text:
Thomas Robert Bugeaud

Thomas Robert Bugeaud, marquis de la Piconnerie, duc d'Isly (15 October 1784 – 10 June 1849) was a Marshal of France and Governor-General of Algeria during the French colonization.

Early life
He was born at Limoges, a member of a noble family of Périgord (Occitania), the youngest of thirteen children. He ran away from home, and for some years lived in the country as an agricultural worker. At the age of twenty, he became a private soldier in the Vélites of the Imperial Guard, with which he took part in the Austerlitz campaign of the following year. Early in 1806, he was given a commission, and as a Second Lieutenant he served in the Jena and Eylau campaigns, winning his promotion to the rank of lieutenant at the Battle of Pultusk.

In 1808, he was in the first French corps to enter Spain, and was stationed in Madrid during the revolt of the Dos Mayo. At the Second Siege of Saragossa, he won further promotion to the rank of captain, and in 1809–1810 found opportunities for winning distinction under Suchet in the eastern theatre of the Peninsular War, in which he rose to the rank of major and the command of a full regiment. At the first restoration he was made a colonel, but he rejoined Napoleon during the Hundred Days, and under his old chief Suchet distinguished himself in the war in the Alps.

July monarchy
He spent the fifteen years after the fall of Napoleon without employment, returning to agriculture and developing his home district of Périgord. The July Revolution of 1830 reopened his military career, and after a short tenure of regimental command he was in 1831 promoted brigadier-general (maréchal de camp). In the same year, he was elected to the French parliament's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, where he showed himself to be an inflexible opponent of democracy. In his military capacity, he was noted for his severity in suppressing riots. His conduct as gaoler of the Duchess of Berry led to a duel between Bugeaud and the deputy Dulong in which the latter was killed (1834); this affair, and the heavy-handed suppression of a further riot, exposed Bugeaud to ceaseless attacks in the Chamber and in the press, though his opinion was sought by all parties in matters connected with agriculture and industrial development. He was re-elected in 1834, 1837, and 1839.

Algeria
Although he initially disapproved of the conquest of Algeria, his undeviating adherence to Louis Philippe brought him into agreement with the government. He embarked on a campaign to win the swift, complete, and lasting subjugation of Algeria. He was sent to Africa in a subordinate capacity and proceeded to initiate his war of flying columns. He won his first victory on 7 July 1836, made a brilliant campaign of six weeks' duration, and returned home with the rank of lieutenant-general. In the following year, he signed the Treaty of Tafna (30 May 1837), with Abd-el-Kader, an act which, though justified by the military and political situation, led to attacks upon him in the chamber, to the refutation of which Bugeaud devoted himself in 1839.

Finally, in 1840, he was nominated governor-general of Algeria, and early in 1841 he put into force his system of flying columns, a controversial but successful tactic known as "Razzia" at the time. His swiftness and energy drove back the forces of Abd-el-Kader from place to place, while the devotion of the rank and file to "Père Bugeaud" enabled him to carry all before him in action. In 1842, he secured the French positions by undertaking the construction of roads. In 1843, Bugeaud was made marshal of France, and in this and the following year he continued his operations with unvarying success. His great victory of Isly on 14 August 1844 won him the title of duke.

In 1845, however, he had to take the field again in consequence of the disaster of Sidi Brahim (22 September 1845), and up to his final retirement from Algeria (July 1846) he was almost constantly employed in the field, by ordering in February 1846 to General Jean-François Gentil to organize the second campaign against the rebels of Kabylia. His resignation was due to differences with the home government on the question of the future government of the province. Amidst his other activities he had found time to study the agricultural characteristics of the conquered country, and under his régime the number of French colonists had grown from 17,000 to 100,000.

Later life
In 1848, Bugeaud was in Paris during the revolution, but his orders prevented him from acting effectively to suppress it. He was asked, but eventually refused, to be a candidate for the presidency in opposition to Louis Napoleon. His last public service was the command of the army of the Alps, formed in 1848–1849 to observe events in Italy. He died in Paris in 1849.

Bugeaud's writings were numerous, including his Œuvres militaires, collected by Weil (Paris, 1883), many official reports on Algeria and the war there, and some works on economics and political science. See: Comte d'Ideville, Le Maréchal Bugeaud (Paris, 1881–1882).

Bugeaud's innovations and writings continued to be influential among French military leaders engaged in colonial campaigns.

Homage and criticism
Streets and places have been given his name in the cities of Paris, Brest, Albertville, Auxerre,  Lyon, Marseille, Périgueux. Attempts to change those street names have always failed up to now.

In 2021, because of war crimes committed by Bugeaud during the French conquest of Algeria, the municipality of Marseille decides to change his name of a school, and give it those of Ahmed Litim, an Algerian tirailleur killed during the liberation of the city in 1944.

title: Thomas Robert Bugeaud


text:
Percentage solution

Percentage solution may refer to:

 * Mass fraction (or "% w/w" or "wt.%"), for percent mass
 * Volume fraction (or "% v/v" or "vol.%"), volume concentration, for percent volume
 * "Mass/volume percentage" (or "% m/v") in biology, for mass per unit volume; incorrectly used to denote mass concentration (chemistry). See usage in biology

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Percentage solution


text:
Mayan languages

The Mayan languages form a language family spoken in Mesoamerica, both in the south of Mexico and northern Central America. Mayan languages are spoken by at least six million Maya people, primarily in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, El Salvador and Honduras. In 1996, Guatemala formally recognized 21 Mayan languages by name, and Mexico recognizes eight within its territory.

The Mayan language family is one of the best-documented and most studied in the Americas. Modern Mayan languages descend from the Proto-Mayan language, thought to have been spoken at least 5,000 years ago; it has been partially reconstructed using the comparative method. The proto-Mayan language diversified into at least six different branches: the Huastecan, Quichean, Yucatecan, Qanjobalan, Mamean and Chʼolan–Tzeltalan branches.

Mayan languages form part of the Mesoamerican language area, an area of linguistic convergence developed throughout millennia of interaction between the peoples of Mesoamerica. All Mayan languages display the basic diagnostic traits of this linguistic area. For example, all use relational nouns instead of prepositions to indicate spatial relationships. They also possess grammatical and typological features that set them apart from other languages of Mesoamerica, such as the use of ergativity in the grammatical treatment of verbs and their subjects and objects, specific inflectional categories on verbs, and a special word class of "positionals" which is typical of all Mayan languages.

During the pre-Columbian era of Mesoamerican history, some Mayan languages were written in the logo-syllabic Maya script. Its use was particularly widespread during the Classic period of Maya civilization (c. 250–900). The surviving corpus of over 5,000 known individual Maya inscriptions on buildings, monuments, pottery and bark-paper codices, combined with the rich post-Conquest literature in Mayan languages written in the Latin script, provides a basis for the modern understanding of pre-Columbian history unparalleled in the Americas.

Proto-Mayan
Mayan languages are the descendants of a proto-language called Proto-Mayan or, in Kʼicheʼ Maya, Nabʼee Mayaʼ Tzij ("the old Maya Language"). The Proto-Mayan language is believed to have been spoken in the Cuchumatanes highlands of central Guatemala in an area corresponding roughly to where Qʼanjobalan is spoken today. The earliest proposal which identified the Chiapas-Guatemalan highlands as the likely "cradle" of Mayan languages was published by the German antiquarian and scholar Karl Sapper in 1912. Terrence Kaufman and John Justeson have reconstructed more than 3000 lexical items for the proto-Mayan language.

According to the prevailing classification scheme by Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman, the first division occurred around 2200 BCE, when Huastecan split away from Mayan proper after its speakers moved northwest along the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Proto-Yucatecan and Proto-Chʼolan speakers subsequently split off from the main group and moved north into the Yucatán Peninsula. Speakers of the western branch moved south into the areas now inhabited by Mamean and Quichean people. When speakers of proto-Tzeltalan later separated from the Chʼolan group and moved south into the Chiapas Highlands, they came into contact with speakers of Mixe–Zoque languages. According to an alternative theory by Robertson and Houston, Huastecan stayed in the Guatemalan highlands with speakers of Chʼolan–Tzeltalan, separating from that branch at a much later date than proposed by Kaufman.

In the Archaic period (before 2000 BCE), a number of loanwords from Mixe–Zoquean languages seem to have entered the proto-Mayan language. This has led to hypotheses that the early Maya were dominated by speakers of Mixe–Zoquean languages, possibly the Olmec. In the case of the Xincan and Lencan languages, on the other hand, Mayan languages are more often the source than the receiver of loanwords. Mayan language specialists such as Campbell believe this suggests a period of intense contact between Maya and the Lencan and Xinca people, possibly during the Classic period (250–900).

Classic period
During the Classic period the major branches began diversifying into separate languages. The split between Proto-Yucatecan (in the north, that is, the Yucatán Peninsula) and Proto-Chʼolan (in the south, that is, the Chiapas highlands and Petén Basin) had already occurred by the Classic period, when most extant Maya inscriptions were written. Both variants are attested in hieroglyphic inscriptions at the Maya sites of the time, and both are commonly referred to as "Classic Maya language". Although a single prestige language was by far the most frequently recorded on extant hieroglyphic texts, evidence for at least three different varieties of Mayan have been discovered within the hieroglyphic corpus—an Eastern Chʼolan variety found in texts written in the southern Maya area and the highlands, a Western Chʼolan variety diffused from the Usumacinta region from the mid-7th century on, and a Yucatecan variety found in the texts from the Yucatán Peninsula. The reason why only few linguistic varieties are found in the glyphic texts is probably that these served as prestige dialects throughout the Maya region; hieroglyphic texts would have been composed in the language of the elite.

Stephen Houston, John Robertson and David Stuart have suggested that the specific variety of Chʼolan found in the majority of Southern Lowland glyphic texts was a language they dub "Classic Chʼoltiʼan", the ancestor language of the modern Chʼortiʼ and Chʼoltiʼ languages. They propose that it originated in western and south-central Petén Basin, and that it was used in the inscriptions and perhaps also spoken by elites and priests. However, Mora-Marín has argued that traits shared by Classic Lowland Maya and the Chʼoltiʼan languages are retentions rather than innovations, and that the diversification of Chʼolan in fact post-dates the classic period. The language of the classical lowland inscriptions then would have been proto-Chʼolan.

Colonial period
During the Spanish colonization of Central America, all indigenous languages were eclipsed by Spanish, which became the new prestige language. The use of Mayan languages came to an end in many important domains of society, including administration, religion and literature. Yet the Maya area was more resistant to outside influence than others, and perhaps for this reason, many Maya communities still retain a high proportion of monolingual speakers. The Maya area is now dominated by the Spanish language. While a number of Mayan languages are moribund or are considered endangered, others remain quite viable, with speakers across all age groups and native language use in all domains of society.

Modern period
As Maya archaeology advanced during the 20th century and nationalist and ethnic-pride-based ideologies spread, the Mayan-speaking peoples began to develop a shared ethnic identity as Maya, the heirs of the Maya civilization.

The word "Maya" was likely derived from the postclassical Yucatán city of Mayapan; its more restricted meaning in pre-colonial and colonial times points to an origin in a particular region of the Yucatán Peninsula. The broader meaning of "Maya" now current, while defined by linguistic relationships, is also used to refer to ethnic or cultural traits. Most Maya identify first and foremost with a particular ethnic group, e.g. as "Yucatec" or "Kʼicheʼ"; but they also recognize a shared Maya kinship. Language has been fundamental in defining the boundaries of that kinship. Fabri writes: "The term Maya is problematic because Maya peoples do not constitute a homogeneous identity. Maya, rather, has become a strategy of self-representation for the Maya movements and its followers. The Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG) finds twenty-one distinct Mayan languages." This pride in unity has led to an insistence on the distinctions of different Mayan languages, some of which are so closely related that they could easily be referred to as dialects of a single language. But, given that the term "dialect" has been used by some with racialist overtones in the past, as scholars made a spurious distinction between Amerindian "dialects" and European "languages", the preferred usage in Mesoamerica in recent years has been to designate the linguistic varieties spoken by different ethnic group as separate languages.

In Guatemala, matters such as developing standardized orthographies for the Mayan languages are governed by the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG; Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages), which was founded by Maya organisations in 1986. Following the 1996 peace accords, it has been gaining a growing recognition as the regulatory authority on Mayan languages both among Mayan scholars and the Maya peoples.

Relations with other families
The Mayan language family has no demonstrated genetic relationship to other language families. Similarities with some languages of Mesoamerica are understood to be due to diffusion of linguistic traits from neighboring languages into Mayan and not to common ancestry. Mesoamerica has been proven to be an area of substantial linguistic diffusion.

A wide range of proposals have tried to link the Mayan family to other language families or isolates, but none is generally supported by linguists. Examples include linking Mayan with the Uru–Chipaya languages, Mapuche, the Lencan languages, Purépecha, and Huave. Mayan has also been included in various Hokan, Penutian, and Siouan hypotheses. The linguist Joseph Greenberg included Mayan in his highly controversial Amerind hypothesis, which is rejected by most historical linguists as unsupported by available evidence.

Writing in 1997, Lyle Campbell, an expert in Mayan languages and historical linguistics, argued that the most promising proposal is the "Macro-Mayan" hypothesis, which posits links between Mayan, the Mixe–Zoque languages and the Totonacan languages, but more research is needed to support or disprove this hypothesis. In 2015, Campbell noted that recent evidence presented by David Mora-Marin makes the case for a relationship between Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean languages "much more plausible".

Subdivisions
The Mayan family consists of thirty languages. Typically, these languages are grouped into 5–6 major subgroups (Yucatecan, Huastecan, Chʼolan–Tzeltalan, Qʼanjobʼalan, Mamean, and Kʼichean). The Mayan language family is extremely well documented, and its internal genealogical classification scheme is widely accepted and established, except for some minor unresolved differences.

One point still at issue is the position of Chʼolan and Qʼanjobalan–Chujean. Some scholars think these form a separate Western branch (as in the diagram below). Other linguists do not support the positing of an especially close relationship between Chʼolan and Qʼanjobalan–Chujean; consequently they classify these as two distinct branches emanating directly from the proto-language. An alternative proposed classification groups the Huastecan branch as springing from the Chʼolan–Tzeltalan node, rather than as an outlying branch springing directly from the proto-Mayan node.

Distribution
Studies estimate that Mayan languages are spoken by more than six million people. Most of them live in Guatemala where depending on estimates 40%–60% of the population speaks a Mayan language. In Mexico the Mayan speaking population was estimated at 2.5 million people in 2010, whereas the Belizean speaker population figures around 30,000.

Western branch
The Chʼolan languages were formerly widespread throughout the Maya area, but today the language with most speakers is Chʼol, spoken by 130,000 in Chiapas. Its closest relative, the Chontal Maya language, is spoken by 55,000 in the state of Tabasco. Another related language, now endangered, is Chʼortiʼ, which is spoken by 30,000 in Guatemala. It was previously also spoken in the extreme west of Honduras and El Salvador, but the Salvadorian variant is now extinct and the Honduran one is considered moribund. Chʼoltiʼ, a sister language of Chʼortiʼ, is also extinct. Chʼolan languages are believed to be the most conservative in vocabulary and phonology, and are closely related to the language of the Classic-era inscriptions found in the Central Lowlands. They may have served as prestige languages, coexisting with other dialects in some areas. This assumption provides a plausible explanation for the geographical distance between the Chʼortiʼ zone and the areas where Chʼol and Chontal are spoken.

The closest relatives of the Chʼolan languages are the languages of the Tzeltalan branch, Tzotzil and Tzeltal, both spoken in Chiapas by large and stable or growing populations (265,000 for Tzotzil and 215,000 for Tzeltal). Tzeltal has tens of thousands of monolingual speakers.

Qʼanjobʼal is spoken by 77,700 in Guatemala's Huehuetenango department, with small populations elsewhere. The region of Qʼanjobalan speakers in Guatemala, due to genocidal policies during the Civil War and its close proximity to the Mexican border, was the source of a number of refugees. Thus there are now small Qʼanjobʼal, Jakaltek, and Akatek populations in various locations in Mexico, the United States (such as Tuscarawas County, Ohio and Los Angeles, California), and, through postwar resettlement, other parts of Guatemala. Jakaltek (also known as Poptiʼ ) is spoken by almost 100,000 in several municipalities of Huehuetenango. Another member of this branch is Akatek, with over 50,000 speakers in San Miguel Acatán and San Rafael La Independencia.

Chuj is spoken by 40,000 people in Huehuetenango, and by 9,500 people, primarily refugees, over the border in Mexico, in the municipality of La Trinitaria, Chiapas, and the villages of Tziscau and Cuauhtémoc. Tojolabʼal is spoken in eastern Chiapas by 36,000 people.

Eastern branch
The Quichean–Mamean languages and dialects, with two sub-branches and three subfamilies, are spoken in the Guatemalan highlands.

Qʼeqchiʼ (sometimes spelled Kekchi), which constitutes its own sub-branch within Quichean–Mamean, is spoken by about 800,000 people in the southern Petén, Izabal and Alta Verapaz departments of Guatemala, and also in Belize by 9,000 speakers. In El Salvador it is spoken by 12,000 as a result of recent migrations.

The Uspantek language, which also springs directly from the Quichean–Mamean node, is native only to the Uspantán municipio in the department of El Quiché, and has 3,000 speakers.

Within the Quichean sub-branch Kʼicheʼ (Quiché), the Mayan language with the largest number of speakers, is spoken by around 1,000,000 Kʼicheʼ Maya in the Guatemalan highlands, around the towns of Chichicastenango and Quetzaltenango and in the Cuchumatán mountains, as well as by urban emigrants in Guatemala City. The famous Maya mythological document, Popol Vuh, is written in an antiquated Kʼicheʼ often called Classical Kʼicheʼ (or Quiché). The Kʼicheʼ culture was at its pinnacle at the time of the Spanish conquest. Qʼumarkaj, near the present-day city of Santa Cruz del Quiché, was its economic and ceremonial center. Achi is spoken by 85,000 people in Cubulco and Rabinal, two municipios of Baja Verapaz. In some classifications, e.g. the one by Campbell, Achi is counted as a form of Kʼicheʼ. However, owing to a historical division between the two ethnic groups, the Achi Maya do not regard themselves as Kʼicheʼ. The Kaqchikel language is spoken by about 400,000 people in an area stretching from Guatemala City westward to the northern shore of Lake Atitlán. Tzʼutujil has about 90,000 speakers in the vicinity of Lake Atitlán. Other members of the Kʼichean branch are Sakapultek, spoken by about 15,000 people mostly in El Quiché department, and Sipakapense, which is spoken by 8,000 people in Sipacapa, San Marcos.

The largest language in the Mamean sub-branch is Mam, spoken by 478,000 people in the departments of San Marcos and Huehuetenango. Awakatek is the language of 20,000 inhabitants of central Aguacatán, another municipality of Huehuetenango. Ixil (possibly three different languages) is spoken by 70,000 in the "Ixil Triangle" region of the department of El Quiché. Tektitek (or Teko) is spoken by over 6,000 people in the municipality of Tectitán, and 1,000 refugees in Mexico. According to the Ethnologue the number of speakers of Tektitek is growing.

The Poqom languages are closely related to Core Quichean, with which they constitute a Poqom-Kʼichean sub-branch on the Quichean–Mamean node. Poqomchiʼ is spoken by 90,000 people in Purulhá, Baja Verapaz, and in the following municipalities of Alta Verapaz: Santa Cruz Verapaz, San Cristóbal Verapaz, Tactic, Tamahú and Tucurú. Poqomam is spoken by around 49,000 people in several small pockets in Guatemala.

Yucatecan branch
Yucatec Maya (known simply as "Maya" to its speakers) is the most commonly spoken Mayan language in Mexico. It is currently spoken by approximately 800,000 people, the vast majority of whom are to be found on the Yucatán Peninsula. It remains common in Yucatán and in the adjacent states of Quintana Roo and Campeche.

The other three Yucatecan languages are Mopan, spoken by around 10,000 speakers primarily in Belize; Itzaʼ, an extinct or moribund language from Guatemala's Petén Basin; and Lacandón or Lakantum, also severely endangered with about 1,000 speakers in a few villages on the outskirts of the Selva Lacandona, in Chiapas.

Huastecan branch
Wastek (also spelled Huastec and Huaxtec) is spoken in the Mexican states of Veracruz and San Luis Potosí by around 110,000 people. It is the most divergent of modern Mayan languages. Chicomuceltec was a language related to Wastek and spoken in Chiapas that became extinct some time before 1982.

Proto-Mayan sound system
Proto-Mayan (the common ancestor of the Mayan languages as reconstructed using the comparative method) has a predominant CVC syllable structure, only allowing consonant clusters across syllable boundaries. Most Proto-Mayan roots were monosyllabic except for a few disyllabic nominal roots. Due to subsequent vowel loss, many Mayan languages now show complex consonant clusters at both ends of syllables. Following the reconstruction of Lyle Campbell and Terrence Kaufman, the Proto-Mayan language had the following sounds. It has been suggested that proto-Mayan was a tonal language, based on the fact that four different contemporary Mayan languages have tone (Yucatec, Uspantek, San Bartolo Tzotzil and Mochoʼ), but since these languages each can be shown to have innovated tone in different ways, Campbell considers this unlikely.

Phonological evolution of Proto-Mayan
The classification of Mayan languages is based on changes shared between groups of languages. For example, languages of the western group (such as Huastecan, Yucatecan and Chʼolan) all changed the Proto-Mayan phoneme * into, some languages of the eastern branch retained (Kʼichean), and others changed it into  or, word-finally,  (Mamean). The shared innovations between Huastecan, Yucatecan and Chʼolan show that they separated from the other Mayan languages before the changes found in other branches had taken place.

The palatalized plosives and  are not found in most of the modern families. Instead they are reflected differently in different branches, allowing a reconstruction of these phonemes as palatalized plosives. In the eastern branch (Chujean-Qʼanjobalan and Chʼolan) they are reflected as and. In Mamean they are reflected as and  and in Quichean as  and. Yucatec stands out from other western languages in that its palatalized plosives are sometimes changed into and sometimes.

The Proto-Mayan velar nasal * is reflected as in the eastern branches (Quichean–Mamean),  in Qʼanjobalan, Chʼolan and Yucatecan,  in Huastecan, and only conserved as  in Chuj and Jakaltek.

Diphthongs
Vowel quality is typically classified as having monophthongal vowels. In traditionally diphthongized contexts, Mayan languages will realize the V-V sequence by inserting a hiatus-breaking glottal stop or glide insertion between the vowels. Some Kʼichean-branch languages have exhibited developed diphthongs from historical long vowels, by breaking /e:/ and /o:/.

Grammar
The morphology of Mayan languages is simpler than that of other Mesoamerican languages, yet its morphology is still considered agglutinating and polysynthetic. Verbs are marked for aspect or tense, the person of the subject, the person of the object (in the case of transitive verbs), and for plurality of person. Possessed nouns are marked for person of possessor. In Mayan languages, nouns are not marked for case, and gender is not explicitly marked.

Word order
Proto-Mayan is thought to have had a basic verb–object–subject word order with possibilities of switching to VSO in certain circumstances, such as complex sentences, sentences where object and subject were of equal animacy and when the subject was definite. Today Yucatecan, Tzotzil and Tojolabʼal have a basic fixed VOS word order. Mamean, Qʼanjobʼal, Jakaltek and one dialect of Chuj have a fixed VSO one. Only Chʼortiʼ has a basic SVO word order. Other Mayan languages allow both VSO and VOS word orders.

Numeral classifiers
In many Mayan languages, counting requires the use of numeral classifiers, which specify the class of items being counted; the numeral cannot appear without an accompanying classifier. Some Mayan languages, such as Kaqchikel, do not use numeral classifiers. Class is usually assigned according to whether the object is animate or inanimate or according to an object's general shape. Thus when counting "flat" objects, a different form of numeral classifier is used than when counting round things, oblong items or people. In some Mayan languages such as Chontal, classifiers take the form of affixes attached to the numeral; in others such as Tzeltal, they are free forms. Jakaltek has both numeral classifiers and noun classifiers, and the noun classifiers can also be used as pronouns.

The meaning denoted by a noun may be altered significantly by changing the accompanying classifier. In Chontal, for example, when the classifier -tek is used with names of plants it is understood that the objects being enumerated are whole trees. If in this expression a different classifier, -tsʼit (for counting long, slender objects) is substituted for -tek, this conveys the meaning that only sticks or branches of the tree are being counted:

Possession
The morphology of Mayan nouns is fairly simple: they inflect for number (plural or singular), and, when possessed, for person and number of their possessor. Pronominal possession is expressed by a set of possessive prefixes attached to the noun, as in Kaqchikel ru-kej "his/her horse". Nouns may furthermore adopt a special form marking them as possessed. For nominal possessors, the possessed noun is inflected as possessed by a third-person possessor, and followed by the possessor noun, e.g. Kaqchikel ru-kej ri achin "the man's horse" (literally "his horse the man"). This type of formation is a main diagnostic trait of the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area and recurs throughout Mesoamerica.

Mayan languages often contrast alienable and inalienable possession by varying the way the noun is (or is not) marked as possessed. Jakaltek, for example, contrasts inalienably possessed ' "my photo (in which I am depicted)" with alienably possessed ' "my photo (taken by me)". The prefix we- marks the first person singular possessor in both, but the absence of the -e possessive suffix in the first form marks inalienable possession.

Relational nouns
Mayan languages which have prepositions at all normally have only one. To express location and other relations between entities, use is made of a special class of "relational nouns". This pattern is also recurrent throughout Mesoamerica and is another diagnostic trait of the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area. In Mayan most relational nouns are metaphorically derived from body parts so that "on top of", for example, is expressed by the word for head.

Subjects and objects
Mayan languages are ergative in their alignment. This means that the subject of an intransitive verb is treated similarly to the object of a transitive verb, but differently from the subject of a transitive verb.

Mayan languages have two sets of affixes that are attached to a verb to indicate the person of its arguments. One set (often referred to in Mayan grammars as set B) indicates the person of subjects of intransitive verbs, and of objects of transitive verbs. They can also be used with adjective or noun predicates to indicate the subject.

Another set (set A) is used to indicate the person of subjects of transitive verbs (and in some languages, such as Yucatec, also the subjects of intransitive verbs, but only in the incompletive aspects), and also the possessors of nouns (including relational nouns).

Verbs
In addition to subject and object (agent and patient), the Mayan verb has affixes signalling aspect, tense, and mood as in the following example:

Tense systems in Mayan languages are generally simple. Jakaltek, for example, contrasts only past and non-past, while Mam has only future and non-future. Aspect systems are normally more prominent. Mood does not normally form a separate system in Mayan, but is instead intertwined with the tense/aspect system. Kaufman has reconstructed a tense/aspect/mood system for proto-Mayan that includes seven aspects: incompletive, progressive, completive/punctual, imperative, potential/future, optative, and perfective.

Mayan languages tend to have a rich set of grammatical voices. Proto-Mayan had at least one passive construction as well as an antipassive rule for downplaying the importance of the agent in relation to the patient. Modern Kʼicheʼ has two antipassives: one which ascribes focus to the object and another that emphasizes the verbal action. Other voice-related constructions occurring in Mayan languages are the following: mediopassive, incorporational (incorporating a direct object into the verb), instrumental (promoting the instrument to object position) and referential (a kind of applicative promoting an indirect argument such as a benefactive or recipient to the object position).

Statives and positionals
In Mayan languages, statives are a class of predicative words expressing a quality or state, whose syntactic properties fall in between those of verbs and adjectives in Indo-European languages. Like verbs, statives can sometimes be inflected for person but normally lack inflections for tense, aspect and other purely verbal categories. Statives can be adjectives, positionals or numerals.

Positionals, a class of roots characteristic of, if not unique to, the Mayan languages, form stative adjectives and verbs (usually with the help of suffixes) with meanings related to the position or shape of an object or person. Mayan languages have between 250 and 500 distinct positional roots:

In these three Qʼanjobʼal sentences, the positionals are telan ("something large or cylindrical lying down as if having fallen"), woqan ("person sitting on a chairlike object"), and xoyan ("curled up like a rope or snake").

Word formation
Compounding of noun roots to form new nouns is commonplace; there are also many morphological processes to derive nouns from verbs. Verbs also admit highly productive derivational affixes of several kinds, most of which specify transitivity or voice.

As in other Mesoamerican languages, there is a widespread metaphorical use of roots denoting body parts, particularly to form locatives and relational nouns, such as Kaqchikel -pan ("inside" and "stomach") or -wi ("head-hair" and "on top of").

Mayan loanwords
A number of loanwords of Mayan or potentially Mayan origins are found in many other languages, principally Spanish, English, and some neighboring Mesoamerican languages. In addition, Mayan languages borrowed words, especially from Spanish.

A Mayan loanword is cigar. The Mayan word for "tobacco" is sic and sicar means "to smoke tobacco leaves". This is the most likely origin for cigar and thus cigarette.

The English word "hurricane", which is a borrowing from the Spanish word huracán is considered to be related to the name of Maya storm deity Jun Raqan. However, it is probable that the word passed into European languages from a Cariban language or Taíno.

Writing systems
The complex script used to write Mayan languages in pre-Columbian times and known today from engravings at several Maya archaeological sites has been deciphered almost completely. The script is a mix between a logographic and a syllabic system.

In colonial times Mayan languages came to be written in a script derived from the Latin alphabet; orthographies were developed mostly by missionary grammarians. Not all modern Mayan languages have standardized orthographies, but the Mayan languages of Guatemala use a standardized, Latin-based phonemic spelling system developed by the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG). Orthographies for the languages of Mexico are currently being developed by the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI).

Glyphic writing
The pre-Columbian Maya civilization developed and used an intricate and fully functional writing system, which is the only Mesoamerican script that can be said to be almost fully deciphered. Earlier-established civilizations to the west and north of the Maya homelands that also had scripts recorded in surviving inscriptions include the Zapotec, Olmec, and the Zoque-speaking peoples of the southern Veracruz and western Chiapas area—but their scripts are as yet largely undeciphered. It is generally agreed that the Maya writing system was adapted from one or more of these earlier systems. A number of references identify the undeciphered Olmec script as its most likely precursor.

In the course of the deciphering of the Maya hieroglyphic script, scholars have come to understand that it was a fully functioning writing system in which it was possible to express unambiguously any sentence of the spoken language. The system is of a type best classified as logosyllabic, in which symbols (glyphs or graphemes) can be used as either logograms or syllables. The script has a complete syllabary (although not all possible syllables have yet been identified), and a Maya scribe would have been able to write anything phonetically, syllable by syllable, using these symbols.

At least two major Mayan languages have been confidently identified in hieroglyphic texts, with at least one other language probably identified. An archaic language variety known as Classic Maya predominates in these texts, particularly in the Classic-era inscriptions of the southern and central lowland areas. This language is most closely related to the Chʼolan branch of the language family, modern descendants of which include Chʼol, Chʼortiʼ and Chontal. Inscriptions in an early Yucatecan language (the ancestor of the main surviving Yucatec language) have also been recognised or proposed, mainly in the Yucatán Peninsula region and from a later period. Three of the four extant Maya codices are based on Yucatec. It has also been surmised that some inscriptions found in the Chiapas highlands region may be in a Tzeltalan language whose modern descendants are Tzeltal and Tzotzil. Other regional varieties and dialects are also presumed to have been used, but have not yet been identified with certainty.

Use and knowledge of the Maya script continued until the 16th century Spanish conquest at least. Bishop Diego de Landa Calderón of the Catholic Archdiocese of Yucatán prohibited the use of the written language, effectively ending the Mesoamerican tradition of literacy in the native script. He worked with the Spanish colonizers to destroy the bulk of Mayan texts as part of his efforts to convert the locals to Christianity and away from what he perceived as pagan idolatry. Later he described the use of hieroglyphic writing in the religious practices of Yucatecan Maya in his Relación de las cosas de Yucatán.

Colonial orthography
Colonial orthography is marked by the use of c for /k/ (always hard, as in cic /kiik/), k for /q/ in Guatemala or for /kʼ/ in the Yucatán, h for /x/, and tz for /ts/; the absence of glottal stop or vowel length (apart sometimes for a double vowel letter for a long glottalized vowel, as in uuc /uʼuk/), the use of u for /w/, as in uac /wak/, and the variable use of z, ç, s for /s/. The greatest difference from modern orthography, however, is in the various attempts to transcribe the ejective consonants.

About 1550, Francisco de la Parra invented distinctive letters for ejectives in the Mayan languages of Guatemala, the tresillo and cuatrillo (and derivatives). These were used in all subsequent Franciscan writing, and are occasionally seen even today [2005]. In 1605, Alonso Urbano doubled consonants for ejectives in Otomi (pp, tt, ttz, cc / cqu), and similar systems were adapted to Mayan. Another approach, in Yucatec, was to add a bar to the letter, or to double the stem.

* Only the stem of 𝕡 is doubled, but that is not supported by Unicode.

A ligature ꜩ for tz is used alongside ꜭ and ꜫ. The Yucatec convention of dz for is retained in Maya family names such as Dzib.

Modern orthography
Since the colonial period, practically all Maya writing has used a Latin alphabet. Formerly these were based largely on the Spanish alphabet and varied between authors, and it is only recently that standardized alphabets have been established. The first widely accepted alphabet was created for Yucatec Maya by the authors and contributors of the Diccionario Maya Cordemex, a project directed by Alfredo Barrera Vásquez and first published in 1980. Subsequently, the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages (known by its Spanish acronym ALMG), founded in 1986, adapted these standards to 22 Mayan languages (primarily in Guatemala). The script is largely phonemic, but abandoned the distinction between the apostrophe for ejective consonants and the glottal stop, so that ejective and the non-ejective sequence  (previously tʼ and t7) are both written tʼ. Other major Maya languages, primarily in the Mexican state of Chiapas, such as Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chʼol, and Tojolabʼal, are not generally included in this reformation, and are sometimes written with the conventions standardized by the Chiapan "State Center for Indigenous Language, Art, and Literature" (CELALI), which for instance writes "ts" rather than "tz" (thus Tseltal and Tsotsil).

For the languages that make a distinction between palato-alveolar and retroflex affricates and fricatives (Mam, Ixil, Tektitek, Awakatek, Qʼanjobʼal, Poptiʼ, and Akatek in Guatemala, and Yucatec in Mexico) the ALMG suggests the following set of conventions.

Literature
From the classic language to the present day, a body of literature has been written in Mayan languages. The earliest texts to have been preserved are largely monumental inscriptions documenting rulership, succession, and ascension, conquest and calendrical and astronomical events. It is likely that other kinds of literature were written in perishable media such as codices made of bark, only four of which have survived the ravages of time and the campaign of destruction by Spanish missionaries.

Shortly after the Spanish conquest, the Mayan languages began to be written with Latin letters. Colonial-era literature in Mayan languages include the famous Popol Vuh, a mythico-historical narrative written in 17th century Classical Quiché but believed to be based on an earlier work written in the 1550s, now lost. The Título de Totonicapán and the 17th century theatrical work the Rabinal Achí are other notable early works in Kʼicheʼ, the latter in the Achí dialect. The Annals of the Cakchiquels from the late 16th century, which provides a historical narrative of the Kaqchikel, contains elements paralleling some of the accounts appearing in the Popol Vuh. The historical and prophetical accounts in the several variations known collectively as the books of Chilam Balam are primary sources of early Yucatec Maya traditions. The only surviving book of early lyric poetry, the Songs of Dzitbalche by Ah Bam, comes from this same period.

In addition to these singular works, many early grammars of indigenous languages, called "artes", were written by priests and friars. Languages covered by these early grammars include Kaqchikel, Classical Quiché, Tzeltal, Tzotzil and Yucatec. Some of these came with indigenous-language translations of the Catholic catechism.

While Mayan peoples continued to produce a rich oral literature in the postcolonial period (after 1821), very little written literature was produced in this period.

Because indigenous languages were excluded from the education systems of Mexico and Guatemala after independence, Mayan peoples remained largely illiterate in their native languages, learning to read and write in Spanish, if at all. However, since the establishment of the Cordemex and the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages (1986), native language literacy has begun to spread and a number of indigenous writers have started a new tradition of writing in Mayan languages. Notable among this new generation is the Kʼicheʼ poet Humberto Ak'abal, whose works are often published in dual-language Spanish/Kʼicheʼ editions, as well as Kʼicheʼ scholar Luis Enrique Sam Colop (1955–2011) whose translations of the Popol Vuh into both Spanish and modern Kʼicheʼ achieved high acclaim.

title: Mayan languages


text:
Talk:List of Imperial Diet participants (1792)

comments
I really wanted to have this page, although it is far from being complete now. If you look on a map of the Holy Roman Empire, you see hundreds of single states, as in a totally confusing mosaic. So it would be nice to put things in order. I didn't add a column for the status of a state (kingdom, duchy etc.), because this changed too often for most of the states. For some foundations or dissolutions I found more than one date; someone who knows a lot about medieval history should check, which is correct. I hope, that this will become a helpful page later, when more than just a few arbitrarily chosen states are included in the list. -- Cordyph 21:12 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...this is a good idea, but as it is now, rather confusing. I have a few ideas, but I thought I 'd run them by first before doing anything. One way to systematize this would be to list states with votes in the Imperial Diet. On the web, one can find lists of such states as they existed in 1582, in 1792, and in 1803 (as the Empire was about to be dissolved, following all the secularizations of the ecclesiastical states). One could do a list of that sort, but it wouldn't be a list of all states in the Holy Roman Empire at any time, which would, I think, be impossible. In any event, I think the list should be organized in terms of the various types of states - Ecclesiastical Princes, Secular Princes, Counts, and Free Cities. I'll pr(UTC)obably start to change this around if nobody protests within the next few days. john 19:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you are about to start this change, and I am far from protesting against it. Admittedly I am not an expert in the history of the Holy Roman Empire, so I did not achieve more than this confusing list. -- Cordyph 08:25 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * Alright, I'm going to start changing. For now, at least, I'll leave what you already have at the bottom. john 06:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Many of the titles are the loose Engish translation of "von", "of". There is only one instance of "zu", though several of "von", and none of "von und zu". Surely this article needs to clarify which "of"s are actually "zu"s, and why this matters? PML.

Go ahead, if you'd like. I'm not familiar enough with the noble particles to do it myself, but if you know that stuff and want to do it, go for it. john 05:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To my astonishment Denmark is included in the list as a partial state of the Holy Roman Empire. Could the anonymous user responsible for this addition please explain, if this is a joke or somehow based on truth? -- Cordyph 19:44 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * No reply, so I removed Denmark. -- Cordyph 08:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just moved this article to the new title "Diet of the H.R.E.". The old title "List of states in the H.R.E." has become inappropriate, since this article is not a pure list anymore. -- Cordyph 19:50 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think this was a particularly brillant move. There is Reichstag (institution), which describes in detail was the Reichstag was. Your new title suggests that this article does, which it does not: it's a list of states of a particular Reichstag. Besides, there are plenty of lists with explanations around wikipedia. djmutex 21:19 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think either title is ideal. To be honest a "List of states [sic] in the Holy Roman Empire" would be a nearly impossible project, and is not, particularly, what this page does. On the other hand, I agree with Djmutex that "Diet of the Holy Roman Empire" is also not appropriate. One ought to note, though, that the current list is, in fact, not a complete list of reichsunmittelbar territories in the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps... the article on the Reichstag could incorporate the list of states with voting seats, and the order and all that, and a "List of States in the Holy Roman Empire" could try to actually provide a list of all the reichsunmittelbar territories, and who possessed them. That would be rather onerous, though... john 00:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

P.S. The sic was because none of the territories in the Holy Roman Empire were considered States (Staaten). They were called Länder (as are the present day states in the Federal Republic), which does not imply sovereignty. john 00:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the title is inappropriate -- we do have some precedents here for what titles should be -- Id' suggest changing this to Roman diet ASAP. (use the "move this page" tool on the menubar. - 豎&#30505sv

Roman Diet? Are you serious? That would be far worse than either of the other options. john 00:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a horrible change. I would rather it be moved to the Unholy Non-Roman NotanEmpire. Pizza Puzzle

Oh, shut up Adam. John - anyone- explain yourselves. If you pronouce a condition as if it were fact, you should at least give a rudimentary argument. - 豎&#30505sv

You should not tell other users to shut up, that is a direct violation of the wiki convention on being friendly. I urge you to read Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire. Pizza Puzzle

The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire met in various German cities, and the Holy Roman Empire ought not be confused with the Roman Empire. Further, this distinction has little to do with the argument Cordyph and Djmutex were having, which was more about whether this article was appropriately titled after the Diet (Reichstag) at all, rather than what an article about the Diet should be called. john 00:17 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I seem to have been laboring under some unknown error. Thank you.- 豎&#30505sv

The present title is probably not ideal, but "List of states..." appears to be a worse title. This article does not correspond with our other "List of..." articles, which are mostly pure lists including links to other articles. That is, what this article originally was, but now it is not a pure list anymore. But if one of you can find a better title for this article, go ahead and move the page again. -- Cordyph 08:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I suggest "List of Reichstag participants (1792)". I am aware that the Wikipedia convention is to use English terms whenever possible and that Imperial Diet seems to be the common English term for Reichstag, but I vote for making an exception here, since Reichstag is also the name of the well-known building in Berlin, which is why I used Reichstag (institution) and Reichstag (building) as page titles, since there is a connection. For the record, I wrote most of these two pages plus the Holy Roman Empire article over the last months, hence my interest in consistency here. -- djmutex 09:35 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Another thing, for examples that lists do have explanations coming with them, refer to List of French monarchs and List of German Kings and Emperors. I find the explanations at the top of this article very helpful. djmutex 09:42 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I did not suggest to drop the explanations. They are indeed very helpful. Okay, then go ahead with List of Reichstag participants (1792) or Reichstag of the Holy Roman Empire (1792). I agree, that most important is the addition of the year. What are we going to do with the last section of the article - that extremely incomplete list. Should this be taken out of the main article and moved to the old location (List of states...), or should we delete and forget it? -- Cordyph 09:54 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Done. About the incomplete list at the bottom, I suggest that it be moved to a separate article so that whoever started it can finish it separately from this article. djmutex 09:59 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Okay, I will move this list to List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. That will also solve the problem with double redirects caused by the double page move. -- Cordyph 10:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I am currently fixing the links. Have to go now, will be back in a few hours to finish the job. djmutex 10:09 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hmm... List of Reichstag voices would probably be more accurate than "participants". But whatever.  As far as the Reichstag (institution) article, I'm not sure on that.  Seems to me that in English, at least Reichstag is usually used from the 1871-1945 assembly, but "Imperial Diet" is more commonly used for the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire.  Descriptions of the two could be split up.  As far as "List of states in the Holy Roman Empire", I'd like to work on that to make it a bit more useful.  I'd say 1) List the Stem Duchies, and other early and high Medieval divisions of Germany; 2) then list the late medieval/early modern territorial divisions, dividing it up into Ecclesiastical Princes/Secular Princes and Counts/Imperial Cities/Reichsrittern. john 10:11 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The list of states is now back at List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. If you could improve it, that would be great. -- Cordyph 10:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I am aware of the English usage, but it's still the same word in German, and the 1871 Reichstag was precisely named as such in rememberance of the old thing. So in my view, it would add to the confusion if there was a separate Imperial Diet article. Which is why I wrote,

 * Confusingly, today's parliament is called Bundestag since the Reichstag as a parliament ceased to exist during Nazi Germany (1933--1945). In today's usage, the German term Reichstag thus refers primarly to the building; for details on the history of the Reichstag as an institution, which leads back to the Holy Roman Empire, refer to Reichstag (institution).

 * at the top of Reichstag (building). Besides, this pattern fits the scheme of other articles such as Chancellor of Germany, which also has a continous description of the office. -- But please go ahead with your excellent work on the list. :-) djmutex 10:17 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for this most interesting set of pages, which I have been discussing with a friend at the Duke's Head pub, Richmond Hill, London: just to let you know you are doing a good job,. CJS.

Caesar -I
I liked to read this ineresting article about the last period of the Holy Roman Empire, but i found some mistakes. For example, i didnt' find the vote of the Free Imperial City of Regensburg (it had a vote in the circle of Bavaria, as the seat of the Reichstag). Moreover, this article doesn't explain the situation of the Duchy of Burgundy (in the 18th ita was under the Austrian sovereignty from 1714). I read, finally, confusion about some personal votes of the Counts' Counsil (as counts von Traun, i'm sure i've never find any seat and vote in the Diet for this austrian noble family).

 * Huh? ... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign states
I think that Kingdom of Hungary shouldn't be mentioned in this article because it was never a part of Holy Roman Empire.
 * it just says that the king of Bohemia was also king of Hungary (and ruler of Austria and the Kaiser) - and that is an interesting fact134.3.76.108 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


text:
Hemer

Hemer is a town in the Märkischer Kreis district, in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Geography
Hemer is located at the north end of the Sauerland near the Ruhr river. The highest elevation, at 546 m, is in the Balver Wald in the south of the city. The lowest elevation, at 160 m, is at the Edelburg in the northeast.

History
Burial mounds show that around 1250 BC, Bronze Age shepherds and farmers lived in the area. Graves from the time of the Merovingian Franks around the year 650 were found near the present city centre.

Hemer was first mentioned in 1072 by its old name Hademare in a document of Anno II, Archbishop of Cologne, granting lands to the newly founded Benedictine Grafschaft Abbey, including St. Vitus's church and two farms, the later de:Haus Hemer and the de:Hedhof. In 1124 the parish of St. Vitus was separated from the parish of Menden.

Hemer remained an unimportant settlement without market rights, even when the Counts of the Mark gained independence from the episcopal state of Cologne in the 13th century, when Hemer found itself on the boundary of the two states. But despite the political insignificance of the Kirchspiel Hemer ("Hemer parish"), it was already quite densely settled, thanks to its location on the old road from the Rhineland to Middle Germany (now Bundesstrasse 7), and to the iron mining and smelting industries already developed here. The boundary with Cologne, formed by the valley of the Hönne river southeast of Hemer, was protected by Klusenstein Castle, built in 1353. Local government in the parish of Hemer was the responsibility of the "Amt" of Iserlohn until 1647, when it was transferred to the family of Wachtendonk, who owned Haus Hemer at that time.

The Reformation reached Hemer in the second half of the 16th century, when the Church of St. Vitus (Hemer) (Vituskirche) became Protestant (it was demolished in 1818, and replaced by the new Ebbergkirche nearby, built in 1819/20). Between 1697 and 1700 Jobst Edmund of Brabeck, the bishop of Hildesheim and a relative of the new owners of Haus Hemer, built the church of Saints Peter and Paul in Baroque style as the new church for the Roman Catholics.

During the Napoleonic period Hemer was a "mairie" in the "arrondissement" of Hagen in the "département" of the Ruhr of the Napoleonic satellite Grand Duchy of Berg.

Creation of Amt Hemer
On October 31, 1841, the Amt Hemer was created by 14 municipalities previously administered by the Landbezirk Iserlohn. It originally consisted of the municipalities of de:Becke, de:Brockhausen, de:Calle, de:Deilinghofen, de:Evingsen, de:Frönsberg, de:Ihmert, de:Kesbern, de:Landhausen, de:Lössel, de:Niederhemer, de:Oberhemer, de:Sundwig and de:Westig, as well as the manors (Rittergut) of Edelburg, Haus Hemer and Klusenstein. The Amt was part of the Kreis Iserlohn. In 1910 Niederhemer and Oberhemer were merged into Hemer. In 1920 Lössel became part of the Amt Oestrich.

Communal reform of 1929
The three industrial municipalities of Hemer, Sundwig and Westig had already grown into a single urban area by World War I. The idea of merging the three municipalities had already been mooted before the war, but due to the war it was not until 1920 that it was formally proposed. However, neither Sundwig nor Westig was initially enthusiastic and both later opposed the merger, mostly because the industrialists in the two places were worried that the tax rates would rise to the higher rates of Hemer. At the same time the city of Iserlohn unsuccessfully tried to incorporate several municipalities: Letmathe and Oestrich to the west, and also the industrial municipalities of the Amt Hemer. Because of the opposition, the merger of the three municipalities was delayed until 1929, when it was carried out by order of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior. At the same time the municipality of Calle was split into four parts: the northern Griesenbrauck was added to Landhausen; Bilveringsen passed to Hemer; the central part around Wermingsen was incorporated into Iserlohn; and the southern parts passed to Westig. With effect from August 1, 1929, Hemer, Sundwig and Westig, as well as Landhausen and the remains of Calle were merged, covering an area of 26.82 km2 and having a population of 13,809.

Also with effect from August 1, 1929, the municipality of Brockhausen was incorporated into Deilinghofen. The rural Brockhausen had only 588 inhabitants, and because of its low income was not considered to be financially viable as an independent unit.

On January 30, 1936, the municipality of Hemer received the right to call itself a city (Stadt).

Military
In 1934 Hemer became a garrison town. In January 1934 it was decided to build three barracks in neighboring Iserlohn, which however was unable also to provide enough free land for a training area. At a meeting in June, land around the village of Apricke was selected, of which 3 km2 was bought by the state in autumn of the same year. The hospital was also inspected and later acquired as a military hospital. This was very welcome to Hemer, as the hospital had turned out to be far too big and too expensive for the Amt, and in this way it was possible later to build a new smaller hospital.

In December 1934 temporary barracks for one battalion were also built in Hemer. On October 30, 1936, an official garrison contract between Hemer and the state was signed, which included the building of permanent barracks. Construction was still unfinished when World War II started in 1939, but was then rushed through and the buildings were reassigned as a prisoner of war camp, the Stalag VI-A.

The first Polish POWs arrived in October 1939, and had to sleep on the floor as the beds were still not finished. Inadequate equipment remained a problem throughout the whole of the war, both because the material was needed at the front, and also because the camp was permanently overpopulated. At first the inmates were mostly from Poland and France, but after the beginning of the war with the Soviet Union in 1941 Soviet POWs quickly became the majority.

It is estimated that during the six years of the war more than 200,000 inmates were held in the camp. Those who were capable of forced labour usually lived near their places of work, so the main camp was in a sense a "dying camp" for those who fell ill because of the bad living conditions and the hard labour. At an unconfirmed estimate, about 24,000 POWs were buried in Hemer. The fictional film Hart's War is set in the camp in early 1945.

After the war the barracks of the Stalag, renamed to Camp Roosevelt were at first used as a camp for detaining Nazi prisoners. In 1947, it was renamed Casernes Ardennes and were used by the Belgian army  till 1955. After the establishment of the German Bundeswehr the barracks became home of a tank battalion in 1957. Originally simply named after its location on the Jüberg hill, it received its final name, Blücher-Kaserne, in 1964.

In 1953 Canadian troops moved into newly built barracks in Deilinghofen (Forts Macleod and Prince of Wales) as well as two former German barrack complexes in Iserlohn (Forts QuèAppelle and Beausejour). Canadian soldiers and their families resided in two separate locations in Hemer. The main location centered on Berliner Strasse where the school and community center were located. The secondary location centered on Bredde Strasse, the site that was formerly used by the Belgians. In 1970 the Canadian military was transferred to bases in the Black Forest Region (Baden-Baden and Lahr) and most of the former Canadian holdings, including Married Quarters in Hemer, were taken over by British military. In 1994 the British left and the Deilinghofen barracks were converted to civil use with the barracks in Iserlohn either transferred back to the Bundeswehr or also converted to civil use.

Due to the changing duties of the Bundeswehr, tanks are not needed as much as they were during the Cold War. The closure of the barracks was announced in 2004, and on January 23, 2007, the last soldiers left Hemer, 50 years after the Bundeswehr moved into the barracks.

Communal reform of 1975
With the reorganization of the districts and municipalities in 1974 the Amt was dissolved. Evingsen had already become part of Altena in 1969. In 1974 Kesbern became part of Iserlohn, while the other municipalities of Becke, Deilinghofen, Frönsberg and Ihmert were added to the town of Hemer.

Municipalities as of 1904

 * Becke - consisting of the settlements () Brelen, Edelburg, Höcklingsen, Mesterscheid, Oese, Urbecke. Area 5.50 km2, population 501.
 * Brockhausen - Apricke, Bäingsen, Brockhausen, Grevenborn, Im Hagen, Hönnetal, Klusenstein, Riemke. Area 9.29 km2, population 526.
 * Calle - Bilveringsen, Bredenbruch, zur Calle, Düingsen, Franzberg, Griesenbrauck, Magney, Schleddenhof, Wermingsen. Area 8.59 km2, population 900.
 * Deilinghofen - Bautenheide, Deilinghofen, Habichtseil, Hembecke, Hohenstein, Langenbruch, Nierungsen. Area 9.68 km2, population 1124.
 * Evingsen - Evingsen, Giebel, Heide, Heidermühle, Heidersiepen, Hüingsen, auf der Hütte, Kohlberg, Löttringsen, Löttringserhahn, Nettenscheid, Rüssenberg, Schwarzpaul, Springen, Stodt, Tüssenberg. Area 6.97 km2, population 1049.
 * Frönsberg - Beckmerhagen, Drubbelhelle, Ebberg, Frönsberg, Heppingsen, Heppingserbach, Hestern, Hültershagen, Ispei, Rohland, Stephanopel, Wachmecke, Winterhof. Area 6.03 km2, population 323.
 * Ihmert - Bredenbruch, Dieckgraben, Elfenfohren, Hasberg, Holmecke, Ihmert, Ihmerterbach, Ihmerterort, Johannistal, Rottmecke, Stemmessiepen, Stümpen, Sülberg, Tüttebelle, Westendorf. Area 9.00 km2, population 987.
 * Kesbern - Attern, Bräke, Oberdahlsen, Niederdahlsen, Eichholz, Eileringsen, Gunzenheide, im Hagen, Hardorn, Hegenscheid, vorm Hey, Kesbern, Lohsiepen, Lennenstück, Meerbrauck, Osthelle, im Schlaa, Siepen, Voswinkel, Wixberg. Area 13.40 km2, population 552.
 * Landhausen - Krebsbach (Tannenberg), Landhausen, Stübecken. Area 5.12 km2, population 338.
 * Lössel - Bühle, Dümpel, Düsternsiepen, Emberg, Großenstück, Häken, Heide, Hilkenhohl, Langenstück, Liehard, Lieth, Lössel, Lüsecken, Mooskamp, Pillingsen, Pillingserbach, Roden, Roland, Saat, Schmidthacke, Schorhelle, Selberg, Sieschotte, Silbering, Stümpen, Stübke, am Ühler. Area 6.86 km2, population 1214.
 * Niederhemer - Haus Hemer, Niederhemer, Rosenhoff. Area 3.15 km2, population 2477.
 * Oberhemer - area 3.43 km2, population 2,524.
 * Sundwig - Dieken, Eichenufer (Eickenufer), Grüntal (Grünental), Siegeloh, Sundwig, Sundwigerbach, Wenhagen. Area 6.23 km2, population 1,383.
 * Westig - Westig, Westigerbach, Westigerkreuz. Area 4.11 km2, population 1,756.

List of mayors
Until 1995 the mayor was an honorary post with only formal duties, while the actual head of administration was the Stadtdirektor. This system was introduced in 1946 by the British military government, and was abolished in 1999. However, when Reiner Hermann was forced to resign in 1994, shortly after the new system was adopted, Hemer became the first commune of North Rhine-Westphalia to get a professional mayor in 1995.

Religion
As of 2005, 15.982 citizens were Protestants, 11,998 Roman Catholic, and 10,111 have other or no religion.

Five Roman Catholic parishes are located in the city - St. Peter and Paul (Niederhemer, Becke), Christ König (Stadtmitte), St. Peter Canisius (Westig), St. Mary (Bredenbruch, Ihmert) and St. Bonifatius (Sundwig, Deilinghofen). All five parishes work together in a parish cluster (Pastoralverbund). They are member of the deanery Märkisches Sauerland within the Archdiocese of Paderborn.

Points of interest
The Heinrichshöhle is a Devonian limestone cave in Hemer, officially discovered in 1812, but probably known by locals long before. 470m of the cave system are accessible to visitors, with some stalactites and the skeleton of a cave bear on display.

The Felsenmeer nearby is a small Karst area, partially created by medieval mining, now located in a beech forest.

Shared with Menden and Balve is the Hönnetal, a narrow valley with some beautiful cliffs carved into the same limestone bedrock by the river Hönne.

Coat of arms
The three golden wolf-hooks are derived from the arms of the Brabeck family, the owners of the manor Haus Hemer. The red and white fess on the left side is derived from the arms of the Counts of the Mark. The current coat of arms of the city was originally used by the Amt, but when the Amt was dissolved into the city in 1975 the city adopted it. It was chosen because it was heraldically and esthetically more satisfying, but also because the adoption of the coat of arms of the Amt symbolized the fact that the enlarged city continues the tradition of the Amt. The coat of arms was officially granted on March 16, 1976.

The former coat of arms of the city used the same heraldic elements, but in a different arrangement. The red and white motif was used in the form of a bordure round the whole shield, which was completely black with the three yellow wolf-hooks in the middle. This coat of arms was granted by the president of the province of Westphalia on January 14 (Amt) and January 15 (city) 1936.

In 1926 the municipality of Hemer was already planning the creation of a coat of arms. A draft using industrial symbols was made by Treude, but the director of the Prussian state archive in Münster, Professor Ludwig Schmitz-Kallenberg, advised against it. Instead he suggested two designs using the heraldic elements of families of Brabeck and of the Counts of the Mark. Hemer created new drafts using heraldic elements from the arms of previous owners of Haus Hemer (the families Overlacker and Wachtendonck), but in 1928 the topic was discontinued. When it was restarted in the 1930s the original suggestion of Professor Johannes Bauermann of the Prussian state archive was followed, with final artwork by the herald Waldemar Mallek.

In 1939 the other municipalities of the Amt also received coats of arms. All six took the three wolf-hooks as their common symbol, showing their membership in the Amt. Becke, Deilinghofen and Frönsberg combined them with coats of arms of former noble families of the municipality, while Evingsen, Ihmert and Kesbern combined them with symbols representing their main industries - shoe making for Evingsen, wire production for Ihmert and agriculture for Kesbern.

See also: Coat of arms in the Amt Hemer

Economics
Like most of the northern part of the present Märkischer Kreis, Hemer has a long industrial history. The most important industries in the beginning of the 20th century were wire production and wire manufacturing industries, but also rolling mills, foundries and machine production. Paper production was already declining at that time. In 1927 Hemer and Ihmert together had 27 wire factories - 23.7% of all wire factories in Germany at that time. However, as the factories were rather small the percentage is much less impressive when compared by number of employees.

Hemer was the home of Clarfeld & Springmeyer, founded by Friedrich Clarfeld and Heinrich Springmeyer ca. 1870. In 1931, the name of the firm changed to Clarfeld & Co. KG. They were producers of silver and silverplated tableware into the 1970s.

During the Great Depression as well as in the final part of World War II many companies went into bankruptcy, but even today the industrial sector is above average in Hemer. The worldwide known fittings producers Grohe and Keuco are based in Hemer.

Transport
Hemer is located on autobahn 46, which has ended in the Iserlohn quarter of Bilveringsen just at the border of the Hemer since 1976. The connection with another section of the A46 at Arnsberg has been delayed ever since, as the original route was supposed to go through a nature reserve in Menden.

Hemer was connected to the railway system on 1 September 1882, when the line from Menden to Hemer was inaugurated. In 1885 the extension to Iserlohn was opened. In 1891 a short track was built as far as Sundwig; it was originally planned that this should be extended to Neuenrade but the extension was never built. Hemer had two railway stations - one in Oberhemer and one in Westig. Because of a significant decline both in passenger numbers and in quantity of goods traffic, the service was wound up, and the last regular train went through Hemer on 27 May 1989. The track to Iserlohn was taken up, while the track to Menden was thereafter only used by the Bundeswehr for transporting their tanks and this traffic ended in 2006.

Besides the regular railway, a narrow gauge railway using gauge first reached a municipality of the Amt Hemer in 1909, when Buchenwäldchen (Calle) was connected with Iserlohn. It was quickly extended: in 1913 almost all the municipalities of Hemer were connected to the network of the Westfälische Kleinbahnen AG. The railway was used both for a tram and for goods transport, with the railway station at Westig serving as the junction between the narrow gauge and the regular gauge railway.

Renamed Iserlohner Kreisbahn AG in 1942, operations were only briefly interrupted after World War II. In the 1950s however more and more sections of the narrow gauge railway had to be closed because they were no longer profit-making. The trams were replaced by buses, and trucks made the goods transport obsolete. In 1964 the goods transfer in Westig was closed; the trams had already closed in 1959.

Twin towns – sister cities
Hemer is twinned with:

 * 🇫🇷 Beuvry, France (1968)
 * 🇩🇪 Bretten, Germany (1979)
 * 🇩🇪 Doberlug-Kirchhain, Germany (1991)
 * 🇦🇹 Obervellach, Austria (1985)
 * 🇷🇺 Shchyolkovo, Russia (1992)
 * 🇫🇷 Steenwerck, France (1967)

Notable people

 * Willibrord Benzler (1853–1921), long-term bishop of Metz
 * Hans Prinzhorn (1886–1933), psychiatrist and art historian, pioneer in the analysis of psychological images
 * Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus (born 1939), mathematician at the Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg
 * Heinz Weifenbach (1939–2015), ice hockey executive
 * Wolfgang Becker (born 1954), film director, gained his high school diploma at the Friedrich-Leopold-Woeste-Gymnasium
 * Thomas Schäfer (1966−2020), lawyer and politician, Minister of Finance in Hesse
 * Enno Poppe (born 1969), composer and conductor
 * Christian Hommel (born 1981), ice hockey player
 * Hendrik Sirringhaus (born 1985), ice hockey player
 * Lean Bergmann (born 1998), ice hockey player

Literature

 * Stopsack, Hans-Hermann (ed., for the Volkshochschule Menden-Hemer-Balve): Hemer 1944–1949. Erinnnerungen, Zeitzeugenberichte und Dokumente aus einer Zeit des Umbruchs. Self-published, Menden/Hemer 2004.
 * Stopsack, Hans-Hermann: Vom Amt zur Stadt. Zur Geschichte von Amt und Stadt Hemer von 1900 bis zur Gegenwart. Self-published, Hemer 2000. ISBN 3-00-006685-3
 * Thomas, Eberhard; Fischer, Klaus: Hemer. Stadt-Bild-Verlag, Leipzig 1996. ISBN 3-931554-12-0
 * Stopsack, Hans-Hermann; Thomas, Eberhard (eds., for the town of Hemer and the Volkshochschule Menden-Hemer-Balve): Stalag VI A Hemer. Kriegsgefangenenlager 1939–1945. Eine Dokumentation. Hemer 1995.

title: Hemer


text:
William Hobson

Captain William Hobson (26 September 1792 – 10 September 1842) was an Irish officer in the British Royal Navy, who served as the first Governor of New Zealand. He was a co-author of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hobson was dispatched from London in July 1839, with instructions to take the constitutional steps needed to establish a British colony in New Zealand. He was sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor in Sydney (under George Gipps) and arrived in New Zealand on 29 January 1840.

On 5 February 1840, Hobson met with Māori chiefs at Waitangi, and the following morning they signed a treaty by which the chiefs purportedly voluntarily transferred sovereignty to the British Crown in return for guarantees respecting their lands and possessions and their rights as British subjects. Three months later, Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over the islands of New Zealand. He also selected the site for a new capital, which he named Auckland.

In May 1841, New Zealand was constituted as a separate Crown colony, with Hobson promoted to Governor and Commander in Chief. In his final months Hobson was dogged by poor health which left him detached from political affairs. He died in office in September 1842.

Early life
William Hobson was born in Waterford, Ireland, the son of Samuel Hobson, a barrister and Martha Jones. He grew up in an Anglo-Irish Anglican family. He attended a (barely) private school, but despite this disadvantage he joined the Royal Navy on 25 August 1803 as a second-class volunteer. He served in the Napoleonic Wars and was later involved in the suppression of piracy in the Caribbean. He became a midshipman in 1806 and some seven years later was a first lieutenant.

In September 1822 merchants at Nassau equipped two sloops to cruise against pirates, with HMS Tyne (1814) proving officers and seamen to man the sloops. One sloop, with 23 men under the command of a midshipman, encountered a pirate schooner and felucca. The British repulsed the schooner and captured the felucca. Those of the felucca's crew who were not killed jumped overboard and were drowned. British casualties amounted to two men killed and seven, including the midshipman, wounded. The second sloop had a worse fortune. The sloop Whim was under the command of Lieutenant William Hobson and two midshipmen from Tyne when on 29 September a pirate schooner captured her at Guanaha. The pirates held the British captive for several days, treating their prisoners badly, but all the British survived.

Between March 1823 and May 1824 Hobson commanded the schooner HMS Lion (1823), in which he captured several pirate vessels, earning himself the nickname "Lion Hobson". He was promoted to commander on 18 March 1824 and commanded HMS Scylla (1809) between 1826 and 1828. In December 1834 he obtained a commission from the First Lord of the Admiralty – George Eden, 1st Earl of Auckland – to the East Indies on HMS Rattlesnake (1822).

Australia
In 1836, he was ordered to Australia, arriving at Hobart on 5 August 1836, and at Sydney 18 days later. On 18 September 1836, HMS Rattlesnake (1822) left for Port Phillip District (later Melbourne) conveying Captain William Lonsdale and other officials to the new colony. During the next three months, Hobson and his officers thoroughly surveyed Port Phillip, the northern portion of which, by direction of Governor Sir Richard Bourke, was named Hobsons Bay, after him. (Thus the local government area of the City of Hobsons Bay is indirectly named after him.)

His ship was involved in the founding of the port of Williamstown. He was offered the position of Superintendent of the Bombay Marine at a salary of £2000 a year, but he had taken a liking to Australia and was a candidate for the governorship of Port Phillip, although the salary was not expected to be more than £800 a year.

New Zealand
On 26 May 1837 Hobson sailed to the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, in response to a request for help from James Busby, the British Resident, who felt threatened by wars between Māori tribes. For three months in 1837 Pōmare II (Whiria) fought with Tītore until a peace agreement was negotiated by Tareha. On his return to England in 1838, Hobson submitted a report on New Zealand, in which he proposed establishing British sovereignty over the islands in small pockets similar to the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada.

Lieutenant-Governor
At the time, the British government recognised the sovereignty of the Māori people, as represented in the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand of October 1835. Hobson was appointed lieutenant-governor under the Governor of New South Wales, Sir George Gipps—ratified on 30 July 1839 —and British consul to New Zealand—confirmed on 13 August 1839.

On 14 August 1839, Constantine Henry Phipps, 1st Marquess of Normanby issued Hobson with detailed instructions, giving the British government's reasons for intervention in New Zealand and directions for the purchase of land "by fair and equal contracts". The land was later resold to European settlers at a profit to provide for further operations.

Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands aboard HMS Herald (1824) on 29 January 1840 with a small group of officials, including an executive council consisting of Colonial Secretary Willoughby Shortland, Colonial Treasurer George Cooper and Attorney-General Francis Fisher. The legislative council comprised the above officials and three Justices of the Peace. Hobson appointed as three Magistrates, Messrs. Shortland, Johnson, and Matthew.

Treaty of Waitangi
The Treaty of Waitangi was first proposed by Hobson on his return to Britain from his first visit to New Zealand. Upon arrival in New Zealand, Hobson almost immediately drafted the Treaty of Waitangi together with his secretary James Freeman and James Busby. Busby had previously drafted the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand.

Hobson headed the British signatories. Of the 40 or so Māori chiefs, the Ngāpuhi chief Hōne Heke was the first to sign the treaty. As each chief signed, Hobson said "He iwi tahi tātou", meaning "We are [now] one people". To enhance the authority of the treaty eight further copies were made and sent around the country to gather additional signatures. After obtaining signatures to the Treaty at the Bay of Islands (6 February 1840), he travelled to Waitematā Harbour to obtain more signatures and to survey a suitable location for a new capital (he also sent the Deputy Surveyor-General, William Cornwallis Symonds, to other areas to obtain more signatures). After suffering a stroke on 1 March 1840, he was taken back to the Bay of Islands, where he recovered sufficiently to continue work.

On 21 May 1840, in response to the creation of a "republic" by the New Zealand Company settlers of Port Nicholson, who were laying out a new town under the flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand, Hobson asserted British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand, despite the incompleteness of the treaty signing. He sent Willoughby Shortland and some soldiers to Port Nicholson on 25 May 1840, and the council of the settlers was disbanded. Their leader, William Wakefield, later travelled to the Bay of Islands to pledge allegiance to the Crown. His suggestion to make Port Nicholson the capital was rejected in favour of Hobson's plan for a new town on Waitematā Harbour, to be named Auckland after the Earl of Auckland. On 11 July 1840, the French frigate L'Aube arrived at the Bay of Islands on its way to Banks Peninsula as part of the settlement plan of the Nanto-Bordelaise Company. Hobson immediately sent two magistrates to Akaroa to establish the British claim to sovereignty by holding courts. Near the end of 1840, the Port Nicholson settlers sent a petition to Queen Victoria calling for Hobson's dismissal over his treatment of them. Hobson responded on 26 May 1841 to the Foreign Secretary.

Governor
In November 1840, the Queen signed a royal charter for New Zealand to become a Crown Colony separate from New South Wales. Hobson was sworn in by the Chief Justice as Governor of New Zealand on 3 May 1841. On the same day, the General Legislative Council came into being, with Hobson in charge of appointing its membership.

Hobson travelled to Wellington in August 1841, where he heard the complaints of settlers and selected magistrates. He then visited Akaroa to settle the French claims. Back in Auckland, he had some difficulty with the Māori, and his government was ridiculed by journalists in Wellington and Auckland. He responded by closing down the New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette. With his government low on funds, he resorted to issuing unauthorised bills on the British Treasury in 1842. Hobson faced opposition from the "Senate clique" radicals who sent a petition to the Foreign Secretary to have Hobson recalled. One of Hobson's last actions was to declare an Auckland Anniversary Day, to mark the anniversary of his arrival in the Bay of Islands.

Hobson suffered a second stroke and died on 10 September 1842, prior to being recalled from office. He was buried in the Symonds Street cemetery in Auckland.

Legacy
Several places in New Zealand are named after Hobson including:
 * Hobsonville, Hobson initially considered this to be a potential site for the Government of New Zealand, but after advice from the Surveyor-General of New Zealand, Felton Matthew this idea was rejected. The area was later named after him.
 * Hobson Bay
 * Mount Hobson, Auckland
 * Hobson Hill, a small hill located Northeast of Waitangi, Northland.

title: William Hobson