A few years ago I began a long quest to determine what exactly can be learned from royal and noble dynasties. By dynasties, I mean the general concept of a family and its descendants. For generations, the very term "dynasty" has come to be associated mostly with the 30-odd Egyptian and many Chinese dynasties. Sure, many other Mesopotamian royal families also have been classified as dynasties, but they are often labeled by their family name such as Pahlavi, Abbasid, Neo-Chaldean, etc. For some odd reason, the term dynasty never has really stuck to any historical family outside Egypt and China. Why is that?
China makes some sense. Traditionally, at least, it has a history of families ruling for hundreds of years. The Zhou Dynasty is said to have ruled for more than 800 years (and still had surviving descendants when it lost its land in 221 BCE). The problem with China is that dynasty almost always equates to Royal House, as it is called in the rest of the world. This is most apparent in the short Xin Dynasty (9 - 23 CE) which only produced a single, quasi-usurping emperor. Thus, in China, a dynasty equates to a Royal House.
Egypt, then, make less sense. But then in a strange way, it may make more sense. Whereas China equates dynasty to Royal House, Ancient Egyptian dynasties were only sometimes equatable to a family. In fact, Egyptian dynasties often split families into multiple dynasties despite the fact that the original compiler of the dynastic tradition in Egypt knew many family genealogies. This example is apparent in the Egyptian XVII and XVIII dynasties, where the last Pharaoh of the XVII Dynasty was the brother of the first Pharaoh of the XVIII Dynasty. This occurred in a similar fashion in the succeeding two dynasties where the pharaohs of the XX Dynasty were male-line (although unknown descent) descendants of the XIX Dynasty pharaohs. Perhaps, then, dynasties are not family trees at all, but rather periodic pinpoints noting the start and end of an era.
Oxford English Dictionary's definition is at most cryptic and at least establishes what a dynasty is not. The OED states that a dynasty is "a line of hereditary rulers of a country : the Tang dynasty." Alternatively, it also defines it as " a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field : the Ford dynasty." In other words, the dictionary is not certain. It sets the standard as a set of hereditary rulers, implying a genealogical relationship but not necessarily a descent from a common agnatic ancestor. Almost adverse to that definition, the second definition suggests that any family of prominence can be a dynasty, regardless of any royal or noble position. I believe that the true definition is somewhere in the middle.
To me, a dynasty is a sort of map of relationships. The Royal House is the center of that but not the whole. I personally do not consider the Ford family, as exampled above, a dynasty; rather they are just an influential American family. I believe that to be a true dynasty, a value of nobility must be present. The founder of a dynasty need not be a king or emperor or even a nobleman, but somewhere in that long line there must be someone of nobility present to establish the legitimacy of the line. Furthermore, the spouses of a dynasty are important. Not all of them, but many of them. The choice of bride or groom determines much in dynastic politics and creates the framework in which dynasties can truly be observed. Women, especially, serve as centerpoints of dynastic politics not only because they bring with them dowries and money, but because they too can sometimes bring titles of nobility. Georg Ludwig of Hanover would never had become King George I of Great Britain had his father, Ernest, not married the English heiress Sophia. Such seemingly minor details have caused wars, murder, and rebirth. How dynasties interact with other dynasties, therefore, is the most important issue in the area of dynastology.
As I stated at the beginning, this has been a long process and I am working to expand and improve upon it. The relationships between dynasties are vast, so I have created an entirely new area of historical study to examine it. Check my notes often for more posts as I will try to write on dynastology again whenever the muse strikes. Also, check my Wiktionary definition for a better explanation of this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whaleyland/Dynastology. Cheers!
P.S. I will work to define all my terms better next time. For those confused, Agnatic means descended from a male line. Think of your last name. That is usually from an agnatic descent.
No comments:
Post a Comment