Suchergebnisse

The Establishment of Kushan Cities and the Expansion of the Silk Road in South Asian Subcontinent -- A Re-Understanding of the Silk Road Based on Han Dynasty Bamboo and Wooden Slips from Xuanquan, Dunhuang -- A Discussion of the Sales Contracts in Kharosthi Script Discovered Along the Silk Road -- The Use and Circulation of Silver Coins in Gaochang -- The Entering of Yizhou and the Tang Empire into the Western Regions -- The Traffic in the Western Regions Before and After the Tang Conquest: a Reflection on the Kuchean Laissez-Passers -- A Study of the Cross-Lotus Design on a Newly-Found Nestorian Bronze Mirror -- A Historical Study on the Newly Discovered "Zangza Qianren Cheng Yin" Seal from Loulan -- Local Administrators or Military Post: A Study on the Tang Dynasty Term "Chengju", Based on Documents from Turpan -- The Representation of Non-Buddhist Deities in Khotanese Paintings and Some Related Problems -- The Management of Hu People from Central Asia During Tang Dynasty as Seen from Dunhuang-Turpan Manuscripts -- Longing for the Inland and Turning Towards the Nation: The Situation and the Measures Taken After the Foundation of the General-Governor Office in the Western Regions -- The Territory and Traffic of Yarkand During the Yuan Dynasty -- On Mongol Landscape Map of the Ming Dynasty.

Our information about the fourteenth-century plague in Central Asia, or indeed anywhere east of the Crimea/Caspian, derives from a close analysis of the epigraphical evidence from three East Syriac (Nestorian) cemeteries not far from Issyk-Kul' lake in northern Kyrgyzstan. The absence of palaeogenetic data to confirm it could be partially rectified by both textual and palaeoclimatological data. The ratio of mortality rates between "normal" and plague years in the Issyk-Kul' communities is not unlike that in Europe during the plague years 1348 to 1350. A proper appreciation of the pandemic outbreak requires setting its timing in a climatic context. After two pluvial episodes in the 1310s and 1320s, precipitation levels in Issyk-Kul' during the 1330s underwent a sharp decline, thereby depriving sylvatic rodents of sufficient grass to sustain their high population density. Hence, the plague pathogen and its vectors needed an alternative host to maintain their activity. Anthropogenic factors, including international trade and military campaigns along Central Asian trade routes, may also have contributed to the outbreak and spread of the plague. The Issyk-Kul' mortality crisis ties into wider questions about the origins and initial spread of plague after the "big bang" of the thirteenth century, whereby four new plague branches emerged (possibly in Central Asia).

Настоящая статья содержит латинский текст, перевод на русский язык и комментарии к так называемой «Истории деяний Давида, царя Индий», содержащейся в седьмом послании католического архиепископа Акры Жака де Витри, посланного на запад 18 апреля 1221 года. «История Давида» представляет собой наиболее полную версию отчетов, которые начали циркулировать в лагере участников V Крестового похода в Египте, начиная с января-февраля 1221 года. Эти отчеты содержали смешанное описание военных кампаний хорезмшаха Ала ад-Дин Мухаммеда II, найманского хана Кучлука и Чингиз-хана. Военные действия двух последних исторических лиц были представлены в качестве победоносной военной кампании христианского «царя Давида» и, следовательно, потенциального союзника крестоносцев. По словам Жака де Витри, «История Давида» была переведена на латынь с арабского языка после того, как она была доставлена принцу Антиохии Боэмунду IV его шпионами из мусульманских странах. Предваряя текст «Истории», Жак де Витри сообщает, что султан Джазиры ал-Малик ал-Ашраф не смог послать свои войска против крестоносцев в связи с появлением неожиданной военной угрозы на восточных границах его владений. Очевидно, что под этой угрозой архиепископ Акры имел в виду появление монгольских войск Джебе и Субедея в Ираке в конце 1220 года. По словам Жака де Витри, появление этих известий в лагере крестоносцев в Дамиетте имело непосредственное влияние на ход V Крестового похода. Узнав о наступлении «царя Давида» на Ближнем Востоке параллельно с обнадеживающими известиями о грядущем прибытии в Египет императора Фридриха II, крестоносцы Дамиетты заметно воспрянули духом. Под влиянием этих известий и после прибытия подкреплений баварского герцога Людвига I, папский легат Пелагий принял судьбоносное решение о наступлении на Каир, которое привело к полному разгрому крестоносцев в августе 1221 года и окончанию V Крестового похода. ; This article contains the Latin text, its translation into Russian, and commentaries to the so-called "History of the Deeds of David, King of the Indies" contained in the seventh letter of the Catholic Archbishop of Acre, Jacques de Vitry, sent to the West 18 th April, 1221. The "History of David" represents the most comprehensive version of the reports, which began to circulate in the Egyptian camp of the V Crusade's participants starting from January-February 1221. These reports contained mixed description of the military campaigns of Khwarezmshah Ala ad-Din Muhammad II, Naiman khan Kuchlug, and Genghis Khan. Military operations of the last two historical figures were presented as victorious military campaign of the Christian "king David" and, therefore, of a potential ally of the Crusaders. According to Jacques de Vitry, the "History of David" was translated into Latin from the Arabic language after it had been delivered to the Prince of Antioch Bohemond IV by his spies in Muslim countries. Anticipating the text of "History", Jacques de Vitry reports that the Sultan of al-Jazira, al-Malik al-Ashraf, was unable to send his troops against the Crusaders in connection with the appearance of an unexpected military threat on the eastern borders of his possessions. It is obvious that under this threat the Archbishop of Acre had in mind the emergence of the Mongol troops in Iraq at the end of 1220. According to Jacques de Vitry, the appearance of these reports in the Crusader camp of Damietta had a direct influence on the course of the Fifth Crusade. Crusaders in Damietta noticeably heartened after had learning of the advance of "king David" in the Middle East along with encouraging news about the impending arrival in Egypt of the Emperor Frederick II. Under the influence of these reports and after the arrival of reinforcements of the Bavarian Duke Ludwig I, the papal legate Pelagius made the fateful decision to march on Cairo, which led both to the complete defeat of the Crusaders in August 1221 and the end of the Fifth Crusade.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- 1 The Ottoman Empire and Minorities -- 1.1 The Millet System -- 1.2 'Organisational Diversity' as a Source of Plurality in the Empire -- 1.3 Emergence of New Concepts in the Ottoman Legal System -- 1.3.1 The Ideal of Egalitarianism -- 1.3.2 Secularization of the Law -- 1.3.3 From Corporate Identities to Individual Citizen: Ottomanism and the Transformation of Identity -- 1.3.4 Emerging Ethno-Religious Boundaries of the Ottoman State and Nation -- 1.4 The İTC Era and the End of Pluralism -- 1.4.1 Linguistic Nationalism -- 1.4.2 Economic Nationalism -- 1.4.3 Settlement Policies -- 2 Transition to the Turkish Nation-State -- 2.1 Muslim and Non-Muslim Minorities in the Discourse of the Independence War -- 2.1.1 Non-Muslims -- 2.1.2 Non-Turkish Muslims -- 2.1.3. Alevis, Nestorians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Yezidis -- 2.2 The Lausanne Peace Conference and Treaty 1922–23 -- 2.2.1 Population Exchange -- 2.2.2 The Return of Armenian Refugees -- 2.2.3 The Muslim Minorities' Position at Lausanne -- 2.2.4 The Kurds and the Mosul Issue -- 2.2.5 The Lausanne Treaty -- 3 Management of Diversity in the Turkish Nation-State, 1923–60 -- 3.1 Cultural Nationalism: 'Turkification from the Cultural Perspective' -- 3.1.1 Language Policies -- 3.1.2 Reconstruction of the 'Turk' through History -- 3.1.3 Elimination of Traditional, Religious and Social Structures -- 3.1.4 End of Legal Plurality -- 3.2 Turkification of the Economy -- 3.2.1 Economic Turkification through the Law -- 3.2.2 Turkification of Economy through Extra-Legal Means -- 3.3 Assimilation and Turkification Policies -- 3.3.1 Turkification by Resettlement -- 3.3.2 The Inspectorate Generals (Umumi Müfettişlikler) -- 4 The Myth of the Civic State and Turkish Ethnie in Law

This book is a study of the cultural and political history of Christian Iraq, the Church of the East, the so–called 'Nestorians'. This history is seen through the Chronicle of Seert, a medieval Arabic Chronicle that reuses sources written several centuries earlier. This monograph aims to isolate different layers of composition and looks for trends in the choice of material and the agenda of their historians. Each layer of the text provides insight into the social construction of 'orthodox belief' in Iraq and the church as an institution. A central narrative is the growing power of the bishops (catholicoi) of the Sasanian capital of Ctesiphon, their apostolic heritage, and their alliance with the Persian shahs. The monograph also considers the relationship of the catholicoi with monastic and scholarly centres and with Christian communities of the West. In each of these cases, the material that the Chronicle includes shows us how independent historical traditions were annexed by a narrative focused on Ctesiphon and its bishops. The monograph begins in the fifth century, when a series of abortive alliances between church and shah generated small-scale persecutions. It continues this story into the sixth and early seventh, when the church witnessed considerable growth in numbers and prestige. At each stage, we can see Christians rewriting the past to accommodate a new political and social situation, turning a murky past into a glorious golden age. The book concludes with a final chapter on the church under Muslim rule, when the Chronicle was compiled.

This book is a study of the cultural and political history of Christian Iraq, the Church of the East, the so–called 'Nestorians'. This history is seen through the Chronicle of Seert, a medieval Arabic Chronicle that reuses sources written several centuries earlier. This monograph aims to isolate different layers of composition and looks for trends in the choice of material and the agenda of their historians. Each layer of the text provides insight into the social construction of 'orthodox belief' in Iraq and the church as an institution. A central narrative is the growing power of the bishops (catholicoi) of the Sasanian capital of Ctesiphon, their apostolic heritage, and their alliance with the Persian shahs. The monograph also considers the relationship of the catholicoi with monastic and scholarly centres and with Christian communities of the West. In each of these cases, the material that the Chronicle includes shows us how independent historical traditions were annexed by a narrative focused on Ctesiphon and its bishops. The monograph begins in the fifth century, when a series of abortive alliances between church and shah generated small-scale persecutions. It continues this story into the sixth and early seventh, when the church witnessed considerable growth in numbers and prestige. At each stage, we can see Christians rewriting the past to accommodate a new political and social situation, turning a murky past into a glorious golden age. The book concludes with a final chapter on the church under Muslim rule, when the Chronicle was compiled ; English

Cover -- Titel -- Table of Contents -- Abbreviations -- I Introduction -- Part One: History and Historiography -- II Josephus and 1 Maccabees -- III "Pre-Histories" of Jerusalem in Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian Literature -- IV Rabbinic Historiography and Representations of the Past -- V The Hasmonaeans in Rabbinic Literature -- VI Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature -- VII On the Talmudic Chronology in Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon -- VIII On Talmudic Historiography in the Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon: Between Tradition and Creativity -- Part Two: "On the Rivers of Babylon" -- IX The Political, Social, and Economic History of Babylonian Jewry, 224-638 CE -- X How Babylonia Became "Zion": Shifting Identities in Late Antiquity -- XI Babylonian Rabbinic Culture -- XII Expressions and Types of "Local Patriotism" among the Jews of Sasanian Babylonia -- XIII Converts and Conversion in Sasanian Babylonia -- XIV Nestorian Literature as a Source for the History of the Babylonian Yeshivot -- XV Public Lectures in Talmudic Babylonia: The Pirqa -- Part Three: Center and Diaspora -- XVI The Status of Eretz Israel in Reality and in Jewish Consciousness Following the Bar-Kokhba Uprising -- XVII Reinterment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development of the Custom -- XVIII Epistles of the Patriarchs in Talmudic Literature -- XIX Another 'Split Diaspora'? How Knowledgeable (or Ignorant) Were Babylonian Jews about Roman Palestine and Its Jews? -- XX The Institution of Marriage in Rabbinic Times -- Part Four: Reflections on Talmudic History in Modern Scholarship -- XXI Talmudic Research in Modern Times: Between Scholarship and Ideology -- XXII Rethinking Talmudic History: The Challenge of Literary and Redaction Criticism -- XXIII Will the 'Real' Rabbis Please Stand Up: On the Repackaging of the Rabbinic Model in Modern Times

The article is devoted to the study of the public-law formulas of Nestorian and Monophysite separatism within the Syrian and Egyptian provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire. For the presentation of the material, we choose the late period of the reign of Emperor Justinian the Great (527-565), when the Decisions of the V Ecumenical Council (553) and the Peace Treaty with Iran (562) allowed the Patriarchate of Constantinople to start restoring religious unity within the Christian Church. The concessions of the Emperor Justinian did not lead to the desired result and only inflamed the atmosphere in the multicultural communities of Syria and Egypt. For example, in Syria, were made attempts to completely separate the Antiochian Patriarchate from the Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Byzantine Church. The main separatist movement here were the Nestorians, who pursued a policy of rapprochement with the rapidly Christianizing New Persian kingdom ruled by the Sassanid dynasty. However, Justinian managed to stop the expansion of Persian Nestorianism in Syria, since the Antiochian Patriarchate was afraid of the real prospect of absorption by the Ctesiphonian Nestorian patriarchy. In turn, Egypt in the 550's became the arena of confrontation between Monophysites and Orthodox Christians. Despite adherence to the Chalcedonian Creed (451), Justinian was forced to approve of the coexistence of two parallel Christian churches in Egypt - the Alexandrian Orthodox Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Coptic Papacy (Monophysite Patriarchate). The political background of the stated religious events, as well as the imperial orders and internal church decisions (canons) that accompanied the late period of the reign of Justinian the Great, we propose to consider as important subject for further historical and legal research. First, an understanding of the relationship between the individual separatist churches and Constantinople, allows a deeper understanding of the political theory of the Byzantine symphony. Secondly, the analyzed disputes and feuds in early Byzantium allow us to draw a conclusion about the deep federalization of East Roman social relations. The lex foedus regime, afforded to the barbarians (Germans, Slavs and Nomads) throughout the dominate era, took root in the social worldview and formed a stereotype of a positive perception of the "decentralized state" by the populace of the Eastern Roman Empire. ; Статья посвящена исследованию публично-правовых формул несторианского и монофизитского сепаратизма в пределах сирийской и египетской провинций Восточной Римской империи. Для изложения материала избран поздний период правления императора Юстиниана Великого (527-565 годы), когда решения V Вселенского Собора (553 год) и Мирный договор с Ираном (562 год) позволили Константинопольскому патриархату приступить к восстановлению религиозного единства внутри Христианской церкви. Уступки императора Юстиниана не привели к желаемому результату и только накалили атмосферу во многокультурных сообществах Сирии и Египта. Например, в Сирии предпринимались попытки полного обособления Антиохийского патриархата от ортодоксальной (халкидонской) Византийской церкви. Главным сепаратистским движением здесь были несториане, проводившие политику сближения с быстро христианизирующимся Новоперсидским царством, управляемым династией Сасанидов. Впрочем, Юстиниану удалось остановить экспансию персидского несторианства в Сирии, поскольку Антиохийский патриархат испугался реальной перспективы поглощения Ктесифонским несторианским патриархатом. В свою очередь, Египет в 550-х годах стал ареной противостояниямонофизитов и православных христиан. Несмотря на приверженность халкидонскому символу веры (451 год), Юстиниан был вынужден одобрить сосуществование двух параллельных христианских церквей в Египте - Александрийского ортодоксального патриархата и Александрийского папства коптов (монофизитского патриархата). Политический фон изложенных религиозных событий, а также императорские распоряжения и внутрицерковные решения (каноны), сопровождавшие поздний период царствования Юстиниана Великого, мы предлагаем считать важным предметом для дальнейших историко-юридических исследований. Во-первых, понимание взаимоотношений отдельных сепаратистских церквей и Константинополя позволяет глубже разобраться в политической теории византийской симфонии. Во-вторых, проанализированные споры и распри в ранней Византии позволяют сделать вывод о глубокой федерализации восточноримских общественных отношений. Режим lex foedus, предоставлявшийся варварам (германцы, славяне и кочевники) в течение всей эпохи поздне-римского домината, укоренился в социальном мировоззрении и сформировал стереотип позитивного восприятия «децентрализированного государства» народными массами Восточной Римской империи. ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню публічно-правових формул несторіанського та монофізитського сепаратизмів у межах сирійської і єгипетської провінцій Східної Римської імперії (Візантії). Для викладу матеріалу обрано пізній період правління імператора Юстиніана Великого (527-565 роки), коли рішення V Вселенського Собору (553 рік) і Мирний договір з Іраном (562 рік) дозволили Константинопольському патріархату розпочати відновлення релігійної єдності всередині Християнської церкви. Поступки імператора Юстиніана не привели до бажаних результатів і лише поглибили розкол між полікультурними спільнотами Сирії та Єгипту. Наприклад, у Сирії були спроби цілковитого відокремлення Антіохійського патріархату від ортодоксальної (Халкидонської) Візантійської церкви. Головним сепаратистським рухом Сирії стали несторіани, що проводили політику зближення із Саса-нідським Іраном (на той момент у Персії швидко поширювався несторіанський варіант християнства). Утім, Юстиніану вдалось зупинити експансію перського несторіанства в Сирії, оскільки Антіохій-ський патріархат злякався реальної перспективи поглинання з боку Ктесифонського несторіанського патріархату. У свою чергу, Єгипет у 550-х роках став ареною протистояння монофізитів і православних християн. Незважаючи на прихильність Халкидонському символу віри (451 рік), Юстиніан був змушений схвалити співіснування двох конкуруючих християнських церков - Олександрійського ортодоксального патріархату й Олександрійського коптського папства (монофізитський патріархат). Політичне тло викладених релігійних подій, а також імператорські розпорядження і внутрішньоцер-ковні рішення (канони), що супроводжували пізній період царювання Юстиніана Великого, ми пропонуємо вважати предметом для подальших історико-юридичних досліджень. По-перше, розуміння взаємин окремих сепаратистських церков і Константинополя дозволяє глибше розібратися в політичній теорії візантійської симфонії. По-друге, проаналізовані нами суперечки і чвари в ранній Візантії дозволяють зробити висновок про глибоку федералізацію східноримських суспільних відносин. Режим lex foedus, який надавався варварам (німці, слов'яни і кочівники) протягом усієї епохи пізньорим-ського домінату, укорінився в соціальному світогляді і сформував стереотип позитивного сприйняття «децентралізованої держави» з боку народних мас Східної Римської імперії.

A special conference held in Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia, explored new aspects on the Il Khans. It was jointly sponsored by the Mongolian National University and the University of Indiana, Bloomington, USA, from 21 to 23 May of 2014. Twenty-one invited speakers presented topics in various panels that each had a unifying theme. The entire event was extremely well organized by Dashdondog Bayarsaihkan (Ph.D. from the University of Oxford) on the faculty of the History Department of the Mongolian National University. There was, indeed, much new information on imperial Mongol activity in Greater Iran, and the proceedings will be published in Mongolia and abroad. Several important trends in current research on the Mongols in Iran became strikingly apparent during the conference. The first was that the standard texts that have been relied upon for so long, such as Rashid al-Din, Juvayni and Wassaf, need much more critical analysis than has occurred before. These works sometimes disagree with other material from more local or overlooked sources such as from the Nestorian community in Irbil, the Armenian hagiographies, the position of Anatolia and Afghanistan within the Il Khanate and finally diplomatic correspondence. The second development is that all the sources can fruitfully be analyzed more carefully from reviewing Rashid al-Din's records to al-Qalqashandi's terminology. Thirdly, although the period is richer in sources than almost any other previous era, even more material is available than has been normally considered. With this significant increase of source material, critiques of the previously common references and analyses of forces below the military and court levels, this conference exhibited the vibrant expansion of Il Khanid studies in its own right, so long an adjunct to regional studies of other states.

Abstrak: Perdebatan Muslim-Kristen Pada Awal Era Abbasiyah: Studi Kasus Era Timothy I dan Theodore Abu Qurra. Kekhalifahan Abbasiyah awal meninggalkan warisan penting dalam sejarah dunia, melalui gerakan penerjemahan pemikiran dan literatur Yunani ke dalam bahasa Arab. Era tersebut menjadi saksi berkembangnya diskursus antar-agama maupun debat keagamaan Islam dan Kristen. Artikel ini berupaya mendeskripsikan bagaimana kedua poin sejarah di atas berkorelasi dengan faktor lain seperti politik dan identitas keagamaan. Debat paling awal berlangsung antara khalifah al-Mahdi (755-785 M) dengan Timothy I (728-823 M). Perdebatan keduanya merupakan contoh pertama diskursus keagamaan era ini. Contoh berikutnya perdebatan khalifah al-Ma'mun (813-833 M) dengan Theodore Abu Qurra (755-830M). Dengan mengetahui motif kedua khalifah dalam menyelenggarakan debat keagamaan, jaringan konteks periode tersebut akan dapat dipahami dengan lebih baik.Abstract: The era of the early 'Abbasid caliphate made an important mark on the history of the world by the event of the Greek translation movement, i.e. the translation of Greek thoughts into the Arabic language. In addition to this development, the era also saw the flourishing of interreligious discourse, in both polemical literatures and religious debates, especially between Christians and Muslims. This article tries to describe how those two historical remarks are correlated under the light of other factors such as politics and religious identity. The earliest debate was happened between caliph al-Mahdi (r. 755-785 CE) and a Nestorian Catholicos, Timothy I (728- 823 CE), as the first sample of religious discourses. The second one is the debate between the caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813-833CE), who arranged many religious debates in his court, with Theodore Abu Qurra (755 – 830 CE), Bishop of Harran. By knowing the motives of the two caliphs who sponsored those events, readers would catch a better picture of the historical contexts of that time.Keywords: Islamic history, Abbasid period, Muslims-Christian relation

Der Autor, Professor für ökumenische Theologie, beschreibt die Lebensbedingungen von Christen unter muslimischer Herrschaft im Nahen Osten: das Verhältnis zwischen Christen und Muslimen in der Geschichte, interreligiöse Diskurse durch die Jahrhunderte, Rolle und Lebensbedingugen der Christen in der heutigen islamischen Welt.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Maps -- Preliminary Note -- Introduction -- The Lands, Their Rulers, and Their Aggressors -- Strategies and Visions -- The Claims of Chronology -- A Tale of Two Obelisks -- Chapter 1 -- Napoleon, India, and the Battle for Egypt -- Grenville, the Eurocentric Approach, and Sidney Smith -- Dundas, India, and the Blue Water Strategy -- Chapter 2 -- Sealing off Egypt and the Red Sea -- The Search for Stability in Egypt, 1801-3 -- Egyptian Chaos, the French Threat, and the British Response, 1803-7 -- The Red Sea: Popham and Valentia, Arabs and Abyssinians -- Chapter 3 -- Striving for Leverage in Baghdad -- Harford Jones: Failure of the Dundas Strategy -- Claudius Rich: Pomp and Mediation in an Indian Outstation -- The Wahhabi, the Qawasim, and British Sea Power in the Gulf -- "Our Koordistan": The Extraordinary Ambitions of Claudius Rich -- Rich's Legacy -- Chapter 4 -- Filling the Arabian Vacuum: Steam, the Arabs, and the Defence of India in the 1830s -- Ottoman Collapse and Russian Threat -- Steam and Plague: Progress and Decay -- Steamers and Arabs in Mesopotamia -- Steam, the Red Sea, and Southern Arabia -- Hobhouse, Palmerston, the Middle East, and India -- Chapter 5 -- Britain, Egypt, and Syria in the Heyday of Mehmet Ali -- Samuel Briggs and the Afterlife of the Levant Company -- Economic and Cultural Exchanges -- Steam and the Two Faces of Mehmet Ali's Egypt -- Benthamism, Islam, and the Pursuit of Good Government in Egypt -- Syria, Liberalism, and the Russian Threat to Asia -- New Voices on Syria: Embassy Ottomanists and Christian Tourists -- Chapter 6 -- Constantinople, London, the Eastern Crisis, and the Middle East -- David Urquhart, Islam, and Free Commerce -- Factional Gridlock at Constantinople -- Ending the Stalemate -- Britain, France, and the Future of Syria -- Reshid, Richard Wood, and the Edict of Gülhane -- Napier or Wood, Smith or Elgin, Cairo or Constantinople? -- Chapter 7 -- The Brief History of British Religious Sectarianism in Syria and Kurdistan -- Protestant Missions and Eastern Christians -- Jerusalem, City of Sin -- The Appeal to Jews and Its Limits -- The War of Institutional Christianity over Syria -- The Druze and the Perils of Sectarianism in Syria -- The Nestorians of Kurdistan -- Chapter 8 -- Confining the Sectarian Problem: Syria, Kurdistan, France, and the Porte -- Finding a Balance in Lebanon -- Persecution, Protestantism, and the Tanzimat -- Institutionalising Protestant Weakness -- The Problem of Order in Kurdistan -- Britain, France, and Religious Protection in the New Kurdistan -- Chapter 9 -- Stratford Canning and the Politics of Christianity and Islam -- Canning, Russia, and Islam -- Palmerston, Canning, and the Liberal Project -- Henry Layard and the Lessons of Nineveh -- Chapter 10 -- The Ring of Steam, the Lands of Islam, and the Search for Order -- Ottoman Sovereignty and the Persian Border -- Conflicts with Ottomanism: Muhammara and the Gulf -- Steam Power, Economic Improvement, and Regional Security in Baghdad -- Aden: A New Centre of Stability -- The French, the Ottomans, and the Western Red Sea Harbours -- Chapter 11 -- The British Corridor in Egypt -- England in Egypt, Egypt in England -- Mehmet Ali and the Transit -- Abbas and the Railway Project -- A Rage for Order -- The French and the Sultan -- Chapter 12 -- Jerusalem and the Crimean War -- Unholy Places -- Whose War? -- Conclusion -- Acknowledgments -- Bibliography -- Index

Christianity, despite the diversity of currents, appears to be a holistic spiritual tradition that carries out its activity in specific historical, political and economic conditions. The main idea of Christianity is the personality of Jesus Christ. Christological doctrine as a systematic learning of Jesus Christ is the most important aspect of Christian doctrine, the key to understanding other religious issues: the dogma of the Trinity, pneumatology, ecclesiology, religious anthropology and soteriology.Religious positions of Christianity from the 1st century of Christian history, were naturally associated with the gospel image of Jesus Christ, generating endless attempts to interpret His substance. The most difficult Christological question for the theologians was to determine the relationship between the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ. To translate the category of faith, which reflects the most regularities and relations that exist in reality in systematized theological thought, became an uneasy task before which Christian thinkers were put in the conditions of the domination of Greek philosophy. However, the Christian dogma was Apophatic, and the content of theological truth was most often manifested through the negation of the theological fiction. In opposition to the Gnostics, the reality of the human nature of Christ was confirmed, and in the controversy with Judaism and the Arians, the reality of His Divinity was protected.In the 4th century, the Christological thought reached such a limit, when further elucidation of questions became impossible without the development of exact theological terminology, as well as without a deep knowledge of anthropology and philosophy in general. Therefore, in Antiochian theologians, in the Christological problems, special attention was paid to the moral aspect of the doctrine of the double essence of Christ, separated from the main postulates of Greek philosophy. A peculiar interpretation of Christology was presented in the concepts of the Antiochian theologians Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Diodore of Tarsus, developed theology of incarnation, which, and differed in the return to realism in his representation of the human nature of Christ, tended to identify two sides of his Personality in the form of two separate individuals and thus provoked Nestorian disputes of the next century. The follower of Diodore's ideas was Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose doctrine also follows the tendency to think and talk about Christ as two different individuals. ; Рассматривается важный христологический диспут, который возник в конце четвертого столетия между представителями александрийского и антиохийского направлений богословской мысли. Предметом дискуссии стало определение соотношения божественной и человеческой природы в Особе Христа. Установлено развитие Диодором Тарсийским богословия Воплощения, которое имело тенденцию определять две стороны Его Личности в виде двух отдельных индивидуумов. Проанализирована христологическая модель Теодора Мопсуестийского, согласно которой Христос обладал двумя разными личностями. ; Розглядається важливий христологічний диспут, який виник у кінці четвертого століття між представниками олександрійського і антіохійського напрямків богословської думки. Предметом дискусії стало визначення співвідношення божественної та людської природи в Особі Христа. Встановлено розвиток Діодором Тарським богослов'я Втілення, яке мало тенденцію визначати дві сторони його Особистості у вигляді двох окремих індивідуумів. Проаналізована христологічна модель Теодора з Мопсуестії згідно якої Христа володів двома різними особами.

International audience ; In the mid-19th century, Emperor Alexander II was carrying out large scale liberal reforms in Russia. In the course of these reforms, a problem was put forward about public preservation of historical monuments and archaeological sites as national cultural heritage. A step to this direction was undertaken in 1859 when the Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC) was organized in Saint-Petersburg. Over the second half of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Commission remained the single State body concerned with archaeology and protection of sites and monuments on the territory of Russian Empire. In its activities, this Institution combined scientific research, organizational, monitoring and controlling functions. In the present monograph mainly created by the collective of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of the first archaeological institution in Russia is systematically presented and analysis of its activities proposed for the first time. The organization of IAC was preceded by a long process of formation of the interest of the Russian society to the archaeology. The immediate precursor of IAC was the "Office of Archaeological Researches" founded in 1841 by the Minister for Home Affairs Lev Perovsky (1796–1856). The activities of the Office were concerned with investigations of archaeological sites of Kerch and Bosporos, Chersonesos, kurgans in the surroundings of Vladimir and Suzdal and settlements of the Golden Horde on the Volga River. During this period, the main principles which afterwards lay in the foundation of IAC were established. After the death of Lev Perovsky, the investigations were entrusted to Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The result of this appointment was that the assistant of Lev Perovsky and his nephew Count Alexey Uvarov (1824–1884), who planned to stand himself at the head of Russian archaeology, left Saint-Petersburg and moved to Moscow where in 1864 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society in opposition to the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The confrontation between two Institutions however became actually a stimulus for the progressive advancement of the science and protection of monuments of antiquity. In 1857, Sergey Stroganov proposed to organize the "Main Archaeological Commission". That project became the basis of IAC, the statute of which was approved on February 2, 1859, by Emperor Alexander II. That statute secured for the Commission the right to conduct "earthen excavations", monitoring of the discoveries of hoards and archaeological objects in Russia and supervision over building activity at archaeological sites. The principles underlying the foundation of IAC were partly oriented to France and its "Commission des Monuments Historiques" (1837). The experience of the activities of IAC was used in organizing archaeological institutions in some European countries (Austria, Italy). The activity of IAC may be subdivided through three periods connected with its chairmen: 1859–1882 when Sergey Stroganov was the chairmen of IAC, 1882–1886 when it was headed by the Director of the Imperial Hermitage Museum Alexander Vasil'chikov (1832–1890), and 1886–1918 when the Commission was directed by Count Alexey Bobrinskoy (1852–1927). Originally, the staff of the Commission consisted of eight persons. In the activity of the Commission, such famous historians and archaeologists took part as Ivan Zabelin (1859–1876), Vladimir Tiesenhausen (1825–1902) and Nikodim Kondakov (1876–1891). Initially, the Commission was housed in the palace of Stroganov in Nevsky Prospect in Saint-Petersburg. The activities of the Commission have established the system of regulation of archaeological researches in Russia, which with several alterations existed until the beginning of the 21st century. This system was based on the "Otkryty list" (laissez-passer) as individual authorizations for researchers to conduct excavations with the indispensable submission of a report to the archives of the Commission. This practice has initiated the creation of the unique corpus of sources for the archaeology, architectural monuments and sites of different nations and modern states of East-Central Europe and Asia. The main activity of the Commission in 1859–1886 included excavations of sites of the Scythian culture and Classical Greek antiquities on the Taman Peninsula, in the Crimea (Kerch, Bosporos) and on some other territories, now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the widespread opinion that the Commission studied exclusively the Classical and Scythian antiquities is incorrect: already then the first investigations in Siberia, Central Asia were conducted as well as studies of sites of the Bronze and Stone ages in Northern Russia. The finds came predominantly to the collections of the Imperial Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg and Historical Museum in Moscow. Another important responsibility of the Commission was the acquisition of monetary hoards and treasures of historical objects found on the territory of Russian Empire. The first investigator of hoards was a curator of the Hermitage collections Julian Iversen (1859–1900). Simultaneously, the Commission consulted the restoration and conservation activities of the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily for the monuments of the defensive architecture and church buildings. For that purpose, the staff of the Commission included a representative of the Academy of Arts Feodor Solntsev (1859–1892). Protection of the monuments of archaeology also was an important task of the Commission. In 1866, Sergey Stroganov achieved the prohibition of treasure-hunting in Russia. The Commission, as the central state institution, actively collaborated with provincial Statistic Committees and Archive Commissions in the field of studies and protection of local monuments and sites. During the chairmanship of Alexander Vasil'chikov, the reforms of the Commission's activities were prepared. These reforms took place already under Count Alexey Bobrinskoy. In 1886–1887, an interdisciplinary program for studies of Slavic-Russian archaeology, the eastern Black-Sea region, Siberia etc. was developed. During that period, the Commission was moved to an office in the Winter Palace in Saint-Petersburg. On March 11, 1889, Emperor Alexander III approved by his decree the exclusive right of the Commission to conduct archaeological excavations and to license their execution on state and public lands. Simultaneously, the Commission, together with the Academy of Arts, was charged with supervision over restoration and protection of objects of art and architectural monuments. In 1890, the "Regulations for the Archaeological Commission and Academy of Arts on the order of consideration of petitions about restoration of historical monuments" were approved. Beginning with 1894, special sessions of IAC began to consider projects of restorations an conservations. The main specialists of IAC in the branch of restoration were Petr Pokryshkin (1870–1922), Konstantin Romanov (1882–1942) and Dmitry Mileev (1878–1914). The Commission got also Vladimir Suslov (1857–1921), Nikolay Sultanov (1850–1908), Ieronim Kitner (1839–1929) and Georgy Kotov (1859–1942) to take part in the architectural restorations. These activities resulted in establishment of standards of modern scientific restoration, using primarily the archaeological approach, which are efficacious even in the 21st century. Among the most successful restoration projects of IAC, noteworthy are the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Nereditsa hill near Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Berestovo in Kyiv, the Saint Boris and Gleb church at Kolozha in Grodno, the Saint George church in Yuryev-Polskoy, Cathedral of the Dormition of Mother of God in the Moscow Kremlin, Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma, Ferapontov Monastery in Vologda region, Bakhchisarai Palace in Crimea, Smolensk and Pskov city walls etc. Among the most important problems of IAC in the restoration issues were its relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. As early as 1893, the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) confirmed that restoration of churches must be conducted with permission of the Commission, however in practice many churches were disfigured by illiterately made repairs. Part of the difficulties proceeded from contradictions in Russian law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had succeeded in developing an algorithm of its relations with the clergy, during the World War I, under the conditions of the general crisis of the Russian State and society, the Synod attempted to withdraw religious monuments from the public control.The new objectives and expansion of the geography of researches of IAC demanded a new staff of the Commission. That approval was received in 1888 and 1902. The membership of the Commission included Alexander Spitsyn (1858–1931), Nikolay Veselovsky (1848–1918), Vasily Latyshev (1855–1921), Boris Farmakovsky (1870–1928) and others. Alexey Bobrinskoy actively used his right of appointment of corresponding members and honorary members of the Commission. Among the corresponding members appointed in 1886–1917 were Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Samokvasov (1843–1911), Innokenty Lopatin (1839–1909), Alexander Bertier-Delagard (1842–1920), Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919), Yulian Kulakovsky (1855–1919), Nikolay Pantusov (1849–1909), Valentin Zhukovsky (1858–1919), Vladimir Malmberg (1860–1921), Sergey Zhebelev (1867–1941), Emil Roesler (?–?), Alexey Markov (1858–1920), Nikolay Marr (1864–1934), Mstislav Farmakovsky (1873–1946), Alexander Malein (1869–1938) and others. There was yet another category of assistants of the Commission — supernumerary members. They included Nikolay Pokrovsky (1848–1917) — an expert on Christian archaeology and Orthodox art, Vladimir Antonovich (1834–1908), Bohdan Khanenko (1849–1917), Ernst von Stern (1859–1924), Mikhail Rostovtsev (1870–1952), Alexey Shirinsky-Shikhmatov (1862–1930), Feodor Braun (1862–1942), Nikolay Bulychev (1852–1919) et al.In 1909, the 50th anniversary of the Commission and 25th anniversary of the activities of its chairman Alexey Bobrinskoy became something like summing up of the results of the works of IAC. The special role of the Commission is noteworthy regarding the studies of Scythian and Greek and Roman antiquities. The commission excavated about fifty 'Royal' kurgans containing rich Scythian burials from which the artistic gold objects are housed now in the Special Treasury of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg. Studies of Bosporan sites were continued: the Commission was in charge of the Kerch Museum of Antiquities which directed the archaeological excavations in this region. The museum was headed by Alexander Lyutsenko (1807–1884), Stepan Verebryusov (1819–1884), Fedor Gross (1822–1897), Karl Dumberg (1862–1931) and Vladislav Shkorpil (1853–1918). Funerary catacombs, important Classical, Jewish and Christian antiquities were here discovered. Since 1888, according to an order of Emperor Alexander III, IAC was entrusted with the direction of researches in the area of the Tauric Chersonesos and its surroundings. Karol Kościuszko-Waluszyński (1847–1907) was appointed the head of the excavations in Chersonesos. During the later years, the excavations were directed by Robert Loeper (1865–1918) and Leonid Moiseev (1882–1946). Under the direction of the Archaeological Commission, living blocks, buildings and necropolis dated to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods had been discovered and investigated, as well as several dozens of Christian churches and basilicas. In 1902, the systematic excavations of Olbia began under the direction of Boris Farmakovsky, and in 1904 – the archaeological researches of Berezan Island began under the direction of Ernst von Stern. An expansive project came to be that of excavations in 1908–1914 of one of the first medieval stone church of Eastern Europe — the Church of the Tithe in Kyiv conducted under the direction of Dmitry Mileev. During the period of 1890–1914, the Commission was financing altogether up to twenty expeditions annually throughout more than fifteen provinces and regions of Russian Empire. It must be noted however that the level of understanding of archaeological evidence gained remained behind its accumulation. In the field of the archaeology of the Stone Age, the studies of the Commission revealed several important Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe. In 1905, Alexander Spitsyn discovered a Paleolithic site at Borshevo, Voronezh region. The same researcher also wrote in 1915 a synthetic and generalizing work on the Russian Paleolithic where he had summarized the results of archaeology of the Early Stone Age in Eastern Europe and comprehensively characterized the sites of Caucasus and Siberia. Nevertheless, it must be noted here that the major researches on the Stone Age were carried out the sphere of activities of the Commission.During investigations of archaeological sites of Siberia separated by thousands kilometers from the scientific centers of European Russia, the Commission maintained close relations with local archaeologists and ethnologists directing their efforts and licensing their excavations. At the funds and on the instructions of the Commission, the archaeological sites of Siberia were studied since the 1860s by Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Klements (1848–1914), Alexander Adrianov (1854–1920) and other scholars.Members of the Commission participated personally in investigations of antiquities of the Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. In 1887, Dmitriy Bakradze (1826–1890) proposed a program of archaeological exploration of the area of Sukhumi, and in 1889 IAC carried out description and photographing of objects of Georgian Christian art from sacristies of churches and monasteries in Georgia. Since 1892, Nikolay Marr conducted longstanding investigations of the ancient Armenian capital Ani, medieval towns, fortresses and churches (Dvin, Akhtamar). Simultaneously, the explorations of sites of the Bronze and Middle Ages (dolmens, the Maikop kurgan and the Koban culture) were carried out through the efforts of Nikolay Veselovsky and Emil Roesler.The initiative of studies of architectural and archaeological monuments in Central Asia also mainly belongs to IAC. In 1900s–1915, IAC just kept under control the works in this region, gathered and distributed local collections and stray finds through museums. Photographing of architectural, ethnographic and historical monuments was conducted. The first archaeological excavations are connected with the names of Nikolay Pantusov who investigated in 1860s–1890s Christian Nestorian cemeteries near the Syr-Darya River, and Nikolay Veselovsky who continued archaeological and architectural researches since 1884 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1890 and 1896, Valentin Zhukovsky observed several archaeological sites. In the 1880s, Alexey Bobrinskoy and Vladimir Antonovich developed a program of interdisciplinary research in the field Slavic and medieval archaeology on the territory of Ukraine. Excavations of kurgans were started in the Dnieper River region, Bielorus' and Novgorod region. At Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Commission organized in 1890s-1900s excavations of kurgans and the settlement which initiated researches in the Viking Age in Eastern Europe. The systematization of mediaeval Slavic archaeology was proposed by Alexander Spitsyn. Of note is the IAC's contribution to studies of mediaeval archaeological sites of Eastern Europe. These included the Malaya Pereshchepina hoard found in 1912 — the supposed funerary complex of Khan Kubrat, excavations of the settlement of Mayatskoe conducted by Nikolay Makarenko (1877–1938) in 1908–1909, sites of Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes — Lyadinsky and Lyutsinsky necropolis investigated in 1889–1891 by Evdokim Romanov (1855–1922), Vladimir Sizov (1840–1904), Vladimir Yastrebov (1855–1899) et al. The archaeology of the region of Perm of the 8th-9th centuries and sites of the Vyatka region also were included in the sphere of interests of IAC, inter alia due to the fact that a very rich collection of local archaeological materials belonged to Sergey Stroganov. Alexander Spitsyn proposed the first archaeological periodization of the Perm and Kama regions local history and distinguished a number of local archaeological cultures. By 1917, the Commission was a serious academic institution both in the branch of architectural and archaeological researches. It became the organizing centre of Russian archaeology actively collaborating with public structures and planning new directions of researches. It is exactly inside the academic community rather than at the communistic authority after the October 1917 that the idea sprang up to transform the Commission into the "Academy of Archaeological Sciences" in order to focus efforts of its members exclusively onto the scientific sphere. In October of 1918, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933) approves the new regulations of the Russian State Archaeological Commission. Nikolay Marr became its chairman whereas Alexey Bobrinskoy had to emigrate. On April 19, 1919, the decree on the foundation of the Russian Academy for the History of Material Culture was signed by the chairman of the Bolsheviks government Vladimir Ulyanov. In the early August, elections to the new Academy took place. The Academy was housed in the Marble Palace in Petrograd. We should regard August 7, 1919, as the first day of the Academy for the History of Material Culture and the last day of the history of the Archaeological Commission.On the basis of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and Academy for the History of Material Culture the modern archaeological institutions of Russia have emerged. The practices established by the Commission were put into the foundation of the present-day regulation of archaeological researches and the system of protection of archaeological sites. The experience of the Commission undoubtedly indicates that the protection of the cultural heritage may be effective only in the case where it is carried out within an academic system. The protection and restoration of historical monuments must be subdued to scientific goals and architectural researches. The role of IAC manifested in the establishing national archaeological and site protection systems of the European and Asiatic countries which once constituted the Russian Empire. The editorial activities of IAC have been reflected in 65 titles of periodicals and nonperiodicals: Reports of IAC, Proceedings of IAC, and Materials on the Archaeology of Russia etc. Nikodim Kondakov's publication "Russian Hoards" (1896) and Yakov Smirnov's "Oriental Silver" (1909) are special contributions to the Art history. The materials of IAC kept in the Manuscript and Photographic departments of Scientific archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg (9,030 files and over 100,000 photographic imprints and negatives) conceal unique possibilities for future scientific discoveries and constitute an invaluable contribution of the Commission to studies and preservation of archaeological and cultural heritage of the World.