| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
Early Uruk "Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." [1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level. Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) [2] "was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." [1] 1. King [3] King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." [3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." [3] King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." [3] 2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools 3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." [4] Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." [4] "Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." [5] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [6] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." [7] Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [8] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." [9] Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [10] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [10] [1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html [8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
"At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] _Early in period_ 1. Chief _Later in period_ 1. Paramount chief 2. Lesser chief "The disparities of scale, design, and materials in megalithic mortuary preparation and associated grave goods demonstrate differential access to labor and a variety of goods and resources that strongly suggest significant differences in social rank within Iron Age settlement communities" [2] . However, few sources offers an explicit description of the social and political hierarchy of the time, as "the study of variation among megalithic cemeteries has been beset by low-sample sizes of well-documented excavated interments and by a remarkable paucity of radiometric dates" [2] . "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [3] [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Johansen, The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0(0): 1-28 [3]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). |
||||||
|
levels.
"At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] _Early in period_ 1. Chief _Later in period_ 1. Paramount chief 2. Lesser chief "The disparities of scale, design, and materials in megalithic mortuary preparation and associated grave goods demonstrate differential access to labor and a variety of goods and resources that strongly suggest significant differences in social rank within Iron Age settlement communities" [2] . However, few sources offers an explicit description of the social and political hierarchy of the time, as "the study of variation among megalithic cemeteries has been beset by low-sample sizes of well-documented excavated interments and by a remarkable paucity of radiometric dates" [2] . "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [3] [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Johansen, The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0(0): 1-28 [3]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). |
||||||
|
levels.
"At the smallest and least complex (in terms of population, geographic scale and decision-making arrangements) end of this continuum, chiefs with limited decision-making prerogatives probably presided over single settlements. In larger examples, more powerful leaders based in larger centers likely exerted varying degrees of control over multiple and varying numbers of settlements. Finally, at the most complex end of this continuum, paramount chiefs ruling from large regional centers with lesser chiefs as political subordinates dominated even larger polities containing numerous settlements and substantial populations. In the present context it seems most likely that chiefdoms of the first type were prevalent during the earlier phases of the Iron Age, with those of the latter two types developing with increasing frequency as time passed." [1] _Early in period_ 1. Chief _Later in period_ 1. Paramount chief 2. Lesser chief "The disparities of scale, design, and materials in megalithic mortuary preparation and associated grave goods demonstrate differential access to labor and a variety of goods and resources that strongly suggest significant differences in social rank within Iron Age settlement communities" [2] . However, few sources offers an explicit description of the social and political hierarchy of the time, as "the study of variation among megalithic cemeteries has been beset by low-sample sizes of well-documented excavated interments and by a remarkable paucity of radiometric dates" [2] . "Among the material changes documented in the Iron Age archaeological record are more complex and labor-intensive settlement designs, new mortuary practices, the production and consumption of a range of new slipped and polished ceramic wares as well as iron tools, weapons, and hardware. Most notably, there was significant transformation in the organization of social relations during the Iron Age that produced tangible social differences and inequalities." [3] [1]: R. Brubaker, Aspects of mortuary variability in the South Indian Iron Age, in Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute 60-61, pp. 253-302 [2]: P. Johansen, The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India (2014), Journal of Social Archaeology 0(0): 1-28 [3]: (Johansen 2014, 1-28) Johansen, P. 2014. The politics of spatial renovation: Reconfiguring ritual practices in Iron Age and Early Historic South India. Journal of Social Archaeology. 0(0). |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Ai Khanoum had "a Persian-style administrative center" so earlier on multiple levels (departments and scribes) can be inferred from this apparatus.
[1]
Fewer levels later on. By 126 BCE, according to the the Chinese chronicler Zhang Qian: "Daxia (Bactria) is located ... south of the Gui (Oxus) river. Its people cultivate the land and have cities and houses. It has no great ruler but only a number of petty chiefs ruling the various cities. ... The capital is called the city of Lanshi (Bactra) and has a market where all sorts of goods are bought and sold." " [2] Based on the structure in place in the Seleucid empires, and assumed to have been adopted once the Satrap of Bactria became independent. [3] 1. King 2. Topio overseen by the dioikites3. Epistates4. Panchayat (council of elders.) [4] Seleucus and his successors had maintained the policy of Alexander in appointing a satrap to oversee a province. Below this level, the hyparchy, roughly translated as prefecture. Below the level of Satrap the local elites who supported of the ruler were ranked as varying level of ’friends’ based on favor or eunoia. Loyalty was enhanced further by the granting of vast land holding, villages, slaves and other wealth. Below this level was the topoi. This hierarchical group was overseen by officials called dioikites or oikonomos. [5] [1]: (Mori 2015, 93) Mori, A. in Hose M and Schenker D. 2015. A Companion to Greek Literature. John Wiley & Sons. [2]: (www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-06enl.html) [3]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed. The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 [4]: "History gives no information...about the lower levers of administration under Menander and his fellow Greek kinds in India", George Woodcock, The Greeks in India (1966), pp. 106-107 [5]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed.The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 |
||||||
|
Ai Khanoum had "a Persian-style administrative center" so earlier on multiple levels (departments and scribes) can be inferred from this apparatus.
[1]
Fewer levels later on. By 126 BCE, according to the the Chinese chronicler Zhang Qian: "Daxia (Bactria) is located ... south of the Gui (Oxus) river. Its people cultivate the land and have cities and houses. It has no great ruler but only a number of petty chiefs ruling the various cities. ... The capital is called the city of Lanshi (Bactra) and has a market where all sorts of goods are bought and sold." " [2] Based on the structure in place in the Seleucid empires, and assumed to have been adopted once the Satrap of Bactria became independent. [3] 1. King 2. Topio overseen by the dioikites3. Epistates4. Panchayat (council of elders.) [4] Seleucus and his successors had maintained the policy of Alexander in appointing a satrap to oversee a province. Below this level, the hyparchy, roughly translated as prefecture. Below the level of Satrap the local elites who supported of the ruler were ranked as varying level of ’friends’ based on favor or eunoia. Loyalty was enhanced further by the granting of vast land holding, villages, slaves and other wealth. Below this level was the topoi. This hierarchical group was overseen by officials called dioikites or oikonomos. [5] [1]: (Mori 2015, 93) Mori, A. in Hose M and Schenker D. 2015. A Companion to Greek Literature. John Wiley & Sons. [2]: (www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-06enl.html) [3]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed. The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 [4]: "History gives no information...about the lower levers of administration under Menander and his fellow Greek kinds in India", George Woodcock, The Greeks in India (1966), pp. 106-107 [5]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed.The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 |
||||||
|
"The Kofun period is commonly regarded as the state formation phase." [1] "it is difficult to see any evidence for a political unification of a large part of Japan as early as A.D. 369, or shortly thereafter. Yamao (1977) argues, on documentary grounds, that unification was not achieved until about A.D. 531." [2] "the administrative devices of the central state in the Nara were imported from the continent" [2] 5. Emperors [3] Period noted for having "ruling dynasties" and built large tumuli mounds. Possibly more levels than 2, especially in mound building activity. "it is only after about A.D. 600 that palaces have been found where increasingly greater space was allotted for the administrative work of bureaucrats (Yokoyama 1978)." [4] _Central government_ 4.The earliest evidence for a “bureaucratic machinery” appears to date to the late fifth century CE [5] by 600 CE "a well-developed bureaucracy in the Nara basin was exerting its authority and promoting Buddhism as a unifying ideology for the new regime, thus replacing the ritual authority vested in earlier individual rulers." [4] 3. Different departments inferredfirst imperial chronicles by 712 CE and historical records before this time [6] "the administrative devices of the central state in the Nara were imported from the continent in order to consolidate the power of that state vis a vis the competing polities in the surrounding areas within Japan." [2] 2.1. _Provincial government_ 4.3.2. [1]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 26) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [3]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 32-33) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [5]: (Steenstrup 2011, 11) [6]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 32) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
"The Kofun period is commonly regarded as the state formation phase." [1] "it is difficult to see any evidence for a political unification of a large part of Japan as early as A.D. 369, or shortly thereafter. Yamao (1977) argues, on documentary grounds, that unification was not achieved until about A.D. 531." [2] "the administrative devices of the central state in the Nara were imported from the continent" [2] 5. Emperors [3] Period noted for having "ruling dynasties" and built large tumuli mounds. Possibly more levels than 2, especially in mound building activity. "it is only after about A.D. 600 that palaces have been found where increasingly greater space was allotted for the administrative work of bureaucrats (Yokoyama 1978)." [4] _Central government_ 4.The earliest evidence for a “bureaucratic machinery” appears to date to the late fifth century CE [5] by 600 CE "a well-developed bureaucracy in the Nara basin was exerting its authority and promoting Buddhism as a unifying ideology for the new regime, thus replacing the ritual authority vested in earlier individual rulers." [4] 3. Different departments inferredfirst imperial chronicles by 712 CE and historical records before this time [6] "the administrative devices of the central state in the Nara were imported from the continent in order to consolidate the power of that state vis a vis the competing polities in the surrounding areas within Japan." [2] 2.1. _Provincial government_ 4.3.2. [1]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 26) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [3]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 32-33) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Ikawa-Smith 1985, 396) Ikawa-Smith, Fumiko in Misra, Virenda N. Bellwood, Peter S. 1985. Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Poona, December 19-21, 1978. BRILL. [5]: (Steenstrup 2011, 11) [6]: (Mizoguchi 2013, 32) Mizoguchi, Koji. 2013. The Archaeology of Japan: From the Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Chief / Priest In the Emergent Mississippian period: "perhaps the appearance of chiefs" [1] "Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia." [2] 2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest? "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [3] 3. Elder / Religious functionary kin group leaders [3] [1]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [3]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
[3]
1. Vizier/Military chief (1073-1171 CE) after 1073 CE (although transition may have begun under regency of al-Mustansir) position of vizier became de facto ruler, effectively a dictator with nominal caliph. in this period vizier lived in own palace. essentially after 1073 CE Badr al-Jamali the vizier is the chief executive. 1. Caliph 1073 to 1121: the military chiefs replaced the caliphs as the effective heads of government. [4] Highly stratified court [5] court employed 30,000 people according to traveller Nasir-i Khusraw (c1048 CE?) [6] 2. Harem"A hierarchical corps of eunuchs controlled the harem and the personal life of the caliph." [7] _Central government line_ 2. Slave viziers (c970 - 1073 CE)Vizier did not exist for Tunisian period 909-969 CE al-Badr who assumed the powers of a "military dictator": "Henceforth, with minor exceptions, real power in the Fatimid state remained in the hands of viziers who possessed military bases of power and acted independently, while the caliphs remained the nominal heads of state and as Ismaili imams also functioned as supreme leaders of the ismalil da’wa or religious organization. A distinguishing feature of the Fatimid vizierate during its final century is that several viziers were Christians, notably Armenians." [8] of 11 Fatimid rulers 7 came to throne as minors; Egypt frequently ruled by the Vizier. [9] Late 11th century viziers became more powerful, called themselves malik (prince). [10] 3. Heads of administration (e.g. military, treasury, religious, missionary, and judiciary) [11] "The post of auditor (zimam) and the office of the audit (diwan al-zimdm) are well known features of the ’Abbasid administration. In the case of the Fatimid administration, the earliest reference to diwan al-zimam is from 402/1011-1012, and the holder of the post (ndzir diwan al-zimdm) was a person of Iraqi origin with previous experience in ’Abbasid administration." [12] Chancery (diwan al-inshda) [12] 4. (inferred) head of state armory (khizdna al-bunud)"Al-Zahir is credited with establishing the state’s armory (khizdna al-bunud), which was an arsenal and a workshop employing 3,000 craftsmen for producing arms." [13] 5. (inferred) manager of section in state armory 6. Craftsman in state armory 4. Lesser bureaucrats??5. Scribes?? _Provincial line _ 2. Subject cites/territoriesE.g. in Hejaz For a brief period Egypt was run by Jawhar, a proconsul [14] 2. Provincial governorsE.g. Zirids in Tunisia) 3. ... ? ...Fustat was governed by a wali (governor) who was effectively chief of police. [15] 4fustat. In Fustat the muhtasib "supervised the activities of shopkeepers and artisans and saw to the observance of religious law." [15] 5fustat. In Fustat some public services were provided e.g. rubbish collection, sewage system. [15] "al-attalun (police force?)" [16] 4. Village headmen Abu Yaqub Sejestani (d c.971 CE), da’i of Khorasan, "now endorsed the imamate of the Fatimids and propagated their cause in Knorasan, Sistan, and Makran, where numerous Ismailis rallied to the side of the Fatimid da’wa. The Fatimid da’is also succeeded around 347/958 in establishing a Fatimid vassal state centered in Moltan, in northern India, where the kotba was now read in the name of the Fatimid caliphs, instead of their Abbasid rivals.". [17] This Isma’ili state in Multan overthrown by Gaznavids 1005-1006 CE. [17] [1]: (Nicolle 1996) [2]: (Oliver 1977) [3]: (Raymond 2000) [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 243) [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 242) [6]: (Raymond 2000, 52) [7]: (Hamblin 2005, 749) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [8]: (Daftary 2005, 744) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [9]: (Raymond 2000, 40) [10]: (Raymond 2000, 73) [11]: (Hamblin 2005, 748) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [12]: (Lev 1987, 353) [13]: (Lev 1987, 354) [14]: (Raymond 2000, 39) [15]: (Raymond 2000, 65) [16]: (Lev 1987, 341) [17]: (Daftary 2009) Daftary, Farhad. 2009. FATIMIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. IX, Fasc. 4, pp. 423-426. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fatimids |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
[3]
1. Vizier/Military chief (1073-1171 CE) after 1073 CE (although transition may have begun under regency of al-Mustansir) position of vizier became de facto ruler, effectively a dictator with nominal caliph. in this period vizier lived in own palace. essentially after 1073 CE Badr al-Jamali the vizier is the chief executive. 1. Caliph 1073 to 1121: the military chiefs replaced the caliphs as the effective heads of government. [4] Highly stratified court [5] court employed 30,000 people according to traveller Nasir-i Khusraw (c1048 CE?) [6] 2. Harem"A hierarchical corps of eunuchs controlled the harem and the personal life of the caliph." [7] _Central government line_ 2. Slave viziers (c970 - 1073 CE)Vizier did not exist for Tunisian period 909-969 CE al-Badr who assumed the powers of a "military dictator": "Henceforth, with minor exceptions, real power in the Fatimid state remained in the hands of viziers who possessed military bases of power and acted independently, while the caliphs remained the nominal heads of state and as Ismaili imams also functioned as supreme leaders of the ismalil da’wa or religious organization. A distinguishing feature of the Fatimid vizierate during its final century is that several viziers were Christians, notably Armenians." [8] of 11 Fatimid rulers 7 came to throne as minors; Egypt frequently ruled by the Vizier. [9] Late 11th century viziers became more powerful, called themselves malik (prince). [10] 3. Heads of administration (e.g. military, treasury, religious, missionary, and judiciary) [11] "The post of auditor (zimam) and the office of the audit (diwan al-zimdm) are well known features of the ’Abbasid administration. In the case of the Fatimid administration, the earliest reference to diwan al-zimam is from 402/1011-1012, and the holder of the post (ndzir diwan al-zimdm) was a person of Iraqi origin with previous experience in ’Abbasid administration." [12] Chancery (diwan al-inshda) [12] 4. (inferred) head of state armory (khizdna al-bunud)"Al-Zahir is credited with establishing the state’s armory (khizdna al-bunud), which was an arsenal and a workshop employing 3,000 craftsmen for producing arms." [13] 5. (inferred) manager of section in state armory 6. Craftsman in state armory 4. Lesser bureaucrats??5. Scribes?? _Provincial line _ 2. Subject cites/territoriesE.g. in Hejaz For a brief period Egypt was run by Jawhar, a proconsul [14] 2. Provincial governorsE.g. Zirids in Tunisia) 3. ... ? ...Fustat was governed by a wali (governor) who was effectively chief of police. [15] 4fustat. In Fustat the muhtasib "supervised the activities of shopkeepers and artisans and saw to the observance of religious law." [15] 5fustat. In Fustat some public services were provided e.g. rubbish collection, sewage system. [15] "al-attalun (police force?)" [16] 4. Village headmen Abu Yaqub Sejestani (d c.971 CE), da’i of Khorasan, "now endorsed the imamate of the Fatimids and propagated their cause in Knorasan, Sistan, and Makran, where numerous Ismailis rallied to the side of the Fatimid da’wa. The Fatimid da’is also succeeded around 347/958 in establishing a Fatimid vassal state centered in Moltan, in northern India, where the kotba was now read in the name of the Fatimid caliphs, instead of their Abbasid rivals.". [17] This Isma’ili state in Multan overthrown by Gaznavids 1005-1006 CE. [17] [1]: (Nicolle 1996) [2]: (Oliver 1977) [3]: (Raymond 2000) [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 243) [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 242) [6]: (Raymond 2000, 52) [7]: (Hamblin 2005, 749) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [8]: (Daftary 2005, 744) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [9]: (Raymond 2000, 40) [10]: (Raymond 2000, 73) [11]: (Hamblin 2005, 748) Shillington, K. ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of African History: A - G.. 1. Taylor & Francis. [12]: (Lev 1987, 353) [13]: (Lev 1987, 354) [14]: (Raymond 2000, 39) [15]: (Raymond 2000, 65) [16]: (Lev 1987, 341) [17]: (Daftary 2009) Daftary, Farhad. 2009. FATIMIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. IX, Fasc. 4, pp. 423-426. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fatimids |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Chief / Priest In the Emergent Mississippian period: "perhaps the appearance of chiefs" [1] "Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia." [2] 2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest? "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [3] 3. Elder / Religious functionary kin group leaders [3] [1]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) [2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [3]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) |
||||||
|
levels. "[W]e know very little about the history of Mossi institutions, which can be outlined only from the end of the eighteenth century for Yatenga and the beginning of the nineteenth for the kingdom of Wagadugu. In fact, the wealth of information available concerning the organization of the Mossi kingdoms, which began to be collected in 1907, makes it possible to describe how the public institutions functioned, but only at the very end of the pre-colonial period."
[1]
1. King :"Although the king was the hub, of the political system, the Mossi state was a decentralized one, and the country was, for the most part, administered without any direct intervention on his part."
[2]
:2. Ministers ::"The ‘minister’ was the mainspring of the Mossi state system: his function was to integrate individual lineages into the global society. He had to be not only ‘good, honest, and just’, but to possess a profound working knowledge of inter-lineage relationships. Ministers were not chosen from nakombse lineages. The king appointed whomsoever he wished, and the office was not hereditary. In Yatenga the four ministers were the Widi-Naba, the Baloum-Naba, the Togo-Naba, and the Rassam-Naba. They had well-defined roles at court and also acted as intermediaries between the king and his subjects. They were said to ‘command’ certain lineages."
[3]
::3. Kombere-naba "The kombere-naba was, then, a chief of an aggregation of lineages grouped into a ‘canton’ or principality. [...] In the political hierarchy of a Mossi kingdom the ‘canton’ chief ranked below the minister; in reality he was more important, since he was a veritable king (rima) in his own ‘canton’ and was often the descendant of a former ruler of the state. The minister, on the other hand, exercised little positive authority and acted rather as a liaison officer between the king and his subjects."
[4]
:::4. Canton officials ::::5. Village chiefs :::::"The village chief (tenganaba) and his retinue faithfully reflected the image of the king and his court. He had his ‘ministers’ and his pages, although in the Yatenga kingdom there was no Rassam-Naba (treasurer). He had his own tribunal and settled civil disputes within the village."
[5]
:::::6. Village officials ::::::7. Ward chiefs :::::::8. Ward officials ::::::::"In administrative practice, authority spread from the kingdom to the province, the canton, the village, and the ward, each level virtually reproducing the same power structure."
[6]
[1]: (Izard 1984: 230) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9SV6G65P/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1960: 157) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [3]: (Zahan 1960: 163) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [4]: (Zahan 1960: 162-165) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [5]: (Zahan 1960: 162) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [6]: (Englebert 2018: 14) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/52JWRCUI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. The administrative complexity described below applies to the pre-conquest period (1450-1525 CE)
At least three levels: (1. Naoma. A ritual specialist with political power that could outrank caciques.) 2. Lord of the province3. Lord of a town (cacique)4. Lord of a barrio (neighbourhood) or subsidiary cacique "Spanish references to leaders in the 16th century documents suggest, at the very least, a four tiered civil political structure, with “caciques”, “capitanes”, “mandadores”, and “capitanes de guerra”, as well as designated leaders for neighborhoods or residential wards within larger towns (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1951: 88-89)." [1] "Whatever the truth, Spanish sources suggest that the Tairona had a hierarchy of office- holders. Oviedo notes that the ruler of Bonda was “the Lord of all the caciques of that province” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1953: 88), and for the Valle de la Caldera Father Pedro Simón wrote in 1628, “The towns [pueblos] would be about two hundred and fifty, and most of them obey a cacique called Guacanaoma, though there is not a single town that does not have its own Cacique or Mohan” (Simón 1882-92, 5: 192). Mohanes were native priests, and the significance of the naoma element in the cacique’s name is examined below. There is one possible mention of a female ruler, “a caciqua or principal woman among them” (Reichel- Dolmatoff 1951: 10), though the text is unclear about whether she was a ruler in her own right or simply a woman of high status, perhaps the wife of a chief. Some towns were divided into barrios, each of which had its subsidiary cacique (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1951: 88). Besides caciques, Spanish sources mention capitanes, principales (nobles), mandadores (commanders), and capitanes de guerra. Fray Pedro Simón (1882-92, 5: 197) also lists a pregonero (speaker or crier) who was second only to the chief. Spanish accounts do not list the duties and powers of all these officials, but it seems clear that there was a hierarchy of civil and military office- holders." [2] "The mohanes are undoubtedly priests (see Castellanos 1955, 2: 596), but the status of the naomas is less clear. Juan de Castellanos, writing in 1601, notes that naomas could hold political office and that they outranked ordinary caciques: “fifteen caciques, great señores, are subject to the command of the naoma called, it is said, Marocando” (Castellanos 1955, 2: 340). The same author also mentions a personage called Betoma, “whom they rec- ognized as a Naoma and who held command over all the caciques” (ibid.: 548). The political power of sixteenth-century naomas is not in doubt, but their priestly role remains ambiguous." [2] "We know that by the 16th century some leaders extended their political domain over other towns and lower ranking leaders, controlling great territories or “provinces”, as they were called by the Spanish. It is also true that no single leader exerted control over all the population and territory. This supposes a complicated sociopolitical arrangement, wherein different leaders probably competed with each other to extend their influence by way of alliances, trade partnerships and occasional skirmishes, so that their political power and authority increased or diminished accordingly." [3] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 61) [2]: (Bray 2003, 302) [3]: (Giraldo 2009, 15-16) |
||||||
|
levels.
c1050 CE "The Sansabanis were only one amongst several chieftains at this time, and topographical gleanings from Bayhaqi (pp. 114-20), plus various details from Juzjani, show that they were petty rulers of the district of Mandes on the upper Harirud near modern Ahangaran." [1] "a family of petty chiefs from a backward region" [1] c1100 CE Firuzkuh described as "summer capital". Single period of occupation of 75 years. Destroyed by Mongols 1223 CE, so origin c1148 CE. [2] "Moḥammad’s son, Hasan, was the first Sansabani known to have an honorific title, namely Qotb-al-Din, but the history of the Ghurid dynasty, as it may now be fittingly styled, only becomes reasonably well known with the accession of ʿEzz-al-Din Hosayn b. Ḥasan (493-540/1100-46)." [1] Ruler of 1146 CE "shared out his lands with his brothers on the basis of Guri tribal and patrimonial practice" [1] c1149-1161 CE ʿAlaʾ-al-Din Hosayn: "Not content with being a mere malek or amir, according to Ebn al-Atir (Beirut, XI, p. 166), he now styled himself, after the Saljuqs and Ghaznavids, al-soltan al-moʿazzam and adopted the catr (q.v.) or ceremonial parasol as one of the insignia of royalty" [1] c1150 CE produced coins and determined their designation [1] so must have had mints and control over currency. c1200 CE Late 12th CE Bosworth talks of branches: one based at Firuzkuh which raided west into Khorasan, at Gazna (after it was taken from the Turks) which was a base for attacking India, and Bamian which was a base for attacks into Central Asia. [1] "Although the earlier history of the Sansabani family had been full of feuds and disputes, the brothers maintained a partnership, with mutual amity and a division of spheres of activity and influence." [1] 1. Sultan at Gazna Moʿezz-al-Dīn, installed at Gazna since 569/1173-74 with the title also of sultan" [1] 1. Sultan? at Firuzukh 1. ? at Bamian _Court governments_ Sophisticated enough at Firuzukh to build Minaret of Jam c1190 CE. Perhaps based on Persian/Central Asian models at this time. "As far as we can tell from the exiguous material in our sources, the hierarchy of Ghurid officials at Firuzkuh and Ghazna did not differ appreciably in its outlines from those maintained by other eastern Islamic dynasties. The wazir (’minister’), as elsewhere, headed the civil administration at Ghazna; we also read of the treasurer (khazin) and the overseer of public morality/inspector of the markets (muhtasib). The appointment of judges (quddat, sing. qadi) who enforced the religious law, the Shari’a, was also in the Sultan’s hands." [3] 2. Vizar 3. Divans (departments)4. Mint5. Mint worker _Provincial government_ 2. Vassals"In the west, Giat-al-Din, often in concert with his brother, extended his suzerainty over the maleks of Nimruz or Sistan and even over the Kerman branch of the Saljuqs." [1] [1]: (Bosworth 2012) Bosworth, Edmund C. 2012. GHURIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids [2]: Thomas, David. Firuzkuh: the summer capital of the Ghurids http://www.academia.edu/188837/Firuzkuh_the_summer_capital_of_the_Ghurids [3]: (Jackson 2003, 25) Jackson, Peter. 2003. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
For the administrative history, I would recommend C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke. 2009.
[1]
1290-1326 CE 1. Chief Chief was first among equals in the Council of Elders 2. Council of Elders "The Ottoman Empire lived for war. Every governor in this empire was a general and every policeman was a Janissary. Every mountain pass had its guards and every road had a military destination." [2] 1326-1360 CE 1. Sulan _Central government_ [3] 2. Minister for central administration (from Orhan) [4] 3. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. appanagesOsman and Orhan divided territory into appanages for sons, family members and followers. [6] by 1350s CE, however, Suleyman’s son was "in effect" a governor of the western "province" of Thrace. [7] 1360-1413 CE 1. Sultan title from 1383 CE under Murat I (1362-1389 CE) Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probably in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [8] _Central government_ [5] 2. Imperial Council (divan) [9] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [9] "These scattered references suggest that probably during the fourteenth and certainly during the fifteenth century, a small group of viziers advised the sultan on political and administrative affairs, and had the power to make appointments in his name." [10] Grand Vizier became chief executive officer of state c1360 CE. [5] However this date is disputed. According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings in early 15th century. [10] 3. ChancellorPost dates to earliest days of empire. [11] 3.Military judges (kadi’asker) were the "chief judges of the Empire, who were responsible for judicial matters that came before the council." [12] First one dated to Murad I. [13] 4. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. Provinces with governors c1380 CEProvinces with governors probably did not exist until last two decades of fourteenth century. [6] 3. Judgeship [kadi] of a town or city judge [14] "The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [15] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [16] who was also a military commander [17] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [18] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [19] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [20] [18] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjaks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [21] Millet "Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Everyone was organised in the so-called ’millets’, communities based on faith, and as long as the millet did not come into conflict with Islamic organisation and society, paid its taxes and kept the peace, its leaders were largely left to run their own affairs." [22] [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Turnball 2003, 17) Turnball, S. 2003. The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699. Osprey Publishing Ltd. [3]: (Shaw 1976, 22) Stanford J Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [5]: (Shaw 1976, 22) [6]: (Imber 2002, 177) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [7]: (Imber 2002, 178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [10]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [11]: (Imber 2002, 60) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [12]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 159) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. April 2020) [15]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [16]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [21]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [22]: (Turnbull 2003, 77) |
||||||
|
For the administrative history, I would recommend C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke. 2009.
[1]
1290-1326 CE 1. Chief Chief was first among equals in the Council of Elders 2. Council of Elders "The Ottoman Empire lived for war. Every governor in this empire was a general and every policeman was a Janissary. Every mountain pass had its guards and every road had a military destination." [2] 1326-1360 CE 1. Sulan _Central government_ [3] 2. Minister for central administration (from Orhan) [4] 3. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. appanagesOsman and Orhan divided territory into appanages for sons, family members and followers. [6] by 1350s CE, however, Suleyman’s son was "in effect" a governor of the western "province" of Thrace. [7] 1360-1413 CE 1. Sultan title from 1383 CE under Murat I (1362-1389 CE) Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probably in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [8] _Central government_ [5] 2. Imperial Council (divan) [9] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [9] "These scattered references suggest that probably during the fourteenth and certainly during the fifteenth century, a small group of viziers advised the sultan on political and administrative affairs, and had the power to make appointments in his name." [10] Grand Vizier became chief executive officer of state c1360 CE. [5] However this date is disputed. According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings in early 15th century. [10] 3. ChancellorPost dates to earliest days of empire. [11] 3.Military judges (kadi’asker) were the "chief judges of the Empire, who were responsible for judicial matters that came before the council." [12] First one dated to Murad I. [13] 4. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. Provinces with governors c1380 CEProvinces with governors probably did not exist until last two decades of fourteenth century. [6] 3. Judgeship [kadi] of a town or city judge [14] "The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [15] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [16] who was also a military commander [17] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [18] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [19] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [20] [18] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjaks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [21] Millet "Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Everyone was organised in the so-called ’millets’, communities based on faith, and as long as the millet did not come into conflict with Islamic organisation and society, paid its taxes and kept the peace, its leaders were largely left to run their own affairs." [22] [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Turnball 2003, 17) Turnball, S. 2003. The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699. Osprey Publishing Ltd. [3]: (Shaw 1976, 22) Stanford J Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [5]: (Shaw 1976, 22) [6]: (Imber 2002, 177) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [7]: (Imber 2002, 178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [10]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [11]: (Imber 2002, 60) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [12]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 159) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. April 2020) [15]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [16]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [21]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [22]: (Turnbull 2003, 77) |
||||||
|
levels.
_1339-1398 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1398-1471 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Head of bureaucracyQara Otman 1398 CE "had at his command at least a rudimentary bureaucratic apparatus of the Iranian-Islamic type." [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy inferred4. Scribe inferred _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1471-1501 CE (conquest of Iran)_ Conquest of Iran shifted Ak Koyunlu core to the east and "Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture." [1] 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Vizier of the divan [1] "In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy 3. Sadr head of "religious dignitaries" [1] 4.5."In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 2. GovernorThere was a governor of Shiraz. [1] 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] [1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
levels.
_1339-1398 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1398-1471 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Head of bureaucracyQara Otman 1398 CE "had at his command at least a rudimentary bureaucratic apparatus of the Iranian-Islamic type." [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy inferred4. Scribe inferred _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1471-1501 CE (conquest of Iran)_ Conquest of Iran shifted Ak Koyunlu core to the east and "Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture." [1] 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Vizier of the divan [1] "In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy 3. Sadr head of "religious dignitaries" [1] 4.5."In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 2. GovernorThere was a governor of Shiraz. [1] 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] [1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
For the administrative history, I would recommend C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke. 2009.
[1]
1290-1326 CE 1. Chief Chief was first among equals in the Council of Elders 2. Council of Elders "The Ottoman Empire lived for war. Every governor in this empire was a general and every policeman was a Janissary. Every mountain pass had its guards and every road had a military destination." [2] 1326-1360 CE 1. Sulan _Central government_ [3] 2. Minister for central administration (from Orhan) [4] 3. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. appanagesOsman and Orhan divided territory into appanages for sons, family members and followers. [6] by 1350s CE, however, Suleyman’s son was "in effect" a governor of the western "province" of Thrace. [7] 1360-1413 CE 1. Sultan title from 1383 CE under Murat I (1362-1389 CE) Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probably in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [8] _Central government_ [5] 2. Imperial Council (divan) [9] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [9] "These scattered references suggest that probably during the fourteenth and certainly during the fifteenth century, a small group of viziers advised the sultan on political and administrative affairs, and had the power to make appointments in his name." [10] Grand Vizier became chief executive officer of state c1360 CE. [5] However this date is disputed. According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings in early 15th century. [10] 3. ChancellorPost dates to earliest days of empire. [11] 3.Military judges (kadi’asker) were the "chief judges of the Empire, who were responsible for judicial matters that came before the council." [12] First one dated to Murad I. [13] 4. _Provincial line_ [5] 2. Provinces with governors c1380 CEProvinces with governors probably did not exist until last two decades of fourteenth century. [6] 3. Judgeship [kadi] of a town or city judge [14] "The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [15] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [16] who was also a military commander [17] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [18] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [19] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [20] [18] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjaks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [21] Millet "Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Everyone was organised in the so-called ’millets’, communities based on faith, and as long as the millet did not come into conflict with Islamic organisation and society, paid its taxes and kept the peace, its leaders were largely left to run their own affairs." [22] [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Turnball 2003, 17) Turnball, S. 2003. The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699. Osprey Publishing Ltd. [3]: (Shaw 1976, 22) Stanford J Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [5]: (Shaw 1976, 22) [6]: (Imber 2002, 177) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [7]: (Imber 2002, 178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [10]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [11]: (Imber 2002, 60) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [12]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 159) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. April 2020) [15]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [16]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [21]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [22]: (Turnbull 2003, 77) |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Monarch :“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]
:2. Chief Advisor to the King (Katema rasha) ::“To consolidate her position so that she could have a more positive choice in her successor, [Queen Abet Hinoch] removed the position of the katema rasha (chief advisor to the king) from the Hio clan to the Shabenao clan.”
[1]
::3. Senior Councilor (Guje rasho) :::“[t]he guje rasho, who was the senior councilor and controlled the activities of the king’s slaves.”
[2]
:::4. Lesser councilors (inferred) ::::5. Clan “king” (Tato) :::::“Each of these clans was allowed to maintain its autonomy with its own ruler (referred to as tato or king in the legends) who was responsible to the King of Kafa.”
[3]
:::::6. District Chief (Worabi rasho) ::::::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[2]
::::::7. Village Chief (Worabi showo) :::::::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[2]
:::::::8. Tatkisho ::::::::“The tatkisho worked under the jurisdiction of the worabi showo. If a clan had prescriptive rights to lands there were generally spread over a wide region and the tatkisho was, in effect, the local tax collector who delivered the demands of the monarch to clan elder (i.e., the land owner, sometimes called tugo), who in turn passed the major part of the collection to the worabi rasho. Tatkisho means ‘the hand of the king’.”
[2]
::::::::9. Rashe showo- :::::::::“Each of the eighteen "lands" were divided into smaller administrative districts or villages, ruled by the rashe showo who, Bieber reports, were paid from the king’s treasury.”
[2]
:::::::::10. Gudo ::::::::::“The holder of this position [i.e. that of rashe showo] had an assistant, in charge of organizing sacrifices and feasts throughout the year, whose title was gudo with the prefix of the name of the land on which he lived e.g., Agaray gudo; Ibede gudo; and Dekia gudo.”
[2]
[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 [2]: (Orent 1970, 283) 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 [3]: (Orent 1970, 269) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. The administrative complexity described below applies to the pre-conquest period (1450-1525 CE)
At least three levels: (1. Naoma. A ritual specialist with political power that could outrank caciques.) 2. Lord of the province3. Lord of a town (cacique)4. Lord of a barrio (neighbourhood) or subsidiary cacique "Spanish references to leaders in the 16th century documents suggest, at the very least, a four tiered civil political structure, with “caciques”, “capitanes”, “mandadores”, and “capitanes de guerra”, as well as designated leaders for neighborhoods or residential wards within larger towns (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1951: 88-89)." [1] "Whatever the truth, Spanish sources suggest that the Tairona had a hierarchy of office- holders. Oviedo notes that the ruler of Bonda was “the Lord of all the caciques of that province” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1953: 88), and for the Valle de la Caldera Father Pedro Simón wrote in 1628, “The towns [pueblos] would be about two hundred and fifty, and most of them obey a cacique called Guacanaoma, though there is not a single town that does not have its own Cacique or Mohan” (Simón 1882-92, 5: 192). Mohanes were native priests, and the significance of the naoma element in the cacique’s name is examined below. There is one possible mention of a female ruler, “a caciqua or principal woman among them” (Reichel- Dolmatoff 1951: 10), though the text is unclear about whether she was a ruler in her own right or simply a woman of high status, perhaps the wife of a chief. Some towns were divided into barrios, each of which had its subsidiary cacique (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1951: 88). Besides caciques, Spanish sources mention capitanes, principales (nobles), mandadores (commanders), and capitanes de guerra. Fray Pedro Simón (1882-92, 5: 197) also lists a pregonero (speaker or crier) who was second only to the chief. Spanish accounts do not list the duties and powers of all these officials, but it seems clear that there was a hierarchy of civil and military office- holders." [2] "The mohanes are undoubtedly priests (see Castellanos 1955, 2: 596), but the status of the naomas is less clear. Juan de Castellanos, writing in 1601, notes that naomas could hold political office and that they outranked ordinary caciques: “fifteen caciques, great señores, are subject to the command of the naoma called, it is said, Marocando” (Castellanos 1955, 2: 340). The same author also mentions a personage called Betoma, “whom they rec- ognized as a Naoma and who held command over all the caciques” (ibid.: 548). The political power of sixteenth-century naomas is not in doubt, but their priestly role remains ambiguous." [2] "We know that by the 16th century some leaders extended their political domain over other towns and lower ranking leaders, controlling great territories or “provinces”, as they were called by the Spanish. It is also true that no single leader exerted control over all the population and territory. This supposes a complicated sociopolitical arrangement, wherein different leaders probably competed with each other to extend their influence by way of alliances, trade partnerships and occasional skirmishes, so that their political power and authority increased or diminished accordingly." [3] [1]: (Giraldo 2010, 61) [2]: (Bray 2003, 302) [3]: (Giraldo 2009, 15-16) |
||||||
|
levels.
_1339-1398 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1398-1471 CE_ 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Head of bureaucracyQara Otman 1398 CE "had at his command at least a rudimentary bureaucratic apparatus of the Iranian-Islamic type." [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy inferred4. Scribe inferred _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] _1471-1501 CE (conquest of Iran)_ Conquest of Iran shifted Ak Koyunlu core to the east and "Iranian influences were soon brought to bear on their method of government and their culture." [1] 1. Head of Confederation (Sultan) "The confederation (il or ulus) was led by members of the Bayandor (Bāyandor) clan". [1] _Central government_ 1. Council of Amirs and tribal chiefs. "The highest decision-making authority was a council (kengač) of amirs and tribal chiefs (boy ḵānları) who determined military matters and the recurrent issue of succession to the sultanate; the council’s decisions were binding on the sultan." [1] 2. Vizier of the divan [1] "In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] 3. Department within bureaucracy 3. Sadr head of "religious dignitaries" [1] 4.5."In the Iranian provinces, Uzun Ḥasan maintained the preexisting administrative system along with its officials, whose families had in some cases served under different dynasties for several generations" [1] _Provincial government_ 2. Amir / Tribal chief 2. GovernorThere was a governor of Shiraz. [1] 3. Military officer in villages and towns"Military and political control of the adjacent villages and towns, necessary for the safety of the pasturage, was maintained by the army". [1] [1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Dahomey was, from the first, a monarchy. Based on the following selection of quotes, it seems reasonable to infer the following levels, at least for the period from the 18th century on:1. King :2. Core group of high ministers (bonugan daho and begani) (from the 18th century, possibly earlier) ::“For example, eighteenth-century sources identify a core group of high ministers, or bonugan daho, who provided support for the expanding state. Under King Gezo, the palace became the residence of additional female officials, or begani, who corresponded to the major male dignitaries and their subordinates. In all, these officers, male and female, were state-appointed officials, charged with directly administering various political, economic, military and religious sectors of the kingdom.”
[1]
:2. Royal wives ::"Many of the royal wives, officials themselves, were placed in palaces throughout Dahomey to manage the interests of the monarchy. Agaja may have built nine palaces during his reign, and references to additional palaces at Allada, Cana and other towns are common in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources. The presence of these structures across the landscape clearly facilitated political integration in Dahomey.”
[2]
::3. Regional and town officials (from the 19th century, possibly earlier) :::4. Town officials ::::5. Within-town divisional officials :::::6. Subordinates :::::: :::“Additionally, whereas eighteenth-century sources are relatively silent on the nature of regional governance, by the nineteenth century, towns throughout Dahomey were clearly managed by officials sent from Abomey. Indeed, major centers like Whydah and Allada, as well as minor towns such as Whegbo, were divided into quarters, each of which was controlled by lower-ranking officials ’who regulate their own departments, and distribute justice except in some extraordinary cases which are referred to Abomey’.”
[1]
[1]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 355. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection [2]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 356–357. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection |
||||||
|
1) King (Ahosu); 2) Council of elders (possibly including the most important hereditary chiefs); 3) Palace officials; 4) King’s wives; 5) King’s servants, guards, and messengers (possibly only from 1710s); 6) the great men/grand captains (may be considered part of the caboceers level); 7) Caboceers (chiefs/captains/headmen); 8) Governors of villages/areas. “Whydah was a monarchy, whose ruler had the indigenous title of ahosu, generally (and reasonably) translated by Europeans as "king." The kingship was hereditary, in the sense that succession to it was restricted to a single patrilineally defined family. Some contemporary European sources assert that succession to the kingship was by primogeniture, the reigning king’s eldest son being the heir apparent, but this is an oversimplification. Rather, it appears that the reigning king could appoint one of his sons, normally but not necessarily the eldest, as his heir apparent; but this designated heir did not succeed automatically, since the leading men of the kingdom could set aside his claim in favor of another of his brothers. In practice, in any case, effective occupation of the royal palace was as important as seniority, designation, or election: as one European observer explicitly observed, a claimant to the succession sought primarily "to take possession of the late King’s court and wives," since ‘the commonalty will not easily consent that after that he shall be driven from the throne.’”
[1]
“Under the king, the affairs of the palace were administered by a number of male officials, who had responsibility for the management of the king’s wives and the supply of provisions: whether these officials were free men or (as analogy with other kingdoms would suggest) royal slaves is not made clear. The bulk of the palace staff consisted of women, legally regarded as the king’s "wives" although clearly including servants engaged in menial tasks as well as "wives" properly speaking, who are said to have numbered several hundreds. Besides ministering to the king’s needs within the palace, these women played an important role in enforcing his authority outside it. Their status as royal wives made them sacrosanct, merely touching them being a capital offence, so that they could not be effectively obstructed or resisted. The king in consequence was able to use them to execute his judicial decisions, sending them to destroy the houses of condemned offenders. They might also be employed to impose peace in disputes which threatened to lead to civil war, by literally interposing their bodies between the two factions to prevent them fighting. In addition to his wives, the king is also said to have had a group of 200-300 male servants, distinguished by having half of their heads shaved bare, who served as his guards and carried messages outside the palace: these are not, however, attested earlier than the 1710s, and may possibly have been then a recent innovation. In addition to the king and the officials of his palace, there were numerous other office-holders in the Whydah kingdom. In contemporary European sources, these are generally called "captains" or "caboceers" (from the Portuguese cabeceiro, "head man"), both of which terms appear to have been employed to translate the vernacular generic suffix -gan; the more familiar modern term "chiefs" is employed in this article as an equivalent. Some accounts distinguish, within the generality of chiefs, a smaller group of higher rank, termed the "grand [or great] captains," or simply "the great men," who are said to have shared political authority with the king. Most of these offices were evidently hereditary, passing like the monarchy normally from father to eldest son, it being explicitly noted that the king "cannot grant them to anyone else." The senior chiefs can thus be regarded as forming a sort of hereditary nobility or aristocracy. The most important of the Whydah chiefs had the titles of Gogan and Aplogan, which were also those of the highest-ranking officials in the later kingdom of Porto-Novo. In Porto-Novo the Gogan was the head of the royal lineage (and as such, conducted the ceremony of the king’s own installation) and the Aplogan had general charge of the community’s religious cults, and these may well also have been the functions of their namesakes in Whydah. In addition to their specific individual functions, the more important chiefs also served as hereditary governors of the component villages of the Whydah kingdom: the Gogan and the Aplogan, for example, served as governors respectively of the important settlements of Paon and Gome, both in the north of the kingdom.”
[2]
“It appears that the king was expected to act in conjunction with a council of "elders," who normally included the principal hereditary chiefs, but whether the membership of this council was fixed or variable according to the king’s choice is not clearly indicated.”
[3]
“What is clear is that those chiefs who served as governors of subordinate villages of the kingdom enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in their local administration: as was noted in the 1690s, "these in the King’s absence and in their Vice-royalties, command as arbitrarily and keep up as great state as the King himself.’ The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle. The king’s power in practice was clearly limited by that of these provincial governors, and its effectiveness dependent upon their cooperation.”
[4]
[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 206-208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [4]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208-209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Dahomey was, from the first, a monarchy. Based on the following selection of quotes, it seems reasonable to infer the following levels, at least for the period from the 18th century on:1. King :2. Core group of high ministers (bonugan daho and begani) (from the 18th century, possibly earlier) ::“For example, eighteenth-century sources identify a core group of high ministers, or bonugan daho, who provided support for the expanding state. Under King Gezo, the palace became the residence of additional female officials, or begani, who corresponded to the major male dignitaries and their subordinates. In all, these officers, male and female, were state-appointed officials, charged with directly administering various political, economic, military and religious sectors of the kingdom.”
[1]
:2. Royal wives ::"Many of the royal wives, officials themselves, were placed in palaces throughout Dahomey to manage the interests of the monarchy. Agaja may have built nine palaces during his reign, and references to additional palaces at Allada, Cana and other towns are common in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources. The presence of these structures across the landscape clearly facilitated political integration in Dahomey.”
[2]
::3. Regional and town officials (from the 19th century, possibly earlier) :::4. Town officials ::::5. Within-town divisional officials :::::6. Subordinates :::::: :::“Additionally, whereas eighteenth-century sources are relatively silent on the nature of regional governance, by the nineteenth century, towns throughout Dahomey were clearly managed by officials sent from Abomey. Indeed, major centers like Whydah and Allada, as well as minor towns such as Whegbo, were divided into quarters, each of which was controlled by lower-ranking officials ’who regulate their own departments, and distribute justice except in some extraordinary cases which are referred to Abomey’.”
[1]
[1]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 355. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection [2]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 356–357. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection |
||||||
|
1) King (Ahosu); 2) Council of elders (possibly including the most important hereditary chiefs); 3) Palace officials; 4) King’s wives; 5) King’s servants, guards, and messengers (possibly only from 1710s); 6) the great men/grand captains (may be considered part of the caboceers level); 7) Caboceers (chiefs/captains/headmen); 8) Governors of villages/areas. “Whydah was a monarchy, whose ruler had the indigenous title of ahosu, generally (and reasonably) translated by Europeans as "king." The kingship was hereditary, in the sense that succession to it was restricted to a single patrilineally defined family. Some contemporary European sources assert that succession to the kingship was by primogeniture, the reigning king’s eldest son being the heir apparent, but this is an oversimplification. Rather, it appears that the reigning king could appoint one of his sons, normally but not necessarily the eldest, as his heir apparent; but this designated heir did not succeed automatically, since the leading men of the kingdom could set aside his claim in favor of another of his brothers. In practice, in any case, effective occupation of the royal palace was as important as seniority, designation, or election: as one European observer explicitly observed, a claimant to the succession sought primarily "to take possession of the late King’s court and wives," since ‘the commonalty will not easily consent that after that he shall be driven from the throne.’”
[1]
“Under the king, the affairs of the palace were administered by a number of male officials, who had responsibility for the management of the king’s wives and the supply of provisions: whether these officials were free men or (as analogy with other kingdoms would suggest) royal slaves is not made clear. The bulk of the palace staff consisted of women, legally regarded as the king’s "wives" although clearly including servants engaged in menial tasks as well as "wives" properly speaking, who are said to have numbered several hundreds. Besides ministering to the king’s needs within the palace, these women played an important role in enforcing his authority outside it. Their status as royal wives made them sacrosanct, merely touching them being a capital offence, so that they could not be effectively obstructed or resisted. The king in consequence was able to use them to execute his judicial decisions, sending them to destroy the houses of condemned offenders. They might also be employed to impose peace in disputes which threatened to lead to civil war, by literally interposing their bodies between the two factions to prevent them fighting. In addition to his wives, the king is also said to have had a group of 200-300 male servants, distinguished by having half of their heads shaved bare, who served as his guards and carried messages outside the palace: these are not, however, attested earlier than the 1710s, and may possibly have been then a recent innovation. In addition to the king and the officials of his palace, there were numerous other office-holders in the Whydah kingdom. In contemporary European sources, these are generally called "captains" or "caboceers" (from the Portuguese cabeceiro, "head man"), both of which terms appear to have been employed to translate the vernacular generic suffix -gan; the more familiar modern term "chiefs" is employed in this article as an equivalent. Some accounts distinguish, within the generality of chiefs, a smaller group of higher rank, termed the "grand [or great] captains," or simply "the great men," who are said to have shared political authority with the king. Most of these offices were evidently hereditary, passing like the monarchy normally from father to eldest son, it being explicitly noted that the king "cannot grant them to anyone else." The senior chiefs can thus be regarded as forming a sort of hereditary nobility or aristocracy. The most important of the Whydah chiefs had the titles of Gogan and Aplogan, which were also those of the highest-ranking officials in the later kingdom of Porto-Novo. In Porto-Novo the Gogan was the head of the royal lineage (and as such, conducted the ceremony of the king’s own installation) and the Aplogan had general charge of the community’s religious cults, and these may well also have been the functions of their namesakes in Whydah. In addition to their specific individual functions, the more important chiefs also served as hereditary governors of the component villages of the Whydah kingdom: the Gogan and the Aplogan, for example, served as governors respectively of the important settlements of Paon and Gome, both in the north of the kingdom.”
[2]
“It appears that the king was expected to act in conjunction with a council of "elders," who normally included the principal hereditary chiefs, but whether the membership of this council was fixed or variable according to the king’s choice is not clearly indicated.”
[3]
“What is clear is that those chiefs who served as governors of subordinate villages of the kingdom enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in their local administration: as was noted in the 1690s, "these in the King’s absence and in their Vice-royalties, command as arbitrarily and keep up as great state as the King himself.’ The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle. The king’s power in practice was clearly limited by that of these provincial governors, and its effectiveness dependent upon their cooperation.”
[4]
[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 206-208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [4]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208-209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection |
||||||
|
_In Spain_
: 1. King :: 2. Veedor General ::: 3. Secretaries of State :::: 4. Captain-Generals ::::: 5. Intendants (province governors) :::::: 6. Sub-delegates ::::::: 7. Administrators “Philip V, who was now keenly aware of the problems he faced, put Orry in charge of military finance. The king knew, however, that Spaniards would resent the domination of foreign counselors as they had done in the time of Charles V and was in any case inclined to vacillate in matters that did not involve foreign affairs. Court intrigues caused Orry to be dismissed in 1706. When he returned in 1713 he packed the councils with new appointments to dilute their opposition to his ideas. Four new secretaries of state assumed responsibility for many conciliar functions. The king then appointed intendants to govern the 21 provinces. Secretaries and intendants alike reported to Orry who, in his capacity as veedor general became the equivalent of prime minister. These reforms extended to the kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia whose fueros had been abolished when they were re-conquered in 1707. The viceroys of these kingdoms were replaced by captains-general who presided over the audiencias of Saragossa, Valencia, Barcelona, and Palma de Mallorca. The Cortes of Aragon and the Corts of Valencia had also been abolished in 1709; the Corts of Catalonia followed in 1724.”(Maltby 2009: 173) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH _In Overseas Territories_ : 1. King :: 2. Viceroys ::: 3. Captain-Generals :::: 4. Intendants (governors) ::::: 5. Sub-delegates :::::: 6. Administrators “Defense inspired some of the reforms recommended by Gálvez, but most sought to increase the crown’s revenue and its administrative control over the colonies. Cuba became a captaincy-general in 1764, immediately after its restoration by the British. What is now Colombia had long been governed by the viceroy of far-distant Peru; Venezuela by the equally inaccessible Viceroy of Santo Domingo. Philip V created the viceregal Kingdom of New Granada with its capital at Bogotá in 1719, dissolved it in 1723, and restored it in 1739, primarily in response to Vernon’s attack on Cartagena but also because the viceroyalty of Santo Domingo had been unwilling or unable to control the coast of Venezuela. Caracas and Cumaná had experienced rapid growth in the first half of the century. Their commerce, however, was still dominated by Dutch traders operating out of Aruba and Curaçao. The new vicreroyalty was not at first a success. Its capital, remote, conservative Santa Fe de Bogotá, was far away in time and spirit from bustling Venezuela. In 1777, on the recommendation of Gálvez, Caracas became a captaincy-general within the viceregal jurisdiction of New Granada. When the new arrangement failed to create effective government or even to pay for itself, the crown dispatched a visita to install the intendant system and reform finance.”(Maltby 2009: 84-85) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH “The government’s response to the revolt combined utter ruthlessness with a willingness to address rebel grievances. By 1784 it had abolished the repartimiento and introduced the intendant system to Peru. Sub-delegates, who reported to the intendants, replaced the corrupt and often uncontrollable corregidores and alcaldes mayores. Cuzco, which had been the center of the revolt, received an audiencia of its own in response to Indian demands. Unfortunately, the sub-delegates could no more survive on their meager salaries than had their predecessors, and a variant of the repartimiento de bienes soon revived. In general, the intendant system, which was introduced to New Spain in 1786 as well, achieved its greatest success in urbanized areas where enhanced supervision produced improvements in infrastructure, public services, and—perhaps—official probity.”(Maltby 2009: 86-87) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH |
||||||
|
levels. "[W]e know very little about the history of Mossi institutions, which can be outlined only from the end of the eighteenth century for Yatenga and the beginning of the nineteenth for the kingdom of Wagadugu. In fact, the wealth of information available concerning the organization of the Mossi kingdoms, which began to be collected in 1907, makes it possible to describe how the public institutions functioned, but only at the very end of the pre-colonial period."
[1]
1. King :"Although the king was the hub, of the political system, the Mossi state was a decentralized one, and the country was, for the most part, administered without any direct intervention on his part."
[2]
:2. Ministers ::"The ‘minister’ was the mainspring of the Mossi state system: his function was to integrate individual lineages into the global society. He had to be not only ‘good, honest, and just’, but to possess a profound working knowledge of inter-lineage relationships. Ministers were not chosen from nakombse lineages. The king appointed whomsoever he wished, and the office was not hereditary. In Yatenga the four ministers were the Widi-Naba, the Baloum-Naba, the Togo-Naba, and the Rassam-Naba. They had well-defined roles at court and also acted as intermediaries between the king and his subjects. They were said to ‘command’ certain lineages."
[3]
::3. Kombere-naba "The kombere-naba was, then, a chief of an aggregation of lineages grouped into a ‘canton’ or principality. [...] In the political hierarchy of a Mossi kingdom the ‘canton’ chief ranked below the minister; in reality he was more important, since he was a veritable king (rima) in his own ‘canton’ and was often the descendant of a former ruler of the state. The minister, on the other hand, exercised little positive authority and acted rather as a liaison officer between the king and his subjects."
[4]
:::4. Canton officials ::::5. Village chiefs :::::"The village chief (tenganaba) and his retinue faithfully reflected the image of the king and his court. He had his ‘ministers’ and his pages, although in the Yatenga kingdom there was no Rassam-Naba (treasurer). He had his own tribunal and settled civil disputes within the village."
[5]
:::::6. Village officials ::::::7. Ward chiefs :::::::8. Ward officials ::::::::"In administrative practice, authority spread from the kingdom to the province, the canton, the village, and the ward, each level virtually reproducing the same power structure."
[6]
[1]: (Izard 1984: 230) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9SV6G65P/collection. [2]: (Zahan 1960: 157) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [3]: (Zahan 1960: 163) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [4]: (Zahan 1960: 162-165) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [5]: (Zahan 1960: 162) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TVIRPGXD/collection. [6]: (Englebert 2018: 14) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/52JWRCUI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels.
Central Government 1. Monarch 1. Prime Minister 2. High Ranking Members of Parliament: Chancellor, Treasurer, President of the King’s Council, Chief Justice, Chief Baron [1] 3. Members of the House of Lords [2] [3] 3. Members of the House of Commons [2] [3] 4-7. Masters, Secretaries, Clerks, other Minor Officials [4] Colonial Office 2. Colonial Secretary (Colonial Office at Whitehall from 1811) [5] 3. Officials in the Colonial Office [5] 4-7. Masters, Secretaries, Clerks, other Minor Officials [4] Judicial [6] 2. Lord High Chancellor (chief judge of the Court of Chancery, member of the House of Lords) 3. High-level judges 4. Local judges 5. Sheriff 6. Clerk of the Peace 7. Coroner 8. Magistrate 9. High Constable 10. Minor officers: Petty Constable, Gaoler, Bailiff, Executioner Local Government (UK) 3. UK regional administrative units 4. High ranking local officials (inferred) 5. Minor Officials, Clerks, etc. (inferred) Colonial Government 3. Governor (Proconsuls, and Viceroys) 3. East India Company [5] 3. Protectorates 4. Colonial bureaucracies (e.g. Indian Civil Service) 4. Colonial executive and Legislative Councils 4. Indigenous rulers 5-9. Masters, Secretaries, Clerks, other Minor Officials (inferred) 5-9. Internal/Indigenous ruling sub-divisions (in India likely to be fairly extensive to village level: seven levels inferred in the preceding Mughal Empire, nine levels inferred in the Delhi Sultanate.)
[1]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 264. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) [2]: (Burroughs 1999) Peter Burroughs. Imperial institutions and the Government of Empire. Andrew Porter. ed. 1999. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 219. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) [4]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 249. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) [5]: (Marshall 2001: 24. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/IT2S8JJ3) [6]: (McCulloch 2011 [1837]: 263-70. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BCM2JGGW) [7]: Kenneth J Panton. 2015. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham. [8]: (Marshall 1996, 24) P J Marshall. 1783-1870: An Expanding Empire. P J Marshall. ed. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [9]: (Marshall 1996, 22) P J Marshall. The British Empire at the End of the Eighteenth Century. P J Marshall. ed. 1996. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Monarch :“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]
:2. Chief Advisor to the King (Katema rasha) ::“To consolidate her position so that she could have a more positive choice in her successor, [Queen Abet Hinoch] removed the position of the katema rasha (chief advisor to the king) from the Hio clan to the Shabenao clan.”
[1]
::3. Senior Councilor (Guje rasho) :::“[t]he guje rasho, who was the senior councilor and controlled the activities of the king’s slaves.”
[2]
:::4. Lesser councilors (inferred) ::::5. Clan “king” (Tato) :::::“Each of these clans was allowed to maintain its autonomy with its own ruler (referred to as tato or king in the legends) who was responsible to the King of Kafa.”
[3]
:::::6. District Chief (Worabi rasho) ::::::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[2]
::::::7. Village Chief (Worabi showo) :::::::“Bieber is extremely unclear in his use of two titles worabi showo and worabi rasho, meaning ‘village chief’ and ‘district chief’ respectively. One must infer from Bieber’s statements that a clan elder was also a village chief since prescriptive rights to land ownership, which were synonymous with chieftainship, are implied in the translation of worabi showo, chief of the land, whereas the latter term means ruler of chiefs (worabi, chief; rasho, head, from the Amharic word ras). Some clans had prescriptive rights for providing the worabi rasho, who were responsible for law and order and tax collection on their lands.”
[2]
:::::::8. Tatkisho ::::::::“The tatkisho worked under the jurisdiction of the worabi showo. If a clan had prescriptive rights to lands there were generally spread over a wide region and the tatkisho was, in effect, the local tax collector who delivered the demands of the monarch to clan elder (i.e., the land owner, sometimes called tugo), who in turn passed the major part of the collection to the worabi rasho. Tatkisho means ‘the hand of the king’.”
[2]
::::::::9. Rashe showo- :::::::::“Each of the eighteen "lands" were divided into smaller administrative districts or villages, ruled by the rashe showo who, Bieber reports, were paid from the king’s treasury.”
[2]
:::::::::10. Gudo ::::::::::“The holder of this position [i.e. that of rashe showo] had an assistant, in charge of organizing sacrifices and feasts throughout the year, whose title was gudo with the prefix of the name of the land on which he lived e.g., Agaray gudo; Ibede gudo; and Dekia gudo.”
[2]
[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 [2]: (Orent 1970, 283) 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 [3]: (Orent 1970, 269) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. Dahomey was, from the first, a monarchy. Based on the following selection of quotes, it seems reasonable to infer the following levels, at least for the period from the 18th century on:1. King :2. Core group of high ministers (bonugan daho and begani) (from the 18th century, possibly earlier) ::“For example, eighteenth-century sources identify a core group of high ministers, or bonugan daho, who provided support for the expanding state. Under King Gezo, the palace became the residence of additional female officials, or begani, who corresponded to the major male dignitaries and their subordinates. In all, these officers, male and female, were state-appointed officials, charged with directly administering various political, economic, military and religious sectors of the kingdom.”
[1]
:2. Royal wives ::"Many of the royal wives, officials themselves, were placed in palaces throughout Dahomey to manage the interests of the monarchy. Agaja may have built nine palaces during his reign, and references to additional palaces at Allada, Cana and other towns are common in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources. The presence of these structures across the landscape clearly facilitated political integration in Dahomey.”
[2]
::3. Regional and town officials (from the 19th century, possibly earlier) :::4. Town officials ::::5. Within-town divisional officials :::::6. Subordinates :::::: :::“Additionally, whereas eighteenth-century sources are relatively silent on the nature of regional governance, by the nineteenth century, towns throughout Dahomey were clearly managed by officials sent from Abomey. Indeed, major centers like Whydah and Allada, as well as minor towns such as Whegbo, were divided into quarters, each of which was controlled by lower-ranking officials ’who regulate their own departments, and distribute justice except in some extraordinary cases which are referred to Abomey’.”
[1]
[1]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 355. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection [2]: Monroe, J. C. (2007). Continuity, Revolution or Evolution on the Slave Coast of West Africa? Royal Architecture and Political Order in Precolonial Dahomey. The Journal of African History, 48(3), 349–373: 356–357. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ASTPFKNP/collection |
||||||
|
levels.The Austrian and Hungarian states had their own parliament and government, however there were three joint ministries which administered their common affairs: ministry of war, ministry of finance, and the ministry of foreign affairs and of the imperial and royal house.
[1]
[2]
“The centralistic governmental structure in a country increasingly weakened by national strife faced great difficulties. They affected the stability of the administration. Thus in Germany, where the powers of the legislative branch of government were encumbered with limitations similar to those in Austria, only five chancellors headed the cabinet between 1871 and 1917. In the dual states of the Habsburg empire the situation was different. Hungary had seventeen prime ministers and Cisleithanian Austria twenty during that period.”
[3]
: 1. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary (dual title) :: 2. Prime Minister ::: 3. Chancellors :::: 4. State Government/Parliament ::::: 5. Diets (in each territory) :::::: 6. Town Council ::::::: 7. Mayor or other locally elected ruler :::::::: 8. Local authorities and administrators
[1]: ‘Austria-Hungary’. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/47VQW2IL. [2]: Judson 2016: 335. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/BN5TQZBW. [3]: (Kann 1974: 424) Kann, Robert A. 1974. A History of the Habsburg Empire 1526-1918. Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/RP3JD4UV |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ there are ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms chiefdoms)’ of administrative control-petty chiefs and local leaders.
[(6) the Chinese Central Government; (5) the Chinese Provincial Governments; (4) Senior Chinese Officials; (3) Yi officials;] (2) Hmong Petty Officials and Chiefs of Townships;(1) Village and Hamlet Headmen On the village and hamlet levels, respected elders served as informal leaders: ’Respected knowledgeable elders, heads of family groups, and religious experts of both genders served as informal leaders. Among the more Sinicized, landlords and those who had some literacy in Chinese exercised power in the community. Under the present system, those who are members of the Communist party stand as the official leaders of the community.’ [1] ’The Ch’uan Miao are not a tribe with a political organization that includes the whole group. There are no tribal rulers, but they have local headmen, called gü leo or “old clubs,” who sometimes cooperate for the common good. These people are an ethnic group bound together by common language, ideals, and customs and by a strong sense of unity. They are very sociable and mutually helpful.’ [2] ’Traditionally, the Miao had little political organization above the village level, and the highest position was that of village leader. In China the Miao have come under the political organization common to the whole of China; where minority populations are dense, they live in autonomous counties, townships, or prefectures, where a certain amount of self-representation is allowed.’ [3] Rui also mentions chiefs of village clusters or townships, a position established by the Chinese, although the chronology is not quite clear: ’The Magpie Miao live in villages, occasionally compact but normally consisting of a cluster of separate hamlets. These are located on mountain slopes, usually far enough away from main transportation routes to be inaccessible and readily defensible. The Miao lack any political organization of their own, and are thoroughly integrated into the Chinese administrative system. The basic political, as well as economic and social unit, is the village. Villages are grouped into townships and divided into hamlets of about ten to twenty households each. The headmen of both the village and the hamlet are appointed by the chief of the township. The members of different villages or hamlets are bound principally by affinal ties. They may cooperate for the common good, but they lack any formal organization of an indigenous character. Disputes between members of the same hamlet are settled, if possible, within the hamlet. Those between members of different hamlets of the same village are adjudicated by a council composed of the village headman and the heads of the hamlets involved. If this council cannot effect a settlement, the litigants have a right to carry their dispute to the chief of the township or even to the Chinese court of the county.’ [4] Hmong petty officials acting as intermediaries between Hmong communities and Chinese authorities had been set up during the Qing period already: ’When the Miao rebellion was put down in the first year of Chia Ch’ing /1796/, it was found that the policy of governing the Miao with Chinese was wrong. The then governor-general of Hunan and Kwangtung, Pi Yüan, submitted a plan to govern the Miao with Miao. "[...] It is requested that from among the Miao who have submitted, and on whom were conferred the peacock feather decoration /for merit, in early Ch’ing times/, there be selected some intelligent, aware persons, to be appointed at each ying /military station/ as native second captain /shoupei/, lieutenant /ch’ien-tsung/, and sergeant or corporal /wai-wei/, such positions to be filled through the governor-general and governor’s /tu-wu/ yamen /tu-wu ya-men/ and to be subject to the control of the civil and military authorities. When the various t’ang hsin in the Miao area have official despatches to send, they can order the said native petty officers to select Miao to question and send, and also to give them some cash and rations. When officials traveling on official business require servants, they may also recruit them from the Miao, and pay them wages according to the Chinese scales. It would appear that the 100-families village chief was originally inaugurated to discipline the Miao, but these men were unimportant and their powers limited, as that the Miao did not heed them. Moreover, among the Chinese holding such positions there were rapacious, unscrupulous rogues, whose mistreatment led to disturbances. This should naturally be explained, deliberated, and changed, so as to fix responsibility. During the recent campaign those submissive Miao who accompanied the army and won peacock feather awards are numerous, therefore from these select those who are intelligent and aware, and who have the support of the rest, and according to the customary set-up of t’u-kuan /officials governing aboriginal tribes in West China/, every Ying should have one or two men to be native second captains, under whom there should be native lieutenants and sergeants, for better control of the Miao. Their number will depend upon the number of villages put under control, and they shall be appointed by the governor-general and governor’s yamen and also be under the control of regional officials. If there are fights, robberies and thefts among the Miao these native officers will be asked to make the arrests. On their inspection tours, the governor-general and governor and military officials should examine the merits and demerits of these officers and reward or punish them accordingly to demonstrate justice, following the recommendations memorialized by Governor-general Ho Lin. When the t’ang-hsin system of communication in the Miao area has been abolished, official communications should be despatched according to old methods so as to avoid delay. In the regions where the t’ang-hsin system exists as before, the local officials /t’u kuan/ should be asked to pick out honest Miao to be given the responsibility of delivering messages after being questioned, to be paid wages and rations from unallotted funds, according to the scale for t’un soldiers. When officials traveling on official business need servants, then order the said Miao to serve, and pay them wages according to recommendations memorialized.”’ [5] Members of the higher social strata of Yi communities also served as more senior intermediaries: ’Opium was also an important feature of the economy until the 1920s: the Hua Miao grew it, but they had no control over its sale, and very few were attracted to its use. Most Hua Miao villages were tenant communities on lands held by Han or Hui, or more commonly in this area, by members of the elite strata of the Yi (also called Nosu or Black Yi). In the pacification of the region, large tracts of land were awarded to the Yi nobility by the expanding Chinese state. In return for the right to claim rentals and labor service, the Yi “native officials” (tu si) collected taxes for the state and generally maintained law and order within the boundaries of their estate holdings. This feudal system lasted until the 1920s. The Hua Miao met their obligations to these overlords by the forced growing of the opium poppy, payments in kind or in cash or a specified number of days of labor service (agricultural work, collecting of firewood, household service, transport work). However, as tenants they were free to move residence, to change landlords and to make their own marriage arrangements, rights that were not granted to the slave class within Yi society. Within the ethnic stratification of the area, the Hua Miao ranked below the Yi nobility and freeborn classes, and below the Hui and the Han, but their status was better than that of the Yi slaves-some of whom were Han who had been forced into slavery. Relations between the Hua Miao and their Yi overlords were tense but in general the Yi made no attempt to force the Hua Miao to assimilate to Yi cultural [Page 65] practices, and at times the Miao fled from the Han to the protection of the Yi.’ [6] Senior Chinese adminitrative officials were located in provincial capitals and district towns: ’Like Kweiyang, the hsien city of Lung-li was in an open plain, but a narrow one. The space between the mountains was sufficient for a walled town of one long street between the east and west gates and one or two on either side. There were fields outside the city walls. Its normal population was between three and four thousand, augmented during the war by the coming of some “companies” for the installation and repair of charcoal burners in motor lorries and the distillation of grain alcohol for fuel, an Army officers’ training school, and the engineers’ corps of the railway being built through the town from Kwangsi to Kweiyang. To it the people of the surrounding countryside, including at least three groups of Miao and the Chung-chia, went to market. It was also the seat of the hsien government and contained a middle school, postal and telegraph offices, and a cooperative bank, with all of which the non-Chinese, as well as the Chinese, had some dealings. A few of the more well-to-do families sent one of their boys to the middle school. Cases which could not be settled in the village or by the lien pao official, who was also a Chinese, were of necessity brought to the hsien court, as well as cases which involved both Miao and Chinese.’ [7] We have assumed that these observations are true for the A-Hmao as well, despite of historical differences. [The A-Hmao group doesn’t appear to have been directly involved in the more eastern Hmong rebellions, but it appears to have been increasingly subsumed by the Late Qing/Early Chinese in the aftermath of these rebellions.] [1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao [2]: Graham, David Crockett 1954. “Songs And Stories Of The Ch’Uan Miao”, 4 [3]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Miao [4]: Rui, Yifu 1960. “Magpie Miao Of Southern Szechuan”, 145 [5]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 152 [6]: Diamond, Norma 1993. “Ethnicity And The State: The Hua Miao Of Southwest China”, 64 [7]: Mickey, Margaret Portia 1947. “Cowrie Shell Miao Of Kweichow”, 40b |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels. Number equal to the levels comprising the provincial government, plus the Emperor.
1. Emperor _Central government_ 2. Grand Secretariatfollowing the Great Purge of 1380 CE "All of the top positions of the Secretariat were abolished". [1] The Hongwu Emperor "established the roots of the Grand Secretariat when he employed members of the Hanlin Academy to help him with the workload he was saddled with after he abolished the executive posts in the Secretariat. Under Xuande the system became more regular with a complement of three or four grand secretaries drawn from the Hanlin Academy as assistants to the emperor. Still, the grand secretaries were not formally connected to the bureaucracy in a chain of command..." [2] 2. Secretariat six boards (Personnel, Revenue, Rites, War, Justice, and Works). [3] following the Great Purge of 1380 CE "Without its top ranks, the heads of the Secretariat’s six boards reported to the emperor personally." [1] 2. Censorate [4] _Provincial government_ 2. ProvinceProvince: Ming had in total of 16 counties and a triad of provincial agencies known as the Three Offices: the Provincial Administration Commission, the Provincial Surveillance Commission, and the Regional Military Commission. [5] 3. Prefecture 4. County (Magistrate)County: The County was the lowest unit to which the central government appointed an official. Each county had one magistrate, who was always native of another province according to what was called the rule of avoidance, designed to prevent retrenchment of local power at the expense of center. The magistrate was responsible for overseeing the security and finances of anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 people. When the burdens of a magistrate became too heavy, a county could be subdivided and new counties formed [6] 5. TownTown could be elevated to county status under some conditions. For instance, The Town of Tong-xiang south of Lake Tai, was elevated in 1430 CE in a major reorganization designed to improve fiscal operations in this densely populated region. [7] _Local government_ 5. Community (Community chief) "The entire population was divided into communities of 110 adjacent households as the basic unit of self-government and state control. Each year one of the heads of the ten wealthiest households held the position of community chief, who served as representative to the local magistrate and the local tax collector. [8] "Each family was classified according to hereditary status - the chief categories being civilian, military, and artisan - and neighbouring families of the same category were organised into groups for purposes of self-government and mutual help and surveillance. Civilians were grouped into ’tithings’ of 10 families, and these in turn were grouped into communities totaling 100 families, plus 10 additional prosperous households, which in annual rotation provided community chiefs, who were intermediaries between the citizenry at large and the formal agencies of government. This system of social organization, called lijia (later replaced by or coexistent with a local defense system called baojia), served to stablize, regulate, and indoctrinate the populace under relatively loose formal state supervision." [3] 6. Ten households (Family head)"The other 100 households were grouped into ten groups of ten, with each family head acting as representative for his group to the community chief on an annual rotation. Everyone in each group was responsible for the actions of the other members, creating a vast mutual surveillance system." [8] very similar to the Three Chiefs System of 486 CE [1]: (Lorge 2005, 109) [2]: (Lorge 2005, 120) [3]: (Pletcher 2010, 197) [4]: (Pletcher 2010, 198) [5]: (Brook, 2010, p.39) [6]: (Brook, 2010, p.40-41) [7]: (Brook, 2010, p.41) [8]: (Lorge 2005, 110) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor "He assumed ’dictatorial’ powers because only the sovereign, through the examination system, now controlled access to office. This new centralized bureaucracy of Sung was more beholden to the throne and so supported imperial power in a different manner and on a greater scale than had its medieval forebears." [1] "Huang-ti and T’ien-tzu (Son of Heaven) were the most usual titles on the formal seals of Sung emperors." [2] 2. Palace Domestic Service"Like other major Sung institutions, the Palace Domestic Service dates from the reign of Chen-tsung. Organized in 1022 into six ministries with a plethora of subdivisions, it contained a total of 282 billeted positions. These six ministries were General Affairs, Ceremonies, Wardrobe, Food Service, Housekeeping, and Workshop Service." [3] "In 1113, Emperor Hui-tsung, as a continuation of the Yuan-feng reforms of 1082, reorganized the Palace Domestic Service to mirror the organization of external government. The traditional six inner ministries of 1022 were reorganized into six divisions that corresponded to the external Six Ministries of the Department of State Affairs, and the top supervisory positions were recast as “inner councilors” (nei-tsai). As justification for this move, Hui-tsung’s edict declared that this new structure would facilitate “the disposition of matters submitted to the throne from the external Six Ministries.” This phrasing raises the interesting question whether, in addition to processing their own internal paperwork, the women also processed external documents coming to and from the emperor. There are tantalizing indications that this was probably the case." [4] "Tenth-century Sung government was a hopeless patchwork of late T’ang administrative structure and ad hoc provincial institutions inherited from the military governors of the Five Dynasties." [5] _Central government_ Pre-1082 CE State Council (Military Affairs Commission / Secretariat-Chancellery) 2. Chief Councillor"Initially, the Sung chief councilors were secondary in importance to the Military Affairs Commissioner. But, as soon as literati culture began to emerge in the early eleventh century, the first of the great chief councilors also emerged in the person of Lu I-chien." [6] "the office of chief councilor was the pinnacle of the Sung bureaucracy, the chief officer charged with formulating and executing policy." [7] 3. Five Offices (Wu fang) of the Secretariat-Chancellery staffed by clerks or assistant chief councillors collectively known as Bureau of Edicts (Chich-ch’ih yuan) [6] 4. Clerks"In the mid-eleventh century, the support staff at the Secretariat-Chancellery numbered at least two to three hundred clerks, although this number ballooned after the Yuan-feng reforms." [8] 5-?. Lesser clerks"They were staffed by professional clerks, who had their own hierarchy, but were not graded officials (shih ta-fu)." [8] Post-1082 CE (Yuan-feng reform) Military Affairs Commission, Department of the Secretariat (Chung-shu sheng), Department of the Chancellery (Men-hsia sheng), Department of State Affairs. [9] 2. Left Chief Councillor and Right Chief CouncillorSix Ministries under the Department of State Affairs divided into "Left" and "Right" groups) [6] Three Departments (San-sheng) [10] Illustrated by a T’ang saying often repeated in Sung texts: "the Secretariat obtains the imperial will; the Chancellery resubmits the memorial; the Department of State Affairs (Shang-shu sheng) promulgates the action." [10] "The Left Chief Councilor was Left Vice Director of the Department of State Affairs and concurrent Vice Director of the Chancellery (Shang-shu tso p’u-yeh chien men-hsia shih-lang). The Right Chief Councilor held a similar title but was concurrently Vice Director of the Secretariat (there were no directors)." [11] 3. Left and Right Assistant Directors of the Department of State Affairs"The position of Assistant Chief Councilor was abolished, replaced by Left and Right Assistant Directors of the Department of State Affairs (Shang-shu tso yu-ch’eng)." [12] 4. Subunit of the Six Ministries (ssu)The Six Ministries had twenty-four subunits (ssu) [8] 5. Clerks"In the mid-eleventh century, the support staff at the Secretariat-Chancellery numbered at least two to three hundred clerks, although this number ballooned after the Yuan-feng reforms." [8] 6-?."After 1082, two or three graded officials in each of the Six Ministries and their twenty-four subunits (ssu) supervised a much larger number of clerks." [8] Pre-1082 CE The Censorate and the Bureau of Policy Criticism. 2. Vice Censor-in-Chief (Yu-shih chung-ch’eng) of the Headquarters Bureau (T’ai-yuan). There was also The Palace Bureau (Tien-yuan) and The Investigation Bureau (Ch’a-yuan)."... the major organs through which public opinion was to be funneled into court decision making. These institutions did not begin to assume their mature role in Sung government until the 1030s..." [13] "First, independently of other agencies, it gathered information and kept the emperor informed on conditions in the state. Second, it kept watch over the bureaucracy and enforced rules and standards for official conduct. In the metaphor of the state as a body, the censors were the "eyes and ears" of the sovereign." [14] "there was no Censor-in-Chief; the post was always vacant" [15] 3. Attendant Censor (Shihyu-shih) of the Headquarters Bureau (T’ai-yuan) [15] 4. Head of subdivision within Headquarters Bureau (Palace Bureau / Investigation Bureau) [15] 5. Clerk 6. Assistant clerk"Within these three divisions there were eleven subdivisions with a total quota of forty-four clerks." [15] Rank grade classes in the civil-administrative structure (note: each of these classes are further sub-divided) [16] 1. Ministers-in-attendance (shih ts’ung) The Emperor "personally made all appointments and personnel decisions concerning top officials. Such officials, known collectively as ministers-in-attendance, had personal-rank grades of eleven or above." [17] 2. Senior directors (Ta ch’ing-chien)3. Directors (Lang-chung)4. Vice-directors (Yuan-wai-lang)5. Court officials (Ch’ao kuan)6. Capital Officials (Ching-kuan)7. Executory Class Officials (Hsuan-jen) 2. Finance Commissioners (san-ssu shih) in the State Finance Commission or Three Offices (San-ssu)"The commissioners (sansishi) at the head of the State Finance Commission were carefully chosen by the court." [18] The Salt and Iron Monopoly "handled the production and distribution of military supplies, paid the salaries of military officials, supervised communications, collected commercial taxes, and ran the government monopolies, except for the wine monopoly." [19] The Tax Bureau "prepared annual financial reports and controlled receipts and disbursements, including the salaries of civil officials." [19] The Census Bureau "was responsible for population records, collected agricultural taxes, administered the wine monopoly, supervised long term storage of goods, and handled certain public-works projects." [19] 3. Assistant commissioner (san-ssu fu-shih)"Various unsuccessful attempts were made to divide authority at the top among two or more commissioners, but it was not until the beginning of the eleventh century that a workable answer was found: a single finance commissioner (san-ssu shih), aided by an assistant commissioner (san-ssu fu-shih) and three administrative assistants (san-ssu p’an-kuan) in each of the three offices. The finance commissioners were answerable not to the chief councilors (tsai-hsiang) who headed the regular civil administration, but directly to the emperor." [20] 4. Three administrative assistants (san-ssu p’an-kuan) 4. Heads of the sub-units of the Three Officese.g. The Salt and Iron Monopoly included an Armaments Section (Chou an) prior to some later reforms. [21] 5. Clerk in sub-unit of the Three Offices -- inferred 6. Assistant clerk in sub-unit of the Three Offices -- inferred"In 978, it was reported to have comprised 24 offices and employed over 1,000 clerks." [18] 5. Manager of state-owned production unit -- inferrede.g. Did the manager of a crossbow producing factory report to the Armaments Section chief? local officials called "jiandangguan (officials with supervision and administrative duties in financial and other economic issues), also performed finance and taxation work. They were primarily responsible for collecting commercial taxes, supervising salt and wine monopolies, and managing storehouses." [22] 6. State-owned production unit assistant manager -- inferred 7. State-owned production unit worker -- inferred 7. State monopoly agents"... under the control of the counties, a large number of ch’ang-wu, monopoly or commercial tax installations, directed not by clerks or local notables but by regular officials, the state monopoly agents (chien-tang kuan)." [23] 2. Institute of Academicians"The academicians of the Institute composed the formal, important documents of imperial rule - notices of imperial appointments and promotions, amnesties, and foreign correspondence." [24] _Provincial government_ 2. Circuits (lu) - Fiscal Commissioner (chuan-yun shih or ts’ao-ssu) / Judicial Commissioner (t’i-tien hsing-yu kung-shih or hsien-ssu) / Military Commissioner (ching-lueh an-fun shih or shuai-ssu)"the entire empire was divided into circuits (lu or, for a short time, tao) which usually included eight to fifteen prefectures" [25] "These circuits served in the first instance for the surveillance of affairs in the prefectures but increasingly tended to assume other roles such as general co-ordination and mobilization of a region’s resources." [25] "The circuits defined the area of activity of a number of circuit commissioners whose offices were designated as supervisorates or surveillance agencies (chien-ssu)." [26] 3. Vice Commissioners (fu-shih) [26] 4. Administrative assistants (p’an-kuan) [26] 4. Winery "directly run by officials"Fiscal Commissioners "checked the receipts from all wineries, ordered their immediate subordinates or officials from the prefectural offices to inspect specific wineries, determined which wineries would be directly run by officials and which would be leased out to private operators..." [26] 5. Winery management6-?. Winery staff 3. Prefect and Vice prefect (t’ung-pan) [27] of a Prefecture (chou) [28] Superior prefectures (fu) [28] "At the prefectural level, many financial activities were handled not by the prefect but by the vice prefect (t’ung-pan)." "Vice prefects enjoyed approximate equality with prefects: they were permitted to memoralize the throne directly on prefectural affairs and their endorsement (chien-shu) was required on reports from the prefect." [27] 4. Prefectural court judge (t’ui kuan) [29] 5. Clerk in a court [30] 4. Magistrates and Vice magistrates in a County (hsien)"counties (hsien), the lowest general administrative level of the government" [31] "Much the same kind of independence was enjoyed at the county level by vice magistrates (hsien-ch’eng), who were appointed in counties of special importance." [27] 5. ClerksThe Granaries Policy (Ts’ang fa) (1070) put some previously unsalaried local clerks in local government on government salaries. [32] County registrars (chu-pu) [33] 5. State monopoly agents (chien-tang kuan) -- may belong in the central government under The Salt and Iron Monopoly tree?"... under the control of the counties, a large number of ch’ang-wu, monopoly or commercial tax installations, directed not by clerks or local notables but by regular officials, the state monopoly agents (chien-tang kuan)." [23] 5. County sheriff (hsing-wei)T’ai-tsu in 962 CE "ordered that each county establish a county sheriff (hsing-wei) with a salary equal to that of the county registrars (chu-pu), though sheriffs stood below the registrars in the protocol order." [33] 6. Clerks (chieh-chi) and Bowmen (kung-shou)"These sheriffs, assisted by a body of clerks (chieh-chi) and bowmen (kung-shou), were to enforce the law in the countryside." [33] _Village level political structure of Emperor Shen-tsung and Wang An-shih_ 6. Superior Security Group (ten ta? pao) lead by a fu-pao-cheng"Emperor Shen-tsung and Wang An-shih promoted the pao-chia system at the village-level political structure. Every five households constituted one pao (security group) and were headed up by a security-group head (pao-chang); five pao formed a large pao headed by a large security-group head (ta pao-chang); and ten large pao formed a superior security group (tu-pao) headed by a superior security group head (fu-pao-cheng) and his assistant (fu tu-pao-cheng)." [34] 7. fu tu-pao-cheng (assistant to fu-pao-cheng) 7. Large Security Group (five pao) ta? pao lead by a ta pao-chang 8. Security Group (every five households) pao lead by a pao-chang [1]: (Hartman 2015, 20) [2]: (Hartman 2015, 82) [3]: (Hartman 2015, 88) [4]: (Hartman 2015, 88-89) [5]: (Hartman 2015, 29) [6]: (Hartman 2015, 99) [7]: (Hartman 2015, 98) [8]: (Hartman 2015, 101) [9]: (Hartman 2015, 98-99) [10]: (Hartman 2015, 37) [11]: (Hartman 2015, 99-100) [12]: (Hartman 2015, 100) [13]: (Hartman 2015, 38) [14]: (Hartman 2015, 103) [15]: (Hartman 2015, 104) [16]: (Hartman 2015, 61) [17]: (Hartman 2015, 84) [18]: (Liu 2015, 65) [19]: (Golas 2015, 145) [20]: (Golas 2015, 146) [21]: (Golas 2015, 153) [22]: (Liu 2015, 66) [23]: (Golas 2015, 148) [24]: (Hartman 2015, 92) [25]: (Golas 2015, 143) [26]: (Golas 2015, 144) [27]: (Golas 2015, 147) [28]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 217) [29]: (McKnight 2015, 267) [30]: (McKnight 2015, 266) [31]: (Golas 2015, 141) [32]: (Golas 2015, 151) [33]: (McKnight 2015, 262) [34]: (Tseng-yü and Wright 2009, 228) |
||||||
|
"The Shang political system was organized into a hierarchy, meaning that it had many levels of rank and many specialized functions and jobs, all passed down within a noble family."
[1]
The state had to "organize the mining of large quantities of ore for bronzework; wage military campaigns; construct city walls and palaces; or build elaborate tombs for themselves." [1] 1. King _Central government_ 2. Highest official in the administration3. Official who over-saw mining activities and possibly also bronze workshops 3. Official for transport"As early as the Shang period, roads were controlled by a special official" [2] 4. Bronze workshop manager inferred level"Casting large objects was not easy; it required large crucibles and efficient furnaces. Casting some of the largest objects required coordinated melting in many crucibles similar to a modern factory." [3] 4. Mine manager inferred level5. Bronze worker inferred level _Provincial government_ 2. Aristocratic leaders (local elite families). Feudal state. Familial kingship: Elder brother - Younger brother, Father - Son. King ruled core lands. King appointed officials. Government secretariate: Great Minister and Councillors. High officials to run palace affairs and feasts (included religious chroniclers and ceremonial specialists). Military officials. Shang territory was not contiguous. Authority over outer regions closest to Anyang was delegated to aristocratic leaders who usually were linked to royal family through kinship ties. They supplied king manpower for military, tribute, workers for construction projects. Beyond aristocratic rulers were friendly tribal chieftains. [4] [5] Administration is used in a very loose sense, recognizing that officials, including local elite families (’local elite’ probably more accurate than ’aristocratic’) as well as members of the King’s retinue in Anyang seem to have acted largely independently, contributing to the King’s projects (including military campaigns, building, and religious activities) in order to participate in and to benefit from association with Anyang, rather than as dependents or non-elite officials directly controlled by the Kings. [1]: (The Shang Dynasty, 1600 to 1050 BCE. Spice Digest, Fall 2007. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/117/ShangDynasty.pdf) [2]: (Lindqvist 2009) Lindqvist, Cecilia. 2009. China: Empire of Living Symbols. Da Capo Press. [3]: (Bavarian 2005) Bavarian, Behzad. July 2005. Unearthing Technology’s Influence on the Ancient Chinese Dynasties through Metallurgical Investigations, California State University. Northridge. http://library.csun.edu/docs/bavarian.pdf [4]: (Roberts 2003) [5]: (Keay 2009) |
||||||
|
levels. This number equal to the number of levels in the central government, plus the Emperor.
1. Emperor 2. Three preceptors (san shih) and the three dukes (san kung)"At the top of the imperial service were the three preceptors (san shih) and the three dukes (san kung) who were supposed to be, after the model of the early Chou, supreme advisors of the emperor." However "these were not functional offices, and they were often unfilled for long periods." [1] Three preceptors was abolished by Yangdi. [2] 2. Department of the Palace Library / Department of the Palace Domestic Service"in charge of palace affairs and were practically left outside the core leadership." [3] _Central government_ 2. Shangshu Ling (President) of the Department of State Affairs (Secretariat / Chancellery were the other two departments)"as the most powerful position of the bureaucracy, it was rarely filled, so its lieutenants puye ... served de facto as heads of the department." [4] "The Secretariat served as the originator of policy proposals, which were reviewed by the Chancellery before being sent to the executive branch - the Department of State Affairs - for implementation. But in practice, heads of the Department of State Affairs had major policy making responsibilities." [3] Wendi set up "an oligarchic leadership under his direct control. Thus, three departments instead of a single one constituted the central nerve system of the government." [5] During the reign of Wendi the shangshu ling of the DSA "only existed in name", "The two vice presidents of the Department of State Affairs, together with the heads of the Chancellery (menxia) and the Secretariat (neishi; zhongshu under the Tang), made up the top echelon leadership of the central government, known as chief ministers." [5] 3. Shangshu Sheng (vice-president of the department)"since the presidency (ling ...) virtually left unfilled, the vice-presidents (puye ...) were by default leaders of the department and the most powerful chief ministers." [4] 4. Civil Office (Li-pu), Finance (Min-pu), Rites (Lǐ-pu), Army (Ping-pu), Justice (Hsing-pu), Public Works (Kung-pu).Under the jurisdiction of the Department of State Affairs were the six boards [6] 5. Sub-official 2. Censorate (Yu-shih t’ai)"Beyond the structure of the three central ministries and the six boards, the Sui established other offices..." [6] 2. Inspectorate General of the Water Works (Tu-shui t’ai)"Beyond the structure of the three central ministries and the six boards, the Sui established other offices..." [6] 2. Supervisory Office for the State University [6] "All the principle officers of these bureaux had proscribed titles and a set number of subordinates at all levels, and the regulations specified the rank (p’in) required for each office." [6] 2. Inspectorate General of the Imperial Works [6] 2. Inspectorate General of the Imperial Ateliers [6] 2. Nine Courts (chiu ssu)Court of Imperial Sacrifices, Court of Imperial Banquets, Court of the Imperial Family (three examples) [6] "In essence, these central agencies often overlapped the Six Boards in function but were not nearly as powerful. However, unlike the Tang period when the None Courts were ranked lower bureaucratically and functioned as subordinate agencies to carry out directives of the Six Boards, the Sui Nine Courts were headed by officials with the same rank as the presidents of the Six Boards ..." [3] reforms under Yangdi "paved the way for the functional subordination of the Nine Courts to the Six Boards, a practice institutionalized under the Tang." [7] 2. Delegate of Court Assembly"Each prefecture (chou) sent a representative to a special assembly held in the presence of the emperor. While in the capital they were lodged in special quarters in the south-east part of the city. The assemblies were held on the fifteenth of the second, seventh and tenth moons. We know more about the function of the system under the T’ang, which held such assembles annually. The T’ang delegates were generally prefects or other ranking officials who were expected to bring to the capital their candidates for the official examinations plus tribute gifts for the emperor. An examination into the performance of the local officials in each local unit was held, and this was followed by an audience. In the Sui, the procedure was perhaps less elaborate, at least at the beginning of the dynasty." [8] _Provincial government_ 2. Circuit (dao)"Under normal circumstances, a zongguan corresponded to a zhou ... (prefecture) in area. However, three zongguan (area commands - Luozhou ... (mainly in present-day Henan), Bingzhou ... (in present-day Shanxi), and Yizhou ... (the Southwest) - functioned as super area commands; each of them took charge of dozens of area commands. In 582, Wendi replaced these super area commands with the circuit (dao ...), with its head office known as the Branch of the Department of State Affairs (xingtai sheng ...), and converted Luozhou ..., Bingzhou, and Yizhou [Super] Area Commands into Henan ..., Hebei ..., and Xinan ..., Circuits, respectively." [9] "Yangdi was the top administrator of the Bingzhou area whether as [superior] area commander of Bingzhou, or president of the Branch Department of State Affairs of Hebei ... Circuit (dao)" [9] 2. Prefectures (became Commanderies under Yangdi)"From the Three Kingdoms through the Western Jin, a three-tier local government system, comprised of zhou ... (province), jun ... (region), and xian ... (county), was in place. After the fall of the Western Jin, the system continued to exist in name. However, both the zhou (renamed "prefectures") and jun (renamed "commanderies") shrank in size and increased in number. By Sui times, they were hardly distinguishable from one another. Wendi created a zhou-xian two-tier system by abolishing the jun. Yangdi then replaced zhou with jun." [10] 3. xian _Three Chiefs System_ "A system of mutual surveillance to facilitate tax collection ad fulfillment of corvee and military duties. Proposed by Li Chong ..., it was first promulgated in Northern Wei in 486 in the name of Xiaowendi. Replacing the system of clan masters (zongzhu ...) at the grassroots level, it organized every five households into units known as lin (neighbourhoods). Five lin constituted a li ... (village), and five li, a dang ... (community). The heads (zhang) of lin, li, and dang were the three chiefs." [11] 4. dang (community) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted 125 households (five li) [11] perhaps 750 people 5. li (village) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted 25 households (five lin) [11] perhaps 150 people 6. lin (neighbourhoods) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted five households [11] perhaps 30 people? Aristocratic ranks (before Yangdi changed it to prince - duke - marquis) [2] State Prince (guowang) Commandery prince (junwang) State duke (guogong) Commandery duke (jungong) County duke (xiangong) Marquis (hou) Earl (bo) Viscount (zi) Baron (nan) [1]: (Wright 1979, 81) [2]: (Xiong 2006, 112) [3]: (Xiong 2006, 109) [4]: (Xiong 2009, 438) [5]: (Xiong 2006, 110) [6]: (Wright 1979, 82) [7]: (Xiong 2006, 111) [8]: (Wright 1979, 91-92) [9]: (Xiong 2006, 14) [10]: (Xiong 2009, 182) [11]: (Xiong 2009, 501) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor "whose power was, in theory, absolute." [1] _Central government_ 2. Hall of Administrative Affairs / Chief Ministers’ office (from 723 CE)Three chief ministers also called "Hall of Administrative Affairs (Cheng-shih t’ang)" an informal advisory group. [2] from 723 CE became an official government organ "with a separate budget and seal" Chief Ministers’ office (Chung-shu Men-hsia) [2] 2. Imperial Chancellery run by a Chief Minister"it received reports, ratified nominations, controlled all the actions of the government" [1] Hsuan-tsung (712-756 CE): "it was not he who ruled during the latter period from about 740 but his Chancellor Li Lin fu (in office 736-752), who established himself an unchallenged master of the Empire." [3] heads of the three central ministries were "chief ministers" [4] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Chancellery (Men-hsia sheng) [2] 2. Imperial Secretariat run by a Chief Minister"prepared and issued all the proclamations, edicts, etc." [1] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Secretariat (Chung-shu sheng). [2] 3? Board of Censors"remained permanent from the T’ang on ... which had the duty of controlling and reporting on the actions of the officials." [1] 2. Department for State Affairs run by a Chief Minister"supervised the six main executive ministries" [1] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Department of State Affairs (Shang-shu sheng) [2] 3. Ministry of Officials (1) / Finances (2) / Rites (3) / Army (4) / Justice (5) / Public Works (6) 4. Sub-official within ministry e.g. under the Minister of Public Works inferred 5. Lower-level official within specialization (roads or ditches etc.) inferred6. On site manager of e.g. the road works inferred7. On site laborer inferred 3? Nine Offices and Five Bureauscontrolled "special administrative fields and the affairs of the Imperial Court" ?. Coin mint (Supervisor)government directly controlled minting of coins [5] ?. Coin mint workergovernment directly controlled minting of coins [5] 2. Delegate of Court Assembly"Each prefecture (chou) sent a representative to a special assembly held in the presence of the emperor. While in the capital they were lodged in special quarters in the south-east part of the city. The assemblies were held on the fifteenth of the second, seventh and tenth moons. We know more about the function of the system under the T’ang, which held such assembles annually. The T’ang delegates were generally prefects or other ranking officials who were expected to bring to the capital their candidates for the official examinations plus tribute gifts for the emperor. An examination into the performance of the local officials in each local unit was held, and this was followed by an audience." [6] _Provincial government_ 2. Civil inspecting commissioner (from 733 CE) (previously Circuits)"The T’ang reconstructed the administration of the country by creating ten large circuits (later raised to fifteen)..." [1] ts’ai fang ch’u-chih shih "were appointed in each of the fifteen new provinces (tao) into which the empire was divided." [7] "in the years down to the rebellion the provincial inspectors tended to exercise more and more active authority over the prefectures and counties under their jurisdiction." [7] "a permanent level of authority intermediate between central government and individual prefectures." However, they were purely advisory and inspection and had no executive powers or civil jurisdiction. "They should not, therefore, be thought of as constituting an additional provincial level of administration." [8] 2. Prefectures (chou)"the country was further divided into prefectures, chou (over 350) [1] "the emperor made the selection of prefects his personal responsibility." [9] 3. Head of provincial treasury Merchants could redeem feiqian documents at provincial treasuries. [10] 4. Sub-manager in provincial treasury inferred5. Level in provincial treasury inferred6. Level in provincial treasury inferred 3. Counties (hsien)"and these in turn into around 1500 countries (hsien) [1] "The really basic form of government, the only level with which the great majority of the population had any contact, was the county under the rule of a magistrate. This was also the lowest level at which the central bureaucracy functioned." [11] 4. Districts (hsiang)"while at the bottom were the districts (hsiang), around 16,000 in number. [1] 5. EldersIn Guangzhou "The foreigners lived in a prescribed quarter of the city, were ruled over by specially designated elders, and enjoyed some extraterritorial privileges." [12] 2. Military governors (from early 8th century)"the new standing armies required a new command structure which provided for the relatively independent operation of these armies over broad, designated frontier zones." [13] chieh-tu shih commanded a fan- or fang-chen. the position replaced the temporarily appointed commander, the protector-general and the governor-general. [13] "In addition to his military responsibilities the new military governor also held broad civil power over local administration, finance and supply." [13] "By 763 the provinces controlled by military (chieh-tu shih) and civil (kuan-ch’a shih) governors had formed a permanent tier of authority throughout the empire, interposed between central government and the old prefectures and counties. These provinces developed forms of autonomy and semi-autonomy..." [14] [1]: (Rodzinski 1979, 118) [2]: (Dalby 1979, 590) [3]: (Rodzinski 1979, 129) [4]: (Roberts 1996, 95) [5]: (Roberts 1996, 94) [6]: (Wright 1979, 91-92) [7]: (Peterson 1979, 468) [8]: (Twitchett 1979, 404) [9]: (Roberts 1996, 89) [10]: (Cheng 2003, 10) Cheng, Linsun. Banking in Modern China: Entrepreneurs, Professional Managers, and the Development of Chinese Banks, 1897-1937. Cambridge University Press. [11]: (Rodzinski 1979, 118-119) [12]: (Roberts 1996, 106) [13]: (Peterson 1979, 466) [14]: (Peterson 1979, 485) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor In this period: "Although they were formally ensconced on the throne... the T’ang emperors ruled only indirectly over much of the country. Real power became concentrated increasingly in the hands of the military governors; their number rose to fifty and in some regions the posts became hereditary." [1] 2. The Department of the Inner Palace (Nei-shih sheng)The Department of the Inner Palace (Nei-shih sheng), staffed by eunuchs, in this period became the most important authority of the imperial household. The eunuchs initially acted as intermediaries between the Emperor and the bureaucracy, later became directly involved in central government, provincial appointments, succession disputes. [2] Is this the same thing as the "inner court (nei-t’ing)"? 820s/830s CE and last quarter of 9th century were the "high points of their political influence" [3] _Central government_ Despite reputation of this period as one of loss of central government control, the diary of a Japanese Buddhist monk, Ennin, suggests to some degree otherwise. Quoting E. O. Reischauer: "The remarkable degree of centralized control still existing, the meticulous attention to written instructions from higher authorities, and the tremendous amount of paper work involved in even the smallest matters of administration are all the more striking just because this was a period of dynastic decline." [4] "The activity of eunuchs in court politics was undoubtedly one of the distinguishing features of late T’ang history... their role in the first half of the dynasty had been very limited." [5] 2. Hall of Administrative Affairs / Chief Ministers’ office (from 723 CE)Three chief ministers also called "Hall of Administrative Affairs (Cheng-shih t’ang)" an informal advisory group. [6] from 723 CE became an official government organ "with a separate budget and seal" Chief Ministers’ office (Chung-shu Men-hsia) [6] 2. Imperial Chancellery run by a Chief Minister"it received reports, ratified nominations, controlled all the actions of the government" [7] heads of the three central ministries were "chief ministers" [8] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Chancellery (Men-hsia sheng) [6] 2. Imperial Secretariat run by a Chief Minister"prepared and issued all the proclamations, edicts, etc." [7] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Secretariat (Chung-shu sheng). [6] 3? Board of Censors"remained permanent from the T’ang on ... which had the duty of controlling and reporting on the actions of the officials." [7] 2. Department for State Affairs run by a Chief Minister"supervised the six main executive ministries" [7] Chief Minister (tsai-hsiang), Department of State Affairs (Shang-shu sheng) [6] 3. Ministry of Officials (1) / Finances (2) / Rites (3) / Army (4) / Justice (5) / Public Works (6) 4. Sub-official within ministry e.g. under the Minister of Public Works inferred 5. Lower-level official within specialization (roads or ditches etc.) inferred6. On site manager of e.g. the road works inferred7. On site laborer inferred 3? Nine Offices and Five Bureauscontrolled "special administrative fields and the affairs of the Imperial Court" 4. Sub-official e.g. under the Minister of Finances 5. Heads of Salt and Iron Commission and Public Revenue Department of the Board of Finance"After 765 two financial zones were established: one (technically called the Salt and Iron Commission) based in Yang-chou and in charge of the finances of central China and the Yangtze valley, the other (under the Public Revenue Department of the Board of Finance) in Chang’an, responsible for the north and for Szechwan." [9] 6.The financial specialists who headed Salt and Iron Commission and Public Revenue Department of the Board of Finance: "In the post-rebellion period, they developed the rudiments of professional standards and self-esteem, were permitted to recruit subordinates outside the regular system, and introduced thereby a new career track into the administration, one that remained in existence through northern Sung times." [10] ?. Coin mint (Supervisor)government directly controlled minting of coins [11] ?. Coin mint workergovernment directly controlled minting of coins [11] 2. Delegate of Court Assembly"Each prefecture (chou) sent a representative to a special assembly held in the presence of the emperor. While in the capital they were lodged in special quarters in the south-east part of the city. The assemblies were held on the fifteenth of the second, seventh and tenth moons. We know more about the function of the system under the T’ang, which held such assembles annually. The T’ang delegates were generally prefects or other ranking officials who were expected to bring to the capital their candidates for the official examinations plus tribute gifts for the emperor. An examination into the performance of the local officials in each local unit was held, and this was followed by an audience." [12] _Provincial government_ "By 763 the provinces controlled by military (chieh-tu shih) and civil (kuan-ch’a shih) governors had formed a permanent tier of authority throughout the empire, interposed between central government and the old prefectures and counties. These provinces developed forms of autonomy and semi-autonomy..." [13] 2. Military governors"The T’ang government never recovered full control, particularly in the northern provinces ... the areas under the rule of the more independent military governors failed to follow the instructions of the central government..." [14] "the military governors retained most of the revenue of the areas under their control for themselves." [1] "The powerful decentralized provincial order which emerged in China after the middle of the eighth century was a direct result of the An Lu-shan rebellion of 755-63." [15] chieh-tu shih commanded a fan- or fang-chen. "In addition to his military responsibilities the new military governor also held broad civil power over local administration, finance and supply." [16] 2. Circuits"The T’ang reconstructed the administration of the country by creating ten large circuits (later raised to fifteen)..." [7] 2. Civil inspecting commissioner (from 733 CE)ts’ai fang ch’u-chih shih "were appointed in each of the fifteen new provinces (tao) into which the empire was divided." [17] 3. Prefectures (chou)"the country was further divided into prefectures, chou (over 350) [7] "Half a century after the rebellion central government still did not control the provinces effectively. Some of them, particularly in the north and east, were entirely autonomous; others, although administered by court-appointed officials, were only partially controlled from the centre." [18] "The independent provinces still recognised Tang sovereignty and the semi-autonomous ones still accepted appointments made by central government." [19] 4. Counties (hsien)"and these in turn into around 1500 countries (hsien) [7] "The really basic form of government, the only level with which the great majority of the population had any contact, was the county under the rule of a magistrate. This was also the lowest level at which the central bureaucracy functioned." [20] 5. Districts (hsiang)"while at the bottom were the districts (hsiang), around 16,000 in number. [7] [1]: (Rodzinski 1979, 131) [2]: (Dalby 1979, 571-572) [3]: (Dalby 1979, 587) [4]: (Roberts 1996, 102) [5]: (Dalby 1979, 571) [6]: (Dalby 1979, 590) [7]: (Rodzinski 1979, 118) [8]: (Roberts 1996, 95) [9]: (Dalby 1979, 575-756) [10]: (Dalby 1979, 756) [11]: (Roberts 1996, 94) [12]: (Wright 1979, 91-92) [13]: (Peterson 1979, 485) [14]: (Rodzinski 1979, 130) [15]: (Peterson 1979, 464) [16]: (Peterson 1979, 466) [17]: (Peterson 1979, 468) [18]: (Roberts 1996, 101) [19]: (Roberts 1996, 104) [20]: (Rodzinski 1979, 118-119) |
||||||
|
"Interested readers should consult Hans Bielenstein for an excellent account of the Han bureaucracy structure and its changes over time."
[1]
1. Emperor "In comparison with Roman emperorship, the Han emperorship tended to be much more ritualistic and passive." [2] However, some Emperors, such as Emperor Wu, could be "active" which made the Inner Court more important at those times. [3] 2. Six Masters of the Inner CourtThese positions usually filled by eunuchs. [2] According to Loewe 1986a, the Inner Court advisors were separate and distinct from the Outer Court (Senior Advisors and Councilors) after the reforms of Qudi. [4] Zhao though claims that the Inner Court advisors and attendants were subordinate to the Outer Court. [5] 3. Officials with no specific administrative positions. [2] 2. Two Ministries of the Outer Court: "the superintendent of the imperial clan and privy treasurer ... the officials of the Outer Court administrated the whole country." [2] _Central government_ Outer Court headed by Three Excellencies (san gong) 2. Chancellor [6] of government administration and some role in military 3. Grandee secretary [6] 4. Two Assistants and a Master of Records under the Grandee secretary [6] 5. Lower-level assistants under the control of the Two Assistants and Master of Records under the Grande secretary. [6] 2. Supreme Commandant [6] of military affairsPosition mostly held by civilians. [6] 2. Imperial Counselor [6] of censorial matters 3. Thirteen Bureaux (cao) of the Secretariat [6] West Bureau (appointments), East Bureau (promotion, demotion, dismissal), Imperial Household, Memorials, Litigation, Communication and Standards (weights, measures, postal service), Military Transportation, Bandit Control, Criminal Executions, Soldiers, Gold (currency, state production monopolies), Granaries (levies, taxes, storage), Yellow Cabinet (records, supervision). [6] 3. Head of The Bureau for Communications and Standards4. Head of departmental division within postal service inferred level5. Lower-level official within postal service divisions inferred level6. On site managers of postal relay station inferred level7. On site workers at postal relay station e.g. messengers, stable hands etc. inferred level 3. Head of The Bureau for Granaries4. Head of foodstuff divisions within The Bureau for Granaries inferred level5. Head of regional divisions within the foodstuff divisions inferred level6. Other lower-level positions within regional divisions inferred level7. On site managers of granaries inferred level8. On site workers at granaries inferred level 3. Head of The Bureau for Gold4. Head of departmental division e.g. for iron production inferred level5. Sub-head within the department for iron production e.g. iron tools, weapons etc. inferred level6. Other lower-level positions within production type inferred level7. On site managers of production workshops inferred level _Provincial government_ 2. Grand governor of a commandery (tai shou) [7] "In the late Western Han era, the country was divided into 13 provinces, with 103 commanderies, that in turn were divided into 1500-plus county-level government units." [8] the provinces were technical boundaries used for administrative purposes and were not under the control of an individual so do not count as an administrative level. -- check this note 3. Several lower-ranked officials such as Assistant, Master of Records, Privy Treasure and Chief Clerk. [7] 3. Head of Bureaus, which included "Bureau of All Purposes, Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Banditry, Bureau of Decisions, Bureau of Consultation, and Bureau of Agriculture Promotion." [7] "In the unearthed Donghai commandery documents dated to the late Western Han Dynasty, the total number of officials in that commandery is listed as 2,203, and most of these officials were grassroots personnel such as accessory clerk (492), chief of the officials’ hostel (688), and dou-salary clerks (501)." [1] 4. Sub-manager within a division inferred level5. Scribe inferred level6. Accessory clerk inferred at this level 2. Chief commandant (dou wei)"The grand governor was also assisted by an equivalent rank (2,000-shi) official entitled chief commandant (dou wei) who was in charge of all the military-related matters including training the local troops and militia, suppressing bandits, and inspecting fortifications and beacons." [7] 3. Heads of BureauUnder the chief commandant were "associates and assistants, heads of various bureaus, and military officers with titles such as jajors, captains, and millarians." [7] 4. 5. 3. County supervisors and Marquises (han-title holders) --- were Marquises directly appointed by Emperor?Regional inspectors. [9] "We know that the Western Han Empire comprised 1,587 county-level government units at the time and the Donghai Commandery contained 38 counties." 4. district (xiang) 5. hamlet (li) chiefsFamilies grouped into "mutually responsible units" (5 - 10). These were organised into hamlets, which had a headman. Hamlets made up a commune, which had a chief. Multiple communes divided into districts/counties, which comprised the units of a commandery/prefecture. Only the last administrative level had outside-sourced, merit-appointed, salaried officials. [10] Nine salary grades (in Shi) [11] suggests there could be up to nine administrative levels. However, perhaps we cannot directly infer this fact: might there be two officials at the same grade at different levels in a large department, or even grades skipped altogether, such as within a small but prestigious department? 10,000 2,000 1,000 600 400 300 200 100 ?? dou-salary clerks [1]: (Zhao 2015, 63) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [2]: (Zhao 2015, 64) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [3]: (Zhao 2015, 64-65) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [4]: (Loewe 1986a) [5]: (Zhao 2015) [6]: (Zhao 2015, 65) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [7]: (Zhao 2015, 67) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [8]: (Zhao 2015, 66) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [9]: (Roberts 2003, 50) [10]: (Keay 2009, 145) [11]: (Zhao 2015, 68) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
1. King
"Under the hierarchical clan system, the King of Zhou was also the head of Zhou Family, thus, the imperial and the clan power were integrated with each other, the imperial family and the state were closely related, and the grade of the ranks in clans paralleled those in politics. As a result the pyramids-shaped political ranks were developed, within which "the king makes the duke his servant; the duke the senior officials; the senior officials the junior officials" ..." [1] 2. zai (intendants), shanfu (provisioners), shi (scribes)"At court affairs zai (intendants), and shanfu (provisioners) "took out and brought in" (chu na) the king’s commands." [2] Court scribes called shi. [2] _Central government_ 2. Prime MinisterMany scholars argue Western Zhou government had a Secretariat. [3] "King Wen of Zhou appointed Jiang Shang as prime minister." [4] "Moreover, an un-earthed mid-Western Zhou bronze vessel (mugui) also contained inscriptions which recorded that the king was worried about corruption and abuse of power by his officials and, therefore, appointed a person named Mu to take charge of the censorial duty. This could be the forerunner of the censorial system fully developed in the Han bureaucracy." [5] 3. Supervisor of Land. [6] 3. Supervisor of the Horsec950 BCE "In place of the generic early Western Zhou hou, or regional "lords," the most powerful figures came to be the Three Supervisors (can you si), the Supervisor of the Horse (sima), the Supervisor of Lands (situ), and Supervisor of Works (si gong)". [2] 3. Supervisor of Works "By the mid-Western Zhou era, the Zhou government administration consisted of three separated functional divisions: royal household, civil administration, and military." [5] 4. Official who managed roads within ministry of works inferred level"As early as the Shang period, roads were controlled by a special official, and in the Zhou period, traffic had reached such proportions that regulations were introduced for particularly crowded crossroads and reckless driving was prohibited. ... they are said to have put roads into five categories: pedestrian roads for people and pack animals, roads for handcarts, roads for single carts, roads on which two carts could pass, and main roads wide enough to take three vehicles abreast." [7] 5. Scribe under the official who managed roads, within the ministry of works inferred level 5. on site road works manager inferred level _ Provincial line_ appears to be room for a higher provincial level - did such exist? 2. 170 units, members of Zhou nobility as regional rulers"It is said that when the Zhou dynasty was established around 1000 BC, about 1800 political units, referred to as states by some scholars, paid allegiance to the Zhou king. We may assume that these were mainly tribal units, clans, and federations of local units ruled by their chiefs and elders. In some cases warriors had established themselves as nobles and as commanders of garrison towns, which were at most fortified places like Panlongchang described above. Upon this agglomeration of small units the Zhou imposed their feudal system. About 170 units were formed with members of the Zhou nobility as the regional rulers, combining up to several dozens of the older units into new ones." [8] 3. units such as garrison towns, tribes, clans, federations of units 4. local headman Note on periodization "In short, the archaeological excavations suggest that while the Zhou elite in the east enjoyed a highly identical bronze culture identical to that which is found in the Wei Valley, the pottery workshops on the eastern plain continued to produce old types of pottery according to local standards that had their origin in the Shang. ... from the very beginning the Western Zhou state faced a west-east division that emerged as the result of the Zhou conquest. ... the situation began to change some time during the mid-Western Zhou when the Zhou pottery types were gradually introduced to the eastern plain. ... The complete merging of the two pottery tradtions during the late Western Zhou reflects the eventual integration of the two regions, guided by a unified elite culture introduced soon after the Zhou conquest." [9] 2. Fiefdoms Aristocrats given fiefdoms in exchange for loyalty, tribute and aid to a king. This feudal system is referred to as fengjian. [10] A poem in the Shijing that refers to this period reads: "no land is not the king’s land" and "there are none who are not the king’s servants." Aristocrats also helped run a central government bureaucracy, originally created by the Duke of Zhou (with some inheritance from Shang as Shang officials were found employment). They were obliged to attend court, and supply manpower for military operations and construction projects.3. Mini-kingdomsAristocrats further sub-divided their domains among their own relatives, officials and courtiers based on oaths of allegiance (mini-kingdoms). However, the feudal relationship with the center was not an "abstract concept", as they usually rested on kinship ties, such as a marriage. Thus the realm of the Western Zhou was an "extended household." However, by 771 BCE these kinship links were breaking down. [11] [12] The aristocratic system had a hierarchy of noble titles: gong (duke), hou (marquis), bo (earl), zi (viscount), nan (baron). By the 8th century BCE, at least 100 small states were in existence. Each had a walled capital, surrounded by a ring of farm land, which in turn was surrounded by barbarians. [13] [14] Bureaucracy has multiple levels of "scribes"? "Li is also able to find that, as the Western Zhou government developed, fewer and fewer official appointments were hereditary in nature. It became a routine that the appointees started their careers very young at junior levels, and then followed a lengthy path of promotion across various government divisions (experiences in the military being a plus), and finally to the top of government. The lengthy and in some cases complicated paths show that the Western Zhou government was hierarchical with layered ranks of officials." [5] [1]: (Zhang 2014, 156) Zhang, Jinfan. 2014. The Tradition and Modern Transition of Chinese Law. Springer Science & Business Media. [2]: (Shaughnessy 1999, 326) Shaughnessy "Western Zhou History" in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2009. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Feng 2006, 95 n30) Feng, Li. 2006. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou 1045-771 BC. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Zhang 2015, 142) Zhang, Qizhi. 2015. An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Springer. [5]: (Zhao 2015, 58) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [6]: (Feng 2006, 101) Feng, Li. 2006. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou 1045-771 BC. Cambridge University Press. [7]: (Lindqvist 2009) Lindqvist, Cecilia. 2009. China: Empire of Living Symbols. Da Capo Press. [8]: (Schinz 1996, 74) Schinz, Alfred. 1996. The Magic Square: Cities in Ancient China. Edition Axel Menges. [9]: (Feng 2006, 81-82) Feng, Li. 2006. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou 1045-771 BC. Cambridge University Press. [10]: (Kerr 2013, 21) [11]: (Roberts 2003, 14-16) [12]: (Cotterall 1995, 35-37) [13]: (Roberts 2003, 15) [14]: (Cotterall 1995, 35) |
||||||
|
levels (number equivalent to the number of levels in the provincial government, plus the Emperor). The below is a simplification, though the administrative entities that have been left out were either outside "the streamlined structure of civilian government" or were at an equivalent level to other entities already present (e.g. the Branch Secretariat for Korea would have been at the same level as the eight principal Branch Secretariats), meaning that the number of levels coded would probably remain unchanged. For a very detailed description of the Yuan administrative system, see Endicott-West (1994).
1. Emperor __Central Government__ 2. Central Secretariat"The Central Secretariat was the nerve center of the entire civilian bureaucracy. Most other agencies in the Yuan structure of communication and control were ultimately responsible to it. All memorials to the emperor, with the exception of those written by high-ranking military and censorial officials, for example, passed through the Central Secretariat. In turn, that office was empowered to make recommendations, draft regulations, and make responses subject to imperial approval. In addition to its role as communication center, the Central Secretariat controlled official appointments to virtually all civilian offices in the empire." [1] "The top official in the Central Secretariat was the chung-shu ling, in Khubilai’s reign a post assumed by the heir apparent. Because the chung-shu ling was most often left vacant throughout the Yuan, the next two subordinate officials, the councillor of the right (yu ch’eng-hsiang) and the councillor of the left (tso ch’eng-hsiang), were in effect the highest civil officials in the empire. They in turn had direct control over the six ministries, the ministries of Personnel (Li-pu), Revenue (Hu-pu), Rites (Li-pu), War (Ping-pu), Pun- ishments (Hsing-pu), and Works (Kung-pu.)" [2] 3. Ministry of Personnel"Of the six ministries, all formally established under Khubilai, the Ministry of Personnel was arguably the most influential, by virtue of its power to appoint civilian officials throughout the empire. Regional and local officials, the only civilian officials with whom commoners might have had direct contact, were regularly evaluated by the Ministry of Personnel for promotion, demotion, and transfer once in office." [2] 3. Ministry of Revenue"The Ministry of Revenue was charged with overseeing population censuses, taxation records, state treasuries, currency, and government manufacturing. One of this ministry’s most important duties was enforcing the numerous and elaborate Yiian regulations concerning paper currency. Because the Yiian government was committed to the empirewide circulation of paper notes, the procedures necessary for printing and administering paper currency were extensive. The government’s deep concern is suggested by the fact that counterfeiting paper money was punishable by death." [2] 3. Ministry of Rites"In terms of political and economic authority, the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Rites was far more narrowly defined than that of either the Ministry of Personnel or the Ministry of Revenue. Court ceremonies, music, assemblies, and sacrifices came under its aegis, as did such matters as granting posthumous titles, provisioning the imperial kitchen, and manufacturing the imperial seals. The authority of the Ministry of Rites did, however, extend beyond the limited sphere of court etiquette into the realm of sumptuary regulations, marriage rites, mourning rites, and burial rites, all of which affected commoners to a certain degree. In addition, the ministry upheld the rights of the different ethnic groups in Yiian China to practice their own particular rituals and not to have to conform to Chinese standards. Uighurs, for example, were directed to conduct their mourning in accordance with their own regulations; if they were to ignore their own mourning customs and follow instead Chinese practices, they would be subject to confiscation of their property. The Ministry of Rites was also charged with administering the state schools and regulating religious establishments." [3] 3. Ministry of War"Of the six ministries, the Ministry of War was the least significant, as the real military authority in Yuan times resided in the Privy Council (Shu-mi yuan). The Privy Council, established in 1263, was at the pinnacle of a separate military bureaucracy, whereas the Ministry of War was subordinate to the Central Secretariat within the civilian bureaucracy. The insignificance of the Ministry of War is demonstrated by the fact that the Ping chih (Monograph on the military) in the Yuan shih (Official history of the Yuan) does not even mention the Ministry of War in its description of the structure of the Yuan military, instead stating that ’the Privy Council was set up to take 7 overall charge.’ All military offices, including the imperial guard (su-wei), were ultimately responsible to the Privy Council in the military chain of command." "The main duties of the Ministry of War were to manage the population rosters of military colonies and postal personnel, manage the requisitioning of animals for military purposes, and oversee the provisioning of postal relay stations. By 1320, however, the Ministry of War had relinquished its jurisdiction over the postal relay stations to the Bureau of Transmission (T’ung-cheng yuan), which had been created in 1276 separate from the military bureaucracy to supervise the postal relay system. All in all, the powerlessness of the Ministry of War reflects the Mongols’ discomfort at having their military establishment subordinate to a civil branch of government. By investing power in the Privy Council the Yuan rulers were able to keep military affairs separate and secret from the civilian bureaucracy. In fact, the description of the Privy Council in the Yuan shih opens with the observation that it was ’charged with responsibility over military armaments and secret [military] affairs throughout the empire’." [2] 3. Ministry of Punishment"The Ministry of Punishment’s duties were drafting criminal laws, review- ing cases involving capital punishment, and registering criminals’ dependents and confiscated goods. In comparison with that of earlier dynasties, the Yuan Ministry of Punishments gained in importance because it took over the responsibilities for judicial review that in previous times had rested with the Grand Court of Judicial Review (Ta-li ssu). The Grand Court originated in Northern Ch’i and Sui times and functioned as the highest legal agency in the Chinese empire, but it did not exist as such in Yuan times. For a brief time, from 1283 to 1285, a Grand Court existed in name only as a temporary redesignation of the Court of Justice for Uighurs (Tu-hu fu). Thus, by not having a Grand Court of Judicial Review, the Ministry of Punishments resolved and implemented legal decisions, which were subject only to an occasional revision by the Central Secretariat or the emperor himself." [3] 3. Ministry of Works"The sixth ministry, the Ministry of Works, supervised government work- shops, the repair of fortifications, the assignment and labor of government artisans, the evaluation of artisan officials, and the conscription of laborers for government projects." [4] __Provincial Government__ 3. Branch Secretariats"The permanently established Branch Secretariats (Hsing chung-shu sheng or hsing-sheng), which numbered eleven in all, were formally established during Khubilai’s reign in order to manage the affairs of lesser territorial- administrative units, to pacify frontier areas, to manage the transport of grain, and to take overall charge of military and civil affairs at the regional level. They were directly answerable to the Central Secretariat in terms of the structure of communication and control. [...] Despite the consolidation of separate civil and military bureaucracies under Khubilai, civil and military jurisdictions were united at the level of the Branch Secretariats. The Branch Secretariats held authority over most garrison troops stationed throughout the empire, except in dire emergencies when Branch Privy Councils were temporarily established." [5] "Yuan civilian government departed from earlier patterns and precedents in Chinese governmental history in the multiplicity of its levels of sub- metropolitan government and in the sheer number of civilian officials staffing those units of government. Thus, the levels of government subordinate to the Branch Secretariats were (in descending order): circuit (tao), route (lu), prefecture (san-fu or fu), subprefecture {chou), county (hsien), and special districts under the jurisdiction of lu or fu called lu-shih ssu. Not every unit was necessarily present on every level in the administrative hierarchy. In other words, eight of the eleven Branch Secretariats directly administered prefectures that were not subordinate to an intermediate route. In addition to administering seven routes, the Branch Secretariat of Kan-su (Kan-su teng- ch’u hsing chung-shu sheng) also directly administered two subprefectures." [6] 4. Officials in charge of circuits"Those circuits administered by Pacification Offices (Hsiian-wei ssu) were particularly important as coordinators of civil and military affairs at the regional level. The Pacification Offices themselves handled military affairs in frontier areas and supervised troop movement and provisioning at the local level." [7] 5. Officials in charge of routes 6. Prefects 7. Sub-prefects 8. Officials in charge of special districts under the jurisdiction of routes or sub-prefectures. 8. Officials in charge of counties 9. Clerks serving under the officials in charge of each administrative unit [1]: (Endicott-West 1994, 588) [2]: (Endicott-West 1994, 589) [3]: (Endicott-West 1994, 589-590) [4]: (Endicott-West 1994, 591) [5]: (Endicott-West 1994, 592-593) [6]: (Endicott-West 1994, 593-594) [7]: (Endicott-West 1994, 594) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Headmen doubling as Ad Hoc-Supralocal Leaders 2. Local Leaders (Kakaram) and Headmen or Chiefs (Kuraka) Shuar political organization was local and informal: "The Jivaro lack any formal political organization, although an informal form of leadership is found in the role of individuals referred to as UNYÄ ("big" or "old" men) or KAKARAM ("powerful" or "powerful ones") who are renown as killers in feuds or war, or exercise important shamanistic powers in the community. These individuals acquire their reputation in the community by being old enough to have grandchildren, and are friendly, honest, and generous in dealing with others in the society. Because of these characteristics the UNYÄ or KAKARAM are believed to possess great ARUTAM soul power and the ability to curse to death anyone who incurs their anger. Generally most neighborhoods have at least one or two UNYÄ as well as a few superior shamans who provide protection for their relatives or other individuals with whom they are on friendly terms." [1] "If we may speak of a ‘government’, it is a purely patriarchal one, the head of the family and the owner of the house being at the same time the ‘chief’ of this small community, theoretically even with absolute power. It is of particular interest to see how he exercises this power in practice." [2] "The chief of this group is the one who by his endurance, his skill, his intelligence, his courage and also by luck imposes himself on the individuals of the neighborhood. His authority rests only on a tacit assent, carries no exterior emblem or sign, and in no case is transmitted by heredity to his descendants. His role is limited to the coordination of individual efforts in special circumstances. In times of peace he has no longer any special attributes. Occasionally, a peril or a common hate make allies of neighboring tribes, but these alliances are only temporary." [3] Some more prominent leaders emerged in times of war with external colonial powers, although even those arrangements were fluid. The following example relates to the Ecuadorian period, but it is possible that the Spanish also recognized overall leaders among the Shuar."Four or five years ago there was a strong chief on the Upano River named Tuki, known to the Ecuadoreans as José Grande. In the manner previously described, all of the curakas from Macas on the Upano River to Mendez on the Paute River became subchiefs under him until he was generally recognized as the strongest of all of the Jivaro curakas. However, he was beginning to grow old by this time and some of his subcurakas were strong men in their own right. About 2 years ago, Ambusha, who had been gradually gaining in power and becoming famous for his head-hunting activities, split off with his own group, taking several curakas and their men with him. A little later Utita did the same thing. At the time of the writer’s visit (1931), although Tuki was recognized by the Government of Ecuador as being head chief of the Macas-Mendez region, actually he had lost all power excepting that over his own family group and was in reality no more than a capito. These divisions of the organization, if it may be termed such, took place apparently without any ill-feeling or formal announcements." [4] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 251 [3]: Rivet, Paul 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research”, 611p [4]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 40 |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community) (.0)’. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ‘1’ or ‘No centralized local leadership’. SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community)’.
1. Headmen doubling as Ad Hoc-Supralocal Leaders 2. Local Leaders (Kakaram) and Headmen or Chiefs (Kuraka) Shuar political organization was local and informal: "The Jivaro lack any formal political organization, although an informal form of leadership is found in the role of individuals referred to as UNYÄ ("big" or "old" men) or KAKARAM ("powerful" or "powerful ones") who are renown as killers in feuds or war, or exercise important shamanistic powers in the community. These individuals acquire their reputation in the community by being old enough to have grandchildren, and are friendly, honest, and generous in dealing with others in the society. Because of these characteristics the UNYÄ or KAKARAM are believed to possess great ARUTAM soul power and the ability to curse to death anyone who incurs their anger. Generally most neighborhoods have at least one or two UNYÄ as well as a few superior shamans who provide protection for their relatives or other individuals with whom they are on friendly terms." [1] "If we may speak of a ‘government’, it is a purely patriarchal one, the head of the family and the owner of the house being at the same time the ‘chief’ of this small community, theoretically even with absolute power. It is of particular interest to see how he exercises this power in practice." [2] "The chief of this group is the one who by his endurance, his skill, his intelligence, his courage and also by luck imposes himself on the individuals of the neighborhood. His authority rests only on a tacit assent, carries no exterior emblem or sign, and in no case is transmitted by heredity to his descendants. His role is limited to the coordination of individual efforts in special circumstances. In times of peace he has no longer any special attributes. Occasionally, a peril or a common hate make allies of neighboring tribes, but these alliances are only temporary." [3] "Often, too, a weak curaka, fearing that his group would not be able successfully to defend themselves against an attack from enemies, will voluntarily place himself and his group under the influence of the strong curaka in a loose sort of alliance. In this way the strong group tends to grow and to become even stronger until one curaka may have 8 or 10 lesser curakas more or less under his control. This state of affairs is usually not very permanent. Owing to the loose organization and lack of any real power on the part of the head curaka, the large group becomes unwieldy or develops diverse interests and it tends to split up again into independent units. Consequently, in as little as 2 or 3 years’ time, the original head curaka may find that one or more of his former lieutenants are now stronger than he." [4] Some more prominent leaders emerged in times of war with external colonial powers, although even those arrangements were fluid. The following example relates to the Ecuadorian period, but it is possible that the Spanish also recognized overall leaders among the Shuar."Four or five years ago there was a strong chief on the Upano River named Tuki, known to the Ecuadoreans as José Grande. In the manner previously described, all of the curakas from Macas on the Upano River to Mendez on the Paute River became subchiefs under him until he was generally recognized as the strongest of all of the Jivaro curakas. However, he was beginning to grow old by this time and some of his subcurakas were strong men in their own right. About 2 years ago, Ambusha, who had been gradually gaining in power and becoming famous for his head-hunting activities, split off with his own group, taking several curakas and their men with him. A little later Utita did the same thing. At the time of the writer’s visit (1931), although Tuki was recognized by the Government of Ecuador as being head chief of the Macas-Mendez region, actually he had lost all power excepting that over his own family group and was in reality no more than a capito. These divisions of the organization, if it may be termed such, took place apparently without any ill-feeling or formal announcements." [5] [1]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro [2]: Karsten, Rafael 1935. “Head-Hunters Of Western Amazonas: The Life And Culture Of The Jibaro Indians Of Eastern Ecuador And Peru”, 251 [3]: Rivet, Paul 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research”, 611p [4]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 39 [5]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 40 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
1. King
"We can infer that the territorial authority of the pharaoh during the early phases of the Old Kingdom existed as a combination of a network of local centers founded at strategic points and of local authorities tied to the monarchy in a more or less informal way, not necessarily designated by the rank and function titles so typical of the central royal administration, and with titles referring only rarely to activities carried out in a given, precise area." [1] _ Administration at Memphis _ 2. Overseers [2] Early use of writing suggests administration system from Dynasty 0. [3] Djer introduced permanent institutions, royal domain got a name different from the king, division of labour and hierarchy increased. [4] 3. Overseers "whose activities took place only in Lower Egypt""Early Dynastic period, administrative seals and labels mention royal agricultural domains put under the authority of a very particular category of overseers whose activities took place only in Lower Egypt." [2] 4. Scribes [5] _ Provincial administration _ 2. Royal centers [6] "territorial organization based more on a network of royal centers scattered all over the country than on a structure of provinces clearly marked out and controlled by local governors." [6] "The discovery of thousands of seal stamps in the tomb of Khasekhemwy, the last king of the Second Dynasty, reveals the early existence of some kind of territorial organization, since some historical provinces are mentioned together with administrative titles and the names of the king (Engel 2006)." [7] "Ink inscriptions on vessels from the funerary complex of Pharaoh Djoser (about 2686-2667 BCE) and seal stamps from Elephantine dating from Dynasty III, reveal the existence of a network of royal agricultural centers(the Hwt-aAt being the most frequently attested whereas the Hwt are also mentioned) which coexisted with the pr “domains” of some individuals." [7] "The ink texts from another enormous set of vessels, recovered at Abydos and dating from the Second Dynasty, confirm this model as they mention institutions named after the element Hwt, like the Hwt-nbw or the Hwt-wr(t) (Regulski 2004). It seems that the territorial organization of the kingdom consisted of a duality of agricultural centers belonging to the crown. The first of these were the Hwt-aAt and Hwt, which were administered by royal officials called HoA Hwt-aAt and HoA Hwt. The second were the pr domains administered by individuals whose links to the royal administration are poorly understood, since it is impossible to determine if they were local magnates who exercised a personal control over the territorial units called pr or if they were royal agents in charge of the administration of these circumscriptions." [7] "Another problem is our ignorance of the exact geographical distribution of these centers and circumscriptions: were they evenly scattered over the country or were they only prevalent in specific regions because of their strategic and/or economic importance? As regards this important question, our understanding of the role of provincial governors or of specific nome leaders is rather limited. Only the sSm tA played an active role as can be inferred from their frequent mention in the ink inscriptions, but it is impossible to ascertain the geographical extent of their authority or the scope of their activities (Moreno García 1999:233-38)." [7] "Other towns must have developed or been founded as administrative centres of the state throughout Egypt. ... At Hierakonpolis, an elaborately niched mud-brick facade within the town (Kom el-Ahmar) has been interpreted as the gateway to a ’palace,’ possibly an administrative centre of the early state." [8] Reign of Den: "Settlements concentrated in areas where irrigation was easily manageable, and those were the districts that seem to have been organized as nomes first. ... The single institutions (domain, : hw.t pj-hr.w-msn.w) are more and more subdivided into several departments, and during the 2nd Dynasty villages are attached." [4] 3. Managers of workshops within royal centers"some of the institutions whose name is composed with the element Hwt were perhaps some kind of specialized royal workshop like the Hwt-mHa, Hwt-THnt, or Hwt-Smaw known from later inscriptions." [9] 4. Specialist workers within workshops inferred [1]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 194) [2]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García, Invaders or just herders? Libyans in Egypt in the third and second millennia BCE, 3) [3]: (Bard 2000, 75) [4]: (Engel 2013, 20-38) [5]: (Bard 2000, 74) [6]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 190-192) [7]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 190) [8]: (Bard 2000, 65) [9]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 191) |
||||||
|
1. King _ Central government line _ 2. Highest ranking financial official 3. dioikekes (financial official) [1] (but not highest ranking) [2] Central elite split over Ptolemais and Alexandria or Memphis dioikekes had "an army of subordinates" (not listed) who presumably top 5 administrative levels? [1] 4. eklogistes (accountant) or later idios logos (privy purse) [1] 5. ... ? ...6. ... ? ... _ Provincial line _ [3] 2. Governor of the Northbased at central government 2. Governor of the Southbased at central government. Ptolemais. 3. Strategoi district governorsin total 40 administration districts called oikononos [2] [1] 4. Royal land / Remitted land / land held by cleruchs / land held in gift / private land / city land [4] Lloyd (2000) lists these all at the same level. 4. Mayor of towns and mayors of villages. Komogrammtan epistates. [2] 5. Sometimes (depending on region) the mayors of towns and of villages are part of the same administrative level; sometimes the mayors of villages report to mayors of towns and thus constitute two separate administrative levels. 5. Village elders and local priesthoods - epistoles in temples [2]
_Alexandria_ Population Greeks and non-Greeks (native Egyptians, foreign immigrants) ?. City governor"A royal official "in charge of the city" ... is attested in the third century B.C. and later. This was a civilian rather than a military appointment." [5] ?. Secretary of the Council"A fragmentary inscription dated to the mid-third century B.C. records a decree that provides evidence for the existence of a boule, secretary of the council, ekklesia" [5] ?. Tribes"The Alexandrian citizens were organized into tribes, demes, and phratries. It would appear - based on a papyrus of c. 265 B.C., which probably refers to Alexandria - that there were 5 tribes, 60 demes, and 720 phratries. It has been suggested that the five tribes corresponded to the five quarters in the city. Three tribal names are known: the dynastic names Berenike and Ptolemais. as well as Dionysia." [6] ?. Demes ?. Phratries _Ptolemais in the Thebaid_ Described by Strabo as "the largest city of the Thebaid; he added that it was no smaller than Memphis and that its constitution was in the Greek manner... The papyrological and epigraphic evidence bears out Strabo’s observation about the government." [7] Boule (Council of Citizens)Evidence for "decrees passed by the boule and demos" as well as ekklesia (assembly), prytaneis (executives of the boule), prytaneion, archiprytanis [7] grammateus (scribe?) agones, agonothetes [7] (president of the sacred games) gymnasiarch [7] (supervised games and contests) tribes and demes. [7] [1]: (Lloyd 2000, 404) [2]: (Manning 2015, Personal Communication) [3]: (Falivene, M R. 2009. Geography and Administration in Egypt (332 BCE-642 CE) in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. 521-540. Oxford University Press. Oxford.) [4]: (Lloyd 2000, 404-405) [5]: (Cohen 2006, 357) [6]: (Cohen 2006, 356) [7]: (Cohen 2006, 350) |
||||||
|
1. King _ Central government line _ 2. Highest ranking financial official 3. dioikekes (financial official) [1] (but not highest ranking) [2] Central elite split over Ptolemais and Alexandria or Memphis dioikekes had "an army of subordinates" (not listed) who presumably top 5 administrative levels? [1] 4. eklogistes (accountant) or later idios logos (privy purse) [1] 5. ... ? ...6. ... ? ... _ Provincial line _ [3] 2. Governor of the Northbased at central government 2. Governor of the Southbased at central government. Ptolemais. 3. Strategoi district governorsin total 40 administration districts called oikononos [2] [1] 4. Royal land / Remitted land / land held by cleruchs / land held in gift / private land / city land [4] Lloyd (2000) lists these all at the same level. 4. Mayor of towns and mayors of villages. Komogrammtan epistates. [2] 5. Sometimes (depending on region) the mayors of towns and of villages are part of the same administrative level; sometimes the mayors of villages report to mayors of towns and thus constitute two separate administrative levels. 5. Village elders and local priesthoods - epistoles in temples [2]
_Alexandria_ Population Greeks and non-Greeks (native Egyptians, foreign immigrants) ?. City governor"A royal official "in charge of the city" ... is attested in the third century B.C. and later. This was a civilian rather than a military appointment." [5] ?. Secretary of the Council"A fragmentary inscription dated to the mid-third century B.C. records a decree that provides evidence for the existence of a boule, secretary of the council, ekklesia" [5] ?. Tribes"The Alexandrian citizens were organized into tribes, demes, and phratries. It would appear - based on a papyrus of c. 265 B.C., which probably refers to Alexandria - that there were 5 tribes, 60 demes, and 720 phratries. It has been suggested that the five tribes corresponded to the five quarters in the city. Three tribal names are known: the dynastic names Berenike and Ptolemais. as well as Dionysia." [6] ?. Demes ?. Phratries _Ptolemais in the Thebaid_ Described by Strabo as "the largest city of the Thebaid; he added that it was no smaller than Memphis and that its constitution was in the Greek manner... The papyrological and epigraphic evidence bears out Strabo’s observation about the government." [7] Boule (Council of Citizens)Evidence for "decrees passed by the boule and demos" as well as ekklesia (assembly), prytaneis (executives of the boule), prytaneion, archiprytanis [7] grammateus (scribe?) agones, agonothetes [7] (president of the sacred games) gymnasiarch [7] (supervised games and contests) tribes and demes. [7] [1]: (Lloyd 2000, 404) [2]: (Manning 2015, Personal Communication) [3]: (Falivene, M R. 2009. Geography and Administration in Egypt (332 BCE-642 CE) in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. 521-540. Oxford University Press. Oxford.) [4]: (Lloyd 2000, 404-405) [5]: (Cohen 2006, 357) [6]: (Cohen 2006, 356) [7]: (Cohen 2006, 350) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. District Chiefs 2. Village and Lineage Headmen The Chuukese/Trukese were divided into multiple clans and lineages: ’Chuuk’s population is divided into a number of dispersed, matrilineal clans. Within any one district the several lineages are usually but not always of different clans. There are also personal kindreds. As a principle of clan and lineage membership, descent is matrilineal, but otherwise kinship is reckoned bilaterally.’ [1] ’The domestic unit was an extended family, based on the women of a lineage or sublineage. It consisted of at least one experienced older woman and two more younger women of childbearing age together with their husbands. Unmarried sons and brothers slept apart in their lineage’s meeting house. Extended family households continued through the periods of foreign administration.’ [1] District chiefs were chosen from the dominant lineage of an area: ’In each district the lineage with title to its space held the chiefship. The several lineages with full or residual title to plots of soil had full residential rights. Lineages with only provisional titles to plots of soil in grant from other lineages had only conditional residential rights. Lineages with full residential rights maintained symbolic hearths where, with their client lineages, they prepared food to present to the chief in recognition of his lineage’s ownership of the space.’ [1] ’A district chiefship was divided between the oldest man in the senior female line in the chiefly lineage and the oldest man in the lineage generally. The latter was executive chief, or "chief of talk," and the former symbolic chief, or "chief of food." Food presentations were made to the symbolic chief. Sometimes the symbolic and executive functions fell to the same individual; often they did not. The symbolic chief was surrounded by his lineage brothers and by his sons, who acted as his agents. These followers and his sisters and daughters were of chiefly rank, distinct from commoners. Through conquest, a lineage might gain the chiefship in more than one district and establish a junior branch as the chiefly lineage in the conquered district. The now subordinate district rendered food presentations to the superordinate one. Most districts were linked in two rival leagues based on competing schools of magic and ritual relating to war, politics, and rhetoric. A chief’s authority derived from two things. His lineage’s ownership of the district’s space entitled him to presentations of first fruits at stated times of the year. More importantly, it gave him authority over the conservation and use of the district’s food resources. His authority also derived from his connection with the sky world, its gods, and their superhuman power to accomplish purposes. There was, therefore, a degree of sacredness associated with chiefs.’ [1] Traditionally, authority did not extend beyond the atoll and was shared among multiple chiefs on one island. Chuuk was somewhat more fragmented than other Micronesian societies: ’Throughout most of Micronesia the maximum independent autonomous political unit was the high island or the atoll, often subdivided into more than one polity. At the time of European contact, Satawan Atoll in the Mortlocks had four separate communities, each with its own leader, which sometimes fought one another. Palau had two confederations of villages or districts, each independent of the other, and the villages themselves had considerable autonomy. Pohnpei had five petty states, although traditions of a unified rule for the whole island are apparent from an earlier period. Chuuk was extremely fragmented politically, with several independent communities on each of the six larger high islands. The Marshalls and the Gilberts had larger polities and integrated groups of separate atolls under a high chief; these expansionist states achieved their fullest development after the introduction of firearms by Europeans.’ [2] There was a degree of differentiation between chiefs and ritual specialists: ’No regular religious duties were attached to the chief’s office. They were performed, instead, by various specialists. A chief was concerned, however, that the proper specialists [Page 144] engage in their respective activities at appropriate times, at least when the welfare of the entire district was involved. He also used to set the times for dances, which were a popular form of entertainment before the missionaries banned them.’ [3] We have assumed that the institution of district chief predates the colonial period. [1]: Goodenough, Ward and Skoggard 1999) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5IETI75E. [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 143 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Basic territorial divisions (622 CE onwards 2 divisions East / West)Neustria - centred on the Seine and Oise rivers. Burgundy Austrasia - based on the Rhine and Meuse Acquitane - usually had unique status [1] _Court institution_ It was a peripatetic institution [2] 2. Senior Palace official was known as "Mayor of the Palace" [3] maior domus [2] 3. Treasurer [2] 4. Notaries and scribes 640s CE and onwards Mayors of the Palace dominate the court. Kings lost control to mayors and magnates. [4] Comes palatii [2] Magnates known as Obtimates, consulted by king at annual gathering around March 1st. [5] _Regional government_ 2. Maior domus (Burgundy) / Mayor of the Palace (Autrasia)Under Chlothar II (584-629 CE, reign from 613 CE) Burgundy had a maior domus (regional official). this official was at level below the court in Paris and in later years was alternately removed, then reinstated. also dux / duchy / districts [6] The region of Austrasia had its own Mayor of the Palace [7] 2. Dukes and Bishops (directly appointed by king)"Many bishops owed their position to the king" and "were royal servants with no known connections with their sees." [8] Aristocrats dependent on patronage from king. [9] Group of cities and counts could be placed under a duke (for military and administrative purposes). [10] Magnates (dux?) and Church (bishops) Individuals in charge of multiple civitates? called dux (pl. duces). [11] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [12] Aquitaine - duchy, dux/duces. Merovingians claimed over-lordship in Southern England 550s CE. [13] 3. Comes (count) of the Civitas (city-district)4. local law-men called rachinburgi [14] Merovingians maintained existing Roman administrative systems where possible. Gregory of Tours (538-594 CE) writings show cities are the basic units of the administrative system. [12] City archives: defensor, curator, magister, militum. Known from Formularies from a few civitates but no evidence uniform across polity. Senior official of civitas was the comes (pl. comites) or count (lit. "companion). Heard law-suits, enforced justice, lead the military. In north graphiones instead of comes. [15] Civitas administration "provided dominant source of tax revenue" and some of the manpower for the army. [16] In sixth century the role of the Roman curiales had been taken over by a single official appointed by the Merovingian king, the "count" or the "grafio" in the Frankish homelands. This official - where present the most important city official - had its origins in the Roman imperial comes civitatis. The first such official in Gaul is known from 471 CE. They executed judicial and administrative functions and sent the king his tax revenue. Rule through these city officials gradually spread across Gaul in the post-Roman period. Gregory of Tours refers to "leading officials" who could be members of a local council. [12] Gregory of Tours’ region in central Gaul likely had longest persisting continuity with Roman structures of city-based rule. These were the "basic building-blocks of which the various Merovingian regna were composed." However, in Frankish regions the rule-through-city framework may have been less pervasive. [12] Internal administrative regions due to the city based taxation system. The "guiding imperative behind the divisions would appear to be the sharing out of the profits from various forms of taxation" on the civitas [12] 5. City archives two levels? e.g. manager and assistant inferred level 4. PagiSub-division of the civitates. Replaces civitates in some parts of Gaul [17] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [12] [1]: (Wood 1994, 146) [2]: (Wood 1994, 150-153) [3]: (Halsall 2003, 28) [4]: (Bachrach 1972, 109-112) [5]: (Wood 1994, 104) [6]: (Wood 1994, 144-145 and 236) [7]: (Medieval France: An Encylopedia 1995, 157) [8]: (Wood 1994, 78) [9]: (Halsall in Wood ed. 1998, 149) [10]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [11]: (Wood 1994, 61) [12]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [13]: (Wood 1994, 176) [14]: (Wood 1994, 107) [15]: (Wood 1994, 60) [16]: (Wood 1994, 64) [17]: (Halsall 2003, 48) |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) rulers of Akan polities (Omanhene); (2) his female equivalent (Ohema) and a Council of Elders assisting him; (3) Chiefs of lineages/clans or district rulers (Ohene); (4) councils of village leaders (mpanyinfo, odekro, obaapanyin) Central authority rests with the King, but the role of sub-chiefs who complement the hierarchy have developed over time. [1] According to Sarbah, Akan polities of the time shared many structural commonalities when it comes to political organization: ’The common origin of the inhabitants of the Fanti districts, Asanti, and wherever the Akan language is spoken, has been already shown. † The Customary Laws of the inhabitants of these places are in the main identical, and the national constitutions resemble each other in many points, although Asanti military organization had been [Page 3] developed in a greater degree. In fact, while the Fanti communities were gradually bringing under their sway smaller states, the Asanti king by conquests was extending his power over many lands. At one time all countries from Cape Mount in Liberia to the western boundary of Dahomey were, with few exceptions, under Asanti jurisdiction.’ [2] But polities differed in the degree of popular participation: ’According to some ancient writers, there are two forms of government at the Gold Coast, namely, Monarchical and Republican. The districts of Axim, Ahanta, Fanti, and others were, previous to the year 1700, considered to be commonwealths; whereas Commenda, at that time a very populous district, Effutu or Fetu, Asebu, and Accra, were of the first kind. Henry Meredith, whose work was published in 1811, describes the governments along the coast as partaking of various forms. At Appolonia it was monarchical and absolute; in Ahanta it was a kind of aristocracy; but in the Fanti country, and extending to Accra, it was composed of a strange number of forms; for in some places the government was vested in particular persons, whilst in others it was in the hands of the community. What struck him as strange in the Fanti districts was that they frequently changed their form of government on certain occasions by uniting together under particular persons for their general safety, giving implicit [Page 26] obedience to their leaders; but as soon as the object of their union was attained, they reverted to their independent units. What is undoubtedly true is, that for very many years the Fanti town and village communities have enjoyed independence in a greater degree than any other tribes on the Gold Coast. In Appolonia one finds that so much authority was vested in the Omanhene that writers frequently thought his power was absolute. But on examining the constitutions of these places, they will be found to be sprung from the same root; the monarchical form of government so mentioned is what is common in Wassaw and other inland districts, and the republican is simply the constitution of some of the sea-coast towns close to European settlements and forts. These coast towns are communities whose government is based on the system already described; the president is Ohene, and his office is elective. Each town is divided into several parts, for fighting purposes, called companies (Asafu). One of these companies acts as the Gyasi to the Ohene. The Tufuhene is responsible for the good order of all the fighting men; the orders of the Ohene and his council are communicated to them by the Tufuhene.’ [3] In general, public office was attached to stools: ’Before proceeding further, it is necessary to explain the origin of stools, whether family or public. Where the head of a family has more than one stool, he may give one to a member of the family on appointing him the Penin of a junior branch of the large family. The person so appointed thereby acquires possession of all the goods, chattels, and lands appurtenant to that stool. His own property becomes stool property, and is merged in whatever is given him. The children of the last stoolholder call him father, and the widows become his wives; each woman can, however, obtain her freedom on repayment of the Consawment money, that is, dowry. But a new stool is created in this wise: when the family of a man of wealth or influence on his death so will, they create a family stool which is named after the deceased. For this purpose the favourite chair of the deceased, generally a small one, which was in constant use by him, is cleaned, then rubbed all over with the blood of sheep, and finally smeared with a mixture of soot and eggs. The stool is afterwards wrapped in some skin and safely kept. During this consecration, libation is made and prayers are freely offered for the prosperity of the family, and that its members may, in time to come, attain greater influence and prominence. These stools are added to from time to time, but count is made of only the prominent ones. Too often the name of the original founder of the family is dropped for that of one of his successors of greater eminence. When an old stool is so decayed that it ought to be destroyed, it is burnt, and the ashes thereof are made into a paste with oil, blood, eggs, and other substances. The paste is then daubed on a new stool, which is [Page 13] consecrated as a family stool and named after the old one. When an old stool is lost a new one is specially made and consecrated.’ [4] Akan polities were ruled by an Omanhene, assisted by multiple officials and councillors, including a female equivalent of his (Ohema): ’Omanhene is the head of the national life, and naturally president of the rulers of the people assembled either as a court for deciding cases or for legislation. The district, taken as a whole, is likewise considered as a body, whereof the Omanhene supports the head, and the next man in authority to him carries the foot. By virtue of his office, Omanhene has the right to be carried by four men or more, and uses three or more canopy umbrellas. At his installation a small sword, the insignia of his office, is handed to him, and he enjoys several other privileges. He is the commander-in-chief of all the fighting men of the district. His bodyguard and the immediate fighting men are called Gyasi. He is almost invariably a member of the Domtsifu or Intsin Company. Tufuhene is the man whose duty it is to command the fighting-men (from tuu, “to throw, e.g., arrows, etc.;” hence etuo, itur, “a gun”); a fighting leader, or commander. In some districts, and especially in the coast towns, Tufuhene is the next man in authority after Ohene.’ [5] ’The several Akan peoples each consist of a single kingdom ruled by a king, OMANHENE (lit. "state-chief"). The king comes from whatever clan provides the royal line in a particular kingdom, and is chosen in rotation from one of this clan’s kingly lineages (there are often other, non-kingly, lineages within a royal clan). He is elected by various officials, of which the most important is the OHEMMAA (or similar terms; lit. "woman-chief" and usually translated in the literature as "queen-mother") although she is typically not the actual mother but a senior woman of the clan, who "knows" genealogy and may have her own court and be assisted by various officials. Criteria for the selection of a king include assumed competence, general personality, and the fact that kingly lines usually rotate in providing the king. Once selected, the king is "enstooled"-that is, seated upon the stool of kingship. His former status is annulled symbolically, his debts and lawsuits are settled, his clothing and personal possessions st ored; he is then symbolically reborn and given the identity of one of his forebears. He assumes the royal name and title borne by that previous ruler. A king has his palace, in which work members of his court. Details vary considerably, but, in general, the royal officials comprise several categories: those from the royal clan itself; those representing the remainder of the people; and ritual officials, drummers, and others who were considered the "children" of the king, being recruited from many sources, including royal slaves, and often observing patrilineal descent. The king is a sacred person. He may not be observed eating or drinking and may not be heard to speak nor be spoken to publicly (speaking only through a spokesman or "linguist," OKYEAME). He is covered from the sky by a royal umbrella, avoids contact with the earth by wearing royal sandals, and wears insignia of gold and elaborate and beautiful cloth of royal design. In the past, an Akan king held power over the life and death of his subjects and slaves. These powers were eroded during colonial rule, but today an Akan king remains extremely powerful, representing his people both politically an d ritually and acting as a focus for the identity of his kingdom. By far the most powerful is the king of Ashanti, who has the largest of all the Akan kingdoms, the Asantehene at Kumasi.’ [6] Councillors supported the ruler in his duties, but could also contain autocratic ambitions: ’The Council of the people is the only effective instrument or body which tempers the will or power of the ruler. For no discreet or wise ruler would undertake any matter of importance affecting his people, until it has been discussed at length in council, where freedom of speech and the publicity thereof give every facility for the expression of public opinion. In fact, it is the duty of every ruler first to summon his councillors, and then his people, when an occasion arises, in the same way as the head of a family calls the senior or elder members of his family and confers about the affairs and other business of the family. The principle is the same; the application thereof is only a matter of degree. The representative character of a councillor is well understood and appreciated by the people. The expression generally used by old councillors and other public men whose influence has waned, who are not considered to reflect current public opinion, or who do not command public confidence, is as follows: “Nya Oman ese nidu wont[unavailable]t[unavailable] n’anan mu,” meaning “the representatives of the people for the time being should not be interrupted too much nor without very good reason.”’ [7] Regional government and belonging to social categories operated through clan membership: ’Every aboriginal inhabitant of this country is a member of some clan, the relationship to which is traced through the mother. Take the case of a man who is about to build a separate home or settle on some portion of land of the tribe or clan: he will be accompanied by his wives, if any, also his mother, brothers, unmarried sisters, nephews and nieces who have left their fathers. The land on which this man with his people will settle may be either a portion of the virgin forest or where he had been farming before. When the brothers marry their wives join them, but their children are not members of this family. As the household increases and multiplies new houses are set up. In this smallest family group the Penin, or Egya, is the natural guardian of every member. The land on which the members dwell is family property. The Penin, as head [Page 5] of the family, represents all the members, holding and administering the property as a trustee for himself and them. If the family is so wealthy as to hold slaves and pawns (Ahubafu), they reside with their masters. When this family unit has grown large it is usual to appoint a person to “sit behind” the Penin. He must be a fit and proper person, generally one of the heritable blood relations (Dihyi); in some instances, however, a bondsman is selected. This second man acts as the spokesman of the Penin, assists him in settling disputes, takes a prominent part at the annual observance of the stool, or other festival, when, in the presence of the whole family, he makes the libation and offers the family sacrifice with prayers to the spirits of the departed ones.’ [8] Villages were governed by councils of elders or ’patriarchs’: ’Most of the towns scattered over the whole of Guinea have grown from villages originally founded and occupied by single family groups. As each family gets larger and the households increase in number, the village community grows, and its general affairs are guided and controlled by the patriarch of the family, who, now headman of the [Page 4] village, is assisted by a council composed of the eldest members of each family group or household, and other fit and proper persons, who are generally old men.’ [9] As micro-settlements grew into villages, leadership would adjust accordingly: ’The Penin of the subsequent settlers exercises similar rights over his own people, and as the household grows larger so is that Penin assisted by a person “sitting behind” him. The founder of the village or his successor is now called Odzikuro (owner of the village), who, in looking after the village affairs, is assisted by the Penin of the new [Page 7] settlers, and thus arises the village council. The different family groups become the village community, and in all public matters the village council, composed of the Penin of each important household, acts, the Odzikuro being president of such council. The members of the village council have a spokesman (Kyiami, a linguist), whose office is hereditary, but is traced in the male line, for a son succeeds as linguist his father, and not his uncle. Land in possession of the founder of the village is family stool property. Land cleared and occupied by subsequent settlers who have joined the founder is the property of the subsequent settlers. Land acquired by the founder and the settlers together is held by the village community, and becomes attached to the stool of the person for the time being head of the village. All the inhabitants of the village have each of them a proportionate share in such lands as common property, without any possession or title to distinct portions. From the moment a tribal community settles down finally upon a definite tract of land, the land begins to be the basis of society in place of kinship. The Odzikuro, with the village council, has the control of such land, but each person has the right to cultivate any portion of it, and having done so or settled on it, he may not be removed by any single individual unless the council so decrees.’ [10] ’In the small settlement which has so grown into a village community there will be subordinate stools belonging to the junior families, which are offshoots of the parent family. The holders reside in the village or in its neighbourhood, and are usually members of the village council. It will be found that the headman of the village community is generally a member of the family which founded the village, and has succeeded to that post by virtue of his right as head of the founder’s family; but inasmuch as he rules over the whole community, the inhabitants, through the village council, have the right to reject any one proposed as headman if deemed unsuitable for the post, and, passing over the original family, can select a fit and proper person [Page 8] from another family whose connection with the village is ancient. And so all things being equal, preference is given to families according to priority of settlement.’ [11] The headmen of multiple lineage branches would assume the position of clan-chief or district ruler (Ohene): ’Suppose the original founder of the village to be a junior member of the family, whose elder brother was the family stoolholder; there still will be seasons when he and those under him would have to take part in observing the annual custom of the family stool, and participate in the family festival. And where there are several subordinate branches of a similar nature, the stoolholder of the original family acquires a greater importance and influence, and is termed Ohene - a term which has been rendered indifferently in English, king, caboceer, head chief, chief, and even headman. The Ohene will now have under him ( a) his family: comprising (i.) members under his immediate control, and (ii.) subordinate family groups that have branched off from the parent family; ( b) settlers: (i.) family groups in the same village as the Ohene, and (ii.) family groups sprung from the aforesaid and living in other places. In addition to individual persons enjoying his protection, there may be among his retinue a whole family or village community, to or for whom money loans have been given. These swell the retinue of the Ohene, and are included in his own bodyguard (Gyasi), a portion of the fighting men of the village community. Like the others, the headman of the protected family or community attends the annual festival of the Ohene, and to the tribunal of the Ohene these vassals have the right to appeal. Moreover, the oath of the stool of the Ohene is binding on them. The whole community is now likened to a body of which the Ohene supports the head, and the next in authority to him the foot. The Ohene of the oldest ancestry and most powerful becomes by election or tacit consent of the other Ahenefu of the district or country Omanhene, that is, a king. In reference to his own particular jurisdiction he is Ohene, and as such he may not interfere in the domestic [Page 9] affairs of any other fellow-ohene, so far as they do not injuriously affect the district as a whole.’ [12] ’An Ohene is entitled to ride in a palanquin carried by two men and attended by two canopy umbrellas. An Odzikuro is the headman of a village. Penin is an elder, generally an old man of experience. Sahene is a man appointed to conduct war. A Safuhene is a captain of a company, and in some instances is a stoolholder. In fact, among the Akanfu, that is Asanti, Wassaw, Assin, Akim, and such like, each Ohene of the several towns and districts is referred to as the Safuhene of his Omanhene. The Gyasi are the bodyguard of an Ohene or Omanhene. They comprise, first, the blood relatives, especially the children and grandsons of the Ohene, and are called Bogyadom ( bogya, “blood”; dom, “troop”), who have the immediate custody of the stool; secondly, certain Asafuhenefu, with their men; thirdly, personal servants and domestic attendants (Gyasifu). The Gyasi perform the rites of the stool custom each year.’ [5] [1]: (89)Abdebayo, A. et al. 2014. Indigenous Conflict Management Strategies: Global Perspectives. Lexington Books. [2]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 2p [3]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 25p [4]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. "Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asant, And Other Akan Tribes of West Africe Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration of Early English Voyages, And A Stody Of The Rise of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.", 12p [5]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 9 [6]: Gilbert, Michelle, Lagacé, Robert O. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Akan [7]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. "Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asant, And Other Akan Tribes of West Africe Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration of Early English Voyages, And A Stody Of The Rise of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.", 11 [8]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 4p [9]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 3p [10]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 6 [11]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 7 [12]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 8p |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ there are ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms) (.2)’ of administrative control-Chiefs and Elders. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ’Single local leader and council’ SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms)’
Central authority rests with the King, but the role of sub-chiefs who complement the hierarchy have developed over time. [1] (1) King (Asantehene), the chief executive of the polity and occupant of the Golden Stool;(2) Queen Mother (Asantehema), a mother’s sister, grandmother, cousin or sister of the King and occupant of the Silver Stool, a Council of Elders from major lineages, and major officials of the capital, all of whom the Asantehene consulted with;(3) chief executives of core provinces of the Ashanti Union (Omanhene);(4) a corresponding structure of Ohema and a Council of Elders;(5) Chiefs of lineages;(6) councils of village leaders (mpanyinfo, odekro, obaapanyin) Arhin describes the power hierarchy from the village upwards: ’Female stools complemented the hierarchy of male stools. In the village the elders, mpanyinfo, heads of the matrilineages, who constituted with the odekro the village council, had their aberewa or obaapanyin, who looked after the women’s affairs. The odekro had an obaapanyin who was responsible for the affairs of the women of the village and was a member of the village council; the ohene, head of a division, and the omanhene, head of the autonomous political community, had their female counterparts known as ohemma, female ruler, who sat on their councils. The ohene and the ohemma were all of the same mogya, blood, or clan. The Asantehemma, the occupant of the female stool of the Kumasi state, and therefore of united Asante, since her male counterpart was ex officio the Asantehene, king of Asante, was a member of the Kotoko council, the executive committee or cabinet of the Asanteman Nhyiamu, general assembly of Asante rulers.’ [2] Major and minor chiefs were also summoned to council: ’Where the paramount King of a state summons the Head-Chiefs of provinces and chiefs of minor communities to attend a State Council, it is the privilege of the Councillors of the several communities composing the State, according to their rank and importance, to accompany their several Heads to the capital and to join in the “palaver,” or discussion, that will take place, the King in person presiding over the deliberations, supported by his own Councillors and principal Linguists. This is the full Parliament of the people, who are thus fully and duly represented in every way from the highest to the lowest. The commands which go forth from this assembly are binding upon every individual family of the entire State, from the most important province to the most insignificant hamlet, and the sanction operates equally upon all.’ [3] The paramount executive authority was the Asantehene: ’The King is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, but not the Executive Council of the State. Such a council exists, and any acts done by the King without its concurrence are liable to be set aside.’ [4] The attribution of concrete entities to a particular executive level is not always clear, though, especially in the early period: ’The state of the union that emerged after the War of Independence was obviously a very fluid one. The Asanteman is referred to as the Asante Aman Nnum, the Five Asante States, but there is no clear consensus about which states comprised the original union. [...] The fact of the matter seems to have been that the coalition against the Denkyira included what were no more than “estates” on the one hand, like Bekwae, and what were established states on the other, like Mampon, Dwaben, and Kumase itself. Some were to decline and some were to prosper; some were to become powerful components of the Asanteman and some were to become little more than their clients.’ [5] On the executive level it therefore seems best to go with the stool system: ’Every Asante village was a microcosm of the Asante economic, social, and political universe. Its population included both rulers and ruled, both “owners” of the land with the right of succession to the local, divisional, and state stools and free men grouped in other lineages with corporate interests in other political offices.’ [6] Only a few leaders in executive positions achieved the additional special status of Abrempon or ’big man’: ’However many sikafo aspired to the award of the elephant tail, relatively few seem to have achieved it. Three successful nineteenth century claimants are well documented, namely, Gyaasewahene Opoku Frefre (died 1826), Ankobeahene Kwaku Tawia (died ca. 1850), and Manwerehene Kwasi Brantuo (died 1865). [...] I know of no female recipient of the honor. I do not think that women were disbarred by reason of their sex, rather that few if any achieved the necessary level of accumulation. [...] Those chiefs who were allowed to use elephant tails were called Abrempons. A chief who lives on his own land with his own subjects is known by the King as Abrempon.’ [7] The initiation required involved presentations of wealth as well as ritualized ceremonial. The Abrempon are excluded from the list above on the grounds of their precise position in the power hierarchy not being spelled out by the relevant sources. [1]: (89)Abdebayo, A. et al. 2014. Indigenous Conflict Management Strategies: Global Perspectives. Lexington Books. [2]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 93 [3]: 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”, 66 [4]: 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”, 41 [5]: Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 114 [6]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 475 [7]: Wilks, Ivor 1993. “Forests Of Gold: Essays On The Akan And The Kingdom Of Asante”, 141 |
||||||
|
levels. Political, military and religious control was exercised by the Kosmoi, a board of 3 to 10 annually elected nobles -their number varies from 3 to 10- elected by the Ecclesia, the body of free male citizens. The council of elders, the Gerousia, whose members were chosen among the best Kosmoi, had legislative and juridical authority. The most senior member of the Kosmoi bore the title of "protokosmos".
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Lembesi, A. 1987. "Η Κρητών Πολιτεία," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 166-72. |
||||||
|
levels. [1-5] 1: village heads; 2: town heads; 3: district heads; 4: regional governors; 5: central government. As for many other facets of Neopalatial societies, evidence for administration is limited and consists mostly of clay archival documents.
[1]
[2]
[3]
We may assume that villages and town were controlled by local leaders whose in their turn were under the administration of high ranking government officials. It seems likely that the control was local and related to small territorial units. Texts deal mostly with agricultural staples (cereal crops, olive oil and olives, wine, figs and some other unidentified goods) and occasionally with dependent work-force, livestock, craft products, wool, and pottery.
[4]
The cornerstone of political economies was the exploitation of agricultural wealth. Staples were kept in central stores and were used for the needs of a limited number of individuals
[5]
[6]
They sustained elite and dependent craftsmen and laborers, financed state enterprises, and were consumed in large-scale ceremonial events in order to project political and social power and reaffirm social status. Archival data shows that goods were collected thought taxation. Whether they were produced in land owned by the central administration or land that was privately owned cannot be determined.
[7]
The preserved documents only record the transactions in which the central administration was directly interested, and thus do not provide a complex picture of all economy and administrative aspects of a given sociopolitical setting. The juxtaposition of archaeological material excavated in sites where archival documents were found with goods recorded in the tables shows that Linear A tablets cover only part of the administrative concerns
[8]
Important craft goods and raw material (ingots, tusk of ivory, steatite ext.) used for the production of precious artifacts whose possession and display were critical to the state’s ability to clay legitimacy and stored in the stores of the central administration
[9]
[10]
[11]
were not mentioned in tablets. According to Schoep "the absence of any reference to such goods in the tablets is surprising and cannot be explained in terms of lack of interest on the part of administration in the production and/or aqcuisition of craft goods, since this is contradicted by the archaeological evidence. The possibility that documents other than tablets were concerned with craft goods must be seriously considered."
[12]
The variety of sealed documents (single-holes nodules, two-hole hanging nodules, roundels, noduli and flat-based nodules) used for sealing perishables documents highlight the importance of documents written in perishable materials in the Neopalatial administration. Officials surveyed the countryside and brought back information to the central administration. Clay tablets "were dealing with one kind of obligations, which mainly concerned agricultural commodities, while sealed documents related to other kind of transactions, involving a different, perhaps wider geographical scale and commodities and/or matters of a different administrative status. At the end of the administration cycle the information from the tablets was copied onto documents in perishable materials, to which single-hole hanging nodules may have been attached."
[13]
[1]: e.g. Hallager, E. 1996. The Minoan Roundel and Other Sealed Documents in the Neopalatial Linear A Administration (Aegaeum 14), Liège [2]: Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca [3]: Weingarten, J. 2010. " Minoan seals and sealings," in Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 317-28 [4]: Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 178-89. [5]: Christakis, K. S. 2008. The Politics of Storage. Storage and Sociopolitical Complexity in Neopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs 25), Philadelphia [6]: Christakis, K. S. 2011. "Redistribution and political economies in Bronze Age Crete," American Journal of Archaeology 115, 197-205. [7]: Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 190. [8]: c.f. Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 191. [9]: e.g. Halbherr, F., E. Stefani, and L. Banti. 1977. “Haghia Triada bel period tardo palaziale,” ASAtene 55, 1-296 [10]: Watrous, L. V. 1984. “Ayia Triada: A New perspective on the Minoan villa,” American Journal of Archaeology 88, 123-34 [11]: Platon, L. 1993. " Ateliers plateaux minoenes: use nouvelle image," BCH 117, 103-22 [12]: Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 191. [13]: Schoep, I. M. 2000. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process (Minos Supplementary Volume 17), Salamanca, 197. |
||||||
|
1-4 The only centre which provided evidence for Linear B administration during the Late Minoan IIIB period is Kydonia (Chania). It is very likely that administration was organized as in the Mycenaean states. The supreme leader of the state was the king (wanax).
[1]
The reference to a wanax (king) in the inscription painted on the shoulder of some inscribed stirrup jars, produced in the area of west Crete, prompting the speculation for the presence of a "palatial" authority.
[2]
He presided over the political, economic and religious hierarchy. It is not certain thought if he had any military and judicial duty. Ranked second was the lawagetas, a military leader.
[3]
Below these leaders were the hequetai, followers, who accompanied military contingents and may also performed other functions. Other officials, the so-called collectors, were involved in acquiring and distributing exchange commodities. Among the figures at a lower level were the qasireu who served as overseer of group of workers -the predecessor of the word known from ancient Greek as the word for the king (baseless) - the telestas , officials, the korete and porokorete, mayor and vice-mayor, and scribes. Administration also occurred in the other major regional centers of the period (e.g. Hagia Triada) and probably followed these established during the Monopalatial period (1450-1300 BCE). Data, however, is rather meagre.
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. and Bennet, J. 2008. "12: Mycenaean states. 12A: Economy and administration," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 292-95. [2]: Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. and Hallager, E. 2007. "New and unpublished Linear A and Linear B inscriptions from Khania," Proceeding of the Danish Institute at Athens V, 7-22. [3]: Nikoloudis, S. 2008. "The role of the ra-wa-ke-ta: insights from PY Un718," in Sacconi, A, del Freo, M., Godart, L., and Negri, M. (eds), Colloquium Romanum: Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale de Micenologia. Roma 20-15 febbraio 2006, vol. 2, Rome, 587-94. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Village Headman (TUAI RUMAH) Iban social organization was relatively egalitarian: ’The economic self-sufficiency of the bilik -family is reflected in other areas of Iban social life. Unlike the Kayan, Kenyah, pagan Melanau and several other Bornean peoples, the Iban are not divided into social classes. Nor is there any form of institutionalized leadership based upon hereditary succession, or some other socially divisive principle. Instead Iban society is characterized by a strongly egalitarian ethos. In this respect, each bilik -family jurally constitutes a discrete and autonomous social unit, which manages its own affairs and recognizes no higher authority than that of its own household head.’ [1] Longhouse communities are headed by informal leaders doubling as village functionaries: ’In every Iban long-house there are two offices of great importance--one secular and the other ritual. They are the positions of tuai rumah and tuai burong . In most long-houses they are held by different individuals, but it is perfectly permissible for one man to hold both offices, and in some communities this does happen. Neither position is ever held by a woman. (c.f. Footnote No. 22). When used as an adjective, the word tuai means old, or mature, but as a noun it refers to any senior and influential member of a community. Here, the emphasis is not primarily on age, but on the personal qualities of the individual concerned. Thus, a party of young men setting off on an expedition ( bejalai ), to gather jungle produce, always has its leader, or tuai , though he may be no more than in his early twenties. And in long-house communities, able, though only middle-aged men often come to exert very considerable authority and influence. In all contemporary long-houses however, there is one man who holds the title of tuai rumah , or house headman.’ [2] Only in the colonial period did rulers superimpose an administrative system of regional chiefs onto the village-based social structure of autonomous longhouse communities: ’Prior to the arrival of the British adventurer, James Brooke, there were no permanent leaders, but the affairs of each house were directed by consultations of family leaders. Men of influence included renowned warriors, bards, augurs and other specialists. Brooke, who became Rajah of Sarawak, and his nephew, Charles Johnson, created political positions -- headman (TUAI RUMAH), regional chief (PENGHULU), paramount chief (TEMENGGONG) -- to restructure Iban society for administrative control, especially for purposes of taxation and the suppression of head-hunting. The creation of permanent political positions and the establishment of political parties in the early 1960s have profoundly changed the Iban.’ [3] [1]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 159 [2]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Report On The Iban Of Sarawak: Vol. 1: Iban Social Organization”, 46 [3]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ’No levels (no political authority beyond community) (.0)’. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ’Single local leader and council’ SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms)’. SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ’No levels (no political authority beyond community)’
[(4) Brooke Raj Administration;] (3) Paramount Chief (TEMENGGONG); (2) Regional Chief (PENGHULU); (1) Village Headman (TUAI RUMAH) Colonial rulers superimposed an administrative system of regional chiefs onto the village-based social structure of autonomous Iban longhouse communities: ’Prior to the arrival of the British adventurer, James Brooke, there were no permanent leaders, but the affairs of each house were directed by consultations of family leaders. Men of influence included renowned warriors, bards, augurs and other specialists. Brooke, who became Rajah of Sarawak, and his nephew, Charles Johnson, created political positions -- headman (TUAI RUMAH), regional chief (PENGHULU), paramount chief (TEMENGGONG) -- to restructure Iban society for administrative control, especially for purposes of taxation and the suppression of head-hunting. The creation of permanent political positions and the establishment of political parties in the early 1960s have profoundly changed the Iban.’ [1] Iban social organization nevertheless remained relatively egalitarian: ’The economic self-sufficiency of the bilik -family is reflected in other areas of Iban social life. Unlike the Kayan, Kenyah, pagan Melanau and several other Bornean peoples, the Iban are not divided into social classes. Nor is there any form of institutionalized leadership based upon hereditary succession, or some other socially divisive principle. Instead Iban society is characterized by a strongly egalitarian ethos. In this respect, each bilik -family jurally constitutes a discrete and autonomous social unit, which manages its own affairs and recognizes no higher authority than that of its own household head.’ [2] Longhouse communities are headed by informal leaders doubling as village functionaries: ’In every Iban long-house there are two offices of great importance--one secular and the other ritual. They are the positions of tuai rumah and tuai burong . In most long-houses they are held by different individuals, but it is perfectly permissible for one man to hold both offices, and in some communities this does happen. Neither position is ever held by a woman. (c.f. Footnote No. 22). When used as an adjective, the word tuai means old, or mature, but as a noun it refers to any senior and influential member of a community. Here, the emphasis is not primarily on age, but on the personal qualities of the individual concerned. Thus, a party of young men setting off on an expedition ( bejalai ), to gather jungle produce, always has its leader, or tuai , though he may be no more than in his early twenties. And in long-house communities, able, though only middle-aged men often come to exert very considerable authority and influence. In all contemporary long-houses however, there is one man who holds the title of tuai rumah , or house headman.’ [3] Some Iban may have joined the civil and military administration early on, but expert feedback is needed on the matter. [1]: Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr. and John Beierle: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: Davison, Julian, and Vinson H. Sutlive 1991. “Children Of Nising: Images Of Headhunting And Male Sexuality In Iban Ritual And Oral Literature”, 159 [3]: Freeman, Derek 1955. “Report On The Iban Of Sarawak: Vol. 1: Iban Social Organization”, 46 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Central / urban institutions3. Mint4. Village chiefs "The Mauryan penetration into certain subregions of the Deccan was based on their interaction with the allready existing kin-based organizations, through its links with the political power of the indigenous chiefs." [1] Kotalingala is 200 km NE of Bellary: "Two aspects of the pre-Satavahan situation need to be emphasised in the development of the early historical sites in the Central Deccan... One was the particular natural of the economy which rested on the small-scale production of iron-related artefacts. The other was the substantial evidence found from sites like Kotalingala of pre-Satavahana coinage (Krishnasastry, 1983), indicating that there was a mobilization of resources at a local level, which meant that the political elite had the ability to issue their own coins. Though this is most striking in the Central Deccan because these coins are found along with the early coins of the Satavahana" [1] Western Deccan: "The earliest organized state in the region was that of the Satavahanas evolving out of the declining Mauryan power. The presence of the state is suggested by the evidence of political control and the use of an adminsitrative structure. References to units of adiministration and of what appear to be official designations point to a monarchical system. The title of mahamatra is suggestive of the Mauryan designation. The mahabhoja and maharathi as officials may in origin have been associated with high office in the Bhoja and Rathika clans and made the transition to administrative office when the requirements of the state demanded it. The constituents of the seven limbs of the state, the saptanga, are reflected in these and other indications such as the reference to Satavahana armies in action against the ksatrapas, to allies and enemies, to the treasury from the existence of Satavahana coins and revenue collection, to the capital from references to Pratishana and finally to the recognition of territory under Satavahana control." [2] In Andhra region post-Mauryans: "This appearance of kingship, currency and writing indicates that the basic infrastructures of a state system, which had been introduced in the Maurayn period, started functioning at the local level and transforming the megalithic/tribal society into proto or early states, basically characterized by centralized administration, stable kingship and social stratification." [3] Post-Mauryans in Krishna valley: "Amaravati inscription of this period records the existence of a royal scribe (rajalekhaka). This may indicate that record-keeping started to play an integral part in local political administration as well as in commercial activities in this period." [4] In Andhra region post-Mauryans: "Along with local kingships, inscriptions of this period mention other socio-political and socio-economic institutions, particularly as nigama and gothi. Although it is not possible to comprehend the precise nature of these institutions in this period of coastal Andhra, textual and epigraphic evidence indicates that a nigama was an imporant economic and social unit larger than a village (gama), and was composed of integrated members of kin groups and occupational or professional groups. A gothi (skt. gosthi), was another important economic and social institution particularly for urban elites. Bhattiprolu inscriptions also show that these urban institutions and local kings were closely connected, as the inscriptions describe the king Kuberaka as the chief (pamukha=skt. pramukha) of a nigama and a gothi. This seems to indicate that the kings in this period of Andhra were not absolute rulers with invincible powers, but were close to chiefdoms or, in Chattopadhyaya’s word, ’localities’ that derived possibly from the foundations of megalithic chiefs. These ’localities’ seem to have consolidated their powers in close association with urban elites that also started appearing in this period." [5] "The political and economic development in the post-Mauryan period progressed further under the Sadas, a regional dynasty which ruled the larger part of coastal Andhra for at least a century ... Although the historical evidence on this recently-found dynasty is still meagre, a few epigraphic records indicate the presence of a regular administrative structure indicated by titles such as an irrigation officer (?) (paniyagharika) and a scribe (lekhaka). There is also little doubt that the dynasty maintained royal coinage. Unlike the post-Mauryan coinage, which was basically uninscribed, the Sada coins were consistently inscribed with the ruler’s name and kept the same design, a standing lion facing a tree ..." [6] [1]: (Parasher-Sen 2000, 242) Parasher-Sen, Aloka. "Origins of Settlements, Culture and Civilization in the Deccan" Gupta, Harsh K. Parasher-Sen, Aloka. Balasubramanian, D. eds. 2000. Deccan Heritage. Indian National Science Academy. Universities Press (India) Limited. Hyderabad. [2]: (Thapar 1996, 23) Thapar, Romila. "Significance of Regional History with reference to the Konkan." Kulkarni, A R. Nayeem, M A. de Souza, T R. eds. 1996. Mediaeval Deccan History. Commemoration volume in honour of Purshottam Mahadeo Joshi. Popular Prakashan. Bombay. [3]: (Shimada 2012, 118-119) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. [4]: (Shimada 2012, 118) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. [5]: (Shimada 2012, 117) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. [6]: (Shimada 2012, 125) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Village Headmen (Nokma) and Councils; Clans and lineages exercised social control on the village and local levels: ‘In Garo society the most important social group is the clan known as MACHONG. A machong is an exogamous matrilineal descent group wherein a Garo is automatically assigned by birth to the unilineal group of his mother. A CHATCHI (moiety) is divided into many machong. Each married couple chooses one daughter--or, if they have none, they adopt a close relative of the mother--to be heiress (NAKNA DONQIPIKA MECHIK) of the family. Her husband traditionally is selected from the lineage group of the father and is accepted as the NOKROM of the house. He resides with his wife in her parents’ house. He has to take on the responsibility of looking after his parents-in-law during their old age, and his wife inherits the property.’ [1] Local authority was exercised by lineage elders: ‘The authority within a lineage is exercised according to age, the older member always being allowed to direct and punish the younger members. The age differences are otherwise symbolized in only one way-the order in which rice beer is served. When beer is first passed out at a gathering, the people should be served in order of formal seniority. A maternal uncle should be served before his nephew, and an older brother before a younger one. Even an older sister may precede a younger brother, though generally men and women do not drink together. [...] In spite of this formal deference, older people do not monopolize positions of power, and an old person cannot exercise authority outside his lineage simply because of his age. One defers to one’s lineage seniors, but not to old people in general.’ [2] Village headmen acted as intermediaries in local disputes: ‘Among the Garos most disputes arise over the issues of property, inheritance, and domestic quarrels within the family. Such problems are to a large extent settled by the MAHARI (lineage) of the offended and the offender. A new situation develops when someone’s cattle cause damage to another’s crops. Under such situation the NOKMA (village headman) acts as an intermediary only. If he fails to settle the dispute, the matter can go to the civil court of the district council.’ [1] ‘Traditionally, the nokma’s position was connected with the indigeneous customary rites. His temporal and ritual powers in a traditional society were linked with his position. The conversion of a nokma to Christianity automatically led to the loss of his ritualistic role. When the nokma’s were endowed with real temporal power, the resistance was great as Nokmas were non-Christians. But when the Nokma accepted Christianity, nokmaship passed to another person who could act as a nokma in performing rites and rituals. However, the Government still recognized the converted persons as nokmas. This created dislocation in the traditional system, one looking after the customary right and other ritual responsibilities. As the author has tried to show that in the traditional system the two roles cannot be separated, the two roles are enmeshed into each other.’ [3] Nokmas also formally held titles to land: ‘In a Garo village very little difference of status is seen. A particular clan holds right of ownership of the village homestead and shifting cultivation lands, and the title of ownership is inherited by a particular household. The head of the land-owning household is known as the nokma, and the particular area under which he holds ownership right is known as a’king. He also acts as the religious head of the village, and he is to perform the ceremonies for the general well-being of the village. He is called upon to settle disputes between villagers. But in all his decisions he is guided by the elders of the village. He is not entitled to any tribute from the villagers, and he has no special paraphernalia to indicate himself as the nokma. However, in the village a rich man gets respect, because in times of need people have to seek help from him. But in a Garo village it is usually very rare to find an extremely rich man. To a Garo wealth consists of a number of brass gongs called rang and some ornaments made of silver or some such metal. Now-a-days a gun is also regarded as the status symbol of a wealthy man.’ [4] While village headmen were acknowledged later by the British administration, the imposition of appointed officials led to a loss of political power among Nokmas: ‘There was a move for retention of the old institution of nokmaship which could not function with authority since the British administration had appointed the laskars and sardars for the smooth running of their administration from 1824 onwards. The nokmas became only the clan chief and custodian of the clan land a’king. The nokma could not administer effectively as he used to do prior to the British administration in the district. The nokmas were supposed to be well versed with their functions and duties in the villages. The British administration enforced the Rules of Administration of Justice in the Garo Hills both Civil and Police in 1937. These rules have been renewed again and again. They are in use till the present day. The head of the district administration was the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants and it has never been changed.’ [5] The ’colonial era’ data sheet was coded for the British administrative system; accordingly, this datasheet reflects the pre-colonial situation of village autonomy. The potential role of Zamindars remains to be confirmed (see also above). [1]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [2]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 177 [3]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 163 [4]: Majumdar, Dhirendra Narayan 1978. “Culture Change In Two Garo Villages”, 22 [5]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 170 |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ there are ’One levels (e.g., petty chiefdoms)’ of administrative control-petty chiefs and local leaders. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ’Single local leader and council’ SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ’One level (e.g., petty chiefdoms)’. (3) Petty chief, (2) Local leader, (1) Local Councillors.
[(3) Executive Officials and Courts associated with District Governance at Tura;] (2) Executive Officials (Laskar, Sordar etc.) associated with village clusters; (1) Village Headmen (Nokma) and Councils; During colonial rule, supralocal executive offices were superimposed onto village- and lineage-based A’chik structures: ‘When the Britishers took over the administration of this district, one witnessed an imposition of hierarchy of new political and administrative units in the district over the traditional democratic village set-up. The British Government, being actuated with the desire to have effective control over the villages and to facilitate the collection of revenues and house tax introduced the office of laskar with limited police, civil and criminal powers. Accordingly there was a laskar over a circle of villages; each having jurisdiction covering ten or twelve of villages. Although, the villagers were left to settle all disputes through the nokma and the village courts, they had right to appeal to the court of laskars against the decisions of the village councils.’ [1] ’In the same way the introduction of offices of sardar, hill mandal and hill mauzadar curtailed the powers and authorities of the nokmas and their village councils. The new offices were created for the effective administration over the Garo with the idea of village self-government under the direct control of Deputy Commissioner at the centre.’ [1] Clans and lineages associated with village clusters nevertheless continued to exercise social control on the local level: ‘In Garo society the most important social group is the clan known as MACHONG. A machong is an exogamous matrilineal descent group wherein a Garo is automatically assigned by birth to the unilineal group of his mother. A CHATCHI (moiety) is divided into many machong. Each married couple chooses one daughter--or, if they have none, they adopt a close relative of the mother--to be heiress (NAKNA DONQIPIKA MECHIK) of the family. Her husband traditionally is selected from the lineage group of the father and is accepted as the NOKROM of the house. He resides with his wife in her parents’ house. He has to take on the responsibility of looking after his parents-in-law during their old age, and his wife inherits the property.’ [2] Local authority is exercised by lineage elders: ‘The authority within a lineage is exercised according to age, the older member always being allowed to direct and punish the younger members. The age differences are otherwise symbolized in only one way-the order in which rice beer is served. When beer is first passed out at a gathering, the people should be served in order of formal seniority. A maternal uncle should be served before his nephew, and an older brother before a younger one. Even an older sister may precede a younger brother, though generally men and women do not drink together. [...] In spite of this formal deference, older people do not monopolize positions of power, and an old person cannot exercise authority outside his lineage simply because of his age. One defers to one’s lineage seniors, but not to old people in general.’ [3] Village headmen act as intermediaries in local disputes: ‘Among the Garos most disputes arise over the issues of property, inheritance, and domestic quarrels within the family. Such problems are to a large extent settled by the MAHARI (lineage) of the offended and the offender. A new situation develops when someone’s cattle cause damage to another’s crops. Under such situation the NOKMA (village headman) acts as an intermediary only. If he fails to settle the dispute, the matter can go to the civil court of the district council.’ [2] ‘Traditionally, the nokma’s position was connected with the indigeneous customary rites. His temporal and ritual powers in a traditional society were linked with his position. The conversion of a nokma to Christianity automatically led to the loss of his ritualistic role. When the nokma’s were endowed with real temporal power, the resistance was great as Nokmas were non-Christians. But when the Nokma accepted Christianity, nokmaship passed to another person who could act as a nokma in performing rites and rituals. However, the Government still recognized the converted persons as nokmas. This created dislocation in the traditional system, one looking after the customary right and other ritual responsibilities. As the author has tried to show that in the traditional system the two roles cannot be separated, the two roles are enmeshed into each other.’ [4] Nokmas also formally hold titles to land: ‘In a Garo village very little difference of status is seen. A particular clan holds right of ownership of the village homestead and shifting cultivation lands, and the title of ownership is inherited by a particular household. The head of the land-owning household is known as the nokma, and the particular area under which he holds ownership right is known as a’king. He also acts as the religious head of the village, and he is to perform the ceremonies for the general well-being of the village. He is called upon to settle disputes between villagers. But in all his decisions he is guided by the elders of the village. He is not entitled to any tribute from the villagers, and he has no special paraphernalia to indicate himself as the nokma. However, in the village a rich man gets respect, because in times of need people have to seek help from him. But in a Garo village it is usually very rare to find an extremely rich man. To a Garo wealth consists of a number of brass gongs called rang and some ornaments made of silver or some such metal. Now-a-days a gun is also regarded as the status symbol of a wealthy man. In recent days they have started to acquire landed property, because in areas where permanent cultivation is practised individual ownership of land has gradually come to be recognized. Among the Chisak and the Matchi, however, a wealthy man can perform a status giving ceremony, called jaksil gana, in which along with a set of religious rites the aspirant is to give a liberal feast to all the villagers, and in return he is entitled to wear an armlet called jaksil, which is considered as a status symbol and the wearer is designated as nokma though he may not have to do anything with an a’king.’ [5] While village headmen were acknowledged by the British administration, the imposition of the above-mentioned administrative structure led to a loss of political power among Nokmas: ‘There was a move for retention of the old institution of nokmaship which could not function with authority since the British administration had appointed the laskars and sardars for the smooth running of their administration from 1824 onwards. The nokmas became only the clan chief and custodian of the clan land a’king. The nokma could not administer effectively as he used to do prior to the British administration in the district. The nokmas were supposed to be well versed with their functions and duties in the villages. The British administration enforced the Rules of Administration of Justice in the Garo Hills both Civil and Police in 1937. These rules have been renewed again and again. They are in use till the present day. The head of the district administration was the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants and it has never been changed.’ [6] [1]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 52 [2]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [3]: Burling, Robbins 1963. “Rengsanggri: Family And Kinship In A Garo Village”, 177 [4]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 163 [5]: Majumdar, Dhirendra Narayan 1978. “Culture Change In Two Garo Villages”, 22 [6]: Marak, Kumie R. 1997. “Traditions And Modernity In Matrilineal Tribal Society”, 170 |
||||||
|
levels. Range estimated from previous and subsequent polities in the region
"Even before the Muslim invasion of India, the Middle Ganga Valley was the arena of the internal migration of Rajput clans in 11th and 12th centuries. The various Rajput clans started migrating eastward from their home territories and on the way exterminated the aboriginals. They dominated in the area under study for a long time which is called the Rajput period." [1] Under chapter 9 "The Rajput Administration" pages 389-403 covering revenue administration, territorial administration, local government, police and judiciary. [2] From an essay on "The Rajput Administration". The Gahadavala dynasty are sometimes considered Rajputs or perhaps proto-Rajputs as strictly speaking the Rajputs date from a later time in this location: In the Pratihara empire "Extensive tracts ... were under feudatories bound to their overlords by ties and terms of service ... The rest of the empire can be grouped under the heads bhuati, mandala, zisaya, pathaka, chuturasitika and dvadesaka, bhukti was the biggest division. Next to it was the mandala. It was sub-divided into visayas; subdividion that we find also in feudatory States like Sakambhari. The pathaka stood next to it. The Varanasi Visaya had a division called Kasiparapathaka. .... it can be further concluded that the pathaka was a union of villages, the number of which could vary." [3] "The kotta or durga may be regarded as a representative of the durga constituent of a saptanga rajya. It included not the fort alone but also the territory adjoining it." [3] "The smallest administrative unit was of course the village." [4] "The defence of the town and its overal supervision fell within the jurisdiction of the Kottapala; but the management of civil affairs was left to a non-official body, the members of which had their turn in the management of the sthana, and were therefore known as varikas. Attached to it must have been a permanent office like the one a Pehoa which kept a record of transactions and agreements ... Its secretary might have been designated Karanika." [4] An imperial officer, called tantrapala in a Harsa inscription of Vigraharaja II and some others, probably was tasked with "keeping the feudatories in check, looking after the interests of his master on the borders of his empire, and using diplomacy as well as force, to gain his objective. He was authorised also to make grants and sign important documents on behalf of his master." [4] "The head of a visaya might have been known as the vasayapati but we have no idea of the titles used for the heads of the divisions lower than a visaya." [4] Bhukti - Mandala - Visayas - Pathaka (union of villages) - Kotta/Durga? - Village [1]: (Ansari 1986, 60) Saiyad Hasan Ansari. 1986. Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study of Middle Ganga Valley. Concept Publishing Company. New Delhi. [2]: (Bakshi, Gajrani and Singh eds 2005) S R Bakshi. S Gajrani. Hari Singh. eds. 2005. Early Aryans to Swaraj. Volume 3: Indian Education and Rajputs. Sarup & Sons. New Delhi. [3]: (Bakshi, Gajrani and Singh eds 2005, 398) S R Bakshi. S Gajrani. Hari Singh. eds. 2005. Early Aryans to Swaraj. Volume 3: Indian Education and Rajputs. Sarup & Sons. New Delhi. [4]: (Bakshi, Gajrani and Singh eds 2005, 399) S R Bakshi. S Gajrani. Hari Singh. eds. 2005. Early Aryans to Swaraj. Volume 3: Indian Education and Rajputs. Sarup & Sons. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
levels. NB: Though many of the following codes are taken from a book about Harsha’s empire in the seventh century, the author reconstructed the latter polity’s administration based on what is known or inferred about Gupta administration, as well as smritis, contemporary general texts on law, conduct and polity; moreover, Gupta administration was taken as a model for seventh-century governments
[1]
1. King __Central government__ 2. Rahasi-niyukta"In the inscriptions of the Gupta period we meet an officer called the rahasi-niyukta. [...] The kings gave oral orders which were taken down by rahasi-niyuktas or private secretaries, who passed them on for recording and execution to the appropriate departments." [2] 2. Sarv-adhyaksha"There appears to have been a general superintendent of the offices who with his various assistants carried out multiple liaison tasks. He maintained rapport among various departments, between the King and the departments, between the centre and the directly administered provinces, and between the centre and the various close and distant members of the mandala. South-Indian inscriptions mention an officer by the title of sarv-adhyaksha, over-all supervisor, whose duty was to convey orders of the central government to the provincial and district officers through ’carriers of royal commands’." [3] 2. Central council of ministers"While most members of the central ministry may also have been heads of departments such as army, revenue, public welfare, etc., some, esteemed for their experience, learning, or wisdom, may have acted only as mantrins or counsellors." [4] 2. DauvanikaSuperintendent of pratiharas [5] . 3. Assistants to the sarv-adhyaksha"There appears to have been a general superintendent of the offices who with his various assistants carried out multiple liaison tasks." [3] 3. Sandhi-vigrahikasAssistants to the heads of departments [6] . 3. Maha-pratiharasHigh-ranking pratiharas. Officers of high status [5] . 4. PratiharasLesser pratiharas. Officers of high status [5] . 5. Scribes?"The kings gave oral orders which were taken down by rahasi-niyuktas or private secretaries, who passed them on for recording and execution to the appropriate departments. [...] although we do not come across the designation in contemporary records, the familiar Gupta office associated with such tasks is very likely to have existed in Harsha’s time as well." [2] __Provincial government__ 3. UparikaRoyal officers in charge of core area [7] 3. Border kings"These border kings paid tribute and were obliged to attend Samudragupta’s court. In contrast with medieval European vassals they were obviously not obliged to join Samudragupta’s army in a war. Thus they were not real vassals but, at the most tributary princes. In subsequent centuries these tributary neighbours were called Samantas and rose to high positions at the imperial court thus coming closer to the ideal type of a feudal vassal." [8] 4. VishayapatisOfficers in charge of smaller territorial subdivisions [9] . 5. Ayuktakas"Bigger cities had Ayuktakas at their head who were appointed by the governor." [9] 6. Pustapala, nagarashreshthin, kulika "These Ayuktas were assisted by town clerks (pustapala). The head of the city guilds (nagarashreshthin) and the heads of families of artisans (kulika) advised the Ayuktaka [9] . 7. GramikaVillage headman [9] . 8. Scribes and heads of peasant families [9] [1]: (Devahuti 1970: 2, 169-170) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [2]: (Devahuti 1970: 176-177) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [3]: (Devahuti 1970: 171) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [4]: (Devahuti 1970: 173) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [5]: (Devahuti 1970: 177) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [6]: (Devahuti 1970: 174) Deva Devahuti. 1970. Harsha: A Political Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [7]: (Kulke & Rothermund 1998, 83, 89) Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. 1998. A History of India. London: Routledge. [8]: (Kulke & Rothermund 1998, 83-84) Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. 1998. A History of India. London: Routledge. [9]: (Kulke & Rothermund 1998, 89) Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund. 1998. A History of India. London: Routledge. |
||||||
|
1. King "all the officials owed their loyalty to the king and not to the State. This meant that a change of king could result in change of officials leading to the demoralization of the officers. Mauryas had no system of ensuring the continuation of well-planned bureaucracy." [1] "The existence of an elaborate network of royal spies bolstered the autocratic nature of Mauryan government." [2] _Central government_ 2. mantrin or Mahamatra (Great Councilor) in the Mantriparisad [3] [4] Amatyas, Sachivas etc. were top officers and public servants. [4] Are these titles for jobs or terms for a collective? 2. purohita (Chief Priest) in the Mantriparisad [3] 2. sannidhatr or samnidhartru (Treasurer) in the Mantriparisad [3] [5] 3? Samaharti (chief collector of the revenue) [5] 3. Superintendent of Tolls [6] Kautilya in the Arthashastra: "Superintendent of Tolls shall erect near the large gate of the city both the toll-house and its flag facing either the north or the south. When merchants with their merchandise arrive at the toll-gate, four or five collectors shall take down who the merchants are, whence they come, what amount of merchandise they have brought and where for the first time the sealmark (abhijnánamudrá) has been made (on the merchandise)." [6] 4. Collector of Tolls 2. sandhivigrahika (Minister for Military Affairs) in the Mantriparisad [3] 3. Superintendents of the Military Administration (e.g. Superintendent for Armories)"The military system was controlled by high-ranking civilian superintendents who oversaw the operation of state armories where all military equipment and weapons were manufactured, as well as supply depots, cavalry, elephants, chariot corps, and infantry, including provisions, training, and general combat readiness." [7] 4. Manager of one of the state armories (or Stables, Supply Depot etc.)5. Artisan in state armory 2. senapata (Chief General) in the Mantriparisad [3] 2. mahaksapatalika (Chief Secretary) in the Mantriparisad [7] 3. Superintendent of a department [7] / Adhyakshah (large number of individual department heads) [5] including State Goldsmith, Itthijhakkamahatas (minister of women’s welfare) [5] and Dhamma-mahamatas (ministers in charge of spreading dhamma) [5] 4. Goldsmith of the Mint [6] 5. ArtisanKautilya in the Arthashastra wrote: "The State Goldsmith shall employ artisans to manufacture gold and silver coins (rúpyasuvarna) from the bullion of citizens and country people." [6] _Provincial government_ 3. Viceroy or Kumaras of four large regions or provinces [4] "The central administrative structure was generally replicated in the regions or provinces governed by viceroys. These were subdivided into divisions and districts." [4] 4. Council of Ministers5. Top officers and public servants 4. Divisions of regions / provinces [4] 5. District officer Pradeshtri or Sthanika [4] 6. Technical or clerical officials (Yuktas) [4] 6. Sthaniya (800 villages) - sub-district official [5] - refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra) 6. Dronamukhaa (400 villages) - sub-district official [5] - refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra) 6. Karvatika (200 villages) - sub-district official [5] - refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra) 6. Sthaniya (10 villages) - sub-district official [5] - refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra) 6. Village government under Gopa [4] Gramika (village headman), Grama-vriddhas (village elders) [5] 7."Village government" [4] Loyalty and efficiency was achieved through "an elaborate system of internal spying and inspection, the hard work and vigilance of the emperor and his cohorts, and thirdly through a skeletal monetary economy was cash payments." [4] _Notes_ "more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration ... In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (... though Satavahana and Mauryan inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. ... claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated." [8] "We have a very detailed account of the structure and functions of Mauryan imperial bureaucracy in both Kautilya’s Arthasastra and from the inscriptions of emperor Asoka. ... Arthasastra’s first six "books" form probably the most detailed manual of monarchical administration in the ancient or medieval world, though more scholarly attention has been devoted to the last nine books, on war, diplomacy and international relations." [9] The Mauryan empire was not a homogeneous whole. It was made up of three concentric areas. The administration consisted of a metropolitan centre, core territories undergoing state formation, and peripheral areas with a number of pre-state societies. It is therefore the case that the administrative levels and level of delegation most likely varied greatly, but in all cases was essentially exploitative. [10] Kautilya’s Arthasastra and the Asoka inscriptions agree on "about two or three top levels in central administration; a minister or ministers called Mantrin (Kautilya) or Mahamatra (Asoka); a council of ministers at the next level (Mantri parishad), and many top officers and public servants variously called Amatyas or Sachivas, in a clear hierarchy. These three levels were retained with slightly changed names in the later Gupta Empire in the fifth century A.D. and under Harsha in the seventh century. The general of the army was also a Mantri of equal status, as were the viceroys or Kumaras of the four large regions or provinces of the Mauryan Empire. ... The central administrative structure was generally replicated in the regions or provinces governed by viceroys. These were subdivided into divisions and districts. The district has continued to be the nerve center of field administration today. The district officer then called Pradeshtri or Sthanika seems to have been much the same as his present day counterpart. He combined revenue collecting and magisterial duties and supervised the work of other technical or clerical officials (Yuktas) as well as village government under the Gopa." [4] _Notes for other polity sheets_ "This bureaucratic system founded by Kautilya, Chandragupta, and Asoka was adopted by the successor empires of the Guptas, and Harsha with minor changes of name and substance." [4] "The Guptas in the North and the Cholas in the South made a sophisticated system of village self-government an integral part of the administrative system. But the overall structures of central and provincial administration were essentially modifications of the Arthasastra-Asoka model." [11] "Successive generations of scholars writing on statecraft replicated his ideas in a redefined adaptive manner keeping alive the same ideas of proper administration. Secondly, the general imperial administrative structure of Kautilya was adaptable for smaller empires after the 7th century, of the Vakatakas, Pratiharas, and Palas and they were also borrowed by the Mughal Empire later. But they could not be sustained in their fullness in a gemeinshaft society, without the total commitment of the intellectual elite." [12] [1]: http://uhami.com/maurya_empire30802.htm [2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press. [3]: (Gabriel 2002, 216) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. [4]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. [5]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 345-348 [6]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthashastra/Book_II [7]: (Gabriel 2002, 217) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. [8]: (Alcock 2001, 159) Alcock, Susan E. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. [9]: (Subramaniam 2001, 78) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. [10]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008. p. 341 [11]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80-81) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. [12]: (Subramaniam 2001, 84) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press. |
||||||
|
Delhi Sultanate which "had a powerful impact on small states and principalities that were formed after its disintegration as well as on the Mughal administration that would come into existence in the sixteenth century."
[1]
needs more work on central government 1. Emperor Furthermore, the Zamindars belonged to the nobility and formed the ruling class. [2] _Central government_ 2. WakilHighest administrative officer 3. Departments? inferred4.5. _Provincial government_ 3. Subahdar of several SarkarsA group of one or more villages constitutes a paragana, a few paragana a sarkar, and several sarkar’s (or ’shiqqs’) a subahdar. A wakil was the highest administrative officer. [3] 4. Sarkar of a few Paragana 5. Paragana of one or more villages 6. Muqqaddam (Village headman)Also of note are the Muqaddam and Patwari. The village head was a muqaddam - the sole link between government and village. Although not a government servant, he was responsible for maintaining law and order. Similarly a patwari, a record keeper, was not employed by the state but by the village community. [4] -- not a paid official but still took orders i.e. maintain law and order 7. Patwari (record keeper) 7. Employed by muqaddam to help maintain law and order inferred [1]: (Ahmed 2011, 96) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [2]: Barbara Daly Metcalf, Joint Committee on South Asia Moral conduct and authority: the place of adab in South Asian Islam, pp 269 [3]: Farīd Bhakkari, Shaikh Farid Bhakkari, Ziyaud-Din A. Desai, A Biographical Dictionary of Mughal Noblemen, (1993) p 107 [4]: Mughal Administration: Central, Provincial, and Local, p.22 Link |
||||||
|
Longest chain was provincial government, probably in Iraq: 1. Caliph - 2. Governor - 3. kura (name of level) - 4. tassuj (name of level) - 5. rustaj (name of level) - 6. Village headman
1. Caliph In Baghdad _ Central government line _ 2. wazir in BaghdadPresided over The Three Bureaus (Diwans) 3. diwan-al-rasa’il (Chancery) Three types of services were departmentalized. These were called Diwans in Arabic. These departments were divided into three main areas of responsibility: the Chancery (diwan-al-rasa’il), the department responsible for tax collection (diwan al-kharif), and the department overseeing the army (diwan al-jaysh). 3. diwan al-kharif (tax collection) 4. Sub-heads within diwan al-kharifLapidus comments on the elaborate subdivisions within each department throughout the period, beyond what the simple three tiers implies. [1] 5. Scribes 6. Tax collectors 3. diwan al-jaysh (army administration) 3. PensionsCourt expenses and pensions were handled by separate administrations. 3. Court expensesCourt expenses and pensions were handled by separate administrations. 2. BaridPostal and information service. Also used to inspect/spy on governors and local administrations. 3. 4. _ Provincial line _ Direct control took place in territories closest to the imperial centre. Iraq, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, Western Iran and Khuzistan were governed directly. Other areas were largely autonomous. In some territories military governors were appointed while in others local elites paid tribute and maintained autonomy. These tributes would have been paid to one of the departments associated above. [2] Beginning in 945 CE, the Caliphate lost substantial powers of authority and was reduced in its ability to control outlying territory. [3] 2. Governor of governors (839 CE-)al-Mu’tasim appointed Ashnas overal governor of the vast region of al-Jazirah, Syria, and Egypt (in practice, gubernatorial powers in these provinces were exercised by deputies while Ashnas himself remained in Iraq). [4] 3. Governor4. Deputy Governor 4. Ruler of a district5. Kura (Iraq and Egypt) chain of command or spatial division?6. Tassuj (Iraq and Egypt) chain of command or spatial division?7. Rustaq (Iraq and Egypt) chain of command or spatial division?8. Village headmenra’is in Iran, shaykh al-balad in Egypt 4. Saheb al-sorta (city)5. Amir al-suq (city) 2. Governor (centrally governed provinces) [5] Iraq, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, western Iran, Khuzistan. Officials on short term contracts, and rotated. Role often split between two officials: military commander and finance official. A third official was head of judiciary. All were inspected by the barid (information service). Egypt had a governor [6] "Under the caliphate ... provincial governments incorporating cities and towns were gradually established in Persia; the governors were nominated by the caliph." [7] 3. Deputy GovernorDeputy governors existed, e.g. in Tabaristan. [8] 3. Ruler of a district"In every district of your governorship, you should appoint a trusted observer [amin] who will keep you informed of the activities of your local officials and will write to you regularly about their way of life and doings, in such a way that you will be, as it were, an eyewitness of every official’s complete activities within his sphere of responsibility." Bosworth notes of ’amin’: "Here obviously the equivalent of the sahib al-barid, postmaster and intelligence officer, of the Abbasid caliphate and of the later mushrif al-mamlakah of eastern Iranian states". [9] 3. Saheb al-sorta in major cities."In each major city there was an official known as ṣāḥeb al-šorṭa, who was in charge of public order; his subordinate, the amīr al-sūq, regulated the bāzār (cf. Spuler, Iran, pp. 315-32)." [7] 4. Amir al-suq 3. kuraLocal government: divided into a hierarchy of districts in Iraq and Egypt. These subdivisions were for assessing taxation. In Iraq settlements were divided into three categories: the Kura, the Tassuj, and the rustaq. In other areas the system varied. These payments would have passed to the provincial authorities. [10] Hierarchy of districts - kura; tassuj and rustaj - in Iraq, parts of Khurasan and western Iran. Similar hierarchy used for Egypt. Crown lands and some iqta’s were not included in governed area. [11] 3. or 4. tassuj 3. or 5. rustaj this was the lowest unit. A market and administrative town surrounded by a number of villages. 4. or 6. Village headman [12] ra’is in Iran, shaykh al-balad in Egypt _Affiliated provinces_ 2. Sometimes local dynastic rulers became "governors of the caliphs." Khurasan was directly appointed until 820 CE after which it was controlled by the Tahirids (820-873 CE). Autonomous, government that was not inspected. Same true for Transoxania under the Samanids. Caliph al-Ma’mun (813-833 CE) named Samanids hereditary governors of Samarqand, Farghana, and Herat. 2. Affiliated provinces (provinces that were not-centrally governed) [13] Caspian highlands (Jilan, Tabaristan, Daylam, Jurjan), Inner Asian provinces (Transoxania, Farghana, Ushrusana, Kabul), most of North Africa. 2. Often supervising military governor appointed, whilst the garrison received the taxes and tribute. 3. Actual collection of taxes done by local administration. 4. ... ? ... [1]: Lapidus, Ira A., History of Islamic Society, pp.58-59 [2]: Lapidus, , History of Islamic Society, p.61 [3]: Lapidus, History of Islamic Society, p. 60 [4]: p.178 Bosworth, C.E. trans. 1991. The History of al-Tarabi. Volume XXXIII. Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the Abbasid Caliphate. State University of New York Press. Albany. [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 97 [6]: (Raymond 2000, 24) [7]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [8]: p.130 Bosworth, C E. trans. The History of al-Tabari. Volume XXXII. The Reunification of the Abbasid Caliphate. State University of New York Press. [9]: p.123 Bosworth, C E. trans. The History of al-Tabari. Volume XXXII. The Reunification of the Abbasid Caliphate. State University of New York Press. [10]: Lapidus, History of Islamic Society, p.61 [11]: (Lapidus 2012, 99 [12]: (Lapidus 2012, 100 [13]: (Lapidus 2012, 98-99 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Polity: Emperor2. Central Secretariat3. Lu/Fu governor4. Zhou (country subdivision) governor5. County governor |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King _Palatial government_ 2. Shaperum/majordomo"The chief civil administrator was the shaperum, "majordomo" or "steward of the royal household." No comparable office existed in Sumer, so the Akkaddian word and concept were borrowed into Sumerian at this time." [1] 3. Land registrar"A key civil figure after the steward of the royal household was the land registrar, the man accountable for the extensive arable districts controlled by the royal household and used to maintain officialdom." [1] 4. Surveyor"The record keeping for accountable land and the surveying of subdivisions and plots fell to the land registrar and his staff of scribes and surveyors." [1] 4. Scribes 2. Royal inspector"Akkadian administrators expected beautifully written, summary ledgers, with easy to read and understand broad schemes of accounting, to be filed in every locality, read for examination by the royal inspector ... One may suppose that this person was an independent auditor who went from place to place to ensure that the king’s interests and rights were being maintained." [2] _Provincial government_ 2. Governors (called ensi in Sumerian)3. Majordomo4. Bureau for the acquisition of oils and aromatics5. Assistant inferred 4. Skilled artisan5. Assistant 3. Bailiff4. Scribes 4. Foremen 4. Recruiting officer5. Village headmen Royal household. 1. Majordomo or shaperum "an exalted, trusted personage who held executive responsibility for the king’s resources in land and buildings, specie, livestock, and personnel". 2. Courtiers "prepared and served their food and drink, dressed and groomed them, readied and maintained their transport animals and wagons, entertained them, served as their messengers and couriers, and did their confidential divination and secretarial work." "There are no signs of an advisory cabinet. 3. Other officials: "the registrar of land, chief, and subordinate scribes" - possibly responsible tothe majordomo. [3] At Mugdan was "the seat of a manor that dominated the local countryside. ... This manor belong to members of the royal faily or royal household ... managed by a governor (ensi). Other local officials included the shaperum (majordomi) and a captain in command of a detachment of soldiers stationed there." [4] Akkadian Empire: "It was an entity put together and maintained by force, with provinces administered by officials sent out from the capital in the heartland. This is precisely what we see in the Akkadian period." [5] Administrative documents from Adab show one of the governor’s tasks "was the management of arable land. In this capacity, he received various letters and petitions" such as requests for irrigated land. [6] Palace at Eshnunna "had a special bureau that maintained records for the acquisition and distribution of oils and aromatics" [7] -- at least two levels here "the records from Eshnunna reveal a large and complex agricultural operation involving hundreds of hectares, teams of professional plowmen, hundreds of draught animals, and thousands of sheep and goats. ... perhaps under the control of an Akkadian governor, who may have been a member of the royal family." [8] "A key civil figure after the steward of the royal household was the land registrar, the man accountable for the extensive arable districts controlled by the royal household and used to maintain officialdom." [1] local administrators: "the bailiff, the scribes who measured parcels of land and houses,the men in charge of apportioning irrigation water, the foremen of teams of working men and women, the commander of the local military unit, the recruiting officer for military service and public works, the mayor or headman of the town or village." [9] "first the king’s governors, whom he appointed and who served at his pleasure, being dignitaries of political, military, and economic importance; second, the heads of the ancient cult centers, which in Sumer particularly, controlled considerable arable land; and third the notables, who received from the king’s land office fields for their own support and for distribution as patronage to others." [10] Hence a Sumerian poet wrote: "The governors of cities, the managers of temples. The scribes who parcelled out the farmland in the steppe." [10] Governor of a city or city-state was called ensi in Sumerian. [10] Sargon appointed Akkadians - people with "willingness to leave their own city and community, to enter the king’s service, and to depend upon him for preferment" - as ensi where he conquered. [10] Under Akkad the ensi in Sumer did the same job as before but they could no longer be called kings. [10] Ensi city governors "responsible for upholding security and law and order in their cities. Maintenance of roads, canals, and major buildings was another of their duties." [11] in centre: "unlike the following Ur III period, the ensi were not yet governors, but were still rulers dependent on Akkadian support and approval." [12] in periphery: "On a political level, it was too vast and varied, with urban centres located in the middle of steppes, mountains and other areas ... Therefore, Akkad’s interest was mainly commercial. This interest was secured through treaties with states too strong to be subdued (such as in the case of Elam), or through the appointment of a local ensi (such as the sankanakku of Mari). Another possibility was the creation of Akkadian strongholds in foreign territories, such as Naram-Sin’s palace at Naga (Tell-Brak). This was probably not the only palace built by Akkadian rulers, and was possibly the most suitable way to keep a vast commercial network under control." [12] Rimash created a royal domain out of 134,000 hectares of agricultural land near Lagash and Umma in Sumer and distributed it among his retainers. These individuals had no ties to the city-states or temples of Sumer. [13] Discussion on local assembly / village headman or mayor Local assembly known as the ukken (Sumerian) and puhrum (Akkadian) "limited to free citizens chosen or elected. In principle, all of them could voice opinions, but in practice key decisions, such as declaration of war, were made by a subgroup of elders who appointed a war leader in time of threat." [14] "The assembly had control over local land resources through approving major real estate transactions. It could also set prices, fines, taxes, undertake public works and other communal actions, and administer property, which originally included the temple before it evolved as a separate great household. In addition, the assembly exercised general control over administrative and governmental activity on the local level." [14] -- however, "no direct evidence for such an assembly exists in Akkadian sources, even among the many legal documents for the period". [15] "records refer to a ’mayor’ (rabianum), perhaps a headman of a tribe or settlement, who mediated disputes, was responsible for dealing with crime, and recruited men for labor and military service. Others mention multiple "elders," who carried out many of the same functions. Still others refer to the ’town’ or ’city,’ local notables who oversaw such matters as the conduct of business and commerce; this suggests the existence of a city corporation or government. ... For a village or rural area, a mayor or elders might have sufficed, whereas a larger agglomeration with a market and several local institutions might have had a ’town’ or ’city’ board." Existence of assembly inferred from later Sumerian fictional literature. [15] [1]: (Foster 2016, 17) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [2]: (Foster 2016, 20-21) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [3]: (Foster 2016, 43) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [4]: (Foster 2016, 59) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [5]: (Foster 2016, 80) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [6]: (Foster 2016, 67) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [7]: (Foster 2016, 56) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [8]: (Foster 2016, 57) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [9]: (Foster 2016, 39) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [10]: (Foster 2016, 40) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [11]: (Foster 2016, 41) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [12]: (Leverani 2014, 138) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [13]: (Foster 2016, 7) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [14]: (Foster 2016, 44) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [15]: (Foster 2016, 45) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
1. Sultan (Cairo) During his absence Egypt/Cairo was governed by a viceroy (na’ib al-saltana) [1] _ Central government line _ [2] 2. Central administration"Army officers came from the Mamluk ranks. High government officials were also recruited from their number." [3] "In a traditional society that lacked the concept of public or municipal agencies, as individuals, the members of this ruling class assumed responsibility for what we would consider public concerns." [4] "although mamluks could marry, their children could never become mamluks. Thus, the foreign elite had constantly to be replenished by fresh recruits from the northern borderlands o Islam, educated in the discipline of a military household, and dependent for their manumission and their subsequent promotion upon their professional patrons and superiors." [5] _ Cairo line _ 2cairo Magistracies. "The administration of Cairo and its inhabitants was in the hands of three traditional magistracies. The judges (qudah; sing. qadi) had a very broad jurisdiction that covered matters of civil law, and many urban problems were addressed in their courts.3cairo Chief of the Sergeants of the watch. Top police prefect.4cairo "The police prefects (wulah; sing. wali) saw to public order and security. They were particularly responsible for making the rounds at night and therefore also of fighting fires." [6] Overseer of the market (muhtasib) [7] "The quarter served as an important basis of communal association and as an essential administrative unit." [8] _ Egyptian line _ 2egypt "diwan (government bureau) of Salar" [9] 3egypt Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [10] 4egypt Governor of a small town 5egypt. Village head. _ Syrian line _ 2syria Syrian chief governor [11] Viceroy? 3syria Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [10] e.g. the bureaucracy niyaba of Safed contained:4. katib al-sirr/katib al-insha (chief secretary who wrote governor’s letters, read mail) [12] 5. muwaqqi (who ratified the governor’s letters) [12] 6. katib al-dast [12] 7. katib al-darj (minor correspondent) [12] 4. nazir (overseer who was responsible for financial management, expenditure, salaries) [13] kashif (inspector of bridges, agricultural lands and irrigation canals) [14] muhtasib (market inspector) [14] nazir diwan al-jaysh (superintendant of fiefs) [14] nazir al-mal (financial controller) [14] 4. governor also had a dawadar (personal assistant) often sent to the villages to represent the governor and an ustadar (private caretaker) [15] 4syria wali al-wulat of a niyaba [9] "The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [9] often the wali al-wulat also doubled as the shadd or mushidd al-dawawin "whose duty it was to check and observe the collection of the Sultans’ dues and taxes from state estates." [9] 5syria Wali, officer of a small town"The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [9] 6syria Village head. [1]: (Raymond 2000, 152) [2]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Dols 1977, 152) [5]: (Oliver and Atmore 2001, 16) Oliver R and Atmore A. 2001. Medieval Africa 1250-1800. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [6]: (Raymond 2000, 153) [7]: (Raymond 2000, 154) [8]: (Dols 1977, 153) [9]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 178) [10]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 169) [11]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 176) [12]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180-181) [13]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180) [14]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 181-182) [15]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 172) |
||||||
|
There were several iterations of administrative and governmental structures during this period owing to the fact that “The new nation that came out of the conflicts of 1808 to 1821, briefly a Mexican monarchy, then a republic from 1824, searched simultaneously for a new polity and a new economy.”
[1]
“From 1821 to 1857 no less than fifty different governments proclaimed control over the nation. All sorts of governments—from dictatorships, to constitutional republican governments, to monarchies—experimented with different methods to placate the divisions among the elites, and nearly all the governments struggled to ensure elite dominance over the masses.”
[2]
“Porfirio Díaz’s first re-election to the presidency in 1884 marked a significant watershed in the political evolution of the regime. As a foretaste of what was to come, Díaz was unopposed in the election… He became the patriarch of the nation, and the custodian and arbiter of the rules of conduct of political life. This meant not only the assertion of personal authority over the institutions which governed the conduct of politics (the cabinet, both houses of Congress, the state governors, the state legislatures, the regional jefes políticos), but also over the institutions which had played a decisive role in nineteenth century politics (above all, the army, the Church, and the press).”
[3]
: 1. President :: 2. Vice President ::: 3. Executive Cabinet :::: 4. Council of Government :::: “The Council of Government or State, exists only during the intervals between the sessions of the Congress, and is composed of one half of the Senate, or one Senator from each State, with the Vice-President of the Republic at its head.”
[4]
::::: 5. State Governors :::::: 6. City councillors
[1]: (Tutino 2018: 252) Tutino, John. 2018. Mexico City, 1808: Power Sovereignty, and Silver in an Age of War and Revolution. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Z5SZU2AP [2]: (Kirkwood 2000: 89) Kirkwood, Burton. 2000. History of Mexico. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3000600. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/kirkwood/titleCreatorYear/items/6ICDTQLE [3]: (Garner 2011: 297) Garner, Paul. 2011. “The Civilian and the General, 1867–1911,” in A Companion to Mexican History and Culture, ed. William H. Beezley. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 288–301. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/EMSG558V [4]: (Ward 1827: 219) Ward, Henry George. 1900. Mexico in 1827. London : H. Colburn. http://archive.org/details/mexicoin04wardgoog. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/IY7FJEM7 |
||||||
|
levels.:1. King : The king was at the very top of all social and administrative hierarchies. However by this period he was more accountable to his council and the aristocracy, though ultimately, his decision on all state matters was final.
[1]
The kings council usually consisted of a mixture of trusted nobles, experienced officials (usually the chancellor and treasurer), ecclesiastical members, judges and sometimes a close and trusted member of his family.
[1]
Administrative duties were divided between the King’s Household, and the two central administrative departments: the exchequer and the chancery. The law courts were also an integral part of government. State and local departments were not truly separated, but they were hierarchical in the local officials reported into direct lines to the main state department.
[2]
::2. The King’s Household The Kings Household was an administrative department that was responsible for a variety of duties and was a central hub of the government. It provided for the domestic and organisational needs of the court as well as
[3]
:: 2.1 The Wardrobe :: The wardrobe was the financial department of the king’s household and at times would out-rank the exchequer in terms of financial hierarchy. Orders issued under the privy seal to the exchequer and chancery came from the wardrobe. By the reign of Edward III the exchequer was recognised as the head department of financial administration, though when it suited the king, the wardrobe would be used to issue huge sums of money sum – without the consent of the exchequer – such as during the French War in the 1330’s and military campaigns.
[4]
::: 2.2 Clerks of the Household ::: Responsible for the organisation of war, recruitment of soldiers and upper management, pay and board.
[3]
::2. The Exchequer “The exchequer was divided into two sections, the lower, which dealt with money paid in and the issue if receipts in the form of wooden tallies, and the upper, which was the court where accounts were rendered and heard.”
[3]
It assigned revenue.
[5]
:: 2.1 Treasurer
[6]
::: 2.2 Chief Baron of the Exchequer
[7]
:::: 2.3 Chamberlains
[8]
::::: 2.4 Sheriff
[9]
:::::: 2.5 Under-sheriffs
[10]
::::::: 2.6 Clerks
[10]
:::::: 2.5 Baliffs
[10]
::::::: 2.6 Sub-Baliffs
[10]
::2. Chancery The chancery issued writs and in the early period was closely linked to the King’s Household. However after being divided between Gascony and England during Edward I’s campaign in the 1280’s, the chancery became increasingly separate from the royal household and no longer followed the king around as the Household did and by Edward III’s reign was based permanently at Westminster in London.
[5]
:: 2.1 Chancellor
[11]
::: 2.2 Sergeants
[12]
:::: 2.3 Masters :::: Twelve ‘Masters’ (senior clerks) ran the department and managed the clerks, curistors, and assistant clerks and servants below them.
[12]
::::: 2.4 Clerks ::::: By the fourteenth century around one hundred clerks were employed. Records from 1324 show that they were producing about eighty writs and day – 29,000 in that year.
[12]
:::::: 2.5 Curistors :::::: Those who wrote standardised writs.
[12]
::::::: 2.6 Assistant Clerks
[12]
The law courts were divided between the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas. ::2. The King’s Bench :: The King’s Bench travelled with the king in order to action any necessary legal work immediately. It also dealt with appeals from the lower courts and criminal matters.
[12]
::2. The Common Pleas :: The Common Pleas was the court based permanently at Westminster and dealt mainly with property matters.
[12]
[1]: (Prestwich 2005: 57. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [2]: (Prestwich 2005: 58, 60, 66. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [3]: (Prestwich 2005: 58. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [4]: (Prestwich 2005: 58-60. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [5]: (Prestwich 2005: 60. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [6]: (Prestwich 2005: 57, 59. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [7]: (Prestwich 2005: 59. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI. [8]: (Prestwich 2005: 59) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [9]: (Prestwich 2005: 57, 66-67) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [10]: (Prestwich 2005: 66-67) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [11]: (Prestwich 2005: 57) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [12]: (Prestwich 2005: 60) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI |
||||||
|
levels. “The Golden Bull of 1356 is therefore rooted in Charles’ concept of sovereign power. According to that concept, the king must legislate. The sovereign was entitled to intervene and modify the law because of his grasp of divine justice and reason, with which he held council during sleepless nights, as well as by his effort to elevate the country and ensure general peace and security for the people, whose benefit Charles sought in his capacity as a good king.”
[1]
“The high nobility of the 14th century wished to consolidate its influence over the administration of the land and reduce its dependence on rulers. In accordance with the agreement with the constituency of Czech nobles from 1310, King John named his most important Land officials – i.e., the Supreme Burgrave, Supreme Chamberlains and the Land Judges – from the ranks of the noble lines. The first of these took executive power as the ruler’s deputy; the others looked after finances of the country and ran the Land court, generally considered the foundation of legal order in the country.”
[2]
“Not only did Bohemia both settle on primogeniture as the guiding principle for its elected sovereign and gain influence in the Empire, but the internal governance of the kingdom also became more institutionalized. In the second half of the thirteenth century, the settlement of land disputes among nobles changed venues from general judicial assemblies to a special court, the land court (zemský soud). The higher nobles thus assumed jurisdiction over their own and their immediate vassals’ land disputes, and at the same time gained a venue that helped define them as a group ritually, institutionally, and with respect to authority in the land.”
[3]
: 1. Monarch :: 2. Monarch’s appointed advisory council ::: 3. Land officials (Supreme Burgrave, Supreme Chamberlains and Land Judges) :::: 4. Local noble authority ::::: 5. Provincial Officials (judges etc) :::::: 6. Lesser administrators
[1]: (Antonin 2017: 325) Antonín, Robert. 2017. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, trans. Sean Mark Miller, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450. Leiden; Boston: Brill. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/G2S9M8F6 [2]: (Pánek and Oldřich 2009: 142) Pánek, Jaroslav and Oldřich, Tůma. 2009. A History of the Czech Lands. University of Chicago Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4NAX9KBJ [3]: (Grant 2014: 8) Grant, Jeanne E. 2014. For the Common Good: The Bohemian Land Law and the Beginning of the Hussite Revolution, East Central and Eastern in the Middle Ages, 450–1450. Leiden; Boston: Brill. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/GCJGUZZZ |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Petty state king/ later Babylonian king, (2) city-king/ later district governor, (3) arbianum (head mayor), (4) chairman of assembly, (5) shibutum (elders), (6) puhrum (assembly) In the first part of the Old Babylonian period, the petty kings were of fluctuating, but reasonably equal standing. After Babylon conquered Mesopotamia, the Babylonian king became superior to all other kings and district governors came into being. The Head Mayor and Chairman of the Assembly were positions elected by the Assembly. It is likely that the council of Elders were members of the Assembly from the most important houses, or most prominent positions, they were certainly superior. It is probable that any freeman or citizen could be part of the Assembly. [1] [2] [1]: Oates, J. Babylon. Revised Edition. London: Thames and Hudson. p.68 [2]: Seri, A. 2005. Local Power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. London: Equinox. |
||||||
|
Before the Roman Principate there was no formal bureaucracy. The old Roman treasury - the aerarium Saturni - was housed in the basement of the Temple of Saturn
[1]
The state treasury of the Roman Republic was kept in the custody of the priesthood inside the temple of Saturn, and was managed by elected aristocratic officials called quaestors.
[2]
1. Consuls (two) presided over the Senate (minimum 42 years old) both also commanders. Elected by comitia centuriata, an aristocratic assembly. Until 363 CE consuls may have been called praetors [3] . Two consuls, appointed for one year terms. [4] _Governing institutions_ 1. Senators in the Senate Three hundred senators (no minimum age) elected for life, and ten tribunes to represent plebians (created 471 BCE). 2. Quaestors in the State treasuryTreasury called aerarium or aerarium Saturni (treasury of Saturn). This was used for "depositing cash and archives of the Roman state and was situated in the temple of Saturn below the Capitol. It was controlled by the quaestors under the general supervision of the Senate." [5] This treasury still existed during the empire period when revenues "were increasingly diverted into the fiscus (imperial treasury). The aerarium eventually became the treasury of the city of Rome." [5] elected position. "financial and administrative officials who maintained public records, administered the treasury (aerarium), acted as paymasters accompanying generals on campaigns and were financial secretaries to governors." [2] In 2nd century BCE the quaestorship (a provincial appointment?) "was an entry-level office; it had limited powers, and in this period was usually held around age 30." [6] 3. Assistants or scribes? 3. Equites managerial class who hold public contractsThe equites, the plebeian "middle class", "were also able to take on public contracts, such as road building and supplying equipment to the army." [7] 4. Workers for Equites 1. Censors (two) elected position. Two magistrates "that involved some especially important sacral and civic duties". [8] The office of the censor (censorship) from 443 BCE but not always present were two officials who enrolled citizens into military service. [9] 1. Aediles (two) elected by comitia tributa. "Two plebeian magistrates administered temple of Ceres, function later "extended to public buildings and archives (of the plebiscita and senatus consulta). From 367 BC two curule aediles were elected from the patricians. The plebeian and curule aediles had similar functions at Rome; they were in charge of the maintenance and repair of public buildings (such as temples, roads and aqueducts), of markets (especially weights and measures), of the annona (to the time of Julius Caesar), and of public games and festivals (to the time of Augustus, when games were transferred to praetors)." [2] 1. Praetors (six?) elected by comitia centuriata. "In 366 BC the praetor urbanus (city praetor) was introduced, who was almost exclusively concerned with the administration of law at Rome. The praetor ... was the supreme civil judge. By the middle republic the praetors’ powers were restricted to law and justice... By 241 BC a second praetor ... was established to deal with legal cases in which one or both parties were foreigners. ... there were eight by 80 BC. Praetors issued annual edicts that were an important source of Roman law." [2] "A third magistracy, the praetorship, was also established in 367." [10] The first plebeian praetor was in 336 BCE. [10] _ Provincial administration _ 2. Municipia/praefecturaeCapua and Cumae had an internal government subject to Roman supervision [11] 2. ColoniaeFirst Latin coloniae after 338, Cales founded 334 BCE. Latin status not Roman citizenship. Other areas, such as Capua and Arpinum, immediately acquired Roman citizenship [4] Colonies of citizens - 8 coastal by 264, Latin colonies established by military (devolved government modelled on Rome). Civitates foederate, socii (allies, contributed troops to Rome). [11] 2. Autonomous governmentsOld Latin states (Tibur and Praeneste) autonomous government in treaty of 338 (could become Roman citizens and were obliged to provide soldiers) [11] [1]: Garrett Fagan. Personal Communication. [2]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 42) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [3]: (Stearns 2001) [4]: (Crawford 2001) [5]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 45) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [6]: (Brennan 2004, 36) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [7]: (Adkins and Adkins 1994, 38) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [8]: (Brennan 2004, 34) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [9]: (Oakley 2004, 17) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [10]: (Oakley 2004, 18) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [11]: (Stearns 2001, 79) |
||||||
|
levels.The governmental structure of the early modern period continued over from the preceding period of Plantagenet England. :1. King : The king was at the very top of all social and administrative hierarchies. However by this period he was more accountable to his council and the aristocracy, though ultimately, his decision on all state matters was final.
[1]
The kings council usually consisted of a mixture of trusted nobles, experienced officials (usually the chancellor and treasurer), ecclesiastical members, judges and sometimes a close and trusted member of his family.
[1]
Administrative duties were divided between the King’s Household, and the two central administrative departments: the exchequer and the chancery. The law courts were also an integral part of government. State and local departments were not truly separated, but they were hierarchical in the local officials reported into direct lines to the main state department.
[2]
::2. The King’s Household The Kings Household was an administrative department that was responsible for a variety of duties and was a central hub of the government. It provided for the domestic and organisational needs of the court as well as
[3]
:: 2.1 The Wardrobe :: The wardrobe was the financial department of the king’s household and at times would out-rank the exchequer in terms of financial hierarchy. Orders issued under the privy seal to the exchequer and chancery came from the wardrobe. By the reign of Edward III the exchequer was recognised as the head department of financial administration, though when it suited the king, the wardrobe would be used to issue huge sums of money sum – without the consent of the exchequer – such as during the French War in the 1330’s and military campaigns.
[4]
::: 2.2 Clerks of the Household ::: Responsible for the organisation of war, recruitment of soldiers and upper management, pay and board.
[3]
::2. The Exchequer “The exchequer was divided into two sections, the lower, which dealt with money paid in and the issue if receipts in the form of wooden tallies, and the upper, which was the court where accounts were rendered and heard.” It assigned revenue.
[5]
:: 2.1 Treasurer
[6]
::: 2.2 Chief Baron of the Exchequer
[7]
:::: 2.3 Chamberlains
[8]
::::: 2.4 Sheriff
[9]
:::::: 2.5 Under-sheriffs
[10]
::::::: 2.6 Clerks
[10]
:::::: 2.5 Baliffs
[10]
::::::: 2.6 Sub-Baliffs
[10]
::2. Chancery The chancery issued writs and in the early period was closely linked to the King’s Household. However after being divided between Gascony and England during Edward I’s campaign in the 1280’s, the chancery became increasingly separate from the royal household and no longer followed the king around as the Household did and by Edward III’s reign was based permanently at Westminster in London.
[11]
:: 2.1 Chancellor
[1]
::: 2.2 Sergeants
[11]
:::: 2.3 Masters :::: Twelve ‘Masters’ (senior clerks) ran the department and managed the clerks, curistors, and assistant clerks and servants below them.
[11]
::::: 2.4 Clerks ::::: By the fourteenth century around one hundred clerks were employed. Records from 1324 show that they were producing about eighty writs and day – 29,000 in that year.
[11]
:::::: 2.5 Curistors :::::: Those who wrote standardised writs.
[11]
::::::: 2.6 Assistant Clerks
[11]
The law courts were divided between the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas. ::2. The King’s Bench :: The King’s Bench travelled with the king in order to action any necessary legal work immediately. It also dealt with appeals from the lower courts and criminal matters.
[11]
::2. The Common Pleas :: The Common Pleas was the court based permanently at Westminster and dealt mainly with property matters.
[11]
[1]: (Prestwich 2005: 57) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [2]: (Prestwich 2005: 58, 60, 66) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [3]: (Prestwich 2005: 58) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [4]: (Prestwich 2005: 58-60) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [5]: (Prestwich 2005: 58, 60) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [6]: (Prestwich 2005: 57, 59) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [7]: (Prestwich 2005: 59) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [8]: ( Prestwich 2005: 59) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [9]: (Prestwich 2005: 57, 66-67) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [10]: (Prestwich 2005: 66-67) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI [11]: (Prestwich 2005: 60) Prestwich, Michael. 2005. Plantagenet England 1225-1360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XTBKFDCI |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Khan 2. Royal household and the high officials e.g. chief minster, tax officials. Later, some were granted land holdings to support them. [1] _Central government_ "For all these dynasties - whose administrative infrastructures tended in any case to be derived from, or at least strongly influenced by, those of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate - there was a military affairs department (dīvān al-ǰayš, dīvān al-ʿarż/ʿāreż) in the central administration, headed by an official, normally a civilian, called the ṣāḥeb al-ǰayš or ʿāreż." [2] 2. wazir [3] Persian historian Rashid al-Din was chief minister to Ghazan. [4] According to Rashid al-Din, the Mongols assessed the wazir on his ability to extract revenue. [3] 3. divans - Departments of state. 3. ṣāḥeb-e dīvān (postal service?)"These stations were in the charge of the ṣāḥeb-e dīvān, who had nāʾebs in the provinces." [5] 4. nāʾebs 5. Station master"Each station was to be run by a station master and to keep twenty horses for the government couriers" [5] 6. Stable hand inferred _Provincial government_ 2. Regional governors.Members of the Khan’s military retinue were appointed as regional governors to administer conquered territory. [6] Local tax-farmers. "Apart from the shortage of liquid funds, because the Mongols had no officials capable of running the fiscal administration at the local level, it was convenient to place the responsibility for the provincial tax administration on the tax-farmers; and so the tax farm or moqāṭaʿa became the dominant fiscal institution of the Il-khanate... The tax-farmers were mainly local people—merchants, landowners, members of the bureaucracy, and amirs temporarily resident in the district. It was rare for them to be members of the Mongol military classes, perhaps partly because local people could be more easily coerced by the central government. " [7] [1]: Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp.142-143. [2]: (Bosworth 2011) Bosworth, C E. 2011. ARMY ii. Islamic, to the Mongol period. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-ii [3]: (Morgan 2015, 67) Morgan, David. 2015. Medieval Persia 1040-1797. Routledge. [4]: (Marshall 1993, 228) Marshall, Robert. 1993. Storm from the East: From Ghengis Khan to Khubilai Khan. University of California Press. [5]: (Floor 1990) Floor, Willem. 1990. ČĀPĀR. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/capar-or-capar-turk [6]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.193. [7]: Ann K. S. Lambton, ’ECONOMY v. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE END OF THE IL-KHANIDS (part 3)’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-5-part2 |
||||||
|
levels.The administrative hierarchy of the empire was not simple, owing to the fact that although the pope and emperor provided spiritual and moral leadership, each country within the empire had its own monarch and imperial/local governance.
|
||||||
|
Source 1: Brier and Hobbs (2008, 72)- Diagram "Government organization at the time of the New Kingdom."
[1]
1. Pharaoh (not included in diagram)
2. Northern Tchety3. Northern nomarchs4. Village chiefs5. Constables 4. Great Kenbet of the North5. Village Kenbets 2. Southern Tchety3. Southern nomarchs4. Village chiefs 4. Great Kenbet of the South5. Village Kenbets5. Constables 2. Overseer of the House of Gold (Treasury)3. Overseer of Granaries 3. Overseer of Cattle 2. Taxes ? Source 2: "Fig. 3.4. Schematic outline of the developed structure of government in the New Kingdom. The fragility of much of the evidence on which this diagram is based must be emphasized, as must its inability adequately to illustrate significant changes in the structure ... Nevertheless, the writer believes that the diagram gives a reasonable approximation of the divisions of functions and powers within New Kingdom government." [2] 1. King 2. Chancellor of the Court3. Camberlain of the Court 2. Chief Steward of the Royal Estates3. Bureaucracy for the Royal Domain 2. Commander-in-Chief3. Chief Deputy of the Northern Corps 3. Chief Deputy of the Southern Corps4. General Officers 4. Bureaucracy5. Garrisons / Town and Village Levies / Military villages 2. Overseer Of Prophets Of (All The Gods) Of Upper and Lower Egypt -- "held at various times by vizier, high priest of Amun."3. God’s Wife of Amun4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 3. High Priest of Amen4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 3. High Priests of Other Gods4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 2. Northern Vizier 2. Southern Vizier3. Overseers (2) of the Treasury4. Bureaucracy5. Village Chiefs 5. Town Mayors6. for both mayors and kenbet-councils "there was internal hierarchization and differences in function." [3] 5. Councils6. for both mayors and kenbet-councils "there was internal hierarchization and differences in function." [3] 4. Police5. Village Chiefs 5. Town Mayors 5. Councils 2. Overseer of the Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt / Overseer of Cattle not sure I understand the correct position of these titles 2. Governors of Northern Lands3. Vassel Kings Battalion Commanders 2. Governor of Southern Lands. King’s Son of Kush.3. Deputy of Wawat4. Mayors of Egyptian Centres 4. Chiefs of Indigenous Groups 3. Deputy of Kush4. Mayors of Egyptian Centres 4. Chiefs of Indigenous Groups 3. Battalion Commanders van den Boorn (1988) "We note, that the interrogation of local urban officials takes place in the bureau of the vizier ... It is evident, that interrogations and hearings of urban authorities entailed their journeying to the seat of the vizier: for the vizier, a perfect means of exercising effective control over his urban officials. For the functionaries involved, the possibility of being called back to the residence-city meant a check on possibile irregularities, also support for their local politics in having the opportunity to consult the vizier and knowing that they were backed. On the practical side, it entailed a great deal of traveling. Moreover, it presupposes a local apparatus managing affairs in their absence." [4] Alternative attempt (multiple sources): 1. Pharaoh The term "Pharaoh" - Egyptian for "great house" - emerged as political title in the New Kingdom. JGM: Note also use of term in the Old Testament. "One office that was more often that not held by foreigners was that of ’royal butler,’ a senior executive position outside the normal bureaucratic hierarchy, the holder of which was often entrusted with special royal commissions." [5] _ Central government line _ [6] 2. Vizier [7] 3. Overseer of policemen(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’": ""It is he (the vizier) who appoints the overseer of policemen in the bureau of the pr-nswt." [8] 3. Overseer of the treasury [9] 4. Overseers of gold and silver houses, royal stewards, overseers of the granary [10] , Overseer of works [11] 5. Royal scribe [12] Are these public officials appointed by central or local government? Was there an "Overseer of the market places" at level 4a.? Perhaps they appointed the public weighers. 5. Qabbaneh (public weighers in the market place) [13] 6. Notary assisted the Qabbaneh [13] _ Provincial line _ [6] 2. Vizier"It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [8] 2. Nomes [9] Nomes had capitals. Hebenu was the capital of the Oryx nome. [9] 3. Chiefs of towns"It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [8] 3. Chiefs of villagesMayors e.g. mayor of Thinis (region of Abydos). [14] "It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [8] 4. Local bureaucrats 5. Scribes _ Nubian line _ [6] 2. Governor"Viceroy and overseer of southern countries." [15] Provinces in Palestine and Syria [5] 3. Bureaucrats for the whole of Nubia4. Bureaucrats for both Nubian Provinces5. Scribes (Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" mentions mayors and settlement-leaders. [16] EWA: Central line/capital: King, Central elites, bureaucrats Provincial line: King, Central elites, chiefs of towns and chiefs of villages, local bureuacrats and scribes Nubian line as an example of ’foreign’ territory: King, Nubian Governor, bureaucrats for the whole of Nubia and for both Nubian provinces, scribes O’Connor (1983) [17] "The garrisons of Egyptian (and Kushite) troops in the ’Northlands’ were small, scattered and under the direct control of several ’battalion-commanders’ and not of the governors. ... The ’Southlands’ (Wawat and Kush), with their Nubian population ... was ruled by a single governor, who shared no important administrative power with the local chieftains; its military forces were centralized under a single ’battalion-commander’". [18] "The internal government of Egypt was divided for functional reasons, into four major units (fig. 3.4) and these were sometimes further divided geographically ... Centralized control was maintained by means of the small group of powerful officials who headed each department, who reported directly who the king, who were appointed and removed by him." [18] Dier-el-Medina worker village 1. Pharoah 2. Vizier3. Palace scribePalace scribe managed the community and was himself appointed by the Vizier. [19] Two teams of workers worked ten days and then were replaced. [19] 4. Team on the left(or right) supervisor5. Team on the left(or right) worker (*5) 4. Team on the left(or right) doctor 4. Team on the left(or right) non-commissioned officer5. Team on the left(or right) guard 5. Team on the left(or right) gate-keeper [1]: (Brier and Hobbs 2008, 72) Brier, Bob. Hobbs, H A. 2008. Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Greenwood Publishing Group. [2]: (O’Connor 1983, 208) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (O’Connor 1983, 214) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [4]: (van den Boorn 1988, 115-116) van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Kegan Paul International. London & New York. [5]: (Van Dijk 2000, 292) [6]: (Ref. Helck. 1957. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reich.) [7]: (Van Dijk 2000, 285) [8]: (Pagliari 2012, 727) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [9]: (Bryan 2000, 230) [10]: (Bryan 2000, 261) [11]: (Bryan 2000, 236) [12]: (Bryan 2000, 264) [13]: (Willard 2008, 2249) [14]: (Bryan 2000, 241) [15]: (Bryan 2000, 234) [16]: (Pagliari 2012, 726) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [17]: (O’Connor 1983) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [18]: (O’Connor 1983, 209) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [19]: Ziskind, Bernard. Halioua. Occupational medicine in ancient Egypt. 2007. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 69. Issue 4. pp 942-945. Elsevier. |
||||||
|
levels. (2) Overall community headmen (1) Segmentary community leader. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ‘4’ or ’Dual/plural headmen’. SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community)’. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community) (.0)’.
1. Colonial Administration 2. Head-Chiefs or Island Chiefs and native Petty Officials3. District Chiefs4. Village and Lineage Headmen The Chuukese/Trukese were divided into multiple clans and lineages: ’Chuuk’s population is divided into a number of dispersed, matrilineal clans. Within any one district the several lineages are usually but not always of different clans. There are also personal kindreds. As a principle of clan and lineage membership, descent is matrilineal, but otherwise kinship is reckoned bilaterally.’ [1] ’The domestic unit was an extended family, based on the women of a lineage or sublineage. It consisted of at least one experienced older woman and two more younger women of childbearing age together with their husbands. Unmarried sons and brothers slept apart in their lineage’s meeting house. Extended family households continued through the periods of foreign administration.’ [1] District chiefs were chosen from the dominant lineage of an area: ’In each district the lineage with title to its space held the chiefship. The several lineages with full or residual title to plots of soil had full residential rights. Lineages with only provisional titles to plots of soil in grant from other lineages had only conditional residential rights. Lineages with full residential rights maintained symbolic hearths where, with their client lineages, they prepared food to present to the chief in recognition of his lineage’s ownership of the space.’ [1] ’A district chiefship was divided between the oldest man in the senior female line in the chiefly lineage and the oldest man in the lineage generally. The latter was executive chief, or "chief of talk," and the former symbolic chief, or "chief of food." Food presentations were made to the symbolic chief. Sometimes the symbolic and executive functions fell to the same individual; often they did not. The symbolic chief was surrounded by his lineage brothers and by his sons, who acted as his agents. These followers and his sisters and daughters were of chiefly rank, distinct from commoners. Through conquest, a lineage might gain the chiefship in more than one district and establish a junior branch as the chiefly lineage in the conquered district. The now subordinate district rendered food presentations to the superordinate one. Most districts were linked in two rival leagues based on competing schools of magic and ritual relating to war, politics, and rhetoric. A chief’s authority derived from two things. His lineage’s ownership of the district’s space entitled him to presentations of first fruits at stated times of the year. More importantly, it gave him authority over the conservation and use of the district’s food resources. His authority also derived from his connection with the sky world, its gods, and their superhuman power to accomplish purposes. There was, therefore, a degree of sacredness associated with chiefs.’ [1] Traditionally, authority did not extend beyond the atoll and was shared among multiple chiefs on one island. Chuuk was somewhat more fragmented than other Micronesian societies: ’Throughout most of Micronesia the maximum independent autonomous political unit was the high island or the atoll, often subdivided into more than one polity. At the time of European contact, Satawan Atoll in the Mortlocks had four separate communities, each with its own leader, which sometimes fought one another. Palau had two confederations of villages or districts, each independent of the other, and the villages themselves had considerable autonomy. Pohnpei had five petty states, although traditions of a unified rule for the whole island are apparent from an earlier period. Chuuk was extremely fragmented politically, with several independent communities on each of the six larger high islands. The Marshalls and the Gilberts had larger polities and integrated groups of separate atolls under a high chief; these expansionist states achieved their fullest development after the introduction of firearms by Europeans.’ [2] There was a degree of differentiation between chiefs and ritual specialists: ’No regular religious duties were attached to the chief’s office. They were performed, instead, by various specialists. A chief was concerned, however, that the proper specialists [Page 144] engage in their respective activities at appropriate times, at least when the welfare of the entire district was involved. He also used to set the times for dances, which were a popular form of entertainment before the missionaries banned them.’ [3] The colonial governments appointed a number of head-chiefs and superimposed a colonial administration onto the native system: ’In 1904 the disarming of the Truk people was undertaken by the “Kondor.” There were 436 guns and 2,531 cartridges confiscated. For better control the government appointed six head-chiefs, banished some swashbucklers who did not want to submit, and turned out the Japanese. With this a peaceful development was initiated. The missions (Protestant mission since 1879, Catholic mission since 1912) were able to work undisturbed. Unfortunately, the German government took little notice of Truk, since it was too preoccupied with the other islands. Yet many things were accomplished. Under the last director of the station, A. Überhorst, the lagoon was given new impetus in every respect. The relationship between officials and the population was usually a good one, under Mr. Überhorst even a cordial one. Anyone who was on Truk in those years certainly did not see any bad treatment of the natives. Much was done also with regard to health; in particular Dr. Mayer and his wife traveled from island to island without rest in order to take care of the sick. If during the Japanese occupation a young naval officer was not ashamed to assert that the Germans had done nothing for the islands, anyone who lived on the islands during the Japanese period can only say from the heart: “God protect the poor Truk people under the Japanese.”’ [4] ’On the main islands the German government introduced head chiefs (somol lap) who carried the flag. There were six of them, one each on Poloas, Uman, Fefan, Wöla, Udot, and Pol /Pul/. The smaller islands likewise belonged to the sphere of power of the head chiefs. But even this institution could not link the tribes together within themselves or with one another. Some of the lower chiefs sympathize with the head chief for egotistical reasons; others fight against him violently for the same reasons. One who is with him today might be against him tomorrow because he somehow stepped on his toes. It is often enough for the subchief to fight the head chief if his neighboring chief supports him. Thus the picture is constantly changing. [Page 125] There is a continuous, sometimes quiet, sometimes open, warfare of the subchiefs against the head chiefs, the lower chiefs among themselves, the common people against the chiefs. The main reason for this disagreeable phenomenon is the limitless egotism of the Truk people. Everyone strives more or less to be something of a chief also. Strong families who do not like the chief attempt to isolate themselves and choose one from their midst. In addition to this, there are also old family enmities and disputes about land. It is obvious that the islands will never be able to achieve peaceful development in this manner. It is difficult to say who is most to blame for it. In any case the chiefs are not to be pitied, because they behave themselves accordingly. They are to be blamed mostly for the exploitation of the people, their corruptibility, and partiality. Many of them unhesitatingly accept money and objects and help the giver, no matter how many times he is in the wrong.’ [5] Head-chiefs or island-chiefs resolved disputes that could not be settled on the village level: ’The Germans set up a single chief over each island, or in Truk proper, over each large island with its satellites. One of the functions of this single chief was to settle such land disputes as could not be settled at the village level in order to prevent the outbreak of intra-island warfare.’ [6] The colonial administration established itself on Toloas: ’The main island is Toloas. On it lie: the government station (Witetun), the main station of the Catholic ( O[unknown]omenau) and of the Protestant ( Kutua) missions. The landmark of Poloas is the legendary mountain of Tolemuan (peak of the man). The small island of Eten, on which was to be found the seat of the Jaluit Company, is also under the head chief of Toloas.’ [7] ’The Japanese, like the Germans, divided the Carolines into administrative districts governed from centers located on some of the more populous high islands. Under the Japanese, Truk—more specifically Dublon or Tolowas Island—was established as an administrative center. (Previously, under the Spanish and Germans Truk had been governed, rather nominally, from Ponape, 380 miles to the east).’ [8] In the Japanese period, schooling was introduced, producing a small Chuukese elite of petty officials: ’The purpose of the schools for natives, judging from both reported policies and the Japanese school regulations was to civilize the natives and make them into loyal and economically useful citizens of the Japanese empire. While there was theoretically no limit to the higher education which the native child with sufficient ability and financial support might obtain, in actual fact only a minority of Trukese children attended the fourth and fifth grades, and only a minority of those completing fifth grade obtained further education at the vocational schools. Apparently no Trukese native obtained any academic education beyond fifth grade, except incidentally along with vocational training. The system was geared in effect to produce a supply of general laborers and domestic servants who understood the Japanese language, plus a small elite of skilled laborers and petty officials.’ [8] Fischer also speaks of ’magistrates’ and village chiefs, although their relationship to the above categories is somewhat unclear: ’The chiefs who receive these food presentations and feasts may not be the elected magistrates. If the magistrates happen to be also hereditary village chiefs, they receive such presentations, but only from their own village and not from the whole island. Most islands, even the outer islands, have at least two villages, and the larger island of Truk has a dozen or so each. Usually the village chief is a member of the chiefly clan who has been chosen for personal ability and not for seniority. This tendency is by no means universal.’ [9] Expert feedback on this is needed. [1]: Goodenough, Ward H. and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Chuuk [2]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. [3]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 143 [4]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 253 [5]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 124 [6]: Fischer, John L. 1958. “Native Land Tenure In The Truk District”, 205 [7]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 247 [8]: Fischer, John L. 1961. “Japanese Schools For The Natives Of Truk, Caroline Islands”, 84 [9]: Fischer, John L. 1958. “Native Land Tenure In The Truk District”, 209 |
||||||
|
1. King of Kings Hereditary kings who ruled from a royal court within a feudal Iranian milieu. Darius I was a slight exception as he was an Achaemenid who was elected by members of the Persian elite. [1] Dual kingship (father and son) possibly existed from Darius I to Artaxerxes II. King of kings. "However, unlike previous Near Eastern dynasties, they did not claim divine descent or nature." [2] King ruled law by decree but ’bound by tradition to respect the views of elders and consult great nobles on important occasions; he had to marry from the great noble’s families; he could not pass arbitrary judgement; and there was alway sthe fear of assassination if he went too far in autocracy." [2] _Central government line_ Designed according to a Babylonian template. [3] Presumably via Elamties? Persians ’learned a good deal of Elamite culture, especially in administration and arts." [4] 2. Head of administration [5] Steward of the House"during Darius I’s reign, Parnaka, the king’s uncle, headed the administration, supported by a core of assistants ... and a battalion of lower administrators and scribes [5] Steward of the House was viceroy of the empire. [6] The very centre of the bureaucracy was the royal palace and an efficient chancellery. [7] 3. Core of Assistants [5] 4. Scribes 4. Lower administrators [5] 5. Scribes _Provincial government_ 2. Satrap (or king)"As long as the subject nations obeyed the central authority and paid their taxes, they were free to follow their own laws and religious traditions, continue their artistic norms, retain their own languages, write in their own script, and maintain their own social system. In some cases, even local dynasties were left undisturbed and native kings retained their hereditary rights to kingship. Hence, the Persian king was called ’the Great King’ or ’the King of Kings’." [8] Twenty taxation districts called satrapies that had a civilian governor, assisted by military commander and treasurer. These individuals were "inspected by the most trusted envoys of the sovereign (called the ’King’s ears and eyes’), who had full authority to reward meritorius deeds and punish unlawful ones." [2] Governor of a satrapy. Had an indefinite period of term. All the satrapies - except the Persians who were governed by the king directly - were responsible to the king’s command and had to pay him tribute. Before Darius the empire had been split into satrapies by Cyrus II but government was mostly at a local level according to local traditions. Darius, who expanded the empire to its peak territorial extent, implemented a more centralized organization. 525-404 BCE "Egypt became a Persian satrapy, along with Libya, Cyrene and Barca (Herodotus 3.91), and was governed by a satrap in Memphis, who had to ensure the payment of tribute to the royal treasury. [9] Satraps appointed by king. The ’Medizing’ Greek Themistocles left Greece after Greek-Persian war c479 BCE to become a Persian satrap. [10] 3. Satrap’s court 3. Provincial sub-satrapsSatrapies were themselves divided into provinces which paid a tribute tax to the satraps. [11] [12] 4. Local districts. 5. Village headmen. "Prior to the Parthians, political systems in Southwest Asia were for the most part relatively loose confederations in which central government ruled their ’empires’ through unstable alliances with vassals and satraps. Even Hammurabi, Darius, and Alexander were only temporarily successful in linking their centralized governments to local administrative institutions, particularly outside of the core areas of Greater Mesopotamia." [13] [2]: (Shahbazi 2012, 132) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [4]: (Shahbazi 2012, 122) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [5]: (Brosius 2006, 51) Brosius, Maria. 2006. The Persians. Routledge. [6]: (Shahbazi 2012, 125) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [8]: (Shahbazi 2012, 131) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [9]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 16-17) [10]: (Shahbazi 2012, 129) Shahbazi, A Shapour. The Archaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE) Daryaee, Touraj. ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [12]: (Boardman et al. 2011 159) [13]: (Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Administration system - presumably temple based, run by accountants3. Lesser accountant4. Specialised workers who produced the stuff that accountants do accounting for e.g. shepherds Puzur-Inshushniak ruler c.2100 BCE. Titles vary: governor (ensi) of Susa; governor (ensi) of Susa of the land of Elam, and son of Shimpi’ishhuk; the mighty (dannum), king (lugal) of Awan, and son of Shimpi’ishhuk. [1] first half of third millennium saw rise of powerful city-states in southern Mesopotamia. [2] Lower Mesopotamia at this time had city-states and inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [3] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur. The bureaucratic management of these provinces was uniform and interchangeable, and could be applied throughout the land (although some some local variations remained in place)." [4] "Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people. The Elamite over-lordship in Susa was the main power of the federated states, the heads of which frequently assembled for political and military purposes. Decision making wa based on equality, and cooperation was key to the coordinated system of government in a federal structure." [5] "While internal independence of the member states was respected, intergovernmental relations on civil administration were regulated by various administrative rules and ordinances." [6] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [1]: (Potts 2016, 113-114) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 5) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [6]: (Farazmand 2001, 536) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
1. Amir or shahanshah "the title of shahanshah, effectively the presidency of the confederation. ... it was more a recognition of seniority within the family than an office with authority". [3] 983 CE succession conflict "In theory, the Buyid brothers exercised authority as governors for the Abbasid caliphs. Given their modest social origins and their position as outsiders in the Islamic world, it was vital for them to secure the approval and authority of the caliphs for their actions." [4] 2. Secretary of the amir [5] "The viziers made appointments to the diwans or confirmed incumbents, but the secretaries of the amir also exercised this power." [5] _Government of appanage_ "The Buyid lands formed a federation, rather than an empire. The major political units were the principalities centred on Fars, with its capital at Shiraz, al-Jibal, based on Rayy, and Iraq, including Baghdad, Basra and, very briefly, Mosul. ... Of these principalities, Fars was by far the most important... Baghdad enjoyed prestige as the centre of the caliphate and it remained a cultural and intellectual centre of great importance." [6] "The Buyid state was divided into several large appanages, of which Shiraz and Baghdad were the most important, each held by a different member of the family." [7] e.g. Iraq. [8] 2. wazir [9] "Administrators in other Buwayhid centers were referred to as vizier, but there is no record of their being granted the title, for the word in reality had two meanings: the chief secretary of any petty potentate was called vizier, but the title, formally granted was reserved to the secretary of the amir at Baghdad." [10] 3. Deputy-vizier"viziers maintained a deputy". among his duties was "overseeing the financial agents". [5] 3. al-Diwan (main office)4.5. 3. diwans of al-Sawad and al-Basra (Land tax) [11] 3. diwan al-jaysh (army) [11] 3. diwan al-ma’awin (security) [11] 3. diwan al-nafaqat (expenditure) [11] 3. diwan al-khizana (treasury) [5] 3. diwan al-mazalim (complaints) [11] 3. diwan al-rasa’il (chancellery) [11] 3. diwan al-barid (post) [11] Chief judgeship. The censorship. Prefect of police. [12] _Kakuyids_ "Much of western Iran was dominated by another Iranian family of Caspian Daylamite origin, the Kakuyids, based in Isfahan, who alternately recognised Buyid and Ghaznavid suzerainty." [7] 2. Local kingdoms3. Local bureaucracies [4] [1]: Busse, H. 1975. Iran under the Būyids. In Frye, R. N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4. The period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuq’s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.287 [2]: Donohue, J. J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq 334H./945 to 403H./1012: Shaping Institutions for the Future. Leiden: Brill. p.131 [3]: (Kennedy 2004) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [4]: (Kennedy 2004, 216) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [5]: (Donohue 2003, 135) Donohue, John J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq. BRILL [6]: (Kennedy 2004, 217) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [7]: (Peacock 2015, 43) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh [8]: (Donohue 2003) Donohue, John J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq. BRILL [9]: (Kennedy 2004, 213) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [10]: (Donohue 2003, 140) Donohue, John J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq. BRILL [11]: (Donohue 2003, 143) Donohue, John J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq. BRILL [12]: (Donohue 2003, 146) Donohue, John J. 2003. The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq. BRILL |
||||||
|
levels.
King, viceroy, governor, + scribes and other workers. "The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [1] -- does not specify which period "Shortly after [mid-14th BCE], when Middle Elamite sources reappear, we find a completely different situation from the period of the sukkal-mah. Susa ceased to be the political centre of Elam. The seat of power moved further inland, beyond the mountains, in Anshan (modern Fars). Consequently, Middle Elamite kings began to use the title of ’king of Anshan and Susa.’" [2] After mid-14th BCE: "Finally, the succession was by now patrilineal, a predictable result of that evolution of Elamite society that began in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries." [2] Middle Elamite kingdom had more of a "local character" compared to the sukkal-mah. "At the time of the sukkal-mah, the choice of Susa as capital showed a clear intention of becoming a constitutive part of the Mesopotamian political system and of Babylonian culture. Now, however, following a tendency that has been attested in Hatti and Mitanni, Elam strived to maintain its uniqueness, while presenting itself as one of the protagonists in this decidedly polycentric Late Bronze Age Near East." [2] Neo-Elamite period saw a "rival of ancient royal names and of the Middle Elamite royal titulature." [3] In Neo-Elamite period this included: "the ancient titles of ’king (sunkik) of Anshan and Susa’, ’master (katri) of Elam’, governor (hal-menik, translated as sakkanakku in Akkadian) of Elam’, and the title of ’magnifier of the realm’. The latter emphasises the revival of Elamite expansion." [4] "Public administration flourished under the 2500 years of the strong federated state of Elam, which made significant contributions to Iranian and world civilizations. The organization of the federated state of Elam was based on two pillars, the military and civil administrations, and there was a generally respected separation of these two functions. The civil administration was headed by a coordinating body of appointed functionaries who discharged the administrative responsibilities of the ’federal state’ at Susa. The administrative body handled the financial, regulatory, and other civil affairs, and coordinated the intergovernmental relations with the member states in the system. Thus its experience in federalism and intergovernmental relations administration was perhaps the oldest in recorded history". [5] "Among the major administrative achievements of the Elamite Iran were the development and management of a gigantic system of underground irrigation, qanats, an earlier Iranian invention turning an unworked country into an agricultural land; the invention and development of the written language of Elamite and its extensive use in the administration of the federated state; and the construction and maintenance of numerous public enterprises like roads, bridges, cities and towns, communication centers, and economic trade centers with the neighboring states. Elamite Iran was relatively prosperous because of its rich minerals and precious metals, as well as other industries and arts." [5] "The earliest experiences of state tradition and administrative functions on a massive scale began around 6000 B.C. in Susa. As one of the oldest sites of ancient civilization, Susa began political and administrative life first as a city-state contemporary and rival to Sumer in the Mesopotamia, then as the capital of one of the oldest empires of antiquity, Elam. Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people. The Elamite over-lordship in Susa was the main power of the federated states, the heads of which frequently assembled for political and military purposes. Decision making wa based on equality, and cooperation was key to the coordinated system of government in a federal structure." [6] [1]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 376) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 528) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 529) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Farazmand 2001, 536) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [6]: (Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
The Parthians were "a military aristocracy, which found it most convenient to rule not directly but through various kinds of authorities, each appropriate to the area governed, to whom they maintained a feudal relationship and to whose subjects they desired little direct relationship at all."
[1]
The provinces and cities outside the Parthia heartlands paid tribute or allegiance to the ‘king of kings’, but regional lords retained their own power. Although the Parthians themselves were Zoroastrian, the empire was multi-ethnic and multi-religious and revolts against the Parthian King were common. There were also challenges form within the Parthian elites. Parthian Kings were chosen from the Arascid clan, but they were ’appointed’ by nobles rather than automatically succeeding to rule. After 40 BCE Parthian military power was weakening and they could not mount offensive operations into Roman territory. They suffered a series of military defeats to the Romans and a smallpox epidemic between 161 CE and 217 CE. However it was invasion by the Sassanians from Iran that ended their rule. [2] 1. King Parthian King of Kings [3] 2. Council of Nobles 2. Council of MagiThese were two different councils, one for kinsmen and one for magi. [4] _Court_ "Parthian kings presided over a considerable body of specialized officials and functionaries of various levels dealing with the collection of duties and taxes and supervising local communities and administrative units. It should be noted that while provincial administration was extensive, central government was scant." [5] "The Parthian government consisted of the king and the royal court, in addition to the Council of the Nobles (the Mahistan). The king was traditionally elected by the nobles from the members of the Arsacid family, although the succession of the eldest son was not guaranteed. Below the king were the members of the six noble families, probably modeled after the six noble families of the Achaemenid court and continuing this tradition into the Sasanian period. These families all seem to have had a control of a section of the country where the majority of their land possessions were located. They also held particular positions in the royal court, members of each family having the privilege of crowning the king, serving in his bed-chamber, or serving as the first minister." [6] "We know that varied schools of philosophy flourished in Hellenistic Babylonia, and Greek metaphysicians, astronomers, naturalists, historians, geographers, and physicians worked there. The Parthian court made considerable use of such trained and able men for building its bureaucracy." [7] 2. First Minister"The court system of the Arsacids was copied from the Achaemenid model, being staffed by many offices called Diwans, responsible for record-keeping, communication, budgeting, and taxation. These were headed by their respective Dibirs who were all responsible to a first-minister, a member of the nobility as mentioned before." [6] "Unlike the Seleucid and Sasanian periods, the Arsacid empire is very poorly documented in terms of its administration." So discussion of the relationship between center and periphery in the Empire and how its main institutions were run is speculative to some extent. [8] 3. Dibir of a Diwan"The court system of the Arsacids was copied from the Achaemenid model, being staffed by many offices called Diwāns, responsible for record-keeping, communication, budgeting, and taxation. These were headed by their respective Dibirs who were all responsible to a first-minister, a member of the nobility as mentioned before." [6] 3. Official dealing with revenue "there was a general state cadastre for the lands of the royal domain. The state fixed and strictly controlled tax revenue." [9] 4."Records found in excavations at Nisa provide evidence of different types of tax collection, depending on the category of the land. Two categories are known - patbaz and uzbari. Patbaz was collection in kind for the use of the king. It is less clear what the other category was. There are also indications of the existence of special levies for the support of religious activities, somewhat similar to tithes." [10] _Provincial government_ "as the Parthians conquered Seleucid territory, they found in addition to the various municipal governments a decayed satrapal system, built upon the eparchs and hyparchs. The Parthian nobility had, in places, to be superimposed upon this structure. Various relatives and followers were granted ’fuedal’ fiefs." [11] "Part of the kingdom was divided into satrapies ruled by satraps appointed by the king. The rest consisted of vassal kingdoms." [12] 2. Satrap of SatrapsMithradates II rock reliefs at Behistun 87 BCE show "his principal officials ... The chief of these is called satrap of satraps, the other three simply satraps. Probably these men belonged to the great families of Iran such as the Surens and Karens." [13] 3. Satrap"Apart from the territories forming part of the royal domain and governed through satraps, much of Parthia consisted of vassal kingdoms."City officials (e.g. prefect) [14] [15] "There was an extensive and developed bureaucracy, as attested by ostraca from Nisa and by the Parthian parchments and ostraca from Dura-Europos." [9] This quote might be referring to the provincial administration: check parthiansources.com e.g. text SKZ 4. Parthian town"While sources also speak of ’Parthian towns’, in contrast to Greek ones, there is no specific information about their internal life. It can only be conjectured that they did not enjoy autonomy and were under the full control of the local Parthian administration." [9] City officials (e.g. prefect) [14] [15] -- does this reference refer to towns directly controlled or to the Greek city-states? 5. dïz (group of villages) headed by a dïzpatThe lowest administrative unit was the stathmos (in Greek) or dïz (in Parthian), which represented a group of a few villages. The stathmos also had a small military post. This administrative unit was headed by a dïzpat." [9] 2. Governor of the Western Frontier"Despite the doubt over the actual readings of some of the titles, it is clear that the governor of the western frontier of Parthia was a man of very high rank (possibly a Suren ...) and one whose duties included at least nominal authority over Arabian tribes within or along the Parthian frontier." [16] "In some cases power over a number of satrapies (usually along the frontiers) was concentrated in the hands of the same person." [9] is this the office of Satrap of Satrapies? 3. Head of administration? (Eunuch?)"The eunuch, Phraates, and his lord, Manesus, the Parthian governor of the western frontier, both bear Iranian titles". [16] 4. Scribe inferred level 4. Tax collector? Revenue inferred level5. Scribe/Assistant inferred level 3. Tribal leader (Arabs) 3. Old Babylonian towns (e.g. Uruk Warka)"The fully privileged aristocracy formed a religious and municipal commune enjoying a measure of self-rule. These towns owned a land district." [9] _Vassals_ "Seleucid and Parthian cities were self-governing and controlled considerable territories independent of the central government." [17] 2. Greek city-statesDocuments from Susa and Dura Europus show "the governments of these places preserved the pattern of the Hellenistic city state. Such places rarely held Parthian garrisons." [18] "The Greek city-states in Parthia were a survival from the Seleucid period. Under the Parthians they formally retained their autonomy" [9] "power was concentrated into the hands of a council made up of representatives of a few of the richest families." [9] 2. Local Kingdoms [3] "From the reign of Mithradates I onwards, when the Parthians controlled Mesopotamia and Iran, local kingdoms were granted a certain amount of freedom, as long as they recognised the Parthian sovereign as their overlord." [3] In Macedonian times "Alexander and Peucestas apparently did touch neither the Achaemenid system of local dependencies and local administration, nor the basic ideas of the Persian ideology of kingship. There is no other way to explain the fact that nothing is known about unrest in Persis after Peucestas’ appointment, that the new satrap could levy troops there without difficulty, and that a great number of nobles collaborated with Alexander. This kind support from the nobles for their new persophile Macedonian masters continued until the second century BCE". [19] [1]: (Neusner 2008, 16) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [2]: (Wenke 1981) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [3]: (Curtis 2007) Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [4]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1994, 140) Koshelenko, G. A. Pilipko, V. N. Parthia. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [5]: (Dabrowa 2012, 181) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [6]: Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. Arsacid Society and Culture. Accessed 06.09.2016: https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-arsacid-empire/arsacid-society-and-culture/ [7]: (Neusner 2008, 8-9) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [8]: Wiesehöfer, Josef, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. by Azizeh Azodi (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996, p.144. [9]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. [10]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 147) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. [11]: (Neusner 2008, 18) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [12]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1994, 141) Koshelenko, G. A. Pilipko, V. N. Parthia. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [13]: (Debevoise 1938, xxxix) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [14]: Perikhanian, A., ‘Iranian Society and Law’, in The Cambridge history of Iran: the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Part 2, ed. by Ehsan Yar-Shater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), III, p.631.Wiesehöfer, Josef, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. by Azizeh Azodi (London [15]: New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996, p.122. [16]: (Raschke 1976, 826) Raschke, Manfred G. in Haase, Wolfgang ed. 1976. Politische Geschichte (Provinzen und Randvölker: Mesopotamien, Armenien, Iran, Südarabien, Rom und der Ferne Osten). Walter de Gruyter. [17]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [18]: (Debevoise 1938, xli) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [19]: (Wiesehöfer 2007) Wiesehöfer, Josef in Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. |
||||||
|
The Parthians were "a military aristocracy, which found it most convenient to rule not directly but through various kinds of authorities, each appropriate to the area governed, to whom they maintained a feudal relationship and to whose subjects they desired little direct relationship at all." [1] [2] 1. King Parthian King of Kings [3] 2. Council of Nobles 2. Council of MagiThese were two different councils, one for kinsmen and one for magi. [4] _Court_ "Parthian kings presided over a considerable body of specialized officials and functionaries of various levels dealing with the collection of duties and taxes and supervising local communities and administrative units. It should be noted that while provincial administration was extensive, central government was scant." [5] "The Parthian government consisted of the king and the royal court, in addition to the Council of the Nobles (the Mahistan). The king was traditionally elected by the nobles from the members of the Arsacid family, although the succession of the eldest son was not guaranteed. Below the king were the members of the six noble families, probably modeled after the six noble families of the Achaemenid court and continuing this tradition into the Sasanian period. These families all seem to have had a control of a section of the country where the majority of their land possessions were located. They also held particular positions in the royal court, members of each family having the privilege of crowning the king, serving in his bed-chamber, or serving as the first minister." [6] "We know that varied schools of philosophy flourished in Hellenistic Babylonia, and Greek metaphysicians, astronomers, naturalists, historians, geographers, and physicians worked there. The Parthian court made considerable use of such trained and able men for building its bureaucracy." [7] 2. First Minister"The court system of the Arsacids was copied from the Achaemenid model, being staffed by many offices called Diwans, responsible for record-keeping, communication, budgeting, and taxation. These were headed by their respective Dibirs who were all responsible to a first-minister, a member of the nobility as mentioned before." [6] "Unlike the Seleucid and Sasanian periods, the Arsacid empire is very poorly documented in terms of its administration." So discussion of the relationship between center and periphery in the Empire and how its main institutions were run is speculative to some extent. [8] 3. Dibir of a Diwan"The court system of the Arsacids was copied from the Achaemenid model, being staffed by many offices called Diwāns, responsible for record-keeping, communication, budgeting, and taxation. These were headed by their respective Dibirs who were all responsible to a first-minister, a member of the nobility as mentioned before." [6] 3. Official dealing with revenue "there was a general state cadastre for the lands of the royal domain. The state fixed and strictly controlled tax revenue." [9] 4."Records found in excavations at Nisa provide evidence of different types of tax collection, depending on the category of the land. Two categories are known - patbaz and uzbari. Patbaz was collection in kind for the use of the king. It is less clear what the other category was. There are also indications of the existence of special levies for the support of religious activities, somewhat similar to tithes." [10] _Provincial government_ "as the Parthians conquered Seleucid territory, they found in addition to the various municipal governments a decayed satrapal system, built upon the eparchs and hyparchs. The Parthian nobility had, in places, to be superimposed upon this structure. Various relatives and followers were granted ’fuedal’ fiefs." [11] "Part of the kingdom was divided into satrapies ruled by satraps appointed by the king. The rest consisted of vassal kingdoms." [12] 2. Satrap of SatrapsMithradates II rock reliefs at Behistun 87 BCE show "his principal officials ... The chief of these is called satrap of satraps, the other three simply satraps. Probably these men belonged to the great families of Iran such as the Surens and Karens." [13] 3. Satrap"Apart from the territories forming part of the royal domain and governed through satraps, much of Parthia consisted of vassal kingdoms."City officials (e.g. prefect) [14] [15] "There was an extensive and developed bureaucracy, as attested by ostraca from Nisa and by the Parthian parchments and ostraca from Dura-Europos." [9] This quote might be referring to the provincial administration: check parthiansources.com e.g. text SKZ 4. Parthian town"While sources also speak of ’Parthian towns’, in contrast to Greek ones, there is no specific information about their internal life. It can only be conjectured that they did not enjoy autonomy and were under the full control of the local Parthian administration." [9] City officials (e.g. prefect) [14] [15] -- does this reference refer to towns directly controlled or to the Greek city-states? 5. dïz (group of villages) headed by a dïzpatThe lowest administrative unit was the stathmos (in Greek) or dïz (in Parthian), which represented a group of a few villages. The stathmos also had a small military post. This administrative unit was headed by a dïzpat." [9] 2. Governor of the Western Frontier"Despite the doubt over the actual readings of some of the titles, it is clear that the governor of the western frontier of Parthia was a man of very high rank (possibly a Suren ...) and one whose duties included at least nominal authority over Arabian tribes within or along the Parthian frontier." [16] "In some cases power over a number of satrapies (usually along the frontiers) was concentrated in the hands of the same person." [9] is this the office of Satrap of Satrapies? 3. Head of administration? (Eunuch?)"The eunuch, Phraates, and his lord, Manesus, the Parthian governor of the western frontier, both bear Iranian titles". [16] 4. Scribe inferred level 4. Tax collector? Revenue inferred level5. Scribe/Assistant inferred level 3. Tribal leader (Arabs) 3. Old Babylonian towns (e.g. Uruk Warka)"The fully privileged aristocracy formed a religious and municipal commune enjoying a measure of self-rule. These towns owned a land district." [9] _Vassals_ "Seleucid and Parthian cities were self-governing and controlled considerable territories independent of the central government." [17] 2. Greek city-statesDocuments from Susa and Dura Europus show "the governments of these places preserved the pattern of the Hellenistic city state. Such places rarely held Parthian garrisons." [18] "The Greek city-states in Parthia were a survival from the Seleucid period. Under the Parthians they formally retained their autonomy" [9] "power was concentrated into the hands of a council made up of representatives of a few of the richest families." [9] 2. Local Kingdoms [3] "From the reign of Mithradates I onwards, when the Parthians controlled Mesopotamia and Iran, local kingdoms were granted a certain amount of freedom, as long as they recognised the Parthian sovereign as their overlord." [3] In Macedonian times "Alexander and Peucestas apparently did touch neither the Achaemenid system of local dependencies and local administration, nor the basic ideas of the Persian ideology of kingship. There is no other way to explain the fact that nothing is known about unrest in Persis after Peucestas’ appointment, that the new satrap could levy troops there without difficulty, and that a great number of nobles collaborated with Alexander. This kind support from the nobles for their new persophile Macedonian masters continued until the second century BCE". [19] [1]: (Neusner 2008, 16) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [2]: (Wenke 1981) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [3]: (Curtis 2007) Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [4]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1994, 140) Koshelenko, G. A. Pilipko, V. N. Parthia. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [5]: (Dabrowa 2012, 181) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [6]: Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. Arsacid Society and Culture. Accessed 06.09.2016: https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-arsacid-empire/arsacid-society-and-culture/ [7]: (Neusner 2008, 8-9) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [8]: Wiesehöfer, Josef, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. by Azizeh Azodi (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996, p.144. [9]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. [10]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 147) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. [11]: (Neusner 2008, 18) Neusner, Jacob. 2008. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1. The Parthian Period. Wipf & Stock. Eugene. [12]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1994, 141) Koshelenko, G. A. Pilipko, V. N. Parthia. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizatins 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [13]: (Debevoise 1938, xxxix) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [14]: Perikhanian, A., ‘Iranian Society and Law’, in The Cambridge history of Iran: the Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods. Part 2, ed. by Ehsan Yar-Shater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), III, p.631.Wiesehöfer, Josef, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD, trans. by Azizeh Azodi (London [15]: New York: I.B. Tauris, 1996, p.122. [16]: (Raschke 1976, 826) Raschke, Manfred G. in Haase, Wolfgang ed. 1976. Politische Geschichte (Provinzen und Randvölker: Mesopotamien, Armenien, Iran, Südarabien, Rom und der Ferne Osten). Walter de Gruyter. [17]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [18]: (Debevoise 1938, xli) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [19]: (Wiesehöfer 2007) Wiesehöfer, Josef in Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Shah _Central government_ 2. First Minister _Town/City government_ 2. Kalantar (mayor)3. Darugha (police official)4. 3. Headman of city quarter 2. Provincial Governor "In a country where communications were weak, and bureaucracy minimal, power was also devolved, and the shah depended on the cooperation of many tribal, ethnic, religious, local, bureaucratic and commercial figures and groups. In particular, power was devolved to the provincial governors, appointed from outside the province but usually with some local connections and knowledge. More often than not, as the century progressed, the governors were also members of the Qajar ruling family. Like the shah their preoccupation was with law and order, in addition to which they raised taxes, both for the centre and for local needs. ... Another attribute of the local governors was that they had their own militia, with which they were supposed to crush opposition and lawlessness in the provinces. ... the shah had only a small military force, as little as a few thousand ... this force was also irregularly clothed, paid and armed." [1] "the Shahs of Iran were able to get away with arbitrary power over life and death because there was no well-defined aristocracy in Iran comparable in composition and function to that of Europe. This lack of hereditary aristocracy allowed for no other power bases, vesting totally unrestrained power in the Shah. The land-owning elite often changed when the king changed. The property of no-one was secure and could be taken away at the Shah’s pleasure. Ministers and government officials were the personal servants of the Shah, the populace his serfs." [2] The government had a First Minister. [3] "By 1903 there was a full-grown movement asking for political reform. What had started in Europe with the French Revolution ... had finally come to the East. In 1905 the Czar had been forced to grant sweeping concessions and a Consultative Assembly had been established. .... By late 1904 the demand for a House of Justice had grown to a demand for a proper parliament modeled on the British House of Commons. In 1906 there were mass demonstrations. The Shah, who up to then had resorted to repressive measures, had to give in. On his birthday, 5 August 1906, he granted a form of constitution and permitted the convention of a constituent assembly which promptly met to draft an electoral law. In October 1906 the assembly had drafted and passed a constitution which was ratified by the Shah. The supplement, i.e. an Iranian version of a Bill of Rights, was enacted later in October 1907." [4] Gendamerie created in 1911 CE. Organized by Swedish government. 200 officers and 7000 men by 1914 CE. [5] "Each town or city had a mayor (kalantar) who was a local man of standing selected by the state in a process of consultation with leading members of the community, whose acquiescence was vital if he was to succeed in his duties." [6] The city/town mayor (kalantar) "also supervised the management of the city quarters under local headmen (kadkhudas) whom he appointed. One of this principal duties was the allocation of taxes amongst city quarters". [6] The city/town mayor (kalantar) was responsible for law enforcement through his police official (darugha). [6] [1]: (Martin 2005, 13-14) Vanessa Martin. 2005. The Qajar Pact: Bargaining, Protest and the State in Nineteenth-Century Persia. I. B. Tauris. London. [2]: (Ghani 2000, 4) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. [3]: (Ghani 2000, 3) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. [4]: (Ghani 2000, 7) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. [5]: (Ghani 2000, 15) Cyrus Ghani. 2000. Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah. From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power. I B Tauris. London. [6]: (Martin 2005, 17) Vanessa Martin. 2005. The Qajar Pact: Bargaining, Protest and the State in Nineteenth-Century Persia. I. B. Tauris. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. The Shah - “At the top of the Safavid administrative and social structure was the Shah. He and his court constituted the apex of a substantial bureaucracy centred in the capital. The highest officials of the court included Vazir-e-azam (chief minister), Amir al-omard (commander in chief of the army, which later titled Sepdhsdldr-e koll-e lasgar-e Iran), Sadr (judiciary and religious minister), and vice-regent." [1] "haram women and palace eunuchs" [2] 2. khassa landskhassa lands were controlled directly by the central court, as distinct to mamalik lands controlled by the provincial administration. [2] _Central government_ "highly centralized and complex bureaucratic system" [3] "Ismail’s bureaucratic structure was largely a continuation of its Aq Qoyunlu counterpart and its Turco-Mongolian traditions." [4] 2. vakil, vikalat (vicegerency) [5] "Qadi-yi Jahan’s nomination as co-vazir, to be shortly followed by a promotion to the office of vakil". [5] 3. niyabat (deputyship to vicegerency) [5] 3. vizier [2] / Vazir-e-azam (chief minister)vizier an office below vakil: "Qadi-yi Jahan’s nomination as co-vazir, to be shortly followed by a promotion to the office of vakil, is a continuation of those policies that had been effected since the 1508 "palace revolution," keeping administrative power out of the hands of the Qizilbash." [5] “At the top of the bureaucracy was Vazir-e-azam (chief minister). He generally had a lengthy stay in office and on frequent occasions continued to serve in the office after the Shah who had appointed him had died." [1] 3. Divan-e-ala (State Council)"The daily functioning of the state ran by Divan-e-ala (State Council), which included the Vazir-e-azam, Mustaufi al-mamalek (finance minister), Sadr, and Amir al-omara (army chief commander). Financial institution was directly overseen by the Shah and his chief minister (Vazir-e-azam). Except for the Shah, the latter was the final authority of financial affairs." [6] 4. Divan for taxation 5. sub-head in divan for taxation? 6?. ra’is did this official still exist at this time or was it replaced by the kalantar?The ra’is "was essentially the link between the government and the taxpayers ... cases involving taxation were referred to his dīvān." [3] 3. Divanbegi (chief judge) "dīvānbegī, the chief ’orfī judge of the empire, who could intervene in any matter under the jurisdiction of the dārūḡa; once he had done so, the latter could no longer concern himself with it" [3] _Provincial government_ 2. Darughah, Daruga (or beglerbegī) and his deputy (same level). Vali (viceroy of border states) & Beiglar-beigi (governor general of a province), Hdkem - ("ruler of major cities and areas") [1] "Provincial governorships were held by tribal elites appointed from the centre or, as a sign of the inability of the coalition controlling the capital to enforce its writ throughout the realm, retained by tribes out of favour at the centre." [2] dārūḡa was a police officer or a post analogous to the šeḥna: Jean Chardin 1669 CE said "[E]ach fortress or town has its own governor called darugha ... they are appointed directly by the king and each one has a deputy also appointed by the king independently of the governor". [3] Under the Safavids "the term beglerbegī tended to supersede dārūḡa in the sense of a local governor, as distinct from a police officer" [3] 3. asas and ahdat (guards) and mir sab (night watch)"The dārūḡa was especially charged with the maintenance of security at night, in which task he was assisted by officials called ʿasas and aḥdāṯ (guards) and a mīr šab (night watch)." [3] 3. Prison chief"the dīvānbegī, the chief ’orfī judge of the empire, who could intervene in any matter under the jurisdiction of the dārūḡa; once he had done so, the latter could no longer concern himself with it" [3] 4. Prison guard inferred 3. gassal-basi (chief of the washers of the dead) [3] 4. Washers of the deadA "chief of the washers of the dead" suggests there also were less prestigious posts. [3] 3. Kalantarc15th century onward "designated an official of the ’civil’ hierarchy, in charge of a town or a ward." [3] Under the Safavids "As the head of a town or ward the kalāntar was, like the raʾīs, a link between the central government and the taxpayers; it was his task to reconcile the interests of the two parties." [3] 4. moḥaṣṣeṣ-e mamlakat (clerk) (or Mustaufi al mamalek?)"in effect, the kalāntar’s clerk and appointed with his approval." [3] "the technical business like preparing and auditing the budget, assessing taxes, and collecting the revenues, was in the hands of a large staff of accountants, clerks, tax collectors, and financial experts under the direction of Mustaufi al mamalek." [6] 4. naqib (guild supervisor)"an official whose functions included the supervision of guild affairs". [3] 4. ostādān (master craftsman)Kalantar appointed master craftsmen (ostādān) [3] 4. rīš-safīdān (elder of guild)Kalantar appointed elders (rīš-safīdān) of the guilds [3] 4. Kadkodas (of villages/wards)"If the town was large, the kalāntar appointed kadḵodās over the wards." [3] 5. roʾasā ? of hamletKalantar appointed "the roʾasāʾ and kadḵodās of the villages and hamlets of the bolūkāt (administrative subdivisions)" [3] 2. Minor Provincial governors- Khan ("head of tribe or small city" ), Sultan ("lowest position in the provincial governorship") [1] [1]: Mousavi, Mohammad A. “The Autonomous State in Iran: Mobility and Prosperity in the Reign of Shah ’Abbas the Great (1587-1629).” Iran & the Caucasus 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 23-24 doi:10.2307/25597352. [2]: (Newman 2009) Newman, Andrew J. 2009. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. I.B. Tauris. New York. [3]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [4]: (Mitchell 2009, 29) Mitchell, Colin P. 2009. Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran, The: Power, Religion and Rhetoric. I.B. Tauris. London. [5]: (Mitchell 2009, 89) Mitchell, Colin P. 2009. Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran, The: Power, Religion and Rhetoric. I.B. Tauris. London. [6]: Mousavi, Mohammad A. “The Autonomous State in Iran: Mobility and Prosperity in the Reign of Shah ’Abbas the Great (1587-1629).” Iran & the Caucasus 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2008):23-24 doi:10.2307/25597352. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Prior to the Parthians, political systems in Southwest Asia were for the most part relatively loose confederations in which central government ruled their ’empires’ through unstable alliances with vassals and satraps. Even Hammurabi, Darius, and Alexander were only temporarily successful in linking their centralized governments to local administrative institutions, particularly outside of the core areas of Greater Mesopotamia." [1] 1. King [2] [3] 2. Relatives of the King [2] 3. Circles of philoi: [3] (a) “First ranking” (protoi philoi) [2] (b) “Esteemed” (timoumenoi philoi) [2] (c) “Friends” (philoi) [2] _Central government_ 2. Heads of financial administration, satrap governance and local military commanders within each satrap. [4] Head generals and officials [3] (e.g. the General Commander of the Upper Satrapies.) [5] 3. Dioiketes- responsible for finances within the satrapies of royal land, revenue and expenditure, and possibly also supervised royal mints and registry offices. [4] 4. Level between head of royal mint and Dioiketes?5. Head of a royal mint inferred6. Worker in a royal mint inferred 4.5. 3. Eklogistai- under the dioikētai and responsible for setting the level of taxation. [4] 4.5. 3. Oikonomoi- ‘managed royal land and revenue, one it had been received, and also controlled expenditure in their financial districts.’ [4] 4.5. 3. hoi epi tōn hierōn (a separate group)- supervised temples and their revenue. [4] 4.5. _Provincial line_ 1. King 2. Satrapies governed by a strategosCivil, financial and military powers separated since Alexander’s reform of the Persian system. [6] "in all the lands east of the Euphrates the Seleucids had a more complete system of internal subdivision; it was a threefold division - satrapy, eparchy, hyparchy - corresponding roughly to the threefold division in Ptolemaic Egypt of nome, topos, village, the nome like the satrapy, being under a strategos or general. This threefold administrative division in each of the two empires must, one supposes, have had a common origin, but what it was is unknown. As the smallest administrative unit in Egypt was the village and in Seleucid east the hyparchy - a district would comprise a number of villages - the organisation of the Seleucid east was of necessity much looser than that of Egypt; the hyparchy, however, for purposes of land registration, was again subdivided into fortified posts called stathmoi - originally post stations on the main roads, the Seleucids having taken over the Persian postal system - each stathmos being the centre of a subdivision comprising so many villages." [7] 3. Eparchy"So far as is known at present, the eparchy was a Seleucid innovation." [6] 4. Hyparchy 5. Stathmoi _Autonomous Cities_ 2. Leader of city/council inferred"Seleucid and Parthian cities were self-governing and controlled considerable territories independent of the central government." [8] 3. Department in city administration? inferred4.5. [1]: (Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [2]: Dreyer, B. 2011. How to Become a Relative of the King: Careers and Hierarchy at the court of Antiochus III. American Journal of Philology. 132 (1) pp45-57. p48. [3]: Ramsey, G. 2011. Seleucid Administration - Effectiveness and Dysfunction Among Officials. In, Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp37-50. p38 [4]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p295 [5]: Kosmin, P. J. 2013. Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in Iran. In, Potts, D. T (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.671-689. p.680 [6]: (Tam 2010, 2) Tam, W W. 2010. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. [7]: (Tam 2010, 1-2) Tam, W W. 2010. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. [8]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii |
||||||
|
levels.
Akkadian Empire had 5 levels. Ur III at least 4. Range reflects uncertainty, taking into account that the governor-level bureaucracy would have had at least one level. 1. King "The Shu-Sin texts which describe the defeat of the Shimaskian lands make it clear that each had its own ruler, styled ’great ensi’ (ensi-gal-gal) or ’king’ (lugal) in the case of those who ruled a land, and simply ensi for those whose domain was a city or town (Kutscher 1989: 99). Kutscher suggested that Ziringu, named as the paramount ruler of Zabshali in one of the Shu-Sin texts, ruled a Shimaskian ’empire’ comprised of a ’confederacy of lands whose leading force was the land of Zabshali’ (Kutscher 1989: 100)." [1] _Palatial government_ 2. Viceroy (Sakanakkun)"The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [2] -- does not specify which period _Provincial government_ 3. Halmenik (governors)4. 4. 5. "The main instrument of public administration and governance under the long history of the federal state of Elam was the bureaucracy, which also played a powerful role under the Median and the Persian empires." [3] Akkadian Empire possible influence. Kingdom of Elam i.e. bureaucracy adopted Akkadian cuneiform so possibly also adopted bureaucracy on Akkadian template. "Until Sargon, records from Akkad had been written in Sumerian. During his reign, however, the cuneiform writing of the Sumerians was adapted to fit the Akkadian language, and the resulting records have revealed Akkadian as the oldest known Semitic language. Cuneiform spread with the empire and was adopted in other states, including the kingdom of Elam, located to the west of Akkad." [4] "Anshan was soon restored as the major metropolis of the Elamite federation, and the rulers of Shimashki seem to have adopted the title "king of Anshan and Susa" sometime before 1900 B.C. That imperial title of the rulers of Elam was subsequently changed to sukkalmah, a term borrowed from the Sumerian administration and meaning "grand regent." Under the rule of the sukkalmahs, which continued until about 1500 B.C., Susa remained within the Mesopotamian cultural sphere, but local artistic traditions continued." [5] “Governors” mentioned: “El sucesor de ambos, Tanruhurater, hijo de Indatu, nos consta como gobernador en Susa, ciudad tal vez dependiente de Isin en esta época, como se deduce del matrimonio de este soberano con Mekubi, la hija de Bilalama también gobernador (no rey) de Eshnuna, probable contemporáneo de Ishbierra. De la actividad de este Tanruhurater sólo cono- cemos la construcción de un templo en Susa9. » [6] [1]: (Potts 2016, 145) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [3]: (Farazmand 2009, 21) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [4]: (Middleton 2015) Middleton, John. 2015. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Routledge. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 8) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Quintana XXXX, 38) |
||||||
|
levels.
Akkadian Empire had at least 5 levels. Ur III at least 4. Range reflects uncertainty, taking into account that the governor-level bureaucracy would have had at least one level. "Old Elamite III (ca. 2000-1475 B.C.) ... Elam was ruled during most of the Old Elamite III period by a triumvirate: a sukkal or sharrum of Susa, a sukkal of Elam and Shimashki, and a sukkalmah, who was the highest official. The offices sukkal (minister or vizier) and sukkalmah (prime minister or grand vizier) originated as aides to the rulers of Mesopotamia and sometimes Elam (cf. Hinz 1971:650) during the Early Dynastic III and Akkadian periods (Hallo 1957:112-21). Cameron (1936:71-72) showed that these offices were closely related and were often occupied by a succession of relatives." [1] 1. Sukkal-mah - supreme leader of the confederation based in Susa _Palatial government_ 2. Viceroy (Sakanakkun)"The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [2] -- does not specify which period _Provincial government_ 2. Sukkal of Elam and Shimashki based in Shimashki (the occupant of this post inherited the throne) 2. Sukkal of Susa (this post was less important than the Sukkal of Elam, its occupant was third in line to the throne)3. Other members of the royal family with inferior appointments eg. Lord of a town. "The main instrument of public administration and governance under the long history of the federal state of Elam was the bureaucracy, which also played a powerful role under the Median and the Persian empires." [3] Akkadian Empire possible influence. Kingdom of Elam i.e. bureaucracy adopted Akkadian cuneiform so possibly also adopted bureaucracy on Akkadian template. "Until Sargon, records from Akkad had been written in Sumerian. During his reign, however, the cuneiform writing of the Sumerians was adapted to fit the Akkadian language, and the resulting records have revealed Akkadian as the oldest known Semitic language. Cuneiform spread with the empire and was adopted in other states, including the kingdom of Elam, located to the west of Akkad." [4] "The Elamite state, ruled by the so-called Sukkal-mah Dynasty (the title designating the role of a king), was characterised by a particular administrative structure. Power was distributed among three officials. Firstly, there was the sukkal-mah, the supreme leader of the confederation, who resided in Susa. Then, there was the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki. He usually was the younger brother of the sukkal-mah and resided in Shimashki. Thirdly, there was the sukkal of Susa, normally the sukkal-mah’s son. The three offices were of decreasing importance. After the death of the sukkal-mah, his place was taken by the sukkal of Elam, his brother, whose place was in turn taken by either a brother or by the son of the deceased sukkal-mah, namely the sukkal of Susa. In other words, power was transferred from brother to brother. Only after having gone through one generation of brothers it was possible to move on to the son of the first brother, namely, to the next generation." [5] "Elam’s political structure was characterised by its confederate nature. This aspect was typical of the region from as early as the Early Dynastic period. Therefore, the role of the sukkal-mah corresponded to the Elamite confederation and the single sukkal correspond to the individual regional districts. Among these, the role of the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki maintained its privilege as a legacy of the former supremacy of the dynasty of Shimashki at the beginning of the second millennium BC." [6] “En las tablillas de Susa,junto al sukkalmah y el sukkal, se hace también mención de otros miembros de la casa real, que o bien no llevan título alguno, o bien aparecen nombrados con cargos inferiores, como alcaldes, etc. » [7] [1]: (Schacht 1987, 177-178) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [3]: (Farazmand 2009, 21) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [4]: (Middleton 2015) Middleton, John. 2015. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Routledge. [5]: (Leverani 2014, 253) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [6]: (Leverani 2014, 253-254) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [7]: (Quintana 2007, 42) |
||||||
|
levels.
Akkadian Empire had at least 5 levels. Ur III at least 4. Range reflects uncertainty, taking into account that the governor-level bureaucracy would have had at least one level. "Old Elamite III (ca. 2000-1475 B.C.) ... Elam was ruled during most of the Old Elamite III period by a triumvirate: a sukkal or sharrum of Susa, a sukkal of Elam and Shimashki, and a sukkalmah, who was the highest official. The offices sukkal (minister or vizier) and sukkalmah (prime minister or grand vizier) originated as aides to the rulers of Mesopotamia and sometimes Elam (cf. Hinz 1971:650) during the Early Dynastic III and Akkadian periods (Hallo 1957:112-21). Cameron (1936:71-72) showed that these offices were closely related and were often occupied by a succession of relatives." [1] 1. Sukkal-mah - supreme leader of the confederation based in Susa _Palatial government_ 2. Viceroy (Sakanakkun)"The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [2] -- does not specify which period _Provincial government_ 2. Sukkal of Elam and Shimashki based in Shimashki (the occupant of this post inherited the throne) 2. Sukkal of Susa (this post was less important than the Sukkal of Elam, its occupant was third in line to the throne)3. Other members of the royal family with inferior appointments eg. Lord of a town. "The main instrument of public administration and governance under the long history of the federal state of Elam was the bureaucracy, which also played a powerful role under the Median and the Persian empires." [3] "The Elamite state, ruled by the so-called Sukkal-mah Dynasty (the title designating the role of a king), was characterised by a particular administrative structure. Power was distributed among three officials. Firstly, there was the sukkal-mah, the supreme leader of the confederation, who resided in Susa. Then, there was the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki. He usually was the younger brother of the sukkal-mah and resided in Shimashki. Thirdly, there was the sukkal of Susa, normally the sukkal-mah’s son. The three offices were of decreasing importance. After the death of the sukkal-mah, his place was taken by the sukkal of Elam, his brother, whose place was in turn taken by either a brother or by the son of the deceased sukkal-mah, namely the sukkal of Susa. In other words, power was transferred from brother to brother. Only after having gone through one generation of brothers it was possible to move on to the son of the first brother, namely, to the next generation." [4] "Elam’s political structure was characterised by its confederate nature. This aspect was typical of the region from as early as the Early Dynastic period. Therefore, the role of the sukkal-mah corresponded to the Elamite confederation and the single sukkal correspond to the individual regional districts. Among these, the role of the sukkal of Elam and Shimashki maintained its privilege as a legacy of the former supremacy of the dynasty of Shimashki at the beginning of the second millennium BC." [5] “En las tablillas de Susa,junto al sukkalmah y el sukkal, se hace también mención de otros miembros de la casa real, que o bien no llevan título alguno, o bien aparecen nombrados con cargos inferiores, como alcaldes, etc. » [6] [1]: (Schacht 1987, 177-178) Schacht, Robert. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. [2]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [3]: (Farazmand 2009, 21) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 253) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Leverani 2014, 253-254) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [6]: (Quintana 2007, 42) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Administration system - presumably temple based, run by accountants3. Scribes 3. Teachers at scribal schools4. Specialised workers who produced the stuff that accountants do accounting for e.g. shepherds Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." [1] "With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." [1] "Sumerian management depended on dense concentrations of workers at the disposal of temples and other large institutions, minutely graded into teams and sets of entitlements." [2] "While internal independence of the member states was respected, intergovernmental relations on civil administration were regulated by various administrative rules and ordinances." [3] "Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people. The Elamite over-lordship in Susa was the main power of the federated states, the heads of which frequently assembled for political and military purposes. Decision making was based on equality, and cooperation was key to the coordinated system of government in a federal structure." [4] Lower Mesopotamia at this time had city-states and inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [5] "Susa was annexed by Anshan. Although it was a much smaller center than Anshan, its long previous period of cultural development enabled it to contribute to the formation of the new civilization, which expanded into ethnically related regions." [6] "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." [7] Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur. The bureaucratic management of these provinces was uniform and interchangeable, and could be applied throughout the land (although some some local variations remained in place)." [8] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Foster 2016, 17) Foster, Benjamin R. 2016. The Age of Agade. Inventing Empire In Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge. London. [3]: (Farazmand 2001, 536) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [4]: (Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [5]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [6]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [7]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press. [8]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
(4) Commonwealth Assembly (Alþingi); (3) Local Assemblies (Þings) or Territorial Lordships; (2) Chieftains (Goðar) or Hreppar; (1) Free Farmers/Heads of Households ’As there was no state as such, it is difficult to identify proper administrative levels. The existence of parallel hierarchies complicates matters. The communes (hreppar) existed independently from the godords and, unlike them, were territorial units. Typically there would be one or two members of the gentry living on their manor-farms in each commune and they would often, even usually, have a sphere of influence albeit an informal one and not necessarily concurrent with the commune. However, there is a broad four-tier hierarchy which incorporates both formal and informal elements, although the levels were not the same throughout. We can summarize it like this: 930-1200: 1) Free Farmers 2) Goðar 3) Local assemblies 4) Alþingi. Note: The local assemblies may not have been formalized until around 960 but probably functioned in some sense even before that. 950/1050-1200 (concurrently with above): 1) Free Farmers 2) Hreppar 3) Local Assemblies 4) Alþingi. Note: We don’t know when the hreppar were established but it must have been in the 10th or 11th centuries. 1200-1262 1) Free Farmers 2) Hreppar 3) Territorial lordships 4) Alþingi. Note: The local assemblies were usually abolished with the emergence of territorial lordships that often covered approximately the same area.’ [1] The general assembly of chieftains was the highest political institution of the Commonwealth: ’At the time of Iceland’s settlement, Norse people worshiped gods whom they called æsir (singular áss), and this religion left behind an extensive mythology in Icelandic literature. Thor seems to have been the most popular of the pagan gods in Iceland, although Odin is thought to have been the highest in rank. It appears that heathen worship was organized around a distinct class of chieftains called godar (singular godi), of which there were about 40. In the absence of royal power in Iceland, the godar were to form the ruling class in the country. By the end of the settlement period, a general Icelandic assembly, called the Althing, had been established and was held at midsummer on a site that came to be called Thingvellir. This assembly consisted of a law council (lögrétta), in which the godar made and amended the laws, and a system of courts of justice, in which householders, nominated by the godar, acted on the panels of judges. At the local level, three godar usually held a joint assembly in late spring at which a local court operated, again with judges nominated by the godar. All farmers were legally obliged to belong to a chieftaincy (godord) but theoretically were free to change their allegiance from one godi to another; the godar were allotted a corresponding right to expel a follower. Some scholars have seen in this arrangement a resemblance to the franchise in modern societies. On the other hand, there was no central authority to ensure that the farmers would be able to exercise their right in a democratic way. No one was vested with executive power over the country as a whole. In any case, no trace of democratic practice reached farther down the social scale than to the heads of farming households; women and workers (free or enslaved) had no role in the political system.’ [2] The country was divided into quarters served by local assemblies: ’One of the peculiarities of early Iceland was the lack of formal state institutions. The legislature, extensive law code, and judicial system of local and higher courts left prosecution and the enforcement of settlements in the hands of individuals. From an early date, the country was divided into Quarters. Each quarter constituted a broad community with three assemblies (ÞINGS), with the exception of the Northern Quarter that had four, and a system of local courts. Once a year the General Assembly (ALÞINGI) met in the southwest of Iceland. Judicial cases that could not be resolved in local quarters were heard and the parliament (LÖGRÉTTA) convened. The parliament was the principal legislative institution and was responsible for the introduction and maintanence of law. It consisted of chieftains (GOÐAR) from the local quarters. After the conversion to Christianity, the two Icelandic bishops were each given a seat in the parliament. The institution of chieftaincy (GOÐORÐ) was the main locus of political leadership in the country. Originally there were 36 but this number was later expanded. Chieftaincies themselves were a form of property and could be alienated and even divided among multiple individuals. In some cases, individuals asserted power beyond the scope of the political system and controlled multiple chieftaincies. All independent farmers had to be affiliated with a chieftain, although they could choose among any of the chieftains in their quarter and could switch allegiances if they did not feel that their needs were being met. Other than a seat on the parliament, chieftains had few rights beyond those of other independent farmers and few institutional means of dominating others. Chieftains derived much of their authority from their ability to broker support as advocates for their constituents in legal disputes or feuds.’ [3] Chieftains relied on the support of farmers and armed followers: ’Following the establishment of the Althing in 930, executive power at the regional level was vested in the goðar, whose possession of goðorð and common participation in the judicial and legislative branches of the general assembly defined them as chieftains. However, the chieftains were not linked hierarchically. After A.D. 965 Iceland was divided into thirteen assembly districts, each with three chieftainships and a district assembly site. The assembly districts were in turn grouped into four quarters. While goðar were tethered to particular districts by law, the political office of chieftainship, the goðorð, did not imply control over a defined territorial unit. It was instead a shifting nexus of personal, negotiated alliances between a chieftain and those bœndur who became his supporters or pingmenn through public oaths of allegiance.’ [4] Conflicts between rival chieftains were a major source of internal strife before the onset of Norwegian rule. During the Sturlung period, the godords became concentrated in the hands of a few powerful magnates: ’It may be tempting to regard the Icelandic Commonwealth as a permanent structure, for, after all, it seems to be sealed in the poorly-dated or undated ‘ethnographic present’ of the sagas. But any social system is necessarily a product of history, representing a particular moment in time. We know for sure that the Commonwealth underwent important changes before it eventually ‘collapsed.’ Not only was there important ecological and demographic change and, as a result, mounting pressure on land (Gelsinger 1981; McGovern et al. 1988), access to resources was increasingly determined by the political manoeuvres and battles of competing goðar. According to the near contemporary Sturlunga saga, the battles between contesting leaders involved an ever larger number of men-no less than two thousand fought in the biggest one, at Örlygsstaðir in year 1238. To increase the number of followers, each goði had to maximize his fund of power at the cost of competitors. Feasts and gifts, a measure of the generosity of the goði, and the display of imported luxury goods, must have been an additional burden to the household, at a time of economic decline. One saga describes a large wedding feast extending through a whole week (SS 3, ch. 17:22). The only way to meet the costs involved was to collect taxes, hire additional labor, and seek further support from followers. With the Tithe Law, the tax law enacted in 1096, the ownership of churches became an important source of wealth and power. Furthermore, slavery seems to have disappeared early (see Karras, ch. 17), probably because recruiting freemen who had insufficient land was less costly than maintaining slaves. This meant that soon there was a reserve of labor; on one occasion, in 1208, a group of more than 300 unemployed people, many of whom were strong and healthy, followed a travelling bishop in the hope of some sustenance (see G. Karlsson 1975:27).’ [5] ’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.’ [6] The household headed by a property-holding farmer was the primary unit of local social and economic organization: ’The principal unit of social organization was the household. Those with rights to property, the farmer and his (or her) family, headed households. Large households incorporated a range of dependent labor: wage laborers, servants, and slaves. As an institution, slavery declined in the twelfth century and had probably disappeared sometime in the thirteenth century; however, social distinctions were maintained between self-sufficient farmers (either land-owners or renters) and the majority of the population who served as household labor. The main cooperative unit outside of the household was the commune (HREPPUR). The commune was a territorial unit including many households (20 or more). The commune’s main functions were management of summer grazing lands, the cooperative round up of animals in the fall, and care for paupers who had no other household support. They also provided some insurance to households against fire or the loss of livestock.’ [3] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Iceland/Government-and-society#toc10088 [3]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders [4]: Smith, Kevin P., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1989. “Regional Archaeological Research In Iceland: Potentials And Possibilities”, 182 [5]: Pálsson, Gísli 1992. “Introduction: Text, Life, And Saga”, 15 [6]: Pálsson, Gísli 1992. “Introduction: Text, Life, And Saga”, 16 |
||||||
|
levels. "There are very few signs of status differentiation amongst the few burials known. Most settlements were simple collections of huts with no evidence for internal differentiation in architecture or material culture than might suggest clear-cut divisions in society."
[1]
[1]: G. Barker, Mediterranean Valley (1995), p. 156 |
||||||
|
Where do these fit?
"there were three Praetorian Prefects, one for the Gauls, one for Italy, and one for the City of Rome" [1] a gothic scribe was called a bokareis [2] "In terms of administrative strategy, the Amal court seems to have preferred a style of governance in which an administrative nucleus (referred to in the Variae as comitatus noster and officium nostrum), including the staffs of such senior officials as the praetorian prefect, attended the itinerant ambit of the Gothic ruler." [3] 1. King "Because of his inevitable insecurity, Theodoric, like Alaric and a host of other kings of his era, searched for greater authority over his own people by invoking the conceptual hierarchy of Christian Rome with its titular elevations and ranks delineated in dress and court ceremonial. He was quick to perceive the potential for dynastic continuity in associating himself with Roman tradition and the special role of the monarchy in Christendom. In part that explains Theodoric’s desire for such Roman denotations of power as the praenomen Flavius, the title Patrician, the consulship, the rank of magister militum praesentalis, and his efforts to have his regal position in Italy recognized in Constantinople." [4] "It is quite clear that Theodoric never claimed to be Emperor of the West, the successor of Honorius and Augustulus. But there are grave reasons for doubting whether he called himself, as has been often stated, "King of Italy". In the fifth century territorial titles of this kind were, if not absolutely unknown, at least very uncommon. The various Teutonic rulers generally took their titles from the nations whom they led to battle, Gaiseric being "King of the Vandals and Alans", Gundobad, "King of the Burgundians", Clovis, "King of the Franks", and so forth. Upon the whole, it seems most probable that Theodoric’s full title was "King of the Goths and Romans in Italy" ..." [1] Title of first ruler: Flavius Theodericus rex [5] . Under the constitution Theodoric was the only Ostrogoth Roman citizen. [6] . 2. quaestor"present as secretary to the monarch under the Ostrogoths." [7] "the official whose business it was to put the thoughts of the sovereign into fitting and eloquent words, either when he was replying to the ambassadors of foreign powers, or when he was issuing laws and proclamations to his own subjects. As his duties and qualifications were of a more personal kind than those of his two brother-ministers already described, he had not like them a large official staff waiting upon his orders." [1] 2. saiones"The institution, if the saiones can be so classified, existed as early as 508, when Theorodric instructed saio Nandus to assemble troops for the invasion of Gaul. Saiones or similar royal servants existed among many Germanic peoples throughout the Middle Ages and seem to have emerged out of the royal band in response to basic needs for personal and trusted contact with the royalty. None of the Ostrogothic saiones ever achieved comital or ducal status, which suggests that they were of lowly origin." [8] _Central government_ 2. Princeps cardinalis of the comitatus (aka Cabinet of Illustre, or council of the ministers of state) "Nearly every one of these great ministers of state had under him a large, ambitious, and often highly-paid staff of subordinates, who were called his Officium." [1] The comitatus "was the heart of the government of Italy. Under Theodoric, as under the emperors, the comitatus represented all aspects of government and was attached to the ruler. ... The head of the comitiaci at court was the princeps cardinalis, and there was a vicarate at Rome with its own staff. In its civilian aspects, the comitatus remained intact. The formal household, sacrum cubiculum with its praepositus and eunuch chamberlains (cubicularii), stood watch over the palace ... The two great heads of the bureaucracy were present as ever: the praetorian prefect and the magister offiorum. ... The comes sacrarum largitionun was responsible for mines and mints (gold and probably silder) and certain taxes and payments, including donatives. ... The comes rei privatae was a member of the comitatus and managed the estates of the imperial fisc, then in Theodoric’s hands. The consistory was another important imperial legacy present in the comitatus. By this time, membership in the consistory was restricted to counts of the first order of the three ranks of counts. The comes primi ordinis, and, in fact, under Theodoric only those actually serving in the provinces, and the counselors of the praetorian prefect were automatically members. ... The various Roman offices represented in the comitatus were themselves complex bureaus with numerous subalterns and clerks. The consistory had an independent staff of secretaries. ... Theodoric maintained a personal treasury, the patrimonium, under the comes patrimonii. ..." [9] The comitatus "was essentially a court of final jurisdiction in cases involving the nobilities." [10] praetorian prefect was the "highest-ranking minister attendant in the comitatus" [11] 2. Praetorian Prefect, the vicegerent of the sovereign"a man who held towards Emperor or King nearly the same position which a Grand Vizier holds towards a Turkish Sultan. Like his sovereign he wore a purple robe (which reached however only to his knees, not to his feet), and he drove through the streets in a lofty official chariot. It was for him to promulgate the Imperial laws, sometimes to put forth edicts of his own. He proclaimed what taxes were to be imposed each year, and their produce came into his "Praetorian chest". He suggested to his sovereign the names of the governors of the provinces, paid them their salaries, and exercised a general superintendence over them, having even power to depose them from their offices. And lastly, he was the highest Judge of Appeal in the land, even the Emperor himself having generally no power to reverse his sentences." [1] "Cassiodorus accorded the office of praefectus praetorio a dignity above all other offices." [11] "Having authority over both legal and financial personnel of the administration, the prefect commanded the most numerous branches of the bureaucracy (exceptores and scrinarii)." [11] Praetorian prefect responsible for "collection of taxes in all provinces, the local officials involved in its collection, the distribution of taxes as payment to military and administrative personnel, the maintenance of the public food supply, oversight in local finances, and rendering final judgement in legal disputes". [11] 3. vices agenti (deputy assistant)In Cassiodorus’ "Variae 11.5, the prefect directs his deputy assistant (vices agenti) to administer the annona in Rome, without mention of the authority that the praefectus annonae would have had in the matter." [11] 3. canonicariusagent the praetorian prefect could use "to requisition provisions for the Gothic court" without having to go through the comes patrimonii. [12] 3. ? exceptores (branch of the bureaucracy) 4."The various Roman offices represented in the comitatus were themselves complex bureaus with numerous subalterns and clerks." [9] 5."A large number of singularii, rationalii, clavicularii, and the like (whom we should call policemen, subordinate clerks, and gaolers) formed the "Unlettered Staff" (Militia Illiterata), who stood on the lowest stage of the bureaucratic pyramid." [1] 3. ? scrinarii (branch of the bureaucracy) 4."The various Roman offices represented in the comitatus were themselves complex bureaus with numerous subalterns and clerks." [9] 5."A large number of singularii, rationalii, clavicularii, and the like (whom we should call policemen, subordinate clerks, and gaolers) formed the "Unlettered Staff" (Militia Illiterata), who stood on the lowest stage of the bureaucratic pyramid." [1] 2. comes siliquatariorum (minister) 2. comes patrimonii nostri (minister) "authority extended to the management and collection of rents from properties owned by the Amal family (and the supply of the court with provisions from those properties)" [13] Note 1. This official often given many other roles on ad hoc basis including those of the praetorian prefect e.g. tax collection from a province. [12] 3. 2. comes privatarum (minister) official responsible for "laws pertaining to slaves, sexual morality, the protection of the dead, intestate land, and the discovery of abandoned treasure." [13] Note 1. This official often given many other roles on ad hoc basis including those "more regularly undertaken by the praetorian prefect." [13] Note 2. many of this own official duties could be delegated to other ministers on ad hoc basis. [13] 3. 2. comes sacrarum largitionum (minister) In 4th and 5th centuries had "authority over the mint (and thereby over the distribution of donatives to the military and benefactions of the ruler to civilians), mines (linked to coin production at mints), the production of royal vestments, and customs and taxes from foreign trade." [11] Note: many of these duties could be delegated to other ministers on ad hoc basis such as comes siliquatariorum, comes patrimonii nostri, comes privatarum or the praefectus praetorio. [13] 3. Manager of a mint works 4. 3. Manager of a mine works 4. 3. Manager of a royal vestments works 4. 3. Foreign trade official 4. 2. magister officorum"formally held authority over the cursus publicus, regularly found that role assumed by the praetorian prefect and saiones." [12] 3. 4. 2. praefectus annonae"The praefectus annonae was in charge of having the grain from the annona baked into bread by the bakers (and was also in charge of the pork-butchers)." [14] 3. 4. 2. comes archiatrorum"an official known as the comes archiatrorum who oversaw doctors" [15] 3. 4. _Provincial government_ 2. Provincial governor (praeses)There were also provincial governors [16] and prefectures [17] "In Dalmatia, the comes was superior to the principes and the Roman governor (praeses), who was increasingly a fiscal officer having some responsibility for tax collection. The principes of Dalmatia maintained the Roman legal structure alongside the Gothic command embodied in the comes." [18] 2. Provincial comesProvence. Possibly: Istria, Noricum Mediterranean, Switzerland. [19] "Perhaps the rank of comes secundi ordinis was accorded to the urban comites, whereas the provincial became comes primi." [20] 3. priores"At least in some areas, lesser officials called priores assited the provincial comites" [20] 2. praefectus praetorio GalliarumGaul same as before. [20] 3. Civitas - prefect"Prefect of the City": "A nobleman of the very highest rank, Consul, Patrician, and Prefect of the City, Cæcina Maurus Basilius Decius, successfully accomplished this work under the orders of his sovereign..." [1] 4. Member of curialecuriales in towns [21] 5.Scribes? 3. defensor civitatis"In Italy the Ostrogoths continued the office as a local "protector." Defensors were supposed to protect the community from oppression, just as Valentinian had planned, but their protection included the seasonal fixing of prices and often the forced requisition of military supplies. In small towns, the defensors and the curia were the government: the defensor represented the central government; the curia, of course, was drawn from the locality." [22] 3. Urban comes"A princeps may have been assigned to each major city, since the office of princeps was held by several men at one time. They were under the comes. The provincial governor (praeses) retained some civil authority and shared some responsibility for tax collection." [18] "The Goths established garrisons in important cities throughout their rule. Such special cities as Naples Pavia, and Syracuse had their own comes, as did Massilia, Arelate, the Insulae Curicta, and Celsina. These comites Gothorum were legal officers, as were the provincial comites, and they also commanded whatever garrisons were stationed there." [20] 4. Vicivillage 5. Pagirural settlements _Gothic lands_ 2. Gothic lord (Saio?)"At least in the north, probably around Pavia in particular, where the Po Valley allowed more effective use of the land in small units, the Goths apparently subdivided their shares into family farming units called condamae." [23] 2. comes Gothorum"The cases of appeal from the general settlement areas in which there were large numbers of Gothic communities required the regionalized comes Gothorum, i.e., one of provincial scope, comites provinciarum. " [18] 3. Condamae"The φνλαί as described by Eunapius were basic organizations among the Goths. The Greek term φνλαί usually referred to a group united by blood and living in the same area. Each φνλαή had its own cult objects and holy men to care for and carry them. The φνλαί formed temporary confederations for specific purposes. Their leaders conducted affairs in councils, but the exact makeup of these varied. In some assemblies, the optimates, probably consisting of the dux and principal members of the nobility, made the decisions and enforced them. In other areas, the council of elders decided action and dominated the younger men. The apparent distinction between optimates and elders was in reality blurred, since many nobles were themselves elders of important families. Nonetheless, the great ducal families, it would seem, were not everywhere able to control the φνλαί in their area. In such cases the elders probably represented the various villages within the φνλαή. The φνλαί were not territorially but religiously defined. Their political unity became more cohesive during the fourth century. The Gothic word garvi does not seem to have described areas as large as those inhabited by the φνλαί but rather was a term used to denote the Latin pagus, the rural area around towns and villages. Even in a φνλαή where one family clearly controlled the actions of optimates and villages alike, there ere ways to manifest the traditional independence of the village as a unit within the regional federation." [24] According to the Greeks, head of a Gothic φνλαή was a άρχων or ήγεμών; in Latin regulus, ducator, or dux; in Gothic texts reiks. [25] The leaders of φνλαί were independent until an outside threat brought them together. [26] "There is no question that the continued as the basic political and military units long after their settlements in the empire. The same can be said for similar groups among the Ostrogoths..." The fara of the Lombards "was structurally and functionally the same as the φνλαή among the Goths. There are three, perhaps four, Ostrogothic farae known from various sources. ... The Ostrogothic farae and their heads may well have played a role similar to that of their Burgundian and Lombard counterparts." [27] [1]: (Hodgkin 1897) [2]: (Burns 1991, 121) [3]: (Bjornlie 2016, 58) Bjornlie, Shane M. Governmental Administration. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [4]: (Burns 1991, 71) [5]: (Wolfram and Dunlap 1990, 286) H Wolfram and T J Dunlap. 1990. History of the Goths. University of California Press. [6]: (Stearns 2001, 169) [7]: (Burns 1991, 170) [8]: (Burns 1991, 178) [9]: (Burns 1991, 169-171) [10]: (Burns 1991, 172) [11]: (Bjornlie 2016, 61) Bjornlie, Shane M. Governmental Administration. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [12]: (Bjornlie 2016, 63) Bjornlie, Shane M. Governmental Administration. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [13]: (Bjornlie 2016, 62) Bjornlie, Shane M. Governmental Administration. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [14]: (Deliyannis 2016, 255-256) Deliyannis, Deborah M. Urban Life and Culture. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [15]: (Deliyannis 2016, 256) Deliyannis, Deborah M. Urban Life and Culture. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. [16]: (Burns 1991, 196) [17]: (Wolfram and Dunlap 1990, 293) [18]: (Burns 1991, 174) [19]: (Burns 1991, 175) [20]: (Burns 1991, 176) [21]: (Burns 1991, 131) [22]: (Burns 1991, 177) [23]: (Burns 1991, 82) [24]: (Burns 1991, 164-165) [25]: (Burns 1991, 165) [26]: (Burns 1991, 166) [27]: (Burns 1991, 166-167) |
||||||
|
Note: this hierarchy is still confused.
On sources for the institutional structure of Papal government Wickham recommends: "Bresslau, Handbuch, I, pp. 192-229; Halphen, Études; Toubert, ‘Scrinium et palatium’; Noble, The Republic of St. Peter, pp. 212-55." 1. Pope By 781 CE (Charlemagne agreement) "what had been the Dutchy of Rome was, somewhat enlarged, recognised as St. Peter’s and the Pope’s own principality." Authority over Ravenna "shared in ill-defineded tandem." [1] Pope was head of the senate. [2] Pope, sovereign and "universal bishop", symbolically crowned with tiara. [3] _Central government_ 2. SenatorsThe title of "senator of all the Romans" is attested from the 10th century, and often describes a person in a position to decisively influence papal elections, as well as being a powerful secular administrator. [4] It is often unclear what senators and patricians did in the way of day-to-day duties, however, and may have been an honorific granted to members of the Roman baronial families. [5] (4) 2. Palatine judges (primicerius, secundicerius, primus defensor, nomenculator, arcarius, saccellarius, and protoscriniarius) of the notariate, Papal lands, Papal charity and treasurythe primicerius, secundicerius and protoscriniarius ran the notariate or scrinium. [6] primus defensor "the senior official among the managers of papal lands" nomenculator "ran Papal charity" arcarius and saccellarius "ran the treasury" 2. vestararius (to 1000 CE) then urban prefect"Slightly separate was the office of vestararius, which was again a financial office; this official was not a standard judge. On the other hand, when the vestararius appears in court proceedings, he seems often to preside over cases, whereas the palatine judges run the court under him; although here, too, we do not have enough evidence to be sure of a firm hierarchy of office, vestararii seem to be political leaders of unusual importance. There were also lands in the Agro romano attached to the office, which made it visibly remunerative. ... Vestararii, together with superistae/magistri militum, seem to have marked the highest positions lay aristocrats could reach in Rome..." [7] "In the tenth century the importance of the vestararius, although sometimes still very great, was by now intermittent; after 1000 references to the title vanish. The new tenth-century political office that came to be of major importance was instead the revived position of urban prefect, which reappears in the middle decades of the tenth century after a long break, and it is very likely that it was Alberico who re-established the office. The prefecture was particularly central from 1000 onwards." [8] 3. Administrative subdivisionsArchives held in Lateran Palace with other paperwork. However, very important documents were kept in tomb of St Peter. [9] High-ranking ecclesiastical officials (legates, papal representatives, etc.): The Papal state had administrative subdivisions, loosely conceived. Noble has argued that through its extensive landholding, charitable actions, and diplomatic role as a negotiator with the Lombards, the Roman Church significantly impacted most residents of Byzantine Italy. [10] The bureaucrats attached to the papacy itself, usually based in the Lateran palace in Rome. The bureaucracy consisted of scribes, archivists, tax collectors, papal messengers, and administrators charged with the upkeep of the city. [11] 4. Head of Sub-division within an administrative subdivisionSome scholars have claimed that it was the most effective government in Western Europe by the end of the seventh century (although this isn’t saying much, given how small-scale papal administration was). [12] Lower-ranking administrative officials: A nomenclator was probably assisted by ordinator. Vicedominus was steward of the papal Lateran palace. Vicedominus more involved in central administration than a major domus. [13] Amoner (financial controller). Major-domo (treasurer and controller of wardrobe). Pilgrims to the city of Rome was a source of income for the popes. [14] 4. primicerius defensorumDefensores defended "the rights of the Roman church ... and the oppressed. The formula of appointment was vague enough to allow them to undertake virtually any duty on behalf of the church." There was a college of defensores headed by a primicerius. [9] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [15] 5. defensorum 4. primicerius notariorum (head of college of notaries) [9] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [15] 5. secundicerius notariorumA college of notaries headed by primicerius, later joined by college of defensores headed by primicerius, and a college of subdeacons. Notaries were the staff of the papal chancery, career bureaucrats. [9] Clerical officers (acolytes and guardians) [16] 6. notariorumBy this period, the popes had been caring for orphans, widows, and others as part of their pastoral duties. [10] 2. Cardinals & legatesTo a certain extent, these are simply a particular, preeminent, sub-section of the Roman curia’s bureaucracy (see below). They enjoyed prestige on an international level, however. During the pontificate of Gregory VII (1074-1085), the cardinals numbered around 74. [17] The cardinalate was composed of the bishops of the suburbicarian dioceses [18] ; twenty-eight priests of churches in the vicinity of Rome; 18 deacons, attached to either the papal palaces or urban churches of Rome; and, maybe, 21 sub-deacons (who were, essentially, part of the papal bureaucracy. [19] Legates were drawn from the cardinalate. They were sent out by the popes either on specific missions, or as ambassadors-at-large, and given papal authority to hear disputes, settle ecclesiastical trials, and even make peace between warring lords; the legate system expanded dramatically in the late eleventh century, and was fully functioning as a level of the bureaucracy by the early twelfth century. [20] _Regional government_ 2. Regional governor of a DutchyAfter 756 CE, the duchies were officially controlled from Rome through Papal government administration. Every major city had a bishop. Regional governors. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [21] The popes became increasingly involved during the late first millennium in appointing the duke for the Dutchy of Rome. [1] On several occasions, indeed, papal authority over the imperially-appointed dukes was demonstrated when popes had to save dukes from the irate Roman mob, or were able to defy the duke or Exarch of Ravenna with the aid of militia totius Italiae, "the entire army of Italy. [22] Regionary guardians. Regional notaries. [16] 3. Bishop of a CityEvery major city had a bishop. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [21] Under the Lombards, a system of episcopal immunities emerged that made the bishops virtually local temporal sovereigns and enabled them to preserve the local spirit of municipal independence and organization (e.g., consuls, guilds). The urban population was free, and the town walls (often built by the bishops) were refuges. [23] The Roman bishop administered lands of the Church and lands of Roman basilicas, classified as tituli. [24] 4. Rectors of the Patrimony (in a Diaconate?)Ecclesiastical government contained other important regional officials. Rectors of the Patrimony were appointed for each major territory. These were drawn from subordinate Roman officials: sub-deacons or notaries and guardians, among them whom could be laymen. [25] Diaconates were established to store and distribute grain, and be centers of social welfare. [26] 5. Granary worker 5. Town / village leaderA more informal, often ad hoc, stratum but probably the most important on a day-to-day level. They included local landholders in particular. The aristocratic, land-holding stratum of Byzantine Italy emerged following Justinian’s 6th-century reconquests. [27] By the late seventh century, many sources speaks of this stratum, which Noble has described as forming "the key social class in late Byzantine Italy." [28] These landholders, often of eastern origin, acquired land through leasing them from bishops contractually. [28] [1]: (Daly 1986) [2]: (Trevor, 1869, 113) [3]: (Noble 2011, xx) [4]: Partner, 105 [5]: Marazzi, 58 [6]: (Wickham 2015, 187) Wickham, C. 2015. Medieval Rome: Stability and Crisis of a City, 900-1150. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Wickham 2015, 187-188) Wickham, C. 2015. Medieval Rome: Stability and Crisis of a City, 900-1150. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [8]: (Wickham 2015, 188) Wickham, C. 2015. Medieval Rome: Stability and Crisis of a City, 900-1150. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [9]: (Richards 1979, 290-292) [10]: Noble, 1984, 10 [11]: Carocci and Vendittelli, 74-75 [12]: (Partner 1972, 9 [13]: (Richards 1979, 298) [14]: (Trevor 1869, 115) [15]: (Richards 1979, 275) [16]: (Partner 1972, 1) [17]: Southern, 143 [18]: The suburbicarian dioceses are the seven dioceses closest to Rome, and which provided the bishop-cardinals of the early Middle Ages. Today, they are: Ostia, Porto-Santa Rufina, Frascati/Tusculum, Palestrina, Albano, and Sabina-Poggio Mirteto. [19]: Southern, 143-44 [20]: Southern, 147-52, provides an excellent case-study of how these legates worked. [21]: (Woods 1921, 48) [22]: Noble, 1984, 18 [23]: (Stearns 2001 173) [24]: (Partner 1972, 6) [25]: (Partner 1972, 8) [26]: (Partner 1972, 9) [27]: Noble, 5-6 [28]: Noble, 1984, 7 |
||||||
|
Coded as a range to allow for flexibility. AD
1. Pope By 781 CE (Charlemagne agreement) "what had been the Dutchy of Rome was, somewhat enlarged, recognised as St. Peter’s and the Pope’s own principality." Authority over Ravenna "shared in ill-defineded tandem." [1] Pope was head of the senate. [2] Pope, sovereign and "universal bishop", symbolically crowned with tiara. [3] _Central government_ 2. Administrative subdivisions - Chief of Papal chancery / Papal archives etc.arcarius [4] - treasurer Papal chancery [5] Archives held in Lateran Palace with other paperwork. However, very important documents were kept in tomb of St Peter. [5] High-ranking ecclesiastical officials (legates, papal representatives, etc.): The Papal state had administrative subdivisions, loosely conceived. Noble has argued that through its extensive landholding, charitable actions, and diplomatic role as a negotiator with the Lombards, the Roman Church significantly impacted most residents of Byzantine Italy. [6] Regional elites "sought and gained grants of land and jurisdiction from the popes." [7] Described as feudal in the ninth century. [8] The bureaucrats attached to the papacy itself, usually based in the Lateran palace in Rome. The bureaucracy consisted of scribes, archivists, tax collectors, papal messengers, and administrators charged with the upkeep of the city. [9] 3. Head of Sub-division within an administrative subdivisionSome scholars have claimed that it was the most effective government in Western Europe by the end of the seventh century (although this isn’t saying much, given how small-scale papal administration was). [10] Lower-ranking administrative officials: A nomenclator was probably assisted by ordinator. Vicedominus was steward of the papal Lateran palace. Vicedominus more involved in central administration than a major domus. [11] Amoner (financial controller). Major-domo (treasurer and controller of wardrobe). Pilgrims to the city of Rome was a source of income for the popes. [12] 4. primicerius defensorumDefensores defended "the rights of the Roman church ... and the oppressed. The formula of appointment was vague enough to allow them to undertake virtually any duty on behalf of the church." There was a college of defensores headed by a primicerius. [5] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [4] 5. defensorum 4. primicerius notariorum (head of college of notaries) [5] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [4] 5. secundicerius notariorumA college of notaries headed by primicerius, later joined by college of defensores headed by primicerius, and a college of subdeacons. Notaries were the staff of the papal chancery, career bureaucrats. [5] Clerical officers (acolytes and guardians) [13] 6. notariorumBy this period, the popes had been caring for orphans, widows, and others as part of their pastoral duties. [6] _Regional government_ 2. Regional governor of a DutchyAfter 756 CE, the duchies were officially controlled from Rome through Papal government administration. Every major city had a bishop. Regional governors. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [14] The popes became increasingly involved during the late first millennium in appointing the duke for the Dutchy of Rome. [1] On several occasions, indeed, papal authority over the imperially-appointed dukes was demonstrated when popes had to save dukes from the irate Roman mob, or were able to defy the duke or Exarch of Ravenna with the aid of militia totius Italiae, "the entire army of Italy. [15] Regionary guardians. Regional notaries. [13] 3. Bishop of a CityEvery major city had a bishop. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [14] Under the Lombards, a system of episcopal immunities emerged that made the bishops virtually local temporal sovereigns and enabled them to preserve the local spirit of municipal independence and organization (e.g., consuls, guilds). The urban population was free, and the town walls (often built by the bishops) were refuges. [16] The Roman bishop administered lands of the Church and lands of Roman basilicas, classified as tituli. [17] 4. Rectors of the Patrimony (in a Diaconate?)Ecclesiastical government contained other important regional officials. Rectors of the Patrimony were appointed for each major territory. These were drawn from subordinate Roman officials: sub-deacons or notaries and guardians, among them whom could be laymen. [18] Diaconates were established to store and distribute grain, and be centers of social welfare. [19] 5. Granary worker 5. Town / village leaderA more informal, often ad hoc, stratum but probably the most important on a day-to-day level. They included local landholders in particular. The aristocratic, land-holding stratum of Byzantine Italy emerged following Justinian’s 6th-century reconquests. [20] By the late seventh century, many sources speaks of this stratum, which Noble has described as forming "the key social class in late Byzantine Italy." [21] These landholders, often of eastern origin, acquired land through leasing them from bishops contractually. [21] [1]: (Daly 1986) [2]: (Trevor, 1869, 113) [3]: (Noble 2011, xx) [4]: (Richards 1979, 275) [5]: (Richards 1979, 290-292) [6]: Noble, 1984, 10 [7]: (Kleinhenz 2004) [9]: Carocci and Vendittelli, 74-75 [10]: (Partner 1972, 9 [11]: (Richards 1979, 298) [12]: (Trevor 1869, 115) [13]: (Partner 1972, 1) [14]: (Woods 1921, 48) [15]: Noble, 1984, 18 [16]: (Stearns 2001 173) [17]: (Partner 1972, 6) [18]: (Partner 1972, 8) [19]: (Partner 1972, 9) [20]: Noble, 5-6 [21]: Noble, 1984, 7 |
||||||
|
Pope; Cardinals and legates; rectors, counts, and dukes; the papal curia; senators of Rome; castellans, village leaders, and provincial officials
1. Pope: The pope remained the head of a vast bureaucracy and leader of the papal state, despite ongoing weakness on the ground during the fifteenth century. Some popes, however, such as John XXIII and Julius II, were effective administrators and military leaders. 2. Cardinals and legates: The cardinalate had increased in number from 24 (the limit set by the Council of Constance, 1414-1418) to 35 by 1500 or so. [1] By this period, the cardinals were a fundamental part of papal elections and crucial to the politics of the papal states. Legates-often, themselves, cardinals-handled diplomatic business outside of the papal states. The cardinals’ palaces in Rome were in effect sub-headquarters of the papal bureaucracy. 3. The curia: By the late 14th century, the papal bureaucracy had become a massive, complex machine founded on bribery, the sale of offices, and patronage politics. [2] Papal officials operated in Avignon until 1378, returning with the papacy to Rome. During the fifteenth century, the sale of offices within the curia became routinized; Peterson has estimated that under Pope Leo X (1513-1521), two thousand offices were for sale in the city of Rome alone. [1] 3. Rectors, counts, and dukes: These were the clerical officials sent out by the papacy to the provinces of the Papal State, or secular lords appointed as signori (lords) of regions of the State. [3] During the Great Schism, the signori were functionally independent of any higher authority. [4] Senators of Rome: It is unclear whether this was a continuous office, or a ceremonial appointment for distinguished foreigners influential in papal politics. 4. Castellans, village leaders: I use this category to denote minor officials in the provinces of the papal states, who often were appointed locally. _Provincial_ SignoriePartner has characterized the situation in the Papal State during the fifteenth century thus: "It remained true [in the mid-15th century] that the Papal State was divided into war-like little signorie to an extent unknown in any other region of Italy." [5] These lordships relied on utilizing their male subjects as mercenary troops, as the Malatesta of Urbino. The popes could occasionally intervene against these petty lords, but the Papal State would not attain internal cohesion and administration (to a limited extent) until the sixteenth century. Despite this internal weakness, the papacy was strong enough that the Papal State was one of the five guarantor powers of the Peace of Lodi (1454), which established an unprecedented era of peace and cooperation between the Italian powers (the papacy, Florence, Milan, Venice, and the Kingdom of Naples). [6] [1]: Peterson in Najemy, 74 [2]: See Martin in Marino, 34 [3]: Najemy,191 [4]: Najemy, 195 [5]: Partner, 418 [6]: Peterson in Najemy, 72 |
||||||
|
Before the Roman Principate there was no formal bureaucracy. The old Roman treasury - the aerarium Saturni - was housed in the basement of the Temple of Saturn
[1]
The state treasury of the Roman Republic was kept in the custody of the priesthood inside the temple of Saturn, and was managed by elected aristocratic officials called quaestors.
[2]
During the Roman Principate there were salaried officials who worked in the Imperial Bureaux (scrinia)
[3]
but before this time any bureaucrats are thought to have been unpaid aristocrats.
1. Consuls (two) presided over the Senate (minimum 42 years old) both also commanders. Elected by comitia centuriata, an aristocratic assembly. Until 363 CE consuls may have been called praetors [4] . Two consuls, appointed for one year terms. [5] _Governing institutions_ 1. Senators in the Senate Three hundred senators (no minimum age) elected for life, and ten tribunes to represent plebians (created 471 BCE). In this period 600 then 900. 2. Quaestors in the State treasuryTreasury called aerarium or aerarium Saturni (treasury of Saturn). This was used for "depositing cash and archives of the Roman state and was situated in the temple of Saturn below the Capitol. It was controlled by the quaestors under the general supervision of the Senate." [6] This treasury still existed during the empire period when revenues "were increasingly diverted into the fiscus (imperial treasury). The aerarium eventually became the treasury of the city of Rome." [6] elected position. "financial and administrative officials who maintained public records, administered the treasury (aerarium), acted as paymasters accompanying generals on campaigns and were financial secretaries to governors." [2] In 2nd century BCE the quaestorship (a provincial appointment?) "was an entry-level office; it had limited powers, and in this period was usually held around age 30." [7] 3. Assistants or scribes? 3. Equites managerial class who hold public contractsThe equites, the plebeian "middle class", "were also able to take on public contracts, such as road building and supplying equipment to the army." [8] 4. Workers for Equites 1. Censors (two) elected position. Two magistrates "that involved some especially important sacral and civic duties". [9] The office of the censor (censorship) from 443 BCE but not always present were two officials who enrolled citizens into military service. [10] 1. Aediles (two) elected by comitia tributa. "Two plebeian magistrates administered temple of Ceres, function later "extended to public buildings and archives (of the plebiscita and senatus consulta). From 367 BC two curule aediles were elected from the patricians. The plebeian and curule aediles had similar functions at Rome; they were in charge of the maintenance and repair of public buildings (such as temples, roads and aqueducts), of markets (especially weights and measures), of the annona (to the time of Julius Caesar), and of public games and festivals (to the time of Augustus, when games were transferred to praetors)." [2] 1. Praetors (six?) elected by comitia centuriata. "In 366 BC the praetor urbanus (city praetor) was introduced, who was almost exclusively concerned with the administration of law at Rome. The praetor ... was the supreme civil judge. By the middle republic the praetors’ powers were restricted to law and justice... By 241 BC a second praetor ... was established to deal with legal cases in which one or both parties were foreigners. ... there were eight by 80 BC. Praetors issued annual edicts that were an important source of Roman law." [2] "A third magistracy, the praetorship, was also established in 367." [11] The first plebeian praetor was in 336 BCE. [11] _ Provincial administration _ 2. Provincial governors3. quaestors 2. Municipal government3. Decurions in the townships4. Scribes? 2. Client rulers and Colonies Colonies of citizens - 8 coastal by 264 BCE. Latin colonies established by military. They had a devolved government modelled on the system at Rome. [12] [1]: Garrett Fagan. Personal Communication. [2]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 42) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [4]: (Stearns 2001) [5]: (Crawford 2001) [6]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 45) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [7]: (Brennan 2004, 36) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [8]: (Adkins and Adkins 1994, 38) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [9]: (Brennan 2004, 34) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [10]: (Oakley 2004, 17) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [11]: (Oakley 2004, 18) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [12]: (Stearns 2001, 79) |
||||||
|
Before the Roman Principate there was no formal bureaucracy. The old Roman treasury - the aerarium Saturni - was housed in the basement of the Temple of Saturn
[1]
The state treasury of the Roman Republic was kept in the custody of the priesthood inside the temple of Saturn, and was managed by elected aristocratic officials called quaestors.
[2]
1. Consuls (two) presided over the Senate (minimum 42 years old) both also commanders. Elected by comitia centuriata, an aristocratic assembly. Until 363 CE consuls may have been called praetors [3] . Two consuls, appointed for one year terms. [4] _Governing institutions_ 1. Senators in the Senate Three hundred senators (no minimum age) elected for life, and ten tribunes to represent plebians (created 471 BCE). 2. Quaestors in the State treasuryTreasury called aerarium or aerarium Saturni (treasury of Saturn). This was used for "depositing cash and archives of the Roman state and was situated in the temple of Saturn below the Capitol. It was controlled by the quaestors under the general supervision of the Senate." [5] This treasury still existed during the empire period when revenues "were increasingly diverted into the fiscus (imperial treasury). The aerarium eventually became the treasury of the city of Rome." [5] elected position. "financial and administrative officials who maintained public records, administered the treasury (aerarium), acted as paymasters accompanying generals on campaigns and were financial secretaries to governors." [2] In 2nd century BCE the quaestorship (a provincial appointment?) "was an entry-level office; it had limited powers, and in this period was usually held around age 30." [6] 3. Assistants or scribes? 3. Equites managerial class who hold public contractsThe equites, the plebeian "middle class", "were also able to take on public contracts, such as road building and supplying equipment to the army." [7] 4. Workers for Equites 1. Censors (two) elected position. Two magistrates "that involved some especially important sacral and civic duties". [8] The office of the censor (censorship) from 443 BCE but not always present were two officials who enrolled citizens into military service. [9] 1. Aediles (two) elected by comitia tributa. "Two plebeian magistrates administered temple of Ceres, function later "extended to public buildings and archives (of the plebiscita and senatus consulta). From 367 BC two curule aediles were elected from the patricians. The plebeian and curule aediles had similar functions at Rome; they were in charge of the maintenance and repair of public buildings (such as temples, roads and aqueducts), of markets (especially weights and measures), of the annona (to the time of Julius Caesar), and of public games and festivals (to the time of Augustus, when games were transferred to praetors)." [2] 1. Praetors (six?) elected by comitia centuriata. "In 366 BC the praetor urbanus (city praetor) was introduced, who was almost exclusively concerned with the administration of law at Rome. The praetor ... was the supreme civil judge. By the middle republic the praetors’ powers were restricted to law and justice... By 241 BC a second praetor ... was established to deal with legal cases in which one or both parties were foreigners. ... there were eight by 80 BC. Praetors issued annual edicts that were an important source of Roman law." [2] "A third magistracy, the praetorship, was also established in 367." [10] The first plebeian praetor was in 336 BCE. [10] _ Provincial administration _ 2. Provincial governors3. quaestors 2. Municipal government3. Decurions in the townships4. Scribes? 2. Client rulers and Colonies Colonies of citizens - 8 coastal by 264 BCE. Latin colonies established by military. They had a devolved government modelled on the system at Rome. [11] [1]: Garrett Fagan. Personal Communication. [2]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 42) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [3]: (Stearns 2001) [4]: (Crawford 2001) [5]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 45) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [6]: (Brennan 2004, 36) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [7]: (Adkins and Adkins 1994, 38) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [8]: (Brennan 2004, 34) Brennan, Corey T. Power and Process Under The Republican ’Constitution’. Flower, Harriet I ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [9]: (Oakley 2004, 17) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [10]: (Oakley 2004, 18) Oakley, Stephen P. The Early Republic. Flower, Harriet I. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. [11]: (Stearns 2001, 79) |
||||||
|
Before the Roman Principate there was no formal bureaucracy. The old Roman treasury - the aerarium Saturni - was housed in the basement of the Temple of Saturn
[1]
The state treasury of the Roman Republic was kept in the custody of the priesthood inside the temple of Saturn, and was managed by elected aristocratic officials called quaestors.
[2]
Work on this temple is only thought to have been begun by the last king of the Regal Period, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. During the Roman Kingdom, therefore, the treasury must have been held somewhere else; one might speculate within the court of the monarch. King Servius Tullius (578-535 BCE) - presumably with the resources of his court - may have used this to administer the first census of Rome.
1. King "while the urban community at Rome may have begun to develop a distinct, community-based identity from the eighth century onwards, the gentilicial elite of Rome, even as late as the early sixth century, would probably be best characterized as simply ’Latin,’ or possibily even ’central Italian’. The presence of this pan-central Italian gentilicial aristocracy would have had a dramatic impact on how Rome interracted with other Latin settlements as it may have blurred man of the assumed settlement-based divisions, particularly with regard to military matters, which seem to have been almost entirely under the purview of the more mobile gentilicial elite." [3] "After Romulus, the position of king was held by men of Sabine, Latin and Etruscan extraction. The kingship was not hereditary." [4] _Central government_ 2. Senate and an assembly. [5] from tradition we can "infer an early elective monarchy, the king being elective by vote of the heads of all the Roman families; (i.e., voting under the form of suffrage known as the comitia curiata), and having as merely advisory council, the Senate." [6] 2. Senior magistrates of the Assembly (comitia curiata) [7] Rome was similar to a Greek polis. [8] 3. Scribes (inferred - working for senior magistrates) _Clan system (gens)_ 2. Tribal leaderTribes were the basis of political and military organization in middle 7th century BCE. [7] The gens became established in Latium before c600 BCE. [9] The gens system was reformed under Servius Tullius (578-534 BCE). [10] New tribes were created to replace the old three tribes with the division based on wealth. [11] [1]: Garrett Fagan. Personal Communication. [2]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 42) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [3]: (Armstrong 2016, 73) Armstrong, Jeremy. 2016. War and Society in Early Rome. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [4]: (Adkins and Adkins 1994, 3) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [5]: Richard Hooker http://richard-hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/ROME/KINGDOM.HTM [6]: (Shumway 1902, 100) Shumway, Edgar S. 1902. Some View-Points of Roman Law Prior to the Twelve Tables. The American Law Register (1898-1905). Vol. 50. No. 2. Volume 41. New Series. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. pp. 97-104. [7]: (Cornell 1995, 115) [8]: (Cornell 1995, 118) [9]: (Cornell 1995, 84) [10]: (Cornell 1995, 128) [11]: (Cornell 1995, 173, 179) |
||||||
|
levels.
Reference to a closing of a Great Council 1297 CE? 1. Doge of Venice The position of Doge was a life appointment. [1] 2. Magistracy of the Avogaria di Comun. [2] 2. Maggior Consiglio3. Council of Ten’Plebian’ nobility. [3] Council of Ten is part of the Maggior Consiglio. Council of Ten was created in 1310 CE. [4] 3. Ducal chancery"Toward the early fourteenth century the ducal chancery was established. In the first instance it served as a bureaucratic arm of the Maggior Consiglio, bringing into the sphere of government the active participation of the citizen class." [5] 2. Consiglio dei PregadiThe office of Doge of Crete "was not for life, as in Venice, but only for two years, renewable at the discretion of the Lesser Council or Senate, which made the appointment in the first place." [1] "the Senate, or Consiglio dei Pregadi, was made up of 120 permanent members." [3] 3. Sestiers associated with any official? 3. Podesta (with the Captain, one of the Rectors) of large town or city 3. Captain (with the Podesta, one of the Rectors) of large town or city4. Municipal councils 4. Local police 4. Schools 3. Podesta, Capitano or Povveditor of a small town"In each of the more important dependent cities she placed a civil governor, called the Podesta, and a military commandant, called the Captain, whose duty it was to raise levies and look after the defence of the city; these two when acting together were called the Rectors. The local municipal councils, varying in numbers, were left undisturbed and retained the control of such matters as lighting, roads, local taxation. The police and imperial taxation were in the hands of the Rectors, and they were in constant communication either with the Senate, or, in very grave emergencies, with the Council of Ten. The smaller towns were governed by a Podesta, a Capitano, or a Provveditore. Each town possessed its own special code, called the Statuto, which the Rectors swore to observe. The Statuto dealt with octroi dues, roads and bridges, wells, lighting, doctors, nurses, fires, guilds, santitary matters, - in short with all the multifarous details of municipal and even of private life. ... In the Courts of Justice the Podesta or one of his three assessors merely presided; the did not constitute the Court, which was composed of citizens. Provision was made for public instruction in the humanities, in canon and civil law, and in medicine; primary education was supplied by what were called schools of aritmetic. The cost of education was charged on the revenues of the province." [6] 2. Doge of CandiaIn Crete a "simplified model of the Venetian home government" was used. "This allowed Venetian residents abroad to enjoy accustomed roles on governing boards and councils, while centralized conrol was assured by entrusting principal executive powers to officers appointed from Venice, usually for a term of two years. This practice dated from 1208, before Crete had been conquered, when the Venetians appointed a doge of Candia (the main city of the island) to act as chief magistrate and military commander." [1] 2. Greater Council (of Crete)3. Fief holders in sestiers (administrative areas) of Crete"The first doge of Candia, Giacomo Tiepolo, divided the island into six administrative areas and named them after the sestiers into which Venice itself was divided. Fief holders from the sestiers acted as members of a Greater Council, modeled on the Maggior Consiglio of Venice, to which all nobles belonged." [1] "In 1297, culminating reorginization attempts that had begun in the late 1280s, the Maggior Consiglio (Great Council) set up a regularized system of membership, accepting as member those who had previously served in the council and the legitimate male descendants of all part and present members. The immediate effect was to increase the size of the council, but ultimately it limited access to a discrete group of families." [7] Magistracy of the Avogaria di Comun. [2] "The college of the three avogadori could intromettere [introduce an appeal] into the government council which seemed most suitable to the typology of the case: the Quarantia civile or the Quarantia criminale - courts of justice composed of 40 nobles each, destined during the course of the 15th century to become state’s highest courts of appeal; the Senate or Consiglio de’ Pregadi - the principal Venetian legislative organ at the center of the production of norms regarding foreign and domestic policy, civil and military; the Minor Consiglio - a restricted and elite body represented by the doge’s councilors, six nobles nominated by the Senate; or the Maggior Consiglio - composed, instead, of all the the nobles who had reached their majority." [8] "in the 15th century ... the role of this magistracy took center stage in the political and constitutional history of Venice." [8] "Decrees of the Senate or sovereign letters signed by ducal councilors, sentences passed by the plethora of republican institutions with their seat in the capital, pronouncements or acts of government of the Venetian rectors in the terraferma or envoys in the colonies of the stato da mar; every type of act produced in the course of the activities of government, from the least important magistracy to the Doge himself, no matter how solemn or banal it might have been, could be brought by appeal before the Avogaria." [9] "The ever-increasing interventions of the Avogaria in the years 1440-60 represent a true turning point in Venetian political history. The apex of the constituional system - the doge, the Provveditori di San Marco, the ducal councilors, the Savi del Consiglio - thus came to be subjected to a form of continuous supervision. In 1453, for example, the avogadori were able to block an order from the Doge to the Giudici di Petizion." [10] "The much enlarged imperial territories that thus accrued to the Venetian state after 1204 had to be governed somehow. In Corfu briefly, and in Crete more permanently, the Venetians resorted to the form of military administration used by all the Latin crusading states. That is, the city granted fiefs to knights and serjeants who undertook to build castles and defend the land in return for the income to be derived from territories granted to them. Holders of these fiefs were all Venetian citizens; their lands came by confiscation from Greek magnates." [11] 1200 CE: "a bailo was appointed to supervise Venetian affairs along the entire Syrian and Palestinian coast." [1] [1]: (McNeill 1986, 34) William H McNeill. 1986. Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. [2]: (Viggiano 2014, 51) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [3]: (Viggiano 2014, 57) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [4]: (Martin and Romano 2000, 4) John Martin. Dennis Romano. Reconsidering Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [5]: (Pincus 2000, 91) Debra Pincus. Hard Times and Ducal Radiance. Andrea Dandolo and the Construction of the Ruler in Fourteenth-Century Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [6]: (? 1902, 263) ?. Chapter VIII. Venice. A W Ward. G W Prothero. Stanley Leathes. eds. 1902. The Cambridge Modern History. Volume I. The Renaissance. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [7]: (Pincus 2000, 90) Debra Pincus. Hard Times and Ducal Radiance. Andrea Dandolo and the Construction of the Ruler in Fourteenth-Century Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [8]: (Viggiano 2014, 52) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [9]: (Viggiano 2014, 53) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [10]: (Viggiano 2014, 54) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [11]: (McNeill 1986, 33) William H McNeill. 1986. Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. |
||||||
|
levels.
Reference to a closing of a Great Council 1297 CE? 1. Doge of Venice The position of Doge was a life appointment. [1] 2. Magistracy of the Avogaria di Comun. [2] 2. Maggior Consiglio3. Council of Ten’Plebian’ nobility. [3] Council of Ten is part of the Maggior Consiglio. Council of Ten was created in 1310 CE. [4] 3. Ducal chancery"Toward the early fourteenth century the ducal chancery was established. In the first instance it served as a bureaucratic arm of the Maggior Consiglio, bringing into the sphere of government the active participation of the citizen class." [5] 2. Consiglio dei PregadiThe office of Doge of Crete "was not for life, as in Venice, but only for two years, renewable at the discretion of the Lesser Council or Senate, which made the appointment in the first place." [1] "the Senate, or Consiglio dei Pregadi, was made up of 120 permanent members." [3] 3. Sestiers associated with any official? 3. Podesta (with the Captain, one of the Rectors) of large town or city 3. Captain (with the Podesta, one of the Rectors) of large town or city4. Municipal councils 4. Local police 4. Schools 3. Podesta, Capitano or Povveditor of a small town"In each of the more important dependent cities she placed a civil governor, called the Podesta, and a military commandant, called the Captain, whose duty it was to raise levies and look after the defence of the city; these two when acting together were called the Rectors. The local municipal councils, varying in numbers, were left undisturbed and retained the control of such matters as lighting, roads, local taxation. The police and imperial taxation were in the hands of the Rectors, and they were in constant communication either with the Senate, or, in very grave emergencies, with the Council of Ten. The smaller towns were governed by a Podesta, a Capitano, or a Provveditore. Each town possessed its own special code, called the Statuto, which the Rectors swore to observe. The Statuto dealt with octroi dues, roads and bridges, wells, lighting, doctors, nurses, fires, guilds, santitary matters, - in short with all the multifarous details of municipal and even of private life. ... In the Courts of Justice the Podesta or one of his three assessors merely presided; the did not constitute the Court, which was composed of citizens. Provision was made for public instruction in the humanities, in canon and civil law, and in medicine; primary education was supplied by what were called schools of aritmetic. The cost of education was charged on the revenues of the province." [6] 2. Doge of CandiaIn Crete a "simplified model of the Venetian home government" was used. "This allowed Venetian residents abroad to enjoy accustomed roles on governing boards and councils, while centralized conrol was assured by entrusting principal executive powers to officers appointed from Venice, usually for a term of two years. This practice dated from 1208, before Crete had been conquered, when the Venetians appointed a doge of Candia (the main city of the island) to act as chief magistrate and military commander." [1] 2. Greater Council (of Crete)3. Fief holders in sestiers (administrative areas) of Crete"The first doge of Candia, Giacomo Tiepolo, divided the island into six administrative areas and named them after the sestiers into which Venice itself was divided. Fief holders from the sestiers acted as members of a Greater Council, modeled on the Maggior Consiglio of Venice, to which all nobles belonged." [1] "In 1297, culminating reorginization attempts that had begun in the late 1280s, the Maggior Consiglio (Great Council) set up a regularized system of membership, accepting as member those who had previously served in the council and the legitimate male descendants of all part and present members. The immediate effect was to increase the size of the council, but ultimately it limited access to a discrete group of families." [7] Magistracy of the Avogaria di Comun. [2] "The college of the three avogadori could intromettere [introduce an appeal] into the government council which seemed most suitable to the typology of the case: the Quarantia civile or the Quarantia criminale - courts of justice composed of 40 nobles each, destined during the course of the 15th century to become state’s highest courts of appeal; the Senate or Consiglio de’ Pregadi - the principal Venetian legislative organ at the center of the production of norms regarding foreign and domestic policy, civil and military; the Minor Consiglio - a restricted and elite body represented by the doge’s councilors, six nobles nominated by the Senate; or the Maggior Consiglio - composed, instead, of all the the nobles who had reached their majority." [8] "in the 15th century ... the role of this magistracy took center stage in the political and constitutional history of Venice." [8] "Decrees of the Senate or sovereign letters signed by ducal councilors, sentences passed by the plethora of republican institutions with their seat in the capital, pronouncements or acts of government of the Venetian rectors in the terraferma or envoys in the colonies of the stato da mar; every type of act produced in the course of the activities of government, from the least important magistracy to the Doge himself, no matter how solemn or banal it might have been, could be brought by appeal before the Avogaria." [9] "The ever-increasing interventions of the Avogaria in the years 1440-60 represent a true turning point in Venetian political history. The apex of the constituional system - the doge, the Provveditori di San Marco, the ducal councilors, the Savi del Consiglio - thus came to be subjected to a form of continuous supervision. In 1453, for example, the avogadori were able to block an order from the Doge to the Giudici di Petizion." [10] "The much enlarged imperial territories that thus accrued to the Venetian state after 1204 had to be governed somehow. In Corfu briefly, and in Crete more permanently, the Venetians resorted to the form of military administration used by all the Latin crusading states. That is, the city granted fiefs to knights and serjeants who undertook to build castles and defend the land in return for the income to be derived from territories granted to them. Holders of these fiefs were all Venetian citizens; their lands came by confiscation from Greek magnates." [11] 1200 CE: "a bailo was appointed to supervise Venetian affairs along the entire Syrian and Palestinian coast." [1] [1]: (McNeill 1986, 34) William H McNeill. 1986. Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. [2]: (Viggiano 2014, 51) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [3]: (Viggiano 2014, 57) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [4]: (Martin and Romano 2000, 4) John Martin. Dennis Romano. Reconsidering Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [5]: (Pincus 2000, 91) Debra Pincus. Hard Times and Ducal Radiance. Andrea Dandolo and the Construction of the Ruler in Fourteenth-Century Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [6]: (? 1902, 263) ?. Chapter VIII. Venice. A W Ward. G W Prothero. Stanley Leathes. eds. 1902. The Cambridge Modern History. Volume I. The Renaissance. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [7]: (Pincus 2000, 90) Debra Pincus. Hard Times and Ducal Radiance. Andrea Dandolo and the Construction of the Ruler in Fourteenth-Century Venice. John Martin. Dennis Romano. eds. 2000. Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State 1297-1797. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. [8]: (Viggiano 2014, 52) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [9]: (Viggiano 2014, 53) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [10]: (Viggiano 2014, 54) Alfredo Viggiano. Politics and Constitution. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [11]: (McNeill 1986, 33) William H McNeill. 1986. Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081-1797. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. |
||||||
|
Needs more work done to illustrate chain-of-command. Coded same as Kamakura.
’For the nearly 700-year span of Japan’s medieval and early modern periods, warriors-with varying levels of effectiveness and hegemony-ruled the country. Although the fortunes of particular extended warrior families waxed and waned, only members of the warrior class could serve as shoguns, the military rulers. Their governments, known commonly as shogunates, were often challenged by the interests of other powerful warrior families in various parts of Japan and by the imperial family in Kyoto. Although the warrior bureaucracy largely controlled the affairs of the state, the emperor and the imperial court were still the formal head of government. Warrior governments typically sought out- or forced-the formal imperial decrees that gave legitimacy to the shoguns. Occasionally emperors would attempt to reassert direct imperial rule. They were, however, always suppressed in favor of warrior rule... Warrior governments functioned as a lord-vassal system of loyalty. This is reflected in the political structures of the different shogunates. Although they varied greatly in their organization, the notion of loyalty, whether earned or forced, always laid the foundation on which the warrior government was built.’ [1] ’The Ashikaga shoguns of the medieval period, for all the noble status they had acquired, were obliged to share political power with other court families, other members of the military aristocracy, and the religious orders. Theirs was a national command limited by the fragmentation of sovereignty and by the precedents and structures of the court-centered institutions of governance.’ [2] ’The Ashikaga shogunate inherited much of the administrative structure of the Kamakura government. Key offices such as the Mandokoro (Administrative Board), Samurai-dokoro (Board of Retainers), and the Monchujo (Board of Inquiry) remained. The following description of individual positions and offices only covers those not already dealt with in the section on the Kamakura administrative structure. The only exception is when a particular office or position underwent significant change in the Muromachi period. [3] _Central Administration_ 6. Shogun 5. Shogunal Deputy (Kanrei)"The office of kanrei was instituted by the Ashikaga shogunate. The role of the shogunal deputy was to assist the shogun in administering the warrior government. One importantbetween the shogunate and the shugo (military governors). Military governors had grown more powerful by this time and posed a threat to the governing authority of the shogunate. Three warrior families— the Shiba, the Hosokawa, and the Hatakeyama — shared this position on a rotating basis." [3] "The office of kanrei was instituted by the Ashikaga shogunate. The role of the shogunal deputy was to assist the shogun in administering the warrior government. One importantbetween the shogunate and the shugo (military governors). Military governors had grown more powerful by this time and posed a threat to the governing authority of the shogunate. Three warrior families— the Shiba, the Hosokawa, and the Hatakeyama — shared this position on a rotating basis." [3] 4. Council of State (Hyojoshu)"The Hyojoshu was established in 1225 by Hojo Yasutoki as a way to share the responsibility for governance. The council included the most important statesmen, warriors, and scholars. Matters were decided by a simple majority vote.’ The council continued under the Ashikaga shogunate." [4] 3. High Court (Hikitsuke)"The Hikitsuke was established as a judicial court by shogunal regent Hojo Tokiyori in 1249. It was intended to supplement the responsibilities of the Hyojoshu (Council of State). Among the legal issues dealt with by this body were land claims and taxation.’ The High Court continued under the Ashikaga shogunate." [4] 2. 3. Administrative Board (Mandokoro)"Established in 1191 by Minamoto no Yoritomo, the Mandokoro took over the functions of the Kumonjo as the main executive and general administrative office of the Kamakura shogunate. After Hojo family regents assumed real control over the shogunate, they transformed the Mandokoro into an office whose sole responsibility was to oversee the government’s finances." [4] 2. 3. Board of Retainers (Samurai-Dokoro)"This office was established by Minamoto no Yoritomo in 1180. It functioned as a disciplinary board to regulate the activities of Yoritomo’s expanding network of warrior vassals (gokenin). Its main responsibility was overseeing the police and the land stewards (jito). In the Muromachi period, added duties included security for the capital at Kyoto, and administration of shogunal and other property." [4] 2. e.g. head of police inferred1. e.g. policeman inferred 3. Board of Inquiry (Monchujo)"See above under ’Kamakura Shogunate.’ In the Muromachi period, many of the responsibilities formerly carried out by the Monchujo were reassigned to the Mandokoro (Administrative Board), and the Board of Inquiry was reduced to record keeping." [5] 2. Scribes? _Local Administration_ 4. Kamakura Governor-General (Kamakura Kubo)"During the Muromachi period, the term kubo referred both to Ashikaga shoguns and to their governors- general. The post of Kamakura kubo was established in 1336 to monitor the interests of the shogunate in Kamakura and eastern Japan. To this end, the Kamakura kubo was responsible for governing affairs in this region. The Kamakura governorgeneral became a hereditary position within the Ashikaga family." [5] 4. Kanto Deputy (Kanto Kanrei)"The Kanto kanrei was a position initiated by the Ashikaga shogunate in 1349. Headquartered in Kyoto, the shogunate needed an overseer in the Kanto region, which included Kamakura. The Kanto deputy fulfilled this role, especially in providing assistance to Kanto area governors-general (Kamakura kubo). From the latter half of the 14th century, members of different branches of the Uesugi family held the position of Kanto kanrei." [5] 4. Kyushu Deputy (Kyushu Tandai) [5] 4. Oshu Deputy (Oshu Tandai) [5] 4. Ushu Deputy (Ushu Tandai)As part of the Ashikaga shogunates’ effort to maintain control over political and military affairs, regional deputies (tandai) were appointed in parts of Japan that were deemed strategically important. The Muromachi-period government placed deputies in northwestern Honshu (the Oshu and Ushu tandai) and in Kyushu (Kyushu tandai). See also “Rokuhara tandai” and “Chinzei tandai” above under “Kamakura Shogunate.” [5] 2. Military Governors (Shugo)"The shugo rank was established by Minamoto no Yoritomo to maintain control over the provinces. The position became a formal part of the administrative structure of the Kamakura shogunate. Although Yoritomo handselected the first shugo, this title became hereditary over time. Duties of this office included general police and peacekeeping activities and administrative responsibilities such as investigating crimes and judging legal cases." [4] 2. Deputy Military Governors (Shugodai)"The position of shugodai existed during the Kamakura period. Up until the Mongol invasions in the latter half of the 13th century, shugo infrequently lived in the provinces they were assigned to govern. This responsibility fell to the shugodai. In the Muromachi period, the shugodai became a more formal part of the shogunate’s administrative structure." [5] 4. Land Stewards (Jito) -- since Jito collected taxes may also be a low level in the central government chain of command e.g. treasury (if it was called that)"Land stewards, or jito, were officials appointed by the Kamakura shogunate from among its most trusted vassals to serve as estate (shoen) supervisors. Jito were responsible for overseeing the shogunate’s tax interests on these private estates. As such, jito handled the collection of taxes and ensured correct distribution. The jito system, however, was also a means whereby the Kamakura shogunate could reward its loyal vassals (gokenin) for their service to the military government. Over time, jito became an inherited office.’ still present in the Muromachi period." [4] 3. Deputy Land Stewards (Jitodai)"Within the jito system, some shogunal vassals received appointments to oversee multiple estates. When this occurred, deputy land stewards were used to govern these additional regions. This position was significant enough to become a formal part of the Ashikaga shogunate’s administrative structure." [5] Village level leadership/government? [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.88. [2]: Hall, John Whitney (ed.). 1991.The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.p.10 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.94. [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.92. [5]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.96. |
||||||
|
’For the nearly 700-year span of Japan’s medieval and early modern periods, warriors - with varying levels of effectiveness and hegemony—ruled the country. Although the fortunes of particular extended warrior families waxed and waned, only members of the warrior class could serve as shoguns, the military rulers. Their governments, known commonly as shogunates, were often challenged by the interests of other powerful warrior families in various parts of Japan and by the imperial family in Kyoto. Although the warrior bureaucracy largely controlled the affairs of the state, the emperor and the imperial court were still the formal head of government. Warrior governments typically sought out- or forced-the formal imperial decrees that gave legitimacy to the shoguns. Occasionally emperors would attempt to reassert direct imperial rule. They were, however, always suppressed in favor of warrior rule. During the first part of the Kamakura period, the shogunate and the court more or less shared governmental authority.Warrior governments functioned as a lord-vassal system of loyalty. This is reflected in the political structures of the different shogunates. Although they varied greatly in their organization, the notion of loyalty, whether earned or forced, always laid the foundation on which the warrior government was built.
[1]
’The shogunal regent (shikken) system put into effect by the Hojo family further transformed the relationship between court and shogunate. At court, the imperial government was run, in fact, not by the emperor but by an imperial regent from the aristocratic Fujiwara family. The Hojo family was now in control of the shogunate via the shogunal regency. Both forms of authority were thus controlled by regents, with the Hojo regent regulating most aspects of government. The Hojo regents also increasingly involved themselves in matters of imperial succession, thereby lending additional complications to the already divisive process of choosing emperors.’
[1]
1. Hojo regents _Central Administration_ 6. Shogun 5. Shogunal regent (shikken)"The office of shogunal regent was held by members of the Hojo family between 1203, when Hojo Tokimasa assumed the title, until the end of the Kamakura period in 1333. Lacking the necessary social rank to hold the title of shogun, it was through the office of shikken that the Hojo family was able to run the government behind the scene. As shogunal regents, the Hojo family not only controlled the affairs of state, they eventually came to decide who would be appointed shogun in the first place." [2] 5. Cosigner (rensho)"The office of rensho was established by the shogunal regent Hojo Yasutoki in 1225 as a way to share power and government administration with competing branches of the Hojo family. This position created, in effect, an associate regent. Official documents required the signatures of both the regent and the cosigner." [2] 4. Members of the Council of State (Hyojoshu)"The Hyojoshu was established in 1225 by Hojo Yasutoki as a way to share the responsibility for governance. The council included the most important statesmen, warriors, and scholars. Matters were decided by a simple majority vote. It was the highest decision-making body in the Kamakura government." [2] 3. Public Documents Office (Kumonjo)"The Kumonjo was established by Minamoto no Yoritomo in 1184 as the main executive and general administrative office of his government. After the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate, this office was renamed the Mandokoro." [2] 3. Administrative Board (Mandokoro)"Established in 1191 by Minamoto no Yoritomo, the Mandokoro took over the functions of the Kumonjo as the main executive and general administrative office of the Kamakura shogunate. After Hojo family regents assumed real control over the shogunate, they transformed the Mandokoro into an office whose sole responsibility was to oversee the government’s finances." [2] 3. Board of Inquiry (Monchujo)"In 1184 Minamoto no Yoritomo established the Monchujo to be responsible for legal matters, especially dealing with lawsuits and appeals. Most cases concerned disputed land rights, but over time they included such things as business matters and loans." [2] 3. Board of Retainers (Samurai-dokoro)"This office was established by Minamoto no Yoritomo in 1180. It functioned as a disciplinary board to regulate the activities of Yoritomo’s expanding network of warrior vassals (gokenin). Its main responsibility was overseeing the police and the land stewards (jito). In the Muromachi period, added duties included security for the capital at Kyoto, and administration of shogunal and other property." [2] 3. High Court (Hikitsukeshu)"The Hikitsuke was established as a judicial court by shogunal regent Hojo Tokiyori in 1249. It was intended to supplement the responsibilities of the Hyojoshu (Council of State). Among the legal issues dealt with by this body were land claims and taxation." [2] 2. Department head, e.g. head of department dealing with tax law1. Department staff e.g. worker in department dealing with taxa law _Local Administration_ 3. Kyoto Military Governor (Kyoto Shugo) -- who did the governor directly report to? who appointed him?"The position of Kyoto military governor was established at the beginning of the Kamakura shogunate. The governor’s role was to oversee the affairs of the imperial court on behalf of the shogunate. This position was replaced by the Rokuhara tandai in 1221." [2] 2. Rokuhara Deputies (Rokuhara Tandai)"The office of Rokuhara tandai (shogunal deputies located in the Rokuhara district of Kyoto) was established in 1221 to replace the office of Kyoto shugo as supervisors of political, military, and legal matters. The Rokuhara tandai were responsible not only for overseeing Kyoto, but also affairs in the southwestern part of Japan. This position was created as the direct effect of Emperor Go-Toba’s attempt, known as the Jokyu Disturbance, to overthrow the shogunate and reestablish direct imperial rule. After Go-Toba’s defeat, the Rokuhara tandai was set up in part to ensure that such threats to shogunal power did not occur again." [2] 3. Kyushu Commissioner (Chinzei Bugyo)"This position was established by the Kamakura shogunate. The shogunate appointed two commissioners to oversee local Kyushu matters, especially the activities of Minamoto vassals." [2] 3. Oshu General Commissioner (Oshu Sobugyo)"This office was established by the Kamakura shogunate at the beginning of the medieval period in an area of northeastern Japan known as Oshu (island of Honshu). This region was the domain of a warrior branch of the Fujiwara family known as the Oshu Fujiwara who ruled the area with little intervention from the imperial court during the Heian period. In 1189, Minamoto no Yoritomo, fearing the power of this domain, attacked and conquered the Oshu Fujiwara. The position of Oshu general commissioner was founded to manage affairs in this region for the shogunate." [2] 3. Military Governors (Shugo)"The shugo rank was established by Minamoto no Yoritomo to maintain control over the provinces. The position became a formal part of the administrative structure of the Kamakura shogunate. Although Yoritomo handselected the first shugo, this title became hereditary over time. Duties of this office included general police and peacekeeping activities and administrative responsibilities such as investigating crimes and judging legal cases." [2] 3. Jito (Land Stewards)"Land stewards, or jito, were officials appointed by the Kamakura shogunate from among its most trusted vassals to serve as estate (shoen) supervisors. Jito were responsible for overseeing the shogunate’s tax interests on these private estates. As such, jito handled the collection of taxes and ensured correct distribution. The jito system, however, was also a means whereby the Kamakura shogunate could reward its loyal vassals (gokenin) for their service to the military government. Over time, jito became an inherited office." [2] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.88. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.92. |
||||||
|
levels.
’The government was run by a system of offices ranging from those closest to the emperor to others at more distant places and at lower levels. These offices had histories of their own, coming into existence at different times with different names and functions. Here we shall survey merely the ones that were probably named and defined in the Taiho administrative code of 701 and the Yoro code of 718. [1] ’Down through the administrative structure - from the heads of offices around the emperor to those in charge of local offices in distant regions - ran a hierarchy of office titles and ranks. Heads of the highest offices held the title of director (kami) who had assistants (suke), secretaries (jo), and clerks (sakan). (These four office titles were written with different characters but pronounced in the same way when held by officials serving in different ministries and agencies.) According to the Yoro adminstrative code of 718, the number of officials in the two councils and eight ministries totaled 331. If lower-ranking officials are added, the total was 6,487. Ranks provided a more precise indication of status than titles did, for officeholders with the same title had different ranks yielding different stipends and perquisites. The Taiho code set aside four imperial ranks (hon) for princes and near relatives of the emperor and thirty court ranks (kurai) for persons lower in the aristocratic order. The son or grandson of a nobleman holding the highest imperial rank was automatically awarded a junior fifth rank lower grade court rank when he reached the age of twenty-one. Special treatment for anyone with a fifth rank or above - apart from the rights that their sons had to a high rank when they turned twenty-one, irrespective of ability - is revealed by the generous stipends and retainers they received’ [2] ’The structure of the imperial court was a complex affair. The following chart depicts the basic outline, but each division and ministry contained a hierarchy of officials. Some divisions also included subdivisions. Despite the formality of this structure, the operation and functionality of any particular ministry fluctuated depending on the particular time period. There were also aristocratic families who came to dominate a particular court function through the use of heredity.’ [3] 5.Emperor ’At the apex of the structure was the emperor, whose will was expressed in decrees (mikotonori) and edicts (semmyo). Important decisions, such as those pertaining to appointments and promotions of high-ranking officials, were recommended at meetings of the Council of State but were carried out only with imperial approval. The two codes placed no limitations on imperial authority, thus giving the emperor, legally at least, despotic control. [1] 4[a]. Council of Kami Affairs’Under the emperor were two councils that had equal standing: the Council of State, generally overseeing secular affairs, and the Council of Kami Affairs, running affairs in the area of kami worship. Although the two councils were organizationally at the same level, the Council of State’s highest minister (the chancellor) held a higher rank than did the highest official of the Council of Kami Affairs. But the chancellor also had some responsibilities that lay outside the bounds of secular administration: He served as the emperor’s guide and teacher and was given the task of harmonizing movements of the world with Chinese principles of yin and yang.’ [4] 4[b]. Council of State’Under the emperor were two councils that had equal standing: the Council of State, generally overseeing secular affairs, and the Council of Kami Affairs, running affairs in the area of kami worship. Although the two councils were organizationally at the same level, the Council of State’s highest minister (the chancellor) held a higher rank than did the highest official of the Council of Kami Affairs. [4] 4[b].1. Chancellorthe chancellor also had some responsibilities that lay outside the bounds of secular administration: He served as the emperor’s guide and teacher and was given the task of harmonizing movements of the world with Chinese principles of yin and yang.’ [4] 3[a] Minister of the Left3.1[a] Central affairs’The Ministry of Central Affairs (the Nakatsukasa-sho) ranked above all other ministries and was the main link between the emperor and the Council of State. Its minister gave advice on numerous court matters, supervised the court chamberlains, and drafted imperial edicts. Under him were ten secretariats, including the Secretariat for the Empress’s Household (Chugushiki).’ [5] 3.2[a] The Ministry of Personnel’The Ministry of Personnel(Shikibu-sho) supervised personnel affairs. Within it were two important bureaus: one for higher learning (Daigaku-ryo) and another for nobles who held a court rank but occupied no office (Sammi-ryo).’ [5] 3.3[a] Civil affairs‘The Ministry of Civil Affairs (Jibu-sho) had two important bureaus: one for Buddhist priests and nuns and aliens (Gemba-ryo) and another for court music (Gagaku-ryo).’ [5] 3.4.[a] Popular affairs‘The Ministry of Popular Affairs (Mimbu-sho) was responsible for administering household registers, taxes, irrigation, paddy fields, and the budget.’ [5] 3[b] Minister of the Right 3[b].1 The Ministry of War‘The Ministry of War (Hyobu-sho) took care of personnel matters pertaining to soldiers and other military affairs.’ [5] 3[b].2 The Ministry of Justice‘The Ministry of Justice (Gyobu-sho) handled legal affairs.’ [5] 3[b].3 Treasury‘The Ministry of the Treasury (Okura-sho) dealt with state property, weights and measures, prices, and related matters.’ [5] 3[b].4 Imperial household‘The Ministry of the Imperial Household (Kunai-sho) managed food, clothing, and personnel problems of the imperial household. Inside each ministry were several, often several tens of, administrative organs of three types: secretariats (shiki), bureaus (ryo), and offices (tsukasa)’ [5] 2.Four senior counselors’Below the chancellor, the minister of the left, and the minister of the right were four senior counselors. [6] 1 Council of State’s three departments‘Under these six men were the heads of three administrative offices, referred to as the Council of State’s three departments: the Department of Junior Counselors (Shonagonkan), the Department of the Controller of the Left (Sabenkan), and the Department of the Controller of the Right (Ubenkan). The first included three junior counselors authorized to serve as custodians of the imperial and Council of State seals, and the last two were responsible for transmitting imperial orders (senji), distributing orders issued by the Council of State (kampu), and handling communications between the council and its eight ministries.’ [5] 1.1 the Department of Junior Counselors (Shonagonkan) 1.2 the Department of the Controller of the Left (Sabenkan) 1.3 the Department of the Controller of the Right (Ubenkan) ___Other offices___ ‘Outside the ministerial structure were a number of important boards and administrative units’ [5] Censors ‘the Board of Censors (Danjodai) that was engaged in exposing the illegal activities of officials and upholding standards of correct bureaucratic behaviour.’ [5] Guard units ‘there were the headquarters of the various guard units, beginning with the five that guarded the imperial palace: the gate guards (emon-fu), the left guards (saeji-fu), the right guards (neji-fu), the left military guards (sahyoe-fu), and the right military guards (uhyoe-fu). The central government had, in addition, a right and left bureau of cavalry and a right and left bureau of armories. Other offices outside the eight ministries included two that were responsible for the left and right sectors of the capital.’ [7] Capital section Dazaifu ‘ Organs of government outside the capital included, first of all, the Dazai headquarters (Dazai-fu) located near the harbor of Na in Kyushu from which the nine provinces of Kyushu, as well as the islands of Iki and Tsushima, were administered. Each of the country’s sixty or more provinces 16 was headed by a governor who usually had under him ten or more districts headed by district supervisors. Each district contained between two and twenty villages (sato) made up of fifty households each. A governor was appointed for a six-year term, but the district supervisors, usually selected from the local gentry, had no fixed term of office. The Taiho administrative code contained no articles dealing with village heads, but it is assumed that they were influential farmers.’ [7] [1]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.232-233 [2]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.236 [3]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.89 [4]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.233 [5]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.234 [6]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.233-234 [7]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.235 |
||||||
|
’For the nearly 700-year span of Japan’s medieval and early modern periods, warriors-with varying levels of effectiveness and hegemony-ruled the country. Although the fortunes of particular extended warrior families waxed and waned, only members of the warrior class could serve as shoguns, the military rulers. Their governments, known commonly as shogunates, were often challenged by the interests of other powerful warrior families in various parts of Japan and by the imperial family in Kyoto. Although the warrior bureaucracy largely controlled the affairs of the state, the emperor and the imperial court were still the formal head of government. Warrior governments typically sought out- or forced-the formal imperial decrees that gave legitimacy to the shoguns. Occasionally emperors would attempt to reassert direct imperial rule. They were, however, always suppressed in favor of warrior rule... Warrior governments functioned as a lord-vassal system of loyalty. This is reflected in the political structures of the different shogunates. Although they varied greatly in their organization, the notion of loyalty, whether earned or forced, always laid the foundation on which the warrior government was built.’
[1]
List derived from ‘Administrative Structure of the Tokugawa Shogunate’.
[2]
‘The neat table of organization charts of the Edo bakufu, which list upwards of four hundred posts in chain-of-command order, mask the problems of competition for control of policy and enforcement authority that plagued Edo bakufu politics.’
[3]
1. Shogun "The Shogun was a hereditary military leader, in this period a member of the Tokugawa family. ‘the shogunate maintained control over the court and aristocrats by enacting legal regulations that set strict limits on their activities. As in the medieval period, the emperor was largely a figurehead whose main function was to perform public rituals." [4] 2. Samurai retainers (Hatamoto)"Edo city commissioners were selected from among those of hatamoto (“bannerman”: direct samurai retainers of the shogunate) rank." [5] 2. Envoys to the Court (Kinrizuki)"Imperial palace inspectors." [5] 2. Masters Of Shogunal Ceremony (soshaban)"protocol officials who reported directly to the shogun. The 20-some soshaban were responsible for such tasks as keeping the shogun’s schedule and organizing shogunal ceremonies." [5] 2. Grand Chamberlain (sobayonin)"responsible for transmitting messages between the Tokugawa shogun and the roju, the shogun’s senior councillors. This position was created in 1681." _Central government_ 2. Great Elder (Tairo)"Although the position of tairo ranked just below shogun in the Edo period’s administrative structure, it was in fact an office rarely filled." [6] 2. Senior Councillors (Roju)‘Roju were senior officials of the Tokugawa shogunate who watched over the entire government structure and the functioning of its many offices. In short, they administered the affairs of state, both domestic and foreign, for the shogunate. Senior councillors—usually four or five in number—were appointed from among the fudai (hereditary vassals) daimyo.’ [5] 3. Junior Councillors (wakadoshiyori)"Junior councillors, or “young elders” assisted the roju and surveyed the hatamoto and gokenin. Additionally, they supervised artisans, artists, physicians, palace guards, and construction work. In case of a war, the wakadoshiyori led the hatamoto into battle. The position was created in 1633 and chosen from the fudai daimyo." [7] 4. Captains of the Bodyguard, Inner Guard, And New Guard (shoimban-gashira koshogumiban-gashiraThe various bodyguards operated under the command of the junior councillors during war. 3. Chamberlains (sobashu)"The office of sobashu was established in 1653 by the fourth shogun, Tokugawa Ietsuna. Chamberlains were in direct service to the shoguns and, bureaucratically, reported to the roju." [5] 3. Commissioners Of Finance (Kanjo bugyo)"officials accountable for financial matters. Kanjo bugyo reported directly to the senior councillors (roju). These commissioners—usually only four in number but overseeing a large number of assistants—were appointed from those of hatamoto rank." [5] 3. Intendants (daikan)"These local government officials supervised and managed the shogunate’s personal landholdings (tenryo)." [5] 3. Comptrollers (Kanjo gimmiyaku)"This office, created in 1682, was charged with investigating, and otherwise overseeing, the operations of the kanjo bugyo (commissioners of finance). Although comptrollers were structurally lower than the commissioners of finance, they functioned as a control over the higher office’s activities. Kanjo gimmiyaku reported to the senior councillors (roju)." [5] 3. Inspectors General (ometsuke)"This office originated in 1632 when the third shogun, Tokugawa Iemitsu, appointed four people of hatamoto (bannerman) rank to oversee activities and places of potential trouble to the shogunate. Those who served as ometsuke were often senior officials with extensive government service scrutinized by the ometsuke were the road system, daimyo activities, and groups troublesome to the shogunate such as Christian missionaries and their Japanese followers. Inspectors general reported to the senior councillors (roju)." [5] 4. official involved in road system inferred5. manager of road maintenance works inferred6. worker on road maintenance inferred 3. Masters of Court Ceremony (koke) -- how are these related to the Masters Of Shogunal Ceremony (soshaban)?"Literally, “elevated families,” koke were hereditary government officials responsible for carrying out official ceremonies and rituals for the shogunate. In addition, masters of court ceremony were used as shogunal representatives at court, temple, and shrine functions." [5] 3. Commissioners of Temples and Shrines (jisha bugyo)"usually four in number, supervised temple and shrine affairs, including matters involving religious hierarchies and the landholdings of these institutions. Among other responsibilities, they also held subsidiary duties involving legal matters in regions outside of the Edo area." [8] _Provincial government_ 2. Edo City Commissioners (Edo muchi bugyo)"charged with overseeing matters of city life concerning the chonin (townspeople and merchants). Edo city commissioners were selected from among those of hatamoto (“bannerman”: direct samurai retainers of the shogunate) rank." [5] 2. Commissioners of Distant Provinces (ongoku bugyo)"The post of ongoku bugyo was similar in duty to the Edo machi bugyo ... except that these commissioners served in localities other than Edo, including Kyoto and Osaka. Like the Edo machi bugyo, they were selected from among families of hatamoto (bannerman) rank." [5] 2. Kyoto Deputy (Kyoto shoshidai)"The post of Kyoto deputy was first established by Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, during the Azuchi-Momoyama period, to oversee the affairs of Kyoto, especially the activities of the imperial court and nearby territories. This office became formalized within the administrative structure of the Tokugawa shogunate.’ [8] 2. Keeper of Osaka Castle (Osaka jodai)"the senior military officer in central Japan. As the primary administrator in the region, the Osaka jodai maintained the military strength of Osaka Castle. During the Edo period, jodai, including the Osaka jodai, served as the proxy of the Tokugawa shogun in commanding the respective castle. This rank was reserved for middle ranking daimyo, and holders of this rank were frequently promoted to posts of Kyoto deputy (Kyoto shoshidai) and senior councillor (roju)." [8] Posts not yet positioned: - Chiefs of the Pages and Attendants (kosho todori/ konando todori) - Inspectors (metsuke) "performed police and enforcement duties at numerous levels. Not only did they serve as high-level spies for their military rulers, but they also evaluated other shogunal officials and staff as well." [7] - Magistrates, Accountants, Tax Collectors, Policemen [7] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.88. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.97. [3]: Hall, John Whitney (ed.). 1991.The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.164 [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.89 [5]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.98. [6]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.96. [7]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.100. [8]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.99. |
||||||
|
levels. Central government may have had 6 levels as it was based on Samanid/Abbasid administrations.
-- from 999 CE Early Kara-Khanid state: appanages. "Typical of nomadic families, all the sons of the founder demanded their share of his patrimony. After they settled into urban life, this meant that each one appropriated for himself a capital city and a territory to go with it. By the time Mahmud Kashgari set out for Baghdad, there were no fewer than four Karakhanid capitals: the oldest at Kashgar; a second at the ancient city of Samarkand; and two others at Uzgend and Balasagun, both in present-day Kyrgyzstan." [1] "Ibrahim waged a successful struggle against the appanage system, which had been the cause of endless fratricidal strife, and the reassignment of towns and regions." [2] -- from c1040 CE "the east ... has connotations of seniority in Turkic culture: with both the Gok turks and the Qarakhanids, the rulers of the eastern divisions of the empire, considering it to be superior." [3] 1. Western Khanate ruled by Alid dynasty [4] "In Inner Asian fashion, the new rulers divided their domains into a western khanate that ruled Transoxania until 1211 and an eastern khanate for Farghana and Kashgaria." [5] 1. Eastern Khanate ruled by Hasanid dynasty [4] _Central government_ 2. VizierIn Balasaguni’s "Wisdom of Royal Glory" the Khan has a vizier. [1] 3. Diwans?4.5.6 Continuity with Samanids: "Certain leading representatives of the military and bureaucratic class assisted the Karakhanids, and the dihqans (major landowners) also took their side." [6] _Vassals_ 2. dihqans ruled Ilaq directly under the Kara-Khanids [7] -- Late 12th Century 2. Ra’is of Bukhara (headman of Bukhara)Thus Bukhara was held on a hereditary basis by members of a clerical line, the Al-i Burhan, upon whom was conferred the title of sadr-i jahan (Pillar of the World) and the office of ra’is (headman) of Bukhara. They themselves collected the taxes, and the Kara Khitay sent a special envoy to receive the town’s tribute. The local rulers did not issue coins in their own names (we know only of Karakhanid coins in Bukhara during this time), but were otherwise independent." [8] [1]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [2]: (Davidovich 1997, 137) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [3]: (Peacock 2015, 41) Peacock, A C S. 2015. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [4]: (Davidovich 1997, 135) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [6]: (Davidovich 1997, 129) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [7]: (Davidovich 1997, 129-130) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [8]: (Davidovich 1997, 146) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) the overall ruler (raja),(2) leaders of regional power bases (terms vary),(3) provincial (visaya) leaders,(4) officials of the settlement (maichiech),(5) village elders (gramavrddha). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ [1] ’Classic Angkor was the centre of an empire, the huge territory of which was divided into provinces. [...] There are two words for ’province’: probably both synonyms. Each of these was in turn divided into villages (souk or drama). At every level there were mandarin bureaucrats (khlon, chiefs) representing the central administration, and who ensured that revenues (rice, goods, corvee labour, and the like) flowed smoothly upwards through the system.’ [...] The khlon visa was the provincial chief, overseeing the fiscal officers responsible for tax collections, as well as pretor transactions and the fixing of boundaries. Each village had its headman (khlon souk), in reality a royal agent; the actual representatives of the Cambodian village were the gramavrddha, the village elders, who acted as a link between the local and central administrations.’ [2] ’Seventh-century inscriptions focus on officials called pon, who ob- tained high status by founding temples and controlled trawang, artifi- cial reservoirs. Some pon were chiefs of small villages around ponds, while others had influence over broader areas. The societies of these small pon-doms were highly stratified, with numerous levels: officials entitled pon or mratan occupied the summit, followed by females who had important ritual functions; then dancers, singers, and musicians; craft specialists; and at the bottom, agricultural workers.’ [3] ’Not until the mid-10th century - at roughly the same time as Pagan apparently began to extend its power in Upper Burma - did the notion of a single Khmer kingdom gain stable expression. Starting with Rajendravarman (r. 944-968), we encounter what Ian Mabbett termed “one of the major discontinuities” of Khmer history, arguably more significant than that represented by Jayavarman’s 802 consecration or the establishment of a long-lived capital at Yasodharapura.11 From the mid-10th through the 11th centuries, the following developments point to a truly novel phase. Local dynasts of ancient principalities were increasingly absorbed into a central apparatus, more officials were dispatched to the provinces, and administrative divisions were to some extent standardized. The core population around Angkor expanded markedly, facilitating the construction of unprecedentedly grand hydraulic projects and religious buildings. Shortly before Pagan expanded from Upper Burma to conquer the coast, the Khmer empire itself expanded from the Mekong and around the Great Lake to in- corporate the Mun and Chi valleys to the north and the rich region around Lopburi to the west. A more shadowy authority extended over the upper peninsula.12 Ecclesiastical foundations spearheaded frontier colonization, particularly west and northwest of Angkor in what is now eastern and central Thailand, where Khmer culture and language exer- cised growing influence.13 As the economy grew more complex, it has been suggested that the number of urban sites in the empire more than doubled.14 By the reign of Suryavarman II (r. 1113-1145/1150), builder of Angkor Wat, the empire was arguably at its height, with varying de- grees of authority over the Chaophraya basin, Champa, and much of what is now northern and southern Thailand and Laos.;(Lieberman 2003, pp. 218-219); [1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 141) [3]: (Miksic 2007, p. 82) |
||||||
|
According to Coe
[1]
, the Post-Classic administration was organised as follows:
1:King (raj/sdach)2::the four great Houses: Abdicated King (upayuvraj) 7 provinces; House of the King 42 provinces; Heir Presumptive (uparaj) 5 provinces; Queen Mother (brah varrajjini) 3 provinces3:::Council of Senapati: Prime Minister (samtach chauva4::::Council of Senapati: v, Superintendent of Palace and Finance (van), Naval Chief (krahlahom); Minister of War and Ground Transport (chakri)5:::::Guardians of the Kingdom (nagar pal), who answers to the Great Judge (yomaraj) and the Masters of Royal Chariots and Elephants, who answer to the Minister of War and Ground Transport (chakri) and the6:::::(equivalent to the level above) Master of Royal Secretaries (akara chinta), Master of Metal Stores (1. kosadhipati; 2. bra ghian adhipati), Master of Textiles, Wardrobe, etc. (1. para nayak), and Masters of Rice Granaries (1. abdimak mantri), who answer to the Superintendent of Palace and Finance (van)7::::::"okna", the leader of one of Cambodia’s "five lands"8:::::::lesser "okna" or governors, whose duties were to administer justice, to supervise the collection of taxes and rents, and to watch over the levying of core labour and the military call-up9::::::::an army of civil servants ’Post-Classic Cambodia was an absolute monarchy, headed by the king (raj in Sanskrit and Plai, scads in Khmer), whose power in theory had no limit, only the monks being exempt from his authority. On this individual were bestowed numerous titles, such as ’Raised above Heads’, ’Supreme Refuge’, ’the Master of the Lower Surface’, and so on. The king was the supreme landowner, and all the holdings of those who died went to him by escheat; but the real wealth of his royal domain lay among the alluvial margins of the main rivers and their islands, where rice fields were annually fertilized by rich deposits of mud (the some kind of situation on which the economic power of the pharaohs of Egypt and the Olmec rulers of Mexico had depended). Once crowned, the sdach was a sacred being, filled with what anthropologists call mana. Etienne Aymonier tells us: "Inviolable, he is henceforth the object of a cult pushed to adoration. No one is permitted to address a word to him or lay a hand on his sacred person; only his principal wives, by softly caressing his feet, dare to awaken him on urgent matters. His personal name which is never again pronounced is replaced by an equivalent which had been, according to custom, borrow from the ordinary tongue. He eats alone, surrounded outside by young pages, the sons of mandarins, and inside, by some favourites who serve him and who are in attendance at his meal, while keeping a respectful distance. At his audiences, which he gives seated cross-legged, princes, mandarins, and subjects remain crouching on their knees and elbows, their hands joined at the height of the forehead, which they knock on the ground three times at the beginning and end of the season."’ [2] [1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 217-218) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 214) |
||||||
|
levels.
(4) Overall king (e.g., mratan-varman),(3) regional governor/chief/sub-king (e.g., mratan pura; -purasvami or lord of pura),(2) subordinate to the regional governor/pura (grama),(1) important leaders of the community (pon). ’Throughout the pre-Angkor period there is no reference to any political or administrative entity higher than the pura (with the possible exception of three nagara, whose rank relative to pure is not known), of which some thirty are names in the inscriptions. Sauk and drama are also named, the latter as subordinate to a pure, but the relationship between pure and souk is not certain. Chiefs of pure other than the king bore Khmer titles, mratan klon, and possibly kurun, in Sanskrit svami or isvara (’lord’, ’king’) of their pure, the latter probably a higher rank than the former.’ [1] ’Jayavarman I was the great-grandson of Ishanavarman. His inscriptions indicate the tightening of central power and control over a considerable area, the creation of new titles and admin- istrators, and the availability of an army, the means of defense and destruction. A text described how King Jayavarman’s commands were obeyed by “innumerable vassal kings.” Jayavarman also strengthened the legal code: “Those who levy an annual tax, those who seize carts, boats, slaves, cattle, buffaloes, those who contest the king’s orders, will be punished.” New titles were accorded highly ranked retainers who fulfilled important posts in government. One lineage held the priestly position of hotar. Another functionary was a samantagajapadi, chief of the royal elephants, and a military leader; the dhanyakarapati would have controlled the grain stores. The king also appointed officials known as a mratan and pon to a sabha, or council of state. Another inscription prescribes the quantities of salt to be distributed by barge to various foundations and prohibits any tax on the ves- sels going up- or downriver. Thus Jayavarman I intensi- fied royal control over dependent fiefs begun by his great-grandfather, Ishanavarman. Thereafter this dynasty loses visibility, although the king’s daughter, Jayadevi, ruled from a center in the vicinity of ANGKOR.’ [2] ’Men of high status with the title pon are often mentioned for their role in temple manage- ment. Inscriptions indicate that they could donate com- munal land to the temple and organize their kin to produce surpluses.’ [3] ’The inscriptions reflect a social organisation with a vrah kamraten an at its apex. This Khmer title may be translated as ruler, or king, but it was also applied to gods, suggesting that the king was at least semi divine. Personal names of rulers ended with the Sanskrit title -varman. Hence the name Isanavarman means prote ́ge ́ of Siva or Siva’s shield. There was no single state or ruler at this time, but rather a series of competing micro city states. Some inscriptions record a local hegemon appointed over a dependent centre by a king. Others name a local ruler but no such dependency. Vickery (1998) has extracted from the available texts the divisions of the population below these rulers. Pon was a title accorded a person of high status, who exercised authority over temples and their sustaining populace. It is important to appreciate that the temple was not just an institution for the worship of an indigenous god or a Hindu deity, but it fulfilled the role of a community ritual and economic centre, to which donations of land, workers and domestic stock including cattle and buffalo were directed. The personnel included dancers, singers and officiants, as well as weavers, spinners, leaf sewers, potters and field workers. The surpluses of cloth, precious metals, ceramics and foodstuffs including rice were available for the pon to deploy to maintain the non-productive section of the community, exchange with other elite leaders, and accumulate for such social purposes as feasting. These texts describe the pon as being in charge of water reservoirs, which are often cited when designating rice field boundaries. Thus a web of social and economic characteristics identified in the Chenla texts resonate with the late prehistoric Iron Age: elite individuals, weavers, potters and smiths, as well as bounded rice fields and water control.’ [4] ’Their contents inform us on two vital issues. The first is the use of official titles, such as President of the Royal Court, which was located at a centre called Purandarapura. Another prescribed punishment for those who disobey a royal order. Two brothers of high social standing were appointed to a variety of posts: officer of the royal guard, chief of rowers, military chief, and governor of Dhruvapura. Another highly-ranked courtier became chief of elephants, reminding us of the traditional role of elephants in warfare. A further text mentions a chief of the royal grain store. These high officials were rewarded with honorific symbols, such as a parasol embellished with gold. The trends already evident under Ishanavarman were greatly strengthened under his great grandson: with Jayavarman I, we can identify the establishment of a state. It was, however, ephemeral. Only one inscription of his daughter Jayadevi survives. Thereafter, the dynasty disappears from the historic record.’ [5] [1]: (Vickery 1998, p 24) [2]: (Higham 2004, 75) [3]: (Higham 2004, 76) [4]: (Higham 2014, p 831-832) [5]: (Higham 2014b, 294) |
||||||
|
levels.
Decline of Jenne-Jeno accompanied the rise of the new city of Djenne (the modern town, established "much earlier" than 1100 CE [1] ). We could hypothesize that Djenne started out as a political, military and ritual center which controlled the economic center at Jenne-Jeno, until Djenne took that over itself. However, this is my speculation. R and S McIntosh says: "Analyses conducted thus far have not yielded any information on the possible reasons for the new settlement at Djenné." [1] "First, where are the elites, the chiefs, the kings, the early state bureaucracies? In other words, who keeps the peace? This is the first fundamental complaint raised by the distinctiveness of these towns with the traditional ’hierarchy as adaptive solution’ approach to emerging complex society. To date, excavation at sites such as Jenne-jeno reveals no obvious signs of social stratification, as opposed to abundant evidence of (horizontal) social complexification. Where are the public buildings, the monuments, the shrines to state ideologies that classic preindustrial city theory tells use should be present? One has the strong impression of a highly complex society, with multiple overlapping and competing agencies of authority and decision making, and of resistance to centralization. The city’s lay-out - the dispersed cluster - was an instrument of that resistance." [2] "This assertion that heterarchy, rather than hierarchy, is the better description of authority at these cities recalls persistent Mande notions of who has decision-making roles in society, notions very familiar to historians, social anthropologists and art historians. Authority is shared amongst many corporate groups rather than being the monopoly of a charismatic individual (in Weber’s sense) or of one bureaucratic lineage." [2] There is no evidence of a hierarchical social system [3] Jenne-jeno was "a large, complex, but non-coercive urban settlement." [4] "the demands of specialization pushed groups apart while the requirements of a generalized economy pulled them together ... created a dynamism that ensured growth and the establishment of urban settlements. And they were non-coercive settlements. Groups congregated by choice. This is an instance of transformation from a rural to an urban society that did not establish a hierarchical society and coercive centralized control... The process in the delta and at Jenne-jeno in particular, was one of ’complexification’ rather than centralization." [5] Clan (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [6] Kinship group (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [6] In West Africa "Early states were simple in their government ... Some were ruled by a single chief or king and his counsellors. Others were governed by a council of chiefs or elders. Others again were formed by several neighbouring peoples whose chiefs were bound in loyalty to one another. Elsewhere, at the same time, there were people who found it better to get along without any chiefs." [7] "Traditional groups such as clans ... or age-sets of people born at about the same time, had influence in these early states, as in later times, because they could underpin a system of law and order." [7] [1]: McIntosh, Roderick. McIntosh, Susan. "Results of recent excavations at Jenné-jeno and Djenné, Mali" in Sanogo, K. Togola, T. 2004. Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the Pan-African Association for Prehistory and Related Fields. Institut des Sciences Humaines. Bamako. pp. 469-481. [2]: (McIntosh, 31) McIntosh, Roderick J. Clustered Cities of the Middle Niger: Alternative Routes to Authority in Prehistory. in Anderson, David M. Rathbone, Richard. eds. 2000. Africa’s Urban Past. James Currey Ltd. Oxford. [3]: (Reader 1998, 219) [4]: (Reader 1998, 225) [5]: (Reader 1998, 228) [6]: (Bovill 1958, 53) [7]: (Davidson 1998, 13) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King of kings (mansa) king had title Mansa [1] "As in other African empires, the supreme ruler was a king of kings." [2] The ruler "bore the military title of mansa, conqueror." [2] "The mansas adopted the Ghanaian and Sudanic concepts of kingship to institutionalize their power." [2] "The rulers surrounded themselves with a bodyguard, servants, and elaborate ceremonies." [2] _Central government_ 2. Head of the imperial council or one of the officials of the imperial councilthere was an "imperial council" [3] late 14th century government characterised by rule of powerful government officials and a sidelined monarch [3] 3. Government officialsAfter his pilgrimage to Cairo and Mecca "Mansa Musa returned to Mali with Arab and Berber adventurers to serve in his administration." [4] Santigui (master of the treasury) [5] 4. Scribes"court circle included clerics and lawyers literate in Arabic" [6] 4. State farms official"Client clans, castes of dependent craftsmen, and people allied by marriage or by past service supported the ruler. Slaves and serfs worked in agricultural settlements to provide produce for the court, the army, and the administration." [2] royal slaves worked in "settled colonies" in the inland delta region. "each had to produce a quota of grain for collection by boat at the appointed season." [6] _Mande chiefdoms_ 2. Chief (fama) of a kafu (or kafts)"Mande-speaking ethnic core" [7] "Mande-speaking peoples lived in family and village units, the head of the family being both priest and chieftain. A group of villages in turn formed a kafts, or kafu, a community of 1,000 to 15,000 people living around a mud-walled town and ruled by a hereditary chieftain called a fama." [2] "Within the Mande-speaking heartland the basic building-block of government was the kafu, a community of anything from 1000 to 15,000 people living in or near a mud-walled town and ruled by a hereditary dynast called a fama." [7] Mema was a province in the Mali Empire [8] the paramount ruler "bore the military title of mansa, "conquerer", which underlined the reality that his dominion might expand or contract according to the range of his armed forces. Where the mansa’s soldiers were no longer seen, there the kafus would soon resume their independence under their traditional famas." [7] Oral tradition "Sunjata Epic" says Mali Empire founded by Sunjata Keita. Initially there was a Mande Chiefdom in Farakoro. The chief had the title maghan. Sunjata "organized the soldiers of all the Mande chiefdoms into a powerful army. They went to war against Susu." The unified Mande chiefdoms formed the basis of the Mali Empire. [9] 3. Village headman"Mande-speaking peoples lived in family and village units, the head of the family being both priest and chieftain. A group of villages in turn formed a kafts, or kafu, a community of 1,000 to 15,000 people living around a mud-walled town and ruled by a hereditary chieftain alled a fama." [2] _Vassal kingdoms_ 2. Vassal king or chief"Outside the Mande-speaking nucleus, the relationship with subordinate rulers was even more essentially based upon the regular or occasional payment of tribute." [7] Mid-13th century: "the Wolof and the Fulbe recognised its paramountcy" and gave tribute [7] ruler of Mali received tribute from lesser kings and chiefs. [10] Mansa Musa reigned 1312-1337 CE. Ibn Kathir (c1300-c1374 CE) sad he ruled over 24 other kings. [11] Al-Umari said Musa had "conquered 24 cities, each with its surrounding district with villages and estates" and that he had a palace [12] "In Mali, as in other African empires, the supreme ruler was essentially a paramount, a king of kings, the degree of whose authority varied greatly from one part of his dominions to another, according to the accessibility of each to the imperial armies and tax collectors." [7] 3. District 4. Villages [1]: (Conrad 2010, 44) [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 591) [3]: (Conrad 2010, 56) [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 592) [5]: (Niane 1984, 160-61) [6]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 63) [7]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 62) [8]: (Conrad 2010, 57) [9]: (Conrad 2010, 42-44) [10]: (Conrad 2010, 51) [11]: (Conrad 2010, 45) [12]: (Conrad 2010, 45 cite: Levtzion, N and Hopkins J F P. Corpus of Early Arabic Sources for West African History) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King when the Zuwa dynasty was replaced in the mid-15th Century, the Songhay kings had the title "sii (short for sonyi)" [1] kings called dias until c1335 CE. After that titles were sunni or shi. [2] __Court Bureaucracy__ Askia Muhammad Toure "supported by Mande clans ... created a standing army and a central bureaucracy." [3] "The Songhay empire, like that of Mali before it thus involved a gigantic effort of state enterprise in production and trade as well as in military operations and civil government." [4] 2. barey-koyin charge of court-arrangements [5] 3. kukura-koyassistant, "whose job it was to provide food and other necessary supplies" [5] 3. garei-farmerassistant, called master of the camp. [5] 2. katisi-farmahead of finance. [5] 3. waney-farmaassistant, "responsible for questions of property". [5] 3. bara-farmaassistant, in charge of wages. [5] 3. dey-farmaassistant, buying and selling activities of government. [5] 2. fari-mudiafarming official [5] 2. sao-farmaforestry official [5] 2. asari-mundiahead of the department of justice [5] Slave colonies "the Songhay empire depended greatly on its colonies of royal slaves and on its privileged castes of craftsmen, which had probably been built up originally from the more skilled groups of war captives, such as smiths, weavers and leather-workers. Here again, Songhay took over a system already initiated in Mali, while adding greatly to the numbers of slaves by means of the regular annual raids carried out by the Songhay cavalry among the unprotected, stateless peoples living south of the Niger bend." [6] 3. State farms manager (possibly 4. if responsible to an official from the court)State farms "were spread right across the empire, to supply the government and the garrisons, but the largest concentration was still to be found in the well-watered inland delta" - a lot of this grain went to the towns, desert caravans and salt mines. [6] 4. Lower-level official __Regional government__ 2. Western Songhai (Mande speakers) - rule based in Timbuktu?"Not under Muhammad only, but also under the succession of sons and grandsons who followed him as Akiyas until 1591, the real thrust of Songhay was toward the west and the north. It was an impetus based upon Timbuktu, both as the centre of Islamic learning in the western Sudan and as the meeting-point of river and desert communications. [4] Askia Muhammad divided the army into two parts: "one for the western provinces based in Timbuktu and one for the eastern provinces based in Gao." [7] 3. Provinces"Under Askia Muhammad, the Songhai Empire established lands in which the kings paid tribute." [7] 4. Town - kafu ruled by a famaWithin the Mande-speaking heartland the basic building-block of government was the kafu, a community of anything from 1000 to 15,000 people living in or near a mud-walled town and ruled by a hereditary dynast called a fama." [8] "Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [9] 5.possibly another level below the fama, or someone who worked for the fama 2. Eastern Songhai (Songhai speakers) - rule based in Gao? Wars of Askiya Muhammad Toure (1493-1528 CE), according to himself, "were undertaken to distract the Songhay-speaking element in his armies from meddling in the Mande-speaking western half of his empire where his own interests were strongest, and where he preferred to rule through slave armies recruited from his own war captives." [4] Askia Muhammad Toure divided the army into two parts: "one for the western provinces based in Timbuktu and one for the eastern provinces based in Gao." [7] 3. Provinces 4. Village"Sudanic societies were built on small agricultural villages or herding communities, sometimes but not always integrated into larger tribal and linguistic groups." [9] 2. ProvincesSonghai "was divided into provinces, cantons, villages, large cities of commercial character such as Djenne and Timbuktu, border areas which were strongholds such as Teghezza, Ualata, Nema, etc." [10] 3. Cantons?4. Villages 2? Large cities: Djenne/Timbuktu3. koira-banda mundio"suburban administrator of a city." [11] 2? Border strongholds: Teghezza/Ualata/Nema [1]: (Conrad 2010, 60) [2]: (Davidson 1998, 50-51) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [3]: (Lapidus 2012, 593) [4]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 70) [5]: (Davidson 1998, 167) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. [6]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 69) [7]: (Conrad 2010, 66) [8]: (Roland and Atmore 2001, 62) [9]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [10]: (Diop 1987, 111) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. [11]: (Diop 1987, 112) Diop, Cheikh Anta. Salemson, Harold trans. 1987. Precolonial Black Africa. Lawrence Hill Books. Chicago. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Kaghan 2. Governors for the settled regions.3. Princes - rulers of provincial districts. Representatives of Mongol power."The Chaghatay ulus was a decentralized state, with governors appointed by the Kaghan (for the settled regions, until 1289) and rulers of provincial districts, i.e. princes assisted by special officials, the darughachi or tammachi, the representatives of Mongol power." [1] 4. darugachi or tammachi5. assistants for darugachi? 4. Head of mint inferred5. Mint worker inferred Split into Eastern and Western Khanate in mid-14th Century [2] "The Chagatai khans ruled from the eastern side of the Khanate, an area that had gained the nickname Mughulistan, ’Land of the Mongols’; they had never been able to wield very much power in the western reaches of the kingdom, Transoxania (the lands just east of the Oxus river). There, amirs (local Mongol chiefs) wielded the real power. [3] "The administrative reform divided the country around Bukhara and Samarkand into tümens, and in Ferghana and East Turkistan into orchins (literally ‘near’, ‘around’, ‘surrounding’), i.e. a region located around the capital. " [1] "The Chaghatay ulus was a decentralized state, with governors appointed by the Kaghan (for the settled regions, until 1289) and rulers of provincial districts, i.e. princes assisted by special officials, the darughachi or tammachi, the representatives of Mongol power." [1] "At the time of Temür’s rise to power, politics in the Ulus Chaghatay was controlled by the tribes who made it up. With the decline of central leadership, control over the territory and wealth of the Ulus had fallen to them. They provided most of the military manpower of the Ulus, either from their own tribesmen or from the armies of the regions under their control. No one therefore could either become or remain leader of the Ulus wihout the backing of the tribal leaders. Tribal chiefs naturally were not eager to strengthen the position of a central leader; they were intolerant of claims to sovereignty over them,and if a leader displeased them, they were quick to switch their loyalties to a rival candidate. Under these circumstances, central leadership was often contested, sometimes even after a leader had been acclaimed by the tribes of the Ulus." [4] "The early Chaghadayid khans and their followers lived out in the steppe, but in the early fourteenth century the Chaghadayid Khan Kebeg (1318-1326) took up his residence in Transoxiana and began to take a more direct interest in the settled population. Kebeg undertook a number of reforms and is credited with organizing Transoxiana into tümens, regions supporting ten-thousand soldiers, of which seven were in the Samarqand region and nine in Ferghana.3" [5] [1]: (Akhmedov and Sinor 1998, 269) [2]: (Khan 2003, 32) Khan, A. 2003. A Historical Atlas of Uzbekistan. The Rosen Publishing Group. [3]: (Wise Bauer 2013, 557) Wise Bauer, S. 2013. The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople. W. W. Norton & Company. [4]: (Forbes Manz 1983, 79) [5]: (Forbes Manz 1983, 81) |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) Imams; (2) Retainers, advisers and other courtiers of imams; (1) Shaykhs and other tribal leaders Political authority was loose and fluid. Accordingly, it is difficult to establish precise hierarchies and the code provided is only a rought approximation. Dresch describes the establishment of the Qasimi court: ’Besides the wealth to be extracted from the southern peasantry, the Imams of the period also had available, if they could retain control, taxes from a burgeoning coffee trade. The rise and fall of the Yemeni coffee trade with Europe matches almost exactly the trajectory of the Imamate’s wealth (see Boxhall 1974; Niebuhr 1792). The English and Dutch established factories at Mocha in 1618; the trade was probably at its height around 1730; and the world price of coffee finally crashed at the start of the nineteenth century, at which point one gets mention of Imams debasing the currency (al-’Amri 1985: 59). This wealth, however, had always to be fought for; the rulers became wealthier and more powerful than hitherto, but still were liable to dispute among themselves.’ [1] ’The state the Qasimis formed in the midst of this was none the less impressive (for the rulers’ genealogy see Fig. 6.1). Al-Qasim himself, who early in his fight against the Turks had wept over his children starving at Barat, was wealthy when the truce was signed. He built the mosque at Shaharah, then built houses for himself and his followers, planted coffee in al-Ahnum, and amassed more land than the public treasury (Nubdhah: 258, 334-6). The court expanded with the southern conquests. Al-Mutawakkil received an embassy from Ethiopia and exchanged gifts of fine horses with Aurangzib of India (Serjeant 1983: 80-1), while his relatives expressed concern about his monthly demands for funds from Lower Yemen. Further criticism of his taxation policy came from Muhammad al-Ghurbani at Barat, but in 1675 the levies on Lower Yemen were redoubled (ibid. 82). Under Muhammad Ahmad, ’He of al-Mawahib’" (1687-1718), the exactions became more severe still, in support of a grandiose court and a large standing army complete with slave soldiers (ibid., Zabarah 1958: 451, 457; alShawkani 1929: ii. 98).’ [1] Leading shaykhly families rose to prominence in this period: ’At precisely this period, and in the space of a decade, the names of several great shaykhly families important nowadays all appear for the first time: al-Ahmar of Hashid, for instance, juzaylan of Dhu Muhammad, ani Hubaysh of Sufyan, Some of the lesser shaykhly houses, such as al-Ziyadi, al-Rarnmah, ’Irnran, ~lGhashrni, and al-Barawi, are attested as much as a century earlier (see e.g, Nubdhah: III, 121, 123, 175, 453). Many of the tribal divisions familiar nowadays had been present far longer, as readers will have gathered from Chapter 5, but the leading families now identified with them appear only at this later date. They were associated with the state and with events elsewhere than in tribal territory.’ [2] The relationship between imams and tribal leaders could be supportive as well as hostile: ’Sali1}. Hubaysh of Sufyan is first mentioned in 1698 as putting down a revolt of Raymah and Wa~ab (south-west of San’a’) against al-Mawahib’s governor: women’s earrings taken by his men were sold in San’a’ with fragments of ear still attached, provoking certain ’ulama’s» preach against Hubaysh’s cruelty (Zabarah 195 8: 670). Then, after a disastrous attempt on Yafi’ (in what is nowadays South Yemen), which resulted in Ibb being lost to the tribes of the eastern desert, al-Mawahib called to account the northern tribes who had failed him. In 1702 he sent his nephew to deal with ’Hamdan and their chief Ibn Hubaysh’, but a truce was made instead (ibid. 428; Zabarah 1941: 297). Five years later, after another failure in Yafi’, al-Mawahib sent al-Qasim b. al-Husayn and Sali1}. Hubaysh to Khamir to deal with Hashid, where the two fell out. In 1709 Hubaysh was again sent to Khamir by alMawahib, this time to deal with al-Qasim, but Hubaysh was finally tricked and killed there (ibid. 778-80; Zabarah 1958: 357)·’ [2] ’In the intervening period he had been placed in charge of an army to fight the tribes of the east and Yafi’. Al-Mawahib had ordered his minister to strike a balance between Hubaysh and Bin juzaylan of Dhii Muhammad (again, this is the earliest clear reference to this famous family), but the governor’s own aim was to balance the pair of them with the eastern tribes whom the Imam wanted conquered. The result of his intrigue was that the two Bakil chiefs opposed each other and the easterners won (ibid. 875; Zabarah 1941: 773). Soon after this Hubaysh was sent with al-Qasim b. al-Husayn to Hiith, and the Imam’s men razed a house nearby which belonged to Muhammad ’Ali al-Gharibi of Hashid (ibid. 778-80; id. 1958: 684; al-Shawkani 1929: ii. 46), who, as we shall see, is probably Bayt al-Ahmar’s immediate forebear.’ [3] Conflict between rival imams also occurred and tribal support could be decisive for the outcome: ’A few years later, in 1713, al-Husayn b. al-Qasim declared himself Imam in opposition to al-Mawahib, and ’Ali Hadi Hubaysh (probably Sali1}.’s brother) supported him (Zabarah 1941: 601-9). ’Ali al-Ahmar of al-Usayrnat was sent by al-Mawahib to oppose him (again, this is the first mention of the family by name), but the tribes preferred the new claimant (ibid. 356,607). The country was at one point divided among several of these rival Imams-although, significantly, none of them claimed control of the major tribes (ibid. 616)-and the struggle between.the different Qasimis dragged on, with the shaykhs holding the balance, until al-Mawahib died in 1718.’ [4] ’Al-Mutawakkil al-Qasim then took the Imamate (Serjeant 1983: 84), and at this stage al-Ahmar was apparently on good terms with al-Husayn, the new Imam’s son (Zabarah 1941: 539); but when alNasir Muhammad made a rival claim in 1723 al-Ahrnar and many other shaykhs went over to him. The leading sayyids were meanwhile divided among themselves over the perennial problem of taxation (ibid. 289). In 1726 the Dhayban section of Arhab cut the roads, and a group of them made trouble in San’a’ itself (Zabarah 1958: 359). The Imam had them hunted through the streets, in response to which "Arhab tribesmen invited Hashid and Bakil to join them in taking revenge and wiping out the dishonour they had sustained. The tribes responded. ’All b. Qasim al-Ahmar, Paramount Shaykh of Hashid, and Nasir b. juzaylan, Paramount Shaykh of Bakil, proceeded to ’Amran where they met al-Husayn, the Imam’s son, whom they persuaded to join them ... (al]iriifi 1951: 181, trans. Stookey 1978: 151-2).’ [4] ’As Stookey points out, al-Husayn’s combination with the tribes against his father availed him little since when his father died, in the following year, and he claimed the Imamate himself under the title al-Mansiir, they supported his cousin, al-Nasir Muhammad.’ [4] ’But al-jirafi goes on, more importantly, to relate that al-Ahmar wrote al-Mansur al-Husayn a brusque letter demanding a meeting. The Imam feared an attempt at assassination; so he’assassinated alAhmar first, stuck his head on a lance, and galloped off with it through a hail of bullets from the shaykh’s enraged tribesmen (aljirafi 1951: 182). In fact, al-Ahrnar, accompanied by Bin juzaylan of DhU Muhammad and by Ahmad Muhammad Hubaysh of Sufyan, seems to have come to ’Asir, just outside San’a’, to seek a settlement (Zabarah 1941: 539 and 1958: 486). The details are probably lost forever, and we are told only that al-Ahmar ’had wished to make independent his own rule of part of the country’ (ibid.), which he very well may have done; but al-Mansur alHusayn’s view of the matter, as recorded in the histories, has all the vigorous clarity of the Zaydi tradition. The taunt to the tribesmen at the time was, typically, that they were no better than polytheists: he brandished al-Ahmar’s head on his spear and cried ’this is the head of your idol’.’ [5] Dresch also mentions millenarian militant movements: ’In 175I, however, a millenarian rising broke out in the western mountains, led by Abu ’AIamah, a black ’magician’ who preached a puritanical renewal of Islam. Accounts of the rising mention several forts in the west being taken from Bayt al-Ahmar: al-Qahirah at alMahabishah was lost, then Qaradah and al-Gharnuq at Najrah, just south of Hajjah, then Sabrah, and finally the fort near alMadayir that al-Mansur had bought several years earlier (Zabarah 1941: 53-5). During the forty years since al-Mansur al-Husayn b. al-Qasim (a rival of al-Mawahib) came to power in 1712, says a contemporary witness, the state had counted for little: "The rule of ’All al-Ahmar and his sons after him and of other tribesmen from Hashid remained over-great and excessive until God destroyed what they had built and extinguished their flame, proclaiming their weakness and perdition by the appearance of this dervish. (Quoted ibid. 54)’ [6] Tribal leaders held lands, collected taxes, and defended forts, enabling them to form a power base in their own right: ’Whatever setbacks they suffered, however, Bayt al-Ahmar were not displaced permanently. In the year after Abu ’Alamah’s rising, when the Sharif of Abu ’Arish and a rival claimant to the Imamate were active in the north-west, they were again a power to be reckoned with." Certainly they collected taxes as well as rents in the nineteenth century, and local memory credits them with taking revenue even from coastal towns in the north Tihamah, They retain considerable lands in the west to the present day.’ [6] ’Nor were Bayt al-Ahrnar of Hashid the only shaykhly family in the area: Nasir juzaylan of Dhu Muhammad lost forts to Abu ’Alamah at al-Masiih, and a garrison from Dhii Husayn were chased out of al-Sha’iq in Bani ’Awam (again near Hajjah), but the shaykhly families of Barat retained or re-established a hold there. Al al-Shayif of Dhfi Husayn, for example, still own land in Hajjah province, and Bayt Hubaysh of Sufyan have considerable holdings near al-Mahwit (Tutwiler 1987). The picture which emerges between the lines of eighteenth-century histories and tariijim is of myriad forts in the western mountains, each garrisoned by twenty or thirty tribal soldiers and controlling an area for some shaykh of the northern plateau. As the eighteenth century wears on, so the same pattern comes more clearly to light in Lower Yemen too: in his entry for 1752, for example, al-jirafi records for the first time what will punctuate his history thereafter, Barat tribesmen at odds with the Imam south of San’a’ (al-jirafi 195I: 183). They continued to appear there into the present century, leaving behind great numbers of tribal families and large shaykhly holdings of land outside tribal territory.’ [7] However, written records are often silent on these matters: ’These shaykhs are not the subject of Imamic history. Although the Imamate could not have functioned as it did without them, and although the granting of ’fiefs’ to them went on for centuries, the details of their financial and administrative position are nowhere written up. Nor has local documentation come to light. Until it does, we must form what estimate we can by looking at the great shaykhly houses nowadays.’ [8] In addition, sayyids also quarreled amongst themselves: ’AI-Mahdi al-iAbbas (1748-75) was very much a Sanani Imam, being based on the city throughout his reign. Among learned San’anis he retained a high reputation (al-Shawkani 19 29: 310-12; Serjeant 1983: 85 ff.), but it is plain that all was not well elsewhere. Abu ’Alamah’s 175I rising in the north-west has already been mentioned. Two years earlier a campaign had been fought in Lower Yemen against a ’sorcerer’ who promised his followers immunity against sword wounds and gun shots.V In the year before that, Hasan al-Tlkarn, of the qadi family from Barat and the north-east, was leading tribesmen at odds with the new Imam in Lower Yemen (Zabarah 1958: 684)Y In both the west and the south, the incursion of tribesmen over the preceding generation had not been quietly absorbed, and the affairs of the Barat tribes in particular (Dhii Muhammad and Dhu Husayn) became involved with those of the Imam’s capital at San’a’.’ [9] ’The connections of learning which were often important in an Imam’s rise to power (Ch. 5) could also readily generalize a threat to that power if one emerged; and the language of equality, justice, and religious probity linked the learned with the tribesmen also. In 17 68, for instance, the ’ulamd’ of Barat (particularly Bayt al-’Ansi) wrote to Zaydi centres such as Huth and Dhamar, calling for the expulsion of al-Mahdi al-Abbas and his Qasimi relatives on doctrinal grounds (al-jirafi 1951: 187; Zabarah 1958: 521-2; al-Shawkani 1929: ii. 134-5), though the Barat tribes’ incursions in preceding years suggest that doctrinal detail was not the main motive force (see e.g. Zabarah 1958: 13).’ [10] ’The Qasimis were accused of ’innovations’ (bida’). Zaydism had always recognized ijtihad (the formation of new law by extrapolation from scripture), but in the mid-eighteenth century a pronounced movement of criticism was under way. Ibn al-Amir, for instance, a Zaydi scholar who kept his political distance from the Imamate, blurred the distinction between his own school and the Shafi’i,14 with the result that conspicuous details, such as postures of prayer, became matters of contention among those less learned than he. The Barat qadis blamed the Qasimis for supporting him. On at least one occasion, an intestine squabble among San’ani ’ulamd’ over mosque appointments, phrased in these terms, led one faction to demand arbitration from al-’Ansi, ’the qadi of Hashid and Bakil’ (Zabarah 1941: 617), rather than from their Qasimi rulers.’ [11] Imams were often reduced to negotiate protection money with tribes under the threat of incursions: ’Hasan al-’Ansi and the Barat tribes appeared outside San’a’ in 1770. They were successfully driven off, which provoked some vainglorious poetry from the victors (Serjeant 1983: 86; d. alShawkani 1929: i. 459), but elsewhere al-Shawkani suggests (ibid. ii. 136) how this was achieved: an addition to the tribesmen’s stipend of 20,000 riyals per annum, the implication being that they already received regular payment. These incursions and payments continued for several decades.P and the Barat tribes remained active in Lower Yemen until the Turks took the area in the late nineteenth century.’ [11] ’Al-Mansiir ’All b. al-Mahdi (1775-1809) was, like his father, a San’ani Imam, and from the city’s point of view was at first a considerable success (Serjeant 1983: 86-7; al-Shawkani 1929: i. 359 ff.). But at the state’s periphery, Sharif Harniid of Abu Arish was forced south by the Nejd Wahhabis into territory the Imamate had held or at least had part access to. The resulting loss of port revenue was almost certainly serious. I? From now on, the Imams’ ability to buy off the tribes declined sharply.’ [12] ’At the centre, al-Mansur’s grip on affairs failed when his sons fell out with each other, and the qadis of Bayt al-’Ulufi fell out with those of Bayt al-’Ansi, in part over stipends to the tribes (al-jirafi 1951: 192; al-tAmri 1985: 52-64; al-Hibshi 1980: 4; Zabarah 1929: i, 343-4). In 1818, in the time of the Imam al-Mahdi, a large body of tribesmen from Barat arrived at the capital in search of pay to fight in the Tiharnah (al-Hibshi 1980: 18). The Imam, having collected support of his own from Khawlan and Nihm, had ’All ’Abdullah al-Shayif of Dhii Husayn beheaded and the body strung up for three days, then thrown in the rubbish ditch outside Bab Sha’ub (ibid. 20-1; Zabarah 1929: ii. 66). But Bayt al-Shayif’s call for support to avenge this was answered by Wa’ilah, Hashid, al’ Amalisah, Sufyan, and Arhab, among others; in short, by tribes from as far away as what is now the Saudi border. They looted the city’s outskirts and carried off enough plunder ’to suffice the son’s son’ (ibid. 23-4; al-Arnri 1985: 88-91).’ [13] This lead to a gradual break-down of imamic authority: ’In 1823 a severe drought in the east forced a meeting of tribes at Jabal Barat, where they decided to seek aid from the Imam. When he refused and they turned on Lower Yemen, he seems to have been able to do nothing but warn others they were coming. ’When they reached Sarnarah [the pass that is sometimes taken to define Lower Yemen’s border; see Chapter I], each put down his pledge on a place, and they divided it all up as if their father had left them the land as inheritance’ (al-Hibshi 1980: 34). It is quite possible, of course, that many had indeed been left inheritance there, either property or presumed rights to ’fiefs’ (quta’): they had been involved with the area for the best part of a century. From 1823 onwards, though, they are said to have held the area unopposed: ’they took control of it by force and coercion, then settled there, married there, and forgot the east until the Faqih Sa’Id threw them out in [1840]’ (ibid.i.l" Even that was not sufficient, and when a further drought struck in 1835, Dhii Husayn, under Muhsin ’Ali alShayif, began raiding the north-west, while their women and children moved westwards by themselves in great numbers (ibid. 60-2). The Tiharnah had meanwhile fallen to the Egyptians.’ [14] ’At the centre, in San’a’, the Imamate under al-Mansiir ’All b. alMahdi ’Abdullah lost not only its resources but its ~oral vigour: ’drunkenness was the prevailing vice among the higher orders, and ... the corpses of men, women and children lay about the streets, no one taking the trouble to bury them .. .’ (Playfair 1859: 145)· Al-Mansiir squabbled with one of his relatives, who fled to Ta’izz and handed it over to the Egyptians. Al-Nasir ’Abdullah Ahsan was then raised to the Imamate by the soldiers in San’a’, only to be assassinated at Wadi Dahr in 1840.19 Al-Hadi Muhammad took the throne and succeeded briefly in regaining Mocha and Ta’izz, but when the Egyptians withdrew-under indirect pressure from Britain (Baldry 1976: I6I)-the Tiharnah fell under the control of Sharif Husayn.’ [14] ’The geographical pattern of power had now changed beyond recognition. Hashid (led in part by the qadis of Bayt Hanash), were in Raymah, as well as further north in the western mountains, Dhii Muhammad and Dhii Husayn were in the south, as well as in the Tihamah, and all were involved with Yam, whose homeland in Najran had usually been outside the field of Yemeni events but whose presence in Haraz and the Tiharnah was nothing new. The land of Hashid and Bakil, on the northern plateau, was itself a dead centre to the whirl of events involving tribesmen elsewhere. Sharif Husayn’s movements in 1845 make the point: starting from the north-west, in the Tihamah, he moved to the south, around Ta’izz, then to Barat, in the extreme north-east (al-Hibshi 1980: 120-31). The Imamate, at San’a’, retained a mere rump of territory.’ [15] ’There was -violence enough in the north itself, particularly in times of drought (see e.g. ibid. 306); but the tribal divisions, one should note, changed very little, and then rather in a longue duree than in the order of events recorded year by year. As we shall see in Chapter 9, the geographical detail even of sections within tribes changes hardly at all from al-Qasim’s time (early seventeenth century) to our own, and where change occurs it does so by recognizable quanta. Inequality and movement alike are registered in other terms. The prominence of major shaykhs, for instance, whom the tribesmen followed much as they did Imams, derived from wealth in the west and in Lower Yemen, and this is also where the great non-quantum shifts in territorial control resulted from tribesmen fighting each other. Inequality, power, and geographical change all attach, not to tribal self-definition, but to the history of successive Imams, to the history of a tradition or of a dynasty; and the dynasty had, by this point, collapsed because it had lost control of non-tribal land.’ [16] ’The Imams’ attempts to regain the south met with little success. Ahmad Salih Thawabah of Dhu Muhammad, who had controlled a large ;wa~he of Lower Yemen, was defeated by al-Mutawakkil Muhammad and finally executed in 1848, to the delight of the Imam’s supporters (Dresch 1987b). Within three years, however, his sons were formally granted land in much the same area (al-Hibshi 1980: 166). In the interim the Imam had been forced to send Dhii Muhammad horses as slaughter-beasts (’aqa’ir), which they took but did not have killed, and then pay them to fight again in the south (ibid. 146).20 Dhu Muhammad, Dhii Husayn, Arhab, Khawlan, and Hashid were also all fighting in the west, on the Imam’s side, the Sharif’s, or both; but the Ottoman Turks now seized the Tihamah. Hufash, near al-Mahwit, and al-Haymah were both contested, and several rival claimants to the Imamate appeared at once.’ [17] This enabled the eventual Ottoman re-conquest: ’In despair al-Mutawakkil asked the Turks to intervene in the highlands. They arrived at San’a’ in 1849 with 1,200 foot and 500 horse, but a riot ensued and they withdrew after only three weeks (Zabarah 1929: ii, 346 ff.; al-Sayaghi 1978: 25-7). AlMutawakkil was killed by his rivals. One of the Ashraf of the northern Tihamah, supported by ’a large following from Hashid, was then bought off with a gift of 2,000 riyals, robes of honour, and a horse (al-Sayaghi 1978: 31). The combination of a Tihamah Sharif and Hashid at the gates of San’a’ is symptomatic enough of the Imamate’s weakness.’ [18] ’From the summary histories one forms an impression of steadily increasing disorder through the next twenty years, until ’the people of San’a’ and others’ invited the Turks again to take the city ’after they had tired of the chaos which prevailed there, the dominion of men from the tribes, the cutting of the roads, and the lack of any ordered security’ (al-jirafi 1951: 205-6). A more recently available, and more detailed, source gives a different impression (al-Hibshi 19 80: 29 6 ff.). But the Turks seem in any case to have had designs on the highlands: they had increased their forces on the coast ’until stores were coming ashore with San’a’ printed on every load’ (ibid. 315), and when they finally arrived, in 1872, they demanded the tax registers which would reveal to them the administration and resources of the whole country (al-Wasi’I 1928: IIO). They were to remain in highland Yemen until 19 18.’ [18] ’For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, then, Yemen had been plagued by disputes between rival Imams and by tribal disorder. The Imamate had taken the form of an elaborate dynastic state, yet failed to secure the means to support itself or to transmit authority without dispute. Al-Shamahi credits the Qasimi dawlah with surviving until the middle of the nineteenth century. In name it did. He rationalizes the great decline of its power by saying that al-Mu’ayyad Muhammad (d. 1686) was the last of the Qasimis to possess all the qualities needed of an Imam, and that the rulers after him were more like kings (al-Shamahi 1972: 144-6). Similarly, al-Wazir (1971: 50) attributes the collapse of the state to the appearance of ’evil Imams’. Authors writing nearer the time each choose some point at which the real decline starts, always simply by reference to the actions or fate of a particular Imam (e.g. al-Hibshi 1980: 193).’ [19] [1]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 200 [2]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 202 [3]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 202p [4]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 203 [5]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 203p [6]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206 [7]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206p [8]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 209 [9]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 212 [10]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 212p [11]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 213 [12]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 214 [13]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 214p [14]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 215 [15]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 215p [16]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 216 [17]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 216p [18]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 217 [19]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 217p |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan Sultans. [1] "Ayyubid traditions remained strong in the new state, seen for example in their royal titulature." [1] The first Rasulid Sultan, Nur al-Din, "proclaimed himself sultan of Yemen with the title al-Mansur." [2] [3] _Central government_ 2. Council of Notables"Reflecting the orthodox Muslim respect for the community consensus, the proclamation was issued by the council of notables of the realm, not as the sovereign’s personal act. The Rasulids sought at least the appearance of public support for major decisions. The opinion of high state officials, it is recorded, was unanimous as to the accession of al-Ashraf II upon his father’s death." [4] 2. WezirTop administrative official? "al-Ashraf I ordered his minister" who is referred to as a "wezir". [5] 3."an official in his chancery". [5] The Rasulids had a "public administration" with a "body of functionaries" that attempted to extract "as much revenue as practicable from their domain." [3] 3.4. Tax collector5. Deputy tax collector"Al-Ashraf II abolished an oppressive tax on cotton introduced by a deputy tax collector in the days of the sultan’s predecessor." [6] _Provincial line_ 2. Chief JudgeProvinces had a chief judge who could get into disputes with the provincial governor. [5] 2. AmirRuler of region (or city?). e.g. Amir of Aden [1] and "governor of Sanaa". [7] Deputy governor worked under a provincial governor. [8] 3. Deputy governorAl-Khazraji "dates the ruin of the Tihama to the year 1353, and ascribes it to the malevolence of a deputy governor at Fashal". [8] 3. Town official"and furthermore wrote to officials in the chief towns". [4] 4. Customs inspectorCustoms inspectors e.g. at Aden. [6] Difference between Rasulids and Zaidi Imamate: "the Zaidi imam al-Hadi’s officials were simple, and derived solely from the Koran and hadith; under the imam’s close guidance, a fairly rudimentary knowledge sufficed for their interpretation and application. Rasulid officials had a much more complex tax system to administer. While the core of the rules had roots in the shari’a, many other regulations were introduced for the sake of uniformity and increasing revenue." [3] Upper and Lower Yemen: "For two centuries the two regions coexisted in a state of mutual hostility, under sharply contrasting styles of leadership." [9] [10] [1]: (Bosworth 2014) Clifford Edmund Bosworth. 2014. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [2]: (Stookey 1978, 108) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 112) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Stookey 1978, 119) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 114) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [6]: (Stookey 1978, 113) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [7]: (Stookey 1978, 110) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [8]: (Stookey 1978, 122) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [9]: (Stookey 1978, 124) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [10]: (Stookey 1978, 125) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King and Queen The founder of the state consulted and at times deferred to his queen, Asma; their son al-Mukarram continued to rely on her counsel during the years between his father’s demise and her death (1067-1074)." [1] Queen Arwa who was married to al-Mukarram in 1065 CE also was influential from 1074 CE. [2] 2. ViceroySulayhids: when the king was absent he could have a viceroy, such as his heir, rule in his place. [3] _Court government [4] _ 2. Chief minister first appointed by Queen Arwa 1097 CEIndividual’s role was "commander of the army and head of administration." Queen Arwa "relied heavily on his advice, and channeled her orders through him." [5] 3. Lower administratorThe Sulayhids had administrators. [6] _Provincial government_ 2. GovernorsAli al-Sulayhi moved defeated princes into palaces in Sanaa and replaced them with governors "often his own close relatives, whose administration he supervised personally and minutely, without the intermediary of a chief minister (an office which became customary in both the Abbasid and Fatimid courts, to the detriment of royal authority)." [7] Amirs? Sulayhid queen not in full control: "another Amir, al-Mufaddal al-Himyari, who guarded her treasure at the fortress of Ta’kar but was also responsible for creating man enemies against her by his constant warfare." [6] 3. Assistant to the governor 3. Civil administrator 3. Revenue collectorSulayhids had officials. Provincial administration had an executive (civil administrator, revenue collection) and judicial branch and an assistant to the governor, all appointed by the king (3 officials in total below the governor). There also was a chief secretary to the governor. [8] 4. Sulayhids: In 1110 CE the Fatimids in Egypt "sent an Armenian commander, Ibn Najib al-Dawla, as a da’i to reign in the chaotic situation in Yemen. Soon the local tribes revolted against him and the authority of the queen was much constrained by him." [6] In the early 12th century "Another administrator was appointed at this time from the Sulayhid family, ’Ali ibn ’Abd Allah, with the title of Fakhr al-khilafa. The queen, however, relied on the Da’wa under Yahya ibn Lamak and its military arm, Sultan al-Khattab ibn al-Hasan al-Hamdani, the baron of Jurayb in the Hajur district. He is also called a da’j, for many works of the Yemeni da’wa were authored by him. He became the queen’s defender of faith and the protector of her realm. He never attained the position of a Da’i mutlaq under the queen as a Hujja, which went to his mentor - the Da’i Dhu’ayb ibn Musa al-Wadi’i - on Da’i Yahya’s death in 520/1126." [6] Najahids: "Whether specimens of the 438 Rayy issue could have reached the Yemen by the following year, there to serve as models for the Najahid coinage, seems to me highly questionable, although there is evidence, architectural and epigraphic, to support the theory of a strong cultural link between Iran and the Yemen in the 11th century a.d. 17 What matters is that at this moment in history the title of Sultan could have been used only with reference to the head of state, the immediate deputy of the Caliph in the country of province concerned. At Zabid in 440 this authority was none other than Najah. The appearance of the title Sultan on coins 3 and 4 therefore reinforces the theory that coins of the ruler named al-Muzaffar must be Najahid, even if the name Najah does not figure on them." [9] "Even before al-Mukarram’s death, the Fatimid court had sent a chief justice to Yemen, Lamak bin Malik, who remained in the office until his death in 1116; his son Yahya succeeded him for the remainder of Arwa’s reign. The judge’s responsibility extended to advising the queen on the management of the Ismaili missionary effort in Yemen itself and to the east in Oman, the Persian Gulf, and India." [5] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 67) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [2]: (Stookey 1978, 68) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 65) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Stookey 1978, 74) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 72) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [6]: (Hamdani 2006, 777) Hamdani, Abbas. Sulayhids. Josef W Meri ed. 2006. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Volume 1, A - K, Index. Routledge. Abingdon. [7]: (Stookey 1978, 62-63) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [8]: (Stookey 1978, 63) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [9]: (? 1990, 190) Nicholas M Lowick. Joe Cribb. ed. 1990. Coinage and History of the Islamic World. Variorum Reprints. |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Ayl (group of tents) (2) clan |
||||||
|
levels. "There were three main geographical divisions consisting of the east and west, otherwise known as the ‘‘left and right’’ kingships, with an implied third division being the core central region administered directly by the paramount leader. Within this system there were 24 regional leaders, each with the title of ‘‘ten thousand horsemen.’’ The 24 regional leaders represent a dispersed control hierarchy, probably composed of the leaders of long-standing aristocratic lineages (e.g., Sneath 2007, p. 116)."
[1]
According to Rogers: 1. Empire - ruled by the Chanyu, supreme leader 2. 3 Kingships (Left, Right and Core region)3. 24 regions under the command of a regional leader, commanding 10,000 horsemen According to Kradin, the hierarchy is as follows: 1. Empire - ruled by the Chanyu, supreme leader 2. advisers and personal men-at-arms 2. 10 kings commanding 10,000 people - 4 of which are called kings or ’wang’3. tribal chiefs or elders, commanding 1000, 100 or 10 people4. chiefs of non-Xiongnu tribes, paying tribute "The chanyu was the supreme ruler of the Xiongnu steppe empire and its representative in the political and economical relations with other countries and nations. His competence included the declaration of war and peace, the conclusion of political treaties, the right to obtain gifts and tribute and to re-distribute them, dynastic marriages, etc. Most likely, the chanyu was also chief commander and superior judge (Taskin 1973, 7-11). He was also the concentration of irrational power and performed the most important devotions providing the nomads with a patronage of the super-natural forces." [2] "The most highly titled relatives of the chanyu were ten superior commanders of ten thousand warriors which were comprised of four and six horns respectively20. The first four of them were called “wang” (king) by the Chinese chroniclers. Besides the chanyu’s relatives there were other noble families (clans): Huyan, Lan, Xubu, and Qiulin were among the highest Xiongnu aristocracy (Fan Ye 1965, ch. 91, 7b; Zhong- yang 1958, 680-681).The next level in the Xiongnu hierarchy was occupied by the tribal chiefs and elders. In the annals, they are mentioned, as a rule, as ‘subordinate kings’, ‘chief commandants’, ‘household administrators’, “juqu” officials21. Probably, a part of the ‘chiefs of a thousand’ were tribal chiefs. The ‘chiefs of a hundred’ and ‘chiefs of ten’ were, most likely, clan leaders of different ranks. The economic, judicial, cultic, fiscal, and military functions were considered to be responsibilities of chiefs and elders (Taskin 1973, 9-11).The Xiongnu had a particular stratum of service nobility (Kradin 1996, 152 pp.), advisers, immigrants from China and bodyguards. First of all, these are men-at-arms of the chanyu bound to him by personal devotion. It was probably the most trusted men-at-arms who obtained the title of gudu marquis (“gudu hou”). Besides the nomads, defectors from China, such as the famous Zhong Hangyue, could also be subsumed within the ranks of the administrative aristocracy. These immigrants proved to be very useful advisers, as they familiarized the nomads with Chinese tactics of military science, agricultural activities, systems of record keeping, principles of court etiquette, and administration practices (Pritsak 1954, 178-202)." [2] "Slightly lower in the hierarchical ladder was the position of the chiefs of non-Xiongnu tribes in the imperial confederation. In the scale of rank the chiefs of non-Xiongnu tribes, chiefs of dependent tribes and of territories paying tribute, were situated slightly lower than the service nobility." [3] "The eminent Chinese historian Sima Qian gives a detailed description of the administrative system of the Xiongnu empire28. The empire under Modun was divided into three parts: centre and left and right wings. The wings, in turn, were divided into subsections. The complete supreme power was concentrated in the hands of the chanyu. Concurrently, he was in charge of the centre - tribes of the metropolis of the steppe empire. The 24 highest officials, who were in charge of large tribal associations, were in the military rank of a chief of ten thousand, and were subordi- nate to the chanyu. His elder brother - successor to the throne - was in charge of the left wing. The nearest relatives of the ruler of a steppe empire were his co-ruler, the leader and co-ruler of the right wing. They were attributed the title ‘kings’ (“wang”) as the highest title possible. ‘Kings’ and six most noble ‘chiefs of ten thousand’ were considered to be “strong” and were in command of not less than 10,000 riders. The rest of the ‘chiefs of a ten thousand’ were in fact in command of less than 10,000 cavalrymen (e.g. Zhongyang 1958, 17; Watson 1961a, 163-164).At the lowest level of the administrative hierarchy, local tribal chiefs and elders were situated. Officially, they submitted to 24 deputies from the center. Yet, in reality, the dependence of tribal leaders was limited. The headquarters was far away and local chiefs enjoyed support of related tribal groups. Thus, the influence of the imperial deputies on local authorities was, to a certain extent, restricted and they were forced to take into account the interests of subordinate tribes. The total quantity of these tribal groups within the Xiongnu imperial confederation is unknown." [4] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 220) [2]: (Kradin 2011, 89) [3]: (Kradin 2011, 90) [4]: (Kradin 2011, 91-92) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Khung-Taiji ruler, later known as Khan 2. 54 albachi zaisang (tax officials) administering 24 otogs 2. Nobles administering 21 anggis (six Choros, one Khoshud, two Torghud, eight Khoid, and (presumably) four Dörböd) "While often called the “Zunghar Khanate,” the Zünghar ruler bore the title of khan only rarely. Instead, the Zünghar ruler bore the title of Khung-Taiji, a title derived from Chinese huang-taizi, “crown prince” and originally meaning viceroy or regent for the khan. The title of khan was taken later, if at all, and only by special grant from an outside power, such as the Dalai Lama. While Galdan held the title of khan, his nephew and successor Tse- wang-Rabtan was merely Khung-Taiji. GALDAN-TSEREN (r. 1727-45) is usually called khan, but it is unclear from whom he received the title." [1] "Galdan-Tseren reorganized the Zünghar principality, nominally numbering 200,000 households, into directly ruled otogs and appanages, or anggis. His directly subject households, nomadizing in the Ili valley, numbered 24 otogs administered by 54 albachi zaisang (tax officials), with a nominal strength of 87,300 households. These were his personal Choros subjects, captured Siberian and Mongolian peoples, and functional units such as the 4,000 Kötöchi-Nar (equerries), 1,000 Buuchin (musketeers), 5,000 Uruud (craftsmen), and 2,000 ZAKHACHINs (borderers). The appanages of the great nobles, which surrounded the Ili center, were arranged into 21 anggis, specified as six Choros, one Khoshud, two Torghud, eight Khoid, and (presumably) four Dörböd. The anggis did not pay regular taxes to the ruler." [1] "The Kalmyk and Zünghar confederations were similar in many ways. Both were divided into tribes (AIMAG), which themselves were conglomerations of exogamous yasun (bones, or patrilineages). The khan or khung-taiji was assisted by an office (yamu) or court (zarghu) composed of four chief officials, variously called ministers (tüshimed), judges (zarghuchis; see JARGHUCHI), or zaisangs (from Chinese zaixiang, grand councillor). These were commoner retainers of the ruler’s tribe. The Zünghar ruler GALDAN-TSEREN (r. 1727-45) expanded the council by adding six zarghuchis to assist the four tüshimed.The people were assigned to appanages (ulus or anggi) controlled by a nobility (noyod or taiji; see NOYAN) of the tribes’ particular ruling “bones.” Below the noyods were the tabunangs, or sons-in-law or those who had married women of the noyod lineages. The positions of “four ministers,” or “judges,” were restricted to such tabunangs of the ruler. Below them were minor functionaries: standard bearers, trumpeters, aides-de-camp (kiya), and so on.Each appanage was divided into otogs (a camp district composed of several clans and usually with 3,000 to 6,000 households; see OTOG). The otogs were divided into groups of 40 households, and they in turn into 20s. Each of these units had officials: zaisangs, demchis, and shülengges, respectively. These local officials were all accounted commoners. Commoners without office were divided into the “good” (said), the “middle,” and the “base.” " [2] 1. Khan _Social structure_ 2. Tribes3. Patrilineages (yasun) _Central government_ 2. 4 Chief officials at court, called ministers (tüshimed), judges (zarghuchis; see JARGHUCHI), or zaisangs. These were tabunangs of the ruler.3. Six zarguchis to assist them _Distribution of the people_ 2. Appanages (ulus or anggi) controlled by a noyod or taiji noble. __Appanage central government__ 3. Tabunangs: sons-in-law or those who had married women of the noyod lineages4. Minor functionaries: standard bearers, trumpeters, aides-de-camp, etc. __Administrative hierarchy of the appanage__ 3. Otog (a camp district composed of several clans and usually with 3,000 to 6,000 households) governed by zaisang officials.4. Groups of 40 households governed by demchi officials.5. Groups of 20 households governed by shülengge officials. [1]: (Atwood 2004, 622) [2]: (Atwood 2004, 421) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King According to oral tradition, the Cisse was the ruling clan of Wagadu. Ruler had the title "maghan." [1] In earlier times there may have been "matrilineal descent (power passed to the son of the king’s sister)" and "There might even have been instances of female chieftains." [2] "Ghana is a title given to their kings" [3] _Central court_ 2. Head official of the General Council"L’autorite du roi et de son gouvernement central s’exercait de façon directe sur le berceau originel du royaume soninke." (The authority of the king and his central government was exercised directly from the original birthplace of the Soninke kingdom). [4] The most powerful aristocratic clans were collectively known as wago. "That term, and the name of the kingdom, Wagadu, are probably related. "Wagadu" is a contraction of wagadugu, which can be translated as "land of the wago"." [5] "La societe etait organisee en clans. Le clan royal etait celui des Tounkara qui formaient avec trois autres clans l’aristocratie:( les Souba ou Magasouba étaient les guerriers du roi, les Kagoro qui formaient une elite militaire, les Magassi etaient les cavaliers du roi qui composaient la garde royale.). Ces clans qui constituent la noblesse fournissaient au roi, les grands dignitaires et hauts fonctionnaires de sa cour. On trouvait a la cour du roi, le gouvernement et le grand conseil dont les membres se recrutaient aussi bien dans l’aristocratie locale que chez les arabes et les lettres musulmans. On trouvait au sein de son gouvernement, les fils des rois vassaux, otages a la cour. La succession sur le trône se faisait d’oncle à neveu." (The society was organized in clans. The royal clan was that of Tounkara who formed with three other aristocratic clans: (the Souba or Magasouba were the warriors of the king, the Kagoro who formed a military elite, the riders were Magassi king composing the royal guard). These clans that make up the nobility provided the king, the great dignitaries and senior officials of his court. It was at the king’s court, the government and the general council whose members were recruited in both the local aristocracy among Arab and Muslim scholars. It was within his government, son of the vassal kings, hostages to the court. The succession to the throne was uncle to nephew. [4] 3. Treasury official"The king has a palace and a number of domed dwellings all surrounded with an enclosure like a city wall. ... The king’s interpreters, the official in charge of his treasury and the majority of his ministers are Muslims." [6] 4. Scribes"For the sake of administrative support, legitimization, and commercial contacts, the rulers of Kawkaw, Takrur, Ghana, and Bornu adopted Islam in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. Islam became an imperial cult and the religion of state and trading elites, while the agricultural populations maintained their traditional beliefs." [7] "A Sudanic empire commonly had a core territory integrated by ethnic, linguistic, or similar ties and a larger sphere of power defined by the rule of a particular person or lineage over numerous subordinate families, castes, lineages, and village communities. The key political factor was not the control of territory but the relations that enabled the ruler to garner religious prestige, draw military support, and extract taxes or tributes. The kings were considered sacred persons and were believed to have divine powers. They did not appear in public and were not to be seen carrying out ordinary bodily functions such as eating. Around the kings were numerous officeholders who helped govern the realm and provincial and district chiefs often recruited from junior members of the noble families." [7] _Regional government_ 2. Princes (governors called fado) of a province"L’empire etait subdivise en royaumes et en provinces eux-memes morcelés en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] "Les princes avaient en charge la gestion des provinces tandis que les royaumes vassaux tels que Sosso, Diara et le Tékrour conservaient leur organisation initiale et se contentaient de verser un tribut annuel et d’apporter leur contribution sur le plan militaire en fournissant à l’empereur un contingent." (The princes had control over the management of the provinces while the vassal kingdoms such as Sosso, Diara and Tekrour retained their initial organization and were happy to pay an annual tribute and to contribute militarily by providing the Emperor a quota). [4] According to oral tradition there were four provinces, whose governors/commanders (dual military and administrative powers implied) were known as fado. Ruler had the title "maghan." [1] Al-Bakri 1068 CE: king’s city had a governor [8] "Among the provinces of Ghana is a region called Sama, the inhabitants of which are known as the Bukum. From that region to Ghana is four day’s travel." [9] 3. Village chief"L’empire etait subdivise en royaumes et en provinces eux-memes morceles en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] 4. Townships"L’empire etait subdivise en royaumes et en provinces eux-memes morceles en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] _Vassal Kingdoms_ 2. KingAhmad al-Yaqubi (d. 897) said Ghana’s king had "lesser kings under his authority." [10] Al-Bakri 1068 CE: king of Ghana had vassal kings [8] "Les princes avaient en charge la gestion des provinces tandis que les royaumes vassaux tels que Sosso, Diara et le Tekrour conservaient leur organisation initiale et se contentaient de verser un tribut annuel et d’apporter leur contribution sur le plan militaire en fournissant à l’empereur un contingent." (The princes had control over the management of the provinces while the vassal kingdoms such as Sosso, Diara and Tekrour retained their initial organization and were happy to pay an annual tribute and to contribute militarily by providing the Emperor a quota). [4] "On peut distinguer deux groupes composant le peuplement de l’empire: un au Nord et l’autre au Sud. Les gens du Nord se composent des tribus nomades berbères ou Touaregs (Les berbères Macmouda au sud du Maroc, les Zenata), les Sanhadja ( les Goddala, les Messoufa, les Lemtouma spécialistes du deésert.). Le groupe Sud comporte deux fractions: les Mazzara composés de Lebou, Wolof, Toucouleur, Sérères) et les Bafours (Soninke ou Ouakare, les Marka, les Bambaras, les Malinké, les Songhai.)." There can be distinguished two peoples within the empire ... Northerners consist of Berber Tuareg nomads (Berber Macmouda in southern Morocco, the Zenâta) and Sanhadja (the Goddala the Messoufa the Lemtouma specialists of the desert). The southern group included two fractions: the Mazzara composed of Lebu, Wolof, Toucouleur, Serere) and Bafour (Soninké or Ouakaré, Marka, Bambara, Malinke, Songhai ). [4] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 25-27) [2]: (Conrad 2010, 28) [3]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 14) [4]: (Kabore, P. http://lewebpedagogique.com/patco/tag/ouagadou/) [5]: (Conrad 2010, 27) [6]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 15) [7]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [8]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 16) [9]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 19) [10]: (Conrad 2010, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
(5) King; (4) Governor/Hirðstjóri (but lawmen and Alþingi at the same level); (3) Sheriffs (a better term than commissioners or magistrates); (2) Communes and local gentry; (1) Farmers/Heads of Households ’I suggest 5 levels: 1) King; 2) Governor/Hirðstjóri (but lawmen and Alþingi at the same level): 3) Sheriffs (a better term than commissioners or magistrates); 4) Communes and local gentry; 5) Farmers. Perhaps the last level is questionable both here and in the preceding period. In the codebook example ‘village head’ is the lowest level.’ [1] With the union agreement, Iceland became part of the Kingdom of Norway. The office of jarl proved unpopular and was discontinued shortly after its initial establishment: ’During the first years following the establishment of the union conditions in Iceland remained quite unchanged. The godords were still in the hands of the leading chieftains. Gizur, who was to exercise the highest authority as jarl, was unpopular, and his power was very limited. Royal commissioners were sent to Iceland to exercise control with or without his consent, and and he had to share his nominal authority with the powerful Oddaverjar chieftains of southern Iceland, Hrafn Oddsson of the Borgarfjord district, and Orm Ormsson of eastern Iceland. The king regarded him with suspicion; the chieftains hated him because of his rank and title; opposition and difficulties confronted him everywhere. Even his own character and previous record rendered him unfit to maintain peace and order, which was his principal official duty. He was unable to see the need of any change in the general régime, and the last chapter of his stormy life formed a fitting close to the drama of bloody feuds in which he had played so conspicuous a part. Shortly after the meeting of the Althing of 1264, while visiting in southern Iceland, he was suddenly attacked by Thord Andrisson, the head of the Oddaverjar family. With great difficulty he escaped from his assailants, and after gathering an army of 750 men he cruelly ravged the Rangarvalla district, where the Oddaverjar chieftains were dwelling.’ [2] ’After Gizur’s death no new jarl was appointed, and for a time there was no real head of Icelandic affairs. In 1267 Orm Ormsson and Thorvard Thorarinsson went to Norway, Hrafn Oddsson following in 1268. Both Hrafn and Orm seem to have aspired to succeed Gizur, but the king found it advisable not to elevate another chieftain to the rank of jarl, as the title had been very unpopular. After some delay, and probably with the advice of Sturla Thordsson, he gave both ranks as hirdmenn and placed them in charge of Icelandic affairs with no other title than that of valdsmadr, or royal magistrate. Hrafs was to govern the western and Orm the eastern districts. Hrafn assumed the duties of his office, but Orm was drowned shortly after his appointment, probably on the homeward voyage.’ [3] Many Commonwealth offices and institutions were abolished. The new office of lawman was created, and royal officals were to preside over the general assembly: ’Some of the most important parts of the code were, nevertheless, sanctioned already in 1271, as the thingfararbölkr, or constitution of the thing, the thegngildi, or laws governing the payment of fines to the king in cases of murder of freemen, and a part of the arfabölkr, or laws about inheritance. The remaining portions of the code received sanction in 1272 ad 1273. The introduction of this code wrought a fundamental change in the Icelandic constitution and jurisprudence. Norwegian law had been substituted for the old Icelandic code, the "Grágás"; the godords were abolished, so also the characteristic features of the Althing: the fjordungsdómar, the fimtardómr, and the office of lögsögumadr. The thing system was reorganized according to Norwegian pattern. The valdsmadr should choose a certain number of men from each thing district, 140 in all, to constitute the thing, and from these the lawman should select three from each thing district, in all-thirty-six, to sit in the lögrétta. Instead of the lögsögumadr there should be a lawman, after 1277 two lawmen, as in Norway. Royal officials and representatives of the crown should preside over the Althing and take part in its decisions.’ [4] The Althing’s political importance declined: ’The judicial powers were lodged in the lögrétta; the legislative functions should be exercized by the Althing and the king conjointly. But the thing and the crown might take the initiative in legislation. As the king now acted as lawgiver, the legislative functions of the thing were greatly reduced, and it became principally a judicial tribunal like the Norwegian lagthings. The laws were no longer recited from the Mount of Laws, and as the Althing now consisted of chosen representatives, who were soon further reduced in number, it lost its popular character. As the general public ceased to attend its sessions, its significance as a center of national and social life disappeared.’ [5] The crown appointed royal magistrates for the administration of districts: ’It may have been the many faults of the "Jarnsída" which led King Magnus Lagaboter to prepare a new code for Iceland, the "Jónsbók", which was brought to Iceland in 1280 by the lawman Jon Einarsson and the royal commissioner Lodin Lepp. It is possible that Jon Einarsson, and possibly also Hrafn Oddsson and Thorvard Thorarinsson assisted the king in preparing this code, as they were in Norway in the year 1278-1279. Hrafn Oddsson, who received the title of royal merkismadr (standardbearer), was now to exercise authority over all Iceland. Some of the provisions in the new code met with opposition, but after much discussion it was adopted in 1281, the revision of the objectionable articles being left to the king’s own good will. The new law reduced the number of the members of the Althing to eighty-four, and established the title sýslumadr for the royal district magistrates in Iceland. It adhered as closely as possible to to the new Norwegian laws, the "Code of Magnus Lagaboter", prepared a few years previous. The work was greatly superior to the "Jarnsída". It proved very satisfactory, and remained in force ill in the nineteenth century.’ [6] Legal practice became more formalized in the Norwegian period: ’These new codes wrought a fundamental change in the conception of positive law as well as in legal practice in Iceland. The old court procedures with its intricacies and formalities was replaced by the simpler Norwegian system. The king was ruler and lawgiver was regarded as the source of justice, and behind the laws now stood the royal authority, ready to execute the decrees of the courts even against the most powerful offenders. Violation of the law was no longer viewed as a private affair to be settled by the offender and the party injured, but as a crime for which the wrong-doer had to answer to the government. The fines to be paid and other punishments to be inflicted were still to be determined by twelve men according to ancient usage. The old punishment of banishment for serious offenses was retained, but fines payable to the king were instituted in numerous cases, and capital punishment was to be inflicted for grave crimes, like murder, robbery, rape, counterfeiting, forgery, and seduction. Other severe punishments were also established. [...] But care had been taken by the lawgiver to guard against hasty action and undue harshness in the treatment of wrong-doers. In a chapter about legal decisions he advises the judges to consider carefully truth, justice, patience and mercy, in order that their decisions not bear the marks of cruelty and hatred. [...] The first lawmen appointed under the new law were Stural Thordsson and Jon Einarsson. The first royal magistrates who received the title of sýslumadr were Hrafn Oddsson in western Iceland, and Thorvard Thorarinsson for the southern and eastern districts, and Asgrim Thorsteinsson in the south-western districts. Others may have been appointed, but their names are not known. In 1279 Hrafn Oddsson became royal merkismadr with authority over all Iceland, as already noted.’ [7] Some bishops became very powerful: ’Bishop Arni gradually assumed the rôle of ruler in Iceland. In many cases he opposed the sýslumadr Thorvard Thorarinsson, so that the people at the Althing appealed to the decision of the bishop in purely secular matters, contrary to all law. Of these complaints were made to the king. [...] In 1277 the king sent Eindride Böngull a second time to Iceland as his commissioner, accompanied by the Icelander Nicolas Oddsson. They brought letters addressed to both the sýslumadr and and the bishop forbidding any appeal to the bishop in cases brought before the Althing. The kind had already written to the people warning them that not to accept any law before he and the archbishop had considered the measure, as the right to alter the laws of the church or any other statute belong to them alone. The church code given by Bishop Arni was accordingly rejected, and [...] the people felt that the royal government was henceforth the supreme authority in the land.’ [8] The imposition of royal rule may have enabled the decline in feuding experienced in the Norwegian period: ’The royal executive authority and the new efficiency of the courts of law created through the union with Norway terminated the bloody feuds which had hitherto raged between the Icelandic chieftains. An uneventful era of peace followed the turmoils of the Sturlung period. Even the struggle between church and state was now adjusted so that economic life and the pursuits of peace could receive the undivided attention of the people. But the few sources which deal with the political conditions in Iceland during the years following the death of Bishop Arni show that conditions created by the union were causing dissatisfaction and unrest. The chief cause of public discontent was the unsatisfactory arrangement with regard to commerce, the insufficient Norwegian exports to Iceland, together with the policy pursued by the Norwegian government of bringing Icelanders to Norway for trial, and of appointing Norwegians for sýslumenn and lawmen, contrary to the spirit of the union agreement. The chieftains undoubtedly had thought that their political and social organization would be left undisturbed under the union; that they would only be required to pledge their allegiance to the king, pay him taxes, and receive a jarl as his personal representative, as the union agreement expressly stated. But the most far-reaching changes had been wrought. The godors had been abolished, the Althing had been reorganized, Norwegian jurisprudence had been introduced, Norwegians had been appointed to the leading public offices, and Icelanders had been summoned abroad for trial. The Norwegian government had shown an unmistakable disposition to treat Iceland as a dependency.’ [9] The royal court consulted with prominent Icelanders in matters relating to the island: ’In 1303 many prominent Icelanders were summoned to Norway, among others Bishop Jörund of Hólar, and Abbot Runolf, who had served as vicar in the diocese of Skálholt after the death of Bishop Arni. The king’s purpose seems to have been to obtain their advice regarding changes in the Icelandic code of laws which had been demanded, possibly also to secure their consent to new taxes to be levied in Iceland. The Icelandic annals for the year 1304 state that in that year the king collected Peter’s pence (Roma skattr) in Iceland. The supplement to the code resulting from this conference is dated June 23, 1305. It contains provisions dealing with Iceland, but it does not touch the issues bearing on the relations between the two countries. These issues do not even seem to have been considered, but the Icelandic leaders probably consented to the levying of new taxes.’ [10] The kings came to view Iceland as a dependency of the motherland: ’The willingness of the king to grant privileges to the church hitherto denied reveals a growing indifference of the Norwegian government to the real welfare of Iceland. An administration by royal officials had been established as a result of the union. Two lawmen were appointed by the king, one for the southern and eastern, and one for the western and northern quarters; sýslumenn were appointed as administrative officials for larger districts, as in Norway, and hirdstjórar were placed as royal governors over the island. But Iceland was now treated so much like other dependencies that the chief interest of the government was to secure from its inhabitants revenues for the royal purse. Víseyrir, or taxes payable to the king, were levied upon the whole country, and became a definite income payable to the king’s purse, like the taxes from the Norwegian colonies. This system of taxation gave rise to a royal monopoly on trade with the colonies which proved disastrous to their economic well-being, and hindered their progress. The royal officials usually asserted the authority of the government with stern harshness, and severe punishments for crimes were introduced. In some cases criminals were even buried alive; but law and order were but imperfectly maintained. Even the higher officials themselves would engage in quarrels which sometimes resembled the bloody feuds of earlier periods.’ [11] When met with Icelandic opposition, some compromise agreements were reached after protracted disagreement, as evidenced in the practice of summoning Icelanders to Norway for trial and its eventual abandonment: ’This reminder had the result that in 1315 a full representation again met at the Althing from all parts of Iceland. In 1314 he issues a new supplement to the Icelandic code, in which he sought to right some of the wrongs complained of in the remonstrance submitted by the Althing. Regarding the bringing of Icelanders to Norway for trial, the law was made to conform to the remonstrance. A provision was inserted stating that such a step should be taken only if the sýslumenn and lawmen were unable to try the case. The demand for new taxes was definitely dropped. But nothing was said regarding the appointment of native Icelanders for office; nor was any assurance given that six ships would be sent to Iceland every year, though this matter was now of greater importance than ever, since the trade with Iceland had become a Norwegian monopoly. No guarantee existed that the king would respect the provisions in the union agreement. Hitherto he had shown a disposition to place Iceland on the level with the Norwegian dependencies. What the future relation between the two countries was to be seemed as much as ever an unsettled question.’ [12] Karlsson’s description seems to bear out Gjerset’s, although he stresses the degree of internal autonomy that Iceland maintained: ’The Icelanders also received two new law codes during Magnus’ reign. In 1271 the king sent to Iceland a new legal code known as Járnsída (Ironside), followed by another book which bears the name of its main author, Jón Einarsson, Jónsbók (Jón’s Book). But, contrary to developments in Norway, this second revision led Iceland further from conformity with Norwegian law. Jónsbók was admittedly based largely on Norwegian law, but it was drawn up for Iceland alone, and it remained in force there for four to five centuries, while Norwegian law underwent many revisions. Jónsbók thus made Iceland a separate jurisdictional area under royal rule. Iceland’s system of government was radically altered by Járnsída and Jónsbók. Alpingi continued to meet, but the Law Council, which had been a legislative body, became primarily a court of law. The four regional courts, the Fifth court and the spring assemblies were abolished; new officials, lögmenn (lawmen) and sýslumenn (district commissioners) presided over regional court proceedings as required. Iceland was also assigned its own administrative officials. Around 1300 a demand was first put forward at Alpingi that Icelanders of the old chieftain clans should be apointed royal representatives in Iceland. For centuries after this, most administrative offices were held by Icelanders. Only the office of governor (hirdstjóri), the supreme royal official in Iceland, was held by foreigners as often as Icelanders.’ [13] [1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 211p [3]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 213 [4]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 214 [5]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 214p [6]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 215 [7]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 215pp [8]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 219p [9]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 227 [10]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 231 [11]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 239p [12]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 233 [13]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 18p |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community) (.0)’. SCCS variable 76 ’Community Leadership’ is coded as ‘3’ or ’Single local leader and council’. SCCS variable 237 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ is coded as ‘1’ or ’No levels (no political authority beyond community)’. We have excluded the central colonial government and the colonial district government from the code here.
(1) [Central Colonial Government] (2) [Colonial District Government](3) Village Constables and other local officials(4) Village Elders and Big Men (Embo Dambo) Initially, political authority was confined to the informal leadership of elders and local big men: ’Political organization incorporates no central authority or hereditary leadership. Instead, it is characterized by big-men(EMBO DAMBO) and an ascendancy of elders who have proved themselves equal to the task. Such men command the respect of the village, based upon observed qualities of generosity, diligence, wealth, ability to make wise decisions, and skill in arranging ceremonial activities. This status confers no sanctioning authority, however. The Orokaiva tribes, around twelve in number, are very loose units politically and recognize no single leader. The largest unit is the tribe, which has a common territory usually demarcated from neighboring tribal territories by a belt of uninhabited land.’ [1] The labour and support of wives and younger men was key in the career of big men: ’Without multiple wives or a pool of single men retainers, the scope for a leader in large-scale exchange is limited. The lack of retainers attaching themselves to leaders’ households could perhaps be due to the end of warfare and to improved community health so that there are now few orphans or fatherless sons. Almost every youth has a father or older brother to guarantee the payment of his brideprice. The productive relations between old men and young men are interesting in that they provide the possibility for a form of exploitation or unequal return for equal work, with the old men withholding the young men’s access to a bride.’ [2] ’The social system is characterized by flexibility in arrangements for group membership and for transmission of rights to land. A village normally contains more than one clan branch and consequently is not necessarily a landholding unit. Residents may have closer kinship ties to residents of other villages than with some of their coresidents. Nevertheless, common residence implies some community of interest and a degree of group solidarity that is reinforced by government policy, which recognizes villages rather than descent groups as functional entities. Marriages between members of different clan branches within the village also reinforce this solidarity, which is expressed in ways such as daily food gifts, cooperation in certain tasks, and joint ceremonial activities. On the average, a lineage comprises three households. Usually, several clans are represented in a village, with members of a single clan (clan branches) being scattered among a number of neighboring villages. Lineages are more localized in cha racter, frequently being confined to a single village and tending to occupy one section of it.’ [1] ’There were ordinarily no persons who could command the allegiance of the tribe as a whole, nor was there any status with authority to effect the settlement of disputes between different subgroups or their individual members. Sometimes persistent intratribal conflicts led to short-term migration or to a splinter-group’s secession from the tribe. However, these disturbances were very minor in comparison with the ‘flight, dispersal and migration’ in general resulting from incessant intertribal feuds (see p. 35).’ [3] According to Williams, village and clan clusters occasionally formed ad hoc alliances when facing external threats: ’Williams ascribes the formation of ‘somewhat loose’ and temporary ‘confederacies of clans’, which conducted raids upon the tribe’s kitoho, to a local spirit. But it is not clear whether by this he means the identification of members of a tribe with one territory or the unity of the ‘locality group’ which usually takes in a number of ‘clan-village units’ (see p.34) and which he describes as a more restricted ‘sympathy-group’ than the tribe (1930:107, 157, 163, 309-12). When he states (1925:407) that ‘over and above clan patriarchs there are recognised leaders of small clan confederacies and even - in war-time - of tribes’, he seems to equate the tribe with the district among the mountain Orokaiva (in particular Wasida and Isivita; see W.23, 124).’ [4] ’This combination for better defence may have been characteristic of tribes throughout the Orokaiva area. We believe, however, that the subdividing of the tribe into discrete named groups of named villages (either district or ‘hamlet group’) would be unique to the mountain Orokaiva in the culture area; we do not have enough evidence to show if this feature is related to the earlier clustering for safety, and to the greater population density in this tribe.’ [5] During the colonial period, British and Australian authorities superimposed their own administrative structure on the native system, installing village constables as intermediaries: ’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. In 1951 an eruption occurred on Mount Lamington, completely devastating a large part of the area occupied by the Orokaiva.’ [6] [Janice Newton (pers. comm.): After official British annexation in 1884 and Crown colony status in 1888, in 1890 a police force was formed and a Resident Magistrate appointed for each administrative division. It seems there was not much training. The early constabulary were taught a little English and some of the rules for living like the white man (latrines, cleanliness etc). The British administration appointed village officials, village constables and armed constabulary. Often the Orokaivans were captured, taken back to stations taught some English and some of the English ways and laws. Imprisonment of villagers for offences was another way of imparting British principles of law. By 1924 many adult males had passed through the Armed Constabulary and hardly an adult male had not worked for Europeans (Cyndi Banks Women in Transition: Social Control in PNG Australian Institute of Criminology 1993).] [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 204 [3]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 30 [4]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 36 [5]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 37 [6]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAf Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva |
||||||
|
levels. "Shortly after the start of Red II a drastic and rapid egalitarian revolution took place, a turning point in Kirikongo’s developmental trajectory. Social inequalities were rejected in a process of nonvertical social differentiation of houses coupled with increasing interhouse communalism."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 30) |
||||||
|
1) King; 2) Nobles); 3) Province Governors; 4). Chiefs. “The king of Allada in 1660, for example, claimed that he could not give up the pagan cults "without the consent and approval of all the captains and fidalgoes [nobles] of his kingdom"; and though the Capuchins regarded this as an excuse or evasion (and it may well be that the king had in any case no intention or desire to abandon these cults), this statement accurately expressed the reality that the king’s authority was not absolute but circumscribed in practice by the countervailing power of the chiefs (Brasio 1952-85, XII; 383).”
[1]
“In the years immediately preceding the Dahomean invasion, the kings of Allada and Whydah were, in political terms at least, little more than first among equals. The two monarchs actually governed only the territories lying in the immediate vicinity of their capitals, the towns of Allada and Savi. Both states’ royal provinces were surrounded by principalities ruled by hereditary commoner dignitaries. In Whydah alone there were twenty-five such polities. The ’governors’ of these areas paid tribute to their monarchs regularly and on ceremonial occasions treated their monarchs with immense respect. Nevertheless, they were often as powerful, if not more powerful, than their sovereigns.”
[2]
“In the early eighteenth century southern Ajaland’s various leaders jockeyed for position, formed alliances and counter alliances, and even went to war with each other. The kings of Allada and Whydah were usually at odds both with each other and with a number of their over-mighty subjects. The commoner governors were in turn often hostile not only to their monarchs but to a number of their fellows as well. This quarrelling and infighting did not stop at the interprovincial level. Most of the provinces seem to have been rent by internal factional disputes. Few, if any, of the region’s kings or governors appear to have exercised undisputed authority, even in their own principalities, and most of them seem to have had to contend with well-established ’family’ rivals who sought to supplant them. These rivals not only did not support the kings and the governors in their quarrels with their out-of-province enemies but allied with those enemies.”
[2]
“These accounts show that the king of Allada not only received payments from each European ship for permission to begin trading (to the value of fifty slaves, according to d’Elbee), but also asserted rights of pre-emption, all imported goods being taken to him first to allow him to choose whatever he wanted. Later sources indicate that the king also received an export duty on each slave sold, and that royal permission was required for the sale of slaves by any of his subjects. One of the chiefs of Allada, who apparently served as an intermediary between the European traders and the king, had the title ’Chief of the White Men’, or Yevogan.”
[3]
“"Fidalgo" (Portuguese for "noble") was commonly used in Allada and Whydah to designate local governors subordinate to the king.”
[4]
[1]: Law, Robin. “Religion, Trade and Politics on the ‘Slave Coast’: Roman Catholic Missions in Allada and Whydah in the Seventeenth Century.” Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 21, no. 1, 1991, pp. 42–77: 70. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C4ZBEWMH/collection [2]: Ross, David. “Robert Norris, Agaja, and the Dahomean Conquest of Allada and Whydah.” History in Africa, vol. 16, 1989, pp. 311–24: 312. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/I3D8PCFM/collection [3]: Law, Robin. “Royal Monopoly and Private Enterprise in the Atlantic Trade: The Case of Dahomey.” The Journal of African History, vol. 18, no. 4, 1977, pp. 555–77: 557. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/B7B2RSQ5/collection [4]: Law, R. (1988). A Neglected Account of the Dahomian Conquest of Whydah (1727): The ‘Relation de la Guerre de Juda’ of the Sieur Ringard of Nantes. History in Africa, 15, 321–338: 332. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U957EGQV/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Alaafin (King/Emperor), 2) Basorun (head of Oyo Mesi) & Oluwo (head of Ogboni), 3) Ilari, 4) Ajele, 5) Oyo Mesi (broader Yoruba term = Igbimo) and Ogboni, 6) Oba (different oba will have slightly different titles, but all categorised as oba), 7) Balẹ/Baálẹ (non-royal town chief), 8) Baálé (male head of household). Many of these acted as counterbalances to each other, rather than being strictly hierarchical. Some definitions from Robin Law: “ajẹlẹ: representatives of the Alafin resident in the subordinate towns of the Ọyọ kingdom. Alafin: title of the ọba of Ọyọ. […] balẹ: ruler of a town of inferior status, without the right to wear a crown. (Distinguish bale, head of a lineage.) Baṣọrun: the principal non-royal chief of Ọyọ, the head of the Ọyọ Mesi. […] ilari: category of slaves of the Alafin, serving principally as his messengers. […] ọba: ruler of a town of superior status, with the right to wear a crown. […] Ọyọ Mesi: council of the seven principal non-royal chiefs of Ọyọ.”
[1]
Alaafin, literally “owner of the palace” is the King/Emperor, at least at the Empire’s fall in 1836. He may not leave the palace. The Oyo Mesi council of the city’s eight most senior chiefs, headed by the basorun, were also the heads of various city quarters, some parts of the Empire (the ekun) and major cults. They advised the alaafin on matters of foreign and domestic policy and economics, controlled the capital’s army, decided which candidate would become the new alaafin, and had the power to compel the alaafin to commit suicide. NB Saheen says eight chiefs made up the Oyo Mesi, but other sources suggest seven instead. “All the alaafins who reigned between circa 1658 and 1754 were compelled to commit suicide by the Oyo Mesi.”
[2]
The basorun was effectively prime minister. “By the late 18th century […] the delicate balance of power in the government was upset by some over-ambitious chiefs. Notable was Bashorun Gaha, the Prime Minister, who had for long arrogated to himself much power and had reduced successive Alaafin to puppets.”
[3]
This power structure was not static throughout the whole of the Late Oyo Empire. For example, Basorun Gaha: “Expansion continued under Basorun Gaha, who usurped effective power at Oyo in 1754–74, and who was responsible for the Oyo colonization of the Ewon area of northern Egbado. The period of Gaha’s rule apparently also saw Oyo forces operating far away to the west, close to the River Volta, where they are reported to have inflicted a defeat on the Asante in 1764. It was under Alafin Abiodun, who overthrew Gaha in 1774 and ruled until his death in 1789, that the Oyo empire attained its greatest extent.”
[4]
“Every individual Yoruba ‘belonged to an ebi (lineage) and the male members of a lineage, their wives (if they were married), and children lived together in one agbo-ile (compound)’ (Akintoye, 1971: 13). The ebi was the basic or lowest level of authority in the Yoruba political system.”
[5]
“The baálè’s authority extends to both judicial and legal autonomy in almost all issues that concerned the ebi and its members. Fadipe describes the baálè as ‘the chief law-giver and magistrate of the’ lineage (Fadipe, 1970: 106) who was called upon to intervene and resolve ill feelings between adult members that defied attempts by those involved to settle them. Except on issues that are in the exclusive list of the central polity, the authority of the baálè is the replica of the central government in both extent and practice. Such issues included ‘murder, witchcraft, incest violation, and the communication to women of the secrets of the secret society’ (Fadipe, 1970: 108). He exacted punishments through floggings for acts of theft, acts of sexual misconduct and ‘disrespect’ of elders by young people. In the case of persistent acts of theft and delinquency in young boys, he ordered severe flogging. There were situations when some baálè ‘even had dungeons of their own in which they imprisoned recalcitrant members of the compound’ (Fadipe, 1970: 109). The baálè collected assigned taxes from lineage members for onward transmission to the central bureaucracy of state. […] Without the baálè, the central authorities were unable to assign and assess levies for military duties and public works, much less issue summons to individual lineage members who were required to appear before the Igbimo. In situations when the people deemed part of a directive from the central authorities unpopular, the baálè’s authority extended to redirecting members of the ebi to disregard its enforcement.”
[6]
Palace slaves, notably the three main eunuchs, counterbalanced the Oyo Mesi’s power. “The Aláàfin relied on ‘an immense staff of slaves attached to the palace’ (Law, 1971: 29) to enforce his authority and safeguard his power by reducing his dependence on the Oyo Mesi as stipulated by the Constitution. Three of those slaves – all eunuchs – ‘in order of rank, the Ona Efa (“Eunuch of the Middle”), the Otun Efa (“Eunuch of the Right”), and the Osi Efa (“Eunuch of the Left”) who were responsible respectively for judicial, religious, and administrative matters’ (Law, 1971: 29) presided over that elaborate palace bureaucracy.”
[7]
The hundreds of ilari were appointed by the alaafin, and divided evenly between the sexes. As a representative of the gods, the alaafin was never seen in public; the ilari and subordinate ajele were his ‘messengers’. “The ilari was the other special aggregate of palace-slave functionaries through whom the various ajele – palace slaves – were appointed to represent the kingdom government in each of the provincial polities. Taxes and tributes from vassal polities flowed into the palace treasury through the ilari after they had been collected by the ajele.”
[7]
“The bureaucracy of state administration in subsidiary polities in each central Yoruba state was parallel to the one that obtained in the central state. For instance, under that bureaucracy, the conduct of military and civil affairs, respectively, was assigned to different state officials according to stipulations in the unwritten Yoruba Constitutions. Constitutional stipulations required powerful individuals who were appointed to the office of the Generalissimo in a central state to locate their headquarters and residence away from the capital”.
[8]
“The oba had many chiefs who helped him in the general administration of the town. First among these was the ’Basorun’, the leading member of the highest council of chiefs. Next was the Balogun. He was the officer in Charge of war. He was usually a man of valour who should see to the welfare of the royal household and the town in general. Next was the Parakoyi. He was originally an officer in the court of the Alaafin of Oyo in the days of the Old Oyo Empire. He was the officer in Charge of markets and traders, especially long distance traders. Others were the baales, the traditional compound heads, They were responsible to the chiefs. who in turn would report to the oba.”
[9]
“The palace organisation was recruited almost exclusively from slaves, together with the king’s wives and near ineligible kin. This was countered by the Oyo Mesi, a council of seven descent group heads, representing not only their own groups, but indirectly, the mogaji and members of other groups in their respective quarters. The ogboni continued as an association of free men in which the king and Oyo Mesi had minor offices. (Morton Williams’s diagrammatic representation of the political structure is one which other contributors could usefully have emulated.)”
[10]
[1]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: xiii. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection [2]: Aderinto, Saheed. African Kingdoms: An Encyclopedia of Empires and Civilizations. ABC-CLIO, 2017: 245. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/EB5TWDG7/note/U7W4UF33/collection [3]: Akinwumi, O. D. (1992). The Oyo-Borgu Military Alliance of 1835: A Case Study in the Pre-Colonial Military History. Transafrican Journal of History, 21, 159–170: 160–161. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/J42GPW63/collection [4]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 239. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection [5]: Ejiogu, EC. ‘State Building in the Niger Basin in the Common Era and Beyond, 1000–Mid 1800s: The Case of Yorubaland’. Journal of Asian and African Studies vol.46, no.6 (1 December 2011): 597. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection [6]: 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): 601–602. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection [7]: 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): 606. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection [8]: 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): 598. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2H2CJNHP/collection. [9]: Adelowo, E. D. ‘Islam in Oyo and its Districts in the Nineteenth Century’. Thesis, University of Ibadan, 1978, 13–14. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/UHKKZNRA/collection. [10]: Lloyd, P. C. (1968). The Political Development of West African Kingdoms. The Journal of African History, 9(2), 319–329: 325. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/H4EJUEKP/collection |
||||||
|
levels. “Agriculture and herding were well established by the beginning of Stage Two and some subsistence surpluses were possible. The excavators think that this does not imply that we can reconstruct the social stratigraphy that would be associated with an archaic state, but some internal differentiation of the Stage Two society is possible, in view of the sophistication of craft production documented at Mehrgarh.”
[1]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
1) Sarki (king/emir); 2) High officials (including some members of councils of state in eg Kano and Gobir); 3) Councils of state/electoral college; 4) Galadima (prime minister or grand vizier); 5) Other state officials; 6) Sarkin kasa (chief of the ‘country’/district capital); 7) Sarkin gari/magajin gari (village chiefs); 8) Masuunguwa (district leaders); 9) Maigari (chiefs of small rural communities). Unclear how much overlap there was between levels 2 & 3, or levels 3–5. “One of the most striking characteristics of Hausa political institutions is the universality of the Hausa political vocabulary. This is remarkable, for example, in the titles of officials (masu sarauta). No complete survey of these titles appears to have been made. But common knowledge clearly indicates the remarkable degree to which similar titles occur in many mutually independent states.”
[1]
“In spite of some regional differences, Hausa political organization, both in its formative stages and in its subsequent development, followed a similar pattern everywhere, based on a common socio-economic and cultural identity, as expressed in the common language. At the same time, the administrative system which had emerged in the Hausa states since the fourteenth century bore witness to the marked influence of Kanem-Bornu, from where many institutions and functions were borrowed, sometimes even with their Kanuri/Kanembu names.”
[2]
“The appointment of the successor to the throne from among the princes was the responsibility of an electoral college. In Katsina, this consisted of four members.47 It is difficult to say whether such a college existed in Kebbi at this time, but it certainly appeared there at a later stage. In Zamfara, Gobir and Kano, it bore the name Tara (the Nine),48 followed by the name of the state. The titles and functions of the various electoral colleges differ, but some of the incumbents can be identified as follows: an elder holding an ancient, long-forgotten office, the Basace, in Zamfara; governors of cities and important regions, five in Zamfara and seven in Gobir which added two deputies to Zamfara’s list, and high-ranking public servants, three in Zamfara, two in Gobir and nine in Kano. They also included representatives of ousted dynasties, such as the Durbi in Katsina, and reigning dynasties, such as the Ubandoma in Gobir.”
[3]
“The Sarki exercised his authority through three groups of officials: members of the dynasty, public servants, governors of the towns and regions.”
[3]
“Throughout the country, small rural communities (kauyuka, sing. kauye) were composed of groups of families (gidaje, sing. gida) under the authority of a chief (maigari). These communities consisted, in fact, of farming hamlets that were generally quite small and in some cases of a shifting nature. At the next level came the villages (garuruwa, sing. gari), which were larger and permanent. At their head they had a sarkin gari or magajin gari (village chief), who may on occasion have had district leaders (masuunguwa, sing, mai-unguwa) under him. At the apex of the structure stood the birni (plural birane), the district capital, which was ruled not by a sarkin birni (the expression does not exist in Hausa), but a sarkin kasa or chief of the ’country’, whose authority naturally extended over all the lower-level chiefs.”
[4]
“At the head of the country, the sarki or king was absolute. In theory, at least, his physical person was sacred, since the fortunes of the kingdom were linked to his own. As a rule, he was chosen from among the members of the ruling lineage; although father-son succession was common, it is noteworthy that the Kano Chronicle indicates the name of each ruler’s mother, which may point to surviving vestiges of a matrilineal system. The sarki shared power with high officials, who belonged partly to his own lineage and partly to leading lineages of the old regime now transferred into a hereditary aristocracy. Among this élite, some were members of the council of state appointed by the monarch. In Gobir, this council was called tara ta Gobir (or tarar Gobir) ’the nine of Gobir’ and when the king died any candidate for the succession had to accept their decisions.110 Similarly, as mentioned above, the Kano council bore the name of tara ta Kano, ’the Kano nine’. These councils are reminiscent of the council of twelve in the old Sefuwa empire of Kanem-Bornu.”
[4]
“Sarkin Kano Rumfa was the first to appoint slaves, and even eunuchs, to important offices of state, placing them in control of the treasury, the town and palace guards, and communications with free office-holders; they also performed various household functions, such as control of the harem.112 Foremost in importance among the state officials was the galadima, a kind of prime minister or grand vizier in whom the conduct of all affairs of state was vested.113 This office was sometimes occupied by the heir apparent and, in very many instances, the sarki became only a puppet in the hands of a powerful galadima. Under the latter were a host of officials and dignitaries, each of whom took charge of a specific locality or territorial unit, ranging from an entire province to a group of villages.”
[4]
“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.”
[5]
“Although the leadership of the Caliphate did not specify all the offices to be filled, it is clear that the Shehu categorically rejected the proliferation of political titles characteristic of the pre-jihad Hausa kingdoms and planned to abolish parasitic sarauta titles in favour of a more streamlined political system consonant with the Islamic theory of political administration drawn largely from the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Shehu was also vehemently opposed to the hereditary traditions of the pre-jihad Hausa kingdoms and emphasised scholarship and unquestioned morality as the principal criteria for office.”
[6]
“Under Dauda (1421-38), the foreign influence became more marked with the arrival of a refugee Bornu prince with his men and a large number of mallams. Apart from such regalia as horses, drums, trumpets and flags, it seems that the Bornu people also brought with them more sophisticated concepts of administration, and it was from that time onwards that Bornu titles such as galadima, chiroma and kaigama came into use in Kano.”
[7]
“The Kano Chronicle ascribes to Muhammad Rumfa (1463-99) a number of innovations of varying importance, among them the extension of the city walls and the building of new gates; the appointment of eunuchs to state offices; the establishment of Kurmi market, the main market in Kano; and the setting up of a council of nine leading office-holders (tara-ta-Kano — ’the Nine of Kano’) as a kind of ministry.”
[8]
[1]: Smith, A. (1970). Some Considerations Relating to the Formation of States in Hausaland. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 5(3), 329–346: 344. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/74EZB5XU/collection [2]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 293. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [3]: Ogot, B. (Ed.). (1998). Africa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 466. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/M4FMXZZW/collection [4]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 293–294. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [5]: 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 [6]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 101. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection [7]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 272. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection [8]: Niane, D. T., & Unesco (Eds.). (1984). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. Heinemann; University of California Press: 272–273. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ERZKPETN/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) Councils of Clan Unions and Tribal Units (Dzhon/Ulus) (2) Clan (Aimak/Nasleg) and Lineage (Aqa-Usa) Councils comprised of Elders, Prophets (Sesen) and Leaders (Toyon) or ’Princelings’ Until at least the 19th century, lineage councils were the primary administrative bodies: ’Kinship and politics were mixed in the hierarchical council system that guided AQA-USA, AIMAK, and DZHON. Yakut explanations of DZHON in the nineteenth century included concepts like "people," "community," or "tribe," territorially defined. Councils were composed of ranked circles of elders, usually men, whose leaders, TOYONS, were called nobles by Russians. A lineage head was BIS-USA-TOYON; respected warriors and hunters were BATYR. Lineage councils decided major economic issues, interfamily disputes, and questions of blood revenge for violence committed against the group. AIMAK and DZHON councils were infrequent, dealing with issues of security, revenge, alliance, and, before Russian control, war. Through war, slaves were captured for service in the wealthiest TOYON households. Kin-based councils were rare by the nineteenth century and had little influence on twentieth-century politics.’ [1] ’Key kin relations are based on a patrilineage (AQA-USA) that traces membership back nine generations. Within this, children born to a specific mother are distinguished as a group (YE-USA), and may form the basis for different households (KORGON). Historically, more distant kin were recognized on two levels, the AIMAK (or territorial NASLEG), with one to thirty lineages, and the DZHON (or territorial ULUS), composed of several AIMAK. These larger units were united by alliances, including for common defense, alliances, and by economic relations; these links were renewed at councils and festivals.’ [1] ’Prophets’ and other elders dominated most councils: ’According to tradition, the seseny played no minor role in assemblies in the past. The word sesen comes from the same root as the verb sesenibin - I advise, I think, I predict. Legend portrayes the seseny as white-haired, honored, experienced elders.’ [2] ’This dignity was neither elective nor hereditary, but not every old man was considered to be a sesen. For this he had to have a special gift of prophecy - in other words: an acknowledged intellect, experience, and knowledge. In difficult moments the heroes of olongo frequently turn to such advice-giving, honored, light-eyed Old Men-Talkers.’ [3] ’In the past we did not decide anything without sesen. (Namsk Ulus, 1888). I will note that in this testimony sesen is used in the sense of sorcerer. The sesen decided disputed questions on the basis of custom, and gave advice when the clan was undergoing hard times. At ysyakh, before the games and contests began, the sesen of each clan or clan union would look over their own wrestlers; and they would remove those who were not good enough, who had recently sinned with a woman, who did not restrain themselves sufficiently in eating and drinking, so that they would not bring shame to their own people. They found all this out by feeling the body of the wrestlers, and by looking into their eyes and face. (Namsk Ulus, 1891). In the Bayagantaysk Ulus, when I asked who had named the rivers, hills, and other natural features, they answered: It must be the sesen - the old, ancient men, who knew everything! (Bayagantaysk Ulus, 1885).’ [3] Sesens were often from the toen class: ’Since within the clan many sesen were at the same time toen, i.e., the representatives of separate groups, they wielded enormous influencein clan councils. Usually in legends they are simply called old men - ogonior.’ [3] Clan unions and tribal units also held council: ’They wielded less importance in councils of clan unions: there the first place was held by the heads of the clans, bis’ usa toeno.’ [3] It seems that the Russian period was preceded by a period of heightened social stratification favouring the Toyons: ’At this period, however, the clan-tribal structure was already in a state of decomposition. The tribes and clans were headed by the military aristocracy-the toyons. These possessed large herds of cattle and employed the labor of slaves and dependent fellow clansmen on their farms; they were also the military leaders. Heading detachments of armed servants and junior fellow clansmen, the toyons raided each other’s territory, and frequently looted the farms of the free members of the community, seizing their cattle and destroying their economic independence. These toyon wars and raids were one of the factors which speeded up the decomposition of the clan commune. The ruined members of the commune were reduced to the status of “balyksyts” (poor people without cattle, or fishermen), or else became the indentured slaves of the toyons. Most of the slaves (kuluts or bokans) originated in this way.’ [4] The Russian administration later reinforced kin-based hierarchies and superimposed a supratribal structure onto the Sakha system (see next sheet): ’The system of tsarist administration was no different here from what existed in any other part of Northern Siberia. The Dolgans, Yakuts and Evenks had to pay the fur-tax as “natives” and formed “clans” headed by princelings, while the tundra peasants were forced to pay a poll tax, were formed into a “community” and headed by an elder. People living many hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest centers were economically dependent on the merchants who monopolized supplies to the region, bought up all the furs, and cruelly exploited the population.’ [5] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 736 [3]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 737 [4]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts”, 270 [5]: Popov, A. A. 1964. “Dolgans”, 656 |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ’3’ ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms)’.
[(5) Russian Imperial Authorities; (4) Russian District Governors; (3) the Russian District Administration;] (2) Councils of Clan Unions and Tribal Units (Dzhon/Ulus) (1) Clan (Aimak/Nasleg) and Lineage (Aqa-Usa) Councils comprised of Elders, Prophets (Sesen) and Leaders (Toyon) or ’Princelings’ Until at least the 19th century, lineage councils were the primary administrative bodies: ’Kinship and politics were mixed in the hierarchical council system that guided AQA-USA, AIMAK, and DZHON. Yakut explanations of DZHON in the nineteenth century included concepts like "people," "community," or "tribe," territorially defined. Councils were composed of ranked circles of elders, usually men, whose leaders, TOYONS, were called nobles by Russians. A lineage head was BIS-USA-TOYON; respected warriors and hunters were BATYR. Lineage councils decided major economic issues, interfamily disputes, and questions of blood revenge for violence committed against the group. AIMAK and DZHON councils were infrequent, dealing with issues of security, revenge, alliance, and, before Russian control, war. Through war, slaves were captured for service in the wealthiest TOYON households. Kin-based councils were rare by the nineteenth century and had little influence on twentieth-century politics.’ [1] ’Key kin relations are based on a patrilineage (AQA-USA) that traces membership back nine generations. Within this, children born to a specific mother are distinguished as a group (YE-USA), and may form the basis for different households (KORGON). Historically, more distant kin were recognized on two levels, the AIMAK (or territorial NASLEG), with one to thirty lineages, and the DZHON (or territorial ULUS), composed of several AIMAK. These larger units were united by alliances, including for common defense, alliances, and by economic relations; these links were renewed at councils and festivals.’ [1] ’Prophets’ and other elders dominated most councils: ’According to tradition, the seseny played no minor role in assemblies in the past. The word sesen comes from the same root as the verb sesenibin - I advise, I think, I predict. Legend portrayes the seseny as white-haired, honored, experienced elders.’ [2] ’This dignity was neither elective nor hereditary, but not every old man was considered to be a sesen. For this he had to have a special gift of prophecy - in other words: an acknowledged intellect, experience, and knowledge. In difficult moments the heroes of olongo frequently turn to such advice-giving, honored, light-eyed Old Men-Talkers.’ [3] ’In the past we did not decide anything without sesen. (Namsk Ulus, 1888). I will note that in this testimony sesen is used in the sense of sorcerer. The sesen decided disputed questions on the basis of custom, and gave advice when the clan was undergoing hard times. At ysyakh, before the games and contests began, the sesen of each clan or clan union would look over their own wrestlers; and they would remove those who were not good enough, who had recently sinned with a woman, who did not restrain themselves sufficiently in eating and drinking, so that they would not bring shame to their own people. They found all this out by feeling the body of the wrestlers, and by looking into their eyes and face. (Namsk Ulus, 1891). In the Bayagantaysk Ulus, when I asked who had named the rivers, hills, and other natural features, they answered: It must be the sesen - the old, ancient men, who knew everything! (Bayagantaysk Ulus, 1885).’ [3] Sesens were often from the toen class: ’Since within the clan many sesen were at the same time toen, i.e., the representatives of separate groups, they wielded enormous influencein clan councils. Usually in legends they are simply called old men - ogonior.’ [3] Clan unions and tribal units also held council: ’They wielded less importance in councils of clan unions: there the first place was held by the heads of the clans, bis’ usa toeno.’ [3] The Russian administration reinforced kin-based hierarchies and superimposed a supratribal structure onto the Sakha system: ’The system of tsarist administration was no different here from what existed in any other part of Northern Siberia. The Dolgans, Yakuts and Evenks had to pay the fur-tax as “natives” and formed “clans” headed by princelings, while the tundra peasants were forced to pay a poll tax, were formed into a “community” and headed by an elder. People living many hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest centers were economically dependent on the merchants who monopolized supplies to the region, bought up all the furs, and cruelly exploited the population.’ [4] ’If they have claims against their subordinate clansmen, the clan-chiefs bring complaints: 1. The headman--to the nasleg princelings and clan elders. If unsatisfied with their decision, or in case of noncompliance, they may complain to the authorities. 2. The princelings--first, to the clan elders in their jurisdiction, and in the case of noncompliance or dissatisfaction with their decision, to the ulus headmen, and finally, to the authorities. 3. The clansmen among themselves--to the clan elders and nasleg princelings, and in the case of noncompliance to the ulus headman; and finally to the authorities.’ [5] Sakha leaders cooperated with Russian imperial administrators, collecting taxes for them and contributing to the establishment of the emerging postal system in Siberia: ’Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. Fighting among Yakut communities decreased, although horse rustling and occasional anti-Russian violence continued.’ [1] [1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut [2]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 736 [3]: Sieroszewski, Wacław 1993. “Yakut: An Experiment In Ethnographic Research”, 737 [4]: Popov, A. A. 1964. “Dolgans”, 656 [5]: Samokvasov, D. I. A. 1876. “Collection Of Customary Law Of The Siberian Natives", 4p |
||||||
|
Argument in favour of the existence of a central administration: "As far as we can see Kushite rule did not alter the way in which Egypt was administered: the alterations were more straightforwardly related to the holders of office, whether individuals or families."
[1]
- however, others (E.g. Exell and Naunton) argued that central authority and administration had disappeared by 25th Dynasty.
Argument against the existence of a central administration: "Exell and Naunton have concluded that New Kingdom analogies are of little help for ascertaining the governing principles of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty." [2] Exell and Naunton argue: "Maat having been achieved, the pharoah was perhaps content to leave the mundane business of running the country to those individuals and systems already in place: which, if true, confirms that, by this point, central authority and administration had disappeared." [2] 1. King autocratic ruler. Royal residence (likely Meroe) centre of political rule. [3] Period saw the decline of centralized state, emergence of "direct regency of god". [4] "The Kushites followed Libyan practice by making marriage alliances with the elite, probably throughout Egypt." [5] _ Central government line_ [3] NOTE: Central government may not have existed 2. The position of vizier continued but was "deprived of effective power." [6] King did not delegate power to an office of vizier or high priest. Government had "federate character." However: Morkot refers to a Vizierate [7] 2. Known titles of officials: Chiefs of treasury; army commanders; seal bearers; heads of archives; chiefs of granaries; the chief scribe of Kush.Officials played a role in the election of a king high priests were in the key offices of government [8] 3. ... ? ... Note: the granaries administration could involve than 5 levels _Provincial line_ [3] 2. Regional viceroyRegional viceroy ("pesto") directly responsible to king. [9] Key offices in Upper Egypt: Southern Vizierate, High Steward of the Divine Adoratrice, Mayor of Thebes; Lower Egypt: (local dynasties and ancestral territories of unknown dependence). [8] 3. Provincial governorsProvinces: traces of royal palaces in localities. [3] Provincial centres. [10] "In the north ... the local dynasts were left in control of their provinces " until the Kushite reconquest of Egypt in 716 BCE when Shabaqo "forcibly imposed his authority over the provincial governors." [11] 4. MayorE.g. Mayor of Thebes [8] [5] 5. Village chief Jeremy Pope, The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. "Naunton has argued that Kushite diplomacy in Thebes was then extended to all Egypt" [12] "Nevertheless, the absence of evidence for either centralized administration or state investment should not be taken to signify a political vacuum. A more defensible scenario would instead posit Taharqo’s immediate subordinates within the region as ’invisible elites’ - merchants, pastoralists, and local potentates essential to the functioning of the state who neither held office within centralized institution nor manifested their wealth and influence through biographical inscriptions and private statuary. In this regard, Lower Nubia under the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty present a striking contrast with the bureaucratic formalization of Upper Egypt." [13] "Semna West, Buhen, Qasr Ibrim, and Philae can be viewed primarily as loci for the ’formulation, demonstration, and explanation of royal authority’ - i.e., as sites for the promotion of ritual suzerainty in lieu of centralized administration. ... However, the intra-site and inter-site sustainability networks of Egyptian-style temple-towns are not well-reflected in the surviving evidence from the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty." [14] "Across the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, neither a Vizier, a God’s Wife of Amun, her Chief Steward, nor any other state official below the pharaoh is attested iconographically or textually between the First and Third Cataracts. The marked contrast between this circumstance and the elaborate hierarchy of officialdom in Upper Egypt and Upper Nubia on either side would suggest that Lower Nubia was rather treated as a separate unit." [15] "the Kushite kings of the Napatan era were evidently not averse to delegating responsibility from afar - much as Taharqo appears to have done during the temple constructions at Kawa and Sanam." [16] "Immediately below the king were the royal kinsmen (sn.w. nsw), from among whom the heir apparent was chosen by means of the Amun oracle." [16] Royal kinsmen "did not hold a monpoloy on upon the highest offices of government for as in Aspelta’s Enthronement Stela the royal kinsmen were sent before the oracle by a separate group of commanders ..., palace officials ..., and ’friends’..." [16] Aspelta is post-25th Dynasty "a variety of more specific offices are attested, all clearly named after Egyptian precedents": these include Mayor, Palace Treasurer, Royal Sealer, Superior of the Tribunal, Chief Scribe, Royal Scribe, Overseer of the Gold of the Hill-Countries, Overseer of the Granary, Royal Scribe of the Granary, Scribe of the Temple-Compound, Sistrum-Player, Prohet, Great Priest, Chief Official of the God. [17] Inscriptional record suggests there was not a royal monopoly on these positions. [17] One analysis is "Upper Egypt was the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty state - the only Egyptian region in which Kushite hegemony approached the time-honored pharaonic ideal of centralized governance ... An alternative view ... articulated by Naunton ... Upper Egypt was not exceptional but rather microcosmic - even formative - for Kushitenherrschaft and its development over the course of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty." [18] "The Amun cult belonged in large part to the Kushite house, but the civil administration of Upper Egypt evidently did not." [19] Civil administration in Delta region, titles: "Grandee in the Towns of the East", "Grandee of the East", "Prophet of Bastet, mistress of Bubastis". Montuhotep was also a Northern Vizier. [20] In the Dongola-Napata Reach "the details of local administration found in the royal corpus of the Napatan period speak quite forcefully against the assumptions that Upper Nubian officialdom was peopled by Egyptian emigres or controlled by a small oligarchy. Authority appears instead to have been dispersed across a number of kin groups; there is odddly little pyramidal hierachy of governmental positions; and offices which might otherwise be equated with the king’s unique deputy are found divided among several individuals." [21] this provides possible inferrence for 25th Dynasty "the most recent attempt at a comprehensive analysis of Theban officials and their duties during the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty has concluded that even in Upper Egypt ’it is not possible to speak of a "court" for the centuries following the New Kingdom,’ as ’central authority and administration had disappeared’ [quoting Naunton]" [22] O’Conner (1983) [23] "Kushite rule was based on military strength, and local civil government was left largely to the Egyptian dynasts." [24] "At Thebes, the Kushites continued the politically useful office of ’god’s wife’; the High Priesthood, held by a Kushite prince and his son, was revived but stripped of military and civil authority. The former was surely exercised by Kushite commanders, the latter first by Kushite governors, and later by Theban bureaucrats." [24] [1]: (Morkot 2014, 963) Robert G Morkot. 2014. ’Thebes under the Kushites’ in Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis: Thebes, Karakhamun (TT 223), and Karabasken (TT 391) in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty edited by Elena Pischikova. American University in Cairo Press. [2]: (Pope 2014, 203) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [3]: (Mokhtar ed. 1981, 304-305) [4]: (Török 1997, 156) [5]: (Morkot 2013, 961) [6]: (Taylor 2000, 348) [7]: (Morkot 2013, 963) [8]: (Török 1997, 179-180) [9]: (Welsby 1998, 35) [10]: (Török 1997, 172) [11]: (Taylor 2000, 347) [12]: (Pope 2014, 279) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [13]: (Pope 2014, 191) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [14]: (Pope 2014, 179) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [15]: (Pope 2014, 174) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [16]: (Pope 2014, 148) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [17]: (Pope 2014, 149) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [18]: (Pope 2014, 194) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [19]: (Pope 2014, 202) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [20]: (Pope 2014, 266) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [21]: (Pope 2014, 276) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [22]: (Pope 2014, 277) Pope, Jeremy. 2014. The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo. BRILL. Leiden. [23]: (O’Connor 1983) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [24]: (O’Connor 1983, 243) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.1. King :2. Court ::" Yet it would be a mistake to imagine that the first kings ruled as autocrats, although the tales have a tendency to portray the kings as doing precisely that. Certainly the king was the leading actor on the court scene, but he was not the only one. The queen mother enjoyed an independent authority. At the court the foremost ritualists and the diviners-cum-counselors certainly had their say, as did those who had been the king’s earliest allies and military commanders such as Muvunyi and Mpande. All these people were stakeholders in this new enterprise that was the kingdom and just as interested in its success as the king was himself. Ndori and his successors were certainly obliged to negotiate with them. Moreover, one suspects that there were already two factions among the courtiers, those who were his first companions from abroad and those who already held high office in the land before his arrival. People in both camps probably competed with each other and the kings undoubtedly exploited such rivalres even while they continued to rely on both factions. In such a political arena, the emergence of favorite counselors (abatoni) becomes nearly inevitable if only in an informal way."
[1]
:3. Abatware ::"During Ndori’s reign a large part of the realm was divided into small chiefdoms headed by allies who were not ritualists but who had still welcomed him into the country. All these chiefs were probably linked to the king by an ubuhake contract since such a contract would have reified their submission to and alliance with him. In accordance with the ubuhake contract, they would then have sent tribute in food, objects, or cattle to the court according to its needs. The local chiefs (abatware) could not be deposed, kept their own intore, and governed their lands without any interference by the court. They waged private wars and vendetta without any restriction at all."
[2]
:3. Ritualist leaders ::"The main ritualists also still held territories that were totally free. [...] All these ritualist lands were exempt from royal authority in return for the ritual obligations owed by their chiefs."
[3]
:3. Other types of chiefs ::"The Rwandan system observed in the nineteenth century was quite particular. Three local authorities, dependents of the mwami, shared tasks: army chiefs, pasture or cow chiefs, and land chiefs (batware b’ingabo or b’umuheto, batware b’imikenke or b’inka, and batware b’ubutaka). The borders of their respective jurisdictions did not coincide, and in the majority of cases a single chief performed all three functions. The "system of intermingled fingers" (to cite the definition of Kandt, the German resident) was complete only in the center of the country. Thus, in Kinyaga, there were no pasture chiefs. Some persons combined responsibilities in several regions. Below them, starting with Rwabugiri’s reign, were "hill chiefs," who tightly controlled the population."
[4]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 66) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [2]: (Vansina 2004: 64) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [3]: (Vansina 2004: 64-65) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. [4]: (Chrétien 2006: 175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Though Ntare Rugamba is said to have doubled the area of the country, the administrative legacy of Ntare’s rule was at least as important history to Burundi political history as were his military exploits. With such rapid expansion, Ntare relied on his sons as administrators: he was strong enough to set up his sons, but not strong enough to incorporate these regions fully within central control. [...] During the late nineteenth century, under the reign of Mwezi Gisabo, a four- tiered system of administration emerged: a central area around Muramvya under the control of the king; an area under the administration of his sons or brothers most closely allied to the king; a broad swath further east and south administered by Batare chiefs, the descendants of Ntare; and another zone, covering the western and northwestern areas of the country, under the administration of others, not Baganwa (in fact, they were mostly Hutu authorities). (See Figure 8.) From this pattern, three types of political relations emerged. Administrative authorities in the east and south- east, often Batare (descendants of Ntare Rugamba), simply retained their administrative autonomy while acknowledging nominal central court ritual hegemony. Those in the northeast more characteristically undertook open revolt, often by those who sought to overthrow Mwezi. [...] In the northwest, by contrast, pretenders to royal power had more tenuous claims to Ganwa identity; they drew on local traditions of resistance and benefited from the resources of the Lake Tanganyika trade network (as well as support from other states such as the Shi kingdoms west of Lake Kivu)."
[1]
"Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[2]
1. King :2. Close advisors, related to the king ::3. Notables forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Chiefs ::::5. Chiefs’ delegates
[1]: (Newbury 2001: 283-284) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/J5A6DM3P/collection. [2]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
During the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, many societies developed into more sophisticated urban communities. This is a time when proto-city-states emerged, and the density of population was growing.
1. Ruler of proto-city state The development of metallurgy and the long distance trade networks generated a new elites culture. 2.3. |
||||||
|
levels.
Based on imperial administration c.700-1050 CE [1] Note: Provinces still existed contemporaneous with the first themes. Last European themes set up about 900 CE: "Strymon theme to protect the passes over the Rhodope mountains; the theme of Nicopolis to secure the coastal region on the gulf of Patras; and the Dalmatian theme to secure Byzantine access to the Dalmatian islands." [2] 1. Emperor "In official titulature the older terms augoustos, autokrator, and despotes remained in use, but from the time of Herakleios the emperor was generally called basileus, whereas the Latinate augousta was preferred to basilissa for the empress." [3] "wished to be regarded as the emanation of the sun-god and claimed the same veneration as the Apostles of Christ" [4] from "the point of view of the ceremonial" the Christian Emperor "was still a god" in the pagan tradition. "His arrival was heralded by the raising of several curtains, like the appearance of the deity in the oriental mystery religions. Hence the meetings of the Emperor’s council held in this sacred setting were able to announce only decisions which had been discussed and settled outside this body (gremium)." [5] 2. sakellarios (general fiscal supervisor)"In Constantinople, new offices and new actors emerged out of the old structures. For example, the sakellarios, at the head of the Sakellion, formerly a department of the Sacrum Cubiculum, became the chief officer of finance (Brandes 2002: 427-79; Haldon 1990:376-402)." [6] 3. Military finance4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration) - see below for additional levels 4. Prisons (Constantinople)5. Noumera 5. Walls 5. Praitorion 5. demes of Blues and Greens 5. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. General treasurysacellum (imperial treasury) [7] 4. department for money payments in the sacellum [7] 4. department for payments in kind in the sacellum [7] 4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration) - see below for additional levels 3. Special treasury 3. Public wardrobe 3. Grand curatorAfter the theme organization introduced "The curatores, the heads of the great estate zones, now paid this revenue [tax] direct to the imperial sacellum, the imperial treasury. Within the treasury, as in all financial departments of state, there were two departments, the sacellum for money payments and the vestiarium for payments in kind." [7] 3. Curator of the Mangana 3. Orphanotrophos"There was an imperial administrative department for orphanages and for old peoples’ homes. Both these had their own special officials." [7] 2. logothete of the dromos"In order to exercise some effective control over the themes, and particularly to safeguard the general interests of the state against the particularism of individual provinces, the office of logothete tou dromou was created. This high imperial official had the position of a commissioner with extraordinary powers. One of his most important duties was to provide for an army on the march. ... His competence included the supervision of imperial roads and post, and he also had the right to impose on any theme economic measures considered necessary to secure provisioning, maintenance and movement of troops on all routes within the Empire. With such authority this office attained so great an importance that the logothete tou dromou soon became the first minister of the Empire." [8] 3. Transport4. Public post 2. Provincial military and navy3. Thematic generals (strategos)Themes introduced under Constantine IV 668-685 CE. [9] Commanders of theme called strategi [10] Military commander "dux" (highest rank) of a castella or "theme". Once castella set up in Asia Minor "The military zones took the place of the provinces and the military commanders became the provincial governors." [11] 4. Clerks (copyists and secretaries) of strategos"The strategi of the themes, whose rank was similar to that of a present-day commander-in-chief, received salaries ranging from 5 to 40 gold pounds according to the strategic importance of the theme. ... higher ranking officers were themselves responsible for certain outgoings, such as the payment of their clerks - copyists and secretaries." [12] 4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration)"The protonotarius was in charge of financial administration. In regional administration there was a division between departments for receipts and disbursement. The taxes collected by the tax-collectors (dioketai) in the various tax zones were paid into the chartularius’ office, entered and checked and then handed over to the protonotarius’ office. From these receipts the protonotarius had to cover the expenses of the theme." These outgoings included the soldiers’ pay, the salaries of officers and officials as well as expenditure for the upkeep of public welfare services, such as geriatric homes, orphanages and infirmaries." [12] 5. Department for receipts 5. Department for disbursement "These outgoings included the soldiers’ pay, the salaries of officers and officials as well as expenditure for the upkeep of public welfare services, such as geriatric homes, orphanages and infirmaries." [12] 6. Official who paid the salaries of soldiers and/or government workers inferred7. Assistant/scribe of official who paid the salaries of soldiers and government workers inferred 7. Public welfare manager e.g. head of orphanage8. Worker in public welfare service e.g. nurse 4. kritai (justice) 4. chartoularioi (military administration)"The chartularius was the head of the taxation offices and his subordinates were in charge of the kataster of the peasants as well as the soldier-farmers." [13] 5. dioketai (tax-collectors)"The taxes collected by the tax-collectors (dioketai) in the various tax zones were paid into the chartularius’ office, entered and checked and then handed over to the protonotarius’ office." 5. Book-keepers"Some officials came from banking circles (argyropratai). They were entrusted with book-keeping and accounts, and had to spend many years as money-changers or transacting loans before they ventured to jump into state service. They mostly got posts in the taxation department, first in provincial administration, and then, if they were successful, they would be recalled to the central offices in Constantinople." [14] 5. anagrapheus (surveyor)"The chartularius was the head of the taxation offices and his subordinates were in charge of the kataster of the peasants as well as the soldier-farmers." "The Byzantine surveyor, the anagrapheus, the official responsible for the precise valuation of land for purposes of taxation" [15] 6. Assistant/scribe inferred 2. Independent commands3. doukes katepans4. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 3. kleisourarchs 2. logothete of the herds3. optimatoi (logistics unit) 2. Prefect of Constantinople3. Judges of tribunals 2. quaestor (justice)quaestor sacri palatii (minster of justice) "had among his duties the preparation of the imperial laws and documents, for which he took over part of the responsibility with the authorization legi (’I have read’)." [16] 3. judges of tribunals 3. kritai (thematic justice officals) 2. Minister of petitions 2. Master of ceremonies 2. Imperial household"The department for imperial possessions had a number of functions: there was the office responsible for the private wardrobe of the Emperor, the office for the care of the imperial table silver, the imperial art room, and finally even the imperial library." [7] 3. Imperial table 3. Butler 3. Private wardrobe 3. Privy purse 3. Chancerypraepostius sacri cubiculi was the head of the imperial cabinet in the cubiculum (Imperial private chancery) [4] 4. Minister of the inkwell 3. Chamberlaincubicularri (chamberlains) and secreti (private secretaries). "The imperial eunuchs, the cubicularii (koubikoularioi), also paid for their office. They formed the emperor’s escort and were a very influential body in the Palace." [17] 4. diaitarioi"At the lower end of the scale, there were scores of minor employees of the Palace: diaitarioi, or servants attached to the various buildings, doorkeepers, lamplighters, etc., and there were certainly a great many slaves about whom we have little information. The employees of the Hippodrome and the circus factions were also on the rolls of the Palace." [17] 4. Imperial bedchamber 3. Head of the Imperial Library4. Imperial Librarian inferred5. Assistant to an Imperial Librarian inferred6. Doorkeepers, lamplighters etc. inferred 3. Concierge of the Great Palace 3. Concierge of the Daphne Palace 3. Concierge of the Magnaura 3. Elite and household units (military) 2. droungarios of the imperial fleet 2. domestikoi of the Scholoi3. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 2. Imperial private entourage 2. Imperial stables3. protostrator Where is the logothete tou stratiotkou? In central administration and in the regions? "In the seventh century the office of praefectus praetorio completely disappeared and its place was taken by the departments of the logothete tou stratiotikou. This office combined the departments of tax collection and the valuation lists with that concerned with the army pay roll, but even here well-qualified personnel was essential and it was already becoming difficult to find this. Thus the more important responsibilities of the logothete tou stratiotikou fell to the chartularius of the theme who also received the title of logothete." [8] In the central administration "the fusion of taxation and military administrative arrangements took place about 680. What had applied to individual provinces in Justinian’s day was now extended to the central administration, and thence to the whole Empire. The inauguration of the new régime coincided with the introduction of the office of logothete tou stratiotikou. Holders of this office are first found in the second half of the seventh century, that is, at the same time as the appearance of the first five themes. In this office, taxation and military administration were made the responsibility of one minister in the central government. The officials concerned with the muster rolls of the soldiers and with the collection of the annona were thus combined in a single functionary." [18] logothete tou stratiotikou equivalent of central administration. From Justinian certain military governors gained powers of tax collection to make system more responsible to local realities. "Thus there grew up this fusion of military and civil authority which spread over the whole Empire with the introduction of the themes and undermined the control exercised by the state." [19] In the central administration "the fusion of taxation and military administrative arrangements took place about 680. What had applied to individual provinces in Justinian’s day was now extended to the central administration, and thence to the whole Empire." [18] "The logothete of each individual theme corresponded to the logothete tou stratiotikou." [20] [1]: (Haldon 2008, 549) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 96-97) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Featherstone 2008, 505) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [4]: (Haussig 1971, 54) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [5]: (Haussig 1971, 55) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [6]: (Cheynet 2008, 519) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Haussig 1971, 181) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [8]: (Haussig 1971, 180) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [9]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [10]: (Haussig 1971, 178) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [11]: (Haussig 1971, 95) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [12]: (Haussig 1971, 171) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [13]: (Haussig 1971, 174-175) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [14]: (Haussig 1971, 179) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [15]: (Haussig 1971, 175) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [16]: (Haussig 1971, 53) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [17]: (Featherstone 2008, 506) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [18]: (Haussig 1971, 97-98) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [19]: (Haussig 1971, 97) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [20]: (Haussig 1971, 98) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
levels.
Based on imperial administration c.700-1050 CE [1] Note: Provinces still existed contemporaneous with the first themes. Last European themes set up about 900 CE: "Strymon theme to protect the passes over the Rhodope mountains; the theme of Nicopolis to secure the coastal region on the gulf of Patras; and the Dalmatian theme to secure Byzantine access to the Dalmatian islands." [2] 1. Emperor "In official titulature the older terms augoustos, autokrator, and despotes remained in use, but from the time of Herakleios the emperor was generally called basileus, whereas the Latinate augousta was preferred to basilissa for the empress." [3] "wished to be regarded as the emanation of the sun-god and claimed the same veneration as the Apostles of Christ" [4] from "the point of view of the ceremonial" the Christian Emperor "was still a god" in the pagan tradition. "His arrival was heralded by the raising of several curtains, like the appearance of the deity in the oriental mystery religions. Hence the meetings of the Emperor’s council held in this sacred setting were able to announce only decisions which had been discussed and settled outside this body (gremium)." [5] 2. sakellarios (general fiscal supervisor)"In Constantinople, new offices and new actors emerged out of the old structures. For example, the sakellarios, at the head of the Sakellion, formerly a department of the Sacrum Cubiculum, became the chief officer of finance (Brandes 2002: 427-79; Haldon 1990:376-402)." [6] 3. Military finance4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration) - see below for additional levels 4. Prisons (Constantinople)5. Noumera 5. Walls 5. Praitorion 5. demes of Blues and Greens 5. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. General treasurysacellum (imperial treasury) [7] 4. department for money payments in the sacellum [7] 4. department for payments in kind in the sacellum [7] 4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration) - see below for additional levels 3. Special treasury 3. Public wardrobe 3. Grand curatorAfter the theme organization introduced "The curatores, the heads of the great estate zones, now paid this revenue [tax] direct to the imperial sacellum, the imperial treasury. Within the treasury, as in all financial departments of state, there were two departments, the sacellum for money payments and the vestiarium for payments in kind." [7] 3. Curator of the Mangana 3. Orphanotrophos"There was an imperial administrative department for orphanages and for old peoples’ homes. Both these had their own special officials." [7] 2. logothete of the dromos"In order to exercise some effective control over the themes, and particularly to safeguard the general interests of the state against the particularism of individual provinces, the office of logothete tou dromou was created. This high imperial official had the position of a commissioner with extraordinary powers. One of his most important duties was to provide for an army on the march. ... His competence included the supervision of imperial roads and post, and he also had the right to impose on any theme economic measures considered necessary to secure provisioning, maintenance and movement of troops on all routes within the Empire. With such authority this office attained so great an importance that the logothete tou dromou soon became the first minister of the Empire." [8] 3. Transport4. Public post 2. Provincial military and navy3. Thematic generals (strategos)Themes introduced under Constantine IV 668-685 CE. [9] Commanders of theme called strategi [10] Military commander "dux" (highest rank) of a castella or "theme". Once castella set up in Asia Minor "The military zones took the place of the provinces and the military commanders became the provincial governors." [11] 4. Clerks (copyists and secretaries) of strategos"The strategi of the themes, whose rank was similar to that of a present-day commander-in-chief, received salaries ranging from 5 to 40 gold pounds according to the strategic importance of the theme. ... higher ranking officers were themselves responsible for certain outgoings, such as the payment of their clerks - copyists and secretaries." [12] 4. protonotarioi (thematic fiscal administration)"The protonotarius was in charge of financial administration. In regional administration there was a division between departments for receipts and disbursement. The taxes collected by the tax-collectors (dioketai) in the various tax zones were paid into the chartularius’ office, entered and checked and then handed over to the protonotarius’ office. From these receipts the protonotarius had to cover the expenses of the theme." These outgoings included the soldiers’ pay, the salaries of officers and officials as well as expenditure for the upkeep of public welfare services, such as geriatric homes, orphanages and infirmaries." [12] 5. Department for receipts 5. Department for disbursement "These outgoings included the soldiers’ pay, the salaries of officers and officials as well as expenditure for the upkeep of public welfare services, such as geriatric homes, orphanages and infirmaries." [12] 6. Official who paid the salaries of soldiers and/or government workers inferred7. Assistant/scribe of official who paid the salaries of soldiers and government workers inferred 7. Public welfare manager e.g. head of orphanage8. Worker in public welfare service e.g. nurse 4. kritai (justice) 4. chartoularioi (military administration)"The chartularius was the head of the taxation offices and his subordinates were in charge of the kataster of the peasants as well as the soldier-farmers." [13] 5. dioketai (tax-collectors)"The taxes collected by the tax-collectors (dioketai) in the various tax zones were paid into the chartularius’ office, entered and checked and then handed over to the protonotarius’ office." 5. Book-keepers"Some officials came from banking circles (argyropratai). They were entrusted with book-keeping and accounts, and had to spend many years as money-changers or transacting loans before they ventured to jump into state service. They mostly got posts in the taxation department, first in provincial administration, and then, if they were successful, they would be recalled to the central offices in Constantinople." [14] 5. anagrapheus (surveyor)"The chartularius was the head of the taxation offices and his subordinates were in charge of the kataster of the peasants as well as the soldier-farmers." "The Byzantine surveyor, the anagrapheus, the official responsible for the precise valuation of land for purposes of taxation" [15] 6. Assistant/scribe inferred 2. Independent commands3. doukes katepans4. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 3. kleisourarchs 2. logothete of the herds3. optimatoi (logistics unit) 2. Prefect of Constantinople3. Judges of tribunals 2. quaestor (justice)quaestor sacri palatii (minster of justice) "had among his duties the preparation of the imperial laws and documents, for which he took over part of the responsibility with the authorization legi (’I have read’)." [16] 3. judges of tribunals 3. kritai (thematic justice officals) 2. Minister of petitions 2. Master of ceremonies 2. Imperial household"The department for imperial possessions had a number of functions: there was the office responsible for the private wardrobe of the Emperor, the office for the care of the imperial table silver, the imperial art room, and finally even the imperial library." [7] 3. Imperial table 3. Butler 3. Private wardrobe 3. Privy purse 3. Chancerypraepostius sacri cubiculi was the head of the imperial cabinet in the cubiculum (Imperial private chancery) [4] 4. Minister of the inkwell 3. Chamberlaincubicularri (chamberlains) and secreti (private secretaries). "The imperial eunuchs, the cubicularii (koubikoularioi), also paid for their office. They formed the emperor’s escort and were a very influential body in the Palace." [17] 4. diaitarioi"At the lower end of the scale, there were scores of minor employees of the Palace: diaitarioi, or servants attached to the various buildings, doorkeepers, lamplighters, etc., and there were certainly a great many slaves about whom we have little information. The employees of the Hippodrome and the circus factions were also on the rolls of the Palace." [17] 4. Imperial bedchamber 3. Head of the Imperial Library4. Imperial Librarian inferred5. Assistant to an Imperial Librarian inferred6. Doorkeepers, lamplighters etc. inferred 3. Concierge of the Great Palace 3. Concierge of the Daphne Palace 3. Concierge of the Magnaura 3. Elite and household units (military) 2. droungarios of the imperial fleet 2. domestikoi of the Scholoi3. scholai, exkoubita, etc. 3. tagamata seconded to thematic duty 2. Imperial private entourage 2. Imperial stables3. protostrator "The reign of Basil II marked a real turning point in the transformation of the Byzantine administrative system and ruling classes, for it confirmed earlier developments and served as an obligatory point of reference for his successors." [18] "This preponderance of civil officials became accentuated, and by the eleventh century the strategos had given way to the judge (krites) as the head of the thematic administration." [19] [1]: (Haldon 2008, 549) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 96-97) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Featherstone 2008, 505) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [4]: (Haussig 1971, 54) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [5]: (Haussig 1971, 55) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [6]: (Cheynet 2008, 519) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7]: (Haussig 1971, 181) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [8]: (Haussig 1971, 180) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [9]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [10]: (Haussig 1971, 178) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [11]: (Haussig 1971, 95) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [12]: (Haussig 1971, 171) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [13]: (Haussig 1971, 174-175) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [14]: (Haussig 1971, 179) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [15]: (Haussig 1971, 175) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [16]: (Haussig 1971, 53) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [17]: (Featherstone 2008, 506) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [18]: (Cheynet 2008, 521) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [19]: (Cheynet 2008, 522) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
levels.
The Hittite Empire was more centralized than the Old Kingdom and the general assembly is no longer apparent. 1. The King judge and a military leader. "He held his appointment by divine right. But he ruled merely as the steward of the Storm God, for ’the land belongs only to the Storm God..." [1] "By the New Kingdom, the panku had become all but defunct as more formal bureaucratic structures developed." [2] Imperial civil service. [3] 2. "Chief of the Scribes" head of the Hittite chancellery [4] "We can hardly overestimate the power and influence which the Chief of the Scribes and indeed other high-ranking members of the scribal hierarchy must have exercised within the kingdom. These men were amongst the king’s closest confidants and advisers." [5] 3. Scribe to take dictation"We do know that scribes who reached the more elevated levels of their profession employed others to take dictation for them." [6] 3. Scribe of the Wooden Tabletshad their own bureaucratic category in the Hittite chancellery. [7] 3. Scribes [8] [9] Tablet archivists [10] 2. Chief administrator of Hattusa (the hazannu) [11] 3. ??? 2. Keepers of the royal storehouses [1] "located in various parts of the kingdom (a hundred or more are attested), were directly appointed by the king and dealt with him on a one-to-one basis." [1] 3. Royal storehouse worker (inferred) 4? Gatekeepers [11] Couriers (inferred) [12] "cooks, domestic servants, doorkeepers, pages, heralds, prayer-reciters, barbers, cleaners, craftsmen, and grooms." [10] _Provincial government_ 2. Viceroy"After the conquest of the region of Syria in ca. 1340 B.C. the Hittite king, Suppiluliuma I, placed a viceroy in what may be considered the most important urban centre, Karkamis." [13] "all power was centralised in Hattusa under the Hittite Great King. Under him were viceroys, in the case of Karkamis a direct descendent of the Great King. This viceroy governed the urban centres of the province, each probably being administered by a governor or vassal king." [13] 2. District governors "BEL MADGALTI (Hittite auriya ishas) (literallly ’lord of the watchtower’)" [11] "In Hatti’s outlying regions they were responsible for the security of the frontier and had charge of garrisons stationed in the area. They were strictly required in the instructions issued to them to ensure that fortresses and towns under their control were securely locked in the evenings. They had to keep an adequate supply of timber on hand in case of siege. They were warned to keep particularly on the alert against one of the Hittites’ greatest fears - the outbreak of fire. They had to ensure that all who left the fortified community in the morning .... returned in the evening ... were carefully scrutinized, to ensure there was no enemy presence among them. They were responsible for the maintenance of buildings, roads, and irrigation canals. They managed the king’s lands and collected his taxes. They were responsible for the upkeep and restoration of temples. They had judicial functions which entailed travelling around their district to preside at local assizes. And they were obliged to submit reports on all these activities to the king himself." [14] "obliged to submit reports on all these activities to the king himself" [14] suggest post was directly responsible to the king and thus the same level as the viceroy 3. Sub-official (Finance Officer? / Chief scribe?)The wide-ranging responsibilities of the district governor [14] - security, fire watch, town entry and exit, infrastructure, taxes, building upkeep - imply that tasks must have been delegated to sub-officials as he couldn’t have done all of this on his own. Since the district governor collected taxes and had to pay for the upkeep of temples and infrastructure one of these persons in the local government might have been a finance officer. The district governor might also have employed a chief scribe to write the reports to the king. 4. Scribe / Tax-collector / GatekeeperThe sub-official would have had a scribe. 5? Couriers (inferred) 3. "Council of Elders"Locally administered justice. [15] . Local council lowest identifiable judicial authority. [16] _Vassal states/Viceregal kingdoms_ "Beyond the core territory of its homeland in central Anatolia, the Hittite empire consisted largely of a network of vassal states, whose rulers enjoyed considerable local autonomy but were bound by a number of obligations to their Hittite overlord, formalized in the personal treaties he drew up with them. In the latter half of the fourteenth century, direct Hittite rule was extended to parts of northern Syria with the establishment of viceregal kingdoms at Aleppo and Carchemish." [17] 2. [1]: (Bryce 2002, 18) [2]: (Bryce 2002, 23) [3]: (Bryce 2002, 57) [4]: (Bryce 2002, 66) [5]: (Bryce 2002, 67) [6]: (Bryce 2002, 69) [7]: (Bryce 2002, 69-70) [8]: Burney C. (2004) Historical Dictionary of the Hittites, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, pp. 242 [9]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 11 [10]: (Bryce 2002, 24) [11]: (Bryce 2002, 16) [12]: (Bryce 2002, 17) [13]: (Thuesen 2002, 45) [14]: (Bryce 2002, 16-17) [15]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38 [16]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 41 [17]: (Bryce 2002, 9) |
||||||
|
levels.
Was a neo-Hittite polity. Hittite New Kingdom had [4-5] levels and it is reasonable to suppose that the Lydian Empire had at least as many as this. The tributary Greek city states may have had a number of government levels. 1. King rulers ruled from a Palace/citadel above Sardis. ? Manager of a government mint ? Mint worker |
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan Mehmet II also took the title "caesar" and "ruler of the two continents and the two seas" [1] The Ottoman Empire was a dynastic state. Rule was passed on to male heir. [2] Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probaby in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [3] "The sultans ruled the Empire through their court as much as through formal organs of government" and sometimes by-passed formal structures of government such as in diplomatic negotiations. "There never, it seems, was a formal mechanism for policy making. All decisions in theory were the sultan’s own. What mattered, therefore, was the character of the sultan, and the individuals or factions who had his ear." [4] "At the center of the centralizing Ottoman state was an elaborate court, palace, and household government." [5] _ Central government line _ 2. Imperial Council (divan) under presidency of the grand vizier [4] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [4] According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings. [6] 3. Military judges (kadi’asker) [7] 3. Treasurers (defterdar) [7] of the Imperial Treasury of the Porte4. Clerks under the TreasurerPages of the treasury were responsible to a eunuch. [8] Heads of treasury administration, chancery services etc. [9] Officials rotated. [10] 5. Clerks under the Treasurer6. Clerks under the TreasurerAccording to a register the suites of the Treasurers and Chancellor had a total of 18 clerks in 1527-1535 CE; 23 in 1531 CE; 34 in 1561 CE; 50 in 1605 CE; 64 by 1609 CE; 115 in 1627-1628 CE. [11] These numbers suggest more levels within these departments compared to previous periods. 7. Apprentice in the TreasuryTreasury documents in Persian not Turkish and used form of numbers "incomprehensible to the uninitiated." Clerks required apprenticeship. [12] 3. Chancellor (nishanji) [7] "it was the chancellor who oversaw the clerks who drew up decrees and other documents" [7] 4. Clerks under the Chancellor5. Clerks under the Chancellor6. Clerks under the Chancellor 3. Controller of Registers headed the land registry [11] 4. Clerks of the land registry inferred 3. Head Clerk (reisu’l-kuttab) [11] Head clerk was in charge of the clerks. Office dates from early 16th century. [11] 4. memorandum writer (tezkereji) under the Head Clerk [13] _ Provincial line _ 2. Provinces with governors (beylerbeyi) [14] 32 provinces by 1609 CE according to list of Ayn Ali. [15] Governor-generals (beylerbeyi) were the Sultan’s appointees and they could be moved or changed at his request. They were not hereditary positions and not held for life. [16] 3. Judgeship of a town or city judge"The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [17] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [18] who was also a military commander [19] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [20] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [21] -- system declined late 16th century, reassigned as tax farms or to non-military nominees of Palace [22] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [16] [20] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjacks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [23] By 1500 CE the smallest fiefs were called timar (village or group of villages and their fields). Larger ones subashilik (or zeamet). Largest called a hass. [24] Egypt: 1517-1608 CE [25] 3. Imperial Treasury of the Portelocated at Ottoman central government 4. beylerbey (governor) Vali/Pasha in Egyptin 1527 Ottoman Grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha "issued an edict which, legally at least, was to regulate the civil and military administration of the province until the end of Ottoman rule in 1798. ... Henceforward, the governor was to be a wali, and his council a diwan" [26] beylerbey also held the title Pasha and was a minister in the Ottoman government [27] 5. diwan council membersa diwan al-Ali (High Council) and Ordinary Council contained the establishment (officers, ulama, others of high status) and could advise and obstruct the beylerbey in the event of "arbitrary or tyrannical actions. [28] 6. Scribe in the council inferred 4. Nazir-i Emval, or Defterdar "Keeper of the Books" (Chief Treasurer)position "held by men sent from the Imperial Treasury of the Porte to represent the interest of the Sultan in Egypt." Initially appointed by Ottoman central government) authority of the beylerbey was limited by the daftardar (treasury official appointed from Istanbul), the qadi (judge who had "direct links to Istanbul"), and the agha (appointed from Istanbul) of the janissary militia (odjaq) [28] 5. Principal executive officer for the Defterdar (Emin-i Sehir, or "Emin of the City" of Cairo) 6. Mamluk Mutahaddis, Emin or Efendieach province had an inspector 7. Ruznameji department head (before 1608 CE the Ruznameji was the lowliest of the Efendis) 8. Scribe in Ruznameji inferred 7? beys (provincial governor) of a mamlakaRun by Mamluks. Following the Ottoman conquest mamluks had "kept control of administration in the provinces" [29] In Egypt "beneath the top level of Ottoman administration the old institutional structure remained intact." [30] "The title "bey" (bak or bayk), which originally denoted a rank and not specific function, was equivalent to the Mamluk title "emir of one hundred" (amir mi’a). There were in principle twent-four beys, just as there had been twenty-four first-class emirs. The title kashif for the governors of the provinces was also an inheritance from the Mamluk sultanate." [31] In Cairo there were "no specialized municipal administration or public institutions." [28] 8? timar holders [32] 9? Wali, governor of a small town 10? Village leader / tribal leader inferred’ Egypt: 1608-1718 CE [25] 3. Imperial Treasury of the Portelocated at Ottoman central government 4. beylerbey (governor) Vali/Pasha in Egyptin 1527 Ottoman Grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha "issued an edict which, legally at least, was to regulate the civil and military administration of the province until the end of Ottoman rule in 1798. ... Henceforward, the governor was to be a wali, and his council a diwan" [26] beylerbey also held the title Pasha and was a minister in the Ottoman government [27] 5. diwan council membersa diwan al-Ali (High Council) and Ordinary Council contained the establishment (officers, ulama, others of high status) and could advise and obstruct the beylerbey in the event of "arbitrary or tyrannical actions. [28] 6. Scribe in council inferred 4. Nazir-i Emval, or Defterdar "Keeper of the Books" (Chief Treasurer)position "held by men sent from the Imperial Treasury of the Porte to represent the interest of the Sultan in Egypt." Initially appointed by Ottoman central government) authority of the beylerbey was limited by the daftardar (treasury official appointed from Istanbul), the qadi (judge who had "direct links to Istanbul"), and the agha (appointed from Istanbul) of the janissary militia (odjaq) [28] 6. Ruznameji department head "the director of the Efendis and scribes of the Treasury"previously the lowliest of the Efendis, now at the top 7. Ruznameji Chief Clerk (Bas Halife)8. Ruznameji Three Halife (Clerks) 7. Efendis who headed other departments8. Specialised assistants of the Efendis (Halife or Mubasir). 9. Apprentices (Sakird, plural Sakirdan) who did menial scribal work in departments. 7? beys (provincial governor) of a mamlakaRun by Mamluks. Following the Ottoman conquest mamluks had "kept control of administration in the provinces" [29] In Egypt "beneath the top level of Ottoman administration the old institutional structure remained intact." [30] "The title "bey" (bak or bayk), which originally denoted a rank and not specific function, was equivalent to the Mamluk title "emir of one hundred" (amir mi’a). There were in principle twent-four beys, just as there had been twenty-four first-class emirs. The title kashif for the governors of the provinces was also an inheritance from the Mamluk sultanate." [31] In Cairo there were "no specialized municipal administration or public institutions." [28] 8. Millet?"Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Everyone was organised in the so-called ’millets’, communities based on faith, and as long as the millet did not come into conflict with Islamic organisation and society, paid its taxes and kept the peace, its leaders were largely left to run their own affairs." [33] 8? timar holders [32] 9? Wali, governor of a small town 10? Village leader / tribal leader inferred’ Other provinces [34] [35] 2. beylerbeyliks [36] or BeylerbikProvince run by a beylerbey. 1500 CE four central provinces: Rumelia, Anatolia, Rum and Karaman under direct rule. [36] 3. sanjak beyliks [36] or sanjakCounty run by a bey 4. timarliks [36] "districts assigned to military officiers in lieu of salary" 37,500 timar holders in 1527 CE [37] timar holder was chief law enforcement officer on his lands. [36] "In the early seventeenth century, they replaced assignment of tax revenues to timar holders with direct taxation. Timars were sold to wealthy investors as tax farms." 1597 CE. in 1695 CE tax farms "sold as life tenures (malikane). [38] 5. Council of Elders / Intermediaries of timar holders [36] run by headman or mayor [39] "timar holders themselves used intermediaries to oversee their domains. Local landowners, merchants, and village notables or headmen were important in tax collection and the administration of local affairs." [36] 3. Vassal provinces"In matters of provincial government, the empire was never truly centralized. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it was still common for newly conquered regions to remain vassal provinces, under the control of their former lords, often Christians, in return for tribute and military manpower." [40] "The experience of Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik is a good illustration of the accommodating method operating on both sides. Its citizens had petitioned the Pope for permission to trade with infidels right after the Turks’ first serious victory in Europe. By the 15th century the Ottomans had turned Ragusa into their own Venice, to every successive doge’s fury and despair! The Ragusans’ behaviour was so mild and noble that by 1347 they had erected an old people’s home. By the mid-15th century they had abolished slave trading, forbidden torture, organised a dole, a public health service, a town planning institute and several schools." [33] "Less compliant Ottoman vassal rulers were subjected to a number of requirements. They were forced to send their sons to the Ottoman court as hostages, had to pay tribute and to take part in the Ottoman wars either in person or represented by their sons. Control over their compliance was exercised by the watchful beys of the marches." [33] [1]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 18) Halil Inalcik and Donald Quataert. 1997. ’General Introduction’ in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. Volume One: 1300-1600 edited by Halil Inalcik with Donald Quataert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Imber 2002, 87) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [3]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [4]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 437) [6]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [7]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 149) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Lapidus 2012, 439) [10]: (Lapidus 2012, 444) [11]: (Imber 2002, 169) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [12]: (Imber 2002, 170) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 169-170) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Imber 2002, 177-178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [15]: (Imber 2002, 178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [16]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [21]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [22]: (Imber 2002, 209, 215) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [23]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [24]: (Imber 2002, 193-194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [25]: (Shaw 1962, 338-348) [26]: (Oliver and Atmore 2001, 28) Oliver R, Atmore A. 2001. Medieval Africa 1250-1800. Cambridge University Press. [27]: (Raymond 2000) [28]: (Raymond 2000, 238) [29]: (Raymond 2000, 195-196) [30]: (Lapidus 2002, 294) [31]: (Raymond 2000, 203) [32]: (Shaw 1962) [33]: (Turnbull 2003, 77) [34]: (Palmer 1992) Alan Palmer. 1992. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. [35]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [36]: (Lapidus 2012, 443) [37]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [38]: (Lapidus 2012, 473) [39]: (Shaw and Shaw 1977, 90) [40]: (Lapidus 2012, 442) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan Mehmet II also took the title "caesar" and "ruler of the two continents and the two seas" [1] The Ottoman Empire was a dynastic state. Rule was passed on to male heir. [2] Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probaby in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [3] "The sultans ruled the Empire through their court as much as through formal organs of government" and sometimes by-passed formal structures of government such as in diplomatic negotiations. "There never, it seems, was a formal mechanism for policy making. All decisions in theory were the sultan’s own. What mattered, therefore, was the character of the sultan, and the individuals or factions who had his ear." [4] "At the center of the centralizing Ottoman state was an elaborate court, palace, and household government." [5] _ Central government line _ 2. Imperial Council (divan) under presidency of the grand vizier [4] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [4] According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings. [6] 3. Military judges (kadi’asker) [7] 3. Treasurers (defterdar) [7] of the Imperial Treasury of the Porte5. Clerks under the Treasurer6. Clerks under the TreasurerAccording to a register the suites of the Treasurers and Chancellor had a total of 18 clerks in 1527-1535 CE; 23 in 1531 CE; 34 in 1561 CE; 50 in 1605 CE; 64 by 1609 CE; 115 in 1627-1628 CE. [8] These numbers suggest more levels within these departments compared to previous periods. 3. Chancellor (nishanji) [7] "it was the chancellor who oversaw the clerks who drew up decrees and other documents" [7] 4. Clerks under the Chancellor5. Clerks under the Chancellor6. Clerks under the Chancellor 3. Controller of Registers headed the land registry [8] 4. Clerks of the land registry inferred 3. Head Clerk (reisu’l-kuttab) [8] Head clerk was in charge of the clerks. Office dates from early 16th century. [8] 4. memorandum writer (tezkereji) under the Head Clerk [9] _ Provincial line _ 2. Provinces with governors (beylerbeyi) [10] Governor-generals (beylerbeyi) were the Sultan’s appointees and they could be moved or changed at his request. They were not hereditary positions and not held for life. [11] 3. Judgeship of a town or city judge"The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [12] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [13] who was also a military commander [14] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [15] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [16] -- system declined late 16th century, reassigned as tax farms or to non-military nominees of Palace [17] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [11] [15] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjacks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [18] By 1500 CE the smallest fiefs were called timar (village or group of villages and their fields). Larger ones subashilik (or zeamet). Largest called a hass. [19] Egypt: 1608-1718 CE [20] 3. Imperial Treasury of the Portelocated at Ottoman central government 4. beylerbey (governor) Vali/Pasha in Egyptin 1527 Ottoman Grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha "issued an edict which, legally at least, was to regulate the civil and military administration of the province until the end of Ottoman rule in 1798. ... Henceforward, the governor was to be a wali, and his council a diwan" [21] beylerbey also held the title Pasha and was a minister in the Ottoman government [22] 5. diwan council membersa diwan al-Ali (High Council) and Ordinary Council contained the establishment (officers, ulama, others of high status) and could advise and obstruct the beylerbey in the event of "arbitrary or tyrannical actions. [23] 6. Scribe in council inferred 4. Nazir-i Emval, or Defterdar "Keeper of the Books" (Chief Treasurer)position "held by men sent from the Imperial Treasury of the Porte to represent the interest of the Sultan in Egypt." Initially appointed by Ottoman central government) authority of the beylerbey was limited by the daftardar (treasury official appointed from Istanbul), the qadi (judge who had "direct links to Istanbul"), and the agha (appointed from Istanbul) of the janissary militia (odjaq) [23] 6. Ruznameji department head "the director of the Efendis and scribes of the Treasury"previously the lowliest of the Efendis, now at the top 7. Ruznameji Chief Clerk (Bas Halife)8. Ruznameji Three Halife (Clerks) 7. Efendis who headed other departments8. Specialised assistants of the Efendis (Halife or Mubasir). 9. Apprentices (Sakird, plural Sakirdan) who did menial scribal work in departments. 7? beys (provincial governor) of a mamlakaRun by Mamluks. Following the Ottoman conquest mamluks had "kept control of administration in the provinces" [24] In Egypt "beneath the top level of Ottoman administration the old institutional structure remained intact." [25] "The title "bey" (bak or bayk), which originally denoted a rank and not specific function, was equivalent to the Mamluk title "emir of one hundred" (amir mi’a). There were in principle twent-four beys, just as there had been twenty-four first-class emirs. The title kashif for the governors of the provinces was also an inheritance from the Mamluk sultanate." [26] In Cairo there were "no specialized municipal administration or public institutions." [23] 8? timar holders [27] 9? Wali, governor of a small town 10? Village leader / tribal leader inferred’ Other provinces [28] [29] 2. beylerbeyliks [30] or BeylerbikProvince run by a beylerbey. 1500 CE four central provinces: Rumelia, Anatolia, Rum and Karaman under direct rule. [30] 3. sanjak beyliks [30] or sanjakCounty run by a bey 4. timarliks [30] "districts assigned to military officiers in lieu of salary" 37,500 timar holders in 1527 CE [31] timar holder was chief law enforcement officer on his lands. [30] "In the early seventeenth century, they replaced assignment of tax revenues to timar holders with direct taxation. Timars were sold to wealthy investors as tax farms." 1597 CE. in 1695 CE tax farms "sold as life tenures (malikane). [32] 5. Council of Elders / Intermediaries of timar holders [30] run by headman or mayor [33] "timar holders themselves used intermediaries to oversee their domains. Local landowners, merchants, and village notables or headmen were important in tax collection and the administration of local affairs." [30] 2. Vassal provinces "In matters of provincial government, the empire was never truly centralized. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it was still common for newly conquered regions to remain vassal provinces, under the control of their former lords, often Christians, in return for tribute and military manpower." [34] [1]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 18) [2]: (Imber 2002, 87) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [3]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [4]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [5]: (Lapidus 2012, 437) [6]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [7]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 169) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Imber 2002, 169-170) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [10]: (Imber 2002, 177-178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [11]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [12]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [15]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [16]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 209, 215) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 193-194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Shaw 1962, 338-348) [21]: (Oliver and Atmore 2001, 28) Oliver R, Atmore A. 2001. Medieval Africa 1250-1800. Cambridge University Press. [22]: (Raymond 2000) [23]: (Raymond 2000, 238) [24]: (Raymond 2000, 195-196) [25]: (Lapidus 2002, 294) [26]: (Raymond 2000, 203) [27]: (Shaw 1962) [28]: (Palmer 1992) Alan Palmer. 1992. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. [29]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [30]: (Lapidus 2012, 443) [31]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [32]: (Lapidus 2012, 473) [33]: (Shaw and Shaw 1977, 90) [34]: (Lapidus 2012, 442) |
||||||
|
This number equal to the number of levels in the Egyptian line, plus the Emperor.
The vast Empire, creaking under its 4.5 million km2 extent and up to 70 million people, was reformed by Diocletian (284-305 CE), and his co-Emperor Maximian (286-305 CE), to enable the highest Roman authority to be in more places at once. Already split into East and West under two ’Augusti’, now referred to as dominus (lord) rather than princeps (first citizen) [1] , they added two ’Caesares’, who were to be the deputy and successor for the Emperors. [2] [3] The four men ruled from prefectures with capitals at Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium and Trier, assisted by a powerful Praefectus Praetorio who ’influence military affairs, as he retained control of the main logistical system of the empire.’ [3] The system of Tetrarchy ended in farce with four Emperors and one Caesar and the elite conflict ended only in 325 CE after Constantine ensured by force there would be only one Roman Emperor. [2] Constantine revived the system of four Praetorian Prefects and four prefectures that was developed for the Tetrarchy [3] which became the keystones of provincial government. Prefectures were split into dioceses (of which there were 13 in the Empire, each run by a Vicarii), which contained provinces (run by a governor, 100 existed under Diocletian), which were sub-divided into Decuriones (managed by ordo, or a curia and civitas council). [2] [4] Town councils governed vici (military settlements) and coloniae (retirement villages), and settlements were often divided into sections called Municipia. [5] Rural settlements were known as pagi. The Roman provincial system also granted limited powers of self-rule to some regions (e.g. Massilla, Messana and Malta). 1. Emperor 2 Emperors (except during the years of Tetrarchy, 293-313ce, there were 2 emperors and 2 caesars) 286 CE co-regent: Casear (West) and Augusti (East). 293 CE tetrarchy. Two emperors "Augusti", with two vice-emperors "Caesares". Tetrarchy ended c313 CE, Constantine reinstated single Emperor 325 CE. Two Emperors with the title Augustus, and a junior with the title Casear [2] Emperor referred to as dominus (lord) rather than princeps (first citizen). [6] _Central government line_ 2. praefectus praetorio"the most powerful man, after the Emperor, was the praefectus praetorio. He stood at the head of all authorities and military units belonging to the praetorium, the headquarters of the Emperor. Of these functions it was particularly his control of the imperial bodyguard that gave him political prominence. Besides these military duties, he had to assist the Emperor in the performance of his administrative work, and also to act as his representative." [7] _Provincial government_ 2. Pretorian Prefect4 Pretorian Prefects Under Diocletian (284-305 CE) Empire’s administration reformed into a "tetrarchy" (rule by four): created 4 Prefectures and 12 dioceses (run by a Vicar) which had provinces, and a two Emperor system at the top [8] . Governor of province under control of governor of diocese who was under control of praetorian prefect. [9] Praetorian prefects second in power only to emperor since they gained control over provincial administrative system. [10] Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum: Britanniae; Galliae; Viennensis; Hispaniae. Praefectus Praetorio per Orientem: Thracia; Asiana; Pontica; Oriens. Praefectus Praetorio per Illyrium: Moessiae. Praefectus Praetorio Illyrici, Italiae, Africae: Pannoniae; Italia; Africa. [11] 3. Vicarii13 Vicarii (in charge of dioceses) Governor of province under control of governor of diocese who was under control of praetorian prefect. [12] 4. Governors/praesides100 Governors/praesides (provinces) Under Diocletian provinces divided into 100 units. [2] . Governor of province under control of governor of diocese who was under control of praetorian prefect. [13] 5. Decurionesgovernmental divisions within provinces, managed by ordo or curia and civitas council. Also vici (military settlements), coloniae (retirement villages), and municipia (political entities within a settlement). Some regions granted limited powers of self-rule e.g. Massilla, Messana and Malta.Town councils [14] 6. SettlementsVici (military settlements) - government by town councils coloniae (retirement villages) - government by town councils 7. Municipia [5] .political entities within a settlement Emperors. Prefectures. Dioceses. Provinces. Civitas. Municipia. At lower levels there were village/vici and pagi (rural settlements). 8. PagiRural settlement _Egyptian line_ [15] 2. PrefectAppointed by Rome 3. ProcuratorsAppointed by Rome Includes finance officer dioiketes (and other department heads) 4. EpistrategoiAppointed by Rome Regional administrator, 4 in total 5. StrategosAppointed by Greco-Egyptians 30 in total 5. AccountantAppointed by Greco-Egyptians auditor of the nome 6. District scribeAppointed by Greco-Egyptians 7. Village scribeAppointed by Greco-Egyptians 8. Village EldersElected or co-opted 9. LiturgistsCompulsory public service [1]: (Cameron 2013, 2) [2]: (Black 2008, 181) [3]: (Hughes 2012) Hughes, Iran. 2012. Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis. Casemate Publishers. [4]: (Bury 1889, 27) [5]: (Parker 1994, 88) [7]: (Haussing 1971, 52) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [8]: (Davidson 2011, 47-50) [11]: (Parker 1994, 89) [15]: (Peacock 2000, 416) |
||||||
|
levels.
(3) the central League Council; (2) Tribal Chiefs (Sachems) and associated Tribal Councils; (1) Village Elders and Village Councils The political organization distinguished between villages, tribes, and the common confederate level: ’THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION of the Iroquois--the system by which decisions were made about problems affecting village, tribe, or confederacy --had three levels. The town or village itself decided local issues like the use of nearby hunting lands, the relocation of houses and cornfields, movement to another site, the acceptance or rejection of visitors, and the raising of war parties. There was a village chiefs’ council, numbering up to twenty men, formally organized with a chairman and one or more representatives for each clan. These chiefs were influential men and women, who might be League sachems, warcaptains, warriors, or simply old men who were looked up to and consulted. The council generally met in the presence of the warriors and the women, and rarely diverged in its decisions from the popular consensus, or at least the majority view. This council met in the village’s ceremonial longhouse, which usually was merely a large dwelling.’ [1] Female lineage elders played an important role on the local level: ’The primary local groups of Iroquois society were the extended household and the village. Each extended family lived in a long bark structure, some of which were from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet in length by sixty in breadth, known as longhouses. Throughout its length was a central passageway in which were located hearths at intervals of ten to twelve feet with each hearth being used by two conjugal families. On both sides of this central passageway were apartments each occupied by a simple family. The composition of the group inhabiting the longhouse appears to have been controlled by the matriarch of a lineage. Influential matriarchs who held a chiefly title tended to group their female relatives around them in the same longhouse.’ [2] Various political levels were validated by wampum beads: ’The longhouse owns “wampums” which validate its position as a ritual center but which are rarely brought out. Wampum occasionally figures in the ritual, such as the string of wampum used in the rite of confession. But the significance of wampum generally is that because it is a valuable object, it is used to indicate the significance of the event, either by giving it as a commemoration of the event or as being shown in remembrance of the event. Wampum belts, for example, were given at treaties to indicate good faith in the making of the treaty, and might be brought out to remind others of the treaty. In and of itself, wampum is not sacred.’ [3] The central League Council dealt with commonn affairs, with tribal chiefs and councils (as well as the female elders of their respective lineages and more recently created non-hereditary positions) occupying an intermediary position: ’The Iroquois confederacy operated under a council of 50 sachems representing the five original tribes. When the Tuscarora joined the League in 1722, no new sachem positions were created for it. The council was a legislative, executive and judicial body that deliberated only on the external affairs of the confederacy, such as peace and war, and on matters common to the five constituent tribes. The council had no voice in the internal affairs of the separate tribes. Tribal representation on the council was unequally distributed among the 5 tribes although abuse of power was limited by the requirement of unanimity in all council decisions. Below the level of the League council were separate tribal councils concerned with the internal affairs of each tribe and each tribe’s relations with external groups. The tribal council was composed of the sachems who represented the tribe on the League council. Sachem positions were hereditary within each tribe and belonged to particular matrisibs. The women of the matrisib nominated each new sachem, who was always a male, and had the power to recall or "dehorn" a chief who failed to represent the interests of his people. Theoretically, each sachem was equal to the others in power, but in practice those with better oratorial skills wielded greater influence. After the confederacy had been functioning for a period of time a new, nonhereditary office of Pine Tree Chief was created to provide local leadership and to act as advisors to the council sachems, although later they actually sat on the League council and equaled the sachems in power. Pine Tree Chiefs held their position for life and were chosen by the women of a matrisib on the basis of skill in warfare. Iroquois involvement in the fur trade and war with the French increased the importance and solidarity of the League council and thereby strengthened the confederacy. The strength of the confederacy continued to grow until the time of the American Revolution when Iroquois interests divided between alliances to the British and the American colonists.’ [4] ’A Chief was appointed by the oldest woman of the maternal family in which the title descended. Her descendants and those who were related clanwise were his constituents. The matron and the chief tended to reside in the same settlement, for when the Chief removed, the clan had no one to regard with confidence unless he returned for village councils. If the matron removed, local succession was in jeopardy. The results of deliberations by the clan were taken from village councils to the council of the tribe. The ranking clan chiefs residing at a place were the cochiefs of that settlement. All eight of the Seneca chiefs are now concentrated at Tonawanda, but formerly the Seneca had at least four villages, and all the rest save the Oneida had each two or three principal towns with satellite settlements. The tribe thus spoke a common language, it comprised two or more settlements, it was governed by a common council of village chiefs who also represented constituent clans, and they governed a common territory adjacent to the towns. In time all clans were present in all villages, probably about in the same proportions as they are now. As any clan predominated in a settlement, members had to seek mates in the next village, or divide their own house in twain, thus distributing the clans again.’ [5] Tribes were composed of matrilineages: ’Matrilineages were organized into 15 matrisibs. Among the Cayuga, Onondaga, Seneca and Tuscarora the matrisibs were further organized into moieties. Among the Mohawk and the Oneida no moiety division was recognized. Descent was matrilineal.’ [4] The League Council initially met at Onondaga, but the council fire was extinguished and rekindled in various places during the tribulations of the colonial period: ’The council continued to be composed of hereditary chiefs, who together with the “war chiefs” from 1812 andthe Pine Tree chiefs numbered over 50. The Crown madeno attempt to interfere with the appointment or dismissalof chiefs (Weaver 1975). The chiefs met in the Onondagacouncil house, a log structure near Middleport, two orthree times a year to deliberate in traditional fashionmatters of community interest (Weaver 1963-1974). The Onondagas, known collectively as the firekeepers, actedas mediators in the proceedings according to traditionalcustom. However, the tribal seating plan differed fromthe traditional one in that the Mohawks and Senecasoccupied the positions east of the council fire, while theOneidas and Cayugas sat on the west, together with thedependent nations: Tuscaroras, Nanticokes, Delawares,and Tutelos. Although the dependent nations were tospeak through “their voice,” the Cayugas, in fact theyoften directly addressed the assembly of chiefs, andoperated quite independently, though not equaling theoriginal five nations in power or status.’ [6] [1]: Wallace, Anthony F. C., and Sheila K. Steen 1969. “Death And Rebirth Of The Seneca”, 39 [2]: Noon, John A. 1949. “Law And Government Of The Grand River Iroquois”, 29 [3]: Tooker, Elisabeth 1970. “Iroquois Ceremonial Of Midwinter”, 30 [4]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [5]: Fenton, William N. 1951. “Locality As A Basic Factor In The Development Of Iroquois Social Structure”, 50 [6]: Weaver, Sally M. 1978. “Six Nations Of The Grand River, Ontario”, 528 |
||||||
|
levels. According to the Ethnographic Atlas’ variable 33 ’Jurisdictional Hierarchy Beyond Local Community’ was ‘3’ or ’Two levels (e.g., larger chiefdoms) (.2)’.
(3) the central League Council; (2) Tribal Chiefs (Sachems) and associated Tribal Councils; (1) Village Elders and Village Councils ’THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION of the Iroquois--the system by which decisions were made about problems affecting village, tribe, or confederacy --had three levels. The town or village itself decided local issues like the use of nearby hunting lands, the relocation of houses and cornfields, movement to another site, the acceptance or rejection of visitors, and the raising of war parties. There was a village chiefs’ council, numbering up to twenty men, formally organized with a chairman and one or more representatives for each clan. These chiefs were influential men and women, who might be League sachems, warcaptains, warriors, or simply old men who were looked up to and consulted. The council generally met in the presence of the warriors and the women, and rarely diverged in its decisions from the popular consensus, or at least the majority view. This council met in the village’s ceremonial longhouse, which usually was merely a large dwelling.’ [1] Female lineage elders played an important role on the local level: ’The primary local groups of Iroquois society were the extended household and the village. Each extended family lived in a long bark structure, some of which were from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet in length by sixty in breadth, known as longhouses. Throughout its length was a central passageway in which were located hearths at intervals of ten to twelve feet with each hearth being used by two conjugal families. On both sides of this central passageway were apartments each occupied by a simple family. The composition of the group inhabiting the longhouse appears to have been controlled by the matriarch of a lineage. Influential matriarchs who held a chiefly title tended to group their female relatives around them in the same longhouse.’ [2] Various political levels were validated by wampum beads: ’The longhouse owns “wampums” which validate its position as a ritual center but which are rarely brought out. Wampum occasionally figures in the ritual, such as the string of wampum used in the rite of confession. But the significance of wampum generally is that because it is a valuable object, it is used to indicate the significance of the event, either by giving it as a commemoration of the event or as being shown in remembrance of the event. Wampum belts, for example, were given at treaties to indicate good faith in the making of the treaty, and might be brought out to remind others of the treaty. In and of itself, wampum is not sacred.’ [3] The central League Council dealt with commonn affairs, with tribal chiefs and councils (as well as the female elders of their respective lineages and more recently created non-hereditary positions) occupying an intermediary position: ’The Iroquois confederacy operated under a council of 50 sachems representing the five original tribes. When the Tuscarora joined the League in 1722, no new sachem positions were created for it. The council was a legislative, executive and judicial body that deliberated only on the external affairs of the confederacy, such as peace and war, and on matters common to the five constituent tribes. The council had no voice in the internal affairs of the separate tribes. Tribal representation on the council was unequally distributed among the 5 tribes although abuse of power was limited by the requirement of unanimity in all council decisions. Below the level of the League council were separate tribal councils concerned with the internal affairs of each tribe and each tribe’s relations with external groups. The tribal council was composed of the sachems who represented the tribe on the League council. Sachem positions were hereditary within each tribe and belonged to particular matrisibs. The women of the matrisib nominated each new sachem, who was always a male, and had the power to recall or "dehorn" a chief who failed to represent the interests of his people. Theoretically, each sachem was equal to the others in power, but in practice those with better oratorial skills wielded greater influence. After the confederacy had been functioning for a period of time a new, nonhereditary office of Pine Tree Chief was created to provide local leadership and to act as advisors to the council sachems, although later they actually sat on the League council and equaled the sachems in power. Pine Tree Chiefs held their position for life and were chosen by the women of a matrisib on the basis of skill in warfare. Iroquois involvement in the fur trade and war with the French increased the importance and solidarity of the League council and thereby strengthened the confederacy. The strength of the confederacy continued to grow until the time of the American Revolution when Iroquois interests divided between alliances to the British and the American colonists.’ [4] ’A Chief was appointed by the oldest woman of the maternal family in which the title descended. Her descendants and those who were related clanwise were his constituents. The matron and the chief tended to reside in the same settlement, for when the Chief removed, the clan had no one to regard with confidence unless he returned for village councils. If the matron removed, local succession was in jeopardy. The results of deliberations by the clan were taken from village councils to the council of the tribe. The ranking clan chiefs residing at a place were the cochiefs of that settlement. All eight of the Seneca chiefs are now concentrated at Tonawanda, but formerly the Seneca had at least four villages, and all the rest save the Oneida had each two or three principal towns with satellite settlements. The tribe thus spoke a common language, it comprised two or more settlements, it was governed by a common council of village chiefs who also represented constituent clans, and they governed a common territory adjacent to the towns. In time all clans were present in all villages, probably about in the same proportions as they are now. As any clan predominated in a settlement, members had to seek mates in the next village, or divide their own house in twain, thus distributing the clans again.’ [5] Tribes were composed of matrilineages: ’Matrilineages were organized into 15 matrisibs. Among the Cayuga, Onondaga, Seneca and Tuscarora the matrisibs were further organized into moieties. Among the Mohawk and the Oneida no moiety division was recognized. Descent was matrilineal.’ [4] The League Council initially met at Onondaga, but the council fire was extinguished and rekindled in various places during the tribulations of the colonial period: ’The council continued to be composed of hereditary chiefs, who together with the “war chiefs” from 1812 andthe Pine Tree chiefs numbered over 50. The Crown madeno attempt to interfere with the appointment or dismissalof chiefs (Weaver 1975). The chiefs met in the Onondagacouncil house, a log structure near Middleport, two orthree times a year to deliberate in traditional fashionmatters of community interest (Weaver 1963-1974). The Onondagas, known collectively as the firekeepers, actedas mediators in the proceedings according to traditionalcustom. However, the tribal seating plan differed fromthe traditional one in that the Mohawks and Senecasoccupied the positions east of the council fire, while theOneidas and Cayugas sat on the west, together with thedependent nations: Tuscaroras, Nanticokes, Delawares,and Tutelos. Although the dependent nations were tospeak through “their voice,” the Cayugas, in fact theyoften directly addressed the assembly of chiefs, andoperated quite independently, though not equaling theoriginal five nations in power or status.’ [6] ’Despite the efforts of the Onondagas at Onondaga tohave them returned to Onondaga, the council fire of theConfederacy and its wampum records remained at BuffaloCreek until after that reservation had been sold andCaptain Cold (“The League of the Iroquois: Its History,Politics, and Ritual,” fig. 11, this vol.), keeper of thecouncil fire and the wampum, had died. In 1847 bothwere moved back to Onondaga (Clark 1849, 1:109, 124).However, a number of Onondagas (approximately 150)continued to live on the Seneca and Tuscarora Reservationsin western New York State, the largest number onthe Allegany Reservation (New York (State) Secretary ofState 1857:507; Fletcher 1888:551; New York (State)Legislature. Assembly 1889:59; U.S. Census Office. 11thCensus 1892:6).’ [7] The code may more accurately reflect the pre-reservation period. [1]: Wallace, Anthony F. C., and Sheila K. Steen 1969. “Death And Rebirth Of The Seneca”, 39 [2]: Noon, John A. 1949. “Law And Government Of The Grand River Iroquois”, 29 [3]: Tooker, Elisabeth 1970. “Iroquois Ceremonial Of Midwinter”, 30 [4]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [5]: Fenton, William N. 1951. “Locality As A Basic Factor In The Development Of Iroquois Social Structure”, 50 [6]: Weaver, Sally M. 1978. “Six Nations Of The Grand River, Ontario”, 528 [7]: Blau, Harold, Jack Campisi, and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Onondaga”, 496 |
||||||
|
"We observe first that this great chieftain did not invent a new system of government. He simply utilized the system already existing, with only such modifications as were required by new conditions or suggested by his own experience. The government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy."
[1]
"Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions."
[2]
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [3] __Central administration__ 2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." [4] 2. Kahuna nuiThe kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king’s religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." [5] __Provincial administration__ 2. Governor"Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions." [1] 3. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." [3] 4. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." [3] 5. Konohiki"The three tiered hierarchy of land rulers, beginning with the ali’i nui who had the power to reallocate lands to the ali’i-’ai-moku and ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a under him, did not extend down below the level of the largely self-sufficient ahupua’a territories. Rather, the administration of the ahupua’a, including its various ̒ili subdivisions, was put into the hands of a konohiki, a resident “land manager” who acted on behalf of the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a. Konohiki were, in fact, often lower-ranked members of the al’i class (such as kaukau ali’i), frequently junior collaterals of the ahupua’a chiefs themselves." [6] [1]: (Kuykendall 1938, 51) [2]: (Kuykendall 1938, 53) [3]: (Kirch 2010, 48) [4]: (Kirch 2010, 50) [5]: (Kirch 2010, 57) [6]: (Kirch 2010, 49) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Big man"Villages, which were most likely pulled together by a single individual (a "big man"), would wax or wane, depending on the success of that individual" [1] . [1]: G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407 |
||||||
|
levels. Complex administrative hierarchy
1. Khan _Territorial hierarchy_ 2. Provinces (wilayat) headed by hakim (governor) 3. Tuman _Central government_ 2. Grand emir 3. Ataliqs - experienced emirs 2. Diwan begi - head of state chancellery and treasury. 3. Diwan - state chancellery "The Bukhara khanate was divided into wilayats (provinces), each headed by a ha ̄kim (governor). The wilayats were in turn divided into tumans. If a canal was dug from a river, and the water irrigated 100,000 tanabs (1 tana ̄b = approx. 40 m) of land, such land was known as a tuman. District offices were subordinate to heads of departments in the capital. To the name of the official governing the territories of an influential tribe was added the name of that tribe.At the head of the state was the khan, who in theory had unlimited power, although it was assumed that any intended measures should first be discussed with his chief nobles and ministers. In practice, many Janid khans were completely dependent on their grand emirs, who possessed their own troops. While the eldest member of the ruling house was traditionally chosen as khan, in practice it was the individual with the strongest support among the nobles who came to power. Usually the election of the khan was accompanied by a ceremony in which the successful candidate was raised up on a white felt blanket, the four corners of which were held by four influential members of the ruling house, nobility and clergy.A decisive role in the Janid state was played by the ataliqs, who received their pay in the form of an appanage. In theory, the title ataliq was conferred upon a respected, experienced and elderly emir, a ‘knowledgeable, loyal and well-informed person’. In practice, in the second half of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, the office of grand ataliq, which was considered a mainstay of the state, was claimed by the most powerful emirs.The next highest office of state was that of the diwan-begi, who was head of the diwan (state chancellery) and treasury. A significant role in state affairs was also played variously by the kukeldash (kukuldash), lit. ‘foster brother’, who gathered information from all over the empire and was also in charge of hunting accessories, ‘such as various hunting birds, hounds, and so on’ (later, under the Manghits, the role of the qush-begi, lit. ‘chief of birds’, ‘commander of falconers’, grew substantially); the mushrif (supervisor), whose duties included noting all grants made by the sovereign and maintaining records of khara ̄j (land tax) receipts in daftars (tax registers); the m ̄ır-shab (chief of night duty); the da ̄dkhwa ̄h, in charge of receiving complaints from the population; the m ̄ır-a ̄khur, or master of the stables; the dasta ̄rkhwa ̄nch ̄ı (court official, lit. ‘spreader of the banquet cloth’); the munsh ̄ı (chancery secretary), and others. Individuals belonging to the official hierarchy also participated actively in military campaigns. At government meetings and receptions, each official occupied a set place, according to his rank. Some sat and others stood; some were permitted to leave the palace on horseback, while others had to leave on foot.The ruling class included members of the ulama ̄’ (high clergy). Some of these were considered the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, which allowed them to claim the honorary title of sayyid and seek a high status accordingly. Another group of privileged individuals, calling themselves khwa ̄ja, claimed to be descended from one of the four immediate successors of Muhammad. Beginning in the sixteenth century, a decisive role was played by the Juyba ̄r ̄ı shaykhs, some of the richest individuals in the country. It was usually from among their number that the guardian of the law, or shaykh al-isla ̄m, was chosen.The waqfs were managed by sadrs (‘eminences’), whose task was to supervise the activ- ities of the mutawall ̄ıs, the managers of waqf institutions. Justice was in the hands of qa ̄z ̄ıs (judges). From amongst the jurists a muft ̄ı was appointed, whose duties included ruling on religious and legal questions. An important place in the administration was occupied by the muhtasib (market inspector), whose task it was to ensure order in the market, to check the accuracy of weights and measures in the bazaar, to guarantee the quality and standard of goods, and also to ensure that the inhabitants observed practices enjoined by Muslim law." [1] [1]: (Mukminova 2003, 52-53) |
||||||
|
levels.
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. Amir/Emperor/Sultan Timur "ruled in the name of the Chagatai Khanate" as an amir. [1] Did not take the title of "Khan" because he was not in the family of Genghis Khan: "he maintained the charade that he was a governor under the Chagatai khan, when in reality he was the supreme power." [2] 2. Ichki (or muqarrab)In the royal household this official "did not have defined duties but who was in constant attendance on the ruler and served him in an advisory capacity." [3] _Central government_ Timurid government functionally distinguished between civilian and military branches of government. [3] 2. Vizier. [4] "Often inheriting their positions or having served in the administrations of previous rulers, the Persian secretaries (navisandagan-i Tajik) who staffed it and who held the title of vazir, exhibited remarkable professional continuity." [5] 3. Diwan-i a’la [3] "The requirements of ruling over a sedentary population in the agrarian oases of Central Asia and Iran, however, necessitated the adoption of the traditional Perso-Islamic administrative system of the diwan, which was concerned primarily with financial and bureaucratic matters, including chancery correspondence." [3] 4. Scribe in Department inferred 5. 6. Imperial doorkeepers armed with maces. [6] _Regional government_ 2. Governor or mayor called darugha. [7] "The authority of the darughas and the diwans, the princes and amirs, all dependent directly on the emperor." [8] Timur’s descendants divided the territories into provinces, which included Samarkand and Bukhara. [9] "Timur was notably lax at establishing effective and loyal governments in the conquered lands. ... conquered lands had their own governing bodies, and ... he was content to leave them be." [4] "appanage system [created] a new class of rich and autonomous grandees who were largely beyond the control of the central government." [4] 3. Head of provincial diwans"the personnel of city councils might become part of Timurid provincial diwans" [10] 4. 4. personnel of city councils? - where do they go? [1]: (Wise Bauer 2013, 558) Wise Bauer, S. 2013. The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople. W. W. Norton & Company. [2]: (Khan 2003, 33) Khan, A. 2003. A Historical Atlas of Uzbekistan. The Rosen Publishing Group. [3]: (Subtelny 2007, 68) Subtelny, Maria. 2007. Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran. BRILL. [4]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [5]: (Subtelny 2007, 69) Subtelny, Maria. 2007. Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran. BRILL. [6]: (Marozzi 2004, 212) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [7]: (Marozzi 2004, 141) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [8]: (Marozzi 2004, 205) Marozzi, J. 2004. Tamerlane. HarperCollinsPublishers. London. [9]: (Khan 2003, 35) Khan, A. 2003. A Historical Atlas of Uzbekistan. The Rosen Publishing Group. [10]: (Manz 2007, 151) Manz, Beatrice Forbes. 2007. Power, Politics and Religion in Timurid Iran. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels. Before 500 CE: "Marked social stratification into a hereditary aristocracy, with privileged access to wealth and the power of life and death over slaves, is widely evidenced. Bali’s sarcophagi have been classified into 74 small (0.8-1.4 m in length), seven intermediate (1.5-1.7 m), and six large sarcophagi (2.0-2.7 m long), of which the latter all fall within 10 km of Manuaba (the site of a Pejeng stone mold). These tiers may correspond to increasingly exclusive ranks in the aristocracy and the centralization of prestige in the Manuaba area (Ardika 1987: 4, 42-44). The richly furnished child buried inside a Dong Son drum at Plawangan (Prasetyo 1994/1995: 19, 39) seems to be the prematurely deceased incumbent to the local chieftainship."
[1]
Chiefs seemingly attested before the Kalingga period.
"The story of the north Indian Buddhist pilgrim Gunavarman records the emergence of Holing (central Java) as a political entity. In 422, Gunavarman stopped at Holing on his way to China. He stayed there for several years, patronized by the queen mother and preaching Buddhist doctrine with great success; the king of Holing asked Gunavarman’s advice on whether to attack his enemies (Pelliot: 1904, 274-75). Herein in the Chinese accounts, the emergence of Holing from what was previously a tribal society involved competition among several communities and the productive outreach by one to a potential Indian advisor. This, like the Funan origin myth detailed in chapter 2, reflects the actual or symbolic use of Indic culture as the basis for the establishment of one enterprising chiefdom’s supremacy over its regional rivals. Holing sent envoys to China in 430 and 440 but is not mentioned in sixth-century Chinese records, suggesting that international contact with central Java was limited until two centuries later, when in the 640s and 660s Holing again sent embassies and around 640 welcomed a Chinese monk who remained to study under a Javanese Buddhist master (Pelliot: 1904, 286-88; Meulen: 1977, 90)." [2] At the onset of the next period: "Like Sanjaya, initially the Sailendra leaders were rakrayan, or regional leaders, rulers of a watak that integrated village clusters (wanua) participating in a regional irrigation and/or otherwise networked society. As rakrayan, these earliest Sailendra rulers provided the political stability necessary to maintain the local irrigation and marketing networks, and through their patronage of Indic religion they constructed sacred cults to legitimize the regional integration of wanua into watak." [3] 1. King 2. Advisors 2. Rakrayan- regional leaders3. Village clusters (watak) chiefs?4. Village (wanua) chiefs? [1]: (Bulbeck in Peregrine and Ember 2000, 106) [2]: (Hall 2011, 106) [3]: (Hall 2011, 123) |
||||||
|
The remains of terracotta and bronze/copper seals, and numerous impressions of them, "...lead us to suppose that some form of commercial business was carried on in this part of the site [PK.C]"
[1]
; and processing remains suggest that there were craft specialists at Pirak.
[2]
There may therefore have been some form of administrative levels, but this is not certain.
[1]: Jarrige, J-F. (1979) Fouilles de Pirak. Paris : Diffusion de Boccard. p368 [2]: Jarrige, J-F. (2000) Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan) at the beginning of the Second Millennium BC. In, Lahiri, N. The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization. Permanent Black, Delhi., pp345-362. |
||||||
|
levels. “Agriculture and herding were well established by the beginning of Stage Two and some subsistence surpluses were possible. The excavators think that this does not imply that we can reconstruct the social stratigraphy that would be associated with an archaic state, but some internal differentiation of the Stage Two society is possible, in view of the sophistication of craft production documented at Mehrgarh.”
[1]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. |
||||||
|
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period so this period still very low administrative complexity. [1] "Susa excavations have yielded no fewer than 261 stamp seals and sealings dating to the Susa I period (Amiet 1986e: 17), and the variety of sealing types would certainly suggest that the seals were being employed by persons in positions of administrative authority (see also Amiet 1988b: 8) to control the flow of goods in and out of one or more offices or centres of redistribution. Certainly some of the Susa I sealings came off doors which had been locked and sealed (Amiet 1994e: 56; 1994f: 88-9; for the principal of sealing doors see Fiandra 1982)" [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Potts 1999, 49-50) |
||||||
|
levels. Several levels of territorial government, but difficult to establish in the absence of texts.
1. King __Central government__ 2. AdministratorsNo concrete evidence, but inferred from the following: "The list of activities dependent on administration for the Erlitou state - agriculture, the construction of public buildings and city walls, the bronze industry, the army - is equally applicable to Erligang, but the scale of those activities had increased enormously." [1] 3.4. __Provincial government__ 2. Local governorGrave of a "chief" or "lord" found at Dayangzhou. [2] "Social stratification started developing in China prior to the Shang period and was largely solidified by the Shang dynasty. As previously discussed, settlement patterns are one kind of data that support this conclusion. The highest-ranking people would have lived in the cities, and the large capital city of Zhengzhou was where the king would have resided. The elite residents of smaller cities in other areas such as Panlongcheng, Yuanqu, and Yanshi would have been local governors or military leaders who were chosen by the Shang king." [3] [1]: (Wang 2014, 179) Wang, Haicheng. 2014. Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Thorp 2013, 110) Thorp, Robert L. 2013. China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization.University of Pennsylvania Press. [3]: (Yuan 2013, 334) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Ruler or Priest walls enclosed what has been called a "palatial area" but others contend this might be a location for ritual gathering. [1] 2. Administrative planner"The list of activities dependent on administration for the Erlitou state - agriculture, the construction of public buildings and city walls, the bronze industry, the army - is equally applicable to Erligang, but the scale of those activities had increased enormously." [2] "The building of monumental architecture and the production of elite objects would have been inconceivable without some sort of systematic management of the city’s resources. ... A similar response to administrative needs at Erlitou is certainly a possibility." [3] "The palace city was about 11 ha and, during phase IV, was enclosed by rammed-earth walls about 2 m wide and surrounded by four large roads (Fig. 4). At least seven earthen platforms, ranging in size from about 300 to 9,600 m2, have been found inside this enclosure." [4] We can infer that some sort of administrative system was required to maintain the courtyard, walls and roads of the palatial complex, whatever its actual function. 3. Scribe/worker"While the Erlitou ceramic tradition was widespread, the mechanisms of this expansion are probably only indirectly related to political activity (if pots don’t equal people, they are even less representative of conquering armies or “state” administrators). The degree of centralization, mechanisms of political control, and social organization can only be guessed at or extrapolated through comparison with Zhengzhou and Anyang." [5] [1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 330) [2]: (Wang 2014, 179) Wang, Haicheng. 2014. Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. [3]: (Wang 2014, 178) Wang, Haicheng. 2014. Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 344-345) [5]: (Campbell 2014, 62) |
||||||
|
levels.
1: hereditary Yi family leader OR military appointee2. village headmen. ’These ‘native officials’ were remnants of the former tusi system, through which the Chinese imperial court granted titles to indigenous overlords to serve its indirect rule over the southwestern frontier. They survived the policy of gaitu guiliu (substituting posted officials for native officials) in the Qing dynasty, yet found themselves facing imminent threats from the Republican regime in the mid-1930s.’ [1] 1. Intermediary with Chinese state (tusi), then Hundred-household Heads (baihu); 2. Clan leaders; 3. Lineage leaders; 4. Village headmen. Hmong representative in Chinese bureaucracy at the county, township, and village level. The main social organization structure in traditional Hmong society is the clan (Xeem) system, followed by a clan’s many lineages, and then the families within those lineages. [2] The Qing allowed the traditional village and lineage headmen of Hmong and other groups in the Yunnan, Guizhou and Sichuan to act as local officials of the empire, preserving some degree of traditional culture and social structure. [3] In the seventeenth century, the early Qing rulers wanted to bring the land of the Hmong Frontier within reach. The native tusi alliance was partially abolished and the territory incorporated as the southwestern tip of Chenzhou Prefecture; by 1730 the program included “bringing chieftains into the system” (gaitu guiliu). The Hmong Frontier’s remaining native units were dismantled; the Qing retained aspects of the former chieftain system in the establishment of a new set of hereditary leaders known as “Hundred-household Heads” (baihu). [4] [1]: (Cheung Siu-woo (2003) Miao Identities, Indigenism and the Politics of Appropriation in Southwest China during the Republican Period. Asian Ethnicity. Vol. 4, Iss. 1, 2003) [2]: Cha, D. 2003. Hmong American Concepts of Health, Healing, and Conventional Medicine. Psychology Press. [3]: (38)Crossley, P. 2010. The Wobbling Pivot, China since 1800: An Interpretive History. John Wiley & Sons. [4]: (88)McMahon, D. 2014. Rethinking the Decline of China’s Qing Dynasty: Imperial Activism and Borderland Management at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century. Routledge. |
||||||
|
1. Ruler2. Court officials (Chancellor, Secretaries, etc)3. Provincial / commandery governors; military generals; local elite lineages4. town heads
NB: unclear exactly how much administrative hierarchy there was at the local (town, village, etc) level, but the number 4 based on states during this period having short chains-of-command and less state penetration into the local levels relative to later periods after the ‘centralizing’ reforms of the Qi, Chu, and Qin (DH) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. "The Abbasid court continued to send governors to Sanaa." [1] 2. Court-based administrator?In the ninth century "the livelihood of the people was not particularly dependent upon efficient, centralized government, the attachment was strong to small social units which central control was likely to threaten." [2] 3. 2. Ruler of a petty state.In the ninth century attempts were made to unify Yemenis under Islamic rule but there was no agreement on any one person having an "exclusive right to rule" and "central authority tended to be fragile and weak. The region was in fact fragmented into several petty states, each enfeebled by domestic disaffection and the hostility of its neighbours." [3] "The Ziyadi state was firmly entrenched in the Tinhama, and enjoyed loose suzerainty over a sultan at Aden, whose authority extended eastward along the coast. The Banu Ziyad, on the other hand, had no influence in the highlands. The Abbasid court continued to send governors to Sanaa." [1] 3. Tribal chiefsTribal chiefs: "The ruler’s authority inevitably impinged upon the freedom of action of the tribal chiefs, whose loyalty was intermittent and often a matter of expediency." [4] "In the tenth century as in the twentieth, detailed knowledge of tribal interrelationships, and accommodation to their sensibilities, were necessary elements of effective government in northern Yemen." [2] "The Himyarites asserted their autonomy in the central highlands, at times acknowledging a vague Ziyadi suzerainty, and invoking the Abbasid caliph in public prayers. The tribes in the north, between Nejran and Sa’da, refused any outside control or interference in their mutual quarrels until they themselves called in the first Zaidi imam as umpire. In the southern and west-central mountains, the continuing development of Shi’a sentiment provided opportunity for founding the first Fatimid regimes in Yemen. At the beginning of the tenth century, thus, Yemen was divided among four essentially independent entities." [5] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 54) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [2]: (Stookey 1978, 50) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 50-51) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Stookey 1978, 46) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 45) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
1. Tsar (Царь)
- The supreme ruler of the Russian Empire. 2. Chancellor (Канцлер) - The highest civilian official, often involved in high-level state affairs. 3. Actual Privy Councillor 1st class (Действительный тайный советник 1-го класса) - A top-ranking position in the civil service. 4. Actual Privy Councillor (Действительный тайный советник) - A senior rank in the civil administration. 5. Privy Councillor (Тайный советник) - A high-level civil administrator. 6. Actual State Councillor (Действительный статский советник) - A senior administrative rank in the state bureaucracy. 7. State Councillor (Статский советник) - A mid-level administrative rank. 8. Collegiate Councillor (Коллежский советник) - An established rank within the civil service. 9. Court Councillor (Надворный советник) - A position associated with the royal court or higher civil administration. 10. Court Councillor (Надворный советник), Collegiate Assessor (Коллежский асессор) - An administrative rank in the civil service. 11. Titular Councillor (Титулярный советник) - A lower rank in the civil bureaucracy. 12. Collegiate Secretary (Коллежский секретарь) - A bureaucratic position within the civil service. 13. Ship’s Secretary (1764–1834) (Корабельный секретарь) - A role related to naval administration. 14. Gubernatorial Secretary (Губернский секретарь) - A position within regional governance. 15. Provincial Secretary (Провинциальный секретарь), Senate Registrar (Сенатский регистратор), Synodal Registrar (Синодский регистратор) - Roles associated with provincial administration and religious governance. 16. Collegiate Registrar (Коллежский регистратор) - A clerical or record-keeping position in the civil service. [1] [1]: O. G. Ageeva, Imperatorskiĭ Dvor Rossii, 1700-1796 Gody (Moskva: Nauka, 2008). Zotero link: VPQTS5HJ |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor2. Central Government3. Provincial Government-general (Zongdu, viceroy) 3. Provincial Governor (Xunfu)4. Tao governor inferred5. Prefect inferred6. County governor7. District Magistrate 7. Official in charge of Prefecture/ Ting The yamen of the district magistrate (usually the county magistrate, but sometimes prefecture or ting) was the lowest point in the official hierarchy. [1] District Magistrate occupied position 7A in the Qing territorial administrative hierarchy. [2] Mostern confirmed that county should be one level above district, since ’xiang’ are subordinate to ’xian,’ which is routinely translated to ’county.’ [3] There was a prefect level between county magistrates and provincial governors, while district magistrates were too low to be included in a prefecture so they were overseen directly by the provincial governor. Promotion from county magistrate to prefect was possible. [4] [1]: ( Zhang, 2011, 63) [2]: (57, Table 2.3) Guy, K. 2017. Qing Governors and Their Provinces: The Evolution of Territorial Administration in China, 1644-1796. University of Washington Press. [3]: (Mostern, Ruth. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin, Dan Hoyer, and Jill Levine. April 2020. Email) [4]: (80-81) Guy, K. 2014. ‘Routine Promotions: Li Hu and the Dusty Byways of Empire. In, The Dynastic Centre and the Provinces: Agents and Interactions. BRILL. |
||||||
|
levels. probably unknown? at least one level.
"Not much is known about the Neguanje social hierarchy. [...] Their iconography does not seem to indicate specific individuals. In the regional survey there was no occupation evidence for the period in the bay where the mound was excavated. This does not imply an abandonment of the bay, but rather, that the capacity of the individuals or special factions did not translate into the ability to attract populations. The leadership of individuals or special factions was not associated with central places or settlement hierarchies, at least in the study area." [1] [1]: (Langebaek 2005, 117) |
||||||
|
levels. Copied from IqUrIII.
1. Ruler _Palatial government_ 2.3.4. _Provincial government_ 2. Provincial/regional governors - sukkalmah3.4. 3. town mayors - ensi4. village heads - hazannum. [1] "The temple authorities, while still of great importance, now gave way politically to the king, who had full control of the state’s administration, as is vividly shown in anumber of surviving archives." [2] [1]: Roux 1998, 149 [2]: (McIntosh 2005: 84) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
“Ammianus explicitly notes the absence of kings from their society, ‘they are not subject to the authority of any king’.14 Instead of kings, he says, each group was content with the improvised leadership of their leading men (tumultuario primatum ductu). Who these chief men (primates) were he does not say, but it is clear from his language that their leadership (ductus) existed only in time of war. Indeed, we may guess that even in war-time they could not so much exercise any legal or traditional power as merely use personal influence: they had, one may suspect, little or no right of coercion.”
[1]
“The Huns had had kings before Attila. Around 420 we hear of one Rua and his brother Octar. however, as with many other nomad groups, the power of the king seems to have been very limited and real authority lay with chiefs of much smaller groups who were largely autonomous and did very much what they liked. Perhaps it was only when dealing with outside powers, notably the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, that the kings had a leadership role. In 434 Attila became king, ruling initially with his brother BIeda.”
[2]
“In 435 a Roman embassy, led by a Gothic soldier and a Roman diplomat – a typical division of labour at that time - met Attila at Margus (on the Danube just east of modern Belgrade)… Eventually it was agreed that the Romans would pay him the vast sum of 700 pounds of gold per year. It was also stipulated that the Romans would not receive or protect anyone fleeing from Attila’s anger and that the Huns should have open access to markets. This treaty established the Hunnic monarchy on a new basis. We can have no doubt that these large sums of gold were to be paid to Attila. This completely changed his relationship with the lesser tribal chiefs for he was now the source of patronage and all good things. If they wanted to be rewarded, the chiefs would have to obey Attila’s orders. Now, probably for the first time, the Huns had a king with real authority.”
[2]
: 1. King :: 2. Chiefs
[1]: (Thompson 2004: 50) Thompson, E.A. 1996. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/49W8PAAS [2]: (Kennedy 2002: 38) Kennedy, Hugh. 2002. Mongols, Huns and Vikings: Nomads at War. London: Cassell. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/ZN9N624X |
||||||
|
Hierakonpolis and Abydos: "some kind of “royal” authority or primitive chiefdom existed about 3700 BCE, well before the Predynastic kings of Abydos"
[1]
At the end of Naqada I the villages started to unite, first creating chiefdoms/nome pre-states and in the Naqada III or even in the end of Naqada II - proto-states. The size of those polities varied and changed during the proces of state formation. That remains uncoded. [1]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 188 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) |
||||||
|
Gerzean: "The hierarchy of chiefs amounted in essence to a hierarchical management system. Village chiefs were "clients" of a district chief, who in turn was a client to a regional chief. Clients owed loyalty to their superior chief (Mair, 1967)."
[1]
Hierakonpolis and Abydos: "some kind of “royal” authority or primitive chiefdom existed about 3700 BCE, well before the Predynastic kings of Abydos"
[2]
1. ?Proto-king 1-2. Regional chief (was this the king level?) 3. District chief 4. Village chief [1]: (Hassan 1988, 172) [2]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 188 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King documented instances of officials who were responsible for a territory larger than a nome. Abihu governed: Abydos; Diospolis Parva; Dendera. [1] had courtiers, known from their saff-tombs at el-Tarif [2] _Centralized administrative system_ 2a. High official such as Djari who was as a high official of King Wahankh Intef II. [3] 3a. "the fledgling Theban state created a centralized administrative system" [4] 4a. Scribes _ Administration centers _ 2a. Chief temple administrator (Priest?)"over-powering influence of court-culture had faded" [5] "great weakening of central government" [5] Provincial temples were administration centres and "foci of loyalty" of the people. [6] _ Local government _ 2b. ... ? ...Theban king Wahankh Intef II had a military officer called Djary who "managed the southern most nomes for the king." [7] "The late Old Kingdom kings had transformed provincial rule ... by creating a new class of provincial administrators, i.e. the nomarchs ... Although these functionaries are not attested everywhere, they existed in most Upper Egyptian provinces and continue to appear throughout Upper Egypt in early First Intermediate Period documents. However, in the areas conquered by the Theban rulers ... the evidence for their existence gradually stops." [4] 3b. Village head?End 3rd millennium: "contemporary priests and scribes proudly proclaim that they worked for simple village governors (hq3w), chiefs (hrjw-tp), and administrators (jmjw-r pr), they reveal the real importance of these authorities, usually hidden under the stereotypical iconography of the punished or bowing chief of a village." [8] [1]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 121) [2]: (Lloyd 2010, 85) [3]: (Strudwick and Strudwick 1999, 24) [4]: (Lloyd 2010, 84) [5]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 136) [6]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 122) [7]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 126) [8]: (Garcia 2013, 1055) Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno "The ’Other’ Administration: Patronage, Factions, and Informal Networks of Power in Ancient Egypt" in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. |
||||||
|
levels.
Philip II (1180-1223 CE) had "a small group of close counsellers who held offices with particular, if not always specialized, functions. Philip also employed royal agents in the demesne, and outside, to carry on the routine work of government and to enforce the changes which he introduced./ We speak of departments, and we know of the existence of a chancery and a chamber, but we should be mistaken to see these as entirely separated organizations. Household departments do not emerge until the reign of St Louis, but they were in the process of formation in Philip’s time. The close counsellors and the clerks could still move from one area of the administration to another, and often did.../ Central government was organized under a few major officials: the chancellor, the seneschal, the butler, the chamberlain and the constable. These originated as household officials with specific functions. By the beginning of the twelfth century these offices had been taken over by leading magnates. Under Philip, one or two magnates held such titles ... But the trend was to pass office, and sometimes title, to more humble men and their professional staff, for example marshals assisting the constables." [1] 1. King Robert II (reign 996-1031) stopped partitioning the realm, crowned his eldest son during his lifetime. this was done by all Capetian monarchs until Philip II [2] ruled by decree _Court institution_ 2. senechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commanderwhilst the king’s household dominated government in the 11th and 12th centuries the senechal was the senior royal official, and senior military commander [3] 3. Treasury. From Louis VII until the end of the 13th century, the royal treasury was housed in the Knights Templar Temple’s keep [4] 3. Other high officials. Under Philip I (reign 1060-1108 CE) "obscure household officials emerged as important figures in the making and executing of royal policies ... the seneschal, butler, chamberlain, and constable — to whom we should add the chancellor, who supervised those who wrote and authenticated royal documents. [5] 3. Chancellor4. Scribes. "those who wrote and authenticated royal documents." [5] _Regional government_ 2. Rulers of ApanagesApanage: "province or jurisdiction, or later for an office or annuity, granted (with the reservation that in the absence of direct heirs the land escheated to the crown)" [2] Example: Acquitaine? 2. Feudal lords (dukes, barons and counts)Former territories of the Carolingian state "became counties, duchies and other feudal lordships, each with its own court." [6] 3. senechal. The senechal was also the senior official of households of dukes, barons and counts [3] 4.Pagus? 2. Prevotsprevots reported to the senechal. used to administer "scattered parts of the royal domain" [7] ET - whose senechal did the prevots report to, the king’s senechal or the senechal of the local lord? Coded on the assumption they report to the king’s senechal At a local level, they were responsible for justice, military defense, and collection of the king’s seigneurial revenues [8] 3. Castellans of the Île-de-France [5] "With the growth of the feudal system, however, the title gained in France a special significance which it never acquired in England, as implying the jurisdiction of which the castle became the centre" - wikipedia [1]: (Bradbury 2013, 249) Jim Bradbury. 2015. Philip Augustus: King of France 1180-1223. Routledge. [2]: (Suarez 1995, 97-98) [3]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [4]: (Clark and Henneman 1995, 1317) [5]: (Henneman 1995, 1558-1560) [6]: (Pegues 1995, 1005-1010) [7]: (Henneman 1995, 1427, 1645) [8]: (Henneman 1995, 1427) |
||||||
|
levels.The researchers assumed that the more complex level of social and administrative organization must have existed in the Ubaid. The differences in size and form of houses in the villages as well as their equipment, use of various type of stamp seals and erecting monumental temples suggest the higher level of social organization and system of social and political control and appearance of elite group, probably related at least partially to ceremonial structures and controlling the surplus of food. However, there is almost completely lack of any prestige or luxury or exotic goods which will support the hypothesis of social stratification among the Ubaid community.
[1]
[1]: Stein 2010, Sieverstsen 2010, 201-203 |
||||||
|
levels. Probably unknown. At least one can be inferred for a fortified settlement.
"Political Organization. It seems that, at least in some areas, there was a significant increase of social disparity and, as a consequence, an increase in the number of communities with a stratified social structure and the beginning of leadership. However, in other areas, it seems that tribal structures remained, but it is possible that they were hierarchical in some way. There were different types of hierarchies, with different levels of division of work, but nowadays we cannot be sure of the exact level of division of labor." [1] [1]: (Clop Garcia 2001, 28) |
||||||
|
According to Quintana, there were 14 royal cities (main cities), with their territories; 12 districts and 20 cities near the boundary with Hidalu. "En su saqueo del territorio elamita, allá por el año 646 a.C., nos dice que destruyo 14 ciudades reales, es decir principales, con sus territorios, 12 distritos y 20 ciudades de la frontera con Hidalu, en una distancia de 60 beru (entre 650 y 700 kms): "asole Elam hasta su mas lejana frontera," dice. Otro texto del mismo rey asegura: “todo el pais de Elam abati como un diluvio,” confirmando así que recorrió todo el territorio elamita (Weidner 1931-32: 3)."
[1]
1. King 2. Provincial districts [1]: (Quintana 2011, 169-170) |
||||||
|
1. King _Court institution_ Philip II (1180-1223 CE) had "a small group of close counsellers who held offices with particular, if not always specialized, functions. Philip also employed royal agents in the demesne, and outside, to carry on the routine work of government and to enforce the changes which he introduced./ We speak of departments, and we know of the existence of a chancery and a chamber, but we should be mistaken to see these as entirely separated organizations. Household departments do not emerge until the reign of St Louis, but they were in the process of formation in Philip’s time. The close counsellors and the clerks could still move from one area of the administration to another, and often did.../ Central government was organized under a few major officials: the chancellor, the seneschal, the butler, the chamberlain and the constable. These originated as household officials with specific functions. By the beginning of the twelfth century these offices had been taken over by leading magnates. Under Philip, one or two magnates held such titles ... But the trend was to pass office, and sometimes title, to more humble men and their professional staff, for example marshals assisting the constables." [1] 2.3.4. _Neustria and Austrasia_ 2. Subkingdom / areas were ruled by an Archbishopdirectly appointed by the king and non-hereditary position Usually this extra level filled in as ’subkingdoms’ and these positions were often held by family members, e.g. Italy, Acquitania, and Bavaria. 2. Missi Dominici/Vasi Dominici3. Notables/lords/mayors/vicars.DB: How do ’comes/count’ fit into this story? Are they relevant? 4. PagiDB: How do ’pagus’ fit into this story? Are they relevant? [1]: (Bradbury 2013, 249) Jim Bradbury. 2015. Philip Augustus: King of France 1180-1223. Routledge. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Had a retinue of military/legal assistants 2. Tribal chiefTribes 3. Clan chiefPagus (Clan) / Family group [1] Galatians, who migrated to Asia minor 279 BCE, also provide a possible insight into Gaulish social structure as they were closely observed by the Greeks. Chieftains (called a tetrach by the Greeks) lead each of the tribes each of which were divided into clans. Supra-tribal level of cooperation: the clans of all the tribes together appointed 300 senators "to attend an annual assembly at a shrine." However they were rarely unified and eventually the chieftains became kings. The chieftains "were assisted by three military advisers and a judge." [2] "At its lowest level, Celtic society was made up of extended families or clans that were grouped together to form territorially based tribes." If Ireland is representative, 3 levels of hierarchy: 1. family unit = fine. 2. five family units = clan. A number of clans in the same region = 3. tuath (tribe) ruled by a king." [3] [1]: (Collis 2003, 195) [2]: (Allen 2007, 79-80) [3]: (Allen 2007, 62) |
||||||
|
levels. One administrative level is inferred, as sources do not suggest there is evidence that one village exerted influence on another, and storage pits were located nearby individual households.
[1]
San José Mogote has evidence for subterranean storage facilities which could hold up to 1,000kg of maize per household, and ritual “Men’s Houses”
[2]
. The exact relationship between San José Mogote and the surrounding smaller villages in the Etla region is unknown.
1. Organisation was based at the village or household level in both the large and small villages. Large village: San José Mogote (estimated at 7.8ha in size) [2] [3] . The site included: nuclear family houses; subterranean storage pits (collectively 1,000kg maize per household); ritual “men’s houses”; and a palisade defense along western periphery consisting of a double line of posts, dated to 1300 BCE (which could have extended further but archaeological remains have been destroyed in other areas) [2] Small villages or hamlets: (most were between 0.1-1.5 ha in size). These sites did not have public buildings, with household storage pits. [4] [5] [1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p88 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11802 [3]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390. [4]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p84 [5]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p43 |
||||||
|
levels.
In the Cappadocian kingdom, the king was the head of all administrative affairs and he used provincial governors, or strategos, to maintain the kingdom as divided into strategeiae [1] [2] . It is likely that there were administrative levels beneath the strategos, but there is little evidence for them at present. 1. King _Central government_ 2. ?3. ?4. ? _Provincial government_ 2. Strategos3. ?4. ? [1]: Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p105 [2]: Ma, J. (2003). Kings. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp177-195. p183-184 |
||||||
|
levels.
In keeping with their tribal origins the Saljuqs of Rum did not have a bureaucratic apparatus to begin with. As they consolidated their power, they did develop one. A core of senior bureaucrats were based around the royal court, along with scribes. The rest of apparatus was organised regionally with regional officials overseeing local tax collectors.Land, and the right to collect revenue for it, was distributed to the senior officials. There positions and the land grants often became hereditary; certainly they were decided by the Sultan, rather than by an examination systems. [1] 1. Sultan 2. Court officials.A core of senior bureaucrats were based around the royal court, along with scribes. [1] 3.4. _Provincial government_ 2. Amirs.Administered regions. They were granted land by the Sultan, often in return for military service. [2] 3. Governors - of cities and towns. [3] 4. The ikdis or urban aristocracy who were like a police force or local militia. Later acting as tax collectors or sometime tax assessors. [4] [1]: Andrew Peacock SALJUQS iii. SALJUQS OF RUM’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saljuqs-iii [2]: Fodor, Pal. “Ottoman Warfare, 1300-1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, Suraiya Faroqhi, and Reşat Kasaba, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P.197. [3]: Cahen, Claude. The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century. Translated by P. M. Holt. A History of the Near East. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. P.114 . [4]: Cahen, Claude. The Formation of Turkey: The Seljukid Sultanate of Rūm: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century. Translated by P. M. Holt. A History of the Near East. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. P.115 . |
||||||
|
1. Sultan (Cairo) During his absence Egypt/Cairo was governed by a viceroy (na’ib al-saltana) [1] _ Central government line _ [2] 2a. Central administration"Army officers came from the Mamluk ranks. High government officials were also recruited from their number." [3] "In a traditional society that lacked the concept of public or municipal agencies, as individuals, the members of this ruling class assumed responsibility for what we would consider public concerns." [4] _ Cairo line _ 2cairo Magistracies. "The administration of Cairo and its inhabitants was in the hands of three traditional magistracies. The judges (qudah; sing. qadi) had a very broad jurisdiction that covered matters of civil law, and many urban problems were addressed in their courts.3cairo Chief of the Sergeants of the watch. Top police prefect.4cairo "The police prefects (wulah; sing. wali) saw to public order and security. They were particularly responsible for making the rounds at night and therefore also of fighting fires." [5] Overseer of the market (muhtasib) [6] "The quarter served as an important basis of communal association and as an essential administrative unit." [7] _ Egyptian line _ 2egypt "diwan (government bureau) of Salar" [8] 3egypt Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [9] 4egypt Governor of a small town 5egypt. Village head. _ Syrian line _ 2syria Syrian chief governor [10] Viceroy?3syria Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [9] e.g. the bureaucracy niyaba of Safed contained:4. katib al-sirr/katib al-insha (chief secretary who wrote governor’s letters, read mail) [11] 5. muwaqqi (who ratified the governor’s letters) [11] 6. katib al-dast [11] 7. katib al-darj (minor correspondent) [11] nazir (overseer who was responsible for financial management, expenditure, salaries) [12] kashif (inspector of bridges, agricultural lands and irrigation canals) [13] muhtasib (market inspector) [13] nazir diwan al-jaysh (superintendant of fiefs) [13] nazir al-mal (financial controller) [13] 4. governor also had a dawadar (personal assistant) often sent to the villages to represent the governor and an ustadar (private caretaker) [14] 4syria wali al-wulat of a niyaba [8] "The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [8] often the wali al-wulat also doubled as the shadd or mushidd al-dawawin "whose duty it was to check and observe the collection of the Sultans’ dues and taxes from state estates." [8] 5syria Wali, officer of a small town"The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [8] 6syria Village head. [1]: (Raymond 2000, 152) [2]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Dols 1977, 152) [5]: (Raymond 2000, 153) [6]: (Raymond 2000, 154) [7]: (Dols 1977, 153) [8]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 178) [9]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 169) [10]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 176) [11]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180-181) [12]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180) [13]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 181-182) [14]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 172) |
||||||
|
[5-7] central government line + crew organization
1. King The term "Pharaoh" as political title emerged in the New Kingdom. In earlier times "Pharaoh" means literally what the Egyptian phrase does i.e. "great house." JGM: Note the interesting royal portrait sculpture of Dyn, 12, "veristic" portraits of the King as a tired, worried ruler. Quite interesting, must be tied to Dyn. 12 royal ideology, king as human, and a "manager" _ Central government line _ [1] 2. Central elite (150 people + families). Vizier was the head of the bureaucracy.3. Controller of the ’h.Many Middle Kingdoms inscriptions for a head/controller of the ’h. [2] Nb: "The ’h-palace must be intended as a holy locality as well as the temples because the Horus-king is the holder of religious and magical power. The ’h would have been the place where all the ceremonies connected to the transition of the magical power of the sun-god to the king were performed: here the king took over the role of Horus and was legitimated as his successor." [3] 4. Overseer of the chamber of the ’hMiddle Kingdom inscription for Overseer of the chamber of the ’h (Stele of Rn-sbf from Sinai). [4] 4. Overseer of the place/position/seat of the ’h (Stele of S3[..]-ibt (?)) [5] 5. Attendent of the ’h (Stele of Sn-pw) [6] 3. pr-’34?. Overseer of the chamber of the pr-’3 (Stele of ’ihms-n-3ht-w3s-htp) [7] 4?. Overseer of writing in the pr-’3 (Stele of Tit-nb-im3h) [8] 5?. majordomo/domestic servant of the pr-’3 (Stele of R’-nfr) [9] 5?. retainer of the pr-’3 (Stele of Nb-’nh) [10] 5?. Inspector of the Garden of the pr-’3. [11] 3. Overseer of the pr-nswt (Stele of Wsir-sn-pw) [11] _Crew system used to organize labour_ 1. Leader of the crew "In the Old Kingdom, a crew was made up of two gangs" [12] 2. Leader of a gang"In the Old Kingdom... a gang was divided into four or five phyles" [12] 3. Leader of a phyle"In the Old Kingdom... each phyle had four divisions of about 10 men each, although this number could vary (Roth, 1991). Hence, the total labour force in a crew could well reach 400 men, possibly even more." [12] 4. Foreman of a division"In the Middle Kingdom, the most frequent sizes of a division (including one foreman) were 10, 14 and 20 (Gardiner et al., 1952, 1955; Mueller, 1975; Simpson, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1986). However, there were smaller division sizes of 9 and 4, with two supervisors combined into one larger division (Griffith, 1898)." [12] ET: More research needed on the central government line. If it’s similar to the Old Kingdom there will be more levels than the provincial line. _ Provincial line _ [1] 2. Central elite North 2. Central elite South2. "throughout the late Middle Kingdom, Thebes had been the second capital of Egypt, the Southern City (nwt rst) as counterpart to the Residence (hnw) of Lisht. Thebes had its own royal palace, vizieral bureau and an administrative apparatus that directly governed the "Head of the South" (w’rt tp rsj), a region extending from the First Cataract to Akhmim, located some 25 miles north of Abydos." [13] 3.4. 3. Provincial governors - Before 1850 BCEProvincial administration: Nomarchs, above the "big men" [14] 3. District overseers - After 1850 BCEReference to a "district-councillor" in a Middle Kingdom letter to the king from Lahun ("Letter of Sn-bwbw"). [15] 4. Mayors"mayors held a relatively minor position as compared to nomarchs" [16] the mayors of Menat Khufu were "in charge of only a relatively minor part of the nome." [16] "Each town was governed by a provincial official (mayor)." [17] 4. Village governorsVillage chiefs and mayors (heqa nwt, haty-a) enjoyed real local authority "a passage of papyrus Harris I evokes referring to the anarchy prevailing at the end of the 19th dynasty: “the land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs (wrw) and of rulers of towns (heqa nwt)” (Grandet 1994: 335). The precedents might be traced back to late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period inscriptions, when governors of villages (heqa nwt) and “chiefs” (hery-tep) are mentioned in enthusiastic terms, their role as mediators in the administration of temple land recorded in royal decrees, and priests and scribes proudly proclaimed that they worked for simple village governors (heqa), chiefs (hery-tep) and administrators. Middle and New Kingdom inscriptions confirm that they collected taxes for their superiors, provided royal agents with supplies and manpower and cultivated the fields of the pharaoh (Moreno García 2013b and 2013c: 88-91)." [18] 5. Scribes 5. Big men"Some of them may have been merely the heads of an isolated farmstead, others of a hamlet, a small village, or a smaller or larger town" [14] [1]: (EWA, Sept 2014) [2]: (Pagliari 2012, 241-247) Giulia Pagliari. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [3]: (Pagliari 2012, 235) Giulia Pagliari. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [4]: (Pagliari 2012, 552) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [5]: (Pagliari 2012, 575) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [6]: (Pagliari 2012, 574) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [7]: (Pagliari 2012, 570) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [8]: (Pagliari 2012, 572) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [9]: (Pagliari 2012, 565) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [10]: (Pagliari 2012, 567) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [11]: (Pagliari 2012, 569) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [12]: (Ezzamel 2004, 507) Ezzamel, Mahmoud. July 2004. Organization. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp 497-537. Sage publications. [13]: (Maree 2010, 266) [14]: (Willems 2013, 354) [15]: (Pagliari 2012, 435) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [16]: (Willems 2013, 378) [17]: (Ezzamel 2004, 502) Ezzamel, Mahmoud. July 2004. Organization. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp 497-537. Sage publications. [18]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García, Recent Developments in the Social and Economic History of Ancient Egypt, 24) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Basic territorial divisions (622 CE onwards 2 divisions East / West)Neustria - centred on the Seine and Oise rivers. Burgundy (ruled from Neustria, own laws) Austrasia - based on the Rhine and Meuse Acquitane - usually had unique status [1] _Court institution_ It was a peripatetic institution [2] 2. Senior Palace official was known as "Mayor of the Palace" [3] maior domus [2] 3. Treasurer [2] 4. Notaries and scribes 640s CE and onwards Mayors of the Palace dominate the court. Kings lost control to mayors and magnates. [4] Comes palatii [2] Magnates known as Obtimates, consulted by king at annual gathering around March 1st. [5] _Regional government_ 2. Maior domus (Burgundy) / Mayor of the Palace (Autrasia)Under Chlothar II (584-629 CE, reign from 613 CE) Burgundy had a maior domus (regional official). this official was at level below the court in Paris and in later years was alternately removed, then reinstated. also dux / duchy / districts [6] The region of Austrasia had its own Mayor of the Palace [7] 2. Dukes and Bishops (directly appointed by king)"Many bishops owed their position to the king" and "were royal servants with no known connections with their sees." [8] Aristocrats dependent on patronage from king. [9] Group of cities and counts could be placed under a duke (for military and administrative purposes). [10] Magnates (dux?) and Church (bishops) Individuals in charge of multiple civitates? called dux (pl. duces). [11] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [12] Aquitaine - duchy, dux/duces. Merovingians claimed over-lordship in Southern England 550s CE. [13] 3. Comes (count) of the Civitas (city-district)4. local law-men called rachinburgi [14] Merovingians maintained existing Roman administrative systems where possible. Gregory of Tours (538-594 CE) writings show cities are the basic units of the administrative system. [12] City archives: defensor, curator, magister, militum. Known from Formularies from a few civitates but no evidence uniform across polity. Senior official of civitas was the comes (pl. comites) or count (lit. "companion). Heard law-suits, enforced justice, lead the military. In north graphiones instead of comes. [15] Civitas administration "provided dominant source of tax revenue" and some of the manpower for the army. [16] In sixth century the role of the Roman curiales had been taken over by a single official appointed by the Merovingian king, the "count" or the "grafio" in the Frankish homelands. This official - where present the most important city official - had its origins in the Roman imperial comes civitatis. The first such official in Gaul is known from 471 CE. They executed judicial and administrative functions and sent the king his tax revenue. Rule through these city officials gradually spread across Gaul in the post-Roman period. Gregory of Tours refers to "leading officials" who could be members of a local council. [12] Gregory of Tours’ region in central Gaul likely had longest persisting continuity with Roman structures of city-based rule. These were the "basic building-blocks of which the various Merovingian regna were composed." However, in Frankish regions the rule-through-city framework may have been less pervasive. [12] Internal administrative regions due to the city based taxation system. The "guiding imperative behind the divisions would appear to be the sharing out of the profits from various forms of taxation" on the civitas [12] 5. City archives two levels? e.g. manager and assistant inferred level 4. PagiSub-division of the civitates. Replaces civitates in some parts of Gaul [17] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [12] [1]: (Wood 1994, 146) [2]: (Wood 1994, 150-153) [3]: (Halsall 2003, 28) [4]: (Bachrach 1972, 109-112) [5]: (Wood 1994, 104) [6]: (Wood 1994, 144-145 and 236) [7]: (Medieval France: An Encylopedia 1995, 157) [8]: (Wood 1994, 78) [9]: (Halsall in Wood ed. 1998, 149) [10]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [11]: (Wood 1994, 61) [12]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [13]: (Wood 1994, 176) [14]: (Wood 1994, 107) [15]: (Wood 1994, 60) [16]: (Wood 1994, 64) [17]: (Halsall 2003, 48) |
||||||
|
levels. Is central government separate from provincial? Probably not.
1. King _Central government_ Foundations of administrative system laid by Philip II. [1] 2. who replaced the senechal at this level?3. Department heads. Finance, Justice, Chancery, Treasury (from Philip IV - previously the treasury was kept by the Knights Templar at their Temple), auditors, law-courts (parlements), archives (muniments in tresor des chartres)Government departments within the Royal Palace, Ile de la City [2] 4. Lesser officials Law courts Parlement De Paris from 1250-1790 CE _Provincial government_ 2. Leader of semi-autonomous city-state3.4.autonomous urban governments had independent judicial institutions, legal system, and administration and managed its own relations with the church and the monarchy. [3] Some cities were semi-autonomous city-states, e.g. Flanders [4] 2. Ruler of appanage3.4."Beginning with the sons of Blanche of Castile and Louis VIII (r. 1223-26), apanages became normal in France. By installing their sons as rulers, monarchs could control newly acquired outlying areas, as northern French nobles had long done." [5] Apanage: "province or jurisdiction, or later for an office or annuity, granted (with the reservation that in the absence of direct heirs the land escheated to the crown)" - often granted to sons of the Capetian king [6] 2. Dukes/Barons/Counts who ruled principalities3. Principalities had capitals with their own mini-government system [7] 4.Example: the Dauphine of Vienne an independent principality (until 1349 CE). Territory from Rhone to The Alps. "Capital" city was Vienne. [8] Example: Burgundy. Duke of Burgundy had his administration based at Beaune, which moved to Dijon in the 14th century. [9] "Between 1120 and 1481, no lord in France is known to have made any regular use of prince as a title of lordship" [10] 3. District: Bailiff in a Bailliage (Northern France); seneschal in a Sénéchiaussée (Southern France)The basic provincial administrative unit of late-medieval France from late in the reign of Philip II [11] bailliage and sénéchiaussé were administrative subdivisions of France established by Philip II after 1190. [12] seneschals of dukes, barons, counts became royal appointees, continued their role as chief administrative officers. the lands under their control became known as sénéchaussées. [13] baillis of royal provinces, particularly important under Philip II (1180-1222 CE) [14] late Middle Ages 30-40 districts governed by a bailiff or a seneschal. [13] 4. Prévôt in a Prévôté.The district for which a prévôt was responsible was called the prévôté, and there were half a dozen of these in each bailliage. [15] prévot farmed the revenues of the royal domain and rendered justice at a local level. a "prevote" was a military region used in the raising of armed forces (end 12th century) [16] 5. Leader of a parishCities could be divided into parishes [17] [1]: (Spufford 2006, 67) [2]: (Spufford 2006, 68) [3]: (Pegues 1995, 1005-1010) [4]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 3) [5]: (Medieval France: An Encyclopedia 1995, 97) [6]: (Suarez 1995, 97-98) [7]: (Spufford 2006, 74-76) [8]: (Spufford 2006, 165) [9]: (Spufford 2006, 154-155) [10]: (Boulton 1995, 1430) [11]: (Henneman 1995, 147) [12]: (Pegues 1995, 1333) [13]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [14]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [15]: (Henneman 1995, 1427-1428) [16]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [17]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels. Political, military and religious control in city-states was exercised by the Kosmoi (Κόσμοι), a board of 3 to 10 nobles, annually elected by the Ecclesia (Εκκλησία), the body of free male citizens. One of them was the president of the board (he was called πρωτόκοσμος, στραταγέτας, κόσμος ο επί πόλεως). The council of elders, the Gerousia (Γερουσία), whose members were chosen among the best Kosmoi, had legislative and juridical authority. The most senior member of the Kosmoi bore the title of protokosmos. Kosmoi were assisted by a secretary, the μνάμων or γραμματεύς των κόσμων.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Willetts, M. A. 1955. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 192-203. |
||||||
|
level. Crete was divided into forty districts and it was ruled by an emir who only nominally recognized the Caliph of Baghdad.
[1]
These emirs were Abu Hafs descendants and issued their own coins.
[2]
The Arabs emirs of Crete were: Abu Hafs Umar I al-Iqritishi (827/828 - ca. 855CE); Shu’ayb I ibn Umar (ca. 855-880CE); Umar II ibn Shu’ayb Babdel (ca. 880-895CE); Muhammad ibn Shu’ayb al-Zarkun (ca. 895-910CE); Yusuf ibn Umar (ca. 910-915 CE) ;Ali ibn Yusuf (ca. 915-925CE); Ahmad ibn Umar (ca. 925-940 CE); Shu’ayb II ibn Ahmad (940-943 CE); Ali ibn Ahmad (943-949CE); and And al-Aziz ibn Shu’ayb (949-961 CE).
[1]: Christides, B. The Conquest of Crete by Arabs (ca. 824). A Turning Point in the Struggle Between Byzantium and Islam, Athens, 114-15. [2]: Miller, G. C. 1970. The Coinage of the Arab Amirs of Crete, New York. |
||||||
|
levels. Political, military and religious control in city-states was exercised by the Kosmoi (Κόσμοι), a board of 3 to 10 nobles, annually elected by the Ecclesia (Εκκλησία), the body of free male citizens. One of them was the president of the board (he was called πρωτόκοσμος, στραταγέτας, κόσμος ο επί πόλεως). The council of elders, the Gerousia (Γερουσία), whose members were chosen among the best Kosmoi, had legislative and juridical authority. The most senior member of the Kosmoi bore the title of "protokosmos."
[1]
[2]
Kosmoi were assisted by a secretary, the μνάμων or γραμματεύς των κόσμων.
[1]: Willetts, R. F. 1965. Ancient Crete. A Social History, London and Toronto, 56-75 [2]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 196-99. |
||||||
|
1-5 The supreme leader of the state was the king, he was called wanax.
[1]
He presided over the political, economic and religious hierarchy. It is not certain thought if he had any military and judicial duty. Ranked second was the lawagetas, a military leader.
[2]
Below these leaders were the hequetai, followers, who accompanied military contingents and may also performed other functions. Other officials, the so-called collectors, were involved in acquiring and distributing exchange commodities. Among the figures at a lower level were the qasireu who served as overseer of group of workers -the predecessor of the word known from ancient Greek as the word for the king (baseless) - the telestas , officials, the korete and porokorete, mayor and vice-mayor, and scribes.
[1]: Shelmerdine, C. W. and Bennet, J. 2008. "12: Mycenaean states. 12A: Economy and administration," in Shelmerdine, C. W. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge, 292-95. [2]: Nikoloudis, S. 2008. "The role of the ra-wa-ke-ta: insights from PY Un718," in Sacconi, A, del Freo, M., Godart, L., and Negri, M. (eds), Colloquium Romanum: Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale de Micenologia. Roma 20-15 febbraio 2006, vol. 2, Rome, 587-94. |
||||||
|
levels. 1: village heads; 2: town heads; 3: district heads; 4: central government. As for many other facets of Protopalatial societies, evidence for administration is limited and consists mostly of clay archival documents.
[1]
[2]
. We may assume that villages and town were controlled by local leaders whose in their turn were under the administration of high ranking government officials. It seems likely that the control was local and related to small territorial units.
[1]: e.g. Weingarten, J. 2010. " Minoan seals and sealings," in Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 317-28 [2]: Tomas, H. 2010. " Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A," in n Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford, 341-55 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Khagan "The Western Turks were composed of ten tribes; and their khagan had the dignitary name jabgu." [1] 2. Head official of administration inferred3. Departments inferred4. Scribes/Assistants 3. Diplomatic service"Present in large numbers in the administration, the army and the diplomatic service, the Sogdians were also present as simple merchants." [2] 2. Vassal king e.g. of Samarkand or Bukhara "Subject populations retaining their own kings included the Sogdians, with their major centers at Bukhara and Samarkand and farflung merchant colonies, willing collaborators with a nomadic state that possessed the military power to force open the Chinese markets.76" [3] 3. Chief official/assistant of the king4. Head of Mint if coins were produced (present under Hephthalites) "In the kingdom of Gaochang (Turfan) during the first half of the 7th century, the Türks had functionaries responsible for the supervision and taxation of commerce.38" [4] [1]: (Hosszú 2012, 283) Hosszú, G. 2012. Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems. Rovas Foundation. [2]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 204) [3]: (Findley 2004, 43) [4]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 208) |
||||||
|
levels.
No evidence for an increase in social complexity and hierarchy or deviation from the "trend toward household autonomy" at this time. [1] Collapse of the Hopewell system lead to the abandonment of mound centers and alliance-exchange relationships. [1] 1. Chief 2. Elder. kin group leaders [2] [1]: (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) [2]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) |
||||||
|
This number equal to the levels in the provincial administration, plus the ali’i nui.
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [1] __Central administration__ 2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." [2] 2. Kahuna nuiThe kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king’s religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." [3] __Provincial administration__ 2. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." [1] 3. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." [1] 4. Konohiki"The three tiered hierarchy of land rulers, beginning with the ali’i nui who had the power to reallocate lands to the ali’i-’ai-moku and ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a under him, did not extend down below the level of the largely self-sufficient ahupua’a territories. Rather, the administration of the ahupua’a, including its various ̒ili subdivisions, was put into the hands of a konohiki, a resident “land manager” who acted on behalf of the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a. Konohiki were, in fact, often lower-ranked members of the al’i class (such as kaukau ali’i), frequently junior collaterals of the ahupua’a chiefs themselves." [4] [1]: (Kirch 2010, 48) [2]: (Kirch 2010, 50) [3]: (Kirch 2010, 57) [4]: (Kirch 2010, 49) |
||||||
|
levels.
Increasingly hierarchical state administrative structure. By the tenth and eleventh centuries, royal command passed from the monarch through ’expansive networks of individuals with state and local titles of authority’. [1] 1. King "The capital, where the king abided in his palace, was called nagara, and the palace itself was called kadatwan. The denomination of the capital may, occasionally, be used as a synonym for the whole country. Based on the location where inscriptions issued by authorities of the Kadiri kingdom have been found, the territory of this kingdom can be identified as within the present-day East Java Province." [2] _Central government_ 2. upper level bureaucrats functioning as intermediaries 3. mid level bureaucrats who needed to go through upper bureaucrats for favours 4. Storehouse manager for rice5. Storehouse worker village officials managed irrigation system and guaranteed supply of rice to capital in exchange for privileges. [3] _Provincial government_ 2. Several villages (wisaya)"It was the first kingdom known in Indonesia to have developed a stratified territorial administration, consisting of three levels: the village (called thani, which itself consisted of several subdivisions, each having its own name); the coordinated unity, made up of several villages (called wisaya); and the state or kingdom (called bhumi)." [2] 3. Village (thani) 4. officials at central village level both of which managed irrigation system and guaranteed supply of rice to capital in exchange for privileges. [3] 4. Subdivision of village [1]: (Hall 2000, 55) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) [3]: (Kinney 2003, 49) |
||||||
|
levels.
King; upper level bureaucrats functioning as intermediaries; mid level bureaucrats who needed to go through upper bureaucrats for favours; officials at village level; officials at central village level, both of which managed irrigation system and guaranteed supply of rice to capital in exchange for privileges. Kinney suggests that this administrative structure was carried through to the Majapahit era. [1] 1. King. _Central government_ 2. upper level bureaucrats functioning as intermediaries 3. mid level bureaucrats who needed to go through upper bureaucrats for favours 4. Storehouse manager for rice5. Storehouse worker village officials managed irrigation system and guaranteed supply of rice to capital in exchange for privileges. [1] _Provincial government_ 2. Several villages (wisaya) Inferred from the preceding Kediri kingdomKediri "was the first kingdom known in Indonesia to have developed a stratified territorial administration, consisting of three levels: the village (called thani, which itself consisted of several subdivisions, each having its own name); the coordinated unity, made up of several villages (called wisaya); and the state or kingdom (called bhumi)." [2] 3. Village (thani) Inferred from the preceding Kediri kingdom 4. officials at central village level Inferred from the preceding Kediri kingdom both of which managed irrigation system and guaranteed supply of rice to capital in exchange for privileges. [1] 4. Subdivision of village Inferred from the preceding Kediri kingdom [1]: (Kinney 2003, 49) [2]: (Sedwayati in Ooi 2004 (b), 707) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor [1] . _Court_ 2. Sandhivigrahika (Minister of War and Peace)This is the only minister in the Emperor’s council mentioned explicitly in Chalukya inscriptions, and there is much evidence that this was the most powerful of the ministers [2] . Indeed, it seems that, on at least one occasion, the sandhivigrahika also held the post of "chief of the secretariat" (divirapati) and was in charge of revenue administration (akshapataladhikaranadhipati) [3] . 3. Other ministersRecords here are a bit fuzzy. These "ministers and other administrators" may include the keeper of records, a guru, as well as the Crown Prince [1] and other loyal members of the royal family, including the Queen [4] . And, presumably, the divirapati and the akshapataladhikaranadhipati [3] , in those occasions where they were not titles held by the sandhivigrahika. 4. Administrative officialsThe long list of administrative officials includes: diviras (clerks) and akshapatalikas (revenue officers) [3] ; baladhirkta or mahabaladhirtkas (military officials with administrative duties); dutakas (in charge of conveyance of royal grants); durgapatis (fort administrators); dandapasika and chauradhikarana (in charge of crime and punishment); chatas and batas (possibly police-like officers); vasavakas (in charge of arranging the residences of touring officials and foreigners); viniyuktakas (unclear); gamagamikas (supervised egress and ingress of travellers, including inspecting "passports") [5] 5.e.g. senior batas? 6.e.g. batas? _Provincial Government_ 2. "Viceroys"Members of the royal family who ruled over vishayas, or provinces [6] . 2. Rajasamantas or "Governors"Defeated rulers whom the Emperor trusted to keep in charge of their territories, now made into vishayas, or provinces [7] . It is not entirely clear, from the source, whether rajasamanta and "governor" are the same office. 3. SamantasFeudal subordinates of the rajasamantas, they provided troops and tribute to the Emperor when required [8] . 4. Town assembliesMade up of elders (mahajanas), guild chiefs, mahallakas, and "head of business communities" [9] . 5. Village administrationMade up of mahajanas (elders), mahattaras, mahattaradhikarins and gavundas (royal representatives) [9] . There also existed "gramabhogikas" or "village leaders" and karanas or "village accountants" [10] , but it is unclear what their position was in relation to other village administrators. [1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 70 [2]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 211-212 [3]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 213-214 [4]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 208-210 [5]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 224-230 [6]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 219 [7]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 220 [8]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), pp. 219-220 [9]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 222 [10]: D.P. Dikshit, Political History of the Chalukyas (1980), p. 228 |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Attah Igala (King); 2) Achadu (Chief Minister); 3) Ogbe (Chief Eunuch); 4) Atebo (Chief Priest); 5) Senior Councillors (this level seems to match the Igala Mela, under the Achadu, but not clear); 6) Eunuchs; 7) Onu (Fief holders/district officers); 8) Gago (clan leaders); 9) Fief-based Councils of Elders; 10) Omadachi (Village Headmen); 11) Headmen of each extended family/clan; 12) Ochiokolobia (youth leaders). This level of complexity seems to be roughly around the time of Ayagba’s reign, ie early 18th century. Unclear which titles existed before then, and which were added: “As time went on the office of Ata, which at the outset had been that of Priest-King, underwent a marked change, the religious aspect gaining in importance at the expense of the executive. Expansion, even before Ayagba’s death, brought with it the need for some form of decentralisation - it was not humanly possible for the Ata to treat directly with an ever increasing tale of fief-holders; the difficulty was met by the creation of a number of offices of state, ambassadors, or as they are now termed Councillorships, whose duty was to assist the Ata in the business of Government and to represent him on various missions to outlying fiefs. These offices, filled initially by sons and relatives of the first Ata, became hereditary and were, with one exception, supplied from the house of the Ata-regnant and automatically vacated at his death.”
[1]
“In their wake sprang up a host of minor "parasite " officials about the Court, each with his high-sounding title and "salutation," and these so grew in numbers and in arrogance that in course of time there was no longer access to the Ata-or even to his Councillors-save through them. The more he could be hedged about by ritual restrictions and prohibitions, the less opportunity was there for exercise of his executive functions and, as a corollary, the more profitable posts available for his needy relatives and their connections. He became in course of time (if the analogy is admissible) a Pope, and his compound a Vatican from which he was only encouraged to emerge for essential ritual performances-to which none but the chosen few had access. He had ceased to be a king and had become a cult! Other social factors which tended to isolate him from his subjects were, firstly, the Eunuchs of the household and, secondly, the Edibos. As regards the former, they and they alone were familiar with the routine of the many religious rituals which formed so vital a part of the Ata’s daily life and of which, until his accession, he was completely ignorant; details of the host of taboos surrounding his person were, again, a closed book to him and he had perforce to turn for enlightenment to the Eunuchs of his predecessor, who passed automatically into his own service. It followed, inevitably, that he was bound to them by the closest ties and that they occupied a position of ever-increasing power and influence, a position which it was to their advantage to maintain and strengthen. The most important of this fraternity (and one need scarcely add that even the Eunuchs were given titles) were:The Ogbe, Orhata, Ocheje, Elaku, Ogbala, Enunkadugbo. Of these the Ogbe became (after the Ashadu) the most powerful influence in the land- all claimants for titles passed through his hands; it was he who conducted their installation ceremonial, he who bound on their wrists the insignia of office, he who struck off the beads when an erring dignitary was deprived of his rank ; it was he, again, who swore in the Edibos to the service of the Ata. First amongst the intimates of the latter, he became almost more powerful than his master, particularly if the Ata happened to be a weak character. In addition to his many other functions he acted as " King’s remembrancer " and was the chief adviser on customary law. Of the others, each had his particular sphere of duties but they were of relatively little importance and we need not concern ourselves with them.”
[2]
“The Attah Ayegba’s district political administration was structured in the following patterns. ATTAH; DISTRICT OFFICERS (ONU;) CLAN HEADS (GAGO); VILLAGE HEADS (OMADACHI); YOUTH LEADER (OCHIOKOLOBIA).”
[3]
“The attah in his capital at Idah headed the central government with the assistance of a set of titled officials from royal and non-royal clans. Some of the hereditary royal titles rotated within the four sub-lineages of the ruling house. Other royal titles were reserved for members of royal sub-clans that lived in the provinces. These officials were attached to "fiefs" from which they collected tribute, only a portion of which went to the attah. The non-royal titles were held by the Igala Mela, the nine kingmakers who headed their respective clans, as well as by the chiefs of another set of clans. These latter chiefs were heads of what J. S. Boston called the subsidiary clans. These "combined the function of land-chief with the duty of assisting the king of the central government in some more specialized capacity." These chiefs from the subsidiary clans headed a group of about twenty clans living mainly in the riverine districts of the state, the Abokko, Agabidoko, and Omogbaje being the most influential of the group. A critical issue in the arrangement was that the duties and spheres of action of the branches of the central government counterbalanced each other. As the head of the royal clan, the king exercised authority over the greater Idah metropolis where the majority of the royal sub-clans resided. The attah also exercised some limited influence over the affairs of provincial royal sub-clans. He controlled appointments to their headships, and through this means was able to increase his area of practical reach in the kingdom. In this manner, through the royal sub-clan heads in the metropolitan and provincial areas, the palace was reckoned to have governed at least half of the total area of the Igala kingdom directly. The titled heads of royal sub-clans were "the highest administrative and judicial authorities in the areas concerned, with the right to receive tribute, settle disputes, and try all serious criminal offences that threatened the peace of the districts under their jurisdiction."" The kingmakers, however, were counterpoised to the attah. The Igala Mela controlled election to the throne and oversaw the rotation of the office among the four lineages of the ruling house. Moreover, as the body representing the indigenous landowning clans, the right to land was vested in the Igala Mela and, as such, they were considered the de facto owner of the land. The attah had no such right over land, other than as the head of his own clan and over the land that his own clan held in trust for its members. The head of the Igala Mela, the achadu, had his own official residence or palace, and like the attah, he also maintained a considerable retinue of clients, retainers, and slaves. The relationship between the rights and the offices of the attah and the Igala Mela is significant. It formalized the sovereign political supremacy of the former over the entire Igala kingdom. At the same time it limited the king’s ability to directly participate in local government. It also seems clear that the inherence of land rights in the clans rather than in the central government curtailed the extent to which the attah could directly withdraw economic surplus on the basis of the distribution of land to farmers or immigrant settlers. In this sector, the attah received revenue only in so far as the titled royal sub-clan heads were willing to share the tribute they collected from their provinces.”
[4]
“He then turned his attention to the interior which he colonised by sending forth relatives and tried followers to carve out fiefs for themselves and their heirs, granting them what was tantamount to a complete delegation of authority; other fiefs were bestowed on the elders of the more important Igala settlements referred to earlier. These fiefs became, in fact, microcosms of the Igala Chiefdom, the fief-holder (Onu) receiving a title and an official "salutation " from the Ata, together with a gift of bead bracelets which were-as they are to-day-the outward and visible sign of his authority. The office of Onu was hereditary and though invalid unless the claimant received his title from the Ata in person and at Idah, the Chief might not refuse to confer it. The Onu administered his fief through a Council of Elders and received from his people tithes of farm and sylvan produce and tributes of game; the pelts of leopards with claws intact, and the heart, were his perquisite as also were runaway slaves found within his territory. His powers were absolute except for death sentences which, with few exceptions, were referred to the Ata-he was the secular as well as the religious head, a priest-king.”
[5]
“This Gande fisherman was generously rewarded by Ayagba and was given the title of Ohemogbo which has been held ever since by his successors, the Village Headmen of Gande; not until he has been to inspect the tomb can it be finally closed.”
[6]
“In Ilesha, there are three ancient chieftaincy titles called ogbom, which are linked with the Benin forest, and are the headships of local towns; like the Igala Mela in Igala, or the Uzama in Benin, they are an institutional fossil from a time before the dynastic kingdom. They have the same associations as the secret cult: elders, metal and the earth.”
[7]
“The kingship rotates between four branches of the royal clan, and when an Attah dies, his subclan members resign their offices. Nine high officials, the Igala Mela, reflect an earlier period of small-scale government, and are the custodians of the sacred Earth shrine. To the anthropologist Boston, these traditions have no historical content: they are a mythical charter for the checks and balances of later Igala politics.” The Ashadu is an important official, but the myth makes him the descendant of a slave. The Attah’s eminence is balanced by the indignities endured by the Attah elect, who is regarded, like Ebelejonu, as the Ashadu’s wife.”
[8]
“The following day marks the close of the Egu celebrations when the Councillors make sacrifice to the shades of their respective ancestors; when, but not until this is done, the people as a whole are free to carry out their own annual rites, which are conducted by the Onus and by the headmen of each extended family.”
[9]
[1]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 400-401. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [2]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 401-402. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [3]: Jacob, Audu. “Pre-Colonial Political Administration in the North Central Nigeria: a Study of the Igala Political Kingdom.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 10, no. 19, 2014, pp. 392–402: 397. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5AN8R7UW/collection [4]: Kolapo, F. J. “Post-Abolition Niger River Commerce and the Nineteenth-Century Igala Political Crisis.” African Economic History, no. 27, 1999, pp. 45–67: 51-53. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AMMWZ5KT/collection [5]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 398. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [6]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 430. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection [7]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 250. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [8]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 253. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [9]: Clifford, Miles, and Richmond Palmer. “A Nigerian Chiefdom.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 393–435: 432. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TF7MM698/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King - the overall ruler [1] , who concentrated in his hands the executive, legislative and judicial functions of the state [2] . _Central government or court?_ 2. Sandhivigrahi (foreign minister)The king was assisted in administration by his ministers: Sandhivigrahi was the foreign minister, Sarvadhikari was an official with powers to supervise all departments, Bahataaraniyogadhipati was an official who headed 72 departments, Mahabhandari was the senior treasurer, and Dharmadhikari was the minister of justice. Paramavishvasi or personal secretary of the king and Mahapasayita or chief master of the robes were other senior officials. At times, these officials held their office hereditarily. The ministers also held military office [3] 2. Sarvadhikari (supervised all departments) 2. Mahabhandari (senior treasurer) 2. Dharmadhikari (minister of justice) 2. Paramavishvasi (personal secretary of king) 2. Mahapasayita (chief master of the robes) 2. Bahataaraniyogadhipati (headed 72 departments)3. Department head inferred4. 5. _Provincial government_ 2. Governors - heads of provinces.The administration of the provinces was just the replica of the central administration. The governors charged both civil and military functions. They were made responsible not only for the peace, tranquility, law and order, but also for efficient administration [4] . 3. Dandanayaka - heads of a nadu.it has been argued that the nadu was looked after by a dandanayaka (who was an army commander), assisted by other officials - a mahapradhana, a bhandari (treasurer), a senabova (clerk) and several junior officials called heggades [5] 4. mahapradhana 4. bhandari (treasurer) 5. senabova (clerk) 4. Heggades - junior officials who perhaps looked after the smaller units of a nadu [6] [7] . [1]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 136-7 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 123 [3]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137 [4]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 124 [5]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137-8 [6]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 138 [7]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 72 |
||||||
|
levels.
"Although the family books [early Vedic texts] reflect differences in rank and some inequalities in wealth, these do not add up to distinct socio-economic classes in the sense of significant differences in access and control over basic productive resources. However, the absence of a class hierarchy does not mean that Rig Vedic society was egalitarian... the rajan stood at the top of the ladder of political and social power and status, the dasi [slaves] stood at the very bottom." [1] Territorial states did emerge towards the end of this period, c.600 BCE, based on Later Vedic texts and other sources. [2] 1. Clan Chief or rajan (or king after c.600 BCE) - "The word rajan (or raja) occurs many times in the family books of the Rig Veda. Since a full-fledged monarchical state had not yet emerged, this word is best translated as ’chieftain’ or ’noble’, rather than as ’king’. It is not always clear from the hymns whether the rajan was the chief of a tribe, clan, clan segment or several clans." [3] 2. Community or jana (made of many clans) [4] 3. Clan (a group of villages) [4] 4. Village headman (gramani) [4] Below the village headman was the patriarch of the family (kula). [4] [1]: Singh, U. (2008) A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Dorling Kindersley: Delhi. p191 [2]: Singh, U. (2008) A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Dorling Kindersley: Delhi. p200 [3]: Singh, U. 2008. A History of Early and Medieval India. London: Pearson Longman. p187 [4]: Burjor Avari, India: The Ancient Past: a History of the Indian Sub-continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200 (London: Routledge, 2007),p.73. |
||||||
|
levels.
Note: "the Satavahana state was very loosely organized, with the local administration, even the maintenance of the royal army, being largely left to their feudatories, who even struck their own coins. This loose state organization was necessitated by the limited economic resources of the kingdom; the soil of their land being poor, the Satavahanas could not afford to maintain a large standing army or an elaborate administrative organization." [1] The rough hierarchy may have been as follows: 1. Emperor [2] _Court_ 2. Royal officialsIncluding, among others, the king’s attendants and advisors, the mahasenapati or army commander, the superintendent of stores, the treasurer, officials tasked with drafting and registering the king’s documents, and officials tasked with supervising feudal lords [2] [3] 3.4. _Provincial Government_ 2. Mahabhojas and maharathisFeudal lords who were blood relatives of the royal family [2] . 2. Rajas Other feudal lords (specifically rajas, who struck coins in their own name, and mahasenapatis, military governors posted at outlying centres)Feudal lords who struck coins in their own name [2] . 2. MahasenapatisArmy commanders were sometimes put in charge of governing outlying centres [2] . 3. Local administratorsBhojakas, uparikas, gaulmikas, patipalakas [4] . 4. GramanisVillage officials in charge of five, sometimes ten villages [5] . 5. Village assemblies [5] . NOTE: Sources are often unclear and describe the hierarchy in slightly different ways. [1]: (Eraly 2011, 56) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Viking. Penguin Books India Pvt, Ltd. [2]: S. Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 25 [3]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), pp. 32-33 [4]: R. Thapar (?), South Asia from 200 BC to AD 300, in E. Condurachi, J. Hermann, E. Zurcher (eds), History of Humanity from the 7th Century BC to the 7th Century AD (1996), p. 381 [5]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 33 |
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
[3]
Kings were elected from the noble class and were seen as a representative or head of the Lombard people, rather than a monarch with absolute power. : 1. King :: 2. War Chiefs (later as Dukes) ::: 3. Officials (notaries, chancellor, cellarer, treasurer) :::: 4. Lesser/local administrators
[1]: Christie 1998: 115. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/975BEGKF [2]: Clayton 2021: 162. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/4N2ZFRX8 [3]: Wickham 1981: 39-42. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/Z539DW5B |
||||||
|
levels. (1) king, (2) governor ( saknu ) - Babylon was split into 20 provinces in this period, each with a governor. Some were city provinces, others were a tribal group lands with the title ’House of____(ancestor)’. The governor of Nippur was uniquely called sandabakku (3) functionaries - a heirarchy of functionaries served under the governors. Due to the changing population (hill tribes, foreigners, newly dependant farmers, self-ruling family states) the administration of the empire was an increasing challenge.
[1]
[1]: Liverani, M. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. p.364-370 |
||||||
|
levels. (1) King (2) Sanga/Shagun (3) Senior Temple Administrative Staff (4) Subordinate Temple Administrative Staff (5) Servants and slaves.
"Rather than governors appointed by the kingdom, temples acted as the real centres of local resources and activities. Indeed, temples could rely on their millenary tradition, administrative structure, prestige, and ability to motivate the population. They therefore required and obtained from the kings (probably the weakest ones) a certain degree of autonomy and various exemptions from tributes and obligations (defined with the terms kidinnu in Kassite and zakûtu in Akkadian). They also had a certain degree of self-government for the administration of justice and of the cities’ internal affairs." [1] At the head of the temple hierarchy "was the sanga / shangum (chief priest), whose role was as much administrative as religious. [...] The administrative staff included managers, overseers, surveyors, foremen, scribes and archivists, servants and slaves." [2] [1]: (Liverani 2014, 471) 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. [2]: (McIntosh 2005: 206) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
levels. Two notable fragments exist which give some information about the administrative levels across the Neo-Babylonian empire. They are the Etemenanki cylinder and the Istanbul prism fragment, both dated to the reign of Nebuchadrezzar. Most debate concerns the heirarchy of officials; in particular, whether those appointed by Babylon have higher status that the regional kings.
[1]
Private ownership does not seem to have been prominent in the Neo-Babylonian period. Instead temples and palaces owned land. Private ownership was enabled by leasing large tenancies to individuals who could then lease out smaller plots. State administration, therefore, worked on multiple levels. [2] Official administration levels [3] (1) King of Babylonia(2) Governors(3) City officers/ Officials in marginal cities(4) Village Headman The Babylonian empire conquered an area with pre-existing structures, many of which continued alongside Babylonian administration, such as vassal Levantine kings and local nobles within Mesopotamia. The Levantine kings appear to owe allegiance to the Babylonian kings, for example they paid in material goods towards Nebuchadrezzar’s building projects, but are largely self-controlled. [4] [1]: Vanderhooft, D.S. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 59. p.94-99 [2]: Meyers, E. M. (ed.) 1997. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.259 [3]: Liverani, M. 2011. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. p.541 [4]: Vanderhooft, D.S. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 59. p.97 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Ruler _Palatial government_ 2.3.4. _Provincial government_ 2. Provincial/regional governors - sukkalmah3.4. 3. town mayors - ensi4. village heads - hazannum. [1] "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur. The bureaucratic management of these provinces was uniform and interchangeable, and could be applied throughout the land (although some some local variations remained in place)." [2] "Under Ur III control, Susiana was governed by an ensi appointed by the king. The area was therefore included in the Mesopotamian nucleus of the empire and fully integrated both on a political and administrative level. However, in the surrounding areas, the rest of Elam remained independent. In fact, from an Elamite perspective Susa was only a marginal city bordering with Sumer. The kings of Ur interacted with the regions of Anshan (Fars), Shimashki and Zabshali (north of Susiana) through a series of peace treaties, containment policies and threats. At times this interaction was expressed through marriages between the daughters of the kings of Ur and the Elamite kings, or military expeditions." [3] Inscriptions from time of Ur (Shu-Sin) suggest unity within internal land. "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." [4] "The Ur III rulers imposed their suzerainty over the Elamite princes of Anshan, who were probably semi-nomadic, in the southeast, and over others, including the princes of Shimashki, in an area that is likely to have extended to the north and southeast of Susiana." [5] "With the rise of Ur, cities lost their traditional autonomy (which is an entirely different concept from their fluctuating state of independence). They were still ruled by an ensi. Now, however, the title did not designate a local ruler governing on behalf of the local city-god. The ensi became a governor, appointed by Ur and acting on behalf of the king of Ur". [6] "The deified kings of Ur consequently replaced the city-gods as ultimate heads of the land. They therefore controlled the entire production and redistributive system, whose management was inevitably delegated to the local ensi." [6] "The substitution of local rulers with functionaries appointed by Ur could not have been welcomed without opposition and conflict." [6] "The farming of sheep was mainly focused on the production of wool. When a herd was entrusted to a shepherd its composition was recorded and the parameters of births and deaths were established. Similarly the quantity of wool to be produced was calculated, keeping in mind the differences between sheep and rams, as well as their size. Wool was then rank according to its quality (there were at least six or more categories) and sent to manufacturing centres. Each operation had its own parameters. The administration took into account losses during manufacturing (carding, spinning and washing) and the working days it required. Consequently, a given amount of wool needed a certain number of working days to produce a certain quantity of thread (either warp thread or weaving thread). In order to produce a fabric of given dimensions, then, the administration knew the quantity of working days and warp and weaving thread required. It was then able to calculate the cost and raw materials needed before the whole operation even began." [7] [1]: Roux 1998, 149 [2]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 168-169) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 7) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [6]: (Leverani 2014, 157) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [7]: (Leverani 2014, 163) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
Governors of districts and divisions were appointed directly by the king, and were often closely related to the King, being close blood relatives such as brothers and close kin. There is no evidence to suggest this system of governance underwent any substantial change
[1]
1. Jam (King) 2. Governor of region (Uch,Bakhar,Mansura) 3. Governor of district [1]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 134 |
||||||
|
levels.
Court and administration c.1081-1204 CE [1] 1. Emperor 2. Megas doux (Supreme Naval Commander)3. Imperial fleet 2. Megas domestikos (east and west)3. Provincial tagmata 2. Household units (Military) 2. doukes (provincial governors)3. Provincial tagmata 3. Provincial administration 4. Provincial fiscal administrators - multiple levels 2. Mesazon (Prime Minister)3. mystikos (private secretary) 3. protasekretis 3. Master of the Inkwell 3. Privy purse 3. Master of Petitions 3. Imperial table 3. Imperial private wardrobe 3. Cellarer 3. logothete of the sekreta4. Megas logariastes of the charitable bureaux (imperial estates)5. orphanotrophos6. Head of a single orphanage inferred7. Worker in an orphanage inferred 5. Curators and stewards of other charitable estatesAfter the theme organization introduced "The curatores, the heads of the great estate zones, now paid this revenue [tax] direct to the imperial sacellum, the imperial treasury. Within the treasury, as in all financial departments of state, there were two departments, the sacellum for money payments and the vestiarium for payments in kind." [2] 4. Megas logariastes of the sekreta5. vestiarion 5. oikeiaka (public fiscal lands)6. episkepseis (public fiscal estates) 6. Provincial fiscal administrators - multiple levels 5. General treasury6. Provincial fiscal administrators - multiple levels 3. protostrator4. Imperial stables 3. chartoularios of the stables4. chartoularata (stock-raising estates) 3. logothete of the dromos4. chartoularata (stock-raising estates) 3. dikaiodotes 3. Prefect of Constantinople4. demes 4. Prisons 3. quaestor 3. Megas droungarios (court of the velon) 3. parathalassites (waterways and maritime law) "This preponderance of civil officials became accentuated, and by the eleventh century the strategos had given way to the judge (krites) as the head of the thematic administration." [3] [1]: (Haldon 2008, 550) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 181) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Cheynet 2008, 522) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
:_Federal Government_ :Executive Branch : 1. President :: 2. The Cabinet (Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury etc) :::Legislative ::: 3. The Senate ::: 3.1 Committees ::: 3. House of Representatives ::::Judicial :::: 4. Supreme Court ::::: 4.1 Lower Federal Courts :::::_State Government_ :::::Executive ::::: 5. State Governor ::::::"Upper House / Senate" :::::: 6. Senator :::::: 6.1 Party Secretaries, committee staff, etc :::::::"Lower House / House of Representatives" ::::::: 7. Members of the House ::::::::_Local Government_ :::::::: 8. County governments / Town or township governments / Municipal governments / Mayors-Council. ::::::::: 9. Mayor / Commissioner :::::::::: 10. Governing board / City Manager ::::::::::: 11. Local authorities such as administrators, sheriffs, police etc.
[1]: Critchlow 2015: 18. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YKCJXB2Y. [2]: Volo and Volo 2004: 70. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SIB5XSW97. [3]: Politics of the United States. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/DNTMUYZ9. [4]: Branches of the U.S. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/MNYMTVJB. |
||||||
|
levels.“Chaco Canyon villagers reached their maximum population of around 5,500 people by 1050 ce. There is no evidence of centralized government, so most archaeologists infer that it was probably organized around ritual, as is still the case among the Hopi. Despite this politically weak form of chiefdom organization, Chacoan builders accomplished great things, such as the importation of 200,000 timbers for construction projects, most of them from great distances (English et al., 2001).”
[1]
[1]: (Snow et al 2020: 195) Snow, Dean R., Gonlin, Nancy, and Siegel, Peter E. 2020. The Archaeology of Native North America, 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5T4C9IQT |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
_Federal Government_ Executive Branch : 1. President :: 2. The Cabinet (Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury etc) Legislative ::: 3. The Senate ::: 3.1 Committees ::: 3. House of Representatives Judicial :::: 4. Supreme Court ::::: 4.1 Lower Federal Courts _State Government_ Executive ::::: 5. State Governor "Upper House / Senate" :::::: 6. Senator :::::: 6.1 Party Secretaries, committee staff, etc "Lower House / House of Representatives" ::::::: 7. Members of the House _Local Government_ :::::::: 8. County governments / Town or township governments / Municipal governments / Mayors-Council. ::::::::: 9. Mayor / Commissioner :::::::::: 10. Governing board / City Manager ::::::::::: 11. Local authorities such as administrators, sheriffs, police etc.
[1]: Critchlow 2015: 18. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YKCJXB2Y. [2]: Volo and Volo 2004: 70. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SIB5XSW97. [3]: Politics of the United States. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/DNTMUYZ9. [4]: Branches of the U.S. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/MNYMTVJB. |
||||||
|
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE so this period still very low administrative complexity. [1] Liverani says of Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE: "With Ubaid culture, then, it becomes possible to detect the first steps towards the creation of socio-economic and political structures more complex than the ones characterising villages. The starting point of this process has to be the progress in agriculture, which in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain had become possible through extensive irrigation and the introduction of the cattle-drawn plough. These changes led to the beginnings of labour specialisation, the subsequent emergence of agents responsible for the coordination of social organisation and decision-making processes (mainly centred on the leading role of temples), and the progressive social stratification of communities." [2] "Given the formal differences and large geographic distance between the Hamrin and Bakun regions, it is hardly surprising to find differences in daily practices. Perhaps more astonishing is the extent to which they share broadly similar traditions of preparing and serving food, along with similar technological features and generalized types of sociopolitical organization." [3] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Pollack 2006, 104) Pollack, Susan in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Village chiefs 2. Commercial towns "The Bambara relied heavily on the extended family for order and structure. Society was organized by patrilineal lineages, with families residing together in large compounds. Several lineages composed a village, which was then ruled by a chief. Marriages were an ’investment,’ intended to unite households, lineages, and villages for the common good." [1] "preexisting commercial towns (marka) ... were incorporated into the kingdom and ... enjoyed some autonomy from direct state intervention." [2] [1]: (Keil 2012, 108) Sarah Keil. Bambara. Andrea L Stanton. ed. 2012. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Sage. Los Angeles. [2]: (Monroe and Ogundiran 2012, 25) J Cameron Monroe. Akinwumi Ogundiran. Power and Landscape in Atlantic West Africa. J Cameron Monroe. Akinwumi Ogundiran. eds. 2012. Power and Landscape in Atlantic West Africa: Archaeological Perspectives.Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.: 1. King : It seems that kingship was not fully established in Anglo-Saxon ‘England’ until the mid-to-late sixth century. These are evidenced by increasingly rich male burials which are distinctive to the previously higher class of warrior burials. The arrival of Anglo-Saxon leaders resulted in the establishment of the first smaller kingdoms, which set aside any remaining power structures of the post-Roman Britons and started the beginnings of kingship which quickly became widespread throughout the region.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Kings now governed through royal officials as outlined below.
[4]
:: 2. Patricius (deputy to the king) :: The position of patricius is known from Kent, Mercia and Northumbria in the eighth century. The patricius could deputize for the king as military leader and probably played a major role in the co-ordination of royal government.”
[5]
::: 3. The Witan::: A council made up of elected wise-men who acted as advisors, particularly for assisting the king on important state matters, new laws, land grants, or war strategy. The Whitan usually consisted of a collection of bishops, abbots, chaplains, ealdormen, royal family members and royal officials.
[4]
:::: 4. Royal Officials:::: 4.1 Port-Reeves:::: Port-Reeves were the royal officials in the Boroughs.
[4]
:::: 4.2 Ealdormen.:::: Ealdormen were the royal officials in the Shires. They were from a noble family and were the chief officer for the king in the shires. They preceeded over the bi-annual court.
[4]
::::: 5. Baliffs::::: Baliffs became the royal official in the ‘Hundreds’ - smaller divisions of the Shires. They dealt with common criminal and civil matters at a monthly open court.
[6]
[1]: Higham 2004: 4 [2]: Yorke 1990: 9, 15 [3]: Wright 2015: 27 [4]: (Roberts et al 2014: 30) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 [5]: (Yorke 1990: 171) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [6]: (Roberts et al 2014: 31) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 |
||||||
|
levels.
King, viceroy, governor, + scribes and other workers. "The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [1] -- does not specify which period "The Elamite civilization of the fifteenth century is best known from the excavations at Haft Tepe (ancient Kabnak), not far from Susa. There the king Tepti-ahar erected a great funerary temple for himself in which the place of worship, or cella, was situated above two large vaulted tombs. At Susa the ordinary inhabitants were also buried in vaults, but these tombs were in the ground beneath their houses." [2] "This Elamite civilization had affinities with those of the Kassites and the Hurrians." [2] "The administrative texts provide some political information. They name a local governor, hence show traces of political administration beyond the usual limits of merely dynastic relationships. Date formulas refer to exchanges of emissaries between the Babylonian and Elamite courts, to deteriorating diplomatic relations, and possibly to the repulse of a Babylonian attack on Elam." [3] "Date formulas of some tablets refer to construction of the temple whose cult the published stele fragment regulates; contents of other detail its supply. They evidently deal with the mortuary temple and attached workshops excavated at Haft Tepe itself. They show the expenditure of precious materials and the application of administrative controls under crown authority and so exemplify the level of investment and control implicit also in the temples built by later Middle Elamite rulers." [3] 1. King 2. Regional governor?3. Local governor4.5. ? 2. Temple overseer/manager (also a priest?)3. Scribe 3. Supply overseer4. Supplier5. producer 3. Workshops [1]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 9) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art. [3]: (Carter and Stopler 1984, 34) |
||||||
|
levels.
"It is to this early period that the so-called Elamite Dynasty in Babylonia can be assigned. In fact, the dynasty consisted of a single ruler, Mar-biti-apla-usur (984-979 BC) who, in spite of his Akkadian name, was called ’remote (?) descenant of Elam’ in the Dynastic Chronicle (Brinkman 1968: 165)." However, "there is no reason for either supposing that Mar-biti-apla-usur’s reote affiliation with Ela was significant or that he had dealings with groups in western Iran." [1] Unknown, but a range of 3-5 would be reasonable considering what we know of the situation in the 7th century BCE: 1. King 2. Provincial districts [1]: (Potts 2016, 252) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
1. King of Kings [1] _Central government_ 2. Grand VizierAdministration based in Ctesiphon "Sassanid administration was headed by a Grand Vizier, who was in charge of political and diplomatic affairs. On occasion he commanded the army in the field. He also headed the divans (ministries), which were directed by secretaries expert in their various fields." [2] 3. Secretaries of a divan (ministry) [2] 4. Scribe in central administration inferred 5. Manager of state-run granary inferred, silk workshops"As with the Parthians, the economy was based on agriculture." [2] "State monopolies rivalled private concerns; in particular, raw silk from China was woven at workshops in Susa, Gundeshapur and Shustar." [2] 6. Worker in state-run granary inferred or silk workshop _Provincial government_ 2. Shahrabs Governors of a province called Shahr [1] 2. King, appointed by King of Kings [1] Kings of a district called shahr [1] 3. shahrab and mowbed Government run by a shahrab and a mowbed and often an accountant. [1] Mowbed had responsibility for property and legal matters. [1] 4. lesser administrators 4. Official of a division called rustag (number of villages) [1] This administrator reported to a local government official? 5. Deghan of a division called deh (village) [1] Unlike the religious and military institutions, the administrative system did not undergo a "quadpartite" reform at the start of this period. [1]: (Daryaee 2009, 124-135) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [2]: (Wilcox 1986, 24) Wilcox, P. 1986. Rome’s Enemies (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
levels. At least 4 levels.
"Although the two Turk empires are distinct, they are combined here because of similar organization and their spatial and temporal proximity. For both, there were at least four recognized levels in the administrative hierarchy, almost all of whose members came from the ruling Ashina clan." [1] c582 CE: "The First Turkic Khaganate officially split into the Western and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. In the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, the Sogdian language and script was used for chancellery purposes and inscriptions." [2] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 225) [2]: (Hosszú 2012, 285) Hosszú, G. 2012. Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems. Rovas Foundation. |
||||||
|
Source 1: Brier and Hobbs (2008, 72)- Diagram "Government organization at the time of the New Kingdom."
[1]
1. Pharaoh (not included in diagram)
2. Northern Tchety3. Northern nomarchs4. Village chiefs5. Constables 4. Great Kenbet of the North5. Village Kenbets 2. Southern Tchety3. Southern nomarchs4. Village chiefs 4. Great Kenbet of the South5. Village Kenbets5. Constables 2. Overseer of the House of Gold (Treasury)3. Overseer of Granaries 3. Overseer of Cattle 2. Taxes ? Source 2: "Fig. 3.4. Schematic outline of the developed structure of government in the New Kingdom. The fragility of much of the evidence on which this diagram is based must be emphasized, as must its inability adequately to illustrate significant changes in the structure ... Nevertheless, the writer believes that the diagram gives a reasonable approximation of the divisions of functions and powers within New Kingdom government." [2] 1. King 2. Chancellor of the Court3. Camberlain of the Court 2. Chief Steward of the Royal Estates3. Bureaucracy for the Royal Domain 2. Commander-in-Chief3. Chief Deputy of the Northern Corps 3. Chief Deputy of the Southern Corps4. General Officers 4. Bureaucracy5. Garrisons / Town and Village Levies / Military villages 2. Overseer Of Prophets Of (All The Gods) Of Upper and Lower Egypt -- "held at various times by vizier, high priest of Amun."3. God’s Wife of Amun4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 3. High Priest of Amen4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 3. High Priests of Other Gods4. Priesthoods Bureaucracy 2. Northern Vizier 2. Southern Vizier3. Overseers (2) of the Treasury4. Bureaucracy5. Village Chiefs 5. Town Mayors6. for both mayors and kenbet-councils "there was internal hierarchization and differences in function." [3] 5. Councils6. for both mayors and kenbet-councils "there was internal hierarchization and differences in function." [3] 4. Judiciary5. Village Chiefs 5. Town Mayors 5. Councils 4. Police5. Village Chiefs 5. Town Mayors 5. Councils 2. Overseer of the Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt / Overseer of Cattle not sure I understand the correct position of these titles 2. Governors of Northern Lands3. Vassel Kings Battalion Commanders 2. Governor of Southern Lands. King’s Son of Kush.3. Deputy of Wawat4. Mayors of Egyptian Centres 4. Chiefs of Indigenous Groups 3. Deputy of Kush4. Mayors of Egyptian Centres 4. Chiefs of Indigenous Groups 3. Battalion Commanders van den Boorn (1988) "We note, that the interrogation of local urban officials takes place in the bureau of the vizier ... It is evident, that interrogations and hearings of urban authorities entailed their journeying to the seat of the vizier: for the vizier, a perfect means of exercising effective control over his urban officials. For the functionaries involved, the possibility of being called back to the residence-city meant a check on possibile irregularities, also support for their local politics in having the opportunity to consult the vizier and knowing that they were backed. On the practical side, it entailed a great deal of traveling. Moreover, it presupposes a local apparatus managing affairs in their absence." [4] The knbty n w was the "’councillor of the district’ the official responsible for the rural district. As Luft aply remarks ... these officials are apparently treated as members of a collective of officials, as members of a knbt, instead of being treated as individual officials with an individual title. It would seem possible, therefore, to assume the existence of an overall ’council of the district(s)’ in which these officials were group as a separate echelon of the local government (parallel to the ’urban authorities’?) or perhaps according to some geographical principle. At present, there seems to be no evidence for the existence of such a council. ... he has definite and direct ties to the vizier and his executive departments ... This would seem to contradict the viewpoint held by Helck to the effect that the councillor of the district was subordinate to the mayor ... He is known to have at his disposal a ’bodyguard’ and a scribe ... they clearly operate on their own behalf, independent from the mayor, as representatives of their own administrative area." [5] knbty n w mainly Middle Kingdom but also early New Kingdom [6] Alternative attempt (multiple sources): 1. Pharaoh The term "Pharaoh" - Egyptian for "great house" - emerged as political title in the New Kingdom. JGM: Note also use of term in the Old Testament. "One office that was more often that not held by foreigners was that of ’royal butler,’ a senior executive position outside the normal bureaucratic hierarchy, the holder of which was often entrusted with special royal commissions." [7] 2. "Scribe of the house of the Pharaoh." (Papyrus BM 10053 recto. Ram IX) [8] _ Central government line _ [9] 2. Vizier [10] 3. Overseer of policemen(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’": "It is he (the vizier) who appoints the overseer of policemen in the bureau of the pr-nswt." [11] 3. Overseer of Pharoah’s treasury (Papyrus Chester Beatty III. Meren.) [12] Overseer of the treasury [13] 4. "Scribe of the overseer of the treasury of the Pharoah, I.p.h" (Papyrus Anastai VI., Sety II.) [14] 4. Deputy of Pharoah’s treasury (Papyrus Chester Beatty III. Meren.) [12] 4. "The chief of the record keepers of the treasury of the Pharoah, I. p. h. (Papyrus Sallier I, Meren.) [15] 4. Overseers of gold and silver houses, royal stewards, overseers of the granary [16] , Overseer of works [17] 5. Royal scribe [18] 3. Overseer of pr-’3 inferred4. "Overseer of the workshop of the armory of the pr-’3, I. p. h." (Papyrus Bologna 1094, Meren.) [19] 5. Scribe of the armory of the pr-’3 (Papyrus Bologna 1094, Meren.) [19] 3. "Overseer of the treasuries/enclosures in the mansion of the pr-’3"(Wine jar sealing no. 47 from Malkata, Am.III) [20] 4. "Chief archivist of the treasury of the pr-’3, I. p. h." (Inscription of Rameses III referring to the official Pn-p3-t3 at Tod) [21] 3. Overseer of the hnwty (Ostracon from the Tom of Sn-n-Mwt. Hatsh.) [22] 3. Overseer of the hnw (Ostracon from the Tom of Sn-n-Mwt. Hatsh.) [22] 3. Overseer of the pr-nswt (Ostracon from the Tom of Sn-n-Mwt. Hatsh.) [22] Overseer of the pr-nswt (Inscription from the tomb of the recruiting scribes Hr-m-hb. Thut. IV) [23] Are these public officials appointed by central or local government? Was there an "Overseer of the market places" at level 4.? Perhaps they appointed the public weighers. 5. Qabbaneh (public weighers in the market place) [24] 6. Notary assisted the Qabbaneh [24] _ Provincial line _ [9] 2. Vizier"It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [11] 2. Nomes [13] Nomes had capitals. Hebenu was the capital of the Oryx nome. [13] 3. Chiefs of towns"It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [11] 3. Chiefs of villagesMayors e.g. mayor of Thinis (region of Abydos). [25] "It is he [the vizier] who holds the hearing of the mayor and the settlement-leaders who have gone out in his name to Upper and Lower Egypt."(Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" [11] 4. Local bureaucrats 5. Scribes _ Nubian line _ [9] 2. Governor"Viceroy and overseer of southern countries." [26] Provinces in Palestine and Syria [7] 3. Bureaucrats for the whole of Nubia4. Bureaucrats for both Nubian Provinces5. Scribes (Thut III - Am II period). "Inscription from the tomb of Vizier Rh-mi-r’" mentions mayors and settlement-leaders. [27] EWA: Central line/capital: King, Central elites, bureaucrats Provincial line: King, Central elites, chiefs of towns and chiefs of villages, local bureuacrats and scribes Nubian line as an example of ’foreign’ territory: King, Nubian Governor, bureaucrats for the whole of Nubia and for both Nubian provinces, scribes O’Connor (1983) [28] "The garrisons of Egyptian (and Kushite) troops in the ’Northlands’ were small, scattered and under the direct control of several ’battalion-commanders’ and not of the governors. ... The ’Southlands’ (Wawat and Kush), with their Nubian population ... was ruled by a single governor, who shared no important administrative power with the local chieftains; its military forces were centralized under a single ’battalion-commander’". [29] "The internal government of Egypt was divided for functional reasons, into four major units (fig. 3.4) and these were sometimes further divided geographically ... Centralized control was maintained by means of the small group of powerful officials who headed each department, who reported directly who the king, who were appointed and removed by him." [29] Dier-el-Medina worker village 1. Pharoah 2. Vizier3. Palace scribePalace scribe managed the community and was himself appointed by the Vizier. [30] Two teams of workers worked ten days and then were replaced. [30] 4. Team on the left(or right) supervisor5. Team on the left(or right) worker (*5) 4. Team on the left(or right) doctor 4. Team on the left(or right) non-commissioned officer5. Team on the left(or right) guard 5. Team on the left(or right) gate-keeper [1]: (Brier and Hobbs 2008, 72) Brier, Bob. Hobbs, H A. 2008. Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Greenwood Publishing Group. [2]: (O’Connor 1983, 208) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (O’Connor 1983, 214) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [4]: (van den Boorn 1988, 115-116) van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Kegan Paul International. London & New York. [5]: (van den Boorn 1988, 175-177) van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Kegan Paul International. London & New York. [6]: (van den Boorn 1988, 177) van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Kegan Paul International. London & New York. [7]: (Van Dijk 2000, 292) [8]: (Pagliari 2012, 675) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [9]: (Ref. Helck. 1957. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reich.) [10]: (Van Dijk 2000, 285) [11]: (Pagliari 2012, 727) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [12]: (Pagliari 2012, 662) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [13]: (Bryan 2000, 230) [14]: (Pagliari 2012, 672) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [15]: (Pagliari 2012, 669) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [16]: (Bryan 2000, 261) [17]: (Bryan 2000, 236) [18]: (Bryan 2000, 264) [19]: (Pagliari 2012, 663) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [20]: (Pagliari 2012, 610) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [21]: (Pagliari 2012, 859) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [22]: (Pagliari 2012, 737) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [23]: (Pagliari 2012, 752) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [24]: (Willard 2008, 2249) [25]: (Bryan 2000, 241) [26]: (Bryan 2000, 234) [27]: (Pagliari 2012, 726) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [28]: (O’Connor 1983) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [29]: (O’Connor 1983, 209) O’Connor, David. "New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period 1552-664 BC" in Trigger, B G. Kemp, B J. O’Connor, D. LLoyd, A B. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [30]: Ziskind, Bernard. Halioua. Occupational medicine in ancient Egypt. 2007. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 69. Issue 4. pp 942-945. Elsevier. |
||||||
|
"many elements of the Rajput political system, with or without changes, were incorporated into the Turkish administration in India."
[1]
1. Sultan "The insecurity that accompanied the throne resulted in frequent civil wars, military revolutions and large-scale massacres of royal families. In some cases, the sultan nominated his heir, or else the claimants to the throne were left to fight a war of succession." [2] Sultan "was in charge of the state’s administration and of the army." [2] 2. Advisory CouncilSultans "took the opinion of an advisory council on all important matters dealing with the administration of the state. The advisory council was not a legally constituted body and the numbers of advisers varied according to the importance of the matters discussed and also according to the personal preferences of the monarch." [3] _Central government_ 2. Wazir of the diwan-i-wizarat"The wazir or prime minister was the most important officer, next only to the sultan. By the fourteenth century, the wazir, whose earlier duties were confined only to the military, had now become an expert on revenue affairs too, and was made responsible for the entire fiscal administration of the realm and all matters relating to income and expenditure. He was entrusted with powers to appoint revenue officials, organize and collect taxes, and largely control the state’s expenditure." [4] Next to Sultan, the chief executive office belonged to the wazir. Primarily he was one of the four departmental heads, the "four pillars of state" but his rank was a little above the others for he was the chief minister. As the Sultan’s chief counselor, he had access to him at all times. [5] 3. mustauf-i-mumalik (Auditor general) 3. Musharraf-I-mumalik (Accountant general)"A separate auditor general was appointed for supervising expenditure and there was also an accountant general for inspecting the income. Both officers assisted the wazir in discharging his duties." [6] 3. sadr-us-sadar or qazi-i-mumalik of ?? diwan-i-risalat (department for religion) what did the sadr-us-sadar lead if not the diwan-i-risalat?"religious affairs and provide scholarships to academics and men of piety." [4] 4. Khatib - u’l - khutaba of ?? diwan-i-risalat (department for religion) what did the sadr-us-sadar lead if not the diwan-i-risalat?"junior qazis appointed to assist him" [7] "A preacher of exceptional eloquence .. as leader of the diwan - i - risalat, he appointed the religion preachers and imans to lead prayers and manage the mosques the realm." [8] He was officially presided over the ahl-i-qalam (men of pen). [8] 3. munshi-i-mumalik of diwan-i-insha (department for post)"dealt with the entire state’s postal correspondence. Groups of horsemen or runners were used to carry the correspondence across the kingdom. Sultans planted spies, called barids, in different parts of the kingdom to obtain information on people, events and occurrences." [4] 3. Department for Revenue"the sultan was assisted by a team of ministers who were individually responsible for various departments, such as revenue, public works, war, local and provincial governments, etc. The number, power and function of the ministers varied from time to time." [2] 3. Minister for Public Works"There were a number of other departments like the public works department, the agricultural department, the audit department and the department of slaves - each under the charge of a minister." [4] 4. sub-official by type of public work inferred5. On-site manager of a public work inferred6. On-site worker on a public work inferred 3. Minister for Audit 3. Minister for Agriculture 3. Minister for War 3. Minister for the Royal Household"looked after the personal comforts of the sultan and the requirements of the harem." [4] 3. Wakil-i-dar of the department for slaves"Firuz Shah Tughlaq had set up a separate department of slaves, many of whom were employed in royal workshops. The officer in charge of this was known as the wakil-i-dar, who other than being responsible for maintaining court decorum, also oversaw the seating arrangement of nobles at court." [4] 4. sub-administrators for different types of workshop? inferred5. Manager of royal workshop 3. Minister for Markets "and another who controlled the markets." [4] 3. Minister for Provincial Government"a minister appointed as a link between the provincial and central governments" [4] _Provincial government_ "the Delhi Sultanate was more like a conglomeration of nearly-independent principalities, jagirs and provinces, each ruled by a hereditary chief or zamindar, with their subjects looking more to their immediate governors who had absolute power in the provinces than the sovereign who was far away." [9] 3. Iqtadar (or muqti or wali)"The kingdoms of the various dynasties were categorized into a number of divisions called iqtas, each under an iqtadar, muqti or wali. Therefore, iqtas were territorial units allotted to nobles, performing civil and military duties, in lieu of salary." [7] Main functions of an Iqtadar: "collection of land revenue, which was payable to the central treasury, and the maintenance of law and order. Out of the total land revenue collected, a fixed share was given to the state, while the rest went towards the expenditure of governing the iqtas and the personal expenses of the iqtadars." [7] "In principle, the Iqtadars could be transferred within the kingdom." [10] In all probability, the term "wali" was reserved for governors with extraordinary powers. The number of such governors was small and the major part of the sultanate was administered by governors with limited power. [11] The muqti (fief holder) was appointed by the Sultan, and could be transferred and dismissed at will. Usually he maintained a body of troops consisting of both infantry and horsemen, out of his provincial revenues, and was responsible not only for the defense of his province, but also for the maintenance of law and order. [12] 4. Provincial governor of a province"Iqtas were divided into provinces that were further sub-divided into shiqs and parganas." [13] Some Hindus became provincial governors. [14] 5. shiqdar of a shiq"The provinces were again divided into shiqs and parganas." [9] 6. ? of a parganas is there someone at this level or is it just a term for a sub-division"The provinces were again divided into shiqs and parganas." [9] 7. Amils of a sub-division (number of villages) of a parganas [9] 8. muqqaddam of a village (village headman)"The village headman was known as the muqqaddam and the landowners as khuts. The village accountant or patwari assisted the officials in the discharge of their functions at the village level." [9] "The villages enjoyed a more-or-less autonomous status, with village republics managing their own affairs. The sultan did not usually interfere with the workings of local institutions." [9] 9. patwari (village accountant) 8. Khutd (land owner) Khutd (village headmen). The headman of villages controlled the countryside and agricultural production. [15] 3. Tribute paying (Hindu) states 4. _Note for later polities_ "This new administrative structure of the Delhi Sultanate had a powerful impact on small states and principalities that were formed after its disintegration as well as on the Mughal administration that would come into existence in the sixteenth century." [1] [1]: (Ahmed 2011, 96) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [2]: (Ahmed 2011, 97) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [3]: (Ahmed 2011, 97-98) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [4]: (Ahmed 2011, 98) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [5]: Habibullah, A. B. M. (1961). The foundation of Muslim rule in India. Central Book Depot, pp 194-196. [6]: (Ahmed 2011, 978) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [7]: (Ahmed 2011, 99) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [8]: Habibullah, A. B. M. (1961). The foundation of Muslim rule in India. Central Book Depot, pp.246. [9]: (Ahmed 2011, 100) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [10]: (Ahmed 2011, 99-100) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [11]: Qureshi, I. H. (1971). The administration of the Sultanate of Delhi (p. 93). Oriental Books Reprint Corporation; exclusively distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 197. [12]: Habibullah, A. B. M. (1961). The foundation of Muslim rule in India. Central Book Depot, pp 209-210. [13]: (Ahmed 2011, 109) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [14]: (Ahmed 2011, 105) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. [15]: Kulke, H., & Rothermund, D. (1990). A History of India (Revised, Updated Edition) pp. 161. |
||||||
|
Pope; Cardinals and legates; rectors, counts, and dukes; the papal curia; garrison commanders, village leaders, and provincial officials
1. Pope: The pope remained the head of a vast bureaucracy and leader of the papal state, and by the late sixteenth century his authority was rarely directly challenged in the Papal State. 2. Cardinals and legates: The cardinalate was a fundamental part of the administration and politics of the Papal State. Legates-often, themselves, cardinals-handled diplomatic business outside of the papal states. The cardinals’ palaces in Rome were in effect sub-headquarters of the papal bureaucracy. 3. Rectors, counts, governors: These were the clerical officials sent out by the papacy to the provinces of the Papal State.. 3. The curia: The papal bureaucracy was a massive, complex machine founded on bribery, the sale of offices, and patronage politics. The sale of offices within the curia had long been routinized, but following the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Counter-Reformation began curtailing the nepotism and corruption that characterized the Renaissance-era papacy. [1] 4. Garrison commanders, village leaders: I use this category to denote minor officials in the provinces of the papal states, who often were appointed locally; the unit of territory would be the parish, which remained the basic unit of religious and administrative organization in the Papal State until at least the Napoleonic invasions, and in many ways beyond. [2] [1]: Martin in Marino, 30 [2]: Reynolds, 79 |
||||||
|
Pope; Cardinals and legates; rectors and governors; the papal curia; rural landlords & barons; village leaders, and provincial officials
1. Pope: The pope remained the head of a vast bureaucracy and leader of the papal state. 2. Cardinals and legates: The cardinals’ palaces in Rome were in effect sub-headquarters of the papal bureaucracy.Cardinal-legates ruled Bologna, Ferrara, Ravenna, and Forli (the Legation cities) as papal representatives. [1] 3. Rectors and governors: These were provincial officials deputed by the pope to run the provinces of the State. 3. The curia: The vast complex of religious and secular administration based in Rome, in the various papal palace complexes. 4. Rural landlords & barons: landholders in the countryside with significant estates, who often either dominated local government or could influence decision-making. 5. village leaders: I use this category to denote minor officials in the provinces of the papal states, who often were appointed locally. [1]: Davis, 269 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor in Constantinople (nominal) 1. Exarch of Ravenna _Central government_ Note: from the time the Exarchate was created "the central government took on a new form" [1] 2. Prefect of Italy"The new order was created at the end of the reign of Justin II. (565-578) under a new and supreme official. Without doing away with the prefect of Italy the emperor placed over him as supreme head of the new administration the exarch who was both the military commander-in-chief and the governor-general of Italy; and, since the chief need of Italy was defence, without entirely suppressing the civil administration, he placed at the head of each of the re-organised provinces a certain military officer - the duke." [1] 3. In Rome, "The senate ceased to meet sometime after 603" [2] _Provincial government_ Note: from the time the Exarchate was created "the provincial administration was re-organised." [1] Reformed in response to Lombard invasion of Italy. "By the year 590, then, we see Italy thus divided into seven districts or governments: (1) the Dutchy of Istria, (2) the Duchy of Venetia, (3) the Exarchate to which Calabria is attached, (4) the Dutchy of Pentapolis, (5) the Dutchy of Rome, (6) the Dutchy of Naples, (7) Liguria." [3] 2. Dutchy ruled by a DukeRegion of Ravenna "formed a new province under the direct authority of the governors-general of Italy, that is to say, the exarch of Ravenna." [1] "Beneath the exarch ... were dukes, who possessed military and civil authority in the duchies... and tribunes or counts, who led individual detachments of troops called numeri and who also had important civil functions in particular localities." [4] 3. Tribunes / counts"Beneath the exarch ... were dukes, who possessed military and civil authority in the duchies... and tribunes or counts, who led individual detachments of troops called numeri and who also had important civil functions in particular localities." [4] 3. CivitasDuring the preceding Ostrogothic period there was a "Prefect of the City": "A nobleman of the very highest rank, Consul, Patrician, and Prefect of the City, Cæcina Maurus Basilius Decius, successfully accomplished this work under the orders of his sovereign..." [5] 4. Vicivillage 5. Pagirural settlements [1]: (Hutton 1926) [2]: (Burns 1991, 90) [3]: Edward Hutton. 1913. Ravenna: A Study. J M Dent & Sons Ltd. London. [4]: (Noble 1984, 5-6) Noble, Thomas F. X. 1984. The Republic of St. Peter. The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. [5]: (Hodgkin 1897) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) state level (eg Eze Nri), 2) lineage level (eg Ozo), 3) age-grade level, 4) women’s associations. Within each of these four major levels (not necessarily a clear hierarchy) there are finer distinctions, but these are the major categories. This paper delineates the fine detail: “In Nri, leadership operates at four levels and may be classified according to these levels as: leadership at the age-grade level, leadership at the lineage level, leadership at the state level and leadership in women’s associations.”
[1]
[1]: Onwuejeogwu, M. A. (1979). The Genesis, Diffusion, Structure and Significance of Ọzọ Title in Igbo Land. Paideuma, 25, 117–143: 130. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/K2EIJVZ8/collection |
||||||
|
Levels (not strictly hierarchical, but at least handling separate areas): 1) Mai/Shehu/Caliph (Sultan/King); 2) Royal family (several roles, so could be split into multiple levels eg 1 chiroma, eldest brother/son of the mai; 2 magira, queen mother; 3 gumsu, first wife, and three other wives of the mai); 3) Council (about twelve members); 4) Viceroys/district administrators/members of the court (eg galadima); 5) Fief-holders/regional administrators (eg chima jilibe, chima chidibe, chima gana); 6) Calim/alim (local chiefs/administrators). NB This doesn’t account for rulers of regions which are semi-autonomous, and may have their own administrative systems. “[TABLE 3 Administrative Structure: King. Chima kura: royal family; courtiers; royal slaves. Chima gana: clients and slaves of chima kura, resident in fiefs. Village chiefs. Household units of the talaka (common citizens).] Although this table adequately represents the administrative structure which obtained in the largest part of Borno territory, in actual fact the functioning of Borno administration was considerably more complex. There were numerous units within the state which for one reason or another fell outside the structure illustrated here. For example, there were semi-autonomous territories and ethnic groups which were directly responsible to the ruler; there were also territories tributary to Borno. In addition there were various families, clans, or villages which enjoyed privileged status.”
[1]
“Even though it is difficult to generalize the nature of political power for more than 1000 years of history, some features seem to have been present throughout the history of Bornu. The royal family was at the heart of the political system meaning that the head of the Sayfawa family was also the mai. It seems that to prevent wars of succession, the chiroma, generally the eldest son or the brother of the mai, was designated during the lifetime of the mai. Members of the royal family were also important office-holders. For example, the magira, the queen mother, held for a long time the highest number of fiefs in the kingdom while the first wife of the mai, the gumsu, was responsible for the palace duties with the three other wives of the mai (Cohen 1967). As a consequence, the stability of the empire was synonymous with the stability of the royal family. However, political power was not solely in the hands of the ruling family as members of the council were also in charge of political affairs. It appears that there were around twelve members in this council and that apart from the descendants of the close advisors of the first Sayfawas, their office was not hereditary. It would be difficult to attribute a specific role to each of the members of the council over the centuries but some office-holders seem to exert the same roles. For example, the mainin kenandi was the Islamic advisor of the mai whereas the kaigama was in charge of the armies of Kanem-Bornu. This highly structured political system could also be found in the territorial organization of the kingdom. Indeed, the empire of KanemBornu was organized territorially and divided into different administrative regions. For example, the galadima was supposed to be the viceroy of the Western part of the kingdom. He had his own capital at Nguru and when present in Birni Gazagarmo was a full member of the council (Alkali 1983). One of the striking features of the empire of Kanem-Bornu was its complex territorial organization which allowed it to survive for more than a millennium. Diplomatic correspondence and oral history confirm that the Kanem-Bornu Empire was an empire with different types of borders. Some of them may have been rather vague, such as those along the Saharan trade route, whereas others could have been precisely delimited, such as the borders south of Lake Chad with the Bagirmi or westwards with the Hausa states. Moreover, the core of Bornu and the newly conquered regions had sensibly different territorial structures. In metropolitan Bornu, a double fief system enabled the mais and later the shehus to levy taxes and troops in their empire. The first one was a personal fief where the fief-holder, the chima jilibe, owned a fief over people, the second one was territorial: here the fief-holder, the chima chidibe, was in charge of a specific territory. This system enabled the empire to control its sedentary population as well as incorporating its nomadic or semi-nomadic subjects such as the Shuwa Arabs. This administrative structure was present in metropolitan Bornu whereas the satellite regions were still administered by a local ruler. For example, the sultanate of Zinder was semiautonomous but still part of the KanemBornu Empire until the middle of the 19th century.”
[2]
“Moreover, since the end of the 15th century, and maybe since an earlier date, the mai (the head of the empire) assumed the title of “caliph” (Lavers 1993: 257) and the Sayfawa throne was also supposed to be the degal lisalambe, the “cradle of Islam.” As a consequence, the mais used Islamic advisors and, in theory, their power could not exceed the prescriptions of the Sharia. This creation of a Muslim religious ancestry was a common practice through which trans-Saharan African empires could assert their religious and kinship ties with Arabia.”
[3]
“The categories of officials which the inscriptio mentions are the umara (amirs), shurta (guards), hukama (governors), "ulama (scholars), ummal (officers), qudat (judges), wuzara (viziers), fursan (horsemen, warriors), ra’aya (subjects) and ma’shar al-muslimln (the generality of Muslims).”
[4]
“Each member of the court was himself the head of a household, often vast in its dimensions. These households might include hundreds of slaves and clients, and they not only operated as military units in the Borno army, but also as the fundamental administrative cadres in the state government. In their capacities as administrators, members of the court were called chima kura, literally, big tax collector. Chima kura were responsible for the administration of their own districts, units of which were usually scattered geographically throughout the kingdom. They appointed slaves or clients as resident administrators for these smaller sub-units or fiefs, who were called chima gana (small tax collector).”
[5]
“Ordinarily, a mallemti settlement would consist of the mahram grantee, his extended family, and a number of people not directly associated with the calim or his activities, but who may have been originally living in the area or have taken up residence in the mallemti after its establishment. The calim took the dual responsibilities of a village head-man and a teacher. As the village headman, he settled disputes between contending parties be they from his immediate circle or from other residents of the mallemti. As the principal teacher, he imparted knowledge and counselled troubled souls, and depending upon the ’efficacy of his prayers’ would, in his capacity as a spiritual counsellor, command a large following in the whole district.”
[6]
[1]: Brenner, L. (1973). Sources of Constitutional Thought in Borno. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 7(1), 49–65: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BGCV72TB/collection [2]: Hiribarren, V. (2016). Kanem-Bornu Empire. In N. Dalziel & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Empire (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 4. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KNHK5ANQ/collection [3]: Hiribarren, V. (2016). Kanem-Bornu Empire. In N. Dalziel & J. M. MacKenzie (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Empire (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: 3. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KNHK5ANQ/collection [4]: Bobboyi, H. (1993). RELATIONS OF THE BORNO ʿULAMĀʾ WITH THE SAYFAWA RULERS: THE ROLE OF THE MAḤRAMS. Sudanic Africa, 4, 175–204: 189–190. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JE5VQ8NI/collection [5]: Brenner, Louis. “SOURCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT IN BORNO.” Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, vol. 7, no. 1, 1973, pp. 49–65: 52. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BGCV72TB/collection [6]: Bobboyi, Hamidu. “RELATIONS OF THE BORNO ʿULAMĀʾ WITH THE SAYFAWA RULERS: THE ROLE OF THE MAḤRAMS.” Sudanic Africa, vol. 4, 1993, pp. 175–204: 200. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JE5VQ8NI/collection |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Oba (king), 2) Uzama or Uzama Nihinron (nobles/Kingmakers’ Council), 3) Eghaɛbho n’Ore or Eghaevbo n/Ore (town chiefs; from mid-fifteenth century) & Eghaɛbho n’Ogbe (palace chiefs), 4) Iwebo, Iweguae and Ibiwe (palace associations under direct control of the palace chiefs), 5) otu (three associations of freeborn palace retainers), 6) fief-holders, 8) onogie/enegie (chief, with authority over several villages in a chiefdom, 8) ɔdiɔnwere (sole village head) & ediɔn (fellow village elders); in Benin City, ɔdiɔnwere/hereditary chief/appointed leader.There were several levels of chieftancy by the time Ovonramwen was Oba (ie end of Benin Kingdom) – see chart. Broadly split into Uzama, Town Chiefs and the Palace Associations.
[1]
“In precolonial Benin the political structure consisted of a com plex system of nonhereditary and hereditary titleholders, who along with members of the royal family played a decisive role in the administration of the kingdom. The highest rank was held by the seven Uzama or kingmakers, whose origins go back to the first dynasty of Benin kings. Among the nonhereditary titleholders were representatives of the general population, led by four powerful town chiefs, each of whom headed a complex hierarchy of other officials. Under the king’s direct control were three great palace organizations, Iwebo, Iweguae, and Ibiwe. These palace associa tions were led by three high-ranking palace chiefs who supervised hundreds of subordinate titles.”
[2]
“This long distance trade was controlled by various trading associations, each operating in a different direction. The most important of these associations was called Ekhangbo (ekhan, traders; Agbo, forest). It monopolized the route from Benin to Akure, which was the main base for trade in the north-east Yoruba country. Ekhangbo, and similar associations operating towards the east and north-east, were controlled by title-holders and other prominent men from Benin City. The Oba of Benin is said to have been a member of all of them. It was in the interests of the traders to uphold the integrity of the Benin polity in order to ensure a state of security in which trade could flourish. Competition for power and prestige in the state itself provided a major incentive to engage in this trade.”
[3]
Many of the administrative sections were designed to balance each other out, so it’s not a strictly hierarchical structure. “But the strength of the state lay also in the structure of its central institutions and in the balance between competing power groups.”
[4]
“In the village the predominance of community over kin-group interests was maintained through a three-tier age-grade organization (Bradbury, 1957: 32). The oldest man, subject to ‘citizenship’ qualifications, was in most villages the sole village head (ɔdiɔnwere). He and his fellow elders (ediɔn) made policy, controlled access to village resources, kept order, settled disputes, and mediated with the central authority. The elders directed the warrior and executive grade of adult men (ighele) and the grade of youths (iroghae) which performed ‘public works’. Supernatural sanction for their authority came from their access to the spirits of past elders of the village (ediɔn-ɛbho) and from their collective superiority in magic.”
[5]
“In many villages, however, the ɔdiɔnwere’s authority was shared with and limited by that of a chief (onogie) whose office descended by primogenitary succession. Most enigie were descended from the immediately junior brothers of past kings, but some claimed lines going back beyond the incorporation of their chiefdoms into the state; and a few were descended from non-royal appointees of the Oba. The chiefdom might consist of one or several villages. In the central area round the capital and in the territory to the west of it there were few enigie, and here each village dealt directly with the central authority through its ɔdiɔnwere, though it might combine with neighbouring villages for certain purposes. To the north and east a much larger proportion of the population was included in chiefdoms. The more remote they were from Benin, the larger the chiefdoms tended to be and the greater their internal autonomy. The more distant enigie might control up to a dozen or more villages, some of which themselves had hereditary enigie. The more important enigie conferred titles on their ‘palace’ officials and on their agents in the subordinate villages. They had rights to game and tribute and they held courts for the settlement of disputes between their subjects. Having some of the attributes of kingship, they were the focus of rituals patterned on, though less elaborate than, those which took place at the Oba’s palace.”
[6]
“From the point of view of his ‘subjects’ the fief-holder was their official sponsor through whom they could communicate requests, complaints, and disputes to the Oba. […] It must be stressed that the fief-holders were not the sole channel of communication between the Oba and his subjects. Some enigie had the right of direct access to the king. In the more distant vassal chiefdoms the Oba stationed his own agents to watch over his interests and convey intelligence to him.”
[7]
In Benin City: “Within the wall the town was divided into two unequal parts by a long, broad avenue running approximately north-west to south-east. This spatial division corresponded to a Palace/Town dichotomy of great political significance. Ogbe, the smaller area to the south-west, contained the Oba’s palace (Ɛguae-Ɔba) and the houses of most of his Palace Chiefs (Eghaɛbho n’Ogbe). In Orenokhua, to the north-east, lived the Town Chiefs (Eghaɛbho n’Ore) and here, too, were located most of the wards of occupational specialists. There were forty or fifty of these wards, occupied by groups having special skills or duties which they performed, full or part time, primarily for the Oba. Each ward had its internal political organization, based on the grading of its male members, and headed by an ɔdiɔnwere, an hereditary chief, or an appointed leader.”
[8]
Just outside Benin City: “Idunbhun-Ihogbe, for example, contained one section of the Ihogbe, priests of the past kings and of the living Oba’s Head. In the same area were located the villages of six of the Seven Uzama (Uzama n’Ihinrɔn), hereditary nobles and ‘kingmakers’. The seventh Uzama was the Oba’s eldest son and heir, the Edaikɛn, whose court was at Uselu, just outside the second wall to the north-west. In fact, as we shall see, no Edaikɛn was installed during the nineteenth century. Uselu also housed the court of the Oba’s mother, who ranked with the Town Chiefs rather than the Uzama. // “The hereditary Uzama and the two groups of Eghaɛbho, whose titles were non-hereditary, constituted three great orders of chieftancy which, between them, were responsible for the continuity and government of the state.”
[8]
Role and importance of the Uzama changed over time: “The Uzama had not always been set apart from the management of the state, if reliance can be placed on traditions of a prolonged struggle waged by the early kings to assert their supremacy over them. […] But it is likely that they refer, also, to an historical decline in the power of the Uzama correlated, the evidence suggests, with the rise of the Eghaɛbho orders; and with a shift towards a doctrine of automatic primogenitary succession to the kingship. The successful assertion, by the kings of Benin, of the right to assign major administrative and judicial functions to counsellors appointed by themselves gave them considerable power vis-à-vis the Uzama. The rule of primogeniture, though ineffective in eliminating succession strife, made the Uzama’s role as kingmakers more ceremonial than political. They continued to receive the new king’s installation fees and to inaugurate his reign, but they had no more effective voice in determining his identity than did the Eghaɛbho.”
[9]
“The main palace buildings comprised three major divisions—Iwebo, Iwɛguae, and Ibiwe. These were the names of three associations (otu) of freeborn retainers that administered the royal court and participated in the government. […] First in rank were the Iwebo, who had charge of the Oba’s state regalia, including his throne and his ceremonial wardrobe and accoutrements. Unwaguɛ, as head of Iwebo, was head of the palace organization. // “The Iwɛguae division contained the Oba’s private apartments. Its chiefs were his household officers, and his cooks and domestics were chosen from its lower ranks. It also included his pages (emada, lit. ‘swordbearers’), boys and young men who had been given to the Oba by their fathers and who were bound in absolute service to him until, well into manhood, he saw fit to give them wives and send them into the world as free men. […] They also helped him to maintain direct contact with his subjects by arranging private audiences for people who wanted to see him, thus by-passing the official channels of communication through the fief-holders. […] The Ibiwe were the keepers of the Oba’s wives and children. […] Apart from these retainer duties the palace associations performed important political functions, which may be summarized as follows: // “(1) They were institutions for recruiting and training personnel for specific administrative, judicial, and ceremonial tasks and for the general exercise of royal authority. // “(2) They were organized into an elaborate system of grades and hierarchies which served to channel competition for power. // “(3) They were a powerful instrument of centralization and a force for stability in the state.”
[10]
“The Town Chiefs // “There were two main orders of chiefs associated with Orenokhua, the Eghaɛbho n’Ore and the Ibiwe Nekhua. According to tradition, the former order was constituted by the twelfth Oba, Ewuare, who included in it two already existing titles, lyase and Esɔgban, and two others, Esɔn and Osuma, of his own creation. By the 1890s there were thirteen titles, of which eight had been added by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century kings.”
[11]
“A Benin writer has described the Iyasɛ, with some truth, as ‘the prime minister and the leader of the opposition’. When the Oba wished to propose a new law, prosecute a war, or take important administrative action he was bound to seek the advice and approval of the Uzama and his Town and Palace Chiefs. After meeting separately to formulate their views, the three orders assembled with the Oba in a full council of state. The sole right to argue with or censure the Oba in public was held to lie with Town Chiefs and, more especially, with the Iyasɛ. When one of them died, the Oba sent his men to claim his lower jaw, ‘the jaw he had used to dispute with the Oba’. This act symbolized the ultimate supremacy of the king over the Edo. // “Except in this last symbolic act, it was difficult for the Oba to impose his will on the Town Chiefs.”
[12]
“It should already be clear that the Oba of Benin was neither a mere ritual figurehead nor a constitutional monarch, but a political king, actively engaged in competition for power. His main political weapon lay in his ability to manipulate the system of Palace and Town offices. By making appointments to vacant titles, creating new ones, transferring individuals from one order to another, introducing new men of wealth and influence into positions of power, and redistributing administrative competences, the kings tried to maintain a balance between competing groups and individuals.”
[13]
“The succession at Benin had a complicated history, but by the nineteenth century the principle of primogeniture was firmly established. According to tradition, it had been introduced in Ewuakpe’s reign, in the early eighteenth century, with the purpose of avoiding succession conflict (Egharevba, 1960: 40). This aim was not achieved, for two of the last three successions before 1897 involved civil war, and in the third it was avoided only because one candidate had secured overwhelming support.”
[14]
“The Eghaevbo n’Ore, which seems to have replaced the Uzama Nihinron as the most effective check on the Oba’s political power, was created by Ewuare, before the coming of the Europeans. Since the senior members of the Eghaevbo n’Ore transacted "most of the day-to-day administration of the kingdom", these men were probably the "fetish priests" or the "ju-ju men" which so impressed European visitors from the time of Pereira to that of Gallwey. In other words, both human sacrifices and "fetish priests" existed in Benin prior to the beginnings of the European slave trade, and prior to the great military victories of Ozolua and Esigie”
[15]
“The introduction of the Onojie (village chiefs) prior to c. 1320 established a new variable in the relationship between dominant and subordinate segments of the population. The hereditary Onojie system provided an outlet for unsuccessful candidates for the central throne. The Onojie were provided with rural fiefs which provided a basis for tributary support and greatly expanded the burden upon the village Otu productive capacity (Egharevba I960, 1-5; Egharevba 1956). The development of the Onojie system as an intermediate administrative level between the village Odionwere and the palace established an extended state nobility. Also, the Onojie could establish their own appointed bureaucracy which further expanded the pressures on the village Otu to provide surplus non-commercial support. Tribute was thereafter funnelled from the Odionwere to the Onojie and subsequently to the Ogiso. Although the development of the Onojie system of village administration relieved pressures in the capital, it also resulted in new pressures on Otu production.”
[16]
Some administrative change around the 1320s (if we accept later dates for the start of the Benin Empire), but not sweeping ones. “The emergence of the second dynasty in c. 1320-1347 did not, initially at least, fundamentally alter the political, social, and / or economic balance in the state. The former Igodo dynasty was replaced by the Ewekpa monarchy, which retained the existing political and economic relations between the palace and village Otu. Oba (King) Ewekpa, in fact, established a mutually supportive relationship with the existing bureaucracy and nobility (Coquery-Vidrovitch 1976, 92). Ewekpa also appointed part of the nobility to the position of hereditary Kingmakers’ Council (Uzama Nihinron) (Egharevba I960, 9; Bradbury 1973, 55-60). The Ewekpa dynasty lived in the Uzama palace and was apparently dependent upon the allegiance and redistributive tribute funnelled through the Odionwere and Onojie. In this situation, therefore, no effective change was imposed upon the village gerontocracies and no increase in tribute demanded. In other words, it seems to have been a dynastic change with little material effect upon the existing social and economic patterns in the state.”
[17]
If we accept later dates for the start of the Benin Empire: “Prior to c. 1320-1347, for example, the Ogiso (king) maintained a restricted intercursive power relationship dependent upon the support of the Uzama and village Onojie and Odionwere.30 The relationship provided limited opportunity to expand exploitative demands on the village Otu without raising the protesting voice of the Onojie and Odionwere. The effective opposition of the Edion (elders), Odionwere (senior elders), Onojie (village chiefs), and Uzama Nihinron (Kingmakers’ Council) could, theoretically at least, combine to prevent such an imposition. In fact, tradition recalls that the last Ogiso in the first dynasty was removed from office because he attempted to govern without the advice and consent of the councillors and advisors. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the combined influence of the Odionwere, as the highest-ranking Otu representatives, the Onojie, as the recognised heads of the collective Odionwere, and the Uzama, as selected representatives of the Onojie acting as kingmakers, combined to form an influential and powerful segment of the society.// “After c. 1374-1401, however, the Ewekpa dynasty under Oba Ewedo managed to establish clearly-defined paramount authority and reduced the influence of the Odionwere, Onojie, and Uzama. The Oba retained ultimate control of state decision-making and initiatives for policy and, conversely, limited the authority of the other fractions and strata in the state hierarchy.”
[18]
[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: 14. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [2]: Plankensteiner, B. (2007). Benin: Kings and Rituals: Court Arts from Nigeria. African Arts, 40(4), 74–87: 83. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/7AR425BC/collection [3]: 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: 6. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [4]: 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: 8. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [5]: 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: 9. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [6]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 9–10. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [7]: Bradbury, R. E. (1967). The Kingdom of Benin. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 1–35). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 11. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [8]: 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: 12. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [9]: 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: 15–16. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [10]: 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: 18–19. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [11]: 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: 25. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [12]: 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: 26. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [13]: 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: 28. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [14]: 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: 29. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z8DJIKP8/collection [15]: Graham, J. D. (1965). The Slave Trade, Depopulation and Human Sacrifice in Benin History: The General Approach. Cahiers d’Études Africaines, 5(18), 317–334: 327. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/4AS9CVZH/collection [16]: Sargent, R. A. (1986). From A Redistribution to an Imperial Social Formation: Benin c.1293-1536. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines, 20(3), 402–427: 406–407. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AUEZSTBR/collection [17]: Sargent, R. A. (1986). From A Redistribution to an Imperial Social Formation: Benin c.1293-1536. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines, 20(3), 402–427: 407. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AUEZSTBR/collection [18]: Sargent, R. A. (1986). From A Redistribution to an Imperial Social Formation: Benin c.1293-1536. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines, 20(3), 402–427: 419–420. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/AUEZSTBR/collection |
||||||
|
levels. In 645 CE was introduced the Taika reform, which established the ritsuryo system of social, fiscal, and administrative organization of the state
[1]
. The ritsuryō system was codified in several stages. The ritsuryō system was further consolidated and codified in 701 under the Taihō Code, which, except for a few modifications and being relegated to primarily ceremonial functions, remained in force until 1868
[2]
[3]
.
1. Emperor _Central government_ 6. Council of Kami Affairs-4[b]. Council of State 6. Chancellor5. Minister of the Left-3[b] Minister of the Right 5. Four senior counselorsEight ministries: 4. Ministry of Central affairs 4. Ministry of Personnel 4. Ministry of Civil affairs 4. Ministry of Popular affairs 4. Ministry of War 4. Ministry of Justice 4. Ministry of Treasury 4. Ministry of Imperial household3. more levels2. more levels, scribes etc. [1]: Brown, D., 1993.The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 2.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195-198. [2]: L. Worden, Robert, 1994. "Kofun and Asuka Periods, ca. A.D. 250-710" [3]: Brown, D., 1993.The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 2.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 233-236. |
||||||
|
levels.
At this time, polities in the Niger Inland Delta may have been organized ’heterarchically’ rather than hierarchically: divided into multiple components, each deriving authority from separate or overlapping sources, with mechanisms in place to prevent any one group from monopolizing power. [1] There is no evidence of a hierarchical social system [2] Jenne-jeno was "a large, complex, but non-coercive urban settlement." [3] "the demands of specialization pushed groups apart while the requirements of a generalized economy pulled them together ... created a dynamism that ensured growth and the establishment of urban settlements. And they were non-coercive settlements. Groups congregated by choice. This is an instance of transformation from a rural to an urban society that did not establish a hierarchical society and coercive centralized control... The process in the delta and at Jenne-jeno in particular, was one of ’complexification’ rather than centralization." [4] Clan (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [5] Kinship group (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [5] In West Africa "Early states were simple in their government ... Some were ruled by a single chief or king and his counsellors. Others were governed by a council of chiefs or elders. Others again were formed by several neighbouring peoples whose chiefs were bound in loyalty to one another. Elsewhere, at the same time, there were people who found it better to get along without any chiefs." [6] "Traditional groups such as clans ... or age-sets of people born at about the same time, had influence in these early states, as in later times, because they could underpin a system of law and order." [6] [1]: (McIntosh 2006, 228-29) Roderick McIntosh. 2006. Ancient Middle Niger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Reader 1998, 219) [3]: (Reader 1998, 225) [4]: (Reader 1998, 228) [5]: (Bovill 1958, 53) [6]: (Davidson 1998, 13) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
"Samanid state organization provided a model for the Saljuqs and later states." [1] Book of Government by Nizam al-Mulk is therefore an essential source for this code and the codes for the Kara-Khanids and the Seljuks. 1. Amir Head of state was the amir. [2] 2. hajib of the dargah (royal court)"division of political functions between the court (dargah) and the chancery (divan) mirrored similar conditions at Baghdad." [3] "Theoretically the vizier was the head of the divan, the bureaucracy, and thus was the counterpart in the bureaucratic institution of the head of the court, the chamberlain (hajib)." [3] 3. Officer in Turkish palace guardhajib had authority over the Turkish palace guard [4] _Central government_ 2. Vizier (head of divan)."The Samanid rulers followed the ancient Persian custom, recently copied by the Abbasids in Baghdad, of entrusting the management of official life to competent and loyal chief ministers or viziers." [5] Reporting to the viziers were some ten agencies that functioned like ministries, each with central offices situated around a single square in Bukhara, and each with local representatives in every province. Together these offices managed all aspects of civic life except religion." [5] 3. Prime Minister (vazir) (-- not the same as vizier) [4] 3. The treasurer (mustaufi) [4] 3. Correspondence (amid al-mulk) [4] 3. Captain of the guard (sahib shurat) [4] 3. Postmaster (sahib barid) [4] 4. Postal station head inferred5. Courier inferred 3. Inspector, fiscal as well as general (mushrif) [4] 3. Private domains of the ruler [4] 3. Chief of Police (muhtasib) [4] 3. Religious endowments (auqaf) [4] 3. Justice (qada) [4] Centralized control over "the distribution of landed estates ... and the revenues of crown estates." [6] _Provincial government_ "The Samanid state, like all its predecessors in Central Asia, was in reality a conglomeration of great urban complexes, each with its own local dynasty, traditional elite, and economic and cultural particularities." [5] "the ruler appointed local governors, or loca ldynasts functioned as governors although they were actually vassals of the Samanid amir." [3] 2. Vassal princes e.g. Khwarazmian dynasty [7] , Khurasan and Tukharistan. [8] "It is not known when the various parts of Transoxiana submitted to the Samanids, but some of them remained under the control of their local rulers, for example in Khwarazm where the country became a part of the Samanid state after Isma’il’s defeat of ’Amr b. Laith, but the local Khwarazmian dynasty continued to flourish until 385/995 in the south of the country, while a governor of the Samanids ruled in the north with his capital at Gurganj." [7] 2. Governor of provinces e.g. at Gurganj [7] "The primary duty of both governors and local potentates was to collect taxes and provide troops if needed." [3] 3. Vizier equivalent in the provincesThe "central bureaucracy was matched by a similar organization in the provincial capitals, but on a smaller scale" [4] Representative of the central government (Ten Agencies) in the provinces --- assumed to be different from Governor 4. Head of section under vizier equivalent in the provinces [4] "The local organs of all the diwans, apart from the postal administration, were responsible both to the central authority and to the local provincial rulers." [2] 5. Staff of section e.g. scribe6. Staff of section e.g. doorkeeper, lesser scribe. [1]: (Frye 1975, 145) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Negmatov 1997, 86) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [3]: (Frye 1975, 143) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [4]: (Frye 1975, 144) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [5]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [6]: (Lapidus 2012, 228) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [7]: (Frye 1975, 138) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [8]: (Davidovich 1997, 129) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Shah : 2. Vizier (Chief official and senior advisor to the ruler) :: 3. Hajib (senior official) :: 3.1 Kuttab (Secretaries) :: 3.1 Mutasarrif (Financial officials) :: 3.1 Ustadhdar (royal household officials) ::: 4. Provincial viziers :::: 5. Shihnas (Governors – appointed in all conquered cities, towns and regions) ::::: 6. Lesser administrative posts
[1]: Buniyatov 2015: 61, 75, 77, 79 . https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SAEVEJFH |
||||||
|
levels.The remains of their villages show that Hohokam society had a hierarchical structure.
[1]
It is not known exactly how this was organised or how society was governed based on evidence from the Hohokam sites, but when considering nearby peoples and their political organisation, it is generally considered that the levels would have been as follows:
[2]
: 1. Tribal leader (overall leader but without direct authority over each settlement) :: 2. Village leader (someone who had gathered followers and respect and was generally the head of the village) :: 2. War leader (individual who organised and commanded anything relating to war) ::: 3. Village council (made up of a group of respected people)
[1]: “Hohokam Culture (U.S. National Park Service)”. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/34YMDDCN/library [2]: McGuire 2018: 46-47 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/C9FB2IXT |
||||||
|
levels.“The formation of a black army and the building of the empire were costly. To minimize the costs, Mawlay Isma‘il kept his government simple and made it more palace-centered than Makhzan civil serviceoriented. The palace has always been central to the Makhzan in “traditional” Morocco and, as contemporary Moroccan historian Mohamed El Mansour wrote, “the so-called ‘Makhzan service’ was basically made up of the palace domestic organization, the administrative hierarchy and the army.” According to Windus, the sultan’s administrative staff at the court was made up of five standing officers: ‘the Grand Mufti for Affairs of Religion; the chief Eunuch to take Care of the Seraglio; a Treasurer for his Revenue; the Superintendant of his Buildings and the Basha of Mekness, who is the first Minister, or the supreme Akcayde, of which there are three forts; the first and chief are those who, in the nature of Vice-Roys, are sent to govern the Provinces; to whom, for their greater Honour, is sometimes given the Title of Bashas [. . .]. Another fort are the Generals of his Armies, and Commanders over small Parties of Horse of Foot. The Third fort are Governours of Cities, or Towns, and are either made by the Emperor himself, as are the Alcaydes of Morocco [Marrakesh], Fez, Sally, and other great Cities; or by the Governours of the Provinces, over small Towns and Cities; a fourth fort may be added, which are titular only, and therefore called Alcaydes of their Heads’.”
[1]
: 1. Sultan :: 2. Standing officers: “…the Grand Mufti for Affairs of Religion; the chief Eunuch to take Care of the Seraglio; a Treasurer for his Revenue; the Superintendant of his Buildings and the Basha of Mekness, who is the first Minister, or the supreme Akcayde…”
[1]
::: 3. Viceroys – governors of provinces :::: 4. Governors – of cities or towns ::::: 5. Alcaydes :::::: 6. Lesser administrative staff
[1]: (El Hamel 2014: 202) El Hamel, Chouki. 2014. Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/T9JFH8AS |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King ? Hypothesised level. Between 1050-1150 CE there may have been a king. However, a majority of scholars may disagree. 1. Chief / Priest "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia." [2] "The central administrative complex represents the core of the Cahokian polity. The location of ridgetop mounds within this area may equate with kin groupings or other administrative units. East St. Louis, being newer, may have been a higher status community of isolated elites." [3] At Mound 72 "Analysis of the skeletal remains shows that certain burial groups were of higher status than others and that some may have come prom places other than Cahokia." [4] 2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest? "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "The answers provided by the working group seem to point to Cahokia being an urban settlement that was the center of a regional government, but the picture is not entirely clear." [2] "Regional political integration appears to have been an essentially ritual one; that is, the site hierarchy that is present appears to be more of a hierarchy of ritual spaces than of political jurisdictions." [2] "Cahokia was also the center of a regional government of some kind, at least for a short period of time." [2] "mound complexes may have been organized around sodalities rather than around kin groups. Perhaps these sodalities were secret societies" [1] "Mound and plaza groups may represent corporate (perhaps kin-based) political and ritual complexes, each of which would have been maintained by their own administrativespecialists or generalized leader." [5] 3. Elder / Religious functionary "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] kin group leaders [1] [1]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) [2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 82) [5]: (Kelly 2014, 22) |
||||||
|
The Wukari administration was very complex. Not clear which role had authority over which other roles in all cases, as some parts of the administration were clearly hierarchical, while others had specific jurisdictions (and not always clear, significant administrative functions, rather than ceremonial). It’s also possible that the descriptions in these sources either miss some subaltern positions, or describe roles essentially on the same level as different. 1) Aku-Uka (divine king), 2) Abo-Acio (prime minister; kingmaker), 3) Abo-Zike (second most senior official; kingmaker), 4) Kinda-Acio (palace administrator; kingmaker), 5) Court of the Kinda-Acio, eg Kinda-Zike (his assistant; kingmaker), Kinda Bi, Kind Kuvyu Nju and Kinda Matswen, 6) Awei-Acio (chief of staff), 7) chief priests of cults (eg Ku-Puje Acio and assistant served as chief priest of Puje), 8) Aku-Ke (leader of war), 9) Tsuma (royal diviner), 10) Ivene (king’s spokesman), 11) Wanaku (head of agriculturalists), 12) Kuyu (representative of old Kwararafa royal family, Ba-Pi), 13) Abgyu-Tsi (queen), 14) Angwu Kaku (official sister of the king), 15) Wakuku (Aku’s principal wife), 16) Chiefs, 17) Counsellors (elders and religious dignitaries). Alternative spellings include Abon for Abo, and Achuwo for Acio. “The dangers of travelling during the rainy season, when the tsetse dispersed more widely over the country, were clearly appreciated, even if the role of the fly was not. In the 1850s, for example, a chief in the Jukun country refused to provide horses for the transport of a party of European explorers because ’the roads were wet . . . and horses would be killed by travelling along them in such weather’.”
[1]
“The process that usually led to the emergence of an Aku Uka was clearly defined. At the initial period, it was suggested that the Kuvyi (Chief) was the one that picked the Aku Uka, under the direction of spirit, whenever the stool became vacant.58 But over time, the four king makers who were Abon Acio, Abon Zike, Kinda Acio and Kinda Ziken became the central personalities in the selection of new Aku Uka. The king makers would inform the Kuvyi (Chief Priest) in the event of the demise of an Aku, while the Abon Acio held brief for who would eventually emerges as the Aku Uka. The four king makers were the ones left with the onerous task of driving the process that would eventually see to the emergence of Aku. Interested princess were invited from the ruling houses and interacted with. Preliminary screening was conducted on the prospective candidates by the king makers, after which a seer (Avun) was invited to select one out of the contenders. The Avun, who was believed to be in contact with the gods identified the most appropriate person that would become the Aku. Even then, the Avun was expected not to be partial in carrying out his function on the basis that there were sanctions that usually came to him in the event that he became bias. To be convinced with the selection by the Avun, another Seer, from a different place was normally invited in order to validate or otherwise the selection made by the Avun.”
[2]
“The Jukun kingdom appears to have had a very different structure from that of the Shilluk, though their respective kingships show some interesting similarities. The political segments of Wukari, the chiefdoms, were not organized on the basis of common descent. Descent groups (atsupa) were small and localized, perhaps a function of the abundance of agricultural land in the region.”
[3]
“The government of the state was conducted from the Aku’s palace in Wukari through a system of ranked offices. Broadly speaking, there were two main categories of officials: those holding civil or state titles whose function was to administer the state, prosecute war, and counsel the king; and those holding priestly and royal household titles whose functions were largely ritual and ceremonial. The former titles tended to be held by agnates of the king-his brothers and father’s brothers’ sons-while many of the royal household titles were held by his uterine relatives.”
[3]
“The senior counsellors or state officials, of which there were traditionally four or five, were usually close agnates of the king, and it was they who are said to have decided whether or when a king should be killed. One of these title-holders, the Kinda Achuwo or king’s official ’younger brother’, was even formally and ceremonially blamed for the king’s death-whether he had in fact been killed or not- at the installation of his successor. The hereditary king-maker, a purely ceremonial official, handed over the king-elect to the Kinda with the words:’ Formerly we gave you a king and you killed him when he fell sick. Let me never hear that you have treated this king in this way.’ The Abo Achuwo, by his very position as the king’s prime minister, was automatically implicated in the removal of a king. During the interregnum he ruled the state and took charge of the king’s property, while one of the king’s close attendants-usually a sister’s son-mounted the throne and im- personated the king to maintain the fiction that the king was still alive.”
[4]
“[T]he Aku-Uka, in a way did not directly and physically take part in the administration of the community in pre-colonial era. In this regard, he was surrounded by a council, which C.K Meek described as a patrician caste, and they were responsible for the day to day administration. At the head of the caste, was the Abo-Acio whose position and functions could be likened to a modern day Prime minister. The Abo-Acio was the // “channel of communication between the Aku-Uka and the people. The people had to get to the Aku-Uka through the Abo-Acio. That is to say that he was the representative of the people in their relations with the king, who was the representative of the gods. He was the king’s principal adviser, and had access to the king at any time. He reported matters of importance to the king on daily basis. He disposed of all judicial cases which did not require the king’s personal investigation. And when religious rites were due, the priests approached the Abo-Acio, who obtained the royal consent, together with the sacrificial gifts which the king was required to provide, and attended the rites which he reported back to the Aku. In short, the Abo-Acio was the very figure which the people had relationship with in terms of the political arrangement of the Jukun people. This explains the level of significance attached to the office of the Abo-Acio, in consonance with the sacred nature of the Aku-Uka, who was considered a semi god and should not be seen by ordinary people. The Abo-Acio was assisted by Abo-Zike in the discharge of his many functions, and succeeded the Abo-Acio in case of death or vacancy of the position. In this regard, the Abo-Zike became the second most senior official to the Abo-Acio. The next in the hierarchy was the kinda-Acio who was in charge of the administration of the palace and cared for the welfare of Aku’s premises. It was noted that this official was in the close counsels of the king, attended the royal rite each day, took a prominent share in judicial work, in keeping the walls of city and the fencing of the royal enclosure in repair, and could also be put in charge of military operation. He was said to be the younger brother of the Aku and had a court of his own which included Kinda-Zike (his assistant), Kinda Bi, Kind Kuvyu Nju and Kinda Matswen. The Abo-Acio, Abo-Zike, Kinda-Acio and Kinda-Zike constituted the traditional kingmakers among the Jukun Wapa, under the chairmanship of the Abo-Acio. This // “body and its functions could be likened to the Oyo-Mesi of the old Oyo Empire under the leadership of Bashrun. Besides the above mentioned officials, there were others particularly of high standing who were considered closed counsels of the Aku. Among this was the Awei-Acio who was the nominal head of all the palace staff, and thus correspond to modern day Chief of Staff. His duties included to see that the royal enclosure and the shrine of Yaku were kept in proper repair. He also oversaw many other staff in the palace administration. Taking cognizance of the theocratic system of the administration, the priests constituted another important group of administrators within the Jukun political system. The Ku-Puje Acio with his assistant served as the Chief Priest of Puje, an important cult among the wapa Jukun. There was the Kenjo cult, the Yaku cult, the Achu-Nyande etc. Each of these cults had specific set of functions which they performed. For instance, the Achu-Nyande served a judicial function in the sense that, being a cult of lightning, rites were performed in cases of theft and was believed that lightning would strike the culprit. Other officials in the political system of the Jukun Wapa were the Aku-Ke, who was the leader of war, while the royal diviner was known as the Tsuma. The king’s spokesperson was known as the Ivene, and the Wanaku was the official head of all agriculturalists. The Kuyu was the representative of the old royal family of Kwararafa. This family was known as the Ba-Pi, and has supplied several kings of Wukari. There were as well, other offices and officials such as Abgyu-Tsi, Angwu Kaku and Wakuku who were regarded as the queen, the official sister of the Aku and the Aku’s principal wife respectively. They all had share in the administration. The list of the State offices among the Jukun Wapa of Wukari seemed inexhaustible. It is a // “clear indication that it was an elaborate political system that gave detail to virtually all aspect of political organization. With respect to the political system of the other Jukun chieftaincies, it was obvious that they were strikingly similar to that of Wukari but without the latter’s titles. Each had its chief surrounded by counselors comprising elders and religious dignitaries under an official equivalent to the Abo of Wukari.”
[5]
[1]: Law, R. (2018). The Horse in West African History: the Role of the Horse in the Societies of Pre-colonial West Africa (Vol. 42). Oxford University Press: 81. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WFTKWJLS/collection [2]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 124–125. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection [3]: Young, M. W. (1966). The Divine Kingship of the Jukun: A Re-Evaluation of Some Theories. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 36(2), 135–153: 140. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NTI9GQMF/collection [4]: Young, M. W. (1966). The Divine Kingship of the Jukun: A Re-Evaluation of Some Theories. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 36(2), 135–153: 142–143. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/NTI9GQMF/collection [5]: Zhema, S. (2017). A History of the Social and Political Organization of the Jukun of Wukari Division, c.1596–1960 [Benue State University]: 125–128. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U667CC36/collection |
||||||
|
levels.
"... these structures were not rigid systems. Retainers might be killed in battle or just died of old age. New followers were often acquired, prompting changes both in structure and function. As a result any diagram showing a vassal structure represents only a snapshot in time of a dynamic entity." [1] Example "The Kashindan of Oda Nobunaga c.1570" had at most 4 levels. 1. Oda Nobunaga. 2. Shukuro (Shibota Katsuie (1530-1583 CE) 3. Roshin (senior retainers) 4. Bugyo (commissioners). [1] 1. Daimyo (ruler) of a kokka "No longer was a shugo merely the shogun’s ‘deputy for such-and-such province’; he was now, simply, the province’s daimyo - its ruler." [2] "a few shugo were even murdered and had their places taken by opportunists" [2] "The word used for the territory a daimyō controlled as a mini-state was kokka, a contiguous geographical unit that often bore no relationship to the traditional borders of the Japanese kuni (provinces), and was defined simply by what could be defended." [1] 2. Relatives"Closest of all to the daimyō were his blood relatives, identified by the expressions ichimon, kamon, ichizoku or shōke, all of which can be translated as ‘kinsmen’." [1] 2. Vassal of a fiefa kokka "consisted of a composite of separate fiefs either held directly by the daimyō or indirectly by his followers, for whom the European term ‘vassal’ is customarily employed" [1] 3. Roshin (senior retainers)"We usually find an elite group called variously karō, rōshin or shukurō (elders or senior vassals) who were drawn from the daimyō’s family or from his most powerful vassals and used as an inner council for administration and military policy." [1] 4. Bugyo (commissioners) 5. Scribe? 1. Emperor 2. Central governmentAs a result of the Onin war 1467-1476 CE "Most of the centre of the ancient capital was reduced to a charred wasteland" [2] 3. : ?. Provinces (Shugo)"Some of the provincial shugo tried loyally and vainly to assert the shogun’s authority, but they were pushed aside." [2] [1]: (Turnbull 2008) [2]: (Turnbull 2002) |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) the overall ruler (raja),(2) leaders of regional power bases (terms vary),(3) provincial (visaya) leaders,(4) officials of the settlement (maichiech),(5) village elders (gramavrddha). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ [1] ’Classic Angkor was the centre of an empire, the huge territory of which was divided into provinces. [...] There are two words for ’province’: probably both synonyms. Each of these was in turn divided into villages (souk or drama). At every level there were mandarin bureaucrats (khlon, chiefs) representing the central administration, and who ensured that revenues (rice, goods, corvee labour, and the like) flowed smoothly upwards through the system.’ [...] The khlon visa was the provincial chief, overseeing the fiscal officers responsible for tax collections, as well as pretor transactions and the fixing of boundaries. Each village had its headman (khlon souk), in reality a royal agent; the actual representatives of the Cambodian village were the gramavrddha, the village elders, who acted as a link between the local and central administrations.’ [2] [1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 141) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Sultan The Saadis had an Ottoman-style palace government ruled by a Sultan. [1] _Central government_ 2. WazirAlso known as the viceroy, governor of Fez, crown prince, or vizir [2] . 2. Sultan’s councilComprising the chancellor of the seal, the chancellor in charge of protocol and ceremony, one in charge of the Sultan’s horses and camels, and one in charge of administration and division of rents and taxes [2] 3. bureaucrat in charge of rents inferred level4. Scribe or sub-manager 3. bureaucrat in charge of taxes inferred level4. Scribe or sub-manager inferred level5. Tax collector [3] 2. First secretaryHead of Sultan’s council, secretary of state, majordomo, treasurer [2] 2. Qadi al-qudatThe main qadi, head of the judiciary, whose task it was to assign qadis to different cities and regions [2] . Petty bureaucrats Tax collectors, clerics, secretaries, and qadis [3] . _Regional government_ 2. 3. 4. [1]: (García-Arenal 2009, 57-58) Mercedes García-Arenal. 2009. Ahmad Al-Mansur: The Beginnings of Modern Morocco. Oxford: OneWorld. [2]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), pp. 57-58 [3]: M. García-Arenal, Ahmad Al-Mansur: The beginnings of modern Morocco (2009), pp. 48-58 |
||||||
|
levels.
There is no evidence of a hierarchical social system [1] Jenne-jeno was "a large, complex, but non-coercive urban settlement." [2] "the demands of specialization pushed groups apart while the requirements of a generalized economy pulled them together ... created a dynamism that ensured growth and the establishment of urban settlements. And they were non-coercive settlements. Groups congregated by choice. This is an instance of transformation from a rural to an urban society that did not establish a hierarchical society and coercive centralized control... The process in the delta and at Jenne-jeno in particular, was one of ’complexification’ rather than centralization." [3] Clan (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [4] Kinship group (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [4] In West Africa "Early states were simple in their government ... Some were ruled by a single chief or king and his counsellors. Others were governed by a council of chiefs or elders. Others again were formed by several neighbouring peoples whose chiefs were bound in loyalty to one another. Elsewhere, at the same time, there were people who found it better to get along without any chiefs." [5] "Traditional groups such as clans ... or age-sets of people born at about the same time, had influence in these early states, as in later times, because they could underpin a system of law and order." [5] [1]: (Reader 1998, 219) [2]: (Reader 1998, 225) [3]: (Reader 1998, 228) [4]: (Bovill 1958, 53) [5]: (Davidson 1998, 13) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
There is no evidence of a hierarchical social system [1] Jenne-jeno was "a large, complex, but non-coercive urban settlement." [2] "the demands of specialization pushed groups apart while the requirements of a generalized economy pulled them together ... created a dynamism that ensured growth and the establishment of urban settlements. And they were non-coercive settlements. Groups congregated by choice. This is an instance of transformation from a rural to an urban society that did not establish a hierarchical society and coercive centralized control... The process in the delta and at Jenne-jeno in particular, was one of ’complexification’ rather than centralization." [3] Clan (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [4] Kinship group (General reference for West African states) "the basic social and political unit appears in the past to have been the small local group, bound together by ties of kinship. When a number of groups came together they formed a clan. The heads of local clans were usually responsible for certain religious rites connected with the land." [4] In West Africa "Early states were simple in their government ... Some were ruled by a single chief or king and his counsellors. Others were governed by a council of chiefs or elders. Others again were formed by several neighbouring peoples whose chiefs were bound in loyalty to one another. Elsewhere, at the same time, there were people who found it better to get along without any chiefs." [5] "Traditional groups such as clans ... or age-sets of people born at about the same time, had influence in these early states, as in later times, because they could underpin a system of law and order." [5] [1]: (Reader 1998, 219) [2]: (Reader 1998, 225) [3]: (Reader 1998, 228) [4]: (Bovill 1958, 53) [5]: (Davidson 1998, 13) Davidson, Basil. 1998. West Africa Before the Colonial Era. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.“Austria’s hereditary lands was divided among several members of the family, and as a result, distinct archducal courts came into being at Innsbruck (1564–1665) and Graz (1564–1619). These constituted a discernable, second level of princely courts within the Austrian Habsburg territories, one step below the imperial court in Prague and Vienna… The Austrian branch of the dynasty underwent a rapid expansion in numbers. At its highpoint in 1613, there were no fewer than 14 archdukes and 13 archduchesses, and regardless of their seniority, all of them had to be provided for in a Standesgemäß fashion. If they reached adulthood, they received a household of their own. In quite a few cases they were allowed their own residence, and some went on to become the governors of provinces, or, as in the case of the aforementioned archduke Albert, rulers in their own right. Others were provided with ecclesiastical benefices, which gave them access to important revenues and sometimes allowed them to act as independent rulers, as was the case with prince-bishoprics, or grandmasterships of the Teutonic Order.
[1]
Curtis (2013) suggests three layers of political power that had to work with each other across the domains. All levels of administration fed into the imperial power but were ultimately self-governing at regional level:
[2]
: 1. Monarch and Holy Roman Emperor : 1.2. Imperial Government : 1.3. Imperial/Privy Council (The court council included a chancellery and treasury.)
[3]
: 1.4. Secretaries, ministers etc. :: 2. Regional ruler (eg archduke, prince) :: 2.2. Local Government :: 2.3. Local council ::: 3. Local nobility (tax collection, local authority) :::: 4. Lesser administrative positions (i.e. administrators, accountants)
[1]: (Vermeir et al 2021: 17-18) Vermeir, René, Raeymaekers, Dries, and Hortal Muñoz, José Eloy. 2021. A Constellation of Courts: The Courts and Households of Habsburg Europe, 1555–1665, vol. 15. Leuven University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14jxsxk. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SRBKH6ZG [2]: (Curtis 2013: 98, 101, 128) Curtis, Benjamin. 2013. The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty. London; New York: Bloomsbury. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/TRKUBP92 [3]: (Fichtner 2017: 18) Fichtner, Paula Sutter. 2003. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1490-1848: Attributes of Empire. Macmillan International Higher Education. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/QQ77TV4K |
||||||
|
levels.
“Patrimonial in nature, Mongol administration grew out of the ruler’s household.” Positions in the household such as ‘cook’ (ba’urchi) actually responsible for testing for poisoning, provisioning for retainers.Mongke: central secretariat in Mongolia. Titles: ‘chief judge’ ‘chief scribe’. “Khubilai’s orders to rulers of Annam and Korea made clear that was expected from dependent rulers; they had to pay court in person, register their populations, raise militia units, establish postal relay stations, and have a Mongol resident to take charge of affairs. Tributary rulers also had to send sons or younger brothers as hostages - another way to expand the ruler’s household into a system of control for a complex empire” [1] 1) Khan. The Khan had sovereign power over the empire. [2] 2) Royal household, containing chamberlains, stewards, quiver bearers, doorkeepers, grooms. There was strong overlap with his body guard, in terms of personnel. Both came form his retinue of military commanders. They travelled wherever the Khan went. [3] Also Chinggis Khan appointed a chief judge (yeke jarghuchi) "to supervise and coordinate the activities of the recently expanded administrative system" [4] Allsen says that both the household and the guard came from the nokod - companions or warrior commanders. 3) Dependent and tributary rulers, e.g of Annam and Korea. [1] 4) Darugha or darughaci - “all-purpose Mongol official in conquered territory" or provincial governor. [5] They oversaw census taking, tax collection, military recruitment. Initially came from the Khan’s retinue of commanders. [6] 5) Local administrators - There is evidence that the Mongols absorbed the existing bureaucrats and structures in areas they conquered such as Persia. [5] [1]: Findley, Carter V., The Turks in World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.80-82. [2]: Thomas Allsen, ‘The Rise of the Mongolian Empire’, in Herbert. Franke and Denis C. Twitchett (eds), The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6. Alien Regimes and Border States, 710-1368 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995), p.347. [3]: Findley, Carter V., The Turks in World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.80-82; Thomas Allsen, ‘The Rise of the Mongolian Empire’, in Herbert. Franke and Denis C. Twitchett (eds), The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6. Alien Regimes and Border States, 710-1368 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995), p.344 [4]: Thomas Allsen, ‘The Rise of the Mongolian Empire’, in Herbert. Franke and Denis C. Twitchett (eds), The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6. Alien Regimes and Border States, 710-1368 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995), p.344. [5]: Morgan, David. The Mongols. 2nd ed. The Peoples of Europe. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. p.97 [6]: Thomas Allsen, ‘The Rise of the Mongolian Empire’, in Herbert. Franke and Denis C. Twitchett (eds), The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6. Alien Regimes and Border States, 710-1368 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1995), p.373. |
||||||
|
levels.Late 15th century: “These 6 tümens were major administrative units, often called ulu ̄s tümens (princedoms), comprising the 40 lesser tümens of the military-administrative type inherited from the Yüan period, each of which was reputedly composed of 10,000 cavalry troops, and the 4 Oirat tribal tümens. For this reason, the Mongol state was sometimes known as the ‘Forty Mongol Tümens and the Four Oirat Tümens’, or simply the ‘Forty and Four’"
[1]
1. Khan or Khagan 2. Ulus tümens (princedoms) : 6 3. Tümens (administrative units consisting of 10,000 cavalry troops) : 40 (Mongol) and 4 (Oirat) "In the early seventeenth century, in the remaining part of Mongolia, the Khalkha khanatewas headed by the grandson of Abtai Khan, the Tüsheet khan Ghombodorji. It consisted of three large aymaqs (princedoms). The largest and most important of these was the aymaq of the Tüsheet khan himself. The other two aymaqs of the right and left flanks were under the direct control of their own khans, who were subordinate to the Tüsheet khan. The leader of the left-flank aymaq was the Sechen khan, and of the right-flank aymaq, the Jasaghtu khan. As previously, the aymaqs continued to be divided into qoshuns, which were headed by jasaq noyans. The Tüsheet khan’s aymaq had two large qoshuns, the Sechen khan’s a single qoshun and the Jasaghtu khan’s four small qoshuns. The three aymaqs of the Khalkha khanate contained a total of seven qoshuns." [2] 1. Khan, leader of the largest Aymaq (princedom) 2. Left and right Aymaqs -princedoms 3. Qoshuns headed by jasaq noyans (7 in total) [1]: (Ishjamts 2003, 213) [2]: (Ishjamts 2003, 218) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Tribal leaders "The Wuluohou, who were believed a component part of the Shiwei tribal complex, inhabited the northwestern part of Manchuria. The Wuluohou’s pattern of succession in the period of northern Wei (383-534) is recorded in the Wei Shu. It reads, "They had no supreme leader. The position of the tribal chieftain Mofu (Mufuhe) was succeeded hereditarily".95" [1] "The productive activities were organized by the tribal leaders, as described in the Xin Tangshu, "in hunting (the tribes) were banded together, and dispersed afterward; the tribes did not rule over one another or submitted to one another".103 It can be seen that no united tribal confederation had been formed yet by the Shiwei. Compared with their southern neighbors the Khitan, and the eastern neighbors, the Mohe, in the same period, the social organization of the Shiwei was not as developed. On account of their lower level of social organization, as declared in the Xin Tangshu, "they finally could not become a strong power, although they were valiant and belligerent".104" [2] [1]: (Xu 2005, 127) [2]: (Xu 2005, 180) |
||||||
|
levels.
Alan Covey: "For Wari, it seems plausible from the archaeological evidence that there were royalty, and the royal tombs in Huarmey suggest client rulers or Wari nobles in at least one distant location (although probably not as many as in Inca times). There is no evidence of a decimal hierarchy for Wari (but the Inca one is not demonstrated archaeologically, either), but pretty good evidence of internal hierarchies in urban and provincial settings. Overall, the Incas had tons more of the units that were administered (a lot more population over a much greater area), but not necessarily a qualitative difference in the levels of hierarchy." [1] "A range of 2-5 administrative levels seems realistic based on mortuary differences. I still think the Inca hierarchy was modestly more complex and vastly more prevalent, but in terms of structure, I don’t think I would treat the levels of the Inca decimal hierarchy as distinct administrative levels, so it probably wasn’t qualitatively more hierarchical." [1] [1]: Alan Covey 2017, pers. comm. |
||||||
|
levels.“The dynamics of the Oirat polities’ inner circles are by comparison less well understood. The ruler had a privy council called variously the yamu (‘office’) among the Zünghars or zarghu (‘court’) among the Kalmyks. This privy council’s members were called tüshimed (‘ministers’) among the Zünghars or zaisang (‘officials’) or zarghuchi (‘judges’) among the Kalmyks (Doronatib 1985: §§7–8, 17–18, 25, 33; Halkovic 1985: 69, 121; Khodarkovsky 1992: 44). The members numbered four at the time of the Mongol-Oirat Code (1640), but Galdan-Tseren (r. 1727–1745) expanded the Zünghar yamu by adding six zarghuchis to the existing four tüshimed (Tayama 1987: 47–49).”
[1]
See also the table clarifying this structure and showing levels 4-6 in Atwood 2010, p618.
[2]
: 1. Khan :: 2. Four Oirats (representatives and heads of different regions/tribes of the Oirat people) ::: 3. Ministers (tüshimed or zaisang) of the Privy Council (yamu or zarghu) :::: 4. Albachi zaisang (officials) ::::: 5. Demchis (rulers of 40s) :::::: 6. Shülengge (rulers of 20s)
[1]: (Atwood 2010: 615) Atwood, Christopher. 2010. “Titles, Appanages, Marriages and Officials: A Comparison of Political Forms in the Zunghar and Thirteenth-Century Mongol Empires,” in The History of Mongolia: Volume II, Yuan and Late Medieval Period, ed. David Sneath, vol. 2, 3 vols. Kent: Global Oriental. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/2CK8T6ER [2]: (Atwood 2010: 618) Atwood, Christopher. 2010. “Titles, Appanages, Marriages and Officials: A Comparison of Political Forms in the Zunghar and Thirteenth-Century Mongol Empires,” in The History of Mongolia: Volume II, Yuan and Late Medieval Period, ed. David Sneath, vol. 2, 3 vols. Kent: Global Oriental. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/2CK8T6ER |
||||||
|
levels.
Inferred from the description below: 1. Emperor 2. King (wang)3. Local tribal chiefs and elders"The economic, judicial, cultic, fiscal, and military functions were considered to be responsibilities of chiefs and elders (Taskin 1973, 9-11)." [1] "The Chinese historian Fan Ye, author of the Hou Han shu, gave the same detailed description of the Xiongnu political system in the first century AD as his eminent predecessor Sima Qian had centuries before (Lidai 1958: 680; Taskin 1973: 73). This provides a unique opportunity to observe the dynamics of the Xiongnu political institutions throughout 250 years. The most considerable differences between the power of the Mode/Maodun epoch and Xiongnu society before it collapsed are as follows:1. There has been a transition, from the triadic military-administrative division to dual tribal division into wings.2. Sima Qian wrote clearly about the development of the military- administrative structure with “chiefs of a ten thousand.” Fan Ye does not mention a decimal system; instead military rank of “chiefs of a ten thousand” are enumerated as civil titles of “king” (wang).3. According to Fan Ye, the whole first ten of “strong” “chiefs of a ten thousand” had, from the viewpoint of the Chinese chronicles, a more independent position from the shanyu headquarters.4. The order of succession to the throne had changed. While the shanyu’s throne had ordinarily passed from father to son (with a few extraordinary exceptions), the order from uncle to nephew had now become predominant.5. The Xiongnu polity came to adopt a prevailing principle of joint government according to which the ruler of the nomadic empire had a co- ruler, who controlled one of the polity’s wings. The capacity of become a junior co-ruler was held by birth; but a co-ruler’s successors could not pretend to the shanyu’s throne.These changes demonstrate a gradual weakening of the autocratic power of the center, and development of more diffused authority and federative relations, as demonstrated by, among other things, the transition from triadic administrative-territorial division to a dual one. The military-hierarchical relations were pressed back and the genealogical hierarchy between senior and junior by rank tribes was pushed into the foreground." [2] [1]: (Kradin 2011, 89) [2]: (Kradin 2014, 142) |
||||||
|
levels. Ethnohistoric records written by the Spanish after 1520 describe the coqui or noblemen who oversaw the villages, as well as the golaba, or “lord’s solicitor” who oversaw the collection of goods and services from the villages.
[1]
The levels of organisation are supported by the archaeological evidence which suggests that there was a head town in each of the polities, with supporting villages and hamlets.
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p376 [2]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390. p385 |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. Huey Tlatoani (Great Speaker/Paramount ruler)2. Cihuacoatl (Secretary of State)3. Noble council members (could range from low dozens to low hundreds by city state)4. Provincial governor (tlatoani) of subject city-state5. Ward or district chiefs6. Lineage heads 6. Hereditary nobles [2] [1]: Carballo, David. Personal Communication to Jill Levine and Peter Turchin. Email. April 23, 2020) [2]: (Hassig 1988: 29) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/8U993JEU) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Administrative levels, in theory: [6] 1. Sapa Inca2. apu chincahaysuyu / apu antisuyu / apu kollasuyu / apu cuntisuyu (Lord of region_name)Four territorial units called suyu "Individuals holding this rank would have been close relatives of the ruler, usu- ally brothers, cousins, or uncles." [7] 3. Provincial governor (20,000 households)territorial unit called huamani. at least 80 provinces. The governor (tokrikoq) reported directly to the Inca and was assisted by local elites and functionaries, such as quipucamayoc (record-keepers) [8] 4. hunu kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 10,000 householdsterritorial unit called saya "Each province was composed of two or three ranked parts called saya" [8] 5. pichkawaranqa kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 5,000 households)6. waranqa kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 1,000 households)7. pichkapachaka kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 500 households)8. pachaka kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 100 households)territorial unit called marca 9. pichkachunka kamayuq (theoretical jurisdiction: 50 households)10. chunka kamayuq (theoretical jurisdiction: 10 households) "In practice, the government consisted of an umbrella of Inca officials who oversaw a hierarchy of hereditary ethnic lords drafted into state service." [9] "In terms of levels of hierarchy, I don’t know that the Incas had so many more than I would expect for Wari. Most high-ranking Inca officials were close relatives of the ruling couple, and there were provincial lords and ladies who ruled client kingdoms. Beneath the noble level, the Incas had their decimal hierarchy, which organized from 10,000 household units down to about 10, but the lower-order positions were not full-time bureaucrats, as much as local people charged with organizing a bunch of their own relatives and neighbors to do their turn of labor service." [10] Administrative levels, in practice: [10] 1. Sapa Inca2. apu chincahaysuyu / apu antisuyu / apu kollasuyu / apu cuntisuyu (Lord of region_name)Four territorial units called suyu "Individuals holding this rank would have been close relatives of the ruler, usu- ally brothers, cousins, or uncles." [7] 3. Provincial governor (20,000 households)territorial unit called huamani. at least 80 provinces. The governor (tokrikoq) reported directly to the Inca and was assisted by local elites and functionaries, such as quipucamayoc (record-keepers) [8] 4. hunu kuraka (theoretical jurisdiction: 10,000 householdsterritorial unit called saya "Each province was composed of two or three ranked parts called saya" [8] Coded as 4-6 to allow for a certain degree of flexibility.(AD) [1]: (D’Altroy 2014) [2]: (Bauer 2004) [3]: (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2012) [4]: (Covey 2003) [5]: (Covey 2006) [6]: (D’Altroy 2014, 354-355) [7]: (McEwan 2006, 114) [8]: (D’Altroy 2014, 353) [9]: (D’Altroy 2014, 351) [10]: Alan Covey 2017, pers. comm. |
||||||
|
1. Sultan (Cairo) During his absence Egypt/Cairo was governed by a viceroy (na’ib al-saltana) [1] _ Central government line _ [2] 2a. Central administration"Army officers came from the Mamluk ranks. High government officials were also recruited from their number." [3] "In a traditional society that lacked the concept of public or municipal agencies, as individuals, the members of this ruling class assumed responsibility for what we would consider public concerns." [4] _ Cairo line _ 2cairo Magistracies. "The administration of Cairo and its inhabitants was in the hands of three traditional magistracies. The judges (qudah; sing. qadi) had a very broad jurisdiction that covered matters of civil law, and many urban problems were addressed in their courts.3cairo Chief of the Sergeants of the watch. Top police prefect.4cairo "The police prefects (wulah; sing. wali) saw to public order and security. They were particularly responsible for making the rounds at night and therefore also of fighting fires." [5] Overseer of the market (muhtasib) [6] "The quarter served as an important basis of communal association and as an essential administrative unit." [7] _ Egyptian line _ 2egypt "diwan (government bureau) of Salar" [8] 3egypt Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [9] 4egypt Governor of a small town 5egypt. Village head. _ Syrian line _ 2syria Syrian chief governor [10] Viceroy? 3syria Na’ib, governor of a mamlaka, an administrative district [9] e.g. the bureaucracy niyaba of Safed contained:4. katib al-sirr/katib al-insha (chief secretary who wrote governor’s letters, read mail) [11] 5. muwaqqi (who ratified the governor’s letters) [11] 6. katib al-dast [11] 7. katib al-darj (minor correspondent) [11] nazir (overseer who was responsible for financial management, expenditure, salaries) [12] kashif (inspector of bridges, agricultural lands and irrigation canals) [13] muhtasib (market inspector) [13] nazir diwan al-jaysh (superintendant of fiefs) [13] nazir al-mal (financial controller) [13] 4. governor also had a dawadar (personal assistant) often sent to the villages to represent the governor and an ustadar (private caretaker) [14] 4syria wali al-wulat of a niyaba [8] "The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [8] often the wali al-wulat also doubled as the shadd or mushidd al-dawawin "whose duty it was to check and observe the collection of the Sultans’ dues and taxes from state estates." [8] 5syria Wali, officer of a small town"The wali was a police officer in charge of keeping law and order in town. His rank: Amir of Ten. One should not confuse him with wali al-wulat, who was higher in authority and rank, being an Amir of Forty, and who was responsible for the minor sub-sections (wilaya) of the entire region (niyaba). [8] 6syria Village head. [1]: (Raymond 2000, 152) [2]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 113) [4]: (Dols 1977, 152) [5]: (Raymond 2000, 153) [6]: (Raymond 2000, 154) [7]: (Dols 1977, 153) [8]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 178) [9]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 169) [10]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 176) [11]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180-181) [12]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 180) [13]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 181-182) [14]: (Joseph Drory in Winter and Levanoni 2004, 172) |
||||||
|
levels.
The Western Emperor was advised by a proceres palati (’notables of the palace’) in his court. These included the protectores et domestici (’corps of officer cadets’). [1] A former body called a consistorum that ’consisted of any individual ministers that the emperor wanted to consult about a specific topic’ became ’a formal body with specific duties’. The Western Emperor did not control the army. ’In the West, as time passed the command of the army moved away from the emperor and devolved upon the newly created magister peditum (’master of the infantry’) and magister equitum (’master of the cavalry’). In the course of time the magister peditum became the more senior of the two posts.’ [1] Laws came from imperial decree which ’were in form, with only the rarest of exceptions, letters, almost always addressed to officials, occasionally to the Senate. This is true of both western and eastern legislation’. [2] Below the Emperors were praetorian prefects who ’acted as the emperor’s representatives, governing in his name with legal, administrative and financial powers.’ [1] The Roman bureaucracy was comparable in size to that of Constantinople. ’Viewed through the baroque rhetoric of a text like the Variae the bureaucracy appears hierarchically complex and numerous, and indeed gives the impression of being on par with the eastern civil service. The swelling of governmental apparatus and personnel was certainly one of the defining features of late antique society. By the end of the 4th century the state provided civil positions for an estimated 40,000 across the empire.’ [3] The ministers of state included the magister officiorum (’master of offices’); the comes sacrarum largitionum (’count of the sacred largesses’) who controlled finances, mines, mints, "and all revenue and expenditure in coin"; agents in rebus (’imperial couriers’), scholae (’imperial body guard’), officia dispositionum and admissionum (timetable and audiences for the emperor) under magister officiorum. These ministers also "commanded a large number of men who served as rei privatae (’private secretaries’). [1] NB: based on Roman Empire-Dominate 1. Emperor 2. Pretorian Prefect3. Vicarii4. Governors/praesides5. Civitas6. Vici and Coloniae7. Municipia8. Pagi "The Tetrarchy had divided the empire in half, each half being ruled by an Augustus (emperor). Each Augustus had his own Caesar (deputy and successor) to help run his half of the empire. As part of the bureaucratic system, each of the four co-rulers had a Praefectus Praetorio (Praetorian Prefect) to help with the administration of his ’quarter’ of the empire. Each Praefectus wielded great power and could readily influence military affairs, as he retained control of the main logistical system of the empire. Although abandoned on the death of Diocletian, the system of using four Praefecti was revived under Constantine. As time passed the position of prefect became more influential, especially that of the two prefects in charge of the two imperial capitals." [1] [1]: (Hughes 2012) Hughes, Iran. 2012. Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis. Casemate Publishers. [2]: (Millar 2006, 7) Millar, Fergus. 2006. A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief Under Theodosius II 408-450. University of California Press. Berkeley. [3]: (Bjornlie 2016, 49) Bjornlie, Shane M. Governmental Administration. in Arnold, Jonathan J. Bjornlie, Shane M. Sessa, Kristina. eds. 2016. A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
1. Exarch of Ravenna
In the early years of the period the Pope was elected by citizens and the army usually based on the choice of the clergy. Representatives would the certify the choice to the Exarch in Ravenna for imperial approval. However, the Exarch could make the choice himself in case of disagreement. [1] 1. Pope By 781 CE (Charlemagne agreement) "what had been the Dutchy of Rome was, somewhat enlarged, recognised as St. Peter’s and the Pope’s own principality." Authority over Ravenna "shared in ill-defineded tandem." [2] Bishop of Rome, the Pope, took responsibility for feeding Romans and refugees from Lombard war. [3] Pope was head of the senate. [1] Pope, sovereign and "universal bishop", symbolically crowned with tiara. [4] _Central government (Ravenna - 781 CE)_ 2. 3. 4. _Central government (Rome)_ 2. Senators?Pope was head of the senate. [1] Rome’s governmental infrastructure was remarkably complex, a fact that Wickham attributes to the degree of continuity between 10th-century Rome and the Byzantines and of course, before them, the Roman Empire. [5] At times during this period, it possessed three different official hierarchies, military, judicial, and clerical. [6] 2. Administrative subdivisions - Chief of Papal chancery / Papal archives etc.arcarius [7] - treasurer Papal chancery [8] Archives held in Lateran Palace with other paperwork. However, very important documents were kept in tomb of St Peter. [8] High-ranking ecclesiastical officials (legates, papal representatives, etc.): The Papal state had administrative subdivisions, loosely conceived. Noble has argued that through its extensive landholding, charitable actions, and diplomatic role as a negotiator with the Lombards, the Roman Church significantly impacted most residents of Byzantine Italy. [9] Regional elites "sought and gained grants of land and jurisdiction from the popes." [10] Described as feudal in the ninth century. [11] 3. Head of Sub-division within an administrative subdivisionSome scholars have claimed that it was the most effective government in Western Europe by the end of the seventh century (although this isn’t saying much, given how small-scale papal administration was). [12] Lower-ranking administrative officials: A nomenclator was probably assisted by ordinator. Vicedominus was steward of the papal Lateran palace. Vicedominus more involved in central administration than a major domus. [13] Amoner (financial controller). Major-domo (treasurer and controller of wardrobe). Pilgrims to the city of Rome was a source of income for the popes. [14] 4. primicerius defensorumDefensores defended "the rights of the Roman church ... and the oppressed. The formula of appointment was vague enough to allow them to undertake virtually any duty on behalf of the church." There was a college of defensores headed by a primicerius. [8] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [7] 5. defensorum 4. primicerius notariorum (head of college of notaries) [8] Officials Constantine I took with him on his 710 CE visit to Constantinople included: 2 bishops, 2 priests, a deacon, a secundicerius notariorum, the primicerius defensorum, the sacellarius, the nomenclator, the scriniarius, and two subdeacons. Archdeacon, archpriest and primicerius notariorum were left behind. Other officials, vicedominus, arcarius, ordinator and abbot. [7] 5. secundicerius notariorumA college of notaries headed by primicerius, later joined by college of defensores headed by primicerius, and a college of subdeacons. Notaries were the staff of the papal chancery, career bureaucrats. [8] Clerical officers (acolytes and guardians) [15] 6. notariorumBy this period, the popes had been caring for orphans, widows, and others as part of their pastoral duties. [9] _Regional government_ 2. Regional governor of a DutchyAfter 756 CE, the duchies were officially controlled from Rome through Papal government administration. Every major city had a bishop. Regional governors. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [16] The popes became increasingly involved during this period in appointing the duke for the Dutchy of Rome. [2] On several occasions, indeed, papal authority over the imperially-appointed dukes was demonstrated when popes had to save dukes from the irate Roman mob, or were able to defy the duke or Exarch of Ravenna with the aid of militia totius Italiae, "the entire army of Italy. [17] Regionary guardians. Regional notaries. [15] 3. Bishop of a CityEvery major city had a bishop. Bishops in joint session with provincial magnates elected the governor of each province and helped choose city officials. [16] Under the Lombards, a system of episcopal immunities emerged that made the bishops virtually local temporal sovereigns and enabled them to preserve the local spirit of municipal independence and organization (e.g., consuls, guilds). The urban population was free, and the town walls (often built by the bishops) were refuges. [18] The Roman bishop administered lands of the Church and lands of Roman basilicas, classified as tituli. [19] 4. Rectors of the Patrimony (in a Diaconate?)Ecclesiastical government contained other important regional officials. Rectors of the Patrimony were appointed for each major territory. These were drawn from subordinate Roman officials: sub-deacons or notaries and guardians, among them whom could be laymen. [20] Diaconates were established to store and distribute grain, and be centers of social welfare. [3] 5. Granary worker 5. Town / village leaderA more informal, often ad hoc, stratum but probably the most important on a day-to-day level. They included local landholders in particular. The aristocratic, land-holding stratum of Byzantine Italy emerged following Justinian’s 6th-century reconquests. [21] By the late seventh century, many sources speaks of this stratum, which Noble has described as forming "the key social class in late Byzantine Italy." [22] These landholders, often of eastern origin, acquired land through leasing them from bishops contractually. [22] [1]: (Trevor, 1869, 113) [2]: (Daly 1986) [3]: (Partner 1972, 9) [4]: (Noble 2011, xx) [5]: Wickham (2015), 4 [6]: Wickham, 4 [7]: (Richards 1979, 275) [8]: (Richards 1979, 290-292) [9]: Noble, 1984, 10 [10]: (Kleinhenz 2004) [12]: (Partner 1972, 9 [13]: (Richards 1979, 298) [14]: (Trevor 1869, 115) [15]: (Partner 1972, 1) [16]: (Woods 1921, 48) [17]: Noble, 1984, 18 [18]: (Stearns 2001 173) [19]: (Partner 1972, 6) [20]: (Partner 1972, 8) [21]: Noble, 5-6 [22]: Noble, 1984, 7 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King According to oral tradition, the Cisse was the ruling clan of Wagadu. Ruler had the title "maghan." [1] In earlier times there may have been "matrilineal descent (power passed to the son of the king’s sister)" and "There might even have been instances of female chieftains." [2] "Ghana is a title given to their kings" [3] _Central court_ 2. Head official of the General Council"L’autorité du roi et de son gouvernement central s’exerçait de façon directe sur le berceau originel du royaume soninké." (The authority of the king and his central government was exercised directly from the original birthplace of the Soninke kingdom). [4] The most powerful aristocratic clans were collectively known as wago. "That term, and the name of the kingdom, Wagadu, are probably related. "Wagadu" is a contraction of wagadugu, which can be translated as "land of the wago"." [5] "La société était organisée en clans. Le clan royal était celui des Tounkara qui formaient avec trois autres clans l’aristocratie:( les Souba ou Magasouba étaient les guerriers du roi, les Kagoro qui formaient une élite militaire, les Magassi étaient les cavaliers du roi qui composaient la garde royale.). Ces clans qui constituent la noblesse fournissaient au roi, les grands dignitaires et hauts fonctionnaires de sa cour. On trouvait à la cour du roi, le gouvernement et le grand conseil dont les membres se recrutaient aussi bien dans l’aristocratie locale que chez les arabes et les lettrés musulmans. On trouvait au sein de son gouvernement, les fils des rois vassaux, otages à la cour. La succession sur le trône se faisait d’oncle à neveu." (The society was organized in clans. The royal clan was that of Tounkara who formed with three other aristocratic clans: (the Souba or Magasouba were the warriors of the king, the Kagoro who formed a military elite, the riders were Magassi king composing the royal guard). These clans that make up the nobility provided the king, the great dignitaries and senior officials of his court. It was at the king’s court, the government and the general council whose members were recruited in both the local aristocracy among Arab and Muslim scholars. It was within his government, son of the vassal kings, hostages to the court. The succession to the throne was uncle to nephew. [4] 3. Treasury official"The king has a palace and a number of domed dwellings all surrounded with an enclosure like a city wall. ... The king’s interpreters, the official in charge of his treasury and the majority of his ministers are Muslims." [6] 4. Scribes"For the sake of administrative support, legitimization, and commercial contacts, the rulers of Kawkaw, Takrur, Ghana, and Bornu adopted Islam in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. Islam became an imperial cult and the religion of state and trading elites, while the agricultural populations maintained their traditional beliefs." [7] "A Sudanic empire commonly had a core territory integrated by ethnic, linguistic, or similar ties and a larger sphere of power defined by the rule of a particular person or lineage over numerous subordinate families, castes, lineages, and village communities. The key political factor was not the control of territory but the relations that enabled the ruler to garner religious prestige, draw military support, and extract taxes or tributes. The kings were considered sacred persons and were believed to have divine powers. They did not appear in public and were not to be seen carrying out ordinary bodily functions such as eating. Around the kings were numerous officeholders who helped govern the realm and provincial and district chiefs often recruited from junior members of the noble families." [7] _Regional government_ 2. Princes (governors called fado) of a province"L’empire était subdivisé en royaumes et en provinces eux-mêmes morcelés en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] "Les princes avaient en charge la gestion des provinces tandis que les royaumes vassaux tels que Sosso, Diara et le Tékrour conservaient leur organisation initiale et se contentaient de verser un tribut annuel et d’apporter leur contribution sur le plan militaire en fournissant à l’empereur un contingent." (The princes had control over the management of the provinces while the vassal kingdoms such as Sosso, Diara and Tekrour retained their initial organization and were happy to pay an annual tribute and to contribute militarily by providing the Emperor a quota). [4] According to oral tradition there were four provinces, whose governors/commanders (dual military and administrative powers implied) were known as fado. Ruler had the title "maghan." [1] Al-Bakri 1068 CE: king’s city had a governor [8] "Among the provinces of Ghana is a region called Sama, the inhabitants of which are known as the Bukum. From that region to Ghana is four day’s travel." [9] 3. Village chief"L’empire était subdivisé en royaumes et en provinces eux-mêmes morcelés en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] 4. Townships"L’empire était subdivisé en royaumes et en provinces eux-mêmes morcelés en villages et cantons." (The empire was divided into kingdoms and provinces themselves broken up into villages and townships). [4] _Vassal Kingdoms_ 2. KingAhmad al-Yaqubi (d. 897) said Ghana’s king had "lesser kings under his authority." [10] Al-Bakri 1068 CE: king of Ghana had vassal kings [8] "Les princes avaient en charge la gestion des provinces tandis que les royaumes vassaux tels que Sosso, Diara et le Tékrour conservaient leur organisation initiale et se contentaient de verser un tribut annuel et d’apporter leur contribution sur le plan militaire en fournissant à l’empereur un contingent." (The princes had control over the management of the provinces while the vassal kingdoms such as Sosso, Diara and Tekrour retained their initial organization and were happy to pay an annual tribute and to contribute militarily by providing the Emperor a quota). [4] "On peut distinguer deux groupes composant le peuplement de l’empire: un au Nord et l’autre au Sud. Les gens du Nord se composent des tribus nomades berbères ou Touaregs (Les berbères Macmouda au sud du Maroc, les Zenâta), les Sanhadja ( les Goddala, les Messoufa, les Lemtouma spécialistes du désert.). Le groupe Sud comporte deux fractions: les Mazzara composés de Lebou, Wolof, Toucouleur, Sérères) et les Bafours (Soninké ou Ouakaré, les Marka, les Bambaras, les Malinké, les Songhaï.)." There can be distinguished two peoples within the empire ... Northerners consist of Berber Tuareg nomads (Berber Macmouda in southern Morocco, the Zenâta) and Sanhadja (the Goddala the Messoufa the Lemtouma specialists of the desert). The southern group included two fractions: the Mazzara composed of Lebu, Wolof, Toucouleur, Serere) and Bafour (Soninké or Ouakaré, Marka, Bambara, Malinke, Songhai ). [4] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 25-27) [2]: (Conrad 2010, 28) [3]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 14) [4]: (Kabore, P. http://lewebpedagogique.com/patco/tag/ouagadou/) [5]: (Conrad 2010, 27) [6]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 15) [7]: (Lapidus 2012, 590) [8]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 16) [9]: (Al-Bakri 1068 CE in Levtzion and Spaulding 2003, 19) [10]: (Conrad 2010, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.“The first author to examine the evolution of classical Hawaiian political system in the explicit context of its further evolution as a modern state in the nineteenth century is Kamanamaikalani Beamer. In his 2014 book, Beamer identifies three main traditional principles of governance that shaped the classical Hawaiian polity. First was the mō‘ī, a supreme ruler at the head of each polity, a hereditary position that carried not only effective political power but also high rank sanctioned by mana (spiritual power). Unlike the Proto-Polynesian term *‘ariki (tribal chief) and in its derivative form ali‘i (noble class) in classical Hawai‘i, the Hawaiian neologism mō‘ī can be safely translated into English as “monarch”—albeit carrying the same cautions as the terms “king,” “emperor,” and the like as translations for the titles of the rulers of other non- Western polities. The most basic prerequisite for becoming mō‘ī was to be a member of the ‘aha ali‘i (council of chiefs), an institution assembling the higher-ranking members of the chiefly class that was of divine origins and that would also serve as principal advisory body to the mō‘ī (Fornander 1996, 28–29). Below the mō‘ī, the government apparatus of a classical Hawaiian polity included various office holders. Besides various specialized personal attendants, these included the kuhina (executive counselors) of the ruler and, most important among them, the kuhina nui (chief executive), who in turn presided over kia‘āina (governors) (Keauokalani 1932, 132–133, 146–147) .”
[1]
: 1. mō‘ī (king/monarch) :: 2. kuhina nui (chief executive) ::: 3. kuhina (executive counsellors) :::: 4. kia‘āina (governors)
[1]: (Gonschor 2019: 20)Gonschor, Lorenz. 2019. A Power in the World: The Hawaiian Kingdom in Oceania. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/FB64GREZ |
||||||
|
levels.“The most developed vision of a ‘big’ sub-Roman Britain, with control over its own political and military destiny for well over a century, is that of Kenneth Dark, who has argued that Britain should not be divided during the fifth, and even the bulk of the sixth, century into ‘British’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ cultural and/or political provinces, but should be thought of as a generally ‘British’ whole. His thesis, in brief, is to postulate not just survival but continuing cultural, political and military power for the sub-Roman elite, both in the far west (where this view is comparatively uncontroversial) but also in the east, where it has to be imagined alongside incoming settlements. He postulates the sub-Roman community to have been the dominant force in insular affairs right up to c.570. Then, over a sixty year period, but for no very obvious reason, Anglo-Saxon kingship begins to emerge, the English conversion began and, in this scenario, Anglo- Saxon leaders overthrew British power and set about establishing their own kingdoms.”
[1]
It seems that kingship was not fully established in Anglo-Saxon ‘England’ until the mid-to-late sixth century. These are evidenced by increasingly rich male burials which are distinctive to the previously higher class of warrior burials. The arrival of Anglo-Saxon leaders resulted in the establishment of the first smaller kingdoms, which set aside any remaining power structures of the post-Roman Britons and started the beginnings of kingship which quickly became widespread throughout the region.
[1]
[2]
[3]
“In the eighth century the subkingdoms were replaced by ealdormanries, but the tendency of rival branches of the royal house to challenge for the throne did not decline and in some kingdoms it increased. In a number of cases royal collateral lines which had provided subkings probably controlled the same areas as ealdormen. In Mercia and Northumbria we know that a number of the successful royal candidates were either ealdormen or the sons of ealdormen, and the powers inherent in the office of ealdorman may have helped the rival branches make their bids for power. Although removing the subkingships concentrated executive power in the hands of one king, which seems to have been of advantage in the kingdom’s struggle for expansion and survival, the ealdormen inherited many of the regalian rights of the subkings and provincial kings whom they had succeeded.87 Above all the armies of the provinces served under their ealdormen and would give their loyalty in the first instance to them.88 The Northumbrian chronicle gives many instances of how combinations of ealdormen and their armed followings decided the success or failure of royal candidates.”
[2]
“A number of ealdormen seem to have been the sons of ealdormen and the family of Berhtfrith of Northumbria exercised considerable power for three generations. Beornhæth, Berhtred and Berhtfrith seem to have been not just ealdormen, but to have enjoyed a rank second to that of the king, as Stephanus says of Berhtfrith.90 In the eighth century the title of patricius was frequently applied to individuals in this position which seems to have been analogous to that of mayors of the palace in Francia (for whom Bede used the title patricius).91 The position of patricius is known from Kent, Mercia and Northumbria in the eighth century. The patricius could deputize for the king as military leader and probably played a major role in the co-ordination of royal government.”
[4]
From the sixth century: 1. King ::: 3. Ealdormen Pre-sixth century : Warrior chief / early king: The earliest ‘kings’ in Anglo-Saxon England were essentially warrior chiefs who had their own personal followers, as in the tribes of northern Europe.
[5]
The actual nature of these warrior chiefs is dubious and there is not sufficient evidence to explain exactly how they governed or the hierarchy or administration that may have existed.
[6]
Post-sixth century : 1. King : It seems that kingship was not fully established in Anglo-Saxon ‘England’ until the mid-to-late sixth century. These are evidenced by increasingly rich male burials which are distinctive to the previously higher class of warrior burials. The arrival of Anglo-Saxon leaders resulted in the establishment of the first smaller kingdoms, which set aside any remaining power structures of the post-Roman Britons and started the beginnings of kingship which quickly became widespread throughout the region.
[7]
[8]
[9]
Kings now governed through royal officials as outlined below.
[10]
:: 2. Patricius (deputy to the king) :: The position of patricius is known from Kent, Mercia and Northumbria in the eighth century. The patricius could deputize for the king as military leader and probably played a major role in the co-ordination of royal government.”
[4]
::: 3. The Witan::: A council made up of elected wise-men who acted as advisors, particularly for assisting the king on important state matters, new laws, land grants, or war strategy. The Whitan usually consisted of a collection of bishops, abbots, chaplains, ealdormen, royal family members and royal officials.
[10]
:::: 4. Royal Officials:::: 4.1 Port-Reeves:::: Port-Reeves were the royal officials in the Boroughs.
[10]
:::: 4.2 Ealdormen.:::: Ealdormen were the royal officials in the Shires. They were from a noble family and were the chief officer for the king in the shires. They preceeded over the bi-annual court.
[10]
::::: 5. Baliffs::::: Baliffs became the royal official in the ‘Hundreds’ - smaller divisions of the Shires. They dealt with common criminal and civil matters at a monthly open court.
[11]
[1]: (Higham 2004: 4) Higham, Nick. ‘From Sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages’, History Compass 2, no. 1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XZT7A79K [2]: (Yorke 1990: 9, 15) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [3]: (Wright 2015: 27) Wright, Duncan W. ‘Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon “Home Farm”’, Medieval Archaeology 59, no. 1 (1 January 2015): 24–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H4A8AR5P [4]: (Yorke 1990: 171) York, Barbara. 1990. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447307. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/YXTNCWJN [5]: Roberts et al 2014: 30 [6]: (Hamerow 2005: 282-3) Hamerow, Helena. 2005. “The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.” Chapter. In The New Cambridge Medieval History, edited by Paul Fouracre, 1:263–88. The New Cambridge Medieval History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521362917.012. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/5JNINHPQ [7]: Higham 2004: 4 [8]: Yorke 1990: 9, 15 [9]: Wright 2015: 27 [10]: (Roberts et al 2014: 30) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 [11]: (Roberts et al 2014: 31) Roberts, Clayton, Roberts, F. David, and Bisson, Douglas. 2014. ‘Anglo-Saxon England: 450–1066’, in A History of England, Volume 1, 6th ed. Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/P2IHD9U3 |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Damel (king) :“Le Roy Damel me dit un jour chez luy a Chajort [Kajoor]. Je luy disois tu ne fais plus autant de captifs que les autres fois, il me fit repondre Je vais t’expliquer pourquoy; C’est qu’apresent je recois pour un ceque je recevois autrefois pour cinq ... il me fit entrevoir que nous etions des duppes de payer les captifs 120 Barres qui est le prix actuel toutes ces raisons se passerent chez luy dans un voyage que je fit en I775. Lieu situe a 6o lieues du bord de la mer.”
[1]
“In the same manner, Damel is the hereditary name of the king of Cayor, though we sometimes see absurdly printed ‘the Kingdom of Damel.’”
[2]
:2. Court officials (inferred) ::3. Laman :::4. Fara ::::“Cayor is divided first into provinces, and each province is ruled by an officer, who he appoints, and whom he calls Laman. This Laman issues out the king’s orders through his own district, and takes care that they shall be obeyed. It sometimes happens, however, that though a certain spot marked out, which is called a province, yet there is a small part of it, for some reason or other, not subject to the Laman’s orders. This spot then is governed by another officer, whom the king appoints, and whom he calls Fara.”
[3]
::::5. Gueraff :::::“Each province then, which contains many villages, is governed either by a Laman, or by a Laman and a Fara together, and of course all the villages in each are subject to their orders. There is besides, in each village, an officer totally distinct from the former. This officer is called the Gueraff. He may be considered as the mayor of the village, for it is his business to take cognizance of any violation of the laws, to bring the offenders to trial, and to repot the case, with the decision upon it, to the king.”
[3]
:::::6. Alcaide (trade intermediary) (NB unclear where exactly to position this role within the hierarchy) ::::::“The second is called the Alcaide. This officer, when such interpretation was made, used to transact all the business for the whites, and was considered as their factor, as well as a sort of consul between the natives and them.”
[4]
::::::7. Sarsar ::::::::“The king is obliged to send to these an officer called the Sarsar, to collect their taxes. This officer, or travelling collector, stays perhaps fifteen days at a village, and then passes to another, and so on, till he has made a collection for the whole.”
[5]
[1]: (Webb Jr 1993, 242-243) Webb Jr, James L.A. 1993. ‘The Horse and Slave Trade between the Western Sahara and Senegambia.’ Journal of African History. Vol. 34:2. Pp 221-246. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JDZFX3SC/collection [2]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 204) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [3]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 205) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [4]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 206) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [5]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 207) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Based on excavation data and survey data, Sanders et al. (1979), Earle (1976), Santley (1977), Parsons (1989), and Steponaitis (1981) argue for village political autonomy (1 admin level).
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
However, Nichols and Charlton (1994) and Niederberger (1996; 2000) use the same data to argue for hierarchical sociopolitically-integrated settlement clusters (i.e. 2 admin levels).
[5]
[6]
[1]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [2]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. [3]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [4]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [5]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [6]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. |
||||||
|
levels. Possibly two could be inferred, based on the number of levels in the settlement hierarchy and the logistics required to import large limestone blocks for public buildings at San José Mogote (particularly Structure 19 which was possibly the largest and measured roughly 22x28m in extent). The stone came from a quarry at Rancho Matadamas which was 5km from San José Mogote.
[1]
[2]
This division may, however, be incorrect as it should not be assumed that the settlement hierarchy corresponds with the administrative hierarchy for this period (the sites may have been competing with each other rather than in dominant or subordinate administrative positions).
[3]
1. Main administrative centre, corresponding with primary centres of the settlement hierarchy (e.g. San José Mogote) 2. Secondary administrative centres, corresponding with other smaller settlements with evidence for public architecture [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p57 [2]: Feinman, G. M., et al. (1985). "Long-term demographic change: A perspective from the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3): 333-362, p344 [3]: 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. p53 |
||||||
|
levels.
4. Paramount qhapaq/capac [1] 3.Central administrationAfter the 3rd Inca new elite terms known [2] 2.State administrator"state appointed administrators governed through local elites" [3] 1.Local elitee.g. paramount chief of ayllus (kinship unit) "Conquered groups came to be governed by state administrators who often retained local elites to enact state policies locally." [4] [1]: (Covey 2006a, 119) [2]: (Covey 2003, 340) [3]: (Covey 2003, 353) [4]: (Covey 2006a, 137) |
||||||
|
See C. IMBER, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power. Basingstoke. 2009.
[1]
1. Sultan Mehmet II also took the title "caesar" and "ruler of the two continents and the two seas" [2] The Ottoman Empire was a dynastic state. Rule was passed on to male heir. [3] Sultans "ruled the Empire through members of their own household, whom they had appointed to government office. This was a tendency which began probaby in the late fourteenth century, and had become very pronounced by the late fifteenth." [4] "The sultans ruled the Empire through their court as much as through formal organs of government" and sometimes by-passed formal structures of government such as in diplomatic negotiations. "There never, it seems, was a formal mechanism for policy making. All decisions in theory were the sultan’s own. What mattered, therefore, was the character of the sultan, and the individuals or factions who had his ear." [5] "At the center of the centralizing Ottoman state was an elaborate court, palace, and household government." [6] _ Central government line _ 2. Imperial Council (divan) under presidency of the grand vizier [5] Issued decrees of Sultan and made less important and administrative policy decisions. [5] "These scattered references suggest that probably during the fourteenth and certainly during the fifteenth century, a small group of viziers advised the sultan on political and administrative affairs, and had the power to make appointments in his name." [7] According to Ottoman tradition, grand vizirate may have come about after Mehmed II stopped attending meetings. [7] 3. Military judges (kadi’asker) [8] 3. Treasurers (defterdar) [8] of the Imperial Treasury of the Porte4. Pages of the treasuryPages of the treasury were responsible to a eunuch. [9] Heads of treasury administration, chancery services etc. [10] Officials rotated. [11] 3. Chancellor (nishanji) [8] "it was the chancellor who oversaw the clerks who drew up decrees and other documents" [8] 4. Clerks under the ChancellorAfter 1520 CE all scribes were Muslim but before this time a diversity of languages were used and an anonymous contemporary source suggested there was "a Chancellery for each language". [12] _ Provincial line _ 2. Provinces with governors (beylerbeyi) [13] Governor-generals (beylerbeyi) were the Sultan’s appointees and they could be moved or changed at his request. They were not hereditary positions and not held for life. [14] 3. Judgeship of a town or city judge (kadi) [15] "The judge, unlike the sanjak governor, had authority throughout his area, with judgeships forming what has been called ’a parallel system’ of administration [16] 3. Districts (Sanjaks) under district governor (Sanjak beyi) [17] who was also a military commander [18] Role of sanjak included law and order (with fief holder), pursuing bandits, investigating heresy, supplying army, materials for shipbuilding, and those on the frontier special military duties. [19] 4. Fief-holding soldiers responsible for local law and order [20] "The troops of each sanjak, under the command of their governor, would then assemble as an army and fight under the banner of the governor-general of the province. In this way, the structure of command on the battlefield resembled the hierarchy of provincial government." [14] [19] Fiefs were only one form of land-holder in Sanjacks. Other land was privately owned, formed part of a trust, or controlled by the Sultan. Beglik or miri land was given out by Sultan as fiefs. [21] By 1500 CE the smallest fiefs were called timar (village or group of villages and their fields). Larger ones subashilik (or zeamet). Largest called a hass. [22] [23] [24] 2. beylerbeyliks [25] or BeylerbikProvince run by a beylerbey. 1500 CE four central provinces: Rumelia, Anatolia, Rum and Karaman under direct rule. [25] 3. sanjak beyliks [25] or sanjakCounty run by a bey 4. timarliks [25] "districts assigned to military officiers in lieu of salary" 37,500 timar holders in 1527 CE [26] timar holder was chief law enforcement officer on his lands. [25] "In the early seventeenth century, they replaced assignment of tax revenues to timar holders with direct taxation. Timars were sold to wealthy investors as tax farms." 1597 CE. in 1695 CE tax farms "sold as life tenures (malikane). [27] 5. Council of Elders / Intermediaries of timar holders [25] run by headman or mayor [28] "timar holders themselves used intermediaries to oversee their domains. Local landowners, merchants, and village notables or headmen were important in tax collection and the administration of local affairs." [25] 2. Vassal provinces "In matters of provincial government, the empire was never truly centralized. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it was still common for newly conquered regions to remain vassal provinces, under the control of their former lords, often Christians, in return for tribute and military manpower." [29] Millet"Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Everyone was organised in the so-called ’millets’, communities based on faith, and as long as the millet did not come into conflict with Islamic organisation and society, paid its taxes and kept the peace, its leaders were largely left to run their own affairs." [30] [1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. [2]: (Inalcik and Quataert 1997, 18) [3]: (Imber 2002, 87) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [4]: (Imber 2002, 148) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [5]: (Imber 2002, 154) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [6]: (Lapidus 2012, 437) [7]: (Imber 2002, 156) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [8]: (Imber 2002, 157) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [9]: (Imber 2002, 149) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [10]: (Lapidus 2012, 439) [11]: (Lapidus 2012, 444) [12]: (Imber 2002, 170-171) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [13]: (Imber 2002, 177-178) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [14]: (Imber 2002, 182) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [15]: (Cosgel, Metin. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. April 2020) [16]: (Imber 2002, 191) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [17]: (Imber 2002, 184) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [18]: (Imber 2002, 189) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [19]: (Imber 2002, 190) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [20]: (Imber 2002, 194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [21]: (Imber 2002, 193) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [22]: (Imber 2002, 193-194) Imber, Colin. 2002. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650. The Structure of Power. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke. [23]: (Palmer 1992) [24]: (Nicolle 1996, 135-181) [25]: (Lapidus 2012, 443) [26]: (Lapidus 2012, 440) [27]: (Lapidus 2012, 473) [28]: (Shaw and Shaw 1977, 90) [29]: (Lapidus 2012, 442) [30]: (Turnbull 2003, 77) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Ruler "Within each state, the king enjoyed only the status of “first among equals.”" [1] 2. Collective body/council? who claim equality with ruler3. Scribes 3. Administrator with specific role like treasurer or public works4. Assistant 3. Head of mint inferred could be level 4 but collective body/council? could be level 14. Mint worker inferred"The Sogdian coins were simple tokens of account issued by city-states with feeble political power and were intended solely for economic exchange in Sogdiana" [2] "No text makes it possible for us to make a direct connection between the presence of a strong merchant class and the Sogdian political structure. While it cannot be proven, the hypothesis of this connection is nonetheless very tempting. Indeed, the summit of Sogdian society was occupied by an oligarchy whose exact social nature we must struggle to discern. One can suppose that it was formed by the union of the families of noble dihqans, with their possessions in the countryside, and the merchant families. At Bukhara, in any case, when the Arabs had seized the city, the merchant family of Kashkathan was at the head of the resistance to Islamization. Likewise, at Paykent, the “city of merchants” par excellence in the Arabic sources, no sovereign is ever named and the merchants seem to have acted collectively. The community (naf ) of Turfan is cited together with the Chinese king of Gaochang/Turfan." [3] [1]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 167) [2]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 173) [3]: (De la Vaissière 2005, 168-169) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
Prior to Islamic conversion : 1. Khan (head of state) :: 2. Family Council (quriltai) :: 2.1. Commander in chief / Deputy to the Khan (beglerbegi) :: 2.2. Vizier ::: 3. Ulus khans (a minor khan within each state, ulus, of the wider empire) :::: 4. Ulus Emirs ::::: 5. Lesser administrative posts. After Islamic conversion With the official conversion to Islam in the fourteenth century came the adoption of the Persian diwan system of governance.
[3]
_Regions with direct administration_ : 1. Khan :: 2. Central Council ::: 3. Vizier (head of the treasury) :::4. Baskaki (local official, tax collector, supervisor, military commander) (changed to darugi in the fourteenth century) ::::: 5. Lesser administrative posts. _Regions with local administration_ The Golden Horde chose not to have direct administration in Russian or Armenia-Georgia due to the expense, and so allowed local rulers, such as princes, to administer the region. Although they initially had resident Mongol officials (baskaki) in Russia, this was later changed so that envoys (posoly) relayed direct orders from the Khan to the local Russian princes.
[4]
: 1. Khan :: 2. Posoly (official envoys, important aristocrats) ::: 3. Local nobility (e.g. a foreign prince) :::: 4. Lesser administrative posts.
[1]: Atwood 2004: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/SJXN6MZD. [2]: Halperin 1987: 26, 30-39. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VCPWVNM. [3]: Halperin 1987: 26, 36-39. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VCPWVNM. [4]: Halperin 1987: 30-31, 34. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/VCPWVNM. |
||||||
|
Based on the structure in place in the Seleucid empires.
[1]
Seleucus and his successors had maintained the policy of Alexander in appointing a satrap to oversee a province. Below this level, the hyparchy was a subdivision. Below this level, the direct supporters of the ruler were the ’friends’based on favor or eunoia. The power was further strengthened by vast land holding, villages, slaves and other wealth. Below this level was the topoi and overseen by dioikites or oikonomos. [2] The Seleucid Empire did have full time bureaucrats, and this system in the Greco-Bactrians also seems to have existed. It is therefore inferred that some element of this system was preserved. [3] [4] 1. King 2. Topio overseen by the dioikites [5] (Note that under the Seleucids the title Dioketes denoted the individuals responsible for finances, royal land, revenue and expenditure and whom possibly also supervised royal mints and registry offices. [6] ) 3. Epistates [5] Note: if it translates directly as the Ancient Greek term, an overseer or superintendent. 4. Scribes inferred 5. Panchayat (council of elders.) [7] [1]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed. The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 [2]: Daryaee, Touraj, ed.The Oxford handbook of Iranian history. Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 158 [3]: Mairs, Rachel. 2012. "The Hellenistic Far East: From the Oikoumene to the Community." Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narratives, Practices, and Images. [4]: Rougemont, Georges. 2012. "Hellenism in Central Asia and the North-West of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent: The Epigraphic Evidence." Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 18, no. 1. p.175-182. [5]: George Woodcock, The Greeks in India (1966), pp. 106-107 [6]: Aperghis, G. G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p295 [7]: "History gives no information...about the lower levers of administration under Menander and his fellow Greek kinds in India", George Woodcock, The Greeks in India (1966), pp. 106-107 |
||||||
|
Governors of districts and divisions were appointed directly by the king, and were often closely related to the king, being close blood relatives such as brothers and close kin. <
[1]
1. Emir (King) 2. Governor of region (Uch, Bakhar, Mansura) 3. Governor of district [1]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh p. 134 |
||||||
|
"Many inscribed materials, including seals, copper tablets, and stoneware bangles, hint at a well developed bureaucracy organized from this center."
[1]
It does not seem that anyone has attempted to estimate the number of levels within this "well developed bureaucracy", though it seems reasonable to infer a minimum of 2.
[1]: (McIntosh 2008, 212) Jane McIntosh. 2008. The Ancient Indus Valley. Santa Barbara; Denver; Oxford: ABC-CLIO. |
||||||
|
"Many inscribed materials, including seals, copper tablets, and stoneware bangles, hint at a well developed bureaucracy organized from this center."
[1]
It does not seem that anyone has attempted to estimate the number of levels within this "well developed bureaucracy", though it seems reasonable to infer a minimum of 2.
[1]: (McIntosh 2008, 212) Jane McIntosh. 2008. The Ancient Indus Valley. Santa Barbara; Denver; Oxford: ABC-CLIO. |
||||||
|
levels. "Ranks and titles were conferred on the bureaucratic and military nobility until the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, a rank and title usually being associated with an office. The chaophraya were highest on the list, the equivalents of cabinet ministers, generals, and the governors of the most important provincial cities. On a descending scale came phraya, phra, luang, and khun."
[1]
Presumably the king should be added to this hierarchy--RA’s guess.
1. King 2. Chaophraya 3. Phraya 4. Phra 5. Luang 6. Khun [1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. xviii) |
||||||
|
levels. "Ranks and titles were conferred on the bureaucratic and military nobility until the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, a rank and title usually being associated with an office. The chaophraya were highest on the list, the equivalents of cabinet ministers, generals, and the governors of the most important provincial cities. On a descending scale came phraya, phra, luang, and khun."
[1]
Presumably the king should be added to this hierarchy--RA’s guess.
1. King 2. Chaophraya 3. Phraya 4. Phra 5. Luang 6. Khun [1]: (Wyatt 1984, p. xviii) |
||||||
|
levels.Despite several changes between monarchical and republic rule, France’s administrative framework was almost completely unaltered during this period.
[1]
:1. Monarch/Emperor :: 2. Council of State ::: 3. Prefect / Commissioners :::: 4. Sub-prefect ::::: 5. Local councils :::::: 6. Mayors (towns and cities) ::::::: 7. Local minor authorities
[1]: Crook 2002: 57, 132. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/29D9EQQE |
||||||
|
For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of ’Specialized Buildings’, it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment
[1]
[1]: Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303 |
||||||
|
1. Elite
2.3. The houses were used for a time period of 10 years up to a few decades, and after that time they were demolished to build new ones in their place (sometimes, the houses were burned down as a part of a ritual). Thus, the tallow settlement had risen - through the constant material accumulation. The settlement consisted of many different types of buildings. It was possible to distinguish the ones that belonged to the elite by their size and complexity. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from neighbouring kingdoms of Cayor and Sine.__Cayor hierarchy__ 1.Damel (king) :“Le Roy Damel me dit un jour chez luy a Chajort [Kajoor]. Je luy disois tu ne fais plus autant de captifs que les autres fois, il me fit repondre Je vais t’expliquer pourquoy; C’est qu’apresent je recois pour un ceque je recevois autrefois pour cinq ... il me fit entrevoir que nous etions des duppes de payer les captifs 120 Barres qui est le prix actuel toutes ces raisons se passerent chez luy dans un voyage que je fit en I775. Lieu situe a 6o lieues du bord de la mer.”
[1]
“In the same manner, Damel is the hereditary name of the king of Cayor, though we sometimes see absurdly printed ‘the Kingdom of Damel.’”
[2]
:2. Court officials (inferred) ::3. Laman :::4. Fara ::::“Cayor is divided first into provinces, and each province is ruled by an officer, who he appoints, and whom he calls Laman. This Laman issues out the king’s orders through his own district, and takes care that they shall be obeyed. It sometimes happens, however, that though a certain spot marked out, which is called a province, yet there is a small part of it, for some reason or other, not subject to the Laman’s orders. This spot then is governed by another officer, whom the king appoints, and whom he calls Fara.”
[3]
::::5. Gueraff :::::“Each province then, which contains many villages, is governed either by a Laman, or by a Laman and a Fara together, and of course all the villages in each are subject to their orders. There is besides, in each village, an officer totally distinct from the former. This officer is called the Gueraff. He may be considered as the mayor of the village, for it is his business to take cognizance of any violation of the laws, to bring the offenders to trial, and to repot the case, with the decision upon it, to the king.”
[3]
:::::6. Alcaide (trade intermediary) (NB unclear where exactly to position this role within the hierarchy) ::::::“The second is called the Alcaide. This officer, when such interpretation was made, used to transact all the business for the whites, and was considered as their factor, as well as a sort of consul between the natives and them.”
[4]
::::::7. Sarsar ::::::::“The king is obliged to send to these an officer called the Sarsar, to collect their taxes. This officer, or travelling collector, stays perhaps fifteen days at a village, and then passes to another, and so on, till he has made a collection for the whole.”
[5]
__Sine hierarchy__ 1.Maad (king) :“The maad a sinig was the head of stately decision making, whose responsibility entailed declaring or calling off war, rendering justice, and mediating conflicts while ultimately ensuring the well-being and security of his subjects. His authority extended over royal lands, the slaves who worked them, and the nobility. The king was the recipient of annual taxes and customs, receiving parallel revenue from trade and the royal monopoly over salt production. He relied on a congeries of provincial governors and local functionaries, many of whom he personally appointed, who were administering the region and ensuring the steady flow of grain to royal granaries. Locally, the king was represented by the saaxsaax who exerted judicial functions and received taxes in each village, and the jaraaf, who were generally chosen from the lineage of the village founder and acted essentially as village heads.”
[6]
:2. Jaraaf a maak ::“The great jaraaf functioned as a prime minister of sorts, heading the royal council, advising the maad on political decisions, and largely governing the internal affairs of the kingdom.”
[6]
::3. Farba fa maak :::“Another central political functionary was the farba fa maak. Although he was chief of the slaves, the great farba exerted critical influence over military and foreign affairs. Despite his servile status, he could play a defining role in the administration of the kingdom, taking effective control of diplomacy and external relations when the maad proved too young, old or weak to rule efficiently.”
[7]
:::4. Lesser court officials (inferred) ::::5. Provincial governors :::::6. Saaxsaax ::::::7. Jaraaf ::::::“He relied on a congeries of provincial governors and local functionaries, many of whom he personally appointed, who were administering the region and ensuring the steady flow of grain to royal granaries. Locally, the king was represented by the saaxsaax who exerted judicial functions and received taxes in each village, and the jaraaf, who were generally chosen from the lineage of the village founder and acted essentially as village heads.”
[6]
[1]: (Webb Jr 1993, 242-243) Webb Jr, James L.A. 1993. ‘The Horse and Slave Trade between the Western Sahara and Senegambia.’ Journal of African History. Vol. 34:2. Pp 221-246. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/JDZFX3SC/collection [2]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 204) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [3]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 205) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [4]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 206) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [5]: (The Philanthropist no. II 1811, 207) 1811. ‘Manners and Customs of the People of Cayor, Sin and Sallum’ In The Philanthropist no. II. London: Longman and Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/C5553ITD/collection [6]: (Richard 2018, 107) 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 [7]: (Richard 2018, 109) 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 |
||||||
|
levels.
No data but any "strong local state organization" is likely to have at least two levels. 1. 2.3. "Reflecting the major social and political development of the region, this monumental architecture is evidence of a strong local state organization. The inner buildings of these courtyards are at present difficult to reconstruct. Although this question has still to be resolved, it would seem that the courtyards of Koktepe housed earlier religious and administrative institutions." [1] [1]: (Rapin 2007, 35) Rapin, Claude. "Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period." in Cribb, Joe. Herrmann, Georgina. 2007. After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. British Academy. |
||||||
|
levels.
The Old Kingdom was a feudal and agrarian society. 1. The King judge and a military leader. _Court government_ 2. "Chief of the Scribes"a powerful figure [1] - a professional official. 3. Scribes [2] [3] ??? 2. The assembly (panku/tuliya)had a greater role in the Old Kingdom. It comprised of non-nobility, formed the bureaucracy and was subservient to the king [4] . _Regional government_ 1. Governors [5] Provincial administrators [6] appointed directly by the king? 2. "Council of Elders"Locally administered justice. [7] . Local council lowest identifiable judicial authority. [8] _Vassal states_ "Beyond the core territory of its homeland in central Anatolia, the Hittite empire consisted largely of a network of vassal states, whose rulers enjoyed considerable local autonomy but were bound by a number of obligations to their Hittite overlord, formalized in the personal treaties he drew up with them. In the latter half of the fourteenth century, direct Hittite rule was extended to parts of northern Syria with the establishment of viceregal kingdoms at Aleppo and Carchemish." [9] 3. [1]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 67 [2]: Burney C. (2004) Historical Dictionary of the Hittites, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, pp. 242 [3]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 11 [4]: Burney C. 2004 Historical Dictionary of the Hittites, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, pp. 35 [5]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-39 [6]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 33 [7]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38 [8]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 41 [9]: (Bryce 2002, 9) |
||||||
|
1. King
many Neo-Hittite rulers took the titles "Great King" and "Hero". "There are inscriptions that identify Kuzi-Teshub as Great King of Carchemish and son of Talmi-Teshub, the last-known Hittite viceroy at Carchemish. They indicate that at least one branch of the royal dynasty survived the fall of the empire and continued to exert authority through the early decades of the Iron Age. Since Hattusa was abandoned c.1185, Kuzi-Teshub’s rule at Carchemish must date to the first half of the 12th century. His title ’Great King’ is a significant one. No subordinate ruler within the Hittite kingdom, even a viceroy, would have used such a title while there was still a central regime at Hattusa." [1] 2. Head bureaucratic official (inferred)"The focus of each state was an administrative centre where the royal seat was located." [2] central bureaucracy in Carchemish with scribes, clerks and other officials [3] and note that "Carchemish and probably Malatya apparently continued from their Late Bronze Age predecessors with little or no interruption." [4] 3. Assistant scribe (inferred)4. Lesser scribes (inferred) _Sub-Kingdom administration_ 2. Sub-king"Peripheral areas within the kingdom’s frontiers typically contained a number of communities called ’cities’ in the texts, the majority of which could have been no more than small villages. But the larger kingdoms must have contained, in addition to the capital, one or more relatively large settlements or cities, the centres probably of regional sub-kingdoms, over each of which a local ruler presided. Regional administrations under local rulers appear to be attested within the kingdoms of Carchemish and Adanawa, for example. at certain periods in their history. The local man was subordinate and directly answerable to the occupant of the royal seat in the kingdom’s capital." [5] 3. Village leader (inferred) [1]: (Bryce 2012, 53) [2]: (Bryce 2012, 80) [3]: (Bryce 2012, 54) [4]: (Bryce 2012, 63) [5]: (Bryce 2012, 81) |
||||||
|
1. King
2. Central administration?3.4. 2. Governors of biggest cities [1] .3. Local governmentThere was a king in Gordion, and the other cities had local authorities and governments [1] 4.5. [1]: Atasoy, E., S. Buluç, 1982, "Metallurgical and Archaeological Examination of Phrygian Objects", Anatolian Studies, Vol. 32, pg:158 |
||||||
|
levels. This number is equal to the number of levels in both the provincial government and the outer court, plus the Khan.
1. Khan inscription discovered at an ancestral temple in Inner Mongolia shows early Tuoba Xianbei rulers used the title "Khan." However, this inscription was written in Chinese characters. [1] the guoren was initially the ruling clan then later "widened to include the elites of many of the defeated peoples." [2] _Central court_ At this time the typical post-Han central government bureaucracy consisted of a Royal Secretariat (shangshu tai), which had boards headed by presidents (shangshu). This later became a Department of State Affairs (shangshu sheng). [3] _Inner Court_ Political and military power concentrated in the "inner court" which was almost totally made up of Xianbei. Inner court made decisions in consultation with the king. Some powerful officials called directors (ling) could function simultaneously in both inner and outer courts. [4] 2. Chancellory, lead by shizhong (Palace Attendant)Had direct access to king as a companion/advisor. [5] 3. _Outer Court_ Department of State Affairs [6] At the central court the Chinese style Department of State Affairs along with the Secretariat (less so regarding the Chancellory) were mostly manned by Chinese courtiers in what has been referred to as the Northern Wei "outer court", though, the highest ranking members of the Department of State Affairs could very well be Xianbei." [7] 2. Board of works [6] lead by a president (shangshu) [3] or lead by (Xianbei) directors? - is this same thing? 3. Qibu (Bureau of Works) lead by a ?Northern Wei: "Bureau of Works, under the Board of Works." [6] 4. lower levels, scribes etc? 5. lower levels, scribes etc? 2. Qibing (Board of War) [6] lead by a president (shangshu) [3] or lead by (Xianbei) directors? - is this same thing? 3. lower levels, scribes etc? 4. lower levels, scribes etc? 5. lower levels, scribes etc? 2. Other boards (Justice, Personnel, Revenue, Rites) 3. lower levels, scribes etc? 4. lower levels, scribes etc? 5. lower levels, scribes etc? _Capital District_ Pingcheng Capital District (dianfu) [8] 2. Inner Capital District (jinei) - Eight Councillors (babu diafu) [8] 3. Outer Capital District (jiwai) - Eight Chieftains (babu dashuai) [8] _Provincial government_ "Matsushita Kennichi has pointed out the existence of very early Northern Wei offices of Northern Chief and Southern Chief (beibu daren, nanbu daren) appointed directly by the throne and charged with maintaining surveillance over re-located tribal peoples in the Sang’gan river basin and its environs. Matsushita argues that this system remained in place from 386-398, and following the establishment of Pingcheng as the Northern Wei capital, was subsequently supplanted by the more elaborate arrangement of the Eight Councillors and Eight Chieftains. However, the administrative bailiwick remained the same and was later directly absorbed by the Northern and Southern Boards." [9] 2. Northern Board (beibu) - Director of Northern Board (beibu shangshu)Northern Board (beibu) and Southern Board (nanbu). Director of Southern Board (nanbu shangshu). Four out of twelve of the heads were Chinese, whereas all the Directors of Northern Board were Xianbei. [9] "Northern Wei did not have have standard Chinese style administrative units on its northern borders until the reign of Xiaowendi and later - these areas tended to be governed by garrison commanders. " [10] 2. Southern Board (nanbu) - Director of Southern Board (nanbu shangshu)Northern Board (beibu) and Southern Board (nanbu). Four out of twelve of the heads were Chinese, whereas all the Directors of Northern Board were Xianbei. [9] "Until 493 the Northern Wei regime formally functioned as an apartheid conquest dynasty. Conquered Chinese areas were generally left to be governed by customary law and inherited Chinese administrative institutions, but these local and provincial structures were assigned as many as two levels of Xianbei surveillance officials placed at all levels (Yan Yaozhong 1990, 77-83). Thus a prefect’s office could very well comprise could very well comprise a member of a local elite Chinese family (the rule of avoidance was not strictly adhered to at this time), a Xianbei official, and, if the Xianbei official was not fluent in spoken or written Chinese, a Chinese courtier from the central court would be present as well." [7] 3. Zhou (prefecture) headed by a mu or cishi (prefect) [11] "prefectures, headed by a mu or cishi (prefect). In the post-Western Jin era, the zhou and jun were greatly reduced in size ... So "prefecture" in lieu of "province" is used to translate zhou while "commandery" in lieu of "region" is used to translate jun. From Han to Six Dynasties, the zhou (province or prefecture) served as the highest-level local government, above the jun (region or commandery)." [12] 4. Jun (commandery) [13] lead by a governor [14] "In the post-Western Jin era, the zhou and jun were greatly reduced in size ... "commandery" in lieu of "region" is used to translate jun. From Han to Six Dynasties, the zhou (province or prefecture) served as the highest-level local government, above the jun (region or commandery)." [12] 5. Xian (county) headed by a ling (magistrate) [15] During the Han to Six Dynasties period the xian was the "lowest of the tri-level system (zhou [provinces or prefectures], jun [regions or commanderies], and xian [counties]), headed by a magistrate (ling). [16] _Three Chiefs System from 486 CE_ "A system of mutual surveillance to facilitate tax collection ad fulfillment of corvee and military duties. Proposed by Li Chong ..., it was first promulgated in Northern Wei in 486 in the name of Xiaowendi. Replacing the system of clan masters (zongzhu ...) at the grassroots level, it organized every five households into units known as lin (neighbourhoods). Five lin constituted a li ... (village), and five li, a dang ... (community). The heads (zhang) of lin, li, and dang were the three chiefs." [17] Also known as the Taihe reforms. [18] 6. dang (community) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted 125 households (five li) [17] perhaps 750 people 7. li (village) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted 25 households (five lin) [17] perhaps 150 people 8. lin (neighbourhoods) lead by a zhang (chief)Constituted five households [17] perhaps 30 people? _Subject peoples (self-governing)_ 2. Xianbei were among other northern people "subject to the Wei rulers" who "continued to speak their ancestral languages" and remained herders. [19] 2. Erzhu clan allied with government to suppress 526-527 CE rebellions. Previously part of the Xiongnu tribal confederacy. They were living under "their own tribal organization" a pastoral lifestyle. Early 6th century estimated at 8,000 families. Possessed cattle, sheep, camels and horses, "counted by the valley" due to the vastness of their stocks. [20] [1]: (Holcombe 2011, 66-67) [2]: (Graff 2002, 73) [3]: (Xiong 2009, 182) [4]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.63-64) [5]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.64-65) [6]: (Xiong 2009, 405) [7]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.63) [8]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.65-66) [9]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.67) [10]: (Eisenberg, A. 2008. Kingship in Early Medieval China. BRILL. p.66) [11]: (Xiong 2009, 686) [12]: (Xiong 2009, 686-687) [13]: (Xiong 2009, 106, 182) [14]: (Xiong 2009, 675) [15]: (Xiong 2009, 564, 182) [16]: (Xiong 2009, 564) [17]: (Xiong 2009, 501) [18]: (Dardess, J W. 2010. Governing China: 150-1850. Hackett Publishing. p.14) [19]: (Graff 2002, 97) [20]: (Graff 2002, 100-101) |
||||||
|
1. King The term "Pharaoh" as political title emerged in the New Kingdom. In earlier times "Pharaoh" means literally what the Egyptian phrase does i.e. "great house." "head of state and the topmost administrator of Egypt" [1] "royal centers like the Hwt-aAt, the towers swnw, and the agricultural domains of the crown nwt mAwt(literally “the new localities”) continued to dot the Egyptian landscape and helped to assert the presence of the king’s authority, in a formal way" [2] _ Central government (150 people + families) _ [3] 2. Vizier"Beginning in the Fourth Dynasty, fewer members of the royal family remained in high managerial posts, and a consolidation of administrative power took place around Egypt’s highest civilian bureaucrat, namely the vizier, beginning in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] 3. Department heads"the vizier oversaw the entire state administrative system and his office maintained direct and unrestricted control over a range of entities, such as granaries and treasuries, until the appearance of specialized departments sometime in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] 4. Sub-department heads"Administrative units, such as granaries, and treasuries (which included commodity management sub-departments) [4] 5. Granary complex [5] head (inferred)snw.t refers to an individual storage silo, or granary complex [5] 6. Assistant-directors of the granary (hry-tp snw.t) [6] 7. Scribes / Other employeesBaker (rth), brewer (’fty), miller (ndw.t), tallier (nht-hrw), foreman, "inspector of custodians of granary property" [7] Scribal hierarchy [8] 3. Overseers of controllers of the scribes4. Controllers (hrp)5 scribal overseers (imy-r3)6. scribal inspectors (shd)7. scribal under-supervisors (imy-h.t) 4. Kom el-Hisn cattle center [9] (administrator in charge of this)5. State farmers _Crew system used to organize labour_ 1. Leader of the crew "In the Old Kingdom, a crew was made up of two gangs" [10] 2. Leader of a gang"In the Old Kingdom... a gang was divided into four or five phyles" [10] 3. Leader of a phyle"In the Old Kingdom... each phyle had four divisions of about 10 men each, although this number could vary (Roth, 1991). Hence, the total labour force in a crew could well reach 400 men, possibly even more." [10] 4. Foreman of a division"In the Middle Kingdom, the most frequent sizes of a division (including one foreman) were 10, 14 and 20 (Gardiner et al., 1952, 1955; Mueller, 1975; Simpson, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1986). However, there were smaller division sizes of 9 and 4, with two supervisors combined into one larger division (Griffith, 1898)." [10] "It would appear that prior to the Fifth Dynasty the existence of a cohesive multi-tiered administration for granaries is not borne out by the evidence, due perhaps to a paucity of the sources, but more likely to the fact that granary management, being carried out by the vizier’s office, may have lacked distinguishable traits. A hierarchical bureaucracy sets in only during the latter parts of the Old Kingdom..." "towns were likely to have been in charge of the daily operations of their own granaries ... The overall responsibility of the state apparatus with respect to regional granary administration may lie exclusively in issuing instructions via royal communications, supplying accounting oversight, and if need be dispensing justice." [11] "I suggest putting King (pharaoh): the term Pharaoh was hardly used for kings until the time of Akhenaten, a millennium later; before that it meant the palace or royal estate as an institution; 2: the hierarchy looks too extended to me, because in principle all the administrators were qualified as scribes, so your levels 3 and 5 are basically the same, for example, while the ’overseer – inspector – under-supervisor’ hierarchy existed in various areas (even nail-clipping!); maybe remove level 5 and remove ‘scribal’ from levels 6 and 7." [12] _ Provincial line _ [3] 3. Hwt - administrators of royal centers [13] "Private inscriptions state that the HoA Hwt or “governor of a Hwt” was a state official appointed by the administration." [14] Early in the Old Kingdom "territorial organization based more on a network of royal centers scattered all over the country than on a structure of provinces clearly marked out and controlled by local governors." [13] "the so-called geographical processions, in which each province was depicted as formed not only by towns and their hinterland (w-“districts”) but also by marshy areas (pehu)." [15] 4. Staff of nomarchThe nomarch had staff. [16] 4. Workshops within royal centers"some of the institutions whose name is composed with the element Hwt were perhaps some kind of specialized royal workshop like the Hwt-mHa, Hwt-THnt, or Hwt-Smaw known from later inscriptions." [17] 4. Village leaders (inferred from the existence of villages))"The inscriptions in Metjen’s tomb, from the early Fourth Dynasty, reveal that a Hwt could control several villages, whereas the autobiography of Ibi of Der el-Gebrawi states that extensive fields of about 50 ha provided with workers and cattle were administered by a Hwt, a fact confirmed by the ritual texts where the Hwt appear as administrative centers asserting their control over several fields and domains (Moreno García 1999, 2001a)." [18] 5. ScribesEnd 3rd millennium: "contemporary priests and scribes proudly proclaim that they worked for simple village governors (hq3w), chiefs (hrjw-tp), and administrators (jmjw-r pr), they reveal the real importance of these authorities, usually hidden under the stereotypical iconography of the punished or bowing chief of a village." [19] _ Nubian line _ 2. Governor? 3. ChiefdomsIn the 6th Dynasty Lower Nubia was organized into six small chiefdoms [20] 4. Village chiefs (inferred) "During the Old Kingdom, provincial districts were usually (though not always) run by a two-tiered administration. ’Overseers of priests’ of the local cults were important because of the role played by their temples as nodes in the network of economic administration, but the leading office was that of ’great overlord of the nome’ (often translated as ’nomarch’)." [21] [1]: (Papazian 2013, 46) [2]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 196) [3]: (EWA, Sept 2014) [4]: (Papazian 2013, 58) [5]: (Papazian 2013, 60) [6]: (Papazian 2013, 66) [7]: (Papazian 2013, 66-67) [8]: (Papazian 2013, 78) [9]: (Papazian 2013, 48) [10]: (Ezzamel 2004, 507) Ezzamel, Mahmoud. July 2004. Organization. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp 497-537. Sage publications. [11]: (Papazian 2013, 67-69) [12]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020) [13]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 190-192) [14]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 198) [15]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García, Recent Developments in the Social and Economic History of Ancient Egypt, 7) [16]: (Van De Mieroop 2011, 80) Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Backwell. Chichester. [17]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 191) [18]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 198 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) [19]: (Garcia 2013, 1055) Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno "The ’Other’ Administration: Patronage, Factions, and Informal Networks of Power in Ancient Egypt" in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. [20]: (Spalinger 2013, 463) [21]: (Seidlmayer 2003, 117) Seidlmayer, Stephan. "The First Intermediate Period" in Shaw, I. ed. 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Louis IX (reign 1226-1270 CE) began the rebuilding of the royal palace on Ile de la Cite, which was completed by Philip IV [1] Philip IV (1284-1314 CE) strongly tried to link ruler-ship to divine origin. Persuaded Pope to posthumously canonise Louis IX. _Central government_ Foundations of administrative system laid by Philip II. [2] Philip II had "a small group of close counsellers who held offices with particular, if not always specialized, functions. Philip also employed royal agents in the demesne, and outside, to carry on the routine work of government and to enforce the changes which he introduced./ We speak of departments, and we know of the existence of a chancery and a chamber, but we should be mistaken to see these as entirely separated organizations. Household departments do not emerge until the reign of St Louis, but they were in the process of formation in Philip’s time. The close counsellors and the clerks could still move from one area of the administration to another, and often did.../ Central government was organized under a few major officials: the chancellor, the seneschal, the butler, the chamberlain and the constable. These originated as household officials with specific functions. By the beginning of the twelfth century these offices had been taken over by leading magnates. Under Philip, one or two magnates held such titles ... But the trend was to pass office, and sometimes title, to more humble men and their professional staff, for example marshals assisting the constables." [3] "By the reign of Philip II (1180-1223), the Templars were effectively the French royal treasury. During the course of his reign, they increased the revenues from royal estates by 120 per cent, and were heavily involved in Philip’s restructuring of Capetian finances. During the thirteenth century, the Templar treasurer in Paris was always a man selected by the king, and the treasurers became trusted advisers to Philip and his successors. ... That the Templars proved themselves to be so successful as bankers is due in no large part to the meticulousness of their records, and their objectivity in dealing with clients. Records survive from the Paris Temple for the period 12 March 1295 to 4 July the following year, and they give a clear indication of how busy the Paris Temple was in its role as banker. ... There were more than 60 active accounts at the Paris Temple during this period, with the account holders being a mixture of royalty, clergy, important nobles and Templar officials." [4] 2. who replaced the senechal at this level?3. Department heads. Finance, Justice, Chancery, Treasury (from Philip IV - previously the treasury was kept by the Knights Templar at their Temple), auditors, law-courts (parlements), archives (muniments in tresor des chartres)Government departments within the Royal Palace, Ile de la City [1] 4. Lesser officials Law courts Parlement De Paris from 1250-1790 CE Philip II used non-noble officers to over-see courts [5] _Provincial government_ 2. Leader of semi-autonomous city-state3.4.autonomous urban governments had independent judicial institutions, legal system, and administration and managed its own relations with the church and the monarchy. [6] Some cities were semi-autonomous city-states, e.g. Flanders [7] 2. Ruler of appanage3.4."Beginning with the sons of Blanche of Castile and Louis VIII (r. 1223-26), apanages became normal in France. By installing their sons as rulers, monarchs could control newly acquired outlying areas, as northern French nobles had long done." [8] Apanage: "province or jurisdiction, or later for an office or annuity, granted (with the reservation that in the absence of direct heirs the land escheated to the crown)" - often granted to sons of the Capetian king [9] 2. Dukes/Barons/Counts who ruled principalities3. Principalities had capitals with their own mini-government system [10] 4.Example: the Dauphine of Vienne an independent principality (until 1349 CE). Territory from Rhone to The Alps. "Capital" city was Vienne. [11] Example: Burgundy. Duke of Burgundy had his administration based at Beaune, which moved to Dijon in the 14th century. [12] "Between 1120 and 1481, no lord in France is known to have made any regular use of prince as a title of lordship" [13] 3. District: Bailiff in a Bailliage (Northern France); seneschal in a Sénéchiaussée (Southern France)The basic provincial administrative unit of late-medieval France from late in the reign of Philip II [14] bailliage and sénéchiaussé were administrative subdivisions of France established by Philip II after 1190. [15] seneschals of dukes, barons, counts became royal appointees, continued their role as chief administrative officers. the lands under their control became known as sénéchaussées. [16] baillis of royal provinces, particularly important under Philip II (1180-1222 CE) [17] late Middle Ages 30-40 districts governed by a bailiff or a seneschal. [16] 4. Prévôt in a Prévôté.The district for which a prévôt was responsible was called the prévôté, and there were half a dozen of these in each bailliage. [18] prévot farmed the revenues of the royal domain and rendered justice at a local level. a "prevote" was a military region used in the raising of armed forces (end 12th century) [19] 5. Leader of a parishCities could be divided into parishes [20] [1]: (Spufford 2006, 68) [2]: (Spufford 2006, 67) [3]: (Bradbury 2013, 249) Jim Bradbury. 2015. Philip Augustus: King of France 1180-1223. Routledge. [4]: (Martin 2011) Sean Martin. 2011. The Knights Templar. Oldcastle Books. [5]: (Bouchard 1995, 316) [6]: (Pegues 1995, 1005-1010) [7]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 3) [8]: (Medieval France: An Encyclopedia 1995, 97) [9]: (Suarez 1995, 97-98) [10]: (Spufford 2006, 74-76) [11]: (Spufford 2006, 165) [12]: (Spufford 2006, 154-155) [13]: (Boulton 1995, 1430) [14]: (Henneman 1995, 147) [15]: (Pegues 1995, 1333) [16]: (Henneman 1995, 1645) [17]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 10) [18]: (Henneman 1995, 1427-1428) [19]: (Nicolle and McBridge 1991, 6) [20]: (Nicolle and McBridge 2000, 4) |
||||||
|
levels.
"Merovingian administration was singularly crude and poor: neither literacy, currency nor Christianity were introduced by the counts dispatched to rule beyond the Rhine. In its economic, social and political structures, Western Europe had left behind the precarious dualism of the first decades after Antiquity; a rough mixing process had occurred, but the results still remained unformed and heteroclite. Neither simple juxtaposition nor crude mixture could release a new general mode of production, capable of surmounting the impasse of slavery and colonate, and with it a new and internally coherent social order." [1] 1. King The court was a peripatetic institution [2] _ Court institution_ 2. Senior Palace official was known as "Mayor of the Palace" [3] maior domus [2] 3. Treasurer [2] 4. Notaries and scribes Comes palatii [2] Magnates known as Obtimates, were consulted by the king at an annual gathering around March 1st. [4] _Regional government_ 2. Dukes and BishopsGroup of cities and counts could be placed under a duke (for military and administrative purposes). [5] Magnates (dux?) and Church (bishops) "Many bishops owed their position to the king" and "were royal servants with no known connections with their sees." [6] Individuals in charge of multiple civitates? called dux (pl. duces). [7] Aristocrats dependent on patronage from king. [8] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [9] 3. Comes (count) of the Civitas (city-district)Merovingians maintained existing Roman administrative systems where possible. Gregory of Tours (538-594 CE) writings show cities are the basic units of the administrative system. [9] local law-men called rachinburgi [10] City archives: defensor, curator, magister, militum. Known from Formularies from a few civitates but no evidence uniform across polity. Senior official of civitas was the comes (pl. comites) or count (lit. "companion). Heard law-suits, enforced justice, lead the military. In north graphiones instead of comes. [11] Civitas administration "provided dominant source of tax revenue" and some of the manpower for the army. [12] In sixth century the role of the Roman curiales had been taken over by a single official appointed by the Merovingian king, the "count" or the "grafio" in the Frankish homelands. This official - where present the most important city official - had its origins in the Roman imperial comes civitatis. The first such official in Gaul is known from 471 CE. They executed judicial and administrative functions and sent the king his tax revenue. Rule through these city officials gradually spread across Gaul in the post-Roman period. Gregory of Tours refers to "leading officials" who could be members of a local council. [9] Gregory of Tours’ region in central Gaul likely had longest persisting continuity with Roman structures of city-based rule. These were the "basic building-blocks of which the various Merovingian regna were composed." However, in Frankish regions the rule-through-city framework may have been less pervasive. [9] Internal administrative regions due to the city based taxation system. The "guiding imperative behind the divisions would appear to be the sharing out of the profits from various forms of taxation" on the civitas [9] 4. PagiSub-division of the civitates. Replaces civitates in some parts of Gaul [13] Alternative ruling structures had been innovated such as dukedom (higher scale) and the pagi (lower scale). [9] [1]: (Anderson 2013, 126-127) Anderson, Perry. 2013. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. Verso Books. [2]: (Wood 1994, 150-153) [3]: (Halsall 2003, 28) [4]: (Wood 1994, 104) [5]: (Bachrach 1972, 67) [6]: (Wood 1994, 78) [7]: (Wood 1994, 61) [8]: (Halsall in Wood ed. 1998, 149) [9]: (Loseby in Wood ed. 1998, 245-249) [10]: (Wood 1994, 107) [11]: (Wood 1994, 60) [12]: (Wood 1994, 64) [13]: (Halsall 2003, 48) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
1. King considered guardian of divine and human law _Central government_ 2. Conseil du roi3. Head of the Royal Secretariat (recorded council business and drafted acts, correspondence, etc. and archived. Head-quartered at Celestins monastery).title of Premier secretaire du roi not in use after 1460 CE but position still de facto occupied. gained further responsibilities including those of the secretaires des guerres (created 1472 CE) and greffier (clerk) of council. 4. Bureaucrats of the divisions of the Royal Secretariat head-quartered at the Celestins monastery5 Lesser bureaucrats inferred6. Lesser bureaucrats inferred 4?. secretaire des finances Conseil du roi (highest organ of public power in 15th and 16th centuries) over-overwhelmingly composed of aristocrats, especially as cardinals from 1520s CE. councils of government reflected a strong ethos of collective decision-making process. Grand conseil de justice emerged under Louis XI (1461-1483 CE). Conseil Etroit (known by this name from 1484 CE) - inner councillors and princes of the blood.. Conseil secret within this conseil had 3 members. Conseil Etroit became known as Conseil prive from mid-1530s CE. Conseil des affaires, morning council with the king which considered the latest despatches. mid-16th century? Parlements of Paris. "Each Parlement claimed sovereign jurisdiction in its own territory and not all edicts registered at Paris were registered in the provinces. They thus remained unimplemented. However, only the Parlement of Paris could admit officiers or constitute itself as a chamber of peers." _Provincial government_ 2. Provincial Parlements"Each Parlement claimed sovereign jurisdiction in its own territory and not all edicts registered at Paris were registered in the provinces. They thus remained unimplemented. However, only the Parlement of Paris could admit officiers or constitute itself as a chamber of peers." 2. Provincial governor of provincial gouvernements (King’s lieutenant-general)"representatives of the King’s person in the provinces" Limited terms, perhaps 3-5 years Powers between provincial Parlements and provincial governments often contested. 3. Bailiff in a Bailliages (Northern France); seneschal in a Sénéchiaussée (Southern France)1515 CE France had about 100 bailliages Bernard Guenee said: bailliages were not divided into chatellenies, they were made up of them. 4. Prévôt in a Prévôté (or vicomte)/Chatelleniethis level was the "bedrock of the system of law and administration." consisted of a "castle, dependant lands and rights with, significantly, only one "custom" prevailing in it." 5. Leader of a parishwithin Chatellenies. E.g. in 1562 CE there were 43 parishes within the Pontoise chatellenie. X. Seigneuries Seigneuries (lordships) owned by seigneurs The "chatellenie was the essential administrative unit, sometimes a royal chatellenie, sometimes seigneurial." X. Great fiefs and (apanages of the crown) - level replaced by provincial bodies80 fiefs in 1480 CE, c40 in 1530 CE Apanage of Orleans returned 1498 CE. Burgundy 1477 CE. Picardy-Artois 1477 CE. Avergne 1531 CE. Brittany 1536 CE. Maine 1481 CE. Anjou 1481 CE. [1]: (Potter 1995) |
||||||
|
levels.
King, viceroy, governor, + scribes and other workers. "The federal structure of the Elamite empire was organized into three administrative layers of governance, and the various provinces were ruled over by: (1) the governors’ (Halmenik), who were under the control of (2) a ’viceroy’ (Sakanakkun), who was subject to (3) the great king of Elam (Zunkir)." [1] -- does not specify which period "Shortly after [mid-14th BCE], when Middle Elamite sources reappear, we find a completely different situation from the period of the sukkal-mah. Susa ceased to be the political centre of Elam. The seat of power moved further inland, beyond the mountains, in Anshan (modern Fars). Consequently, Middle Elamite kings began to use the title of ’king of Anshan and Susa.’" [2] After mid-14th BCE: "Finally, the succession was by now patrilineal, a predictable result of that evolution of Elamite society that began in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries." [2] Middle Elamite kingdom had more of a "local character" compared to the sukkal-mah. "At the time of the sukkal-mah, the choice of Susa as capital showed a clear intention of becoming a constitutive part of the Mesopotamian political system and of Babylonian culture. Now, however, following a tendency that has been attested in Hatti and Mitanni, Elam strived to maintain its uniqueness, while presenting itself as one of the protagonists in this decidedly polycentric Late Bronze Age Near East." [2] Neo-Elamite period saw a "rival of ancient royal names and of the Middle Elamite royal titulature." [3] In Neo-Elamite period this included: "the ancient titles of ’king (sunkik) of Anshan and Susa’, ’master (katri) of Elam’, governor (hal-menik, translated as sakkanakku in Akkadian) of Elam’, and the title of ’magnifier of the realm’. The latter emphasises the revival of Elamite expansion." [4] "Public administration flourished under the 2500 years of the strong federated state of Elam, which made significant contributions to Iranian and world civilizations. The organization of the federated state of Elam was based on two pillars, the military and civil administrations, and there was a generally respected separation of these two functions. The civil administration was headed by a coordinating body of appointed functionaries who discharged the administrative responsibilities of the ’federal state’ at Susa. The administrative body handled the financial, regulatory, and other civil affairs, and coordinated the intergovernmental relations with the member states in the system. Thus its experience in federalism and intergovernmental relations administration was perhaps the oldest in recorded history". [5] "Among the major administrative achievements of the Elamite Iran were the development and management of a gigantic system of underground irrigation, qanats, an earlier Iranian invention turning an unworked country into an agricultural land; the invention and development of the written language of Elamite and its extensive use in the administration of the federated state; and the construction and maintenance of numerous public enterprises like roads, bridges, cities and towns, communication centers, and economic trade centers with the neighboring states. Elamite Iran was relatively prosperous because of its rich minerals and precious metals, as well as other industries and arts." [5] "The earliest experiences of state tradition and administrative functions on a massive scale began around 6000 B.C. in Susa. As one of the oldest sites of ancient civilization, Susa began political and administrative life first as a city-state contemporary and rival to Sumer in the Mesopotamia, then as the capital of one of the oldest empires of antiquity, Elam. Established in the late fourth millennium B.C., the Elamite Empire was the first Iranian experience in empire building and state tradition. ... the federated state of Elam practiced public administration ... The federal system of Elam was composed of several major kingdoms (the Kassite, the Guti, the Lullubi, Susiana, and Elamite), all being of the same racial group of the pre-Aryan people. The Elamite over-lordship in Susa was the main power of the federated states, the heads of which frequently assembled for political and military purposes. Decision making wa based on equality, and cooperation was key to the coordinated system of government in a federal structure." [6] [1]: (Farazmand 2009, 22) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 376) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 528) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [4]: (Leverani 2014, 529) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [5]: (Farazmand 2001, 536) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. [6]: (Farazmand 2001, 535) Farazmand, Ali in Farazmand, Ali ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. |
||||||
|
levels.
--- 1037-1045 CE "Beyond a few cities which served as Seljuk bases, such as Rayy and Hamadhan, Tughril made little effort to assert direct rule. For many city dwellers, little changed immediately, and not just the descendants of Seljuk but also local princes continued fighting among each other, sometimes recruiting aid from various Turks, ranging from Tughril himself to Ibrahim Yinal to the ’Iraqiyya." [1] "for most of Seljuk history there was no one central bureaucracy. Multiple Seljuk courts required multiple bureaucracies, and multiple viziers. Indeed, the whole system of administration was characterised by its extreme fluidity and decentralisation." [2] "As well as overseeing the functioning of other departments, the vizier and the diwan-i a’la were tasked with making appointments in the name of the sultan to offices which were in his gift, such as the positions of qadi, muhtasib and shihna." [3] --- 1045-1118 CE 1. Caliph de jure "The Seljuq leader, Alp Arslan (1063-1072), behaved with more courtesy toward the caliph and provided him with greater financial and political leniency, but it was clear that the latter figure was still mainly a de jure ruler. Real power remained in the hands of Alp Arslan, who was granted the title of sultan, which up to that time had generally meant ’rule’ or ’authority’ but henceforth could be understood to mean the de facto ruler, ostensibly appointed by the caliph to rule in his name." [4] 1. Sultan de facto The sultan was the head of secular power [5] his court, the dargah [6] [7] 2. nadims (boon companions)according to Nizam al-Mulk "everything connected with pleasure and entertainment, parties of drinking and companionship, hunting, polo and gambling." However, Peacock (2015) reports he says that "nadims should not be consulted on matters of high politics - a stricture which suggests that in fact they frequently were." [8] 2. hajib (chamberlain) 2. wakildar (messenger) 2. Treasury 2. wakil (steward)3. Kitchen 3. sharabkhana (winehouse) 3. Stables 3. Palaces of the elites (khass)4.5. Slaves and servantsAccording to Nizam al-Mulk’s Book of Government "Slaves and servants should stand at attention while on duty." [9] _Central government_ (nb: Anne Lambton is a specialist on Seljuk administration). "for most of Seljuk history there was no one central bureaucracy. Multiple Seljuk courts required multiple bureaucracies, and multiple viziers. Indeed, the whole system of administration was characterised by its extreme fluidity and decentralisation." [2] 2. vizier of the diwan-i a’la (main government department with overall responsibility) [10] "As well as overseeing the functioning of other departments, the vizier and the diwan-i a’la were tasked with making appointments in the name of the sultan to offices which were in his gift, such as the positions of qadi, muhtasib and shihna." [3] 3. mustawfi of the diwan-i istifa (revenue) 4. sub-head in divan for taxation? 5?. ra’is (central government representative located in the regions)The ra’is "was essentially the link between the government and the taxpayers ... cases involving taxation were referred to his dīvān." [11] 4. Clerks 3. mushrif of the diwan-i ishraf (accountancy) [12] 3. tughra’i or munshi of the diwan-i tughra wa insha (chancery) [12] 3. diwan-i ’ard (military pay) [12] 3. diwan-i awqaf (religious endowments) [12] 3. diwan-i istifa headed by the mustawfidepartment for revenue _Provinces_ "in the provinces an incredible variety of individuals were vested with authority in the name of the sultan(s)." [2] "the east ... has connotations of seniority in Turkic culture: with both the Gok turks and the Qarakhanids, the rulers of the eastern divisions of the empire, considering it to be superior." [13] 2. malik (prince) and atabeg (supervisor). wali (governor). amir.Seljuk princes assigned to provinces as iqta as nominal governor (maliks). Atabegs usually an amir. They looked after the princes. [14] "de facto independent atabegates" [15] amir: "(1) a military commander; (2) a prince, a ruler’s title; (3) a Turkmen chief (in this sense equivalent to beg)" [16] 3. Vizier"The bureaucracy of each court was probably quite small. ... Most probably, each department probably consisted of little more than its head - the vizier, mustawfi, tughrai and so on - and a handful of clerks." [17] 4. diwan-i iyalat (or diwan-i wilayat or diwan-i riyasat)department in the provinces concerned with taxation. [3] 5. Clerks 2. (provincal) 5. (central) ra’is"the head of the community known as the ra’is might be charged with functions ranging from the collection of taxes to cooperating with the shihna in the maintenance of security." [18] 4?. Prefects of police [9] 5. 2. Amir/muqta (Iqta holder)"Some provinces, like Ganja, were assigned to maliks and their atabegs, while others, towns like Mosul, were allotted as iqta to an ever-changing succession of amirs." [2] "... in lieu of salary an amir would be granted the right to collect the taxes of a given area. An iqta could thus vary in size from a whole province to much smaller subdivision, to a single town or village. ... The system was greatly expanded under the Seljuks, and itqa’s were now used to pay senior bureaucrats as well as amirs and were also granted to members of the Seljuk dynasty. However, iqta holders became much more than tax collectors, and often functioned effectively as the local ruler (particularly amirs: bureaucrats seem to have become less entrenched in their iqta’s, perhaps because their duties required their presence at court)." [19] 2. Ulama"Some cities, such as Bayhaq, Nishapur and Bukhara, were controlled by religious elites - Bukhara, for instance, was subject to a dynasty of Hanafi ’ulama who bore the title of sadr (themselves, of course, subject to the Seljuks’ Qarakhanid vassals." [20] 2. Shihna"Baghdad had several types of overlapping administration: most prominent were the sultan’s shihna, and the caliphal diwan" [18] _Vassals_ 2. Vassal ruler"Vassals could often rule their territories in their traditional ways provided they recognised the Seljuk sultans’ suzerainty, remitted tribute and performed obligations of military service." [21] "Other branches of the Seljuk family also controlled territories on the peripheries of the empire": "Kirman in southern Iran (and Oman too)" between 1048-1186 CE, Seljuks of Syria 1076-1117 CE, and the Anatolian Seljuks 1081-1308 CE. [22] "Bedouin Arab chiefs in Iraq": Mazyadids and ’Uqaylids. [21] "Bawandids on the Caspian coast" [21] Ismaili state in Quhistan did not recognise Seljuk suzerainty [21] --- 1118-1157 CE 1118 CE: "Seljuk sultans of Iraq recognised the suzerainty of the Great Seljuk ruler Sanjar, based in Khurasan, who was known by the title of al-sultan al- a’zam, ’the Greatest Sultan’. The sultans of Iraq are sometimes referred to as the ’Lesser Seljuks’. [22] [1]: (Peacock 2015, 46-47) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [2]: (Peacock 2015, 189) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [3]: (Peacock 2015, 193) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [4]: (Amitai 2006, 51) Amitai, Reuven. The Mamluk Institution, or One Thousand Years of Military Slavery in the Islamic World. Brown, Christopher Leslie. Morgan, Philip D. eds. 2006. Arming Slaves: From Classical To The Modern Age. Yale University Press. New Haven. [5]: Findley, Carter V., The Turks in World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P.69. [6]: (Peacock 2015, 12 [7]: 159) Peacock, A C S. 2015. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [8]: (Peacock 2015, 159) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [9]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [10]: (Peacock 2015, 333) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [11]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [12]: (Peacock 2015, 333-335) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [13]: (Peacock 2015, 41) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [14]: (Peacock 2015, 93-94) Peacock, A C S. 2015. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [15]: (Peacock 2015, 75) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [16]: (Peacock 2015, 332) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [17]: (Peacock 2015, 194-195) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [18]: (Peacock 2015, 190) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [19]: (Peacock 2015, 79-80) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [20]: (Peacock 2015, 189-190) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [21]: (Peacock 2015, 8) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. [22]: (Peacock 2015, 7) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. |
||||||
|
Before the Roman Principate there was no formal bureaucracy. The state treasury of the Roman Republic was kept in the custody of the priesthood inside the temple of Saturn, and was managed by elected aristocratic officials called quaestors.
[1]
In the period of the Roman Principate state revenues were stored in an imperial treasury (fiscus) under the direct control of an Emperor.
[2]
The fiscus, created by Augustus, brought to power a new class of officials whom, like the Emperor’s chief financial official the rationibus, were typically freedmen. The Emperor was assisted by his directly appointed consilium (advisory councils) that were often made up of freedmen and personal slaves.
1. Emperor "... in 30 BC, Octavian was left in sole control of the Roman empire. As the first Roman emperor, he created a new system of government, taking the name Augustus (’Revered One’)." [3] "Augustus, like all wealthy Romans, employed procurators, agents of the freedman class, in the administration of his private fortune." [4] The “imperial” power under Augustus emerges as a sum of various offices from the tradition of the Republic combined in the hand of one man, who became the “princeps” [5] "The rise of the freedman class is one of the most striking social phenomena of the first century of the Empire. higher degree of the freedmen of the Emperor." [6] 2. Imperial Chamberlain _ Central government_ 2. Imperial Bureau (scrinia) e.g. financial chief (a rationibus)"The power of the imperial freedmen centred in the first century round the great imperial bureaux (scrinia), the ’ab epistulis/’ a libellis,’ ’a studiis,’ and the great financial post of ’a rationibus.’" [7] old State treasury (aerarium Saturni), new imperial treasury (fiscus). the fiscus created a "new class of officials" "’a rationibus’ down to Hadrian’s time was normally a freedman" [8] 3. Salaried officials and scribes (ab epistulis, a libellis, a studiis)"The main items of expenditure were the maintenance of the army, the expenses of provincial government, the salaries of officials, the corn-supply and police of Rome, the maintenance of religion, the building of temples and other public works, and the public roads and aqueducts." [9] 4. Financial officials ’praefecti classis,’ ’procurators hereditatium,’ ’patrimonii’"Freedmen occur in the first century as ’praefecti classis,’ ’procurators hereditatium,’ ’patrimonii,’ etc., whereas after Hadrian knights take their place." [10] 5. lower administrators and assistants and servile workers"The class on which the Emperors mainly depended for the supply of their financial officials was that of the knights ... "after Hadrian, they practically monopolized all but those of subordinate importance" however before Hadrian imperial freedman had a more influence and could aspire to the top posts. [11] 2. Official related to aerarium militarespecial military chest founded by Augustus (aerarium militare) [12] 2. Official related to patrimoniumthe Emperor’s purse (patrimonium) [13] _Provincial government_ 2. Provincial governors [14] of Senatorial provinces (quaestors)Senatorial and Imperial provinces. In 27 BCE provinces divided between Emperor and Senate. "The old system of quaestors might be continued in the senatorial provinces; but in the imperial, the financial officer must be no magistrate, but a deputy, depending on the Emperor and on him alone." [15] "Whilst in the senatorial provinces we still find quaestors, working under the supervision of the proconsuls, in the imperial there appear procurators of the Emperor, subordinate to, yet not directly dependent on, the legates." [16] 2. Provincial governors [14] of Imperial provinces (procurator Augusti)"Whilst in the senatorial provinces we still find quaestors, working under the supervision of the proconsuls, in the imperial there appear procurators of the Emperor, subordinate to, yet not directly dependent on, the legates." [17] Senatorial and Imperial provinces. In 27 BCE provinces divided between Emperor and Senate. "The old system of quaestors might be continued in the senatorial provinces; but in the imperial, the financial officer must be no magistrate, but a deputy, depending on the Emperor and on him alone." [18] "The procuratorships of provinces were posts of high trust and importance, and Augustus must have seen that they could not well be entrusted to freedmen. He therefore limited the latter to the subordinate positions, and entrusted the head posts to men of equestrian rank, whose superior position was reflected in the title of ’procurator Augusti,’ in contrast to the purely private ’procurator.’ The fact of this change is certain, but some details of its institution remain obscure." However, freedman "occasionally" attained the procuratorship of a province. [19] 3.. Decurions, local magistratesin 1 CE Decurions were required to be at least 25 years old and meet a property qualification of ’HS 100,000’. There was also an entrance fee. [20] . 4. vici magistri (village headmen) 2. Client Kingdoms _Egyptian government_ 2. PrefectAppointed by Rome [21] 3. ProcuratorsAppointed by Rome [21] Includes finance officer dioiketes (and other department heads) 4. EpistrategoiAppointed by Rome [21] Regional administrator, 4 in total 5. StrategosAppointed by Greco-Egyptians [21] 30 in total 5. AccountantAppointed by Greco-Egyptians [21] auditor of the nome 6. District scribeAppointed by Greco-Egyptians [21] 7. Village scribeAppointed by Greco-Egyptians [21] 8. Village EldersElected or co-opted [21] 9. LiturgistsCompulsory public service [21] [1]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 42) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [2]: (Adkins and Adkins 1998, 45) Adkins, Lesley. Adkins, Roy A. 1998. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford University Press. New York. [3]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 34) [5]: (Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. April 2020. Email.) [14]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 38) [20]: (Donahue, 2004, 93 [18]) [21]: (Peacock 2000, 416) |
||||||
|
’Chinese was the basis of government, both ideal and practical. A bureaucratic system carefully modeled after that of the T’ang and referred to by historians as the "statutory" (ritsuryo) regime had reached its apogee in the eighth century. By the beginning of the Heian era, the system had already begun to evolve in new directions; by the beginning of the tenth century, although the conception and rhetoric of Confucian government remained, as did its forms and usages, many of its functions were being carried out by other means. Aristocrats and their clients competed for office, empty or not, within its bureaucracy. Chinese provided the medium for the memorials, decrees, codes, administrative regulations, ordinances, commands, communications, and certificates by which the government functioned.
[1]
:’At first, strong emperors used the established bureaucratic machinery to administer the country. This was a continuation of Nara-style administration and lasted until about 850. Subsequently there was a period of two centuries during which the Fujiwara family dominated the court and governed through puppet emperors. This meant that administration paid at least as much attention to narrow Fujiwara family concerns as to broad national interests.
[2]
’Down through the administrative structure - from the heads of offices around the emperor to those in charge of local offices in distant regions - ran a hierarchy of office titles and ranks. Heads of the highest offices held the title of director (kami) who had assistants (suke), secretaries (jo), and clerks (sakan). (These four office titles were written with different characters but pronounced in the same way when held by officials serving in different ministries and agencies.) According to the Yoro adminstrative code of 718, the number of officials in the two councils and eight ministries totaled 331. If lower-ranking officials are added, the total was 6,487. Ranks provided a more precise indication of status than titles did, for officeholders with the same title had different ranks yielding different stipends and perquisites. The Taiho code set aside four imperial ranks (hon) for princes and near relatives of the emperor and thirty court ranks (kurai) for persons lower in the aristocratic order. The son or grandson of a nobleman holding the highest imperial rank was automatically awarded a junior fifth rank lower grade court rank when he reached the age of twenty-one. Special treatment for anyone with a fifth rank or above - apart from the rights that their sons had to a high rank when they turned twenty-one, irrespective of ability - is revealed by the generous stipends and retainers they received’ [3] ’The structure of the imperial court was a complex affair. The following chart depicts the basic outline, but each division and ministry contained a hierarchy of officials. Some divisions also included subdivisions. Despite the formality of this structure, the operation and functionality of any particular ministry fluctuated depending on the particular time period. There were also aristocratic families who came to dominate a particular court function through the use of heredity.’ [4] 5.Emperor ’At the apex of the structure was the emperor, whose will was expressed in decrees (mikotonori) and edicts (semmyo). Important decisions, such as those pertaining to appointments and promotions of high-ranking officials, were recommended at meetings of the Council of State but were carried out only with imperial approval. The two codes placed no limitations on imperial authority, thus giving the emperor, legally at least, despotic control. [5] 4[a]. Council of Kami Affairs’Under the emperor were two councils that had equal standing: the Council of State, generally overseeing secular affairs, and the Council of Kami Affairs, running affairs in the area of kami worship. Although the two councils were organizationally at the same level, the Council of State’s highest minister (the chancellor) held a higher rank than did the highest official of the Council of Kami Affairs. But the chancellor also had some responsibilities that lay outside the bounds of secular administration: He served as the emperor’s guide and teacher and was given the task of harmonizing movements of the world with Chinese principles of yin and yang.’ [6] 4[b]. Council of State’Under the emperor were two councils that had equal standing: the Council of State, generally overseeing secular affairs, and the Council of Kami Affairs, running affairs in the area of kami worship. Although the two councils were organizationally at the same level, the Council of State’s highest minister (the chancellor) held a higher rank than did the highest official of the Council of Kami Affairs. [6] 4[b].1. Chancellorthe chancellor also had some responsibilities that lay outside the bounds of secular administration: He served as the emperor’s guide and teacher and was given the task of harmonizing movements of the world with Chinese principles of yin and yang.’ [6] 3[a] Minister of the Left3.1[a] Central affairs’The Ministry of Central Affairs (the Nakatsukasa-sho) ranked above all other ministries and was the main link between the emperor and the Council of State. Its minister gave advice on numerous court matters, supervised the court chamberlains, and drafted imperial edicts. Under him were ten secretariats, including the Secretariat for the Empress’s Household (Chugushiki).’ [7] 3.2[a] The Ministry of Personnel’The Ministry of Personnel(Shikibu-sho) supervised personnel affairs. Within it were two important bureaus: one for higher learning (Daigaku-ryo) and another for nobles who held a court rank but occupied no office (Sammi-ryo).’ [7] 3.3[a] Civil affairs‘The Ministry of Civil Affairs (Jibu-sho) had two important bureaus: one for Buddhist priests and nuns and aliens (Gemba-ryo) and another for court music (Gagaku-ryo).’ [8] 3.4.[a] Popular affairs‘The Ministry of Popular Affairs (Mimbu-sho) was responsible for administering household registers, taxes, irrigation, paddy fields, and the budget.’ [9] 3[b] Minister of the Right 3[b].1 The Ministry of War‘The Ministry of War (Hyobu-sho) took care of personnel matters pertaining to soldiers and other military affairs.’ [7] 3[b].2 The Ministry of Justice‘The Ministry of Justice (Gyobu-sho) handled legal affairs.’ [7] 3[b].3 Treasury‘The Ministry of the Treasury (Okura-sho) dealt with state property, weights and measures, prices, and related matters.’ [7] 3[b].4 Imperial household‘The Ministry of the Imperial Household (Kunai-sho) managed food, clothing, and personnel problems of the imperial household. Inside each ministry were several, often several tens of, administrative organs of three types: secretariats (shiki), bureaus (ryo), and offices (tsukasa)’ [7] 2.Four senior counselors’Below the chancellor, the minister of the left, and the minister of the right were four senior counselors. [10] 1 Council of State’s three departments‘Under these six men were the heads of three administrative offices, referred to as the Council of State’s three departments: the Department of Junior Counselors (Shonagonkan), the Department of the Controller of the Left (Sabenkan), and the Department of the Controller of the Right (Ubenkan). The first included three junior counselors authorized to serve as custodians of the imperial and Council of State seals, and the last two were responsible for transmitting imperial orders (senji), distributing orders issued by the Council of State (kampu), and handling communications between the council and its eight ministries.’ [8] 1.1 the Department of Junior Counselors (Shonagonkan) 1.2 the Department of the Controller of the Left (Sabenkan) 1.3 the Department of the Controller of the Right (Ubenkan) _Other offices_ ‘Outside the ministerial structure were a number of important boards and administrative units’ [7] Censors ‘the Board of Censors (Danjodai) that was engaged in exposing the illegal activities of officials and upholding standards of correct bureaucratic behaviour.’ [7] Guard units ‘there were the headquarters of the various guard units, beginning with the five that guarded the imperial palace: the gate guards (emon-fu), the left guards (saeji-fu), the right guards (neji-fu), the left military guards (sahyoe-fu), and the right military guards (uhyoe-fu). The central government had, in addition, a right and left bureau of cavalry and a right and left bureau of armories. Other offices outside the eight ministries included two that were responsible for the left and right sectors of the capital.’ [11] Capital section Dazaifu ‘ Organs of government outside the capital included, first of all, the Dazai headquarters (Dazai-fu) located near the harbor of Na in Kyushu from which the nine provinces of Kyushu, as well as the islands of Iki and Tsushima, were administered. Each of the country’s sixty or more provinces 16 was headed by a governor who usually had under him ten or more districts headed by district supervisors. Each district contained between two and twenty villages (sato) made up of fifty households each. A governor was appointed for a six-year term, but the district supervisors, usually selected from the local gentry, had no fixed term of office. The Taiho administrative code contained no articles dealing with village heads, but it is assumed that they were influential farmers.’ [12] [1]: Shively, Donald H. and McCullough, William H. 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 2: Heian Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.342-343 [2]: Mason, Richard Henry Pitt. 1997. A History of Japan: Revised Edition. Tuttle Publishing.p.64 [3]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.236 [4]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.89 [5]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.232-233 [6]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.233 [7]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.234 [8]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.234 [9]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.234 [10]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.233-234 [11]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.235 [12]: Brown, Delmer M. 1993. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 1: Ancient Japan. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press.p.235 |
||||||
|
levels. One might infer at the very least 1) the ruler, 2) city bureaucratic officials, 3) subordinate officials, and 4) village elders, but we have no hard data.
|
||||||
|
1. Caliph (tribal Patriarch, head of the Umma)
_ Central government line _ 2. "in Mu’awiya’s time, the caliph was surrounded by Arab chiefs." [1] 3. "in Mu’awiya’s time, the caliph was surrounded by Arab chiefs. Now [i.e. some time after Mu’awiya] a chamberlain kept visitors in order and regulated daily business." [1] 4. office of the Chancery staffed by professionals. [1] 5. ... ? ... "Under the Arab domination the East Roman civil servants continued to work for the government. The Byzantine theologian, John of Damascus, belonged to the well-known family of Mansur and under the first Umayyad Caliph Muawiya the financial administration of the Caliph had been controlled by Sarjun ibn Mansur. These Christians, formerly in the service of the East Roman exchequer, carried through vital financial reforms for the Caliphs. As the East Romans had done in the case of the great imperial army, they divided up the Arab tribes into separate katasters which registered all members of each particular tribe. ... They also had the idea of departing from Byzantine precedent which divided the land among the soldiers and settled them on it as military farmers. But they grouped them together in strongholds which were set up in districts which could supply their economic needs. Thus military establishments were placed in Kufa, Basra and Cairo (al-Fustat) because the troops garrisoned in these places could easily be provisioned from the fertile and highly developed countryside." [2] _ Provincial line _ 2. Amel (civilian governor) and Amir (military governor)"In the early years after the Islamic conquest both “civil” governors (ʿāmels) and military governors (amīrs) were appointed over towns and districts as circumstances demanded." [3] Regional military governors (members of Arab tribal coalition). Mu’awiya (661-680 CE) "appointed regional governors over tribal army but did not create a "centralized government apparatus" [4] Prefects sent from Damascus administered Egypt. [5] The Egyptian capital had a governor. [5] 3?. Local rulers of Sasanid/Byzantine regionsfor example, the "shahr" district under Sasanids had a "king" appointed by the King of Kings. In the Umayyad period did this official report directly to the caliph’s regional governors or to the caliph himself? 4?. Head administrator of local governmentE.g. Sasanid local government was run by a shahrab and a mowbed and often an accountant. 5?. Official of a rustagReported to the local government bureaucracy? 6?. village headman It is important to make a distinction between the central government line and provincial line in the administrative hierarchy of the Umayyad Caliphate. The central government line was non-existent at the beginning and was in a developing stage in the mid-8th century, so there was low administrative hierarchy in the central government throughout this period. However, the provincial line of government was extremely well-developed from the start because the Muslim-Arabs retained the bureaucracies of the Sasanids and Byzantines, and in fact also kept their administrators. According to Lapidus: the Muslim-Arabs: "Reconstructed the governing apparatuses of the Byzantine and Sasanid empires." [6] One could therefore speculate the Caliph replaced the Sasanid provincial governors (the Shahrabs) with his own military chiefs and kept the e.g. Sasanid bureaucracy below it intact. In Iraq this may have been a Sasanid district called a shahr, which had its own chief or king and a government (further levels of complexity). A division within a shahr was called a rustag. There was a further division below this called a "deh" run by a village headman. [7] The Abbasids who followed the Umayyad’s formalised a "hierarchy of districts" in Iraq, Iran and Egypt including the bottom unit called "rustag." The Sasanids who preceded the Umayyads also had a "rustag." [1]: (Lapidus 2012, 80-90) Ira M Lapidus. 2012. ’The Caliphate to 750.’ Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 210) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Lambton 2011) Lambton, Ann K S. 2011. CITIES iii. Administration and Social Organization. Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cities-iii [4]: (Lapidus 2013, 80-90) [5]: (Raymond 2000, 17) [6]: (Lapidus 2013, 55) [7]: (Daryaee 2009, 124-135) |
||||||
|
Based on Imperial administration c.560 CE
[1]
1. Emperor "wished to be regarded as the emanation of the sun-god and claimed the same veneration as the Apostles of Christ" [2] - Valid only for Emperor Constantine the Great (d. 337 CE) [3] from "the point of view of the ceremonial" the Christian Emperor "was still a god" in the pagan tradition. "His arrival was heralded by the raising of several curtains, like the appearance of the deity in the oriental mystery religions. Hence the meetings of the Emperor’s council held in this sacred setting were able to announce only decisions which had been discussed and settled outside this body (gremium)." [4] Emperor "received the Corona aurea, the crown of the triumphator, or the corona laurea, the laurel crown. This crown, which became the symbol of imperial authority, consisted in the sixth century of a double strand of pearls worn across the forehead broken only by a small shield. This earliest form of crown is better described as a diadem. The massive gold crown made up of a number of plaques joined to each other by links first dates from the time of Heraclius." Heraclius (r.610-641 CE). [5] The consistorium was a ceremonial council "in which things already decided and agreed upon were solemnly restated in a ceremonial setting. Thus liaison staff and new departments were formed for the purpose of working over the agenda before the official meetings of the consistorium." [2] After reforms of Diocletian and Constantine "consisted in the regularity of its meetings and the participation of its permanent members. It was no longer the same as before, when changing members from senatorial families, summoned erratically to the meetings, gave the assembly more of the character of a representation of a social class. Permanent members (comites), of whom each was in charge of a definite department, now attended to an ordered administration. The division of these councils into ranked classes was also carried out." [6] 2. quaestor sacri palatiiquaestor sacri palatii (minster of justice) "had among his duties the preparation of the imperial laws and documents, for which he took over part of the responsibility with the authorization legi (’I have read’)." [7] 2. comes sacrarum largitionum"in charge of taxes and attended to the monetary obligations of the Empire, such as the payment of wages to the troops and salaries to the officials, and the payments of money to foreign princes, in so far as these had to be provided in accordance with political agreements." [7] 3. Administrative staff - more than one level 3. Diocesian officials4. Chiefs of workshops, mints 4. Supervisors of mines 4. Diocesian treasuries 2. comes rei privataecomes rerum privatarum "in charge of the great income which accrued to the Emperor from his estates and demesnes (domus or Greek oikoi). He was the head of the curatores, of whom each was in charge of the Emperor’s estates in one part of the Empire." [7] 3. Administrative staff - more than one level 3. Estates of domis divina4. Diocesian officials5. Provincial officials 5. Managers of estates, flocks and herds 3. Customs offices 2. Magister officiorum"The magister officiorum was in charge of the departments of protocol and foreign affairs; he was also head of the political police (schola agentium in rebus) and commanded the palace guard." [7] 3. Chiefs of the palatine bureaux 3. scrinium barbarorum and section heads - more than one level 3. The Master of Audiences 3. Agents in rebus"The magister officiorum was in charge of the departments of protocol and foreign affairs; he was also head of the political police (schola agentium in rebus) and commanded the palace guard." [7] 4. Inspectors in provinces 3. Palace administration 3. Senior clerks and staff - more than one level 3. Public post - more than one level 3. Arms factories - more than one level 3. Military billeting 3. comes domesticorum 3. Tribuni of the Scholae 3. Stratores 2. Praetorian prefectsAfter reforms of 395 CE the praefectus praetorio "was given control and administrative authority over all branches of the economy. In this sphere the prefect had the power of unlimited jurisdiction and at the same time he was the highest instance for appeal." [8] "Among other duties of the prefect were the supervision of the postal system and of public works, and the control of urban corporations (obligatory guilds), schools, government munitions works, and factories, so far as they were working within the scope of a state monopoly. Similarly, the stores of supplies and arms depots were under his command." [8] praefectus praetorio supervised "the receipt of the annona. The annona was the delivery-target imposed on the rural districts and was determined by the provisioning needs of the cities and the army. The prefect supervised urban economy through control of prices and the assignments which urban industry had to make to the state (canon vestium)." [8] "With the aid of these full powers the prefect was able to build up within the imperium romanum a planned economy similar to the Egyptian one, which had already been working successfully for six centuries." [8] 3. Central bureaux4?. genike trapeza (department for general inland revenue) under office of praefectus praetorio NOTE: Genike trapeza is a Greek term common only after 7th cent. [3] dealt with general taxes [9] 4?. idike trapeza NOTE: idike trapeza is a Greek term common only after 7th cent. [3] responsible for the collection and checking of revenue. "The idiki trapeza paid its intake over to the office of the comes rerum privatarum. After the introduction of the theme organization the office of idike trapeza was abolished." [10] 4. Vicarii (Diocesian governors) and staff"planned economy after the Egypto-Hellenistic model meant above all the abolition of the hitherto existing form of regional government. ... The old large provinces were abolished ... The provinces, combined into twelve larger units, formed so-called dioceses." [4] 5. Provincial governors and staff - more than one level6. Officials deputed to cities (praefectus urbis?)"The lowest unit of administration was then the city (civitas or polis) each with its district (territorium) upon which the assessment and collection of taxes ultimately devolved (Jones 1964:366454; Stein 1968:39-50; Kelly 1998:162-9)." [11] Is this official the praefectus urbis? "The setting up of a new business depended upon acceptance into the appropriate gild [systema], membership of which could only be granted with permission of the state authority, in particular the praefectus urbis." [12] 7. Assistant/scribe/worker under city officials e.g. local tax official inferred 8.possibly another city level e.g. local tax official has an assistant, particularly in the bigger cities. Imperial palatine administration c.560. [13] 1. Emperor 2. Head of imperial bed-chamber3. primicerius cubiculi4. cubiculariicubiculum (Imperial private chancery) headed by praepostius sacri cubiculi. praepostius sacri cubiculi was the head of the imperial cabinet. [2] members called cubicularri (chamberlains) and secreti (private secretaries) 3. decuriones4. silentiarii5. Estates of domus divina and staffs [1]: (Haldon "after Delmaire 1995" 2008, 547) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 54) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [3]: (Preiser-Kapeller 2015, Personal Communication) [4]: (Haussig 1971, 55) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [5]: (Haussig 1971, 186) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [6]: (Haussig 1971, 53-54 Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [7]: (Haussig 1971, 53) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [8]: (Haussig 1971, 52) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [9]: (Haussig 1971, 180) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [10]: (Haussig 1971, 180-181) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [11]: (Haldon 2008, 535) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [12]: (Haussig 1971, 60) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [13]: (Haldon "after Delmaire 1995" 2008, 548) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Peace chief"Political leadership was provided by peace chiefs, who were highly respected by tribal members and who were responsible for directing communal hunting expeditions and for interacting with the leaders or representatives of other ethnic groups. [...] Peace chiefs had relatively little power and authority; they presided over the tribe using persuasion rather than force" [1] . 2. Village chiefSuggested by the following quote: "The role of [peace] chief was generally reserved for men, although women of influence sometimes became village chiefs" [1] . [1]: Illinois State Museum, The Illinois: Society: Leaders (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/te_houses.html |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Chief / Priest "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia." [2] "The central administrative complex represents the core of the Cahokian polity. The location of ridgetop mounds within this area may equate with kin groupings or other administrative units. East St. Louis, being newer, may have been a higher status community of isolated elites." [3] At Mound 72 "Analysis of the skeletal remains shows that certain burial groups were of higher status than others and that some may have come prom places other than Cahokia." [4] 2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest? "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "The answers provided by the working group seem to point to Cahokia being an urban settlement that was the center of a regional government, but the picture is not entirely clear." [2] "Regional political integration appears to have been an essentially ritual one; that is, the site hierarchy that is present appears to be more of a hierarchy of ritual spaces than of political jurisdictions." [2] "Cahokia was also the center of a regional government of some kind, at least for a short period of time." [2] "mound complexes may have been organized around sodalities rather than around kin groups. Perhaps these sodalities were secret societies" [1] "Mound and plaza groups may represent corporate (perhaps kin-based) political and ritual complexes, each of which would have been maintained by their own administrativespecialists or generalized leader." [5] 3. Elder / Religious functionary "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] kin group leaders [1] [1]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) [2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 82) [5]: (Kelly 2014, 22) |
||||||
|
levels. This is based on the codes for the Rasulids as ’Sultan ’Amir also appears to have been emulating the high period of Rasulid power a hundred years earlier’
[1]
1. Sultan Sultans. [2] "Ayyubid traditions remained strong in the new state, seen for example in their royal titulature." [2] The first Rasulid Sultan, Nur al-Din, "proclaimed himself sultan of Yemen with the title al-Mansur." [3] [4] _Central government_ 2. Council of Notables"Reflecting the orthodox Muslim respect for the community consensus, the proclamation was issued by the council of notables of the realm, not as the sovereign’s personal act. The Rasulids sought at least the appearance of public support for major decisions. The opinion of high state officials, it is recorded, was unanimous as to the accession of al-Ashraf II upon his father’s death." [5] 2. WezirTop administrative official? "al-Ashraf I ordered his minister" who is referred to as a "wezir". [6] 3."an official in his chancery". [6] The Rasulids had a "public administration" with a "body of functionaries" that attempted to extract "as much revenue as practicable from their domain." [4] 3.4. Tax collector5. Deputy tax collector"Al-Ashraf II abolished an oppressive tax on cotton introduced by a deputy tax collector in the days of the sultan’s predecessor." [7] _Provincial line_ 2. Chief JudgeProvinces had a chief judge who could get into disputes with the provincial governor. [6] 2. AmirRuler of region (or city?). e.g. Amir of Aden [2] and "governor of Sanaa". [8] Deputy governor worked under a provincial governor. [9] 3. Deputy governorAl-Khazraji "dates the ruin of the Tihama to the year 1353, and ascribes it to the malevolence of a deputy governor at Fashal". [9] 3. Town official"and furthermore wrote to officials in the chief towns". [5] 4. Customs inspectorCustoms inspectors e.g. at Aden. [7] Difference between Rasulids and Zaidi Imamate: "the Zaidi imam al-Hadi’s officials were simple, and derived solely from the Koran and hadith; under the imam’s close guidance, a fairly rudimentary knowledge sufficed for their interpretation and application. Rasulid officials had a much more complex tax system to administer. While the core of the rules had roots in the shari’a, many other regulations were introduced for the sake of uniformity and increasing revenue." [4] Upper and Lower Yemen: "For two centuries the two regions coexisted in a state of mutual hostility, under sharply contrasting styles of leadership." [10] [11] [1]: Porter, Venetia Ann (1992) The history and monuments of the Tahirid dynasty of the Yemen 858-923/1454-1517, Durham theses, Durham University, p. 4 Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5867/ [2]: (Bosworth 2014) Clifford Edmund Bosworth. 2014. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [3]: (Stookey 1978, 108) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [4]: (Stookey 1978, 112) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [5]: (Stookey 1978, 119) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [6]: (Stookey 1978, 114) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [7]: (Stookey 1978, 113) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [8]: (Stookey 1978, 110) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [9]: (Stookey 1978, 122) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [10]: (Stookey 1978, 124) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [11]: (Stookey 1978, 125) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
levels. "On a classificatory continuum the Limba and Kuranko polities were structurally more akin to political organizations sometimes classed as “simple chiefdoms,” with a slightly greater degree of centralization emerging among the Yalunka in the nineteenth century (Fried 1967; also see de Barros this volume; Johnson and Earle 2000; Service 1975:74–80, 104–64). Simple chiefdoms (following Fried 1967) are characterized by a principal settlement surrounded by smaller villages, with a total population in the thousands. Hence they may be seen as a bridge in a sociopolitical hierarchy ranging from big men polities to states (see Johnson and Earle 2000). Yet, as Southall (1991:80) and others have cautioned, the terms “chiefdoms” and “chiefs” are ambiguous, and the latter can be equally if not better described as “big men, local ritual leaders, notables, or primi inter pares.” In addition, specifically with regard to the Limba, Yalunka, and Kuranko, other sociopolitical structures, such as kinship groups (both maternal and paternal), affines, age grades, and secret societies (evidence for which is all poorly perceived archaeologically), provide crosscutting forms of more heterarchical social organization."
[1]
1. Chiefs :2. Village heads (inferred)
[1]: (DeCorse 2012: 285) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/7FGSKCDI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "We emphasise from the beginning that our historical knowledge of kings and the length of their reigns, and of the political structure and organisation of Kaabu remains very limited."
[1]
[1]: (Giesing and Vydrine 2007: 4, quoted in Green 2009: 92) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/V2GTBN8A/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Thus, after the victory of the marabout party following the holy war against the various ruling Jallonke aristocracies, the Muslim leaders created the Confederation of Futa Jallon under the leadership of Ibrahima Sambegu. Sambegu, known as Karamokho Alfa, was the head of the Sediyanke lineage of the Barry family of Timbo, and carried the title Almamy. The Confederation was divided into nine Dime, sing. Diwal (provinces) whose chiefs bore the title of Alfa and were appointed from among the leaders of the djihad. The territorial division thus corresponded, initially, to the territory liberated by each of the leaders of the Muslim revolution. Thus Karamokho Alfa, the Almamy and head of the Confederation of Futa Jallon, was above all the Alfa of the Diwal of Timbo, the capital. From the beginning, the power of the Almamy, with his seat at Timbo, was limited by the wide autonomy granted to the chiefs of the provinces of Labe, Buriya, Timbi, Kebaali, Kollade, Koyin, Fugumba and Fode Haaji and also by the existence of a Council of Ancients acting as a parliament at Fugumba, the religious capital."
[1]
1. Almamy :2. Council of Ancients ::3. chiefs of the provinces :::4. intermediate administrators (inferred) ::::5. village headmen (inferred)
[1]: (Barry 1999: 291) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/SU25S5BX/items/24W2293H/item-list |
||||||
|
levels. 1. Cape Mount overlords :"The Mani kings and their followers representing the vanguard of greater forces remaining behind in what is now Liberia, paid tribute to an overlord at Cape Mount."
[1]
:2. Mane kings :: "The Mane generals and captains, on the basis of apportioned Sierra Leone among themselves, and ’kings’. There were four principal kingdoms: the Bulloms, which extended from Tagrin Point northwards, the Idolos islands; secondly, the kingdom of Logos about Port Loko; thirdly, the kingdom of Sierra stretched south from the Sierra Leone channel until fourth kingdom, that of Sherbro."
[2]
::3. Chiefs ::: "Within each of these kingdoms there were subdivisions, whose rulers sometimes wielded great power, as in the case of Tora, who commanded only the islands of the Sierra Leone channel but who by 1605 was the eldest survivor of the Manes. This gave him the status and authority of a king, though he was subject to Fatima, king of the northern Bulloms."
[2]
:::4. Lesser chiefs (inferred from great power of some chiefs)
[1]: (Kup 1975: 35) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/36IUGEZV/collection. [2]: (Rodney 1967: 227) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G8G96NVQ/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the following: "As demonstrated by the uniformity of their material culture and their presumed belief system, most prominently reflected by the terracotta sculptures, external contacts within their culture must have existed. However, such a larger social network apparently was not organised and maintained in a way as to infer social inequality, social hierarchies or other signs of internal demarcation traceable by available archaeological data. None of the numerous excavations brought to light architectural remains of specified buildings or the spatial organisation of housing areas that might have been occupied by high-ranking members of the community. Further, among the admittedly few features interpreted as graves there is no evidence of any heterogeneity pointing to a difference between burials of elite members or commoners. Nowhere, an accumulation of valuable objects neither of iron nor any other materials signifying inequality in terms of property or prosperity was found."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels. One might infer at the very least 1) the ruler, 2) city bureaucratic officials, 3) subordinate officials, and 4) village elders, but we have no hard data.
|
||||||
|
levels. The following reconstruction of small communities consisting of extended families based in autonomous homesteads suggests minimal social diffrentiation. ”For the first 400 years of the settlement’s history, Kirikongo was a single economically generalized social group (Figure 6). The occupants were self-sufficient farmers who cultivated grains and herded livestock, smelted and forged iron, opportunistically hunted, lived in puddled earthen structures with pounded clay floors, and fished in the seasonal drainages. [...] Since Kirikongo did not grow (at least not significantly) for over 400 years, it is likely that extra-community fissioning continually occurred to contribute to regional population growth, and it is also likely that Kirikongo itself was the result of budding from a previous homestead. However, with the small scale of settlement, the inhabitants of individual homesteads must have interacted with a wider community for social and demographic reasons. [...] It may be that generalized single-kin homesteads like Kirikongo were the societal model for a post-LSA expansion of farming peoples along the Nakambe (White Volta) and Mouhoun (Black Volta) River basins. A homestead settlement pattern would fit well with the transitional nature of early sedentary life, where societies are shifting from generalized reciprocity to more restricted and formalized group membership, and single-kin communities like Kirikongo’s house (Mound 4) would be roughly the size of a band.”
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 27, 32) |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the following: "As demonstrated by the uniformity of their material culture and their presumed belief system, most prominently reflected by the terracotta sculptures, external contacts within their culture must have existed. However, such a larger social network apparently was not organised and maintained in a way as to infer social inequality, social hierarchies or other signs of internal demarcation traceable by available archaeological data. None of the numerous excavations brought to light architectural remains of specified buildings or the spatial organisation of housing areas that might have been occupied by high-ranking members of the community. Further, among the admittedly few features interpreted as graves there is no evidence of any heterogeneity pointing to a difference between burials of elite members or commoners. Nowhere, an accumulation of valuable objects neither of iron nor any other materials signifying inequality in terms of property or prosperity was found."
[1]
[1]: (Breunig and Ruppe 2016: 252) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/ES4TRU7R. |
||||||
|
levels. "Shortly after the start of Red II a drastic and rapid egalitarian revolution took place, a turning point in Kirikongo’s developmental trajectory. Social inequalities were rejected in a process of nonvertical social differentiation of houses coupled with increasing interhouse communalism."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 30) |
||||||
|
levels. The following suggests at least one level of rule. "At Kirikongo, increasing centralization is associated with a gradual co-option of iron metallurgy. Iron metallurgy as an avenue to inequality would provide an alternative spiritual power, derived from profound excavation and transformation in the realm of divinities (the earth). It is this power that today makes smiths held in high esteem and occasionally feared. The spiritual power of the Bwa smith is separate from the political process, but at Kirikongo the emergence of smith-elites at Mound 4 marks the possible combination of multiple spiritually derived sources of power, from those based upon their role as village founder (over nature and ancestry), to a new cult (iron) that may have been manipulated owing to its mysterious nature. In short, between Yellow II and Red I, the inhabitants of Mound 4 likely employed their ancestral priority to assume control of the village territory, then co-opted another source of authority using the spiritual power of iron."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 30) |
||||||
|
levels. The following suggests some hierarchy of rule. "With the founding of the third household (Mound 11) at the start of Yellow II (Figure 8), the village was now arranged in a north/south line, with adjacent farming land to each house. However, during Yellow II, it appears that Mound 4’s inhabitants extended corporate control over the territory as head of a village community, a sociopolitical model based in common descent. [...] While houses were still highly independent, even producing their own pottery, a formalized village structure was likely present with both cadet and senior social segments, founded upon common descent with a common ancestor."
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 28) |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Mambo/Ishe/Changamire, ‘paramount chief’; (2) Mambo/Ishe/Sadunhu, ‘lesser chiefs’; (3) Sadunhu, ‘leader of a group of villages’; (4) Samusha, ‘village head’; (5) Saimba, ‘head of a homestead.’ These are hierarchical levels derived from a brief discussion of later Shona-speaking cultural formulations applied to Great Zimbabwe by Chirikure, based on the belief that Great Zimbabwe was a larger Shona-speaking state organized along the lines of the typical Shona pattern. Given the general lack of information on the settlements making up Great Zimbabwe’s supposed territory, this seems to be a reasonable approach to adopt. Note that the terms used here differ among Shona-speaking groups. “In general, imba (plural: dzimba) under the leadership of the saimba, was the smallest and lowest level social unit. A collection of dzimba formed misha (singular: musha) under samusha (village head). A group of misha formed dunhu (plural: matunhu) under sadunhu…. A group of matunhu formed a state (nyika) under a chief (ishe/mambo/changamire). However, this social organisation varied from area to area. In bigger social formations… it was possible to have a paramount chief (mambo/ishe), followed by senior chiefs…. Each level performed administrative, economic, religious, and political roles consistent with rank.”
[1]
.
[1]: (Chirikure 2021, 267) 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 |
||||||
|
(1) Mambo or Kings. (2) Provincial rulers. (3) Headmen. (4) Vanyai. Nyai system clearly present, as in Mutapa. This is somewhat of an attempt to codify the complex nyai system into a clear political hierarchy – it’s a bit more complicated than this suggests, as discussed in the sources below. In reality the vanyai seem to have been similar to the feudal clients of headmen, who might become essentially ‘fief holders’ (to use European terms), later rising to become their own headmen with clients of their own. “Under the arrangements… wealthy men were able to offer their sisters and daughters as wives to young men in exchange for labour. The young men, in turn, established a dependent relationship with their hosts, expanding their activities to become henchmen, guards, errand runners [& etc.]…. When this arrangement was replicated more widely, it formed a hierarchy growing in scale from village to district to provincial level. Lancaster’s account of the origins of Nyai identity resembles a similar notion where the services of ‘young men known locally as vanyai or kotakota’ became critical…. As they grew older, the vanyai could have been entrusted with lands on the periphery of their patron’s territory so that they in turn became headmen and slowly established themselves as leaders of their own vanyai…. The Mutapa dynasty appears to have arisen out of the nyai process…. As the Mutapa’s influence spread, so did the structures of society that became modelled along the lines of feudal clientelism…//… Portuguese documents referring to Khami suggest a civil war that involved a Portuguese warlord who was able to assist a Togwa aspirant to the throne before himself retiring to the north-east in 1644. There are no other clear references to any Togwa rulers, but we do know of some dominant Togwa houses, such as those of Tumbare and Chihunduru/Chiwundura, becauseof the power they subsequently wielded in the Rozvi state as part of the non-moyo Rozvi ruling elite…//… it seems that the Rozvi ruling class maintained their vanyai under appointed regional ‘governors or representatives’ and kept them in check through periodic ‘visits’, particularly to those vassal chiefs who failed to pay their tribute...//… Thirdly, it must be appreciated that the greatest Rozvi accomplishment was certainly its enlargement of the scale of cliental structures. However, as more vanyai qualified to be Rozvi, their ambition grew to control their own vanyai. In this way, the same structures that defined Rozvi power became the very fissures through which the state cracked.”
[1]
“… the Rozvi mambo (king)… did not have a monopoly over foreign trade because his vassals paid tribute…. One of the primary ways in which senior Rozvi rulers (mambos) maintained control over the provinces was through the provincial ruler, who in most cases also belonged to the same lineage as the mambos. The subjects of the Rozvi state paid taxes in the form of annual tribute known as mupeta wamambo (Mudenge 1974, p. 382). Importantly, historical sources confirm that tribute, if not forthcoming, was exacted through armed force, suggesting that the military played an important role in the power of the mambos.”
[2]
.
[1]: (Mazarire 2009, 13-21) Gerald C. Mazarire, “Reflections on Pre-Colonial Zimbabwe, c. 850-1880s,” in Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008, eds. Brian Raftopoulos & A.S. Mlambo (Harare, Weaver: 2009). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/B9TK7GP8/item-details [2]: (Chirikure & Moffett 2018, 18) Abigail Moffett & Shadreck Chirikure, “Exotica in Context: Reconfiguring Prestige, Power and Wealth in the Southern African Iron Age,” in Journal of World Prehistory Vol. 29 No. 3 (2016). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z29GV5VQ/item-list |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Munhumutapa, or ‘kings.’ (2) House Leaders. (3) Headmen. (4) Vanyai. This is somewhat of an attempt to codify the much more complex nyai system and the indications of the other sources into a clear political hierarchy – it’s a bit more complicated than this suggests, as discussed in the sources below. In reality the vanyai seem to have been similar to the feudal clients of headmen, who might become essentially ‘fief holders’ (to use European terms), later rising to become their own headmen with clients of their own. In addition, a line of descendants from the original king of the kingdom occupied major positions in the polity, and were the pool from which future kings were legally supposed to succeed to the rule of the kingdom. “Kings with the title of Munhumutapa ruled the state with the assistance of numerous officers and vassals. The Munhumutapa was a powerful political, economic and religious leader whose ancestors were important for the well-being of the state….”
[1]
“Under the arrangements… wealthy men were able to offer their sisters and daughters as wives to young men in exchange for labour. The young men, in turn, established a dependent relationship with their hosts, expanding their activities to become henchmen, guards, errand runners [& etc.]…. When this arrangement was replicated more widely, it formed a hierarchy growing in scale from village to district to provincial level. Lancaster’s account of the origins of Nyai identity resembles a similar notion where the services of ‘young men known locally as vanyai or kotakota’ became critical…. As they grew older, the vanyai could have been entrusted with lands on the periphery of their patron’s territory so that they in turn became headmen and slowly established themselves as leaders of their own vanyai…. The Mutapa dynasty appears to have arisen out of the nyai process…. As the Mutapa’s influence spread, so did the structures of society that became modelled along the lines of feudal clientelism.”
[2]
“In historical/archaeological Shona states such as Mutapa (Lan 1987; Pikirayi 1993) and Torwa (Beach 1994), political succession followed the system of ‘houses’, which were basically lineages that descended from the founders of specific political entities. Available historical information makes it explicit that, from the early sixteenth century onwards, Mutapa kings were selected from the descendants ofNyatsimba Mutota, the founder of the state (Lan 1987; Mudenge 1988). Nyatsimba Mutota had many sons, each of whom was given a district to rule in the state. The lineages of these sons, over time, became houses of power (dzimba dzoushe in Shona: see Chirikure et al. 2012), from which future kings, provincial and district leaders were and are still being drawn. Upon the death of the founder, political succession rotated around these ‘houses’, starting from that of the first son to that of the youngest.”
[3]
[1]: (Chirikure et al. 2017, 170-171) Shadreck Chirikure et al., “The Mutapa and the Portuguese: Archaeometallurgy and Regional Interaction in Southern Africa,” in Archives, Objects, Places and Landscapes: Multidisciplinary approaches to Decolonised Zimbabwe pasts, eds. Munyaradzi Manyanga, Shadreck Chirikure (Bamenda: Langaa Research & Publishing, 2017): 169-189. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/X54CISW6/item-details [2]: (Mazarire 2009, 13-15) Gerald C. Mazarire, “Reflections on Pre-Colonial Zimbabwe, c. 850-1880s,” in Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008, eds. Brian Raftopoulos & A.S. Mlambo (Harare, Weaver: 2009). Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/B9TK7GP8/item-details [3]: (Chirikure et al. 2017, 48) Shadreck Chirikure et al. “No Big Brother Here: Heterarchy, Shona Political Succession and the Relationship between Great Zimbabwe and Khami, Southern Africa,” in Cambridge Archaeological Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 (2017): 45-66. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3A53J92/item-details |
||||||
|
levels.1.Kings :2. Central court (inferred from neighbouring polities) ::3. Higher-ranking provincial government agents (inferred from the next quote) :::4. Middle-ranking provincial government agents (inferred from the next quote) ::::5. Low-ranking government agents (inferred from the next quote) ::::: “In the heartland of the Pandyan world, however, in the irrigated villages of the Tambraparni valley and in the Tenkasy area, village elites of Brahmans and Vellalas controlled agriculture, and there were no such chiefs. In this old Pandyan core area, a hierarchy of speculative government agents combined “private” enterprise with “public” functions like collecting taxes and dispensing justice. Agents at local and sub-regional levels often came from the Brahman and Vellala landed elite itself. Above these were Brahman and high-castes non-Brahman agents, originally from the Deccan, who had migrated south during the expansion of the Vijayanagar Empire.”
[1]
[1]: Ludden 1979, 357) Ludden, David. 1979. ‘Patronage and Irrigation in Tamil Nadu: A Long-term View’. The Indian Economic & Social History Review. Vol 16: 3. Pp. 347-365. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G7TWCIIW/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Kings :2. Court Officials ::3. Provincial/regional governors :::4. Pramukhas ::::5. Village headmen ::::: “With the establishment of the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty, succession to the throne came to depend more on custom and well-established practice, and kings followed each other in the succession from brother to brother and on to the next generation. In combination with a stable and accepted mode of succession to the throne, the sanctity that now surrounded the king—due to the spread of Mahāyānist ideas, in particular the belief that kingship was akin to divinity—made it much more difficult for pretenders to the throne and rivals in general to command a politically viable following even when weak kings ascended the throne. […] These auxiliaries became in time a vitally important, if not the most powerful, element in the armies of Sinhalese rulers some of whom, notably Aggabodhi III (628, 629-39) favor because they owed their position largely to their support. From serving the strictly limited purposes for which they had been hired—fighting on behalf of aspirants to the throne, or sustaining a ruler in power—they became in time king-makers, a volatile unpredictable group and a turbulent element who were in themselves, quite often, the greatest threat to the stability of the realm. […] With the passage of time, the number of administrative units within the island increased. By the first quarter of the sixth century, there were already three of these. Silākālā (518-31) handed over the administration of two of the provinces of the kingdom to his elder sons, retaining the rest for himself. To his eldest son Moggallāna he granted the division to the east of the capital; Dakkhinadesa, which was the southern part of the Anurādhapura kingdom, went to his second son, together with the control of the sea-coast. […] By the tenth century there was a regular hierarchy of officials with a wide range of titles. Evidently a complex administrative structure had emerged; its writ ran in many parts of the country and affected many aspects of the lives of the people (especially in the field of irrigation). But it is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about the precise function of the bulk of these officials, or to assess the nature of their impact on the outlying provinces. […] There is also the position of the parumakas (from the Sanskrit pramukha, chief or notable) or the kulīna gentry closely connected with the clan structure of Sinhalese society. They were clearly people of standing and importance, a social elite of distinctly higher status than the village headmen (gamika) and others. Kinship ties linked some of them to the ruling elite—high officials in the court and elsewhere—and in some instances to the royal family itself. Very likely they had special privileges in terms of land, and their claim to ‘proprietary’ rights over land and irrigation works for back to the earliest inscriptions.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) 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 |
||||||
|
levels.1.King :2. Court Officials ::3. Provincial/regional governors :::4. Pramukhas ::::5. Village headmen ::::: “Disputed successions rather than dynastic conflicts were thus the root cause of political instability in the Anurādhapura kingdom before the accession of the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty. The most celebrated of these succession disputes was that between Moggallāna and Kassapa, an important feature of which is linked with one other contributory cause of political instability at this time. The reliance of Moggallāna (491–508) on an army of Indian (largely South Indian) mercenaries to dislodge Kassapa proved in the long run to more significant than his victory over the latter. [...] With the passage of time, the number of administrative units withing the island increased. By the first quarter of the sixth century, there were already three of these. Silākālā (518-31) handed over the administration of two of the provinces of the kingdom to his elder sons, retaining the rest for himself. To his eldest son Moggallāna he granted the division to the east of the capital; Dakkhinadesa, which was the southern part of the Anurādhapura kingdom, went to his second son, together with the control of the sea-coast. Within two decades of his death there were four units: Uttaradesa (the northern division), Paccimadesa (the western division), Pachinadesa (eastern division) and Dakkhinadesa (southern division). Of these Dakkhinadesa was the largest in size. From the time of Aggabodhi I its administration was entrusted to the mahapā or mahayā, the heir to the throne, and so came to be called the Māpā (Mahapā) or Māyā (Mahayā)-raṭa as opposed to the Rājarata (the king’s division). It soon became so important that along with Rājarata and Rohaṇa it was one of the three main administrative divisions of the island. […] There is also the position of the parumakas (from the Sanskrit pramukha, chief or notable) or the kulīna gentry closely connected with the clan structure of Sinhalese society. They were clearly people of standing and importance, a social elite of distinctly higher status than the village headmen (gamika) and others. Kinship ties linked some of them to the ruling elite—high officials in the court and elsewhere—and in some instances to the royal family itself. Very likely they had special privileges in terms of land, and their claim to ‘proprietary’ rights over land and irrigation works for back to the earliest inscriptions.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 19-20, 21, 23) 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 |
||||||
|
levels.1. States-General :2. Advisory body to the States-General ::"The stadtholder, who originally deputised for the king, now became merely an elected provincial official. Except for the States-General, in which the representatives of the Provincial States met with one another at periodic intervals, and their advisory body, the State Council (Raad van State), the Republic of the United Netherlands had no central state institutions."
[1]
::3. Burgomasters :::"The actual government of the Dutch cities was performed by two, three, or four burgomasters with seven or more aldermen, elected by the "vroedschap," a council whose members were chosen for life by cooptation."
[2]
:::4. Lesser administrative functionaries, e.g. tax collectors (inferred) __in the colonies__ :2. Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) and West Indies Company (WIC) boards (e.g. Lords XVII) ::"Initially, the VOC had no fewer than seventy-two directors, later reduced to sixty. The Amsterdam chamber had twenty directors, Zeeland had twelve and the other chambers each had seven. From among their number, twice or three times a year each chamber selected a number of representatives for the main board of the Company, the Heren XVII or the Lords XVII. This board met once a year, four consecutive years in Amsterdam and then two consecutive years in Zeeland. Amsterdam sent eight directors to these meetings, Zeeland sent four and the other chambers each sent one. Zeeland and the small chambers were each permitted in turn to send one extra representative. This arrangement shows that the VOC’s status as a centralised company was limited and that it was in principle an association of six local companies."
[3]
::3. Governor-Generals "The administration of the VOC in Asia was in the hands of the Governor-General in Batavia, who, together with a number of other high-ranking VOC officials, made up the Raad van Indië, also known as the Hoge Regering or High Government. Each of the members of this council had his own portfolio: bookkeeping, the law, military matters and shipping. [...] [I]n practice, the High Government in Batavia operated autonomously and their actions were not always approved afterwards by the directors back home. [...] What was relevant for the VOC region was also applicable to the administration of the WIC settlements in Africa and the New World. Increasingly, the administration was made up of a director or governor, assisted by a number of senior Company officials. Important matters first had to be submitted to the Company directors, but in practice the director or governor had a lot of freedom to manoeuvre because applying for permission or approval from the Netherlands took several months and in many instances there was no time for this."
[4]
:::4. Court of Justice ::::"Apart from being home to the Governor-General and Council, Batavia was also the residence of the Court of Justice (Raad van Justitie). Although the president of the Court was also a member of the Council, all other members were appointed by the Lords XVII. The Court of Justice dealt with all civil and criminal cases involving the Company and its servants, including their families and slaves, as well as cases between Company people and free citizens or Asians. [...] The authority of the Court of Justice in Batavia covered the Company’s entire chartered territory. Cases that could not be resolved in the various local Courts of Justice were transferred to the Court of Justice in Batavia."
[5]
::::5. Local boards of aldermen :::::"Non-Company issues fell under the responsibility of the local Board of Aldermen (Schepenbank)."
[6]
:::::6. Indigenous rulers ::::::"Outside its capital, VOC workers were also needed to implement the Company’s plan to stimulate the production of coffee and sugar, which could not be supplied by the free market. The VOC did not cultivate the coffee plantations itself. It was unable to assemble enough free workers to grow coffee plants and was unwilling to buy slaves on a large scale for this purpose. Instead, the VOC managed to interest the Javanese ruling elites in and around Bandung in taking on the coffee bean cultivation."
[6]
::::::7. Assistant roles (inferred)
[1]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 10) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. [2]: (t’Hart 1989: 665) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/B9DVQGBS/collection. [3]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 18-19) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. [4]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 38, 42) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. [5]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 38-39) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. [6]: (Emmer and Gommans 2020: 39) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AI9PPN7Q/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. 1. King :2. Court officials ::3. Pramukhas :::4. Village headmen ::::“In the early centuries of the Anurādhapura kingdom the main officials were few: the sēnāpati (the chief of ‘army’), the bhandāgārika (treasurer), a few adhyaksas, mahāmātras and a purohita. By the tenth century there was a regular hierarchy of officials with a wide range of titles. Evidently a complex administrative structure had emerged; its writ ran in many parts of the country and affected many aspects of the lives of the people (especially in the field of irrigation). But it is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about the precise function of the bulk of these officials, or to assess the nature of their impact on the outlying provinces.”
[1]
(De Silva 1981, 22, 23) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]
[1]: [...] There is also the position of the parumakas (from the Sanskrit pramukha, chief or notable) or the kulīna gentry closely connected with the clan structure of Sinhalese society. They were clearly people of standing and importance, a social elite of distinctly higher status than the village headmen (gamika) and others. Kinship ties linked some of them to the ruling elite—high officials in the court and elsewhere—and in some instances to the royal family itself.” [2]: |
||||||
|
levels.1. King :2. Court Officials ::3. Pramukas :::4. Village headmen :::: “In the early centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom, the main officials were few: the sēnāpati (the chief of ‘army’), the bhandāgārika (treasurer), a few adhyaksas, mahāmātras and a purohita. By the tenth century, there was a regular hierarchy of officials with a wide range of titles. Evidently a complex administrative structure had emerged; its writ ran in many parts of the country and affected many aspects of the lives of the people (especially in the field of irrigation). But it is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about the precise function of the bulk of these officials, or to assess the nature of their impact on the outlying provinces. […] There is also the position of the parumakas (from the Sanskrit pramukha, chief or notable) or the kulīna gentry closely connected with the clan structure of Sinhalese society. They were clearly people of standing and importance, a social elite of distinctly higher status than the village headmen (gamika) and others. Kinship ties linked some of them to the ruling elite—high officials in the court and elsewhere—and in some instances to the royal family itself.”
[1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 22, 23) 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 |
||||||
|
levels.1.Monarch :2. Prime Minister (abba gurmu) ::“The prime minister (abba gurmu) was the king’s chief lieutenant. He handled much of the actual business of administration – under the aegis of the king.”
[1]
::3. Minister of War :::“Before the turn of the century, Abba Roro’s son, Abba Digga, became Abba Jifar’s war minister and one of his closest confidants.”
[2]
:::4. Chief Treasurer ::::“The king’s chief treasurer, Abba Garo Guma, who also watched over the upbringing and behaviour of the boys of the royal family, was a slave originally from neighbouring Guma.”
[3]
::::5. Palace Judge :::::“Difficult cases, serious matters, or appeals went to the judges at the palace, over the heads of governors.”
[4]
:::::6. Lesser officials (inferred from the following) ::::::“Below the king were hundreds of officials in a great many categories: governors, market judges, border guards, tax collectors, couriers, military officers, overseers of artisan labour, jailers, palace officials, and many others. Although the jurisdiction of each official was not always tightly defined, the principle was that different officers were required to carry out or oversee different activities.”
[5]
::::::7. Governors (abba k’oros) :::::::“Jimma was divided, for administrative purposes, into sixty provinces of unequal size and importance. These provinces were called k’oros and each one was under the jurisdiction of a governor called abba k’oro.”
[6]
:::::::8. Lieutenant Governor ::::::::“Each governor was assisted by a lieutenant. Cynical informants suggest that it was the lieutenant who did the work while the governor attended court and otherwise furthered his interests and pleasures.”
[7]
::::::::9. Lesser provincial officials (inferred from organisation of central court) :::::::::10. District Head (abba ganda) ::::::::::“ Every province was further divided into from five to ten districts known as ganda, each under an abba ganda, or district head, who was normally appointed by the governor.”
[4]
:::::::::::11. Lesser district officials (inferred from organization of central court) ::::::::::::12. Village leaders (inferred from similar polities)
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 88) 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 [2]: (Lewis 2001, 83) 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 [3]: (Lewis 2001, 85) 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 [4]: (Lewis 2001, 90) 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 [5]: (Lewis 2001, 80) 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 [6]: (Lewis 2001, 89) 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 [7]: (Lewis 2001, 89-90) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. "Contexts that could shed light on the dynamics of social structure and hierarchies in the metropolis, such as the royal burial site of Oyo monarchs and the residences of the elite population, have not been investigated. The mapping of the palace structures has not been followed by systematic excavations (Soper, 1992); and questions of the economy, military system, and ideology of the empire have not been addressed archaeologically, although their general patterns are known from historical studies (e.g, Johnson, 1921; Law, 1977)."
[1]
Regarding this period, however, one of the historical studies mentioned in this quote also notes: "Of the earliestperiod of Oyo history, before the sixteenth century, very little is known."
[2]
Law does not then go on to provide specific information directly relevant to this variable.
[1]: (Ogundiran 2005: 151-152) [2]: (Law 1977: 33) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Aro king/chief [Eze Aro], 2) council of representatives [Okpankpo], 2) other states’ kings/chiefs [eg Eze Ibom], 4) Ibini Ukpabi oracle, 5) high priests. This is not necessarily a direct hierarchy, as the oracle and high priests had both religious and administrative importance. “While pre-colonial Igboland had no large-scale political organisation extending beyond the level of the town, numerous connections existed be- tween communities: political or military alliances; secret societies like the ekpe or okonko and the ’clubs’ of ozo titled men; religious institutions such as oracles. Furthermore, there were two major zones of in- fluence, one of them based on the religious authority role of the Eze and itinerant priests of Nri, and the second one centred on Arochukwu with its commercial network of migrant traders and diasporas and organised around the Ibinukpabi.”
[1]
“Let us note that in the Igbo traditional setting, the oracle held executive, legislative, and judicial powers.”
[2]
“Ibini Ukpabi played a highly accepted governmental role until corruption came into it like any other human system. The organization of the oracle reflected the organization of Igbo and indeed that of Aro Kingdom. Eze Aro was represented in all of Igbo land including Idoma whose king Ochidoma actually come from the original name given by Eze Aro himself as Onyenachi Idoma; Onitsha whose first Obi was installed by Eze Aro; Ihiala where Eze Aro sent ogwugwu –a branch of Ibini Ukpabi, etc. These representatives were consulted on every matter by their people until the matter became heavy enough to reach Aro land. The Eze Aro himself referred cases to Eze Ibom isii when Ibini Ukpabi was needed to intervene. Eze Ibom isii called the Ibini Ukpabi chief priest who tried such cases too until they were found fit for the ‘supreme God’ to get involved. That was – a point of no return. This means that the Ibini Ukpabi chief priest only took over when the Eze Ibom isii could no longer handle any such cases.”
[2]
“Arochukwu has been another neglected Igbo chiefdom. Most of these states with hereditary leadership were peripheral to the Igbo heartland. Nevertheless, they were important because of their interactions with the heartland and the possibility of dating interactive events from their genealogies. The Aro evolved a confederate political system headed by a hereditary leadership, yet their genealogies have been ignored.”
[3]
“Before the foundation of Arochukwu confederacy, the Igbo and the Ibibio of the area operated a political system - village republicanism - based on gerontocracy. However, the end of Igbo-Ibibio hostilities, following the victory of Igbo-Akpa alliance against the Ibibio, culminated in the foundation of the Aro chiefdom comprising elements of the three ethnic groups. Thus, the political system which ultimately emerged - federation under one authority - appeared to be an ostensible aberration of the traditional Igbo-Ibibio system based on kinship. In the emergent organization, there was a king (chief) with a council of representatives of the various towns.”
[4]
The hereditary chiefdom (Eze Aro) of Arochukwu was not fully in place until about 1780. The Akpa did not generally use hereditary chiefdoms. On gaining control of the Arochukwu area, the leader of the mercenary troops, Akuma, became the first chief (c. 1690–1720). His successor was an Igbo priest-doctor, Nachi (c. 1720–1750), then Okenachi, Nachi’s non-biological son (c.1750–1780). “When Akuma’s soldiers had been victorious, their leader received the respect and leadership role which any victor might expect. In that sense, it is hardly surprising that he founded Arochukwu. Nevertheless, upon Akuma’s death, none of his sons attempted to fill his role. Neither Akuma nor his Akpa followers objected when the Igbo priest-doctor, Nachi, took over and through his son, Okenachi, created an hereditary chieftaincy in Arochukwu.”
[4]
[1]: Harneit-Sievers, A. (2002). Federalism to the Bitter End: Politics and History in Southeastern Nigerian ‘Autonomous Communities’. Sociologus, 52(1), 47–76: 52–53. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/HQRP8DG8/collection [2]: Innocent, Rev. (2020). A Critical Study on the Ibini Ukpabi (Arochukwu Long Juju) Oracle and its Implications on the International Relations During the 20th Century. London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 20(10): 6. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZXZGZSM3/collection [3]: Nwauwa, A. O. (1990). The Dating of the Aro Chiefdom: A Synthesis of Correlated Genealogies. History in Africa, 17, 227–245: 227. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/TEXMFD2H/collection [4]: Nwauwa, A. O. (1995). The Evolution of the Aro Confederacy in Southeastern Nigeria, 1690–1720. A Theoretical Synthesis of State Formation Process in Africa. Anthropos, 90(4/6), 353–364: 356. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/G4DWA3GQ/collection |
||||||
|
There are several clearly distinct roles, but it’s unlikely the hierarchy is entirely vertical, especially given the emirate system. 1) Caliph (amir al-muminin – Commander of the Faithful); 2) wazirai (viziers/advisers); 3) alkalai (judges); 4) muhtasib (the officer charged with upholding morals); 5) sa’i (in charge of the markets); 6) wali al-shurta (police chief); 7) Limamai (imams); 8) military commanders; 9) mamluk (royal (caliphal) slaves); 10) nuwab (the Caliph’s officials in the metropolitan districts and the emirs of the various emirates); 11) Village heads; 12) Council of village elders.“Within the Sokoto Caliphate, emirs used royal slaves to expand political control over their territory. Royal slaves—numbering between 2,000 and 5,000 in Kano, for example—were prominent and were organized into slave households, which served as a system of recruitment and training. These slaves were usually war captives, with the emir retaining about half, bought using cowry shells as currency. There was a significant amount of trust between emirs and their appointed slaves. The royal slaves (those kept by the emir) in Kano had a great deal of power because they controlled the distribution of agricultural products as well as holding key positions in the government and military. For example, senior royal slaves of the caliph had influence in the appointing of emirs. They were able to obtain new rights, moving them closer to freedom. The use of royal slaves in the Sokoto Caliphate emerged out of governmental necessity, as opposed to Islamic doctrine. Most slaves in the Sokoto Caliphate worked on labor-intensive plantations.”
[1]
“MAMLUK. An Arabic-derived term that refers to powerful slaves and literally means “owned” (person or thing). It is part of an Islamic political system that incorporates the institution of slavery. Prior to the colonial era in northern Nigeria, the military and government were partially run by slaves. In 19th-century Kano, for example, slaves commanded armies, managed plantations, and collected taxes. Each emirate within the Sokoto Caliphate ran his mamluk system differently.”
[2]
“The Sokoto Caliphate system was based squarely on the strength of its ideals and programmes, which the mujahhidun articulated within an Islamic religious framework. In the course of their attacks on the Hausa kingdoms, the leaders of the jihad offered an alternative set of political, economic and social principles which they called the "structures of Muslim government" as opposed to what they termed the "structures of non-Muslim government".”
[3]
“The political programmes of the Sokoto Caliphate are set out in a number of works written by the Shehu, Abdullahi dan Fodio and Muhammad Bello. One of their most important features was to outline the political structures of caliphal administration. The Caliphate was to be led by the Caliph as the amir al-muminin (Commander of the Faithful), assisted by his wazirai (advisers), alkalai (judges), a muhtasib (the officer charged upholding morals), the sa’i (in charge of the markets), the wali al-shurta (police chief), limamai, and military commanders. Although the leadership of the Caliphate did not specify all the offices to be filled, it is clear that the Shehu categorically rejected the proliferation of political titles characteristic of the pre-jihad Hausa kingdoms and planned to abolish parasitic sarauta titles in favour of a more streamlined political system consonant with the Islamic theory of political administration drawn largely from the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Shehu was also vehemently opposed to the hereditary traditions of the pre-jihad Hausa kingdoms and emphasised scholarship and unquestioned morality as the principal criteria for office.”
[4]
“In his policy guidelines, Muhammad Bello called on the nuwab (his officials in the metropolitan districts and the emirs of the various emirates) to: ‘... encourage the artisans and those who practise trades which are indispensable to the people: farmers and smiths, tailors and dyers, physicians and grocers, butchers and carpenters, and all sorts of trades which contribute to the proper order of this world. The ruler must allocate these tradesmen to every village and every localilty.’”
[5]
“A village head has long been an integral part of effective governance in Nigeria, particularly before and during the colonial period. The role of a village head in the Sokoto Caliphate during the 19th century, for example, included supplying labor and collecting annual taxes for the emirs. The Nupe also had a village head, or zitsu, for every town (and incorporated satellite villages). The zitsu’s authority may have extended to figuratively “owning” the land and possessing the community. For this reason, the zitsu of Jebba Island on the Niger River has the title gebba. The village head ruled over his community with the assistance of elders, who represented their families (broadly defined) in a council.”
[6]
[1]: Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009: 328–329. 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: 220. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SJAIVKDW/collection [3]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 100–101. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection [4]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 101. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection [5]: Chafe, Kabiru Sulaiman. “Challenges to the Hegemony of the Sokoto Caliphate: A Preliminary Examination.” Paideuma, vol. 40, 1994, pp. 99–109: 102. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/ZANHCUFH/collection [6]: Falola, Toyin, and Ann Genova. Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009: 357. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SJAIVKDW/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Four known levels, but might be more. Needs confirmation by an expertKing “It appears that at that stage there were two contending political factions in Adal, with different views about relations with Christian Ethiopia. The Walasma king Muhammad (c. 1488-1518) led the moderate party, which apparently favoured a policy of coexistence. This was strongly opposed by the militant group led by his general, Mahfūz, who preferred to continue the old tradition of conflict, and who actually aimed at the effective restoration of Muslim control over the eastern frontier provinces of Ifat, Fetegar, Dawaro, and Bali.”
[1]
General/imām/amīr/garad “ Precisely at the time when the Ethiopian throne was occupied by a series of under-aged princes, Adal was in the most capable hands of a powerful general called Mahfūz, who had dominated the political scene in Adal since the 1480s and who is variously given the title of imām, amīr, and garad.”
[1]
Governors “Thus, the imam gradually consolidated his control of these realms, either by nominating his own Muslim governor over each district or confirming the old local hereditary chiefs to administer the area on his behalf.”
[2]
Chiefs “Thus, the imam gradually consolidated his control of these realms, either by nominating his own Muslim governor over each district or confirming the old local hereditary chiefs to administer the area on his behalf.”
[2]
[1]: (Tamrat 2008, 166) Tamrat, Taddesse. 2008. ‘Ethiopia, the Red Sea and the Horn’ In the Cambridge History of Africa: c. 1050 – c.1600 vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 98-182. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Tamrat/titleCreatorYear/items/A68FCWWI/item-list [2]: (Tamrat 2008, 175) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Sultan :“In the Habr Yunis country, however, he was joined by Madar Hirsi, the rival of Sultan Nur for the Sultanship of the Habr Yunis and his party…”
[1]
:2. Vizier/close advisor (inferred from similar polities) ::3. Lesser court officials (inferred from similar polities) :::4. Provincial governor ::::“Zeila’s governor was now a Somali, Haji Shirmarke ‘Ali Salih (of the Habar Yunis clan), who had begun his remarkable career as the captain of a training dhow.”
[2]
::::5. Secretary to provincial governor :::::“His ‘secretary’ was a Swahili slave; and although he was himself illiterate, his eldest son Muhammad, married to an Arab woman, had been educated at Mukha and proved to be something of a scholar.”
[2]
:::::6. Lesser provincial officials (inferred from similar polities) ::::::7. Aqils :::::::Aqils were tribal elders or chiefs. The British however mistook Aqils for ruling chiefs though they did not have ruling authority. “They believed that Aqils (chiefs) ran traditional Somali society, and that they ran it along ‘tribal’ lines.”
[3]
[1]: (Irons 2013, 3) Irons, Roy. 2013. Churchill and the Mad Mullah of Somaliland: Betrayal and Redemption 1899-1921. Barnsley: Pen and Sword Military. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/R4RVAR38/collection [2]: (Lewis 2002, 33) Lewis, Ioan M. 2002. A Modern History of the Somali: Nation and State in the Horn of Africa. Athens: Ohio University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/KHB7VSJK/collection [3]: (Mohamed 2007, 229) Mohamed, Jama. 2007. ‘Kinship and Contract in Somali Politics’. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute. Vol. 77:2. Pp 226-249. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/CG5PRA8P/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels mentioned by Herbert S. Lewis’ quote below. Highly likely there are more levels present. The following quote suggests that the Kingdom of Gumma was structured similarly to the other Oromo kingdoms, especially the Kingdom of Jimma. An expert would, however, need to confirm this. “Little has been said about the neighboring Galla states of Limmu, Gomma, Guma, and Gera. There is not enough evidence available about these monarchies to be able to compare them with Jimma structurally. It is possible to say, on the basis of Cecchi’s account primarily, that these kingdoms shared a number of features with Jimma. For example, the kings were not considered sacred personages but they did stand out above any other political figures in these states. In Cerulli’s collection of folktales and poetry all the warriors and heroes appear to be directly subservient to the kings. These kingdoms were organized into provinces (k’oros) with abba gandas below the abba’koros. The official called the abba mizan (‘father of the scales’) in Gera seems to have been the same as the nagadras in Jimma. All had similar border guards, customs gates, alarm drums, and war organization. In these respects they shared a common political culture with Jimma.”
[1]
1.Monarch:2. Vizier/close adviser (inferred from similar polities) ::3. Lesser court officials (inferred from similar polities) :::4. Governors (abba k’oros) ::::5. Lesser provincial officials (inferred from necessity to administrate provinces) :::::6. District head (abba ganda) ::::::7. Lesser district officials (inferred from necessity to administrative districts :::::::8-12. NB 12 is the number of levels we assigned to Jimma based on the literature consulted for that polity.
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 124-125) 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 |
||||||
|
1.Emperor – “During the reign of Emperor Zara Yakob, there were new political problems in Hadeya.”
[1]
:2. Vizier/close advisor/queen ::“In sixteenth-century Hadeya in Ethiopia, for example, it was the queen who asked the Abyssinian emperor for assistance against an attempt to oust her husband.”
[2]
::3. Lesser court officials (inferred from similar polities) :::4. Governor ::::“The governor and local chiefs refused to pay taxes to the emperor, who designated new officials and sent them to Hadeya with a large army.”
[1]
::::5. Lesser provincial officials (inferred from similar polities) :::::6. Local Chiefs ::::::“The governor and local chiefs refused to pay taxes to the emperor, who designated new officials and sent them to Hadeya with a large army.”
[1]
[1]: (Shinn and Ofcansky 2013, 200) 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 [2]: (Smith 2008, 123) Smith, Bonnie G. 2008. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/I3F72UG2/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Sultan :2. Vizier/close advisor (inferred from similar polities) ::3. Court Councillors :::“In a further affirmation of the Sultan’s sovereignty, Nur Uthman elevated six other brothers to the role of councillor in court.”
[1]
:::4. Lesser court officials (inferred) ::::5. Provincial governors :::::“The sultan reminded the assembled crowd of Majerteen nobels that his brother, Uthman Semantar, was governor of Bandar Maryah in the Sultan’s absence.”
[1]
:::::6. Local chiefs ::::::“Shortly after their arrival in Bandar Maryah the Sultan called a meeting of chiefs to discuss the event.”
[1]
::::::7. Aban (NB: unclear where to place this position in the overall hierarchy, but it does seem to have constituted a separate tier) :::::::“On a day-to-day basis, all foreign traders, travellers, and shipwrecked sailors were obliged to engage an aban, or mediator, who took responsibility for a visitor’s security, acted as a broker, for business transactions, made introductions, and played the role of host and interpreter […] In fact, abans were diplomats, guides, translators, merchants, and intermediaries […] Specifically, abans came from the sultan’s lineage, the house of Uthman Mahmud. The majority of commercial visitors were thus incorporated directly into the Uthman Mahmud lineage, rather than to one of the more numerous regional lineage families.”
[2]
[1]: (Smith 2021, 49) Smith, Nicholas W.S. 2021. Colonial Chaos in the Southern Red Sea: A History of Violence from 1830 to the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/K6HVJ7X4/collection [2]: (Smith 2021, 70-71) Smith, Nicholas W.S. 2021. Colonial Chaos in the Southern Red Sea: A History of Violence from 1830 to the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/TWITJWK4/items/K6HVJ7X4/collection |
||||||
|
levels.1.Sultan :“The public appearance of the Sultans was accompanied by pomp and ceremony, but Funj rulers spent most of their reigns secluded from public view.”
[1]
:2. Vizier ::“Although Abu Likaylik had only the titles of Shaykh and Vizier, he was effectively regent, and governed both the old Funj dominions and the new province of Kordofan.”
[2]
::3. Ministers :::“Abu Likaylik died in 1776-7, as did his colleague and friend, Shaykh ‘Adlan walad Subahi, whom Bruce found acting as minister in Sennar during Abu Likaylik’s absence in Kordofan.”
[2]
:::4. Lesser court officials (inferred) ::::5. Viceroy :::::“In contrast, there is a strong tradition concerning the great ‘Abdallabi ruler, Shaykh ‘Ajib al-Kufuta, known also by his Funj title as al-manjilak, the son of ‘Abdallah Jamma. He was appointed viceroy of the north on his father’s death by ‘Amara II Abu Sikaykin who ruled from 1157-8 to 1568-9.”
[3]
:::::6. Governor ::::::“On at least two occasions the free Funj warriors rose against the reigning king. A revolt against Badi III al-Ahmar (1692-1716) led by the Funj commander, the Amin Irdab, was supported by the ‘Abdallabi shaykh of the time and by the governor of Alays.”
[4]
::::::7. Lesser provincial court officials (inferred) :::::::8. Provincial Lords ::::::::“Provincial nobles lived in castles supported by his slave retainers. A provincial lord placed each village in his jurisdiction under the supervision of an experienced slave in order to extract taxes. Provincial nobles, however, had to appear before the Sultan each year to perform obeisance, account for their behavior, and deliver tribute.”
[1]
::::::::9. Tax collector under supervision of lords and other lesser provincial officials
[1]: (Lapidus 2002, 431) Lapidus, Ira M. 2002. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/QW9XHCIW/collection [2]: (Holt 2008, 46) Holt, P.M. 2008. ‘Egypt, the Funj and Darfur’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c.1790. Edited by Richard Grey. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WC9FQBRM/collection [3]: (Holt 2008, 42) Holt, P.M. 2008. ‘Egypt, the Funj and Darfur’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c.1790. Edited by Richard Grey. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WC9FQBRM/collection [4]: (Holt 2008, 44) Holt, P.M. 2008. ‘Egypt, the Funj and Darfur’ In The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1600 – c.1790. Edited by Richard Grey. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WC9FQBRM/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels mentioned by Herbert S. Lewis’ quote below. Highly likely there are more levels present. The following quote suggests that the Kingdom of Gumma was structured similarly to the other Oromo kingdoms, especially the Kingdom of Jimma. An expert would, however, need to confirm this. “Little has been said about the neighboring Galla states of Limmu, Gomma, Guma, and Gera. There is not enough evidence available about these monarchies to be able to compare them with Jimma structurally. It is possible to say, on the basis of Cecchi’s account primarily, that these kingdoms shared a number of features with Jimma. For example, the kings were not considered sacred personages but they did stand out above any other political figures in these states. In Cerulli’s collection of folktales and poetry all the warriors and heroes appear to be directly subservient to the kings. These kingdoms were organized into provinces (k’oros) with abba gandas below the abba’koros. The official called the abba mizan (‘father of the scales’) in Gera seems to have been the same as the nagadras in Jimma. All had similar border guards, customs gates, alarm drums, and war organization. In these respects they shared a common political culture with Jimma.”
[1]
1.Monarch:2. Vizier/close adviser (inferred from similar polities) ::3. Lesser court officials (inferred from similar polities) :::4. Governors (abba k’oros) ::::5. Lesser provincial officials (inferred from necessity to administrate provinces) :::::6. District head (abba ganda) ::::::7. Lesser district officials (inferred from necessity to administrative districts :::::::8-12. NB 12 is the number of levels we assigned to Jimma based on the literature consulted for that polity.
[1]: (Lewis 2001, 124-125) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. 1.Emirs :“Harar was ruled by a family of local emirs, who were also the leading merchants of the town. They claimed that the surrounding Galla and Somali were their subjects, but beyond the respect accorded to them for spiritual and historical reasons, they had little authority beyond the city walls and could at times barely protect the fields of the townspeople in the immediate neighbourhood.”
[1]
:2. Malaq ::“The city is divided for administrative and taxation purposes into five ‘gates’ or quarters, each of which during the time of the amirs was under an official termed malaq”.
[2]
::3. Dogin :::“the governor of the outer districts.”
[2]
:::4. Damin ::::5. Garad :::::“An extension of this system was used for the taxation and supervision of farming regions under the amir’s control. ‘A garad is the chief of a village or sub-village; the damin is the chief of whole tribe. Several garadach, sometimes five or six, come under one damin’.”
[2]
[1]: (Rubenson 2008, 87) Rubenson, Sven. 2008. The Cambridge History of Africa c. 1790 – c. 1870. Edited by John E. Flint. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 51-98. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/search/Rubenson/titleCreatorYear/items/VRU64Q8P/item-list [2]: (Waldron 1984, 34) Waldron, Sidney R. 1984. ‘The Political Economy of Harari-Oromo Relationships, 1559-1874’. Northeast African Studies. Vol 6:1/2. Pp 23-39. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/PUDCFD72/collection |
||||||
|
levels. (1) Alpha house leader; (2) lesser house leaders. "As population and settlements increased in the circumscribed rim of the Ifè Bowl, competition for land and resources among the Houses intensified during the last centuries of the Early Formative period, perhaps as early as AD 600. The competitions spurred some of these Houses to build alliances with one another and against other Houses. The alliances resulted in the merging of two or more Houses under a wide range of arrangements. These processes resulted in the birth of the “mega-House” as a new organizational structure. This meant that some of the Houses that had acted as autonomous corporate units lost some of their autonomy in order to become members of a larger sociopolitical unit. Of course, mega-Houses were also formed through forceful incorporation of weak Houses into stronger ones. This development led to the increasing specialization and elaboration of political leadership and to a heightened territorial sensibility. In Ifè oral traditions, thirteen mega-Houses are remembered to have existed during this period of political engineering. These are Ìdó, Ìdèta, Ìloràn, Ìlóròmú, Ìjùgbè, Ìmojùbì, Ìráyè, Ìwìnrìn, Odin, Òkè Àwo, Òkè-Ojà, Omológun, and Parakin (fig. 2.4). Each of these mega-House polities, what Ade Obayemi called “mini-states,” was a federation of contiguous Houses separated by stretches of woods that ranged in distance from a few hundred meters to about a kilometer, but a recognizable ruler from an alpha House governed each of these mega-Houses as a corporate unit. The Ìjùgbè mega-House, for example, comprised Ìjùgbè—the alpha House—and four minor Houses: Eranyiba, Igbogbe, Ipa, and Ita-Asin, each with its own leader, who was also its chief priest. All the leaders of the four corporate houses reported to Obaléjùgbè, “the Lord or Leader of Ìjùgbè.”"
[1]
[1]: (Ogundiran 2020: 53) |
||||||
|
levels. 1) Ogiso, 2) Edionnisen (five elders). “At the level of central government, the institution of edionnisen (five elders) was created by the first Ogiso. Until the creation of this political institution, the edion nene (four elders) was the main institution of governance which supported the Odionwere in the pre-Ogiso era and which still existed in Benin villages. This means that the first Ogiso added one to the original number in an effort to build a support base for the new monarchy. The five elders were Oliha, Edohen, Ero, Ezomo, and Eholo N’irre. During the reign of Ogiso Ere, the second king who succeeded Igodo, the positions of Oliha, Edohen, Ero, and Eholo N’irre became hereditary chieftaincy titles. The position of Ezomo was not made hereditary but reserved for the most powerful warrior in the kingdom, and had responsibility for security and military matters. Perhaps, the idea of a warrior chief became necessary because of the rivalry with Udo.”
[1]
[1]: Osadolor, O. B. (2001). The Military System of Benin Kingdom, c.1440–1897. University of Hamburg, Germany: 68. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4RZF5H5/collection |
||||||
|
levels. “Colonial sources pain the Siin as a Centralized monarchy with constitutional checks wherein kingly power was balanced by ‘a quasi-corporatist system that granted voice to major status groups. Power was vested in three political institutions- the maad (buur, in Wolof), the jaraaf a maak, and the farba fa maak- whose administration embodied the wills, decisions, and political consciousness of the aristocracy, the free peasantry (jaambur), and the body of slaves.”
[1]
1.Maad (king) :“The maad a sinig was the head of stately decision making, whose responsibility entailed declaring or calling off war, rendering justice, and mediating conflicts while ultimately ensuring the well-being and security of his subjects. His authority extended over royal lands, the slaves who worked them, and the nobility. The king was the recipient of annual taxes and customs, receiving parallel revenue from trade and the royal monopoly over salt production. He relied on a congeries of provincial governors and local functionaries, many of whom he personally appointed, who were administering the region and ensuring the steady flow of grain to royal granaries. Locally, the king was represented by the saaxsaax who exerted judicial functions and received taxes in each village, and the jaraaf, who were generally chosen from the lineage of the village founder and acted essentially as village heads.”
[2]
:2. Jaraaf a maak ::“The great jaraaf functioned as a prime minister of sorts, heading the royal council, advising the maad on political decisions, and largely governing the internal affairs of the kingdom.”
[2]
::3. Farba fa maak :::“Another central political functionary was the farba fa maak. Although he was chief of the slaves, the great farba exerted critical influence over military and foreign affairs. Despite his servile status, he could play a defining role in the administration of the kingdom, taking effective control of diplomacy and external relations when the maad proved too young, old or weak to rule efficiently.”
[3]
:::4. Lesser court officials (inferred) ::::5. Provincial governors :::::6. Saaxsaax ::::::7. Jaraaf ::::::“He relied on a congeries of provincial governors and local functionaries, many of whom he personally appointed, who were administering the region and ensuring the steady flow of grain to royal granaries. Locally, the king was represented by the saaxsaax who exerted judicial functions and received taxes in each village, and the jaraaf, who were generally chosen from the lineage of the village founder and acted essentially as village heads.”
[2]
[1]: (Richard 2018, 106) 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 [2]: (Richard 2018, 107) 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 [3]: (Richard 2018, 109) 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 |
||||||
|
levels. Five levels mentioned within the consulted sources.1.King :2. High ministers ::“The jogomaay was the master of the waters, president of the assembly and governor of kingdom during the interim reigns. The jawdin was, at the same time the master of the land, a type of military chief with executive power, as much as during the life of the brak as during the interim reigns, during which he was guardian of the royal tam-tams (drums). The maalo was the treasurer-general of the kingdom.”
[1]
::3. Lesser ministers (inferred) :::4. District heads ::::5. Village heads :::::Kangam- “The kangam, below the royal family, provided the chiefs for the great territorial units, the districts or the villages.”
[2]
“The doomi-buur were the third-ranking nobility, with the right to certain commanding positions of certain districts or villages. The were generally the tara children, the offspring of the marriage of a prince and a captive.”
[3]
:::::6. Lesser officials (inferred)
[1]: (Barry 2012, 40) Barry, Boubacar. 2012. The Kingdom of Waalo: Senegal Before the Conquest. New York: Diasporic Africa Press. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9KV5MEKN/collection [2]: (Barry 2012, 34) Barry, Boubacar. 2012. The Kingdom of Waalo: Senegal Before the Conquest. New York: Diasporic Africa Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9KV5MEKN/collection [3]: (Barry 2012, 34) Barry, Boubacar. 2012. The Kingdom of Waalo: Senegal Before the Conquest. New York: Diasporic Africa Press. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9KV5MEKN/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Inferring at least three levels of lesser chiefs. "Early travellers were impressed by the flying ’pages’, young lads who scudded around the capital bearing messages and generally making themselves useful. From these, in the main, were recruited the next generation of the ruling elite. A youth who had survived the rigorous palace schooling and had displayed aptitude and fidelity would graduate to the captaincy of a ki-tongole troop. That is, he would become a mu-tongole, in theory the lowest kind of chief though some such people wielded considerable power. Some troops were of course maintained at the capital but others were stationed in the provinces, where they had small estates forming enclaves in the territory of a district chief, a mukungu. The mutongole remained directly responsible to the kabaka and his role was in effect to keep an eye on the chief. On occasion he would be ordered to seize the chiefs property and take his place, or a mutongole would be sent from the capital for the same purpose. He was then established in the administrative hierarchy. This was a complex structure with many gradations. At the highest level, apart from the katikkiro, the chief minister and judge, and the kimbugwe or keeper of the king’s umbilical cord, were the chiefs of the ten ssazas, literally ’divisions’ but conventionally Englished as ’counties’. These were not all of the same kind. The most important were the four marcher provinces: Buddu in the south-west, Ssingo in the north-west, Bulemeezi in the north and Kyaggwe in the east. In the west-centre of the country were four smaller counties: Mawokota on the coast, Butambala, Gomba, and Busujju further inland. That left the two central counties of Busiro and Kyaddondo, which were a patchwork of domains belonging to ritual officiants, members of the royal family and shrine priests, nominally presided over by the sacred officeholders called the Mugema and the Kaggo. Within each county was an array of lesser ba-kungu, ranked in a conventional order."
[1]
1. Kabaka (king) :2. Katikkiro (chief minister and judge) ::3. Kimbungwe (keeper of the king’s umbilical cord) :::4. Chiefs of the ten ssazas (districts) ::::5. Lesser chiefs :::::6. Lesser chiefs ::::::7. Lesser chiefs
[1]: (Wrigley 2002: 63-64) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/DNKVW9WZ/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Like the Fipa Kingdom, Karagwe’s success is not only confined to its spatial extension but also to the dexterity of its administrative machinery. The king ruled with the assistance of a firm system of subordinates, including a prime minister who took care of all administrative matters; a chief commander who was in charge of the army; a leading healer who took care of both the biological and magical health of the king and his subjects, and others."
[1]
"In these chiefdoms, and especially in Karagwe, the pastoralists, known as Hima, held a distinct social predominance which may have resulted from their ability to make cultivators their clients by loaning cattle. Yet the kings attempted to exert an independent authority over both classes of men, prohibiting blood feuds between clans, appointing royal relatives as sub-chiefs and village headmen occupying nyarubanja estates, waginga long and largely successful struggle to control the mediums of the kubandwa cult which dominated local religion, and organising elaborate courts at which each clan performed a specialised function. In Karagwe, unlike Ufipa, villagers did not even elect their headmen or allocate land. It was Tanganyika’s most stratified and authoritarian society, and its cultivators’ misery struck several early visitors."
[2]
1. King :2. Prime minister ::3. Court officials (inferred) :::4. Sub-chiefs ::::5. Court officials for sub-chiefs (inferred) :::::6. Village headmen
[1]: (Mapunda 2009: 95) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/9GV5C5NF/collection. [2]: (Iliffe 1979: 24-25) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from the following. "The Mugabe (king) of later years was at this stage merely the leading member of the central clan of a cluster of pastoral clans — the giver of gifts of cattle as his title literally implies rather than the monarch or ruler (Mukama) of a sovereign state."
[1]
1. Mugabe :2. Lesser clan leaders ::3. Tribute collectors (inferred)
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 136) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "The Milansi dynasty retained ritual power and the right to install the Twa chief, but the Twa exercised a territorial, administrative authority through appointed officials who transmitted orders to elected village headmen. While originating from the mingling of peoples, the Fipa state - for here the word is legitimate - was more stratified, had more precise borders, and was governed in a more strictly administrative manner than the other polities of the plateau."
[1]
1. King :2. Court officials (inferred) ::3. Intermediary officials between court and villages :::4. Village headmen
[1]: (Iliffe 1979: 24) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB2AJMVC/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels.1. Mugabe :"Now, instead of primus inter pares, the Mugabe was an autocratic ruler, ’whose rule was absolute and his decision on any matter final’ (Roscoe 1923: 12). [...] The royal court served as a judicial and political center, but not as a bureaucratic focal point. [...] The appointment and dismissal of military and administrative functionaries from among those aristocratic Hima and Hinda princes who regularly attended court was the Mugabe’s sole administrative function."
[1]
:2. Local chiefs :: "Below the King and court was an irregular system of territorial authorities, chiefs in the common and colonial parlance, who administered the state in the name of the Mugabe (Richards 1960; Oberg 1940: 136-50). The most important pastoralist in a given area of the country was generally recognized by the herders as the local chief and confirmed in that post by the king. Often princes of the blood (baginya) were so recognized and hence made responsible for collection of tribute and taxation, especially in cattle which served as both a system of redistribution of pastoral wealth and a politically important addition to the system of cattle clientage practiced throughout pastoral society. One thing seems evident — little direct control over the farming community was exercised by this administrative hierarchy."
[2]
::3. Lesser local chiefs (perhaps?) :::4. Tribute collectors (inferred)
[1]: (Steinhart 1978: 143-144) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. [2]: (Steinhart 1978: 144) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/D3FV7SKV/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. "Except for the sovereign’s close relations (such as uncles at the start of a reign or eldest sons at the end), the most listened-to advisers were people of humbler origins. They belonged to appointed families that regularly furnished their young for service at the court. These youths literally made their careers by distinguishing themselves before the king for their bravery, wisdom, and loyalty; when they grew to maturity, they became notables, whom the sovereign consulted regularly and who constituted the monarchy’s real government. The king gathered their advice before making major decisions, or he sent them to the provinces for special assignments. [...] Territorial division and methods of determining officials introduced a variety of situations. Two general levels can be distinguished: the small province (what was called a chiefdom under colonialism) and the locality (a hill or a group of banana gardens). For example, in Burundi, one distinguished chiefs (batware) and their "delegates" (vyariho)."
[1]
1. King :2. Close advisers, related to the king ::3. Advisers forming the king’s "real government" :::4. Provincial chiefs ::::5. "Delegates" to provincial chiefs
[1]: (Chrétien 2006: 173-175) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/FXCVWDRI/collection. |
||||||
|
levels. Seven levels specifically mentioned in the consulted literature. More levels might be present :1. King (Vendar) : “The Chera, Chola, and Pandya kings were the vendar (crowned kings). These great kings had their special insignia of royalty such as the staff, drum, and umbrella. They also had specific emblems of power-the tiger, bow and fish were the emblems of the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas respectively.”
[1]
::2. Minisiters :: “During the Sangam period, hereditary monarchy was the form of government. The king was assisted by a wide body of officials who were categorized into five councils. They were ministers (amaichar), priests (anthanar), envoys (thuthar), military commanders (senapathi), and spies (orrar).”
[2]
:::3. Priests ::::4. Envoys :::::5. Military Commanders ::::::6. Spies :::::::7. Chieftains (Velir) :: “Apart from the vendar, there were a number of chieftains known as velir. Internecine conflict was a feature of the politics of the time. Kings and chieftains also often fought against each other by forming alliances. The lesser rulers no doubt had to pay tribute to their more powerful counterparts.”
[1]
[1]: (Singh 2008, 384) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. London: Pearson Education. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [2]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection |
||||||
|
levels. “The early Maratha rulers were notable for their heroism in war and their firm administration at home. They did not introduce a new type of government but continued the prevailing administration of the Nayaks supplementing it with some institutions of their own.”
[1]
The levels below the Raja are the administration levels instituted during the Nayak of Thanjavur period that probably stayed the same during Maratha rule, judging from the quote. Likely that more levels were present perhaps central court or governors. :1. Raja : “He was replaced in 1674 with a descendant of the nayaka of Thanjavur with the help of the Marathas under their leader Ekoji Bhonsle (around 1630-84), who, after initial conquests in South India, began to display an interest in developments there. A year later, Ekoji himself became the ruler of Thanjavur and established the Maratha dynasty of the Raja of Thanjavur.
[2]
::2. Karnam :: “The Nayaks rule in Thanjavur witnessed the introduction of Ayagar system in each village. The officials in this system, the Karnam, Vettiyan, Talayari along with the head of the village called Maniakkaran were entrusted with the prime business of lang collection along with village administration.”
[3]
:::3. Vettiyan ::::4. Talayari :::::5. Maniakkaran (village chief)
[1]: (Appasamy 1980, 18-19) 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 [2]: (Lieban 2018, 54) Lieban, Heike. 2018. Cultural Encounters in India: The Local Co-workers of Tranquebar Mission, 18th to 19th Centuries. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/32CRNR7U/collection [3]: (Chinnaiyan 2005-2006, 456) Chinnaiyan, S. 2005-2006. ‘Tax Structure in Tanjore Kingdom under the Nayaks and Marathas (A.D. 1532- 1799)’ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 66. Pp 456-459. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/8WJRSDG6/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Four levels specifically mentioned in the consulted literature. More level might have been present such as governors.:1. King (Vendar) : “The Chera, Chola, and Pandya kings were the vendar (crowned kings). These great kings had their special insignia of royalty such as the staff, drum, and umbrella. They also had specific emblems of power-the tiger, bow and fish were the emblems of the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas respectively.”
[1]
::2. Enperaym (officials who were responsible to the king only) :: “There was another institution called Enperayam which consisted of (1) Karanattiyalavar (accountants); (2) Karumakarar (executive officials); (3) Kanakasurram (treasury officials); (4) Kadaikappalar (palace guards); (5) Nagarmandar (important elderly persons in the city); (6) Padaittalaivar (chiefs of the infantry); (7) Yanai Virar (Chief of the elephantry); and (8) Irulai Maravar (chiefs of the cavalry) these were categories of officials who had no collective status but only individual responsibility to the king.”
[2]
:::3. Minisiters :::3. Priests :::3. Envoys :::3. Military Commanders :::3. Spies ::: “During the Sangam period, hereditary monarchy was the form of government. The king was assisted by a wide body of officials who were categorized into five councils. They were ministers (amaichar), priests (anthanar), envoys (thuthar), military commanders (senapathi), and spies (orrar).”
[3]
::::4. Chieftains (Velir) :::: “Apart from the vendar, there were a number of chieftains known as velir. Internecine conflict was a feature of the politics of the time. Kings and chieftains also often fought against each other by forming alliances. The lesser rulers no doubt had to pay tribute to their more powerful counterparts.”
[1]
[1]: (Singh 2008, 384) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. London: Pearson Education. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UJG2G6MJ/collection [2]: (Agnihotri 1988, 352) Agnihotri, V.K. 1988. Indian History. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PNX9XBJQ/collection [3]: (Jankiraman, 2020) Jankiraman, M. 2020. Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Chennai: Notion Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/N3D88RXF/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Five administrative levels mentioned in the consulted sources. Likely that more levels were present such as central court. :1. Nawab (king) : “It seems that some measure of stability was achieved with the establishment of Mughal rule. After a few years the rulers of Gingee took the title of nawabs of the Carnatic, and in the first years of the 18th century they left Gingee to take up residence in Arcot.
[1]
::2. Poligar (governor or territorial administrator) :: “The nawab of Arcot had presided over an area with different administrative systems. In the southern areas—in Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Pudukkottai, etc.—the poligars had been required to collect tribute to the nawab. The poligar was obliged to provide food and goods for his soldiers in king rather than pay their wages in cash. Similarly the extraction of revenue was organized as a tribute in kind rather than a payment in cash. It was the job of the tax—collector (the village headman) to convert the tribute into cash, which had paved the way for a class of militant merchant-administrators. Thus violence, or the control of the means of violence, became the legitimate emblem of authority in the dry poligar areas.”
[1]
:::3.Village Chief ::::4. Merchant Administrator :::::5. Kavalkars (police) ::::: “In addition to military forces, the palaykkars kept up police establishments called the ‘kaval’. The ‘Kavalkars’ protected private property and places of public resort like roads and markets.”
[2]
[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 [2]: (Ramaswami 1984, 79) Ramaswami, N.S. 1984. Political History of Carnatic Under the Nawabs. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/PTIS9MB4/collection |
||||||
|
levels. The following quote discusses six administrative levels. More levels might be present. “Ministers assisted kings, while each province had a governor assisted by various district officials. Local governments included district administrators, assemblies, and village headmen.”
[1]
:1. King ::2. Ministers :::3. Governors ::::4. District Officials :::::5. Assemblies ::::::6. Village chief
[1]: (Bush Trevino 2012, 46) Bush Travino, Macella. 2012. ‘The Pallava Dynasty’ In Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Vol.4 Edited by Carolyn M. Elliot. Los Angeles: Sage. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4RPCX448/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Five levels mentioned in the consulted sources. The levels below the Nayak refer to local administration levels. Likely that more levels directly under the Nayak were present. :1. Nayak :“The rule of the nayaka in Thanjavur came to an end in the second half of the seventeenth century. Vijayaraghava Nayak (1634-73), son of Raghunatha Nayak, was the last ruler of the nayaka dynasty.”
[1]
::2. Karnam :: “The Nayaks rule in Thanjavur witnessed the introduction of Ayagar system in each village. The officials in this system, the Karnam, Vettiyan, Talayari along with the head of the village called Maniakkaran were entrusted with the prime business of lang collection along with village administration.”
[2]
:::3. Vettiyan ::::4. Talayari :::::5. Maniakkaran (village chief)
[1]: (Lieban 2018, 54) Lieban, Heike. 2018. Cultural Encounters in India: The Local Co-workers of Tranquebar Mission, 18th to 19th Centuries. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/32CRNR7U/collection [2]: (Chinnaiyan 2005-2006, 456) Chinnaiyan, S. 2005-2006. ‘Tax Structure in Tanjore Kingdom under the Nayaks and Marathas (A.D. 1532- 1799)’ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Vol. 66. Pp 456-459. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/8WJRSDG6/collection |
||||||
|
levels. Three levels specifically mentioned in the consulted sources. It is likely that the Nayak rulers had courts serving under them therefore, court is inferred. Possible that more levels were present.:1. Nayaka : “The Padu Mandapa or ‘New Hall’ (Tamil Putu Mantapam) is one of the best-known monuments from the Nayaka period of Tamilnadu in the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was built around 1630 under the patronage of Tirumala Nayak, the ruler of Maduari (1623-59), hence an alternative name, ‘Tirumala Nayak’s Choultry’”.
[1]
::2. Court (inferred) :::3. Polegars (military governor or administrator) ::: “The status and power of the various polegars could not have been the same; it is extremely unlikely that all of the had equally good record of past service and equal possessions. In course of time at least, there would have been changes in their attitude and position. Consequently, their obligations would have been different. Vico’s letter of 1611 says that ‘Hermecatte’ (Erumaikatti), a powerful polegar, very influential at court, has domains enough to be obliged to maintain for the Nayak’s service three thousand infantry, two hundred horses and fifty elephants.”
[2]
::::4. Chiefs :::: “Visvanatha’s arrangement in this respect was a practical solution of the difficulties he was confronted with. He pacified his clamours adherents and old, discontented chiefs by conferring on them a dignified status and definite proprietary rights over portions of land. By making the cession hereditary their self-love was flattered and their sense of responsibility increased. They were given complete powers of police and judicial administration. For good or for evil, they were master in their small sphere. In return for this, they were to pay tribute to the Nayak of one-third of their income from land, and maintain, with another third part, the troops which their master would require in case of war.”
[2]
[1]: (Branfoot 2001, 191) Branfoot, Crispin. 2001. ‘Tirumala Nayaka’s ‘New Hall’ and the European Study of the South Indian Temple. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol 11:2. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/FE5VZ76M/collection [2]: (Sathyanatha Aiyar 1991, 74) 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 |
||||||
|
The Durrani empire was a loose confederation of tribes and principalities that evaded attempts to create or maintain central control. Military service was rewarded with the granting of autonomous land grants called Jegeirs that skimmed up to sixty percent of state revenues, with the remainder going to the maintenance of a large army. The local elites were mantained and largely autonomous if appropriate tribute was paid to the tribal elites.
[1]
1. Shah 2. Immediate dynastic family and tribe 3. Tribal chieftains and holders of Jageirs (land grants) 4. Subjugated provincial elites 5. Local administrations of conquered territory [1]: Brock, Lothar, Hans-Henrik Holm, Georg Sørensen, and Michael Stohl. Fragile states. polity, 2011 comments on the problems of governing such a loose confederation; for a brief look at the decline, see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7798/Afghanistan/21395/Nadir-Shah |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Village leader"Decisions were made based on consensus in each level of organization. Leadership was both achieved and ad hoc." [1] "Two to five corporate groups made up a village settlement" [1] 2. Corporate group leader"Decisions were made based on consensus in each level of organization. Leadership was both achieved and ad hoc." [1] "About a dozen households formed a corporate group" [1] "The Yangshao society was evidently regulated by egalitarian principles, comparable to the organization of a segmentary society like a tribe. The social organization was also heavily embedded with political functions. A two-level sequential hierarchy in community is expected. Decisions were made based on consensus in each level of organization. Leadership was both achieved and ad hoc. This observation has been confirmed by the strong egalitarian tendency documented in the burial treatment. Nevertheless, Yangshao society became increasingly internally differentiated. Simultaneous hierarchy might have emerged at the terminal period of Yangshao Culture." [1] [1]: (Lee in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 336) |
||||||
|
Hephthalites produced coins. On that basis:
1. King 2. Advisor or government official3. Manager of a mint4. Mint worker In general, Hephthalite ruler maintained control over his regions through lesser kings and pre-established dynasties. India: pre-existing infrastructure of provincial government After the Hephthalites conquered Gupta dynasty provinces in India their rulers came under Hephthalite control. [1] So they would have inherited whatever administrative structure was present in the former Gupta provinces. Tarim Basin: vassals not provinces "the Hephthalites interferred minimally in the affairs of the Tarim cities after subduing them, contenting themselves with the extraction of tributes." [2] unknown: 408-550 CE; 2: 550 CE [3] There seems to have was a great deal of autonomy in the Hepthalite kingdoms. This was the case in Chaganiyan, on the upper and middle reaches of the Surkhan Darya. There is some speculation that local administrative structures were maintained, but this does not have enough evidence for anything beyond the extraction of tribute. There is also some limited evidence of the titles of officials from gemstones. [4] Small family landholdings Fraternal polyandry marriage "it was the custom for women to adorn their hats with horns, one per husband." "If a man had no brothers he would often adopt another man so as to be able to marry." More recently Tibetans who practiced this form of marriage did it "to make sure that small family landholdings did not have to be divided among brothers. Instead all male offspring remained on their parents’ land and worked it together as a single landholding. This system also limits population growth significantly since each generation produces the children of only one woman instead of offspring from the wives of all brothers." However, since the Hephthalite nomads did not have family farms they may have practiced this form of marriage for keeping the herds together and population control. Chinese records don’t mention status of the presumably many unmarried Hephthalite women. [5] [1]: (Bauer 2010, 182) Bauer, S W. 2010. The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade. W. W. Norton & Company. [2]: (Starr 2015, 37) Starr, F S. 2015. Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland. Routledge. [3]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Crossroads of Civilizations, p. 149 [4]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p. 149 [5]: (West 2009, 276-277) West, B A. 2009. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Governor Governor’s residence in the capital city mentioned by Abdoullaev in his review of Chinese chronicles. [1] 2.3.4. Five chiefdoms. 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." [2] [1]: (Abdoullaev 2001, 202) [2]: (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. |
||||||
|
"The most important source for the study of Later Han institutions is the "’Treatise on the hundred officials’ ... in the Hou-Han shu or Later Han history. This text is systematic, detailed, and much superior to its counterpart in the Han shu. Additional information is found in surviving fragments of once comprehensive accounts on bureaucracy by Han authors. The institutions of Later Han are therefore more fully known than those of Former Han, even though there can be no doubt the basic pattern was the same."
[1]
The number of levels, here, is equal to the number of levels comprising the central government, with the addition of the emperor, the inner/outer courts, and the grand tutor.
1. King/Emperor. 2. Inner and Outer Courts"In 107 CE, Emperor An of the Eastern Han Dynasty (r. 106-25 CE) issued an edict that proclaimed, "I summon the excellencies and ministers, the officials of the Inner and Outer Courts..."" [2] 2. Grand tutor"An aged and respected man was normally selected for the position shortly after the enthronement of an emperor, but the grand tutors usually died after a few years, and the office was then left vacant for the remainder of the reign." [3] "With the appointment of the third grand tutor in A.D. 75, the character of the office changed. He and his successors were given supervisory duties over the secretariat, (shang-shu; masters of writing) and from that time onwards came to head sizable ministries. [3] _Central government_ Outer Court headed by Three Excellencies 3. Marshal of State to Supreme Commandersince 8 BCE "the three highest regularly appointed career officials had the same rank. These were the so-called three excellencies (san kung)". [3] the Supreme Commander "gradually became the most influential among the three." [3] 4. Chief Clerk (chang-shih)"All ministries of the three excellencies were organized in the same general way. Only that of the supreme commander is systematically described in the sources, but the organization undoubtedly varied little from one ministry to the other. Each of the three excellencies was assisted by one chief clerk (chang-shih)." [4] 4. Head of BureauThe ministries of the excellencies and the chief clerks "were divided into bureaus (ts’ao) and staffed with numerous clerks and attendants." [4] 5. Clerk 6. Assistant clerks (tso-shih)"the status of Han officials was defined by a scale beginning with those entitled to stipends equivalent to 10,000 bushels (shih) of grain at the top, and ending with assistant clerks (tso-shih) at the bottom. From 23 B.C. onward, the number of ranks was eighteen. The grand tutor (t’ai-fu) was above the scale." [1] 3. Grand Minister of Finance to Minister of Financesince 8 BCE "the three highest regularly appointed career officials had the same rank. These were the so-called three excellencies (san kung)" [3] 4. Chief Clerk 4. Head of Bureau5. Clerk6. Assistant clerks 3. Grand Minister of Works to Minister of Workssince 8 BCE "the three highest regularly appointed career officials had the same rank. These were the so-called three excellencies (san kung)" [3] 4. Chief Clerk 4. Head of Bureau (e.g. Directorate for imperial manufacturies [5] )5. Head of a sub-division within Bureau (e.g. type of manufacture e.g. paper-making)6. Worker in sub-division of Bureau e.g. researcher"In 105, while serving in the directorate for imperial manufacturies ... [Cai Lun (d.121] devised a process of making paper from hemp, mulberry bark, and fishing nets." [5] 7. Assistant clerks 3. Superintendent of ceremonial (one of the Nine Ministers chiu-ch’ing) [6] "They were not direct subordinates of the three excellencies, although these examined their performances." [4] 4. Directors e.g. for astrologythe Superintendent of ceremonial "had several senior aides" such as the directors for prayer, astrology, music, butchery, offerings and for specific shrines and a memorial park. The directors had "many attendants." Under the superintendent were also an Academician who was the head of the imperial academy and from 159 CE an inspector of the imperial library. [7] 5. Specialist astrologer inferred levelIn 115 CE polymath Zhang Heng (78-139 CE) "became a grand scribe responsible for observing astronomical phenomena, preparing calendars, and managing time devices." [8] 6. Assistant/Apprentice to astrologer inferred level7. Clerk/Secretary inferred level 3. Privy superintendent of the lesser treasury (one of the Nine Ministers chiu-ch’ing) [6] "He headed the largest ministry, but was one of the least influential of the nine." [9] the privy superintendent of the lesser treasury was "the nominal supervisor of certain attendants of the sovereign." [9] 4. Ministerial assistants (ch’eng)Number of ministerial assistants reduced from six to one during Later Han. [9] 4. Director of the secretariat and the supervisor of the secretariatDirector of the secretariat ran the secretariat. the supervisor of the secretariat is described as "his substitute" [9] 5. Assistant of the left and Assistant of the rightassistants assisted the director and the supervisor of the secretariat [9] 5. Member of the Secretariat head of bureauSecretariat was divided into bureaus. These came to number six in Later Han. A bureau for regular attendants, "Two bureaus for senior officials ... were in charge of correspondence with provincial inspectors and grand administrators", bureau for civil population, bureau for superintending guests of south and north [9] 6. Lesser staff"Each bureau was under one member of the Secretariat, who was aided by lesser staff, including government slaves." [9] 3. Superintendent of transport [6] 3. Superintendent of the palace [6] 3. Superintendent of the guard [6] 3. Superintendent of trials [6] 3. Superintendent of state visits [6] 3. Superintendent of the imperial clan [6] 3. Superintendent of agriculture [6] 3 Mayor of Luoyang (Lo-yang ling): Mayor controlled an imperial prison and oversaw candidates for office who had arrived in capital from the regions [10] [10] _Provincial government_ 2. Regions (chou) had Inspectors (or commissioners)35 CE number of regions (chou) reduced from 14 to 13. [10] Inspectorates of the bureaucracy became permanently based in their own "provincial capitals" and had their own bureaucracy and - by 180 CE - military. [11] 3. Attendant clerk head of bureau"Their staffs were organized into bureaus, each under an attendant clerk (ts’ung-shih shih)." [12] 3. Duty attendant clerk (pieh-chia ts’ung-shih shih)"In addition, one attendant clerk was appointed to each commandery or kingdom of the region, and another acted as duty attendant clerk (pieh-chia ts’ung-shih shih). The latter had the responsibility of following the inspector (or commissioner) at public functions and of recording all matters, including conversations." [12] 3. Commanderies (chun) / Kingdom (wang-kuo) (under a governor / chancellor)"Each region included a varying number of commanderies (chun)." [12] "largely modelled on the centralised Ch’in system, with its north-western heartland divided into ’commanderies’ under governors appointed by the court." [13] ::: In Former Han governor had a Commandant to organize the militia. This was position was rarely present in Later Han. [12] 4. Head of BureauStaff of the governor organized into bureaus. [14] 5. Clerks 4. Magistrates of Counties (hsien)All commanderies divided into counties. [14] Counties were "personally inspected" by the commandery governor. [12] Counties in militarily important regions known as Marches (tao). [14] 5. Head of Bureau"The county staff was organized into bureaus which imitated the commandery administration and undoubtedly also varied according to local conditions." [15] 6. Clerks 5. Districts (hsiang) under a moral elder (san-lao), a chief of police (yu-chiao), and a tax, law and labor official (yu-chih or se-fu if under 5,000 households)Territory of a county was divided into districts. [15] 6. Commune (t’ing) under a chief (t’ing-chang)Districts were divided into communes. [15] 7. Hamlet (li) under a headman (li-k’uei)Communes were divided into hamlets. [15] Families grouped into units (of five and ten) "which had collective responsibility on one another’s conduct." [15] _Southern Xiongnu tributary_ Maintained at cost to central government which was around 91 CE about 100 million cash per annum. Other tributary non-Han client populations included Wuhan (from 49 CE [16] ), Xianbei, and Qiang. Like the Southern Xiongnu, their allegiance had to be paid for by the central government. [17] Other frontier tribes received 74,800,000 cash per year from 73 CE. [16] _Princely kingdoms_ "In 107 CE, Emperor An of the Eastern Han Dynasty (r. 106-25 CE) issued an edict that proclaimed, "I summon the excellencies and ministers, the officials of the Inner and Outer Courts, the governors of commanderies, and chancellors of the princely kingdoms..."" [2] "If charge of territory was granted to an imperial son and his heirs as a fief, it was referred to as a kingdom (wang-kuo), but this did not affect the way in which it was administered." [12] "Whenever an area such as a county was granted as a fief to a marquis, it was referred to as a marquisate (huo-kuo)." [14] [1]: (Bielenstein 1986, 491) [2]: (Zhao 2015, 69) Zhao, Dingxin in Scheidel, Walter. ed. 2015. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford University Press. [3]: (Bielenstein 1986, 492) [4]: (Bielenstein 1986, 493) [5]: (Knechtges 2010, 117) Knechtges, David R. in Chang, Kang-i Sun. Ownen, Stephen. 2010. The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. [6]: (Bielenstein 1986, 494-499) [7]: (Bielenstein 1986, 493-494) [8]: (Yan 2007, 117-118) Yan, Hong-Sen. 2007. Reconstruction Designs of Lost Ancient Chinese Machinery. Springer Science & Business Media. [9]: (Bielenstein 1986, 499) [10]: (Bielenstein 1986, 506) [11]: (Keay 2009, 177) [12]: (Bielenstein 1986, 507) [13]: (Peers 1995, 6) [14]: (Bielenstein 1986, 508) [15]: (Bielenstein 1986, 509) [16]: (Roberts 2003, 56-60) [17]: (Keay 2009, 171) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor2. The Nine Courts _Central government_ 3. Secretariat (zhongshusheng) 3. Chancellery (menxiasheng) 3. Censorate (yushitai) 3. Three Dukes (sangong: Counsellor-in-chief chengxiang, Defender-in-chief taiwei, and Grand Preceptor taishi or taizai) later Eight Dukes (bagong: included the Grand Preceptor, Grand Mentor (taifu), the Grand Guardian (taibao), the Minister of Works (sikong), the Minister of Education (situ), and the Commander-in-chief (dasima) and the General-in-chief (dajiangjun) [1] 3. Imperial Secretariat (shangshusheng)3-4. Royal Secretariat (shangshu tai) with six boards headed by presidents (shangshu) [2] 4-6. Six Ministries4-6. Board of Works [3] (inferred vice minister and minister positions)7. Qibu (Bureau of Works)8. Lushi: "office manager in a general’s headquarters, central government agency, or local administration" [4] 9. Clerk (inferred) _Regional Government_ 4. Regional Inspectors of Zhou 4. Regional Governors of Zhou 4. Regional Governors of Jun 4. Military Area Commanders (dudu or zongguan 4. Prince or Marquis5. Magistrate (ling) of a Xian (county) [5] 6. Lower-level officials (inferred)7. Clerks to the above offices (inferred) The Nine Courts: "Regular court officials, arranged in courts (fu or si) helped to organize the imperial household affairs as chamberlains (qing)." [1] The Nine Chamberlains (jiuqing), which were "Nine central government leaders and the agencies and their control ... began to be called the Nine Courts (jiusi)." [6] Secretariat (zhongshusheng): "the executive policy-formulating powers belonged to the Secretariat (zhongshusheng) that was the channel through which all memorials and documents flowed to the emperor and it was the agency that proposed and drafted all imperial rescipts, decrees (zhao) and edicts (ling)." [1] Chancellery (menxiasheng): "Policy consultants were gathered in an institution called Chancellery (menxiasheng) whose main function was to advise and to remonstrate." [1] Censorate (yushitai) headed by the Censor-in-chief: "The surveying agency of the officialdom was the Censorate (yushitai), headed by the Censor-in-chief (yushi dafu)." [1] "The highest posts or titles of the Jin central government were inherited from the Han." [1] "Their staff was arranged in different sections (cao)." [1] Imperial Secretariat (shangshusheng): "The major institution of the Han central government, the Imperial Secretariat (shangshusheng), was ousted to a more routinely administrative role that controlled the Six Ministries (liubu, each headed by a minister shangshu and a vice-minister puye)." [1] Six Ministries (liubu, each headed by a minister shangshu and a vice-minister puye) [1] Western Jin "Bureau of Works, under the Board of Works." [3] Regional Government: "From the Three Kingdoms through the Western Jin, a three tier local government system, comprised of zhou (province), jun (region), and xian (county), was in place." [2] Regional inspectors: a zhou was a province "governed by regional governors zhoumu and controlled by regional inspectors, cishi" [1] "Each zhou had under its direct control a number of jun (regions). By the fall of the Western Jin, the zhou were reduced to de facto prefectures." [7] "19 provinces (zhou), 173 regions and fiefdoms (jun guo), and 2,459,840 households." [8] Jun (region) "administered by governors taishou." [1] Jun were "eclipsed by the appearance of zhou (province)" [9] "Most regional governors were concurrently acting as military area commanders (dudu or zongguan)." [9] "Alongside with commanderies and districts there existed a lot of princedoms (wangguo) and marquisates (houguo), fiefs bestowed to members of the imperial house and, particularly the marquisates, to ministers of high merits." [1] "The administrative structure inherited Qin and Han reach down to the local level, the county (xian) with a population of several thousand or several tens of thousands..." [10] [1]: (Theobald, U. 2015. CHINAKNOWLEDGE - a universal guide for China studies. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Division/jin-admin.html) [2]: (Xiong 2009, 182) [3]: (Xiong 2009, 405) [4]: (Xiong 2009, 349) [5]: (Xiong 2009, 564) [6]: (Xiong 2009, 379) [7]: (Xiong 2009, 686) [8]: (Xiong 2009, xc) [9]: (Xiong 2009, 271) [10]: (Graff 2002, 20-21) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King"Issuing the calendar would have been the duty of the king. Associated ritual activities also would have taken place at the observatory. It is likely the king held ceremonies there by himself or entrusted officials to perform rituals on his behalf. This was not a public ritual building freely accessible to commoners." [1] 2. Top adviser and/or priest and/or someone who administered building and maintenance projects e.g. Yao’s observatory inferred"The walls indicate social differentiation in Longshan society for more than one reason. The resources needed for building a large walled settlement were far more than those used in ordinary settlements, thus requiring a very powerful central authority to organize the necessary labor. In addition, there is evidence at some sites for sacrifice of humans in rituals associated with the construction of wall foundations. For instance, in the western walled portion of Wangchenggang, 13 sacrificial pits filled with at least 17 human skeletons were found. The original number would have been more than this because of selective excavation." [2] 3. Official astronomer"recording time at Yao’s observatory was entrusted to the official astronomers of names Xi 羲 and He 和.”2" [1] 4. Lower Level Advisers (Inferred) [1]: (He 2013, 268) [2]: (Zhao 2013, 247) |
||||||
|
levels. This number equivalent to the number of levels in the provincial government, plus the Emperor.
1. Emperor"During the Qing conquest of Ming China, the Manchus struck a deal with local elites that allowed them to rule the empire in return for non-interference in local affairs." [1] _Central government_ 2. Grand Councilcreated by the Yongzheng emperor [2] "the Qianlong emperor’s reign saw the expansion of the Grand Council system begun by his father during the war against the Zunghars. The Grand Council was a tool of imperial centralization that allowed the emperor to bypass the official bureaucracy for many decisions, particularly in prosecuting wars." [3] 3. Ministries _Provincial government_ 3. Zongdu (viceroy, governor general) or Xunfu (governor)In charge of provinces. 4. Officials in charge of taos5. PrefectsIn charge of prefectures. 6. County chiefs7. County magistrates8. Clerks to the above offices The yamen of the district magistrate (usually the county magistrate, but sometimes prefecture or ting) was the lowest point in the official hierarchy. [4] District Magistrate occupied position 7A in the Qing territorial administrative hierarchy. [5] Mostern confirmed that county should be one level above district, since ’xiang’ are subordinate to ’xian,’ which is routinely translated to ’county.’ [6] There was a prefect level between county magistrates and provincial governors, while district magistrates were too low to be included in a prefecture so they were overseen directly by the provincial governor. Promotion from county magistrate to prefect was possible. [7] "Western Sichuan was controlled by hereditary chieftains with only the vaguest connections to the Qing government. These non-Han peoples were widely dispersed in mountainous terrain, where one of their main distinguishing features from the Qing court’s perspective was their constant internecine fighting." [8] [1]: (Lorge 2005, 172) [2]: (Lorge 2005, 173) [3]: (Lorge 2005, 164) [4]: ( Zhang, 2011, 63) [5]: (57, Table 2.3) Guy, K. 2017. Qing Governors and Their Provinces: The Evolution of Territorial Administration in China, 1644-1796. University of Washington Press. [6]: (Mostern, Ruth. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin, Dan Hoyer, and Jill Levine. April 2020. Email) [7]: (80-81) Guy, K. 2014. ‘Routine Promotions: Li Hu and the Dusty Byways of Empire. In, The Dynastic Centre and the Provinces: Agents and Interactions. BRILL. [8]: (Lorge 2005, 166) |
||||||
|
1. Ruler
_Central government_ 2. Prime Minister"The most important codification of Chinese law is the Fa jing (Canon of Law), compiled during the Warring States period by the prime minister of the Wei state Li Kui (455-395 B.C.)" [1] 3. Chancellor, Secretaries, etcCourt officials (Chancellor, Secretaries, etc) [2] 4. Assistants / Secretaries / scribes 4. Manager of state-run iron/bronze foundry inferred level5. Worker in state-run iron/bronze foundry inferred level _Provincial government_ 2. jun (commanderies)Provincial / commandery governors; military generals [2] "At the onset of the Warring States period, Wei reorganized the whole guo - core as well as conquered territories - into a two-tier structure of jun (commanderies) and xian (which evolved from dependent districts to counties). As the jun and xian became standard administrative units in the Warring States period, strategists could evaluate the relative capabilities of various states in terms of their numbers of jun and xian." [3] 3. xian (counties) 4. town heads 5. village-level chiefs [1]: (Fu 1993, 108) Fu, Zhengyuan. 1993. Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Li 2013, 194) [3]: (Tin-bor Hui 2005, 98) Tin-bor Hui, Victoria. 2005. War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
1. Sultan of Egypt The Sultan of Egypt had suzerainty over the other three kingdoms, and his writ was usually obeyed. [1] Did not establish a "central financial administration." [2] Political elite probably numbered 50 aristocrats, out of a pool of about 350 candidates. The entire elite of all ranks numbered about 20,000. [3] After Saladin’s Empire, the polity was broken up into separate Kingdoms: Egypt, Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul, under hereditary rulers of the Ayyubid dynasty. The Sultan of Egypt was usually the most powerful, and an integrating force. He ruled Egypt via an existing bureaucracy and Syria by distribution of iqta’s to military officers. [4] _Central government line_ Saladin inherited a professional bureaucracy from the Fatimids. [5] 2. Government ministries"Imad al-Din actually described his own working relationship with Saladin: ’If he needed to draw up an official letter or divulge some confidential plan, he would sit me down and dictate the main outlines. Then I would leave and spend the night composing the letters. Early next day I would go and present them to him. If he decided to add or change something in the content he would bring my attention to the paragraph and tell me which passages. I would stay until I had put it all in order. When he had approved them in their final form, he would sign them and say "Let us send them off without delay." 3. 4. 5. police? _Provincial line_ [1] 2. Egypt (governor: Muhafas)3. Nahi (District)4. Village level 2. Kingdom of DamascusProvincial administrators (governor: Muhafas) (called Amirs for Syria)3. ruled Syria by distribution of Iqta’s to military officers [4] 4. Village level 2. Kingdom of AleppoProvincial administrators (governor: Muhafas) (called Amirs for Syria)3. ruled Syria by distribution of Iqta’s to military officers [4] 4. Village level 2. Kingdom of MosulProvincial administrators (governor: Muhafas) (called Amirs for Syria)3. ... ? ...4. Village level EWA: also had "5. inferred: helpers of the village chiefs." Not included due to database wide methodological question. [1]: (Lapidus 2012, 246) [2]: (Humphreys 1977, 18) [3]: (Humphreys 1977, 24-25) [4]: (Lapidus 2002, 291) [5]: (Nicolle 2011) Nicolle, D. 2011. Saladin. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
Analysis of Badarian grave goods demonstrates an unequal distribution of wealth and the wealthier graves tend to be separated in one part of the cemetery. This clearly indicates social stratification.
[1]
[1]: Shaw, I. 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press. Pg.37. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Had a retinue of military/legal assistants 2. Tribal chiefTribes 3. Clan chiefPagus (Clan) / Family group [1] Galatians, who migrated to Asia minor 279 BCE, also provide a possible insight into Gaulish social structure as they were closely observed by the Greeks. Chieftains (called a tetrach by the Greeks) lead each of the tribes each of which were divided into clans. Supra-tribal level of cooperation: the clans of all the tribes together appointed 300 senators "to attend an annual assembly at a shrine." However they were rarely unified and eventually the chieftains became kings. The chieftains "were assisted by three military advisers and a judge." [2] "At its lowest level, Celtic society was made up of extended families or clans that were grouped together to form territorially based tribes." If Ireland is representative, 3 levels of hierarchy: 1. family unit = fine. 2. five family units = clan. A number of clans in the same region = 3. tuath (tribe) ruled by a king." [3] [1]: (Collis 2003, 195) [2]: (Allen 2007, 79-80) [3]: (Allen 2007, 62) |
||||||
|
EWA: unknown
1. King _ Administration at Memphis _ 2. Overseers [1] Early use of writing suggests administration system from Dynasty 0. [2] Djer introduced permanent institutions, royal domain got a name different from the king, division of labour and hierarchy increased. [3] 3. Overseers "whose activities took place only in Lower Egypt""Early Dynastic period, administrative seals and labels mention royal agricultural domains put under the authority of a very particular category of overseers whose activities took place only in Lower Egypt." [1] 4. Scribes [4] _ Provincial administration _ 2. Nomes [5] "Other towns must have developed or been founded as administrative centres of the state throughout Egypt. ... At Hierakonpolis, an elaborately niched mud-brick facade within the town (Kom el-Ahmar) has been interpreted as the gateway to a ’palace,’ possibly an administrative centre of the early state." [6] Reign of Den: "Settlements concentrated in areas where irrigation was easily manageable, and those were the districts that seem to have been organized as nomes first. ... The single institutions (domain, : hw.t pj-hr.w-msn.w) are more and more subdivided into several departments, and during the 2nd Dynasty villages are attached." [3] 3. ... ? ... [1]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García, Invaders or just herders? Libyans in Egypt in the third and second millennia BCE, 3) [2]: (Bard 2000, 75) [3]: (Engel 2013, 20-38) [4]: (Bard 2000, 74) [5]: (Bard 2000, 78) [6]: (Bard 2000, 65) |
||||||
|
levels.
Centralized monarchy during the Saite Period prior to the Persian invasion. 1. King "During the next six decades, indigenous kings ruled Egypt; this period is traditionally divided into three dynasties (Twenty-eighth to Thirtieth, 404-343 BC)." [1] _Court government_ 2. Chief official of court inferred from Saite 2. High Council inferred from Saite 2. Vizier inferred from Saite3. Head of a particular domain inferred from Saite4. Lesser administrators/scribes inferred5. _Provincial government_ 2. level between nomarchs and the central administration?3. Nomarchs? - presumably this was the last period in which we have local leaders called nomarchsDuring the Saite period king Amasis "modified the role of nomarchs for the entire administration of Egypt." [2] 4. Village head [1]: (Fischer-Bovet 2014, 17) [2]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 1007) |
||||||
|
Gerzean: "The hierarchy of chiefs amounted in essence to a hierarchical management system. Village chiefs were "clients" of a district chief, who in turn was a client to a regional chief. Clients owed loyalty to their superior chief (Mair, 1967)."
[1]
Hierakonpolis and Abydos: "some kind of “royal” authority or primitive chiefdom existed about 3700 BCE, well before the Predynastic kings of Abydos"
[2]
1. ?Proto-king 1-2. Regional chief (was this the king?) 3. District chief 4. Village chief [1]: (Hassan 1988, 172) [2]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 188 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) |
||||||
|
1. King The term "Pharaoh" as political title emerged in the New Kingdom. In earlier times "Pharaoh" means literally what the Egyptian phrase does i.e. "great house." "head of state and the topmost administrator of Egypt" [1] "royal centers like the Hwt-aAt, the towers swnw, and the agricultural domains of the crown nwt mAwt(literally “the new localities”) continued to dot the Egyptian landscape and helped to assert the presence of the king’s authority, in a formal way" [2] _ Central government before the 5th Dynasty (150 people + families) _ 2. Vizier"Beginning in the Fourth Dynasty, fewer members of the royal family remained in high managerial posts, and a consolidation of administrative power took place around Egypt’s highest civilian bureaucrat, namely the vizier, beginning in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] "the vizier oversaw the entire state administrative system and his office maintained direct and unrestricted control over a range of entities, such as granaries and treasuries, until the appearance of specialized departments sometime in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] 3. Overseer of the national treasury (from Fourth Dynasty) (usually held by vizier) [3] 3. Treasury assistant"Titles of seemingly lower rank, such as hry-’ pr-hd "Treasury assistant" appear already in the First Dynasty. Beginning in the Fourth Dynasty the title imy-r3 pr-hd designated overseers of single treasuries until it disappeared in the Sixth Dynasty." [3] Pr-hry-wdb (donation management?) was a department of the treasury "already in existence during the reign of Khasekhemwy in the Second Dynasty." [4] 4 - principal officials of this department. [5] 4. Overseers of single treasuries. Scribal hierarchy [5] 3. Overseers of controllers of the scribes4. Controllers (hrp)5 scribal overseers (imy-r3)6. scribal inspectors (shd)7. scribal under-supervisors (imy-h.t) _ Central government from 5th Dynasty_ "It would appear that prior to the Fifth Dynasty the existence of a cohesive multi-tiered administration for granaries is not borne out by the evidence, due perhaps to a paucity of the sources, but more likely to the fact that granary management, being carried out by the vizier’s office, may have lacked distinguishable traits. A hierarchical bureaucracy sets in only during the latter parts of the Old Kingdom" [6] 2. Vizier"Beginning in the Fourth Dynasty, fewer members of the royal family remained in high managerial posts, and a consolidation of administrative power took place around Egypt’s highest civilian bureaucrat, namely the vizier, beginning in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] 3. Department heads"the vizier oversaw the entire state administrative system and his office maintained direct and unrestricted control over a range of entities, such as granaries and treasuries, until the appearance of specialized departments sometime in the Fifth Dynasty." [1] 4. Sub-department heads"Administrative units, such as granaries, and treasuries (which included commodity management sub-departments) [7] 5. Granary complex [8] head (inferred)snw.t refers to an individual storage silo, or granary complex [8] 6. Assistant-directors of the granary (hry-tp snw.t) [9] 7. Scribes / Other employeesBaker (rth), brewer (’fty), miller (ndw.t), tallier (nht-hrw), foreman, "inspector of custodians of granary property" [10] Scribal hierarchy [5] 3. Overseers of controllers of the scribes4. Controllers (hrp)5 scribal overseers (imy-r3)6. scribal inspectors (shd)7. scribal under-supervisors (imy-h.t) "I suggest putting King (pharaoh): the term Pharaoh was hardly used for kings until the time of Akhenaten, a millennium later; before that it meant the palace or royal estate as an institution; 2: the hierarchy looks too extended to me, because in principle all the administrators were qualified as scribes, so your levels 3 and 5 are basically the same, for example, while the ’overseer – inspector – under-supervisor’ hierarchy existed in various areas (even nail-clipping!); maybe remove level 5 and remove ‘scribal’ from levels 6 and 7." [11] _ Provincial line _ [12] 3. Hwt - administrators of royal centers [13] "Private inscriptions state that the HoA Hwt or “governor of a Hwt” was a state official appointed by the administration." [14] Early in the Old Kingdom "territorial organization based more on a network of royal centers scattered all over the country than on a structure of provinces clearly marked out and controlled by local governors." [13] "the so-called geographical processions, in which each province was depicted as formed not only by towns and their hinterland (w-“districts”) but also by marshy areas (pehu)." [15] 4. Staff of nomarchThe nomarch had staff. [16] 4. Workshops within royal centers"some of the institutions whose name is composed with the element Hwt were perhaps some kind of specialized royal workshop like the Hwt-mHa, Hwt-THnt, or Hwt-Smaw known from later inscriptions." [17] 4. Village leaders (inferred from the existence of villages))"The inscriptions in Metjen’s tomb, from the early Fourth Dynasty, reveal that a Hwt could control several villages, whereas the autobiography of Ibi of Der el-Gebrawi states that extensive fields of about 50 ha provided with workers and cattle were administered by a Hwt, a fact confirmed by the ritual texts where the Hwt appear as administrative centers asserting their control over several fields and domains (Moreno García 1999, 2001a)." [18] 5. Scribes _Crew system used to organize labour_ 1. Leader of the crew "In the Old Kingdom, a crew was made up of two gangs" [19] 2. Leader of a gang"In the Old Kingdom... a gang was divided into four or five phyles" [19] 3. Leader of a phyle"In the Old Kingdom... each phyle had four divisions of about 10 men each, although this number could vary (Roth, 1991). Hence, the total labour force in a crew could well reach 400 men, possibly even more." [19] 4. Foreman of a division"In the Middle Kingdom, the most frequent sizes of a division (including one foreman) were 10, 14 and 20 (Gardiner et al., 1952, 1955; Mueller, 1975; Simpson, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1986). However, there were smaller division sizes of 9 and 4, with two supervisors combined into one larger division (Griffith, 1898)." [19] [1]: (Papazian 2013, 46) [2]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 196) [3]: (Papazian 2013, 74) [4]: (Papazian 2013, 77) [5]: (Papazian 2013, 78) [6]: (Papazian 2013, 67-68) [7]: (Papazian 2013, 58) [8]: (Papazian 2013, 60) [9]: (Papazian 2013, 66) [10]: (Papazian 2013, 66-67) [11]: (Baines, John. Personal Communication to Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020) [12]: (EWA, Sept 2014) [13]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 190-192) [14]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 198) [15]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García, Recent Developments in the Social and Economic History of Ancient Egypt, 7) [16]: (Van De Mieroop 2011, 80) Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Backwell. Chichester. [17]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, 191) [18]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 198 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) [19]: (Ezzamel 2004, 507) Ezzamel, Mahmoud. July 2004. Organization. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp 497-537. Sage publications. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King (Psamtik I) Centralized monarchy 2?. Royal scribe of the Pharaoh. (The petition of P3-di-3st. Amasis.) [1] _ Central government line _ 2. Court/Household (Psamtik I) 2.Chief Physician (from Amasis). More than a medicine man. Also occupied "major military positions" such as Leader of Aegean foreign (troops)and admiral of royal fleet. [2] 2. Manager of the Antechamber (Psamtik I - Amasis). In charge of organizing royal audiences. [3] 3. Accountant scribes. According to the Petition of Peteise "he has accountant scribes to perform investigations throughout the country." [3] 2. Viziers played a role of "supreme judge" [4] 2. High Council (Psamtik I) (High Council reported directly to the king [5] )"Convened to assist the sovereign in taking decisions" (Psamtik I) [6] The statuette of General Djedptahiufankh says the king "relies on his words on the day of the High Council ... distinguished by the king because of his excellent ideas ... pronouncing wise judgements in the Council of Nobles ... and speaking to them next to the king so that they were satisfied by his remarks." [7] 3. Manager of the scribes of the council [8] Manages the audit office of the Royal Household (from second half of Saite Period). [9] 4. Scribes of the council [8] 5. Royal accounting scribes "dispersed throughout the various royal domains." [10] 3. Manager of the royal boats - logistics within royal domain. (from Psamtik II) [9] 3. Manager of the fields - "protecting the royal lands and their products from attempts at seizure." (from Psamtik II) [9] 3. Senti - top administrator in charge of sacred domains. (from Psamtik II) [9] 2. Council of Nobles (Psamtik I) (Council of Nobles also likely reported directly to the king. [5] )"a deliberative meeting in which the king had to defend his point of view and obtain adherence." (Psamtik I) [11] 3. Head/controller of the ’h. (Statue of Psmtk-snb) [12] 3. pr pr-’3 (The petition of P3-di-3st. Amasis.) [1] 3. pr-nswt (Fragment of an Isis-statue with Horus of Nht-Hrw-hb) [13] 3. Overseer of the ’hnwty (Statue of Psmtk) [14] 3. Overseer of the treasury of the gold of the hnw. (Tomb of Hk3-m-s3.f. Amasis.) [15] _ Provincial line_ ET: this is not in the correct order - nomarchs, counts, governors should not be level 4? 3. Thebaid regionReligious and political center - through a priestess based at the Amun temple. [5] 3. Royal DomainLand, quarries, fisheries, flocks, ships, other assets. [16] Manager of the royal boats, Manager of the two granaries, Manager of the scribes of the High Camp. [8] Manager of the scribes of the council4. Scribes of the council5. Royal accounting scribes "dispersed throughout the various royal domains." [10] 4. senti appointed to manage temple affairs (end of Saite Period) 4. Governors. e.g. Governor of Heracleopolis. [4] 4. Counts 4. Principalities in DeltaHigh Chief of the Ma disappeared in 660s BCE. [17] Ruled by Libyan warlords. "Great Chiefs of the Ma." [17] 4. Southern LandInitially administered as single unit (Psamtik I) ignoring nome boundaries. [18] "Southern Land" (Syene/Aswan to Memphis) under official called Leader of the Fleet (Psamtik I) based in Heracleopolis. He had financial duties as "revenue accountant for Middle and Upper Egypt." Title of Leader of Fleet probably no longer present c590s BCE. At least one holders known to have had title of governor. [19] By 592-591 BCE there was a "Governor of Heracleopolis" and a "traditional division in nomes ruled from a capital city under the authority of a governor."5. Nome ruler from c591 BCE 4. NomarchsAmasis "modified the role of nomarchs for the entire administration of Egypt." [20] 5. Village levelSoldier rewarded "with a gold bracelet and an Egyptian village." [21] "In sum, the first Saite Period, the seventh century, was a reign of skillful politics aimed at taking over the territory. The second period, the sixth century (the years 592-591 could well mark this turning point), was an age of administrative standardization, and P. Rylands 9 reveals a country divided into nomes (ts.w)" e.g. Oxyrhynchos, Hermopolis, Cynopolis. "even if the territorial powers of intermediate level between the nome and the city, like the ’district-q’h.t’, continue to be problematic." [22] A "superintendent of the central treasury" and a "chief steward" are known under Apries and Amasis. [23] [1]: (Pagliari 2012, 907) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [2]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 972) [3]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 973) Agut-Labordere, Damien. "The Saite Period: The Emergence of A Mediterranean Power." in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. [4]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 974) [5]: (Manning 2015, Personal Communication) [6]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 969) [7]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 696) Agut-Labordere, Damien. "The Saite Period: The Emergence of A Mediterranean Power." in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. [8]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 996) [9]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 1001) [10]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 997) [11]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 971) [12]: (Pagliari 2012, 939) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [13]: (Pagliari 2012, 943) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [14]: (Pagliari 2012, 956) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [15]: (Pagliari 2012, 960) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [16]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 995) [17]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 975) [18]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 981) [19]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 981-983) [20]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 1007) [21]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 989) [22]: (Agut-Labordere 2013, 984) Agut-Labordere, Damien. "The Saite Period: The Emergence of A Mediterranean Power." in Garcia, Juan Carlos Moreno ed. 2013. Ancient Egyptian Administration. BRILL. [23]: (Pagliari 2012, 186) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. |
||||||
|
1. King _13th Dynasty Royal Court_ [1] nb: this is a Middle Kingdom dynasty 2. Vizier 3. Royal sealerincluding: treasurer, high steward, overseer of fields, overseer of troops, overseer of the compound, overseer of sealers4. ... ? ... 5. ... ? ... _16th and 17th Dynasty Palace and Central Administration_ 2. Vizier"The vizier and overseers of sealed things continue to represent the highest civil and palace authorities attested during the 16th and 17th Dynasties." King’s sons increased importance during 17th Dynasty. [2] ??. Overseer of the Sealers [3] - a level above the Overseer of Sealed Things? 3. Overseer of Sealed Things [4] 4. Deputy Overseer of Sealed Things [4] 5. Great scribe of the overseer of sealed things [3] 6. Scribe / Scribe of the document [5] 2. King’s council?"Saying things in the presence of His Majesty in his ’h by the council of the great ones who attend him." (Stele and tablet of King Kamose). [6] 2. King’s Sons"During the late 13th Dynasty the king’s son title began to be used for officials given particular duties, principally military officials stationed at forts and garrisons, indicating both the level of their connection to the king, and presumably that they were responsible directly to him. This function seems to have carried over into the 16th and 17th Dynasties, when this title is attested with great frequency for individuals who were not likely to have been actual princes. The officials who bear it come from a variety of administrative areas: priests, governors, overseers of the gs-pr, and especially garrison commanders and other memebers of the military." [7] _ Central government line _ [8] 2. Central elite 3. "Overseer of works" title in Theban Egypt [9] 4. Scribes _ Provincial line _ 2. Provincial governors (Theban region) (EWA: Local potentates) [8] Governors [10] often garrison commanders during late 16th and 17th Dynasties. [11] In Theban Egypt "At several towns the installation of garrison commanders in addition to governors, or one official holding both titles, indicates a general militarization of the provinces." Provincial court was closely connected to King’s court at Thebes, with governors marrying princesses and often assigned specific duties. [12] Mayor of Elephantine (16th Dynasty Theban Egypt). Neferhotep responsible to king for the region Thebes to Elephantine. [13] 3. maybe "Sons of the king" (=City governors)Mayor was the highest local administrator in Theban Egypt. Could also hold position of garrison commander. [14] 4. Scribes [1]: (Grajetzki 2010, 305) [2]: (Shirley 2013, 548) [3]: (Shirley 2013, 529) [4]: (Shirley 2013, 528) [5]: (Shirley 2013, 527, 530) [6]: (Pagliari 2012, 592) Pagliari, Giulia. 2012. Function and significance of ancient Egyptian royal palaces from the Middle Kingdom to the Saite period: a lexicographical study and its possible connection with the archaeological evidence. Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham. [7]: (Shirley 2013, 553) [8]: (EWA, Sept 2014) [9]: (Bourriau 2003, 192) [10]: (Shirley 2013, 556) [11]: (Shirley 2013, 559) [12]: (Shirley 2013, 557) [13]: (Bourriau 2003, 194-195) [14]: (Maree 2010, 266) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King "The political picture that emerges as the Third Intermediate Period progresses is one of a federation of semi-autonomous rulers, nominally subject (and often related) to an overlord-king." [1] _ King’s own administration _ 2. Vizier"Officials of traditional centralised government, such as the vizier and overseers of the treasury and granaries ... now wielded only local influence." [2] 3. Treasury / granary head official4. Treasury / granary sub official (inferred)5. Scribe within treasury / granary (inferred)6. Other workers (inferred) _ Provincial government _ 2. Commander and governor at Thebesat Thebes, highest offices (chief general and high priest of Amun) held by Herihor then passed to the family of General Piankh. They "derived their executive powers from the oracles of Amun, Mut, Khons, by whom clerical appointments and major policy decisions of the rulers were sanctioned." [3] Upper Egypt "retained greater territorial cohesion than the north" with Thebes predominent [2] 3. Vizier"Officials of traditional centralised government, such as the vizier and overseers of the treasury and granaries ... now wielded only local influence." [2] 4. Treasury / granary head official5. Treasury / granary sub official (inferred)6. Scribe within treasury / granary (inferred)7. Other workers (inferred) 2. Commander and governor elsewhereMost provincial governors were also army commanders. [4] [1]: (Taylor 2000, 338) [2]: (Taylor 2000, 337) [3]: (Taylor 2000, 327-328) [4]: (Taylor 2000, 339) |
||||||
|
levels. Six for Abbasid Caliphate. Coding 5 as "placeholder."
Reference for Abbasid Caliphate: In Iraq and Egypt local government was divided into a hierarchy of districts with the subdivisions (Kura, Tassuj and rustag) used for assessing taxation which was passed to the governor. [1] 1. Governor (- 939 CE) al-Ikshid (939 CE -) "In 939 the caliph even acceded to Muhammed Ibn Tughj’s demand to be given the title al-Ikshid, held by rulers in the Farghana region of Central Asia whence his grandfather had come." [2] Treaty of 886 CE Abbasids "granted the governorship of Egypt to Khumarawayh and his descendants for a period of thirty years." [2] Treaty of 939 CE Abbasids "granted to the Ikshid and his heirs governorship over Egypt and Syria for thirty years" [2] 2. Vizier [3] 2. Financial director (until 871 CE)"After becoming governor, Ibn Tulun had to struggle for several years with the power of Ibn al-Muddabir, financial director of Egypt since 861 and answerable only to the caliph." [2] [1]: Lapidus, History of Islamic Society, p.61 [2]: (Sundelin 2013, 430-431) Shillington, K. 2013. Encyclopedia of African History: Volume 3. Routledge. [3]: (Raymond 2000, 35) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King _Central Government_ 2. Grand Chancellor [1] 2. Chief Secretaries of Councils [1] 3. Consejo de la Cámara de Castilla: small advisory cabinet to the King [1] 3. Council of State (Consejo de Estado) [2] : Archbishop of Toledo, Dukes of Alba and Bėjar, the royal confessor, and the Bishop of Jaén 3. Council of Castile (Consejo de Castilla) [2] 3. Council of War (Consejo de Guerra) [2] 3. Council of Finance (Consejo de Hacineda) [2] 3. Council of Aragon (Consejo de Aragon) [2] 3. Council of Portugal (Consejo de Portugal) [2] 3. Council of Flanders (Consejo de Flandes) [2] 3. Council of the Indes (Consejo de Indias) [3] [2] 4. House of Trade (Casa de Contratación) [4] 4. High Chancellor [3] 5. Lawyers [3] 5. Fiscal [3] 5. Secretaries [3] 5. Lieutenant Chancellor [3] 5. Accountants [3] 6. Auditors [3] 6. Copyrights [3] 6. Reporters [3] 6. Clerks [3] 3. Cortes Generales _Aragon, Navarre, and Castile_ 1. King 2. Council of Aragon, Castile 2. Cortes in Catalan: Aragon, Navarre and Castile: “Each of the three component states had its own Cortes (Corts in Catalan), but these bodies met together as a Cortes General to deal with matters involving the entire kingdom.” [5] 3. Deputy of the Generalitat (Cortes subcommittee): “Each body elected a subcommittee of its Cortes known as the Generalitat or Disputacio that contained a deputy and an oidor or an auditor from each of the three estates.” [5] 4. Low Officials (inferred) _Colonial Government_ 1. Viceroy: chief executive of the colony, representative of the king [6] Responsible to the Council of the Indes. "Although they governed from a royal court- situated permanently in Madrid after 1561- the Spanish Habsburgs relied on a decentralized power structure of viceroys, magistrates and royal officials who were stationed in a network of cities from Seville to Brussels and from Naples to Mexico City.” [7] "Viceroys represented the crown in Zaragoza, Barcelona, Valencia, Palermo, and Naples, and after the incorporation of Hispanic Navarre (1512), in Pamplona as well. Overseas, powers of viceroy were delegated to Columbus in the first charter of 1492 and subsequently divided between two viceroys in Mexico and Peru. All commerce and navigation with Spanish America was controlled and administered by the Casa de Contratación (House of Trade), an agency of the Council of the Indies established in Seville and modeled, to some extent at least, on the medieval Catalan consulate, though its powers were more extensive and arbitrary." [4] 1. Captain-general: "Captain-general: “the title of captain-general was primarily of military significance, and it was exercised alike by viceroys and governors; the official designation of the former being ‘my viceroy and captain-general’ and that of the latter being ‘my governor and captain general.” Not all governors were captains-general." [6] 1. Governor: chief executive of the colony, representative of the king [6] 1. Audiencia: tribunal of justice and administrative organs [8] "“The audiencias of the colonies were alike dependent on the Council of the Indes; common institutions and departments of government existed in Spain for the control and regulations of the tribunals of the colonies. All were of equal judicial rank before the Council of the Indes.” [9] 2. President [8] 2. Regent [8] 2. Magistrate [8] 3. Criminal alcade [8] 3. Fiscal [8] 3. Oidores [8] _Provincial Government_ 1. Military governors 1. Viceroy: "Viceroys represented the crown in Zaragoza, Barcelona, Valencia, Palermo, and Naples, and after the incorporation of Hispanic Navarre (1512), in Pamplona as well. Overseas, powers of viceroy were delegated to Columbus in the first charter of 1492 and subsequently divided between two viceroys in Mexico and Peru. All commerce and navigation with Spanish America was controlled and administered by the Casa de Contratación (House of Trade), an agency of the Council of the Indies established in Seville and modeled, to some extent at least, on the medieval Catalan consulate, though its powers were more extensive and arbitrary." [4] 1. Dukes (inferred)2. Provincial Estate: “Each province had its provincial estate, a representative body that included members from the towns and the from the land-holding nobility." [10] 3. Local government _Village_ 1. Feudal Lord [11] 2. Alcade Mayor [11] 3. Regidor [11] 3. Justice [11] 4. Market Inspector [11] 4. Constable [11] 4. Clerk of the Council [11] [1]: (Elliot 1963, preview) Elliot, J.H. 1963. Imperial Spain 1469-1716. London: Edward Arnold. [2]: (Núñez 2006, 41) Nunez, Alfredo Jiménez. 2006. El Gran Norte de México: Une frontera imperial en la Nueva España (1540-1820). Madrid: Editorial Tebar, S.L. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/N28BC89X [3]: (Cunningham 1919, 25) Cunningham, Charles Henry. 1919. The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies As illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (1583-1800). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/CM5NJJRR [4]: (Payne 1973, 256) Payne, Stanley G. 1973. A History of Spain and Portugal, Volume 1, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/payne15.htm https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6MIH95XP [5]: (Maltby 2009, 38) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH [6]: (Cunningham 1919, 16-17) Cunningham, Charles Henry. 1919. The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies As illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (1583-1800). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/CM5NJJRR [7]: (Escobar 2016, 259) Escobar, Jesús. 2016. "Architecture in the Age of the Spanish Habsburgs." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 75(3): 258-261. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/F2BFHI82 [8]: (Cunningham 1919, 33) Cunningham, Charles Henry. 1919. The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies As illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (1583-1800). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/CM5NJJRR [9]: (Cunningham 1919, 14) Cunningham, Charles Henry. 1919. The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies As illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (1583-1800). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/CM5NJJRR [10]: (Maltby 2009, 36) Maltby, William S. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SUSVXWVH [11]: (Casey 2002, 102) Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Palatial staff.Royals had slaves. [1] "In the fourth century, Aksum became the first significant empire to accept Christianity when King Ezana (320-350) was converted by his slave-teacher, Frumentius (d. 383), a Greek Phoenician." [2] No information on the administrative system "which appears to have been poorly developed. Near relatives of the king assumed an important part in the direction of affairs." [3] "Archaeological evidence indicates that by Aksumite times there had developed a partly urbanized stratified society consisting of monarchy, surrounding elite, ’middle class’, and peasant/slave class." [4] "high-quality grave goods, have been interpreted as those of ’middle-class’ Aksumites ... It might be expected that such a class would include government officials, scribes ..." [5] _Court government_ 2. Treasurer and Secretary"The hellenized Syrians, Aedesius and Frumentius, who had been made royal slaves, were later promoted, one to the office of wine-pourer, the other to the position of secretary and treasurer to the Aksum king." [1] 3.Vassal tribute was either sent or taken by the king who visited "accompanied by a numerous retinue". [3] 3. Lesser officialGovernment officials, scribes. [5] "Leading chiefs as well as civil servants managed the administration. Levies and tributes were collected from the provinces." [6] 4. ScribesGovernment officials, scribes. [5] 5. 3. Manager of a Mint inferred 4. Mint workerCoiners. [5] _Regional government_ 2. Vassal king (negus)Aksumite term for ruler was ’negus’, and "Each ’people’, kingdom, principality, city and tribe had its own negus. Mention is made of army neguses ..." [7] "Control was established over a number of vassal states that sent tributes to the king." [8] This control was presumably fully established in the subsequent Aksum period. Challenge of the Aksum monarch e.g Ezana was to enforce the submission of the northern Ethiopian principalities. [7] i.e. control over principalities was lacking in this period. "The king exercised direct power in the capital territory, and he delegated power to regional leaders in the provincial areas." [9] This reference probably refers to the next Aksum periods. "The state was divided into Aksum proper and its vassal kingdoms the rulers of which were subjects of the Aksum king of kings, to whom they paid tribute." [7] 3. Vassal of a vassalSome vassal kings had their own vassals e.g. those in southern Arabia and Upper Nubia. [3] 3. Negus of a cityAksumite term for ruler was ’negus’, and "Each ’people’, kingdom, principality, city and tribe had its own negus. Mention is made of army neguses ..." [7] 4. Negus of a tribeThe neguses of the four tribes of Bega (Beja) ruled over about 1100 people, Agbo principality about 1000-1500. [3] [1]: (Kobishanov 1981, 386) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [2]: (Murray 2009) Stuart A P Murray. 2009. The Library: An Illustrated History. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. [3]: (Kobishanov 1981, 385) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [4]: (Connah 2016, 147) Graham Connah. 2016. African Civilizations: An Archaeological Perspective. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [5]: (Connah 2016, 141) Graham Connah. 2016. African Civilizations: An Archaeological Perspective. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [6]: (Falola 2002, 60) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. [7]: (Kobishanov 1981, 384) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [8]: (Falola 2002, 58) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. [9]: (Falola 2002, 58, 60) Toyin Falola. 2002. Key Events in African History: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. |
||||||
|
levels. "The production of bronze objects has suggested to many scholars that, just as trade became more complex, sociopolitical organization may have become more complex as well. This idea seems to be reinforced by the presence of fortified towns, suggesting some degree of political integration, at least at a local level. Unfortunately, there is little formal data on sociopolitical organization for the Earlier Bronze Age. Scholars analyzing the contents of burials have suggested a two-tiered division was present in Earlier Bronze Age society, with one tier being "elites" buried with considerable wealth, the other being commoners buried with very few goods. Most scholars believe that such differences were probably achieved during the life of the individual, particularly since many of the "elite" burials contain goods associated with warriors. However, both women and men, and even some children, were buried in the "elite" style, suggesting that ascribed status differences may have been present."
[1]
[1]: (Peregrine 2001, 413) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King _Central government_ 2. Conseil d’en haut. Dominated by influential figure such as Cardinal Richelieu, then Marazin.3. Officials of other councils of government. (The Conseil d’en haut being the "supreme governing council of the state.") [1] 4.5. 2. Estates-General (until 1614 CE).3.Last session until 1789 CE [2] 2. Parlement of Paris3. _Provincial government_ 2. Superintendant 3. Intendant [3] in a generalite [4] 4. Subdelegue"the office of subdelegue quickly established itself as an essential aid to the overworked intendants, who desperately needed reliable subordinates with local knowledge. There were always some ambitious local officials who were prepared to accept these unpopular positions..." [4] "During the 1630s the presence of an intendant became the normal rule, where it had previously been sporadic; without an clear intention, the crown was establishing a parallel system of non-venal administrators, with tremendous potential as a tool for centralization." [5] Intendants were about 80 men [6] who "could rely on the council to issue arrets in line with their recommendations." [6] 4. City governorGovernor of Paris [7] 5. 4. Provincial governor [8] ; Governors [4] 5. Lieutenant-governor [4] 5. Prévôt [7] in a Prévôté 6. Leader of a parish [1]: (Ladurie 1991, 76) [2]: (Ladurie 1991, 514) [3]: (Ladurie 1991, 73) [4]: (Briggs 1998, 120) [5]: (Briggs 1998, 118) [6]: (Briggs 1998, 119) [7]: (Ladurie 1991, 119) [8]: (Ladurie 1991, 75) |
||||||
|
levels.
[1]
[2]
1. King Following the death of Cardinal Mazarin, on March 10th 1661 Louis XIV established personal rule. _Central government_ 2. Prime Minister. Cardinal Fleury "defacto Prime Minister" from 1726-1743 CE [3] at other times, Councils of state were dominated by the Controleur general des finances e.g. Colbert.3. Heads of the councils of state. Conseil d’en haut (Ministers of State. Advised the king on important matters, such as religion, diplomacy and war); Conseil royal des finances (Controleur general des finances (e.g. Colbert from 1665 CE) generally made the decisions which were later approved by the king); Conseil des depeches (the Chancellor, who was excluded from Conseil d’en haut by Louis XIV, continued to play an important role in this council); Conseil de conscience; Conseillers d’etat; Maitres des requetes; Conseil d’Etat prive or Conseil des parties; Conseil d’Etat et des finances.4. Lesser bureaucrats5. 2. Parlements3. 13* regional judicial bodies - including Parlement of Paris, Parlement of Toulouse - that were courts of appeal and implemented the king’s law in the regions. *Unreferenced _Provincial government_ X. Superintendant (office abolished with the arrest of Fouquet 1661 CE [4] ) 2. Intendants3. Sub-delegates (had greater role from 1680s CE) [5] Position of provincial intendant was a rotated position, however the period of stay increased after 1666-1669 CE. role expanded 1680s CE [5] 3. Rulers of provincial estates4. Members of regional assembly5. permanent officials (syndics) In Languedoc the estates collected taxes and ran their own administration (regional assemblies) with permanent officials (syndics). 3. Provincial governors 4. Seigneurs 5. Municipal government 6. ParishIn rural communities priests were government agents who made public announcements, had a legal (e.g. issuing monitoires) and administrative role (e.g. intendant questionnaires) and mediated in certain disputes. [6] [1]: (Ladurie 1991 130-) [2]: (Briggs 1998) [3]: (Ladurie 1991, 338) [4]: (Briggs 1998, 137) [5]: (Briggs 1998, 152) [6]: (Briggs 1998, 174) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King 2. Decision-making councilOppida fortified urban settlements from 150 BCE [1] Caesar c50 BCE referred to the "Gaullish council" of the Parisii [2] Magistrate had the power to issue coins Common political and religious institutions [3] Centralised government [4] Effective political and administrative system that was equal to Rome [4] 3. PagiPagus (Clan) / Family group [5] Chiefs of tribes? Cantons (according to Caesar) [6] 4. Headmen?according to Caesar there was a sub-division below Pagi/Canton [6] Galatians, who migrated to Asia minor 279 BCE, also provide a possible insight into Gaulish social structure as they were closely observed by the Greeks. Chieftains (called a tetrach by the Greeks) lead each of the tribes each of which were divided into clans. Supra-tribal level of cooperation: the clans of all the tribes together appointed 300 senators "to attend an annual assembly at a shrine." However they were rarely unified and eventually the chieftains became kings. The chieftains "were assisted by three military advisers and a judge." [7] [1]: (Wells 1999, 49-54) [2]: (Kruta 2004, 88) [3]: (Kruta 2004) [4]: (Kruta 2004, 115) [5]: (Collis 2003, 195) [6]: (Kruta 2004, 185) [7]: (Allen 2007, 79-80) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Kings who ruled Kingdoms King ruled by decree [1] After the 843 CE Treaty of Verdun lands partitioned among Louis the Pious’s sons: "to Charles went the western regions, to Louis the German the eastern territories, and to Lothair the middle section." [2] Treaty of Meerssen (870 CE) divided the lands of the middle territory between East and West [2] Reunited into one kingdom briefly 884-887 CE [3] 887-898 CE Western territory ruled by a non-Carolingian [3] _Court institution_ "Central government was organized under a few major officials: the chancellor, the seneschal, the butler, the chamberlain and the constable. These originated as household officials with specific functions. By the beginning of the twelfth century these offices had been taken over by leading magnates." [4] 2.3.4. _ Regional government_ 2. Fief holdersVassals with their own fiefs, often hereditary. [5] 2. Missi dominici (to 877 CE) Kings representative appointed to inspect counties (noble laymen, bishops or sometimes abbots) [1] Passed on king’s law, often recorded in written documents called capitularies [6] after 843 CE capitularies were only found in West Francia and then not beyond 877 CE. [7] This might suggest the institution of Missi dominici did not exist beyond that date. Could get involved in local judicial work [1] 2. Counties ruled by a count3. Viscount was an appointed officer (from 1000 CE hereditary everywhere except Normandy) who was the deputy of a count. about 850 CE "850, virtually every county in the new West Frankish kingdom seems to have been provided with a viscount" [8] 4.Under Charlemagne (reign 800-814 CE), counties were basic unit of governance [1] Count enforced laws and responsible for justice and set taxes [1] original duties lost with end of Carolingian administration [8] Marches were a form of county, established by Charlemagne [9] , organised along military lines [9] , commanded by "count of the march" who was also head of the March government [9] 4. PagiIn 10th century "increasingly powerful" pagi, who were a provincial aristocracy. "In late 10th-century Anjou, for example, a loyal cavalryman might hope to be given authority over part of Count Foulque’s widespread territory." [5] [1]: (Chazelle 1995, 330) [2]: (Chazelle 1995, 332) [3]: (Chazelle 1995, 333) [4]: (Bradbury 2013, 249) Jim Bradbury. 2015. Philip Augustus: King of France 1180-1223. Routledge. [5]: (Nicolle 1995, 18) [6]: (Chazelle 1995, 3308) [7]: (Chazelle 1995, 330, 318) [8]: (Boulton 1995, 1823) [9]: (Chazelle 1995, 1107) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Chief 2. Headman 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age) "centralization of power but only at a restricted scale and in three forms (Brun and Pion 1992): 1. A cluster of dispersed farms gravitate around a monument, a sort of tomb-sanctuary, which symbolizes the unity of the territorial community. This community is ruled by a chief who occupies one of the farms. 2. A cluster of farmsteads polarized by a village, near which is found the territorial sanctuary. ... 3. Identical in organization to #2, but the central role of the village is held by a fortification. It appears that this type of settlement owes its existence to the control it exerted over long-distance exchange, especially over exchange in metal." [1] . "The production of bronze objects has suggested to many scholars that, just as trade became more complex, sociopolitical organization may have become more complex as well. This idea seems to be reinforced by the presence of fortified towns, suggesting some degree of political integration, at least at a local level. Unfortunately, there is little formal data on sociopolitical organization for the Earlier Bronze Age. Scholars analyzing the contents of burials have suggested a two-tiered division was present in Earlier Bronze Age society, with one tier being "elites" buried with considerable wealth, the other being commoners buried with very few goods. Most scholars believe that such differences were probably achieved during the life of the individual, particularly since many of the "elite" burials contain goods associated with warriors. However, both women and men, and even some children, were buried in the "elite" style, suggesting that ascribed status differences may have been present." [2] [1]: (Brun 1995, 15) [2]: (Peregrine 2001, 413) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Regional aristocratic chief 2. Local chief 3. Headman Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) A small fortification, the seat of the local aristocracy, polarizes each politically autonomous territory." [1] 2500-800 BCE (European Bronze Age) "centralization of power but only at a restricted scale and in three forms (Brun and Pion 1992): 1. A cluster of dispersed farms gravitate around a monument, a sort of tomb-sanctuary, which symbolizes the unity of the territorial community. This community is ruled by a chief who occupies one of the farms. 2. A cluster of farmsteads polarized by a village, near which is found the territorial sanctuary. ... 3. Identical in organization to #2, but the central role of the village is held by a fortification. It appears that this type of settlement owes its existence to the control it exerted over long-distance exchange, especially over exchange in metal." [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
"In their influential paper, Frankenstein and Rowlands [propose] the existence of a four-tiered hierarchy of chieftains, consisting of a paramount chieftain, "vassal chiefs," "sub-chiefs," and "village chiefs." Bintliff (1984) agreed with this suggesting "the spacing of centres suggests large territories and even "proto-state" structures, to be linked perhaps to the emergence of paramount chiefs or princes from an aristocratic stratum scattered throughout the region. The paramounts associated with the major putative centres and their particularly impressive burials, seem to have dominated numerous district chiefs whose rich tumuli are found at various points around the suggested territory of each princedom." [1] 1. Paramount chieftain 2. Vassal chief 3. Sub-chief 4. Village chief Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) A small fortification, the seat of the local aristocracy, polarizes each politically autonomous territory." [2] 1. Aristocratic chief 2. Local chief 3. Village head [1]: (Arnold and Gibson 1995, 6-7) [2]: (Brun 1995, 15) |
||||||
|
levels.
"In their influential paper, Frankenstein and Rowlands [propose] the existence of a four-tiered hierarchy of chieftains, consisting of a paramount chieftain, "vassal chiefs," "sub-chiefs," and "village chiefs." Bintliff (1984) agreed with this suggesting "the spacing of centres suggests large territories and even "proto-state" structures, to be linked perhaps to the emergence of paramount chiefs or princes from an aristocratic stratum scattered throughout the region. The paramounts associated with the major putative centres and their particularly impressive burials, seem to have dominated numerous district chiefs whose rich tumuli are found at various points around the suggested territory of each princedom." [1] 1. Paramount chieftain 2. Vassal chief 3. Sub-chief 4. Village chief [1]: (Arnold and Gibson 1995, 6-7) |
||||||
|
levels. There is no evidence for the administrative organization of Cretan communities. Members of local elite families might controlled the administrative sector of the large settlements that arose in Crete during the period. During the Archaic period (710-500 BCE), political, military and religious control was exercised by the Kosmoi, a board of 3 to 10 nobles annually elected by the Ecclesia, the body of free male citizens. It is very likely that some aspects of this organization existed since the 8th century BCE.
[1]
[1]: Chaniotis, A. 1897. "Κλασική και Ελληνιστική Κρήτη," in Panagiotakis, N. (ed.), Κρήτη: Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Heraklion, 192-207. |
||||||
|
levels. 1: village heads and 2: town heads. It is generally argued that administration and writing were directly connected with the emergence of the first political institutions in 1900 BCE.
[1]
The direct object sealing from Myrtos Phournou Korifi and the discovery of dealings at Khania (2400-2200 BCE or 2200-2000 BCE), Khamalevri (2200-1900 BCE), Trypiti (2400-2200 BCE or 2200-2000 BCE), Malia (2400-2200 BCE), Psathi (2400-2200 or 2200-1900 BCE) and Mochlos shows that some kind of accounting system existed on Crete since the 2400-2200 BCE period.
[2]
[3]
[4]
Administrative systems, however, were less sophisticated that these adopted in Mainland Greece during the Early Helladic period (2700-2000 BCE).
[5]
Administration should be of a relatively low-level and locally relevant nature.
[6]
[1]: e.g. Weingarten, J. 1990. "Three upheavals in Minoan sealing administration," in Palaima, T. (ed.), Aegean Seals and Sealings (Aegaeum 5), Liège, 105-20. [2]: Vlasaki, M. and Hallager, E. 1995. "Evidence for seal-use in pre palatial western Crete," in Poursat, J.-C. and Müller, W. (eds), Sceaux Minoenes et Mycéniens: chronology, function et interprétation (CMS 5), Berlin, 251-70 [3]: Pelon, O. 1993."La sale a pillars de Malia," BCH 117, 523-46 [4]: Soles, J. and Davaras, K. 1992. "Excavation at Mochlos" Hesperia 61, 413-45. [5]: For Early Helladic administration see Krzyszkowska, O. 2005. Aegean Seals. An Introduction, London, 36-56. [6]: Sbonias, K. "Social development, management of production, and symbolic representation in Prepalatial Crete," in Chaniotis, A. (ed.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders. Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, Stuttgart, 25-51. |
||||||
|
levels. 5 levels inferred continuity with previous polity in region.
1. King _Central government_ 2. Top functionaries 3. 4. 5. _Provincial government_ 2.powerful coastal regions, and administrative structures within these regions [1] 3. 4. Information on the administration of the Mataram Sultanate is very scarce. It seems that the Majapahit structure of the ruler and a few top functionaries with varying influence was retained. There were various different titles for functionaries, but it is unclear whether there was a particular hierarchical structure between them, and moreover the relationship of these functionaries to powerful coastal regions, and the administrative structures within these regions, is far from clear and there was probably much fluidity and development over time. [1] Moertono shows that in later Mataram (possibly after the VOC came to dominate) there was a ligion including rendering justice in disputes under the jurisdiction of Islamic law. Thseparate and more independent department, the reh pangulon, which was responsible for matters of ree institution of the penggulu (head of the clergy in the main mosque in the king’s capital) was gradually incorporated into the administrative system as head of a special division. The penggulu had his say about appointing lower penggulu naibs, who each administered the religious affairs of a certain number of villages. These lower officials were not thought of as belonging to the king’s administration, for unlike other royal officials they did not receive income from the king. [2] [1]: (Schrieke 1957, 190-207) [2]: (Moertono 2009, 84) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor _Court_ 2. MinistersIncluding chamberlain (thane veryashka), steward (bhanasa vergade), superintendent to the harem (antharpuradhyaksha), and the minister for war and peace (sandhivigrahika) [1] . _Provincial government_ 2. RashtrapathisIn charge of governing territorial units known as rashtras [2] (probably equivalent to four or five modern-day Indian districts [3] ). 3. VishayapathisIn charge of governing territorial units known as vishayas [2] (probably equivalent to modern-day Indian districts [3] ). 4. Nadrasas or Nad-prabhusIn charge of governing nadus [2] , "larger territorial divisions with numbers attached to their names" [4] . 5. GramakutasVillage head men [2] . 6.accountants and sub-accountants at village level in some or all regions, as under previous polity [1]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 91 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 96 [3]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), p. 360 [4]: K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Chalukyas of Kalyani, in G. Yazdan (ed), The Early History of the Deccan (1960), pp. 399-400 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Dharmamaharaja In imitation of the Satavahanas, the Kadambas referred to their leader as Dharmamaharaja [1] . _Court_ 2. Royal CouncilMade up of the pradhyana (head minister), the manevergade (steward of the household), the kramukapala (betel-carrier), the tantrapala, and the sabhakaya (secretary of the council) [1] . 3. Other ministersIncluding the Chief Justice, the dharmadhyaksha [1] . . The Crown Prince [1] . _Provincial government_ 4. Viceroys/PrincesGoverned over mandalas, or provinces [1] . 5. Governors of vishayas (Manneyas?)The Vishaya was the administrative division of Kadamba territory immediately beneath the mandala [1] : it is presumed that someone was in charge of governing it. It may have been the manneyas, who some sources say were in charge of "districts" [2] . 6. Governors of mahagramas and dashagramasMahagramas were groups of ten villages, dashagramas, groups of twenty-four [1] : it is presumed that someone was in charge of governing them. 7. Gramikas/Grama-mukhtasIn charge of villages [3] . [1]: Suryanatha Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 38 [2]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), pp. 50 [3]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 50 |
||||||
|
levels. Inferred from previous polity.
1. Governor >>> King "Mummadi Singeya Nayaka, the governor of Kummata (Bellary District) was an important feudatory chief under Narashima." [1] Narashima was a king of the Hoysala Kingdom. [2] Under the Hoysalas, the administration of the provinces was just the replica of the central administration. The governors charged both civil and military functions. They were made responsible not only for the peace, tranquility, law and order, but also for efficient administration [3] _Central administration_ 2.Under the Hoysalas, the king was assisted in administration by his ministers: Sandhivigrahi was the foreign minister, Sarvadhikari was an official with powers to supervise all departments, Bahataaraniyogadhipati was an official who headed 72 departments, Mahabhandari was the senior treasurer, and Dharmadhikari was the minister of justice. Paramavishvasi or personal secretary of the king and Mahapasayita or chief master of the robes were other senior officials. At times, these officials held their office hereditarily. The ministers also held military office [4] Under the Hoysalas, "The Governors had a number of officers under their control. They were Pergades or heggades, Sunkaverggade, Manikya Bhandri Manneya Nadagavunda, Gaunda, Senabaova, etc. The Pergades were officers entrusted with the task of managing the revenues of the state and also of general administration." [5] 3.4. _Regional administration_ 2. Town leader? Town had a Nagara assembly.Within the Hoysala Kingdom "Like the village, town also maintained an assembly know as Nagara" [6] 3. Village leader? Village had a Nagara assembly 4. SenabovaWithin the Hoysala Kingdom "The senabova also drafted the text of epigraphical records. We have many instances where senabova was the author of epigraphs. In short the presence of the senabova was essential in important activities of the village." [7] [1]: (Patel 2001, 27) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [2]: (Patel 2001) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [3]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 124 [4]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137 [5]: (Patel 2001, 42) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [6]: (Patel 2001, 45) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. [7]: (Patel 2001, 47) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga. |
||||||
|
levels.
Administration ’stereotyped’ after c500 CE. [1] "The data from the latter half of the 7th century to the 11th century show that there could be some variations in the number, size and sphere of administrative departments, but there was no change of first-rate importance, or organic evolution in the period." [2] "Our sources refer to mahamatya, maha-mantri, amatya, mantri and saciva. The first two designations stood for the chief minister; the last three terms were generally used as synonyms; but sometimes they denoted different categories of ministers. [3] "In the Kuvalayamala we are told that the cabinet of king Drdhavarman of Ayodhya consisted of eight members ... However, the strength of the ministry largely depended on the size of the state." [4] Government ministers were not specialised in role and could hold more than one office. [5] "Big kingdoms were generally split into provinces where either a prince or some other important official was appointed." [6] Districts (visayas) governed by visayapatis. [7] Elders (nagaramahanta) lead the administration of a city. [7] "Bharuci explains samvida as the samiti of villagers whose functions included the protection of tanks and pasture-grounds, and renovation of temples. He adds that the king could exile from his kingdom that member of the samvida who resorted to transgression. Udyotana makes mention of the village elders (grama-mahattara) and their chief (jyestha-mahamahattara)". [8] [8] "In the Deo-Barnark inscription we get a reference to ’talavataka’ which has been translated by Bhagwan Lal Indraji as ’village accountant’. But this interpretation is doubtful." [8] 1. King _Central government_ 2. Chief Minister [3] 3. Government ministers. [9] 4. Lesser officials. [9] ?. Mahapratihara (chief of the door-keepers). [9] ?. Pratiharas / Pratiharis (male/female door-keepers). [9] _Provincial government_ 2. Official or Prince of a province [6] 3. Visayapatis of a district [7] _Municipal government_ ?. Elders (nagaramahanta) [7] ?. City police [7] ? City-guards [7] _Village government_ ?. Village chief (jyestha-mahamahattara) [8] ?. Village elder (grama-mahattara) [8] ?. Samvida [8] ?. talavataka [8] [1]: (Mishra 1977, 137) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [2]: (Mishra 1977, 137-138) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [3]: (Mishra 1977, 139) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [4]: (Mishra 1977, 139-140) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [5]: (Mishra 1977, 140-141) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [6]: (Mishra 1977, 142) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [7]: (Mishra 1977, 143) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [8]: (Mishra 1977, 144) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. [9]: (Mishra 1977, 138) Shyam Manohar Mishra. 1977. Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman. Abhinav Publications. |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor _Court_ 2. Yuvaraja (Crown Prince) "The Yuvaraja usually stayed at the capital, helping the king in the discharge of administrative duties and occasionally accompanying the king in military expeditions" [1] . 2. Council of Ministers "[T]o judge from the contemporary evidence, it is clear that the ministry must have consisted of the prime minister, the foreign minister, the revenue minister, the treasurer, the chief justice, the commander-in-chief, and the Purohita or royal chaplain" [2] _Provincial Government_ 2. RashtrapatisIn charge of the military, fiscal and civil administration of rashtras, made up of the equivalent of four or five modern-day Indian districts [3] . 3. VishayapatisIn charge of the military, fiscal and civil administration of vishayas, the equivalent of modern-day Indian districts [3] . 3. Nadgavundas or DesagramakutasHereditary revenue officers in charge of aiding the Vishayapatis and Bhogapatis with the fiscal administration of their territories [3] . 4. BohgapatisIn charge of the military, fiscal and civil administration of "tashils" [3] , presumably the equivalent of modern Indian tehsils or sub-districts. 5. Village headmenResponsible for maintaining law and order in villages and for the "collection of the village revenues and their payment into the royal treasury and granaries [4] . 6. Village accountantsAids to the village headmen [3] . 7. Sub-accountants [5] . 6. Village assemblies20-30 elected persons divided into sub-committees, each sub-committee dedicated "to a specific department like the village tank, the village temple, roads. The village assembly also received deposits on trust endowments from private individuals to be utilised for specific public works. Civil suits were decided by the village councils which had also jurisdiction over petty criminal cases" [5] . [1]: S.N. Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization (1999), p. 377 [2]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), p. 358 [3]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), p. 360 [4]: A.S. Alterkar, State and Government in Ancient India (1958), p. 361 [5]: S.N. Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization (1999), p. 378 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King [1] "The concept of territorial lordship appears in some earlier text like Jaya Samhita, but it is only around second century CE or a little later that it is linked to the king’s claims for taxes (Sharma 1991: 191). Thus a king was entitled to levy taxes because he protect people and was the lord of the earth i.e. Bhupati. The Vakatakas had possession over land and also had control over raw material and hidden treasures. This probably reflected contemporary ideology that the king was regarded as a lord of a land, i.e. Bhupati. Thus, the inference of gradual transformation in king’s role from Gopati to Bhupati in Vidarbha can be drawn on the basis of archaeological as well as literary data." [2] _Royal Court [3] _ 2. sachiv (minister) "inscriptions revealed various names of administrative personals" (see Mirashi 1957, 1963) [2] 2-3. kulaputras, rajuka (revenue officer) [2] 4. Scribes inferred 2-3. rahasika (private secretary) [2] ?. dandanayak (???) [2] "The powerful alliance with the Guptas must have left some influence on Vakataka politics, administration, religion, art and architecture (see Sharma 1991: 339, Jamkhedkar 1983: 25-36)." [2] _Provincial government_ 2. Touring official"Normally the villagers were expected to provide all amenities to touring offcial in the form of grass for horses, hides for seat and charcoal for cooking, etc. Nevertheless, villages which were donated in grants were exempted from these tax collections." [2] 2. Feudatories 2. rajyadhikruta (Governor). [2] Province (Rajya) [2] 3. District (Ahara, Bhoga) [2] 4. Division (Marga, Patta) [2] 5. Village officialsis this the level for the sarvadhyaksha (civic superintendent)? [2] "The inscriptions revealed that the village officials were authorized to collect the taxes in the kinds." [2] 5. Brahmans given villages in grant"During the Satavahana time kings had only granted revenue of particular village to religious benefciaries. However, surprisingly, the Vakatakas had granted villages to religious benefciaries along with exemption of all sort of taxes, nullifying all royal authority over that granted village." [2] "Vakataka inscriptions also provide information about administrative divisions, as it appeared in Satavahana inscriptions. Some administrative divisions of Satavahanas and Vakatakas are same, viz. Rashtraka, Ahara, and Patha." [2] "the general imperial administrative structure of Kautilya was adaptable for smaller empires after the seventh century, of the Vakatakas, Pratiharas, and Paias and they were also borrowed by the Mughal Empire later. But they could not be sustained in their fullness in a gemeinshaft society, without the total commitment of the intellectual elite. They underwent serious erosion in several ways. The later empires, including even Harsha’s empire were loose - and ultimately local power centers of a feudal tributary nature grew up. ... postseventh-century Hindu administration in North or South Indian empires was essentially a comibination of fuedalism, bureaucracy, and village self-government. This combination had the advantage of avoiding anarchy when central power weakened." [4] Decentralization trend through this period (still relatively centralized 300 CE) created Indian state of 400-1200 CE: "The essence of the state structure, beginings of which are located with varying emphasis in both pre-Gupta and Gupta periods, may be understood by referring to two interrelated points which feature repeatedly in writings on the period under review: (i) decentralized administration and (ii) political hierarchy. Both points are posited as making a sharp contrast to the state structure of the Mauryas (Close of the fourth century BC to the beginning of the second century BC), the perceived contrast being expressed in such positive statements as: ’... the Kusana political organization did not possess that rigid centralization which characterized the Mauryan administrative machinery.’ Corrosion of centralization acquired a faster pace in the Gupta period. According to one opinion which envisages severage stages in the evolution of early Indian polity, ’the fifth stage was marked by the process of decentralized administration in which towns, feudatories and military elements came to the forefront in both the Deccan and the north. This was partly neutralized by the emphasis on the divinity of the king. The Kusana princes assumed the official title of devaputra and instituted the cult of the worship of the dead king, and the Satavahana princes came to be compared to deified epic heroes. The last age, identical with the Gupta period, may be called the period of proto-feudal polity.’ The processes which worked towards administrative decentralization are essentially seen to have derived from: (i) the practice of making land grants along with administrative privileges, and (ii) the breakdown of the state’s monopoly over the army. It is thus stressed that the beneficiaries who received grants of land from kings and their feudatories were given a wide range of fiscal and administrative immunities and the immunities were such that: ’In grants, from the time of Pravarasena II Vakataka onwards (fifth century AD) the ruler gave up his control over almost all sources of revenue, including pasturage, hides and charcoal, mines for the production of salt, forced labour, and all hidden treasures and deposits.’ The administrative concomitant of these fiscal immunities was that the ’donor abandoned the right to govern the inhabitants of the village that were granted’. The image of a decentralized administrative apparatus, or, more appropriately, of the virtual absence of any administrative apparatus, comes through most vividly in the following statement: ’The function of the collection of taxs, levy of forced labour, regulation of mines, agriculture, etc., together with those of the maintenance of law and order, and defence, which were hitherto performed by the state officials, were now step by step abandoned, first to the priestly class, and later to the warrior class.’ That the decay of state power was comprehensive is also suggested, it is believed, by the breakup of the army into ’small police garrisons’ as also through the process of the emergence of virtually autonomous military officials. At the level of commerce, the departure from the Mauryan pattern of rigidly state-controlled commerce and industry is seen in the emergence of autonomous nigamas and srenis, both connoting corporate bodies which regulated their own affairs without interference from the state. The autonomy of the corporations is again believed to have crystallized by the late Gupta period. An example, often cited, is provided by a set of charters from western India dated to the close of the sixth century. The charters were addressed to a group of traders and granted them various immunities; they exempted them from various dues, ’left them free to deal with labourers, herdsmen, etc. and authorised them to impose forced labour on certain artisans. The traders were allowed immunity from the entry of royal officials in their area and from payment of dues and rations for supporting these officials. ... Administrative decentralization, manifest in different ways, was linked primarily with the emergence of political hierarchy, which again contrasts sharply with Mauryan bureaucratic centralization and the absence of intermediary layers in the Mauryan political system." [5] [1]: (Majumbar and Altekar 1946, 124) Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. Altekar, Anant Sadashiv. 1986. Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. [2]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162.< [3]: Bakker, Hans. October 2010. Royal Patronage and Religious Tolerance: The Formative Period of Gupta-Vakataka Culture. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Third Series. Vol. 20. No. 4. pp.461-475. [4]: (Farazmand 2009, 60-61) Farazmand, Ali. 2009. Bureaucracy and Administration. CRC Press. Boca Raton. [5]: (Chattopadhyaya 2003, 178) Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. 2003. Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues. Anthem Press. |
||||||
|
levels. Two administrative levels are inferred to be present, based on the settlement hierarchy and the inferred links with villages to import building materials to San José Mogote,
[1]
although this division may be incorrect as it should not be assumed that the settlement hierarchy corresponds with the administrative hierarchy for this period (the sites may have been competing with each other rather than in dominant or subordinate administrative positions).
[2]
1. leaders of San José Mogote 2. village heads in surrounding settlements [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p11 [2]: 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. p53 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King [1] . _Central or court government_ 2. Council of MinistersThe king also had a hierarchical central bureaucracy - he was assisted in the task of administration by a council of ministers, appointed by him, as well as by chief treasurer, custodians of the jewels, an officer who looked after the commercial interests of the State, the prefect of the police, the chief master of the horse etc [2] . 2. Chief treasurerEach viceroy was required to submit regular accounts of the income and expenditure of his charge to the central government [3] 3.4.5. 2. Custodian of the jewels 2. Prefect of the police 2. Chief master of the horse 2. MahanayakacharyaThe King maintained a link with the village administration through his officer called the Mahanayakacharya, who exercised a general supervision over it. [4] . _Provincial government_ 2. Viceroy, nayaka or naik - in each province [3] .3. Civil (e.g. treasury), military, judicial officials at department head level inferredEach viceroy exercised civil, military and judicial power within his jurisdiction, but he was required to submit regular accounts of the income and expenditure of his charge to the central government and render it military aid in times of need [3] 4. Accountant (income, expenditure, tax receipts etc) inferred5. Assistant/scribe inferred 3. Village officers.Villages were the lowest unit of local administration. Each village was a self-sufficient unit. The village assembly conducted the administration of the area under its charge (executive, judicial and police) through its hereditary officers like the senateova or the village accountant, the talara or the village watchman or commandant, the begara or the superintendent of forced labor, and others. These village officers were paid either by grants of land or a portion of agricultural produce. The King maintained a link with the village administration through his officer called the Mahanayakacharya, who exercised a general supervision over it. [4] . 4. Senateova 4. Village accountant 4. talara (village watchman or commandant) 4. begara (superintendent of forced labor) [1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 373 [2]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 373-4 [3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374 [4]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 375 |
||||||
|
levels.
Based on data for preceding polities of the Perso-Islamic type at least 5 levels. 1. Caliph _Central government_ Totalitarian The reign of al-Nasir "was unprecedentedly totalitarian ... the caliph’s spies were so efficient and the caliph himself so ruthless that a man hardly dared to speak to his own wife in the privacy of his home." [1] Mercenary Recruited mercenaries "from across ethnic and tribal communities that they hoped would be more loyal. Among people they recruited were Turks ... The Abbasid plan backfired, however, and eventually their hired guns took over running the affairs of the state." [2] Perso-Islamic "traditional Perso-Islamic administrative apparatus developed in late Abbasid times". [3] 2. Vizier 3. ??? 4. ??? 5. ??? _Provincial government_ 2. 3. ??? 4. ??? 5. ??? [1]: (Bray 2015, xxi) Toorawa, Shawkat M ed. 2015. Consorts of the Caliphs: Women and the Court of Baghdad. NYU Press. [2]: (Volk 2015) Volk, Lucia ed. 2015. The Middle East in the World: An Introduction. Routledge. [3]: (Shaw 1976, 5) Shaw, Stanford J. 1976. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808. Cambridge University Press. |
||||||
|
levels. (1) King (2) Sanga/Shagun (3) Senior Temple Administrative Staff (4) Subordinate Temple Administrative Staff (5) Servants and slaves.
"Rather than governors appointed by the kingdom, temples acted as the real centres of local resources and activities. Indeed, temples could rely on their millenary tradition, administrative structure, prestige, and ability to motivate the population. They therefore required and obtained from the kings (probably the weakest ones) a certain degree of autonomy and various exemptions from tributes and obligations (defined with the terms kidinnu in Kassite and zakûtu in Akkadian). They also had a certain degree of self-government for the administration of justice and of the cities’ internal affairs." [1] At the head of the temple hierarchy "was the sanga / shangum (chief priest), whose role was as much administrative as religious. [...] The administrative staff included managers, overseers, surveyors, foremen, scribes and archivists, servants and slaves." [2] [1]: (Liverani 2014, 471) 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. [2]: (McIntosh 2005: 206) McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD. |
||||||
|
levels. At least three: (1) King, (2) Governors, (3) Functionaries.
"Within the land of Sumer and Akkad, the administration of the dynasty of Isin continued along the same lines as in the Kassite period. We know of around twenty provinces ruled by a governor (šakin ma¯ti, then šakin te¯mi). Some of these provinces were named after their main city (Nippur, Isin, Dur-Kurigalzu, and so on). There were also other territorial entities and tribal ‘houses’ (defined with the term Bït plus the name of the ancestor). The ‘urban’ provinces were mainly in the north (in the former land of Akkad), and less in the south, where Ur seems to have been the most vital city. ‘Tribal’ provinces were mainly located in the area east of the Tigris. It is possible that, within the land, the traditional duties of the ‘governors’ were taking care of irrigation systems and temple architecture. In the provinces along the borders, these tasks were more military and governors had a more personal, rather than administrative, relationship with the king." [1] [1]: (Liverani 2014, 462-463) 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. |
||||||
|
Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. p.504
Longest governmental chain in central bureaucracy? King directly appointed leaders down to the level of municipal government. 1. King [1] “The king personally selected and appointed every official, be it a state, provincial, municipal, or temple official.” [2] King’s Court _ Central government line _ 2a. Central bureaucracy 2a. Top officials called Magnates, likened to a cabinet, Governors and Deputy-Governors, Provincial Governors. [2] 3a. Scribes4a. ... ? ... _ Provincial government _ 2b. Provinces [1] Provincial governors [3] , appointed by king, lived in palaces [1] Position nepotistic until reign Shalmaneser III (r. 859-824 BC), thereafter governors were Eunuchs sent from the central government. [1] Storage depots became nucleus of provincial capitals. [4] Shalmeneser III integrated conquered areas as provinces, or made them tribute paying vassals. [5] Since routine decision-making was delegated to governors most letters from provinces concerned unforeseeable problems. [1] 2c. Smaller provinces within provinces [1] Reforms of Tiglath-pileser III. Previously: conquered land integrated into empire through a governorship. Governors became over-mighty, hereditary and independent. Tiglath abolished governorships and created many new smaller provinces. [6] These were governed by a district lord (be-pihati) or a governor (shakkanakku), who were responsible to the king. Overseers (qepu) placed in each province to report to king. [6] 2d. Municipal government “The king personally selected and appointed every official, be it a state, provincial, municipal, or temple official.” [2] Town chiefs [7] ; Mayor and Overseer (chosen by the residents); City leaders [3] 3d. Scribes 3c. Village heads Inferred level [1]: (Radler 2014) [2]: (Westbrook et al. 2003, 886-888) [3]: (Chadwick 2005, 77) [4]: (Davidson 2012, 27) [5]: (Stearns 2001, 27) [6]: (Chadwick 2005, 79) |
||||||
|
levels.
"The social structure of these communities was thus characterised by few heads of households (elders), marked gender, age and provenance barriers, but few socio-political differences. Consequently, burials do not display any significant diffferences in status." [1] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
levels.
City State government Documents from Susa and Dura Europus show "the governments of these places preserved the pattern of the Hellenistic city state." [1] "Alexander had apparently hellenized Susa to the extent that the language of administration was Greek, the form of city-state government was Greek, and even the ethnic composition of the area was partially Greek." [2] 1. Leader/Ruler (perhaps appointed by the council?) 1. Council "power was concentrated into the hands of a council made up of representatives of a few of the richest families." [3] 2. Finance chief inferred"massive capital investments in dams, roads, and canals" and a "heavily monetized economy" [4] 3. Head of the Elymean mint inferred"heavily monetized economy" [4] 4. Worker at the mint 3. Departments for tax and revenue etc. inferred4. Scribes 2. Chief of Public works inferred"development of large, planned cities", "massive capital investments in dams, roads, and canals" [4] [1]: (Debevoise 1938, xli) Debevoise, Neilson C. 1938. A Political History of Parthia. University of Chicago Press Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/political_history_parthia.pdf [2]: (Wenke 1981, 306) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 [3]: (Koshelenko and Pilipko 1999, 146) Koshelenko, G A. Pilipko, V N. in Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. [4]: (Wenke 1981, 314-315) Wenke, Robert J. 1981. Elymeans, Parthians, and the Evolution of Empires in Southwestern Iran. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 101. No. 3. Jul-Sep. American Oriental Society. pp. 303-315. http://www.jstor.org/stable/602592 |
||||||
|
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE so this period very low administrative complexity. [1] Hajji Muhammad ware: "The proposed usage for formal eating and drinking made them a desirable item for display purposes in a society that was, perhaps, beginning to see the emergence of a social hierarchy." [2] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Crawford 2006, 167) Crawford, Harriet in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. |
||||||
|
levels.
Administrative conventions developed in Uruk period c3800-3100 BCE so this period very low administrative complexity. [1] Liverani says of nearby Ubaid culture 5100-4000 BCE: "With Ubaid culture, then, it becomes possible to detect the first steps towards the creation of socio-economic and political structures more complex than the ones characterising villages. The starting point of this process has to be the progress in agriculture, which in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain had become possible through extensive irrigation and the introduction of the cattle-drawn plough. These changes led to the beginnings of labour specialisation, the subsequent emergence of agents responsible for the coordination of social organisation and decision-making processes (mainly centred on the leading role of temples), and the progressive social stratification of communities." [2] "Given the formal differences and large geographic distance between the Hamrin and Bakun regions, it is hardly surprising to find differences in daily practices. Perhaps more astonishing is the extent to which they share broadly similar traditions of preparing and serving food, along with similar technological features and generalized types of sociopolitical organization." [3] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 54) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Pollack 2006, 104) Pollack, Susan in Carter, Robert A. Philip, Graham. eds. 2006. Beyond The Ubaid. Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Illinois. |
||||||
|
Early Sassanid period
administration in provinces and districts "did not differ greatly from that under the Parthians." [1] In the early period "royal cities, almost equivalent to semi-independent kingdoms, were built" administered by a shahrab. [1] Centralization occurred in the later Sassanid period when the empire was split into four parts each ruled by a spahbad who had civil and military powers. [1] 1. King of Kings [2] _Central government_ 2. Grand VizierAdministration based in Ctesiphon "Sassanid administration was headed by a Grand Vizier, who was in charge of political and diplomatic affairs. On occasion he commanded the army in the field. He also headed the divans (ministries), which were directed by secretaries expert in their various fields." [3] 3. Secretaries of a divan (ministry) [3] 4. Scribe in central administration inferred 5. Manager of state-run granary inferred, silk workshops"As with the Parthians, the economy was based on agriculture." [3] "State monopolies rivalled private concerns; in particular, raw silk from China was woven at workshops in Susa, Gundeshapur and Shustar." [3] 6. Worker in state-run granary inferred or silk workshop _Provincial government_ 2. Shahrabs [2] Semi-independent vassal kingdoms (Merv, Kerman, Sakastan, Adiabene, Iberia, Makran, Mesene, Kushanshahr and Armenia). They had:rulers called shahrabs, appointed by King of Kings [2] "royal" capital cities [2] military garrison [2] The ruler of Armenia had a special title: "Great King of Armenia." It was the base for many new regents. [2] 3. Head of district level government [2] 4. Official of a division called rustag (number of villages) [2] This administrator reported to a local government official? 5. Deghan of a division called deh (village) [2] An exilarch was the civic cheiftain officer for the Jewish community. He collected taxes and represented the Jews at the imperial court. [4] [1]: (Chegini 1996, 45) Chegini, N. N. Political History, Economy and Society. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.40-58. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [2]: (Daryaee 2009, 124-135) Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris. London. [3]: (Wilcox 1986, 24) Wilcox, P. 1986. Rome’s Enemies (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians. Osprey Publishing. [4]: (Lapidus 2012, 13) Lapidus, I M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
levels.
Writing present which would have helped organize and create administrative levels. Cornell writes that there is "no evidence of economically differentiated classes or any other kind of permanent social stratification" [1] , but after pointing differences in burial treatment of a certain restricted group of privileged males compared to the general population, including a "potential chief or leader" of Osteria dell’Osa, which suggests that there was some kind of social stratification [2] . There is a lot of evidence for the existence of elites throughout the chronological sequence [1] [3] . "Most of the burials at Castel di Decima (LC III and IV) are quite simple inhumations, with no or modest grave goods, but a minority of graves are accompanied by high-quality goods such as amber beads, gold fibulae, and even chariots. The wealth of this minority appears to increase throughout the 8th and 7th centuries. [4] [1]: T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (1995), p. 54 [2]: T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (1995), pp. 51-53 [3]: G. Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome (2006), pp. 53-58 [4]: (Forsythe 2006, 53-58) Gary Forsythe. 2006. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. |
||||||
|
1 Emperor
"the emperor and the imperial court were still the formal head of government. Warrior governments typically sought out- or forced-the formal imperial decrees that gave legitimacy to the shoguns." [1] 2. Imperial court _Warrior bureaucracy (Shogunate)_ 1-2. Shogun _Provincial bureaucracy_ 2-3. Provincial aristocrats"Their governments, known commonly as shogunates, were often challenged by the interests of other powerful warrior families in various parts of Japan and by the imperial family in Kyoto." [1] 3-4. Cosigner / Council of State Members4-5. Administrative Baord office heads / court officials5-6 Board Office staffers ’For the nearly 700-year span of Japan’s medieval and early modern periods, warriors-with varying levels of effectiveness and hegemony-ruled the country. Although the fortunes of particular extended warrior families waxed and waned, only members of the warrior class could serve as shoguns, the military rulers. Their governments, known commonly as shogunates, were often challenged by the interests of other powerful warrior families in various parts of Japan and by the imperial family in Kyoto. Although the warrior bureaucracy largely controlled the affairs of the state, the emperor and the imperial court were still the formal head of government. Warrior governments typically sought out- or forced-the formal imperial decrees that gave legitimacy to the shoguns. Occasionally emperors would attempt to reassert direct imperial rule. They were, however, always suppressed in favor of warrior rule... Warrior governments functioned as a lord-vassal system of loyalty. This is reflected in the political structures of the different shogunates. Although they varied greatly in their organization, the notion of loyalty, whether earned or forced, always laid the foundation on which the warrior government was built.’ [1] ’Hideyoshi is remembered as the creator of institutions that became the building blocks for the subsequent Tokugawa hegemony.’ [2] [1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.88. [2]: Hall, John Whitney (ed.). 1991.The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.p.7 |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Leaders of Ad Hoc Alliances 2. Village Elders and Big Men (Embo Dambo)3. Wives and retainers. Political authority was confined to the informal leadership of elders and local big men who "command[ed] the respect of the village, based upon observed qualities of generosity, diligence, wealth, ability to make wise decisions, and skill in arranging ceremonial activities" but whose authority did not extend beyond their immediate community. [1] Big men relied on the support of wives and retainers. [2] According to Williams, village and clan clusters occasionally formed ad hoc alliances when facing external threats, [3] so we included them in the code as well. [1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: Newton, Janice 1985. “Orokaiva Production And Change”, 204 [3]: Rimoldi, Max, Cromwell Burau, and Robert Ferraris 1966. “Land Tenure And Land Use Among The Mount Lamington Orokaiva”, 36 |
||||||
|
levels.
(1) the overall ruler (raja),(2) leaders of regional power bases (terms vary),(3) provincial (visaya) leaders,(4) officials of the settlement (maichiech),(5) village elders (gramavrddha). ’At any rate, administrative divisions were standardized. On one widely shared interpretation the designation of many territories as visa where previously there had been praam indicated that formerly autonomous princely fiefs were integrated as provinces. It appears that the former was primarily a geographical term, while the latter came to refer to a specific administrative division, possibly equivalent to a province.’ In the thirteenth century, Chou Ta-kuan writes that there were over ninety provinces, each with a fortified citadel. At the level of the locality, there officials whom he called maichiech in the villages, possibly equivalent to me grok, custodians of settlements. Village elders, gramavrddha, are mentioned in the epigraphy, and appear to have had official responsibilities such as delivering criminals, suitably caged, into the custody of royal officials.’ [1] ’Classic Angkor was the centre of an empire, the huge territory of which was divided into provinces. [...] There are two words for ’province’: probably both synonyms. Each of these was in turn divided into villages (souk or drama). At every level there were mandarin bureaucrats (khlon, chiefs) representing the central administration, and who ensured that revenues (rice, goods, corvee labour, and the like) flowed smoothly upwards through the system.’ [...] The khlon visa was the provincial chief, overseeing the fiscal officers responsible for tax collections, as well as pretor transactions and the fixing of boundaries. Each village had its headman (khlon souk), in reality a royal agent; the actual representatives of the Cambodian village were the gramavrddha, the village elders, who acted as a link between the local and central administrations.’ [2] [1]: (Mabbett and Chandler 1995, p.167) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 141) |
||||||
|
levels. (3) Leader of the most wealthy/politically influential set of settlements (pon), (2) leader of a superior community within a larger community (pon), (1) chief of a hamlet or an inferior settlement within larger community (pon). ’The chiefs of Funan core a Mon-Khmer title pon, but some were taking Indic names with the suffice -varman, and the later 7th-century inscription suggest that the reason was related to the question of inheritance of accumulated wealth. A pon was chief of a settlement, and the typical pon-dom was a large village, or supra village or several hundred or a thousand or two persons living around or near a pond, sometimes artificial, and growing at least enough rice for self-sufficiency. Some settlements had several pon, perhaps watch one a chief over a hamlet-size community, with one superior to the others within the larger community. The population of each core pon-dom consisted of a lineage or a clan, with its own deity whore representative, and putative descendent, as the pon. Poh-Ship was inherited matrilineally through sisters’ sons; and there a hierarchy, perhaps informal, of pon, probably based on wealth and political influence. During the florescence of Funan, the greatest wealth would have been accumulated through maritime activity, and it was the coastal pon-doms which would have become most directly involved in sea trade, and their upon were called ’kings’ by Chinese visitors. By the 7th century, and presumably earlier, their was a ruling stratum in each pon-dom, and others, even though relatives of the same clan, were subordinate juniors [...]’
[1]
[1]: (Vickery 1998, pp. 19-20) |
||||||
|
levels. (3) Leader of the most wealthy/politically influential set of settlements (pon), (2) leader of a superior community within a larger community (pon), (1) chief of a hamlet or an inferior settlement within larger community (pon). ’A pon was chief of a settlement, and the typical pon-dom was a large village, or supra village or several hundred or a thousand or two persons living around or near a pond, sometimes artificial, and growing at least enough rice for self-sufficiency. Some settlements had several pon, perhaps watch one a chief over a hamlet-size community, with one superior to the others within the larger community. ... [There was] a hierarchy, perhaps informal, of pon, probably based on wealth and political influence.’
[1]
[1]: (Vickery 1998, pp. 19-20) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. Emperor 2. Grand princes3. Tribe chief (ilichin)"the tribes were basic administrative-political units in the northern part of the country" [1] 4. "Each tribe had its own control organization" [1] 5? another level? "The highest levels of the empire’s social pyramid were occupied by the imperial clan of Yeh-lü and clan of the empress Hsiao. The representatives of these clans were the first-rate proprietors in the country and held a major portion of the most important military and civil posts in the empire administration. Since the rule of the empire founder Apao-chi, the clan has been subdivided into two parts: Five or North Divisions and Six or South Divisions. These parts were governed by grand princes (wang). The family of the Kitans’ emperor was related to five divisions. The direct descendants of Apao-chi gave belonged to so called Horizontal Tents (hêng chang) while the descendants of two his uncles and brothers were known as Three Patriarchal Household (san fu fang). Jointly, they have formed four leading lineages (LS 73: 6b; Wittfogel, Feng 1949: 191-192)." [2] "The North part was considered to be higher than the South one by rank though, as for the administrative machine size and bureaucracy qualification, it ranks below the latter. The heartland of nomadic empire was headed by the Prime Minister of the Northern Administration (LS 1: 10b; Wittfogel, Feng 1949: 472) who, as a rule, has been appointed from the representatives of Yeh- lü and Hsiao clans. His competence included the most important affairs of state such as, for example, army control, supervision of the state sector of stock- raising business, participation in working out of the most important political decisions." [3] "In accordance with the hierarchical principle of the steppe society organization, the nomads were divided into subdivisions by the decimal principle (Taskin 1979: 511-513). In this case, only a part of nomads has taken part in acts of war while the remaining warriors have always stayed put as the basis of a tribe (ibid: 426). The tribes being autonomous and independent formations before the Apao-chi accession to the throne have become main administrative units for a period of empire. Their duties included the following functions: [...] Second, the tribes were basic administrative-political units in the northern part of the country. Each tribe had its own particular territory for leading a nomad’s life. Each tribe had its own control organization being headed by a traditional chief (ilichin). A title of the tribal chief was transmitted hereditably. In the course of signification a pressure on the nomadic tribes has occurred. Traditional territories of a leading of nomad’s life became to limit and reduce by the imperial government. Sometimes, the tribes were transferred from their traditional pastures to new lands." [1] [1]: (Kradin 2014, 156) [2]: (Kradin 2014, 152-153) [3]: (Kradin 2014, 155) |
||||||
|
levels. Decimal structure like previous and following polities. "He radically reorganised the military-administrative structure of the Rouran society, dividing the population-army into hundreds and thousands, introduced the obligatory registration of available warriors, established strict rules of behaviour in battle and the penalties for their violation [...]."
[1]
"It was divided into western and eastern wings, but, as we know, the dual organisation was recorded already during the pre-empire period. Initially, the ruler of the eastern wing was considered to have the higher status (WS 103: 1b-2a; Taskin 1984, p. 267) but later this, seemingly, changed (Taskin 1984, pp. 273, 278, 285)."
[2]
The administrative structure is not mentioned, but Kradin refers to the following elite hierarchy: 1. Khagan 2. Rulers of empire wings (silifa)3. Dignitaries - ruling elite, chiefs, elders [3] 4. Tribal chiefs and clan elders (commanders of 1000 and 100 horsemen) "The social organisation of the Rouran was slightly different from the public organisation of other nomads in Eurasia, and it was a complex hierarchical multi-level system." [4] [1]: (Kradin 2005, 154) [2]: (Kradin 2005, 154-155) [3]: (Kradin 2005, 161-162) [4]: (Kradin 2005, 162) |
||||||
|
levels. " Although the two Turk empires are distinct, they are combined here because of similar organization and their spatial and temporal proximity. For both, there were at least four recognized levels in the administrative hierarchy, almost all of whose members came from the ruling Ashina clan."
[1]
"The administrative structure of the empire, which incorporated the tribal leaders, was more complex. At the head of the administration stood the kaghan and his closest kinsmen, who held the titles of shad and yabghu. The kaghan was surrounded by his counsellors (buyur), who discharged military, administrative, diplomatic and legal functions and bore titles such as tarkhan, chor and tudun. In order to facilitate the administration, the tribes were divided into two territorial groups, the Tardush (western) and the Tölish (eastern). The soldiery of these two groups composed the right and left wings of the army’s battle order, and they were led by the close kinsmen of the kaghan (the shads) and the most influential tribal leaders of each wing." [2] Khagan Counsellors (buyur): titles are tarkhan, chor and tudun. [1]: (Rogers 2012, 225) [2]: (Klyashtorny 1996, 332) |
||||||
|
levels. No specific data but Second Turk Khaganate coded 4 and this polity was similar in social complexity.
"Apparently, the confederation still consisted of nine units, but the division was no doubt political rather than ethnical. In 744, the ruling tribe was the Uighurs, who were themselves subdivided into ten clans, collectively called On-Uighur (i.e. the Ten Uighurs). Of these, the dominant one was the Yaghlakar and, until the second dynasty was founded in 795, the whole empire was ruled by kaghans drawn from the Yaghlakar family." [1] 1. Kaghans 2. Rulers of the 10 clans?3.4. [1]: (Mackerras 1990, 320) |
||||||
|
levels. "A report from around A.D. 1 notes that the Xianbei were composed of 36 tribes made up of 99 clans (Dien 1991, p. 41). Although Xianbei bureaucracy was minimal, there is evidence that they divided their territory into eastern, central, and western divisions, reminiscent of the more formal Xiongnu administrative structure, and utilized a form of organizational imposition and dual administration as the empire expanded."
[1]
3. Leader - very loose control 2. Tribe leader (36 tribes) 1. Clan leader (99 clans) Territorial organization:3 territorial divisions and dual administration. "Therefore, based on our knowledge of the Wuhuan, one can as- sume that the Xianbei had the following forms of social organiza- tion: family (luo) - kin or clan (yiluo) - tribe or chieftainship (bu). Most probably, luo are individual ordinary or extended families. They were united by real kinship, common household and property for the cattle. Yiluo is a territorial group including the small family groups. The clans were based on both distant real and fictitious kinship, nomads’ seasonal labor cooperation (repair of wells, shear- ing, etc.), necessity to defend the fellow tribesmen and to perform common cults and rites. The highest levels bu (a word can be trans- lated ‘a camping ground’) are greater formations which could be both tribes or chieftainships and chiefdoms." [2] [1]: (Rogers 2012, 223) [2]: (Kradin 2011, 198) |
||||||
|
[2-3] territorial levels but sources do not suggest there is evidence that they corresponded to administrative levels. Monte Albán was a primary center (given the size and central location of the settlement), with a series of regional second-order centres at the beginning of the Monte Albán I phase. There may also have been tertiary centres, if the smaller villages and hamlets are included.
[1]
The administrative levels have been coded as equivalent to the settlement hierarchy as there is little additional evidence for internal administration.
1. Monte Albán-primary centre, estimated at 324ha between 400-200 BCE, and with an 8km2 central complex. [2] (Yeguih in the Tlacolula subregion and San Mart´ın Tilcajete (52.8 ha) in the Ocotl´an-Zimatl´an subregion were also primary centres of different polities within the valley during this period.) [3] 2. villages-<2ha [4] [1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1983). "The Cloud People." New York, p96 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383, p375 [3]: Spencer, C. S. and E. M. Redmond (2004). "Primary state formation in Mesoamerica." Annual Review of Anthropology: 173-199, p176-8 [4]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1982). The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology. |
||||||
|
levels. The administrative levels could be coded as equivalent to the three higher levels of settlement hierarchy, as those settlements have some evidence of administrative buildings. However sources do not suggest there is evidence that the administrative structure paralleled settlement hierarchy.
1. Main administrative centre-Monte Albán was the capital of the Zapotec polity during this period. 2. Regional administrative centre, secondary centres-San José Mogote, San Martin Tilcajete, Yegüih-Lambityeco [1] 3. Local administrative centres, tertiary centres-relatively small, civic-ceremonial places [1] [1]: Feinman, G. M., et al. (1985). "Long-term demographic change: A perspective from the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3): 333-362, p349 |
||||||
|
levels. The administrative levels could be coded as equivalent to the three higher levels of settlement hierarchy, as those settlements have some evidence of administrative buildings. However sources do not suggest there is evidence that the administrative structure paralleled settlement hierarchy.
|
||||||
|
levels. Three administrative tiers consisting of Monte Albán, regional administrative centers, and local administrative centers, were present by the Monte Albán II phase (100 BCE – 200 CE) and lasted until c. 500 CE.
[1]
1. Monte Alban 2. Secondary centres (including Jalieza) [2] 3. Tertiary centres (including new medium-sized settlements on the piedmont, such as Rancho Tejas, Sta. Cruz Mixtepec and "El Choco" near Ayoquezco) [3] 4. Small villages and hamlets [1]: (Carballo, David. Personal Communication with Jill Levine, Dan Hoyer, and Peter Turchin. Email. April 2020) [2]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1979). "Regional evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of Field Archaeology 6(4): 369-390, p382 [3]: Blanton, R. E., et al. (1982). The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, Regents of the University of Michigan, the Museum of Anthropology, p87 |
||||||
|
levels. Based on excavation data and survey data, Sanders et al. (1979), Earle (1976), Santley (1977), Parsons (1989), and Steponaitis (1981) argue for village political autonomy (1 admin level).
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
However, Nichols and Charlton (1994) and Niederberger (1996; 2000) use the same data to argue for hierarchical sociopolitically-integrated settlement clusters (i.e. 2 admin levels).
[5]
[6]
[1]: Steponaitis, Vincas P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2): 320-363. [2]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. [3]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. [4]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 94-7, 305-334. [5]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [6]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. |
||||||
|
levels. Political and religious institutions are thought to be essentially identical for the Central Mexican Highlands Late/Terminal Formative, such that political power was inherently theocratic.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Beyond indirect, theoretical proxies like hierarchical levels of socioeconomic stratification, irrigation systems, monumental construction, and settlement patterns, there is no direct evidence for sociopolitical administrative levels.
[1]: Barba de Piña Chán, Beatriz. (1980). Tlapacoya: Los Principios de la Teocracia en la Cuenca de Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopedica del Estado de Mexico, p.13-42, 95-142. [2]: Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2012). "Where East Meets West: The Formative in Mexico’s Central Highlands." Journal of Archaeological 20(1): 1-51 [3]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-215. |
||||||
|
levels. Political and religious institutions are thought to be essentially identical for the Central Mexican Highlands Late/Terminal Formative, such that political power was inherently theocratic.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Beyond indirect, theoretical proxies like hierarchical levels of socioeconomic stratification, irrigation systems, monumental construction, and settlement patterns, there is no direct evidence for sociopolitical administrative levels.
[1]: Barba de Piña Chán, Beatriz. (1980). Tlapacoya: Los Principios de la Teocracia en la Cuenca de Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopedica del Estado de Mexico, p.13-42, 95-142. [2]: Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2012). "Where East Meets West: The Formative in Mexico’s Central Highlands." Journal of Archaeological 20(1): 1-51 [3]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-215. |
||||||
|
levels.
An urban community of thousands suggests Mehrgarh likely had some degree of hierarchy for dispute resolution, perhaps a chief or collective decision making body. Evidence of dispute exists in the changing use of communal storage. In the previous periods Mehrgarh residents had organized communal food storage facilities. In this period food storage was located in individual houses. [1] Why was this change necessary? The growth in size and population of Mehrgarh does not imply that communal organization decreased - which is what is immediately suggested by loss of communal granaries. Possibly a greater degree of communal organization now existed, that replaced communal granaries, in form of cooperation with a chief or collective decision making body. However we have no evidence of state organisation at Mehrgarh. [2] [3] At this stage such a formal organization, if it existed, might best be classed as emergent. [1]: Wright, R. P. (2010) The Ancient Indus: urbanism, economy and society. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. p53 [2]: Gregory L. Possehl. The Indus Civilization. A Contemporary Perspective. Walnut Creek, Altamira, 2002, p. 6 [3]: Petrie, C. A. (in press) Chapter 11, Case Study: Mehrgarh. In, Barker, G and Goucher, C (eds.) Cambridge World History, Volume 2: A World with Agriculture, 12,000 BCE - 500 CE. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge |
||||||
|
levels.
The Old Kingdom was a feudal and agrarian society. 1. The King judge and a military leader. 2. The assembly (panku/tuliya)had a greater role in the Old Kingdom. It comprised of non-nobility, formed the bureaucracy and was subservient to the king [1] . To the panku (assembly) Telipinu (c.1460 BCE) "assigned extensive executive and disciplinary powers, even over members of the royal familiy." [2] 2. Governors [3] Provincial administrators [4] appointed directly by the king? 3. "Council of Elders"Locally administered justice. [5] . Local council lowest identifiable judicial authority. [6] [1]: Burney C. 2004 Historical Dictionary of the Hittites, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, pp. 35 [2]: (Bryce 2002, 23) [3]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-39 [4]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 33 [5]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38 [6]: Bryce T. (2002) Life and Society in the Hittite World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 41 |
||||||
|
levels.
After about 300 CE there was a "trend toward household autonomy" as the collapse of the Hopewell system lead to the abandonment of mound centers and alliance-exchange relationships. [1] By inference, the level of hierarchy and complexity should be coded higher before 300 CE than for the period that directly follows. 1. Chief However, chiefs are thought to have appeared after 700-800 CE. [2] 2. Elderkin group leaders [3] [1]: (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) [2]: (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. The History Press. Charleston. [3]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) |
||||||
|
1. ruler (royal couple) called rubā’um (’prince’) and rubātum (’princess’)
[1]
2. higher officials, such as ’chief of the stairway’, who could correspond with the main ruler; rabi sikkitim (chief of man) [2] [3] , who was responsible for military and trade;’chief sceptcr bearer, ’chief cup bearer’ and ’chief of tablets’ were directly serving the king. ’The chief of workers’ took care and supervised craftsmen, who were also organised under a chief of their profession (e.g. ’chief of blacksmith’ etc).3. Scribe? rest of the population, lower class hupšum, mostly shepherds and farmers [4] [5] . NOTE: Barjamovic points to evidence for a "complex administrative hierarchy", [6] and though he does not provide quite enough information to infer the exact number of "levels" this hierarchy might have had, it seems reasonable to infer more than three. [1]: Dercksen J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Sofiety in Kaniš. [in:] J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO, pg. 137 [2]: Dercksen J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Sofiety in Kaniš. [in:] J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO, pg. 151 [3]: Diakonof L.M. 1979. Some remarks on I 568. ArOr 47, pg. 40 [4]: Michel C. 2011. The karum Peeriod on the Plateau. [in:] S. McMahon (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 323, 326 [5]: Dercksen J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Society in Kaniš. [in:] J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: NINO, pg. 146 [6]: (Barjamovic 2011: 325) Barjamovic G. 2011. A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press |
||||||
|
levels. At least four.
“The state of Lysimachos was a typical Hellenistic “personal monarchy” (generally: Burnstein 1980; 1986; Lund 1992: 107-183; Делев 2004: 170-171; 329-353). It was ruled by a Macedonian ruler and aristocracy with the participation of some locals such as Bytis and Paris, citizens of Lysimacheia, supposed to be of Thracian or Thracian-Phrygian origin. The royal domains and the subjected poleis were governed by strategoi or epistat appointed by the King.” [1] “In Asia Minor, the Hellespont and Thrace, from the 280s BC, at least, the strategos’ authority extended to the Greek cities lying within the satrapy; his intervention might take various forms and is often beneficent in effect.” [2] Lysimachus’ strategos of the Ionians: “Until recently, only one incumbent of the post was known to us, the Milesian Hippostratus, philos of the king and recipient in 289-8 BC of conspicuous honours awarded by the cities of the Ionian koinon. Now, another strategos, Hippodamus, also from Miletus, has stepped out of the shadows, courtesy of a recently published inscription from Chios.” [3] It is likely that there were administrative levels beneath the strategos, but evidence from this time is sparse. (2) King (1) Strategos Under Macedonian Empire may have had - 1. Diadochi Military general2. Provinces ruled by Macedonian Satraps or Strategoi3. Local districtsInferred. Within the Achaemenid Empire, a "five-level hierarchical structure," there was at least one administrative level below the provincial, possibly two ("provincial sub-satraps and local districts"). 4. Village headmen [1]: Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24. p14 [2]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. p141 [3]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. p142 |
||||||
|
levels.
Assyrian annals refer to about 20 kings paying tribute following the invasion of 836 BCE and this number roughly corresponds to the number of early Iron Age sites found in the region. "The large number of kings mentioned implies that the area was divided into city-states controlled by autonomous or semi-autonomous rulers. Since Tuatti is referred to by name and apparently held sway over several towns, one suspects that he was the most powerfulof these kings." [1] [2] 1. King Rulers of Northern Tabal claimed the ruling titles "Great King" and "Hero" [3] _Central administration_ 2.Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: "The focus of each state was an administrative centre where the royal seat was located." [4] 3. 4. _Provincial government_ 2. Sub-kingNorthern Tabal (Tabal ’Proper’): the largest of the kingdoms, probably contained sub-regions [5] Tuwana: "Tuwana’s importance in the 8th century, if not also earlier, is indicated by the fact that it contained at least one sub-kingdom, as attested in the inscription CHLI I: X.45. BULGARMADEN (521-5)." [6] 3. Local leader [1]: (Melville 2010, 87-109) Melville, Sarah. "Kings of Tabal: Politics [2]: Competition, and Conflict in a Contested Periphery." in Richardson, Seth. ed. 2010. Rebellions and Peripheries in the Mesopotamian World. American Oriental Series 91. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake. [3]: (Bryce 2012, 142) [4]: (Bryce 2012, 80) [5]: (Bryce 2012, 141-142) [6]: (Bryce 2012, 148) |
||||||
|
levels.
1. King ? Hypothesised level. Between 1050-1150 CE there may have been a king. However, a majority of scholars may disagree. 1. Chief / Priest "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia." [2] "The central administrative complex represents the core of the Cahokian polity. The location of ridgetop mounds within this area may equate with kin groupings or other administrative units. East St. Louis, being newer, may have been a higher status community of isolated elites." [3] At Mound 72 "Analysis of the skeletal remains shows that certain burial groups were of higher status than others and that some may have come from places other than Cahokia." [4] New analysis of the skeletons in the burial suggest they were of a man and a woman. "’Now we realize we don’t have a system in which males are these dominant figures and females are playing bit parts,’ Emerson said. He explained that this interpretation of the beaded burial is more in line with what is known about the fertility and agricultural symbolism found in the rest of the ancient city." [5] 2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest? "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] "The answers provided by the working group seem to point to Cahokia being an urban settlement that was the center of a regional government, but the picture is not entirely clear." [2] "Regional political integration appears to have been an essentially ritual one; that is, the site hierarchy that is present appears to be more of a hierarchy of ritual spaces than of political jurisdictions." [2] "Cahokia was also the center of a regional government of some kind, at least for a short period of time." [2] "mound complexes may have been organized around sodalities rather than around kin groups. Perhaps these sodalities were secret societies" [1] "Mound and plaza groups may represent corporate (perhaps kin-based) political and ritual complexes, each of which would have been maintained by their own administrativespecialists or generalized leader." [6] 3. Elder / Religious functionary "Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries." [1] kin group leaders [1] [1]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) [2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) [3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14) [4]: (Iseminger 2010, 82) [5]: http://www.archaeology.org/news/4708-160805-cahokia-beaded-burial [6]: (Kelly 2014, 22) |
||||||
|
levels. "An up-to-date study on the kingdom of Himyar does not exist. One may consult Hoyland [2001] 46-57."
[1]
Robert G Hoyland. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. Routledge. London.
1. King Karibil Watar Yuhanim I "combined dynastic titles from both the Sabaeans and the Himyarites." [2] 2. Court officialSaba-Himyarite Kingdom: the king had a royal court. [3] 3. Head of Mint4. Mint worker 2. Court official3. Foreign Diplomat 3. Spies and agents 2. Court official3. Head of a supply depot4. Worker at a supply depot 2. Court official3. Taxation official"Some of the myrrh offered at the port [Muza] was from an inland territory ruled by the Minaeans, so the Himyarite King must have permitted regional traders to sell their own product at Muza." [4] Presumably traders from other kingdoms were permitted to trade in exchange for paying tax which would have been collected by officials. 2. GovernorSaba-Himyarite Kingdom: the city of Saue "was under the authority of a Himyarite tyrannos (governor) named Cholaibos. The Periplus explains that Cholaibos administered the surrounding province called Mapharitis and kept a court residence at Saue." [3] 3. Court official of governor 2. Merchant official of East African colonyc50 CE. "The Himyarite King Charibael had authority over distant sites in East Africa including the trading settlement at Rhapta in northern Tanzania. He leased this settlement to a merchant oligarchy from Muza who ran trade operations from the port and collected taxes on any incoming business. The Periplus explains: ’the region (Rhapta) is under the rule of the governor of Mapharitis, since by some ancient right it became subject to the Kingdom of Arabia when it was first established. The merchants of Muza hold it through a grant from the king and collect taxes from it." [2] [1]: (Retso 2005, 344) Jan Retso. in Johann P Arnason. S N Eisenstady. Bjorn Wittrock. 2005. Axial Civilizations And World History. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [3]: (McLaughlin 2014, 135) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [4]: (McLaughlin 2014, 134) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
levels. "An up-to-date study on the kingdom of Himyar does not exist. One may consult Hoyland [2001] 46-57."
[1]
Robert G Hoyland. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. Routledge. London.
1. King Karibil Watar Yuhanim I "combined dynastic titles from both the Sabaeans and the Himyarites." [2] 2. Court officialSaba-Himyarite Kingdom: the king had a royal court. [3] 3. Head of Mint4. Mint worker 2. Court official3. Foreign Diplomat 3. Spies and agents 2. Court official3. Head of a supply depot4. Worker at a supply depot 2. Court official3. Taxation official"Some of the myrrh offered at the port [Muza] was from an inland territory ruled by the Minaeans, so the Himyarite King must have permitted regional traders to sell their own product at Muza." [4] Presumably traders from other kingdoms were permitted to trade in exchange for paying tax which would have been collected by officials. 2. GovernorSaba-Himyarite Kingdom: the city of Saue "was under the authority of a Himyarite tyrannos (governor) named Cholaibos. The Periplus explains that Cholaibos administered the surrounding province called Mapharitis and kept a court residence at Saue." [3] 3. Court official of governor 2. Merchant official of East African colonyc50 CE. "The Himyarite King Charibael had authority over distant sites in East Africa including the trading settlement at Rhapta in northern Tanzania. He leased this settlement to a merchant oligarchy from Muza who ran trade operations from the port and collected taxes on any incoming business. The Periplus explains: ’the region (Rhapta) is under the rule of the governor of Mapharitis, since by some ancient right it became subject to the Kingdom of Arabia when it was first established. The merchants of Muza hold it through a grant from the king and collect taxes from it." [2] [1]: (Retso 2005, 344) Jan Retso. in Johann P Arnason. S N Eisenstady. Bjorn Wittrock. 2005. Axial Civilizations And World History. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (McLaughlin 2014, 136) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [3]: (McLaughlin 2014, 135) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. [4]: (McLaughlin 2014, 134) Raoul McLaughlin. 2014. The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India. Pen and Sword Military. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
levels._UK_ : 1. Monarch _British Raj_ Example of British India, which from 1861 was directly controlled by the British government via the following in-place administration. Lower levels of administrators (e.g. Deputies and Assistants) are responsible for the districts or lesser divisions within each province in British India. There were 848 civil service members in 1881.
[1]
: 1. Viceroy and Governor-General of India (Later shortened to Viceroy of India) : Viceroy and Governor-General was directly appointed by the Crown and Parliament and ruled the territory as a representative of the monarch. They had a Legislative Council of six high ranking members, one of which is the Commander-in-Chief or Lieutenant-General of the army. The Secretary of State ran the Executive Council. Other members of the councils include prominent mercantile members and representatives of the native population. :: 2. Secretary of State ::: 2.2. Executive Council ::: 2.2. Legislative Council ::: 2.2. High Court of Justice :::: 3. Governors ::::: 4. Lieutenant-Governors :::::: 5. Chief-Commissioners ::::::: 5.2. Deputy-Commisioners :::::::: 5.3. Assistant Commisioners :::::: 5.1. Financial Commissioner :::::::: 6. Collector-Magistrate ::::::::: 6.2. Deputy Magistrate :::::::::: 6.3. Assistant Magistrate ::::::::::: 7. Lesser administrative posts throughout the region.
[1]: (Smith 1882: 7-10) Smith, George. 1882. The Geography of British India, Political & Physical. London: J. Murray. http://archive.org/details/geographybritis00smitgoog. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/AW5H8NPI |
||||||
|
[1]
: 1. King :: 2. The kings advisors ::: 3. Royal functionaries (“supervised the administrative bureaucracies, fiscal policy, transportation, commerce and customs, agriculture, and public works.”)
[2]
[1]: Payaslian 2007: 14-15. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H8NEU6KD [2]: Payaslian 2007: 14. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H8NEU6KD |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels.
1. King Sources do not tell us whether the new Hephthalite polity was a dynastic regime change or a ’clash of armies’. [1] "It is known, however, that the name Kidara was kept, although now as an honorific title (meaning ’honoured’, ’hero’, ’valiant’), long after the Kidarite state had ceased to exist, just as the original Kidara used to style himself on coins Kusana Sahi (king of Kushan) many years after the fall of the Empire of the Kushans." [1] Kidarites were a group of nomadic origin. [2] Chinese chronicle the Pei-shih claimed that the Kidarites "’move around following their herds of cattle’ .... On the other hand, it is known that there were Kidarite capitals both in Gandhara and Tokharistan, and thus that they lived in towns." [3] "more accurate to think of the Kidarite state not as a unified society but one with a clear distinction between the conquerers - the ruling group - and their subject peoples, the latter preserving their own traditions." [3] _ Central Administration _ 2. Top administrator Kidarite rule "coincided with ... the foundation of new cities such as Panjikent and Kushaniya. (The name of the latter probably indicates a Kidarite royal foundation, as neither the Great Kushans nor the Kushano-Sasanians had exerted control over that region.)" [4] "It is tempting to draw an analogy with the vast state of the Kushans. This is not only because the Kidarites claimed to be the successors ... ; a no less important factor is that the former nomadic invaders came into possession of vast territories inhabited by settled agricultural peoples with a culture and traditions dating back many centuries, just as had been the case with the Tokharians ... who created the Kushan Empire. It seems likely that the administrative and government structure created by the Kushans was left largely intact under the Kidarites." [5] 3.4. Scribes 4. Manager of a MintThe Kidarite coinage was not a separate monetary system but "an adaptation to the local issues in each area they conquered. In Sogdiana small silver coins were issued ... They followed the design of early Sogdian coins ... In Tokharistan gold inars were issued in the name of Kidara, following the gold coins of the Kushano-Sasanians ... The silver coins of Sasanian type can be attributed to Gandhara and the area around. ... In their Indian territories the Kidarites also issued gold coins based on the model of the Late Kushan dinars". [6] Economy was advanced enough that copper coinage was minted in quantities that implied it was used as ’small change’. Copper coin design was also an adaptation to existing currency in each region. [7] The Kidarite monetary system "created favourable conditions for maintaining the established traditions in local trades. ... flourishing international trade networks and wide trading links between various regions of the Kidarite state." [3] 5. Mint worker _ Provincial government _ 2.Clan and tribal organizations traditional to nomadic peoples were likely "reflected in the administrative structure of the state". [3] Hephthalites Western sources suggests the Hephthalites were "a tribal group distinct from and apparently sometimes hostile to" the Kidarites. [8] Many instances when the Hephthalites were allies with the Sassanians against the Kidarites. Hephthalites also sided with Hormizd faction in dispute for Sassanian kingship. [9] [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 128) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [2]: (Zeimal 1996) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [3]: (Zeimal 1996, 136) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [4]: (Grenet 2005) Grenet, Frantz. 2005. KIDARITES. Iranicaonline. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kidarites [5]: (Zeimal 1996, 132) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [6]: (Zeimal 1996, 132-134) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [7]: (Zeimal 1996, 135) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [8]: (Zeimal 1996, 129) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf [9]: (Zeimal 1996, 130) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
levels
Widespread literacy in India among Buddhist monks and Brahmans who were recruited as administrators using their Kharosthi script. [1] For example, "putting in place an effective satrapy system was not within the capabilities of the Kushans. ... At Kashgar, Kanishka installed a king of his choice ... but after Kanishka’s death, this kingdom also slipped out of Kushan control." [2] 1. Kushana king. Despite lower levels of administration, the Kushan king possessed unfettered powers. [3] _Central government_ Within Greater Gandhara (northwest Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan) administration through the Buddhist establishment. Outside Greater Gandhara (Bactria, Sogdiana, Tarim Basin, Jumna Basin etc.) there was no such establishment to run the administration of the territories. [4] 2. Mantriparishad (Council of ministers) or Mantriparishatpala (prime minister) where is this from? is it inferred from later or earlier Indian systems? what is the evidence for this in the Kushan era?"The king seems to have possessed unfettered powers, as we find no reference in the Kushan records to any advisory body or to councillors corresponding to amatyas and sachivas of the Mauryan period." [5] 3.4.5 _Regions_ 2. SatrapsInscriptions mention satraps and other officials have been found. "Satraps are known for Kapisa (Begram), Manikyala (near Rawalpindi), Und (west of the Indus), Mathura, Varanasi, etc. There may have been satraps for other parts of the empire, but the evidence on this point is wanting." [5] 3. dandanayakas"ksatrapas were definitely at a higher administrative level than the dandanayakas" but the relationship between them is not known. [5] 4. gramika or padrapala (village head) / Commune"The inscriptions mention two terms - ’gramika’ and ’padrapala’ - both signifying ’village headman’, who collected the king’s dues and took cognizance of crimes in his area. There is no information about the local government that we find later in the Gupta period." [5] "the commune occupied an important place in the socio-economic life of Cenral Asia and in the ancient East as a whole. This seems to have continued until the Early Middle Ages, for which evidence is available. Thus, the commune in Sogdiana was known as naf; it consisted of the aristocracy (azat, azatkar), merchants (xvakar), and free peasants (who were members of the commune) and craftsmen (karikar). Of these three categories in the naf the highest status was enjoyed by the azat, that is, persons of ’high and noble birth’, the azatkar or free persons associated with the azat and the ’children of the azat of aristocratic, noble origin.’ According to the written sources, the azat owned the land and the villages and were the chief retainers of the local and provincial rulers." [6] "There is some evidence to show that communes owned whole irrigation systems and the regions irrigated by them, as well as settlements and grazing lands." [7] "the state and large land-holders, who tried to attach members of the commune to the land - a process that ultimately led to the emergence of feudalism in Central Asia." [7] 3. Khwarazm"All but unknown today, the civilization of Khwarazm between AD 100 and 600 was a highly sophisticated society. Its capital and main religious center, Topraq Qala, in what is now western Uzbekistan, featured a walled, 1100-by-1600-foot rectilinear compound. Elegantly built, it consisted of grand three-storied palaces and temples." [8] 4. Yuezhi confederation organized into five major tribes which were led by yabgu (tribal chiefs). However, it might also be "the five Kingdom were in fact not the Yuezhi people, but were the people in the state of Daxia. ... where each town carried out its affairs in its own way and was ruled by a so-called ’minor chief’. The Yuezhi did not wipe out these ’minor chiefs,’ but ’made them all into their subjects’ after they had conquered the state of Daxia." [9] Daxia = Bactria. By turn of the millennium the Yuezhi "had dominated Greco-Bactria for almost two centuries." [9] "State in Kangju/Sogdia "acknowledged nominal sovereignty to the Yuezhi." [9] [1]: (Harmatta 1994, 425) Harmatta, J. Languages and literature in the Kushan Empire. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [2]: (Samad 2011, 92) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: B. N. Mukherjee, ’The Rise and Fall of the Kushan Empire’ (Calcutta, 1988), pp. 328-9;338;346-8 [4]: (Samad 2011, 91) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [5]: (Puri 1994, 254) Puri, B. N. The Kushans. in Harmatta, Janos. Puri, B. N. Etemadi, G. F. eds. 1994. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. UNESCO Publishing. [6]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 280) Mukhamedjanov, A R. Economy and Social System in Central Asia in the Kushan Age. in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. [7]: (Mukhamedjanov 1994, 281) Mukhamedjanov, A R. Economy and Social System in Central Asia in the Kushan Age. in Harmatta J, Puri B N and Etemadi G F eds. 1994. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume II. UNESCO. [8]: (Starr 2013) Starr, S. Frederick. 2013. Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. Princeton. [9]: Katariya, Adesh. 2012. The Glorious History of Kushana Empire: Kushana Gurjar History. Adesh Katariya. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||