| Variable | Definition |
|---|---|
| Polity | The Seshat Polity ID |
| Year(s) | The years for which we have the data. [negative = BCE] |
| Tag | [Evidenced, Disputed, Suspected, Inferred, Unknown] |
| Verified | A Seshat Expert has approved this piece of data. |
| Variable | Definition |
|---|---|
| settlement_hierarchy_from | The lower range of settlement hierarchy for a polity. |
| settlement_hierarchy_to | The upper range of settlement hierarchy for a polity. |
| # | Polity | Year(s) | Settlement Hierarchy from | Settlement Hierarchy to | Description | Edit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 71 |
(Middle Greater Coclé) |
Full Year Range of Middle Greater Coclé is assumed. [700, 1000] |
3 |
3 |
levels. Menzies and Haller, who view Central Panama during this period as made up of competing chiefdoms, write that 'At the height of the Coclé chiefdom during the Conte phase [700-900 CE], a three-tiered settlement hierarchy in the Río Parita valley indicates the existence of a local chiefdom with the large community of He-4 [El Hatillo] situated at its apex'. [Menzies_Haller 2012, p. 455] They extend this three-tiered hierarchy into the Macaracas phase (900-1100 CE), after the decline of the Coclé chiefdom, [Menzies_Haller 2012, p. 457] and even up to 1522 CE. [Menzies_Haller 2012, p. 457] 1. Chiefly centre, e.g. El Hatillo (He-4) in the Río Parita valley. [Menzies_Haller 2012, p. 455] 2. Small village.3. Smaller village. Hoopes writes that for much of the Early Chibcha period (1500 BCE-800 CE), 'The dispersed settlement pattern meant that the "typical" community may have been a small hamlet of fewer than 10 dwellings, especially for the early part of this tradition.' [Hoopes_Peregrine_Ember 2001, p. 102] | |
| 72 |
(Early Tana 1) |
Full Year Range of Early Tana 1 is assumed. [500, 749] |
2 |
3 |
levels. 1. Large settlement (e.g. Unguja Ukuu) 2. Mid-size settlement 3. Small-size settlement Referring to Unguja Ukuu: "The comparatively large area, about 16 ha, occupied by the site as early as the second half of the first millennium ce, with its population having been estimated to be about 1,600 (Juma 2004: 65), reflects the high status of the site within the region." [Juma_Wynne-Jones_LaViolette 2017] |
|
| 73 |
(Macedonian Empire) |
Full Year Range of Macedonian Empire is assumed. [-330, -312] |
5 |
5 |
1. Capital - Pella 2. Other cities 3. Town 4. Village 5. Tribe (hamlet?) |
|
| 74 |
(Median Persian Empire) |
Full Year Range of Median Persian Empire is assumed. [-715, -550] |
4 |
4 |
levels. 1. large cities (Susa, Erbil) 2. small cities3. towns1. villages and oases [Liverani_Tabatabai 2014, pp. 560-61] In settlement terms, the Medians mostly inherited pre-existing settlements, including well established, large cities such as Susa and Erbil. A lot of the Median empire was empty space, punctuated by small villages and particularly oases in the vast areas of desert the Medians controlled. |
|
| 77 |
(Makuria Kingdom I) |
Full Year Range of Makuria Kingdom I is assumed. [568, 618] |
3 |
3 |
levels. 1. Capital - Dongola 2. Regional centres Core region of early Makuria and Alwa: "high status burials at a number of sites suggests that there were regional centres dominated by an elite class". [Welsby 2002, p. 22] 3. |
|
| 78 |
(Chaco Canyon - Late Bonito phase) |
Full Year Range of Chaco Canyon - Late Bonito phase is assumed. [1101, 1140] |
3 |
3 |
None | |
| 79 |
(Later Yan Kingdom) |
Full Year Range of Later Yan Kingdom is assumed. [385, 409] |
4 |
6 |
levels. The preceding Early Jin was coded with six levels. Although the Later Qin was a much smaller state the territory it did have had a capital city and likely contained many settlement levels. |
|
| 80 |
(Early East Africa Iron Age) |
Full Year Range of Early East Africa Iron Age is assumed. [200, 499] |
1 |
1 |
levels. Autonomous homesteads. "The ubiquity of Urewe [ceramics], coupled with its relatively small size, suggests that these vessels were produced and used by family-groups, and on a regular, domestic level. However, it is evident that Urewe-related activities also transcend the purely utilitarian realm, with the remarkable emphasis placed on quality of production. On the domestic level, this investment in commonplace objects may be an example of ceramics being used as tools of social cohesion or as the 'channels through which society implants its values in the individual—every day at mealtimes' (David et al. 1988: 379). As such, the importance of family and the home is emphasised through investment in key domestic goods—ceramics. This picture of small-scale, familial units fits well with the wider evidence from archaeology, which suggests these early communities probably consisted of dispersed networks of homesteads, rather than centralised societies (Reid 1994/5; Van Grunderbeek et al. 1983)." [Ashley 2010, p. 146] |