List of Themiclesian monarchs: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The ''Springs and Autumns'' provides a list of 32 "parriarchs" (徹先公), conventionally interpreted as leading figures in the lineage of the Tsjinh ruling house, but the first ten figures are usually considered mythological for several reasons. First, their names recaptulate the ten-member {{wp|heavenly stem}} sequence in exact order, which stands in complete contrast with the 22 following names, where there are no sequences at all. Second, the ''Springs and Autumns'' state that they were ten brothers in a single generation, which also seems extremely unusual in light of reconstructed succession orders, which saw, at most, four sibilings reign after each other. Third, their names are never mentioned in the [[State cult of Themiclesia|cyclical sacrifice]] oracles, which record the list of venerated parriarchs almost unerringly. Finally, anthropologists think the first ten rulers were imagined by later writers as a rationalization for the Tsjinh clan's original kinship structure, forgotten in later ages because it fell into disuse and was never written down. | The ''Springs and Autumns'' provides a list of 32 "parriarchs" (徹先公), conventionally interpreted as leading figures in the lineage of the Tsjinh ruling house, but the first ten figures are usually considered mythological for several reasons. First, their names recaptulate the ten-member {{wp|heavenly stem}} sequence in exact order, which stands in complete contrast with the 22 following names, where there are no sequences at all. Second, the ''Springs and Autumns'' state that they were ten brothers in a single generation, which also seems extremely unusual in light of reconstructed succession orders, which saw, at most, four sibilings reign after each other. Third, their names are never mentioned in the [[State cult of Themiclesia|cyclical sacrifice]] oracles, which record the list of venerated parriarchs almost unerringly. Finally, anthropologists think the first ten rulers were imagined by later writers as a rationalization for the Tsjinh clan's original kinship structure, forgotten in later ages because it fell into disuse and was never written down. | ||
From the figure of High Prjang′, the lineage becomes far less problematic. A considerable number of scholars think that High Prjang′ is the first historical figure in the Tsjinh lineage, though his whereabouts and activities "will almost certainly never be knonwn". Some sources date him to the 8th or 9th century BCE, though others believe that even an approximate date cannot be established, since his biological relationship with the succeeding members of the list is yet uncertain. The historical part of the lineage is reconstructed by comparison between oracular plates. In the 19th century, the veracity of the earlier part of the lineage was placed under question, despite their similarity to oracular charges to lists of ancestors. However, as more caches of oracular inscriptions were found, it was discovered that many lineages converge towards a common ancestry. For example: | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
!style="width: 5em"| Generations !!style="width: 5em"| 1 !!style="width: 5em"| 2 !!style="width: 5em"| 3 !!style="width: 5em"| 4 !!style="width: 5em"| 5 !!style="width: 5em"| 6 !!style="width: 5em"| 7 !!style="width: 5em"| 8 !!style="width: 5em"| 9 !!style="width: 5em"| 10 | |||
|- | |||
! Lineage 1 | |||
| Prjang' || 'Rjut || Njem || Têng || Krap || Kje || Prjang' || 'Rjut || K.rang || Têng | |||
|- | |||
! Lineage 2 | |||
| Prjang' || 'Rjut || Njem || Têng || Krap || Kje || K.rang || Kwji' || Prjang' || 'Rjut | |||
|- | |||
! Lineage 3 | |||
| Prjang' || 'Rjut || Njem || Têng || Krap || Kje || K.rang || Kwji' || Prjang' || Sjin | |||
|} | |||
In this case, lineages 1 and 2 would be said to converge at the sixth generation, and lineages 2 and 3 at the ninth, where the identity of their respective ancestors are considered too remote to be a sheer coincidence. The main lineage most similar to that recovered from historical documents is attested on over 54 separate instances, making the matter "virtually beyond question" in an age where there is very little evidence of mutual contact between diverging branches of the family, beyond a cultic context, or motivation to create a common ancestry. This conclusion is further buttressed by archaeological dating of the sites where these lineages are recovered. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
Revision as of 06:40, 10 August 2020
The following is a near-complete list of all monarchs who have ruled as sovereigns of Themiclesia.
Pre-treaty
Tsjinh parriarchs
The Springs and Autumns of Six States, writting around the 4th century CE, provides a long list of known monarchs of all the states in Themiclesia during the Hexarchy. Though accepted as historical canon, they have been considerably revised by unearthed texts and historical research.
The Springs and Autumns provides a list of 32 "parriarchs" (徹先公), conventionally interpreted as leading figures in the lineage of the Tsjinh ruling house, but the first ten figures are usually considered mythological for several reasons. First, their names recaptulate the ten-member heavenly stem sequence in exact order, which stands in complete contrast with the 22 following names, where there are no sequences at all. Second, the Springs and Autumns state that they were ten brothers in a single generation, which also seems extremely unusual in light of reconstructed succession orders, which saw, at most, four sibilings reign after each other. Third, their names are never mentioned in the cyclical sacrifice oracles, which record the list of venerated parriarchs almost unerringly. Finally, anthropologists think the first ten rulers were imagined by later writers as a rationalization for the Tsjinh clan's original kinship structure, forgotten in later ages because it fell into disuse and was never written down.
From the figure of High Prjang′, the lineage becomes far less problematic. A considerable number of scholars think that High Prjang′ is the first historical figure in the Tsjinh lineage, though his whereabouts and activities "will almost certainly never be knonwn". Some sources date him to the 8th or 9th century BCE, though others believe that even an approximate date cannot be established, since his biological relationship with the succeeding members of the list is yet uncertain. The historical part of the lineage is reconstructed by comparison between oracular plates. In the 19th century, the veracity of the earlier part of the lineage was placed under question, despite their similarity to oracular charges to lists of ancestors. However, as more caches of oracular inscriptions were found, it was discovered that many lineages converge towards a common ancestry. For example:
| Generations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lineage 1 | Prjang' | 'Rjut | Njem | Têng | Krap | Kje | Prjang' | 'Rjut | K.rang | Têng |
| Lineage 2 | Prjang' | 'Rjut | Njem | Têng | Krap | Kje | K.rang | Kwji' | Prjang' | 'Rjut |
| Lineage 3 | Prjang' | 'Rjut | Njem | Têng | Krap | Kje | K.rang | Kwji' | Prjang' | Sjin |
In this case, lineages 1 and 2 would be said to converge at the sixth generation, and lineages 2 and 3 at the ninth, where the identity of their respective ancestors are considered too remote to be a sheer coincidence. The main lineage most similar to that recovered from historical documents is attested on over 54 separate instances, making the matter "virtually beyond question" in an age where there is very little evidence of mutual contact between diverging branches of the family, beyond a cultic context, or motivation to create a common ancestry. This conclusion is further buttressed by archaeological dating of the sites where these lineages are recovered.
| Epithet | Name | Reign | Bronze | Oracle | Texts | Oracular name | Consort(s) | Notes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krap | 甲 | No | No | Yes | Considered mythical by historians | |||||||
| 'Rjut | 乙 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Prjang' | 丙 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Têng | 丁 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Mjet | 戊 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Kje' | 己 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| K.rang | 庚 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Sjin | 辛 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Njem | 壬 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Kwrji' | 癸 | No | No | Yes | ||||||||
| Prjang' | 丙 | No | Yes | Yes | High Prjang' | 高祖丙 | Consort Krap | 奭甲 | ||||
| 'Rjut | 乙 | No | Yes | Yes | High 'Rjut | 高祖乙 | ||||||
| Njem | 壬 | No | Yes | No | Njem | 祖壬 | ||||||
| Têng | 丁 | No | Yes | Yes | High Têng | 高祖丁 | ||||||
| Krap | 甲 | No | Yes | Yes | Krap | 祖甲 | ||||||
| Kje' | 己 | No | Yes | No | Former Kje' | 先祖己 | ||||||
| Prjang' | 丙 | No | Yes | Yes | 2nd Prjang | 二祖丙 | ||||||
| 'Rjut | 乙 | Kwje | 宄 | 7th c. BCE (?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | 'Rjut | 祖乙 | |||
| K.rang | 庚 | Gjên | 臣 | 6th c. BCE (?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Former K.rang | 先祖庚 | |||
| Têng | 丁 | No | Yes | No | Long Têng | 延祖丁 | ||||||
| Krap | 甲 | No | Yes | Yes | 2nd Krap | 二祖甲 | ||||||
| Têng | 丁 | No | Yes | No | 2nd Têng | 二祖丁 | ||||||
| Prjang' | 丙 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3rd Prjang' | 三祖丙 | ||||||
| Sjin | 辛 | No | Yes | No | Sjin | 祖辛 | ||||||
| Prjang' | 丙 | Sngja | 寫 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4th Prjang | 四祖丙 | ||||
| 'Rjut | 乙 | No | Yes | Yes | 3rd 'Rjut | 三祖乙 | ||||||
| K.rang | 庚 | No | Yes | Yes | Later K.rang | 後祖庚 | ||||||
| Têng | 丁 | Grui | 褱 | 4th c. BCE (?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3rd Têng | 三祖丁 | |||
| Krap | 甲 | Ser | 先 | 4th c. BCE (?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3rd Krap | 三祖甲 | |||
| Kje' | 己 | K.rjang | 景 | 4th c. BCE (?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Later Kje' | 後祖己 | |||
| Prjang' | 丙 | Gw(r)et | 滑 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 5th Prjang' | 五祖丙 | ||||
| 'Rjut | 乙 | S(ts)rêng | 生 | short reign | No | Yes | Yes | 4th 'Rjut | 四祖乙 | |||
| Prjang' | 丙 | Pêk | 辟 | 295 – 260 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6th Prjang | 父丙 | |||
