okeina. The present report, however, will observe the limits already set down.’
[3]
The Northern Division is around 22,800 km squared. This kind of regional integration was a result of colonial policies.
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/New-Guinea [2]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAf Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [3]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray 1930. “Orokaiva Society”, 1 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Around 1000-900 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France [1] ) had a radius of about 20 km, which gives an area of about 1,257 sq kilometers. [2] [2] 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age) - this is earlier research from the same author. Since it is earlier research and the same author I defer to the more recent research. However, the upper limit is similar. "Each politically autonomous territory measured from 7 to 15 km in diameter during the whole period, except during periods of temporary expansion." [3] "The Wessex communities seem to have succeeded in organizing polities 1000 km2 in extent" however "Evidence of similar polities is very rare in Europe during the same period." [4] [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 1995, 15) [4]: (Brun 1995, 14) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Around 900-700 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France [1] ) had a radius of about 25 km, which gives an area of about 1,964 sq kilometers. [2] [2] Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) -- these quotes reflects disagreement from same author. However, since it is an earlier publication will ignore and code the most recent research. In 1995 he does note that Wessex communities reached 1000 km2 in extent. Territorial scale: "The economic foundations put in place in the ninth and eighth centuries BC were ... incapable of supporting a political scale of integration greater than tens of square kilometers." [3] 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age)"Each politically autonomous territory measured from 7 to 15 km in diameter during the whole period, except during periods of temporary expansion." [4] "The Wessex communities seem to have succeeded in organizing polities 1000 km2 in extent" however "Evidence of similar polities is very rare in Europe during the same period." [5] [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 1995, 24) [4]: (Brun 1995, 15) [5]: (Brun 1995, 14) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Around 500 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France
[1]
) had a radius of about 50 km, which gives an area of about 7,854 sq kilometers.
[2]
[2] Territorial scale: "The economic foundations put in place in the ninth and eighth centuries BC were ... incapable of supporting a political scale of integration greater than tens of square kilometers." [3] "The primacy of this site was short-lived, but by Hallstatt D2 Asperg and the Heuneburg had become centres of ‘complex chiefdoms.’ Within a 5- 10km radius of a central defended site is a cluster of rich burials, characterised by massive mounds, timber-lined graves, wagons, gold objects, bronze vessels, and imported Mediterranean goods." [4] [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 1995, 24) [4]: (Collis 1984, 82) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Around 300 and 200 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France
[1]
) had a radius of about 20 km, which gives an area of about 1,250 sq kilometers.
[2]
[2] "the disruption of the south-north trade networks in the fourth-third centuries BC brought about a return to the scale of integration which had existed from the ninth BC onwards." [3] ("The economic foundations put in place in the ninth and eighth centuries BC were ... incapable of supporting a political scale of integration greater than tens of square kilometers." [3] ) [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 1995, 24) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Around 300 and 200 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France
[1]
) had a radius of about 20 km, which gives an area of about 1,250 sq kilometers.
[2]
[2] "the disruption of the south-north trade networks in the fourth-third centuries BC brought about a return to the scale of integration which had existed from the ninth BC onwards." [3] ("The economic foundations put in place in the ninth and eighth centuries BC were ... incapable of supporting a political scale of integration greater than tens of square kilometers." [3] ) [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 1995, 24) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers Around 100 BCE, politically independent polities in the northern alpine region (which includes central France
[1]
) had a radius of about 70 km, which gives an area of about 15,394 sq kilometers.
[2]
[2] In Central Gaul, there were even bigger political units. They might have had 4 tiers, and a scale going over 20,000 sq kilometers. These political units are the ones that Caesar called civitates. "En Gaule centrale, existaient des entités politiques plus vastes encore. Celles-ci semblent bien avoir possédé quatre niveaux d’intégration avec une échelle dépassant Ies 20 000 km2. Ces entités politiques sont celles que César a nommées civitates." [3] [1]: (Brun 2007, 380) [2]: (Brun 2007, 381) [3]: (Brun 2007, 382) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Merovingian kingdoms was a quasi-polity in terms of territory that could be militarily controlled. This figure represents the average sized kingdom within the polity.
Total area divided by six regions. This figure is for the total area: 1,400,000: 690-730 CE; 1,500,000: 740-750 CE 8th Century Alaman region independent again? [1] These numbers are based on the maps at Geacon EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://geacron.com/home-en/?&sid=GeaCron10372 worked out from number of pixels (which you can find from image editor if you take a screen cap of the maps at the same scale) Scale: 200 km. 1 pixel = 20 km2. Figures rounded to memorable number (otherwise false precision). 481 = 17,494px = 349,880 km2490 = 30,307px = 606,140 km2500 = 30,307px = 606,140 km2510 = 50,647px = 1,012,940 km2520 = 50,647px = 1,012,940 km2530 = 50,647px = 1,012,940 km2540 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2550 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2560 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2570 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2580 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2590 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2600 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2610 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2620 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2630 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2640 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2650 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2660 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2670 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2680 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2690 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2700 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2710 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2720 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2730 = 71,853px = 1,437,060 km2740 = 75,820px = 1,516,400 km2750 = 75,820px = 1,516,400 km2 [1]: (Wood 1994, 161) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"En légère contradiction, E. Kuz’mina (1994b) préconise que l’usage des pâturages à disposition près des villages Andronovo devait conduire tous les 20-25 ans à un déplacement, de ces tribus de plusieurs douzaines de kilomètres à la recherche de pâturages exploitables." [1] The use of grazing lands near Andronovo villages led to their relocation every 20-25 years, several dozens of kilometers away to look for new lands to exploit. If a village is roughly equivalent to an independent polity, each polity has a catchment area of several dozens km to allow for grazing. We can give a very rough estimate using such approximations (24-72 km to find a new village). Estimates could range between 1800 square kilometers (24 km) to 16300 square kilometers (72 km). To allow for more variability, they are coded as 1500-20,000. AD. [1]: (Kuz’mina in Bendezu-Sarmiento 2007, 205) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
If we divide the Zarafshan valley between two realms we get about 15,000 km2 for each of them. "Thus, both the written sources and the numismatic data show that Transoxiana in the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.lacked internal political unity. Even Sughd (the basin of the river Zarafshan) was divided between at least two realms, this corresponding more or less to the later partition of the Zarafshan valley into "Bukharan Sughd" and "Samarkandian Sughd"; accordingly we have imitations of tetradrachms of Euthydemus and imitations of drachms of Antiochus I, with a horse’s head on the reverse side." [1] "The five hsi-hou or regions where the five tribes established their presence were located on either side of the Amu Darya - approximately the territory included in modern Bactria, Southern Tajikistan and Southern Uzbekistan (Sogdiana). The Kabul region (Kao-fu) and Parthia were initially not occupied by any of the Yueh-chih tribes." [2] On the area of southeastern Sogdiana which came under Yuezhi domination in this period: ’The next five hundred years of Sogdian history [after the Graeco-Bactrian period] are extremely obscure. There is basically no information on Sogdiana concerning this period other than what is related in the Chinese sources [...] Around 160-130 BCE, the region was crisscrossed by various waves of migratory nomads from the north, whether they were Iranian-speaking Saka or the Yuezhi from within China. Beginning in the first century BCE, most of Sogdiana was included in a larger nomadic state, centered on the middle Syr Darya, namely Kangju. On the other hand, the Yuezhi principalities and then the Kushan empire incorporated the southeast part of Sogdiana (south of the Hissar mountains), which thereafter left the Sogdian sphere and was attached to Bactria.’ [3] [1]: (Zeimal 1983, 246) [2]: (Samad 2011, 78) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: (de la Vaissière 2011) É. de la Vaissière. 2011. ’Sogdiana iii: History and Archeology’, Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sogdiana-iii-history-and-archeology (accessed on 10 September 2016). |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. If we draw a line mid-way between Samarkand and Bukhara and then turn the region around the cities into squares we get a figure of about 15km.
e.g. 2 Km2 for Samarkand. we should infer that a region beyond the city was also controlled by this urban center due to the conflict between the cities. “In the seventh century Samarkand again covered the whole plateau of Afrasiab, an area of 219 ha" [1] “These city-states, often at odds with one another, had been under Hephthalite, Türk and Arab rule at varions times." [2] [1]: (Marshak 1996, 244) [2]: (Golden 1992, 190) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.‘The wide dispersion makes it difficult to generalize about ecological settings. Miao settlements are found anywhere from a few hundred meters above sea level to elevations of 1,400 meters or more. The largest number are uplands people, often living at elevations over 1,200 meters and located at some distance from urban centers or the lowlands and river valleys where the Han are concentrated. Often, these upland villages and hamlets are interspersed with those of other minorities such as Yao, Dong, Zhuang, Yi, Hui, and Bouyei.’
[1]
’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.’
[2]
Some authors claim periodic decreases in population size for the rural Hmong population and report inconsistencies in the self-reporting of settled territory: ’The area of the Sheng Miao according to their exaggerated account, extends to 9,000 li, but actually the area is about 200 /sq./ li in length and width. It is a mountainous area, the highest peak at Teng-k’ung-ming-t’ang being 2,000 meters, and the total population about 10,000. The writer has visited altogether 101 Sheng Miao villages of all sizes, the largest being Chia-lu, Chia-mien, Chia-ya, Chia-lung, Chia-wêng, Cheng-yu, Tang-wêng and Chüeh-ts’ai-p’ing, with about 100 families in each. Even today they do not have a single market fair within the area and this shows how circumscribed is the sphere of their economic activity. Their only means of livelihood is agriculture. Almost all the fields are terraced according to natural topography, rising from the bottom of the slope to the top in several hundred layers. The shape of the field is long and narrow, producing rice, wheat, corn and barley. [...] Being in direct contact with them, the writer could watch at close quarters their extremely miserable conditions, which are pitiable indeed. Because of their ignorance they do not know how to save or to improve the method of production. In case of famine they cannot escape starvation, which is the most important reason for the decrease in their population.’
[3]
[1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao [2]: Graham, David Crockett 1954. “Songs And Stories Of The Ch’Uan Miao", 1 [3]: Che-lin, Wu, Chen Kuo-chün, and Lien-en Tsao 1942. “Studies Of Miao-I Societies In Kweichow”, 73 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers The Ubaid territory is here understood as area sharing number of cultural, material, economic and social features, which are not only restricted to the presence of particular type of Ubaid pottery. The Ubaid reached its greatest extent probably during Ubaid 3 or Ubaid 4 phase and it encompasses regions as follows: southern Mesopotamia (’heartland’), central Mesopotamia, northern Mesopotamia, northwestern Syria, southeastern Anatolia, western Iran and the western littoral of the Persian Gulf.
[1]
[1]: Carter & Phillip 2010, 1-3 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Adams mentions two settlement enclaves: southern and northern. The southern enclave was inhabited by 86300 people on area of 2398 in squared km and the northern enclave had 20240 people living on area of 1184 in squared km
[1]
30,000
[2]
[1]: (Adams 1981, 90) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MAIAZJ3K. [2]: Roux 1998, 115 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.
Sargon undertook several campaigns both to crush internal rebellions and extend the territory of Akkad. As a result, his empire became huge as never before. To cite Hamblin: "He created the largest empire the world had yet known, stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and encompassing most of modern Iraq and Syria, and over twice the size in population and land of contemporary Egypt. From another perspective, however, Sargon’s empire was what we would call today a humanitarian disaster, for "the god Enlil instructed [Sargon to conquer the world] and he showed mercy to no one" [1] c2200 BCE (actually later) 1,100,000 maximum extent - much larger than presented on current maps. Marhashi in the East is on the border with Afghanistan. Maximum extent estimated from Map 2. p.81 Foster (2016) [2] Naram-Sin claimed conquests "from Marhashi in the east as far as the Cedar Forest, presumably the slops of the Amanus or Lebanon; from the Mediterranean to the "lands beyond the sea," perhaps as far as Oman, a claim fully justified by administrative documents from his reign (Chapter 3, part 6)." [3] "This network of political, economic, and diplomatic interconnections, stretching from northern Syria to eastern Iran and the Indus Valley and Oman, not only corresponds well to the territorial claims of Naram-Sin (Chapter 1 part 4), but also demonstrates that the Akkadian Empire was indeed a historical reality and the world’s first documented empire." [4] "The systematic destruction of city walls shows Akkadian determination to subjugate territory by removing a key symbol of social and political identity, not just to break resistance but to achieve imperial integration." [4] "As the Akkadians and their empire expanded, Akkad came to include the entire alluvial plain, along the Euphrates from a point north of Nippur to Sippar, where the alluvium begins, and along the Tigris at least as far as the Adheim River and perhaps further north." [5] Liverani says Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin "controlled the region of Elam, and not its broad confederation." [6] The "broad confederation" would presumably include Marhashi. So although his military forces did conquer this region Akkad had no way to directly control it. So if it was ever part of an "Empire" it was through means of influence other than force (after the initial conquest and retreat). "The kings of Awan continued to rule, and relations between Akkad and Awan (described in the inscriptions as subjugated by Akkad) are recorded on an Elamite treaty found at Susa. The agreement was between Naram-Sin and the king of Elam, who is recognised as a political and legal representative of Elam. However, it is true that, after these last attestations, the dynasty of Awan seems to have disappeared. Susa had an Akkadian official in power and Susiana began to be significantly influenced by Akkadian culture." [6] second half third century, occupied Susiana. [7] "Despite the fact the Elamites had not been defeated for good, Rimush proclaimed that Enlil had given him ’all the land’ (that is, the Mesopotamian alluvial plain) and ’all the mountains’ (that is, the preriphery), from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea." [6] [1]: Hamblin 2006, 76 [2]: (Foster 2016, 81) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [3]: (Foster 2016, 10) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [4]: (Foster 2016, 82) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [5]: (Foster 2016, 30) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [6]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [7]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 7) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
280,000: 200 BCE; 2,000,000: 100 BCE; 3,000,000: 1 CE; 1,900,000: 100 CE; 1,800,000: 200 CE Maximum extent should include Oman region? "the Gulf region shared to a great extent in a common cultural kione with Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais and Karmania between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Periplus leaves little doubt that some measure of Parthian authority extended to the Oman peninsular during the first century AD ... other late sources certainly suggests that Ardashir encountered a Parthian ruler in eastern Arabia when he campaigned there near the end of his reign. The Parthian presence in the Gulf, less widely acknowledged perhaps than either the earlier Seleucid or the later Sasanian one, was nevertheless a reality." [1] Coinage of Vologases IV (r.147-191 CE) found in Eastern Arabia (e.g. Jebel Kenzan). [2] [1]: (Potts 2013, 282) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [2]: (Potts 2013, 280) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers.
280,000: 200 BCE; 2,000,000: 100 BCE; 3,000,000: 1 CE; 1,900,000: 100 CE; 1,800,000: 200 CE Maximum extent should include Oman region? "the Gulf region shared to a great extent in a common cultural kione with Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais and Karmania between the second century BC and the third century AD. The Periplus leaves little doubt that some measure of Parthian authority extended to the Oman peninsular during the first century AD ... other late sources certainly suggests that Ardashir encountered a Parthian ruler in eastern Arabia when he campaigned there near the end of his reign. The Parthian presence in the Gulf, less widely acknowledged perhaps than either the earlier Seleucid or the later Sasanian one, was nevertheless a reality." [1] Coinage of Vologases IV (r.147-191 CE) found in Eastern Arabia (e.g. Jebel Kenzan). [2] [1]: (Potts 2013, 282) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. [2]: (Potts 2013, 280) Potts, D T. in Reade, Julian ed. 2013. Indian Ocean In Antiquity. Routledge. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
750,000: 1200 CE. 1207 CE lost Persian territory to Khwarezm Empire. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. ha based on calculation with value of 200 persons per hectare. “By various estimates, the size of the settled population in the Late Village Period is between 8,500 and 25,000. (The figure of 200 persons per hectare of settlement is often used in these calculations [Dollfus 1983].)"
[1]
[1]: (Hole 1987: 91) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2V3A89C3 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
"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." [1] at this time inhabitants of Tepe Yahya semi-nomadic had different culture, many of their cultural objects were popularly received in Susa and Ur. [2] "Overall, the Elamite state included a large part of Iran and interacted with other developed centres located further east, such as Tepe Yahya (in the land of Barahshi/Marhashi) and Shar-i Sokha (possibly the Aratta of Sumerian myths). These were crucial commercial junctions in the network, providing tin, lapis lazuli, diorite and other semiprecious stones to the west." [3] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 6) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 142) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
16th-14th centuries BCE: The Elamites were concentrated in the Susiana plain but maintained their ancestral ties with the highlands, where Anshan was progressively deserted." [1] 245606.94 km² : estimated on Google Area Calculator based on the Liverani map for 1450 BC [2] [1]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 9) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [2]: (Liverani 2014, 279) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
4 maps showing Elam p.279 1600 BCE, 1450 BCE, 1350 BCE, 1220 BCE. very little change over period. [1] 310124.72 km2. Estimated from Google Area calculator using the 1350 BC and 1220 BC maps in Liverani 2014 [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 279) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Liverani 2014, 279) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
278706.48 km 2 based on Liverani map [1] , calculated using Google area calculator. 4 maps showing Elam p.279 1600 BCE, 1450 BCE, 1350 BCE, 1220 BCE. very little change over period. [2] "This apogee, however, did not last long. Despite taking on the title of ’expander of the empire’, the successor of the great Shilhak-Inshushinak, namely Kutelutush-Inshushinak, had to endure a marked reduction of his territories." -- at least this is true in west, it is possible gains may have been made in east. [3] Map of Elam, Middle Elamite period, at apogee c1150-1120 BCE. [4] -- occupied significant parts of lower mesopotamia and borders Assyria in north, south of Ashur. however second map shows that peak territory did not last until 1100. "Shutruk-Nahhunte managed to considerably strengthen his entire kingdom, which now extended from the coast of the Persian Gulf (Liyan) and Anshan to the Mesopotamian border. " [5] "Kutir-Nahhunte was succeeded by his brother Shilhak-Inshushinak. In his reign, the Middle Elam- ite kingdom reached its peak both in terms of extension and monumental splendour. Following a series of campaigns attested in one of his celebratory inscriptions, the king took on, deservedly, the title of ‘expander of the empire’. Although many of the places mentioned by him remain unknown, it is clear that he expanded to the west. He conquered the entire region between the Zagros and the Tigris, reaching the Lower Zab and the Assyrian border. He annexed the regions of the Diyala, mount Ebih (Jebel Hamrin), Yalman, and Kirkuk. These areas were inhabited by Akkadian, Kassite, and Hurrian populations. This was the maximum extension ever reached by the Elamite kingdom, which also controlled the eastern ter- ritories from the Persian Gulf to the deserts in central Iran. The only areas unconquered by the Elamites were Assyria (which was considerably reduced in size) and the Mesopotamian south, ruled by the Second Dynasty of Isin. Babylonia itself suffered incursions, but its occupation was not consolidated. Therefore, the Tigris and Lower Zab became the westernmost borders of the empire at its peak." [6] [1]: (Liverani 2014, 279) [2]: (Leverani 2014, 279) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 460) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 464) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Liverani 2014, 458) [6]: (Liverani 2014, 460) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. There is little evidence to be certain of the extent of Elamite rule. For example, cities in the eastern highlands wrote in a form of Elamite, but it is not known whether they were under the control of the Elamite kings.
[1]
[1]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 259 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
By 1900 CE polity had assumed modern Iranian borders i.e. about 1,600,000 km2. I’d estimate using an area calculator that the polity had lost about 137,979 km2 on its north western border and 201,813 km2 on its north eastern border since 1800 CE. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
By 1900 CE polity had assumed modern Iranian borders i.e. about 1,600,000 km2. I’d estimate using an area calculator that the polity had lost about 137,979 km2 on its north western border and 201,813 km2 on its north eastern border since 1800 CE. |
||||||
|
KM2. AD: estimate for 3800 BCE has been changed to 5-20 square kilometers to reflect the territory that could have been controlled by a village for agricultural/foraging purposes. Considering that Hierakonpolis covered at least 7.5km2 the range should allow for variations.
Upper Egypt is the core territory of Naqada culture. This describes a 7.5km2, 750ha site if taken as a square In the Naqada I period Hierakonpolis occupation "stretched for over 2.5 kilometers along the edge of the desert and back almost 3 kilometers into the great wadi that bisects the site" [1] Naqada I: A few thousand meters-3 ha [2] ; Naqada II-III: uncoded quasi-polities At the end of Naqada I the villages started to united, first creating chiefdoms/nome pre-states and in the Naqada III or even in the end of Naqada II - proto-states. The size of those polities varied and changed during the process of state formation. That remains uncoded. [1]: Friedman, R. 2011. "Hierakonpolis". [in:] Before the Pyramids. The Orygin of Egyptian Cyvilization. Teeter, E.[ed.]. Chicago: The Oriental Instytute of the University of Chicago. pg: 34. [2]: Ciałowicz, K. M. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. pg: 110 |
||||||
|
KM2. AD: estimate for 3800 BCE has been changed to 5-20 square kilometers to reflect the territory that could have been controlled by a village for agricultural/foraging purposes. Considering that Hierakonpolis covered at least 7.5km2 the range should allow for variations.
Upper Egypt is the core territory of Naqada culture. This describes a 7.5km2, 750ha site if taken as a square In the Naqada I period Hierakonpolis occupation "stretched for over 2.5 kilometers along the edge of the desert and back almost 3 kilometers into the great wadi that bisects the site" [1] Naqada I: A few thousand meters-3 ha [2] ; Naqada II-III: uncoded quasi-polities At the end of Naqada I the villages started to united, first creating chiefdoms/nome pre-states and in the Naqada III or even in the end of Naqada II - proto-states. The size of those polities varied and changed during the process of state formation. That remains uncoded. [1]: Friedman, R. 2011. "Hierakonpolis". [in:] Before the Pyramids. The Orygin of Egyptian Cyvilization. Teeter, E.[ed.]. Chicago: The Oriental Instytute of the University of Chicago. pg: 34. [2]: Ciałowicz, K. M. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. pg: 110 |
||||||
|
KM2. Estimate will be somewhere under 25,000 KM2 and somewhere over 3,000 KM2. A code of [5,000-20,000] captures the main part of this range.
Upper Egypt is the core territory of Naqada culture. Naqada II "Gerzean culture extended from its source at Naqada northwards toward the Delta (Minshat Abu Omar) and southwards as far as Nubia." [1] Another more popular theory indicates a continuous existence of a few developing political and territorial chiefdoms or even a proto-states [2] [3] [4] The size of those polities varied and changed during the process of state formation. It seems, however, that until the end of Naqada IIB period (3400 BCE) only three polities in Upper Egypt prevailed (there is still a huge lack of information about the Middle Egypt region), which remain quite stable for the rest of the Naqada II period. The exact size of polity territories remains uncoded [5] [1]: (Midant-Reynes 2000, 50) [2]: for example: Köhler, E. C. 2010. "Theories of State Formation". [in:] Wendrich, W. [ed.]. Egyptian Archaeology. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing. pg: 44, 47 [3]: Köhler, E. C. 2011. "The Rise of the Egyptian State" The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. Teeter, E.[ed.]. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pg: 123 [4]: Savage, S. H. "Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt". Journal of Archaeological Research 9/2 (2001):129. [5]: Andelkovic, B. 2011. "Political Organisation of Egypt in the Predynastic Period". [in:] Teeter, E. [ed.]. Before the Pyramids: The Origin of the Egyptian Civilization. Chichago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pg: 28-29. |
||||||
|
KM2.
DH: If we are taking the main settlements around the Qena bend, that would be more on the order of 5-10000 km2 (similar to the earlier Naqada periods) - not sure why rise to 20000 for Naqada 3? Was expansion of the ’culture’, but that’s not quite the same as polity territory 3150, 3100 BCE data from Chase-Dunn spreadsheet for "Egypt". [1] Upper Egypt is the core territory of Naqada culture. "Gerzean culture extended from its source at Naqada northwards toward the Delta (Minshat Abu Omar) and southwards as far as Nubia." [2] At the end of Naqada I the villages started to unite, creating chiefdoms/nome pre-states. According to one theory, the Naqada IIC proto-state emerged from those quasi-polities [3] . Another more popular theory indicates a continuous existence of a few developing political and territorial chiefdoms or even a proto-states [4] [5] [6] . The size of those polities varied and changed during the process of state formation. It seems, however, that until the end of Naqada IIB period (3400 BCE) only three polities in Upper Egypt prevailed (there is still a huge lack of information about the Middle Egypt region), which remain quite stable for the rest of the Naqada II period. The exact size of polity territories remains uncoded [7] . [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (Midant-Reynes 2000, 50) [3]: Andelkovic, B. 2011. "Political Organisation of Egypt in the Predynastic Period". [in:] Teeter, E. [ed.]. Before the Pyramids: The Origin of the Egyptian Civilization. Chichago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pg: 28-30 [4]: for example: Köhler, E. C. 2010. "Theories of State Formation". [in:] Wendrich, W. [ed.]. Egyptian Archaeology. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing. pg: 44, 47 [5]: Köhler, E. C. 2011. "The Rise of the Egyptian State" The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. Teeter, E.[ed.]. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pg: 123 [6]: Savage, S. H. "Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt". Journal of Archaeological Research 9/2 (2001):129. [7]: Andelkovic, B. 2011. "Political Organisation of Egypt in the Predynastic Period". [in:] Teeter, E. [ed.]. Before the Pyramids: The Origin of the Egyptian Civilization. Chichago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pg: 28-29. |
||||||
|
1st Dynasty controlled "much of the Nile Valley from the Delta to the first cataract at Aswan."
[1]
This works out as 44,717.85 (close borders/little control of surrounding steppe/desert) to 115,102.67 (borders further out from the Nile). Estimated using Google area calculator. 50,000: 3100 BCE; 75,000: 3050 BCE; 100,000: 3000 BCE; 100,000: 2950 BCE; 100,000: 2900 BCE [2] This includes only habitable area. we will have another that includes the desert (John Baines)JGM: We should bring up, somewhere, theories on the rise of the first state in Egypt in relations to the oases, western desert. Lots of archaeology has occurred, and there is a clear relationship between the desert hinterlands in southern Egypt and the rise of the state in the Nile valley. [1]: (Bard 2000, 63) [2]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
100,000: 2900 BCE; 250,000: 2850 BCE; 267,000: 2800 BCE; 283,000: 2750 BCE; 300,000: 2700 BCE; 317,000: 2650 BCE
[1]
This includes only habitable area. we will have another that includes the desert (John Baines)JGM: We should bring up, somewhere, theories on the rise of the first state in Egypt in relations to the oases, western desert. Lots of archaeology has occurred, and there is a clear relationship between the desert hinterlands in southern Egypt and the rise of the state in the Nile valley. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
100,000: 2900 BCE; 250,000: 2850 BCE; 267,000: 2800 BCE; 283,000: 2750 BCE; 300,000: 2700 BCE; 317,000: 2650 BCE
[1]
This includes only habitable area. we will have another that includes the desert (John Baines)JGM: We should bring up, somewhere, theories on the rise of the first state in Egypt in relations to the oases, western desert. Lots of archaeology has occurred, and there is a clear relationship between the desert hinterlands in southern Egypt and the rise of the state in the Nile valley. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
100,000: 2900 BCE; 250,000: 2850 BCE; 267,000: 2800 BCE; 283,000: 2750 BCE; 300,000: 2700 BCE; 317,000: 2650 BCE
[1]
This includes only habitable area. we will have another that includes the desert (John Baines)JGM: We should bring up, somewhere, theories on the rise of the first state in Egypt in relations to the oases, western desert. Lots of archaeology has occurred, and there is a clear relationship between the desert hinterlands in southern Egypt and the rise of the state in the Nile valley. [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) |
||||||
|
KM^2.
367,000: 2500 BCE [1] Polity territory includes the Nile valley and delta plus partial control of surrounding desert regions. [2] Inferred 75,000 km2 low estimate per John Baines’ response to 100,000km2 as previous low estimate: "I’d be inclined to give a lower estimate, just for Nile valley and delta, and say in words ‘plus partial control of surrounding desert regions’ or similar." [2] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
KM^2. 89,000: 2181 BCE
[1]
367,000: 2500 BCE
[1]
Inferred 75,000 km2 low estimate per John Baines’ response to 100,000km2 as previous low estimate: "I’d be inclined to give a lower estimate, just for Nile valley and delta, and say in words ‘plus partial control of surrounding desert regions’ or similar." [2] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
Estimate for Theban Kingdom that controlled a rectangle in Southern Egypt based around the Nile from Aswan to Thebes, or just a bit north. "... the Theban Kingdom occupied only a small, remote, and relatively unimportant part of Egypt as a whole ... Most of the country, during the First Intermediate Period, was in the hands of the Herakleopolitan successors to the ancient Memphite monarchy." [1] "A well known stela showing the king with a number of his dogs (Cairo CG 20512) is dated to year 50 of the king’s reign (c.2053 BC), and indicates that at that time his southern boundary was at Elephantine (Aswan), and his northern in the tenth Upper Egyptian nome (north of Abydos)." [2] [1]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 127) [2]: (Strudwick and Strudwick 1999, 24) |
||||||
|
[1]
Senusret III, 1878-1843 BCE, fixed Egypt’s southern border above the second cataract of the Nile.
[2]
257,000: 1700 BCE Annexed part of Nubia directly south of Egypt. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/history12-17.htm#amenemheti) [3]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 435) |
||||||
|
[1]
Senusret III, 1878-1843 BCE, fixed Egypt’s southern border above the second cataract of the Nile.
[2]
257,000: 1700 BCE Annexed part of Nubia directly south of Egypt. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/history12-17.htm#amenemheti) [3]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 435) |
||||||
|
[1]
Senusret III, 1878-1843 BCE, fixed Egypt’s southern border above the second cataract of the Nile.
[2]
257,000: 1700 BCE Annexed part of Nubia directly south of Egypt. [3] [1]: (Chase-Dunn spreadsheet) [2]: (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/history12-17.htm#amenemheti) [3]: (Garcia ed. 2013, 435) |
||||||
|
KM2.
Approximation of territory 16th Dynasty Egypt - in Upper Egypt. "The late Second Intermediate Period, the final stage of the Middle Bronze Age in Egypt, was associated with the decline of the Middle Kingdom state system and the emergence of a fragmentary political situation in which Egypt was ultimately dominated by two rival kingdoms, the Thebans (Dynasties 16-17) in Upper Egypt, and the Hyksos (Dynasty 15) in the Nile Delta." [1] 1720-1567 BCE "If we accept the evidence in favour of Seneb-Kay and the seven other similar tombs representing an independent kingdom, the "Abydos Dynasty," then we may plausibly suggest that this was a kingdom geographically flanked by a mosaic of potential political rivals. To the south lay the Theban kingdom ruled by the 16th Dynasty. To the north the Hyksos 15th Dynasty and a possible array of vassal rulers would have dominated the Nile Delta. At the beginning of this era the vestiges of the 13th Dynasty may have still controlled the area around the Middle Kingdom royal capital at Itj-Tawy, even after secession of Upper Egypt (Ilin-Tomich 2014)." [2] Hyksos held Upper Egypt only for a short time. [3] Manetho implied Hyksos initially held the entire country. Delta was the stronghold. Carnarvon Tablet I suggests territory as far as "Middle Egypt" toward end of 17th Dynasty. There are Hyksos monuments south of Middle Egypt but not much evidence for occupation this region. Cusae possibly southern limit, as suggested by Newberry. Southern granite was used in the Hyksos realm, but this could have come from trade. [4] Khian’s name not found south of Gebelein (40 km south of Thebes). Khian’s rule before 1620 BCE. [5] [1]: (Wegner 2015, 68) Wegner, Josef. 2015. A royal necropolis at South Abydos: New light on Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period. Near Eastern archaeology. Volume 78. Issue 2. 68-78. [2]: (Wegner 2015, 77) Wegner, Josef. 2015. A royal necropolis at South Abydos: New light on Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period. Near Eastern archaeology. Volume 78. Issue 2. 68-78. [3]: (Hall 1928) [4]: (Wilson and Allen 1939, 15-16) [5]: (Hayes 1990, 6) |
||||||
|
Campaigns of Peye c720 BCE. By 750 occupied part of Upper Egypt.
[1]
By 713 BCE, entire Nile Valley to Delta under Empire of Kush. Still there under Taharqa (690-664 BCE).
[2]
663 BCE Assyrians capture Thebes. Soon thereafter end of Empire in Egypt.
[600,000-700,000]: 700 BCE [1]: (Mokhtar ed. 1981, 278-279) [2]: (Mokhtar ed. 1981, 280-281) |
||||||
|
Previously coded as 0.078 squared kilometers, based on the following reasoning: sources do not suggest there is evidence for a unified polity during this period, so the size of the largest settlement, San José Mogote, has been coded here. The settlement consists of nine proximate sites which together form a settlement cluster.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[1]: 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 [2]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 372. [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. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers. "Where survey data are available, the political territory of these centers is known to range from 50 to 500 km2.”
[1]
[1]: 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, p459 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers, based on the map given by Spencer (2009)
[1]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. (2009). Testing the Morphogenesist Model of Primary State Formation: The Zapotec Case. Macroevolution in Human Prehistory: Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology. A. M. Prentiss, I. Kuijt and J. C. Chatters, Springer: 133-155., p143 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers, based on the map provided by Spencer (2009).
[1]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. (2009). Testing the Morphogenesist Model of Primary State Formation: The Zapotec Case. Macroevolution in Human Prehistory: Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology. A. M. Prentiss, I. Kuijt and J. C. Chatters, Springer: 133-155, p146 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. By MA II, expanded to include roughly 20,000km2.
[1]
This includes roughly 2,150km2 of the Valley of Oaxaca, after the Zapotecs had defeated San Martin Tilcajete around 30 BCE.
[2]
The place names recorded in the "conquest slabs" at Monte Alban can still be identified in some cases (as they are still called by those names) and may indicate that the territorial limits of the Zapotec state during this period were around 85-150km from Monte Alban.
[3]
According to Charles Spencer (2009), nearly 20,000 km2: "At El Palenque, the presence of state institutions is supported by our excavation of a royal palace and a multiroom temple (Spencer and Redmond 2004b, 2005). Then, sometime in the first century B.C., in the early years of the Monte Albán II phase (100 B.C.-A.D. 200), the El Palenque site was burned and completely abandoned; a new site, Cerro Tilcajete, was founded on a nearby ridge. Elson’s (2003) research at Cerro Tilcajete revealed that it functioned as a secondary center of the Monte Albán state during the Monte Albán II phase, by which time Monte Albán had probably succeeded in annexing the Ocotlán-Zimatlán and Tlacolula subvalleys, as well as several other regions outside the Valley, bringing the territory dominated by the Monte Albán state to nearly 20,000 km2 (Fig. 5.9) (Elson 2003; Marcus and Flannery 1996:206-207; Spencer and Redmond 2005)."
[4]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p183 [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): 11801-11805, p11804 [3]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p197 [4]: (Spencer 2009, 146-147) Charles S Spencer. Testing the Morphogenesist Model of Primary State formation: The Zapotec Case. Anna Marie Prentiss. Ian Kuijt. James C Chatters. eds. 2009. Macroevolution in Human Prehistory. Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology. Springer. New York. |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. The Zapotec territory decreased in size over this period, but the exact extent of the polity is uncertain. The range coded here therefore refers to the size of the Valley of Oaxaca up the the extent of the polity gained in the previous period.
[1]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p183 |
||||||
|
As the Zapotec state was in a process of fragmentation into smaller polities, the actual extent of any polity in the Valley of Oaxaca is very difficult to determine for this period.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. 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. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Likely unknown.
|
||||||
|
squared kilometers. “At its peak, Tiwanaku held power over a large part of present-day eastern and southern Bolivia, northwestern Argentina, northern Chile, and southern Peru... The final stage of the Tiwanaku kingdom, from about 725 to 1200, saw significant territorial expansion and the development of a complex, multiethnic society. Tiwanaku conquests during this period included a large part of the Pacific Coast from central Peru to northern Chile, and highland regions extending into the Andes Mountains.”
[1]
“Various hypotheses concerning the nature and extent of the Tiwanaku State’s control outside of its core area have been advanced. Some scholars see the Tiwanaku State as essentially a prototype of the Inca Empire, violently expanding outside of its altiplano core area and conquering a vast territory. Ponce (2001: 116) calculated that in its imperial phase, Tiwanaku controlled an area 275,000–600,000 km2 in size. Stanish (2003: 7-12) agrees that there is some evidence for glorification of conquest in Tiwanaku iconography and architecture. However, he views the area of direct Tiwanaku control to have been mostly limited to the southern Titicaca Basin.”
[2]
[1]: (Middleton 2015: 947) Middleton, John. 2015. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Volume 1-3, A-Z. London: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7N3PNVCB [2]: (Korpisaari 2006: 66) 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 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometersThe Hohokam culture was based in the “Phoenix Basin along the Gila and Salt Rivers, in southern Arizona along the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, and north on the Lower Verde River and along the New and Agua Fria Rivers.”
[1]
The coded territory size is a very lose approximation using google maps calculator and the estimated territory area illustrated in the sources used.
[2]
[1]: “Hohokam Culture (U.S. National Park Service)”. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/34YMDDCN [2]: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4248335,-111.1995649,8.39z |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.In the last two years of his reign between 1554-1556, Charles I of Spain (Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor) divided the Habsburg Empire between a German-Austrian branch and a Spanish branch of the dynasty in order to consolidate power within the family. He abdicated in 1521 as Duke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor in favour of his brother, Ferdinand I, who ruled the Austrian branch. And, in 1556, he retired as King of Spain (which also included the Spanish Netherlands and the colonies in South America) in favour of his son Phillip II. Due to this divide, the Austrian territory was reduced at this time. In 1648, at the end of the Thirty Years’ War – and the end of this polity period – the Austrian Habsburgs had a territory of around 225,390 km2.
[1]
[1]: (‘Holy Roman Empire’) ‘Holy Roman Empire’, in Wikipedia, 17 May 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Roman_Empire&oldid=1088421775. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4YKJ5ZPU |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. In the mid-nineteenth century France expanded its overseas territories to include huge areas of West Africa following the start of the French conquest of Algeria, and later in Indochina and parts of the Pacific. By 1870 the overseas territories covered nearly 1million square kilometres.
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. In the mid-nineteenth century France expanded its overseas territories to include huge areas of West Africa following the start of the French conquest of Algeria, and later in Indochina and parts of the Pacific. By 1870 the overseas territories covered nearly 1million square kilometres.
|
||||||
|
squared kilometres. “At its height, the Habsburg Monarchy covered more than 260,000 square miles— ten degrees of latitude and eighteen degrees of longitude— making it the largest continental European power and second only to the Russian Empire in total landmass. Its west- east length, from Italy to eastern Transylvania, was about 860 miles, and its north- south length, from Bohemia to Croatia, was about 500 miles (excluding Dalmatia).7 Measured end to end, its frontiers were more than 4,000 miles by the end of the eighteenth century — about the width of the Atlantic Ocean.”
[1]
[1]: (Mitchell 2018: 22) Mitchell, A. Wess. 2018. The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/TESFCKPW |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. “An index of the successful governance of the two first Luxemburgs on the Bohemian throne was the significant territorial gains which influenced the development of the Czech state and its society. Bohemia itself had an area of approximately 55,000 km2, Moravia about 27,000 km2 and the Bohemian crown lands all together (omitting Brandenburg and Luxemburg) 125,000 km2. All adjacent lands thus made up 43,000 km2.”
[1]
[1]: (Pánek and Oldřich 2009: 141) 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 |
||||||
|
squared kilometers. “Foreign interventions likewise had environmental consequences, none more stinging for Mexico than the immediate loss of land in the north, first by Texas’s declaration of independence and then through the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed after defeat in the U.S. war. The vast cession of land included the present-day U.S. states of California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The loss deprived Mexico of more than 500,000 square miles or more than half of its territory (two thirds if Texas is included) and a variety of resources that might have been used to get the economic house in order.”
[1]
[1]: (Wakild 2011: 519-520) Wakild, Emily. 2011. “Environment and Environmentalism,” in A Companion to Mexican History and Culture, ed. William H. Beezley. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp518–37. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BMVQRFNJ |
||||||
|
The total size of the Spanish Empire’s territories across the globe between 1780-1810 was 13.7 million km2, making it one of the largest in history.(Taagepera 1997: 499) Taagepera, Rein. 1997. "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia." International Studies Quarterly 41(3): 475-504. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/5A6JA43D “Even if the last Bourbons had been competent or popular, the Spanish Empire might not have survived the conflicts of the Napoleonic Age. The collapse of the monarchy in 1808 forced most of the American colonies to govern themselves, and by 1838 Spain’s overseas empire had been reduced to Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines.”(Maltby 2009: 18) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH
|
||||||
| 511 | Russian Empire, Romanov Dynasty II | [17,000,000 to 21,000,000] km2 | Confident Expert | 1800 CE 1850 CE | ||
|
Territory 1776
[1]
Muscovy, Russia, and Siberia Baltic Region Eastern Europe Central Asia Caucasus Territory 1800 [2] Expansion into Central Asia Incorporation of Eastern Poland Acquisition of Crimea Alaska Territory 1850 [3] Expansion into Central Asia Further Expansion in the Caucasus Additional Areas in Eastern Europe Territory 1900 [4] Complete Control of Central Asia Consolidation in the Caucasus Polish and Finnish Territories [1]: “Russia 1776 - David Rumsey Historical Map Collection.” Accessed December 2, 2023. Zotero link: IMFRZU2C [2]: Rein Taagepera, “Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size,” Social Science Research 7, no. 2 (June 1, 1978). Zotero link: EI7GRCPX [3]: “Russia in the 19th Century Map,” accessed December 2, 2023. Zotero link: XPETX686 [4]: Ivan D. Sytin (1851-1934), “Ethnographic Map of the Russian Empire, 1914.”Accessed December 2, 2023. Zotero link: UIJCX4S6 |
||||||
| 512 | Russian Empire, Romanov Dynasty II | [21,000,000 to 22,000,000] km2 | Confident Expert | 1850 CE 1900 CE | ||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. “The largest great houses were concentrated in a “downtown” zone a little more than a mile wide at the center of Chaco Canyon. The scale of Chaco’s world was even larger, however, extending over much of the Four Corners region, as far away as 155 miles from Chaco Canyon… As Chaco’s roads and imported food suggest, its sphere of influence extended far beyond the confines of Chaco Canyon. It was the center of a large regional system of about 30,000 square miles, defined by about 150 smaller “outlier” great houses, road networks, and line-of-sight signaling systems.”
[1]
[1]: (Lekson 2016: np) Lekson, Stephen H. 2016. “Chaco Canyon,” Colorado Encyclopedia, August 15, 2016, https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/chaco-canyon. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/JMISYRGX |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1800 CE: Parliament approves legislation uniting Great Britain and Ireland as a single state." [1] 1900 CE: 30.8 million km2 in 1901 [2] In 1877? CE according to contemporary literature: Area: 8,754,793 square miles. Population: 284,110,693. [3] 22,674,810 km2. "Table of the British Possessions throughout the World, with their Population and Area in English Square Miles." Table has data for all of these locations: Europe (British Islands, Gibraltar, Heligoland, Malta and Gozo); Asia (India, including Depedent States, Celon, Andaman Islands, Straits Settlements, Aden, Hong Kong, Labuan Island, Perim Island); Africa (Gambia River, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Lagos, Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, Mauritius and Depedencies, Socotra, Ascension Island, St. Helena Island, Tristan d’Acunha); North America (Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, British Honduras or Belize, West India Islands, Bermuda Islands); South America (British Guiana, Falkland Islands); Oceania (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Chatham Islands, Fiji Islands). [4] [1]: Kenneth J Panton. 2015. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham. [2]: Census of the British Empire, 1901: Report with Summary and Detailed Tables for the Several Colonies, &c. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1906. [3]: (Bartholomew 1877, v) John Bartholomew. 1877. Atlas of the British empire throughout the world. George Philip and Son. London. [4]: (Bartholomew 1877, vi) John Bartholomew. 1877. Atlas of the British empire throughout the world. George Philip and Son. London. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.A report from 1811 claimed there were 70,087,612 acres of cultivated land and ad infinitum of uncultivated lands.
[1]
During the reign of Queen Victoria the empire was expanded at an average of 100,000 square miles (c. 258, 998 squared kilometres) per year.
[2]
[1]: (Colquhoun 1811: 61) Colquhoun, Patrik. 1814. Treatise on the Wealth, Power and Resources of the British Empire in Every Quarter of the World Etc. Jos. Mawman. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/3SNZA6FJ [2]: (Brendon 2008: 139) Brendon, Piers. 2008. Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997. New York: Random House. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/ZFFJNZ6J |
||||||
| 521 | Russian Empire, Romanov Dynasty I | [9,500,000 to 12,000,000] km2 | Confident Expert | 1650 CE 1700 CE | ||
|
The ascension of the Romanov dynasty in 1613 marked a period of recovery and territorial expansion. Under Tsars like Michael Romanov and his successors, Russia expanded eastward into Siberia, securing territories from various indigenous peoples and rival states.
Conquest of Siberia: Throughout the 17th century, Russia’s conquest of Siberia was a major factor in its territorial expansion. This extended Russia’s domain across northern Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Wars and Treaties: Russia’s wars with Poland, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire in the late 17th and early 18th centuries led to significant territorial gains. Key treaties like the Treaty of Stolbovo in 1617 and the Treaty of Kardis in 1661 defined Russia’s western borders with Sweden. The Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667 and the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 with Poland-Lithuania gave Russia control of territories in Eastern Europe, including parts of Ukraine. Peter the Great’s Reign (1682-1725): Under Peter the Great, Russia expanded its territory significantly. The Great Northern War (1700-1721) against Sweden led to Russia gaining access to the Baltic Sea and establishing Saint Petersburg in 1703. This was a crucial territorial and strategic gain for Russia. [1] [2] [1]: Rein Taagepera, “Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size,” Social Science Research 7, no. 2 (June 1, 1978). Zotero link: EI7GRCPX [2]: “Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd - Perry-Castañeda Map Collection - UT Library Online,”. Zotero link: 96J9SE2U |
||||||
| 522 | Russian Empire, Romanov Dynasty I | [12,000,000 to 14,000,000] km2 | Confident Expert | 1700 CE 1750 CE | ||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The U.S.S.R. was the successor to the Russian Empire of the tsars. Following the 1917 Revolution, four socialist republics were established on the territory of the former empire: the Russian and Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republics and the Ukrainian and Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republics. On December 30, 1922, these constituent republics established the U.S.S.R. Additional union republics (Soviet Socialist Republics) were set up in subsequent years: the Turkmen and Uzbek S.S.R.’s in 1924, the Tadzhik S.S.R. in 1929, and the Kazakh and Kirgiz S.S.R.’s in 1936. In that year the Transcaucasian Republic was abolished and its territory was divided between three new republics: the Armenian, Azerbaijan, and Georgian S.S.R.’s. In 1940 the Karelo-Finnish, Moldavian, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian S.S.R.’s were established. The Karelo-Finnish S.S.R. became an autonomous republic in 1956, leaving a total of 15 union republics (soyuznye respubliki).
[1] [1]: John C. Dewdney et al., “Soviet Union,” Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, last modified 2023, accessed November 22, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union. Zotero link: TWGEBIMJ |
||||||
|
The U.S.S.R. was the successor to the Russian Empire of the tsars. Following the 1917 Revolution, four socialist republics were established on the territory of the former empire: the Russian and Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republics and the Ukrainian and Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republics. On December 30, 1922, these constituent republics established the U.S.S.R. Additional union republics (Soviet Socialist Republics) were set up in subsequent years: the Turkmen and Uzbek S.S.R.’s in 1924, the Tadzhik S.S.R. in 1929.
[1] [1]: John C. Dewdney et al., “Soviet Union,” Encyclopedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, last modified 2023, accessed November 22, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union. Zotero link: TWGEBIMJ |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Roughly, area of the Sierra Leone peninsula, calculated using Google Maps Area Calculator. "The beginning of modern Sierra Leone has often been identified with the founding of a settlement for manumitted Africans in Freetown on the Sierra Leone Peninsula in 1787."
[1]
[1]: (Cole 2021) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WBFJ8QU5/collection. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. " Other information obtained by examining illicit diggings concerns the average size of Nok sites. Commonly, looters will continue to dig as long as they come across cultural deposits which are an indicator for potentially valuable finds. They cease their efforts once they reach sterile soil, or — although according to local accounts this very rarely happens — a more promising site is discovered nearby. For this reason the extent of the looted area, which is rather unmissable because the pits are usually not backfilled and leave a landscape perforated by hollows (Fig. 5), roughly reflects the distribution of cultural deposits in the ground and thus indicates the size of a site. Naturally, not every recorded illicitly excavated Nok site has been measured in detail to confirm its respective expanse, but if the assumed relation between the visibly looted area and the extent of the site is correct, many Nok sites cover an area of about one to two hectares."
[1]
Note that "[a]lthough 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."
[2]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 244) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. [2]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. " Other information obtained by examining illicit diggings concerns the average size of Nok sites. Commonly, looters will continue to dig as long as they come across cultural deposits which are an indicator for potentially valuable finds. They cease their efforts once they reach sterile soil, or — although according to local accounts this very rarely happens — a more promising site is discovered nearby. For this reason the extent of the looted area, which is rather unmissable because the pits are usually not backfilled and leave a landscape perforated by hollows (Fig. 5), roughly reflects the distribution of cultural deposits in the ground and thus indicates the size of a site. Naturally, not every recorded illicitly excavated Nok site has been measured in detail to confirm its respective expanse, but if the assumed relation between the visibly looted area and the extent of the site is correct, many Nok sites cover an area of about one to two hectares."
[1]
Note that "[a]lthough 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."
[2]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 244) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. [2]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. General estimation performed by the RA based on the width and breadth of the territory occupied by known Toutswe sites, as laid out in map form in Denbow (1986) 19. This is not a definitive number, and only a general estimation. Should be replaced at the first opportunity, if a better-founded estimation of Toutswe-occupied territory is located.
[1]
[1]: (Denbow 1986; 19) 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 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. The general assessment has been that Great Zimbabwe was the capital of a polity of at least the size given above. However, as Chirikure discusses, it is difficult to determine where the territory of Great Zimbabwe’s control ends, and neighbouring polities begin. The true size of the polity may never be known. “It is widely acknowledged that Great Zimbabwe was the capital… of a state or territory…, estimated to be at least 50,000 km2 in size… // …It is possible that with time some ruling lineages were given territories to preside over as provinces or districts. This possibly explains why there are so many dry stone-walled sites that chronologically and stylistically overlap with Great Zimbabwe. This would have created a very large [state] under the ruling lineages. Archaeologists believe that the size of the state could have been over 50,000 km2 in size. Detailed excavations still need to be undertaken to understand the chronology and material culture of related sites on the landscape. One of the major challenges is that it is difficult to separate local innocation and improvisation from imitation by ruling lineages. Under such circumstances, it is possible to think that places that were more than 100 km from the centre, were independent…. Even so, the territory would still be bigger if more lineage members were adventurous enough….”
[1]
“An unrestricted application of older Childean theories was previously used to suggest that the Great Zimbabwe state was very expansive, covering thousands of kilometers, from the Indian Ocean to the Kalahari Desert (Garlake 1973). However, it is possible that multiple states coexisted in this wide region; the limited nature of research to date makes it difficult to identify boundaries of the Great Zimbabwe state and those of coeval entities (Chirikure et al. 2012).”
[2]
[1]: (Chirikure 2021, 26-269) 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 [2]: (Chirikure 2020, 142-143) Shadreck Chirikure, “New Perspectives on the Political Economy of Great Zimbabwe,” in Journal of Archaeological Research Vol. 28 (2020): 139-186. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BSPEQDIG/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Researcher estimate figured from a general map of largest extent provided in Hannaford. Other, general and more qualitative estimates of Mutapan territory of-course do exist, including one placing the polity’s territory throughout the Mid-Zambezi area, encompassing the area of the Zambezi Valley from Tete to Victoria Falls, and the southern tributaries thereof. Note also that much of modern-day Mozambican territory theoretically Mutapan was inhabited, as sub-polities and/or disputed territories by the Portuguese colonial establishment for much of the 16th century.
[1]
“…an area that was once the heartland of the Mutapa state (1450-1884)79 and a hub of trade and cultural exchange. The area is often described as the middle Zambezi River valley, which includes the area of the river valley near Tete, Mozambique up to Victoria Falls. The Mutapa state also encompassed the corresponding tributaries on the south bank of the Zambezi, such as the Mazowe River and its branches.”
[2]
“For most of the sixteenth century, Portuguese jurisdiction and extra-territorial privileges were primarily restricted to the major entrepots of Sofala, Mozambique, Sena, and Tete, with all operations in south central Africa under the supervision of the captain of Mozambique. Upon his appointment by the Portuguese crown, the captain paid the Mwene Mutapa a fee of about 3000 crusados in cloth and beads. In return he received a monopoly… and the right to appoint the other Portuguese officials in the area. These were the captains of Sena, Tete, and of the inland markets such as Masapa, Luanze, and Bokoto….”
[3]
[1]: (Hannaford & Nash 2016, 8) Matthew Hannaford & David Nash, “Climate, History, Society over the Last Millenium in Southeast Africa,” in WIREs Climate Change (2016). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DZCHSU86/item-details [2]: (Mory 2021, 42) Jocelyn Mory, Recentering the Borderlands: Matepe as Sacred Technology from the Mutapa State to the Age of Vapostori. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, 2021: 42. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/CSKDX2SM/item-details [3]: (Chanaiwa 1972, 431-432) David Chanaiwa, “Politics and Long-Distance Trade in the Mwene Mutapa Empire During the Sixteenth Century,” in The International Journal of African Studies Vol. 5, No. 3 (1972): 424-435. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/T5BNKGK6/item-details |
||||||
|
“The area of the kingdom at its height (in 1875) was about 5,000 square miles.”
[1]
The polity territory number coded is the 5,000 square miles converted into squared kilometres.
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 48) 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 |
||||||
|
Roughly calculated with reference to the map, Figure 2:
[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 |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Varies over time, and estimates also vary. “It is clearly desirable to establish the territorial extent of the Oyo kingdom, but its precise boundaries are not in every case easy to fix. Indeed, the very concept of a linear frontier may not always be applicable. In most areas, however, at least the approximate limits of the kingdom at its greatest extent can be determined with some probability.”
[1]
“The total area of the Oyo kingdom at its greatest extent cannot be calculated with any precision, given the uncertainty about the location of its boundaries in many sectors. It must, however have been something in the order of 18,000 square miles. The population of this area in the early twentieth century seems to have been somewhere around three-quarters of a million: the population of the Oyo kingdom in the eighteenth century is likely to have been rather greater.”
[2]
[1]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 85. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection [2]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 90. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Area calculated using a sketch-map provided in the following reference for political boundaries of the various kingdoms in approximately 1700 CE:
[1]
[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: 388. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Converted from: “The Caliphate covered an area of 250,000 sq miles and stretched as far as Nikki in the present day Benin Republic, Ngaundere and Tibati in the Republic of Cameroon and much of the southern part of Niger Republic. Its institutional influence also extended to Segou and Masina in the Republic of Mali, Fouta Djallon in the Republic of Guinea, Fouta Toro in the Sene-Gambia area, Northern Ghana, Chad in the Central Africa and further east into the Republic of Sudan.”
[1]
[1]: Okene, Ahmed Adam, and Shukri B. Ahmad. “Ibn Khaldun, Cyclical Theory and the Rise and Fall of Sokoto Caliphate, Nigeria West Africa.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 4, 2011, pp. 80–91: 81. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/H7J2NC37/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. “The Igala country (referred to in early reports and maps as Atagara or, sometimes, Okpoto) occupies an area of some 5,000 square miles contained within an angle formed by the junction of the Rivers Niger and Benue; it is administered by a Chief who- himself of alien (Jukun) ancestry-bears the title of Ata Gala and has his headquarters at Idah, on the Niger.”
[1]
“By the middle of the nineteenth-century, however, the Igala had become more widely Islamized and were established in their present territory.”
[2]
“Numbering about 300,000, the Igala inhabit the area of Northern Nigeria south of the Benue River and east of the Niger in an area of about 5,000 square miles in Kabba Province. On the east they are bordered by the Idoma, and on the south by the Igbo of Nsukka; because Igala Division extends southward between the Niger and Anambra rivers, the Igala border the Igbo along the Anambra as far south as Ogurugu. Consequently most of the northern and western borders of the Igbo-dominated Nsukka Division of Eastern Nigeria touch Igala country.”
[3]
[1]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 394. zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [2]: Shelton, Austin J. “Onọjọ Ogboni: Problems of Identification and Historicity in the Oral Traditions of the Igala and Northern Nsukka Igbo of Nigeria.” The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 81, no. 321, 1968, pp. 243–57: 247. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9DXXPF2H/collection [3]: Shelton, Austin J. “Onọjọ Ogboni: Problems of Identification and Historicity in the Oral Traditions of the Igala and Northern Nsukka Igbo of Nigeria.” The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 81, no. 321, 1968, pp. 243–57: 244. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9DXXPF2H/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Calculated very approximately from map on p.183 of the following reference.
[1]
[1]: Sutton, J. E. G. “Towards a Less Orthodox History of Hausaland.” The Journal of African History, vol. 20, no. 2, 1979, pp. 179–201: 183. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AJQ6EGCH/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. “This vast area over which the empire held sway coincided, to a considerable extent, with the boundaries of the Lake Chad basin, an area of more than 300,000 sq miles. Today, the areas that erstwhile constituted the kingdoms of Kanem and Borno are shared between the modern states of Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroons. (Lavers, 1980).”
[1]
[1]: Waziri, M., Kagu, A., & Monguno, A. K. (Eds.). (2009). Issues in the Geography of Borno State. AJ Publishers: 14. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NU9US3UA/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Calculated approximately from map supplied in:
[1]
[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: 402.https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E5WA63Z2/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Calculated approximately from map supplied in:
[1]
[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: 402.https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E5WA63Z2/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. Calculated approximately from map supplied in:
[1]
[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: 402.https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E5WA63Z2/collection |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers. The following quote seems to refer to the Nigerian state known today as Edo; the number provided is roughly equivalent to its size. “Roughly coterminous with the present-day Benin Division of the Mid-West State of Nigeria, the Benin kingdom was the area in which the Oba’s writ ran most strongly and consistently. It was not a single administrative unit, and its boundaries cannot be precisely drawn.”
[1]
[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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.The above is an approximate estimate based on the above map showing the territory in 1675 drawn onto google maps. Needs a much more accurate confirmation from the scholarship. Once the Ottomans had been expelled from Yemen, the Qasimid dynasty continued to expand its territory for more than 200 years. At its height it stretched from Hadramawt in the east, north to Asir (now part of Saudi Arabia).
[1]
[1]: Hestler 1999: 24. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/RH82MHZP |
||||||
|
in squared kilometers
1800 CE: Parliament approves legislation uniting Great Britain and Ireland as a single state." [1] 1900 CE: 30.8 million km2 in 1901 [2] In 1877? CE according to contemporary literature: Area: 8,754,793 square miles. Population: 284,110,693. [3] 22,674,810 km2. "Table of the British Possessions throughout the World, with their Population and Area in English Square Miles." Table has data for all of these locations: Europe (British Islands, Gibraltar, Heligoland, Malta and Gozo); Asia (India, including Depedent States, Celon, Andaman Islands, Straits Settlements, Aden, Hong Kong, Labuan Island, Perim Island); Africa (Gambia River, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Lagos, Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, Mauritius and Depedencies, Socotra, Ascension Island, St. Helena Island, Tristan d’Acunha); North America (Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, British Honduras or Belize, West India Islands, Bermuda Islands); South America (British Guiana, Falkland Islands); Oceania (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Chatham Islands, Fiji Islands). [4] [1]: Kenneth J Panton. 2015. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham. [2]: Census of the British Empire, 1901: Report with Summary and Detailed Tables for the Several Colonies, &c. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1906. [3]: (Bartholomew 1877, v) John Bartholomew. 1877. Atlas of the British empire throughout the world. George Philip and Son. London. [4]: (Bartholomew 1877, vi) John Bartholomew. 1877. Atlas of the British empire throughout the world. George Philip and Son. London. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
in squared kilometers.The earlier size of the HRE during Charlemagne’s rule as the first Holy Roman Emperor (r. 800-823) was 1.2 million square kilometres.
[1]
However, from this polity period and beyond the HRE’s territory was less than 1 million square kilometres, with its peak of around 1 million square kilometres in 1050.
[2]
[1]: Wilson 2016: 758. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/N5M9R9XA [2]: Taagepera 1997: 496. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5A6JA43D |
||||||
