| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"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. |
||||||
|
“The Funj kingdom was finally brought to an end by the Egypitian conquest of 1820-21.” .”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
“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 newcomers overlaid their coastal culture with the attributes of their own civilisation; in particular, perhaps, a more centralised type of state organisation--but in the process they became partly assimilated into coastal society themselves."
[1]
[1]: (Kup 1975: 32) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/36IUGEZV/collection. |
||||||
|
“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 […]”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"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."
[1]
[1]: (Fyle and Foray 2006: xxxvi) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"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]
[1]: (Cole 2021) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WBFJ8QU5/collection. |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
“During the Second Italian-Ethiopian War (1935-1936), Sultan Mahammad Yayyo again agreed to cooperate with the Italian invaders.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
This apparent polity, located in the eastern Shashe-Limpopo, appears to have begun its increase in social complexity in the 10th and 11th centuries, and fell into decline in the 13th century, its gold trade-derived wealth being diverted into the rising polity of Great Zimbabwe instead. Unclear whether the decline of this polity occurred substantially after, or contemporaneously with, the decline of Toutswe. Needs further research. “…the first complex state in the region, a precursor to Great Zimbabwe. The most important site linked to this state has been found at Mapungubwe, on the south side of the Limpopo River… in the Limpopo River valley…. From the tenth century, sites in the region became more complex, showing evidence of larger cattle herds…. These shifts are taken to indicate the beginnings of more complex social structure in the area…. Mapungubwe has been identified as the center of a state that emerged… at the end of the tenth century…. By the thirteenth century, the Mapungubwe state was in decline, probably as a result of its loss of control of the gold trade. Arab traders were locating themselves further north… and trading directly with a newly emergent state… Great Zimbabwe.”
[1]
[1]: (Erlank 2005; 702-703) Natasha Erlank, “Iron Age (Later): Southern Africa: Leopard’s Kopje, Bambandyanalo, and Mapungubwe,” in Encyclopedia of African History Vol. 2, ed. Kevin Shillington (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005): 702-703. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AWA9ZT5B/collection |
||||||
|
Both Torwa-Rozvi and Mutapa identified as successors in Pikirayi 2006, controlling different areas of the territory once dominated by Great Zimbabwe. Torwa-Rozvi selected as the main successor state, on account of its location close to the former Great Zimbabwean center of power. Also, note that Chirikure remarks that these states existed prior to the decline of Great Zimbabwe for some time before their succession to its position as regional power occurred. “By the middle of the 15th century, Great Zimbabwe had declined….it also lost control of the gold trade, prompting the rise of successor states, namely Torwa-Rozvi (AD 1450-1830) and Mutapa (AD 1450-1900) in the western and northern regions of the Zimbabwe plateau respectively.”
[1]
“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.”
[2]
See the map of the region provided in the following source for the locations of Torwa-Rozvi and Mutapa relative to Great Zimbabwe. Fig. 63.1
[3]
[1]: (Pikirayi 2006; 33) 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]: (Chirikure 2021; 246) 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 [3]: (Pikirayi , 917) Innocent Pikirayi, Fig. 63.1, “The Zimbabwe Culture and Its Neighbours,” in The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, eds. Peter Mitchell and Paul J. Lane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NVZ5T427/collection |
||||||
|
"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. |
||||||
|
“Thus the adoption of Polonnaruva as the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom by four kings of the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, and the final abandonment of Anurādhapura in its favour, were determined as much by considerations of economic advantage as by strategic and military factors.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 31) 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 |
||||||
|
“Polonnaruva was abandoned after Māgha’s rule, and the next three kings ruled from Dambadeṇiya. One ruler made Yāpahuva his royal residence. There were both rock fortresses; so was Kuruṇägala, another site of royal power in this quest for safety against invasion from South India and the threat from the north. The last occasion when Polonnaruva served as the capital city was in the reign of Parākramabāhu III (1287–93), but this only illustrated the perilous position to which Sinhalese power was reduced: he ruled at Polonnaruva because of his subservience to the Pāṇḍayas.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 82) 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“Indeed Dhātusena (455–73) had hardly consolidated his position when he was murdered by his son Kassapa who usurped the throne at Anurādhapura at the expense of Moggallāna I, Kassapa’s brother, whom Dhātusena had been grooming as his legitimate successor. There was, for a brief period under Upatissa II (517–18) and his successors, a return of the Lambakaṇṇas to power, but Mahānāga (569–71) re-established Moriya control. His immediate successors Aggabodhi I (571–604) and Aggdobhi II (604–14) managed to maintain the Moriya grip on the Anurādhapura throne but not to consolidate their position, for the Lambakaṇṇas were in fact always a formidable threat, and under Moggallāna III (614–17) they overthrew Saṅghatissa II (614), who proved to be the last of the Moriya kings. 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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“The first Lambakaṇṇa 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. In the confusion that followed his death there was a South Indian invasion, and Sinhalese rule—such as it was—was confined to Rohana. The Moriya Dhātusena led the struggle against the invader and for the restoration of Sinhalese power at Anurādhapura. His success brought the Moriyas to power but not to a pre-eminence such as that achieved by the Lambakaṇṇas in the past few centuries. Indeed Dhātusena (455–73) and hardly consolidated his position when he was murdered by his son Kassapa who usurped the throne at Anurādhapura at the expense of Moggallāna I, Kassapa’s brother, whom Dhātusena had been grooming as his legitimate successor.”
[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 |
||||||
|
“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 Ajuuraan state is regarded as the successor to its more influential and resilient predecessors such as the Adal and Ifat – both of which spearheaded resistance against Christian Ethiopian and Portuguese aggression on the Horn of Africa.”
[1]
[1]: (Njoku 2013, 40) Njoku, Raphael C. 2013. The History of Somalia. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/njoku/titleCreatorYear/items/U9FHBPZF/item-list |
||||||
|
By the 18th century the Ajuran Sultanate was in decline due to Portuguese aggression and inefficient rulers. “The result was the fragmentation of the Kingdom into several smaller kingdoms and states such as the Gobroon Dynasty, the Warsangali Sultanate and the Bari Dynasty.”
[1]
[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 |
||||||
|
“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 |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“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 |
||||||
|
Two great grandsons of an old Ifat leader, Haqedin II and Se’adedin created an anti-Christian movement and established their movement in Adal. Haqedin II and Se’adedin thus founded the new Sultanate of Adal. “But the end result of Haqedin’s decision was the effective revival of Muslim resistance against further Chrisitan expansion towards the east, and the rise of a better organized and highly united Muslim kingdom in the Harar plateau, which is often called in the Christian documents the Kingdom of Adal.”
[1]
[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 |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
“Ultimately, it was the Italians who outmanoeuvred their competitors and systematically wrapped up the entire Majerteen territories into what became the Italian Somaliland.”
[1]
[1]: (Njoku 2013, 42) 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 |
||||||
|
“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 archaeological sequence of Ile-Ife has been broadly delineated into three major cultural-historical periods (Eyo, 1974a, p. 409; Willett, 1967a). These are: "pre-Classic" (pre-twelfth century), "Classic" (twelfth-sixteenth century), and "post-Classic" (sixteenth-nineteenth century) periods."
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2002: 41) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“The importance of Wukari in the tradition of origin, migration and settlement of the Jukun people can well be understood from the background that it is now the successor of the Kwararafa State.”
[1]
[1]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 63. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
“The basic facts are not in dispute. 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 Allada 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.”
[1]
[1]: 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Most texts refer to the first Oba’s origins in Ile Ife. But some suggest Oranmiyan was a native Bini, who spent time away but returned to assume the kingship. “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.”
[1]
“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.”
[2]
“Prior to the establishment of the dynasty of obas in Benin, the city’s rulers were known as the Ogiso. The first Ogiso was Igodo who established a dynasty of kings, some thirty-one in all. This dynasty came to an end when its last ruler, Ogiso Owodo, was banished from Benin as a result of popular hostility against his regime which was marked by misrule and cruelty.”
[3]
[1]: 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 [2]: 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 [3]: Akinola, G. A. (1976). The Origin of the Eweka Dynasty of Benin: A Study in the Use and Abuse of Oral Traditions. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 8(3), 21–36: 22. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KFESED7G/collection |
||||||
|
"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."
[1]
[1]: (Wrigley 2002: 4) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DNKVW9WZ/collection. |
||||||
|
“The disintegration of the Old Oyo Empire effectively began around the 1820s, when ‘the slave trade from Africa had assumed gigantic proportions’ (Lovejoy, 1983: 135). One can rightly argue that its disintegration did not in any way exhaust warfare, slave-taking and their beneficiaries, the trinity that functioned in tandem to aid and then undermine the empire. […] The main successor states – Oke-Odan, New Oyo, Ilorin, Ibadan, Abeokuta and Ijaye – that emerged to fill the vacuum created by its disintegration were all products of the trinity. They thrived on militarist authority patterns as opposed to the age-old constitutional monarchical political system of the Yoruba (Falola and Oguntomisin, 1984, 2001). Ibadan, which emerged as the new imperial overlord, operated the quintessence of that new political culture based on militarism (Awe, 1965; Falola, 1985).”
[1]
[1]: 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): 607. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection |
||||||
|
More specifically, British Protectorate of Northern Nigeria: “In 1903 the British conquered Kano and incorporated it into the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria.”
[1]
[1]: Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009: 189. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SJAIVKDW/collection |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“The Hausa Kingdoms were organized under a hereditary chief, or emir, who was advised by a council of title-holders. The kingdom, or emirate, was divided into districts, with each under a district head. The Hausa kingdom, or emirate, structure, for the most part, remained unaltered during the 19th century. These first seven kingdoms are referred to as the Hausa bakwai (“Hausa states”) or Habe kingdoms. Of these seven, the most influential were Kano and Zazzau. Hausa oral tradition also says that Bayajidda had several illegitimate children, who founded seven kingdoms: Gwari, Kebbi, Kwararafa, Nupe, Zamfara, Yoruba, and Jukun. These kingdoms are referred to as the banza bakwai (“bastard states”). Some oral sources identify these kingdoms as being not of blood relation to Bayajidda or the Hausa. Much more evidence exists for this version. Scholars may exclude Zamfara and Kwararafa and include Yauri and Borgu in the list of seven states. Historians often describe these Hausa Kingdoms as city-states. Almost all of these Hausa Kingdoms became part of the Sokoto Caliphate in the 19th century.”
[1]
“In 1804, Usman dan Fodio, a Fulani, led a series of jihads that subsumed the Hausa Kingdoms in the Sokoto Caliphate.”
[2]
“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.”
[3]
[1]: Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009: 149. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SJAIVKDW/collection [2]: 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 [3]: 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
After conquest by the French, Dahomey was made a French Protectorate in 1892 and in 1902 (NB I’ve also seen 1894 and 1904, but not from major sources, plus 1893 from Monroe) became part of a French colony, French Dahomey. “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).”
[1]
“What are the descriptions available for a study of the life of the Dahomean kingdom prior to its conquest by the French in 1892?”
[2]
[1]: 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 [2]: 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 |
||||||
|
Incorporated into Southern Nigeria Protectorate in 1900. “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.”
[1]
“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.”
[2]
[1]: 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 [2]: 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 |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: 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 |
||||||
|
“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 |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 early decades of French Colonial rule in Siin were marked by considerable instability. This volatility had roots in the political soil of the Atlantic era, though it appeared to increase exponentially after the passage to legitimate commerce. Between the shift to legitimate trade and the creation of the Siin protectorate in 1887, the kingdom witnessed an expansion of internal tensions and political repression.”
[1]
[1]: (Richard 2018, 271) Richard, Francois G. 2018. Reluctant Landscapes: Historical Anthropologies of Political Experience in Siin, Senegal. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZNV5RKBU/collection |
||||||
|
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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
“The empire’s territories 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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
“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]
[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 |
||||||
|
"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]
[1]: (Kiwanuka 1969: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/22DD3KG7/collection. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"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."
[1]
[1]: (Iliffe 1979: 119-121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/collection. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"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."
[1]
[1]: (Iliffe 1979: 119-121) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/collection. |
||||||
|
“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."
[1]
[1]: (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 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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
Also known as the Madras Presidency and the British East India Company. “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 a part of the Madras Presidency and the Raja was given an annual allowance.”
[1]
[1]: (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 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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
Also known as the British East India Company. “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]
[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 |
||||||
|
“These six rulers were in direct hereditary line. Kampa Varman was the last important Pallava ruler. By this time, the power of the dynasty was already dwindling. Eventually the kingdom was taken over by the Cholas of Thanjavur.”
[1]
[1]: (Kamlesh 2010, 566) Kamelsh, Kapur. 2010. ‘The Pallava Dynasty’ In History of Ancient India: Portraits of a Nation. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UETBPIDE/collection |
||||||
|
“After their defeat, the Kalabhras became feudatories under the Pandyas and the Pallavas and continued so till the tenth century A.D.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
during the Warring States period
|
||||||
|
during the Warring States period
|
||||||
|
during the Warring States period
|
||||||
|
spring/autumn period continuation of (smaller) kingdom of Zhou
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Kamehameha’s Kingdom.
|
||||||
|
Under Brooke Raj rule, the governed Iban communities remained relatively autonomous in the regulation of local matters, although a colonial administrative structure was superimposed onto the Iban system of independent small villages. The White Rajahs sought to suppress infighting and mobilize Iban communities for their own military interests: ’In the present day, under the rule of Rajah Brooke, no Sea Dyaks may go out on a fighting expedition unless called out for that purpose by the Government. I remember not long ago that there were some rebels in the upper reaches of the Batang Lupar River, who had been guilty of many murders, and would not submit to the Government. After trying milder measures without any effect, it was decided to take a force into their country, and the Government sent round the War Spear to let the people of the different villages know they were to be ready to go on expedition at a certain date.’
[1]
’Recurring hostility between the Brookes and the highest ranking Malays, who were “Arabs” and Brunei pengiran, grew out of rivalry, and the rivalry was in no small measure a contest for influence over the Iban population, as the history of the Malay Plot demonstrates. The Ibans were of central political importance because they loved to fight simply for the sake of fighting. The success of Charles Brooke with Iban levies from the lower Skrang and Saribas has already been described, but it is obvious that at this stage in Sarawak history, calling out the Ibans was still a game that more than one could play. At the time of the Chinese revolt in 1857, Charles had summoned his Skrang followers to the aid of besieged Kuching by sending a spear among them. Three years later the Brookes indignantly accused Sharif Masahor of using exactly the same tactic in the same area to call out hostile Ibans to fight the Rajah after the siege of Mukah. Well into the twentieth century, as we shall see, the dispatch of a “calling out spear” remained the standard official method of summoning Ibans for unpaid military service.’
[2]
But the allegiance of the Iban subject population to Brooke authority was loose and ambiguous: ’Friendly Ibans were frequently able to manipulate Residents, who depended on them for information as well as for striking power. A classic case of confusion took place in 1879 in the Second Division, when the Resident, F.R.O. Maxwell, entrusted a Government spear to a visiting Iban headman from the Kantu River in Dutch Borneo. Maxwell asked this man to deliver a message to another headman on the Skrang River, who was supposed to report to Fort Alice. In this case the spear was merely a token of Government authority, according to Maxwell’s account, but it was also the sign commonly employed to raise forces for an expedition. Instead of using it to summon the man Maxwell wanted to see, his messenger called out a large force of Skrang warriors and led them in an attack on certain enemies in the upper Batang Lupar. The Resident then demanded a heavy fine from the Skrang leaders, charging that they should have known better, Government spear or no, than to follow a spurious call to arms. But they refused to pay the fine, and made threats against the Government. Eventually Maxwell had to send two large punitive expeditions into the Skrang River to restore Brooke authority. He blamed the whole affair on the principal Skrang headman, Kedu (Lang Ngindang).’
[3]
[1]: Gomes, Edwin H. 1911. “Seventeen Years Among The Sea Dyaks Of Borneo: A Record Of Intimate Association With The Natives Of The Bornean Jungles", 77 [2]: Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 201 [3]: Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 391 |
||||||
|
Under Brooke Raj rule, the governed Iban communities remained relatively autonomous in the regulation of local matters, although a colonial administrative structure was superimposed onto the Iban system of independent small villages. The White Rajahs sought to suppress infighting and mobilize Iban communities for their own military interests: ’In the present day, under the rule of Rajah Brooke, no Sea Dyaks may go out on a fighting expedition unless called out for that purpose by the Government. I remember not long ago that there were some rebels in the upper reaches of the Batang Lupar River, who had been guilty of many murders, and would not submit to the Government. After trying milder measures without any effect, it was decided to take a force into their country, and the Government sent round the War Spear to let the people of the different villages know they were to be ready to go on expedition at a certain date.’
[1]
’Recurring hostility between the Brookes and the highest ranking Malays, who were “Arabs” and Brunei pengiran, grew out of rivalry, and the rivalry was in no small measure a contest for influence over the Iban population, as the history of the Malay Plot demonstrates. The Ibans were of central political importance because they loved to fight simply for the sake of fighting. The success of Charles Brooke with Iban levies from the lower Skrang and Saribas has already been described, but it is obvious that at this stage in Sarawak history, calling out the Ibans was still a game that more than one could play. At the time of the Chinese revolt in 1857, Charles had summoned his Skrang followers to the aid of besieged Kuching by sending a spear among them. Three years later the Brookes indignantly accused Sharif Masahor of using exactly the same tactic in the same area to call out hostile Ibans to fight the Rajah after the siege of Mukah. Well into the twentieth century, as we shall see, the dispatch of a “calling out spear” remained the standard official method of summoning Ibans for unpaid military service.’
[2]
But the allegiance of the Iban subject population to Brooke authority was loose and ambiguous: ’Friendly Ibans were frequently able to manipulate Residents, who depended on them for information as well as for striking power. A classic case of confusion took place in 1879 in the Second Division, when the Resident, F.R.O. Maxwell, entrusted a Government spear to a visiting Iban headman from the Kantu River in Dutch Borneo. Maxwell asked this man to deliver a message to another headman on the Skrang River, who was supposed to report to Fort Alice. In this case the spear was merely a token of Government authority, according to Maxwell’s account, but it was also the sign commonly employed to raise forces for an expedition. Instead of using it to summon the man Maxwell wanted to see, his messenger called out a large force of Skrang warriors and led them in an attack on certain enemies in the upper Batang Lupar. The Resident then demanded a heavy fine from the Skrang leaders, charging that they should have known better, Government spear or no, than to follow a spurious call to arms. But they refused to pay the fine, and made threats against the Government. Eventually Maxwell had to send two large punitive expeditions into the Skrang River to restore Brooke authority. He blamed the whole affair on the principal Skrang headman, Kedu (Lang Ngindang).’
[3]
[1]: Gomes, Edwin H. 1911. “Seventeen Years Among The Sea Dyaks Of Borneo: A Record Of Intimate Association With The Natives Of The Bornean Jungles", 77 [2]: Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 201 [3]: Pringle, Robert Maxwell 1968. “Ibans Of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941”, 391 |
||||||
|
The most direct link to Buni culture was probably to be found in the Tarumanagara Kingdom of West Java, founded in 358 C.E. However, the first polity to have significant jurisdiction in Central Java is widely understood to be the Kalingga Kingdom.
|
||||||
|
Core region was lost to Durrani? Empire but Mughal state still existed in the upper Ganges valley.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Early Elamite Period
|
||||||
|
Uruk Phase
|
||||||
|
The Commonwealth period ended when the chieftains swore allegiance to the Norwegian crown: ’In spite of the seeming abundance, the end was coming for an independent Icelandic commonwealth. In Norway royal power gained strength in the early 13th century when the king set out to unite all Norwegian Viking Age settlements under his reign. By that time about 10 powerful godar, belonging to some five families, held almost all the chieftaincies in Iceland, and by mid-century these chieftaincies were engaged in a bloody struggle for power. Finally, in 1262-64, all Icelandic chieftains and representatives of the farmers were persuaded to swear allegiance to the king of Norway, partly in the hope that he would bring peace to the country.’
[1]
The persistence of internal strife had contributed to this decision: ’From the twelfth century onwards, especially during the Sturlung Period, a few families managed to control all the goðorð in Iceland. [Page 17] Increasingly the goðorð became territorial units; the most powerful chiefs sought to consolidate their position, appropriating land and property on a large scale. Sigurðsson (ch. 12) discusses the evolution of ríki (‘small states’, new political units with rather clear territorial boundaries), beginning in some parts of Iceland in the eleventh century and culminating almost everywhere by the middle of the thirteenth century. Sigurðsson estimates that by year 1220 perhaps only five chieftains ruled the whole country, whereas during the tenth century the number of chieftains would normally have been no less than fifty. He explores the changing place and dilemmas of friendship, a voluntary relationship based on trust, in the context of increasing concentration of power. Clearly, the bond between chieftain and followers became less personal than before. Due to increased confrontations between the major chieftains and the relative absence of potential mediators, ‘friends of both’ as they were called, there was a rapid escalation in violence, brutality, and warfare. Because of internal conflicts and the expansive policy of the Norwegian state, the Commonwealth finally came to an end. After fierce battles the chieftains agreed in 1262 to cede their authority to the king of Norway. Eyrbyggja saga seems to compare and personify the political systems of the early and late Commonwealth period; the struggle between the two main goðar in the story, Arnkell and Snorri, reflects the changing times (see Olason 1989, 1971:19-20; Turner 1985:112-17; Pálsson 1991b). Arnkell signifies the reality of the early Commonwealth, he is a heroic big man who mobilizes support by personal charms and his obituary is full of praise; he was “a great loss to everybody … good tempered, brave and determined” (ÍF 4, ch. 37). Snorri, on the other hand, represents the reality of the chiefs during the thirteenth century; he is a clever politician who controls his army but does not fight himself. Durrenberger suggests (1990:77), citing Fried (1967), that these saga accounts of the political development of the Commonwealth add to the general credibility of the sagas; they indicate precisely the kind of history one would expect from the ethnography and dynamics of stratified societies without states.’
[2]
Iceland maintained a degree of autonomy during the Norwegian period: ’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.’
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10088 [2]: Pálsson, Gísli 1992. “Introduction: Text, Life, And Saga”, 16 |
||||||
|
* There was no major break between this polity and the next.
|
||||||
|
1185-1333 CE
|
||||||
|
First period: Seljuk Empire. Whole period: Khwarezmid Empire.
|
||||||
|
In core region, Morocco, were succeeded by Alaouite Dynasty.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Wagadu Late Soninke Period
|
||||||
|
Cuzco Chiefdom, Qotakalli Period
|
||||||
|
Spanish Empire - Viceroyalty of Peru
|
||||||
|
In the Cuzco Valley, the succeeding quasi-polity was the Killke. Elsewhere in the Andes, Late Intermediate Period polities include the Wanka, the Chimu empire, the Huarco polity, the Chincha.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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."
[1]
[1]: (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. |
||||||
|
Hou Han Shu said: "When the Yeuh-chih were destroyed by the Hsiung-nu, they migrated to Ta-Hsia [Bactria] and divided the country into five Hsi-hou [Chiefdoms] ... Then 100 years later Chiu-chiu-chu’ueh [Kujula Kadphises] hsi-hou [Chief] of Kuei-shuang having attacked and destroyed [the other] four hsi-hou became independent and set himself on the throne."
[1]
[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. |
||||||
|
Eastern Han broken up into multiple small quasi-polities (Three Kingdoms period). "the last Han emperor abdicated to Cao Pi (187-226), the founder of the Wei dynasty."
[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. |
||||||
|
"It is against the background of these socioeconomic developments in different parts of China during the fourth and early third millennia BC that we now come to our examination of the trajectory of the middle Yellow River basin. As already mentioned, we are focusing on this region because it is here that both traditional and modern scholarship has identified the origins of the state. However, as suggested below, this may not be the only place where similar trajectories can be observed. 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. It continues with the Erlitou culture c. 1900-1550 BC, Erligang (二里岗 or Early Shang) c. 1600-1300 BC, and Yinxu (殷墟 or Late Shang) c. 1300-1050 BC."
[1]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 338) |
||||||
|
By the mid-century period, the Communist regime had gained control over the territory inhabited by the Hmong population: ’Throughout the Republican period, the government favored a policy of assimilation for the Miao and strongly discouraged expressions of ethnicity. Southwestern China came under Communist government control by 1951, and Miao participated in land reform, collectivization, and the various national political campaigns. In the autonomous areas created beginning in 1952, the Miao were encouraged to revive and elaborate their costumes, music, and dance, while shedding "superstitious" or "harmful" customs. Some new technology and scientific knowledge was introduced, along with modern medicine and schooling. The Miao suffered considerably during the Cultural Revolution years, when expressions of ethnicity were again discouraged [...].’
[1]
[1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao |
||||||
|
The Mongols defeated the Sultanate’s army in 1243. From then on Anatolia was under Mongol, later Il-Khnate, authority to varying degrees. The Sultans carried on as a dynasty till Masʿud II.
[1]
[1]: Andrew Peacock ’SALJUQS iii. SALJUQS OF RUM’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-iii |
||||||
|
Sponemann-Collinsville-Loyd
|
||||||
|
’Scythians’ before the Archaemenid Empire. There may be a more precise term for the group than ’Scythians’.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
From the 1930s onwards, Ecuadorian incursions into Shuar territory intensified: ’In the 1930s a gold rush to the area once again brought about intense fighting between the Jivaro and the new arrivals, but the Roman Catholic Salesians, who had a mission among the Jivaro, were able to stop the fighting by persuading the Ecuadorian government to provide a reservation for the Jivaro. Since then, relations between the Jivaro and non-Indians have been essentially peaceful, although the Jivaro cannot be considered completely pacified.’
[1]
[1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro |
||||||
|
German Colonial Government; Japanese Colonial Government. 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 |
||||||
|
After World War II, Japanese authorities were replaced by the United States under a United Nations Trusteeship before gaining independence in the late 20th century: ’The islands were sighted by the Spanish explorer Álvaro Saavedra in 1528. They were visited occasionally by 19th-century traders and whalers and were included in the German purchase of parts of Micronesia from Spain (1899). Annexed by Japan (1914) and strongly fortified for World War II, the islands (known as the Truk Islands until 1990) were heavily attacked, bypassed, and blockaded by the Allies during the war. The sunken hulls of Japanese ships remain there, along with ruined weapons and fortifications on land. Together with the other islands in what are now the Federated States of Micronesia, the Chuuk group was part of the U.S.-administered United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986.’
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Chuuk-Islands |
||||||
|
After World War II, Japanese authorities were replaced by the United States under a United Nations Trusteeship before gaining independence in the late 20th century: ’The islands were sighted by the Spanish explorer Álvaro Saavedra in 1528. They were visited occasionally by 19th-century traders and whalers and were included in the German purchase of parts of Micronesia from Spain (1899). Annexed by Japan (1914) and strongly fortified for World War II, the islands (known as the Truk Islands until 1990) were heavily attacked, bypassed, and blockaded by the Allies during the war. The sunken hulls of Japanese ships remain there, along with ruined weapons and fortifications on land. Together with the other islands in what are now the Federated States of Micronesia, the Chuuk group was part of the U.S.-administered United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986.’
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Chuuk-Islands |
||||||
|
‘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 |
||||||
|
The Union founded after Osei Tutu’s military victory against the Denkyira incorporated a set of allied sub-polities under the overall authority of the Asantehene based at Kumasi: ’In the aftermath of the Denkyira war the military coalition of states was transformed into a political union.’
[1]
For Hayford, this union was essentially a confederation of several ’imperia in imperio’ under the paramount authority of the Asantehene: ’The Native State, in its highest development, is to be found where a number of considerably important communities combine and own allegiance to one central paramount Authority. Such Authority is the King, properly so called. Thus in Ashanti, before the breaking up of the Court at Kumasi, there were the Manpons, the Juabins, the Kokofus, the Beckwas, the Adansis, and several other large and important communities, owning allegiance to the stool of Kumasi as the paramount stool of all Ashanti. Each of these important communities, when regarded with respect to the entire State, was a sort of imperium in imperio-in fact, several distinct native states federated together under the same laws, the same customs, the same faith and worship, the people speaking the same language, and all owning allegiance to a paramount king or president, who represented the sovereignty of the entire Union.’
[2]
For Arhin, the ’official’, confederated character of the Ashanti Union was increasingly eroded before the onset of British colonial rule, with the Asantehene seeking to concentrate power in Kumasi: ’Formally the Asante lived within a system of decentralized ‘patrimonialism’: that is to say, under the authority of hereditary rulers selected by the heads of the constituent units of the oman, the localized matrilineages, the villages and the districts who were, in the main, a gerontocratic body. The members of the various units also enjoyed rights of use in land. But the political history of Asante, from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the eve of colonial rule, was the history of the erosion of these political and economic rights. It was a history of the increasing personalization of power at the expense of the holders of hereditary authority and also of commoners.’
[3]
[1]: Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 112 [2]: Hayford, J. E. Casely (Joseph Ephraim Casely) 1970. “Gold Coast Native Institutions With Thoughts Upon A Healthy Imperial Policy For The Gold Coast And Ashanti”, 19 [3]: Arhin, Kwame 1986. “Asante Praise Poems: The Ideology Of Patrimonialism”, 169 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’By 1872 the British had complete control of the coast after taking over the Dutch and Danish forts. When they did not recognize Ashanti sovereignty in the area, the Ashanti invaded. In 1874, British forces launched a counteroffensive and sacked Kumasi. In 1883 a general uprising led to the overthrow of the Ashanti chi ef Mensu Bonsu and four years of civil war (1884-1888). A faction representing mercantile interests prevailed, although an Imperial faction regained power in the following decade. This led to another war with the British, who again attacked Kumasi in 1895 and captured the Ashanti king and chiefs. The king and chiefs were exiled and in 1901 the whole region was declared a British possession.’
[1]
[1]: HRAF Cultural Summary for ’Akan’ Michelle Gilbert, Robert O. Lagacé, and Ian Skoggard |
||||||
|
After the Japanese occupation of Borneo and the termination of British and Dutch rule, the island was governed by Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia. ’After a period of occupation by the Japanese (1942-45) during World War II, Indonesia declared its independence from The Netherlands in 1945. Its struggle for independence, however, continued until 1949, when the Dutch officially recognized Indonesian sovereignty. It was not until the United Nations (UN) acknowledged the western segment of New Guinea as part of Indonesia in 1969 that the country took on its present form.’
[1]
’Malaysia, a member of the Commonwealth, represents the political marriage of territories that were formerly under British rule. When it was established on Sept. 16, 1963, Malaysia comprised the territories of Malaya (now Peninsular Malaysia), the island of Singapore, and the colonies of Sarawak and Sabah in northern Borneo.’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Indonesia [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia |
||||||
|
After the Japanese occupation of Borneo and the termination of British and Dutch rule, the island was governed by Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia. ’After a period of occupation by the Japanese (1942-45) during World War II, Indonesia declared its independence from The Netherlands in 1945. Its struggle for independence, however, continued until 1949, when the Dutch officially recognized Indonesian sovereignty. It was not until the United Nations (UN) acknowledged the western segment of New Guinea as part of Indonesia in 1969 that the country took on its present form.’
[1]
’Malaysia, a member of the Commonwealth, represents the political marriage of territories that were formerly under British rule. When it was established on Sept. 16, 1963, Malaysia comprised the territories of Malaya (now Peninsular Malaysia), the island of Singapore, and the colonies of Sarawak and Sabah in northern Borneo.’
[2]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Indonesia [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia |
||||||
|
Two brothers of the Hasmonean dynasty, King Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, contended for the throne in continual civil wars and intrigues from 67-63 BCE. Finally each appealed to the Romans in Syria under Pompey the Great to intervene on his side.
[1]
Pompey, seeing the opportunity, intervened on the side of the ineffectual Hyrcanus, besieged Jerusalem and took it in 63 BCE, and absorbed Judea into the Roman Empire as a protectorate.
[1]: E.g. Josephus, cited in Eshel (2008:140). |
||||||
|
Kalachuris; Yadavas; Hoysalas For a few decades in the twelfth century (c. 1157-1184
[1]
), the Chalukya Empire was briefly under the rule of a subordinate dynasty who successfully rebelled, the Kalachuris. Shortly after regaining power over their land, the Chalukyas lost it again, this time to the Yadavas in the North and the Hoysalas in the South
[2]
.
[1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 113-115 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), pp. 96 |
||||||
|
’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. The consolidation of the 1917 Revolution was protracted until 1920, in part because of extensive opposition to Red forces by Whites under Kolchak. The Yakut Republic was not secure until 1923. After relative calm during Lenin’s New Economic Policy, a harsh collectivization and antinationalist campaign ensued. Intellectuals such as Oiunskii, founder of the Institute of Languages, Literature and History, and Kulakovskii, an ethnographer, were persecuted in the 1920s and 1930s. The turmoil of Stalinist policies and World War II left many Yakut without their traditional homesteads and unaccustomed to salaried industrial or urban work. Education both improved their chances of adaptation and stimulated interest in the Yakut past.’
[1]
[1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
‘Even after the Britishers left India, the administration of justice was carried on in the same pattern till the Autonomous District Council came into existence in 1952. Acting under Paragraph 4(4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council framed the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. This contains provisions for the constitution of village councils, District Council Courts, Subordinate District Council Courts and Village Courts with powers and jurisdiction to try suits and cases.’
[1]
Garo Hills district was initially administered as part of the state of Assam: ‘Till 1969, the Garo Hills District was part of state of Assam but in that year an autonomous State of Meghalaya was formed within the State of Assam as provided by section 3(1) of Assam Reorganization (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 (55 of 1969). In pursuance of that Act, the Rules of 1937 and 1953 were adopted by the Meghalaya Adaptation of Laws (whole paragraph no. 1) of 1973 issued under section 79 of that Act. The Government of Assam acting under paragraph 4(3) of Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, issued the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954. The order is material for ascertaining the position as to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of Gauhati, as regards to the Garo Hills district. This order is still in force (Sangma, J. 1973, p. 160-65).’
[2]
‘The state of Meghalaya comprises the Garo, Khasi and Jaintia Hills. It is a table land which is an extension of the massive block of Indian peninsular shield separated due to denudational and tectonic forces. Goalpara and Kamrup districts of Assam on the west borders the state on the north, whereas Bangladesh international border lies in the south and the Karbi Anglong borders in the East. There is no integrated historical account of the state as the inhabitants live in different tribal groups and have varied cultural and linguistic patterns. They till recently lived in physical isolation. […] The Garo Hills became a part of Meghalaya State after the formation of Meghalaya as a state of Union of India in early 1970s.’
[3]
‘The prevailing groups in the State are the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo. In an amendment made recently in the provision of Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution of India, the Rabha, the Bodo-Kachari and the Koch have been given the status of Scheduled Tribe in the State.’
[3]
[1]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 56 [2]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 57 [3]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 38 |
||||||
|
Iskvakus; Pallavas; Chutus; Abhiras; Kurus; Vakatakas
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524850/Satavahana-dynasty |
||||||
|
"This dynasty ruled for another twenty years (ca. 1005-985 bc). It was followed by only one king of an ‘Elamite’ dynasty, who ruled for only six years."
[1]
[1]: (Liverani 2014, 469) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7DRZQS5Q/q/liverani. |
||||||
|
"Although at first the Chobanids maintained the fiction that they were vassals of the ruling house of Hülegü (Hūlāgū), after the collapse of Il-khanid authority they became effectively independent rulers of the areas that they were able to seize."
[1]
[1]: Charles Melville and ʿAbbās Zaryāb, ’CHOBANIDS’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chobanids-chupanids-pers |
||||||
|
Solṭān-Ḥosayn surrendered to the Afghans and gave the title of shah to their leader Maḥmud Ḡilzay.
[1]
[1]: Rudi Matthee ‘SAFAVID DYNASTY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids. |
||||||
|
Muhezzibeddin had to surrender to the Mongols. From then on the Seljuks had to pay tribute to the Mongols.
[1]
[1]: Melville, Charles. “Anatolia under the Mongols” in The Cambridge history of Turkey. Vol. 1, Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453 / edited by Kate Fleet. (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2009), P.54. |
||||||
|
Cola di Rienzo’s Revolution in Rome. Nicholaus, severus et clemens, libertatis, pacis justiciaeque tribunus, et sacra Romana Reipublica liberator.
|
||||||
|
(1333CE-1336CE)
|
||||||
|
or Tokogawa Shogunate, depending on whether the more centralized 1568-c1600 CE period is considered a separate quasi-polity from this one.
|
||||||
|
’The year 1432 symbolizes the termination of the Angkor period because it coincides with the transfer of power eastward. This shift was due partly to military pressure from Ayutthaya on the west and partly to the attraction of a location closer to the coast in order to take advantage of increasing opportunities for maritime trade. Angkor was under the control of Ayutthaya for a short time, but in the 1540s a Khmer ruler known in the chronicles as Ang Chan moved back to Angkor and resumed work on some unfinished monuments, includ- ing relief carvings in Angkor Wat. Banteay Kdei was restored, Ba- phuon and Phnom Bakheng were altered, and the west facade of the second level of Baphuon was converted into a reclining Buddha 60 meters (200 feet) long.’
[1]
[1]: (Miksic 2007, p. 19) |
||||||
|
Six Funanese tributary missions to China are recorded as arriving during the third century. Then comes a gap of seventy years, a single embassy in 357 CE, then eighty years before a group of three embassies arrived between 434 and 438 CE. After a further gap of some fifty years, ten embassies arrived between 484 and 539, and three more between 559 and the last embassy in 588, after which Funan gave way to Zhenla, which itself was replaced by the Khmer kingdom of Angkor in 802.’
[1]
’In Southeast Asia new and powerful kingdoms arose. In Cambodia the Khmer kingdom of Angkor replaced Zhenla [...]’
[2]
[1]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, 30) [2]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, 41) |
||||||
|
Lin-yi; Chenla. Chenla is the older spelling of the name, the modern romanization of the Chinese character is Zhenla.
[1]
’After a further gap of some fifty years, ten embassies arrived between 484 and 539, and three more between 559 and the last embassy in 588, after which Funan gave way to Zhenla, which itself was replaced by the Khmer kingdom of Angkor in 802.’
[2]
’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.’
[3]
’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.’
[4]
’Vickery’s (1985; 1998; 1999a; 2005) work, in contrast to some earlier Marxist studies, is concerned with economic, social and political changes. His (1998) study from inscriptions of the society and institutions of the pre-9th century proposes explanations for the transition from the earlier Funan period to that of Pre-Angkorian Chenla, a period for which there is little historic evidence.’
[5]
’At any given time dozens of lesser kings would have been paying tribute to Funan; the loss of much of that revenue and the peace it signaled led to the eventual re- placement of Funan by Chenla as the dominant force in the mandala system of Southeast Asia.’
[6]
[1]: (Miksic, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email) [2]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 30) [3]: (Khai 2003, p. 43) [4]: (Hall 2010, p. 60) [5]: (Lustig 2009, p. 41) [6]: (West 2009, p. 225) |
||||||
|
Alexander the Great destroyed much of the city of Tyre in 332 BCE, and killed or enslaved the bulk of the population. This episode essentially broke the power of the Phoenician cities in the Levant, leaving Carthage and other colonies to the West as the remaining bearers of Phoenician culture. (Tyre and Sidon were able to briefly win independence from the Seleucid Empire some centuries later, before being conquered again and ultimately incorporated into the Roman Empire.)
|
||||||
|
GOLDEN HORDE; Chagatai Khanate; Great Yuan; Ilkhanate
|
||||||
|
"Consequently, there was no evidence of any feudal civil strife until 552, when the Rouran, at the peak of their might, suffered defeat from the Turks. [...] In 555, the ruler of the Western Wei empire handed over the remaining few thousand Rouran to the Turks, all of whom (except children under sixteen) were put to cruel death."
[1]
[1]: (Kradin 2005, 166) |
||||||
|
" From the end of the 9th Century onward, the Shiwei tribes underwent a process of a tribal re-combination and a gradual assimilation with stronger ethnic peoples, the Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols and Han Chinese.127"
[1]
Subjugated by the Khitans in 942 CE.
[2]
[1]: (Xu 2005, 183) [2]: (Sneath 2007, 29) |
||||||
|
The Zapotec people continued to exist, but no longer formed a state.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
The Zapotec people continued to exist, but no longer formed a state.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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.’
[1]
Shortly after, all her dependencies entered into this greater Scandinavian union: ’In 1397 Iceland and all the Norwegian dependencies entered into the union between Norway, Sweden and Denmark established at Kalmar, but no change was made regarding Iceland’s relation to the central government. Only gradually did the effects of the union become noticeable in the choice of Danes as bishops and higher officials, and the extension of Danish commercial and administrative policy to the colony.’
[2]
’But technically Iceland remained as part of the Norwegian kingdom which remained (technically) a special kingdom although in a union with Denmark (and Sweden at times). Technically (again) Iceland only became a part of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1814.’
[3]
This development had been enabled by the discontinuation of the male line in the Norwegian dynasty: ’With the death of the king in 1319 the Norwegian royal house became extinct in the male line. The crown went to foreign-born and incompetent rulers. Norway was united with Sweden, later both with Sweden and Denmark, and finally with Denmark alone, a union which lasted till 1814. During this period of national decadence Norway fell under Danish rule. The Hanseating League destroyed her naval power and commerce, and the galling royal monopoly established by the Danish kings almost destroyed the intercourse with the distant Norwegian colonies.’
[4]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10093 [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 257 [3]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [4]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 234 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Protectorate of British New Guinea; Australian Mandate 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]
[1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History |
||||||
|
’In 1945 Australia combined its administration of Papua and that of the former mandate into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, which it administered from Canberra via Port Moresby. From 1946 Australia managed the New Guinea (eastern) half as a United Nations trust territory. In the 1950s Australia took a gradualist approach to educating the population and improving health services, but from 1960 international pressure led Australia to expedite efforts to create an educated elite and improve social conditions, boost the economy, and develop political structures in preparation for decolonization. General elections for a House of Assembly were held in 1964, 1968, and 1972; self-government was achieved on December 1, 1973, and full independence from Australia on September 16, 1975.’
[1]
’Papua New Guinea’s constitution was adopted in 1975 and has been amended frequently since then. The country is a constitutional monarchy and a member of the Commonwealth. The British monarch, represented by a governor-general, is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government.’
[2]
’The islands that constitute Papua New Guinea were settled over a period of 40,000 years by the mixture of peoples who are generally referred to as Melanesians. Since the country achieved independence in 1975, one of its principal challenges has been the difficulty of governing many hundreds of diverse, once-isolated local societies as a viable single nation.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/Government-and-society [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea |
||||||
|
’In 1945 Australia combined its administration of Papua and that of the former mandate into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, which it administered from Canberra via Port Moresby. From 1946 Australia managed the New Guinea (eastern) half as a United Nations trust territory. In the 1950s Australia took a gradualist approach to educating the population and improving health services, but from 1960 international pressure led Australia to expedite efforts to create an educated elite and improve social conditions, boost the economy, and develop political structures in preparation for decolonization. General elections for a House of Assembly were held in 1964, 1968, and 1972; self-government was achieved on December 1, 1973, and full independence from Australia on September 16, 1975.’
[1]
’Papua New Guinea’s constitution was adopted in 1975 and has been amended frequently since then. The country is a constitutional monarchy and a member of the Commonwealth. The British monarch, represented by a governor-general, is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government.’
[2]
’The islands that constitute Papua New Guinea were settled over a period of 40,000 years by the mixture of peoples who are generally referred to as Melanesians. Since the country achieved independence in 1975, one of its principal challenges has been the difficulty of governing many hundreds of diverse, once-isolated local societies as a viable single nation.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/Government-and-society [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea |
||||||
|
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, Sakha came under Czarist political and administrative control: ’By 1642 the Lena valley was under tribute to the czar; peace was won only after a long siege of a formidable Yakut fortress. By 1700 the fort settlement of Yakutsk (founded 1632) was a bustling Russian administrative, commercial, and religious center and a launching point for further exploration into Kamchatka and Chukotka. Some Yakut moved northeast into territories they had previously not dominated, further assimilating the Evenk and Yukagir. Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. ’
[2]
[1]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 220 [2]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
’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. The consolidation of the 1917 Revolution was protracted until 1920, in part because of extensive opposition to Red forces by Whites under Kolchak. The Yakut Republic was not secure until 1923. After relative calm during Lenin’s New Economic Policy, a harsh collectivization and antinationalist campaign ensued. Intellectuals such as Oiunskii, founder of the Institute of Languages, Literature and History, and Kulakovskii, an ethnographer, were persecuted in the 1920s and 1930s. The turmoil of Stalinist policies and World War II left many Yakut without their traditional homesteads and unaccustomed to salaried industrial or urban work. Education both improved their chances of adaptation and stimulated interest in the Yakut past.’
[1]
[1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The League Council stayed in place after Queen Anne’s War, although colonial incursions were felt more strongly: ’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]
[1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois |
||||||
|
Once settled on reservations, the Iroquois became increasingly dependent on federal American authorities and legislation: ’In 1848 Senecas living on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations petitioned the federal government to change the method of distributing their annuities. In the past they 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.’
[1]
’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).’
[1]
’The Tonawanda Senecas had refused to participate in the 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.’
[2]
Resettlement was associated with dramatic economic and agricultural transformations: ’The coup de grace, that established the basis for agrarian society in the rural period came when the Iroquois were resettled on originally 20,000 acres of land in Tuscarora township. But the Hereditary Councils insisted on larger acreage consisting of 42,000 acres in Tuscarora and and 8,345 3/4 acres in Oneida townships and 1,537?? acres near the Onondaga village (Canada, 1897). This land made up the Six Nations reserve proper. The Six Nations Hereditary Council officially surrendered the remaining Grand River tract lands on January 18,1841, but the actual settlement of the reserve did not begin until after 1846. In 1845, the gazetteer William Smith noted “but (they) are at present about to retrieve altogether to the south side”. (1846:69)’
[3]
[1]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 511 [2]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 512 [3]: Foley, Denis 1994. “Ethnohistoric And Ethnographic Analysis Of The Iroquois From The Aboriginal Era To The Present Suburban Era”, 152 |
||||||
|
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.’
[1]
[1]: 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 439 | Holy Roman Empire - Ottonian-Salian Dynasty | Holy Roman Empire - Hohenstaufen and Welf Dynasties | Confident | - | ||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: 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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 443 | Kingdom of Bohemia - Přemyslid Dynasty | Kingdom of Bohemia - Luxembourgian and Jagiellonian Dynasty | Confident | - | ||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Karagwe was in chaos from civil war, child rulers, brutal regents, smallpox, and rinderpest until the Germans installed an alien regent early in the twentieth century."
[1]
[1]: (Iliffe 1979: 105) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/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]
[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 |
||||||
|
“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.”
[1]
[1]: (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 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||