Polity Suprapolity Relations List
A viewset for viewing and editing Polity Suprapolity Relations.
GET /api/general/polity-suprapolities/?format=api&page=6
{ "count": 382, "next": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-suprapolities/?format=api&page=7", "previous": "https://seshat-db.com/api/general/polity-suprapolities/?format=api&page=5", "results": [ { "id": 276, "polity": { "id": 133, "name": "pk_sind_abbasid_fatimid", "long_name": "Sind - Abbasid-Fatimid Period", "start_year": 854, "end_year": 1193 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " nominal allegiance: 854-1010 CE; none: 1010-1025 CE; nominal allegiance: 1025-1030 CE; none: 1030-1218 CE; vassalage: 1218-1237 CE; none: 1237-1243 CE; vassal: 1297-1317 CE; none: 1317-1352 CE<br>Until 985 CE the Sind were nominally under the control of the Abbasid Caliphate, from 985 - 1010 CE there were increasing ties to the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt. After the replacement of the Habarri by the Soomras the Sind was largely independent, although they saw the Fatimids as the ultimate religious authority. An exception to this is the period of five years during which the Sind paid tribute to Mahmud of Ghazni. After a long period of independence until 1228 CE portions of the territory were annexed by the Delhi sultanate, leading to the Sind being made a vassal of Delhi from 1297 CE to 1317 CE. A chaotic period of civil war and three claims to kingship occurred from 1317 - 1352 CE. This period coincided with the rise of the Samma Jams.§REF§Panhwar, M. H. \"Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 184-206§REF§ §REF§Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh, Karachi, 2003, pp.19-71§REF§" }, { "id": 277, "polity": { "id": 136, "name": "pk_samma_dyn", "long_name": "Sind - Samma Dynasty", "start_year": 1335, "end_year": 1521 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " none: 1335-1336 CE; vassalage: 1336-1388 CE; none: 1389-1521 CE <i>dates cannot yet be machine read</i><br>§REF§Lakho, Ghulam Muhammad, The Samma Kingdom of Sindh, (institute of Sindhology, 2006) pp.57-58§REF§<br>The evidence is very scanty, amounting to a few manuscripts and conflicting inscriptions." }, { "id": 278, "polity": { "id": 136, "name": "pk_samma_dyn", "long_name": "Sind - Samma Dynasty", "start_year": 1335, "end_year": 1521 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " none: 1335-1336 CE; vassalage: 1336-1388 CE; none: 1389-1521 CE <i>dates cannot yet be machine read</i><br>§REF§Lakho, Ghulam Muhammad, The Samma Kingdom of Sindh, (institute of Sindhology, 2006) pp.57-58§REF§<br>The evidence is very scanty, amounting to a few manuscripts and conflicting inscriptions." }, { "id": 279, "polity": { "id": 136, "name": "pk_samma_dyn", "long_name": "Sind - Samma Dynasty", "start_year": 1335, "end_year": 1521 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " none: 1335-1336 CE; vassalage: 1336-1388 CE; none: 1389-1521 CE <i>dates cannot yet be machine read</i><br>§REF§Lakho, Ghulam Muhammad, The Samma Kingdom of Sindh, (institute of Sindhology, 2006) pp.57-58§REF§<br>The evidence is very scanty, amounting to a few manuscripts and conflicting inscriptions." }, { "id": 280, "polity": { "id": 121, "name": "pk_kachi_urban_1", "long_name": "Kachi Plain - Urban Period I", "start_year": -2500, "end_year": -2100 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "The extent that people in the Mature Harappan period were unified in a single polity is debated. Evidence suggests that there was a certain degree centralised authority to ensure the standardisation of weights, craft specialisation and the uniform urban planning at sites including Nausharo, Mohenjo Daro (Sindh) and Kalibangan (Rajasthan)§REF§Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. p44§REF§; but distinct material culture suggest several distinct areas in the Indus Valley.§REF§Schug, G. R., Gray, K., Mushrif-Tripathy, V., and Sankhyan, A. R. (2012) A peaceful realm? Trauma and social differentiation at Harappa. International Journal of Paleopathology 2, pp136-147. p136§REF§" }, { "id": 281, "polity": { "id": 122, "name": "pk_kachi_urban_2", "long_name": "Kachi Plain - Urban Period II", "start_year": -2100, "end_year": -1800 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "The extent that people in the Mature Harappan period were unified in a single polity is debated. Evidence suggests that there was a certain degree centralised authority to ensure the standardisation of weights, craft specialisation and the uniform urban planning at sites including Nausharo, Mohenjo Daro (Sindh) and Kalibangan (Rajasthan)§REF§Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. p44§REF§; but distinct material culture suggest several distinct areas in the Indus Valley.§REF§Schug, G. R., Gray, K., Mushrif-Tripathy, V., and Sankhyan, A. R. (2012) A peaceful realm? Trauma and social differentiation at Harappa. International Journal of Paleopathology 2, pp136-147. p136§REF§" }, { "id": 282, "polity": { "id": 194, "name": "ru_sakha_early", "long_name": "Sakha - Early", "start_year": 1400, "end_year": 1632 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " During the Russian period, Sakha came under Czarist political and administrative control: 'By 1642 the Lena valley was under tribute to the czar; peace was won only after a long siege of a formidable Yakut fortress. By 1700 the fort settlement of Yakutsk (founded 1632) was a bustling Russian administrative, commercial, and religious center and a launching point for further exploration into Kamchatka and Chukotka. Some Yakut moved northeast into territories they had previously not dominated, further assimilating the Evenk and Yukagir. Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. ' §REF§Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut§REF§ Before that, the Lena river valley was inhabited by independent tribes (see above)." }, { "id": 283, "polity": { "id": 195, "name": "ru_sakha_late", "long_name": "Sakha - Late", "start_year": 1632, "end_year": 1900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": { "id": 600, "name": "ru_romanov_dyn_1", "long_name": "Russian Empire, Romanov Dynasty I", "start_year": 1614, "end_year": 1775 }, "comment": null, "description": "In the 17th century, the Czar regime started to exact tribute from the Sakha population while gradually integrating Siberia into the general administration: 'By 1620 a report had reached Tobolsk from the Mangaseya Cossacks of the Great (Lena) River and the Lena Yakut. In 1631 they descended by the Viliui River, a tributary of the Lena, to the Lena River and imposed tribute on the adjacent Yakut. In 1632 a party of Cossacks under the command of the Boyar’s son, Shakov, took tribute in sables from a clan of Viliui horse-breeding Yakut. The Viliui River farther up from its mouth was occupied by Tungus only. The northern boundary of the distribution of the Yakut at that time was the mouth of the Viliui. The whole Lena Valley from the mouth of the Viliui River to the south, at a distance of about 500 kilometers (or 710 miles) was occupied by Yakut. In their possession were also all the Lena islands of that region, rich in pasture lands. There is no definite information as to how far inland they penetrated at that period. We may admit, however, that the Yakut, being horse and cattle breeders, were hardly inclined to move into the dense forests far from the majority of their tribesmen, i.e., far from the Lena Valley. In the beginning of the seventeenth century the Yakut abode on the western banks of the Lena must have been the territory of the two present uluses of Yakutsk District, Namskij and Western Kangalassky. There, according to Yakut traditions, was the first place of refuge of their mythical forefather, the “Tatar” Elliei. From there a part of his nearest descendants could also have emigrated over the Lena islands to the eastern banks of the Lena River, where excellent pastures are as abundant as on the western banks.' §REF§Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut\", 220§REF§ During the Russian period, Yakutia came under Czarist political and administrative control: 'By 1642 the Lena valley was under tribute to the czar; peace was won only after a long siege of a formidable Yakut fortress. By 1700 the fort settlement of Yakutsk (founded 1632) was a bustling Russian administrative, commercial, and religious center and a launching point for further exploration into Kamchatka and Chukotka. Some Yakut moved northeast into territories they had previously not dominated, further assimilating the Evenk and Yukagir. Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. Fighting among Yakut communities decreased, although horse rustling and occasional anti-Russian violence continued. For example, a Yakut Robin Hood named Manchari led a band that stole from the rich (usually Russians) to give to the poor (usually Yakut) in the nineteenth century. Russian Orthodox priests spread through Yakutia, but their followers were mainly in the major towns. By 1900 a literate Yakut intelligentsia, influenced both by Russian merchants and political exiles, formed a party called the Yakut Union. Yakut revolutionaries such as Oiunskii and Ammosov led the Revolution and civil war in Yakutia, along with Bolsheviks such as the Georgian Ordzhonikidze.' §REF§Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut§REF§" }, { "id": 284, "polity": { "id": 521, "name": "eg_kushite", "long_name": "Egypt - Kushite Period", "start_year": -747, "end_year": -656 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 285, "polity": { "id": 131, "name": "sy_umayyad_cal", "long_name": "Umayyad Caliphate", "start_year": 661, "end_year": 750 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 286, "polity": { "id": 44, "name": "th_ayutthaya", "long_name": "Ayutthaya", "start_year": 1593, "end_year": 1767 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " 'The differing understandings of what the tributary relationship entailed are evident in an incident in October 1592 when King Narasuan of Ayutthaya offered Siamese naval assistance to the Ming court in its struggle to contain the depredations of Japanese pirates. The offer was refused, for from the Chinese point of view it would have been demeaning, and an admission of Chinese weakness, to have accepted. In the mandala world of Southeast Asia, however, it was usual for an ally to contribute military assistance in time of war. Narasuan may have hoped for some quid pro quo in his own conflict with the Burmese, but his offer, and the Ming refusal, point to essential differences in worldview.'§REF§(Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 34)§REF§" }, { "id": 287, "polity": { "id": 45, "name": "th_rattanakosin", "long_name": "Rattanakosin", "start_year": 1782, "end_year": 1873 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " \"Vassalage\" seems to be the Seshat category that most closely fits the supra-polity relations of Rattanakosin, but perhaps it is too simple a label, especially considered in comparison with the following. \"Working from the outer layers inward, we encounter first a circle of semi-independent rulers who did little more than pay tribute to Bangkok on a regular basis and who often paid tribute to other states as well. [...] A second tier of states, or perhaps more properly principalities, was relatively more integrated into the Siamese system. In addition to paying tribute, they often were required to provide Siam with manpower to warfare or public works, paid relatively larger amounts in tribute, sometimes were married into the Siamese royal family, and occasionally suffered Siamese interference in their internal affairs. [...] The next layer consisted of large regional centers around Siam's periphery, ruled by chaophraya and considered to be major, but quasi-independent, provinces. [...]\" A fourth tier were small polities with hereditary rulers, who paid 'nominal' and provided manpower when needed. \"Finally, the inner core of the kingdom consisted of provinces properly speaking, ruled by officials appointed from the capital [...] and subjected to the regulation of the central government through the chief ministries of state.\"§REF§(Wyatt 1984, pp. 159-160)§REF§" }, { "id": 288, "polity": { "id": 462, "name": "tj_sarasm", "long_name": "Sarazm", "start_year": -3500, "end_year": -2000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 289, "polity": { "id": 221, "name": "tn_fatimid_cal", "long_name": "Fatimid Caliphate", "start_year": 909, "end_year": 1171 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 290, "polity": { "id": 160, "name": "tr_konya_eba", "long_name": "Konya Plain - Early Bronze Age", "start_year": -3000, "end_year": -2000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "unknown", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "unknown" }, { "id": 291, "polity": { "id": 161, "name": "tr_central_anatolia_mba", "long_name": "Middle Bronze Age in Central Anatolia", "start_year": -2000, "end_year": -1700 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " §REF§Yakar J. 2011. Anatolian Chronology and Terminology. [in:] S. McMahon (ed.) <i>The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia</i>. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 75§REF§§REF§Barjamovic G. 2005. The Geograhy of Trade. Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia c. 1975-1725 BC and the Study of Early Interregional networks of Exchange [in:] J.G. Dercksen (ed.) (PIHANS 111), Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOsten. pg 88§REF§ States, which actually correspond to such polity relations are bigger settlements, around which smaller villages are set and taken into bigger centers jurisdiction, e.g. Kaneš, Purušhattum, Zalpa, Hattuš Wahšaniya or Mamma§REF§Yakar J. 2011. Anatolian Chronology and Terminology. [in:] S. McMahon (ed.) <i>The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia</i>. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 75§REF§§REF§Barjamovic G. 2005. The Geograhy of Trade. Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia c. 1975-1725 BC and the Study of Early Interregional networks of Exchange [in:] J.G. Dercksen (ed.) (PIHANS 111), Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOsten. pg 88§REF§" }, { "id": 292, "polity": { "id": 73, "name": "tr_byzantine_emp_1", "long_name": "Byzantine Empire I", "start_year": 632, "end_year": 866 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": { "id": 285, "name": "ru_khazar_emp", "long_name": "Khazar Empire", "start_year": 626, "end_year": 965 }, "comment": null, "description": "alliance<br>with Khazars §REF§(Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication§REF§<br>with Sassanid Persia 633 CE at Firaz against Arabs.§REF§(Uttridge and Spilling eds 2014, 180) Uttridge and Spilling eds. 2014. The Encyclopedia of Warfare. Amber Books Ltd.§REF§<br>Amazigh were \"traditional\" allies for the Byzantines.§REF§(Uttridge and Spilling eds 2014, 183) Uttridge and Spilling eds. 2014. The Encyclopedia of Warfare. Amber Books Ltd.§REF§" }, { "id": 293, "polity": { "id": 75, "name": "tr_byzantine_emp_2", "long_name": "Byzantine Empire II", "start_year": 867, "end_year": 1072 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "\"Emperors from the time of Basil II found it cheaper to call upon allies and dependents, such as Venice, to supply warships, than to pay for an expensive standing fleet at Constantinople.\"§REF§(Haldon 2008, 560) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§<br>From 11th CE \"Byzantium had to depend more than before on its alliances with foreign peoples\".§REF§(Gregory 2010, 281) Gregory, Timothy E. 2010. A History of Byzantium. Wiley-Blackweel. Chichester.§REF§" }, { "id": 294, "polity": { "id": 76, "name": "tr_byzantine_emp_3", "long_name": "Byzantine Empire III", "start_year": 1073, "end_year": 1204 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "Alliance with Venice in 1082 CE.§REF§(Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson.§REF§<br>Alliance: \"Emperors from the time of Basil II found it cheaper to call upon allies and dependents, such as Venice, to supply warships, than to pay for an expensive standing fleet at Constantinople.\"§REF§(Haldon 2008, 560) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford.§REF§" }, { "id": 295, "polity": { "id": 170, "name": "tr_cappadocia_2", "long_name": "Late Cappadocia", "start_year": -330, "end_year": 16 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " {380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage<br>The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41§REF§§REF§Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54§REF§. Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85§REF§§REF§Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164§REF§. The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. §REF§Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472§REF§§REF§Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90§REF§<br>It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77§REF§§REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63§REF§; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2§REF§." }, { "id": 296, "polity": { "id": 170, "name": "tr_cappadocia_2", "long_name": "Late Cappadocia", "start_year": -330, "end_year": 16 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " {380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage<br>The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41§REF§§REF§Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54§REF§. Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85§REF§§REF§Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164§REF§. The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. §REF§Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472§REF§§REF§Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90§REF§<br>It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77§REF§§REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63§REF§; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2§REF§." }, { "id": 297, "polity": { "id": 170, "name": "tr_cappadocia_2", "long_name": "Late Cappadocia", "start_year": -330, "end_year": 16 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "personal union", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " {380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage<br>The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41§REF§§REF§Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54§REF§. Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85§REF§§REF§Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164§REF§. The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. §REF§Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472§REF§§REF§Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90§REF§<br>It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77§REF§§REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63§REF§; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2§REF§." }, { "id": 298, "polity": { "id": 170, "name": "tr_cappadocia_2", "long_name": "Late Cappadocia", "start_year": -330, "end_year": 16 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " {380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage<br>The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41§REF§§REF§Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54§REF§. Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85§REF§§REF§Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164§REF§. The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. §REF§Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472§REF§§REF§Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90§REF§<br>It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE §REF§McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77§REF§§REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63§REF§; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE §REF§Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2§REF§." }, { "id": 299, "polity": { "id": 158, "name": "tr_konya_eca", "long_name": "Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic", "start_year": -6000, "end_year": -5500 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "SSP", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "unknown", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "The area of Central Anatolia is distinct for the fact that each site corresponds to a separate culture. However, it is possible to posit contacts between them, through similarities in pottery decorations (motifs)or architectural systems." }, { "id": 300, "polity": { "id": 72, "name": "tr_east_roman_emp", "long_name": "East Roman Empire", "start_year": 395, "end_year": 631 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": { "id": 468, "name": "uz_sogdiana_city_states", "long_name": "Sogdiana - City-States Period", "start_year": 604, "end_year": 711 }, "comment": null, "description": "alliance with West Turkestan polities second half 6th century<br>\"... Byzantine also visited West Turkestan including Sogdiana. Here too there were economic and political reasons to account for the opening of diplomatic relations with these peoples. For one thing it was imperative to safeguard the silk trade, and on the other hand there was the desire to encircle Persia in the political and military sense by means of an alliance with the Turks.\"§REF§(Haussig 1971, 103-104) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson.§REF§ \"... seven decades of close Byzantino-Turkic relations. The title of Caesar which survives in old Tibetan chronicles in the form of Gesar is yet another reminder in Central Asia of the days when the Byzantine Emperor bestowed on the Turkic khan the title of Caesar.\"§REF§(Haussig 1971, 104) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson.§REF§" }, { "id": 301, "polity": { "id": 168, "name": "tr_lydia_k", "long_name": "Kingdom of Lydia", "start_year": -670, "end_year": -546 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "personal union", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " Lydia frequently utilised marriage as a form of peace treaty. When Alyattes expanded Lydia to the East, he met a Median army expanding their territory from Susiana. An indicisive battle was fought and a truce was declared with the Halys river as the border between the two empires. To seal the deal Alyattes' daughter was married to the son of Cyaxeres, the Median king. Alyattes himself married Ionian and Carian women and married another daught to the tyrant of Ephesus. §REF§Roosevelt, C.H. 2012. Iron Age Western Anatolia. In Potts, D.T. (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Near East. London: Blackwell. p. 897-913§REF§<br>Sought alliance with Assyrians against the Cimmerians.§REF§(Leverani 2014, 495) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>Alliance with Egypt against the Assyrians.§REF§(Leverani 2014, 544) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 302, "polity": { "id": 168, "name": "tr_lydia_k", "long_name": "Kingdom of Lydia", "start_year": -670, "end_year": -546 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " Lydia frequently utilised marriage as a form of peace treaty. When Alyattes expanded Lydia to the East, he met a Median army expanding their territory from Susiana. An indicisive battle was fought and a truce was declared with the Halys river as the border between the two empires. To seal the deal Alyattes' daughter was married to the son of Cyaxeres, the Median king. Alyattes himself married Ionian and Carian women and married another daught to the tyrant of Ephesus. §REF§Roosevelt, C.H. 2012. Iron Age Western Anatolia. In Potts, D.T. (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Near East. London: Blackwell. p. 897-913§REF§<br>Sought alliance with Assyrians against the Cimmerians.§REF§(Leverani 2014, 495) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§<br>Alliance with Egypt against the Assyrians.§REF§(Leverani 2014, 544) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.§REF§" }, { "id": 303, "polity": { "id": 169, "name": "tr_lysimachus_k", "long_name": "Lysimachus Kingdom", "start_year": -323, "end_year": -281 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " 323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander's empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.§REF§Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24.§REF§§REF§Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York.§REF§" }, { "id": 304, "polity": { "id": 169, "name": "tr_lysimachus_k", "long_name": "Lysimachus Kingdom", "start_year": -323, "end_year": -281 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "personal union", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " 323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander's empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.§REF§Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24.§REF§§REF§Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York.§REF§" }, { "id": 305, "polity": { "id": 169, "name": "tr_lysimachus_k", "long_name": "Lysimachus Kingdom", "start_year": -323, "end_year": -281 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " 323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander's empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.§REF§Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24.§REF§§REF§Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York.§REF§" }, { "id": 306, "polity": { "id": 156, "name": "tr_konya_mnl", "long_name": "Konya Plain - Ceramic Neolithic", "start_year": -7000, "end_year": -6600 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "unknown", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 307, "polity": { "id": 155, "name": "tr_konya_enl", "long_name": "Konya Plain - Early Neolithic", "start_year": -9600, "end_year": -7000 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "unknown", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 308, "polity": { "id": 165, "name": "tr_neo_hittite_k", "long_name": "Neo-Hittite Kingdoms", "start_year": -1180, "end_year": -900 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "Alliances<br>alliances negotiate between Neo-Hittite kingdoms against one another and against the Assyrians §REF§(Thuesen 2002, 46)§REF§" }, { "id": 310, "polity": { "id": 173, "name": "tr_ottoman_emirate", "long_name": "Ottoman Emirate", "start_year": 1299, "end_year": 1402 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": { "id": 172, "name": "ir_il_khanate", "long_name": "Ilkhanate", "start_year": 1256, "end_year": 1339 }, "comment": null, "description": "Until 1335/1350 CE the Ottomans as other Turkish Emirates in Anatolia were (first actually, later nominally) subordinated to Mongol Ilkhan-Rulers of Persia, Iraq and Anatolia as their overlords and had to pay tribute.§REF§Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences.§REF§" }, { "id": 312, "polity": { "id": 174, "name": "tr_ottoman_emp_1", "long_name": "Ottoman Empire I", "start_year": 1402, "end_year": 1517 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 313, "polity": { "id": 175, "name": "tr_ottoman_emp_2", "long_name": "Ottoman Empire II", "start_year": 1517, "end_year": 1683 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 314, "polity": { "id": 166, "name": "tr_phrygian_k", "long_name": "Phrygian Kingdom", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -695 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "Alliance<br>\"union between the Phrygians and an eastern Anatolian people called the Mushki. ... a fierce, aggressive, tribal people...\" Not all scholars agree there was a union \"But the balance of scholarly opinion favours the assumption of a united Mushki-Phrygian kingdom, formed some time in the 8th century.\" §REF§(Bryce 2002, 40)§REF§" }, { "id": 315, "polity": { "id": 71, "name": "tr_roman_dominate", "long_name": "Roman Empire - Dominate", "start_year": 285, "end_year": 394 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "vassalage", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " e.g. Ethiopian and Arabian tribes" }, { "id": 318, "polity": { "id": 167, "name": "tr_tabal_k", "long_name": "Tabal Kingdoms", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -730 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "mid-9th century BCE Assyrian records suggest Tabal \"consisted of a number of small independent states (which may have evolved several centuries earlier) whose rulers became tributaries of Assyria. Shalmaneser claims to have received gifts from twenty-four kings of Tabal during a campaign which he conducted in the region in 837 ... However, by the middle of the following century, many of the states were apparently consolidated into a small number of larger kingdoms.\" §REF§(Bryce 2002, 43)§REF§<br>Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III lists five kingdoms of Tabal \"among his tributaries\": Tabal ('Proper') ... Atuna, Tuhana (Luwian Tuwana), Ishtu(a)nda, and Hupishna ...\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 141)§REF§ \"To this list of kingdoms in the Tabal region we can add a sixth, Shinuhtu, attested both in Luwian and Assyrian inscriptions dating to the reign of Sargon II. Shinuhtu's ruler at that time was a man called Kiyakiya (Assyrian Kiakki).\" §REF§(Bryce 2012, 141)§REF§<br>\"...generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers.\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 243)§REF§<br>alliances negotiated between Neo-Hittite kingdoms against one another and against the Assyrians §REF§(Thuesen 2002, 46)§REF§<br>\"What precisely was the nature of Assyrian authority in the west as a consequence of Shalmaneser's many campaigns there? At this stage, direct Assyrian rule over the local kingdoms had not yet been established. It would be another century or so before these kingdoms were absorbed into the Assyrian provincial system. By and large, the imposition of Assyrian authority over the local states meant that their kings accepted tributary status and made regular payments, in one form or another, into the Assyrian royal coffers, and (or else) conceded the Assyrians access to resource-rich regions, particularly the forested areas of the Levantine and northern Syrian coast. We do not know whether the relationship between a local ruler and the Assyrian king was formalized by a written pact - though in at least some instances there may well have been some form of agreement drawn up. But generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers.\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 243)§REF§" }, { "id": 319, "polity": { "id": 167, "name": "tr_tabal_k", "long_name": "Tabal Kingdoms", "start_year": -900, "end_year": -730 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "mid-9th century BCE Assyrian records suggest Tabal \"consisted of a number of small independent states (which may have evolved several centuries earlier) whose rulers became tributaries of Assyria. Shalmaneser claims to have received gifts from twenty-four kings of Tabal during a campaign which he conducted in the region in 837 ... However, by the middle of the following century, many of the states were apparently consolidated into a small number of larger kingdoms.\" §REF§(Bryce 2002, 43)§REF§<br>Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III lists five kingdoms of Tabal \"among his tributaries\": Tabal ('Proper') ... Atuna, Tuhana (Luwian Tuwana), Ishtu(a)nda, and Hupishna ...\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 141)§REF§ \"To this list of kingdoms in the Tabal region we can add a sixth, Shinuhtu, attested both in Luwian and Assyrian inscriptions dating to the reign of Sargon II. Shinuhtu's ruler at that time was a man called Kiyakiya (Assyrian Kiakki).\" §REF§(Bryce 2012, 141)§REF§<br>\"...generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers.\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 243)§REF§<br>alliances negotiated between Neo-Hittite kingdoms against one another and against the Assyrians §REF§(Thuesen 2002, 46)§REF§<br>\"What precisely was the nature of Assyrian authority in the west as a consequence of Shalmaneser's many campaigns there? At this stage, direct Assyrian rule over the local kingdoms had not yet been established. It would be another century or so before these kingdoms were absorbed into the Assyrian provincial system. By and large, the imposition of Assyrian authority over the local states meant that their kings accepted tributary status and made regular payments, in one form or another, into the Assyrian royal coffers, and (or else) conceded the Assyrians access to resource-rich regions, particularly the forested areas of the Levantine and northern Syrian coast. We do not know whether the relationship between a local ruler and the Assyrian king was formalized by a written pact - though in at least some instances there may well have been some form of agreement drawn up. But generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers.\"§REF§(Bryce 2012, 243)§REF§" }, { "id": 320, "polity": { "id": 32, "name": "us_cahokia_1", "long_name": "Cahokia - Lohman-Stirling", "start_year": 1050, "end_year": 1199 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "Evidence of political alliances, trade and warfare at Cahokia by 1050 CE.§REF§(Iseminger 2010, 28) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.§REF§" }, { "id": 321, "polity": { "id": 33, "name": "us_cahokia_2", "long_name": "Cahokia - Moorehead", "start_year": 1200, "end_year": 1275 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 322, "polity": { "id": 30, "name": "us_early_illinois_confederation", "long_name": "Early Illinois Confederation", "start_year": 1640, "end_year": 1717 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " In 1663, 'New France is declared a royal colony. Eight years later [i.e. 1671], France claims title to the unexplored Illinois Country',§REF§(Warren and Walthall 1998, 5) Robert E. Warren and John A. Walthall. 1998. 'Illini Indians in the Illinois Country 1673-1832'. <i>The Living Museum</i> 60 (1): 4-8.§REF§ although they did not enter it until 1673.§REF§(Illinois State Museum 2000) Illinois State Museum. 2000. 'The Illinois Indians: Society: Neighbors: The French'. <i>MuseumLink Illinois</i>. Available online at <a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/soc_french.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/soc_french.html</a>, accessed 3 January 2017.§REF§ The complex French relationship to Indian societies in the American mid-continent has been discussed by Gilles Havard, who characterizes it as one of 'unequal alliance' or 'protection' of the Indians by the French crown, in which Indian sovereignty was generally retained.§REF§(Havard 2013, 117) Gilles Havard. 2013. '\"Protection\" and \"Unequal Alliance\": The French Conception of Sovereignty over Indians in New France', in <i>French and Indians in the Heart of North America, 1630-1815</i>, edited by Robert Englebert and Guillaume Teasdale, 113-37. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.§REF§" }, { "id": 323, "polity": { "id": 101, "name": "us_haudenosaunee_1", "long_name": "Haudenosaunee Confederacy - Early", "start_year": 1566, "end_year": 1713 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " The Iroquois sought to expand their sphere of influence and to gain tributary nations rather than being themselves part of a larger entity: 'Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.' §REF§Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36§REF§ The Iroquois supported the British against the French during Queen Anne's war: 'During Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War's end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.' §REF§Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois§REF§ The Iroquois regularly interacted with European colonists and other native polities through the fur trade, but were not made British subjects until the end of Queen Anne's war: 'The Iroquoian confederacy was organized sometime between 1400 and A.D. 1600 for the purpose of maintaining peaceful relations between the 5 constituent tribes. Subsequent to European contact relations within the confederacy were sometimes strained as each of the 5 tribes sought to expand and maintain its own interests in the developing fur trade. For the most part, however, the fur trade served to strengthen the confederacy because tribal interests often complemented one another and all gained from acting in concert. The League was skillful at playing French and English interests off against one another to its advantage and thereby was able to play a major role in the economic and political events of northeastern North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Iroquois aggressively maintained and expanded their role in the fur trade and as a result periodically found themselves at war with their neighbors, such as the Huron, Petun, and the Neutral to the West and the Susquehannock to the south. Much of the fighting was done by the Seneca, the most powerful of the Iroquoian tribes. From 1667 to the 1680s the Iroquois maintained friendly relations with the French and during this time Jesuit missions were established among each of the 5 tribes. However, Iroquois aggression and expansion eventually brought them into conflict with the French and, at the same time, into closer alliance with the English. In 1687, 1693 and 1696 French military expeditions raided and burned Iroquois villages and fields. During Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War's end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.' §REF§Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois§REF§" }, { "id": 324, "polity": { "id": 101, "name": "us_haudenosaunee_1", "long_name": "Haudenosaunee Confederacy - Early", "start_year": 1566, "end_year": 1713 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "alliance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " The Iroquois sought to expand their sphere of influence and to gain tributary nations rather than being themselves part of a larger entity: 'Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.' §REF§Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36§REF§ The Iroquois supported the British against the French during Queen Anne's war: 'During Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War's end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.' §REF§Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois§REF§ The Iroquois regularly interacted with European colonists and other native polities through the fur trade, but were not made British subjects until the end of Queen Anne's war: 'The Iroquoian confederacy was organized sometime between 1400 and A.D. 1600 for the purpose of maintaining peaceful relations between the 5 constituent tribes. Subsequent to European contact relations within the confederacy were sometimes strained as each of the 5 tribes sought to expand and maintain its own interests in the developing fur trade. For the most part, however, the fur trade served to strengthen the confederacy because tribal interests often complemented one another and all gained from acting in concert. The League was skillful at playing French and English interests off against one another to its advantage and thereby was able to play a major role in the economic and political events of northeastern North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Iroquois aggressively maintained and expanded their role in the fur trade and as a result periodically found themselves at war with their neighbors, such as the Huron, Petun, and the Neutral to the West and the Susquehannock to the south. Much of the fighting was done by the Seneca, the most powerful of the Iroquoian tribes. From 1667 to the 1680s the Iroquois maintained friendly relations with the French and during this time Jesuit missions were established among each of the 5 tribes. However, Iroquois aggression and expansion eventually brought them into conflict with the French and, at the same time, into closer alliance with the English. In 1687, 1693 and 1696 French military expeditions raided and burned Iroquois villages and fields. During Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War's end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.' §REF§Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois§REF§" }, { "id": 325, "polity": { "id": 102, "name": "us_haudenosaunee_2", "long_name": "Haudenosaunee Confederacy - Late", "start_year": 1714, "end_year": 1848 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": " The Iroquois were initially allies of the British: 'During Queen Anne's War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War's end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.' §REF§Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois§REF§ This nominal allegiance faltered during the American revolution: 'For a century and a quarter before the American Revolution, the Iroquois stood athwart the path from Albany to the Great Lakes, keeping the route from permanent settlement by the French and containing the Dutch and the English. In the 18th century the Six Nations remained consistent and bitter enemies of the French, who were allied with their traditional foes. The Iroquois became dependent on the British in Albany for European goods (which were cheaper there than in Montreal), and thus Albany was never attacked. The Iroquois’ success in maintaining their autonomy vis-à-vis both the French and English was a remarkable achievement for an aboriginal people that could field only 2,200 men from a total population of scarcely 12,000. During the American Revolution, a schism developed among the Iroquois. The Oneida and Tuscarora espoused the American cause, while the rest of the league, led by Chief Joseph Brant’s Mohawk loyalists, fought for the British out of Niagara, decimating several isolated American settlements. The fields, orchards, and granaries, as well as the morale of the Iroquois, were destroyed in 1779 when U.S. Major General John Sullivan led a retaliatory expedition of 4,000 Americans against them, defeating them near present-day Elmira, New York. Having acknowledged defeat in the Second Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), the Iroquois Confederacy effectively came to an end. In a treaty that was made at Canandaigua, New York, 10 years later, the Iroquois and the United States each pledged not to disturb the other in lands that had been relinquished or reserved. Of the Six Nations, the Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora remained in New York, eventually settling on reservations; the Mohawk and Cayuga withdrew to Canada; and, a generation later, a large group of the Oneida departed for Wisconsin.' §REF§<a class=\"external free\" href=\"http://www.britannica.com/topic/Iroquois-Confederacy\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.britannica.com/topic/Iroquois-Confederacy</a>§REF§ Once settled on reservations, the Iroquois were increasingly subject to paternalistic legislation by federal American authorities and experienced significant political transformations: 'In 1848 Senecas living on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations petitioned the federal government to change the method of distributing their annuities. In the pastthey had been distributed through the chiefs who took aportion for government purposes; by the new method they were to be distributed directly to heads of families.The chiefs opposed this move, and the dispute opened old wounds.' §REF§Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 511§REF§ 'On December 4, 1848, a convention held on Cattaraugus abolished government by chiefs on Allegany and Cattaraugus. The convention adopted a written constitution that instituted an annually elected council of 18 members and an executive consisting of president, clerk,and treasurer. It retained the judicial offices of peacemakers, which had been established under the chief's government(Society of Friends 1857).' §REF§Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 511§REF§ 'The Tonawanda Senecas had refused to participate inthe Revolution of 1848 that changed the form of government on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations from governance by hereditary chiefs to an elected council as that would have weakened their argument that the 1842 compromise treaty was not binding on them becausetheir chiefs had not signed it. Thus they retained their council of hereditary chiefs. After their fight to retain their reservation had been won, they changed their formof governance to provide for the election of three peacemakers (from the chiefs), a clerk, a treasurer, and a marshall by the adult men at an annual election. But they retained the council of chiefs as their governing body.' §REF§Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 512§REF§" }, { "id": 327, "polity": { "id": 20, "name": "us_kamehameha_k", "long_name": "Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period", "start_year": 1778, "end_year": 1819 }, "year_from": 1810, "year_to": 1819, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "nominal allegiance", "other_polity": { "id": 587, "name": "gb_british_emp_1", "long_name": "British Empire I", "start_year": 1690, "end_year": 1849 }, "comment": null, "description": "Kamehameha I “ceded” the islands to Britain in 1810, and later wrote a letter in which he declared himself subject to the British king. §REF§Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 54.§REF§" }, { "id": 328, "polity": { "id": 22, "name": "us_woodland_1", "long_name": "Cahokia - Early Woodland", "start_year": -600, "end_year": -150 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 329, "polity": { "id": 34, "name": "us_emergent_mississippian_2", "long_name": "Cahokia - Emergent Mississippian II", "start_year": 900, "end_year": 1049 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": null }, { "id": 330, "polity": { "id": 25, "name": "us_woodland_4", "long_name": "Cahokia - Late Woodland II", "start_year": 450, "end_year": 600 }, "year_from": null, "year_to": null, "tag": "TRS", "is_disputed": false, "is_uncertain": false, "name": "Polity_suprapolity_relations", "supra_polity_relations": "none", "other_polity": null, "comment": null, "description": "Collapse of the Hopewell system c 300 CE lead to the abandonment of mound centers and alliance-exchange relationships. §REF§(Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95)§REF§" } ] }