Kingship in the early state
1986; Brill; Volume: 142; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1163/22134379-90003371
ISSN2213-4379
Autores Tópico(s)Historical and Literary Studies
Resumo1.1. The The term is used in wide variety of meanings. The King of Swing is famous musician, and the king of diamonds is playing card. In both cases the word expresses quality: the best, or the highest. In more narrow sense, refers to the ruler of kingdom. Such rulers not only play role in past and present, they are also found in literature and fairy tales. The king there carries sword and sceptre, wears robe lined with ermine, and has crown on his head. There are as wise as Solomon, or villainous tyrants who'd trade their king dom for horse, and others, who are killed in the bath by their queen. Though ideas about and kingship are thus spread widely, it is no easy task for historians and anthropologists to formulate definition of these concepts. The Oxford Dictionary defines king as a man who is the supreme ruler of an independent by right of succession to the throne. However, when the king rules over small state, the Dictionary calls him prince. Moreover, the Dictionary does not connect indepen dent country and state. Since the present article aims at stating general definition of king for intercultural research of the Early State, it seems necessary to carry the analysis further. A king is specific type of ruler, distinguishable from chief or headman on the one hand, and president on the other. It remains to be seen if it also makes sense to distinguish between king and an emperor. Several rulers who were called are known in history, including Napoleon, Charlemagne and Augustus. They were of kings as the Ethiopian rulers claimed to be, quality that German and Austrian Kaisers also pretended to possess. Just because of this quality there seems no reason to consider emperor as qualitatively different from king. A definition of king, then, might be: the supreme, hereditary ruler of an independent stratified society, having the legitimate power to enforce decisions. Formulated in this way, the borderline between headman and chief on the one side and king on the other can be drawn easily: headmen or chiefs do not have the legitimate right to enforce decisions (Claessen and
Referência(s)