Mythological Origins of Japan

The literature of Shinto employs much mythology to describe the supposed historical origins of Japan. According to the creation story found in the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters, dating from A.D. 712) and the Nihongi or Nihon shoki (Chronicle of Japan, from A.D. 720), the Japanese islands were created by the gods, two of whom--the male Izanagi and the female Izanami--descended from heaven to carry out the task. They also brought into being other kami (deities or supernatural forces), such as those influencing the sea, rivers, wind, woods, and mountains. Two of these deities, the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu Omikami, and her brother, the Storm God, Susano-o, warred against each other, with Amaterasu emerging victorious.

Subsequently Amaterasu sent her grandson, Ninigi, to rule over the sacred islands. Ninigi took with him what became the three imperial regalia--a curved jewel (magatama), a mirror, and a "sword of gathered clouds"--and ruled over the island of Kyushu. Ninigi's great-grandson, Jimmu, recognized as the first human emperor of Japan, set out to conquer Yamato. On the main island of Honshu, according to tradition he established the unbroken line of imperial descent from the Sun Goddess and founded the Land of the Rising Sun in 660 B.C.

Source:U.S. Library of Congress

Oda Nabunaga

Oda Nobunaga was the first of the great Three Unifiers who rose to power in the late Sengoku Period, uniting much of Japan under his rule, and setting the stage for the eventual end of the wars and chaos which had dominated the archipelago for more than 100 years.

Nobunaga is known for numerous military, political, economic, and cultural activities, accomplishments and innovations, including his innovative use of firearms and victory at the battle of Nagashino in 1575; his abolition of guilds and customs barriers, leading to significant economic integration; and the construction of Azuchi castle, the model for Japanese castles in the mode most well-known today.

His death in 1582 in the Honnoji Incident led to his retainer Toyotomi Hideyoshi rising to power as hegemon over the archipelago.

son of Oda Nobuhide (1508? –1549), a minor lord whose family once served the Shiba  shugo. Nobuhide was a skilled warrior, and spent much of his time fighting the samurai of Mikawa and Mino. He also had enemies closer to home - the Oda were divided into two separate camps, with both vying for control of Owari's eight districts. Nobuhide's branch, of which he was one of three elders, was based at Kiyosu castle. The rival branch was to the north, in Iwakura castle.

Many of Nobuhide's battles were fought in Mikawa, against the Matsudaira and the Imagawa clan. The latter were old and prestigious, rulers of Suruga and overlords of Totomi. The Matsudaira were as obscure as the Oda, and while not as splintered politically, they were slowly coming under the Imagawa's influence. The decade leading up to 1548 was dominated along the Mikawa-Owari border by the contention of three men - Oda Nobuhide, Matsudaira Hirotada, and Imagawa Yoshimoto. In 1542, Imagawa, supported by the Matsudaira, marched as far west as the Owari border, and was met by Oda Nobuhide and his younger brother Tsuda Nobumitsu at Azukizaka. In this bitter fight, the Oda emerged victorious, but not decisively. In 1548 Nobuhide attempted to arrange the defection of a certain Matsudaira Tadamoto of Mikawa away from Hirotada. Tadamoto, however, ended up being killed in the attempt, and Oda launched an attack on Okazaki, evidently to make up for the disappointment. Matsudaira Hirotada thus found himself in difficult straights, and called on Imagawa for assistance. Yoshimoto replied that he would be happy to help - so long as Hirotada was willing to send along his young son as a hostage. Hirotada had little choice, and shipped off 6-year old Takechiyo (the future Tokugawa Ieyasu) westward. En-route to Suruga, unfortunately, Oda loyalists intercepted the hostage party and made off with Takechiyo, taking the child to Nobuhide. Nobuhide immediately made use of his new card and demanded that Hirotada give up Okazaki in return for his son's life. Hirotada wisely refused, and Nobuhide, his bluff called, did no harm to the boy. Later in 1548, Imagawa and Oda met again in battle, and this time the Imagawa came out the winner. The following year Nobuhide died, leaving an Oda clan divided in every possible way.

Anxious to capitalize on the death of his rival, Imagawa Yoshimoto sent his uncle, the talented monk-general Sessai Choro, to attack Nobuhide's heir, Nobuhiro. Sessai besieged Nobuhiro in Anjo castle, and sent word to Nobunaga that unless he wished to see his elder brother made to commit suicide, he would have to send back Takechiyo. Nobunaga could hardly refuse, and so Takechiyo ended up in Suruga, even though his father Hirotada had passed away that same year.

The progress of the next three years is hazy. By 1551, however, Nobunaga was the leader of his faction of the Oda and master of Kiyosu. His principal enemy (beyond his own family) was his father's nemesis, the Imagawa. Nobunaga's northern borders (not counting the area of Mino controlled by the Iwakura Oda) were more or less secured, at least: before his death, Nobuhide had arranged for the marriage of Nobunaga to Saito Dosan's daughter. Saito Toshimasa  (Dosan) (1494-1556) was a colorful figure, a former oil-merchant (if tradition is to be believed) who supplanted the Toki family of Mino.

As just noted, Saito Yoshitatsu was the new lord of Mino, having killed Dosan at the Battle of Nagaragawa (1556), and he was no friend to the Oda. The Oda's forts in Mino were quickly reduced, and Nobunaga's attempts to make in-roads in that province were turned back. At the same time, Imagawa Yoshimoto was knocking on Owari's southeastern door, having all but absorbed Mikawa and the Matsudaira clan. Imagawa's army had lost some of it's potency with the death of Sessai Choro in 1555 but Yoshimoto could call on the services of a young and skillful ally – Matsudaira Motoyasu, a man whose fate would prove inter-twined with that of Nobunaga. In 1558, Motoyasu fought his first battle - at Nobunaga's expense. Oda had recently bribed Terabe castle away from the Matsudaira, and Motoyasu, with the Imagawa's blessing, took it back, defeating a relief force sent by Nobunaga. The next year, Imagawa did a little horse-trading of his own, and lured Otaka castle away from the Oda. Nobunaga was furious, and had the fort surrounded. Soon, the garrison began to run out of food, and to lead a relief effort, Imagawa sent Matsudaira Motoyasu. Using a crafty bit of diversion, Motoyasu successfully provisioned Otaka - much to Nobunaga's chagrin.

Okehazama, 1560

The following year, 1560, Imagawa Yoshimoto  decided to make a decisive move to the west. His aim was to drive along the Tokaido coast, brushing aside the Oda and any who did not submit to the Imagawa army with the ultimate goal of occupying Kyoto. To this end Yoshimoto gathered perhaps 20,000 to 25,000 men from Suruga, Totomi, and Mikawa in June, leaving his son Ujizane to run things while he was off conquering. He included Matsudaira Motoyasu in the invasion force, and dispatched the Mikawa samurai to reduce the fort of Marume. Meanwhile, the rest of the Imagawa host crossed in Owari and assaulted Washizu castle. The commanders of the besieged forts (Sakuma Morishige and Oda Genba) managed to get off letters of warning to Nobunaga in Kiyosu, and his retainers were divided on what course of action to take. Given the obvious disparity in numbers, it seemed logical to adopt a defensive posture, or even to capitulate. Nobunaga was for fighting. With all the brash and unpredictable élan he was to show throughout his career, he ordered a conch shell blown and the garrison of Kiyosu made ready for battle.

The next morning, while Marume and Washizu were going up in flames, Nobunaga led a handful of men out of the castle and headed in the direction of Imagawa's army. Along the way he was joined by enough ashigaru and samurai to make an attack credible-if not particularly wise. At ten to one odds, Nobunaga's chances seemed slim at best, although the priests at the Atsuta Shrine that he stopped at to pray for victory commented on how calm he appeared.

Meanwhile, Imagawa was celebrating the course of his campaign so far. Encamped in the Dengakuhazama gorge, Imagawa's army rested and enjoyed sake, their leader engrossed in the viewing of the heads taken at Marume and Washizu. Nobunaga, paused near the Imagawa's Narumi castle, learned of the Imagawa's location from scouts, and played a stratagem. He had battle flags hoisted up from behind a hill, presenting the image to the Imagawa stationed inside Narumi that the Oda were resting nearby. In fact, Nobunaga slipped his men quietly away, leading them in the direction of the Dengakuhazama. At this critical point, a bit of good luck went Nobunaga's way. A summer thunderstorm broiled over and let loose with a torrential downpour, enabling Nobunaga to sneak up quite close to the Imagawa's position. When the rains abated, he gave the order to attack.

Such was the suddenness and ferocity of the attack; Imagawa assumed that a fight had broken out among his own men. His misconception was quickly righted by the appearance of Oda spearmen who succeeded in taking the head of the lord of Suruga. Nobunaga's surprise attack worked beautifully, and once word spread of Yoshimoto's demise, the Imagawa army fled, utterly defeated. Matsudaira Motoyasu, resting his men in Marume, heard of the defeat and thought it best to return to Mikawa forthwith.

Nobunaga's Move To Regional Power, 1561-1570

In 1561, Saito Yoshitatsu, who had continued to fend off advances by the Oda, passed away, probably of leprosy. This left his son, Tatsuoki, in command and Nobunaga was quick to take advantage of the new lord's weak character. By bribing away key Saito generals, Nobunaga was able to weaken the defenses of Mino and in 1567 he attacked Inabayama, the headquarters of the Saito clan. According to tradition, the hill-top castle was brought down by Hashiba (Toyotomi) Hideyoshi, although this valuable Oda retainer does not begin appearing in written records until around 1576.

The following year, Nobunaga moved his capital to Inabayama and renamed the castle Gifu. Everything about the move was auspicious, and made possible by two alliances - one to Matsudaira Motoyasu, and another to Takeda Shingen of Kai and Shinano. The name Gifu was taken from the castle from which King Wu of Zhou (or Wu Wang), ruler of the Zhou Dynasty, had set out in the 11th or 12th century BCE to unify China. Emperor Ôgimachi sent a letter of congratulations and Nobunaga adopted the motto Tenka Fubu, or 'the realm covered in military glory' (or, alternatively, 'The nation under one sword").

Nobunaga's ambition was given a powerful stimulant with the arrival of Ashikaga Yoshiaki  at Gifu in 1567. The brother of the late shogun, Ashikaga Yoshiteru, murdered in 1565, Yoshiaki had spent the intervening years seeking out a patron. Yoshiteru's assassins - the Miyoshi and Matsunaga clans - had seen fit to legitimize their domination of Kyoto politics by naming the 2-year old Ashikaga Yoshihide as Yoshiteru's successor. When Yoshiaki heard the news, he gave up a Buddhist priesthood and fled with Hosokawa Fujitaka, both out of fear for his own life and in the hopes he would find a warlord strong enough to set things right in Kyoto. That he was the logical choice to follow Yoshiteru was clear…finding a Daimyo that would do something about it proved difficult. In his search, he approached the Takeda of Wakasa (not to be confused with the Takeda of Kai), the Uesugi of Echigo, and the Asakura of Echizen. The last seemed the most promising, in terms of military strength relative to a proximity to the capital, and indeed, Asakura Yoshikage promised to help. But Yoshikage stalled and in the end admitted that he was powerless to assist Yoshiaki's nomadic party.

Then Yoshiaki turned to Oda Nobunaga, who fairly jumped at the opportunity. In fact, he had expressed a desire in late 1565 to do just what Yoshiaki was asking, and it may be that Yoshiaki had been leery of approaching this young upstart to begin with. Uesugi and Asakura, after all, were names that carried quite a bit of prestige along with them. But, by 1567, Yoshiaki had evidently decided that beggars couldn't be choosers.

In 1568 Nobunaga's army marched westward in Yoshiaki's name, brushing aside the Rokkaku of southern Omi and putting to flight Miyoshi and Matsunaga. Matsunaga Hisahide  promptly submitted (for which he was confirmed Daimyo of Yamato) while the Miyoshi withdrew to Settsu. In the ninth month Nobunaga entered Kyoto and within three weeks Yoshiaki was installed as the fifteenth Ashikaga shogun with the approval of Emperor Ôgimachi. The mutually beneficial relationship of Yoshiaki and Nobunaga had thus far borne sweet fruit. In time, it would grow quite sour, foreshadowed by Nobunaga's refusal to accept the position of Kanrei, or deputy shogun, even when the Emperor himself requested he do so in 1569. Nobunaga seemed determined to exist in a sort of political limbo, and expressed little interest in any orthodox rank or titles, including, as we shall see, that of shogun. That Nobunaga was the real ruler in Kyoto was the only part of the equation that lacked any sort of ambiguity.

Resistance, 1570-1573

It was hardly surprising that the Daimyo who lived outside Nobunaga's sphere of influence would become quite agitated by the developments in Kyoto. Naturally, upheaval in Kyoto was nothing new - but Nobunaga was. He was quite unlike any of the various Miyoshi, Hosokawa, or Hatakeyama contenders of the past. Those lords, the Hosokawa Sumimoto's and Miyoshi Motonaga's of 1500-1565, had struggled for personal gain and prestige. Nobunaga seemed different. Certainly, he aimed for personal gain and prestige as well, but the sort of gain he desired was most different. By 1568, it is safe to say that Nobunaga aimed to rule all of Japan. Of course, this particular wish was hardly unique among the Daimyo - in point of fact, it is quite misleading to say that Nobunaga somehow possessed a vision denied his contemporaries. Rather, Nobunaga was in the right place at the right time and presented with the right window. The other great warlords of his day (some arguably greater as men go), Mori Motonari, Takeda Shingen, Uesugi Kenshin, and Hojo Ujiyasu  were all far removed from the capital, and in the case of the last three, unable to move due to the ambitions of their neighbors. The key was location. By taking Kyoto, Nobunaga positioned himself nicely in the center of Japan, which could be called the nation's 'soft under-belly'. While Nobunaga would face an implacable enemy in the Ikko-Ikki that dwelled just beyond the Kinai, the weakness of the Daimyo within that region allowed him to build, by 1573, a considerable power-base. This is not to say, of course, that Nobunaga lacked the talents usually ascribed to him. But it is perhaps inaccurate to describe him as something other than a 'sengoku Daimyo'. He was rather the ultimate expression of the 'sengoku-Daimyo'. His power was based almost solely on the point of a sword, and as he grew in power, so did his use for diplomacy diminish. He kept a tight rein on his retainers, and was ruthless to his opponents, especially those who proved especially troublesome to him. His campaigns would be long and hard-fought as his reputation for cruelty grew. Few of his enemies had any illusion about what surrender would mean.

In early 1570, Nobunaga was presented with the first real challenge to his rise. Perhaps in an effort to feel out opposition, Nobunaga had evidently pressed Yoshiaki to request all the local Daimyo to come to Kyoto and attend a certain banquet. One of those who presence was requested was none other than Asakura Yoshikage, the very Daimyo who had frittered his own chance to champion Yoshiaki. Suspecting that Nobunaga was behind the 'invitation', Yoshikage refused, an act Nobunaga declared disloyal to both the shogun and the emperor. With this pretext well in hand, Nobunaga raised an army and marched on Echizen. Initially, all went well for the attackers, with the Asakura revealing their rather lack-luster leadership abilities. By March Nobunaga, supported by Tokugawa Ieyasu (the former Matsudaira Motoyasu), had penetrated Echizen's southern approaches and was moving on Yoshikage's capital (Ichijo-no-tani). Just then, Oda received startling news. His brother-in-law, Asai Nagamasa, had suddenly switched sides and gathered troops to help the Asakura. In fact, Nagamasa's change of heart was probably not as great a surprise as one might think. The Asai and Asakura had been allies for decades, and a single marriage - even if it included the Daimyo of the clan - was not enough to nullify such a long friendship.

Nobunaga the Ruler

Prior to Ashikaga Yoshiaki’s fall in 1573, Nobunaga had not accepted any court titles. Now he accepted the prestigious rank of Kugyo. As a kugyo, Nobunaga was officially part of the ruling hierarchy and could act in state affairs. Court appointments would continue to be lavished on a near-yearly basis. He was named Gondainagon and Ukon’etaishou in 1574 and two years later was elevated to Udaijin. He showed his regard for the Court by assuring the property of the kuge  (nobles) and ordered that all land in Kyoto that had belonged to the kuge in the previous one hundred years be restored to them. Normally, statutes of limitations were considered to come into effect after a period of 20 years. On the same token, he assumed the right to settle disputes involving members of the nobility, a right he excersied by placing under temporary arrest the nobleman who had opposed his selection of the head abbot of the Kofuku-ji. During this time he handed over the official leadership of the Oda to his son Nobutada and clearly intended to carve out a political structure for his hegemony of the country. In 1577 he resigned from his ranks of Udaijin and Ukon’etaishou, pleading unfinished work in the provinces. Actually, since the policy of the court was to honor an individual based on the highest post he had achieved, Nobunaga lost no influence by so doing. According to some historians, such as Fujiki Hisashi, Nobunaga maneuvered to try to force Emperor Ogimachi  into retirement. Osamu Wakita has refuted this theory. Nobunaga adopted a son of Ogimachi’s in 1579 and in the construction of Azuchi Castle had a room set aside to receive visits from the future emperor. As Nobunaga would be the father-in-law to the emperor, he would enjoy a status along the lines of a Retired Emperor. Far from disdaining the court, Nobunaga had worked to link it directly to his vision of a united country under his rule.

Nobunaga accepted no other titles before his death, including that of shogun. Traditionally, the rank of shogun was withheld for men of Minamoto stock and Nobunaga had openly associated himself with the Taira. This is not to say that the court would not have made this appointment; in fact, such was suggested in 1582. As it was, before Nobunaga, shoguns had been the only warriors to attain the title of Kugyo. Nobunaga died before he could give an answer to the court's offer to elevate him to whatever lofty title he wanted. Yet it seems that Nobunaga was willing to honor the existing political framework of the country, at least vis-à-vis the court. What his ultimate plans were as for how he would excersise his rule over the entire country are a matter for mere speculation.

Wilusa

.This land lay in the extreme northwest of Anatolia, including the Troad, and features quite prominently in the affairs of the  region during the 13th century BC, though never a state of the first  rank. Linguistic evidence indicates that Wilusa lay outside the Luwian-speaking zone: it therefore seems reasonable to see this as a  hint that it was not strictly part of the Arzawa lands. This could be  one factor behind the loyalty to Hatti of Wilusa as a vassal state,  whose geographical location made it especially valuable to the Hittites. After his campaign, led by the general Gassu, Muwatalli II  restored Hittite control over Wilusa, establishing Alaksandu as  ruler and drawing up a treaty with him, in which the past loyalty  of Wilusa to Hattusa is stressed. Troubles in Wilusa later came to  a head in the time of Tudhaliya IV, when Walmu was the vassal  ruler: he was deposed, fleeing to Millawanda, where a new, proHittite ruler had come to power, possibly allied by marriage to the  Hittite royal house. Significantly, Walmu was apparently answerable both to Tudhaliya in Hattusa and to Milawat, an arrangement  which would not have been tolerated by earlier Hittite kings, who  demanded exclusive fealty to themselves and who did not differentiate between their vassals in terms of status.  The location of Wilusa, commanding the sea route through to  the Black Sea, provided it with a source of wealth but also the danger of attack by envious, rapacious neighbors. In the 13th century  BC these were above all the Mycenaeans, almost certainly identifiable with Ahhiyawa. As long as this power flourished, Wilusa was  in constant danger of attack. Its links across the Dardanelles with  Europe were archaeologically clearest in the 12th century BC, after  the heyday of Mycenaean power in the maritime region of western  Anatolia and the downfall of the Hittite Empire.   If Hissarlik--the site of Heinrich Schliemann’s and later excavations--is indeed to be identified with Homeric Troy, then it  must surely be with Troy VIH, imposing in its architectural remains in contrast with those of the following levels, and destroyed  most probably around 1250 BC. The last two names in the list of  states comprising the alliance defeated by Tudhaliya I/II (ca.1400  BC)--Wilusiya and Taruisa--have been identified with the Greek  names (W)ilios or Ilion and Troia (Troy). The implication is that  the name of Wilusa, clearly in the first instance that of a land or  minor state, came to be given to the city we know as Troy. Mycenaean-Greek elements in western Anatolia seem implied by the very name of Alaksandu, vassal ruler of Wilusa. On the identification of Wilusa as Ilios and thus Troy a divergent theory distinguishes Truisa from Wilusa, with the former lying not far east of  the latter.  One of the sources of the wealth of Troy was the plentiful  supply of fish, an attraction to covetous neighbors. The sea came  further inland than today, and ships would have plied to and fro between the port and Mycenaean harbors, as well as in the more hazardous maritime trade with the Black Sea.  Wilusa lay at the junction of two continents and the meeting  place at various times of different populations, among them the ancestors of both Lydians and Etruscans.  In the 13th century BC its  situation gave it a pivotal role for Hittite policy in the west, not  least for curbing the designs of Ahhiyawa.

Not all scholars have accepted the identification of Wilusa with Troy. There is an alternative hypothesis, for example, that Wilusa was located near Beycesultan, which was known in the Byzantine era as "Iluza" (Ἴλουζα).

Wilusa per se is known from six references in Hittite sources, including:

• the Manapa-Tarhunta letter (c. 1310–1280 BC); which places it beyond the Seha river;
• the Alaksandu treaty (c. 1280 BC), between Alaksandu of Wilusa and Muwatalli II of Hatti;
• the Tawagalawa letter (c. 1250 BC), addressed to the king of the Ahhiyawa by Hattusili III, mentioning a military conflict over Wilusa, and;
• the Milawata letter (C. 1240 BC), believed to be written by Tudhaliya IV of Hatti, discussing the reinstallation of Walmu as king of Wilusa.

patriarchy

The government of a family, church, or society by the fathers. The term patriarch was originally applied to the fathers of the tribes of Israel, then became an honorific designation of the bishops of the Church, and later the official designation of the heads of the Eastern churches.

Power is related to privilege. In a system in which men have more power than women, men have some level of privilege to which women are not entitled.

The concept of patriarchy has been central to many feminist theories. It is an attempt to explain the stratification of power and privilege by gender that can be observed by many objective measures.

A patriarchy, from the ancient Greek patriarches, was a society where power was held by and passed down through the elder males. When modern historians and sociologists describe a "patriarchal society," they mean that men hold the positions of power and have more privilege: head of the family unit, leaders of social groups, boss in the workplace, and heads of government.

In patriarchy, there is also a hierarchy among the men. In traditional patriarchy, the elder men had power over the younger generations of men. In modern patriarchy, some men hold more power (and privilege) by virtue of the position of authority, and this hierarchy of power (and privilege) is considered acceptable.

The term comes from pater or father. Father or father-figures hold the authority in a patriarchy. Traditional patriarchal societies are, usually, also patrilineal — titles and property are inherited through male lines. (For an example of this, the Salic Law as applied to property and titles followed male lines strictly.)

Feminist theorists have expanded the definition of patriarchal society to describe a systemic bias against women. As second-wave feminists examined society during the 1960s, they did observe households headed by women and female leaders. They were, of course, concerned with whether this was uncommon. More significant, however, was the way society perceived women in power as an exception to a collectively held view of women's "role" in society. Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society.

Gerda Lerner's Analysis of Patriarchy

Gerda Lerner's 1986 history classic, The Creation of Patriarchy, traces the development of the patriarchy to the second millennium B.C.E. in the middle east, putting gender relations at the center of the story of civilization's history. She argues that before this development, male dominance was not a feature of human society in general. Women were key to the maintenance of human society and community, but with a few exceptions, social and legal power was wielded by men. Women could gain some status and privilege in patriarchy by limiting her child-bearing capacity to just one man so that he could depend on her children being his children.

By rooting patriarchy — a social organization where men rule over women — in historical developments, rather than in nature, human nature or biology, she also opens the door for change. If patriarchy was created by culture, it can be overturned by a new culture.

Part of her theory carried through into another volume, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, that women were not conscious that they were subordinate (and it might be otherwise) until this consciousness began slowly to emerge, starting with medieval Europe.

In an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove on "Thinking Aloud," Lerner described her work on the subject of patriarchy:

"Other groups that were subordinated in history — peasants, slaves, colonials, any kind of group, ethnic minorities — all of those groups knew very quickly that they were subordinated, and they developed theories about their liberation, about their rights as human beings, about what kind of struggle to conduct in order to emancipate themselves. But women did not, and so that was the question that I really wanted to explore. And in order to understand it I had to understand really whether patriarchy was, as most of us have been taught, a natural, almost God-given condition, or whether it was a human invention coming out of a specific historic period. Well, in Creation of Patriarchy I think I show that it was indeed a human invention; it was created by human beings, it was created by men and women, at a certain given point in the historical development of the human race. It was probably appropriate as a solution for the problems of that time, which was the Bronze Age, but it's no longer appropriate, all right? And the reason we find it so hard, and we have found it so hard, to understand it and to combat it, is that it was institutionalized before Western civilization really, as we know it, was, so to speak, invented, and the process of creating patriarchy was really well completed by the time that the idea systems of Western civilization were formed."

Some Quotes About Feminism and Patriarchy

From bell hooks: "Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and practice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced.

A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving."

Also from bell hooks: "We have to constantly critique imperialist white supremacist patriarchal culture because it is normalized by mass media and rendered unproblematic."

From Mary Daly: "The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a [person] trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin'."

From Andrea Dworkin: "Being female in this world means having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide-ranging capacity for choice..."

Credit: https://www.thoughtco.com/patriarchal-society-feminism-definition-3528978

HITTITE LAWS.

These differ markedly from the better-known Code  of Hammurabi of Babylon (1792­1750 BC), not only in content  but also in the form in which they have survived. Whereas the laws  of Hammurabi are inscribed on a stela found by the French expedition in Susa, southwestern Iran, the Hittite laws have been transliterated, translated and edited from hundreds of fragments of clay  tablets excavated in Hattusa, for the most part in Büyükkale. Inevitably many such pieces duplicate larger fragments; but gaps in  the texts have been filled from elsewhere, such is the number of  fragments recovered by the German expedition. 

The Hittite Laws have been published in successive editions in  French, English, German, Italian and most recently again in English, beginning with the pioneer publication by Bedrich Hrozny  (1922). Johannes Friedrich used contemporary grammatical and  lexical research to produce an updated German edition (1959); and  Fiorella Imparati’s Italian edition (1964) built on the work of Friedrich. Since then the late Annelies Kammenhuber, in due course  in collaboration with Inge Hoffmann, developed the work of Friedrich (1975­ ). Now the Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute  of the University of Chicago is under the sole command of Harry  Hoffner, following the death in 2000 of Hans Güterbock. American scholarship has indeed played an increasing role in Hittite studies over the past two decades. These details serve to exemplify the  international character of research into the civilizations of the ancient Near East, unimpeded by claims for patents!  There is agreement among specialists that there was a code of  laws divided into two series, each numbering 100, and accordingly  numbered 1­200B in the modern literature. The laws were each  worded beginning with a conditional clause (“if a man. . . .,” “if a  vineyard. . . .”), the first series concerned mainly with persons and  the second largely with property, although the order of subjectmatter is by no means entirely logical. This suggests additions  made from time to time, without redrafting the entire code. The  matters covered by the Hittite Laws are remarkably wide-ranging,  more so than the Babylonian code. It is worth listing these:  homi-cide, justifiable or not, or by pushing a man into a fire; assault and  battery; ownership of slaves; sanitation; marriage procedure, in  exceptional cases or where irregularity has been alleged; feudal duties in the context of land tenure, and conditions of land tenure; hiring for a campaign; accidents at a ford; magical contamination;  finding property; offenses related to cattle; theft; arson; offenses  related to vineyards and orchards; theft and damage to various  types of property; irregularities in sale and purchase; rates of pay  for various services; offenses connected with canals, and with cattle; religious ordinances related to agriculture; sorcery; disinheritance by a mother; compensation for maintenance during famine;  refusal to comply with a legal sentence; an obscure offense (bestiality?) connected with a bull; list of prices; sexual offenses; the  standard fee for instruction of an apprentice.

The wide range of the Hittite Laws gives a clear indication of  the complexity of the state. Unfortunately there is only the most  meager evidence concerning the Hittite courts and legal tribunals,  largely owing to the total absence of private lawsuits, in marked  contrast with Babylonia, though textual references do occur. The  specific coverage of some of the laws indicates their basis in case  law, in decisions over the years by the courts. The king was the  fount of all law, and his decisions are frequently recorded, often in  the context of changing a penalty formerly in force to one now decreed, usually less severe. This is one of the indications that Hittite  law was always evolving, without excessive respect for the precise  regulations of the past. Indeed, it seems to have come into force  only as the need arose, custom presumably governing such fields  as inheritance and contract, not included in the Hittite Laws.  It has been claimed with some reason that the laws of the Hittite state were more humane than those of Babylon and Assyria.  This claim rests primarily on the more sparing application of the  death penalty, the Hittite courts often imposing fines instead: as  with the Germanic (including Anglo-Saxon) wergeld, payment depended on the status of the victim. Capital punishment was reserved for only a few crimes, comprising bestiality, incest, sorcery  by a slave against a free man and stealing a bronze weapon from  the King’s Gate. This last--reminiscent of the English law against  setting fire to the king’s docks--is a hint of fears for the security of  the state. It could also of course be an indication of the value attached to the products of the bronzesmiths.    While there is no doubt of the evolving character of the main  law code, never as rigid as the word “code” may imply, another  factor probably limited its remit. This was the likelihood that the  law was not uniform throughout the Hittite Empire, and that this  was an accepted fact, with tolerance of local customs. At one point  garrison commanders were ordered to apply the death penalty  wherever this was customary for certain crimes; but elsewhere banishment was to continue as the appropriate penalty.

Phoenician Maritime Colonies

Beginning with the Greek Dark Ages, Phoinikoi was the  word used by Greeks to refer to the urban populations  of the eastern Mediterranean seacoast. Phoenician cities  from coastal Syria and Lebanon to the northern shore  of Canaan, such as Ras al-Bassit (Poseidon), Tell Sukas  (Sianu), Arwad (Arados), Tell Kazel (Sumur, Simyra),  Tripolis, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Ushu, Akhzib,Akko, Tell Keisan, Tell Abu Hawam, and Dor, clung to  the rocky islands, sheer cliffs, promontories, and open  plains of the coastline. Inhabitants of these cities shared  some degree of common ancestry and spoke a common  language, also called Phoenician. The Phoenician-speaking populations were also united by numerous similarities  of material culture, social organization, religious belief  and practice, and economic enterprise. The Phoenicians  are perhaps most famous for promulgating the 22-letter  alphabet in which their documents were composed. The  Phoenician alphabet is an ancestor of or inspiration for  all succeeding alphabetic systems.

The Phoenician dialect of Tyre and Sidon reached its  most extensive use in the Neo-Assyrian period (c. 860­ 600 b.c.e.). North of Syria, the Cilician region of Anatolia (modern Turkey) adopted the Tyrian-Sidonian Phoenician language and script for royal, administrative, and  legal texts, generally with a parallel version in the local  Luwian language, which was written in a hieroglyphic  script. Westward expansion of Phoenician exploration  and settlement would carry the language and script to  Cyprus, Crete, the Aegean islands, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, the Balearics, and to the Atlantic coast of the Iberian  Peninsula. Cádiz, ancient Gades, now in Spain, was the  westernmost Phoenician city.

The Mediterranean and North African coast (with the exception of Cyrenaica) entered the mainstream of Mediterranean history with the arrival in the 1st millennium BC of Phoenician traders, mainly from Tyre and Sidon in the eastern Mediterranean. The Phoenicians were not looking for land to settle but for anchorages and staging points on the trade route from Phoenicia to Spain, a source of silver and tin. Points on an alternative route by way of Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands also were occupied. The Phoenicians lacked the manpower and the need to found large colonies as the Greeks did, and few of their settlements grew to any size. The sites chosen were generally offshore islands or easily defensible promontories with sheltered beaches on which ships could be drawn up. Carthage -- Cartagine in italiano --(from the Phoenician Kart-Hadasht, New City or Land, founded by Queen Elissar of Tyre), destined to be the largest Phoenician colony and in the end an imperial power, conformed to the pattern.

Tradition dated the foundation of Gades (modern Cádiz; the earliest known Phoenician trading post in Spain) to 1110 BC, Utica (Utique) to 1101 BC, and Carthage to 814 BC. The dates appear legendary, and no Phoenician object earlier than the 8th century BC has yet been found in the west. At Carthage some Greek objects have been found, datable to about 750 or slightly later, which comes within two generations of the traditional date. Little can be learned from the romantic legends about the arrival of the Phoenicians at Carthage transmitted by Greco-Roman sources. Though individual voyages doubtless took place earlier, the establishment of permanent posts is unlikely to have taken place before 800 BC, antedating the parallel movement of Greeks to Sicily and southern Italy.

Material evidence of Phoenician occupation in the 8th century BC comes from Utica, and of the 7th or 6th century BC from Hadrumetum (Susah, Sousse), Tipasa (east of Cherchell), Siga (Rachgoun), Lixus, and Mogador (Essaouira), the last being the most distant Phoenician settlement so far known. Finds of similar age have been made at Motya (Mozia) in Sicily, Nora (Nurri), Sulcis, and Tharros (San Giovanni di Sinis), Bithia and Olbia in Sardinia, and Cádiz and Almuñécar in Spain. Unlike the Greek settlements, however, those of the Phoenicians long remained politically dependent on their homeland, and only a few were situated where the hinterland had the potential for development. The emergence of Carthage as an independent power, leading to the creation of an empire based on the secure possession of the North African coast, resulted less from the weakening of Tyre, the chief city of Phoenicia, by the Babylonians than from growing pressure from the Greeks in the western Mediterranean; in 580 BC some Greek cities in Sicily attempted to drive the Phoenicians from Motya and Panormus (Palermo) in the west of the island. The Carthaginians feared that if the Greeks won the whole of Sicily they would move on to Sardinia and beyond, isolating the Phoenicians in North Africa. The successful defense of Sicily was followed by attempts to strengthen limited footholds in Sardinia; a fortress at Monte Sirai is the oldest Phoenician military building in the west. The threat from the Greeks receded when Carthage, in alliance with Etruscan cities, backed the Phoenicians of Corsica in about 540 BC and succeeded in excluding the Greeks from contact with southern Spain.

Venerable historical traditions recount the Phoenician voyages to found new cities. Utica, on the Tunisian coast of North Africa, was reputedly founded in 1178 BC, and by 1100 BC the Phoenician city of Tyre supposedly had a Spanish colony at Gadir (Cadiz). Although intriguing, these historical traditions are unsupported by evidence. Excavations confirm that the Phoenicians settled in southern Spain after 800 BC. Their search for new commodities led them ever farther westward and was the reason for their interest in southern Spain's mineral wealth. The untapped lodes of silver and alluvial deposits of tin and gold provided essential raw materials with which to meet the increasing Assyrian demands for tribute. By 700 BC silver exported from the Río Tinto mines was so abundant that it depressed the value of silver bullion in the Assyrian world. This is the background for Phoenician interest in the far west.

Phoenician commerce was conducted by family firms of shipowners and manufacturers who had their base in Tyre or Byblos and placed their representatives abroad. This accounts for the rich tombs of Phoenician pattern found at Almuñécar, Trayamar, and Villaricos, equipped with metropolitan goods such as alabaster wine jars, imported Greek pottery, and delicate gold jewelery. Maritime bases from the Balearic Islands (Ibiza) to Cadiz on the Atlantic were set up to sustain commerce in salted fish, dyes, and textiles. Early Phoenician settlements are known from Morro de Mezquitilla, Toscanos, and Guadalhorce and shrines from Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar and the Temple of Melqart on the island of Sancti Petri near Cadiz. After the fall of Tyre to the Babylonians in 573 BC and the subjugation of Phoenicia, the early prosperity faded until the 4th century. Many colonies survived, however, and Abdera (Adra), Baria (Villaricos), Carmona (Carmo), Gadir  (Cadiz), Malaca (Málaga), and Sexi (Almuñécar) thrived under the trading system established by Carthage for the central and western Mediterranean. Eivissa (Ibiza) became a major Carthaginian colony, and the island produced dye, salt, fish sauce, and wool. A shrine with offerings to the goddess Tanit was established in the cave at Es Cuyram, and the Balearic Islands entered Eivissa's commercial orbit after 400 BC. In 237 BC, just before the Second Punic War, Carthage launched its conquest of southern Spain under Hamilcar Barca, founded a new capital city at Cartago Nova (Cartagena) in 228 BC, and suffered crushing defeat by the Romans in 206 BC.

The Colonies, Phoenicia's Diaspora

Among the most outstanding colonies or trading posts which the Phoenicians had established were the cities of Genoa, where they went in with the Celts and established a flourishing colony, and Marseille which they started as nothing more than a trading post before it became fully Hellenized.

It is very probable that the tremendous colonial activity of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians was stimulated in the 8th to 6th centuries BC by the military blows that were wrecking the trade of the Phoenician homeland in the Levant. Also, competition with the synchronous Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean cannot be ignored as a contributing factor.

The earliest site outside the Phoenician homeland known to possess important aspects of Phoenician culture is Ugarit (Ras Shamra), about six miles north of Latakia. The site was already occupied before the 4th millennium BC, but the Phoenicians only became prominent there around 1991-1786 BC.

According to Herodotus, the coast of Libya along the sea which washes it to the north, throughout its entire length from Egypt to Cape Soloeis, which is its furthest point, is inhabited by Libyans of many distinct tribes who possess the whole tract except certain portions which belong to the Phoenicians and the Greeks.

Tyre's first colony, Utica in North Africa, was founded perhaps as early as the 10th century BC. It is likely that the expansion of the Phoenicians at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC is to be connected with the alliance of Hiram of Tyre with Solomon of Israel in the second half of the 10th century BC. In the following century, Phoenician presence in the north is shown by inscriptions at Samal (Zincirli Hüyük) in eastern Cilicia, and in the 8th century at Karatepe in the Taurus Mountains, but there is no evidence of direct colonization. Both these cities acted as fortresses commanding the routes through the mountains to the mineral and other wealth of Anatolia.

Cyprus had Phoenician settlements by the 9th century BC. Citium, known to the Greeks as Kition (biblical Kittim), in the southeast corner of the island, became the principal colony of the Phoenicians in Cyprus. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, several smaller settlements were planted as stepping-stones along the route to Spain and its mineral wealth in silver and copper: at Malta, early remains go back to the 7th century BC, and at Sulcis and Nora in Sardinia and Motya in Sicily, perhaps a century earlier. According to Thucydides, the Phoenicians controlled a large part of the island but withdrew to the northwest corner under pressure from the Greeks. Modern scholars, however, disbelieve this and contend that the Phoenicians arrived only after the Greeks were established.

In North Africa the next site colonized after Utica was Carthage (near Tunis). Carthage in turn seems to have established (or, in some cases, reestablished) a number of settlements in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, the Balearic Islands, and southern Spain, eventually making this city the acknowledged leader of the western Phoenicians.

Leptis Magna, a titular see of Tripolitana was founded by the Sidonians in a fine and fertile country, it was the most important of the three towns which formed the Tripoli Confederation (Libya toay). The remains of the ancient Phœnician town are still visible, with the harbour, quays, walls, and inland defence, which make it look like Carthage. This city subsequently became the centre of a Greek city, Neapolis, of which most of the monuments are buried under sand. Notwithstanding Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, xxviii), who distinguishes Neapolis from Leptis, there is no doubt, according to Ptolemy, Strabo, and Scyllax, that they should be identified. Leptis allied itself with the Romans in the war against Jugurtha. Having obtained under Augustus the title of civitas it seems at that time to have been administered by Carthaginian magistrates; it may have been a municipium during the first century of the Christian Era and erected by Trajan into a colony bearing the name of Colonia Ulpia Trajana, found on many of its coins. The birthplace of Septimius Severus, who embellished it and enriched it with several fine monuments, it was taken and sacked in the fourth century by the Libyan tribe of Aurusiani (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXVIII, vi) and has never since completely recovered. It was at that time the seat of the military government of Tripolitana.

Around Memphis

Phoenicians from the city of Tyre dwell all round memphis, and the whole place is known by the name of "the camp of the Tyrians." Within the enclosure stands a temple, which is called that of Venus the Stranger.

Armenian Massacres (1894­-1897)

Toward the end of the 19th century, the Armenians lived as subjects of the Ottoman Empire. As a Christian minority of some 2.5 million in the midst of an Islamic state, they were routinely persecuted by their Ottoman overlords. In the 1880s a revolutionary socialist party, the Hunchak (“The Bell”), rose up among the Armenians, followed by an even more radical nationalist faction, the Dashnaktsutium (“Armenian Revolutionary Federation”). Fearing that he was losing his grip on the Armenians, Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid II (1842­1918) launched a series of pogroms against the Armenians of the empire beginning in 1894.

The first action took place in Sasun, where Armenian protesters had assembled to demonstrate against oppressive taxation. Acting in concert with Kurdish tribesmen,

Turkish police waded into the protestors and commenced a slaughter. This triggered a protest in the Ottoman capital of Istanbul, which resulted in a 10-day siege of terror against the Armenian quarter of the city. Hundreds were clubbed to death, and the violence soon spread throughout eastern Turkey. Trebizond and 13 other cities were swept with a wave of unprecedented violence in which more than 14,000 Armenians perished at the hands of the Turkish army acting with Islamic extremists.

In December 1895 at Urfa, the Turkish army held the Armenian quarter under siege for two months. When Armenians sought succor in a cathedral, the army stormed the sanctuary and killed 3,000. A total of 8,000 Armenians were killed in the siege of Urfa and its aftermath. Shortly after this in Zeitun (province of Cilicia), Armenian residents rose up against the Turks, taking some 400 prisoners. It was, however, the only significant resistance to the reign of terror.

The culmination of this first period of slaughter came in August 1896 in Istanbul. During two days an Islamic mob swept through the Armenian quarter, killing 6,000.

At last, the Western European powers were sufficiently horrified to threaten intervention. This brought a halt to the rampage, although anti-Armenian violence continued sporadically through 1897. Estimates of the totals killed during the 1894­97 period vary from 50,000 to twice that number.

See also ARMENIAN MASSACRES (1909); ARMENIAN MASSACRES (1915).

Further reading: Vahakn N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus (New York: Berghahn Books,1995)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman government vs.

Armenian minority 

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Armenia 

DECLARATION: None MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Attempt to crush an Armenian nationalist movement.

OUTCOME: Tens of thousands were killed, and the nationalist movement was temporarily suppressed.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:

Unknown CASUALTIES: 50,000­100,000 Armenians TREATIES: None

Spread of Islam, Islamic Law, and Arabic Language

The rapid spread of Islam acted as a formidable force of change in the Old World. By the end of the reign of Umar ibn al-Khattab (d.644), the whole of the Arabian Peninsula was conquered, together with most of the Sasanian Empire, as well as the Syrian and Egyptian provinces of Byzantium. 

Following the tragic Battle of Karbala, which led to the death of Imam al-Hussein (AD 680), a new phase was ushered in with the making of the Umayyad Empire (661-­750), which eventually extended its dominion from the Ebro River in Spain to the Oxus Valley in Central Asia. Claiming universal authority over far-reaching frontiers,the Umayyad dynasty took Damascus as its capital city, and remained virtually unchallenged in its reign until the rise of the Abbasid caliphate with its capital in Baghdad (749­-1258). 

While Spain continued to be under Umayyad rule (756­1031), new regional powers confronted the Abbasid hegemony, like the Fatimids in Egypt (909­-1171), and the Saljuqs in Iran and Iraq (1038­-1194), along with waves of Crusader invaders in the Levant.

Numerous traditions in thought flourished,

like the Sunni schools of legal reasoning (hanafi, maliki, shafii, hanbali) and the “Twelver Shiite” lineage descending from the Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661). The upsurge in intellectual activities was also marked by the founding of the mutazila and ashari methods of kalam, in addition to the maturation of philosophy, the sciences, and mysticism. Many notable centers of learning were established,

along with associated productions of manuscripts, like al-Azhar in Cairo, the Zaytuna in Tunis, the Qarawiyyin in Fez, the coteries of Córdoba in Andalusia, the schools of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, and those of Qumm and Mashhad in Iran.   Being the language of the Koran, Arabic was carried to the new converts. 

Becoming the lingua franca of medieval Islam, the distinctiveness of Arabic was evident in all spheres of high culture, from religious to legal, official, intellectual, and literary dictions. While in the western provinces Arabic dominated the vernacular dialects, Persian remained in use eastward; witnessing a literary revival in the tenth century AD with the unfurling of an Arabo-Persian idiom, which became prevalent across Iran as well as  Transoxiana and northern India.

A theme that recurs in this formative period of Islamic thought is the relationship,often tense, between revelation and reason.

Under the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun (r.

813­833) there existed a group of theologians known as the Mutazila. 

They had absorbed the work of Greek philosophers and adopted a rationalist style of argumentation that equated God with pure reason. For the Mutazila the world created by God operated according to rational principles humans could understand by exercising reason. As free agents, humans were morally responsible for their actions, and since good and evil had intrinsic value, God’s justice was constrained by universal laws. They held to the view that the Koran was created in time, inspired by God in Muhammad, but not part of his essence. Their opponents, the hadith scholars,insisted that the Koran was “uncreated” and coeternal with God. They believed it was not for man to question God’s injunctions or explore them intellectually, and that all human action was ultimately predetermined.

The Mutazili view, buttressed by the mihna (an “inquisition” or test applied to ulama and public officials), held sway for a period. How-ever, it was reversed under his successor al-Mutawakil (r. 847­-61) as a result of populist pressures focused on the heroic figure of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who resisted imprisonment and torture to defend the “uncreated” Koran. A kind of compromise between reason and revelation was reached in the work of Abul Hasan al-Ashari (d. 935).

He used rationalistic methods to defend the “uncreated” Koran and allowed for a degree of human responsibility. However, the consequences of the Mutazili defeat were far reaching.

The caliphs ceased to be the ultimate authorities in doctrinal matters. Mainstream Sunni theologians espoused the command theory of ethics: an act is right because God commands it,God does not command it because it is right. 

Mutazilism is a term of abuse for many conservative Islamists,especially in Saudi Arabia,which follows the Hanbali tradition in law.

Abbasid Caliphate under Harun al-Rashid

The reign of caliph Harun al-Rashid (r.

764­809) marked the height of military conquests and territorial acquisition under the Abbasids, with the caliphate extending from the boundaries of India and Central Asia to Egypt and North Africa.

Harun rose through the ranks as a military commander before assuming the caliphate from his murdered brother al-Hadi (r. 785­86) and served variously as governor of Ifriqiya (modern-day Tunisia), Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. His military campaigns against the Byzantines kept them at bay. Upon becoming caliph in 764, Harun established diplomatic relations with Charlemagne (r. 742­814) and the Byzantine emperor. Diplomatic and commercial ties were also established with China.

Harun’s reign is often referred to as the Golden Age, a period of significant cultural and literary activity during which the arts, Arabic grammar, literature, and music flourished under his patronage. Al-Rashid figures prominently in the famous literary compilation One Thousand and One Nights. Among his courtiers were the poet Abu Nuwas (d. 815), who was renowned for his wine and his love poetry,and the musician Ibrahim al-Mawsili  (d. 804). 

Abu ’l Hasan al-Kisai (d. 805),who was tutor to al Rashid and his sons, was the leading Arabic grammarian and Koran reciter of his day. The classical texts were translated from Greek, Syriac, and other languages into Arabic.

Harun was famous for his largesse: a well-turned poem could earn the gift of a horse, a bag of gold,or even a country estate.

His wife Zubaida was famous for her charities,especially for causing numerous wells to be dug on the pilgrimage route from Iraq to Medina.

Sufism (Islamic mysticism) flourished under the caliph. The famous ascetic and mystic Maruf al-Karkh (d. c.815) was among the leading expositors of Sufism in Baghdad. By contrast, Harun instituted a policy of repressing the Shiites, who were thought to challenge this rule.

The latter half of Harun’s reign was marked by political instability. The granting of semiautonomy to the governor of Ifriqiya,

Ibrahim b. al-Aghlab, in 800, followed by Harun’s destruction of the all-powerful al Barmaki family, led to a period of political and territorial decline. Harun’s decision to divide the empire between his two sons al Amin and al-Mamun, appointing the elder alAmin (r. 809-­813) as his successor, contributed to a two-year civil war that was followed by periods of continued instability and insurrection. 

The reign of al-Mamun (r.813-­833), though intellectually brilliant, was marked by territorial decline and the waning of Abbasid influence.

Uyghurstan/East Turkestan

Turkestan.—I. CHINESE TURKESTAN.—

When Jenghiz Khan died (1227) his second son, Djagatai, had the greater part of Central Asia for his share of the inheritance: his empire included not only Mavara-un-Nahr, between the Syr Daria and the Amu Daria, but also Ferghana, Badakhshan, Chinese Turkestan, as well as Khorasan at the beginning of his reign; his capital was Almaliq, in the Ili Valley, near the site of the present Kulja; in the fourteenth century the empire was divided into two parts: Mavara-un-Nahr or Transoxiana, and Moghulistan or Jabah, the eastern division. In 1759 the Emperor K'ien Lung subjugated the country north and south of the T'ienshan and divided the new territory into T'ien-shan Peh-lu and T'ien-shan Nan-lu; in 1762 a military governor was appointed and a new fortified town, Hwei-yuan-ching, was erected (1764) near the site of Kulja: a number of Manchus, from Peking and the Amu, and Mongols were drawn to the new place and later on there came a migration of Chinese from the Kan-su and Shen-si Provinces. The local Mohammedan chieftains are known as Pe-k'e (Beg); they are classed in five degrees of rank from the third to the seventh degree of the Chinese hierarchy: the most important titles are Ak'im Beg (local governor), Ishkhan Beg (assistant governor), Shang Beg (collector of revenue), Hatsze Beg (judge), Mirabu Beg (superintendent of agriculture). 

The bad administration of the Chinese governors was the cause of numerous rebellions; a great rising took place against the Governor of Ili, Pi Tsing; at the head was Jihanghir, son of Saddet Ali Sarimsak and grandson of one of the Khoja, Burhan ed-Din; unfortunate at first, Jihanghir was victorious in October, 1825, and captured the four great towns of T'ien-shan Nan-lu: Kashgar, Yangi-hissar, Yarkand, and Khotan. The Chinese Emperor Tao Kwang sent General Ch'ang Ling to fight the rebels. Jihanghir was defeated and made a prisoner at K'artiekai (1828) and sent to Peking where he was put to death in a cruel manner. On the other hand, the establishment of Orenburg by the Russians, the exploration of the Syr Daria by Batiakov, the foundation of Kazalinsk (1848) near the mouth of this river, the exertions of Perovsky, the attacks of the Cos-sacks against the Khanate of Khokand, had for result the arrival of the Russians in the valley of the Ili River. On July 25, 1851, Col. Kovalevski signed with the Chinese on behalf of the Russians at Kash-gar a treaty regulating the trade at Ili (Kulja) and at Tarbagatai (Chugutchak). In the meantime new rebellions broke out after the death of Jihanghir: in 1846 one of the Khoja, Katti Torah, with the help of his brothers took Kashgar, but was soon defeated by the Chinese; in 1857 Wali Khan captured Kashgar, Artosh, and Yangi-hissar; and at last, the son of Jihanghir, Burzuk Khan, with the help of Mohammed Yakub, son of Ismet Ulla, born about 1820 at Pskent in the Khanate of Khokand, taking advantage of the Mohammedan rebellion of Kan-su, began a new struggle against the Chinese. Yakub, having taken Burzuk's place, subjugated Kashgar, Khotan, Aksu, and the other towns south of the T'ien-shan, thus creating a new empire; his capital was Yarkand, and there he received embassies from England in 1870 and 1873 (Sir Douglas T. Forsyth) and from Russia in 1872 (Col. Baron Kaulbars). 

To check the advance of Yakub to the west, the Russians who had captured Tashkent (June 27, 1865) took possession of Ili, i.e. the north of the T'ien-shan, on July 4, 1871. When the Chinese had quelled the Yun-nan rebellion after the surrender of Ta-li, they turned their armies against the Mohammedans of the northwest; the celebrated Tso Tsung-t'ang, Viceroy of Kan-su and Shen-si, had been appointed commander-in-chief; he captured Su-chau (October, 1873), Urumtsi, Tih-hwa, and Manas (November 16, 1876) when a wholesale massacre of the inhabitants took place; the Russian Governor of Turkestan, General Kauffman, wrote a protest against these cruelties. The task of the Chinese was rendered easy by the death of Yakub (May 29, 1877); Aksu (October 19, 1877), Yarkand (December 21), Kashgar (December 26), and at last Khotan (January 14, 1878) fell into their hands. The Chinese then turned to the Russians to have Ili, occupied temporarily, restored to them. Ch'ung-hou, sent as an ambassador to St. Petserburg, signed at Livadia in October, 1879, a treaty ceding to the Russians a large portion of the contested territory including the Muz-Art Pass, giving them the privilege of selling their goods not only at T'ien-tsin and Han-kou but also at Kalgan, Kia-yti, Tang-shan, Si-ngan, and Hanchung; permission was also granted to the Russians not only at Ili, Tarbagatai, Kashgar, and K'urun, but also at Kiayu-kwan, Kobdo, Uliasut'ai, Hami, Turfan, Urumtsi, and Kushteng. The treaty was strongly attacked by the censor, Chang Chi-tung, and Ch'ung-hou, tried by a high court, was sentenced to death. War between Russia and China very nearly broke out, but, thanks to the good offices of foreign powers, a new embassy sent to Russia with the Marquis Tseng arranged matters. A new treaty was signed at St. Petersburg, 12 (24) February, 1881, and Russia kept but the western part of the contested territory, restoring the Pass of Muz-Art and giving up some of the commercial privileges granted by the Livadia Treaty. 

After the Mohammedan rebellion had been crushed, the territory was organized in 1878 and was called Sin-Kiang or New Dominion, the names Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan being also used; it is bounded on the north by Siberia, on the west by Russian Turkestan and India, on the south by Tibet, and on the east by Mongolia and the Chinese Province of Kan-su. Its area is 550,579 square miles, with a population of 1,200,000 inhabitants scattered over this immense desert varying in altitude from 3000 to 4000 feet above the level of the sea and surrounded by mountains: in the south the Kwen-lun and its two branches, the Nan-shan and the Altyn-Tagh; in the west, the Karakoram, the Pamirs and the Trans-Altai; in the north by the T'ien-shan, north of which chain the country is called T'ien-shan Peh-lu or Sungaria, and south of it T'ien-shan Nanlu or Kashgaria. The chief river of Chinese Turkestan is the Tarim or T'ali-mu-ho, about 1250 miles in length, resulting from the junction of the rivers or darias, watering Yarkand, Khotan etc.; finally the Tarim empties its waters into the Lob-Nor, now more of a marsh but a lake in ancient times. The principal passes to enter Sin-Kiang are the following: the Tash-Davan (Kwen-lun range), south of Lob-Nor; the Karakoram Pass, road leading from Yarkand to Leh in Ladak; the Shishiklik Pass, in the Pamirs; the Kyzil Art Pass, in the Trans-Alai; the Muz-Art, road from Kulja to Aksu; the Terek-Davan, in the Western T'ien-shan; the Urumtsi Pass, in the Eastern T'ien-shan; the Talki Pass, to the north of the Ili Valley. 

Sin-kiang includes the following regions: Hami or Qomul or Pa Shan; the great Gobi Desert or Shamo, the largest portion of Turkestan, the southwest part of it is the Takla-makan Desert; the region of oases (Khotan, Yarkand, Kashgar, Aksu, Uch-Turfan, Yangi-hissar); the Turf an region (Turfan, Karashar); Sungaria (Urumtsi, Kuch'eng); the Ili region (Kulja). Sin-Kiang is crossed by three main roads: (I) from Kan-su to Turfan, by Ngansi and Hami; (2) north from Urumtsi to Kulja, via Manas; (3) south from Turfan to Kashgar, via Karashar, Kurla, Kucha, Aksu, Maralbashi; there is also a route from Kashgar to Lob-Nor, via Khotan, Kiria, Charchan, Lob-Nor, thence to Sha Chou; this is Marco Polo's itinerary. The New Dominion is divided into four Tao or Intendancies: Chen Ti Tao (Tih-hwa Fu), in 1908 Jung Pei was Tao-t'ai and judge; Aksu Tao (Yenk'i Fu), Tao-t'ai vacant in 1908; Kashgar Tao (Sulofu), in 1910 Yuan Hung-yu was Tao-t'ai; and I T'a Tao (Ning yuan hien), in 1908 K'inghiu was Tao-t'ai. It includes six Fu or Prefectures: Tih-hwa or Urumtsi, Yenki or Karashar, Su lo or Kashgar, Soch'e or Yarkand, Wensuh or Aksu, and Ili; two Chou, K'uch'e or Kucha, and Hwotien or Khotan; and eight T'ing: Yingkihshaeul or Yangi-hissar, Wushih or Uch-Turfan, K'ueulk'ohlah Wusu or Kurkara-usu, Chensi or Barkul, Hami or Qomul, T'ulufan or Turfan, Tsingho, and T'ahch'eng or Tarbagatai. 

The administration of Sin-Kiang has at its head a Fu-t'ai (in 1908, Lien K'uei), who resides at Urumtsi and is deputed by the Shen-Kan Tsung-tu (Viceroy of Kan-su and Shen-si) whose seat is at Lan-thou, Kan-su; the treasurer, Fan-t'ai (in 1908, Wang Shunan), who resides at Urumtsi (Tih-hwa); as well as the judge, Nieh-t'ai, who is also the Tao-t'ai of the circuit. The four Tao-t'ai have been mentioned. There are three Tsung Ping (brigade generals) at Aksu (Yenk'i), Palik'un (Barkul), and Ili. The Banner Organization includes: at Ili, a Tsiangkiin (Tatar general), a Futut'ung (deputy military lieut. governor), a Ts'an Tsan Ta Ch'en (military assistant governor), and the Ling Tui Ta Ch'en (commandants of forces) of Solun, Oalot, Chahar, Sibe; at Tarbagatai, a Futut'ung, and Ts'an Tsan Ta Ch'en; at Uliasut'ai, a Tsiang Kiin and two Ts'an Tsan Ta Ch'en; at Urga, a Panshi Ta Ch'en (commissioner) and a Pangpan Ta Ch'en (assistant commissioner); at Kobdo, a Ts'an Tsan Ta Ch'en and a Panshi Ta Ch'en; and at Siping, a Panshi Ta Ch'en. 

Mission.—The Ili country is a part of the second ecclesiastical region of China; it was constituted as a distinct mission (Ili or Sin-Kiang mission) at the expense of the Vicariate Apostolic of Kan-su by a decree of October 1, 1888; it is placed under the care of the Belgian missionaries (Cong. Imm. Cord. B. M. V. de Scheutveld) with Jean-Baptiste Steeneman as their superior. The mission includes five European priests and 300 Christians. 

II. RUSSIAN TURKESTAN.—RUSSIAN 

Central Asia includes the two khanates under Russian protection, Bokhara and Khiva, and the Turkestan region with its five provinces: Syr Daria, Samarkand, Ferghana, Semirechensk, and Transcaspian; it extends from the Caspian Sea to China, and from Siberia to Persia and Afghanistan, with an area of 721,277 square miles for Turkestan and 63,012 square miles for the Khanates. To the east, towards China, the country is mountainous and contains numerous lakes, Balkash, Issyk-kul, etc.; to the west, it is a large plain with desiccated lakes, watered by the two large rivers, Amu Daria and Syr Daria which run into the Aral Sea. The conquest of this region began in 1867 with the annexation of the country south of Lake Balkash, and occupation of the valley of the Syr Daria, forming the provinces of Semirechensk and Syr Daria; in 1878 the Zarafshan district was added and became subsequently the Samarkand Province. Later on, in 1873, part of the Khanate of Khiva, on the right bank of the Amu Daria, was occupied and was incorporated with the Syr Daria Province. In 1875 and 1876 the Khanate of Khokand being annexed became the Province of Ferghana. The population is but 6,243,422 inhabitants including, on the one hand, Russians, Poles, Germans, etc.; on the other, the natives: Aryans, Sarts, Tajiks, Tzigans, Hindus, with Mongols: Kirghizs, Uzbeks, Torbors, etc., and emigrated Jews and Arabs representative of the Semitic Race. The chief products are corn, barley, rice, jugara, cotton. Cattle-breeding is the main source of commerce. The trade of Turkestan amounts to about 320 millions and a half of rubles, of which 140 millions and a half are exportation and 180 millions are importation. The chief trading province is Ferghana with 120 millions. Tashkent, the chief city of the Syr Daria Province, is also the center of the administration of Russian Turkestan with a population of 191,500 inhabitants, of which 150,622 are natives, for the most part (140,000) Sarts. The two main rivers of Russian Turkestan which flow into the Aral Sea are the Syr Daria, Sihun, or Jaxartes, and the Amu Daria, Tihun, or Oxus. 

HENRI CORDIER 

Melqart, God of Tyre, King of the Underworld

Melqart, Son of Baal (or El, Ruler of the Universe), God of Tyre, King of the Underworld, Protector of the Universe symbolized the annual cycle of vegetation and was associated with the female deity Astarte in her role as the maternal goddess. Also, he was considered the Heracles or Hercules of the Tyrians though he came from a more distant past than the Greek Heracles/Hercules.

Melqart was also known as Eshmun by the Sidonians. The Greeks equated Melqart with Heracles who was held to be the mythical founder of the Macedonian dynasty. Melqart was also known by other names -- like other Phoenician gods and goddesses. He was known as Baal- Adon- Eshmun- Melqart and also as Thasian Heracles because he was worshipped on the island of Thasos. Also, a Temple of Melqart is known to have been on the island of Sancti Petri near Cadiz.

Many historians such as Josephus Flavius refer to Melqart and Heracles interchangeably. Also, Herodutus, Theophrastus (Arsistotle's pupil) and Horace the Roman wrote about Melqart's Temple in Tyre. It had two pillars one of pure gold and the other of emeralds which shone brilliantly at night. Melqart made Tyre a Phoenician Jerusalem whose kings minted Tyrians coins with Melqart riding on the Phoenician Hippocampus (seahorse/monster). This unique position of Tyre in Phoenician mythology survived into the Christian Era as an amazingly modern city. The remains of the Temple of Eshmun (Sidon's Melqart) have been found in Sidon.

Head of a deity (Melqart?), Cypro-Classical I, 5th century B.C., Cypriot, Terracotta; mold-made and hand-made, H. 4 1/16 in. (10.3 cm), Terracottas, The solid, bearded head has a mold-made face; the headdress was added by hand. The back is handmade and flat.. (Photo by: Sepia Times)

The fame and name of Melqart travelled to the far corners of the Phoenician colonies around the Mediterranean and the other dominions and territories where the Phoenicians settled. The famous Pillars of Hercules of Gibraltar were actually known as the Pillars of Melqart but as time went by and the two gods became combined into one, the Pillars became those of Heracles or Hercules.