Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates

The area currently known as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (previously the Trucial States) was formerly populated by inhabitants of a number of coastal and inland settlements, with human remains pointing to a pattern of transmigration and settlement as far back as 125,000 years. Prehistoric settlement in the UAE spanned the Neolithic, with a number of distinctive eras of ancient settlement including the Stone Age Arabian Bifacial and Ubaid cultures from 5,000 to 3,100 BCE; the Hafit period with its distinctive beehive shaped tombs and Jemdet Nasr pottery, from 3,200 to 2,600 BCE; the Umm Al Nar period from 2,600 to 2,000 BCE; the Wadi Suq Culture from 2,000–1,300 BCE and the three Iron Ages of the UAE.
The UAE's Iron Age I spanned 1,200–1,000 BCE; Iron Age II, 1,000–600 BCE and Iron Age III from 600–300 BCE. This was followed by the Hellenistic Mleiha (or Late Pre-Islamic) era, from 300 BCE onwards through to the Islamic era which commenced with the culmination of the 7th century Ridda Wars.
The remains of settlements, burials and other extensive evidence of human habitation throughout these eras is littered throughout the UAE, with many extensive finds of rich materials in the shape of pottery, jewellery, weapons and both human and animal remains providing archaeologists and researchers with an increasingly sophisticated picture of longstanding involvement in regional trade alongside nomadic cultures eking out a living from the frequently arid and inhospitable desert and mountain environment of the UAE.
The first modern digs to take place in the Trucial States were led by teams from the Danish Moesgaard Museum in 1959 and focused on the island of Umm Al Nar before going on to investigate the beehive tombs in and around the area of Al Ain (then often still known as Buraimi) in the emirate of Abu Dhabi.
First discovery.
The first archaeological excavations in the UAE were in 1959, led by Peter Glob and his assistant Geoffrey Bibby. Glob was a professor at Aarhus University and director of its Moesgaard Museum. He had undertaken a series of digs in Bahrain and was contacted by the director of Abu Dhabi Marine Areas Ltd, an oil company, Temple Hillyard, who invited them to visit some graves he had found on the small island of Umm Al Nar (then referred to as Umm an-Nar), having been directed to the site by the then-Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Shakhbut bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Hillyard had already determined that the tumuli were 'reminiscent of the Bronze Age one in Bahrain'. During excavations at Umm Al Nar, the Ruler's brother, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan visited the dig and told the archaeologists that there were many more such artefacts in Al Ain. He invited them to visit him and led them to a group of some 200 burial cairns – what would later turn out to be Hafit period burials. Zayed later took members of the Danish team to other sites in the area, including a low tell which is now known as Rumailah, a significant Iron Age site.
Subsequent excavations by teams from Iraq in the 1970s unveiled the Jebel Buhais site, as well as the hugely significant ancient city of Ed-Dur. Since then, digs have taken place around the UAE by teams from universities in France, Spain, Germany, Jordan, Australia, and the UK.
Prehistory.
The Mleiha Archaeological Centre displays evidence of the oldest archaeological finds in the UAE, the prehistoric Faya-1 collection, which dates human occupation in the area to 130,000–120,000 BCE and has been linked to the movement of the first anthropologically modern humans from Africa to populate the world. The Faya discovery, made in 2011, includes primitive hand-axes, as well as several kinds of scrapers and perforators, which resemble those used by early modern humans in East Africa. Through the technique of thermoluminescence dating the artefacts were placed at 125,000 years old. This is the earliest evidence of modern humans found anywhere outside Africa and implies modern humans left Africa much earlier than previously thought. Mleiha is also the site of Neolithic as well as Umm Al Nar period burials, and gives its name to the Hellenistic Mleiha period (now more commonly referred to as the 'Pre-Islamic'), from 300 BCE onwards, characterised by the extensive fortified compound, 'Mleiha Fort', which was discovered in the late 1990s and is thought to have been possibly the seat of an ancient South Arabian kingdom. Recent (2017) studies using Ground Penetrating Radar have uncovered significant unexcavated PIR era buildings and structures in the area around Mleiha.
The oldest radiometrically dated inland burial site in the UAE is the extensive necropolis at Jebel Buhais. The site, located near Madam, in Sharjah, consists of burial sites spanning the Stone, Bronze, Iron and pre-Islamic ages of human settlement in the UAE. Burials at Jebel Buhais ("Jebel" is Arabic for mountain) date back to the 5th millennium BCE.
Arabian bifacial.
During the glacial maximum period, 68,000 to 8,000 BCE, Eastern Arabia is thought to have been uninhabitable. Finds from the stone age Arabian Bifacial and Ubaid cultures (including knapped stone arrow and axe heads as well as Ubaid pottery) show human habitation in the area from 5000 to 3100 BCE. The archaeological record shows that Arabian Bifacial/Ubaid period came to an abrupt end in eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula at 3800 BC, just after the phase of lake lowering and onset of dune reactivation. There is no evidence of human presence in the area for approximately 1,000 years, the so-called "Dark Millennium". This is thought to be consistent with changing patterns of human life as a result of climate change: a spring discovered at Jebel Buhais dried up at this stage, an event contemporaneous with similar discoveries pointing to increased aridity in the interior of Oman. Throughout Southern Arabia, evidence of human inland settlement in the 3rd millennium BCE is scant.
Ed-Dur.
One of the most significant archaeological sites in the UAE is that at Ed-Dur, an Ancient Near Eastern City located in Umm Al Qawain. One of the largest sites in the country, comprising an area of some five kilometres, the coastal settlement overlooks the Al Beidha Lake. It has been dubbed 'one of the most significant lost cities of Arabia'. It was first discovered by an Iraqi archaeological team in 1973 and first dug in 1974. Subsequent digs have unearthed evidence of human habitation spanning the Ubeid period, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Pre-Islamic period. During the latter period the settlement appears to have been at its most prosperous and the hills of the area were entirely covered with dozens of buildings and thousands of stone-built tombs. Some 500 of these tombs have been excavated, with grave goods discovered including drinking sets, Roman glass, weaponry, pottery, jewelry and ivory objects. It is thought some 20,000 tombs are on the site in all. Similarly, the necropolis of Jebel Buhais spans a remarkable period, with burials evident as far back as the fifth millennium BCE, while Mleiha also represents human settlement dating back some 7,000 years.
Hafit period.
The Hafit period is marked by (and named for) the distinctive 'beehive' tombs first discovered around the area of Jebel Hafit in Al Ain. The period defines early Bronze Age human settlement in the United Arab Emirates and Oman in the period from 3,200 to 2,600 BC. Hafit period tombs and remains have also been located across the UAE and Oman in sites such as Bidaa bint Saud, Jebel Buhais and Buraimi in the UAE and Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn in Oman.
The first find of Hafit era tombs is attributed to the Danish archaeologist P.V. Glob of the Moesgaard Museum (who also investigated Umm Al Nar) in 1959, and the first of many excavations of these took place a few years later. uncovering the remains of some 317 circular stone tombs and settlements from the Hafit period, as well as wells and partially underground "falaj" irrigation systems, and mud brick constructions intended for a range of defensive, domestic and economic purposes. The Al Ain Oasis, in particular, provides evidence of construction and water management enabling the early development of agriculture for five millennia, up until the present day.
Pottery finds at Hafit period sites demonstrate trading links to Mesopotamia, contiguous to the Jemdat Nasr period (3100–2900 BC). Evidence of trading links with Mesopotamia are also found in the subsequent Umm Al Nar and Wadi Suq periods of UAE history.
Umm Al Nar period.
The Bronze Age Umm Al Nar period spans the period 2600–2000 BCE. The name is derived from the first excavations which took place at Umm Al Nar, an island on the coast of Abu Dhabi, in 1959. The distinctive circular tombs of the Umm Al Nar period distinguish it from the preceding Hafit period, together with finds of distinctive black on red decorated pottery and jewellery made with gems such as carnelian, sourced from the Indus Valley.
Seven tombs from a total of fifty and three areas at the ruins of the ancient settlement were examined by the Danish archaeologists in the 1959 season. During their first visit they identified a few exposed shaped stones fitted together at some of the stone mounds. The following year, the first excavations started at one of the mounds on the plateau, now called Tomb I. Two more seasons (1960 and 1961) involved digging more tombs, while the last three seasons (1962–63, 1964 and 1965) were allocated to examining the settlement.
The Danish excavations at Umm Al Nar halted in 1965 but work resumed in 1975 by an archaeological team from Iraq. During the Iraqi excavations which lasted one season, five tombs were excavated and a small section of the village was examined. Between 1970 and 1972 an Iraqi restoration team headed by Shah Al Siwani, former member of the Antiquities Director in Baghdad, restored and/or reconstructed the Danish excavated tombs.
At Al Sufouh Archaeological Site in Dubai, archaeological excavation between 1994 and 1995, revealing an Umm Al Nar type circular tomb dating between 2500 and 2000 B.C. Dubai Municipality and the Sanisera Archaeology Institute conducted excavations at the site of Al Ashoosh between November 2015 and May 2016. The site was discovered during two seasons of survey in 2002–2003 following the discovery of the nearby Iron Age metallurgical centre Saruq Al Hadid, and is located 8 km from that site.
Surveys in the area by Dubai Municipality and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan identified 33 archaeological sites ranging in date from prehistory to the late Islamic period. In 2006–2007, more-detailed archaeological investigations of the area of Al-Ashoosh were conducted, including survey, excavation and geological sampling.
At Tell Abraq, settlements associated with the start of the Umm Al Nar culture began c. 2500 BC. Finds at Shimal and Ed Dur also point to a transitional period between the Umm Al Nar and following Wadi Suq periods. The excavations at Shimal, principally those of the mid-1980s by a team from the University of Göttingen in Germany, are significant as they provided early evidence of the 'Wadi Suq' period, including finds of pottery, soft-stone vessels, bronze and copper weapons and beads which came to be regarded as typical of the period c. 2000–1300 BC in the UAE.
Wadi Suq period.
The Wadi Suq culture flourished in the period from 2,000 to 1,300 BCE. It takes its name from a wadi, or waterway, East of Sohar in Oman. Rather than a seismic cultural shift, a gradual change in human society which is centred around more sophisticated approaches to animal husbandry, particularly the domestication of the camel, as well as changes in the surrounding trade and social environments, took place between the Umm Al Nar and Wadi Suq periods. The transition between Umm Al Nar and Wadi Suq is thought to have taken some 200 years and more, with finds at the important Wadi Suq site of Tell Abraq in modern Umm Al Quwain showing evidence of the continuity of Umm al-Nar burials. At Qattara Oasis in Al Ain, the Wadi Suq communal tomb is thought to have been constructed from stones recovered from previous Umm Al Nar burials.
Evidence of increased mobility among the population points to a gradual change in human habits rather than sudden change and important Wadi Suq era sites such as Tell Abraq, Ed Dur, Seih Al Harf, Shimal and Kalba show an increasing sophistication in copper and bronze ware as well as trade links both east to the Indus Valley and west to Mesopotamia.
Changes in two important trading partners also took place during this period, with the Mesopotamian city of Ur falling to Elam in 2,000 BC and the decline of the Indus Valley Harappan Culture in 1,800 BC. The abandonment of the port of Umm Al Nar took place at around this time.
The Wadi Suq site at Seih Al Harf in Ras Al Khaimah was first excavated by a team from the University of Durham, led by Derek Kennet, in the spring of 2013. The site comprises a series of 50 burial sites, of which two were directly threatened by road development, an 18-metre horseshoe shaped and a W-shaped tomb. Both were collective graves. Ten other excavated features were also impacted by the road development. Although the site was seen to be threatened by the development of the northern extension of the arterial Emirates Road (E611), with proposals tabled to amend the road development to avoid damage to the site, the road project went ahead.
A number of Wadi Suq and Iron Age discoveries were made in the mountain village of Bithnah in Fujairah, first excavated by the Swiss-Liechtenstein Foundation for Archaeological Research Abroad (SLFA) between 1987 and 1991. Presided over by Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, and directed in the field by Pierre Corboud, the SLFA team conducted several seasons of survey in the mountainous inland area of Fujairah, including the excavations at Bithnah, where a communal grave site was uncovered as well as a number of Iron Age finds. There have also been excavations by teams from the University of Geneva and French National Research Centre. Significant Iron Age finds have been made throughout the area, including a number of petroglyphs.
Iron Age.
From 1,200 BC to the advent of Islam in Eastern Arabia, through three distinctive Iron Ages (Iron Age 1, 1200–1000 BC; Iron Age II, 1000–600 BC and Iron Age III 600–300 BC) and the Hellenistic Mleiha period (300 BC onward), the area was variously occupied by Archaemenid and other forces and saw the construction of fortified settlements and extensive husbandry thanks to the development of the "falaj" irrigation system (also called "qanat"). Early finds of "aflaj", particularly those around the desert city of Al Ain, have been cited as the earliest evidence of the construction of these waterways. It is thought nearby Bidaa bint Saud became an important site during the Iron Age, both as a caravan stop and as a settled community of farmers that used the "falaj" irrigation system there. Two of these irrigation passages have been partly excavated at Bidaa bin Saud, with a number of sections remaining in reasonable condition. In one of the excavations, a number of sandstone-lined shaft holes were discovered, as well as a stepped underground access point and a large open cistern. Evidence of formerly irrigated land has also been found at the site.
Important Iron Age centres in the UAE have rendered an unusual richness in finds to archaeologists, particularly the spectacular metallurgical centre of Saruq Al Hadid in what is today Dubai. Other important Iron Age settlements in the country include Al Thuqeibah, Madam, Bidaa bint Saud, Ed-Dur and Tell Abraq.
Iron age "aflaj".
Recent finds of pottery in Thuqeibah and Madam have further linked the development of early af"laj" (or qanat) water systems there to an Iron Age II date, further substantiating the attribution of the innovation of these water systems to a southeastern Arabian origin based on the extensive archaeological work of Dr Wasim Takriti around the area of Al Ain.
The 2002 publication of a paper by Tikriti, "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system", provided the first counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia and was identified as such by accounts of the campaigns of the Assyrian King, Sargon II, in 714 BCE. Tikriti cites this and also accounts by the Greek second and third century historian Polybius as being the basis for academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopting an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Sargon's annals and Polybius, but points out at least seven Iron Age "aflaj" (plural for "falaj", the word used to denote waterways of this type in the United Arab Emirates) recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Additional to finds of Iron Age "aflaj" in Al Ain, Tikrit pointed to excavations in Al Madam, Sharjah, by the French archaeological team working there, as well as by a German team working in Maysar, in Oman. Tikriti is at pains to point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia, likely by the Sasanian conquest of the Oman peninsular.
Others have followed Tikriti's lead. In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat in his paper "Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studie"s, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period.
Burials.
Iron Age burials at Jebel Buhais, particularly the group of graves defined as BHS 85, are thought to be linked to the nearby Iron Age settlement site of Al Thuqeibah. The site was originally excavated by teams from the Autonomous University of Madrid in the mid-1990s. Thuqeibah has been dated from the Iron Age II and III periods (1100–400 BC). A settlement consisting of a number of houses and a well, it has been associated with a nearby Iron Age "falaj" system, thought to date from the Iron Age II era. 1st Millennium "aflaj" have also been unearthed at nearby Al Madam.
The site of Rumailah, in Al Ain, like many in the UAE spans a wide period with finds dating back to the Umm Al Nar period, but shows a flourishing during the Iron Age. Finds at Rumailah include distinctive pottery adorned with snake patterns, similar to finds at Qusais, Masafi and the major Iron and Bronze Ages; metallurgical production centre at Saruq Al Hadid, as well as chlorite vessels decorated with turtles alternating with trees, similar to finds from Qidfa' in Fujairah, Qusais in Dubai and Al-Hajar in Bahrain. A number of Iron Age swords and axe-heads, as well as distinctive seal moulds, were also recovered from the site. A number of bronze arrowheads were also found at the site. The Iron Age buildings found at Rumailah are typical of those found in the region, at Iron Age I and II sites such as Al Thuqeibah and Muweilah, with a number of row dwellings, although lacking the perimeter walls found at Thuqeibah. A columned hall at Rumailah provides a further link to Muweilah, while a number of pyramidal seals found at Rumailah find an echo with similar objects discovered at Bidaa bint Saud.
One of the most significant Iron Age sites in the UAE is Muweilah, located in the Sharjah suburb of Al Jurainah, near Sharjah University City. A large, fortified settlement thought to have been occupied during the Iron Age II period (1100–600BC), the site has been explored by archaeologists since Muweilah was first identified in a survey conducted by the French Mission to the UAE in 1989, and excavated by an Australian expedition, which started work there in 1994 after the discovery of pottery shards by a local resident. It has yielded the oldest known example of writing found to date in the UAE, a pottery shard with an inscription, thought to be Sabean, with the letters 'bml'.
Saruq Al Hadid.
The Saruq Al Hadid site in the desert south of Dubai was a centre of constant human habitation, trade and metallurgy from the Umm Al Nar period (2600–2000 BCE) to 1,000 BCE, when it was a major location for smelting bronze, copper and Iron. Arguably its most important period of flourishing was as a metallurgical centre in the Iron Age II period (1100–600 BCE). One of the many thousands of finds to be documented at the site was an ornate gold ring, which became the inspiration for Dubai's Expo 2020 logo.
Some of the many enigmas surrounding the site are its location far from sources of water, ore or firewood, all critical elements to a metallurgical centre. An abundance of pottery and metal artifacts have given rise to speculation of possibly identifying the site as a centre of snake worship. In all, over 12,000 unique objects have been unearthed at the site. A number of key finds are on public display at Dubai's Saruq Al Hadid Archaeology Museum in Al Shindagha, housed in a traditional "barjeel" (wind tower) building constructed in 1928 by Sheikh Juma bin Maktoum Al Maktoum.
Pre-Islamic Recent.
Archaeologists have relatively recently defined a stratification of the pre-Islamic (previously sometimes referred to as 'Hellenistic') era in the Emirates' archaeology into four distinct Pre-Islamic Recent ages: PIR A (350 BCE - 150 BCE); PIR B (150-0 BCE); PIR C (0 BCE to 100 CE) and PIR D (100CE - 350 CE). These definitions have been applied particularly to sites where constant phases of occupation and disruption occur in the pre-Islamic, post Iron-Age era such as Mleiha in Sharjah and the related site of Ed Dur in Umm Al Quwain.
Post Islamic finds.
Archaeologists have worked on post-Islamic era sites across the UAE, particularly in Ras Al Khaimah (the coastal settlement of Julphar) and the East Coast. On the East Coast, in Fujairah, the village of Bidayah has been the focus of a number of explorations of its mosque and the remains of a Portuguese fort, discovered in the village by a team of Australian archaeologists. The fort, originally called 'Libidia', was identified from a 16th-century map. Its walls were constructed using rock recovered from a nearby tower dated back to the third millennium BCE. These walls, some 60 metres in length, are joined in a square with towers on each corner and stand today at a height of up to a meter. Finds at the site of the fort include locally made pottery dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries and charcoal samples unearthed were carbon dated to 1450–1600, within the context of the Portuguese presence in the Gulf.
The Bidayah mosque's date of construction is uncertain and because the mud and stone built structure uses no wood, radiocarbon dating is not possible. It is estimated to date to the 15th century, however some much earlier estimates have been proposed. The site was investigated by the archaeological center of Fujairah in co-operation with the University of Sydney from 1997–98. and Fujairah Archaeology and Heritage Department came up with the conclusion that the mosque was believed to be built in 1446 AD, along with the two watch towers overlooking the mosque and the village.


List of years in Georgia (country)

This is a list of years in Georgia. See also the timeline of Georgian history.


2007 in Philippine television

The following is a list of events affecting Philippine television in 2007. Events listed include television show debuts, finales, cancellations, and channel launches, closures and rebrandings, as well as information about controversies and carriage disputes.


Lesser Armenia

Lesser Armenia (, "Pokr Hayk"; , Greek: Mikrè Armenia, Μικρή Αρμενία), also known as Armenia Minor and Armenia Inferior, comprised the Armenian–populated regions primarily to the west and northwest of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia (also known as Kingdom of Greater Armenia). The region was later reorganized into the Armeniac Theme under the Byzantine Empire.
Geography.
Lesser Armenia (or Armenia Minor) was the portion of historic Armenia and the Armenian Highlands lying west and northwest of the river Euphrates. It received its name to distinguish it from the much larger eastern portion of historic Armenia—Greater Armenia (or Armenia Major).
Initial history.
Early history.
From the 6th century BC, the territory of Lesser Armenia was ruled by the Orontid Dynasty (Yervanduni, ), who were subjects of the Achaemenid Empire. The early Armenian kingdom was named the Satrapy of Armenia.
Some time after the death of Alexander the Great, Mithridates, a Persian nobleman from Asia Minor, declared himself king of the region that later became known as the Kingdom of Pontus. As the kingdom grew in strength, it included Lesser Armenia well.
Roman–Persian wars.
Armenia was a disputed kingdom between Rome and Parthia during the Roman–Persian Wars from 66 BC to the 2nd century AD. Roman influence was first established with Pompey's campaign of 66/65 BC, and again in 59 AD in the Roman–Parthian War campaign of Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo; which resulted in the deposition of Tiridates I.
Roman and Byzantine Lesser Armenia.
All of Armenia became a Roman province in AD 114 under Roman emperor Trajan, but Roman Armenia was soon after abandoned by the legions in 118 AD and became a vassal kingdom. Lesser Armenia, however, was generally incorporated by Trajan, together with Miletene and Cataonia into the province of Cappadocia. Lesser Armenia consisted of five districts: Orbalisene in the North; below that Aetulane (also, Ætulane); Aeretice (also Æretice); then Orsene; and finally Orbesine, the most southern. The more southern districts appended to Lesser Armenia were Miletene, so called from its capital (the modern Malatya) and the following four small districts of ancient Cataonia, namely, Aravene; Lavinianesine or Lavianesine; Cataonia, in the more restricted sense, or the country close upon Cilicia surrounded by mountains; finally, Muriane or Murianune, between Cataonia and Melitene, called likewise Bagadoania.
Romans lost Armenia again to Vologases IV of Parthia in AD 161. In 163, a Roman counter-attack under Statius Priscus once again installed a favoured candidate on the throne of Armenia, and Roman influence in Armenia remained until the Roman temporary defeat at the Battle of Barbalissos in 253. But a few years later, at the end of the 3rd century, Rome was again in control of Armenia and successively promoted the Christianization of all Armenia.
Lesser Armenia was reunited with the kingdom of Greater Armenia under the Arshakuni king Tiridates III in AD 287 until the temporary conquest of Shapur II in 337.
Then it was formed into a regular province under Diocletian, and in the 4th century, was divided in two provinces: First Armenia (Armenia Prima), which contained most of Lesser Armenia, and Second Armenia (Armenia Secunda) that comprised all the southern tracts which had been added to Lesser Armenia, with the exception of Cataonia, which was incorporated with Cappadocia Secunda.
Its population remained Armenian but was being gradually Romanized. Since the 3rd century many Armenian soldiers were in the Roman army: later–in the 4th century–they made up two Roman legions, the Legio I Armeniaca and the Legio II Armeniaca.
In 536, the emperor Justinian I reorganized the provincial administration, and First and Second Armenia were renamed Second and Third respectively, while some of their territory was split off to the other Armenian provinces.
The borders of the Byzantine part of Armenia were expanded in 591 into Persarmenia, but the region was the focus of decades of warfare between the Byzantines and the Persians (the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars) until the Arab conquest of Armenia in 639.
After this, the part of Lesser Armenia remaining under Byzantine control (in a lesser extent) became part of the theme of Armeniakon.
Mongol and Ottoman influence.
After the downfall of Bagratid Armenia in 1045 and resulting subsequent losses of Byzantine Empire in the East in 1071 (after the Battle of Manzikert), Lesser Armenia fell to the Seljuks and then was part of the Mongol Empire for 92 years and of the Ottoman Empire from the late 15th century.
Between the 11th and 14th centuries the term Lesser Armenia (sometimes called "Little Armenia") was applied to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, until the formation of Turkey in 1923.
Episcopal sees.
Ancient episcopal sees of the Roman province of Armenia Prima (I) listed in the "Annuario Pontificio" as titular sees:
Ancient episcopal sees of the Roman province of Armenia Secunda (II) listed in the "Annuario Pontificio" as titular sees:
For ancient episcopal sees of the Roman province of Armenia Tertia (III), see Roman Armenia#Episcopal sees.
Later history.
Lesser Armenia is traditionally considered as part of Western Armenia, especially after the acquisition of Eastern Armenia by the Russian Empire in the aftermath of the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828.
The Christian Armenian population of Lesser Armenia continued its existence in the area until the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23. Some Armenians still live in the area, albeit converted to Islam under Ottoman influence, mainly in the 17th century.


Kurume Domain

 was a Japanese domain of the Edo period. It was associated with Chikugo Province in modern-day Fukuoka Prefecture on the island of Kyushu.
In the han system, Kurume was a political and economic abstraction based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields. In other words, the domain was defined in terms of "kokudaka", not land area. This was different from the feudalism of the West.
List of "daimyōs".
The hereditary "daimyōs" were head of the clan and head of the domain. At Kurume, the Tokugawa "shōguns" granted 210,000 "koku" to the Arima clan from 1620 to 1868.
 Arima clan, 1620–1868 ("fudai"; 210,000 "koku")
The Arima clan leaders became viscounts in the Meiji period.


Shaori fortress

The Shaori fortress () is a Bronze Age megalithic structure in the Akhalkalaki Municipality in Georgia's southern region of Samtskhe-Javakheti. A cyclopean fort built using a dry masonry technique, it has an unusual plan, rhomboid with circular spaces, and is situated on the eponymous rocky mount, at an altitude of 2752 meters above sea level, in the Lesser Caucasus mountains, northwest of Paravani Lake. The fortress is inscribed on the list of the Immovable Cultural Monuments of National Significance of Georgia.
Architecture.
The Shaori fortress, formerly locally known also as Korogli (ultimately from Turkic Koroğlu), shares many topographical and architectural features with the Abuli fortress, another major cyclopean hillfort strategically located in the area around Paravani Lake.
The Shaori fortress is built of large basalt blocks, without using mortar. It consists of two parts, each located on top of a steep peak. The central part is an irregular rectangle constructed in the highest area and can be accessed through a one-meter-wide and 1.3 meter-high gate from the east. The location and spatial organization of Shaori makes it an unlikely domestic center. Rather, it could have been used for religious purposes.
Historical and archaeological background.
The Shaori fortress first appears in literary sources in the geography of the early 18th-century Georgian scholar Prince Vakhushti. Leon Melikset-Bek was the first who attempted to systematically study the monolithic monuments of Georgia, Shaori included, in 1938.
No archaeological excavations have been carried out at Shaori, making it difficult to precisely date or assign the monument to any particular culture. Similarity in construction technique and material with the Trialeti burial mounds has been observed, pointing to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC as a possible period of construction.
In general, the spread of cyclopean fortresses is an archaeological testimony to the social changes in the South Caucasus in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age, reflecting social differentiation and emergence of newly empowered elites. These forts were typically constructed on the steep slopes of mountains. Settlement distribution and cultural material suggest that those in charge of these hill forts exercised control over arable land and resources, but they may also have provided economic and defensive functions for their hinterlands.


Adamanduga

Adamanduga (Sumerian for "dialogue") is a Sumerian and Akkadian genre of literature, a kind of dispute. It originated in the 3rd millennium BC, and was used until the Neo-Assyrian Empire between the 9th and the 7th century BC.
Sumerian literature.
It is used predominantly for the description of mythological stories. It describes the beginning of the Earth's history. Then it depicts the beginning of the two fundamenta of the human culture. Dialogues are always between two new achievements. These are personalised. Both describe itself as the better one. It cites its value, beauty and usefulness. At the end of the poem one of the Gods (usually Enlil) decides who says right things. It was the first literature genre where humans were the reference for the judging of human society in the history of Mesopotamia. Its dialogues take place somewhere in Edubba. Philosophical speculations also can be found around mythological descriptions. There are some Sumerian adamandugas which survived this long period. These are for example: U and Ezinu; Enesh and Enten; Hummar and Plough; Wood and Reed; Bird and Fish; Tammuz and Enkimdu. Source of the genre is in the Edubba literature. It includes ethical, pedagogical writings. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta shares a lot of characteristic features with this and genre embedded to an epos. It converged to the fabula in a Summer–Akkad bilingual writing. It included dogs, wolves, lions and foxes also.
Akkadian literature.
There are few disputes in the genre of adamanduga in the Akkad literature. Main theme of these poetries were the relationship between human and the society instead of human and environment. Most vital parts of adamandugas were its special characters: personalisation of plants and animals. There were violent fights between them. Most important poems are Tamariskus and the Date Palm; Ox and the Horse. These had major influence in their time. Disputes in the Nisaba and the Wheat had less cultural historical background. In Myth of Etana dispute becomes fight. The characters of the epos are the Snake and the Eagle. It is the predessor of the balbade.
You may find similar writings in the later history of Arabic, Hebrew literature and in the Middle Age from Europe.
Sources.
 Világirodalmi lexikon I. kötet, A-Cal,


Tandai

The term is a Kamakura and Muromachi period colloquialism for any very important governmental, judiciary or military post in a determinate area. During the Kamakura shogunate, examples of "tandai" in the east of the country were the "shikken" and the "rensho", in the west of the country and in Kyūshū the "Rokuhara tandai" and the "Chinzei bugyō", also called "Chinzei tandai".
Examples during the Muromachi period were the "Chinzei bugyō", also called "Kyūshū tandai", Ōshū province's "Ōshū tandai" and Dewa province's "Ushū tandai".


Wajin (ancient people)

 is
In general the Wajin that established themself on the Japanese archipelago became the Yayoi people, the ancestors of the Yamato people. The word "Wajin" also refers to related groups outside of Japan.
The first secure appearance of Wajin is in "Treatise on Geography" (地理志) of the "Book of Han" (漢書). After that, in "Gishi WajinDen" ((魏志倭人伝), a Japanese abbreviation for the "account of Wajin" in the "Biographies of the Wuhuan, Xianbei, and Dongyi" (烏丸鮮卑東夷傳), Volume 30 of the "Book of Wei" (魏書) of the "Records of the Three Kingdoms" (三国志)), their lifestyle, habits and the way of society are described and by cultural commonality such as lifestyle, customs and languages, they are distinguished themselves from "Kanjin" (han people (韓人)) and "Waijin" (Wai people (濊人)).
Descriptions about Wajin can be found in the Old Book of Tang (945 AD) and the "New Book of Tang" (1060 AD)
Several linguists, including Alexander Vovin and Juha Janhunen, suggest that Japonic languages were spoken by Wajin and were present in large parts of the southern Korean Peninsula. According to Vovin, these "Peninsular Japonic languages" were replaced by Koreanic-speakers (possibly belonging to the Han-branch). This event was possibly the reason for the Yayoi-migration into Japan. Janhunen also suggests that early Baekje was still predominantly Japonic-speaking before they got replaced or assimilated into the new Korean society.
Origin of the name.
There are several theories as to why certain people living in the Japanese archipelago came to be called "Wajin" (倭人). Cao Wei's official, Nyojun (魏の官人如淳), argued that the origin of Wa was based on the custom of "tattooing (entrusting) to the human face," (人面に入れ墨する(委する)), but denied it because the sounds of Wa (倭) and Yan (委) were different from those of Yan Shigu.
In the early Heian period (794 to 1185), the introduction of "Hiroshi 's private record" ([:ja:日本書紀私記], Nihon Shoki Shiki) describes the theory that the Chinese side wrote down as "Wakoku" (倭の国), because the self-proclaimed "wa" (わ) was used as a theory of a certain person.
In addition, since the word "Wakoku" is obedient (従順) in "Shuowen Jiezi", Ichijō Kaneyoshi chanted "because the human heart of Wajin was obedient" (, "Nihon Shoki Sanso"), and many posterity Confucian scholars follow this.
There is also a theory that "Wa" (倭) meant "a short race" (背丈の小さい人種, Setake no chīsai jinshu).
The Japanese philosopher Kinoshita Jun'an states that he was called Wa (倭) because he was a small person (dwarf, 矮人). Arai Hakuseki stated in "Koshitsū" (古史通或問) that the transliteration of "Ohokuni" (オホクニ) was "Wakoku" (倭国). In addition, writer Motohiko Izawa said, "When humans on the continent heard their national name, they answered the name of their own organization, which was the "輪" (Wa = ring, ring moat of a moat village 環濠集落), because the concept of the state still existed at that time." Many theories have been made in this way, but there is no definite one.
There is some disagreement with the interpretation of "Wakoku" (倭(委)奴国) as "Wakoku" (倭の奴の国). Among the scholars of the head family of kanji who interpreted the original "Gishiwajinden" ([:ja:魏志倭人伝]), the word "yatsu" (奴) used to mean a derogatory term for a woman, and the female kingdom, Wa (倭), was called "Wakoku" (倭奴国). It is the theory that it should be called and should be regarded as a derogatory term for the book-sealing nation based on Chinese thought and the current nation's Wakoku (倭国). However, it is the view that such derogatory terms are gradually becoming obsolete even in later Sinocentric countries as the envoys to Sui and Tang came to be used.
As Baiyue and Wu people.
The ethnic concept of "Wa-zoku (倭族)" encompasses a wide range of regions and does not limit to the Wajin of the Japanese archipelago. According to Kenzaburo's theory, Wa-zoku are Wajin who came to the Japanese archipelago with rice crop, whose ancestor was the same as the Yayoi people. Torigoe says that the original place of the Wa-zoku is Yunnan.
Suwa Haruo considered Wa-zoku to be part of Baiyue (百越) in southern China.
The Wajin (and the Yayoi) are possibly descendants of the Wu people. A large paddy ruins in the area was created around 450 BC, the Warring States period, in Kyushu, and a record states that "Wajin [were the] self-named descendants of Zhou". An influential theory states that the Wu people of the Yangtze River area that followed the hydroponic rice cultivation culture, which is also a symbol of Yangtze civilization, drifted to the Japanese archipelago around the 5th century BC, in collaboration with the destruction of the Kingdom of Wu.


Kulkarni

Kulkarni (Marathi: कुलकर्णी, Kannada: ಕುಲಕರ್ಣಿ), is a family name native to the Indian state of Maharashtra and Northern Karnataka.The name "Kulkarni" is a combination of two words ("kula" and "karni"). "Kula" means "family", and "Karanika" means "archivist". Traditionally, Kulkarni was a title used by people who maintained the accounts and records of the villages and used in collecting taxes. The title of the Kulkarni was later replaced by the Talathi. The Pargana and Kulkarni watans (land rights) were abolished in 1950.
The name is found among the Brahmin communities of these states such as Deshastha, Karhade and also among the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu (CKP) community.
The reason the Kulkarni was a Brahmin or CKP was because literacy was mandatory for the office. The Kulkarni operated at the village level but at a Pargana level he was known as a "Deshkulkarni", Deshpande or Nadkarni (in Karnataka).


Fukui Domain

The , also known as the , was a domain ("han") of the Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan during the Edo period from 1601 to 1871.
The Fukui Domain was based at Fukui Castle in Echizen Province, the core of the modern city of Fukui, located in the Chūbu region of the island of Honshu. The Fukui Domain was founded by Yūki Hideyasu, the son of "shōgun" Tokugawa Ieyasu, and was ruled for all of its existence by the "shinpan" "daimyō" of the Matsudaira clan. The Fukui Domain was assessed under the "Kokudaka" system and its value peaked at 680,000 "koku". The Fukui Domain was dissolved in the abolition of the han system in 1871 after the Meiji Restoration and its territory was absorbed into Fukui Prefecture.
History.
In the Sengoku period, the area around Fukui was known as Kita-no-sho, and controlled by Shibata Katsutoyo, the adopted son of Shibata Katsuie, one of Oda Nobunaga's leading generals, after the Asakura clan was dispossessed by Shibata Katsuie. After Shibata Katsutoyo died of illness during the Battle of Shizugatake in 1583, the area was given to the Aoyama clan. However, the Aoyama sided with the Western Army under Ishida Mitsunari during the Battle of Sekigahara and were thus dispossessed by the victorious Tokugawa Ieyasu. In 1601, Ieyasu awarded Echizen Province to his second son, Yūki Hideyasu as a 670,000 "koku" fief. Yūki Hideyasu was permitted to change his name to Matsudaira Hideyasu, and he rebuilt Fukui Castle and the surrounding "jōkamachi" as his capital. His son, Matsudaira Tadanao was of violent disposition and was on bad terms with Shōgun Tokugawa Hidetada, and was consequently dispossessed and banished to Kyushu. He was replaced by his younger brother, Matsudaira Tadamasa, with a reduction in "kokudaka" to 500,000 "koku". His descendants continued to rule over Fukui until the end of the Tokugawa shogunate.
Under Tadamasa's successor, Matsudaira Mitsumichi, the domain was reduced further with the creation of subsidiary domains as Yoshie Domain and Echizen-Maruoka Domain. the domain was plagued with financial difficulties through most of its history, due to frequent flooding, crop failure, epidemics and the profligate spending of its "daimyō". In 1661, Fukui became the first han to issue "hansatsu" (domain paper money).
In 1686, the domain faced a succession crisis and "O-Ie Sōdō" with the removal of Matsudaira Tsunamasa due to insanity was reduced from 475,000 "koku" to 250,000 "koku". A number of the later "daimyō" of Fukui were adopted into the clan from the Hitotsubashi-Tokugawa family, one of the "Gosankyō", the three lesser branches of the Tokugawa clan.
During the Bakumatsu period, Matsudaira Yoshinaga (better known as Matsudaira Shungaku), was one of the leading political figures in the final years of the Tokugawa shogunate. The final "daimyō" of Fukui was Matsudaira Mochiaki, who served as imperial governor under the Meiji government until the abolition of the han system in 1871 and the creation of modern Fukui Prefecture.
Holdings at the end of the Edo period.
Like most domains in the han system, Fukui Domain consisted of several discontinuous territories calculated to provide the assigned "kokudaka", based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields,
In addition, Fukui Domain administered the extensive "tenryō" territories in Echizen Province on behalf of the Tokugawa shogunate, deriving substantial revenue from these holdings, which were not counted as part of its nominal "kokudaka".


Yada Yoshikiyo

 was a Japanese samurai military commander, feudal lord, and courtier in the late Heian period of Japan's history. He took part in the Genpei War as a general for Minamoto no Yoshinaka, leading Yoshinaka's army against the Taira clan at the Battle of Mizushima where he was defeated and perished. His descendants would go on to form the Hosokawa clan and gain influence and power during the Ashikaga Shogunate and the subsequent Sengoku and Edo Periods as Daimyo.
Genealogy.
Although Yoshikiyo was the eldest son of Minamoto no Yoshiyasu, the founder of the Ashikaga clan, he did not inherit his father's estates in Shimotsuke Province following Yoshiyasu's death. Those properties instead went to his younger half-brother Ashikaga Yoshikane whose mother was Yoshiyasu's primary wife. Yoshikiyo's mother is unknown, however, if he was passed over for the succession she likely came from less prestigious origins than Yoshikane's who came from the Fujiwara clan.
It was instead his uncle Nitta Yoshishige who acted as his beneficiary, marrying one of his daughters to Yoshikiyo and granting him the town of Yada from Yoshishige's own holdings in Kozuke Province. It is from that town that Yoshikiyo took the name by which he is known by in the Heike Monogatari: Yada no Hangandai (矢田判官代, "Assistant Inspector of Yada").
Life.
Like his brother Yoshikane, when he came of age Yoshikiyo went to Kyoto and entered the service of an Imperial Princess as a Chamberlain (蔵人) finding service under the former Saiin of Kamo Shrine and Honorary Consort of Emperor Nijo, Muneko, who by this point had retired and become a Buddhist nun.
In 1180 when Prince Mochihito sent out a request for aid from the Minamoto clan to back his bid for the Chrysanthemum Throne in response to the enthronement of Taira no Kiyomori's 2-year-old grandson Emperor Antoku. Yoshikiyo joined his clan in rebellion, first serving under the veteran statesman Minamoto no Yorimasa. Following Yorimasa's defeat and suicide at the Battle of Uji, Yoshikiyo and his forces next linked up with Minamoto no Yoshinaka where he would find greater success, leading one of the columns of Yoshinaka's army into the capital from Mount Ōe in 1183.
The Taira abandoned the capital and set up a new court in Yashima in Sanuki Province. In November 1183, Yoshinaka sent Yoshikiyo and Unno Yukihiro to lead an army with orders to destroy the Taira remnants who were causing trouble in the Seto Inland Sea. Yoshikiyo set out for Mizushima in Bitchu Province and prepared to cross the sea to take Yashima, however when he arrived he was ambushed by the Taira navy under the command of Taira no Tomomori.
Yoshikiyo's forces were handed a crushing defeat at the hands of the Taira Navy who had greater experience at nautical combat. The Taira ships had been linked together to create a larger platform upon which to concentrate their forces. Yukihiro and Yoshikiyo's younger brother Yada Yoshinaga lost their lives in the storm of arrows and melee that followed. In desperation, Yoshikiyo attempted to launch an assault on the Taira flagship with six of his retainers, but the small craft they were in capsized and Yoshikiyo drowned.


Minamoto clan

 was one of the surnames bestowed by the Emperors of Japan upon members of the imperial family who were excluded from the line of succession and demoted into the ranks of the nobility from 1192 to 1333. The practice was most prevalent during the Heian period (794–1185 AD), although its last occurrence was during the Sengoku period. The Taira were another such offshoot of the imperial dynasty, making both clans distant relatives. The Minamoto clan is also called the , or less frequently, the , using the on'yomi reading for Minamoto.
The Minamoto were one of four great clans that dominated Japanese politics during the Heian period — the other three were the Fujiwara, the Taira, and the Tachibana.
History.
The first emperor to grant the surname Minamoto to his children was Emperor Saga, who reportedly had 49 children, resulting in a significant financial burden on the imperial household. In order to alleviate some of the pressure of supporting his unusually many offspring, he made many of his sons and daughters nobles instead of royals. He chose the word "minamoto" (meaning "origin") for their new surname in order to signify that the new clan shared the same origins as the royal family. Afterwards, Emperor Seiwa, Emperor Murakami, Emperor Uda, and Emperor Daigo, among others, also gave their non-heir sons or daughters the name Minamoto. These specific hereditary lines coming from different emperors developed into specific clans referred to by the emperor's name followed by Genji (e.g. "Seiwa Genji"). According to some sources, the first to be given the name Minamoto was Minamoto no Makoto, seventh son of Emperor Saga.
The most prominent of the several Minamoto families, the Seiwa Genji, descended from Minamoto no Tsunemoto (897–961), a grandson of Emperor Seiwa. Tsunemoto went to the provinces and became the founder of a major warrior dynasty. Minamoto no Mitsunaka (912–997) formed an alliance with the Fujiwara. Thereafter the Fujiwara frequently called upon the Minamoto to restore order in the capital, Heian-Kyō (modern Kyōto).
Mitsunaka's eldest son, Minamoto no Yorimitsu (948–1021), became the protégé of Fujiwara no Michinaga; another son, Minamoto no Yorinobu (968–1048) suppressed the rebellion of Taira no Tadatsune in 1032. Yorinobu's son, Minamoto no Yoriyoshi (988–1075), and grandson, Minamoto no Yoshiie (1039–1106), pacified most of northeastern Japan between 1051 and 1087.
The Seiwa Genji's fortunes declined in the Hōgen Rebellion (1156), when the Taira executed much of the line, including Minamoto no Tameyoshi. During the Heiji Disturbance (1160), the head of the Seiwa Genji, Minamoto no Yoshitomo, died in battle. Taira no Kiyomori seized power in Kyoto by forging an alliance with the retired emperors Go-Shirakawa and Toba and infiltrating the "kuge". He sent Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147–1199), the third son of Minamoto no Yoshimoto of the Seiwa Genji, into exile. In 1180, during the Genpei War, Yoritomo mounted a full-scale rebellion against the Taira rule, culminating in the destruction of the Taira and the subjugation of eastern Japan within five years. In 1192 he received the title "shōgun" and set up the first "bakufu" at Kamakura.
The later Ashikaga (founders of the Ashikaga shogunate), Nitta, and Takeda clans claim descent from the Seiwa Genji.
The protagonist of the classical Japanese novel "The Tale of Genji", Hikaru Genji, was bestowed the name Minamoto for political reasons by his father the emperor and was delegated to civilian life and a career as an imperial officer.
The Genpei War is also the subject of the early Japanese epic "The Tale of the Heike" ("Heike Monogatari").
Members of the Minamoto clan (Genji Clan).
Even within royalty there was a distinction between princes with the title ("[having the] ability to advance", "i.e.", eligible to become the new Emperor), who could ascend to the throne, and princes with the title ("great" or "major"), who were not members of the line of imperial succession but nevertheless remained members of the royal class (and therefore outranked members of Minamoto clans). The bestowing of the Minamoto name on a (theretofore-)prince or his descendants excluded them from the royal class altogether, thereby operating as a reduction in legal and social rank even for "ō"-princes not previously in the line of succession.
Many later clans were formed by members of the Minamoto clan, and in many early cases, progenitors of these clans are known by either family name. There are also known monks of Minamoto descent; these are often noted in genealogies but did not carry the clan name (in favor of a dharma name).
There were 21 branches of the clan, each named after the emperor from whom it descended. Some of these lineages were populous, but a few produced no descendants.
Saga Genji.
The Saga Genji are descendants of Emperor Saga. As Saga had many children, many were bestowed the "uji" Minamoto, declassing them from imperial succession. Among his sons, Makoto, Tokiwa, and Tōru took the position of Minister of the Left ("sadaijin"); they were among the most powerful in the Imperial Court in the early Heian period. Some of Tōru's descendants in particular settled the provinces and formed "buke". Clans such as the Watanabe, Matsuura, and Kamachi descend from the Saga Genji.
Noted Saga Genji and descendants include:
History records that at least three of Emperor Saga's daughters were also made Minamoto (Kiyohime, Sadahime, and Yoshihime), but few records concerning his daughters are known.
Ninmyō Genji.
They were descendants of Emperor Ninmyō. His sons Masaru and Hikaru were udaijin. Among Hikaru's descendants was Minamoto no Atsushi, adoptive father of the Saga Genji's Watanabe no Tsuna and father of the Seiwa Genji's Mitsunaka's wife.
Montoku Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Montoku. Among them, Yoshiari was a sadaijin, and among his descendants were the Sakado clan who were Hokumen no Bushi.
Seiwa Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Seiwa. The most numerous of them were those descended from Tsunemoto, son of Prince Sadazumi. Hachimantarō Yoshiie of the Kawachi Genji was a leader of a "buke". His descendants set up the Kamakura shogunate, making his a prestigious pedigree claimed by many "buke", particularly for the direct descendants in the Ashikaga clan (that set up the Ashikaga shogunate) and the rival Nitta clan. Centuries later, Tokugawa Ieyasu would claim descent from the Seiwa Genji by way of the Nitta clan.
Yōzei Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Yōzei. While Tsunemoto is termed the ancestor of the Seiwa Genji, there is evidence (rediscovered in the late 19th century by Hoshino Hisashi) suggesting that he was actually the grandson of Yōzei rather than of Seiwa. This theory is not widely accepted as fact, but as Yōzei was deposed for reprehensible behavior, there would have been a compelling motive to claim descent from more auspicious origins if it were the case.
Kōkō Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Kōkō. The great-grandson of his firstborn Prince Koretada, Kōshō, was the ancestor of a line of "busshi", from which various styles of Buddhist sculpture emerged. Kōshō's grandson Kakujo established the Shichijō Bussho workshop.
Uda Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Uda. Two sons of Prince Atsumi, Masanobu and Shigenobu became "sadaijin". Masanobu's children in particular flourished, forming five "dōjō" houses as "kuge", and as "buke" the Sasaki clan of the Ōmi Genji, and the Izumo Genji.
Daigo Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Daigo. His son Takaakira became a "sadaijin", but his downfall came during the Anna incident. Takaakira's descendants include the Okamoto and Kawajiri clans. Daigo's grandson Hiromasa was a reputed musician.
Murakami Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Murakami. His grandson Morofusa was an "udaijin" and had many descendants, among them several houses of "dōjō kuge". Until the Ashikaga clan took it during the Muromachi period, the title of "Genji no Chōja" always fell to one of Morofusa's progeny.
Reizei Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Reizei. Though they are included among the listing of 21 Genji lineages, no concrete record of the names of his descendants made Minamoto is known to survive.
Kazan Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Kazan. They became the "dōjō" Shirakawa family, which headed the Jingi-kan for centuries, responsible for the centralized aspects of Shinto.
Sanjō Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Sanjō's son Prince Atsuakira. Starting with one of them, Michisue, the position of "Ōkimi-no-kami" (chief genealogist of the imperial family) in the Ministry of the Imperial Household was passed down hereditarily.
Go-Sanjō Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Go-Sanjō's son Prince Sukehito. Sukehito's son Arihito was a "sadaijin". Minamoto no Yoritomo's vassal Tashiro Nobutsuna, who appears in the Tale of the Heike, was allegedly Arihito's grandson (according to the Genpei Jōsuiki).
Go-Shirakawa Genji.
This line consisted solely of Emperor Go-Shirakawa son Mochihito-ō (Takakura-no-Miya). As part of the succession dispute that led to the opening hostilities of the Genpei War, he was declassed (renamed "Minamoto no Mochimitsu") and exiled.
Juntoku Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Juntoku's sons Tadanari-ō and Prince Yoshimune. The latter's grandson Yoshinari rose to "sadaijin" with the help of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu.
Go-Saga Genji.
This line consisted solely of Emperor Go-Saga's grandson Prince Koreyasu. Koreyasu-ō was installed as a puppet "shōgun" (the seventh of the Kamakura shogunate) at a young age, and was renamed "Minamoto no Koreyasu" a few years later. After he was deposed, he regained royal status, and became a monk soon after, thereby losing the Minamoto name.
Go-Fusakusa Genji.
These were descendants of Emperor Go-Fukakusa's son Prince Hisaaki (the eighth "shōgun" of the Kamakura shogunate). Hisaaki's sons Prince Morikuni (the next "shōgun") and Prince Hisayoshi were made Minamoto. Hisayoshi's adopted "nephew" (actually Nijō Michihira's son) Muneaki became a "gon-dainagon" (acting "dainagon").
Ōgimachi Genji.
These were non-royal descendants of Emperor Ōgimachi. At first they were "buke", but they later became "dōjō-ke", the Hirohata family.


List of religious buildings and structures of the Kingdom of Mysore

The List of religious buildings and structures of the Kingdom of Mysore includes notable and historically important Hindu temples, royal palaces, churches, mosques, military fortification and other courtly structures that were built or received significant embellishment by the rulers of the Kingdom of Mysore. The term "Kingdom of Mysore" broadly covers the various stages the Mysore establishment went through: A Vijayanagara vassal (c. 1399 – 1565), an independent Hindu Kingdom ruled by the Wodeyar dynasty (c. 1565 – 1761), ruled by the de facto rulers Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan who took control of the Kingdom (c. 1761 – 1799), and a princely monarchy under the British Raj (c. 1799 – 1950) before the establishment became a part of an independent India.


Sumitomo Group

The is one of the largest Japanese "keiretsu", or business groups, founded by Masatomo Sumitomo around 1615.
History.
The Sumitomo Group traces its roots to a bookshop in Kyoto founded circa 1615 by Masatomo Sumitomo, a former Buddhist monk. Even today management of the group is guided by his "Founder's Precepts", written in the 17th century.
Copper refining made the company famous. Riemon Soga, Masatomo Sumitomo's brother-in-law, learned Western methods of copper refining. In 1590 he established a smelting business, "Izumiya", literally meaning "spring shop". Riemon perfected techniques that allowed the extraction of silver from copper ore, something Japanese technology had not previously accomplished.
The smelting and smithing business was moved from Kyoto to Osaka by the late 17th century. Soga passed control of the company to his son Tomomochi who managed its transformation into a major trading house during the Edo period. Sumitomo began to export copper, import silk, and provide financial services. By 1691, copper mining had been added to the portfolio.
The Meiji Restoration allowed Sumitomo to import and utilize Western machines and techniques in its mines. Sumitomo soon branched out into even more business areas entering the machine and coal industries, as well as the forestry, banking and warehousing businesses becoming a "zaibatsu", or business conglomerate.
After World War II, the Japanese "zaibatsu" conglomerates, including Sumitomo, were dissolved by the GHQ and the Japanese government. The group reformed as a "keiretsu", a group of independent companies organized around The Sumitomo Bank (now Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation) and bound together by cross shareholding.
Many companies continue to use the word "Sumitomo" in their corporate names. Most of them are managed independently and listed at Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) and other stock exchanges with highly dispersed shareholders. For some, the name only shows their historic origin, and they are no longer considered part of the Sumitomo Group.
Emblem.
The diamond-shaped "igeta" mark is reminiscent of a type of frame placed over a well in premodern Japan and was the logo of Riemon Soga's "Izumiya" company.


Mesopotamia Prima


Battle of Ctesiphon (363)

The Battle of Ctesiphon took place on May 29, 363 between the armies of Roman Emperor Julian and an army of the Sasanian Empire (during Shapur II's reign) outside the walls of the Persian capital Ctesiphon. The battle was a Roman victory, but eventually the Roman forces found themselves unable to continue their campaign as they were too far from their supply lines.
Background.
On November 3, 361, Constantius II died in the city of Mobsucrenae, leaving his cousin Flavius Claudius Julianus, known to history as Julian the Apostate, as sole Emperor of Rome. Arriving at Constantinople to oversee Constantius' burial, Julian immediately focused on domestic policy and began to greatly reform the Roman Imperial government by reorganizing, streamlining, and reducing the bureaucracy.
Turning next to foreign policy, Julian saw the previously unchecked military incursions of Shapur II of Persia against the Eastern Roman provinces as posing the greatest external threat. After many failed earlier attempts, the Persian king launched a more successful second campaign against the Romans and captured Amida in 359, controlling the headwaters of the Tigris and the entrance to Asia Minor from the east. A Roman offensive was desperately needed to halt Shapur.
With Julian's reputation and exploits during his years as Caesar and general of Gaul preceding him, Shapur preferred to negotiate a peace treaty with the intrepid young Julian. Believing it to be incumbent on himself to produce a more permanent settlement in the East, Julian responded to Shapur's calls for peace by saying that the Persian king would be seeing him very soon and began preparing for an expedition against the Sassanid dynasty, collecting all his legions and marching east from Constantinople. Carefully planning and crafting his Persian campaign for over a year, Julian transferred his capital and forward base for the coming war to Antioch, Syria in the summer of 362 and on March 5, 363, set out with 65,000–83,000, or 80,000–90,000 men, while Shapur, along with the main Persian army, "spah", was away from Ctesiphon. Per his devised plan of attack, Julian sent 18,000 soldiers under the command of his maternal cousin Procopius to Armenia, with the aim of obtaining support from the King of Armenia for a clever and not looked-for double pincer movement against Shapur.
The battle.
Seeing Julian successfully march into his dominions, Shapur ordered his governors to undertake a scorched earth policy until he reached the Sassanid capital, Ctesiphon, with the main Persian army. However, after a few minor skirmishes and sieges Julian arrived with his undefeated army before Shapur II to the walls of Ctesiphon on May 29.
Outside the walls a Persian army under Merena was formed up for battle across the Tigris. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the Persian army featured cataphracts ("clibanarii)", backed up by infantry in very close order. Behind them there were war elephants.
Julian's force attempted to set foot on the opposite shore of Tigris, under harassment by the Persians. After achieving it, the main battle commenced. It was a stunning tactical victory for the Romans, losing only 70 men to the Persians' 2,500 men. One of the Christian sources and not one friendly to the pagan Julian, Socrates Scholasticus, even states that Julian's victories up to this point in the campaign had been so great that they caused Shapur to offer Julian a large portion of the Persian domains if he and his legions would withdraw from Ctesiphon. But Julian rejected this offer out of desire for the glory of taking the Persian capital and defeating Shapur in battle which would earn him the honorific of "Parthicus". However, Julian lacked the equipment to lay siege to the strongly fortified Ctesiphon, and the main Sassanid army, commanded by Shapur and far larger than the one just defeated, was closing in quickly. Also critical was the failure of Procopius to arrive with the 18,000 detachment of the Roman army that could have aided Julian in crushing Shapur's approaching force as he had intended. For as previously captured satraps had testified after being fairly treated by Julian, the capture or death of Shapur would have compelled the Persian city to open its gates to the new Roman conqueror. While Julian was in favor of advancing further into Persian territory, he was overruled by his officers. Roman morale was low, disease was spreading, and there was very little forage around.
Aftermath.
Reluctantly, Julian agreed to retreat back along the Tigris and look for Procopius and the other half of his army that had failed to coordinate the double-pincers movement with him outside of Ctesiphon as had been planned. On June 16, 363, the retreat began. Ten days later, after an indecisive Roman victory at Maranga, the army’s rearguard came under heavy attack, in the Battle of Samarra. Not even pausing to put on his armour, Julian plunged into the fray shouting encouragement to his men. Just as the Persians were beginning to pull out with heavy losses, Julian was struck in the side by a flying spear. He died before midnight, on June 26, 363. Ultimately the campaign failed and the Romans were forced to ask for peace under unfavourable terms.


Japanese occupation of Singapore

, officially was the name for Singapore when it was occupied and ruled by the Empire of Japan, following the fall and surrender of British military forces on 15 February 1942 during World War II.
Japanese military forces occupied it after defeating the combined British, Indian, Australian, and Malayan garrison in the Battle of Singapore. The occupation was to become a major turning point in the histories of several nations, including those of Japan, Britain, and Singapore. Singapore was renamed Syonan-to, meaning "Light of the South Island" and was also included as part of the .
Singapore was officially returned to British colonial rule on 12 September 1945, following the formal signing of the surrender instrument at the Municipal Building, now known as the City Hall. Singapore would go on to be a sovereign city-state 20 years later in 1965. The experience of Japanese rule continues to be commemorated with Total Defence Day, which is marked annually in Singapore on 15 February, the day of the surrender of the British to the Japanese in 1942.
Events leading to the occupation.
The Japanese captured all of Malaya during the Malayan Campaign in a little more than two months. The garrison defending Singapore surrendered on 15 February 1942, only a week after the invasion of the island commenced. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the fall of Singapore "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history".
Life during the occupation.
Time of mass-terror.
The main army which took Malaya, the 25th Army, was redeployed to other fronts such as the Philippines and New Guinea shortly after the fall of Singapore. The "Kempeitai" (the Japanese military police), which was the dominant occupation unit in Singapore, committed numerous atrocities towards the common people. They introduced the system of "Sook Ching", meaning "purging through purification" in Chinese, to get rid of those, especially so ethnic Chinese, deemed to be hostile to the Empire of Japan (anti-Japanese elements in the local population). The Sook Ching Massacre allegedly claimed the lives of between 25,000 and 55,000 ethnic Chinese in Singapore as well as in neighboring Malaya. These victims, mainly males between the ages of 18 to 50, were rounded up and taken to deserted spots and remote locations around the island, such as Changi Beach, Punggol Point, and Siglap and killed systematically using machine-guns and rifles. Moreover, the "Kempeitai" established an island-wide network of local informants to help them identify those they suspected as anti-Japanese. These informers were well-paid by the "Kempeitai" and had no fear of being arrested for their loyalty was not in question to the occupation forces. These informers worked at Kempeitai screening centres where the Japanese attempted to single out anti-Japanese elements for execution. Japanese soldiers and Kempeitai officers patrolled the streets often and all commoners had to bow to them with respect when they passed by. Those who failed to do so would be slapped, punished, beaten and some people would even be taken away to imprisonment or even face execution.
Other changes.
To discourage Western influence, which Japan sought to eliminate from the very start of their invasion, the Japanese set up schools and education institutions and pressured the local people to learn their language (Japanese). Textbooks and language guidebooks were printed in Japanese and radios and movies were broadcast and screened in Japanese. Every morning, school-children had to stand facing the direction of Japan (in the case of Singapore, looking northeast) and sing the Japanese national anthem ("Kimigayo"). Japanese propaganda banners and posters also went up all around Singapore, as did many Japanese Rising Sun flags raised and hung across many major buildings.
Scarcity of basic needs.
Basic resources, ranging from food to medication, were scarce during the occupation. The prices of basic necessities increased drastically over the three and a half years due to hyperinflation. For example, the price of rice increased from $5 per 100 catties (about ) to $5,000 by the end of the occupation between August and September 1945. The Japanese issued ration cards, also known as "Peace Living Certificates" to limit the amount of resources distributed to the civilian population. Adults could purchase of rice per month and children received accordingly. The amount of rice for adults was reduced by 25% as the war progressed, as much of the scarce rice supplies were sent to feed the Japanese military.
The Japanese issued "Banana Money" (so referred to due to the image of a banana tree printed on most of such notes of the currency) as their main currency during the occupation period since British Straits currency became rarer and was subsequently phased out when the Japanese took over in 1942. They instituted elements of a command economy in which there were restrictions on the demand and supply of resources, thus creating a popular black market from which the locals could obtain key scarce resources such as rice, meat, and medicine. The "Banana" currency started to suffer from high inflation and dropped drastically in value because the occupation authorities would simply print more whenever they needed it; consequently on the black market, Straits currency was more widely used.
Food availability and quality decreased greatly. Sweet potatoes, tapiocas and yams became the staple food of most diets of many Singaporeans because they were considerably cheaper than rice and could also be grown fast and easily in backyard gardens. They were then turned into a variety of dishes, as both desserts and all three meals of the day. Such foods helped to fend starvation off, with limited success in terms of nutrients gained, and new ways of consuming sweet potatoes, tapiocas and yams with other products were regularly invented and created to help stave off the monotony. Both the British colonial and Japanese occupation authorities encouraged their local population to grow their own food even if they had the smallest amount of land. The encouragement and production were similar to what occurred with "Victory Gardens" in Western nations (predominantly in Europe) during World War II as food supplies grew ever more scarce. "Ipomoea aquatica", which grew relatively easily and flourished relatively well near water sources, became a popular food-crop just as it did the other vegetables.
Education.
After taking Singapore, the Japanese established the , to educate Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Eurasians in the Japanese language. Faye Yuan Kleeman, the author of "Under an Imperial Sun: Japanese Colonial Literature of Taiwan and the South" wrote that it was the most successful of such schools in Southeast Asia. During the occupation, the Japanese had also opened the Shonan First People's School.
Allied attacks.
Singapore was the target of various operations masterminded by Allied forces to disrupt Japanese military activities. On 26 September 1943, an Allied commando unit known as Z Force led by Major Ivan Lyon infiltrated Singapore Harbour and sank or damaged seven Japanese ships comprising over . Lyon led another operation, codenamed "Rimau", with the same objective almost a year later and sank three ships. Lyon and 13 of his men were killed fighting the Japanese. The other 10 men who participated in the operation were captured, charged with espionage in a kangaroo court and subsequently executed.
Lim Bo Seng of Force 136 led another operation, code-named "Gustavus", he recruited and trained hundreds of secret agents through intensive military intelligence missions from China and India. He set up the Sino-British guerrilla task force Force 136 in 1942 with Captain John Davis of the Special Operations Executive (SOE).
Operation Gustavus was aimed at establishing an espionage network in Malaya and Singapore to gather intelligence about Japanese activities, and thereby aid the British in Operation Zipper – the code name for their plan to take back Singapore from the Japanese. Force 136 was eventually disbanded after the war.
In August 1945, two XE class midget submarines of the Royal Navy took part in Operation Struggle, a plan to infiltrate Singapore Harbour and sabotage the Japanese cruisers and using limpet mines. They inflicted heavy damage on "Takao", earning Lieutenant Ian Edward Fraser the Victoria Cross. From November 1944 to May 1945, Singapore was subjected to air raids by British and American long-range bomber units.
Naval facilities and docks in Singapore were also bombed on eleven occasions by American air units between November 1944 and May 1945. These attacks caused some damage to their targets but also killed a number of civilians. Most Singaporeans, however, welcomed the raids as they were seen as heralding Singapore's liberation from Japanese rule.
End of the occupation.
On 6 August 1945, the United States detonated an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Sixteen hours later, American President Harry S. Truman called again for Japan's surrender, warning them to "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." 8 August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war and on 9 August 1945, the Soviet Union invaded the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later in the day, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Following these events, Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Emperor Hirohito gave a recorded radio address across the Empire on 15 August. In the radio address, called the Jewel Voice Broadcast (玉音放送 Gyokuon-hōsō), he announced the surrender of Japan to the Allies.
The surrender ceremony was held on 2 September, aboard the United States Navy battleship USS Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending the hostilities.
On 12 September 1945, a surrender instrument was signed at the Singapore Municipal Building. This was followed by a celebration at the Padang, which included a victory parade. Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander of South East Asia Command, came to Singapore to receive the formal surrender of the Japanese forces in the region from General Seishirō Itagaki on behalf of General Hisaichi Terauchi. A British military administration, using surrendered Japanese troops as security forces, was formed to govern the island until March 1946.
After the Japanese surrendered, there was a state of instability anomie in Singapore, as the British had not yet arrived to take control. The Japanese occupiers had a considerably weakened hold over the populace. There were widespread incidents of looting and revenge-killing. Much of the infrastructure had been wrecked, including the harbour facilities and electricity, water supply and telephone services. It took four or five years for the economy to return to pre-war levels. When British troops finally arrived, they were met with cheering and fanfare.
Banana money became worthless after the occupation ended.
Memorials.
To keep alive the memory of the Japanese occupation and its lessons learned for future generations, the Singapore government erected several memorials with some at the former massacre sites:
Civilian War Memorial.
Spearheaded and managed by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Civilian War Memorial is located in the War Memorial Park at Beach Road. Comprising four white concrete columns, this 61 meters tall memorial commemorates the civilian dead of all races. It was built after thousands of remains were discovered all over Singapore during the urban redevelopment boom in the early 1960s. The memorial was officially unveiled by Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew on the 25th anniversary of the start of the Japanese occupation in 1967. It was constructed with part of the S$50 million 'blood debt' compensation paid by the Japanese government in October 1966. Speaking at the unveiling ceremony, Lee said:
On 15 February every year, memorial services (opened to the public) are held at the memorial.
Sook Ching Centre Monument.
The site of this monument lies within the Hong Lim Complex in Chinatown. The inscription on the monument reads:
Changi Beach Massacre Monument.
The site of this monument is located in Changi Beach Park (near Camp Site 2) in the eastern part of Singapore. The inscription on the monument reads:
Punggol Beach Massacre Monument.
The site of this monument is located off Punggol Road in northeastern Singapore. The inscription on the monument reads:
Popular culture.
The Japanese occupation of Singapore has been depicted in media and popular culture, including films, television series and books


Imamkuli-Khan

Imamkuli-khan the son of Din Muhammad khan (1582-1644) was the third ruler of the Bukhara Khanate, who reigned from 1611 to 1642.
Imamkuli-khan belonged to Ashtarkhanid dynasty. During the reign of Imamkuli Khan, the Bukhara khanate achieved the most significant power for the entire period of its existence. Despite a successful foreign policy, Imamkuli Khan was unable to completely overcome the internal contradictions in the state associated with the separatism of certain Uzbek tribes.
In 1615, Imamkuli Khan sent ambassadors to the descendant of Babur, Emperor Jahangir of India. The letter from Imamkuli Khan was accompanied by an additional letter from the descendant of the famous theologian Khoja Hashim Dagbedi. The ambassadors were greeted friendly and Jahangir sent gifts and a poem to Imamkuli Khan, which he composed himself.
In 1618, the Safavid Shah Abbas I sent ambassadors to Imamkuli Khan with an offer of friendship. In April 1619, the ambassador of Imamkuli Khan was solemnly received by the Safavid shah.
During the reign of Imamkuli Khan, a number of famous architectural masterpieces were built, such as the cathedral mosque and Tillya-Kari madrasah, Sherdor madrasah in Samarkand, Nodir-Divan-Begi madrasah in Bukhara and Samarkand, etc.
In the last years of his life, Imamkuli Khan began to see poorly and in 1642 he renounced the throne in favor of his brother Nadir Muhammad (1642-1645) and went on the Hajj. Imamkuli Khan visited the Safavid Shah, where the local artist Mo'en Mosavver painted his portrait.
Imamkuli Khan died in 1644 in Mecca and was buried in Medina.Ijaz bakhri Astrakhan


Ashikaga Domain

 was a feudal domain under the Tokugawa shogunate of Edo period Japan, located in Shimotsuke Province (modern-day Tochigi Prefecture), Japan. It was centered on Ashikaga "jin'ya" in what is now part of the city of Ashikaga. Ashikaga was ruled through most of its history by a junior branch of the Toda clan.
History.
The Ashikaga clan which ruled Japan during the Muromachi period established a branch government at their ancestral homeland of Ashikaga "shōen" in Shimotsuke to govern the Kantō region. However, by the late Sengoku period, this branch of the Ashikaga were very much weakened by the constant battles against the Uesugi clan, Takeda clan and Odawara Hojo clan, and were eventually dispossessed after the 1590 Battle of Odawara.
In 1688, Shōgun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi elevated his mother’s half-brother, Honjō Munesuke, to the rank of daimyō and assigned him a 10,000 "koku" territory on the former Ashikaga lands. He was later awarded an increase to 20,000 "koku" before being transferred to Kasama Domain in Hitachi Province in 1692.
In 1705, despite his somewhat advanced age, the "hatamoto" Toda Tadatoki received an additional 3000 "koku" in addition to his existing 8000 "koku" by Shōgun Tokugawa Ienobu as a reward for his long service, and Ashikaga domain was revived. The Toda continued to rule Ashikaga until the end of the Edo period. The final daimyō, Toda Tadayuki served the Tokugawa shogunate as "Rikugun bugyō", but later switched allegiance to the pro-imperial cause in the Boshin war of the Meiji restoration.
After the abolition of the han system in July 1871, Ashikaga Domain became part of Tochigi Prefecture.
The domain had a population of 6,826 people in 1473 households, of which 383 were samurai in 106 households per a census in 1870.
Holdings at the end of the Edo period.
As with most domains in the han system, Ashikaga Domain consisted of several discontinuous territories calculated to provide the assigned "kokudaka", based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields.


Sources of Indo-Greek history

The sources used to reconstruct the history of the Indo-Greeks are few and disparate, leading to much uncertainty about the precise state of the Indo-Greek kingdom and its chronology. Sources related to the Indo-Greeks can be classified into various categories: ancient literary sources from both the West and the Indian world, archaeological sources from the general area of present day Pakistan, Kashmir and North Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh & Bihar, and numismatical sources, which are abundant and well-preserved but often rather cryptic.
Literary sources.
Western literary sources.
Some narrative history has survived for most of the Hellenistic world, at least of the kings and the wars; this is lacking for India. The main Greco-Roman source on the Indo-Greeks is Justin, who wrote an anthology drawn from the Roman historian Pompeius Trogus, who in turn wrote, from Greek sources, at the time of Augustus Caesar. Justin tells the parts of Trogus' history he finds particularly interesting at some length; he connects them by short and simplified summaries of the rest of the material. In the process he has left 85% to 90% of Trogus out; and his summaries are held together by phrases like "meanwhile" ("eodem tempore") and "thereafter" ("deinde"), which he uses very loosely. Where Justin covers periods for which there are other and better sources, he has occasionally made provable mistakes. As Tarn and Develin both point out, Justin is not trying to write history in our sense of the word; he is collecting instructive moral anecdotes. Justin does find the customs and growth of the Parthians, which were covered in Trogus' 41st book, quite interesting, and discusses them at length; in the process, he mentions four of the kings of Bactria and one Greek king of India, getting the names of two of them wrong.
In addition to these dozen sentences, the geographer Strabo mentions India a few times in the course of his long dispute with Eratosthenes about the shape of Eurasia. Most of these are purely geographical claims, but he does mention that Eratosthenes' sources say that some of the Greek kings conquered further than Alexander; Strabo does not believe them on this, but modern historians do; nor does he believe that Menander and Demetrius son of Euthydemus conquered more tribes than Alexander There is half a story about Bactria (only) in one of the books of Polybius which has not come down to us intact.
In the 1st century BCE, the geographer Isidorus of Charax mentions Parthians ruling over Greek populations and cities in Arachosia: "Beyond is Arachosia. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians."
According to Strabo, Greek advances temporarily went as far as the Shunga capital Pataliputra (today Patna) in eastern India:
The 1st century BCE Greek historian Apollodorus, quoted by Strabo, affirms that the Bactrian Greeks, led by Demetrius I and Menander, conquered India and occupied a larger territory than the Macedonians under Alexander the Great, going beyond the Hypanis towards the Himalayas:
The Roman historian Justin also mentioned the Indo-Greek conquests, describing Demetrius as "King of the Indians" ("Regis Indorum"), and explaining that after vanquishing him Eucratides in turn "put India under his rule" ("Indiam in potestatem redegit") (since the time of the embassies of Megasthenes in the 3rd century BCE "India" was understood as the entire subcontinent, and was cartographed by geographers such as Eratosthenes). Justin also mentions Apollodotus and Menander as kings of the Indians.
Greek and Indian sources tend to indicate that the Greeks campaigned as far as Pataliputra until they were forced to retreat following the coup staged by Eucratides back in Bactria circa 170 BCE, suggesting an occupation period of about eight years. Alternatively, Menander may merely have joined a raid led by Indian Kings down the Ganges (A.K. Narain and Keay 2000), as Indo-Greek territory has only been confirmed from the Kabul Valley to the Punjab.
To the south, the Greeks occupied the areas of the Sindh and Gujarat down to the region of Surat (Greek: "Saraostus") near Mumbai (Bombay), including the strategic harbour of Barygaza (Bharuch), as attested by several writers (Strabo 11; Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Chap. 41/47) and as evidenced by coins dating from the Indo-Greek ruler Apollodotus I:
The 1st century CE Periplus of the Erythraean Sea describes numerous Greek buildings and fortifications in Barigaza, although mistakenly attributing them to Alexander, and testifies to the circulation of Indo-Greek coinage in the region:
From ancient authors (Pliny, Arrian, Ptolemy and Strabo), a list of provinces, satrapies, or simple regional designations, and Greek cities from within the Indo-Greek Kingdom can be discerned (though others have been lost), ranging from the Indus basin to the upper valley of the Ganges.
Indian literary sources.
There are Indian literary sources, ranging from the Milinda Panha, a dialogue between a Buddhist sage Nagasena and King Menander I, which includes some incidental information on Menander's biography and the geography and institutions of his kingdom, down to a sentence about Menander (presumably the same Menander) and his attack on Pataliputra which happens to have survived as a standard example in grammar texts; none is a narrative history. Names in these sources are consistently Indianized, and there is some dispute whether, for example, "Dharmamitra" represents "Demetrius" or is an Indian prince with that name. There was also a Chinese expedition to Bactria by Chang-k'ien under the Emperor Wu of Han, recorded in the Records of the Grand Historian and Book of the Former Han, additional evidence is in the Book of the Later Han; the identification of places and peoples behind transcriptions into Chinese is difficult, and several alternate interpretations have been proposed.
Various Indian records describe "Yavana" attacks on Mathura, Panchala, Saketa, and Pataliputra. The term "Yavana" is thought to be a transliteration of "Ionians" and is known to have designated Hellenistic Greeks (starting with the Edicts of Ashoka, where Ashoka writes about "the "Yavana" king Antiochus"), but may have sometimes referred to other foreigners as well, especially in later centuries.
Patanjali, a grammarian and commentator on Pāṇini around 150 BCE, describes in the "Mahābhāsya", the invasion in two examples using the imperfect tense of Sanskrit, denoting a recent event:
The "Anushasanaparava" of the Mahabharata affirms that the country of Mathura, the heartland of India, was under the joint control of the Yavanas and the Kambojas. The "Vayupurana" asserts that Mathura was ruled by seven Greek kings over a period of 82 years.
Accounts of battles between the Greeks and the Shunga in Central India are also found in the "Mālavikāgnimitram", a play by Kālidāsa which describes an encounter between Greek forces and Vasumitra, the grandson of Pushyamitra, during the latter's reign.
Also the Brahmanical text of the "Yuga Purana", which describes Indian historical events in the form of a prophecy, relates the attack of the Indo-Greeks on the capital Pataliputra, a magnificent fortified city with 570 towers and 64 gates according to Megasthenes, and describes the ultimate destruction of the city's walls:
According to the Yuga Purana a situation of complete social disorder follows, in which the Yavanas rule and mingle with the people, and the position of the Brahmins and the Sudras is inverted:
Archaeological sources.
There is also significant archaeological evidence, including some epigraphic evidence, for the Indo-Greek kings, such as the mention of the "Yavana" embassy of king Antialcidas on the Heliodorus pillar in Vidisha, primarily in Indic languages, which has the same problems with names as the Indic literary evidence.
Urban remains.
The city of Sirkap, today in northwestern Pakistan near Taxila, was built according to the "Hippodamian" grid-plan characteristic of Greek cities, and was a Hellenistic fortress of considerable proportions, with a 6,000 meter wall on the circumference, of a height of about 10 meters. The houses of the Indo-Greek level are "the best planned of all the six strata, and the rubble masonry of which its walls are built is also the most solid and compact". It is thought that the city was built by Demetrius.
Artifacts.
Several Hellenistic artifacts have been found, in particular coins of Indo-Greek kings, stone palettes representing Greek mythological scenes, and small statuettes. Some of them are purely Hellenistic, others indicate an evolution of the Greco-Bactrian styles found at Ai-Khanoum towards more indianized styles.
For example, accessories such as Indian ankle bracelets can be found on some representations of Greek mythological figures such as Artemis.
The excavations of the Greek levels at Sirkap were however very limited and made in peripheral areas, out of respect for the more recent archaeological strata (those of the Indo-Scythian and especially Indo-Parthian levels) and the remaining religious buildings, and due to the difficulty of excavating extensively to a depth of about 6 meters. The results, although interesting, are partial and cannot be considered as exhaustive. Beyond this, no extensive archaeological excavation of an Indo-Greek city has ever really been done.
Quantities of Hellenistic artifacts and ceramics can also be found throughout Northern India. Clay seals depicting Greek deities, and the depiction of an Indo-Greek king thought to be Demetrius, were found at Benares.
Stupas.
When the Indo-Greeks settled in the area of Taxila, large Buddhist structures were already present, such as the stupa of Dharmarajika built by Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE. These structures were reinforced in the following centuries, by building rings of smaller stupas and constructions around the original ones. Numerous coins of the Indo-Greek king Zoilos II were found under the foundation of a 1st-century BCE rectangular chapel near the Dharmarajika stupa.
Also, various Buddhist structures, such as the Butkara Stupa in the area of Swat were enlarged and decorated with Hellenistic architectural elements in the 2nd century BCE, especially during the rule of Menander. Stupas were just round mounds when the Indo-Greeks settled in India, possibly with some top decorations, but soon they added various structural and decorative elements, such as reinforcement belts, niches, architectural decorations such as plinthes, toruses and cavettos, plaster painted with decorative scrolls. The niches were probably designed to place statues or friezes, an indication of early Buddhist descriptive art during the time of the Indo-Greeks. Coins of Menander were found within these constructions dating them to around 150 BCE. By the end of Indo-Greek rule and during the Indo-Scythian period (1st century BCE), stupas were highly decorated with colonnated flights of stairs and Hellenistic scrolls of Acanthus leaves.
Numismatical sources.
One of the key pieces of archaeological evidence about the Indo-Greeks is the coins. There are coin finds of several dozen Indo-Greek rulers in India; exactly how many is complicated to determine, because the Greeks did not number their kings, and the eastern Greeks did not date their coins. For example, there are a substantial number of coin finds for a King Demetrius, but authors have postulated one, two, or three Demetrii, and the same coins have been identified by different enquirers as describing Demetrius I, Demetrius II, or Demetrius III. The following deductions have been made from coins, in addition to mere existence:
All of these arguments are arguments of probability, and have exceptions; one of Menander's coins was found in Wales.


Iyo-Matsuyama Domain

The was a Japanese domain of the Edo period, with its holdings centered in modern-day Matsuyama, Ehime.
History.
The Iyo-Matsuyama domain passed through several hands before settling as the fief of a branch of the Hisamatsu-Matsudaira. In the Bakumatsu period, the domain took part in the Tokugawa shogunate's military campaign against Chōshū. During the Boshin War, Iyo-Matsuyama sided with the Kyoto government. The domain was disbanded in 1871.
Harada Sanosuke of the Shinsengumi was the son of a low-ranking Iyo-Matsuyama retainer.


Mibu Domain

 was a feudal domain under the Tokugawa shogunate of Edo period Japan, located in Tsuga District of Shimotsuke Province (modern-day Tochigi Prefecture), Japan. It was centered on Mibu Castle in what is now part of the town of Mibu, Tochigi. Mibu was ruled through much of its history by a branch of the "fudai" Torii clan.
History.
The Mibu clan, which had ruled this area since the Muromachi period was destroyed at the Battle of Odawara in 1590, and their lands came under the control of the Yūki clan. After the Battle of Sekigahara, Tokugawa Ieyasu assigned a 19,000 "koku" holding in this area to Hineno Yoshiaki, formerly of Takashima Domain in Shinano Province in 1602. Hineno was instrumental in the construction of the Nikkō Tōshō-gū complex, and was rewarded for his efforts in 1634 by a transfer to Funai Domain (20,000 "koku").
Mibu was assigned to Abe Tadaaki, who has served as a "Rōjū" to "Shōgun" Tokugawa Iemitsu, with revenues raised to 25,000 "koku". He was reassigned in 1639 to Oishi Domain in Musashi Province.
Mibu then came under the control of the Miura clan, for three generations, until the transfer of "wakadoshiyori" Miura Akihiro to Nobeoka Domain in 1692.
"Shōgun" Tokugawa Tsunayoshi then assigned the domain to Matsudaira Terusada, with an increase in size to 32,000 "koku", and then 42,000 "koku"; however, he remained for only 3 years until his reassignment to Takasaki Domain. The domain was then reduced back to 25,000 "koku" and given to Katō Akihide, also a former "wakadoshiyori", who made many attempts to reform the domain’s finances and administration. After his son, Katō Yoshinori was transferred to Minakuchi Domain in 1712, Mibu came under the control of the Torii clan, who then ruled until the Meiji Restoration.
The 6th "daimyō", Torii Tadatomi, sided with the Satchō Alliance in the Boshin War of the Meiji Restoration, and fought in the Battle of Aizu, despite considerable opposition within the ranks of his samurai. The final "daimyō", Torii Tadafumi was later raised to the rank of viscount in the "kazoku" peerage system, and served as the Japanese consul to the Kingdom of Hawaii.
After the abolition of the han system in July 1871, Mibu Domain became part of Tochigi Prefecture. The domain had a samurai-class population of 1693 people in 437 households, per a census in 1870.
Holdings at the end of the Edo period.
As with most domains in the han system, Mibu Domain consisted of several discontinuous territories calculated to provide the assigned "kokudaka", based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields.