TrCappL

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Alice Williams ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Late Cappadocia ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ Cappadocia; Cappadokia; Kappadokia ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ 302-95 BCE ♥ These dates correspond to the main ruling of the Ariarathid dynasty, before being taken over by rival polities (Pontus and Bithynia) and then becoming more closely affiliated with Rome. The earlier date is from when Ariarathes II regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes [1]; and the later date corresponds to the rule of Ariarathes IX.


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 322-93 BCE ♥ {380 BCE; 322 BCE}-{95 BCE; 93 BCE; 17 CE} ... written as code, these are the alternative dates. However we cannot code uncertainty for the duration variable. 380 BCE - 17 CE would be the code for the broadest definition.

Although the territory of Cappadocia had a ruler before 322 BCE, it was only after Alexander’s conquests in Asia Minor and the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire that Cappadocia became an independent kingdom. [2] The polity gradually fell into other hands, and was fought over by the more prominent powers in Asia Minor, Pontus and Bithynia, as well as the Roman Empire to the west [3] [4]. Cappadocia was in a good strategic position for all of these polities to either extend their own states or to buffer the territory they already had. The end of the rule of the Ariarathid dynasty came in the 90s BCE, although the exact dates are unknown. At this time, the kingdoms of Pontus and Bithynia were fighting over Cappadocia (and murdering or marrying those in the Cappadocian ruling family to gain a footing), until Rome declared the ‘freedom’ of Cappadocia. From then on, Cappadocia was ruled by Ariobarzanes, by the grace of Rome, and was eventually to be annexed by Rome [5][6]. The end dates correspond to the end of the Ariarathid dynasty (c. 95 BCE) and then to the end of the rule of Archelaus (17 CE)[7].

The rulers of Cappadocia: [8][9][10]

Datames (c. 380-362 BCE)
Ariamnes I (362-350 BCE)
Mithrobuzanes (died 334 BCE)
Ariarathes I (350-331 BCE)
Ariarathes I (331-322 BCE)
Ariarathes II (301-280 BCE)
Ariaramnes (c. 275-225 BCE)
Ariarathes III (c. 225-220 BCE)
Ariarathes IV Eusebes (220-163 BCE)
Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator (163-130 BCE)
Orophernes (157 BCE)
Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (130-116 BCE)
Ariarathes VII Philometor (116-101 BCE)
Ariarathes VIII (101-96 BCE)
Ariarathes IX (c.95 BCE)
Ariobarzanes I Philoromaios (95-63 BCE)
Ariobarzanes II Philopator (c. 63-51 BCE)
Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philoromaios (52-42 BCE)
Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42-36 BCE)
Archelaus (36 BCE - 17 CE)

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ nominal; unitary state; loose ♥ 380-331 BCE: nominal; {331 BCE; 301 BCE}-96 BCE: unitary state; 99 BCE - 17 CE: loose dates are not machine readable yet - ET

The Cappadocian rulers paid nominal allegiance to the Achaemenid Empire before it collapsed in 331 BCE [11]. After Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor, Ariarathes I established himself as the first king of Cappadocia (a region largely left alone by Alexander) and ruled from 331 - 322 BCE. There was, however, some disagreement with Rome after Ariarathes I and the dynasty only continued when his son, Ariarathes II, regained the throne from the Roman Eumenes in 301 BCE. The Ariarathid dynasty then ruled until the 90s BCE, and ruled as the head of all state and religious affairs.

The last Ariarathes (IX Eusebes) was the son of the Pontic king Mithridates VI Eupator, who was ousted by the Roman Senate and eventually replaced by the elected Ariobarzanes I [12][13]. Ariobarzanes I, II, III and Ariarathes X then ruled Cappadocia from 95 - 36 BCE and maintained friendship with Rome during that time, leading up to Cappadocia becoming a province of the Roman Empire in AD 17.

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ nominal allegiance; alliance; personal union; vassalage ♥ {380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage

The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [14][15]. Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [16][17]. The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [18][19]

It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [20][21]; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [22].

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Seleucid Empire ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ continuity ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Late Roman Republic ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ Mazaca-Eusebeia; Mazaca ♥ {Mazaca; Ariaratheia; Mazaca-Eusebeia} Mazaca, or Mazaca-Eusebeia, was the main capital of Cappadocia(Sherwin-White, 1984, p40), although Araiathes II attempted to build another capital named after himself (Ariaratheia) which “sank into oblivion” (Rostovteff, p839)

♠ Language ♣ Greek ♥ "Cappadocia is another example of a kingdom which adopted Greek as the language of administration, and whose kings energetically sponsored cultural Hellenism (high literary culture, gymnasion culture; euergetism abroad), to gain acceptance in the international scene." [23]

General Description

The Cappaodican kingdom began and ended in the hands of other more powerful polities in Asia Minor. The kingdom grew out of suzerainty to the Achaemenid Empire when Alexander the Great toppled the Achaemenids and largely bypassed Cappadocia [24], but the kingdom eventually returned to being a province under the next greatest power, Rome, in the early first century CE. Even during the peak reign of Cappadocian kings, the polity was fought over and used by the kings of its neighbouring polities to strengthen their positions of power or to buffer their state against the ambitions of another. This happened to such an extent that Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, placed both his nephew and son on the Cappadocian throne, only to kill the first to reinforce the claim of the latter, much to the antagonism of Nicomedes III, king of Bithynia at the time, who claimed his own right to a puppet on the Cappadocian throne. The incident resulted in the intervention of Rome who declared the ‘freedom’ of Cappadocia from monarchs (in theory) so that neither the kingdoms of Pontus or Bithynia could use Cappadocia for their own gains. The kingdom was then ruled by kings favoured by the Roman Senate until the death of Archelaus who was the last king of Cappadocia, places there by Antony.

As a result of Cappadocia’s relatively minor position during this time, very little textual (or other) direct evidence from the kingdom has survived. Numismatic evidence does give some detailed information about the chronology of kings, but even this is debated [25][26]. Instead, much of what is known about the kingdom of Cappadocia comes from accounts of the foreign policy of its neighbours, particularly Rome at the time. The main historian who discussed Cappadocia was Strabo, and his accounts lack the detailed information on Cappadocia which other polities have [27].

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Alice Williams; Edward A L Turner ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ 130,000 ♥ squared kilometers. 130,000: 129 BCE

♠ Polity Population ♣ [300,000-400,000] ♥

Turkey-in-Asia had 5,500,000 in 100 BCE.[28] Cappadocia had only about one sixth of the land area of this region (756,816/130,000). If we divided the estimate of 5.5 million by six get about 900,000. The state was landlocked and had no port. One might expect the most populous cities in Anatolia to be outside Cappadocia on the coast. A figure of 900,000 would certainly be an upper limit. Three hundred years later, under Emperor Valerian, the province of Cappadocia was reported to have had 400,000.[29] This seems a more reasonable figure given Cappadocia's location. Anatolia at the time of Valerian had about 6.5 million more people[30] - 1 million more than in 100 BCE - which means Cappadocia may have had only a sixteenth of the Turkey-in-Asia population. If we apply the same ratio to 100 BCE we get 350,000.


♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ ♥ Mazaca-Eusebeia? Possibly in the region of 50,000-100,000?

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 3 ♥ levels. The Cappadocian kingdom had some cities, including the capital Mazaca as well as Tyana, Kybistra and Hanisa [31], but there is a lack of detailed evidence for the size of these cities and their importance in relation to other Cappadocian settlements [32]. Without details of settlement size or population, a rough three-level settlement hierarchy can be given to Cappadocia:

1. City - Mazaca, Tyana, Kybistra, Hanisa and possibly Ariaratheia

2. Town - Priene
3. Village


♠ Administrative levels ♣ 4 ♥ levels.

In the Cappadocian kingdom, the king was the head of all administrative affairs and he used provincial governors, or strategos, to maintain the kingdom as divided into strategeiae [33][34]. It is likely that there were administrative levels beneath the strategos, but there is little evidence for them at present.

1. King

_Central government_

2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

_Provincial government_

2. Strategos
3. ?
4. ?


♠ Religious levels ♣ 4 ♥ levels. These levels apply to the temple state in Cappadocia, as described by Strabo: “It is a considerable city; its inhabitants, however, consist mostly of ‘divinely inspired’ people and the sacred slaved who live in it. Its inhabitants are Kataonians, who, though in a general way classified as subjects of the king, are in most respects subject to the priest. The priest is master of the temple, and also of the sacred slaved, who, on my sojourn there, were more than six thousand in number, both men and women together. Also, considerable territory belongs to the temple, and the revenue is enjoyed by the priest. He is second in rank in Cappadocia after the king. (12.2.3)” [35]

1. King

2. Priests, of the temple state, who ruled over the temple servants and were second only to the king [36]
3. Temple servants
4. Sacred slaves (hierodouloi) - the slaves belonged to the temple state (not even the priests could sell them) [37]


♠ Military levels ♣ 5 ♥ levels. The military levels have been inferred, based on the military organisation of the Pontic kingdom.[38]

1. King

2. Supreme military commander (epi tōn dunameōn)/ chief bodyguard (?epi tou egcheiridiou)
3. General
4. Cavalry
5. Infantry

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ present ♥ [39]

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ present ♥ [40]

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ present ♥ Based on the temple state in Cappadocia, as described by Strabo: “It is a considerable city; its inhabitants, however, consist mostly of ‘divinely inspired’ people and the sacred slaved who live in it. Its inhabitants are Kataonians, who, though in a general way classified as subjects of the king, are in most respects subject to the priest. The priest is master of the temple, and also of the sacred slaved, who, on my sojourn there, were more than six thousand in number, both men and women together. Also, considerable territory belongs to the temple, and the revenue is enjoyed by the priest. He is second in rank in Cappadocia after the king. (12.2.3)” [41]

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ present ♥ The Cappadocian kings minted their own coins.[42] "Cappadocia is another example of a kingdom which adopted Greek as the language of administration, and whose kings energetically sponsored cultural Hellenism (high literary culture, gymnasion culture; euergetism abroad), to gain acceptance in the international scene." [43]

♠ Examination system ♣ ♥ unknown

♠ Merit promotion ♣ ♥ unknown

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ present ♥ The Cappadocian kings minted their own coins, but there is some disagreement as to how many mints there were and which settlements they were located in. [44]

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [45]

♠ Judges ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Judges were present in the contemporary Pontic kingdom[46], but it is not known whether they were also present in Cappadocia, and if they were specialist judges

♠ Courts ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [47]

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred, based on absence in contemporary Pontic kingdom. [48]

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ inferred present ♥
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ markets ♣ present ♥ There was a market in the captured town of Priene [49]
♠ food storage sites ♣ inferred present ♥

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ present ♥ “Through Lycaonia [an area granted to Cappadocia after Attalus left his kingdom to Rome], an immense region of infertile steppes and salt desert, there passed the highway that led from the Aegean coast of Asia through the Cilician Gates to Syria and the Euphrates.” [50]
♠ Bridges ♣ present ♥ Pompeius organisation: “The ineffectual Ariobarzanes was restored yet again to the throne of Cappadocia. He retained the Tomisa bridgehead between Melitene and Sophene on the far bank of the Euphrates, given to him by Lucullus, which controlled the route across the Taurus to southern Armenia…” [51]
♠ Canals ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ Ports ♣ absent ♥ Assumed as Cappadocia was landlocked.

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ inferred present ♥

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ suspected unknown ♥ The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later.[52] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ inferred present ♥ The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later.[53] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.
♠ Written records ♣ present ♥ Historical records have survived from the time of the Cappadocian kingdom. Polybius and Strabo were the main historians of the time, and although they did not often discuss Cappadocia directly, they to refer to the region in relation to the expansion of the Roman Empire and the politics of the neighbouring polities.[54]
♠ Script ♣ present ♥ The only surviving written records about Cappadocia are from the historians writing from outside Cappadocia either at the time of the kingdom or later.[55] Detailed information about the written records of Cappadocia cannot, therefore, be given.
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ absent ♥ Greek
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ present ♥ Greek

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ inferred present ♥ By government, traders etc.
♠ Calendar ♣ inferred present ♥
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ inferred present ♥
♠ Religious literature ♣ inferred present ♥ Temples present.
♠ Practical literature ♣ inferred present ♥
♠ History ♣ ♥ unknown. Polybius and Strabo were the main (Roman) historians of the time, and although they did not often discuss Cappadocia directly, they to refer to the region in relation to the expansion of the Roman Empire and the politics of the neighbouring polities. Polybius, c. 200-after 118 (?) BCE: “Although Polybius wrote various historical works (Tactics, a history of the Numantine War in Spain, a geographical work on equatorial regions, and an encomium of Philopoemen - all lost), he is justly famous for his Histories. The work focused on the period 220-168 when Rome established her control over most of the inhabited world, which Polybius saw as a unique event, but it also covered the years 264-220 and 186-146. Parts of the 40 books exist in their entirety, parts in excerpts.” [56] Strabo, born in 64 BCE, "... wrote Historical Memoranda in 47 books, from the end of Polybius to (?) the fall of Alexandria to Octavian, and notably 17 books (which survive) of geography-in which he includes much history, legend, antiquities, and ethnography- with explicit awareness of their potential utility to public men. The Geography invaluably preserves much information about the work of the earlier Greek geographers, especially the great Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes.”[57]
♠ Philosophy ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ Scientific literature ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ Fiction ♣ inferred present ♥


Money

♠ Articles ♣ present ♥
♠ Tokens ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ Precious metals ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ ♥ unknown
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ present ♥ Bronze coins were cast from the time of the early Cappadocian dynasts.[58][59]
♠ Paper currency ♣ inferred absent ♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Postal stations ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ General postal service ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Alice Williams ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ ♥
♠ Bronze ♣ ♥
♠ Iron ♣ ♥
♠ Steel ♣ ♥

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ ♥
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥ New World weapon
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ Many ancient armies used slingers. Vulnerable to counter-attacks, slinger units were usually small and used at the start of the battle. Because of the training required to produce and effective slinger they were often hired mercenaries.[60] “Inscribed sling bullets provide a better parallel to the coinage we are studying. Sling bullets are often inscribed with a personal name, either in the nominative or in the genitive.” [61]
♠ Self bow ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on the presence of the bow in the contemporary Pontic kingdom.[62] "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE. The Scythian bow was different from the Mesopotamian one primarily in its overall dimensions - it was smaller so that it could be used from the horseback. At the same time, self bows were also in use, but because of their large size they were not suitable for use by horse riders."[63] Bows were used by the Greeks and Romans but they didn't place much emphasis on the bow as a weapon preferring instead infantry combat.[64]
♠ Composite bow ♣ present ♥ "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE. The Scythian bow was different from the Mesopotamian one primarily in its overall dimensions - it was smaller so that it could be used from the horseback. At the same time, self bows were also in use, but because of their large size they were not suitable for use by horse riders."[65] Bows were used by the Greeks and Romans but they didn't place much emphasis on the bow as a weapon preferring instead infantry combat.[66]
♠ Crossbow ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Likely in some form?: "the hand-held crossbow was invented by the Chinese, in the fifth century BC, and probably came into the Roman world in the first century AD, where it was used for hunting."[67] The crossbow also developed after the Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE.[68]
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥ not invented yet
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent ♥ not invented yet

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ ♥
♠ Battle axes ♣ ♥
♠ Daggers ♣ ♥
♠ Swords ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on the presence of swords in the contemporary Pontic kingdom [69], and the battles which Cappadocia fought in. "All armies after the seventeenth century B.C.E. carried the sword, but in none was it a major weapon of close combat; rather, it was used when the soldier's primary weapons, the spear and axe, were lost or broken."[70]
♠ Spears ♣ inferred present ♥ Spear-using phalanx first used in Sumer 2500 BCE. The phalanx was in use until the 1st century BCE.[71]
♠ Polearms ♣ ♥

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ ♥
♠ Donkeys ♣ ♥
♠ Horses ♣ present ♥ Horsemen are depicted on coins from the early Cappadocian dynasts [72]
♠ Camels ♣ ♥
♠ Elephants ♣ ♥

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ ♥
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [73][74]
♠ Steel ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [75][76]
♠ Shields ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [77][78]
♠ Helmets ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [79][80]
♠ Breastplates ♣ present ♥ Inferred, based on presence in the contemporary Pontic kingdom. [81][82]
♠ Limb protection ♣ inferred present ♥ By the time of 'Etruscan Rome' (400 BCE?) - here I believe the author is referring to ancient armies in general - "bronze greaves to protect the shins and forearms of the soldier were standard items of military equipment."[83]
♠ Chainmail ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Iron chain mail not introduced until the third century BCE, probably by Celtic peoples.[84] May have reached Cappadocia by this time.
♠ Scaled armor ♣ ♥
♠ Laminar armor ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Possible. Already introduced by the Assyrians.
♠ Plate armor ♣ inferred present ♥ By 600 BCE early Greeks and Romans had introduced the bronze cast bell muscle cuirass.[85]

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ absent ♥ Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥ Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ absent ♥ Inferred, as Cappadocia is landlocked.

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Ditch ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Moat ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ inferred present ♥ When Byzantine generals later campaigned against the Turks they used the earthquake-ruined wall of Cappadocia (Caesarea) as a fortified camp.[86]
♠ Fortified camps ♣ inferred present ♥ “Assuming that hypaithrou and Tyana also designate intended users, the coins attest to a disposition of troops both in Tyana’s famous fortress and outside the city in a strategic encampment.” [87]
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Long walls ♣ ♥
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥ gunpowder not used

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ ♥
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ ♥
♠ Impeachment ♣ ♥

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ present ♥ Ariarathid dynasty.

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni; Jenny Reddish ♥ EC solely in charge of religious variables, and indeed, most of the data EC used gathered by JR for the Achaemenids.

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ present ♥ The Cyrus Cylinder (composed by priests of Marduk as a record of Cyrus the Great's conquest of Babylon and his proclamations) records that 'Bel-Marduk cast his eye over all countries, seeking for a righteous ruler ... Then he called by name Cyrus, King of Anshan, and pronounced him ruler of the lands'. Bel-Marduk was the 'national god' of the Babylonians [88][89] Because he 'released all the exiles and enslaved peoples' from Babylon, including the Jews, Cyrus the Great also occupies an extraordinary position in the Hebrew canon.[90] The book of Isaiah calls Cyrus the Lord's 'anointed' and his 'shepherd'.[91] Schmitt says that although the Achaemenid kings were not gods or descendants of gods, 'the other fundamental basis of their kingship beside the genealogical principle is the theory of divine right of kings, Gottesgnadentum. They are kings vasna Auramazdaha, "by the favor of Ahura Mazda;" it is unthinkable that Darius would have erected an inscription saying that "he obtained the Persian kingship by the excellence of his horse and groom," as claimed in Herodotus 3.88.3. This supreme god "bestowed the empire" (xsacam frabara) on the kings. As these and similar expressions show, the Achaemenids' reign is legitimized by the gods, and the king is invested by them; i.e., he is their elect and their representative on earth ... These two principles, the dynastic one and that of divine right, belong to contrasting areas and periods—respectively, to prehistoric nomad tribes of Indo-European origin and to the highly civilized Mesopotamian peoples.'[92] Though scant, sources suggest continuity with the Achaemenid Empire, including in matters of religion: "The sources shed little light on Cappadocia. [...] The portrait which emerges of Cappadocia in these sources is one of continuity: of an Achaemenid political and economic landscape which, although strongly influenced throughout its history by western models and the demands of its frontier, lasted into the later Roman empire. [...] Iranian religious practices survived (Strabo 15.733, cf. Pausanias, 5.27 for west Asian parallel), and the landscape was dotted with sanctuaries of Iranian or Iranized deities." [93]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ absent ♥ 'The Achaemenid kings were no gods, in spite of Aeschylus (Persae 157), where Queen Atossa is called "a god's [Darius'] wife" and "a god's [Xerxes'] mother" (here and elsewhere Greek ideas are brought forward); and they were not of divine origin.'[94] Though scant, sources suggest continuity with the Achaemenid Empire, including in matters of religion: "The sources shed little light on Cappadocia. [...] The portrait which emerges of Cappadocia in these sources is one of continuity: of an Achaemenid political and economic landscape which, although strongly influenced throughout its history by western models and the demands of its frontier, lasted into the later Roman empire. [...] Iranian religious practices survived (Strabo 15.733, cf. Pausanias, 5.27 for west Asian parallel), and the landscape was dotted with sanctuaries of Iranian or Iranized deities." [95]

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ present ♥ The Avestas contain evidence of the 'egalitarian ideals' of Zoroastrianism.[96] However, the paragraphs below cover contexts in the Achaemenid Empire in which religion was utilized to reinforce inequality of various forms: there is something of a gap between religious doctrine (especially concerning eschatology) and the use of religious imagery and rhetoric by those in power. Alternatively, we could say that maintaining that (for example) men and women can both attain salvation after death does not necessarily mean advocating gender equality in this world. Though scant, sources suggest continuity with the Achaemenid Empire, including in matters of religion: "The sources shed little light on Cappadocia. [...] The portrait which emerges of Cappadocia in these sources is one of continuity: of an Achaemenid political and economic landscape which, although strongly influenced throughout its history by western models and the demands of its frontier, lasted into the later Roman empire. [...] Iranian religious practices survived (Strabo 15.733, cf. Pausanias, 5.27 for west Asian parallel), and the landscape was dotted with sanctuaries of Iranian or Iranized deities." [97]

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ absent ♥ Although Zoroastrian eschatology held that the potential for resurrection and salvation was universal,[98] the religion as practised in the Achaemenid Empire, and particularly as interpreted by Achaemenid rulers, did not tend to stress the essential equality of kings and commoners (perhaps unsurprisingly). The kings used public inscriptions to proclaim their special status and right to rule, divinely bestowed by the great Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda. Most famously, Darius I's Behistun inscription says: 'By the will of Ahuramazda I am king. Ahuramazda gave me kingship', repeating similar formulations throughout the text.[99] Though scant, sources suggest continuity with the Achaemenid Empire, including in matters of religion: "The sources shed little light on Cappadocia. [...] The portrait which emerges of Cappadocia in these sources is one of continuity: of an Achaemenid political and economic landscape which, although strongly influenced throughout its history by western models and the demands of its frontier, lasted into the later Roman empire. [...] Iranian religious practices survived (Strabo 15.733, cf. Pausanias, 5.27 for west Asian parallel), and the landscape was dotted with sanctuaries of Iranian or Iranized deities." [100]
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ absent ♥ A passage from Shaki's article suggests that in Zoroastrian thought, elites were understood as cosmologically distinct from other social groups: 'The omniscient Mazdean religion is likened to a mighty tree with one trunk (the mean), two main boughs (action and abstention), three branches (good thoughts, good words, and good deeds), four small branches (the estates of the priests, warriors, husbandmen, and artisans), five roots (the lord of the house, the village headman, the tribal chieftain, the ruler, and the highest religious authority, the representative of Zoroaster on earth ...), and above them all the head of all heads ... the king of kings, the ruler of the whole world.'[101]
♠ production of public goods ♣ present ♥ Balali, Keulartz and Korthals link Zoroastrian ethics to the construction of qanats, an ancient irrigation system, in pre-Islamic Iran. Through the Zoroastrian exhortation to carry out 'good deeds', they argue that the worshipper 'is directed to relieve the poor, to irrigate and cultivate the soil, to provide food and fresh water in places where needed, and to devote the surplus of his wealth in charity to the well-being and prosperity of his fellow man'.[102] However, the focus of their article is on the lessons we could learn from 'traditional' systems of water management, rather than on rigorous historical analysis. It is unclear to what extent Achaemenid-period worshippers of Ahura Mazda actually laboured to produce public goods, directed solely by their religious values. Though scant, sources suggest continuity with the Achaemenid Empire, including in matters of religion: "The sources shed little light on Cappadocia. [...] The portrait which emerges of Cappadocia in these sources is one of continuity: of an Achaemenid political and economic landscape which, although strongly influenced throughout its history by western models and the demands of its frontier, lasted into the later Roman empire. [...] Iranian religious practices survived (Strabo 15.733, cf. Pausanias, 5.27 for west Asian parallel), and the landscape was dotted with sanctuaries of Iranian or Iranized deities." [103]

Moralizing Supernatural Powers

♠ Moral concern is primary ♣ absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is certain ♣ absent ♥
♠ Moralizing norms are broad ♣ absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is targeted ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement of rulers ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by elites ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by commoners ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in afterlife ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in this life ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is agentic ♣ present ♥

These data were reviewed by expert advisors and consultants. For a detailed description of these data, refer to the relevant Analytic Narratives, reference tables, and acknowledgements page. [104] [105] [106]

References

  1. Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p15-16
  2. Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p15-16
  3. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75.
  4. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth.
  5. Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472
  6. Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90
  7. Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre, p45-46
  8. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432
  9. Dmitriev, S. (2006) Cappadocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3, pp. 285-297.
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Cappadocia
  11. Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472
  12. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p71-71; 106-107
  13. Rubinsohn, W. Z. (1993) Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos and Rome's conquest of the Hellenistic East. Mediterranean Historical Review, 8(1), pp. 5-54. p18-19
  14. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41
  15. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54
  16. McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85
  17. Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164
  18. Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477. p472
  19. Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90
  20. McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77
  21. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63
  22. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2
  23. (Ma, 2003, p188)
  24. (Ansen 1988, 471) E M Ansen. 1988. Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477.
  25. (Simonetta 1977) B Simonetta. 1977. The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre.
  26. (Dimitriev 2006, 286) S Dmitriev. 2006. Cappadocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 55, H. 3, pp. 285-297.
  27. (Rostovtzeff 1941, 838) M Rostovtzeff. 1941. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  28. (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 134) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London.
  29. (Smith ed. 1869, 469) Smith, William. ed. 1869. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume 1. James Walton.
  30. (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 134) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London.
  31. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432
  32. Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p838
  33. Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p105
  34. Ma, J. (2003). Kings. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp177-195. p183-184
  35. Potter, D. (2003) Hellenistic Religion. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp 407-430. p424-425
  36. Sökmen, E. (2009) Characteristics of the Temple States in Pontos. In, Højte, J. M. (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p279-280
  37. Sökmen, E. (2009) Characteristics of the Temple States in Pontos. In, Højte, J. M. (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p280
  38. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p91-3
  39. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p91-3
  40. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p446-7
  41. Potter, D. (2003) Hellenistic Religion. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp 407-430. p424-425
  42. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p440
  43. (Ma, 2003, p188)
  44. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p440
  45. Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98
  46. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p93
  47. Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98
  48. Højte, J. M. (2009) The Administrative Organisation of the Pontic Kingdom. In, Højte, J. M (ed.)Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus University Press. p98
  49. Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p820
  50. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75. p68
  51. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth. p226
  52. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196
  53. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196
  54. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172
  55. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172, 196
  56. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p171-172
  57. Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford. p196
  58. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
  59. Simonetta, B. (1977) The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings. Fribourg: Office du Livre.
  60. (Gabriel 2002, 31) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  61. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p444
  62. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. p95
  63. Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
  64. (Gabriel 2002, 29) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  65. Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
  66. (Gabriel 2002, 29) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  67. (Nicholson 2004, 99) Helen Nicholson. 2004. Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300-1500. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke.
  68. (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
  69. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  70. (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  71. (Gabriel 2002, 25) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  72. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p432
  73. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  74. Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.
  75. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  76. Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.
  77. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  78. Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.
  79. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  80. Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.
  81. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill.
  82. Erciyas, D. B. (2006) Wealth, Aristocracy and Royal Propaganda under the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Mithradatids. Colloquia Pontica: Brill, Leiden, Boston.
  83. (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
  84. (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  85. (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
  86. (Van Dam 2003, 189) Raymond Van Dam. 2003, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.
  87. Iossif, P. P and Lorber, C. C. (2010) Hypaithros: A Numismatic Contribution to the Military History of Cappadocia. Historia, Band 59/4, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. p445
  88. (Shahbazi 2012, 124) A. Shapour Shahbazi. 2012. 'The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE)', in The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, ed. Touraj Daryaee, 120-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  89. (Dandamayev 1993) Muhammad A. Dandamayev. 1993. 'Cyrus iv: The Cyrus Cylinder', Encyclopædia Iranica VI/4; pp. 521-22; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-iv (accessed on 4 May 2016).
  90. (Shahbazi 2012, 124) Shapour Shahbazi, A. 2012. 'The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550‒330 BCE)', in The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, ed. Touraj Daryaee, 120-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  91. Isaiah 44:28, 45:1, New Revised Standard Version.
  92. (Schmitt 1983) R. Schmitt. 1983. 'Achaemenid Dynasty,' Encyclopædia Iranica, I/4, pp. 414-426; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty (accessed on 5 May 2016).
  93. Weiskopf, M. 1990. 'Cappadocia,' Encyclopaedia Iranica IV/7-8 pp. 780-786; an updated version is available online at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cappadocia (accessed 15 June 2016)
  94. (Schmitt 1983) R. Schmitt. 1983. 'Achaemenid Dynasty,' Encyclopædia Iranica, I/4, pp. 414-426; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenid-dynasty (accessed on 5 May 2016).
  95. Weiskopf, M. 1990. 'Cappadocia,' Encyclopaedia Iranica IV/7-8 pp. 780-786; an updated version is available online at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cappadocia (accessed 15 June 2016)
  96. (Goldman 2012) Leon Goldman. 2012. 'Women ii: In the Avesta,' Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/women-ii-avesta (accessed on 19 May 2016).
  97. Weiskopf, M. 1990. 'Cappadocia,' Encyclopaedia Iranica IV/7-8 pp. 780-786; an updated version is available online at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cappadocia (accessed 15 June 2016)
  98. (Shaked 1998) Shaul Shaked. 1998. 'Eschatology i: In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence,' Encyclopædia Iranica, VIII/6, pp. 565-69; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eschatology-i (accessed on 19 May 2016).
  99. (Frye 1984, 363) Richard N. Frye. 1984. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
  100. Weiskopf, M. 1990. 'Cappadocia,' Encyclopaedia Iranica IV/7-8 pp. 780-786; an updated version is available online at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cappadocia (accessed 15 June 2016)
  101. (Shaki 1994) Mansour Shaki. 1994. 'Den,' Encyclopædia Iranica, VII/3, pp. 279-81; an updated version is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/den (accessed on 24 May 2016).
  102. (Balali, Keulartz and Korthals 2009, 98) Mohammed Reza Balali, Josef Keulartz and Michiel Korthals. 2009. 'Reflexive Water Management in Arid Regions: The Case of Iran'. Environmental Values 18 (1): 91-112.
  103. Weiskopf, M. 1990. 'Cappadocia,' Encyclopaedia Iranica IV/7-8 pp. 780-786; an updated version is available online at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cappadocia (accessed 15 June 2016)
  104. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  105. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  106. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html