text:
Smenkhkare

Smenkhkare (alternatively romanized Smenkhare, Smenkare, or Smenkhkara; meaning "Vigorous is the soul of Re") was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of unknown background who lived and ruled during the Amarna Period of the 18th Dynasty. Smenkhkare was husband to Meritaten, the daughter of his likely co-regent, Akhenaten. Since the Amarna period was subject to a large-scale condemnation of memory by later pharaohs, very little can be said of Smenkhkare with certainty, and he has hence been subject to immense speculation.

Origin and family
Smenkhkare's origins are unknown. It is assumed he was a member of the royal family, likely either a brother or son of the pharaoh Akhenaten. If he is Akhenaten's brother, his mother was likely either Tiye or Sitamun. If a son of Akhenaten, he was presumably an older brother of Tutankhamun, as he succeeded the throne ahead of him; his mother was likely an unknown, lesser wife. An alternative suggestion, based on objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun, is that Smenkhkare was the son of Akhenaten's older brother, Thutmose and an unknown woman, possibly one of his sisters.

Smenkhkare is known to have married Akhenaten's eldest daughter, Meritaten, who was his Great Royal Wife. Inscriptions mention a King's Daughter named Meritaten Tasherit, who may be the daughter of Meritaten and Smenkhkare. Furthermore, Smenkhkare has been put forth as a candidate for the mummy in KV55. If so, he would be the father of Tutankhamun.

Length of reign
Clear evidence for a sole reign for Smenkhkare has not yet been found. There are few artifacts that attest to his existence at all, and so it is assumed his reign was short. A wine docket from "the house of Smenkhkare" attests to Regnal Year 1. A second wine docket dated to Year 1 refers to him as "Smenkhkare, (deceased)" and may indicate that he died during his first regnal year.

Some Egyptologists have speculated about the possibility of a two- or three-year reign for Smenkhkare based on a number of wine dockets from Amarna that lack a king's name but bear dates for regnal years 2 and 3. However, they could belong to any of the Amarna kings and are not definitive proof either way.

Smenkhkare Hall
While there are few monuments or artifacts that attest to Smenkhkare's existence, there is a major addition to the Amarna palace complex that bears his name. It was built in approximately Year 15 and was likely built for a significant event related to him.

Theories of timing of Smenkhkare's reign
Academic consensus has yet to be reached about when exactly Smenkhkare ruled as pharaoh and where he falls in the timeline of Amarna. In particular, the confusion of his identity compared to that of Pharaoh Neferneferuaten has led to considerable academic debate about the order of kings in the late Amarna Period. Aidan Dodson suggests that Smenkhkare did not have a sole reign and only served as Akhenaten's co-regent for about a year around Regnal Year 13. However, James Peter Allen depicts Smenkhkare as successor to Neferneferuaten and Marc Gabolde has suggested that after Smenkhkare's reign, Meritaten succeeded him as Neferneferuaten.

Co-regency with Akhenaten
Per Dodson's theory, Smenkhkare served only as co-regent with Akhenaten and never had an individual rule and Nefertiti became co-regent and eventual successor to Akhenaten. Smenkhkare and Meritaten appear together in the tomb of Meryre II at Amarna, rewarding Meryre. There, Smenkhkare wears the khepresh crown, however he is called the son-in-law of Akhenaten. Further, his name appears only during Akhenaten's reign without certain evidence to attest to a sole reign. The names of the king have since been cut out but were recorded around 1850 by Karl Lepsius. Additionally, a calcite "globular vase" from Tutankhamun's tomb displays the full double cartouches of both pharaohs. However, this is the only object known to carry both names side-by-side. This evidence has been taken by some Egyptologists to indicate that Akhenaten and Smenkhkare were co-regents. However, the scene in Meryre's tomb is undated and Akhenaten is neither depicted nor mentioned in the tomb. The jar may simply be a case of one king associating himself with a predecessor. The simple association of names, particularly on everyday objects, is not conclusive of a co-regency.

Smenkhkare as successor to Neferneferuaten
Arguing against the co-regency theory, Allen suggests that Neferneferuaten followed Akhenaten and that upon her death, Smenkhkare ascended as pharaoh. Allen proposes that following Nefertiti's death in Year 13 or 14, her daughter Neferneferuaten-tasherit became Pharaoh Neferneferuaten. After Neferneferuaten's short rule of two or three years, according to Allen, Smenkhkare became pharaoh. Under this theory, both pharaohs succeeded Akhenaten: Neferneferuaten as the chosen successor and Smenkhkare as a rival with the same prenomen, perhaps to challenge Akhenaten's unacceptable choice. However, a hieratic inscription discovered at the limestone quarry at Dayr Abu Hinnis suggests that Nefertiti was alive in Akhenaten's Year 16, undermining this theory. There, Nefertiti is referred to as the pharaoh's Great Royal Wife.

Furthermore, work is believed to have halted on the Amarna tombs shortly after Year 13. Therefore, the depiction of Smenkhkare in Meryre's tomb must date to no later than Year 13. For him to have succeeded Neferneferuaten means that aside from a lone wine docket, he left not a single trace over the course of five to six years.

Meritaten as successor to Smenkhkare
In comparison to the theories mentioned above, Marc Gabolde has advocated that Smenkhkare's Great Royal Wife, Meritaten, became Pharaoh Neferneferuaten after her husband's death. The main argument against this is a box (Carter 001k) from Tutankhamun's tomb that lists Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, and Meritaten as three separate individuals. There, Meritaten is explicitly listed as Great Royal Wife. Further, various private stelae depict the female pharaoh with Akhenaten. However under this theory, Akhenaten would be dead by the time Meritaten became pharaoh as Neferneferuaten. Gabolde suggest that these depictions are retrospective. Yet since these are private cult stelae it would require a number of people to get the same idea to commission a retrospective, commemorative stela at the same time. Allen notes that the everyday interaction portrayed in them more likely indicates two living people.

Identity and confusion over regnal name
There has been much confusion in identifying artifacts related to Smenkhkare because another pharaoh from the Amarna Period bears the same or similar royal titulary. In 1978, it was proposed that there were two individuals using the same name: a male king Smenkhkare and a female Neferneferuaten. Neferneferuaten has since been identified as a female pharaoh who ruled during the Amarna Period and is generally accepted as a separate person from Smenkhkare. Neferneferuaten is theorized to be either Nefertiti, Meritaten, or, more rarely, Neferneferuaten Tasherit.

After their initial rediscovery, Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were assumed to be the same person because of their similar prenomen (throne name). Typically, throne names in Ancient Egypt were unique. Thus, the use of similar titulary led to a great deal of confusion among Egyptologists. For the better part of a century, the repetition of throne names was taken to mean that Smenkhare changed his name to Neferneferuaten at some point, probably upon the start of his sole reign. Indeed, Petrie makes exactly that distinction in his 1894 excavation notes. Later, a different set of names emerged using the same: "Ankhkheperure mery Neferkheperure [Akhenaten] Neferneferuaten mery Wa en Re [Akhenaten]".

Smenkhkare can be differentiated from Neferneferutaten by the lack of an epithet associated with his throne name. James Peter Allen pointed out the name 'Ankhkheperure' nearly always included the epithet 'desired of Wa en Re' (referring to Akhenaten) when coupled with the nomen 'Neferneferuaten'. There were no occasions where 'Ankhkheprure plus epithet' occurred alongside 'Smenkhkare;' nor was plain 'Ankhkheperure' ever found associated with the nomen Neferneferuaten. However, differentiating between the two individuals when 'Ankhkheperure' occurs alone is complicated by the Pawah graffito from TT139. Here, Ankhkheperure is used alone twice when referring to Neferneferutaten. In some instances, a female version 'Ankhetkheperure' occurs; in this case the individual is Neferneferuaten.

The issue of a female Neferneferuaten was finally settled for the remaining holdouts when Allen confirmed Marc Gabolde's findings that objects from Tutankhamun's tomb originally inscribed for Neferneferuaten which had been read using the epithet "...desired of Akhenaten" were originally inscribed as Akhet-en-hyes or "effective for her husband."

Akhenaten and Smenkhkare as homosexual couple
Theories arose when the two pharaohs Smenkhkare and Neferneferutaten were still considered the same, male person, that he and Akhenaten could have been homosexual lovers or even married. This is because of artwork clearly showing Akhenaten in familiar, intimate poses with another pharaoh. For example, stele in Berlin depicts a pair of royal figures, one in the double crown and the other, who appears to be a woman, in the khepresh crown. However, the set of three empty cartouches can only account for the names of a king and queen. This has been interpreted to mean that at one point Nefertiti may have been a coregent, as indicated by the crown, but not entitled to full pharaonic honors such as the double cartouche. Furthermore, it is now accepted that other artifacts similar to this one are depictions of Akhenaten and Neferneferuaten.

Nefertiti as Smenkhkare
Alternatively, once the feminine traces were discovered in some versions of the throne names, it was proposed that Nefertiti was masquerading as Smenkhkare and later changed her name back to Neferneferuaten. There would be precedent for presenting a female pharaoh as a male, such as Hatshepsut had done generations prior.

Evidence

 * The Coregency Stela U.C. 410, now in the Petrie Museum. Although badly damaged, partial inscriptions survive. It shows the double cartouche of Akhenaten alongside that of Ankhkheperure mery-Waenre Neferneferuaten Akhet-en-hyes ('effective for her husband'). The inscription originally bore the single cartouche of Nefertiti, which was erased along with a reference to Meritaten to make room for the double cartouche of King Neferneferuaten.
 * Line drawings of a block depicting the nearly complete names of King Smenkhkare and Meritaten as Great Royal Wife were recorded before the block was lost.
 * Flinders Petrie documented six rings bearing only the Throne Name 'Ankhkheperure' (the other six with the same Throne Name show an epithet: or Mery Neferkheperure, no. 92 and no. 93; or Mery Waenre, no. 94, 95, and 96) and two more bearing 'Smenkhkare' (with another one bearing the epithet Djeserkheperu, which belonged to Smenkhkare) in excavations of the palace. One example is Item UC23800 in the Petrie Museum which clearly shows the "djeser" and "kheperu" elements and a portion of the 'ka' glyph. Pendlebury found more when the town was cleared.
 * A ring bearing his name is found at Malqata in Thebes.
 * Perhaps the most magnificent was a vast hall more than 125 metres square and including over 500 pillars. This late addition to the central palace has been known as the Hall of Rejoicing, Coronation Hall, or simply Smenkhkare Hall because a number of bricks stamped Ankhkheperure in the House of Rejoicing in the Aten were found at the site.
 * Indisputable images for Smenkhkare are rare. Aside from the tomb of Meryre II, a carved and painted relief showing an Amarna king and queen in a garden is often attributed to him. It is completely without inscription, but since they do not look like Tutankhamun or his queen, they are often assumed to be Smenkhkare and Meritaten, but Akhenaten and Nefertiti are sometimes put forth as well.
 * An inscription in the tomb of Pairi, TT139, by the other Ankhkheperure (Neferneferuaten), mentions a functioning Amen 'temple of Ankhkheperure'.

Several items from the tomb of Tutankhamun bear the name of Smenkhkare:

 * A linen garment decorated with 39 gold daisies along with 47 other sequins bearing the prenomen of Smenkhkare alongside Meritaten's name.
 * Carter number 101s is a linen shawl with the name Ankhkheperure
 * A compound bow (Carter 48h) and the mummy bands (Carter 256b) were both reworked for Tutankhamun.
 * Less certain, but much more impressive is the second anthropoid coffin containing the mummy of Tutankhamun. The face depicted is much more square than that of the other coffins and quite unlike the gold mask or other depictions of Tutankhamun. The coffin is rishi style and inlaid with coloured glass, a feature only found on this coffin and one from KV55, the speculated resting place for the mummy of Smenkhkare. Since both cartouches show signs of being reworked, Dodson and Harrison conclude this was most likely originally made for Smenkhkare and reinscribed for Tutankhamun.

As the evidence came to light in bits and pieces at a time when Smenkhkare was assumed to have also used the name Neferneferuaten, perhaps at the start of his sole reign, it sometimes defied logic. For instance, when the mortuary wine docket surfaced from the 'House of Smenkhkare (deceased)', it seemed to appear that he changed his name back before he died.

Since his reign was brief, and he may never have been more than co-regent, the evidence for Smenkhkare is not plentiful, but nor is it quite as insubstantial as it is sometimes made out to be. It certainly amounts to more than just 'a few rings and a wine docket' or that he 'appears only at the very end of Ahkenaton's reign in a few monuments' as is too often portrayed.

Death and burial
The location of Smenkhkare's burial is unconfirmed. He has been put forward as a candidate for the mummy discovered in KV55, which rested in a desecrated rishi coffin with the owner's name removed. It is generally accepted that the coffin was originally intended for a female and later reworked to accommodate a male. Over the past century, the chief candidates for this individual have been either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare. The case for Smenkhkare comes mostly from the presumed age of the mummy (see below) which, between ages 18 and 26 would not fit Akhenaten who reigned for 17 years and had fathered a child near by his first regnal year. There is nothing in the tomb positively identified as belonging to Smenkhkare, nor is his name found there. The tomb is certainly not befitting any king, but even less so for Akhenaten.

In 1980, James Harris and Edward F. Wente conducted X-ray examinations of New Kingdom Pharaoh's crania and skeletal remains, which included the supposed mummified remains of Smenkhkare. The authors determined that the royal mummies of the 18th Dynasty bore strong similarities to contemporary Nubians with slight differences.

Initial studies conducted on the KV55 mummy indicated that the individual was a young man with no apparent abnormalities in his mid-twenties or younger. Another study used craniofacial analysis and examined past x-rays on several 18th Dynasty mummies. That study found close cranial similarities between the mummies of Tutankhamun, KV55 and Thutmose IV. In addition, seriological tests published in Nature in 1974 indicated that the KV55 mummy and Tutankhamun shared the same rare blood type. This information led Egyptologists to conclude that the KV55 mummy was either the father or brother of Tutankhamun. A brother seemed more likely since the age would only be old enough to plausibly father a child at the upper extremes.

However, the academic debate was believed concluded following a 2010 genetic study performed by Zahi Hawass that determined that the parents of Tutankhamun were likely the KV55 mummy and “The Younger Lady” mummy from KV35. Chief among the genetic results was, "The statistical analysis revealed that the mummy KV55 is most probably the father of Tutankhamun (probability of 99.99999981%), and KV35 Younger Lady could be identified as his mother (99.99999997%)." The study further identified the two mummies as children of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. CT scans also performed on the KV55 mummy indicated that his age at the time of death was likely higher than previous estimates, based on the reveal of age-related degeneration in the spine and osteoarthritis in the knees and spine. These estimates placed the mummy's age at death closer to 40 years than 25. This led to further belief that the mummy was in fact Akhenaten.

However, evidence to support the much older claim was not provided beyond the single point of spinal degeneration. Other scholars still dispute Hawass's assessment of the mummy's age and the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten. Where Filer and Strouhal relied on multiple indicators to determine the younger age, the new study cited one point to indicate a much older age. One letter to the JAMA editors came from Arizona State University bioarchaeologist Brenda J. Baker. The content was retold on the Archaeology News Network website and is representative of a portion of the dissent:

"A specialist in human osteology and paleopathology, Baker takes issue with the identification of the skeletonized mummy KV55 as Tutankhamun’s father, Akhenaten. The authors [Hawass et al in JAMA] place this individual’s age at the time of death at 35–45, despite producing no evidence that repudiates well-known prior examinations citing the age in the 18–26 range.

These earlier analyses – documented with written descriptions, photographs and radiographs – show a pattern of fused and unfused epiphyses (caps on ends of growing bones) throughout the skeleton, indicating a man much younger than Akhenaten is believed to have been at the time of his death. Baker also uses a photograph of the pubic symphysis of the pelvis to narrow the age of KV55 to 18–23 based on recent techniques used in osteology and forensic anthropology."

An examination of the KV55 mummy was conducted in 1998 by Czech anthropologist Eugene Strouhal. He published his conclusions in 2010 where he 'utterly excluded the possibility of Akhenaten':

"[T]he unambiguous male skeleton from Tomb 55 proved decisively by a long list of biological developmental features his age at death to be in the range of 19–22 years which fully agrees with the results of the previous determination by Harrison (1966)... He did not possess the slightest dental pathology and not even the onset of degenerative changes in the spine and joints."

title: Smenkhkare


text:
Archer Daniels Midland

The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM, is an American multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The company operates more than 270 plants and 420 crop procurement facilities worldwide, where cereal grains and oilseeds are processed into products used in food, beverage, nutraceutical, industrial, and animal feed markets worldwide.

ADM ranked No. 35 in the 2023 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations.

The company also provides agricultural storage and transportation services. The American River Transportation Company along with ADM Trucking, Inc., are subsidiaries of ADM.

ADM has been the subject of significant media attention and infamy over the years with its various scandals, one inspiring a novel and subsequent film The Informant!.

Early history
In 1902, John W. Daniels started a linseed crushing business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. George A. Archer joined the operation the next year, and in 1905 the firm's name officially became the Archer-Daniels Linseed Company. In 1923, Archer-Daniels Linseed Company acquired Midland Linseed Products Company and then incorporated as the Archer Daniels Midland Company. The new corporation had total assets exceeding $11 million and controlled just over a third (35%) of the total linseed mill capacity within the United States.

In 1924, ADM was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. A series of acquisitions over the next several years expanded the company's oil processing capabilities and agricultural operations, and a grain division was established in 1927. In 1930, ADM purchased control of the flour milling company Commander-Larabee Corp., which was capable of producing 32,000 barrels of flour per day. In 1934 the company began operating its first continuous solvent extraction plant in Chicago, Illinois and could now produce soybean oil. The rapid development of similar extraction plants soon followed.

By 1952, Archer Daniel Midland's workforce had expanded to 5,000 employees, and by 1952 the company was operating overseas and manufacturing over 700 products.

In 1962, the company acquired a trademark for "ADM" and began referring to itself by those initials. In 1965, ADM registered the original patent for textured vegetable protein and began producing the soy flour product at its Decatur East Plant by 1966.

In 1966, Dwayne Andreas and his brother Lowell Andreas became minority shareholders in ADM. In 1969, ADM relocated its headquarters from Minneapolis to Decatur, Illinois, a location closer to the company's soybean processing operations. At this time, it was already considered one of the world's largest agribusiness company, with a labor force of more than 24,000 employees.

Dwayne Andreas period (1970–1997)
Dwayne Andreas was named CEO of ADM in 1970, and two years later was elected chairman of the company's board. Under his leadership, Archer Daniels Midland acquired many smaller agricultural companies and expanded into international markets, eventually becoming one of the world's largest agricultural processing companies. During this period, the company's soybean exports increased from $1.5 billion to $7 billion.

In 1974, ADM made its first expansion into Europe and South America when the company acquired soybean plants in Holland and Brazil.

In 1982, ADM established international grain operations when it purchased a portion of Toepfer International, a Germany-based grain trading firm.

In 1989, ADM purchased Collingwood Grain Inc. based in Hutchinson Kansas, adding 48 million bushels of grain storage at 36 terminal elevators. Dwayne Andreas stepped down from his position as CEO in 1997 and was succeeded by his nephew G. Allen Andreas. The transition occurred a year after the company pleaded guilty to price-fixing.

2001–present
In 2001, Paul B. Mulhollem became the company's president. In December 2001, ADM completed the first U.S. commercial sale to Cuba since the embargo was imposed in October 1960. The next year ADM sponsored a major agribusiness show in Havana, where the company signed a $10 million contract with Cuba’s food import agency, Alimport, to deliver rice, cooking oil, and soy.

In March 2006, G. Allen Andreas announced he was stepping down as CEO. Later, in May 2006, Patricia A. Woertz became the company's chief executive officer. In February 2007, Woertz was elected chairman of the board at ADM. In 2012, the company sought to acquire strategic holdings to support serving Asian markets through the acquisition of GrainCorp, an Australian grain firm with a network of storage and port facilities in Australia. On November 28, 2013, the acquisition was blocked by the Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey after Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board failed to reach a consensus recommendation.

The company moved its headquarters to Chicago in 2014.

That same year, ADM completed its acquisition of Toepfer International, Germany's largest grain trader, and renamed the company ADM Germany GmbH. The company also announced that it would buy Swiss-German natural ingredient company Wild Flavors for $3 billion, a move aimed at expanding ADM into health-oriented food sectors.

ADM announced the appointment of current CEO Juan R. Luciano on November 5, 2014. Luciano initially joined the company in 2011 as chief operating officer. Under Luciano's leadership, the company restructured its business segments and pursued an aggressive strategy of acquisitions that expanded its human and animal nutrition business. In October 2015, ADM announced the sale of its global cocoa business to Olam International. The sale was valued at about $1.2 billion. Approximately 1,500 employees transferred to Olam with the sale. In January 2017, ADM agreed to sell its crop risk services (insurance) unit to Validus Holdings for $127.5 million.

In October 2016, ADM launched its venture capital arm, ADM Ventures, which focused initially on alternative proteins.

The Wall Street Journal reported in January 2018 that ADM had approached Bunge Ltd. about a takeover, with details "unclear" at the time. At that point, Bunge had a market value of about $9.8 billion, and was also being pursued by Glencore PLC for acquisition, since May 2017. In January 2019, Juan Luciano clarified the company didn't need a "monster transformational transaction" and a deal was never made.

In March 2018, ADM restructured its business segments into four units: carbohydrate solutions, nutrition, oilseeds, and origination or ag services. The next year, the company announced it was consolidating the ag services and oilseed units.

In September 2021, ADM acquired a 75% stake in four pet food companies for a total of $450 million, including PetDine, Pedigree Ovens, NutraDine, and The Pound Bakery. Later that year in November, ADM acquired Serbian soy agribusiness Sojaprotein, and completed its acquisition of Deerland Probiotics & Enzymes.

In 2022, ADM saw rising profits due to the war in Ukraine and the global food crisis.

Environmental record
The company has been the subject of several major federal lawsuits related to air pollution. In 2001, it agreed to pay a $1.46 million fine for violating federal and Illinois clean-air regulations at its Decatur feed plant and to spend $1.6 million to reduce air pollution there. In 2003, the company settled federal air pollution complaints related to its efforts to avoid New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act that require pollution control upgrades when a plant is modernized. The company paid $4.5 million in penalties and more than $6 million to support environmental projects. In addition, ADM agreed to eliminate more than 60,000 tons of emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants from 42 plants in 17 states, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Carbon footprint
ADM reported Total CO2e emissions (Direct + Indirect) for the twelve months ending December 2022 at 15,630 Kt (-370 year over year). In April 2020, ADM announced that by 2035, the company intends to have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, and its energy intensity by 15%.

Underground storage
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the economic stimulus package developed in response to the Great Recession, included a $3.4 billion allocation for the Department of Energy's office of fossil fuel, the majority of which was slated for the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) program. Through this ICCS initiative, the Department of Energy co-sponsored two large-scale capture and storage projects at ADM facilities in Illinois. These projects were intended to test the feasibility of underground disposal of carbon dioxide emissions.

In November 2011, the first of these projects, the Illinois Basin - Decatur Project (IBDP), began operation. The project involved injecting carbon captured at an ADM biofuel facility into Mount Simon Sandstone, a saline reservoir. This project was carried out by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium at the University of Illinois. The Department of Energy provided $66.7 million in funding, with other funding coming from private partners.

After three years of injection, it was determined that the sandstone was accepting in an easier fashion than was originally expected. In 2017, operations began on a larger project, the Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Project (IL-CCS), which again involved injecting carbon into Mount Simon Sandstone, but this time at a different location and at a much higher volume. Whereas the first project involved injecting one million tons of carbon underground over three years, the IL-CCS project involved storing that same amount in only one year. The Department of Energy contributed $141 million to the project, while the private sector cost share amounted to over $66 million. Other partners included Richland Community College and the Illinois State Geological Survey.

In November 2020, Investigate Midwest reported that the Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Project had not reached its milestone of one million tons stored and had only stored approximately half that amount, and that carbon emissions from the Decatur facility had actually increased from 4.2 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2016, the year before the project launched, to 4.4 million in 2019. The United States Department of Energy responded that the agency wasn't concerned about the project reaching the stated goals, as ADM successfully demonstrated that the storage technologies work and could be utilized for future projects.

In August 2021, ADM announced that its US flour milling operations had achieved net carbon neutral status, in part due to the Decatur capture and storage project.

In March 2023, the Decatur City Council voted unanimously to allow ADM to expand its carbon sequestration program onto city land, with the company paying the city $450 per acre of land. The agreement enabled ADM to inject liquified carbon dioxide into "pore space" 1.25 miles under land owned by the city of Decatur.

Regenerative agriculture
In September 2022, PepsiCo and ADM established a partnership on regenerative agriculture projects that would increase the practice across their North American supply chains and help the companies meet carbon reduction goals. In July 2023, ADM launched an expansion of the program, which offers producers financial incentives and technical support to implement regenerative practices. As of December 2023, the company had allocated nearly 2 million acres of land within its supply chain for the program.

Products
Products include oils and meal from soybeans, cottonseed, sunflower seeds, canola, peanuts, flaxseed, Palm kernel, and DAG oil, as well as corn germ, corn gluten feed pellets, syrup, starch, glucose, dextrose, crystalline dextrose, high fructose corn syrup sweeteners, chocolate, ethanol, and wheat flour. End uses are consumption by people, livestock, and additives for fuel. In January 2008, ADM signed a three-year memorandum of understanding with Daimler AG and Bayer CropScience to explore the use of jatropha as a feedstock for biofuel. Natural flavors were added to ADM's product portfolio with the 2014 acquisition of Wild Flavors and vanilla products were added through the acquisition of Rodelle in 2018.

Long known as a food and ingredients company, it has also invested in fuel production. ADM nearly doubled capital spending in its 2007 budget to an estimated $1.12 billion. The increase is planned for bioenergy projects, focusing on bioethanol and biodiesel.

Oilseeds processing
The oilseeds processing segment includes global activities related to the origination, merchandising, crushing, and further processing of oilseeds such as soybeans and soft seeds (cottonseed, sunflower seed, canola, and flaxseed) into vegetable oils and protein meals.

The first quarter of 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, saw the operating profit of Ag Services and Oilseeds (ADM's biggest revenue segment) rise $422 million, or 1.2%.

Corn processing
ADM's corn processing segment is engaged in corn wet milling and dry milling activities, with its asset base primarily located in the central part of the United States. The Corn Processing segment converts corn into sweeteners and starches, and bioproducts. Its products include ingredients used in the food and beverage industry including sweeteners, starch, syrup, glucose (dextrose). Dextrose and starch are used by the Corn Processing segment as feedstocks for its bioproducts operations. In 2021, ADM was ranked second on the Top 50 Global Sweetener Companies list by FoodTalks.

Agricultural services
ADM's agricultural services segment uses its U.S. grain elevator, global transportation network, and port operations to buy, store, clean, and transport agricultural commodities, such as oilseeds, corn, wheat, milo, oats, rice, and barley, and resells these commodities primarily as food and feed ingredients and as raw materials for the agricultural processing industry.

Investor services
ADM investor services, Inc. is a registered futures commission merchant and a clearing member of all principal commodities exchanges in the U.S. ADM Investor Services International, Ltd., a member of commodity exchanges and clearing houses in Europe, and ADMIS Hong Kong Limited, offer broker services in Europe and Asia.

Sherman antitrust violation
In 1920 the US Department of Justice brought suit against the National Linseed Oil Trust for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Several co-defendants were named, including the Archer-Daniels Manufacturing Company. The suit alleged all of these companies were acting in collusion to raise prices, citing a spike in linseed oil costs between 1916 and 1918, when the price rose from $.50 per gallon to $1.80.

Price fixing
In 1993, the company was the subject of a lysine price-fixing investigation by the U.S. Justice Department. Senior ADM executives were indicted on criminal charges for engaging in price-fixing within the international lysine market. In a tape played at the trial, ADM's President said that a single phrase inspired the company: "Our competitors are our friends. Our customers are the enemy." Three of ADM's top officials, including vice chairman Michael Andreas were eventually sentenced to federal prison in 1999. Moreover, in 1997, the company was fined $100 million, the largest antitrust fine in U.S. history at the time. Mark Whitacre, FBI informant and whistleblower of the lysine price-fixing conspiracy, would also find himself in legal trouble for embezzling money from ADM during his time as an informant for the FBI. In addition, according to ADM's 2005 annual report, a settlement was reached under which ADM paid $400 million in 2005 to settle a class action antitrust suit. The Informant is a nonfiction thriller book based on this event, which was later adapted into the 2009 film The Informant!.

Tax dodging
A noteworthy case of transfer mispricing came to light in 2011 in Argentina involving the world's four largest grain traders: ADM, Bunge, Cargill and LDC. Argentina's revenue and customs service began an investigation into the four companies when prices for agricultural commodities spiked in 2008 and yet very little profit for the four companies had been reported to the office. As a result of the investigation, it was alleged that the companies had submitted false declarations of sales and routed profits through tax havens or through their headquarters. In some cases, they were said to have used phantom firms to buy grain and had inflated costs in Argentina in order to reduce the recorded profits earned in the country. According to the country's revenue and customs service, the outstanding taxes amounted to almost US$1 billion. The companies involved have denied the allegations. To date, the Argentinian tax authorities have not replied to the Swiss NGO Public Eye’s request regarding the current state of the case. In its 2018 annual report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Bunge mentioned provisions which suggest that the case is still ongoing: "[A]s of December 31, 2018, Bunge's Argentine subsidiary had received income tax assessments relating to 2006 through 2009 of approximately 1,276 million Argentine pesos (approximately $34 million), plus applicable interest on the outstanding amount of approximately 4,246 million Argentine pesos (approximately $113 million )."

Violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
On December 20, 2013, the SEC announced that it had charged ADM for failing to prevent illicit payments (bribes) made by its foreign subsidiaries to Ukrainian government officials in violation of the FCPA. Alfred C. Toepfer International Ukraine Ltd. (ACTI Ukraine), plead guilty in the Central District of Illinois to one count of conspiracy in violation of the anti-bribery sections of the FCPA. They agreed to pay $17.8 million in fines. The Department of Justice also entered into a non-prosecution agreement with ADM due to the company's failure to implement a system of internal financial controls, addressing improper payments both in Ukraine and by an ADM joint venture in Venezuela. ADM agreed to pay more than $36 million to settle the SEC's charges, bringing the total amount paid to over $54 million.

The Swiss NGO Public Eye elaborated the case.

Sonny Perdue land sale
In 2021, an investigation by the Washington Post found that ADM had sold land to incoming Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue in 2017 at a fraction of its estimated value. Ethics lawyers had legal and ethical concerns about the sale, questioning whether it amounted to bribery. According to the Post, ADM "sold the land at a small fraction of its estimated value just as it stood to benefit from a friendly secretary of agriculture."

Accounting practices
In 2020, ADM's board agreed to have bonuses of senior executives tied to the nutrition segment's success—a unit which accounts for less than 10 percent of the company's revenue—replacing the standard practice of tying the award to adjusted earnings. In January 2023, its seven top executives collectively received shares worth about $72 million for exceeding those performance metrics.

In January 2024, ADM disclosed that the SEC requested information regarding its accounting practices at its nutrition business on "intersegment transactions." ADM suspended its CFO, postponed its quarterly earnings report and annual filings, and said it was cooperating with the SEC investigation. In March 2024, FBI agents delivered grand jury subpoenas to current and former employees of ADM, authorized by officials at the U.S. attorney's Manhattan office.

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

title: Archer Daniels Midland


text:
Shalom Carmy

Shalom Carmy (born May 1, 1949) is an Orthodox rabbi teaching Jewish studies and philosophy at Yeshiva University, where he is Chair of Bible and Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva College and an affiliated scholar at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He is also Editor Emeritus of Tradition, an Orthodox theological journal, and formerly wrote a regular column in First Things.

A Brooklyn native, he is a prominent Modern Orthodox theologian, historian, and philosopher. He received his B.A. in 1969 and M.S. from Yeshiva University, and received his rabbinic ordination from its affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, studying under Rabbis Aharon Lichtenstein and Joseph Soloveitchik. He has edited some of R. Soloveitchik's work for publication. Carmy has written many articles on Biblical theology, Jewish thought, Orthodoxy in the 20th century and the role of liberal arts in a Torah education. He edited "Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations" (ISBN 1-56821-450-2), “Jewish Perspectives on the Experience of Suffering” as well as several other works. He writes a regular personal column in Tradition, and contributes regularly on Jewish and general subjects to First Things and other journals. In addition to his exegetical and analytic work, Carmy's theological contribution is distinguished by preoccupation with the way religious doctrine and practice express themselves in the life of the individual.

Thought
One of Carmy's most consequential essays has attempted to develop what he has called "literary-theological approach" to modern biblical scholarship, including biblical archaeology and higher textual criticism. Carmy contemplates a system of biblical study and engagement by Orthodox individuals with aspects of biblical scholarship with the ability to digest, integrate, and build upon an authentic engagement with Jewish thought and modern academic approaches to biblical literature without falling into apologetics.

"[W]e assert the conviction that Bible is to be encountered as the word of God, rather than primarily as the object of academic investigation; we also refer to the authoritative presence of the interpretive tradition. The adjective literary comes to stress that understanding the word of God is not only a matter of apprehending propositions, but also of hearing them in their literary and historical context; secondarily, we are reminded that the language we use to articulate our insight is also an integral aspect of our study..."

First, Carmy suggests that the Orthodox perspective on biblical literature should be integrated into the study of bible by student from the Orthodox community in entering into engagement with the academy. This outlook serves to lay the groundwork for further speculation and informs the study by the whole academy. He warns that failure to engage is not an option.

"[I]f the university orientation becomes the paradigm and pattern for our study, then the quasi-critical and speculative subjects peripheral to the study of devar Ha-Shem-issues of authorship, dating, historical background and the like will inexorably work their way to the top of our syllabi. And if that is the case, then the marginality of Bible in the curriculum will necessarily be reinforced, as student and layman come to experience Tanakh not as the occasion for confrontation with God and with ourselves, but as a complex of preoccupations, a sideshow of "problems," a vermiform appendix in the body politic of Torah, useless in itself, worthy of attention only when it causes pain or becomes infected."

Carmy suggests that Orthodox Bible student should understand the modern methodologies of the academy, but should balance this with an a priori reverence for scripture and simultaneously voice a respectful dissension to academic methodology's conclusions when they are unchallenged simply because they originate from the academy where necessary. Carmy suggests that conflicts between findings of the academy and traditional scholarship cannot be simply papered over, but that "so long as we believe that there is a solution, [challenging academic findings] need not affect the way we study Bible day by day." The second aspect of this approach Carmy presents as built off his interpretation of the mystic-philosophical approach of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook towards potentially problematic academic interpretations of religious literature. He asserts that we must "build a palace of Torah" on top of the challenges. Where appropriate, the observant scholar should assume an ability to integrate enlightening aspects of modern scholarship into formulations of Jewish Theology (Carmy assumes the Tanakh to be the core prism through which any vision of Jewish Theology must pass ), but should refrain from hinging theology on any particular discovery.

Early in his teaching career he devised an imaginary television series, Police Philosopher, about a philosopher who gets involved in police cases. This is part a running theme in Carmy's teaching where he touches on popular film or literature as an explanatory device for a given topic. Carmy has said that "Police Philosopher was born the day I spied an ad in a professional journal, seeking a professor of philosophy prepared to teach at a local precinct so that the cops could get college credit without having to be on campus. Wouldn't it be interesting if the professor got involved in police cases?"

title: Shalom Carmy


text:
Enigma (2007 video game)

Enigma is a puzzle video game based on Oxyd, and is released under the GNU GPL-2.0-or-later. Enigma continues to be very popular as an open source multi-platform derivative of Oxyd now that Oxyd is no longer maintained. The open source fangame Enigma has been praised in reviews.

Enigma is a marble game. Landscapes usually take the form of logic puzzles, although frequently, dexterity with the pointing device (the only form of input) is also required. The game is based on a traditional square grid map (2D computer graphics) and a realistic physics simulation.

Enigma is cross-platform and available for Mac OS X, GP2X, Microsoft Windows, FreeBSD and Linux (with packages available for several distributions).

Gameplay
Enigma consists of approximately 2500 levels, known as ‘landscapes’, which may be played in any order. The player controls one or more marbles using the mouse, and interacts with the landscape purely through the marble. Levels fall into two broad categories: Oxyd landscapes and Meditation landscapes. Some levels may appear to fall into one category while actually being in the other.

Obstacle course navigation
Apart from the introductory levels that gradually introduce the game's mechanics to the player, each level either contains a puzzle, race, or hazards which the player must solve, win, or avoid. The player risks making the level impossible to solve or having the marble sink, fall down an abyss, or be crushed or otherwise destroyed. The challenges tax the player's problem solving and logic skills, dexterity, patience and speed. These factors determine the overall difficulty of the level. If the player loses a marble, one of the player's lives shown in the form of spare marbles in the inventory is lost. The level automatically restarts from the beginning when all lives are lost, with the Oxyd colours randomly shuffled again. Some levels even have mazes the player must navigate.

Scoring system
Enigma also contains a score system which tracks how fast the player finishes the level. When a level is completed, a "personal record" for the level is made. All levels have two records which the player can try to beat: PAR (derived from the golf scoring format) and World Record. PAR usually takes some quick doing to achieve and even changes with time in the newer versions. Setting a new World Record is nearly impossible even for the dedicated player except through sheer luck. World Records are usually formed by groups of very dedicated players who have mastered moving the marble quickly but precisely and know the ins and outs of each level.

Score statistics are published every month at the official website of Enigma. The most important categories are World Record Statistics and Solved Level Statistics. Due to the large number of levels and the variety of challenges involved, achieving 100% level completion is no small task. According to in-game published statistics, as of December 2010 only one person has managed 100% level completion.

History
The initial release of Enigma was in 2002. Development started due to a stated desire to keep the spirit of the game Oxyd alive since its publisher had decided to leave the video game market that same year. In 2007, Enigma reached stable version 1.01. Current version is 1.30.

Development
The landscapes are generated by scripts in the Lua programming language, making the creation of complicated landscapes relatively easy. A level editor exists. Composer of the menu music 'Pentagonal Dreams' is Andrew 'Necros' Sega.

Enigma does not currently support the popular cooperative two-player network games that were available with some versions of Oxyd. However, most of the two-player landscapes are playable in single-player.

Reception
Enigma has been praised in reviews as open source fan game and clone of Oxyd. Enigma was selected by Linux Format as "HotPick" in February 2007. It is included in many Linux distributions and is distributed over various freeware outlets. Enigma was downloaded alone over SourceForge between 2011 and May 2017 over 110,000 times according to their download statistic, computerbild.de counted another 30,000 downloads.

Also several video game magazines' cover disks included Enigma as part of Freeware and remake collections, for instance GameStar 06/2005.

title: Enigma (2007 video game)


text:
User:Synthetix

 * Synthetix
 * Location : Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Birthday : August 23 1978
 * Interests : Computers, Internet, video games, History

title: User:Synthetix


text:
Vicky Metcalf Award for Literature for Young People

The Vicky Metcalf Award for Literature for Young People, colloquially called the Vicky, is given annually at the Writers' Trust Awards to a writer or illustrator whose body of work has been "inspirational to Canadian youth". It is a top honour for and.

Vicky Metcalf, a Canadian librarian, established the award "in 1963 to stimulate the writing of literature for Canadian children." Before 2013, the prize was known as the Vicky Metcalf Award for Children's Literature. The award is sponsored by the Metcalf Foundation, whose objective "is to enhance the effectiveness of people and organizations working together to help Canadians imagine and build a just, healthy and creative society." In 2002, the award was taken over by the Writers' Trust of Canada from the Canadian Authors Association.

To be eligible for the award, recipients must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, have published a minimum of four English-language children's book, and have published at least one first-edition book in the previous three years. Winners are selected by a three-person jury and receive $25,000 CAD.


text:
Narita-san

Narita-san (成田山 "Narita mountain") Shinshō-ji (新勝寺 "New victory temple") is a Shingon Buddhist temple located in central Narita, Chiba, Japan. It was founded in 940 by Kanchō Daisōjō, a disciple of Kōbō Daishi. It is a lead temple in the Chisan branch (Chisan-ha 智山派) of New Shingon (Shingi Shingon 新義真言宗), includes a large complex of buildings and grounds, and is one of the best-known temples in the Kantō region. It is dedicated to Ācala (Japanese: Fudō myōō ("Unmovable Wisdom King")) who is usually depicted holding a sword and rope and surrounded by flames. Often called a fire god, he is associated with fire rituals.

Founding
The temple was established in 940 to commemorate the victory of the forces dispatched from the Heian capital to suppress a revolt by the powerful Kantō region samurai, Taira no Masakado. The Shingon priest Kanchō accompanied the force, bringing with him an image of Acala from the Gomadō (Fire Offering Hall) of Takao-san Jingo-ji in Kyōtō. Shingon founder Kōbō Daishi himself was said to have carved the image and used it in Goma sacred fire rituals that helped stop a rebellion during his era. The rebellion in 940 also came to an end just as Kanchō completed a three-week Goma ritual with the same image.

According to legend, the image of Acala became too heavy after the victory to move back to its home base, so a new temple on Narita-san, named Shinshō-ji (New Victory Temple), was built to enshrine it on the spot. The temple maintains that the original image is enshrined in the Main Hall, where it is displayed on special occasions, but art historians date the current image to no earlier than the 13th century.

Expansion
For over 600 years, Narita-san remained a remote, humble, provincial temple—until Tokugawa Ieyasu moved his capital to Edo in 1603. Ieyasu himself credited its abbot with converting him to Buddhism, and assigned the local Sakura Domain daimyō to be responsible for its upkeep. The military and political success associated with the temple may also have appealed to him, and the location of the temple, protecting the unlucky northeast approach to his new capital, corresponded to the position of the head temple of the Tendai sect, Enryaku-ji, relative to the old Heian capital of Kyoto. However, the shogunate did little to support the temple until Tokugawa Ietsuna reconstructed its Main Hall in 1655. That building now serves as a calligraphy classroom. Shingon founder Kōbō Daishi (Kūkai) was famous for his Japanese calligraphy.

But the person most responsible for promoting and enriching Narita-san was Ichikawa Danjūrō I (1660–1704), one of the most influential actors of the golden age of kabuki. Born into a wealthy merchant family with ties to the Narita area, Danjūrō relished his family's former samurai status by playing heroic characters doing noble deeds, developing in the process a rough, manly style known as aragoto. He was also a devout Buddhist with a particular devotion to Fudō myōō, to whom he gave credit for the safe birth of his son Kuzō, who went on to become Ichikawa Danjūrō II (1688–1758). Kuzō played such a ferocious and convincing Fudō in his stage debut in 1697 that the audience responded with prayers and offerings as if they were before a temple deity. In 1703, Danjūrō I wrote and starred in another play specifically about the Fudō at Shinshō-ji, The Avatars of the Fudō of Narita Temple, whose opening was timed to coincide with the traveling exhibit (出開帳 degaichō) of sacred images from Narita-san in Edo. Danjūrō's immense popularity and his attachment to Fudō myōō at Shinshō-ji prompted many commoners of all classes to make regular pilgrimages from Edo to Narita-san.

Important buildings
Several of the structures at Narita-san temple have been designated National Important Cultural Properties: the Kōmyō-dō, built in 1701 and dedicated to the Dainichi Nyorai Buddha (Vairocana), the principal image of Shingon Buddhism; the three-storied, 25-meter high pagoda built in 1712; the Niōmon main gate, built in 1830; the Shaka-dō (Shakyamuni Hall), built in 1858; and the Gaku-dō (Votive Tablet Hall), built in 1861. The Kaizan-dō (Open Mountain Hall) shrine to Kanchō Daisōjō was built in 1938, in time for the temple's 1000th anniversary. Narita-san Park (16.5 hectares) opened in 1928, the current Great Main Hall dates from 1968, a 58-meter high Great Pagoda (Daitō) was added in 1984, and a hall dedicated to Prince Shōtoku, regarded as the father of Japanese Buddhism, was erected in 1992.

Regular events
Large crowds attend the major annual events at Narita-san: Oshogatsu in January, Setsubun in February, the taiko drum festival in April, firelight performances of Noh plays in May, the Gion Festival in July, Obon in August; Shichigosan in November; and the annual burning of amulets in late December. People come to Narita-san Park to view ume blossoms in the early spring and autumn leaves in the late fall. In addition, there are chantings of the Sutra of Great Wisdom (Daihannya-e) in January, May, and September; and temple fairs are held on the 1st, 15th, and 28th day of each month. Several times a day, wooden amulets are ceremonially burned in Goma rituals.

Tourism
Narita-san has been a favorite site for excursions and pilgrimages by citizens of the nearby metropolitan area ever since the Tokugawa shōguns moved the national capital to Edo in 1603. After nearby Narita International Airport became the primary international hub for Japanese air traffic in the late 1970s, Narita-san also began to attract increasing numbers of foreign tourists, especially those who have a long layovers in transit. The airport is just a short train ride from either JR East Narita Station or Keisei Narita Station. From each station, it is just a short walk to the temple, along picturesque streets with many small shops selling snacks and other foodstuffs, as well as good-luck charms and other souvenirs, such as Daruma dolls.

title: Narita-san


text:
Duke of Hamilton

Duke of Hamilton is a title in the Peerage of Scotland, created in April 1643. It is the senior dukedom in that peerage (except for the Dukedom of Rothesay held by the sovereign's eldest son), and as such its holder is the premier peer of Scotland, as well as being head of both the House of Hamilton and the House of Douglas. The title, the town of Hamilton in Lanarkshire, and many places around the world are named after members of the Hamilton family. The ducal family's surname, originally "Hamilton", is now "Douglas-Hamilton". Since 1711, the dukedom has been held together with the Dukedom of Brandon in the Peerage of Great Britain, and the dukes since that time have been styled Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, along with several other subsidiary titles.

Overview
The titles held by the current duke of Hamilton and Brandon are:

Peerage of Scotland

 * 16th Duke of Hamilton (created 1643)
 * 13th Marquess of Douglas (created 1633)
 * 16th Marquess of Clydesdale (created 1643)
 * 23rd Earl of Angus (created 1389)
 * 13th Earl of Angus (created 1633)
 * 15th Earl of Lanark (created 1639)
 * 16th Earl of Arran and Cambridge (created 1643)
 * 13th Lord Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest (created 1633)
 * 15th Lord Machanshyre and Polmont (created 1639)
 * 16th Lord Aven and Innerdale (created 1643)

Peerage of Great Britain

 * 13th Duke of Brandon, in the County of Suffolk (created 1711)
 * 13th Baron Dutton, in the County of Chester (created 1711)

Other offices and duties
The duke of Hamilton and Brandon is the hereditary keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the official royal residence in Scotland, where he maintains large private quarters. He is also, as Lord Abernethy and in this respect successor to the Gaelic earls of Fife, the hereditary bearer of the Crown of Scotland, a role which the 15th duke performed at the inauguration of the Scottish Parliament in 1999,  as did the 16th duke at the State Opening of Parliament, 30 June 2011. As Hereditary Bearer of the Crown of Scotland, the 16th Duke also placed the crown upon the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II during a service of remembrance in St Giles' Cathedral on 12 September 2022. Traditionally, the duke of Hamilton enjoys the exclusive right to remove the Scottish Crown Jewels from the City of Edinburgh. He also regularly attends sittings in the Court of Lord Lyon as a hereditary assessor, sitting on the bench beside Lord Lyon.

Courtesy titles
The courtesy titles used by heirs apparent are "Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale" (the eldest son of the duke) and "Earl of Angus" (the eldest son of a marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale). No duke has had a great-grandson in direct line to the titles, but it is likely that the latter would be styled "Lord Abernethy" (the Lordship of Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest being the most senior available title).

Before the dukes succeeded to the Marquessate of Douglas and its subsidiary titles, the heirs apparent were styled initially "Earl of Arran" (which had previously been used as a courtesy title by the marquesses of Hamilton) and later "Marquess of Clydesdale" (the former style then being adopted for a grandson in direct line). The heir apparent to the Earldom of Lanark (before that title merged with the dukedom) was styled "Lord Polmont".

Multiple dukedoms
The duke of Hamilton and Brandon is one of only five British peers to hold more than one dukedom, the others being:
 * the Prince of Wales (who is Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, and Duke of Cambridge);
 * the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry;
 * the Duke of Argyll (who holds two Dukedoms of Argyll); and
 * the Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon

Historically, several other peers have held multiple dukedoms, including the Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle-under-Lyne, the Duke of Argyll and Greenwich, the Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch and the two Dukes of Queensberry and Dover and some other mainly royal dukes.

Lairds of Cadzow
Gilbert de Hameldun is recorded as witnessing a charter confirming the gift of the church at Cragyn to the Abbey of Paisley in 1271. His ancestry is uncertain but he may have been the son of William de Hamilton (third son of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester) and Mary of Strathearn. Gilbert de Hameldun married Isabella Randolph, daughter of Thomas Randolph of Strathdon, Chamberlain of Scotland. His heir was Walter fitz Gilbert. He was governor of Bothwell Castle for the English Crown during the First War of Scottish Independence. Following the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, he gave refuge to the Earl of Hertford and other escapees, only to deliver them and Bothwell up to Edward Bruce. He then became a Bruce partisan. Sometime between 1315 and 1329, Robert the Bruce knighted him and granted him lands in Renfrewshire and the Lothians and Cadzow (present day Hamilton in Lanarkshire), including Cadzow Castle. The lands had previously belonged to John Comyn, who was murdered by Robert the Bruce.

The 1st laird of Cadzow was succeeded as the 2nd laird by his son Sir David fitz Walter. He was a supporter of King David II and fought at the Battle of Neville's Cross (Battle of Durham) where he was captured along with the King. His son David Hamilton, the 3rd laird, was the first to establish Hamilton as the family name. David Hamilton's son Sir John Hamilton became the 4th laird and was, in turn, succeeded as the 5th laird by his son James Hamilton.

Lords Hamilton and Earls of Arran
The 5th laird was succeeded as 6th laird by his son, Sir James Hamilton, who was created a Lord of Parliament as Lord Hamilton on 3 July 1445. In early 1474, he married Princess Mary, Countess of Arran, daughter of King James II and widow of Thomas Boyd, 1st Earl of Arran. He was succeeded by his only legitimate son, James, 2nd Lord Hamilton. In 1490, then aged 15, he married the 13-year-old Elizabeth, Lady Hay, daughter of Alexander Home, 2nd Lord Home and widow of Sir Thomas Hay, Master of Yester, son and heir of John Hay, 1st Lord Hay of Yester. However, it was later discovered that Sir Thomas Hay was still alive and the marriage was annulled. The 2nd Lord married secondly Janet, Lady Livingstone, daughter of Sir David Beaton of Creich and widow of Sir Robert Livingstone of Easter Wemyss and Drumry. He became a Privy Counsellor to King James IV, and helped to arrange his marriage to Princess Margaret, daughter of King Henry VII of England. As a reward, he was created Earl of Arran on 8 August 1503. He was succeeded by his elder son from his second marriage, James, 2nd Earl of Arran. He was Regent of Scotland between 1542 and 1554, and guardian of the young Mary, Queen of Scots. He was created Duc de Châtellerault in the Peerage of France in 1548 for his part in arranging the marriage of Queen Mary to Francis, Dauphin of France. This French Dukedom was forfeited when he switched allegiances in 1559. Emperor Napoleon III "confirmed" this title for the 12th Duke of Hamilton in the 19th century, but although the 12th Duke was heir male of the 2nd Earl, the legal effect of this "confirmation" is doubtful.

The 2nd Earl was succeeded by his eldest son, James, 3rd Earl of Arran, who had been proposed as a husband to Queen Elizabeth I of England in 1561. In 1562 he was declared insane, and in 1581 he resigned the Earldom to James Stewart of Bothwellhaugh. However, in 1586 his resignation was ruled by the Court of Session to be the act of a madman and his honours were restored.

Marquesses and Dukes of Hamilton
The 3rd Earl's younger brother John Hamilton (who was styled Lord Hamilton as is traditional for the younger sons of Earls ) was appointed to administer his brother's estates. He was created Marquess of Hamilton, Earl of Arran and Lord Aven on 17 April 1599. His son, James, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton (who had been created Lord Aberbrothwick (or Arbroath) on 5 May 1608, before he succeeded) moved to England with King James VI, and invested into the Somers Isles Company, an offshoot of the Virginia Company, buying the shares of Lucy Russell, Countess of Bedford. The Parish of Hamilton in the Somers Isles (now Bermuda) is named for him. Upon the death of his uncle in 1609 he succeeded as 4th Earl of Arran (of the 1503 creation) and 5th Lord Hamilton. He was also created Earl of Cambridge and Baron Innerdale in the Peerage of England on 16 June 1619.

His son, James, 3rd Marquess of Hamilton, was created Duke of Hamilton, Marquess of Clydesdale, Earl of Arran and Cambridge and Lord Aven and Innerdale on 12 April 1643, with a special remainder allowing succession through the female line should his and his brother's heirs male fail. His son, Charles, Earl of Arran, died young and the 1st Duke's titles passed to his younger brother, William, 2nd Duke of Hamilton, who had already been created Earl of Lanark and Lord Machanshire and Polmont on 31 March 1639. A surrender and regrant in 1650 allowed these also to be inherited by the 1st Duke's elder daughter. Upon his death in 1651, with no further heirs in the immediate male line, the Dukedom (and the titles created with it), as well as the Earldom of Lanark (and the title created with it), passed to that daughter, Anne, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton. The 1503 Earldom of Arran and the Lordship of Hamilton became dormant, and all the other titles (the Marquessate of Hamilton, the 1599 Earldom of Arran and the Lordships of Hamilton, Aven and Aberbrothwick in the Peerage of Scotland, and the Earldom of Cambridge and the Barony of Innerdale in the Peerage of England) became extinct.

In 1656, the 3rd Duchess married William Douglas, 1st Earl of Selkirk, third son of William Douglas, 1st Marquess of Douglas. He had been created Earl of Selkirk and Lord Daer and Shortcleuch on 4 August 1646. He changed his surname to "Hamilton", and on 20 September 1660 was created Duke of Hamilton, Marquess of Clydesdale, Earl of Arran, Lanark and Selkirk and Lord Aven, Machanshire, Polmont and Daer for life. In 1688, he resigned the Earldom of Selkirk and the Lordship of Daer and Shortcleuch, and those titles were regranted to his second son, with a special remainder designed to prevent them becoming merged with the Dukedom. (See Earl of Selkirk for the subsequent history of those titles, which were eventually inherited by the 12th Duke of Hamilton, becoming separated again from the Dukedom on the death of the 13th Duke in 1940).

On 9 July 1698, the 3rd Duchess resigned all her titles in favour of her eldest son, James, Earl of Arran, who thereby succeeded as 4th Duke in his mother's lifetime (his father had died in 1694). During the lead-up to the Acts of Union 1707, the 4th Duke was the leader of the anti-union party. He was created Duke of Brandon, in the County of Suffolk, and Baron Dutton, in the County of Chester, in the Peerage of Great Britain on 10 September 1711, but was wrongfully refused a summons to the Parliament of Great Britain under that title (although he continued to sit as a Scottish representative peer). He was killed in a celebrated duel with Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun (who also died) in Hyde Park in London on 15 November 1712.

The 4th Duke's son James, 5th Duke of Hamilton was succeeded by his son James, 6th Duke of Hamilton and he by his son James, 7th Duke of Hamilton. In 1761, the 7th Duke's second cousin twice removed, Archibald Douglas, 1st Duke of Douglas, died without an heir. As the Duke of Hamilton, though still using the surname "Hamilton", was patrilineally a "Douglas" (through the 3rd Duchess's husband), the 7th Duke became heir male of the House of Douglas and inherited the Duke of Douglas's subsidiary titles (although not the Dukedom), succeeding as 4th Marquess of Douglas, 14th and 4th Earl of Angus and 4th Lord Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest. He died without issue and was succeeded by his brother Douglas, 8th Duke of Hamilton. He left no sons and the title passed back to his uncle, the 6th Duke's brother, Archibald, 9th Duke of Hamilton. He was succeeded by his son Alexander, 10th Duke of Hamilton and then by his son William, 11th Duke of Hamilton. The 11th Duke's son William, 12th Duke of Hamilton (who changed his surname to "Hamilton Douglas") died without a male heir and the Dukedom passed to his fourth cousin Alfred, 13th Duke of Hamilton, who was descended from the 4th Duke of Hamilton and whose line of the family had adopted the surname "Douglas-Hamilton". His son was Douglas, 14th Duke of Hamilton, who was succeeded by his son Angus, 15th Duke of Hamilton. He died in 2010, and was succeeded by his son, the current Duke, Alexander, 16th Duke of Hamilton.

Succession to the Dukedom of Hamilton
The letters patent that created the Dukedom of Hamilton contained a special remainder. It stipulated that the Dukedom should descend to:

 * 1) heirs male of the body of the grantee, failing which to
 * 2) the grantee's brother and heirs male of the body of the grantee's brother, failing which to
 * 3) the grantee's eldest daughter and heirs male of her body, failing which to
 * 4) nearest heirs whatsoever of the grantee.

As the first Duke and his brother (the second Duke) both died without surviving sons, the succession has, since 1651, been governed by the third rule given, with the dukedom going to the grantee's daughter (the third Duchess) and her heirs male.

House of Douglas
George Douglas, an illegitimate son of William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas, was created Earl of Angus on 9 April 1389.

His descendant, William, 11th Earl of Angus, was created Marquess of Douglas, Earl of Angus and Lord Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest on 14 June 1633.

His great-grandson, Archibald, 3rd Marquess of Douglas, was created Duke of Douglas, Marquess of Angus and Abernethy, Viscount of Jedburgh Forest and Lord Douglas of Bonkill, Prestoun and Robertoun on 10 April 1703.

He died, married but childless, in 1761, at which point the Dukedom of Douglas (and the titles created with it) became extinct, but the Marquessate of Douglas, both Earldoms of Angus and the Lordship of Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest passed to his second cousin twice removed and heir male, James Hamilton, 7th Duke of Hamilton.

Arms
The arms of the current Duke of Hamilton and Brandon are: quarterly: 1st and 4th grand quarters: quarterly: 1st and 4th, Gules three Cinquefoils Ermine (for Hamilton); 2nd and 3rd, Argent a Lymphad with the sails furled proper flagged Gules (for Arran); 2nd and 3rd grand quarters: Argent a Heart Gules imperially crowned Or on a Chief Azure three Mullets of the first (for Douglas).

The achievement has two crests, namely: 1st, on a Ducal Coronet an Oak Tree rutted and penetrated transversely in the main stem by a Frame Saw proper the frame Or (for Hamilton); 2nd, on a Chapeau Gules turned up Ermine a Salamander in flames proper (for Douglas). The supporters are: on either side an Antelope Argent armed unguled ducally gorged and chained Or. Each crest has a motto, namely "Through" (over the 1st crest) and "Jamais Arriere" ("Never Behind") (over the 2nd crest).

Lairds of Cadzow (c. 1315)

 * Sir Walter fitz Gilbert, 1st of Cadzow (c. 1250– bef. 1336)
 * Sir David fitz Walter, 2nd of Cadzow (c. 1310–1374/1378)
 * Sir David Hamilton, 3rd of Cadzow (c. 1333–c. 1392)
 * Sir John Hamilton, 4th of Cadzow (died bef. 1410)
 * Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow (died bef. 1441)
 * Sir James Hamilton, 6th of Cadzow (died 1479) (created Lord Hamilton in 1445)

Lords Hamilton (1445)

 * James Hamilton, 1st Lord Hamilton (died 1479)
 * James Hamilton, 2nd Lord Hamilton (c.1475–1529) (created Earl of Arran in 1503)

Earls of Arran, second Creation (1503)

 * James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Arran (c. 1475–1529)
 * James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran (1515–1575) (also Duke of Châtellerault in the French nobility from 1548 until 1559)
 * James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran (1533/1538–1609) (under attainder 1579–1585)
 * James Hamilton, 4th Earl of Arran (1589–1625) (had already succeeded as 2nd Marquess of Hamilton)

Marquesses of Hamilton (1599)

 * John Hamilton, 1st Marquess of Hamilton (c. 1535–1604) (created Marquess of Hamilton in the lifetime of his elder brother, the 3rd Earl of Arran)
 * James Hamilton, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton, 1st Earl of Cambridge (1589–1625) (succeeded as 4th Earl of Arran in 1609)
 * James Hamilton, 3rd Marquess of Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Cambridge (1606–1649) (created Duke of Hamilton in 1643)
 * Charles Hamilton, Earl of Arran (1634–1640) (eldest son of the 3rd Marquess, predeceased his father in childhood)

Dukes of Hamilton (1643)

 * James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Cambridge (1606–1649)
 * Charles Hamilton, Earl of Arran (died 1640)
 * William Hamilton, 2nd Duke of Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Cambridge (1616–1651)
 * James Hamilton, Lord Polmont (died 1648)
 * Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton (c. 1631–1716) (resigned the Dukedom in her son's favour in 1698)
 * m. William Douglas later Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton, 1st Earl of Selkirk (1635–1694) (created Duke of Hamilton for life in 1660)

 * James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton, 1st Duke of Brandon (1658–1712) (created Duke of Brandon in 1711)
 * James Hamilton, 5th Duke of Hamilton, 2nd Duke of Brandon (1703–1743)
 * James Hamilton, 6th Duke of Hamilton, 3rd Duke of Brandon (1724–1758)
 * James Hamilton, 7th Duke of Hamilton, 4th Duke of Brandon (1755–1769) (succeeded as 4th Marquess of Douglas in 1761)
 * Douglas Hamilton, 8th Duke of Hamilton, 5th Duke of Brandon (1756–1799)
 * Archibald Hamilton, 9th Duke of Hamilton, 6th Duke of Brandon (1740–1819)
 * Alexander Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton, 7th Duke of Brandon (1767–1852)
 * William Hamilton, 11th Duke of Hamilton, 8th Duke of Brandon (1811–1863)
 * William Alexander Louis Stephen Douglas-Hamilton, 12th Duke of Hamilton, 9th Duke of Brandon, 8th Earl of Selkirk (1845–1895)
 * Alfred Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 13th Duke of Hamilton, 10th Duke of Brandon, 9th Earl of Selkirk (1862–1940)
 * Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton, 11th Duke of Brandon (1903–1973)
 * Angus Alan Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton, 12th Duke of Brandon (1938–2010)
 * Alexander Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton, 13th Duke of Brandon (born 1978)

The heir apparent is the present Duke's eldest son Douglas Charles Douglas-Hamilton, Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale (born 2012).

Line of succession

 * Coronet of a British Duke.svg James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton, 1st Duke of Brandon (1660–1724)
 * Lord Anne Hamilton (1709–1748)
 * Admiral Charles Powell Hamilton (1747–1825)
 * Augustus Barrington Price Anne Powell Douglas-Hamilton (1781–1849)
 * Captain Charles Henry Douglas-Hamilton (1808–1873)
 * Coronet of a British Duke.svg Alfred Douglas-Hamilton, 13th Duke of Hamilton, 10th Duke of Brandon, 9th Earl of Selkirk (1862–1940)
 * Coronet of a British Duke.svg Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton, 11th Duke of Brandon (1903–1973)
 * Coronet of a British Duke.svg Angus Douglas-Hamilton, 15th Duke of Hamilton, 12th Duke of Brandon (1938–2010)
 * Coronet of a British Duke.svg Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton, 13th Duke of Brandon (b. 1978)
 * (1). Douglas Charles Douglas-Hamilton, Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale (b. 2012)
 * (2). Lord William Frederick Douglas-Hamilton (b. 2014)
 * (3). Lord Basil George Douglas-Hamilton (b. 2016)
 * (4). Lord John William Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1979)
 * Coronet of a British Earl.svg Coronet of a British Baron.svg James Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 11th Earl of Selkirk, Baron Selkirk of Douglas (1942–2023)
 * Coronet of a British Earl.svg (5). John Andrew Douglas-Hamilton, 12th Earl of Selkirk (b. 1978)
 * (6). Hon. Charles Douglas Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1979)
 * (7). Hon. James Robert Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1981)
 * (8). Hon. Harry Alexander Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1981)
 * Lord Hugh Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton (1946–1995)
 * (9). Brendan Thomas Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1974)
 * (10). Lord Patrick George Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1950)
 * Coronet of a British Earl.svg George Douglas-Hamilton, 10th Earl of Selkirk (1906–1994)
 * Lord Malcolm Avondale Douglas-Hamilton (1909–1964)
 * (11). Alasdair Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1939)
 * (12). Angus Gavin Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1968)
 * (13). William Niall Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1999)
 * (14). Geordie Fergus Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1969)
 * Lord David Douglas-Hamilton (1912–1944)
 * (15). Iain Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1942)
 * Francis Seymour Douglas-Hamilton (1811–1874)
 * Algernon Percy Douglas-Hamilton (1844–1891)
 * Percy Seymour Douglas-Hamilton (1875–1940)
 * John Percy Douglas-Hamilton (1930–2008)
 * (16). John Gavin Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1957)
 * Aubrey Reginald Douglas-Hamilton (1851–1933)
 * Herbert Eustace Seymour Douglas-Hamilton (1886–1963)
 * (17). Cecil Seymour Douglas-Hamilton (b. 1916)

The next heir is (under provision 4 of the special remainder) the heir whatsoever of the 3rd Duchess, namely Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby (b. 1962) (a descendant of the 6th Duke through his only daughter, Lady Elizabeth Hamilton, who married Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby). Lord Derby is not, however, an heir to the Marquessate of Douglas and its subsidiary titles, which would pass to the heir male (a junior-line descendant of one of the Earls of Angus, as the heirs male of the body of the 3rd Duchess are the only remaining heirs male of the body of the 1st Marquess of Douglas). He is also not an heir to the Dukedom of Brandon or the Barony of Dutton, which are limited to the heirs male of the body of the 3rd Duchess.

title: Duke of Hamilton