Polity Degree Of Centralization List
A viewset for viewing and editing Polity Degrees of Centralization.
GET /api/general/polity-degree-of-centralizations/?format=api&page=3
{ "count": 499, "next": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-degree-of-centralizations/?format=api&page=4", "previous": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-degree-of-centralizations/?format=api&page=2", "results": [ { "id": 101, "polity": { "id": 306, "name": "fr_merovingian_emp_2", "long_name": "Middle Merovingian", "start_year": 543, "end_year": 687 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "When divided kingdom more like a confederation. Division was not a governing structure.§REF§(Wood 1994, 112-115)§REF§<br>\"There are two levels operating simultaneously... regnum and regna. A variable number of kingdoms within the Merovingian polity as a whole.\" §REF§(Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 174)§REF§" }, { "id": 102, "polity": { "id": 306, "name": "fr_merovingian_emp_2", "long_name": "Middle Merovingian", "start_year": 543, "end_year": 687 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "When divided kingdom more like a confederation. Division was not a governing structure.§REF§(Wood 1994, 112-115)§REF§<br>\"There are two levels operating simultaneously... regnum and regna. A variable number of kingdoms within the Merovingian polity as a whole.\" §REF§(Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 174)§REF§" }, { "id": 103, "polity": { "id": 306, "name": "fr_merovingian_emp_2", "long_name": "Middle Merovingian", "start_year": 543, "end_year": 687 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": "When divided kingdom more like a confederation. Division was not a governing structure.§REF§(Wood 1994, 112-115)§REF§<br>\"There are two levels operating simultaneously... regnum and regna. A variable number of kingdoms within the Merovingian polity as a whole.\" §REF§(Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 174)§REF§" }, { "id": 104, "polity": { "id": 453, "name": "fr_la_tene_a_b1", "long_name": "La Tene A-B1", "start_year": -475, "end_year": -325 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "In the early La Tene: \"The import of exotic luxury items accentuated an already existing trend towards increased social stratification among Celtic-speaking communities, accelerating the development of centralized chiefdoms and the formation of an elite class which controlled and monopolized the flow of trade.\"§REF§(Allen 2007, 34)§REF§<br>Early Iron Age settlements had large towns§REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§ so there was some degree of centralization. However, after 400 CE there were no large towns on the scale of the Early Iron Age settlements. Small communities predominated, hamlets and farmsteads typically had a population of about 50. §REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§" }, { "id": 105, "polity": { "id": 453, "name": "fr_la_tene_a_b1", "long_name": "La Tene A-B1", "start_year": -475, "end_year": -325 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "In the early La Tene: \"The import of exotic luxury items accentuated an already existing trend towards increased social stratification among Celtic-speaking communities, accelerating the development of centralized chiefdoms and the formation of an elite class which controlled and monopolized the flow of trade.\"§REF§(Allen 2007, 34)§REF§<br>Early Iron Age settlements had large towns§REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§ so there was some degree of centralization. However, after 400 CE there were no large towns on the scale of the Early Iron Age settlements. Small communities predominated, hamlets and farmsteads typically had a population of about 50. §REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§" }, { "id": 106, "polity": { "id": 454, "name": "fr_la_tene_b2_c1", "long_name": "La Tene B2-C1", "start_year": -325, "end_year": -175 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " In this period tribes became urbanised and more centralized but did not join together within a unified centralized polity.<br>Confederations of tribes joined together for battles §REF§(Kruta 2004, 105)§REF§ and \"federal\" institutions are known from one such instance - a site for war trophies. §REF§(Kruta 2004, 186)§REF§<br>Early Iron Age settlements had large towns§REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§ so there was some degree of centralization. However, after 400 CE there were no large towns on the scale of the Early Iron Age settlements. Small communities predominated, hamlets and farmsteads typically had a population of about 50. §REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§" }, { "id": 107, "polity": { "id": 454, "name": "fr_la_tene_b2_c1", "long_name": "La Tene B2-C1", "start_year": -325, "end_year": -175 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " In this period tribes became urbanised and more centralized but did not join together within a unified centralized polity.<br>Confederations of tribes joined together for battles §REF§(Kruta 2004, 105)§REF§ and \"federal\" institutions are known from one such instance - a site for war trophies. §REF§(Kruta 2004, 186)§REF§<br>Early Iron Age settlements had large towns§REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§ so there was some degree of centralization. However, after 400 CE there were no large towns on the scale of the Early Iron Age settlements. Small communities predominated, hamlets and farmsteads typically had a population of about 50. §REF§(Wells 1999, 45-47)§REF§" }, { "id": 108, "polity": { "id": 455, "name": "fr_la_tene_c2_d", "long_name": "La Tene C2-D", "start_year": -175, "end_year": -27 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "nominal", "comment": null, "description": " Urbanised and centralized with strong economic and cultural ties, but did not join together within a unified centralized polity ruled from one power-centre/capital.<br>Confederations of tribes joined together for battles §REF§(Kruta 2004, 105)§REF§ and \"federal\" institutions are known from one such instance - a site for war trophies. §REF§(Kruta 2004, 186)§REF§" }, { "id": 109, "polity": { "id": 455, "name": "fr_la_tene_c2_d", "long_name": "La Tene C2-D", "start_year": -175, "end_year": -27 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " Urbanised and centralized with strong economic and cultural ties, but did not join together within a unified centralized polity ruled from one power-centre/capital.<br>Confederations of tribes joined together for battles §REF§(Kruta 2004, 105)§REF§ and \"federal\" institutions are known from one such instance - a site for war trophies. §REF§(Kruta 2004, 186)§REF§" }, { "id": 110, "polity": { "id": 333, "name": "fr_valois_k_1", "long_name": "French Kingdom - Early Valois", "start_year": 1328, "end_year": 1450 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "Institutions of a centralized state were present. However, civil war meant frequent state breakdown." }, { "id": 111, "polity": { "id": 459, "name": "fr_valois_k_2", "long_name": "French Kingdom - Late Valois", "start_year": 1450, "end_year": 1589 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "Government was more centralized north of the Loire. §REF§(Potter 1995, 5)§REF§" }, { "id": 112, "polity": { "id": 459, "name": "fr_valois_k_2", "long_name": "French Kingdom - Late Valois", "start_year": 1450, "end_year": 1589 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "Government was more centralized north of the Loire. §REF§(Potter 1995, 5)§REF§" }, { "id": 113, "polity": { "id": 786, "name": "gb_british_emp_2", "long_name": "British Empire II", "start_year": 1850, "end_year": 1968 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "\"Unlike the Spanish and the French, the British never attempted to rule colonies directly from the metropole ... At the core of Imperial administration .... a series of essentially bilateral relationships which entailed constant negotiation rather than the imposition of rule and the acceptance of subjection.\"§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§<br>\"Rather than constituting one empire, this conglomeration of large land masses and territorial fragments comprised several empires ... as a political entity it was loosely held together\".§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§<br>Imperial agents in the colonies \"exercised considerable latitude of authority and were notoriously difficult to control ... Far from being subordinates, many masterful individuals had their own agendas and ambitions; often they acted independently, disregarding directives or exceeding instructions with cavalier exuberance and frequently with impunity.\"§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§" }, { "id": 114, "polity": { "id": 587, "name": "gb_british_emp_1", "long_name": "British Empire I", "start_year": 1690, "end_year": 1849 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "\"Unlike the Spanish and the French, the British never attempted to rule colonies directly from the metropole ... At the core of Imperial administration .... a series of essentially bilateral relationships which entailed constant negotiation rather than the imposition of rule and the acceptance of subjection.\"§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§<br>\"Rather than constituting one empire, this conglomeration of large land masses and territorial fragments comprised several empires ... as a political entity it was loosely held together\".§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§<br>Imperial agents in the colonies \"exercised considerable latitude of authority and were notoriously difficult to control ... Far from being subordinates, many masterful individuals had their own agendas and ambitions; often they acted independently, disregarding directives or exceeding instructions with cavalier exuberance and frequently with impunity.\"§REF§(Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§" }, { "id": 115, "polity": { "id": 113, "name": "gh_akan", "long_name": "Akan - Pre-Ashanti", "start_year": 1501, "end_year": 1701 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Multiple, sometimes short-lived, Akan states governed the coastal area in the colonial period: 'The Portuguese first arrived in 1471 and later built a trading post at Elmina in 1486. Drawn by the trading activity on the coast, descendants of the defunct Bonda and Kumbu kingdoms settled along the north-south trade routes connecting the coast to the Niger bend region. The Queen mother of the Bonda founded the Akyerekyere kingdom along one trade route, which became a clearinghouse for goods from the coast. A prince of the former Kumbu royal house founded the Akumu-Akoto kingdom on another trade route. The Portuguese referred to this latter kingdom as the 'Acanes,' hence the name Akan. Emigrants from Akumu-Akoto founded a second city-state to the east, called Akwamu. Emigrants from Akwamu in turn founded the Asantemanso kingdom in the Kumasi region. Mande-speaking immigrants conquered the Akyerekyere kingdom and later the Asantemanso kingdom to become the dominant power in the region, the Denkyira. In 1701, the Asantemanso under the leadership of Osei Tutu (d. 1717) rebelled and defeated the Denkyira.'§REF§HRAF Cultural Summary for 'Akan' Michelle Gilbert, Robert O. Lagacé, and Ian Skoggard§REF§ The individual Akan polities shared some structural commonalities, despite of considerable differences in popular participation: '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.' §REF§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§REF§" }, { "id": 116, "polity": { "id": 114, "name": "gh_ashanti_emp", "long_name": "Ashanti Empire", "start_year": 1701, "end_year": 1895 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " The Union founded after Osei Tutu's military victory against the Denkyira incorporated a set of allied sub-polities under the overall authority of the Asantehene based at Kumasi: 'In the aftermath of the Denkyira war the military coalition of states was transformed into a political union.' §REF§Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 112§REF§ For Hayford, this union was essentially a confederation of several 'imperia in imperio' under the paramount authority of the Asantehene: 'The Native State, in its highest development, is to be found where a number of considerably important communities combine and own allegiance to one central paramount Authority. Such Authority is the King, properly so called. Thus in Ashanti, before the breaking up of the Court at Kumasi, there were the Manpons, the Juabins, the Kokofus, the Beckwas, the Adansis, and several other large and important communities, owning allegiance to the stool of Kumasi as the paramount stool of all Ashanti. Each of these important communities, when regarded with respect to the entire State, was a sort of imperium in imperio-in fact, several distinct native states federated together under the same laws, the same customs, the same faith and worship, the people speaking the same language, and all owning allegiance to a paramount king or president, who represented the sovereignty of the entire Union.' §REF§Hayford, J. E. Casely (Joseph Ephraim Casely) 1970. “Gold Coast Native Institutions With Thoughts Upon A Healthy Imperial Policy For The Gold Coast And Ashanti”, 19§REF§ For Arhin, the 'official', confederated character of the Ashanti Union was being increasingly eroded during the time period in question, with the Asantehene seeking to concentrate power in Kumasi: 'Formally the Asante lived within a system of decentralized ‘patrimonialism’: that is to say, under the authority of hereditary rulers selected by the heads of the constituent units of the oman, the localized matrilineages, the villages and the districts who were, in the main, a gerontocratic body. The members of the various units also enjoyed rights of use in land. But the political history of Asante, from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the eve of colonial rule, was the history of the erosion of these political and economic rights. It was a history of the increasing personalization of power at the expense of the holders of hereditary authority and also of commoners.' §REF§Arhin, Kwame 1986. “Asante Praise Poems: The Ideology Of Patrimonialism”, 169§REF§ British colonial incursions subsequently upset the indigenous power structure and weakened Kumasi by imposing their own administration on the native system, including a court of 'appeals in the hands of a British administrative officer' §REF§Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 478§REF§, and by backing indigenous resistance against the King. Wilks describes a dynamic struggle between competing interests: 'The Kumaseman sought to build up its power to ensure not only its de jure but also its de facto preeminence within the Asanteman. It moved slowly but surely towards a form of absolutism. The aman resisted the engrossment of power by Kumase and strove to maintain a “parcellization” of sovereignty of the sort also characteristic of feudalism.' §REF§Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 118§REF§ This supports the characterization of Asanteman as a confederated state despite of this process of centralization: 'It is arguable that the union, the Asanteman, has survived precisely because different (and even conflicting) concepts of its nature have always been possible. Did member states, for example, have a right to secede, or was the union indissoluble? In the early nineteenth century the Dwabenhene clearly believed that he did have the right, the Asantehene that he did not.' §REF§Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 112§REF§" }, { "id": 117, "polity": { "id": 67, "name": "gr_crete_archaic", "long_name": "Archaic Crete", "start_year": -710, "end_year": -500 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 118, "polity": { "id": 68, "name": "gr_crete_classical", "long_name": "Classical Crete", "start_year": -500, "end_year": -323 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 119, "polity": { "id": 74, "name": "gr_crete_emirate", "long_name": "The Emirate of Crete", "start_year": 824, "end_year": 961 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 120, "polity": { "id": 65, "name": "gr_crete_post_palace_2", "long_name": "Final Postpalatial Crete", "start_year": -1200, "end_year": -1000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " The centralized administrations established by regional elites in Late Minoan IIIB (1300-1200 BCE), once under the control of the Knossian polity, are now replaced by new ones, \"thereby creating new processes and new dynamics and exerting a new impact of settlement patterns, social organizations, forms of production and exchange and the conception of the role of the individual within the social community.\" §REF§Borgna, E. 2003. \"Regional settlement patterns, exchange systems and sources of power in Crete at the ends of the Late Bronze Age: establishing a connection,\" <i>SMEA</i> 45, 153-83.§REF§" }, { "id": 121, "polity": { "id": 66, "name": "gr_crete_geometric", "long_name": "Geometric Crete", "start_year": -1000, "end_year": -710 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 122, "polity": { "id": 69, "name": "gr_crete_hellenistic", "long_name": "Hellenistic Crete", "start_year": -323, "end_year": -69 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 123, "polity": { "id": 63, "name": "gr_crete_mono_palace", "long_name": "Monopalatial Crete", "start_year": -1450, "end_year": -1300 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Two different narratives have been proposed based on archaeological data and epigraphy. Bennet argued that Crete, except the east region of the island, was divided into a series of provinces, hierarchy organized, and centered upon Knossos. §REF§Bennet, J. 1988. \"Outside in the distance: problems in understanding the economic geography of Mycenaean palatial territories,\" in Olivier, J.-P. and Palaima, T. G. (eds), Text, Tablets and Scribes. Studies in Mycenaean Epigraphy and Economy Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. (Minos Suppl. 10), Salamanga, 19-42§REF§ §REF§Bennet, J. 1990. \"Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete,\" American Journal of Archaeology 94, 193-211.§REF§ Driessen suggested that the Knossian satellites acted more as local extractions nodes. §REF§Driessen, J. 2001.\" Centre and periphery: some observations on the administration of the kingdom of Knossos,\" in Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. T. (eds), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philosophical Society Suppl. 27), Cambridge, 96-112§REF§ §REF§Driessen, J. and Langohr, C. 2007. \"Rallying round a \"Minoan\" past: the legation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age,\" in Galaty, M. L. and Parkinson, W. A. (eds), Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II (2nd ed.), Los Angeles, 178-89§REF§." }, { "id": 124, "polity": { "id": 59, "name": "gr_crete_nl", "long_name": "Neolithic Crete", "start_year": -7000, "end_year": -3000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 125, "polity": { "id": 62, "name": "gr_crete_new_palace", "long_name": "New Palace Crete", "start_year": -1700, "end_year": -1450 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Some scholars see the island divided into small independent \"states\" centered upon large monumental complexes generally known as \"palaces\". §REF§Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds.), <i>Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change</i>, Cambridge, 19-45§REF§ §REF§Bennet, J. 1990. \"Knossos in context: comparative perspectives on the Linear B administration of LM II-III Crete,\" <i>American Journal of Archaeology</i> 94, 193-211§REF§ §REF§Christakis, K.S. 2008. <i>The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete</i> (<i>Prehistory Monographs</i> 25), Philadelphia, 2-7§REF§ Others favours Knossian hegemony implying that Crete was politically unified under the control of the Knossian ruler §REF§Betts, J.H. 1967. \" New light on Minoan bureaucracy. A reexamination of some Cretan seals,\" <i>Kadmos</i> 6, 15-40§REF§ §REF§Hallager, E. and B. P. 1996. \"The Knossian bull-political propaganda in Neo-palatial Crete,\" in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds), <i>POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Heidelberg, 10-13 April 1994</i> (<i>Aegaeum</i> 12), Liège, 547-56§REF§ §REF§Wiener, M. W. 2007. \"Neopalatial Knossos: rule and role,\" in Betancourt, P.P., Nelson, M. C., Williams, H. (eds), <i>Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw</i> (<i>Prehistory Monographs</i> 22), Philadelphia 231-42.§REF§ Yet other have favored the idea of independent political formations emulating Knossos. §REF§Schoep, I. 1999. \"Tables and territories: reconstructing Late Minoan IB political territories throughout undeciphered documents,\" <i>American Journal of Archaeology</i> 103, 201-21§REF§ §REF§Soles, J. S. 1995. \"The function of a cosmological center: Knossos in palatial Crete,\" in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.), <i>POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age</i> (<i>Aegaeum</i>12), Liège, 405-14§REF§ §REF§Knappett, C. J. and Schoep, I. 2000. \"Continuity and change in Minoan political power,\" <i>Antiquity</i> 74, 365-71.§REF§" }, { "id": 126, "polity": { "id": 61, "name": "gr_crete_old_palace", "long_name": "Old Palace Crete", "start_year": -1900, "end_year": -1700 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " It is generally argued that island was divided into small independent \"states\" centered upon large monumental complexes generally known as \"palaces\". §REF§e.g. Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Polities and palaces: some problems in the Minoan state formation,” in Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds), P<i>eer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change</i>, Cambridge, 19-45§REF§ §REF§Cadogan, G. 1994.\"An Old Palace period Knossos state,\" in in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N. (eds), <i>Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers in Honor of Sinclair Hood</i>, London, 57-68.§REF§ These polities appear to be independent and autonomous in political and economic terms." }, { "id": 127, "polity": { "id": 64, "name": "gr_crete_post_palace_1", "long_name": "Postpalatial Crete", "start_year": -1300, "end_year": -1200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " The violent destruction of the Knossian \"palace\" at the end of the Late Minoan IIIA2, the longest-lived monumental building compound of the island, mark the end of the political authority which controlled most regions of Crete during the Late Minoan II and Late Minoan IIIA periods. Regional centers, once secondary capitals under the Knossian control, regain a degree of independence. The regional elites exerted their authorities over the land by adopting social instruments and ideological strategies which turned out to be very similar to those used by the previous Knossian power, beginning possibly with the Linear B administration. §REF§Borgna, E. 2003. \"Regional settlement patterns, exchange systems and sources of power in Crete at the ends of the Late Bronze Age: establishing a connection,\" <i>SMEA</i> 45, 158.§REF§ Crete, to quote Popham \"was free, too, of centralized control and it may be assumed that the various geographical regions, or provinces, existed independently under their local rulers.\" §REF§Popham, M. R. 1994. \"Late Minoan II to the end of the Bronze Age,\" in Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H., and Momigliano, N. (eds), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers in Honour of Sinclair Hood, London, 90.§REF§" }, { "id": 128, "polity": { "id": 60, "name": "gr_crete_pre_palace", "long_name": "Prepalatial Crete", "start_year": -3000, "end_year": -1900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " It is generally argue that during 2200-1900 BCE, the major communities acted as political, economic and ritual centers for their surrounding hinterland. §REF§e.g. Whitelaw, T. 2012. \"The urbanization of prehistoric Crete: settlement perspectives on Minoan state formation,\" in n Schope, I., Tomkins, P. and Driessen, J. (eds), <i>Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age</i>, Oxford, 114-76.§REF§" }, { "id": 129, "polity": { "id": 17, "name": "us_hawaii_1", "long_name": "Hawaii I", "start_year": 1000, "end_year": 1200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Inferred.§REF§Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.§REF§ There was little stratification at this time, and probably no ‘state’ in any real sense. 'Hawaii 1 is very difficult to say, but most likely to have been several independent polities - maybe as many as 5 or 6. 'Umi-a-Liloa is said to have been the first to consolidate all of these into one island-wide polity, and he is dated genealogical estimation to ca. AD 1570-1590, toward the end of your Hawaii2 period'.§REF§(Kirch 2016, personal communication)§REF§" }, { "id": 130, "polity": { "id": 18, "name": "us_hawaii_2", "long_name": "Hawaii II", "start_year": 1200, "end_year": 1580 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " 'Hawaii 1 is very difficult to say, but most likely to have been several independent polities - maybe as many as 5 or 6. 'Umi-a-Liloa is said to have been the first to consolidate all of these into one island-wide polity, and he is dated genealogical estimation to ca. AD 1570-1590, toward the end of your Hawaii 2 period'.§REF§(Kirch 2016, personal communication)§REF§" }, { "id": 131, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 132, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 133, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 134, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 135, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 136, "polity": { "id": 19, "name": "us_hawaii_3", "long_name": "Hawaii III", "start_year": 1580, "end_year": 1778 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§§REF§Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.§REF§ In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true <i>king</i> of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere <i>chiefs</i> who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':§REF§(Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.§REF§(Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§ (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's <i>How Chiefs Became Kings</i> as a guide).§REF§(Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. <i>How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i</i>. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 137, "polity": { "id": 153, "name": "id_iban_1", "long_name": "Iban - Pre-Brooke", "start_year": 1650, "end_year": 1841 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " The Iban claim to originate in the Kapuas Basin, but had established themselves in Sarawak by the 19th century: 'The Iban trace their origins to the Kapuas Lake region of Kalimantan. With a growing population creating pressures on limited amounts of productive land, the Iban fought members of other tribes aggressively, practicing headhunting and slavery. Enslavement of captives contributed to the necessity to move into new areas. By the middle of the 19th century, they were well established in the First and Second Divisions, and a few had pioneered the vast Rejang River valley. Reacting to the establishment of the Brooke Raj in Sarawak in 1841, thousands of Iban migrated to the middle and upper regions of the Rejang, and by the last quarter of the century had entered all remaining Divisions.' §REF§Sutlive, Vinson H. Jr. and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban§REF§ Sarawak was initially controlled by the sultanate of Brunei before being ceded to the White Rajahs: 'Sarawak became the southern province of the sultanate of Brunei when the Majapahit empire of Java declined in the 15th century. James Brooke, an English adventurer and a former military officer of the East India Company, visited the territory in 1839 and aided the sultan in suppressing a revolt. As a reward for his services, Brooke was installed (1841) as raja of Sarawak over the sector from Tanjung Datu to the Batang (River) Samarahan; there he endeavoured to suppress piracy and headhunting.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Sarawak-state-Malaysia\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Sarawak-state-Malaysia</a>§REF§ 'At Singapore (founded 20 years earlier by Sir Stamford Raffles), Brooke learned that Pengiran Muda Hassim, chief minister of the sultanate of Brunei, was engaged in war with several rebel Iban (Sea Dayak) tribes in neighbouring Sarawak, nominally under Brunei control. The rebellion was crushed with Brooke’s aid, and as a reward for his services the title of raja of Sarawak was conferred upon him in 1841, confirmed in perpetuity by the sultan of Brunei in 1846. For the next 17 years Brooke and a handful of English assistants made expeditions into the interior of Sarawak, partially suppressed the prevalence of headhunting, and established a secure government.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj</a>§REF§ 'British interests, particularly in the north and west, diminished that of the Dutch. The Brunei sultanate was an Islāmic kingdom that at one time had controlled the whole island but by the 19th century ruled only in the north and northwest. Sarawak was split away on the southwest, becoming an independent kingdom and then a British colony' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean</a>§REF§ There was no central organization among the Iban themselves: '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. Regionalism, deriving from these alliances, in which Iban distinguished themselves from other allied groups, persist in modern state politics. Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves). Prestige still accrues to descendants of the first status, disdain to descendants of the third.' §REF§Sutlive, Vinson H. Jr. and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban§REF§ 'Prior to the arrival of the British adventurer, James Brooke, there were no permanent leaders, but the affairs of each house were directed by consultations of family leaders. Men of influence included renowned warriors, bards, augurs and other specialists. Brooke, who became Rajah of Sarawak, and his nephew, Charles Johnson, created political positions -- headman (TUAI RUMAH), regional chief (PENGHULU), paramount chief (TEMENGGONG) -- to restructure Iban society for administrative control, especially for purposes of taxation and the suppression of head-hunting. The creation of permanent political positions and the establishment of political parties in the early 1960s have profoundly changed the Iban.' §REF§Sutlive, Vinson H. Jr. and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban§REF§ It is assumed here that the reach of the Sultanate vis-á-vis the Iban population both in Sarawak and the interior was superficial at best. The sources also seem to indicate that the Iban population did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Sultanate, being de facto self-governing." }, { "id": 138, "polity": { "id": 154, "name": "id_iban_2", "long_name": "Iban - Brooke Raj and Colonial", "start_year": 1841, "end_year": 1987 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " Under Brooke Raj rule, the governed Iban communities were relatively autonomous in the regulation of local matters, although a colonial administrative structure was superimposed onto the Iban system were independent small villages. The White Rajahs sought to suppress infighting and mobilize Iban communities for their own military interests: 'In the present day, under the rule of Rajah Brooke, no Sea Dyaks may go out on a fighting expedition unless called out for that purpose by the Government. I remember not long ago that there were some rebels in the upper reaches of the Batang Lupar River, who had been guilty of many murders, and would not submit to the Government. After trying milder measures without any effect, it was decided to take a force into their country, and the Government sent round the War Spear to let the people of the different villages know they were to be ready to go on expedition at a certain date.' §REF§Gomes, Edwin H. 1911. “Seventeen Years Among The Sea Dyaks Of Borneo: A Record Of Intimate Association With The Natives Of The Bornean Jungles\", 77§REF§ 'Recurring hostility between the Brookes and the highest ranking Malays, who were “Arabs” and Brunei pengiran, grew out of rivalry, and the rivalry was in no small measure a contest for influence over the Iban population, as the history of the Malay Plot demonstrates. The Ibans were of central political importance because they loved to fight simply for the sake of fighting. The success of Charles Brooke with Iban levies from the lower Skrang and Saribas has already been described, but it is obvious that at this stage in Sarawak history, calling out the Ibans was still a game that more than one could play. At the time of the Chinese revolt in 1857, Charles had summoned his Skrang followers to the aid of besieged Kuching by sending a spear among them. Three years later the Brookes indignantly accused Sharif Masahor of using exactly the same tactic in the same area to call out hostile Ibans to fight the Rajah after the siege of Mukah. Well into the twentieth century, as we shall see, the dispatch of a “calling out spear” remained the standard official method of summoning Ibans for unpaid military service.' §REF§Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 201§REF§ The allegiance of the Iban subject population to Brooke authority was loose and ambiguous: 'Friendly Ibans were frequently able to manipulate Residents, who depended on them for information as well as for striking power. A classic case of confusion took place in 1879 in the Second Division, when the Resident, F.R.O. Maxwell, entrusted a Government spear to a visiting Iban headman from the Kantu River in Dutch Borneo. Maxwell asked this man to deliver a message to another headman on the Skrang River, who was supposed to report to Fort Alice. In this case the spear was merely a token of Government authority, according to Maxwell's account, but it was also the sign commonly employed to raise forces for an expedition. Instead of using it to summon the man Maxwell wanted to see, his messenger called out a large force of Skrang warriors and led them in an attack on certain enemies in the upper Batang Lupar. The Resident then demanded a heavy fine from the Skrang leaders, charging that they should have known better, Government spear or no, than to follow a spurious call to arms. But they refused to pay the fine, and made threats against the Government. Eventually Maxwell had to send two large punitive expeditions into the Skrang River to restore Brooke authority. He blamed the whole affair on the principal Skrang headman, Kedu (Lang Ngindang).' §REF§Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 391§REF§" }, { "id": 139, "polity": { "id": 47, "name": "id_kalingga_k", "long_name": "Kalingga Kingdom", "start_year": 500, "end_year": 732 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "uncoded", "comment": null, "description": " \"The Chinese sources from the fifth and seventh centuries mention several principalities in Jawa (to which Thromanagara may be added), without recording any dependencies (unless the note about Ho-lo-tan meant \"dependent on Jawa\"). These principalities each senttheir own envoys, only rarely banding together. There are indeed hints of fierce fratricidal wars and the subjection of neighboring states ina letter of the king of Ho-lo-tan to the emperor and in the story about Gunavarman. But the first reference to a true overlordship dates from the eighth century and is provided by both the Revised T'ang Annals and the proclamation of the king Sanjaya. Yet the extent of this overlord- ship remains a matter for conjecture.\" §REF§(van der Meulen 1977, 95)§REF§" }, { "id": 140, "polity": { "id": 49, "name": "id_kediri_k", "long_name": "Kediri Kingdom", "start_year": 1049, "end_year": 1222 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "nominal", "comment": null, "description": " A political structure evolved that despite being decentralised, allowed a flow of income to the central government. §REF§(Kinney 2003, 49)§REF§. Although this supported a sophisticated level of court life, there was still no centre of power and instead a number of principalities and vassal states vied for dominance. §REF§(Kinney 2003, 83)§REF§" }, { "id": 141, "polity": { "id": 50, "name": "id_majapahit_k", "long_name": "Majapahit Kingdom", "start_year": 1292, "end_year": 1518 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " Majapahit marked a transition to a kingdom with a more powerful centre which could collect revenue and products directly from outlying and subordinate areas rather than just receiving them as tribute or ritual offering. Tax and revenue is sent to the centre, but this relationship is mediated through <i>watek</i> ruled by individuals known as <i>rakrayan</i>, many of which would have once been independent chiefdoms which retained a separate but clearly subordinate identity, though the centre remained neither brave nor powerful enough to totally strip the power of this traditional elite. As time went on, the central court increasingly dealt directly with local indigenous temples and built trade links with the villages, bypassing the <i>watek</i> and offering local temples tax exemption or <i>sima</i> in exchange for loyalty. §REF§(Hall in Tarling 1993)§REF§ Furthermore, the degree of centralisation increased throughout the Majapahit era - the idea of state evolvmed from fluid Indic mandala as described in the Tuhanaru inscription of 1326, but Jawa bhûmi as conceptualised in the Nagarakërtagama. In this formulation, the state is more stable and integrated politically and economically - it is distinguished from the larger territory that was said to be \"in the orbit\" of the Majapahit kraton. §REF§(Hall 2000, 59)§REF§ However, the generally decentralized system also created powerful and autonomous enclaves in port areas.§REF§(Christie 1991, 37)§REF§" }, { "id": 142, "polity": { "id": 51, "name": "id_mataram_k", "long_name": "Mataram Sultanate", "start_year": 1568, "end_year": 1755 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " Generally there was a rule of autonomous financing for all parts of the administration - it was a state governed by the ideal of non-interference, which in turn was in accord with the self-sufficiency of the agrarian life. Not much differentiation of occupation nor contact with the outside world was required, and the state became the guardian against disturbance, interfering only when there was a threat to tranquility. The punggawa, or official, within his region wielded the power of administrator, judge, and commander of the local contingent of troops. §REF§(Moertono 2009, 88)§REF§ Amangkurat I (Sultan Agung's son) attempted to consolidate the empire and to centralise its administration and finances. He hoped to turn an empire which Sultan Agung had based on military might into a unified kingdom where resources were monopolised for the benefit of the king. However communication, population and geographical factors proved impossible to overcome and Amangkurat I brought about the greatest rebellion in the seventeenth century and allowed for the intervention of the VOC. §REF§(Ricklefs 1993, 91)§REF§" }, { "id": 143, "polity": { "id": 48, "name": "id_medang_k", "long_name": "Medang Kingdom", "start_year": 732, "end_year": 1019 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "nominal", "comment": null, "description": " Political centralization hard to achieve, despite the lack of geographical barriers, due to the influence of local elites in eco-regions. The main political actors were the leaders of eco-region water boards who coordinated the planting of rice. \"Kingdoms\" began to form on the rice plains through alliance structures. §REF§(Hall in Tarling 1993, 205)§REF§" }, { "id": 144, "polity": { "id": 103, "name": "il_canaan", "long_name": "Canaan", "start_year": -2000, "end_year": -1175 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " Canaan featured several city-states, which sometimes formed larger coalitions with each other; in any case, there were usually several opposing coalitions within the territory of Canaan.<br>" }, { "id": 145, "polity": { "id": 110, "name": "il_judea", "long_name": "Yehuda", "start_year": -141, "end_year": -63 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 146, "polity": { "id": 105, "name": "il_yisrael", "long_name": "Yisrael", "start_year": -1030, "end_year": -722 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " This is uncertain. While the region featured frequent civil war, there are no independent records or biblical traditions of powerful noblemen or the like with any territorial bases or autonomy. However, much of local administration seems to have been performed by tribal elders; and it is possible that taxes were collected within each region.§REF§Cf. McMaster (2014:85)§REF§ Pfoh (2008) argues that Israel was actually a \"patronage kingdom\" in which the monarchy did not control a truly unitary state." }, { "id": 147, "polity": { "id": 92, "name": "in_badami_chalukya_emp", "long_name": "Chalukyas of Badami", "start_year": 543, "end_year": 753 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " feudal empire The emperor often ruled over conquered territories indirectly, through feudal subordinates or family relations §REF§D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 219-221§REF§." }, { "id": 148, "polity": { "id": 94, "name": "in_kalyani_chalukya_emp", "long_name": "Chalukyas of Kalyani", "start_year": 973, "end_year": 1189 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " <i>changed from unitary to loose based on following</i> feudal empire \"The Chalukyan administration was not highly centralised and it allowed a lot of freedom and autonomy to its feudatories, which proved fatal to the empire\" §REF§Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 116§REF§." }, { "id": 149, "polity": { "id": 86, "name": "in_deccan_ia", "long_name": "Deccan - Iron Age", "start_year": -1200, "end_year": -300 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 150, "polity": { "id": 88, "name": "in_post_mauryan_k", "long_name": "Post-Mauryan Kingdoms", "start_year": -205, "end_year": -101 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": "Western Deccan: \"The earliest organized state in the region was that of the Satavahanas evolving out of the declining Mauryan power. The presence of the state is suggested by the evidence of political control and the use of an adminsitrative structure. References to units of adiministration and of what appear to be official designations point to a monarchical system. The title of mahamatra is suggestive of the Mauryan designation. The mahabhoja and maharathi as officials may in origin have been associated with high office in the Bhoja and Rathika clans and made the transition to administrative office when the requirements of the state demanded it. The constituents of the seven limbs of the state, the saptanga, are reflected in these and other indications such as the reference to Satavahana armies in action against the ksatrapas, to allies and enemies, to the treasury from the existence of Satavahana coins and revenue collection, to the capital from references to Pratishana and finally to the recognition of territory under Satavahana control.\"§REF§(Thapar 1996, 23) Thapar, Romila. \"Significance of Regional History with reference to the Konkan.\" Kulkarni, A R. Nayeem, M A. de Souza, T R. eds. 1996. Mediaeval Deccan History. Commemoration volume in honour of Purshottam Mahadeo Joshi. Popular Prakashan. Bombay.§REF§" } ] }