| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Edit | Desc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[Reign Title: English Reign Title/ English Personal Name (Chinese Reign Title/ Chinese Personal Name/ Chinese Temple name)]1644 CE- 1661 CE: Shunzhi/Fulin Emperor (順治/福臨/清世祖)1662 CE - 1722 CE: Kangxi/Xuanye Emperor (康熙/玄燁/清聖祖)1723 CE - 1735 CE: Yongzheng/Yinzhen Emperor (雍正/胤禛/清世宗)1736 CE - 1795 CE: Qinglong/Hongli Emperor (乾隆/弘曆/清高宗)1796 CE- 1820 CE: Jiaqing/Yongyan Emperor (嘉慶/顒琰/清仁宗)
"The Qianlong emperor ruled for the longest period in Chinese history. He "retired" as emperor in 1796 so as officially not to exceed the length of his grandfather’s 61-year reign, but continued to rule in fact until his death in 1799." [1] "In the 1580s power began to shift among the Jurchen tribes, moving away from confederation under the leadership of the chieftain sanctioned by the Ming. A Ming force intervened to attack that chieftain’s rival and restore the status quo, in the process also killing a father and son of the Aisin Gioro lieage. The Ming recognized Nurhaci, the eldest male orphan of the son, as the legitimate inheritor of his father’s title. Nurhaci immediately set out to revenge himself upon the man who had advised the Ming commander to intervene, effecting his death three years later and establishing himself as a successful leader. In 1589 the Ming officially designated him comander-in-chief of the Yalu region, acknowledging his actual strength. His rise to power did no go unchallenged. A two-year conflict with other Jurchen tribes concluded with Nurhaci’s decisive victory at Jaka on the Hun River in 1593. After allying with the Western Mongols, he destroyed or incorporated most of the remaining Jurchen tribes over a 20-year-period." [2] [1]: (Lorge 2005, 163) [2]: (Lorge 2005, 141) |
||||||
|
1796 CE- 1820 CE: Jiaqing Emperor (清仁宗/嘉慶)1820 CE - 1850 CE: Daoguang Emperor (清宣宗/道光)1850 CE - 1861 CE: Xianfeng Emperor (清文宗/咸豐)1861 CE - 1875 CE: Tongzhi Emperor (清穆宗/同治)1875 CE - 1908 CE: Guangxu Emperor (清德宗/光緒)1908 CE - 1912 CE: Puyi (溥儀/宣統)
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
The following refers to a previous periodization. The dates assigned to this quasi-polity match the approx. ceramic chronologies of the Early and Middle Formative Periods. The earliest tribe/chiefdom scale ranked societies emerge in the NGA around c.1500 BCE, and these general patterns persist until more stratified and centralized polities (complex chiefdoms/ city states) emerge c.650 BCE.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[1]: (David Carballo, pers. comm. to G. Nazzaro and E. Cioni, 2019) [2]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [3]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [7]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [8]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [9]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
[1]
The following refers to a previous periodization. The dates assigned to this quasi-polity match the approx. ceramic chronologies of the Early and Middle Formative Periods. The earliest tribe/chiefdom scale ranked societies emerge in the NGA around c.1500 BCE, and these general patterns persist until more stratified and centralized polities (complex chiefdoms/ city states) emerge c.650 BCE.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[1]: (David Carballo, pers. comm. to G. Nazzaro and E. Cioni, 2019) [2]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [3]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [7]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [8]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [9]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
[1]
The following refers to a previous periodization. The start date 650 BC for the MxFormL quasi-polity is the beginning of the Late Formative period (c.650-200 BC) in the Basin of Mexico (alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 2").
[2]
[3]
[4]
The end date is fuzzy and problematic because it is unclear exactly when in the Terminal Formative period (c.200-1 BC; alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 3") the entire MxFormL quasi-polity was conquered by its aggressive neighbors Cuicuilco (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Cui&action=edit&redlink=1 ) and Teotihuacan (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Teo&action=edit&redlink=1 ). Since the MxFormL quasi-polity is made up of multiple, discrete, independent settlement clusters, the timing of their conquest by Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan was most likely different for different areas.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
This quasi-polity ceased to exist during the subsequent Tzacualli ceramic phase (c.1 BCE - 100 CE) because the Plinian eruption of Popocatepetl led to the abandonment of most of the quasi-polity’, while the rest of the quasi-polity was taken over by Teotihuacan and Cuicuilco.
[11]
[12]
[13]
The date ranges for the eruption/abandonment are c. 100 BCE - 50 CE, and the start date for the Tzacualli ceramic transition is centered around 1 BCE, so I use the date of 1 BCE to designate both events.
[1]: (David Carballo, pers. comm. to G. Nazzaro and E. Cioni, 2019) [2]: Nichols, Deborah L. (2016). "Teotihuacan." Journal of Archaeological Research 24:1-74. [3]: Cowgill, George L. (2015). Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.7-11. [4]: Kolb, C. C. (1996). "Analyses of Archaeological Ceramics From Classic Period Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 150-750." In MRS Proceedings (Vol. 462, p. 247). Cambridge University Press. [5]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [6]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [7]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [9]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. [10]: Brumfiel, Elizabeth. (1976). "Regional growth in the Eastern Valley of Mexico: A test of the “Population Pressure” hypothesis." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 234-249. [11]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2006). "Social and cultural consequences of a late Holocene eruption of Popocatépetl in central Mexico." Quaternary International 151.1: 19-28. [12]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. "Mountain of sustenance, mountain of destruction: The prehispanic experience with Popocatépetl Volcano." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 170.1 (2008): 111-120. [13]: Siebe, C. (2000). "Age and archaeological implications of Xitle volcano, southwestern Basin of Mexico City." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 104, 45-64. |
||||||
|
[1]
The following refers to a previous periodization. The start date 650 BC for the MxFormT quasi-polity is the beginning of the Late Formative period (c.650-200 BC) in the Basin of Mexico (alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 2").
[2]
[3]
[4]
The end date is fuzzy and problematic because it is unclear exactly when in the Terminal Formative period (c.200-1 BC; alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 3") the entire MxFormT quasi-polity was conquered by its aggressive neighbors Cuicuilco (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Cui&action=edit&redlink=1 ) and Teotihuacan (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Teo&action=edit&redlink=1 ). Since the MxFormT quasi-polity is made up of multiple, discrete, independent settlement clusters, the timing of their conquest by Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan was most likely different for different areas.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
This quasi-polity ceased to exist during the subsequent Tzacualli ceramic phase (c.1 BCE - 100 CE) because the Plinian eruption of Popocatepetl led to the abandonment of most of the quasi-polity’, while the rest of the quasi-polity was taken over by Teotihuacan and Cuicuilco.
[11]
[12]
[13]
The date ranges for the eruption/abandonment are c. 100 BCE - 50 CE, and the start date for the Tzacualli ceramic transition is centered around 1 BCE, so I use the date of 1 BCE to designate both events.
[1]: (David Carballo, pers. comm. to G. Nazzaro and E. Cioni, 2019) [2]: Nichols, Deborah L. (2016). "Teotihuacan." Journal of Archaeological Research 24:1-74. [3]: Cowgill, George L. (2015). Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.7-11. [4]: Kolb, C. C. (1996). "Analyses of Archaeological Ceramics From Classic Period Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 150-750." In MRS Proceedings (Vol. 462, p. 247). Cambridge University Press. [5]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [6]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [7]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [9]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. [10]: Brumfiel, Elizabeth. (1976). "Regional growth in the Eastern Valley of Mexico: A test of the “Population Pressure” hypothesis." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 234-249. [11]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2006). "Social and cultural consequences of a late Holocene eruption of Popocatépetl in central Mexico." Quaternary International 151.1: 19-28. [12]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. "Mountain of sustenance, mountain of destruction: The prehispanic experience with Popocatépetl Volcano." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 170.1 (2008): 111-120. [13]: Siebe, C. (2000). "Age and archaeological implications of Xitle volcano, southwestern Basin of Mexico City." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 104, 45-64. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Justification for starting date: It is approximately the date of initial settlement. Based on the most up-to-date information, Kirch
[1]
concludes that the islands were likely first settled between 800CE and 1000CE. Some have argued for an earlier settlement, as early as 300CE, and in earlier works, Kirch found this scenario plausible
[2]
[3]
. New starting date following an exchange with Patrick Kirch: "Most archaeologists would now say that initial Polynesian settlement did not occur until about AD 1000. Refer to Athens et al. 2014, American Antiquity 79:144-155 for latest Bayesian estimate of the chronology of Hawaiian colonization."
[4]
Justification for ending date: 1200CE is when most of the changes characteristic of Kirch’s ‘expansion period’ began, including a rapid rise in population
[5]
.
[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 126-7. [2]: Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 291. [3]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 77. [4]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication) [5]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 127. |
||||||
|
Justification for starting and ending dates: This is Kirch’s Expansion Period. The starting date is approximately when the population began to increase parabolically, and the ending date is when the population had plateaued
[1]
. AD: changed from end date of 1650 CE following an email from Patrick Kirch: "I would be inclined to put the division between Hawaii2 and Hawaii3 at around 1580 with the reign of ’Umi-a-Liloa who supposedly consolidated the entire island into one polity. Certainly, intensification of the great dryland field systems was also underway by this time. So, 1650 seems a bit late for these key transitions."
[2]
[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 127. [2]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication) |
||||||
|
Justification for end date: Cook’s first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779).
|
||||||
|
Justification for start date: Cook’s first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779). Justification for end date: Kamehameha I dies, kapu system is abolished.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
from 1400 Iseminger 2010EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://seshat.info/File:Iseminger2010.21.jpg [1]: G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407 |
||||||
|
1640 does not correspond with the actual "beginning" of this quasi-polity, but, rather, with the earliest written records describing the Illinois Confederacy.
[1]
Small numbers of French explorers, missionaries, and traders were present from the 1670s onwards,
[2]
but it was not until 1717 (the beginning of Walthall and Emerson’s ’colonization period’) that the Illinois Country was incorporated into the French colony of Louisiane, and there was a ’florescence of French activity in the Mississippi Valley’.
[3]
[1]: Illinois State Museum, The Illinois, History (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/il_hi.html [2]: (Emerson and Brown 1992, 79) Thomas E. Emerson and James A. Brown. 1992. ’The Late Prehistory and Protohistory of Illinois’, in Calumet and Fleur-De-Lys: French and Indian Interaction in the Midcontinent, edited by J. Walthall and T. Emerson, 77-125. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. [3]: (Walthall and Emerson 1992, 9-10) John A. Walthall and Thomas E. Emerson. 1992. ’Indians and French in the Midcontinent’, in Calumet and Fleur-De-Lys: French and Indian Interaction in the Midcontinent, edited by J. A. Walthall and T. E. Emerson, 1-13. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Chinese records dating from the 3rd century C.E., beginning with the Sānguó zhì (Records of the Three Kingdoms) completed in AD 289 by Chén Shòu (233-297), record the arrival of two Funanese embassies at the court of Lǚ Dài, governor in the southern Chinese kingdom of Wú: the first embassy arrived between 225 and 230 AD, the second in the year 243.
[1]
The last Funan king was historically attested in 539 CE. ’According to the Chinese accounts, the last king of Funan was called Rudravarman and he was chiefly distinguished in their eyes because he offered the gift of a live rhinoceros to the Emperor at Beijing in 539 AD. After this, the historical record becomes somewhat blurred. For many years, it was believed that Funan declined or disappeared because it was threatened by the rise of another, more powerful state called Chenla or Zhenla to the north.’
[2]
Note: ’Chenla’ is the old spelling, the modern romanization of the Chinese character is ’Zhenla’.
[3]
’Late in sixth century, ’Fu-nan’ disappears from the Chinese record, and its place is taken by the Khmer city-states further north where minor rajas competed for hegemony.’
[4]
’In the 6th century Southeast Asian shipping to China linking China, Southeast Asia, and India began to shift from coastal sailing along the shores of Vietnam, Cambodia, and the peninsula, to a direct route across the South China Sea from Indonesia to southern China and northern Vietnam. Funan, the coastal polity dependent on maritime trade, apparently collapsed and was replaced in Cambodia by an entity known to the Chinese as ’Chenla’, a state, or group of states, or pon-led communities based on the control of land and people, and extracting wealth from agriculture, and possibly inter-community trade, with little involvement in maritime activities.’
[5]
’In the lower reaches of the Mekong River in Vietnam, between the delta area and the Gulf of Thailand (Siam), lies OC ÈO, an archaeological site generally believed to be FUNAN, a kingdom that flourished in the third through seventh centuries C.E., hitherto known only through written source materials.’
[6]
’The CHINESE TRIBUTE SYSTEM was imposed on FU-NAN from the fourth century until its demise in the latter half of the sixth century.’
[7]
’Following the decline of Funan sea power by about the sixth century, the Khmers turned inland, to the country’s agricultural regions.’(
[8]
’It is clear, however, that in the third century the great expansion of Funan towards the Malay peninsula during which it subdued, or rather relegated to vassal status, a number of small states, gave way in the succeeding centuries to a reduction in the extent of its territory, ending around the fourth or fifth centuries in an area restricted to the southern parts of today’s Cambodia and Vietnam.’ [...] Thus Funan at the beginning of the sixth century would appear to have shrunk to what must have been its original core, the Mekong delta areas of today’s Cambodia and Vietnam.’
[9]
’In 550 CE Chitrasena, borther of king Bhavarma, royal descendant of Hun Tian [Skt. Kaundinya] invaded Te Mu from the northern mountains bringing about the subsequent decline of the Fu Nan kingdom and the beginning of the Zhenla, at about 550-630 CE.’
[10]
’It dates to about 100-550 C.E. and was located on the delta of the Mekong and Bassac Rivers in modern Cambodia and Vietnam.’
[11]
’205-225 CE: Rule of Fan Shih-Man, who draws other principalities into the Funan orbit and is considered by some as the kingdom’s greatest ruler.’
[12]
[1]: (Pelliot 1903, p. 303) [2]: (Tully 2005, p. 13) [3]: (Miksic, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [4]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.78) [5]: (Vickery 1998, p. 20) [6]: (Ooi 2004, p. 6) [7]: (Ooi 2004, p. 11) [8]: (Ooi 2004, p. 149 [9]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 50) [10]: (Khai 2003, p. 43) [11]: (Higham 2004, p. 113) [12]: (West 2009, p. 223) |
||||||
|
This period, from approximately 540 to 640 CE, marks a period of decline and dissolution due in large part to significant changes in international trade networks and the nautical technologies on which these trade networks relied. The last Funan king was attested to in 539 CE. 640 CE marks the end of the Funan polity, having lost considerable ground to the Zhenla in the preceding fifty years, as attested by Chinese sources, which attest to missions that were sent to China by a number of polities conquered by Zhenla around 650 CE. ’There is considerable evidence for conflict and the imposition of hegemony by one group over another in Southeast Asia from earliest times. From the Angkor period (after 800CE), there is ample evidence of conflict, both from inscriptions (Finot 1925; Jacques 1986) and bas-reliefs (Chetwin 2001; Clark 2007; Coedés 1932; Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2007; Le Bonheur & Poncar 1993). Accounts from Chinese histories provide indirect evidence for conflict in the earlier period too. One indicates that settlements in the polity of Funan, located in the Mekong Delta, were fortified. Another reveals that missions were sent to China by a number of polities conquered by Chenla, the power that superseded Funan in Cambodia, after CE 650-6 (Tuan-Lin 1876).’
[1]
Note: Chenla is the older formulation of the name, the modern romanization of the Chinese character is Zhenla.
[2]
’According to the Chinese accounts, the last king of Funan was called Rudravarman and he was chiefly distinguished in their eyes because he offered the gift of a live rhinoceros to the Emperor at Beijing in 539 AD. After this, the historical record becomes somewhat blurred. For many years, it was believed that Funan declined or disappeared because it was threatened by the rise of another, more powerful state called Chenla or Zhenla to the north.’
[3]
’Late in sixth century, ’Fu-nan’ disappears from the Chinese record, and its place is taken by the Khmer city-states further north where minor rajas competed for hegemony.’
[4]
’In the 6th century Southeast Asian shipping to China linking China, Southeast Asia, and India began to shift from coastal sailing along the shores of Vietnam, Cambodia, and the peninsula, to a direct route across the South China Sea from Indonesia to southern China and northern Vietnam. Funan, the coastal polity dependent on maritime trade, apparently collapsed and was replaced in Cambodia by an entity known to the Chinese as ’Chenla’, a state, or group of states, or pon-led communities based on the control of land and people, and extracting wealth from agriculture, and possibly inter-community trade, with little involvement in maritime activities.’
[5]
’In the lower reaches of the Mekong River in Vietnam, between the delta area and the Gulf of Thailand (Siam), lies OC ÈO, an archaeological site generally believed to be FUNAN, a kingdom that flourished in the third through seventh centuries C.E., hitherto known only through written source materials.’
[6]
’The CHINESE TRIBUTE SYSTEM was imposed on FU-NAN from the fourth century until its demise in the latter half of the sixth century.’
[7]
’Following the decline of Funan sea power by about the sixth century, the Khmers turned inland, to the country’s agricultural regions.’(
[8]
’It is clear, however, that in the third century the great expansion of Funan towards the Malay peninsula during which it subdued, or rather relegated to vassal status, a number of small states, gave way in the succeeding centuries to a reduction in the extent of its territory, ending around the fourth or fifth centuries in an area restricted to the southern parts of today’s Cambodia and Vietnam.’ [...] Thus Funan at the beginning of the sixth century would appear to have shrunk to what must have been its original core, the Mekong delta areas of today’s Cambodia and Vietnam.’
[9]
’In 550 CE Chitrasena, borther of king Bhavarma, royal descendant of Hun Tian [Skt. Kaundinya] invaded Te Mu from the northern mountains bringing about the subsequent decline of the Fu Nan kingdom and the beginning of the Zhenla, at about 550-630 CE.’
[10]
’Whatever the cause, the fact remains that the Oc Eo culture and references to the kingdom of Funan both came to an end in the sev- enth century. Oc Eo was peopled by a highly advanced society for its time, but it dwindled into insignificance and was not replaced by any comparable political or commercial entity. Instead, a new society co- alesced in the middle Mekong Valley. Its connection with Funan is unclear.’
[11]
’The changes came as improvements in navigation made it possible for ships sailing from distant ports to bypass Funan and deal directly with the Chinese. Chinese records make it clear that by the fifth century Holotan in western Java and Koying in the Sunda Strait were trading directly with China, rather than through Funan’s intermediary ports (Wolters: 1979b). Funan and the east coast Malay Peninsula were thus being cut out of the India-to-China trade. The Isthmus of Kra portage had fallen into disuse, as ships from Sri Lanka and India were now sailing via the Straits of Melaka directly to these ports on the western edge of the Java Sea, putting them closer to the source of the Indonesian archipelago spices that were beginning to find an international market (Wolters: 1967; Miksic: 2003a, 28-33). The more direct sea passage from the Sunda Strait region north to China incorporated a stopover on the central (Linyi) and northern Vietnam coastlines rather than on the Funan coast of southern Vietnam. Whether this refocusing of the international trade was directly responsible for Funan’s dynastic crisis is not certain, but it had profound consequences for Funan’s future. The shifting of the commercial shipping route to the Straits of Melaka passage and the subsequent omission of stops at Funan’s ports in the Gulf of Thailand and the Mekong Delta region of the lower Viet- nam coastline denied the Funan rulers important revenues. Deprived of this major source of royal income, the ruler as well as his followers, including subordinate chiefs and their supporters, found their prosperity diminished. Such a decline in royal income available for redistribution to their followers could well have touched off a dynastic crisis as rival claimants, promoting their ability to restore Funan’s prosperity, attempted to gather enough supporters to seize the throne. As they did so, they competed for a shrinking realm. By the end of the fifth century, Funan was losing ground to its northern neighbor Linyi (the future Champa), the sailors who had provided Funan’s navy had turned to piracy, and the Malay entrepoˆts had begun sending their own embassies to China. In this same period, as noted earlier, Funan’s canal and irrigation networks were expanding rapidly in the Mekong Delta, as part of its transition to a more intensive agricultural economy. However, Funan’s decline continued, as midway through the sixth century its Khmer vassals to the north broke away, and by the seventh century Funan was no more. Its irrigation networks in the Mekong Delta were reclaimed by jungle as the farmers moved northwest to the new Khmer-ruled centers in the central Cambodia Tonle Sap area.’
[12]
’As Chinese trade began to bypass the Mekong Delta and go directly to Sumatra, the state of FUNAN declined, and Srivijaya expanded.’
[13]
[1]: (Dommet et al 2011, p.441) [2]: (Miksic, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [3]: (Tully 2005, p. 13) [4]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.78) [5]: (Vickery 1998, p. 20) [6]: (Ooi 2004, p. 6) [7]: (Ooi 2004, p. 11) [8]: (Ooi 2004, p. 149 [9]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 50) [10]: (Khai 2003, p. 43) [11]: (Miksic 2007, p. 126) [12]: (Hall 2010, pp. 60-61) [13]: (Higham 2004, p. 332) |
||||||
|
’Chenla is a name derived from Chinese historical records often used to describe an essentially protohistoric period dated between AD 550 and 800 that followed seamlessly from late prehistory.’
[1]
This period begins in 611 CE, approximately the year that the reign of Is(h)anvarman I, who eventually absorbed the Funanese polity into Chenla, began. This period ends in 803 CE, approximately the year that the Chenla period ended with the establishment of early Angkor in 802 CE, as attested in an inscription (the Sdok Kak Thom), which notes that the king (Jayavarman II) conducted a ceremony to free Cambodia from Java by declaring himself the universal monarch (chakravarti). ’In the 6th century Southeast Asian shipping to China linking China, Southeast Asia, and India began to shift from coastal sailing along the shores of Vietnam, Cambodia, and the peninsula, to a direct route across the South China Sea from Indonesia to southern China and northern Vietnam. Funan, the coastal polity dependent on maritime trade, apparently collapsed and was replaced in Cambodia by an entity known to the Chinese as ’Chenla’, a state, or group of states, or pon-led communities based on the control of land and people, and extracting wealth from agriculture, and possibly inter-community trade, with little involvement in maritime activities.’ [2] ’The term Chenla, a Chinese name, was used from the seventh century C.E. to refer to the territory of modern Cambodia and northeast Thailand. Modern historians have also applied the term to the period of Cambodian history from the seventh to early ninth centuries C.E.’ [3] ’The first extends approximately from the first to the third centuries AD and provides firm evidence of trade within the region and also with India and beyond, since a gold medallion depicting the Roman emperor Antonius Pius and dated 152 AD was among the items unearthed. At this level there was no sign of Hinduism or Buddhism. [...] The second phase, from the fourth to the seventh centuries, is still categorised as "Funan" and bears witness to the adoption of the Indian religions, while the third, which can the called the Zhenla period, begins in the seventh century.’ [4] ’The division of CHENLA weakened the KHMERS, and their power dissipated in the ninth century when rivals from island Southeast Asia began to encroach on the East- West trade.’ [5] ’As the Chinese perceived the situation, Funan in the seventh century was conquered by Zhenla, located in the hinterland. The History of the Sui says Zhenla was originally Funan’s vassal, located southwest of Linyi.’ [6] ’The Chenla states that rose and fell between 550 and 800 were essentially agrarian, and their economy revolved around the temple.’ [7] ’During the eighth century, the number of inscrip- tions fell markedly, and the historic record became thin. This does not necessarily imply cultural decline. On the contrary, it was during this period that such large sites as BANTEAY CHOEU near ANGKOR and BANTEAY PREI NOKOR were occupied.’ [8] [1]: (Higham 2014, 823) [2]: (Vickery 1998, 20) [3]: (Southworth 2004, 324) [4]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p 52-53) [5]: (Ooi 2004, 11) [6]: (Miksic 2007, p 426-427) [7]: (Higham 2004, 76) [8]: (Higham 2004, 77) |
||||||
|
• This period begins in 802 CE because an inscription (the Sdok Kak Thom) notes that a king (Jayavarman II) conducted a ceremony to free Cambodia from Java by declaring himself the universal monarch (chakravarti).
• This period ends in 1100 CE because that is approximately the year that a new dynasty (the Mahīdharapura, originally from the Khorat area) began under Jayavarman VI. • ’The Angkor period is commonly understood to start in 802 CE with the proclamation of Jayavarman II as the chakravartin (universal-king) from a location in the Kulen mountains (Phnom Kulen), overlooking the vast alluvial plain where Angkor would begin to emerge in the following centuries (Figure 1). In doing so, Jayavarman confirmed himself as the great unifier; drawing Cambodia’s disparate polities together under the first ‘god king’ and establishing the Khmer state and the basis of its empire. Phnom Kulen was known as Mahendraparvata; ‘‘the hill of the great Indra’’. The extant history of Mahendraparvata is based on several inscriptions, the most well-known being an 11th century CE inscription (K.235) found at the Sdok Kak Thom temple, in eastern Thailand [4]. The inscription, dated to 1052 CE, outlines the lineage of a private family serving successive Khmer Kings for two and a half centuries, the first mentioned being Jayavarman II.’ [1] • ’Shadowy as he appears through retrospective inscriptions, Jayavarman II still occupies a central position in the history of Angkor, becauase he was regarded for centuries after his death as he who founded the state, in a traditional date of 802 AD.’ [2] • The end of the Angkor in approximately 1432 CE with the Siamese ’invasion’ or ’sacking’ of Angkor. "Scholars usually place the Angkorean period of Cambodian history between 802 and 1431.’ [3] • ’There was a watershed, dated to the year 802, whereby a series of competing polities were joined into one enduring and powerful central state. This transition involved a process of contralization instituted by the overlord Jayavarman II (ruled 802 to 834). Jayavarman seems to have identified a means of unifying formerly competing overlords that was rooted first in military conquest, then by placing his followers in positions of authority. This had the effect of establishing a central rule through replacing independent polities by provinces. He also must have appreciated the importance of stressing the mystical properties of kingship by instituting the cult of the kamraten jagat ta raja, meaning "the god who is king." Deification of the ruler, linked with vesting the rights to consecrate a new god-king in successive members of a given family, meant that the succession should be assured. Remarkably, the ensuing five centuries witnessed a considerable degree of legitimacy in the succession, being largely confined to members of the aristocratic lineage of Aninditapura.’ [4] • ’Traditionally, the Angkorian period is said to have begun in 802, the year that Jayavarman II (r. 802-834) was crowned king. In a ritual evoking the mythology of ̋iva and celebrated in the Phnom Kulen (Kulen Mountains), north of Angkor, he became the cakravartin/cakkavatti (universal monarch) of the new kingdom.’ [5] • ’The elephant was most clearly recorded during the Khmer empire dating from roughly 809 C.E. to 1431 C.E. During this time, the great temple of Angkor Wat and the Bayon were built.The frequent wars against theThais and Chams involved use of large “tuskers,” or superior male elephants, as well as elephants that carried men and goods. Elephants were important in moving the stones that built the temples, the logs that built the palaces, and the rice and other foods produced by the popu- lace to feed the royalty and the priests.The war elephants are wonderfully illustrated in the reliefs on the gallery walls of Angkor Wat. Similarly, many elephants are found among the carvings on the walls of Borobudur, the great Javanese Hindu-Buddhist temple dating to about 800 C.E.’ [6] • ’In the history of Cambodia, the year 802 symbolizes the beginning of the Angkor era because the Sdok Kak Thom inscription specifies that Jayavarman II conducted a ceremony to free Cambodia from Java in that year.’ [7] • ’Cambodian history is normally divided into the pre-Angkor (third century to 802 CE), Angkor (802-1432), and post-Angkor periods. The pre-Angkor period is mainly known from seventh-century inscriptions; Angkor epigraphy begins in the late ninth century. Thus there is a crucial gap in our sources during the critical transitional phase.’ [8] • ’The founder of Angkor, King Jayavarman II, is a shadowy figure and we still have no entirely satisfactory explanation as to why he moved his capital from the Mekong Valley to the drier region at the north-west tip of the Great Lake. He left no inscriptions that we know of. We know that he established his court in the region in 802 AD and that he reigned for almost 50 years before his death at Roluos, south-east of the main complex at Angkor.’ [9] [1]: (Penny et al 2014, p. e84252) [2]: (Higham 2014b, p. 254) [3]: (Chandler 2008, pp. 35) [4]: (Hingham 2012, p. 185) [5]: (de Koninck and Macauley 2004, p. 149) [6]: (Griffin 2004, p. 486) [7]: (Miksic 2007, p. 18) [8]: (Miksic 2007, p.80) [9]: (Tully 2005, p. 20) |
||||||
|
This period begins in 1100 because that is the year that is approximately the year that a new dynasty (the Mahīdharapura, originally from the Khorat area) began under Jayavarman VI.
This period ends in 1220 CE (death of Jayavarman VII). ’Despite the control of the means of destruction by the overlord through his army and war elephants, a steady flow of goods from the countryside was essential. It is possible that the excessive demands of Jayavarman VII, and the spread of Hinayana Buddhism, which stresses the importance of the individual, undermined that relationship. Certainly, the building activity declined after the death of Jayavarman, and the central grip of provinces which formerly deferred to Angkor, slackened. But Angkor was not alone: the Chams to the east represented a potent force, as did the vibrant Thai state centred at Ayutthaya. When the latter invested and sacked Angkor, they removed a competitor, but maintained the traditions of kingship expressed in the rituals and esoteric language that a Loubere was to encounter at the court of King Narai.’ [1] ’The last Sanskrit inscription carved in Angkor commemorates the ascension of a minor king. Archaeologists consider this the end of the Classic Khmer period.’ [2] ’Cambodian history is normally divided into the pre-Angkor (third century to 802 CE), Angkor (802-1432), and post-Angkor periods. The pre-Angkor period is mainly known from seventh-century inscriptions; Angkor epigraphy begins in the late ninth century. Thus there is a crucial gap in our sources during the critical transitional phase.’ [3] ’Harsavarman III ascended the throne of Angkor in 1066. According to inscriptions from Mi Son, the Cham defeated him in a battle at Somesvara and devastated Sambhupura (Sambor), taking captives to serve in sanctuaries of Sri Isanabhadresvara in Mi Son. Harsavarman died in 1080 and received the posthumous name Sadasivapada. It seems that upon his death, a power struggle broke out. A ruler named Nripatindravarman may have ruled at Angkor until around 1113, whereas another ruler named Jayavarman VI is also mentioned in one unfinished inscription at Angkor, and in later inscriptions. No kinship relationships among any of these individuals can be ascertained.’ [4] [1]: (Higham 2012, p. 187) [2]: (National Geographic 2009) [3]: (Miksic 2007, p.80) [4]: (Miksic 2007, pp. 140-141) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Original 1327 CE start date (last Sanskrit inscription at Angkor) moved to 1432 CE (capital moves to Phnom Penh area). Original end date of 1594 CE (capital at Longvek/Lovek fell to Ayutthaya) This period ends in 1594, the year that the Angkorian capital at Longvek/Lovek fell to the Siamese. ’The last Sanskrit inscription carved in Angkor commemorates the ascension of a minor king. Archaeologists consider this the end of the Classic Khmer period.’
[1]
’During the early decades of the fifteenth century, the Angkor Empire started to decline, and it fell to the Thai in 1431.’
[2]
’Ayutthaya reasserted itself as the dominant Thai state, signalling its new position by a successful attack on the Khmer capital at Lovek in 1594. In desperation, the Cambodian king appealed to the Spanish at Manila, asking for military assistance in exchange for submission to the Spanish Crown. With the failure of this effort there was nothing to stop continued Thai incursions and the eventual enforced submission of Cambodia to Ayutthaya’s control.’
[3]
’The very last Sanskrit inscription in ancient Cambodia dates to AD 1327, and describes the accession of a king named Jayavarmadiparameshvara. With this event, the Classic period of Khmer civilisation effectively some to a close. There is here called the ’Post-Classic’, and by others the post-Angkorian or Middle Period of Cambodian history and culture, extends from that date until the establishment of the French Protectorate in 1863.’
[4]
’Even worse for Cambodia, in 1594 Lovek fell to the Thai army after the king and his son had fled to Laos. The Thai capture of Lovek is commemorated in two Khmer legends.’
[5]
’Cambodian history is normally divided into the pre-Angkor (third century to 802 CE), Angkor (802-1432), and post-Angkor periods. The pre-Angkor period is mainly known from seventh-century in- scriptions; Angkor epigraphy begins in the late ninth century. Thus there is a crucial gap in our sources during the critical transitional phase.’
[6]
’But in the face of attacks from both Ayutthaya and the Cham, Suryavarman decided to retreat from the old site of Angkor and to move the capital to the area of Phnom Penh. After the fall of Cambodia, missions continued to arrive in China, in 1435, 1436, 1452, and 1499, indicating that the kingdom was still sufficiently integrated to be able to conduct foreign relations. The Angkor period, however, had come to an end.’
[7]
’First and most dramatic, Angkor’s empire fell apart. During the second quarter of the 13th century Angkorian forces were withdrawn from Champa. By mid-century most of the peninsula, areas west of the Chaophraya river, and northern Thailand had broken away, to be followed shortly by Lopburi and other states in the Chaophraya plain. By 1297 Angkor was defending against Tai attacks from the west. After new Tai pressure forced what some his- torians claim was a temporary withdrawal from Angkor during the mid- to late 14th century (various dates between 1350 and 1389 have been proposed), Khmer rulers may have abandoned the great capital in the 1430s or 1440s in favor of Phnom Penh in the southeast. It is equally plausible that Angkor was never actually abandoned, but that a more powerful royal lineage established itself at Phnom Penh in ri- valry with the old Angkorian family.78 In either case, the 14th century enfeebled central power. Thus Angkor’s disintegration began some- what earlier but overlapped substantially with that of the Upper Burma state, whose problems began in the 1280s, which suffered a major military-political crisis in the 1360s, and which also limped along into the 15th century.’
[8]
[1]: (National Geographic 2009) [2]: (Nyunt 2004, p. 180) [3]: (Andaya 2008, p. 423) [4]: (Coe 2003, p. 195) [5]: (Coe 2003, p. 210) [6]: (Miksic 2007, p.80) [7]: (Miksic 2007, p. 84) [8]: (Lieberman 2003, pp. 236-237) |
||||||
|
invaded NGA 1594 CE
"On the fall of Ayudhya in 1569, the Burmese installed Maha Thammaracha (r. 1569-1590) on the throne, thoroughly looted the city, and led thousands of prisoners, both commoners and nobles, away to captivity in Burma." [1] Ayudhya freed itself from the Burmese yoke on 1593, with the Battle of Nong Sarai: "Ayudhya’s independence was now secured, and for the next generation, the Burmese kings would be on the defensive against Ayudhya, the tables of war thus turning for the first time in thirty years." [2] The tables turned in favour of Burma again in the 1760s: after a siege, "on April 27, 1767, [the Burmese] finally breached the walls and took the ancient capital" [3] . [1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. 100) [2]: (Wyatt 1984, p. 103) [3]: (Wyatt 1984, p. 136) |
||||||
|
"In April 1782, [what remained of the Ayutthaya aristocracy] [...] placed Thongduang on the throne as King Yotfa"
[1]
. "In the months preceding and following his second coronation as king in his own right (November 1873), Chulalongkorn began a series of reforms that displayed his modern sentiments and intentions"
[2]
.
[1]: (Baker and Phongpaichit 2009, p. 27) [2]: (Wyatt 1984, p. 192) |
||||||
|
Zahorka states the Buni pottery discoveries date between 400 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.,
[1]
but I have taken the date here roughly up to the start of the Kalingga Kingdom which was the first Hindu-Buddhist polity in Central Java. 2500-1450 B.P .
[2]
[1]: (Zahorka 2007, 27) [2]: (Bulbeck in Peregrine and Ember 2000, 107) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The definitive end of Medang seems to have come with military defeat in 1006.
[1]
but it seems there was then a period of fragmentation and turmoil before Airlangga consolidated power beginning in 1019.
[2]
There are two hypotheses regarding Medang. One suggests that the founder of the Sanjaya dynasty was actually founder of the Sailendra dynasty, which was initially Shivaist Hindu, and changed to Mahāyāna Buddhism on the conversion of his son Panangkaran.
[3]
The other theory is that there were two competing dynasties within the same polity and the Sailendra gradually assumed dominance.
[4]
[1]: (Coedes 1968) [2]: (Sedyawati in Ooi 2004, 131) [3]: (Poerbatjaraka 1958, 254-264) [4]: (De Casparis 1956, 180-184) |
||||||
|
Established after death of King Kertanagara (1268-1292 CE) of Singhasari Kingdom when his son-in-law, Raden Wijaya (Kertarajasa Jayawardhan) founded a new capital and kingdom.
[1]
"The end of Majapahit itself is problematic: later Javanese tradition mentions saka 1400 (1478 C.E.) as the (symbolic) "end of Majapahit." But Ranawijaya still issues inscriptions in 1486 C.E., while Pigafetta, chronicler of Ferdinand Magellan’s round-the-world voyage, acknowledge the existence of Magepaher (Majapahit) in 1522 C.E. And a Mahapahit inscription of Pabanolan Pari has been alternatively read as having the year saka 1563 (1541 C.E.). The demise of Majapahit was probably gradual and nondramatic. It is very likely that with the flourishing of trade cities on the northern coast of Java (pasisir), and especially the rise of Demak as a strong Islamic sultanate, Majapahit lost its control of the sea trade routes, then became disintegrated and subsequently exited the historical stage."
[2]
[1]: (Hall in Tarling 1993, 217) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 823-284) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’Chuuk was settled by the first century A.D. In the fourteenth century, a cult center was established on Moen Island. It was abandoned in the eighteenth century following a fresh immigration from neighboring atolls. Japan replaced Germany as the ruling power in World War I and was in turn replaced by the United States under United Nations Trusteeship in 1945. In 1986 Chuuk and its surrounding atolls became a state within the newly independent Federated States of Micronesia. Protestant missionaries and traders came in the 1880s and Roman Catholic missionaries after 1900. Japan sought to develop Chuuk economically and introduced elementary education in Japanese. Education was much expanded under American administration, and many Chuukese learned English. Some went to college in Guam, Hawaii, and the United States mainland. The American administration introduced representative government.’
[1]
[1]: Goodenough, Ward H. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Chuuk |
||||||
|
In the late 19th century, the Chuuk islands became part of Spanish and German, then Japanese colonial regimes: ’Chuuk was settled by the first century A.D. In the fourteenth century, a cult center was established on Moen Island. It was abandoned in the eighteenth century following a fresh immigration from neighboring atolls. Japan replaced Germany as the ruling power in World War I and was in turn replaced by the United States under United Nations Trusteeship in 1945. In 1986 Chuuk and its surrounding atolls became a state within the newly independent Federated States of Micronesia. Protestant missionaries and traders came in the 1880s and Roman Catholic missionaries after 1900. Japan sought to develop Chuuk economically and introduced elementary education in Japanese. Education was much expanded under American administration, and many Chuukese learned English. Some went to college in Guam, Hawaii, and the United States mainland. The American administration introduced representative government.’
[1]
[1]: Goodenough, Ward H. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Chuuk |
||||||
|
The Cretan Neolithic is divided in the Earlier Neolithic (7000-5300 BCE), Late Neolithic (5300-4500 BCE), and Final Neolithic (4500-3000 BCE) periods.
[1]
[1]: Tomkins, P. 2007. "Neolithic: Strata IX-VIII, VII-VIB, VIA-V, IV, IIIB, IIIA, IIA and IC groups," in Momigliano, N. (ed.), Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan) (British School at Athens Studies 14), London, 9-39; "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 21-48. |
||||||
|
The era is divided in Early Minoan I (3000-2700 BCE), Early Minoan IIA (2700-2400 BCE), Early Minoan IIB (2400-2200 BCE), Early Minoan III (2200-2000 BCE) and Middle Minoan IA (2000-1900 BCE) periods.
[1]
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. "Background, sources, and methods," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 4. |
||||||
|
The Neopalatial era is divided in Middle Minoan III (1700-1600 BCE), Late Minoan IA (1600-1500 BCE) and Late Minoan IB (1500-1450 BCE) periods.
[1]
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. 2008. "Background, sources, and methods," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 4. |
||||||
|
The Monopalatial era is divided in Late Minoan II (1450-1400 BCE), Late Minoan IIIA1 (1400-1370 BCE) and Late Minoan IIIA2 (1370-1300 BCE) periods.
[1]
The beginning of this era is marked by the destruction of most Minoan sites and and its end by the destruction of the Knossian palace, seat of a political authority controlling the greatest part of the island.
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. 2008. "Background, sources, and methods," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 4. |
||||||
|
The beginning of the period is marked by the destruction of the Knossian palace and its end by wide destructions.
|
||||||
|
The Final Postpalatial period is divided in Late Minoan IIIC (1200-1100 BCE) and Subminoan (1100-1000 BCE).
[1]
The begining of the period is marked by the extensive destructions that destroyed many Cretan sites (1200 BCE) and its end by the arrival of Dorians (1000 BCE).
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. 2008. "Background, sources, and methods," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 4. |
||||||
|
The Geometric Crete (10th-8th centuries) is divided in the following periods: Sub-Minoan (1000-970 BCE), Protogeometric (970-850 BCE), Protogeometric B Knossian (840-810) and Geometric (810-710 BCE). The period starts with the arrival of Dorians and ends with the emergence of Cretan city-states.
|
||||||
|
The Archaic Crete (7th-6th centuries) is divided in the following periods: Orientalizing or Daedalic or Early Archaic (710-600 BCE) and Archaic Archaic (600-500).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Established de facto by Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BC and established by law in 27 BC when Octavian took the name Imperator Caesar Augustus and was granted extensive powers (Imperium proconsulare) over the Roman army. This began the legal history of the Principate (after "princeps," or "leading citizen"). The Principate is generally regarded as ending during or just after the crisis of the III century (235-284 CE). The date of 284 CE marks the accession of Diocletian.
[1]
Turchin and Nefedov also suggest a secular cycle from 30 BCE - 285 CE.
[2]
[3]
[1]: (Boatwright et al. 2012) Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, Noel Lenski and Richard J. A. Talbert. 2012. The Romans. From Village to Empire: A History of Rome from Earliest Times to the End of the Western Empire. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. [2]: (Baker 2011) [3]: (Turchin and Nefedov 2009) |
||||||
|
The Principate is generally regarded as ending during or just after the crisis of the III century (235-284 CE). The date of 284 CE marks the accession of Diocletian.
[1]
Diocletian 284-305 CE. Tetrarchy 293-313 CE. Constantinian dynasty 305-363 CE. Valentinian dynasty 364-378 CE. Theodosian dynasty 379-457 CE. "The problem of intraelite conflict appears in Byzantine history after the death of Marcian in 457." [2] 457 CE marks the end of the Theodosian dynasty. [1]: (Boatwright et al. 2012) [2]: (Baker 2011, 224) |
||||||
|
395 CE: permanent division of the Roman Empire between an Emperor in the West and one in the East - 632 CE: Death of the Prophet Mohammed, beginning of the Arab expansion; this and other developments led to a dramatic transformation of Byzantium with regard to dimension and complexity of the society.
|
||||||
|
Byzantine civilization "began to emerge in its own right in the second half of the seventh century."
[1]
Heraclius (r.610-641 CE) - Michael III (r.842-867 CE). [2] 632 CE: Death of the Prophet Mohammed, beginning of the Arab expansion; this and other developments led to a dramatic transformation of Byzantium with regard to dimension and complexity of the society. - 867 CE: Dynastic change to the so-called Macedonian Emperors, beginning of a period of renewed expansion and increasing societal complexity. [3] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 164) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Basil I (r.867-886 CE) - Romanus IV Diogenes (r.1068-1071 CE) and Michael VII Ducas (r.1071-1078 CE).
[1]
867 CE: "Dynastic change to the so-called Macedonian Emperors, beginning of a period of renewed expansion and increasing societal complexity". [2] [1]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences |
||||||
|
Michael VII Ducas (r.1071-1078 CE) - Isaac II Angelus (again) and Alexius IV Angelus (r.1203-1204 CE), Alexius V Murtzuphlus (r.1204 CE).
[1]
1204 CE: "Conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, temporal collapse of the Empire" [2] [1]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences |
||||||
|
"I currently interpret the site of Wimpillay to be the center of a valley-wide chiefdom during the Late Formative phase." [1] Early Formative Starts c2200 BCE with beginnings of ceramic production; Ends 1500 BCE with the establishment of large permanent villages [2] Middle Formative Starts 1500 BCE with the development of Marcavalle ceramics and the first villages; Ends 500 BCE [2] represented by small independent villages. [1] Late Formative 500 BCE - 200 CE Chanapata ceramic style, the first pre-Inca ceramic style of the Cuzco region "during this period a clear settlement hierarchy developed." [1] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 44) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 39) |
||||||
|
Bauer refers to 200-600 CE as the Qotakalli period
[1]
and Covey states that Qotakalli appeared c.400 CE
[2]
Coded to 500 CE, chosen as an arbitrary date to coincide with the next polity, coded as ’Qotakalli’ using an earlier chronology from 1999, established by Bauer on the basis of ceramic analyses:
Ceramic sequence for Cuzco region gives a date range from 500 CE to 800 CE with the core period 550-650 CE. [3] In the Lucre Basin, the Chanapata phase seems to start earlier, or the distinction with the previous quasi-polity has not been made: "The earliest stratum encountered in recent excavations at the Cuzco Valley site of Choquepukio has revealed a Chanapata occupation dating from approximately 350 BC to AD 600." [4] Brian Bauer chronology: [5] Late Formative 500 BCE - 200 CE Chanapata ceramic style, the first pre-Inca ceramic style of the Cuzco region "during this period a clear settlement hierarchy developed." [6] (Note by RA: Brian Bauer refers to the period between AD 200 and AD 600 as the Qotakalli Period, and to him, the Chanapata ceramic style was used in what we have coded as the Wimpillay polity (1-200 CE). [5] Gordon McEwan refers to the period before the arrival of the Wari (c. 600 CE) as Chanapata. [4] ) Bauer’s ceramic chronology from 1999: [3] "400 BCE - 370 CE. Early Intermediate Period begins. Chavín cult disappears, and new regional traditions assert themselves. Nazca and Moche cultures flourish. The Cuzco Valley is occupied by the Chanapata culture." [7] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 47) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) [3]: (Bauer 1999, 144) [4]: (McEwan 2006b, 88) [5]: (Bauer 2004, x) [6]: (Bauer 2004, 44) [7]: (McEwan 2006a, 203) |
||||||
|
{400 CE; 500 CE}-650 CE
Start date End of the Formative Period c500 CE. "The Qotakalli chiefdom may have covered an area roughly 50 km (31 mi) in diameter" [1] Ceramic sequence for Cuzco region gives a date range from 500 CE to 800 CE with the core period 550-650 CE. [2] "Qotakalli pottery appears to have been produced in the Cusco Basin by about AD 400" [3] End date Fig. 25 shows spread of radiocarbon dates from "Wari and Wari related contexts" in Cuzco region. The earliest spread (one context) calibrated with 68.2% probability is from 540-690 CE. The earliest main cluster (5 contexts) of spreads at 68.2% probability agree on a period 650-780 CE. [4] [1]: (Quilter 2013, 196) [2]: (Bauer 1999, 144) [3]: (Covey 2006, 59) [4]: (Bauer 2003, 16) |
||||||
|
[{550 CE; 600 CE; 650 CE; 700 CE}-{1000 CE; 1100 CE}] ... cannot yet be machine read.
Duration in the NGA: 600 - {900; 1000} CE."While some ceramic evidence exists in Cuzco for Wari activity during Epoch 1A (ca. A.D. 500 - 600), extensive Wari presence did not occur until Epoch 1B (ca. A.D. 600 - 700). At this time, the Wari began building Pikillacta, occupying it during its construction. [...] During Epoch 1B until sometime in Epoch 2 (ca. A.D. 700 - 800), Pikillacta continued to be built and occupied. [...] Sometime during Epoch 2, but perhaps somewhat later, Wari activity at Pikillacta began to decrease. [...] Pikillacta was finally abandoned, although Wari activity in the Cuzco region may have persisted." [1] . According to Alan Covey: "The dates that McEwan and Glowacki offer for early Wari colonization (before AD 600) are based on their interpretation of relative ceramic chronologies, and the presumably earlier Huaro area colonization has not been dated absolutely. Maeve Skidmore completed a dissertation at SMU in 2014 with excavations at a Wari colony site, and she concluded that there was an intensification of Wari state relationships with their own colonists after AD 800. That would be my sense of the general chronology right now: an early Wari colonization around AD 600, an intensification of state efforts to extend administrative control over Wari and local populations around AD 800, and a failure of that intensification process by AD 1000." [2] 550 CE Expansion "sometime after AD 550" continued until "at least AD 900" then sudden collapse. [3] Expansion occurred during an environmental crisis involving droughts and floods in the mid sixth century. [4] Start date possibly 540 CE. [5] 600 CE "Flourished in the central Andean highlands and some coastal regions from around AD 600 to AD 900." [6] 600-1000 CE. Ayacucho valley. [7] 700 CE Katherine Schreiber’s interpretation of Wari as an empire: "By "empire" she means a political state that, starting in the mid-eighth century AD, rapidly expanded beyond its regional borders in Ayacucho to take control of a very large territory that encompassed much of highland and coastal Peru as well as many groups of people of diverse ethnicities, cultures, languages and social organization." [8] Radiocarbon dates Fig. 25 shows spread of radiocarbon dates from "Wari and Wari related contexts" in Cuzco region. The earliest spread (one context) calibrated with 68.2% probability is from 540-690 CE. The earliest main cluster (5 contexts) of spreads at 68.2% probability agree on a period 650-780 CE. Fig. 25 shows the latest radiocarbon spread at 68.2% probability (one context) is 990-1100 CE, whilst the last main cluster at 68.2% probability (4 contexts) is roughly 890-1000 CE. [9] Wari periodization, according to Menzel (summary quoted from Giersz and Makowski 2014): "In the 1960s, Dorothy Menzel undertook a monumental and influential comparative study of pieces found in collections and the relatively scant ceramic sherds derived from test pits in Wari sites, some of which already had the first radiocarbon dates. The relative chronology of the Middle Horizon, the outcome of this study, represents the main starting point in any discus- sion of Wari and its time, and is still the conceptual framework for interpretation. In accordance with the stylistic seriation methodology outlined by Rowe, Menzel subdivided the period that extends from the rise of the Wari styles in the midst of local Early Intermediate Period pottery (Huarpa) into four epochs—which was marked by the influence of the coastal Nasca style (phases 8-9)—to the final decline of the forms and designs derived from this Ayacuchano tradition at the hands of others related with local traditions (i.e. Late Intermediate Tradition: Chanka pottery). These last two epochs were discarded after it was shown that they were in fact posterior to the abandonment of the presumed capitals in Ayacucho. With these modifications, Menzel argues that the history of the Wari culture is divided into two epochs and four phases, followed by a third phase, that of the decline: Epoch 1, Phase A (Menzel’s original chronology: A.D. 550-600; new estimates: A.D. 600-700). The complex Altiplano iconography and its well-known front and profile personages from the Tiwanaku reliefs appear on Ayacucho pottery within the context of two new locally produced styles, Chakipampa—strongly related with the coastal tradition (Nasca 9)—and Ocros, as well as a third style with ample local antecedents—Huarpa (Figs. 11, 12 and 13). The Robles Moqo and Conchopata styles appear. More complex designs are found in the urns and jars from Conchopata, which have no Huarpa or Nazca precedent. Epoch 1, Phase B (Menzel’s original chronology: A.D. 600-650; new estimates: A.D. 700-850). The new styles spread to the South Coast (Pacheco in Nazca, Cerro del Oro) and influence the local output of the Central Coast, for instance the Nievería style in the Rímac Valley. Epoch 2 (new estimates: A.D. 850-1000), Phase A (Menzel’s original chrono- logy: A.D. 650-700). Wari consolidates its presence on the coast. New styles that synthesise and simplify the designs from previous phases spread from Arequipa to Piura: Viñaque, Atarco, Pachacamac and Ica-Pachacamac. It should however be emphasised that their decoration comprises religious motifs that in the previous epoch remained restricted to the Ayacucho’s ceremonial styles (Conchopata, Robles Moqo). The Wari Empire expanded rapidly in Epoch 2, Phase B (Menzel’s original chronology: A.D. 700-775) and reached its maximum extent. The Viñaque style reached such distant areas as Cajamarca to the North and Chuquibamba to the South. The trend towards schematisation and simplification were likewise heightened in the development of the styles, thus anticipating the decline of Wari (Figs. 14 and 15). The Empire evidently had declined by the end of Epoch 2 and most centres were abandoned. Epochs 3 and 4 (new estimates: A.D. 1000-1050). Epoch 3 (Menzel’s original chronology: A.D. 775-850) was defined from the stylistic transformations seen in the mould-stamped pottery from the Central-North Coast: local forms and designs supposedly re-emerged, but several Wari designs and conventions endured. After Epoch 3, some Wari-style survivals would have characterised Epoch 4 (Menzel’s original chronology: A.D. 850-1000), which is superimposed with the subsequent Late Intermediate Period (Fig. 16). Thanks to the first C14 dates, which were still reduced, Menzel proposed dating the Middle Horizon 1 and 2 to A.D. 550-775, and Epoch 3, that of the decline, to A.D. 775-850. We now have several long series of dates well- located in stratigraphic contexts, particularly from Conchopata, Pikillacta, Moquegua, Cajamarca, and also from Huari itself. The dates related with the construction of planned public architecture outside Ayacucho in the high- lands fall chronologically in A.D. 600-700 (cal.), and are visibly contemporary with the capital itself. The decline of Huari, the capital, took place instead in the eleventh century AD. Even so in some parts of Ayacucho like Azángaro, the Wari buildings remained in use up to the thirteenth century A.D. (cal.). The manufacture of pottery in the local, Middle Horizon “Huamanga” style also continued. A similar situation is observed in Cuzco and in Apurímac.8 The dated contexts evince that although Menzel correctly apprehended the broad outlines of some general trends in the development of ceramic styles, these do not let themselves be exclusively ascribed to short phases. Most of these styles endured for two or three centuries and none of them became the official imperial style, comparable in terms of their reception and prestige to the Imperial Inca style." [10] [1]: (Glowacki in McEwan 2005, 123) [2]: (Alan Covey 2015, personal communication) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 55) [4]: (Lumbreras in Bergh 2012, 2) [5]: (McEwan ed. 2005, 1) [6]: (Covey 2006, 56) [7]: (Covey, Bauer, Bélisle, Tsesmeli 2013, 538-552) [8]: (Jennings and Bergh in Bergh 2012, 23) [9]: (Bauer 2003, 16) [10]: (Milosz and Makowski 2014, 285) |
||||||
|
Killke state formation begun around 1000 CE. 1000-1200 period had small, competing polities.
[1]
"After AD 1000, the population of the Cusco Basin and Sacred Valley grew substantially, and the site of Cusco itself increased in size and population density." [2] The 1000-1250 CE period is before the Inca expansion into the Sacred Valley, which occurred during a time of drought dated 1250-1310 CE. [3] Administrative and temple buildings at Qhapaqkancha, Markasunay and Pukara Pantillijlla probably developed during the Inca expansion into the Sacred Valley (1250-1310 CE). [4] Another polity present in the Cuzco Valley during the Late Intermediate Period was the Pinagua polity based at Choquepukio in the Lucre Basin: "A few centuries later, circa AD 1300, a second building phase was initiated at Choquepukio, resulting in the construction of additional niched halls." [5] [1]: (Covey 2003, 352) [2]: (Covey 2006, 89) [3]: (Covey 2006, 117) [4]: (Covey 2006, 129, 134) [5]: (McEwan 2006b, 95) |
||||||
|
Inca expansion into the Sacred Valley occurred during a time of drought dated 1250-1310 CE.
[1]
Administrative and temple buildings at Qhapaqkancha, Markasunay and Pukara Pantillijlla probably developed during the Inca expansion into the Sacred Valley (1250-1310 CE).
[2]
"A few centuries later, circa AD 1300, a second building phase was initiated at Choquepukio, resulting in the construction of additional niched halls." [3] "Carbon dates suggest that the transition from the pre-Inca to Inca eras at Chokepuquio seems to have occurred 1400 - 30, which is in keeping with the idea of a late incorporation of the Lucre region." [4] "A particularly intriguing set of dates was taken recently from deposits at the site of Chokepuquio (McEwan and Gibaja O. n.d.). At this site, which was home to a major Inca foe in the Lucre basin late in the era of Inca state formation, a major burning event separated the pre-Inca from the imperial era. The reported suite of dates puts that event between 1400 and 1430 (with a 95 percent degree of confidence). If we accept the proposition that the conflagration occurred after the town fell to Inca forces, then we can infer that the Incas took control sometime early in the fifteenth century, not close to mid-century as the historical readings put it. " [5] "Site surveys in the region lead Brian Bauer to conclude that the spread of Killke reflects early, gradual expansion of Inca hegemony that was nondisruptive. Thus, Killke Cuzco was apparently a young señorio, likely confederated with Chokepukio by about AD 1200." [6] [1]: (Covey 2006a, 117) [2]: (Covey 2006a, 129, 134) [3]: (McEwan 2006b, 95) [4]: (D’Altroy 2014, 83) [5]: (D’Altroy 2014, 64) [6]: (Moseley 2001, 248) |
||||||
|
"The Pachakutiq myth cannot explain the available evidence adequately, and A.D. 1438 should not be used as a starting date for the Inka polity and its history."
[1]
1572 CE Spanish. execute last direct heir. [2] "The dating of the Killke era from ad 1000 until about 1400 is still based on relatively few radiocarbon dates, but they are consistent with one another (Dwyer 1971; Kendall 1985; Bauer 1992; Adamska and Michecsynski 1996). Carbon dates taken from Pumamarca architecture end in the fourteenth century (Hollowell 1987), while the Inca-style rectangular and ceremonial constructions at Pukara Pantillijlla are also earlier than we would expect from the historical chronology (Covey 2006b: 163). In light of the early dates, Bauer (1992: 47) has ventured that some structures usually thought to belong to the imperial era were actually raised during the Killke period. As noted in chapter 2 (section entitled “Time frames”), carbon dates suggest that the transition from the pre-Inca to Inca eras at Chokepuquio seems to have occurred 1400 - 30, which is in keeping with the idea of a late incorporation of the Lucre region." [3] AD: The code starting at 1375 CE reflects a possible beginning in the late 14th century. Covey: "Seems reasonable, especially given the uncertainty regarding when the Inca state qualifies as an “empire.” 1400 might be closer to the mark, but we have a lot of work left to date Inca expansion in Cuzco and to correlate that chronology with radiocarbon chronologies for the Inca presence beyond the Cuzco region." [4] [1]: (Covey 2006, 173) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 3) [3]: (D’Altroy 2014, 83) [4]: (Covey 2015, personal communication) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Chronological problems [...] beset text-based reconstructions of Satavahana chronology and dynastic sequences. [...] Chronological reconstructions fall into two groups. Advocates of the now largely discredited ’long chronology’ support the maximal span of c. 475 years derived from the literal reading of the [Puranic king lists] [...]. This interpretation is problematic given the historical context of the Puranas, the lack of concordance among the texts, and the lack of supporting numismatic or incriptional evidence for many of the rulers named. "Advocates of the more widely accepted ’short chronology’ [...] combine Puranic records with other lines of numismatic, archaeological, and textual evidence and date the Satavahana rule from the beginning of the first century BCE to the end of the second century CE. Even here, many scholars are reluctant to assign absolute dates to specific kings and those who do often select quite disparate dates and name different rulers. Nonetheless, the shorter chronology is the more reasonable given current evidence [...]"
[1]
.
[1]: C. Sinopoli, On the Edge of Empire: Form and Substance in the Satavahana Dynasty, in S. Alcock (ed), Empires (2001), p. 166 |
||||||
|
Start 255 CE
"Vindhyasakti, the founder of the Vakataka kingdom, ruled for about 20 years from c. 255 to 275 A.D. He was a contemporary of Rudra-sena II and seems to have annexed a part of eastern Malwa." [1] The Vakataka-Gupta age "spread Indian religion and culture in eastern Asia. Hindu colonising activity was, no doubt, started long before our period, but it is after the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. that we are able to trace its definite course and achievements." [2] End: c550 CE "The Vakataka empire, which was thus at the zenith of its glory at about 510 A.D., disappeared within less than forty years. By c. 500 A.D. the Chalukyas occupied the greater part of it." [3] "Around the middle of sixth century CE the territory of the Padmapura - Nandivardhana - Pravarapura branch came under the control of early Kalacuri king Krishnaraja who governed it through his vassals (Mirashi 1957: 62-65)." [4] [1]: (Majumbar and Altekar 1946, 44) Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1986. Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [2]: (Majumbar and Altekar 1946, 6) Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1986. Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [3]: (Majumbar and Altekar 1946, 123) Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1986. Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [4]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162.< |
||||||
|
The Kadamba Empire was founded more or less around the time of their rebellion in the face of their feudal overlords (possibly the Pallavas), and it ended with their defeat at the hands of the Chalukyas
[1]
.
[1]: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaBanavasi.htm |
||||||
|
The start of the Chalukya Empire is generally said to coincide with the establishment of Badami as capital, and its end with with the last Emperor’s military defeat at the hands of the Rashtrakutas
[1]
.
Pulakesi I (543-566); Kirtivarman I (566-597); Mangalesa (597-609); Pulakesi II (609-642); Vikramaditya I (655-680); Vinayaditya (680-696); Vijayaditya (696-733); Vikramaditya II (733-746); Kirtivarman II (746-753); Dantidurga (753-756). [2] Ed: Notice that there is a gap between 642-655 CE. [1]: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/90201/Chalukya-dynasty [2]: (Pant 2012, 31) Ashok Pant. 2012. The Truth of Babri Mosque. iUniverse. Bloomington. |
||||||
|
The Rashtrakuta Empire begins with the first territorial annexations of the dynasty’s founder, Dantidurga’s, as well as his military success against his feudal overlords, the Chalukyas. The Empire fell when the Chalukya dynasty managed to re-establish their supremacy in the region
[1]
.
[1]: K.R. Basavaraja, History and Culture of Karnataka (1984), pp. 62-83 |
||||||
|
Taila II exploited the Rashtrakutas’ weakness after some important military defeats (including the sack of their capital) in order to re-establish his dynasty’s sovereignty over the Deccan
[1]
. The Chalukyas then lost their empire twice in the twelfth century: first, briefly, to the Kalachuris, and then, definitively, to the Hoysalas and the Yadavas
[2]
.
[1]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 91 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), pp. 96 |
||||||
|
While the first mentions of the Hoysala dynasty refer to even earlier times, the Hoysalas rose into eminence as strong feudatories of the Chalukyas during Vinayadithya’s rule (r. 1047-1098)
[1]
. As Derrett notes, Vinayadithya was obliged to acknowledge Chalukya supremacy by 1078
[2]
. But it was only during the rule of Vishnuvardhana (r. 1108-1152) that Hoysala rose to the dignity of a kingdom
[3]
. The Hoysala rule came to an end in 1346, as the last ruler Vira Virupaksha died
[4]
.
It was under Ballala II that Bellary once again capitulated to Hoysala KIngdom (had been under VIsnuvardhana some 70 years before) in or around 1192 [5] . It seems that Vishnuvardhana entered the town of Bellare (the modern Bellary) in 1118, or some time between 1118-20 [6] . [1]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 130 [2]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 32 [3]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 130-2 [4]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 136 [5]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 92 [6]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 58 |
||||||
|
Initially fuedatory under Hoysalas which under Mummadi Singeya Nayaka declared independence in 1280 CE. During his rule Kampili was attacked by the Yadavas/Sevunas (in context of Yadavas-Hoysala war?). Singeya Nayaka was succeeded by his son Kampiladeva who was attacked by the Hoysalas (who perhaps wanted to reclaim territory after the ruler that declared independence had died?). This may have caused a Kampili alliance with Yadavas. The kingdom was attacked by the Sultanate of Delhi and was conquered in three invasions c1327-1328 CE, at which time they may have been a fuedatory of the Yadavas (although an authoritative source says Kampili was an independent Hindu kingdom
[1]
). Another source says annexed by Muhammad Tughluq in 1326 CE.
[2]
Founder: Mummadi Singeya Nayaka ... CE ? - 1313 CE "The governors of Hoysala, Singeya Nayaka-III (1280-1300) declared independance to the kingdom of Kampili around 1280 AD. Soon the kingdom faced attack by the Yadava king Ramachandra but the latter was replused. His son Kampiladeva (Khandeyaraya) ascended the throne in the year 1300 AD, but soon entered into conflict with the Hoysalas. The kingdom faced constant threat for the powerful kingdom from Hoysalas and Yadavas. But in 1327, the Muslim expedition too toll of Ramachandra Yadava and his kingdom as well as Kampiladeva’s and opened up for the Muslim rulers." [3] "The founder of the kingdom Mummadi Singa died in A.D. 1313 and was succeeded by his son Kampilideva." [4] -- questionable source? "Kampili was a small but powerful kingdom founded by Mummadi Singeya from the fragments of the disintegrating Devagiri kingdom. Kampilideva succeeded Mummadi Singeya in 1313 CE. ... It took three well equipped invasions before Kampili faded into the night." [5] -- source is a blog "Mummadi Singeya Nayaka, the governor of Kummata (Bellary District) was an important feudatory chief under Narashima." [6] Narashima was a king of the Hoysala Kingdom. [7] Singeya Nayaka-III. "Mummadi Singeya Nayaka of Kummata was carrying on a continuous Guerilla fight against the Sevunas, thus distracting the latter from the operation of the Hoysala territory. He had a good alliance with the Hoysalas and when Sevuna Ramachandra’s subordinates Mahamandalesvara Kannaradeva, Mahapradhana Vanadevarasa, Vira Chavundarasa and Hanuman marched to Doravdi and Kurugod, he gave strong resistence to them." [8] Kampilideva Nayaka [9] or Kampili Raya ... CE ? - ... CE ? "This photograph of an old Kannada inscription (1309 AD) was taken by me on the Hemakuta hill temple complex at Hampi, a UNESCO world heritage site in the Bellary district of Karnataka state, India. The inscription is ascribed to King Kampili Raya of the tiny Kingdom of Kampili (modern Bellary district)" "For approximately fifteen years, the forces of Kampili-Raya successfully resisted Sultanate attacks. In 1327, after two failed attempts, the Sultanate army killed Kampili-Raya, and his kingdom collapsed." [10] "the history of the Kampili as an independent kingdom, must have commenced in AD 1312. We learn from Muhammadan historians that the kingdom was destroyed in AD 1327-28. It flourished only for 15 years, i.e., from AD 1312 to 1327, during which it was governed by two kings Mummadi Singa and Kampili Raya." [11] Record of gold coins says: "Kingdom, c. 1280-1327" "Kampiladeva, 1300-1327" [12] Kumara Rama ... CE ? - ... CE ? "Singhana II (1199-1247 C.E.), the greatest of the Sevunas, extended the Sevuna kingdom upto the Tungabhadra. But the Sevunas were defeated by the army of Delhi Sultan in 1296 C.E, again in 1307 C.E and finally in 1318 C.E, and thus the kingdom was wiped out. Their feudatory, Kumara Rama and his father Kampilaraya of Kampili also died fighting against the Muslims in C. 1327 C.E." [13] -- questionable source? [1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. [2]: (SarDesai 2007, 149) SarDesai, D. R. 2007. India: The Definitive History. Westview Press. [3]: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/india/southind/kampili/south_kampili.html [4]: Vardhan, Aditya. http://www.preservearticles.com/2011102916076/short-essay-on-expedition-of-mohd-tughluq-against-kampili.html [5]: https://jambudveep.wordpress.com/tag/kampili/ [6]: (Patel 2001, 27) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [7]: (Patel 2001) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [8]: (Patel 2001, 20) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [9]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasivan, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. [10]: (Sinopoli 2003, 75) [11]: (Ramanayya 1929, 15) [12]: (Friedberg and Friedberg 2009, 468) Friedberg, Arthur L. Friedberg, Ira S. 2009. Gold Coins of the World: From Ancient Times to the Present: an Illustrated Standard Catalogue with Valuations. Eighth edition. Coin & Currency Institute. Clifton. [13]: Shashidhar, Melkunde. A History of Freedom and Unification Movement in Karnataka. Lulu.com |
||||||
|
The beginning point for the Vijayanagara kingdom is the founding of the fortified city on the Tungabhadra around 1340
[1]
. While there are disputes as to the details, most experts commonly agree that the fortified city of Vijayanagar was established in 1336
[2]
[3]
[4]
. Prior to that, there were incursions of soldiers serving the Khalji sultans of Delhi, which allegedly created the reasons and conditions for the new dynasty and city of Vijayanagara
[1]
.
As a result of repeated invasions from Muslim states to the North and civil wars within, Vijayanagara authority was fragmented in the seventeenth century [5] , leading to an imperial collapse [6] . In 1646, the Vijaynagar empire is finally conquered by the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda. Many of the empire’s largest vassal states immediately declare independence, so the territorial gains made by the sultanates are limited. Those vassals, Mysore, Keladi Nayaka, and the Nayaks and Nayakas of Chitradurga, Gingee, Madurai, and Tanjore, all become powerful states in southern India [7] . [1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13 [2]: Michael Edwardes, A History of India: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1961), p. 116, 140 [3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 317 [4]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 19 [5]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 2 [6]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 120-126 [7]: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaVijayanagar.htm |
||||||
|
The Mughal Empire began with Babur’s victory over Ibrahim Lodi in the first Battle of Panipat, and ended when it was supplanted by the British Raj.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Richards, John F. (March 18, 1993). Johnson, Gordon [2]: Bayly, C. A., eds. The Mughal Empire. The New Cambridge history of India: 1.5. I. The Mughals and their Contemporaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1995), pp. 1-4 |
||||||
|
From the loss of American colonies to the instability of the 1830s - 1840s (the Chartist Movement)
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Iroquois Confederacy pursued aggressive expansionism: ’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.’
[1]
The Confederacy achieved maximum geograhpical expansion by the mid-17th century: ’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.’
[2]
[1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [2]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36 |
||||||
|
’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.’
[1]
During the 18th century, the Iroquois struggled to maintain their autonomy vis-à-vis colonial incursions, until they were caught up in 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.’
[2]
During the reservation period, the Iroquois were increasingly subject to paternalistic treatment 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.’
[3]
’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).’
[3]
’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.’
[4]
[1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Iroquois-Confederacy [3]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 511 [4]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 512 |
||||||
|
Beginning with the Middle Bronze Age, c. 2000 BCE, and ending with the chaotic destruction period in which the Canaanite cities seemed to fall for good—perhaps because of "Sea People" invasions, perhaps because of ecological stresses, perhaps from Hapiru revolts, perhaps from Israelite invasion, or other factors, or a combination of all of the above.
[1]
[1]: Knapp/Manning (2016). |
||||||
|
The beginning date is approximate, during the time when the earlier Canaanite culture entered its final decline, the Egyptian and Hittite empires both suddenly lost much of their power, and the Phoenician culture differentiated itself. The end date reflects the conquest of Tyre by Alexander the Great. (Arguments could be made for earlier dates as well; in approximately 850 BCE, the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II conquered the Phoenician cities and turned them into vassals.
[1]
This was not the first time that the Assyrians had conquered Phoenicia—Tiglath-Pileser I campaigned against them c. 1100 BCE
[2]
—but in the earlier instance, Assyrian control was short-lived and ended around 1050 BCE, and the Phoenicians regained their independence. After the conquest by Ashurnasirpal II, the Phoenician cities in the Levantine coast spent most of their cultural existence as vassals of one empire or another. However, the Assyrians and later the Persians gave the Phoenician cities a wide degree of autonomy because of their seafaring skill; they were more useful as autonomous traders who could then be a rich source of tribute.
[3]
)
[1]: Healey (1991:10). [2]: Bryce (2009:42) [3]: Kaufman (2014: 3-4). |
||||||
|
The early date is speculative, being approximately when the first consolidated monarchy was established by the Israelite people (traditionally assumed to be that of King David; non-Biblical evidence for his rule is thin but nonzero, for example the stela at Tel Dan.)
[1]
The later date is approximately when the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel and exiled many of its inhabitants.
[1]: Cf. Cline (2009:61). |
||||||
|
911-891 BCE Adad-Nirari II. Most important early ruler was Assurnasirpall II (883-859 BCE) who built capital Kalhu on the east bank of the Tigris, and a great palace.
[1]
After peasantry wiped out due to excessive warfare under Ashurbanipal (688-625 BCE) state came to rely almost totally on Scythian mercenaries. Assyrian capital, Ninevah, captured and destroyed by Median and Babylonian alliance, 616-612 BCE. [2] [1]: (Chadwick 2005, 77) [2]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 12) |
||||||
|
[1]
Cyrus II was "heir to both the Median and Persian thrones. In 550 BCE, Cyrus rose up against his despotic grandfather and overthrew him. From a contemporary document known as the Nabunaid Chronicle and the testimony of Herodotus we learn that, dissatisfied with Astyages, the Media aristocracy, led by a military commander named Harpagus, joined Cyrus and accepted him as the legitimate heir to the throne. This established the Achaemenid - of the first Persian - Empire, in which the Medes shared the status of ruling people with the Persians, so much so indeed that the Greeks frequently called the Persians ’Medes’ and coined the term ’Medizing’ to denote ’pro-Persian policy’ or ’Persian partisan’." [2] [1]: (Nylander 1971, 50-54) [2]: (Shahbazi 2012, 122-123) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
The rule of the first king of the Seleucid Empire, Seleucus I, began when he was apportioned the satrapy of Babylonia in 319 BCE after the death of Alexander the Great
[1]
. However, in 315 BCE Seleucus was overthrown by Antigonus, but regained power in 312 BCE and began to extend the kingdom. The beginning of the empire is therefore generally agreed to start from Seleucus’ return to power in 312 BCE
[1]
[2]
.
The end of the empire was characterized by a decline from the former power of the kings, to the extent that Aperghis (2004, p27, 298) argues that after 129 BCE, when King Antiochus VII committed suicide in Media, the Seleucid Empire had degraded to the Seleucid Kingdom, and would only decline further. Opposition from the indigenous population and from growing rival states (the Parthians and Romans) culminated in irreversible decline for the Seleucids. [3] The remaining polity was eventually overtaken by the growing Roman empire in 64/63 BCE [4] [5] . [1]: Sherwin-White, S. Kurht, A. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A new approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Duckworth. pp.9-10. [2]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p19 [3]: Kosmin, P. J. 2013. Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in Iran. In, Potts, D. T (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.671-689. p686 [4]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p27 [5]: Kosmin, P. J. 2013. Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in Iran. In, Potts, D. T. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p686 |
||||||
|
Ptolemy declares himself "King" in 305 BC; Battle of Raphia 217 BCE
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
‘After settling in the hills, Garos initially had no close and constant contact with the inhabitants of the adjoining plains. In 1775-76 the Zamindars of Mechpara and Karaibari (at present in the Goalpara and Dhubri districts of Assam) led expeditions onto the Garo hills. The first contact with British colonialists was in 1788, and the area was brought under administrative control in the year 1873.’
[1]
During the 19th century, the Indian subcontinent was subject to increasing colonial influence, ‘a process that culminated in the decline of the ruling Muslim elite and absorption of the subcontinent within the British Empire. Direct administration by the British, which began in 1858, effected a political and economic unification of the subcontinent. When British rule came to an end in 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned along religious lines into two separate countries-India, with a majority of Hindus, and Pakistan, with a majority of Muslims; the eastern portion of Pakistan later split off to form Bangladesh. Many British institutions stayed in place (such as the parliamentary system of government)’
[2]
[1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/India |
||||||
|
‘After settling in the hills, Garos initially had no close and constant contact with the inhabitants of the adjoining plains. In 1775-76 the Zamindars of Mechpara and Karaibari (at present in the Goalpara and Dhubri districts of Assam) led expeditions onto the Garo hills. The first contact with British colonialists was in 1788, and the area was brought under administrative control in the year 1873.’
[1]
During the 19th century, the Indian subcontinent was subject to increasing colonial influence, ‘a process that culminated in the decline of the ruling Muslim elite and absorption of the subcontinent within the British Empire. Direct administration by the British, which began in 1858, effected a political and economic unification of the subcontinent. When British rule came to an end in 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned along religious lines into two separate countries-India, with a majority of Hindus, and Pakistan, with a majority of Muslims; the eastern portion of Pakistan later split off to form Bangladesh. Many British institutions stayed in place (such as the parliamentary system of government)’
[2]
The British sent punitive campaigns into the hills in order to suppress resistance as well as infighting. Full administrative control was established around 1873. Most authors consider the area ’pacified’ for the remainder of the colonial period.
[1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/India |
||||||
|
The Portuguese established commercial relations with coastal Akan states in the late 15th century. The Ashanti empire was formed in 1701: ’A revolution in Ghanaian history was initiated by the establishment of direct sea trade with Europe following the arrival on the coast of Portuguese mariners in 1471. Initially Europe’s main interest in the country was as a source of gold, a commodity that was readily available on the coast in exchange for such European exports as cloth, hardware, beads, metals, spirits, arms, and ammunition. This gave rise to the name Gold Coast, by which the country was known until 1957. In an attempt to preserve a monopoly of the trade, the Portuguese initiated the practice of erecting stone fortresses (Elmina Castle, dating from 1482, was the first) on the coast on sites leased from the native states. In the 17th century the Portuguese monopoly, already considerably eroded, gave way completely when traders from the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia-Protestant sea powers antagonistic to Iberian imperial pretensions-discovered that the commercial relations developed with the Gold Coast states could be adapted to the export of slaves, then in rapidly increasing demand for the American plantations, as well as to gold trading. By the mid-18th century the coastal scene was dominated by the presence of about 40 forts controlled by Dutch, British, or Danish merchants. The presence of these permanent European bases on the coast had far-reaching consequences. The new centres of trade thus established were much more accessible than were the Sudanese emporia, and this, coupled with the greater capacity and efficiency of the sea-borne trade compared with the ancient overland routes, gradually brought about the reversal of the direction of the trade flow. The new wealth, tools and arms, and techniques and ideas introduced through close contact with Europeans initiated political and social as well as economic changes. The states north of the forest, hitherto the wealthiest and most powerful, declined in the face of new combinations farther south. At the end of the 17th century, the Akan state of Akwamu created an empire that, stretching from the central Gold Coast eastward to Dahomey, sought to control the trade roads to the coast of the whole eastern Gold Coast. The Akwamu empire was short-lived, but its example soon stimulated a union of the Asante (Ashanti) states of the central forest (see Asante empire), under the leadership of the founding Asantehene (king) Osei Tutu. The Asante union, after establishing its dominance over other neighbouring Akan states, expanded north of the forest to conquer Bono, Banda, Gonja, and Dagomba.’
[1]
’The Portuguese first arrived in 1471 and later built a trading post at Elmina in 1486. Drawn by the trading activity on the coast, descendants of the defunct Bonda and Kumbu kingdoms settled along the north-south trade routes connecting the coast to the Niger bend region. The Queen mother of the Bonda founded the Akyerekyere kingdom along one trade route, which became a clearinghouse for goods from the coast. A prince of the former Kumbu royal house founded the Akumu-Akoto kingdom on another trade route. The Portuguese referred to this latter kingdom as the ’Acanes,’ hence the name Akan. Emigrants from Akumu-Akoto founded a second city-state to the east, called Akwamu. Emigrants from Akwamu in turn founded the Asantemanso kingdom in the Kumasi region. Mande-speaking immigrants conquered the Akyerekyere kingdom and later the Asantemanso kingdom to become the dominant power in the region, the Denkyira. In 1701, the Asantemanso under the leadership of Osei Tutu (d. 1717) rebelled and defeated the Denkyira.’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ghana/Daily-life-and-social-customs#toc76828 [2]: HRAF Cultural Summary for ’Akan’ Michelle Gilbert, Robert O. Lagacé, and Ian Skoggard |
||||||
|
This period begins in 1701 CE when ’the Asantemanso under the leadership of Osei Tutu (d. 1717) rebelled and defeated the Denkyira’
[1]
. This period ends in 1895 CE, ’the last year in which the Union was intact before defeat by the British, exile of the King, and conquest.’
[2]
[1]: HRAF Cultural Summary for ’Akan’ Michelle Gilbert, Robert O. Lagacé, and Ian Skoggard [2]: White 2009 ’Pinpointing Sheets for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample: Complete Edition’ World Cultures |
||||||
|
’Circa 930 CE the Alþingi (the general assembly or parliament which met every year in Summer at the Þingvellir) was established and this is traditionally seen as the starting point of the Icelandic Commonwealth. The choice for 1262 CE as the end date of the Icelandic Commonwealth is based upon a widely accepted consensus. Whereas the period 1258 CE to 1264 CE can be seen as a transition period, in 1262 CE the Alþingi agreed to recognize the King of Norway as their sovereign. This was not the result of an invasion, but a voluntary act of the Alþingi and the leaders of all 39 Goðar. Goði (pl. goðar) refers to ’chieftains’. The term goðorðsmaður (godordsman) had practically replaced the term goði in common use by the 12th century. The political unit was called gorðorð. However, by 1262 there were no longer 39 godordsmen (goðar) or indeed active goðorð in Iceland (and this number, although official according to the constitution as explained in Grágás, may never have been real). By the 13th century territorial lordships (héraðsríki) had replaced the goðorð in most places and although technically based on the goðorð they were quite different as political institutions.’
[1]
eHRAF and Durrenberger provide general descriptions: ’Iceland was a new society, however Icelandic culture perpetuated many of the cultural standards from Scandinavia, especially Norway. While both Norse and Celtic peoples contributed to the founding population they had unequal impacts on the culture of Iceland. Celts appear to have been incorporated into Norse households and appear to have little lasting impact on the cultural and institutional developments that were predominantly Scandinavian in origin. The first settlers claimed lands and established dispersed farmsteads. Many of the economic practices were unsuitable to the fragile Icelandic environment and resulted in deforestation and land erosion, especially in the uplands. As population grew, settlement expanded, and new farmsteads were divided from previous land claims. In 930 A.D. the General Assembly (ALÞINGI) was founded, providing an institution integrating the entire island. The same assembly accepted Christianity as the religion of the land in 1000 A.D. The thirteenth century was a period of escalating conflict (STURLUNGAÖLD) chieftains attempted to exert control beyond their local regions. The system of autonomous chieftains ended after 1262 A.D. when Iceland came under Norwegian rule. The Viking Age expansion into the North Atlantic did not end at Iceland. In the late tenth century Eirík the Red led a major venture to colonize Greenland and his son, Leifur Eiríksson, has been credited with the European discovery of North America. Early Icelanders maintained close ties with Scandinavia and the British Isles. Continental trading and raiding expeditions were common activities for those with the means to take a share in a boat. Their travels sometimes took them as far as Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.’
[2]
’Norse settlers came to Iceland in the ninth century from Norway and the British Isles. The traditionally accepted date for the first permanent settlement is 870. Settlers claimed land on the uninhabited island and established an agricultural economy based largely on grass. They raised sheep, cattle, horses, and in some places, some grain as well. According to the Icelandic literary-historical tradition, the land was all claimed by 930 when the Alþing or general assembly was founded, thus marking the end of the period of settlement. In 1000, by a compromise decision of a single arbiter selected at the Alþing, Christianity became the religion of Iceland. In 1096 a tithe law was enacted at the Alþing. Early in the thirteenth century began a period of disorder known after the name of one of its prominent families as the Sturlung age. This period came to an end in 1262 when Icelanders agreed to acept the Norwegian king as their king. The three hundred or so years between the first settlement and 1262 is known as the Icelandic Commonwealth or Free State.’
[3]
The view that the economic practices of the early settlers was unsuitable to the Icelandic environment is probleamtic: ’This is often claimed but is actually questionable. The settlement undoubtedly had a profound impact in the environment but this always happens when a farming population first appears. It does not follow that economic practices were “unsuitable.” Perhaps the environmental impact was simply unavoidable if people wanted to make a living as farmers in Iceland.’
[1]
[1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [3]: Durrenberger, E. Paul 1988. “Stratification Without A State: The Collapse Of The Icelandic Commonwealth”, 239 |
||||||
|
Icelanders began to pledge allegiance to the Norwegian crown in 1262ce: ’The thirteenth century was a period of escalating conflict (STURLUNGAÖLD) chieftains attempted to exert control beyond their local regions. The system of autonomous chieftains ended after 1262 A.D. when Iceland came under Norwegian rule.’
[1]
The kingdom of Norway entered into a personal union with Denmark in 1380ce: ’To a large extent, Iceland was ruled separately from Norway. It had its own law code, and the Althing continued to be held at Thingvellir, though mainly as a court of justice. Most of the royal officials who succeeded the chieftains were Icelanders. In 1380 the Norwegian monarchy entered into a union with the Danish crown, but that change did not affect Iceland’s status within the realm as a personal skattland (“tax land”) of the crown.’
[2]
The focus of Norwegian rule shifted during this time before the union with Denmark: ’The realm of the king of Norway, when Iceland became a part of it, was centred on the North Atlantic. It stretched from the west coast of Greenland to the Barents Sea in the north, and south to Göteborg and the Orkneys [...]. Purely in terms of distance, Iceland was not far from the middle of this domain; it was within a week’s travel of the main centres, the royal court at Bergen and the archiepiscoal sea at Trondheim. Just over two centuries later, the capital of the state was the city of Copenhagen on the Sound, and Iceland was at the westernmost point of the kingdom. It was King Haakon (1299-1319), son of Magnus, who turned the thrust of the state to the south and east. He moved his court from Bergen to Oslo, and arranged a marriage between his daughter Ingeborg and the brother of the Swedish king, when she was one year old. Their son, Magnus, inherited the thrones of Sweden and Norway in 1319, at the age of three. Norway as an autonomous kingdom had thus practically ceased to exist. The mid-14th century also saw the Balck Death sweep through Scandinavia. The disease was especially virulent in Norway, where as many as two-third of the population may have died in successive epidemics. In the period 1376-80 the boy king Olaf, son of Hakon, inherited the crowns of Denmark and Norway. Thus Iceland became subject to the Danish throne, a relationship that was not finally broken off until 1944. Olaf was also of the Swedish royal house (which ruled Finland too). It is easy to imagne the idea of a unified Nordic realm forming in the mind of Queen Margarethe, mother of the child king. But in 1387 Olaf suddenly died, aged 17. But Margarethe did not give up her plans. She contrived to have herself elected regent in all the Nordic kingdoms, and to have her six-year-old foster-son nominaated heir to all the thrones. In 1397 an attempt was made in the Swesih city of Karlmar to establish a permanent union of the states.’
[3]
[1]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10093 [3]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 22p |
||||||
|
7500-5500 BCE: Mehrgarh I. The beginning of Mehrgarh I is based on newer dates which suggest that settlement and food production began well before 7000 BCE as originally thought.
[1]
Earliest occupation at Mehrgarh was identified in the so-called area MR 3 (7 m of stratified deposits). These levels seem to not yield ceramic materials; however, fired ceramic figurines and asphalt-covered baskets are found.
[2]
[1]: Jarrige, J.-F. (1991) Mehrgarh: its place in the development of ancient cultures in Pakisan. In, Jansen, M., et al (eds.) Forgotten cities on the Indus: early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th-2nd millennium BC.p. 142 [2]: Jarrige et al. (eds.), Mehrgarh: Field Reports, 57; Jarrige et al., ‘Mehrgarh Neolithic: the updated sequence’, 131, fig. 2; Jarrige et al., Mehrgarh: Neolithic Period; Jarrige, ‘Mehrgarh Neolithic: new excavations’; Jarrige, ‘Human figurines’; also Shaffer, ‘Indus valley’, vol. I, 454; G.L. Possehl, Indus Age: The Beginnings (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 464. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
4000-3500 BCE: Mehrgar III (Kili Gul Muhammad periods II and III; Togau phase?) Fragments of metal (copper) artefacts; Local copper production, as well as crucible fragments? Beginning of a Chalcolithic period at the site?
[1]
Earliest occupation at Mehrgarh was identified in the so-called area MR 3 (7 m of stratified deposits). These levels seem to not yield ceramic materials; however, fired ceramic figurines and asphalt-covered baskets are found.
[2]
Mehrgarh I seems to be contemporaneous with the earliest pre-pottery levels at the site of Kili Gul Muhammad (KGM), Quetta valley, Bolan Pass, Balochistan. The latter site, along with the excavation at Damb Sadaat, currently defines the archaeological sequence of the Quetta Valley.
[3]
Kili Gul Mohammad III (Site Q24): (1) KGM III was contemporaneous with Anjira II and Mehrgarh Period III (Fairservis 1956: 330-332).
[4]
. Early village life in the north-western borderlands, in Sheri Khan Tarakai. page 19); (2) Kili Ghul Mohammad IV includes the irregular clay and charcoal layers of Phase 3, pottery of Kechi Beg type, exclusive of the polychrome and red-paint wares. Kili Ghul Mohammad III includes Phases 5-13, Section I, and pottery is Kili Ghul Mohammad Black-on-Red slip, with wheelmade wares predominating. (Fairservis, 1956. Quetta Valley); (3) Kili Ghul Mohammad IV and Damb Sadaat I correlate “on the basis of the presence of the Kechi Beg Wares: Kechi Beg White-on-Dark Slip, Kechi Beg Black-on-Buff slip, SPezand Black-and-Red Rim, Sultan Purple, Khojak Parallel Striated and the plainwares such as Nazim Hard-Clay Temper, Adam Sandy and others. Nevertheless, the absence of Kechi Beg Polychrome and Kechi Beg Red Pain, plus the general configuration of all the wates present in both assemblages, indicates that KIli Ghul Mohammad IV is probabily somewhat earlier than Damb Sadaat I.” (Fairservis, 1956. Quetta Valley). Other relevant Sites (De Cardi 1983, Archaeological Surveys in Baluchistan): Baleli, Pishin. The site known as Tor-Ghundai (Stein A. 1929. An archaeological tour in Waziristan, p.89) had been damaged by army lorries but a small sample of sherds confirmed Stein’s ascription of occupation in both chalcolithic and historical times. A number of chert flakes were noted and other finds included part of a shell bangle and a fragment of copper. In addition to KGM and basket-marked wares the sample included Togau A animal frizzes and one unusual sherd with an almost white surface decorated with reversed hook/horn frieze in brown. A comparable oddity was noted at Saiyed Maurez and Togau hooks occurred on a cream slip at Zari in the Surab valley.
[1]: Jarrige, J.-F. (1991) Mehrgarh: its place in the development of ancient cultures in Pakisan. In, Jansen, M., et al (eds.) Forgotten cities on the Indus: early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th-2nd millennium BC.p. 142 [2]: Jarrige et al. (eds.), Mehrgarh: Field Reports, 57; Jarrige et al., ‘Mehrgarh Neolithic: the updated sequence’, 131, fig. 2; Jarrige et al., Mehrgarh: Neolithic Period; Jarrige, ‘Mehrgarh Neolithic: new excavations’; Jarrige, ‘Human figurines’; also Shaffer, ‘Indus valley’, vol. I, 454; G.L. Possehl, Indus Age: The Beginnings (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 464. [3]: Shaffer, ‘Indus valley’, vol. I, 453; Jarrige et al., ‘Mehrgarh Neolithic: the updated sequence’, 64 [4]: Petrie C., Khan F., Knox R, Thomas K. & Morris J., 2010 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In the absence of surviving written documents, chronology of Parthian rulers is based on coinage.
[1]
Start: 247 BCE "Arsaces, of Scythian or Bactrian origin, was elected leader of the Parni tribes in 247 BCE. This date marks the beginning of the Arsacid era." [2] "Less than ten years after the rebellion of Andragoras against the Seleucids, in 238 BCE, Arsaces and his brother Tiridates invaded the satrapy of Parthia, killed Andragoras and established control over this province." [2] It is believed to be the start of the Parthian’s revolt against the Seleucids, as well as the coronation of the second Parthina king, Tiridates I. As such it can been seen as the end of Selucid authority in the province. [3] End 226 CE Parthians fought three battles against the Sassanians and lost each one. Reign of the last Parthian king Artabanus IV ends; Sasanian rule begins. [4] Although Ardashir took the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, and probably with it the title ’King of Kings’, in 226 CE the Parthian king Vologases VI minted coins in his hame at least to 228 CE. [5] Periodization c240-172 BCE; 171 BCE - 40 CE; 40 - 226 CE. 240-172 BCE (pre-Imperial, Seleucid Empire period) "The first Parthian ruler, Arsaces, established the dynasty approximately 240 b.c.e. ..." [6] 171 BCE - 40 CE (Empire period) "... The real founder of the Parthian empire was Mithridates I, who ascended the throne in 171. He conquered western Iran, reaching Media in 155 and Seleucia in 141. ... the Parthians definitely established their hold on Babylonia by the time of Mithridates II, ca. 120 b.c.e. and held it until ca. 226 c.e., with brief intervals of Roman occupation." [6] "Mithradates I ... one of the first powerful Parthian monarchs, attacked Demetrius, the Seleucid ruler ... Mithradates conquered Susa and its hinterlands shortly before 140 B.C. and installed a Parthian administration that probably survived for most of the next century. We know that by A.D. 21 Susa was under Parthian control, for in a letter of this date, written in Greek, Artabanus III, the Parthian sovereign, validated a contested election at Susa." [7] 1st century BCE: "from then the first open conflicts occurred between Parthian rulers and aristocrats." [8] 53 BCE was the Parthian victory at the Battle of Carrhae - this would have increased Roman interest in supporting rivals to Parthian throne, and in fact the battle of Carrhae may have been initiated by the Romans to take advantage of Parthian disorder in Babylonia. c92 BCE Mithradates II was challenged by a usurper "who had probably gained control over the empire’s eastern satrapies, supported by local rich and influential aristocratic families, and over a large part of Mesopotamia. However, civil war was prevented by the king’s natural death." [9] Babylonia "was not touched by the Romans in their invasion of 54-3, or by Antony in 39-31 during his unsuccessful Armenian adventure." [10] Between c-100 BCE to 100 CE the Babylonians at Babylon ceased to exist while the Greeks at Seleucia ceased to have the importance they once did. 40 - 226 CE (less centralized, fuedal period) "the Parthian state was highly unstable, and Artabanus’ death at about A.D. 40, in combination with financial and military reverses over the preceding decades, apparently weakened the Parthian state to the extent that it no longer issued an imperial coinage and successful revolts were staged at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and other cities. At about this same time, it appears that Susa and its environs were incorporated into the ’satrapy’ of Elymais (Fig. 6)." [7] "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." [7] "Elymais coined its own money, conducted its own public works programs, and in other was was apparently independent until about A.D. 215, when, documentary evidence suggests, the Parthian imperial government was once again in control at Susa." [7] Elymais/Susiana region experienced an upturn in economy, agriculture, population "The last hundred years in the life of Parthia was a period appropriately described as the ’downfall of the Parthian Empire’. The period began with the reign of Vologases II, who ruled until A.D. 146/7." [11] "By the beginning of the third century A.D., the states of southern Mesopotamia and the provinces of eastern Iran - Margiana, Segistan (Sistan) and Kerman - were virtually independent states, governed by local dynasties which only formally recognized their dependence on the Arsacids." [12] nominal centralization [1]: (Debevoise 1938, xxvi) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [2]: (Curtis 2007) Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [3]: A.D.H. Bivar, ‘The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids’, in Ehsan Yar-Shater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Part 1, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.28. [4]: A.D.H. Bivar, ‘The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids’, in Ehsan Yar-Shater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Part 1, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.96. [5]: (Dabrowa 2012, 178) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [6]: (Neusner 2008, 16) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [7]: (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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [8]: (Dabrowa 2012, 182) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [9]: (Dabrowa 2012, 171) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [10]: (Neusner 2008, 22) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [11]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 464) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [12]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 470) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. |
||||||
|
An independent offshoot of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, eventually conquered by nomads.
"O. Bopearachchi, who has produced what probably remains the most reliable Bactrian chronology (see Table I) ... suggests two kings who may have ruled around 185 B.C.E., Demetrius I and Agathocles, as potential founders. Reluctantly, he dismisses the important Menander as too late for this date." [1] However, Jakobsson (2009) believes "the exact date 186/5 B.C.E. may not be so important, and that a later king, such as Menander, may well have been instrumental in the creation of the era." [1] The expansion of the Greco-Bactrians into northern India from 180 BCE established the Indo-Greek Kingdom, which was a number of various dynastic polities traditionally associated with a number of regional capitals. These dynastic polities were ruled by more than 30 kings, often in conflict with each other. The Greco-Bactrians were originally a Greek colony under the Seleucid Syrian Kingdom of Selecus I. At the beginning of 250 BCE, the Greco-Bactrian state became independent and occupied the former Persian provinces of Bactria and Sogdiana. The expansion of the Greco-Bactrians led to the political dominance of a portion of India by the Greek invaders. Successive nomadic invasions by Scythians and other nomads isolated the Indo-Greeks from the wider Hellenic world after 145 BCE. By the beginning of the first century CE, the Greco-Bactrian state was extinguished as an independent entity. However, the Greek alphabet survived until the Islamic conquest as the script of the Bactrian language, and the conversion of a Indo-Greek King to Buddhism became a part of the zeitgeist of the Indian collective historical memory. [2] [1]: (Jakobsson 2009) Jakobsson, Jens. Who Founded the Indo-Greek Era of 186/5 B.C.E.? Dec 2009. The Classical Quarterly. New Series. Vol. 59. No.2. pp. 505-510. [2]: Fino, Elisabetta Valtz, ed. Afghanistan: Forging Civilizations Along the Silk Road. Buy this book, 2012. pp. 42-52, 152 |
||||||
|
Sapadbizes (50-10 BCE) was the first Kushan clan chief. He was a ruler of western Bactria "sometimes linked to the Yuezhi. He is known only from his his coins" which are of "good silver" and "overstruck" those of Phraates IV of Parthia. Chinese chronicles suggest Sapadbizes was a Parthian vassal. It is assumed that his kingdom was conquered by Kujula Kadphises during the war with Parthia and became part of a Kushan Empire c30 CE.
[1]
Heralos or Heraus (10 BCE - 20 CE) claimed to be a Kushan ruler. He called himself a ’tyrant’ on his coinage and had a deformed skull. "Although different views of chronology persist, there is no doubt that Heraus was an early ruler of the Kushan tribe of the Yuezhi confederacy in northern Bactria, more than a century after the nomads overthrew the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, shortly before the Kushan kings invaded India." [1] Kujula Kadphises (20-65 CE) "was a Kushan prince who united the Yuezhi confederation during the 1st century CE, and became the first Kushan emperor. He was son of the Kushan ruler Keralos. He was the first ruler of the Kushan empire in Afghanistan. Later on he extended his rule to Gandhara and the Punjab (Pakistan) The rise of Kujula Kadphises is described in the Chinese historical chronicle, the Hou Hanshu". [1] From 35 CE an internal struggle took place between the five Yuezhi ’tribes’ on the borders of the Chinese empire . Kadaphasa, head of the Kushan lineage ’tribe’, emerges victorious. The Kushans solidified their control over Bactria, expand west into modern Afghanistan, and east into northwest Pakistan beginning in 45 CE. [2] Vima Kadphises (75-105 CE) expanded the Kushan empire in India and acquired the port of Barygaza "where ships could sail to Egypt, bypassing Parthia" They traded with the Romans using this route c100 CE. [1] He introduced gold coinage to the existing silver and cooper coins. [3] Vima Kadphises "changed the standard of the coins which had so far been of the same weight as the Indo-Greek ones been following Roman precedent." [1] Kanishka I (105-140 CE) expanded the empire in Turkmenistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. He moved the capital "from Bactra to Purushapura (Christian: 213)." [1] End Date: {242-319 CE}. The first Sasanian sovereign Ardashir I raided the Kushana empire after conquering Armenia, which resulted in Kushan submission and the end of the independent Kushan empire. The Kushan king at the time succesfully intervened to support a pretender to the throne in 303 CE. The Sasanian King Shapur II regained the lost territories and once more subjugated the Kushans. The last Kushan king was Vasudeva II probably ruled as a vassal of the Sasanids for some time. The establishment of the Imperial Gupta dynasty by Candragupta in 319 CE is the absolute latest end date for the Kushans as a political entity. [4] The end of the Kushans was a period of competing outsiders conquered them and placing them as vassals, with the Sassanians, Guptas and Hepthalites competing over the over-lordship. [1]: Katariya, Adesh. 2012. The Glorious History of Kushana Empire: Kushana Gurjar History. Adesh Katariya. [2]: M. T. Stark, ’Archaeology of Asia’ (2008), pp. 335-337 [3]: Adesh Katariya. 2012. The Glorious History of Kushana Empire: Kushana Gurjar History. Adesh Katariya. [4]: J. Harmatta, ’History of Civilisations of Central Asia pp. 256-264 |
||||||
|
_Sasanid Period 1_ 205-487 CE
Conquest from 205 CE "The Sasanian campaign to control the province of Persis/Fars had begun in 205-6, when the father of Ardashir I, Pabag, had dethroned the local ruler of the city of Istakhr, the capital of Fars, by the name of Gozihr." [1] Later sources claimed Pabag was a priest at a fire-temple in Istakhr. [1] "King Papak, who usurped the crown of the Pars rulers, played a major role in unifying the land. He apparently had to wage a difficult struggle against the central Parthian government." [2] Empire from 226 CE (with God-king and Achaemenid ideology) King Papak’s adopted son Ardashir inherited the crown. He was from the family of Sasan. [2] The first Sasanian ’King of Kings’ was Ardashir I who was crowned in 226 CE at Ctesiphon. [1] Early Sasanids in their imperial ideology "considered themselves from the lineage of the gods" and used the Achaemenid title "King of Kings." [3] Size of court and bureaucracy increases between Ardashir I and Shapur I (240-270 CE). Military success under Shapur I (240-270 CE) and Shapur II (309-379 CE). [4] Rise of Zoroastrian Church under Kerdir 274 CE Under Bahram II (274-293 CE) "the Sasanian kings lost much of their religious power as caretakers of the Anahid fire temple to Kerdir, who became the judge of the whole empire. ... from this point on, the priests acted as judges throughout the empire, and court cases were probably based on Zoroastrian law except when members of other religious minorities had disputes with each other." [5] Zoroastrian priest Kerdir "began the persecution of the religious minorities in the empire, such as the Jews, Christians, Manichaeans, Mandeans, and Buddhists. ... Mani ... was imprisoned and put to death in 276 with the blessing (and to the relief) of Kerdir." [5] Status quo from 294-325 CE (Zoroastrian control) presumably the situation is the same under kings Narseh (293-303 CE) and Hormizd II (303-309 CE) and during the infancy of Shapur II when "the court and the Zoroastrian priests ran an empire that was secure and stable enough structurally and administratively to survive without a strong monarchy" [6] Long reign of Shapur II and rise of court/bureaucracy Under Shapur II, power of the nobility and priests increased substantially. [7] Does this imply at some point following the church of Kerdir and his persecutions the influence of priests diminished - perhaps due to the rise of the bureaucracy/court which may have accellerated during the infancy of Shapur II? Time of Shapur II has been referred to as a golden age. Violence begins from 379 CE An inscription relates that Ardashar II (379-383 CE) purged "the great men and holders of authority to reduce their power." [7] The sophisticated, centralised bureaucracy was now "under the control of the priests" and its chief priest, with Kingship relegated to the status of a secular institution. [7] Ardashar may have purged a court/bureaucracy which had become over-mighty during the long (70-year) reign of Shapur II. This would have favoured the Zoroastrian priests. The kings that followed Ardashar II (379-383 CE) "all met a violent end." [7] that appears to mean up to 420 CE: Shapur III, Wahram IV, Yazdgird I, Shapur IV, Khosrau the Usurper (?). this elite conflict reflects a power-struggle between the court/bureaucracy and the Zoroastrian church. recognition of Nestorian Christianity 410 CE; ends with usurper 420 CE Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE) called "the sinful one" [8] by Zoroastrian literature because he went against the wishes of the Zoroastrian priests. the ’secular’ kings become powerful enough to challenge the priests. Under Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE) Christianity was officially recognized. [9] "first synod of the Nestorian Church was convened in 410" during reign of Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE). [10] "Persian Christianity became officially recognized and the Nestorian Patriach resided at the royal city of Ctesiphon; he and the Jewish exilarch became responsible for their coreligionists." [10] Persecution of Christians and Jews from c.420 CE Bahram V (420-438 CE) and Yazdgird II (438-457 CE) persecuted Christians"Bahram V continued and intensified the persecution of Yazdagird’s last days." Forced conversions. Property confiscated. Churches destroyed. [11] Yazdgird II (438-457 CE) is noted for his persecution of Christians and Jews. Infighting from 457 CE, famine and Hephthalites Hormizd III (457-459 CE) defeated in battle by Peroz (459-484 CE) who was aided by Hephthalites (?) Seven-year famine (464-471) War with Kidarites and Hephthalites Peroz captured by Hephthalites Balash (484-488 CE) was deposed by nobility and priests. The first reign of Kavad I (488-496 CE) was ended by "dissatisfied nobility and priests" who had him imprisoned. [12] _Sasanid Period 3_ 488-642 CE Reforms during the long reigns of Kavad I and Khusrau I Kavad I (499-531 CE) 21. Khusrau I (531-579 CE) Khusrau I (531-579 CE) promoted minor nobility and reduced the power of aristocrats and their estates. Deghans became tax collectors. "For the first time, the power of the landed nobility was restricted and all the taxes were in the hands of the king." [13] Khusrau I is credited with wise leadership and is known as "Plato’s philosopher king." [14] In 570s CE Sasanian Empire was "at the apex of its glory and power, headed by a philosopher king" (Khosrau I). Instablity from 579 CE Hamizid IV (579-590 CE), who followed Khosrau I, had many enemies at court, killed many of the nobility and was harsh to the priests. Hormizd IV deposed 589-590 CE by general and nobility who put on the throne his son, Khusrau II. [15] Khusrau II forced to flee to Byzantium for the years 590-591 CE by Bahram but recruited an Armenenian army to regain the throne. [15] Kushrau II was deposed by nobility and priests in 628 CE. [3] Khosrau II (590-628 CE) was forced to seek shelter in Byzantine Hierapolis against a challenger king, Wahram Chubin, who minted coins 590-591 CE. Khosrau II regained the throne (purges?) and then the empire reached its greatest territorial extent. Khosrau II was deposed by priests and nobility in 628 CE. Kavad II (628-630 CE) conducted a fratricide, killing all the male heirs in the Sasanid family, and was assassinated. [16] By 630s CE the empire was in confusion, had disintegrated into regional power-bases and internal conflict when Khuzistan fell to Caliph Umar. Arabs conquered the Sasanid stronghold (Persis) in 650 CE. [1]: (Daryaee 2012, 187) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 466-467) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [3]: (Daryaee 2012, 200) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [4]: (Daryaee 2009, 2-20) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [5]: (Daryaee 2012, 191) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [6]: (Daryaee 2012, 193) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Daryaee 2009, 20-37) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [8]: (Daryaee and Rezakhani 2016, 35) Daryaee, Touraj. Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. From Oxus to Euphrates: The World of Late Antique Iran. H&M Media. [9]: Daryaee 2012, 194) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [10]: (Daryaee 2012, 194) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [11]: (Neusner 1970, 43) A History of the Jews in Babylonia V. Later Sasanian times. Brill Archive. [12]: (Daryaee 2012, 197) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [13]: (Chegini 1996, 47) Chegini, N. N. Political History, Economy and Society. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.40-58. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [14]: (Daryaee 2009, 27-37) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [15]: (Daryaee 2012, 199) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [16]: (Daryaee 2009, 31) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
The beginning data, 408 CE, marks the first appearance of the polity as a separate entity in the records of the local empires when they begin raiding the Sassanian Empire.
"557-61 Final victory of Khosrow I, the Sassanid king, over Hephthalite forces." [1] Between 557 CE to 561 CE the Persian King Chosroes allied with another steppe people who had appeared from inner Asia. Although some component peoples of the Hepthalites may have survived into the period of the Islamic conquest, even this contingent had faded outside of some mountain strongholds by around 670 CE. [2] "565 Almost complete disappearance of Hephthalites in the face of the emergence of the western Turks (Gokturks)." [1] 570 CE is when the core territories were split between the Turkic nomads in the north, and the resurgent Sassanian empire. The timeline of Hepathalites arrival into India is murky but indicates a period of dominance until the local population rebelled after religious persecution and a reduction in military support when the Hepthalites faced conflicts with incoming Turkic peoples. [3] [1]: (West 2009, 276) West, B A. 2009. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. [2]: Runion, Meredith L. The history of Afghanistan. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. p. 48 [3]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia p. 146 |
||||||
|
_Sasanid Period 1_ 205-48 CE
Conquest from 205 CE "The Sasanian campaign to control the province of Persis/Fars had begun in 205-6, when the father of Ardashir I, Pabag, had dethroned the local ruler of the city of Istakhr, the capital of Fars, by the name of Gozihr." [1] Later sources claimed Pabag was a priest at a fire-temple in Istakhr. [1] "King Papak, who usurped the crown of the Pars rulers, played a major role in unifying the land. He apparently had to wage a difficult struggle against the central Parthian government." [2] Empire from 226 CE (with God-king and Achaemenid ideology) King Papak’s adopted son Ardashir inherited the crown. He was from the family of Sasan. [2] The first Sasanian ’King of Kings’ was Ardashir I who was crowned in 226 CE at Ctesiphon. [1] Early Sasanids in their imperial ideology "considered themselves from the lineage of the gods" and used the Achaemenid title "King of Kings." [3] Size of court and bureaucracy increases between Ardashir I and Shapur I (240-270 CE). Military success under Shapur I (240-270 CE) and Shapur II (309-379 CE). [4] Rise of Zoroastrian Church under Kerdir 274 CE Under Bahram II (274-293 CE) "the Sasanian kings lost much of their religious power as caretakers of the Anahid fire temple to Kerdir, who became the judge of the whole empire. ... from this point on, the priests acted as judges throughout the empire, and court cases were probably based on Zoroastrian law except when members of other religious minorities had disputes with each other." [5] Zoroastrian priest Kerdir "began the persecution of the religious minorities in the empire, such as the Jews, Christians, Manichaeans, Mandeans, and Buddhists. ... Mani ... was imprisoned and put to death in 276 with the blessing (and to the relief) of Kerdir." [5] Status quo from 294-325 CE (Zoroastrian control) presumably the situation is the same under kings Narseh (293-303 CE) and Hormizd II (303-309 CE) and during the infancy of Shapur II when "the court and the Zoroastrian priests ran an empire that was secure and stable enough structurally and administratively to survive without a strong monarchy" [6] Long reign of Shapur II and rise of court/bureaucracy Under Shapur II, power of the nobility and priests increased substantially. [7] Does this imply at some point following the church of Kerdir and his persecutions the influence of priests diminished - perhaps due to the rise of the bureaucracy/court which may have accellerated during the infancy of Shapur II? Time of Shapur II has been referred to as a golden age. Violence begins from 379 CE An inscription relates that Ardashar II (379-383 CE) purged "the great men and holders of authority to reduce their power." [7] The sophisticated, centralised bureaucracy was now "under the control of the priests" and its chief priest, with Kingship relegated to the status of a secular institution. [7] Ardashar may have purged a court/bureaucracy which had become over-mighty during the long (70-year) reign of Shapur II. This would have favoured the Zoroastrian priests. The kings that followed Ardashar II (379-383 CE) "all met a violent end." [7] that appears to mean up to 420 CE: Shapur III, Wahram IV, Yazdgird I, Shapur IV, Khosrau the Usurper (?). this elite conflict reflects a power-struggle between the court/bureaucracy and the Zoroastrian church. recognition of Nestorian Christianity 410 CE; ends with usurper 420 CE Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE) called "the sinful one" [8] by Zoroastrian literature because he went against the wishes of the Zoroastrian priests. the ’secular’ kings become powerful enough to challenge the priests. Under Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE) Christianity was officially recognized. [9] "first synod of the Nestorian Church was convened in 410" during reign of Yazdgerd I (399-420 CE). [10] "Persian Christianity became officially recognized and the Nestorian Patriach resided at the royal city of Ctesiphon; he and the Jewish exilarch became responsible for their coreligionists." [10] Persecution of Christians and Jews from c.420 CE Bahram V (420-438 CE) and Yazdgird II (438-457 CE) persecuted Christians"Bahram V continued and intensified the persecution of Yazdagird’s last days." Forced conversions. Property confiscated. Churches destroyed. [11] Yazdgird II (438-457 CE) is noted for his persecution of Christians and Jews. Infighting from 457 CE, famine and Hephthalites Hormizd III (457-459 CE) defeated in battle by Peroz (459-484 CE) who was aided by Hephthalites (?) Seven-year famine (464-471) War with Kidarites and Hephthalites Peroz captured by Hephthalites Balash (484-488 CE) was deposed by nobility and priests. The first reign of Kavad I (488-496 CE) was ended by "dissatisfied nobility and priests" who had him imprisoned. [12] _Sasanid Period 2_ 488-642 CE Reforms during the long reigns of Kavad I and Khusrau I Kavad I (499-531 CE) 21. Khusrau I (531-579 CE) Khusrau I (531-579 CE) promoted minor nobility and reduced the power of aristocrats and their estates. Deghans became tax collectors. "For the first time, the power of the landed nobility was restricted and all the taxes were in the hands of the king." [13] Khusrau I is credited with wise leadership and is known as "Plato’s philosopher king." [14] In 570s CE Sasanian Empire was "at the apex of its glory and power, headed by a philosopher king" (Khosrau I). Instablity from 579 CE Hamizid IV (579-590 CE), who followed Khosrau I, had many enemies at court, killed many of the nobility and was harsh to the priests. Hormizd IV deposed 589-590 CE by general and nobility who put on the throne his son, Khusrau II. [15] Khusrau II forced to flee to Byzantium for the years 590-591 CE by Bahram but recruited an Armenenian army to regain the throne. [15] Kushrau II was deposed by nobility and priests in 628 CE. [3] Khosrau II (590-628 CE) was forced to seek shelter in Byzantine Hierapolis against a challenger king, Wahram Chubin, who minted coins 590-591 CE. Khosrau II regained the throne (purges?) and then the empire reached its greatest territorial extent. Khosrau II was deposed by priests and nobility in 628 CE. Kavad II (628-630 CE) conducted a fratricide, killing all the male heirs in the Sasanid family, and was assassinated. [16] By 630s CE the empire was in confusion, had disintegrated into regional power-bases and internal conflict when Khuzistan fell to Caliph Umar. Arabs conquered the Sasanid stronghold (Persis) in 650 CE. [1]: (Daryaee 2012, 187) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 466-467) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [3]: (Daryaee 2012, 200) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [4]: (Daryaee 2009, 2-20) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [5]: (Daryaee 2012, 191) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [6]: (Daryaee 2012, 193) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Daryaee 2009, 20-37) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [8]: (Daryaee and Rezakhani 2016, 35) Daryaee, Touraj. Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. From Oxus to Euphrates: The World of Late Antique Iran. H&M Media. [9]: Daryaee 2012, 194) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [10]: (Daryaee 2012, 194) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [11]: (Neusner 1970, 43) A History of the Jews in Babylonia V. Later Sasanian times. Brill Archive. [12]: (Daryaee 2012, 197) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [13]: (Chegini 1996, 47) Chegini, N. N. Political History, Economy and Society. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.40-58. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [14]: (Daryaee 2009, 27-37) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [15]: (Daryaee 2012, 199) Daryaee, Touraj. The Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE). in Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [16]: (Daryaee 2009, 31) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
The Umayyad Caliphate was formed in 661 CE by Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, following the assassination of Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib. It ended with the defeat of the Umayyads by the Abbasids in the Third Muslim Civil war in 750 CE.
[1]
[1]: Esposito, John L, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. p.691. |
||||||
|
In 750 CE the Abbasid Dynasty took over power from the Umayyad Dynasty. In 946 CE the Caliph lost autonomy when it was taken over by the Daylamite Buyids, reducing the Caliphate to a nominal figurehead of the Islamic world. This resulted also in the loss of an independent military. The Caliph still retained prestige and could influence legitimacy in its former territory. In 1258 CE Baghdad, the capital, was sacked by the Mongols and this extinguished the last vestigial power of the Abbasid Dynasty, although the Abbasid Caliphate was restored in Cairo in 1261.
[1]
[1]: Kennedy, Hugh, The Armies of the Caliphate p. 164 |
||||||
|
Start: Early 11th CE
"The chiefs of Ḡūr only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ḡūr was still a pagan enclave" [1] End: 1215 CE Shihab-ud-din Mahammad Ghori or Muhammad of Ghu was assassinated in 1206 CE "by some Shia rebels and the Hindu Khothars." [2] "In Ḡazna, power was seized by the Turkish commander Taj-al-Din Yildiz (Ilduz), legitimized by Giat-al-Din’s grant to him of its governorship (602-11/1206-15). The last Ghurids were puppets of the Karazmsahs, until in 612/1215 ʿAlaʾ-al-Din Mohammad deposed the last sultan in Firuzkuh; the Bamian line was likewise suppressed; and Yildiz was driven out of Gazna." [1] [1]: (Bosworth 2012) Bosworth, Edmund C. 2012. GHURIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids [2]: (Nayak ????) Nayak, Ganeswar. ????. Political and Administrative History of Medieval India (1526-1707). SKCG College Paralakhemundi. |
||||||
|
Start date 1206 CE : Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji was murdered in 1206 CE and his vast empire seemed on the verge of disintegration. After the death of his master Muhammad, Qutb-ud-din took the decisive stage of declaring his independence from the Ghurids. Iltutmish, Qutb-ud-din’s son-in-low, succeeded him in 1210 CE, and in 1229 CE he was solemnly consecrated as Sultan of Delhi by a representative of the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad.
[1]
End Date 1526 CE: Daulat Khan Lodi, the governer of Punjab and a member of the Sultan’s own tribe, rebelled and sought the assistance of Babur, the ruler of Kabul. Babur who was a direct descendant of both Temür and Genghis Khan, had already invaded India three times in an effort to reestablish his family’s supremacy there. He welcomed Daulat Khan’s invitation, captured Lahore in 1524 CE, and two years later advanced on Delhi. The armies of Babur and Sultan Ibrahim (1517 CE-1526 CE) met at Panipat north of Delhi on April 20, 1526 CE. Ibrahim was killed in battle. Babur and his successors became the most powerful dynasty in Indian history, the Mughal emperors. [2] [1]: Kulke, H., & Rothermund, D. (1990). A History of India (Revised, Updated Edition), pp. 157. [2]: McLeod, John. The history of India. Vol. 1096. No. 2905. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, pp. 39. |
||||||
|
[1]
1335-6 CE: The Samma rose in revolt and expanded the territory under their control. [1] 1520-1521 CE: Their rule was brought to a halt after the region was conquered by Shah Beg Arghun, and later absorbed into the Mughal empire. [2] [3] [1]: Lakho, Ghulam Muhammad, The Samma Kingdom of Sindh, (institute of Sindhology, 2006) pp. 1-2 [2]: Lakho, Ghulam Muhammad, The Samma Kingdom of Sindh, (institute of Sindhology, 2006) pp. 3-5 [3]: Asimov, M. S., and C. E. Bosworth. "History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV, The Age of Achievement, AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One, The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Multiple History Series." (1998).pp. 300-302 |
||||||
|
The Dynasty was founded by a former soldier of the Afsharid kindgom, and eventual emir of Khorasan who conquered a large swath of territory. The Durrani dynasty was extinguished when Afghanistan fell into a period of sustained civil war in the period between 1818 CE-1826 CE. The British attempted to install a puppet from the family line but this was not successful. The eventual victor was the the Barkzai dynasty, which came to power in 1837.
[1]
[1]: Barfield, Thomas. Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press, 2010. pp. 97-109 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
{400 BCE; 300 BCE}-{200 CE; 300 CE}. According to most scholars this period spans from around 300 BCE to 300 CE
[1]
[2]
. According to Mizoguchi (2013) this period spans from ca. 400 BCE to ca. 200 CE.
[3]
. This period is divided into three sub-phases: Early Yayoi (400 BCE - 200 BCE; 300 - 100 BCE),Middle Yayoi (200 BCE - 1/50 CE; 100 BCE - 100 CE), and Late Yayoi (1/50 CE - 250 CE; 100 CE - 300 CE).
[1]: Barnes,G.,1999. The rise of civilization in East Asia : the archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. New York: Thames and Hudson, 25. [2]: Hudson, M. J., 2007. Japanese beginnings.In: W. Tsutsui (ed.), A Companion to Japanese History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 13. [3]: K. Mizoguchi, 2013. The Archaeology of Japan. From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,53 |
||||||
|
The Kofun period is generally divided into three sub-periods: Early (ca. 250 - 400 CE), Middle (ca. 400 - 475 CE), and Late (ca. 475-710 CE).
[1]
[2]
The last part of the Kofun period is often designated by the historias as Asuka period (ca. 538 - 710 CE), which begins with the introduction of writing and of Buddhism into the country.
[3]
[4]
The Kofun period is subdivided into three sub-periods: Early (250-400 CE), Middle (400-475 CE), and Late (475-710 CE). [1] This subdivision is based in change of tomb structures their assemblage, of settlement patterns and of ruling dynasties. In fact, the political centre shifts from Miwa, during the Early Kofun, to Kawachi (Middle Kofun), and finally to Asuka in the Late Kofun. [5] [1]: G. Barnes, 2007. State formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century ruling elite. Routledge, 9. [2]: K. Mizoguchi, 2013. The Archaeology of Japan. From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34. [3]: Brooks, T, 2013. "Early Japanese Urbanism: A Study of the Urbanism of Proto-historic Japan and Continuities from the Yayoi to the Asuka Periods."Unpublished thesis, Sydney University, 8. [4]: Department of Asian Art. "Asuka and Nara Periods (538-794)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/asna/hd_asna.htm (October 2002). [5]: G. Barnes, 2007. State formation in Japan: Emergence of a 4th-century ruling elite. Routledge, 10-11. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
From the establishment of the capital at Heian-kyō (Kyoto) to the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’While most scholars of Japanese history agree upon names used to identify various periods, the dates specified for each era can vary a great deal. Generally, the years 1185-1615 are designated Japan’s medieval era, identified as such due to the advent of rule by the warrior class, feudal system of land allocation and administration, and characteristic political unrest.’
[1]
’In some schemes for denoting periods, the Muromachi/Ashikaga era also includes subperiods: the Northern and Southern Courts and the Warring States. Other schemes treat these subperiods as historical eras of their own.’
[1]
I am still weighing up the advantages/disadvantageous regarding the best way to divide up this period.
"The Onin War marked the final collapse of even the pretense of central authority under the Kamakura bakufu, and ushered in the Japanese Warring States period (1467-1568). ...Without a dominant political actor, warlords all over Japan felt free to pursue their ambitions for greater power, or even to become the new dominant power." [2] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.3. [2]: (Lorge 2011, 53-54) |
||||||
|
This period starts at the Onin War 1467 CE: "The Onin War ... ushered in a time of such unparalleled strife that future historians, puzzling over what to call a century and a half of war in Japan, threw up their hands in despair and settled for an analogy with the most warlike period in ancient Chinese history: the Age of Warring States. Translated into Japanese this became the Sengoku jidai or Sengoku Period ..."
[1]
This period ends in 1568 CE at the beginning of the Unification Period. The Azuchi-Momoyama Period is distinct from the Sengoku because during this latter period central government was reestablished under a number of successive rulers. However, the Age of Warring States or Sengoku Period traditionally can extend all the way to the seventeenth century, for example to 1615 CE: "With the final defeat of his rivals at Osaka in 1615, the Tokugawa shoguns took over where the Ashikaga had left off, and the Age of Warring States gave way to the long Tokugawa Peace, out of which, two and a half centuries later, was born modern Japan." [1] [1]: (Turnbull 2002) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
The period begins with Tokugawa Ieyasu’s victory in the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600 which marked the start of his rise to power. Tokugawa Ieyasu reinstated the Shogunate when the title was conferred on him in 1603 by Emperor Go-Yozei (the title had been unused since 1588). Although the Emperor remained as official head of state the Tokugawa Shoguns ruled Japan. The period ends with fall of the Shogunate and the restoration of the Emperor.
[2]
’This period is sometimes dated from 1600 to reflect the significance of the decisive victory of the Tokugawa at the Battle of Sekigahara. Alternately, the Edo period is sometimes dated from 1603, the year that Tokugawa Ieyasu became shogun. Finally, some date the Edo period from 1616, the year of Ieyasu’s death. The Edo period ended in 1867 with the resignation of the last Tokugawa shogun, or according to others, in 1868 when the imperial restoration (Meiji Restoration) was proclaimed and the city of Edo was renamed Tokyo (“Eastern Capital”), replacing Kyoto as the official capital of Japan.’
[3]
[1]: Henshall, Kenneth (2012) A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Third Edition]. p.53. [2]: Henshall, Kenneth (2012) A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Third Edition]. p.54. [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.12. |
||||||
|
The Iban claim to originate in the Kapuas Basin, but migration was common: ’The Iban trace their origins to the Kapuas Lake region of Kalimantan. With a growing population creating pressures on limited amounts of productive land, the Iban fought members of other tribes aggressively, practicing headhunting and slavery. Enslavement of captives contributed to the necessity to move into new areas. By the middle of the 19th century, they were well established in the First and Second Divisions, and a few had pioneered the vast Rejang River valley. Reacting to the establishment of the Brooke Raj in Sarawak in 1841, thousands of Iban migrated to the middle and upper regions of the Rejang, and by the last quarter of the century had entered all remaining Divisions.’
[1]
European and Chinese traders were present and interfered with the affairs of the Muslim sultanates on the island: ’Modern European knowledge of Borneo dates from travelers who passed through Southeast Asia in the 14th century. The first recorded European visitor was the Franciscan friar Odoric of Pordenone, who visited Talamasim on his way from India to China in 1330. The Portuguese, followed by the Spanish, established trading relations on the island early in the 16th century. At the beginning of the 17th century the Portuguese and Spanish trade monopoly was broken by the Dutch, who, intervening in the affairs of the Muslim kingdoms, succeeded in replacing Mataram influence with their own. The coastal strip along the South China and Sulu seas was long oriented toward the Philippines to the northeast and was often raided by Sulu pirates. British interests, particularly in the north and west, diminished that of the Dutch. The Brunei sultanate was an Islamic kingdom that at one time had controlled the whole island but by the 19th century ruled only in the north and northwest. In 1841 Sarawak was split away on the southwest, becoming an independent kingdom ruled by the Brooke Raj. North Borneo (later Sabah) to the northeast was obtained by a British company to promote trade and suppress piracy, but it was not demarcated until 1912. Those losses left a much-reduced Brunei, which became a British protectorate in 1888.’
[2]
The sultan of Brunei later ceded Sarawak to the Brooke Rajahs: ’Sarawak became the southern province of the sultanate of Brunei when the Majapahit empire of Java declined in the 15th century. James Brooke, an English adventurer and a former military officer of the East India Company, visited the territory in 1839 and aided the sultan in suppressing a revolt. As a reward for his services, Brooke was installed (1841) as raja of Sarawak over the sector from Tanjung Datu to the Batang (River) Samarahan; there he endeavoured to suppress piracy and headhunting.’
[3]
’At Singapore (founded 20 years earlier by Sir Stamford Raffles), Brooke learned that Pengiran Muda Hassim, chief minister of the sultanate of Brunei, was engaged in war with several rebel Iban (Sea Dayak) tribes in neighbouring Sarawak, nominally under Brunei control. The rebellion was crushed with Brooke’s aid, and as a reward for his services the title of raja of Sarawak was conferred upon him in 1841, confirmed in perpetuity by the sultan of Brunei in 1846. For the next 17 years Brooke and a handful of English assistants made expeditions into the interior of Sarawak, partially suppressed the prevalence of headhunting, and established a secure government.’
[4]
[1]: Sutlive, Vinson H. Jr. and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Sarawak-state-Malaysia [4]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj |
||||||
|
’At Singapore (founded 20 years earlier by Sir Stamford Raffles), Brooke learned that Pengiran Muda Hassim, chief minister of the sultanate of Brunei, was engaged in war with several rebel Iban (Sea Dayak) tribes in neighbouring Sarawak, nominally under Brunei control. The rebellion was crushed with Brooke’s aid, and as a reward for his services the title of raja of Sarawak was conferred upon him in 1841, confirmed in perpetuity by the sultan of Brunei in 1846. For the next 17 years Brooke and a handful of English assistants made expeditions into the interior of Sarawak, partially suppressed the prevalence of headhunting, and established a secure government.’
[1]
’In September 1941, on the centenary of Brooke rule, the third raja proclaimed a constitution designed to establish self-government for Sarawak, but shortly afterward the state fell to the Japanese. When World War II was over, Vyner Brooke decided that Sarawak should be ceded to Great Britain, and, after a bitter family feud, he formally terminated Brooke rule on July 1, 1946.’
[1]
’In July 1946 both Sarawak and North Borneo were made British crown colonies. In Dutch Borneo a strong nationalist sentiment developed and led to fighting between Indonesian and Dutch forces as the latter attempted to reimpose Netherlands control. Sovereignty passed to the Indonesians in 1949, and in 1950 a new constitution proclaimed Dutch Borneo part of the Republic of Indonesia. The British government relinquished its sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, when these territories joined the Malaysian federation. This marked the commencement of Indonesian hostilities in the form of guerrilla raids across the border. These raids ceased by agreement in 1966. Except for the period of Japanese occupation, Brunei was under British protection from 1888 to 1983. It became fully independent on Jan. 1, 1984.’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean |
||||||
|
{9600 BCE; 9500 BCE}-7000 BCE uncertainty/disagreement cannot be coded for this variable
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
This time range occurs in literature as ’Late Ceramic Neolithic’, the beginning of which is dated to 6600 BCE when at the site of Çatalhöyük there is clear evidence of cultural transition
[1]
.
[1]: Düring B. 2006.Constructing communities: Clustered Neighbourhood Settlements of the Central Anatolia Neolithic c.a. 8.500-5500 Cal BC, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten. pg. 17. |
||||||
|
[1]
The chronology for areas of Central Anatolia is based on a modified version of the three-age system developed in European archaeology (Stone, Bronze and Iron ages). For areas of Anatolia, two additional terms were introduced: Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The latter is not, as the name would suggest, determined on the basis of copper artifacts, but on the basis of the emergence of painted pottery. It derives from Mesopotamia, where the division of the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic was related to the introduction of painted pottery. The most recent attempt to construct a healthy chronological scheme for the Central Anatolian Neolithic was proposed by the CANeW workshop [2] . On the basis of the archaeological evidence from various sites in the region, the time trajectories of the development were identified, taking into account not a wide scope of aspects - architectural developments, burial practices, material culture (pottery, lithic industry, metallurgy etc.) and economy. The main unit of the proposed scheme is ECA - Early Central Anatolian. The ECA IV (6000-5500 cal BC) corresponds to what is conventionally labeled as ’Early Chalcolithic’. At the start of the Early Chalcolithic, around 6000 cal. BC, we can see a continuation of the changes settlement patterns that began in the Late Neolithic. This period is marked by a shift in settlement from Çatalhöyük East to Çatalhöyük West and the existence of full- farming sites such as Can Hasan I, Koşk Höyük and Tepecik-Çiftlik. The number of sites in the region increased [3] . The date 5500 cal BC marks a major disruption: most of the sites were abandoned. This date marks the beginning of the Middle Chalcolithic - it is a completely new period different from the preceding, a prelude of a new system [4] . The nature of this major breakage is still under-recognized. As for radiocarbon dating:The levels II-V (Neolithic and Chalcolithic)of Koşk Höyük date to 6300-5600 cal BC [5] .From the Early Chalcolithic Level 3 at Tepecik - Çiftlik, we have a single c14 date - around 6000 BC [6] .Six radiocarbon dates are available from Can Hasan 2B which, when combined, provide a time range between 5715-5635 cal. BCE. Absolute dates from levels 7-3 are not available [7] .As for the Çatalhöyük West, the c14 samples were taken from a deep sounding and cannot draw a conclusive picture yet. Nevertheless, onedate 5980 to 5810 cal BC (68% probability [8] ). [1]: Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 127-129 [2]: Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., “Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia” The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.).2002, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul; [3]: Baird, D., ‘Konya Plain’ Anatolian Archaeology 3 (1997), p. 13 [4]: Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., 2002, Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul; p.71 [5]: Öztan, A. 2012 “Koşk Höyük” .M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 45 [6]: Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 104 [7]: Çilingiroglu, Ç. "Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir)." (2009). [8]: Biehl, P., et al. "One community and two tells: the phenomenon of relocating tell settlements at the turn of the 7th and 6th millennia in Central Anatolia." Socio-environmental Dynamics Over the Last 12 (2012): 59. |
||||||
|
The current chronological framework used in Anatolian archaeology is mainly based on a local variant of the Three Age System whose transitional dates are mostly imported from outside the region. The transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age is arbitrary. In Anatolia at this time is the lack of specific units of cultures, and with a definite spatial and chronological extension
[1]
[1]: Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 7 |
||||||
|
Early Bronze I (EB I) 3000 - 2700/2600 B.C.E.
Early Bronze II (EB II) 2700/2600 - 2300 B.C.E. Early Bronze III (EB III) 2300 - 2000 B.C.E. The beginning date of this period is very controversial, because the transition from the end of Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I period is far from clear. Early Bronze Age III period sees extensive changes which were great foundations for Anatolia’s first empire [1] . [1]: Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 10 |
||||||
|
[1]
MBI cca. 2000-1850 B.C. MBII cca. 1850-1650 B.C. (actual Assyrian Colony Period, which is divided into two periods due to data from Kültepe-Kaneš: 1850-1750 B.C. visible in mound Stratum 8 and karum strata II; 1730-1700 B.C. visible in mound Stratum 7 and karum strata Ib) MBIII cca. 1650-1500 B.C.All dates are following the lower chronology [1] . [1]: Açıkkol A., Günay I., Akpolat E., Güleç E. 2009. A middle bronze age case of trephanation from central Anatolia, Turkey. Bull Int Assoc Paleodont. 3(2). p. 30 |
||||||
|
1650-1175 BCE
[1]
c. 1650 BC: (Old Kingdom) The founding of the Hittite Kingdom. (Labarna I or Hattusili I) -c. 1175 BC: The fall of the Hittite state caused by the invasions of the Sea Peoples, and attacks the people of Kaskians and Assyrians. End date: the destruction of Hattusa.
[1]: Bryce T. R. (2005) The Kingdom of the Hittites, New York: Oxford University Press |
||||||
|
1650-1175 BCE
[1]
c. 1650 BC: (Old Kingdom) The founding of the Hittite Kingdom. (Labarna I or Hattusili I) -c. 1175 BC: The fall of the Hittite state caused by the invasions of the Sea Peoples, and attacks the people of Kaskians and Assyrians. End date: the destruction of Hattusa.
[1]: Bryce T. R. (2005) The Kingdom of the Hittites, New York: Oxford University Press |
||||||
|
1650-1175 BCE
[1]
c. 1650 BC: (Old Kingdom) The founding of the Hittite Kingdom. (Labarna I or Hattusili I) -c. 1175 BC: The fall of the Hittite state caused by the invasions of the Sea Peoples, and attacks the people of Kaskians and Assyrians. End date: the destruction of Hattusa.
EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/the-last-days-of-hattusa/ [1]: Bryce T. R. (2005) The Kingdom of the Hittites, New York: Oxford University Press |
||||||
|
1180-900 BCEIn south-east Anatolia "The crucial period when the region was organised into city-states covers the five hundred years from ca. 1200 to ca. 700 B.C."
[1]
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." [2] "The Neo-Hittite period can be divided into two main phases, as suggested by Mazzoni ([1995] 189). The first phase covers the period from the 12th century to the mid 9th century B.C. This period is characterised by the rise of kingdoms each centred on a town. Some of these towns were new foundations, but some were refoundations of earlier urban centres now embellished with monumental iconography. The second period covers the ca. 150 years from the mid 9th century to the Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century B.C. This phase saw the growth of centres and also an increasing concern for security expressed in the building of fortified strongholds throughout the region." [3] [1]: (Thuesen 2002, 43) [2]: (Bryce 2002, 43) [3]: (Thuesen 2002, 45-46) |
||||||
|
"The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion argues that the history and archaeology of the site of Gordion, in central Turkey, have been misunderstood since the beginning of its excavation in the 1950s. The first excavation director, Rodney Young, found evidence for substantial destruction during the first decade of fieldwork; this was interpreted as proof that Gordion had been destroyed ca. 700 B.C. by the Kimmerians, a group of invaders from the Caucusus/Black Sea region, as attested in several ancient literary sources. During the last decade, however, renewed research on the archaeological evidence, within, above, and below the destruction level indicated that the catastrophe that destroyed much of Gordion occurred 100 years earlier, in 800 B.C., and was the result of a fire that quickly got out of control rather than a foreign invasion."
[1]
"According to Greek tradition, the earliest Phrygians were immigrants from Macedon and Thrace. ... In all probability, the references to the Phrygians in the Iliad are anachronistic. The arrival of this people in Anatolia almost certainly dates to the early Iron Age, to the decade immediately following the Hittite kingdom’s collapse early in the 12th century. ... Probably by the end of the millennium, a Phrygian state had begun to evolve." [2] From the beginning of Early Phrygian period, according to Gordion stratigraphy [3] , to the conquest by Lydian Kingdom [4] . Conquest by Lydia after Gordion sacked by Cimmerians 695 BCE. 695 BCE: sacked by Cimmerians. Then subject to Lydia. Not a Neo-Hittite state. [1]: (Publisher’s monograph) C Brian Rose. Gareth Darbyshire. Eds. 2011. The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion (Gordion Special Studies). University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. [2]: (Bryce 2002, 39-40) [3]: Voigt, M., "Gordion: the Changing Political and Economic Roles of a First Millenium B.C.E. City" Oxford Handbook of Ancien Anatolia (2011), pg:1075 [4]: Ziółkowski, A., 2009, General History: Antiquity, pg:351 |
||||||
|
Began as a Neo-Hittite state. period earlier than 700 BCE covered by quasi-polity. 546 BCE: date of Persian conquest of Anatolia.
Founded by Gyges around 670 BCE. [1] Herodotus says Gyges followed by Ardys, Sadyattes and Alyattes. These kings expelled the Cimmerians and built the kingdom, and conquered Greek cities in Asia Minor. Croesus was the last king before the Persians took Sardis. [2] Mermnad dynasty kingsGyges (680 - 644 BCE); Ardys (644 - late 7th century BCE); Sadyattes (late 7th century - 610 BCE); Alyattes (610 - 560 BCE); Croesus (560 - 540’s BCE) [1]: (Leverani 2014, 533) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 544) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
The starting date corresponds with the death of Alexander the Great and the beginning of Lysimachus’ governorship of the Thracian territories. The end date is when Lysimachus’ kingdom was taken over by the Seleucid Empire.
[1]
[1]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. |
||||||
|
{380 BCE; 322 BCE}-{95 BCE; 93 BCE; 17 CE} ... written as code, these are the alternative dates. However we cannot code uncertainty for the duration variable. 380 BCE - 17 CE would be the code for the broadest definition.
Although the territory of Cappadocia had a ruler before 322 BCE, it was only after Alexander’s conquests in Asia Minor and the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire that Cappadocia became an independent kingdom. [1] The polity gradually fell into other hands, and was fought over by the more prominent powers in Asia Minor, Pontus and Bithynia, as well as the Roman Empire to the west [2] [3] . Cappadocia was in a good strategic position for all of these polities to either extend their own states or to buffer the territory they already had. The end of the rule of the Ariarathid dynasty came in the 90s BCE, although the exact dates are unknown. At this time, the kingdoms of Pontus and Bithynia were fighting over Cappadocia (and murdering or marrying those in the Cappadocian ruling family to gain a footing), until Rome declared the ‘freedom’ of Cappadocia. From then on, Cappadocia was ruled by Ariobarzanes, by the grace of Rome, and was eventually to be annexed by Rome [4] [5] . The end dates correspond to the end of the Ariarathid dynasty (c. 95 BCE) and then to the end of the rule of Archelaus (17 CE) [6] . The rulers of Cappadocia: [7] [8] [9] Datames (c. 380-362 BCE) Ariamnes I (362-350 BCE) Mithrobuzanes (died 334 BCE) Ariarathes I (350-331 BCE) Ariarathes I (331-322 BCE) Ariarathes II (301-280 BCE) Ariaramnes (c. 275-225 BCE) Ariarathes III (c. 225-220 BCE) Ariarathes IV Eusebes (220-163 BCE) Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator (163-130 BCE) Orophernes (157 BCE) Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (130-116 BCE) Ariarathes VII Philometor (116-101 BCE) Ariarathes VIII (101-96 BCE) Ariarathes IX (c.95 BCE) Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios (95-63 BCE) Ariobarzanes II Philopator (c. 63-51 BCE) Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios (52-42 BCE) Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42-36 BCE) Archelaus (36 BCE - 17 CE) [1]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p15-16 [2]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75. [3]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth. [4]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472 [5]: 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 [6]: Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p45-46 [7]: Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432 [8]: Dmitriev, S. (2006) Cappadocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3, pp. 285-297. [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Cappadocia |
||||||
|
1077 - "The role of the Saljuq family in this confusing and poorly documented period is unclear. The first reliable evidence for the activities of Solaymān b. Qotlomoš, traditionally regarded as the founder of the Sultanate of Rum, indicates that because of the prestige of his Saljuq lineage he was called on in 1074 by some Turkmen of Syria to lead them"
[1]
1307 - the last full year of the reing of the last Saljuq sultan Masʿud II. Although Anatolia had already been under Mongol authority since 1240s. [1] "This first century of the Saljuq sultanate in Anatolia is the most obscure part of Saljuq history. Our understanding is inhibited by our lack of any local Muslim sources, so that we are mostly dependent on Christian sources in Syriac, Armenian, Latin, and above all Greek, as well as the occasional references in works by authors from the central Islamic lands, for whom Anatolia was an obscure frontier region. This poverty of information probably suggests that no local Muslim chronicles were written, for the historian Ebn-e Bibi (d. after 1285) remarked that it was impossible to find information about Anatolia before the reign of Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Kayḵosrow (Ebn-e Bibi, 1956, p. 11)." [1] [1]: Andrew Peacock ’SALJUQS iii. SALJUQS OF RUM’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-iii |
||||||
|
Beginning 1256 CE. "By 1256, Hülegü [the Mongol commander] had all but eliminated the Ismāʿilis as an independent force in Persia (although individual forts remained independent for some time, even years), and had moved with the bulk of his army to Azerbaijan, which was to become the center of the Il-khanid state."
[1]
End 1335 CE. The Ilkhanate came to an end with the death of Abu Sa’id in 1335 CE. [2] Dynastic failure: the Ilkhanate "fell without in any real sense having previously declined. Why was this? ... The crucial reason is a simple one: Abu Said left no heir. ... the direct line of Hulegu had failed." [3] Actually the 1335 dates seems to be an over simplification. The actual end seems to be 1339 CE when Iran was divided into the four kingdoms: "who then set up another puppet, Sulayman Khan, a descendant of Hulagu, and gave him Sati Beg in marriage, while Hasan ’the Greater’ set up as a rival a descendant of Abaqa named Shah Jahan Timur. A battle took place ... 1340 ... Hasan ’the Greater’ was defeated ... deposed his puppet ... proclaiming himself king founded the dynasty ... of the Jala’irs, who reigned until 1411 over Western Persia and Mesopotamia with Baghdad as their capital. As for Hasan ’the Less,’ ... he was murdered in 1343, while marching to attack his rival, by his wife ... The Mongol ascendancy in Persia was now at an end, and, until Timur’s hordes swept over the country (1384-1393), it was divided into at least four kingdoms, those of the Jala’irs, the Muzaffaris, the Kurts, and the Sar-ba-dars..." [4] [1]: REUVEN AMITAI, ’IL-KHANIDS i. DYNASTIC HISTORY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/il-khanids-i-dynastic-history [2]: Melville, Charles. “Anatolia under the Mongols.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, 51-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.93. [3]: (Morgan 2015, 78) Morgan, David. 2015. Medieval Persia 1040-1797. Routledge. [4]: (Browne 1920, 59-60) Edward Granville Browne. A History of Persian Literature in Modern Times (A.D. 1500-1924). University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
[1]
Dynasty starts with Osman of Sogut, the ruler of a principality near modern Eskisehir in Turkey. [2] Shaw refers to an "interregnum" (in the aftermath of the defeat at Ankara against Tamerlane 1402 CE [3] ) 1402-1413 CE in which "different elements of Ottoman society struggled for power, with chaos again enveloping the entire area." Breakdown was a "struggle for power between the Turkish notables and their descendants, who wanted to restore the gazi tradition and the primacy of the High Islamic institutions of the Seljuks, and the survivors of the kapikullars and the Christian advisors, who proposed opposite policies... As Bayezit’s sons fought for power, they gained support of one or another of these groups, with the alliances changing rapidly as the groups changed their estimates of which prince had the best chance of leading them to victory." [4] [1]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [2]: (Palmer 1992) [3]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [4]: (Shaw 1976, 12, 22, 36) |
||||||
|
"Period marked in the beginning by reconstruction after defeat at Ankara 1402 (resp. after the following civil war until 1412) and in the end by the conquest of Mamluk Egypt and Syria, which marks the beginning of a period of stronger Islamisation of the Empire."
[1]
Period can be considered to begin, officially, in 1413. [2] Succession [3] Mehmed I (1413 -) Murad II (1421 -) Mehmed II (1444 -) Murad II (1446 -) -- 1449 CE reached Danube. Mehmed II (1451 -) -- 1453 CE conquest of Constantinople. New naval base "based on Italian designs and Greek seamanship". [4] Bayzid II (1481 -) -- 1507 CE Portuguese cut off commerce to Red Sea and Mediterranean [5] Selim I (1512 -) -- after Battle of Chaldiran (1514 CE) Ottomans annex eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia, control trade routes from Tabriz to Aleppo and Bursa." 1516-1517 CE Ottomans take Syria and Egypt from Mamluks. [5] [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [3]: (Lapidus 2012, 430) [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 436) [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 434) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In terms of earliest habitation, there is archaeological evidence for the permanent occupation of Rome “centuries before 754 BCE”
[1]
perhaps from 1000 BCE.
[2]
In 2014, "The daily Il Messagero quoted Patrizia Fortini, the archaeologist responsible for the Forum, as saying that a wall constructed well before the city’s traditional founding date had been unearthed." Examination of ceramic material found beside the wall suggested a date "between the 9th century and the beginning of the 8th century."
[3]
First king of Rome may be Numa Pompilus (716-674 BCE) and a palace found on Palatine Hill dates to the late 8th century BCE. But was Numa Pompilus really the first king? Romulus, the official founder, was mythical but could be representative of an earlier date (753 BCE?). The Hellenisation of Latium began in the 8th Century. [4] This timeframe (730-580 BCE) was an “orientalising period” marked by increasing social stratification shown by burial evidence of wealth, armour and chariots. [5] Not a peak date but a notable moment: the period of rule under Etruscan monarchs, beginning with Lucius Tarquinius Priscus from 616 BCE, saw a step-up in hierarchization of the Roman polity, and dates the moment when two groups known as patricians and plebians became more distinguishable. The first paving of the Roman Forum (meeting-place, market and civic centre) occurred around 625-575 BCE. [6] The first senate building, the Curia Hostilia, existed from about 600 BCE. [7] Monumental architecture was present from the end of the 7th Century [8] and included a sanctuary constructed in 580 BCE. [7] Etruscan monarchs were responsible for large building projects such as the Cloaca Maxima (sewer system), the Circus Maximus and in 535 BCE the last king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (another Etruscan) built the Temple of Jupiter. [9] Last king is Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (534-509 BCE). He was expelled from Rome by the aristocrats who set up Rome as a Republic. [10] [1]: (Cornell 1995, 80) [2]: (Cornell 1995, 72) [3]: (Hooper, J. Sunday 13 April 2014 17.38 BST. "Archaeologists’ findings may prove Rome a century older than thought" The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/13/archaelogists-find-rome-century-older-than-thought) [4]: (Cornell 1995, 87) [5]: (Cornell 1995, 81-82) [6]: (Southern 2012) Southern, Patricia. 2012. Ancient Rome: The Republic 753 BC - 30 BC. Amberely Publishing Limited. Gloucestershire. [7]: (Cornell 1995, 94) [8]: (Cornell 1995, 100) [9]: (Cornell 1995, 118, 121) [10]: (Cornell 1995, 118, 120) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Odovacer’s deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 marked the temporary end of direct Roman imperial rule in Italy and the beginning of a seventy-five-year experiment in non-Roman (or perhaps quasi-Roman) regional government. ... a series of barbarian leaders, many of whom hailed from a single dynasty (the Amals), oversaw the armies and administration of Italy, and at times even undertook imperial projects of their own (e.g. Theoderic’s successful expansion into regions of Gaul and Western Illyricum ...)."
[1]
Western imperial dynasty 364-455 CE Palace conspiracy toppled emperor in 455 CE. [2] This ended the "Western imperial dynasty founded by Valentinian I in 364". [2] 455-476 Italy and other parts of Western Empire ruled by legitimate Emperors, recognized by the Eastern Emperor in Constaniple, but no dynasties formed after the Theodosian line ended with Emperor Valentinian III "In 395 AD the Roman empire was divided into two parts with the Western Roman Empire with its capital at Rome, and the Eastern Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople." [3] [1]: (Arnold, Bjornlie and Sessa 2016, 6) Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 482) Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. 1973. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. [3]: (Morgan 2012) Morgan, James F. 2012. The Roman Empire. Fall of the West; Survival of the East. AuthorHouse. Bloomington. |
||||||
|
Theodoric’s rule officially recognised by Constantinople in 487 CE.
[1]
Odovacar assassinated by Theodoric 493 CE after Church mediated peace treaty which gave "absolute equality of power" to both leaders.
[2]
Period ends with Justinian’s Pragmatic Sanction after the Gothic War. "By 554 the Ostrogothic Kingdom was gone. A few Gothic garrisons held out in the north for almost seven years. Finally in 561, the garrisons at Verona and Brixia capitulated."
[3]
"Theoderic, who had emerged successfully from a power struggle between various competing groups of Goths and their leaders in the Balkans in the course of the 470s and 480s, had recently plundered Thrace and was at the time threatening Constantinope. For Zeno, dispatching Theoderic to fight Odovacer in Italy provided a way to deal with two problems at once. Theoderic entered Italy in 489 and prevailed over Odovacer after a period of intense warfare In 493, following a protacted siege of the capital Ravenna whence Odovacer had retreated, the two general agreed to share rule over Italy. Theoderic, however, murdered Odovacer shortly after entering the city (allegedly with his own hands) and had many of his followers killed. Thereafter, Theoderic’s army, the exercitus Gothorum, proclaimed him king. Theoderic had been king of the Goths already since 474, and the renewed proclamation in 493 was probably meant to underline his claim to power over Italy and all of its inhabitants." [4] After Byzantines under Justinian ended Ostrogothic rule he "ostentatiously reclaimed imperial prerogatives and the traditional markers of civilitas such as coinage, taxes, care for the annona, public buildings, and most importantly, legislative authority." [5] [1]: (Stearns 2001, 169) [2]: (Hodgkin 1897) [3]: (Burns 1991, 215) [4]: (Heydemann 2016) 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. [5]: (Heydemann 2016, 39) 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. |
||||||
|
568 CE start date+ the reforms of the East Roman Empire which ended the Praetorian Prefect of Italy and created the Exarchate of Ravenna.
However, "The earliest document that remains to us in which we find definite mention of the exarch is the famous letter, dated October 4, 584, of Pope Pelagius II. to the deacon Gregory, his nuncio in Constantinople." [1] +Or 575 CE, "The new order was created at the end of the reign of Justin II. (565-578)", [1] when Baduarius commanded the imperial armies in Italy against the Lombards "he was supreme governor of the province. And it seems certain that it was to mark the amalgamation in him of the two offices, military and civil, that the new title of exarch was created." [1] Ended when the Exarchate was conquered by the Lombards 751 CE who killed Eutychius, the last Exarch. However, formal recognition of nominal Byzantine authority persisted until 781 CE when the years of the Byzantine Emperor’s reign were no longer used for dating Papal documents or on the minting of imperial coins in the mint of Rome. [2] [1]: (Hutton 1926) [2]: (Grierson and Blackburn 2007, 259) |
||||||
|
There is no clear beginning or end to this polity. There are, however, major turning points in coherence of the polity and its self-governance. See general description below.
|
||||||
|
Beginning in 904, the Theophylacti (a noble family from Tusculanum) effectively monopolized political power in Rome, beginning a period in which the aristocratic families of Rome dominated the papacy.
[1]
In 1198, Lothario dei Conti dei Segni was elected pope as Innocent III. During his pontificate, the papacy began consolidating its control over Lazio and expanding its power through what would become the Papal States; simultaneously, Innocent III brought papal authority to its medieval height, initiating several crusades and presiding over the Fourth Lateran Council.
[2]
[1]: Marazzi, 64 [2]: Vauchez, 356 |
||||||
|
In this period the Papacy, from Innocent III, extended its power over the temporal realm, and over Christendom. The period ends with the Angevin exile from 1309 CE.
"It would be the job of Roman canonists, legates, and Popes in the wake of Innocent’s pontificate to develop just that machinery, to seize traditional local and episcopal power, and even to create business for the pope, thereby making Innocent’s dreams real in practice. (Some of these activities were under way by the time of Innocent’s pontificate, but they grew after his death, sometimes by orders of magnitude.) Future cannons and popes achieved these dreams primarily by developing the canon law, by convoking western councils, by hearing thousands of cases in Rome from litigants streaming in from all over Europe, by seizing oversight in the canonization of saints, and by taking over appointments to ecclesiastical offices, and by providing other papal benefits. All of this would have been impossible without the general acceptance that the pope was the vicar of Christ and the growing sense of Christians, nourished by the reforms of the eleventh century, that they were part of a supranational entity, Christendom (Christianitas), and that their primary loyalty was to that body and to the pope as head of Christendom, rather than to any local, regional, or even national entity." [1] [1]: (Madigan 2015, 291) |
||||||
|
The polity period begins with the return of the papacy to Rome, and ends with the Sack of Rome. Pope Urban V (r. 1362-70) attempted to return to Rome, but was driven out by the Romans and returned to Avignon in 1370.
[1]
The efforts of the papacy to return to Rome and the Patrimony were frequently stymied, and Urban VI’s eventual success (1377-78) in returning to Rome provoked the Great Schism.
[2]
Alternate start: 1417. "popes in the century between ca. 1430 and 1530 concentrated their efforts on protecting their Italian domain and in lavishly reconstructing the city of Rome. It is not for nothing that these pontiffs are often called "Renaissance popes." [3] 1378-1527 CE [1]: Logan, 305 [2]: on the schism, see in general Partner, 366-95, and Logan, 294-307 [3]: (Madigan 2015, 386) |
||||||
|
The sack of Rome in 1527 devastated the city and marked a nadir in the fortunes of the Papal States. The papacy gradually rebuilt its power and prestige during the 16th century, with the onset of the Counter-Reformation. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648), ending the Thirty Years’ War, was a symbolic turning point marking the eclipse of papal influence in the international affairs of Europe; the economy and demography of the Papal States, along with that of the rest of Italy, was also in marked decline by this point.
|
||||||
|
The polity period begins with the conclusion of the Thirty Years’ War (with the Peace of Westphalia), and the second War of Castro (1649). One end date could be 1796 CE, when the armies of the French Directorate invaded the peninsula, ending the ancien regime. Alternatively one could code the end-date as 1809 CE, when Napoleon annexed the Papal State outright, imprisoning Pope Pius VII in Savona.
[1]
[1]: Grab in Davis, 47 |
||||||
|
Before the Russian invasions, the territory was governed by independent Sakha and other tribes: ’The Sakha are thought to be an admixture of migrants from the Lake Baikal region with the aborigines of the Lena-probably mostly Evenk (Evenki), who have contributed much to their culture. Other evidence, however, points to a southern ancestry related to the Turkic-speaking tribes of the steppe and the Altai Mountains. The early history of the Sakha is little known, though epic tales date from the 10th century. In the 17th century they had peacefully assimilated with other northern peoples and consisted of 80 independent tribes, subdivided into clans.’
[1]
’Yakut oral histories begin well before first contact with Russians in the seventeenth century. For example, OLONKHO (epics) date at least to the tenth century, a period of interethnic mixing, tensions, and upheaval that may have been a formative period in defining Yakut tribal affiliations. Ethnographic and archaeological data suggest that the ancestors of the Yakut, identified in some theories with the Kuriakon people, lived in an area near Lake Baikal and may have been part of the Uighur state bordering China. By the fourteenth century, Yakut ancestors migrated north, perhaps in small refugee groups, with herds of horses and cattle. After arrival in the Lena valley, they fought and intermarried with the native Evenk and Yukagir nomads. Thus, both peaceful and belligerent relations with northern Siberians, Chinese, Mongols, and Turkic peoples preceded Russian hegemony. When the first parties of Cossacks arrived at the Lena River in the 1620s, Yakut received them with hospitality and wariness. Several skirmishes and revolts followed, led at first by the legendary Yakut hero Tygyn.’
[2]
In the early 17th century, Cossack expeditions invaded Yakut territory and exacted tribute from the population: ’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.’
[3]
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. ’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Sakha-people [2]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [3]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 220 |
||||||
|
In the early 17th century, Cossack expeditions invaded Sakha territory and exacted tribute from the population: ’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.’
[1]
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.’
[2]
[1]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 220 [2]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
The state of Ecuador was preceded by the Spanish Crown in nominal authority. Ecuador gained independence in the first half of the 19th century: ’The people of Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, claim that it was the scene of the first Ecuadoran patriot uprising against Spanish rule (1809). Invading from Colombia in 1822, the armies of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre came to the aid of Ecuadoran rebels, and on May 24 Sucre won the decisive Battle of Pichincha on a mountain slope near Quito, thus assuring Ecuadoran independence.’
[1]
’Ecuador’s early history as a country was a tormented one. For some eight years it formed, together with what are now the countries of Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela, the confederation of Gran Colombia. But on May 13, 1830, after a period of protracted regional rivalries, Ecuador seceded and became a separate independent republic.’
[1]
While initially subject to Spanish colonial incursions, the Shuar tribes later resisted successfully: ’The first reported white penetration of Jivaro territory was made in 1549 by a Spanish expedition under Hernando de Benavente. Later expeditions of colonists and soldiers soon followed. These newcomers traded with the Jivaro, made peace pacts with them, and soon began to exploit the gold found in alluvial or glacial deposits in the region. Eventually the Spaniards were able to obtain the co-operation of some of the Indians in working the gold deposits, but others remained hostile, killing many of the colonists and soldiers at every opportunity. Under the subjection of the Spaniards, the Jivaro were required to pay tribute in gold dust; a demand that increased yearly. Finally, in 1599, the Jivaro rebelled en masse, killing many thousands of Spaniards in the process and driving them from the region. After 1599, until nearly the middle of the nineteenth century, Jivaro-European relations remained intermittent and mostly hostile. A few missionary and military expeditions entered the region from the Andean highlands, but these frequently ended in disaster and no permanent colonization ever resulted. One of the few "friendly" gestures reported for the tribe during this time occurred in 1767, when they gave a Spanish missionizing expedition "gifts", which included the skulls of Spaniards who had apparently been killed earlier by the Jivaro (Harner, 1953: 26). Thus it seems that the Jivaros are the only tribe known to have successfully revolted against the Spanish Empire and to have been able to thwart all subsequent attempts by the Spaniards to conquer them. They have withstood armies of gold seeking Inkas as well as Spaniards, and defied the bravado of the early conquistadors.’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ecuador/Cultural-life#toc25824 [2]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro |
||||||
|
Ecuador gained independence in the first half of the 19th century: ’The people of Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, claim that it was the scene of the first Ecuadoran patriot uprising against Spanish rule (1809). Invading from Colombia in 1822, the armies of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre came to the aid of Ecuadoran rebels, and on May 24 Sucre won the decisive Battle of Pichincha on a mountain slope near Quito, thus assuring Ecuadoran independence.’
[1]
’Ecuador’s early history as a country was a tormented one. For some eight years it formed, together with what are now the countries of Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela, the confederation of Gran Colombia. But on May 13, 1830, after a period of protracted regional rivalries, Ecuador seceded and became a separate independent republic.’
[1]
In the early 20th century, Ecuador increasingly felt the repercussions of global economic and political developments: ’The period between 1925 and 1948 was one of greater turbulence than Ecuador had ever known. Increasing involvement in the world market and in international politics meant that the country could no longer escape entanglements and the consequences of world ideological conflicts. Yet during this crucial period, Ecuador’s internal disunity prevented the modernization of its social structure, land tenure system, education, and communications. Thus, the country was badly equipped to face the demands of the age.’
[1]
Despite of trade networks involving both indigenous and settler populations, bureaucratic and coercive penetration of Shuar territory was slow during the early Ecuadorian period (see below).
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ecuador/Cultural-life#toc25824 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
Libyan Period: 21st - 24th Dynasties [2] note that the 24th Dynasty is after 747 BCE First Libyan ruler in Egypt was Osorkon the Elder (984-978 BCE), son of the Chief of the Meshwesh. [3] A chief of the Meshwash was the first king of the 22nd Dynasty: Sheshong I (945-925 BCE). [4] Last king in this period to rule significant territory was Sheshong III (827-773 BCE) and after him "numerous local rulers - particularly in the Delta - became virtually autonomous and several declared themselves kings." [5] period ending with Shoshenq V in ~747 BCE [1]: (John Baines, Oxford workshop January 2017) [2]: (Taylor 2000, 332) [3]: (Taylor 2000, 328) [4]: (Taylor 2000, 329) [5]: (Taylor 2000, 330) |
||||||
|
[1]
"After conquering Egypt in 525, the Persians faced repeated Egyptian revolts over the next century and a quarter, the first almost immediately after the initial conquest. Persian recovery efforts succeeded until the end of the fifth century, when Egypt finally broke away entirely." [2] Preceded by Persians. Number of revolts against Persian rule. "Finally, in 404 BC Amyrtaios succeeded and took the name Psamtek, after the first king of the Saite dynasty, as a way of legitimizing his power." [3] [1]: (Lloyd 2000, 377) [2]: (Ruzicka 2012) Ruzicka, Stephen. 2012. Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525-332 BCE. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 17) |
||||||
|
Battle of Raphia 217 BC; Egypt is annexed to the Roman empire after the naval battle at Actium and the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra VII. 30bc Octavian annexes Egypt as a Roman province
|
||||||
|
Start
"the Ethiopians, following the rise of the Aksumite state between c. 150 BCE and the turn of the Common Era, came to write in Ge’ez, and Ethiosemitic language using a cursive script (fidal) based on the musnad script of South Arabia." [1] Aksum was a powerful kingdom by the first century CE. [2] "Aksum dominated the northern highlands of Ethiopia from at least the turn of the Common Era down to the seventh century". [1] History of the kingdom of Aksum begins in the first century CE. [3] According to Phillipson (1985: 160) "By the first century AD Aksum, some fifty km south west of Yeha, developed as the capital of an extensive state, in which there was a fusion of indigenous Ethiopian and South Arabian cultural elements." [4] Earliest known king, Zoscales, was recorded in a Greek text of the end of the first century CE. [3] c100 CE "Rise of Aksumite control over network of urban trade centers connecting Tigray with Akele Guzai and Adulis." [5] Aksum mentioned in Periplus Maris Erythraei which "dates from the end of the first century" and in the next century by the geographer Claudius Ptolemy. [6] Based on archaeology, the geographer Claudius Ptolemy and the later Periplus Maris Erythraei "the founding of the city of Aksum and the appearance of a royal Aksumite dynasty can be dated from the second century before our era". [7] End (last pagan monarch) King Ousanas c310-330 CE. [1] Ousanas was the last pagan king before king Ezana made Christianity the official religion of the Aksum state. According to Phillipson (1985: 160): "It was also in Ezana’s reign that Christianity became the state religion of Aksum: on his later coins the crescent and disc of the moon god are replaced by the cross ..." [4] This suggests that the end of this period - pagan Aksum - does not occur until sometime within the reign of King Ezana. Chronologies "Archaeologists and historians distinguish between a) a Pre-Aksumite period (7th/8th centuries BCE to the 1st century CE), with the 7th to 4th centuries BCE characterized by a South Arabian phase attested by the presence of c.200 Sabaean inscriptions, and b) a Proto-Aksumite phase from the 4th century BCE to the 1st/2nd centuries CE defined only by archaeological evidence; c) an Aksumite period (1st to 7th centuries CE); and a d) Post-Aksumite period (8th to 11th centuries CE), that precedes the e) Zagwe period (12th to 13th centuries CE)." [8] "The absolute chronology of Aksumite culture is uncertain. Excavations on the top of Beta Giyorgis hill (Aksum) suggested a sequence of five phases of urban development of the capital city: a) Proto-Aksumite phase: 360 BCE (?) - 120/40 BCE; b) Early Aksumite phase: 120/40 BCE-130/190 CE; c) Classic Aksumite phase: 130/190-360-400 CE; d) Middle Aksumite phase, 360/400-550/610 CE; e) Late Aksumite phase, 550/610-800/850 CE." [9] [1]: (Hatke 2013) George Hatke. 2013. Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World). New York University Press. [2]: (Falola 2002, 58) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. [3]: (Anfray 1981, 362) F Anfray. The civilization of Aksum from the first to the seventh century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [4]: (Ricard 2004, 16) Alain Ricard. The Languages & Literatures of Africa: The Sands of Babel. James Currey Publishers. Oxford. [5]: (Connell and Killon 2011, xxix) Dan Connell. Tom Killon. 2011. Historical Dictionary of Eritrea. Second Edition. Scarecrow Press. Lanham. [6]: (Anfray 1981, 363) F Anfray. The civilization of Aksum from the first to the seventh century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [7]: (De Contenson 1981, 341) H De Contenson. Pre-Aksumite Culture. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [8]: (Bausi 2017, 99) Alessandro Bausi. History of Aksum. Siegbert Uhlig. David L Appleyard. Steven Kaplan. Alessandro Bausi. Wolfgang Hahn. eds. 2017. Ethiopia: History, Culture and Challenges. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing. [9]: (Fattovich 2017, 96) Rodolfo Fattovich. Aksumite culture. Siegbert Uhlig. David L Appleyard. Steven Kaplan. Alessandro Bausi. Wolfgang Hahn. eds. 2017. Ethiopia: History, Culture and Challenges. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing. |
||||||
|
"...the Empire of Ghana, an influential confederation that consolidated power within large areas to the north and west of the Inland Niger Delta sometime after 500 C.E.."
[1]
"the only area in which we can convincingly assert that a kingdom existed in the period under review was at the western edge of the Sudan, where the kingdom of Ghana was certainly in existence by +700 and could have been emerging for up to a thousand years." [2] "Ecology, not conquest, brought about the fall of Ghana. The herds were too big, there were too many people." [3] "In former times the people of this country professed paganism until the year 469/1076-1077 when Yahya b. Abu Bakr the amir of Masufa made his appearance." [4] "With the decline of the Almoravids in the twelfth century, Ghana became the richest kingdom in the Sudan, but in the thirteenth century its former tributaries freed themselves from central control, and the kingdom disintegrated. The decline of Ghana gave rise to a number of small states among Soninke-speaking peoples." [5] "L’empire du Ghana fut détruit par les Almoravides, qui s’emparerent de sa capitale, Ghana, en 1076-1077, mais la ville ne fut abandonnee qu’apres la conquete par le Mandingue Soundiata, vers 1240" The Ghana Empire was destroyed by the Almoravids, who seized the capital, Ghana, 1076-1077, but the city was not abandoned after the conquest by the Mandingo Sundiata, until 1240 [6] [1]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) [2]: (Posnansky 1981, 723, 731) [3]: (Reader 1998, 277) [4]: (Al-Zuhri c1130-1155 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 24-25) [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 591) [6]: (http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/autre-region/empire_du_Ghana/121313) |
||||||
|
909-969 CE is the Tunisian period. There was no vizarate in Tunisian phase. The Fatimid movement began in Syria and the intention from the outset was global dominance. Tunisia was the starting point.
"The Fatimids’ history really starts in Syria, in the town of Salamiya, where the future caliph Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi became the leader of the Ismaili movement. Missionary efforts were successful in Ifriqiyya in North Africa, and area centred around modern-day Tunisia, where Fatimid propaganda was taken up by the Kutama Berbers." [1] Began as revolutionary movement against Abbasids in Syria. "Naturally, Islmaili religious claims and Fatimid political ones were both bitterly opposed by the Abbasids, forcing the Fatimid/Ismaili leadership to flee their first base in Syria in 909. They seized Ifriqiya - modern Tunisia and Eastern Algeria - took over the trans-Saharan gold-and-slave trade, built two great capitals - first Kairouan, then nearby Mahdiyya - and set up an autonomous state far from the reach of Baghdad." [2] Ismaili Shias rebelled against Aghlabid rule in Tunisia, 909 CE, then expanded former Aghlabid domain to Morocco. After a number of attempts, with assistance of Berber tribes, annexed Egypt in 969 CE. [3] "Isma’ili Shi’i Fatimids ... came to power with the assistance of local Kutama Berber tribesmen from the Little Kabylie Mountains in eastern Algeria." [4] "Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi proclaimed himself the first Fatimid Imam in 910." [5] 893 CE: da’wa activity in North Africa begins under da’i Abu Abd Allah al-Shi’i. 899 CE: Abd Allah al-Mahdi becomes Ismaili imam in Salamiyya, Syria. 902 CE: al-Mahdi migrates to North Africa. 910 CE: Fatimid state established with al-Mahdi first imam-caliph. 913-915 CE: First expedition to Egypt. 919-921 CE: Second expedition to Egypt. 935 CE: Third expedition to Egypt. 943 CE: Khariji revolt of Abu Yazid, who was defeated by al-Mansur in 947 CE. 958 CE: Fourth expedition to Egypt. 973-974 CE: Qaramita forces defeated in Egypt and Syria. [6] "At the end of ninth century, an Isma’ili missionary converted Kutama Berber villagers in the mountains of Kabylia in eastern Algeria to the Fatimid cause. The leader of the movement, Ubaydallah, proclaimed himself caliph in 910. The Fatimids conquered Sijilmassa, Tahert, Qayrawan, and much of the rest of North Africa. They destroyed the Khariji principalities. Warfare also destroyed the trade routes and led to the rise of nomadism. The Fatimids conquered Egypt in 969. Moving their capital to Cairo, they abandoned North Africa to local Zirid (972-1148) and Hammadid (1015-1152) vassals." [7] In Salamiyya, Syria, around 900 CE an Abd Allah gained leadership of the da’wa and claimed the Imamate (does this mean he claimed to be Hidden-Iman or al-Mahdi?) but not all the da’is accepted this; in 903 CE he was forced to flee to North Africa where a friendly da’is had an established propaganda network. [8] In 903 CE the da’is for North Africa began the conquest of Ifriqiya. In 904 CE Abd Allah went to Egypt where a propaganda network existed but returned to Sijilmasa in 905 CE. [9] "909 Abu ’Abd Allah and the Kutama took Sijilmasa. Initially, Abd Allah was acclaimed as caliph and towards the end of the year, upon arriving in Raqqada, ’Abd Allah’s mahdi-ship was publicly announced and he was welcomed as ruler. ’Abd Allah al-Mahdi (henceforth al-Mahdi) became the first of a dynasty of imam-caliphs." [10] "The Fatimids conquered Egypt in 969. Moving their capital to Cairo, they abandoned North Africa to local Zirid (972-1148) and Hammadid (1015-1152) vassals." [11] Fatimid state had long decline period mostly with incompetent viziers except Bahram (1135-1137 CE) and Tala’i ibn Ruzzik (1154-1161 CE). [12] [1]: (Raymond 2000, 34) Raymond, Andre. Wood, Willard. trans. 2000. Cairo. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Man 1999) Man, J. 1999. Atlas of the Year 1000. Harvard University Press. [3]: (Hodgson 1977, 21-28) [4]: (Lindsay 2005, 74) Lindsay, James E. 2005. Daily Life in The Medieval Islamic World. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis. [5]: (Lindsay 2005, 103) Lindsay, James E. 2005. Daily Life in The Medieval Islamic World. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis. [6]: (Ahmad 2009, xv-xvi) Ahmad, Taqi al-Din. Jiwa, Shainool. trans. 2009. Towards a Shi’i Mediterranean Empire: Fatimid Egypt and the Founding of Cairo. I.B. Tauris Publishers. London. [7]: (Lapidus 2012, 374-375) [8]: (Cortese and Calderini 2006, 15-16) Cortese, Delia. Calderini, Simonetta. 2006. Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [9]: (Cortese and Calderini 2006, 16) Cortese, Delia. Calderini, Simonetta. 2006. Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [10]: (Cortese and Calderini 2006, 17) Cortese, Delia. Calderini, Simonetta. 2006. Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [11]: Lapidus, I M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [12]: (Raymond 2000, 73) Raymond, Andre. Wood, Willard. trans. 2000. Cairo. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
collapsed 1203 CE, after the Sosso took the capital, Kumbi Saleh.There seems to be a consensus within French-language scholarship that the Ghana empire didn’t fall to the Soussou in 1203. Instead, they suggest it gradually collapsed at the end of the 11th century, and no longer played an important commercial role from the 13th century onwards.
[1]
[1]: (Simonis 2010, 40) |
||||||
|
"Most modern syntheses place the floruit of Mali between 1235 and 1450."
[1]
Core region of the Mali Empire was the region of Kangaba (south of the Ghana empire region) whose traders "enjoyed positions of privilege" within the preceding Ghana empire. [2] "From the early thirteenth to the end of the sixteenth centuries" [3] "In the first half of the 13th century, the Malinke chiefdoms of the Upper Niger began to join together into a new state" [4] "The Keita dynasty ruled, with some interruptions, from 1230 to 1390." [5] "By the end of the fourteenth century the Malian Empire was in decline." "As the the trade routes changed" in favour of Timbuktu and Jenne "local chieftains became independent, and this reduced Mali once again to a petty chieftaincy." [5] Victory of Sundiata in 1235 CE over Soso/Soussou. [6] The unification of provinces of Do, Kiri and Banko made the Keita chief supreme authority. [7] Timbuktu captured by Tuareg in 1433 CE. [8] Fulanis - Futa Kingdom - conquered western Mali possessions early 16th Century CE. Mansa Mahmüd IV defeated at Jenne, 1599 CE. [9] [1]: (MacDonald et al 2011) MacDonald, K. Camara, S. Canos, S. Gestrich, N. Keita, D. 2011. Sorotomo: A Forgotten Malian Capital? Archaeology International. 13. pp.52-64. http://doi.org/10.5334/ai.1315 [2]: (Davidson 1998, 38) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [3]: (Lapidus 2012, 591) [4]: (Conrad 2010, 39) [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 592) [6]: (Niane 1984, 118, 130) [7]: (Niane 1984, 160) [8]: (Ly-tall 1984, 174) [9]: (Ly-tall 1984, 181-84) |
||||||
|
"The traditional division of the Mamluk period into a Bahri/Turkish dynasty (1250-1382) and a Burji/Circassian one (1382-1517) is an inheritance from medieval chroniclers, but it corresponds to no fundamental changes in the organization of the Mamluk state or in Egypt’s fortunes. A chronological division responsive to the vagaries of history seems preferable: first, a period of expansion and prosperity, encompassing particularly the reign of Nasir Muhammad, which may be said to end conveniently (if somewhat arbitrarily) in 1348. Next comes a period of crisis starting with the great plague epidemic of 1348, encompassing Tamerlane’s expedition, which brought ruin to Syria and decline to Egypt, and ending with the crisis of 1403 and the disastrous reign of Faraj. There follows a period of relative recovery, with a return to normality and periods of brilliance, even as the factors of decline (demographic stagnation in particular) continued to exercise their effects..."
[1]
Two possible start dates: 1250 CE (end of Ayyubid Sultanate) or 1260 CE, the beginning of rule of Baybars. Baybars (Sultan 1260-1277 CE) killed the first two Sultans after victories on the battlefield (second, Sultan Qutuz, after defeat of the Mongols). His rule initiated great reforms and according to Oliver (1977) was a statesman and organizer, "the real founder of the Mamluk state." [2] Sultan Aybeg (1250-57 CE) called himself the Caliph’s viceroy. Baybars installed a new line of Abbasid Caliphs in Cairo. [2] [1]: (Raymond 2000, 116-117) [2]: (Oliver 1977, 39-67) |
||||||
|
"The traditional division of the Mamluk period into a Bahri/Turkish dynasty (1250-1382) and a Burji/Circassian one (1382-1517) is an inheritance from medieval chroniclers, but it corresponds to no fundamental changes in the organization of the Mamluk state or in Egypt’s fortunes. A chronological division responsive to the vagaries of history seems preferable: first, a period of expansion and prosperity, encompassing particularly the reign of Nasir Muhammad, which may be said to end conveniently (if somewhat arbitrarily) in 1348. Next comes a period of crisis starting with the great plague epidemic of 1348, encompassing Tamerlane’s expedition, which brought ruin to Syria and decline to Egypt, and ending with the crisis of 1403 and the disastrous reign of Faraj. There follows a period of relative recovery, with a return to normality and periods of brilliance, even as the factors of decline (demographic stagnation in particular) continued to exercise their effects..."
[1]
The Great Crisis [2] Plague of 1348 CE Abnormally high Nile flood of 1354 CE Plague of 1374-1375 CE Famine of 1375 CE Plague of 1379-1381 CE civil war 1389 CE Low Nile flood and grain shortage of 1394 CE Tamerlane’s invasion of Syria 1400 CE Low Nile flood 1403 CE followed by famine 1403-1404 CE [3] "disastrous" reign of Faraj Sultan 1399-1412 CE civil war assassination of Faraj Sultan in Damascus in 1412 CE "marked the end of the crisis." Black Death reached Egypt autumn of 1357 CE "then slowly spread throughout Lower Egypt from the beginning of Muharram 749/April 1348. The epidemic reached its peak during the months of Sha’ban, Ramadan, and Shawwal 749/October 1348 to Janurary 1349, and ceased in the middle of Dhu l-Qa’dah/the beginning of February. The first Egyptian city to be struck by plague was Alexandria, and we might expect this if we assume that the pandemic was transmitted by the important trade from the Crimea." [4] [1]: (Raymond 2000, 116-117) [2]: (Raymond 2000, 138-141) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 146) [4]: (Dols 1977, 154-155) |
||||||
|
"The traditional division of the Mamluk period into a Bahri/Turkish dynasty (1250-1382) and a Burji/Circassian one (1382-1517) is an inheritance from medieval chroniclers, but it corresponds to no fundamental changes in the organization of the Mamluk state or in Egypt’s fortunes. A chronological division responsive to the vagaries of history seems preferable: first, a period of expansion and prosperity, encompassing particularly the reign of Nasir Muhammad, which may be said to end conveniently (if somewhat arbitrarily) in 1348. Next comes a period of crisis starting with the great plague epidemic of 1348, encompassing Tamerlane’s expedition, which brought ruin to Syria and decline to Egypt, and ending with the crisis of 1403 and the disastrous reign of Faraj. There follows a period of relative recovery, with a return to normality and periods of brilliance, even as the factors of decline (demographic stagnation in particular) continued to exercise their effects..."
[1]
First Burji Sultan was Barquq from 1382 CE. For Cairo this period "is considered a period of decline, interrupted only by remissions during thereigns of Barsbay and Qaytbay: the great Mamluk institutions experienced irreversible deterioration; the country faced external problems to the north that would bring about its fall, its demographic and economic bases collapsed, disorder and insecurity reigned." [2] [1]: (Raymond 2000, 116-117) [2]: (Raymond 2000, 165) |
||||||
|
Origins of Songhay people at Gao c7th century when they displaced the Sorko, and their capital was at Kukya. Rulers converted to Islam - perhaps influenced by Berber traders - beginning 11th century, possibly 1010 CE, and then capital transferred to Gao.
[1]
Gao was a centre for trans-Saharan trade even before 1000 CE and had been a state well before the establishment of the Songhai empire.
[1]
"In methods of government, it seems that the new Songhay leadership mainly took over the old Malian system, and this tendency became clearer when, soon after the death of Sonni Ali, power was seized by one of his generals, the Askiya Muhammad Ture, whose name would strongly suggest that he was not of Songhay but of Soninke (i.e., northern Mande) origin, and that his coup d’etat represented a return to Mande leadership in what was predominantly a Mande-speaking empire." [2] Conquered by Morocco 1591 CE. [3] The Songhay Empire collapsed when it was invaded by the army of the Sultan of Morocco [4] . [1]: (Davidson 1998, 50) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [2]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 68) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 17) [4]: M. Abitbol, The end of the Songhay empire, in in B.A. Ogot (ed), General History of Africa, vol. 5: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (1992), pp. 300-326 |
||||||
|
Central plain "Longshan" culture c2000 BCE. Defeated Xia Kingdom c1766 BCE.
[1]
31 Shang Emperors c1554-1045 BCE. [2] 1200-1040 BCE period best covered. [1] Shang periodization [3] Zhengzhou phase 1600-1400 BCE Erligang culture 1500-1300 BCE Anyang phase 1300-1100 BCE Yinxu culture 1200-1050 BCE [1]: (Roberts 2003) [2]: (Hook 1991, 142) [3]: (Bavarian 2005) Bavarian, Behzad. July 2005. Unearthing Technology’s Influence on the Ancient Chinese Dynasties through Metallurgical Investigations, California State University. Northridge. http://library.csun.edu/docs/bavarian.pdf |
||||||
|
Periodization: 1122-957 BCE; 957-771 BCE.
Before 957 BCE state reached peak in extent. In 957 BCE there was a major military disaster. "Achaeological finds attest to what appears to have been a major ritual reform (if not indeed a "cultural revolution"), which may have taken place during the reign of Mu Wang (traditional dates 1001-946; actual dates probably ca. one-half century later. ... assemblages of bronzes in tombs and hoards suggest that the classical Zhou sumptuary system, with its matching sets of ding and gui, originated at that time, indicating a significant reorganization (or at least standardization) of aristocratic society. Art historians have long noted the significant changes in bronze decoration styles in mid-Western Zhou times: the animal derived iconography of earlier times was replaced by more abstract patterns, and the shapes of ritual vessels changed considerably. Given the importance of bronzes in Zhou ritual, such a thorough revamping of the ritual apparatus is likely to bespeak changes in religious ideology." [1] This disaster appears to have lead to reform of central government and military and increased bureaucratization. King Xuan’s reign c825-782 BCE which is thought of as a restoration would be the peak of the second period. Start of polity 1122 CE Conquest of Shang battle of Muye 1045 BCE [2] Son of last Shang Empire ruler became a vassal of Zhou King Wu. On Wu’s death there was a period of elite conflict. [3] Duke of Zhou took control and "effectively founded" the Zhou state. Suppressed rebellion. Created state institutions. [4] After King Mu, royal control over vassals declined and by 8th century Western Zhou’s borders were "suspect." 771 BCE capital Hao was overrun by a non-Chinese/Chinese alliance. Last monarch: King You. [5] [1]: (von Falkenhausen 1994, 319-320) von Falkenhausen, Lothar. 1994. Suspended Music: Chime-Bells in the Culture of Bronze Age China. University of California Press. [2]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 292) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Roberts 2003, 13) [4]: (Cotterrell 1995, 35) [5]: (Roberts 2003, 16) |
||||||
|
Keay refers to 209-202 BCE period as Civil War.
[1]
Battle of Gaixia - Liu Bang vs Xiang Yu 202 BC. Before battle, king, after battle Liu Bang became emperor. [2] Start 202 BCE. [3] Liu Bang’s statement on becoming Emperor:"... I am come to rule over you. With you, I further agree on three laws. For murder, death. For injury to person, proportionate punishment. For theft, proportionate punishment. The remainder of the Qin laws to be abrogated. The officials and people will continue to attend to their respective duties as heretofore. My sole object in coming here is to eradicate wrong. I desire to do violence to no one. Fear not." [2] First Emperor Liu Bang (Emperor Gaozu 206-195 BCE) came to power leading faction that wanted continuation of centralised power but with a more moderate, modernised law system. [4] 206 BCE - 9 CE [5] Followed by "Wang Mang Interregnum" 9-23 CE. [5] Empress Wang, mother of Cheng di (33 - 7 BCE). Nephew Wang Mang held office of regent under Emperor Pingd (1 - 6 CE). Wang Mang launched a coup and declared himself Emperor Xin. [6] [1]: (Keay 2009, 107) [2]: (Kerr 2013, 35) [3]: (Dupuy and Dupuy 2007, 130) [4]: (Roberts 2003, 47) [5]: (Roberts 2003) [6]: (Roberts 2003, 55) |
||||||
|
"The Eastern Han dynasty (25-220), also known as the Later Han, formerly began on August 5, AD 25 with the accession of Liu Xiu (5 BC-AD 57) as emperor. ... The Eastern Han lasted until November 24, 220, when the last Han emperor abdicated to Cao Pi (187-226), the founder of the Wei dynasty."
[1]
"Historians conventionally treat the Eastern Han as a restoration, for it was not technically a new dynasty but the return of imperial authority to a member of the Liu clan, which had lost its claim to the throne during the Xin dynasty (9-23) of Wang Mang (45 BC - 23 AD)." [1] [1]: (Knechtges 2010, 116) Knechtges, David R. in Chang, Kang-i Sun. Ownen, Stephen. 2010. The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
NB: includes Northern, Eastern, and Western Wei periods
Tuoba homelands around modern city of Datong. Between 304-314 CE Tuoba Yilu assisted Jin governor of Bing province with cavalry forces. "As a reward for his efforts, Yilu was ceded control of five counties by the Jin court and given the title Prince of Dai (a traditional appellation for the North Shanxi region." [1] = 314 CE start date? [1]: (Graff 2002, 57) |
||||||
|
581 CE: "Wendi ... (Yang Jian) founded the Sui dynasty, replacing Northern Zhou."
[1]
First (Sui) ruler Yang Jian usurps Northern Zhou throne in 580 CE. "There followed a civil war in which Yang Jian owed his success to assistance from a man named Gao Jiong, who was to be his chief minister through much of his reign. In 581 Yang Jian claimed that the mandate of heaven had passed to him and he founded the Sui dynasty with himself being given the posthumous title of Wendi." [2] 618 CE: "Yangdi was killede by Yuwen Huaji ... and others in Jiangdu. Sui fell." [3] 581-617 CE. [4] [1]: (Xiong 2009, cvi) [2]: (Roberts 1996, 81) [3]: (Xiong 2009, cviii) [4]: (Wright 1979, ) |
||||||
|
"In 617, when it was obvious that the Sui were finished, Li Yuan marched on Ch’ang-an with an army of 200,000 which included many Turkish auxiliaries. In the subsequent year Li Yuan proclaimed himself Emperor of the T’ang (Kao-tsu 618-626)."
[1]
"The policies established at the outset of the T’ang era were followed, in general, during the long reign of T’ai-tsung’s successor, Kao-tsung (650-683)." [2] "In 712 Jui-tsung resigned in favour of his son who was to become the famous Emperor Hsuan-tsung (712-756). His long and eventful reign marks, in fact, a turning-point in the development of China and in the fate of the T’ang dynasty..." [3] "In a long and costly campaign the T’ang succeeded in crushing the rebellion by 763. An Lu-shan himself had been killed earlier, in 757, by his own son. The son was, in turn, slain by Shih Ssu-ming who was then commander of all the rebel armies. Shih Ssu-ming, whose military ability was undoubted, suffered an identical fate and was subsequently murdered by his own son. Although ultimately defeated, the An Lu-shan rebellion revealed fully all the inherent weaknesses of the T’ang government. In effect, it broke its power, and while the dynasty lasted almost another century and a half it never recovered fully, in spite of the attempts made by some of the subsequent T’ang rulers, as for example Emperor Hsien-tsung (806-820), to restore a strong, centralized monarchy." [4] [1]: (Rodzinski 1979, 116) [2]: (Rodzinski 1979, 125) [3]: (Rodzinski 1979, 126) [4]: (Rodzinski 1979, 130) |
||||||
|
Beginning with the establishment of a permanent capital at Nara and ending with the capitals permanent relocation to Kyoto (Heian-kyō).
|
||||||
|
"After the foundation itself, the rebellion is without doubt the most significant event in the history of the dynasty. It transformed a centralized, rich, stable and far-flung empire into a struggling, insecure and divided one."
[1]
"In a long and costly campaign the T’ang succeeded in crushing the rebellion by 763. An Lu-shan himself had been killed earlier, in 757, by his own son. The son was, in turn, slain by Shih Ssu-ming who was then commander of all the rebel armies. Shih Ssu-ming, whose military ability was undoubted, suffered an identical fate and was subsequently murdered by his own son. Although ultimately defeated, the An Lu-shan rebellion revealed fully all the inherent weaknesses of the T’ang government. In effect, it broke its power, and while the dynasty lasted almost another century and a half it never recovered fully, in spite of the attempts made by some of the subsequent T’ang rulers, as for example Emperor Hsien-tsung (806-820), to restore a strong, centralized monarchy." [2] Toward the end of the dynasty "effective control passed to regional states formed from the independent provinces. When one of these, the Liang, usurped the throne, the dynasty came to an end." [3] [1]: (Peterson 1979, 464) [2]: (Rodzinski 1979, 130) [3]: (Roberts 1996, 104) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1206 CE. Date at which Genghis Khan (originally known as Temujin or Temuchin) became the leader over all the Turkic tribes of Central Asia at a meeting next to the Onon river. This began the expansion of Mongol rule.
[1]
1270 CE. Series of Civil Wars between dependents of Temuchin for control of different parts of Mongol Empire. After a series of military campaigns, Kublai Khan took control of China and established a new Mongolian dynasty based in the territory of the former Jin empire. This polity, ruling from China, was to be known as the Yuan Dynasty, and lasted from 1271 CE until its eventual demise in 1368. [2] [1]: Kennedy, Hugh, ‘Mongols or Moghuls’, The Oxford companion to military history, ed. by Richard Holmes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). [2]: (Atwood 2004, 603) Christopher P. Atwood. 2004. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
60BCE - 93 CE or 150 CE. "Before 50 B.C., the Xiongnu split into a northern and southern polity. Both remained well organized and expansionistic at first, but eventually the southern Xiongnu (estimated at 200,000 people) became a vassal state of the Han Chinese, and by A.D. 150 their political control was virtually nonexistent. Periods of famine and civil war within the Xiongnu polities may have weakened them further. (Christian 1998, p. 202) It is generally acknowledged that by A.D. 155 the Xiongnu empire no longer existed, although some authors date the end of the empire as early as A.D. 93 (Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2006, p. 262)."
[1]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 222) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Of 2,000 coins minted in Samarkand 1st-5th CE only 7 have the name of Kidara which suggests "Kidarite rule was short-lived."
[1]
The numismatics of these coins suggests that the Kidara ones cannot be earlier than mid-4th CE.
[1]
Sassanian-type Kidarite coins suggest an early relationship with the Sassanids - perhaps official recognition for Sassanian suzerainty. This could be as early as c350 CE and as late as 388 CE. [1] 300 CE "It has been suggested that they conquered K’ang-chu and Sogdiana in c. 300 but the literary sources have not yet been corroborated by the archaeological evidence." [2] 350 CE c350 CE Ammianus Marcellinus (XVI, 9.4) reports that the "Chionites (i.e. the Kidarites) fought in Syria as allies of the Sasanian king, Shapur II (309-379), at the siege of Amida (the modern Diyarbekir)." [3] They were led into battle by a new king called Grumbrates who had an alliance with Shapur II (Ammianus Marcellinus XVII, 5.1). [3] What had happened to the old king? Was this when the alliance was first agreed? 390 CE "Kidara’s rise to power, the founding of his state and the annexation of the territories to the south of the Hindu Kush ... should be dated to an earlier period ... some time between 390 and 430, but probably before 410." [4] for reign of king Kidara narrative sources suggest c420s CE but numismatists agree his rule began c390 CE. [5] End "It was probably not Skandagupta’s victories but a new wave of nomadic invaders from the north ... Hephthalites ... that put an end of the Kidarite state in Gandhara and Panjab." [6] lost Tokharistan to Hepththalites in 467 CE, "residual North Indian kingdom, perhaps in Swat, until 477." [5] possible kinglist, unknown source Kidara I, Kungas, Varhran I, Grumbat, Kidara II, Brahmi Buddhatala, Unknown, Varhran II, Goboziko, Salanavira, Vinayaditya, Kandik Chinese pilgrim Sung Yun visited Gandhara in 520 and discovered Hephthalites were rulers [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 125) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [2]: (Zeimal 1996, 124-125) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [3]: (Zeimal 1996, 124) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [4]: (Zeimal 1996, 127) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [5]: (Grenet 2005) Grenet, Frantz. 2005. KIDARITES. Iranicaonline. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kidarites [6]: (Zeimal 1996, 128) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
552 CE: "The end of the Juan-Juan Khaganate caused by the Turks (Göktürk). That is the beginning of the First Turkic Khaganate. The leaders of the Turks were Bumin and his younger brother, Istemi. The Turks were a member group of the Juan-Juan confederation, with their ancestral origins in the Altai Mountains."
[1]
"Khagan Bumin founded the First Turkic (Göktürk) Khaganate that was de facto divided into an eastern and a western part. The ruler of the western part was Khagan Istemi." [1] c582 CE: "The First Turkic Khaganate officially split into the Western and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. In the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, the Sogdian language and script was used for chancellery purposes and inscriptions." [2] 627 or 630 CE: "The Eastern Turkic Khaganate was brought under Chinese supremacy. It is dated to 630 by Györffy et al. and to 627 by Rogers. "To the west the situation was more stable, in spite of revolts, but after 630 the qaghanate disintegrated into several tribal confederations, with the On Oq in Central Asia and the Bulgars to the west." [3] [1]: (Hosszú 2012, 283) Hosszú, G. 2012. Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems. Rovas Foundation. [2]: (Hosszú 2012, 285) Hosszú, G. 2012. Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems. Rovas Foundation. [3]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 200) |
||||||
|
"By 627 internal rebellions and a Tang invasion resulted in the dissolution of the first Turkic polity."
[1]
c582 CE: "The First Turkic Khaganate officially split into the Western and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. In the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, the Sogdian language and script was used for chancellery purposes and inscriptions."
[2]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 226) [2]: (Hosszú 2012, 285) |
||||||
|
"The Samanid brothers, while initially subject to the Tahirids, were largely autonomousrulers in their own territories, minted bronze coins in their own names, and mustered militias and mounted campaigns against surrounding provinces."
[1]
Ismail Ibn Ahmad Samani (849-907 CE) "Founder of the Samanid state." [2] -- referring to institutions of central government. [3] "The Samanids had been a local ruling family since Sasanian times, but in the wake of the incorporation of Transoxania into the Islamic empire, they converted to Islam. During the caliphate of al-Ma’mun (813-33), the ruling members of the family were named hereditary governors of Samarqand, Farghana, and Herat - without further supervision." [4] [1]: (Negmatov 1997, 84) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [3]: (Negmatov 1997, 85) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 99) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"First period": until 1040 CE? when state divided into two separate Khanates.
[1]
Karakhanids were Buddhist but "in the 950s the new rulers of Kashgar proclaimed their conversion to Islam." [2] Rule of Masud Tamghach Khan ended 1170-1171 CE. He had successors. [3] -- by this time under Seljuk authority. Last Kara-Khanid ruler in Samarkand was Uthman who was removed by Khwarazms 1212 CE. [4] "Muhammad b. Tekish did not initially intend to destroy the Karakhanid dynasty but merely sought allies in his struggle with the Kara Khitay. He considered it normal that the title of the Karakhanid Uthman should be higher than his own and laid no claim to any of the insignia of power in the Karakhanid state. Subsequently, however, the Karakhanids were obliged to acknowledge themselves as vassals of Muhammad b. Tekish ... In the third and final act, the Karakhanids gradually surrendered their domains - and, in many cases, their lives - to Muhammad b. Tekish." [4] [1]: (Davidovich 1997, 144-145) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [3]: (Davidovich 1997, 140) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [4]: (Davidovich 1997, 142) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The beginning of the Tudor period with Henry VII’s ascension to the throne until the Glorious Revolution in 1689.
|
||||||
|
Clovis ascends the throne. 481 CE is the earliest possible date. Start of Merovingian rule in the Paris Basin from 486 CE.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The year 752 CE was the start year of the Carolingian dynasty. During the period 687 CE to 752 CE the Carolingians were already the effectual rulers, as mayors of the palace, yet there was still a Merovingian figurehead as king.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1595 BCE - The date of the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon to the Hittites. By default this is taken as the start of the Kassite Dynasty (as the next rulers of Babylon), although whether this reflects the true start of the Kassite dynasty in unknown. For example, there is a 200 year gap between the last cylinder seals of the First Dynasty and the first of the Kassite Dynasty.
[1]
1150 BCE - The Elamites invaded Babylonia in 1154 BCE [2] and put their own king, Kutir-Nahunte, on the throne. Kutir-Nahunte soon conquered the whole of Babylon, defeated the Kassites and returned to Elam with some of their most precious icons, including the victory stele of Naram-Sin and the god statue of Marduk. [3] [1]: Collon, D. 2007. Babylonian seals. In Leick, G. (ed.) The Babylonian World. London: Routledge. p.107 [2]: Gill, A. 2008. Gateway of the Gods: The Rise and Fall of Babylon. London: Quercus. p.62 [3]: Liverani, M. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. p.364-366 |
||||||
|
In 605 BCE the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians and the remanants of the Assyrian army at Carchemish, thus becoming the great power of Mesopotamia.
[1]
In the 540’s BCE the Achaemenes fought their way east from Elam, conquering land. Babylon fell without resistance in 539 BCE. [2] [1]: Oates, J. 1986. Babylon. London: Thames & Hudson. p.128 [2]: Oates, J. 1986. Babylon. London: Thames & Hudson. p.134-135 |
||||||
|
Beginning as a successor kingdom of the Seleucid Empire and ending in its conquest by nomadic peoples.
"Diodotus renounced the Seleucid emperor Antiochus II in 256 BC and declared himself king after hearing that his ally Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap of the province of Partahia (Parthia) had just done the same." [1] In the mid-2nd century BCE: "the Sakas from the Tarim Basin moved to Sogdia and then conquered the Greater Bactria and put an end to Greek rule in this region." [2] [1]: (www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-06enl.html) [2]: (Samad 2011, 88) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
First period as Kingdom of Saba and Dhu Raydan 115-240 or 270 BCE (depending on whether Abyssinian occupation is included)
Hitti suggests the first Himyarite kingdom which emerged as a tribe in the southwestern highlands of Yemen around 115 BCE lasted until 300 CE. [1] After the Roman attacks in 25 BCE the Himyarites "siezed the Sabaean homelands and made the population subject to a new Saba-Himyar regime." [2] During the dual kingdom period "Saba was obliged, through straitened circumstances, to seek a coalition with Himyar, forming the united monarchy of ’Saba and Dhu Raydan.’ In the second century AD, however, the fortunes of the Sabaean people revived somewhat and they began to campaign vigorously against the Himyarites." [3] Abyssinian occupation from 240-270 CE Abyssinians, from Ethiopia, who had occupied the Tihama (Red Sea coast) region since the 2nd century CE, "marched on the Himyarite capital, Zafar, and conquered it around 240 CE, compelling the Himyarites to enter into an alliance with them." [4] agreeing an alliance with Himyar withdraw from the Arabian peninsular [4] the Abyssinians withdrew in about 270 CE. [5] "the Himyarites seem to have recognized the Aksumites as their overlords by at least about 296-298, which suggests a defeat, but the situation fluctuated." [6] First Himyarite Period 270-340 CE "At least from about 270 onwards to about 328 the Aksumites were enemies of Rome. The Himyarites appear to have been clients of the Aksumites at least until about 298 and therefore enemies of Rome but they appear to have thrown off the Aksumite yoke at least temporarily after that, or at least their independent embassy to Persia, in about AD 300 would seem to suggest this, but ... the alliances were unstable". [7] Abyssinian occupation from 340-377 CE End 340 CE: "After an invasion from Abyssinia resulting in a short Abysinian rule (ca. 340-78) the native Himyarite kings resumed their long title and held their position till about A.D. 525." [8] ’ [1]: (Hitti 2002, 55) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [3]: (Hoyland 2001, 47) Robert G Hoyland. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. Routledge. London. [4]: (Caton 2013, 45-46) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [5]: (Orlin et al. 424) Eric Orlin. Lisbeth S Fried. Jennifer Wright Knust. Muchael L Satlow. Michael E Pregill. eds. 2016. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions. Routledge. New York. [6]: (Syvanne 2015, 133) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [7]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [8]: (Hitti 2002, 60) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. |
||||||
|
"After an invasion from Abyssinia resulting in a short Abysinian rule (ca. 340-78) the native Himyarite kings resumed their long title and held their position till about A.D. 525."
[1]
’
Hitti suggests the first Himyarite kingdom which emerged as a tribe in the southwestern highlands of Yemen around 115 CE lasted until 300 CE. [2] After the Roman attacks in 25 BCE the Himyarites "siezed the Sabaean homelands and made the population subject to a new Saba-Himyar regime." [3] During the dual kingdom period "Saba was obliged, through straitened circumstances, to seek a coalition with Himyar, forming the united monarchy of ’Saba and Dhu Raydan.’ In the second century AD, however, the fortunes of the Sabaean people revived somewhat and they began to campaign vigorously against the Himyarites." [4] [1]: (Hitti 2002, 60) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. [2]: (Hitti 2002, 55) Philip K Hitti. 2002 (1937). History of the Arabs. 10th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke. [3]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [4]: (Hoyland 2001, 47) Robert G Hoyland. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"Effective Abbasid rule in Yemen ended when Muhammad bin ’Ubaidallah bin Ziyad, appointed in 822 by Ma’mum to govern the Tihama, threw off all pretense of obedience of Baghdad beyond causing the Friday prayers to be said in the caliph’s name, and founded the Banu Ziyad state, laying out and building the city of Zabid as its capital."
[1]
"In A.D. 822, in Yemen, Muhammad ibn Ziyad founds the Banu Ziyad dynasty in the new city of Zabid in the Red Sea coastal desert". [2] "In 1037, Ali al-Sulayhid, acting for the Ismaili Fatimid caliphate in Cairo, founds the Sulayhid dynasty, which based itself in Sanaa and then Jibla, lasts for a century, and concludes with the long rule of fabled Queen Arwa." [2] "Following the end of the Ziyadid dynasty in the early 11th century, two former slaves of the kingdom founded the Najahid dynasty. Control of the Tihama swayed back and forth between the Najahid rulers and the Sulayhid power of the highlands." [3] Ziyadid dynasty ruled southern Tihama 819-1012 CE, then by the Najahids. [4] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 45) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [2]: (Burrows 2010, xxiv) Robert D Burrows. 2010. Historical Dictionary of Yemen. Second Edition. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham. [3]: (McLaughlin 2007, 159) Daniel McLaughlin. 2007. Yemen. Bradt Travel Guides Ltd. Chalfont St Peter [4]: (Starkey 2008, 655) Janet Starkey. Tihama. Ian Richard Netton ed. 2008. Encyclopedia of Islam. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Ahmad ibn Tulun appointed prefect of Egypt 868 CE. Tulun was recruited from the military and had Turkish ancestry.
[1]
Egypt became independent when as Abbasid governor Ibn Tulun stopped sending taxes to the caliphate and established a new capital at al-Qatai.
[2]
[1]: (Raymond 2000, 24) [2]: (Middleton 2015, 966) Middleton, J. 2015. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Routledge. |
||||||
|
932 CE is the probable date of ’Ali b. Būya’s capture of the town of Karaj. It was the first of the areas of land that he conquered. From this town he was able to expand to regional control, by taking Fars; then to much greater control of large areas of Iraq and Iran.
[1]
The Buyid State was plagued throughout it’s existence by succession battles. After the death of ’Adud al-Duala, a fight for the succession took place. Abu Kalijar managed to bring unification back again briefly, but his unexpected death led to further disintegration of the Daylam state, at which point foreign powers began to conquer areas of Daylam land. The empire diminished until in 1062 the Daylam heartland of Shīrāz was taken by the Saljuqs. [2] [1]: Busse, H. 1975. Iran Under the Būyids. In Fyre, R. N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4. The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.253-4 [2]: Busse, H. 1975. Iran under the Būyids. In Frye, R. N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4. The period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuq’s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.303-304 |
||||||
|
Start
The first Seljuk conquest of the settled world was their taking of the Nishapur and Khurasan region in 1040 CE [1] , from the Ghaznavids. 1040-1157 CE [2] Conquest of Nishapur 1037 CE (coins) or 1038 CE (chronicles). [3] 1037 CE. There is some disagreement about when Toghrïl Beg become sultan, some sources dating it 1038 [4] [5] or to 1040. [6] Leading their Turcoman followers into Transoxania and then Khurasan at the beginning of the eleventh century, they soon overcame the Ghaznawids (who were pushed into modern-day eastern Afghanistan and northwestern India) in the aftermath of the battle of Dandanqan in 1040." [7] End "The end of Seljuk rule coincided with the nearly sixty-year reign of Ahmad Sanjar (1085-1157)." [8] Death of Sanjar: "left Greater Central Asia divided among three dynasties. In Afghanistan and Khurasan the descendants of Mahmud of Ghazni hung on until 1187 but had in fact had ceded nearly all power to another dynasty based in Ghor in Afghanistan. In the East the Karakhitai nomads had settled down at the old Karakhanid capital at Balasagun after conquering most of what is now Kyrgyzstan, eastern Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang... Finally, the entire northern and central zone of the region was under the control of the most recent dynasty of Turkic shahs of Khwarazm, who ruled from their revived capital at Gurganj." [8] All agree that the empire ended with the death of Toghrïl III in 1194. [4] [5] [6] [1]: (Peacock 2015) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [2]: (Peacock 2015, 6) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [3]: (Peacock 2015, 39) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [4]: Esposito, John L, ed. “Seljuk Dynasty.” The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003 [5]: Morby, John E. “Seljuqid Dynasty.” Dynasties of the World: A Chronological and Genealogical Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. [6]: al-Rahim, Ahmed H. “Seljuk Turks.” Edited by Robert E. Bjork. The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. [7]: (Amitai 2006, 51) 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. [8]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. |
||||||
|
"Following the end of the Ziyadid dynasty in the early 11th century, two former slaves of the kingdom founded the Najahid dynasty. Control of the Tihama swayed back and forth between the Najahid rulers and the Sulayhid power of the highlands. In the mid 12th century, ’Ali bin Mahdi finally brought about the end of the Najahid dynasty."
[1]
An "era of the ’war lords’" existed "until Rasulid times." [2] "The Sulayhids [like Charlemagne] revived an ancient empire by their talents, basing their work on lofty political and religious principle. The latter, however, did not coincide with the aspirations of many of their subjects. Nor do the Sulayhids seem to have had a clear concept of Yemen as an economic unit to be strengthened and articulated." [3] "Sulayhids: Shi’i dynasty which ruled over Yemen as nominal vassals of the Fatimids from 1047 till 1138. It was founded by ’Ali b. Muhammad, who chased the Abyssinian slave dynasty of the Najahids from Zabid, fought the Zaydi Imam al-Qasim b. ’Ali and took San’a’ in 1063, Zabid in 1064 and Aden in 1065. He restored order in Mecca and appointed Abu Hashim Muhammad (r. 1063-1094) as Sharif. He was killed by the Najahid Sa’id b. Najah (d. 1088) in 1067. His son al-Mukarram (r. 1067-1091) again conquered Zabid from the Najahids and rescued his other Asma’ bint Shihab (d. 1086). In the same year 1086 he instituted a new coinage called ’Maliki Dinars’, but left state affairs to his wife al-Sayyida Arwa (b. 1052, r. 1084-1138), who transferred her residence from San’a’ to Dhu Jibla in winter, making the castle of Ta’kar, where the treasures of the Sulayhids were stored, her residence in summer. In 1119 the Fatimid Caliph al-’Amir sent Ibn Najib al-Dawla as an emissary to Yemen. He reduced the smaller principalities to obedience but Queen Arwa was able to resist his endeavours. At her death the Sulayhid dynasty came to an end, and power passed to the Zuray’ids, who were to hold it until the arrival of the Ayyubid Turan-Shah in 1174." [4] Sulayhids: Queen Arwa died aged 92 in 1137 CE. [5] "the rise and fall of the Najahid princes of Zabid (1020s-1150s), a city that was one of the early recipients of Abyssinian slaves through Dahlak, illustrates the closeness of ties between the Yemeni coast and its opposite shores across the Red Sea, as well as the multifaceted impact of slavery networks in this region. ... On losing their city to the rising Sulayhid power of the Yemeni highlands, the defeated Najahid rulers, who were of Abyssinian slave origin, took refuge in Dahlak, where they plotted their return. In preparation for storming the Najahid city, the Sulayhid leader, al-Mukarram, instructed his troops to refrain from killing black Africans in Zabid, and instead to subject them first to a linguistic test; if when asked to pronounce the Arabic phoneme ’z,’ they produced a ’z’, then they were fair game, their accent having just betrayed them as pure Abyssinians and presumably part of what was percieved as a foreign Abyssinian cadre ruling the city; but if they pronounced the phoneme in the standard peninsular Arabic way, they were to be considered Arabs and spared, because ’Arab men in these coastal regions have children with black slaves and black skin is shared by free and slave alike.’" [6] [1]: (McLaughlin 2007, 159) Daniel McLaughlin. 2007. Yemen. Bradt Travel Guides Ltd. Chalfont St Peter [2]: (Stookey 1978, 45) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 77) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (van Donzel 1994, 427) E J van Donzel. 1994. Islamic Desk Reference. BRILL. Leiden. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 69) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [6]: (Margariti 2013, 216) Roxani Margariti. An Ocean of Islamds: Islands, Insularity, and Historiography of the Indian Ocean. Peter N Miller ed. 2013. The Sea: Thalassography and Historiography. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. |
||||||
|
"The circumstances of the transfer of authority in Yemen are mystifying unless seen in the context of events in the north. Upon Saladin’s death in 1192, his brothers and sons warred among themselves for the throne and for undisputed possession of fragments of the empire he had erected in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. ... Such was the situation in 1215 when, in Yemen, Tughtakin’s second son, al-Nasir Ayyub, died of poison administered by the Kurdish commander of the Mamelukes. The late king’s mother sent for a distant relative, a great-grandson of Saladin’s brother Shahanshah Nur al-Din, to assume rule. Al-Kamil, however, had aspirations for his own branch of the clan, and fitted out his adolescent son al-Mas’ud Yusuf with a strong force. With the advice and help of the Rasul brothers, Mas’ud succeeded in capturing his rival and sent him in chains to Egypt. Mas’ud appointed the Rasulid Nur al-Dun ’Umar his atabeg, an office which covered command of the troops as well as counsel to the young prince. Friendship between the two grew close during the fourteen years of Mas’ud’s reign in Yemen. Al-Kamil succeeded to the Ayyubid throne upon al-Adil’s death in 1218, and some years later summoned Mas’ud to govern Syria on his behalf. Mas’ud’s departure was marked by a thorough looting of Yemen [by Mas’ud], and by the contingent transfer of power to his atabeg."
[1]
Ends when the Rasulid amir of Aden surrenders to the Tahirids and the last Rasulid Sultan, Salah al-Din b. Ismail III, fled to Mecca. [2] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 106-107) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [2]: (Bosworth 2014) Clifford Edmund Bosworth. 2014. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. |
||||||
|
"Timur was officially installed as ruler at Balkh in 1370."
[1]
Uzbek nomads eventually conquered the feuding provinces within the Chagatai khanate/Timurid Empire. [2] "1501-2 marked a political watershed ... In that year, Muhammad Shaybani Khan (1500-10), the founder of the new dynasty of the Shaybanids, definitively conquered Samarkand. Northern Tukharistan, however, still belonged to the Timurids..." [3] [1]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [2]: (Khan 2003, 35) Khan, A. 2003. A Historical Atlas of Uzbekistan. The Rosen Publishing Group. [3]: (Davidovich and Dani 1998, 411) Davidovich, E. A. Dani, A. H. 1998. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 4. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
Note: Secondary literature dates the start of the polity a year earlier than we do. 1501 is the year Ismāil defeated the Āq Qoyunlu and proclaimed himself Shah.
[1]
The end date is the same 1722 when the Afghans forced Solṭān-Ḥosayn to surrender to them. He gave the title of shah to the Afghan leader Maḥmud Ḡilzay.
[2]
1527-1531 CE Takkalu regency. 1531-1532 CE Shamlu-Ustajlu alliance. [3] [1]: Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids; ’Safavid Dynasty’ in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam ed. John L. Esposito (2003). [2]: Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids. [3]: (Newman 2009) Newman, Andrew J. 2009. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. I.B. Tauris. New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The date of ascension of Puṣyamitra is fixed at 187 BCE on the basis of various years which the Purāṇas ascribe to Aśoka and his successors. Puṣyamitra is said to have been succeeded by nine other kings, and the Śuṅga reigns as mentioned in the Purāṇas are: Puṣyamitra 36 years; Agnimitra 8 years; Vasujyeṣṭha (Sujyeṣṭha) 7 years—disagreement whether he was also called; Vasumitra (Sumitra) 10 years; Odraka (many variants such as Andhraka, etc.) 2 or 7 years; Pulindaka 3 years; Ghoṣa 3 years; Vajramitra 9 or 7 years; Bhāga (Bhagavata) 32 years; Devabhūti 10 years"
[1]
"They represent the most interesting case of reactions to internal developments and external influences. The Śuṅgas did away with the last Maurya king about 150 BCE."
[2]
[1]: (Bhandare 2006, 70) Shailendra Bhandare. 2006. ’Numismatics and History: The Maurya-Gupta Interlude in the Gangetic Plain’ in Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE, edited by Patrick Olivelle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2]: (Witzel 2006, 465) Michael Witzel. 2006. ’Brahmanical Reactions to Foreign Influences and to Social and Religious Change’ in Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE, edited by Patrick Olivelle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
"The kings with whom the Gupta golden age was to be identfiied arose from such modest origins that the founder of the ruling line appears to have adopted the name of the Mauryan founder, Chandragupta, when he began his own reign in 320 CE, and married a daughter of the ancient Licchavi clan."
[1]
"Skandagupta died around 467, and there was a long drawn-out war of succession between his sons and the sons of his half-brother, Purugupta. The winner of this war was Budhagupta, the son of Purugupta and the last of the great Gupta rulers. During his long reign (467 to 497) the empire remained more or less intact, but the war of succession had obviously sapped its vitality. The successors of Budhagupta, his brother Narasimha and Narasimha’s son and grandson, who ruled until about 570, controlled only small parts of the empire. In east Bengal a King Vainyagupta is mentioned in an inscription of 507 and in the west one Bhanugupta left an inscription of 510. It is not known whether these rulers were related to the Gupta dynasty or not, but they were obviously independent of the Guptas of Magadha whose power declined very rapidly.//"The Huns must have noted this decline as they attacked India once more under their leader, Toramana. They conquered large parts of northwestern India up to Gwalior and Malwa. In 510 they clashed with Bhanugupta’s army at Eran (Madhya Pradesh). Bhanugupta’s general, Goparaja, lost his life in this battle. Coins provide evidence for the fact that Toramana controlled the Panjab, Kashmir, Rajasthan and presumably also the western part of what is now Uttar Pradesh. About 515 Toramana’s son, Mihirakula, succeeded his father and established his capital at Sakala (Sialkot). [...] The Huns destroyed what was left of the Gupta empire in the northwest and the centrifugal forces were set free. They destroyed the cities and trading centres of northern India."
[2]
[1]: (Stein 2010, 95) Burton Stein. 2010. A History of India. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [2]: (Kulke & Rothermund 1998, 90-91) Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. 1998. A History of India. London: Routledge. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’virtual founder’ Chandradeva 1085-1110 CE.
[1]
"The Gahadavala’s power was already shattered in the fight with the Muslims in 1193 A. D., near Chandawar and the defeat and the death of their leader Jayachandra in the same year had laid prostrate the Gahadavala kingdom at the feet of the Muslims." [2] [1]: Government of Uttar Pradesh. 1988. Uttar Pradesh district gazetteers, Volume 46. p.28 [2]: (Srivastava 1972, 196) Ashok Kumar Srivastava. 1972. The life and times of Kutb-ud-din Aibak. Govind Satish Prakashan. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The earlier part of this trajectory is associated with the so-called Henan and Shanxi Longshan (龙山) cultures, also known by other more localized names and dating to c. 3000-1900 BC."
[1]
"Even in the area of the middle Yellow River, the trajectory is not the same for all subregions. Taosi seems to have undergone a process of decline; sometime around 2000 BC the large rammed-earth enclosure was destroyed, and stone and bone debris found in the area of the public buildings suggest that it was converted into a workshop for craft production (Liu 2004, pp. 110-111). However, Taosi was not abandoned altogether, and evidence, including radiocarbon dates, suggests that it remained occupied until around 1700 BC (Zhongguo 2003, pp. 566, 838)."
[2]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 338) [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 343) |
||||||
|
1900–1500 BCE
[1]
2070-1600 BCE "In 1996, the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project was commissioned by the Chinese government to produce a reliable systematic and standardized chronology of the early Chinese predynastic periods. Relying on both historical sources and archaeological data, the team dated the Xia Dynasty to 2070-1600 BC and the Shang to 1600-1046 BC." [2] 1850-1600 BCE "These dates are based on both the radiocarbon dates published in Xia Shang Zhou Duandai Gongcheng Zhuanjiazu [hereafter XSZDGZ] (2000) and ZSKY (2003). Previous work had suggested that Erlitou dated from 1900-1500 BCE for a total of 400 years with each phase being about 100 years long (Qiu, Cai, Xian, and Bo 1983; ZSKY 1999). Recent radiocarbon work using “wiggle-matching” techniques have dated the site between 1750 and 1520 BCE, reducing Erlitou site occupation to a mere 200 years, the last 50 or so years claimed to be under Shang occupation (Qiu, Cai and Zhang 2006). If this is really the case then the “Erlitou expansion” during Erlitou II and III was both rapid and short-lived (see discussion below)." [3] 1850-1550 BCE "The Erlitou site is located in the Luoyang city area in the eastern Luoyang basin. The most abundant cultural remains at the site belong to the Erlitou culture, dating to about 3800-3500 BP (c.1850-1550 BC). This date is contemporary with the historically documented Xia and Shang dynasties (Du and Xu 2005)." [4] [1]: (Reinhart, Katrina. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email.) [2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 329) [3]: (Campbell 2014, 62-63) [4]: (Xu 2013, 301) |
||||||
|
"On the basis of new radiocarbon data, early Shang culture dates from around 1600 to 1300 BC (Expert Team 2000: 63-64). Because of the continuous cultural development from the first stage represented by the early Shang city of Zhengzhou to the later stage represented by the Xiaoshuang- qiao 小双桥 site about 20 km from Zhengzhou, the consensus is that they belong to the same culture. But we still have a short chronological gap between the early Shang remains at Xiaoshuangqiao and the later early Shang remains at Anyang in northern Henan represented by the Huayuanzhuang 花园庄 site, more commonly referred to as Huanbei 洹北 (Guangming Daily 2000). Given the similarities in artifacts and the chronological information so far, I tentatively conclude that Huanbei should be considered an early Shang site (see Chapter 17)."
[1]
Periodization: "During Erligang phase I the ceramics show the influences of multiple traditions2 with many different styles of the diagnostic li-tripods (ZSKY 2003:171). Few bronze vessels either in terms oftype or quantity can be dated to this period (currently only some jue and few of those). The vessels, moreover, tend to have thin walls, suggesting, perhaps, that there was not much metal in circulation. Nevertheless, some of the “palace-temple” structures and city walls were constructed in this phase,3 while the bronze foundry at Nanguanwai began production as well. During phase II the ceramic assemblage still shows the multiple influences of the previous period, but bronze artifacts increase in type and quantity, as well as in thickness. Both bronze jue and jia are known from this period. Phase II is considered to be a period of growth and development for the site.Phase III (the first phase of the upper Erligang period) is Zhengzhou’s apogee. Bronzes from this period increase in both numbers and type, and the foundry at Zijingshan North went into production. The foundry site at Nanguangwai continued to produce as well, meaning that in phase III, Zhengzhou had at least two major bronze workshops in simultaneous operation. During Erligang phase IV (Xiaoshuang- qiao-Huanbei phase I), most of the large structures in the palace-temple area were built over with nonelite structures, and the bronze foundries went out of service by the end. Nevertheless, two bronze hoards, as well as several bronze-vessel-yielding tombs, have all been found at Zhengzhou dating to phase IV. If Zhengzhou was indeed in decline, the tombs suggest it had not yet been completely abandoned by its elites, at least as a burial ground. The hoards, on the other hand, might suggest a scenario of rapid abandonment similar to the case of the late Western Zhou bronze hoards." [2] [1]: (Yuan 2013, 326) [2]: (Campbell 2014, 70-72) |
||||||
|
445 - reign of Marquis Wen, first independent ruler in the state of Wei; 225 - defeat by Qin
|
||||||
|
1977 excavation habitation 250 BCE to at least 12th century CE "Gradual abandonment of the site was probably in progress soon thereafter" 1400 CE reasonable estimate for abandonment, but could be as early as 1200 CE.
[1]
Earliest phase 250 BCE - 50 CE. [1] "It appears that permanent settlement first became possible in the upper Inland Niger Delta in about the third century B.C.E. Prior to that time, the flood regime of the Niger was apparently much more active, meaning that the annual floodwaters rose higher and perhaps stayed longer than they do today, such that there was no high land that regularly escaped inundation. Under these wetter circumstances, diseases carried by insects, especially tsetse fly, would have discouraged occupation. Between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E., the Sahel experienced significant dry episodes, that were part of the general drying trend seriously underway since 1000 B.C.E. Prior to that time, significant numbers of herders and farmers lived in what is today the southern Sahara desert, where they raised cattle, sheep and goat, grew millet, hunted, and fished in an environment of shallow lakes and grassy plains." [2] [1]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 15) [2]: (Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick J. McIntosh "Jenne-jeno, an ancient African city" http://anthropology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=500) |
||||||
|
Decline of Jenne-Jeno accompanied the rise of the new city of Djenne (the modern town, established "much earlier" than 1100 CE
[1]
). We could hypothesize that Djenne started out as a political, military and ritual center which controlled the economic center at Jenne-Jeno, until Djenne took that over itself. However, this is my speculation. R and S McIntosh says: "Analyses conducted thus far have not yielded any information on the possible reasons for the new settlement at Djenné."
[1]
1977 excavation habitation 250 BCE to at least 12th century CE "Gradual abandonment of the site was probably in progress soon thereafter" 1400 CE reasonable estimate for abandonment, but could be as early as 1200 CE. [2] "all we can state with confidence is that Jenne-jeno must have been abandoned by at least A.D. 1468, at which time Sonni Ali garrisoned his troops there." [3] Hambarketolo was also abandoned same time as Jenne-jeno. [4] Phase IV [4] dates not stated. inferred: 900-[1200-1400] CE hypothesize "Muslim market center of Jenne as the primary cause of Jenne-jeno’s abandonment." [5] Jenne-Jeno: town certainly existed 400-900 CE and it "developed greatly during the following period, from 900 to 1400." Important centre for regional trade, not linked to Saharan trade. [6] [1]: McIntosh, Roderick. McIntosh, Susan. "Results of recent excavations at Jenné-jeno and Djenné, Mali" in Sanogo, K. Togola, T. 2004. Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the Pan-African Association for Prehistory and Related Fields. Institut des Sciences Humaines. Bamako. pp. 469-481. [2]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 15) [3]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 9) [4]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 16) [5]: (McIntosh and McIntosh 1981, 17) [6]: (Devisse 1988, 417) |
||||||
|
1554 is the year that the whole of Morocco was united under the rule of the Saadi--previously, it had been divided between the latter and the Wattasid-Marinid dynasty--while 1659 is the year the last Saadi ruler was assassinated
[1]
.
[1]: M. El Fasi, Morocco, in B.A. Ogot (ed), General History of Africa, vol. 5: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (1992), pp. 200-232 |
||||||
|
According to oral traditions, Kaladian Coulibaly ruled over the region from about 1650
[1]
. In 1712, his alleged great-grandson, Mamari Coulibaly, rose to power after the dynasty had dwindled into poverty, and initiated the second and better known phase of the Segu kingdom’s history, known on this database as the "Bamana Empire"
[2]
.
[1]: K.C. MacDonald, A Chacoun son Bambara, encore une fois: History, Archaeology and Bambara Origins, in F.G. Richard and K.C. MacDonald, Ethnic Ambiguity and the African Past: Materiality, History, and the Shaping of Cultural Identities (2014), pp. 119-144 [2]: M. Izard and J. Ki-Zerbo, From the Niger to the Volta, in B.A. Ogot (ed), General History of Africa, vol. 5: Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (1992), pp. 327-367 |
||||||
|
The polity was founded by Biton Coulibaly in 1712
[1]
, and was engulfed by the Toucouleur kingdom in 1861
[2]
.
[1]: S.C. Brett-Smith, Bamana Identity, State Formation, and the Sources of Bamana Art (2002), in american Anthropologist 104(3): 939-952 [2]: (Oloruntimehin 1972, 141) B. Olofunmilayo Oloruntimehin. 1972. The Segu Tukulor Empire. London: Longman. |
||||||
|
Chronology: Santiago Giraldo and Juana Saenz
[1]
based on radiocarbon dated goldwork (50-1000 CE) and complete dated contexts with stone architecture and pottery (450-1100 CE).
Chronology from the Langebaek 2005 study of the Santa Marta Bays. [2] Oyuela-Caycedo: "Evidence of early occupation in the Buritaca region is from the coast with a site that seems to date from AD 600 until 900 (Wynn 1975). Frontera, another early occupation in the middle Buritaca, with C14 date as early as AD 660, probably suffered destruction by landslide, and subsequent rebuilding. Frontera is located at 500 masl while Ciudad Perdida lies at 1,100 masl (Cardoso 1986)." [3] "It is likely that the SNSM had dispersed populations in the highlands, perhaps even hunter-gatherer groups during the last half of the first millennium BC. However, evidence reveals small villages along the bays and coastline that depended on agriculture and fishing. The settlement pattern shifted after a catastrophic environmental crisis around AD 500-550, just before the occupation of the Mamoron archaeological site (AD 550-800) as well as the site of Frontera in the middle Buritaca River. This time period also seems to be related to a dry phase that coincides with the desertification of the Guajira at the end of the El Horno complex (see Reichel-Dolmatoff and Dussan 1951; Bray 1995). There also are data to support a massive uplift of the SNSM around this time, related to the disappear- ance of an estuary located in the lower Gaira area and Rodadero Bay. We know that the shoreline became more volatile as indicated by the history of the estuarine environments (see Oyuela-Caycedo 1996) of the Cienaga de Santa Marta. Furthermore, evidence from bays like Cinto reveal episodes of massive flooding, sealing coastal settlements such as Nahuange, Cinto, Gairaca, and lower Buritaca with heavy colluvial materials, and ending the early occupations. Later the locations were reoccupied but they continue to suffer simi- lar disasters in modern times." [4] "Archaeological investigations by Augusto Oyuela-Caycedo and others indi- cate that people began moving from the coast into the sierra sometime between AD 600 and AD 900.71 The human presence is marked by changes in pollen coresas humans moved into the region, cutting down stands of natural forest and plant- ing maize, agave, and avocados. The lower portions of the Sierra Nevada, 360-500 m (1,181-1,650 ft) above sea level, were first occupied in the sixth and seventh centuries and the higher zones several centuries later." [5] Warwick Bray: "In 1969 Henning Bischof described a collection of sherds from a pre-Tairona construction fill at Pueblito and linked them with the contents of an exceptional tomb excavated by J. Alden Mason at Nahuange (Bischof 1969a; 1969b). He dated this Nahuange (or Neguanje) phase to approximately A.D. 500-700 on the basis of ceramic cross-ties with Mina de Oro to the west and with the Red-on-Buff wares of the Ranchería to the east. He also recognized that many elements of the Nahuange assemblage were carried over into Classic Tairona. There is now general agreement that Nahuange defines an “early Tairona” or “proto- Tairona” phase.Subsequent excavations by Jack Wynn (n.d.) at Buritaca, Langebaek (1987a) at Papare, and Augusto Oyuela Caycedo (1986; 1987a) at Cinto and Gaira have confirmed the stratigraphic position of the Nahuange phase—later than the incised and modeled Malamboid styles, earlier than Classic Tairona— and placed it between approximately A.D. 300 and 800- 1000. This is in line with the C-14 dates for the earliest “proto-Tairona” goldwork." [6] "The figurine from the Nahuange tomb (Fig. 11) was dated A.D. 310 +/- 70 (OxA-1577), a century or two earlier than Bischof’s proposed date for the grave" [7] "By the eighth or tenth century, transitional Nahuange-Tairona pottery had appeared at Buritaca 200, at 900 to 1,300 meters above sea level (Oyuela Cacedo 1986a), and the mature Tairona tradition was becoming established." [8] Carl Langebaek: "In the 1980s, Augusto Oyuela excavated various sites along the coast (principally at Cinto and Gaira) and proposed the following chronology: a period called Early Cinto, divided in two phases. The first was named phase I and included the 2nd through the 6th Centuries A.D.; the second phase, Phase II, occurred between the 6th and 8th Centuries A.D. The latter phase corresponded to the Buritaca phase that Wynn defined, while the former was the same as Bischof’s Neguanje (Oyuela 1985:94, 135). In other publications, the same author talked about three periods for the coast adjacent to Santa Marta’s Sierra Nevada: the Early or Integrationist Period, the Middle or Classic Period, and the Late or Conquest Period (Oyuela 1986: 33). The first one lasts from the 2nd through the 9th Centuries A.D. There was evidence for this period - equivalent to Neguanje and the Buritaca phase, the same as Cinto’s Phases I and II - in the Gaira lowlands and the inlets of Cinto and Neguanje, as well as the lower parts of the Buritaca river (Figure 1). A date of 430 +/-60 A.D. was reported for the Neguanje ceramics that corresponded to the so-called Integrationist Period in Cinto (Oyuela 1986: 26-7)." [9] "As such, it will be tentatively assumed that the Neguanje occupation lasts between the 1st and 7th Centuries A.D. This is later followed by the Buritaca occupation, which this project assigns to the period between the 7th and 10th Centuries A.D. (table 12). The upper limit is defined by the earliest Late Period dates available." [10] [1]: (Giraldo 2015, personal communication) [2]: (Langebaek 2005, 68) [3]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 2008, 423) [4]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 2008, 418-9) [5]: (Moore 2014, 395) [6]: (Bray 2003, 322) [7]: (Bray 2003, 324) [8]: (Bray 2003, 323) [9]: (Langebaek 2005, 7-11) [10]: (Langebaek 2005, 59) |
||||||
|
Chronology: Santiago Giraldo and Juana Saenz
[1]
based on radiocarbon dated goldwork (1000-1600 CE) and complete dated contexts with stone architecture and pottery (1100-1600 CE).
"Much like at Chengue Bay, at Pueblito and Ciudad Perdida, many “diagnostic” materials dating to the Neguanje period were found in contexts dating to the 7th, 8th, 9th and even the 10th centuries A.D. Changes in ceramics are so subtle as to be virtually indistinguishable from one phase to the next, or an early phase diagnostic style continues to appear in later phases. This poses some serious difficulties for breaking down larger periods into small phases based on the stylistic changes of diagnostic sherds and associating these to sociocultural changes." [2] "Pollen studies by the Ecoandes Project show that the whole upper Buritaca area was covered by rainforest prior to the ninth century, but around the end of the tenth century human occupation and deforestation began. C14 dates obtained from an excavation I conducted in 1982 confirm that the early occupation of Ciudad Perdida began around 950 ± 60 BP." [3] "By the eighth or tenth century, transitional Nahuange-Tairona pottery had appeared at Buritaca 200, at 900 to 1,300 meters above sea level (Oyuela Cacedo 1986a), and the mature Tairona tradition was becoming established." [4] "The ecological studies demonstrate how greatly and well the SNSM chiefdoms managed their landscapes, protecting and improving them. The center was occupied until the sixteenth century when the Spanish conquest began its processes of war and destruction. The effects were catastrophic for the native population, reducing their numbers to less than 1% of pre-Hispanic highs following 100 years of continuous warfare. The region seems to have been completely abandoned around AD 1630 ± 55, based on C14 dates from collapsed structures and garbage (Oyuela-Caycedo 1986c, 1987a)." [3] "The term Tairona is a general, if not very accurate, label for the contact period Indian groups of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the adjacent areas of the Caribbean coast (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1953: 17-27; Bischof 1971; 1982-83). The word also applies to the archaeological culture created by their ancestors from around A.D. 800 to the Spanish Conquest. Spanish fleets first visited this coast in 1501-1502, and in 1524 Rodrigo de Bastidas founded the port of Santa Marta, from which military expeditions explored and eventually subjugated the hinterland. Tairona resistance was not finally broken until 1600." [5] "Archaeological excavations at Ciudad Perdida indicate two major phases. Between AD 1000 and 1300, ceramic styles suggest a close connection with the coast, while after AD 1300 connections shifted to the highland regions to the west. Ciudad Perdida and surrounding communities were occupied until the late 1500s, when genocidal raids by Spaniards annihilated over 90 percent of the native population, driving the survivors into even more remote refuges." [6] [1]: (Giraldo 2015, personal communication) [2]: (Giraldo 2010, 285) [3]: (Oyuela-Caycedo 2008, 423) [4]: (Bray 2003, 323) [5]: (Bray 2003, 301) [6]: (Moore 2014, 395) |
||||||
|
"Based on radiocarbon dating, the time-span of material patterns associated with Xiongnu archaeology range as early as 400/300 BC and as late as 200 AD. It is in the nature of archaeological dating to have wide error ranges but despite this, these archaeological patterns probably precede and postdate the Xiongnu chronology given in the histories (i.e., 209 BC to c. 93 AD)."
[1]
[1]: (Honeychurch 2015, 221) |
||||||
|
"The Xianbei were another polity from northeast China, with origins closely related ethnically and linguistically to the Wuhuan. By A.D. 155 the Xianbei had eclipsed the Wuhuan and were poised to fill the gap left by the fall of the Xiongnu polity."
[1]
"Subsequent to the death of Tanshikhuai, his brother came to power, followed by a nephew, and then an unrelated leader (Kebineng), but unity was ephemeral and by A.D. 235 the Xianbei broke into a series of smaller polities, eventually reemerging as the Toba (northern) Wei polity."
[2]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 222-223) [2]: (Rogers 2012, 223) |
||||||
|
"Beginning in the 680s a new series of Turk successes resulted in the formation and rapid expansion of the second expansive polity. For decades the second Turkic polity raided Tang China to exact tribute. In 734 the famous khaghan Bilgee was assassinated and a variety of infighting among factions continued for a decade. By 744 an internal coalition emerged and defeated the last imperial elite and their troops."
[1]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 226) |
||||||
|
By the starting date of 1000 CE we already have mentions of ethnic terms designating various tribal groups in Mongolia: Tatars, Naimans, Kereids, Mongols (Menggu in Chinese sources). These terms appeared at the very end of the first millennium CE. Citation: Taskin 1984, Rachewiltz 2004). The ending date is when Chinggiz formed the empire.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1635? “In 1635, the year following Ligdan Khan’s death, the Oirat prince Ba’atur Khongtaiji (1634-53) of the Choros clan united all four Oirat tribes and founded the Dzungar (Junghar) khanate, with himself as its leader (see Chapter 6 above). In1640, at his instigation, an assembly was convened of Oirat, Khalkha, Koko Nor and Kalmuk rulers and representatives of the high clergy, at which the Oirat Mongol Legal Code was drafted and enacted, under which all were urged to consolidate their own internal position and to pool their efforts in order to resist the Manchus. However, fragmented as they were, the Mongols found these measures extremely difficult to carry out in practice.
[1]
location of Kerulen river EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherlen_River [1]: ( Ishjamts 2003, 219-220) |
||||||
|
The Orokaiva population relied on a decentralised political system based on clans and relatively autonomous local groups: ’Every Orokaiva is recruited by birth into the clan of his or her father. All members of a clan claim, but cannot necessarily trace, common descent from a usually eponymous ancestor. Each clan is subdivided into named subgroups or lineages that trace their origin to a named ancestor.’
[1]
In the late 19th century, much of New Guinea was brought under British imperial control: ’In response to Australian pressure, the British government annexed Papua in 1888. Gold was discovered shortly thereafter, resulting in a major movement of prospectors and miners to what was then the Northern District. Relations with the Papuans were bad from the start, and there were numerous killings on both sides. The Protectorate of British New Guinea became Australian territory by the passing of the Papua Act of 1905 by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The new administration adopted a policy of peaceful penetration, and many measures of social and economic national development were introduced. Local control was in the hands of village constables, paid servants of the Crown. Chosen by European officers, they were intermediaries between the government and the people.’
[1]
’Capt. John Moresby of Great Britain surveyed the southeastern coast in the 1870s, and by the 1880s European planters had moved onto New Britain and New Ireland. By 1884 the German New Guinea Company was administering the northeastern quadrant, and a British protectorate was declared over the southeastern quadrant. Despite early gold finds in British New Guinea (which from 1906 was administered by Australia as the colony of Papua), it was in German New Guinea, administered by the German imperial government after 1899, that most early economic activity took place. Plantations were widely established in the New Guinea islands and around Madang, and labourers were transported from the Sepik River region, the Markham valley, and Buka Island. Australian forces displaced the German authorities on New Guinea early in World War I, and the arrangement was formalized in 1921, when Australian control of the northeastern quadrant of the island was mandated by the League of Nations.’
[2]
[1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History |
||||||
|
In the late 19th century, much of New Guinea was brought under British imperial control: ’In response to Australian pressure, the British government annexed Papua in 1888. Gold was discovered shortly thereafter, resulting in a major movement of prospectors and miners to what was then the Northern District. Relations with the Papuans were bad from the start, and there were numerous killings on both sides. The Protectorate of British New Guinea became Australian territory by the passing of the Papua Act of 1905 by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The new administration adopted a policy of peaceful penetration, and many measures of social and economic national development were introduced. Local control was in the hands of village constables, paid servants of the Crown. Chosen by European officers, they were intermediaries between the government and the people.’
[1]
’Capt. John Moresby of Great Britain surveyed the southeastern coast in the 1870s, and by the 1880s European planters had moved onto New Britain and New Ireland. By 1884 the German New Guinea Company was administering the northeastern quadrant, and a British protectorate was declared over the southeastern quadrant. Despite early gold finds in British New Guinea (which from 1906 was administered by Australia as the colony of Papua), it was in German New Guinea, administered by the German imperial government after 1899, that most early economic activity took place. Plantations were widely established in the New Guinea islands and around Madang, and labourers were transported from the Sepik River region, the Markham valley, and Buka Island. Australian forces displaced the German authorities on New Guinea early in World War I, and the arrangement was formalized in 1921, when Australian control of the northeastern quadrant of the island was mandated by the League of Nations. This territory remained administratively separate from Papua, where the protective paternalist policies of Sir Hubert Murray (lieutenant governor of Papua, 1908-40) did little to encourage colonial investment. The discovery in the 1920s of massive gold deposits in eastern New Guinea at the Bulolo River (a tributary of the Markham River) and Edie Creek, near Wau, led to a rush of activity that greatly increased the economic and social impact on the mandated territory compared with those in Papua to the south. In the early 1930s an even greater discovery was made-contact with nearly one million people previously unknown to Europeans who were living in the Highlands basins of the Australian mandate.’
[2]
In the 1940s, the island was invaded by Japanese troops: ’During World War II the Japanese army invaded northern New Guinea in early 1942 and took the territorial headquarters in Rabaul. The Japanese were defeated by the Allies (primarily Australian troops) in the Battle of Milne Bay (August-September 1942) in eastern Papua but advanced along the rugged Kokoda Trail almost to the Papuan headquarters at Port Moresby before being pushed back over the mountains, again by Australian troops. The Allied victory in the Battle of the Coral Sea, southwest of the Solomon Islands, saved Port Moresby from a planned Japanese seaborne invasion. U.S. forces then moved quickly north and west across the island chain toward Borneo and beyond. Meanwhile, Australian troops continued a costly war on Bougainville Island and the New Guinea mainland until the Japanese surrender in August 1945.’
[2]
[1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History |
||||||
|
[1]
2800-1800 BCE
[2]
[2900-2000 BCE] "The Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Bell Beaker culture is found in western, central and Mediterranean Europe, 2900-2000 BC (Figure 8.4) ) (Harrison 1980)."
[3]
After 2500 BCE: expansion of the Bell-Beaker complex into Western Europe. [2] [1]: (McIntosh 2006, 55) [2]: (Sherratt in Cunliffe 1994, 250) [3]: (Milisauskas and Kruk 2002, 252) |
||||||
|
Early Hallstatt culture (900-600) based in Austria
|
||||||
|
Early Hallstatt culture (900-600) based in Austria
|
||||||
|
Later Hallstatt culture (600-475 BCE) based in France, in the Massalia border region. Extended as far as Vix / Mount Lassois (Châtillon-sur-Seine), the northwest edge of what archaeologists consider the Western Hallstatt zone.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"But the accession of Louis XI and perhaps the conclusion of the War of the Public Weal in 1465 really did coincide with a reversal of the trend of demographic and political collapse which had dominated the history of France for a century."
[1]
Reigns of Charles VIII (1483-1498 CE) and Louis VII (1498-1515 CE) witnessed "a remarkable recovery and expansion." [1] "The crisis of 1557-62 was an ominous prelude to civil war and collapse." [2] End 16th century according to Jean du Port: "France was then so ruined and depopulated that it seemed more like a desert than a flourishing kingdom, for there was no one in the fields, the country folk had fled to the churches and strongholds, not daring to emerge for fear of the gendarmerie which was usually in the countryside. It had become fallow, full of thickets and woods by the continuous wars under three kings and more like the haunt of beasts than of men." [3] [1]: (Potter 1995, 2) [2]: (Potter 1995, 7) [3]: (Potter 1995, 1) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Sarazm "is an archaeological site bearing testimony to the development of human settlements in Central Asia, from the 4th millennium BCE to the end of the 3rd millennium BCE."
[1]
"Sarazm probably was abandoned around 2000 BCE, just at the Namazga V/VI transition. On the lower Zeravshan, the smaller villages of the Zaman Baba culture probably were abandoned about the same time as Sarazm." [2] [1]: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1141 [2]: (Anthony 2010, 420) Anthony, David W. 2010. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. |
||||||
|
"The tin mines of the Zeravshan River valley were found and investigated by N. Boroffka and H. Parzinger between 1997 and 1999. Two tin mines with Bronze Age workings were excavated. The largest was in the desert on the lower Zeravshan at Karnab (Uzbekistan), about 170km west of Sarazm, exploiting cassiterite ores with a moderate tin content ... The potter and radiocarbon dates show that the Karnab mine was worked by people from the northern steppes, connected with the Andronovo horizon ... Dates ranged from 1900 to 1300 BCE ..."
[1]
"The ’Andronovo culture’ is a convenient way of referring to the various communities sharing a broadly similar culture that occupied the Kazakh steppe in the period 1800-1200 BC." [2] "By 1600 BCE, peoples carrying the Andronovo cultural package had displaced, if not destroyed, the Bactrian/Margiana towns." [3] [1]: (Anthony 2010, 420) Anthony, David W. 2010. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. [2]: (Cunliffe 2015, 142) Cunliffe, Barry. 2015. By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (Lee 2015, 60) Lee, Wayne E. 2015. Waging War: Conflict, Culture, and Innovation in World History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
Earliest: c1400 BCEOf samples taken, earliest C14 date c1400-1200 BCE, latest C14 date 810-760 BCE
[1]
Latest: c1000 BCE?"After an apparent chronological gap around the first third of the first millennium BC, the first real monumental architecture appeared on the terrace of Koktepe" [2] "The transition between the period of the painted pottery (Koktepe I) and the period of the monumental courtyards (Koktepe II) needs further research, as the differences betwen the north-eastern and south-western trends of the early Iron Age cultures still need explanation." [3] [1]: (Lhuillier and Rapin 2013) Lhuillier, J. Rapin, C. Handmade painted ware in Koktepe: some elements for the chronology of the early Iron Age in northern Sogdiana. Wagner, Marcin ed. 2013. Pottery and Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia. Warszawa. [2]: (Rapin 2007, 34) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. [3]: (Rapin 2007, 35) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. |
||||||
|
1000-521 BCE is a temporary periodization. This needs expert input, and very likely the periodization should be split into more than one period.
This is the Chorasmian periodization used by the Karakalpak-Australian Archaeological Expedition, which began in 1995: [1] BRONZE AGE (= ANDRONOVO) Suyargan: Ia (early stage) 1st half 2nd millennium BC Suyargan: Ib (late stage) 11th-9th centuries BC Tazabag’yab: II 15th-11th centuries BC EARLY IRON AGE (= LATE ANDRONOVO) Amirabad: III 9th-8th centuries BC ARCHAIC Kiuzeli-g’ir: I 7th/6th centuries BC Dingil’dzhe: II 6th/5th centuries BC Kala’i-g’ir: III 5th century BC Khazarasp: IV 5th/4th century BC ANTIQUE Kangiui: I (early stage) 4th-3rd centuries BC Kangiui: II (late stage) 2nd century BC - 1st century AD Kushan: I (early) 1st-2nd centuries AD Kushan: II (late) 3rd-4th centuries AD Hephthalite: 4th-6th centuries AD Turk: 4th century AD+ AFRIGHID4th(?)-9th centuries AD [2] "Their location at the crossroads of continental trade assured the prosperity of Khwarazm’s cities - provided they could channel water from the fast-flowing Amu Darya onto their agricultural land. As early as the sixth century BC, the people of Khwarazm had become masters of hydraulic engineering, diverting whole rivers into freshly dug channels to serve major centers tens of miles away, and dividing them again into canals to provide water to more remote towns. Nowhere on earth were irrigation technologies more highly developed than here." [3] V. Altman, “Ancient Khorezmian Civilization in the Light of the Latest Archaeological Discoveries (1937-1945),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 67, 2 (April-June 1947): 81. Tolstov, Drevnii Khoresm (Moscow, 1948) Posledam drevnekhorezmiiskoi tsivilizatsii (Moscow, 1948), pt. 2 Masson, Strana tysiachi gorodov (Moscow, 1966), 123-44; Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 149 N. N. Negmatov, “States in North-Western Central Asia,” in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, 2:441, 446, 455. [1]: (Helms and Yagodin 1997, 43) Svend Helms and Vadim N. Yagodin. 1997. ‘Excavations at Kazakl’i-Yatkan in the Tash-Ki’rman Oasis of Ancient Chorasmia: A Preliminary Report’. ‘’Iran’’ 35: 43-65. [2]: (Helms et al. 2001, 119-20) S. W. Helms, V. N. Yagodin, A. V. G. Betts, G. Khozhaniyazov and F. Kidd. 2001. ’Five Seasons of Excavations in the Tash-k’irman Oasis of Ancient Chorasmia, 1996-2000: An Interim Report’. Iran 39: 119-44. [3]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. |
||||||
|
Earliest c750 BCE?
"After an apparent chronological gap around the first third of the first millennium BC, the first real monumental architecture appeared on the terrace of Koktepe" [1] At present, we do not know how long the gap between Koktepe I and II lasted. [2] Possible influence from a centralized Bactrian state or even ’empire’ from the mid-8th century BCE: archaeologist V. M. Masson ’concluded that there was in Bactria a major political unit that extended its influences to Margiana and, possibly, to Aria and Sogdiana. The existence of a pre-Achaemenian Bactrian empire has been archaeologically proved through studies of the northern Afghanistan settlements of Altyn-Dilyar-depe, with its lofty citadel ringed with ramparts and bastions, Altyn-depe I with its keep, and Altyn-depe X with its summer and winter palaces. With their tall citadels raised on platforms and their defensive walls, such heavily fortified settlements as Altyn-Dilyar in the Farukhabad oasis or Altyndepe in that of Dashly, contrast sharply with the hand-made decorated pottery. This means that the culture originated at the latest in the mid-eighth century B.C. [3] JR: According to Rapin, we could even start Koktepe II later than 750 BCE, around 650 BCE: ’Au vu de la minceur des couches de sol des cours fortifiées, la période de Koktepe II ne semble pas avoir duré très longtemps: un siècle au maximum, à partir, peut-être, de la seconde partie du VIIe siècle’ [In view of the shallow depth of the soil layers of the fortified courtyards, the period of Koktepe II doesn’t seem to have lasted for very long: a century at most, beginning, perhaps, from the second half of the 7th century]. [4] Latest: c550 BCE Scythians prior to Persian conquest "As was the case for various earlier constructions, both monuments were abandoned during a period of nomad invasions, possibly in the sixth century BC. (We know, for instance, that east of the Caspian Sea Darius I had to fight Scythian nomads like those represented by their king Skunkha illustrated as a defeated prisoner on the relief of Behistun)." [5] "a period of nomadic presence ... put an end to the period of the first monumental building programme" [6] JR: some of the statements in a later (2013) article by Claude Rapin and Muhammadjon Isamiddinov seem to contradict the idea that the society that built the monumental courtyards of Koktepe II was overrun by Scythians before the arrival of the Achaemenids. For one, they tentatively assign these economic-political and religious areas to ’Scythes sédentarisés’ (sedentarized Scythians) themselves. They also say that ’La période dite de "Koktepe III" apparaît sans transition chronologique aussitôt après la celle de "Koktepe II". L’organisation urbaine et architecturale fondamentalement nouvelle qui se manifeste alors pourrait correspondre à l’arrivée en Asie centrale des Achéménides’ [The period called ’Koktepe III’ appears without chronological transition immediately after that of ’Koktepe II’. The fundamentally new urban and architectural organization that is manifested at this point could correspond to the arrival in central Asia of the Achaemenids], [7] implying cultural continuity right up to the Achaemenid period. Maybe we have a case for extending the end date of this polity to 520 BCE (the date given on the Sogdiana NGA page for the full incorporation of Sogdiana into the Achaemenid Empire)? [1]: (Rapin 2007, 34) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. [2]: (Rapin 2007, 3) Claude Rapin. 2007. ’Koktepa v period zheleznogo veka do prixoda axemenidov’ [The Iron Age at Koktepe up to the Arrival of the Achaemenids], in Samarkand shaxrining umumbasharij madanij tarakkiët tarixida tutgan ûrni: Samarkand shaxrining 2750 jillik jubilejinga baghishlangan xalkaro ilmij simposium materiallari [The Role of Samarkand in the History of World Civilization: Materials of the International Scientific Symposium Devoted to the 2750th Anniversary of the City of Samarkand], pp. 29-38. Tashkent. French version available online at http://claude.rapin.free.fr/1BiblioTextesKoktepePDF/Koktepe_SMK2007v7fr.pdf. [3]: (Askarov 1992, 447-48) A. Askarov. 1992. ’The Beginning of the Iron Age in Transoxania’, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 1: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C., edited by A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson, 441-58. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [4]: (Rapin 2007, 7) Claude Rapin. 2007. ’Koktepa v period zheleznogo veka do prixoda axemenidov’ [The Iron Age at Koktepe up to the Arrival of the Achaemenids], in Samarkand shaxrining umumbasharij madanij tarakkiët tarixida tutgan ûrni: Samarkand shaxrining 2750 jillik jubilejinga baghishlangan xalkaro ilmij simposium materiallari [The Role of Samarkand in the History of World Civilization: Materials of the International Scientific Symposium Devoted to the 2750th Anniversary of the City of Samarkand], pp. 29-38. Tashkent. French version available online at http://claude.rapin.free.fr/1BiblioTextesKoktepePDF/Koktepe_SMK2007v7fr.pdf. [5]: (Rapin 2007, 36) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. [6]: (Rapin 2007, 35) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. [7]: (Rapin and Isamiddinov 2013, 128) Claude Rapin and Muhammadjon Isamiddinov. 2013. ’Entre sédentaires et nomades: les recherches de la Mission archéologique franco-ouzbèke (MAFOuz) de Sogdiane sur le site de Koktepe’. Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21/22: 113-133. Available online at http://asiecentrale.revues.org/1736. |
||||||
|
"The Yueh-chih first arrived in Bactria around 125 BCE."
[1]
After they had been expelled from the Tarim Basin by the Hsiung-nu and before they entered the region of Sogdiana the Yueh-chih polity was based "north of the Oxus river" In the early 2nd century BCE Chinese emissary to the Yueh-chih, Zhang Qian, said "The Great Yueh-chih live north of the Oxus river. They are bordered in the south by Daxia (Bactria) and on the west by Anxi (Parthia). They are a nation of nomads, moving from place to place with their herds." [1] The end of Yuezhi rule is marked by the seizure of power by the first Kushan king, Kujula Kadphises. We have no fixed date for this but Loeschner thinks it may have been as early as 20 BCE. [2] In contrast, Osmund Bopearachchi gives a date of 40 CE for the start of Kujula Kadphises’ reign. [3] [1]: (Samad 2011, 78) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [2]: (Loeschner 2008, 11) Hans Loescher. 2008. ’Notes on the Yuezhi-Kushan Relationship and Kushan Chronology’. Oriental Numismatic Society, document available online at http://orientalnumismaticsociety.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Yuezhi-Kushan_Hans-Loeschner_2008-04-15-corr.11835732.pdf. [3]: (Bopearachchi 2007 in Loeschner 2008, 16) Hans Loescher. 2008. ’Notes on the Yuezhi-Kushan Relationship and Kushan Chronology’. Oriental Numismatic Society, document available online at http://orientalnumismaticsociety.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Yuezhi-Kushan_Hans-Loeschner_2008-04-15-corr.11835732.pdf. |
||||||
|
"The Islamic conquest of Central Asia began in earnest in 706 CE, when the Arab general Qutayba ibn Muslim pushed his forces across the Amu Darya to attack the outer reaches of the Sogdian city state of Bukhara."
[1]
[1]: (Hanks 2010, 3) Hanks, R R. 2010. Global Security Watch-Central Asia. ABC-CLIO. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Beginning with the onset of the Late Qing Dynastic Period and continuing until the early Chinese republican period.
|
||||||
|
The transition from the Qing dynastic to the Chinese republican period was characterized by significant political and economic transformations: ’From Song on, in periods of relative peace, government control was exercised through the tusi system of indirect rule by appointed native headmen who collected taxes, organized corvée, and kept the peace. Miao filled this role in Hunan and eastern Guizhou, but farther west the rulers were often drawn from a hereditary Yi nobility, a system that lasted into the twentieth century. In Guizhou, some tusi claimed Han ancestry, but were probably drawn from the ranks of assimilated Bouyei, Dong, and Miao. Government documents refer to the "Sheng Miao" (raw Miao), meaning those living in areas beyond government control and not paying taxes or labor service to the state. In the sixteenth century, in the more pacified areas, the implementation of the policy of gaitu guiliu began the replacement of native rulers with regular civilian and military officials, a few of whom were drawn from assimilated minority families. Land became a commodity, creating both landlords and some freeholding peasants in the areas affected. In the Yunnan-Guizhou border area, the tusi system continued and Miao purchase of land and participation in local markets was restricted by law until the Republican period (1911-1949).’
[1]
Hmong popular uprisings against the deleterious effects of economic and ethnic stratification continued well into the republican period: ’During the Qing, uprisings and military encounters escalated. There were major disturbances in western Hunan (1795-1806) and a continuous series of rebellions in Guizhou (1854-1872). Chinese policies toward the Miao shifted among assimilation, containment in "stockaded villages," dispersal, removal, and extermination. The frequent threat of "Miao rebellion" caused considerable anxiety to the state; in actuality, many of these uprisings included Bouyei, Dong, Hui, and other ethnic groups, including Han settlers and demobilized soldiers. At issue were heavy taxation, rising landlordism, rivalries over local resources, and official corruption. One of the last Miao uprisings occurred in 1936 in western Hunan in opposition to Guomindang (Republican) continuation of the tuntian system, which forced the peasants to open up new lands and grow crops for the state.’
[1]
[The A-Hmao group doesn’t appear to have been directly involved in the more eastern Hmong rebellions, but it appears to have been increasingly subsumed by the Late Qing/Early Chinese in the aftermath of these rebellions.]
[1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
5500-4000 BCE
[1]
The chronology of Ubaid period is one of the most problematic issue and there is no agreement between researchers regarding the duration of this polity. However, there is commonly accepted that Ubaid culture appeared much early in the southern Mesopotamia (around 6500 or 6300 BCE) and later spread toward northern regions. The earliest evidences of presence Ubaid culture in the northern Mesopotamia are dated to 5300 or 5200 BCE. The researchers distinguished 5 different phases of Ubaid period: Ubaid 0 (called also Oueili period; c. 6200-5550 BCE), Ubaid 1 (c. 5550- 5250 BCE), Ubaid 2 (c. 5250-5050 BCE), Ubaid 3 (5050- 4550 BCE), Ubaid 4 (4550- 4050 BCE, Late Ubaid) and Ubaid 5 (Terminal Ubaid, 4050-3800 BCE).
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[1]: Pers. comm Mark Altaweel, Dec. 2021 [2]: Carter and Phillip 2010, 2 [3]: Carter 2007, 132-133 [4]: Peasnal 2001, 372 [5]: Oates 1987, 473-82 |
||||||
|
4000-3000 BCE
[1]
. Note that the period 3100-2900 BCE is contested, and unclear if Uruk were still in control of S Mesopotamian territory at this time. "There is the issue of the Jemdet Nasr period, which may not be completely real or present in all regions of southern Mesopotamia, but that period seems to fit between 3100-2900, with the Early Dynastic from 2900-2350." We do not code the Jemdet Nasr directly here
[1]
. Algaze proposed a little bit different periodization: Early Uruk: 3900-3600 BCE, Middle Uruk: 3600-3300 BCE, Late Uruk: 3300-3100 BCE.
[2]
[3]
; Early Uruk Period: 4100/4000-3800 BCE; Early Middle Uruk (Late Chalcolithic 3): 3800-3600 BCE; Late Middle Uruk (Late Chalcolithic 4): 3600-3300 BCE; Late Uruk: 3300-3000BCE.
[4]
The most problematic is Jemdet Nasr Period (3100-2900 BCE), which some researchers treated as separated polity, others as a continuation and later stage of the Uruk polity
[5]
[1]: Pers. comm Mark Altaweel, Dec. 2021 [2]: Algaze 2005, 5-6 [3]: Pollock 1992, 299 [4]: Ur 2010, tab. 1, 392 [5]: Matthews 1992, 196-203 |
||||||
|
according to short chronology. The Early Dynastic Period is subdivided into three phases: Early Dynastic I, Early Dynastic II and Early Dynastic III. The Early Dynastic Period III is additionally divided into two subphases: A and B.
[1]
The Early Dynastic Period I-II (ED I-II) is dated to 2900-2600 BCE, and ED IIIA is dated to 2600-2500 BCE and ED IIIB is dated to 2500-2270 BCE.
[2]
Following middle chronology this period is dated: 2900-2334 BCE
[3]
The end of this period is designated by the beginning of Sargon’s reign of Akkad.
[4]
[1]: Roux 1998, 110 [2]: Brisch 2013, 116 [3]: Hamblin 2006, 35 [4]: McIntosh 2005, 70 |
||||||
|
according to short chronology. The beginning of this period is designated by inauguration of Sargon’s reign and the final data is related to the end of Shar-kali-sharri’s reign.
[1]
second half third century, occupied Susiana. [2] [1]: Roux 1998, 133, 138 [2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 7) 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. |
||||||
|
or 2047-1940 BCE according to short chronology
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
2000 BCE - Ur, of the Ur III period, fell to the Elamites in 2004 BCE. The Amorites are thought to have gradually filled the power gap left in Mesopotamian society. They became kings of city-states, establishing an Amorite elite that would become a Babylonian dynasty.
[1]
1600 BCE - At this time the Old Babylonian Dynasty came to end due to an invasion by the Hittites. The Hittites had established a rapidly expanding kingdom in Asia Minor and the king, Murshili I, conquered north-west Syria, then the land around the Euphrates until he reached Babylon. The city was quickly taken, but Murshili I returned to the Hittite capital due to political troubles where he was rapidly assasinated. The Kassite rulers consequently came to power in Babylonia. [2] [1]: Goddeeris, A. 2002. Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca.2000-1800 BC). Leuven: Peeters Publishers. p.8 [2]: Oates, J. Babylon. Revised Edition. London: Thames and Hudson. p.84 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In the absence of surviving written documents, chronology of Parthian rulers is based on coinage.
[1]
Start: 247 BCE "Arsaces, of Scythian or Bactrian origin, was elected leader of the Parni tribes in 247 BCE. This date marks the beginning of the Arsacid era." [2] "Less than ten years after the rebellion of Andragoras against the Seleucids, in 238 BCE, Arsaces and his brother Tiridates invaded the satrapy of Parthia, killed Andragoras and established control over this province." [2] It is believed to be the start of the Parthian’s revolt against the Seleucids, as well as the coronation of the second Parthina king, Tiridates I. As such it can been seen as the end of Selucid authority in the province. [3] End 226 CE Parthians fought three battles against the Sassanians and lost each one. Reign of the last Parthian king Artabanus IV ends; Sasanian rule begins. [4] Although Ardashir took the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, and probably with it the title ’King of Kings’, in 226 CE the Parthian king Vologases VI minted coins in his hame at least to 228 CE. [5] Periodization c240-172 BCE; 171 BCE - 40 CE; 40 - 226 CE. 240-172 BCE (pre-Imperial, Seleucid Empire period) "The first Parthian ruler, Arsaces, established the dynasty approximately 240 b.c.e. ..." [6] 171 BCE - 40 CE (Empire period) "... The real founder of the Parthian empire was Mithridates I, who ascended the throne in 171. He conquered western Iran, reaching Media in 155 and Seleucia in 141. ... the Parthians definitely established their hold on Babylonia by the time of Mithridates II, ca. 120 b.c.e. and held it until ca. 226 c.e., with brief intervals of Roman occupation." [6] "Mithradates I ... one of the first powerful Parthian monarchs, attacked Demetrius, the Seleucid ruler ... Mithradates conquered Susa and its hinterlands shortly before 140 B.C. and installed a Parthian administration that probably survived for most of the next century. We know that by A.D. 21 Susa was under Parthian control, for in a letter of this date, written in Greek, Artabanus III, the Parthian sovereign, validated a contested election at Susa." [7] 1st century BCE: "from then the first open conflicts occurred between Parthian rulers and aristocrats." [8] 53 BCE was the Parthian victory at the Battle of Carrhae - this would have increased Roman interest in supporting rivals to Parthian throne, and in fact the battle of Carrhae may have been initiated by the Romans to take advantage of Parthian disorder in Babylonia. c92 BCE Mithradates II was challenged by a usurper "who had probably gained control over the empire’s eastern satrapies, supported by local rich and influential aristocratic families, and over a large part of Mesopotamia. However, civil war was prevented by the king’s natural death." [9] Babylonia "was not touched by the Romans in their invasion of 54-3, or by Antony in 39-31 during his unsuccessful Armenian adventure." [10] Between c-100 BCE to 100 CE the Babylonians at Babylon ceased to exist while the Greeks at Seleucia ceased to have the importance they once did. 40 - 226 CE (less centralized, fuedal period) "the Parthian state was highly unstable, and Artabanus’ death at about A.D. 40, in combination with financial and military reverses over the preceding decades, apparently weakened the Parthian state to the extent that it no longer issued an imperial coinage and successful revolts were staged at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and other cities. At about this same time, it appears that Susa and its environs were incorporated into the ’satrapy’ of Elymais (Fig. 6)." [7] "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." [7] "Elymais coined its own money, conducted its own public works programs, and in other was was apparently independent until about A.D. 215, when, documentary evidence suggests, the Parthian imperial government was once again in control at Susa." [7] Elymais/Susiana region experienced an upturn in economy, agriculture, population "The last hundred years in the life of Parthia was a period appropriately described as the ’downfall of the Parthian Empire’. The period began with the reign of Vologases II, who ruled until A.D. 146/7." [11] "By the beginning of the third century A.D., the states of southern Mesopotamia and the provinces of eastern Iran - Margiana, Segistan (Sistan) and Kerman - were virtually independent states, governed by local dynasties which only formally recognized their dependence on the Arsacids." [12] nominal centralization [1]: (Debevoise 1938, xxvi) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [2]: (Curtis 2007) Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [3]: A.D.H. Bivar, ‘The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids’, in Ehsan Yar-Shater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Part 1, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.28. [4]: A.D.H. Bivar, ‘The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids’, in Ehsan Yar-Shater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Part 1, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p.96. [5]: (Dabrowa 2012, 178) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [6]: (Neusner 2008, 16) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [7]: (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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [8]: (Dabrowa 2012, 182) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [9]: (Dabrowa 2012, 171) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [10]: (Neusner 2008, 22) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [11]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 464) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [12]: (Litvinsky, Shah and Samghabadi 1994, 470) Litvinsky, B. A. Shah, Hussain, M. Samghabadi, R. Shabani. The Rise of Sasanian Iran. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. |
||||||
|
Al-Nasir (r.1180-1225 CE)
Az-Zahir (r.1225-1226 CE) Al-Mustansir (r.1236-1242 CE) Al-Musta’sim (r.1242-1258 CE) |
||||||
|
"Radiocarbon dates reported from the sites just discussed and similar sites in the highland put all the early Neolithic aceramic sites in western Iran within the 8000-7000 B.C. range. However, considering the problems with radiocarbon dates, these dates alone are not sufficient to be used as definite criteria to establish chronological priority of any of these early sites, even though some (Tappeh Asiab and Ganj Darreh) yielded morphologically wild species of the plants and animals that at Tappeh Ali Kosh and Chogha Bonut are considered morphologically domesticated and presumably later."
[1]
[1]: (Alizadeh 2003, 8) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[1]
"Ubaid culture lasted a long period of time, from 5100 to 4500 BC in its early phase, and 4500 to 4000 BC in its late phase. Initially, it remained confined to the same area as Eridu and Hajji Muhammad, displaying a marked continuity in terms of settlement and pottery types. This led to the alternative periodisation of the Eridu, Hajji Muhammad, Early Ubaid, and Late Ubaid phases as Ubaid 1, 2, 3, and 4." [2] Crawford (2006) Hajji Muhammad pottery "is not confined to a single chronological phase and has no independent chronological existence." [3] "the admittedly flawed evidence from the three stratified sites discussed above illustrates convincingly the overlap between Hajji Muhammad and Eridu/Ubaid 1 wares on the one hand, and between Hajji Muhammad and Ubaid 3 pottery on the other." [4] Joan Oates showed pottery of Southern Mesopotamia known as Eridu, Hajji Muhammad, Ubaid 1 and Ubaid 2 related in linear evolution and re-named Ubaid 1-4. Late, an earlier phase Ubaid 0 was proposed for Tell el-’Oueili and a Terminal Ubaid or Ubaid 5 between the end of Ubaid 4 and the beginning of Uruk. Additionally, Ubaid 3 is often subdivided into phases a and b. "The whole sequence is now thought to cover the mid-sixth to mid-fifth millennia." [3] "The stratigraphic evidence we have quoted from South Mesopotamia, the Hamrin, southwest Iran, and the Gulf is far from satisfactory, but there is now enough of it to be able to raise serious doubts about the status of Hajji Muhammad ware as the marker of a separate chronological period. Instead, we should probably now see it as defining the later part of the Ubaid 1 period and the early stages of the Ubaid 3 period. There is, as yet, no instance in which it is the only pottery style found in a stratigraphic context." [5] "if our pottery has no independent chronological existence, it must mean that Ubaid 1 on the one hand, and Ubaid 3 on the other, had a longer life than previously thought and that the rate of change was therefore slower than is currently accepted." [6] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Liverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Crawford 2006, 163) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. [4]: (Crawford 2006, 165) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. [5]: (Crawford 2006, 166) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. [6]: (Crawford 2006, 167) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. |
||||||
|
"Table 3.2 Chronology of the Neolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Muhammad Jaffar 7000-6300 BCE; Susiana A 6300-5800 BCE; Tepe Sabz 5800-5400 BCE; Kazineh / Susiana B (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 5400-5000 BCE.
[1]
"Ubaid culture lasted a long period of time, from 5100 to 4500 BC in its early phase, and 4500 to 4000 BC in its late phase."
[2]
Jaffarabad is Susiana B.
[3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 46) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Hole 1987, 39) |
||||||
|
"Table 3.3 Chronology of the Chalcolithic period in the Ancient Near East." Khuzistan: Susiana C / Mehmeh (not sure if two terms for same period or earlier/later) 4500-4000 BCE; Bayat / Susa A (probably two different terms for same period) 4000-3500 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 52) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
In Khuzistan 4500-4000 BCE Susiana C and Mehmeh.
[1]
Susa A: 4200-4000 and Terminal Susa A (4000-3800 BCE)
[2]
C14s for Susa I (which are give some credibility being similar to the spreads at Jaffarbad) [3] 4395-3955 BCE - Earliest 3680-3490 BCE - Latest [1]: (Leverani 2014, 51) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Hole 1987, 41) [3]: (Potts 2016, 50) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
3800-3400 BCE. Kuzistan: Susa B; Zagros: Godin 7; Fars: Early Banesh. 3400-3000 BCE. Kuzistan: Uruk type; Zagros: Godin 6-5; Fars: Middle Banesh.
[1]
"Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition." [2] -- Actually 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. [3] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 83) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [3]: (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. |
||||||
|
"But toward the end of the fourth millennium, when the brilliant civilization of the Uruk period had collapsed in Mesopotamia and at Susa, the population of Fars broke with the prehistoric past and achieved in their turn a kind of historical consciousness, establishing a large center which perhaps had already acquired its name, Anshan (modern Tal-i Malyan)."
[1]
[1]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) 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. |
||||||
|
"Susa returned to the Mesopotamian orbit sometime around 2800-2750 B.C."
[1]
"Unfortunately, the centre of the Elamite confederation, the Awan region, from which the Elamite royal family took its name, has not yet been located." [2] [1]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 5) 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. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 142) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
This period starts with liberation of Susa from Ur’s control and the independent reign of Shimashki’s dynasty (starting from king named Kindatu, who was six king of Shimashki dynasty). The end of this polity is associated with the new political power and dynasty of sukkalmah in Elam.
[1]
[1]: Potts 1999, 142, 158-59 |
||||||
|
: "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."
[1]
[1]: (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. |
||||||
|
Middle Elamite I (1500-1400 BCE)
"The period of the sukkalmahs was followed by the Middle Elamite period. While details of the transition between these two eras are lacking, the onset of the Middle Elamite period is usually put at c. 1500 BC, its end at c. 1100 BC." [1] "Between 1550 (the end of the sequence of sukkal-mah and of legal texts from Susa) and 1350 BC, Elam experienced its own dark age. However, this phase was different from the one attested in the rest of the Near East. In reality, this presumed ’dark age’ appears to be so more in terms of textual evidence, rather than historical developments." [2] 1420 BCE - Knowledge of the beginning of the Middle Elamite Kingdom is limited. Names of probable kings are known from the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries but there is no defined point between the intermediate period and the start of the Middle Elamite Kingdom. 1420 CE is chosen as a representative starting point, rather than the date of a particular event. [3] 1100 BCE - The Middle Elamite Kingdom ended when the Babylonian army, led by Nebuchadnezzar, defeated the last Middle Elamite king, Hutelutush-Inshushinak and seized Susa. Nebuchadrnessar reported in a letter that Huteleutush-Inshushinak disappeared, but bricks bearing his name found at Tal-i Malyan give some credence to the suggestion that he retreated to Anshan after defeat. [4] [1]: (Potts 2016, 176) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 376) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.32 [4]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.253 |
||||||
|
Middle Elamite II (1400-1200 BCE)
Ike-Halke - founder of the new Elamite dynasty. [1] 1420 BCE - Knowledge of the beginning of the Middle Elamite Kingdom is limited. Names of probable kings are known from the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries but there is no defined point between the intermediate period and the start of the Middle Elamite Kingdom. 1420 CE is chosen as a representative starting point, rather than the date of a particular event. [2] 1100 BCE - The Middle Elamite Kingdom ended when the Babylonian army, led by Nebuchadnezzar, defeated the last Middle Elamite king, Hutelutush-Inshushinak and seized Susa. Nebuchadrnessar reported in a letter that Huteleutush-Inshushinak disappeared, but bricks bearing his name found at Tal-i Malyan give some credence to the suggestion that he retreated to Anshan after defeat. [3] "In the mid-fourteenth century BC, Kurigalzu II defeated the Elamite king Hurba-tilla. However, the latter does not appear in the Elamite dynastic sequences. Therefore, it is possible to assume that he was a king of Susiana with a Hurrian name, and that this defeat and Kurigalzu’s expedition to Susa did not threaten the stability of the Elamite confederation." [4] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 377) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.32 [3]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.253 [4]: (Leverani 2014, 376) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
Middle Elamite III (1200-1100 BCE)
"The period of the sukkalmahs was followed by the Middle Elamite period. While details of the transition between these two eras are lacking, the onset of the Middle Elamite period is usually put at c. 1500 BC, its end at c. 1100 BC." [1] "Middle Elamite kingdom of the thirteenth and twelfth century BC". [2] "In Elam, a new dynasty made Susa the centre of its kingdom, and chose the god of Susa, Inshushinak, as its main deity. Shutruk-Nahhunte managed to considerably strengthen his entire kingdom, which now extended from the coast of the Persian Gulf (Liyan) and Anshan to the Mesopotamian border. Shutruk-Nahhunte brought to Susa the monuments of the previous Elamite kings, and constantly emphasised the dynastic (and inter-dynastic) continuity and unity of Elam." [3] 1420 BCE - Knowledge of the beginning of the Middle Elamite Kingdom is limited. Names of probable kings are known from the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries but there is no defined point between the intermediate period and the start of the Middle Elamite Kingdom. 1420 CE is chosen as a representative starting point, rather than the date of a particular event. [4] 1100 BCE - The Middle Elamite Kingdom ended when the Babylonian army, led by Nebuchadnezzar, defeated the last Middle Elamite king, Hutelutush-Inshushinak and seized Susa. Nebuchadrnessar reported in a letter that Huteleutush-Inshushinak disappeared, but bricks bearing his name found at Tal-i Malyan give some credence to the suggestion that he retreated to Anshan after defeat. [5] "At the end of the twelfth century B.C. both Susa and Anzan were destroyed by Babylonian armies, and the Elamite civilization sank into an almost total obscurity that lasted until the eighth century." [6] [1]: (Potts 2016, 176) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 526) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 458) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: Carter, E. and Stolpher, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Publication. p.32 [5]: Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.253 [6]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 11-12) 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. |
||||||
|
Neo-Elamite I c.1000-744 BCE.
[1]
Steve (1992) divided Neo-Elamite I period into two phases 1000-900 BCE and by implication 900-744 BCE. [2] [1]: (Potts 2016, 249) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Potts 2016, 250) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
Neo-Elamite II 743-646 BCE. Neo-Elamite II ends 646 BCE.
[1]
Neo-Elamite II (743-647 BCE). The Elamite historical record is very limited, but Neo-Babylonian and Assyrian documents record the presence of Elamite armies in the battles against Assyria dating from around 820 BCE. [2] 640 BCE is generally considered the end of the Neo-Elamite kingdom. Traditional academic belief is that in this year Susa was sacked by the Assyrian army. Ashurbanipal’s texts describe fierce looting of the city. Susa was destroyed and the Neo- Elamite Kingdom ended. [3] However, more evidence is appearing to suggest that the Elamite Kingdom may have continued after the attacks of 640 BCE. For example, a few names of what are thought to be post 640 BCE Elamite kings are known. [4] Also, archaeological evidence of material culture does not show any discontinuity over this period . [5] 3. what is the archaeological evidence? be specific if specifics are available so what the code is based on is obvious. however - specifics aren’t always available so if they’re not available write what you can. Evidence of continuity: the Assyrian sack of Susa ’has dominated the traditional interpretative model for the end of Elamite civilization. However, the material, textual, and artistic assemblages at Susa, together with the reliefs from Izeh/Malamir (KF [Kul-e Farah] I, c.650-550 BC), Naqsh-e Rustam (c.674-626 BC), and the elite material from Arjan (c.600-570 BC) and Ram Hormuz (c.585-539 BC) provide evidence of the survival of Elamite political power, culture, and traditions after the Assyrian raids on western Elam.’ [6] [1]: (Potts 2016, 249) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: Carter, E. and Stopler, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Press. p.44-45 [3]: Carter, E. and Stopler, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Press. p.52 [4]: Henkelman, W. 2003. Persians, Medes and Elamites: Acculturation in the Neo-Elamite Period. In Lanfranchi, E. B. et al (eds) Continuity of Empire: Assyria, Media and Persia. Padua: SARGON p.74-75 [5]: Carter, E. and Stopler, M.W. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. London: University of California Press. p.182 [6]: (Álvarez-Mon 2013, 472) Javier Álvarez-Mon. 2013. ’Elam in the Iron Age’, in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, edited by Daniel T. Potts, 457-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
{646 BCE; 612 BCE}-539 BCE. Neo-Elamite phase c.1000 to conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. Neo-Elamite II ends 646 BCE.
[1]
The uncertainty in the dates here is due to disagreement about the status of Elam between the Assyrian sack of Susa in 647/6 and before the destruction of the Assyrian city of Nineveh in 612. The traditional interpretation has been that Elam ’became an Assyrian province until the fall of the Assyrian empire and the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC’.
[2]
However, Pierre Amiet, Pierre de Miroschedji, M.-J. Steve and Francois Vallat ’suggest that a Neo-Elamite renaissance - a state of independence rather than subjection to any rival, whether Babylonia or Media - occurred in the wake of Assurbanipal’s destruction of Susa’.
[3]
Potts commented in 2012 that ’Evidence that Elam became an Assyrian province soon after Assurbanipal’s destruction of Susa is equivocal at best. Nor is it clear what role Elam played vis-a-vis the growing power of Babylonia or that of Media’.
[4]
It seems that despite the ’ferocity’ of Assyrian attempts to eradicate ’Elam as a political and cultural entity’,
[5]
the polity continued to exist in diminished and fragmented form after 646 BCE. Carter and Stolper also note that ’contrary to earlier assumptions, the destruction of Susa in 646 B.C. had little effect on the evolution of ceramic or other artifact styles’.
[6]
[1]: (Potts 2016, 249) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Potts 1999, 288) Daniel T. Potts. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Potts 1999, 295) Daniel T. Potts. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Potts 2012, 46) Daniel T. Potts. 2012. ’The Elamites’, in The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, edited by Touraj Daryaee, 37-56. [5]: (Carter and Stolper 1984, 53) Elizabeth Carter and Matthew W. Stolper. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [6]: (Carter and Stolper 1984, 182) Elizabeth Carter and Matthew W. Stolper. 1984. Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. |
||||||
|
Elymean settlement pattern 25-125 CE.
[1]
"Elymais coined its own money, conducted its own public works programs, and in other was was apparently independent until about A.D. 215, when, documentary evidence suggests, the Parthian imperial government was once again in control at Susa." [1] "Trajan’s advance sparked revolts in numerous cities in Mesopotamia, and it may be that shock waves from these events reached Susa also, because, as noted, there seems to have been a rapid decline in commercial activity and a cessation of the mint at Susa at about this time. Yet when Trajan died in Mesopotamia in A.D. 117 and his successors declined to pursue Roman interests there, Susa and the rest of Elymais seem - at least on the basis of numismatic evidence - to have been unable or unwilling to resume their independent roles." [2] another reference to early third century. "Generally, opinion seems to be that small bronze coinages in these early historic empires served to facilitate the exchange of small amounts of goods and services. If this was the nature of Elymean trade, we might wonder that bronze coins appear to have been used extensively only in the period from about A.D. 75 to A.D. 210; why are Sasanian and Islamic occupations not marked with a similar frequency of coins at these rural settlements?" [3] in addition to better economic fortunes "coins may also represent a greater degree of local autonomy and economic exchange in the period of their circulation." [3] 21 CE Susa was under Parthian control because the Parthian monarch "validated a contested election at Susa." [1] "the Parthian state was highly unstable, and Artabanus’ death at about A.D. 40, in combination with financial and military reverses over the preceding decades, apparently weakened the Parthian state to the extent that it no longer issued an imperial coinage and successful revolts were staged at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and other cities. At about this same time, it appears that Susa and its environs were incorporated into the ’satrapy’ of Elymais (Fig. 6)." [1] [1]: (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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [2]: (Wenke 1981, 310) 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [3]: (Wenke 1981, 314) 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 |
||||||
|
Start 1339 CE.
First Ak Koyunlu leader mentioned in "mutually independent sources" Tur-Ali b. Pahlavan. [1] End 1501 CE The Ak Koyunlu "ruled in eastern Anatolia and western Iran until the Safavid conquest in 1501." [2] [1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlū. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation [2]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
"The Qajar dynasty ruled Iran from the end of the eighteenth century to the twentieth century."
[1]
"When Nader Shah Afshar died in 1747 with no living heirs, the Qajar tribal leaders were among the contenders for the throne. From the ensuing 50 year struggle one Aqa Mohammad Khan Qajar (c.1742-c.1797) emerged the undisputed rule in 1794. He was crowned in 1796 and founded the dynasty." [1] [1]: (Ghani 2000, 1) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qaja Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Naqada, IA-IIB.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Naqada IIIA-B.
|
||||||
|
Started with the unification of Egypt under Menes (1st Dynasty c3100 BCE
[1]
Emergence of 1st Dynasty c3000 BCE. [2] Naqada III "appearance of a so-called late style, whose forms were already evoking Dynastic pottery." [3] 3200-3000 carbon dating [4] [1]: (David and David 2002, 86) [2]: (Bard 2000, 63) [3]: (Midant-Reynes 2000, 43) [4]: (Midant-Reynes 2000, 43 cite: Libby) |
||||||
|
Traditionally the Old Kingdom extends from the 3rd dynasty to the 6th dynasty. The earlier times (1st and 2nd dynasty) is considered an Archaic period.
The "classic" period covers the 3rd - 5th Dynasties. |
||||||
|
Traditionally the Old Kingdom extends from the 3rd dynasty to the 6th dynasty. The earlier times (1st and 2nd dynasty) is considered an Archaic period.
The Late Old Kingdom period is from the 6th Dynastys onwards. |
||||||
|
"Because of the diversity that characterized the Middle Kingdom, Egyptologists have divided this period into the ‘early phase’ (2050-1878 BC) and the ‘late phase’ (1878-1780 BC). A most decisive discontinuity occurred when, in the 1870s BC, Sesostris (Senustret) III embarked on his Nubian campaign."
[1]
"In 1860 BC, ‘a complete reorganization of provincial administration was undertaken by King Sesostris [Senusret] III. As a result, the old system of hereditary nomarchs was destroyed and replaced by a bureaucratic machinery, the operators of which owed their allegiance to the king in his residence’ (James, 1985: 51)." [1] [1]: (Ezzamel 2004, 502) Ezzamel, Mahmoud. July 2004. Organization. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp 497-537. Sage publications. |
||||||
|
{1720-1567 BCE; 1720-1420 BCE} or 1720-{1567-1420} BCE
Conquest of Avaris c1532-1528 BCE. [1] "The late Second Intermediate Period, the final stage of the Middle Bronze Age in Egypt, was associated with the decline of the Middle Kingdom state system and the emergence of a fragmentary political situation in which Egypt was ultimately dominated by two rival kingdoms, the Thebans (Dynasties 16-17) in Upper Egypt, and the Hyksos (Dynasty 15) in the Nile Delta." [2] [1]: (Bourriau 2003, 173) [2]: (Wegner 2015, 68) Wegner, Josef. 2015. A royal necropolis at South Abydos: New light on Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period. Near Eastern archaeology. Volume 78. Issue 2. 68-78. |
||||||
|
"Table 1. The chronology of the cultures on the Middle Nile, ninth century BC to sixteenth century AD."
[1]
Kushite, Napatan phase, 9th-4th BCE Kushite, Meroitic phase, 4th BCE - 4th CE Post-Meroitic, Post-pyramidal Meroitic phase, 4th - 6th CE (below 3rd cataract) X-Group, Ballana culture phase, 4th - 6th CE (between 1st and 3rd cataract) Christian, Transitional phase, 550-600 CE "Kushite rule in Thebes lasted from around 750 BC until the transfer of power to Psamtik I marked by the arrival of the Saite princess Nitocris to be adopted by Amenirdis II in 656 BC." [2] Kingdom of Meroe begins 591 BCE. Kushite rule 747-664 BCE [3] "Kushites still acknowledged in Upper Egypt until 656 BCE." [4] [1]: (Welsby 2002, 13) Derek A Welsby. 2002. The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia. Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. The British Museum Press. London. [2]: (Morkot 2014) Morkot, Robert G. Thebes under the Kushites. in Pischikova, Elena. ed. 2014. Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis: Thebes, Karakhamun (TT 223), and Karabasken (TT 391) in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. American University in Cairo Press. [3]: (Taylor 2000, 345) [4]: (Alcock 2001, 245) Alcock, S E. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
Both the San José and Guadalupe phases are characterised by ceramic complexes, which correspond to roughly 1150-850 BCE and 850-700 BCE respectively.
[1]
The end of this phase is marked by the appearance of Rosario ceramic styles and more complex chiefdom organisation.
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p12 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p74 |
||||||
|
This phase is defined by the appearance of a new ceramic style (Rosario ceramics) in 700 BCE, and ends with the founding of the new settlement Monte Albán in the central region of the valley. The chiefdoms during this period are also more complex than in the preceding San José and Guadalupe phases.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p74 |
||||||
|
The start of this period is marked by the founding of Monte Albán at the centre of the three valleys.
Start: 500 BCE "Monte Alban, founded circa 500 BC at the nexus of the valley’s three branches, was one of highland Mesoamerica’s earliest cities, and it remained the most populous and architecturally monumental settlement in the Southern Highlands for more than a millennium (Blanton, 1978) [1] [1]: (Feinman and Nicholas 2017, 1) Gary M Feinman. Linda M Nicholas. 2017. Settlement Patterns in the Albarradas Area of Highland Oaxaca, Mexico: Frontiers, Boundaries, and Interaction. Fieldiana Anthropology, 46(1):1-162. Publication 1572. Field Museum of Natural History. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3158/0071-4739-46.1.1 |
||||||
|
The Zapotec polity began to expand at the beginning of this phase, conquering the Cañada de Cuicatlán and other areas.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199 [2]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2003). "Militarism, resistance, and early state development in Oaxaca, Mexico." Social Evolution & History 2: 25-70, p29 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“Period IIIa in the Valley of Oaxaca saw the withdrawal of Monte Albán from distant provinces (e.g. Redmond, 1983) and the disintegration of its empire as new competitors arose on the fringes of its political territory.”
[1]
[1]: Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493, p474 |
||||||
|
“With the decline of Monte Albán around A.D. 700, the Zapotec entered into their fourth developmental stage: a period of highly competitive and militaristic “city states” which lasted until the Spanish conquest of the 1520s.”
[1]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p376 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’Al-Qasim b. Muhammad claimed the Imamate in 1597 and fought the Turks for slightly more than two decades.’ When he died in 1620, his son al-Mu’ayyad Muhammad took the Imamate and renewed the war, but it was not until 1636 that the Turks were all driven out and the Zaydis came to hold all Yemen.’
[1]
Parts of Yemen were re-taken by the Ottoman empire in the 19th century: ’By the 16th century and again in the 19th century, North Yemen became part of Ottoman Empire, from which it gained independence in 1918.’
[2]
[1]: Dresch, Paul. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 198p [2]: Safa, Mohammad Samaun 2005. "Socio-Economic Factors Affecting the Income of Small-scale Agroforestry Farms in Hill Country Areas in Yemen: A Comparison of OLS and WLS Determinants", 119 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1460 CE is an alternative start date for an earlier polity that could be 1205-1460 CE: "The ever-increasing interventions of the Avogaria in the years 1440-60 represent a true turning point in Venetian political history. The apex of the constituional system - the doge, the Provveditori di San Marco, the ducal councilors, the Savi del Consiglio - thus came to be subjected to a form of continuous supervision. In 1453, for example, the avogadori were able to block an order from the Doge to the Giudici di Petizion."
[1]
Part Two on The Imperial Expansion begins with the election of Pietro as the Doge of Venice in 1205 CE. Part Three on A Power in Europe ends in 1530 CE with the Coronation of Charles V by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor. [2] In 1530 CE "The peninsula was at peace - at least by Italian standards, and though the peace had been bought about by imperial-papal agency and all Italy still lay under the shadow of the Eagle’s wing, Venice had managed to safeguard not only her political independence but even the integrity of her mainland dominians." [3] Part Four is on Decline and Fall, last date 1797 CE. [4] Chapter 2: "Venice as a Great Power 1282-1481" [5] "New worries over social control are evident in the creation of the Esecutori control la Bestemmia (1537): the Council of Ten ordered this new magistrate to apply older laws that had been disregarded. The three Esecutori could proceed with a firm hand, torturing the accused and working in secret. The crime of blasphemy had, in fact, brought the divine wrath upon the city of St Mark: in order to regain God’s benevolence ... it was necessary to prosecute them vigorously. A later law of the Ten in 1539, demonstrating the magistracy’s success in uprooting blasphemy, decreed the extension of these norms to ’dens’ and ’brothels’ which, in addition to these offenses to God, gave rise to ’other enormous and detestable sins, along with gambling’ with the consequent ruin of both people and their finances." [6] "In the years between 1580 and 1620, the processes of differentiation within the patriciate accelerated". [7] [1]: (Viggiano 2014, 54) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Norwich 2003, vii-viii) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [3]: (Norwich 2003, 449) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [4]: (Norwich 2003, viii) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [5]: (McNeill 1986, 46) William H McNeill. 1986. Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. [6]: (Viggiano 2014, 64) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [7]: (Viggiano 2014, 71) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
Part Two on The Imperial Expansion begins with the election of Pietro as the Doge of Venice in 1205 CE. Part Three on A Power in Europe ends in 1530 CE with the Coronation of Charles V by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor.
[1]
In 1530 CE "The peninsula was at peace - at least by Italian standards, and though the peace had been bought about by imperial-papal agency and all Italy still lay under the shadow of the Eagle’s wing, Venice had managed to safeguard not only her political independence but even the integrity of her mainland dominians."
[2]
Part Four is on Decline and Fall, last date 1797 CE.
[3]
"Its republican constitution, which took shape in the late thirteenth century ... stood for five hundred years, until its fall to Napoleon on 12 May 1797." [4] [1]: (Norwich 2003, vii-viii) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [2]: (Norwich 2003, 449) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [3]: (Norwich 2003, viii) John Julius Norwich. 2003. A History of Venice. Penguin Books. London. [4]: (Martin and Romano 2000, 1) John Martin. Dennis Romano. Reconsidering Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
Ending with the instability of the 1830s and 1840s (the Chartist Movement)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"About the middle of the seventeenth century the Mani system of viceroys--dondaghs as they were called--began to break down."
[1]
"Finally, in 1896, after negotiations with the French who were similarly involved in neighboring Guinea, the British declared a “protectorate” over the vast interior of the colony. The protectorate and the colony now became the British territory of Sierra Leone."
[2]
[1]: (Kup 1975: 40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/36IUGEZV/collection. [2]: (Fyle and Foray 2006: xxxvi) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. |
||||||
|
"Kaabu’s origins are obscure and are provisionally dated to the 17th century. [...] The date Fula captured Kansala is unresolved, but it was probably between 1864 and 1867 (Pelissier 1989: 104-105, note 1 15; Silva 1969: 17-18 specifies that the battle was fought May 1 9, 1 864 but does not cite a source)."
[1]
"Many historians have associated the rise of Kaabunké power with the demise of the Mali empire in the late 15th century and the rise of Atlantic trade, in particular slaving."
[2]
"Vast territories where the Manding language was spread fell within the sphere of control of non-Muslim political organisms, such as the Bamana Kingdom of Segu (18th century–1861), or the Kaabu confederation (15th century–1867) in southern Senegambia."
[3]
[1]: (Brooks 2007: 51, 57) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TT7FC2RX/collection. [2]: (Green 2009: 92) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/V2GTBN8A/collection. [3]: (Vydrin 2014: 201) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/E8Z57DNC/collection. |
||||||
|
"The beginning of modern Sierra Leone has often been identified with the founding of a settlement for manumitted Africans in Freetown on the Sierra Leone Peninsula in 1787. [...] Britain established formal colonial control of Freetown in 1808, a year following the enactment of the Abolition Act (1807) proscribing the Atlantic slave trade for British citizens."
[1]
[1]: (Cole 2021) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WBFJ8QU5/collection. |
||||||
|
"Walter Rodney gives an excellent account of the economic, political and social context of the 1725 revolution which ended in the setting up of the theocratic state of Futa Jallon by the marabout party."
[1]
"By the end of the eighteenth century, Futa Jalon had become an Islamic state."
[2]
"European interest in Futa Jalon was intensified during the course of the nineteenth century. The process that started from the end of the eighteenth century with the Sierra Leone Company continued throughout the nineteenth century and ended with actual European occupation of the region. Visits to the region were made mainly by French and English emissaries under various pretexts. Fascinated by reports about the country’s real or alleged wealth, these European powers sent explorers, followed by trade missions with thinly disguised political motives, and finally, the conquerors who took advantage of the internal squabbles caused by the fight for succession to overrun the country in 1896."
[3]
[1]: (Barry 1999: 289) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/24W2293H/item-list [2]: (Bangura 2005: 537) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/BEW97CV4/item-list [3]: (Barry 2005: 539) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/6TXWGHAX/item-list |
||||||
|
"The dating of the military conquest can be ascertained with exactitude. Barreira, writing in 1607, said that the Manes had arrived about sixty years previously, and De Almada says that the invasion began around 1550. On the latter’s evidence, Yves Person was able to date the arrival of the Manes between 1540 and 1550. This is confirmed by Dornelas, who stated categorically that the subjugation of the Sapes was effected in the fifteen years between 1545 and 1560."
[1]
"Sierra Leone’s recorded history reveals a quite well-documented Mande invasion between 1540 and 1550."
[2]
[1]: (Rodney 1967: 226) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G8G96NVQ/collection. [2]: (Kup 1975: 28) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/36IUGEZV/collection. |
||||||
|
"[T]he Nok Culture can be viewed as a tripartite complex: starting with the onset of farming in the middle of the second millennium BCE, leading to a flourishing period between approximately 900 and 400 BCE with dense occupation, elaborate terracotta art and the advent of iron metallurgy, followed by its sudden decline and ultimate disappearance in the last centuries BCE. The Nok tradition vanishes around the turn of the eras, possibly related to unfavourable environmental changes (Höhn & Neumann 2016). Younger sites, up to historical times, are grouped together artificially as “Post-Nok” sites, in order to separate them from the Nok sites. Besides the complete absence of Nok sculptures, there is also a marked difference in pottery decoration techniques as well as in the chemical composition of the clay used for pottery making (Beck 2015; Franke 2015)."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 244) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
"The community [of Kirikongo] was founded by a single house (Mound 4) c. ad 100 (Yellow I), as part of a regional expansion of farming peoples in small homesteads in western Burkina Faso. A true village emerged with the establishment of a second house (Mound 1) c. ad 450, and by the end of the first millennium ad the community had expanded to six houses. At first, these were economically generalized houses (potting, iron metallurgy, farming and herding) settled distantly apart with direct access to farming land that appear to have exercised some autonomy."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2015: 21-22) |
||||||
|
"For now, the Arabic and oral sources only paint in broad strokes the political dynamics of the rise of Kanem polity as the dominant power in the Chad Basin ca. A.D. 800. The tentative scenario is that the struggle over the control of prime land and northward trade routes among the small polities and groups in Zaghawa, a region between modern Chad Republic and sudanic savanna, intensified in the eighth century in the northern Chad Basin. Out of these peer-polity competitions arose a single powerful state of the Kanembu between the ninth and eleventh centuries (Ehret, 2003, p. 48). [...] The southward relocation of the capital of the troubled and aging Kanembu polity to Birni Gazargamo in 1472 transformed Bornu into the center of imperial activities in the basin. Between ca. 1500 and 1900, Bornu’s imperial interests reshaped sociopolitical dynamics throughout the Chad Basin."
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2005: 144) |
||||||
|
"[T]he Nok Culture can be viewed as a tripartite complex: starting with the onset of farming in the middle of the second millennium BCE, leading to a flourishing period between approximately 900 and 400 BCE with dense occupation, elaborate terracotta art and the advent of iron metallurgy, followed by its sudden decline and ultimate disappearance in the last centuries BCE. The Nok tradition vanishes around the turn of the eras, possibly related to unfavourable environmental changes (Höhn & Neumann 2016). Younger sites, up to historical times, are grouped together artificially as “Post-Nok” sites, in order to separate them from the Nok sites. Besides the complete absence of Nok sculptures, there is also a marked difference in pottery decoration techniques as well as in the chemical composition of the clay used for pottery making (Beck 2015; Franke 2015)."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 244) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
"The Limba preceded every other group, including the Bullom, in settling the area. Cecil Magbaily Fyle places Limba presence in the Wara Wara Mountains of northern Sierra Leone in the 7th century, based on the research findings of the archeologist John Atherton. Atherton discovered stone tools and other artifacts in the Wara Wara hills that are dated to the 7th century. [...] By the 15th century, the “Sape,” a conglomeration of Bullom, Themne, Limba, Baga, and Soso peoples, seems to have emerged in the region, according to early Portuguese sources."
[1]
[1]: (Cole 2021) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WBFJ8QU5/collection. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"This book follows French anthropologist Michel Izard’s dating of the beginning of Mossi history around the fifteenth century, but this choice is by no means beyond debate."
[1]
"According to western historians, some time between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries a Dagomba king called Nedega, who ruled at Gambaga, appeared on the Volta political scene (Delafosse, 1912: 306-12; Tauxier, 1917: 667-77 and 1924: 16-24). Nedega’s only daughter Yennenga married Riale, a Mandingo hunter. Ouidiraogo, a son of this union, became the founder of the Mossi dynasty, which was to proliferate in all directions during the ensuing centuries. He himself founded the first kingdom at Tenkodogo in the south. One of his sons, Rawa, established the kingdom of Zandoma in the north, which later, under his classificatory great-grandson Yadega, became the state of Yatenga. In the east Rawa’s brother Diaba founded Fada n ’Gourma, while a nephew Oubri founded Ouagadougou in the west. Within five generations, according to these traditions, the Mossi kingdoms and principalities attained the form they possess today, and since that distant epoch interconnexions have been maintained among them and are still recognized in terms of kinship (see diagram on p. 155).//"The colonial régime, dating from 1897, recognized the different Mossi kingdoms and principalities, but with little concern for any ties which existed between them."
[2]
[1]: (Englebert 2018: 10) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/52JWRCUI/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1967: 152-154) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. |
||||||
|
"This book follows French anthropologist Michel Izard’s dating of the beginning of Mossi history around the fifteenth century, but this choice is by no means beyond debate."
[1]
"According to western historians, some time between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries a Dagomba king called Nedega, who ruled at Gambaga, appeared on the Volta political scene (Delafosse, 1912: 306-12; Tauxier, 1917: 667-77 and 1924: 16-24). Nedega’s only daughter Yennenga married Riale, a Mandingo hunter. Ouidiraogo, a son of this union, became the founder of the Mossi dynasty, which was to proliferate in all directions during the ensuing centuries. He himself founded the first kingdom at Tenkodogo in the south. One of his sons, Rawa, established the kingdom of Zandoma in the north, which later, under his classificatory great-grandson Yadega, became the state of Yatenga. In the east Rawa’s brother Diaba founded Fada n ’Gourma, while a nephew Oubri founded Ouagadougou in the west. Within five generations, according to these traditions, the Mossi kingdoms and principalities attained the form they possess today, and since that distant epoch interconnexions have been maintained among them and are still recognized in terms of kinship (see diagram on p. 155).//"The colonial régime, dating from 1897, recognized the different Mossi kingdoms and principalities, but with little concern for any ties which existed between them."
[2]
[1]: (Englebert 2018: 10) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/52JWRCUI/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1967: 152-154) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. |
||||||
|
"By the 15th century, the “Sape,” a conglomeration of Bullom, Themne, Limba, Baga, and Soso peoples, seems to have emerged in the region, according to early Portuguese sources. [...] Towards the end of the 16th century, it is suggested, a group called the Mane invaded Sierra Leone, with significant demographic, political, and cultural consequences for the country."
[1]
"Sierra Leone’s recorded history reveals a quite well-documented Mande invasion between 1540 and 1550."
[2]
[1]: (Cole 2021) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WBFJ8QU5/collection. [2]: (Kup 1975: 28) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/36IUGEZV/collection. |
||||||
|
Initially formed around 700 CE, the product of mixing between local Khoisan and newly-arrived external cattle herding peoples. The culture’s decline occurred in the mid-13th C. CE, most likely a product of environmental degradation. “Between AD 700 and and 1250, people associated with Toutswe ceramics occupied the western side of the Shashe-Limpopo basin.”
[1]
“Around the year 700, pastoralists began to move into the area… taking advantage… of local pasturage to support larger cattle herds. Here they came into contact with the Khoisan people already resident in the area…. By 900 a stratified and hierarchical society was emerging on the fringes of the Kalahari Desert, linked regionally to other emergent states like that at Mapungubwe…. Toutswemogala was occupied for approximately 500 years until the fourteenth century…. The power of the state diminished during the thirteenth century, probably as a result of overgrazing and drought and the state went into a decline.”
[2]
[1]: (Mosothwane & Steyn 2004; 45) Morongwa N. Mosothwane & Maryna Steyn, “Palaeodemography of Early Iron Age Toutswe Communities in Botswana,” in The South African Archaeological Bulletin Vol. 59, No. 180 (2004): 45-51. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KJZWB7HR/collection [2]: (Erlank 2005; 701-702) Natasha Erlank, “Iron Age (Later): Southern Africa: Toutswemogala, Cattle, and Political Power,” in Encyclopedia of African History Vol. 2, ed. Kevin Shillington (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005): 701-702. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection |
||||||
|
Duration identified in Pikirayi (2006). The polity’s population appears to have grown substantially in complexity during the period of Mapungubwe, prior to the real emergence of Great Zimbabwe as a site. It is worth pointing out that the decline of Great Zimbabwe seems to be a subject of some debate, and the reasons and timeline for it seem to be quite unclear. The end-date for the polity may, then, need to be substantially revised in future as new research is forthcoming. “Great Zimbabwe (AD 1270-1550) emerged in the southern plateau regions of Zimbabwe from an Iron Age agricultural community.”
[1]
“Iron Age farmers… developed chiefdom-level societies at Chivowa and Gumanye hills in south-central Zimbabwe…. They transformed from simple kin-warranted domestic corporations, relying mainly on land and cattle, to long-distance traders…. By about 1270, a powerful elite emerged at Great Zimbabwe, laying the foundations of an elaborate urban complex and the center of a state…. Great Zimbabwe became the most dominant political authority south of the Zambezi for up to 250 years….”
[2]
“Traditionally, an array of factors was put forward to explain the decline of… Great Zimbabwe… // …One of the most long-enduring reasons… is linked to unsustainable population growth which devasted [sic] the surrounding environment to unproductive levels…. Increases in demography evidently precipitated ecological degradation, prompting the decline of the urban and state system through conflict or migration… // …As an independent variable, climate change-induced environmental deterioration is yet another variable….environmental arguments for the decline of Great Zimbabwe are hampered by the fact that very little empirical work was ever done to develop a diachronic picture of how the environment may have changed (or not) through time… // …Some scholars have suggested that Great Zimbabwe’s collapse was partly a consequence of the loss of control of the lucrative trade with the Indian Ocean coast… to its offspring, the Mutapa and Torwa-Changamire states… // …However, this traditional assumption requires critical evaluation in light of new information that has emerged in the past few years, the most important of which is that Great Zimbabwe coexisted with both the Mutapa and Torwa-Changamire states for a while…. Political processes were more complicated than the simple linear evolutionism firmly etched in traditional frameworks where the collapse of Great Zimbabwe stimulated the instant rise of two powerful states in the south-west and in in the north… // …Somewhat on the speculative side and drawing from comparisons provided by politics in the Mutapa and Torwa-Changamire states, it is possible that succession politics contributed to the decline of Great Zimbabwe…. It is possible that in the case of Great Zimbabwe, succession disputes fanned centrifugal forces that gradually weakened the state, resulting in decline… // …The decline of Great Zimbabwe was a process… that resulted from a combination of several factors…. The poor quality of existing information limits the extent to which we can explore the contribution of individual variables…. Nevertheless, it is best to adopt an integrationist view that includes all possible factors in exploring the mechanics of the processes of collapse.”
[3]
[1]: (Pikirayi 2006; 31) Innocent Pikirayi, “The Demise of Great Zimbabwe, AD 1420-1550: An Environmental Re-Appraisal,” in Cities in the World, 1500-2000 (Routledge, 2006): 31-47. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/6Z64MQH4/collection [2]: (Pikirayi 2013; 26-27) Innocent Pikirayi, “Great Zimbabwe in Historical Archaeology: Reconceptualizing Decline, Abandonment, and Reoccupation of an Ancient Polity, A.D. 1450-1900,” in Historical Archaeology Vol. 47, No. 1 (2013): 26-37. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/642PWKV7/collection [3]: (Chirikure 2021; 243-249) Shadreck Chirikure, Great Zimbabwe: Reclaiming a ‘Confiscated’ Past (Routledge, 2021). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MWWKAGSJ/collection |
||||||
|
All of the information on Torwa is slightly unreliable, but it appears that the state was initially formed by a rebellion against Mutapa, and remained a fairly weak breakaway state until the dynastic replacement by the Rozvi, under whom the polity reached its greatest power, and following which it began to slowly fragment and diminish in power until its dissolution in the 1850s. “By around 1494 a dynasty called Torwa broke away and established itself in Guruuswa in the southwestern periphery of the state…. A political dispute occurred in the early 1640s in the area controlled by the Torwa; one of the Torwa rulers was defeated in a power struggle and forced to flee. The Portuguese intervened in this conflict by sending a small Portuguese army led by Sismundo Dias Bayao. This event is linked to the fall of Khami. The capital area shifted about 150 kilometers east, where the Torwa continued to rule until the early 1680s...//… After 1684 the Karanga, led by Dombo Changamire, replaced the Torwa dynasty. Their followers were called the Rozvi. Dombo Changamire founded a powerful state whose influence reached the areas formerly controlled by the Mutapa State such as Mukaranga, Mbire, and Manyika…//… Archaeological evidence shows the existence of stone buildings in southwestern Zimbabwe dating at least from the fifteenth century. These buildings are characterized by retaining walls built with well-shaped rectangular blocks, on top of which are platforms accommodating circular houses…. The biggest settlement is at Khami, near Bulawayo. Stone buildings of various sizes are located in the area once controlled by the Torwa. The Rozvi continued to build in stone in the same style…. Their capital was at Danangombe and other important centers include Naletale, Zinjanja, and Manyanga. This cultural continuity between Torwa and Rozvi suggests they were the same people…//… The succession disputes that occurred after the death of Dombo Changamire undermined the power of the state. Many Rozvi migrated elsewhere, with some setting up chiefdoms in the areas they subsequently settled…. [a son of Dombo] crossed the Limpopo River and conquered the territory of the Venda… in the Zoutpansberg. This is the Thovhela State that is mentioned by the Dutch traders based at Delagoa Bay (c.1730)…. Torwa-Rozvi rule lasted almost 400 years in southwestern Zimbabwe. The Rozvi declined following the arrival of the mfecane groups from the south of the Limpopo. Direct attacks by the Sotho and Nguni andthe subsequent Ndebele settlement saw the demise of the Rozvi in the 1850s.”
[1]
.
[1]: (Pikirayi 2005, 1573) Innocent Pikirayi, “Torwa, Changamire Dombo, and the Rozvi,” in Encyclopaedia of African History Vol. 3, ed. Kevin Shillington (Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 2005): 1572-1573. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/item-details |
||||||
|
Basic chronology given in a variety of sources, though the exact years selected for the polity’s end-date vary. “…one polity… occupied the northern parts of the [Zimbabwe] plateau and adjacent lowlands from the fifteenth to the late nineteenth centuries.…the Mutapa state… chronologically overlaps with Great Zimbabwe and Khami from AD 1450 onwards.”
[1]
“By the late seventeenth century the state had lost control of areas south of the Zambezi Escarpment…. The Mutapa state shifted toward Dande, north of the Zambezi Escarpment, during the early eighteenth century.”
[2]
“…the Mutapa state collapsed in the 1820s and 1830s under attack by Nguni groups from the south, under the leadership of Zwangendaba and Nxaba and Maseko. By the 1880s, the Mutapa state was no more.”
[3]
[1]: (Chirikure et al. 2017, 170) Shadreck Chirikure et al., “The Mutapa and the Portuguese: Archaeometallurgy and Regional Interaction in Southern Africa,” in Archives, Objects, Places and Landscapes: Multidisciplinary approaches to Decolonised Zimbabwe pasts, eds. Munyaradzi Manyanga, Shadreck Chirikure (Bamenda: Langaa Research & Publishing, 2017): 169-189. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/X54CISW6/item-details [2]: (Pikirayi 2005, 1057) Innocent Pikirayi, “Mutapa State, 1450-1884,” in Encyclopedia of African History Vol. 2, ed. Kevin Shillington (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005): 1056-1058. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/item-details [3]: (Mlambo 2014, 23) Alois Mlambo, A History of Zimbabwe (New York, Cambridge University Press: 2014). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/IMR6WQ6M/item-details |
||||||
|
"The Pandyans dominated the north of Sri Lanka as they did the south in the second half of the thirteenth century under Jalavarman Sundara Pandya (1251-72). [...] The expansionist Muslim Khilji Dynasty in north India had defeated a rival kingdom to the Pandyans, the Hoysalas, and the latter helped the Khilji general, Malik Kafur, to raid the Pandyans in 1310 and loot their capital at Madurai (which probably stimulated migration to Sri Lanka). There followed a generation of Muslim rule, civil war, and the restoration of Hindu monarchies. The last Pandyan ruler of Madurai was expelled in 1323, and the city was briefly the capital under a Muslim sultanate."
[1]
[1]: (Peebles 2006: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection. |
||||||
|
"Though Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms survived for a long period of time, Dambadeniya was held as a kingdom only for about forty years from 1232 to 1272 A.D. Even within this short epoch Dambadeniya acquired a prominent place as a centre of royalty." "After Parakramahahu’s death his son Yijayabahu, who had already been in control of the administration for many years, succeeded to the throne and ruled from Jambuddoni for a brief two years at the end of which his reign came to a tragic end. 3 His successor Bhuvanekabahu I (1272-84) remained at Jambuddoni for a few years but later moved to Subhagiri where he set up his seat of authority. Among the latter’s successors, Parakramahahu III (1287-93) reigned at Polonnaruva for a brief period, and after that this ancient city is never mentioned again in the Culavamsa and had evidently passed into oblivion." THESIS 409
|
||||||
|
“The political structure whose main features we have analysed above survived the accession of Mānavamma and the establishment of dynastic stability in the period of the Lambakaṇṇa monopoly of power in the seventh to the tenth centuries. True, the succession disputes which kept the politics of the early Anurādhapura kingdom in a state of semi-permanent crisis largely disappeared. True also that there was an enlargement and greater sophistication in the administrative machinery, that royal authority was augmented and that particularism was at a discount when powerful rulers controlled Anurādhapura, as they did with greater frequency in this period. But neither singly nor in combination did these changes amount to a fundamental change in the political system of the Anurādhapura kingdom.”
[1]
“It took nearly six decades of devastating civil war for the Lambakaṇṇas to re-establish their supremacy, but having done so they maintained their pre-eminence once again over a great length of time. Indeed the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty established by Mānavamma gave the island two centuries of comparatively stable government. In the last phase of the dynasty’s spell of power the severest tests that confronted it came from South India invaders and not local rivals.”
[2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 24) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection [2]: (De Silva 1981, 18-19) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection |
||||||
|
Starting date signifies the defeat of Chola Empire and restoration of Sinalese power. End date coincides with abandonment of the capital after the death of King Magha. “Thus by 1070 Vijayabāhu had triumphed and the restoration of Sinhalese power was complete […] Māgha’s rule and its aftermath are a watershed in the history of the island, marking as they did the beginning of a new political order. For one thing Polonnaruva ceases to be the capital city after Māgha’s death in 1255.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 61, 63) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection |
||||||
|
“In the fifth century, the Moriyas were able to ascend the throne after more than five centuries of Lambakanna dominance. Two hundred years of open conflict between the two clans followed, until the last Moriya king was overthrown in 614 and the dominance of the Lambakannas re-established. Later in that century, the reign of the Lambakannas stabilised thanks to a new law of succession to the throne which helped to monopolise the power of the Lambakannas.”
[1]
[1]: (Wenzlhuemer, R. 2008, 21) Wenzlhuemer, Roland. 2008. From Coffee to Tea Cultivation in Ceylon, 1880–1900An Economic and Social History. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/EMUGE5WD/collection |
||||||
|
From independence from the Holy Roman Empire to Napoleonic occupation. "The peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648 established a political border that was to the south of the religious border. To the south Hapsburg reign continued, with the new independent Republic of Seven United Provinces to the north. This situation was to continue throughout the remainder of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, until Napoleon conquered and eventually annexed the country. This ‘French period’, as the Napoleonic occupation is commonly referred to in the Netherlands, left an important imprint on the political institutions of the Netherlands, as we shall discuss momentarily. [...] The ‘French period’ lasted only from 1795 to 1813, but the Napoleonic occupation left the country highly centralized."
[1]
[1]: (Andeweg and Irwin 1993: 8-9) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/M8ENXX8G/collection. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Start date is a rough approximation based on the following: "The Pandyans dominated the north of Sri Lanka as they did the south in the second half of the thirteenth century under Jalavarman Sundara Pandya (1251-72). Their fortunes declined in the early fourteenth century, however. The expansionist Muslim Khilji Dynasty in north India had defeated a rival kingdom to the Pandyans, the Hoysalas, and the latter helped the Khilji general, Malik Kafur, to raid the Pandyans in 1310 and loot their capital at Madurai (which probably stimulated migration to Sri Lanka). There followed a generation of Muslim rule, civil war, and the restoration of Hindu monarchies. The last Pandyan ruler of Madurai was expelled in 1323, and the city was briefly the capital under a Muslim sultanate.//"The upheaval enabled the Tamil rulers of northern Sri Lanka to establish their independence. The early history of this kingdom is uncertain. A Pandyan general called Āryachakravarti, a title given to officials or provincial chieftains, led an invasion about the year 1284. He may have remained in northern Sri Lanka following the invasion, and he or a family member declared their independence as the Pandyans declined."
[1]
End date: "The Portuguese invaded the Jaffna peninsula in 1591 and made Ethirimanna Cinkam king with a promise to promote Christianity.
[2]
[1]: (Peebles 2006: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection. [2]: (Peebles 2006: 36) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection. |
||||||
|
“The first Lambakanna dynasty (established by Vasabha AD 67-111) retained its hold on the throne at Anurādhapura till the death of Mahānāma in AD 428, when the dynasty itself became extinct.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 18) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection |
||||||
|
While the exact date of origin is unclear, Lewis states that it began in the late eighteenth century. The start of the Jimma Kingdom originated with the capture of Jiren and Hirmata (the great market) by the Diggo clan in the late eighteenth century. “Another group, the Diggo, who lived in Mana, began to extend their domain late in the eighteenth century. Their first move was towards the south, to Jiren, where they conquered the Lalo people. By gaining the Jiren area they also obtained control of the great market and trade center at Hirmata.”
[1]
“The monarchy under study came to an end in 1932 when the Ethiopian government began to administer the area directly from Addis Ababa” [1] [1]: (Lewis 2001, xv-xvi) Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. Jimma Abba Jifar, an Oromo Monarchy: Ethiopia, 1830-1932. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NRZVWSCD/collection |
||||||
|
The Adal dynasty originated in the late 9th or early 10th centuries. At this stage the Adal was part of a larger Ifat Sultanate. It was not until the last quarter of the 14th century that Adal Sultanate formed.
[1]
After a decisive military loss and the death of the ruler imam Ahmad Gurey, the Adal Sultanate was absorbed into other kingdoms. “From 1529 to 1542, he conquered almost all of Ethiopia, but in 1543 his armies were defeated by the allied Ethiopian-Portuguese forces and retreated and finally dispersed.
[2]
[1]: (Tamrat 2008, 149) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [2]: (Mukhtar 2003, 45) Mukhtar, Mohamed H. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Somalia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Mukhtar/titleCreatorYear/items/J8WZB6VI/item-list |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
There are conflicting sources regarding dating. While Njoku has claimed that the break-up of the Ajuran Sultanate was sometime in the early 18th century without mentioning specific dates, Mukhtar noted that the Ajuran Sultanate began in the mid-13th century and ended at the end of the 17th century. “By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Ajuuran state had broken apart under constant Portuguese harassments.”
[1]
Mukhtar wrote, “The Ajuran was an imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley from Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean, from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia, from about the mid-13th to the late 17th centuries.”
[2]
[1]: (Njoku 2013, 41) Njoku, Raphael C. 2013. The History of Somalia. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/U9FHBPZF/library [2]: (Mukhtar 2003, 35) Mukhtar, Mohamed H. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Somalia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Mukhtar/titleCreatorYear/items/J8WZB6VI/item-list |
||||||
|
The following quote does not give an exact date of the origin of the Isaaq Sultanate but gives an approximation. “But the first major impetus to Somali migration which tradition records is the arrival from Arabia of Sheikh Isma’il Jabarti about the tenth or eleventh century and the expansion of his descendants, the Darod clans, from their early seat in the north-east corner of Somaliland. This cannot be dated with certainty, but the period suggested here accords well with the sequence of subsequent events. It was followed perhaps some two centuries later by the arrival from Arabia or Sheikh Isaq, founder of the Isaq Somali, who settled to the west of the Darod at Mait where his domed tomb stands today, and who like his predecessor Darod, married with the local Dir Somali.”
[1]
“This statement demonstrated [that the United Kingdom] did not regard the tribes of Somaliland, with which it had concluded the Agreements in 1886, as sovereign, or even as part-sovereign, entities which could be recognised as persons in international law but that it considered them as no more than subjects of the British Crown.”
[2]
It is important to note, that while Habr Yunis was part of the Isaaq Sultanate, it did however break from Isaaq in the mid-nineteenth century along with Habr Awal and Habr Jeclo due to internal conflict and disputes regarding trade routes. “The key figure among the Somalis in this affair was Haji Shirmarke Ali Salih (d.1861) who had begun his long and remarkable career as the friend and unofficial agent of the British by rescuing the survivors of the Mary Ann in 1825 […] The fact that Leigh’s 1838 journal fails to mention him may mean that he had temporarily lost influence in Berbera and was concentrating his activities upon Zeila, of which he was to become governor (for the Turkish Empire)in about 1843. But even after this Shirmarke was deeply involved in Berbera affairs intervening in disputes among the lineages of the Habr Awal clan section for supremacy in the port. Shirmarke himself claimed direct decent from the founder of the great Isaq clan group and was the dominant political figure (although not the titular hereditary leader) of the Habr Yunis (Girhajis) clan. By the time of Burton’s expedition, all the Awal had come to dislike Shirmarke, it seems. This was probably because he had tried to make Zeila rather than Berbera the main outlet for the Harar caravan trade.”
[3]
[1]: (Lewis 2002, 22-23) Lewis, Ioan M. 2002. A Modern History of the Somali: Nation and State in the Horn of Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KHB7VSJK/collection [2]: (Albaharna et. al. 1986, 88) Albaharna, Husain M. 1986. The Legal Status of the Arabian Gulf States: A Study of Their Treaty Relations and Their International Problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G6NP7HE4/collection [3]: (Bridges 1986, 682-683) Bridges, Roy. 1986. ‘The Visit of Frederick Forbes to the Somali Coast in 1833.’ The International Journal of African Historical Studies. Vol. 19:4. Pp 679-691. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G3PNH843/collection |
||||||
|
“The reigning family was the Awallini, who claimed descent from a Somali shaikh called Nur Husain who emigrated from Maqdishu about 1780 and settled among them as their qallichcha or magician-priest, whilst according to another account the family was descended from a Muslim who came from Gojam.”
[1]
“Gomma was conquered for Menelik by Besha Abue in 1886.”
[1]
[1]: (Trimingham 2013, 200) Trimingham, J. Spencer. 2013. Islam in Ethiopia. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/RB7C87QZ/collection |
||||||
|
“In 1750 the Geledi Sultanate (later known as Afgoy) emerges in Ay Ulay in the southern Shabelle River valley.”
[1]
“In 1911 a great shir or assembly of the clans from across the Shebelle was held at Geledi; in which twelve thousand men joined from the Garre, the Gal Jal’el, the (Habash) shiidle, the five Dafet clans, Hillibey, Murunsade and others. The government’s plans to occupy the area were explained to them and accepted without further resistance; from there the Italians went on to occupy the upper Shebelle and the inter-river plain, and by 1914 the boundaries of the colony were approximately what they were to remain until 1934.”
[2]
[1]: (Njoku 2013, xxiii) Njoku, Raphael C. 2013. The History of Somalia. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/U9FHBPZF/library [2]: (Luling 1971, 202) Luling, Virginia. 1971. The Social Structure of Southern Somali Tribes. (Thesis). University of London (University College London). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/5BTAQ3DM/collection |
||||||
|
Within the consulted literature there seems to be different dates for when the Sultanate of Shoa originated. “We have seen above the early formation of the Sultanate of Shoa, which was already established by the first years of the twelfth century. This sultanate derived its origin from the well-known Mahzumite family of Mecca, and it lasted until the last quarter of the thirteenth century.”
[1]
“Then, in the year 1108, it is reported that there took place ‘the conversion of Gbbah’ to Islam, in the reign of Sultan Harab’ir. It has not been possible to give a secure identification of the area (or people) called Gbbah. But Trimingham has recently made an interesting suggestion that the term may refer to a people who were probably ancestral to those later known as Argobba. This is a very tempting suggestion and, geographically, it makes very good sense. The Argobba were a Semitic-speaking group who lived in the eastern foothills of the Shoan plateau in the Harar area. Their Semitic language also makes them a very good candidate for the proposed identification, because an analysis of the names of the princes in the chronical has also convinced Cerulli that an Ethiopian Semitic language was spoke in the Sultanate of Shoa.”
[2]
“The territories of Ifat and Mahzumite Shoa had common frontiers, and in 1271 ‘Umar Walasma gave a daughter in marriage to one of the quarrelsome Mahzumite princes of Shoa. The marriage alliance did not last for long, and Ifat and Shoa plunged into a series of armed conflicts which resulted in the complete annexation of the Sultanate of Shoa by ‘Umar Walasma in 1285.”
[1]
[1]: (Tamrat 2008, 140) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [2]: (Tamrat 2008, 107) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list |
||||||
|
The exact date of the start of the Hadiya Sultanate is not specified in the consulted sources, but it is first mentioned in manuscript having been conquered by the Ethiopian Kingdom in 1316-17. “In a manuscript written on the island of Hayq, the monarch states that, after conquering Damot around 1316-7, he proceeded to Hadeya, and adds ‘God gave me all the people of Hadeya, men and women without number, whom I exiled into another area.’”
[1]
“By the late 17th century, the king of Hadeya had submitted to the rule of Abyssinia and many people embraced Christianity.”
[2]
[1]: (Pankhurst 1997, 77) Pankhurst, Richard. 1997. The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/F5TE8HH5/collection [2]: (Shinn and Ofcansky 2013, 201) Shinn, David and Thomas Ofcansky. 2013. Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/29MS79PA/collection |
||||||
|
“Ifat was the second sultanate to be formed in the region of Shawa, in what is currently central Ethiopia. It was Umar Walasma who founded the Walasma dynasty (1280-1520s), which spearheaded Muslim resistance to the expanding Christian Kingdom.”
[1]
While the Walasma dynasty carried on into the 16th century, this was under the Adal Sultanate which had absorbed the former Ifat Sultanate. The Adal Sultanate was founded by the Ifat ruler Haqadin II in 1374/5 which is the final end date of the Ifat Sultanate. “Remaining embers of the spirit of Muslim resistance in Ifat were revealed when Haqadin II (1363-1374), the grandson of Sabradin, declared Ifat’s freedom from Chrisitan domination […] Ifat was finally eclipsed and replaced by the Kingdom of Adal, where the leaders of the Walasma dynasty continued to keep alive the spirit of Muslim resistance up to the 1520s, when the Muslims turned the tide against the Christians in Ethiopia.”
[1]
[1]: (Hassen 2016, Encyclopedia of Empire) Hassen, Mohammed, 2016. ‘Ifat Sultanate.’ In J. Mackenzie Encyclopedia of Empire. Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/FXDQBFFT/library |
||||||
|
“In 750 A.D., the Bejas established five independent kingdoms: Nagash, Belgin, Bazin, Jarin and Quaitala. These kingdoms exercised political domination in Eritrea and northeastern Sudan until the fourteenth and fifteenth century. After the fourteenth century, Eritrea came to be known as the country of Medri-Bahri (Land of the Sea).”
[1]
“In 1885, Italy took possession of the Eritrean coast with the encouragement of Great Britain, which was interested in Italian collaboration in its fight against the Mahdi of the Sudan. The Eritrean resistance collapsed only after a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation had been concluded in 1889 between the King of Italy and Emperor Menelik of Showa, the predecessor of Emperor Halie Selassie.”
[2]
[1]: (Cliffe and Basil 1988, 12) Cliffe, Lionel and Basil, Davidson. 1988. The Long Struggle of Eritrea for Independence and Constructive Peace. Trenton, New Jersey: The Red Sea Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZBEU6QM6/collection [2]: (Cervenka 1977, 38) Cervenka, Zdenek. 1977. ‘Eritrea: Struggle for Self-Determination or Succession?’. Africa Spectrum. Vol 12:1. Pp 37-48. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/A5UBT4ZQ/collection |
||||||
|
“Although the Majerteen Sultanate was founded in the second half of the eighteenth century, it only came into prominence in the nineteenth century following the time in power of the famous Boqor Isman Mahamud.”
[1]
“When Italy occupied the two Majerteen Sultanates of Alula and Hobiya in 1926 and exiled the Sultans Boqor Isman Mohamud and Yusif Ali to Mogadishu, many Darood fled to the south.”
[2]
[1]: (Njoku 2013, 41) Njoku, Raphael C. 2013. The History of Somalia. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/U9FHBPZF/library [2]: (Mukhtar 2003, 71) Mukhtar, Mohamed H. 2003. Historical Dictionary of Somalia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Mukhtar/titleCreatorYear/items/J8WZB6VI/item-list |
||||||
|
“The first historically known Funj ruler, Amara Dunqas, defeated the Christian kingdom of Alwa in 1504, and founded Sinnar as the capital of a Funj kingdom which reached north to the third cataract, south to the foothills of Ethiopia, and east to the desert of Kordofan.”
[1]
“The Funj kingdom was finally brought to an end by the Egypitian conquest of 1820-21.” .”
[2]
[1]: (Lapidus 2002, 429) Lapidus, Ira M. 2002. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QW9XHCIW/collection [2]: (Lapidus 2002, 432) Lapidus, Ira M. 2002. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QW9XHCIW/collection |
||||||
|
Orent discusses the Kingdom of Kafa within distinct periods: 1) The Pre-Centralization Period 2) Formation of the Kingdom of Kafa 3) The Kafa Kingdom of Expansion 4) The Amhara-Kafa Period. “The history and origins of the Kafa Kingdom are complex, but at least four distinct periods are discernible, although the exact dates are by no means fixed […] the formation of the Kingdom of Kafa (1390?-1674).”
[1]
“Until 1897 the Kafa had their own kingdom with a monarch and councilors of state. During the expansion period of Emperor Menelik II (1889-1913) Kafa lost its sovereignty.”
[1]
[1]: (Orent 1970, 263) Orent, Amnon. 1970. ‘Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Processes’. African Historical Studies. Vol. 3:2. Pp 263-293. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2A389XGK/collection |
||||||
|
“The kingdom of Guma arose at the start to the nineteenth century, one of a cluster of small kingdoms in a region known as Gibe.”
[1]
“Shortly before the conquest of Menelik these states headed by Guma began to raid the pagan states of Leqa Horda, Leqa Billo, Nole Kabba, and Hanna Gafare, who leagued together as ‘the Four Pagans’ (arfa Oromata) which caused the other coalition to distinguish itself by the title of ‘the Four Muslims’ (arfa naggadota). All these small Muslim and pagan kingdoms were conquered by Menelik between 1882 and 1897 […]”
[2]
[1]: (Belcher, 2005) Belcher, Stephen. 2005. African Myths of Origin. London: Penguin Books. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KSNW8HVH/collection [2]: (Trimingham 2013, 200) Trimingham, Spencer. 2013. Islam in Ethiopia. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/search/Trimingham/titleCreatorYear/items/RB7C87QZ/item-list |
||||||
|
“Founded about the middle of the seventeenth century by Ali b. Dawud, the sultanate of Harar, more than any other political unit which grew out of the ruins of Awsa, could be considered as the successor of Adal.”
[1]
“During 1875-1885 Egypt occupied Harar. At its height, the Egyptian garrison and civil population numbered some 6,500 persons. On 25 April 1885, the last Egyptian departed Harar. However, the town did not return to government control until 13 January 1887, when Menelik II’s forces occupied the city.”
[2]
[1]: (Abir 2008, 552) Abir, Mordecai. 2008. ‘Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c. 1790. Edited by Richard Gray. Vol 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 537-577. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Abir/titleCreatorYear/items/JHH9VH96/item-list [2]: (Shinn and Ofcansky 2013, 207) Shinn, David and Thomas Ofcansky. 2013. Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/29MS79PA/collection |
||||||
|
Two end dates are given to this polity. The first date of 1895 is when the Sultanate came under nominal Ethiopian rule, and the second date of 1936 is when the Sultanate came under nominal Italian rule. An expert should be consulted to confirm whether either date marks enough of a turning point in the regions history to warrant choosing it as the end date for this phase of the polity’s history. “Farther north, the imamate of Awsa passed by the middle of the seventeenth century into the hands of immigrant Sharifs of the Ba-Alawu family of the Hadhramaut. This dynasty, however was unable to protect Awsa from Galla and Dankali raids. Finally, in the first decades of the eighteenth century, Awsa was overrun by the Mudaito tribe of the Asaimara branch of the Danakil, who formed a new Mudaito dynasty of Awsa.”
[1]
“The Aussa Sultanate or Afar Sultanate succeeded the Imamate of Aussa […] The sultanate was subsequently re-established by Kedafu in 1734.”
[2]
"As a result, Menilik’s army invaded the sultanate of Aussa in 1895 and made the Sultan tribute paying to the central government. But even then, the central government did not actively involve in the internal affairs of the Sultanate of Aussa. On the other hand, some writers claimed that the Emperor used the Italian issue as a pretext to occupy Aussa land.”
[3]
“During the Second Italian-Ethiopian War (1935-1936), Sultan Mahammad Yayyo again agreed to cooperate with the Italian invaders.”
[2]
Marcus that Italy declared itself the new ruler of Ethiopia in 1936."[O]n 9 May, Mussolini proclaimed the Ethiopian Italian Empire before an enthusiastic throng in Tome. On 11 June, Marshal Rodolfo Graziani was named viceroy of Ethiopia[...]. The victory, however, remained incomplete; [...] With the main units gone and many of the top officers dead, the war against the Italians transformed itself into an insurgency with a changing cast of characters and fighters, depending on circumstance and opportunity. The Italians had strategic control, dominating the cities, towns, and major caravan routes. However, from rural Ethiopia, wherever nationalism had been nurtured, came the arbeynotch, or patriots, to harry Italian outposts and patrols and sometimes to test the strength of garrisons in the larger towns. Never in the quinquennium of rule did the fascists feel secure in Ethiopia, and their anxiety came to border on neurosis."
[4]
[1]: (Abir 2008, 554) Abir, M. 2008. ‘Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c. 1790. Edited by Richard Gray. Vol 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/JHH9VH96/library [2]: (Mekonnen 2013, 47) Mekonnen, Yohannes K. 2013. Ethiopia: The Land, Its People, History and Culture. New Africa Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QQ9ZECMI/collection [3]: (Hassen 2010, 18) Hassen, Mohammed. 2010. ‘Indigenous Governance among the Southern Afar (ca. 1815- 1974), Ethiopia’. Ethiopian Journal of the Social Sciences and Humanities. Vol. 7:2. Pp 1-25. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9ERK5FI7/collection [4]: (Marcus 2002, 147-148) Marcus, Harold. 2002. A History of Ethiopia. Oakland: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TRKKZJ3T/collection |
||||||
|
NB - Quote needed for start date.
“This statement demonstrated [that the United Kingdom] did not regard the tribes of Somaliland, with which it had concluded the Agreements in 1886, as sovereign, or even as part-sovereign, entities which could be recognised as persons in international law but that it considered them as no more than subjects of the British Crown.” [1] [1]: (Albaharna et. al. 1986, 88) Albaharna, Husain M. 1986. The Legal Status of the Arabian Gulf States: A Study of Their Treaty Relations and Their International Problems. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G6NP7HE4/collection |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The phenomenal elaboration of material culture in the first four centuries of the second millennium A.D. have been identified as the watershed in the cultural florescence of Ile-Ife (Eyo, 1974b; Garlake, 1974, 1977; Willett, 1973), prompting Willett (1967, 1973) to call it the Classical era. I have elsewhere proposed that the Classical period can be subdivided into two phases: A.D. 1000–1200 and A.D. 1200–1400 (Ogundiran, 2001, 2003). The earlier phase was characterized by the construction of concentric walls that defined the new urban landscape (Ozanne, 1969); the florescence of art in durable media, such as copper alloys, terracotta, and granite stones, much of which serviced the royal court and the religious cults (Willett, 1967); the setting up of large-scale production of glass beads about 1.6 km. from the center of the city (Ajetunmobi, 1989; Eluyemi, 1987); the construction of large-scale impluvium houses (houses with an open central courtyard) and extensive potsherd and stone pavements around the city (Agbaje-Williams, 2001; Garlake, 1975, 1977; Ogunfolakan, 1994); and the elaboration of iconography and rituals (Eyo, 1974a, 1974b). Sacred kingship was fully developed during this period. Human sacrifice either began or increased during the eleventh century A.D., sometimes accompanying the elite burials or associated with state rituals. Mortuary goods, such as glass and carnelian beads, copper alloy sculptures and adornment, indicate the orientation of the elite towards external commerce (Garlake, 1974, p. 122)."
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2005: 150) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Dates vary a lot on the literature, but earliest date suggested seems to be sixth century: “According to a Jukun tradition popular amongst the Wapan of Wukari, Kwararafa was established in 596AD by Aku Awudu and lasted for about 1000years before its disintegration. The tradition has it that Aku Agbukenjo was the last ruler of Kwararafa state before it was relocated to Wukari under the leadership of Aku 73 Katakpa. Jukun, under the leadership of the ‘Wapan’ of present day Wukari, were believed to be the architect of the emergence and growth of the Kwararafa. In this regard, the Jukun people are believed to have played a significant role in the Kwararafa civilization, which today influences the history of most of the people, not only in the Benue valley, but other parts of Nigeria at large. This claim has continued to live with the Jukun people of Wukari till date.”
[1]
“C.K. Meek further notes that the earliest reference to Kwararafa within historical times is contained in the Kano Chronicle. In this regard, he asserts that in the reign of Yaji (1349-85), the Kwararafa people were the only pegan tribes from Biyri to Fanda who refused to submit to this authority.70 This story gives an impression that Kwararafa was an important State as early as the latter part of the fourteenth century.”
[2]
“The Jukun-speaking peoples of Northern Nigeria are believed to be the descendants of the ruling stratum of the powerful Kororofa ’ empire ’ (probably a loose federation of tribes), which dominated the Benue Valley from about the fourteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth. Wukari, the present home of the majority of Jukun, was founded as a new capital after the break-up of Kororofa, and represents its successor state on a considerably diminished scale.”
[3]
Existed in the sixteenth century: “The mysterious state of Kwararafa threads its way through Hausa and Borno history; it is a ‘pagan’ state of the south, full of symbolic significance in Hausa perceptions of their own past. Korau and Amina, among others, are said to have waged war against Kwararafa, which, in its turn, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries repeatedly invaded the Hausa kingdoms but, oddly, without any lasting political or cultural result. The mais of Borno fought similar wars with the ‘Kwana’. These traditions are generally associated with the Benue valley people known in written sources as Jukun (a Hausa ethonym), who call themselves Wapan and who are widely known as Apa. The Aku of the Jukun settlement at Wukari is one of Africa’s best known instances of sacred kingship.”
[4]
“By 1820, a Jukun dynasty based at Wukari, south of the Benue, had taken control of what was left of the Kwararafa state. With this transformation, the martial state of Kwararafa had finally come to an end. The Jukun inherited the political power of Kwararafa, but not its martial tradition. The far-flung confederacy had become the homogenous Jukun kingdom of Wukari.”
[5]
“Strange to say, no tradition exists to-day as to the fall of this city and empire; even the name Kororofa has disappeared, though it seems to have persisted down to about 1860.”
[6]
[1]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 72–73. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection [2]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 74. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection [3]: Young, M. W. (1966). The Divine Kingship of the Jukun: A Re-Evaluation of Some Theories. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 36(2), 135–153: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NTI9GQMF/collection [4]: Isichei, E. (1997). A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press: 235. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [5]: Shillington, K., ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of African History (1st Ed., Vol. 1–3). Fitzroy Dearborn: 248. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection [6]: Ruxton, F. H. (1908). Notes on the Tribes of the Muri Province. Journal of the Royal African Society, 7(28), 374–386: 379. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2AXUQGFB/collection |
||||||
|
Start date from Stewart: "Kororofa. ca. 1600-1901."
[1]
(NB Stewart does not distinguish between Kwararafa and the succeeding Wukari polity)
Could date the start of Wukari to 1820 (based on an apparent dynastic shift mentioned by one source), or 1848 (based on dates taken from a king list found in another source). "Kororofa. ca. 1600-1901. [...] Kings: [...] 1815-1848 Zikeenya; 1848-1866 Agbu Manu I" [1] “By 1820, a Jukun dynasty based at Wukari, south of the Benue, had taken control of what was left of the Kwararafa state. With this transformation, the martial state of Kwararafa had finally come to an end. The Jukun inherited the political power of Kwararafa, but not its martial tradition. The far-flung confederacy had become the homogenous Jukun kingdom of Wukari. Kwararafa under the Jukun ceased to be a warrior state; extant accounts portray the new state as a pacifist and religious one, made up of a collection of unwarlike people solely and strictly devoted to the maintenance of their innumerable religious cults and the veneration of their sacred kings, a people whose prestige and continuing legitimacy depended on their successful performance of their main ritual function, which was to guarantee good harvest and good health for the people.” [2] [1]: (Stewart 1989, 155) Stewart, J. 1989. African states and rulers : an encyclopedia of native, colonial and independent states and rulers past and present. McFarland. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/stewart/titleCreatorYear/items/AMCFGS6W/item-list [2]: Shillington, K., ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of African History (1st Ed., Vol. 1–3). Fitzroy Dearborn: 248. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection |
||||||
|
“Oral traditions indicate that the first settlers in the region were Aja speakers who arrived sometime in the 12th and 13th centuries from the area of Tado, which lay along the banks of the Mono River to the west.”
[1]
“The kingdom of Allada was the most powerful state in the Aja country during the seventeenth century. The Fon kingdom, later known as Dahomey, was founded, probably in the early seventeenth century, by a prince of the royal family of Aliada who had contested unsuccessfully for the Allada throne. In 1724 Dahomey, under its king Agaja, conquered Allada and displaced it as the leading power in the area.”
[2]
“By the early seventeenth century, Allada was the leading Aja polity. It first appeared on a map of the 1480s but was clearly more ancient. In the mid-seventeenth century, the coastal polity of Whydah, previously subject to Allada, gained its independence and from 1671 on, it dominated the external trade of the coast. The total demographic impact of the Atlantic slave trade is a complex and much disputed question, but there can be little doubt that it caused regional depopulation in some areas. Seventeenth-century observers stressed the density of the population round Whydah, whereas in the nineteenth century they were struck by its absence, and elephants — once extinct in the area — had returned.”
[3]
“We have seen that after its fall in 1724 Allada retained or recovered its position as the source of true kings, since the rulers of Dahomey legitimated their rule by reference to their descent from Allada. But this, obviously, did not make Allada the capital of the Aja country, or the Ajahutonon the ’real’ ruler of Dahomey. One should be careful to distinguish between ritual precedence and effective political power.”
[4]
About Agaja, of Dahomey: “His attack on Allada, the ancient Aja kingdom to the south, on March 30, 1724, marked the beginning of the Dahomean domination of Aja and the effective collapse of the commonwealth system in the region.”
[5]
[1]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC- CLIO, 2017: 7-8. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/collection [2]: Law, R. C. C. “THE FALL OF ALLADA, 1724—AN IDEOLOGICAL REVOLUTION?” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 5, no. 1, 1969, pp. 157–63: 157. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EWX34U5S/collection [3]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 348–349. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [4]: Law, R. C. C. “THE FALL OF ALLADA, 1724—AN IDEOLOGICAL REVOLUTION?” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 5, no. 1, 1969, pp. 157–63: 163. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EWX34U5S/collection [5]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC- CLIO, 2017: 55. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/collection |
||||||
|
Another possible end date is 1896; last independent Alaafin (Adeyemi I Alowolodu) ruled 1876–1905, but from ~1888 Oyo was essentially a British vassal state/protectorate, and in 1896 it ceased to be regarded as a distinct power. It could be argued that the death of Alaafin Oluewu in 1835 (or 1837, when the capital was abandoned/moved; no Alaafin for those two intervening years) is a clearer endpoint. “The Old Oyo Empire […] rose to prominence in the 17th century and reached its peak in the 18th century. When the empire finally collapsed in 1835, it was territorially the largest and the most politically powerful Yoruba kingdom ever. Scholars do not agree on the extent of the size of the Old Oyo Empire. However, However, what is certain is that at the height of its power in the 18th century, the eastern end of the empire extended from the coast near Badagry northward along the western boundary of Ijebu territories”.
[1]
“The final end to a once glorious Yoruba empire came around 1835 in the Eleduwe War, when the capital of Oyo fell to the jihadist. It was completely sacked, with the entire population dispersed over other Yoruba territories. Historians of Yoruba agree that the collapse of the Old Oyo Empire left a political vacuum in the region and paved the way for a series of wars and revolutions that did not come to an end until the last decade of the 19th century, when the British imposed colonial rule on much of Yorubaland.”
[2]
Some disagreement over when the empire should be defined as ending in the 19th/what the empire’s boundaries were at that time. “The kingdom of Oyo emerged as the most extensive and prominent of all the Yoruba states. Oyo’s vastness, power and prominence earned it the legendry status of an empire. It subsequently declined and collapsed in the eighteenth century before British colonial intervention carved parts of the upper and lower Niger into what became Nigeria. Historians differentiate it from what remained of its rump after it collapsed by designating it as the Old Oyo Empire.”
[3]
NB There was an interval during which the Nupe occupied Oyo territory, approx. 1535–1600 or 1608. The Oyo ruling dynasty took refuge in neighbouring Borgu, but re-established the Empire in an even more centralised and expansive form. We’ve defined the period before this as the Early Oyo Empire, and after as the Late Oyo Empire.
[1]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC-CLIO, 2017: 244. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/note/U7W4UF33/ collection [2]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC-CLIO, 2017: 246–247. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/note/U7W4UF33/collection [3]: Ejiogu, EC. ‘State Building in the Niger Basin in the Common Era and Beyond, 1000–Mid 1800s: The Case of Yorubaland’. Journal of Asian and African Studies vol.46, no.6 (1 December 2011): 597. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection |
||||||
|
“By the early seventeenth century, Allada was the leading Aja polity. It first appeared on a map of the 1480s but was clearly more ancient. In the mid-seventeenth century, the coastal polity of Whydah, previously subject to Allada, gained its independence and from 1671 on, it dominated the external trade of the coast. The total demographic impact of the Atlantic slave trade is a complex and much disputed question, but there can be little doubt that it caused regional depopulation in some areas. Seventeenth-century observers stressed the density of the population round Whydah, whereas in the nineteenth century they were struck by its absence, and elephants — once extinct in the area — had returned.”
[1]
“Originally tributary to Allada, it expanded dramatically under Wegbaja (c. 1680-1716), whom tradition remembers as the first king, and still more so under his successor Agaja (c. 1716–40), who conquered Allada and Whydah, in 1724 and 1727 respectively.”
[2]
“The Kingdom of Whydah (Hueda),1 situated on the "Slave Coast" of West Africa (in what is today the Republic of Benin), emerged as an independent power only in the late seventeenth century. Earlier, it had apparently been an unimportant dependency of the larger kingdom of Allada, in the interior to the north-east. From the 1670s, however, it developed into a major center of the Atlantic slave trade, rivalling and then eclipsing Allada as the principal supplier of slaves in the region. Its political and commercial florescence proved to be brief, falling before the expansion of the hinterland kingdom of Dahomey in the 1720s. The Dahomians, having already conquered Allada in 1724, invaded Whydah in 1727, inflicting devastating destruction upon the country and driving out its king and much of its population into exile to the west.2 In the years preceding this conquest in 1727, Whydah had suffered protracted and bitter internal disputes, degenerating on more than one occasion into actual civil war, and these domestic divisions clearly contributed to its failure to present any effective resistance to the Dahomian conquest.”
[3]
[1]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 348–349. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [2]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 349. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 201. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection |
||||||
|
1300 has been tentatively selected as the middle option between the very earliest estimates and the latest ones. "It is not possible to assign a date to the foundation of the Oyo kingdom. The foundation of Oyo has been attributed, by different writers, to the tenth century, to around 1300, and to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. But there is as yet no worthwhile evidence on this point."
[1]
"If the identification of Tsoede with Johnson’s Lajomo is accepted,81 then this would bear out the suggestion above that Oyo-ile fell to the Nupe in or about 1535, and that the reoccupation of Oyo-ile was achieved, after the lessening of the Nupe menace, in or about 1610."
[2]
Note also the following: "It seems the occupation of Old Oyo by thriving agricultural communities was well in place around the ninth century A.D. (Agbaje-Williams, 1983), and by the fifteenth century, a fully fledged town had evolved and was on the path of becoming the capital of the largest empire south of River Niger (Soper and Darling, 1980)."
[3]
[1]: (Law 1977: 33) [2]: (Smith 1965: 74) [3]: (Ogundiran 2005: 153) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“In describing the character of Aro influence, Ekejuba (1972:14) went further to state: The Aro confederacy (1690–1902) was a slave trading political union orchestrated by the Igbo sub-group, the Aro people, centered in Arochukwu in present day southeastern Nigerian. Their influence and presence was (sic) distributed across Eastern Nigerian into parts of present day Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea. The Arochukwu kingdom was an economical, political and a (sic) oracular center as it was home of the powerful long juju oracle, the Aro king Eze Aro, and highest priest.”
[1]
[1]: Nwaezeigwe, D. N. T. (2013). THE ARO AND THE CONCEPT OF ARO-OKIGBO: FACTS AND FALACIES OF A HISTRIONIC IGBO HEGEMONY. 15, 12: 6.https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TU5APW74/collection |
||||||
|
“In 1804, Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio and his jamaa lunched an Islamic Jihad in the Western Sudan also called Bilad Sudan but now roughly Western Africa.”
[1]
“The Sokoto caliphate originated in 1804, when the Fulbe Islamic scholar Shehu Usumanu dan Fodio declared an Islamic reformist movement, or jihad, in northern Nigeria. The state that he founded eventually spread to encompass all of northern Nigeria, the northern Republic of Benin, and southern Niger, with the Shehu as caliph, or spiritual and political leader. In 1806 the various groups of seminomadic pastoral Fulbe residing in northern Cameroon joined the jihad under the leadership of the respected Islamic scholar Modibo Adama. The region was incorporated into the larger caliphate as the emirate of Adamawa, named after its founder.”
[2]
“Nevertheless, before the British began a piecemeal conquest and occupation of the part of the Caliphate which culminated in 1904, exactly a century after it was established, the Caliphate in line with the cyclical theory of Ibn Khaldun could be said to be in the state of weakness and decline.”
[3]
[1]: Okene, Ahmed Adam, and Shukri B. Ahmad. “Ibn Khaldun, Cyclical Theory and the Rise and Fall of Sokoto Caliphate, Nigeria West Africa.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 4, 2011, pp. 80–91: 84. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/H7J2NC37/collection [2]: Delancey, Mark D. “The Spread of the Sooro: Symbols of Power in the Sokoto Caliphate.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 71, no. 2, 2012, pp. 168–75: 168–169. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/87XHFF23/collection [3]: Okene, Ahmed Adam, and Shukri B. Ahmad. “Ibn Khaldun, Cyclical Theory and the Rise and Fall of Sokoto Caliphate, Nigeria West Africa.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 4, 2011, pp. 80–91: 87. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/H7J2NC37/collection |
||||||
|
“Clifford’s summary of this period is worth noting. In his words ’there was in those early days no form of central organisation, the tribe consisting of a number of moitiés each under its own patriach or petty chieftain, these latter, nine in number, were the primitive fathers of Igala’. It is against this background that Igala as from the 1600 AD metamorphosed into the dynastic era.”
[1]
“So began the regime of the Atas at Idah. It is not possible to fix any reliable date for this event, but we shall not be very far wrong in assigning the colonisation of the Agatu-Ocheku-Amara area to the early part of the 17th century, and Ayagba’s arrival at Idah towards its close.”
[2]
“In 1900, the British gradually began to take over effective political and security control of Igalaland. In the same year Attah Amaga (1876-1900) died. In 1901, the first colonial Attah, Ameh Ocheje, was directly appointed by the British and installed by the first British administrator in Igalaland, Charles Partridge, without following the traditional processes of electing an Attah.”
[3]
[1]: Erim, E. O. “FORMATIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE-FORMATION IN MIDDLE BELT OF NIGERIA BEFORE THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 12, no. 1/2, 1983, pp. 43–49: 47-48. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MSQPBNIA/collection [2]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 397. zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [3]: Sani, Badayi M. Chieftaincy and Security in Nigeria Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of the National Conference on Chieftaincy and Security in Nigeria, 2007: 245. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DHW5WTJD/collection |
||||||
|
There is mention (unreferenced) in some sources to the Kingdom of Nri extending back as far as 900CE based on the archaeological finds at Igbo-Ukwu; however, this early date is disputed (see below). The Ngara source cited below is the only one to mention a specific date in the available scholarship. “The Kingdom of Nri (1043–1911) was the West African medieval state of the NriIgbo, a subgroup of the Igbo people, and is the oldest kingdom in Nigeria.”
[1]
“In 1938, a farmer was digging a cistern in his compound at Igbo-Ukwu, nine miles from Nri, when he stumbled upon remarkable bronze sculptures. More than twenty years elapsed before the area was professionally excavated, and much longer before the excavations were published. When they were, they revealed the existence of a hitherto unsuspected Igbo Bronze Age in the ninth century CE. The dating did not go unchallenged, but it has never been disproved. Many of the finds — which included a treasure hoard and a dignitary buried in a sitting position in a wood-lined chamber, with slaves and valuables — were immediately explicable in terms of later Nn culture. A bronze depicts a woman with ichi facial scars; only one woman had these scars — the eldest daughter of the Eze Nri. The”
[2]
“This ritual pre-eminence is the reward for Nri’s original distribution of the food he had acquired at such great cost. The four-day week and its associated markets were brought by strangers bearing baskets of fish - a condensed symbolic statement of the beginnings of trade between the landlocked Igbo and Niger Delta fishermen (and salt processors). In 1911, the names of nineteen Nri were recorded. The list is not easy to translate into chronological terms, partly because of the long interregna.”
[2]
[1]: Ngara, C. A. (n.d.). An Ethnohistorical Account Of Pre-Colonial Africa, African Kingdoms And African Historical States. 25: 11. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/UJG3ED8W/collection [2]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 247. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection |
||||||
|
Dates differ by kingdom. First written record of a Hausa kingdom ay be in the 9th-century work of Ya’qubi, but this is contested: “The identification of the people called by this same author (who wrote in the late ninth century) al-tawiin or al-bawyin with the people whom we now refer to as the Hausa is similarly hazardous. They are also described as a ’group among the Zaghawa’ and though this might be a simple error on Ya’qubi’s part, other evidence seems to indicate that the term ’Hausa’ was not used to designate that well-known group of people in north-western Nigeria until much later.”
[1]
“The history of Kano is undoubtedly the best known, thanks to its chronicles and the wealth of oral tradition.20 The territory which later formed the Kano kingdom was initially ruled by small chiefdoms, each headed by individuals whose authority over the rest of the people was based on ritual jurisdiction. The most important of these chiefdoms were Sheme, Dala and Santolo. At Dala, there were six generations of rulers before the coming of Bagauda. The entry of Bagauda into the Kano area took place, according to Palmer, in the year + 999; that dating has not yet been revised, although Palmer’s chronology is plainly arbitrary and very approximate.21”
[2]
“In general, there is much less information on the early history of Katsina;25 but it seems to have closely paralleled that of Kano, albeit with a considerable time-lag. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the territory which later came to be known as Katsina consisted of independent chiefdoms, all of them Hausa-speaking; that at Durbi-ta-Kusheyi was the most important. It was from Durbi that the centralized city-state of Katsina eventually developed. With Sarki Muhammad Korau (1445-95), who was probably the founder of a new dynasty, we are on firmer historical ground. While still at Durbi, Korau identified an important meeting point of several trade routes, the site of an iron-mine and an important shrine, known as Bawada; and as sarki, he established there a new walled city (birni) called Katsina.”
[3]
“In 1804, Usman dan Fodio, a Fulani, led a series of jihads that subsumed the Hausa Kingdoms in the Sokoto Caliphate.”
[4]
“Birnin Kebbi, the new capital of Kebbi, was the first to fall to the Jihadists in 1805. In 1807 Katsina, Daura and Kano were all taken over by the Jihadists, while in 1808 Alkalawa, the capital of Gobir was sacked and Sarkin Gobir Yunfa slain. With this, the centuries old Hausa dynasties were destroyed and in their places new ones came into being. The various Hausa states metamorphosed into emirates paying allegiance to Sokoto, the new capital of the Sokoto Caliphate.”
[5]
“According to Abdullahi Smith, the Hausa people ’had lived in Zazzau for more than a millennium before a central government emerged in the area, based initially at Turunku’. 30 From there, the chiefs expanded the territory, annexing the smaller neighbouring chiefdoms and then establishing their new headquarters at the site of the present city of Zaria, probably at the end of the fifteenth century. […] Not long before the fifteenth century, on the plain of Zazzau in the extreme south of Hausaland, several urban centres arose, which evolved a city-state type of administration. In the course of political development, two towns, Turunku and Kufena, came to exercise authority over the others. These two towns were initially independent of each other and remained so until the end of the fifteenth century, when a Turunku ruler, Bakwa, seized power also at Kufena. […] With the merger of Turunku and Kufena, the Zazzau kingdom had really come into being.”
[6]
“Other groups of Hausa speakers, who later became the Gobirawa, also migrated southwards and established the Gobir kingdom, in different places and at different times. Thus, in the period up to about 1405, this kingdom was located in what is now the Republic of Niger (with its centre at Marandet?); later it moved again to the south and established its capital at Birnin Lalle for some time. The Kano Chronicle mentions the arrival of the Abzinawa in Gobir in the mid-fifteenth century […] The paucity of the written and oral sources does not enable us to reconstruct a more coherent history of Gobir or of the process by which a centralized state first developed there. The same is true of the chronology, since none of the currently available versions of the list of kings is of any value. However, Marandet was already, by about the ninth century, an important commercial and industrial centre based on the trans-Saharan trade with Gao, so it is possible that Gobir had become a centralized state by that time.”
[7]
“In most works on the early history of the Hausa states, Rano is presented as one of the kingdoms established early in the present millennium, which subsequently lost its sovereignty to Kano. Recently, however, Murray Last has drawn attention to the fact that, if the Kano Chronicle is examined carefully, no evidence can be found for the existence of a kingdom of Rano before the fifteenth century.35 There was, in fact, a Hausa chiefdom called Zamnagaba (or Zamnakogi) which was independent of Kano. According to the Kano Chronicle, it was Sarkiri Kano Yaji (1349-85) who drove its chief from his capital and then went on to Rano and Babu, where he lived for two years.36 Last suggests that before this conquest Zamnagaba was part of the political system of Santolo, which was still independent of Kano at that time and was conquered by Yaji only towards the end of his reign.”
[8]
“It was only at the beginning of the sixteenth century that the Zamfara kingdom can be said to have clearly emerged as a state. Before that time, the main chiefdoms in its territory were Dutsi, Togai, Kiyawa (or Kiawa) and Jata […] The centralization process started with the rulers of Dutsi, who had brought the other chiefdoms under their control. The establishment of Birnin Zamfara as the permanent capital of the kingdom may have occurred early in the sixteenth century, for in the middle of that century Zamfara began to campaign in a southerly direction; these campaigns took them to Yawuri in the Niger basin, although they did not occupy it permanently.”
[9]
[1]: Hunwick, J. O. Review of Review of West African Food in the Middle Ages, by Tadeusz Lewicki. African Economic History, no. 1 (1976): 101–104: 102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ATAFJJSE/collection [2]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 271. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [3]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 273. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [4]: Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009: 148. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SJAIVKDW/collection [5]: Maishanu, H. M., & Maishanu, I. M. (1999). The Jihād and the Formation of the Sokoto Caliphate. Islamic Studies, 38(1), 119–131: 128. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FS9AKXPF/collection [6]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 274–275. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [7]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 275–276. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [8]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 276. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [9]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 276–277. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection |
||||||
|
Start date could be as early as eighth century if we include Kanem/treat it as Kanem-Bornu. “The empire of Kanem-Bornu finds its roots between Lake Chad and the Bahr el-Ghazal in the region of Kanem (modern-day Chad). It was based on the state of Kanem created around the 8th century and was ruled by the Duguwa, an aristocracy who chose a king among themselves.”
[1]
“European conquest at the end of the 19th century then divided Bornu between the German colony of Cameroon and the British colony of Nigeria.”
[2]
[1]: Hiribarren, V. (2016). Kanem-Bornu Empire. In N. Dalziel & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Empire (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KNHK5ANQ/collection [2]: Hiribarren, V. (2016). Kanem-Bornu Empire. In N. Dalziel & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Empire (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KNHK5ANQ/collection |
||||||
|
"Contemporary accounts suggest rather that the ruler of Dahomey was originally merely a subordinate governor under the king of Allada, who ’made himself sovereign’ only in 1715 when he rebelled against Allada authority."
[1]
“The kingdom of Abomey was captured by the French forces in 1894, after a campaign lasting nearly 20 years. King Gezu, who had ruled between 1818 and 1858, signed a commercial treaty with France in 1851, but his successor son Glele (reigning 1858-89) had provoked a series of hostilities between France and Dahomey. A first French military expedition lead by Dodds in 1890-91 against King Behanzin (reigning 1889-94) was followed by a second in 1892, which lead to the eventual surrender of Behanzin and the capture of Abomey and other strategic sites in Dahomey.” [2] “Most of the chroniclers depend on the memoirs of Archibald Dalzel, published in 1793, for systematic information on the early history of Dahomey. Since it is generally agreed that Dalzel was a scrupulous observer, we have a chain of data stretching back to the early 1600s. Where gaps appear, it is doubtful that they can ever be precisely filled, for beginning with the French conquest in 1892, Dahomey has become increasingly part of the contemporary world.” [3] “In 1892, three years after the accession of Behanzin, the last Abomey king, the French conquest brought about the collapse and disintegration of the monarchy (Dunglas, 1957, passim).” [4] “What are the descriptions available for a study of the life of the Dahomean kingdom prior to its conquest by the French in 1892?” [5] [1]: (Law 1988: 447) Law, R. 1988. History and Legitimacy: Aspects of the Use of the past in Precolonial Dahomey. History in Africa 15: 431-456. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/dahomey/titleCreatorYear/items/TXMRDFMN/item-list [2]: Kelly, J. A. 2015. ”Dahomey! Dahomey!”: African Art in Paris in the Late 19th Century. Journal of Art Historiography 12. ISSN: 2042-4752. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/TH4QZJQ5/library [3]: Diamond, S. (1996). DAHOMEY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTO-STATE: An Essay in Historical Reconstruction. Dialectical Anthropology, 21(2), 121–216: 127–128. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MW2G58RP/collection [4]: Lombard, J. (1976). The Kingdom of Dahomey. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 70–92). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 73. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/T6WTVSHZ/collection [5]: Herskovits, M. J. (1938). Dahomey: An Ancient West African Kingdom (Vol. 1). J. J. Augustin, New York. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/tags/Dahomey/items/F6XQPZFA/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
The beginnings of the empire are much debated, with most scholars offering broad date ranges. I’ve coded only specific years scholars mentioned. “[M]odern Benin chroniclers are inclined to date the advent of Oranmiyan to Benin about 1170-1200 (Egharevba 1960:6-8, 75; Egharevba 1965:18; Ebolion 1972:8; Eweka 1989:15-16). An exception to the rule are the most apologetically and nationalistically minded writers. Being very far from genuine scholars, they believe in the validity of even earlier dates (e.g., Ugowe 1997:6- 7). Remarkably, several years before Egharevba, the Englishman Palmer dated traditional relations of these events to the same time, "about 1200" (Palmer 1928:87). In the meantime, his compatriot Talbot, who also recorded oral traditions of the Bini in the 1920s, dated the rise of the Second dynasty to 1300 (Talbot 1926:1:153). Ife native historians wrote that Oranmiyan lived either in the eleventh century (Biobaku 1958:65-66) or between 1200 and 1300 (Fabunmi 1985:72). // “There has been no unanimity on this point among scholars to date. Some, for example Jungwirth and Onokerhoraye (Jungwirth 1968: 69; Onokerhoraye 1975:297), accept the traditional date, that is, ca. 1200. But other opinions have been expressed as well. The archaeologists Shaw and Clark date this event to the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Shaw 1968:14; Clark 1977:206) while another archeologist, Darling (1984:1:157-60, 2:336) thinks that ca. 1450 is a better choice. The historian Kochakova (1986:176) does not see any opportunity for giving a more exact date than the tenth to fourteenth centuries, while her colleagues Dike, Isichei, Smith, and Sargent believe that the Oba dynasty came to power in the twelfth, end of twelfth, mid-thirteenth, and the first half of fourteenth century respectively (Dike 1959:13; Isichei 1983:137; Smith 1988:81-85; Sargent 1986:406-07). // “Others have also contributed to the solution of this puzzle: Lloyd’s answer is the twelfth-fourteenth centuries, Afigbo’s is the thirteenth century, Roese’s one is between 1200 and 1320, and Bradbury’s is the cusp of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Lloyd 1968:323; Afigbo 1980:315; Roese 1984:207; Bradbury 1964:149; 1967:1; 1973(19591:42). Finally, students of Benin court art have also made attempts to date the time of the Second dynasty’s coming to power. In particular, Freyer and Mowat regard this as happening in the late fourteenth century (Freyer 1987:9; Mowat 1991:2). The best-known and most authoritative among all the dates differing from the canonical dating (that of Egharevba) is that proposed by Bradbury, viz., ca. 1300. The British anthropologist’s doubts about Egharevba’s date was based on his opinion that Egharevba had ascribed too long reigns to the early Oba, especially to those which ruled prior to the first Europeans’ arrival (Bradbury 1973[1959]:37-41, 42).”
[1]
“Our survey inclines us to surmise that the Oba dynasty most likely began to govern between ca. 1200 and ca. 1250, i.e., in the interval marked by the dates of Egharevba (and Jungwirth) at one end and of Smith at the other. Naturally, the advent of Oranmiyan happened some time before that date. It seems that there are no possibilities (at least today) for suggesting any more exact dates for these crucial events of Benin history”.
[2]
“In the past few decades much research has appeared on the early history of this kingdom, the origin of its kingship, and the time of the early Ogiso kings, who are considered by many historians as the autochthonous founders of Benin kingship around 900. These Ogiso rulers are assumed to have been replaced between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries by kings of the later Oba dynasty, which supposedly descends from the Yoruba town of Ife and which continues in office at the present.”
[3]
The alleged founder of the Oba dynasty (after the Ogiso rulers) is Oranmiyan, whose son Eweka was the first Oba, but there’s disagreement about when exactly this took place. Eisenhofer collates other researchers’ hypotheses: Oranmiyan 13th century (the Kinglist of Benin); Eweka 1140–1170 (Struck, 1923); Orhamiyan 1300 (Talbot, referenced by Bradbury); Oranmiyan 1170, Eweka 1200 (Egharevba, referenced by Bradbury).
[4]
“The chronology of the history of the Benin kingdom is seen by many historians as clarified in the main back to the thirteenth century and even earlier. Apart from the reports of European travelers and missionaries and some information given by merchants, this chronology is based mainly on the Benin kinglist for the periods before 1897. This list names 38 kings (obas) of Benin and covers past centuries with seemingly great accuracy (see table 1). In spite of the many names of former obas and the pretended accuracy of the list’s time-frame, it would be problematic to take it as historically factual since it cannot be corroborated by any documentation before the mid-nineteenth century.”
[5]
“The Ɔghɛnɛ (Ɔmi,to give him his Yoruba title) was the ruler of Ile Ife, the cosmic metropolis of the Yoruba people to the west and, for most of the states of the Bight of Benin, the cradle of divine kingship. He sent his son Oranmiyan, who, however, found Benin uncongenial, so after a short stay he departed for home, but not before he had impregnated the daughter of an Edo village chief. She bore a son, who in the course of time was enthroned under the name Eweka.”
[6]
“In March 1897 a British military expedition took possession of Benin City (Ɛdo); in the following September Ovonramwen, the thirty-fifth Ɔba (king) of Benin, was deported to Calabar. Thus ended the independence of what had been one of the largest and longest lived of the West African forest states.”
[7]
“For centuries, there was a healthy relationship between Benin and the British. The relationship was sustained and strengthened by trade and religion. However, it is unfortunate and pathetic to note that the relationship finally ended with the British invasion of Benin in February 1897. This invasion led to the fall of the Benin Empire. The Kingdom of Benin ceased to exist as an independent entity in 1897. It was annexed to the Niger Coast Protectorate the same year.”
[8]
[1]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 74–75. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [2]: Bondarenko, D. M. (2003). Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point. History in Africa, 30, 63–85: 76–77. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CESQP6DT/collection [3]: Eisenhofer, S. (1995). The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba. History in Africa, 22, 141–163: 141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WR8MRZAW/collection [4]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 147–150. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [5]: Eisenhofer, S. (1997). The Benin Kinglist/s: Some Questions of Chronology. History in Africa, 24, 139–156: 139. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EQFRPBHN/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 2. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 1. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: Aremu, J., & Ediagbonya, M. (2018). Trade and Religion in British-Benin Relations, 1553-1897. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 4, 78–90: 88. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/86KXRXBH/collection |
||||||
|
Could date the start of Wukari to 1820 (based on an apparent dynastic shift mentioned by one source), or 1848 (based on dates taken from a king list found in another source).
"Kororofa. ca. 1600-1901. [...] Kings: [...] 1815-1848 Zikeenya; 1848-1866 Agbu Manu I" [1] “By 1820, a Jukun dynasty based at Wukari, south of the Benue, had taken control of what was left of the Kwararafa state. With this transformation, the martial state of Kwararafa had finally come to an end. The Jukun inherited the political power of Kwararafa, but not its martial tradition. The far-flung confederacy had become the homogenous Jukun kingdom of Wukari. Kwararafa under the Jukun ceased to be a warrior state; extant accounts portray the new state as a pacifist and religious one, made up of a collection of unwarlike people solely and strictly devoted to the maintenance of their innumerable religious cults and the veneration of their sacred kings, a people whose prestige and continuing legitimacy depended on their successful performance of their main ritual function, which was to guarantee good harvest and good health for the people.” [2] “In the 19th century the Jukun were the rulers of the most prominent successor state - the Kingdom of Wukari - which claimed continuity with the town Kororofa (remark the difference between the town Kororofa and the kingdom or empire Kwararafa).” [3] “To this end, the Charter of the company was revoked; this was followed by the British declaration of the Proclamation of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, via the Northern Nigeria Order in Council 1899. This provided for the office of the High Commissioner, and empowered him to legislate by proclamation. The order took effect from January 1, 1900. […] In the case of the Jukun and indeed the whole of former Wukari Division, with exception of Suntai mentioned above, there was no open opposition to the British occupation. The area was slowly brought under the control of the British administration.” [4] [1]: (Stewart 1989, 155) Stewart, J. 1989. African states and rulers : an encyclopedia of native, colonial and independent states and rulers past and present. McFarland. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/stewart/titleCreatorYear/items/AMCFGS6W/item-list [2]: Shillington, K., ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of African History (1st Ed., Vol. 1–3). Fitzroy Dearborn: 248. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection [3]: Dinslage, S., & Leger, R. (1996). Language and Migration the Impact of the Jukun on Chadic Speaking Groups in the Benue-Gongola Basin. Berichte Des Sonderforschungsbereichs – Universität Frankfurt Am Main., 268(8), 67–75: 68. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8TZKHY4E/collection [4]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 140–141. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
“1549: Kayor became the last state to secede from the declining Kingdom of Djolof.”
[1]
“1864: Senegal became a colony of France. Lat Dior led an unsuccessful uprising against the French in the Kingdom of Kayor and was exiled.”
[1]
[1]: (Europa Publications 2003, 358) Europa Publications. 2003. A Political Chronology of Africa. London: Taylor and Francis. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/528D563M/collection |
||||||
|
“Salum was most probably founded by M’Begane N’Dur, king of Sine, in the late fifteenth century, and it expanded greatly in the sixteenth.”
[1]
. The Jihad of Maba Jakhu Ba ended the traditional rule of the Kingdom of Saloun in 1863 CE. “Maba began his jihad in the Kingdom of Saalum in 1861. By the summer of 1863, he had swept away the traditional rulers and established his authority over the area between the Saalum and Gambia rivers.”
[2]
[1]: (Ly-Tall 1984, 183) Ly-Tall, M. 1984. ‘The Decline of the Mali Empire’. In Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/6NWXJD94/collection [2]: (Babou 2007, 41) Babou, Cheikh Anta Mbacke. 2007. Fighting the Greater Jihad: Amadu Bamba and the Founding of the Muridiyya of Senegal 1853-1913. Athens: Ohio University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/J8IUBWDD/collection |
||||||
|
“All three capitals: Kahone, Diakhao, and Lambaye, were established in the mid-sixteenth century when the fertile coastal provinces of the Empire of Jolof- an inland empire established in the thirteenth century-gained independence.”
[1]
“The year 1886 was of particular importance to this interpretation. The last two claimants to the throne of the precolonial state of Kajoor were killed by colonial forces and the kingdom was transformed into the French protectorate of Cayor in that year. Kajoor’s neighbour to the south, the Kingdom of Bawol, fell under French control four years later.”
[2]
[1]: (Bigon and Ross 2020, 42) Bigon, Liora and Ross, Eric. 2020. Grid Planning in the Urban Design Practices of Senegal. London: Springer. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MM67I638/collection [2]: (Glover 2009, 74) Glover, John. 2019. ‘Murid Modernity: Historical Perceptions of Islamic Reform, Sufism, and Colonization.’ In New Perspectives on Islam in Senegal: Conversion, Migration, Wealth, Power, and Femininity. Edited by Mamadou Diouf and Mara Leichtman. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ET3G9CJD/collection |
||||||
|
“The kingdom of Siin did not depart from this pattern. While it is difficult to characterize comfortably its organization throughout its existence, which allegedly spanned from 1350s to its absorption as a colonial protectorate in 1887, historical accounts and colonial writings provide fairly consistent depictions of the kingdom during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”
[1]
[1]: (Richard 2015, 206) Richard, Francois G. 2015. ‘The African State in Theory: Thoughts on Political Landscapes and the Limits of Rule in Atlantic Senegal (and Elsewhere).’ In Theory in Africa, Africa in Theory: Locating Meaning in Archaeology. Edited by Jeffery Fleisher et. al. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NUNCWJJP/collection |
||||||
|
“Since the middle of the 16th century, the Waalo Kingdom, founded in 1287 and located in the estuary of the Senegal River, regains its independence from the Djolof Empire.”
[1]
The French General, Louis Faidherbe, led the conquest against the Waalo beginning in 1855 CE. “When Faidherbe conquered the Waalo between 1855-9, with the intention of restarting the agricultural settlement, and at last procuring for French industry the cotton it needed, the vanquished aristocracy embraced Islam.”
[2]
[1]: (Himpan Sabatier and Himpan 2019, 125) Himpan Sabatier, Diane and Himpan, Brigitte. 2019. Nomads of Mauritania. Wilmington: Vernon Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/V4D4DFVG/collection [2]: (Amin 1972, 517) Amin, Samir. 1972. ‘Underdevelopment and Dependence in Black Africa – Origins and Contemporary Forms.’ The Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol 10:4. Pp 503-524. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MR883K86/collection |
||||||
|
While the Wolof kingdoms of Jolof, Waalo and Cayor had been established as early as the thirteenth century, it was not until 1360 CE when the Jolof Empire formed out of the decline of the Mali Empire. “According to tradition, the founder of the Wolof empire was Ndiadiane N’Diaye, a king (burba) for whose reign dates in the early thirteenth century are conventionally assigned […] Nevertheless the Wolof also experienced at a second remove, the powerful new influences being generated in the westernmost Sudan by Berber penetration, by the growth of Islam and of Mande trade, and by the emergence of the Tukolor and Fulani. The Wolof developed a class hierarchy, with a nobility which was at least nominally Islamic, and, together with Mande and Tukolor elements, began to exert a dominating influence on trade and government of their Serer neighbours. As the Imperial power of Mali declined from about 1360 onwards, it was possible for the dynasty established by Ndiadiane N’Diaye to gain control of the old kingdom of Takrur in the region just south of the middle Senegal now known as Futa Toro, and also to extend its imperial control over the congeries of Serer communities further to the south.”
[1]
“In 1549, the empire split into five coastal kingdoms-Waalo, Kayor, Baol, Sine and Saloum- from north to south. Wolf tradition dates the end of the empire to the Battle of Danki (1549), when the ruler of Kayor led a rebellion that dismantled the empire and created the successor Wolof Kingdoms.”
[2]
[1]: (Fage 2008, 484-486) Fage, J.D. 2008. ‘Upper and Lower Guinea’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1050 – c. 1600. Edited by Roland Oliver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/search/Fage/titleCreatorYear/items/9V3CTHZ9/item-list [2]: (Aderinto 2017, 281) Aderinto, Saheed. 2017. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/4E8Q8Z29/collection |
||||||
|
“The first Muslim success was on the banks of the Senegal river. In 1776, the torodbe, the Muslim clerics of Futa Toro, deposed the denianke rulers and formed a theocratic state.”
[1]
During the Jihad of al-Hajj Umar, the French took control over the Futa Toro region which officially ended the Imamate of Futa Toro. “His jihad began with the conquest of Futa Toro. By 1862 his empire included Timbuktu, Masina, Hamdallahi, and Segu. In Futa Toro, however, he came into conflict with the French, who were attempting to establish their commercial supremacy along the Senegal River. In 1857 they defeated Umar in battle at Medina, and in 1860 Umar made a treaty with the French that recognized their sphere of influence in Futa Toro and assigned him the Bambara states of Kaarta and Segu.”
[2]
[1]: (Klein 1972, 429) Klein, Martin A. 1972. ‘Social and Economic Factors in the Muslim Revolution in Senegambia.’ The Journal of Africa History. Vol. 13:3. Pp 419-441. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZJRN8UJ8/collection [2]: (Lapidus, 2014) Lapidus, Ira M. 2014. A History of Islamic Societies. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Lapidus/titleCreatorYear/items/5HAADQHE/item-list |
||||||
|
“In addition, another African nation called the Empire of Great Fulo which was located just north west of Mali was also rising to prominence and by 1490 has established its first king who battled with both the empires of Mali and Songhai.”
[1]
“The first Muslim success was on the banks of the Senegal river. In 1776, the torodbe, the Muslim clerics of Futa Toro, deposed the denianke rulers and formed a theocratic state.”
[2]
[1]: (Martin, 2016) Martin, J.P. 2016. African Empires: Volume 1. Bloomington, Indiana: Trafford Publishing. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WCMXR3XI/collection [2]: (Klein 1972, 429) Klein, Martin A. 1972. ‘Social and Economic Factors in the Muslim Revolution in Senegambia.’ The Journal of Africa History. Vol. 13:3. Pp 419-441. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZJRN8UJ8/collection |
||||||
|
“The Jolof empire was a successor state to the Ghana and Takrur and dominated the Senegambian region for several centuries. Its territiories included the Wolof provinces of Jolof, Waalo, Kajoor, and Bawol, and the Sereer provinces of Siin and Saalum, all of which later became independent kingdoms. Wolof tradition date the end of the empire to the battle of Danki in 1549, when the ruler of Kajoor led a rebellion, that broke up the empire and created six successor kingdoms. The enrichment of the coastal provinces through Atlantic commerce hurt Jolof, which was located inland to the south of the Senegal River.”
[1]
“One of the most prominent of these warrior reformers was Ma Ba, a Tukulor cleric and disciple of Al Haj Umar Tail’s who in 1861 launched a holy war and religious revolution against the pagan Mandinka chiefdoms and states along the Gambia River. Ma Ba’s religious wars pitted the party of the marabouts against the traditional rulers, and ceaao. By the mid-1860s, Ma Ba’s forces also controlled much of Saloum and Djolof and he converted several prominent Wolof leaders to Islam, including Lat Dior of Cayor and Alboury N’Diaye of Djolof, who both played major roles in the Islamization of their home states and led the resistance against the French.”
[2]
[1]: (Searing, 2004) Searing, James. 2004. ‘Wolof and Jolof Empires.’ In Encyclopedia of African History. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WM3HCI97/collection [2]: (Gellar, 2020) Gellar, Sheldon. 2020. Senegal: An African Nation Between Islam and the West. Second Edition. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZCQVA3UX/collection |
||||||
|
Start date from the following quote, matched to date from kinglist below: "The situation, however, changed during the 18th century. This was a period of intense military and administrative activity during which headquarters for new and old chieftainships were established. The period also witnessed the settlement of newly conquered territories and the integration of their societies. Beginning with the reign of Mawanda, we see a streamlining of the administration and because of this Mawanda may be rightly called the father of the kiganda system of local government. The county head- quarters he founded in Bulemezi, Kyaddondo, Kyaggwe and Singo are still the seats of governments and the titles of chiefs which were first used in his reign became permanent and are still used today."
[1]
End date: "Into this turmoil, in the last days of 1890, came Captain Frederick Lugard, ’an officer of Her Majesty Queen Victoria’ but employed at the time by the Imperial British East Africa Company, the instrument of those officials, businessmen, churchmen and military men who sought to push the British state into the heart of Africa. Buganda had just been assigned to the British ’sphere’ as part of a general settlement of matters at issue between Britain and Germany, and the Company was eager to begin the exploitation of the ivory-rich and fertile Lake region in the far interior. Lugard’s small force decided the internal conflict [between religious factions in Buganda] in favour of the Christians and, within the Christian party, in favour of the Protestant, or ’English’, faction. [...] The Company was broken financially by the cost of Lugard’s operations, and in 1894 a reluctant imperial government felt bound to take direct charge of the country, which was then known by the Swahili form of its name, Uganda."
[2]
Start date and end date from kinglist: “Kabakas (Kings): 1395-1408: Kintu; 1408-1420 Cwa I Nabaka; 1420-1447 Kimera; 1447-1474 Tembo; 1474-1501 Kiggala; 1501-1528 Kiyimbo; 1528-1555 Kayima; 1555-1582 Nakibinge; 1582-1609 Mulundo (joint); 1582-1609 Jemba (joint); 1582-1609 Suna I (joint); 1609-1636 Sekamanya (joint); 1609-1636 Kimbungwe (joint); 1636-1663 Katerrega; 1663-1690 Juuko (joint); 1663-1690 Mutebi (joint); 1663-1690 Kayemba (joint); 1690-1717 Tebandeke (joint); 1690-1717 Ndawula (joint); 1717-1744 Kagulu (joint); 1717-1744 Mawanda (joint); 1717-1744 Kikulwe (joint); 1744-1771 Kagulu (joint); 1744-1771 Namagula (joint); 1744-1771 Kyabaggu (joint); 1771-1798 Junju (joint); 1771-1798 Semakookiru (joint); 1798-1825 Kamanya; 1825-1852 Suna II; 1852-10 Oct. 1884 Mutesa I Walugembe Mukaobya; 10 Oct. 1884-1888 Danieri Mwanga; 1888-Oct. 1888 Mutebi II kIwena; Oct. 1888-Oct. 1889 Kalema; Oct. 1889-July 1897 no kings ruled” [3] [1]: (Kiwanuka 1969: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/22DD3KG7/collection. [2]: (Wrigley 2002: 4) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DNKVW9WZ/collection. [3]: (Stewart 1989, 46) Stewart, J. 1989. African states and rulers : an encyclopedia of native, colonial and independent states and rulers past and present. McFarland. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/stewart/titleCreatorYear/items/AMCFGS6W/item-list |
||||||
|
"Then, around 1830, Toro, in the southwest, seized its independence under Prince Kaboyo’s leadership: this new kingdom controlled the key saltworks in Katwe and Kasenyi, north of Lake Edward. [...] The protectorate did not formally spread to Nkore, Toro, and Bunyoro until 1896."
[1]
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 148, 225) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date from the following kinglist: “Kabakas (Kings): 1395-1408: Kintu; 1408-1420 Cwa I Nabaka; 1420-1447 Kimera; 1447-1474 Tembo; 1474-1501 Kiggala; 150101528 Kiyimbo; 1528-1555 Kayima; 1555-1582 Nakibinge; 1582-1609 Mulundo (joint); 1582-1609 Jemba (joint); 1582-1609 Suna I (joint); 1609-1636 Sekamanya (joint); 1609-1636 Kimbungwe (joint); 1636-1663 Katerrega; 1663-1690 Juuko (joint); 1663-1690 Mutebi (joint); 1663-1690 Kayemba (joint); 1690-1717 Tebandeke (joint); 1690-1717 Ndawula (joint); 1717-1744 Kagulu (joint); 1717-1744 Mawanda (joint); 1717-1744 Kikulwe (joint); 1744-1771 Kagulu (joint); 1744-1771 Namagula (joint); 1744-1771 Kyabaggu (joint); 1771-1798 Junju (joint); 1771-1798 Semakookiru (joint); 1798-1825 Kamanya; 1825-1852 Suna II; 1852-10 Oct. 1884 Mutesa I Walugembe Mukaobya; 10 Oct. 1884-1888 Danieri Mwanga; 1888-Oct. 1888 Mutebi II kIwena; Oct. 1888-Oct. 1889 Kalema; Oct. 1889-July 1897 no kings ruled”
[1]
End date from the following quote, matched with dates from kinglist: "The situation, however, changed during the 18th century. This was a period of intense military and administrative activity during which headquarters for new and old chieftainships were established. The period also witnessed the settlement of newly conquered territories and the integration of their societies. Beginning with the reign of Mawanda, we see a streamlining of the administration and because of this Mawanda may be rightly called the father of the kiganda system of local government. The county head- quarters he founded in Bulemezi, Kyaddondo, Kyaggwe and Singo are still the seats of governments and the titles of chiefs which were first used in his reign became permanent and are still used today." [2] [1]: (Stewart 1989, 46) Stewart, J. 1989. African states and rulers : an encyclopedia of native, colonial and independent states and rulers past and present. McFarland. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/stewart/titleCreatorYear/items/AMCFGS6W/item-list [2]: (Kiwanuka 1969: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/22DD3KG7/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date: "While a number of historians (e.g. Ford and Hall 1947; Corry 1949) place the origin of the Karagwe Kingdom in the 16th century AD, a date that matches with the coming of Bahinda, the legendary founder of the kingdom, Katoke, probably correctly, pushes the date a century earlier (Katoke 1975). Basing this on oral accounts and astronomical evidence, he argues that Karagwe had started as a unitary state under a Bantu ruler long before the arrival and conquest of the Bahinda. According to Katoke, the Bahinda invasion took place some time before a series of eclipses of the moon which occurred between 1492 and 1520. The eclipse is reported in both Bunyoro and Nkore traditions in Uganda, the cradle of the Bahinda and where it is said to have taken place during the reign of Nyabugaro or Ntare I, ruler of Nkore. Nyabugaro is claimed to be one of the sons of Ruhinda Kizarabagabe, the founder of the Bahinda dynasty. “If this account is accepted, as it seems it ought to be,” Katoke argues, “Ruhinda and his followers must have come [to Karagwe] much earlier than has hitherto been suggested” (Katoke 1975:xi)."
[1]
End date: "Karagwe fell from being one of the most powerful of the nineteenth century states in the Great Lakes, a position it had largely attained through its domination of early Indian Ocean–Great Lakes trade routes, to total collapse and obscurity by 1916."
[2]
[1]: (Mapunda 2009: 93) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9GV5C5NF/collection. [2]: (Shillington 2005: 592) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date roughly estimated based on the following: "The Nyiginya kingdom was founded by Ndori, some time in the 1600s. [...] The appearance of Ndori on the scene in central Rwanda seems to have occurred at a time when other kingdoms, such as those of Nkore, Karagwe, and Ndorwa, were also emerging to the north and the northeast. Although the chronology of these polities still remains uncertain, one estimates today that they emerged around 1700."
[1]
End date based on the following: "But by the end of March 1897, only a few months after his accession, von Ramsay, a German officer, appeared at court and proposed an alliance between the king and the colonial authorities that Kanjogera immediately accepted. Thus began the colonial era. During the following twenty years, however, the German authorities did not interfere with the internal affairs of the realm and thus the customary intrigues and violence continued as before."
[2]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 44-45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 179) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
NB The first quote posits the earliest possible start date for this polity, but the second quote suggests that the polity changed significanty in the 18th century, enough to warrant splitting its history into two phases. "Individual settlements were governed by clan chiefs, but around the middle of the 1400s, one of these, Ruhinda, rose to dominance and established himself as mugabe , or paramount ruler over all the Ankole clans. [...] Ankole kings managed to maintain the independence of their people until 1901, when Great Britain claimed the region as a colonial possession and the kingdom came under British control."
[1]
"Between the establishment of the Hinda regime under Ruhinda and his son, Nkuba, and the first half of the eighteenth century, ’nothing of importance seems to have taken place’, according to S. R. Karugire (1971: 150), Ankole’s leading historian. [...] [C]onsidering what is recorded it seems fairly certain that following Nkuba’s consolidation of personal power over the Hima clans until the eventful reign of Ntare IV (1699-1727/26), the absence of historical information stems from the fact that few people in Ankole then or since would recognize the society of the first ten generations as either an historical or political unit much less as a state. Nkuba and his successors emerge dimly from the spare record as what Ruhinda himself was — a wandering herdsman and warrior. The Mugabe (king) of later years was at this stage merely the leading member of the central clan of a cluster of pastoral clans — the giver of gifts of cattle as his title literally implies rather than the monarch or ruler (Mukama) of a sovereign state."
[2]
[1]: (Middleton 2015: 45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. [2]: (Steinhart 1978: 136) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date: "The appearance of Ndori on the scene in central Rwanda seems to have occurred at a time when other kingdoms, such as those of Nkore, Karagwe, and Ndorwa, were also emerging to the north and the northeast. Although the chronology of these polities still remains uncertain, one estimates today that they emerged around 1700."
[1]
The following quote, referring to the Rwandan kingdom of Niyinginya, suggests that Ndorwa had collapsed by the end of the 18th century: "Its most dangerous enemies had been contained, Ndorwa had collapsed, Gisaka was pushed back to within its natural stronghold, Bugesera was no longer of any importance, and Burundi had been forced back even though it remained the kingdom’s equal in force. By the end of the eighteenth century, the policies and activities of the Nyiginya kingdom affected a vast region that included all of the territory within the present Republic of Rwanda as well as Kigezi and the lands beyond the volcanoes to the northwest."
[2]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 44-45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 125) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
"Even if they are rather rare for the period before the 19th century, oral traditions indicate a new geopolitical construct established during the 16th and 17th centuries, culminating in the formation of the patrilineal Ganwa Dynasty, inaugurated by the founding king, Ntare Rushatsi, at the end of the 17th century. [...] Following German military occupation, Mwezi recognized the Deutsch Ost Afrika (German East Africa) protectorate in 1903 in exchange for the new administrative power’s help in re-establishing the court’s authority over the kingdom."
[1]
[1]: (Van Schuylenbergh 2016) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EER653TS/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date: "Today no dates can be proposed at all for the kingdoms to the south and southeast of central Rwanda, to wit, Mubari, Gisaka, and Bugesera, for lack of archaeological research or even reliable dynastic lists. Their chronology before the middle of the eighteenth century derives from references in Rwandan historical narratives, references that are probably mere anachronisms."
[1]
"1860–67: Expeditions in Gisaka; the country is subdued."
[2]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 213) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date: "The Fipa oral traditions place the origins of the political history of the Fipa at the coming of Ntatakwa, the founder of the Milansi chiefdom, matched in calendar time to around the late 17th century A.D."
[1]
End date: "Two broad phases of district administration can be identified in German times. In the 1890s its aims were military security and political control and its methods were violence and alliance with accommodating African leaders. [...] These ’local compromises’, as they may be called, had common characteristics. The administration’s demands were small: recognition of German paramountcy, provision of labour and building materials, use of diplomacy rather than force in settling disputes. In return the Germans offered equally limited advantages: normally only political and military support for their allies. The relationship demanded little change in the societies concerned. Stateless peoples had to accept headmen. Many chiefdoms had to accept changes in leadership. But even those who allied with the Germans generally saw them as a new factor in existing conflicts, not yet as making those conflicts redundant. [...] The imposition of tax in 1898, together with Mkwawa’s death, initiated a transition to a second phase of administration whose chief characteristic was the collapse of the local compromises established in the 1890s. The old collaborators did not necessarily lose power, but to survive they had to adapt themselves and often to reorganise their societies. [...] Some Haya chiefs were especially successful at this, for they controlledelaborate administrative systems which the Germans were anxious to preserve. Kahigi of Kianja survived by loyal and efficient rule andactive support for economic development, although he opposed education and mission work. His rival, Mutahangarwa of Kiziba, took adaptation further and actively welcomed education, thus giving Kiziba a lead over the rest of Buhaya, although he refused to become a Christian himself and disinherited his eldest son for doing so."
[2]
[1]: (Mapunda 2009: 86) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9GV5C5NF/collection. [2]: (Iliffe 1979: 119-121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/collection. |
||||||
|
Start date: "Today no dates can be proposed at all for the kingdoms to the south and southeast of central Rwanda, to wit, Mubari, Gisaka, and Bugesera, for lack of archaeological research or even reliable dynastic lists. Their chronology before the middle of the eighteenth century derives from references in Rwandan historical narratives, references that are probably mere anachronisms."
[1]
"1799: Conquest of Bugesera [by Nyinginya]."
[2]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 213) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
NB The first quote posits the earliest possible start date for this polity, but the second quote suggests that the polity changed significanty in the 18th century, enough to warrant splitting its history into two phases. "Individual settlements were governed by clan chiefs, but around the middle of the 1400s, one of these, Ruhinda, rose to dominance and established himself as mugabe , or paramount ruler over all the Ankole clans. [...] Ankole kings managed to maintain the independence of their people until 1901, when Great Britain claimed the region as a colonial possession and the kingdom came under British control."
[1]
"Between the establishment of the Hinda regime under Ruhinda and his son, Nkuba, and the first half of the eighteenth century, ’nothing of importance seems to have taken place’, according to S. R. Karugire (1971: 150), Ankole’s leading historian. [...] [C]onsidering what is recorded it seems fairly certain that following Nkuba’s consolidation of personal power over the Hima clans until the eventful reign of Ntare IV (1699-1727/26), the absence of historical information stems from the fact that few people in Ankole then or since would recognize the society of the first ten generations as either an historical or political unit much less as a state. Nkuba and his successors emerge dimly from the spare record as what Ruhinda himself was — a wandering herdsman and warrior. The Mugabe (king) of later years was at this stage merely the leading member of the central clan of a cluster of pastoral clans — the giver of gifts of cattle as his title literally implies rather than the monarch or ruler (Mukama) of a sovereign state."
[2]
[1]: (Middleton 2015: 45) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. [2]: (Steinhart 1978: 136) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
“The first two rulers of the early medieval line were Kadungon (560-90) and his son Maravarman Avanishulamani (590-620). The latter is credited with ending Kalabhra rule in the area and reviving Pandya power.”
[1]
“During the reign of Varagunavarman’s grandson Maravarman Rajasinha II (r. c.a. 900-920), the Cholas invaded and defeated the combined forces of the Pandyas and their ally, the King of Ceylon, at the battle of Vellur in 915. The Chola dynasty then ruled the Pandyas for thirty years, until their defeat at the battle of Takkolam in 949 at the hands of the Rashtrakuta dynasty of the Deccan region."
[2]
[1]: (Singh 2008, 558) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Longman. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [2]: (Middleton 2015, 717) 2015. ‘Pandya Dynasty’ In World Monarchies and Dynasties: Vol 1-3. Edited by John Middleton. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/BISZJCDB/collection |
||||||
|
“The period between 600 BCE to 300 AD, Tamilakam was ruled by three Tamil dynasties of Pandya, Chola, and Chera, and a few independent chieftains.”
[1]
“The Kalabhras, or Kalappirar, were rulers of all or parts of the Tamil region sometime between the 3rd century and 6th century, after the ancient dynasties of the early Cholas, the early Pandyas and Cheras disintergrated.”
[2]
[1]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection [2]: (Srinivansan, 2021) Srinivasan, Raghavan. 2021. Rajaraja Chola: Interplay Between an Imperial Regime and Productive Forces of Society. Mumbai: Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UGD5HUFP/collection |
||||||
|
“The rule or the Thanjavur Nayaks lasted until 1673 when Chokkanatha Nayak the ruler of Madurai invaded Thanjavur and killed the ruler Vijayraghava. Chokkanatha placed his brother Alagiri on the throne of Thanjavur, but within a year the latter threw off his allegiance, and Chokkanatha was forced to recognise the independence of Thanjavur. A son of Vijayrahava induced the Bijapur Sultan to help him get back the Thanjavur throne. In 1675 the Sultan of Bijapur sent a force commanded by the Maratha general Venkoji to recapture the kingdom from the new invader. Venkoji defeated Alagiri with ease, and occupied Thanjavur. He did not, however, place his protégé on the throne as instructed by the Bijapur Sultan, but seized the kingdom and made himself king. Thus began the rule of the Marathas over Thanjavur.”
[1]
“However, the new king [Sarabhoji] lost further power for, by a new treaty imposed by the British, the entire administration of the state was transferred to the government at Madras. In 1799, Thanjavur became apart of the Madras Presidency and the Raja was given an annual allowance.”
[2]
[1]: (Sorokhaibam 2013, 4-5) Sorokhaibam, Jeenet. 2013. Chhatrapati Shivaji: The Maratha Warrior and his Campaigns. New Delhi: Vij Books India Pvt. Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/MJ4PW3NS/collection [2]: (Appasamy 1980, 21) Appasamy, Jaya. 1980. Thanjavur Painting of the Maratha Period. Vol. 1. New Delhi. Abhinav Publications. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/35BU75NG/collection |
||||||
|
“The period between 600 BCE to 300 AD, Tamilakam was ruled by three Tamil dynasties of Pandya, Chola, and Chera, and a few independent chieftains.”
[1]
“The Kalabhras, or Kalappirar, were rulers of all or parts of the Tamil region sometime between the 3rd century and 6th century, after the ancient dynasties of the early Cholas, the early Pandyas and Cheras disintergrated.”
[2]
[1]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection [2]: (Srinivansan, 2021) Srinivasan, Raghavan. 2021. Rajaraja Chola: Interplay Between an Imperial Regime and Productive Forces of Society. Mumbai: Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UGD5HUFP/collection |
||||||
|
“The period between 600 BCE to 300 AD, Tamilakam was ruled by three Tamil dynasties of Pandya, Chola, and Chera, and a few independent chieftains.”
[1]
“The Kalabhras, or Kalappirar, were rulers of all or parts of the Tamil region sometime between the 3rd century and 6th century, after the ancient dynasties of the early Cholas, the early Pandyas and Cheras disintergrated.”
[2]
[1]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection [2]: (Srinivansan, 2021) Srinivasan, Raghavan. 2021. Rajaraja Chola: Interplay Between an Imperial Regime and Productive Forces of Society. Mumbai: Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UGD5HUFP/collection |
||||||
|
“It seems that some measure of stability was achieved with the establishment of Mughal rule. After a few years the rulers of Gingee took the title of nawabs of the Carnatic, and in the first years of the 18th century they left Gingee to take up residence in Arcot.
[1]
“The Navaiyat dynasty came to power when Saadutullah Khan was appointed subadhar, or chief of military and revenue officer of the newly established Mughal subah of Arcot in 1710. The Navaiyats, wanting to take advantage of the relative weakness of the links to the Mughal centre, and wanting to carve out an independent dynastic rule for themselves, quickly fell into the traditional pattern of empire-building. They extended existing citadels like Vellore and Gingee by ‘importing’ North Indian traders, artisans and soldiers; they established a number of new market centres; they founded and endowed mosques; and they invited poets, artists and scholars and Sufi holy men to the new capital of Arcot.”
[1]
“In 1755 Muhammed Ali requested the aid of the British to raise money from the poligars in the southern parts of the nawab’s dominions, mainly around the Madurai. This was the starting point of the ‘poligar wars’, which only came to an end in 1801 when the British established a firm control over the entire Carnatic area.”
[1]
“By the turn of the century the nawab was heavily in debt to the East India Company, and was in fact a ‘puppet king’ –at least in the eyes of the British who could not appreciate the authority (let alone the expenditures) of a king deprived of his troops, his revenue apparatus and his political status.”
[1]
[1]: (Bugge, 2020) Bugge, Henriette. 2020. Mission and Tamil Society: Social and Religious Change in South India (1840-1900). London: Routledge Curzon. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/9SKWNUF4/collection |
||||||
|
“The Pallava dynasty ruled in Southern India from approximately the early 4th century to the late 9th century C.E., although these dates are sometimes disputed because of a dearth of historical materials.”
[1]
[1]: (Bush Trevino 2012, 46) Bush Travino, Macella. 2012. ‘The Pallava Dynasty’ In Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Vol.4 Edited by Carolyn M. Elliot. Los Angeles: Sage. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4RPCX448/collection |
||||||
|
“This period called ‘Kalabhra interregnum’ was presumably from 3rd to sixth centuries CE, when the Tamil country was believed to have been overrun by Northern invaders, called ‘Kalabhras’.
[1]
Within the following quote, there are two different end dates given. “The Kasakundi plates refer to Sinhavisnu’s conquest of the Kalabhras late in the 6th century A.D. The velvikuddi plates of Nedunjadayn show the defeat of the Kalabhras at the hands of Kadungon (c. A.D. 600).”
[2]
[1]: (Ganesh 2013, 26) Ganesh, K.N. 2013. ‘Transition in Early Tamil Society: A Hypothesis on the Formation of Tamil Region’ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol 74. Pp 23-47. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/EJ9WSE3H/collection [2]: (Gupta 1989, 24) Gupta, Parmanand. 1989. Geography from Ancient Indian Coins and Seals. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/5Z4TFP7P/collection |
||||||
|
“In 1535 AD, Vijayanagara emperor Achyuta Devaraya established the Thanjavur Nayak rule.”
[1]
“The rule or the Thanjavur Nayaks lasted until 1673 when Chokkanatha Nayak the ruler of Madurai invaded Thanjavur and killed the ruler Vijayraghava. Chokkanatha placed his brother Alagiri on the throne of Thanjavur, but within a year the latter threw off his allegiance, and Chokkanatha was forced to recognise the independence of Thanjavur. A son of Vijayrahava induced the Bijapur Sultan to help him get back the Thanjavur throne. In 1675 the Sultan of Bijapur sent a force commanded by the Maratha general Venkoji to recapture the kingdom from the new invader. Venkoji defeated Alagiri with ease, and occupied Thanjavur. He did not, however, place his protégé on the throne as instructed by the Bijapur Sultan, but seized the kingdom and made himself king. Thus began the rule of the Marathas over Thanjavur.”
[2]
“In the Vijaynagar times, Thanjavur was ruled on its behalf by the Nayak dynasty from 1532 to 1676 AD. The Nayaks were closely connected to the Vijaynagar kings, and Raghunatha Nayak and Vijayaraghava Nayak did much to put Thanjavur on the cultural map.”
[3]
[1]: (Perumal 2012, 164) Peruman, P. 2012. ‘The Sanskrit Manuscripts in Tamilnadu’ In Aspects of Manuscript Culture in South India. Edited by Saraju Rath. Leiden: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/BCDS4MF3/collection [2]: (Sorokhaibam 2013, 4-5) Sorokhaibam, Jeenet. 2013. Chhatrapati Shivaji: The Maratha Warrior and his Campaigns. New Delhi: Vij Books India Pvt. Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/MJ4PW3NS/collection [3]: (Chakravarthy 2016, 78) Chakravarthy, Pradeep. 2016. ‘Thanjavur’s Sarasvati Muhal Library’ India International Centre Quarterly. Vol. 42:3/4. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/CU6HMURQ/collection |
||||||
|
“Finally, there is a reference in John Neiuhoff, which confirms the chronology re-adjustment elaborated in this investigation. With, regard to the events of 1533, he says: ‘After all, the Nayk of Madure, having found means to get into possession of the country, left the Portuguese in the full possession of their jurisdiction over the Parvas, and of the free exercise of their religion.’ This discussion leans to the conclusion that Visvanatha Nayaka, the founder of the Nayak dynasty of Madura, was established in authority there not long before the death of the Vijayanagar emperor, Krishnadeva Raya, in 1530, i.e., about 1529.”
[1]
“The history of the Nayaks of Madura comprises the history practically of the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and the first third of the eighteenth centuries, and carries history of south India from the best days of the empire of Vijayanagar to the eve of the British occupation of the Carnatic. It might be described as, in essential particulars, a continuation of the struggle for Hindu independence in the south against the advancing tide of Muhammadan conquest which threatened its very existence at the commencement of the fourteenth century. The cause of Hindu independence, for which the last great Hoysala, Vira Ballal, lost his life in Trichinopoly, was finally over thrown by Chandra Sahib who drove, by a perfidious act of his, the last Nayak Queen, Minakshi, to commit suicide in or about the year 1736.”
[2]
[1]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 24) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection [2]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 1) Sathyanatha Aiyar, R. 1991. History of the Nayaks of Madura. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databak/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/E2S7TSI5/collection |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
