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=5
{ "count": 499, "next": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-degree-of-centralizations/?format=api&page=6", "previous": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-degree-of-centralizations/?format=api&page=4", "results": [ { "id": 201, "polity": { "id": 491, "name": "ir_susiana_ubaid_2", "long_name": "Susiana - Late Ubaid", "start_year": -4700, "end_year": -4300 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " \"The development of centers on the Susiana plane, beginning with Middle Cha1colithic Chogha Mish and culminating in the rise of Susa during the Late Chalcolithic. suggests a trend towards regional control in some economic and administrative activities (Delougaz and Kantor 1996, Hole 1987b: 89-90). This trend towards centralization may also be suggested by the presence of possible elite or \"Khan's\" houses during this time at several sites (Hole 1987a: 41). In spite of these trends, Chalcolithic society throughout Khuzistan presents a strong egalitarian appearance. During the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, differential access to resources may have involved less archaeological1y visible items such as staples. access to water, and control over labor, as it appears to have done at this time in Mesopotamia (Stein 1994).\" §REF§(Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 173)§REF§ The Middle Chalcolithic corresponds to 4800-3900 BCE and the Late Chalcolithic corresponds to 3900-3500 BCE in this book." }, { "id": 202, "polity": { "id": 490, "name": "ir_susiana_ubaid_1", "long_name": "Susiana - Early Ubaid", "start_year": -5100, "end_year": -4700 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 203, "polity": { "id": 499, "name": "ir_elam_5", "long_name": "Elam - Kidinuid Period", "start_year": -1500, "end_year": -1400 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " It is known that kings appointed regional governors. The title King of Anshan and Susa infers greater centralised control of Elam than in previous and later periods, but it is likely that there were periods when there was greater regional power. §REF§Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.59§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§" }, { "id": 204, "polity": { "id": 500, "name": "ir_elam_6", "long_name": "Elam - Igihalkid Period", "start_year": -1399, "end_year": -1200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " It is known that kings appointed regional governors. The title King of Anshan and Susa infers greater centralised control of Elam than in previous and later periods, but it is likely that there were periods when there was greater regional power. §REF§Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.59§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 205, "polity": { "id": 501, "name": "ir_elam_7", "long_name": "Elam - Shutrukid Period", "start_year": -1199, "end_year": -1100 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " It is known that kings appointed regional governors. The title King of Anshan and Susa infers greater centralised control of Elam than in previous and later periods, but it is likely that there were periods when there was greater regional power. §REF§Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.59§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 206, "polity": { "id": 503, "name": "ir_neo_elam_1", "long_name": "Elam I", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -744 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " \"It is also likely that, under intense Assyrian pressure, Elam as it had existed in the Middle Elamite period was no longer a unified state linking the highlands of Fars and the lowlands of Khuzistan, and that individual cities, such as Hidalu or Madaktu, were no longer bound by the authority of a single Elamite king at any one time.\" §REF§(Potts 2004, 259)§REF§ However, Diakonoff says: 'When we next hear of Elam - in the annals of the Assyrian king Šamšī-Adad V under the year 821 B.C. - the news is of a civil war waged inside a still existing big state'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 18-19) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ <span style=\"color:purple\">JR: The view that the Elamite state was fragmented in the early 1st millennium BCE appears to be less popular now. We asked Wouter Henkelman about the degree of centralization in Elam in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE as a whole. He told us that 'the ascending view is that Elam was an organised and centralised state up until the Assyrian invasions' (of the mid-7th century BCE).§REF§Henkelman 2016, personal communication.§REF§ For this reason, I've coded for scholarly disagreement.</span>" }, { "id": 207, "polity": { "id": 503, "name": "ir_neo_elam_1", "long_name": "Elam I", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -744 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " \"It is also likely that, under intense Assyrian pressure, Elam as it had existed in the Middle Elamite period was no longer a unified state linking the highlands of Fars and the lowlands of Khuzistan, and that individual cities, such as Hidalu or Madaktu, were no longer bound by the authority of a single Elamite king at any one time.\" §REF§(Potts 2004, 259)§REF§ However, Diakonoff says: 'When we next hear of Elam - in the annals of the Assyrian king Šamšī-Adad V under the year 821 B.C. - the news is of a civil war waged inside a still existing big state'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 18-19) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ <span style=\"color:purple\">JR: The view that the Elamite state was fragmented in the early 1st millennium BCE appears to be less popular now. We asked Wouter Henkelman about the degree of centralization in Elam in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE as a whole. He told us that 'the ascending view is that Elam was an organised and centralised state up until the Assyrian invasions' (of the mid-7th century BCE).§REF§Henkelman 2016, personal communication.§REF§ For this reason, I've coded for scholarly disagreement.</span>" }, { "id": 208, "polity": { "id": 504, "name": "ir_neo_elam_2", "long_name": "Elam II", "start_year": -743, "end_year": -647 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " unitary state: 820-693 BCE; confederated state: 693-640 BCE In 693 BCE, the new king Kudur Nahhunte relocated his residence from Susa to Madaktu, likely a marginal stronghold, and later Hidalu. These areas had little administrative power and as a result local autonomy increased significantly throughout the rest of the Neo-Elamite Kingdom. §REF§Carter, E. and Stopler, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Press. p.47§REF§§REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 259§REF§ Liveracki suggests that the Assyrian king set three Median princes as kings in the three capitals (Susa, Madaktu and Hidalu) after the battle of 653 BCE, thus further dispersing power. §REF§Liveraki, M. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History Society and Economy. London: Routledge. p.530§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§" }, { "id": 209, "polity": { "id": 504, "name": "ir_neo_elam_2", "long_name": "Elam II", "start_year": -743, "end_year": -647 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " unitary state: 820-693 BCE; confederated state: 693-640 BCE In 693 BCE, the new king Kudur Nahhunte relocated his residence from Susa to Madaktu, likely a marginal stronghold, and later Hidalu. These areas had little administrative power and as a result local autonomy increased significantly throughout the rest of the Neo-Elamite Kingdom. §REF§Carter, E. and Stopler, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Press. p.47§REF§§REF§Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 259§REF§ Liveracki suggests that the Assyrian king set three Median princes as kings in the three capitals (Susa, Madaktu and Hidalu) after the battle of 653 BCE, thus further dispersing power. §REF§Liveraki, M. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History Society and Economy. London: Routledge. p.530§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§" }, { "id": 210, "polity": { "id": 505, "name": "ir_neo_elam_3", "long_name": "Elam III", "start_year": -612, "end_year": -539 }, "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": "<span style=\"color:purple\">JR: I've coded for scholarly disagreement here. Wouter Henkelman is 'personally convinced' that Elam remained a centralized state after the Assyrian invasions, and that 'it prospered on account of the disappearance of Assyrian pressure (military but especially economic) after the fall of Nineveh. Not everyone subscribes to this view: Daniel Potts still believes in a fragmented state after the 640s. I personally do not see any convincing argument for this'.§REF§Henkelman 2016, personal communication.§REF§</span><br>After the Assyrian sack of Susa in 646 BCE, 'It looked as if Elam as a state were completely destroyed, but several kinglets still held out in the mountain strongholds, then descended into the lowlands as soon as the Assyrians went away; and at last the Assyrians went for good'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 23) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ Some time after about 625 BCE, 'one of the Elamite pretenders seems to have achieved the unification of the devastated kingdom. Later, under the next Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II, war broke out between Babylonia and Elam (596/5), leading to the capture of Susa by the Babylonians; but, as can be gleaned from Jeremiah 49, the attention of the Babylonian king was riveted on other more important political matters elsewhere, and it seems that Elam again regained its independence (Jeremiah 49.39)'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 23) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ However, writing more recently, Waters gives us a more fragmented picture: 'It has become the norm to envisage contemporaneous, Neo-Elamite kings ruling independent principalities throughout southwestern Iran - not only in Susiana - in the roughly 100 years between the sack of Susa and Cyrus the Great's conquest of the Medes'.§REF§(Waters 2013, 486) Matthew W. Waters. 2013. 'Elam, Assyria, and Babylonia in the Early First Millennium BC', in <i>The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran</i>, edited by Daniel T. Potts, 478-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 211, "polity": { "id": 505, "name": "ir_neo_elam_3", "long_name": "Elam III", "start_year": -612, "end_year": -539 }, "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": "<span style=\"color:purple\">JR: I've coded for scholarly disagreement here. Wouter Henkelman is 'personally convinced' that Elam remained a centralized state after the Assyrian invasions, and that 'it prospered on account of the disappearance of Assyrian pressure (military but especially economic) after the fall of Nineveh. Not everyone subscribes to this view: Daniel Potts still believes in a fragmented state after the 640s. I personally do not see any convincing argument for this'.§REF§Henkelman 2016, personal communication.§REF§</span><br>After the Assyrian sack of Susa in 646 BCE, 'It looked as if Elam as a state were completely destroyed, but several kinglets still held out in the mountain strongholds, then descended into the lowlands as soon as the Assyrians went away; and at last the Assyrians went for good'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 23) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ Some time after about 625 BCE, 'one of the Elamite pretenders seems to have achieved the unification of the devastated kingdom. Later, under the next Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II, war broke out between Babylonia and Elam (596/5), leading to the capture of Susa by the Babylonians; but, as can be gleaned from Jeremiah 49, the attention of the Babylonian king was riveted on other more important political matters elsewhere, and it seems that Elam again regained its independence (Jeremiah 49.39)'.§REF§(Diakonoff 1985, 23) I. M. Diakonoff. 'Elam', in <i>The Cambridge History of Iran</i>, vol. 2., edited by I. Gershevitch, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.§REF§ However, writing more recently, Waters gives us a more fragmented picture: 'It has become the norm to envisage contemporaneous, Neo-Elamite kings ruling independent principalities throughout southwestern Iran - not only in Susiana - in the roughly 100 years between the sack of Susa and Cyrus the Great's conquest of the Medes'.§REF§(Waters 2013, 486) Matthew W. Waters. 2013. 'Elam, Assyria, and Babylonia in the Early First Millennium BC', in <i>The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran</i>, edited by Daniel T. Potts, 478-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.§REF§" }, { "id": 212, "polity": { "id": 125, "name": "ir_parthian_emp_1", "long_name": "Parthian Empire I", "start_year": -247, "end_year": 40 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " The Parthian Empire was divided into three areas: self governing kingdoms in Mesopotamia; semi-independent kingdoms on the borders of Iran); and Parthian 'heartlands' in the centre under rule of the King.§REF§(Lukonin 1983, 734-735) Lukonin, V. G. Political, Social and Administrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade. in Yar-Shater, Ehsan ed. 1983. The Cambridge history of Iran: the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Part 2. III. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>§REF§(Lukonin 1983, 734-735) Lukonin, V. G. Political, Social and Administrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade. in Yar-Shater, Ehsan ed. 1983. The Cambridge history of Iran: the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Part 2. III. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>\"Written documents (mainly in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew) from the first two centuries A.D. in Southwest Asia suggest that the Parthian 'Empire' was at most times an unstable coalition of vassal states brought periodically under imperial Parthian control.\"§REF§(Wenke 1981, 306) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§" }, { "id": 213, "polity": { "id": 483, "name": "iq_parthian_emp_2", "long_name": "Parthian Empire II", "start_year": 41, "end_year": 226 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " The Parthian Empire was divided into three areas: self governing kingdoms in Mesopotamia; semi-independent kingdoms on the borders of Iran); and Parthian 'heartlands' in the centre under rule of the King.§REF§(Lukonin 1983, 734-735) Lukonin, V. G. Political, Social and Administrative Institutions: Taxes and Trade. in Yar-Shater, Ehsan ed. 1983. The Cambridge history of Iran: the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Part 2. III. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>\"Written documents (mainly in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew) from the first two centuries A.D. in Southwest Asia suggest that the Parthian 'Empire' was at most times an unstable coalition of vassal states brought periodically under imperial Parthian control.\"§REF§(Wenke 1981, 306) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§" }, { "id": 214, "polity": { "id": 485, "name": "ir_susiana_pre_ceramic", "long_name": "Pre-Ceramic Period", "start_year": -7800, "end_year": -7200 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 215, "polity": { "id": 509, "name": "ir_qajar_dyn", "long_name": "Qajar Dynasty", "start_year": 1794, "end_year": 1925 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 216, "polity": { "id": 374, "name": "ir_safavid_emp", "long_name": "Safavid Empire", "start_year": 1501, "end_year": 1722 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "either confederated state or unitary state. Did the shah appoint and remove regional governors and impose taxes and send them to the centre [unitary]?" }, { "id": 217, "polity": { "id": 128, "name": "ir_sassanid_emp_1", "long_name": "Sasanid Empire I", "start_year": 205, "end_year": 487 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "§REF§(Daryaee 2009, 2-20) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 218, "polity": { "id": 130, "name": "ir_sassanid_emp_2", "long_name": "Sasanid Empire II", "start_year": 488, "end_year": 642 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 219, "polity": { "id": 108, "name": "ir_seleucid_emp", "long_name": "Seleucid Empire", "start_year": -312, "end_year": -63 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "The Seleucid kings kept as much power as possible in their own hands, and had the final authority over decisions of the state, including the appointment of regional governors §REF§Dreyer, B. 2011. How to Become a \"Relative\" of the King: Careers and Hierarchy at the court of Antiochus III. American Journal of Philology, 132 (1), pp. 45-57. p53§REF§§REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p152§REF§.<br>\"Prior to the Parthians, political systems in Southwest Asia were for the most part relatively loose confederations in which central government ruled their 'empires' through unstable alliances with vassals and satraps. Even Hammurabi, Darius, and Alexander were only temporarily successful in linking their centralized governments to local administrative institutions, particularly outside of the core areas of Greater Mesopotamia.\"§REF§(Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§" }, { "id": 220, "polity": { "id": 108, "name": "ir_seleucid_emp", "long_name": "Seleucid Empire", "start_year": -312, "end_year": -63 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "The Seleucid kings kept as much power as possible in their own hands, and had the final authority over decisions of the state, including the appointment of regional governors §REF§Dreyer, B. 2011. How to Become a \"Relative\" of the King: Careers and Hierarchy at the court of Antiochus III. American Journal of Philology, 132 (1), pp. 45-57. p53§REF§§REF§Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p152§REF§.<br>\"Prior to the Parthians, political systems in Southwest Asia were for the most part relatively loose confederations in which central government ruled their 'empires' through unstable alliances with vassals and satraps. Even Hammurabi, Darius, and Alexander were only temporarily successful in linking their centralized governments to local administrative institutions, particularly outside of the core areas of Greater Mesopotamia.\"§REF§(Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592</a>§REF§" }, { "id": 221, "polity": { "id": 364, "name": "ir_seljuk_sultanate", "long_name": "Seljuk Sultanate", "start_year": 1037, "end_year": 1157 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "\"The united Seljuq Empire was only to last until the 1090s. Subsequently, Seljuq power retreated to Iran, although a cadet branch of the Seljuq family was to rule Anatolia until 1243 (and thereafter as Mongol vassals until the early fourteenth century).\"§REF§(Amitai 2006, 53) Amitai, Reuven. The Mamluk Institution, or One Thousand Years of Military Slavery in the Islamic World. Brown, Christopher Leslie. Morgan, Philip D. eds. 2006. Arming Slaves: From Classical To The Modern Age. Yale University Press. New Haven.§REF§<br>\"Like the Karakhanids, the Seljuks were a clan of brothers and cousins, each of whom felt himself sovereign in his own territory. This made for a loose confederation rather than a unified state.\".§REF§(Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton.§REF§<br>\"For most of its history, the empire was divided into a western and eastern half, and it lacked a single capital or political centre.\"§REF§(Peacock 2015, 6) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh.§REF§" }, { "id": 222, "polity": { "id": 496, "name": "ir_elam_2", "long_name": "Elam - Shimashki Period", "start_year": -2028, "end_year": -1940 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " §REF§Potts 1999, 156§REF§§REF§Potts 2012, 43§REF§<br>\"The Shu-Sin texts which describe the defeat of the Shimaskian lands make it clear that each had its own ruler, styled 'great ensi' (ensi-gal-gal) or 'king' (lugal) in the case of those who ruled a land, and simply ensi for those whose domain was a city or town (Kutscher 1989: 99). Kutscher suggested that Ziringu, named as the paramount ruler of Zabshali in one of the Shu-Sin texts, ruled a Shimaskian 'empire' comprised of a 'confederacy of lands whose leading force was the land of Zabshali' (Kutscher 1989: 100).\"§REF§(Potts 2016, 145) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§" }, { "id": 223, "polity": { "id": 497, "name": "ir_elam_3", "long_name": "Elam - Early Sukkalmah", "start_year": -1900, "end_year": -1701 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": "§REF§Hinz 1971, 256-7§REF§§REF§Liverani 2014, 253§REF§<br>\"The Iranologist Walther Hinz once described late third millennium Elam as 'a federal state', and wrote, 'In an attempt to unite the very diverse areas of the federation, the kings, being sovereign, strove to bind the minor princelings to themselves by ties of blood relationship. The result was a body politic constructed on lines that were unusual, complicated, and indeed unparalleled elsewhere. The ruling houses most adept at this task all seem to have sprung from the high land and not from Susiana, although Susa itself early attained the status of capital' (Hinz 1972: 69). ... Steinkeller described the six Shimaskian lands defeated by Shu-Sin as a 'confederation' (Steinkeller 1988a: 119), while Stolper called them 'an extensive interregional union' (Stolper 1982: 49).\"§REF§(Potts 2016, 145) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§<br>\"Elam's political structure was characterised by its confederate nature. This aspect was typical of the region from as early as the Early Dynastic period. Therefore, the role of the sukkal-mah corresponded to the Elamite confederation and the single sukkal correspond to the individual regional districts. Among these, the role of the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki maintained its privilege as a legacy of the former supremacy of the dynasty of Shimashki at the beginning of the second millennium BC.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 253-254) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 224, "polity": { "id": 497, "name": "ir_elam_3", "long_name": "Elam - Early Sukkalmah", "start_year": -1900, "end_year": -1701 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "§REF§Hinz 1971, 256-7§REF§§REF§Liverani 2014, 253§REF§<br>\"The Iranologist Walther Hinz once described late third millennium Elam as 'a federal state', and wrote, 'In an attempt to unite the very diverse areas of the federation, the kings, being sovereign, strove to bind the minor princelings to themselves by ties of blood relationship. The result was a body politic constructed on lines that were unusual, complicated, and indeed unparalleled elsewhere. The ruling houses most adept at this task all seem to have sprung from the high land and not from Susiana, although Susa itself early attained the status of capital' (Hinz 1972: 69). ... Steinkeller described the six Shimaskian lands defeated by Shu-Sin as a 'confederation' (Steinkeller 1988a: 119), while Stolper called them 'an extensive interregional union' (Stolper 1982: 49).\"§REF§(Potts 2016, 145) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>\"Without exaggeration, the Elamite federated system of government can be considered as perhaps the earliest formal federalism on a large scale in history.\" §REF§(Farazmand 2009, 21-22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton.§REF§<br>\"Elam's political structure was characterised by its confederate nature. This aspect was typical of the region from as early as the Early Dynastic period. Therefore, the role of the sukkal-mah corresponded to the Elamite confederation and the single sukkal correspond to the individual regional districts. Among these, the role of the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki maintained its privilege as a legacy of the former supremacy of the dynasty of Shimashki at the beginning of the second millennium BC.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 253-254) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 225, "polity": { "id": 498, "name": "ir_elam_4", "long_name": "Elam - Late Sukkalmah", "start_year": -1700, "end_year": -1500 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " \"Elam's political structure was characterised by its confederate nature. This aspect was typical of the region from as early as the Early Dynastic period. Therefore, the role of the sukkal-mah corresponded to the Elamite confederation and the single sukkal correspond to the individual regional districts. Among these, the role of the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki maintained its privilege as a legacy of the former supremacy of the dynasty of Shimashki at the beginning of the second millennium BC.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 253-254) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§ \"In the kingdom of Elam during this time (about 1700 B.C.), the people of the southeastern plateau, whose princes had controlled Susiana, fell back into a semi-nomadic state. The trans-Elamite culture that extended across the plateau similarly collapsed, and India too was overwhelmed in a general crisis about which little is known.\"§REF§(Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 8) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.§REF§" }, { "id": 226, "polity": { "id": 492, "name": "ir_susa_1", "long_name": "Susa I", "start_year": -4300, "end_year": -3800 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " \"In Khuzistan, Susiana, the Soghun Valley of the southeastern plateau, and perhaps elsewhere, Late Chalcolithic society may have been made up of a series of small localized chiefdoms similar to the contemporary Ubaid chiefdoms that existed in Mesopotamia. These chiefdoms would have been based on a system of staple finance rather than on the unequal distribution of prestige items. In this case, power would have been based on the control over water, land, and labor. Elsewhere, especially in the more isolated regions of the highlands, relatively small, self-sufficient, autonomous villages probably continued to exist throughout the Late Chalcolithic.\" §REF§(Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 164)§REF§ In this book the Late Chalcolithic corresponds to the period between 3900 and 3500 BCE." }, { "id": 227, "polity": { "id": 493, "name": "ir_susa_2", "long_name": "Susa II", "start_year": -3800, "end_year": -3100 }, "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": "Uruk phase \"Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population. What distinguishes the State is the stratified, yet organically coherent, structure of the human groups constituting it. In other words, the formation of the State placed collective interests above individual ones (or of individual groups such as families, villages and so on), the former being pursued in the various functions and contributions provided by each group.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>\"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa.\"§REF§(Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.§REF§" }, { "id": 228, "polity": { "id": 494, "name": "ir_susa_3", "long_name": "Susa III", "start_year": -3100, "end_year": -2675 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": "Proto-Elamite period reference: \"The geography of Iran, with its fertile lands surrounded by mountains, or on the margins of the central deserts, favoured the rise of local political entities. The latter would eventually unit in a sort of federal system (especially in the following period). Among these various local entities, Susiana remains a unique case, due to its exposure to Mesopotamian influences.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 91) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>Uruk phase \"Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population. What distinguishes the State is the stratified, yet organically coherent, structure of the human groups constituting it. In other words, the formation of the State placed collective interests above individual ones (or of individual groups such as families, villages and so on), the former being pursued in the various functions and contributions provided by each group.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>\"Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people.\"§REF§(Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.§REF§ -- <i>Note that Potts (2016) says that the link between what has been called \"Proto-Elamite\" and Elamite culture does not exist, \"Proto-Elamite\" is a misnomer. Writing system of the succeeding period was derived from proto-cuneiform Susa II/Uruk IV.</i>§REF§(Potts 2016, 76) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 229, "polity": { "id": 494, "name": "ir_susa_3", "long_name": "Susa III", "start_year": -3100, "end_year": -2675 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "Proto-Elamite period reference: \"The geography of Iran, with its fertile lands surrounded by mountains, or on the margins of the central deserts, favoured the rise of local political entities. The latter would eventually unit in a sort of federal system (especially in the following period). Among these various local entities, Susiana remains a unique case, due to its exposure to Mesopotamian influences.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 91) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>Uruk phase \"Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population. What distinguishes the State is the stratified, yet organically coherent, structure of the human groups constituting it. In other words, the formation of the State placed collective interests above individual ones (or of individual groups such as families, villages and so on), the former being pursued in the various functions and contributions provided by each group.\"§REF§(Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>\"Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people.\"§REF§(Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.§REF§ -- <i>Note that Potts (2016) says that the link between what has been called \"Proto-Elamite\" and Elamite culture does not exist, \"Proto-Elamite\" is a misnomer. Writing system of the succeeding period was derived from proto-cuneiform Susa II/Uruk IV.</i>§REF§(Potts 2016, 76) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.§REF§<br>" }, { "id": 230, "polity": { "id": 115, "name": "is_icelandic_commonwealth", "long_name": "Icelandic Commonwealth", "start_year": 930, "end_year": 1262 }, "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": " unknown/ nominal/ loose/ confederated state /unitary state 'It is important to keep in mind that Iceland as a whole (the ‘Commonwealth’) only had nominal centralization and was little more than a loose federation of smaller polities. However, the real political players were the godords (goðorð/chieftaincies) and, towards the end, the territorial lordships (héraðsríki/principalities). The latter can be regarded as emerging tiny centralized states. In some cases, complexity appears less when we consider the Commonwealth as a polity than if we were considering smaller units, especially the territorial lordships. Commonwealth Iceland could therefore be treated as a ‘quasi-polity’. However, this would make it difficult to describe a ‘typical’ polity within Iceland because there were two kinds. One could split the Commonwealth into two periods, the former characterized by godords and the latter by territorial lordships. Admittedly, the latter period would be a short one (1200-1262) although some territorial lordships existed before 1200 and some godords survived into the 13th century.' §REF§Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins§REF§ The eminent political institutions of Commonwealth Iceland were the chieftaincy and its associated courts and assemblies: 'At the time of Iceland’s settlement, Norse people worshiped gods whom they called æsir (singular áss), and this religion left behind an extensive mythology in Icelandic literature. Thor seems to have been the most popular of the pagan gods in Iceland, although Odin is thought to have been the highest in rank. It appears that heathen worship was organized around a distinct class of chieftains called godar (singular godi), of which there were about 40. In the absence of royal power in Iceland, the godar were to form the ruling class in the country. By the end of the settlement period, a general Icelandic assembly, called the Althing, had been established and was held at midsummer on a site that came to be called Thingvellir. This assembly consisted of a law council (lögrétta), in which the godar made and amended the laws, and a system of courts of justice, in which householders, nominated by the godar, acted on the panels of judges. At the local level, three godar usually held a joint assembly in late spring at which a local court operated, again with judges nominated by the godar. All farmers were legally obliged to belong to a chieftaincy (godord) but theoretically were free to change their allegiance from one godi to another; the godar were allotted a corresponding right to expel a follower. Some scholars have seen in this arrangement a resemblance to the franchise in modern societies. On the other hand, there was no central authority to ensure that the farmers would be able to exercise their right in a democratic way. No one was vested with executive power over the country as a whole. In any case, no trace of democratic practice reached farther down the social scale than to the heads of farming households; women and workers (free or enslaved) had no role in the political system.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10088\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10088</a>§REF§ 'One of the peculiarities of early Iceland was the lack of formal state institutions. The legislature, extensive law code, and judicial system of local and higher courts left prosecution and the enforcement of settlements in the hands of individuals. From an early date, the country was divided into Quarters. Each quarter constituted a broad community with three assemblies (ÞINGS), with the exception of the Northern Quarter that had four, and a system of local courts. Once a year the General Assembly (ALÞINGI) met in the southwest of Iceland. Judicial cases that could not be resolved in local quarters were heard and the parliament (LÖGRÉTTA) convened. The parliament was the principal legislative institution and was responsible for the introduction and maintanence of law. It consisted of chieftains (GOÐAR) from the local quarters. After the conversion to Christianity, the two Icelandic bishops were each given a seat in the parliament. The institution of chieftaincy (GOÐORÐ) was the main locus of political leadership in the country. Originally there were 36 but this number was later expanded. Chieftaincies themselves were a form of property and could be alienated and even divided among multiple individuals. In some cases, individuals asserted power beyond the scope of the political system and controlled multiple chieftaincies. All independent farmers had to be affiliated with a chieftain, although they could choose among any of the chieftains in their quarter and could switch allegiances if they did not feel that their needs were being met. Other than a seat on the parliament, chieftains had few rights beyond those of other independent farmers and few institutional means of dominating others. Chieftains derived much of their authority from their ability to broker support as advocates for their constituents in legal disputes or feuds.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§ Households and communes functioned as primary economic units: 'The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune's main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.' §REF§Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders§REF§" }, { "id": 231, "polity": { "id": 179, "name": "it_latium_ba", "long_name": "Latium - Bronze Age", "start_year": -1800, "end_year": -900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " §REF§R. Ross Holloway, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium (2014), p. 14§REF§" }, { "id": 232, "polity": { "id": 178, "name": "it_latium_ca", "long_name": "Latium - Copper Age", "start_year": -3600, "end_year": -1800 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "quasi-polity", "comment": null, "description": " §REF§A.P. Anzidei, A.M. Bietti Sestieri and A. De Santis, Roma e il Lazio dall'età della pietra alla formazione della città (1985)§REF§" }, { "id": 233, "polity": { "id": 186, "name": "it_ostrogoth_k", "long_name": "Ostrogothic Kingdom", "start_year": 489, "end_year": 554 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": "Loose<br>\"Governing Ostrogoths was a constant struggle to pull the forces of villages and kindreds, nobles and their followers, farae and allied peoples into line behind the will of the monarch. Tradition strengthens the hands of the nobility, prolonged crisis those of the royalty. Under such circumstances, Rome usually held the initiative and the Goths reacted as best they could. Consistent and long-term policy was virtually impossible. Even on campaigns, the king was rarely able to control his own people except <i>in extremis</i> ... even Theodoric himself at Marcianopolis... Ermanaric created the Ostrogothic confederacy as a military structure to establish a broad regional control over the numerous groups in the area and then led it against the Huns. And in this way he endeared himself to generation after generation. ... The Hunnic episode raised an elite far above the masses. The Amalian line profited from Hunnic favor, but the basic problems of leadership remained.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 167-168) Thomas S Burns. 1991. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.§REF§<br>Unitary state<br>\"Once the Ostrogoths took over Italy from Odovacar ... In terms of government there was, of course, but one alternative - the late Roman imperial system. As a king of an allied people and as magister militum praesentalis, consul for 484, patrician, and Flavius, Theodoric saw his task as essentially the establishment of an adequate system of government over the Goths to refocus gradually their personal loyalty from him onto his agents and officers. Insofar as possible, he allowed the Roman bureaucratic state and its many departments to function as usual.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 168-169) Thomas S Burns. 1991. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.§REF§<br>\"The Anonymous Valesianus reports that Theoderic 'made peace with the emperor Anastasius with regard to the presumption of the rule (presumptio regni) and Anastasius sent back to him all the ornaments of the palace, which Odovacer had transferred to Constantinople [in 476]'. This symbolic act of returning the ornamenta palatii in 498 signalled the acceptance of Theoderic's independent rule in the Italian provinces.\"§REF§(Heydemann 2016, 20) Heydemann, Gerda. The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies and Transitions. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden.§REF§" }, { "id": 234, "polity": { "id": 186, "name": "it_ostrogoth_k", "long_name": "Ostrogothic Kingdom", "start_year": 489, "end_year": 554 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": "Loose<br>\"Governing Ostrogoths was a constant struggle to pull the forces of villages and kindreds, nobles and their followers, farae and allied peoples into line behind the will of the monarch. Tradition strengthens the hands of the nobility, prolonged crisis those of the royalty. Under such circumstances, Rome usually held the initiative and the Goths reacted as best they could. Consistent and long-term policy was virtually impossible. Even on campaigns, the king was rarely able to control his own people except <i>in extremis</i> ... even Theodoric himself at Marcianopolis... Ermanaric created the Ostrogothic confederacy as a military structure to establish a broad regional control over the numerous groups in the area and then led it against the Huns. And in this way he endeared himself to generation after generation. ... The Hunnic episode raised an elite far above the masses. The Amalian line profited from Hunnic favor, but the basic problems of leadership remained.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 167-168) Thomas S Burns. 1991. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.§REF§<br>Unitary state<br>\"Once the Ostrogoths took over Italy from Odovacar ... In terms of government there was, of course, but one alternative - the late Roman imperial system. As a king of an allied people and as magister militum praesentalis, consul for 484, patrician, and Flavius, Theodoric saw his task as essentially the establishment of an adequate system of government over the Goths to refocus gradually their personal loyalty from him onto his agents and officers. Insofar as possible, he allowed the Roman bureaucratic state and its many departments to function as usual.\"§REF§(Burns 1991, 168-169) Thomas S Burns. 1991. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.§REF§<br>\"The Anonymous Valesianus reports that Theoderic 'made peace with the emperor Anastasius with regard to the presumption of the rule (presumptio regni) and Anastasius sent back to him all the ornaments of the palace, which Odovacer had transferred to Constantinople [in 476]'. This symbolic act of returning the ornamenta palatii in 498 signalled the acceptance of Theoderic's independent rule in the Italian provinces.\"§REF§(Heydemann 2016, 20) Heydemann, Gerda. The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies and Transitions. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden.§REF§" }, { "id": 235, "polity": { "id": 189, "name": "it_st_peter_rep_2", "long_name": "Rome - Republic of St Peter II", "start_year": 904, "end_year": 1198 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " In general, this period was marked by a high degree of fragmentation and sub-regional autonomy, with various areas of the Patrimony of St. Peter virtually independent of the Papacy or subject to central powers in a very nominal way.§REF§Wickham (2009), 164§REF§ Papal sovereignty over central Lazio was rarely in question,§REF§Marazzi, 64§REF§ yet the papacy's ability to control subject cities and defend its territory from outside threats was often minimal, particularly in regard to territory on the fringes of papal control.§REF§Marazzi, 64-65; Kreutz, 57-60.§REF§ For example, the city of Gaeta, in the extreme south of Lazio, was <i>de facto</i> independent of the papacy by the early 10th century.§REF§Skinner (1995), 2§REF§ In the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, the papacy was frequently at war with the German emperors, causing serious destabilization of political authority in the Patrimony. I should emphasize, however, that it is difficult to pin down which of these terms is most accurate, since the papacy frequently entered alliances during this period, and significant parts of the Patrimony were <i>de facto</i> annexed by the Empire for decades at a time.§REF§Partner, 231§REF§" }, { "id": 236, "polity": { "id": 190, "name": "it_papal_state_1", "long_name": "Papal States - High Medieval Period", "start_year": 1198, "end_year": 1309 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "nominal", "comment": null, "description": " \"The centralization of the church had also resulted in its bureaucratization. The church at its center seemed less like a religious body and more like a governmental institution; the pope was not the spiritual leader of Christendom but a man of business, a lawyer. His aims seemed less governed by a religious agenda than a political one. And, always, he was asking for more and more money.\"§REF§(Madigan 2015, 297)§REF§<br><i>RC: The Papal states in this period fluctuated repeatedly between 3, or all 4 degrees of centralization. It had various factions of feudal noble vassals, ecclesiastical bureaucrats, and factions of Roman families, and the power dynamics between these forces and the papacy greatly affected the degree of centralization.</i><br>" }, { "id": 237, "polity": { "id": 190, "name": "it_papal_state_1", "long_name": "Papal States - High Medieval Period", "start_year": 1198, "end_year": 1309 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " \"The centralization of the church had also resulted in its bureaucratization. The church at its center seemed less like a religious body and more like a governmental institution; the pope was not the spiritual leader of Christendom but a man of business, a lawyer. His aims seemed less governed by a religious agenda than a political one. And, always, he was asking for more and more money.\"§REF§(Madigan 2015, 297)§REF§<br><i>RC: The Papal states in this period fluctuated repeatedly between 3, or all 4 degrees of centralization. It had various factions of feudal noble vassals, ecclesiastical bureaucrats, and factions of Roman families, and the power dynamics between these forces and the papacy greatly affected the degree of centralization.</i><br>" }, { "id": 238, "polity": { "id": 190, "name": "it_papal_state_1", "long_name": "Papal States - High Medieval Period", "start_year": 1198, "end_year": 1309 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " \"The centralization of the church had also resulted in its bureaucratization. The church at its center seemed less like a religious body and more like a governmental institution; the pope was not the spiritual leader of Christendom but a man of business, a lawyer. His aims seemed less governed by a religious agenda than a political one. And, always, he was asking for more and more money.\"§REF§(Madigan 2015, 297)§REF§<br><i>RC: The Papal states in this period fluctuated repeatedly between 3, or all 4 degrees of centralization. It had various factions of feudal noble vassals, ecclesiastical bureaucrats, and factions of Roman families, and the power dynamics between these forces and the papacy greatly affected the degree of centralization.</i><br>" }, { "id": 239, "polity": { "id": 190, "name": "it_papal_state_1", "long_name": "Papal States - High Medieval Period", "start_year": 1198, "end_year": 1309 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " \"The centralization of the church had also resulted in its bureaucratization. The church at its center seemed less like a religious body and more like a governmental institution; the pope was not the spiritual leader of Christendom but a man of business, a lawyer. His aims seemed less governed by a religious agenda than a political one. And, always, he was asking for more and more money.\"§REF§(Madigan 2015, 297)§REF§<br><i>RC: The Papal states in this period fluctuated repeatedly between 3, or all 4 degrees of centralization. It had various factions of feudal noble vassals, ecclesiastical bureaucrats, and factions of Roman families, and the power dynamics between these forces and the papacy greatly affected the degree of centralization.</i><br>" }, { "id": 240, "polity": { "id": 192, "name": "it_papal_state_3", "long_name": "Papal States - Early Modern Period I", "start_year": 1527, "end_year": 1648 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " The papal bureaucracy (the <i>curia</i>) was, to a significant degree, able to enforce decisions and collect taxes for the papacy during the second half the period. The foundations of political power in the Papal State during this period remained a unity of interests between the Roman nobles, the rural nobility of the Papal States and Lazio in particular, and the papal government.§REF§Symcox in Marino, 114§REF§ This internal arrangement was usually based on a wider context of Spanish protection of the papacy and bankrolling its armies.§REF§Dandelet in Marino, 25§REF§ Brackets should be added, however, to reflect the fact that clerical officials appointed by the papacy were not always superior, in practice, to these nobles, particularly in rural areas and on the fringes of the Papal State." }, { "id": 241, "polity": { "id": 193, "name": "it_papal_state_4", "long_name": "Papal States - Early Modern Period II", "start_year": 1648, "end_year": 1809 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "unitary state", "comment": null, "description": " By this period, the papacy was in unchallenged control of the territory encompassed by the Papal States, especially following the War of Castro (see above)." }, { "id": 242, "polity": { "id": 191, "name": "it_papal_state_2", "long_name": "Papal States - Renaissance Period", "start_year": 1378, "end_year": 1527 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " The papacy's ability to control the papal states fluctuated dramatically during this period, especially during the Great Schism (1378-1417). In general, the various lords, cities, and feudatories of the papal states were ready and willing to rebel when possible (for example, in 1375.§REF§Partner, 366-67§REF§) Furthermore, the lords of the Romagna were <i>de facto</i> independent for much of the late 14th and early 15th centuries.§REF§For these petty lordships, see Larner§REF§ During the mid-15th century, King Ferrante of Naples deliberately contracted with Roman barons for them to raise mercenary bands for his service, undercutting these barons' feudal ties to the papacy.§REF§Mallett and Shaw, 10§REF§Brackets are required to reflect the consolidation of papal authority in the papal states during the fifteenth century, and the ambiguous relationship between papally-appointed, clerical officials and the local elites they were theoretically superior to.§REF§For growing centralization under Martin V, see Partner, 402-09§REF§ Peterson has characterized the Church by this period as bureaucratic and legalistic, especially in the administration of the papal state.§REF§Peterson in Najemy, 74§REF§" }, { "id": 243, "polity": { "id": 187, "name": "it_ravenna_exarchate", "long_name": "Exarchate of Ravenna", "start_year": 568, "end_year": 751 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "loose", "comment": null, "description": " Decentralization trend throughout period. In 727 CE there was a general rebellion against Byzantine officials, with the Exarchate joined by Venice. In Ravenna, the exarch was killed and cities elected their own Dukes.§REF§(Daly 1986)§REF§" }, { "id": 244, "polity": { "id": 187, "name": "it_ravenna_exarchate", "long_name": "Exarchate of Ravenna", "start_year": 568, "end_year": 751 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "confederated state", "comment": null, "description": " Decentralization trend throughout period. In 727 CE there was a general rebellion against Byzantine officials, with the Exarchate joined by Venice. In Ravenna, the exarch was killed and cities elected their own Dukes.§REF§(Daly 1986)§REF§" }, { "id": 245, "polity": { "id": 187, "name": "it_ravenna_exarchate", "long_name": "Exarchate of Ravenna", "start_year": 568, "end_year": 751 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_degree_of_centralization", "degree_of_centralization": "nominal", "comment": null, "description": " Decentralization trend throughout period. In 727 CE there was a general rebellion against Byzantine officials, with the Exarchate joined by Venice. In Ravenna, the exarch was killed and cities elected their own Dukes.§REF§(Daly 1986)§REF§" }, { "id": 246, "polity": { "id": 182, "name": "it_roman_rep_1", "long_name": "Early Roman Republic", "start_year": -509, "end_year": -264 }, "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": 247, "polity": { "id": 184, "name": "it_roman_rep_3", "long_name": "Late Roman Republic", "start_year": -133, "end_year": -31 }, "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": " The Roman Republic was a unitary state, but highly decentralized in its administration." }, { "id": 248, "polity": { "id": 183, "name": "it_roman_rep_2", "long_name": "Middle Roman Republic", "start_year": -264, "end_year": -133 }, "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": 249, "polity": { "id": 70, "name": "it_roman_principate", "long_name": "Roman Empire - Principate", "start_year": -31, "end_year": 284 }, "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": 250, "polity": { "id": 181, "name": "it_roman_k", "long_name": "Roman Kingdom", "start_year": -716, "end_year": -509 }, "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 } ] }