| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1: 4000-3650 BCE; 2: 3650-3000 BCE
[1]
Naqada IA-B: Villages Nagada IC-III: chiefdoms/proto-states centers. Villages Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [4] Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 Naqadian Egypt is a quasi-polity, or rather a collection of quasi polities. During the majority of Naqada I there were single villages, which might have formed temporary alliances with other villages, but in fact were politically independent. Most of these villages consisted of 50 to 200 habitants. However it is possible that some of these alliances grew up to the bigger towns consisted 1,000 or 2,000 people. It is during Naqada IC that these towns and villages started to unite and polities began to form. Now instead of scattered villages, there are a few chiefdoms with the town-centres, called sometimes pre-states and later, as the unification and polity development proceed, proto-states. So the rapidly changes in the polity population coded above is not only an effect of growing population but also or even first of all the result of development of the chiefdoms size. The exact time and the spreed of unification is not known so scholars can only show the level of changes in some distinguishing point. And this is exactly what G. P. Gilbert did. [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: G. p. Gilbert: 2004. Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt. Archaeopress: Oxford. pg: 108. [3]: Ciałowicz, M.A. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.pg:156. [4]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk = 3 "The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center. 1. Large center 2. Small center3. Village Uruk period = 4 "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." [2] 1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha. 2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. [3] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181) [3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
1: 4000-3650 BCE; 2: 3650-3000 BCE
[1]
Naqada IA-B: Villages Nagada IC-III: chiefdoms/proto-states centers. Villages Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 "The Predynastic towns were probably not major centers of population and their function must have been primarily symbolic of a new order of life and a center of sacred shrine and deities. There were probably no more than a few towns and perhaps only two important ones in all of Upper Egypt - South Town and Hierakonpolis (Kemp, 1977)." [4] Naqada IC-IIB [2] Hoffman thought that in most of villages less than 75 people lived. In centers there were much more [3] over 13,000 Naqadian Egypt is a quasi-polity, or rather a collection of quasi polities. During the majority of Naqada I there were single villages, which might have formed temporary alliances with other villages, but in fact were politically independent. Most of these villages consisted of 50 to 200 habitants. However it is possible that some of these alliances grew up to the bigger towns consisted 1,000 or 2,000 people. It is during Naqada IC that these towns and villages started to unite and polities began to form. Now instead of scattered villages, there are a few chiefdoms with the town-centres, called sometimes pre-states and later, as the unification and polity development proceed, proto-states. So the rapidly changes in the polity population coded above is not only an effect of growing population but also or even first of all the result of development of the chiefdoms size. The exact time and the spreed of unification is not known so scholars can only show the level of changes in some distinguishing point. And this is exactly what G. P. Gilbert did. [1]: Bard, A. 1994. From farmers to pharaohs: mortuary evidence for the rise of complex society in Egypt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pg: 135. [2]: G. p. Gilbert: 2004. Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt. Archaeopress: Oxford. pg: 108. [3]: Ciałowicz, M.A. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warszawa-Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.pg:156. [4]: (Hassan 1988, 162) |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk = 3 "The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center. 1. Large center 2. Small center3. Village Uruk period = 4 "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." [2] 1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha. 2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. [3] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181) [3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels. 3100-2200 BCE: Small nucleated villages and isolated hamlets coexisted throughout the island, especially in lowland and coastal areas.
[1]
The size of these sites is about 2 ha aside Knossos where a settlement of 5 ha already existed since the Final Neolithic period.
[2]
[3]
This settled scape is characterized by a considerable degree of regionalism which is expressed in material culture and social practices.
[4]
[3]
From the Early Minoan II onwards (2700-2200 BCE), the importance of coastal sites considerably increased while many inland sites seems to be abandoned. Monumental constructions appeared for the first time at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Tylissos, and Palaikastro. Many sites were destroyed or burned at the end of the period and this has been interpreted as the outcome of conflict between different social groups aspiring to political and economic power.
[5]
2200-1900 BCE: Settlement hierarchy change: nucleated villages seems less important and there is a new emphasis on mountain zones. Knossos, Malia and Phaistos increased considerably and become centers of a significant importance. The central monumental construction suggest the presence of a authority controlling the surrounding hinterland.
[6]
These large centers and their supporting surrounding regions each form complex social, political and economic landscapes, in which larger regional-scale integrations could occur.
[7]
[1]: e.g. Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70-2. [2]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 35 [3]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 150. [4]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70 [5]: Warren, P. M. 1987. "The genesis of the Minoan palace," in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm, 245-248. [6]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 114-76. [7]: Manning, S. W. 2008. "5: Protopalatial Crete. 5A: Formation of the palaces," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 108. |
||||||
|
levels. 3100-2200 BCE: Small nucleated villages and isolated hamlets coexisted throughout the island, especially in lowland and coastal areas.
[1]
The size of these sites is about 2 ha aside Knossos where a settlement of 5 ha already existed since the Final Neolithic period.
[2]
[3]
This settled scape is characterized by a considerable degree of regionalism which is expressed in material culture and social practices.
[4]
[3]
From the Early Minoan II onwards (2700-2200 BCE), the importance of coastal sites considerably increased while many inland sites seems to be abandoned. Monumental constructions appeared for the first time at Knossos, Malia, Phaistos, Tylissos, and Palaikastro. Many sites were destroyed or burned at the end of the period and this has been interpreted as the outcome of conflict between different social groups aspiring to political and economic power.
[5]
2200-1900 BCE: Settlement hierarchy change: nucleated villages seems less important and there is a new emphasis on mountain zones. Knossos, Malia and Phaistos increased considerably and become centers of a significant importance. The central monumental construction suggest the presence of a authority controlling the surrounding hinterland.
[6]
These large centers and their supporting surrounding regions each form complex social, political and economic landscapes, in which larger regional-scale integrations could occur.
[7]
[1]: e.g. Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70-2. [2]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 35 [3]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 150. [4]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G.,Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds) Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 70 [5]: Warren, P. M. 1987. "The genesis of the Minoan palace," in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm, 245-248. [6]: Whitelaw, T. 2012. "The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation," in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 114-76. [7]: Manning, S. W. 2008. "5: Protopalatial Crete. 5A: Formation of the palaces," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 108. |
||||||
|
levels. "In the period 1500-1000 BCE [...] the Basin developed a two-tiered settlement system".
[1]
[1]: (Evans 2004: 124) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EWW3Q2TA. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. "In the period 1500-1000 BCE [...] the Basin developed a two-tiered settlement system".
[1]
[1]: (Evans 2004: 124) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/EWW3Q2TA. |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
levels.
Initially a given polity only consisted of a single settlement "At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] In the Bellary and Raichur districts of Karnataka, there were at least two levels of settlement hierarchy [2] : 1. Settlements of 20-50 ha2. Settlements of 1-5 ha [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Peregrine, M. Ember (eds), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 8: South And Southwest Asia (2003), p. 365 |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
"much of central Italy remained without cities down to the age of Cicero. Here the pattern was of scattered villages and farmsteads, often within reach of a fortified hill-top, where it was possible to take refuge in time of war, but which was never built up or lived in, indeed which did not even fulfil the political or religious functions of a city."
[1]
Detailed descriptions of different types of communities in the Peninsula and their relations
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
1. Rome 2. Satellite village 1. Capital ’Rome’ By 300 BC had expanded to include all of southern Italy. 2.municipia3.coloniae4. Village/vici5. Pagirural settlements colonies 338 BC Roman maritime colony at Antium. 334 BC Latin colony at Cales. 329 BC Roman maritime colony at Terracina. 328 BC Latin colony at Fregellae (just in Samnite territory). [1]: (Crawford 1988, 18) Crawford, Michael. Early Rome and Italy. Boardman, John. Griffin, Jasper. Murray, Oswald. eds. 1988. The Oxford History of the Roman World. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Raaflaub 2006) “Between Myth and History: Rome’s Rise from Village to Empire (The Eighth Century to 264).” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 123-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell [3]: (Eckstein 2006) Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4]: (Bispham 2006) “Coloniam Deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic.” In Greek and Roman Colonization. Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea, edited by Guy Bradley, John-Paul Wilson, and Edward Bispham, 73-160. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. [5]: (Rich 2008) “Treaties, Allies and the Roman Conquest of Italy.” In War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, edited by Philip de Souza, 51-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Hoyer 2012) “Samnite Economy and the Competitive Environment of Italy, 5th - 3rd C. BC.” In Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Roman Republic (S. Roselaar, Ed.), 179-96. Leiden: Brill. [7]: (Rosenstein 2012) Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press |
||||||
|
levels. About the Serje and Oyuela settlement pattern analyses for the 16th century: "Finally, in both cases, the information refers to the last period of prehispanic occupation, which leaves open the question of how the observed settlement patterns developed"
[1]
Study of the Concha, Chenge, Gairaca and Neguanje Bays: "The development of settlement hierarchies is a relatively late and less than obvious phenomenon. During the Neguanje and Buritaca Periods it is possible to identify only one hierarchy. All the sites are relatively small and there are no clear breaks in their distribution. During both periods there is a pattern where all sites are relatively small, at the same time that a few are somewhat larger; yet, there are no differences that are significant enough to consider them a separate class." [2] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 3 hectares:1 ha (5 sites), 2 ha (8 sites), 3 ha (1 site). Between the 1st and the 6th century. [3] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 4 hectares: 1 ha (3 sites), 2 ha (6 sites), 3 ha (1 site), 4 ha (1 site). Between the 6th and the 10th century. [3] "In comparison to Tairona settlements, the Neguanje period villages are much smaller (1 to 8 hectares), although structures are also round in shape and some already have rough masonry walls similar to those built during the Tairona period (See Chapters 4 and 5)." [4] Pueblito was between 6 and 8 ha: "The data recovered through the shovel tests was used to map out the extents of the Neguanje period occupation, indicating the existence of a small village covering 6 to 8 hectares organized along the banks of the permanent streams." [5] For the second phase (6th-9th centuries), which corresponds to the beginnings of a ranked society, two types of settlements can be identified: villages without any kind of ’architectural’ work, and villages that are set up as regional centres with megalithic infrastructure. "Para la segunda fase (siglos VI-IX), correspondiente, como dijimos, al comienzo de una sociedad de rangos, se identifican dos tipos de asentamientos: las aldeas sin ninguna clase de trabajo ’ "arquitectónico" y las instaladas a manera de centro de una región con infraestructura megalítica." [6] [1]: (Langebaek 2005, 23) [2]: (Langebaek 2005, 71) [3]: (Langebaek 2005, 81) [4]: (Giraldo 2010, 52) [5]: (Giraldo 2010, 285) [6]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels. Monte Alban declined in administrative importance over these periods, with Jalieza gradually becoming the largest settlement in the valley.
[1]
Smaller, regional towns became more important in the subvalleys.
[1]
Inferred to be the IIIb phase (500-700 CE) settlement pattern: [2] 1. Primary centres-around 2 per cent of sites during this period had a population of 1000-2500 people. The larger sites had some evidence for administrative buildings, elite residences, plazas and occasional ballcourts 2. Secondary centres-around 8 per cent of sites during this period had a population of minimum 180-500 to maximum 380-1000 people.3. Smallest settlements-most sites during this period were small isolated residences, hamlets or villages of fewer than 290 people. [2] "Table 8.7. Monte Alban IV population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta." [3] Valley of Oaxaca: Level 1: 16117; II: 5000-6222; III: 3590-4062; IV: 486-2900; V: 269-405; VI: 102-198; No rank: 8-95. [3] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234 [2]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9 [3]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
levels. About the Serje and Oyuela settlement pattern analyses for the 16th century: "Finally, in both cases, the information refers to the last period of prehispanic occupation, which leaves open the question of how the observed settlement patterns developed"
[1]
Study of the Concha, Chenge, Gairaca and Neguanje Bays: "The development of settlement hierarchies is a relatively late and less than obvious phenomenon. During the Neguanje and Buritaca Periods it is possible to identify only one hierarchy. All the sites are relatively small and there are no clear breaks in their distribution. During both periods there is a pattern where all sites are relatively small, at the same time that a few are somewhat larger; yet, there are no differences that are significant enough to consider them a separate class." [2] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 3 hectares:1 ha (5 sites), 2 ha (8 sites), 3 ha (1 site). Between the 1st and the 6th century. [3] All sites surveyed by Langebaek on the bays are between 1 and 4 hectares: 1 ha (3 sites), 2 ha (6 sites), 3 ha (1 site), 4 ha (1 site). Between the 6th and the 10th century. [3] "In comparison to Tairona settlements, the Neguanje period villages are much smaller (1 to 8 hectares), although structures are also round in shape and some already have rough masonry walls similar to those built during the Tairona period (See Chapters 4 and 5)." [4] Pueblito was between 6 and 8 ha: "The data recovered through the shovel tests was used to map out the extents of the Neguanje period occupation, indicating the existence of a small village covering 6 to 8 hectares organized along the banks of the permanent streams." [5] For the second phase (6th-9th centuries), which corresponds to the beginnings of a ranked society, two types of settlements can be identified: villages without any kind of ’architectural’ work, and villages that are set up as regional centres with megalithic infrastructure. "Para la segunda fase (siglos VI-IX), correspondiente, como dijimos, al comienzo de una sociedad de rangos, se identifican dos tipos de asentamientos: las aldeas sin ninguna clase de trabajo ’ "arquitectónico" y las instaladas a manera de centro de una región con infraestructura megalítica." [6] [1]: (Langebaek 2005, 23) [2]: (Langebaek 2005, 71) [3]: (Langebaek 2005, 81) [4]: (Giraldo 2010, 52) [5]: (Giraldo 2010, 285) [6]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Monte Alban declined in administrative importance over these periods, with Jalieza gradually becoming the largest settlement in the valley.
[1]
Smaller, regional towns became more important in the subvalleys.
[1]
Inferred to be the IIIb phase (500-700 CE) settlement pattern: [2] 1. Primary centres-around 2 per cent of sites during this period had a population of 1000-2500 people. The larger sites had some evidence for administrative buildings, elite residences, plazas and occasional ballcourts 2. Secondary centres-around 8 per cent of sites during this period had a population of minimum 180-500 to maximum 380-1000 people.3. Smallest settlements-most sites during this period were small isolated residences, hamlets or villages of fewer than 290 people. [2] "Table 8.7. Monte Alban IV population hierarchy in Oaxaca and Ejuta." [3] Valley of Oaxaca: Level 1: 16117; II: 5000-6222; III: 3590-4062; IV: 486-2900; V: 269-405; VI: 102-198; No rank: 8-95. [3] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p234 [2]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p188-9 [3]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2013, 135) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2013. Settlement Patterns of the Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Diachronic Macroscale Perspective. Fieldiana Anthropology, 43(1):1-330. 2013. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-43.00.1 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] "It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [2] [3] Houses organized around a courtyard In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area." [4] "Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. Shift from nucleated to dispersed configuration "Soon after A.D. 1000 people’s lives changed abruptly. Two of the most obviously signs of a profound alteration in the fabric of this society are a great increase in moundbuilding and a shift in small communities from nucleated to dispersed configurations." [5] "The beginning of the Mississippian period was marked by an abrupt shift in the character of peripheral communities ... The predominantly nucleated pattern of settlement was abandoned in favor of widely scattered single-family farmsteads." [6] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) [2]: (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990 [3]: Milner 2006, 99-100) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [5]: (Milner 2006, 168) [6]: (Milner 2006, 100) |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
Nucleated villages "From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley’s inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [1] "It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [2] [3] Houses organized around a courtyard In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area." [4] "Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. Shift from nucleated to dispersed configuration "Soon after A.D. 1000 people’s lives changed abruptly. Two of the most obviously signs of a profound alteration in the fabric of this society are a great increase in moundbuilding and a shift in small communities from nucleated to dispersed configurations." [5] "The beginning of the Mississippian period was marked by an abrupt shift in the character of peripheral communities ... The predominantly nucleated pattern of settlement was abandoned in favor of widely scattered single-family farmsteads." [6] [1]: (Milner 2006, 98) [2]: (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990 [3]: Milner 2006, 99-100) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [5]: (Milner 2006, 168) [6]: (Milner 2006, 100) |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Main towns with 1,000 structures or more. Excavated sites: Pueblito (100ha), Ciudad Perdida (30ha). Sites recorded in ethnohistory: Bonda, Pocigueica. They have more than 200 structures and a civic-ceremonial centre. Their residential areas are arranged into neighbourhoods. 2. Large town with 400 to 1,000 structures, including ceremonial houses and temples. Above 10 ha, like Nulicuandecue (13 ha).3. Pueblos (villages) of 20, 40 or 60 houses. 1-5 ha. "Fast forward next to 1975. Archaeologists Luisa Fernanda Herrera and Gilberto Cadavid have almost completed a large survey of the northern and western sides of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, locating and documenting two hundred and eleven sites with similar characteristics, ranging from a few terraces and circular buildings, stone paths and stairways to very large towns like Pueblito surpassing one hundred hectares. Site 200 found in this survey, or Buritaca 200, as it was then called, is Ciudad Perdida, the “Lost City”, comprising more than 30 hectares of stone masonry terracing, circular and oblong buildings, stairways, and flag-stoned paths and sidewalks." [1] "Spanish informants describe a densely populated area with towns and settlements of all sizes, from pueblos of 20, 40, or 80 houses to large towns with 400 to 1,000 structures that included ceremonial houses and temples. These figures fit well with the archaeological evidence from coastal and from highland regions for the existence of a three-level hierarchy of sites (Serje 1987; Oyuela Caycedo 1987b) in which the larger ones, such as Pueblito, have some 1,000 structures (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1954a: 161; 1954b; G. Reichel-Dolmatoff and A. Reichel-Dolmatoff 1955). Major towns, such as Bonda and Pocigueica, were governed by chiefs (caciques) and seem to have formed the nuclei of incipient states. " [2] "Not surprisingly, prehispanic societies took advantage of this river and its resources, including the Muisca, Tierradentro, San Agustin/ Alto Magdalena, and Tairona chiefdoms of Colombia. In general, these chiefdoms exhibited two-tier settlement systems, composed of multiple primary centers with associated second-level communities." [3] "What is absent on the Alto Buritaca is a neat hierarchy of settlements, the pattern often used to identify the centralized organizations of chiefdoms. Oyuela-Caycedo has written, “Decentralized political complexes coordinated the whole commercial enterprise for one or more of the mountainous valleys, as indicated for Ciudad Perdida.” " [4] "The only projects that contribute data about the distribution of settlements at the regional scale are those of Serje and Oyuela. The former attempts to differentiate among the types of Late Period settlements on the Buritaca Basin based on the number of dwelling platforms. Using such criteria, Serje (1987:90) identifies ’provincial capitals’, like Buritaca 200 or Pueblito, with more than two hundred terraces; second order sites, with an average of eighty terraces; and peripheral sites, with fewer than fifty terraces. Based on that information a ’three-tiered settlement hierarchy’ is proposed (Serje 1987:90). Oyuela (1995) also makes an attempt to evaluate the information about settlement patterns as they relate to models of social organization in Gaira and the Alto Buritaca Basin. Oyuela evaluated the presence of centralization in the settlements found in those two regions. Based on the rank-size method (Johnson 1981) he found a strongly convex distribution in both regions, thus proposing that the chiefdoms in the Sierra Nevada and the coastal plain did not constitute "centralized organizations" (Oyuela 1995:126)." [5] "Nevertheless, if the larger regional scale is considered, two or more clearly differentiated hierarchies may be identified. In fact, the studied area is very close to Pueblito (approximately 10km) where the Bonda settlement might belong, one of the places that the Spanish considered the seat of an important chiefdom (Figure1). Given that the most conservative estimate for Pueblito’s area is 4km2, such a site would represent a higher level in the hierarchy." [6] "Site size and complexity ranges from a few masonry terraces with domestic structures to very large towns with elaborate stone masonry terracing, flag-stoned paths and walk ways, public areas, and canals covering over one hundred and fifty hectares." [7] Gaira settlement hierarchy, three levels: 10 ha and above, between 2 and 6 ha, and below 1ha. "El gráfico de Gaira (Figura 5) efectivamente tiene una forma convexa fuerte. El centro primario es el asentamiento de Gaira (13.5 ha); el segundo asentamiento más grande está localizado donde hoy día se encuentra el Sena (10 ha). Los resultados muestran que el primer asentamiento no es muy diferente de los otros (todos los datos presentados en el gráfico están en m2) Sólo después del octavo asentamiento es que hay una caída en el tamaño de éstos. Hay tres clases de asentamientos: uno por encima de las 10 hectáreas, el segundo entre las 6 y 2 hectáreas y un último grupo de asentamientos pequeños por debajo de una hectárea." [8] Buritaca settlement hierarchy four levels: 8 ha, between 3 and 4 ha, between 1 and 3 ha, and below 1 ha; Oyuela-Caycedo also mentions the site of Buritaca 200 (Ciudad Perdida) at 20ha and Nulicuandecue at 13 ha. "En contraste, el gráfico del alto Buritaca muestra una distribución convexa más cercana a la normal logarítmica (Figura 6). El asentamiento de mayor rango es Buritaca 200 con 20 hectáreas, seguido por Nulicuandecue con 13 hectáreas. En este caso, la distribución parece estar más cerca a la esperada en un sistema integrado. Igualmente, en contraste con Gaira, hay tendencia hacia la centralización, pero ésta no es fuerte como para estar formando una distribución cóncava. Considerando la cercanía de Buritaca 200 y Nulicuandecue (un día de camino), es probable que existiese algún tipo de competencia entre estos dos asentamientos. En cuanto a los tipos de asentamientos, una tipología de éstos basada de manera principal en atributos cualitativos fue previamente desarrollada. En comparación, se pueden definir cuatro clases de asentamientos: uno con asentamientos por encima de ocho hectáreas y compuesto por cuatro asentamientos que son los más monumentales; una suave caída en el gráfico separa otro grupo de asentamientos con tamaños entre cuatro y tres hectáreas, y un tercer grupo compuesto por pequeñas aldeas con tamaños entre una y tres hectáreas. El último está conformado por asentamientos con un tamaño por debajo de una hectárea y es el final del gráfico de rango-tamaño." [9] Oyuela-Caycedo’s proposed classification (1986): 1. Primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors 2. Secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors grouping or dividing the residential terraces)3. Villages that sometimes exhibit megalithic infrastructure in their central sector4. temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps In the Classic Period [for Oyuela-Caycedo, after the 9th century] there are at least four types of settlement: temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps. Villages that sometimes present megalithic infrastructure in their central sector. The third type are the secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors in the residential terraces). The last type of settlement consists in primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors. Given their strategic location, it is possible that their function was to distribute and exchange products within the region, as in the well-studied cases of Formative Mesoamerica. "En el período clásico se distinguen por lo menos cuatro tipos de asentamientos como son: sitios de habitación temporal, sin ningún vestigio megalítico, tal vez campamentos ocasionales de pesca o de obtención de sal. Aldeas que en algunas ocasiones presentan infraestructura megalítica en el sector central. El tercer tipo son los centros secundarios de regular tamaño que presentan un sector central cívico ceremonial con estructuras megalíticas (no se observan sectorizaciones entre las terrazas de vivienda). El último tipo de asentamiento lo constituyen los centros primarios regionales, de los cuales se conocen dos, que son Pueblito y Ciudad Perdida. Estos se caracterizan por constar de una zona central de carácter cívico ceremonial y más de ciento cincuenta terrazas de vivienda agrupadas en sectores. Dada su situación estratégica, es probable que la función de esos asentamientos fuera la distribución y el intercambio de productos dentro de la región, de manera análoga a los bien estudiados casos de Mesoamérica durante el formativo." [10] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 22-23) [2]: (Bray 2003, 301-2) [3]: (Moore 2014, 386) [4]: (Moore 2014, 396) [5]: (Langebaek 2005, 21-3) [6]: (Langebaek 2005, 79) [7]: (Giraldo 2010, 54) [8]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 122) [9]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 124) [10]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital Firuzkuh described as "summer capital". Single period of occupation of 75 years. Destroyed by Mongols 1223 CE, so origin c1148 CE. [1] 2. City3. towns4. villages [1]: Thomas, David. Firuzkuh: the summer capital of the Ghurids http://www.academia.edu/188837/Firuzkuh_the_summer_capital_of_the_Ghurids |
||||||
|
levels
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families ’There was no capital. The only distinction was between average sized farms on the one hand and big farms or manors in which the local elites resided. These manors were approximately four to five times the size of a normal farm. Three levels is probably correct for the late Commonwealth: 1) private homesteads, 2) aristocratic manor-farms, 3) Bishoprics and perhaps the residencies of the greatest territorial lords. However, this only holds true for the late Commonwealth (ca. 1175/1200-1262). Before that there were only two levels and in the early period (until ca. 1050) there may have been just one as manor-farms (höfuðból) probably only started to emerge in the 11th century. Approximate population of each level: 1) 5-10, 2) 20-40, 3) 100-300.’ [1] Most Icelanders lived in dispersed homesteads as agro-pastoralists: ’Early Icelandic settlement was completely non-urban and almost entirely restricted to dispersed farmsteads, which occupied the coastal plains and more hospitable inland valleys. The earliest farmhouses were of the long-house type: a single large oblong building sometimes with a few side additions and some out structures. The long-houses were designed around a central isle with raised platforms running along the sides for domestic activities and sleeping. Interior space was divided by wood partitions. The houses were constructed of sod around a timber frame.’ [2] ’Initial land claims in Iceland were extensive and short-lived. Subsequent settlers and new generations rapidly divided the land into farmstead based properties. Control of a farmstead, through direct ownership or tenancy, was the basis of full membership within the society and was restricted to a small minority of individuals. Property was passed preferentially to male descendents. Once established, farmstead properties were extremely stable. Farms occupied at the time of settlement are still in use today and some survived periods of household abandonment to be reoccupied. Upland pastures were held in common by local communities (HREPPUR), which jointly managed their access and use. Farms also laid claim to special resources even when they were not on farmstead lands such as forests, turf and peat cutting areas, and drift rights on beaches.’ [2] The farming household was the primary social and economic unit of Commonwealth-Era Iceland: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [2] The settlement pattern was dispersed: ’Because agriculture was the chief economic activity, the population of Iceland was evenly distributed throughout the inhabitable parts of the country until the end of the 19th century.’ [3] ’The requirements of livestock herding insured that Icelandic land-use was characterized by low population densities, a dispersed settlement pattern, and large farmsteads. Within such farmsteads land was divided into spatial units reflecting different levels of management associated with homefields, hay-producing areas, and outer pastures. Outbuildings associated with the seasonal components of Icelandic transhumant pastoralism were scattered throughout these various land-use areas and in the upland heaths surrounding zones of intensive occupation (Bredahl-Petersen 1967; Hastrup 1985).’ [4] Homesteads belonged to assembly districts: ’About 960 this system was changed. The country was divided into four quarters, Each quarter, except the Northern, had three assembly-districts, each with three chieftains. The Northern quarter had four assembly districts. Now people had to select a chieftain from within their own quarter, and an assembly site was named for each district. Cases had to be heard in the disputants’ assembly, or if they were from different assembly-districts, in the quarter court at the meeting of the Alþing. Unanimity was required for judgements. Cases that could not be resolved in quarter courts were referred to a fifth-court (established about 1004) where a simple majority of judges could decide a case. By 1117, when the laws were written in Grágás, not all local assemblies were functioning. Some had been consolidated into others (Jóhannesson 1974:238).’ [5] Chieftains and other leaders relied on additional household labour, leading to substantially larger homesteads among elites: ’Although I would prefer to flout the conventional wisdom that slavery had all but died out by the eleventh century (Karras 1988a), the household laborers that replaced them in the Commonwealth period were numerous. When Þórðr kakali returns to Iceland Kolbeinn ungi immediately sends out thirty húsmenn to look for him in Eyjafjörðr. Þorsteinn Cod-biter had sixty free men in his household (Eyrbyggja saga, ÍF 4, ch. 11); Guðmundr the Mighty had one hundred (Brennu-Njáls saga, ÍF 12, ch. 113); Sörla þáttr (Ljósvetninga saga), ÍF 10, ch. 1:109); Bishop Páll’s household at Skálholt (ca 1200) had seventy to eighty residents, and a household with eighty has been discussed above. It is probably not unfair to say that by the Commonwealth period the majority of the wealth of great bœndur and goðar was the product of teams of house-men and women.’ [6] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 181 [5]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 246 [6]: Samson, Ross 1992. “Goðar: Democrats Of Despots?”, 179 |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“There were a series of court officials in Bonga and Anderacha, the two capitals of the Kafa Kings.”
[1]
:2. Town ::“Except for Minjiloch, the first Minjo kings are simply remembered for the fact that they respectively founded the towns of Shonga, Addio, and Shada.”
[2]
::3.Village :::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[3]
[1]: (Orent 1970, 282-283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [2]: (Orent 1970, 268) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [3]: (Orent 1970, 283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Main towns with 1,000 structures or more. Excavated sites: Pueblito (100ha), Ciudad Perdida (30ha). Sites recorded in ethnohistory: Bonda, Pocigueica. They have more than 200 structures and a civic-ceremonial centre. Their residential areas are arranged into neighbourhoods. 2. Large town with 400 to 1,000 structures, including ceremonial houses and temples. Above 10 ha, like Nulicuandecue (13 ha).3. Pueblos (villages) of 20, 40 or 60 houses. 1-5 ha. "Fast forward next to 1975. Archaeologists Luisa Fernanda Herrera and Gilberto Cadavid have almost completed a large survey of the northern and western sides of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, locating and documenting two hundred and eleven sites with similar characteristics, ranging from a few terraces and circular buildings, stone paths and stairways to very large towns like Pueblito surpassing one hundred hectares. Site 200 found in this survey, or Buritaca 200, as it was then called, is Ciudad Perdida, the “Lost City”, comprising more than 30 hectares of stone masonry terracing, circular and oblong buildings, stairways, and flag-stoned paths and sidewalks." [1] "Spanish informants describe a densely populated area with towns and settlements of all sizes, from pueblos of 20, 40, or 80 houses to large towns with 400 to 1,000 structures that included ceremonial houses and temples. These figures fit well with the archaeological evidence from coastal and from highland regions for the existence of a three-level hierarchy of sites (Serje 1987; Oyuela Caycedo 1987b) in which the larger ones, such as Pueblito, have some 1,000 structures (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1954a: 161; 1954b; G. Reichel-Dolmatoff and A. Reichel-Dolmatoff 1955). Major towns, such as Bonda and Pocigueica, were governed by chiefs (caciques) and seem to have formed the nuclei of incipient states. " [2] "Not surprisingly, prehispanic societies took advantage of this river and its resources, including the Muisca, Tierradentro, San Agustin/ Alto Magdalena, and Tairona chiefdoms of Colombia. In general, these chiefdoms exhibited two-tier settlement systems, composed of multiple primary centers with associated second-level communities." [3] "What is absent on the Alto Buritaca is a neat hierarchy of settlements, the pattern often used to identify the centralized organizations of chiefdoms. Oyuela-Caycedo has written, “Decentralized political complexes coordinated the whole commercial enterprise for one or more of the mountainous valleys, as indicated for Ciudad Perdida.” " [4] "The only projects that contribute data about the distribution of settlements at the regional scale are those of Serje and Oyuela. The former attempts to differentiate among the types of Late Period settlements on the Buritaca Basin based on the number of dwelling platforms. Using such criteria, Serje (1987:90) identifies ’provincial capitals’, like Buritaca 200 or Pueblito, with more than two hundred terraces; second order sites, with an average of eighty terraces; and peripheral sites, with fewer than fifty terraces. Based on that information a ’three-tiered settlement hierarchy’ is proposed (Serje 1987:90). Oyuela (1995) also makes an attempt to evaluate the information about settlement patterns as they relate to models of social organization in Gaira and the Alto Buritaca Basin. Oyuela evaluated the presence of centralization in the settlements found in those two regions. Based on the rank-size method (Johnson 1981) he found a strongly convex distribution in both regions, thus proposing that the chiefdoms in the Sierra Nevada and the coastal plain did not constitute "centralized organizations" (Oyuela 1995:126)." [5] "Nevertheless, if the larger regional scale is considered, two or more clearly differentiated hierarchies may be identified. In fact, the studied area is very close to Pueblito (approximately 10km) where the Bonda settlement might belong, one of the places that the Spanish considered the seat of an important chiefdom (Figure1). Given that the most conservative estimate for Pueblito’s area is 4km2, such a site would represent a higher level in the hierarchy." [6] "Site size and complexity ranges from a few masonry terraces with domestic structures to very large towns with elaborate stone masonry terracing, flag-stoned paths and walk ways, public areas, and canals covering over one hundred and fifty hectares." [7] Gaira settlement hierarchy, three levels: 10 ha and above, between 2 and 6 ha, and below 1ha. "El gráfico de Gaira (Figura 5) efectivamente tiene una forma convexa fuerte. El centro primario es el asentamiento de Gaira (13.5 ha); el segundo asentamiento más grande está localizado donde hoy día se encuentra el Sena (10 ha). Los resultados muestran que el primer asentamiento no es muy diferente de los otros (todos los datos presentados en el gráfico están en m2) Sólo después del octavo asentamiento es que hay una caída en el tamaño de éstos. Hay tres clases de asentamientos: uno por encima de las 10 hectáreas, el segundo entre las 6 y 2 hectáreas y un último grupo de asentamientos pequeños por debajo de una hectárea." [8] Buritaca settlement hierarchy four levels: 8 ha, between 3 and 4 ha, between 1 and 3 ha, and below 1 ha; Oyuela-Caycedo also mentions the site of Buritaca 200 (Ciudad Perdida) at 20ha and Nulicuandecue at 13 ha. "En contraste, el gráfico del alto Buritaca muestra una distribución convexa más cercana a la normal logarítmica (Figura 6). El asentamiento de mayor rango es Buritaca 200 con 20 hectáreas, seguido por Nulicuandecue con 13 hectáreas. En este caso, la distribución parece estar más cerca a la esperada en un sistema integrado. Igualmente, en contraste con Gaira, hay tendencia hacia la centralización, pero ésta no es fuerte como para estar formando una distribución cóncava. Considerando la cercanía de Buritaca 200 y Nulicuandecue (un día de camino), es probable que existiese algún tipo de competencia entre estos dos asentamientos. En cuanto a los tipos de asentamientos, una tipología de éstos basada de manera principal en atributos cualitativos fue previamente desarrollada. En comparación, se pueden definir cuatro clases de asentamientos: uno con asentamientos por encima de ocho hectáreas y compuesto por cuatro asentamientos que son los más monumentales; una suave caída en el gráfico separa otro grupo de asentamientos con tamaños entre cuatro y tres hectáreas, y un tercer grupo compuesto por pequeñas aldeas con tamaños entre una y tres hectáreas. El último está conformado por asentamientos con un tamaño por debajo de una hectárea y es el final del gráfico de rango-tamaño." [9] Oyuela-Caycedo’s proposed classification (1986): 1. Primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors 2. Secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors grouping or dividing the residential terraces)3. Villages that sometimes exhibit megalithic infrastructure in their central sector4. temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps In the Classic Period [for Oyuela-Caycedo, after the 9th century] there are at least four types of settlement: temporary habitation sites, without any megalithic structures, perhaps occasional fishing or salt exploitation camps. Villages that sometimes present megalithic infrastructure in their central sector. The third type are the secondary centres, which have a civic-ceremonial centre with megalithic structures (there are no sectors in the residential terraces). The last type of settlement consists in primary regional centres, of which two are known, Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida. These are characterised by their central ceremonial-civic zone, and more than 150 residential terraces grouped in sectors. Given their strategic location, it is possible that their function was to distribute and exchange products within the region, as in the well-studied cases of Formative Mesoamerica. "En el período clásico se distinguen por lo menos cuatro tipos de asentamientos como son: sitios de habitación temporal, sin ningún vestigio megalítico, tal vez campamentos ocasionales de pesca o de obtención de sal. Aldeas que en algunas ocasiones presentan infraestructura megalítica en el sector central. El tercer tipo son los centros secundarios de regular tamaño que presentan un sector central cívico ceremonial con estructuras megalíticas (no se observan sectorizaciones entre las terrazas de vivienda). El último tipo de asentamiento lo constituyen los centros primarios regionales, de los cuales se conocen dos, que son Pueblito y Ciudad Perdida. Estos se caracterizan por constar de una zona central de carácter cívico ceremonial y más de ciento cincuenta terrazas de vivienda agrupadas en sectores. Dada su situación estratégica, es probable que la función de esos asentamientos fuera la distribución y el intercambio de productos dentro de la región, de manera análoga a los bien estudiados casos de Mesoamérica durante el formativo." [10] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 22-23) [2]: (Bray 2003, 301-2) [3]: (Moore 2014, 386) [4]: (Moore 2014, 396) [5]: (Langebaek 2005, 21-3) [6]: (Langebaek 2005, 79) [7]: (Giraldo 2010, 54) [8]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 122) [9]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1995, 124) [10]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986) |
||||||
|
: 1. Capital city
:: 2. Main cities ::: 3. Towns :::: 4. Villages ::::: 5. Farmstead/Hamlets “About one in ten Spaniards lived in towns which, at one time or another between 1500 and 1800, reached the 10,000 mark. This was slightly higher than the European average. There were two giants: the political capital, Madrid, which reached its maximum of about 150,000 in the middle of the seventeenth century, and the gateway to the New World, Seville, which also had 150,000 people before the plague of 1649 and the fading of its economic hegemony. Then came a scattering of provincial capitals—Granada, Valencia, Barcelona—with around 40,000–50,000 inhabitants each, before one reached the average city, with its bishop and royal judge (corregidor), of 10,000–20,000 people. The city was in part a market, but it provided a wider range of services than that.”(Casey 2002: 111) Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (London) 2. Large Cities (ie. Delhi) 3. Cities 4. Large Towns 5. Towns 6. Villages 7. Hamlets "England, it is to be observed from a civil point of view, is divided int counties or shires, hundreds, or as they are termed in some of the northern counties, wapentakes...cities, tithings, towns or vills, (the last three of which, in a legal sense are synonymous, boroughs, and parishes." [1] [1]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 263. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Capital :“There were a series of court officials in Bonga and Anderacha, the two capitals of the Kafa Kings.”
[1]
:2. Town ::“Except for Minjiloch, the first Minjo kings are simply remembered for the fact that they respectively founded the towns of Shonga, Addio, and Shada.”
[2]
::3.Village :::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[3]
[1]: (Orent 1970, 282-283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [2]: (Orent 1970, 268) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection [3]: (Orent 1970, 283) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels."Polities centered on charismatic leaders in larger towns who extended limited control over surrounding villages and, sometimes, other larger settlements. On a classificatory continuum the Limba and Kuranko polities were structurally more akin to political organizations sometimes classed as “simple chiefdoms,” with a slightly greater degree of centralization emerging among the Yalunka in the nineteenth century (Fried 1967; also see de Barros this volume; Johnson andEarle 2000; Service 1975:74–80, 104–64). Simple chiefdoms (following Fried 1967) are characterized by a principal settlement surrounded by smaller villages, with a total population in the thousands. [...] Within the Yalunka area, precolonial sociopolitical organization was somewhat different, exhibiting a greater degree of centralized authority. During the eighteenth century the political situation may have been similar to that noted in the neighboring Limba and Kuranko areas, with spheres of influence centered on the principal towns of Kamba, Musaia, Sinkunia, and Falaba. By 1800, however, under the Samura of Falaba, these settlements had coalesced into what Fyle (1976, 1979b) refers to as the Solima Yalunka kingdom. Falaba emerged as a regional, judicial, and administrative center with the Manga, or king of Falaba, as its leader (Fyle 1979b:49–64; also see Donald 1968:9–12, 44–55). Important cases were tried at Falaba, and all trading and redistribution was supervised by the Manga (Fyle 1979b 55, 84, 88; also see Donald 1968:46–49). The kingdom could also bring wayward towns into line with military force (Donald 1968:58–59, 122–23; Fyle 1979b:41–44). Solima came to include all of the Yalunka chiefdoms of modern-day Koinadugu and Yalunka settlements now in the Republic of Guinea to the north and Kuranko Sengbe Chiefdom to the south (Fyle 1976: 111; 1979b: 13; Laing 1825: 346–47). Yet the power of Falaba and the Manga was not absolute. Important decisions of state could not be made without representatives of the other towns, and leaders met regularly at Falaba to decide matters of policy (Fyle 1979b:53–55; also see Laing 1825:356–67). As in the case with Limba and Kuranko towns, the Yalunka settlements of Musaia, Sinkunia, and Falaba seem to have independently undertaken negotiations with Samori Touré, the British, and the French (e.g., Donald 1968:59–61; Lipschutz 1973:85–92, 106, 125–26). [...] It has been suggested that by the nineteenth century the settlement pattern throughout Sierra Leone centered on large, fortified towns, which were in turn surrounded by smaller satellite villages within an 8-km radius, sometimes occupied by slaves (e.g., Donald 1968:122–25; Jones 1983:169–70; Siddle 1968, 1970:89)."
[1]
"By the middle of [the 19th] century, there were much smaller stateless entities among the Temne and Koranko peoples, but among the latter these small states were linked in some form of psychopolitical network centered on Morifindugu, their point of dispersal deeper into the Sierra Leone region. Although the ruler of Morifindugu, Marlay Bockari, in the second half of the 19th century did not rule over all of these Koranko polities, they all often fell back on Morifindugu in times of difficulty."
[2]
1. Capital/regional ruler’s seat :2. Towns ::3. Villages
[1]: (DeCorse 2012: 285, 287) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/7FGSKCDI/collection. [2]: (Fyle and Foray 2006: xxx) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1. City - capital
Kanishka I (128-150 CE) moved the capital to Purushapura. [1] He had regional capitals at Taxila, Begram and Mathura. [2] 2. City - administrative center"Major administrative centers are believed to have been Peshawar in northwest Pakistan and Mathura in the Ganges Basin." [3] 3. Towns2nd and 3rd CE in Bactria: "During this period the country consisted of towns, including the important cities of Balkh and Termez, and rural settlements (roughly in the ratio of one to seven)." [4] Vichi (Bhita) estimated population of population of between 10,000 and 20,000 persons. "In Sisupalgarh (ancient Kalinga˙nagara), where the ruins of the ancient city cover an areaof about 1.36 km2". "Begram, north of Kabul, at the confluence of the Panjshir and Ghorband rivers. The city was rectangular in shape, extending 800mfrom north to south and 450m from east to west with a citadel in the northeast." [5] "The cities became centres for the production of commodities for sale, hence their key importance in the city-village-nomadic-steppe system." [6] 4. Rural settlements5. Nomadic camps. Commune "There is some direct, and a great deal of indirect, evidence to show that the commune occupied an important place in the socio-economic life of Central Asia and in the ancient East as a whole. This seems to have continued until the Early Middle Ages, for which evidence is available. Thus, the commune in Sogdiana was known as naf; it consisted of the aristocracy (azat, azatkar), merchants (xvakar), and free peasants (who were members of the commune) and craftsmen (karikar). ... According to the written sources, the azat owned the land and the villages and were the chief retainers of the local and provincial rulers." [7] " In all probability, there was more land under communal ownership than any other type. There is some evidence to show that communes owned whole irrigation systems and the regions irrigated by them, as well as settlements and grazing lands. Localities settled by rural communes were called varzana, vardana or gava, meaning village or rural district, and it was precisely at this time that the fortified settlement of Vardanze, in the northern part of the Bukhara oasis, was established." [8] [1]: (Samad 2011, 83) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [2]: (Murugan 2013, 27) Murugan, Suresh. 2013. Introduction To Social Work. Social Work Department. PSG College of Arts and Science. [3]: (Sinopoli 2006, 337) Sinopoli, Carla M. Imperial Landscapes of South Asia. in Stark, Miriam T. ed. 2006. Archaeology of Asia. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. [4]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 475) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [5]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 2: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: Unesco, 1992,p.287, 288. [6]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 2: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: Unesco, 1992,p.292. [7]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 280) Mukhamedjanov, A R in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. [8]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 281) Mukhamedjanov, A R in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
During this period the population lived in small-size settlements
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Towns housing rulers (Omanhene); (2) Villages integrated into the recognized regional power hierarchies, comprising multiple family farms; (3) residential Hamlets and other non-permanent micro-settlements Most authors recognize both towns and villages, the latter growing out of small micro-settlements founded by family groups: ’It is interesting to think that these small nations of the Gold Coast, each consisting of a few towns and villages with a bare handful of population, have been so highly successful in maintaining this well-developed form of self-government. The Akan nations, with all the disadvantages of lack of transferring thought by any means other than speech, and in the absence of any proper medium of communication, have been able to march abreast of the times, adhering to their ancient, but by no means archaic, form of self-government.’ [1] ’Most of the towns scattered over the whole of Guinea have grown from villages originally founded and occupied by single family groups. As each family gets larger and the households increase in number, the village community grows, and its general affairs are guided and controlled by the patriarch of the family, who, now headman of the [Page 4] village, is assisted by a council composed of the eldest members of each family group or household, and other fit and proper persons, who are generally old men.’ [2] ’The Penin of the subsequent settlers exercises similar rights over his own people, and as the household grows larger so is that Penin assisted by a person “sitting behind” him. The founder of the village or his successor is now called Odzikuro (owner of the village), who, in looking after the village affairs, is assisted by the Penin of the new [Page 7] settlers, and thus arises the village council. The different family groups become the village community, and in all public matters the village council, composed of the Penin of each important household, acts, the Odzikuro being president of such council. The members of the village council have a spokesman (Kyiami, a linguist), whose office is hereditary, but is traced in the male line, for a son succeeds as linguist his father, and not his uncle. Land in possession of the founder of the village is family stool property. Land cleared and occupied by subsequent settlers who have joined the founder is the property of the subsequent settlers. Land acquired by the founder and the settlers together is held by the village community, and becomes attached to the stool of the person for the time being head of the village. All the inhabitants of the village have each of them a proportionate share in such lands as common property, without any possession or title to distinct portions. From the moment a tribal community settles down finally upon a definite tract of land, the land begins to be the basis of society in place of kinship. The Odzikuro, with the village council, has the control of such land, but each person has the right to cultivate any portion of it, and having done so or settled on it, he may not be removed by any single individual unless the council so decrees.’ [3] ’Suppose the original founder of the village to be a junior member of the family, whose elder brother was the family stoolholder; there still will be seasons when he and those under him would have to take part in observing the annual custom of the family stool, and participate in the family festival. And where there are several subordinate branches of a similar nature, the stoolholder of the original family acquires a greater importance and influence, and is termed Ohene - a term which has been rendered indifferently in English, king, caboceer, head chief, chief, and even headman. The Ohene will now have under him ( a) his family: comprising (i.) members under his immediate control, and (ii.) subordinate family groups that have branched off from the parent family; ( b) settlers: (i.) family groups in the same village as the Ohene, and (ii.) family groups sprung from the aforesaid and living in other places. In addition to individual persons enjoying his protection, there may be among his retinue a whole family or village community, to or for whom money loans have been given. These swell the retinue of the Ohene, and are included in his own bodyguard (Gyasi), a portion of the fighting men of the village community. Like the others, the headman of the protected family or community attends the annual festival of the Ohene, and to the tribunal of the Ohene these vassals have the right to appeal. Moreover, the oath of the stool of the Ohene is binding on them. The whole community is now likened to a body of which the Ohene supports the head, and the next in authority to him the foot. The Ohene of the oldest ancestry and most powerful becomes by election or tacit consent of the other Ahenefu of the district or country Omanhene, that is, a king. In reference to his own particular jurisdiction he is Ohene, and as such he may not interfere in the domestic [Page 9] affairs of any other fellow-ohene, so far as they do not injuriously affect the district as a whole.’ [4] According to Sarbah, Fante communities enjoyed a greated degree of autonomy than other Akan settlements: ’According to some ancient writers, there are two forms of government at the Gold Coast, namely, Monarchical and Republican. The districts of Axim, Ahanta, Fanti, and others were, previous to the year 1700, considered to be commonwealths; whereas Commenda, at that time a very populous district, Effutu or Fetu, Asebu, and Accra, were of the first kind. Henry Meredith, whose work was published in 1811, describes the governments along the coast as partaking of various forms. At Appolonia it was monarchical and absolute; in Ahanta it was a kind of aristocracy; but in the Fanti country, and extending to Accra, it was composed of a strange number of forms; for in some places the government was vested in particular persons, whilst in others it was in the hands of the community. What struck him as strange in the Fanti districts was that they frequently changed their form of government on certain occasions by uniting together under particular persons for their general safety, giving implicit [Page 26] obedience to their leaders; but as soon as the object of their union was attained, they reverted to their independent units. What is undoubtedly true is, that for very many years the Fanti town and village communities have enjoyed independence in a greater degree than any other tribes on the Gold Coast. In Appolonia one finds that so much authority was vested in the Omanhene that writers frequently thought his power was absolute. But on examining the constitutions of these places, they will be found to be sprung from the same root; the monarchical form of government so mentioned is what is common in Wassaw and other inland districts, and the republican is simply the constitution of some of the sea-coast towns close to European settlements and forts. These coast towns are communities whose government is based on the system already described; the president is Ohene, and his office is elective. Each town is divided into several parts, for fighting purposes, called companies (Asafu). One of these companies acts as the Gyasi to the Ohene. The Tufuhene is responsible for the good order of all the fighting men; the orders of the Ohene and his council are communicated to them by the Tufuhene.’ [5] Spatial proximity to colonial forts was associated with significant cultural changes: ’Pursuing the same object, they claimed tribute on the takings of the fishermen at Axim, Elmina, and Mowre, who were forbidden under severe penalties from holding any communication whatever and from trading with any other Europeans. Moreover, they attempted to exercise in these coast towns jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters, and assumed the power of life and death. In spite, however, of these oppressive measures, they were compelled to, and did pay, every year to the local rulers and their people, the rents for their forts and other establishments; nor could they wholly deter the people from trading or otherwise dealing with other European traders, against whom the Dutch now took extreme measures as enemies and interlopers.’ [6] ’The government of the sea-coast communities is a variation of the general system which has been described. This variation has been caused by frequent intercourse with European traders and the accumulation of wealth by means of lucrative trade. Ancient travellers who wrote described only what they saw in the coast towns. From these men one learns that, over two centuries ago, at seedtime farmers marked out for farming their plots of land, situate usually on rising grounds near the towns and villages. The next step was to obtain the permission of the Ohene or his officers in charge of the land, after permission had been granted, to pay the usual rent. The head of the family, assisted by his wives, children, and any slaves he might possess, prepared the ground for sowing. When the day of sowing arrived, the farm belonging to the village, or town chief, was first sown by all the people, and the others followed in due course. † This custom has continued to modern times with slight modifications. A few years ago the sum of half a crown was paid to landowners on asking for a plot of land to farm on for one season, but within the last two years this sum has been raised to ten shillings; in some instances, such as for land near the large towns, as much as a pound has been paid.’ [7] [1]: Danquah, J. B. (Joseph Boakye) 1928. “Gold Coast: Akan Laws And Customs And The Akim Abuakwa Constitution”, 16 [2]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 3p [3]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 6 [4]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 8p [5]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 25p [6]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 72 [7]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 24 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the Ashanti possess ’Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more)’, meaning that they are likely to have a settlement hierarchy as follows: (1) Town (administrative buildings, storehouse)) (2) Village (shrine) (3) Hamlet (residential only). This remains to be confirmed. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’3 levels above community’
(1) the Capital with its central administrative and political functions;(2) regional Towns housing the leaders of divisions of the Ashanti Union;(3) Villages integrated into the recognized regional power hierarchies, comprising multiple family farms;(4) residential Hamlets and other non-permanent micro-settlements A reviewer of Arhin’s work comments on some general features of the territorial hierarchy: ’the Asante people formed a typical African kingdom, headed by a paramount ruler called “king” who, from his central village or town, administered the community in groups of villages with their own administrative and political organizations that owed absolute allegiance to the king, sometimes miles away. In every such African kingdom there was a princely city, special in every sense-the home of the paramount ruler of the state, the centre of government, and the residence of members of the royal family, religious leaders, courtiers, members of the extended-family system, servants, and slaves. Its economic, political, and cultural characteristics flowed down to the villages that made up the state [...] Every village consisted of free-born citizens, servants, and slaves. Individuals were like the fingers of a hand, all working together for the betterment of the village and, through the council of elders and the king’s representative or chief, paying tribute to and serving their lord and master’ [1] Arhin’s own work confirms this: ’An Asante state consisted of divisions ( amansin), which in turn consisted of villages ( nkuro) and hamlets ( nkuraa). The hamlet was of no political significance, since, like the hunting lodge ( nnanso), it was a temporary settlement. The village, inhabited by members of localised matrilineages of three or more of the dispersed Akan matriclans ( mmusua) (Rattray 1929: 67), was headed by an individual called the owner of the village ( odekro).’ [2] Villages can accordingly be differentiated from Hamlets by virtue of their integration into regional lineage structures: ’A village proper is distinguished from less permanent settlements as much by social complexity as by sheer size. Nearly all established villages are occupied by a number of distinct matrilineal groups, perhaps as many as five or six. [...] The establishment of a core of women in a village, who have children there, and whose daughters there give birth to other daughters who will continue the matrilineage, marks that settlement’s existence as an independent and viable unit. Marriage, birth and death, as much as sheer numbers, mark the distinction between a well-established village and a settlement of less certain status.’ [3] Hamlets could develop into more complex villages: ’an akuraa might, in favourable circumstances, develop into a village proper ( okrom), with its own name and chief or odekuro and a clearly defined position in the kingdom’s political and military framework. This change in status usually occurred gradually and only after the place became the primary residence of many of those using it.’ [3] [1]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 478 [2]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 473 [3]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 25 |
||||||
|
Settlement hierarchies are difficult to reconstruct because of limited archaeological exploration and poor preservation of the record; archaeological interest has been mostly focused on the Bronze Age past of the island while the small size of the Neolithic sites and their establishment in low-land, riverine locations subject to complex natural and human-cased concealing processes obscure most aspects of the Neolithic landscape. The only known site dated to the Earlier Neolithic period (7000-5300 BCE) was that of Knossos. Domestic units, simple in construction and layout, tend to crowd together and all testimonies shows that people, although lived as separate households, constituted themselves communally.
[1]
[2]
Knossos however was not the only Early Neolithic site; indirect hints points to the existence of sites, albeit still undiscovered, to favorable niches in low-land and riverine locations and/or in easily reached areas of the north coast of the island (Gerani Cave in Rethimnon district, Tylissos in Heraklion district, and Malia and the Mirabello Bay in Lasithi district).
[3]
During the Late Neolithic period (ca. 5300-4500 BCE) Knossos expand to become a large village. Residences are now more clearly partitioned into separate domestic units and this new spatial arrangement suggests "an encroachment on what had previously been a communal space of production and consumption".
[4]
The size of the houses suggest that they were used by extended households rather by a single nuclear family. Other sites appeared/continue to be inhabited in many regions of the island: Gerani Cave in the Rethimnon district, Tylissos, Katsabas, Galeni-Roukani, and Mesara area in Heraklion district, and Malia, Sphongaras, Kalo Chorio, Kavousi and Magasas in Lasithi district.
[5]
The Final Neolithic period (ca. 4500-3000 BCE) mark a significant expansion in settlement by the occupation of most areas of high agricultural productivity, defensible sites, and the colonization of more marginal areas.
[6]
[5]
The extent of the Knossian settlement stayed broadly within the limits reached during the Late Neolithic period. Another important settlement was established on the hill of Phaistos, in the Mesara area.
[7]
[8]
The occupation of defensible sites may not be the respond to an exogenous and/or hostile movement of population. As Tomkins suggested this "may reflect intensifying local competition within and/or between sites, manifest in a developing sense of territoriality and resource circumscription, perhaps caused or exacerbated by a major shift towards greater climatic uncertainty that may occur around this time."
[9]
The increase in the number of sites, especially in marginal regions, has often been thought to reflect demographic expansion. Although some form of population growth might have occurred, it should be noted that most of these sties are small and short-lived. The colonization of marginal areas reflects "a variety of push and pull factors. In the face of more aggressive acquisitive strategies by more successful households, some households in large lowland villages may eventually, have chosen to take their chance with migration and economic diversification."
[10]
Understanding the relationship between these various sites (small and large village-sized settlements, hamlets, farms and field houses) is still a matter of scholarly inquiry. The preserved testimonies points to marked differences to the access of sources of wealth and social power (agricultural surplus and high-value/exotic ideas, finished products and raw materials).
[1]: Halstead, P. 1995. "From sharing to hoarding: the Neolithgic foundations of Aegean Bronze Age society," in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 12), Liège, 16-17 [2]: Tomkins, P. 2010. "Neolithic antecedents," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 36-7. [3]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 27-33, fig. 3.1. [4]: Tomkins, P. 2010. "Neolithic antecedents," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 37. [5]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 33-5, fig. 3.1. [6]: Branigan, K. 1999. "Late Neolithic colonization of the uplands of eastern Crete," in Halstead, P. (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (SSAA 2), Sheffiled, 57-65 [7]: Watrous, L. V. and Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 2004. "Initial growth in social complexity (Late Neolithic-Early Minoan I)," in Watrous, L. V., Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer, H. (eds), The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete, Los Angeles, 221 [8]: Todaro, S. and Di Tonto, S. 2008. "The Neolithic settlement of Phaistos revisited: evidence for ceremonial activity on the eve of the Bronze Age," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 177-90. [9]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 38. [10]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 39. |
||||||
|
levels. Excavated testimonies supplemented with information from systematic survey projects provide a sound starting point for the reconstruction of settlement hierarchies during the Protopalatial period.
[1]
[2]
According to the most widely accepted narrative Crete was divided into regional polities controlled by political fractions residing in monumental court-centered building compounds, generally known as "palaces", built in large urban centers. These cities, their extend varies from 60 ha (Malia and probably Phaistos) to 56 ha (Knossos), were the "capitals" of the regional quasi-polities dominating the political scape of Crete.
[3]
Small towns, their size varies from 3 to 5 ha., were scattered in the hinterland. Villages, hamlets and farmhouses were in the periphery of these towns and even in remote and marginal areas.
Intensively surveyed Old Palace regions provide important evidence on regional site hierarchies. In the Malia region, the survey has detected three concentric circles of villages and hamlets around the palatial centre. [4] In the Western Mesara plain, Phaistos (60 ha.) was surrounded by eight village-sized sites, including the towns of Kommos, Kalamaki, and Hagia Triada. [5] Outside these centers there were 27 hamlets, 15 farmsteads, and 11 very small sites. Settlements patterns points to the rise in occupational specialization and social diversity. Several of the larger Middle Minoan IB-II sites (1900-1800 BCE) have specialized functions; Kommos was a port, Kamares a regional place of cult, and Paterikes a pottery centre. A site close to Hagia Triada was a stone quarry. Other sites possessed elite cyclopean residencies. The large number of villages and hamlet-sized sites suggest an increased population and intensive land use. In most settlements the main productive activities were farming and stock-breeding, others led the industries and quite a few were of commercial character owing to their harbors. The road network appears extensive and presumably therefore it facilitated contacts and the transport of goods from the inland. Many harbours in small windward bays linked peripheral centres with the Aegean islands and the Levant. In contrast to these regions controlled by palace-centered institutions, there are areas which failed to provide evidence for a developed hierarchy. [6] In the Pediada plain, the wealthiest region of the island after the Mesara, varied and intensive archaeological research has failed to detect the socio-political developments that could have led to the rise of palace-centred polities such as those which emerged in the neighboring areas of Knossos, Malia and Phaistos. [7] On the contrary, independent groups, sharing common cultural idiosyncrasies, were active in the Pediada during the early Protopalatial period. The common cultural horizon does not, of course, necessarily indicate that these centres also shared an identical socio-political organization. Each urban centre in the Pediada should be assessed within its own specific setting. Local ruling groups, indeed, might have followed their own political, social, economic and ceremonial strategies. Competition among the major centres of power over material and social resources - especially considering the fact that they operated within the same regional setting - would inevitably promote an unstable political landscape. Competition was probably intense in areas close to the territorial borders of various sub-zones. The case of the Pediada demonstrates the complexity of the Protopalatial political landscape, which cannot be reduced to simplistic models of socio-political development. Local groups can and do differ quite widely in their socio-economic choices and attitudes, breaking away from what we see as the cultural ‘mainstream’. [1]: See the various contributions in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield. See also Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds), Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge, 19-45 [2]: Driessen, J. and Frankel, D. 2012."Minds and mines: settlement networks and the diachronic use of space on Cyprus and Crete," in Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J. (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (BSA Studies 20), London, 61-83. [3]: There is no information for the extent of Petras during the Old Palace period. The size of the Neopalatial town was about 2.5 ha. [4]: Muller, S. 1997. "L’ organization d’un territory minoen," Dossiers d’Archéologie 222, 52. [5]: Watrous, L., Hadzi-Vallianou, D., and Blitzer, H. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23), Los Angeles, 278-81. [6]: Driessen, J. 2001. "History and hierarchy. Preliminary observations on the settlement pattern of Minoan Crete," in Branigan, K. (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age (SSAA 4), Sheffield, 61. [7]: Rethemiotakis, G and Christakis, K. S. 2011. "landscapes of power in Protopalatial Crete: new evidence from Galatas, Pediada," SMEA 53, 195-218. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Hamlet or Longhouse Community ’Each longhouse, as each BILEK, is an autonomous unit. Traditionally the core of each house was a group of descendants of the founders. Houses near one another on the same river or in the same region were commonly allied, marrying among themselves, raiding together beyond their territories, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. [...] Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves).’ [1] ’Iban settlements are still predominantly in the form of longhouses. During the time when headhunting was endemic, the longhouse provided a sound strategy of defense. It continues to be a ritual unit, and all residents share responsibility for the health of the community. A longhouse is an attenuated structure of attached family units, each unit built by a separate family. The selection of different building materials and the uneven skills of Iban men who build their own houses are apparent in the appearance of family units, some with floors of split bamboo, others with planed and highly polished hardwood floors. The average width of a family unit is 3.5 meters, but the depth, that is, from front to back, varies widely. A longhouse may include as few as four families with 25 residents in a structure less than 15 meters long, or as many as 80 families with 500 residents in a house about 300 meters long. Access to a longhouse is by a notched-log ladder or stairs. At the top of the ladder is an uncovered porch (TANJU’) on which clothing, rice, and other produce may be dried. Inside the outer wall is a covered veranda (RUAI), which is the thoroughfare for traffic within the house, where women and old men sit during the daytime weaving or carving, and where families gather in the evening to recount the days events or to listen to folklore told by story-tellers. Beyond the inner wall is the family apartment (BILEK), where the family cooks and eats its meals, stores its heirlooms, and sleeps. Above the BILEK and extending halfway over the RUAI is a loft (SADAU) where the family’s rice is stored in a large bark bin and where unmarried girls sleep. The longhouse is constructed with its front to the water supply and preferably facing east. The core of each longhouse community is a group of siblings or their descendants. Through interethnic marriages, members of other societies may become part of Iban settlements to be assimilated as "Iban" in a generation or two. Until the past quarter-century, all Iban lived in or were related to longhouse settlements. Life in the longhouse was considered "normal", and those few people who lived in single-family dwellings apart from the longhouse were thought to be possessed by an evil spirit. [1] A longhouse constitutes an autonomous hamlet or village: ’The universal rule is that each long-house constitutes a single community; in other words, among the Iban the village and the long-house coincide. Moreover, traditionally each long-house community is an autonomous entity, not subject to the control of any other group. Every long-house is situated on part of a specified tract of land, and between long-houses there are always recognized boundaries, consisting in the main of unambiguous natural features such as streams or ridges. Each long-house then, is the domicile of a compact and independent community of families, and is situated on the bank of a river that is part of a specified territory over which these various families have either rights of access or ownership.’ [2] [1]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Iban Agriculture: A Report On The Shifting Cultivation Of Hill Rice By The Iban Of Sarawak”, 8 |
||||||
|
levels. The Iban are likely to have a settlement hierarchy as follows: (1) Hamlet (residential only). SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’Autonomous local communities’.
[(2); Colonial Towns;] (1) Hamlet or Longhouse Community ’Each longhouse, as each BILEK, is an autonomous unit. Traditionally the core of each house was a group of descendants of the founders. Houses near one another on the same river or in the same region were commonly allied, marrying among themselves, raiding together beyond their territories, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. [...] Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves).’ [1] ’Iban settlements are still predominantly in the form of longhouses. During the time when headhunting was endemic, the longhouse provided a sound strategy of defense. It continues to be a ritual unit, and all residents share responsibility for the health of the community. A longhouse is an attenuated structure of attached family units, each unit built by a separate family. The selection of different building materials and the uneven skills of Iban men who build their own houses are apparent in the appearance of family units, some with floors of split bamboo, others with planed and highly polished hardwood floors. The average width of a family unit is 3.5 meters, but the depth, that is, from front to back, varies widely. A longhouse may include as few as four families with 25 residents in a structure less than 15 meters long, or as many as 80 families with 500 residents in a house about 300 meters long. Access to a longhouse is by a notched-log ladder or stairs. At the top of the ladder is an uncovered porch (TANJU’) on which clothing, rice, and other produce may be dried. Inside the outer wall is a covered veranda (RUAI), which is the thoroughfare for traffic within the house, where women and old men sit during the daytime weaving or carving, and where families gather in the evening to recount the days events or to listen to folklore told by story-tellers. Beyond the inner wall is the family apartment (BILEK), where the family cooks and eats its meals, stores its heirlooms, and sleeps. Above the BILEK and extending halfway over the RUAI is a loft (SADAU) where the family’s rice is stored in a large bark bin and where unmarried girls sleep. The longhouse is constructed with its front to the water supply and preferably facing east. The core of each longhouse community is a group of siblings or their descendants. Through interethnic marriages, members of other societies may become part of Iban settlements to be assimilated as "Iban" in a generation or two. Until the past quarter-century, all Iban lived in or were related to longhouse settlements. Life in the longhouse was considered "normal", and those few people who lived in single-family dwellings apart from the longhouse were thought to be possessed by an evil spirit. [1] A longhouse constitutes an autonomous hamlet or village: ’The universal rule is that each long-house constitutes a single community; in other words, among the Iban the village and the long-house coincide. Moreover, traditionally each long-house community is an autonomous entity, not subject to the control of any other group. Every long-house is situated on part of a specified tract of land, and between long-houses there are always recognized boundaries, consisting in the main of unambiguous natural features such as streams or ridges. Each long-house then, is the domicile of a compact and independent community of families, and is situated on the bank of a river that is part of a specified territory over which these various families have either rights of access or ownership.’ [2] Most migration to urban centres took the form of temporary labour migration rather than permanent migration. Iban generally resided in longhouse villages during the Brooke Raj period. [1]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Iban Agriculture: A Report On The Shifting Cultivation Of Hill Rice By The Iban Of Sarawak”, 8 |
||||||
|
levels. Before 500CE: "The archaeological record is yet to evince anything like the cities in Central Java, complete with streets, which some Chinese visitors reported as hearsay at about 1650 B.P. (Hall 1992: 194). However, Java and Bali certainly do present evidence of larger habitations, pre-1500 B.P., than had been established elsewhere in the archipelago. An average population of around 900 people has been estimated for Gilimanuk, which then may have been effectively a tiny island off Bali’s northwest coast (Soegondho 1995: 16-18). Elsewhere along the north coast, too, there is a persistent pattern of designated cemeteries within the settlement (Prasetyo 1994/1995), or else of burials underlying much of the settlement (Sukendar et al. 1982). This suggests nucle- ated villages whose inhabitants staked their claim to residence through burial of the ancestors within the village perimeter. A circular hole of 30 cm diameter at Anyar, West Java (Sukendar et al. 1982: 9), may reflect a house pile. Sukendar (1986) interpreted one circle of upright stones at Bandowoso, in East Java’s hinterland, as the stone piles for a ceremonial center, and Van Heekeren (1958: 48) offered a similar interpretation for the rectangular arrangements of stone uprights at the nearby site of Pakauman. Pakauman also contains a stone statue, presumed to represent an ancestor, as well as stone sarcophagi and dolmens. These Early Metal Phase megalithic complexes crop up on the volcanic soils in the flatter hinterland reaches right along Bali and Java, as well as the Lampung and Pagar Alam districts of Southern Sumatra (e.g. Bellwood 1997; Van Heekeren 1958)."
[1]
At the onset of the next period: "Like Sanjaya, initially the Sailendra leaders were rakrayan, or regional leaders, rulers of a watak that integrated village clusters (wanua) participating in a regional irrigation and/or otherwise networked society. As rakrayan, these earliest Sailendra rulers provided the political stability necessary to maintain the local irrigation and marketing networks, and through their patronage of Indic religion they constructed sacred cults to legitimize the regional integration of wanua into watak." [2] 1. Towns? (reported by the Chinese but not confirmed archaeologically) 2. Villages (wanua) [1]: (Bulbeck in Peregrine and Ember 2000, 104-105) [2]: (Hall 2011, 123) |
||||||
|
levels.
(2) Village; (1) Hamlet The A’chik population was mostly rural, relying on subsistence agriculture. The following information is taken from the ’colonial era’ data sheet and therefore remains in need of verification. Residential villages varied in size: ‘Villages are scattered and distant from one another in the interior areas. These villages are generally situated on the top of hillocks. The houses are built together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pig sties. The houses are built, together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pigsties, on piles around the slope of the hillock, using locally available bamboo, wood, grass, etc. The approach to the rectangular house is always built facing the leveled surface of the top, while the rear part of the house remains horizontal to the slope. Nowadays new pile-type buildings using wood and iron as major components are being made in some traditional villages also. In addition, buildings similar to those of the neighboring plains are also constructed. The villages may remain distant from agricultural fields (JHUM). In order to guard a crop (during agricultural seasons) from damage by wild animals, the people build temporary watchtowers (BORANQ) in trees in the field. Bachelor dormitories exist in some villages for meetings and recreation.’ [1] The mean size of villages may have decreased during the colonial period: ‘In former days, Garo villages were of considerable size and used to contain as many as two or three hundred houses. Liability to attack by a neighbouring village made this necessary, and the danger was further guarded against by sowing the approaches with sharp-pointed bamboo stakes called wamisi in Garo, but better known as panjis. These presented a very formidable obstacle to an enemy, and effectually prevented a sudden attack. Nowadays, when every man is at peace with his neighbour, the necessity no longer exists for large collections of houses, and the difficulty of finding sufficient land close to big villages for the support of their inhabitants, has resulted in their being broken up into small hamlets situated perhaps as much as four or five miles apart, which, however, in most cases, retain the name of the parent village. In order to distinguish them there is added to the name of each hamlet the name of its nokma, or headman.’ [2] ‘In Garo society the village is the largest group of which all the members regularly join in cooperative activities, but more extensive organizations are also recognized. First, several neighboring villages may be considered to be related. One of these is usually believed to have been the original village from which the founders of the other “daughter” villages moved. [...] The peace which the British imposed on the hills may have made it possible to live in smaller and more scattered villages than the people had formerly done. Perhaps most of the groups of linked villages that are now to be found have resulted from the splitting of larger villages during the period of British rule. The difficulty of access to the fields would make more dispersed settlement desirable so long as enemies did not threaten. Nowadays villages only rarely move, split up, or die out. I saw just one village in the process of being moved. This was an undertaking that was destined to last for three years, since the villagers could not muster sufficient labor to rebuild more than a third of their houses in a single year. The move was being made solely for the sake of the water supply, which was failing at the old site.’ [3] New villages grew out of small pioneer hamlets: ‘There are different sizes of village in the Garo Hills. I have seen small villages consisting of two or three huts, practically isolated from all the advantages of a big village. On the other hand, in a big village there may be as many as fifty or more huts. The size of the big village entirely depends on the space that is available for the house building and also the facilities the inhabitants of the village may derive for cultivation and other purposes from the surroundings of the locality. The largest village, I visited, was situated on the slopes of the hills, as is the usual practice, facing long strip of valley, nearly about a mile and a half long and about half a mile broad. It is easily understandable that people living in such villages take to plough and utilise the valley for agricultural purposes. It has, therefore, the advantage of accommodating larger people than it is possible for the village which is situated on the hill slopes and which is to depend primarily on jhum cultivation as described hereafter. Usually, an average sized village contains ten to fifteen houses. The economic factor is one of the main guiding principles regarding the expansion of a village. Availability of arrable land or hillocks for jhum cultivation, good drinking water, facilities of conveyance and also facilities of market places are some of the main factors, which the Garos consider before they fix up a place to start a new village. The common practice is to have one house for one family consisting of husband, wife, and children. Occasionally, the old mother or the mother-in-law also stays in the family.’ [4] [1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [2]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garos”, 40 [3]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 235 [4]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 7 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
1.Large City (monumental structures, market, central government buildings, cathedral, port): 10,000–25,000 inhabitants.
Example: London.
2.City (cathedral, market, regional government buildings): 5,000–10,000 inhabitants.
Examples: Winchester, York, Norwich.
3.Large Town (market, castle, administrative buildings, parish church): 2,000–5,000 inhabitants.
Examples: Lincoln, Durham, Exeter.
4.Town (market, small local government buildings, parish church): 500–2,000 inhabitants.
Examples: Shrewsbury, Chester, Gloucester.
5.Village (shrine or parish church, granaries, farmland): 100–500 inhabitants.
Examples: Common throughout Domesday records.
6.Hamlet (residential only, farming): Fewer than 100 inhabitants.
Examples: Scattered rural clusters. [webpage_Home | Domesday Book]
|
||||||
|
-
Level 1: Large Cities (~10,000–15,000 inhabitants)
Examples: Regensburg, Mainz, Cologne
Level 2: Cities (~5,000–10,000 inhabitants) Examples: Frankfurt, Metz, Worms Level 3: Large Towns (~2,000–5,000 inhabitants) Examples: Speyer, Passau, Constance Level 4: Towns (~500–2,000 inhabitants) Examples: Small fortified settlements or market towns scattered across Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. Level 5: Villages (~100–500 inhabitants) Examples: Rural settlements tied to manorial estates. Level 6: Hamlets (<100 inhabitants) Examples: Isolated farmsteads or small clusters of homes. [Wickham 2010], [Russell 1972] |
||||||
|
1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)
2. Regional capitals 3. Towns 4. Villages (5. Hamlets?) |
||||||
|
1. Capital (Nisa; Hekatompylos; Rhagae; Ectatana; Ctesiphon)
2. Regional capitals 3. Towns 4. Villages (5. Hamlets?) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital 2. Other large cities3. Towns4. Villages5. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. Susa 2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets. |
||||||
|
levels. Estimate from other, similarly sized/structured settlements in the region and elsewhere
|
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels. This is the code for the earlier Imperial Xiongu Confederation.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from previous period.
|
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Bishoprics and Elite Residences; (2) Manor Farms; (1) Homesteads of Farming Families Icelanders continued to reside on dispersed farmsteads rather than concentrating in villages and towns: ’All Icelanders lived on farms. No towns developed in Iceland in the Middle Ages. Fishing was carried out from coastal farms, and also from seasonal fishing stations when fish, especially cod, came ashore. Cereal crops were grown in Iceland in the Middle Ages, mainly in the south, but animal husbandry (cattle and sheep) was the mainstay. Both provided meat, and milk for cheese and skyr (milk curd), and the sheep’s wool was woven into cloth which was Iceland’s principal export commodity until the 14th century [...]. The Icelandic way of life is well illustrated by the units of value used: alin vadmáls (an ell, about 50cm, of woollen cloth), kúgildi (the value of a cow), equivalent to 120 ells, and subsequently fiskur (fish), equivalent to half an ell.’ [1] In the Sturlung period, a small number of chieftains had managed to establish large manors, expropriating labour and resources from landless workers and larger landholdings: ’Because of the absence of the law of odel, and through the influence of the church as well as of the government and the chieftain class landed property had been gathered in the hands of a few. As the class of smaller freeholders was disappearing, the people were becoming a struggling and oppressed peasantry with a limited outlook, few political interests, and less of public spirit and individual self-assertion than formerly.’ [2] According to Karlsson, this pattern did not change significantly during the transition to a mixed agrarian/fishing economy, although some settlement shifts occurred: ’It was in the years after 1300 that seasonal fishing stations became esablished on the southwest coast, and the wealthiest sector of society began to congregate in this region. The most powerful chieftains had almost all been based inland. Now the prosperous élite began to settle along the coast between Selvogur in the southwest and Vatnsfjördur in the West Fjords. Hvalfjördur and Hafnarfjördur developed into Iceland’s most important trading centres. The royal administration in Iceland was located at Bessastadir [...] This period saw the development of the mixed agrarian/fishing society that typefied the Icelandic economy for centuries. In January and Feburary, people travelled from rural areas to the fishing stations, where they remained until spring, fishing from small boats. This was the most favourable fishing season, as fish stocks were plentiful, the weather was cool enough to permit fish to be dried before spoiling, and relatively few hands were required on the farm. People were thus domiciled in rural areas, on farms.’ [3] The wealthier elites attempted to inhibit the development of new occupational classes: ’Yet another distinction appears as early as in the laws of the Commonwealth, which was to persist through Icelandic history. The ruling class wanted to divide Iceland into two kinds of people: farmers and their wives, and landless workers who were contracted by the year to work for farmers, and lived in their homes. Untiring efforts were ade to prevent the development of two other social classes: casual workers who sold their labour to the highest bidder at any season, and householders who were resident by the sea, living by fishing, and had neither land nor livestock.’ [4] See also Commonwealth-period data sheet. [1]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 12p [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 249 [3]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 24p [4]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 13 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Capital city (Cuzco) At its height "Cuzco became a cosmopolitan center, and people from diverse areas of the empire came to live there." [2] Occupied almost exclusively by about 12 royal ayllus [3] "Commoners and foreigners were not permitted to live there and had to leave the city each night. These peoples were housed in satellite communities surrounding Cuzco at a short distance. As a result, Cuzco never grew to the enormous size of the capitals of European empires such as Rome or even as large as some of its key administrative centers in the provinces." [4] Cuzco had 20,000 inhabitants at its peak [1] and "the urban core was a planned settlement, covering about 40 hectares." [5] Alan Covey: These are both weak readings of the ethnohistory. Eyewitnesses stated that nobles from across the empire had houses in Cuzco, and there were diverse populations of retainers in Inca royal households, as well as populations of craft specialists living in outer districts. McEwan’s statement about population size is inaccurate regarding the size of provincial centers, which did not have permanent populations larger than Cuzco’s. Only Chan Chan, the coastal Chimú capital, would have rivalled Cuzco in terms of population, and its size was probably greatest before Inca conquest. [6] 2. City (provincial)Inca provincial centers Hatun Xauxa (Peru), Cotapachi (Bolivia), Campo del Pucara (Argentina) [7] Quito was a very important city, on the way to becoming the second capital of the Inca empire. [8] Cajamarca had 7,000-10,000 inhabitants in 1532 CE [3] Unsubstantiated. Alan Covey: Statement on Quito is accurate, but there are better sources, like Frank Salomon. The number given for Cajamarca is not based on any early colonial source that I am aware of. [6] 3. Town.Can have as many as 4,000-5,000 inhabitants. "In the Upper Mantaro Valley, my colleagues and I have recorded more than 125 Inca-era settlements within about a day’s walk of the provincial center of Hatun Xauxa. The largest of those towns, Marca and Hatunmarca, each contained about 4,500 residential structures. We estimate that their populations were probably in the order of 4,000-5,000." [9] 4. VillageExample, Muyu Cocha. Large village. No evidence that is was occupied during the Killke Period. Perhaps created to house state construction workers. [10] 5. Hamlet [11] These hamlets could have grouped one or several canchas. The Cancha architectural unit was a walled domestic compound and "the basic settlement unit in the Andean region from the inception of agriculture and llama herding to post-colonial times" [3] Alan Covey: completey untrue. [6] (AD: we probably should not take anything written by Kaufmann and Kaufmann for granted.) Killke period hamlets occupied between 0.25-1 ha [12] so Inca period hamlets were probably of a similar size. [1]: (Bauer 2004, 3) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 106) [3]: (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2012) [4]: (McEwan 2006, 76) [5]: (D’Altroy 2014, 198) [6]: (Covey 2015, personal communication) [7]: (Bauer 2004, 96) [8]: (Salomon, F., 1986. Native lords of Quito in the age of the Incas: The political economy of north Andean chiefdoms (p. 84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9]: (D’Altroy 2014, 294) [10]: (Bauer 2004, 95-96) [11]: (Bauer 2004, 95) [12]: (Covey 2006, 124) |
||||||
|
“The four main entities—the Crown, the Church, guilds, and city councils—were based in multistoried, class-heterogeneous towns and cities that mingled manufacturing, residential, retail, and civic spaces. At the centers of towns and cities stood markets and retail establishments alongside churches and royal offices, as established in Felipe II’s 1573 Royal Ordinances on town planning. Wellordered, properly-consuming urban populations functioned under the principle of policía or “good government,” in which individual desires were subordinated to guarantee order, peace, and prosperity (Nuttall 1922; Schuetz 1987; Ortíz Macedo 1997; Kinsbruner 2005; Kagan 2000, pp. 18–44). This order required a steady and cheap supply of food guaranteed by new officials and institutions, such as the fiel ejecutor, who inspected weights and measures, but also alhóndigas (granaries) that stabilized the price and the pósito, a grain reserve designed to abate scarcity and speculation at times of shortages and bad harvests (Ochoa 2000, pp. 20–23, Borah 1958). The parián or arcaded market that housed leading mercantile establishments stood at the town center, and along the adjoining streets and districts stood the workshops of guild members lending their trade’s name to the street on which they were concentrated. Here and there stood pulperías, the indispensible institution that functioned as stores, pawnshops, restaurants, gathering places, and news exchanges, providing a one-stop financial and commercial center akin to a modern convenience store offering lottery tickets, money orders, a version of the modern ATM, and a community bulletin board.”
[1]
: 1. Capital City (Mexico City) :: 2. State capitals ::: 3. Small cities :::: 4. Towns ::::: 5. Villages :::::: 6. Rural land/plots
[1]: (Bunker and Macias-Gonzalez 2011: 58) Bunker, Steven B. and Macías-González, Víctor M. 2011. “Consumption and Material Culture from Pre-Contact through the Porfiriato,” in A Companion to Mexican History and Culture, ed. William H. Beezley. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp54–82. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SDIQ5VE7 |
||||||
|
“Considering that Tiwanaku itself was the largest site in the valley, covering some 600 ha, these rural settlements have been defined in the following manner: 1. Secondary sites are represented by surface ceramic fragment and lithic artifact scatters over an area that exceeds three hectares. These sites also manifest architectural components, such as worked andesite or sandstone blocks on the surface, as well as one or more mounds. 2. Tertiary sites are characterized by surface artifact scatter over an area between one and approximately three hectares; yet, they lack stone architecture and may or may not exhibit mounds. 3. Quaternary sites are distinguished by artifact scatter over an area of less than a hectare, or by single house mounds within agricultural fields. As shown in Figure 6.18, quaternary sites are generally located in close proximity to the secondary and tertiary sites, with a few exceptions. The visual impression of the pattern, as perceived from the map, is one of a dichotomy. The northern and southern sectors are two separate settlement units. It seems that the Tiwanaku River marked a dividing line between the two sectors. Another important feature of the settlement pattern constitutes the regular spacing that is kept between secondary centers and between secondary and tertiary sites in both sectors of the valley. Statistical analysis (Nearest-Neighbor statistics) of site distribution in the Lower Tiwanaku Valley confirm that secondary sites are regularly distributed and that tertiary and quaternary sites cluster around the secondary installations. While a trend toward randomness can be discerned among tertiary sites, there is definite clustering among quaternary sites (Albarracin-Jordan 1996). Around A.D. 900, Tiwanaku sites became substantially more numerous (Figure 6.19). From a total of 100 sites to 339. Even though the number of secondary sites had not increased, the amount of tertiary and quaternary sites increased drastically.”
[1]
“Hundreds of Tiwanaku settlements are situated in the state’s heartland. Kolata (1993: Fig. 6.11; 1996b: Fig. 1.7) has divided them into four categories. The first category includes only Tiwanaku, which with its size of c. 6 km2 was by far the area’s largest and most powerful settlement, or primary centre. A group of large sites with monumental public architecture – such as Lukurmata and Pajchiri – constitutes the second category. These sites functioned as the secondary centres of the state, supervising and organising production in their respective regions. Tertiary centres were smaller, local-scale administrative and ritual sites. Fourth category settlements – small habitation sites – were by far the most numerous group. Together, the sites belonging to these four categories formed a complex administrative network encompassing the Tiwanaku heartland.”
[2]
: 1. Tiwanaku (capital and largest settlement) :: 2. Secondary sites (area over 3 hectares) ::: 3. Tertiary sites (1-3 hectares with surface artefacts) :::: 4. Quaternary sites (less than 1 hectare, usually agricultural fields)
[1]: (Albarracin-Jordan 1999: 64) Albarracin-Jordan, Juan V. 1999. The Archeaology of Tiwanaku: The Myths, History, and Science of an Ancient Andean Civilization. Bolivia: Impresión P.A.P. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P7MDWPAP [2]: (Korpisaari 2006: 64) Korpisaari, Antti. 2006. Death in the Bolivian High Plateau: Burials and Tiwanaku Society. Oxford: BAR Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/UPGSC7BF |
||||||
|
levels.: Capital city: Winchester in the former kingdom of Wessex was the centre of royal and administrative power as well as housing the archbishop and cathedrals, three minsters and an episcopal palace.
[1]
Coins were minted here.
[2]
:: Major Towns:: Important larger market towns such as London, York, Cambridge, and Ely. They had cathedrals and were the official seat of a diocesan bishop.
[3]
[4]
::: Port and trading towns::: Trading emporium and market towns and ports such as Dover, Sarre, Southampton, and Ipswich.
[3]
[4]
::: Villages::: Villages were small and mostly consisted of farmland and a few hall-type buildings. They were generally situated with access to good ploughing land, but some were in lower-status areas such as on the margins of occupied districts or in dry or chalky areas. These may have been used by the Germanic immigrants to establish themselves.
[5]
[6]
:::: Monastic communities:::: Slightly more isolated and small communities based on a monastery with a self-sustaining ‘home-farm’ at its centre.
[7]
Double monasteries existed which housed monks and nuns side-by-side in communities ran by an abbess. After a slump in monastic life during the Viking invasions and colonisations of the Anglo-Saxon period, Benedictine monasteries surged in the tenth century. Sixty monasteries were established between 940 – 1066.
[8]
[1]: (Yorke 1995: 320) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [2]: (Keynes 2000: 462) Keynes, Simon. 2000. “England, c. 900–1016.” Chapter. In The New Cambridge Medieval History, edited by Timothy Reuter, 3:456–84. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521364478.019. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/7Q6L256F [3]: (Yorke 1990: 40, 65) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [4]: (Wright 2015: 34-36) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [5]: (Higham 2004: 10) Higham, Nick. ‘From Sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages’, History Compass 2, no. 1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XZT7A79K [6]: (Wright 2015: 25, 31) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [7]: (Wright 2015) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [8]: (Roberts et al 2014: 35-36) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from previous quasi-polities.
[1]
[1]: • (Barnes 2015: 131) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/T5SRVKXV. |
||||||
|
1. Capital city2. Provincial capital3. Tributary capital4. County capital5. Town6. Village.
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capitals. Zhengzhou (1500 ha), Xiaoshuangqiao, and Huanbei "Exemplified by Zhengzhou and Anyang, each city was composed of a centrally situated ceremonial and administrative enclave occupied primarily by royalty, priests and a few selected craftsmen, whereas the peasantry and the majority of artisans lived in villages dispersed throughout the surrounding countryside (Wheatley 1971: 30-47)." [1] 2. Auxiliary capitals or important military stations, with a surrounding wall of rammed earth. Yanshi (190 ha) 3. Small cities that served as military fortresses, with a surrounding wall. Panlongcheng 盘龙城 (75 ha) 4. Smaller villages. 10-30ha. Mengzhuang 孟庄 (30ha) in size. Tertiary center "The structure of the political centers of the Erligang period is different from anything seen before. Although many of them are enclosed by rammed-earth walls, a tradition that was underway during the Neolithic period, their standard rectangular shape and clear internal division suggest a much more formal definition of what such a city should look like (Fig. 7). The walls of two sites are impressive, measuring 17-25 m wide at the base and 9 m tall. The inner walls of Zhengzhou enclosed an area of about 300 ha, but the area inside the recently discovered outer walls was as large as 1,500 ha (Fig. 8). The area inside the walls of Yanshi, which may have been one of the secondary centers of Zhengzhou, is roughly 200 ha. While there has not yet been a systematic survey, settlement around the two sites is reportedly very dense, including relatively large tertiary centers (Liu and Chen 2003, pp. 87-101; Yuan and Zeng 2004)." [2] "Differences in site size for the early Shang period can be explained with reference to terms for different kinds of settlements from various Chinese historical texts. It seems that the different settlement tiers identified by archaeologists represent a hierarchical social structure which included large settlements that were regional capitals (du 都), military towns or large sites that served as auxiliary capitals (yi 邑), small cities that functioned as military strongholds, and common settlements. My colleagues and I have identified four sizes or ranks of settlements for the early Shang period as a whole (ranks 1-4, from large to small). My discussion below focuses on interpreting the functions of each type of site for the entire early Shang period. The very large or rank 1 sites such as Zhengzhou, Xiaoshuangqiao, and Huanbei should be interpreted as capitals (see Table 16.1). Each of these sites is several hundred hectares in size, and each has a walled palace zone. [...] Rank 2 settlements are large sites that served as auxiliary capitals or important military stations. Most of these sites have a surrounding wall of rammed earth. The site of Yanshi, for example, is rectangular and covers an area of 190ha. [...] Rank 3 sites are relatively small cities that served as military fortresses. These settlements are considered cities because they are walled. Generally they are located at important transportation junctions in the peripheral region of the early Shang dynasty.Panlongcheng 盘龙城 is located about 5km from Wuhan city, Hubei province. Since it has a walled palace zone, it also probably once had a wall surrounding the settlement as well. Therefore, many scholars regard it as a city. The walled zone is approximately rectangular in plan, encompassing an area of 75 ha. [...] Commoners lived in the smallest (rank 4) settlements about 10-30 ha in size. They must have had close relations with larger, neighboring sites. For instance, Mengzhuang 孟庄 is relatively large and circular in shape, around 30ha in size. The excavations there discovered trash pits, building foundations, pottery kilns, water wells, and burials (Henan Provincial 1999: 241-246)." [3] [1]: (Liu and Chen 2012, 295) Liu, Li. Chen, Xingcan. 2012. The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 347-348) [3]: (Yuan 2013, 327-330) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital - Erlitou - 300 ha at maximum expansion2. Regional center3. Secondary center - Eg. Shaochau (60ha), Dashigu (50 ha)4. Small villages "Archaeological fieldwork demonstrates that with the emergence of the Erlitou capital, quite a few new settlements appeared in the Luoyang basin centered around the Erlitou site. Larger sites are distributed at intervals, revealing a large, structured network of settlements. The Shaochai 稍柴 site (60ha) seems to be located in the eastern section of a vital communication route in the Luoyang basin. In addition to being a secondary center, the important functions of this settlement included protecting the capital and transferring resources (Chen Xingcan et al. 2003; Liu et al. 2004: 75-100). More than 20 sites dating to the Erlitou period (10-30 ha in size) have been found in the surrounding area. Some sites have remains of white pottery or ritual drinking vessels of delicate pottery. These other Erlitou period sites (including burials) are concentrated around Songshan 嵩山 (Mt Song), including the area from Zhengzhou to Luoyang, and the area from the Yinghe and Ruhe rivers to Sanmenxia city. The sites are all large or medium-sized settlements located in valleys and basins. They must have been regional centers in the core area of the Erlitou state (Nishie 2005). The city discovered at Dashigu 大师姑 (51ha), 70km east of the Erlitou site, might be a military town at the eastern edge of the Erlitou state territory, or the center of another polity (Zhengzhou Kaogusuo 2004). We can conclude that there was a four- tiered settlement hierarchy in the Erlitou culture consisting of a large capital settlement, regional centers, secondary centers, and numerous small villages. This settlement pattern is in sharp contrast to the Longshan settlement pattern in which various regional centers coexisted and competed for power." [1] "A four-tier regional settlement hierarchy appeared during the Erlitou period, signifying the domination of the Erlitou site (as the paramount center) over a state-level system with at least three levels of political control above ordinary villages (Liu and Chen 2003, following the definition by Wright 1977). [...] Criticism has been leveled at different elements of this reconstruction. [...] Even more substantially, the proposed four-tier regional settlement hierarchy model has been criticized as being based on subjective criteria (Peterson and Drennan 2011; see further below)." [2] "Likewise, Erlitou may very well have been at once a political capital, a ceremonial center, and a nexus of elite production. Unfortunately, information concerning spatial practices at Erlitou and other Bronze Age Chinese sites is fragmentary at best, and characterizations are necessarily somewhat crude and speculative on current evidence." [3] [1]: (Xu 2013, 301-302) [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 330) [3]: (Campbell 2014, 25) |
||||||
|
levels. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the Miao possess groups of ’200-399’, smaller than 400-1000, any town of more than 5,000, Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more), and Cities of more than 50,000 (one or more). (2) Village and (2) Hamlet.
[(3) Chinese Provincial Capitals; (2) Chinese Towns;] (1) Hmong and other Villages and Hamlets Most Hmong lived in small villages or dispersed hamlets: ’At higher elevations, as on the plateau straddling Guizhou and Yunnan, settlements are rarely larger than twenty households. An average village in central Guizhou might have 35 or 40 households, while in Qiandongnan villages of 80 to 130 families are common, and a few settlements have close to 1,000 households. Villages are compact, with some cleared space in front of the houses, and footpaths. In some areas houses are of wood, raised off the ground, and with an additional sleeping and storage loft under a thatched or tiled roof. Elsewhere they are single-story buildings made of tamped earth or stone depending on local conditions. Windows are a recent introduction. Animals are now kept in outbuildings; in the past they were sheltered under the raised house or kept inside. Many settlements are marked by a grove of trees, where religious ceremonies are held.’ [1] ’The Miao settlement is called “chai” (Illus. 12, 13), built generally against a mountainside or along a river, without any uniform appearance. The chai wall is made of earth or stone slabs, and there is no definite number of gates. The streets of a chai zigzag up and down, with tiny alleys on both sides. In each alley there are a few families. The alleys are interconnected. Without a guide one can get lost once inside a chai; turning right and left, one will be unable to find an exit. Chinese passing through a Miao chai often cannot find a single Miao, because they have gone into hiding in small alleys, barring the doors and refusing to come out. The Miao chais are not located along lines of communication but in the deep mountains and valleys accessible only by small paths. Although visible at a distance, they often cannot be reached. Without modern arms, they cannot be easily taken. For the last few hundred years continuous Miao unrest in western Hunan may be largely related to the fact that their chais were easy to defend and difficult to capture.’ [2] ’3) Lodging. Most of the Miao-I tribes live clustered in hamlets in the mountains, except the Chung-chia and the Sui-chia among the I, who live near water, hence the names “Kao-shan Miao” /high mountain Miao/ and “Shui-Chung-chia” /water Chung-chia/. It is said that the Miao-I must live in the high mountains in order to thrive and that if they live at the bottom of the mountains, they would suffer disaster and death. But, today, the Miao-I have gradually learned to live /on the plains/ and well-to-do farmers who have moved downhill are increasing in number. Although they cannot avoid pestilence, their suffering is not necessarily more than those living uphill. Most of the Miao-I follow the traditions of their ancestors and live precariously on the cliffs in backward conditions. Their living quarters are generally on one level, but some of the Miao-I in the southeast also build storied houses. In houses of one level men and beasts share the floor, but in the storied houses, men live upstairs and beasts downstairs. An ordinary house has one to three rooms; in the latter case, the rooms are small. If there is only one room, then it is used for cooking, eating, sleeping, and all other purposes. The construction of the houses is rather crude. Except those of a few wealthy families, which are enclosed with wooden or brick walls and covered with mud, tile or slate roofs, an average house is built of bamboo or corn stalks with tree barks as walls and straw for a roof. They are often slanting and dilapidated. Worse still, some of the poorest Hua Miao and Ch’ing Miao still live today in mountain caves in conditions as wretched as those in the inferno.’ [3] ’The Magpie Miao live in villages, occasionally compact but normally consisting of a cluster of separate hamlets. These are located on mountain slopes, usually far enough away from main transportation routes to be inaccessible and readily defensible. The Miao lack any political organization of their own, and are thoroughly integrated into the Chinese administrative system. The basic political, as well as economic and social unit, is the village. Villages are grouped into townships and divided into hamlets of about ten to twenty households each. The headmen of both the village and the hamlet are appointed by the chief of the township. The members of different villages or hamlets are bound principally by affinal ties. They may cooperate for the common good, but they lack any formal organization of an indigenous character. Disputes between members of the same hamlet are settled, if possible, within the hamlet. Those between members of different hamlets of the same village are adjudicated by a council composed of the village headman and the heads of the hamlets involved. If this council cannot effect a settlement, the litigants have a right to carry their dispute to the chief of the township or even to the Chinese court of the county.’ [4] ’They [the Ch’uan Hmong; comment by RA] do not live in villages, towns, or cities but are interspersed among a much larger population of Chinese who live in the towns and cities and in many of the farmhouses.’ [5] Government offices were generally located in Chinese towns and provincial capitals: ’Like Kweiyang, the hsien city of Lung-li was in an open plain, but a narrow one. The space between the mountains was sufficient for a walled town of one long street between the east and west gates and one or two on either side. There were fields outside the city walls. Its normal population was between three and four thousand, augmented during the war by the coming of some “companies” for the installation and repair of charcoal burners in motor lorries and the distillation of grain alcohol for fuel, an Army officers’ training school, and the engineers’ corps of the railway being built through the town from Kwangsi to Kweiyang. To it the people of the surrounding contryside, including at least three groups of Miao and the Chung-chia, went to market. It was also the seat of the hsien government and contained a middle school, postal and telegraph offices, and a cooperative bank, with all of which the non-Chinese, as well as the Chinese, had some dealings. A few of the more well-to-do families sent one of their boys to the middle school. Cases which could not be settled in the village or by the lien pao official, who was also a Chinese, were of necessity brought to the hsien court, as well as cases which involved both Miao and Chinese.’ [6] The infrastructural facilities available to urban and rural settlements differed considerably: ’The Ch’uan Miao are an ethnic group living on the borders of Szechwan, Kweichow, and Yunnan Provinces, western China. The country is very mountainous with numerous peaks rising 3,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level. There are many streams, forests, waterfalls, perpendicular or overhanging cliffs, natural caves and natural bridges, and deepholes or pits where the water disappears into the bowels of the earth. While the roads between the Chinese towns and villages are generally paved with stones, most of the roads are narrow footpaths up and down the steep mountainsides or through fields and forests.’ [7] [1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao [2]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 59 [3]: Che-lin, Wu, Chen Kuo-chün, and Lien-en Tsao 1942. “Studies Of Miao-I Societies In Kweichow”, 8 [4]: Rui, Yifu 1960. “Magpie Miao Of Southern Szechuan”, 145 [5]: Diamond, Norma: Cultural Summary for the Miao [6]: Mickey, Margaret Portia 1947. “Cowrie Shell Miao Of Kweichow”, 40b [7]: Graham, David Crockett 1954. “Songs And Stories Of The Ch’Uan Miao", 1 |
||||||
|
1. Capital city2. town3. feudal estates4. village
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Taosi (280 ha) 2. More than 100ha (3) 3. Between 10 and 99 ha (23) 4. Smaller than 10 ha (27) "It is argued that Taosi controlled a three- (Liu and Chen 2012, p. 221) or four-tier (He 2013) settlement hierarchy in the area between the Fen River and the Kuai River. A recent study counted 54 Taosi-period sites in this region; at least 3 of them, not including Taosi itself, are more than 100 ha in size, 23 are between 10 and 99 ha, and the rest are smaller (He 2013). Regardless of the exact number of hierarchical tiers (which in any case may be impossible to determine based on current data), the range in size, the more-or-less even distribution of the largest sites, and the association between labor investment and the largest site (Taosi) do suggest the development of a regional settlement hierarchy and the ability of the center(s) to recruit labor and accumulate resources." [1] "At the same time, there was an increase in the size of settlements. All the Longshan settlements in the Zhengzhou-Luoyang region can be classified into four different size groups: (1) from 40-100ha, (2) 15-40ha, (3) 5-15 ha, and (4) smaller than 5 ha. So far there are only 10 sites in the large size class, just 1 percent of the known sites, including two sites of the Wangwan Type north of the Songshan mountains: Cuoli in the Luoyang city area (50ha) and Miaodian in Jiyuan city (80ha); and two sites of the Meishan Type south of the Songshan mountains: Xinzhai (over 100ha) and Wadian in Yuxian county (40ha). Although the quantity of small sites also had increased in comparison to the late Yangshao period, the sizes of the other, smaller sites had not increased (Zhao Chunqing 1999). The six other large sites are: Taipu 太仆 in Shanxian county (70ha), Boluoyao 菠萝窑 in Mengjin county (40ha), Xi- wangcun 西王村 in Luoning county (45ha), Laofandian 老樊店 in Songxian county (50 ha), Dasima 大司马 in Wuzhi county (100 ha), and Yangxiang 杨香 in Qinyang county (75ha)." [2] "Settlement System. Scholars have focused on understanding individual sites rather than regions. Settlement hierarchies have been proposed for more than one region, primarily on the basis of large-scale reconnaissances. However, as noted above, a few systematic, regional surveys have begun. Relatively large settlements surrounded by walls Of rammed earth are present in several regions and are thought to represent political centers (such as Wangchenggang, Pingliangtai, Haojiatai, Mengzhuang, all in Henan; Dinggong, Bianxianwang, Jingyanggang in Shandong; Shijiahe in Hubei). For several areas, surveys and reconnaissances suggest three levels in the settlement hierarchies. It appears that good agricultural soils and water sources were important factors affecting site location. Regional surveys are beginning to reveal evidence for use of upland areas as well." [3] "Recent intensive surveys in Shandong and Henan have disclosed clusters of ruins of walled Longshan culture towns of different sizes, forming settlement hierarchies of at least two levels, some stretching over an area of several hundred square kilometers." [4] "From the network of small, largely self-sufficient villages of the middle Neolithic phase, the archaeological record of the Longshan era shows a hierarchical complex of territorial relationships gravitating around a single, increasingly large, political center. These hierarchical relationships probably included the creation of strong codependent ties between the center and its surrounding villages." [5] [1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339) [2]: (Zhao 2013, 242) [3]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157) [4]: (Chang 1999, 64) [5]: (Demattè 1999, 136) |
||||||
|
1. Royal capital.2. Aristocratic strongholds.3. Village
|
||||||
|
levels. inferred continuity with Tang periods
1. Capital 2. Large cities (21)3. smaller towns4. villages?5. Hamlets? |
||||||
|
pre-reforms (fifth c bce):
1. Capital city 2. town3. feudal estates (?)4. village post-reforms (fifth c bce): 1. Capital city 2. Commandery capital3. County4. town5. village |
||||||
|
1. Capital Cities (Столичные города) - Over 500,000 inhabitants.
2. ’Official’ Cities (Официальные города) - 10,000s to 100,000s inhabitants. 3. ’Statutory’ Cities (’Штатные’ города) - Provincial and Military Cities (Губернские и войсковой города) - 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants. - District Cities (Уездные города) - 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants. 4. ’Non-Statutory’ Cities (’Внештатные’ города) - 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants. 5. ’Extra-Statutory’ and ’Without District’ Cities (Заштатные и безуездные города) - 5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. 6. Intermediary Type (Промежуточный тип) - Various ’Small Towns’ (Различные ’городки’) - Below 5,000 inhabitants. - Slobodas (Слободы) - 2,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. - Colony Centers (Центр колонии) - 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants. 7. Specialized Cities and Urban Settlements (Специализированные города и городские поселения) - Small Towns (Местечки) - Below 5,000 inhabitants. - Industrial Settlements (Промышленные поселения при крупных заводах и рудниках) - 3,000 to 10,000 inhabitants. - Ports and Harbors (Порты и пристани) - 5,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. - Cities-Fortresses as District Centers (Города-крепости, являющиеся центрами уездов) - 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. 8. Fortifications with Urban Functions (Укрепления, имеющие городские функции) - Fortresses (Крепости) - A few hundred to a few thousand inhabitants. - Siberian Ostrogs (Остроги Сибири) - Below 1,000 inhabitants. [1] [1]: Белов Алексей Викторович, “Сеть Городов и Городских Поселений Российской Империи При Павле I,” Труды Исторического факультета Санкт-Петербургского университета, no. 11 (2012): 35–44. Zotero link: 3JZDNFD8 |
||||||
|
1. Capital (homeland).2. Capital (eastern lands).3. Vassal strongholds.4. Towns.5. Villages.
|
||||||
|
levels.
Example in the Li Luo River Valley:1. Big villages. 75ha is the biggest in the Li Luo River Valley. 2. Smaller villages. 3 to 6 ha. "There was significant differentiation in the size of middle and late phase Yangshao settlements. Settlement hierarchies have been identified from systematic survey and reconnaissance (Liu 1996; Liu and Chen 2000). In the Yi-Luo River valley,Yangshao sites range in size from less than one hectare to about 75 hectares, which formed a two-tiered settlement hierarchy (Liu 1996:254). There is a three- tiered hierarchy in the Lingbao region of western Henan. There is an unusually large settlement (about 90 hectares) called Beiyangping located between two tributaries, while most sites range in size from about 2 hectares to 36 hectares (Henan Institute of Cultural Relics et al. 1999; Henan Team et al. 1995)." [1] Example in the Yangping River Valley:1. Regional center. eg: Beiyangping, 90 ha. 2. Secondary central settlement. Eg: Xipo, 40 ha.3. Smaller villages. 2ha and bigger. "A full-coverage survey was conducted in the Zhudingyuan 铸鼎原 area in central Lingbao in western Henan in 1999 to establish a database of prehistoric sites along two small tributaries of the Yellow river - the Yangping 阳平 river in the west and the Sha 沙 river in the east. A total of 31 sites, dating from the pre-Yangshao to late Longshan 龙山 periods were recorded. For the Miaodigou period, there was a sharp increase in the quantity of settlements (from 13 in the early Yangshao period to 19) and a marked increase in the size of settlements (from 44ha in the early Yangshao period to 189.3 ha). Even more significantly, a clear three-tiered settlement hierarchy appeared in the Miaodigou period. The Beiyangping site in the middle Yangping river valley is about 90 ha in size and obviously a regional center. The Xipo site previously mentioned, located in the upper Sha river valley, is 40ha in size and the secondary central settlement. The full survey in the Yuanqu 垣曲 basin in southern Shanxi resulted in the same pattern. There also was a sharp increase in quantity of settlements (from eight in the early Yangshao to 20) and size (from 25.16ha in early Yangshao to 109.16) during the Miaodigou period. A three-tiered hierarchy of settlements occurred in the basin for the first time. The largest site, Beibaotou 北堡头, is 30 ha in size and might have been the regional center. The second largest site, Xiaozhao 小赵, is 15 ha in size and might have been a secondary center. The rank-size distribution is near a log-normal curve, indicating a well-integrated social system (Dai 2006: 19)." [2] "In the earlier phase, the settlement patterns exhibited strong egalitarian tendencies. No settlement hierarchy has been detected. In the later period, the variation of settlement size and structure increased; some settlements were built in masonry or earthen wall enclosures. Although systematic settlement system study is still lacking, it has been noted that some sites, in the dozens, clustered together, and the variation in site size suggests the emergence of settlement hierarchy." [3] "Many of these sites were occupied during the middle Yangshao phase as well, up to ca. 3500 B.C. Most sites range in size from ca. 3 to 6 hectares (Chang 1986:116-19), but Jiangzhai, an extensively excavated site, is ca. 18 hectares in size (Yan 1999:136)." [4] [1]: (Underhill and Habu 2008, 131-132) [2]: (Li 2013, 218) [3]: (Lee in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 334) [4]: (Underhill and Habu 2008, 128) |
||||||
|
levels. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ‘1’ or ‘None’.
(1) Residential Hamlets The Shuar lived in autonomous residential hamlets (these are sometimes referred to as ’Jivaras’ by scholars): ’Each community is politically independent with its own headman. Each is also located four or more kilometers from their nearest neighboring community. The community is made up of patrilineally and affinally related individuals, traditionally consisting of from 80 to 300 people (30 to 40 people in the twentieth century), living in one house called a JIVARIA. For defensive purposes, this house is built on a steep hill usually at the upper end of a stream. The house itself is approximately 13 meters by 26 meters in size, elliptical in shape, and has a thatched roof. In times of war, two or more communities united to fight a common enemy, as was the case when the Spanish attempted to conquer them.’ [1] The Jivaria housed the whole kin-based community: ’The Jívaro have a tropical-forest agriculture, growing cassava, corn (maize), sweet potatoes, and other crops supplemented by the gathering of wild fruits, fishing, and hunting. The blowgun and poisoned darts are their chief weapons. Related families live in a single large community house rather than in a village.’ [2] ’The houses are always very spacious since they have to serve more than one family. According to one of my informants, such a house is inhabited by up to 50 persons. As a rule it is the Curaca, as the chief, with his children and their wives and husbands. And since a Curaca may have up to ten wives, the great number of dwellers can be explained without difficulty. The aforementioned house of the Curaca Laichape had a width of 10 meters and a length of 15 meters. 20 - 30 persons lived in this house.’ [3] ’It is the rule that a settlement consists of only one house. Two houses, as I had seen them, for instance, in S. Antonio, are rarely found together. The various houses form, however, larger or smaller groups, separated from each other by forest and yet connected with each other by narrow footpaths. One such group has a definite name.’ [3] ’“Jivaro houses, it might be noted, are never built closely together after the manner of a village, but widely separated in the jungle, with greater resultant personal freedom and less squabbling amongst neighbours. A wise precaution which we in our country might emulate to advantage.”’ [4] ’Generally, there are many families living in a single house, usually about 15 people united by close family ties. The building has the form of an elongated ellipse( ) (fig. 10). the long axis of which measures 15 to 25 meters. The framework is made in the following manner: two posts about 4 meters high, placed in the foci of the ellipse, support a longitudinal ridge-pole, four other posts measuring about 3 meters in height, located on the periphery at the angles of the [584] rectangle inscribed in this ellipse, support two transverse longitudinal timbers which outline this rectangle. All this framework is of chonta wood (Bactris Iriartea) and the joints are secured with the aid of lianas. The walls( ) are made of cane-stalks (Guadua angustifolia) placed close together; in addition to this they are reinforced on the inside to a height of 1 50 from the ground by planks of chonta or caña about 5 cm. wide, arranged in such a manner that their joints never coincide with the interstices of the exterior wall. This precaution is for the purpose of preventing an enemy thrusting his lance through the fissures and striking the Jíbaro in his bed, which, as well shall see, is backed up against the partition. The battens are made of caña stalks spaced o 50 apart and placed in diverging rays from the longitudinal beam to the peripheral beams; cross-beams placed at the same distance from each other complete the lattice work upon which the roof rests; the roof is formed of little bundles of straw called cambana or of leaves of a kind of Pandanus (cambaalga), skillfully imbricated from the edges toward the center.’ [5] Autonomous hamlets were separated by no-man’s lands: ’The redistribution of settlements and creation of no-man’s lands between them has been a repeated consequence of escalated hostilities between or within Jivaroan subgroups. The fact that these buffer zones may not be reoccupied or exploited for several decades is important to the reestablishment of game densities in zones that may have experienced considerable hunting over long periods of time. The relationship between game depletion, armed conflict, and no-man’s lands is explored below and in greater detail elsewhere (see Bennett Ross 1980:48,53).’ [6] ’The escalation of hostilities also may lead relatives to withdraw from home communities and unite at a single fortified settlement. However, attempts to construct separate dwellings and gardens require time and considerable effort, and the stress placed on the facilities and resources available to such communities provides an important impetus to reconcile the difficulties when possible.’ [7] Hamlets were left behind and reestablished elsewhere periodically: ’The Indians are inhabitants of a region which extends along the upper course of the Marañón River, from Yusamaro downward to Puerto Meléndez at the Pongo de Manseriche. They live in this region in small and widely dispersed settlements close to the banks of the River. I have been informed that their chief settlements are located farther up along the tributary rivers. Beyond Yusamaro no Indians are said to remain anymore, yet formerly their settlements are said to have extended to the Pongo Rentema. They had moved down to the Marañón River on account of the quarrels they had with the whites or, rather, the mestizos. Their settlements can not be called permanent anyway. Despite the fact that the Indians live at one place for a long time, and in relatively permanent dwellings at that, they are said to leave their settlements frequently for no special reason in order to reestablish themselves again at some distance from the former settlement.’ [8] During the early Ecuadorian period, there was apparently no significant migration of Shuar to colonial towns: ’By 1899, when the explorer Up de Graff ascended the Marañón, Barranca was considered the westernmost outpost of civilization on the river (1923:146). It had, nevertheless, withstood its own share of Indian attacks (Larrabure i Correa 1905/II:369; IX:357-367). Less than a year prior to Up de Graff’s visit, Barranca was nearly devastated by a party of Huambisas who arrived from upriver ostensibly to trade, but then burned and looted most of the cauchero quarters (Up de Graff 1923:150).’ [9] ’By the turn of the century, when Ecuadorian missionaries had reunited some of the scattered refugees and reestablished their town on the Bobonaza River, there were at least a dozen caucheros exploiting rubber along western tributaries of the middle Pastaza such as the Huasaga (Fuentes 1908/I:194ff.), which was gradually being occupied by southward-moving Achuarä.’ [10] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jivaro [3]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 52 [4]: Dyott, George Miller 1926. “On The Trail Of The Unknown In The Wilds Of Ecuador And The Amazon”, 160 [5]: Rivet, Paul 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research”, 583p [6]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 93 [7]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 96 [8]: Brüning, Hans H. 1928. “Travelling In The Aguaruna Region”, 46 [9]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 91 [10]: Bennett Ross, Jane 1984. “Effects Of Contact On Revenge Hostilities Among The Achuará Jívaro”, 89 |
||||||
|
EWA:
1. Cairo 150K, 2. Alexandria 35-70k or Damascus 18-50k,3. Nomal/Provincial Capitals like Fayum City 10-20k,4. Villages 1-2k,5. Hamlets 0.1-0.2 (inferred) Ref: Shatzmiller. for low estimates. Russell for the high estimates. |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Cairo, capital. 2. Provincial capitals (e.g. Damascus) 3. Dependent cities (e.g. Mecca and Medina) 4. Large townships. 5. Small towns. [2] 6. Villages 7. Hamlets and Tribes. [1]: Luz, N. 2014. The Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape. Cambridge University Press [2]: Rabbat, N. 2010. Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria. Bloomsbury Publishing |
||||||
|
EWA: 4 Memphis, 3 regional centres like Hierakonpolies and Abidos, 2 minor centre like Aswan/Naga-el-Deir, 1 villages. ref. Bard 2014, 2nd edition.
1. Memphis 2. Regional centres like Hierakonpolis and Abydos3. Minor centres like Aswan and Naga-el-Deir4. Villages(5. Hamlets) EWA final: this variable for early dynastic to Hyksos should be 4 to 5. The reason is that we can infer the existince of hamlets at the bottom end of the scale. This should be implemented for all the intermediate polities. |
||||||
|
Reference: Hassan.
The rough hierarchy is as follows: 1. Alexandria 300-400K 2. Memphis and Ptolemais 100K 3. nome captials (e.g. Thebes, Mendes, Krokodilopolis) 30-40K ref for Thebes: Vleeming. Hundred-gated Thebes. 1995. 4. towns 5-10K 5. villages 1-2K 6. hamlets/scattered settlements 0.1 to 0.2K. EWA: ref. W. Clarysse. an article 1994 Memphis D J Thompson has hectare dat Alexandria New Archaeology may have hectare data |
||||||
|
levels. AD: uncoded, so replaced by a code.
1. Memphis, capital. 2. Town3. Village(4. Hamlet) |
||||||
|
levels. Six levels under later Fatimids and earlier Abbasids.
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Lineage Dwellings or Hamlets Extended family households traditionally served as the primary residential units: ’The domestic unit was an extended family, based on the women of a lineage or sublineage. It consisted of at least one experienced older woman and two more younger women of childbearing age together with their husbands. Unmarried sons and brothers slept apart in their lineage’s meeting house. Extended family households continued through the periods of foreign administration.’ [1] ’These impressive sites, however, do not reflect the experience of the average Micronesian. Most lived in dispersed extended-family homesteads. On atolls, the inhabitants generally preferred the lagoon side of the larger islands for ease in launching canoes and for protection from cyclones. On the high islands, people also wanted access to lagoons, although easily defensible sites were sometimes preferred, such as the tops of steep cleared slopes.’ [2] ’In aboriginal times there used to be associated with most lineages a dwelling house, jimw. This house varied in size depending on the number of its inhabitants. Since married men normally went to live in the jimw of their wives’ lineages, the occupants of an jimw were the women of a lineage and their husbands. The only males of the lineage who resided there were boys below puberty. A large jimw was usually partitioned off into sleeping compartments along its side walls under the eaves, one for each married woman and her husband with their small children, and a separate one for the unmarried girls past puberty. The house had a sand floor spread over with coconut fronds. Its occupants slept and sat on mats plaited from pandanus leaves. The central part of the house formed a sort of living room in which minor cooking was done over an open fire, ordinary meals were taken, and where the members of the household whiled away the time before going to bed.’ [3] ’Not all houses were of this type, for some were much smaller, without partitions, and were occupied by only one or two couples. Such houses were used when a lineage had only a few women, or when a man brought his wife to live on his own land instead of going to live in her lineage household. In the latter case it was customary to build a separate house for the man and wife, since it is normally taboo for a man to sleep in the same house with his sisters. A small house might also be built alongside the main one if the latter became too crowded.’ [3] The settlement pattern became more concentrated in the colonial period, with households merging into villages: ’Chuuk was divided into small districts, each consisting of a small island or a wedge-shaped segment of a larger one. Not clustered into villages, households were scattered on rising land back from the shore. With population growth many of the once looser neighborhoods have become more densely settled villages. Land holdings were scattered.’ [1] ’The old, large lineage house is in little use today. The Trukese now live in smaller houses of the old type or in new-style houses, raised on posts and built of planks with corrugated iron roofs. These smaller houses are still occupied by the women of a lineage, either singly or in pairs, and are clustered together either by lineage or by descent line. [Page 68] Thus the old pattern of organization is still maintained even though the physical arrangement has been somewhat modified.’ [4] Land was held by individuals as well as lineages: ’Land was held privately both by individuals and matrilineal, corporate descent groups. Rights in undeveloped space, productive soil, trees and gardens were separable. When soil and breadfruit trees were given in grant, the grantor retained residual rights and the grantee acquired provisional rights. Grantors and grantees could be either individuals or corporations. Full rights went to the survivor on the death or extinction of the other.’ [1] [1]: Goodenough, Ward and Skoggard 1999) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5IETI75E. [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 67 [4]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 67p |
||||||
|
levels. "Towns began to appear in the late first millennium over much of Europe, with considerable populations and large-scale industrial activity."
[1]
From this we can infer that most settlements before the 1st millennium BCE were villages or hamlets."The fortified settlements had a hierarchical system of population with an area of influence more or less extensive."
[2]
[1]: (McIntosh 2006, 155) [2]: (Clop Garcia 2001, 25) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village or Gemarkungen settlement4. Hamlet or Farmstead Possible settlement levels [1] Estimated size of farmstead populations: 10-25 people. Village Gemarkungen settlement (idealised as 6km2 hexagon, 300-360 people - Lower Rhine area) Towns Cities Clovis victorious over Alamans c506 CE. Region retained own identity and law code. Dux/duces. [2] [1]: (Damminger in Wood ed. 1998, 61-69) [2]: (Wood 1994, 161) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Large town e.g. capital Kediri/Daha 2. Village3. Hamlet Ruling class, religious authority, hamlets, non-farming sub-communities, commoners, slaves. Hamlets within villages came to increased prominence and became taxable units within the larger community. Other non-farming sub-communities emerged as regular features of expanded settlement complexes e.g. groups of artisans, small religious establishments, and merchant enclaves. [1] " [2] [1]: (Christie 1991, 36) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) |
||||||
|
levels. Based on codes from previous and subsequent polities: by Satavahana Empire - 1.Capital 2. nagara (city or palace) 3. nigama (market town) 4. gama.
[1]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2001: 170) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/JZ73UGSF. |
||||||
|
levels. "Sizable settlements do not figure in the purely plain areas until the coming of the Iron Age."
[1]
[1]: (Sharma 2007: 71) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/NBZAVZ3U. |
||||||
|
levels.
The British sent punitive campaigns into the hills in order to suppress resistance as well as infighting. Full administrative control was established around 1873. Most authors consider the area ’pacified’ for the remainder of the colonial period. The ’military’ codes refer to armed groups of A’chik villagers rather than the British colonial troops. According to Ethnographic Atlas variable 31 ’Mean Size of Local Communities’, the A’chik possess groups of ’100-199’, smaller than 200-399, 400-1000, any town of more than 5,000, Towns of 5,000-50,000 (one or more), and Cities of more than 50,000 (one or more). SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ’2 levels above community’. (1) Village and (2) Hamlet. (3) Town; (2) Village; (1) Hamlet The A’chik population was mostly rural, but with some urban migration to the administrative capital of the district occurring during the colonial period: ‘Tura is the only town in the district. It is the administrative headquarters of the Garo Hills district. According to 1961 Census, it had a population of 8,888 out of which 4,370 were Garo. Tura is linked with the plains of Assam by three major roads; one enters the district near its north-eastern corner and traverses the district almost diagonally half-way; the other two roads enter the district through the north-western corner and one traverses the district south-eastwardly diagonally half-way, and the other follows the western border of the district, but from the middle of the western border line enters Tura from an westerly direction. All these three roads are all-weather roads meant for all types of vehicular traffic.’ [1] Residential villages vary in size: ‘The population in a village ranges from 20 to 1,000 persons. The population density tends to decrease as one moves towards the interior areas from the urban areas of the districts. Villages are scattered and distant from one another in the interior areas. These villages are generally situated on the top of hillocks. The houses are built together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pig sties. The houses are built, together with granaries, firewood sheds, and pigsties, on piles around the slope of the hillock, using locally available bamboo, wood, grass, etc. The approach to the rectangular house is always built facing the leveled surface of the top, while the rear part of the house remains horizontal to the slope. Nowadays new pile-type buildings using wood and iron as major components are being made in some traditional villages also. In addition, buildings similar to those of the neighboring plains are also constructed. The villages may remain distant from agricultural fields (JHUM). In order to guard a crop (during agricultural seasons) from damage by wild animals, the people build temporary watchtowers (BORANQ) in trees in the field. Bachelor dormitories exist in some villages for meetings and recreation.’ [2] The mean size of villages may have decreased during the colonial period: ‘In former days, Garo villages were of considerable size and used to contain as many as two or three hundred houses. Liability to attack by a neighbouring village made this necessary, and the danger was further guarded against by sowing the approaches with sharp-pointed bamboo stakes called wamisi in Garo, but better known as panjis. These presented a very formidable obstacle to an enemy, and effectually prevented a sudden attack. Nowadays, when every man is at peace with his neighbour, the necessity no longer exists for large collections of houses, and the difficulty of finding sufficient land close to big villages for the support of their inhabitants, has resulted in their being broken up into small hamlets situated perhaps as much as four or five miles apart, which, however, in most cases, retain the name of the parent village. In order to distinguish them there is added to the name of each hamlet the name of its nokma, or headman.’ [3] ‘In Garo society the village is the largest group of which all the members regularly join in cooperative activities, but more extensive organizations are also recognized. First, several neighboring villages may be considered to be related. One of these is usually believed to have been the original village from which the founders of the other “daughter” villages moved. [...] The peace which the British imposed on the hills may have made it possible to live in smaller and more scattered villages than the people had formerly done. Perhaps most of the groups of linked villages that are now to be found have resulted from the splitting of larger villages during the period of British rule. The difficulty of access to the fields would make more dispersed settlement desirable so long as enemies did not threaten. Nowadays villages only rarely move, split up, or die out. I saw just one village in the process of being moved. This was an undertaking that was destined to last for three years, since the villagers could not muster sufficient labor to rebuild more than a third of their houses in a single year. The move was being made solely for the sake of the water supply, which was failing at the old site.’ [4] New villages grow out of small pioneer hamlets: ‘There are different sizes of village in the Garo Hills. I have seen small villages consisting of two or three huts, practically isolated from all the advantages of a big village. On the other hand, in a big village there may be as many as fifty or more huts. The size of the big village entirely depends on the space that is available for the house building and also the facilities the inhabitants of the village may derive for cultivation and other purposes from the surroundings of the locality. The largest village, I visited, was situated on the slopes of the hills, as is the usual practice, facing long strip of valley, nearly about a mile and a half long and about half a mile broad. It is easily understandable that people living in such villages take to plough and utilise the valley for agricultural purposes. It has, therefore, the advantage of accommodating larger people than it is possible for the village which is situated on the hill slopes and which is to depend primarily on jhum cultivation as described hereafter. Usually, an average sized village contains ten to fifteen houses. The economic factor is one of the main guiding principles regarding the expansion of a village. Availability of arrable land or hillocks for jhum cultivation, good drinking water, facilities of conveyance and also facilities of market places are some of the main factors, which the Garos consider before they fix up a place to start a new village. The common practice is to have one house for one family consisting of husband, wife, and children. Occasionally, the old mother or the mother-in-law also stays in the family.’ [5] As indicated above, we have provisionally assumed that migration to Tura was fairly insignificant in the early colonial period. [1]: Majumdar, Dhirendra Narayan 1978. “Culture Change In Two Garo Villages”, 16 [2]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [3]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garos”, 40 [4]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 235 [5]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 7 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. City 2. Town3. Village |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital (Baghdad) 2. Regional city (e.g. Isfahan)3. Smaller city/town (e.g. port, Basra)4. Town/Village5. Hamlet? |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with previous periods.
|
||||||
|
levels. Inferred continuity with previous periods.
|
||||||
|
levels.
8,000-7,000 BCE Neolithic, includes site of Ali Kosh in Khuzistan. "Sedentary village communities began to have between 250 and 500 inhabitants, regular mud-brick houses, and an economy based on agriculture and the farming of sheep, goats and pigs (and cattle by the end of the period)." [1] According to Mortensen early villages may have clustered together, "each group widely separated from the next." Examples in Susiana: Chogha Bonut, Boneh Favili, and Chogha Mish." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 38) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Frank 1987, 83) Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. |
||||||
|
[1]
1. Capital 2. Provincial capitals 3. District capitals (shahrestan) 4. Large towns 5. Villages 6. Nomadic fiefs (Late Sasanian period nomads given fiefs in return for military service). [1]: (Daryaee 2009, 124-135, 148) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital. Susa 2. Provincial capitals and towns3. Villages4. Hamlets. |
||||||
|
levels."Susa figuratively, and perhaps literally, heads the settlement system. The next level consists of agricultural villages and herding camps, which are full-range domestic and economic units. The third tier holds the specialist communities: the Khan’s houses, craft manufactories, and possibly trading posts. Most of this diversity is evidenced in excavations or inferred from survey, but to define types does not enable us to specify how many of each type may be present or to exclude the possibility that a single site may have served several functions."
[1]
1. Susa 2. Agricultural villages and herding camps3. Khan’s houses, craft manufactories and trading posts. Number of sites in Susiana [2] : Early Susa Phase: 58 Late Susa Phase: 31 Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE): 18 "Second, with the exception of Susa and Chogha Mish, the sites were uniformly small, well under two hectares, although there is a slight tendency for sites that were occupied longer to be larger (table 9)." [2] "With roughly forty small settlements around it on the Susiana plain, Susa in the Susa I period was at least four times larger than any of its neighbours (Wright and Johnson 1985: 25; see also Hole 1985) and clearly, by virtue of its stepped platform, in possession of a monumental structure which, regardless of its exact function, must have been unusual in the context of Khuzistan in the late fifth and early fourth millennium BC. Whether, therefore, we wish to describe it using terms such as ‘ceremonial centre’, or to characterize its level of social organization as a ‘chiefdom’, as some scholars have chosen to do, is another matter. [3] "It is clear that there was a temple center at Susa but it is quite unclear what its effect was on any individual settlement. With a ’span of control’ (see Johnson, chapter 4) of fifty to seventy sites (the number of sites under its authority) and considering the distances to remote sites, its leaders could have effected only the most minimal control on the region generally, although as a shrine it may have commanded devout allegiance." [4] "To continue with the settlement system, we have a center at Susa and elite residences at scattered sites. Other sites, for the most part, are therefore residential and nonelite. I propose that there are also “manufactories”, sites at which certain crafts such as pot making or basket making, flint knapping, cheese making, and so forth were practised (Hole 1983). A site of this type would be Jaffarabad during the Choga Mish Phase when it consisted solely of ceramic kilns. Depending on the distribution of raw products and the development of market proclivities, there might have been a large number of such specialist sites which could, of course, have occurred at residential villages and herding camps as well. Finally, we must consider the pastoral component. Although we lack any direct evidence of it during this period on the Susiana Plain, a well-developed pastoral economy in western Iran is implied by the tombs in the mountains of Pushti-Kuh." [4] [1]: (Hole 1987, 92) [2]: (Hole 1987, 42) [3]: (Potts 1999, 49-50) [4]: (Hole 1987, 43) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
1. Capital, Rome
2. City in provinces/dutchies 3. Towns 4. Villages |
||||||
|
1. Rome.
2. Satellite town.3. Villages (need to be checked). |
||||||
|
levels.
1. The capital (e.g. Ravenna) 2. Administrative centers (e.g. Rome)3. Provincial capitals (Londinium)4. Larger towns5. village/vici6. pagi (rural settlements) |
||||||
|
6. Cities (palace, monumental structures, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples)
Population:??? ‘Between 1550 and 1700 Kyoto was the first city to surpass a population of 100,000 people.’ [1] 5. Castle Town /Market Town (market, regional government buildings, military fortifications) Population: ’Castle towns trace their origin to the Muromachi period and the construction of wooden defenses typically located on hills for reasons of protection and surveillance. These fortifications were the precursors to the castles and castle-building styles that grew more elaborate during the Warring States period. As the military and political significance of castles grew, they also became the focal point for economic activity within their local region. With the rise of commerce around castles, merchants, artisans, and peasants joined the warrior class in taking up residence within a castle’s sphere of influence. Castles became castle towns as a result.’ [2] ‘During the 16th century, castle towns (joka machi) began their transformation into town and city complexes. This occurred in part because castle towns served as government administration centres. Many daimyo and almost all samurai lived within the castle town complexes. Merchants, traders, artisans, craftspeople, and others were eventually incorporated into these towns and cities to provide the labor and market activity needed to support the work conducted there and to further build and maintain the infrastructure. As a result of this dynamic, castle and market towns came to occupy the same location.’ [3] 4. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? ’Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods’ [4] 3. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [3] 2. Post-Station Towns (accommodation, shops, entertainment, transport hubs) Population:??? ‘Post-station towns (shukuba machi or shukueki) grew up along the medieval and early modern road systems that connected cities and towns to each other.’ [3] Their presence in the Muromachi period is referenced in (Yamamura 2008:p251) ’the shugosho were frequently located in post towns and port cities, areas of strategic importance in communications.’ [5] 1. Village (residential) Population:10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life.’ [4] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.63. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.60 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. [5]: Yamamura, Kozo (ed). 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 3. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press [sixth edition].p.251 |
||||||
|
levels.
4.City 3. Town2. village1. Hamlet |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Relatively permanent large-scale settlements.These were the main residential sites. It is unclear whether they were occupied year-round or whether the main settlement was moved seasonally. 2. Smaller, shorter-lived settlements. Also: Extremely small sites, made up of one or two buildings. Extremely small sites, where there is evidence for use/occupation, but not of buildings. [1]: Matsui, A. 2001. Jomon. In Peregrine, P. and M. Ember (eds) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 3: East Asia and Oceania 119-126. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. |
||||||
|
3. large settlements
2. small villages1. hamlets |
||||||
|
levels.
Coded 6 for previous period. Should we assume loss of at least one level for this period? |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
‘the urban population grew from about 1.4 million (7 or 8 per cent of the total) in the early Tokugawa period to about 5 million (about 16 per cent of the total) by the end of the century.’
[3]
6. Metropolises (palace, monumental structures, theatre, market, central government buildings, military fortifications, transport hubs, shrines, temples) Population: 200,000 -1,400,000 [2] Edo (Tokyo), Kyoto and Osaka ‘were commonly referred to as the santo (three metropolises), and were the three main pillars of the urban system. [3] ‘Between 1550 and 1700 Kyoto was the first city to surpass a population of 100,000 people. By 1700 the city was estimated to have approximately 350,000 individuals. Osaka had roughly 500,000 people in the mid 18th century, dropping to 375,000 in 1801 and 317,000 in 1854.’ [2] 5. Castle Town /Market Town (market, theatre, regional government buildings, military fortifications) Population:1,000-100,000 [3] Estimated about 200 Castle towns throughout the archipelago. [3] ‘During the 16th century, castle towns (joka machi) began their transformation into town and city complexes. This occurred in part because castle towns served as government administration centres. Many daimyo and almost all samurai lived within the castle town complexes. Merchants, traders, artisans, craftspeople, and others were eventually incorporated into these towns and cities to provide the labor and market activity needed to support the work conducted there and to further build and maintain the infrastructure. As a result of this dynamic, castle and market towns came to occupy the same location.’ [4] 4. Post-Station Towns (accommodation, shops, entertainment, transport hubs) Population: 500- 3,000 ‘Post-station towns (shukuba machi or shukueki) grew up along the medieval and early modern road systems that connected cities and towns to each other.’ [4] ‘...by the later Tokugawa period there were some 250 stations spotted irregularly at intervals of about 5-10kilometers... At each town a manager’s office supervised the station’s activities, while inns furnished lodgings and shop provided entertainment, footgear, meals, medicines, and other essentials. In addition, each town was supposed to maintain a specified number of porters and packhorses to move goods and people. [5] 3. Port Towns (accommodation, trade, transport hubs) Population:??? Port towns grew up around sea ports that developed flourishing trading centers in the medieval and early modern periods... Even after restrictions on foreign trade were enacted by the shogunate in the 16th century, ports engaged in domestic trade continued to thrive. [6] 2. Temple/Shrine Towns (shrines, temples, accommodation) Population:??? ‘Temple and shrine towns (monzen machi) originated in the vicinity of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, usually along the roads leading to these religious sites. These towns served the needs of pilgrims visiting the temples and shrines. Establishments that developed along these routes provided food and lodging to pilgrims, and sold amulets and other religious items. As religious sites grew in size, so did the permanent infrastructure needed to support this activity.’ [4] 1. Village (residential) Population:10-100 ‘Besides farm villages, fishing villages were a feature of medieval and early modern rural life, and mountain villages developed in the early modern period around lumber and other products that found flourishing markets in the expanding towns and cities of the Edo period.’ [6] [1]: Sorensen, André. 2005. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty First Century. Routledge.p.12 [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.63. [3]: Sorensen, André. 2005. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty First Century. Routledge.p.12. [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.61 [5]: Totman, Conrad. 1993. Early Modern Japan. University of California Press. Berkeley; London. p.154-55. [6]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.62. |
||||||
|
levels.
This is the code for the Hephthalites. 1. Fortified urban community 2. Village3. Nomadic peoples |
||||||
|
levels. Derived by extrapolating from Higham’s description of ancient Funan from 550 CE. ’Within this period of competition and endemic conflict [the 250 years from AD 550], the inscriptions of Jayavarman I reflect a breakthrough in state formation, with his appointment of state officials and creation of at least three and probably four levels of settlement hierarchy.’
[1]
[1]: (Higham 2014b, 405) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Capital city 2. Provincial cities?3. Towns?4. Villages/hamlets? |
||||||
|
levels. Lack of data. Estimate as with earlier polities.
1. Capital 2.3.4. |
||||||
|
levels. The earliest known village settlement have been found in the Valley of Mexico around 2000 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (Emmerich 1963: 20) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/ZZ8EAUQ8. |
||||||
|
levels. Information retrieved from a map of the settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico during the Aztec rulership.
[1]
[1]: (Smith 1979: 116-117) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2JN8GGSP |
||||||
|
levels. Information retrieved from Fig 3.3 of Carballo 2016
[1]
which indicates the presence of City/Supra-regional centre; town /provincial centres; and Village/hamlet in the Classic period settlement.
[1]: (Carballo 2016: 67) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7B7A8KA6. |
||||||
|
levels. The polity included Hamlets, Small Villages, Large villages and small provincial or regional centres. Information retrieved from table 5.13 of Sanders et al. 1979
[1]
[1]: (Sanders et al 1979: 138) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/L743EUD5. |
||||||
|
levels.
Four-tiered settlement hierarchy (1000-1400 CE) [1] 4. Cuzco (capital) - 50 ha 3. Administrative centre - c1300 CE onwards. Example: Pukara Pantillijlla, which was over 10ha [2] 2. Large villages - 7 ha 1. Small villages and hamlets - under 4 ha. [3] 1250-1350 CE: largest town to the north was the 10 ha Pukara Pantillijlla. [4] [1]: (Covey 2003, 338-339) [2]: (Covey 2003, 338) [3]: (Covey 2003, 339) [4]: (D’Altroy 2014, 82) |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Small Residential Villages Residential villages were predominant: ’Small villages with populations not exceeding 720 are the typical units of settlement, with houses dispersed in a more or less rectangular form around a central earth or grass "square." Villages are in flat clearings where the grass is scrupulously cut and kept free of rubbish. Houses are built by the men, each house normally being occupied by one nuclear family. Bachelors’ houses, of the same size and construction, are also built.’ [1] ’This chapter describes briefly the Orokaiva pattern of production and distribution, with particular reference to Sivepe and Inonda. Traditionally the villager operated within quite narrowly circumscribed physical limits. Each community functioned largely as an independent subsistence unit, almost all the requirements of life being produced through shifting agriculture and the subsidiary pursuits of fishing, hunting and foraging on its own land. Production was directed almost entirely to immediate and direct consumption, none of the staple foodstuffs except yams lending themselves to storage; exchange was confined largely to kindred within the community or in closely neighbouring communities. Beyond this, minor and informal trade links had developed between some of the inland and coastal peoples, but the degree of inter-dependence established can be considered insignificant.’ [2] The rural settlement pattern may have become more dispersed during the colonial period: ’Williams and others judge that with the modern pacification, the Orokaiva have tended to disperse in even smaller living units than before. This appears to apply particularly to the relatively densely populated Lamington slopes, though a few instances of larger aggregations approaching a village type also occurred, particularly as a result of Mission influence. Over against this greater dispersal, the people have mingled more freely as a result of travel on the government roads and trails (which they have to keep in order), trading, Mission and official gatherings, and other new opportunities for interpersonal relations. One special feature of Orokaiva life in modern times is the annual burning-off of grasslands by hunting parties in order to get wild game. This has probably involved the assembly of larger groups and is one of the few activities which could induce intersettlement co-operation. The writer sensed the parallel of the crude local fires set for garden clearing and the general burning-off of grasslands to the major burning and blackening in the wake of the volcano-doubtless a mighty job of clearing to the Orokaiva eye.’ [3] ’The social system is characterized by flexibility in arrangements for group membership and for transmission of rights to land. A village normally contains more than one clan branch and consequently is not necessarily a landholding unit. Residents may have closer kinship ties to residents of other villages than with some of their coresidents. Nevertheless, common residence implies some community of interest and a degree of group solidarity that is reinforced by government policy, which recognizes villages rather than descent groups as functional entities. Marriages between members of different clan branches within the village also reinforce this solidarity, which is expressed in ways such as daily food gifts, cooperation in certain tasks, and joint ceremonial activities. On the average, a lineage comprises three households. Usually, several clans are represented in a village, with members of a single clan (clan branches) being scattered among a number of neighboring villages. Lineages are more localized in cha racter, frequently being confined to a single village and tending to occupy one section of it.’ [1] [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Waddell, Eric, and P. A. Krinks 1968. “Organisation Of Production And Distribution Among The Orokaiva: An Analysis Of Work And Exchange In Two Communities Participating In Both The Subsistence And Monetary Sectors Of The Economy”, 23 [3]: Keesing, Felix Maxwell 1952. “Papuan Orokaiva Vs Mt. Lamington: Cultural Shock And Its Aftermath”, 18 |
||||||
|
levels. SCCS variable 157 ’Scale 9-Political Integration’ is coded as ‘2’ or ’Autonomous local communities’. We have excluded colonial settlements from the code here.
[(1) Colonial Settlements;] (2) Small Residential Villages Residential villages are predominant: ’Small villages with populations not exceeding 720 are the typical units of settlement, with houses dispersed in a more or less rectangular form around a central earth or grass "square." Villages are in flat clearings where the grass is scrupulously cut and kept free of rubbish. Houses are built by the men, each house normally being occupied by one nuclear family. Bachelors’ houses, of the same size and construction, are also built.’ [1] ’This chapter describes briefly the Orokaiva pattern of production and distribution, with particular reference to Sivepe and Inonda. Traditionally the villager operated within quite narrowly circumscribed physical limits. Each community functioned largely as an independent subsistence unit, almost all the requirements of life being produced through shifting agriculture and the subsidiary pursuits of fishing, hunting and foraging on its own land. Production was directed almost entirely to immediate and direct consumption, none of the staple foodstuffs except yams lending themselves to storage; exchange was confined largely to kindred within the community or in closely neighbouring communities. Beyond this, minor and informal trade links had developed between some of the inland and coastal peoples, but the degree of inter-dependence established can be considered insignificant.’ [2] The rural settlement pattern may have become more dispersed during the colonial period: ’Williams and others judge that with the modern pacification, the Orokaiva have tended to disperse in even smaller living units than before. This appears to apply particularly to the relatively densely populated Lamington slopes, though a few instances of larger aggregations approaching a village type also occurred, particularly as a result of Mission influence. Over against this greater dispersal, the people have mingled more freely as a result of travel on the government roads and trails (which they have to keep in order), trading, Mission and official gatherings, and other new opportunities for interpersonal relations. One special feature of Orokaiva life in modern times is the annual burning-off of grasslands by hunting parties in order to get wild game. This has probably involved the assembly of larger groups and is one of the few activities which could induce intersettlement co-operation. The writer sensed the parallel of the crude local fires set for garden clearing and the general burning-off of grasslands to the major burning and blackening in the wake of the volcano-doubtless a mighty job of clearing to the Orokaiva eye.’ [3] The colonial authorities also established settlements. [Ira Baschkow (pers. comm.): Through WWII these were only small settlements, hardly worthy of the term "town" at all. Janice Newton (pers. comm.): A few families of Orokaivans had visited Port Moresby and worked there or been imprisoned there before the second World War, . By the 1970s Port Moresby had built up quite a large population in squatter settlements but these were informally ordered into regional sections and sometimes involved rent payments to original landowners. Popondetta was a small agricultural base before the war, became strategic during the war as an allied air base and was developed as a small administration centre with a few general stores after the war. Although there were small ’squatter like’ settlements around the outskirts in 1977-9 it was nothing like Port Moresby in terms of makeshift developments. Jonathan Ritchie (pers. comm.): Does he mean Port Moresby? The other ‘urban’ locations were hardly that, at least in Northern District/Province) - and wasn’t Higaturu the main centre - not a town at all but the administrative headquarters? Nigel Oram (Colonial Town to Melanesian City) and Ian Stuart (Port Moresby Yesterday and Today 1970.)have written about early Port Moresby (and should have population estimates).] ’The establishment of towns, unknown before the coming of Europeans, has forced an even more drastic adaptation than have the changes in rural areas. For a man to leave his village and go to work in the town means long separation from his family and from his kin, an experience unheard of in the past. Separation from his relatives means that he may be facing dangerous risks from the sorcery of foreigners in an unknown country. This is one reason why migrant workers tend to live in kin clusters in the towns. Unemployment, inadequate living quarters, low wages, the necessity for paying in cash for all goods and services, and the obligation to send cash gifts to relatives in the villages, all add to the town dwellers’ difficulties.’ [4] ’The small urban population lives for the most part in towns whose original location was determined either by access to a good harbour for early colonial planters or, in the interior, by the availability of level land sufficient for an airstrip. Despite the greatly diminished importance of plantations and the relocation of most of these airstrips out of the towns, those origins helped determine the existing urban layout. Port Moresby and Lae, on the Huon Gulf, are the largest cities.’ [5] Popondetta is a notable example: ’Popondetta is a small town, population 6343 in 1980 (National Statistics Office 1980:14), with a few general stores, a market, hospital, courthouse, various government and semi-government offices and an hotel. It is a sleepy town, livened only recently by oil palm activity, the bustle of wholesale buying for village trade stores, and the ‘fortnight’, the government pay day, which stimulates a long weekend of drinking, singing and the occasional fight. Children love to visit the ‘town’, but adult women in particular yearn for the bright lights of Port Moresby spoken of by their menfolk.’ [6] We have provisionally assumed that most Orokaiva continued to reside in rural villages rather than small colonial settlements. [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Waddell, Eric, and P. A. Krinks 1968. “Organisation Of Production And Distribution Among The Orokaiva: An Analysis Of Work And Exchange In Two Communities Participating In Both The Subsistence And Monetary Sectors Of The Economy”, 23 [3]: Keesing, Felix Maxwell 1952. “Papuan Orokaiva Vs Mt. Lamington: Cultural Shock And Its Aftermath”, 18 [4]: Dakeyne, R. B. 1969. “Village And Town In New Guinea”, 3 [5]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea [6]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 77p |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Sakha Homesteads (Balagan, Urasy) and Farms Nomadic Sakha alternated between winter yurts and summer homes: ’As horse and cattle breeders, the Yakut had a transhumant pattern of summer and winter settlements. Winter settlements comprised as few as twenty people, involving several closely related families who shared pasture land and lived in nearby yurts (BALAGAN) with surrounding storehouses and corrals. The yurts were oblong huts with slanted earth walls, low ceilings, sod roofs and dirt floors. Most had an adjoining room for cattle. They had substantial hearths, and fur-covered benches lining the walls demarcated sleeping arrangements according to social protocol. Yurts faced east, toward benevolent deities. In summer families moved to larger encampments with their animals. The most ancient summer homes, URASY, were elegant birch-bark conical tents. Some could hold one hundred people. Their ceilings soared at the center point, above a circular hearth. Around the sides were wide benches placed in compartments that served as ranked seating and sleeping areas. Every pole or eave was carved with symbolic designs of animals, fertility, and lineage identities.’ [1] ’Traditional pastoralism in central Yakutia required homestead self-reliance, with intense dependence on calves and foals in a harsh climate. Stables, corrals, and haying developed in conjunction with hardy breeds of cattle and short, fat, furry horses. Richer families owned hundreds of horses and cattle; poorer ones raised a few cattle or herded for others. A huge variety of dairy products, including fermented mare’s milk, (Russian: KUMYS), was the staple food, with meat for special occasions. The diet was augmented by hunting (bears, elk, squirrels, hare, ferrets, fowl), fishing (salmon, carp, MUSKSUN, MUNDU), and, under Russian influence, agriculture (cereals). Wealthy Yakut hunted on horseback using dogs. The poorest Yakut, those without cattle, relied on fishing with horsehair nets and, in the north, herded reindeer like their Evenk and Yukagir neighbors.’ [1] Only later did Russian invaders build riverside towns: ’In 1632 the Russian invaders erected a little fortress called Lesnoi Ostroshek, on the eastern bank of the Lena; ten years later they transferred it seventy kilometers to the south, where it became the center of the territory under the name of the City of Yakutsk. The fortress, now the City, of Olekminsk was erected by a Cossack party under the command of Buza in 1635. In the summer of 1637 Buza built two flat-bottomed ships, called kocha, and descended to the mouth of the Lena River, and traveled in an easterly direction on the Polar Sea. Not far from the mouth of the Omoloi River he was barred by ice and was compelled to abandon his ships. For three weeks his party walked over mountain ridges until they arrived at the upper reaches of the Yana River, where they met Yakut and took many sable skins from them as tribute.’ [2] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 221 |
||||||
|
levels.
Settler Towns; Settler Villages; Sakha Homesteads (Balagan, Urasy) and Farms Nomadic Sakha alternated between winter yurts and summer homes: ’As horse and cattle breeders, the Yakut had a transhumant pattern of summer and winter settlements. Winter settlements comprised as few as twenty people, involving several closely related families who shared pasture land and lived in nearby yurts (BALAGAN) with surrounding storehouses and corrals. The yurts were oblong huts with slanted earth walls, low ceilings, sod roofs and dirt floors. Most had an adjoining room for cattle. They had substantial hearths, and fur-covered benches lining the walls demarcated sleeping arrangements according to social protocol. Yurts faced east, toward benevolent deities. In summer families moved to larger encampments with their animals. The most ancient summer homes, URASY, were elegant birch-bark conical tents. Some could hold one hundred people. Their ceilings soared at the center point, above a circular hearth. Around the sides were wide benches placed in compartments that served as ranked seating and sleeping areas. Every pole or eave was carved with symbolic designs of animals, fertility, and lineage identities.’ [1] ’Traditional pastoralism in central Yakutia required homestead self-reliance, with intense dependence on calves and foals in a harsh climate. Stables, corrals, and haying developed in conjunction with hardy breeds of cattle and short, fat, furry horses. Richer families owned hundreds of horses and cattle; poorer ones raised a few cattle or herded for others. A huge variety of dairy products, including fermented mare’s milk, (Russian: KUMYS), was the staple food, with meat for special occasions. The diet was augmented by hunting (bears, elk, squirrels, hare, ferrets, fowl), fishing (salmon, carp, MUSKSUN, MUNDU), and, under Russian influence, agriculture (cereals). Wealthy Yakut hunted on horseback using dogs. The poorest Yakut, those without cattle, relied on fishing with horsehair nets and, in the north, herded reindeer like their Evenk and Yukagir neighbors.’ [1] When agriculture became more common, the Sakha living near Russian settlements adopted more permanent log houses: ’When living near cities or Russian settlements, the Yakut abandon their earth huts and live in log houses of the Russian type. Fig. 23 illustrates a log house of a rich Yakut elder on the Lena River not far from the City of Yakutsk.’ [2] Russian settlers established peasant villages: ’Being agriculturists exclusively, they could not follow their calling in the tundras of Turukhansk and they addressed a request to the government that they be transferred to Yakutsk Province. The request was granted. Beginning in 1860 groups of skoptzy were transferred to Yakutsk Province. By 1885, near the cities of Yakutsk, Olekminks, and Viliuisk, and on the Aldan River (near Ust-Maisk) they had ten villages with a population of 1181. This was a strange society which would have become extinct in fifty years had not additional convicted persons been exiled every year and thus replaced the departed. Industrious and with sufficient means, the skoptzy developed agriculture on a great scale and thus contributed to its success in the Yakut country. Early in the summer, they arranged hot beds which were protected during the cold nights; thus they grew the most delicate edible plants as early in the season as is possible only in a warm climate. Between 1885 and 1890 they had under cultivation 13,625 acres of land and were striving to seize the State lands. They employed Yakut laborers and thus the latter learned to cultivate the land.’ [3] Russian invaders also built fortresses and riverside towns: ’In 1632 the Russian invaders erected a little fortress called Lesnoi Ostroshek, on the eastern bank of the Lena; ten years later they transferred it seventy kilometers to the south, where it became the center of the territory under the name of the City of Yakutsk. The fortress, now the City, of Olekminsk was erected by a Cossack party under the command of Buza in 1635. In the summer of 1637 Buza built two flat-bottomed ships, called kocha, and descended to the mouth of the Lena River, and traveled in an easterly direction on the Polar Sea. Not far from the mouth of the Omoloi River he was barred by ice and was compelled to abandon his ships. For three weeks his party walked over mountain ridges until they arrived at the upper reaches of the Yana River, where they met Yakut and took many sable skins from them as tribute.’ [4] Proximity to towns became an important factor of social and economic stratification: ’The system of tsarist administration was no different here from what existed in any other part of Northern Siberia. The Dolgans, Yakuts and Evenks had to pay the fur-tax as “natives” and formed “clans” headed by princelings, while the tundra peasants were forced to pay a poll tax, were formed into a “community” and headed by an elder. People living many hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest centers were economically dependent on the merchants who monopolized supplies to the region, bought up all the furs, and cruelly exploited the population.’ [5] ’These circumstances undoubtedly discourage the activity of the Yakut, who no longer endeavors to procure wealth, because it is the likeliest means of making him the object of persecution. Thus property, tranquillity, and population decrease. The princes or chiefs dwelling near towns acquire their luxuries, and oppress their dependant tribes to procure wine and brandy in addition to their koumis: this was never known among them till the year 1785. I will farther add, that in 1784 the district of Gigansk produced 4834 tributary natives; but in 1789 their number amounted only to 1938. Mr. Bonnar, the captain of the district of Zashiversk, told me, that the tributary nations in his circle amounted to only half the number that they were five years ago and that these were very poor indeed.”’ [6] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 142 [3]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 182 [4]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut”, 221 [5]: Popov, A. A. 1964. “Dolgans”, 656 [6]: Sauer, Martin 1802. “Account Of A Geographical And Astronomical Expedition To The Northern Parts Of Russia By Commodore Joseph Billings, In The Years 1785-1794”, 112p |
||||||
|
At most: (1) Capital; (2) Regional centres; (3) Minor centres; (4) Villages; (5) Hamlets. Inferred from previous periods.
|
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
.
1. AyutthayaThe capital. 2. "Great cities" (mahanakhon)Including "the old northern cities" and "ports around the head of the gulf". 3. Tributary centresFor example, "the port cities down the peninsula which simultaneously looked southwards to the Malay world", as well as urban centres in "the interior states of Khmer, Lao, Lanna, and Shahn". 4. VillagesInferred from the fact that most of the population would likely not have lived in cities (RA’s guess). [1]: (Baker and Phongpaichit 2009, p. 13) |
||||||
|
During the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, many societies developed into more sophisticated urban communities. This is a time when proto-city-states emerged, and the density of population was growing.
|
||||||
|
1. Capital Bogazköy-Hattusa.
2. Large settlements (e.g. Masat Höyük-Tapikka, Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, Alaca Höyük, Inandıktepe).3. Small villages and farmsteads 0,1-5 ha (very poorly investigated, data about their existence comes from field walking surveys, not regular excavation). |
||||||
|
| ||||||