document_title: Locus of control

question_text: who tends to see their fate as out of their control

root

text: Locus of control

text: History[edit]

text: Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social-learning theory of personality. In 1966 he published an article in Psychological Monographs which summarized over a decade of research (by Rotter and his students), much of it previously unpublished. In 1976, Herbert M. Lefcourt defined the perceived locus of control: "...a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements".[6] Attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate background lies in the work of Rotter and his students. Early work on the topic of expectations about control of reinforcement had been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares (prepared for unpublished doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at The Ohio State University).[7]

tag: p

text: Another Rotter student, William H. James studied two types of "expectancy shifts":

text:
Typical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a similar outcome
Atypical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a dissimilar outcome

tag: ul

text:
Weiner's attribution theory asapplied to student motivation

Perceived locus of control

Internal

External

Attributions of no control

Ability

Chance/luck

Attributions of control

Effort

Task difficulty

tag: table

text: Additional research led to the hypothesis that typical expectancy shifts were displayed more often by those who attributed their outcomes to ability, whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy were more likely to attribute their outcomes to chance. This was interpreted that people could be divided into those who attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause). Bernard Weiner argued that rather than ability-versus-luck, locus may relate to whether attributions are made to stable or unstable causes.

text: Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of the internal-versus-external construct.

text: Personality orientation[edit]

text: Rotter (1975) cautioned that internality and externality represent two ends of a continuum, not an either/or typology. Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. People who have internal locus of control believe that the outcomes of their actions are results of their own abilities. Internals believe that their hard work would lead them to obtain positive outcomes.[8] They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen and it depends on them if they want to have control over it or not. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an external locus of control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control,[9] and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, the influence of powerful others (such as doctors, the police, or government officials) and/or a belief that the world is too complex for one to predict or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for their lives' outcomes. It should not be thought, however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution to effort and externality with attribution to luck (as Weiner's work – see below –  makes clear). This has obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of need for achievement. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression.[10]

text: Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics: high achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus-of-control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although it was based on Rotter's belief that locus of control is a single construct. Since 1970, Rotter's assumption of uni-dimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson (for example) arguing that different dimensions of locus of control (such as beliefs that events in one's life are self-determined, or organized by powerful others and are chance-based) must be separated. Weiner's early work in the 1970s suggested that orthogonal to the internality-externality dimension, differences should be considered between those who attribute to stable and those who attribute to unstable causes.[11]

text: This new, dimensional theory meant that one could now attribute outcomes to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause). Although this was how Weiner originally saw these four causes, he has been challenged as to whether people see luck (for example) as an external cause, whether ability is always perceived as stable, and whether effort is always seen as changing. Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) he uses different terms for these four causes (such as "objective task characteristics" instead of "task difficulty" and "chance" instead of "luck"). Psychologists since Weiner have distinguished between stable and unstable effort, knowing that in some circumstances effort could be seen as a stable cause (especially given the presence of words such as "industrious" in English).

text: Regarding locus of control, there is another type of control that entails a mix among the internal and external types. People that have the combination of the two types of locus of control are often referred to as Bi-locals. People that have Bi-local characteristics are known to handle stress and cope with their diseases more efficiently by having the mixture of internal and external locus of control.[9] People that have this mix of loci of control can take personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof while remaining capable of relying upon and having faith in outside resources; these characteristics correspond to the internal and external loci of control, respectively. An example of this mixed system would be an alcoholic who will accept the fact that he brought the disease upon himself while remaining open to treatment and/or acknowledging that there are people, mainly doctors and therapists, that are trying to cure his/her addiction, and on whom he should rely.

text: Measuring scales[edit]

text: The most widely used questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 23-item (plus six filler items), forced-choice scale of Rotter (1966). However, this is not the only questionnaire; Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children predates Rotter's work. Also relevant to the locus-of-control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale (Crandall, 1965) and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.[12] One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control (using a Likert-type scale, in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure in Rotter's scale) was that devised by W. H. James for his unpublished doctoral dissertation, supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University; however, this remains unpublished.[13]

text: Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale. These were reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) and include those related to health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology and those specifically for children (such as the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Control Index[14][15] for three- to six-year-olds). Furnham and Steele (1993) cite data suggesting that the most reliable, valid questionnaire for adults is the Duttweiler scale. For a review of the health questionnaires cited by these authors, see "Applications" below.

text: The Duttweiler (1984) Internal Control Index (ICI) addresses perceived  problems with the Rotter scales, including their forced-choice format, susceptibility to social desirability and heterogeneity (as indicated by  factor analysis). She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems".[16] Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale, Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale in which people must state whether they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified in each of 28 statements. The ICI assess variables pertinent to internal locus: cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and delay of gratification. A small (133 student-subject) validation study indicated that the scale had good internal reliability (a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85).[17]

text: Attributional style[edit]

text: Attributional style (or explanatory style) is a concept introduced by Lyn Yvonne Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale.[18] This concept advances a stage further than Weiner, stating that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and stability a dimension of globality-specificity is also needed. Abramson et al. believed that how people explained successes and failures in their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, short-term or long-term factors, and factors that affected all situations.

text: The topic of attribution theory (introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider) has had an influence on locus of control theory, but there are important historical differences between the two models. Attribution theorists have been predominantly social psychologists, concerned with the general processes characterizing how and why people make the attributions they do, whereas locus of control theorists have been concerned with individual differences.

text: Significant to the history of both approaches are the contributions made by Bernard Weiner in the 1970s. Before this time, attribution theorists and locus of control theorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability (and later controllability), indicating how a cause could be perceived as having been internal to a person yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to the understanding of why people succeed or fail after such outcomes. Although not part of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution, that of globality-specificity, was added by Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale.

text: Applications[edit]

text: Locus of control's best known application may have been in the area of health psychology, largely due to the work of Kenneth Wallston. Scales to measure locus of control in the health domain were reviewed by Furnham and Steele  in 1993. The best-known are the Health Locus of Control Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale, or MHLC.[19] The latter scale is based on the idea (echoing Levenson's earlier work) that health may be attributed to three sources: internal factors (such as self-determination of a healthy lifestyle), powerful others (such as one's doctor) or luck (which is very dangerous as lifestyle advice will be ignored – these people are very difficult to help).

text: Some of the scales reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) relate to health in more specific domains, such as obesity (for example, Saltzer's (1982) Weight Locus of Control Scale or Stotland and Zuroff's (1990) Dieting Beliefs Scale), mental health (such as Wood and Letak's (1982) Mental Health Locus of Control Scale or the Depression Locus of Control Scale of Whiteman, Desmond and Price, 1987) and cancer (the Cancer Locus of Control Scale of Pruyn et al., 1988). In discussing applications of the concept to health psychology Furnham and Steele refer to Claire Bradley's work, linking locus of control to the management of diabetes mellitus. Empirical data on health locus of control in a number of fields was reviewed by Norman and Bennett in 1995; they note that data on whether certain health-related behaviors are related to internal health locus of control have been ambiguous. They note that some studies found that internal health locus of control is linked with increased exercise, but cite other studies which found a weak (or no) relationship between exercise behaviors (such as jogging) and internal health locus of control. A similar ambiguity is noted for data on the relationship between internal health locus of control and other health-related behaviors (such as breast self-examination, weight control and preventative-health behavior). Of particular interest are the data cited on the relationship between internal health locus of control and alcohol consumption.

text: Norman and Bennett note that some studies that compared alcoholics with non-alcoholics suggest alcoholism is linked to increased externality for health locus of control; however, other studies have linked alcoholism with increased internality. Similar ambiguity has been found in studies of alcohol consumption in the general, non-alcoholic population. They are more optimistic in reviewing the literature on the relationship between internal health locus of control and smoking cessation, although they also point out that there are grounds for supposing that powerful-others and internal-health loci of control may be linked with this behavior. It is thought that, rather than being caused by one or the other, that alcoholism is directly related to the strength of the locus, regardless of type, internal or external.

text: They argue that a stronger relationship is found when health locus of control is assessed for specific domains than when general measures are taken. Overall, studies using behavior-specific health locus scales have tended to produce more positive results.[20] These scales have been found to be more predictive of general behavior than more general scales, such as the MHLC scale.[21] Norman and Bennett cite several studies that used health-related locus-of-control scales in specific domains (including smoking cessation),[22] diabetes,[23] tablet-treated diabetes,[24] hypertension,[25] arthritis,[26] cancer,[27] and heart and lung disease.[28]

text: They also argue that health locus of control is better at predicting health-related behavior if studied in conjunction with health value (the value people attach to their health), suggesting that health value is an important moderator variable in the health locus of control relationship. For example, Weiss and Larsen (1990) found an increased relationship between internal health locus of control and health when health value was assessed.[29] Despite the importance Norman and Bennett attach to specific measures of locus of control, there are general textbooks on personality which cite studies linking internal locus of control with improved physical health, mental health and quality of life in people with diverse conditions: HIV, migraines, diabetes, kidney disease and epilepsy.[30]

text: During the 1970s and 1980s, Whyte correlated locus of control with the academic success of students enrolled in higher-education courses. Students who were more internally controlled believed that hard work and focus would result in successful academic progress, and they performed better academically. Those students who were identified as more externally controlled (believing that their future depended upon luck or fate) tended to have lower academic-performance levels.  Cassandra B. Whyte researched how control tendency influenced behavioral outcomes in the academic realm by examining the effects of various modes of counseling on grade improvements and the locus of control of high-risk college students.[31][32][33]

text: Rotter also looked at studies regarding the correlation between gambling and either an internal or external locus of control.  For internals, gambling is more reserved.  When betting, they primarily focus on safe and moderate wagers.  Externals, however, take more chances and, for example, bet more on a card or number that has not appeared for a certain period, under the notion that this card or number has a higher chance of occurring.[34]

text: Organizational psychology and religion[edit]

text: Other fields to which the concept has been applied include industrial and organizational psychology, sports psychology, educational psychology and the psychology of religion. Richard Kahoe has published work in the latter field, suggesting that intrinsic religious orientation correlates positively (and extrinsic religious orientation correlates negatively) with internal locus.[35] Of relevance to both health psychology and the psychology of religion is the work of Holt, Clark, Kreuter and Rubio (2003) on a questionnaire to assess spiritual-health locus of control. The authors distinguished between an active spiritual-health locus of control (in which "God empowers the individual to take healthy actions"[36]) and a more passive spiritual-health locus of control (where health is left up to God). In industrial and organizational psychology, it has been found that internals are more likely to take positive action to change their jobs (rather than merely talk about occupational change) than externals.[37][38]

text: Consumer research[edit]

text:
Locus of control has also been applied to the field of consumer research. For example, Martin, Veer and Pervan (2007) examined how the weight locus of control of women (i.e., beliefs about the control of body weight) influence how they react to female models in advertising of different body shapes. They found that women who believe they can control their weight ("internals"), respond most favorably to slim models in advertising, and this favorable response is mediated by self-referencing. In contrast, women who feel powerless about their weight ("externals"), self-reference larger-sized models, but
only prefer larger-sized models when the advertisement is for a non-fattening product. For fattening products, they exhibit a similar preference for larger-sized models and slim models. The weight locus of control measure was also found to be correlated with measures for weight control beliefs and  willpower.[39]

text: Political ideology[edit]

text: Locus of control has been linked to political ideology. In the 1972 U.S. Presidential election, research of college students found that those with an internal locus of control were substantially more likely to register as a Republican, while those with an external locus of control were substantially more likely to register as a Democrat.[40] A 2011 study surveying students at Cameron University in Oklahoma found similar results,[41] although these studies were limited in scope.

text: Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be of higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to be politically involved (e.g., following political news, joining a political organization)[42] Those with an internal locus of control are also more likely to vote.[43][44]

text: Familial origins[edit]

text: The development of locus of control is associated with family style and resources, cultural stability and experiences with effort leading to reward.[citation needed] Many internals have grown up with families modeling typical internal beliefs; these families emphasized effort, education, responsibility and thinking, and parents typically gave their children rewards they had promised them. In contrast, externals are typically associated with lower socioeconomic status. Societies experiencing social unrest increase the expectancy of being out-of-control; therefore, people in such societies become more external.[45]

text: The 1995 research of Schneewind suggests that "children in large single parent families headed by women are more likely to develop an external locus of control".[46][citation needed] Schultz and Schultz also claim that children in families where parents have been supportive and consistent in discipline develop internal locus of control. At least one study has found that children whose parents had an external locus of control are more likely to attribute their successes and failures to external causes.[47] Findings from early studies on the familial origins of locus of control were summarized by Lefcourt: "Warmth, supportiveness and parental encouragement seem to be essential for development of an internal locus".[48] However, causal evidence regarding how parental locus of control influences offspring locus of control (whether genetic, or environmentally mediated) is lacking.

text: Locus of control becomes more internal with age. As children grow older, they gain skills which give them more control over their environment. However, whether this or biological development is responsible for changes in locus is unclear.[45]

text: Age[edit]

text: It is sometimes assumed that as people age they will become less internal and more external, but data here have been ambiguous.[49][50] Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and Karel imply that internality may increase until middle age, decreasing thereafter.[51][52] Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly to increased externality (rather than reduced internality) if the two concepts are taken to be orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005) suggests that locus of control increases in internality until middle age. The authors also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between ages eight and fourteen.[53][54]

text: Health locus of control is how people measure and understand how people relate their health to their behavior, health status and how long it may take to recover from a disease.[9] Locus of control can influence how people think and react towards their health and health decisions. Each day we are exposed to potential diseases that may affect our health. The way we approach that reality has a lot to do with our locus of control. Sometimes it is expected to see older adults experience progressive declines in their health, for this reason it is believed that their health locus of control will be affected.[9] However, this does not necessarily mean that their locus of control will be affected negatively but older adults may experience decline in their health and this can show lower levels of internal locus of control.

text: Age plays an important role in one's internal and external locus of control. When comparing a young child and an older adult with their levels of locus of control in regards to health, the older person will have more control over their attitude and approach to the situation. As people age they become aware of the fact that events outside of their own control happen and that other individuals can have control of their health outcomes.[9]

text: A study published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine examined the health effect of childhood locus of control. 7,500 British adults (followed from birth), who had shown an internal locus of control at age 10, were less likely to be overweight at age 30. The children who had an internal locus of control also appeared to have higher levels of self-esteem.[55]

text: Gender-based differences[edit]

text: As Schultz and Schultz (2005) point out, significant gender differences in locus of control have not been found for adults in the U.S. population. However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for specific categories of items to assess locus of control; for example, they cite evidence that men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic achievement.[56][57]

text: A study made by Takaki and colleagues (2006), focused on the gender differences with relationship to internal locus of control and self-efficacy in hemodialysis patients and their compliance.[58] This study showed that females that had high internal locus of control were less compliant in regards to their health and medical advice compared to the men that participated in this study. Compliance is known to be the degree in which a person's behavior, in this case the patient, has a relationship with the medical advice. For example, a person that is compliant will correctly follow his/her doctor's advice.

text: Cross-cultural and regional issues[edit]

text: The question of whether people from different cultures vary in locus of control has long been of interest to social psychologists. Japanese people tend to be more external in locus-of-control orientation than people in the U.S.; however, differences in locus of control between different countries within Europe (and between the U.S. and Europe) tend to be small.[59] As Berry et al. pointed out in 1992, ethnic groups within the United States have been compared on locus of control; African Americans in the U.S. are more external than whites when socioeconomic status is controlled.[60][61] Berry et al. also pointed out in 1992 how research on other ethnic minorities in the U.S. (such as Hispanics) has been ambiguous. More on cross-cultural variations in locus of control can be found in Shiraev and Levy (2004). Research in this area indicates that locus of control has been a useful concept for researchers in cross-cultural psychology.

text: On a less broad scale, Sims and Baumann explained how regions in the United States cope with natural disasters differently.  The example they used was tornados.  They "applied Rotter's theory to explain why more people have died in tornado[e]s in Alabama than in Illinois".[62]  They explain that after giving surveys to residents of four counties in both Alabama and Illinois, Alabama residents were shown to be more external in their way of thinking about events that occur in their lives.  Illinois residents, however, were more internal.  Because Alabama residents had a more external way of processing information, they took fewer precautions prior to the appearance of a tornado.  Those in Illinois, however, were more prepared, thus leading to fewer casualties.[63]

text: Self-efficacy[edit]

text: Self-efficacy is a person's belief that he or she can accomplish a particular activity.[64] It is a related concept introduced by Albert Bandura, and has been measured by means of a psychometric scale.[65] It differs from locus of control by relating to competence in circumscribed situations and activities (rather than more general cross-situational beliefs about control). Bandura has also emphasised differences between self-efficacy and self-esteem, using examples where low self-efficacy (for instance, in ballroom dancing) are unlikely to result in low self-esteem because competence in that domain is not very important to an individual. Although individuals may have a high internal health locus of control and feel in control of their own health, they may not feel efficacious in performing a specific treatment regimen that is essential to maintaining their own health.[66] Self-efficacy plays an important role in one's health because when people feel that they have self-efficacy over their health conditions, the effects of their health becomes less of a stressor.

text: Smith (1989) has argued that locus of control only weakly measures self-efficacy; "only a subset of items refer directly to the subject's capabilities".[67] Smith noted that training in coping skills led to increases in self-efficacy, but did not affect locus of control as measured by Rotter's 1966 scale.

text: Stress[edit]

text: The previous section showed how self-efficacy can be related to a person's locus of control, and stress also has a relationship in these areas. Self-efficacy can be something that people use to deal with the stress that they are faced with in their everyday lives. Some findings suggest that higher levels of external locus of control combined with lower levels self-efficacy are related to higher illness-related psychological distress.[66] In the previous section, the different types of locus of control, internal and external, were mentioned. Based on the definition of people who have an external locus of control, we can see that this can be associated with higher levels of stress. A study conducted by Bollini and others reveals that individuals who have a high external locus of control tend to have higher levels of psychological and physical problems. These people are also more vulnerable to external influences and as a result they become more responsive to stress.[66]

text: Veterans of the military forces who have spinal cord injuries and post-traumatic stress are a good group to look at in regards to locus of control and stress. Aging shows to be a very important factor that can be related to the severity of the symptoms of PTSD experienced by patients following the trauma of war.[68] Research suggests that patients who suffered a spinal cord injury benefit from knowing that they have control over their health problems and their disability, which reflects the characteristics of having internal locus of control.

text: A study by Chung et al. (2006) focused on how the responses of spinal cord injury post-traumatic stress varied depending on age. The researchers tested different age groups including young adults, middle-aged, and elderly; the average age was 25, 48 and 65 for each group respectively. After the study, they concluded that age does not make a difference on how spinal cord injury patients respond to the traumatic events that happened.[68] However, they did mention that age did play a role in the extent to which the external locus of control was used, and concluded that the young adult group demonstrated more external locus of control characteristics than the other age groups to which they were being compared.


document_title: Bed size

question_text: what size is a double bed in england

question_tokens: what size is a double bed in england

text: Bed size

text: Table of common sizes[edit]

text: Modern manufacturing conventions have produced many standard mattress and box spring sizes. Beds vary by country of origin as per the table below. These dimensions are for the mattress – actual bed frames are a little larger to accommodate the mattress. Mattress thickness varies considerably.

text:
Mattress size (width × length)

US & Canada
Australia
Ireland & UK
New Zealand
Continental Europe
Japan
Taiwan
Thailand
Singapore

Small single
or Cot
30 in × 75 in
76 cm × 191 cm

60 cm × 190 cm
24 in × 75 in

80 cm × 190 cm
31 in × 75 in
85 cm × 195 cm
33 in × 77 in
91 cm × 188 cm
36 in × 74 in

Single, Twin,
or Bunk
38[1] in × 75 in
97 cm × 191 cm
92 cm × 188 cm
36 in × 74 in
90 cm × 190 cm
35 in × 75 in
91 cm × 188 cm
36 in × 74 in
90 cm × 200 cm
35 in × 79 in
97 cm × 195 cm
38 in × 77 in
106 cm × 188 cm
42 in × 74 in
107 cm × 198 cm
42 in × 78 in
91 cm × 191 cm
36 in × 75 in

Twin extra long
38[2] in × 80 in
97 cm × 203 cm

91 cm × 203 cm
36 in × 80 in
90 cm × 210 cm
35 in × 83 in
97 cm × 205 cm
38 in × 81 in

King single
or Super single

107 cm × 203 cm
42 in × 80 in

107 cm × 203 cm
42 in × 80 in
120 cm × 200 cm
47 in × 79 in
110 cm × 195 cm
43 in × 77 in

107 cm × 191 cm
42 in × 75 in

Small double
or Three-quarter
48 in × 75 in
122 cm × 191 cm

120 cm × 190 cm
47 in × 75 in

122 cm × 195 cm
48 in × 77 in

Double or Full
54 in × 75 in
137 cm × 191 cm
138 cm × 188 cm
54 in × 74 in
135 cm × 190 cm
53 in × 75 in
137 cm × 188 cm
54 in × 74 in
140 cm × 200 cm
55 in × 79 in
140 cm × 195 cm
55 in × 77 in
152 cm × 188 cm
60 in × 74 in
122 cm × 198 cm
48 in × 78 in

Double extra long
54 in × 80 in
137 cm × 203 cm

140 cm × 205 cm
55 in × 81 in

Queen
60 in × 80 in
152 cm × 203 cm
153 cm × 203 cm
60 in × 80 in

153 cm × 203 cm
60 in × 80 in

154 cm × 195 cm
61 in × 77 in
182 cm × 188 cm
72 in × 74 in
152 cm × 198 cm
60 in × 78 in
152 cm × 191 cm
60 in × 75 in

Expanded, Super,
or Olympic queen
66 in × 80 in
168 cm × 203 cm

King
76 in × 80 in
193 cm × 203 cm or 78 in
198 cm square
183 cm × 203 cm
72 in × 80 in
152 cm × 198 cm
60 in × 78 in
167 cm × 203 cm
66 in × 80 in
160 cm × 200 cm
63 in × 79 in
170 cm × 195 cm
67 in × 77 in
182 cm × 212 cm
72 in × 83 in
183 cm × 198 cm
72 in × 78 in
183 cm × 191 cm
72 in × 75 in

California king
or King long
72 in × 84 in
183 cm × 213 cm
72 in × 84 in
183 cm × 213 cm

80 in × 80 in
203 cm × 203 cm

170 cm × 205 cm
67 in × 81 in

Grand king,
Super king,
Athletic King
or Texas king
80 in × 98 in
203 cm × 249 cm
203 cm × 203 cm
80 in × 80 in
180 cm × 200 cm
71 in × 79 in
183 cm × 203 cm
72 in × 80 in
180 cm × 200 cm
71 in × 79 in

194 cm × 205 cm
76 in × 81 in

text: Canada and United States[edit]

text: Standard sizes[edit]

text: Standard bed sizes in the US and Canada are:

text: Other sizes[edit]

text: Europe[edit]

text: UK and Ireland[edit]

text: Most modern beds/mattresses sold in the UK and Ireland are constructed using metric dimensions.

text:
Size
Dimensions
Notes

Small-single
75 cm × 190 cm (30 in × 75 in)[citation needed]
Common UK size for hospitality (zip & link) twin beds as beds can be combined to make a king bed.[citation needed]

European single
75 cm × 190 cm (30 in × 75 in)[citation needed]

Standard single
90 cm × 190 cm (35 in × 75 in)[citation needed]
Ireland standard hospitality sized single, two mattresses can be zip linked to make a Super king bed.

Small-double (Three Quarter)/Queen
120 cm × 190 cm (47 in × 75 in)[citation needed]

Standard Double
135 cm × 190 cm (53 in × 75 in)[citation needed]

King
152 cm × 198 cm (60 in × 78 in)[citation needed]

Extra-king
180 cm × 190 cm (71 in × 75 in)[citation needed]
Hospitality size formed by zip & linking two standard single beds together.[citation needed]

Superking
180 cm × 200 cm (71 in × 79 in)[citation needed]
Also known as "European King".

Eastern King
200 cm × 210 cm (79 in × 83 in)[citation needed]

Emperor
215 cm × 215 cm (85 in × 85 in)[citation needed]

Caesar
245 cm × 220 cm (96 in × 87 in)[citation needed]

text: It is worth noting that "bed size" in the UK generally refers to mattress size. This is because mattresses have a standard size grading, whereas bed frames do not. While many companies in the UK do offer bespoke bed making services, most mass-produced bed linens, bed frames and mattresses fit only the standard bed sizes above. It should be noted that a Queen size mattress in the UK is often misunderstood to be one of the larger sizes as is the case in many other parts of the world. However, at 120cm in width, it is smaller than a UK double. Another common mistake is to use a mattress size as the required space for the full dimensions of the bed and mattress.

text: France[edit]

text: Single size beds are usually 90 cm wide by 190 cm long.

text:
Most common sizes for double beds are:
140 cm wide by 190 cm long
160 cm wide by 200 cm long
180 cm wide by 200 cm long (less common, but increasing popularity).

text: Due to the popularity of imported beds (especially from IKEA), the 200 cm length is becoming more common.[citation needed]

text: Italy[edit]

text: In Italy, beds are classified by name and use the term Piazza as in "one place" Standard sizes are:[citation needed]

text: Less common:[citation needed]

text: Northern Europe[edit]

text: These sizes are for Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. There are some variations between the Nordic countries and the Baltic nations, but these are the most common sizes:

text: Single:

text:
80 cm × 190 cm (31 in × 75 in), traditional standard for bunk beds in Germany
90 cm × 190 cm (35 in × 75 in), traditional standard in Germany
75 cm × 200 cm (30 in × 79 in), standard in Norway[citation needed]
80 cm × 200 cm (31 in × 79 in)
90 cm × 200 cm (35 in × 79 in), standard single bed in Sweden and Germany.
90 cm × 210 cm (35 in × 83 in), common variant in Finland[citation needed]
90 cm × 200 cm (35 in × 79 in), common variant in The Netherlands
90 cm × 220 cm (35 in × 87 in), Xlarge variant in The Netherlands
100 cm × 200 cm (39 in × 79 in), now very common in Germany
105 cm × 200 cm (41 in × 79 in)
120 cm × 200 cm (47 in × 79 in)[citation needed]

text: Double:

text:
120 cm × 200 cm (47 in × 79 in), referred to as a "doubter" in the Netherlands, somewhat common for younger people
140 cm × 200 cm (55 in × 79 in)
150 cm × 200 cm (59 in × 79 in), common
160 cm × 200 cm (63 in × 79 in), very common[citation needed]
180 cm × 200 cm (71 in × 79 in), very common double bed in current Swedish and Norwegian standards[citation needed]
180 cm × 210 cm (71 in × 83 in), common variant in Finland[citation needed]
200 cm × 200 cm (79 in × 79 in) (very wide)

text: Most beds are 200 cm (79 in) cm long. Extra long beds are usually 220 cm (87 in), but they are rare.

text: Portugal[edit]

text: In Portugal the most common sizes for beds are:

text: Solteiro (single) 80 cm (31.5 inches) wide by 190 cm long (can go up to 105 cm wide by 200 cm long)

text: Casal (double) 140 cm (55 in) wide by 190, 195 or 200 cm long

text: Queen Size 160 cm (63 inches) or 180 cm (71 inches) wide by 190, 195 or 200 cm long

text: King Size 180 cm (71 inches) wide by 190, 195 or 200 cm long

text: Super King Size 200 cm (78.74 inches) wide by 200 cm long

text: Spain[edit]

text: In Spain the most common sizes are:

text: 180/190/200 cm long

text: 80/90/105/120/135/150 cm wide, the most common:

text: "Individual" (single) = 90 cm wide

text: "Matrimonio" (marital) = 135/150 cm wide

text: Switzerland[edit]

text: Single:

text:
70 cm × 200 cm (28 in × 79 in), only used for double beds with two separate mattresses
80 cm × 200 cm (31 in × 79 in), only used for double beds with two separate mattresses
90 cm × 200 cm (35 in × 79 in), common single bed
120 cm × 200 cm (47 in × 79 in), uncommon, mainly available as European-style futon beds that are sold with mattress, slats and frame

text: Double:

text:
140 cm × 200 cm (55 in × 79 in), common
160 cm × 200 cm (63 in × 79 in), common
180 cm × 200 cm (71 in × 79 in), common

text: Australia[edit]

text: The following bed sizes are available in Australia

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: The following bed sizes are available in New Zealand

text: South Africa[edit]

text: The following bed sizes are available in South Africa:

text: Beds are also available in extra length, which is 200 cm.

text: Singapore and Malaysia[edit]

text: The following bed sizes are available in Singapore and Malaysia:

text: China[edit]

text: In China, the regulation standard has following sizes available:[6]

text:
Length: 1900 mm, 1950 mm, 2000 mm, 2100 mm;
Width: Single: 800 mm, 900 mm, 1000 mm, 1100 mm, 1200 mm;
Width: Double: 1350 mm, 1400 mm, 1500 mm, 1800 mm.

text: In practice, bed sizes are usually categorized by the width. The length is typically two meters, but may vary. The most common sizes are:

text: There are also extra size beds available, but they are less common.


document_title: Kakatiya dynasty

question_text: which queen of the kakatiya dynasty ruled over warangal part of modern andhra pradesh

text: Kakatiya dynasty

text: Etymology and names

text: Studies of the inscriptions and coinage by the historian Dineshchandra Sircar reveal that there was no contemporary standard spelling of the family name. Variants include Kakatiya, Kakatiyya, Kakita, Kakati and Kakatya. The family name was often prefixed to the name of the monarch, giving constructs such as Kakatiya-Prataparudra. Some of the monarchs also had alternate names; for example, Venkata and Venkataraya may have been alternate names of Prataparuda I, with the former appearing on a coin in the form Venkata-Kakatiya.[3][a]

text: The dynasty's name derives from the word "Kakati", which is variously thought to be the name of a goddess or a place. It is possible that Kakati was the name of a deity worshipped by the early Kakatiya chiefs, and also the name of the place where they resided.[4]

text: Kumarasvami Somapithin, a 15th-century writer who wrote a commentary on Vidyanatha's Prataparudriya, states that the dynasty was named after Kakati, a form of goddess Durga. Although the Hindu mythological texts do not mention any such form of Durga, the worship of a goddess named Kakati is attested by several other sources. For example, Vallabharaya's Krida-bhiramamu mentions an image of Kakatamma (Mother Kakati) in the Kakatiya capital Orugallu. the 16th century Shitap Khan inscription mentions the reinstallation of the image of goddess Jaganmatrika (mother of the universe) and the lotus seat of the Kakatirajya, which had been destroyed by the Turushkas (Turkic people).[5] According to one theory, Kakati was originally a Jain goddess (possibly Padmavati), and later came to be regarded as a form of Durga.[6]

text: The Bayyaram tank inscription from the reign of Ganapati-deva names the family's founder as Venna, and states that he resided at Kakati, because of which his descendants came to be known as Kakatishas.[5] Ganapati-deva's Garavapadu charter names the family's founder as Durjaya, and states that his descendant Karikala Chola arrived at a town called Kakati during a hunting expedition, and set up his camp there.[4] The modern identity of Kakati is uncertain: different historians have variously attempted to identify it with modern Kakati village in Karnataka and Kanker in Chhattisgarh. Siddeshvara Charitra, a later literary work, states that the ancestors of the Kakatiya family lived at Kandarapura (identified with modern Kandhar in Maharashtra). However, no other evidence supports this tradition.[7]

text: Sources

text: Much of the information about the Kakatiya period comes from inscriptions, including around 1,000 stone inscriptions, and 12 copper-plate inscriptions.[8] Most of these inscriptions document matters relating to religion, such as donations to Hindu temples. They are particularly abundant for the period 1175–1324 CE, which is the period when the dynasty most flourished and are a reflection of that. The probability is that many inscriptions have been lost due to buildings falling into disuse and also the ravages of subsequent rulers, most notably the Muslim Mughal Empire in the Telangana region. Inscriptions are still being discovered today but governmental agencies tend to concentrate on recording those that are already known rather than searching for new examples.[9] According to a 1978 book, written bby P.V.P. Sastry's 1978 book on the history of the Kakatiyas, published by the Government of Andhra Pradesh

text: Information about the Kakatiya period also comes from Sanskrit and Telugu literary works written during Kakatiya and post-Kakatiya period. The most notable among these works include Prataparudriyam, Krida-bhiramamu, Panditaradhya-charitamu, Sivayogasaramu, Nitisara, Niti-shastra-muktavali, Nritta-ratnavali, Pratapa-charita, Siddheshvara-charitra, Somadeva-rajiyamu, Palnativira-charitra, Velugotivari-vamsavali, and Velugotivari-vamsacharitra.[10] Chronicles by Muslim authors such as Isami and Firishta describe Prataparudra's defeats against the Muslim armies. The Kannada text Kumara-Ramana-charita also provides information about Prataparudra's relations with the Kampili kingdom.[11]

text: Besides epigraphs and literature, the forts, temples and tanks constructed during the Kakatiya period are an important source of information about the contemporary society, art and architecture.[12]

text: Origin

text: The Kakatiya rulers traced their ancestry to a legendary chief or ruler named Durjaya. Many other ruling dynasties of Andhra also claimed descent from Durjaya.  Nothing further is known about this chief.[13]

text: Most of the Kakatiya records do not mention the varna (social class) of the family, but the majority of the ones that do, proudly describe them as Shudra.[14] Examples include the Bothpur and Vaddamanu inscriptions of Ganapati's general Malyala Gunda senani. The Kakatiyas also maintained marital relations with other Shudra families, such as the Kotas and the Natavadi chiefs. All these evidences indicate that the Kakatiyas were of Shudra origin.[15]

text: A few copper-plate inscriptions of the Kakatiya family describe them as belonging to the Kshatriya (warrior) varna. These inscriptions primarily document grants to brahmans, and appear to be inspired by the genealogies of the imperial Cholas.[14] For example, the Motupalli inscription of Ganapati counts legendary solar dynasty kings such as Rama among the ancestors of Durjaya, the progenitor of the Kakatiya family. The Malkapuram inscription of Vishveshvara Shivacharya, the preceptor of Kakatiya rulers Ganapati-deva and Rudrama-devi, also connects the Kakatiyas to the solar dynasty (Sūryavaṃsa). [16] The term "Kshatriya" in these panegyric records appears to signify the family's warrior-like qualities rather than their actual varna.[17]

text: Early feudatory chiefs

text: The regnal years of the early members of the Kakatiya family are not certain. Venna, said to have been born in the family of Durjaya, is the earliest known Kakatiya chief. The Bayyaram tank inscription names his successors as Gunda I, Gunda II, and Gunda III, comparing them to the three Ramas (Parashurama, Dasharatha-Rama, and Balarama). Gunda III was succeeded by Erra, who ruled Kurravadi and other regions. The inscription states that Erra's successor Gunda IV alias Pindi-Gunda (c. 955-995) beheaded all his enemies.[18] Gunda IV is also mentioned in the Mangallu grant of the Eastern Chalukya ruler Dānārnava in 956 CE.[19][20]

text: Gunda IV was succeeded by Beta I (c. 996-1051), who was succeeded by Prola I (c. 1052-1076), called ari-gaja-kesari ("lion to the elephant-like enemies") in the Bayyaram inscription.[18] The succeeding chiefs included Beta II (c. 1076–1108), Tribhuvanamalla Durgaraja (c. 1108–1116) and then Prola II (c. 1116–1157).[21]

text: The early Kakatiya rulers used the title "Reddi"[22][23] (derived from "Redu," meaning  king in Telugu[24]). However, after they became sovereigns they were addressed as "deva" (Lord or deity) and "devi" (Lady or deity). There appears to be a significant element of "sanskritisation" in this transition.[25]

text: Relationship to the Rashtrakutas

text: Early members  of Kakatiya family appear to have served as military generals of the Rashtrakutas, as indicated by a 956 inscription of the Vengi Chalukya prince Dānārnava.[26] The inscription suggests that an attack by the Rashtrakuta king Krishna III forced the Vengi Chalukya king Amma II to flee his kingdom, after which Dānārnava (titled Vijayaditya) ruled the kingdom as a Rashtrakuta vassal. It records Dānārnava's grant of Mangallu village to a brahmana named Dommana, at the request of Kakatiya Gundyana. Dommana had performed a religious ceremony called Karpati-vrata for Gundyana, for which he received the village as an agrahara.[27] The inscription names Gundyana's ancestors as Gundiya-Rashtrakuta and Eriya-Rashtrakuta.[28] This suggests that Gundyana was a Rashtrakuta general, and not a Vengi Chalukya subordinate, as assumed by some earlier historians.[28]

text: The Bayyaram tank inscription, which records the construction of Dharma-kirti-samudra tank by Ganapati's sister Mailama (or Mailamba), provides another genealogical list.[18] The similarities of names mentioned in the Mangallu and Bayyaram inscriptions lists suggest that both of these refer to the same family:[29]

text:
Genealogical list of early Kakatiyas[30]

Mangallu grant inscription
Bayyaram tank inscription

Kakatiya family
Durjaya family

Venna-nripa

Gundiya Rashtrakuta
Gunda I

Gunda II

Gunda III

Eriya Rashtrakuta
Erra

Betiya (married Vandyanamba)

Kakartya Gundyana
Pindi-Gunda (Gunda IV)

text: Historian P.V.P. Sastry theorizes that Betiya was the son of Eriya (alias Erra) and father of Gundyana (alias Pindi-Gunda), but may have become too insignificant to be mentioned by his descendants, because of a premature death or another reason.[31]

text: The significance of the suffix "Rashtrakuta" in the names of the early Kakatiya chiefs is debated. According to one theory, the suffix implies that these chiefs were Rashtrakuta subordinates. This theory is based on the fact that the phrase Rashtrakuta-kutumbinah appears in several Rashtrakuta-era copper-plate inscriptions, and refers to the officers and subjects of the Rashtrakuta kingdom.[32]

text: According to another theory, the suffix implies that the Kakatiyas were a branch of the Rashtrakuta family, because the term Rashtrakuta-kutumbinah was used for officers employed by the Rashtrakuta administration, not feudatory chiefs: the early records of the Kakatiya chiefs describe them as samantas (feudatory chiefs).[33] The Kazipet Darga inscription of Tribhuvanamalla Durgaraja states that the Kakatiya chief Beta was born in the family of Samanta Viṣṭi.[34] Historian P.V.P. Sastry theorises that "Viṣṭi" is a corruption of Vrishni, the name of a clan from which some Rashtrakutas claimed descent. He notes that some chiefs of Rashtrakuta origin adopted the title "Viṭṭi-narayana", which means "as great as Narayana (Krishna) of the Vitti (Vrishni) family.[35] Sastry further proposes that the term "Voddi", which appears in the phrase Voddi-kula ("Voddi family") in the Mangallu inscription may be same as "Viṣṭi".[36] Sastry also believes that the early Kakatiya chiefs followed Jainism, which was also patronized by the Rashtrakutas, thus strengthening the view that the two dynasties were connected (see Religion section below).[6]

text: The Kakatiyas seemed to have adopted the mythical bird Garuda as their royal insignia, as attested by the Ekamranatha temple inscription of Ganapati-deva, the Palampet inscription of the Kakatiya general Recharla Rudra, and Vidyanatha's Prataparudriya.[34] The Bayyaram tank inscription calls the Kakatiya chief Beta I (son of Gunda IV) Garudamka-Beta, and "Garuda" here appears to refer to the family's emblem.[37] In Hindu mythology, Garuda is the vahana of god Vishnu. The Rashtrakutas and some other dynsaties of Deccan claimed descent from the Vrishni clan (associated with Vishnu's avatar Krishna), and had adopted Garuda as their royal insignia.[33] According to Sastry, this corroborates the theory that the Kakatiyas were associated with the Rashtrakuta family.[38] Sastry further speculates that the Kakatiyas may have adopted the Garuda symbol because of Jain influence: the yaksha of the Jain tirthankara Shantinatha is represented by the Garuda symbol.[38]

text: Based on Ganapati-deva's Garavapadu inscription, which names Karikala Chola among the family's ancestors, epigraphist C.R.K. Charlu theorised that the Kakatiyas were a branch of the Telugu Cholas. However, no other Kakatiya record mentions Karikala, and unlike the Telugu Cholas, the Kakatiyas did not claim to belong to the Kashyapa-gotra. Therefore, Sastry dismisses Charlu's theory as untenable.[36]

text: After the decline of the Rashtrakuta power, the Kakatiyas served as vassals of the Kalyani Chalukyas. After the decline of the Chalukya power in the 12th century, they assumed sovereignty by suppressing other Chalukya subordinates in the Telangana region.[39]

text: As sovereigns

text: Prataparudra I

text: The 1149 Sanigaram inscription of Prola II is the last known record of the Kakatiyas as vassals. The 1163 Anumakonda inscription of Prataparudra I is the earliest known record that describes the Kakatiyas as a sovereign power.[26]

text: According to Sastry, Prataparudra I reigned between around 1158 – 1195,[21] while Sircar gives the dates 1163–1195. He was also known as Rudra Deva, Kakatiya Rudradeva, Venkata, and Venkataraya[3][40] He was the son of Prola II, who had made efforts to assert greater Kakatiya influence on territories in the western parts of the declining Western Chalukyan empire and who died in a battle fought against the Velanati Choda ruler Gonka II around 1157/1158 while doing so.[41][42] It was during Prataparudra's reign, in 1163, that the Kakatiyas declared an end to their status as feudatory chiefs of the Chalukyas.[b] It is notable that inscriptions were henceforth written using the Kakatiya chiefs' vernacular Telugu rather than the Kannada language that had prevailed until that point.[43]

text: Mahadeva succeeded Prataparudra I as king, reigning probably from 1195 to 1199.[21]

text: Ganapati

text: Just as the Seuna and Hoysala dynasties took control of linguistically related areas during the 13th century, so too did the Kakatiyas under the rule of Ganapati.[43] He is also known as Ganapathi Deva and, according to Sastry, reigned between 1199–1262; Sircar gives regnal dates of 1199–1260.[21][40] He significantly expanded Kakatiya lands during the 1230s when he launched a series of attacks outside the dynasty's traditional Telangana region and thus brought under Kakatiya control the Telugu-speaking lowland delta areas around the Godavari and Krishna rivers. The outcome in the case of all three dynasties, says historian Richard Eaton, was that they "catalysed processes of supralocal identity formation and community building".[43]

text: The Kakatiya capital at Orugallu, established in 1195, was not forgotten while Ganapati expanded his territory. He organised the building of a massive granite wall around the city, complete with ramps designed for ease of access to its ramparts from within. A moat and numerous bastions were also constructed.[44]

text: Ganapati was keen to bolster the dynasty's economy. He encouraged merchants to trade abroad, abolishing all taxes except for a fixed duty and supporting those who risked their lives to travel afar.[45] He created the man-made Pakhal Lake.

text: Rudrama Devi

text: Rudrama Devi, also known as Rudramadevi, reigned around 1262–1289 CE (alternative dates: 1261–1295 CE) and is one of the few queens in Indian history.[21][46][47]  Sources disagree regarding whether she was the widow of Ganapati or his daughter.[48]

text: Marco Polo, who visited India probably some time around 1289–1293, made note of Rudrama Devi's rule and nature in flattering terms.[49][c] She continued the planned fortification of the capital, raising the height of Ganapati's wall as well as adding a second earthen curtain wall 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in diameter and with an additional 150 feet (46 m)-wide moat.[44]

text: Rudrama was married to Virabhadra, an Eastern Chalukyan prince of Nidadavolu who had been selected for that purpose by her father.[50] Having no son as an heir,[44] Rudrama abdicated in favour of her grandson when it became apparent that the expansionist sultan Alauddin Khalji was encroaching on the Deccan and might in due course attack the Kakatiyas.[48]

text: Prataparudra II

text: The earliest biography of Rudrama Devi's successor, Prataparudra II, is the Prataparudra Caritramu, dating from the 16th century.[51] His reign began in 1289 (alternative date: 1295) and ended with the demise of the dynasty in 1323.[21][47] It is described by Eaton as the "first chapter in a larger story" that saw the style of polity in the Deccan change from being regional kingdoms to transregional sultanates that survived until the arrival of the British East India Company in the 18th century.[52]

text: Decline

text: The Kakatiya kingdom attracted the attention of the Delhi Sultanate ruler Alauddin Khalji because of the possibility for plunder.[53] The first foray into the Kakatiya kingdom was made in 1303 and was a disaster due to the resistance of the Kakatiya army in the battle at Upparapalli.[54][d] In 1309 Alauddin sent his general, Malik Kafur, in an attempt to force Prataparudra into acceptance of a position subordinate to the sultanate at Delhi. Kafur organised a month-long siege of Orugallu that ended with success in February 1310. Prataparudra was forced to make various symbolic acts of obeisance designed to demonstrate his new position as a subordinate but, as was Alauddin's plan, he was not removed as ruler of the area but rather forced thereafter to pay annual tribute to Delhi.[55] It was probably at this time that the Koh-i-Noor diamond passed from Kakatiya ownership to that of Alauddin, along with 20,000 horses and 100 elephants.[53]

text: In 1311, Prataparudra formed a part of the sultanate forces that attacked the Pandyan empire in the south, and he took advantage of that situation to quell some of his vassals in Nellore who had seen his reduced status as an opportunity for independence. Later, though, in 1318, he failed to provide the annual tribute to Delhi, claiming that the potential for being attacked on the journey made it impossible. Alauddin's son Mubarak Shah responded by sending another of his generals, Khusrau Khan, to Orugallu with a force that bristled with technology previously unknown in the area, including trebuchet-like machines. Prataparudra had to submit once more, with his obeisance on this occasion being arranged by the sultanate to include a very public display whereby he bowed towards Delhi from the ramparts of Orugallu. The amount of his annual tribute was changed, becoming 100 elephants and 12,000 horses.[56]

text: The new arrangements did not last long. Taking advantage of a revolution in Delhi that saw the Khalji dynasty removed and Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq installed as sultan, Prataparudra again asserted his independence in 1320. Tughlaq sent his son, Ulugh Khan, to defeat the defiant Kakatiya king in 1321. Khan's army was riven with internal dissension due to its containing factions from the Khalji and Tughluq camps. This caused the siege on this occasion to last much longer — six months, rather than the few weeks that had previously been the case. The attackers were initially repulsed and Khan's forces retreated to regroup in Devagiri. Prataparudra celebrated the apparent victory by opening up his grain stores for public feasting. Khan returned in 1323 with his revitalised and reinforced army and, with few supplies left, Prataparudra was forced into submission after a five-month siege. The unprepared and battle-weary army of Orugallu was finally defeated, and Orugallu was renamed as Sultanpur. It seems probable, from combining various contemporary and near-contemporary accounts, that Prataparudra committed suicide near to the Narmada River while being taken as a prisoner to Delhi.[57][58]

text: Characterization

text: Geography

text: The Kakatiya base was the city of Orugallu[59] in the dry uplands of northern Telangana on the Deccan Plateau. From there they expanded their influence into Coastal Andhra, the delta between the Godavari and Krishna rivers that feed into the Bay of Bengal. According to Rao and Shulman, the latter contained a high proportion of Brahmins while the former was the haunt of "peasants, artisans and warriors".[60] Under the Kakatiyas, cultural innovation often began in the uplands, was refined in the lowlands and then recycled back into the Deccan. This bi-directional flow of cultural influences brought into being a feeling of cultural affinity between those who spoke the Telugu language where nothing of that nature had previously existed.[e] The unification of the distinct upland and lowland cultures was their most significant political achievement, achieved through a process of binding many locally powerful figures in allegiance to the empire.[59]

text: The area of land under Kakatiya control reached its zenith around the 13th century CE during the rule of Ganapati Deva. By this time, South India and the Deccan was essentially under the aegis of four Hindu monarchies, of which the Kakatiyas were one.[f]  The four dynasties were in a constant state of warfare with each other, with the Kakatiyas eventually exercising control from close to Anagondi in the west to Kalyani in the north-east, and down to Kanei and Ganjam district in southern Orissa.[61]

text: Architecture

text: A notable trend during the dynastic period was the construction of reservoirs for irrigation in the uplands, around 5000 of which were built by warrior families subordinate to the Kakatiyas. The dramatically altered the possibilities for development in the sparsely populated dry areas. Many of these edifices, often called "tanks", including the large examples at Pakala and Ramappa, are still used today.[62]

text: Another notable architectural feature of the dynasty relates to temples. Even before the arrival of the dynasty, there were large, well-established and well-endowed Hindu places of worship in the relatively populous delta areas; however, the temples of the uplands, which were smaller and less cosmopolitan in origin and funding, did not exist until the Kakatiya period. In the lowlands, where Brahmins were numerous, the temples had long benefited from a desire to build social networks for the purposes of domestic and foreign trade, as well as for obtaining grazing rights in the face of competition; in the uplands, the endowment of the buildings was often associated with the construction and continued maintenance of reservoirs and enabled a different type of networking based on political hierarchies. The strengthening of those hierarchies, which was achieved in part by donating land for the temples and then attending worship, was necessary as the inland agrarian society grew rapidly in number and location.[63]

text: Society

text: There is a disparity between analysis of inscriptions, of which the work of Cynthia Talbot has been in the vanguard, and the traditional works of Vedic Hinduism that described pre-colonial India in terms of a reverent and static society that was subject to the strictures of the caste system. Colonial British administrators found much that appealed to them in the latter works but the Kakatiya inscriptions of Andhra Pradesh, which depict a far wider range of society and events, suggest that the reality was far more fluid and very different from the idealised image.[64]

text: Caste itself seems to have been of low importance as a social identifier.[65] Even the Kakatiya kings, with one exception, considered themselves to be Shudras (in the ritual varna system).[g] They were egalitarian in nature and promoted their subordinate warrior-chiefs who were similarly egalitarian and spurned the Kshatriya rank. Anyone, regardless of birth, could acquire the nayaka title to denote warrior status, and this they did. There is also little evidence that Kakatiya society paid much regard to caste identities, in the sense of jāti. Although occupation does appear to have been an important designator of social position, the inscriptions suggest that people were not bound to an occupation by birth.[66][67]

text: The population became more settled in geographic terms. The growth of an agricultural peasant class subsumed many tribal people who previously had been nomadic.  The nexus of politics and military was a significant feature of the era, and the Kakatiya recruitment of peasants into the military did much to create a new warrior class, to develop social mobility and to extend the influence of the dynasty into areas of its kingdom that previously would have been untouched.[68] The Kakatiya kings, and in particular the last two, encouraged an egalitarian ethos. The entrenched landed nobility that had existed prior to the dynasty found its power to be on the wane; the royal gifting of lands formerly in the possession of nobles to people of lesser status did much to effect this dilution.[51]

text: Religion

text: Historian P.V.P. Sastry theorises that the early Kakatiya chiefs were followers of Jainism. A story in the Siddheshvara-charita states that Madhavavarman, an ancestor of the Kakatiyas, obtained military strength by the grace of goddess Padmakshi. The 1123 Govindapuram Jain inscription of Polavasa, another family of feudatory chiefs, contains a similar account of how their ancestor Madhavavarman obtained military strength by the grace of the Jain goddess Yaksheshvari.[69]

text: According to tradition, Prola II was initiated into Shaivism by the Kalamukha preceptor Rameshvara Pandita, and established Shaivism as his family's religion. The Shaivism-affiliated personal names of the later Kakatiya kings (such as Rudra, Mahadeva, Harihara, and Ganapati) also indicate a shift towards Shaivism. This, according to Sastry, strengthens the theory that the early Kakatiya chiefs were Jains.[38]

text: Genealogy

text: The following members of the Kakatiya family are known from epigraphic evidence. The rulers are children of their predecessors, unless otherwise specified.[70]

text: Feudatory chiefs

text:
Nripa Venna, born in the family of Durjaya (r. c. 800-815)
Gunda I (r. c. 815-?)
Gunda II (r. c. ?-865)
Gunda III (died before 900)
Nripati Erra
Betiya
Nripati Gunda IV alias Pindi-Gunda (r. c. 955-995)
Nripati Beta I alias Garuda Beta (r. c. 996-1051)
Prola I (r. c. 1052-1076)
Beta II alias Tribhuvanamalla (r. c. 1076-1108)
Tribhuvanamalla Durgaraja (r. c. 1108-1116), son of Beta II
Prola II (r. c. 1116-1157), son of Beta II, married Muppama
His children included Rudra, Mahadeva, Harihara, Ganapati and Repolla Durga

text: Sovereign rulers

text:
Rudra (r. c. 1158-1195), son of Prolla II, became a sovereign 1163
Mahadeva (r. c. 1196-1199), son of Prolla II, married Bayyama
Had three children, including Ganapati-deva, Mailamba, and Kundamba
Ganapati-deva (r. c. 1199-1262), married Somala-devi
Had two children, including Ganapamba (married Kota Beta) and Rudrama-devi
Rudrama-devi (r. c. 1262-1289), married Chalukya Virabhadra
Had three children, including Mummadamba (married Kakati Mahadeva), Rudrama (married Yadava prince Ellana-deva), and Ruyyama (married Induluri Annaya-mantri)
Prataparudra-deva (r. c. 1289-1323), son of Mummadamba, tributary to the Delhi Sultanate at times

text: Legacy

text: Tughlaq control of the area lasted only for around a decade.[71] The fall of the Kakatiya dynasty resulted in both political and cultural disarray because of both disparate resistance to the sultanate and dissension within it.[58] The structure of the Kakatiya polity disintegrated and their lands soon fell under the control of numerous families from communities such as the Reddies and Velamas.[72] As early as 1330,[73] Musunuri Nayaks who served as army chiefs for Kakatiya kingdom united the various Telugu clans and recovered Warangal from the Delhi Sultanate and ruled for half a century.[74] Surrounded by more significant states,[72] by the 15th century these new entities had ceded to the Bahamani Sultanate and the Sangama dynasty, the latter of which evolved to become the Vijayanagara empire.[75]

text: A brother of Prataparudra II, Annamaraja, has been associated with ruling what eventually became the princely state of Bastar during the British Raj period. This appears likely to be historical revisionism, dating from a genealogy published by the ruling family in 1703, because it records only eight generations spanning almost four centuries of rule. Such revisionism and tenuous claims of connection to the Kakatiyas was not uncommon because it was perceived as legitimising the right to rule and a warrior status. Talbot notes that there is a record of a brother called Annamadeva and that:

text: He is said to have left [Orugallu] for the northeast after anointing Prataparudra's son as king. Thus, the founder of the family fortunes in Bastar may very well have been a Telugu warrior from Telangana who was familiar with the prevalent legends about the Kakatiyas.[76]

text: According to Talbot and Eaton, a revisionist interpretation of Prataparudra II himself appeared much sooner, within a few years of his death, and for broadly similar reasons. A stone inscription dated 1330 mentions a Prolaya Nayaka, who was said to have restored order, as in Prataparudra days. He presented himself as a legitimate successor to Prataparudra, by portraying both of them as righteous monarchs, meanwhile reconstructing Prataparudra's life and career in a favorable way.[77][h] By 1420, Muslim rulers had become accommodated to the Deccan society, and strong dichotomies between Hindus and Muslims were no longer useful. Muslim rulers were no longer conceived as diametrically opposed to the figure of Prataparudra, but rather as rulers of equal status.[78]

text: This type of revisionism, which Talbot describes as "social memories" and which persist to the present day,[79] reappeared in the 16th century with the Prataparudra Caritramu hagiography, which claimed him to be the founder of the padmanayaka class of Telugu warrior and provided the elite of the Vijayanagara empire with what Talbot has described as a "charter of legitimacy". This work claimed, contrary to all reasonable evidence, that he did not die after being taken prisoner but instead met with the sultan, was recognised as being an avatar of Shiva, and allowed to return to Orugallu. Once back home, the Prataparudra Caritamu says, he released the padmanayakas from their allegiance to him and told them to become independent kings. The work also claims Vijayanagara to be an ally of Prataparudra, which is clearly anachronistic but served the purpose of elevating the role of the padmanayakas, whom it claimed to be ultimately subordinate to Vijayanagara during his time.[80]