title: Early Kurdish nationalism

abstract: The nationalist movement among the Kurdish people first emerged in the late 19th century with an uprising in 1880 led by Sheik Ubeydullah. Many Kurds worked with other opponents of the Ottoman regime within the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). A growth in ethnic consciousness at the start of the 20th century was spearheaded by the Society for the Elevation of Kurdistan. Some Kurdish nationalist groups agitated for secession, others for autonomy. During the First World War, while some Kurdish nationalists were working with the British and Russian enemy powers, Kurdish tribal forces were fighting alongside Ottoman troops on the Russian front. Deaths and displacements occurred on a large scale among Kurdish civilians due to wartime conditions and deliberate ethnic cleansing policies. There was a brief opportunity for Kurdish nationalism after World War I with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Western powers promised the Kurds they would act as guarantors for Kurdish freedom, a promise they subsequently broke. Some of the autonomist Kurdish groups received British support leading up to the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which prepared for local autonomy for the Kurdish regions and envisaged later independence. Opposition from Kemal Atatürk, leader of the new nation-state of Turkey, and changes in British policy, prevented such a result. Following the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) the Kurdish territory was partitioned between Turkey, the French mandate of Syria, the British mandate of Iraq, and Persia.

text:
# Early Kurdish nationalism

The nationalist movement among the Kurdish people first emerged in the late 19th century with an uprising in 1880 led by Sheik Ubeydullah. Many Kurds worked with other opponents of the Ottoman regime within the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). A growth in ethnic consciousness at the start of the 20th century was spearheaded by the Society for the Elevation of Kurdistan. Some Kurdish nationalist groups agitated for secession, others for autonomy.

During the First World War, while some Kurdish nationalists were working with the British and Russian enemy powers, Kurdish tribal forces were fighting alongside Ottoman troops on the Russian front. Deaths and displacements occurred on a large scale among Kurdish civilians due to wartime conditions and deliberate ethnic cleansing policies.

There was a brief opportunity for Kurdish nationalism after World War I with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Western powers (particularly the United Kingdom) promised the Kurds they would act as guarantors for Kurdish freedom, a promise they subsequently broke. Some of the autonomist Kurdish groups received British support leading up to the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which prepared for local autonomy for the Kurdish regions and envisaged later independence. Opposition from Kemal Atatürk, leader of the new nation-state of Turkey, and changes in British policy, prevented such a result. Following the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) the Kurdish territory was partitioned between Turkey, the French mandate of Syria, the British mandate of Iraq, and Persia.

## Prior to 1914

The nationalist movement among the Kurds first emerged in the late 19th century with the uprising of Sheikh Ubeydullah, a Kurdish landowner and head of the powerful Şemdinan family. In 1880, Ubeydullah demanded political autonomy or outright independence for Kurds and the recognition of a Kurdistan state separate from both the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Persia. The uprising was suppressed by the Ottomans.

The first Kurds to challenge the authority of the Ottoman Empire did so primarily as Ottoman subjects, rather than Kurds. They worked with other Turks and Ottoman subjects who were in opposition to the policies of Sultan Abdul Hamid and in 1889 formed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Abdul Hamid responded with a policy of repression, but also of integration, co-opting prominent Kurdish opponents into the Ottoman power structure with prestigious positions in his government. This strategy appears successful given the loyalty displayed by the Kurdish Hamidiye regiments during World War I.

In the first decade of the 20th century, Kurdish nationalism was still an ambiguous, controversial, or unfamiliar concept for many Kurds. Educated Kurds, primarily from Istanbul, sought a political solution largely within the confines of the Ottoman Empire and one that did not rest solely on an ethnic basis. That kind of identity was related with a more tribal consciousness; one that lacked sophistication for many. Others had much to lose if the status quo was altered. For many, this stemmed from a religious concern, where the Sultan had long brought Muslims under a secure Caliphate. Others, particularly tribal chieftains, had economic concerns. Still other Kurds, especially those outside of Anatolia, lacked understanding of nationalism or were simply unaware and unaffected.

In the short time of its existence, the Kurd Society for Cooperation and Progress (*Kürt Terraki ve Teavun Cemiyeti*) was a leading force in supporting the Kurdish nation. It was founded in the aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution in 1908 by several members of the Kurdish political elite. Some of the co-founders were founders Sheikh Abdulkadir, (a son of Sheikh Ubeydullah); Emin Ali Bedir Khan of the Bedir Khan family and the former Ottoman official Muhammad Şerif Pasha. With the establishment of.a school it has also supported the education of the Kurdish population in Istanbul, which at the time amounted to around 30'000. The institution was attended by Said Nursi, who in the future was to become the leader of the Nurculuk. The society also continued to distribute the newspaper Kurdistan, which was led by members of the Bedir Khan family. In 1909, the Society was prohibited by the Government, who didn't see a benefit in the organization of Kurdish people.

An organization known as the Society for the Elevation of Kurdistan (Kürdistan Teali Cemiyeti) was central to the forging of a distinct Kurdish identity. It took advantage of the period of political liberalization during the Second Constitutional Era (1908–1920) of Turkey to transform a renewed interest in Kurdish culture and language into a political nationalist movement based on ethnicity. The emphasis on the Kurdish people as a distinct ethnic group was encouraged around the start of the 20th century by Russian anthropologists who suggested that the Kurds were a European race (compared to the Asiatic Turks), based on physical characteristics and their language which is part of the Indo-European language group. Based more on this ethno-nationalistic standpoint, two prominent Kurdish families, the Badr Khans and the Sayyids, renewed opposition to the empire. These two houses founded the first two strains of Kurdish nationalism. The Badr Khans were secessionists while the Sayyids of Nihiri were autonomists.

Operating within the autonomist framework, Shaykh Abd al Qadir in 1910 appealed to the Committee on Union and Progress (which, after the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, now held the power of the government after deposing Sultan Abd al Hamid) for an autonomous Kurdish state in the east. That same year, Said Nursi traveled through the Diyarbakir region and urged Kurds to unite and forget their differences, while still carefully claiming loyalty to the CUP. Other Kurdish Shaykhs in the region began leaning towards regional autonomy.

During this time, the Badr Khans had been in contact with discontented Shaykhs and chieftains in the far east of Anatolia ranging to the Iranian border, more in the framework of secession, however. Shayk Abd al Razzaq Badr Khan eventually formed an alliance with Shaykh Taha and Shaykh Abd al Salam Barzani, another powerful family in Kurdistan. Because of this possible Kurdish threat as well as the alliance's dealings with Russia, Ottoman troops moved against this alliance in 1914. Two brief and minor rebellions, the rebellions of Barzan and Bitlis, were quickly suppressed.

The problem for these early Kurdish rebels was one of coordination. The British vice-consul in Bitlis reported that "Could the Kurds combine against the government even in one province, the Turkish troops in their eastern part of Asia Minor would find it difficult to crush the revolt." (p. 101)

## The First World War

The outbreak of World War I was a powerful check to growing Kurdish nationalism. However, some Kurds continued to work behind the scenes for an independent Kurdistan. These represent some of the first attempts by Kurds to work with foreign powers against Turks for their autonomy. In 1914, General Muhammad Sharif Pasha offered his services to the British in Mesopotamia. Elsewhere, members of the Badr Khan family held close relations with Russian officials and discussed their intentions to form an independent Kurdistan.

Meanwhile, the conflict between Kurds and Armenians in the east raged. Kurds were threatened with punishment by Ottoman authorities if they did not obey orders to evict or kill the Armenians. In rare instances, Kurds spared their Christian victims and protected them because they were neighbors with whom they had held cordial relations. It is difficult to accept that the struggle was a purely ethnic one. The Armenians, it was reasoned, presented a real threat for many Kurds, especially the farther one went east. Armenians, after all, had relationships with the hostile European powers and Russia. According to David McDowall, "most Kurds involved in the massacres probably felt it was a question of 'them or us'". (p. 105)

Kurds contributed significantly to the Ottoman Empire's war effort. Tribal forces served against the Russian army in Persia and Turkey. Kurdish battle casualties are estimated at 300,000. However, the effect of the war on the Kurdish populated areas was more severe. Many regions throughout Kurdistan were laid waste and their populations decimated by advancing and retreating troop forces. Furthermore, as the war continued, the Young Turks implemented large scale ethnic cleansing of both Armenians and Kurds, including the deportation of Kurds from Erzurum and Bitlis in the winter of 1916. By the end of World War I, up to 700,000 Kurds had been forcibly deported and almost half of the displaced perished. Nevertheless, at this time the Ottoman Kurds still had the legal right to conduct their affairs in Kurdish, celebrate unique traditions, and identify themselves as a distinct ethnic group.

## The end of the Ottoman Empire

The Kurdish ethnonationalist movement that emerged following World War I and the end of the Ottoman Empire was largely in reaction to the changes taking place in mainstream Turkey, primarily radical secularization which the strongly Muslim Kurds abhorred, centralization of authority which threatened the power of local chieftains and Kurdish autonomy, and rampant Turkish nationalism in the new Turkish Republic which obviously threatened to marginalize them.

In 1918, the prominent Kurdish nationalist Şerif Pasha pressed the British to adopt a policy supporting autonomous Kurdish regions throughout Kurdistan. He suggested that British officials be charged with appointing officials to administer the regions and control their finances. Strategically, he desired movement towards this plan to be made before the end of the war and the Paris Peace Conference. Şerif was not able to convince the British of this. However, his efforts to plead the cause of his people leading up to the Peace Conference impressed Western powers. Because of his friendship with Armenians, after he was chosen to represent the Kurds by various Kurdish nationalist organizations at the Peace Conference, a Kurdo-Armenian peace accord was reached between Şerif and Armenian representatives at the conference in 1919. The British persuaded the Kurdish and Armenian representatives to sign this Kurdish-Armenian declaration of solidarity against the Kemalists for strategic reasons. The British thought this would increase the likelihood of independent Kurdish and Armenian states that would create a buffer between British Mesopotamia and the Turks.

The first opportunity for the Kurds to establish an independent state came with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the First World War. In his Fourteen Points Programme for World Peace, US President Woodrow Wilson included the statement that non-Turkish minorities of the Ottoman Empire should be "assured of an absolute unmolested opportunity of autonomous development". Aside from the supporters of such sentiments in the US, Britain, France, and of course of Kurds, there were other aspects to consider. These included the operational breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Kemalist movement, Russia's territorial ambitions, the status of the Christian Armenian population, and Britain's desire to preserve stability in and around its colonial possessions.

### Anatolia

Turkish forces often broke the terms of the Armistice by arming Kurdish forces in eastern Anatolia. Turkish forces were able to stir up religious resentment among Kurds against Christian Armenians in a desire to create an effective Kurdish buffer between Turkey and a possible Armenian state, or obviate its creation altogether. Much of this groundwork was performed by 'Ali Ihsan Pasha.

Elsewhere, anti-British sentiment was developed by 'Ali Beg and his Turco-Kurdish independence party, and the Kurdish Club, which Edward William Charles Noel claimed was plagued with corruption and self-seeking individuals who were also members of the Turkish CUP.

Following the Treaty of Mudros, Istanbul's Kurds began resurrecting their nationalist groups. By the end of 1918, Shaykh Abd al Qadir of the Badr Khans and others reconstituted the Kurdish Club under the new title of Society for the Rise of Kurdistan. But to many, including the British, it was unclear exactly who and what the Kurdish Club and its affiliates in the provinces represented.

Understanding the threat that these renewed Kurdish clubs represented if allied with the British (who had by now made it clear that they were leaning towards providing an autonomous Kurdish state), the CUP began advocating policies of decentralization and penetrated these Kurdish clubs in order to maintain their loyalty. Furthermore, Kurdish nationalism was then tactically supported in eastern regions. While inspiring Sunni solidarity among the Kurds, they worked to foment anti-British sentiment among the Kurds.

By 1919, two developments destroyed Kurdish hopes of achieving either autonomy or independence in eastern Anatolia. The Greeks landed at Smyrna and the Italians invaded further south in Antalya. The psychological effect that these foreign, Christian invasions had on the Muslim Kurdish population was significant and inevitable. Ideas of nationalism were instantly eclipsed by the Christian threat and the Ottoman government easily mobilized Kurds under Pan-Islamic unity. The second disaster was the rise of Mustafa Kemal. He militantly voiced concern for the safety of the sultanate and called for the preservation of eastern Anatolia against the Christian threat. This likewise had a similar effect on Kurds. Kemalist power grew throughout 1919. With this growth, came persecution of the Kurds and the narrowing of Kurdish political space. A new Kurdish political party was refused registration. Newspapers related calls for Kurdish independence with that of supporting Armenian nationalism as well. Outspoken Kurds were imprisoned or executed for treasonous statements. In 1920, the National Pact was signed.

### Treaty of Sèvres

Leading up to the Treaty of Sèvres, in addition to the inability of Kurds to produce a credible leadership, a big failure in reaching a better understanding of an autonomous Kurdish state was due simply to the amount of time that passed between Mudros in 1918 and Sèvres in 1920. Kurds were provided with little alternative by the British. After the Greek attempts in Anatolia, the rise of the Kemalists, and a growing perceived Armenian threat, Anatolian Kurds lacked nationalistic, secessionist desires.

The Treaty was signed between the Allied powers and the government in Istanbul, despite the growing power and authority of the government and the authority of the Grand National Assembly in Ankara. The government in Istanbul was compelled to sign the Treaty even though they themselves strongly disapproved of the terms.

In the eyes of the Kurds, the treaty had its flaws. The treaty excluded the Kurdish territories in Syria, the part of the Dersim region lying west of the Euphrates, and the failure to demarcate a boundary between the Kurds and the Armenians. However, these flaws were minor and dominated by "the fundamental fact that the treaty had been forced upon an unwilling and token government that lacked a constituency even in Istanbul." (p. 137)

Section III of the treaty includes all information related to the issue of an autonomous state of Kurdistan in articles 62 – 64. Under article 62, British, French, and Italian officials were assigned to draft within six months of the implementation of the treaty "a scheme of local autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish areas". Article 64 explicitly states that Kurdish regions have the right to proclaim independence from Turkey or other regions ruled over by the Principal Allied Powers in any part of Kurdistan.

The Treaty of Sèvres was signed on August 10, 1920. Supporters of the Kurdish military leader Colonel Halid Beg Cibran and other Kurdish nationalists began advocating against the Kemalists and Turkish nationalist sentiments in fear that those sentiments would betray their own interests in an independent Kurdistan. Halid Beg Cibran traveled throughout parts of eastern Anatolia garnering support for his cause, at times using violent coercion against non-supportive Kurdish Alevi tribes.

### Koçgiri rebellion

Elsewhere, the Koçgiri rebellion fully erupted in the Dersim region in November 1920. During this time, the Kemalist government in Ankara was attempting to influence Kurds to join the Turkish nationalistic cause by offering jobs and bribes. Throughout 1920, Kurdish organizers in the Dersim region were increasingly successful in tribal organization for an autonomous Kurdistan against the Kemalists, even though many in the region supported the Kemalists. During the summer months, Kurdish armed forces in the region began attacking Turkish ammunition sites and police stations. By November, three months after the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres, Kurds were demanding official recognition for their autonomy. However, winter stifled their ability to organize and armed operations ceased. During this time, Kemalists were able to surround the region and co-opt many Kurdish tribal leaders and bring them into the Kemalist camp.

Clashes erupted again as early as January 1921. With their new position of advantage, Turkish Kemalists arrested and deported Kurdish nationalists and demanded the unconditional surrender of the Kurdish forces that they met, threatening the destruction of their villages if they did not cooperate. Yet, Kurdish forces won several important battles and gained important footholds in the region by March. These successes prompted an increased response from Ankara. By April, the Kurdish rebellion was decisively put down. Reasons behind the Koçgiri rebellion were both ideological and strategic. The main reason for Kurdish support for the rebellion was in order to implement articles 62-64 of the Treaty of Sèvres and increase their autonomy in Kurdish Anatolia. Strategically, Kurdish organizers and forces in the region thought they could take advantage of the fledgling Kemalist government as well as its preoccupation with the Greek conflict in the west. The Kurds severely miscalculated in this last respect. There is also evidence that they anticipated foreign support from the French, British, or Greeks. But there is no evidence that they received any. Some Kurdish forces disagreed with requesting foreign support against the Turks as well.

There are four main reasons that the Koçgiri rebellion failed. Firstly, the Kurds received no outside European support. Secondly, the tribal nature of Kurdish society allowed the Kemalists to co-opt tribes and break up the unity of the movement. Thirdly, there were religious and sectarian differences among Kurds (primarily Sunni and Alevi differences) that created mistrust and a weak unity. Lastly, the Turks' military, organizational, and patronage power was overwhelmingly superior. It is unlikely that any of the tribes involved in the revolt had battle experience in World War I. Most of the Kurdish Hamidiye regiments that fought in the Balkans under the Ottoman flag lived further east and south. The Kocgiri rebellion was also located near Ankara was relatively accessible by Turkish forces.

The Koçgiri rebellion had a significant impact on the government of Ankara. The government continued its policy of attempting to win over Kurdish tribal leaders but set up special commissions to investigate the rebellion. A draft law came before the Grand National Assembly in February 1922 that dealt with administering the Kurdish regions. Because of its superficial nature in dealing with Kurdish autonomy, most Kurdish deputies in the Grand National Assembly opposed it. In his analysis of the draft law, Rober Olson claims that Kurdish opposition to the law reveals that these Kurdish Kemalists were hopeful of obtaining greater autonomy for the Kurds. He also claims that the draft law and its overwhelming majority support reveals that at the time Turks in the Assembly did not favor a violent policy towards the Kurds, but that they "did not remotely consider independence or even autonomy in any meaningful sense of that term" for the Kurds (p. 41).

### Iraq

First direct contact with Kurds in Iraq and British was in 1917 after the British occupied Khanaqin and later other regions in the north of present Iraq, including Kifri, Tuz Khurmatu, and Kirkuk. In 1918, the first Kurdish troops to fight against the Turks were employed by the British. After further British success in the region, Kurdish tribal leaders were impressed and sought to cast their support behind the British effort. Kurdish notables, including Shaykh Mahmud, agreed that they would further seek support from the British for an autonomous state under the British occupied territory.

The Kurdish enthusiasm was not matched by the British. They began withdrawing from Kirkuk and the surrounding regions in May 1918. These areas were promptly reoccupied by Turkish forces. This reoccupation by Turkish forces resulted in much retribution for the Kurds in the region. The British withdrawal was a severe blow to British prestige and ridiculed Kurdish leaders who had spoken in support of the British. Kurds would remain suspicious and doubtful of British power and their intention years after World War I ended.

Indeed, Turkish propaganda against the British was not limited to just Eastern Anatolia and Persia. They had a strong presence in the Mosul *wilayat* of south Kurdistan. In 'Amadiya, Kurds were more easily influenced against the British because the British were a new, foreign presence in their land. Many Kurdish chieftains in the region, far from Istanbul, preferred the old scheme of things under the Ottomans, where they had enjoyed semi-autonomy. New administrative measures under the British, including the collection of taxes and the repatriation of Assyrian refugees agitated the 'Amadiya Kurds. After this agitation and pressure by Turkish inciters, Kurds in the region revolted against the British. This revolt was summarily put down, however, by 1919. Minor revolts of this kind broke out sporadically over the coming years in the Mosul region.

### Syria

During the conflict between Kemalists and the Kurds and the Turkish war of independence in the 1920s many Kurds fled to Syria from Turkey to escape oppression. These refugees settled mainly in the Jazira region of northern Syria where formerly nomadic Kurds had already settled decades earlier and become agriculturalists. Unified Kurdish political activity in Syria was relatively undeveloped and sparse. During the Turkish war of independence, Kurdish tribes in Jazira assisted French forces in repelling Turkish advances. The French at this time had considered the creation of a Kurdish enclave stretching from Urfa in the west to Cizre in the east.

French policies of decentralization benefited many Kurds in this region at the time because of the increased local power they were given. However, Kurds in Syria were not unified in this position. Many wealthy Kurds in Damascus supported the central authority and status quo under the Ottoman Turks and were not supportive of French decentralization. Other Kurdish tribes supported Syrian independence from the French alongside Arab tribes. This diversity in opinion regarding Kurdish autonomy and relations with the French "hindered the development of Kurdish nationalist political activity in Syria." (p. 28).

## British policy

British policy towards the Kurds changed several times between the years of 1918 and 1923, the years between the Armistice of Mudros and the Treaty of Lausanne. The common historical argument is that the abrogation of the Treaty of Sèvres was a result of the success of Kemalist forces and militant Turkish nationalism. However, the evolution of British policy towards the Kurds eventually ran counter to the implementation of articles 62-64 of the Treaty of Sèvres.

After the armistice of Mudros and until the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres in August 1920, British policy toward the Kurds was that of supporting autonomous units throughout Kurdistan. Kurdish nationalism and autonomy throughout Kurdish populated regions was supported heavily by British intelligence agent Edward William Charles Noel during this time. But the growing strength of Turkish nationalist forces by 1920 undermined Noel's policy ambitions, especially in the north.

The British grew further hesitant to establish a "quasi-autonomous" independent Kurdistan in the south because of the possibility that the French would respond by establishing a similar state with French advisers in the north.

### Sheikh Mahmud's rebellions

After World War I and after full Turkish evacuation of southern Kurdistan, Britain reached an agreement with Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji and other Kurdish notables on what was later called 'The Tribal System' or 'The Sandeman System' named after Sir Robert Groves Sandeman. It was based on the principle of indirect rule. Tribal chieftains were entrusted with the government of their own tribes and were made responsible for British administrative duties through Sheikh Mahmud. They were recognized and paid as British government officials. This region of south Kurdistan became known as the South Kurdish Confederation. Many other Kurdish tribes soon agreed to join this system. After years of war and struggle, they were eager to join a peaceful settlement that might offer them protection and financial support.

This system eventually fell apart due to disagreements between Sheikh Mahmud and the British. The British had created quite a powerful Kurdish leader through their financial support. Sheikh Mahmud developed a very opportunistic strategy towards the British. After building up so much power in the region, Sheikh Mahmud eventually started an all out rebellion against the British after they attempted to curb his unruly behavior. The Sheikh and his followers were defeated in June 1919.

The Sheikh by no means commanded the support of all Kurds in the confederation. The Sheikh's call to arms against the British under nationalism and Islam proved mostly futile. Kurds in southern Kurdistan were too unfamiliar with the concept of nationalism. And their past experiences under the Sultan with jihad during World War I for four years against the British had proved a failure.

### The Air Scheme

An aspect that ultimately spelled the downfall for a British policy supporting an autonomous Kurdistan was the Air Scheme policy. This policy of using primarily the Royal Air Force as the dominant military presence in Mesopotamia was experimental at the time. The Air Scheme was popular among British policymakers. The biggest proponents of the Air Scheme were also among the biggest supporters of a "Greater Iraq." The preference in early 1920 strategy was to include southern Kurdistan under the auspices of the British Air Scheme. British policy at this point still regarded northern Kurdistan as would be described in articles 62-64 of the Treaty of Sèvres.

However, in policy meetings that took place in Cairo in March 1921 British policy towards the Kurds was altered. The newly formed Middle East Department concluded that "purely Kurdish areas should not be included in the Arab state of Mesopotamia". The framers of this policy stated that Kurdish areas would be put under control of the British High Commission and not under control of any Iraqi government. Noel and others supported this position because they thought Kurds would prefer rule closer to home and rule that was not under Arabs or Turks. This position was also thought to be strategic because an autonomous Kurdistan would create a buffer between the Turks outside of Iraq as well as anti-British movements within Iraq. Winston Churchill, the Secretary of Colonies at the time, agreed with these sentiments and this position. Churchill also feared that a future ruler of Iraq would oppress the Kurdish minority.

In the end, this policy was reversed largely by the work of Sir Percy Cox, the first High Commissioner of Iraq. Over time, Cox became convinced that it was best to include southern Kurdistan as an integral part of Iraq, for financial and fiscal purposes. Under the impression that such a policy would not go against the policy adopted in Cairo, Churchill agreed to this new policy. Correspondence shows that Churchill still assumed that the only link between the southern Kurdish regions and Iraq would be through the British High Commission.

As Turkish forces grew in strength and militancy, Cox began dealing with King Faisal I of Iraq in determining how Kurds in southern Kurdistan should be incorporated into Iraq territorially and politically. Cox and Faisal devised a policy whereby Kurdish regions could decide whether or not to join Iraq politically instead of merely territorially under the High Commission. Cox claimed that two out of the four of these defined Kurdish districts wished to become part of Iraq. Churchill was convinced and went along with the policy and Cox's dealings with Faisal.

## Persia

After the Armistice, Kurdish nationalistic sentiments grew in Persian Kurdistan where before it had few adherents. This was due in part to the Ottoman Sultan's support. These pan-Islamic policies were designed to win over the Kurds in the region in the possibility of using them as a barrier against the Russians or Armenians.

However, Kurdish nationalism grew in other environments. In 1918, members of the Mukri tribe of the Mahabad region were in talks with British officials discussing a possible scheme for an independent Kurdish state under British protection. Like Sharif Pasha, these individuals stressed their desire for autonomy and a desire to reach a peace agreement with the Armenians.

Later in 1921, the Persian Kurd, Simko Shikak pursued a different strategy. Simko dealt directly with Persian and Russian officials. He became impatient with Persia's unwillingness to act on granting Kurdish autonomy, and so rebelled in 1922. In the Persian operations against Simko's rebellion, Turkish armies provided valuable support. The rebellion was quickly put down. Following this rebellion, however, Major Noel tried, unsuccessfully, to bring together Simko and other Kurdish nationalist leaders, including Shaykh Mahmud. The object was to create a Kurdish alliance to frustrate Turkish designs. No agreement was reached between these leaders.

## The Treaty of Lausanne

After it became apparent how vehemently the government in Ankara opposed the Treaty of Sèvres and with the rising power of the Kemalists, Major Noel and the British began seriously considering supporting a Kurdish rebellion. The fear that the rebellion might not be controllable resulted in the plan's abandonment.

This plan was revived, however, in 1921 after Kemalist troops were found meddling with tribes south of the Armistice line. British policymakers again began contemplating assisting a wide-scale Kurdish rebellion against the Turks in order to counter their growing strength and influence in the region. There were many drawbacks to this plan. This would reflect negatively on King Faisal of Iraq, as weapons would come to northern Kurdistan via Iraq. If the revolt failed, it was thought that the British in Iraq would face a massive amount of Kurdish refugees. There was also the constant worry that Kurdish leaders were unreliable and the Kurdish forces were not unified. But the French had reached an agreement with the government in Ankara on the basis of the National Pact rather than the Treaty of Sèvres. This was done after the Greeks seemed likely to lose against the Turks. France ceded much of its previously occupied land in southern Anatolia, thus providing the Kemalists with the ideal assembly point for an assault on British occupied Iraq. This caused the British to re-evaluate the plausibility of their plans to foment rebellion among the Kurds against the Turks.

Yet it still appeared that the British favored Kurdish autonomy in Iraq when they issued a Joint Declaration with the Iraqi government in 1922 that was communicated to the League of Nations. It recognized the right of the Kurds to form a government within the borders of Iraq.

In the end, as Kemalist forces spread and grew in strength, "the British desire for peace with Turkey, on the best terms for itself, of course, subordinated Britain's Kurdish policy to this objective." (p. 81). It became desirable for the British to negotiate peace with Turkey on much different terms than those of the Treaty of Sèvres.

On 24 July 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed between the British, their allies, and the Turks. The treaty failed to mention the Kurds, even though they made up around 1/3rd of the population of Turkey in the new borders and contained 48.5 percent of the total Kurdish population.

Borders between Turkey and Iraq were to be decided between Great Britain and Turkey within nine months of the implementation of the treaty. Kurdish leaders did petition the League of Nations and Britain for the recognition of Kurdish autonomy during negotiations on the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. In the end, the League of Nations abandoned ethnic considerations in favor of economic and strategic ones. Kurdish territory in modern-day Iraq was granted to Iraq, under British control. The Kurdish regions were fully incorporated into the state in 1923 when Iraq held its first elections to the Constituent Assembly.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, was authorized to meet with Kurdish tribal leaders in Sulaymaniyah in 1923. By this time, he found that they were very much in support of the plan to recognize their national aspirations but within the framework of one country. They even displayed support to King Faisal in a meeting with him in May 1923. These Kurdish leaders, as well as other Kurdish business men and dignitaries were opposed to Shaykh Mahmud's style of nationalism because of his history of political manipulation and lawlessness. According to Muhsin al-Musawi, many tribal Shaykhs and many in the Kurdish elite were strongly inclined by this time to a unified Iraq. Nevertheless, Kurds in Iraq established the short-lived Kingdom of Kurdistan in the city of Sulaymaniyah. The Kingdom lasted from September 1922 until July 1924.

1. Özoğlu, Hakan. Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries. Feb 2004. ISBN 978-0-7914-5993-5. p. 75.
2. Laçiner, Bal; Bal, Ihsan (2004). "The Ideological And Historical Roots Of Kurdist Movements In Turkey: Ethnicity Demography, Politics". *Nationalism and Ethnic Politics*. **10** (3): 473–504. doi:10.1080/13537110490518282. S2CID 144607707. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 19 October 2007.
3. McDowall, David (1996). *A Modern History of the Kurds*. London: I.B. Tauris. pp. 131–137. ISBN 1850436533.
4. Olson, Robert W. (1989). *The emergence of Kurdish nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880-1925*. University of Texas Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-292-77619-7.
5. Natali, Denise (2004). "Ottoman Kurds and emergent Kurdish nationalism". *Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies*. **13** (3): 383–387. doi:10.1080/1066992042000300701. S2CID 220375529.
6. McDowall, David (1996). *A Modern History of the Kurds*. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1850436533.
7. Jwaideh, Wadie (2006). *The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development*. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 081563093X.
8. Fisk, R. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, p.322. Vintage. ISBN 978-1-4000-7517-1
9. Dominik J. Schaller, Jürgen Zimmerer, *Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction*, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.10, No.1, p.8, March 2008.
10. Natali 2005, p. 14
11. Yildiz, Kerim (2007). *The Kurds in Iraq: Past, Present, and Future*. London: Pluto, The Kurdish Human Rights Project. ISBN 978-0745326634.
12. The Treaty of Sèvres, 1920
13. Olson, Robert (1989). *The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880-1925*. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0292776195.
14. Yildiz, Kerim (2005). *The Kurds in Syria*. London: Pluto Press, The Kurdish Human Rights Project. ISBN 0745324991.
15. Yildiz, Kerim (2007). *The Kurds in Iraq: past, present and future*. London: Pluto Press, The Kurdish Human Rights Project. ISBN 978-0745326634.
16. Al-Musawi, Muhsin (2006). *Reading Iraq: Culture and Power in Conflict*. London: I.B. Tauris. pp. 31–32. ISBN 1845110706.
17. Stokes, Jamie (2009). *Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Kingdom of Kurdistan*. ISBN 9781438126760. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
18. Asadi, Awat (2007). *Der Kurdistan-Irak-Konflikt: der Weg zur Autonomie seit dem ersten Weltkrieg*. ISBN 9783899300239. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
19. Prince, J. (1993), "A Kurdish State in Iraq" in *Current History*, January.

### Works cited


title: Early Japanese iron-working techniques

abstract: Early Japanese iron-working techniques are known primarily from archaeological evidence dating to the Asuka period. Iron was first brought to Japan during the earlier Yayoi period. Iron artifacts of the period include farm implements, arrowheads, and rarely a knife blade. An ironworking industry likely evolved during the late Yayoi or the Kofun period, when iron weapons and armor became more common. However, the best archaeological evidence for early iron-working techniques in Japan dates to the Asuka period, after Buddhism had been introduced to the imperial court of the Yamato state.

text:
# Early Japanese iron-working techniques

**Early Japanese iron-working techniques** are known primarily from archaeological evidence dating to the Asuka period (538–710 CE). Iron was first brought to Japan during the earlier Yayoi period (900 BCE to 248 CE). Iron artifacts of the period include farm implements, arrowheads, and rarely a knife blade. An ironworking industry likely evolved during the late Yayoi or the Kofun period, when iron weapons and armor became more common. However, the best archaeological evidence for early iron-working techniques in Japan dates to the Asuka period, after Buddhism had been introduced to the imperial court of the Yamato state.

## Japanese bloomeries

The traditional Japanese furnace, known as a *tatara*, was a hybrid type of furnace. It incorporated bellows, like the European blast furnace, but was constructed of clay; these furnaces would be destroyed after the first use. According to existing archeological records, the first tataras were built during the middle part of the sixth century A.D. Due to the large scale of the tatara, as compared to its European, Indian and Chinese counterparts, the temperature at a given point would vary based on the height in the furnace. Therefore, different types of iron could be found at different heights inside the furnace, ranging from wrought iron at the top of the tatara (furthest from the heat, lowest temperature), to cast iron towards the middle, and finally steel towards the bottom (with varying degrees of carbon content.) Importantly, tataras did not exceed 1500 C, so they did not completely melt the iron.

The metal-workers clearly had an understanding of the differences between the various types of iron found in the tatara, and they separated out and selected different portions of the “bloom” accordingly. In katana forging, for example, only the high- and low- carbon blooms were selected for use. The swordsmiths would then forge the two types of blooms into larger sheets, pound the sheets, fold them on themselves, then repeat this process a minimum of 10 times. Although the chemical process was unknown to them, they were effectively distributing the carbon content of the steel evenly throughout the product, and also distributing the impurities more evenly. This resulted in a product of excellent strength, which had a carbon content higher than that of contemporary European works, but not as high as those found in Indian artifacts.

## Transfer of Technology

The tatara bloomery method is considered by historians and archeologists to be unique, and more specifically “an exotic outlier of mainstream metallurgical development.” It has been suggested by scholars that this technology was initially imported from Korea, but the evidence for this is not overwhelming. We can, however, conclude that the Japanese bloomery with its linear design, (in contrast to circular European blast furnaces) certainly resembles many contemporary South Asian designs. The etymology of “tatara” is not Japanese in its origin, which supports the theory that this technology was not locally synthesized.

However, after its adoption, this technology was indeed adapted for local use. While the tatara has commonalities with other South Asian furnace designs, including those of Sri Lanka and Cambodia, the local materials for use in the blast furnace were very different. The main source of ores for Japanese steel was iron sand, a sand-like substance which accumulated as an end product of the erosion of granite and andesite in mountainous regions of Japan. Importantly, it was less labor-intensive to extract the ore from the sand than from hard rock. Furthermore, this sand could be obtained by surface mining, rather than more laborious mining process. However, these sands had a much lower percentage of iron than that typically found in rock-ores, only 2-5% ferrous oxide, as compared to 79-87% ferrous oxide in certain Sri Lankan ores, for example. Since this smaller percentage of iron would inevitably lead to smaller blooms, Japanese metal workers would have been very familiar with the process of combining blooms. Given these environmental constraints, the most effective solution was to combine certain types of blooms, and through trial-and-error, early sword smiths were able to determine that the most effective combinations of blooms (for swords) were those at the bottom of the tatara.

* Tatara (furnace)

Grazzi, F., Civita, F., Williams, A., Scherillo, A., Barzagli, E., Bartoli, L., Edge, D., & Zoppi, M. (2011). Ancient and historic steel in Japan, India and Europe, a non-invasive comparative study using thermal neutron diffraction. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 400(5), 1493-1500. doi: 10.1007/s00216-011-4854-1

Inoue, T. (2009). Tatara and the Japanese sword: the science and technology. Acta Mechanica, 214(N1-2), 17-30. doi: 10.1007/s00707-010-0308-7

Juleff, G. (2009). Technology and evolution: a root and branch view of Asian iron from first-millennium bc Sri Lanka to Japanese steel. World Archeology, 41(4), 557-577. doi: 10.1080/00438240903345688

Wittner, D. (2007). Technology and the culture of progress in meiji Japan. (pp. 24–26). New York, NY: Routledge.

## Citations


abstract: Alvin is a national technical platform for the dissemination and long term preservation of digitised cultural heritage and digital collections in Sweden. The platform contains material from several Swedish cultural heritage organisations, and is operated and developed at Uppsala University Library in collaboration with Gothenburg University Library and Lund University Library through the Alvin consortium.

text:
# Alvin (digital cultural heritage platform)

**Alvin** is a national technical platform for the dissemination and long term preservation of digitised cultural heritage and digital collections in Sweden. The platform contains material from several Swedish cultural heritage organisations, and is operated and developed at Uppsala University Library in collaboration with Gothenburg University Library and Lund University Library through the Alvin consortium.

## History

Alvin as a system originated from several different projects that Uppsala University Library ran or participated in during a period between 2000-2014:

* Creating a database to handle Erik Waller's extensive autograph collection
* The management of the university library's digitized map and image collections through the image database Bildsök (sv. "Image Search")
* The provenance and material bibliographic database ProBok, which was a collaboration between Uppsala University Library and the University Library at Lund University
* The archive and handwriting infrastructure Ediffah, where several different Swedish research libraries collaborated

These differing and technically diverse projects made it obvious to those involved that the management, operation and further development of these projects were both person-dependent and unsustainable in a long-term perspective. Something needed to be done to increase the coordination of the cultural heritage field, to get the systems to talk to each other, and to give the organisations involved the time and opportunity to update outdated technology in pace with technological progress.

The concept that then came to be Alvin was formulated in 2011 in a final report for the project LUPP. In order to remedy the person-dependence and to prevent services from losing their technical relevance over time, a common platform should be launched.

The basic technical development of Alvin took place between 2012 and 2014 during the infrastructure project ArkA-D. Finally, this project culminated in Alvin being launched at the conference *Digitalisera - men sen då?* (sv. "Digitise - but then what?"), at the Nordic Museum November 28, 2014.

### Citations

### Bibliography

## InfoBox

Alvin
| Type of site | Digital platform for cultural heritage in Sweden |
| --- | --- |
| Owner | Alvin consortium |
| URL | www.alvin-portal.org |
| Commercial | No |
| Registration | Yes |
| Launched | November 28, 2014 (2014-11-28) |
| Current status | Online |
| Content license | CC0 |


abstract: The 1902 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election occurred on November 4, 1902. Republican candidate Samuel W. Pennypacker defeated Democratic candidate and former Governor Robert E. Pattison to become Governor of Pennsylvania. James Kerr and George W. Guthrie unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination.

text:
# 1902 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election

The **1902 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election** occurred on November 4, 1902. Republican candidate Samuel W. Pennypacker defeated Democratic candidate and former Governor Robert E. Pattison to become Governor of Pennsylvania. James Kerr and George W. Guthrie unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination.

## Results

Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 1902
| Party | | Candidate | Votes | % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | **Republican** | **Samuel W. Pennypacker** | **593,328** | **54.20** |
|  | Democratic | Robert E. Pattison | 450,978 | 41.19 |
|  | Prohibition | Silas C. Swallow | 23,327 | 2.13 |
|  | Socialist | John W. Slayton | 21,910 | 2.00 |
|  | Socialist Labor | William Adams | 5,155 | 0.47 |
|  | Independent | John P. Elkin | 15 | 0.00 |
|  | N/A | Other | 58 | 0.01 |
| Total votes | | | **1,094,771** | **100.00** |

## InfoBox

1902 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election
| --- | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Nominee **Samuel W. Pennypacker** Robert E. Pattison   Party Republican Democratic  Popular vote **593,328** 450,978  Percentage **54.2%** 41.2% | |
| ---  County results **Pennypacker:**      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%
**Pattison:**      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% | |
| ---  **Governor before election**
William A. Stone
Republican **Elected Governor**
Samuel W. Pennypacker
Republican | |


title: 1902 Paterson silk dyers strike

text:
# 1902 Paterson silk dyers strike

A strike of silk dyers in Paterson, New Jersey, from April to June 1902, spilled over into the wider New Jersey textile industry.

## Background

At the turn of the 20th century, Italians were the predominant immigrant nationality in Paterson's silk industry. The silk dyers' helpers, an unskilled trade, were mainly from southern Italy and formed the center of Paterson's Italian community. The silk dyers' militant tradition extended from the radical political tradition of immigrants from northern Italy. In the 1890s, Paterson was known as the international home of Italian anarchism. The Paterson Italian community was willing to defend itself against anti-Italian prejudices of the public and police, even if it meant resorting to violence. The community banded together through their conflicts with management and police. Weavers had far more strikes than dye workers in the 1890s. As management could more easily replace and break the strike of unskilled dye workers, dye worker strikes tended to be bigger, such as the property destruction at the hands of dye workers in the 1894 ribbon weavers' strike.

## History

On April 23, 1902, a walkout of silk dyers in Paterson, New Jersey, started a strike. The strike targeted Paterson's two biggest dye firms, Jacob Weidmann and the National Silk Dyeing Company, both of whom opposed collective bargaining. What began with twenty workers from two firms spread to gunshot injuries to three Italian workers and one policeman at one plant. Smaller firms settled with the strikers. While the silk dyers supported each other, other silk industry workers did not support the strike and the industry's subcontracting to Pennsylvania factories mitigated its impact. The local newspaper *Paterson Guardian* supported the employers.

Though the strike was waning by June, thousands of workers attended a rally on June 18 in Belmont Park, in Haledon, New Jersey, with speakers including Luigi Galleani, William MacQueen, and Rudolf Grossmann. The rally dissipated into riots in the Paterson mill district. In the police gunfire, Galleani was shot in the face and absconded to Canada. Paterson declared martial law and brought in the National Guard, ending both the riots and the strike.

## Legacy

The strike was the Paterson's bloodiest.

## Bibliography

* Falk, Candace, ed. (2004). *Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years, Vol. 2: Making Speech Free, 1902–1909*. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-22569-5.
* Golin, Steve (1988). *The Fragile Bridge: Paterson Silk Strike, 1913*. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-534-8.
* Goyens, Tom (2007). *Beer and Revolution: the German Anarchist Movement in New York City, 1880–1914*. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-03175-5.


title: 1894–95 Northern Football League

abstract: The 1894–95 Northern Football League season was the sixth in the history of the Northern Football League, a football competition in Northern England.

text:
# 1894–95 Northern Football League

The **1894–95 Northern Football League season** was the sixth in the history of the Northern Football League, a football competition in Northern England.

## Clubs

The league featured 8 clubs which competed in the last season, along with two new clubs:

### League table

| Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GR | Pts | Promotion or relegation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Middlesbrough | 18 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 58 | 17 | 3.412 | 29 |  |
| 2 | South Bank | 18 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 64 | 23 | 2.783 | | 26 |
| 3 | Tow Law | 18 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 59 | 30 | 1.967 | | 23 |
| 4 | Darlington | 18 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 56 | 30 | 1.867 | | 22 |
| 5 | Whitby | 18 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 43 | 45 | 0.956 | | 18 |
| 6 | Stockton | 18 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 44 | 37 | 1.189 | | 17 |
| 7 | Bishop Auckland | 18 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 42 | 39 | 1.077 | | 16 |
| 8 | Howden Rangers | 18 | 6 | 1 | 11 | 40 | 56 | 0.714 | | 13 |
| 9 | Darlington St. Augustine's | 18 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 38 | 66 | 0.576 | 13 | Left the league |
| 10 | North Skelton Rovers | 18 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 117 | 0.137 | | 3 |

Source:
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal ratio.

## InfoBox

Northern League
| Season | 1894–95 |
| --- | --- |
| Champions | Middlesbrough |
| Matches played | 90 |
| Goals scored | 460 (5.11 per match) |
| 1893–94 1895–96 | |


title: East Tisted

abstract: East Tisted is a village and civil parish in the East Hampshire district of Hampshire, England. It is 4.8 miles (7.7 km) south of Alton on the A32 road. The village lies 50 miles south-west of London, 14 miles east of the city of Winchester, 3.5 miles north-east of the village of West Tisted, 2.5 miles west of the village of Selborne, and 1.5 miles west of the village of Newton Valence. It has a population of about 200, residing in about 100 households.

text:
# East Tisted

**East Tisted** (/ˈtstɛd/) is a village and civil parish in the East Hampshire district of Hampshire, England. It is 4.8 miles (7.7 km) south of Alton on the A32 road.

The village lies 50 miles south-west of London, 14 miles east of the city of Winchester, 3.5 miles north-east of the village of West Tisted, 2.5 miles west of the village of Selborne, and 1.5 miles west of the village of Newton Valence. It has a population of about 200, residing in about 100 households.

## Etymology

East Tisted was first settled in the early medieval period and was given its name by these early Anglo-Saxon settlers. Its name comes from the Old English 'Ticce' and 'Stede' meaning ***Ticce's Farmstead***. Alternatively the name might come from the word Old English word 'Ticcen' meaning young goat or kid. Nearby West Tisted, which shares the name, predates East Tisted in terms of settlements and records.

## History

In the 13th century Alice Holt Forest was the second largest hunting forest in Hampshire, a perambulation of the Forest in this century shows East Tisted as being part of it:

> ***From Rompesdene*** (Junction of A32 with Petersfield Road) ***to Tusted*** (East Tisted) **then the high way**  *(A32) **through the middle of the ville of Farendone** (Farringdon) **and through the middle of the ville of Chautone** (Chawton)*

The manor of East Tisted dates back to the 13th century when it was granted by the Crown to Adam de Gurdon. The manor passed by inheritance to the Norton family. Mary I of England stayed with John Norton at Tisted on 11 July 1554 as she travelled to her wedding at Winchester.

In 1644, the manor and estates were seized by the Commonwealth from the Norton family as Sir Richard Norton was a supporter of the Royalist cause: the family regained the estates in 1661, after the Restoration. They passed by marriage to the Paulet/Powlet families. In 1808, the estate was sold to the Scott family.

A map made in 1743 held in the Winchester college archives shows the centre of the parish (going no further east than Goleigh Wood) as having around 15 individual properties. This map is somewhat mysterious as no known cause for its creation is known, nor why Winchester college holds it, as it never held any lands in East Tisted, only Ropley. It also shows a number of now disappeared buildings to the west of the modern day A32.

In the 18th century, the parish of East Tisted had a share in the income from the turnpike tolls charged on the main road between Basingstoke and Winchester. This was used to fund a village school.

## Rotherfield Park

Just west of East Tisted is Rotherfield Park, an ancient estate first mentioned in 1015 as *Hrytherafeld* meaning the open and for cattle. There was likely settlement here predating a hunting park, which is medieval in origins and is first mentioned in the 16th century. Near to the park is a large amount of prehistoric activity.

## Amenities

The village church, St. James, and the Rectory lie to the west of the village on the east side of the A32 road. The church dates back to the 14th century, it has the family tombs of the Norton family. The church was largely rebuilt in 1846.

Tisted railway station and the route of the Meon Valley Railwayboth closed since 1955lie to the east of the village. The nearest railway station is 4.7 miles (7.7 km) north of the village, at Alton.

East Tisted had a primary school, also serving some of the surrounding villages, until its closure in 1981 due to falling numbers.

Rotherfield Park lies to the west of the village, on the opposite side of the A32 road to that of the village.

## InfoBox

| East Tisted | |
| --- | --- |
| Village pond at East Tisted | |
| East TistedLocation within Hampshire | |
| Population | 221 <br>209 (2011 Census) |
| OS grid reference | SU701322 |
| Civil parish | * East Tisted |
| District |  |
| Shire county |  |
| Region |  |
| Country | England |
| Sovereign state | United Kingdom |
| Post town | Alton |
| Postcode district | GU34 |
|  | |
| Police | Hampshire and Isle of Wight |
| Fire | Hampshire and Isle of Wight |
| Ambulance | South Central |
|  | |
| UK Parliament |  |
|


title: Ambivalent (disambiguation)

abstract: "Ambivalent" is a 2018 song by the Japanese group Keyakizaka46. Ambivalent may also refer to:

text:
# Ambivalent (disambiguation)

**"Ambivalent"** is a 2018 song by the Japanese group Keyakizaka46.

**Ambivalent** may also refer to:

## Albums

## Songs

* "Ambivalent", song by Eve from Otogi, 2018
* "Ambivalent", song by Wagamamarakia from Wagamamarakia, 2020
* "Ambivalent", song by Trident (band) from Advance Generation, 2021
* "Ambivalent", song by Mio yamazaki from Kaimu, 2022

* Ambivalence, a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards some object


title: Eburia decemmaculata

abstract: Eburia decemmaculata is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae.

text:
# Eburia decemmaculata

***Eburia decemmaculata*** is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae.

## InfoBox

| *Eburia decemmaculata* | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Family: | Cerambycidae |
| Genus: | *Eburia* |
| Species: | ***E. decemmaculata*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Eburia decemmaculata***<br>(Fabricius, 1775) | |
|


title: Echinolampas

abstract:
Echinolampas is a genus of echinoderms belonging to the family Echinolampadidae. The genus has cosmopolitan distribution. Species:
  - Echinolampas africana de Loriol, 1880
  - Echinolampas aldrichi Clark & Twitchell, 1915
  - Echinolampas alexandri de Loriol, 1876
  - Echinolampas altissima Arnold & H.L.Clark, 1927
  - Echinolampas anceps Lambert, 1905
  - Echinolampas andalusiensis Osborn et al., 2016
  - Echinolampas anguillae Cotteau, 1875
  - Echinolampas antunesi Gonçalves, 1971
  - Echinolampas appendiculatus Emmons, 1858
  - Echinolampas atascaderensis Brighton, 1926
  - Echinolampas atropha Lambert, 1906
  - Echinolampas barcensis Tavani, 1946
  - Echinolampas bastai Elattaar & Strougo, 2001
  - Echinolampas bombos Nisiyama, 1968
  - Echinolampas bonomii Venzo, 1934
  - Echinolampas bothriopygoides Lambert, 1937
  - Echinolampas brachytona Arnold & H.L.Clark, 1927
  - Echinolampas camagueyensis Weisbord, 1934
  - Echinolampas caranoi Checchia-Rispoli, 1950
  - Echinolampas castroi Cotteau, 1881
  - Echinolampas cavaionensis Venzo, 1935
  - Echinolampas checchiai Roman, 1965
  - Echinolampas chiesai Airaghi, 1939
  - Echinolampas chuni
  - Echinolampas clevei Cotteau, 1875
  - Echinolampas cojimarensis Sánchez Roig, 1949
  - Echinolampas complanatus Abich, 1857
  - Echinolampas concavus Hayasaka, 1948
  - Echinolampas consolationis Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas cookei Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas crassa
  - Echinolampas cuvillieri Lambert, 1936
  - Echinolampas daguini Castex, 1930
  - Echinolampas daralagezensis Poretskaya, 1974a
  - Echinolampas delorenzoi Mirigliano, 1938
  - Echinolampas depressa Gray, 1851
  - Echinolampas deserticus Desio, 1929
  - Echinolampas dorsalis L.Agassiz, 1847a
  - Echinolampas dubaleni Castex, 1930
  - Echinolampas ellipsoidalis d'Archiac, 1846
  - Echinolampas eocenicus Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas fraasi de Loriol, 1880
  - Echinolampas garciai Sánchez Roig, 1952
  - Echinolampas garoensis Srivastava, Singh, Tiwari & Jauhri, 2008
  - Echinolampas gigas Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas gignouxi Lambert, 1933
  - Echinolampas globulossus Sánchez Roig, 1952
  - Echinolampas gregoryi
  - Echinolampas guvarensis Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas hanguensis Davies, 1943
  - Echinolampas hemisphaerica
  - Echinolampas jacquemonti d'Archiac & Haime, 1853
  - Echinolampas jacqueti Lambert, 1936
  - Echinolampas jigniensis Srivastava, Mishra & Srivastava, 1992
  - Echinolampas keiensis
  - Echinolampas khariensis Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas koreana H.L.Clark, 1925
  - Echinolampas kugleri Jeannet, 1959
  - Echinolampas lakiensis Sarwar, 1988
  - Echinolampas laubei McNamara, 1989
  - Echinolampas leymeriei Cotteau, 1853
  - Echinolampas liae Tavani, 1939
  - Echinolampas lipiformis Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas lycopersicus Guppy, 1866
  - Echinolampas macrostoma Lambert, 1936
  - Echinolampas madurensis Martin, 1919
  - Echinolampas marcaisi Lambert, 1937
  - Echinolampas marioi Roman, 1965
  - Echinolampas menchikoffi Lambert, 1935
  - Echinolampas mestrei Sánchez Roig, 1926
  - Echinolampas migiurtinus Checchia-Rispoli, 1950
  - Echinolampas migliorinii Checchia-Rispoli, 1950
  - Echinolampas migliorinii Venzo, 1934
  - Echinolampas moronensis Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas munozi Sánchez Roig, 1949
  - Echinolampas neuvillei Castex, 1930
  - Echinolampas nuevitasensis Weisbord, 1934
  - Echinolampas omanensis Clegg, 1933
  - Echinolampas ovata
  - Echinolampas paraensis Marchesini Santos, 1958
  - Echinolampas paragoga Arnold & H.L.Clark, 1927
  - Echinolampas parvula Lambert, 1936
  - Echinolampas percrassus Meznerics, 1941
  - Echinolampas perrieri de Loriol, 1880
  - Echinolampas peyroti Castex, 1930
  - Echinolampas pipurensis Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas posterocrassa Gregory, 1890
  - Echinolampas pyramidalis Abich, 1857
  - Echinolampas qattamiaensis Ali, 1983
  - Echinolampas rangii Desmoulins, 1837
  - Echinolampas raulini Cotteau, 1863
  - Echinolampas rhodiensis Venzo, 1934
  - Echinolampas rollandil Lambert, 1931
  - Echinolampas rombellipsoidalis Thirring, 1936
  - Echinolampas rotundus Mamedov & Melikov, 1976
  - Echinolampas sandiegensis Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas santaclarae Sánchez Roig, 1951
  - Echinolampas schultzi Kroh, 2005
  - Echinolampas semiorbis Guppy, 1866
  - Echinolampas sternopetala A.Agassiz & H.L.Clark, 1907
  - Echinolampas strongyla Arnold & H.L.Clark, 1927
  - Echinolampas subnucleus Venzo, 1934
  - Echinolampas subrostratus Gregory, 1892
  - Echinolampas sumatrana Döderlein, 1905
  - Echinolampas tachanabatensis Mamedov & Melikov, 1976
  - Echinolampas tandoni Srivastava & Singh, 1999
  - Echinolampas tanypetalis Harper & Shaak, 1974
  - Echinolampas tenuipetalum Sánchez Roig, 1952
  - Echinolampas torrense Sánchez Roig, 1953
  - Echinolampas tumulus McNamara & Kendrick, 1994
  - Echinolampas umbella Palmer, 1949
  - Echinolampas vadaszi Roman, 1965
  - Echinolampas valettei Lambert, 1933
  - Echinolampas venzoi Roman, 1965
  - Echinolampas visedoi Lambert, 1935
  - Echinolampas woodi Currie, 1930
  - Echinolampas woodringi Durham, 1961
  - Echinolampas yadongensis Mu & Wu, 1976
  - Echinolampas yoshiwarai Loriol, 1902

text:
# Echinolampas

***Echinolampas*** is a genus of echinoderms belonging to the family Echinolampadidae.

The genus has cosmopolitan distribution.

Species:

## InfoBox

| *Echinolampas* | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| *Echinolampas chiesai* | |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Echinodermata |
| Class: | Echinoidea |
| Order: | Cassiduloida |
| Family: | Echinolampadidae |
| Genus: | *Echinolampas*<br>Gray, 1825 |
|


title: Ambillou-Château

abstract: Ambillou-Château is a former commune in the Maine-et-Loire department in western France. On 1 January 2016, it was merged into the new commune of Tuffalun.

text:
# Ambillou-Château

**Ambillou-Château** (French pronunciation: \[ɑ̃biju ʃɑto\] ) is a former commune in the Maine-et-Loire department in western France. On 1 January 2016, it was merged into the new commune of Tuffalun.

## Population

Historical population
| Year Pop. ±%  1793  1,011       1800  1,036 +2.5%  1806  1,015 −2.0%  1821  1,075 +5.9%  1831  1,128 +4.9%  1836  1,095 −2.9%  1841  1,112 +1.6%  1846  1,113 +0.1%  1851  1,081 −2.9%  1856  1,084 +0.3%  1861  1,044 −3.7%  1866  1,044 +0.0%  1872  914 −12.5%  1876  915 +0.1%  1881  906 −1.0%  1886  883 −2.5%  1891  850 −3.7%  1896  827 −2.7% | Year Pop. ±%  1901  809 −2.2%  1906  816 +0.9%  1911  755 −7.5%  1921  667 −11.7%  1926  722 +8.2%  1931  692 −4.2%  1936  679 −1.9%  1946  649 −4.4%  1954  737 +13.6%  1962  755 +2.4%  1968  750 −0.7%  1975  691 −7.9%  1982  708 +2.5%  1990  726 +2.5%  1999  807 +11.2%  2006  888 +10.0%  2009  951 +7.1% |
| --- | --- |

## InfoBox

| Ambillou-Château | |
| --- | --- |
| Part of Tuffalun | |
| Location of Ambillou-Château | |
| Ambillou-ChâteauAmbillou-Château | |
| Coordinates: 47°15′51″N 0°20′34″W / 47.2642°N 0.3428°W / 47.2642; -0.3428 | |
| Country | France |
| Region | Pays de la Loire |
| Department | Maine-et-Loire |
| Arrondissement | Saumur |
| Canton | Doué-la-Fontaine |
| Commune | Tuffalun |
| Area**1** | 19.99 km2 (7.72 sq mi) |
| Population (2019) | 933 |
| Density | 47/km2 (120/sq mi) |
| Time zone | UTC+01:00 (CET) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+02:00 (CEST) |
| Postal code | 49700 |
| Elevation | 47–101 m (154–331 ft)
(avg. 77 m or 253 ft) |
| **1** French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers \> 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries. | |


title: East Devon Pebblebed Heaths

abstract: The East Devon Pebblebed Heaths is an area of rare lowland heath in east Devon, England. Lying inland of the coastal towns of Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton, it forms a north–south ridge on the western side of the River Otter at heights above sea level varying between 70 and 150 m. The main area, to the south, consists of the contiguous East Budleigh Common, Lympstone Common, Bicton Common, Woodbury Common and Colaton Raleigh Common; to the north are Hawkerland Valley, Harpford Common, Aylesbeare Common and Venn Ottery Common; and there are a few smaller nearby areas. The area forms part of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protected Area, and a Special Area of Conservation. The majority of the 1,124.4 hectares of the heath is managed with joint financial input from Clinton Devon Estates, government grants and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust, which employs full-time wardens and volunteers to look after the terrain. The Estate opened the heathland to public access "for air and exercise" following a legal deed it signed in 1930. Parts of the land designated as the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SSSI are owned by the Ministry of Defence and parts are owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The underlying geology of the area is mostly Bunter Pebblebeds of Triassic age, though there is some New Red Sandstone and marls of Permian age. Notable breeding bird species that have been recorded on the site include the European nightjar, Eurasian hobby and Dartford warbler. Rare dragonflies include the small red damselfly, the southern damselfly and the downy emerald. Other insects recorded include the bog bush cricket. Annual wildlife surveys are carried with groups such as the Devon Amphibian and Reptile Group (DRAG), the Devon Bat Group, Butterfly Conservation, the Devon Wildlife Trust and the Devon Biodiversity Records Centre helping coordinate the work.

text:
# East Devon Pebblebed Heaths

The **East Devon Pebblebed Heaths** (grid reference SY050880) is an area of rare lowland heath in east Devon, England. Lying inland of the coastal towns of Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton, it forms a north–south ridge on the western side of the River Otter at heights above sea level varying between 70 and 150 m. The main area, to the south, consists of the contiguous East Budleigh Common, Lympstone Common, Bicton Common, Woodbury Common and Colaton Raleigh Common; to the north are Hawkerland Valley, Harpford Common, Aylesbeare Common and Venn Ottery Common; and there are a few smaller nearby areas.

The area forms part of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (listed since 1952), a Special Protected Area, and a Special Area of Conservation. The majority of the 1,124.4 hectares (2,778 acres) of the heath is managed with joint financial input from Clinton Devon Estates, government grants and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust, which employs full-time wardens and volunteers to look after the terrain. The Estate opened the heathland to public access "for air and exercise" following a legal deed it signed in 1930. Parts of the land designated as the **East Devon Pebblebed Heaths** SSSI are owned by the Ministry of Defence (Woodbury Common) and parts are owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

The underlying geology of the area is mostly Bunter Pebblebeds of Triassic age, though there is some New Red Sandstone and marls of Permian age.

Notable breeding bird species that have been recorded on the site include the European nightjar, Eurasian hobby and Dartford warbler. Rare dragonflies include the small red damselfly, the southern damselfly and the downy emerald. Other insects recorded include the bog bush cricket. Annual wildlife surveys are carried with groups such as the Devon Amphibian and Reptile Group (DRAG), the Devon Bat Group, Butterfly Conservation, the Devon Wildlife Trust and the Devon Biodiversity Records Centre helping coordinate the work.

## Further reading

* Cooper, Andrew (2007). *East Devon Pebblebed Heaths: 240 Million Years in the Making*. Impress Books. ISBN 978-0-9556239-0-5.
* *The Devon Landscape. An appraisal of Devon's landscape at the beginning of the 21st century*. Devon County Council. 2002. pp. 88–89. ISBN 1-85522-824-6.


title: American Astronautical Society

abstract: Formed in 1954, the American Astronautical Society (AAS) is an independent scientific and technical group in the United States dedicated to the advancement of space science and space exploration. AAS supports NASA's Vision for Space Exploration and is a member of the Coalition for Space Exploration and the Space Exploration Alliance. The AAS also focuses on strengthening the global space program through cooperation with international space organizations. The society has a long history of supporting space exploration through scholarships. AAS members include: engineers, scientists, administrators, institutions and corporations working in support of the nation's space activities, as well as military space specialists, physicians, lawyers, educators, historians, journalists, artists and other professionals. The AAS runs national meetings, symposia and publications. Members meet with leaders in their field and in related disciplines, exchange information and ideas, discuss career aspirations and expand their horizons. The AAS sponsors professional, scientific and engineering meetings and maintains a publications program.

text:
# American Astronautical Society

Formed in 1954, the **American Astronautical Society** (**AAS**) is an independent scientific and technical group in the United States dedicated to the advancement of space science and space exploration. AAS supports NASA's Vision for Space Exploration and is a member of the Coalition for Space Exploration and the Space Exploration Alliance. The AAS also focuses on strengthening the global space program through cooperation with international space organizations. The society has a long history of supporting space exploration through scholarships.

AAS members include: engineers, scientists, administrators, institutions and corporations working in support of the nation's space activities, as well as military space specialists, physicians, lawyers, educators, historians, journalists, artists and other professionals.

The AAS runs national meetings, symposia and publications. Members meet with leaders in their field and in related disciplines, exchange information and ideas, discuss career aspirations and expand their horizons.

The AAS sponsors professional, scientific and engineering meetings and maintains a publications program.

## Publications

**The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences** is the official journal of the AAS, published by Springer Publishing.

**Space Times** is a magazine with an American focus looking at recent developments in the history and government approach to space development. In the past, it has included policy speeches by NASA officials and reprints of articles from other sources that are relevant to its membership.

The group also runs the **Research Notes of the AAS** (RNAAS), which is a non-peer reviewed index of works-in-progress published by IOP Publishing.

## InfoBox

American Astronautical Society
|
|  |
| Abbreviation | AAS |
| Formation | January 22, 1954 (1954-01-22) |
| Type | NGO |
| Website | http://www.astronautical.org/ |


title: American Asthma Foundation

abstract: The American Asthma Foundation (AAF) was a non-profit grant program that funds basic research focused on asthma. Its stated mission is to improve treatments for, prevent, and find a cure for asthma. Established in 1999, it is the largest private funder of asthma research, having awarded over $110,000,000 in grant funds to 182 scientists. It suspended its operations in 2019.

text:
# American Asthma Foundation

The **American Asthma Foundation** (**AAF**) was a non-profit grant program that funds basic research focused on asthma. Its stated mission is to improve treatments for, prevent, and find a cure for asthma. Established in 1999, it is the largest private funder of asthma research, having awarded over $110,000,000 in grant funds to 182 scientists. It suspended its operations in 2019.

## Funding Strategy

The American Asthma Foundation employed an unusual strategy to advance basic research in asthma: nearly all AAF grant funding has supported scientists who never before studied asthma. The concept was to recruit outstanding investigators from other fields in order to bring fresh perspectives and research advances other fields to the study of asthma.

## Scientific Review Board

The AAF is guided by a scientific review board, which selects the research projects that are funded by the AAF. The board represents a broad range of scientific disciplines and is composed largely of scientists outside the field of asthma research.

## Grant Program

After 20 years of funding basic research in asthma, the American Asthma Foundation suspended funding for new grants in 2019.

## InfoBox

American Asthma Foundation
|
|  |
| Abbreviation | AAF |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, California, U.S. |
| Website | www.americanasthmafoundation.org |


title: Anarchaea

abstract: Anarchaea is a genus of Australian shield spiders that was first described by Michael Gordon Rix in 2006.

text:
# Anarchaea

***Anarchaea*** is a genus of Australian shield spiders that was first described by Michael Gordon Rix in 2006.

## Species

As of June 2019 it contains four species, found only in Queensland, New South Wales, and Tasmania:

## InfoBox

| *Anarchaea* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Subphylum: | Chelicerata |
| Class: | Arachnida |
| Order: | Araneae |
| Infraorder: | Araneomorphae |
| Family: | Malkaridae |
| Genus: | *Anarchaea*
Rix, 2006 |
|
| Type species | |
| *A. corticola*
(Hickman, 1969) | |
| Species | |
| 4, see text | |


abstract: The Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport was an Australian government department that existed between March 1950 and May 1951.

text:
# Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport

The **Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport** was an Australian government department that existed between March 1950 and May 1951.

## Scope

Information about the department's functions and government funding allocation could be found in the Administrative Arrangements Orders, the annual Portfolio Budget Statements and in the department's annual reports.

According to the Administrative Arrangements Order made on 17 March 1950, the department dealt with:

* Commonwealth Oil Refineries Ltd (Government relations with)
* Coal production and distribution
* Importation, sale and use of liquid fuels and petroleum products, including rationing and distribution of petroleum fuels and substitute and synthetic fuels
* Mining and distribution of coal
* Mining and distribution of oil shale and refining of shale oil products
* Oil wells. Refining and distribution of locally produced petroleum products
* Control and maintenance of coastal lights and other aids to navigation on the ocean highways of the Australian coastline.
* Control of navigation services such as seamen's compensation, prevention of obstruction on shipping routes and fishing grounds, accommodation for ships' crews, welfare of seamen, maintenance of ships' gear, examination of masters and officers, Courts of Marine Inquiry
* Shipping, including the best utilization of the Australian Coastal Fleet, the chartering of ships, the manning of ships
* Stowage and movement of explosives and dangerous cargoes at Australian ports
* Policy in respect of shipbuilding and subsidy to promote the operation of Australian-built ships
* Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool
* Railways, Commonwealth
* Administration of Standardization of Railways Agreement
* Australian Transport Advisory Council

## Structure

The department was an Australian Public Service department, staffed by officials who were responsible to the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport, George McLeay The department's secretary was C.H. McFayden.

## InfoBox

Department of Fuel, Shipping and Transport
| Department overview | |
| --- | --- |
| Formed | 16 March 1950 |
| Preceding Department |  |
| Dissolved | 11 May 1951 |
| Superseding Department |  |
| Jurisdiction | Commonwealth of Australia |
| Minister responsible |  |
| Department executive |  |


title: Edgar Norwerth

abstract: Edgar Norwerth was a Polish architect. His work was part of the art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics and the 1932 Summer Olympics.

text:
# Edgar Norwerth

**Edgar Norwerth** (7 April 1884  19 September 1950) was a Polish architect. His work was part of the art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics and the 1932 Summer Olympics.

## InfoBox

| Edgar Norwerth | |
| --- | --- |
| Born | (1884-04-07)7 April 1884
Coppet, Switzerland |
| Died | 19 September 1950(1950-09-19) (aged 66)
Warsaw, Poland |
| Nationality | Polish |
| Occupation | Architect |


title: Dov Freiberg

abstract: Dov Freiberg born Berek Freiberg, was a Holocaust survivor, writer, and witness at the Eichmann trial and the Demjanjuk case. Freiberg was a prisoner at Sobibor extermination camp where he participated in the Sobibor uprising. After the revolt, he managed to escape into nearby woods and survived until the Soviet Army entered in July 1944.

text:
# Dov Freiberg

**Dov Freiberg** (15 May 1927 – 1 March 2008) born Berek Freiberg, was a Holocaust survivor, writer, and witness at the Eichmann trial and the Demjanjuk case. Freiberg was a prisoner at Sobibor extermination camp where he participated in the Sobibor uprising. After the revolt, he managed to escape into nearby woods and survived until the Soviet Army entered in July 1944.

## Biography

Dov Freiberg was born to Moses and Rebecca Freiberg in 1927 in Warsaw, Poland. The first years of his childhood were spent in the industrial city of Łódź, where his father was a factory worker. At the beginning of the Nazi occupation his father and brother tried to escape eastward, but his father was shot by the Germans when his convoy was attacked. A few months later his mother moved with her four children to her parents' house in Warsaw, which was situated in the ghetto that had been established in November 1940 in the heart of the Jewish Quarter. A year later, in autumn 1941, when conditions in the ghetto had worsened and tens of thousands of its residents had died or were killed, this spurred him to escape from the ghetto with the assistance of a smuggler; Freiberg escaped to the remote town Turobin in the district of Lublin, where the Jews, including the family of his father, lived with a sense of relative calm. On 17 May 1942, two days after his 15th birthday, the town was surrounded suddenly by the SS accompanied by local assistants and Ukrainians. Most of the town's Jews, along with the Jews of other nearby towns, were brutally deported to the Sobibor extermination camp.

### Sobibor extermination camp

Upon Freiberg's arrival in Sobibor, some Jewish prisoners managed to squeeze into the group of slave laborers temporarily reprieved from their intended deaths in the gas chambers, and Freiberg was employed with other members of this group initially as a sorter of clothing and belongings. He was then forced to do other tasks including cutting the hair of the women before they went to the gas chambers. Freiberg managed to survive the regime of daily abuse, starvation and cruel treatment for about 17 months. In October 1943, Freiberg participated in the Sobibor prisoners' revolt and he managed to escape into nearby woods and joined the Joseph Serchuk's Jewish partisan unit in the Lublin area of occupied Poland until the Soviet Army liberated the region in July 1944.

After the war, he moved to Łódź, Poland for a short period of time and from there moved to Germany. Once in Germany he joined a training group consisting of Holocaust survivors, where he met his future wife  Sarah, a refugee from the Soviet Union. This group tried to travel in the summer of 1947 on the ship *Exodus* to Mandate Palestine. The *Exodus* was captured by the British and sent back to Germany. In 1948, Freiberg together with the training group managed to settle in a kibbutz in the northern Sharon where he received military training and fought in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Freiberg then settled in Ramle, where he joined the army for military service and served as a sapper in the Engineering Corps. During his military service his daughters Rivkah and Yael were born.

Freiberg testified at 1961 at the Eichmann trial, where he told about the horrors of the extermination camp Sobibor. Four years later, in 1965, he was invited to Germany to testify at the trial in Hagen, where SS officers were tried for acts committed in Sobibor.

Freiberg was a popular lecturer, and he lectured frequently before students, soldiers, officers, and educational organisations for Holocaust studies. Freiberg went twice with youth delegations to Poland as a survivor. He was also invited by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to formally participate in the official visit to Poland. Freiberg testified at the Demjanjuk trial in 1986 in Israel, testifying against Demjanjuk's release, claiming that he should be tried for his crimes at the Sobibor death camp. Freiberg's wife Sarah died at the end of 2007, and he died a few months later in March 2008 at the age of 79 (or 80) in Ramla, Israel.

## Books

Freiberg wrote four books including:

* *Relic from Sobibor* (in Hebrew: שריד מסוביבור), published in 1988, which tells his history from the outbreak of World War II, through the Holocaust, illegal immigration to Israel aboard the *Exodus* and up until the day of arrival in Israel. The book was a great success and was published in eight Hebrew editions, as well as in an English translation as *To Survive Sobibor* by Gefen Books.
* *Journey to the Past with Gefen Shibolim* was published in 1993 and describes his experiences with the campaign conducted by a group of high school students in 1991; the trip included a visit to Freiberg's first camp site Sobibor 48 years after his escaping from the camp.
* *Be one person* was published in 1996. It describes coping with life in Israel as a Holocaust survivor as well as his testimony at the Eichmann trial.
* *Between Two Worlds* was published in 2001. It describes the duality of his life between the world of the Holocaust and the world that followed after.

* Freiberg, Dov (2007). *To Survivor Sobibor*. Gefen Publishing House. p. 624. ISBN 9652293881.

## InfoBox

| Dov Freiberg | |
| --- | --- |
| Freiberg at the trials | |
| Born | (1927-05-15)15 May 1927
Warsaw, Poland |
| Died | 1 March 2008(2008-03-01) (aged 80)
Ramla, Israel |
| Other names | Berek Freiberg |
| Citizenship | Polish, Israeli |
| Known for | Sobibor uprising |