History.

The first rain gardens were created to mimic the natural water retention areas that developed before urbanization occurred. The rain gardens for residential use were developed in 1990 in Prince George's County, Maryland, when Dick Brinker, a developer building a new housing subdivision had the idea to replace the traditional best management practices (BMP) pond with a bioretention area. He approached Larry Coffman, an environmental engineer and the county's Associate Director for Programs and Planning in the Department of Environmental Resources, with the idea. The result was the extensive use of rain gardens in Somerset, a residential subdivision which has a rain garden on each house's property. This system proved to be highly cost-effective. Instead of a system of curbs, sidewalks, and gutters, which would have cost nearly $400,000, the planted drainage swales cost $100,000 to install. This was also much more cost effective than building BMP ponds that could handle 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Flow monitoring done in later years showed that the rain gardens have resulted in a 75–80% reduction in stormwater runoff during a regular rainfall event.  Some "de facto" rain gardens predate their recognition by professionals as a significant LID (Low Impact Development) tool. Any shallow garden depression implemented to capture and filter rain water within the garden so as to avoid draining water offsite is at conception a rain garden—particularly if vegetation is planted and maintained with recognition of its role in this function. Vegetated roadside swales, now promoted as “bioswales”, remain the conventional runoff drainage system in many parts of the world from long before extensive networks of concrete sewers became the conventional engineering practice in the industrialized world. What is new about such technology is the emerging rigor of increasingly quantitative understanding of how such tools may make sustainable development possible. This is as true for developed communities retrofitting bioretention into existing stormwater management infrastructure as it is for developing communities seeking a faster and more sustainable development path.

Urban runoff mitigation.

Effects of urban runoff.

In developed urban areas, naturally occurring depressions where storm water would pool are typically covered by impermeable surfaces, such as asphalt, pavement, or concrete, and are leveled for automobile use. Stormwater is directed into storm drains which may cause overflows of combined sewer systems or pollution, erosion, or flooding of waterways receiving the storm water runoff. Redirected stormwater is often warmer than the groundwater normally feeding a stream, and has been linked to upset in some aquatic ecosystems primarily through the reduction of dissolved oxygen (DO). Stormwater runoff is also a source of a wide variety of pollutants washed off hard or compacted surfaces during rain events. These pollutants may include volatile organic compounds, pesticides, herbicides, hydrocarbons and trace metals.

Stormwater management systems.

Stormwater management occurs on a watershed scale to prevent downstream impacts on urban water quality. A watershed is maintained through the cyclical accumulation, storage, and flow of groundwater. Naturally occurring watersheds are damaged when they are sealed by an impervious surface, which diverts pollutant-carrying stormwater runoff into streams. Urban watersheds are affected by greater quantities of pollutants due to the consequences of anthropogenic activities within urban environments. Rainfall on impermeable surfaces accumulates surface runoff containing oil, bacteria, and sediment that eventually makes its way to streams and groundwater. Stormwater control strategies such as infiltration gardens treat contaminated surface runoff and return processed water to the underlying soil, helping to restore the watershed system. The effectiveness of stormwater control systems is measured by the reduction of the amount of rainfall that becomes runoff (retention), and the lag time (rate of depletion) of the runoff. Even rain gardens with small capacities for daily infiltration can create a positive cumulative impact on mitigating urban runoff. Increasing the amount of permeable surfaces by designing rain gardens reduces the amount of polluted stormwater that reaches natural bodies of water and recharges groundwater at a higher rate. Additionally, adding a rain garden to a site that experiences excessive rainwater runoff mitigates the water quantity load on public stormwater systems.  The bioretention approach to water treatment, and specifically rain gardens in this context, is two-fold: to utilize the natural processes within landscapes and soils to transport, store, and filter stormwater before it becomes runoff, and to reduce the overall amount of impervious surfaces covering the ground that allow for contaminated urban runoff. Rain gardens perform most effectively when they interact with the greater system of stormwater control. This integrated approach to water treatment is called the "stormwater chain", which consists of all associated techniques to prevent surface run-off, retain run-off for infiltration or evaporation, detain run-off and release it at a predetermined rate, and convey rainfall from where it lands to detention or retention facilities. Rain gardens have many reverberating effects on the greater hydrological system. In a bioretention system such as a rain garden, water filters through layers of soil and vegetation media, which treat the water before it enters the groundwater system or an underdrain. Any remaining runoff from a rain garden will have a lower temperature than runoff from an impervious surface, which reduces the thermal shock on receiving bodies of water. Additionally, increasing the amount of permeable surfaces by designing urban rain gardens reduces the amount of polluted stormwater that reaches natural bodies of water and recharges groundwater at a higher rate.

Bioretention.

The concept of LID (low-impact design) for stormwater management is based on bioretention: a landscape and water design practice that utilizes the chemical, biological, and physical properties of soils, microorganisms, and plants to control the quality and quantity of water flow within a site. Bioretention facilities are primarily designed for water management, and can treat urban runoff, stormwater, groundwater, and in special cases, wastewater. Carefully designed constructed wetlands are necessary for the bioretention of sewage water or grey water, which have greater effects on human health than the implications of treating urban runoff and rainfall. Environmental benefits of bioretention sites include increased wildlife diversity and habitat production and minimized energy use and pollution. Prioritizing water management through natural bioretention sites eliminates the possibility of covering the land with impermeable surfaces.

Water treatment process.

Bioretention controls the stormwater quantity through interception, infiltration, evaporation, and transpiration. First, rainfall is captured by plant tissue (leaves and stems) and in the soil micropores. Then, water performs infiltration - the downward movement of water through soil - and is stored in the soil until the substrate reaches its moisture capacity, when it begins to pool at the top of the bioretention feature. The pooled water and water from plant and soil surfaces is then evaporated into the atmosphere. Optimal design of bioretention sites aim for shallow pooled water to reach a higher rate of evaporation. Water also evaporates through the leaves of the plants in the feature and back to the atmosphere, which is a process known as evapotranspiration.  Bioretention controls the stormwater quality through settling, filtration, assimilation, adsorption, degradation, and decomposition. When water pools on top of a bioretention feature, suspended solids and large particles will settle out. Dust particles, soil particles, and other small debris are filtered out of the water as it moves downward through the soil and interspersed plant roots. Plants take up some of the nutrients for use in their growth processes, or for mineral storage. Dissolved chemical substances from the water also bind to the surfaces of plant roots, soil particles, and other organic matter in the substrate and are rendered ineffective. Soil microorganisms break down remaining chemicals and small organic matter and effectively decompose the pollutants into a saturated soil matter.  Even though natural water purification is based on the design of planted areas, the key components of bioremediation are the soil quality and microorganism activity. These features are supported by plants, which create secondary pore space to increase soil permeability, prevent soil compaction through complex root structure growth, provide habitats for the microorganisms on the surfaces of their roots, and transport oxygen to the soil.

Design.

Stormwater garden design encompasses a wide range of features based on the principles of bioretention. These facilities are then organized into a sequence and incorporated into the landscape in the order that rainfall moves from buildings and permeable surfaces to gardens, and eventually, to bodies of water. A rain garden requires an area where water can collect and infiltrate, and plants can maintain infiltration rates, diverse microorganism communities, and water storage capacity. Because infiltration systems manage storm water quantity by reducing storm water runoff volumes and peak flows, rain garden design must begin with a site analysis and assessment of the rainfall loads on the proposed bioretention system. This will lead to different knowledge about each site, which will affect the choice of plantings and substrate systems. At a minimum, rain gardens should be designed for the peak runoff rate during the most severe expected storm. The load applied on the system will then determine the optimal design flow rate.  Existing gardens can be adapted to perform like rain gardens by adjusting the landscape so that downspouts and paved surfaces drain into existing planting areas. Even though existing gardens have loose soil and well-established plants, they may need to be augmented in size and/or with additional, diverse plantings to support a higher infiltration capacity. Also, many plants do not tolerate saturated roots for long and will not be able to handle the increased flow of water. Rain garden plant species should be selected to match the site conditions after the required location and storage capacity of the bioretention area are determined. In addition to mitigating urban runoff, the rain garden may contribute to urban habitats for native butterflies, birds, and beneficial insects.  Rain gardens are at times confused with bioswales. Swales slope to a destination, while rain gardens are level; however, a bioswale may end with a rain garden as a part of a larger stormwater management system. Drainage ditches may be handled like bioswales and even include rain gardens in series, saving time and money on maintenance. Part of a garden that nearly always has standing water is a water garden, wetland, or pond, and not a rain garden. Rain gardens also differ from retention basins, where the water will infiltrate the ground at a much slower rate, within a day or two.

Soil and drainage.

Collected water is filtered through the strata of soil or engineering growing soil, called substrate. After the soil reaches its saturation limit, excess water pools on the surface of the soil and eventually infiltrates the natural soil below. The bioretention soil mixture should typically contain 60% sand, 20% compost, and 20% topsoil. Soils with higher concentrations of compost have shown improved effects on filtering groundwater and rainwater. Non-permeable soil needs to be removed and replaced periodically to generate maximum performance and efficiency if used in the bioretention system. The sandy soil (bioretention mixture) cannot be combined with a surrounding soil that has a lower sand content because the clay particles will settle in between the sand particles and form a concrete-like substance that is not conducive to infiltration, according to a 1983 study. Compact lawn soil cannot harbor groundwater nearly as well as sandy soils, because the micropores within the soil are not sufficient for retaining substantial runoff levels.  When an area's soils are not permeable enough to allow water to drain and filter at an appropriate rate, the soil should be replaced and an underdrain installed. Sometimes a drywell with a series of gravel layers near the lowest spot in the rain garden will help facilitate percolation and avoid clogging at the sedimentation basin. However, a drywell placed at the lowest spot can become clogged with silt prematurely, turning the garden into an infiltration basin and defeating its purpose as a bioretention system. The more polluted the runoff water, the longer it must be retained in the soil for purification. Capacity for a longer purification period is often achieved by installing several smaller rain garden basins with soil deeper than the seasonal high water table. In some cases lined bioretention cells with subsurface drainage are used to retain smaller amounts of water and filter larger amounts without letting water percolate as quickly. A five-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey indicates that rain gardens in urban clay soils can be effective without the use of underdrains or replacement of native soils with the bioretention mix. Yet it also indicates that pre-installation infiltration rates should be at least.25 in/hour. Type D soils will require an underdrain paired with the sandy soil mix in order to drain properly.  Rain gardens are often located near a building's roof drainpipe (with or without rainwater tanks). Most rain gardens are designed to be an endpoint of a building's or urban site's drainage system with a capacity to percolate all incoming water through a series of soil or gravel layers beneath the surface plantings. A French drain may be used to direct a portion of the rainwater to an overflow location for heavier rain events. If the bioretention site has additional runoff directed from downspouts leading from the roof of a building, or if the existing soil has a filtration rate faster than 5 inches per hour, the substrate of the rain garden should include a layer of gravel or sand beneath the topsoil to meet that increased infiltration load. If not originally designed to include a rain garden onsite, downpipes from the roof can be disconnected and diverted to a rain garden for retrofit stormwater management. This reduces the amount of water load on the conventional drainage system, and instead directs water for infiltration and treatment through bioretention features. By reducing peak stormwater discharge, rain gardens extend hydraulic lag time and somewhat mimic the natural water cycle displaced by urban development and allow for groundwater recharge. While rain gardens always allow for restored groundwater recharge, and reduced stormwater volumes, they may not improve pollution unless remediation materials are included in the design of the filtration layers.

Vegetation.

Typical rain garden plants are herbaceous perennials and grasses, which are chosen for their porous root structure and high growth rate. Trees and shrubs can also be planted to cover larger areas on the bioretention site. Although specific plants are selected and designed for respective soils and climates, plants that can tolerate both saturated and dry soil are typically used for the rain garden. They need to be maintained for maximum efficiency, and be compatible with adjacent land uses. Native and adapted plants are commonly selected for rain gardens because they are more tolerant of the local climate, soil, and water conditions; have deep and variable root systems for enhanced water infiltration and drought tolerance; increase habitat value, diversity for local ecological communities, and overall sustainability once established. Vegetation with dense and uniform root structure depth helps to maintain consistent infiltration throughout the bioretention system. There can be trade-offs associated with using native plants, including lack of availability for some species, late spring emergence, short blooming season, and relatively slow establishment.  It is important to plant a wide variety of species so the rain garden is functional during all climatic conditions. It is likely that the garden will experience a gradient of moisture levels across its functional lifespan, so some drought tolerant plantings are desirable. There are four categories of a vegetative species’ moisture tolerance that can be considered when choosing plants for a rain garden. Wet soil is constantly full of water with long periods of pooling surface water; this category includes swamp and marsh sites. Moist soil is always slightly damp, and plants that thrive in this category can tolerate longer periods of flooding. Mesic soil is neither very wet nor very dry; plants that prefer this category can tolerate brief periods of flooding. Dry soil is ideal for plants that can withstand long dry periods. Plantings chosen for rain gardens must be able to thrive during both extreme wet and dry spells, since rain gardens periodically swing between these two states. A rain garden in temperate climates will unlikely dry out completely, but gardens in dry climates will need to sustain low soil moisture levels during periods of drought. On the other hand, rain gardens are unlikely to suffer from intense waterlogging, since the function of a rain garden is that excess water is drained from the site. Plants typically found in rain gardens are able to soak up large amounts of rainfall during the year as an intermediate strategy during the dry season. Transpiration by growing plants accelerates soil drying between storms. Rain gardens perform best using plants that grow in regularly moist soils, because these plants can typically survive in drier soils that are relatively fertile (contain lots of nutrients).  Chosen vegetation needs to respect site constraints and limitations, and especially should not impede the primary function of bioretention. Trees under power lines, or that up-heave sidewalks when soils become moist, or whose roots seek out and clog drainage tiles can cause expensive damage. Trees generally contribute to bioretention sites the most when they are located close enough to tap moisture in the rain garden depression, yet do not excessively shade the garden and allow for evaporation. That said, shading open surface waters can reduce excessive heating of vegetative habitats. Plants tolerate inundation by warm water for less time than they tolerate cold water because heat drives out dissolved oxygen, thus a plant tolerant of early spring flooding may not survive summer inundation.

Pollutant Removal.

Rain gardens are designed to capture the initial flow of stormwater and reduce the accumulation of toxins flowing directly into natural waterways through ground filtration. Natural remediation of contaminated stormwater is an effective, cost-free treatment process. Directing water to flow through soil and vegetation achieves particle pollutant capture, while atmospheric pollutants are captured in plant membranes and then trapped in soil, where most of them begin to break down. These approaches help to diffuse runoff, which allows contaminants to be distributed across the site instead of concentrated. The National Science Foundation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and a number of research institutions are presently studying the impact of augmenting rain gardens with materials capable of capture or chemical reduction of the pollutants to benign compounds.  The primary challenge of rain garden design is predicting the types of pollutants and the acceptable loads of pollutants the rain garden's filtration system can process during high impact storm events. Contaminants may include organic material, such as animal waste and oil spills, as well as inorganic material, such as heavy metals and fertilizer nutrients. These pollutants are known to cause harmful over-promotion of plant and algal growth if they seep into streams and rivers. The challenge of predicting pollutant loads is specifically acute when a rain event occurs after a longer dry period. The initial storm water is often highly contaminated with the accumulated pollutants from dry periods. Rain garden designers have previously focused on finding robust native plants and encouraging adequate biofiltration, but recently have begun augmenting filtration layers with media specifically suited to chemically reduce redox of incoming pollutant streams. Certain plant species are very effective at storing mineral nutrients, which are only released once the plant dies and decays. Other species can absorb heavy metal contaminants. Cutting back and entirely removing these plants at the end of the growth cycle completely removes these contaminants. This process of cleaning up polluted soils and stormwater is called phytoremediation.

Rain gardens, also called bioretention facilities, are one of a variety of practices designed to treat polluted stormwater runoff. Rain gardens are designed landscape sites that reduce the flow rate, total quantity, and pollutant load of runoff from impervious urban areas like roofs, driveways, walkways,and parking lots, and compacted lawn areas. Rain gardens rely on plants and natural or engineered soil medium to retain stormwater and increase the lag time of infiltration, while remediating and filtering pollutants carried by urban runoff. Rain gardens provide a method to reuse and optimize any rain that falls, reducing or avoiding the need for additional irrigation. A benefit of planting rain gardens is the consequential decrease in ambient air and water temperature, a mitigation that is especially effective in urban areas containing an abundance of impervious surfaces that absorb heat in a phenomenon known as the heat-island effect.

Dešťová zahrada je přírodní nebo uměle vytvořená terénní prohlubeň, do které jsou svedeny srážkové vody ze střech, chodníků a zpevněných ploch, které se pak v průběhu několika dní vsakují do okolní půdy a neodtékají pryč z daného pozemku. Tím napomáhá udržovat stav podzemních vod a snižuje nebezpečí vzniku náhlých povodní. Kořenový systém rostlin rostoucích v této prohlubni funguje jako filtr a zbavuje vodu nečistot. Dešťová zahrada také zvyšuje vlhkost vzduchu v okolí (mikroklima) a slouží i jako úkryt různým druhům živočichů. Dešťové zahrady spadají pod modro-zelenou infrastrukturu, jenž se především ve městech snaží o větší harmonii s přírodou skrz budování jím blízkých prvků.


Events.

Promotions.

Despite the large deficit at the start of the league, Juventus coasted through the season with ease and became the first team mathematically promoted to the Serie A for the 2007–08 season with a 5–1 away win at Arezzo on 19 May 2007, with three games remaining in the schedule. One week later, they clinched the title of Serie B champions for 2006–07 with a 2–0 home win against Mantova. Juventus were awarded the first-ever "Ali della Vittoria" (Wings of Victory) Cup, designed this year for the winner of the Serie B championship.  On the last day of the season Napoli played Genoa. Napoli only needed a draw for automatic promotion, while Genoa needed a win to guarantee promotion. The match ended 0–0 and Napoli were promoted. However, Piacenza only managed a 1–1 draw with Triestina, leaving it ten points behind Genoa. A gap of ten or more points between the third and fourth-placed teams meant that no playoffs would be held, and Genoa became the third team promoted to Serie A.  Both Napoli and Genoa were promoted from Serie C1 to Serie B, and from Serie B to Serie A in successive seasons.

Relegations.

On 12 May 2007 Pescara became the first team mathematically relegated to Serie C1 for the 2007–08 season with a 3–1 loss at Piacenza on Day 38 of the schedule. One week later, Crotone was also mathematically relegated with a 2–0 loss at Trieste. On the last match day, Arezzo became the third team relegated despite winning 3–1 at Treviso, as both Spezia and Hellas Verona won their games. Tied 2–2 with Juventus, Spezia was only seconds away from relegation, but a dramatic goal on the 91st minute by Nicola Padoin condemned Arezzo and qualified Spezia for the playoffs.  The fourth team to be relegated was decided in a two-legged playoff between Verona and Spezia. The first leg ended in a 2–1 win for Spezia, and a 0–0 tie in the return match condemned Verona to play Serie C1 in the 2007–08 season.

Teams.

These are the 22 teams which took part in the Serie B 2006–07:

Final classification.

<onlyinclude></onlyinclude>

Top goalscorers.

"Last updated June 10, 2007"

The 2006–07 Serie B season is the 75th season since its establishment in 1929. It started on September 9, 2006 and ended on June 10, 2007. The 22 clubs in Serie B each played 42 matches during the regular season.

Soutěžní ročník Serie B 2006/07 byl 75. ročník druhé nejvyšší italské fotbalové ligy. Soutěž začala 9. září 2006 a skončila 10. června 2007. Účastnilo se jí opět 22 týmů z toho se 15 kvalifikovalo z minulého ročníku, 3 ze Serie A a 4 ze třetí ligy. Nováčci ze třetí ligy jsou: SSC Neapol, Spezia Calcio, Janov CFC, Frosinone Calcio.


Nomenclature.

The term "Aryan" has been used historically to denote the "Indo-Iranians", because "Arya" is the self designation of the ancient speakers of the Indo-Iranian languages, specifically the Iranian and the Indo-Aryan peoples, collectively known as the Indo-Iranians. Some scholars now use the term Indo-Iranian to refer to this group, while the term "Aryan" is used to mean "Indo-Iranian" by other scholars such as Josef Wiesehofer, Will Durant, and Jaakko Häkkinen. Population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, in his 1994 book "The History and Geography of Human Genes", also uses the term Aryan to describe the Indo-Iranians.

Origin.

The early Indo-Iranians are commonly identified with the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans known as the Sintashta culture and the subsequent Andronovo culture within the broader Andronovo horizon, and their homeland with an area of the Eurasian steppe that borders the Ural River on the west, the Tian Shan on the east (where the Indo-Iranians took over the area occupied by the earlier Afanasevo culture), and Transoxiana and the Hindu Kush on the south.  Based on its use by Indo-Aryans in Mitanni and Vedic India, its prior absence in the Near East and Harappan India, and its 19th–20th century BC attestation at the Andronovo site of Sintashta, Kuzmina (1994) argues that the chariot corroborates the identification of Andronovo as Indo-Iranian. dated a chariot burial at Krivoye Lake to about 2000 BC, and a Bactria-Margiana burial that also contains a foal has recently been found, indicating further links with the steppes.  Historical linguists broadly estimate that a continuum of Indo-Iranian languages probably began to diverge by 2000 BC, if not earlier, preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures. The earliest recorded forms of these languages, Vedic Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, are remarkably similar, descended from the common Proto-Indo-Iranian language. The origin and earliest relationship between the Nuristani languages and that of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups is not completely clear.

Expansion.

Two-wave models of Indo-Iranian expansion have been proposed by Burrow (1973) and. The Indo-Iranians and their expansion are strongly associated with the Proto-Indo-European invention of the chariot. It is assumed that this expansion spread from the Proto-Indo-European homeland north of the Caspian sea south to the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Iranian plateau, and Indian subcontinent. They also expanded into Mesopotamia and Syria and introduced the horse and chariot culture to this part of the world.

First wave – Indo-Aryans.

The Mitanni of Anatolia.

The Mitanni, a people known in eastern Anatolia from about 1500 BC, were of possibly of mixed origins: a Hurrian-speaking majority was supposedly dominated by a non-Anatolian, Indo-Aryan elite. There is linguistic evidence for such a superstrate, in the form of: In particular, Kikkuli's text includes words such as "aika" "one" (i.e. a cognate of the Indo-Aryan "eka"), "tera" "three" ("tri"), "panza" "five" ("pancha"), "satta" "seven", ("sapta"), "na" "nine" ("nava"), and "vartana" "turn around", in the context of a horse race (Indo-Aryan "vartana"). In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the Ashvin deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya are invoked. These loanwords tend to connect the Mitanni superstrate to Indo-Aryan rather than Iranian languages – i.e. the early Iranian word for "one" was "aiva".

Indian subcontinent – Vedic culture.

The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into the Indian subcontinent is that this first wave went over the Hindu Kush, either into the headwaters of the Indus and later the Ganges. The earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit, preserved only in the Rigveda, is assigned to roughly 1500 BC. From the Indus, the Indo-Aryan languages spread from c. 1500 BC to c. 500 BC, over the northern and central parts of the subcontinent, sparing the extreme south. The Indo-Aryans in these areas established several powerful kingdoms and principalities in the region, from south eastern Afghanistan to the doorstep of Bengal. The most powerful of these kingdoms were the post-Rigvedic Kuru (in Kurukshetra and the Delhi area) and their allies the Pañcālas further east, as well as Gandhara and later on, about the time of the Buddha, the kingdom of Kosala and the quickly expanding realm of Magadha. The latter lasted until the 4th century BC, when it was conquered by Chandragupta Maurya and formed the center of the Mauryan empire.  In eastern Afghanistan and southwestern Pakistan, whatever Indo-Aryan languages were spoken there were eventually pushed out by the Iranian languages. Most Indo-Aryan languages, however, were and still are prominent in the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Today, Indo-Aryan languages are spoken in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Suriname and the Maldives.

Second wave – Iranians.

The second wave is interpreted as the Iranian wave. The first Iranians to reach the Black Sea may have been the Cimmerians in the 8th century BC, although their linguistic affiliation is uncertain. They were followed by the Scythians, who are considered a western branch of the Central Asian Sakas. Sarmatian tribes, of whom the best known are the Roxolani (Rhoxolani), Iazyges (Jazyges) and the Alani (Alans), followed the Scythians westwards into Europe in the late centuries BC and the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (The Age of Migrations). The populous Sarmatian tribe of the Massagetae, dwelling near the Caspian Sea, were known to the early rulers of Persia in the Achaemenid Period. At their greatest reported extent, around 1st century AD, the Sarmatian tribes ranged from the Vistula River to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, bordering the shores of the Black and Caspian seas as well as the Caucasus to the south. In the east, the Saka occupied several areas in Xinjiang, from Khotan to Tumshuq.  The Medians, Persians and Parthians begin to appear on the Iranian plateau from c. 800 BC, and the Achaemenids replaced Elamite rule from 559 BC. Around the first millennium AD, Iranian groups began to settle on the eastern edge of the Iranian plateau, on the mountainous frontier of northwestern and western Pakistan, displacing the earlier Indo-Aryans from the area.  In Eastern Europe, the Iranians were eventually decisively assimilated (e.g. Slavicisation) and absorbed by the Proto-Slavic population of the region, while in Central Asia, the Turkic languages marginalized the Iranian languages as a result of the Turkic expansion of the early centuries AD. Extant major Iranian languages are Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, and Balochi besides numerous smaller ones. Ossetian, primarily spoken in North Ossetia and South Ossetia, is a direct descendant of Alanic, and by that the only surviving Sarmatian language of the once wide-ranging East Iranian dialect continuum that stretched from Eastern Europe to the eastern parts of Central Asia.

Archaeology.

Archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian expansion include: suggests the following identifications:

Language.

The Indo-European language spoken by the Indo-Iranians in the late 3rd millennium BC was a Satem language still not removed very far from the Proto-Indo-European language, and in turn only removed by a few centuries from Vedic Sanskrit of the Rigveda. The main phonological change separating Proto-Indo-Iranian from Proto–Indo-European is the collapse of the ablauting vowels "*e, *o, *a" into a single vowel, Proto–Indo-Iranian "*a" (but see Brugmann's law). Grassmann's law and Bartholomae's law were also complete in Proto-Indo-Iranian, as well as the loss of the labiovelars (kw, etc.) to k, and the Eastern Indo-European (Satem) shift from palatized k' to ć, as in Proto–Indo-European *k'ṃto- > Indo-Iran. *ćata- > Sanskrit śata-, Old Iran. sata "100".  Among the sound changes from Proto-Indo-Iranian to Indo-Aryan is the loss of the voiced sibilant "*z", among those to Iranian is the de-aspiration of the PIE voiced aspirates.

Religion.

Despite the introduction of later Hindu and Zoroastrian scriptures, Indo-Iranians shared a common inheritance of concepts including the universal force "*Hṛta-" (Sanskrit "rta", Avestan "asha"), the sacred plant and drink "*sawHma-" (Sanskrit "Soma", Avestan "Haoma") and gods of social order such as "*mitra-" (Sanskrit "Mitra", Avestan and Old Persian "Mithra", "Miθra") and "*bhaga-" (Sanskrit "Bhaga", Avestan and Old Persian "Baga"). Proto-Indo-Iranian religion is an archaic offshoot of Indo-European religion. From the various and dispersed Indo-Iranian cultures, a set of common ideas may be reconstructed from which a common, unattested proto-Indo-Iranian source may be deduced.  The pre-Islamic religion of the Nuristani people and extant religion of the Kalash people, is mostly based on the original religion of the Indo-Iranians, some of which are shared with Shinto, one of the national religions of Japan, which has some Indo-Iranian influence owing to contact presumably in the steppes of Central Asia at around 2000 BCE. In Shinto, traces of these can be seen in the myth of the storm god Susanoo slaying a serpent Yamata-no-Orochi and in the myth of the dawn goddess Ame-no-Uzume.

Development.

Beliefs developed in different ways as cultures separated and evolved. For example, the cosmo-mythology of the peoples that remained on the Central Asian steppes and the Iranian plateau is to a great degree unlike that of the Indians, focused more on groups of deities ("*daiva" and "*asura") and less on the divinities individually. Indians were less conservative than Iranians in their treatment of their divinities, so that some deities were conflated with others or, conversely, aspects of a single divinity developed into divinities in their own right. By the time of Zoroaster, Iranian culture had also been subject to the upheavals of the Iranian Heroic Age (late Iranian Bronze Age, 1800–800 BC), an influence that the Indo-Aryans were not subject to.  Sometimes certain myths developed in altogether different ways. The Rig-Vedic Sarasvati is linguistically and functionally cognate with Avestan *Haraxvaitī Ārəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā. In the Rig-Veda (6,61,5–7) she battles a serpent called Vritra, who has hoarded all of the Earth's water. In contrast, in early portions of the Avesta, Iranian *Harahvati "is" the world-river that flows down from the mythical central Mount Hara. But *Harahvati does no battle — she is blocked by an obstacle (Avestan for obstacle: "vərəθra") placed there by Angra Mainyu.

Cognate terms.

The following is a list of cognate terms that may be gleaned from comparative linguistic analysis of the Rigveda and Avesta. Both collections are from the period after the proposed date of separation (c. 2nd millennium BC) of the Proto-Indo-Iranians into their respective Indic and Iranian branches.

Genetics.

R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) is the sub-clade most commonly associated with Indo-European speakers. Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade. Data so far collected indicates that there are two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in the northern Indian subcontinent, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also.  Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one C-M130 haplogroup (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.  A 2004 study also established that during the Bronze Age/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the 13th–7th century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.  According to other scholars, R1a1a steppe gene has been attributed to later Indo-Scythian and other central asian invasions. This theory is substantiated by the high prevelence of Swat valley Pashtun genetic markers among certain Indian castes like the Jats,Aroras,Sainis,Shakyas and Mauryas.

Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Indo-Iranic peoples by scholars, and sometimes as Arya or Aryans from their self-designation, were a group of Indo-European peoples who brought the Indo-Iranian languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family, to major parts of Eurasia in the second part of the 3rd millennium BCE. They eventually branched out into Iranian peoples and Indo-Aryan peoples.

Indoíránci jsou etnolingvistická skupina národů a etnik mluvících indoíránskými jazyky náležející mezi Indoevropany. Sami sebe někdy nazývali a nazývají Árjové/Árijci.


Founding.

Ma Yin was named regional governor by the Tang court in 896 after fighting against a rebel named Yang Xingmi. He declared himself as the Prince of Chu with the fall of the Tang Dynasty in 907. Ma's position as Prince of Chu was confirmed by the Later Tang in the north in 927 and was given the posthumous title of King Wumu of Chu.

Territories.

The capital of the Chu Kingdom was Changsha (Tanzhou). Present-day Hunan and northeastern Guangxi were under the control of the kingdom.

Economy.

Chu was peaceful and prosperous under Ma Yin's rule, exporting horses, silk and tea. Silk and lead coinage were often used as currency, particularly with external communities which would not accept other coinage of the land. Taxation was low for the peasantry and merchants.

Fall of Chu.

After Ma Yin died the leadership was subject to struggle and conflict which resulted in the fall of the kingdom. The Southern Tang, fresh from its conquest of the Min Kingdom, took advantage and conquered the kingdom in 951. The ruling family was removed to the Southern Tang capital of Jinling. However, the following year, Chu generals rose against Southern Tang and expelled the Southern Tang expeditionary force, leaving the former Chu territory to be ruled by several of those generals called Wuping Jiedushi in succession until 963, when the territory was seized by Song Dynasty. During these post-Chu years of de facto independence, the center of power was usually at Lang Prefecture (朗州, in modern Changde, Hunan).

Chu (), often referred to as Ma Chu () or Southern Chu () to distinguish it from other historical states called Chu, was a kingdom in south China during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (907–960). It existed from 907 to 951.

Říše Čchu () byla v letech 907–951 jedním z jihočínských států období Pěti dynastií a deseti říší. Rozkládala se v moderní provincii Chu-nan. Vznikla roku 907, když Ma Jin, ovládající zmíněný region, uznal svržení posledního císaře říše Tchang a nástup říše Pozdní Liang v severní Číně, přijal od liangského císaře titul krále Čchu a vládl prakticky nezávisle. Roku 927 obdržel od císaře říše Pozdní Tchang vyšší titul Čchu kuo-wang (楚國王, doslova „král země Čchu“). Království Čchu zaniklo roku 951, kdy bylo dobyto říší Jižní Tchang. Tchangská nadvláda trvala pouze rok, poté povstali čchuští důstojníci pod vedením Liou Jena. V dalších letech oblast postupně ovládalo několik generálů "ťie-tu-š’", než ji roku 963 obsadila sungská armáda.


Pre-conquest Itelmen society.

Village structure.

Itelmen tended to settle along the various rivers of the Kamchatka Peninsula. At the time of the arrival of the first Cossacks to the peninsula, in the early 1650s, villages numbered between 200 and 300 residents, a number which had dwindled to 40 or 50 at most by the time of the composition of Steller's account in 1744. Each village was centered around a single patriarchal household. Generally, young men seeking marriage joined the village of their wife. When a village became too large to sustain itself, it was divided and a portion of the villagers would create a settlement at another point along the same river. Steller describes a great variation of dialects from river to river, as the Itelmen predominantly communicated with communities which shared the river.

Itelmen houses.

Itelmen lived in different houses during the summer and winter seasons. The winter house, which was inhabited beginning in November, was dug into the soil in the shape of a rectangle. The walls were then covered with sticks and straw to prevent moisture from penetrating the interior. Four beams at the center of the dwelling supported the roof of the house, upon which rafters were laid, connecting the top of the yurt to the earthen walls. Atop the wooden rafters, approximately a foot of straw was laid, on top of which the excavated dirt was placed and stamped down. An opening atop the yurt, off to one side of the four posts and supported by the two beams, served as a smoke hole and an entrance. Opposite the fireplace, they made a passageway to the outside facing the river, which was left open only when fires were lit. Different sleeping quarters were demarcated by pieces of wood on which straw mats and reindeer or seal skins were used as bedding.  In the summer months, the Itelmen live in raised houses called "pehm" or "pehmy". As the ground thaws in the summer, the floors of the winter houses began to flood. In the summer months, each family in the village lived in their own house, rather than sharing a large house as in winter. These raised homes, or "balagans" as the Cossacks called them, were pyramids on raised platforms, with a door on the south and the north side. The extreme moisture of the climate required the raising of the homes for dry storage. Most villages, in addition to summer and winter houses, contained straw huts built on the ground, which were used for cooking dog food, boiling salt from sea water and rendering fat. Villages were surrounded by an earthen wall or palisades until the arrival of the Russians, after which this practice was banned.

Religion.

The Itelmen subscribed to a polytheistic religion. The creative god was referred to as "Kutka" or "Kutga". Though he is regarded as the creator of all things, Steller describes a complete lack of veneration for him. The Itelmen attribute the problems and difficulties of life to his stupidity, and are quick to scold or curse him. They believed "Kutka" to be married to an intelligent woman named "Chachy", who was said to have kept him from much foolishness and to have corrected him constantly. "Kutka" was believed to have lived on the greatest rivers of the Kamchatka Peninsula, and is said to have left a son and daughter for each river, which is used to explain the great variety of dialects present on the peninsula. The Itelmen also worshiped several spirits, "Mitgh", who dwelled in the ocean and lived in the form of a fish. They believed in forest sprites, who were called "ushakhtchu", said to resemble people. The mountain gods were called "gamuli" or little souls, who resided in the high mountains, especially volcanoes. The clouds were believed to be inhabited by the god "billukai", who was responsible for thunder, lightning and storms. They postulated a devil, who was called "kamma", who was said to live in a tree outside Nizhnoi village, which was annually shot up with arrows.

Division of labor.

In general, labor was very clearly divided based on gender, though many tasks were shared. When fishing, the men and women paddled together, however only the men fished while the women performed all related tasks such as cleaning and drying the fish and collecting the eggs. In home construction, men performed all the wood work, digging and carpentry while the women performed the task of thatching the straw roof and cutting the straw with bone sickles made from bear shoulder blades. The women prepare the whole fish supply, except fermented fish and dog food, which is left to the men. The women perform all the tasks of gathering seeds, berries and fireweed, which is used as a type of tea. From grass they construct mats, bags, baskets and boxes for storage and transportation. Dog and reindeer skins are tanned, dyed and sewn into the various garments worn by men and women.

Food.

The Itelmen seldom observed a set eating time except when entertaining. They also seldom ate as a family unit except when eating "opana" (warm food) or fresh fish. Unlike their indigenous island neighbors, the Tungus and Yakuts, they do not enjoy fried food, eating mostly a diet of cold food. A common staple was fish eggs with willow or birch bark. A common food enjoyed at festivities, "selaga", was a mash made of sarana, pine nuts, fireweed, cow parsnip, bistort roots, and various berries cooked in seal, whale or fish oil. In Lopatkan, a fermented berry drink was consumed, though there is no indication that any other Itelmen settlements created fermented drinks.

Cossack conquest.

Steller cites anecdotal evidence of several Russian forays into Kamchatka prior to the arrival of Vladimir Atlasov. Atlasov began his conquest of Kamchatka by sending Luka Morozko on reconnaissance foray in 1695, and embarked himself a year later with 120 men, half of whom were Yukakghir auxiliaries, to gather tribute and to annex the region for the crown. Leaving from Anadyrsk bay on the backs of reindeer, they explored much of the western coast and crossed the mountains to the east to subdue the population there. By mid July 1696, he had reached the Kamchatka River, at which point he divided his party in two, one band returning westward and the other remaining on the eastern coast. At this point the Yukaghir auxiliaries rebelled, killing 6 Russians and wounding 6. A band of Koryaks additionally absconded with Atlasov’s itinerant reindeer herd, but were chased down by the Russians and killed to one man.  At the head of the Kamchatka River, they first encountered several heavily fortified Itelmen settlements. Here they were initially greeted cordially by the natives, and received tribute without contest. They proceeded to sack a rival Itelmen village upriver, cementing the alliance with the Itelmen. The first Cossack settlement in the area was Bolsheretsk, founded in 1703 by Atlasov, although Steller notes that it was already a prominent village at the arrival of “that wind-bag Atlasov.”  The Itelmen he found there were in possession of a captive Japanese merchant's clerk, who had been part of an expedition that was shipwrecked and overtaken by Itelmen upon arrival at the Kamchatka River. Atlasov, who initially assumed the prisoner to be a Hindu from India, resulting in confusion over the word "Hondo" or Tokyo, had him sent to Moscow where Peter the Great had him establish a Japanese-language school.  In 1706, senior governing officials were killed by a band of Koryaks and a period of general lawlessness abounded. The Cossacks began to take great liberties with the legal amount of tribute required and began the practice of taking Itelmen as slaves, often gambling with and trading them. During this time, rebellions were frequent. Atlasov resumed legal control, in an effort to reimpose law and order on the peninsula, after serving some time in jail. In 1711, his men mutinied and he was assassinated in his bed, after fleeing to Nizhnekamchatsk, where he was given asylum. The mutineers were excused from the death penalty provided they continue government work. Thus an expedition to the southern tip of the peninsula and onto the Kuril Islands was conducted, led by Danila Antsiferov and Ivan Kozyrevsky.  Under his rule, the Itelmen allied with their northern neighbors, the Koryaks, and burned Antsyferov to death in his bed. The rebellions did not quiet down until the 1715 outbreak of smallpox on the peninsula, at which point the Russian Crown had lost 5 years of tribute and the lives of at least 200 Russians.  Over time, the remaining populations were assimilated. Due to increasingly large suicide rates, the Crown made a law prohibiting natives from taking their own lives. A large mixed population emerged, who were Russian Orthodox in religion, but distinctly Itelmen in looks and customs. The government granted legal status to these mixed children readily, and Itelmen women were legally allowed to marry into the Orthodox Religion. By the arrival of Bering’s second expedition to Kamchatka, the population had shrunk to approximately 10% of what it was prior to the arrival of the Cossacks.

Subsequent history.

Goods such as guns, tobacco, tea, sugar, and vodka became widely available to Itelmens in the 19th century. Over time, many Itelmens accepted baptism into the Russian Orthodox Church, though animism remained widespread in practice. The Itelmen population was recorded as 4,029 at the 1889 census; by 1959, this had fallen to 1,109, though the population had risen to 2,480 by the 1989 census. Russian-medium schooling became the norm in the 1930s, and as of the 1989 census, fewer than one Itelmen in five could speak the Itelmen language.

The Itelmens (Itelmen: Итәнмән, ) are an ethnic group native to the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia. The Itelmen language is distantly related to Chukchi and Koryak, forming the Chukotko-Kamchatkan language family, but it is now virtually extinct, the vast majority of ethnic Itelmens being native speakers of Russian. A. P. Volodin has published a grammar of the Itelmen language.

Itelmenové (itelmensky "ит"ә"м"ә"н", rusky "ительмен"ы) jsou jedním z původních národů, obývajících Kamčatský poloostrov na ruském Dálném východě. Název pochází od slova „"ит"ә"нм"ә"н"“, které v itelmenštině znamená „jsoucí“, „ten, kdo existuje“ či „zde žijící“. Podle sčítání lidu z roku 2010 se v Ruské federaci k itelmenské národnosti hlásilo na 3000 osob.


Background.

Japanese invasion and fortification.

On 10 December 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 300 Japanese troops plus laborers of the Gilberts Invasion Special Landing Force had arrived off Makin Atoll and occupied it without resistance. Lying east of the Marshall islands, Makin was intended as an excellent seaplane base, to protect the eastern flank of the Japanese perimeter from an Allied attack by extending Japanese air patrols closer to islands held by the Allies: Howland Island, Baker Island, Tuvalu, and Phoenix and Ellice Islands.  The end of the Aleutian Islands Campaign and progress in the Solomon Islands, combined with increasing supplies of men and materials, gave the United States Navy the resources to make an invasion of the central Pacific in late 1943. Admiral Chester Nimitz had argued for this invasion earlier in 1943, but the resources were not available to carry it out at the same time as Operation Cartwheel, the envelopment of Rabaul in the Bismarck Islands. The plan was to approach the Japanese home islands by "island hopping": establishing naval and air bases in one group of islands to support the attack on the next. The Gilbert Islands were the first step in this chain.

Marine raid on Makin.

On 17 August 1942, 211 Marines of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion under command of Colonel Evans Carlson and Captain James Roosevelt were landed on Makin from two submarines, USS "Nautilus" and USS "Argonaut". The Japanese garrison only posted 83 to 160 men under the command of a warrant officer. The Raiders killed at least 83 Japanese soldiers, annihilating the garrison, and destroyed installations for the loss of 21 killed (mostly by air attack) and 9 captured. The Japanese moved their prisoners to Kwajalein Atoll, where they were later beheaded. One objective of the raid was to confuse the Japanese about U.S. intentions in the Pacific, but it had the effect of alerting the Japanese to the strategic importance of the Gilbert Islands and led to their further reinforcement and fortification.  After Carlson's raid, the Japanese reinforced the Gilberts, which had been left lightly guarded. Makin was garrisoned with a single company of the 5th Special Base Force (700 – 800 men) on August 1942, and work on both the seaplane base and coastal defenses of the atoll was resumed in earnest. By July 1943 the seaplane base on Makin was completed and ready to accommodate Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat bombers, Nakajima A6M2-N "Rufe" floatplane fighters and Aichi E13A "Jake" reconnaissance seaplanes. Its defenses were also completed, although they were not as extensive as on Tarawa Atoll—the main Japanese Navy air base in the Gilberts. The "Chitose" and 653rd Air Corps were detached and deployed here. While the Japanese were building up their defenses in the Gilberts, American forces were making plans to retake the islands.

U.S. plans to attack.

In June 1943 the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), to submit a plan to occupy the Marshall Islands. Initially both Nimitz and Admiral Ernest J. King, the Chief of Naval Operations, wanted to attack right into the heart of the Japanese outer defense perimeter, but any plan for assaulting the Marshalls directly from Pearl Harbor would have required more troops and transports than the Pacific Fleet had at the time. Considering these drawbacks and the limited combat experience of the U.S. forces, King and Nimitz decided to take the Marshalls in a step-by-step operation via the Ellice and Gilbert Islands. The Gilberts lay within of the Southern Marshalls and were well within range of United States Army Air Forces B-24 aircraft based in the Ellice Islands, which could provide bombing support and long-range reconnaissance for operations in the Gilberts. With those advantages in mind, on 20 July 1943 the joint Chiefs of Staff decided to capture the Tarawa and Abemama atolls in the Gilberts, plus nearby Nauru Island. The operation was codenamed "Operation Galvanic." On 4 September the U.S. 5th Fleet's amphibious troops were designated the V Amphibious Corps and placed under Marine Corps Major General Holland M. Smith. The V Amphibious Corps had the only two divisions, the 2nd Marine Division based in New Zealand, and the U.S. Army's 27th Infantry Division based in Hawaii. The 27th Infantry Division had been a New York National Guard unit before being called into federal service in October 1940. It was transferred to Hawaii and remained there for 11⁄2 years before being chosen by Lt. Gen. Robert C. Richardson Jr., U.S. Army Commanding General in the Central Pacific, for the Gilbert Islands invasion. Captain James Jones (father of James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps 1999-2003), Commanding Officer of Amphibious Reconnaissance Company, VAC performed a periscope reconnaissance of the Gilberts aboard the submarine "USS Nautilus", establishing accurate accounts of the beachheads for the upcoming invasion.  The 27th Infantry Division was tasked to supply the landing force, with one regimental combat team (the 165th Infantry Regiment, the famed "Fighting 69th" of the New York National Guard), reinforced by a battalion landing team (the 3rd Battalion, 105th Infantry Regiment), supported by the 105th Field Artillery Battalion and the 193rd Tank Battalion, under Major General Ralph C. Smith, a veteran of World War I, who had assumed command in November 1942. He was one of the most highly respected officers in the U. S. Army of the time. In April 1943, the 27th Infantry Division had begun preparing for amphibious operations.  Planning for the 27th Infantry Division's role in "Galvanic" (the Army portion was codenamed "Kourbash") began in early August 1943, with Nauru Island in the western Gilberts as the original objective. Unlike the other objectives, Nauru was an actual island, much larger in size and more heavily garrisoned.  However, in September 1943 the 27th's objective changed. The difficulty of providing adequate naval and air support of simultaneous operations at Tarawa and the much more distant Nauru, plus lack of sufficient transport to carry the entire division required to take the larger, more heavily defended Nauru, caused Admiral Nimitz to shift the 27th's objective from Nauru to Makin Atoll, in the northeast Gilberts. The 27th Infantry Division staff learned the change of target on 28 September, scrapped the original Nauru plan, and began planning to capture Makin.  Heavy aircraft losses and the disabling of four heavy cruisers in the Solomon Islands meant that the original Japanese plan of a strike at the American invasion fleet by forces based at Truk in the nearby Caroline Islands (South Pacific Mandate) was scrapped. The garrisons at Tarawa and Makin were left to their fate.

Prelude.

The invasion fleet, Task Force 52 (TF 52) commanded by Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner left Pearl Harbor on 10 November 1943. The landing force, Task Group 52.6, consisted of units of the 27th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Ralph C. Smith, transported by attack transports "Neville", "Leonard Wood", "Calvert", and "Pierce"; attack cargo ship "Alcyone"; landing ship dock "Belle Grove"; and LSTs −31, −78, and −179 of Task Group 52.1.  On the eve of invasion, the Japanese garrison on Makin Atoll's main island, Butaritari, numbered 806 men: 284 naval ground troops of the 6th Special Naval Landing Force, 108 aviation personnel of the 802nd and 952nd Aviation Units, 138 troops of the 111th Pioneers, and 276 men of the Fourth Fleet Construction Department and Makin Tank Detachment of 3rd Special Base Force (3 Type 95 Ha-Go Light Tanks), all commanded by Lt.j.g. Seizo Ishikawa. The number of trained combat troops on Makin was not more than 300 soldiers.  Butaritari's land defenses were centered around the lagoon shore, near the seaplane base in the central part of the island. There were two tank barrier systems: The west tank barrier extended from the lagoon two-thirds of the way across Butaritari, was 12 to wide and deep, and was protected by one anti-tank gun in a concrete pillbox, six machine gun positions, and 50 rifle pits. The east tank barrier, wide and in depth, stretched from the lagoon across two-thirds of the island and bent westward with log antitank barricades at each end. It was protected by a double apron of barbed wire and an intricate system of gun emplacements and rifle pits.  A series of strongpoints was established along Butaritari's ocean side, with coastal defense guns, three 37 mm anti-tank gun positions, 10 machine gun emplacements and 85 rifle pits. The Japanese expected the invasion to come on the ocean side of Butaritari, following the example of Carlson's raid in 1942, and established their defenses from where the raid had taken place. Without aircraft, ships, or hope of reinforcement or relief, the outnumbered and outgunned defenders could only hope to delay the coming American attack for as long as possible.

Battle.

Invasion.

Air operations against Makin began on 13 November, with USAAF B-24 bombers of the Seventh Air Force from the Ellice Islands. Grumman FM-1 Wildcat fighters escorted Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers and Grumman TBF Avengers from escort carriers USS "Liscome Bay", USS "Coral Sea" and USS "Corregidor"; followed by support guns from fire support ship USS "Minneapolis" and other war vessels. During the bombardment, a turret explosion on battleship killed 43 sailors.  Troops began to go ashore at two beaches at 08:30 on 20 November. The initial landings on Red Beach went according to plan with the assault troops moving rapidly inland after an uneventful trip on the ocean side of the island. Their progress off the beach was slowed only by an occasional sniper and the need to negotiate their way around the debris and water-filled craters left by the air and naval bombardment. The craters in particular stymied tank support of the Red Beach forces by the light tanks of the 193rd Tank Battalion when the lead M3 light tank became partially submerged in a shellhole and blocked passage of all the vehicles behind it.  As the landing craft approached Yellow Beach from the lagoon, they began to receive small-arms and machine-gun fire from the island's defenders. The assault troops were also surprised to discover that even though they were approaching the beach at high tide as planned, a miscalculation of the lagoon's depth caused their small boats to go aground, forcing them to walk the final to the beach in waist-deep water. Equipment and weapons were lost or water-soaked, but only three men were killed approaching the beach, mainly because the defenders chose to make their final stand farther inland along the tank barriers.  The U.S. invasion plan was conceived in the hope of luring the Japanese into committing most of its forces to oppose the first landings on Red Beach and thereby allow the troops landing on Yellow Beach to attack from the rear. The Japanese, however, did not respond to the attack on Red Beach, and withdrew from Yellow Beach with only harassing fire, leaving the troops of the 27th Division no choice but to knock out the fortified strongpoints one by one. Reduction operations were hampered by the frequent inability to use heavy support weapons, including tanks, because of the danger of cross-fire. The commander of the 165th Infantry Regiment, Col. Gardiner Conroy, was killed in action by a Japanese sniper on the afternoon of the first day and was succeeded by Col. Gerard W. Kelley.

Capture of Makin.

Two days of determined fighting reduced Japanese resistance. After clearing the entire atoll, the 27th Division commander, Maj. Gen. Ralph C. Smith, reported on the morning of 23 November, "Makin taken, recommend command pass to commander garrison force."  The most difficult problem capturing Makin was coordinating the actions of two separate landing forces, made more difficult because the defenders did not respond as anticipated. The unsuitability of the narrow beaches for supply landing operations — which went undiscovered by pre-invasion reconnaissance — was also a severe handicap.

Sinking of USS "Liscome Bay".

In the early hours of 24 November, the escort carrier USS "Liscome Bay" was sunk by the Japanese submarine "I-175", which had arrived at Makin just a few hours before. A single torpedo, launched as part of a torpedo spread by "I-175", detonated the "Liscome Bay"'s aircraft bomb stockpile, causing an explosion which engulfed the entire ship, causing it to sink quickly. The attack on the "Liscome Bay" accounted for the majority of American casualties in the Battle of Makin. Of the 916 crewmen of "Liscome Bay" only 272 were rescued, while 644 perished (53 officers and 591 enlisted men), including Pearl Harbor hero and Navy Cross recipient Doris Miller.  The loss of the "Liscome Bay" was due to a few factors. Two destroyers of the destroyer screen, USS "Hull" and USS "Franks", left the destroyer screen, leaving a gap in the screen. Also, the task force which included the "Liscome Bay" was not zigzagging. The Japanese submarine I-175 approached the task force undetected and fired a spread of torpedoes through the gap in the anti-submarine screen, one of which struck and sank the "Liscome Bay".

Aftermath.

The complete occupation of Makin took four days and cost considerably more in naval casualties than in ground forces. Despite possessing great superiority in men and weapons, the 27th Division had difficulty subduing the island's small defense force. One Japanese Ha-Go tank was destroyed in combat, and two tanks placed in revetments were abandoned without being used in combat.  Against an estimated 395 Japanese killed in action during the operation, American ground casualties numbered 66 killed and 152 wounded. U.S. Navy losses were significantly higher: 644 deaths on the "Liscome Bay", 43 killed in a turret fire on the battleship, and 10 killed in action with naval shore parties or as aviators, for a total of 697 naval deaths. The overall total of 763 American dead almost equalled the number of men in the entire Japanese garrison.

The Battle of Makin was an engagement of the Pacific campaign of World War II, fought from 20 to 24 November 1943, on Makin Atoll in the Gilbert Islands.

Bitva o atol Makin byla bitva svedená mezi USA a Japonským císařstvím za druhé světové války na pacifickém bojišti mezi 20. až 23. listopadem 1943. Byla součástí operace amerického námořnictva proti Gilbertovým ostrovům s krycím názvem „operace Galvanic”. Kromě atolu Makin byly během této operace obsazeny také atoly Tarawa a Abemama.


Report.

Background.

Daniil Kvyat and Max Verstappen traded places ahead of the race. Verstappen joined Red Bull Racing while Kvyat returned to Scuderia Toro Rosso. Red Bull's team principal Christian Horner explained the driver swap with Verstappen's talent, saying that the 18-year-old Dutchman and Daniel Ricciardo had the potential to become Formula One's best driver pairing. Furthermore, he stressed that Verstappen's move to Red Bull would tie him to the team for the foreseeable future. Daniil Kvyat meanwhile expressed surprise at the decision, saying during Thursday's press conference that he was "shocked" by his demotion, stressing that Red Bull did not give him a "real explanation".  Following problems with his power unit in both the Chinese and Russian Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton received a redesigned MGU-H unit, in a bid to solve the troubles which hampered him earlier. However, Mercedes were unable to guarantee that the problem would not appear again.  With Spain being the first race in Western Europe, and a mid-season test coming up after the race, many teams introduced their first major car updates for the Grand Prix. Mercedes ran a new front wing with a "more pointy" nose during first free practice. Other changes were made to the engine cover and the rear wing. McLaren made more significant changes to their MP4-31, most notably on the front wing, which Sky Sports commentator Ted Kravitz called the "most intricate front wing I've ever seen". Force India updated their VJM09 to improve airflow. According to the team, they were looking for improved driveability rather than faster lap times. Renault introduced a new chassis for Jolyon Palmer. More significantly, the French manufacturer debuted a new version of their power unit for both their works team and Red Bull at the two-day test following the race. All other teams except for Sauber also made changes to their cars, with the Swiss team continuing their financial struggles. They also announced that they would be forced to miss the mid-season test, being unable to field a development driver, with regulations demanding that two out of four test days be driven by young driver talents. Both Sauber and Haas were allowed to use the updated version of Ferrari's 2016 power unit, which the works team had already used in Russia two weeks earlier.  Going into the weekend, Nico Rosberg led the Drivers' Championship, having taken the maximum number of 100 points from the first four races. Lewis Hamilton followed in second with 57 points, while Kimi Räikkönen was third with 43 points. Daniel Ricciardo followed in fourth, ahead of Sebastian Vettel. In the Constructors' standings, Mercedes was first with 157 points, 81 points clear of second-placed Ferrari. Behind them, Red Bull led fourth-placed Williams by just six points.  Sole tyre supplier Pirelli brought the hard, medium and soft tyres to the event, the first time this season to feature the orange hard tyres. As per the regulations of the 2016 season, every driver had to set aside one set each of the two hardest compounds for the race and one set of the soft tyres for Q3 (should they advance). The drivers had freedom of what other compounds they chose for the remaining ten out of thirteen sets.

Free practice.

Per the regulations for the season, two 90-minute practice sessions were held on Friday and another 60-minute session was held before qualifying on Saturday. The Ferrari drivers, Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Räikkönen, set the pace in the first session, both on the soft tyre compound. The Mercedes drivers Rosberg and Hamilton followed, albeit on the medium compound, recording more timed laps than their rivals. Both Red Bull cars followed in fifth and sixth, with Daniel Ricciardo faster than new teammate Max Verstappen. Valtteri Bottas was seventh for Williams, two places ahead of teammate Felipe Massa, who at one point spun out at turn five. Upon his return to Toro Rosso, Daniil Kvyat was unable to match the pace of his teammate Carlos Sainz Jr., ending up half a second behind him. Esteban Ocon made his first free practice appearance of the season for Renault, replacing Jolyon Palmer, but was unable to set a timed lap. He suffered a tyre failure, caused by debris on the track. Force India's Sergio Pérez managed only nine laps as he spent much of the session in the pit lane after smoke emerged from the rear of his car.  Mercedes topped the time sheets in the second session, now switching to the soft compound tyres as well, with Nico Rosberg two and a half-tenths of a second clear of Kimi Räikkönen, while Lewis Hamilton was third fastest, more than seven-tenths off Rosberg's time. Räikkönen's running was interrupted for a while when he was called back into the pitlane to investigate a fuel system problem, but was able to get back out. Fernando Alonso was seventh fastest for McLaren, but needed a replacement of his car's plank after running wide over artificial grass surrounding the track. His teammate, Jenson Button, also experienced problems, having to stop at the end of the pitlane early in the session with an electrical issue. Renault's problem from the first session continued: Jolyon Palmer, back in his car in place of Ocon, suffered a tyre failure on the start-finish straight, bringing out red flags in the process. Renault and tyre supplier Pirelli were left puzzled over the failure, as in this incident, no sign of a cut from debris was found.  Nico Rosberg was again fastest in the third practice session on Saturday morning, setting a time of 1:23.078 on his first timed run, a time that stood until the end of the session. Hamilton was second, 0.126 seconds off, followed by Sebastian Vettel just two-hundredths of a second behind him. In fourth place, Max Verstappen was faster than teammate Ricciardo for the first time, who finished fifth, ahead of Räikkönen. Upon beginning his preparation laps for qualifying, Rosberg had to come back into the garage, as a sensor on his car was malfunctioning. The team was capable of repairing the damage and he went back out for the final minutes of practice. Sergio Pérez was satisfied with the eighth fastest time, saying that the car had improved "everywhere" following the updates it had received.

Qualifying.

Qualifying consisted of three parts, 18, 15 and 12 minutes in length respectively, with six drivers eliminated from competing after each of the first two sessions. In the first part of qualifying (Q1), Nico Rosberg set a time of 1:23.002, the fastest of the weekend up to that point, two-tenths of a second ahead of teammate Hamilton. Manor and Sauber occupied the back rows of the grid. Felipe Massa's first lap was seven-tenths of a second slower than the one from his teammate Bottas and as he was unable to set another timed lap, he became the surprise elimination in Q1, behind Jolyon Palmer, who was dropped into 17th place by a late improvement from Jenson Button.  In Q2, it was Hamilton who came out on top, exactly six-tenths of a second ahead of Rosberg. Verstappen was third fastest, ahead of Ricciardo in fifth. Kimi Räikkönen had to abandon his first fast lap after running wide in turn four, but later set a time good enough for fourth. Meanwhile, Sebastian Vettel recorded just one timed lap, saving a set of tyres and was sixth. On his return to Toro Rosso, Kvyat was eliminated in 13th place, while teammate Sainz went through to Q3. Sergio Pérez advanced as well, demoting his teammate Hülkenberg into elimination in the process, who would line up eleventh on the grid. Joining him on the sidelines for Q3 were Jenson Button in twelfth, with Romain Grosjean, Kevin Magnussen and Esteban Gutiérrez lining up behind Kvyat.  Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg were the first out in Q3. Hamilton's early sector times put him on course to a new fastest lap of the weekend, but a brake lockup at turn ten ruined his lap and tyres. Nico Rosberg made no such mistake and claimed provisional pole position. As the two Ferrari drivers struggled to find pace, Max Verstappen claimed second place for the time being, before the drivers went out for their second laps. Lewis Hamilton's second flying lap bested Rosberg's time by almost three-tenths of a second, and saw him take the fifty-second pole of his career. The two Red Bull cars of Ricciardo and Verstappen followed, with Räikkönen and Vettel for Ferrari in fifth and sixth respectively, both more than a second behind Hamilton. Valtteri Bottas was best of the rest ahead of Sainz, Pérez and Alonso. It was the first appearance in Q3 for McLaren since they resumed their association with Honda in.

Race.

At the start, Nico Rosberg got around the outside of Hamilton in turn one, while Räikkönen lost positions due to a slow getaway. Sebastian Vettel got past Verstappen, but was immediately repassed on the approach to turn four. At the front of the race, coming out of turn three, Hamilton tried to retake the position from Rosberg. As the latter defended his position, Hamilton went off the track and spun and they collided at turn 4, ending the race of both Mercedes drivers. The collision resulted in a safety car period, with the order standing: Ricciardo, Verstappen, Sainz, Vettel and Räikkönen. The safety car came in at the end of lap four. Vettel got past Sainz on lap eight and Räikkönen tried to follow suit two laps later, but was forced off track into turn two. He completed the move one lap later at the same spot. Sainz and Button were the first to come into the pit lane for new tyres on lap 12, followed by race leader Ricciardo one lap later, making Verstappen the first Dutchman to lead a Grand Prix, before he came in another lap later. When Vettel made a pit stop on lap 16, he emerged third behind the two Red Bull drivers, all on the medium compound tyre.  By lap 20, Sebastian Vettel was closing the gap to the two Red Bulls ahead of him, coming within three seconds of Verstappen. On lap 22, Nico Hülkenberg retired when his power unit caught fire and he had to stop on the sidelines. While Massa had fought from 18th on the grid into tenth, his teammate Bottas was lying fifth by lap 25, ahead of Sainz. On lap 28, Ricciardo was again the first of the front runners to pit, taking on the soft compound. Vettel came in two laps later, making the same choice in tyres. This left Verstappen to lead Kimi Räikkönen, as it emerged that both would run on a different strategy, pitting only twice in contrast to the three stopping Vettel and Ricciardo. On lap 34, the gap between the two leaders was 2.1 seconds, before Verstappen came in on the following lap. Räikkönen responded one lap later, emerging behind Verstappen. On lap 39, Vettel came in for his third and final stop, while Ricciardo stayed out for another four laps. When he returned to the track, he was behind Vettel, but on fresher tyres.  While Räikkönen closed on Verstappen at the front, Fernando Alonso's home race ended on lap 47, pulling over to the side of the track at turn three. Räikkönen managed to get into the one-second window to activate the drag reduction system (DRS), as Vettel was eight seconds behind him with Ricciardo closing on him in fourth place. By lap 57, Ricciardo was close enough to use DRS as well, but unable to pass. Three laps later, Ricciardo made an attempt at overtaking into turn one, but braking too late left him running wide, allowing Vettel back through. As the front runners lapped backmarkers, Kvyat, after scoring the first fastest lap for himself and Toro Rosso, overtook Gutiérrez for tenth place. Two laps from finish, Ricciardo suffered a puncture and was forced to pit, but retained fourth place ahead of Bottas. On the last lap, Renault drivers Kevin Magnussen and Jolyon Palmer collided, but both made it to the finish. As Verstappen crossed the finish line, he became the youngest ever and first Dutch race winner in Formula One.

Post-race.

At the podium interviews, conducted by singer Plácido Domingo, Verstappen expressed delight about a "great race", crediting his team with giving him a good car. Kimi Räikkönen said that while he was happy for Verstappen, he was disappointed not to have won. He blamed the lack of downforce while following as the reason why he had been unable to pass Verstappen. Vettel congratulated the winner as well, but lamented that his different strategy had not worked out in his favour. During the post-race press conference, Räikkönen stressed that had anyone offered the team two podium positions after their poor performance in qualifying, they would have taken it "happily". Fourth placed Ricciardo expressed bitterness over Red Bull's decision to switch him to a three-stop strategy, which eventually lost him a podium position, saying: "I'm a bit devastated. A big part of me is happy the team are on winning form but it's hard to celebrate". His team later explained their decision, declaring that they had focused their strategy on Vettel, who they had considered the biggest threat.  In the Grand Prix, Max Verstappen broke several records: apart from being the youngest ever driver to win a race at 18 years and 228 days, he also was the youngest to stand on a Formula One podium, in both instances breaking Sebastian Vettel's record set at the 2008 Italian Grand Prix by more than two years. Vettel had been 21 years and 2 months at the time. Verstappen also became the youngest driver to lead at least one lap of a Grand Prix, again overcoming a record set by Vettel, at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix. Verstappen also was the first driver born in the 1990s to win a Grand Prix. He received considerable praise after the race, with Sky Sports F1's David Croft saying that he "has shown he has everything to be a world champion". His father Jos Verstappen, himself a former Grand Prix driver, declared that he considered his son a better driver than himself, as race wins had eluded him during his own career in the sport. French sport newspaper "L'Équipe" declared Verstappen to be "already a great" and "in the big leagues". Verstappen was also the first Dutchman to win a race, with the Netherlands becoming the 22nd country to produce a race winner. He was the tenth different winner of the Spanish Grand Prix in as many past editions.  Following their collision, Hamilton and Rosberg were summoned to the stewards after the race but neither received a penalty, as the stewards rated their crash as a racing incident, with no driver in particular to blame. It emerged that Rosberg had chosen the wrong engine mode for the start, being down on power which led to Hamilton going for a passing manoeuvre. However, Rosberg remained convinced that he had done nothing wrong, saying: "I made it very clear I wasn't going to leave any space on the inside and I was very surprised he went for the gap". While Hamilton apologised to the team after the incident, he refused to accept blame for it. Opinions about the incident varied: While Mercedes's executive chairman Niki Lauda blamed Hamilton for the crash, former F1 driver Anthony Davidson said on Sky Sports F1 that Rosberg's move was "very aggressive". Three-time world champion Jackie Stewart said after the race that Mercedes should fine Hamilton for the crash: "Hamilton is to blame. Rosberg was allowed to protect himself. You don't go for it on the first lap." Mercedes's head of motorsport Toto Wolff stressed after the race that the team would continue to let their drivers race against each other freely, a decision praised by former world champion Alain Prost. While Rosberg said after the race that he contemplated having a talk with Hamilton about the situation, Mercedes later decided that they did "not need clear-the-air talks". However, it later emerged that the pair did have a conversation about the incident before the next race in Monaco, which, according to Hamilton, was marked by "pure respect". It was Mercedes's first double retirement since the 2011 Australian Grand Prix, and the first time they failed to score a point since the 2012 United States Grand Prix, ending a 62-race long streak, the third longest in Formula One history.  For his last lap collision with teammate Jolyon Palmer, Kevin Magnussen received a ten-second time penalty, dropping him one place to 15th. He also received two penalty points to his licence. Carlos Sainz received a reprimand from the stewards for leaving the pit lane one minute before it was allowed. He escaped a more severe penalty because he stopped shortly afterwards, thereby not gaining an advantage. Upon his return to Toro Rosso, Daniil Kvyat recorded the first fastest lap of his career, and the first for the Italian team in their 190th Grand Prix.  With 100 points from the first four races, Nico Rosberg remained on top of the Drivers' Championship, while Hamilton's retirement dropped him behind Räikkönen, who now trailed Rosberg by 39 points, four points ahead of Hamilton. Sebastian Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo were level on points with 48, while Verstappen's victory moved him into sixth on 38. In the Constructors' standings, Mercedes retained their lead on 157 points, but Ferrari closed the gap to 48 points, with Red Bull in third on 94. Toro Rosso moved ahead of Haas into fifth, while Force India took seventh from McLaren.

The 2016 Spanish Grand Prix (formally known as the Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2016) was a Formula One motor race held on 15 May 2016 at the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya in Montmeló, Spain. The race was the fifth round of the 2016 FIA Formula One World Championship, and marked the forty-sixth running of the Spanish Grand Prix as a round of the Formula One World Championship. It was the twenty-sixth time that the race has been held at the circuit.

Grand Prix Španělska 2016 (oficiálně Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2016) se jela na okruhu Circuit de Catalunya v Montmeló ve Španělsku dne 15. května 2016. Závod byl pátým v pořadí v sezóně 2016 šampionátu Formule 1.