Misplaced Pages

#941058

100-606: Kamarupa ( / ˈ k ɑː m ə ˌ r uː p ə / ; also called Pragjyotisha or Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa ), an early state during the Classical period on the Indian subcontinent , was (along with Davaka ) the first historical kingdom of Assam . The Kamrupa word first appeared in the Samudragupta Allahabad Edict before that there is no mention of existence of this word. Though Kamarupa prevailed from 350 to 1140 CE, Davaka

200-640: A Rajaguru , poets, learned men and physicians. Different epigraphic records mention different officials of the palace: Mahavaradhipati , Mahapratihara , Mahallakapraudhika , etc. Council of Ministers : The king was advised by a council of ministers ( Mantriparisada ), and Xuanzang mentions a meeting Bhaskaravarman had with his ministers. According to the Kamauli grant, these positions were filled by Brahmanas and were hereditary. State functions were specialised and there were different groups of officers looking after different departments. Revenue : Land revenue ( kara )

300-664: A Brahmin required purification after visiting these places—but it does not mention Kamarupa, thereby indicating it was beyond the ambit and recognition of the Brahminical culture in the second half of the first millennium BCE. Early dated mentions come from the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (1st century) and Ptolemy 's Geographia (2nd century) which call the region Kirrhadia after the Kirata population. Arthashastra (early centuries of

400-653: A causal process or as a necessary mechanism within certain conditions and they may borrow from other approaches. In general the theories highlight: economic stratification , conquest of other peoples , conflict in circumscribed areas , and the neo-evolutionary growth of bureaucracy. Other aspects are highlighted in different theories as of contributing importance. It is sometimes claimed that technological development, religious development, or socialization of members are crucial to state development. However, most of these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological analysis. In addition to conquest, some theories contend that

500-921: A demarcated territory. Early Modern State Scholars generally agree that the modern state system originated with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the concept of state sovereignty . This event notably marked the shift from the medieval practice of feudalism to the emergence of increasingly centralized state systems that held monopolies over violence and effectively extracted revenue from their civilian populations. There are two existing explanations behind this transition: dramatic shifts in Europe's political, economic, and cultural climate and changes in Europe's natural environment. The political change in Europe during this period can be attributed to improvements in military technology and increased warfare between Western European states, as they catalyzed

600-502: A division of labor would automatically trigger creation of the state form. A third voluntary hypothesis, particularly common with some explanations of early state development, is that long distance trade networks created an impetus for states to develop at key locations: such as ports or oases. For example, the increased trade in the 16th century may have been a key to state formation in West African states such as Whydah , Dahomey , and

700-567: A large capital, cities, villages, and hamlets). Primary states are those state societies that developed in regions where no states existed before. These states developed by strictly internal processes and interaction with other non-states societies. The exact number of cases which qualify as primary states is not clearly known because of limited information about political organization before the development of writing in many places, but Sandeford lists ten likely cases of primary state formation in Eurasia,

800-554: A member of an aboriginal group called Mlechchha.This dynasty too drew its lineage from the Naraka dynasty , though it had no dynastic relationship with the previous Varman dynasty . The capital of this dynasty was Haruppeshvara, now identified with modern Dah Parbatiya near Tezpur . The kingdom took on feudal characteristics with political power shared between the king and second and third tier rulers called mahasamanta and samanta who enjoyed considerable autonomy. The last ruler in this line

900-696: A result of a system of alliances that pitted the Kamarupa kings (allied to the Maukharis ) against the Gaur kings of Bengal (allied with the East Malwa kings). Susthitavarman died as the Gaur invasion was on, and his two sons, Suprathisthitavarman and Bhaskarvarman fought against an elephant force and were captured and taken to Gaur. They were able to regain their kingdom due probably to a promise of allegiance. Suprathisthitavarman's reign

1000-430: A result of some shared rational interest. The theories largely focus on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. The argument is that such pressures result in integrative pressure for rational people to unify and create a state. Much of the social contract philosophical tradition proposed a voluntary theory for state formation. One of

1100-419: A shared identity. As a result of these circumstances, many new states failed to effectively monopolize the means of violence and extract revenue from their citizens, making them (as a general rule) weaker than older states. Theories on the formation of modern states focus on the processes that support the development of modern states, particularly those that formed in late-medieval Europe and then spread around

SECTION 10

#1733085253942

1200-568: A similar language or ethnic identity (David, 2010). To get to the modernly defined state, we can trace its emergence to European nations that assembled states after the Enlightenment period for a myriad of reasons. Using the contractarian view of the state, scholars accredit state function with reducing the harmful effects of citizens' desires to act in their own self interests, without respect to their fellow citizens (Roberts, Golder, Nadecnichek Golder, 2019). By establishing states, people are spared

1300-512: Is considered to be territoriality bound and is distinct from tribes, lineages, firms, churches and other units without centralized institutions. Tilly defines a state's "essential minimal activities" as: Jeffrey Herbst holds that there is another relevant characteristic of modern states: nationalism . This feeling of belonging to a certain territory plays a central role in state formation since it increases citizens' willingness to pay taxes. According to Michael Hechter and William Brustein ,

1400-516: Is given as 595–600, a very short period, at the end of which he died without an heir. Supratisthitavarman was succeeded by his brother, Bhaskarvarman (600–650), the most illustrious of the Varman kings who succeeded in turning his kingdom and invading the very kingdom that had taken him captive. Bhaskarvarman had become strong enough to offer his alliance with Harshavardhana just as the Thanesar king ascended

1500-624: Is named as the legendary city from which Naraka reigned after his conquest of Kamarupa . Kamarupa is not included in the list of sixteen Mahajanapadas from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE; nor does it or the northeast Indian region find any mention in the Ashokan records (3rd century BCE)—it was not part of the Mauryan Empire . The 3rd-2nd century BCE Baudhayana Dharmasutra mentions Anga (eastern Bihar), Magadha (southern Bihar), Pundra (northern Bengal) and Vanga (southern Bengal), and that

1600-501: Is not understood to have been a homogeneous unified entity. The Kalika Purana mentions a second eastern limit at Lalitakanta near Guwahati . Shin (2018) interprets this to mean that within Kamarupa the region between Karatoya and Lalitakanta was where sedentary life was the norm and the eastern region was the realm of non-sedentary society. These internal divisions came to be understood in terms of pitha s, which were abodes of goddesses. Various epigraphic records found scattered over

1700-414: Is one such example. When thinking about the current global political climate, it is easy to conflate the concepts of nations and states with one another. In his book "Comparative Politics", David Samuels articulates the idea that a state is a non tangible entity that regulates the actions of its citizens in a defined territory, while a nation refers to a group of people who share a commonality, whether that be

1800-695: The Aegean Bronze Age Greek civilizations and the Malagasy civilization in Madagascar . Unlike primary state formation, early state formation does not require the creation of the first state in that cultural context or autonomous development, independently from state development nearby. Early state formation causation can thus include borrowing, imposition, and other forms of interaction with already existing states. Pre-modern state formation occurred in China during

1900-515: The Benin Empire . Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some population over another population as key to the formation of states. In contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits, but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others. A number of different theories rely on conflict, dominance, or oppression as

2000-620: The Chutiya kingdom (east) were emerging. The Ahoms , who would establish a strong and independent kingdom later, began building their state structures in the region between the Kachari and the Chutiya kingdoms in 1228. Alauddin Hussain Shah issued coins in his name to be "Conqueror of Kamarup and Kamata". The extent of state structures can be culled from the numerous Kamarupa inscriptions left behind by

2100-772: The Gupta Empire . Other references are the Shung-Shu History of the Liu Song dynasty , where the kingdom is named Kapili (now the name of a river); the Gachtal stone pillar inscription written in Kamrupi Prakrit . N. K. Bhattasali has identified it with Dabaka in modern Hojai district , with the kingdom associated with the Kopili - Kolong river valley. Historians such as B. N. Puri (1968) and P. C. Choudhury (1959) claim that it

SECTION 20

#1733085253942

2200-493: The Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment ). In terms of the natural environment, Europe experienced a sudden population boom during this period due to a rise in food production. The resulting increase in Europe's population density accelerated state centralization in the region. Late Modern State The majority of late-forming states emerged during the decolonization period that followed World War 2 and

2300-570: The South Korean and Taiwanese states. However, Chin-Hao Huang and Dave Kang argue that Tilly's bellicist theory of state formation does not account for Korea and Japan, as they did not face intense security threats. Robert Holden and Miguel Angel Centeno find limited evidence for the applicability of the bellicist theory to state formation in Latin America. A 2017 study which tests the predictions of warfare theories of Tilly and others found that

2400-487: The adhikara . They dispensed judicial duties too, though the ultimate authority lay with the king. Law enforcement and punishments were made by officers called dandika , (magistrate) and dandapashika (one who executed the orders of a dandika ). State formation#Early state formation The study of state formation is divided generally into the study of ancient state formation (those that developed in stateless societies ), medieval or early modern state formation, and

2500-440: The "neo-Darwinian" framework for the emergence of sovereign states is the dominant explanation in the scholarship. The neo-Darwininian framework emphasizes how the modern state emerged as the dominant organizational form through natural selection and competition. Thomas Ertman wrote in 1997, "it is now generally accepted that the territorial state triumphed over other possible political forms (empire, city-state, lordship) because of

2600-529: The 12th century to be replaced by smaller political entities, the notion of Kamarupa persisted and ancient and medieval chroniclers continued to call a part of this kingdom Kamrup . In the 16th century the Ahom kingdom came into prominence and assumed for themselves the legacy of the ancient Kamarupa kingdom and aspired to extend their kingdom to the Karatoya River . The earliest use of the name Kamarupa to denote

2700-662: The 1648 Peace of Westphalia , there began to be the development in Europe of modern states with large-scale capacity for taxation, coercive control of their populations, and advanced bureaucracies. The state became prominent in Europe over the next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the world via the colonial and international pressures of the 19th century and 20th century. Other modern states developed in Africa and Asia prior to colonialism, but were largely displaced by colonial rule. Political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists began studying

2800-816: The Americas, and the Pacific. Studies on the formation of the first states tend to focus on processes that made statehood feasible. Prominent explanations for the emergence of the first states emphasize domestication of plants and animals, as well as complex water management systems. Some scholars point to greater land productivity as a prerequisite for the state, whereas others point to the adoption of easy-to-tax crops, such as cereal grains . Some scholars point to military revolutions rooted in bronze metallurgy and iron metallurgy, which made it easier for large states to control and conquer vast territories. Examples of early states which developed in interaction with other states include

2900-507: The Christian era) mentions "Lauhitya", which is identified with Brahmaputra valley by a later commentator. These early references speak about the economic activity of a tribal belt, and they do not mention any state . The earliest mention of a kingdom comes from the 4th-century Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta that calls the kings of Kamarupa and Davaka frontier rulers ( pratyanta nripati ). The corpus of Kamarupa inscriptions left by

3000-463: The Kamarupa kings as well as accounts left by travellers such as those from Xuanzang. Governance followed the classical saptanga structure of state. Kings and courts : The king was considered to be of divine origin. Succession was primogeniture, but two major breaks resulted in different dynasties. In the second, the high officials of the state elected a king, Brahmapala, after the previous king died without leaving an heir. The royal court consisted of

3100-545: The Nidhanpur copper-plate inscription from his victory camp in the Gaur capital Karnasuvarna (present-day Murshidabad , West Bengal ) to replace a grant issued earlier by Bhutivarman for a settlement in the Sylhet region of present-day Bangladesh. After Bhaskaravarman's death without an heir and a period of civil and political strife the kingdom passed into the hands of Salasthambha (655–670), possibly as erstwhile local governor and

Kamarupa - Misplaced Pages Continue

3200-442: The abilities of African states to progress economically in the same time frame as European states had. There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to explain why the state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own. The earliest forms of

3300-619: The absence of state consolidation until German and Italian unification in the 19th century. Other theories have emphasized the role of trade, finance and urbanization in state formation. These theories emphasize the end of the feudal system and the economic transformations that ensued. Some such theories are neo-marxist whereas other theories are new institutionalist . New institutionalists such as Douglass North argue that state centralization happened as contracts and agreements were made between rulers and influential economic groups within their territory. The ruler could provide public goods in

3400-415: The advantage of legitimacy." Tilly's theory is prominent in the field of historical sociology , where scholars have tended to identify the onset of modern state formation as coinciding with the military revolution in the 16th century. Michael Roberts and Geoffrey Parker agree with Tilly that warfare was a key factor, but that the primary causal factor was not the "state-makers" themselves, but simply

3500-541: The aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Traditional scholars hold that newer states were introduced to modern state systems through Western European colonial rule and, upon obtaining independence, merged them with local forms of governance. In recent years, however, there has been increased criticism of the Eurocentric approach to late-state formation within the academic community. Shmuel Eisenstadt

3600-866: The and after the Warring States period (475-221 BCE). State formation occurred in Japan and Korea during the period 400-800 CE. The key institutional innovation of East Asian state formation was the world's first civil services . Early state formation in Europe happened in the late 9th century to the early 11th century, as stable kingdoms formed in Germany, France, England, and Scotland; three stable, large kingdoms formed in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), as well as three in East Central Europe (Poland, Bohemia and Hungary). Historian R.I. Moore argues that 970–1215

3700-403: The arid environment, to create a state apparatus that could build and maintain large irrigation projects. In addition to this, is what Carneiro calls the automatic hypothesis , which contends that the development of agriculture easily produces conditions necessary for the development of a state. With surplus food stocks created by agricultural development, creation of distinct worker classes and

3800-456: The belief that the state is an expression of the 'genius' of a people, or that it arose through a 'historical accident.' Such notions make the state appear to be something metaphysical or adventitious, and thus place it beyond scientific understanding." Similarly, social Darwinist perspectives like those of Walter Bagehot in Physics and Politics argued that the state form developed as a result of

3900-403: The bellicist theories do not specify the micro processes, such as the advantages for rulers in adopting certain institutions, and the incentives for elites and rivals to support or oppose rulers. Third, Spruyt argues that war was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for state formation, pointing to the survival of small and odd states, the development of states in the absence of warfare, and

4000-402: The best leaders and organized societies gradually gaining power until a state resulted. Such explanations are not considered sufficient to explain the formation of the state. In the medieval period (500-1400) in Europe, there were a variety of authority forms throughout the region. These included feudal lords, empires, religious authorities, free cities, and other authorities. Often dated to

4100-407: The boundaries drawn up by colonizers. These two factors have been detrimental to the growth of African states, as there is no recognized alternative to nationalism or war efforts in terms of generating economic prosperity; some would argue federalist policies as a possible way of elevating the status of state's economy, though these policies typically result in the corruption and autocratic behavior of

Kamarupa - Misplaced Pages Continue

4200-529: The chaos of Hobbes' "state of nature", where every individual will only act in their own interest and therefore harm thy neighbor (Samuels, 2010; Moehler, 2009) European states formed in alliance with the contractarian view of the state because of their lucky population boom in medieval times as a result of a food surplus, shift in power reverence from papal figures to non secular individuals, and their fear of being conquered by others (David, 2010). States that had successful economies were able to invade and conquer

4300-465: The colonists, African states' struggled to grow economically. Furthermore, African states have not been able to reap the benefits of state generation of greater revenues because they have not had any reason to willingly pay higher rates in taxes or mobilize against any external threat. African states most typically gained independence peacefully, thus not receiving the benefits of the economic booms associated with wartime efforts, and they also have accepted

4400-445: The creation of states in late colonial and post-colonial societies. The lessons from these studies of the formation of states in the modern period are often used in theories about State-building . Other theories contend that the state in Europe was constructed in connection with peoples from outside Europe and that focusing on state formation in Europe as a foundation for study silences the diverse history of state formation. Based on

4500-508: The development of the Indian state, as they show that "districts that were more exposed to pre-colonial conflict experienced greater early state-making." Others have argued that bellicist theories can account for state formation in China during the Warring States period , Latin America and Africa. According to Jeffrey Herbst, external security threats have had a fundamental role in the development of

4600-408: The domestic balance of power and the agreements reached between domestic elites may have been more important for state formation than international warfare. Hendrik Spruyt has several critiques of bellicist theories: First, neither the presence of warfare nor states can be taken as exogenous factors. Bellicist theories fail to explain why Europe was defined by such a competitive environment. Second,

4700-612: The east of Kamarupa in the Kapili river valley in present-day Nagaon district , but which is never mentioned again as an independent political entity in later historical records. Kamarupa, which was probably one among many such state structures, grew territorially to encompass the entire Brahmaputra valley and beyond. As the Gupta Empire weakened, the Varmans, of indigenous origin, began asserting themselves politically by performing horse sacrifices and culturally by claiming semi-divine origins. Under

4800-483: The emergence of the modern state as a dominant polity: (1) Security-based explanations that emphasize the role of warfare, (2) Economy-based explanations that emphasize trade, property rights and capitalism as drivers behind state formation, and (3) Institutionalist theories that sees the state as an organizational form that is better able to resolve conflict and cooperation problems than competing political organizations. According to Philip Gorski and Vivek Swaroop Sharma,

4900-511: The first major assault from the west. Though it is unclear what the effect of this invasion was on the kingdom; that Bhutivarman's grandson, Sthitavarman (566–590), enjoyed victories over the Gauda Kingdom of Karnasuvarna and performed two aswamedha ceremonies suggests that the Kamarupa kingdom had recovered nearly in full. His son, Susthitavarman (590–600) came under the attack of Mahasenagupta of East Malwa. These back and forth invasions were

5000-481: The first use of the name, as the kingdom where Kamadeva ( Kama ) regained his form ( rupa ). The name Pragjyotisha , on the other hand, is mentioned in the epics, but it did not become associated with the Kamarupa kingdom till the 7th century when Bhaskaravarman associated his kingdom with the Pragjyotisha of the epics and traced his dynastic lineage to Bhagadatta and Naraka . In the 9th century, Pragjyotishpura

5100-433: The following in common: "centralized institutions that impose rules, and back them up by force, over a territorially circumscribed population; a distinction between the rulers and the ruled; and an element of autonomy, stability, and differentiation. These distinguish the state from less stable forms of organization, such as the exercise of chiefly power." The most commonly used definition is by Max Weber who describes

SECTION 50

#1733085253942

5200-418: The form of property rights and protection while getting revenue in the form of taxation from the economic groups. Davaka Davaka (Skt. *Ḍavāka) was a kingdom of ancient Indian subcontinent , located in current central region of Assam state. The references to it comes from the 4th century Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta , where it is mentioned as one of five frontier kingdoms of

5300-487: The formation of vast state-controlled militaries and large state bureaucracies for levying taxes. Economically, Western European states saw a drastic increase in tax revenue due to the emergence of a merchant middle class, the establishment of overseas empires, and increased rates of domestic production. Finally, cultural values in Europe changed as ruling classes abandoned the practice of feudalism and people moved away from traditional religious practices (due to events such as

5400-619: The fourth century." Indeed, archaeological discoveries in the Doiyang Dhansiri Valley suggests that early state formation in the region may have begun before the second century. Over the course of its prevalence, the boundaries of Kamarupa had fluctuated. Nevertheless, the traditional boundary of Kamarupa is held by scholars to be— Karatoya river in the west, Sadiya in the east, between the Dhaka and Mymensingh districts in Bangladesh in

5500-496: The grantee the right to collect revenue and the right to be free of any regular tax himself and immunity from other harassments. Sometimes, the Brahmanas were relocated from North India, with a view to establish varnashramdharma . Nevertheless, the existence of donees indicate the existence of a feudal class. Grants made to temples and religious institutions were called dharmottara and devottara respectively. Land survey : The land

5600-620: The help of the spring floods that same year, captured and killed the Sultan. Subsequent to this attack, Sandhya moved his capital from Kamarupanagara to Kamatapur (present day Gosanimari ) and established a new kingdom, that came to be called Kamata . At that time, western Kamarupa was the domain of the Koch and Mech peoples. In other parts of the erstwhile Kamarupa the Kachari kingdom (central Assam, South bank), Baro Bhuyans (central Assam, North bank), and

5700-447: The international legal context for popular sovereignty was instituted. Two related theories are based on military development and warfare, and the role that these forces played in state formation. Charles Tilly developed an argument that the state developed largely as a result of "state-makers" who sought to increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they could continue fighting wars. According to Tilly,

5800-528: The juridicial equivalence of states. The two features began to emerge in the Late Middle Ages but the modern state form took centuries to come firmly into fruition. Spruyt notes that sovereign equality did not become fully global until after World War II amid decolonization. Adom Getachew writes that it was not until the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples that

5900-414: The kingdom is from the 4th century , when Samudragupta 's pillar inscription mentions it as a frontier kingdom. Kamarupa finds no mention in the epics Mahabharata or Ramayana and in the early and late Vedic, Buddhist, and Jain literatures the references to Kamarupa are not about a kingdom. An explanation of the name Kamarupa emerged first in the 10th-century Kalika Purana , six centuries after

6000-435: The members of European societies gave into the bounds of social contract theory and cooperated in paying higher taxes in order to protect their territories. In reality, majority of early European states failed because the weaker, smaller states were taken over by their more powerful neighbors who were able to extort more revenue from their citizens and thus better prepare themselves for interstate war and conquest. The origin of

6100-465: The military technological revolutions that allowed development of larger armies. The argument is that with the expanded state of warfare, the state became the only administrative unit that could endure in the constant warfare in the Europe of this period, because only it could develop large enough armies. This view—that the modern state replaced chaos and general violence with internal disciplinary structures—has been challenged as ethnocentric, and ignoring

SECTION 60

#1733085253942

6200-419: The model of European states, it has been commonly assumed that development is the natural path that states will eventually walk through. However, Herbst holds that in the case African states, as well as in developing countries of other regions, development need not be the natural step. States that struggle their consolidation could remain permanently weak. There are three prominent categories of explanations for

6300-527: The modern state can be traced back to these instances of European conflicts and geographical changes in the range of the 1500s to the 1600s, as they classify the moments citizens put the needs of the state over their financial interests and entrusted the state with greater powers to govern them. Imperfect Conditions that Inhibit the Advancement of Later State Formation States on the African continent do not reflect

6400-582: The modern state was differentiated from "leagues of independent cities, empires, federations held together by loose central control, and theocratic federations" by four characteristics: Theories of state formation have two distinct focuses, depending largely on the field of study: Scholars differ in their definition of the state and in the time periods in which state formation occurred. States are minimally defined by anthropologist David S. Sandeford as socially stratified and bureaucratically governed societies with at least four levels of settlement hierarchy (e.g.,

6500-500: The most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the hydraulic hypothesis , which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain large-scale irrigation projects. The theory was most significantly detailed by Karl August Wittfogel 's argument that, in arid environments, farmers would be confronted by the production limits of small-scale irrigation. Eventually different agricultural producers would join together in response to population pressure and

6600-421: The need for defense from military conquest or the military organization to conquer other peoples is the key aspect leading to state formation. Some theories proposed in the 19th century and early 20th century have since been largely discredited by anthropologists. Carneiro writes that theories "with a racial basis, for example, are now so thoroughly discredited that they need not be dealt with...We can also reject

6700-412: The population to agree. Taxes and revenue raising have been repeatedly pointed out as a key aspect of state formation and the development of state capacity . Economist Nicholas Kaldor emphasized on the importance of revenue raising and warned about the dangers of the dependence on foreign aid. Tilly argues, state making is similar to organized crime because it is a "quintessential protection racket with

6800-433: The predictions do not match the empirical record. The study found that median state size decreased from 1100 to 1800, and that the number of states increases rapidly between the twelfth and thirteen centuries and remained constant until 1800. Historian Sverre Bagge argues that neither external nor internal wars were important per se in processes of state formation. To what extent warfare was important in state formation, it

6900-433: The region of Chandrapuri visaya , identified with present-day Sylhet division . Thus, the small but powerful kingdom that Pushyavarman established grew in fits and starts over many generations of kings and expanded to include adjoining possibly smaller kingdoms and parts of Bangladesh. After the initial expansion till the beginning of Bhutivarman's reign, the kingdom came under attack from Yasodharman (525–535) of Malwa ,

7000-456: The regions are used to postulate the size of the kingdom. The kingdom is believed to have broken up entirely by the 13th century into smaller kingdoms Kamarupa, first mentioned on Samudragupta 's Allahabad rock pillar as a frontier kingdom, began as a subordinate but sovereign ally of the Gupta empire around present-day Guwahati in the 4th century: It finds mention along with Davaka, a kingdom to

7100-407: The roles of warfare, commerce, contracts, and cultural diffusion in ushering in the state as a dominant organizational form. There is no academic consensus on the definition of the state. The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political phenomena . According to Walter Scheidel, mainstream definitions of the state have

7200-618: The rule of Bhaskaravarman Kamarupa reached its political zenith and the lineage of the Varmans from Narakasura , a demon, became a fixed tradition. The Mlechchha dynasty , another set of indigenous rulers and the Pala dynasty (Kamarupa) that followed, too asserted political legitimacy by asserting descendancy from Narakasura. Pushyavarman (350–374) established the Varman Dynasty, by fighting many enemies from within and without his kingdom; but his son Samudravarman (374–398), named after Samudragupta,

7300-517: The rulers of Kamarupa at various places in Assam and present-day Bangladesh are important sources of information. Nevertheless, local grants completely eschew the name Kamarupa; instead they use the name Pragjyotisha, with the kings called Pragjyotishadhipati . The fragmentary Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription , written in Sanskrit and probably a land grant, is dated to approximately the 5th century. It

7400-471: The same efficiency of European state consolidation, likely because their boundaries were artificially carved out by colonial powers during the Partition of Africa in 1884 and 1885. As a result of the colonists' uneducated divisions of the continent, nations were split by new boundaries and segmented into different countries. By reducing the power of nationalism, as nations were not united in the states devised by

7500-450: The same period as when China unified, but Europe did not have unification during that period. Bagge also argues that the number of states did not meaningfully reduce, even though new military technology gave advantages to larger and wealthier units. He writes that "there are relatively few examples in Europe of kingdoms formed by conquest." Historian Ian Morris similarly disagrees with Tilly's thesis; Morris turns it around and says "War made

7600-550: The south, and Kanchenjanga in the north. The traditional boundaries are drawn from the textual references two of which are contemporneous— Xuanzang (7th century), and Kalika Purana (10th century)—and a late medieval source Yogini Tantra (16th century) though none of these claims are backed by any inscriptional record. Thus based on these references Kamarupa is considered to span the entire Brahmaputra valley and Northeast India and at various times thought to include parts of present-day Bhutan , Bangladesh and Nepal . Kamarupa

7700-637: The state and the state made peace." Vivek Swaroop Sharma distinguishes between total wars of conquest and limited wars, arguing that total wars of territorial conquest were infrequent between Western states. Anna Grzymala-Busse lists three major theoretical critiques of the bellicist theories: First, state formation needs peace and stability in order to succeed (war can destabilize regimes and institutions, as well as deplete state resources). Second, rulers did not just compete for territory but also policy-making authority (which meant that rulers cooperated to agree on borders rather than seek to expand borders). Third,

7800-567: The state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. Weber writes that the state "is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Charles Tilly defines states as "coercion-wielding organisations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories." The state

7900-462: The state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and a settled population have been attributed as necessary conditions to form states. Certain types of agriculture are more conducive to state formation, such as grain (wheat, barley, millet), because they are suited to concentrated production, taxation, and storage. Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as

8000-435: The state formation processes in Europe and elsewhere in the 17th century—beginning significantly with Max Weber . However, state formation became a primary interest in the 1970s. The question was often framed as a contest between state forces and society forces and the study of how the state became prominent over particular societies. A number of theories developed regarding state development in Europe. Other theories focused on

8100-459: The state makes war and war makes states. In the constant warfare of the centuries in Europe, coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder, warlords had to find ways to finance war and control territory more effectively. The modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation structures, the coercive structure to implement that taxation, and finally the guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of

8200-474: The state's leaders. African states are also marred by the long lasting effects of European colonialism, beyond the extent of the artificial boundaries of their states, but in the ways many African states were forced to use government systems the colonists had designed (Samuels 2010). Though many African states were peacefully granted independence, the long lasting effects of colonialism's exploitation of their land, people, and makeshift governments further inhibited

8300-546: The study of modern state formation (particularly of the form that developed in Europe in the 17th century and spread around the world). State formation can include state-building and nation-building . Academic debate about various theories is a prominent feature in fields like anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science. Dominant frameworks emphasize the superiority of the state as an organization for waging war and extracting resources. Prominent theories for medieval, early modern, and modern state formation emphasize

8400-427: The superior fighting ability which it derived from access to both urban capital and coercive authority over peasant taxpayers and army recruits." According to Hendrik Spruyt , the modern state is different from its predecessor polities in two main aspects: (1) Modern states have greater capacity to intervene in their societies, and (2) Modern states are buttressed by the principle of international legal sovereignty and

8500-426: The throne in 606 after the murder of his brother, the previous king, by Shashanka of Gaur. Harshavardhana finally took control over the kingless Maukhari kingdom and moved his capital to Kanauj. The alliance between Harshavardhana and Bhaskarvarman squeezed Shashanka from either side and reduced his kingdom, though it is unclear whether this alliance resulted in his complete defeat. Nevertheless, Bhaskarvarman did issue

8600-473: The violence of modern states. A 1999 statistical analysis by William R. Thompson and Karen Rasler found support for the notion that major, regional warfare was linked to an increase in army size, but that a military technology revolution was not. Scholars have debated the applicability of bellicist theories of state formation to non-European regions. Economists Mark Dincecco, James Fenske, Anil Menon, and Shivaji Mukherjee have found evidence for Tilly's thesis in

8700-424: The weaker states in their regions, causing many states to increase the revenues they derived from their citizens and tax them at higher rates and the citizens of these states to act in accordance with social contract theory. After recognizing the kinship they felt to the individuals who also lived in their constrained territory and their preference for the stipulations of their current government over an invading one,

8800-630: The western Enlightenment took inspiration from the eastern world, especially East Asia. Newer states formed under drastically different conditions than older states did. For one, these new states developed during an era that had little to no overt conflict between states. In addition to this, imperialist empires stunted the economic development of their colonies, leaving most new states impoverished upon achieving independence. Finally, since colonial powers drew territorial borders with little regard towards religious, ethnic, and cultural differences within indigenous populations, civilians in most new states lacked

8900-444: The world with colonialism. Starting in the 1940s and 1950s, with decolonization processes underway, attention began to focus on the formation and construction of modern states with significant bureaucracies, ability to tax, and territorial sovereignty around the world. However, some scholars hold that the modern state model formed in other parts of the world prior to colonialism, but that colonial structures replaced it. Safavid Iran

9000-634: Was Jaya Pala (1075–1100). Around this time, Kamarupa was attacked and the western portion was conquered by the Pala king Ramapala . From among the local rulers, there emerged a strong ruler named Sandhya ( c.  1250 –1270), the Rai of Kamrup , with his capital at Kamarupanagara, the seat of the last Pala kings. Malik Ikhtiyaruddin Iuzbak , a governor of Gaur for the Mamluk rulers of Delhi , attempted an invasive attack on Sandhya's domain in 1257; and Sandhya, with

9100-675: Was Tyāga Singha (890–900). After the death of Tyāgasimha without an heir, a member of the Bhauma family, Brahma Pala (900–920), was elected as king by the ruling chieftains, just as Gopala of the Pala Empire of Bengal was elected. The original capital of this dynasty was Hadapeshvara, and was shifted to Durjaya built by Ratna Pala (920–960), near modern Guwahati . The greatest of the Pala kings, Dharma Pala (1035–1060) had his capital at Kamarupanagara, now identified with North Guwahati. The last Pala king

9200-405: Was absorbed by Kamarupa in the 5th century CE. Ruled by three dynasties from their capitals in present-day Guwahati , North Guwahati and Tezpur , Kamarupa at its height covered the entire Brahmaputra Valley , parts of North Bengal , Bhutan and northern part of Bangladesh , and at times portions of what is now West Bengal , Bihar and Sylhet . Though the historical kingdom disappeared by

9300-480: Was accepted as an overlord by many local rulers. Nevertheless, subsequent kings continued their attempts to stabilise and expand the kingdom. Kalyanavarman (422–446) occupied Davaka and Mahendravarman (470–494) further eastern areas. Narayanavarma (494–518) and his son Bhutivarman (518–542) offered the ashwamedha ( horse sacrifice ); and as the Nidhanpur inscription of Bhaskarvarman avers, these expansions included

9400-597: Was collected by special tax-collectors from cultivators. Cultivators who had no proprietary rights on the lands they tilled paid uparikara . Duties ( sulka ) were collected by toll collectors ( Kaibarta ) from merchants who plied keeled boats. The state maintained a monopoly on copper mines ( kamalakara ). The state maintained its stores and treasury via officials: Bhandagaradhikrita and Koshthagarika . Grants : The king occasionally gave Brahmanas grants ( brahmadeya ), which consisted generally of villages, water resources, wastelands etc. ( agraharas ). Such grants conferred on

9500-603: Was found in Sarupathar in the Golaghat district of Assam. It supports the idea that Sanskritisation spread to the east very quickly. While this dating coincides with the time-span of the Varman dynasty, the inscription does not identify the state formation that issued the grant; the Varman dynasty may not have been responsible. One cannot completely "rule out the possibility of several simultaneous political powers in different sub-regional levels of north-eastern India around or even before

9600-438: Was indirectly "by mobilizing the aristocracy in the king's service and by necessitating drastically increased taxation and bureaucratization." Furthermore, he argues that the chronology of events in China and Europe are inconsistent with Tilly's argument that increasing costs of warfare led to processes of state formation. Substantial technological and organizational changes that raised the cost of warfare happened in Europe during

9700-480: Was one of the first scholars to give voice to this criticism when he argued that there are "Multiple Modernities" rather than just the widely accepted Western "patterns of modernity". Since then, many scholars have begun to approach state formation with a more inclusive perspective. For instance, in The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization , John Hobson investigates eastern modern state formation and shows how

9800-683: Was surveyed and classified. Arable lands ( kshetra ) were held individually or by families, whereas wastelands ( khila ) and forests were held collectively. There were lands called bhucchidranyaya that were left unsurveyed by the state on which no tax was levied. Administration : The entire kingdom was divided into a hierarchy of administrative divisions. From the highest to the lowest, they were bhukti , mandala , vishaya , pura (towns), agrahara (collection of villages) and grama (village). These units were administered by headed by rajanya , rajavallabha , vishayapati etc. Some other offices were nyayakaranika , vyavaharika , kayastha etc., led by

9900-688: Was the crucial period in European state formation. Historian Sverre Bagge argues that "in its main features, the European state system seems to have been formed between the division of the Carolingian Empire and around 1200. At the latter date, there were fifteen kingdoms in Europe: England, Scotland, France, Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra, Sicily, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Denmark, Norway and Sweden." Of these 15 kingdoms, seven were still in existence by 1648. Of those that disappeared, it

10000-425: Was usually due to marriage alliances and hereditary succession. Some scholars such as Charles Tilly and Otto Hintze primarily characterize European state formation as an early modern 16th to 18th century phenomenon, emphasizing the establishment of state sovereignty in international relations. Some date state formation later to the early 19th century, pointing to the establishment of a monopoly on violence within

#941058