Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Centralized Power, Centralized Authority? Ideological Claims and Archaeological Patterns|
|Authors:||Morrison, Kathleen D.|
Lycett, Mark T.
|LC Subject Headings:||Prehistoric peoples--Asia--Periodicals.|
|Publisher:||University of Hawai'i Press (Honolulu)|
|Citation:||Morrison, K. D., and M. T. Lycett. 1994. Centralized Power, Centralized Authority? Ideological Claims and Archaeological Patterns. Asian Perspectives 33 (2): 327-50.|
|Series/Report no.:||Volume 33|
|Abstract:||Elite claims of power and authority may take material expression in both the archaeological and historical records. Such claims may be expressed through the renovation, rebuilding, realignment, or construction of monumental architecture; the appropriation of symbols of power and authority; or may be made outright in verbal and written media. The South Indian empire of Vijayanagara (c. A.D. 13001600) laid claim to a vast portion of the Indian subcontinent, but scholars agree neither on the nature nor the extent of power exercised by the imperial center. In this paper, we examine the ideological claims of the Vijayanagara political elite, as they are materially expressed. Specifically, we differentiate the forms and spatial extent of centralized power and centralized authority in the imperial "core" versus several "peripheral" regions through the distribution and form of fortifications and temples and through a quantitative spatial analysis of inscriptions. Such claims can be related to material conditions only in the "core" region; relationships between ideological claims and archaeological patterns in that area suggest avenues for future archaeological research in complex societies. KEYWORDS: Monumentality, South Asia, power, archaeological inference, Vijayanagara.|
|Appears in Collections:||Asian Perspectives, 1994 - Volume 33, Number 2 (Fall)|
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.