Jalal-ud-din Khalji

Jalal-ud-din Khalji (r. 1290–1296; died 19 July 1296) was the founder and first Sultan of the Khalji dynasty that ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1290 to 1320.
Originally named Firuz, Jalal-ud-din started his career as an officer of the Mamluk dynasty, and rose to an important position under Sultan Muizzuddin Qaiqabad. After Qaiqabad was paralyzed, a group of nobles appointed his infant son Shamsuddin Kayumars as the new Sultan, and tried to kill Jalal-ud-din. Instead, Jalal-ud-din had them killed, and became the regent. A few months later, he deposed Kayumars, and became the new Sultan.
As a Sultan, he repulsed a Mongol invasion, and allowed many Mongols to settle in India after their conversion to Islam. He captured Mandawar and Jhain from the Chahamana king Hammira, although he was unable to capture the Chahamana capital Ranthambore. During his reign, his nephew Ali Gurshasp raided Bhilsa in 1293 and Devagiri in 1296.
Jalal-ud-din, who was around 70 years old at the time of his ascension, was known as a mild-mannered, humble and kind monarch to the general public. During the first year of his reign, he ruled from Kilokhri to avoid confrontations with the old Turkic nobles of the imperial capital Delhi. Several nobles considered him as a weak ruler, and unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow him at different times. He meted out lenient punishments to the rebels, except in case of a dervish Sidi Maula, who was executed for allegedly conspiring to dethrone him. Jalal-ud-din was ultimately assassinated by his nephew Ali Gurshasp, who subsequently ascended the throne as Alauddin Khalji.
Early life.
Jalal-ud-din was a member of the Khalaj tribe, a tribe of Turkic origin that after migration from Turkistan had settled in Afghanistan for over 200 years. Before his ascension to the throne, Jalal-ud-din was known as Malik Firuz. He and his brother Shihabuddin (father of Alauddin Khalji) served the Delhi Sultan Balban for several years. He rose to the position of "sar-i-jandar" (chief of the royal bodyguards), and was later appointed as the governor of the frontier province of Samana. As the governor of Samana, he distinguished himself in the Sultanate's conflicts with the Mongol invaders.
After Balban's death in 1287, Delhi's kotwal Malik al-Umara Fakhruddin enthroned Balban's teenage grandson Muiz ud din Qaiqabad (or Kayqubad) with the title Muizzuddin. Qaiqabad was a weak ruler, and the administration was actually run by his officer Malik Nizamuddin. After Nizamuddin was poisoned by some rival officers, Qaiqabad summoned Jalal-ud-din from Samana to Delhi, gave him the title "Shaista Khan", appointed him as the "ariz-i-mumalik", and made him the governor of Baran.
By this time, Qaiqabad's health had deteriorated, and two rival factions of nobles vied for the power in Delhi. One faction, led by Malik Aytemur Surkha, sought to maintain the power of the old Turkic nobility, and wanted to retain Balban's family on the throne. The other faction, led by Jalal-ud-din, supported the rise of the new nobility.
As a regent of Kayumars.
When Qaiqabad was incurably paralyzed, Malik Surkha and his associate Malik Kachhan appointed his infant son Kayumars (or Kayumarth) on the throne with the title Shamsuddin II. The two nobles then conspired to kill their rival nobles, including Jalal-ud-din (then Malik Firuz). At this time, Jalal-ud-din was conducting an inspection of the royal army at Bhugal Pahari (Baharpur according to Ziauddin Barani). His nephew Malik Ahmad Chap, who held the office of "naib-i amir-i hajib", informed him about the conspiracy. Jalal-ud-din then moved his quarters to Ghiyaspur, and summoned his relatives from Baran on the pretext of preparing for an impending Mongol invasion. Other officers on Surkha's hit list also joined the Khaljis.
Shortly after, Jalal-ud-din received an order summoning him to the royal court in Delhi, and realized that this was part of a plot to kill him. He excused himself on the pretext of conducting an inspection of the army at Kannauj. Kachhan then personally marched from Delhi to Kannauj, and told Jalal-ud-din that his presence was sought in Delhi immediately. Jalal-ud-din pretended not knowing anything about the conspiracy, and requested Kachhan to rest in a tent, while he finished the inspection. In the tent, Jalal-ud-din had Kachhan beheaded, and had his body thrown into the Yamuna River, starting a war between the two rival factions.
Jalal-ud-din's sons marched to Delhi, entered the royal palace, and brought the titular Sultan Kayumars to Jalal-ud-din's camp. Malik Surkha and his associates tried to retrieve Kayumars, but were captured and killed. Jalal-ud-din's men also abducted some sons of Malik al-Umara Fakhruddin, the kotwal of Delhi, and therefore, Fakhruddin dissuaded the people of Delhi from trying to retrieve Kayumars.
After eliminating the officers of the rival faction, Jalal-ud-din continued to acknowledge Kayumars as the Sultan of Delhi. He became the governor of Bhatinda, Dipalpur and Multan provinces. Initially, he offered Kayumars' regency to Balban's nephew Malik Chajju and Fakhruddin. However, Malik Chajju preferred to be the governor of Kara-Manikpur, and Fakhruddin also rejected the offer. Therefore, Jalal-ud-din himself became the regent.
Qaiqabad died on 1 February 1290: according to Yahya Sirhindi he died of starvation after being neglected, but another account states that he was murdered on Jalal-ud-din's orders by an officer whose father had been executed by him. Kayumars' titular reign (1290) lasted for around 3 months, before he was deposed by Jalal-ud-din.
Ascension to the throne.
Jalal-ud-din (known as Malik Firuz until this point), ascended the throne of Delhi in June 1290, at the unfinished Kilokhri (also Kilughari or Kailugarhi) Palace near Delhi. At the time of his ascension, Jalal-ud-din was very unpopular. He had little support among the old Turkic nobles, who viewed him as an Afghan (Pashtun), wrongly believing him to be of non-Turkic ancestry. In addition, he was an old man of around 70 years, and his mild nature was seen as unsuitable for the position. Because of his unpopularity, he decided not to move to Balban's palace at Delhi, and lived at Kilokhri for around one year. He finished the palace, and turned Kilokhri into an important town.
Jalal-ud-din avoided making any radical changes to the administrative set-up, and retained the old Turkic nobles in the offices that they held during Balban's reign. For example, Fakhruddin was retained as the "kotwal" of Delhi, Khwaja Khatir was retained as the "wazir", and Balban's nephew Malik Chajju was retained as the governor of Kara-Manikpur. The surviving members of Balban's royal family moved to Kara under Chajju's governorship.
At the same time, Jalal-ud-din appointed his relatives and associates to the important offices. He appointed his brother Yaghrash Khan as the head of the army ministry (), and his nephew Ahmad Chap as . He gave his eldest son Mahmud the title Khan-i-Khan; the next two sons were given the titles Arkali Khan and Qadr Khan. He also appointed his nephews Ali Gurshasp (later Sultan Alauddin) and Almas Beg as "Amir-i-Tuzuk" (equivalent to Master of ceremonies) and "Akhur-beg" (equivalent to Master of the Horse) respectively.
Gradually, Jalal-ud-din overcame the initial hostility that he had faced from the citizens of Delhi. He gained reputation as a humble and kind-hearted monarch, as opposed to the preceding despots like Balban. After entering Delhi, he had the royal entrance to the Red Palace dismounted, and refused to sit on the king's seat in the royal audience-hall, saying that the crown had been forced upon him because of the malicious intents of Surkha and Kachhan.
Malik Chajju's revolt.
While the general public admired Jalal-ud-din as a kind-hearted and sincere person, a section of nobles despised him as a weak ruler. In August 1290, Balban's nephew Malik Chajju Kashli Khan, who now headed the former royal family, staged a revolt against Jalal-ud-din at Kara. Chajju seems to have opted for the governorship of the easternmost province of Kara-Manikpur to remain away from imperial control, and possibly, because he hoped to seek support from his cousin Bughra Khan (father of Qaiqabad), who had become an independent ruler of the eastern Bengal region in 1287.
Chajju styled himself as Sultan Mughisuddin, and declared his independence. As a mark of his sovereignty, he issued his own coins, and had the "khutba" read in his name. Ali Hatim Khan, the governor of Awadh, as well as other older nobles appointed in the eastern region, supported him. Chajju was also supported by a number of Hindu chiefs of the Gangetic plains, who had not paid their tribute for some years, and who swore allegiance to Balban's family. Under these circumstances, Jalal-ud-din's loyal officers in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab region started withdrawing from the region.
Chajju was confident that he enjoyed more support than Jalal-ud-din, who was yet to find favour among the old nobles of Delhi and its neighbouring areas. Therefore, he marched towards Delhi along the left bank of the Ganges River, and then the Ramganga River. He probably planned to enter Delhi from Amroha area. At Badaun, his supporters Malik Bahadur and Alp Ghazi joined him with their troops.
Jalal-ud-din set out to crush the revolt after appointing his eldest son, who held the title "Khan-i Khanan", in-charge of Delhi. He led his army towards Badaun via Koil (modern Aligarh). The vanguard of his army, led by his second eldest son Arkali Khan, marched ahead of the rest of the army, and spotted Chajju's army on the other side of the Ramganga River. Chajju's soldiers had seized all the boats, so Arkali Khan's contingent could not cross the river. At night, Arkali Khan sent a raiding party to Chajju's camp on rafts and skiffs. The raids caused panic among Chajju's soldiers, who deserted their camp, and moved northwards. Arkali Khan plundered the deserted camp for two days, and then pursued the enemy. He came across Chajju's army at a Ramganga river crossing, and fought an indecisive battle. Meanwhile, Jalal-ud-din's army crossed the Ganges river at Bhojpur (near Farrukhabad), and engaged Chajju's supporters in another battle.
At night, an agent of Chajju's Hindu supporter Bhim Deva (Biram Deva Kotla according to "Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi") informed him that Jalal-ud-din would attack his army from rear. Chajju then secretly left the camp with some of his followers. In the morning, Arkali Khan crossed the river, and easily defeated the remaining army of Chajju. Chajju's supporters Alp Ghazi and Bhim Deva were killed, while Malik Masud and Malik Muhammad Balban were captured. The rest of Chajju's army then surrendered. Chajju himself took shelter in a walled village, but the village headman turned him over to Jalal-ud-din's army.
Aakali Khan then joined Jalal-ud-din, and the combined imperial army marched to the eastern districts to punish the chiefs who had supported Chajju. Some chiefs, such as that of Rupal, surrendered and saved themselves by offering heavy tributes. Others, such as that of Kahsun, faced plundering raids. The Hindu rebels were executed, and the Muslim rebels of Indian origin were sold as slaves.
Jalal-ud-din treated the Turkic Muslim rebels kindly, despite objections by his nephew Ahmad Chhap. When the imprisoned rebel nobles were brought to his camp in chains, he disapproved of their mistreatment. He ordered them to be released, dressed well and entertained. He invited the high-ranking rebel nobles, such as Amir Ali Sarjandar, to a feast. Even Malik Chajju, who was captured a few days later, was sent to an honourable confinement at Multan instead of being executed; his associates were released. Jalal-ud-din openly praised the rebels for their loyalty to their deceased master Balban. When Ahmad Chhap objected to such leniency, Jalal-ud-din declared that he was incapable of being tyrannical, and argued that the pardoned nobles would be grateful to him and remain loyal to him.
Mongol invasion.
Sometime after Chajju's revolt, the Mongols invaded the north-west frontier of the Delhi Sultanate. The invasion was led by Abdullah, who was a grandson of Hallu (Hulagu Khan) according to Ziauddin Barani, and a son of "the prince of Khurasan" according to Yahya's "Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi".
The frontier provinces of Dipalpur, Multan, and Samana were governed by Jalal-ud-din's son Arkali Khan. Jalal-ud-din personally led an army to repulse the invaders. The two armies faced each other at a place named Bar-ram, and their vanguards engaged in some skirmishes. The skirmishes ended with advantage for the Delhi forces, and the Mongols agreed to retreat. Jalal-ud-din called Abdullah his son after exchanging friendly greetings.
A group of Mongols, led by Ulghu (another grandson of Hulagu), decided to embrace Islam, and sought Jalal-ud-din's permission to settle in India. In the Delhi Sultanate, the Mongols were regarded as hardened criminals, who had been involved in murders and highway robbery. Despite this, Jalal-ud-din accepted their regrets, and allowed them to settle in the lower Ganges plain, on the Lakhnauti (Bengal) frontier of his kingdom. He also provided the new settlers with accommodation, allowances and social ranks. These Mongols came to be known as "New Muslims".
Ranthambore campaign.
The Chahamana king Hammira-deva ruled a kingdom centred around Ranthambore, located to the south-west of Delhi. Hammira's expansionist policy had threatened the Ajmer and Haryana frontiers of the Delhi Sultanate, which prompted Jalal-ud-din to invade his kingdom.
Siege of Mandawar.
Jalal-ud-din marched via Rewari and Narnaul to reach the Alwar frontier of Hammira's kingdom. He first besieged fortress of Mandawar (called "Mandor" by Ziauddin Barani and Yahya Sirhindi). Mandawar was once a part of the Delhi Sultanate, but had been lost to the Chahamanas in the preceding years; Jalal-ud-din recaptured it in 1292. After this victory, he raided the countryside, obtaining a large number of cattle.
According to Yahya's "Tarikh-i Mubarak Shahi", the siege of Mandawar lasted for four months. However, historian A. B. M. Habibullah believes that this was the duration of the entire Ranthambore campaign, including the sieges of Mandawar, Jhain and Ranthambore.
Jalal-ud-din's eldest son, "Khan-i Khanan", died on the eve of the Mandawar campaign.
Siege of Jhain.
In 1291, Jalal-ud-din marched across the Karauli region to Jhain, a town that guarded the approaches to the Chahamana capital Ranthambore. A reconnaissance party of the Delhi army, led by Qara Bahadur, defeated a Chahamana contingent. Jalal-ud-din then sent a larger detachment to besiege the Jhain fort. When the invaders reached within two "farsang"s of the fort, a Chahamana army led by Gardan Saini came out of the fort and engaged them in a battle. The Delhi army emerged victorious, and Gardan Saini was killed in action. The invaders then pursued the retreating Chahamana soldiers across Chambal, Kunwari and Banas rivers. The remaining Chahamana contingents stationed at Jhain then evacuated the fort, and retreated to Ranthambore.
Following this victory, the invaders engaged in plunder, and dismantled the Jhain fort. Jalal-ud-din, an iconoclast, broke the non-Islamic idols, although he admired their sculpture and carvings.
The "Miftah al-Futuh", written by his courtier Amir Khusrau, claims that thousands of defenders were killed in the siege of Jhain, while the Delhi army lost only one Turkic soldier.
Siege of Ranthambore.
After conquering Jhain, Jalal-ud-din ordered his army to besiege the Ranthambore Fort, which was situated on a steep hill, and was reputed to be impregnable. He issued orders for the construction of siege engines such as "maghrabis" (catapults), , , and a (mound to reach the hilltop). According to the Delhi chronicler Ziauddin Barani, he abandoned the siege when he came out to inspect the progress of the construction, and realized the ensuing siege would cost many Muslim lives. Barani states that Jalal-ud-din declared he would not risk the hair of a single Muslim for "ten such forts". Jalal-ud-din's nephew Ahmad Chap opposed this decision saying that it would embolden the Hindus, and asked him to emulate the earlier Muslim kings such as Mahmud and Sanjar, "whose undoubted piety never limited their kingly action." But Jalal-ud-din argued that the comparisons to Mahmud and Sanjar were unfair, because their dominions did not include "a single idolater".
Conspiracies against Jalal-ud-din.
Conspiracy of Tajuddin Kuchi.
Several of Jalal-ud-din's courtiers believed that he was a weak king, who could not inspire the necessary fear among his subjects and the enemies of the Sultanate. During the Ranthambore campaign, some of his closest associates met at the house of Malik Tajuddin Kuchi. In a drunken stupor, they talked about killing Jalal-ud-din and raising Tajuddin to throne.
When Jalal-ud-din came to know about this, he summoned the erring courtiers to a private conference. But instead of punishing them, he shamed them by daring them to kill him with his own sword. The courtiers asked for forgiveness, attributing their behavior to alcohol intoxication, with Nusrat Sabbah making a "clever and flattering confession". The meeting ended with wine-drinking and poetry recitals by Jalal-ud-din.
Alleged conspiracy of Sidi Maula.
Jalal-ud-din was lenient towards his detractors, and even the most persistent detractors were only banished to their for one year. The only instance in which he meted out more severe punishments was during the alleged conspiracy of Sidi Maula.
Sidi Maula was a foreign-born religious leader, who belonged to a sect of unorthodox Muslim "dervishes". He owned a huge "khanqah", and had been reputed for his vast charities since the reign of Qaiqabad. His institution attracted most of the dispossessed Balban-era amirs and officers. His followers also included Jalal-ud-din's nobles, including Qazi Jalal Kashani and the now-deceased crown prince "Khan-i Khanan".
Sidi Maula allegedly planned to kill Jalal-ud-din to become "khalifa", although these allegations were never proven. According to a near-contemporary account, the allegations were first made by the jealous "dervishes" of a rival sect. It was alleged that Sidi Maula had asked Hathya "Paik" and Niranjan "Kotwal" to assassinate Jalal-ud-din on a Friday. These two were Balban-era Hindu officers ("pahilwans" or wrestlers, according to Ziauddin Barani). Malik Ulghu, the Mongol commander who had entered Jalal-ud-din's service, reported the allegations to Arkali Khan, while Jalal-ud-din was busy besieging Mandawar. Arkali Khan, who disliked the associates of his elder brother "Khan-i Khanan", accepted the allegations as true, and arrested the alleged conspirators.
When Jalal-ud-din returned to Delhi, the alleged conspirators were brought before him, and pleaded not guilty. The orthodox Muslim "ulama", who were unable to present any concrete evidence against the accused, suggested a trial by fire. When Jalal-ud-din was convinced that the accused were guilty, he ordered the Hindu conspirators Hathya and Niranjan to be executed. He then banished Qazi Jalal Kashani and the Balban-era officers who followed Sidi Maula. Next, Jalal-ud-din turned to Sidi Maula, and lost his composure when Sidi Maula repeatedly denied his involvement in the conspiracy. An annoyed Jalal-ud-din asked a group of "qalandars" to knife Sidi Maula. Arkali Khan later had the wounded Sidi Maula crushed under the feet of an elephant.
Sidi Maula's execution was followed by a severe dust storm, and a drought resulting from the failure of seasonal rains. These conditions resulted in a severe famine, during which the prices of foodgrains became exorbitant, and a number of people committed suicide by jumping into the Yamuna River. Sidi Maula's admirers considered these unfortunate events as proof of his innocence.
Ali Gurshasp's conspiracy.
After deposing Malik Chajju, Jalal-ud-din had appointed his nephew Ali Gurshasp (later Sultan Alauddin Khalji) as the governor of Kara. Ali's father had died when he was young, and Jalal-ud-din had brought him and his brother Almas Beg (later Ulugh Khan) up. Jalal-ud-din had also married his daughters to Ali and Almas. Ali's domestic life was miserable, as he was not on good terms with his wife and his mother-in-law, and he wanted to end his dependence on Jalal-ud-din's family. At Kara, the former supporters of Malik Chajju instigated him to overthrow Jalal-ud-din.
To raise money for a coup against Jalal-ud-din, Ali raided Bhilsa in 1293. Bhilsa was a temple town in the Paramara kingdom of Malwa, which had already been weakened by Vaghela, Chahamana, and Yadava invasions. As a result of this raid, he obtained a large number of cattle and precious metals. During his stay in Bhilsa, he came to know about the immense wealth of the southern Yadava kingdom, as well as the routes leading to their capital Devagiri. He shrewdly surrendered the loot from Bhilsa to Jalal-ud-din to win the Sultan's confidence, but withheld the information on the Yadava kingdom. Pleased with the loot, Jalal-ud-din gave Ali the office of "Ariz-i Mamalik", which was once held by Ali's father. He also granted Ali the governorship of Awadh in addition to that of Kara-Manikpur. He also granted Ali's request to use the surplus revenue for enlisting additional troops to raid the other wealthy but weakly-defended territories beyond Chanderi.
Over the next few years, Ali secretly planned a raid on Devagiri. In 1296, he set out for Devagiri with an 8,000-strong cavalry. He left the administration of Kara to Alaul Mulk, who misled Jalal-ud-din's administration in Delhi about Ali's real destination. At Devagiri, Ali collected a large amount of wealth. When Jalal-ud-din heard about Ali's success at Devagiri, he was pleased at the prospect of a vast treasure coming to him. He moved to Gwalior, hoping that Ali would come there to meet him en route to Kara. However, Ali marched directly towards Kara. Jalal-ud-din's councillors, such as Ahmad Chap, advised him to intercept Ali at Kara, but Jalal-ud-din trusted his nephew, and returned to Delhi. In Delhi, Ali's brother Almas Beg assured the Sultan of Ali's loyalty.
After reaching Kara, Ali sent Jalal-ud-din a detailed report on the raid, and expressed concern that his enemies may have poisoned Jalal-ud-din's mind against him. He asked for a signed letter of pardon, which Jalal-ud-din dispatched immediately. At Kara, Jalal-ud-din's messengers were astonished when they learned about Ali's military strength and his plans to dethrone Jalal-ud-din. Ali detained them, and prevented them from communicating with Delhi. Meanwhile, Almas Beg convinced Jalal-ud-din that Ali always carried poison in his handkerchief and would commit suicide out of guilt, if not personally pardoned by Jalal-ud-din. A gullible Jalal-ud-din, concerned about his beloved nephew, asked Almas to visit Kara and dissuade Ali from committing suicide, promising to visit Kara himself shortly after.
Assassination.
In July 1296, Jalal-ud-din marched to Kara with a large army to meet Ali during the holy month of Ramazan. He directed his commander Ahmad Chap to take the major part of the army to Kara by land, while he himself journeyed down the Ganges River with 1,000 soldiers. When Jalal-ud-din's entourage came close to Kara, Ali sent Almas Beg to meet him. Almas Beg convinced Jalal-ud-din to leave behind his soldiers, saying that their presence would frighten Ali into committing suicide. Jalal-ud-din boarded a boat with a few of his companions, who were made to unbuckle their weapons. As they rode the boat, they saw Ali's armed troops stationed along the riverbank. Almas told them that these troops had been summoned to accord a worthy reception to Jalal-ud-din. Jalal-ud-din complained about Ali's lack of courtesy in not coming to greet him at this point. However, Almas convinced him of Ali's loyalty by saying that Ali was busy arranging a presentation of the loot from Devagiri and a feast for him.
Satisfied by this explanation, Jalal-ud-din continued his journey to Kara, reciting Quran on the boat. When he landed at Kara, Ali's retinue greeted him, and Ali ceremoniously threw himself at his feet. Jalal-ud-din lovingly raised Ali, gave him a kiss on cheek, and chided him for doubting his uncle's affection. At this point, Ali signaled his follower Muhammad Salim, who struck Jalal-ud-din with his sword twice. Jalal-ud-din survived the first blow, and ran towards his boat, but the second blow killed him. Ali raised the royal canopy over his head, and proclaimed himself the new Sultan. Jalal-ud-din's head was put on a spear and paraded across Ali's provinces of Kara-Manikpur and Awadh. His companions on the boat were also killed, and Ahmad Chap's army retreated to Delhi.
According to the contemporary writer Amir Khusrau, Ali ascended the throne (as Alauddin Khalji) on 19 July 1296 (16 Ramazan 695). The later writer Ziauddin Barani dates Jalal-ud-din's death and Ali's ascension to 20 July 1296, but Amir Khusrau is more reliable.
Cultural activities.
Jalal-ud-din's courtier Amir Khusrau wrote "Miftah al-Futuh" (1291) to commemorate his victories.


Liang Island

Liang Island (Larne Island) (; Foochow Romanized: Liông-dō̤, originally , Lang Tao ) is an island located in the East China Sea in Beigan Township, Lienchiang County (the Matsu Islands), Fujian Province, Republic of China (Taiwan). The island is closed to the public. The island is located from both Beigan Island and Dongyin Island and from Kuishan Island in Haidao Township, Xiapu County, Ningde, Fujian, People's Republic of China (PRC).
History.
In a description of the island from 1843, there were three houses near the summit of Larne Island (Liang Island).
After 1949, Chinese Communist forces intermittently occupied the island.
Before dawn on July 15, 1951, Anti-Communist forces planted the flag of the ROC on the highest point of the island.
On March 17, 1965, a company of infantry was stationed on the island; the garrison has remained there to the present.
In 1966, then- Chiang Ching-kuo visited the island as part of an inspection and gave the island the name Liang Island (), derived from the phrase 「」("dǎo lì tiān zhōng, liàng zhào dàlù", 'the island stands in the center of the world, illuminating the mainland').
On the morning of September 9, 2005, President Chen Shui-bian visited Liang Island and other nearby islands.
In December 2011, the ~8,000 year old Liangdao Man skeleton was found on the island. In 2014, the mitochondrial DNA of the skeleton was found to belong to Haplogroup E, with two of the four mutations characteristic of the E1 subgroup.
From this, Ko et al. infer that Haplogroup E arose 8,000 to 11,000 years ago on the north Fujian coast, traveled to Taiwan with Neolithic settlers 6,000 years ago, and thence spread to Maritime Southeast Asia with the Austronesian language dispersal.
Soares et al. caution against over-emphasizing a single sample, and maintain that a constant molecular clock implies the earlier date (and more southerly origin) remains more likely.
At 8 AM on August 16, 2019, the four man crew of a Chinese fishing ship was arrested in the waters off Liang Island.
Geography.
Bays of Liang Island include Wujin-ao Bay (), Liang-ao Bay (), Sheng-ao Bay () and Lian-ao Bay (). Liang Island's Mount Qingmian (Mount Cingmian; ) reaches above sea level. The island's main port is Baisheng Port ().
The island is about long and wide, reaching wide at the narrowest point. Strong winds during the winter make walking difficult.
Economy.
Before 1965, fishermen would sometimes live on the island during the summer and leave when autumn started.


Kiri-sute gomen

Kiri-sute gomen ( or ) is an old Japanese expression dating back to the feudal era "right to strike" (right of samurai to kill commoners for perceived affronts). Samurai had the right to strike with sword at anyone of a lower class who compromised their honour.
Etymology.
"Kiri-sute gomen" translates literally as "authorization to cut and leave [the body of the victim]." Contrary to popular belief, this exact term didn't originate in the Edo period. The real name used in historical sources is either or .
Conditions.
Because the right was defined as a part of self defence, "kiri-sute gomen" had a set of tight rules. The strike had to follow immediately after the offence, meaning that the striker could not attack someone for a past grievance or after a substantial amount of time. Also, due to the right being self-defence, it was not permissible to deliver a further coup de grâce if a blow had been successfully applied. Anyone who was at the receiving end had the right to defend themselves by "wakizashi", a situation most common in the case of a higher samurai exercising the right against a lower ranked samurai as those would always carry "wakizashi".
Some professions, like doctors and midwives, were not eligible targets for "kiri-sute gomen" while at work or heading to their workplaces, as their jobs often required them to push the boundaries of honor. This exception was called .
In any case, the samurai performing the act had to prove that his action was right. After striking down his victim, the user was required to notify it to a nearby government officer, give his version of the facts and provide at least one witness who corroborated it, and he was expected to spend the next 20 days at home as a proof of contrition. The last one applied even after favorable verdict, although it is unclear whether it applied to the physical author of the death or his superior in case the kill was performed by proxy. Moreover, the homicidal weapon could be confiscated if an investigation was necessary or as a warning for a kill whose justification was feeble, and it was only given back after the 20 days.
Performing "kiri-sute gomen" without justification was severely punished. The guilty party could be destituted from his job and could even be sentenced to death or forced to commit "seppuku". His family would be affected too if his properties and titles were removed from his inheritance.
History.
Samurai visiting Edo often did all they could to obtain favorable verdicts, as an unfavorable court decision there could be even considered an act of rebellion against the shogunate. It was usual that clan elders presented gifts to officials in order to secure their support, to the point it was said magistrates earned more through those bribes than through their own salaries. It was also advisable for a samurai to go out accompanied by servants and other clan members who could serve as witness if it was necessary.
A popular incident tells how a commoner bumped into Saiheiji Tomo, treasurer of the Owari-Tokugawa family, and ignored him further when Tomo demanded him to apologize. Feeling merciful, the samurai offered the peasant his "wakizashi" so he had a chance to defend himself, but instead, the commoner decided to run away with his "wakizashi", causing further dishonor. The incident resulted in Tomo being disowned from the Owari-Tokugawa clan. He later regained his honor by seeking out the commoner, collecting the "wakizashi" and killing the whole family.
The Namamugi Incident (sometimes known as the "Kanagawa incident" or "Richardson affair") was a political crisis that followed the 1862 murder of British merchant Charles Lennox Richardson, who was killed by the armed retinue of Shimazu Hisamitsu, regent of the Satsuma Domain, on a road in Namamugi near Kawasaki. Europeans protested that the incident violated their extraterritoriality in Japan, while the Japanese argued Richardson had disrespected Shimazu and was justifiably killed under the "kiri-sute gomen" rule. British demands for compensation and failure by the Satsuma to respond resulted in the Bombardment of Kagoshima (or Anglo-Satsuma War) in August 1863.
Another happening features a nobleman named Kuranosuke Toda, whose "kago" was shoved by a commoner trying to cross through. Toda's bodyguard demanded an apology, but the peasant insulted them instead. The samurai then threw him to the ground, but the peasant still started a shouting match. Watching it from his litter, Toda ordered the man to be cut down. After reporting the incident, the judges approved Toda's decision and did not condemn him.
An instance of "Kiri sute gomen" is described in the story of the Hōgyū Jizō statue. A boy, whose father was killed by "Kiri sute gomen", made 100 stone statues in later life, in Kumamoto.


Tottori Domain

 was a Japanese domain of the Edo period. It was associated with Inaba Province and Hōki Province in modern-day Tottori Prefecture.
In the han system, Tottori 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.
History.
The domain was ruled from by different branches of the Ikeda clan. The center of the domain was Tottori Castle.
List of "daimyōs".
The hereditary "daimyōs" were head of the clan and head of the domain.
Gallery.
The monuments at the graves of Tottori daimyo have a common feature. They are each resting on the back of a turtle.


List of ancient settlements in Turkey

Below is the list of ancient settlements in Turkey. There are innumerable ruins of ancient settlements spread all over the country. While some ruins date back to Neolithic times, most of them were settlements of Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians, Ionians, Urartians, and so on.
List of settlements.
In the table below, only the settlements which have articles in this encyclopaedia are shown, with the exception of the following:


Sanai Hashimoto

 was a Japanese samurai and loyal supporter of the Emperor during the final days of the Tokugawa regime.
Biography.
Hashimoto was born April 19, 1834 in Echizen Province, Japan. The son of a doctor in the Fukui Clan, he studied medicine in Osaka studied under Dr. Ogata Koan of Rankata Doctor at Tekijuku and Tokyo, where he befriended Saigō Takamori and others. Upon returning to Echizen, he joined the Clan as a "Shoinban" and became Deputy Head of the Fukui Domain school.
Inviting Yokoi Shōnan as political adviser on behalf of the daimyō Matsudaira Yoshinaga, he became a key figure in the governmental reforms of the clan. Summoned to Edo in 1857 he actively tried to promote, albeit unsuccessfully, Hitotsubashi Yoshinobu to the 14th Shogunate.
After Ii Naosuke was appointed Tairō of the Tokugawa shogunate he purged over 100 people in an effort to quiet opposition in what became known as the Ansei Purge. Hashimoto was one of those prosecuted and was executed by decapitation at Edo's Kozukappara execution grounds on November 1, 1859. In October 2009, a descendant of Naosuke reconciled with the people of Fukui at a memorial service marking the 150th anniversary of the execution.


2020 in Sri Lanka

The following lists notable events that will occur and take place during 2020 in Sri Lanka.


Ashur-etil-ilani

Ashur-etil-ilani, also spelled Ashur-etel-ilani' and Ashuretillilani (Neo-Assyrian cuneiform: "Aššur-etil-ilāni", meaning "Ashur is the lord of the gods"),' was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC to his own death in 627 BC. Ashur-etil-ilani is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive. Because of this lack of sources, very little concrete information about the king and his reign can be deduced.
It is possible that Ashur-etil-ilani was a weak ruler as there are no records of the king ever undertaking a military campaign or going on a hunt, activities previous Assyrian kings would famously do very often; this, in turn, may have helped to entice some of Assyria's vassals, such as the Kingdom of Judah, to break free from Assyrian control and begin to act independently. Ashur-etil-ilani was succeeded by his brother Sinsharishkun under uncertain, though not necessarily violent, circumstances.
Background and chronology.
There is a distinct lack of available sources in regards to the last few years of Ashurbanipal's reign and the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani. The annals of Ashurbanipal, the primary sources for his reign, go no further than 636 BC."" Although Ashurbanipal's final year is often repeated as 627 BC,' this follows an inscription at Harran made by the mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus nearly a century later. The final contemporary evidence for Ashurbanipal being alive and reigning as king is a contract from the city of Nippur made in 631 BC.' To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors to match, most scholars agree that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC. Of the three options, a death in 631 BC is the most accepted. If Ashurbanipal's reign would have ended in 627 BC, the inscriptions of his successors Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun in Babylon, covering several years, would have been impossible since the city was seized by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar in 626 BC to never again fall into Assyrian hands.
Ashurbanipal had named his successor as early as 660 BC, when documents referencing a crown prince were written. He had been the father of at least one son, and probably two, early on in his reign. These early sons were likely Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun. The common assumption that Ashur-etil-ilani came to the throne at a young age is based on the phrase "my father did not rear me" ("rear" meaning to care for someone until they're fully grown), found in one of his inscriptions. However, the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etil-ilani is unlikely to have been very young as he is attested to have had male children during his reign.""
Reign.
Ashur-etil-ilani ascended the throne after the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC.' A land grant from Ashur-etil-ilani to his "rab shaqi" (a general serving him since he was a young boy) Sin-shumu-lishir suggests that Ashurbanipal died a natural death.' As in many other successions in Assyrian history, Ashur-etil-ilani's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest.' The same land grant to Sin-shumu-lishir references the actions of an Assyrian official called Nabu-rihtu-usur who with the help of another official, Sin-shar-ibni, attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne. Sin-shum-lishir probably assisted the king with stopping Nabu-rihtu-usur and Sin-shar-ibni.' As no sources indicate the opposite, the conspiracy appears to have been crushed relatively quickly.' Excavations at Nineveh from the time around Ashurbanipal's death show fire damage, indicating that the plot perhaps resulted in some violence and unrest within the capital itself.'
The spread of inscriptions by Ashur-etil-ilani in Babylonia suggest that he exercised the same amount of control in the southern provinces as his father Ashurbanipal had, having a vassal king (Kandalanu) but exercising actual political and military power there himself. His inscriptions are known from all the major cities, including Babylon, Dilbat, Sippar and Nippur.' Too few inscriptions of Ashur-etil-ilani survive to make any certain assumptions about his character. Excavations of his palace at Kalhu, one of the more important cities in the empire and a former capital, may indicate that he was less boastful than his father as it had no reliefs or statues similar to those that his predecessors had used to illustrate their strength and success.' The lack of such depictions may partly be because there are no records of Ashur-etil-ilani ever conducting a military campaign or going on a hunt. His Kalhu palace was quite small with unusually small rooms by Assyrian royal standards.' It is possible that some of Assyria's vassals used the reign of what they perceived to be a weak ruler to break free of Assyrian control and even attack Assyrian outposts. In 628 BC, Josiah, ostensibly an Assyrian vassal and the king of Judah in the Levant, extended his land so that it reached the coast, capturing the city of Ashdod and settling some of his own people there.'
It is frequently assumed, without any supporting evidence, that Ashur-etil-ilani's brother Sinsharishkun fought with him for the throne.' Although the exact circumstances of Ashur-etil-ilani's death and the rise of his brother Sinsharishkun to the throne are unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that Ashur-etil-ilani was deposed and/or killed in a coup.'
Titles.
Very few inscriptions survive from Ashur-etil-ilani's brief reign. Preserved on bricks of the temple of Nabu at Kalhu, the following titles can be read:


Maraphii

The Maraphii (Old Persian: "Marafiya") were an Iranian tribe from Persis ("Parsa" in Old Persian) or Persia, in modern southwestern Iran. This tribe was one of the three main and leading Persian tribes (the Persians were and are one of the Iranian peoples) alongside the Maspii and the Pasargadae (from this later tribe came the Achaemenid royal family).


Akita Norisue


Downfall of the Hittite Empire


Kiyosue Domain

The was a Japanese domain of the Edo period, located in Nagato Province. It was ruled for the entirety of its history by a branch of the Mōri clan of the neighboring Chōshū Domain.


Shichinohe Domain

 was a "tozama" feudal domain of Edo period Japan, located in Mutsu Province, Honshū. It was centered at Shichinohe Castle in what is now the modern town of Shichinohe, Aomori in the Kamikita District of Aomori Prefecture, in the Tōhoku region of far northern Japan.
History.
The Nanbu clan controlled this region of northern Japan from the Muromachi period, and Shichinohe Castle was occupied by a branch of the clan on this site until the end of the Sengoku period. However, in 1591 the Shichinohe-branch of the Nanbu clan opposed the forces of clan chieftain Nanbu Nobunao and Toyotomi Hideyoshi during the Kunohe Rebellion and were defeated. The castle was abandoned in 1592 and allowed to fall into ruins. The Shichinohe Nanbu clan was allowed to survive as 2300 "koku" "hatamoto" serving Morioka Domain under the Tokugawa shogunate. Their revenues were increased to 5000 "koku" in 1694, and they were given charge of a "daikansho" erected on the site of their old castle in 1804. With a raise in revenues to 11,000 "koku" in 1819, Shichinohe Domain was created.
The 11,000 "koku" domain existed largely on paper, as its "daimyō" lived in Edo permanently, and ruled the domain via a "karō", who resided at a "jin'ya" erected on the site of the old castle.
In 1858, the "daimyō" of Shichinohe, Nanbu Nobuchika was raised to the status of castellan and granted formal permission to rebuild Shichinohe Castle as part of Japan’s increased defensive preparations again possible foreign incursions in light of the recent Perry Expedition. However, the Meiji restoration occurred before any construction could begin.
During the Boshin War of the Meiji Restoration, Nanbu Nobutami, the 3rd "daimyō", supported the Ōuetsu Reppan Dōmei and fought against the pro-imperial forces of Hirosaki Domain in the Battle of Noheji. Consequently, he was forced into retirement by the new Meiji government and the revenues of Shichinohe Domain were decreased by 1,000 "koku". His successor, Nanbu Nobukata became domain governor in 1869, and in October of that same year, the peasants in the domain rose up in a revolt. In July 1871, with the abolition of the han system, Shichinohe Domain became Shichinohe Prefecture, and was merged into the newly created Aomori Prefecture in September 1871. Nanbu Nobukata was later granted the title of viscount ("shishaku") under the "kazoku" peerage.
List of "daimyōs".
Nanbu Nobuchika.
 was the 1st "daimyō" of Shichinohe Domain. He was the eldest son of Nanbu Nobuyoshi, a 5000 "koku" "hatamoto" of Morioka Domain. In December 1819, he received additional territories from his uncle, Nanbu Toshitaka, bringing his total past 10,000 "koku" and received elevation to the rank of "daimyō". His courtesy title was "Harima-no-kami", and his Court rank was Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade. Due to the death of the first Nanbu Toshimochi in 1820, he was called upon to assist in the governing of Morioka Domain. He was received in formal audience by "shōgun" Tokugawa Ienari on November 15, 1821 and confirmed in his title, but died only a few days later.
Nanbu Nobunori.
 was the 2nd "daimyō" of Shichinohe Domain. He was the eldest son of Nanbu Nobuchika, and became "daimyō" at the age of 16 upon the death of his father. His courtesy title was "Tamba-no-kami", and his Court rank was Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade. During his tenure, Shichinohe was awarded an increase in status to that of a “castle-holding domain” in 1858. His wife was the daughter of Mori Nagayoshi, "daimyō" of Mikazuki Domain. Although he had a son, he adopted the 4th son of Nanbu Toshitada from Morioka Domain to be his heir, but then set him aside in favour of an even more distant relative, Nanbu Nobutami, in 1849.
Nanbu Nobutami.
 was the 3rd "daimyō" of Shichinohe Domain. He was the cousin of the "karō" of Morioka Domain, Sannohe Shikibu and great-grandson of Nanbu Toshimi). He was adopted by Nanbu Nobunori as his heir in 1849. is courtesy title was "Mimasaka-no-kami", and his Court rank was Junior Fifth Rank, Lower Grade.On becoming "daimyō" in 1862, he closely aligned his policies with Morioka Domain. During the Boshin War of the Meiji restoration, he joined the Ōuetsu Reppan Dōmei to fight against the Nanbu clan’s hereditary enemies, the Tsugaru clan of Hirosaki Domain. After the war, his holdings were reduced by 1000 "koku" and he was ordered to retire by the Meiji government. However, as his successor Nanbu Nobukata was still underage, he continued to rule the domain, and sponsored sericulture and livestock raising in his final years.
Nanbu Nobukata.
 was the 4th and final "daimyō" of Shichinohe Domain. He was the third son of the "daimyō" of Morioka, Nanbu Toshihisa, and was adopted as heir to Nanbu Nobutami in December 1868 when Nobutami was ordered by the new Meiji government to retire for his role in leading the domain during the Boshin War. He became domain governor in June 1869 and had to suppress a peasant’s uprising in October of the same year. He was sent to America to study for a three year period from February 1876. In 1884 he was elevated to the "kazoku" peerage title of viscount ("shishaku") His wife was the daughter of Inoue Toshiyoshi, the "daimyō" of Kariya Domain, and he had only one daughter, who married into the Shimazu clan.
Bakumatsu period holdings.
As with most domains in the han system, Shichinohe Domain consisted of several discontinuous territories calculated to provide the assigned "kokudaka", based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields.


Yoga Madhava Temple, Settikere

The Yoga Madhava temple, dedicated to the Hindu god Vishnu is located in Settikere, in the Tumkur district of Karnataka state, India.
Temple plan.
According to the art historian Adam Hardy, the temple which was built in 1261 A.D. by an officer of the Hoysala empire (ruled by King Narasimha III) is a three "vimana" (shrine) plan with the central shrine being semi-stellate (star shaped). The other two shrines on each side of the closed "mantapa" (hall) are "semi-vimanas" because they exhibit no tower. The building material is Soap stone.
The temple has all the standard features of the Hoysala architectural idiom:an open entrance "mantapa" ("mukhamantapa" or porch) followed by a closed "mantapa" with no windows, "sukhanasi" (vestibule) and a "garbhagriha" ("sanctum"). The temple gets an elevated look due to the "jagati" it stands on (a platform that is about a meter high). According to art historian Gerard Foekema, being a triple "vimana" construction it qualifies as a "trikuta" plan although only the central "vimana" usually has a tower (called "shikhara") over it.
The entrance to the temple is through an open pillared porch ("mukhamantapa") followed by a closed "mantapa" (or "navaranga"). According to Hardy, the eastern side of the temple shows some later additions. The porch consists of an awning supported by lathe turned half pillars and parapets on either side. The closed hall which has no windows connects to the sanctum via a vestibule (called "sukhanasi"). The vestibule also as a tower (also called "sukhanasi") which looks like a low protrusion of the main tower over the shrine. The inner walls of the shrine are square and plain where as the outer walls are semi-stellate (semi-star shaped) with numerous recesses and projections that are used for decorative relief consisting of Aedicula and pilasters. The outer wall of the vestibule is also decorative but is inconspicuous because it appears like a short continuation of the shrine outer wall. The ceiling of the closed hall is supported by four lathe turned pillars which divide the ceiling into nine decorated bays. According to art historian Percy Brown the lathe turned pillars with four brackets above are a characteristic style of the Kalyani Chalukya-Hoysala architecture.
At the top of the shrine tower is the "kalasha", a decorative water-pot like structure that is placed over a large dome (the "helmet") which is the largest piece of sculpture in the temple measuring about 2m x 2m. The design of the tower, according to Brown, is a speciality in Hoysala art. According to him, the stellate form of the base of the shrine with its "projections and recesses" is carried through the tower giving it a "fluted effect". The tower is divided into tiers with each tier diminishing in height and culminating in an umbrella like structure.


Khorasani Arabs


Uhna

Uhna was a king of the ancient Anatolian city of Zalpuwa during the 17th century BC, who conquered the Hittite city of Neša. According to the "Text of Anitta" (KBo 3.22), he brought the statue of the god Siusum, from Neša to Zalpuwa. Several years later king Anitta brought this statue back to Neša.


Tenji period

The Tenji period is a brief span of years during the Asuka period of Japanese history. The Tenji period describes a span of years which were considered to have begun in the 1322nd year of the Yamato dynasty.
The timespan is the same as the reign of Emperor Tenji, which is traditionally considered to have been from 662 through 672.
Periodization.
The adoption of the Sexagenary cycle calendar ("Jikkan Jūnishi") in Japan is attributed to Empress Suiko in 604; and this Chinese calendar continued in use throughout the Tenji period.
In 645, the system of was introduced. However, after the reign of Emperor Kotoku, this method of segmenting was temporarily abandoned or allowed to lapse. This interval continued during the Tenji period.
Neither the years of Emperor Tenji's reign nor the Tenji period are included in the list "nengō" for this explicit duration of time, which comes after Hakuchi and before Suchō.
In the post-Taika or pre-Taihō chronology, the first year of Emperor Tenji's reign (天智天皇元年 or 天智天皇1年) is also construed as the first year of the Tenji period (天智1年).
Non-nengō period.
Non-nengō periods in the pre-Taihō calendar were published in 1880 by William Bramsen. These were refined in 1952 by Paul Tuschihashi in "Japanese Chronological Tables from 601 to 1872."
The pre-Tahiō calendar included two non-nengō gaps or intervals in the chronological series:
Nengō were not promulgated (or were allowed to lapse) during the gap years between Hakuchi and Shuchō, and in another gap between Shuchō and Taihō.


Hoshina Masatsune

 was the 2nd "daimyō" of Aizu Domain in Mutsu Province, Japan (modern-day Fukushima Prefecture). His courtesy title was "Chikuzen-no-kami" and "Jijū", and his Court rank was Senior Fourth Rank, Lower Grade.
Biography.
Masatsune was the fourth son of Hoshina Masayuki and became "daimyō" in 1669 on the retirement of his father. He understood the construction of his father's monumental grave at Hanitsu Jinja in Inawashiro in 1675. He is also known for reviving the Oyaku-en, a medicinal herbs garden which had been established by the Ashina clan during their tenure over Aizu. However, his tenure was a constant struggle against the machinations of his mother, Shoko-in (1620-1691), who wielded a strong influence and promoted less-than-qualfied relatives to various high posts, including that of "karō". He was married to a daughter of Maeda Toshitsune of Kaga Domain, but had only one daughter. He adopted his younger brother, Matsudaira Masakata as his heir and died in 1681.


Wakasa Kokubun-ji

 is a Sōtō Zen Buddhist temple located in the city of Obama, Fukui, Japan. It is one of the few surviving provincial temples established by Emperor Shōmu during the Nara period (710 – 794). Due to this connection, the temple grounds were designated as a National Historic Site in 1976.It is located about 20 minutes on foot from Higashi-Obama Station on the JR West Obama Line.
Background.
The "Shoku Nihongi" records that in 741, as the country recovered from a major smallpox epidemic, Emperor Shōmu ordered that a monastery and nunnery be established in every province, the .
History.
The Wakasa Kokubun-ji is located on the alluvial plain of the Kitagawa River, approximately 4.5 kilometers east of the modern city centre of Obama. An archaeological excavation was conducted since 1972, indicating that the present temple overlaps the Nara period temple, which was built on a scale slightly smaller than other provincial temples, with compound 230 meters square. The exact date of construction is unknown, but is believed to be around 741 AD based on records indicating that the structures of Taikō-ji, pre-existing family temple of a local clan, was relocated to this site to create the Wakasa Kokubun-ji. The original temple was rebuilt in the Heian period with a slightly different building plan, and in a record dating 1603, the date of construction is given as 807 AD. No roof tiles have been found at the site, which is unusual for a provincial temple. The temple is mentioned in Heian period and Kamakura period records, although mention of its associated provincial nunnery disappear after 1265 AD, and the exact site of the nunnery is now unknown.
In 1611, a Shako-dō was constructed on the site of the original Kondō. This building was rebuilt in 1705.
Precincts.
The current precincts consist of the Shako-dō, a 5 x 5 bay building in the "irimoya"-style containing the temple's "honzon" Shaka Nyorai. Both the building and the statue are Obama City Designated Tangible Cultural Properties. To the west of the Shako-dō is the Yakushi-dō, containing a Yakushi Nyorai flanked by Shaka Nyorai and Amida Nyorai. The Edo period Yakushi Nyorai is from the now-vanished provincial nunnery, and is an Important Cultural Property. The other two statues are both Obama City Designated Tangible Cultural Properties.
Also within the grounds is a large circular "kofun" tumulus, with a diameter of approximately 50 meters. One of the largest in the Wakasa region, it dates from the 6th century.


Ulpius Marcellus (son)

Ulpius Marcellus (fl. 211-212) was formerly thought to be the latest-recorded governor of Britannia, before it was divided into separate provinces. He was supposed to be the son of Ulpius Marcellus, governor of Britannia during the reign of Commodus. Older sources, such as "Roman Britain", by Peter Salway, still list him as a separate person, whilst later authorities now list Lucius Alfenus Senecio as the last known governor.
The theory that there was a second Ulpius Marcellus was based on two inscriptions at the fort at Cilurnum, which mention this name in connection with the second ala of Asturians. The arrival of the Asturians was previously thought to date to the early 3rd century. Their arrival is now placed in the later 2nd century, and the inscription is therefore believed to refer to the earlier governor.


Ryot

Ryot (alternatives: raiyat, rait or ravat) (Urdu: راعیت) was a general economic term used throughout India for peasant cultivators but with variations in different provinces. While zamindars were landlords, raiyats were tenants and cultivators, and served as hired labour.
A raiyat was defined as someone who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it, whether alone or by members of his family, hired servants, or partners. It also referred to succession rights.
Etymology.
"Ryot" originates from the Hindi word "ra`īyat" and the Arabic word "ra`īyah", translated as "flock" or "peasants", in turn originating from the word "ra`ā", meaning "pasture".
Classifications.
Under the Mughal system of land control there were two types of raiyats: khudkasta and paikasta. The khudkasta raiyats were permanent resident cultivators of the village. Their rights in land were heritable according to Muslim and Hindu laws of succession. The other type of raiyats was called paikasta. They did not cultivate land on a permanent basis in any particular mauza (lowest revenue plus village settlement unit), but instead moved from mauza to mauza and engaged themselves for a crop season. In terms of revenue, the paikasta raiyats were generally paid a much lower rate of rent than the khudkashta raiyats. The dividend to the khudkasta, who thus became an absentee owner, came from hard bargaining. Pahikasht raiyats were a subgroup of peasants who cultivated the land away from the area where they resided.
Another subgroup included under-raiyats who were entitled to various rights of occupancy and transferable interests. An under-raiyat it was referred to as a "korfa", though an under-raiyat paying rent in kind was referred too as a "bargait".
In March 1859, during the British rule, thousands of ryots in Bengal refused to grow Indigo.
The Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 was developed to regulate the rent of under-raiyats. One of the causes of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 was the Bihar Rent Committee report of 1879 which sought rights for the raiyat to resist illegal restraint and illegal enhancement, and allowing him to prove and maintain his occupancy rights.
Ryotwari system.
There were two economic systems prevalent in India during the British rule: the ryotwari system and the mahalwari system. The ryotwari system was known as "severality villages and was based on the system of peasant proprietorship. The ryotwari (or ryotwary) tenure related to land revenue imposed on an individual or community owning an estate, and occupying a position analogous to that of a landlord. The assessment is known as zamindari.
The land revenue is imposed on individuals who are the actual occupants, and this assessment is known as ryotwari. Under zamindari tenure, the land is held as independent property; while under ryotwari tenure it is held of the crown in a right of occupancy, which is under British rule both heritable and transferable by the ryots. The former system prevails in northern and central India, and the latter in Bombay, Madras, Assam and Burma. The Ryot's association was formed by N. G. Ranga.


Date Munemura

 was an mid-Edo period Japanese samurai, and the 6th "daimyō" of Sendai Domain in the Tōhoku region of northern Japan, and the 22nd hereditary chieftain of the Date clan.
Biography.
Munemura was the fourth son of Date Yoshimura. Two of his older brothers died young, and the third (Date Murakaze) formed a separate "hatamoto" household, so he was appointed heir. His childhood name was ; however, when he was received in formal audience by "Shōgun" Tokugawa Yoshimune, he received one "kanji" from the "shōgun"s name, and the thus became Date Munemura. He was also betrothed to the daughter of Tokugawa Munenao, the "daimyō" of Kii Domain at that time. He became "daimyō" in 1743 upon the retirement of his father. He was noted as a man of many talents. As was his father, he was noted for his literary achievements, and he was also proficient in horsemanship, swordsmanship, use of the spear, military strategy and "hōjutsu" (gunnery).
In 1747, Hosokawa Munetaka, "daimyō" of Kumamoto Domain was cut down by a "hatamoto", Itakura Katsukane, while en route to a ceremony at Edo Castle. Katsukane had a vendetta against Itakura Katsukiyo of Annaka Domain, but as the Hosokawa and Itakura family crests are so similar, he killed the wrong man. This placed the Hosokawa clan in danger of attainder, as Munetake was without heir. Date Munemura, who happened to be nearby when the incident occurred, knelt by the corpse of Hosotake Munetake and loudly declared "he still lives!" and ordered his retainers to take the body to the Hosokawa clan residence before the Shogun's "metsuke" inspectors could arrive at the scene. This allowed the Hosokawa clan to make a formal announcement that Munetaka had formally adopted his younger brother as heir, and the report on the death of Munetaka was delayed until the following day.
In 1752, Sendai Domain was struck by a severe famine. While touring a stricken village in what is now Watari District, Miyagi on his way back from "sankin-kōtai" in Edo, he was directly petitioned by the headman of Nakaizumi village, Kitahara Kanehira, for a reduction in the village's taxes. As was the common punishment for such an action, the headman's house and fields were confiscated and he was crucified as punishment,
Munemura died in 1756, and was succeeded by his son, Date Shigemura. His grave is at the Date clan mausoleum at Dainenjiyama in Sendai.


Sinsharishkun

Sinsharishkun or Sin-shar-ishkun (Neo-Assyrian cuneiform: "Sîn-šar-iškun" or "Sîn-šarru-iškun",' meaning "Sîn has established the king")' was the penultimate king of Assyria, reigning from the death of his brother and predecessor Ashur-etil-ilani in 627 BC to his own death at the Fall of Nineveh in 612 BC.
Succeeding his brother in uncertain, but not necessarily violent circumstances, Sinsharishkun was immediately faced by the revolt of one of his brother's chief generals, Sin-shumu-lishir, who attempted to usurp the throne for himself. Though Sin-shumu-lishir was defeated relatively quickly, the instability caused by his revolt, combined with an ongoing interregnum in Babylonia in the south (neither Sinsharishkun nor Sin-shumu-lishir had formally proclaimed themselves as kings of Babylon) might be what made it possible for Nabopolassar, a southener of unclear origin, to rise up and seize power in Babylonia. Sinsharishkun's inability to defeat Nabopolassar, despite repeated attempts over the course of several years, allowed Nabopolassar to consolidate power and form the Neo-Babylonian Empire, restoring Babylonian independence after more than a century of Assyrian rule.
The Neo-Babylonian Empire, and the newly formed Median Empire under Cyaxares, then invaded the Assyrian heartland. In 614 BC, the Medes captured and sacked Assur, the ceremonial and religious heart of the Assyrian Empire, and in 612 BC their combined armies attacked, brutally sacked, and razed Nineveh, the Assyrian capital. Sinsharishkun's fate is unknown but it is assumed that he died in the defense of his capital. He was succeeded as king only by Ashur-uballit II, possibly his son, who rallied what remained of the Assyrian army at the city of Harran.
Despite the catastrophic fall of Assyria during his time as king, there is nothing to suggest that Sinsharishkun was any less competent than his successful warrior-king predecessors. He employed the same tactics as his predecessors and appears to have utilized his forces rationally and strategically, fighting entirely in-line with traditional Assyrian warfare. What doomed Assyria might instead have been the lack of an effective defensive plan for the Assyrian heartland, which had not been invaded in five hundred years, combined with having to face an enemy which aimed to outright destroy Assyria rather than simply conquer it.
Background.
Chronology.
As a consequence of Assyria's violent downfall,' the period from a few years before the death of Ashurbanipal to the Fall of Nineveh in 612 BC suffers from a distinct lack of surviving sources. The annals of Ashurbanipal, the primary sources for his reign, go no further than 636 BC.' Although Ashurbanipal's final year is often repeated as 627 BC', this follows an inscription at Harran made by the mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus nearly a century later. The final contemporary evidence for Ashurbanipal being alive and reigning as king is a contract from the city of Nippur made in 631 BC.' To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors to match, most scholars agree that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC. Of the three options, a death in 631 BC is the most accepted. If Ashurbanipal's reign would have ended in 627 BC, the inscriptions of his successors Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun in Babylon, covering several years, would have been impossible since the city was seized by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar in 626 BC to never again fall into Assyrian hands.
Ashurbanipal had named his successor as early as 660 BC, when documents referencing a crown prince (probably Ashur-etil-ilani) were written. He had been the father of at least one son, and probably two, early on in his reign. These early sons were likely Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun.' Ashur-etil-ilani succeeded Ashurbanipal as king in 631 BC and ruled until his own death in 627 BC. It is frequently assumed, without any supporting evidence, that Sinsharishkun fought with Ashur-etil-ilani for the throne.'
Sinsharishkun has sometimes historically and erroneously been known as "Esarhaddon II" after a letter written by Serua-eterat, a daughter of Sinsharishkun's grandfather Esarhaddon. The chronology and relations of the royal family were uncertain and Serua-eterat was believed to have been too young to refer to the famous Esarhaddon. The idea of a separate Esarhaddon II as king has been abandoned by Assyriologists since the late 19th century," but the name sometimes appears as a synonym of Sinsharishkun.
Assyria and Babylonia.
In the middle of the seventh century BC, the Neo-Assyrian Empire ruled the entire Near East. Due to their powerful standing army and their sophisticated administration, the Assyrians had managed to create the best organized and largest empire that the world had yet seen." Though Babylonia in the south had also once been a large kingdom, it had typically been weaker than its northern neighbor due to internal divisions and the lack of a well-organized army. The population of Babylonia was divided into various ethnic groups with different priorities and ideals. Though old native Babylonians ruled most of the cities, such as Kish, Ur, Uruk, Borsippa, Nippur, and Babylon itself, the Chaldean tribes, led by chieftains who often squabbled with each other, dominated most of the southernmost land. The Arameans lived on the fringes of settled land and were notorious for plundering surrounding territories. Because of the infighting of these three major groups, Babylonia often represented an appealing target for Assyrian campaigns. The two kingdoms had competed since the rise of the Middle Assyrian Empire in the 14th century BC, and in the 8th century BC, the Assyrians consistently gained the upper hand. Babylon's internal and external weakness led to its conquest by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III in 729 BC.
During the expansion of Assyria into a major empire, the Assyrians had conquered various neighboring kingdoms, either annexing them as Assyrian provinces or turning them into vassal states. Because the Assyrians venerated the long history and culture of Babylon, it was preserved as a full kingdom, either ruled by an appointed client king, or by the Assyrian king in a personal union. The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia was similar to the relationship between Greece and Rome in later centuries; much of Assyria's culture, texts and traditions had been imported from the south. Assyria and Babylonia also shared the same language (Akkadian). The relationship between Assyria and Babylon was emotional in a sense; Neo-Assyrian inscriptions implicitly gender the two countries, calling Assyria the metaphorical "husband" and Babylon its "wife". In the words of the Assyriologist Eckart Frahm, "the Assyrians were in love with Babylon, but also wished to dominate her". Though Babylon was respected as the well-spring of civilization, it was expected to remain passive in political matters, something that Assyria's "Babylonian bride" repeatedly refused to be.
The Assyrians attempted various strategies to appease their Babylonian subjects throughout the eighth and seventh centuries BC; ranging from violent subjugation through war to direct rule either by the Assyrian king or by a representative (sometimes a relative such as a son or brother). Though there was some success in pacifying the urban population of Babylonians, the Arameans and Chaldeans remained unconvinced and repeatedly rebelled whenever they saw an opportunity. Despite the enormous effort spent in keeping the region, Babylonia was seen as too important economically and strategically to allow to secede, but no matter what the Assyrians attempted, rebellion and civil war was the inevitable result each time. Prolonged Assyrian control of Babylonia proved so impossible that modern researchers have dubbed it the "Babylonian problem".""
Reign.
Rise to the throne and revolt of Sin-shumu-lishir.
In the middle of 627 BC, Ashurbanipal's son and successor Ashur-etil-ilani died, leading to Ashur-etil-ilani's brother Sinsharishkun ascending to the Assyrian throne. Although it has been suggested by several historians, there is no evidence to prove the idea that Ashur-etil-ilani was deposed in a coup by his brother. Sinsharishkun's inscriptions state that he was selected for the kingship from among several of "his equals" (i.e., his brothers) by the gods.""
Also dying at roughly the same time as Ashur-etil-ilani was the vassal king of Babylon, Kandalanu, which led to Sinsharishkun also becoming the ruler of Babylon, as proven by inscriptions by him in southern cities such as Nippur, Uruk, Sippar and Babylon itself.' Sinsharishkun's rule of Babylon did not last long, and almost immediately in the wake of him coming to the throne, the general Sin-shumu-lishir rebelled. Sin-shumu-lishir had been a key figure in Assyria during Ashur-etil-ilani's reign, putting down several revolts and possibly being the "de facto" leader of the country. The rise of another king might have endangered his position and as such led him to revolt and attempt to seize power for himself.' Sin-shumu-lishir was a eunuch and the only eunuch to claim the throne of Assyria. The possibility that a eunuch, normally trusted due to their perceived lack of political ambition, would do so had never been entertained prior to Sin-shumu-lishir's attempt.""
Sin-shumu-lishir successfully seized control of some cities in northern Babylonia, including Nippur and Babylon itself and would rule there for three months before Sinsharishkun defeated him. Though both of them exercised control there, it is unclear if Sinsharishkun and Sin-shumu-lishir actually claimed the title "king of Babylon" (or only used "king of Assyria"), meaning that Babylonia could have experienced an interregnum of sorts. Modern historians typically include both Sin-shumu-lishir and Sinsharishkun in lists of Babylonian kings, as did some ancient Babylonian king lists.
Rise of Babylon.
Some months after Sin-shumu-lishir's revolt, another revolt began in Babylon. An official or general called Nabopolassar, possibly using the political instability caused by the previous revolt and the ongoing interregnum in the south, assaulted both Nippur and Babylon. Nabopolassar's armies took the cities from the garrisons left there by Sinsharishkun but the Assyrian response was swift and in October of 626 BC, the Assyrian army recaptured Nippur and besieged Nabopolassar at Uruk. A simultaneous Assyrian attempt at recapturing Babylon itself, the last Assyrian action against the city, was repulsed by Nabopolassar's garrison and the attack at Uruk also failed.
In the aftermath of the failed Assyrian counterattack, Nabopolassar was formally crowned king of Babylon on November 22/23 626 BC, restoring Babylonia as an independent kingdom. In 625–623 BC, Sinsharishkun's forces again attempted to defeat Nabopolassar, campaigning in northern Babylonia. Initially, these campaigns were successful; in 625 BC the Assyrians took the city of Sippar and Nabopolassar's attempted reconquest of Nippur failed. Another of Assyria's vassals, Elam, also stopped paying tribute to Assyria during this time and several Babylonian cities, such as Der, revolted and joined Nabopolassar. Realizing the threat this posed, Sinsharishkun led a massive counterattack himself which saw the successful recapture of Uruk in 623 BC.
Sinsharishkun might have ultimately been victorious had it not been for another revolt, led by an Assyrian general in the empire's western provinces in 622 BC. This general, whose name remains unknown, took advantage of the absence of Sinsharishkun and the Assyrian army to march on Nineveh, met a hastily organized army which surrendered without fighting and successfully seized the Assyrian throne. The surrender of the army indicates that the usurper was an Assyrian and possibly even a member of the royal family, or at least a person that would be acceptable as king.' Understandably alarmed by this development, Sinsharishkun abandoned his Babylonian campaign and though he successfully defeated the usurper after a hundred days of civil war, the absence of the Assyrian army saw the Babylonians conquer the last remaining Assyrian outposts in Babylonia in 622–620 BC. The Babylonian siege of Uruk had begun by October 622 BC and though control of the ancient city would shift between Assyria and Babylon, it was firmly in Nabopolassar's hands by 620 BC. Nippur was also conquered in 620 BC and Nabopolassar pushed the Assyrians out of Babylonia. Though he had successfully driven out the Assyrian army, pro-Assyrian factions still existed in some Babylonian cities, for instance Ur and Nippur, by 617 BC, making Nabopolassar's full consolidation of control in the south slow.' The fighting in Babylonia in the last stages of the localized conflict turned conditions so desperate in some places that parents sold their children into slavery to avoid them starving to death.
Fighting in Assyria.
While unlikely to have been received positively, the end of Assyrian rule in Babylonia would probably not have been regarded as significant to the Assyrians at the time. All fighting had happened in Babylonia and the outcome was not yet decisive, characteristic of previous Assyro-Babylonian conflicts in the Neo-Assyrian period. In previous uprisings, the Babylonians had sometimes temporarily gained the upper hand as well and there was no reason to believe that Nabopolassar's success would be anything but a temporary inconvenience."
In 616 BC, Nabopolassar entered Assyrian territory for the first time, leading his armies along the Euphrates river into lands in present-day Syria. As he marched on, he took the Assyrian city Hindanu and reached the Balikh River, where he defeated an Assyrian force near the city Gablinu. Nabpolassar then pushed north, reaching as far as the Khabur River. The Assyrians swiftly regrouped in order to deal with the threat.' Realizing that the situation was dire, Assyria's ally, Pharaoh Psamtik I of Egypt, marched his troops to aid Sinsharishkun. Psamtik had over the last few years campaigned to establish dominance over the small city-states of the Levant and it was in his interests that Assyria survived as a buffer state between his own empire and those of the Babylonians and Medes in the east. A joint Egyptian-Assyrian campaign to capture the city of Gablinu was undertaken in October of 616 BC, but ended in failure after which the Egyptian allies kept to the west of the Euphrates, only offering limited support. Both the Assyrians and the Babylonians then withdrew, though the Babylonians retained Hindanu and now controlled the middle Euphrates, a major strategical victory and probably the first step in Nabopolassar's plan to counteract the possibility of an Assyrian invasion of Babylonia. That Nabopolassar withdrew at the same time as the Assyrians did suggests that the Babylonians were not yet ready to conduct a full invasion of Assyria and that their plans were at this time just to secure Babylonian independence, not to conquer and destroy Assyria.'
In March 615 BC, Nabopolassar inflicted a crushing defeat on the Assyrian army at the banks of the Tigris, pushing them back to the Little Zab.' This victory weakened Assyrian control of the buffer zone that had established around the middle of the Tigris river between the two kingdoms, meaning that the Babylonians now controlled lands directly bordering the Assyrian heartland itself.'
Fall of the Assyrian Empire.
In May 615 BC, Nabopolassar and the Babylonians assaulted Assur, the ceremonial and religious center of Assyria and the Assyrian Empire's southernmost remaining city. Sinsharishkun swiftly rallied his army and counterattacked, lifting the siege of Assur and forcing Nabopolassar to retreat to the city of Takrit. There, Sinsharishkun besieged Nabopolassar, but he was eventually forced to abandon the siege.' Though the conflict had shifted to Assyria becoming the defender, the war was at this point still being fought according to standard Mesopotamian practice, with attacks, counterattacks and retreats and neither side having the confidence or means to force a decisive confrontation. Despite constant defeats and setbacks, the Assyrian army remained powerful and capable of being deployed rapidly.'
In late 615 BC or in 614 BC,' the Medes under their king Cyaxares entered Assyria and conquered the region around the city of Arrapha in preparation for a campaign against Sinsharishkun. Although there are plenty of earlier sources discussing Assyro-Median relations, none are preserved from the period leading up to Cyaxares's invasion and as such, the political context and reasons for the sudden attack are not known.' Perhaps, the war between Babylonia and Assyria had disrupted the economy of the Medes and inspired a direct intervention."
In July or August of 614 BC, the Medes mounted attacks on the cities of Nimrud and Nineveh and successfully conquered the city of Tarbisu. They then besieged Assur. This siege was successful and the Medes captured the ancient heart of Assyria, plundering it and killing many of its inhabitants. The brutal sack of Assur came as a shock to people throughout the Near East. Even the Babylonian chronicles, hostile to Assyria, speak of the Medes as unnecessarily brutal, stating that they "inflicted a terrible defeat on a great people, pillaged and looted them and robbed them".' Nabopolassar only arrived at Assur after the plunder had already begun and met with Cyaxares, allying with him and signing an anti-Assyrian pact. The treaty between the Babylonians and Medes was sealed through the marriage of Nabopolassar's son and heir, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyaxares's daughter, Amytis. The onset of winter after the fall of Assur meant that both the Medes and Babylonians then returned to their homelands, preparing for further campaigns in the next year. The Assyrians appear to have not recognized the severity of their situation as they did not use the pause in the fighting to fall back into, and prepare, defensive positions. Instead of repairing the damage in Nimrud, the populace there dismantled the walls further to prepare for future renovation work (which would never happen).'
In an attempt to keep the enemies out of Assyria, Sinsharishkun went on the offensive in 613 BC, attacking Nabopolassar's forces in the middle Euphrates, occupied at the time with suppressing an Assyrian-supported rebellion of a local tribe.' Sinshariskun successfully rescued the tribe's besieged city of Rahilu, but Nabopolassar's army retreated before a battle could take place. Around this time, Sinsharishkun, apparently finally recognizing the disaster that was about to befall his kingdom, sent a letter to Nabopolassar, attempting to broker peace. Sinsharishkun pleaded with Nabopolassar to avoid any more bloodshed and wrote that he should "quiet his fuery heart". Nabopolassar was not interested; Sinsharishkun had waited too long and there was no longer anything he could offer that the Babylonians and Medes would not be able to take for themselves in battle. A harsh response was sent, in which Nabopolassar declared that "[Nineveh's] roots I shall pluck out and the foundations of the land I shall obliterate".' The original tablets containing these letters have not been preserved, with the known text instead having been derived from tablets made during Seleucid times, centuries later. Whether the letters are copies of authentic, more ancient, originals, or fabrications entirely is a matter of debate.
In April or May 612 BC, at the start of Nabopolassar's fourteenth year as king of Babylon, the combined Medo-Babylonian army marched on Nineveh. Sinsharishkun rallied his forces to make a final stand at the capital but stood little chance at defending it on account of the city's massive size.' From June to August 612 BC, the Medo-Babylonian army besieged the Assyrian capital and in August the walls were breached, leading to a lengthy and brutal sack. The city was looted, depictions of the Assyrian kings were mutilated and inhabitants as young as the age of ten were slaughtered en masse before the entire city was razed and burned to the ground.' Sinsharishkun's fate is not entirely certain but it is commonly accepted that he died in the defense of Nineveh.
Legacy.
Succession.
With the destructions of Assur in 614 BC and Nineveh in 612 BC, the Assyrian Empire had essentially ceased to exist. Sinsharishkun was succeeded by another Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II, possibly his son and probably the same person as a crown prince mentioned in inscriptions at Nineveh from 626 and 623 BC. Ashur-uballit established himself at Harran in the west. Because Assur had been destroyed, Ashur-uballit could not undergo the traditional coronation of the Assyrian monarchs and could thus not be invested with the kingship by the god Ashur and because of this, inscriptions from his brief reign indicate that he was viewed as the legitimate ruler by his subjects, but still with the title of crown prince and not king. To the Assyrians, Sinsharishkun was the last true king.
Ashur-uballit's rule at Harran lasted just three years and he fled the city when Nabopolassar's army approached in 610 BC. An attempt at recapturing Harran carried out with the remnants of the Assyrian army and Egyptian reinforcements in 609 BC failed, after which Ashur-uballit and the Assyrians he commanded disappear from history, never again to be mentioned in Babylonian sources.
The Biblical Book of Nahum "prophetically" discusses the Fall of Nineveh, but it is unclear when it was written. It may have been written as early as during Ashurbanipal's Egyptian campaign in the 660s BC, or as late as around the time of Nineveh's actual fall. If it was written around 612 BC, the "king of Assyria" mentioned would be Sinsharishkun.
Reasons for the fall of Assyria.
Although it has been a commonly circulated idea that one of the primary reasons that led to the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire was a civil war between Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun over the throne which weakened Assyria, there is no contemporary text which suggests that this is true. No inscriptions mention a war or even a dispute between the two brothers. There were revolts at the beginnings of both the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun, but these were minor and dealt with relatively quickly. As such, protracted civil war between contenders to the Assyrian throne was probably not the reason for Assyria's fall.""
The primary reason for Assyria's collapse in the reign of Sinsharishkun is more likely to be the failure to resolve the "Babylonian problem" which had plagued Assyrian kings since Assyria first conquered southern Mesopotamia. Despite the many attempts of the kings of the Sargonid dynasty to resolve the constant rebellions in the south in a variety of different ways; Sennacherib's destruction of Babylon and Esarhaddon's restoration of it, rebellions and insurrections remained common. Nabopolassar's revolt was the last in a long line of Babylonian uprisings against the Assyrians and Sinsharishkun's failure to stop it, despite trying for years, doomed his kingdom. The Neo-Babylonian threat, combined with the rise of the Median Empire (Assyria had for many years attempted to stop the formation of a unified Median state through repeated campaigns into Media) culminated in Assyria's destruction.""
It would be easy to ascribe Assyria's catastrophic defeat to a weakened Assyrian military and an incompetent king, but there is no evidence to suggest that Sinsharishkun was an incompetent ruler.' Assyria was unprepared for foreign attacks into its heartland since the heartland had not been penetrated for five hundred years; no defensive plan existed because in their experience one had never been needed. Sinsharishkun did not use his forces to defend his territory, instead repearedly going on the offensive, but he kept entirely faithful to the traditional ways of Assyrian warfare. He used the proven principles of war, as used by his successful ancestors before him; supporting rebellions in enemy countries, using flanking maneuvers, concentrating on one point of the position of the enemy and pressing the attack through taking the war to the enemy. Using alternate tactics probably never occurred to him and with an Assyrian mindset considered, he appears to have been a capable military leader who deployed his forces rationally and strategically. In a normal war, he might have been victorious, but he was wholly unprepared to go on the defensive against an enemy that was both numerically superior and that aimed to destroy his country rather than conquer it.'
Titles.
From one of his inscriptions commemorating his building projects at Nineveh, Sinsharishkun's titles read as follows:
In another inscription, commemorating his restoration of a temple, Sinsharishkun incorporates his ancestry:


2003 in Thailand

The year 2003 was the 222nd year of the Rattanakosin Kingdom of Thailand. It was the 58th year in the reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), and is reckoned as year 2546 in the Buddhist Era. The war on drugs of Thaksin Shinawatra's government was launched this year, resulting in almost 3,000 deaths.


Takamatsu Domain

The was a "han" or feudal domain in Sanuki Province (present-day Kagawa Prefecture), Japan during the Edo period. The domain was governed first by the Ikoma clan then by the Mito-Matsudaira clan.
History.
The Takamatsu domain was founded in 1587, after Toyotomi Hideyoshi's forces subdued Shikoku. The entire province of Sanuki, rated at 173,000 koku, was granted to Hideyoshi's general Ikoma Chikamasa. Because they sided with Tokugawa Ieyasu at the Battle of Sekigahara, the Ikoma retained their fief, and ruled it until 1640, when they were moved to the Yashima Domain because of an uprising. For a time, the territory of the domain was divided between rulers of the neighboring fiefs, but in 1642, the Takamatsu domain was re-formed, this time under the rulership of Matsudaira Yorishige, a son of Tokugawa Yorifusa, the son of Tokugawa Ieyasu who was the first Tokugawa lord of Mito. The Matsudaira of Takamatsu held some degree of influence in the Tokugawa shogunate, and assisted in communications with the imperial court.
In 1868, the forces of Takamatsu fought on the shogunate's side at the Battle of Toba–Fushimi, but were defeated; soon after, Takamatsu itself surrendered to the forces of the nearby Tosa and Marugame domains. Two of the domain's "karō", Oga Mataemon and Obu Hyōgo, were executed; the daimyo, Matsudaira Yorishige, was sentenced to solitary confinement for some time, but subsequently released.
Like all the other domains of Japan, Takamatsu was disbanded in 1871. The territory was first known as , but later became part of , where its territory remains to the present day.


Kuchkunji Khan

Kuchkunji Khan (1452-1531) - a descendant of the Timurid Mirzo Ulugbek, the third representative of the Uzbek dynasty of Shaybanids, who ruled in the Bukhara Khanate in 1512–1531.
After the death of Muhammad Shaybani Khan, his uncle, a descendant of Mirzo Ulugbek, Suyunchkhoja Khan (1511-1512), was elected the Supreme Khan of the dynasty for a short time. At the end of 1512, all the Shaybanid sultans gathered in Samarkand and, with the consent of Ubaydulla Khan, called here the elder brother of Sunchkhoja Khan, Kuchkunji Sultan, to be the ruler. After that, Suyunchhoja Khan renounces the title of Supreme Khan and, as seniority, transfers it to his older brother. Kuchkunji Khan (1512-1530) becomes the Supreme Khan of the Bukharan khanate.
In 1513–1523, Kuchkunji Khan carried out a monetary reform, which, unlike Shaybani Khan's monetary reform, was less thoughtful and took about 10 years. However, it contributed to the growth of the economy and trade.
The title of Kuchkunji Khan "Sultan Khakan Abu Mansur Bahadurkhan", as well as the names of the first four caliphs, were placed on the coins.