Tsins
The Tsins (Shinasthana: 晉, tsins) was a political dynasty and polity located in modern-day Themiclesia that appearead in the Dark Ages and in 256 established a hegemony over other states. In canonical historiography, it is remembered as first dynasty over a unified Themiclesia. The Tsins is thought to have appeared as a clan or league of clans until finally settling near what is now Kien-k'ang, then establishing a true state. During Antiquity, it engaged in military expansion and absorbed surrounding polities. The Treaty of Five was passed by five pre-eminent states 256, accepting Tsins as hegemon, though it never annexed the others. The eponymous polity was overthrown in 420 by Sungh.
History
Dark Ages and Early Archaic
The rise of the Tsins polity is not well understood. Archaeologically, there are at least eight settlements of varying age in the 5th and 4th centuries, the later part of the Dark Ages and first of the Archaic Period, in the area associated with the early Tsins. Prior to 500 BCE, there is no evidence of Meng-cultural activity in Tsins. There is also no settlement obviously dominant in population size or military strength, nor are there recovered written materials that identify them with settlements part of the Tsins polity's influence per received documents. Nevertheless, there are some prominent, richer burials, usually associated with local rulers of uncertain identity. The first historic ruler of Tsinh Qrut IV (四且乙) on annals, who reigned between 302 and 295 BCE.
The figure of K.rang I in some older texts is referred to as the first Tsins ruler with a historic profile, but recently this has come under dispute. Scholars against the orthodox position argue that the sole historic event attributed to Former K.rang—moving his settlement across the river to avoid enemies and for better farmland—is derived from memories about P.rjang VI. The reign of Former K.rang is traditionally dated to the late 7th century BCE, but this cannot be verified by critical historical scholarship or archaeology. If the moving of the settlement across the river cannot be attributed to K.rang I, there are no further historical events attributable to him.
The first ruler with a widely-accepted historical profile, Pêk (辟) or P.rang′ VI, led the polity between 295 and 265 BCE. Pêk's most noted accomplishment was the fouding of a new settlement after the old one was destroyed by flood. Archaeologists have contended, however, that several new settlements appeared during his reign, and the one he founded cannot be identified. His ancestry can be traced with some certainty, but little other than their names are known. The Tsins are not the first Meng group in Themiclesia to keep annals, entering the historical record in the Springs and Autumns of Six States in 302 BCE.
According to earlier conclusions, Pêk instituted major reforms to the succession systems with broad consequences, but current scholars tend towards the idea that many of his so-called reforms were actually consequences of his disorderly succession, which did not fully materialize until over a century after his death. Before Pêk, succession within the Tsins may have passed between cousins, with father-son successions prohibited. Though this system would have given each lineage opportunity to lead, it appears Pêk, who may have been a younger brother, desired to pass leadership to his son or nephew rather than his cousins. According to a different interpretation, Pêk himself may not have been in line to take the throne according to succession rules, as he was denied the customary title of "the second brother" in cultic activities. His succession is considered highly suspect or anomalous, including the identity of his consort and relationship with his predecessor.
Pêk's successor, Sin III, was given the epithet "the second brother", restoring the old pattern of succession and suggesting this was the person actually in right to succeed Qrut IV in 295. After him, the kingship passed in 254 to P.rang′ VII the Minor who appears to be Pêk's son, but the transition may not have been peaceful. His epithet seems be derogatory, suggesting that his succession was disorderly. The Ninth Generation ended with this ruler, who is paired with a consort called Krek, Madam Sin; again, this is disorderly in light of the fact that most generations ended with a ruler without a paired spouse. The want of a paired spouse does not necessarily mean the ruler was unmarried or childless—only that a spouse is not honoured in his memory.
In the beginning of the Tenth Generation, the archaic order of succession appears stable with the first two rulers given the titles "elder brother" and "second brother", and these two rulers enjoyed relatively long reigns, together measuring 62 years. Yet after Têng III died in 170, Middle Met came to the fore, with an unusual epithet. In combination with his other epithet, his full title would have been Second Brother Middle Met (中兄中戊), a strange repetition of the same word in Shinasthana otherwise unknown in royal cultic titles. While this could mean his succession was disorderly, most scholars instead think the appelation "second brother" was extraordinarily added some time after his death, to legitimate him as the "second brother" in place of Têng IV, in the Tenth Generation. His successor is called Second Brother Sin the Younger, whose title is even more unusual, as he does not increment the usual numbering of rulers with identical names—the next of his name was Sin IV, not Sin V. He too was given the epithet "middle brother", making three "middle brother" in this generation. During Sin the Minor's reign, the Rebellion of the Princes began.
Middle Met is generally remembered favourably in canonical history. The Antiquities of Themiclesia says that he "restored the way of P.rang VI" (六伯丙道復). The Book of Documents preserves an oration attributed to Middle Mjet, but most scholars believe it is apocryphal on linguistic grounds. While the Rebellion of Princes was canonically cast in the light of an aberration against legitimate monarchs, a more modern view is that the Rebellion represented a competition or transitional phase between different models of succession and leadership, one that the reformative monarchs like P.rang VI or Middle Met may have actually spawned.
Rebellion of Princes
The Antiquities of Themiclesia, written in 432, provides that in 160 BCE, the "senior house [was] weakened and debased" (公室卑微), inducing the Rebellion of Princes (六子之亂, rjuk-tsje′-tje-ronh). The Rebellion left no archaeological trace, leading some to believe that it was a series of assassinations or broken and rapidly-shifting alliances, rather than civil war as ancient and medieval historians believed. Indeed, the disorder was said to have lasted 30 years, astoundingly long in an age when wars lasted days. The Rebellion was a moment of pivotal change in histographic terms, as it generated some of the first literature in the continuous style—treatises that dealt with politics—albeit only two centuries later. The event was extensively referenced in the political treatises of the 2nd century CE and cited as the cause for many contemporary events. The eponymous princes were Rui, G′or, Djêng, Gem, Trjibh, and N′ors. They are called "princes" as they were understood to be high-ranking individuals in the ruling household, but their biological relationship is unclear.
During the course of the Rebellion, there are still recorded rulers in the Tenth Generation, who are Sjin the Minor, K.rang III, and ′Rjut V. These three individuals do not appear to have made any impact on the progression of the Rebellion, which in surviving narratives is propelled by the aggression, greed, and lust of the six princes. While the princes did not solicit the sympathy of major ancient or medieval historians, the ancient historians partly blamed the continued chaos on the weakness, ineptitude, ignorance, or innocence of rulers. This characterization was most vigorously expanded and expounded by historians of the 5th century, who were eager to describe the Archaic Period as peaceful and its kings powerful enough to rein in subjects. Modern historians tend to argue that the six princes were at least supported by a deeper conflict between commercial and mineral rights, cultural tension, and other factors in their rebellion against rulers and each other.
At the close of the Rebellion, a new line took power, possibly with foreign assistance, and with it introduced a new succession system, which preferred fraternity to collinearity. Tsins, the city, was moved two miles to the south around 130 BCE, a transition supported by archaeology.
Succession crisis
Immediately after the Rebellion is said to have ended the ascension of Sin IV the Outsider, a "regency" occurs, followed by a reversal in the progression of generations in the king list. Tradition holds that Sin IV restored authority to the throne, but modern scholars think this is unlikely because of the brevity of his reign and the prolonged crisis that occurred in the next century. Sin IV lasted five regnal years and was succeeded by Qrut V, whose reign was seven years.
The nature of the regency, which is said to have taken place under "three elders and two fathers", is unclear, and no events are attributable to the five regents. Scholars differ in their opinions on whether the "three elders and two fathers" were successive or joint regents. Despite being a regency, there appeared to be an incumbent patriarch at the same time, as Krap V's reign immediately succeedes that of Qrut VI. Some theorize that this situation reflects dual loci of power, and the chronicler is unsure which one to credit reigns to. Chronologically, it is unusual that the Eleventh Generation, which began with Sin IV, does not contain an "elder brother", and some even hypothesize the existence of one here, whose reign may have been forgotten due to its ephemerality or infamy.
After Têng V dies in 80, Middle K.rang came to power and begins the Twelfth Generation with the epithet "middle brother". Middle K.rang reigned for 24 years, but he was evidently not considered in the incremental numbering of regnal names, such that the former user of his name was K.rang III, and the next, K.rang IV. After this, Qrut VI came to power, even though in the sacramental calendar treats him as a member of the Eleventh Generation, i.e. the previous generation. This is a unique situation that occurs with monarchs of the Eleventh and Twlefth generations. Thus, if Sin IV, Qrut VI, Krap V, and Têng V are sacrificed to in week 1, then Middle K.rang is given sacrifice in week 2, then Sin IV, Qrut VI, Krap V, and Têng V plus Qrut V and K.rang IV are given sacrifice in week 3, and then Middle K.rang and the remaining members of the Twelfth Generation again in week 4. This "reverse sacrifice" provoked a severe conflict at the royal court in the 4th century.
After the reign of Qrut VI, K.rang IV's reign signifies the end of the second half of the Eleventh Generation. The Twelfth Generation is restored with P.rjang the Outsider and Krap VI.
Some scholars have portrayed the Rebellion of Princes as the transition to a true state in Tsins, though this is contingent on the interpretation of earlier political structures. The Rebellion has also been connected with the growing prominence of Meng culture in Themiclesia, which, by those supporting this theory, is responsible for the deterioration for the exchange marriage system that had governed the Tsins clan up to this point. This group of scholars contrast the relatively orderly system of intermarriages prior to P.rjang VI and the relatively disorderly situation after his reign to argue in favour of the destabilizing marriage alliance between the Tsins clan and a group of native societies.
After the Rebellion, the annals grew in scope. It is theorized that the Rebellion required pretenders to enlist support from proximal and consanguineous polities, cadet branches, and new settler groups. Functions once within the clan began to involve a novel class of outsiders, and declinist historians spoke the "moral degenerency" in placing "foreigners" in positions of trust over one's own clan. Once the Quarrel ended, the Tsins court was aflood with new bloodlines that posed a severe threat to the unity of the Tsins clan. Power struggles were no longer occurring between branches of the royal family, but between them and new aristocrats. The need to communicate ideas may have been responsible for generating the earliest literature created by the Tsins court.
Late Archaic
The Late Archaic was a period of dramatic expansion for the city of Tsins, archaeologically speaking. From a settlement of no more than 2,000 people, it grew to 20,000 by the end of the Archaic Period, and much of this wealth did not come from agriculture in surrounding fields, but rather colonial profits, plunder, and new settlement.
After the Rebellion of Princes, the succession of rulers was apparently restricted to a single lineage and rarely passed outside. The divination records contain the Eleventh through Fifteenth generations, where the behaviour of rulers' names are at considerable odds froThe 2nd century BCE is associated with a sudden growth in Meng population in Themiclesia, contrasted with the stagnancy of the 4th and 3rd centuries; this migration is thought to have provoked a cascade of effects, such as the adoption of iron tools and the colonization movement. The transition between bronze and iron metallurgy appears to be peaceful in Themiclesia, with the former metal increasingly associated with cultic and political objects, and the latter with the mundane and military.
Classical Period
The Hexarchy (六邦之治, ruk-prang-te-lreks) is named for the diplomatic order that emerged circa 265 CE, surrounding six major states; for most of this period, states vied for dominance and aggressively colonized territories hitherto unpopulated or populated by non-Meng populations. The process of colonization had a strong influence on the histories of all states, such that some historians have preferred to use the term "colonization period" to refer to the Hexarchy; they argue that the name "hexarchy" implies it was an era dominated by these six states that flourished at its end and their survival appear predestined. From a historiographic perspective, the historical traditions of these six states have been the best-studied, and the "six states" trope is itself highly historical.
It is a radical position, with some mainstream attention, that the native population of Themiclesia may have remained numerically dominant until the colonial period but escaped the treatment of historians due to poor attestation.
It is around 280 CE that texts of considerable length and more concerted composition begin to appear in Themiclesia, shedding light upon the historical period and starting the transition from the Archaic Period, which has recorded history but only in very modest quantities. The amount of writing that survive from the Classical Period is enormous compared to the previous 6.5 centuries. In consequence of this explosion of literature, the Classical Period really is the "beginning of history" for later Themiclesians, who were thoroughly confused by the older, disconnected texts of the Archaic Period.
Imperial expansion
Hegemonic rule
Regency of N.rang
After King Kl′ang died in 334 without an heir, his childless brother, King Mugh, was enthroned at the advanced age of 74. Two years later, Mugh also died, leaving the throne vacant. A succession crisis occurred between at least fourteen princes of the royal house, whose claims are all questionable, and after an unrecorded altercation at court, the Duke of N.rang (唐公) came to dominate the royal court. This event is described as smjangh-gwjang-stjit (相王室), or "supervision of the royal house" in histories, but excavated materials suggest that Sungh did not merely place the royal house "under wardship", but actually took the throne—bronze inscriptions record that he "sat upon the throne and made charges to the many dukes, earls, manorial elders, lords of the land, and the many lineages" (公即立舍羣公眔徹侯眔伯眔君眔百姓). For the next fifty years, N.rang and his successor dominated the royal house, enthroning and deposing puppets as they saw fit.
Regency of Sungh and overthrow
Geography
Before the Hexarchy, the embryonic Tsins state began to distinguish several types of regions, but state boudaries in the modern sense did not yet exist. The royal household itself owned agricultural land, called "royal land" (公田, klong-lin) and worked by cadet branches and slaves.[1] Forests controlled by the royal household was sometimes granted to agricultural clans permanently (甸, linh), on condition of tribute at harvest. Land was also occupied by other clans performing services to the royal clan, such as manufacturing, construction, hunting, mining, winemaking, writing, and many others. Though canonical histories described these clans to be enfeoffed by the king, most modern authorities favour a looser relationship bound by mutual defence, economic reliance, common ancestry, or marriage. These clans were collectively called the "several lineages" (羣姓).
By the 3rd c. BCE, the royal clan began to expand its military power in more distant quarters, creating barons that provided military services, in a more classical feudal sense. Some barons
Government
Kingship
There is little agreement on the nature of kingship in the Dark Ages and the early Archaic Period. It has been pointed out that, while there is a stable list of names that later rulers venerate as a succession of rulers, nothing internal to the list and the documents that recover them actually portray these early rulers as doing anything suggesting of a temporal kingship. Rather, their activities are usually confined to cults. Archaeologically, the Tsins area during the 5th through 3rd centuries BCE do not suggest that a strong centre of wealth existed during this period; materials were fairly evenly distributed through a handful of settlements, which are of comparable size. Nathan Prat believes that the early kingship was really a priestly office with limited temporal responsibilities, but Charles Brut says that this would be a misimpression arising from the genre of surviving materials.
On the other hand, the fact that the early kingship seems to have passed from lineage to lineage in a strict manner motivates some scholars to argue that the office must have been one of considerable influence and importance, whether for commercial or spiritual reasons, or it would not warrant such strict rules over its demise. These scholars propose that the office was important within the conceptual or metaphorical clan that ultimately made up the Tsins people, including its Meng and native elements; yet the behaviour of the kingship was distinct from ordinary patrimony, which was inherited patrilineally in other cases.
Many scholars believe that the epithets "elder brother" and "second brother", though their meanings remain unclear, reveal the changing nature of kingship from a genealogical and political perspective through the first centuries of Themiclesian history. In the earlier part of the chart, the "elder brother" and "second brother" always come at the head of a generation and after another. In the 9th generation, P.rjang VI comes after Rjut IV, who is "elder brother", but P.rjang VI did not receive the "second brother" epithet; this has led scholars to believe that P.rjang VI's succession was disorderly.
The figure of P.rjang VI "possesses characteristics of temporal kingship" according to Brut, as he was recorded in the Six States to have sent emissaries to foreign states, organized campaigns, and built new settlements. Prat instead thinks that P.rjang VI was the exception to the rule, given his nickname "the warlord" and the fact that he was denied the funerary epithet the "middle brother" that a person in his order of succession usually received. Scholars following Prat hold that kingship only arose in Tsins after the Rebellion of Six Princes, whereby a ruler was able to assert power through force across multiple settlements and their hereditary leaders. There remains disagreement on whether P.rjang VI's actions were normal, innovative, or extraordinary.
In the 10th generation, four rulers held the title "second brother", and "elder brother" disappears completely thereafter. This has been held to suggest changes in the rules of succession. The regency by "three fathers and two elders" during the 11th generation as well as the interposition of a member of the 12th, K.rang III, has also bee forwarded as evidence of instability in the royal succession, or a re-interpretation of the definition of a generation of rulers on the part of temple priests, who edited lists of rulers for cultic purposes. Martin Sak suggests in 1985 that the 11th and 12th generations are actually competing lineages who reigned simultaneously, leading to the untoward situation when it came to their veneration in the canon of rulers.
In the 13th generation, new epithets like mjen (文), ′jiw (幽), stjawh (綤), and gwang (皇) came into use, suggesting greater influence from Menghe. These epithets are used in conjunction with the title of "second brother", which had become universal for the five rulers in the 13th through 15th generations. These changes have caused scholars to believe that, whatever the original meanings of "elder brother" and "middle brother" were in the context of kingship, it was no longer meaningful at the end of the Archaic Period.
Longer narratives since the end of the Rebellion allowed scholars to draw insight into the increasing wealth of the Tsins settlement.
Clans
In the study of early Themiclesian state structures, historians frequently utilize comparisons with Menghean precedents and contemporaries, on the assumption that settlement in Themiclesia was done not by individuals but entire clans en masse, which were the functional units of political actors in early Menghean society. This practice had come under doubt, and some peripheral assumptions have been expunged due to lack of support from the archaeological evidence; however, the fact that early Meng people in Themiclesia lived in clans is still accepted by most scholars.
The primitive form of the Tsins polity is characterized as a clan-based government; opportunities and responsibilities were shared as a matter of course between different branches of the clan. The highest leader of the clan, appearing in inscriptions without a fixed title until the Archaic Period, may have been selected not purely on a hereditary basis but by other figures, and these figures are linked to the kong, a group of hereditary leaders who appear, from the epigraphic perspective, to hold power by virtue of descent. The word kong connotes a preference for seniority, as it is the word describing a generic grandfather or granduncle. The relevance of the kong with the moiety and group system, which features most prominently in naming and marriage, is unclear; while some scholars believe that a marriage-group was a substantive social unit, others think they were only ceremonial affinities held by high-ranking individuals. There are no known references to a kong of a marriage-group. Accoring to Njap, it seems in the Archaic Period, the functional groups of Tsins society were distinct from the marriage-groups.
Branches of the clan may be assigned to colonize a new area, to extract or work a certain resource, or to perform a certain set of skilled or unskilled tasks. These designations may be temporary or hereditary. In the event of threat of force, the different branches of the clan marshalled in each other's defence.
The clan-based government appears to have functioned smoothly in a settlement, or league of settlements linked by blood, of limited size and membership, but disputes occurred as the branches subdivided and created more settlements and encountered other clans active in the same areas. Those branches assigned to territorial occupation tended to diversify, whether out of inconvenience of distance or ambition, as much as their parent clans did and thus became self-sufficient, encourage their transformation into polities as well. In some cases, these new polities became completely independent, but in others they remained subordinate to their parent clan, fulfilling some sort of fixed obligation in exchange for recognition or common defence. Other, smaller clans active in the same region may have sought protection of the Tsins and performed some function as compensation.
A pre-eminent centre of wealth appears in middle of the 3rd c. BCE, which is interpreted as the emergence of a central authority amongst the groups that made up the Tsins people. From the 2nd century, longer epigraphic references to the patriarch (伯), cadets (子), and outsiders (外) shed light on the dynamics between them. The extent of the patriarch's authority dealing with the branches of his extensive clan is at best unclear, but the patriarch is assumed to have some redistributional power over certain lands and rights to exploit and trade resources, as well as to demand payment for them.
The Tsins at the end of the 3rd c. BCE was evidently not very territorial and had few borders. While the Tsins fortified settlements, they defended territories beyond the fortifications only for reasons of economic production. Other clans were able to pass through the general area settled by the Tsins clan freely, or even settle amongst them while maintaining independence, as long as they did not threaten the incumbents' activities. This suggests that political power was primarily an interpersonal relationship, not one based on access to land in the feudal sense. This may have been a result of the sparsity of settlement and abundance of land in Themiclesia; a settlement could move to a new location with its belongings in tow, since at least some forms of production that were migratory.
Tsins state
Scholars debate the proper time frame in which a "Tsins state" may be described, as the traditional idea that a state was founded as soon as Meng settlers arrived in Themiclesia has been discredited. Clans continued to be structures that transect political power into the Classical Period. 19th-century scholars proposed the idea that the civic genesis of the Tsins state lay at the point when non-consanguineous individuals and groups began to participate in affairs of the Tsins clan; in their view, this was demonstrated when the Tsins patriarch charged outsiders (and thereby produced visible inscriptions and documents) to cultivate lands and submit crops or game as tribute. More recent work, however, has complicated this judgment: the Tsins clan may not have been as tightly organized and monolithic as previously believed, and Tsins people seem to have incorporated at least some non-consanguineous communities as part of a greater "metaphorical clan or family".
Geographically, Tsins was situated on the Lapis Road that connected with the peoples of the Dzhungar steppes and Mengheans to the east. Some think that position induced the development of several large, autonomous clans that co-operated and competed with each other to bring goods to the market; however, the identity of the clans are at best unclear since their connection with archaeological remains are tenuous. The oldest documents that shed light into the workings of Tsins politics date to the late 3rd or early 2nd century BCE, found in the Book of Documents. These documents suggest that the lands around Tsins was owned by established clans, necessitating the emission of parties to more distant lands; this is part of the Colonial Period described in modern historiography. These emissaries enjoyed the support of one or more patrons, to whom a certain amount of tribute (奠) was due; they missions were sometimes permanent and at others temporary. It remains uncertain how much control patrons exercised on their emissaries, though without a patron their access to the common marketplace may have been curtailed.
These emissaries were post facto classified according to their roles and behaviours into three types: the go or scout, the lins or cultivator, and the nem or agent. The go is seen to have exercised some sort of military function, though it may be a by-product of their tasks to scout for resources or opportunities in more distant or hostile regions. The linh is characterized by strong cultivation by farming, logging, mining, and hunting. The nem may have a commercial role of some kind, but scholars have not reached a consensus on the general theme of the nem.
It remains an unresolved question how the Tsins clan came to dominate the other major clans in the region. The most viable theory currently known is that Tsins came to control the commercial supply of tin from the mines of Sjin in the north, which meant a strong influence on the price and availability of bronze in Tsins. This market dominance may have rapidly enriched the Tsins clan and enabled it to meddle in the economic activities of other major clans, as they too would involve the use of bronze tools, in the region and ultimately subdue them. This theory is supported by the fact that at least three consorts of Tsins patriarchs appear to hail from Sjin, which could plausibly represent a tin-trading agreement with the northerly city. Whatever the relationship between the Tsins clan and others living next to it, the major clans emerge as nobles of the first class (the "patriarchs") by the Classical Period. Their wealth was splendid compared to the monarch's other nobles, and they enjoyed the monarch's hospitality and "shared his city".
The effects of colonialism massively enriched the city and may have created a group of kinsmen who performed no useful function but expected stipends from colonial revenues. These kinsmen are usually portrayed as evil in Heroic literature in contrast to the adventurous and proactive Archaic Hero, who has undertaken to explore and create his profits.
Non-land titles
The earlier practice of establishing cadet colonies effectively limited the size of the demesne land of the major house in earlier Tsins history. After this practice was abandoned in consequence of the Quarrel of Six Princes, there was considerable development in the administrative apparatus to make effective use state resources. This allowed the senior house to acquire a larger income and was intrumental in establishing its supremacy over others. The rise of a professional bureaucracy followed closely with the appearance of the first historical records and preserved prose compositions; some historians have described this as a democratization of political access, where rulers were willing to grant wealth and honour to the under-class for the provision of knowledgeable services.
During this period, the ultimate prize for an aspiring bureaucrat was titular aristocracy, which entitled the holder and descendants to a permanent monetary income. This form of aristocracy was distinct from the cadet and outsider houses, which could create branch houses and colonize more land, receiving political, military, and material support from them and thereby grow to rival the senior house. Titular aristocracy did not pose the same threat, since financial income could not multiply itself or be converted as easily to political and military power. Most importantly, it did not reduce the tax-base for the senior house or create potential opponents. Furthermore, since the senior house was the sole guarantor of the benefits that the title carried, it also encouraged the holder and his successors to support the senior house, to protect their continued income.
Though the Tsins had virtually stopped creating land-based titles, the number of financial ones multiplied as heritable rewards were culturally coveted. For bureaucrats who achieved this form of nobility, it alleviated them from governing settlements and allowed them to focus on their jobs. To a certain extent, the creation of permanent bonds of seems to have been preferred by the Tsins senior house as well. This added a fourth faction to the Tsins court and a novel dynamic to court life. Bureaucrats, who were prized across the states due to their ability to centralize administration and combat established aristocrats, became the subject of controversies stirred up mostly aristocrats. The cadet houses, who were out-competed by bureaucratic rule, openly circulated rumours that bureaucrats could not be trusted, instead asking for positions themselves arguing that only blood could guarantee loyalty. They pointed to historical situations two centuries ago when houses normally embroiled in infighting could unit against a common external enemy. Tsins politics was characterized by struggles between the factions in the 1st century BCE.
Suppression of the cadets
The currency by which the cadets and some outsider houses courted support of the Tsins king was military cadre, as a tradition. In earlier eras, military organization had a directive influence on the perambulating state. While the Tsins king had a peasant levy, the better-trained and better-armoured troops were produced by the cadet houses, mostly from their junior members. They filled roles such as heavy infantry, chariotry, and cavalry. The reason why the royal house did not produce professional warriors, or did but in insignificant numbers, is not well-understood. It is possible that the cadet houses were sometimes threatened by coups led by military officers, and the bureaucracy did not wish to entertain such a possibility at the royal house.
After a particularly bloody phase of the Hexarchy, in which the cadet houses mobilized to assist the royal house, they prevailed on the Tsins king in 70 BCE to curb the bureaucracy. They argued that the king should not support "pen-pushers" at the expense of those who had bled for him. The chancellor, the chief bureaucrat, replied that the cadets' warriors would have starved without the bureaucracy's sending food from a great distance away. He also said that the warriors had outlived their usefulness, now that a peace treaty was in force. Sending them home, they found out that the royal court had made a private agreement with Pjang to ransack and take the cadets' territories while the majority of their troops were away. Moreover, they also provoked the cadet houses' slaves and serfs to defect to the royal house. Since this episode, the number of active cadet houses dropped sharply, and the existing ones forced to submit to central administration in one degree or another. The poet Rjar Sngw′jan, such a cadet warrior, lamented in 68 that "as the last rabbit is caught for dinner, so shall the hound join it on the table".
Bureaucracy
Approaching the start of the Common Era, a centralized bureaucracy began to develop around and supplant the royal court, which is understood to function like an assembly of senior officials and deliberated on all areas of government. Not all members of the court had fixed positions, and nobles by heritage had a voice on assemblies. By sidestepping the court and embracing administrators, the ruler was able to make decisions more independently.
The early bureaucracy was led by several important officers, who had fixed jurisdictions. Amongst them, there were the Royal Secretary (御史大夫, ngjah-srje′-ladh-pja), Royal Councillor (中大夫, trjung-ladh-pja), and Comptroller of the House (公族大夫, kong-tsok-ladh-pja). When troops were levied, a general (將軍, tsjang-kwjer) was appointed. While the Royal Secretary was later to become the leader of the Tribunes, in this era he was allowed to read all state papers and probably advise the monarch over them; his later supervisory function was, probably, a by-product of his power over papers. The Royal Councillor was also able to advise the monarch but did not have the same access to reports sent to the monarch. The Comptroller of the House managed the monarch's household. Other important officials were introduced on the model of the Meng dynasty, such as the Inner Administrator and Privy Treasurer. In time, these tended to displace extant ones.
When it was necessary, a Chancellor (相邦, smjangh-prong) and Vice Chancellor (丞相, gljing-smjangh) would be appointed above them.
Locally, settlements directly controlled by royal court were grouped into counties, which were administrative and productive units. A non-heriditary country magistrate was appointed in each county and was subject consistent, instituionalized oversight from the monarch. The magistrate was responsible for maintaining order, resolving disputes, collecting taxes, and levying troops. If bronze or other natural resources were present, he would also oversee their extraction and manufacture. Around 100 BCE, counties were few and interspersed between fiefs, but they have become dominant in Tsins at the start of the Common Era, corroborating the waxing of royal authority. Due to their direct control by the royal court, these counties were said to be kong-stjit, "royal household", as opposed to an aristocratic one. While the portion of land ruled by the hereditary nobility would decrease during this time, they also increased when the ruler had to rely on nobles against another faction at court. Under the county were village aldermen.
Foreign relations
Cultural heritage
Human sacrifice
The early Tsins extensively used human sacrifice in a number of contexts. This custom began to wane at the start of the Common Era and was out of fashion by the end of the dynasty. In principle, normal members of society were not used as victims, though exceptions exist. Most victims were combatants or civilians from enemy states or slaves of other provenance. Human sacrifice was practiced in various cults towards deities or ancestors and for funerals of the elite; except for funerals, every known ceremony could be done with or without human victims or any quantity of them.
It is not known whether certain factors required or motivated the use of human victims, though the fact that human victims were always mentioned before animals seems to suggest they were considered of higher value. Single victims were the most common, but up to 500 have been sacrificed at one time. In some instances, the identity or quantity of victims was selected by divination. There did not appear to a preference for gender or age in most circumstances, and victims both male and female and from infancy to old age have all been discovered. However, nationality was a factor considered; in sacrifices towards ancestors who have military accomplishments against a certain group, victims of that origin are preferred.
Politics
The political systems established by the Tsins under the Treaty of Five Kings were revered by Themiclesian scholars of later generations as those of an age of peace and prosperity. Historian C. Cwang wrote in 1852 that Themiclesian politics for many centuries was dominated by the struggle between two political traditions, the native one under the Treaty and the imperial one introduced by the Menghean monarchy. Extended freely, it touches upon the identity of early Themiclesians and their relationship to contemporary Menghe. In the early Meng dynasty, many dissidents believed that the autocratic form of government advanced by Emperor Ngjon (元皇帝, Standard Menghean: Wŏn) was alien; however, historians point out that King Ngjon of Rjang (who was almost contemporary with the former) enjoyed a successful reign contending for the same sort of autocratic power and was not then considered alien.
Kinship and marriage
The kinship and marriage customs practiced by the Tsins people, most well-evidenced through its royal family tree, has puzzled Themiclesian scholars since the Mrangh dynasty, who fell into two camps to explain their distinctiveness compared to Meng culture received from Menghe. One held that the Tsins's customs were primitive to those later attested in Menghe, while another believed it was a result of corruption in the process of colonization. Modern scholars have generally accepted that neither can be regarded as a satisfactory description of the origins of the Tsins kinship and marriage system.
According to the anthropologist Arnold Bap writing in 1966, the Tsins culture could be divided into two broad eras, which he names "endogamous and "exogamous". He takes changes in kinship systems to underlie his interpretation of phenomena in the succession, deduced through the repetition and variations in rulers' names. In his theory, the Tsins nobility in the endogamous era divided itself into ten patrilineal lineages, which married each other and all shared the right to inherit the leadership. These ten lineages were further grouped into two moieties between which the leadership must pass after each generation, though all siblings in one generation inherited in order of age.
| Moiety A | Moiety B | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Krāp | 甲 | Qrut | 乙 |
| P.rang′ | 丙 | Têng | 丁 |
| Met | 戊 | Ke′ | 己 |
| K.rāng | 庚 | Sin | 辛 |
| Nem′ | 壬 | Kwi′ | 癸 |
Under this early system, he proposes that succession between father and son was prohibited. Within each generation, each sibling must marry into the same lineage in the other moiety, and once the siblings all died, the leadership would pass to maternal cross-cousins, and so forth, until the entire generation ran out. Such a theory would explain the relative emphasis on generations rather than individual monarchs in cultic activity and the earliest written material. This, however, is not an uncontroversial interpretation, and some traditionalist scholars still accept a wholly-patrilinial model of agnatic seniority, which more accurately characterized later generations.
In 1970, this system was modified by Charles Brut, who argued from an epigraphic perspective that the ten lineages are not only subdivided into two moieties, but also two groups representing Menghean and native cultures, between which some sort of exchange marriage took place. He finds that the names of the lineages found at Dark Ages sites associated with Meng culture are distributed unevenly: p.rjang′ and mjet from Moiety A and ′Rjut, Kje′, and Sjing from Moiety B are found frequently, while the others are almost never found. This has led him to believe that after the Tsins clan settled in Themiclesia at some uncertain point during the Dark Ages, it was "defective", i.e. it did not possess all ten lineages that its culture memory requires. On this basis, he further argues that the need to restore the ten canonical lineages encouraged it to forge a long-lasting and stable marriage alliance with a group of native cultures, who were identified with the five missing lineages.
| Moiety A | Moiety B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native group |
Krāp | 甲 | Têng | 丁 |
| K.rāng | 庚 | Kwi′ | 癸 | |
| Nem′ | 壬 | |||
| Meng group |
P.rang′ | 丙 | Qrut | 乙 |
| Met | 戊 | Ke′ | 己 | |
| Sin | 辛 | |||
Brut stated that, in the canonical list of royal spouses paired with rulers, every ruler noted as "the elder brother" and "the second brother" was paired with a member of the opposing moiety and group, while rulers without either epithet were paired with the opposite moiety but not necessarily group. He argues that the Tsins clan created this difference to sustain an alliance between two cultural groups, and that marriage partners from the opposing cultural group were labelled as stêk (奭) or "spouse", while marriage partners from the same cultural group were not noted this way. Brut's modification of Bap's theories remains controversial but is accepted by academics as a viable theory to explain the phenomena observed from the lists of rulers.
Scholars have debated the significance of the epithets "the elder brother" and "the second brother" in the years after Brut's thesis. It is uncontroversially linked to the practice of dividing former rulers into "generations", each generation beginning with an elder brother and a second brother and containing an unlimited number of other rulers with neither epithet. This practice is "undoubtedly most ancient" according to Brut. One interpretation is that an exchange marriage involving a pair of siblings occurred between the two groups and moieties, who acquired the preferred rights to succession by reason of their special marriage. However, Martin Kit believes that the "siblings" must be considered metaphorical siblings, not biological siblings.
The "generations" recovered from oracular tablets are astonishingly stable until the end of the 10th generation, which corresponded with the Rebellion of Six Princes. While scholars who think the early Tsins succession was primarily patrilineal tend to think that the generations represented biological generations, the majority view is that they are metaphorical generations, defined through intermarriage. Those who take the latter view point out that the length of the 10th generation, which continued for over 100 years, is indicative of its metaphorical nature, as few natural sets of siblings could last that long. Some scholars also believe that the "elder brother" and "second brother" are coregents.
John Chat writes:
The fascinating question of Tsins kinship in the Dark Ages and the early Archaic Period can probably never be resolved until there is a satisfactory theory explaining the way lineage-names descend and the biological relationship between the early rulers. What we do know is that lineage-names existed independently of personal and family names, which descended patrilineally. The prevailing belief at present is that lineage names may descend matrilineally or even irregularly, the latter being a unwanted conclusion that may actually be true.
In 1996, the historian Victor Mjat argued that the sigificance of the ten marriage-groups may have been originally geographic. His theory, which envisions each marriage-group to represent a settlement part of the same extended clan, seeks to explain the word stjêk (奭) in the context of exchange marriages. Mjat cites as evidence the concentration of marriage-group names in certain archaeological sites, but other scholars are sceptical about this conclusion.
List of rulers
Sources
The earlier part of the list of Tsins kings is controversial. For centuries, Themiclesian historians accepted a list of 11 rulers in a 4th-century essay regarding sacrifices as authoritative, but in the 19th century earlier documents and inscriptions came to light, and a much-different list has been drawn from it. As of 2019, 49 epigraphic texts have been found to replicate the following list partly or wholly, whose consistency have persuaded scholars to believe that there was a fixed list of venerated leaders during the Archaic Period. These lists record the names of rulers appertaining to ritualistic contexts, most likely not personal names they would have used during their lifetimes.
One of the difficulties scholars have noted was that of matching archaeologically-attested names to those found in historical documents. As many objects that yield names are cultic, they usually note only a person's affiliation to one of the ten marital groups. Additionally, a kinship term like "father", "mother", or suchlike may be attached, but these terms may change depending on the perspective of the creator of the text. There being effectively only ten possible names, researchers have noted it is almost impossible to establish an individual identity for any of these attested names. Objects which are not cultic, on the other hand, never mentions affiliation with marital groups.
Some of these texts are significantly earlier than others, and the identity of individuals are not without disputation. The earliest text dates probably from the reign of ′Rjut IV, at the very end of the 4th c. BCE, but a minority of scholars believe they should be dated to P.rjang′ VI, on the throne between 295 and 265 BCE. This chronological difference is material to the identitiy of individuals because they are addressed by kinship terms, which vary according to the speaker's or writer's perspective. The earlier part of the list is contributed by inscriptions that firmly date to P.rjang′ VI, not only by archaeological evidence but by the fact that several consorts in the 8th generation are addressed as "major spirit" or "minor spirit", a term used to describe deceased relatives close to the speaker.
The rise of prose histories, which define the Classical Period historiographically, allows lists of rulers to be drawn with much more clarity, and there are few controversies regarding the identity or reigns of rulers who come after about 100 CE.
Dark Ages
| Generation | Name | Epithet | Reign | Spouse name | In AT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Former P.rang' | 先丙 | Ancestor Qrut | 台乙 | Yes | |||
| 2 | Qrut I | 先乙 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Krap | 先奭甲 | Yes | |
| Nem the Brilliant | 光壬 | Kwi the Brilliant | 光癸 | |||||
| 3 | Ting I | 先丁 | elder brother | 大兄 | Former Spouse P.rang | 先奭丙 | Yes | |
| Ancestor Krap | 台甲 | second brother | 中兄 | Former Spouse Qrut | 先奭乙 | |||
| Ancestor Ke' | 台己 | Former Met | 先戊 | |||||
| Former Ancestor Sin | 先台辛 | |||||||
| Nem the Heir | 司壬 | |||||||
| 4 | Qrut II | 二乙 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Krap II | 二奭甲 | Yes | |
| Kerang I | 先庚 | second brother | 中兄 | Former Ancestor Ke | 先台己 | Yes | ||
| Ting the Face | 彥丁 | Former Ancestor Ke-rang | 先台庚 | Yes | ||||
| Nem II the Great | 大二壬 | |||||||
| 2 or 4 rulers and their spouses missing | ||||||||
| 5 | Krap II | 二甲 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Sin | 奭辛 | Yes | |
| Ting II | 二丁 | second brother | 中兄 | Spouse P.rang II | 二奭丙 | |||
| P.rang III | 三丙 | Ancestor Qrut III | 三台乙 | |||||
| Sin I | 先辛 | Spouse Krap III | 三奭甲 | Yes | ||||
| Nem III | 三壬 | Spouse Sin III | 三台辛 | |||||
| Ke II | 二己 | |||||||
| Met the Heir | 司戊 | |||||||
| 6 | Late Sin | 後辛 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Ke-rang I | 先奭庚 | Yes | |
| Prang IV | 四丙 | second brother | 中兄 | Spouse Kwi I | 奭癸 | |||
| Qrut III | 三乙 | |||||||
| Former Ancestor Kwi | 先台癸 | |||||||
| 7 | Later Kerang | 後庚 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Sin II | 二奭辛 | Yes | |
| Ting III | 三丁 | second brother | 中兄 | Later Ancestor Met | 台戊 | |||
| Ancestor Prang | 台丙 | |||||||
| Qwi the Heir | 司癸 | |||||||
| 8 | Kerap III | 三甲 | elder brother | 大兄 | Spouse Qrut II | 二奭乙 | Yes | |
Archaic Period
| Generation | Name | Epithet | Reign | Spouse name | In AT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Kerap III | 三甲 | elder brother | 大兄 | 386 BCE – ? | Spouse Qrut II | 二奭乙 | |
| Keq III | 三己 | second brother | 中兄 | Spouse Krap IV | 四奭甲 | |||
| Prang V | 五丙 | Greater Spirit Companion Qrut | 大示妣乙 | |||||
| Qrut the Heir | 司乙 | Lesser Spirit Companion Met | 小示妣戊 | |||||
| Kerang the Great | 大庚 | d. 302 BCE | Lesser Spirit Companion Sin | 小示妣辛 | ||||
| 9 | Qrut IV | 四乙 | elder brother | 大兄 | 302 – 295 BCE | Spouse Ke-rang II | 二奭庚 | Yes |
| P.rang VI the Prince | 王六丙 | 295 – 265 | Companion Qrut | 妣乙 | Yes | |||
| Sin III | 三辛 | second brother | 中兄 | 265 – 241 | Spouse Krap V | 五奭甲 | ||
| Prang VII the Lesser | 亞七丙 | younger brother | 小兄 | 241 – 232 | Krek, Madam Sin | 母辛克 | Yes | |
| 10 | Qrut IV | 四甲 | elder brother | 大兄 | 232 – 209 | Spouse Kerang III | 三奭庚 | Yes |
| Ting IV | 四丁 | second brother | 中兄 | 209 – 170 | Spouse Prang III | 奭丙 | Yes | |
| Middle Met | 中戊 | second brother | 中兄 | 170 – 163 | Spouse Kwi II | 奭癸 | ||
| Younger Sin | 小辛 | second brother | 中兄 | 163 – 151 | Madam Prang | 母丙 | Yes | |
| Kerang III | 三庚 | second brother | 中兄 | 151 – 149 | Madam Ting | 母丁 | ||
| Qrut V | 五乙 | younger brother | 小兄 | 149 – 130 | Madam Nem | 母壬 | Yes | |
| 11 | Sin IV the Outsider (?) | 四出辛 | 130 – 125 | Spouse Madame Sin | 奭婦辛 | |||
| Qrut VI the Outsider (?) | 六出乙 | 125 – 117 | Ngar Madam Prang | 我母丙 | ||||
| Regency by Three Fathers and Two Elders | Yes | |||||||
| 11 | Kerap V | 五甲 | second brother | 中兄 | 117 – 92 | Middle Sister Madam Sin | 中兄辛台 | Yes |
| Keting V | 五丁 | 92 – 80 | Younger Sister Madam Sin | 弟辛台 | ||||
| 12 | Ke-rang III | 中庚 | second brother | 中兄 | 80 – 56 | Madam Ting | 母丁 | Yes |
| 11 | Qrut V | 五乙 | 56 – 23 | Qrut V's Madam Nem | 五乙母壬 | Yes | ||
| Kerang IV | 四庚 | 23 – 12 | Spouse Qrut of Sin | 辛奭乙 | Yes | |||
| 12 | Prang the Outsider (?) | 出丙 | 12 BCE – 3 CE | Prang's Madam Ting | 丙母丁 | Yes | ||
| Kerap VI | 六甲 | 3 – 7 | Madam Met of Sin | 辛司戊 | Yes | |||
| 13 | Keting the Outsider | 文丁 | complex second brother | 中兄 | 7 – 40 | Spouse Krap | 文奭甲 | Yes |
| Nem IV | 四壬 | dark second brother | 中兄 | 40 – 52 | Spouse Kwi the Dark | 幽奭癸 | Yes | |
| Ke IV | 四己 | second brother | 中兄 | 52 – 57 | Middle Sister Spouse Qrut | 中兄奭乙 | Yes | |
| 14 | Prang VII the Dark | 南丙 | priestly second brother | 中兄 | 57 – 90 | Middle Sister Spouse Qrut | 中奭丁 | Yes |
| 15 | Kerang V | 南庚 | brilliant second brother | 文中兄 | 90 – 112 | Glorious Lady Prang | 皇君丙 | Yes |
| 16 | Sin | 康辛 | Equable patriarch | 文中兄 | 112 – 132 | Glorious Lady Krap | 皇君甲 | Yes |
| Kerap | 陵甲 | Renowned partiarch | 132 – 145 | Glorious Lady Qrut | 皇君乙 | Yes | ||
| 17 | Ting | 各丁 | Tranquil patriarch | 文中兄 | 145 – 172 | Glorious Lady Kwji | 皇君癸 | Yes |
| 18 | P.rang | 青丙 | Rectifying patriarch | 皇中兄 | 172 – 194 | Glorious Lady Njem | 皇君壬 | Yes |
| 19 | Sin V | 文示辛 | Sweet patriarch | 文武 | 194 – 249 | Glorious Lady Kerang | 皇君庚 | Yes |
Transitional Period
| Generation | Name | Epithet | Reign | Spouse name | In AT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | Sin V | 文武示辛 | divine martial second brother | 文武中兄 | 194 – 249 | Spouse Qrut II | 二奭乙 | Yes |
| 20 | Qrut | 大示且乙 | perpetual martial prince | 亘武王 | 249 – 270 | Glorious Lady Kerang | 皇君庚 | Yes |
| 21 | Qrut | 且乙 | assault martial prince | 敦武王 | 270 – 292 | Glorious Lady K.rang | 皇君庚 | Yes |
| 22 | Qrut | 父乙 | martial prince | 武王 | 292 – 320 | Glorious Lady K.rang | 皇君庚 | Yes |
Classical Period
Hegemony
| Generation | Name | Epithet | Reign | Spouse name | In AT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | K.rang V | 五庚 | Glorious patriarch | 皇伯 | 90 – 112 | Glorious Lady P.rjang | 皇君丙 | Yes |
| 16 | Sjin | 辛 | Equable patriarch | 平伯 | 112 – 132 | Glorious Lady Krap | 皇君甲 | Yes |
| Krap | 甲 | Renowned partiarch | 桓伯 | 132 – 145 | Glorious Lady ′Rjut | 皇君乙 | Yes | |
See also
Notes
- ↑ It should be noted that the term "royal household" is here anachronically used. It is only "royal" because it later developed into a kingdom, and during this period it was only the most resourceful of many clans. Territorial sovereignty was not, according to most scholars, a feature of the embryonic state.